GOTHOLIAS
GOTHOLIAS (yo0oAioy P A ] , - O N I O Y [L]), I Esd.
833=Ezra87, ATHALIAH, 3.
GOTHONIEL (roeoNi~A [BRc.aA], r o 0 o N 1 0 y
[R"]), the father of CHABKIS( g . ~ . ) ,Judith615. T h e
name is identical with O THNIEL (5&9?@).
GOURD (fbc9?;K O A O K Y N B[BAQa]; ~ Jon. 46, - N T H
[AQ" ais]; 7, - N T h N [A]; 9 , -NTH,[AVa]; 1% ' N T H C
[AQa]?,), rather, as AVW. ' palm-crist, RVmg. ' Palma
Christ1 -;.e. the castor-oil tree, Ricinus communis, L.
The rendering ' gourd ' is that of @ and Pesh. ; Sym. and Vg.
render 'ivy' ; but Jerome's remarks in his commentary (quoted
Ges. Tlres. 1214) point to the ricinus. Aq. and Theod. trans-
literate.
T h e Hebrew word (@i@yGz)seems to be identical
with, or derived from & I , which, according to Herod.
294 Plin. 157, was the Egyptian name of the castor-oil
plant, the KPOTGIY or K P ~ T W Y of the Greeks. This plant,
which ' in France, Germany, and the south of England,
is an annual herb of noble foliage, growing to a height
of 4 or 5 feet,' becomes ' in the Azores, and the warmer
Mediterranean countries, as Algeria, Egypt, Greece, and
the Riviera, ... a small tree, I O to 15 feet high'
(Fliick. and Hanb.P) 567). Its rapid growth (de C.
Orig. 341)and the eflective shade given by its large
leaves, support its identification with the Kikiycn.
On the other hand, in favour of the rendering
' gourd ' or the like, a statement of Kazwini ( 2 309) may
be noted (see also J ONAH , BOOK OF, 5 5).
Speaking of May11 Kazwini describes the custom of making
tents of reeds (on thishores of the Tigris), in which the inhabit-
ants pass the summer nights, when the water is becoming low.
As soon as the earth, where the tents are, has become dry
enough, they sow gourds, which quickly spring up and climb
round the tents (G. Jacob, AZfa~a6ischeParaZLeZen, 173).
EVmg. proposes 'gourds' for D'Y?? in I K. 6 1 8 (BL om. ;
&avaar&crr [A]); it should also stand for ' B in 724t ( h o -
u r q p i y p x r a [BAL], om. in clause p) (EV 'knops,' in the
former verse they have mg. ' gourds '). The word is commonly
explained 'gourd-shaped ornaments ; hut though the form of
the colocynth (see next article) would suggest a graceful
decoration, there is too much uncertainty about the text (see
Klo.) to permit us to acquiesce in this explanation. Cp T EMPLE
and SEA (BRAZEN). N. M.
GOURDS, WILD (fi$$' n$pB; TOAYITH hrpib.
[RL]; om. a r p l a ' [A]), z K.+?g1.. EV agrees
with the ancient versions and tradition. The kindred
Ar. fu@kz' denotes the 'colocynth' (Dozy) ; and
although the etymological connection with the root y p ~ ,
which has the sense of splitting or bursting, is not
quite clear, it may be explained by the tendency of the
ripe fruit to split when touched, or even of its own
accord (see helow).3
T h e fruit intended may be ( I ) the I colocynth' or
'bitter apple' ; the fruit of CitruZZus CoZocynUis, Schrad.,
' a slender scabrous plant with a perennial root, native
of warm and dry regions in the Old World, over which
it has an extensive area.' Its fruit is ' a gourd of the
size and shape of an orange, having a smooth, marbled-
green surface.' T h e pulp of which it consists ' is nearly
inodorous, but has an intensely bitter taste ' (Fliick. and
Hanb. 295). (z) The 'squirting cucumber,'
yielded by EcbaZZium daterium, A. Rich, a plant which
is common throughout the Mediterranean region and was
known to the ancients as the wild cucumber.'4 It has
a peculiarity which might be connected with the
etyniology ofpa@@zi'ih:-' the fruit when ripe separates
suddenly from the stalk, and at the same moment the
seeds and juice are forcibly expelled from the aperture
left by the detached peduncle.' Tristram (Smith's
DB('),s. v. ; NHB, 451)thinks that the details in z K. 4 39
1 The ciyplav is apparently a hexaplaric addition (see Field,
ad Zoc.). bym. had po~dwqv hypiaw, and 'another' translator
KOAOKvV@i8as ; SO vg.
CoZocynihidas a==:
9 Its more ordinary meaning however, is 'mushrooms.'
3 Others explain it by ref"'
-race to medicinal effects.
So
Riehni, NWBbl.
4 A kindred species was named by Linnreus Cucumis pro-
$he farum.
I899
GOVERNMENT
point clearly to the colocynth. ' The squirting cucnmber
is not so bitter, nor does it bear the same resemblance
to the good fruit.' It is also common everywhere and
should have been at once recognised. One who came
to Gilgal from another part, however, mfght mistake the
colocynth for the wholesome globe cucuniber, because
it only grows on barren sands like those near Gilgal
and round the Dead Sea. But was the Gilgal of the
narrative the famous one near Jericho? Buhl thinks
otherwise (see GILGAL,5 4).
At any rate, the fact that the plant on which the
pakkzi'dth grew is described as a ' wild vine ' is against
the identification with (3)iKomo~-dicaeZuterium, which
is ' a coarse, hispid, fleshy, decumbent plant without
tendrils' (Fluck. and Hanb.PI 292).
Both ( I ) and ( z ) are extremely bitter ; and the fact
that the taste instantly suggested poison ( z K. 440) is
another example of the close association of the ideas of
bitterness and poison in the Hebrew mind (cp G ALL ).
N. M.
GOVERNMENT
Tribal relations, §$ 1-3. Administration, OB 16-24.
Formation of tribes §5 4.7. Persian period 8s 25-27.
6
Position of individdals $8 8-10. Greek period, 2 x 3
Uuiou of Tribes, 68 11;;s. Roman period, $ 3 0 3
Literature, 8 32.
Until the institution of the monarchy the B'ne Israel
represented the stage of political organisation that we are
1. Israel,s wont to call tribal. This type of consti-
nomadic tution is not peculiar to Israel. It is to
origin. befound amongst the most diverse peoples
at acertain stage of civilisation. The O T
records, however, belong for the most part to a much
later age, and supply us only with an imperfect and even
(in many points) misleading picture of the real nature of
the old tribal life. Hence in trying to ascertain what the
actual conditions really were, we are compelled to turn to
what we know of such life amongst other peoples,
especially the pre-Islamic Arabs and the modern
Bedouins. W e must suppose that similar conditions
a t one time prevailed amongst the Hebrews. T h e
justification of this inference lies in the essential identity
of the external conditions that called forth the tribal,
organisation amongst the ancient Hebrews and Arabs
and have held the Bedouins to this very day at this
stage of political development, namely, the nomadic life
of the steppes.
Hebrew, like Arabic tradition, in the form it has
reached us, has reduced the mutual relations of the
2. Theory of tribes to a fixed system in genealogical
genealogists. form. Such systems rest on the
theory, common to the Hebrews and
the Arabs, that the &be is an expanded family. See
G ENEALOGIES i., 5 2.
This conception has a certain amount of foundation
in fact. The bond that holds together the family or
the clan is not any form of political organisation ; it is
the feeling of consanguinity. For the ancient Semite,
blood-relationship was the only basis on which a stable
society and absolutely binding duties could rest.
This appears most clearly in the fact that alliances with
strangers, and obligations towards them, did not acquire inviol-
ability till the lacking blood-relationship had been artificially
produced (see K INSHIP, $ I).
W e must not, however, follow the old genealogists
and at once infer from this feeling of blood-relationship,
3. Early idea actual descent from a common ancestor.
ofkinship. Not to speak of the numerous traces
which indicate that amongst the Heb-
rews, as amongst the Arabs, descent was in the earliest
times reckoned not from the father but from the mother
(matriarchate; see K INSHIP , 5 4), it is clear enough
that the feeling of community of blood was not quite
the same thing with the ancient Semites as sense of
relationship is with US. The latter varies according to the
degree of nearness ; in the case of the Semite, on the other
1900
 GOVERNMENT
hand, community of blood knew, theoretically at least,
no such thing as degree. A man who belonged to a
given kindred group was connected equally with all its
members, irrespective of degree of relationship (see
K I N S HIP , 2). Moreover, this blood-kinship can be
artificially brdught about by blood-covenant between
persons belonging originally to alien groups.
This representation must not, however, be pressed too
far. In practice, at least in historical times, it is the
narrower circle of closer kindred that has been most
intimately bound together by unity of blood.
Within the larger tribes the several families and clans
frequently constituted closely united groups, carrying on blood-
feuds amongst each other-a proof how naturally the feeling of
unity of blood became weaker in the larger groups. Robertson
Smith cites cases (Kin. 159) that show how the feeling of kinship
bound together families of alien stock. We may adduce also
the line in the H u n z d a (367): 'Ally thyself with whom thou
wilt in peace, yet know : In war must every man be foe who is
not kin.' Among the Hebrews, moreover the blood-feud as we
meet it in the OT, was confined to the lim'its of the famiiy-ie.
the nearest relatives.
In this emergence of relationship by descent, indeed,
Robertson Smith sees the decay of the ancient tribal
system (Kin. 52, 57, 160). He regards it as the first
appearance of a new principle, quite foreign to the
original tribal organisation.
We must leave this an open question.. We cannot here enter
into the problem how the Semitic families and clans were con-
stituted in the earliest times before the various Semitic peoples
separated from each other. It is indeed a question that in our
opinion cannot yet be answered with certainty.
Although kinship by descent through the father played
-~
in historical times a great part, the records show that
4. Agffregation even then there were also other
offamilies, etc. factors in the formation of the tribes.
The Hebrew tribes, like the larger I iarger' tribe enter into closer relations with one another
Arabian tribes, were not simple but composite, com-
prising several kindred groups.
These groups are commonly called in the OT mi$E@ik
(nin?+) 'clans,' though an older designation, which at a later
time fell into disuse, seems to have been +ai('D), the commonest
term in Arabic. (Cp ICin. 39J ; N61d. ZDMG 40 176 ; I S.
18 18 according to We. TBS p. iii, and Dr. TBS 119; z S. 23 13 ;
also preserved according to Nijld., Z.C., in l'f?l'nim; see
HAVVOTH-JAIR.)
W e must indeed admit the possibility with Noldeke
(ZDMG 40158 [ ' 8 6 ] ) , that in the case of these ' clans '
the families that formed the nucleus were often really
descended from a common ancestor whose name they
bore. Even in this case, however, it remains true that
the family did not grow simply by the natural process
of marriage and birth.
It grew also by accession from without. Slaves were acquired ;
freedmen remained as clients of the family of their master ;
individual strangers, cut loose for some reason or other from
their own clan, sought refuge in the family; poor and weak
families attached themselves for the same reason to the more
powerful. These all reckoned themselves as belonging to the
family of theiradoption and bore its name.
I n order to understand this process one must realise
how, amid the endless feuds of the desert, it was only
the man or the family supported by a powerful group
of kinsmen, ready to avenge an. injury, that was safe.
This insecurity also made necessary a certain amount
of cohesion. The individual was no doubt at liberty
in time of peace to sever himself from his clan; but
as he went farther away from it his security propor-
tionally diminished, unless he obtained admission as a
sojourner in some other clan. Thus it is the dwelling
together and roaming together, rather than the common
descent, that is the characteristic feature of these
' kindred groups.' ' T h e Hai is the community of
people that live and travel together' (Nold. ZDMG
40 176 ; WRS Kin. 38).
T h e same process is repeated in the formation of
tribes. The instinct of self-preservation drives the clans
5. New into closer association. I t is plain that here
tribes. also local contiguity must have been an
important factor in forming tribes ; clans that
were in the habit of meeting on adjoining pasture lands
1901
GOVERNMENT
and at common wells were by that very circnmstaflce
bound together by a certain community of interests (cp
I S R A E L , 5 8).
I t is not the case, as is frequently supposed that the Bedouin
tribes roam at large over the entire Arabian hderness . on the
contrary, now, just as in ancient times, each one ha5 'its own
definite territory with the pasture lands and wells belonging to
it, and the proprietary rights of the tribe over such territory are
jealously guarded against the encroachments of other tribes.
Many other causes contribute to the formation of a
tribe, and produce a constantly shifting result ; new
tribes arise, old ones disappear. Mutual jealousy and
feuds, migrations, the disuniting influences of war, and
other circumstances, may result in the separation of a clan
from the main body: This almost necessarily happens
as soon as a tribe has become very strong or extended
itself over a wide area. Should a subordinate tribe in
these circumstances succeed in asserting itself without
becoming incorporated with a foreign tribe,-should it,
for example, have grown by attaching other clans to
itself,-it then, in course of time, forms a new tribe
which assumes a new tribal name (after that of a
prominent family, one of its leaders, or the like).
Legend next comes in, and soon gives it a patriarch,
the original bearer of the name, and the connection of
the new tribe with the old also finds some expression
here, the heros eponymus of the tribe being brought into
some sort of relationship (usually that of a son) with
the patriarch of the older tribe.
I n other cases tribes have arisen out of alliances that
originally
~. were only of a temporary character. In the
6. Alliances. tribal history of' Arabia, such federa-
tions (called &iv) play a prominent
part (Goldziher, &'ah. Stud. 1 6 8 ) . Sections of a
or with outside clans ; whole tribes form treaties with
one another, and sometimes even these federated groups
in turn form connections with other similar groups.
Such alliances do not arise out of considerations of
kinship ; they are determined by the daily exigencies of
offence and defence, and, in particular, by the necessity
felt by the weaker of seeking support from the stronger,
the instinct of groups, weak in themselves, to attain the
strength that comes of union.
In many cases the alliances are formed for particular and
definite ends, as for example for the sake of a common blood-
revenge. Their formation is often inaugurated in a very solemn
way,-as with sacrifices, oaths, and the special ceremonies con-
nectedwithblood-brotherhood(seeK1NsHrr 5 .). Sometimesthey
are quickly dissolved again after their imm;diate object has been
gained ; but sometimes also the temporary becomes a permanent
relationship ; the component parts become completely fused, and
the group naturally takes a new collective name by which the
old and proper names of the individual elements are often
driven completely into the background. Thus the formation of
new tribes is a process that is related on the other side to the
seeming or real decay of old ones.
Clearly, the process is capable of taking place in a
very great variety of ways, and it would be quite a
., Teminolom;Jr. mistake to try to explain them all in
accordance with a single scheme.
In the continual process of modification it cannot
surprise us to find in Hebrew (as we do in Arabic)
tradition that the most contradictory statements are
made as to the relation of the clans to the great tribes.
Finally, it results from what has been said that the
words tribe ' and ' clan ' (subordinate tribe) are used
only relatively ; they express nothing as to size.
A tribe may, if numbers be regarded, fall below the strength
of a clan, and yet at the same time, if it remains independent, it
will continue to bear the designation of tribe. Thus in the OT
Dan is at one time spoken of as a tribe (~11, &%et) at another
as a clan ,?I?( mi3jZ+&); cp, e g . , Josh. 1940 Judg. 18 1 1 8
In Arabic phraseology the change in the use of the words .is
much more strongly marked (cp N61d. ZDMG 40 175 8) ; in
Hebrew tradition the relative persistency with which either word
is used is a result of the arbitrary limitation of the application
of the word t@ to twelve (or thirteen)l tribes.
For a full comprehension of the tribal system it must
1 See JOSEPH i.,5 I n.
1902
 GOVERNMENT
further be observed that these social unities (family,
clan, tribe) are at the same time religious
8. Religious unities. Not only among the Semites,
meaning but also among the Greeks and Romans,
of tribes. it was their common worship that marked
the clans and held them together. Tl& is not the
place to discuss the many (still disputed) questions
as to the nature and character of the tribal gods among
the Semites. However these questions may be decided,
there remains the fact that ' the original religious
society was the kindred group, and all the duties of
kinship were part of religion' ( W R S ReZ. Sem. 47).
Community of blood between man and man derives
its absolutely uniting character precisely from this,
that it is at the same time a real community with the
divinity.
The tribal god stands in just the same relationship of blood-
community with his worshippers, the members of the clan.
Every sacrifice seals anew this mystic oneness of the members
with each other and with the deity.
Where a person of alien blood is received by blood-
covenant (see above, $$ 2, 6,and cp K INSHIP , $ I ) into
clan-fellowship, he is at the same time by the covenaut-
sacrifice received into blood-fellowship with the deity.
Every violation of the duties of blood-community thus
becomes a crime against the deity.'
The tribal constitution is excellently adapted for the
steppe and for nomads. Its importance here lies in
9. Flexibility. this, that, on the one hand, it allows
the necessary freedom of movement to
the individual and the smaller aggregates (family and
kindred), whilst at the same time it creates a certain
natural social unity which satisfies the demands and
necessities of the nomadic life. I n the wilderness no
great tasks present themselves, such as demand the
strength of a whole people. What the individual, and
the group of kinsmen, require, in this state of universal
war, is some protection for life ; and this is guaranteed
by belonging to a clan. For blood-revenge and mutual
help in war are the most sacred duties of those who are
united by community of blood. Conversely, the
individual who has been expelled from his tribe is a
wanderer and a vagabond so long as he has failed to
gain admission to some other clan. I t is this that gives
its power to tribal custom and law, a power from which
none can shake himself free. On the other hand the
freedom of the individual and of the separate clans is
tolerably unrestricted in times of peace. The organisa-
tion of the tribe exists only for purposes of war and of
migration ; it is only in these conditions that the sheikh
has any say and any command ; in times of peace his
authority is purely a moral one : it reaches just so far
as the influence he has been able to acquire by his
personal qualities can carry it. H e can only advise,
not command. I n a dispute he can, doubtless, give a
decision ; but he has no power to execute his judgment
if those affected by it refuse to submit to i t ; he can
neither declare war nor conclude peace, neither pitch
the camp nor break it up, uiitil the leading men of the
tribe have been consulted.2 In a tribe of those related
by blood all the individual members are 'brothers,' and
thus on a footing of equality ; there is no such thing as
permanent authority or subjection, for even the Roman
patria potestas was unknown among the Semites. T h e
freedom of individuals and of clans reaches so far that
in time of peace they can separate from the main camp
without any ceremony and go their own way, if only
they have strength enough to give the feeling of security.
I t is in this, as Goldziher (Muh. Stud. 168) and Well-
hausen (I/C 243) have rightly pointed out, that the
moral importance of the tribal constitution lies. In
proportion as the feeling of kinship becomes weaker
when set against the wider tribal bonds, in the enjoy-
ment of such freedom, its place is taken by that public
1 On this sacral character of sacrifice, see e g . , WRS ReL
.
Sem. 2 6 9 8 312ff We. Ara6. Heid. 1 1 9 8
2 Burckhardt, L&zerkusges iiLIer die Beduinen,9 4 s
GOVERNMENT
spirit which acts freely and is capable of making
sacrifices for the public good. Fidelity to covenant
obligations extending beyond the narrow bounds of kin
is reckoned by the Arabs among the higher virtues.
I t is in the way we have indicated that we must picture
to ourselves the condition of the Israelite tribes before
Ancestor- their migration into Palestine. With
them, too, family and clan were origin-
worship. ally a community of worship, held to-
gether by common- ancestral cults. Many bf the old
and famous sanctuaries appear to have owed their posi-
tion as such to their being regarded as the burial places
of heroes. There was a sacred stone at the tomb of
Rachel (Gen. 35 2 0 ) ; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were
buried at Hebron (Gen. 259 3529 5013), Joseph in
Shechem (Josh. 24 32 Dt. 11 3 0 ) . Miriam at Kadesh-
barnea (Nu. ZOI), and Deborah under the sacred tree
of Bethel, Gen. 3 5 8 (see the several articles).
Within historical times we have one recorded instance
of clan worship-none the less convincing that it is the
*' only one-in I S . 2 0 5 8 , where David
Traces Of excuses his absence from Saul's table a t
new moon on the ground that his clan
are celebrating their yearly festival at this season-an
excuse which is regarded as perfectly adequate. In like
manner we may take clan worship to be presupposed
in the question with which the Danites seek to induce
Micah the Levite to accompany them ; ' is it better for
thee to he priest unto the house of one man, or to b e
priest unto a tribe and a family in Israel?' (Judg. 1819).
How far the tribes, which afterwards constituted the
people Israel, had already been welded into one before
12. Uniting the settlement is a more difficult question.
That they were firmly knit togeth6r as 5
of tribes. people and felt themselves to be so, as is
assumed in the O T tradition, is refuted by the simple
fact that even after the immigration, during the so-called
period of the Judges, such a people, with an ordered
government and the like, did not exist (cp I SRAEL , $ 7).
It is now universally recognised that the Judges were not
rulers of the whole people hut only heroes of particular tribes.
Neither does the manner in which the immigration took place
--nraduallv. bv tribes and clans-show anv evidence of a unified
orEanisatidi.
All this by no means excludes, however, as Winckler
(GZ1 1 4 8 ;I&) and others suppose, every sort of con-
nection between the immigrating tribes. On the con-
trary, the analogy of the Arab tribal history makes it
in every way possible and probable that those tribes
which had a point of contact and common meeting-
place at the oasis of Kadesh (see K A D E S H , I ) may,
on one occasion or another, have entered into a solemn
covenant, after the manner referred to above as prac-
tised by the Arabs (cp COVENANT, 4). The covenant-
sacrifice in Ex. 241 & exactly recalls the ceremonies
elsewhere practised on such occasions. The adoption, by
the tribes, of a common worship, the service of Yahwk,
gave to the alliance an enduring character still more
than solemn oath and sacrifice had done; and the
common name, B'ne Israel, assumed by all (perhaps
after the name of the strongest of the contracting tribes),
was the outward expression of the firmness of the bond.
Such a confederation was loose enough to allow of the
independent advance of the individual tribes and clans,
in the process of the settlement as we now read of it in
the sources before us ; but just on this account it was
firm or elastic enough to snrvive the various changes
within the separate tribes and the reconstructions and
readjustments of their mutual relations, which were the
inevitable results of the settlement in the territory to the
W. of Jordan (see below). What was necessary for its
continuance under the altered conditions was not a rigid
unity or a strong executive authority, but something
quite different, namely, that the common worship of
Yahwk, as the god of the B'ne Israel, should already
have taken a hold that was deep enough. The Song of
Deborah plainly shows that their common worship was
I904
 GOVERNMENT
the sole bond of unity in those times, but also that it
was sufficiently strong ; the war of the confederate tribes
is a war of YahwB, and whoever fails to come to their
help, in so doing has failed to come to the help of Yahwh
(Judg. 523). Winckler (CZ 134) will have it that the
reference to YahwB in the song ought to be deleted as a
later addition. Even so, however, the song bears witness
to the subsistence of a confederation of Israelite tribes,
to which even the tribes eastward of Jordan belonged.
Such a confederation cannot possibly have arisen for the
first time after the settlement, for the territories E. and
W. of Jordan have no common interests of such a kind
as would lead to a junction ; on the contrary, the main-
tenance of intimate relations was always a matter of
difficulty, owing to the nature of the respective territories,
as is shown by their history. On the other hand, no
bond between the eastern and the western tribes, entered
into before the settlement, could have survived all the
vicissitudes of such a time otherwise than by the inter-
vention of some factor which stood supreme above the
divergent political interests. Such a factor was supplied
by the common religion. Even, therefore, if their
common worship of Yahwi: did not manifestly appear
in our present sources as being the uniting bond of the
confederation, we should still have to postulate such a
community of religion in order to explain the continued
Subsistence of the Israelite tribal union. Hebrew tradi-
tion is, therefore, justified in regarding (as it does) the
union of the tribes with one another, and their accept-
ance of the religion of Yahwh as coincident facts, and
as both of them havikig been accomplished by the instru-
mentality of one and the same person-MOSES (4.v.).
What were the tribes that originally joined in this
covenant can only be matter of conjecture. No his-
13. Individual torical validity can be claimed for the
conventional statement of the genea-
tribes. logists, according to which Israel was,
from the first, composed of twelve tribes, a number
which never afterwards varied (cp G ENEALOGIES i., § 5 ,
I SRAEL , 5 2 ) . I t is possible that, originally, different
genealogies may have been kept at different sanctuaries ;
the present form apparently being, as Stade has pointed
out ( G I 1 1 4 5 3 ), the result of compromise. An ancient
tribal list has come down to us in the Song of Deborah
(Judg. 5 ) , where Ephraim, Machir, Zebulun, Issachar,
Reuben, Gilead, Dan, Asher, Naphtali are enumerated.
To this list may be added Simeon and Levi (see below).
The Kenites also seem to have been an old tribe that
had disappeared at an early period (Judg. 116 5 24 ; see
K E N ITE S ) ; on the other hand, Judah (and Benjamin),
also absent from the Song of Deborah, may have come
into existence at a later date. It seems very doubtful
whether, from the circumstance that Naphtali, Gad, and
Asher figure in the genealogy as sons of concubines,
we are entitled to infer that these tribes did not come
into the confederation till after the sons of Leah and
Benjamin (We. ZJG 16). With regard to the tribe of
Joseph a further conjecture may perhaps be permis-
sible; if the view that the ark (see A RK , I O ) was
originally the sanctuary of Joseph-Ephraim be correct,
we may venture to infer that in the federation this tribe,
from the first, had in some sense a leading part.
The settlement in Palestine at once brought with it,
~
,14. Their'diverse as a necessary consequence, a series
of far-reaching changes in the con-
fortunes. dition of the tribes.
Simeon and Levi disappeared from their number : it is probable
that they became disintegrated in the course of the struggles of
the occupation and that the fragments that remained were re-
ceived into othkr tribes (cp Gen. 49 5 8 and see SIMEON, LEVI,
DINAH). The case of REUBEN seems l o have been similar ; in
ancient times one of the most powerful of all the tribes (cp Gen.
4 9 3 J ) it seems to have steadily lost ground. At an early date
Eglon bfMoab figures as ruler of the Renbenite territory (Judg.
3 1 z J ) ' the list of towns in Nu. 3 2 3 4 3 exhibits this same
territory largely curtailed and entirely surrounded by the tribe
of Gad. and in the inscribtion of Mesha the ,Gadites alone are
spoken'of as having been masters in these reglons.
On the other hand, new formations have to be noted. Perhaps
I905
GOVERNMENT
it was only after the settlement that Joseph split up into the two
branches of Ephraim and Manasseh (cp Josh. 17 1 4 8 . but
see also above). The case of Gilead may also have been ;hilar
udg. 5 17 2 5 8 ) ; its place is subsequently taken invariably by
'E ad and Eastern Manasseh. Judah, which has not yet come
into prominence in the Song of Deborah, first became a great
tribe in the reign of David-in all probability, as the result of
the coalescence of several minor tribes in the south, such as the
Calebites (Nu. 32 12 Josh. 14 6 14), the Kenites (I S. 27 I O ;
cp Nu. 102gf: Judg. 116), the Jerahmeelites (I S. 27 IO), and
the absorption of the sedentary Canaanite population (Gen. 38).
Doubtless, also, the transference of individual clans from one
tribe to another, must have been of frequent occurrence. This
has already been suggested above, with reference to the surviv-
ing portions of Simeon and Levi, and another exam le is pre-
sented by the Kenite clan of Jael, which figures in tie Song of
Deborah as an isolated fragment in the north (Jndg. 5 2 4 ; c p
4 17). See the articles on the tribes and clans named.
The most important consequence of the settlement,
though it did not manifest itself so immediately, was
the complete dissolution of the- entire
Tribalb~ tribal constitution. The form under
.....
displaced
'oca'
which the unions of tribes and clans
were maintained-the fiction, namely,
of a common descent-was kept up, it is true, for a long
time, one might almost say,'indeed, permanently ; but
its contents and its significance underwent essential
change ; once settled on the soil of Palestine the clans
and tribes became metamorphosed into local communities.
and territorial unions (cp I SRAEL , 8).
I t is an inevitable process wherever nomad tribes take to a
settled life. NBldeke adduces instructive exam les from the
Arabian tribal history (ZDMG 40 183); Caliph 8mar found it
needful to exhort his Arabs to hold by their genealogies and not
to do like the peasants of 'IrSk, whose answer to the question,,
' From whom comest thou ? ' was From such and such a village.
In like manner it was said of, the people of KhorasSn : 'Their
villages are their genealogies. What happened in the case of-
the Israelites was precisely similar.
Families living together in the same place united to
form a clan, held together by community of interests.
Thus it is that in so many instances place-names and
clan-names are identical. Here little question was
made as to descent ; Canaanite clans were quite readily
received into Hebrew clans and genealogies (cp G e n
38 Judg. 1 2 7 8 etc.).
With this may be compared the observation of Burckhardt
(Nold. ZDMG 40 183) that all Arabs of the Nejd, settled in
BaghdSd, belonged to the tribe of 'Okail, whatever their descent
might have been. Under such circumstances, even if the old
formulas applicable to the clan and the family were transferred
to the new local communities in other words, if the families
living in the same locality conhued to express the fact of their
belonging to one another by alleging descent from a common
ancestor, this none the less meant, substantially, the transitiop
from a tribal to a civil constitution.
I n the Canaanite communities which had formed
themselves around a city as the central point, we already
16. organi- find a species of nobility who were desig-
nated by the peasants as ntarna, 'our-
sation. lords' (Pietschmann, Gesch. d. Phon. 198).
I n the towns, which in process of time peacefully threw
open their gates to the Israelites, we m+y suppose these
nobles to have retained their rank and to have shared
it with the more prominent Israelite families. T h e heads
of these leading families (not, as under the tribal consti-
tution, the heads of all the clans) constituted the ' lords'
or 'elders' of the city (sarcm, 6ef&Zim, zt?kZnim: Judg.
814). I t would seem also that, from the first, the
villages adjoining the cities stood to these in a relation
of subordination. I n the old sources frequent mention
is made of ' the cities and their villages,' or of ' the cities
and their daughters' (Nu. 2125 32 Josh. 1711);similarly,
a city is occasionally spoken of as g. mother in Israel'
(z S. 20 19). Even if we must not think of these ' elders '
as having, from the first, constituted an organised
magistracy, yet the development advanced naturally in
that direction ; it was necessarily involved in the settle-
ment that the rule of the heads of the communities
should tend more and more to organise itself on an
assumed hasis of legal authority (Ex. 2228 1271). In
respect of jurisdiction, in particular, the local commumty
had a direct interest in seeing that the judicial findings
of its heads were given effect to.
1906
 GOVERNMENT
The tribes also gradually came to acquire mainly a
territorial significance, just as the clans had done. After
17. Territorial its union with Caleb and the other tribes
of the S. (see above, 0 14), Judah
division?: was no longer a tribe to be placed in
Tyrannl* the same category with one of the large
Bedouin tribes ; it was also a geographical idea-a
primitive state, capable of embracing elements of the
most diverse kind as long as they were geographically
connected.
For an interesting proof of this see the parenthetic note in
? S.,426f: on the words ' a Beero;hite of the children of Ben;
jamln.'l Cp +o, the Denteronomic phrase 'in all thy gates
(Dt. 16 18), which IS parallel to 'throughout thy tribes,' and the
use of tribal names as geographical terms-Ephraim, Gilead (in
Judg. 1Oj: the two are interchanged), Judah, Gad(z S. 245), etc.
I n this process the tribes lost the character they had
possessed as communities of blood involving strict obli-
gations. When the separate clans of a tribe settled in
separate localities and became amalgamated with the
native population, they lost their mutual interdependence.
Each had its own interests and went its own way,
regardless of the weal or woe of the other. The nature
of the country facilitated this parting ; and it was further
assisted by the circumstance that, even in the time of
the monarchy, Canaanite settlements still maintained
themselves sporadically throughout Israelite territory.
Henceforth it required unusual firmness and energy to
stir even a single tribe, and still more a number of tribes,
to concerted movement. T h e territorial character which
the ' tribes ' had now assumed shows that the patriarchal
leadership of the elders was no longer sufficient ; the
new circumstances demanded the tyrunnis (so to speak)
of petty ' kings ' such as there had already been among
the Canaanites. The so-called 'judges ' mark the tran-
sition stage. These were, in the first instance, clan
chiefs; but some of them (among whom J EPHTHAH
and G IDEON [ q q . ~ . still
] live in the fragments of tradi-
tion) succeeded in becoming tribal kings. Israel was
now, perhaps, in a fair way to fall asunder into petty
'kingdoms.'
,How this fate was averted and from what causes the
transitional period issued in a united kingdom and a
united people, is told elsewhere (see
ls. The ISRAEL, 5 I O 8). The practical trans-
monarchy* formation of the tribes into unions of
communities, linked together by identity of local interests,
however, did not remove the danger arising from ex-
cessive tribal feeling and consequent tribal rivalry. T h e
proof of this is found in grave internal complications in
the early regal period. David had good cause for
devising some means of neutralizing this danger, and
such a means he found in the creation of a very small
permanent force (see D AVID , 11 [a]). Hence, whilst
Saul in time of peace was little more than a tribal chief,
David, with the aid of his body-guard (gi6&im), re-
tained his supremacy even when no danger threatened
the land. Saul's simple way of life gave place to an
imposing establishment at Jerusalem, and a series of
officials supported the king. With a view to regulating
the military service and the collection of the revenue, a
census of the citizens was taken even in David's time
( 2 S. % I # ) , whilst Solomon, as a further step in
advance, divided the whole land into administrative
districts, over each of which he set an officer called
ni@ :3
( ; I K. 4 7 8 ) . A division of the northern
kingdom into mJ'Zn5th (nij*?n,' administrative circuits ')
is mentioned also in the time of Ahab ( I K. 2014fl).
It is a noteworthy fact that in the arrangement of his
districts Solomon purposely ignored the ancient tribal
distinctions (see 1 9 and Benzinger on I K. 4 7 8 ) .
T h e most essential duty of the ruler was then, and
ever continued to be, the administrationofjustice; David,
the pattern king, was pre-eminent
19. Royal in this (see D AVID , 113). In fact,
prerogatives* in that age, it was self-evident that
1 See B EEROTH , ISHBAAL, I i m d cp Nold. ZDMG ('86)40 183.
1907
GOVERNMENT
the king must be supreme judge. A case was naturally
decided by the man who had the power to enforce his
decision. Thus the second main element of the power
of the old zckinim ( o q p ) of the clans was taken from
them, when every one could go directly or appeal
against them to the king (2s. 152 I K . 3 1 6 Dt. 179,
where m M , ;@hi< = ruler '-i. e. ' king '). What these
lost the officers of the king gained, for they also
obtained a share in his jurisdiction and dispensed
justice in his name.
According to the notions of the age, it was also
self-evident that the king was the priest of highest rank,
who represented his people before their God.
Saul and David sacrificed in person ( 1 S. 1 4 3 3 8 z S. 8 13) as
indeed at that time every Israelite was at liberty to do. ,&id
wore the @hod dad, the priest's gown ; it was as priests that
David and Solomon blessed the people at great festal gatherings
( z S. 6 18 I K. 8 14), and it was as Pontifex Maximus that the king
was anointed.
Still, on the whole, the priestly character was not as
prominent in Israelite kings as, e.g., in Babylonian and
Egyptian ; they discharged their priestly functions for
the most part through the intervention of their officers,
the ordinary priests; for such were the priests at the
royal sanctuaries (z S . 2 0 2 3 8 ) .
These riests were appointed and removed by the king at
pleasure S. 8 17 I K. 2 26 etc.) ; they held office by royal ap-
pointment, not hy heredhary right. For the royal citadel it
was an indispensable requisite that it should containasanctuary.
I t was as such that Solomon built the temple; and, even as
late as Ahaz, the king made free with it as private property.
Any other information that we have regarding admini-
strative affairs has to do for the most part
20. Fiscal
institutions. with the collection of the revenue, the
most important work of oriental princes.
Nothing is told us of Saul in this connection ; for the main-
tenance of his simple establishment on his paternal estate there
was needed, in addition to the produce of his own land and the
customary share of any war booty, nothing but the voluntary
gifts of his subjects who came to do homage or to seek justice
and protection (cp I S. 1820).
Under David the forced labour became the special
care of an officer of rank, and probably taxation in
general was then regulated ( z S. 2024).
We can hardly he mistaken in connecting the census of 2 S.
24 13 with this control of the public works, which is explicitly
said to have been the chief object of Solomon's division of the
land into districts ( I K. 4 7 3 , cp 4 27 [5 71. If Judah was really
exempted from this burden, this was a very significant con-
cession * but the text is corrupt, and Stade (GVI13oq) con-
jectures) that Judah was perhaps mentioned as a thirteenth
district (but see Benz. on I K. 4 7 3 ) .
These taxes and forced labours were felt by the
people to be an oppressive innovation ( I I<. 12 4 ) . As they
were the occasion of the secession of the Northern King-
dom, we must suppose that they were there dispensed
with at first. For the same reason we can hardly
assign a much earlier date to the institution of the
king's tithe mentioned in I S. 815 17 (to which I S. 1725
may also refer) than that of the document, the ' law of
the king,' in which it is mentioned. Unfortunately we
are told practically nothing of regular taxes, although
such were doubtless exacted.
A land tax seeins to have been unknown, as Wellhausen
rightly concludes from the mention of the introduction of such
a tax in Egypt (IjG86). A property tax is mentioned only
once, and then as an exceptional imposition ( z K. 23 35). In
such cases of extremity the kings of Judah had recourse to the
temple treasures, which they always regarded as lying at their
disposal. They also drew an income from crown lands, which
they probably rented to trusty sltbjects (IS. S 12). What is
thus attesyed for Judah (Ezek. 45 7A),we may assume for Israel
as well. The king's mowings' (Am.7.1) probably refer to a
contribution in kind from the first mowlngs in spring intended
for the war horses, for the support of which the king was re-
sponsible ( I K. 18 5 ; cp Syr. RCm. ReJts6zach, ed. Bruns u.
Sachau, 121). Certain commodities were, in Solomon's time, a
royal monopoly (chariots and horses I K. 10 z 8 8 ) , and a duty
was levied on passing caravans ( I K. 10 15) ; in certain cases the
property ofan executed man seems to have been confiscated by
the king ( I K. 21 1 s ) .
Not much fuller is our information
21' Officers* about the royal officers (Sdrim, O W ) .
The commander-in-chief of the army (sur ' a l ha@66,
1908
 GOVERNMENT
N??? $y ig) and the captain of the royal bodyguard, the
gibd5rim,occupied probably the most influential posi-
tions. T h e mazkir ( i ~ ; nEV RECORDER) stands first
amongst holders of adniinistrative offices. H e is not,
as has often been supposed, a state historian, but, as
the title shows ( i > x n = o n e who brings to mind), a kind
of chief counsellor and state orator, the Grand Vizier of
modern oriental states. By his side was the Secretary
of State (s@hZr, i?b), charged with the duty of conduct-
ing the king’s correspondence with foreign princes (see
SCRIBE). The chief superintendent of works (at least in
Judah; see above) and the priest of highest rank, as
already stated, were also high officials in attendance on
the king ( 2 S. 2 0 2 3 8 ) . Later we hear occasionally of a
master of the palace (or of the household, rvq? $q it:,
G e r ‘a2 hadddyifh, I K. 46 2K. 1818 Is.2215), who,
from Is. Z.C., appears to have been also called
(s&h?n, see MINSTER[CHIEF]). Finally we come upon
the designation king’s servant ( p \ ~ ?1 2 ~ as ~ ) the title of
a high dignitary (z K. 22 12,also on seals), most plausibly
explained by Stade (G VI 1650) as the principal eunuch.
Strange to say this official, so high in rank in modern
oriental courts, is nowhere mentioned (unless this be he),
although in a harem like Solomon’s he can hardly have
been lacking.
Of other officers of inferior rank, the prefects of the provinces with elements of democracy.
have heen mentioned already. Of court officials proper we
meet with a cupbearer (ma;&eh, neWp, I K.105), a master of
the robes (z K. 10zz), and others. Chronicles speaks of twelve
stewards of the royal treasury undcr David (I Ch. 2’1 25 8). Naboth, Jehu and Athaliah could make havoc amongst dangerous
Probably among the court servants were also the chamberlains
(sdcsim, poqo, I K.22 g z K.8 6 9 32, etc.), an expression
which we find later as the designation of the overseer of the
harem at the Persian court (Esth. 2314 443). As such a
sriris is elsewhere called a capt*ain (2 K. 25 19, cp Gen. 37 36
39 1) we can hardly regard the sririsinz in the earlier times as
eunuchs. See E UNUCH.
T h e stage of civilization that had been reached placed
great power in the hands of these officers; for in the
still quite undeveloped political relations of the time, no
attempt was made, except in the case of the chief
ministers mentioned above, to define the spheres of the
several departments.
In particular there does not yet appear to have been any dis-
tinction drawn between administrative and judicial functions, or
military and civil authority. The resident officer of state,
wherever there was such, combined in his own person, in pro-
portion to the authority committed to him, the functions of
commander of the forces, administrator of the province, collector
of taxes, and also, and above all, judge (see above, 5 18).
T h e impression left by the description of this bureau-
cracy given us by the prophets is by no means flatter-
I t exhibits all through the radical vices character-
Ing
istic of the oriental official in all ages; towcards
superiors, the unscrupulous tool of the royal pleasure
(cp e.g., I K. 12 1 0 8 z S.11 1 4 8 ) ; towards inferiors,
the overbearing, reckless tyrant.
N o longer bound to their subjects by the ties of clanship, the
governors took advantage of them for their own interests.
Venality and.partiality in particular characterised high and low
alike; all that distinguished the former, the Abners, Joabs, and
Jehus, from officers of lower grade, was that their intrigues and
violence were on a grander scale.
I t was the will of the people that gave Saul and
David their authority. Still this does not warrant us
22. The throne. in calling the monarchy, either in
Judah or in Israel, elective. Its
hereditary character was really bound up, so to speak,
with the royal dignity.
Thus even a Jerubbaal could secure his authority sufficiently
to bequeath it to his sons. That Saul never dreamed of any
successor but his son Jonathan may he the kernel of truth in
I S. 2 0 3 0 3 When the men bf Judah set up David against
Ishbaal, the rest of Israel regarded it as a revolt against the
legitimate heir-a revolt to be suppressed by force of arms (cp
e g . , z S. 2 108). Two sons of David, Absalom and Adonijah,
successively posed as his successors (z S. 15 18 I K. 158). (Neh. 5 158’); but the harrative of his doings, taken a s a whole,
Solomon, too, reached the throne simply by the will of his
father, the people having no say in the plot to set him on
the throne. Accordingly the election of Jeroboam by the
northern tribes was virtually a fresh revolt against the legitimate f/GP) 164,(31 168). This is confirmed by the letter of Rehum to
dynasty, though it mubt he admitted that Ephraim and Ben.
I909
GOVERNMENT
jamin had never thoroughly accepted the line of David as
legitimate ; ‘we have no part in David, no inheritance in the
son of Jesse ’-such had been the rallying cry also on an earlier
occasion (2s.20 18); see B E NJ AMIN, 5 7. In the many later
revolutions, of which North Israel was the scene, the people
had no voice; on the contrary they retained throughout a
passive, not to say an apathetic aititude.
Still, there lay in the popular will an important
limitation of the power of the sovereign. One iuight
imagine on reading the so-called law of the kingdom ’
( I S.8 105 ) that the kings of Israel as a whole were the
greatest despots,- men whose power was at the service
of every whim and fancy. This picture, however, con-
formably to the whole tendency of the narrator, who
had little fondness for the monarchy, is overdrawn and
painted in colours too dark. In reality the state of
affairs was quite otherwise. If there is one impression
that remains with ns more than another it is that the
power of the kings lay rather in their personality, and
depended on their success in war and their personal
weight. Powerful men like David, Solomon, or Jero-
boam could allow themselves many liberties that men
23. pppular like Rehoboam could not venture on.
Law or constitution defining the mutual
voice*
rights of king and people there was none
(the ‘ law of the kingdom,’ Dt. 17 14-20 is a later growth).
Thus in the forms of government in the kingdom of
Israel we meet with a singular blending of despotism
Saul could massacre the priests of Nob, David could appro-
priate the wife of Uriah, Solomon could drain the very blood of
the nation, Ahah could bring about the judicial murder of
adherents of the reigning house; yet these kings had themselves
to learn that their caprices were limited by the popular will.
T h e people did not, like other oriental nations, put
up with the atrocities of their rulers as something inevit-
able. Jehu’s massacre was long regarded with universal
detestation. T h e imperiousness with which the public
conscience could speak is seen in Nathan’s famous
reproof of David, and in the action of men like Elijah
and Elisha, who spoke for the people as well as for
Yahwk (see ISRAEL, 3 3 5 , and cp PROPHET).
Disregard for this on the part of Solomon Ahah and Athaliah
cost them their throne. Nor must we fail t‘o obsehe how it was
that the Deuteronomic Code was rendered a universally binding
law-book ; not by royal decree, but by a compact between king
and people, did a law come into existence. In all else law and
right, even for the king, was determined by custom and usage.
In such circumstances local authority must have been
to a great extent left to itself. Outside of the royal city,
24. Local over which was set a royal governor (I K.
2 2 z 6 ) , the village communities were prob-
authority* ably independent of the government, so far
as their own affairs were concerned. I n the Northern
Kingdom the revolutionary changes of dynasty hindered
the sovereign from becoming dangerously predominant
over the local authorities and the ancient nobility, as
was somewhat the case in the smaller kingdom of
Judah. See I K. 21.
This local independence is still acknowledged by the Deutero-
nomic code (Dt. 16 IS), although it tries to restrict it (Dt. I ? s ~
19 17 ; cp L AW A N D J USTICE 5 8 3 ) . Even in affairs of state
though probably only in ex:eptional caws the ‘elders of th:
-
peoule’4.e. the local magistrates-had tdeir voice (I K. 20 7
K: 23 I).
In the Persian period the Jewish territory became a
district (mZdindh, win,
,. .: Neh. 7 6 Ezra21) of the trans-
Euphratic province (Ezra53 I Macc.
25, Persian 332, etc.), which was the province
period: westward of the Euphrates. For a
governors’ time it had a governor of its own
(nne,@hi [see G OVERNOR , I] ; Mniii-in[See TIRSHATHA]),
who was placed under the ruler of his province (see
I SRAEL , $5 50 8, 64). This arrangement, however,
seems to have been terminated comparatively soon.
Nehemiah it is true ranks himself with former governors
rather suggests that he was sent as a high commissioner with
dictatorial powers. Thus we do not hear of a substitute or suc-
cessor being appointed when he leaves Jerusalem (cp We.
Artaxerxes in Ezra48-23 (see v. IzA).
1910
 GOVERNMENT
For the rest, the central Persian authority seems to
have left the Jews a considerable amount of freedom
with respect to their internal affairs. That it should
concern itself about such matters as the building of the
temple or of the walls was a matter of course; but
apart from these instances we hear next to nothing
about any intervention of theirs. Of course, the pay-
ment of the tribute and the enrichment of the officials
had to be seen after; but on the whole there was
much internal liberty, which, indeed, was involved in
the freedom of worship granted to the Jews. In the
time of Ezra we find law and police in the hands of the
national authority (cp Ezra10 14).
The history of Z ERUBBABEL ( q . ~ is . ) obscure. H e is
remesented as the secular head of the communitv with
Joshua (SeeJESHUA, 5) as spiritual head
26. Local
Yet strangely enough we
organisation. by his side.
findinEzra2z=Neh.77 (=1Esd.58,
~ p o ~ y o d p s v oar )list of twelve ‘heads ’ as the chiefs of the
community, at whose head stand Zerubbabel and
Joshua, presumably as +mi inter $ares. W e also
hear of the ‘elders of the Jews’ (Ezra55 67 108, etc.),
of certain ‘ rulers ’ or ‘ deputies ’ (so RV, o q j ~ in ) Neh.
216 48 [I+], etc., and of ‘princes of the people’ who
dwelt at Jerusalem (Neh. 11I). Are these names then
perhaps synonymous? If not, what are the mutual
relations of the officers whom they severally denote?
W e shall not go far wrong if w-e recognise in the
twelve ‘ heads’ the chiefs of the leading families (cp
EzraBs), a proof of the tenacious life of the tribal
organisation.z At the head of the clans were the r Z E
hZ-Z68th (iliiun wi,uy, Ezra15 268 Neh. 770, etc.) ; over
all were the twelve men already mentioned. The
number twelve was of course suggested by that of the
tribes; indeed the Priestly Writer speaks of twelve
‘ princes of the tribes’ (Num. 7 ) . It is not necessary,
however, that this number should have been permanent.
W e may plausibly suppose that the ‘ princes ’ (including
the ‘ heads ’ ) were the beginning of the later gerusia
(below, 27). From Neh.57 we may infer that the
plutocratic principle had much to do with their appoint-
ment. Most important of all, the priests did not yet
belong to the gerzuia; they are always sharply dis-
tinguished from the ruling magistrates, the heads of the
people (cp e.g., Neh. 938-1027 [ ~ O I - Z ~ ] ) .
This was soon changed, and not least in consequence
of the measures of Ezra and Nehemiah, little as they
themselves left for Eliashib or any other
g$y
lt: high priest to do (cp Neh. 1348)). T h e
tendency of the law brought by Ezra from
Babylon was to exafi the spiritual over ;he secular
power. I n this law, which corresponded in the main
with the so-called Priestly Code (on this point cp L AW
L ITERATURE ; I SRAEL , 59 ; CANON, 8 23f: ; E ZRA
i., 8) ; the community was provided with a constitu-
tion. I t is true, Ezra and his adherents had consider-
able difficulty in getting their theory of the law accepted.
T h e theory was briefly this. T h e high priest was
supreme head, alike in the spiritual and in the secular
sphere. T o him were transferred all the powers of the
king, in so far as they were at all compatible with the
Law. Not even such an unassuming place as Ezekiel
assigned to a king remained. Far below the high priest
1 See ISRAEL,9 64, and Benzinger’s art\cle ‘&teste’ in
PREP)1 226f: [Guthe (see ‘Ezra and Neh., SBOT) regards
Ezra2 z=Neh. 77 (from o”>;I down to njyi, with the addition
u ~I1 I Esd. 58) as an addition of the chronicler.
of ~ n w (see
H e thinks that the existence of the twelve ‘heads * presupposes
the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah. The ‘heads’ are not
identical with the ‘elders,’ who come before us at the close of
the rebuilding of the temple, when Zerubbabel seems to have
disappeared. Perhaps they were supplanted by the twelve
‘heads.’ The ‘ruleis’ (o’>j~) of Nehemiah are regarded by
( ~ T U of
) Neh. (13 32).]
~-
Guthe as officials : the term may be equivalent to the ‘~rinces
2 Even during the Exile the ‘elders’or heads of clans directed
the affairs of the settlements ; we find them seeking oracular
advice of Ezekiel (Ezek. 8 I 14 I 20 18 ; cp Jer. 29 I).
1911
GOVERNMENT
in ranlc stood the ‘princes,’ the chiefs of the twelve
tribes-i.e., in reality, the men who had had in their
hands the administration of affairs. The numerous
priestly families constituted a sort of spiritual nobility
surrounding the high priest. What the law required
was probably not after all very new. That the influ-
ence of the priests, even if they had not a seat in the
remnlsia, was really great, appears from Zech. 6 1 0 8
How. long it was before the theories of the Priestly
Code were translated into practice we do not know.
Our informafjon regarding the internal development
and the foreign relations of the community in the second
half of the Persian period is unfortunately very meagre.
That the abolition of the provincial governorship (see above
24) meant a great increase of power for the high priest is rightl;
!mphasized by Wellhansen ; Nehemiah’s provisio; for the
regular payment of the taxes to the priests furnished the
needful material basis for their claim to power. The quarrel of
the brothers Johanan and Joshua ahout the high-priesthood and
the interference of the Persian governor Bagoses (Jos. Ant.
xi. 7 I ) presuppose an important position for the high priest.
By the beginning of the Grecian period, at latest,
the law had become a reality. Neither the Ptolemies
28. Greek nor the Seleucids had a governor of their
period. own in Jerusalem, and generally speaking
these Hellenistic sovereigns left a large
amount of freedom to the communes. Thus in the
Jewish capital, as elsewhere, the national assembly
seems to have enjoyed fairly extensive powers. Its
organisation had probably undergone no essential
change from what it had formerly been; the gerusia
continued as before an aristocratic senate. This of
itself is sufficient proof that we have not here to do
with a new institution, a creation of the Grecian period;
for the new communities.of Hellenistic times had, as a
rule, democratic institutions. There is no good ground
for doubting the connection between this senate and the
genuine Semitic institution of a ‘ council of the elders’
which survived in the Persian period. I t is merely a
casual circumstance that the gerzsia-under this name
-does not happen to be mentioned until the reign of
Antiochus the Great (223-187B.c.). Whether or how
far Grecian influences may have co-operated in the
development of thisgemsin out of the college of elders
(so Schurer, G W 2 1443:) we have no means of deciding,
as we possess no sufficient information as to the manner
in which the assembly of elders as a ruling body was
organised towards the end of the Persian period. T h e
ordinary traditional designation of ‘ elders,’ rppeupbmpor,
is applied also without qualification during this period
to the gerusia (cp I Macc. 126 with 1420, etc. ). Long
before this, of course, the word had ceased to mean
the heads of clans ; by elders were intended simply the
more distinguished men, the d i t e of the people. Along-
side of the secular nobility, the priesthood also seems
from an early date to have obtained a place in this
assembly (cp z Ch. 19 8).
During the Greek period it is the high priest who is
at the head of the gerusin and thus of ‘the entire com-
munity. The Ptolemies first, and afterwards the
Seleucids, recognised him as ethnarch. On him lay
the duty of seeing that the tribute for the community
was paid to the court at Alexandria; and in order to
do this he bad the right of levying a tax in Judaea (Jos.
Ant. xii. 4 18). W e have an evidence of the importance
of the position of high priest. in the internecine strife
with reference to the office which was the prelude to the
Maccabean revolt ( z Macc. 4 1 8 Jos. Ant. xii. 5 I E).
On account of its importance Ptolemies and Seleucids
alike claimed the right of appointment to it and removal
from it.
The rise of the Hasmonseans meant, strictly, no
constitutional change, only a change of persons. During
29. Hss- the continuance of the war strictly so-called
the commanders, the Maccabees, exercised,
monL8ans*of course, asort of dictatorship. In z Macc.,
it is true, mention is made of the gerusia also, alongside
1912
 GOVERNMENT
of Judas (1104 4 4 1127) : but on internal grounds more
reliance must be placed on the representation given in
I Macc., where besides Judas no governing body is
mentioned save the people themselves (459 5 1 6 8 2 0
10 2546 1 1 3 0 33 42). On the other hand, in the period of
peace after the victory at Beth-Zacharias, Demetrius at
once restored the old order of things-Alcimus being
high priest, with ' elders '-(I Macc. 633), and in like
manner after the definitive peace had been negotiated
it was again rehabilitated in its entirety, with the' single
.exception that the office was now bestowed not on the
legitimate heir but on Jonathan, who legally was dis-
qualified for it ( I Macc. 1127). This, of course, meant
for the priests of Jerusalem a great diminution of power
.and influence, especially since the old aristocratic party
which had been friendly to the Greeks had now to
retire into the background altogether; and, in the
.gemsin also, had to make room for the partisans of the
Hasmonaeans. The institution of the gerusia, as such,
however, continued alongside of the Hasmonaean high-
priests and princes (Jonathan I. : see I Macc. 1123
1 2 6 35 : Simon I. : see I Macc. 1336 142028).
The Jews became entirely independent of Syria under
John Hyrcanus (135-105). Hyrcanus himself, however,
remained as before, the people's high priest. On the
other hand, of course, he was not unconscious of his
.dignity as prince, and he put his name upon the
coinage. His son and successor Aristobiilus (105-104)
.actually took the royal title, continuing, however, to
retain that of high priest on the coinage. Alexander
Jannaeus (164-78)was the first to call himself king
on the coinage. Here again, however, the assumption
of the kingly title meant no constitutional change ; it
was only the fitting expression of the fact that from
the first the Hasmonzeans had subordinated the spiritual
side of their office-their high priesthood-to the exercise
of their political authority as ethnnrchs.
The gerusia, therefore, continued, at least in form,
under the kings. At how early a date the name of
.synedrium-which subsequently seems to have been the
usual one-arose, is unknown. Possibly the expression
&%er (im) upon the Hasmonaean coins refers to this
body. At this period it would of course be out of the
,question to look for any sharply defined jurisdiction
.as possessed by such a court. Under strong rulers
like Hyrcanus and Jannaeus its'power can, hardly have
been great : of Alexandra, on the other hand, who on
account of her sex had to hand over the high-priesthood
and the presidency of the council to her son Hyrcanus,
.Josephus remxks that ' she held the kingship in name,
but the Pharisees had the power' ( A n t xiii. 162). It is
probable that it was through her that the Pharisees had
.gained admission to the gerusia alongside of the
Sadducean nobles and the priests.
Pompey brought the Hasmonaean rule to an end in
'63 B. c. I n other respects he found no change necessary
30. Romans. in the forms of the internal administra-
tion of the country. He appointed
Hyrcanus 11. to the high-priesthood, and at the same
time invested him with ' the government of the nation '
(Jos. Ant.xx. l o 3 : rrpou~auiavTOG PBvour). The
proconsul Gabinius (57-55)on the other hand, withdrew
this political dignity from the high priest, dividing the
Jewish territory into five jurisdictions -Jerusalem,
.Jericho, Gazara, Amathus, Sepphoris. By the ex-
pressions used by Josephus (uL;voBo~,uuvCBpra) we are
doubtless to understand independent districts each
under the synedrium of the chief city (Jos. BJi. 8 5 ) .
By this measure the political importance of the Jeru-
salem authorities was virtually destroyed.
This condition of things, however, was of brief
.duration. Caesar (in 47 B.C.) again made the high
priest ethnarch ; nominally and constitutionally the
g e m s i n shared the government with him. The juris-
.diction of the gerusia appears to have included even
.Galilee; at least we read that Herod was summoned
62 19'3
GOVERNMENT
before the synedrium on account of misdeeds committed
there (Jos. Ant. xiv. 93-5). In point of fact, however,
as is shown by the course of this very prosecution
against Herod, the synedrium had come to be a helpless
tool in the hand of the ruler, who at this time was
Antipater. Herod accordingly began his own reign by
purging the synedrium of his own opponents, forty-five of
its members being executed at his command (Jos. Ant.
xiv. 94, compared with xv. 12). Though doubtless
replenished with nominees of his own, the council
henceforward played no part of importance during
his reign (cp e.g., Ant. xv. 62). The high priests also,
whom he appointed and deposed at pleasure, were
entirely his creatures.
The territory of Herod was divided at his death.
Archelaus received Judzea, Samaria, and Iduniaea, with
the title of ethnarch ; but after a short term of years he
was deposed ( 6 A . D . ) and his ethnarchy made a Roman
province under a procurator ( 8 ~ l ~ p o r r o; sin N T f i y ~ p d v ,
Mt. 27 z etc. ) of equestrian rank. The procurator of
Judaea was subordinate in rank to the governor of
Syria, and the latter could in special cases of need
interfere with him (see Mommsen, Rom. Gesch., 5 509,
n.). I n all other respects the procurator of Judrea had
military command and jurisdiction ; in other words, was
independent in his province.
In other matters the Romans allowed the Jews a
considerable degree of internal freedom and self-
Josephus is not very wide of
31. Internal government.
the truth when he describes the new con-
synedriu;n.
affairs. stitution as aristocratic, as distinguished
from the monarchical despotical rule of a
Herod (Ant. xx. 101). The synedrium enjoyed greater
power than ever before. The Roman procurator was
the court of review ; the synedrium was the governing
body, and, more particularly, no longer had to share
its powers as formerly with its president, the high
priest.
After the high-priestly office ceased to be held for life,
and hereditary high priests had come to be appointed
and deposed in rapid succession, first by Herod and
then by the Romans, their political power diminished
greatly, and they no longer held a paramount position
even within the priestly college, although formerly the
high priest could still be regarded as holding ' the govern-
ment of the nation' (Ant. 2010). Next in rank to
the reigning high priest stood those who had previously
held the office. I n the N T and in Josephns these ' high
priests' figure as properly speaking the leaders of the
high council (cp e.g., Mt. 2659 2 7 4 1 and parallels).
As a second class within the same body we find the
'scribes' or professional 'lawyers' (Mt. 2018 21 15 2 7 4 1
and parallels ; see S CRIBES, 2).
The other members belonging to neither of these two groups,
are called simply ' elbers' (?rpsuj3drspoi : see passages already
cited) : or the word 'councillor' (~OUAEUT<S) is occasionally
employed (Mk. 15 43; but cp JOSEPH O F ARIIATHAA, B 4).
To this body as a whole, besides synedrium, we find the names
predyferitcni (Lk. 22 66 Acts 22 5), gemsia (Acts 5 zr), and bo&
(Jos. BJii. 156 xi. 16 2) applied. In the Mishna the supreme
court is called Bbtk &in Jzac@dZ, or by the Hehraised Greek
name of ]'?ln;i) (Sanhedrin). See I SRAEL, $ 81.
The number of members of the supreme court of
Jerusalem is in the Mishna (Sanh. 1 6 ) given at 71-
a tradition that is not inherently improbable. As for
the mode of replenishing its numbers-popular election
is excluded alike by the history of its origin, and by its
aristocratic character.
Whether the original custom which gave the right of member-
shin to Darticular families was retained also durine the Grecian
p&od & unknown ' for the Roman it is at least very question-
able. During this'last period we find the political authorities
(e.g., Alexandra, Herod, the Romans) introducing into the
supreme court persons acceptahle to themselves at their pleasure.
The Mishoa knows only of co-optation (Sank. 44).
T h e jurisdiction of the synedrium, so far as its moral
influence was concerned, extended over all Jewish
communities everywhere ; its decrees were regarded
as binding by all orthodox Jews even beyond the con-
I914
 GOVERNOR
fines of Judaea (cp Act59a). Regarded as a high court
of the state, however, its jurisdiction and authority,
after the division of the land on the death of Herod,
were confined to J u d z a proper, the province ruled by
the procurator. In point of fact its range was very
wide. It was at once the supreme administrative
council and the supreme court of justice. As adminis-
trative council, its functions included in particular that
of levying taxes. The Roman practice was to cause the
taxes to be levied by the senates of the towns. In
accordance with this, the synedrium of Jerusalem also
(see Jos. BJii. 171) was responsible for the taxes of the
whole of Judmt. T h e actual collection, on the other
hand, was farmed out to private speculators. As a
court of justice the synedrium had civil as well as
criminal jurisdiction, in which it was governed by the
Jewish law (cp Acts 4 5 8 5218:) ; it had its own
police, and could make arrests of its own accord
(Mt. 2647$, etc.). Its full freedom was restricted
in one point only: it was not allowed to carry out
capital sentences ; these required the confirmation of
the procurator and had also to be carried out by
him, as is clearly shown by the whole narrative of the
trial and death of Jesus (note in particular, the express
declaration in Jn. 1831). The stoning of Stephen
must therefore be held to have been illegal. Roman
citizens were of course exempt from Jewish jurisdiction
(Acts25108). In like manner the procurator had
the right to intervene at any moment or to transfer a
process to his own judgment s e a t ; but these were
exceptions from the stated order of things.
T h e division of Judzea into toparchies-eleven,
according to Josephus (BJiii. 35), ten, according to
Pliny (NN570)-most probably dates from the Roman
period. Unfortunately we are told nothing as to the
origin or object of this division. W e may venture to
guess that in all likelihood it had something to do with
the system of taxation. No conjecture even can be
hazarded as to whether these administrative divisions
were justiciary circuits also.
T h e great synedrium in Jerusalem was also the
municipal council. I n close analogy with this, the
various communities throughout the country had also
their local synedria (uuvPGprov, Mt. 1017 Mk. 139 &It.
5 2 2 ; pouh3, Jos. B/ ii. 141, etc. ; ?rpeu@pb.repor, Lk.
73). This’also, as shown above, was an ancient in-
stitution among the Jews. As in earlier times so also
now these local courts exercised judicial functions.
According to what Josephus tells us (Ant.iv. 8 14 BJ
ii. 205) the membership of one of these provincial conrts
required to be not less than seven; in larger centres
they seem to have had twenty-three members. As for
jurisdiction-even grave criminal cases came before
them (Mt. 521f.). I n relation to them the great
synedrinm was not a court of appeal ; but recourse
was had to it when the judges of the local courts could
not agree (Jos. Ant. iv. 8 1 4 ; Sunk 11 2).
On the general subject see the recent works dealing with
biblical history (We., Ki., Klo., St.) and archreology (Benz.,
Now.). On the tribal constitution see
32. Literature. WRS Kin. ’85, and Nold.‘s review ZDMG,
1886, pp. 148-187; Riehm, art. ‘Stamm’ 12
HWB(9. On the monarchical period‘oehler, art. ‘ Kanigthum
in PRER Sro2-r1o. Diestel art. KSnigthum’ in Riehm’s
WWBPI ; the commeharies 0; Benzinger and Kittel on Kings.
On post-exilic government ; Schiirer, G]V(a)251-174 and art.
‘Synedrium ’ in Riehm’s NWBI9 ; Strack, art. ‘ Synedrium ’
.
f” PREP) 15 lor-103 Ed. Meyer, Enfsfehungdes]un‘enUums,
96,. The older litdrature will be found fully indicated in
Michaelis, Mos. Rechfl? (1775)~Saalschiitz, Mos. Recht (‘53) ;
also in the works on Hebrew Arch;eology by De Wette, Ew.,
Keil. 1. B.
GOVERNOR. This word is used widely in the EV
to denote any title of rank or superiority. Neither
EV nor 6 is always consistent, and the words referred
to below are sometinies differently rendered. On the
methods of organization among the Hebrews cp the
preceding article (55 IS^), and see ARMY, $5 a, 4 ;
D AVID, 5 11 ; I SRAEL , 64.
1915
GRAPE
I . PehhZh, ”? (cp Ass. pi& to tax or govern, 6e‘Z pa&iti,
governor or satrap). It is not quite clear what kind of oficer;
we are to understand by Solomon’s ‘governors of the land
(y%n n m p , ,K. ~ 1015 2 Ch.914 [ u a ~ p d m p l ) ,or by Ben-hadad’s
‘ governors, as distinguished from ‘kings ’ ( I K. 20 24 [ua~.]).
In the latter case the title is manifestly expressive of military
rank. In like manner it is used by RABSHAKEH [p.u.] in z K.
1824 Is. 369 (TO?T~~XI~S) in the sense of ‘general. I n Jeremiah
(51 23 28 57 [$yepWvl), Ezekiel (23 6 23), Daniel (3 2 [TOT.])1 and
Esther (3 12 8 g 9 3 [AV ‘ deputies ’I), however, a civil administra-
tive officer of high rank is intended. Palestine, while under
Persian dominion, was under the jurisdiction of such officers,
called i n j i x y ‘5 ‘governors beyond the river’ [Euphrates]
(Ezra 836 Neh. 2 7’9 Neb. 3 7 [&apxop &pav TOG aorapoir]) ; see
GOVERNMENT $3 25. The title ‘governor of Judah’ was borne
by Zerubbabj (Hagg. 1I 14 2221) and also by Nehemiah
(Neh. 5 1 4 3 18 [allusion to the ‘bread of the governor ’ ; c p
Mal. 18, $yodpavor] 1 2 263).
2. TivSifhci. HCt??, Ezra263 EVmg., etc. See TIRSHATHA.
3. S e a n , I?,: Dan.32, etc. See DEPUTY, I. 4. NZp-d
l‘~ , H’@:, and 6. Sur,
5. n&i, le; see P RINCE. 7. PZkzd,
l‘pz, see OVERSEER. 8. AUujh, 1b;see DUKE, I.
9. ZuZZt;, U’>W (from kid, Heb., Aram., Ass., ‘to rule, have
power,’ cp Ar. sulfrin) the word used by in Gen. 42 6 (iipxwv
[ADEFL]) to denbte joseph’s position as t i e Pharaoh’s steward
of the palace and grand vizier. In Dan. 2 1 5 3 (‘captain,’dpxwv)
it denotes military rank (see ARIOCHz), and it is used more o r
less vaguely in Dan. 529, etc. (DLniel, third ‘ruler’ EV),
Eccles. 7 19 (‘ten rulers [RV, AV ‘ mighty men ‘1 in a city,’ @
;~ovuLd<ov).
IO. +%&$ ??in, EV ‘governor,’ Judg. 89 ( ~ SiassTaypQva
i
[AL]), used poetically in a somewhat vague sense; cp i);hp,
‘governor,’ in Judg. 5 14, &pwvOvws [BAL]), usually rendered
‘law-giver ’ (Gen. 49 IO Ut. 83 z r Is. 10 I 35 22).
11. MaGI, SwD, Jer 30 21 (Lpxov) ; usually ‘ruler,’ in a general
sense. Cp RULER. 12. HaddZbcmuyyZ, H:??:?, Dan. 3 24,
AVmg.; see COUNSELLOR, 3. Six Greek words come under
consideration.
73. Qiiapxos(cp I , above), 2 Macc. 427 RV (AV ‘ruler ’) ; see
SOSTRATUS. 14. $yodpcvos, Mt. 26 (quoting Mi. 5 I [z],
iipxov). See I I above. 15. $yep&, the title given in M T to.
the Roman pro&rators (Pilate, &It.272, etc. ; Felix, Acts23 24,
etc. ; Festus, Acts2630); see I SRAEL, 5 go. 16. BBvdpxqs,
I Macc. 1447, etc. ; see DAMASCUS, $3 13, ETHNARCH. 17. For
Ipx~~pi~hrvos (Jn. 2 8 f : AV) see MEALS $3 rr. 18. ~&Bdvwv,Jas.
3 4, RV steersman. 19. oirovdpos, G d . 4 2 , RV STEWARD.
GOZAN (ID3 ; in Ki. rwzaN [EA] ; in Ch. xwzap
[E], rmzX [A]; rorsaN [ L ; Ki.; Ch.]), one of the
districts to which Israelites were deported by the king of
Assyria ( a K. I76 [ y w z a p B] 1811I Ch. 6 2 6 ) , also men-
tioned (with Haran, Rezeph, and the Bne-Eden of Tel-
assar) in a letter of Sennacherib to Hezekiah, according
to z K. 1912 (=Is.3712). It is no doubt the Assyrian
Guzanu, the I’au@vkrs of Ptolemy (v. l83f.), mentioned
in z R. 53 43u between Tugban and NaSibina (Nisibis).
This province was ruled by a governor who sometimes
had the honour to givechis name to the year as limzi
(eponym). It rebelled in 809 B.c., and again in 759, but
was finally subdued in 758. Its chief stream was the
H ABOR [ p . ~ . ] now , the HlbBr, on the banks of which
the exiles were settled. (See Del. Pur. 184, and cp
Schr. KB 2275, 326 ; KGF 167, n., 310, 352 ; also
H ABOR , H A L A H H , ARA.)
[In 2 K. 176 and 1811 B L , and in 176 @A read I ~ O T U ~ OF., ~S
‘7ivers of Gozan.’ The former is universally represented as
@ s reading. This may be so, but is not proved by the evidence.
T O T a p ~may? ~ very well be a scribe’s conjecture. There is
hardly occasion to inquire, with Winckler ( A T Untems. 108)
and W. M. Muller (Hastings, DB 2285 b), which rivers may
be meant.--?‘. K. c.] C. P. T.
GRABA, RV Aggaba (ar(r)aBa [Babmg. ALI),
I Esd. 529=Ezra245, HAGABAH.
G R A F T I N G ( ~ N K ~ N T P I z[Ti.
E I WH]),
N Rom. 1117.
See O LIVE.
GRAPE, Blossom, early berry, sour and ripe fruit,
all find mention in the OT.
I. n’c, phrah (dvOos), blossom, Is. 185 t ; cp Gen. 40 IO.
2.?I:?, nifsuh ( ~ A w T ~[Gen.],
s dveoc [Is.]), properly the
blossom, but perhaps also the cluster of tiny berries which
1 Mentioned along with ]AD, see DEPUTY.
1916
 GRASS GRECIANS
becomes visible as soon as the blossom is over (Gen. 40 IO Is. 18 5). GRASSHOPPER, AV, sometimes RV (8?1&, 3\$
In Job1533 the l$ or ‘sour grape’ is parallel to the ??! of and 34Q ; Lev. 11zz Nah. 317) ; see LOCUST, 2, nos.
the olive.
I , 4, 8. I t is impossible to identify the species of insect
3. >>QD, szmda’ar (mmprpl<owuiv, -uaL, r v r p ~ u p 6 s but
, oivdu87
referred to. The English word grasshopper is loosely
[Sym.]), the fragrant vine-blossom, the appearance of which was applied to members of the true Orthopteran families,
a sign of spring, Cant. 2 13 15 7 13. The impossible reading
ninle in Is. 168 (late ; see ISAIAH ii., $ g [4]), should be emended Acridiidz a n d Locustidze, and as a rule to the smaller
and non-migratory species.
>?pD (see Che. SBOT,‘Isaiah,’ 121 1g8J) ; read ‘withered are
I n the famous description of old age in Eccl. 12 occurs th:
the vine-blossoms of Heshbon ‘(important for the flavour of the enigmatical expression : ‘ and the grasshopper shall be a burden
wine [see WIfie]); similarly Dt. 32 3” Hab. 3 17.1 ‘D is a late (v. 5 2:>7 \z!D:]), or rather, as in RVmg., ‘shall drag [drags1
Aramaising word. rn the Syriac lexicon of Bar BahlOl olvavO?
is always rendered by NiinD, cp Is. 17 11; Pesh. Tg., gives ’D for itself along.’
nxj ( I s . 18 5), but the text of Tg. seems in disorder. Derenbourg *BATE (723p),Ex. 2 7 4 etc. See NETWORK.
(ZATW53o1J 6 983) takes both 7x3 and ‘D to be the earliest
unripe berries on the vine. Whilst, however, this sense seems to he GRAVE. See TOMB ; HADES.
required by Is. 185, the passages in Cant. do not recommend it GRAY [HAIRS] (n?<b), Gen.4238 4429. See
for ’D. On the whole question cp Duval, REI 14 2773
Derenbourg’s exposition of Is. 18j ;,ems rather forced ; but the COLOURS, 9 (u).
facts adduced by him leave no doubt as to the proper sense of GREAT OWL is AV’s unhappy rendering o f :
ID. See further WINE.
4. lDh, lriscr (i;p+at), the unripe grape which sets the teeth
I. Dill, rdhdm (Lev. 111st) or pli:!, rd&dmdh (Dt. 14 17t)-
on edge, Is. 18 5 Job 1533 Jer. 31 zgf: Ezek. 18 2.t Verjuice See GIER-EAGLE, .
I

pressed out from wild grapes is a strong acid. 2. lisp, &&%z (;xCvos : Is. 34 I jt), RV probably correctly
5. XP, ‘Znri6 (ura+whfj), Gen 40 TI Is. 5 z etc., the usual term ARROWSNAKE (serpens iaculus). See SERPENT, 5 I (5).
forgrape, found also in Aram., Arab. and Ass. Hence perhaps GREAT SEA, Nu. 346f., CP.GEOGRAPHY,5 4, and
&mhos (Lag. Mitth. 2 356). ma+.’ in Mt. 7 16 Lk. 6 44 Rev. see M EDITERRANEAN.
14 18,
6. D‘Vyp, 6Z&m (&avOai, cp Mt. 7 16; ZaZYuscre), the GREAVES (nnyp,as if sing. in stat. conrtr. ; but
wretched grapes produced by the wild vine, Is. 5 z 4. almost certainly 6 ’ s KNHMlAec-ie., nnyp, is right ;
7. h$t$ &kaZ ( ~ ~ T P w the
s ) , cluster of ripe grapes, often; note V>;l, ‘his f e e t ’ ) , mentioned in the account of
e.g., Gen. 40 IO Cant. 7 7 [SIX and Hab. 3 17 (crit. emend. : GOLIATH [q.v.], I S. 176T. These greaves probably
see n. I below). In N T p6spup in Rev. 14 1st.
8. D’?hln. havFannirn (EV ‘kernels’) mentioned with X, zdg
(EV ‘husk’) Nu. 64t. B &IO mfp+dAhov <os y~ &prow--.e.,
whether pressed grapes or grape-stone(s). Tg. !Calm. agree
with EV : but it is very possible that this traditidnal view is of
purely arbitrary origin. Rabbinic opinion was not agreed as to
whether ‘in meant the exterior and 031 (plur.) the interior of
grape-berries or vice vemd (Naz. 6 2 346). The supposed con-
nection of 21, ‘grape-skin,’ with 271 or 221, lto be clear’ (Ges.
Thes.), is not very plausible; perhaps we should read 0’1’1
(Gen. 40 IO Joel 1 7). isin may perhaps be connected with yln,
‘to be sharp (to the taste),’ and mean ‘ sour grape.’ The phrase
used in Nu.63 (‘from the grape-vine,’not ‘from the grapes’)
favours this view of the passage. Render therefore in Nu. 2.c.
‘be may eat nothing that is produced by the grape-vine, whethe:
young (sour) grapes or tendrils ’ (the edible tops of the tendrils
are meant, even if we read 3:; see Dillm.). isin then is a
synonym of 1 ~ 2 .This result receives some support from a
probable emendation of the text of Is. 18 4 (which, as it stands, is
not very satisfactory)-
Thus has Yahw&said to me : I will be still aud look out like
the vine-dresser
For the appearance)of the fresh growths and for the coming up
of the young grapes.
For before the young grapes when the blossom is over, and the
small berries begin to riien into sour grapes
H e will cut off the tendrils with knives, and the spreading
branches he will clear away.
The chiefchanges are 013z for mn2, and D % p , p for
3 9 on,~ yy?.
~ See further Che. SBOT 196f: T. K. c.

GRASS. ( I ) &i:ir ( J l W l , signifying green-

ness * cp Ar. ha$iva ‘to be green‘ ; x6pms[por&vq twice]): I K
185 K.19;6 Job812 (EV ‘herb’) Prov.2725 (EV ‘hay’j
Is. 156 (AV ‘hay’) and frequently; also Nu.115 where it is
translated LEEKS [p.v.l.
2. Nf?, dd&’ (cp +‘Nul, ‘to sprout luxuriantly’ ; cp Che. on
Ps.23 z) Jer. 14 5 (cp 6) Prov. 27 25 Job 35 27 Is. G6 14 RV
‘tender grass.’ In Jer. 5011 N$! 3hY, ‘heifer at grass’
(RVmz. ; cp @ Vg.) i: rightly rendered by RV ‘heifer that
treadeth out [the corn].
3. Nni, &the (Dan. 4 1j [iz] 23 [zolt), Aramaic’for no. 2.
4. and 5. p,yrirak, and 23y, ‘Ziehh. See HERBS, I and 2.
6. X ~ P T O SMt. 6 30 Mk. 6 39 etc.
1 In Dt. 6 has ?jKhqpaiLc a i 4 v ;r yopdppac : read D i i M
nloyn, ‘their vine-blossom is from Gomorrah.’ So Symm. in
Is. Khfjpara. In Hab. read 5 3 ?my ~ ~ ~ \ ? i:an!
p ,(though)
the vine-blossomproduces no grape-cluster. Twice, says Ges.
Lez.P-13) ‘this plur. noun (nmiw) has a sing. verb.’ The
sing. verb’should have awakened a suspicion of the faultiness
of the text. [This article supplements the note in SBOT which
was condensed from want of space, and meets Marti‘s c h i s i n
in his commentary.]
1917
. (After Layard.)
consisted of plates of bronze (ntn?)which covered the
lower portion of the legs. The annexed, figures of
Assyrian combatants may illustrate the kind of defensive
armour that was used, protecting the lower portion of
the leg both in the front and at the back. There is n o
evidence that greaves were used among the ancient
Egyptians. See SHOES. 0.c. w.
GRECIANS, a word occurring four times in EV and
thrice in AV of Macc.
I. On Joel 3 [4l 6, where the mg. and RV render literally
‘sons of the Grecians’ ( D ’ k f ’>?; r . vl. T . 2hh~jvov[BNAQI)see
J AVAN HELLFNISM,5 I J In I Macc. 6 z, 2 Mac,. 4 15, RV
reads ‘)Greeks ; in I Macc. 8 9, they of Greece.
2. In Acts 9 zg ‘Grecians ’ means Greek-speaking Jews
(Grecian Jews)[RV], HELLENISTS [RVmg.], ‘EhXqvru-
1918
 GREEK, GREEKS
7 d s [Ti. WH])-as it is paraphrased in Pesh.-as dis-
tinguished from non-Jewish Greeks ("EhX~yas [Ti. WH],
Rom. 114) on the one hand, and Palestinian Jews
('Eppaiwv [Ti. WH], Phil. 3 5 ) on the other. In Acts
6 I the Hellenists spoken of are Christian. The distinc-
tion, however, has not always been understood or
observed by copyists and translators.
In Acts1120 the betterreading is 'Greeks' [RV text],"Ehh?~a~
[Ti. WH, Blass, following UCAD*l-i.e., non-Jews. I n Jn. 1 2 20
Actsl'i4, 'Greeks' are proselytes to Judaism (cp HEI.LENISM,
$ 2 , PROSELYTE).
GREEK, GREEKS (EAAHN Rom. 116, EAAH N E C
Jn 1220). See H ELLENISM 2 and cp GRECIANS (above).
For Greek Language (<hjlqui& [Ti. WHI). .Jn. 1920, see
H ELLENISM, S 3.
GREEN. For ( I ) iJT,yivik ( z Ki. 1926 etc.) see
COLOURS, § I I : for@) n>,Z&(Gen.3037etc.);(3) p n , ra'iindn
,(Dt. 1 2 2 etc ), and (4) >h?, YE@ (Job 8 16 etc.) see COLOURS,
0 17. Greenish(????;, ye+ruk) Lev. 13491437 ; see COLOURS,
0 11. Greenness (IN,'dh) Job 8 12 : see COLOURS, 5 17. For
Green Ihangingsl (DB??, karpas) Esth. 1 6 , see COTTON.
GREETINGS ( ~ C I T ~ C M O I ) ,Mt. 237. See S ALUTA -
TIONS.
GREYHOUND (bl!cQ l'Q1, 'well girt [or, 'well-
knit'] in the loins,' RVmE.),2 one of the four things
mentioned in Prov.3031 EV as of stately motion, the
lion, the he-goat, and the king (going to battle?) being
the other three. Whether the poet meant the grey-
hound (Kim., Gr., Ven., Luth., Ew., BO., De. ), is
another matter.
The revisers of AV felt uncertain, and placed 'war-horse' (so
Bochart, Wildeboer?) in the margin, with what they conceived to
he the literal meaning of the Hebrew pnrase (see above) ; the
eagle (Ihn Ezra) and even the S. African zebra have also been
thought of (Ludolf, Simonis).
T h e rendering ' cock ' is advocated elsewhere ; but
the rendering in EV would be not less suitable if only it
could be justified (see C OCK ). On this hypothesis
something good would for once be said of a dog (see
D OG , § I). T h e large Persian greyhound is used in
the desert for hunting the G AZELLE ( p . v . ) ; as of
'noble kind,' it is allowed to lie down in the nomad
booth (Doughty, AY. Des. 1327 337). Tristram states
that this dog is known in modern Palestine (NHB So).
GRINDING (nztlp),Eccles. 124. See MILL.
GRISLED (V?;), Gen. 3110. See C OLOURS , 3 12.
GROVE, GROVES. For (I) n@y,' m i h ,av4&,
&"Mrn, see ASHERAH,§ I, and for (2) h j g , '$X,Gen. 2133
AV, I S. 226 AVms (cp 31 r3), see TAMARISK.
GUARD. On the employment of men for the pur-
poses of protection and of keeping watch, see A RMY
(esp. $3 4, I O ), C ARITES , CHERETHITES,D AVID ,
11 a, G OVERNMENT , § 21, FORTRESS.
I. +'ab6rihim, 0n
' ;p (&E., z K.25 8) ; see EXECUTIONER (I)
and cp CATTLE, col. 7 1 4 ~n. I.
2. rrisim, n's?, I S. 22 17, RV, etc. : see ARMY, S 4, col. 314:
OCK, col. 855, n. 4.
GYMNASIUM
3. niiSinrir, lpVF, Ne%.4223 I16JI EV (it. 49 [31, 7 3 EV
'watch ') ; the word primarily denotes the place where a watch
or guard is posted (cp Gen. 40 3, nlpvF Is. 21 8 etc., in Neh.
7 3 inwn,' npo+uhaK?' ; mnwn, rrpo+dAat).
4. nzisina'ath, nYpqp, z S. 23 23 jl I Ch. 112 5 ; see CUUECIL
i., 2. Possibly to be emended to nl?$D (cp above).
5. umKouhdxup, Mk. 6 27 RV ' see EXECUTIOXER (3).
6. m u u m d i a Mt.2765 f RVI
7. On the cajptain of ti: guard, W T ~ ~ C O I I ~ Acts ~ ~ X 28
~ 16
S ,
AV, cp CAPTAIN, 17, and see PRBTOR. 1
GUDGODAR (?llj7; ; cp Ar. juc17ud~~n ' a cricket ' ;
rahrah [BAI, rahirab [ L ] , rahra.' [F]), a place-
name in a fragment of an itinerary preserved in D (Dt.
107) ; cp H OR - HAGIDGAD , and see W ANDERINGS , § 8.
GUESTS (a'&!?), I Ki. 141. See M EALS , 4,
STRANGER 5 3 and SACRIFICE. For Guest-Chamber ( k a n i -
hupa) Mk.'14 14 Lk. 22 11, see HOUSE, 2.
GUILT OFFERING (D@F), Lev. 56 etc. RV, AV
' trespass offering ' ; see S ACRIFICE .
GUM TRAGACANTH (nd32),Gen. 3725 RVmg,,
EV 'spicery.' See SPICE, 3 ; STORAX, 2.
GUN1 ('?U-i.e., ' Gunite' : r ~ y ~ [ s[BADFL]).
] l
I. A Naphtalite clan individualised (Gen. 4624) Nu. 2848
(yauuei [Bl, oyuvi IF]), I Ch. 7 13 (ywvac [Bl, youui [Ll). The
gentilic >~i1;1occurs in Nu. 2648 EV, The Gunites (yauuei
[B]), and is read by most critics in I Ch. 1134 (45.4 o youui :
@ B for *]11Ja ow8 * j has~ P s w a L a s 6 uopohoyauuouurcu, @U
v a s 6 uopoyeuvouviv, @L viol auop TO$ <EYYL) instead of EV's
GIZONITE.See JASHEN.
2. A Gadite family individualised in I Ch. 515 (youv[elc
[BAL]).
GUR, THE GOING UP TO, RV The Ascent of
5:-
(191-;I OD);for similar combinations see A DUMMIM ,
A KRABBIM , and ZIZ), a place near I BLEAM [ p . u . ]
where Ahaziah seems to have received his death-blow :
2 IC. 9 2 7 (BN [rrpoc] TW ANABAINEIN rai [BAI, EN
TH ANABACEI r € e
Josephus mentions no name : he has Ferely 'in a certain
ascent' (& CLVL II ou,9duar, A n t . ix. 63). rhe name appears as
Cer, yvp, in OS& 12930 ' 247 g Flinders Petrie (Syria and
Egyjt, 160) identifies Gur)with the land of Gar in the Amarna
Tablets ; see art. below, and cp HORITES.
GUR-BAAL ($&Q.-l9il),a place inhabited by Arabians
(z Ch. 267).
The Targ;um reads ' Gerar ' instead of 'Gnr ' : cp 63's ' Gerar '
for 'Gedor, I Ch. 439 [BAL] and note that in both passages
of Ch. the MEUNIM [q,v.] a1so)are spoken of. @, however, has
(in 2 Ch. Z.C.) &i 6 s &CpaS [BAL], which supports Kittel's
suggestion of $yn-ii~ (Vg. 'cod. Amiat. Tw6aaO.-
T h e rock or mountain of Baal might he the J e h l Neby
Hirzin (see H OR , M OUNT , I), the summit of which was
doubtless always crowned by a sanctuary.
The neighbourhood of this sacred mountain would be
inhabited by ' Arabians ' before the later city of Petra
arose. See Kittel's note (SBOZ')and Buhl, Edomniter,
37,4 1 (n. 4),and cp A RABIA , § 3.
Wi. (GVZ146 n. I ) reads o'jiynn-$yi 7113 and identifies Gur
with the Gar (=Edam) in the Amarna Tablets (237 23) : hut see
HORITE.Contrast the view of Flinders Petrie ; cp preceding
article. T.IZ. C.
GYMNASIUM ( I Macc. 1 1 4 2 Macc. 4 1.8)). See
H ELLENISM , § 5, PALBSTRA.
1920
 HAAHASHTARI
H
HAAHASHTARI (+?Q'@DFJthe art. being pre-
fixed; A C H P ~ N [B], acetipa [AI) a o c e o y p e i LL1).
A Judahite family which traced its origin to Ashhur
( I Ch. 4 6 ) ; perhaps we should read *?mqy, ' the Ash-
hurite.' The error has arisen from a mistaken assimila-
tion of the already corrupted name to n q l n w n ~ Est.
, 8 TO.
T. K. C.
HABAIAH (V;n [Bg.], but ?l:Jn [Ginsb.] ' Yahwb
hides ' or ' protects ' ; cp E LIAHBA, J EHUBBAH ), a post-
exilic priestly family which was unable to prove its
pedigree, Ezra 261 (AaBeia [Bl, oBaia [AI, whoyia
CL])=Neh. 763, RV H OBAIAH (VQR [Ba.], but VQn
'or i'ls2lJ [Ginsb.]; BBBIL\ [BA], aB[e]ia[KL])= I Esd.
538, OBDIA(oBBsia [B], oBAia [AI, whoyia [L]).
See G ENEALOGIES i. § 3 (2).
RABAKKUK (iNiDY, I 66, AMBAKOYM [BKAQI,
~ M B L \ K O Y K Da. (Theod.) Bel [A] Compliit., 4 Esd.
1 4 0 f ABACUC ; Frd. Del. compares Ass. bamba&+u, the
name of a garden plant, Ass. HWB 281, ProL 84 ; cp
Hommel, Aufsu'tze, 27J ['92]),the eighth of the minor
prophets, about whom, in the absence of authentic tradi-
tions, legend has much to say.
I n Bel and the Dragon Habakkuk is commanded to carry a
meal to Daniel in the lions' den for which purpose an angel
seizes him by theiair and carries him to Babylon
1. Legends. and back ; and the same story is told, but more
picturesquely, in the different Lines of the
Projhets, which have reached us in a great variety of languages
and forms. Here he is represented as a Simeonite, born at Beth-
Zechariah, and dying two years before the end of the Babylonian
exile.l In the heading of the Codex Chisianus (see D ANIEL
8 16) Habakkuk is a son of Jesus of the tribe of Levi. No his:
torical value attaches to any of these notices : their sole link of
connection with the biblical book is the mention of the Chal-
deans (Hab.16) by which the prophet's place in history is
approximately indicated.
The book is divided by the new heading of 31 into
two indeDendent sections which demand seDarate treat-
*' ' T h e first two chapters are
lFirst section hmeeLd : ' T h e oracle ( ~ $ p ? ) which
chap. If.
the prophet Habakkuk saw.' The
very first word, which had already been ridiculed for its
ambiguity by Jeremiah (2333-40) and strictly prohibited,
is proof that the heading is due to a late editor (see
ISAIAH ii., 9). It need not surprise us therefore to
find many traces of editorial intervention within the
book itself.
I. Chaps. If:, as we now have them, may be analysed
somewhat as follows :-
12-4 sounds like a Psalm, or rather a Lamentation : the
prophet complains to Yahwe that he is left to cry in vain for
help against the oppression and tyranny of the wicked, from
which law and justice are suffering.
1911. Yahwe speaks withort any intqoducfory fownub
(such as 'And Yahwi: said'). He is about to raise up the war-
like ChaZdeans, who will achieve complete success.
1 1 2 - 17. Again wifhoat an introductory formula, the
prophet addresses Yahwi: once more. He cannot understand
how the God of Israel, himself holy and just can look an while
the sinner destroys the man who is better thin himself, how the
wicked is allowed to take men and people: like fish with hook
and net, and then to pay divine honours to these instruments of
his wealth and greatness.
2 1 : 'I stand upon my watch tower 'etc. The prophet awaits
the answer of Yahwb to his complain;.
2 2-4: 'Then Yahwe answered me ' etc. The prophet is
bidden write and set up where all may read them the joyous
tidings that help is coming in due time, and that the just who
waits patiently shall live by his faith.
1 Cp two recensinns of the Vitceprojhetarzrm with numerous
notes by E. Nestle, Marginalien u. Matejialien 2 1 esp.
26f:'57: also Delitzsch, D e Habmacuci j r o j h e t e w k z &us
e i n t e P J , '42, and Hamaker, Comm. in ZibeZ(zLm de vita e t
3norte jrojhrtaruwz, '33.
1921
HABAKKUK
2 5 8 Over the violent one who had made the nations his
prey these nations shall utter a tauirting song which is com-
priseh in five sections froiu w. 66 onward, each 'beginning with
*>>or'woe' (wv. 66-89-11 12-14 15-17 18-no-in the last section
the >)?is at the beginning of v. 19).
A . The taunting song just referred to stands apart as
a separate section within the first two chapters of the
book, although it is in connection with the preceding
prophecy. W e have therefore now to discuss 12-24.
The question we have to consider is, to whom does
this prophecy (12-24) relate? or, rather, to whom is
3. Chap, 12-24. salvation promised, to whom destruc-
tion threatened? Until quite recently
it was universally held that the latter were the Chaldeans
and the former the people subject to them, especially
Israel.
The ground for this belief was that in 1 1 4 8 2 5 8the crafty
and violent wrongdoer is altogether described as an imperial or
world-power, and the sufferers as an aggregate of nations ; and
since the only such power named is the Chaldean (1 6), it was
assumed that the prophecy was directed against this.
It is now, however, coming to be recognised that the
matter is by no means so simple. Scholars cannot shut
their eyes to the fact that in 1 6 the nation of the
Chaldeans appears, not as the object of a divine judg-
ment, but as its instrument.
It is Yahwb who will raise the Chaldeans up (P'?B 9>1) ; the
promise of victory is for them the threatening is for others.
Later, the relation of Yahwi: td the hostile power is reversed'
bnt in the text as we now have it this change does not come ou;
clearly, and there is confusion in consequence.l
The present position of the question may here be
briefly stated. T h e element of truth in the theories of
earlier scholars has of late been rediscovered by several
independent workers, notably Giesebrecht and Well-
ha~sen.~ The present writer also, with equal independ-
ence of predecessors, pointed out (St. Hi-., 1893, p.
3 8 3 8 ) that 1 4 and 1 1 2 should be brought together,
to which he added the entirely new theory that 15-11 is
not an independent earlier prophecy but an integral
part of the same prophecy removed from its original
place, and that this prophecy is a threatening addressed
not to Chaldea but to Assyria. It has, in fact, been
overlooked that the prophecy, if it contains a threatening
against a world-power, must be speaking not of one
world-power only, but of two-it., not only of the
oppressor but also of the destroyer of that oppressor.
Why not, 'indeed? H e who 'alone doeth great wonders'
both can and does avail himself of secondary causes. The
prophets are well aware of this, and Habakkuk himself, in his
threatenings, gives clear expression to this truth (2s). If, then
the prophecy were directed against the Cbaldeans we should
have expected to find Cyrus as in 11. Isaiah, the Medes as in
Is. 13 17, or Elam and the Medrs as in Is. 21 2 (cp also Jer.
51 27 J),mentioned by name as the instruments of YahnE's
1 The first to observe this was von Gumpach (Der P7.0$12.
Hab. :60) to whom de Goeje (review in Nieawe Jnarboeken,
etc. 61, p. 3 0 4 8 ) in the main assents. A full and dis-
crinkating account of their theories will be found in Kuenen's
0nd.PJ 2 362 ; a more condensed statement is given in the second
edition of this indispensable work, where the author's own re-
vised opinion wi1.I be read with profit (German translation by
Mfiller, 2 3 7 1 8 ) .
2 See his Beitriige ZMY Jesaiakritik, 197 ['go], where strong
arguments are brought to show (against Kuenen) that 112 ought
t o come immediately after 14. According to this scholar, the
appropriate place for 15-11 (which is a piece complete in itself)
is before 1 I. It is the Chaldeans, he thinks, who are here for
the first time announced : they are described with imagery
derived from the Scythians. The rest of the prophecy was
written under the Chaldean yoke, probably during the exilic
period.
3 See his KZ.Prodh. 1 6 2 3 ('92); (3), 1 6 5 8 ('98). Both with
regard to the.people addressed, and as to the origin of 1 5 - 1 1
he agrees with Giesebrecht ; hut he apparently makes all thi
prophecy pre-exilic. This it must he because 12.4 presupposes
the existence of the kingdom of Judah.
1922
 HABAKKUK
justice,l or at the very least the announcement made that a
warlike people should appear even if no name were given.
Instead of this, the power wkch is to cause the fall of the
oppressor is not even referred to in the divine response given
in 2 2-4 ; indeed it is extremely doubtful whether the fall itself
is spoken of in the obscure words of 2 4a.a
Now for our hoped-for solution. W e have detached
15-11 from its surroundings, and must study it in and
I t describes how YahwB,
4. 15-11 against who fQr itself.
speaks in the first person, calls
assyria. up a warrior people that he may give
it an unheard-of victory ; by the ' for' ( $ 3 ) in the be-
ginning of v. 6 this word of YahwB is linked to another
that must have preceded it. A divine word of such
deep import will exactly correspond to the prophet's
anxiety in 21. The divine response waited for begins
indeed in 2 2 , but after v. 4 we find an unaccountable
hiatus. Now, is it not obvious that the passage we
have alreadly isolated fills the hiatus, that it calls by
its name the mighty warrior nation which is the destined
conqueror of the oppressor? I t will be objected : we
cannot suppose that the Chaldeans are to abolish them-
' selves? Of course n o t ; but we have seen that the
theory which identifies them with that oppressor rests
on& on 16. If now the Chaldean power in 1 6 is re-
ferred to, not as the oppressor but as the oppressor's
conqueror, then the oppressor himself is the power
which was vanquished by the Chaldeans, in other words
Assyria : that is, the prophecy is directed not (as used
to be thought) against the Chaldeans but against the
Assyrians.
The view just indicated is supported by other weighty
considerations.
I. T h e exceedingly vivid picture of the oppressor in
I r 4 f . 2 5 does not suit the Chaldeans, whilst it fits the
Assyrians, the Romans of the East, perfectly.
Not all at once, but by numerous separate efforts spread over
three centuries, not merely by force of arms, but (as the angling
metaphor suggests) by policy and craft were so many petty
principalities and more than one impdrtant kingdom swept
into the hands of these robbers (cp Is. 105.1113J). The
Chaldean, on the other hand, far from being the unresting,
persistent, grasping amasser of wealth was simply the smiling
heir. His conquest of Babylon th;ew the empire of the
Euphrates and Tigris, like ripe fruit, into his hands and his
victoryat Carchemish over the pharaoh Necho did the &me with
Western Asia : within a very few years-within twenty, if we
reckon from the accession of Nabopolassar in Babylon-all
had been accomplished. This does not correspond well with
Habakkuk's figure.
2. Even if it were granted, however, that ultimately
perhaps the Chaldean ascendency did come to partake
of the character described, Judah at all events had no
time allowed her to experience it.
The conquest of Nineveh brought relief rather than oppression
to the whole of Western Asia ' and even after the battle of Car-
chemish ahout 605 B.C. Judah'would have had little to suffer at
t+ hands of the Chaldeans had not Jehoiakim's senseless renun-
ciation of his vassalage in 6 0 2 provoked their wrath. Between
that date and 597 at latest the prophecy might conceivably have
been directed against the Chaldeans; not later, because we
find in it no trace of the hard fate of Jerusalem and Jehoiakim.
This short interval is hardly long enough, however to acconnt
for such a picture as we have in 1143, and, moreAver, within
these years a prophecy of the fall of the Chaldean power would
certainly have been most premature.
3. T h e strong personification of the enemy in the
image of the fisher, as in 1 1 5 and elsewhere, is worthy
of attention.
I t is very appropriate in the case of the Assyrians, who are
always designated by the singular AX&&-; and a splendid in-
stance of a similar kind had already been supplied by Is. 10 5 8
(see especially v. 14). I t does not fit in with the plural Kuidim
1 M. Lauterburg (TkeoZ. 2. azs d. Sckv~eiz,1876, p. 7 4 8 )
draws this inference. He reads in 1 6 ' Persians for ' Chal-
deans,' and, accordingly, dates the whole book from the exile,
including ch. 3, which could, he thinks. in this way be as-
cribed t o the same hand.
2 Wellhausen justly remarks : However anxious he was
about it, Habakkuk's revelation is surprisingly meagre. To
bring at least some divine judgment out of it, the Septuagint
[@BqQ] has taken leave to translate in 2 4 O;C &%KG $ $v,y$ pow.
qv awd.' How near the acute critic is to a solution of the
riddle f But for his low opinion of the prophet he might have
reached it.
I923
HABAKKUK
iearly so well, and we notice that in 1 6 we at once meet with
he apposition, 'the people,' etc., a phrase which controls the
:ntire description down to v. IO.
Such is the only solution that meets the conditions
)f the problem. The argument is necessarily simple ;
io long historical discussion is required. T h e change
3f date involved is at most twenty-eight years, perhaps
:onsiderably less. T h e counter - hypothesis offered
2y Rothstein, however carefully elaborated, labours
inder insuperable difficulties.
We may therefore proceed to show how the theory
idopted illuminates the whole prophecy.
That the, '!aw' in 1 4 is that of Deuteronomy needs no show-
ing. The righteousness' claimed here and in 113 is the will
:or good produced by this law, the promulgation of which was
accompanied by such high hopes. The weight of the long-
:ontinued Assyrian suzerainty, however, has crushed all effort
'1 2-4). The righteous people feels itself worthy of freedom,
k d cannot comprehend how it is that Yahwe can passively
watch the violence done (1 12-17). After uttering this complaint
the prophet is commanded to write legibly upon a tablet that
geliverance is coming but must be waited for with patience
'2 1-4). Yahwe is about to send the Chaldeans, a warlike people
khich will subvert everything (16-10). Then the might of the
Assyrian will be at an end and disappea? without leaving a
trace (111 2 5). Thus far the exposition (given by Yahwi: him-
jelf) of the inscription in 2 3 J 3
This view of 1 2 - 2 5 has been variously received by
scholars.
Accepted without qualification by Cornill (E&d.(%Y ['96]), and
rejected by Davidson(Nah. Hub. and Zeph. t'961) and Nowack
[KZ.Propk. ['g~]),it was again accepted by GASm. (Twelve
Proph. 2 ['98]) and again rejected by Driver (Hastings, Ub' 2,
The objections
['gg]). .The
1'001). by Davidson :; for the
obiections are stated in detail bv
other side reference
&<r refe;ence may be made to GASm.GASm:
One point put forward by Davidsan in his Appendix
(137J)demands special notice. H e lays stress on the
fact that according to the recently discovered inscrip-
tions ' those who accomplished. the final destruction of
Niueveh were the Medes alone, the Babylonians having
no part in it.' He concludes ' that this course of events
can hardly be said to give any additional plausibility
to the interpretation of Habakkuk advocated by Prof.
Budde.' It is difficult, however, on the other hand, to
see how this ' course of events ' could militate against
the interpretation in question.
If the Chaldeans took no personal part in the final destruction
of Nineveh, they at least were in alliance with the Medes who
did, and they contributed all they could to the overthrow of the
Assyrian Empire. Even if this had not been the case it is
still conceivable that the prophet might by anticipation) have
erroneously assigned this part to them. If in point of fact,
however-as Winckler had conjectured and the inscriptions
now confirm-the Chaldeans held back from the final destructiou
of Nineveh and left the task to their allies simply because they
shrank from the wrath of the gods of Nineveh, the fact remains
that they were nlorally the authors of the overthrow as well as
the others, and the prediction of the prophet accordiug to the
interpretation in question was completely realised.
Those who reject this interpretation are themselves
divided into two camps. Nowack follows Giesebrecht
1 The death of ASur-b5ni-pal in 626 B.c., and the commence-
ment of Nabopolassar's reign over Babylon in 625, constitute
for our hypothFsis the superior limit. the inferpor is to be sought
in the battle of Megiddo in 609 and ;he fall of Nineveh in 608.
2 See his article on Hab. 1 and 2, St.Kr., 1894, p. 5 1 8 Like
the present writer he transposes 16-10so as to stand after 2 5a ;
but he infers from 12-4 (v. 5 an editorial insertion) that the
entire prophecy was originally directed against the godless in
/uduh, particularly King Jehoiakim, who was to be punished
by the Chaldeans. This prophecy (1 2-4 ~ z 13 a 2 1-5a 16-1014
[read iIYJW1 q a ) , originally delivered about 605 B.c., was, he
thinks. revised durinc the Exile; so as to make it an oracle
again& Babylon. Agginst this view compare the present writer's
article, Expos. May, '95, 3 7 2 6
8 For the necessary emendations of the text see Budde, Ezjos.
May, '95, p. 376 where an answer will be found to the objection
of Davidson, $ah. Ha6. Zejh. 55, that 'it is improbable that
the same thing should be said of two different nations ' (u. T I
of the Chaldeans. v. 16 of the Assvrians). It would seem that
1II also miist b; taken as referrhg to. the Assyrians, and in
the article already cited the present writer has even ventured
to substitute 1 1 for ~ impossible DONI before nn3 q5n* IN
~ the
y>y*> : 'then shall disappear like the wind, and pass away,
Asshur who has made his strength his God.' v. I I simply refers
back to I). 16 and explains it. [Ruben, more boldly, n>ixi[d
? n h 5mn p'p?~13vn n n i , 'Am I to sacrifice to the wind that
passes? Am I to make the angle my god?']
1924
 HABAEKUK
and Wellhausen in simply removing 15-11, as being an
older prophecy, from its present position and making
v. 12 follow immediately on v. 4. Davidson and Driver,
on the other hand, in spite of all the difficulties which
they themselves acknowledge, prefer to retain the section
in its present order, and thus essentially follow rhe
view of H. Oort ( T h .T , '91, pp. 3 5 7 8 ) : 12-4 speaks
only of the internal corruption of Judah, vv. 5 - 1 1
threaten this corruption with punishment through the
instrumentality of the Chaldeans.
On this assumption the prophet loses his way, and his
threatening comes to be directed against the Chaldeans. This
sudden change of front is attributed to the personal peculiarity
of the prophet. Only Driver is inclined to assign 12-11 (not,
as Giesebrecht Wellhiusen Nowack 15-11) to a date consider-
ably earlier t h h that of thifol1owing)sections.
B. The new section begins with 2 6 , not with 25.
Certainly 2 6 establishes a close connection with 2 5 by the
words 'Verily they all of them (i.a. 'all
6. Chap.. 26-20. peoples,' with which w. 5 closes) will'take
up a parable and a taunting proverb against
them and will say' (read slpd'l). This introduction, like similar
ones elsewhere as for example in Is. 14 3f presupposes that the
enemy has alr;ady fallen. Only then is ';here any occasion to
take up a ' mlshZl' against the enemy. What we read in the
following passage (2 66-20) however does not fit into the
situation. The evil that hehls the eiemy there lies wholly in
the future, and is throughout expressed in the future tense (cp
w.7f: IT 13 16f:). Rothstein accordingly has rightly deleted
the introductory clause, v. 6 a down to ilnN'1, as an editorial
addition. In reality it is only the prophet himself (not the
nations) who again takes up speech, after Yahwe has spoken,
cataloguing the oppressor's sins with ever-recurring woes, and
threatening him with punishment from God.
These things being so, we have in the first instance
to suppose that the enemy in 266-20 is the same as
the enemy in the opening section of the book-in other
words, the Assyrian. The strong personification cannot
mislead us here ; it corresponds exactly with what we
have already read about the Assyrian in 1 1 3 3 2 5. On
the other hand, the added introduction, v. 6a, leads us
to anticipate editorial additions also in the body of the
section.
As such may be pointed out (I) 2 12-14. Verse 12 is taken
from Mic. 3 IO, v. 13 is brought in as a Divine word (point,
with CWNAQ, ?+?) from Jer. 51 58 and 2,. 14 from Is. 119. In
suhstance the entire passage is in harmony bith the thought
and feeling of the post-exilic community, but has little to do
with Habakkuk's time. ( z ) m. 18-20. For it is wasting time
to charge a heathen king with his idolatry when Judah's one
desire is to be rid of his tyranny. The passage recalls the
manner of I1 Isaiah. Further, v. 18 stands before its proper
'woe ' in v. 19. These verses must be transposed. probably
21. 18.k a later amplification wrongly brought in' from the
margin. Verse 20 may have hdd its origin in Mic. 12 and Zeph.
17. It closes the passage not unfittingly, hut perhaps was
intended at the same time to prepare for the theophany in
chap. 3.
The remaining three woes have all a beauty of their
own and are strikingly characteristic. T h e first ( 2
66-3) declaims against the plundering of the nations :
the second (vv. 9-11) against the buildings for display
or defence carried out at the cost of violence and forced
labour ; the third (vv. 15-17) against the ravishment of
lands and peoples ( v . 15 to be taken figuratively), in
particular by the stripping of the forests and hunting-
grounds of Western Asia. That all this admirably
fits the case of Assyria is certain.]
The text, it is true, is very corrupt (see Wellhausen's sngges-
tions). Perhaps it was the mutilation of the text that gave
opportunity for the drastic revision we now have before us.2
To sum up : in chaps. 1 and 2 the Assyrians, whose
vassals the kings of Judah have continuously been since
6, Result a8 re- the time of Ahaz, are threatened with
g ~ chap.~ f:S the overthrow of their empire by the
Chaldeans. These Chaldeans, not to
1 For proofs see St. KY.,1893,p. 3 9 1 3
2 The view of Stade ( Z A T W 4 1 u - 1 m r'8.il). who exulains
2 qzoasan interpolation'speaking ofype"&vLpiI&tinian&rant.
cannot he discussed here : see Kue. Ei&. 2 3718 Againsi
Rothstein, who explains the whole section, in its original form,
of Jehoiakim, see Sf. Kr. as above, and Ex]60s. May 'gj, p.
3728
192.5
HABAKKUK
be confounded with the Babylonians, are a new and
rising people whose seat is on the seaboard to the S.
of Babylonia : once already in the seventh century they
were a menace to the Assyrian empire for a time ( 2 K.
20) ; the danger was again in sight from the time when
the Chaldean Nabopolassar secured for himself the
throne of Babylon (625)' In 16-ro the prophet de-
scribes them as a people beginning to be known by
hearsay, and the surmise of earlier scholars is no doubt
correct, that the Scythian irruption (from about 630
onwards), of which the prophet himself had personal
experience, supplied him, in part at least, with colouring
for his picture. The time is more precisely determined
by 1 4 as subsequent to Josiahs reformation in 621, but
also (with equal certainty) prior to the death of that
king in 609, so that, halving the difference, we may
take 615 or (by preference) a slightly earlier time to be
the date of composition. At that time the people of
Judah was conscious of righteousness : indeed, even
later, men saw in the destruction of Jerusalem and the
exile the punishment, not of their own sins, but of
those of king Manasseh ( 2 K. 2 4 3 Jer. 15 4), or of
their fathers (Jer. 3129 Ezek. 182). As the solitary
expression of this mental attitude to be found among
all the prophetic writings that have come down to us,
the book of Habakkuk possesses peculiar value, and
takes a high place among our sources for the history of
the period.
The oracle, then, expected from the Chaldeans
freedom and prosperity for Judah. T h e actual result
was quite different : they were the in'struments of Judah's
overthrow. Of course, the responsibility for this must
primarily be attributed to the bad policy of the kings of
Judah and to the fanaticism of the patriotic party.
Apart from these causes the prophecy of Habakkuk
had every likelihood of being fulfilled. Jeremiah too
could venture to promise the continuance of the kingdom
if only it could decide to yield to the Chaldeans.
W e can easily understand that in the exilic or the
post-exilic period a prophecy
. . . which had been so sadly
7. Successors falsified could not escape alteration. By
displacement of the passage in which
Pred~~&ors.good fortune was promised to the Chal-
deans (now16-10), and by other editorial
changes, including perhaps removal 02 the name of
Asshur, the prophecy was so transformed as to be
capable of being interpreted of the fall of the Chaldeans.
These alterations hardly belong to the exilic period,
which produced its own oracles against Babylon and
the Chaldeans. They are rather to be assigned to the
great period of editorial activity-the fifth, perhaps, or
the fourth century.
From a literary point of view, the original work of
Habakkuk in its main features is plainly dependent on
the great prophet of the preceding century, Isaiah.
T h e picture of the Assyrian tyrants in 113-1g recalls
Is. 1 0 5 8 , the announcement of the Chaldeans in 16-10
suggests that of the Assyrians in Is. 5 2 6 3 , and the three
woes of 266-17 the 'seven' woes of Is. 58-23 101-4.
At the same time it is true that, as Rothstein has been
at special pains to show, Habakkuk has also in details
a very close affinity t i t h his contemporary Jeremiah.
One must not be in a hurry to infer that he copies
Jeremiah : almost everywhere the facts of the case are
explained by identity of period and circumstances.
When all has been said, Habakkuk is entitled to be
regarded as a well-marked prophetical and poetical
personality : the remains of his work which have reached
us are among the finest examples of prophetic literature,
and have served as models to later writers, particularly
to the authors of Is. 1 3 21 1-10. Unfortunately the text
is not in good preservation, and cannot always be quite
satisfactorily restored.
11. The concluding section of the book has words at
1 For the proofs see Sf.KY.,
1893, as above.
1926
 HABAKKUK
its opening and at its close which mark it out as a
psaZmzis extra canonem and give it the
8, Chap. full apparatus of a poem fitted to be
apsalm. used in public worship. The only
singularity is the division of the descriptive words into
a superscription and a subscription: read # A prayer
of the prophet Habakkuk after Shigy8n6th (?)’ and
By the chief musician, with stringed instruments ’ re-
spectively. Clearly, what is here the subscription must
originally have come before v. I .
Adopting Wellhausen’s suggestion, niiq1 for n l ~ * ~we
d,
may restore the superscription thus n k n n113~12nr1n5
~ ‘ 3 piiJ>n$
1 ~ (to the chief musician, on stringed instru-
ments : a prayer of the prophet Habakkuk).2 [See,
however, S HIGGAION .]
I n any case the words prove, as Kuenen rightly
perceived, and as Cheyne (OPs. 156 f:) has well
shown, that the piece, before it had its proper position
assigned to it, belonged to one of the collections of
psalms that were in use in the worship of the temple.
Perhaps the only reason for its exclusion from the
Psalms as we now possess them was that the editors of
the prophetic canon had already appropriated it. They
did so because it bore Habakkuk‘s name, just as in
6,Pss. 146 147 148,which in the original text bear no
author’s name, are attributed to Haggai and Zechariah.
(See P SALMS .)
To Stade belongs the credit of having first shown
( Z A T W 4 I -q7. _
f ) that the authorshiD of Habakkuk is on
I
9, Authorship internal grounds impossible ; but it is
to Wellhausen that we owe the com-
of psalm. Dlete elucidation of this obscure com-
position (KZ. Prujh. 166, (I) 17of:). As he well remarks:
‘ I t is the community that is the speaker. Awe-struck,
it remembers that first great deed of Yahwk to which it
owed as it were its existence, and yet it prays, Renew
thy work in the midst of the years. The long-since
founded theocracy has fallen into ruin, and a new
fouiidation is desired. The child has become gray-
haired, and “ in the midst of his years ” a new birth is
sought for the sake of a happy final result, even though
it will not take place without bitter pangs.’$ In the
description of the theophany which follows-extending
from 3 3 to almost the end of the poem-the colours
are derived exclusively from the deliverance from Egypt,
as can be seen with sufficient clearness from vv. 3 7 8 3
(cp, however, MIZRAIM). With this description of
the deliverance wrought for the fathers that of the
new deliverance now prayed for and expected becomes
for the poet so blended that in remembering the one
he seems to behold the approach of the other.
Wellhausen leaves open the possibility that this may
not always have been the case, and that the proper
close of the poem has been lost, since vv. 17-19 cannot
be the genuine one. This is possible, but by no
means certain. Verse 17,which certainly seems strange,
may give some fresh touches to the picture of the fate
1 It alone shares with the Psalms the following peculiarities :
theuse of the word Selah (vu.3 g 13; in the Psalms seventy-one
times). the expression nsJ& (‘to’ or ‘by.’ ‘the chief musician’
w. 19 : in the Psalms fifty-five times) ; the immediately following
expression ~ I I ~ * x ?(‘with’ or ‘on’ ‘stringed instruments’; so
t o he read, see below), used in u. 19 and in Pss.4 G 54 67 76; the
word ?)?e, ‘prayer,’ used to designate a poetical piece (u. I :
Pss. 17 86 90 102 142 : cp also Ps. 72 20, according to which all
Psalms admit of being called ‘prayers’); the use of the 5
axctoris in v. I (as also after in Pss. 17 SG 90 102); the
word p’@ (in plu.), if it be genuine(Ps. 7 ; see SHIGGAION).
2 It would be ecqentric to argue from MT’s mi*]]> that
Habakkuk was a Levite and temple chorister : yet, probably
enough, the inscription of Bel and the Dragon (cp above) pre-
supposes this inference.
3 Wellhausen has put the case ahove so brilliantly that Oort’s
defence of the traditional view falls to the ground. To set aside
the liturgical notes in 3 1 and 196 as editorial additions, and
account for the obscurity and want of order in chap: 3 from the
idiosyncrasy of Habakkuk, as in chaps. 1 and 2, IS certainly
inadequate.
I927
HACHILAH, HILL O F
of the hostile people; but ww. 18f. present not only a
very appropriate contrast to this, but also a thoroughly
typicalpsalm-epilogue(seePs. 135 [6]f: 261rf: 528 [IO]/
5916 [17]f: 7 5 r o [ g ] f : ) , and no sure inference can be
drawn from the borrowing of v. Ign from Ps. 1832 13316
Elsewhere also (as could easily be shown) the poem
frequently recalls the psalms, and particularly the latest
psalms. If we want a qnite infallible indication of post-
exilic date, we have it in the special application of the
phrase ‘ YahwB‘s anointed’ (v. 13)-i.e., in the transfer-
ence of the kingly title to the kingless but consecrated
people (We. rightly refers here to Ps. 288 [&?PART
inpi] 849 [IO] 8938 [3g] 51 [5z] 105 15, also to Dan.
727). The very late divine name ‘ ~ 1 S . h ’( w . 3) is also
a decisive proof of the late date of the Psalm of
Habakkuk (see P S A L M S ) . ~
The poetical value of the composition is not slight ;
but it suffers greatly from corruptions of the text
(especially in vv. 9-11 13 f:), in correcting which Well-
hausen has rendered excellent service. [See also H O R N ,
MIZRAIM, O N [ii.], V ILLAGE , 6, and cp Ruben, IQR
114518 (’99), who rejects vv. 2, 17-19 as later additions,
and arranges the genuine psalm in three stanzas of nine
lines each, with ‘ corresponsio,’ according to the theory
of D. H. Muller.]
The fullest catalogues of the earlier works on Habakkuk will
be found in the otherwise unimportant commentaries of A. A.
Wnlff (, __,
‘n Dqd L. Reinke (‘70)~where no
n l -.
10. Literature. few:; than I 35 treatises are mentioned.
Among modernworks, besides those referred
to in the course of this article, Franz Delitzsch’s Commentary
(‘43) should not be overlooked (cp also O T Histovy of Re-
deem$tiun, 126 [‘BI]; Isaiah(t),ET 1 2 2 [‘go]); see also A. E.
?avidson, Nahum, h’ahakkuk andZephaniah (Cambr. Bible),
.W. Nowack, Die Kieinen ProPheten in HK, ‘96‘
$ k m . The Book o f t h e Tzueive Projhefs 2 (Expos. Bible):
98. On Hab. 3 see also Nestle, Z A TW 20 167f: (1900).
K. B.
HABAZINIAH, RV Habazziniah (n:t?fln ; xaBa-
C[E]IN [BHAQ]), a Rechabite, or rather the home of a
Rechabite (Jer. 353). The name seems to be a corrup-
tion of 5y7?, K ABZEEL [ q . ~ . ] . p and n were con-
founded ; i intntded from n*~iw. Kabzeel was a place
in S. Judah. (6ee, however, N AMES , 39.)
T. K. C.
HABBACUC ( ~ M B ~ K O Y[BQ
M Theod.] cud. 87 [a]),
Bel and Dragon, 33, 35, 39, RV H ABAKKUK [q.v.].
HABERGEON (H?nl?), Ex. 2832 39 23 AV; RV
C OAT OF MAIL. See B REASTPLATE i.
HABOR (7\2.g,a B w p [BAL]), a river in the land
of G OZAN , near which were settlements of the Israelites
deported by Sargon in the time of Hoshea, 2 K. 176=
1811( a g l w p [B]), and also, according to the critically
emended text of 1Ch. 5 2 6 ( x + p [BA]), of the trans-
Jordanic Israelites deported in the reign of Tiglath-
pileser 111. It was the Habur of the Assyrians ( a name
which it still retains), the Chab6ras of classic writers
(apoppas [Strab.], apoupas [Isidore of Charax], apwpa
[Zosimus], xapwpas [Ptol.]). It is a tributary of the
EUPHRATES [q.w.], which it en’ters about 36” N. lat.
For references to the Habur in the Asiyrian annals see KB
139 (Tiglath- ileser I. hunts elephants on Its bank), and 197 101
(Abur-pasir-a%almentions the Habur and its ‘mouths’ in descrih-
ing his conquests). Several important places lay near it.
Cp. Del. Par. 1 8 3 3 See CHEBAR.
HACHALIAH, RV Hacaliah (n$Jn, probably a
corruption of Vp)n, Hilkiah ; scarcely for 3$??n,
‘wait for YahwB,’ 5s 23, 34, 7 9 ; AXahta [KAL]),
the father of N EHEMIAH (Neh. 11, X E ~ K E I [AB ] , - K I O Y
[L]; 10 I [z], axehla [W). T. K. C.
HACHILAH, HILL OF (+n? nm?, E X E A ~
[BAL] ; in 1 S. 261 XEhMAe [E], &XI?&
[A]), a hill in
the wilderness of Judah, associated with the wander-
1 In Hab. 1II read >$N!(suffix forms of i l h d o not occur).
2Read ‘ In Halah an$ by Habor the river of Gozan and in
Harhar a city of Media. See HARA.
1928
 HACHMONI
ings of David twice (1S. 2319 2611:). On the former
passage, see H ORESH . I t relates how the men of ZIPH
[q.w., 21 told Saul that David had found hiding-places
‘ in HfirEshHh, in the hill of HgchilLh, which is on the
S. of the JEshimBn.’ In the latter passage, however,
the same persons describe the same hill as being ‘ i n
front of the Jeshimon’-Le., where the desert begins.
T h e second definition alone is correct.
In I S. 23 19 ‘on the south of the Jeshimon’ is an error intro-
duced from II.z4(where the wilderness of Maonis referred to; see
HORESH).Further references to the name are presupposed by
e5 in I S. 23 14s 19 26 I . In 23 14, where MT merely gives i n 2
‘in the mountain,’ MSS of @S give a combination of readings,
including ais bpos ~b a + x p J S e s and Zv qj ni airxp4Scc; text of d ( I K. 1236 Lag.; I224e Swete), which is evi-
a++ corresponds to n$>n. Possibly for a6xpiu8sr we should
read l p a u p 6 v , and so forth. So also in Mic. 48 for acxp. read
&paup& (=$). Bentley’s suggestion of Zv &paup+ ~ 6 a yfor to in I K. 1 1 1 9 was Ano (Klo. reads nijnN, Ahnoth).
in 2 Pet. 1 1 9 seems indispensable. On & v-5
Zv a G x p V p 2 ~ 6 n o
’4)SebHORESH.
K a l U f i (U. 1
Conder ventures to find a trace of the name Hachilah
in the Tuhret el KijZE, a ridge which runs down from the
plateau of Zif towards the desert of En-gedi. T h e
name. is, however, by no means certain. In I S. 2328
we meet with the name nijyinnn (EV Hammahlekoth).
dB’sXeXpuO in 261 favours a reading n h n s n , which
would be miswritten for nip!np?, the name found in
2328. A hill with rocky clefts seems to be intended.
The Onom. (OSi2i 2563 ; 120 15) confounds Hachilah with
KEILAH. Glaser, not very plausibly, reads ‘ Hachilah’ for
‘Havilah’ in I S. 157 [see TELEM i.1. T. K. C.
RACHMORI. Jehiel, tutor of David’s sons, is
called ‘ the son of Hachmoni’ in E V of 1Ch. 2732
(>;n?rj-p, o T OY AXAMEI [BIB ... -MANI. [AI, . ..
A M ~ X ~ N CLI).
I XoGSaS [A], asas ,[L]). Gen. AV a n i I Ch. AVlIlg. and so,;
Jehiel is either an imaginary personage, whose description is
borrowed from the Jashoheamof I Ch. 11 I I (see HACKMONITE, RADADEZER (1TYttg. ‘ Hadad is help,’ $5 28, 43;
THE). or. as Marquart (Fzmd. 16)supposes, Jehiel is a substitute
for Ishbaal, which is ‘explained a i 5pgCL 5F.n;. Certainly
David’s sons had a lion-hearted tutor, on the second hypothesis,
for Ishbaal and Jashobeam are identical. T. K. C.
HACHMONITE, THE. I n I Ch. 1111 JASHOBEAM where except aspacap [B*] in 2 S. 10 16 and so B in I 6.11 14 ;
(4.V.I 1) i s c a l l e d ’ ? ~ ~ ~ (AXAMAN[€]l
n-l~ [B-41. - M A N N I A in z S. 8101; a s p a r a p [A in I Ch. 1 g and NA in I Ch.
[K], 8 e K e M I N h [L]), RV ‘ t h e son of a Hachmonite’ 1[ I8Ch.
(AV quite incorrectly, ‘ an Hachmonite ’). It has been
pointed out (see TAHCHEMONITE) that the true descrip-
tion of Jashobeam, or rather, Ishbaal, is most probably
‘ a man of Beth-cerem. ’
This should also he substituted f0:- ‘ the son of a Hachmonite’
.in I Ch. 11 11, and ‘the son of Hachmoni’ in I Ch. 2 i 32.
T. K. C.
HADAD (t??, 9 57 ; AAAA [BADEL] ; a Canaan-
itish and, some think, Aramaean name of the storm-
god, who was known also as RammEn, Bir, and
Dadda; cp Winckler, AT Forsch. 69, Schr. KGF,
371-395,538 ; KAT 200-z06,454 ; Tiele, BAG 5 2 5 ;
Hilprecht, Assyriaca, 76-78 ; Baethgen, Beitr. 67.
T h e first-mentioned of the four gods of the N. Syrian
kingdom of Ya’di is Hadad [Zenjirli inscr.]. These
references also illustrate the name B EN - HADAD ).
I . h. Bedad, fourth king of Edom ; Gen. 36 35f: (v. 35 aSa+
[E]), I Ch. 146f: See BELAii., I .
2. Eighth (?) king of Edom, I Ch. 1 5 0 (a.VLOS papas
[BL ; om. ut. p. A], v. 51 a68u [B]) ; miswritten H A D A R
[q. v . ] . Gen. 36 39. See BELAii., I . T h e name of his
city was PA‘U[p.~.]or Pa‘i. Probably, however, there
is a considerable error in the text.
Pa‘u is almost certainly corrupted from Pe’or, and this very
prohably from Becar,an alternative reading to Achbor in I Ch.
1 4 9 . ‘Son of Achhor,’ or ‘Son of BSor,’ however, does not
belong to BAAL-HANAN [ g . ~ . ,XI,who is really this Ha6ad’s
father. Thus the name of Hadad‘s city is not really given;
there was a lacuna in the text.
He married a N. Arabian-a Misrite or Mnsrite,
named M EHETABEL [q.v., I], who is also mis-described
in the received text. Most probably he lost his life in
the massacre referred to in I K. 1115f. The cause of
the massacre isnnrecorded ; probably it was a retaliation.
Cp D AVID, 3 8 (c), EDOM, 6.
1929
HADAD-RIMMON
3. (In I K.1117 ii~; ac%p [BAL].) According td
the MT, which presents many difficulties, Hadad was a
royal prince of Edom who escaped with some ‘ Edomites,’
servants of his father, when Joab massacred ’ every male
in Edom,’ by an obscurely indicated route to MiSraim
or Egypt ( I K. 1114-22 ; but ‘ Misraim ’ should rather
be ‘ MiSrim ‘ ; see below). There he was welcomed,
and received the sister of the queen Tahpenes as his
wife. By her he had a son G ENUBATH [q.v.]. On the
death of David he returned home, and became ‘ a n
adversary to Solomon’ (cp a. 25). According to the
parallel narrative of the marriage of Jeroboam in L.’s
dently copied from a narrative of the marriage of
Hadad, the name of the ‘ Egyptian’ princess referred
This reading (Ano), though accepted by Klo., Wi.,‘Benz., Ki.
as genuine, is merely a corruption of ninu, ‘sister (of)’;
TAHPENES [g.v.] is also certainly corrupt. Indeed, textual
criticism is much needed in this narrative. It was not to
‘ Migraim’ (Egypt) hut to ‘Misrim’ (the N. Arabian Mugri)
that Hadad and his Mizrite followers fled, and he went there
because MEHETABEL [ q . ~I], his mother, was a Mi3rite.
This N. Arabian land appiars, both at this time and later, to
have had a keen interest in the affairs of Palestine(see MIZRAIM,
5 z [b]). In what the ‘mischief’ which Hadad did to Israel on
his return consisted, we are not informed (see EDOM, 5 6).
See Winckler, A T Unterstrch. 1-6: Benzinger, in K H C ; Ki.
in H K ; Che. QR 11551.556 (‘99). Winckler’s attempted
fI
analysis of the adad narrative, though it has given a healthy
stimulus to critics, was not preceded by a sufficiently thorough
examination of the text. T. IC. C.
HADAD (LlTJ [Gi.Ba.]), eighth son of Ishmael, Gen.
25 15 RV (so Sam. i XoSSav [AI, X a h S a [Dl, XoSSa8 [ELI ; Jos.
Ant. i. 124 X6Sapor [conj. ~ 0 8 a S o s l ) I Ch. 130 (XouSau [Bl
printed Heb. editions. HADAR.
2 S. 8 3& 2 S. 10 1 6 s and I K. 11 23 where @SA has aSa8c&p
[sic; cp v. 14 in BLI) or as so;, codd. and I Ch. 18 3 s
1 9 1 6 3 (hest codd.), akd ds EV also zS.10, and Pesh. and
@=AI. everywhere, Hadarezer (1:~ ?>?J ; aSpaa<ap [BL every-
3 1 with varr. in N, a8paCaprb [in I Ch. 18 31 and in N* aS&=
18 51, rSpaa<ap [ I Ch. 19 161 ; the Hehrew is also written
with Mukkef everywhere in some MSS. An old Aramaic seal
bears the letters i t y i i n ; and a cuneiform ipscription has Dad-
‘idri ; cp Euting, Bey. der Bed. AKud., 85, p. 679 ; Baeth.
Beitr. 67).
The name of the king of Aram-zobah, who was de-
feated by David. See A RAM , § 6, D AMASCUS , $ 6f.,
ZOBAH.
IIADAD-RIMMON (fit37l’Jq; POUNOC [BKAQI’];
e;
Aduduemnzon),according to the usual inter-
pretation of Zech. 1211,a place in the plain
currentof
views.
Megiddo (IVlJpnugg?) where a great
lamentation had taken place ; it is further
held that the occasion of the mourning was the death
of JOSIAH(q.v., I ) on the battlefield near Megiddo.
This view dates from Jerome, who states (Comm. in
Zach. ) that Adadremmon is a village near Jezreel now
called Maximianopolis. T h e latter place was an im-
portant station between Caesarea and Jezreel, and von
Raumer has, with probability, identified it with Legcon
or Legio, the ancient MEGIDDO(9.7~).
What authority (if any) Jerome had for his assertion, we know
not ; at any rate, we cannot connect Maximianopolis-Adad-
remmon with the modern village RumrnPneh (so Van de Velde,
Baudissin), for to this theory there is a geographical objection
(see Buhl, 209)~and any place with a pomegranate tree might h e
called Rimmon (whence RummPneh). Apart froln this, however,
the traditional theory labours under these difficulties-that the
state mourning for Josiah cannot have been elsewhere than in
Jerusalem (2 K. 23 295) and that Megiddo is lim, not ]imD
The Targ. mentions ;he Josiah-theory only in !he second
place, and combines with it another, according to which Hadad-
rimmon $01, of Tab-rimmon, was the slayer of Ahab, king of
Israel, io’that the phrase of the rophetic writer of Zech. 12 11
really means ‘the mourning for Atah hen Omri.’
Baudissin (Stud. zur Sem. ReL-gesclt. 1320) gives a new
form to the Josiah-theory, ex laining the disppted phrase, ‘as
the mourning for the battle o r Hadad-rimmon. This is surely
I930
 HADAR
unnatural: nor can it he proved that there ever was such a
place as Hadad-rimmon.
Hitzig and Movers see a reference to the mourning for the
mythic ADONIS (q.u.) mortally wounded by a hoar(Macroh. 1 21) ;
‘women weeping for Tammuz ’ are referred to in Ezek. 8 14 ;
‘the only one’ (Tn$ Zech. 12 IO may also, it is held,l refer to
Adonis. The ohvious objection is that RIMMON(q.v., i.) is
certainly the Assyrian Storm-god RammZn. Even if the pome.
granate tree was sacred to Tammuz, it is hazardous to suppose
that Tammuz was called Rimmon.
There is need of a new theory which shall unite the
elements of truth in earlier theories, and justify itself
a. New theory. from some new source. ‘ T h e mourn-
ing for the only one ’ and ‘ the mourn-
ing of Hadad-rimmon-’ are parallel ; the reference is to
the mourning for T AMMUZ (q.o.). T h e original read-
ing, however, was not Hadad-rimmou. eBAQF read
simply Rimmon ( im). What then is the niythological
name nearest to Ihmmon that can stand in such a con-
nection? The answer is, Either Migdon, or some name
out of which Migdon is corrupted.
Jensen has conjectured that fiayr8wv in the apocalyptic appa.
y a S w (see ARMAGEDDON) may be identical with piyaSwv in
vccrprya8ov, the name of a god of the underworld, corresponding
to cpeq~vah,the Babylonian Persephone :2 and it has elsewhere
been shown (see GOG) that ‘ Gog’ and ‘ Magog’ in Ezek. 38 39
are both corruptions of Migdon. Still the Greek p‘yaSwv and
the Hebrew Migdon do not seem to he’identical. YsufptyaSov
is probably Eshmun-Adon (Eshmun and Adonis were identified
in Cyprus) ; if so, piyaSwv comes from puvaSwv. But p ” ,
Migdon, given by MT in Zech. 12 11, is most probably a corrup-
tion of ~li[uIin[nI-z’.e., Tammuz-Adon. This is suggested by
the only possible emendation of the corrupt word ngpzl in Zech.
12 TI, and of the equally corrupt word in Is. 66 17 (see
TAMMUZ), viz. nisp. The women who wept for the l W , or for
l Tammuz-Lord,’ are naturally referred to in a prophecy so much
influenced by Ezekiel. On the other hand, whereas Ezekiel
takes Tammuz as a symbol of the power opposed to God (cp
Belial if this comes from Belili the name of the sisfer of
TamAuz, and goddess of the uAderworld, see BELIAL) the
author of Zech. 121-136 merely refers to the mournink for
Tammuz as an image of the mourning of the house of David and
the inhabitants of Jerusalem for some great offence committed
by them in the past. Render, ‘In that day there shall be a
great mourning in Jerusalem as the mourning of the women who
weep for Tammuz-adon.
‘ Hadadrimmon ’ may be neglected ; apparently it
owes its origin to a scribe’s error. By a common acci-
dent pi>” became pin; then a too clever scribe cou-
verted Inn into ]mi, and glossed Rimmon by Hadad
.(Hadad and Rammiin or Rimm6n were in fact identified).
Thus the plausible reading Hadad-Rimmon grew up,
and the door was opened to Jerome’s misapprehension.
Possibly ‘ Armagedon ’ in Rev. 16 16 (AV) is due to the
conflation of two readings, ‘Magedon’ and ‘Adar-
remman’ (asappeppav, for Hadadrimmon). For a
parallel to the combination of pi and p n , two rival
readings in Zech. 1211,see MIGRON. T. K. C.’ r98] mentions a Jewish name Addu-ramu [see ADONI-
RADAR (774 ; apbe yioc Bapae [AI, a. yi. Bapah RAM]. Cp Sayce, RP(’4 470 r901.1 For another view
[E], apah ytoc Bapah [E], apae yi. B. [L]), a king
of Edom (Gen. 3639.1.). See HADAD,i. ( 2 ) .
HADAR (SIC [some printed edd.], 775 [sa. Gi.]),
Gen. 25 15 AV ; I Ch. 1 3 0 AVmg,, RV H A D A D[ii.].
HADAREZER (7Iv l??), z S. 1016. See HADAD-
EZER.
HADASHAH (@YtJ-i.e., ‘new [town]’ ; a h a c a ~ Govpav[BAL] [Josephus has hS&papos]=P>h: (on which form cp
fB], -ca [A], -CAI [L]), a town in the lowland of Judah,
named between Zenan and Migdal-gad (Josh. 1 5 3 7 t ) .
According to the Mishna (%ni6in, 5 6 ) it was the smallest
place in Judah. Sayce (Pat.Pal. 165, 236) finds this name in
the lists of Rameses 11. and 111. : hut see W. M. Muller’s
remark ( A s . w. Eur. 166 top). I t is to be distinguished from rach), a region of Syria, mentioned by an archaism in
ADASA (qa.). T. K. C.
HADASSAH (73??,5 69,‘myrtle’ : cp M ~ P T I A , does
MYPPINH; but see M YRTLE ), the Jewish name of
ESTHER [q.v., J 71 in Esth. 2 7 (om. e B K A L ) .
1 So Movers Lenormant Lagarde.
a See Hal& ‘Le Rapt dk Persephon.4par Pluton,’ Rev. S&.,
‘93,pp. 37z&:cp Jastrow, R e l Bad. and Ass. 584.
‘931
HADRACH
HADATTAH (fiBTJ), Josh. 1525. See HAZOR-
HADATTAH.
HADES ( ~ A H c ) . I . The word occurs ten times i;
RV of N T (AV hell ’) for the nether world (but ‘,unto Hades
in Mt. 11 23 is metaphorical) ; in I Cor. 15 55 [not TI: WHI, Rev.
68, and 2013f: this nether world is personified like Shed in
Has. 13 14. I n Mt. 16 18 it is represented as a ’city with gates
like Shea1 in Ps. 9 73 L14l (see GATE).
2. Hades is @‘s common rendering of shGZ, h W (see
SHEOL). But also cmployed to render other expressions : (a)
Is. 14 19 (113 *>x~),38 18 ( i ~ - ~ seel P~ : (6) Is.
IT ~ ; 28 15 Prov.
14 12 1625 (nnJ Job 33 22 (nlD) ; see DEAD, THE, 5 2 ; (c) Ps.
94 17 115 17 (anli); see SILENCE : (d)Job 38 17 (nink) ; see
SHADOW OF DEATH, On the Hebrew equivalent, see SHEOL
and (on the whole subject) ESCHATOLOGY (see index unde;
I ShGI ’).
RADID (1’19;aA[a]ih [AL]; cp the corrupt
CALAMOLALUS of I Esd. 5 2 2 ) . Our notices of Hadid
are all post-exilic. Its people, along with those of Ono
and Lod (Lydda), are included in the list (see E ZRA ii..
J 9, § 8 6 ) of ‘children of the province,’ Ezra 2 3 3
(apo8 [B])=Neh. 737 ( a h [BK]), and according to
Neh. 1 1 3 4 8 ( a & d [KC.amg.inf.L]; BK*A om. passage),
these were among the places in Jndaea that were in-
habited by Benjamites.
The list of Benjarnite towns, however, in Josh. 18 meutious
none of them, though, according to the Mishna C h Z k h i n , 9 6),
Hadid and Ono were fortified as early as the time of Joshua,
and I Ch. 8 12 asserts that Ono and Lad, with the towns thereof,
were ‘built ’ by Shemed a descendant of Benjamin.
Hadid, or, in its Greek form, A DIDA in the Shephelah,
(as[e]t&c [KA]), but also ‘over against the plain’ (&
d8Borr [A], a8etvots [K”], asera. [KC.a], a8cporr [VI,
~ a r d~p6uw?rov700 ?rcSiou) was at any rate fortified and
‘ made strong with gates and bars ’ by Simon the Macca-
bee ( I Macc. 1 2 3 8 1 3 1 3 ; cp GASm. N G 202).
As ASS& or A8da it is also referred to by Josephus, from
whom (BJ iv. 91) we learn that it commanded the road from the
coast to Jerusalem.
Jerome (Onont. 93 I ) describes Aditha as near Dios-
polis (Lydda) in an easterly direction. This enables
us with considerable probability to identify it with the
modern eZ-fladithe, about half an hour eastward from
Lydda, and since Thotmes 111. in his Karnak list
refers to Hadid among other southern cities as Hnditi
(no. 76), it is probable that the modern form correctly
represents the ancient name. Cp WMM As. 21. Bur.
159,165. T.K. C.
HADLA1 ( 9 Vl), :_ an Ephraimite, father of Amasa,
2 Ch.2812 (xoah P I pahhi [AI, ahht [LI).
HADORAM ( D j i c , ‘the beloved of the High One’?
Baeth. Beitr. 67, n. 6. Possiblyfor Dy?#.
Hilprecht
see Hommel, E+. T.10329 [Ap. ’991 : a8wpap [L]).
I. A son of Joktan (Gen. 1027; osoppa [AE], -p [Ll : I Ch.
121’ om. B doupav [AI). The name is obscure. D. H.
Mulier (Bur;. u. Schlasser, 1360f:) and Glaser (Skizze 2 4 2 6 3
435) compare Dauram near Sari% (which is identified w;th UZAL
[q.v.l)in Yemen. The name seems to appear in Sabiean as
oilin (CISiv. 1 I).
2. Son of To1 (see TOW): I Ch. 18 I O (cSoupaap [BI, -pap [HI,
Soupap [AI). The same form should be restored (with Ew.
We., Bu., HPSm.) for JORAM in z S . 8 r 0 , where C5 has df.
IDDO ii.). Sayce’s remark on the name ‘ Jorarn’(Ear& Hist.
He6.423) will hardly be accepted.
3. 2 Ch. 10 18, see ADONIRAM.
HADRACH (q?ln,’ceApax [BK: - K . AQ]=Shad-
Zech. 9 1 (late : see Z ECHARIAH , B OOK OF, § 6).
‘A word has Yahwk sent into Hadrach, and upon Damascus
it light : for Yahwss are the people of Aram, as well as all
the tribes of Israel.‘a
1 Baethg. (Beitr. 76) compares SamaS-rammin, A&-rammsn,
Ilu-ramman.
2 Insert n$$ after l?? (Is. 9 7 [8]),and, with Ball, read P!g Op
(Am. 15). SeeJQR 10 58rcg8).
1932
 HAGAB HAGAR
In Rabbinic times, the name was explained on the [BA]). This campaign is perhaps identical with that
same principles as A BRECH as 'sharp-tender,' a described in wv. 18-22 (v. 19 oi dyapaioi [A], w. 20 dyepuioi
compound name of the Messiah. T h e view did not [B], dyop. [A]) of the same chapter, which refer to
satisfy every one, however, and R. JosB, whose mother victories gained by the tribes beyond Jordan over the
was from Damascus, identified Hadrach with a locality Hagrites and other foes (Jetur, Naphish, and Nodab).
near that city, bearing the same name.' This evidence The numbers, it is true, are here enormously exaggerated,
stood alone till the name Hatarika was found in the and the whole story is moulded in accordance with the
Assyrian inscriptions sometimes beside Damascus, religious conceptions of the later Jews; but observe
sometimes beside Zoba, Zemar, and Arka. In the list that the principal booty consists of camels ; the people
of eponyms, three expeditions to the land or city of in question must therefore be nomads. In I Ch. 2731
Hadrach are recorded in 772, 765, and 755 ( C O T (6 yasapr [L], 6 yapekvs [B], 6 dyuptrvs [A]), a
2 1 9 0 3 ; cp Del. Par. 279) - and in Tiglath-pileser Hagrite (RV ; AV ' Hagerite ') figures as chief overseer
111.'~account of his war with 'Az(s?)riyAhu Jaudai' of David's flocks ; but Hagri ( ' a Hagritk') in I Ch.
(see UZZIAH) the city of Hatarika is mentioned as 1138 is an incorrect reading (see H AGRI ). Ps. 836 [7]
tributary to Assyria ( K B2 27). (oiayyapvuoc [B*KAR], oi ayapvuoi [BbT]) (Maccabean)
Lately the name Hadrach has been detected in a corrupt word mentions the Hagrites (EV Hagarenes) among the
in the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5 2 1 . see KADESH2). Hadrach enemies of Israel.
seems to have formed part of the Hittite country,'and furnished
men to Sisera's army. Certainly too l-,yn should he restored in Moreover Eratosthenes (cited by Straho, 767) classes the
' A y p a b r with the Nabatzans and the Chaulotzans, placing
Ezek. 47 15 for the impossible q?.??. See H ETHLON . them to the E. of Petra. Dionysius (Per&. 956), who refers
T. K. C. to the 'Aype'es in connection with the Nahatreans and the
Chaulasians seems to have derived his information from
RAGAB (229, 5 68, 'grasshopper' : cp H AGABA , Eratosthenis. Ptol. (5 18), presumably following some ancient
authority, couples the 'A p a b with the Barava;oc,-i.e., the
HAGABAH ; [BAL]), afamily of N ETHINIM ( q n . ), inhabitants of Bashan, a d)lstrict which, at least during certaiii
in the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA ii. J 9) ; Ezra periods, was occupied by Israelites. These statements are all
246zNeh.748 (rAB&. [ K ] , om. M T bB E V ) = I Esd. in harmony.
5301. (AGABAAV, ACCABAR V ; AKKABA [B], r A B b The Hagrites, we must suppose, were a pastoral
[A]). T h e same name is borne by a N T prophet people who wandered hither and thither in the Syrian
(AGABUS : Acts1128 2110). desert to the E. of the Israelites. What is the precise
ethnographical relationship denoted by the portrayal of
RAGABAH (n?$fl, 5 68: 'grasshopper,' Ezra Hagar as the mother of Ishmael remains altogether
[Aram.]) or Hagaba (K??:, Neh.), a family of obscure, like so many other genealogical affinities
N ETHINIM ( 9 . w . ) in the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA between the mythical ancestors of tribes.'
ii. 5 9 ); Ezra245 ( A y A B a [BALl)=Neh. 748 (araBa Hagrites, The Agrrpi of Pliny, 0 28 (5 have no connection with the
but dwelt, on the contrary, in Yemen ; the occurrence
[BNL], & r r A B A [ A ] ) = I Esd. 529 (GRABA, RVAGGABA, of the name in another passage (a. 161)depends on a hazardous
. -
A r r A B A [Ba'b "'g.Al, A r A B A [L]). conjecture.
In later times the term ' Hagarenes ' was applied by Christians
HAGAR, and Hagrites or Hagarenes (VP,2D'?$g, to Muslims and from the name of Hagar the Syrians even
formed the :erb ahgay or ethhaggar 'to become a Muslim,' as
D'K(')y;?: & r a p [BADEQLI, 01 A r A p H N O l [BTL]). well as the noun MahpZyZ, 'a M h i m whence are derived
Hagar is introduced to us in Gen. 161 [J] as an the late Greek words paya i ~ s payapdpds, , paya i&iv ; but
EzvDtian slave of Sarah. a descriDtion which is reDeated all this is based simply on t i e OT, the name of the gondwoman
"3 I being attached, by way of insult, to her supposed descendnnts.
1. Hagar in by P in w. 3. All'the three narrators (J, T. N.
E, and P) agree that she bore Ishmael A word must be added regarding the use h a d e of
to Abraham, and it is plain that the the story of Hagar by Paul (Gal. 424-26). The apostle
story of her flight or expulsion symbolically expresses 3. ~ a ~ . 4 2neither 4 ~ affirms nor denies the historical
the separation of the Ishmaelites from the Israelites.3 character of the narrative; his sole
W e have two parallel versions (Gen. 16 16 2 4-7 11-14 interest is in its esoteric meaning. T o this he attaches
[J] 21 8-21 [E]) of this story and of the oracle respecting the greatest weight, as it enables him, in accordance
Ishmael given at a well in the desert (see BEER-LAHAI- with Rabbinical methods, to prove the temporariness
R O I ) ; these have been harmonised by means of an of the Jewish religion. Hagar and Ishmael, Sarah and
interpolated passage (168-10)in which Hagar is com- Isaac are therefore allegoric ( d h h ~ y o p o d p m z;) the
.manded to return to her mistress. T h e interpolator, Sinaitic ' covenant ' corresponds to Hagar, the Christian
however, does not express the intention of the original to Sarah (contrast Philo's explanation : Drummond,
tradition : probably J made Hagar give birth to Ishmael PhiloJudaus, 2 2 4 3 8 ) . As Hagar was a bondwoman,
a t Beer-lahai-roi (We. C H 2 ) z ~).f . That Hagar appears so too is the present Jerusalem ; as Sarah was free, so
as a slave-woman is a necessary consequence of the also is 'Jerusalem which is above.' Let the Galatian
theory on which the Hebrew myth is based, the notion Christians, who belong to this Jerusalem, refuse to be
being that Ishmael was of inferior origin. (On the forced under the Sinaitic covenant, lest they fall under
geographical details of these narratives, cp I SHMAEL , the doom of Hagar and her son.
J I, MIZRAIM,J z [a].) The sense of the passage has been obscured by the $ass,
Like Ishmael and his twelve sons, Hagar is no doubt pointed out by Bentley and others 2 rb 68 "Aya P ~ v bBpoo c u r b
ev .r)l 'ApaPiT (WH ; 'Now this Higar is Mt. &ai in Arabia');
the personification of a tribe or district. In several
the following words auurorxei 66 are really the continuation of
2. Ragrites. passages of the O T we read of a nomadic ;iris ;urb AYap (v. 2 4 ) ; probably, however, we should read, not
people called the Hagrites. I n Saul's m u r o ~ x e 266, but m v u m q o i r a a (D*FG; pr. $ FG; qui con-
days the tribe of Reuben w-aged a successful war against junctlrs esf, Vg., Victn.). What does the gloss mean? Some
them, seized their tents and took possession of their (cp the comment of Chrys.) assume that hajar, 'a stone,' was a
name given to Mt. Sinai by the Arabs whom Paul had met.
territory throughout all the land to the E. of Gilead The order of the words rb 68 Ayap Piva Bpoo (instead of lpas %a,
( I Ch. 5 I O RV Hagrites, AV Hagarites; 703s T U ~ O ~ K O U S as in v. 24), however, favours the view that Ayap is a later addition
to the gloss and there is strong MS authority (NCFG) for the
1 S@hyZ, ed. Friedmann 65 (Neub. G&Y. 297). The omission of )Ayap. The recognition of this makes the gloss more
lexicographer, David ben Abraham, also places Hadrach at intelligible. (RV adopts the reading rb y+, but yap is evidently
Damascus. Olsb. (Lehrgeb. 411) emends into i i n ' HaurFn.' an alteration to improve the sense,)
2 Hagar not only in Ethiopian but,also in some Arabic dialects T. N. If: ; T. K. C. 5 3.
denoted 'settlement, village, town ; the name of the tribe,
whose eponym is Hagar, may he derived from that word, though 1 The onlv reference to the Haerites ('sons of Hapar') in the
we know the tribe but as nomadic : a settlement named Hagar Apocrypha &'in Baruch 3 23 where they' are mentioGd tbgether
(as several in Arabia are named) was perhaps the centre of the with Teman, and described hs those 'who seek after wisdom.'
sons of Hagar. 2 For references, see Bakhuyzen, Over de foepassing van de
3 On Gal. 4 24-26 see below, 3. conjectlrraaZ--kr, 273 ('80).
I933 I934
 HAGGAI
HAGGAI or [in I Esd.] AGGEUS, A G G ~ U S ('a?;
&rr&ioC [BXAQI'L] ; l perhaps ' born on the feast day,'
5
1. The lliGme 72 ; unless -ai is substituted for -yah
and the man. [cp MATTENAI, ZACCAI]. In this
00 . " . ' feast of
case Hamai=either Hag-iah.
Yahwk ' [Olsh. 277 61, or, by contraction, Hagariah.
Yahwk hath girded' [We. in Bleeks Bid. (4) 4341.
Hilprecht has found the Jewish name Hagga on a tablet
of fifth century B.C. from Nippur, PEFQ Jan. ' 9 8 , p.
55): Acontemporaryof Zechariah, with whom he was as-
sociated in his prophetic ministry (Ezra 5 I I Esd. 6 I 7 3).
His book contains four short prophecies delivered
between the first day of the sixth month and the twenty-
fourth day of the ninth month-that is, between Sep-
tember and December-of the second year of ' Dariiis the
king'-ie., of D a r k Hystaspis (521-485B.c.). From
the language of the prophet in chap. 23 we may perhaps
infer with Ewald that Haggai was one of those who
had seen the temple ' in its former glory,' and that his
prophetic work began in extreme old age. This sup-
position agrees well with the shortness of the period
covered by his book, and with the fact that Zechariah,
who began to prophesy in the same autumn, afterwards
appears as the leading prophet in Jerusalem (Zech. 7 1-4).
m-hether he was ever in Babylonia or whether he had
been continuously in Jerusalem (cp ' her [Jerusalem's]
prophets,' Lam.29), we are not told, nor can we
venture to trust the later traditions respecting him (in
the Fit@ Prophelarum ascribed to Epiphanius, and
copied by Dorotheus and by Hesychius of Jerusalem)."
His name occurs in the titles of certain psalms in L X X
(Pss. 112 [R] 146-148149 [R]) and other versions ; but
no inference can be drawn from this. These titles vary
in the MSS, and Eusebius did not find them in the
Hzxaplar @ . 3 They have no critical value.
( a ) In his first prophecy (11-11) Haggai rebukes the
2. The four people for leaving the temple unbuilt
prophecies. while they themselves dwell in panelled
houses.
The prevalent famine and distress are 'because of YahwYs
house that lies waste, while the Jews are zealous (enough) for
their own houses.'( Let them 'build the house, and Yahwe
will take pleasure in it and glorify himself' (i.e., accept the
honour paid to him). The rebuke took effect and the people
began to work at the temple under the leadersdip of Zerubbabel
the governor and Joshua the high riest (1 12-15).5
(6) In a second prophecy (2 1-97, delivered in the following
month, Haggai forbids the people to be disheartened by t h e
apparent meanness of the new temple. The silver and
1 I n Hag. 1 I bB* has ayyeos, a reading adopted by Q N in
every passage.
2 See the double recension in Nestle, MUYE.(Haggai, pp.
26@). Epiphanius says that Haggai came up from Babylon
while still young, prophesied of the return of the people saw
[in part] the building of the temple, and on his death re&ived
an honoured burial near the priests. The fuller recension adds,
.ai a;&s 8+aMcv ; K F ~r p & x bhhqhouaa. 8 i p p + w w a L alvCuw
pw T+ {&VTLSc+ apvv (sic). It closes with the words, arb
A6 opev ahhqhovra, 8 ;UTLV Spvor 'Ayyaiou Kai Z a p p i o v .
On this subject cp Kiihler, Weissag. Haggais, 32 ; Wright,
Zech. and his jyojhecies, Introd. xix. ; B. Jacob, Z A T W
16 290 ['96] ; and see note on Ps. 145 I in Field's Hexapla.
4 Read D W p for D'?? (v. 9). ' While ye each run every man
to his own house' (RV) is clearly not correct. We. now reads
1n'X V'N O'gl; hut ' while ye delight every man in his house'
is an infelicitous substitnte for the received text. Robertson
Smith, like every other critic until of late, thought the refer-
ence was to the providing of costly houses for rich men among
the returned exiles. The majority of the people, however, can-
not have been returned exiles, and in any case the received text
will not bear the strain put upon it. It was not merely their
houses but their fields which called forth the 'zeal' of the Jews
(vu. 6 ). 'house ' has a wide sense (as in Gen. 15 z ob 8 15).
6 T%lsectionis altogether narratbe ; v. 13, whicdprofessesto
give a short rophecy of Haggai, being evidently a gloss from
the margin (&hme, Z A T W ,1887, p. 216). The second part of
the verse is taken from 2 4 (where moreover the very same words
are followed by another gloss, which is not given by @). The
first part would certainly have been expressed differently by
Hawgai. One phrase in it ('Yahwe's messenger') gave rise to
the>otion, mentioned by Jerome and Cyril of Alexandria, that
Haggai was really an angel, and had only in appearance the
human form. The same fancy was entertained with regard to
Malachi and John the Baptist.
1935
HAGGAI
gold are the Lord's. Soon 'he will shake all nations, and the
choicest things (point niim) of all nations will come' (i.e., will
be brought) to adorn his house. Its glory will be greater than
that of the former temple, and in this place Yahwe will give
peace. Here @ adds, .at cipljvqv $UX<P ris rcpprrroivurv ravri
T+ KTL'<OYTC 705 C;vau+ac rbv vabv T O ~ ~ T O Vwhich
, Wellhauseu
cleverly reproduces in Hebrew so as to give the sense, ' and rest
of soul, to repair all the foundation, t o raise this temple.'
Probably the passage really belongs to Haggai, and was omitted
by a later scribe in deference to the narrative of the,Chronicler
(so Now.).
. (c) A third prophecy (2 10-19)contains a promise, enforced by
a figure drawn from the traditional theory of holiness, that God
will remove famine and bless the land from the day of the
foundation of the temple onwards. 2 17 is inserted in an incorrect
form from Am. 4 g (We.).
(d) Finally in 220-23 (unnecessarily doubted by B6bme) a
special prophkcy is addressed to Zernbbabel who is not indeed
expressly called a son of David, but receiveQa romise which is
hardly intelligible unless he were one. ' I will &lake the heavens
and the earth,' is the terrifying exordium. ' I will overthrow
the throne of kipgdoms, and destroy the strelgth of t h e kingdoms
of the heathen. But fear not, 0 Zerubbabel, for ' in that day
I will make thee as a signet' (thus reversing the doom 0)
Zerubbabel's grandfather Jeconiah, in Jer. 22 24), 'for I have
chosen thee.' To what high dignity Zerubbabel is called, w e
are not expressly told ; but, comparing Zech.6izJ, we cannot
doubt that he is to become the Messianic king. See ZERUB-
BABEL.
(u) What induced Haggai (and Zechariah) to come
forward in the second year of Darius with the exhorta-
3. Dificulties. tion io rebuild the temple , and the
promise of kingship to Zerubbabel ?
W h y had they waited sixteen years-before stirring u p
the people to restore the sanctuary? And why did they
address their promises to Zerubbabel rather than to
his predecessor? T h e answer is that a startlirig
historical event had opened their eyes to the will and
purpose of Yahwi.. Just after the accession of Darius
to the throne of Persia, revolts broke out in different
parts of Eastern Asia. In Babylon, two pretenders
successively assumed the favourite name of Nebnchad-
rezzar, and even where there was n o rebellion the hope
of the recovery of independence must have revived.' Can
we doubt that such hopes were awakened in Judah?
Must not Yahwcs prophets have heard in these events
the rumbling of the chariot-wheels of the Most High?
Of a surety, the Messianic era was at hand, and the
temple must be quickly prepared to receive the Great
King.
(a) Another question forces itself upon the mind.
W h a t is the cause of the indifference of the Jews to the
desolate condition of their sanctuary? T h e restoration
of the temple and its worship was the necessary ex-
pression of the faith that the service of Yahwk was the
true national vocation of Israel. How was it that, so
soon after 527 B. C., the people of Jerusalem so com-
pletely forgot their ideal calling as .the nation of the
true God? Our surprise would be diminished if
Haggai made any allusion to a party of stricter ad-
herents of the Law and more zealous worshippers of
Yahwk. Allusions of this kind, ,however, which are
not wanting in the post-exilic Palestinian portions of
Is. 40-66, are not to be found in this book. Some
scholars think that the only natural, explanation is that
n o considerable body of exiles had as yet returned, and
that those who had arrived (in the train of Shesh-
bazzar ?) belonged to the more secular-minded portion
of the Babylonian community. T h e people whom
Haggai addresses in 23 as having, some of them, seen
the first temple, are in fact (it.is thought) almost entirely
Jews who had never been to Babylon.
(c) A third question may arise-how is it that Haggai
makes n o direct reference to moral duties? I n this
respect he falls below Zechariah. T h e reason may
possibly be that the notes of his prophecies are in-
complete. W e need not therefore believe that the
only command of Yahwi. the neglect of which he regrets
is the erection of a house for YahwB's dwelling-place.
I t remains true, however, that both Haggai and
Zechariah give precedence to a duty which to US
1 SeeEd. Meyer, Entst. 8 2 3 : ;Che. yew. Rrl. L y e , 14.
I936
 HAGGEDOLIM
must appear a secondary one. Both stood on the
threshold of a new age, and though they performed the
task of the moment successfully they had not the varied
gifts which the creation of a new people demanded.
See Z ECHARIAH , § 2.
The style of Haggai is truly described by Kirk-
Patrick (Sm. D B 2 )11265) as tame and prosaic. Evi-
*, Haggai,s dently the notes of his discourses have
not been touched up by a more literary
writer; his repetitions have not been
pruned. Telling passages, however, are not altogether
wanting (see 169 2r6), and the frequent interrogations
give life to the addresses.
Among older books, the learned commentary of Marckins
may be specially mentioned nor must we omit Rosenmiiller’s
still usefdl Scholiu. Kohler’s comm. (‘60) is
6. Literature. e!aborate and valuable. Reinke’s work (‘68)
gives the viewsofascholarlyRoman Catholic.
It is’hardly needful to mention Pusey, Wellh., GASm., Dods,
and the books of introduction. Duhm’s Theol. des Projhefen
(‘75) however should be added to the student’s list for a
histArica1 viedof the place of Haggai as a prophet, and Kosters’
Net kersfel van Israel(pp. 19-24) for a suggestive treatment of
the question, Were there returned exiles among the people
addressed by Haggai and Zechariah? w. R . s.-T. K. c.
HAGGEDOLIM (n’$il$?), Neh. 11 14 RV. See Sym., however, reads ‘ pestilence, ’ ‘ murrain,’ where
ZABDIEL, 2.
HAGGERI (’???), I Ch. 11381. A\’, RV H AGRI
(4.u. ).
HAGGI (’Jn, ‘born on the feast day,’ 5 72), b.
G AD [q.v., i. 131 (Gen. 4616, arraic [ADL]=Nu.
2615, arr[e]- [BAFL]) ; gentilic, Haggite, Nu. 26 15
(’$79 ; o ar rk11[BAFLI).
HAGGIAH (il:Jn, ‘ m y feast is YahwB,’ § 72), a
Merarite ( I Ch. 630[151, arris [AI, AMA [BaJ ~ N A I A
[L]). . I n d the Merarite names cannot always be identi-
fied with those in MT.
HAGGITH (n’An, 5 72, perhaps born on the feast
day,’ 5 99, &rr[e]if~[BAL]), wife of David and mother
OfADONIJAH[q.u., I ] : 2 s . 3 4 ( @ e r r e i e [ B ] , @ € N r l e at the end of January (Ex. 9 3 1 ) ~a month during which
[A] ; I K. 1 5 , arie [AI, L substim- AayiA, 11 ; 213, hailstorms may very well occur. I n summer they
Are10 [A om. B], I Ch.‘32). Perhaps n*in is an early
corruption from n y , the Gittite ’ ; the mention of a
wife from Gath after those from GESHUR(z),Caleb,
and Jezreel, would be quite suitable; see D AVID ,
§ 11 ( d ) , col. 1032. S. A. C.
HAGIA (aria [BA]), IEsd. 5 34 AV=Ezra 2 57,
HATTIL [g. u.].
HAGRI. AV Haggeri (’l??, ‘ a Hagrite’; A r b p s i
[BN]! ampar [AI, awp [Ll), an incorrect reading for ‘the
Gadite ’ y i q ) in I Ch. 1138t where ‘Mihhar son of Hagri’
should’rather be ‘
(see Dr. ad roc.).
.. . of Zobah: Bani the Gadite ’ as in 2 S. 23 36
HA1 (;Fil),Gen. 133 A V ; RV A I ( g . ~ . ,I ).
HAIL (T7J cp Ar. Bnradu, to he [become] cold;
xahbza ; I@?$$p [Ezek. 131113 (Aieoyc) ITSTPO-
Bohoyc,--ie., &&f ? 3822 XAhAzA]). Hailstones
were devoutly regarded as proofs of God’s might
(Ecclus. 4315 and 6);he kept them in his ‘store
chambers’ (Job 3822, cp S N O W ); they served as his
weapons (Josh. 1011,cp Ecclus. 465 J 2 Wisd. 5 2 2 ) .
Naturally, therefore, hail forms a. feature in descriptions
of judgment ( e & , Is. 2817 [not 61 3030 3219 Ezek.
1 3 1113 3822 ), and once in a description of a theophany
(Ps. 1812[13]), where, as often elsewhere, it is coupled
with %re (lightning); cp Ps. 7843 (see below) 10532
1488 Ecclus. 3929 Rev. 87 cp 1119.
1 Generally connected with d’??; see C RYSTAL. Most
probably, however, we should read W m,)-. n ; see F LINT, and cp
Crit. Bih.
2 Read ‘answered him with hail and flint.stones’(see Heb.
text).
I937
HAIR
Hail is also mentioned with ‘voices’ (thunder) i n
Ex. 92328f: 3 3 J , and in Ps. 1488 is not far off frqm
‘storm wind.’ This too is perfectly natural. The
most destructive hailstones are those which accompany
a tornado or a violent thunderstorm. Perhaps we may ,
assume such a combination for the great overthrow of
the Canaanite kings at Beth-horon (Josh. 1 0 X I ; cp Judg.
5 2 0 ) , when more died by the hailstones than by the
sword of Israel. Hail frequently accompanies the
thunderstorms of winter and spring in Palestine
(GASm. H G 6 4 ) . Certainly such a combination is
presupposed in the two, or strictly speaking, three,
notices of the plague of hail in Egypt (Ex. 913-35
Ps. 78476), to which we now turn. The former, which
is the only original one, is ‘ conflate ‘-;.e., it has been
produced by the fusion of two distinct one of
which does not know of a plague of locusts, and makes
the crops to be destroyed by the hail, while the other says
nothing of a plague of murrain, and makes the hail-
stones fall upon man and beast. Hence the cattle,
though destroyed in Ex. 96, are still presupposed in 9 22.
The poetic version of the plagues in Ps. 78 devotes one
distich to the locusts, and two to the hail, if M T is correct.
M T gives -n?‘ hail’ in v. 48a. This is most probably
~ o r r e c t . ~If so, the psalmist transposes the plague of
hail and the plague of murrain.
It is remarkable that he says nothing of the destruction of
human life caused by the hail ; also that (if the text is correct)
he uses the very unusual word i y q (‘to kill’) in speaking of the
destruction of the vines, and, as a parallel to ‘hail,’ in v. 47, an
otherwise unknown and perfectly inexplicable word (Sp?!, EV
‘frost’; mg. ‘great hailstones’; @ dpq, ‘rime’; Aq. rpuos;
but Sym. u&A& ‘worm’; and Tg. N I ~ I , ‘locust,’ as if
reading P’X!). Both these words appear to be corrupt. Adopt-
ing the most probable emendations we obtain this quatrain :
He wasted their vines with hail,
And their fig-trees with hot coals;
H e gave their cattle over to the murrain,
And their flocks to burning sickness.4
The narrative represents the hailstorm as occurring
are rare; according to Pruner (Di.-Rys. Ex. Lev. 98)
in twelve summers hail only fell thrice, and then not
very much. Prof. Macalister (Hastings’ DB 2 281)
mentions stones which fell in a brief hail-shower
in Egypt on 13th Aug. 1832, which weighed several
ounces. In Rev. 1621 we read of hailstones of the
weight of a talent-ie., about two cubic feet in bulk.
This is the weight ascribed to ‘the stones cast at the
Jews by the Romans a t the siege of Jerusalem (JOS. BJ
v. 63). T. K. C.
HAIR (?@ ; e p l f ) . The question of the origin of
the Israelitish race and the variations of the Israelitish
1. colour. type is too uncertain to be referred to in
this connection. We can therefore only
state, with regard to the colour of the hair, that in
Canticles, which represents the conventionalised type
of a Jew and a Jewess in the country districts in the
1 The reference to ‘hail’ as destructive to crops in Hag. 2 17
(an interpolation from Am. 49) is due to corruption. Read
+nxynn,‘ I destroyed ’ (as We. in Am. Z.C.).
2 See Bacon, Tn2. Trad. 49f:
3 In the parallel line (v. 486) we find p*awy$. which is gener-
ally rendered ‘to the lightning flashes ’ ; but 1 ~by1itself does not
mean ‘ lightning’(763 [4]a is corrupt), and the strong expression
l;pI! (‘he gave over,’ as if to a supernatural power favours
Sym.’s reading 1275. Perhaps we should read (sing.);
cp Hab. 3 5 where 127and 711 are parallel. Thus we gain an
allusion to Ex. 9 3 (177). For n>aa+ Sym. has o l w v o t , based
on a well-attested but quite erroneous interpretation of q w l (CP
Ecclus. 43 17, Heh. and Gk.).
4 For iln’l read IlrJl; for hm,n’?nq ; for l &, l?$ (so
also Dyserinck, Bi.(z) Gra.), and for n@), I$$, with Che.
(PS.(Z)).
1938
 HAIR
latter part of the OT period, the hair that receives
poetic eulogy is black. Neglecting the opening words
of Cant. 5 IT , which describe the head of the bridegroom
as ‘ the most fine gold ‘-an unintelligible and doubtless
corrupt phrase,l we find in the next line that I his locks
a r e bushy, and black as a raven.’ Elsewhere no doubt
the hair of the bride is said to be ‘ like purple ’ (Cant.
7 5 [ 6 ] ) , and with a little ingenuity this might be plausibly
explained (see Del. ad loc.), if we could venture to
believe that the passage was correctly read in the received
text. W e must take care, however, not to commit such
an offence against the ideal bride as to make her red-
haired.a In Cant. 41 ( 6 5 ) the song-writer says, ‘ T h y
hair is like a flock of goats, that lie along the side of
Gilead ’ ; it is plain that the goats of Palestine could by
no caprice of language be calledpuipZe. Thus in post-
exilic times the Jews considered dark hair as beautiful.
Clear evidence of a similar estimate in pre-exilic times
i s wanting. W e may reasonably assume, however, that
David‘s hair was dark, for it is represented in Michal’s
stratagem by a net of goat’s hair ( I S. 1 9 13), and when
the youthful David is called $5 ( I S . 1 6 1 2 1 7 4 ~ this )~
means, not that he was red-haired 3 like Esau (it@ ’$15,
Gen. 2 5 2 5 ) , but that he had not yet become browned
by exposure to the sun. Kitto4 thinks that Eccles. 125
contains a reference to the striking contrast in a mixed
assembly between the snow-white head of an old man
and the jet black heads of the younger men. , That Absalom employed the barber only once a year is told
There is certainly no better explanation to propose for YNJ:
’IF$: (cp A LMOND); but the reading is uncertain, and the
object of the little poem to which the phrase belongs is disputed.
I t would accord well with the ordinary view if the
same writer used the expression ‘ black hair’ as a
synonym for ‘ youth ’ (Eccles. 11IO) ; but no stress can
safely be laid upon this. Kitto’s remark is at any rate
illustrative of Prov. 1631 2029 (cp z Macc. 623), where
* gray hairs ’ ( n ~ bare ) represented as the ornament of
old men, no doubt because the wicked were supposed not
to reach old age. I t must have shocked Jewish senti-
ment (cp M t . 536) when Herod (if the story is true) dyed
his hair black, to conceal his advanced age (Jos. Ant.
xvi. 8 I ) . Of wigs we hear nothing in the Bible, though
such toilet articles were common in ancient Egypt
(Erman, Anc. Bg. zrg-zz3).
Quite incidentally the prophet Ezekiel ( 8 3 ) shows us
how well rooted the bnshy locks of the Israelites were
This native vigour is one
a. Growth. of (cp the
L OCKS ).
presuppositions of the story of
Samson. ‘Beguile him,’ said the Philistine princes to
Delilah, ‘and see how it comes that he is so strong’
(Judg. 16 5 ) ; and Samson replies at last, ‘ If I be shaven,
then my strength will go from me, and I shall become
weak, and be like any other man’ (v. 17). I t is true,
Samson’s strength was held to be due to his consecrated
character; but this is not the whole of the secret. His
hair was the symbol of that natural strength which the
Nazirite vow placed under the divine protection.
The true origin of Samson’s hair is a mattkr of conjecture.
It is probable enough that the hair of the ‘solar one’ (Iiunu)
originally meant the rays of the sun. In Job 3 9 41 18 [IO] the
eyelids or eyelashes of the dawn (or rather, of the sun ; see
L UCIFER) were the rays of the sun@(see Schultens, C o m a . in
jobum, 161).
Hence too in Ps. 6821 [zz], if M T is correct, we
read-
1 Read ‘ His head is like Carmel.’
2 Gra. renders ‘ Thy head upon thee is like crimson ’ ($n?,
= Snijj) : but cp Del. ad Zoc.
3 So Kitto (Bi6. CycZ.), Sayce (Races of fhe O T 74), Then.,
Klo. The By which follows ’ 3 ~ is ~ a corruption of iy[ol,
1 not
‘hair’ (Klo.’s view), but a prematurely written p[q’ly.
4 Kitto, Bib. Cycl. art. ‘ Hair. The passage gives striking
expression to the sti1l)prevalent view.
5 n l i d is so explained by Del. and Wildeboer following
Targ. and Rab. interpretation.
6 For more distant parallels (Greek, Latin, American) see
Goldziher, Ueb. Myfytholoay, 137. See especially Wilken, ‘De
Simsonsage,’ De Gids, 2303 (‘88).
5939
HAIR
Yea God smites asunder the head of his foes,
Thelhairy crown that stalks on in his sins.1
He who placed his long hair and his corresponding
physical strength at the service of his sins challenged
3od to interpose and crush him. Hair and strength
%rehere once more related. T o a Jew it must therefore
have seemed a striking paradoxical expression, when,
in the picture of an anthropomorphic God, it was said,
‘ T h e hair of his head was like pure wool’ (Dan. i 9 ) .
The colour indicated that he was ‘ ancient in days ’ ;
but the ‘ fiery stream ’ which was ‘ before him ’ proved
tha.t his white hair was no symbol of weakness. Com-
pare Rev. 114.
On the Nazirite vow See’NAZIRITE. Analogous to it
is the consecration of their hair by warriors, supposed
to be referred to in the words pi?.
3. Consecra-
tion of the h>y;: niy?? (Judg. 5 2 ) ) which Robertson
hair. Smith rendered,2 ‘for that flowing locks
were worn in Israe1,’g W e must not
;uppose, however, that Israelites, in time of peace, wore
their hair short. T o be sure, there were barbers (Ezek.
5 1 ; see B EARD ) ; but the popular sentiment or
superstition about hair justifies us in assuming that an
Israelite’s hair was only trimmed, especially in front,
not cut close ; and it is not probable that the author of
z S. 1425-27 would have wished to make us laugh at
Absalom’s vanity. Cp, however, ABSALOM.
us in order to explain how it was that his, hau (and also his
strength?) was so abundant. Probably It IS not a whit more
historical than the story in Josephus ( Ae.?. v,iii. 7 3) of the ‘horse
guards’ of Solomon who had gold dust sprinkled every day on
their long hair. T i e writer may be of the post-exilic age (Bu.);
certainly his sole aim is to glorify Absalom.
On the other hand, to express contempt for a man, it
was enough to call him a ‘ bald head’ ( z K. 223 ; cp
Is. 317 24), and the object of plucking out (Ezra93)
and shaving (Job 120) or disfiguring the hair of the
head by throwing dust upon it (Job 2 E), and extending
similar treatment to the beard, was to express the
mourner’s sense that he was cut off from all the
pleasures and honours of ordinary life. See M OURNING
CUSTOMS.
In this connection we may refer to a limitation placed
by P on the high priest. He was neither to rend his
clothes as a mourner, nor to let the hair of his head go
loose (Lev. 2110, cp 106). His hair was at all times
to he tended in such a way as to enhance the popular
respect for so exalted a personage. Ezekiel, too, gives
this precept to the priests, ‘ They shall not shave their
heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long ; they shall
only poll their heads ’ (Ezek. 4420). They were to strike
the mean between the practice of the Nazirites (Nu. 65)
and the heathenish asceticism referred to in Lev. 1927
215 Dt. 141 Am.810 (see CUTTINGS, J 3).
That long hair was admired in women, is plain from
Canticles (see above, 5. I.). One might almost infer
from Jer. 7 2 9 that scissors were hardly
4.
head-dress. applied to women’s hair (on Dt. 21 12 see
Driver’s note), for the word rendered
’hair’ (a!) is the same which is applied elsewhere to
the inviolable hair of the Nazirite (1’13). Certainly,
as Kamphausen remarks, the goats, with whose black
hair the hair of the ideal bride is compared (Cant. 41
6 5 ) , were not shorn goats. Of the ‘artful curls’ (Is.
324, SBOT) of the ladies of Jerusalem in Isaiah’s
1 So De Witt renders. Duhm even supposes an allusion to
the Nazirites among the Pharisees. i y $ ‘hair,’ however, should
no doubt be YL?? ‘wicked one’ (GrZ..-Che. etc.).
.
9 J. s. Bia& judges, 39 cg2j.
3 Probably, however, v. 2 and v. g are duplicates (Marq.,
Ruben). and v. a should be used to correct v. 2. In this case
the ‘long hair’ &appears, and, if Cheyne’s em:ndation ( J Q X ,
July ’ 9 9 ) be adopted, the verse will run: Bless Yahwh,
0 ye marshals of Israel, who displayed (such) zeal among the
people.’ l y i ~and ylb, in v. 2, and 5 $25in v. 9 , both came
from ~7 )>ix (which was in fact inserted at the end of v. z as a
correction).
1940
 HAJEHUDIJAH
time, we have no information. The Talmud, how-
ever, presents us with a word for the women’s hair-
dresser (~)h~p cp M ARY M AGDALENE ), and the verb
from which it comes means ‘ t o plait.’ Judith, one
remembers, ‘braided her hair’ (6r6rat.e [GrCfave, h ]
T ~ E T ~ ~ X U Sl o
, 3 ) before entering the camp of Holo-
fernes ; and N T writers dissuade strongly from using
T A C ~ ~ U T(UI Tim. 29) and Q ~ W A O K . ~ ~ ( I Pet. 33),
rprXGv
and from adorning the hair with pearls and jewels. On
I Cor. 11 4-15 see V EIL.
Illustrations from the Egyptian monuments are, as
far as men’s hair is concerned, of less importance than
6. Illustrations those from .the Assyrian. Great pains
were taken by Assyrians of high rank
from the
monuments. in the arrangement of their hair. As
we see from the monuments. it was
carefully combed down and parted into several braids
or plaits, and was allowed to spread out upon the
,neck in a mass of curls. This, together with the
similar use of braids or plaits among the Arabs,l illus-
trates the seven braids (ma&ltYphtth, nreina) of Sam-
son’s hair mentioned in Judg. 1613 19. Cp BEARD.
T. K. C .
HAJEHUDIJAH (n:??!?), I Ch. 418 RVW. ; AV
JEHUDI J AH ( q . ~ . ) .
HAKKATAN (it?;??,
‘the small one,’ 66 ; &K[K]a-
TAN [BAL]), father of J OHANAN (15)of the b‘ne Azgad,
a family in Ezra’s caravan (see E ZRA i., z ; ii., 15
[I] d ) , Ezra 812= I Esd. 838JTRVmg., but AV A CATAN ;
KV A KATAN.
HAKKOZ (yip?, as if, ‘the briar’ ; &K[K]mc
[BKAL]) RV; AV always K OZ except in (3)where it
has HAKKOZ;in I Ch. 4 8 RV even has HAKKOZfor
Heb. YIP, Coz.
I . The b‘ne Hakkoz were a post-exilic family who were unable
to prove their pedigree ; Ezra 261 (aKous [B], arr. [AL])=Neh.
763 (arr. [L])= I Esd. 538t, AV Accoz, RV AKKOS,mg.
H AKKOZ (aapos [Bl ~ K K O V S[Ll).
2. Grandfatherof MEREMOTH (I), Neh. 3 4 21 (UKOS,v. 21 [Bl).
3. According to I Ch. 24 IO the seventh of the priestly courses
fell to H AKKOZ (yip?!, KOS [Bl).
HAKUPHA(KpP(l, crooked’ (?) ; ax[e]~@a[BA]),
a family of NETHINIM
in the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA, ii.
0 9) Ezra 251 (a+sLra tB1 artov$a [ALl)=Neh. 7 53 ( a r c + [Nl,
om.’ L)=I Esd. 5 31 ( a x e l p a [ B ] arov+a [Ll A C I P H A [AV]
ACHIPHA[RV], and possibly ACUB[see B A ~ B u K is
] reall;
a duplicate of the same name).
HALAH (nb?; ah[hlae [BA], ehhae [L] ; in 2 K.
176 1811 H A L A ; in I Ch. 526 XAAX [B], x a h a [A],
& A A ~ N[L], LAHELA; Pesh. always ,a,),
a city or
district, mentioned with Habor, the river of Gozan, and
the ‘ cities (?) of Media,‘ as one of the places colonised
with Israelites from Samaria ( 2 K. 1 7 6 1811; cp I Ch.
526). Schrader ( K G F 167, n. ; C O T l z 6 8 ) combines it
with a city called Halabbu mentioned in a geographical
list (z R. 5 3 3 6 8 ) between Arrapachitis and ReSeph,
and Winckler (AOF292)gives references (K. 10922
etc. ) for a land called Halabha connected obscurely
with HarrLn. & P A L in 2 K. 176 and d L in z K. 18 I T
treat Halah as one of the rivers of Gozan; but see
GOZ.4N (end). T. IC. C.
HALAK, MOUNT (P$Q? ’I;?? ; &[A]haK ‘[AFL]).
‘The smooth (or bare) mountain that goeth up to Seir ’
(;.e., in this passage, to the mountain district w. of
the ‘Arsha, bounded on the N. by the WZdy el-Marreh,
the WZdy Madarah, and the WZdy eL-Fikreh), is
opposed as the limit of Canaan (or, more precisely, of
Joshua’s conquests) in the S. to Baal-gad, ‘ under Mt.
Herman,'. in the N . , Josh. 1117 EX
[B]), 127
1 We. AY. Heid.(.(z)197. Tabari reports of a certain Rib?
that he wore four braided locks which were as stiff as the horns
of a wild goat. It is still said by the Bedouin in praise of
good-looking young man, ‘ H e has great and long horns
(Doughty, AY. Des. 1469).
1941
HALLEL
(xeXxu [B]), UXOK [AL]). Elsewhere the S. frontier
of Judah towards Edom is the ‘ ascent of A KRABBIM ’
(q.v.),which is the long winding pass on the route from
l’etra to Hebron fitly called the N u k 6 e:-$ufE, or Pass
of the Bare Rock. This pass indeed could hardly be
said to ‘ go up to Seir ’ ; but not very far to the SW., in
a wiidy of the same name (the continuation of the Wel-
Fikreh), stands the Madarah-a conical limestone
hill or mountain, which no one descending to Edom
could fail to notice, rising in isolation ‘like a lofty
citadel’ (Rob. BK 2589 ; Palmer, Desert of Exodus,
415, 418). This has been identified by Trumbull with
Mt. Hor (see H OR , M OUNT , I ) ; it is at any rate safer
to regard it as the ‘bare mountain that goeth up to
Seir. ’ T. K. C.
HALHUL (Nl\n ; perhaps full of hollows‘ ; cp
H O L O N ; ahoy& [B], -yA [A], -ye [L]), in the hill-
country of Judah, grouped with Beth-zur and Gedor
(Josh. 1 5 5 8 ) ; Jerome ( O S 1197) speaks of a village
Alula near Hehron. No doubt it is the mod. fZaZ&aZ,
about 4 m. N. of Hebron, a village beautifully situated
between Beit Siir ( BETH-ZLIR) and Beit ‘AinBn (BETH-
ANOTH) ; Jedfir (G EDOR , I) lies to the N.
A village Alurns, where an Idumzan army assembled is
mentioned in Josephus (BJiv. 96); it is lausible to idenkfy
this name with Halhiil (Buhl, Geop. 158f The CHELLUSof
Judith 19, however, lies elsewhere.
HAL1 (h),
if the text is right, an unidentified city
of Asher; Josh. 19zsJT (ah€+ [Bl, oohei [AI, axel [I2]).
Corruption, however, is not unfrequent in these place-names,
and we may possibly read (>)>in, cp C6B ; see HELBAH. To
connect Hali with ‘Alia (Gukrin, GaL 262; cp Buhl, 231) is
hardly plausible. S. A. C.
HALICARNASSUS (ah1KAPNACCOC [AKV]; mod.
Budrun), a Carian city, on S. shore of the promontory
which, with that of Cnidus to the S., encloses the
Ceramic gulf, the mouth of which is occupied by the
island of Cos. It is celebrated as the birthplace of
Herodotus and the seat of Mausolus (inscrr. and coins,
Maussollos) whose tomb, built by his widow Artemisia,
who was also his sister, was one of the seven wonders of
the world (Strabo, 656). T h e town is mentioned inci-
dentally in I Macc. 1523 (referring to 139 B.c.) as con-
taining a Jewish colony, like all the cities on this coast.
T h e coinage seems to indicate that Halicarnassus did
not share in the trade with Egypt in the fifth century
B.c. to any great extent.
From Jos. Ant. xiv. 1023 we learn that a decree of the city,
passed under Roman influence (46 B.C. ?), guaranteed that the
Jews of Halicarnassus should be allowed, in addition to other
ptivdeges, ‘to make their prmeuchy at the seaside according
to the customs of their forefathers ( T ~ F n p o m u x h ; ~ O L C ~ U Q ~ L
rpbs QaA&q ran+ ~b T ~ T ~ L O ;@os), V which illustrates Acts
16 73 ‘without {he gate by a river side, where we supposed there
was a place of prayer’ (e.$ d h q s I r a p h n o r a p b u 08 & o ~ + o
r p o u w x $ [8vopi<opsu n p o u c u ~ l j uW H ] & V a l , sc. at Philippi).
T h e town never recovered from its siege and capture
by Alexander (334 B.c.). I t was rebuilt in the third
century B. c. Cicero, writing to his brother in 60 B. C.,
calls it ‘diruta ac p e n e deserta’ ( A d Q. Fr. i. 125);
but he is magnifying his brother’s services towards the
town during his governorship in the previous year.
See Nenston, Hist. of Discov. at.HaZ., etc. ; Travels
and Discoveries in the Levant (views and plans). F r a g
ments of the Mausoleum are in the British Museum.
On the form of the name see Ramsay, Hist. Ceogr. of
A.M., 405. w.3. w.
HALLEL ($$.), a Mishnic Hebrew derivative from
$50, hiZlt3, ‘ to praise,’ is a term in synagogal liturgy,
( I ) for Pss. 113-118, specifically called ’lymg %;l,
hall22 h a m m i y i , ‘the Egyptian Hallel,’ and recited
during the Paschal meal on the night of the Passover,
and also on eighteen other festal days of the year
( Ta‘dnith, 286) ; and ( 2 ) for Ps. 136 (according to some
Pss. 120-136 or 1354-136; Pes. 118 a ; Sdfhei-in, lSz),
called h;;?
kJ$?, hall&?h.agga‘d5Z3‘the great Hallel.’
1942
 HALLELUJAH
Rabban Gamaliel's words (M. P&@zim, 105) suggest
that the reciting of the Hallel originated in the desire to
1. Origin amplify the passover celebration by render-
and extent. ing of special praise for Israel's deliverance
from Egypt (hence its name ' the Egyptian
Hallel ') ; and that thkcustom was in his time (Gamaliel
was the teacher of Paul1) only just in its inception.
Some years later the extent of the Hallel was still in
dispute ; the school of Shanimai favoured Ps. 113 ; the
school of Hillel, Pss. 113and 114 ( A x . , ibid.). It should
be observed that the connection in which the passage cited
is found in the present arrangement of the Mishna sug-
gests that this difference of opinion relates only to what
became, by later additions, the first part of the Hallel.
T h e compilation of the Mishna, however, is over a
century later, and the injunction to close with a blessing
for the deliverance indicates that here at some time was
the end. During the first half of the second century the
Hallel received considerable additions, and it probably
reached then its present proportions. R. Tarphon and
R. 'Akiba2 (110-135 A . D . ) supplied it with the closing
blessing ; after this, the second part, Pss. 115-115, was
added, to be recited after the pouring out of the fourth
c u p ; later, to this also was added a closing blessing,
which was made to cover the entire song (M. Pes. 106).
The Mishna no longer gives us the form of this blessing ;
it does n p seem to have been determined at the time
of its compilation. According to the GEmHra (Pes.
118 b), R. Jehuda and R. Johanan (130-160 A . D . , cp
Strack, EinZ. in d. TaZm. 83 J ) suggested different
forms.
The opinion of Samuel (died 254 A.D. ;cp Strack, 88) that the
prophets among them instituted it in Israel to the end that they
should recite the Hallel when they were threatened with perse-
cution, to avert it, and when delivered, in thanksgiving, indicates
a twofold tendency first, to extend the reciting of the Hallel to
other occasions, leiding to its incorporation into the liturgy of
other festivals, and second, to regard it as a custom which was
followed in Israel as far hack as the time of Moses (Pes. 117 a),
R. Jehuda's statement (M. Pes. 5 7) that the Hallel was recited
in the temple during the slaughtering of the passover sacrifices,
is evidently only a similar piece of ideal history.
Allusions to the Exodus and appropriate national
sentiment determined the selection of the Psalms that
were to constitute the liturgical thanksgiving for the
passover ; the great Hallel, on the other hand, was to
serve the wider purpose of a general thanksgiving. R.
Johanan says it is called the great Hallel because (allud-
ing to Ps. 13625) the Holy One sits in heaven, and thence
deals out food to all his creatures (Pes. 118 a). With
this sentiment accords its use in thanksgiving for the
blessing of rain (Tu'dn. 19 a).
W e may now attempt to answer the question of the
relation of the Hallel to the hymn referred to in the
2. Not in- phrase 'when they had sung a hymn '
tended in ( ~ p v ~ u u v r in~ s )Mt. 2630 and Mk. 1426.
Mt. 2630 The answer commonly given is that the
Mk. 1426. hymn was the Hallel, and the statement is
followed by a description of the Hallel in its
most developed form ; but in tracing its history it has
appeared that there is no evidence that the Hallel was
in the time of Christ more than in its inceptive stage,
consisting of Ps. 113, or at the most also of Ps. 114.
C p Del. on Ps. 113; Gra. MGWJ, 1879, p. 203 J ,241 3,
Psalmen, 56 3; and especially Biichler, ZATW20rrq-135
(1900). I. J. P.
HALLELUJAH (3#77,3 v.Z. Z $ h ; once ;I$$;?
[Ps. 10435; v.Z. ?-h%], 'praise J a h ' ) , or (as 6 5 and cham. Since cham had a meaning in Hebrew, and
[AhhHhOyla] and v g . al,ways, and AV in Tobit and
In Rev.) A LLELUIA , a Jewish doxological formula, which
obtained an Aramaic colouring, and under the form
ahh$,oura was adopted (like Osanna-see H O S ANN A )
by the Gentile Christian congregations ; cp Tob. 7 3 18
Rev. 19 I 3 4 6. In 3 Macc. 7 13. &?rr$wv$uavres r b
1 He belongs to the first generation of Tann57m (50-90 A . D .) ;
cp Strack, EinL in d. Tahnud, 77f: ; Schiir. GJJ'(a) 2 3 6 4 5
2 Schiir. op. cif., 375
3 So Ginsb. ; Ea. h$.
1943
HAM
a)\h~houra, we find it treated as a substantive. Its
original use was to summon the congregation to join
the cantor in reciting a psalm, or in responding by a
united acclamation of praise. This view assumes that
it was in use only in the liturgy of the synagogue,
not in the temple, where a choir of Levites sang the
appointed psalms. It seems to have been originally
inserted (in collections of psalms for synagogue use) at
the beginning of psalms, and here we still find it, both
in M T and in 6 ,in Pss. 106 111-113 135 146-150,
and in @ also in 104 [lo51 106 [lo71 113 [114-115]
114 [1161-91 115 [ll610-1g] 116-118 [117-1191 135
[136] 147 [147rz-z0]. T h e fashion seems, however,
to have varied. In Pss. 104 105 115-117, the M T
gives Hallelujah ' at the end of each psalm, and in
the M T of Pss. 135 and 146-150, as well as in d
of Ps. 150, the doxology occurs both at the beginning
and at the end of a psalm, Two apparent in-
accuracies of @ may also be mentioned; it includes
Ps. 119, which is a purely didactic psalm, among
the Hallelujah psalms, and excludes from their number
Pss. 103-104, which certainly ought to have been Halle-
lujah psalms (or rather a Hallelujah psalm in two
parts) if we can judge on this point from the contents.
As to the characteristics of this class of psalms (to
which the HALLEL psalms belong), see the comnient-
aries, and cp PSALMS, BOOK OF.
Cp Gratz, MGW], '(79)), 1 9 3 3 ; Psalinen ('82), 633, 9.3
HALOHESH, RV Rallohesh (~cjnib?, see below,
~ A A ~ [AL]),
H C a name occurring twice in post-exilic
lists.
I. Father of Shallum in the list of wall builders (see NEHE-
MIAH , $ ~ f ;:E ZRA ii., $#16 [I], 15 d),Neh. 3 12 (?Acta [EN]).
2. Signatory to the covenant (see EZRA I., 0 7); Neh. 10 24 [zjl
(ahoqs [BN] a8o [A]).
According)to Meyer ( E d . 143; cp 157), an appellative, '[the
family] of magicians' (cp NAMES, 5 70); but the number of
rniswritten names in Ezra-Neh. suggests caution. That both
COL-HOZEH -.
la.v.1- and Hallohesh are rniswritten appears certain ;
the name which underlies both words seems to be- ?I)+?, Has-
Xit@. See S HILHI. T. K. C.
HAM (P?; XAM [BAL]), according to P, second
son of Noah (Gen.532. xa+ [A], as in 610 713),
and ancestor of the peoples of the south, especially
Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan (Gen. 106 J 20). J2
also gives him the second place among the brothers,
and though in Gen. 9 24 he appears a s Noah's ' youngest '
or rather (see J APHETH ) 'younger son,' this arises
from a manipulation of the text of J r Originally it
was Canaan who was so designated, and also Canaan
who was represented as having treated his father
Noah with irreverence ; ' Ham, father of,' in v. 2 2 , is a
redactional insertion (see SBOT).
The origin and meaning of the name are disputed.
I n Pss. 1052327 10622 we read of the 'land of Ham,'
where Ham clearly means ' Egypt,' just as 'stock of
Jesse ' in Is. 11I = ' stock of David.' I t was natural,
therefore, to connect Ham with the old native name of
Egypt, R e m or chemi, 'black,' with reference to the
black colour of the Egyptian soil (see E GYPT , I)-
a connection supported by Ebers ( A f l p e n , 1 5 5 ) but
disputed by Lepsius (PKE, S.V. 'Xgypten'), who would
explain the name as a general term for the I hot ' south
(on, ' hot,' Josh. 9 19). Probably Lepsius lays too much
stress on the difference of vocalisation between chemi
ch%zhad not, the Hebrews might ha!-e substituted the
one form for the other. Left5bure' at any rate is
unconvinced by Lepsius.
Still, the (probable) analogy of Shem suggests an-
other explanation. Ham, which seems originally to
have meant the land and people of Canaan, may be
a shortening of such. a form as Hammu-rZbi, the name
of an early Babylonian king (see A MRAPHEL ) ; cp Zur
1 TSBA 9 170 suggests comparison with Chem, the name of
an Egyptian god imporfed from the land of Punt (see PUT).
'944
 HAM
for Zuriel (?). Possibly there was an early tradition
(of which Gen. 14 may give us a late modification) that
Hammu-rZbi conquered Canaan, and the name nrnn
may thus have become known to an early narrator, who
wanted a symbol for Canaan, and explained the name,
on the analogy of A BIRAM (4.w.), ‘ the (divine) kinsman
i s a great one.’ Glaser’s identification of H a m with
‘Amii, the Egyptian name for the Bedouin races of the
Semitic countries adjoining Egypt, appears less plaus-
ible. I n I Ch. 440 the phrase ‘from H a m ’ ( o g n , d
PK T L ~ V utGv xup ; but Pesh. reads o p ) is very improb-
able ; for there was neither a place nor a tribe called
Ham. Read [h]nn[i*]-p, and see M EUNIM .
T. K. C.
HAM (D? ; 7 MSS of Sam. Dn ; cp Jer. Quastf.),
the land of the ZUZIM (u.v.), Gen. 145. Since the
Zuzim seem to be the same as the Z AMZUMMIM , ‘ Ham ‘
must be a corruption either of Ammon (if we read Pn ;
n and y confounded) or of Rabba or Rabbath (so Ball).
C p Dt. 220.
C3 (&a a;& [AELI), Pesh., Vg. express Pa?, ‘among (or
with) them ’ ; Tg. Onk. and Jerus. give Nnnn3. T. K. c.
HAMAN(]Q;!,anameofElamiteorigin; see E STHER ,
57 ; AMAN [BKAL], but ANAM, M A N [A, Esth. 31
7(16)17]), called AMAN in (Apoc.) Esth. 107, etc.; son of
ADMATHA or H AMMEDATHA [44.w.] ; one of the chief
characters in Esther, where he appears as the inveterate
enemy of the Jews (Esth. 31 j? etc., Apoc. Esth. 1 2 6 ) .
H e is accordingly represented as an AGAGITE [q.w.] (so
Jos. Ant. xi. 65, and Targg. call him an ‘ Amalekite ’)
or Macedonian (see E STHER , 5 I). T h e first Targum
(with much probability) identifies with him the import-
ant but otherwise obscure MEMUCAN[P.v.]. On the
fate of Haman see H ANGING [i.], and on the combina-
tion of Haman with one of two mythological dragons,
see D RAGON , 5 3.
HAMATE (nQg,‘ enclosed or guarded place’ [WRS
ReZ. Sem.(?, 1501; HM& [BAL]; other common
forms in the uncial MSS. are A I M A or~ €Mae), a royal
city of the Hittites on the Orontes, to the territory of
which the boundary of Israel is said to have reached
under David, Solomon, and Jeroboani 11. (z S. 89 I K.
865, AiMae [AI, 2 K. 1425, A i M a e rB-41, € M a 8 [LIS
CP Nu. 1322 [211, +aae [Bl, s.ae CFI 348): T h e
Chronicler states that Solomon built store-cities in
(the land of) Hamath ( z Ch. 84); but this stands
in connection with the statement (based on a mis-
understanding) that he also built ‘Tadmor in the
desert.’ The Table of Nations (Gen. 1018) mentions
the Hamathite ’ (ym~:; b apu8r [AEL]) in the last
place among the eleven descendants of Canaan; but nn.
16-18a are due to R. T h e bulk of the population of
Hamath was certainly Semitic (note the Semitic names
of the kings in the time of Tiglath-pileser 111.). See
HITTITES, $, 1 1 3
T h e fall of Hamath deeply impressed the people of
Judah. ‘ Is not Hamath as Arpad? ’ asks the Assyrian
king in Isaiah’s prophecy (Is. 109 ; not 6 ) . A similar
question (suggested by Is. 1 0 9 ) is put into the mouth
of the Rab-shakeh ( z K. 18 34= Is. 36 19, a p p [EC”].
acpap [AI’], a ~ p u p[Q]) and the king of Assyria ( 2 K.
19 13, pa0 [B], areup [A]=Is. 37 13, apup [ECAQ”],
atpup [Qa]). Balaam, too, if a recent critical con-
jecture may be accepted, becomes the mouthpiece
of Jewish consternation a t the downfall of so ancient
a state as H c ~ m a t h . ~According to tradition, .some of
1 It is just possible (so Gray, H P N 5 6 ) that the Babylonian
king’s name was really compounded with on, thoygh 5 R 44
u 6 21 explains it as Kimtu ru$a?tzcm, ‘wide family.
a In Homniel, AHT 48.
3 Nu. 2424. Alas ! who will survive of Sham’al (5$p”),
or come forth from the city of Hamath’ (n?? l’pp N$1J)?
nnn and on; confounded, as in Is. 11 TI (see below).
63 I945
HAMMEAH, TOWER O F
the colonists transported by ‘ the king of Assyria ’ to
the land of N. Israel were Hamathites (z K. 172430),
and it is further stated that the men of Hamath
made images of ASHIMA. The problem of the
origin of this name can no longer be called un-
solved. T h e other divine names in z K. 1730f. being
Assyrian (see special articles), Ashima, or better Ashi-
math (see BBAL), must be Assyrian too. Tasmitu, the
consort of Nebo, i s , not great enough. The original
name was inuN=inu,y, 1shtar.l Ishtar was the second
of the five planetary deities, four of whom are mentioned
besides in z K. 173of: The noticc in z K. 172430,
however, needs a close examination. T o understand
it is one thing ; to accept it as quite historical is
another. Hamath and Avva (or rather Gam, n p ) have
no right of existence in this passage, the context of
which requires well-known Babylonian cities. N o As-
syrian king would ever have placed Hamathite colonists
in Samaria ; the object of such transferences of popula-
tions was to remove restless elements to a distance from
their home.2 T h e cause of the insertion of the wrong
names can easily be surmised (see SEPHARVAIM).Al-
most equally improbable is it that a prophetic writer,
in a list of the countries from which Israelitish captives
should, by a mighty divine act, be brought back, would
write ‘and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from
Hamath, and from the isles of the sea’ (Is. 11 11).
Not improbably nnn, ‘ Hamath,’ should be on3,
‘ Kittim’ (Cyprus) ; a 6 reads otherwise (see ‘ Isaiah,’
SBOT [Heb.]).
To assume with Millar (Hastings, D B 1 166) that, ‘as Hamath
was occupied by the Hittites’ the name (Ashima) may very
possibly he Hittite is o posed to the facts suggested above, and
mentioned by Jerken &Iiiiitev.zc. Armenier, 154). Below is
given a list of the divine names in 2 K. 17 30J with their prob-
able identifications :-
Succoth-benoth= Sakkuth-KaiwBn(Ninib)=Saturn
NerFal= Mars
Ashima = Ishtar=Venus
Nibhaz (Nibhan)= Marduk= Jupiter
Adrammelechz ,, t
AnammelechE
Tartak or Tartah= thi\ance-sta?= Antares.
The references to Hamath in Ezek. 47 16 f; have not come
down to us quite accurately. In TJ. 16 thl) should go with
nQ5, ZEDAD ( p a . ) being an interpolation, and in u. 17 ’n $r>ii,
‘and the region of Hamath ‘ is a gloss (Cornill). [The names in
63 the first time are corru,’t ; later in w. 16 there occurs VpaOeL
[Bl; in v. 17 B omits Hamath.] T. K. C.
HAMATR-ZOBAH (qIlYhPn, 2 Ch. 83, BaicwB~
P I , A i M a e CUBA
[A], EMAeCOYBA[L]). See ARAM,
$ 6 , HAMATH,SOLOMON.
HAMITAL (Kt. $PWn), z K. 2418 RVmg,, EV
H AMUTAL .
HANIMATH (i7Dn-i.e.. ‘ h o t spring ’), one of the
fenced cities of Naphtali (Josh. 1 9 3 5 ; wMaea [Aa~se]
[Bl. AM& [AI, A M M A 0 [L]), probably= HAMMOTH-
DOR (lK9 riMI?; NEMMAe P I , €MAeAwp [AI,
&M&eAwp [L]), reckoned among the Levitical cities
in Naphtali (Josh. 2132, P), and called in the parallel
passage, I Ch. 676 [SI], HAMMON[ Z ] ( ] r m n ; XaMwe
[BL], - W N [A]), I t is perhaps to be connected with el-
~ a m m e h , the hot springs to the S. of Tiberias.
Josephus (Ant. xviii. 23 ; BJ iv. 13) calls it Emmaus
(cp EMMAUS). Wilson took the temperature of seven
distinct springs, three of which have been enclosed
(Recovery of Jerzrs. 3 6 2 ) . Cp GASmith, HG 450.
HAMMATR (npn),I c h . 255, RV, AV HEMATH
[q. 0 I].
HAMMEAH (;IyM;?),Neh. 31, RV, AV MEAH, in
‘Tower of Hammeah’ (‘$,in). nNn;1 is evidently a corruption
1 See Che. ‘Gleanings in the Books of Kings,’ Ex$. T.,
10429 (.June ’99).
2 Wmckler, A T Untevs. 101.
3 By transposition and confusion of 3 and n (Che. SBOT,
‘Isaiah,’ Heb.). .Cp last col., n. 3.
‘946
 HAMMEDATHA HAMU OR HAMI, NAMES W I T H
of 3 ~ 2 (,,~e 3v. 3), which in turn is a corruption of fi>w??,'the But the fortress was certainly in connection with a
Old (city). See COLLEGE, HASSENAAH, HULDAH, and cp town, the striking ruins of which still exist, now called
HANANEEL. T. K. C.
Umnz eL'Amzid (or 'Awdmid). It was there that Renan
HAMMEDATHA (KC79;! ; AMAAAEIOY [BKL], found an inscription dedicated to El (=Baal) Haniman
apaeasou [A]), the father of Haman (cp the name paSaras in (see Baethg. Beitr. 27 ; also G. Hoffmann, Uedereinige
Xenophon, Cyr. v. 3 41 ; and see Be-Ryss.), Esth. 3 I (avapaeasov ph8n. Znschr. Z I J ['Sg]). These ruins are possibly on
[A], z). IO om. BNAL) 8 5 (only in Wa mg. as above) 9 IO (apa- the site of the ancient Hammon (Guerin, I
vasaeou [N*])24 (apayaeouv [~"l). His name appears as AMA- z. A Levitical city in Naphtali, I Ch. 6 76 [611 (xapwe [BL],
DATHUS in 1 2 6 (apavasaeou [B*vid. see Swetel vapavaS. [Bbl) -v [AI). Probably identical with HAMMATH (i.)! Josh. 19 35, and
and 16 IO 77 RV, where AV AMA~ATHA (apa8ou [A] in z).IO, HAMMOTH-DOR Josh. 21 32. The name In thls case has refer-
om. LB in v. 17). ence to hot spriAgs. T. K. C.
HAMMELECH (q>g;!)appears in AV and RVmS as RAMMOTH DOR (lK? lib?), Josh. 2132. See
the name of the fathers of J ERAHMEEL and M ALCHIJAH , HAMMATH
(i.).
2 (Jer. 36 26 38 6). In RV and AVmg. each of these
persons is called ' the king's son ' (so 6). Probably, BAMMUEL ($&IDn, 5 46), I Ch. 426, RV, a mis-
however, 75nDn is a corruption of an imperfectly written take of M T for HAMUEL
[AV] ( q . ~ . ) .
hnni>,Jerahmeel. Men of Jerahmeelite origin would
HAMONAH (n$WJ, Ezek. 3916 ITOAYANAPION'
naturally be called 'sons of J ERAHMEEL ' ( q . ~ . ) . Cp
JOASHi., 4. T. K. C. [BAQI'], and Hamon-Gog ( l k ] V 2 ? , 'Gag's multi-
tude,' Ezek. 39 15, TO T~OAYAN. T O Y r w y
HAMMELZAR (l&;!), Dan. 111, RVLng., AV
[BAQI']). The latter is the name which, in Ezekiel's
M ELZAR (q.a ). prophecy, is given to the valley, or rather ravine ( 3 4 ;
HAMMER is not always an accurate rendering of the see V ALE , 3), where GOG [q.v.] and his multitude are
word in MT. buried, and which is more precisely described as ' a
I. "ZQ, nzakkihih, (u+Cpa, malZeus, but in Is. 4412 &PPI. ravine of (the mountains of) the Abarirn, east of the
~pov)atoolusedbythestonemason(~ K. 67), thesmith(Is.441~; (Dead) Sea.' This is intelligible. But what is to
MT has plur., @ sing.), and the woodcarver (Jer. 10 4). The word be said of HAMONAH?Is there really to be a city
(il??,D) is also applied to the (wooden) mallet with which tent- with this name?' So AV and RV lead us to sup-
pins' were driven (Judg. 421). It was therefore smaller than pose ; and Tg. may have found an allusion to the city
thepat@s*(no. 3, below). of Bethshean, deriving its name Scythopolis from the
2. O + Q ~ nin$;r, kalmzitb ' ~ m ~ ~u+irpav ~ V;
i m , K O ~ L B V ~ [B Scythian invasion in the 7th cent. B.C. Gag, however,
really Aq.?], broropas raramhwv [AI b. raramm&v [Ll ; as has been pointed out elsewhere, is a corrupt fragment
Vg. malleosfa6romnz, aname given to tde implement with which
Jael slew Sisera (Judg. 5 26). The phrase is, however, highly of Mig(a)don, a title of the enemy of 'God derived from
suspicions (see Moore). Che. emends jhp d ~ m 'a , flint Babylonia; Hamon-Gog is either a corruption of the
of the rock.' Cp Dt. 32 13, and see JAEL. same name, or perhaps of Har-mig(a)don (A RMAGED -
3. d%g, pa{& a@pa [r&l in Jer. 23 291, malleus, a heavy DON). W e may then continue jilm Y ~ N D1~31, ' a n d
tool used in image-making and in quarrying (Is. 41 7 Jer. 23 29). Mig(a)don shall disappear from the land,' after which
Nebuchadrezzar is called by this term (Jer. 50 q),which gives read ' and the land shall become clean' (so 6, Co.).
no support to the explanation of ' Maccabaeus' as ' Hammerer
(see MACCABEES i., 8 I). T. K. C.
4. From n i & + ~ini Ps. 746t a noun ??$', KZappak, hateu- HAMOR (linn, 'ass,' 5 68 ; EMMWP [ADEL]), the
m j p ~ o u ,ascia, has been inferred ; but in the light of the Tg. we ' father of S HECHEM ' [q.v.], Gen. 33 1934 Josh. 2 4 3 2
should doubtless emend to ni.? $p,' two-edged' (Herz), and Judg. 928 Acts 716 (AV E MMOR) etc. There is a current
render, not ' with axes and hammers,' but ' with two-edged axes.' view that Hamor is the name of a ' totem-clan.' In the
5. u+Cpa, Ecclus. 38 28 (blacksmith's hammer). abstract there is no objection to a belief in early ' totem
RAMMIPHKAD (lz@;!), Neh. 331, RV, AV clans,' as stated by Gray (HPN, 115). I t is more
M IPHKAD , in 'the -gate of Hammiphkad ' ; cp Ezek. probable, however, that imn 13 in 342 is analogous to
4311, ' t h e appointed place' (miph@ud)of the temple nn q3, ' sons of Heth ' ( =Hittites), and simply means
(following 6 , r$ ~ T O K E X W ~ L U ~ ~ V C ~ ) . ' Hamorite' ; y, which follows, should perhaps be
The sense, however, is not good ; read perhaps 'the hurning- read $?nr~,' Hamorite,' and be regarded as a gloss (see,
place (m8&KM)of the temple' (Konig, Lehrged. 2a, 93 n.). The however, H IVITES , 5 2). In this case I Hamorite' prob-
gate would be that which adjoined the ' burning-place.' See
JERUSALEM, 5 24. ably= 'Amorite' ; in fact Gen. 4822 ( E ) represents
HAMMOLEKETH, or (RV) HAMMOLECHETH Shechem as won from m N ? , 'the Amorite.' T h e
Assyr. name of the kingdom of Damascus (mdt
(il$D;!, as if ' she who reigns,' sister of M ACHIR ; &z-imir2-Su) has similarly been derived from im&u
1 Ch. 7 18+ ( H M A A E X E ~[BA]. M s A X A e [L] ; REGINA 'ass ' ; but the real name was probably related to
cvg. I). ' Amorite' (cp Del. Pur. z s o f : ) . T h e Assyrians made
Close by we find ZELOPHEHAD, GILEAD (4.v. I , $. 8) ISHOD a pun on the name. T. K. C.
(see, however, the article), MAHLAH, each of which is acorrup-
tion of Salecah or Salbad. The older view that Hammolecheth
is a divine title reqiires too much confidence in MT ; we should
HAMRAN ();?n), I Ch. 141 RV=Gen. 3626,

have expected Beth-Milcah(cp Gray, HPN 116); but Milcah H EMDAN .

itself is a corruption of Salecah (see MILCAH, 2).
HAMMON (limn, ' glowing,' perhaps a divine title,
'cp Baal-Hamman-;.e., the Baal of the solar glow ;
but see [ z ] ) .
I . A place on the border of Asher, apparently
near the sea, Josh. 1928 (~pepuwv[B], upwv [AL]).
Identified by Robinson with the ruins at the head of
the W. HBmnl, which he saw from the high hill
of Bel@ (see RAMAH[ 6 ] ) , and believed to bear the
name of HHninl. Since, however, the existence of a
locality of that name is very doubtful (see GuCrin,
CuZdt?e, 2147), it would be better to connect Hammon
with 'Ain f?imlil, near the point where the wHdy
reaches the sea, and where there are the remains of an
ancient fortress. This Dillrnann admits as a possibility.
1947
HAMU or HAMI, NAMES WITH. This group of
Hebrew names is small ; it may perhaps comprise only
HAMUEL ( 4 . v . ) and one other (see HAIVEUTAL;
but cp HEMDAN). Renan (RBJ 5175), Wellhausen
(De Gent. 2 2 , n. I), and Hommel ( A H T 322) derive
these and similar Semitic names (e.g., infiyon in
Himyaritic) from bumd, ' to protect.' That such a root
was used in forming proper names seems clear (see
J AHMAI ) ; but the analogy of the names compounded
with Abi-, Ahi-, etc. is in favour of taking Hamu as a
term of kindred.
That on means ' father-in-law,' ninn ' mother-in-law,'
is certain; the instances may be few, but they range
1 This word represents the Heb. ~ $ in2 Jer. 2 23 19 2 6 as also
in Ezek. 39 11 u ; cp z Macc. 9 4 14 4 Macc. 15 20.
1948