Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25


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

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$iva ‘to be green‘ ; x6pms[por&vq twice]): I K
185 K.19;6 Job812 (EV ‘herb’) Prov.2725 (EV ‘hay’j
Is. 156 (AV ‘hay’) and frequently; also Nu.115 where it is
translated LEEKS [p.v.l. . (After Layard.)
2. Nf?, dd&’ (cp +‘Nul, ‘to sprout luxuriantly’ ; cp Che. on consisted of plates of bronze (ntn?)which covered the
Ps.23 z) Jer. 14 5 (cp 6) Prov. 27 25 Job 35 27 Is. G6 14 RV
‘tender grass.’ In Jer. 5011 N$! 3hY, ‘heifer at grass’ lower portion of the legs. The annexed, figures of
Assyrian combatants may illustrate the kind of defensive
(RVmz. ; cp @ Vg.) i: rightly rendered by RV ‘heifer that
treadeth out [the corn]. armour that was used, protecting the lower portion of
3. Nni, &the (Dan. 4 1j [iz] 23 [zolt), Aramaic’for no. 2. the leg both in the front and at the back. There is n o
4. and 5. p,yrirak, and 23y, ‘Ziehh. See HERBS, I and 2. evidence that greaves were used among the ancient
6. X ~ P T O SMt. 6 30 Mk. 6 39 etc. Egyptians. See SHOES. 0.c. w.
GRECIANS, a word occurring four times in EV and
1 In Dt. 6 has ?jKhqpaiLc a i 4 v ;r yopdppac : read D i i M thrice in AV of Macc.
nloyn, ‘their vine-blossom is from Gomorrah.’ So Symm. in
I. On Joel 3 [4l 6, where the mg. and RV render literally
Is. Khfjpara. In Hab. read 5 3 ?my ~ ~ ~ \ ? i:an!
p ,(though)
the vine-blossomproduces no grape-cluster. Twice, says Ges. ‘sons of the Grecians’ ( D ’ k f ’>?; r . vl. T . 2hh~jvov[BNAQI)see
Lez.P-13) ‘this plur. noun (nmiw) has a sing. verb.’ The J AVAN HELLFNISM,5 I J In I Macc. 6 z, 2 Mac,. 4 15, RV
sing. verb’should have awakened a suspicion of the faultiness reads ‘)Greeks ; in I Macc. 8 9, they of Greece.
of the text. [This article supplements the note in SBOT which 2. In Acts 9 zg ‘Grecians ’ means Greek-speaking Jews
was condensed from want of space, and meets Marti‘s c h i s i n
in his commentary.] (Grecian Jews)[RV], HELLENISTS [RVmg.], ‘EhXqvru-
1917 1918
7 d s [Ti. WH])-as it is paraphrased in Pesh.-as dis- 3. niiSinrir, lpVF, Ne%.4223 I16JI EV (it. 49 [31, 7 3 EV
tinguished from non-Jewish Greeks ("EhX~yas [Ti. WH], 'watch ') ; the word primarily denotes the place where a watch
Rom. 114) on the one hand, and Palestinian Jews or guard is posted (cp Gen. 40 3, nlpvF Is. 21 8 etc., in Neh.
('Eppaiwv [Ti. WH], Phil. 3 5 ) on the other. In Acts 7 3 inwn,' npo+uhaK?' ; mnwn, rrpo+dAat).
6 I the Hellenists spoken of are Christian. The distinc- 4. nzisina'ath, nYpqp, z S. 23 23 jl I Ch. 112 5 ; see CUUECIL
tion, however, has not always been understood or i., 2. Possibly to be emended to nl?$D (cp above).
observed by copyists and translators. 5. umKouhdxup, Mk. 6 27 RV ' see EXECUTIOXER (3).
In Acts1120 the betterreading is 'Greeks' [RV text],"Ehh?~a~ 6. m u u m d i a Mt.2765 f RVI
[Ti. WH, Blass, following UCAD*l-i.e., non-Jews. I n Jn. 1 2 20 7. On the cajptain of ti: guard, W T ~ ~ C O I I ~ Acts ~ ~ X 28
~ 16
S ,
Actsl'i4, 'Greeks' are proselytes to Judaism (cp HEI.LENISM, AV, cp CAPTAIN, 17, and see PRBTOR. 1
GUDGODAR (?llj7; ; cp Ar. juc17ud~~n ' a cricket ' ;
Jn 1220). See H ELLENISM 2 and cp GRECIANS (above). rahrah [BAI, rahirab [ L ] , rahra.' [F]), a place-
For Greek Language (<hjlqui& [Ti. WHI). .Jn. 1920, see name in a fragment of an itinerary preserved in D (Dt.
H ELLENISM, S 3. 107) ; cp H OR - HAGIDGAD , and see W ANDERINGS , § 8.
GREEN. For ( I ) iJT,yivik ( z Ki. 1926 etc.) see GUESTS (a'&!?), I Ki. 141. See M EALS , 4,
COLOURS, § I I : for@) n>,Z&(Gen.3037etc.);(3) p n , ra'iindn STRANGER 5 3 and SACRIFICE. For Guest-Chamber ( k a n i -
hupa) Mk.'14 14 Lk. 22 11, see HOUSE, 2.
,(Dt. 1 2 2 etc ), and (4) >h?, YE@ (Job 8 16 etc.) see COLOURS,
0 17. Greenish(????;, ye+ruk) Lev. 13491437 ; see COLOURS, GUILT OFFERING (D@F), Lev. 56 etc. RV, AV
0 11. Greenness (IN,'dh) Job 8 12 : see COLOURS, 5 17. For ' trespass offering ' ; see S ACRIFICE .
Green Ihangingsl (DB??, karpas) Esth. 1 6 , see COTTON. GUM TRAGACANTH (nd32),Gen. 3725 RVmg,,
EV 'spicery.' See SPICE, 3 ; STORAX, 2.
GREETINGS ( ~ C I T ~ C M O I ) ,Mt. 237. See S ALUTA -
TIONS. GUN1 ('?U-i.e., ' Gunite' : r ~ y ~ [ s[BADFL]).
] l
GREYHOUND (bl!cQ l'Q1, 'well girt [or, 'well- I. A Naphtalite clan individualised (Gen. 4624) Nu. 2848
(yauuei [Bl, oyuvi IF]), I Ch. 7 13 (ywvac [Bl, youui [Ll). The
knit'] in the loins,' RVmE.),2 one of the four things gentilic >~i1;1occurs in Nu. 2648 EV, The Gunites (yauuei
mentioned in Prov.3031 EV as of stately motion, the [B]), and is read by most critics in I Ch. 1134 (45.4 o youui :
lion, the he-goat, and the king (going to battle?) being @ B for *]11Ja ow8 * j has~ P s w a L a s 6 uopohoyauuouurcu, @U
the other three. Whether the poet meant the grey- v a s 6 uopoyeuvouviv, @L viol auop TO$ <EYYL) instead of EV's
hound (Kim., Gr., Ven., Luth., Ew., BO., De. ), is 2. A Gadite family individualised in I Ch. 515 (youv[elc
another matter. [BAL]).
The revisers of AV felt uncertain, and placed 'war-horse' (so
Bochart, Wildeboer?) in the margin, with what they conceived to GUR, THE GOING UP TO, RV The Ascent of
he the literal meaning of the Hebrew pnrase (see above) ; the
eagle (Ihn Ezra) and even the S. African zebra have also been 5:-
(191-;I OD);for similar combinations see A DUMMIM ,
thought of (Ludolf, Simonis). A KRABBIM , and ZIZ), a place near I BLEAM [ p . u . ]
T h e rendering ' cock ' is advocated elsewhere ; but where Ahaziah seems to have received his death-blow :
the rendering in EV would be not less suitable if only it 2 IC. 9 2 7 (BN [rrpoc] TW ANABAINEIN rai [BAI, EN
could be justified (see C OCK ). On this hypothesis TH ANABACEI r € e
something good would for once be said of a dog (see Josephus mentions no name : he has Ferely 'in a certain
ascent' (& CLVL II ou,9duar, A n t . ix. 63). rhe name appears as
D OG , § I). T h e large Persian greyhound is used in Cer, yvp, in OS& 12930 ' 247 g Flinders Petrie (Syria and
the desert for hunting the G AZELLE ( p . v . ) ; as of Egyjt, 160) identifies Gur)with the land of Gar in the Amarna
'noble kind,' it is allowed to lie down in the nomad Tablets ; see art. below, and cp HORITES.
booth (Doughty, AY. Des. 1327 337). Tristram states GUR-BAAL ($&Q.-l9il),a place inhabited by Arabians
that this dog is known in modern Palestine (NHB So). (z Ch. 267).
GRINDING (nztlp),Eccles. 124. See MILL. The Targ;um reads ' Gerar ' instead of 'Gnr ' : cp 63's ' Gerar '
for 'Gedor, I Ch. 439 [BAL] and note that in both passages
GRISLED (V?;), Gen. 3110. See C OLOURS , 3 12. 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
GROVE, GROVES. For (I) n@y,' m i h ,av4&, suggestion of $yn-ii~ (Vg. 'cod. Amiat. Tw6aaO.-
&"Mrn, see ASHERAH,§ I, and for (2) h j g , '$X,Gen. 2133 T h e rock or mountain of Baal might he the J e h l Neby
AV, I S. 226 AVms (cp 31 r3), see TAMARISK. Hirzin (see H OR , M OUNT , I), the summit of which was
doubtless always crowned by a sanctuary.
GUARD. On the employment of men for the pur- The neighbourhood of this sacred mountain would be
poses of protection and of keeping watch, see A RMY inhabited by ' Arabians ' before the later city of Petra
(esp. $3 4, I O ), C ARITES , CHERETHITES,D AVID , arose. See Kittel's note (SBOZ')and Buhl, Edomniter,
11 a, G OVERNMENT , § 21, FORTRESS. 37,4 1 (n. 4),and cp A RABIA , § 3.
I. +'ab6rihim, 0n
' ;p (&E., z K.25 8) ; see EXECUTIONER (I) Wi. (GVZ146 n. I ) reads o'jiynn-$yi 7113 and identifies Gur
and cp CATTLE, col. 7 1 4 ~n. I. with the Gar (=Edam) in the Amarna Tablets (237 23) : hut see
2. rrisim, n's?, I S. 22 17, RV, etc. : see ARMY, S 4, col. 314:
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
OCK, col. 855, n. 4. H ELLENISM , § 5, PALBSTRA.


HAAHASHTARI (+?Q'@DFJthe art. being pre- 2 5 8 Over the violent one who had made the nations his
prey these nations shall utter a tauirting song which is com-
fixed; A C H P ~ N [B], acetipa [AI) a o c e o y p e i LL1). priseh in five sections froiu w. 66 onward, each 'beginning with
A Judahite family which traced its origin to Ashhur *>>or'woe' (wv. 66-89-11 12-14 15-17 18-no-in the last section
( I Ch. 4 6 ) ; perhaps we should read *?mqy, ' the Ash- the >)?is at the beginning of v. 19).
hurite.' The error has arisen from a mistaken assimila- A . The taunting song just referred to stands apart as
tion of the already corrupted name to n q l n w n ~ Est.
, 8 TO. a separate section within the first two chapters of the
T. K. C. book, although it is in connection with the preceding
prophecy. W e have therefore now to discuss 12-24.
HABAIAH (V;n [Bg.], but ?l:Jn [Ginsb.] ' Yahwb The question we have to consider is, to whom does
hides ' or ' protects ' ; cp E LIAHBA, J EHUBBAH ), a post- this prophecy (12-24) relate? or, rather, to whom is
exilic priestly family which was unable to prove its 3. Chap, 12-24. salvation promised, to whom destruc-
pedigree, Ezra 261 (AaBeia [Bl, oBaia [AI, whoyia tion threatened? Until quite recently
CL])=Neh. 763, RV H OBAIAH (VQR [Ba.], but VQn it was universally held that the latter were the Chaldeans
'or i'ls2lJ [Ginsb.]; BBBIL\ [BA], aB[e]ia[KL])= I Esd. and the former the people subject to them, especially
538, OBDIA(oBBsia [B], oBAia [AI, whoyia [L]). Israel.
See G ENEALOGIES i. § 3 (2). 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
RABAKKUK (iNiDY, I 66, AMBAKOYM [BKAQI, since the only such power named is the Chaldean (1 6), it was
~ M B L \ K O Y K Da. (Theod.) Bel [A] Compliit., 4 Esd. assumed that the prophecy was directed against this.
1 4 0 f ABACUC ; Frd. Del. compares Ass. bamba&+u, the It is now, however, coming to be recognised that the
name of a garden plant, Ass. HWB 281, ProL 84 ; cp matter is by no means so simple. Scholars cannot shut
Hommel, Aufsu'tze, 27J ['92]),the eighth of the minor their eyes to the fact that in 1 6 the nation of the
prophets, about whom, in the absence of authentic tradi- Chaldeans appears, not as the object of a divine judg-
tions, legend has much to say. ment, but as its instrument.
I n Bel and the Dragon Habakkuk is commanded to carry a It is Yahwb who will raise the Chaldeans up (P'?B 9>1) ; the
meal to Daniel in the lions' den for which purpose an angel promise of victory is for them the threatening is for others.
seizes him by theiair and carries him to Babylon Later, the relation of Yahwi: td the hostile power is reversed'
1. Legends. and back ; and the same story is told, but more bnt in the text as we now have it this change does not come ou;
picturesquely, in the different Lines of the clearly, and there is confusion in consequence.l
Projhets, which have reached us in a great variety of languages
and forms. Here he is represented as a Simeonite, born at Beth- The present position of the question may here be
Zechariah, and dying two years before the end of the Babylonian briefly stated. T h e element of truth in the theories of
exile.l In the heading of the Codex Chisianus (see D ANIEL earlier scholars has of late been rediscovered by several
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 independent workers, notably Giesebrecht and Well-
connection with the biblical book is the mention of the Chal- ha~sen.~ The present writer also, with equal independ-
deans (Hab.16) by which the prophet's place in history is ence of predecessors, pointed out (St. Hi-., 1893, p.
approximately indicated.
3 8 3 8 ) that 1 4 and 1 1 2 should be brought together,
The book is divided by the new heading of 31 into
to which he added the entirely new theory that 15-11 is
two indeDendent sections which demand seDarate treat-
not an independent earlier prophecy but an integral
*' ' T h e first two chapters are
lFirst section hmeeLd : ' T h e oracle ( ~ $ p ? ) which
chap. If.
part of the same prophecy removed from its original
place, and that this prophecy is a threatening addressed
the prophet Habakkuk saw.' The not to Chaldea but to Assyria. It has, in fact, been
very first word, which had already been ridiculed for its overlooked that the prophecy, if it contains a threatening
ambiguity by Jeremiah (2333-40) and strictly prohibited, against a world-power, must be speaking not of one
is proof that the heading is due to a late editor (see world-power only, but of two-it., not only of the
ISAIAH ii., 9). It need not surprise us therefore to oppressor but also of the destroyer of that oppressor.
find many traces of editorial intervention within the Why not, 'indeed? H e who 'alone doeth great wonders'
book itself. both can and does avail himself of secondary causes. The
I. Chaps. If:, as we now have them, may be analysed prophets are well aware of this, and Habakkuk himself, in his
threatenings, gives clear expression to this truth (2s). If, then
somewhat as follows :- the prophecy were directed against the Cbaldeans we should
12-4 sounds like a Psalm, or rather a Lamentation : the have expected to find Cyrus as in 11. Isaiah, the Medes as in
prophet complains to Yahwe that he is left to cry in vain for Is. 13 17, or Elam and the Medrs as in Is. 21 2 (cp also Jer.
help against the oppression and tyranny of the wicked, from 51 27 J),mentioned by name as the instruments of YahnE's
which law and justice are suffering.
1911. Yahwe speaks withort any intqoducfory fownub 1 The first to observe this was von Gumpach (Der P7.0$12.
(such as 'And Yahwi: said'). He is about to raise up the war- Hab. :60) to whom de Goeje (review in Nieawe Jnarboeken,
like ChaZdeans, who will achieve complete success. etc. 61, p. 3 0 4 8 ) in the main assents. A full and dis-
1 1 2 - 17. Again wifhoat an introductory formula, the crinkating account of their theories will be found in Kuenen's
prophet addresses Yahwi: once more. He cannot understand 0nd.PJ 2 362 ; a more condensed statement is given in the second
how the God of Israel, himself holy and just can look an while edition of this indispensable work, where the author's own re-
the sinner destroys the man who is better thin himself, how the vised opinion wi1.I be read with profit (German translation by
wicked is allowed to take men and people: like fish with hook Mfiller, 2 3 7 1 8 ) .
and net, and then to pay divine honours to these instruments of 2 See his Beitriige ZMY Jesaiakritik, 197 ['go], where strong
his wealth and greatness. arguments are brought to show (against Kuenen) that 112 ought
2 1 : 'I stand upon my watch tower 'etc. The prophet awaits t o come immediately after 14. According to this scholar, the
the answer of Yahwb to his complain;. appropriate place for 15-11 (which is a piece complete in itself)
2 2-4: 'Then Yahwe answered me ' etc. The prophet is is before 1 I. It is the Chaldeans, he thinks, who are here for
bidden write and set up where all may read them the joyous the first time announced : they are described with imagery
tidings that help is coming in due time, and that the just who derived from the Scythians. The rest of the prophecy was
waits patiently shall live by his faith. written under the Chaldean yoke, probably during the exilic
1 Cp two recensinns of the Vitceprojhetarzrm with numerous 3 See his KZ.Prodh. 1 6 2 3 ('92); (3), 1 6 5 8 ('98). Both with
notes by E. Nestle, Marginalien u. Matejialien 2 1 esp. regard to the.people addressed, and as to the origin of 1 5 - 1 1
26f:'57: also Delitzsch, D e Habmacuci j r o j h e t e w k z &us he agrees with Giesebrecht ; hut he apparently makes all thi
e i n t e P J , '42, and Hamaker, Comm. in ZibeZ(zLm de vita e t prophecy pre-exilic. This it must he because 12.4 presupposes
3norte jrojhrtaruwz, '33. the existence of the kingdom of Judah.
1921 1922
justice,l or at the very least the announcement made that a iearly so well, and we notice that in 1 6 we at once meet with
warlike people should appear even if no name were given. he apposition, 'the people,' etc., a phrase which controls the
Instead of this, the power wkch is to cause the fall of the :ntire description down to v. IO.
oppressor is not even referred to in the divine response given Such is the only solution that meets the conditions
in 2 2-4 ; indeed it is extremely doubtful whether the fall itself
is spoken of in the obscure words of 2 4a.a )f the problem. The argument is necessarily simple ;
Now for our hoped-for solution. W e have detached io long historical discussion is required. T h e change
15-11 from its surroundings, and must study it in and 3f date involved is at most twenty-eight years, perhaps
I t describes how YahwB, :onsiderably less. T h e counter - hypothesis offered
4. 15-11 against who fQr itself.
speaks in the first person, calls 2y Rothstein, however carefully elaborated, labours
assyria. up a warrior people that he may give inder insuperable difficulties.
it an unheard-of victory ; by the ' for' ( $ 3 ) in the be- We may therefore proceed to show how the theory
ginning of v. 6 this word of YahwB is linked to another idopted illuminates the whole prophecy.
That the, '!aw' in 1 4 is that of Deuteronomy needs no show-
that must have preceded it. A divine word of such ing. The righteousness' claimed here and in 113 is the will
deep import will exactly correspond to the prophet's :or good produced by this law, the promulgation of which was
anxiety in 21. The divine response waited for begins accompanied by such high hopes. The weight of the long-
indeed in 2 2 , but after v. 4 we find an unaccountable :ontinued Assyrian suzerainty, however, has crushed all effort
'1 2-4). The righteous people feels itself worthy of freedom,
hiatus. Now, is it not obvious that the passage we k d cannot comprehend how it is that Yahwe can passively
have alreadly isolated fills the hiatus, that it calls by watch the violence done (1 12-17). After uttering this complaint
its name the mighty warrior nation which is the destined the prophet is commanded to write legibly upon a tablet that
geliverance is coming but must be waited for with patience
conqueror of the oppressor? I t will be objected : we '2 1-4). Yahwe is about to send the Chaldeans, a warlike people
cannot suppose that the Chaldeans are to abolish them- khich will subvert everything (16-10). Then the might of the
' selves? Of course n o t ; but we have seen that the Assyrian will be at an end and disappea? without leaving a
theory which identifies them with that oppressor rests trace (111 2 5). Thus far the exposition (given by Yahwi: him-
jelf) of the inscription in 2 3 J 3
on& on 16. If now the Chaldean power in 1 6 is re- This view of 1 2 - 2 5 has been variously received by
ferred to, not as the oppressor but as the oppressor's
conqueror, then the oppressor himself is the power Accepted without qualification by Cornill (E&d.(%Y ['96]), and
which was vanquished by the Chaldeans, in other words rejected by Davidson(Nah. Hub. and Zeph. t'961) and Nowack
Assyria : that is, the prophecy is directed not (as used [KZ.Propk. ['g~]),it was again accepted by GASm. (Twelve
to be thought) against the Chaldeans but against the 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
Assyrians. other side reference
&<r refe;ence may be made to GASm.GASm:
The view just indicated is supported by other weighty One point put forward by Davidsan in his Appendix
considerations. (137J)demands special notice. H e lays stress on the
I. T h e exceedingly vivid picture of the oppressor in fact that according to the recently discovered inscrip-
I r 4 f . 2 5 does not suit the Chaldeans, whilst it fits the tions ' those who accomplished. the final destruction of
Assyrians, the Romans of the East, perfectly. Niueveh were the Medes alone, the Babylonians having
Not all at once, but by numerous separate efforts spread over no part in it.' He concludes ' that this course of events
three centuries, not merely by force of arms, but (as the angling
metaphor suggests) by policy and craft were so many petty can hardly be said to give any additional plausibility
principalities and more than one impdrtant kingdom swept to the interpretation of Habakkuk advocated by Prof.
into the hands of these robbers (cp Is. 105.1113J). The Budde.' It is difficult, however, on the other hand, to
Chaldean, on the other hand, far from being the unresting,
persistent, grasping amasser of wealth was simply the smiling see how this ' course of events ' could militate against
heir. His conquest of Babylon th;ew the empire of the the interpretation in question.
Euphrates and Tigris, like ripe fruit, into his hands and his If the Chaldeans took no personal part in the final destruction
victoryat Carchemish over the pharaoh Necho did the &me with of Nineveh, they at least were in alliance with the Medes who
Western Asia : within a very few years-within twenty, if we did, and they contributed all they could to the overthrow of the
reckon from the accession of Nabopolassar in Babylon-all Assyrian Empire. Even if this had not been the case it is
had been accomplished. This does not correspond well with still conceivable that the prophet might by anticipation) have
Habakkuk's figure. erroneously assigned this part to them. If in point of fact,
2. Even if it were granted, however, that ultimately however-as Winckler had conjectured and the inscriptions
perhaps the Chaldean ascendency did come to partake now confirm-the Chaldeans held back from the final destructiou
of Nineveh and left the task to their allies simply because they
of the character described, Judah at all events had no shrank from the wrath of the gods of Nineveh, the fact remains
time allowed her to experience it. that they were nlorally the authors of the overthrow as well as
The conquest of Nineveh brought relief rather than oppression the others, and the prediction of the prophet accordiug to the
to the whole of Western Asia ' and even after the battle of Car- interpretation in question was completely realised.
chemish ahout 605 B.C. Judah'would have had little to suffer at Those who reject this interpretation are themselves
t+ hands of the Chaldeans had not Jehoiakim's senseless renun-
ciation of his vassalage in 6 0 2 provoked their wrath. Between divided into two camps. Nowack follows Giesebrecht
that date and 597 at latest the prophecy might conceivably have 1 The death of ASur-b5ni-pal in 626 B.c., and the commence-
been directed against the Chaldeans; not later, because we ment of Nabopolassar's reign over Babylon in 625, constitute
find in it no trace of the hard fate of Jerusalem and Jehoiakim. for our hypothFsis the superior limit. the inferpor is to be sought
This short interval is hardly long enough, however to acconnt in the battle of Megiddo in 609 and ;he fall of Nineveh in 608.
for such a picture as we have in 1143, and, moreAver, within 2 See his article on Hab. 1 and 2, St.Kr., 1894, p. 5 1 8 Like
these years a prophecy of the fall of the Chaldean power would the present writer he transposes 16-10so as to stand after 2 5a ;
certainly have been most premature. but he infers from 12-4 (v. 5 an editorial insertion) that the
3. T h e strong personification of the enemy in the entire prophecy was originally directed against the godless in
image of the fisher, as in 1 1 5 and elsewhere, is worthy /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
of attention. [read iIYJW1 q a ) , originally delivered about 605 B.c., was, he
I t is very appropriate in the case of the Assyrians, who are
always designated by the singular AX&&-; and a splendid in- thinks. revised durinc the Exile; so as to make it an oracle
stance of a similar kind had already been supplied by Is. 10 5 8 again& Babylon. Agginst this view compare the present writer's
(see especially v. 14). I t does not fit in with the plural Kuidim 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
1 M. Lauterburg (TkeoZ. 2. azs d. Sckv~eiz,1876, p. 7 4 8 ) of Davidson, $ah. Ha6. Zejh. 55, that 'it is improbable that
draws this inference. He reads in 1 6 ' Persians for ' Chal- the same thing should be said of two different nations ' (u. T I
deans,' and, accordingly, dates the whole book from the exile, of the Chaldeans. v. 16 of the Assvrians). It would seem that
including ch. 3, which could, he thinks. in this way be as- 1II also miist b; taken as referrhg to. the Assyrians, and in
cribed t o the same hand. the article already cited the present writer has even ventured
2 Wellhausen justly remarks : However anxious he was to substitute 1 1 for ~ impossible DONI before nn3 q5n* IN
~ the
about it, Habakkuk's revelation is surprisingly meagre. To y>y*> : 'then shall disappear like the wind, and pass away,
bring at least some divine judgment out of it, the Septuagint Asshur who has made his strength his God.' v. I I simply refers
[@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
back to I). 16 and explains it. [Ruben, more boldly, n>ixi[d
riddle f But for his low opinion of the prophet he might have ? n h 5mn p'p?~13vn n n i , 'Am I to sacrifice to the wind that
reached it. passes? Am I to make the angle my god?']
I923 1924
and Wellhausen in simply removing 15-11, as being an be confounded with the Babylonians, are a new and
older prophecy, from its present position and making rising people whose seat is on the seaboard to the S.
v. 12 follow immediately on v. 4. Davidson and Driver, of Babylonia : once already in the seventh century they
on the other hand, in spite of all the difficulties which were a menace to the Assyrian empire for a time ( 2 K.
they themselves acknowledge, prefer to retain the section 20) ; the danger was again in sight from the time when
in its present order, and thus essentially follow rhe the Chaldean Nabopolassar secured for himself the
view of H. Oort ( T h .T , '91, pp. 3 5 7 8 ) : 12-4 speaks throne of Babylon (625)' In 16-ro the prophet de-
only of the internal corruption of Judah, vv. 5 - 1 1 scribes them as a people beginning to be known by
threaten this corruption with punishment through the hearsay, and the surmise of earlier scholars is no doubt
instrumentality of the Chaldeans. correct, that the Scythian irruption (from about 630
On this assumption the prophet loses his way, and his onwards), of which the prophet himself had personal
threatening comes to be directed against the Chaldeans. This experience, supplied him, in part at least, with colouring
sudden change of front is attributed to the personal peculiarity
of the prophet. Only Driver is inclined to assign 12-11 (not, for his picture. The time is more precisely determined
as Giesebrecht Wellhiusen Nowack 15-11) to a date consider- by 1 4 as subsequent to Josiahs reformation in 621, but
ably earlier t h h that of thifol1owing)sections. also (with equal certainty) prior to the death of that
B. The new section begins with 2 6 , not with 25. king in 609, so that, halving the difference, we may
Certainly 2 6 establishes a close connection with 2 5 by the take 615 or (by preference) a slightly earlier time to be
words 'Verily they all of them (i.a. 'all the date of composition. At that time the people of
6. Chap.. 26-20. peoples,' with which w. 5 closes) will'take
up a parable and a taunting proverb against Judah was conscious of righteousness : indeed, even
them and will say' (read slpd'l). This introduction, like similar later, men saw in the destruction of Jerusalem and the
ones elsewhere as for example in Is. 14 3f presupposes that the exile the punishment, not of their own sins, but of
enemy has alr;ady fallen. Only then is ';here any occasion to those of king Manasseh ( 2 K. 2 4 3 Jer. 15 4), or of
take up a ' mlshZl' against the enemy. What we read in the their fathers (Jer. 3129 Ezek. 182). As the solitary
following passage (2 66-20) however does not fit into the expression of this mental attitude to be found among
situation. The evil that hehls the eiemy there lies wholly in
the future, and is throughout expressed in the future tense (cp all the prophetic writings that have come down to us,
w.7f: IT 13 16f:). Rothstein accordingly has rightly deleted the book of Habakkuk possesses peculiar value, and
the introductory clause, v. 6 a down to ilnN'1, as an editorial takes a high place among our sources for the history of
addition. In reality it is only the prophet himself (not the
nations) who again takes up speech, after Yahwe has spoken, the period.
cataloguing the oppressor's sins with ever-recurring woes, and The oracle, then, expected from the Chaldeans
threatening him with punishment from God. freedom and prosperity for Judah. T h e actual result
These things being so, we have in the first instance was quite different : they were the in'struments of Judah's
to suppose that the enemy in 266-20 is the same as overthrow. Of course, the responsibility for this must
the enemy in the opening section of the book-in other primarily be attributed to the bad policy of the kings of
words, the Assyrian. The strong personification cannot Judah and to the fanaticism of the patriotic party.
mislead us here ; it corresponds exactly with what we Apart from these causes the prophecy of Habakkuk
have already read about the Assyrian in 1 1 3 3 2 5. On had every likelihood of being fulfilled. Jeremiah too
the other hand, the added introduction, v. 6a, leads us could venture to promise the continuance of the kingdom
to anticipate editorial additions also in the body of the if only it could decide to yield to the Chaldeans.
section. W e can easily understand that in the exilic or the
As such may be pointed out (I) 2 12-14. Verse 12 is taken post-exilic period a prophecy
. . . which had been so sadly
from Mic. 3 IO, v. 13 is brought in as a Divine word (point, 7. Successors falsified could not escape alteration. By
with CWNAQ, ?+?) from Jer. 51 58 and 2,. 14 from Is. 119. In displacement of the passage in which
suhstance the entire passage is in harmony bith the thought Pred~~&ors.good fortune was promised to the Chal-
and feeling of the post-exilic community, but has little to do deans (now16-10), and by other editorial
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 changes, including perhaps removal 02 the name of
desire is to be rid of his tyranny. The passage recalls the Asshur, the prophecy was so transformed as to be
manner of I1 Isaiah. Further, v. 18 stands before its proper capable of being interpreted of the fall of the Chaldeans.
'woe ' in v. 19. These verses must be transposed. probably
21. 18.k a later amplification wrongly brought in' from the These alterations hardly belong to the exilic period,
margin. Verse 20 may have hdd its origin in Mic. 12 and Zeph. which produced its own oracles against Babylon and
17. It closes the passage not unfittingly, hut perhaps was the Chaldeans. They are rather to be assigned to the
intended at the same time to prepare for the theophany in great period of editorial activity-the fifth, perhaps, or
chap. 3.
The remaining three woes have all a beauty of their the fourth century.
own and are strikingly characteristic. T h e first ( 2 From a literary point of view, the original work of
66-3) declaims against the plundering of the nations : Habakkuk in its main features is plainly dependent on
the second (vv. 9-11) against the buildings for display the great prophet of the preceding century, Isaiah.
or defence carried out at the cost of violence and forced T h e picture of the Assyrian tyrants in 113-1g recalls
labour ; the third (vv. 15-17) against the ravishment of Is. 1 0 5 8 , the announcement of the Chaldeans in 16-10
lands and peoples ( v . 15 to be taken figuratively), in suggests that of the Assyrians in Is. 5 2 6 3 , and the three
particular by the stripping of the forests and hunting- woes of 266-17 the 'seven' woes of Is. 58-23 101-4.
grounds of Western Asia. That all this admirably At the same time it is true that, as Rothstein has been
fits the case of Assyria is certain.] at special pains to show, Habakkuk has also in details
a very close affinity t i t h his contemporary Jeremiah.
The text, it is true, is very corrupt (see Wellhausen's sngges- One must not be in a hurry to infer that he copies
tions). Perhaps it was the mutilation of the text that gave
opportunity for the drastic revision we now have before us.2 Jeremiah : almost everywhere the facts of the case are
To sum up : in chaps. 1 and 2 the Assyrians, whose explained by identity of period and circumstances.
vassals the kings of Judah have continuously been since When all has been said, Habakkuk is entitled to be
6, Result a8 re- the time of Ahaz, are threatened with regarded as a well-marked prophetical and poetical
g ~ chap.~ f:S the overthrow of their empire by the personality : the remains of his work which have reached
Chaldeans. These Chaldeans, not to us are among the finest examples of prophetic literature,
and have served as models to later writers, particularly
1 For proofs see St. KY.,1893,p. 3 9 1 3
to the authors of Is. 1 3 21 1-10. Unfortunately the text
2 The view of Stade ( Z A T W 4 1 u - 1 m r'8.il). who exulains is not in good preservation, and cannot always be quite
2 qzoasan interpolation'speaking ofype"&vLpiI&tinian&rant. satisfactorily restored.
cannot he discussed here : see Kue. Ei&. 2 3718 Againsi 11. The concluding section of the book has words at
Rothstein, who explains the whole section, in its original form,
of Jehoiakim, see Sf. Kr. as above, and Ex]60s. May 'gj, p.
3728 1 For the proofs see Sf.KY.,
1893, as above.
192.5 1926
its opening and at its close which mark it out as a of the hostile people; but ww. 18f. present not only a
psaZmzis extra canonem and give it the very appropriate contrast to this, but also a thoroughly
8, Chap. full apparatus of a poem fitted to be typicalpsalm-epilogue(seePs. 135 [6]f: 261rf: 528 [IO]/
apsalm. used in public worship. The only 5916 [17]f: 7 5 r o [ g ] f : ) , and no sure inference can be
singularity is the division of the descriptive words into drawn from the borrowing of v. Ign from Ps. 1832 13316
a superscription and a subscription: read # A prayer Elsewhere also (as could easily be shown) the poem
of the prophet Habakkuk after Shigy8n6th (?)’ and frequently recalls the psalms, and particularly the latest
By the chief musician, with stringed instruments ’ re- psalms. If we want a qnite infallible indication of post-
spectively. Clearly, what is here the subscription must exilic date, we have it in the special application of the
originally have come before v. I . phrase ‘ YahwB‘s anointed’ (v. 13)-i.e., in the transfer-
Adopting Wellhausen’s suggestion, niiq1 for n l ~ * ~we
d, ence of the kingly title to the kingless but consecrated
may restore the superscription thus n k n n113~12nr1n5 people (We. rightly refers here to Ps. 288 [&?PART
~ ‘ 3 piiJ>n$
1 ~ (to the chief musician, on stringed instru- inpi] 849 [IO] 8938 [3g] 51 [5z] 105 15, also to Dan.
ments : a prayer of the prophet Habakkuk).2 [See,
however, S HIGGAION .] 727). The very late divine name ‘ ~ 1 S . h ’( w . 3) is also
a decisive proof of the late date of the Psalm of
I n any case the words prove, as Kuenen rightly
Habakkuk (see P S A L M S ) . ~
perceived, and as Cheyne (OPs. 156 f:) has well
The poetical value of the composition is not slight ;
shown, that the piece, before it had its proper position
but it suffers greatly from corruptions of the text
assigned to it, belonged to one of the collections of
(especially in vv. 9-11 13 f:), in correcting which Well-
psalms that were in use in the worship of the temple.
hausen has rendered excellent service. [See also H O R N ,
Perhaps the only reason for its exclusion from the
MIZRAIM, O N [ii.], V ILLAGE , 6, and cp Ruben, IQR
Psalms as we now possess them was that the editors of
114518 (’99), who rejects vv. 2, 17-19 as later additions,
the prophetic canon had already appropriated it. They
and arranges the genuine psalm in three stanzas of nine
did so because it bore Habakkuk‘s name, just as in
lines each, with ‘ corresponsio,’ according to the theory
6,Pss. 146 147 148,which in the original text bear no of D. H. Muller.]
author’s name, are attributed to Haggai and Zechariah. The fullest catalogues of the earlier works on Habakkuk will
(See P SALMS .) be found in the otherwise unimportant commentaries of A. A.
To Stade belongs the credit of having first shown Wnlff (, __,
‘n Dqd L. Reinke (‘70)~where no
n l -.

( Z A T W 4 I -q7. _
f ) that the authorshiD of Habakkuk is on 10. Literature. few:; than I 35 treatises are mentioned.
Among modernworks, besides those referred
9, Authorship internal grounds impossible ; but it is to in the course of this article, Franz Delitzsch’s Commentary
to Wellhausen that we owe the com- (‘43) should not be overlooked (cp also O T Histovy of Re-
of psalm. Dlete elucidation of this obscure com- deem$tiun, 126 [‘BI]; Isaiah(t),ET 1 2 2 [‘go]); see also A. E.
?avidson, Nahum, h’ahakkuk andZephaniah (Cambr. Bible),
position (KZ. Prujh. 166, (I) 17of:). As he well remarks:
‘ I t is the community that is the speaker. Awe-struck,
.W. Nowack, Die Kieinen ProPheten in HK, ‘96‘
$ k m . The Book o f t h e Tzueive Projhefs 2 (Expos. Bible):
it remembers that first great deed of Yahwk to which it 98. On Hab. 3 see also Nestle, Z A TW 20 167f: (1900).
owed as it were its existence, and yet it prays, Renew K. B.
thy work in the midst of the years. The long-since HABAZINIAH, RV Habazziniah (n:t?fln ; xaBa-
founded theocracy has fallen into ruin, and a new C[E]IN [BHAQ]), a Rechabite, or rather the home of a
fouiidation is desired. The child has become gray- Rechabite (Jer. 353). The name seems to be a corrup-
haired, and “ in the midst of his years ” a new birth is tion of 5y7?, K ABZEEL [ q . ~ . ] . p and n were con-
sought for the sake of a happy final result, even though founded ; i intntded from n*~iw. Kabzeel was a place
it will not take place without bitter pangs.’$ In the in S. Judah. (6ee, however, N AMES , 39.)
description of the theophany which follows-extending T. K. C.
from 3 3 to almost the end of the poem-the colours
are derived exclusively from the deliverance from Egypt,
M Theod.] cud. 87 [a]),
Bel and Dragon, 33, 35, 39, RV H ABAKKUK [q.v.].
as can be seen with sufficient clearness from vv. 3 7 8 3
(cp, however, MIZRAIM). With this description of HABERGEON (H?nl?), Ex. 2832 39 23 AV; RV
the deliverance wrought for the fathers that of the C OAT OF MAIL. See B REASTPLATE i.
new deliverance now prayed for and expected becomes HABOR (7\2.g,a B w p [BAL]), a river in the land
for the poet so blended that in remembering the one of G OZAN , near which were settlements of the Israelites
he seems to behold the approach of the other. deported by Sargon in the time of Hoshea, 2 K. 176=
Wellhausen leaves open the possibility that this may 1811( a g l w p [B]), and also, according to the critically
not always have been the case, and that the proper emended text of 1Ch. 5 2 6 ( x + p [BA]), of the trans-
close of the poem has been lost, since vv. 17-19 cannot Jordanic Israelites deported in the reign of Tiglath-
be the genuine one. This is possible, but by no pileser 111. It was the Habur of the Assyrians ( a name
means certain. Verse 17,which certainly seems strange, which it still retains), the Chab6ras of classic writers
may give some fresh touches to the picture of the fate (apoppas [Strab.], apoupas [Isidore of Charax], apwpa
1 It alone shares with the Psalms the following peculiarities : [Zosimus], xapwpas [Ptol.]). It is a tributary of the
theuse of the word Selah (vu.3 g 13; in the Psalms seventy-one EUPHRATES [q.w.], which it en’ters about 36” N. lat.
times). the expression nsJ& (‘to’ or ‘by.’ ‘the chief musician’ For references to the Habur in the Asiyrian annals see KB
w. 19 : in the Psalms fifty-five times) ; the immediately following 139 (Tiglath- ileser I. hunts elephants on Its bank), and 197 101
expression ~ I I ~ * x ?(‘with’ or ‘on’ ‘stringed instruments’; so (Abur-pasir-a%almentions the Habur and its ‘mouths’ in descrih-
t o he read, see below), used in u. 19 and in Pss.4 G 54 67 76; the ing his conquests). Several important places lay near it.
Cp. Del. Par. 1 8 3 3 See CHEBAR.
word ?)?e, ‘prayer,’ used to designate a poetical piece (u. I :
HACHALIAH, RV Hacaliah (n$Jn, probably a
Pss. 17 86 90 102 142 : cp also Ps. 72 20, according to which all
Psalms admit of being called ‘prayers’); the use of the 5 corruption of Vp)n, Hilkiah ; scarcely for 3$??n,
axctoris in v. I (as also after in Pss. 17 SG 90 102); the ‘wait for YahwB,’ 5s 23, 34, 7 9 ; AXahta [KAL]),
word p’@ (in plu.), if it be genuine(Ps. 7 ; see SHIGGAION). the father of N EHEMIAH (Neh. 11, X E ~ K E I [AB ] , - K I O Y
2 It would be ecqentric to argue from MT’s mi*]]> that
Habakkuk was a Levite and temple chorister : yet, probably [L]; 10 I [z], axehla [W). T. K. C.
enough, the inscription of Bel and the Dragon (cp above) pre- HACHILAH, HILL OF (+n? nm?, E X E A ~
supposes this inference.
3 Wellhausen has put the case ahove so brilliantly that Oort’s
[BAL] ; in 1 S. 261 XEhMAe [E], &XI?&
[A]), a hill in
defence of the traditional view falls to the ground. To set aside the wilderness of Judah, associated with the wander-
the liturgical notes in 3 1 and 196 as editorial additions, and 1 In Hab. 1II read >$N!(suffix forms of i l h d o not occur).
account for the obscurity and want of order in chap: 3 from the
idiosyncrasy of Habakkuk, as in chaps. 1 and 2, IS certainly 2Read ‘ In Halah an$ by Habor the river of Gozan and in
inadequate. Harhar a city of Media. See HARA.
I927 1928
ings of David twice (1S. 2319 2611:). On the former 3. (In I K.1117 ii~; ac%p [BAL].) According td
passage, see H ORESH . I t relates how the men of ZIPH the MT, which presents many difficulties, Hadad was a
[q.w., 21 told Saul that David had found hiding-places royal prince of Edom who escaped with some ‘ Edomites,’
‘ in HfirEshHh, in the hill of HgchilLh, which is on the servants of his father, when Joab massacred ’ every male
S. of the JEshimBn.’ In the latter passage, however, in Edom,’ by an obscurely indicated route to MiSraim
the same persons describe the same hill as being ‘ i n or Egypt ( I K. 1114-22 ; but ‘ Misraim ’ should rather
front of the Jeshimon’-Le., where the desert begins. be ‘ MiSrim ‘ ; see below). There he was welcomed,
T h e second definition alone is correct. and received the sister of the queen Tahpenes as his
In I S. 23 19 ‘on the south of the Jeshimon’ is an error intro- wife. By her he had a son G ENUBATH [q.v.]. On the
duced from II.z4(where the wilderness of Maonis referred to; see death of David he returned home, and became ‘ a n
HORESH).Further references to the name are presupposed by adversary to Solomon’ (cp a. 25). According to the
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, parallel narrative of the marriage of Jeroboam in L.’s
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$>n. Possibly for a6xpiu8sr we should dently copied from a narrative of the marriage of
read l p a u p 6 v , and so forth. So also in Mic. 48 for acxp. read Hadad, the name of the ‘ Egyptian’ princess referred
&paup& (=$). 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 This reading (Ano), though accepted by Klo., Wi.,‘Benz., Ki.
K a l U f i (U. 1
as genuine, is merely a corruption of ninu, ‘sister (of)’;
Conder ventures to find a trace of the name Hachilah TAHPENES [g.v.] is also certainly corrupt. Indeed, textual
in the Tuhret el KijZE, a ridge which runs down from the criticism is much needed in this narrative. It was not to
plateau of Zif towards the desert of En-gedi. T h e ‘ Migraim’ (Egypt) hut to ‘Misrim’ (the N. Arabian Mugri)
name. is, however, by no means certain. In I S. 2328 that Hadad and his Mizrite followers fled, and he went there
because MEHETABEL [ q . ~I], his mother, was a Mi3rite.
we meet with the name nijyinnn (EV Hammahlekoth). This N. Arabian land appiars, both at this time and later, to
dB’sXeXpuO in 261 favours a reading n h n s n , which have had a keen interest in the affairs of Palestine(see MIZRAIM,
would be miswritten for nip!np?, the name found in 5 z [b]). In what the ‘mischief’ which Hadad did to Israel on
his return consisted, we are not informed (see EDOM, 5 6).
2328. A hill with rocky clefts seems to be intended. See Winckler, A T Unterstrch. 1-6: Benzinger, in K H C ; Ki.
The Onom. (OSi2i 2563 ; 120 15) confounds Hachilah with in H K ; Che. QR 11551.556 (‘99). Winckler’s attempted
KEILAH. Glaser, not very plausibly, reads ‘ Hachilah’ for
‘Havilah’ in I S. 157 [see TELEM i.1. T. K. C.
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.
RACHMORI. Jehiel, tutor of David’s sons, is
called ‘ the son of Hachmoni’ in E V of 1Ch. 2732 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.
(>;n?rj-p, o T OY AXAMEI [BIB ... -MANI. [AI, . .. Ant. i. 124 X6Sapor [conj. ~ 0 8 a S o s l ) I Ch. 130 (XouSau [Bl
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 printed Heb. editions. HADAR.
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
2 S. 8 3& 2 S. 10 1 6 s and I K. 11 23 where @SA has aSa8c&p
for Ishbaal, which is ‘explained a i 5pgCL 5F.n;. Certainly [sic; cp v. 14 in BLI) or as so;, codd. and I Ch. 18 3 s
David’s sons had a lion-hearted tutor, on the second hypothesis, 1 9 1 6 3 (hest codd.), akd ds EV also zS.10, and Pesh. and
for Ishbaal and Jashobeam are identical. T. K. C. @=AI. everywhere, Hadarezer (1:~ ?>?J ; aSpaa<ap [BL every-

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.
3 1 with varr. in N, a8paCaprb [in I Ch. 18 31 and in N* aS&=
[K], 8 e K e M I N h [L]), RV ‘ t h e son of a Hachmonite’ 1[ I8Ch. 18 51, rSpaa<ap [ I Ch. 19 161 ; the Hehrew is also written
(AV quite incorrectly, ‘ an Hachmonite ’). It has been with Mukkef everywhere in some MSS. An old Aramaic seal
pointed out (see TAHCHEMONITE) that the true descrip- bears the letters i t y i i n ; and a cuneiform ipscription has Dad-
tion of Jashobeam, or rather, Ishbaal, is most probably ‘idri ; cp Euting, Bey. der Bed. AKud., 85, p. 679 ; Baeth.
‘ a man of Beth-cerem. ’ Beitr. 67).
This should also he substituted f0:- ‘ the son of a Hachmonite’ The name of the king of Aram-zobah, who was de-
.in I Ch. 11 11, and ‘the son of Hachmoni’ in I Ch. 2 i 32. feated by David. See A RAM , § 6, D AMASCUS , $ 6f.,
HADAD (t??, 9 57 ; AAAA [BADEL] ; a Canaan- IIADAD-RIMMON (fit37l’Jq; POUNOC [BKAQI’];
itish and, some think, Aramaean name of the storm- e;
Aduduemnzon),according to the usual inter-
god, who was known also as RammEn, Bir, and pretation of Zech. 1211,a place in the plain
Dadda; cp Winckler, AT Forsch. 69, Schr. KGF,
371-395,538 ; KAT 200-z06,454 ; Tiele, BAG 5 2 5 ;
Megiddo (IVlJpnugg?) where a great
lamentation had taken place ; it is further
Hilprecht, Assyriaca, 76-78 ; Baethgen, Beitr. 67.
held that the occasion of the mourning was the death
T h e first-mentioned of the four gods of the N. Syrian of JOSIAH(q.v., I ) on the battlefield near Megiddo.
kingdom of Ya’di is Hadad [Zenjirli inscr.]. These This view dates from Jerome, who states (Comm. in
references also illustrate the name B EN - HADAD ). Zach. ) that Adadremmon is a village near Jezreel now
I . h. Bedad, fourth king of Edom ; Gen. 36 35f: (v. 35 aSa+
[E]), I Ch. 146f: See BELAii., I . called Maximianopolis. T h e latter place was an im-
2. Eighth (?) king of Edom, I Ch. 1 5 0 (a.VLOS papas
portant station between Caesarea and Jezreel, and von
[BL ; om. ut. p. A], v. 51 a68u [B]) ; miswritten H A D A R Raumer has, with probability, identified it with Legcon
[q. v . ] . Gen. 36 39. See BELAii., I . T h e name of his or Legio, the ancient MEGIDDO(9.7~).
city was PA‘U[p.~.]or Pa‘i. Probably, however, there What authority (if any) Jerome had for his assertion, we know
not ; at any rate, we cannot connect Maximianopolis-Adad-
is a considerable error in the text. remmon with the modern village RumrnPneh (so Van de Velde,
Pa‘u is almost certainly corrupted from Pe’or, and this very Baudissin), for to this theory there is a geographical objection
prohably from Becar,an alternative reading to Achbor in I Ch. (see Buhl, 209)~and any place with a pomegranate tree might h e
1 4 9 . ‘Son of Achhor,’ or ‘Son of BSor,’ however, does not called Rimmon (whence RummPneh). Apart froln this, however,
belong to BAAL-HANAN [ g . ~ . ,XI,who is really this Ha6ad’s the traditional theory labours under these difficulties-that the
father. Thus the name of Hadad‘s city is not really given; state mourning for Josiah cannot have been elsewhere than in
there was a lacuna in the text. Jerusalem (2 K. 23 295) and that Megiddo is lim, not ]imD
He married a N. Arabian-a Misrite or Mnsrite, The Targ. mentions ;he Josiah-theory only in !he second
place, and combines with it another, according to which Hadad-
named M EHETABEL [q.v., I], who is also mis-described rimmon $01, of Tab-rimmon, was the slayer of Ahab, king of
in the received text. Most probably he lost his life in Israel, io’that the phrase of the rophetic writer of Zech. 12 11
the massacre referred to in I K. 1115f. The cause of really means ‘the mourning for Atah hen Omri.’
Baudissin (Stud. zur Sem. ReL-gesclt. 1320) gives a new
the massacre isnnrecorded ; probably it was a retaliation. form to the Josiah-theory, ex laining the disppted phrase, ‘as
Cp D AVID, 3 8 (c), EDOM, 6. the mourning for the battle o r Hadad-rimmon. This is surely
1929 I930
unnatural: nor can it he proved that there ever was such a
place as Hadad-rimmon.
HADATTAH (fiBTJ), Josh. 1525. See HAZOR-
Hitzig and Movers see a reference to the mourning for the HADATTAH.
mythic ADONIS (q.u.) mortally wounded by a hoar(Macroh. 1 21) ;
‘women weeping for Tammuz ’ are referred to in Ezek. 8 14 ; HADES ( ~ A H c ) . I . The word occurs ten times i;
‘the only one’ (Tn$ Zech. 12 IO may also, it is held,l refer to 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.
Adonis. The ohvious objection is that RIMMON(q.v., i.) is 68, and 2013f: this nether world is personified like Shed in
certainly the Assyrian Storm-god RammZn. Even if the pome. Has. 13 14. I n Mt. 16 18 it is represented as a ’city with gates
granate tree was sacred to Tammuz, it is hazardous to suppose like Shea1 in Ps. 9 73 L14l (see GATE).
that Tammuz was called Rimmon. 2. Hades is @‘s common rendering of shGZ, h W (see
There is need of a new theory which shall unite the SHEOL). But also cmployed to render other expressions : (a)
elements of truth in earlier theories, and justify itself Is. 14 19 (113 *>x~),38 18 ( i ~ - ~ seel P~ : (6) Is.
IT ~ ; 28 15 Prov.
a. New theory. from some new source. ‘ T h e mourn- 14 12 1625 (nnJ Job 33 22 (nlD) ; see DEAD, THE, 5 2 ; (c) Ps.
ing for the only one ’ and ‘ the mourn- 94 17 115 17 (anli); see SILENCE : (d)Job 38 17 (nink) ; see
ing of Hadad-rimmon-’ are parallel ; the reference is to SHADOW OF DEATH, On the Hebrew equivalent, see SHEOL
the mourning for T AMMUZ (q.o.). T h e original read- and (on the whole subject) ESCHATOLOGY (see index unde;
ing, however, was not Hadad-rimmou. eBAQF read I ShGI ’).

simply Rimmon ( im). What then is the niythological RADID (1’19;aA[a]ih [AL]; cp the corrupt
name nearest to Ihmmon that can stand in such a con- CALAMOLALUS of I Esd. 5 2 2 ) . Our notices of Hadid
nection? The answer is, Either Migdon, or some name are all post-exilic. Its people, along with those of Ono
out of which Migdon is corrupted. and Lod (Lydda), are included in the list (see E ZRA ii..
Jensen has conjectured that fiayr8wv in the apocalyptic appa. J 9, § 8 6 ) of ‘children of the province,’ Ezra 2 3 3
y a S w (see ARMAGEDDON) may be identical with piyaSwv in (apo8 [B])=Neh. 737 ( a h [BK]), and according to
vccrprya8ov, the name of a god of the underworld, corresponding
to cpeq~vah,the Babylonian Persephone :2 and it has elsewhere Neh. 1 1 3 4 8 ( a & d [KC.amg.inf.L]; BK*A om. passage),
been shown (see GOG) that ‘ Gog’ and ‘ Magog’ in Ezek. 38 39 these were among the places in Jndaea that were in-
are both corruptions of Migdon. Still the Greek p‘yaSwv and habited by Benjamites.
the Hebrew Migdon do not seem to he’identical. YsufptyaSov The list of Benjarnite towns, however, in Josh. 18 meutious
is probably Eshmun-Adon (Eshmun and Adonis were identified none of them, though, according to the Mishna C h Z k h i n , 9 6),
in Cyprus) ; if so, piyaSwv comes from puvaSwv. But p ” , Hadid and Ono were fortified as early as the time of Joshua,
Migdon, given by MT in Zech. 12 11, is most probably a corrup- and I Ch. 8 12 asserts that Ono and Lad, with the towns thereof,
tion of ~li[uIin[nI-z’.e., Tammuz-Adon. This is suggested by were ‘built ’ by Shemed a descendant of Benjamin.
the only possible emendation of the corrupt word ngpzl in Zech. Hadid, or, in its Greek form, A DIDA in the Shephelah,
12 TI, and of the equally corrupt word in Is. 66 17 (see (as[e]t&c [KA]), but also ‘over against the plain’ (&
TAMMUZ), viz. nisp. The women who wept for the l W , or for d8Borr [A], a8etvots [K”], asera. [KC.a], a8cporr [VI,
l Tammuz-Lord,’ are naturally referred to in a prophecy so much ~ a r d~p6uw?rov700 ?rcSiou) was at any rate fortified and
influenced by Ezekiel. On the other hand, whereas Ezekiel ‘ made strong with gates and bars ’ by Simon the Macca-
takes Tammuz as a symbol of the power opposed to God (cp bee ( I Macc. 1 2 3 8 1 3 1 3 ; cp GASm. N G 202).
Belial if this comes from Belili the name of the sisfer of As ASS& or A8da it is also referred to by Josephus, from
TamAuz, and goddess of the uAderworld, see BELIAL) the whom (BJ iv. 91) we learn that it commanded the road from the
author of Zech. 121-136 merely refers to the mournink for coast to Jerusalem.
Tammuz as an image of the mourning of the house of David and
the inhabitants of Jerusalem for some great offence committed Jerome (Onont. 93 I ) describes Aditha as near Dios-
by them in the past. Render, ‘In that day there shall be a polis (Lydda) in an easterly direction. This enables
great mourning in Jerusalem as the mourning of the women who us with considerable probability to identify it with the
weep for Tammuz-adon.
‘ Hadadrimmon ’ may be neglected ; apparently it modern eZ-fladithe, about half an hour eastward from
owes its origin to a scribe’s error. By a common acci- Lydda, and since Thotmes 111. in his Karnak list
dent pi>” became pin; then a too clever scribe cou- refers to Hadid among other southern cities as Hnditi
(no. 76), it is probable that the modern form correctly
verted Inn into ]mi, and glossed Rimmon by Hadad
.(Hadad and Rammiin or Rimm6n were in fact identified). represents the ancient name. Cp WMM As. 21. Bur.
Thus the plausible reading Hadad-Rimmon grew up, 159,165. T.K. C.
and the door was opened to Jerome’s misapprehension. HADLA1 ( 9 Vl), :_ an Ephraimite, father of Amasa,
Possibly ‘ Armagedon ’ in Rev. 16 16 (AV) is due to the 2 Ch.2812 (xoah P I pahhi [AI, ahht [LI).
conflation of two readings, ‘Magedon’ and ‘Adar-
remman’ (asappeppav, for Hadadrimmon). For a HADORAM ( D j i c , ‘the beloved of the High One’?
parallel to the combination of pi and p n , two rival Baeth. Beitr. 67, n. 6. Possiblyfor Dy?#.
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
see Hommel, E+. T.10329 [Ap. ’991 : a8wpap [L]).
[E], apah ytoc Bapah [E], apae yi. B. [L]), a king I. A son of Joktan (Gen. 1027; osoppa [AE], -p [Ll : I Ch.
of Edom (Gen. 3639.1.). See HADAD,i. ( 2 ) . 121’ om. B doupav [AI). The name is obscure. D. H.
Mulier (Bur;. u. Schlasser, 1360f:) and Glaser (Skizze 2 4 2 6 3
HADAR (SIC [some printed edd.], 775 [sa. Gi.]), 435) compare Dauram near Sari% (which is identified w;th UZAL
Gen. 25 15 AV ; I Ch. 1 3 0 AVmg,, RV H A D A D[ii.]. [q.v.l)in Yemen. The name seems to appear in Sabiean as
oilin (CISiv. 1 I).
HADAREZER (7Iv l??), z S. 1016. See HADAD- 2. Son of To1 (see TOW): I Ch. 18 I O (cSoupaap [BI, -pap [HI,
EZER. 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.
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, IDDO ii.). Sayce’s remark on the name ‘ Jorarn’(Ear& Hist.
named between Zenan and Migdal-gad (Josh. 1 5 3 7 t ) . He6.423) will hardly be accepted.
According to the Mishna (%ni6in, 5 6 ) it was the smallest 3. 2 Ch. 10 18, see ADONIRAM.
place in Judah. Sayce (Pat.Pal. 165, 236) finds this name in HADRACH (q?ln,’ceApax [BK: - K . AQ]=Shad-
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. Zech. 9 1 (late : see Z ECHARIAH , B OOK OF, § 6).
HADASSAH (73??,5 69,‘myrtle’ : cp M ~ P T I A , does ‘A word has Yahwk sent into Hadrach, and upon Damascus
it light : for Yahwss are the people of Aram, as well as all
MYPPINH; but see M YRTLE ), the Jewish name of the tribes of Israel.‘a
ESTHER [q.v., J 71 in Esth. 2 7 (om. e B K A L ) . 1 Baethg. (Beitr. 76) compares SamaS-rammin, A&-rammsn,
1 So Movers Lenormant Lagarde.
a See Hal& ‘Le Rapt dk Persephon.4par Pluton,’ Rev. S&., 2 Insert n$$ after l?? (Is. 9 7 [8]),and, with Ball, read P!g Op
‘93,pp. 37z&:cp Jastrow, R e l Bad. and Ass. 584. (Am. 15). SeeJQR 10 58rcg8).
‘931 1932
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 or [in I Esd.] AGGEUS, A G G ~ U S ('a?; gold are the Lord's. Soon 'he will shake all nations, and the
&rr&ioC [BXAQI'L] ; l perhaps ' born on the feast day,' choicest things (point niim) of all nations will come' (i.e., will
1. The lliGme 72 ; unless -ai is substituted for -yah be brought) to adorn his house. Its glory will be greater than
that of the former temple, and in this place Yahwe will give
and the man. [cp MATTENAI, ZACCAI]. In this peace. Here @ adds, .at cipljvqv $UX<P ris rcpprrroivurv ravri
00 . " . ' feast of
case Hamai=either Hag-iah. T+ KTL'<OYTC 705 C;vau+ac rbv vabv T O ~ ~ T O Vwhich
, Wellhauseu
Yahwk ' [Olsh. 277 61, or, by contraction, Hagariah. cleverly reproduces in Hebrew so as to give the sense, ' and rest
Yahwk hath girded' [We. in Bleeks Bid. (4) 4341. of soul, to repair all the foundation, t o raise this temple.'
Probably the passage really belongs to Haggai, and was omitted
Hilprecht has found the Jewish name Hagga on a tablet by a later scribe in deference to the narrative of the,Chronicler
of fifth century B.C. from Nippur, PEFQ Jan. ' 9 8 , p. (so Now.).
55): Acontemporaryof Zechariah, with whom he was as- . (c) A third prophecy (2 10-19)contains a promise, enforced by
a figure drawn from the traditional theory of holiness, that God
sociated in his prophetic ministry (Ezra 5 I I Esd. 6 I 7 3). will remove famine and bless the land from the day of the
His book contains four short prophecies delivered foundation of the temple onwards. 2 17 is inserted in an incorrect
between the first day of the sixth month and the twenty- form from Am. 4 g (We.).
(d) Finally in 220-23 (unnecessarily doubted by B6bme) a
fourth day of the ninth month-that is, between Sep- special prophkcy is addressed to Zernbbabel who is not indeed
tember and December-of the second year of ' Dariiis the expressly called a son of David, but receiveQa romise which is
king'-ie., of D a r k Hystaspis (521-485B.c.). From hardly intelligible unless he were one. ' I will &lake the heavens
the language of the prophet in chap. 23 we may perhaps and the earth,' is the terrifying exordium. ' I will overthrow
the throne of kipgdoms, and destroy the strelgth of t h e kingdoms
infer with Ewald that Haggai was one of those who of the heathen. But fear not, 0 Zerubbabel, for ' in that day
had seen the temple ' in its former glory,' and that his I will make thee as a signet' (thus reversing the doom 0)
prophetic work began in extreme old age. This sup- Zerubbabel's grandfather Jeconiah, in Jer. 22 24), 'for I have
chosen thee.' To what high dignity Zerubbabel is called, w e
position agrees well with the shortness of the period are not expressly told ; but, comparing Zech.6izJ, we cannot
covered by his book, and with the fact that Zechariah, doubt that he is to become the Messianic king. See ZERUB-
who began to prophesy in the same autumn, afterwards BABEL.
appears as the leading prophet in Jerusalem (Zech. 7 1-4). (u) What induced Haggai (and Zechariah) to come
m-hether he was ever in Babylonia or whether he had forward in the second year of Darius with the exhorta-
been continuously in Jerusalem (cp ' her [Jerusalem's] 3. Dificulties. tion io rebuild the temple , and the
prophets,' Lam.29), we are not told, nor can we promise of kingship to Zerubbabel ?
venture to trust the later traditions respecting him (in W h y had they waited sixteen years-before stirring u p
the Fit@ Prophelarum ascribed to Epiphanius, and the people to restore the sanctuary? And why did they
copied by Dorotheus and by Hesychius of Jerusalem)." address their promises to Zerubbabel rather than to
His name occurs in the titles of certain psalms in L X X his predecessor? T h e answer is that a startlirig
(Pss. 112 [R] 146-148149 [R]) and other versions ; but historical event had opened their eyes to the will and
no inference can be drawn from this. These titles vary purpose of Yahwi.. Just after the accession of Darius
in the MSS, and Eusebius did not find them in the to the throne of Persia, revolts broke out in different
Hzxaplar @ . 3 They have no critical value. parts of Eastern Asia. In Babylon, two pretenders
( a ) In his first prophecy (11-11) Haggai rebukes the successively assumed the favourite name of Nebnchad-
2. The four people for leaving the temple unbuilt rezzar, and even where there was n o rebellion the hope
prophecies. while they themselves dwell in panelled of the recovery of independence must have revived.' Can
houses. we doubt that such hopes were awakened in Judah?
The prevalent famine and distress are 'because of YahwYs Must not Yahwcs prophets have heard in these events
house that lies waste, while the Jews are zealous (enough) for the rumbling of the chariot-wheels of the Most High?
their own houses.'( Let them 'build the house, and Yahwe Of a surety, the Messianic era was at hand, and the
will take pleasure in it and glorify himself' (i.e., accept the
honour paid to him). The rebuke took effect and the people temple must be quickly prepared to receive the Great
began to work at the temple under the leadersdip of Zerubbabel King.
the governor and Joshua the high riest (1 12-15).5
(6) In a second prophecy (2 1-97, delivered in the following
(a) Another question forces itself upon the mind.
month, Haggai forbids the people to be disheartened by t h e W h a t is the cause of the indifference of the Jews to the
apparent meanness of the new temple. The silver and desolate condition of their sanctuary? T h e restoration
of the temple and its worship was the necessary ex-
1 I n Hag. 1 I bB* has ayyeos, a reading adopted by Q N in pression of the faith that the service of Yahwk was the
every passage. true national vocation of Israel. How was it that, so
2 See the double recension in Nestle, MUYE.(Haggai, pp.
26@). Epiphanius says that Haggai came up from Babylon soon after 527 B. C., the people of Jerusalem so com-
while still young, prophesied of the return of the people saw pletely forgot their ideal calling as .the nation of the
[in part] the building of the temple, and on his death re&ived true God? Our surprise would be diminished if
an honoured burial near the priests. The fuller recension adds, Haggai made any allusion to a party of stricter ad-
.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 herents of the Law and more zealous worshippers of
A6 opev ahhqhovra, 8 ;UTLV Spvor 'Ayyaiou Kai Z a p p i o v . Yahwk. Allusions of this kind, ,however, which are
On this subject cp Kiihler, Weissag. Haggais, 32 ; Wright, not wanting in the post-exilic Palestinian portions of
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. Is. 40-66, are not to be found in this book. Some
4 Read D W p for D'?? (v. 9). ' While ye each run every man scholars think that the only natural, explanation is that
to his own house' (RV) is clearly not correct. We. now reads n o considerable body of exiles had as yet returned, and
1n'X V'N O'gl; hut ' while ye delight every man in his house' that those who had arrived (in the train of Shesh-
is an infelicitous substitnte for the received text. Robertson bazzar ?) belonged to the more secular-minded portion
Smith, like every other critic until of late, thought the refer- of the Babylonian community. T h e people whom
ence was to the providing of costly houses for rich men among Haggai addresses in 23 as having, some of them, seen
the returned exiles. The majority of the people, however, can- the first temple, are in fact (it.is thought) almost entirely
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 Jews who had never been to Babylon.
houses but their fields which called forth the 'zeal' of the Jews (c) A third question may arise-how is it that Haggai
(vu. 6 ). 'house ' has a wide sense (as in Gen. 15 z ob 8 15). makes n o direct reference to moral duties? I n this
6 T%lsectionis altogether narratbe ; v. 13, whicdprofessesto
give a short rophecy of Haggai, being evidently a gloss from respect he falls below Zechariah. T h e reason may
the margin (&hme, Z A T W ,1887, p. 216). The second part of possibly be that the notes of his prophecies are in-
the verse is taken from 2 4 (where moreover the very same words complete. W e need not therefore believe that the
are followed by another gloss, which is not given by @). The only command of Yahwi. the neglect of which he regrets
first part would certainly have been expressed differently by
Hawgai. One phrase in it ('Yahwe's messenger') gave rise to is the erection of a house for YahwB's dwelling-place.
the>otion, mentioned by Jerome and Cyril of Alexandria, that I t remains true, however, that both Haggai and
Haggai was really an angel, and had only in appearance the Zechariah give precedence to a duty which to US
human form. The same fancy was entertained with regard to
Malachi and John the Baptist. 1 SeeEd. Meyer, Entst. 8 2 3 : ;Che. yew. Rrl. L y e , 14.

1935 I936
must appear a secondary one. Both stood on the Hail is also mentioned with ‘voices’ (thunder) i n
threshold of a new age, and though they performed the Ex. 92328f: 3 3 J , and in Ps. 1488 is not far off frqm
task of the moment successfully they had not the varied ‘storm wind.’ This too is perfectly natural. The
gifts which the creation of a new people demanded. most destructive hailstones are those which accompany
See Z ECHARIAH , § 2. a tornado or a violent thunderstorm. Perhaps we may ,
The style of Haggai is truly described by Kirk- assume such a combination for the great overthrow of
Patrick (Sm. D B 2 )11265) as tame and prosaic. Evi- the Canaanite kings at Beth-horon (Josh. 1 0 X I ; cp Judg.
*, Haggai,s dently the notes of his discourses have
not been touched up by a more literary
5 2 0 ) , when more died by the hailstones than by the
sword of Israel. Hail frequently accompanies the
writer; his repetitions have not been thunderstorms of winter and spring in Palestine
pruned. Telling passages, however, are not altogether (GASm. H G 6 4 ) . Certainly such a combination is
wanting (see 169 2r6), and the frequent interrogations presupposed in the two, or strictly speaking, three,
give life to the addresses. notices of the plague of hail in Egypt (Ex. 913-35
Among older books, the learned commentary of Marckins Ps. 78476), to which we now turn. The former, which
may be specially mentioned nor must we omit Rosenmiiller’s is the only original one, is ‘ conflate ‘-;.e., it has been
still usefdl Scholiu. Kohler’s comm. (‘60) is
6. Literature. e!aborate and valuable. Reinke’s work (‘68) produced by the fusion of two distinct one of
gives the viewsofascholarlyRoman Catholic. which does not know of a plague of locusts, and makes
It is’hardly needful to mention Pusey, Wellh., GASm., Dods, the crops to be destroyed by the hail, while the other says
and the books of introduction. Duhm’s Theol. des Projhefen
(‘75) however should be added to the student’s list for a nothing of a plague of murrain, and makes the hail-
histArica1 viedof the place of Haggai as a prophet, and Kosters’ stones fall upon man and beast. Hence the cattle,
Net kersfel van Israel(pp. 19-24) for a suggestive treatment of though destroyed in Ex. 96, are still presupposed in 9 22.
the question, Were there returned exiles among the people The poetic version of the plagues in Ps. 78 devotes one
addressed by Haggai and Zechariah? w. R . s.-T. K. c. distich to the locusts, and two to the hail, if M T is correct.
HAGGEDOLIM (n’$il$?), Neh. 11 14 RV. See Sym., however, reads ‘ pestilence, ’ ‘ murrain,’ where
ZABDIEL, 2. M T gives -n?‘ hail’ in v. 48a. This is most probably
HAGGERI (’???), I Ch. 11381. A\’, RV H AGRI ~ o r r e c t . ~If so, the psalmist transposes the plague of
hail and the plague of murrain.
(4.u. ). It is remarkable that he says nothing of the destruction of
HAGGI (’Jn, ‘born on the feast day,’ 5 72), b. human life caused by the hail ; also that (if the text is correct)
G AD [q.v., i. 131 (Gen. 4616, arraic [ADL]=Nu. 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
2615, arr[e]- [BAFL]) ; gentilic, Haggite, Nu. 26 15 otherwise unknown and perfectly inexplicable word (Sp?!, EV
(’$79 ; o ar rk11[BAFLI). ‘frost’; mg. ‘great hailstones’; @ dpq, ‘rime’; Aq. rpuos;
HAGGIAH (il:Jn, ‘ m y feast is YahwB,’ § 72), a but Sym. u&A& ‘worm’; and Tg. N I ~ I , ‘locust,’ as if
reading P’X!). Both these words appear to be corrupt. Adopt-
Merarite ( I Ch. 630[151, arris [AI, AMA [BaJ ~ N A I A
ing the most probable emendations we obtain this quatrain :
[L]). . I n d the Merarite names cannot always be identi- He wasted their vines with hail,
fied with those in MT. And their fig-trees with hot coals;
H e gave their cattle over to the murrain,
HAGGITH (n’An, 5 72, perhaps born on the feast And their flocks to burning sickness.4
day,’ 5 99, &rr[e]if~[BAL]), wife of David and mother The narrative represents the hailstorm as occurring
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 are rare; according to Pruner (Di.-Rys. Ex. Lev. 98)
corruption from n y , the Gittite ’ ; the mention of a in twelve summers hail only fell thrice, and then not
wife from Gath after those from GESHUR(z),Caleb, very much. Prof. Macalister (Hastings’ DB 2 281)
and Jezreel, would be quite suitable; see D AVID , mentions stones which fell in a brief hail-shower
§ 11 ( d ) , col. 1032. S. A. C. in Egypt on 13th Aug. 1832, which weighed several
HAGIA (aria [BA]), IEsd. 5 34 AV=Ezra 2 57, ounces. In Rev. 1621 we read of hailstones of the
HATTIL [g. u.]. weight of a talent-ie., about two cubic feet in bulk.
This is the weight ascribed to ‘the stones cast at the
HAGRI. AV Haggeri (’l??, ‘ a Hagrite’; A r b p s i Jews by the Romans a t the siege of Jerusalem (JOS. BJ
[BN]! ampar [AI, awp [Ll), an incorrect reading for ‘the v. 63). T. K. C.
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 HAIR (?@ ; e p l f ) . The question of the origin of
the Israelitish race and the variations of the Israelitish
HA1 (;Fil),Gen. 133 A V ; RV A I ( g . ~ . ,I ). 1. colour. type is too uncertain to be referred to in
this connection. We can therefore only
HAIL (T7J cp Ar. Bnradu, to he [become] cold; state, with regard to the colour of the hair, that in
xahbza ; I@?$$p [Ezek. 131113 (Aieoyc) ITSTPO- Canticles, which represents the conventionalised type
Bohoyc,--ie., &&f ? 3822 XAhAzA]). Hailstones of a Jew and a Jewess in the country districts in the
were devoutly regarded as proofs of God’s might 1 The reference to ‘hail’ as destructive to crops in Hag. 2 17
(Ecclus. 4315 and 6);he kept them in his ‘store (an interpolation from Am. 49) is due to corruption. Read
chambers’ (Job 3822, cp S N O W ); they served as his +nxynn,‘ I destroyed ’ (as We. in Am. Z.C.).
2 See Bacon, Tn2. Trad. 49f:
weapons (Josh. 1011,cp Ecclus. 465 J 2 Wisd. 5 2 2 ) .
3 In the parallel line (v. 486) we find p*awy$. which is gener-
Naturally, therefore, hail forms a. feature in descriptions ally rendered ‘to the lightning flashes ’ ; but 1 ~by1itself does not
of judgment ( e & , Is. 2817 [not 61 3030 3219 Ezek. mean ‘ lightning’(763 [4]a is corrupt), and the strong expression
1 3 1113 3822 ), and once in a description of a theophany l;pI! (‘he gave over,’ as if to a supernatural power favours
(Ps. 1812[13]), where, as often elsewhere, it is coupled Sym.’s reading 1275. Perhaps we should read (sing.);
with %re (lightning); cp Ps. 7843 (see below) 10532
cp Hab. 3 5 where 127and 711 are parallel. Thus we gain an
1488 Ecclus. 3929 Rev. 87 cp 1119.
allusion to Ex. 9 3 (177). For n>aa+ Sym. has o l w v o t , based
1 Generally connected with d’??; see C RYSTAL. Most on a well-attested but quite erroneous interpretation of q w l (CP
Ecclus. 43 17, Heh. and Gk.).
probably, however, we should read W m,)-. n ; see F LINT, and cp 4 For iln’l read IlrJl; for hm,n’?nq ; for l &, l?$ (so
Crit. Bih.
2 Read ‘answered him with hail and flint.stones’(see Heb. also Dyserinck, Bi.(z) Gra.), and for n@), I$$, with Che.
text). (PS.(Z)).

I937 1938
latter part of the OT period, the hair that receives Yea God smites asunder the head of his foes,
poetic eulogy is black. Neglecting the opening words Thelhairy crown that stalks on in his sins.1
of Cant. 5 IT , which describe the head of the bridegroom He who placed his long hair and his corresponding
as ‘ the most fine gold ‘-an unintelligible and doubtless physical strength at the service of his sins challenged
corrupt phrase,l we find in the next line that I his locks 3od to interpose and crush him. Hair and strength
a r e bushy, and black as a raven.’ Elsewhere no doubt %rehere once more related. T o a Jew it must therefore
the hair of the bride is said to be ‘ like purple ’ (Cant. have seemed a striking paradoxical expression, when,
7 5 [ 6 ] ) , and with a little ingenuity this might be plausibly in the picture of an anthropomorphic God, it was said,
explained (see Del. ad loc.), if we could venture to ‘ T h e hair of his head was like pure wool’ (Dan. i 9 ) .
believe that the passage was correctly read in the received The colour indicated that he was ‘ ancient in days ’ ;
text. W e must take care, however, not to commit such but the ‘ fiery stream ’ which was ‘ before him ’ proved
an offence against the ideal bride as to make her red- tha.t his white hair was no symbol of weakness. Com-
haired.a In Cant. 41 ( 6 5 ) the song-writer says, ‘ T h y pare Rev. 114.
hair is like a flock of goats, that lie along the side of On the Nazirite vow See’NAZIRITE. Analogous to it
Gilead ’ ; it is plain that the goats of Palestine could by is the consecration of their hair by warriors, supposed
no caprice of language be calledpuipZe. Thus in post- to be referred to in the words pi?.
3. Consecra-
exilic times the Jews considered dark hair as beautiful.
tion of the h>y;: niy?? (Judg. 5 2 ) ) which Robertson
Clear evidence of a similar estimate in pre-exilic times hair. Smith rendered,2 ‘for that flowing locks
i s wanting. W e may reasonably assume, however, that were worn in Israe1,’g W e must not
David‘s hair was dark, for it is represented in Michal’s ;uppose, however, that Israelites, in time of peace, wore
stratagem by a net of goat’s hair ( I S. 1 9 13), and when their hair short. T o be sure, there were barbers (Ezek.
the youthful David is called $5 ( I S . 1 6 1 2 1 7 4 ~ this )~ 5 1 ; see B EARD ) ; but the popular sentiment or
means, not that he was red-haired 3 like Esau (it@ ’$15, superstition about hair justifies us in assuming that an
Gen. 2 5 2 5 ) , but that he had not yet become browned Israelite’s hair was only trimmed, especially in front,
by exposure to the sun. Kitto4 thinks that Eccles. 125 not cut close ; and it is not probable that the author of
contains a reference to the striking contrast in a mixed z S. 1425-27 would have wished to make us laugh at
assembly between the snow-white head of an old man Absalom’s vanity. Cp, however, ABSALOM.
and the jet black heads of the younger men. , That Absalom employed the barber only once a year is told
us in order to explain how it was that his, hau (and also his
There is certainly no better explanation to propose for YNJ: strength?) was so abundant. Probably It IS not a whit more
’IF$: (cp A LMOND); but the reading is uncertain, and the historical than the story in Josephus ( Ae.?. v,iii. 7 3) of the ‘horse
object of the little poem to which the phrase belongs is disputed. 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.);
I t would accord well with the ordinary view if the certainly his sole aim is to glorify Absalom.
same writer used the expression ‘ black hair’ as a On the other hand, to express contempt for a man, it
synonym for ‘ youth ’ (Eccles. 11IO) ; but no stress can was enough to call him a ‘ bald head’ ( z K. 223 ; cp
safely be laid upon this. Kitto’s remark is at any rate Is. 317 24), and the object of plucking out (Ezra93)
illustrative of Prov. 1631 2029 (cp z Macc. 623), where and shaving (Job 120) or disfiguring the hair of the
* gray hairs ’ ( n ~ bare ) represented as the ornament of head by throwing dust upon it (Job 2 E), and extending
old men, no doubt because the wicked were supposed not similar treatment to the beard, was to express the
to reach old age. I t must have shocked Jewish senti- mourner’s sense that he was cut off from all the
ment (cp M t . 536) when Herod (if the story is true) dyed pleasures and honours of ordinary life. See M OURNING
his hair black, to conceal his advanced age (Jos. Ant. CUSTOMS.
xvi. 8 I ) . Of wigs we hear nothing in the Bible, though In this connection we may refer to a limitation placed
such toilet articles were common in ancient Egypt by P on the high priest. He was neither to rend his
(Erman, Anc. Bg. zrg-zz3). clothes as a mourner, nor to let the hair of his head go
Quite incidentally the prophet Ezekiel ( 8 3 ) shows us loose (Lev. 2110, cp 106). His hair was at all times
how well rooted the bnshy locks of the Israelites were to he tended in such a way as to enhance the popular
This native vigour is one respect for so exalted a personage. Ezekiel, too, gives
a. Growth. of (cp the
presuppositions of the story of this precept to the priests, ‘ They shall not shave their
Samson. ‘Beguile him,’ said the Philistine princes to heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long ; they shall
Delilah, ‘and see how it comes that he is so strong’ only poll their heads ’ (Ezek. 4420). They were to strike
(Judg. 16 5 ) ; and Samson replies at last, ‘ If I be shaven, the mean between the practice of the Nazirites (Nu. 65)
then my strength will go from me, and I shall become and the heathenish asceticism referred to in Lev. 1927
weak, and be like any other man’ (v. 17). I t is true, 215 Dt. 141 Am.810 (see CUTTINGS, J 3).
Samson’s strength was held to be due to his consecrated That long hair was admired in women, is plain from
character; but this is not the whole of the secret. His Canticles (see above, 5. I.). One might almost infer
hair was the symbol of that natural strength which the from Jer. 7 2 9 that scissors were hardly
Nazirite vow placed under the divine protection. 4.
head-dress. applied to women’s hair (on Dt. 21 12 see
The true origin of Samson’s hair is a mattkr of conjecture.
It is probable enough that the hair of the ‘solar one’ (Iiunu) Driver’s note), for the word rendered
originally meant the rays of the sun. In Job 3 9 41 18 [IO] the ’hair’ (a!) is the same which is applied elsewhere to
eyelids or eyelashes of the dawn (or rather, of the sun ; see the inviolable hair of the Nazirite (1’13). Certainly,
L UCIFER) were the rays of the sun@(see Schultens, C o m a . in as Kamphausen remarks, the goats, with whose black
jobum, 161).
hair the hair of the ideal bride is compared (Cant. 41
Hence too in Ps. 6821 [zz], if M T is correct, we 6 5 ) , were not shorn goats. Of the ‘artful curls’ (Is.
read- 324, SBOT) of the ladies of Jerusalem in Isaiah’s
1 Read ‘ His head is like Carmel.’
2 Gra. renders ‘ Thy head upon thee is like crimson ’ ($n?, 1 So De Witt renders. Duhm even supposes an allusion to
= Snijj) : but cp Del. ad Zoc. the Nazirites among the Pharisees. i y $ ‘hair,’ however, should
3 So Kitto (Bi6. CycZ.), Sayce (Races of fhe O T 74), Then., no doubt be YL?? ‘wicked one’ (GrZ..-Che. etc.).
Klo. The By which follows ’ 3 ~ is ~ a corruption of iy[ol,
1 not
9 J. s. Bia& judges, 39 cg2j.
‘hair’ (Klo.’s view), but a prematurely written p[q’ly. 3 Probably, however, v. 2 and v. g are duplicates (Marq.,
4 Kitto, Bib. Cycl. art. ‘ Hair. The passage gives striking Ruben). and v. a should be used to correct v. 2. In this case
expression to the sti1l)prevalent view. the ‘long hair’ &appears, and, if Cheyne’s em:ndation ( J Q X ,
5 n l i d is so explained by Del. and Wildeboer following July ’ 9 9 ) be adopted, the verse will run: Bless Yahwh,
Targ. and Rab. interpretation. 0 ye marshals of Israel, who displayed (such) zeal among the
6 For more distant parallels (Greek, Latin, American) see people.’ l y i ~and ylb, in v. 2, and 5 $25in v. 9 , both came
Goldziher, Ueb. Myfytholoay, 137. See especially Wilken, ‘De from ~7 )>ix (which was in fact inserted at the end of v. z as a
Simsonsage,’ De Gids, 2303 (‘88). correction).
5939 1940
time, we have no information. The Talmud, how- (xeXxu [B]), UXOK [AL]). Elsewhere the S. frontier
ever, presents us with a word for the women’s hair- of Judah towards Edom is the ‘ ascent of A KRABBIM ’
dresser (~)h~p cp M ARY M AGDALENE ), and the verb (q.v.),which is the long winding pass on the route from
from which it comes means ‘ t o plait.’ Judith, one l’etra to Hebron fitly called the N u k 6 e:-$ufE, or Pass
remembers, ‘braided her hair’ (6r6rat.e [GrCfave, h ] of the Bare Rock. This pass indeed could hardly be
T ~ E T ~ ~ X U Sl o
, 3 ) before entering the camp of Holo- said to ‘ go up to Seir ’ ; but not very far to the SW., in
fernes ; and N T writers dissuade strongly from using a wiidy of the same name (the continuation of the Wel-
T A C ~ ~ U T(UI Tim. 29) and Q ~ W A O K . ~ ~ ( I Pet. 33),
rprXGv Fikreh), stands the Madarah-a conical limestone
and from adorning the hair with pearls and jewels. On hill or mountain, which no one descending to Edom
I Cor. 11 4-15 see V EIL. could fail to notice, rising in isolation ‘like a lofty
Illustrations from the Egyptian monuments are, as citadel’ (Rob. BK 2589 ; Palmer, Desert of Exodus,
far as men’s hair is concerned, of less importance than 415, 418). This has been identified by Trumbull with
6. Illustrations those from .the Assyrian. Great pains Mt. Hor (see H OR , M OUNT , I ) ; it is at any rate safer
were taken by Assyrians of high rank to regard it as the ‘bare mountain that goeth up to
from the
monuments. in the arrangement of their hair. As Seir. ’ T. K. C.
we see from the monuments. it was HALHUL (Nl\n ; perhaps full of hollows‘ ; cp
carefully combed down and parted into several braids H O L O N ; ahoy& [B], -yA [A], -ye [L]), in the hill-
or plaits, and was allowed to spread out upon the country of Judah, grouped with Beth-zur and Gedor
,neck in a mass of curls. This, together with the (Josh. 1 5 5 8 ) ; Jerome ( O S 1197) speaks of a village
similar use of braids or plaits among the Arabs,l illus- Alula near Hehron. No doubt it is the mod. fZaZ&aZ,
trates the seven braids (ma&ltYphtth, nreina) of Sam- about 4 m. N. of Hebron, a village beautifully situated
son’s hair mentioned in Judg. 1613 19. Cp BEARD. between Beit Siir ( BETH-ZLIR) and Beit ‘AinBn (BETH-
T. K. C . ANOTH) ; Jedfir (G EDOR , I) lies to the N.
HAJEHUDIJAH (n:??!?), I Ch. 418 RVW. ; AV A village Alurns, where an Idumzan army assembled is
JEHUDI J AH ( q . ~ . ) . mentioned in Josephus (BJiv. 96); it is lausible to idenkfy
this name with Halhiil (Buhl, Geop. 158f The CHELLUSof
HAKKATAN (it?;??,
‘the small one,’ 66 ; &K[K]a- Judith 19, however, lies elsewhere.
TAN [BAL]), father of J OHANAN (15)of the b‘ne Azgad, HAL1 (h),
if the text is right, an unidentified city
a family in Ezra’s caravan (see E ZRA i., z ; ii., 15 of Asher; Josh. 19zsJT (ah€+ [Bl, oohei [AI, axel [I2]).
[I] d ) , Ezra 812= I Esd. 838JTRVmg., but AV A CATAN ; Corruption, however, is not unfrequent in these place-names,
KV A KATAN. and we may possibly read (>)>in, cp C6B ; see HELBAH. To
connect Hali with ‘Alia (Gukrin, GaL 262; cp Buhl, 231) is
HAKKOZ (yip?, as if, ‘the briar’ ; &K[K]mc hardly plausible. S. A. C.
[BKAL]) RV; AV always K OZ except in (3)where it
has HAKKOZ;in I Ch. 4 8 RV even has HAKKOZfor
Budrun), a Carian city, on S. shore of the promontory
Heb. YIP, Coz.
I . The b‘ne Hakkoz were a post-exilic family who were unable
which, with that of Cnidus to the S., encloses the
to prove their pedigree ; Ezra 261 (aKous [B], arr. [AL])=Neh. Ceramic gulf, the mouth of which is occupied by the
763 (arr. [L])= I Esd. 538t, AV Accoz, RV AKKOS,mg. island of Cos. It is celebrated as the birthplace of
H AKKOZ (aapos [Bl ~ K K O V S[Ll). Herodotus and the seat of Mausolus (inscrr. and coins,
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 Maussollos) whose tomb, built by his widow Artemisia,
fell to H AKKOZ (yip?!, KOS [Bl). who was also his sister, was one of the seven wonders of
the world (Strabo, 656). T h e town is mentioned inci-
HAKUPHA(KpP(l, crooked’ (?) ; ax[e]~@a[BA]), dentally in I Macc. 1523 (referring to 139 B.c.) as con-
a family of NETHINIM
in the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA, ii. taining a Jewish colony, like all the cities on this coast.
0 9) Ezra 251 (a+sLra tB1 artov$a [ALl)=Neh. 7 53 ( a r c + [Nl, T h e coinage seems to indicate that Halicarnassus did
om.’ L)=I Esd. 5 31 ( a x e l p a [ B ] arov+a [Ll A C I P H A [AV] not share in the trade with Egypt in the fifth century
ACHIPHA[RV], and possibly ACUB[see B A ~ B u K is
] reall;
B.c. to any great extent.
a duplicate of the same name).
HALAH (nb?; ah[hlae [BA], ehhae [L] ; in 2 K.
From Jos. Ant. xiv. 1023 we learn that a decree of the city,
passed under Roman influence (46 B.C. ?), guaranteed that the
176 1811 H A L A ; in I Ch. 526 XAAX [B], x a h a [A], Jews of Halicarnassus should be allowed, in addition to other
ptivdeges, ‘to make their prmeuchy at the seaside according
& A A ~ N[L], LAHELA; Pesh. always ,a,),
a city or to the customs of their forefathers ( T ~ F n p o m u x h ; ~ O L C ~ U Q ~ L
district, mentioned with Habor, the river of Gozan, and rpbs QaA&q ran+ ~b T ~ T ~ L O ;@os), V which illustrates Acts
16 73 ‘without {he gate by a river side, where we supposed there
the ‘ cities (?) of Media,‘ as one of the places colonised was a place of prayer’ (e.$ d h q s I r a p h n o r a p b u 08 & o ~ + o
with Israelites from Samaria ( 2 K. 1 7 6 1811; cp I Ch. r p o u w x $ [8vopi<opsu n p o u c u ~ l j uW H ] & V a l , sc. at Philippi).
526). Schrader ( K G F 167, n. ; C O T l z 6 8 ) combines it T h e town never recovered from its siege and capture
with a city called Halabbu mentioned in a geographical by Alexander (334 B.c.). I t was rebuilt in the third
list (z R. 5 3 3 6 8 ) between Arrapachitis and ReSeph, century B. c. Cicero, writing to his brother in 60 B. C.,
and Winckler (AOF292)gives references (K. 10922 calls it ‘diruta ac p e n e deserta’ ( A d Q. Fr. i. 125);
etc. ) for a land called Halabha connected obscurely but he is magnifying his brother’s services towards the
with HarrLn. & P A L in 2 K. 176 and d L in z K. 18 I T town during his governorship in the previous year.
treat Halah as one of the rivers of Gozan; but see See Nenston, Hist. of Discov. at.HaZ., etc. ; Travels
GOZ.4N (end). T. IC. C. and Discoveries in the Levant (views and plans). F r a g
ments of the Mausoleum are in the British Museum.
HALAK, MOUNT (P$Q? ’I;?? ; &[A]haK ‘[AFL]).
On the form of the name see Ramsay, Hist. Ceogr. of
‘The smooth (or bare) mountain that goeth up to Seir ’ A.M., 405. w.3. w.
(;.e., in this passage, to the mountain district w. of
the ‘Arsha, bounded on the N. by the WZdy el-Marreh, HALLEL ($$.), a Mishnic Hebrew derivative from
the WZdy Madarah, and the WZdy eL-Fikreh), is $50, hiZlt3, ‘ to praise,’ is a term in synagogal liturgy,
opposed as the limit of Canaan (or, more precisely, of
Joshua’s conquests) in the S. to Baal-gad, ‘ under Mt.
( I ) for Pss. 113-118, specifically called ’lymg %;l,
Herman,'. in the N . , Josh. 1117 EX
[B]), 127 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
1 We. AY. Heid.(.(z)197. Tabari reports of a certain Rib? ( Ta‘dnith, 286) ; and ( 2 ) for Ps. 136 (according to some
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 Pss. 120-136 or 1354-136; Pes. 118 a ; Sdfhei-in, lSz),
good-looking young man, ‘ H e has great and long horns
(Doughty, AY. Des. 1469). called h;;?
kJ$?, hall&?h.agga‘d5Z3‘the great Hallel.’
1941 1942
Rabban Gamaliel's words (M. P&@zim, 105) suggest a)\h~houra, we find it treated as a substantive. Its
that the reciting of the Hallel originated in the desire to original use was to summon the congregation to join
1. Origin amplify the passover celebration by render- the cantor in reciting a psalm, or in responding by a
and extent. ing of special praise for Israel's deliverance united acclamation of praise. This view assumes that
from Egypt (hence its name ' the Egyptian it was in use only in the liturgy of the synagogue,
Hallel ') ; and that thkcustom was in his time (Gamaliel not in the temple, where a choir of Levites sang the
was the teacher of Paul1) only just in its inception. appointed psalms. It seems to have been originally
Some years later the extent of the Hallel was still in inserted (in collections of psalms for synagogue use) at
dispute ; the school of Shanimai favoured Ps. 113 ; the the beginning of psalms, and here we still find it, both
school of Hillel, Pss. 113and 114 ( A x . , ibid.). It should in M T and in 6 ,in Pss. 106 111-113 135 146-150,
be observed that the connection in which the passage cited and in @ also in 104 [lo51 106 [lo71 113 [114-115]
is found in the present arrangement of the Mishna sug- 114 [1161-91 115 [ll610-1g] 116-118 [117-1191 135
gests that this difference of opinion relates only to what [136] 147 [147rz-z0]. T h e fashion seems, however,
became, by later additions, the first part of the Hallel. to have varied. In Pss. 104 105 115-117, the M T
T h e compilation of the Mishna, however, is over a gives Hallelujah ' at the end of each psalm, and in
century later, and the injunction to close with a blessing the M T of Pss. 135 and 146-150, as well as in d
for the deliverance indicates that here at some time was of Ps. 150, the doxology occurs both at the beginning
the end. During the first half of the second century the and at the end of a psalm, Two apparent in-
Hallel received considerable additions, and it probably accuracies of @ may also be mentioned; it includes
reached then its present proportions. R. Tarphon and Ps. 119, which is a purely didactic psalm, among
R. 'Akiba2 (110-135 A . D . ) supplied it with the closing the Hallelujah psalms, and excludes from their number
blessing ; after this, the second part, Pss. 115-115, was Pss. 103-104, which certainly ought to have been Halle-
added, to be recited after the pouring out of the fourth lujah psalms (or rather a Hallelujah psalm in two
c u p ; later, to this also was added a closing blessing, parts) if we can judge on this point from the contents.
which was made to cover the entire song (M. Pes. 106). As to the characteristics of this class of psalms (to
The Mishna no longer gives us the form of this blessing ; which the HALLEL psalms belong), see the comnient-
it does n p seem to have been determined at the time aries, and cp PSALMS, BOOK OF.
of its compilation. According to the GEmHra (Pes. Cp Gratz, MGW], '(79)), 1 9 3 3 ; Psalinen ('82), 633, 9.3
118 b), R. Jehuda and R. Johanan (130-160 A . D . , cp
Strack, EinZ. in d. TaZm. 83 J ) suggested different
HALOHESH, RV Rallohesh (~cjnib?, see below,
~ A A ~ [AL]),
H C a name occurring twice in post-exilic
forms. lists.
The opinion of Samuel (died 254 A.D. ;cp Strack, 88) that the I. Father of Shallum in the list of wall builders (see NEHE-
prophets among them instituted it in Israel to the end that they
should recite the Hallel when they were threatened with perse- MIAH , $ ~ f ;:E ZRA ii., $#16 [I], 15 d),Neh. 3 12 (?Acta [EN]).
cution, to avert it, and when delivered, in thanksgiving, indicates 2. Signatory to the covenant (see EZRA I., 0 7); Neh. 10 24 [zjl
a twofold tendency first, to extend the reciting of the Hallel to (ahoqs [BN] a8o [A]).
other occasions, leiding to its incorporation into the liturgy of According)to Meyer ( E d . 143; cp 157), an appellative, '[the
other festivals, and second, to regard it as a custom which was family] of magicians' (cp NAMES, 5 70); but the number of
followed in Israel as far hack as the time of Moses (Pes. 117 a), rniswritten names in Ezra-Neh. suggests caution. That both
R. Jehuda's statement (M. Pes. 5 7) that the Hallel was recited
in the temple during the slaughtering of the passover sacrifices,
la.v.1- and Hallohesh are rniswritten appears certain ;
the name which underlies both words seems to be- ?I)+?, Has-
is evidently only a similar piece of ideal history.
Allusions to the Exodus and appropriate national Xit@. See S HILHI. T. K. C.
sentiment determined the selection of the Psalms that HAM (P?; XAM [BAL]), according to P, second
were to constitute the liturgical thanksgiving for the son of Noah (Gen.532. xa+ [A], as in 610 713),
passover ; the great Hallel, on the other hand, was to and ancestor of the peoples of the south, especially
serve the wider purpose of a general thanksgiving. R. Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan (Gen. 106 J 20). J2
Johanan says it is called the great Hallel because (allud- also gives him the second place among the brothers,
ing to Ps. 13625) the Holy One sits in heaven, and thence and though in Gen. 9 24 he appears a s Noah's ' youngest '
deals out food to all his creatures (Pes. 118 a). With or rather (see J APHETH ) 'younger son,' this arises
this sentiment accords its use in thanksgiving for the from a manipulation of the text of J r Originally it
blessing of rain (Tu'dn. 19 a). was Canaan who was so designated, and also Canaan
W e may now attempt to answer the question of the who was represented as having treated his father
relation of the Hallel to the hymn referred to in the Noah with irreverence ; ' Ham, father of,' in v. 2 2 , is a
2. Not in- phrase 'when they had sung a hymn ' redactional insertion (see SBOT).
tended in ( ~ p v ~ u u v r in~ s )Mt. 2630 and Mk. 1426. The origin and meaning of the name are disputed.
Mt. 2630 The answer commonly given is that the I n Pss. 1052327 10622 we read of the 'land of Ham,'
Mk. 1426. hymn was the Hallel, and the statement is where Ham clearly means ' Egypt,' just as 'stock of
followed by a description of the Hallel in its Jesse ' in Is. 11I = ' stock of David.' I t was natural,
most developed form ; but in tracing its history it has therefore, to connect Ham with the old native name of
appeared that there is no evidence that the Hallel was Egypt, R e m or chemi, 'black,' with reference to the
in the time of Christ more than in its inceptive stage, black colour of the Egyptian soil (see E GYPT , I)-
consisting of Ps. 113, or at the most also of Ps. 114. a connection supported by Ebers ( A f l p e n , 1 5 5 ) but
C p Del. on Ps. 113; Gra. MGWJ, 1879, p. 203 J ,241 3, disputed by Lepsius (PKE, S.V. 'Xgypten'), who would
Psalmen, 56 3; and especially Biichler, ZATW20rrq-135
(1900). I. J. P. explain the name as a general term for the I hot ' south
(on, ' hot,' Josh. 9 19). Probably Lepsius lays too much
HALLELUJAH (3#77,3 v.Z. Z $ h ; once ;I$$;? stress on the difference of vocalisation between chemi
[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 ch%zhad not, the Hebrews might ha!-e substituted the
In Rev.) A LLELUIA , a Jewish doxological formula, which one form for the other. Left5bure' at any rate is
obtained an Aramaic colouring, and under the form unconvinced by Lepsius.
ahh$,oura was adopted (like Osanna-see H O S ANN A ) Still, the (probable) analogy of Shem suggests an-
by the Gentile Christian congregations ; cp Tob. 7 3 18 other explanation. Ham, which seems originally to
Rev. 19 I 3 4 6. In 3 Macc. 7 13. &?rr$wv$uavres r b have meant the land and people of Canaan, may be
1 He belongs to the first generation of Tann57m (50-90 A . D .) ;
a shortening of such. a form as Hammu-rZbi, the name
cp Strack, EinL in d. Tahnud, 77f: ; Schiir. GJJ'(a) 2 3 6 4 5 of an early Babylonian king (see A MRAPHEL ) ; cp Zur
2 Schiir. op. cif., 375
1 TSBA 9 170 suggests comparison with Chem, the name of
3 So Ginsb. ; Ea. h$. an Egyptian god imporfed from the land of Punt (see PUT).
1943 '944
for Zuriel (?). Possibly there was an early tradition the colonists transported by ‘ the king of Assyria ’ to
(of which Gen. 14 may give us a late modification) that the land of N. Israel were Hamathites (z K. 172430),
Hammu-rZbi conquered Canaan, and the name nrnn and it is further stated that the men of Hamath
may thus have become known to an early narrator, who made images of ASHIMA. The problem of the
wanted a symbol for Canaan, and explained the name, origin of this name can no longer be called un-
on the analogy of A BIRAM (4.w.), ‘ the (divine) kinsman solved. T h e other divine names in z K. 1730f. being
i s a great one.’ Glaser’s identification of H a m with Assyrian (see special articles), Ashima, or better Ashi-
‘Amii, the Egyptian name for the Bedouin races of the math (see BBAL), must be Assyrian too. Tasmitu, the
Semitic countries adjoining Egypt, appears less plaus- consort of Nebo, i s , not great enough. The original
ible. I n I Ch. 440 the phrase ‘from H a m ’ ( o g n , d name was inuN=inu,y, 1shtar.l Ishtar was the second
PK T L ~ V utGv xup ; but Pesh. reads o p ) is very improb- of the five planetary deities, four of whom are mentioned
able ; for there was neither a place nor a tribe called besides in z K. 173of: The noticc in z K. 172430,
Ham. Read [h]nn[i*]-p, and see M EUNIM . however, needs a close examination. T o understand
T. K. C. it is one thing ; to accept it as quite historical is
another. Hamath and Avva (or rather Gam, n p ) have
HAM (D? ; 7 MSS of Sam. Dn ; cp Jer. Quastf.), no right of existence in this passage, the context of
the land of the ZUZIM (u.v.), Gen. 145. Since the which requires well-known Babylonian cities. N o As-
Zuzim seem to be the same as the Z AMZUMMIM , ‘ Ham ‘
syrian king would ever have placed Hamathite colonists
must be a corruption either of Ammon (if we read Pn ;
in Samaria ; the object of such transferences of popula-
n and y confounded) or of Rabba or Rabbath (so Ball). tions was to remove restless elements to a distance from
C p Dt. 220. their home.2 T h e cause of the insertion of the wrong
C3 (&a a;& [AELI), Pesh., Vg. express Pa?, ‘among (or names can easily be surmised (see SEPHARVAIM).Al-
with) them ’ ; Tg. Onk. and Jerus. give Nnnn3. T. K. c. most equally improbable is it that a prophetic writer,
HAMAN(]Q;!,anameofElamiteorigin; see E STHER , in a list of the countries from which Israelitish captives
should, by a mighty divine act, be brought back, would
57 ; AMAN [BKAL], but ANAM, M A N [A, Esth. 31
write ‘and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from
7(16)17]), called AMAN in (Apoc.) Esth. 107, etc.; son of
ADMATHA or H AMMEDATHA [44.w.] ; one of the chief Hamath, and from the isles of the sea’ (Is. 11 11).
characters in Esther, where he appears as the inveterate Not improbably nnn, ‘ Hamath,’ should be on3,
enemy of the Jews (Esth. 31 j? etc., Apoc. Esth. 1 2 6 ) . ‘ Kittim’ (Cyprus) ; a 6 reads otherwise (see ‘ Isaiah,’
H e is accordingly represented as an AGAGITE [q.w.] (so SBOT [Heb.]).
Jos. Ant. xi. 65, and Targg. call him an ‘ Amalekite ’)
To assume with Millar (Hastings, D B 1 166) that, ‘as Hamath
was occupied by the Hittites’ the name (Ashima) may very
or Macedonian (see E STHER , 5 I). T h e first Targum possibly he Hittite is o posed to the facts suggested above, and
(with much probability) identifies with him the import- mentioned by Jerken &Iiiiitev.zc. Armenier, 154). Below is
ant but otherwise obscure MEMUCAN[P.v.]. On the given a list of the divine names in 2 K. 17 30J with their prob-
able identifications :-
fate of Haman see H ANGING [i.], and on the combina- Succoth-benoth= Sakkuth-KaiwBn(Ninib)=Saturn
tion of Haman with one of two mythological dragons, NerFal= Mars
see D RAGON , 5 3. Ashima = Ishtar=Venus
Nibhaz (Nibhan)= Marduk= Jupiter
HAMATE (nQg,‘ enclosed or guarded place’ [WRS Adrammelechz ,, t
ReZ. Sem.(?, 1501; HM& [BAL]; other common Tartak or Tartah= thi\ance-sta?= Antares.
forms in the uncial MSS. are A I M A or~ €Mae), a royal The references to Hamath in Ezek. 47 16 f; have not come
city of the Hittites on the Orontes, to the territory of down to us quite accurately. In TJ. 16 thl) should go with
which the boundary of Israel is said to have reached nQ5, ZEDAD ( p a . ) being an interpolation, and in u. 17 ’n $r>ii,
under David, Solomon, and Jeroboani 11. (z S. 89 I K. ‘and the region of Hamath ‘ is a gloss (Cornill). [The names in
865, AiMae [AI, 2 K. 1425, A i M a e rB-41, € M a 8 [LIS 63 the first time are corru,’t ; later in w. 16 there occurs VpaOeL
CP Nu. 1322 [211, +aae [Bl, s.ae CFI 348): T h e [Bl; in v. 17 B omits Hamath.] T. K. C.
Chronicler states that Solomon built store-cities in HAMATR-ZOBAH (qIlYhPn, 2 Ch. 83, BaicwB~
(the land of) Hamath ( z Ch. 84); but this stands P I , A i M a e CUBA
in connection with the statement (based on a mis- $ 6 , HAMATH,SOLOMON.
understanding) that he also built ‘Tadmor in the
desert.’ The Table of Nations (Gen. 1018) mentions HAMITAL (Kt. $PWn), z K. 2418 RVmg,, EV
the Hamathite ’ (ym~:; b apu8r [AEL]) in the last H AMUTAL .
place among the eleven descendants of Canaan; but nn. HANIMATH (i7Dn-i.e.. ‘ h o t spring ’), one of the
16-18a are due to R. T h e bulk of the population of fenced cities of Naphtali (Josh. 1 9 3 5 ; wMaea [Aa~se]
Hamath was certainly Semitic (note the Semitic names [Bl. AM& [AI, A M M A 0 [L]), probably= HAMMOTH-
of the kings in the time of Tiglath-pileser 111.). See DOR (lK9 riMI?; NEMMAe P I , €MAeAwp [AI,
HITTITES, $, 1 1 3 &M&eAwp [L]), reckoned among the Levitical cities
T h e fall of Hamath deeply impressed the people of in Naphtali (Josh. 2132, P), and called in the parallel
Judah. ‘ Is not Hamath as Arpad? ’ asks the Assyrian passage, I Ch. 676 [SI], HAMMON[ Z ] ( ] r m n ; XaMwe
king in Isaiah’s prophecy (Is. 109 ; not 6 ) . A similar
[BL], - W N [A]), I t is perhaps to be connected with el-
question (suggested by Is. 1 0 9 ) is put into the mouth
~ a m m e h , the hot springs to the S. of Tiberias.
of the Rab-shakeh ( z K. 18 34= Is. 36 19, a p p [EC”].
Josephus (Ant. xviii. 23 ; BJ iv. 13) calls it Emmaus
acpap [AI’], a ~ p u p[Q]) and the king of Assyria ( 2 K. (cp EMMAUS). Wilson took the temperature of seven
19 13, pa0 [B], areup [A]=Is. 37 13, apup [ECAQ”], distinct springs, three of which have been enclosed
atpup [Qa]). Balaam, too, if a recent critical con-
(Recovery of Jerzrs. 3 6 2 ) . Cp GASmith, HG 450.
jecture may be accepted, becomes the mouthpiece
of Jewish consternation a t the downfall of so ancient HAMMATR (npn),I c h . 255, RV, AV HEMATH
a state as H c ~ m a t h . ~According to tradition, .some of [q. 0 I].

1 It is just possible (so Gray, H P N 5 6 ) that the Babylonian HAMMEAH (;IyM;?),Neh. 31, RV, AV MEAH, in
king’s name was really compounded with on, thoygh 5 R 44 ‘Tower of Hammeah’ (‘$,in). nNn;1 is evidently a corruption
u 6 21 explains it as Kimtu ru$a?tzcm, ‘wide family.
a In Homniel, AHT 48. 1 See Che. ‘Gleanings in the Books of Kings,’ Ex$. T.,
3 Nu. 2424. Alas ! who will survive of Sham’al (5$p”), 10429 (.June ’99).
2 Wmckler, A T Untevs. 101.
or come forth from the city of Hamath’ (n?? l’pp N$1J)? 3 By transposition and confusion of 3 and n (Che. SBOT,
nnn and on; confounded, as in Is. 11 TI (see below). ‘Isaiah,’ Heb.). .Cp last col., n. 3.
63 I945 ‘946
of 3 ~ 2 (,,~e 3v. 3), which in turn is a corruption of fi>w??,'the But the fortress was certainly in connection with a
Old (city). See COLLEGE, HASSENAAH, HULDAH, and cp town, the striking ruins of which still exist, now called
Umnz eL'Amzid (or 'Awdmid). It was there that Renan
HAMMEDATHA (KC79;! ; AMAAAEIOY [BKL], found an inscription dedicated to El (=Baal) Haniman
apaeasou [A]), the father of Haman (cp the name paSaras in (see Baethg. Beitr. 27 ; also G. Hoffmann, Uedereinige
Xenophon, Cyr. v. 3 41 ; and see Be-Ryss.), Esth. 3 I (avapaeasov ph8n. Znschr. Z I J ['Sg]). These ruins are possibly on
[A], z). IO om. BNAL) 8 5 (only in Wa mg. as above) 9 IO (apa- the site of the ancient Hammon (Guerin, I
vasaeou [N*])24 (apayaeouv [~"l). His name appears as AMA- z. A Levitical city in Naphtali, I Ch. 6 76 [611 (xapwe [BL],
DATHUS in 1 2 6 (apavasaeou [B*vid. see Swetel vapavaS. [Bbl) -v [AI). Probably identical with HAMMATH (i.)! Josh. 19 35, and
and 16 IO 77 RV, where AV AMA~ATHA (apa8ou [A] in z).IO, HAMMOTH-DOR Josh. 21 32. The name In thls case has refer-
om. LB in v. 17). ence to hot spriAgs. T. K. C.
HAMMELECH (q>g;!)appears in AV and RVmS as RAMMOTH DOR (lK? lib?), Josh. 2132. See
the name of the fathers of J ERAHMEEL and M ALCHIJAH , HAMMATH
2 (Jer. 36 26 38 6). In RV and AVmg. each of these
persons is called ' the king's son ' (so 6). Probably, BAMMUEL ($&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
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). HAMU or HAMI, NAMES WITH. This group of
HAMMON (limn, ' glowing,' perhaps a divine title, Hebrew names is small ; it may perhaps comprise only
'cp Baal-Hamman-;.e., the Baal of the solar glow ; HAMUEL ( 4 . v . ) and one other (see HAIVEUTAL;
but see [ z ] ) . but cp HEMDAN). Renan (RBJ 5175), Wellhausen
I . A place on the border of Asher, apparently (De Gent. 2 2 , n. I), and Hommel ( A H T 322) derive
near the sea, Josh. 1928 (~pepuwv[B], upwv [AL]). these and similar Semitic names (e.g., infiyon in
Identified by Robinson with the ruins at the head of Himyaritic) from bumd, ' to protect.' That such a root
the W. HBmnl, which he saw from the high hill was used in forming proper names seems clear (see
of Bel@ (see RAMAH[ 6 ] ) , and believed to bear the J AHMAI ) ; but the analogy of the names compounded
name of HHninl. Since, however, the existence of a with Abi-, Ahi-, etc. is in favour of taking Hamu as a
locality of that name is very doubtful (see GuCrin, term of kindred.
CuZdt?e, 2147), it would be better to connect Hammon That on means ' father-in-law,' ninn ' mother-in-law,'
with 'Ain f?imlil, near the point where the wHdy is certain; the instances may be few, but they range
reaches the sea, and where there are the remains of an 1 This word represents the Heb. ~ $ in2 Jer. 2 23 19 2 6 as also
ancient fortress. This Dillrnann admits as a possibility. in Ezek. 39 11 u ; cp z Macc. 9 4 14 4 Macc. 15 20.
1947 1948