Skip to main content

Full text of "Dictionary of the Bible : comprising its antiquities, biography, geography and natural history"

See other formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2008 with funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 














2Dt)e Htoer0ioe press^, CambriDge* 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by 

Huiu> AND Houghton, 

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, 






H. A. Very Rev. Henry Alford, D. D., Dean of Canterbury. 

II. B. Rev. Hexry Bailey, B. D., Warden of St. Augustine's College, Can 

terbury ; late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 
H. B. Rev. IIoRATius Bonar, D. D., Kelso, N. B. ; Author of " The Land 

of Promise." 
[The geographical articles, signed H. B., are written by Dr. Bonar : those on other subjects, 
signed II. B., are written by Mr. Bailey.] 

A. B. Rev. Alfred Barry, B. D., Principal of Cheltenham College ; late 

Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

W. L. B. Rev. William Latham Bevan, ]\I. A., Vicar of Hay, Brecknock- 

J. W. B. Rev. Joseph Williams Blakesley, B. D., Canon of Canterbury ; late 
Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

T. E. B. Rev. Thomas Edward Broavn, M. A., Vice- Principal of King Wil- 
liam's College, Isle of Man ; late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 

R. W. B. Ven. Robert William Browne, M. A., Archdeacon of Bath, and 
Canon of Wells. 

E. H. B. Right Rev. Edward Harold Browne, D. D., Lord Bishop of Ely. 
W. T. B. Rev. William Thomas Bullock, M. A., Assistant Secretary of the 

Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 
S. C. Rev. Samuel Clark, M. A., Vicar of Bredwardine with Brobury, 


F. C. C. Rev. Frederic Charles Cook, M. A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the 


G. E. L. C. Right Rev. George Edward Lynch Cotton, D. D,, late Lord Bishop 

of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India. 
J. LI. D. Rev. John Llewelyn Davies, M. A., Rector of Christ Church, 

Marylebone ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
G. E. D. Prof. George Edward Day, D. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn. 
E. D. Emanuel Deutsch, M. R. A. S., British Museum. 

W. D. Rev. William Drake, M. A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen. 

E. P. E. Rev. Edward Paroissien Eddrup, M. A., Principal of the Theolog- 

ical College, Salisbury. 
C. J. E. Right Rev. Charles John Ellicott, D. D., Lord Bishop of Glouces- 
ter and Bristol. 

F. W. F. Rev. Frederick William Farrar, M. A., Assistant Master of Har* 

row School ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

J. F. James Fergusson, F. R. S., F. R. A. S., Fellow of the Royal Insti- 

tute of British Architects. 

E. S. Ff. Edward Salusbury Ffoulkes, M. A., late Fellow of Jesus College, 

W. F. Right Rev. Wllliam Fitzgerald, D. D., Lord Bishop of Killaloe. 








w. a 



B. H. 


H— s. 




C. H. 


A. H. 


D. H. 


J. H. 


. H. 


S. H. 




. B. J. 


11. L. 



J. B. L. 


W. M. 





R. 0. 


J. 0. 


J. S. P. 


T. P. 


\V. P. 


H. P. 


S. P. 


S. P. 


L. P. 

Rev. Fraxcis Garden, M. A., Subdean of Her Majesty's Chapels 

Rev. F. William Gotcii, liL. D., President of the Baptist College, 
Bristol ; late Hebrew Examiner in the University of London. 

George Grove, Crystal Palace, Sydenham. 

Prof Horatio Balcii Hackett, D. D., LL. D., Theological Institu- 
tion, Newton, Mass. 

Rev. lilRNEST Hawkixs, B. D., Secretary of the Society for the Propa- 
gation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 

Rev. Henry HayiMAN, B. D., Head Master of the Grammar School, 
Cheltenham ; late Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford. 

Ven. Lord Arthur Charles Hervey, M. A., Archdeacon of Sud- 
bury, and Rector of Ick worth. 

Rev. Ja:mes Augustus Hessey, D. C. L., Head Master of Merchant 
Taylors' School. 

Joseph Dalton Hooker, M. D., F. R. S., Royal Botanic Gardens, 

Rev- Ja:\ies John Hornby, M. A., Fellow of Brasenose College, Ox- 
ford ; Principal of Bishop Cosin's Hall. 

Rev. William Houghton, M. A., F. L. S., Rector of Preston on the 
Weald Moors, Salop. 

Rev. John Saul Howson, I). D., Principal of the Collegiate Institu- 
tion, Liverpool. 

Rev. Edgar Huxtable, M. A., Subdean of Wells. 

Rev. William Basil Jones, M. A., Prebendary of York and of St. 
David's ; late Fellow and Tutor of University College, Oxford. 

Austen Henry La yard, D. C. L., M. P. 

Rev. Stanley Leatiies, M. A., M. R. S. L., Hebrew Lecturer in 
King's College, London. 

Rev. Joseph Barber Ligiitfoot, D. D., Ilulsean Professor of Divinity, 
and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

Rev. D. W. Marks, Professor of Hebrew in University College, London. 

Rev. Frederick Meyrick, M. A., late Fellow and Tutor of Trinity 
College, Oxford. 

Prof. Jules Oppert, of Paris. 

Rev. Edward Redman Orger, M. A., Fellow and Tutor of St. 
Aunustine's College, Canterbury. 

Ven. Thomas Johnson Ormerod, M. A., Archdeacon of Suffolk-, 
late Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. 

Rev. John James Stewart Perowne, B. D., Vice-Principal of St. 
David's College, Lampeter. 

Rev. Thomas Thomason Perowne, B. D., Fellow and Tutor o^ 
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. 

Rev. Henry Wright Phillott, M. A., Rector of Staunton-on-Wye. 
Herefordshire ; late Student of Christ Church, Oxford. 

Rev. Edward Hayes Plumptre, M. A., Professor of Divinity in 
King's College, London. 

Edward Stanley Poole, M. R. A. S., South Kensington Museum. 

Reginald Stuart Poole, British Museum. 

Rev. J. Leslie Porter, M. A., Professor of Sacred Literature, Assem 



bly*s College, Belfast ; Author of " Handboctk of Syria and Palestine," 
and " Five Years in Damascus." 

C. P. Rev. Charles Pritchard, M. A., F. R. S., Hon. Secretary of the 

Royal Astronomical Society ; late Fellow of St. John's College, Cam- 

G. R. Rev. George Rawlixson, M. A., Camden Professor of Ancient His- 

tory, Oxford. 

H. J. R. Rev. Hexry John Rose, B. D., Rural Dean, and Rector of Houghton 
Conquest, Bedfordshire. 

W. S. Rev. AViLLiAM Selwyn, D. D., Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen ; 

Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Ely. 

A. P. S. Rev. Arthur Penrhyx Stanley, D. D., Regius Professor of Ecclesias- 

tical History, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford ; Chaplain to His 
Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. 

C. E. S. Prof. Calvin Ellis Stowe, D. D., Hartford, Conn 

J. P. T. Rev. Joseph Parrish Thompson, D. D., New York. 

W. T. Most Rev. William Thomson, D. D., Lord Archbishop of York. 

S. P. T. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, LL. D., Author of " An Introduction 
to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament," &c. 

H. B. T. Rev. Henry Baker Tristram, M. A., F. L. S., Master of Greatham 

J. F. T. Rev. Joseph Francis Thrupp, M. A., Vicar of Barrington ; late Fel- 
low of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

E. T. Hon. Edward T. B. Twisleton, M. A., late Fellow of Balliol College, 


E. V. Rev. Edmund Venables, M. A., Bonchurch, Isle of Wight. 

B. F. W. Rev. Brooke Foss Westcott, M. A., Assistant Master of Han-ow 

School ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

C. W. Rev. Christopher Wordsworth, D. D., Canon of Westminster. 

W. A. W. William Aldis Wright, M. A., Librarian of Trinity College, Cam- 


A. Ezra Abbot, LL. D., Assistant Librarian of Harvard College, 

Cambridge, Mass. 

B. C. B. Pi-of. Samuel Colcord Bartlett, D. D., Theol. Sera., Chicago, 111. 
T. J. C. Rev. Thomas Jefferson Conant, D. D., Brooklyn, N. Y. 

G. E. D. Prof. George Edward Day, D. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn 

G. P. F. Prof. George Park Fisher, D. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn. 

F. G. Prof Frederic Gardiner, D. D., Middletown, Conn. 

D. R. G. Rev. Daniel Raynes Goodwin, D. D., Provost of the University of 
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

H. Prof. Horatio Balch Hackett, D. D., LL. D., Theological Institu- 

tion, Newton, Mass. 

J, H. Prof. James Hadley, LL. D., Yale College, New Haven, Conn. 

F, W. H. Rev. Frederick Whitmore Holland, F. R. G. S., London. 

A. H. Prof. Alvaii Hovey, D. D., Theological Institution, Newton, Mass. 



A. C. K. Prof. AsAHEL Clark Kendrick, D. D., University of Rochester, N. Y. 

C. M. M. Prof. Charles Marsh Mead, Ph. D., Theol. Sera., Andover, Mass. 

E. A. P. Prof. Edwards Amasa Park, D. D., Theol. Seminary, Andover, Mass. 

W. E. P. Rev. William Edwards Park, Lawrence, Mass. 

A. P. P. Prof. Andrew Preston Peabody, D. D., LL. D., Harvard College, 
Cambridge, Mass. 

G. E. P. Rev. George E. Post, M. D., Tripoli, Syria. 

R. D. C. R. Prof. Rensselaer David Chanceford Robbins, Middlebury Col- 
lege, Vt. 

P. S. Rev. Philip Sciiaff, D. D., New York. 

H. B. S. Prof. Henry Boynton Smith, D. D., LL. D., Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. 

C. E. S. Rev. Calvin Ellis Stowe, D. D., Hartford, Conn. 

D. S. T. Prof. Daniel Smith Talcott, D. D., Theol. Seminary, Bangor, Me. 
J. H. T. Prof Joseph Henry Thayer, M. A., Theol. Seminary, Andover, Mass. 
J. P. T. Rev. Joseph Parrish Thompson, D. D., New York. 

C. V. A. V. Rev. Cornelius Y. A. Van Dyck, D. D., Beirut, S}Tia. 

W. H. W. Rev. William Hayes Ward, M. A., New York. 

W. F. W. Prof William Fairfield Warren, D. D., Boston Theological Sem- 
inary, Boston, Mass. 

S. W. Rev. Samuel Wolcott, D. D., Cleveland, Ohio. 

T. D. W. President Theodore Dwight Woolsey, D. D., LL. D., Yale College, 
New Haven, Conn. 

%* The new portions in the present edition are indicated by a star (*), the edi- 
torial additions being distinguished by the initials H. and A. Whatever is enclosed 
in brackets is also, with unimportant exceptions, editorial. This remark, however, 
does not apply to the cross-references in brackets, most of which belong to the origi- 
nal work, though a large number have been added to this edition. 


Aid. The Aldine edition of the Septuagint, 1518. 
Alex. The Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent.), edited by Baber, 1816-28. 
A. V. The authorized (common) English version of the Bible. 
Comp. The Septuagint as printed in the Complutensian Polyglott, 1514-17, published 

FA. The Codex Friderico-Augustanus (4th cent.), published by Tlschendorf in 

Rom. The Roman edition of the Septuagint, 1587. The readings of the Septuagin 
for which no authority is specified are also from this source. 

Sin. The Codex Slnaiticus (4th cent), published by Tlschendorf In 1862. Th/S 
and FA. are parts of the same manuscript. 

Vat. The Codex Vaticanus 1209 (4th cent.), according to Mai's edition, published 
by Vercellone in 1857. " Vat. H." denotes readings of the MS. (difierlng 
from Mai), given in Holmes and Parsons's edition of the Septuagint, 1798- 
1827. " Vat.^ " distinguishes the primary reading of the MS. from « Vat.*'* 
or " 2. m.," the alteration of a later reviser. 





GENNES'ARET, SEA OF (\ifivr] Tsw-q- 
traper, Luke v. 1; {JSwp Vevvt](rap, 1 Mace. xi. 
67), called in the 0. T. » the Sea of Cliinnereth," 
or "Cinneroth," Num. xxxiv. 11: Josh. xii. 3), 
from a town of that name which stood on or near 
its shore (Josh. xix. 35). In the later Hebrew 

we always find the Greek form IDp/^S, which may 
possibly be a corruption of n^SS, though some 

derive the word from Ganuah, "a garden," and 
Sharon, the name of a plain between Tabor and 
this lake {Onom.'s. v. ^apcop; Keland, pp. 393, 
259). Josephus calls it T^vv-qa-aoiTiu \i^i>r]v {Ant. 
xviii. 2, § 1); and this seems to nave been its com- 
mon name at the commencement of our era (Strab. 
xvi. p. 755; Plin. v. 16; Ptol. v. 15). At its 
northwestern angle was a beautiful and fertile plain 
called " Gennesaret " {yriv Tcut/ricrapeT, Matt. xiv. 
34), from which the name of the lake was taken 
(Joseph. B. J. iii. 10, § 7). The lake is also called 
in the N. T. &d\a<T(ra ttjs TaAiAaias, from the 
province of Galilee which bordered on its western 
side (Matt. iv. 18; Mark vii. 31; John vi. 1); and 
&d\a(rcra rfj? TtjSepictSos, from the celebrated city 
(John vi. 1, [xxi. 1]). Eusebius calls it Ai/uLvr] 
Ti^epids ( Onom. a. v. 2a/)c6i/ ; see also Cyr. in Jes. 
i. 5). It is a curious fact that all the numerous 
names given to this lake were taken from places on 
its western side. Its modef-n name is Bahr Tuba- 

iyeh (ay^^ w^). 

In Josh. xi. 2 " the plains south of Chinneroth " 
are mentioned. It is the sea and not the city that 
ia here referred to (comp. Deut. iii. 17 ; Josh. xii. 
3) ; and " the plains " are those along the banks of 
the Jordan. JMost of our Lord's public life was 
spent in the environs of the Sea of Gennesaret. 
On its shores stood Capernaum, "his own city" 
(Matt. iv. 13); on its shore he called his first dis- 
ciples fi-om their occupation as fishermen (Luke v. 
1-11); and near its shores he spake many of his, and performed many of his miracles. 
This region was then the most densely peopled in 
all Palestine. No less than nine cities stood on the 
very shores of the lake; while t/umerous large vil- 
lages dotted the plains and hill-sides arou".d (Por- 
ter, IlandOuok, p. 421). 

ITie Sea of Gennesaret is of an oval shape, about 
Uurteen geogr-iphical mile* loiig, and sij broad. 


Josephus gives the length at 140 stadia, and the 
breadth forty {B. J. iii. 10, § 7); and Pliny sayi 
it measured xvi. M. p. by vi. (//. iV^. xiv.). Both 
these are so near the truth that they could scarcely 
have been mere estimates. The river Jordan enters 
it at its northern end, and passes out at its southern 
end. In fact the bed of the lake is just a lower 
section of the great Jordan valley. Its most re- 
markable feature is its deep depression, being no 
less than 700 feet below the level of the ocean 
(Robinson, Blbl. Ees. i. 613). Like almost aU 
lakes of volcanic origin it occupies the bottom of a 
great basin, the sides of which shelve down with a 
uniform slope from the surrounding plateaus. On 
the east the banks are nearly 2000 feet high, des- 
titute of verdure and of foliage, deeply furrowed by 
ravines, but quite flat along the summit ; forming 
in fact the supporting wall of the table-land of 
Bashan. On the north there is a gradual descent 
from this table -land to the valley of the Jordan; 
and then a gradual rise again to a plateau of nearly 
equal elevation skirting the mountains of Upper 
Galilee. The western banks are less regular, yet 
they present the same general features — plateaus 
of different altitudes breaking down abruptly to 
the shore. The scenery has neither grandeur nor 
beauty. It wants features, and it wants variety. 
It is bleak and monotonous, especially so when the 
sky is cloudless and the sun high. The golden 
tints and purple shadows of evening help it, but it 
looks best during a thunder-storm, such as the 
WTiter has often witnessed in early spring. The 
cliffs and rocks along the shores are mostly a hard 
porous basalt, and the whole basin has a scathed 
volcanic look. The frequent earthquakes prove 
that the elements of destruction are still at work 
beneath the surface. There is a copious warm 
fountain near the site of Tiberias, and it is said 
that at the time of the great earthquake of 1837 
both the quantify and temperature of the water 
were m.uch increased. 

The great depression makes the climate of the 
shores almost tropical. This is very sensibly felt 
by the traveller in going down from the plains of 
Galilee. In summer the heat is intense, and even 
in early spring the air has something of an Egyp- 
tian balminess. Snow very rarely falls, and though 
it often whitens the neighboring mountains, it 
never lies here. The vegetation is almost of a 
tropical character. The thorny lote-tree grows 


junong the basalt rocks; palms flourish luxuriantly, 
and indigo is cultivated in the fields (comp. Joseph. 
B. J. iii. 10, § G). 

The water of the lake is sweet, cool, and trans- 
parent; and as the beach is everywhere pebbly it 
has a beautiful sparkling look. This fact is some- 
what strange when we consider that it is exposed to 
the powerful rays of the sun, that many warm and 
brackish springs flow into it, and that it is suppUed 
by the Jordan, which rushes into its northern end, 
a turbid, ruddy torrent. The lake abounds in fish 
now as in ancient times. Some are of the same 
species as those got in the Nile, such as the Siluruc, 
the Jluf/'d, and another called by Hasselquist Spa- 
ms Galilceus (Etlse, pp. 181, 412 f. ; comp. Joseph. 
n. J. iu. 10, § 7). The fishery, like the soil of 
the surrounding country, is sadly neglected. One 
little crazy boat is the sole representative of the 
fleets that covered the lake in N. T. times, and 
even with it there is no deep-water fishing. Two 
modes are now employed to catch the fish. One is 
a hand-net, with which a man, usually naked 
(John xxi. 7), stalks along the shore, and watching 
his opportunity, throws it round the game with a 
jerk. The other mode is still more curious. Bread- 
crumbs are mixed up with bi-chloride of mercury, 
and sown over the water; the fish swallow the 
poison and die. The dead bodies float, are picked 
up, and taken to the market of 'J'iberias ! (Porter, 
Handbook, p. 432.) 

A " mournful and solitary silence " now reigns 
along the shores of the Sea of Gennesaret, which 
were in former ages studded with great cities, and 
resounded with the din of an active and industrious 
people. Seven out of the nine cities above referred 
to are now uninhabited ruins ; one, Magdala, is oc- 
cupied by half a dozen mud hovels; and Tiberias 
alone retains a wretched remnant of its former 
prosperity. J. L. P. 

GENNE'US (TevvaTos, Alex. Teuveos- Oen- 
nceus), father of Aiiolloiiius, who was one of several 
generals {crpaT-qyoi) commanding towns in Pales- 
tine, who molested the Jews while Lysias was gov- 
ernor for Antiochus Kupator (2 Mace. xii. 2). 
Luther understands the word as an adjective (^et-- 
yaios = well-born), and has "des edlen ApoUo- 

GENTILES. I. Old Testament. — The He- 
brew ''IS in sing. = a people, nation, body politic; 
in which sense it is applied to the Jewish nation 
amongst others. In the plural it acquires an ethno- 
graphic, and also an invidious meaning, and is ren- 
dered in A. V. by Gentiles and Heathen. 

D'1'12, the nations, the surrounding nations, for- 
tifjners, as opposed to Israel (Neh. v. 8). In Gen. 
X. 5 it occurs in its most indefinite sense = the far- 
distant inhabitants of the AVestern Isles, without 
the slightest accessory notion of heathenism, or 
barbarism. In Lev., Dent., Ps., the term is ap- 
plietl to the various heathen nations with which 
Israel came into contact; its meaning grows wider 
in proportion to the wider circle of the national ex- 
perience, and more or less invidious according to 
the success or defeat of the national arms. In the 
prophets it attains at once its most comprehensive 
and its mpst hostile view; hostile in presence of 
victorious rivals, comprehensive with reference to 
the triumphs of a spiritual future. 

Notwithstanding the disagreeable connotation of 
jkhe term, the Jews were able to use it, even in the 


plural, in a purely technical, geographical *;n80 So 
Gen. X. 5 (see above); Gen. xiv. 1; Josh. xii. 23; 
Is. ix. 1. In Josh. xii. 2-3, "the king of the na 
tions of Gilgal," A. V. ; better with Gesenius " the 
king of the Gentiles at (Jilgal," v/here probably, as 
afterwards in Galilee, foreigners, Gentiles, were set- 
tled among the Jews. 

For " Galilee of the Gentiles," comp. Matt. iv. 
15 with Is. ix. 1, wJiere A. V. "Galilee of the 

nations." In Heb. □"^hsn b'^bn, the " circle c/ 

the Gentiles;" kot' e|oxV, ^^'7^'^^' ha-GsU-el. 
whence the name Galilee applied to a districc ^hich 
was largely peopled by the Gentiles, especially the 

The Gentiles in Gen. xiv. 1 may either be the 
inhabitants of the same territory, or, as suggested 
by Gesenius, " nations of the West " generally. 

11. New Testament. — 1. The Greek iOvos in 
sing, means a people or nation (Matt. xxiv. 7 ; Acta 
ii. 5, &c.), and even the Jewish people (Luke vii. 

5, xxiii. 2, &c. ; comp. "^"^3, supr.). It is only in 

the pi. that it is used for the Heb. Q^'^2, heathen, 
Gentiles (comp. cOuos, heathen, ethnic): in Matt, 
xxi. 43 eOuei alludes to, but does not directly stand 
for, " the Gentiles." As equivalent to Gentiles it 
is found in the Epistles of St. Paul, but not alwaya 
in an hividious sense (e. [/. Rom. xi. 13 ; Eph. iii. 

2. "EWrjv, John vii. 35, ^ Ziaa-iTopa. rwv 'E\- 
X-ffj/wu, " the Jews dispersed among the Gentiles," 
Rom. iii. 9, 'lovSalovs Kol "E/vArji/os, Jews and 

The A. V. is not consistent in its treatment of 
this word ; sonjetimes rendering it by Gi-eek (Acts 
xiv. 1, xvii. 4; Rom. i. 16, x. 12), sometimes by 
Gentile (Rom. ii. 9, 10, iii. 9; 1 Cor. x. 32), in- 
serting Greek in the margin. The places where 
"EAAtji/ is equivalent to Greek simply (as Acts xvi. 
1, 3) are much fewer than those where it is equiva- 
lent to Gentile. The former may probably be 
reduced to Acts xvi. 1, 3; Acts xviii. 17; Rom. i. 
14. The latter use of the word seems to have 
arisen from the almost universal adoption of the 
Greek language. Even in 2 Mace iv. 13 'EK\r]via- 
fi6s appears as synonymous with a\\o(t)v\i<rfi6s 
(comp. vi. 9); and in Is. ix. 12 the LXX. renders 

D'*nK?bQ by "eaAtjj/os; and so the Greek Fathers 
defended the Clmstian faith irphs "EWrjvas, and 
KaO' 'EAArjj/w*/. [Gkeek; Heathen.] 

T. E. B. 

GENU'BATH (nn3? [theft, Ges.] : Faiy 
fJaO: Genvhaih), the son of Hadad, an Edomite 
of the royal fomily, by an Egyptian princess, tht 
sister of Tahpenes, the queen of the Pharaoh who 
governed Egypt in the latter part of the reign of 
David (1 K. xi. 20; comp. IG). Genubath »vaa 
born in the palace of Pharaoh, and weaned by the 
queen herself; after which he became a menoier 
of the royal establishment, on the same footing as 
one of the sons of Pharaoh. The fragment of 
Edomite chronicle in which this is contained is 
very remarkable, and may be compared with that 
in Gen. xxxvi. Genubath is not again mentioned 
or alluded to. 

GE'ON {T-nuiv- Gehon), i. e. Grnox, one of 
the four rivers of Eden ; introduced, with the Jordan, 
and probably the Nile, into a figure in the praise 


>t wisdom, Ecclus. xxiv. 27. This is merely the 
Greek form of the Hebrew name, the same which 
\s used by the LXX. in .'.'eu. ii. 13. 

GE'RA (W;^2 [grain, lilile ioei(/ht, Ges.] : 

rrjpd ; [in 1 Chr. viii. 5, Rom. Vat. Tepd • Gera] ), 
one of the " sons," i. e. desceidants, of Benjamin, 
enumerated in Gen. xlvi. 21, as already living at 
I he time of Jacob's migration into Egypt. He 
was son of Bela (1 Chr. viii. 3). [Bela.] The 
text of tliis last passage is very corrupt; and the 
diflw.'ent Geras there named seem to reduce them- 
Belvcss into one — the same as the son of Bela. 
Gera, who is named Judg. iii. 15 as the ancestor 
of Ehud, and in 2 Sam. xvi. 5 as the ancestor 
of Shiniei who cursed David [Bkchku], is prob- 
»My also the same person. Gera is not men- 
tioned in the list of Benjamite families in Num. 
xxvi. 38-40 ; of which a very obvious explanation 
is that at that time he was not the head of a sep- 
arate family, but was included among the Belaites ; 
it being a matter of necessity that some of Bela's 
sons should be so included, otherwise there could 
be no family of Belaites at all. Dr. Kalisch has 
uome long and rather perplexed observations on the 
discrepancies in the lists in Gen. xlvi. and Num. 
xxvi., and specially as regards the sons of Benjamin. 
But the truth is that the two lists agree very well 
as far as Benjamin is concerned. For the only dis- 
crepance that remains, when the absence of Becher 
and Gera from the list in Num. is thus explained, 

is that for the two names "^HS and ti?Sn (Ehi 

and Rosh) in Gen., we have the one name Dn"^nM 

(Ahiram) in Num. If this last were written DM"), 
as it might be, the two texts would be almost 
identical, especially if written in the Samaritan 
character, in which the sliin closely resembles the 
mem. That Ahiram is right we are quite sure, 
from the family of the Ahiram ites, and from the 
non-mention elsewhere of Rosh, which in fact is 
not a proper name. [Rosh.] The conclusion 

therefore seems certain that ti7Mm"^nS in Gen. 
is a mere clerical error, and that there is perfect 
agreement between the two lists. This view is 
strengthened by the further fact that in the word 
which follows Rosh, namely, INIuppim, the initial 
m is an error for sh. It should be Shuppim, as in 
Num. xxvi. 39; 1 Chr. vii. 12. The final in of 
Ahh-am, and the initial sh of Shuppim, have thus 
been transposed. To the remarks made under 
Bechek should be added that the great destruction 
of the Benjamites recorded in Judg. xx. may ac- 
oonnt for the introduction of so many new names 
b the later Benjamite lists of 1 Chr. vii. and viii., 
i£ which several seem to be women's names. 

A. C. H. 
GERAH. [Measures.] 

GE'RAR (n;p2 [circle, district, Fiirst; abode, 
residence, Sim., Ges.]: Tepapct [oi- Tcpapa; in 2 

a The well where Isaac and Abimelech covenanted 
ts distinguished by the LXX. from the Beer-sheba 
whero Abraham did so. the former being called ^pe'ap 
*pKQv, the latter ^pg'ap bpiciafjiov. 

h The stopping wells is a device still resorted to. by 
Jhe Bedouins, to make a country untenable by a neigh- 
cor of whom they wish to be rid. 

* lu his Phys. Geoi;r. (p. 123) Robinson says 
merely that this valley w;is doubtless " some portion or 


Chr., TeScip : Gerura ;] Joseph. Ant. 1. 12, § 1 / 
a very ancient city south of Gaza. It occurs chiert> 
hi Genesis (x. 19, xx. 1, xxvi. 1, 6, [17, 20, 26]) 
also incidentally in 2 Chr. xiv. 13, 14. In GenesL 
the people are spoken of as Philistines ; but theii 
habits appear, in that early stage, more pastora, 
than they subsequently were. Yet they are even 
then warlike, since Abimelech was " a captain of the 
host," who appears from his fixed title, " Phichol," 
like that of the king, " Abimelech," to be a per- 
manent officer (comp. Gen. xxi. 32, xxvi. 20, and 
Ps. xxxiv., title). The local description, xx. 1, 
"between Kadesh and Shur," is probably meant 
to indicate the limits within which these pastoral 
Philistines, whose chief seat was then Gerar, ranged, 
although it would by no means follow that their ter- 
ritory embraced all the interval between those cities. 
It must have trenched on the " south" or "south 
country " of later Palestine. From a comparison 
of xxi. 32 with xxvi. 23, 2G,« I^r-sheba would 
seem to be just on the verge of this territory, and 
perhaps to be its limit towards the N. E. For its 
southern boundary, though very uncertain, none is 
more probable than the wadies ei-Arish (" River 

ofF^gypt" [torrent, ^R^]) and cI-Aiti; south 
of which the neighboring " wilderness of Paran " 
(xx. 1^, xxi. 22, 34) may be probably reckoned to 
begui. Isaac was most probably born in Gerar. 
The great crops which he subsequently raised attest 
the fertility of the soil, which, lying in the maritime 
plain, still contains some of the best ground in 
Palestine (xxvi. 12). It is possible that the wells 
mentioned by Robinson (i. 190) may represent 
those digged by Abraham and reopened by Isaac 
(xxvi. 18-22).'' Williams (Fluly City, i. 46) speaks 
of a Joorf el-Gerar as now existing, three hours 
S. S. E. of Gaza, and this may probably indicate 
the northern limit of the territory, if not the site 
of the town ; but the range of that territory need 
not be so far narrowed as to make the Wady 
liuhaibeh an impossible site, as Fiobinson thinks it 
(see his map at end of vol. i. and i. 197), for 
Rehoboth. There is also a Wady el-Jerur laid 
down S. of the wadies above-named, and running 
into one of them; but this is too far south (Robin ■ 
son, i. 189, note) to be accepted as a possible site 
The valley of Gerar may be almost any important 
wady within the limits indicated ; but if the above- 
mentioned situation for the wells be not rejected, it 
would tend to designate the Wady et-'Ain. Robin- 
son (ii. 44) appears to prefer the Wady es-SherT<ih^ 
running to the sea south of Gaza.c Eusebius {de 
Sit. if Nom. Loc. Ileb. s. v. ) makes Gerar 25 miles 
S. from Eleutheropolis, which would be about the 
latitude of Beer-sheba ; but see Jerome, Lib. Qucest. 
Heb. Gen. xxii. 3. Bered (xvi. 14) may perhaps 
have lain in this territory. In 1 Chr. iv. 39, the 
LXX. read Gerar, ^1$ tV Tepapa, for Gedor; a 
substitution which is not without some claims tc 
support. [Beued; Beek-siieba; Gedou.] 

H. H. 
* GERAR, VALLEY OF. [Gerar.] 

b'-anch of these valleys south and southeast of Gaza." 
Van de Velde (ii. 183) heard of " a site called U7?i el- 
Gerar, about 3 hours from Gaza, and about the samt 
distance from the sea," though without any ruins to 
indicate its antiquity. Thomson says {Land and Boot, 
ii. 348) that Gerar has not yet been discovered, bu 
can hardly fiiil to be brought to light, " jius t as sooc M 
it is safe to travel in that region." H 



GERASA ir^pao-a, Ptol. ; r^^da-cra, r^ot. 
Ecclea.: Arab. Jerash, ji*^). This name does 

Dot occur in the 0. T., nor in the Received Text of 
tlie N T. Tiut it is now generally admitted that in 
Matt.viii. 28 "Gerasenes" supersedes "Gadarenes." 
Gerasa was a celebrated city on the eastern borders 
of Peraea (Joseph. B. J. iii. 3, § 3), placed by some 
in the province of Coelesyria and region of Decapolis 
(Steph. s. ?;.), by others in Arabia (Epiph. ndv. 
fleer.; Origen. in Johan.). These various state- 
ments do not arise from &ny doubts as to the 
locality of the city, but from the ill-defined bound- 
aries of the provinces mentioned. In the Roman 
age no city of Palestine was better known than 
(ierasa. It is situated amid the mountains of 
Gilead, 20 miles east of the Jordan, and 25 north of 
Philadelphia, the ancient Rabbath- Amnion. Several 
MSS. read Tepao-yji/cDj/ instead of refjyfcrrfvwv, in 
Matt. viii. 28; but the city of Gerasa lay too far 
from the Sea of Tiberias to admit the possibility 
of the miracles having been wrought in its vicinity. 
If the reading Tepaarivociu be the true one, the 
Xc^pa, " district," must then have been very large, 
including Gadara and its environs; and Matthew 
thus uses a broader appellation, where Slark and 
Luke use a more specific one. This is not improb- 
able; as Jerome {ad Obad.) states that Gilead was 
in his day called Gerasa; and Origen affirms that 
repa<rr]ua)u was the ancient reading ( Oj)p. iv. p. 
140). [Gadaka.] 

It is not known when or by whom Gerasa was 
founded. It is first mentioned by Josephus as 
having been captured by Alexander Jannoius (circ. 
B. c. 85; Joseph. B. J. i. 4, § 8). It was one of 
the cities the Jews burned in revenge for the mas- 
sacre of their countrymen at Cajsarea, at the com- 
mencement of their last war with the Konians ; and 
it had scarcely recovered from this calamity when 
the Emperor Vespasian despatched Annius, his 
general, to capture it. Annius, having carried the 
city at the first assault, put to the sword one 
thousand of the youth who had not effected their 
»scape, enslaved their families, and plundered their 
dwellings (Joseph. B. J. iv. 9, § 1). It appears 
to have been nearly a century subsequent to this 
period that Gerasa attained its greatest prosperity, 
and was atlorned with those monuments which give 
it a place among the proudest cities of Syria. His- 
tory tells us nothing of this, but the fragments of 
inscriptions found among its ruined palaces and 
temples, show that it is indebted for its architec- 
tural splendor to the age and genius of the Anto- 
nines (a. d. 138-80). It subsequently became the 
seat of a bishopric. There is no evidence that the 
city was ever occupied by the Saracens. There are 
30 traces of their architecture — no mosques, no in- 
scriptions, no reconstruction of old edifices, such as 
are found in most other great cities in Syria. All 
here is Roman, or at least ante-Islamic; every 
structure remains as the hand of the destroyer or 
the earthquake shock left it — ruinous and de- 

The ruins of Gerasa are by far the most beauti- 
ful and extensive east of the Jordan. They are 
jituiited on both sides of a shallow valley that runs 
from north to south through a high undulating 
plain, and falls into the Zurka (the ancient Jabbok) 
at tho distance of about 5 miles. A little rivulet, 
thickly fringed with oleander, winds through the 
valley, giving life and beauty to the deserted city. 
rho first view of the ruhis is very striking ; and 


such as have enjoyed it will not sooe forget th« 
impression made upon the mind. I'he long colon- 
nade running through the centre of the city, ter- 
minating at one end in the graceful circle of the 
forum ; the groups of columns clustered here and 
there round the crumbling walls of the temples 
the heavy masses of masonry that distinguish the 
positions of the great theatres ; and the vast field 
of shapeless ruins rising gradually from the green 
banks of the rivulet to the battlemented heights on 
each side — all combine in forming a picture s ich 
as is rarely equaled. The form of the city is an 
irregular square, each side measuring nearly a mile. 
It was surrounded by a strong wall, a large portion 
of which, with its flanking towers at intervals, is 
in a good state of preservation. Three gatewaya 
are still nearly perfect ; and within the city upwards 
of two hundred and tliirty columns remain on their 
pedestals. (Full descriptions of Gerasa are given 
in the Handbook for Syr. and Pal. ; Burckhardt's 
Travtls in Syria; Buckingham's Arab Tribes; 
Ritter's Pal. und Syr.) J. L. P. 

GERGESE'NES, Matt. viii. 28. [Gadara.] 

GER'GESITES, THE (ot r€pyeaa7oi i 
Vulg. omits), Jud. v. 16. [GiiiGASiiiTES.] 

GER'IZIM (always D'^-pr- IH, har-Ger-iz- 
zim^ the mountain of the Gerizzites, from "^'pS, 
Crizzi, dwellers in a shorn (J. e. desert) land, from 
T"n3, gdraz^ to cut oflT; possibly the tribe subdued 
by David, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8: TapiCiu, [Vat. Alex. 
-C^iv, exc. Alex. Deut. xi. 29, Ta^ipetj/ :] Garizim), 
a mountain designated by Moses, in conjunction 
with INIount Ebal, to be the scene of a great solem- 
nity upon the entrance of the children of Israel 
into the promised land. High places had a pecu- 
liar charm attached to them in these days of ex- 
ternal observance. The law was delivered from 
Sinai : the blessings and curses affixed to the per- 
formance or neglect of it were directed to be pro- 
nounced upon Gerizim and Ebal. Six of the 
tribes — Simeon, Levi (but Joseph being repre- 
sented by two tribes, Levi's actual place probably 
was as assigned below), Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and 
Benjamin were to take their stand upon the former 
to bless; and six, namely — Reuben, Gad, Asher, 
Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali — upon the Litter to 
curse (Deut. xxvii. 12-13). Apparently, the Ark 
halted mid-way between the two mountains, en- 
compassed by the priests and Levites, thus divided 
by it into two bands, with Joshua for their cory- 
phaeus. He read the blessings and cursings succes- 
sively (Josh. viii. 33, 34), to be re-echoed by the 
Levites on either side of him, and responded to by 
the tribes in their double array with a loud Amen 
(Deut. xxvii. 14). Curiously enough, only the 
formula for the curses is given {ibid. ver. 14-26); 
and it was upon Ebal, and not Gerizim, where the 
altar of whole unwrought stone was to be built, 
and where the huge plastered stones, with the words 
of the law (Josh. viii. 32; Joseph. Ant. iv. 8, § 44, 
limits them to the blessings and curses just pro- 
nounced) wTitten upon them, were to be set up 
(Deut. xxvii. 4-6) — a significant omen for a peo- 
ple entering joyously upon their new inheritance 
and yet the song of Moses abounds with foreooa 
ings still more sinister and plain-six)ken (Deul 
xxxii. 5, 6, and 15-28). 

The next question is, Has Moses defined the k 


jalitiea of Lbal and Geriziin? Standing on the 
rastern side of the Jordan, in the land of INIoab 
;Deut. i. 5), he asks: "Are they not on the other 
jide Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down 
(t. e. at some distance to the W.), in the land of 
the Canaanites, which dwell in the champaign over 
against Gilgal (i. e. whose territory — not these 
mountains — ommenced over against Gilgal — see 
Patrick on Deut. xi. 30), beside the plains of Mo- 
reh?" . . . These closing words would seem to 
mark their site with unusual precision: for in Gen. 
lii. G " the plain (LXX. ' oak ') of Moreh " is ex- 
pressly connected with " the place of Sichem or She- 
chem " (N. T. " Sychem" or "Sychar," which last 
form is thought to convey a reproach. Keland, 
Dissert, on Gerizim, in Ugol. Thesauv. p. dccxxv., 
in Josephus the form is " Sicima"), and accordingly 
Judg. ix. 7, Jotham is made to address his cele- 
brated parable to the men of Shechem from " the 
top of Mount (ierizira." The " hill of Moreh," 
mentioned in the history of Gideon his father, may 
have heea a mountain o\erhanging the same plain, 
but certainly could not have been further south 
(comp. c. vi. 33, and vii. 1). Was it therefore 
prejudice, or neglect of the true import of these 
passages, that made Eusebius and Epiphanius, 
both natives of Palestine, concur in placing Ebal 
and Gerizim near Jericho, the former charging the 
Samaritans with grave error for affirming them to 
be near NeapolisV (Keland. Dissert.^ as above, p. 
dccxx.)- Of one thing we may be assured, namely, 
that their Scriptural site must have been, in the 
fourth century, lost to all but the Samaritans; 
otherwise these two fathers would have spoken 
very differently. It is true that they consider the 
Samaritan hypothesis irreconcilable with Deut. xi. 
30, which it has already been shown not to be. A 
more formidable objection would have been that 
Joshua could not have marched from Ai to She- 
chem, through a hostile country, to perform the 
above solemnity, and retraced his steps so soon 
afterwards to Gilgal, as to have been found there 
by the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. G; comp. viii. 30-35). 
Yet the distance between Ai and Shechem is not 
80 long (under two days' journey). Neither can 
the interval implied in the context of the former 
passage have been so short, as even to warrant the 
modern supposition that the latter passage has been 
misplaced. The remaining objection, namely, " the 
wide interval between the two mountains at She- 
chem " (Stanley, S. if P. p. 238, note), is still more 
easily disposed of, if we consider the blessings and 
curses to have been pronounced by the Levites, 
elanding in the midst of the valley — thus abridg- 
hig the distance by one half — and not by the six 
tfibes on either hill, who only responded. How 
indeed could 000,000 men and upwards, besides 
iromer. and children (comp. Num. ii. 32 with Judg. 
2X. 2 and 17), have been accommodated in a smaller 
space? Besides in those days of assemblies "sub 
dio," the sense of hearing must have been neces- 
sarily more acute, just as, before the aids of writing 
and printing, memories were much more retentive. 
We may conclude, therefore, that there is no room 
for doubting tlie Scriptural position of Ebal and 
Gerizim to have been — where they are now placed 
— in the territory of the tribe of I^jhraim ; tht 
latter of them overhanging the city of Shechem ot 
Sicima, as Josephus, following the Scriptural nar- 
"ative, asserts. Even Eusebius, in another work of 
tis {Preen. Evan;/, ix. 22), quotes some lines from 
rheodotiis, in which the true position of Ebal and 



Gerizim is described with great force and accuracy 
and St. Jerome, while following Eusebius in th 
Onomasticon, in his ordinary correspondence do« 
not hesitate to connect Sichem or Neapolis, th« 
well of Jacob, and Mount Gerizim {Ep. cviii. c. 
13, ed. Migne). Procopius of Gaza does nothing 
more than follow Eusebius, and that clumsily 
(Keland, PakeAt. lib. ii. c. 13, p. 503); but hig 
more accurate namesake of Cssarea expressly as 
serts that Gerizim rose over Neapolis {De ^dif. 
v. 7) — that Ebal was not a peak of Gerizim (v. 
Quaresm. Elucid. T. S. Ub. vii. Per. i. c. 8), but 
a distinct mountain to the N. of it, and separated 
from it by the valley in which Shechem stood, we 
are not called upon here to pi'ove; nor again, that 
Ebal was entirely barren, which it can scarce be 
called now; while Gerizim was the same proverb 
for verdure and gushing rills formerly, that it is 
now, at leixst where it descends towards Ndbltis, 
It is a far more important question whether Geri- 
zim was the mountain on which Abraham was 
directed to offer his son Isaac (Gen. xxii. 2 ff.). 
First, then, let it be observed that it is not the 
mountain, but the district which is there called 
Moriah (of the same root with Moreh : see Com. 
a Lapid. on Gen. xii. 6), and that antecedently to 
the occurrence which took place " upon one of the 
mountains " in its vicinity — a consideration which 
of itself would naturally point to the locality, 
already known to Abraham, as the plain or plains 
of Moreh, " the land of vision," " the high land ; 
and therefore consistently " the land of adoration, 
or "religious worship," as it is variously explained 
That all these interpretations are incomparably 
more applicable to the natural features of Gerizim 
and its neighborhood, than to the hillock (in com- 
parison) upon which Solomon built his temple, 
none can for a moment doubt who have seen both. 
.Jerusalem unquestionably stands upon high ground : 
but owing to the hills " round about " it cannot 
be seen on any side from any great distance ; nor, 
for the same reason, could it ever have been a land 
of vision, or extensive views. Even from Mount 
Olivet, which must always have towered over the 
small eminences at its base to the S. W., the view 
cannot be named in the same breath with that from 
Gerizim, which is one of the finest in Palestine, 
commanding, as it does, from an elevation of nearly 
2,500 feet (Arrowsmith, Geofjraph. Diet, of the If. 
S. p. 145), "the Mediterranean Sea on the W., 
the snowy heights of Hermon on the N., on the E. 
the wall of the trans-Jordanic mountains, broken 
by the deep cleft of the Jabbok " (Stanley, S. (f P. 
p. 235), and the lovely and tortuous expanse of 
plain (the Muhhna) stretched as a carpet of many 
colors beneath its feet." Neither is the appearance, 
which it would " present to a traveller advancing 
up the PhiUstine plain " {ibid. p. 252) — the direc- 
tion from which Abraliam came — to be overlooked. 
It is by no means necessary, as INIr. Porter thinks 
{Handbook of S. cf P. i. 339), that he should 
have started from Beer-sheba (see (ien. xxi. 34 — 
"the whole land being before him," c. xx. 15). 
Then, " on the morning of the third day, he would 
arrive in the plain of Sharon, exactly where the 
massive height of Gerizim is visible afar off" (ibid 
p. 251), and from thence, with the mount alwayi 

a * From the top of Gerizim the traveller enjoys " 
prospect unique in the Holy Land.'" See it well de 
scnbcwi ft. Trisfcrim's Land of Israef p. 151, Ist ed. 



tn t:sw, be wjuld proceed to the exact "place 
which God had told him of" in all solemnity — for 
again, it is not necessary that he should have ar- 
rived on the actual spot during the third day. All 
chat is said in the narrative, is that, from the time 
that it hove in sight, he and Isaac parted from the 
young men, and went on together alone. Tiie 
Samaritans, therefore, through whom the tradition 
of the true site of Gerizim has been preserved, are 
probably not wrong when they point out still — as 
they have done from time immemorial — Gerizim 
as the hill upon whicli Abraham's " faith was made 
perfect; " and it is observable that no such spot is 
attempted to be shown on the rival hill of Jerusa- 
lem, as distinct from Calvary. Different reasons 
in all probability caused these two localities to be 
80 named : the first, not a mountain, but a land, 
district, or plain (for it is not intended to be as- 
serted that Gerizim itself ever bore the name of 
Moriah; though a certain spot upon it was ever 
afterwards to Abraham }3ersonally " Jehovah- 
jireh "), called Moreh, or ]\Ioriah, from the noble 
vision of nature, and therefore of natural religion, 
that met the eye; the second, a small hill deriving 
its name from a special revelation or vision, as the 
express words of Scripture say, which took place 
" by the tlireshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite " 
(2 Chr. iii. 1; comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. IG). If it be 
thought strange that a place once called by the 
" Father of the faithful " Jehovah-jireh, should 
have been merged by Moses, and ever afterwards, 
in a general name so different from it in sense and 
Diigin as Gerizim; it would be still more strange, 
that, if Mount JVIoriah of the book of Chronicles 
and Jehovah-jireh were one and the same place, no 
sort of allusion should have been made by the in- 
spired historian to the prime event which had 
caused it to be so called. True it is that Josejihus, 
in more than one place, asserts that where Abra- 
ham offered, there the temple was afterwards built 
(Ant. i. 13, § 2, and vii. 13, § 9). Yet the same 
Josephus makes God bid Abraham go to the moun- 
tain — not the land — of Moriah; having omitted 
all mention of the plains of jNIoreh in his account 
of the preceding narrative. Besides, in more than 
one place he shows that he bore no love to the Sa- 
maritans (ibid. xi. 8, § 6, and xii. 5, § 5). St. 
Jerome follows Josephus ( Qiuesi. in Gen. xxii. 5, 
ed. Migne), but with his uncertainty about the site 
of Gerizim, what else could he have done ? Besides 
it appears from the Onomasticon (s. v.) that he 
considered the hill of Moreh (Judg. vii. 1) to be 
the same with Moriah. And who that is aware of 
the extravagance of the Rabbinical traditions re- 
specting Mount Moriah can attach weight to any 
one of them ? (Cunaeus, De Repiibl. Ihb. lib. ii. 
12). Finally, the Christian tradition, which makes 
the site of Abraham's sacrifice to have been on 
Calvary, will derive countenance from neither Jose- 
phus nor St. Jerome, unless the sites of the Tem- 
ple and of the Cmcifixion are admitted to have 
been the same. 

Another tradition of the Samaritans is far less 
trustworthy; namely, that Mount Gerizim was the 
spot where JNIelchisedech met Abraham — though 
there certainly was a Salem or Shalem in that 
neighborhood (Gen. xxxiii. 18; Stanley, S. cf P. 
p. 2i7 ff.). The first altar erected in the land of 
Abraham, and the first appearance of Jehovah to 
him in it, was in the plain of ]\Ioi-eh near Sichem 
(G«L xii. G); but the mountain overhanging that 
uty (assuming our view to be coirect) had not yet 


been hallowed to him for the rest of hk life by tha, 
decisive trial of his faith, which was made there 
subsequently. He can hardly therefore be supposed 
to have deviated irom his road so far, which .ay 
through the plain of the Jordan: nor again h it 
likely that he would have found the king of Sodom 
so far away from liis own territory (Gen. xiv. 17 
ff.). Lastly, the altar which Jacob built was 
not cm Gerizim, as the Samaritans contend, 
though probably about its base, at the head of the 
plain between it and I'Lbal, " in the parcel of a 
field'' which that imtriarch purchased from the 
children of Hamor, and where he spread his tent 
(Gen. xxxiii. 18-20). Here was likewise his wtll 
(John iv. 6); and the tomb of his son Jcsefh 
(Josh. xxiv. 32), both of which are still shown; 
the fonner surmounted by the remains of a vaulted 
chamber, and with the ruins of a church hard by 
(Kobinson, Bibl. Hes. ii. 283) the latter, with " a 
fruitful vine" trailing over its white-washed in- 
closure, and before it two dwarf pillars, hollowed 
out at the top to receive lamps, which are lighted 
every Friday or Mohammedan sabbath. There is, 
however, another ^Mohammedan monument claiming 
to be the said tomb (Stanley, S. cf P. p. 241, note). 
The tradition (Kobinson, ii. 283, note) that the 
twehe patriarchs were buried there likewise (it 
should have made them eleven without Joseph, or 
thirteen, including his two sons), probably depends 
upon Acts vii. IG, where, unless we are to suppose 
confusion in the narrative, avrSs should be read 
for ^AfiftadiuL, which may well have been suggested 
to the copyist from its recuirence, v. 17; while 
avT6s, from having already occurred, v. 15, might 
have been thought suspicious. 

We now enter upon the second phase in the his- 
tory of Gerizim. According to Josephus, a marriage 
contracted between Manasseh, brother of Jaddus, 
the then high-priest, and the daughter of Sanballat 
the Cuthsean (comp. 2 K. xvii. 24), having created 
a great stir amongst the Jews, who had been 
strictly forbidden to contract alien marriages (Ezr. 
ix. 2; Neh. xiii. 23) — Sanballat, in order to rec- 
oncile his son-in-law to this unpopular affinity, ob- 
tained leave from Alexander the Great to build a 
temple ujx)n Mount Gerizim, and to inaugurate a 
rival priesthood and altar there to those of Jerusa- 
lem (Ant. xi. 8, §§ 2-4, and for the harmonizing 
of the names and dates, Prideaux, Ccmnect. i. 396 
ff., IM'Caul's ed.). "Samaria thenceforth," says 
Prideaux, " became the common refuge and asylum 
of the refractory Jews " {ibid. ; see also Joseph. 
Ant. xi. 8, § 7), and for a time, at least, their 
temple seems to have been called by the name of a 
Greek deity {Ant. xii. 5, § 5). Hence one of the 
first acts of Hyrcanus, when the death of Antiochua 
Sidetes had set his hands free, was to seize Shochem, 
and destroy the temple upon Gerizim, after it haA 
stood there 200 years {Ant. xiii. 9, § 1). But the 
destruction of their temple by no means crushed 
the rancor of the Samaritans. 'i'he road from 
Galilee to Judaea lay then, as now, through Sa- 
maria, skirting the foot of Gerizim (John iv. 4). 
Here wjis a constant occasion for reKgious contro- 
versy and for outrage. " Hew is it that 'J'hou, be- 
ing a Jew, askest to drink of me, which am a woman 
of Samaria? " said the female to oiu- Lord at the 
well of Jacob, where both parties would always bf 
sure to meet. " Our fathers worshipped in thv 
mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the pLior 
where men ought to worship ? " . . . Subsequcntlt 
we read of the depredations committed oi that roa4 



ipon a party of GalUseans (Ant. xx. 6, § 1). Tlie 
iberai attitude, first of the Saviour, and then of 
bis disciples (Acts viii. 14), was thrown away upon 
ill those who would not abandon their creed. And 
Gerizini continued to be the focus of outbreaks 
through successive centuries. One, inider Pilate, 
while it led to their se\ere chastisement, procured 
the disgrace of that ill-starred magistrate, who had 
cnicified "Jesus, the king of the Jews," with im- 
punity (Ant. xviii. 4, § 1). Another hostile gath- 
ering on the same spot caused a slaughter of 10,G00 
of them under Vespasian. It is remarkable that, 
in this instance, want of water is said to have made 
them easy victims; so that the deliciously cold and 
pure spring on the summit of Gerizim must have 
tailed before so great a multitude (B. J. iii. 7, § 
32). At length their aggressions were directed 
against the Christians inhabiting Neapolis — now 
powerful, and under a bishop — in the reign of 
Zeno. Terebinthus at once carried the news of 
this outrage to IJyzantium: the Samaritans were 
forcibly ejected from Gerizim, which was handed 
over to the Christians, and adorned with a church 
in honor of the Virgin; to some extent fortified, 
and even guarded. This not proving sufficient to 
repel the foe, Justinian built a second wall round 
the church, which his historian says defied all at- 
tacks (Procop. Be yEdlf. v. 7). It is probably the 
ruins of these buildings which meet the eye of the 
modern traveller (Hamlb. of S. (f- P. ii. 339). 
Previously to this time, the Samaritans had been a 
numerous and important sect — sufficiently so, in- 
deed, to be carefully distinguished from the Jews 
and Caelicolists in the Theodosian code. This last 
outrage led to their comparative disappearance from 
history. Travellers of the 12th, 14th, and 17th 
centuries take notice of their existence, but extreme 
paucity (Early Travels, by Wright, pp. 81, 181, 
and 432), and their immber now, as in those days, 
Is said to be below 200 (Robinson, BlbL lies. ii. 
282, 2d ed.). We are confined by our subject to 
Gerizim, and therefore can only touch upon the 
Samaritans, or their city Neapolis, so far as their 
history connects directly with that of the mountain. 
And yet we may observe that as it was undoubt- 
edly this mountain of which our Ix)rd had said, 
" Woman, believe me. the hour cometh, when ye 
ihall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusa- 
lem (i. e. exclusively), worship the Father" (John 
iv. 21) — so likewise it is a singular historical fact, 
that the Samaritans have continued on this self- 
same mountain century after century, with the 
briefest inteiTuptions, to worship according to their 
ancient custom ever since to the present day. 
While the Jews — expelled from Jerusalem, and 
tlierefore no longer able to offer up bloody sacrifices 
tccording to the law of Moses — have been obliged 
to adapt their ceremonial to the circumstances of 
their destiny: here the Paschal Lamb has been 
offered up in all ages of the Christian era by a 
gmall but united nationality (the spot is accurately 
marked out by Dr. Robinson, BlbL Res. ii. 277)." 
Their copy of the Law, probably the work of Ma- 
aasseh, and known to the fathers of the 2d and 3d 
3en1irios (Prideaux, Connect, i. 600; ?.nd Robin- 
son, ii. 297-301), was, in the 17th, vindicated 
from oblivion by Scaliger, Usher, Morinus, and 



a • The reader will find under Passover (Anier. ed.) 

particular account of the manner in which the Sa- 

Biaritaas celebi-ate that great festival on Gerizim. On 

i*rizim and tlie modern Samaritans interestinK infor- 

others; and no traveller now visits Palestine with 
out making a sight of it one of his prime objects 
Gerizim is likewise still to the Samaritans what 
Jerusalem is to the Jews, and Mecca to the Mo- 
hammedans. Their prostrations are directed to- 
wards it wlierever they are ; its holiest spot in theii 
estimation being the traditional site of the taber- 
nacle, near that on which they believe Abraham to 
have offered his son. Both these s[X)ts are on the 
summit ; and near them is still to be seen a mound 
of ashes, similar to the larger and more celebrated 
one N. of Jerusalem ; collected, it is said, from the 
sacrifices of each successive age (Dr. Robinson, 
BlbL Bes. ii. 202 and 299, evidently did not see 
this on Gerizim). Into their more legendary tra- 
ditions respecting Gerizim, and the story of their 
alleged worship of a dove, — due to the Jews, their 
enemies (Reland, Diss. ap. Ugolin. Thesaur. vii. 
pp. dccxxix.-xxxiii.), — it is needless to enter. 

E. S. Ff. 

*■ The theory that Gerizim is " the mountain on 
which Abraham was directed to offer his son Isaac," 
advocated by Dean Stanley (S. cf /*. p. 248) and 
controverted by Dr. Thomson (Laml and Book, ii. 
212), is brought forward by the writer of the above, 
on grounds which appear to us wholly unsubstan- 

(1.) The assumed identity of Moreh and Moriah 
cannot be admitted. There is a radical difference 
in their roots (Robinson's Gesen. Iltb. Lex. s. w.), 
which is conceded by Stanley; and the reasoning 
about "the plains of IMoreh, the land of vision,'' 
" called INIoreh, or Moriah, from the noble vision 
of nature," etc., is irrelevant. Murphy (Comm. 
in loc. '. justly observes: "As the two names occur 
in the same document, and differ in form, they nat- 
urally denote different things." 

(2.) The distance of Gerizim from Beer-sheba 
is fatal to this hypothesis. The suggestion that 
Abraham need not have ^^ started from Beer-sheba," 
is gratuitous — the narrative fairly conveying the 
impression that he started from his residence, which 
was then at that place. [Beek-shkba.] From 
this point Jerusalem is three days, and Gerizim two 
days still further, north. The journey could not 
have been completed, with a loaded ass, " on the 
third day;" and the route by which this wiiter, 
following Stanley, sends the party to Gerizim, ia 
an unknown and improbable route. 

(3.) The suggestion of Mr. Ffoulkes above, and 
of Mr. Grove [Mokiah], that the patriarch only 
came in sight of the mountain on the third day, 
and had an indefinite time for the rest of the jour- 
ney, and the similar suggestion of Dr. Stanley, 
that after coming in sight of the mountain he had 
" half a day " for reaching it, are inadmissible. 
Acknowledging "that from the time it hove in 
sight, he and Isaac parted from the young men and 
went on together alone," these writers all overlook 
the fact that from this point the wood for the bun)t- 
offering was laid upon Isaac. Thus far the needed 
materials had been carried by the servants and the 
ass. That the young man could bear the burden 
for a short distance alone, does not warrant the 
supposition that he could have borne it for a day's 
journey, or a half-day's — in which case it would 
seem that the donkey and servants might have 

mation wU' be found in Mills's Three Months'' Residenet 
at Nahlus, i-iond. 1864 ; and in Mr. Grove f paper On 
tlw. JSIodo'm Samaritans in Vacation Tour-its for 1861 




been left at home. The company halted, appar- 
ently, not very far from the spot of the intended 

(4.) The commanding position of Gerizim, with 
the wide prospect from its summit, is not a necessary, 
nor probahle, element in the decision of the ques- 
tion. It was to the land of Aloriah that the patri- 
arch was directed, some one of the eminences of 
which, apparently not yet named, the I.ord was to 
designate as his destination. In favor of Gerizim 
as an elevated site, Stanley lays stress upon the 
phrase, '■'■ lifted up his eyes," forgetting that this 
identical phrase had been applied (Gen. xiii. 10) 
to Lot's survey of the plain of the Jordan below 

(5.) The Samaritan tradition is unreliable. 
From the time that a rival temple to that on IMo- 
riah was erected on Gerizim, the Samaritans felt a 
natural desire to invest the spot with some of the 
sanctities of the earlier Jewish history. Their 
substitution of Moreh for Moriah (Gen. xxii. 2) in 
their version, is of the same character with this 
claim. Had this been the traditionary site of the 
scene in question, Josephus would hardly have 
ventured to advance the claim for Jerusalem ; and 
though sharing the prejudices of his countrymen, 
his general fairness as a historian forbids the in- 
timation that he was capable of robbing this com- 
munity of a cherished site, and transferring it to 
another. Moreover, the improbable theory that 
Gerizim, and not Jerusalem, was the scene of the 
meeting oetween Abraham and Melchisedec, which , 
though held by Prof. Stanley, Mr. Ffoulkes is com- 
pelled to reject, has the same authority of Samar- 
itan tradition. 

The objections to the Moriah of Jerusalem as 
the site in question, need not be considered here. 
The theory which claims that locality for this sac- 
rificial scene, has its difficulties, which wiU be ex- 
amined in their place. [Mokiah, Amer. ed.] 
Whether that theory be accepted or rejected, the 
claims of Gerizim appear to us too slightly sup- 
ported to entitle them to any weight in the discus- 
won. S. W. 

GERIZITES, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8. [Gerzitks.] 

GERRHE'NIANS, THE (ecos tS>u T^pp-n- 
vuv'i Alex. Tcvurjpcau'- (id Gerrenos)^ named in 2 
Mace. xiii. 24 only, as one limit of the district 
committed by Antiochus Eupator to the govern- 
ment of Judas Maccabaeus, the other limit being 
Ptolemais (Accho). To judge by the similar ex- 
pression in defining the extent of Simon's govern- 
ment in 1 Mace. xi. 59, the specification has refer- 
ence to the sea-coast of Palestine, and, from the 
nature of the case, the Gerrhenians, wherever they 
jvere, must have been south of Ptolemais. Grotius 
seems to have been the first to suggest that the 
town Gerrhon or Gerrha was intended, which lay 
between Pelusium and Rhinocolura ( Wady el- 
Arish). But it has been pointed out by Ewald 
(GescMchte, iv. 365, note) that the coast as far 
north as the latter place was at that time in pos- 
session of Egj^it, and he thereon conjectures that 
the inhabitants of the ancient city of Geuar, S. 
E. of Gaza, the residence of Abraham and Isaac, 
ire meant. In support of this Grimm {Kurzg. 
Handb. ad loc.) mentions that at least one MS. 
reads Tepaprjuuv, which would without difficulty 
D© corrupted to Tep^riuuv. 

It seems to have been overlocjked that the Syriac 
fcniou (early, and entitled to much respect) has 


Gozor (^^N,^)- By this maybe intended eitha 

(a) the ancient Gezkh, which was near the sea 
somewhere about Joppa; or (b) Gaza, which appean 
sometimes to take that form in these books. It 
the former case the government of Judas would 
contain half, in the latter the whole, of the coast 
of Palestine. The latter is most probably correct, 
as otherwise the important district of Idumaea, 
with the great fortress of Betiisu t^v, would have 
been left unprovided for. G. 

GER'SHOM (in the earher books Db'n^a, 

in Chr. generally dt^nS). 1. {rzoardy.; Lj 
Judg. r-nparwu, [Vat. M. rTjpa-ofi, Vat. H.] nn»\ 
Alex. Trjpacofi; Joseph, rrjpa-os- Gersmn^ Get 
som.) The first-born son of Moses and Zippora/; 
(Ex. ii. 22 ; xviii. 3). The name is explained in theai 

passages as if "OW "12 ( Gei' sham) = a strange 
there, in allusion to Closes' being a foreigner i. 
Midian — "For he said, I have been a strange. 
(6'er) in a foreign land." This signification i. 
adopted by Josephus {Ant. ii. 13, § 1), and also 
by the LXX. in the form of the name which they 
give — V7)p(Ta.fx\ but according to Gesenius {Thes. 
p. 306 b), its true meaning, taking it as a Hebrew 

word, is "expulsion," from a root ti?"n2, being only 
another form of Gerstion (see also Fiirst, Ilandwb. ). 
The circumcision of Gershom is probably related 
in Ex. iv. 25. He does not appear again in the 
history in his own person, but he was the founder 
of a family of which more than one of the mem- 
bers are mentioned later, (a.) One of these was a 
reraarkalile person — " Jonathan the son of Ger- 
shom," the "young man the Levite," whom we 
first encoimter on his way from Bethlehem-Judah 
to Micah's house at INIount Ephraim (Judg. xvii. 
7), and who subsequently became the first priest to 
the irregular worship of the tribe of Dan (xviii. 
30). The change of the name "Moses" in this 
passage, as it originally stood in the Hel^rew text, 
to " Manasseh," as it now stands both in the text 
and the A. V., is explained under Maxasseh. 
ib.) But at least one of the other branches of the 
family preser\ed its allegiance to Jehoxah, for when 
the courses of the Invites were settled by king Da- 
vid, the " sons of Closes the man of God " received 
honorable prominence, and Shebuel chief of the 

sons of Gershom was appointed ruler (T*33) of 
the treasures. (1 Chr. xxiii. 15-17; xxvi. 24-28.) 

2. The fonn under which the name Gershon 
— the eldest son of I^vi — is given in se\eral pas- 
sages of Chronicles, namely, 1 Chr. vi. 16, 17, 20, 
43, 62, 71; xv. 7. The Hebrew is almost alter 

nately Db*"12, and Dlt^nS ; the LXX. adhere w 
their ordinary rendering of Gershon: [Rom.] Vat. 
reSo-wj', Alex, rrjptrcof , [exc. vi. 43, Vat. reeSo-wi/. 
and XV. 7, Alex. Btj/jo-wj/, Vat. FA. Ttipcraix'^ 
Viilg. Gerson and Gersom. 

3. (Dtt?'?2 : r-npcrdv, [Vat.] Alex. Vinpcuin ' 
Gersom), the representative of the priestly family 
of Phinehas, among those who accompanied Ezra 
from Babylon (Ezr. viii. 2). In Esdras the name 
is Gerson. G. 

GER'SHON (intr'?2 : in Gen. Frj^aci; , ifi 
other books uniformly reBaiau; ind so also Alex 
with three exceptions; Joseph. Ant. ii. 7, § 4 
T'npaSix'ris'- [O'eraora]), (l\e eldest of the three ton 


rf Levi, born before the descent of Jacobs' family 
into Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 11; Ex. vi. 16). But thougli 
the eldest born, the families of Gershon were out- 
stripped in fame by their younger brethren of Ko- 
hath, from whom sprang Moses and the priestly 
line of Aaron." Gershon's sons were Libni and 
SiUMi (Ex. vi. 17; Num. iii. 18, 21; 1 Chr. vi. 
17), and their families were duly recognized hi the 
reign of David, when the permanent arrangements 
for the service of Jehovah were made (1 Chr. xxiii. 
7-11). At this time Gershon was represented by 
the famous Asapli " the seer," whose genealogy is 
given in 1 Chr. vi. 39-43, and also in part, 20, 21. 
The family is mentioned once again as taking part 
in the reforms of king Hezekiah (2 Chr. xxix. 12, 
where it should be observed that the sons of Asaph 
ara reckoned as distinct from the Gershonites). At 
the census in the wilderness of Sinai the whole 
number of the males of the Bene-Gershon was 
7,500 (Num. iii. 22), midway between the Kohath- 
ites and the Merarites. At the same date the 
efficient men were 2,030 (iv. 40). On the occasion 
of the second census the numbers of the Levites 
are given only in gross (Num. xxvi. 62). The 
sons of Gershon had charge of the fabrics of the 
Tabernacle — the coverings, cm-tains, hangings, 
and cords (Num. iii. 25, 26; iv. 25, 26); for the 
./tansport of these they had two covered wagons 
and four oxen (vii. 3, 7). In the encampment their 

station was behind ("^"^nS) the Tabernacle, on the 
west side (Num. iii. 23). When on the march they 
went with the INIerarites in the rear of the first 
body of three tribes, — Judah, Issachar, Zebu 
lun, — with Keuben behind them. In the appor 
tionment of the Levitical cities, thirteen fell to the 
lot of the Gershonites. These were in^the northern 
tribes — two in IManasseh beyond Jordan ; four in 
Issachar; four in Asher; and three in Naphtfili. 
All of these are said to have possessed '' suburbs," 
and two were cities of refuge (Josh. xxi. 27-33 ; 1 
Chr. vi. 62, 71-76). It is not easy to see what 
special duties fell to the lot of the Gershonites in 
the ser\ice of the Tabernacle after its erection at 
Jerusalem, or in the Temple. The sons of .Tedu- 
thun "prophesied with a harp," and the sons of 
Heman "hfted up the horn," but for the sons of 
Asaph no instrument is mentioned (1 Chr. xxv. 
1-5). They were appointed to "prophesy" (that 
is, probably, to utter, or sing, inspired words, 

M123), perhaps after the special prompting of Da- 
vid himself (xxv. 2). Others of the Gershonites, 
sons of Laadan, had charge of the " treasures of 
the house of God, and over the treasures of the 
holy things" (xxvi. 20-22), among which precious 
stones are specially named (xxix. 8). 

In Chronicles the name is, with two exceptions 
(1 Chr. vi. 1; xxiii. 6), given in the shghtly differ- 
ent form of Gershom. [Gkkshom, 2.] See also 
Gkbshonites. G. 

GERSHONITES, THE Ontp'pan, i. e. 
^hs Gershunnite : 6 reSadou, 6 FeZcrMvi [Vat. -j/et] ; 
iol TiSawi/i [Vat. -yei] ; Alex, [in Josh, and 1 


Chr.,] Y7]p<T(av' \_Gersonitoe, Gerson^filii Ocrsonof 
Gersoin] ), the family descended from Gekshon o- 
Gershom, the son of Levi (Num. iii. 21, 23, 24 
iv. 24, 27, xxvi. 57; Josh. xxi. 33; 1 Chr. xxiii 
7; 2 Chr. xxix. 12). 

" ThkGershonite" [ryjpacaui, T^Sauui', Vat 
rr}paot)i/eh rripaoiJ.i/ei; Alex, r-iqpcruvei, Tripaoovi 
Gersonni, Gersonites], as applied to individuals, 
occurs in 1 Chr. xxvi. 21 (Laadan), xxix. 8 (Jehiel). 


GER'SON {r-ppa-ciu; [Vat. corrupt:] Ger- 
somus), 1 Esdr. viii. 29. [Gershom, 3.] 

GER'ZITES, THE ("^nSH, or ^-np — 
(Ges. Thes. p. 301) — the (iirzite, or the Gerizzitc: 
Vat. omits, Alex, lov TeCpaiou- Gerzl and Gezn 
[VJ, but in his Quxst. JJtbr. Jerome has Getri: 
Syr. and Arab. Godola\ a tribe who with the 
Geshurites and the Amalekites occupied the land 
between the south of Palestine ^ and Egypt in the 
time of Saul (1 Sam. xxyii. 8). They were rich in 
Bedouin treasures — " sheep, oxen, asses, camels, 
and apparel" (ver. 9; comp. xv. 3; 1 Chi*, v. 21). 
The name is not found in the text of the A. V. 
but only in the margin. This arises from its having 
been corrected by the INIasorets (Kerl) into Giz- 
KiTES, which form [or rather Gezrites] our trans- 
lators have adopted in the text. The change is 
supported by the Targum, and by the Alex. MS. 
of the LXX. as above. There is not, however, any 
apparent reason fur relinquishing the older form of 
the name, the interest of which hes in its con- 
nection with that of Mount Gerizim. In (he name 
of that ancient mountain we have the only remaio- 
hig trace of the presence of this old tribe of Be 
douins in central Palestine- They appear to haya 
occupied it at a very early period, and to have 
reUnquished it in company with the Amalekitoa, 
who also left their name attached to a mountain 
in the same locality (Judg. xii. 15), when they 
abandoned that rich district for the less fertile but 
freer South. Other tribes, as the Avvim and the 
Zemarites, also left traces of their presence in the 
names of towns of the central district (see pp. 201 a, 
277, note b). 

The connection between the Gerizites and Mount 
Gerizim appears to have been first suggested by 
Gesenius. [Flirst accepts the same view.] It has 
been since adopted by Stanley {S. tj- F. p. 237, 
note). Gesenius interprets the name as " dweUera 
in the dry, barren country." G. 

GE'SEM, THE LAND OF (7^ Teo-e/i: 
tei-ra Jesse), the Gre'ak form of the Hebrew name 
Goshen (Jud. i. 9). 

GE'SHAM CiW% L e. Geshan [filthy, Ges.]. 
2,(oydp, Alex, r-npaw/x: Gesan), one of the sons 
of Jahdai, in the genealogy of Judah and family 
of Caleb (1 Chr. ii. 47). Nothing further con- 
cerning him has been yet traced. The name, as it 
stands in our present Bibles, is a corruption of the 
A. V. of 1611, which has, accurately, Geshan. 
Burrington, usually very careful, has Geshur (Table 
xi. 1, 280), but without giving any authority. 

a See an instaace of this in 1 Clir. vi. 2-15, where 
tlie line of Kohath Ls given, to the exclusion of tli<} 
ather two families. 

f> The LXX. has rendered the passay^ referred to 
18 tollosvs : — KoX l5ou 17 yrj KaTtoKeiVo aTrb afriKovTOiv 
'1 iirb TeAa/Ai^ovp (Alex. Tekanaovp) rereixto'/^eVa)!' 

a corruption of the Hebrew m-iolam . . Shurah (A. V 
" of old . . to Shur "), or it may contain a mention 
o. che name Telem or Telaim, a place in the extreme 
south of Judah (Josh. xv. 24), which bore a prominent 
pari .n » former attack on the Amalekites (1 Sam. XT. 
4). In the latter case V has been read for T. (S« 

iu 6WS yrjs AlyvTTTov The word Gelamsour may be 1 Lenserke ; Fiirst's Handwb. &c ) 



* GE SHAN (1 Chr. ii. 47), the correct form 
of a name for which Gesham has been improperly 
lubstituted in modern editions of the A. V. 


GE'SHEM, and GASH'MU (Dtt.^?., ^72^^ 

lco7-poreality,Jit'mness,¥urst]: rrjcrd/j.: [6'ose7?i,] 
Gossem), an Arabian, mentioned in Neh. ii. 19, 
and vi. 1, 2, G, who, with " Sanballat the Horonite, 
and Tobiah, the servant, the Ammonite," opposed 
Nehemiah in the repairing of Jerusalem. Geshem, 
we may conclude, was an inhabitant of Arabia 
I'etraea, or of the Arabian Desert, and probably the 
ihief of a tribe which, like most of the tribes on 
"ihe eastern frontier of Palestine, was, in the time 
)f the Captivity and the subsequent period, allied 
livith the Persians or with any peoples threatening 
the Jewish nation. Geshem, like Sanballat and 
Tobiah, seems to have been one of the " governors 
beyond the river," to whom Nehemiah came, and 
whose mission " grieved them exceedingly, that 
there was come a man to seek the welfare of the 
children of Israel " (Neh. ii. 10); for the wandering 
inhabitants of the frontier doubtless availed them- 
selves largely, in their predatory excursions, of the 
distracted state of Palestine, and dreaded the re- 
establishment of the kingdom ; and the Arabians, 
Ammonites, and Ashdodites, are recorded as having 
" conspired to fight against Jerusalem, and to 
hinder " the repairing. The endeavors of these con- 
federates and their failure are recorded in chapters 
ii., iv., and vi. The Arabic name corresponding to 
Geshem cannot easily be identified. Jasim (or 

Gasim, a.a*/L^) is one of very remote antiquity; 
>nd Jashum ((V-www^) is the name of an historical 

tribe of Arabia Proper ; the latter may more prob- 
ably be compared with it. E. S. P. 

GE'SHUR ("l^ti?! and nni^tT?, a biidge: 
[reSo-ouD, exc. 2 Sam. iii. 3, V^caip, Vat. Tetreip ; 
1 Chr. ii. 23, Alex. Tecra-ovp, iii. 2, Tea-ovp'- Cles- 

sur ;] Arab, ^mj^, Jessu?-), a little principahty 

in the northeastern comer of Bashan, adjoining 
the province of Argob (Ueut. iii. 14), and the king- 
dom of Aram (Syria in the A. V. ; 2 Sam. xv. 8 ; 
comp. 1 Chr. ii. 23). It was within the boundary 
of the allotted territory of Manasseh, but its inhab- 
itants were never expelled (Josh. xiii. 13; comp. 
1 Chr. ii. 23). King David married " the daughter 
of Talmai, king of Geshur" (2 Sam. iii. 3); and 
her son Absalom sought refuge among his maternal 
relatives after the murder of his brother. The wild 
acts of Absalom's life may have been to some extent 
Ova results of maternal training : they were at least 
cha.'acteristic '^^ the stock from which he sprung. 
He remained ui "Geshur of Aram" until he was 
fjwken back to Jerusalem by Joab (2 Sam. xiii. 37, 
IV. 8). It is highly probable that Geshur was a 
section of the wild and rugged region, now called 
*>i-Lejah, among whose rocky fastnesses the Gesh- 
orites might dwell in security while the whole sur- 
rounding plains were occupied by the Israelites. 
On the north the Lejnh borders on the territory 
of Damascus, the ancient Aram; and in Scripture 
the name is so intimately connected with Bashan 
»nd Argob, that one is led to suppose it formed 
part of Uiem (Deut. iii. 13, 14; J Chr. ii. 23; Josh. 
Kiu. 12, 13). [Akgob.] J. L. P. 


* The bridge over the Jordan above toe eea o< 
Galilee no doubt stands where one must havt sto^ 
in ancient times. [Bridge, Amer. ed.] It maj 
be, says Robinson (P//?/s. Geofjr. p. 1.55), "that 
the adjacent district on the east of the Jordan took 

the name of Geshur ("l-ltTS), as if ' Bridge-land ' ; 
at any rate Geshur and the Geshurites were in this 
vicinity." H. 


[in Deut., Tapyaai, Vat. Alex, -cei; Comp. T^a- 
(Tovpi; in Josh., Alex. Teo-ovpi; xii. 5, repyeai, 
Vat. -aei; xiii. 2, 11, 13, reaipi, Vat. r^aeipti] 
1 Sara., Teaiph Vat. -(ret-; Alex. Tetrepet: Ges- 
smi.] 1. The inhabitants of Geshur, which see 
(Deut. iii. 14; Jos. xii. 5, xiii. 11). 

2. An ancient tribe which dwelt in the desert 
between Arabia and Philistia (, Josh. xiii. 2 ; 1 Sam. 
xxvii. 8); they are mentioned in connection with 
the Gezrites and Amalekites. [Gkzek, p. 909.] 

J. L. P. 

GE'THER ("l.n?!: Tarep ; [Alex. Tadep:] 
Gei/ier), the third, in order, of the sons of Ara,m 
(Gen. X. 23). No satisfiictory trace of the people 
sprung from this stock has been found. The theories 
of Bochart and others, which rest on improbable 
etymologies, are without support; while the sug- 
gestiojis of Carians (Ilieron.), Bactrians (Joseph. 

AjiL), and kJuofy^ (Saad.), are not better 

founded. (See Bochart, Phaleg, ii. 10, and Winer, 
s. v.). Kalisch proposes Gnsnuit; but he does not 
adduce any argument in its favor, except the sim- 
ilarity of sound, and the permutation of Aramaean 
and Hebrew letters. 

The Arabs write the name yJ'Lc (Ghathir); 

and, in the mythical history of their country, it ia 
said that the probably aboriginal tribes of Thamood, 
Tasur, Jadces, and 'Ad (the last, in the second 
generation, through 'God), were descended from 
Ghathir (Caussin [de Perceval], Kssdy i. 8, 9, 23; 
Abul-Fidii, Hist. Anteisl. 10). These traditions 
are in the highest degree untrustworthy ; and, as 
we have stated in Ahaiua, the tiubes referred to 
were, almost demonstrably, not of Semitic origin. 
See AuAiiiA, AiiAM, and Nabath.e^vxs. 

E. S. P. 

GETHSEM'ANE (n3, gath, a "wine- 
press," and "JPK?, sliemen, "oil;" reda-mJ-avel 
[so Tisch. ; I^achm. Treg. -yeT], or more generally 
r€6a-niJ.avri), a small " farm," as the French would 
say, " un bien aux champs " (xcopiov =■■ ager, 
pi-cBdlum ; or as the Vulgate, villa ; A. V. " place; " 
Matt. xxvi. 36; Mark xiv. 32), situated across the 
brook Kedron (John xviii. 1), probably at the foot 
of Mount Olivet (Luke xxii. 39), to the N. W., 
and about ^ or f of a mile English from the walla 
of Jerusalem. There was a "garden," or rather 
orchard (k^ttos), attached to it, to whi(th the olive, 
fig, and pomegranate doubtless invited resort by 
their " hospitable shade." And we know from the 
Evangelists SS. Luke (xxii. 39) and .John (xviii. 2\ 
that our I^rd ofttimes resorted thither with hu 
disciples. " It was on the road to Bethany," say* 
Mr. Greswell {Harm. Diss, xhi.), "and the faniUj 
of Lazarus might have possessions there; " but, if 
so, it should have been rather on the S E side o* 
the mountain where Bethany lies : part of which, I 


may be remarked, being the property of the village 
still, as it may well have been then, is e\en now 
called Bethany {el-Aznriyeh ) by the natives." Hence 
the expressions in S. Luke xxiv. 50 and Acts i. 12 
are quite consistent. According to Josephus, the 
suburbs of Jerusalem abounded with gardens and 
pleasure-grounds (TrapoSeiVoiy, B. J. vi. 1, § 1; 
comp. V. 3, § 2): now, with the exception of those 
belonging to the Greek and Latin convents, hardly 
the vestige of a garden is to be seen. There is 
mdeed a favorite paddock or close, half-a-mile or 
more to the north, on the same side of the con- 
tinuation of the valley of the Kedron, the property 
of a wealthy Turk, where the jNIohammedan kdies 
pass tlie day with their families, their bright flowing 
costume forming a picturesque contrast to the stiff 
sombre foliage of the olive-grove beneath which 
they cluster. But Gethsemane has not come down 
to us as a scene of mirth ; its inexhaustible associa- 
tions are the offspring of a single event — the 
Agony of the Son of God on the evening preceding 
His Passion. Here emphatically, as Isaiah had 



foretold, and as the name imports, were fulfilled 

those dark words. 

have trodden the wine- 

alone" (kiii. 3; comp. Kev. xiv. 20, '-tlie wine- 
press . . . without the city'''). "The period of 
the year," proceeds Mr. Greswell, " was the Vernal 
Eqmnox: the day of the month about two days 
before the full of the moon — in which case the 
moon would not be now very far past her meridian ; 
and the night would be enlightened until a late 
hour towards the morning " — the day of the week 
Thursday, or rather, according to the Jews, Friday 
— for the sun had oet. The time, according to 
Mr. Greswell, would be the last watch of the night, 
between our 11 and 12 o'clock. Any recapitulation 
of the circumstances of that ineffable event would 
be unnecessary ; any commentss upon it unscason 
able. A modern garden, in which are eight ven- 
erable olive-trees, and a grotto to the north, de- 
tached from it, and in closer connection with the 
Church of the Sepulchre of the Virgin — in fact 
with the road to the summit of the mountain run- 
ning between them, as it did also in the days of 

Old Olire-Trees in Gethsemane, from S. E. 

the Crusaders (Sanuti Secret. Field. Cruc. lib. iii. 
p. liv. c. 9) — both securely inclosed, and under 
.'ock and key, are pointed out as making up the 
t;ue Gethsemane. These may, or may not, be the 
spots which Eusebius, St. Jerome {Liber de Situ 
et Noininibus, s. v.), and Adamnanus mention as 
such; but from the 4th century downwards some 
such localities are spoken of as known, frequented, 
and even built upon. Every generation dwells most 
apon what accords most with its instincts and pre- 
ilections. Accordingly the pilgrims of antiquity 
eay nothing about those time-honored ohve-trees. 

a * El-Azarhjeh is ths Arabic name, derived from 
(Azarus. Bethany is current only among foreigners, 
M tiioee of foreign crigin. In this instance the native 

whose age the poetic minds of a Lamartine or a 
Stanley shrink from criticising — they were doubt- 
less not so imjx)sing in the Gth century ; still, \\dA 
they been noticed, they would have afforded undy- 
ing witness to the locality — while, on the other 
hand, few modern travellers would inquire for, and 
adore, with Antoniims, the three precise spots 
where our Lord is said to have fallen upon His 
face. Against the contemporary antiquity of the 
olive trees, it has been urged that Titus cut down 
all the trees round about Jerusalem; and certainly 
this is no more than Josephus states in exjiress 

language adopts the more distinctiye Christian appeluii 
tion. H. 



teitiis (see particularly B. J. vi. 1, § 1, a passage 
which must have escaped Mr. WDliams, Holy City, 
vol. ii. p. 437, 2d ed., who only ciies v. 3, § 2, and 
vi. 8, § 1 ). Besides, the 10th legion, arriving from 
Jericho, were posted about the ^Slount of Olives 
iv. 2, § 3; and comp. vi. 2, § 8), and, in the course 
of the siege, a wall was carried along the valley of 
the Kedroh to the fountain of Siloam (v. 10, § 2). 
The probability, therefore, would seem to be, that 
they were planted by Christian hands to mark the 
Bpot : unless, Uke the sacred oUve of the Acrop- 
ohs (Biihr ad ITerod. viii. 55), they may have 
re2)roduced themselves. Maundrell (Early Travels 
'n Pal. by Wright, p. 471) and Quaresmius (Elucid. 
T. S. lib. iv. per. v. ch. 7) appear to have been the 
first to notice them, not more than three centuries 
ago; the former arguing against, and the latter in 
favor of, their reputed antiquity ; but nobody read- 
ing their accounts would imagine that there were 
then no more than eight, the locality of Gethsemane 
being supposed the same. Parallel claims, to be 
Bure, are not wanting in the cedars of Lelianon, 
which are still visited with so much enthusiasm : in 
the terebinth, or oak of Mamre, which was standing 
in the days of Constantine the Great, and even 
worshipped (Vales, ad Euseb. lit. Const, iii. 53), 
and the fig-tree {Ficu.<i elastica) near Nerbudda in 
India, which native historians assert to be 2,500 
years old (Patterson's Journal of a Tour in Effyjfl, 
ijCi p. 202, note). Still more appositely there were 
ohve-trees near Linternum 250 years old, according 
to Pliny, in his time, which are recorded to have 
survived to the middle of the tenth century {Nouveau 
Diet, d'llist. Nat. Paris, 1846, vol. xxix. p. 61). 

E. S. Ef. 
* Gethsemane, which means "olive-press" (see 
above) is found according to the narrative in the 
proper place; for Olivet, as the name imports, was 
famous for its olive-trees, still sufficiently numerous 
there to justify its being so called, though little cul- 
tivation of any sort appears now on that mount. 
The place is called also "a garden" (k^ttos), but 
we are not by any means to transfer to that term 
our ideas of its meaning. It is to be remembered, 
as Stanley remarks (S. ef- P. p. 187, 1st ed.), that 
" Eastern gardens are not flower-gardens nor private 
gardens, but the orchards, vineyards, and fig-enclos- 
ures " near the towns. The low wall, covered with 
white stucco, which incloses the reputed Gethsemane, 
is comparatively modern. A series of rude pictures 
(utterly cut of place there, where the memory and 
the heart are the only prompters required) are hung 
up along the face of the wall, representing different 
scenes in the history of Christ's passion, such as 
the scourging, the mockery of the soldiers, the 
sinking beneath the cross, and the like. The eight 
olive-trees here, though stiU verdant and productive, 
are s^ decayed as to require to be propped up with 
heaps of stones against their trunks in order to 
prevent their being blown down by the wind. Trees 
of this class are proverbially long-lived. Schubert, 
the celebrated naturalist, decides that those in 
Gethsemane are old enough to have flourished amid 
a race of contemporaries that perished long cen- 
turies ago (Jieise in das Moi^yenland, ii. 521 ).« 
Stanley also speaks of them " as the most venerable 
of their race on the face of the earth ... the most 

*» * An argument for the great age of these trees 
nas been drawn from the fact that a meclino (an old 
Tuikish coin) is the governmental tax paid on each 
one of this group, which was the tax on trees at the 


affecting of the sacred memorials in or about Jtm 
salem." (S. if P. p. 450, 1st ed.) 

There are two or three indications in the Gospd 
history which may guide us as to the general situ- 
ation of this ever memorable spot to which thfi 
Saviour repaired on the night of his betrayal. It 
is quite certain that Gethsemane was on the western 
slope of OUvet, and near the base of that mountain 
where it sinks down into the valley of the Kedron. 
AVhen it is said that " Jesus went forth with his 
disciples beyond the brook Kedron, where ^vas a 
garden" (John xviii. 1), it is implied that he did 
not go far up the Mount of Olives, but reached the 
place which he had in view soon after crossing the 
bed of that stream. The garden, it will be observed, 
is named in that passage with reference to the 
brook, and not the mountain. This result agrees 
also with the presumption from the Saviour's 
abrupt summons to his disciples recorded in Matt, 
xxvi. 46 : " Arise, let us be going : see, he is at 
hand that doth betray me." The best explanation 
of this language is that his watchful eye, at that 
moment, caught sight of Judas and his accomplices, 
as they issued from one of the eastern gates, or 
turned round the northern or southern corner of 
the walls, in order to descend into the valley. The 
night, with the moon then near its full, and about 
the beginning of April, must have been clear, oi 
if exceptionally dark, the torches (John xviii. 13'> 
would have left no doubt as to the object of such 
a movement at that unseasonable hour. It may 
be added that in this neighborhood also are still to 
be seen caverns and deserted tombs into which his 
pursuers may have thought that he would endeavor 
to escape and conceal himself, and so came prepared 
with lights to follow him into these lurking-places. 

The present inclosure known as Gethsemane 
fulfills all these conditions ; and so also, it may be 
claimed, would any other spot similarly situated 
across the brook, and along the westein declivity in 
front of Jerusalem. Tischendoif (lieise in den 
Onenf, i. 312) finds the traditionary locahty " in per- 
fect harmony with all that we learn from the Evange- 
lists." Thomson {Land and Book, ii. 284) thinks 
it should be sought " rather in a secluded vale sev- 
eral hundred yards to the northeast of the present 
Gethsemane." Kobinson alleges no positive reasons 
against the common identification. " The authen- 
ticity of the sacred garden," says Williams {I/oly 
City, ii. 437), " I choose rather to believe than to 
defend." But such differences of opinion as these 
involve an essential agreement. The original garden 
may have been more or less extensive than the 
present site, or have stood a few hundred rods 
further to the north or the south ; but far, certainly., 
from that spot it need not be supposed to have 
been. We may sit down there, and read the nar- 
rative of what the Saviour endured for our re- 
demption, and feel assured that we are near the 
place where he prayed, " Saying, Eather, not my 
will, but thine be done; " and where, " being in 
an agony, he sweat as it were great drops of blood, 
falling down to the ground." It is altogether prob- 
able that the disciples in going back tx) Jerusalem 
from Bethany after having seen the Lord taken up 
into heaven passed Gethsemane on the way. Whaf 
new thoughts nmst have arisen in their minds. 

time of the Saracenic conquest of Jerusalem, a. d. 686 
Since that period the Sultan receives half of the fruita 
of every tree as his tribute. (See Raumer, l^'aidstina^ 
p. 309, 4te Aufl.) «. 


<rhat deeper insight into tlie mystery of tlie agony 
must liave flashed upon them, as they looked once 
more upon that scene of the sufferings and humil- 
iation of the crucified and ascended One. H. 

GETJ'EL (^S1W2, Sam. ^S1: IGocTs ex- 
altation, Ges.]: TouStrjA.; [Vat. Tou&tr/A:] Guel), 
son of jNIachi: ruler of the tribe of Gad, and its 
representative among the spies sent from the wil- 
derness of Parau to explore the Promised Land 
(Num. xiii. 15). 

GE'ZER ("ITS, in pause 1T| [steep place, 
precipice, Fiirst, Geg.] : Fa^ep, Fe^ep [Alex. 1 K. 
ix. 15, IG], ToiCapa, [raCvpd; Josh. x. 33. Vat. 
ra(rjs; 1 Chr. xiv. ](j, FA. ra^apaV-] Gazer, 
[Gezer, Gazera']), an ancient city of CanaaU; whose 
king, Horam, or Elam, coining to the assistance of 
Lachish, was killed with all his people by Joshua 
(Josh. X. 33; xii. 12). The town, however, is not 
said to have been destroyed ; it formed one of the 
landmarks on the south boundary of Ephraim," 
between the lower Beth-horon and the IMediterra- 
iiean (xvi. 3), the western limit of the tribe (1 Chr. 
vii. 28). It was allotted with its suburbs to the 
Kohathite Levites (Josh. xxi. 21; 1 Chr. vi. 67); 
but the original inhabitants were not dispossessed 
( Judg. i. 20 ) ; and even down to the reign of Solo- 
mon the Canaanites, or (according to the LXX. 
addition to Josh. xvi. 10) the Canaanites and Per- 
Lzzites, were still dwelling there, and paying tribute 
to Israel (1 K. ix. 10). At this time it must in fact 
have been independent of Israelite rule, for Pharaoh 
had burnt it to the ground and killed its inhabi- 
tants, and then presented the site to his daughter, 
Solomon's queen. But it was immediately rebuilt 
by the king; and though not heard of again till 
after the Captivity, yet it played a somewhat prom- 
inent part in the later struggles of the nation. 

Ewald (Gesch. iii. 280; comp. ii. 427) takes 
Gezer and Geshur to be the same, and sees in the 
destruction of the former by Pharaoh, and the 
simultaneous expedition of Solomon to Hamath- 
zobah in the neigliborhood of the latter, indications 
of a revolt of tlie Canaanites, of whom the Geshur- 
ites formed the most powerful remnant, and whose 
attempt against the new monarch was thus frus- 
trated. But this can hardly be supported. 

In one place Gob is given as identical with Gezer 
(1 Chr. XX. 4, comp. 2 Sam. xxi. 18). The exact 
site of Gezer has not been discovered ; but its g< 
eral position is not difficult to infer. It must have 
been between the lower Beth-horon and the sea 
(Josh. xvi. 3; 1 K. ix. 17); therefore on the great 
maritime plain which lies beneath the hills of which 
BtiVar tt-tahta is the last outpost, and forms the 
regular coast road of communication with Egypt 
(1 K. ix. 10). It is therefore appropriately named 
as the last point to which David's pursuit of the 
PhiUstines extended (2 Sam. v. 25; 1 Chr. xiv 
16 *>) , and as the scene of at least one sharp en- 



a If Lachish be where Van de Velde and Porte 
would place it, at Urn Likis, near Gaza, at least 40 
miles from the southern boundary of Ephraim, there 
Is some ground for suspecting the axistence of two 
Gezers, and thi.s is confi-med by the order in which t 
|8 mentioned in the list, of Josh. xii. with Hebron 
Egloa, and Debir. There is not, howerer, any mean<» 
>f determining this. 

b lu these two places the word, being at the end 
if a period, has, according to Hebrew custom, its first 

counter (1 Chr. xx. 4), this plain being their owe 
peculiar territory (.comp. Jos. Ant. viii. «y, § 1, Tor 
^apd, t)]u ttjs YlaXaLffTLVcau x^P''-^ virdpxovaav) 
and as commanding the communication betvv'eec 
Egypt and the new capital, Jerusalem, it was an 
important point for Solomon to fortify. By Euse- 
bius it is mentioned as foui- miles north of Nicopo- 
lis (Amwds); a position exactly occupied by the 
important town Jiinzu, the ancient Gimzo, and 
corresponding well with the requirements of Joshua. 
But this hardly agrees with the indications of the 
1st book of Maccabees, which speak of it as between 
Emmaus {Amwds) and Azotus and .Jamnia; md 
again as on the confines of Azotus. In the ncigh- 
borliood of the latter there is more than one site 
bearing the name Yasur ; but whether this Arabic 
name can be derived from the Hebrew Gezer, and 
also whether so important a town as Gazara was in 
the time of the ISIaccabees can be represented by 
such insignificant villages as these, are questions to 
be determined by future investigation. If it can, 
then perhaps the strongest claims for identity with 
Gezer are put forward by a village called Yasur, 4 
or 5 miles east of Joppa, on the road to Rnmleb 
and Lydd. 

From the occasional occurrence of the form Ga- 
zer, and from the LXX. version being almost uni- 
formly Gazera or Gazer, Ewald infers that this was 
really the original name. G. 

GEZ'RITBS, THE C^lT^H, accur. the Giz- 
rife: [Vat. omits; Alex.] tou Fe^paiou' Gezri). 
The word which the Jewish critics have substituted 
in the margin of the Bible for the ancient reading, 
"the Gerizzite" (1 Sam. xxvii. 8), and which has 
thus become incorporated in the text of the A. V. 
If it mean anything — at least that we know — it 
must signify the dwellers in Gezer. But Gezek 
was not less than 50 miles distant from the " south 
of Judah, the south of the Jerahmeelites, and the 
south of the Kenites," the scene of David's in- 
road ; a fact which stands greatly in the way of our 
receiving the change. [Gkuzites, the.] 

GI'AH (n^2 [water-fall, Fiirst ; fountain, 
Ges.] : Tai\ [Comp. Tie'] vallis), a place named 
only in 2 Sam. ii. 24, to designate the position of 
the hill Amniah — " which fax;es Giah by the way 
of the wilderness of Gibeon." No trace of the 
situation of either has yet been found. By the 

LXX. the name is read as if S^2, t. e. a ravine or 
glen ; a view also taken in the Vulgate. 

GIANTS. The frequent allusion to giants m 
Scripture, and the numerous theoiies and disputes 
which have arisen in consequence, render it neces- 
sary to give a brief view of some of the m'lin opin- 
ions and curious inferences to which the mention 
of them leads. 

1. They are first spoken of in Gen. vi. 4, undei 
the name NepMUni (Q'^v'^D? : LXX. yiyavres 
Aquil. iirnriTrTOVTes ; Symm. fiialoi : Vulg. ffif/an- 

vowel lengthened, and stands in the text as Gazer 
and in these two places only the name is so transferrel 
to the A. V. But, to be consistent, the same chang« 
should have been made in several other passages, 
whore it occurs in the Hebrew: e. g. Judg. i. 29, 
Josh. xvi. 3, 10 ; 1 K. ix. 15, &c. It would seem bet- 
ter to render [represent] the Hebrew name always bj 
the same English one, when the difference arises fironr 
nothing but an emphatic accent. 



les : Ouk. S'^'IDS : Luther, Tyrannen). The word 
IS derived either from H vQ, or W^^ (= " mar- 
velous"), or, as is generally believed, from vSS, 
either in the sense to throw down, or to fall 
(= fallen angels, Jarchi, cf. Is. xiv. 12; Luke x. 
18); or meaning ^'^'/jpeaes irruentes'''' (Gesen.), or 
collapsi (by euphemism, Boettcher, de hifeiis, p. 
92); but certainly not "because men fell from ter- 
ror of them " (as R. Kimchi). That the word 
means "^^Vm^' is clear from Num. xiii. 32, 33, 

and is confirmed by SvQD, the Chaldee name for 
" the aery giant " Orion (Job. ix. 9, xxxviii. 31 ; Is. 
xiii. 10; Targ.), unless this name arise from the 
obliquity of the constellation {Gen. of' Earthy 
p. 35). 

But we now come to the remarkable conjectures 
about the origin of these Nephiliin in Gen. vi. 1—1. 
(An immense amount has been written on this pas- 
sage. See Kurtz, Die Ehen der Sohne Gottes, &c., 
Berlin, 18.57; Ewald, Jahrb. 1854, p. 126; Govett's 
Isaiah Unfulfilled; Faber's Many Mansions, in 
the Journal of Sac. Lit., Oct. 1858, &c.) We 
are told that "there wei-e Nephihm in the earth," 
and that "afterwards (koI fxer eK€7t/o, LXX.) the 
" sons of God " mingUng with the beautiful " daugh- 
ters of men" produced a race of violent and inso- 
lent Gibborim (D'^'^SS). This latter word is also 
rendered by the LXX. yiyauresi but we shall see 
hereafter that the meaning is more general. It is 
clear however that no statement is made that the 
Nephilim themselves sprang from this unhallowed 
union. Who then were they ? Taking the usual 

derivation (7D3), and explaining it to mean 
"fallen spirits," the Nephilim seem to be identical 
with the " sons of God; " but the verse before us 
militates against this notion as much as against 
that which makes the Nephilim the same as the 
Gibborim, namely, the offspring of wicked mar- 
riages. This latter supposition can only be ac- 
cepted if we admi*^ either (1) that there were two 
kinds of Nephiliui, — those who existed before the 
unequal intercourse, and those produced by it 
(Heidegger, Hist Patr. xi.), or (2) by following 
the Vulgate rendering, jmstfjtunn enim imjressi 
sunt, etc. But the common rendering seems to be 
correct, nor is there much proltability in Aben 

Ezra's explanation, that ]5'*'"!'.l!^ ("after that") 

means b^QDH nnW (i. e. "after the deluge"), 
and is an allusion to the Anakims. 

The genealogy of the Nephilim then, or at any 
rate of i/ie earliest Nejyhilivi, is not recorded in 
Scripture, and the name itself is so mysterious 
that we are lost in conjecture respecting them. 

2. The sons of the marriages mentioned in Gen. 

n. 1-4, are called Gibborim (□'^n22, from "135, 
Jo be strong), a general name meaning potoerfid 
{v$pi(TTa\ Kal navThi vTrepoirToi Ka\ov, Joseph. 
Ajit. i. 3, § 1; yrjs ira7des rhu vovv iK^i^daavTcs 
Ti/G KoyiCea-dai k.t.A., Philo de Gigant., p. 270; 
comp. Is. iii. 2, xlix. 24; Ez. xxxii. 21). They 
were not necessarily giants in our sense of the word 
ITheodoret, Qtimst. 48). Yet, as was natural, these 
powerful chiefs were almost universally represented 
u men of extraordinaii|' stature. The LXX. ren- 
ier the word yiyavres, and call Nimrod a yiyas 
cwrtyhs (1 Chr. i. 10); Augustine calls them Sla- 


twosi (de Civ. Dei, xv. 4) ; Chrysostom JJpwe^ 
fvfirjKcls, Theodoret -Ka^iix^yie^is (comp. B.vr. iil 
2(5, eu/ie^e^Pts, diriaTd/jL^voi TrSXe/xov)- 

But rrho were the parents of these giants ; whc 
are " the sons of God " (C^n'lb.l^n ^:?) ? The 
opinions are various: (1.) 31 en of poicer {vloi 8v 
uacxrevSvTWVy Symm., Hieron. Qucest. Ileb. ad loc. ; 
SJ^nnn ^32, Onk.; il^2T2^W "^33, Samar.; 

so too SeldeUj Vorst, &c.), (comp. Ps. ii. 7, Ixxxii. 
6, Ixxxix. 27; Mic. v. 5, &c.). The expression will 
then exactly resemble Homer's AioyeueTs ^a(n\rj(Sy 
and the Chinese Tidn-tseii, " son of heaven," as a 

title of the Emperor (Gesen. s. v. "J 5). But why 
should the union of the high-born and low-born 
produce offspring umisual for their size and 
strength? (2.) J/en with great gifts, "in the 
image of God" (Kitter, Schumann); (3.) Cainites 
an-ogantly assuming the title (Paulus); or (4.) the 
pious Sethites (comp. Gen. iv. 20; Maimon. Mar. 
Neboch. i. 14; Suid. s. w. '2,-riQ and fiiaiyufxias', 
Cedren. Hist. Comp. p. 10; Aug. de Civ. Lei, xv. 
23 ; Chrysost. Hoyn. 22, in Gen. ; Theod. in Gen. 
Qucest. 47; Cyril, c. Jul. ix., &c.). A host of 
modern commentators catch at this explanation, 
but Gen. iv. 26 has probably no connection with 
the sul>ject. Other texts quoted in favor of the 
view are Deut. xiv. 1, 2; Ps. Ixxiii. 15; Prov. xiv. 
26; Hos. i. 10; Rom. viii. 14, &c. Still the mere 
antithesis in the verse, as well as other consider*- 
tions, tend strongly against this gloss, which indeed 
is built on a foregone conclusion. Compare how- 
ever the Indian notion of the two races of meu 
Suras and Asuras (children of the sun and of the 
moon, Nork, Bram. und Rabb. p. 204 fF.), and the 
I'ersian belief in the marriage of Djemshid with 
the sister of a dev, whence sprang black and im- 
pious men (Kalisch, Gen. p. 175). (5.) Worship- 
pers of false gods (TraTSes twv decbu, Aqu.) making 

"^35 = " servants " (comp. Deut. xiv. 1; Prov. xiv. 
26; Ex. xxxii. 1; Deut. iv. 28, &c.). This view is 
ably supported in Genesis of Earth and Man, p. 
39 f. (6.) Devils, such as the Incubi and Suc- 
cubi. Such was the belief of the Cabbalists (Va- 
lesius, de S. Philosoph. cap. 8). That these beings 
can have intercourse with women St. Augustine 
declares it would be folly to doubt, and it was the 
universal belief in the East. Mohammed makes 
one of the ancestors of Balkis Queen of Sheba a 
demon, and Damir says he had heard a INIoham- 
medan doctor openly boast of having married ii' 
succession four demon wives (Bochart, Hieroz. i. 
p. 747). Indeed the belief still exists (Lane's Mod. 
Egypt, i. ch. X. ad in.) (7.) Closely allied to this 
is the oldest opinion, that they were angels (dtyye- 
\oi Tou 0eou, LXX., for such was the old readhig, 
not vloi, Aug. de Civ. Dei, xv. 23; so too Joseph. 
Ant. i. 3, § 1 ; Phil, de Gig. ii. 358 ; Clem. Alex. 
Stro7n. iii. 7, § 69 ; Sulp. Sever. Hist. Sa-ipt. in 
Orthod. 1. i. &c. ; comp. Job i. 6, ii. 1 ; Ps. xxix. 
1, Job iv. 18). The rare expression " sons of God " 
certainly means angels in Job xxxviii. 7, i. G, ii. 1, 
and that such is the meaning in Gen. vi. 4 also, 
was the most prevalent opinion both in the Jewish 
and early Christian Church. 

It was probably this very ancient view which 
gave rise to the spurious book of Enoch, and the 
notion quoted from it by St. Jude (6), and alludeo 
to by St. Peter (2 Pet. ii. 4 ; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 10 
Tert. de Virg. Vel. 7). According to this boo! 


sertain angels, sent by God to guard the earth 
{'Eyp-f^yopoi, (/)uAa/ces), were per-erted by the 
\ie&iity of women, " went after strange flesh," 
taught sorcery, finery (luinina laj'illoruin, circulos 
ex aure, Tert., etc.), and being banished from 
heaven had sons 3,000 cubits high, thus originating 
a celestial and terrestrial race of demons — " Unde 
modo vagi subvertunt corpora multa " (Coramodi- 
ani Instruct. I J I., Cultut; Dcemonwn) i. e. they are 
still the source of epilepsy, etc. Various names 
were given at a Later time to these monsters. Their 
chief was Leuixas, and of their number were Mach- 
sael, Aza, Shemchozai, and (the wickedest of them) 
a goat-like demon Azael (comp. Azazel, I^v. xvi. 
8, and for the very curious questions connected 
with this name, see Bochart, Hieroz. 1. p. 652 ff. ; 
Kab. EUezer, cap. 22 ; Bereshith Rab. ad Gen. vi. 2 ; 
Sennert, de Giydntibus, iii.). 

Against this notion (which Hiivernick calls " the 
silliest whim of the Alexandrian Gnostics and Cab- 
alistic Rabbis") Heidegger {Hist. Patr. 1. c.) 
quotes Matt. xxii. 30; Luke xxiv. 39, and similar 
testimonies. Philastrius {Adv. Ilceres. cap. 108) 
characterizes it as a heresy, and Chrysostom {Flom. 
22) even calls it rh fi\d(T(p7]fxa iKcivo. Yet Jude 
is explicit, and the question is not so much what 
can be, as what was beheved. The fathers almost 
unanimously accepted these fables, and Tertullian 
argues warmly (partly on exj^edient grounds ! ) for 
the genuineness of the book of Enoch. The an- 
gels were called 'Eypriyopoi, a word used by Aquil. 

and Symm. to Render the Chaldee *T^V (Dan. iv. 
13 ff.: Vulg. Vir/il: LXX. etp; Lex.'CyriUi, ^7- 
ycXoi ^ &ypvKvoi ; Fabric. Cod. PseudejAf/r. V. T. 
p. 180), and therefore used, as in the Zend-Avesta, 
of good guardian angels, and applied especially to 

archangels in the Syriac hturgies (cf. "1-^''^% Is. 
Kxi. 11), but more often of evil angels (Castelli 
Lex. Syr. p. 649; Scalig. ad Euseb. Cliron. p. 403; 

Gesen. s. v. 'H'^l?). The story of the Egregori is 
given at length in Tert. de Cult. Fern. i. 2, ii. 10 ; 
Commodianus, Instruct, iii. ; Lactant. Div. Inst. ii. 
14 ; Testain. Patriarch. \^Ruben^'\ c. v., etc. Every 
one will remember the allusions to the same inter- 
pretation in Milton, Par. Reg. ii. 179 — 

" Before the Flood, thou with thy lusty crew, 
Fahe-titled sons of God, roaming the earth. 
Cast wanton eyes on the daughters of men. 
And coupled with them, and begat a race." 

The use made of the legend in some modern poems 
cannot sufficiently be reprobated. 

We need hardly say how closely allied this is to 
the Greek legends which connected the 6.ypia (pvXa 
yiydvrwv with the gods (Horn. Od. vii. 205 : Pau- 
Ban. viii. 29), and made Sai/uLoves sons of the gods 
(Plat. Apoloff. rjfiideoL; Cratyl. § 32). Indeed the 
whole heathen tradition resembles the one before 
IIS (Cumberland's Sanchoniatho, p. 24; Hom. Od. 
xi. 306 ff.; Hes. Theog. 185, Opp et D. 144; 
Plat. Rep. ii. § 17, p. 604 E; de Legg. iii. § 16, 
p. 805 A; Ov. Metam. 1. 151; Luc. iv.''593; Lucian, 
ie Dea Sijr., &c.; cf. Grot, de Ver. i. 6); and the 
Greek translators of the Bible make the resemblance 
itill more cfcse by introducing such words as Sto- 
uaxoi, yrjyeufls, and even Tiraues, to which last 
lose^hus {I. c.) expressly compares the giants of 
Genesis (LXX. Prov. ii. 18; Ps. xlviii. 2 [xlix. 2] • 
2 Sam. V. 18; Judith xvi. 7). The fate too 01 
Uin«ft demon-chiefs is identical with that of heathen 



story (Job xxvi. 5 ; Ecclus. xvi. 7 ; Bar. iii. 26-28 
Wisd. xiv. 6; 3 Mace. ii. 4; 1 Pet. iii. 19). 

These legends may therefore be regarded as dis 
tortious of the Biblical narrative, handed down bj 
tradition, and embellished by the fancy and imagi- 
nation of eastern nations. The belief of the Jews 
in later times is remarkably illustrated by the story 
of Asmodeus in the book of Tobit. It is deeply 
instructive to observe how wide and marked a con- 
trast there is between the incidental allusion of the 
sacred narrative (Gen. vi. 4), and the minute friv- 
olities or prurient follies which degrade the heatheu 
mythology, and repeatedly appear in the groundlesa 
imaginings of the Rabbinic interpreicrs. If therp 
were fallen angels whose lawless desires gave birth 
to a monstrous progeny, both they and their intol 
erable offspring were destroyed by the deluge, whioh 
was the retribution on their wickedness, and they 
have no existence in the baptized and renovated 

Before passing to the other giant-races we may 
observe that all nations have had a dim fancy that 
the aborigines who preceded them, and the earliest 
men generally, were of immense stature. Berosus 
says that the ten antediluvian kings of Chaldea 
were giants, and we find in all monkish historians 
a similar statement about the earliest possessors of 
Britain (comp. Hom. Od. x. 119 ; Aug. de Civ. Dei, 
XV. 9; Plin. vii. 16; Varr. op. AuL Cell. iii. 10; 
Jer. on IVIatt. xxvii.). The great size decreased 
gradually after the deluge (2 Esdr. v. 52-55). That 
we are dwarfs compared to our ancestors was a 
common belief among the Latin and Greek poets 
(//. V. 302 ft-.; Lucret. ii. 1151; Virg. ^m. xii. 
900; Juv. XV. 69), although it is now a matter of 
absolute certainty from the remains of antiquity, 
reaching back to the very earliest times, that in old 
days men were no taller than ourselves. On the 
origin of the mistaken supposition there are curious 
passages in Natalis Comes {3fytholog. vi. 21), and 
Macrobius {Saturn, i. 20). 

The next race of giants which we find mentioned 
in Scripture is — 

3. The JIephaim, a name which frequently oc- 
curs, and in some remarkable passages. The earU- 
est mention of them is the record of their defeat 
by Chedorlaomer and some allied kings at Ashte- 
roth Karnaim (Gen. xiv. 5). They are again 
mentioned (Gen. xv. 20), their dispersion recorded 
(Deut. ii. 10, 20), and Og the giant king of Bashan 
said to be "the only remnant of them " (Deut. iii, 
11; Jos. xii. 4, xiii. 12, xvii. 15). Extirpated, how- 
ever, from the east of Palestine, they long found a 
home in the west, and in connection with the Phil- 
istines, under whose protection the small remnant 
of them may have lived, they still employed their 
arms against the Hebrews (2 Sam. xxi. 18 ff. ; 1 
Chr. XX. 4). In the latter passage there seem* 
however to be some confusion between the Rephaiu 
and the sons of a particular giant of Gath, named 
Rapha. Such a name may have been conjectured 
as that of a founder of the race, like the names 
Ion, Dorus, Teut, etc. (Boettcher, de Inferis, p. 96, 
n. ; Rapha occurs also as a proper name, 1 Chr. vii. 
25, viii. 2, 37). It is probable that they had pos- 
sessed districts west of the Jordan in early times, 
since the " Valley of Rephaim " («:oiAoy TcovTira- 
voov, £ Sam. v. 18 ; 1 Chr. xi. 15 ; Is. xvii. 5 ; «. 
tS}u yiyavTur Joseph. Ant. vii. 4, § 1), a rich 
valley S. W. of Jerusalem, derived its name from 

That they were not Cauaanites is clear ftoiP 


there bting no allusion to them in Gen. x. 15-19. 
Tliey were probably one of those aboriginal people 
to whose existence the traditions of many nations 
testify, and of whose genealogy the Bible gives us 
no information. The few names recorded have, 
as Ewald remarks, a Semitic aspect {Geschich. des 
Volkes Jsr. i. 311), but from the hatred existing 
between them and both the Canaanites and He- 
brews, some suppose them to be Japhethites, *' who 
comprised especially the inhabitants of the coasts 
and islands " (Kalisch on Gen. p. 351). 

D'^StDH is rendered by the Greek versions very 
variously {"Pacpael/j., yiyavres, yrjyevels, Oeofid- 
Xoi, TtTaj/fcs, and iarpol, Vulg. medici; LXX. 
I's. Ixxxvii. 10; Is. xxvi. 14, where it is confused 

with D'^Spl • cf. Gen. I. 2, and sometimes ueKpoU 
Te6vr}K6res, especially in the later versions). In 
A. V. the words used for it are " Kephaim," 
••giants," and " the dead." That it has the latter 
meaning in many passages is certain (Ps. Ixxxviii. 
10; Prov. ii. 18, ix. 18, xxi. 16; Is. xxvi. 19, 14). 
[Dead, Thk, Amer. ed.] The question arises, 
how are these meanh)gs to be reconciled ? Gese- 
iiius gives no derivation for the national name, and 

derives "1 = mortui, from SD"!, sanavif, and the 
proper name Kapha from an Arabic root signifying 
" tall," thus seeming to sever all connection between 
the meanings of the word, which is surely most 
unlikely. Masius, Simonis, &c., suppose the second 
meaning to come from the fact that both spectres 
and giants strike terror (accepting the derivation 

from nCn, I'emisit, " unstrung with fear," R. 
Bechai on Deut. ii.); Vitringa and Hiller from the 
notion of lenyth involved in stretching out a corpse, 
or from the fancy that spirits appear in more than 
human size (Hiller, Syntagm. Ilermen. p. 205; 
Virg. ^n. ii. 772, &c.). J. D. Michaelis (ad 
Lowth s. Poes. p. 466) endeavored to prove that the 
Kephaim, Ac, were Troglodytes, and that hence 
they came to be identified with the dead. Passing 

over other conjectures, Boettcher sees in ^^"1 and 

nCn a double root, and thinks that the giants 

were called D'^MS^ {languefacti) by an euphe- 
mism; and that the* dead were so called by a title 
which will thus exactly parallel the Greek KaixSvres, 
K€KfMT]K6Tes (comp. liuttmanu, Lexil. ii. 237 fF.). 
His arguments are too elaborate to quote, but see 
Boettcher, pp. 94-100. An attentive consideration 
seems to leave little room for doubt that the dead 
were called Kephaim (as Gesenius also hints) from 
some notion of Sheol being the residence of the 
fallen spirits or buried giants. The passages which 
seem most strongly to prove this are Prov. xxi. 16 
(where obviously something more than mere physi- 
cal death is meant, since that is the common lot of 
all) ; Is. xxvi. 14, 19, which are difficult to explain 
without some such supposition; Is. xiv. 9, where 

the word "^l^ri^ (ol &p^avTcs t9is yris, LXX.) 
if taken in its literal meaning of goats, may mean 
evil spirits represented in that form (cf. Lev. xvii. 
7); and especially Job xxvi. 5, 6. "Behold the 
^yantes (A. V. 'dead things') grown under the 
waters " (Douay version), where there seems to be 
clear allusion to some subaqueous prison of rebel- 
lious spirits like that in which (according to the 
Hindoo legend) Vishnu the water-god confines a 
race of giants (cf. ttuXooxos, as a title of Neptune, 


lies. Theog. 732 ; Nork, Bram. und Rabb. p. 31s 
fF.). [Og"; Goliath.] 

Branches of this great unknown people wert 
called Emim, Anakim, and Zuzim. 

* In Prov. xxi. 16, it is said of the man who 
wanders from the ways of wisdom, that "he &haL 
remain in the congregation of the dead " (properly, 
of the shades, that is, disembodied spirits; see art. 
Dead). The meaning is, — that shall be the end 
of his wanderings; there he shall find his abode, 
though not the one he seeks. But, as is said in 
the preceding paragraph, "something more than 
physical death is meant, since that is the lot of all." 
This is well illustrated in Ps. xlix. 14, 15, 19. Of 
the wicked it is there said : " Like sheep they are 
laid in the grave;" like brute beasts, having no 
hope beyond it. " But God," says the righteous, 
" will redeem my soul from the power of the grave " 
(certainly, not from subjection to physical death, 
for no one could make so absurd a claim ) : while 
of the wicked it is said (v. 19), "they shall never 
see light." 

In Is. xxvi. 14, it is affirmed of the tyrannical 
oppressors, whom God had cut oflT, that they " shall 
live no more," "shall not rise again," to continue 
their work of devastation and oppression on the 
earth; while in ver. 19 is expressed the confident 
hope of God's people, on behalf of its own slain. 

Job xxvi. 5 should be translated thus: — 

The shades tremble. 

Beneath the waters and their tnhabitants. 

It is here affirmed, that God's dominion, with 
the dread it inspires, extends even to the abodes of 
departed spirits, beneath the earth, and lower than 
the ocean depths, which are no barrier to the ex- 
ercise of his power. 

We need not, therefore, resort to fabulous leg- 
ends, for the explanation of these passages. 

T. J. C. 

4. Emim (D^^**W : LXX. 'Ofifilv, 'lfjifia7oi\ 
smitten by Chedorlaomer at Shaveh Kiriathaim 
(Gen. xiv. 5), and occupying the country after- 
wards held by the Moabites (Deut. ii. 10), who 

gave them the name D^^"*S, "terrors." The 
word rendered "tall" may perhaps be merely 
"haughty" {la-xvovres)- [Emim.J 

5. Anakim (D'^i735). The imbecile terror of 
the spies exaggerated their proportions into some- 
thing superhuman (Num. xiii. 28, 33), and their 
name became proverbial (Deut. ii. 10. ix. 2). 

6. Zuzim (D'^T^T), whose principal town was 
Ham (Gen. xiv. 5), and who lived between the 
Arnon and the Jabbok, being a northern tribe of 
Kephaim. The Ammonites, who defeated then:, 

called them C^^tpT (Deut. ii. 20 fF. which is, 
however, probably an early gloss). 

We have now examined the main names applied 
to giant-races in the Bible, but except in the case 
of the two first (NephiUm and Gibborim) there is 
no necessity to suppose that there was anjthing 
very remarkable in the size of these nations, be- 
yond the general fact of their being finely propor- 
tioned. Nothing can be built on tlie exaggeratioB 
of the spies (Num. xiii. 33), and Og, Goliath 
Ishbi-benob, etc. (see under the names themselves) 
are obviously mentioned as exceptional cases. Th« 





Jews however (misled by supposed relics) thought 
othen\ise (Joseph. Ant. v. 2, § 3). 

No one has yet proved by experience the possi- 
bility of giant races, materially exceeding in size 
the average height of man. There is no great va- 
riation in the ordinary standard. The most stunted 
tribes of Esquimaux are at least four feet high, and 
the tallest races of America (e. (/. the Guayaquilists 
ind people of Paraguay) do not exceed six feet 
and a half. It was long thought that the Patago- 
nians were men of enormous stature, and the asser- 
•-ions of the old voyagers on the point were positive. 
For instance Pigafetta ( Voijnye Round the World, 
Pinkerton, xi. 314) mentions an individual Pata- 
gonian so tall, that they " hardly reached to his 
waist." Similar exaggerations are found in the 
Voyages of Byron, \Vallis, Carteret, Cook, and 
Forster ; but it is now a matter of certainty from 
the recent visits to Patagonia (by Winter, Capt. 
Snow, and others), that there is nothing at all 
extraordinary in their size. 

The general behef (until very recent times) in 
the existence of fabulously enormous men, arose 
from fancied giant-graves (see De la V'alle's Travels 
in Persia, ii. 89), and above all from the discovery 
Df huge bones, which were taken for those of men, 
in days when comi^arative anatomy was unknown. 
Even the ancient Jews were thus misled (Joseph. 
Ant. V. 2, § 3). Augustin appeals triumphantly 
to this argument, and mentions a molar tooth which 
h< had seen at Utica a hundred times larger than 
oliinary teeth {De Civ. Dei, xv. 9). No doubt it 
Ouce belonged to an elephant. Vives, in his com- 
ttientary on the place, mentions a tooth as big as a 
fist, which was shown at St. Christopher's. In fact 
this source of delusion has only very recently been 
dispelled (Sennert, De Giyant. passim; INIartin's 
West. Islands, in Pinkerton, ii. 691). Most bones, 
which have been exhibited, have turned out to be- 
long to whales or elephants, as was the case with 
the vertebra of a supposed giant, examined by Sir 
Hans Sloane in Oxfordshire. 

On the other hand, isolated instances of mon- 
- trosity are sufficiently attested to prove that beings 
tike Goliath and his kinsmen may have existed. 
Columella {E. R. iii. 8, § 2) mentions Navius Pol- 
lio as one, and Phny says that in the time of 
Claudius Caesar there was an Arab named Gab- 
baras nearly ten feet high, and that even he was 
not so tall as Pusio and Secundilla in the reign of 
Augustus, whose bodies were preserved (vii. 16). 
Josephus tells us that, among other hostages, Arta- 
banus sent to Tiberius a certain Eleazar, a Jew, 
suniamed " the Giant," seven cubits in height {Ant. 
xviii. 4, § 5). Nor are well-authenticated instances 
wanting in modem times. O'Brien, whose skele- 
ton is presented in the Museum of the College of 
Surgeons, must have been 8 feet high, but his un- 
natural height made him weakly. On the other 
hand the blacksmith Parsons, in Charles II.'s reign, 
was 7 feet 2 inches high, and also remarkable for 
his strength (Fuller's Woi^ihies, Staffordshire). 

For information on the various subjects touched 
upon in this article, besides minor authorities quoted 
in it, see Grot, de Veritat. i. 16; Nork, Bram. 
und Rcdjb. p. 210 ad Jin. ; Ewald, Gesch. i. 305-312; 

Winer, s. v. Riesen, etc. ; Gesei- s. v. D^SDT ; 
Rosenmiiller, Kalisch, et Comment, a^ loca cit. ; 
Kosenm. Allerthumsk. ii. ; Boettcher, de Jh/eris, p. 

db f.; Heidegger, Hist. Pair, xi.; Havernick's App. § 25). Like most words of this kind it gave 
Tntrod. to Pentat. p. 345 f.; Home's Introd. i. | its name to several towns and places in Pilestine 

148 ; Faber's Bampt. Lect. iii. 7 ; Maithwid's Ert^- 
vin; On (J. of Pagan Idol. i. 217, in Maitland'i 
False Wm-ship, 1-67; Pritchard's Nnt. Hist, of 
Man, v. 489 f. ; Hamilton On the Pentat. pp. 18»- 
201 ; Papers on the Kephaim by Miss F. Corbaux, 
Journ. of Sacr. Lit. 1851. There are also mono- 
graphs by Cassanion, Sangutelli, and Sennert; we 
have only met with the latter {Dissert. Hist. Phil. 
de Giyantibus, Vittemb. 1663); it is interesting and 
learned, but extraordinarily credulous. F. W. F. 

GIB^BAR ("^2l2 [liero, or hiyh, (jigantic\: 
ra^ep; [Vat. Ta)8ep:] Gebbar), Bene-Gibbar, to 
the number of ninety-five, returned with Zerubba- 
bel from Babylon (Ezr. ii. 20). In the parallel list 
of Neh, vii. the name is given as Gibkcn. 

GIB'BETHON (V'^riSSl [eminence, hill: in 
Josh.,] BeyeScii', V^Q^hap, Alex. Fa^adcau, Tafie- 
eccv; [in 1 K., ra^adwv. Vat. 1 K. xv. 27, Ta- 
fiacou: Gebbetlion,] Gabathon), a town allotted to 
the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 44), and afterwards 
given with its "suburbs" to the Kohathite I^evites 
(xxi. 23). Being, like most of the towns of Dan, 
either in or close to the Philistines' country, it waa 
no doubt soon taken possession of by them ; at any 
rate they held it in the early days of the monarchy 
of Israel, when king Nadab "and all Israel," and 
after him Omri, besieged it (1 K. xv. 27; xvi. 17). 
^^'hat were the special advantages of situation oi 
otherwise which rendered it so desirable as a pos- 
session for Israel are not apparent. In the Ono- 
masticon (Gabathon) it is quoted as a small village 
{■KoKixv-n) called Gabe, in the 17th mile from Caes- 
area. This would place it nearly due west of Sa- 
maria, and about the same distance therefrom. 
No name at all resembling it has, however, been 
discovered in that direction. 

GIB'S A (S^ri2 [hill-inhabitant, Fiirst; hill, 
Gesen.]: FatySaA; Alex. TaijSaa: Gabaa). Sheva 
"the father of Macbenah," and "father of Gibea," 
is mentioned with other names unmistakably those 
of places and not persons, among the descendants 
of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 49, comp. 42). [Father.] 
This would seem to point out Gibea (which in some 
Hebrew MSS. is Gibeah; see Burrington, i. 216) 
as the city Gibkah in Judah. The mention of 
Madmannah (49, comp. Josh. xv. 31 ), as well as ot 
Ziph (42) and Maon (45), seems to caiTy us to a 
locality considerably south of Hebron. [Giiskah, 
1.] On the other hand Madn\annah recalls Mad- 
menah, a town named in connection with Gibeah' 
of Benjamin (Is. x. 31), and therefore lying some- 
where north of .Jerusalem. 

GIB'EAH (n^?2, derived, according to Ge 

seniua {Thes. pp. 259, 260), from a root, 375?. 
signifying to be round or humped ; comp. the Latu 
gibbus, English gibbous; the Arabic (j^jc^, j'ebel, 
a mountain, and the German gipfd). A word em- 
ployed in the BiLlo to denote a " hill " — that is, 
an eminence of less considerable height and extent 

than a " mountain," the term for which is "IH, 
har. For the distinction between the two terms, 
see Ps. cxlviii. 9 ; Prov. viii. 25 ; Is. ii. 2, xl. 4, &c. 
In the historical books gibeah is commordy applied 
to the bald rounded hills of central Palestine, es- 
pecially in the neighborhood of .Jerusalem (Stanley, 



which wou\d doubtless he generally on or near a 
hill, 'i'bej are — 

1. Gib'kah (rafiad' Gabaa), a city in the 
mountain-district of Judah, named with Maon and 
the southern Carmel (Josh. xv. 57; and comp. 1 
Chr. U. 49, <fcc.). In the Onomasticon a village 
name<I Gahatha is mentioned as containing tlie 
monument of Hahakkuk the prophet, and lying 
twelve miles from Eleuthero{)olis. The direction, 
however, is not stated. Possibly it was identical 
with Keilah, which is given as eastward from Eleu- 
theroix)lis (I'^usebius says seventeen, Jerome eight 
miles) on the road to Hebron, and is also mentioned 
as containing the monument of Habakkuk. But 
neither of these can be the place intended in Joshua, 
since that would appear to have been to the S. E. 
of Hebron, near where Carmel and Maon are still 
existing. For the same reason this Gibeah cannot 
be that discovered by Robinson as Jebd'h in the 
Wddy MusmTj not far west of Bethlehem, and ten 
Qiiles north of Hebron (Rob. ii. 6, 16). Its site is 
therefore yet to seek. 

2. Gib'eath (n^!?2 : ra$awe; Alex. Tafiaad 
Gabaath). This is enumerated among the last 
group of the towns of lienjaniin, next to Jerusalem 
(Josh, xviii. 28). It is generally taken to be the 
place which afterwards became so notorious as 
" Gibeah-of-Benjamin " or "of-Saul." But this, 
as we shall presently see, was five or six miles north 
of Jerusalem, close to Gibeon and Ramah, with 
which, in that case, it would have been mentioned 
in ver. 25. The name being in the "construct 
state," — Gibeath and not Gibeah, — may it not be- 
long to the following name, Kirjath {i. e. Kirjath- 
jearira, as some MSS. actually read), and denote the 
hill adjoining that town (see below, No. 3)? The 
obvious objection to this proposal is the statement 
of the number of this group of towns as fourteen, 
but this is not a serious objection, as in these cata- 
logues discrepancies not unfrequently occur between 
the numbers of the towns, and that stated as the 
sum of the enumeration (comp. Josh. xv. 32, 36; 
six. 6, &c.). In this very list there is reason to 
believe that Zelah and ha-Eleph are not separate 
names, but one. The Usts of Joshua, though in 
the main coeval with the division of the country, 
nmst have been often added to and altered before 
they became finally fixed as we now possess them,« 
and the sanctity conferred on the " hill of Kirjath " 
by the temporary sojourn of the Ark there in the 
time of Saul would have secured its insertion 
among the lists of the towns of the tribe. 

3. (n^5?D • eV Tw ^ovpifi', [Alex, ej/ fiovva:] 
in Gabaii), the place in which the Ark remained 
from the time of its return by the Philistines till 
its removal by David (2 Sam. vi. 3, 4; comp. 1 

a For instance, Beth-marcaboth, " house of char- 
iots," and Hazar-susah, " village of horses " (Josh. 
xix. 6), would seem to date from the time of Solomon, 
when the traffic in these articles began with Egypt. 

f> m^D, A. V. "meadows of Gibeah," taking the 
vord [after the Targum and R. Kimchi] as Maareh, an 
open field (Stanley, App. § 19) ; the LXX. [Rom. Vat.] 
transfers the Hebrew word literally, Mapaaya/3e ; [Q 
MSS. read Maapa Ta/Saa or ttjs T. ; but Comp. Aid., 
with Alex, and about 15 other MSS., ano fiva/utoii' 

r^s Ta/Saa;] the Syriac has l.^.^\) = cave. The 

Hebrew word for cave, Me&r&h^ differs from that 
kdopted in the A Y. only in the vowel-point^s ; aud 


Sam. vii. 1, 2). The name has the definite ui 
icle, and in 1 Sam. vii. 1 [as here in the margii. ol 
the A. v.] it is translated "the hill." (See No. 
2 above.) 

4. Gib'eah-of-Ben'jamix. This town doea 
not appear in the lists of the cities of Benjamin 
in Josh, xviii. (1.) We first enounter it in the 
tragical story of the Levite and his concubine, when 
it brought all but extermination on the tribe (Judg 

xix., XX.). It was theji a "city " ("^"'l?) with the 

usual open street (^"^n"l) or square (Judg. xix. 15 
17,20), and containing 700 "chosen men" (x.x 
15), probably the same whose skill as slingers is 
preserved in the next verse. Thanks to the pre- 
cision of the narrative, we can gather some genei-al 
knowledge of the position of Gibeah. The Levite 
and his party left Bethlehem in the " afternoon " 

— when the day was coming near the time at 
which the tents would be pitched for evening. It 
was probably between two and three o'clock. At 
the ordinary speed of eastern travellers they would 
come "over against Jebus " in two hours, saj by 
five o'clock, and the same length of time would 
take them an equal distance, or about four miles, to 
the north of the city on the Nablus road, in tlie 
direction of Mount Ephraim (xix. 13, comp. 1), 
Ramah and Gibeah both lay in sight of the road, 
Gibeah apparently the nearest; and when the sud- 
den sunset of that chmate,.unaccompanied by more 
than a very brief twilight, made further 
impossible, they " turned aside " from the beaten 
track to the town where one of the party was to 
meet a dreadful death (Judg. xix. 9-15). Later 
indications of the story seem to show that a little 
north of the town the main track divided into two 

— one, the present Nablus road, leading up to 
liethel, the " house of God," and the other taking 
to Gil>eah-in-the- field (xx. 31), possibly the present 
Jeba. Below the city, probably, — about the base 
of the hill which gave its name to the town, — was 
the "cave'' of Gibeah," in which the liers hi wait 
concealed themselves until the signal was given ^ 
(xx. 33). 

During this narrative the name is given simply 
as "Gibeah," with a few exceptions; at its intro- 
duction it is called " Gibeah which belongeth to 
Benjamin " (xix. 14, and so in xx. 4). In xx. 10 
we have the expression " Giljeah of Benjamin," but 

here the Hebrew is not Gibeah, but Geba — ^5?.- 
The same form of the word is found in xx. 33, 
where the meadows, or cave, "of Gibeah," should 
be "of Geba." 

In many of the above particulars Gibeah agrees 
very closely with Tuleil el-Ful ["hill of beans"], 
a conspicuous eminence just four miles north cf 

there seems a certain consistency in an ambush con- 
cealing themselves in a cave, which in an open field 
would be impossible. 

* Bertheau {BiicJi der Richter u. Rut, p. 224) objecti 
to the meaning " cave " that the liers-in-wait are said 
(ver. 29) to have been set " round about Gibeah." He 
understands the last part of ver. 33 to mean that the 
men of Israel came forth from their ambush wegen 
der Entblossung von Geba\ " on account of the com- 
plete exposure of Geba" by the withdrawal of th« 
Beiyamites (vv. 31, 32). Buxtorf, Trtmellius and 
others give nearly the same interpretation, rendering 
the last clause of the verse " post denudationop 
Gibeao." A. 

c Josephus, Ant. v. 2, § 11. 


itmaatem to tlie riirlit of the road. Two miles 
ieyond it and full in view is er-Ram^ in all prob- 
iljility the ancient Kaniali, and between the two 
the main road divides, one branch going off to the 
right to the village of Jeba, while the other con- 
tinues its course upwards to Beitin^ the modern 
representative of Bethel. (See No. 5 below.) 

(2.) We next meet with Gibeah of Benjamin 
during the PhiUstine wars of Saul and Jonathan 
(1 Sam. xiii., xiv.). It now bears its full title. 
The position of matters seems to have been this: 
The Philistines were in possession of the village of 
Geba, the present Jeba on the south side of the 
Wmhj Suweinit. In their front, across the wady, 
which is here about a mile wide, and divided by 
several swells It wer than the side eminences, was 
Saul in the town of INIichmash, the modern Mukh- 
mas, and holding also " Mount Bethel," that is, 
the heights on the north of the great wady — Deir 
Diicdn, Burka, Tdl el-llajar, as far as Btitin itself. 
South of the Philistine camp, and about three 
miles in its rear, was Jonathan, in Gibeah-of-Ben- 
jamin, with a thousand chosen warriors (xiii. 2). 
^rhe first step was taken by Jonathan, who drove 
out the Philistines from Geba, by a feat of arms 
which at once procured him an immense reputation. 
But in the meantime it increased the difficulties of 
Israel, for the Philistines (hearing of their reverse) 
gathered in prodigious strength, and advancing 
with an enormous armament, pushed Saul's little 
force before them out of Bethel and Michmash, and 
down the eastern passes, to Gilgal, near Jericho in 
the Jordan valley (xiii. 4, 7). They then estab- 
lished themselves at Michmash, formerly the head- 
quarters of Saul, and from thence sent out their 
bands of plunderers, north, west, and east (vv. 17, 
18). I>ut nothing could dislodge Jonathan from 
his main stronghold in the south. As far as we 
can disentangle the complexities of the story, he 
soon relinquished Geba, and consolidated his little 
force in Gibeah, where he was joined by his father, 
with Samuel the pi-ophet, and Ahiah the priest, 
who, perhaps remembering the former fate of the 
Ark, had brought down the sacred Ephod « from 
Shiloh. These three had made their way up from 
Gilgal. with a force sorely diminished by deserti(m 
to the Philistine camp (xiv. 21), and flight (xiii. 7) 
— a mere remnant {KardXciixixa) of the people fol- 
lowing in the rear of the little band (LXX.). Then 
occurred the feat of the hero and his armor-bearer. 
En the stillness and darkness of the night they de- 
scended the hill of Gibeah, crossed the intervening 
country to the steep terraced slope of Jeba, and 
threading the mazes of the ravine below, climbed 
the opposite hill, and discovered themselves to the 
garrison of the Philistines just as the day was 

No one had been aware of their depai-ture, but 
it was not long unknown. Saul's watchmen at 
Tnleil el-Ful were straining their eyes to catch a 
glimpse in the early morning of the position of the 
Ibe; and as the first rays of the rising sim on their 
ight broke over the mountains of Gilead, and glit- 



a 1 Sam. xiv. 3. In ver. 18 the ark is said to have 
5«en at Gibeah; but this is in direct contradictiuu to 
tie statement of vii. 1, compared with 2 Sam. vi. 3, 4, 
md 1 Chr. xiii. 3 ; and aiso to those cf the LXX. and 
Josephus at ^lif place. Tne Hebrew words for ark and 

«phod — pnS and "712S — are very similar, and 
nay hart been mistaken for one another (Ewald, 
Bfteh. ill 46. note; Stanley, p. 205). 

tered on the rocky summit of Michmash, their pnus* 
ticed eyes quickly discovered the unusual stir io 
the camp: they could see "the multitude melting 
away, and beating down one another." Through 
the clear air, too, came, even to that distance, the 
unmistakable sounds of the :;onflict. The muster- 
roll was hastily called to discover the absentees. 
The oracle of God was consulted, out so rapidly did 
the tumult increase that Saul's impatience would 
not permit the rites to be completed, and soon he 
and Ahiah (xiv. 30 ) were rushing down from Gibeah 
at the head of their hungry warriors, joined at 
every step by some of the wretched Hebrews from 
their hiding places in the clefts and holes of the 
Benjamite hills, eager for revenge, and for the re- 
covery of the "sheep, and oxen, and calves" (xiv. 
32), equally with the arms, of which they had been 
lately plundered. So quickly did the news run 
through the district that — if we may accept the 
statements of the LXX. — by the time Saul reached 
the Philistine camp his following amounted to 
10,000 men. On every one of the heights of the 
country {^afxdiO) the people rose against the hated 
invaders, and before the day was out there was not 
a city, even of Mount Ephraim, to which the 
struggle had not spread. [Jonathan.] 

(3.) As " Gibeah of Benjamin " this place is re- 
ferred to in 2 Sam. xxiii. 29 [LXX. Ta^aed: Vulg. 
Gabaath] (comp. 1 Chr. xi. 31 [fiovv6s- Gabaatli]), 
and as " Gibeah '' it is mentioned by Hosea (v. 8, 
ix. 9, X. 9 [LXX. 01 ^ovvoi, 6 fiovv6s\), but it 
does not again appear in the history. It is, however, 
almost without doubt identical with — 

5. Gib'eah-of-Saul (b^SK? TODS : the 
LXX. do not recognize this name except in 2 Sam. 
xxi. G, where they have Ta^awv ^aovK^ and Is. x. 
30, iv6Xis ^aov\ [Vulg. Gabaatk Snulis], else- 
where simply Va^ad or [Alex.] Ta^aaQd). This is 
not mentioned as Saul's city till after his anointing 
(1 Sam. X. 26), when he is said to have gone 
"home" (Hebr. "to his house," as in xv. 34) to 
Gibeah, " to which," adds Josephus {A^it. vi. 4, § 
6), " he belonged." In the subsequent narrative 
the town bears its full name (xi. 4), and the king 
is hving there, still following the avocations of a 
simple farmer, when his relations '^ of Jabesh-Gilead 
beseech his help in their danger. His Ammonite 
expedition is followed by the first Philistine war, 
and by various other conflicts, amongst others an 
expedition against Amalek in the extreme south of 
Palestine. But he returns, as before, " to hia 
house" at Gibeah-of-Saul (1 Sam. xv. 34). Again 
we encounter it, when the seven sons of the king 
were hung there as a sacrifice to turn away the 
anger of Jehovah (2 Sam. xxi. 6 ^). The name of 
Saul has not been found in connection with any 
place of modern Palestine, but it existed as late as 
the days of Josephus, and an allusion of his has 
fortunately given the clew to the identification of 
the town with the spot which now bears the name 
of Tideil el-Ful. Josephus {B. J. v. 2, § 1), de 
scribing Titus's march from Csesarea to Jerusalem, 

b We owe this touch to Joeephua: viro<}>aivov<nti 
riSr) TT)? jtixepa^ (Ant. vi. 6, § 2). 

c This is a fair inference from the fact that the 
wives of 400 out of the 600 Detyamitres who escaped 
the massacre at Gibeah came from Jabeeh-Gilead 
(Judg. xxi. 12). 

(' The word in this verse rendered " hill " is not 
gibeah but har, i. e. " mountain," a singular chaniM 
and not quite intelligible. 



giyes his route as though Samaria to Gophna, 
Lhence a day's march to a valley " called by the 
Jews the Valley of Thorns, near a certain village 
called Gabathsaoule, distant from Jerusalem about 
thirty stadia," i. e. just the distance of Tuleil el- 
Fid. Here he was joined by a part of his army 
from Emmaus (Nicopolis), who would naturally 
come up the road by Beth-horon and Gibeon, the 
same which still falls into the northern road close 
to Tukdl d-Ful. fn both these respects therefore 
the agreement is complete, and Gibeah of Benjamin 
must be taken as identical with Gil)eah of Saul. 
The discovery is due to Dr. Robinson (i. 577-79), 
though it was partly suggested by a writer in Biivd. 
und Kritiken. 

This identification of Gibeah, as also that of 
Geba with Jeba^ is fully supported by Is. x. 28-32, 
where we have a specification of the route of Sen- 
nacherib from the north through the villages of 
the Benjamite district to Jerusalem. Commencing 
with Ai, to the east of the present Beitin, the route 
proceeds by MukJimds, across the "passages" of 
the Wady Suiveinit to Jeba on the opposite side ; 
and then by er-Rmn and Txdeil el-Ful, villages 
actually on the present road, to the heiglits north 
jf Jerusalem, from which the city is visible. Gallim, 
Madmenah, and Gebim, none of which have been 
yet identified, must have been, like Anathoth 
(Anntn)^ villages on one side or the other of the 
direct line of march. The only break in the chain 
is Migron, which is here placed between Ai and 
Michmash, while in 1 Sam. xiv. 2 it appears to 
have been five or six miles south, at Gibeah. One 
explanation that presents itself is, that in that 
uneven and rocky district the name " ^ligron," 
"precipice," would very probably, like "Gibeah," 
be borne by more than one town. 

In 1 Sam. xxii. 6, xxiii. 19, xxvi. 1, " Gibeah " 
[LXX. fiovv6s' Vulg. Gabad] doubtless stands for 
G. of Saul. 

6. Gib'eah-in-the Field (rn*U?2 n^n2 : 
ra^aa it/ aypw', [Alex. r. €P too aypw:] Gaban), 
named only in Judg. xx. 31, as the place to which 

one of the "highways" (nivpD) led from 
Gibeah-of-lienjamin, — " of which one goeth up to 
Bethel, and one to Gibeah-in-the-field." BddeJi, 
"iitf word here rendered " field," is applied specially 
*o cultivated ground, " as distinguished from town, 
desert, or garden " (Stanley, App. § 15). Cultiva- 
tion was so general throughout this district, that 
the term affords no clew to the situation of the 
place. It is, however, remarkable that the north 
road from Jerusalem, shortly after passing Tuleil 
el-Ful, separates into two branches, one running 
on to Beit'in (Bethel), and the other diverging to 
the right to Jeba (Geba). The attack on Gibeah 
iSLvne from the north (comp. xx. 18, 19, and 26, in 
which " the house of God " is really Bethel), and 
therefore the divergence of the roads was north of 
the town. In the case of Gibeah-of-Benjamin we 
have seen that the two forms " Geba" and 
' Gibeah " appear to be convertible, the former for 
the latter. If the identification now proposed for 
Gibeah-in-the-field be correct, the case is here re- 
versed, and ' Gibeah " is put for " Geba." 

The " meadows of Gaba" (1?5^ ' A. V. Gibeah; 
Judg. XX. 33) have no connection with the " field," 
the Hebrew words being entirely diflferent. As 
itated above, the word rendered " meadows " is 
•robably accurately " cave." [Geba, p. 877 «.] 


7. There are several other names compoun«5«3 
of Gibeah, which are given in a translated form it 
the A. v., probably from their appearing not U 
belong to towns. These are : — 

(1.) The "hill of the foreskins" (Josh. v. 3) 
between the Jordan and Jericho; it deri\e8 its 
name from the circumcision which took place there, 
and seems afterwards to ha^e received the name of 


(2.) [Fafiahp 4>ev€h (Vat. 4>et-); Alex. Aid. 
TaHaad *. : Gnbanth Phinees.] The " hill of 
Phinehas " in Mount Ephraim (Josh. xxiv. 33). 
This may be the Jibia on the left of the XabluA 
road, half-way bet^veen Bethel and Shiloh ; or thr 
Jeba north of Nabliis (Kob. ii. 2G5 note, 312). 
Both would be " in Mount Ephraim," but there is 
nothing in the text to fix the position of the place, 
while there is no lack of the name am .mg the vil- 
lages of Central Palestine. 

(3.) The "hiU of Mokeh " (.Judg. ni. 1). 

(4.) The " hill of God " — Gibeath ha-Elohim 
(1 Sara. X. 5); one of the places in the route cf 
Saul, which is so difficult to trace. In verses 10 
and 13, it is apparently called " the hill," and " the 
high place." 

(5.) [Vulg. 1 Sara. xxvi. 3, Gabaa ffacMlaJ] 
The " hill of Hachilah " (1 Sam. xxiii. 19, xxvi. 
1, [3]). 

(6.) The "hill of Ammaii " (2 Sam. ii. 24). 

(7.) The "hill Gaueb" (Jer. xxxi. 39). 

GIBEATH, Josh, xviii. 28. [Gibeah, 2.] 

roi8o0tTrjs; [Vat. FA. re)3aj06."rT?s; Alex. ra;8o5t- 
TTjsO Gabaa(Jiites), i.e. the native of Gibeah (1 
Cbr. xii. 3) ; in this case Shemaah, or " the 
Shemaah," father of two Benjamites, " Saul's 
brethren," who joined David. 

GIB'EON (l*"^^??* i- e. behnrjing to a hill : 
rafiadou; [Vat. 1 K. ix. 2, Ta^auB, Jer. xli. 12, 
rafiao) ;] Joseph. Ta^ado '■ Gabaon)^ one of the 
four" cities of the IIivites, the inhabitants of 
which made a league with Joshua (ix. 3-15), and 
thus escaped the fate of Jericho and Ai (comp. xi. 
19). It appears, as might be inferred from its 
taking the initiative in this matter, te have been 
the largest of the four — "a great city, like one of 
the royal cities " — larger than Ai (x. 2). Its men 

too were all practiced wairiors ( Gibbar'im, CHSlSl). 
Gibeon lay within the territory of Benjamin (xviii. 
25), and with its "suburbs" was allotted to the 
priests (xxi. 17), of whom it became afterwards a 
principal station. Occasional notices of its existence 
occur in the historical books, which are examined 
more at length below : and after the Captivity we 
find the " men of Gibeon " returning with Zer^^^- 
babel (Neh. vii. 25 : in the list of Ezra the name 
is altered to Gibbar), and assisting Nehemiah in 
the repair of the wall of Jerusalem (iii. 7). In the 
post-biblical times it was the scene of a victory by 
the Jews over the Poman troops under Cestius 
Gallus, which offers in many respects a close parallel 
to that of Joshua over the Canaanites (Jos. B. J. 
ii. 19, § 7; Stanley, S. cf P. p. 212). 

The situation of Gibeon has fortunately l>een 
recovered with as great certainty as any ancient 
site in Palestine. The traveller who pursues the 
northern camel-road from Jerusalem, turning off to 

a So Josh. Ix. 17. Josephus {Ant. T. 1, § lb; 


the left at Tukil d-Ful (Gibeali) on thai, branch 
of it which leads westward to Jatfa, finds himself, 
aftw crossing one or two stony and barren ridges, 
in a district of a more open character. The hills 
are rounder and more isolated than those through 
which he has been passing, aud rise in well-defined 
mamelons from broad undulating valleys of tolerable i 
extent and fertile soil. This is the central plateau ] 
of the country, the " land of Benjamin ; " and these 
round hills are the Gibealis, Gebas, Gibeons, and 
iiamahs, whose names occur so frequently in the 
records of this district. Retaining its ancient name 
almost intact, el-Jib stands on the northernmost 
of a couple of these mamelons, just at the place 
where the road to the sea parts into two branches, 
the one by the lower level of the IVady Suleiman, 
the other by the heights of the Beth-horons, to 
Ginizo, Lydda, and Joppa. The road passes at a 
«hort distance to the north of the base of the hill 


of el- Jib. The strata of the hills in tins listrict 
lie much more horizontally than those furthei south. 
With the hills of Gibeon this is peculiarly the case, 
and it imparts a remarkable precision to their ap- 
pearance, especially when viewed from a height such 
as the neighboring eminence of N^ehy Sninwil. The 
natural terraces are carried round the hill like con- 
tour lines; they are all dotted thick with olives and 
vines, and the ancient-looking houses are scattered 
over the flattish summit of the mound. On the 
east side of the hill is a copious spring which issues 
in a cave excavated in the limestone rock, so as to 
form a large reservoir. In the trees further down 
are the remains of a pool or tank of considerable 
size, probably, says Dr. Robinson, 120 feet by 100, 
i. e. of rather smaller dimensions tlian the lower 
pool at Hebron. This is doubtless the " pool of 
Gibeon" at which Abner and Joab met together 
with the troops of Ish-bosheth and David, and where 

C.LcOa a,aJ Ncbj Samwil, fiom N 

that sliarp conflict took place which ended in the 
death of Asahel, find led at a later period to the 
treacherous murder of Abner himself. Here or at 
the spring were the " great waters (or the many 

waters, D**S'7' C"!^) of Gibeon," « at which 
Johanan the son of Kareah found the traitor Ish- 
mael (Jer. xli. 12). Round this water also, accord- 
ing to the notice of Josephus (i-rri tlvl Tnjyp ttjs 
w6\eQ}s oiiK ot.irw6eu. Ant. v. 1, § 17 \ the five kings 
of the Amorites were ancamned when Joshua burst 
upon them from Gilgal. The " wilderness of 
Gibeon" (2 Sam. ii. 24 — the ^fidbar, i. e. rather 
the waste pasture-grounds — must have been to the 
east, beyond the circle or subui'b of cultivated fields, 
and towards the neighboring swells, which bear the 

a B'kth here and in 1 K. iii. 4, Josephus substitutes 
Otbroa ror Gil>eon {Ant. x. 9, § 5, riii 2, § 1). 

names of Jedireh and Bir Neballnh. Such is ttie 
situation of Gibeon, fulfilling in position every re- 
quirement of the notices of the Bible, Josephus. 
Eusebius, and Jerome. Its distance from Jerusalem 
by the main road is as nearly as possible GJ miles; 
but there is a more direct road reducing it to 5 

The name of Gibeon is most familiar to us in 
connection with the artifice by which its inhabitants 
obtained their safety at the hands of Joshua, and 
with the memorable battle which ultimately resulted 
therefrom. This transaction is elsewhere examined, 
and therefore requires no further reference here. 
[Joshua; Beth-hokon.] 

We next hear of it at the encounter between 
the men of David and of Ish-bosheth under their 
respective leaders Joab and Abner (2 Sam. ii. 12- 
17). The meeting has all the air of liaving Ijcen 


prenietUtatfcd by both parties, unless we suppose 
that Joab had heaid of the intentioi) of the Ben- 
jamites to revisit from the distant Mahanaim their 
nati\e villages, and had seized the opportunity to 
try his strength with Abner. The details of this 
disastrous encounter are elsewhere given. [Joab.] 
The place where the struggle began received a name 
from the circumstance, and seems to have been 
long afterwards known as the "field of i-he strong 
men." [IIklkath-hazzukim.] 

We again meet with Gibeon in connection with 
Joab; this time as the scene of the cruel and re- 
volting death of Amasa by his hand (2 Sam. xx. 
5-10). Joab was in pursuit of the rebellious Sheba 
the son of Bichri, and his being so far out of the 
direct north road as Gibeon may be accounted for 
by supposing that he w^,s making a search for this 
Benjamite among the towns of his tribe. The two 
rivals met at " the great stone « which is in Gibeon " 
— some old landmark now no longer recognizable, 
at least not recognized — and then Joab repeated 
the treachery by which he had murdered Abner, 
but with circumstances of a still more revolting 
character. [Joah; Akims, p. 159.] 

It is remarkable that the retribution for this 
crowning act of perfidy should have overtaken Joab 
close to the very spot on which it had been com- 
mitted. For it was to the tabernacle at Gibeon 
(1 K. ii. 28, 29; comp. 1 Chr. xvi. 39) that Joab 
fled for sanctuary when his death was pronounced 
by Solomon, and it was while clinging to the horns 
of the brazen altar there that he received his death- 
blow from Benaiah the son of Jehoiada (1 K. ii. 
28, 30, 34; and LXX. 29). 

Familiar as these events in connection with the 
history of Gibeon are to us, its reputation in Israel 
was due to a very different circumstance — the fact 
that the tabernacle of the congregation and the 
brazen altar of burnt-offering were for some time 
.located on the " high place " attached to or near 
the town. We are not informed whether this 
"high place" had any fame for sanctity before the 
tabernacle came there; but if not, it would have 
probably been erected elsewhere. We only hear of 
it in connection with the tabernacle, nor is there 
any indication of its situation in regard to the town. 
Professor Stanley has suggested that it was the 
remarkable hill of Ntby Sainuil^ the most prominent 
and individual eminence in that part of the country, 
and to which the special appellation of " the great 

high-place" (1 K. iii. 4; nV-nSH r\12'^r\) 
would perfectly apply. And certainly, if " great " 
is to be understood as referring to height or size, 
there is no other hill which can so justly claim the 
distinction (Sinai and Pal. p. 21G). But the word 
has not always that meaning, and may equally 
imply eminence in other respects, e. g. superior 
sanctity to the nvmierous other high places — 
Bethel, Ramah, Mizpeh, Gibeah — which surrounded 
it on every side. The main objection to this identi- 

a The Hebrew preposition (D^) almost implies 
that they were on or touching the stone. 

'' The various stations of the Tabernacle and the 
Ark, from their entry on the Promised l^and to their 
fiual deposition in tlie Temple at Jerusalem, will be 
exjimined under TABERNiJCLE. Meantime, with refer- 
snce to the above, it may be said that though not ex- 
pressly stated to have been at Nob, it may be con- 
fluaivsly inferr-^d from the mention of the " shew 
braaiJ ' (1 Sam xxi 6). The « echod " (9) and the 


fication is the distance of Neby Samml trom Gilicoo 
— more than a mile — and the absence of amy 
closer connection therewith than with any other of 
the neighboring places. I'he most natural position 
for the high place of Gibeon is the twin mount 
immediately south of el-Jib — so close as to be all 
but a part of the town, and yet quite separate and 
distinct. The testimony of Epiplianius, by which 
Mr. Stanley supports his conjecture, namely, that 
the " INIount of Gabaon " was the highest roiuid 
Jerusalem (Adv. IJcei-eses, i. 394), should be received 
with caution, standing as it does quite alone, and 
belonging to an age which, though early, was 
marked by ignorance, and by the most improbable 

To this high place, wherever situated, the " taber- 
nacle of the congregation " — the sacied tent which 
had accompanied tlie children of Israel through the 
whole of their wanderings — had been transferred 
from its last station at Nob.'' The exact date of 
the transfer is left in uncertainty. It was either 
before or at the time when David brought up the 
ark ^rom Kiijath-jearim, to the new tent which he 
had pitJied for it on IVIount Zion, that the original 
tent was spread for the last time at Gibeon. The 
expression in 2 Chr. i. 5, " the brazen altar he put 
before the tabernacle of Jehovah," at first sight 
appears to refer to David. But the text of the 
passage is disputed, and the authorities are divided 

between Dtr = »he put," and DK' = " was there." 
^^'hether king David transferred the tabernacle to 
Gibeon or not, he certaiidy appointed the staff of 
priests to offer the daily sacrifices there on the 
brazen altar of Moses, and to fulfill the other re- 
quirements of the law (1 Chr. xvi. 40), with no 
less a person at their head than Zadok the priest 
(39), assisted by the famous musicians Heman and 
Jeduthun (41). 

One of the earliest aets of Solomon's reign — it 
must have been while the remembrance of the 
execution of Joab was still fresh — was to visit 
Gibeon. The ceremonial was truly magnificent: 
he went up with all the congregation, the great 
oflficers of the state — the captains of hundreds an i 
thousands, the judges, the governors, and the chief 
of the fathers — and the sacrifice consisted of a 
thousand burnt-ofterings ^^ (1 K. iii. 4). And thii 
glimpse of Gibeon in all the splendor of its greatest 
prosperity — the smoke of the thousand animals 
rising from the venerable altar on the commanding 
height of "the great high place"" — the clang of 
"trumpets and cymbals and musical instrumenta 
of God " (1 Chr. xvi. 42) resounding through tht 
valleys far and near — is virtually the last we have 
of it. In a few jears the temple at Jerusalem waa 
completed, and then the tabernacle was once more 
taken down and removed. Again " all the men 
of Israel assembled themselves " to king Solomon, 
with the "elders of Israel," and the priests and 
the Levites brought up both the tabernacle and the 

expression <; before Jehovah "' (6) prove nothing eithei 
way. .rosephus throws no light on it. 

c It would be very satisfiictory to believe, wirn 
Thomson {Land and Book, ii. 547), that the present 
Wady Sideimariy i. e. " Solomon's valley," which com- 
mences on the west side of Gibeon, and leads down tc 
the Plain of Sharon, derived its name from this visit 
But the modern names of places in Palestine oftei 
spring from very modem persons or ciroumstaucM 
and, without confirmation or investigiition, this eaa 
not be received 



Ilk, and "all the holy vessels that were in the 
iabernacle" (1 K. viii. 3; Joseph. Ant. viii. 4, § 1), 
And placed the venerable relics in their new home, 
theie to remain until tlie plunder of the city by 
Nebuchadnezzar. Tlie introduction of the name 
of Gibeon in 1 Chr. ix. 35, which seems so abrupt, 
is probably due to the fact that the preceding verses 
of the chapter contain, as they appear to do, a list 
of the staff attached to the " Tabernacle of the 
congregation " which was erected there; or if these 
persons should prove to be the attendants on the 
"new tent" which David had pitched for the ark 
on its aiTival in the city of David, the transition 
to the place where the old tent was still standing 
is both natural and easy. G. 

GIBEONITES, THE (D'^33752n : ot 
1 afiacavlrai [Vat. -vei-] '■ Gabaonitm), the people 
of Gibeon, and perhaps also of the three cities asso- 
ciated with Gibeon (Josh. ix. 17) — Hivites; and 
who, on the discovery of the stratagem by which 
they had obtained the protection of the Israelites, 
were condemned to be perpetual bondmen, hewers 
of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, 
and for the house of God and altar of Jehovah 
(Josh. ix. 23, 27). Saul appears to have broken 
this covenant, and in a fit of enthusiasm or patriot- 
ism to have killed some and devised a general mas- 
sacre of the rest (2 Sam. xxi. 1, 2, 5). This was 
expiated many years after by giving up seven men 
of Saul's descendants to the Gibeonites, who hung 
them or crucified them " before Jehovah " — as a 
kind of sacrifice — in Gibeah, Saul's own town 
(4, 6, 9).« At this time, or at any rate at the 
time of the composition of the narrative, the Gib- 
eonites were so identified with Israel, that the his- 
torian is obliged to insert a note explaining their 
origin and their non-Israelite extraction (xxi. 2). 
The actual name "Gibeonites" appears only in 
this passage of 2 Sam. [Nethinim.] 

Individual Gibeonites named are (1) Is3iAiAir, 
one of the iienjamites who joined David in his dif- 
ficulties (1 Chr. xii. 4); (2) Melatiah, one of 
those who assisted Nehemiah in repairing the wall 
of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 7); (3) Hananiah, the son 
of Azur, a false prophet from Gibeon, who opposed 
Jeremiah, and shortly afterwards died (Jer. xxviii. 
1, 10, 13, 17). G. 

GIB'LITES, THE O^nSH, i. e. singular, 
the Gihlite.: TaXiaO ^vKiarTieifx; Alex. Ta^Kt [*• :] 
confirda). The " land of the Gibhte " is men- 
tioned in connection with Lebanon in the enumera- 
tion of the portions of the Promised Land remain- 
ng to be conquered by Joshua (Josh. xiii. 5). The 
wDcient versions, as will be seen above, give no help, 
bat there is no reason to doubt that the allusion is 
to the inhabitants of the city Gebal, which was 
on the sea-coast at the foot of the northern slojies 
of I^ebanon. The one name is a regular derivative 
from the other (see Gesenius, Tlies. p. 258 b). We 
nave here a confirmation of the identity of the 
Aphek mentioned in this passage with Aflca^ which 
was overlooked by the writer when examining the 
latter name [Aphek, 2] ; and the whole passage 
Is in3tructive, as showing how very far the limits 
ftf ths country designed for the Israelites exceeded 
Uiose which they actually occupied. 



a * Dean Stanley describes the artifice of fne abo- 
dglual Gibeonites, and the acts of revenge of their de- 
icen<lant« against the family of Saul, with his wonted 

The Giblites are again named (though not in 
the A. V. [except in the margin] ) in 1 K. v. 18 

(D^^?2in : [Rom. Vat. omit;] Alex, oi Bi^\ioi 
Giblii) as assisting Solomon's builders and Hiram' 
builders to prepare the trees and the stones for 
building the Temple. That they were clever artifi- 
cers is evident from this passage (and comp. Ez. 
xxvii. 9); but why our translators should have so 
far improved on this *s to render the word by 
" stone-squarers " [so the Bishops' Bible; the 
Genevan version has "masons"] is not obvious. 
Possibly they followed the Targum, which has a 
word of similar import in this place. G. 

GIDDAL'TI C'.n^"?? [/ have praised-]. 
ToSoWaei; [Vat. roSo\\adei, ToSofiadei;] Alex. 
TeSoXAadi, redde\0t- Gedddthi, Geddthi]), one 
of the sons of Heman, the king's seer, and there- 
fore a Kohathite Levite (1 Chr. xxv. 4 ; comp. vi. 
33): his office was with thirteen of his brothers to 
sound the horn in the service of the tabernacle 
(5, 7). He had also charge of the 22d division or 
course (29). 

GID'DEL ( V^^S \very great, gigantic] : TeS- 
StjA, [raSyjA; in Ezr., Vat. Ke5e5; in Neh., Alex. 
2aS77A:] Gmklel, [Geddel]). 1. Children of Giddel 
(Bene-Giddel) were among the Nethinim who re- 
turned from the Captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 
47; Neh. vii. 49). In the parallel lists of 1 Esdraa 
the name is corrupted to Cathua. 

2. [FeSyjA, TaSa^A; Vat. reSrjo, FaSrjA (so FA. 
in Neh.); Alex. TcSStjA, ToSStjA: Geddel, Jeddel.] 
Bene-Giddel were also among the "servants of 
Solomon " who returned to Judaea in the same 
caravan (Ezr. ii. 56; Neh. vii. 58). In 1 Esdras 
this is given as Isdael. 

GID'EON (V'T^ia, from 5?12, a sucker, or 
better = (7 hewer, i. e. a brave warrior; comp. Is. 
X. 33; TeSecau- Gcdeon), a Manassite, youngest 
son of Joash of the Abiezrites, an undistinguished 
family, who lived at Ophrah, a town probably on 
this side Jordan (Judg. vi. 15), although its exact 
position is unknown. He was the fifth recorded 
Judge of Israel, and for many reasons the greatest 
of them all. When we first hear of him he was 
grown up and had sons (Judg. vi. 11, viii. 20), and 
from the apostrophe of the angel (vi. 12) we may 
conclude that he had already distinguished himself 
in war against the roving bands of nomadic robbers 
who had oppressed Israel for seven years, and whose 
countless multitudes (compared to locusts from 
their terrible devastations, vi. 5) annually destroyed 
all the produce of Canaan, except such as could be 
concealed in mountain-fastnesses (vi. 2). It was 
probably during this disastrous period that the 
emigration of Elimelech took place (Ruth i. 1, 2; 
Jahn's Hebr. Comm. § xxi.). Some have identified 
the angel who appeared to Gideon {(pavrafffxa 
veaviffKov /xopcpfj, Jos. Ant. v. 6) with the prophet 
mentioned in vi.' 8, which wiU remind the reader 
of the legends about Malachi in Origen and other 
commentators. Paulus (Exeg. Conserv. ii. 190 ff.) 
endeavors to give the narrative a subjective coloring, 
but rationalism is of little value in accounts like 
this. When the angel appeared, Gideon was thrash- 
ing whea;. with a flail (e/coTrre, LXX.) in the wine- 

vividness and skill (^History of the Jewish durch, i. 
264, and ii. 36). See also Rizpah. H. 



press, to conceal it from the predatory tyrants. 
After a natural hesitation he accepted the commis- 
sion of a deliverer, and learned the true character of 
his visitant from a miraculous sign (vi. 12-23); 
and being reassured from the fear which first seized 
him (Ex. XX. 19; Judg. xiii. 22), built the altar 
Jehovah-shalom, which existed when the book of 
Judges was written (vi. 24). In a dream the same 
night he was ordered to throw down the altar of 
Baal and cut down the Asherah (A. V. "grove") 
upon it [AsiiKUAii], with the wood of which he 
was to offer in sacrifice his father's " second bullock 
of seven years old," an expression in which some 
Bee an allusion to the seven years of servitude (vi. 
26, 1). Perhaps that particular bullock is specified 
because it had been reserved by his father to sacri- 
fice to Baal (Koseiimliller, ScJioL ad loc), for Joash 
seems to have been a priest of that worship. Ber- 
theau can hardly be right in supposing that Gideon 
was to offer ticu bullocks (Richt. p. 115). At any 
rate the miimte touch is valuable as an indication 
of truth in the story (see Ewald, Gesch. ii. 498, 
and note). Gideon, assisted by ten faithful servants, 
obeyed the vision, and next morning ran the risk 
of being stoned: but Joash appeased the popular 
indignation by using the conuuon argument that 
Baal was capable of defending his own majesty 
(comp. 1 K. xviii. 27). This circumstance gave 

to Gideon the surname of vl^S"!'^ (" Let Baal 
plead," vi. 32; LXX. 'Upo^da\), a standing ui- 
stance of national irony, expressive of Baal's impo- 
tence. Winer thinks that this irony was increased 

by the fact that V^m'^ was a surname of the 
Phoenician Plercules (comp. Movers, Phoniz. i. 434). 
We have similar cases of contempt in the names 
Sychar, Baal-zebul, etc. (Lightfoot, IJor. Hehr. 
ad Matt. xii. 24). In consequence of this name 
some have identified Gideon with a certain priest 
'lepSfifiaXos, mentioned in Eusebius {Proep. Evdncj. 
i. 10) as having given much accurate information 
to Sanchoniatho the Berytian (Bochart, Pludc(j, p. 
776; Huetius, Dtm. Evang. p. 84, &c.), but this 
opinion cannot be maintained (Ewald, Gesch. ii. 
494; Gesen. s. v.). We also find the name in the 
form Jerubbesheth (2 Sam. xi. 21 ; comp. Esh-baal, 
1 Chr. viii. 33 with Ish-bosheth 2 Sam. ii. flF.). 
Ewald (p. 495, n.) brings forward several arguments 
t^ainst the supposed origin of the name. 

2. After this begins the second act of Gideon's 
life. » Clothed " by the Spirit of God (Judg. vi. 
34; comp. 1 Chr. xii. 18; Luke xxiv. 49), he blew 
a trumpet; and, joined by " Zebulun, Naphtali, and 
even the reluctant Asher " (which tribes were 
chiefly endangered by the Midianites), and possibly 
also by some of the original inhabitants, who would 
suffer from these predatory "sons of the East" no 
less than the Israelites themselves, he encamped on 
the slopes of Gilboa, from which he overlooked the 
plains of Esdraelon covered by the tents of INIidian 
(Stanley, -S. (f P. p. 243)." Strengthened by a 
double sign from God (to which Ewald gives a 
strange figurati\c meaning, Gesch. ii. 500), he re- 


duced his army of 32,000 by the usual prociamatioi 
(Deut. XX. 8; comp. 1 Mace. iii. 56). 'ilie expri» 
sion "let him depart from Mount Gilead " is per 
plexing ; Dathe would render it " to Mount Gilead " 
- on the other side of Jordan ; and Clericus readg 

^217?) Gilboa; but Ewald is probably right in 
regarding the name as a sort of war-cry and gen- 
eral designation of the Manassites. (See, too, 
Gesen. Thes. p. 804, n.) By a second test at " the 
spring of trembling " (now probably ^Ain Jdlud, 
on which see Stanley, S. tj- P. p. 342), he again 
reduced the number of his followers to 300 (Judg. 
vii. 5 f.), whom Josephus explains to have been the 
most cowardly in the army (^1?*^. v. 0, § 3). Finally, 
being encouraged by words fortuitously overheard 
(what the later Jews termed the Bath Kol ; comp. 
1 Sam. xiv. 9, 10, Lightfoot, Ilor. Ilebr. ad Matt. 
iii. 14) in the relation of a significant dream, he 
framed his plans, which were admirably adapted to 
strike a panic terror into the huge and undisciplii::ed 
nomad host (Judg. viii. 15-18). We know from 
history that large and irregular oriental armies are 
especially liable to sudden outbursts of uncontrol- 
lable terror, and when the stillness and darkness of 
the night were suddenly disturbed in three differ- 
ent directions by the flash of torches and by the 
reverberating eclioes which the trumpets and the 
shouting woke among the hills, we cannot be as- 
tonished at the complete rout into which the enemy 
were thrown. It must be remembered, too, thai 
the sound of 300 trumpets would make them sup- 
pose that a corresponding numlier of companies 
were attacking them." For sj)ecimens of similar 
stratagems see Liv. xxii. 16; Poly*n. titrate (/. ii. 
37; Frontin. ii. 4; Sail. Juy. 99; Kiebuhr, Descr. 
de l' Arable, p. 304; Jotirn. As 1841, ii, 516 
(quoted by Ewald, IJosenmiiller, and \Mner). The 
custom of dividing an army into three seems to 
have been common (1 Sam. xi. 11; Gen. xiv. 15), 
and Gideon's war-cry is not unlike that ado^jted by 
Cyrus (Xenoph. Cyr. iii. 28). He adds his own 
name to the war-cry,'' as suited both to inspire con- 
fidence in his followers and strike terror in the 
enemy. His stratagem was eminently successful, 
and the INIidianites, breaking into thcu* wild peculiar 
cries, fled headlong " down the descent to the Jor- 
dan," to the "house of the Acacia" (Beth-shittah) 
and the "meadow of the dance" (Abel-meholah), 
but were intercepted by the Ephi-aimites (to whom 
notice had been sent, vii. 24) at the fords of Beth- 
barah, where, after a seconil fight, the princes Oreb 
and Zeeb ("the Baven " and "the Wolf") were 
detected and slain — the former at a rock, and the 
latter concealed in a wine-piess, to which their names 
were afterwards given^ Meanwhile the "higher 
sheykhs Zebah and Zalmunna had already e.scaped," 
and Gideon (after pacifying — by a soft answer 
which became proverbial — the haughty tribe of 
Ephraim, viii. 1-3) pursued them into eastern Ma- 
nasseh, and. bursting upon them in their fancied 
security among the tents of their Bedouin country- 
men (see Kakkor), won his tiiird victory, and 
avenged on the Midiauitish emirs the massacre of 

a It is curious to find " lamps and pitchers " in 
use for a similar purpose at this very day in the 
-treets of Cairo. The Zabtt or Agha of the police 
^rrios with him. at night "a torch wliich burns, soon 
ifter it is lighted, without a flame, excepting when it is 
frayed through tlio air, when it suddenly blazes forth : 
K therefore answers the same purpose as our dark 
Aatnm. Iht burning end is sometimes concealed in a 

small pot or jar ^ or covered with something else, whea 
not required to give light " (Lane's Mod. Egypt, i. cb 

b * The war-cry was properly, " For Jehovah and 
for Gideon." The A. V, inserts " the sword," but ttuk 
has no warrant, and restricts too much the id«a. 



hi* kingly brethren whom they had slain nt la!)or 
(viii. 18 f.}. In these three battles only 15,000 out 
of 120,000 IMidianites escaped alive. It is indeed 
stated in Judg. viii. 10, that 120,000 Midianites 
had already /alien; but here as elsewhere, it may 
merely be intended that such was the original num- 
ber of the routed host. During his triumphal re- 
turn Gideon took signal and appropriate vengeance 
on the coward and apostate towns of Succoth and 
Peuiel. The memory of this splendid deliverance 
took deep root in the national traditions (1 Sam. 
xii. 11 ; Ps. Ixxxiii. 11 ; Is. ix. 4, x. 26 ; Heb. xi. 32). 

3. After this there was a j^eaee of 40 years, and 
we see Gideon in peaceful possession of his well- 
earned honors, and surrounded by the dignity of 
a numerous household (viii. 29-31). It is not im- 
probable that, like Said, he had owed a part of his 
popularity to his princely appearance (Judg. viii. 18). 
In this third stage of his life occur alike his most 
noble and his most questional )le acts, namely, the 
refusal of the monarchy on theocratic grounds, and 
the irregular consecration of a jeweled ephod, fomied 
out of the rich spoils of Midian, which proved to 
the Israelites a temptation to idolatry, although it 
was doubtless intended for use in the worship of 
Jehovah. Gesenius and others {T/ies. p. 135; 
Bertheau, p. 133 f.) follow the Peshito in making 
the word Ephod here mean an idol, chiefly on ac- 
count of the vast amount of gold (1,700 shekels) 
and other rich material appropriated to it. But it 
is simpler to understand it as a significant symbol 
of an unauthorized worship. 

Respecting the chronology of this period little 
certainty can be obtained. Making full allowance 
for the use of round numbers, and even admitting 
the improbable assertion of some of the Kabbis that 
the period of oppression is counted in the years of 
rest (m/e Rosenmiiller, On Judfj. iii. 11), insuper- 
able difficulties remain. If, however, as has been 
suggested by Lord A. Her\'ey, several of the judge- 
ships really synchronize instead of being successive, 
much of the confusion vanishes. For instance, he 
supposes (from a comparison of Judg. iii., viii., and 
xii.) that there was a combined movement under 
thrp«» great chiefs, Ehud, Gideon, and Jephthah, by 
which the Israelites emancipated themselves from 
the dominion of the Moabites, Ammonites, and 
Midianites (who for some years had occupied their 
land), and enjoyed a long term of peace through 
all their coasts. " If," he says, " we string together 
the different accounts of the different parts of 
Israel which are given us in that miscellaneous col- 
lection of ancient records called the book of Judges, 
and treat them as connected and successive history, 
we shall fall into as great a chronographical error 
as if yvQ treated in the same manner the histories 
of Mercia, Kent, Essex, Wessex, and Northujnber- 
land, before England became one kingdom" {Ge- 
nenlog. of our Lord, p. 238). It is n©w well known 
that a similar source of error has long existed in 
the chronology of Egypt. F. W. F. 

GIDEO'NI (^33772 or once '^^yJ'Vi [apros- 
trator, warrior]: TaBewui; [Vat. TeSewvet, Ta- 
iea>uei, etc.:] Gedeonis [gen.]). Abidan, son of 
Gideoni, was the :hief man of the tribe of Benja- 
Tun at the time of the census in the wilderness of 
Sinai (Num. i. 11; ii. 22; vii. 60, 65; x. 24). 

GIDOM (D^S?!!! [a cutting doim, desolating]: 
VthaV, Alex. rtAooS; [Comp. Aid. TaSati/x]), a 
pboe named only in Judg. xx. 45, aa the limit to 



wnicfi the pursuit of Benjamin extended after th« 
final battle of Gibeah. It would appear to hav 
been situated between Gibeah ( Tuttil el-Ful) and 
the cliff Rimn.on (probably Bummon, about three 
miles E. of Bethel) ; but no trace of the name, nor 
yet of that of Menucah, if indeed that was a place 
(Judg. XX. 43 ; A. V. " with ease " — but see mar- 
gin), has yet been met with. [Menucah, Amer. 
ed.] The reading of the Alex. LXX., " Gilead," 
can hardly be taken as well founded. In the Vul- 
gate the word does not seem to be represented. 


GIER-EAGLE (Dn^, rdchdm; HDm, 
rachdmali : kvkuos, iropcpvpiwy: porphyria), an 
unclean bird mentioned in Lev. xi. 18 and Deut. 
xiv. 17. There is no reason to doubt that the 
rdcliam of the Hebrew Scriptures is identical in 

reality as in name with the racham (jv^O of the 

Arabs, namely, the Egyptian vulture {Neophron 
perctiopterus) ; see Gesner, Be Avib. p. 170; Bo- 
chart, Hieroz. iii. 56; Hasselquist, Trav. p. 195, 
and Russell's Natural Hist, of Aleppo, ii. 195, 2d 
ed. The LXX. in Lev. /. c. renders the Hebrew 
term by " swan " {kvkvos)i while in Deut. /. c. the 
"purple water-hen" (Purphyrio hyncintldniis) is 
given as its representative. There is too much dis- 
crepancy in the LXX. translations of the various 
birds mentioned in the Levitical law to allow us to 
attach much weight to its authority. The Hebrew 
term etymologically signifies " a Inrd which is very 
affectionate to its young," which is perfectly true 
of the Egyptian vulture, but not more so than of 
other birds. The Arabian writers relate many 
fables of the Racham, some of which the reader 
may see in the Hierozoicon of Bochart (iii. p. 56). 
The Egyptian vulture, according to Bruce, is called 
by the Euroj)eans in Egypt " Pharaoh's Hen." It 

Egyptian Vulture. 

is generally distributed throughout Egypt, and Mr 
Tristram says it is common in Palestine, and breedi 
in great numbers in the valley of the Cedron ( Ibis, 
i. 23). Though a bird of decidedly unprepossessing 
appearance and of disgusting habits, the P^gyptians, 
like ah other Orientah, wisely protect so efficient a 
scavenger, which rids them of putrefying carct^ses 
that would otherwise breed a pestilence in their 
towns. Near Cairo, says Shaw {Trav. p. 384, 
folio), there are several flocks of the Ach Bobba^ 
"white father." — a name given it by the Tiukii 



partly out of the reverence they have for it, partly 
6rom the color of its plumage, — " which, like the 
ravens about our nietroiwlis, feed upon the carrion 
and nastiness that is thrown without the city." 
Young birds are of a brown color with a few white 
feathers ; adult specimens are white, except the pri- 
mary and a }x)rtion of the secondary wing-feathers, 
which are black. Naturalists have referred this 
vulture to the irepKv6irTepos or 6p€nr4\apyo5 of 
Aristotle {Hist. Aniin. vs.. 22, § 2, ed. Schneid.). 

W. H. 

* There are two birds known as >vjS\ among 

the Arabs in Egypt. The first is the vulture known 
as Neophron ptrcnoiAerus. It is found extensively 
in all parts of Egypt, and is common in Palestine 
and Syria. The adult has the front of the head 
and the upper part of the throat and cere naked, 
and of a bright lemon yellow. The plumage is a 
dirty white, with the exception of the quill-feathers, 
which are a grayish black. The appearance of this 
bird soaring (in circles) over and around the towns 
in Egypt, with its bright yellow beak and neck and 
crop, and white body, and dai-k wing- feathers, is 
exceedingly beautiful. 

The second is the Pelecanus onocrotnlus, found 
m large numbers in Egypt, and about lake Huleh 
in Palestine. This is probably the bird intended by 

Dnn in Lev. xi. 18 and Deut. xiv. 17, while the bird 
there translated "pelican" should be "cormorant." 
This seems altogether more natural when we consider 
the context, and that it is grouped with the large 

water-fowl. The word TJ^^ ' translated "cor- 
morant " in Lev. xi. 17 and Deut. xiv. 17 more 
properly suits the Uiver ( Colymhus), of which there 
is a large species in Egypt. G. E. P. 

GIFT. The giving and receiving of presents 
has in all ages been not only a more frequent, but 
also a more formal and significant proceeding in 
the East than among ourselves. It enters largely 
into the ordinary transactions of life : no negotiation, 
alliance, or contract of any kind can be entered into 
between states or sovereigns without a previous 
interchange of presents: none of the important 
events of private life, betrothal, marriage, coming 
of age, birth, take place without presents: even a 
visit, if of a formal nature, must be prefaced by a 
present. We cannot adduce a more remarkable 
proof of the important part which presents play in 
the social life of the East, than the fact that the 
Hebrew language possesses no less than fifteen dif- 
ferent expressions for the one idea. Many of these 
expressions have specific meanings: for instance, 

minchah {r\n^T2i) applies to a present from an in- 
ferior to a superior, as from subjects to a king 
(Judg. iii. 15; 1 K. x. 25; 2 Chr. xvii. 5); maseth 

(nStlTtt) expresses the converse idea of a present 
from a superior to an inferior, as from a king to his 
subjects (Esth. ii. 18); hence it is used of a portion 
of food sent by the master of the house to his in- 
Terior guests (Gen. xliii. 34; 2 Sam. xi. 8); nisseih 

[nt^Wi) has very much the same sense (2 Sam. 

tix. 42); berdcah (71312), literally a " blessing," 
(8 used 'vhere the present is one of a complimentary 
aature, either accompanied with good wishes, or 
fiven as a token of affection (Gen. xxxiii. 11 ; Judg. 
. 16: 1 Sam xxv. 27, xxx. 2H; 2 K. v. 15); and 


agahi, shochad (THtt?) is a gift for the purpoge of 
escaping punishment, presented either to a juiga 
(Ex. xxiii. 8; Deut. x. 17), or to a conqueroi 

(2 K. xvi. 8). Other terms, as mattdn Cjri^), 
were used more generally. The extent to which 
the custom prevailed admits of some explanation 
from the peculiar usages of the ICast; it is clear 
that the term "gift" is frequently used where we 
should substitute " tribute," or " fee." The tribute 
of subject states was paid not in a fixed sum of 
money, but in kind, each nation presenting its 
particular product — a custom whvch is frequently 
illustrated in the sculptures of Assyria and Egypt; 
hence the numerous instances in which the present 
was no voluntary act, but an exaction (Judg. iii. 
15-18; 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6; 1 K. iv. 21; 2 K. xvii. 
3; 2 Chr. xvii. 11, xxvi. 8); and hence the expres- 
sion " to bring presents " =to own submission (Ps. 
Ixviii. 29, Ixxvi. 11; Is. xviii. 7). Again, the pres- 
ent taken to a prophet was viewed very much iu 
the light of a consulting "fee," and conveyed no 
idea of bribery (1 Sam. ix. 7, comp. xii. 3; 2 K. 
v. 5, viii. 9): it was only when false prophets and 
corrupt judges arose that the present was prosti- 
tuted, and became, instead of a minchah (as in the 
instances quoted), a shochad, or bribe (Is. i 23, v. 
23; Ez. xxii. 12; Mic. iii. 11). But even allowing 
for these cases, which are hardly "gifts" in our 
sense of the term, there is still a large excess re- 
maining in the practice of the East: friends brought 
presents to friends on any joyful occasion (Esth. ix. 
19, 22), those who asked for information or advice 
to those who gave it (2 K. viii. 8), the needy to the 
wealthy from whom any assistance was expected 
(Gen. xliii. 11; 2 K. xv. 19, xvi. 8), rulers to their 
favorites (Gen. xiv. 22; 2 Sam. xi. 8), especially to 
their officers (Esth. ii. 18; Joseph. Ant. xii. 2, § 
15), or to the people generally on festive occasions 
(2 Sam. vi. 19); on the occasion of a marriage, the 
l)ridegroom not only paid the pai-ents for his bride 
(A. V. "dowry"), but also gave the bride catain 
presents (Gen. xxxiv. 12; comp. Gen. xxiv. 22), 
while the father of the bride gave her a present on 
sending her nway^ as is expressed in the term »hil- 

lucMm {W^TJhW) {I K. ix. 16); and again, the 
portions of the sons of concubines were paid in the 
form of presents (Gen. xxv. 6). 

The nature of the presents was as \'arious as 
were the occasions: food (1 Sam. ix. 7, xvi. 20, xxv. 
11), sheep and cattle (Gen. xxxii. 13-15; Judg. iv. 
8), gold (2 Sam. xviii. 11; Job xlii. 11; Matt. iL 
11), jewels (Gen. xxiv. 53), furniture, and vessel* 
for eating and drinking (2 Sam. xvii. 28), delica- 
cies, such as spices, honey, etc. (Gen. xxiv. 53; 
1 K. X. 25, xiv. 3), and robes (1 K. x. 25; 2 K. 
V. 22), particularly in the case of persons inducted 
into high office (Esth. vi. 8; Dan. v. 16; comp. 
Herod, iii. 20). The mode of presentation was 
with as much parade as possible ; the presents were 
conveyed by the hands of servants (Judg. iii. 18), 
or still better on the backs of beasts of burden 
(2 K. viii. 9), even when such a mode of convey- 
ance was unnecessary. The refusal of a present 
was regarded as a high uidignity, and this con- 
stituted the aggravated insult noticed in Matt, 
xxii. 11, the marriage robe havuig been offered 
and refused (Trench, Par(fbles). No less an in 
suit was it, not to bring a present when the poa 
tion of the parties demanded it (] Sam. x. 27 y. 

W. L.R 


GIHON (rrr*? [stream-] I Fewj/; Alex. Ttj- 
itv: Gehcra). 1. The second river of Paradise (Gen. 
i. 1-3). The name d-)es not again occur in the 
Hebrew text of the 0. T.; but in the LXX. it 
[rTjwj/] is used in Jer. ii. 18, as an equivalent for 
:he word Shichor or Sihor, i. e. the Nile, and in 
Kcclus. xxiv. 27 (A. V. "Geon"). All that can 
be said upon it will be found under Eden, p. 658 f. 

2. (P"^3, and in Chron. f\rV^: [in 1 K.,] 
7} Ti(i}v, [Yat. T^iwu, Alex, o VicaW, in 2Chr. xxxii. 
30,] Tei'MV, [Vat. 5ei«j/, Alex. Tiuv; in 2 Chr. 
Kxxiii. 14, Kara j/Jrov, Comp. rod Tetcui/:] Gihon.) 
A place near Jerusalem, memorable as the scene of 
the anointing and proclamation of Solomon as king 
(1 K. i. 33, 38, 45). From the terms of this pas- 
sage, it is evident it was at a lower level than the 

city — " bring him down (Dri'T'^rT) upon ( /^) 

Gihon " — " they are come up (^V^^) from 
thence." With this agrees a later mention (2 
Chr. xxxiii. 14), where it is called " Gihon-in-the- 
valley," the word rendered valley being nachal 

(7)13). In this latter place Gihon is named to 
designate the direction of the wall built by Manas- 
seh — " outside the city of David, from the west 
of Gihon-in-the-valley to the entrance of the Fish- 
gate." It is not stated in any of the above pas- 
sages that Gihon was a spring ; but the only re- 
maining place in which it is mentioned suggests 
this belief, or at least that it had given its name to 
Bome water — " Hezekiah also stopped the upper 

source or issue (M^1X2, from W^^, to rush forth ; 
incorrectly "watercourse" in A. V.) of the waters 
of Gihon " (2 Chr. xxxii. 30). If the place to 
which Solomon was brought down on the king's 
mule was Gihon-in-the-valley — and from the terms 
above noticed it seems probable that it was — then 
the "upper source " would be some distance away, 
and at a higher level. 

The locality of Gihon will be investigated under 
Jerusalem; but in the mean time the following 
facts may be noticed in regard to the occurrences 
of the word. (1.) Its low level; as above stated. 
(2.) The expression "Gihon-in-the-valley;" where 
it will be observed that nachal (" torrent " or 
" wady ") is the word always employed for the val- 
ley of the Kedron, east of Jerusalem — the so- 
oalled Valley of Jehoshaphat; ge (" ravine " or 
"glen") being as constantly employed for the Val- 
ley of Hinnora, south and west of the town. In 
this connection the mention of Ophel (2 Chr. xxxiii. 
14) with Gihon should not be disregarded. In 
agreement with this is the fact that (3) the Tar- 
n;um of Jonathan, and the Syriac and Arabic Ver- 
jions, have Shiloha, i, e. Siloam (Arab. ylm-Shi- 
ioha) for Gihon in 1 K. i. In Chronicles they 
agree with the Hebrew text in having Gihon. If 
Siloam be Gihon, then (4) " from the west of Gihon 
to the Fish-gate " — which we know from St. Jerome 
to have been near the present " Jaffa-gate," would 
answer to the course of a wall inclosing " the city 
Df David " (2 Chr. xxxiii. 14); and (5) the omis- 
uon of Gihon from the very detailed catalogue of 
Neh. iv. is explained. G. 



o * This name arose from a misapprehension of Ps. 
icxxix. 13 (12), as ?f Hermou and Tabor, being ther« 
ipoken of together, must have been near each o her 
This Jfbet ed-Ddky ifl not mentioned in the Bible, u» 

GIL'ALAI [3 syl.] C^h)?^ [i^erh. weighty 
powerful, Ftirst] : [Kom.] TeAc^A; [V^at. Alex 
FA.i omit: Galalai]), one of the party of priests- 
sons who played on David's instruments at the con- 
secration of the wall of Jerusalem, in the company 
at whose head was Ezra (Neh. xii. 36). 

GILBO'A (^2^3, bubbling fountain, frcrr 

b|l and ^-121 : reA/Soue; [Alex. 2 Sam. i. 6, 
rejSove :] Gelboe), a mountain range on the eastern 
side of the plain of Esdraelon, rising over the city 
of Jezreel (comp. 1 Sam. xxviii. 4 with xxix. 1). 
It is only mentioned in Scripture in connection with 
one event in Israelitish history, the defeat and death 
of Saul and Jonathan by the Philistines (1 Sam. 
xxxi. 1; 2 Sam. i. 6, xxi. 12; 1 Chr. x. 1, 8). 
The latter had encamped at Shunem, on the north- 
ern side of the valley of Jezreel ; the former took 
up a position round the fountain of Jezreel, on the 
southern side of the valley, at the base of Gilboa. 
The result is well known. Saul and Jonathan, 
with the flower of their army, fell upon the moun- 
tain. When the tidings were carried to David, he 
broke out into this pathetic strain : " Ye mountains 
of Gilboa, let there be no rain upon you, neithei 
dew, nor field of oflTering " (2 Sam. i. 21). Of the 
identity of Gilboa with the ridge which stretches 
eastward, from the ruins of Jezreel, no doubt can 
be entertained. At the northern base, half a mile 
from the ruins, is a large fountain, called in Scrip- 
ture both the " Well of Harod " (Judg. vii. 1), and 
" The fountain of Jezreel" (1 Sam. xxix. 1), and 
it was probably from it the name Gilboa was de- 
rived. Eusebius places Gilboa at the distance of 
six miles from Scythopolis, and says there is still a 
village upon the mountain called Gelbus {Onom. 
s. V. rejSoue)- The village is now called Jtlbon 
(Kobinson, ii. 316), and its position answers to the 
description of Eusebius : it is situated on the top 
of the mountain. The range of Gilboa extends in 
length some ten miles from W. to E. The sides 
are bleak, white, and barren ; they look, in fact, as 
if the pathetic exclamation of David had proved 
prophetic. The greatest height is not more than 
500 or 600 feet above the plain. Their modem 
local name is Jebel Fukuah, and the highest point 
is crowned by a village and wely called Wezar 
(Porter, Handbook, p. 353). J. L. P. 

* The mention of Gilboa. in David's touching 
elegy on Saul and Jonathan, has given an imperish- 
able name to that mountain. The account of the 
battle which was so disastrous to the Hebrew king, 
designates not merely the general scene of the ac- 
tion, but various places connected with the move- 
ments of the armies, and introduced in such a way 
as to be in some measure strategetically related to 
each other. It is worthy of notice, as a corrobora- 
tion of the Scripture narrative, that all these places, 
except possibly one of them, are still found to exist 
under their ancient names, and to occupy precisely 
the situation with reference to each other which the 
requirements of the history imply. We have the 
name of the ridge Gilboa, on which the battle was 
fought, transmitted to us in that of Jelb'un, applied 
to a village on the southern slope of this ridge, 
known to travellers as Little Hermon,« but among 

lees it be the Hill of Moreh (Judg. vii 1). Jei-ome, io 
the 4th century, is the first who speaks of it as Her- 
moi.. (See Rob. Phys. Geogr. p. 27.) H 



the natives as Jebel ed-Dtihy. The ridge rises out, 
of the piaui of PZsdraelon, and, running eastward, 
wnica down into the valley of the Jordan. The 
Israelites at fii'st pitched their tents at Jezreel, the 
present Zerhi on the western declivity of Gilboa, 
and near a fountain (1 Sam. xxix. 1), undoubtedly 
the present Mm Jdlild, exactly in the right position, 
and forming naturally one inducement for selecting 
that spot. The "high places" on which Saul and 
Jonathan were slain would be the still higher sum- 
niits of the ridge up which their forces were driven 
as the tide of battle turned against them in the 
progress of the fight. The J^hilistines encamped 
at first at Shunem (1 Sam. xxviii. 4), now called 
Soldin, on the more northern, but parallel, ridge 
opposite to Jezreel, where they could overlook and 
watch the enemy, and at the same time were pro- 
tected against any surprise by the still higher 
ground behind them. On the other hand, the 
camp of the Philistines was visible, distant only 
eight or ten miles, from the camp of Israel. Hence 
when " Saul saw the host of the Philistines, he was 
afraid, and his heart greatly trembled." The Phihs- 
tines, in their proper home, dwelt in the country 
south of Judah, and having in all probability 
marched north along the coast as far as Carmel, 
had then turned across the plain of Esdraelon, and 
had thus reached this well-chosen camping- ground 
at Shunem. « The Philistines are next mentioned 
as rallying their forces at AjAek (1 Sam. xxix. 1). 
No place of this name has yet been discovered in 
that neighborhood. Some suppose that it was only 
another name for Shunem ; but it is more likely to 
be the name of a different place, situated nearer 
Jezreel, perhaps the one from which the Philistines 
made their direct attack on the Israelites. Further, 
we read that the conquerors, after the battle, carried 
the bodies of Saul and his sons to Beth-shean, and 
hung them up on the walls of that city. Beth- 
shean was a stronghold of the Phihstines which the 
Israelites had never wrested from them. That 
place, evidently, reappears in the present Beisdn, 
which is on the eastern slope of the Gilboa range, 
visible in fact from Jezreel, and still remarkable for 
its strength of position as well as the remains of 
ancient fortifications. 

The strange episode of Saul's nocturnal visit to 
the witch of Endor illustrates this same feature of 
the narrative. It is evident that Saul was absent 
on that errand but a few hours, and the place must 
have been near his encampment. This Endor, as 
no one can doubt, must be the present Kndor, with 
its dreary caverns (Thomson's Land and Book, ii. 
161), a fitting abode of such a necromancer, on 
the north side of -Dufiy, at the west end of which 
was Shunem. Hence Saul, leaving his camp at 
Jezreel, could rteal his way under cover of the night 
across the intervening valley, and over the moderate 
summit which ho would have to ascend, and then, 
ifter consulting the woman with " a familiar spirit " 
it Endor, could return to his forces without his 
departure being known to any except those in the 
lecret. All these places, so interwoven in the net- 
work of the story, and clearly identified after the 
apse of so many centuries, lie almost within sight 
S)f each other. A person may start from any one 
of them and make the circuit of them all in a few 
hours. The date assigned to this battle is B. c. 

a * PcGsibly the Philistines, instead of taking the 
•naritime route, may have crossed the Jordan and 
sai^b«d north on that side of the river. H. 


1055, later but a little than the ti-aoitionar/ i^c at 
the siege of Troy. It is seldom that a re<»rd of 
remote events can be subjected to so severe a scru- 
tiny as this. 

For other sketches which reproduce more or lesi 
fully the occurrences of this battle, the reader may 
see Van de Velde ( Tnivds in Syr. ij- Pal. ii. 308 
fF.); Stanley {S. cf P. p. 339 f., Amer. ed.); RoIk 
inson {Bib. Res. iii. 173 fF., Isted.); and Portcj 
(Handbook, ii. 355 ft'.). Some of the writers differ 
as to whether the final encounter took place at Jez- 
reel or higher up the mountain. Stanley has drawn 
out the personal incidents in a sti'iking manner 
(Jewish Church, ii. 30 ff.). For geographical in- 
formation respecting this group of places, see espe- 
cially Kob. Phys. Geoyr. pp. 20-28, and Kitter'a 
Geogr. of Paksline, Gage's transl., ii. 321-336. 


GIL'EAD ny^S [see below]: TaXadS: Gor 
laa/l), a mountainous region east of the Jordan; 
bounded on the north by Bashan, on the east by 
the Arabian plateau, and on the south by Moab 
and Ammon (Gen. xxxi. 21; iJeut. iii. 12-17). It 
is sometimes called "Mount Gilead " (Gen. xxxi 

25, T^vSn *nn), sometimes "the land of Gil- 
ead" (Num. xxxii. 1, *T^7^ V^^) | ^^^ some 
times simply "Gilead" (Ps. Ix. 7; Gen. xxxvii 
25); but a comparison of the several passages shows 
that they all mean the same thing. There is no 
evidence, in fact, that any particular mountain was 
meant by Mount Gilead more than by Mount Leb- 
anon (Judg. iii. 3) — they both comjirehend the 
whole range, and the range of Gilead embraced the 
whole province. The name Gilead, as is usual in 
Palestine, describes the physical aspect of the coun- 
try. It signifies "a hard, rocky region ; " and it 
may be regarded as standing in contrast to Bashan, 
the other great trans-Jordanic proN-ince, which is, 
as the name implies, a " level, fertile tract." 

The statements in Gen. xxxi. 48 are not opposed 
to this etymology. The old name of ihe district 

was *T^^2 (Gilead), but by a slight change in the 
pronunciation, the radical letters being retained, 
the meaning was made beautifully applicable to the 
" heap of s(x)nes " Jacob and Laban had built up- 

" and Laban said, this heap ( /2) is a uitness (13^) 
between me and thee this day. Therefore was the 
name of it called Gal-eed''^ {IV /-3, the heap oj 
witness). Those acquainted with the modem 
Arabs and their literature will see how intensely 
such a play upon the word would be appreciated 
by them. It does not appear that the interview 
between Jacob and his father-in-law took place on 
any particular mountain peak. Jacob, having 
passed the Euphrates, " set his face toward Mount 
Gilead; "he struck across the desert by the great 
fountain at Palmyra; then traversed the eastern 
part of the plain of Damascus, and the plateau of 
Bashan, and entered Gilead from the northeast. 
" In the Mount Gilead Laban overtook him " — 
apparently soon .after he entered the district; foi 
when they separated again, Jacob went on his wa} 
and arrived at Mahanaim, which must have been 
considerably north of the river Jabbok (Gen. xxxiL 
1, 2, 22). 

The extent of Gilecd we can ascertain with tol- 
erable exactness from incidentiil !iotice«i in the HA} 
Scriptures. The Jordan was its westeiti border (I 


Bmh. xiii. 7; 2 K. x. 33). \ comparison of a 
Dumber of passages shows that the river Hieromax, 
the mocleni Sheriat el-M(md/iui; separated it from 
Bashan on the north. <' Half Gileacl" is said to 
have been possessed by Sihon king of the Amorites, 
and the other half by Og king of Bashan; and the 
river Jabbok was the division between the two 
kingdoms (Deut. iii. 12; Josh. xii. 1-5). The 
half of Gilead posses3ed by Og must, therefore, 
have been north of the Jabbok. It is also stated 
that the territory of the tribe of Gad extended along 
the Jordan valley to the Sea of Galilee (Josh. xiii. 
27); and yet "a// Bashan" was given to Manasseh 
(ver. 30). We, therefore, conclude that the deep 
glen of the Hieromax, which runs eastward, on the 
parallel of the south end of the Sea of Galilee, was 
the dividing line between Bashan and Gilead. 
North of that glen stretches out a flat, fertile pla- 
teau, such as the name Bashan ("J ^21, like the 

Arabic '^jJii, signifies "soft and level soil") 

would suggest; while on the south we have the 
rough and rugged, yet picturesque hill country, for 
which Gilead is the fit name. (See Porter in Jour- 
nal of Sac. Lit. vi. 284 ff.) On the east the 
mountain range melts away gradually into the high 
plateau of Arabia. The boundary of Gilead is here 
not so clearly defined, but it may be regarded as 
running along the foot of the range. The south- 
em boundary is less certain. The tribe of Reuben 
occupied the country as far south as the river Ar- 
non, which was the border of Moab (Deut. ii. 36, 
iii. 12). It seems, however, that the southern sec- 
tion of their territory was not included in Gilead. 
In Josh. xiii. 9-11 it is intimated that the " plain 
of Medeba " ("the Mishor " it is called), north of 
the Arnon, is not in Gilead ; and when speaking 
of the cities of refuge, INIoses describes Bezer, which 
was given out of the tribe of Reuben, as being 
" in the wilderness, in the plain country {i. e. in 

the country of the Mishor,'' IW^ipTl V^S), 
while Ramoth is said to be in Gilead (Deut. iv. 
43). This southern plateau was also called " the 
laud of Jazer" (Num. xxxii. 1; 2 Sam. xxiv. 6; 
compare also Josh. xiii. iG-25). The valley of 
Heshbon may therefore, in all probability, be the 
southern boundary of Gilead. Gilead thus extended 
from the parallel of the south end of the Sea of 
Galilee to that of the north end of the Dead Sea — 
about 60 miles ; and its average breadth scarcely 
exceeded 20. 

While such were the proper limits of Gilead, 
the name is used in a wider sense in two or three 
parts of Scripture. JNIoses, for example, is said to 
nave seen, from the top of Pisgah, " all the land of 
Gilead unto Dan " (Deut. xxxiv. 1); and in Judg. 
Kx. 1, and Josh. xxii. 9, the name seems to com- 
prehend the whole territory of the Israelites beyond 
the Jordan. A little attention shows that this is 
only a vague way of speaking, in common use 
everywhere. We, for instance, often say " Eng- 
land " when we mean " England and Wales." The 
section of Gilead l}'ing between the Jabbok and the 
Hieromax is now called Jebel Ajlun ; while that to 
Ae south of the Jabbok constitutes the modern 
•jrovince of Bdha. One of the most conspicuous 



« • Mr. Tristram regards the peak called Jebel Oska, 
M the ancient Mount Oilead, saiu oy the people of the 
wwitzy to rontain the tomb of Ilosea. for a descrip- 

peaks in the mountain range still retains the an 
cient name, being called Jebel J Wad., " Mouat 
Gilead." «* It is about 7 miles south of the Jabbok, 
and commands a magnificent view over the whole 
Jordan valley, and the mountains of Judah and 
Ephraim. It is probably the site of Ramath-^SIiz- 
peh of Josh. xiii. 20 ; and the " Mizpeh of Gilead," 
from which Jephthah " passed over unto the chil- 
dren of Amnion" (Judg. xi. 29). The spot is 
admirably adapted for a gathering place in time of 
invasion, or aggressive war. The neighboring vil- 
lage of es-Salt occupies the site of the old " city 
of refuge " in Gad, Ramoth-Gilead. [Ramoth- 


We have already alluded to a special descriptive 
term, which may almost be regarded as a proper 
name, used to denote the great plateau which bor- 
ders Gilead on the south and east. The refuge- 
city Bezer is said to be " in the country of the 
Mishor'" (Deut. iv. 43); and Jeremiah (xlviii. 21) 
says, "judgment is come upon the country of the 
Mishar " (see also Josh. xiii. 9, 16, 17, 21, xx. 8). 

Mishor {'IMD^l^ and 1127"^^) signifies a " level 

plain," or "table-land;" and no word could be 
more applicable. This is one among many exam- 
ples of the minute accuracy of Bible topography. 

The mountains of Gilead have a real elevation 
of from two to three thousand feet ; but their ap- 
parent elevation on the western side is much greater, 
owing to the depression of the tlordan valley, which 
averages about 1,000 feet. Their outline is singu- 
larly uniform, resembling a massive wall ruiming 
along the horizon. From the distant east they 
seem very low, for on that side they meet the 
plateau of Arabia, 2,000 ft. or more in height. 
Though the range appears bleak from the distance, 
yet on ascending it we find the scenery rich, pictur- 
esque, and in places even grand. The summit is 
broad, almost like table-land " tossed into wild con- 
fusion, of undulating downs" (Stanley, S. (f P. p. 
320). It is everywhere covered with luxuriant 
nerbage. In the extreme north and south there 
are no trees ; but as we advance toward the centre 
they soon begin to appear, at first singly, then in 
groups, and at length, on each side of the Jabbok, 
in fine forests chiefly of prickly oak and terebinth. 
The rich pasture land of Gilead presents a striking 
contrast to the nakedness of western Palestine. 
Except among the hills of Galilee, and along the 
heights of Carmel, there is nothing to be compared 
with it as " a place for cattle" (Num. xxxii. 1). 
Gilead anciently abounded in spices and aromatic 
gums which were exported to Egypt (Gen. xxxvii. 
25; Jer. viii. 22, xlvi. 11). 

The first notice we have of Gilead is in con- 
nection with the history of Jacob (Gen. xxxi. 21 
ff. ) ; but it is possibly this same region which ia 
referred to under the name Ham, and was inhabited 
by the giant Zuzims. The kings of the East who 
came to punish the rebellious " cities of the plain," 
first attacked the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, 
i. e. in the country now called Ilauran ; then they 
advanced southwards against the " Zuzims in 
Ham ; " and next against the Emims in Shaveh- 
Kiriathaim, which was subsequently possessed by 
the Moabites (Gen. xiv. 5; Deut. ii. 9-19). [See 
Emi3IS; Rephaim.] We hear nothing more of 

tion of the magnificent view 
Land of Israel^ p. 558, 1st ed. 

that summit, set 



urilead till the invasion of the country by the 
fgraelites. One half of it was then in the hands 
of Sihon king of the Amorites, who had a short 
time previously driven out the Afoabites. Og, king 
of Bashan, had the other section north of tlie Jab- 
bok. The Israelites defeated the former at Jahaz, 
and the latter at Edrei, and took possession of Gilead 
and Bashan (Num. xxi. 23 ff.). The rich pasture 
land of Gilead, with its shady forests, and copious 
streams, attracted the attention of IJeuben and Gad, 
who "had a very great multitude of cattle," and 
was allotted to them. The future history and habits 
of the tribes that occupied Gilead were greatly 
affected by the character of the country. Rich in 
flocks and herds, and now the lords of a fitting 
region, they retained, almost unchanged, the nomad 
pastoral habits of their patriarchal ancestors. Like 
all Bedawln they lived in a constant state of war- 
fare, just as Jacob had predicted of Gad — "a troop 
shall plunder him; but he shall plunder at the 
last" (Gen. xlix. 19). The sons of Tshmael were 
subdued and plundered in the time of Saul (1 Chr. 
V. 9 fF.); and the children of Ammon in the days 
of Jephthah and David (Judg. xi. 32 fF.; 2 Sam. 
X. 12 fF.). Their wandering tent life, and their 
almost inaccessible country, made them in ancient 
times what the Bedavvy tribes are now — the pro- 
tectors of the refugee and the outlaw. In Gilead 
the sons of Saul found a home while they vainly 
attempted to reestablish the authority of their 
house (2 Sam. ii. 8 fF.). Here, too, David found 
a sanctuary during the unnatural rebellion of a 
beloved son; and the surrounding tribes, with a 
characteristic hospitality, carried presents of the 
best they possessed to the fallen monarch (2 Sam. 
xvii. 22 fF.). Elijah the Tishbite was a Gileadite 
(1 K. xvii. 1); and in his simple garb, wild aspect, 
abrupt address, wonderfully active habits, and 
movements so rapid as to evade the search of his 
watchful and bitter foes, we see all the character- 
istics of the genuine Bedawy, ennobled by a high 
prophetic mission. [Gad.] 

Gilead was a frontier land, exposed to the first 
attacks of the Syrian and Assyrian invaders, and 
to the unceasing raids of the desert tribes — " Be- 
cause Machir the first-born of Manasseh was a man 
of war, therefore he had Bashan and Gilead " (Josh. 
xvii. 1). Under the wild and wayward Jephthah, 
Mizpeh of Gilead became the gathering place of the 
trans-Jordanic tribes (Judg. xi. 29); and in subse- 
quent times the neighboring stronghold of Ramoth- 
Gilead appears to have been considered the key of 
Palestine on the east (1 K. xxii. 3, 4, 6 ; 2 K. viii. 
28, ix. 1). 

The name Galaad {TaKadZ) occurs several times 
in the history of the Maccabees (1 Mace. v. 9 fF.): 
and also in Josephus, but generally with the Greek 
termination — YaKaaBlris or TaKahrivh {Ant. xiii. 
14, § 2; B. J. i. 4, § J). Under the Roman 
dominion the country became more settled and 
civilized ; and the great cities of Gadara, Pella, and 
Gerasa, with Philadelphia on its southeastern border, 
speedily rose to opulence and splendor. In one of 
these (Pella) the Christians of Jerusalem found a 
lanctuary when the armies of Titus gathered round 
the devoted city (Euseb. If. K. iii. 5). Under 
Mohammedan rule the country has again lapsed 
Into semi- barbarism. Some scattered villages amid 

o * Probably a patronymic — "^Tl?^!!, a Gileadite, 
M Jeohthah is called both when first and last men- 
(Judg. xi. 1, and xii. 7). The pei-soual name 


the fastnesses of Jthd Ajltin, and a few fierce mm 
dering tribes, constitute the whole population of 
Gilead. They are nominally subject to the Porte 
but their allegiance sits lightly upon them. 

For the scenery, products, antiquities, and history 
of Gilead, the following works may be consulted. 
Burckhardt's Trav. in Syr. ; Buckingham's Ai'ab 
Tribes ; Irby and Mangles, Travels ; Porter's 
Handbook, and Five Years in Damascus ; Stanley's 
Sin. and Pal. ; Hitter's Pal. and Syria. 

2. Possibly the name of a mountain west of the 
Jordan, near Jezreel (Judg. vii. 3). We are in- 
clined, however, to agree with the suggestion of 
Clericus and others, that the true reading in this 

place should be 3?2 /2, Gilboa, instead, of "Tr/S. 
Gideon was encamped at the " spring of Harod," 
which is at the base of Mount Gilboa. A copyist 
would easily make the mistake, and ignorance of 
geography would prevent it from being afterwarda 
detected. For other explanations, see Ewald, Gesch. 
ii. 500; Schwarz, p. 164, note; Gesen. Thes. p. 
804, note. 

* As regards Gilead (2), Bertheau also (Buck der 
Richter, p. 120), would substitute (jilboa for that 
name in Judg. vii. 3. Keil and DeUtzsch hesitate 
between that view and the conclusion that there 
may have been a single mountain or a range so 
called near Jezreel, just as in Josh. xv. 10, we 
read of a jNIount Seir in the territory of Judah 
otherwise unknown ( Com. on Joslma, Judfjes, and 
Ruth, p. 341). Dr. Wordsworth has the following 
note on this perplexed question : " Probably the 
western half-tribe of INIanasseh expressed its con- 
nection with the eastern half-tribe by calling one 
of its mountains by the same name, INIount Gilead, 
as the famous mountain bearing that name in the 
eastern division of their tribe (Gen. xxxi. 21-25, 
xxxvii. 25; Num. xxxii. 1, 40, &c.). May we not 
see ' a return of the compliment ' (if the expres- 
sion may be used) in another name which has 
perplexed the conmientators, namely, the Wood of 
Ephraim on the eastern side of Jordan (2 Sam. 
xviii. 6) ? Ephraim was on the west of Jordan, and 
yet the Wood of Ephraim was on the east. 1 'erhaps 
that half-tribe of Manasseh, which was in the east, 
marked its connection with Ephraim, its brother 
tribe, by calling a wood in its own neighborhood 
by that name." (See his Holy Bible uitli Notes, 
ii. pt. i. p. 111.) Cassel {Ridtter, p. 71) thinks 
that Gilead here may denote in effect character 
rather than locality: the Mottnt of Gilead^ the 
community of the warlike ]Manassites (Josh. xvii. 
1), now so fitly represented by Gideon, sprung from 
that tribe (Judg. vi. 15). The cowardly deserve no 
place in the home of such heroes, and should sep- 
arate themselves from them. H. 

3. The name of a son of Machir, grandson of 
Manasseh (Num. xxvi. 29, 30). 

4. The father of Jeplithah (Judg. xi. 1, 2). It 
is difficult to understand (comp. ver. 7, 8) whether 
this Gilead was an individual or a personification 
of the community." 

* 5. One of the posterity of Gad, through whom 
the genealogy of the Gadites in Bashan is traced 
(1 Chr. v. 14). 11. 

GIL'EADITES, THE ("T^^2 Judg. xU 

of the father being: unknown, that of his country 
stands in place of it. See Cassel, Riehter u. Ruth ii 
Lange's Bibeliverk, p. 102. 11 


1,6, *''T5?v2rT: Judg. xii. 4, 5, TaAaaS; Num. 
nvi. 29, TaXaadi [Vat. -Set]; Judg. x. 3, 6 
r<f\adS; [Judg. xi. 1, 40, xii. 7; 2 Sam. xvii. 27, 
lix. 31; i K. ii. 7; Ezr. ii. 61; Neh. vii. 03,] 6 
raAaadlrr]? [Vat. -Set-, exc. Judg. xi. 40, Vat. 
FoAaaS] ; Alex, o TaAaaStTis, o Ta\aaSeiTr)s, 
[and Judg. xii. 5, ai/dpes TaAaoS:] Galaddikn. 
Galaadites, viri Galiad). A branch of the tribe of 
Manasseh, descended from Gilead. There appears to 
have been an old standing feud between them and 
the Ephraimites, who taunted them with being 
deserters. See Judg. xii. 4, which may be ren- 
dered, " And the men of Gilead smote Ephraim, 
Ijecause they said, Runagates of Ephraim ai-e ye 
(Gilead is between Ephraim and Manasseh); " the 
last clause being added parenthetically. In 2 K. 
XV. 25 for " of the Gileadites " the LXX. have ctTr^ 
Twi/ TeTpaKocrioou [Vulg. deJUiis Galaiditarurn]. 

GIL'GAL (always with the article but once, 
727il'!75 [^^*^ circuit, the rolling, see below]: 
roA7oAa (plural); [in Deut. xi. 30, ro\y6A; Josh. 
xiv. 6, Rom. Vat. TaAyaA:] Gcdynla [sing, and 
plur.]). By this name were called at least two 
places in ancient Palestine. 

1. The site of the first camp of the Israelites on 
the west of the Jordan, the place at which they 
passed the fii-st night after crossing the river, and 
where the twelve stones were set up which had 
been taken from the bed of the stream (Josh. iv. 19, 
20, corap. 3); where also they kept their first pass- 
over in the land of Canaan (v. 10). It was in the 

"end of the east of Jericho " ('*» VH^l^ n;^i72 : 
A. V. " in the east border of Jericho "), apparently 
on a hillock or rising ground (v. 3, comp. 9) in the 
Arboth-Jericho (A. V. "the plains"), that is, the 
hot depressed district of the Ghor which lay be- 
tween the town and the Jordan (v. 10). Here the 
Israelites who had been born on the march through 
the wilderness were circumcised ; an occurrence 
from which the sacred historian derives the name: 
■" ' This day I have rolled away {(jnlliothi) the re- 
proach of Egypt from oft' you.' Therefore the name 
of the place is called Gilgal" to this day." By 
Joseph us {Ant. v. 1, § 11) it is said to signify 
"freedom" (iXevOepiou)- The camp thus estab- 
lished at Gilgal remained there during the early 
part of the conquest (ix. 6, x. G, 7, 9, 15, 43); and 
we may probably infer from one narrative that 
Joshua retired thither at the conclusion of his 
labors (xiv. 6, comp. 15). 

We again encounter Gilgal in the time of Saul, 
when it seems to have exchanged its military asso- 
ciations for those of sanctity. True, Saul, when 
driven from the highlands by the Philistines, col- 
lected his feeble force at the site of the old camp 
(1 Sam. xiii. 4, 7); but this is the only occurren*.? 
it all connecting it vath war. It was now one of 
the "holy cities" (ot rjyiacr/jLfuoi) — if we accept 
the addition of the LXX. — to which Samuel reg- 
ilarly resorted, where he administered justice (1 
Sam. vii. 10), and wiiere burnt-offerings and peace - 
Dlferings were accustomed to be offered "before 
"Jehovah" (x. 8, xi. 15, xiii. 8, 9-12, xv. 21); and 
on one occasion a sacrifice of a more terrible de- 

o This derivation of the name ;annot apply in tae 
case of the other Gilgals mentioned below. May it 
not 1>> the adaptation to Hebrew of a name previously 
iziating m the former language of the country ? 

ft Such is the real force \^ the Hebrew text (xix. 40). 


scription than either (xv. 33)- The ah* of ih% 
narrative all through leads to the conclusion tl:at 
at the time of these occurrences it was the chiei 
sanctuary of the central portion of the nation (see 
X. 8, xi. 14, XV. 12, 21). But there is no sign of 
its being a town ; no mention of building, or of ita 
being allotted to the priests or Levites, as was the 
case with other sacred towns, Bethel, Shechem, etc. 

We again have a glimpse of it, some sixty ye:ir8 
later, in the history of David's return to Jerusalem 
(2 Sam. xix.). The men of Judah came down to 
Gilgal to meet the king to conduct him over Jordan, 
as if it was close to the river (xix. 15) and David 
arrived there immediately on crossing the stream, 
after his parting with Barzillai the Gileadite. 

How the remarkable sanctity of Gilgal became 
appropriated to a false worship we are not told, but 
certainly, as far as the obscure allusions of Hosea 
and Amos can be understood (provided that they 
refer to this Gilgal), it was so appropriated by the 
.kingdom of Israel in the middle period of ita 
existence (Hos. iv. 15, ix. 15, xii. 11; Amos iv. 
4, V. 5). 

Beyond the general statements above quoted, the 
sacred text contains no indications of the position 
of Gilgal. Neither in the Apocr3pha nor the N. T. 
is it mentioned. Later authorities ai-e more precise, 
but unfortunately discordant among themselves. 
By Josephus {Ant. v. 1, § 4) the encampment is 
given as fifty stadia, rather under six miles, from 
the river, and ten from Jericho. In the time of 
Jerome the site of the camp and the twelve 
memorial stones were still distinguishable, if we 
are to take literally the expression of the Epit. 
Paulce (§ 12). The distance from Jericho waa 
then two miles. The spot was left uncultivated, 
but regarded with great veneration by the residents; 
" locus desertus . . • ab illius regionis mortalibug 
miro cultu habitus" {Ononi. Galgala). When 
Arculf was there at the end of the seventh century 
the place was shown at five miles from Jericho. A 
large church covered the site, in which the twelve 
stones were ranged. The church and stones were 
seen by Willibald, thirty years later, but he gives 
the distance as five miles from the Jordan, which 
again he states correctly as seven from Jericho. 
The stones are mentioned also by»Thietmar,<' A. d. 
1217, and lastly by Ludolf de Suchem a century 
later. No modern traveller has succeeded in elicit- 
ing the name, or in discovering a probable site. In 
Van de Velde's map (1858) a spot named Mohai-fei\ 
a little S. E. of er-Riha, is marked as possible; but 
no explanation is afforded either in bis Syria, or 
his Memoir. 

2. But this was certainly a distinct place from 
the Gilgal which is connected with the last seem 
in the life of Elijah, and with one of Elisha't 
miracles. The chief reason for believing this is the 
impossibility of making it fit into the notice of 
Elijah's translation. He and Elisha are said to 

" go down " {^Ty^) from Gilgal to Bethel (2 K 
ii. 1), in opposition to the repeated expressions ol 
the narratives in Joshua and 1 Samuel, in which 
the way from Gilgal to the neighborhood of Bethel 
is always spoken of as an ascent, the fact being 
that the former is nearly 1,200 feet below the latter 
Thus there must have been a second Gilgal at a 

c According to this pilgrim, it was to these tha< 
John the Baptist pointed when he said that God was 
" able of these stones to raise up children VLuvt 
Abraham" (Thietmar, Peregr. Zl\. 



higber level than Bethel, and it wJtS probably that 
at which Elisha worked the miracle of healing on 
the poisonous jwttage (2 K. iv. 38). Perhaps the 
expression of 2 K. ii. 1, coupled with the " came 
again " of iv. 38, may indicate that Elisha resided 
there. The mention of Baal-shalisha (iv. 42) gives 
a clew to its situation, when taken with the notice 
of Eusebius ( Oiiam. Bethsarisa) that that place was 
fifteen miles from Diospolis (Lydda) towards the 
north. In that very position stand now the ruins 
bearing the name of Jiljilleh, i. e. Gilgal. (See 
V^an de Velde's map, and Rob. iii. 139.) 


or rather perhaps the " king of Goim-at-Gilgal " 

(b|^;^ D'^'ll-'qlpn : [fia<n\eifs Tef rrjs FaKt- 

Kaiai] Alex. fi. Tcoeifi rris TeA-yea (conip. Aid. 
roA76A.): rex fjentium Galffcd]), is mentioned in 
the catalogue of the chiefs overthrown by Joshua 
(Josh. xii. 23). The name occurs next to Dok in 
an enumeration apparently proceeding southwards, 
and therefore the position of the Jiljilieh just named 
is not wholly inappropriate, though it must be con- 
fessed its distance from Dor — more than twenty- 
five miles — is considerable : still it is nearer than 
any other place of the name yet known. Eusebius 
and Jerome ( Onom. Gelgel) speak of a " Galgulis " 
six miles N. of Antipatris. This is slightly more 
suitable, but has not been identified. Wliat these 
Goim were has been discussed under Heathen. 
By that word (Judg. iv. 2) or " nations " (Gen. 
xiv. 1) the name is usually rendered in the A. V. 
as in the well-known phrase, " Galilee of the 
nations" (Is. ix. 1; corap. Matt. iv. 15). Possibly 
they were a tribe of the early inhabitants of the 
country, who, like the Gerizites, the Avim, the 
Zemarites, and others, have left only this faint 
casual trace of their existence there. 

A place of the same name has also been discovered 
nearer the centre of the country, to the left of the 
main north road, four miles from Shiloh (Seilun), 
and rather more than the same distance from Bethel 
(Beitin). This suits the requirements of the story 
of Elijah and Elisha even better than the former, 
being more in the neighborhood of the established 
holy places of the country, and, as more central, 
and therefore less liable to attack from the wan- 
derers in the mailtime plain, more suited for the 
residence for the sons of the prophets. In position 
it appears to be not less than 500 or 600 feet above 
Bethel (Van de Velde, Memoir, p. 179). It may 
be the Beth-Gilgal of Neh. xii. 29 ; while the Jil- 
jilieh north of Lydd may be that of Josh. xii. 23. 
Another Gilgal, under the slightly different form of 
Kilkille/i, lies about two miles E. of KeJ'r Saba. 

4. [ra\yd\; Vat. tu A7aS: Galf/ala.] A 
Gilgal is spoken of in Josh. xv. 7, in describing the 
north border of Judah. In the parallel list (Josh, 
xviii. 17) it is given as Geliloth, and under that 
word an attempt is made to show that Gilgal, i. e. 
the Gilgal near Jericho, is probably correct. G. 

GI'LOH (n "^2 [exile. Ges. ; or, castle, mount, 
Dietr.T: TTjActi/i, Alex. rrjAcoj/; [Vat. om.; Comp. 
ViXw ;'] in Sam. TcoAa, [Comp. reAc6 : Gilo] ), a town 
in the mountainous part of Judah, named in the 
first group, with Debir and Eshtemoh (Josh. xv. 51). 
Its only interest to us lies in the fact of its having 
been the native place of the famous Ahithophel (2 
Sam. XV. 12), where he was residing when Absalom 
•ent for him to Hebron, and whither he returned 
tD destroy himself after his counsel had been set 


aside for that of Hushai (xvii. 23). The tiie im 

not yet been met N\ith. 

GIXONITE, THE {"'''^''^'n and ''bblirT ' 
©e/cwj/t [Vat. -j/6t], reAwyiTTjs [Vat. -j/fi-], Alex 
Ti\(avaios, {TeiKwuLTtis- Gilonites]), i. e. the na- 
tive of Giloh (as Shilonite, from Shiloh): applied 
only to Ahithophel the famous counsellor (2 Sam. 
XV. 12; xxiii. 34). 

GIM'ZO (Trp2 [place of sycamores]: -f] 
ro^^c6; Alex. ra/lai(at'- [Gamzo]), a town which 
with its dependent villages (Hebrew "daughters") 
was taken possession of by the Philistines in the 
reign of Ahaz (2 Chr. xxviii. 18). The name — 
which occurs nowhere but here — is mentioned with 
Timnath, Socho, and other towns in the northwest 
part of Judah, or in Dan. It still remains attached 
to a large village between two and three miles S. W . 
of Lydda, south of the road between Jerusalem and 
Jaffa, just where the hills of the highland finally 
break down hi to the mai-itime plain. Jimzu is a 
tolerably large village, on an eminence, well sur- 
rounded with trees, and standing just beyond the 
point where the two main roads trom Jerusalen? 
(that by the Beth-horons, and that by Wady Sn-- 
leiman), which parted at Gibeon, again join and 
run on as one to Jaffa. It is remarkable for noth- 
ing but some extensive corn magazines underground, 
unless it be also for the silence maintained regard- 
ing it by all travellers up to Dr. Ivobuison (ii. 249). 


GIN, a trap for birds or beasts : it consisted of 
a net (HQ), and a stick to act as a springe (tTpl^) ; 
the latter word is translated "gin" in the A. V. 
Am. iii. 5, and the former in Is. viii. 14, the term 
" snare " being in each case used for the other part 
of the trap. In Job xl. 24 (marginal translation) 
the second of these terms is applied to the ring run 
through the nostrils of an animal. W. L. B. 

GI'NATH {i^T^ [protection, Fiirst; or, 
(jarden, Gesen.] : TcavdQ'- Gineth), father of Tibni, 
who after the death of Zimri disputed the throne 
of Israel with Omri (1 K. xvi. 21, 22). 

GIN'NETHO (^"inpS [gardener], i. e. Giu- 
nethoi: fKom. Vat. Alex, omit; FA.-^ TevvriBovi 
Comp. re»/o0a>i/O Genthon), one of the "chief 

("'trS*l = heads) of the priests and Levites who 
returned to Judaea with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 4). 
He is doubtless the same jierson as 

GIN'NETHON (]"in32 [as above] : Tavva- 
ddcv, Tauadwe; [in x. 6, Vat. TvaToO, Alex. Taav- 
vaQwv, EA. PLvarwd'-, in xii. 10, Vat. Alex. FA.i 
omit:] Genthon), a priest who sealed the covenant 
with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 6). He was head of a 
family, and one of his descendants is mentioned in 
the list of priests and Levites at a later period (xii. 
16). He is probably the same person as the pre- 

GIRDLE, an essential article of dress in tne 
East, and worn both by men and women. The 

corresponding Hebrew words are: (1.) "I^-H or 

mi]2n, which is the general term for a girdle of 
any kind, whether worn by soldiers, as 1 Sam. 
xviii. 4, 2 Sam. xx. 8, 1 K. ii. 5, 2 K. iii. 21; or 

by women, Is. iii. 24. (2.) "1")TS, especially usei 
of the girdles worn by men ; whether by prbpbeta 


1 !*. '.. *, Jer. xiii. 1; soldiers, Is. v. 27; Ez. xxiii. 
15 , o* kings in their military capacity, Job xii. 18. 

(3.) r.TD or n'^tp, used of the girdle worn by 
men ^.one, Job xii'. 21, Ps. cix. 19, Is. xxiii. 10. 
(4.) T^JllW, the girdle worn by tne priests and state 
officp i In addition to these, ^'^J'^H?, Is. iii. 
24, y a costly girdle worn by women. The Vul- 
gate rjiiders it Jascia ptctoraUs. It would thus 
seem tv correspond with the Latin strophmm, a 
belt vvc n by women about the breast. In the 
LXX. However, it is translated x^'''^" fjLe(roTr6p- 
(pvpos, *• a tunic shot with purple," and Gesenius 
[Thes'.j has '•'■buntes Feyerkkid'' (comp. Schroe- 
der, de Vest. Mul. pp. 137, 138, 404). The 

D'^n^tJ^ I mentioned in Is. iii. 20, Jer. 11. 32, were 
probabl}' girdles, although both Kimchi and Jarchi 
consider them as fillets for the hair. In the latter 
passage the Vulgate has again fascia jJecioi-alis, 
and the LXX. (TT-ndoBeafiis, an appropriate bridal 

The common girdle was made of leather (2 K. 
i. 8 ; Matt. iii. 4), like that worn by the Bedouins of 
the present day, whom Curzon describes as " armed 
with a long crooked knife, and a pistol or two stuck 
in a red leathern girdle" (Monast. of the Levant, 
p. 7). In the time of Chardin the nobles of INIin- 
grelia wore girdles of leather, four fingers broad, 
and embossed with silver. A finer girdle was made 
of linen (Jer. xiii. 1; Ez. xvi. 10), embroidered 
with silk, and sometimes with gold and silver thread 
(Uan. X. 5; Rev. i. 13, xv. 6), and frequently 
studded with gold and precious stones or pearls 
(Le Bruyn, Voy. iv. 170; comp. Virg. ^n. ix. 
359 ).« Morier {Second Journey, p. 150), describ- 
ing the dress of the Armenian women, says, " they 
wear a silver girdle which rests on the hips, and is 
generally curiously wrought." The manufacture 
of these girdles formed part of the employment of 
women (Frov. xxxi. 24). 

The girdle was fastened by a clasp of gold or 
silver, or tied in a knot so that the ends hung 
down in front, as in the figures on the ruins of 
Persepolis. It was worn by men about the loins, 

hence the expressions 0*^30^ "^"^^i??) Is. xi. 5; 

D'^^bn "I'lTS, Is. v. 27. The girdle of women 
was generally looser than that of the men, and was 
worn about the hips, except when they were act- 
ively engaged (Prov. xxxi. 17). Curzon (p. 58), 
describing the dress of the Egyptian women, says, 
" not round the waist, but round the hips a large 
and heavy Cashmere shawl is worn over the yelek, 
and the whole gracefulness of an Egyptian dress 
consists in the way in which this is put on." The 
military girdle was worn about the waist, the 
sword or dagger was suspended from it (Judg. iii. 
16; 2 Sam. xx. 8; Ps. xlv. 3). In the Nineveh 
sculptures the soldiers are represented with broad 
girdles, to which the sword is attached, and through 
which even two or three daggers in a sheath are 
passed. Q. Curtius (iii. 3) says of Darius, "zona 
aurea rauliebriter cinctus acinacem suspenderat, cui 
ex gemma erat vagina." Hence girding up the loins 
denotes preparation for battle or for active exertion. 
In times of mourning, girdles of sackcloth were 



a * In contrast with such girdles, John's was " a 
leathern girdle " (Matt. iii. 4), in conformity with lue 
Bimple habits whicli characterized the stern reformev. 


worn as marks of humihation and sorrow (Ig. iii 
24; xxii. 12). 

In consequence of the costly materials of which 
girdles were made, they were frequently given as 
presents (1 Sam. xviii. 4; 2 Sam. xviii. 11), as is 
still the custom in Persia (cf. Morier, p. 93). 
Villages were given to the queens of Persia to 
supply them with girdles (Xenoph. Anab. i. 4, § 9 ; 
Plat. Ale. i. p. 123). 

They were used as pockets, as among the Arabs 
still (Niebuhr, Descr. p. 50), and as purses, one 
end of the girdle being folded back for the purpose 
(Matt. X. 9; Mark vi. 8). Hence "zonam per- 
dere," " to lose one's purse " (Hor. Episl. ii. 2, 40; 
comp. Juv. xiv. 297). Inkhorns were also carried 
in the girdle (Ez. ix. 2). 

The t^?.?^, or girdle worn by the priests about 
the close-fitting tunic (Ex. xxviii. 39; xxxix. 29), 
is described by Josephus {Ant. iii. 7, § 2) as made 
of hnen so fine of texture as to look like the slough 
of a snake, and embroidered with flowers of scarlet, 
purple, blue, and fine linen. It was about four 
fingers' broad, and was wrapped several times 
round the priest's body, the ends hanging down to 
the feet. When engaged in sacrifice, the priest 
threw the ends over his left shoulder. According 
to Maimonides {de Vas. Sanct. c. 8), the girdle 
worn both by the high-priest and the common 
priests was of white linen embroidered with wool^ 
but that worn by the high-priest on the day of 
Atonement was entirely of white linen. The length 
of it was thirty-two cubits, and the breadth about 
three fingers. It was worn just below the arm- 
pits to avoid perspiration (comp. Ez. xliv. 18). 
Jerome {Ep. ad Fabiolam, de Vest. Sac.) follows 
Josephus. With regard to the manner in which 
the girdle was embroidered, the "needlework' 

(D|T1 nt275^, Ex. xxviii. 39) is distinguished iu 

the INIishna from the " cunning-work " (ntt75?i2 

;3E?n, Ex. xxvi. 31) as being worked by the needle 
with figures on one side only, whereas the latter 
was woven work with figures on both sides ( Cod, 
Joma, c. 8). So also Maimonides {de Vas. Sand 
viii. 35). But Jarchi on Ex. xxvi. 31, 36, explahis 
the difference as consisting in this, that in the 
former case the figures on the two sides are the 
same, whereas in the latter they are different. 

In all passages, except Is. xxii. 21, ^35^ "^ 
used of the girdle of the priests only, but in that 
instance it appears to have been worn by Shebna, 
the treasurer, as part of the insignia of his office; 
unless it be supposed that he was of priestly rank, 
and wore it in his priestly capacity. He is called 
" high-priest " in the Chronicon Paschale, p. 115 a, 
and in the Jewish tradition quoted by Jarchi in he. 

The " curious girdle " (ntC'n, Ex. xxviii. 8) was 
made of the same materials and colors as the 
ephod, that is of " gold, blue, and purple, and scar- 
let, and fine twmed linen." Josephus describes it 
as sewn to the breastplate. After passing once 
round it was tied in front upon he seam, the ends 
hanging down {Ant. iii. 7, § 5). According to 
Maimonides it was of woven work. 

"Girdle" is used figuratively in Ps. cix. 19, 
Is. xi. 5; cf . 1 Sam. ii. 4; Ps. xxx. 11, Ixv. 12? 
Eph. vi. 14. W. A. W. 

GIRGASHITES, THE ("27|13in, t. e. m- 



cording to the Hebrew usage, singular — " the Gir- 
gashite; " in which form, however, it occurs in the 
A. V. but twice, 1 Chr. i. 14, and Gen. x. 16; in 
the latter the Girgasite; elsewhere uniformly 
plural, as above: 6 Tepyeaalos^ and so also Jo- 
sephus: Gergesceus [but Deut. vii. 1, Gergezceus])^ 
one of the nations who were in possession of Canaan 
before the entrance thither of the children of Israel. 
The name occurs in the following passages: Gen. 
X. 16, XV. 21 ; Deut. vii. 1 (and xx. 17 in Samar- 
itan and LXX.); Josh. iii. 10, xxiv. 11; 1 Chr. i. 
U; Neh. ix. 8. In the first of these "the Gir- 
gasite" is given as the fifth son of Canaan; in 
the other places the tribe is merely mentioned, and 
that but occasionally, in the formula expressing the 
doomed country; and it may truly be said in the 
words of Josephus {Ant. i. 6, § 2) that we possess 
the name and nothing more; not even the more 
definite notices of position, or the slight glimpses 
of character, general or individual, with which we 
are favored in the case of the Amorites, Jebusites, 
and some others of these ancient nations. The 
expression in Josh. xxiv. 11 would seem to indicate 
that the district of the Girgashites was on the west 
of Jordan ; nor is this invalidated by the mention 
of " Gergesenes " in Matt. viii. 28 {Tfpyic-qvwu 
in Rec. lext, and in a few MSS. mentioned by 
Epiphanius and Origen, Tepyicaiwv)^ as on the 
east side of the Sea of Galilee, since that name is 
now generally recognized as repaarjuoiu, — " Gera- 
senes," — and therefore as having no connection 
with the Girgashites. G. 

GIR'GASITE, THE (Gen. x. 16). See the 

* GIS'CHALA [FtVxaAa: Rabb. dhn 12712, 

Gush Chalab: Arab, (jiioil, el-Jish), a village 

in Galilee on a hill about two hours northwest 
from Snfed. It was fortified by order of Josephus, 
and was the last fortress m Galilee to surrender to 
the Roman arms (Joseph. B. J. ii. 20, § 6 : iv. 2, 
§§ 1-5). It has been identified by Dr. Robinson 
as the modern el-Jish^ which was destroyed by an 
earthquake in 1837 (Bibl. Res. iii. 368 AT., 1st ed.). 
It must have been one of the towns in the circuit 
of Christ's labors, and well known to his Galilean 
disciples. There was a tradition that the parents 
of Paul emigrated from this place to Tarsus. [See 
Ahlab.] S. W. 

GIS'PA (SSira [hearkening]: [FA.3] recr- 
tpd; [Comp. r€<7(pds; Rom. Vat. Alex. FA.i 
omit:] Gaspha)^ one of the overseers of the Ne- 
thinim, in "the Ophel," after the return from 
Captivity (Neh. xi. 21 ). By the LXX. the name 
appears to have been taken as a place. 

GIT^TAH-HETHER, Josh. xix. 13. 

GITTATM (C^iD?, i- e. tioo wine-presses: 
[in 2 Sam.,] reSatV, {Vat. re0at,] Alex. T^QBein', 
[in Neh. xi. 33, Rom. Vat. Alex. FA.i omit; FA.» 
T^QQljx'^ Gethaim), a place incidentally mentioned 
in 2 Sam. iv. 3, where the meaning appears to be that 
the inhabitants of Beeroth, which was allotted to 
Benjamin, had been compelled to fly from that place, 
and had taken refuge at Gittaim. Beeroth was 
one of the towns of the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 17); 
Mid the cause of the flight of its people may have 
been (though this is but conjecture) Saul's persecu- 
tion of the Gibeonites alluded to in 2 Sam. xxi. 2. 
3itt»im ia again mentioned [Neh. xi. 33] in the 


list (/f places inhabited by the Be)ija.riii/e8 ifla 
their return from the Captivity, with Ramah Ne- 
baUat, Lod, and other known towns of Benjamiii 
to the N. W. of Jerusalem. The two may be the 
same; though, if the persecution of the Berothites 
proceeded from Benjamin, as we must infer it did, 
they would hardly choose as a refuge a place within 
the limits of that tribe. Gittaim is the duul form 
of the word Gath, which suggests the I'hUistine 
plain as its locality. But there is no e\ idence for 
or against this. 

Gittaim occurs in the LXX. version of 1 Sam. 
xiv. 33 — " out of Getthaim roll me a great stone." 
But this is not supported by any other of the 
ancient versions, which unanimously adhere to the 
Hebr. text, and probably proceeds from a mistake 

or corruption of the Hebrew word Di^"?^?^ : A. V. 
" ye have transgressed." It further occurs in the 
LXX. in Gen. xxxvi. 35 and 1 Chr. i. 46, as the 
i-epresentative of Aa ith, a change not so inteUigible 
as the other, and equally unsupported by the otlier 
old versions. G. 

GITTITES (D'*r}2, patron, from n? : 
[redaloi, Alex, rcddaioi: Geihcn]), the 600 men 
who followed David from Gath, under Ittai the 

Gittite C^rian, 2 Sam. xv. 18, 19), and who prob- 
ably acted as a kind of body-guard. Obed-edom the 
Invite, in whose house the Ark was for a time 
placed (2 Sam. vi. 10), and who afterwards served 
in Jerusalem (1 Chr. xvi. 38), is called "the 

Gittite" OnSn). We can scarcely think, how- 
ever, that he was so named from the royal city of 
the Philistines, ^lay he not have been fix)m the 
town of Gittaim in Benjamin (2 Sam. iv. 3; Neh. 
xi. 33), or from Gath-rimmon, a town of Dan. 
allotted to the Kohathite I>evites (Josh. xxi. 24), 
of whom Obed-edom seems to have been one (1 
Chr. xxvi. 4) ? J. L. P. 

GIT'TITH (n^n2) [see infra], a musical 
instrument, by some supposed to have been used 
by the people of Gath, and tiience to have been 
adopted by David and used in worship; and by oth- 
ers , who identify rT^Pil with HI. a wine-press, or 
trough, in which the grapes were trodden with the 
feet) to have been employed at the festivities of the 

vintage. The Chaldee paraphrase of rT^riSn ^V. 
occasionally found in the headuig of Psalms, is, 
" On the instrument S'TID''^ (Cinora), which was 
brought from Gath." Rashi, whilst he admits 
Gittith to be a musical instrument, in the manu- 
facture of which the artisans of Gath excelled, 
quotes a Talmudic authority which would assign 
to the word a different meaning. '* Our sages," 
says he, « have remarked « On the natiom who are 
in future to be trodden down like a icine-press.' " 
(Comp. Is. Ixiii. 3.) But neither of the Psalms, 
viii., Ixxxi., or Ixxxiv., which have Gittith for a 
heading, contains any thing that may be connected 
with such an idea. The interpretation of the LXX. 
uTTcp rwv ATji/wy, "for the wine-presses," is con- 
demned by Aben-Ezra and other eminent Jewisb 
scholars. Fiirst (Concordance) describes Gittit* 
as a hollow instrument, from riilD, to deepen 
(synonymous with b'^bfl). D. W. M. 

GFZONITE, THE ('^:''^T3n:<J riCovlrrjs ; 


"V«t. corrupt;] Alex, o Tovvi' Gezonltes). "The 
ions of Hashem the Gizonite " are named amongst 
the warriors of David's guard (1 vjhr. xi. 34). In 
the parallel list of 2 Sam. xxiii. the word is entirely 
omitted; and the conclusion of Kennicott, who 
examines the passage at length, is that the name 
should be Gouni [see Guni], a proper name, and 
not an appellative (Disset-t. pp. l'J9-203). [No 
place corresponding to the name is known.] 
* GIZ'RITES. [Gerzites.] 

GLASS (n^p-IDt : liaKos: vitrum). The word 
occurs only in Job xxviii. 17, where in the A. V. 

it is rendered "crystal." It comes from "TT5^ {io 
be 7?M7'e), and according to the best authorities 
means a kind of glass which in ancient days was 
held in high esteem (J. D. Michaelis, Hist. Vitri 
apud Hebr. ; and Hamberger, Hist. Vitri ex an- 
tiquitate erutn^ quoted by Gesen. s. v.). Sym- 
raachus renders it KpiaraWos, but that is rather 

intended by W^ll'Si (Job xxviii. 18, A. V. "pearls," 
LXX. 7aj3t5, a word which also means "ice; " cf. 
Plin. ff. N. xxxvii. 2), and nn[7_ (Ez. i. 22). It 
seems then that Job xxviii. 17 contains the only 
allusion to glass found in the O. T., and even this 
reference is disputed. Besides Symmachus, others 
also render it Siauyrj KpvaraXKov (Schleusner, 
Thesnu)\ s. v. va\os), and it is argued that the 
\7ord SaXos frequently means crystal. Thus the 
Schol. on Aristoph. Ntib. 764, defines vaXos (when 
it occurs in old writers) as Sia^av^s \idos ioiKws 
vdXcp, and Hesychius gives as its equivalent xiOos 
Tifiios. In Herodotus (iii. 24) it is clear that ueA.os 
must mean crystal, for he says, ^ Se acpi ttoXA^ 
Kal eijepyos opvaaerai, and Achilles Tatius speaks 
of crystal as vaXos 6pwpvyfi4yrj {u. 3; Baehr, On 



ITerod. iL 44; Heeren, Tdeen, ii. 1, 335). Other* 
consider iT^p^^T to be amber, or electrum, oc 
alabaster (Bochart, Hieroz. ii. vi. 872). 

In spite of this absence of specific allusion to 
glass in the sacred writings, the Hebrews must 
have been aware of the invention. There has been 
a violent modern prejudice against the belief that 
glass was early known to, or extensively used by, 
the ancients, but both facts are now certain. Fronr 
paintings representing the process of glassblowing 
which have been discovered in paintings at Beni- 
Hassan, and in tombs at other places, we know 
that the invention is at least as remote as the age 
of Osirtasen the first (perhaps a contemporary of 
Joseph), 3,500 years ago. A bead as old as 1500 
B. c. was found by Captain Hervey at Thebes. 
" the specific gravity of which, 25° 30', is precisely 
the same as that of the crown glass now made in 
England." Fragments too of wine-vases as old as 
the Exodus have been discovered in Egypt. Glass 
1 beads known to be ancient have been found in 
! Africa, and also (it is said) in Cornwall and Ireland, 
I which are in all probability the relics of an old 
j Phoenician trade (Wilkinson, in Rawlinsori's Herod. 
ii. 50, i. 475; Anc. Egypt, iii. 88-112). The art 
was also known to the ancient Assyrians (Layard, 
Nineveh, ii. 42), and a glass bottle was found in 
the N. W. palace of Nimroud, which has on it the 
name of Sargon, and is therefore probably older 
than B. c. 702 (id. Nin. and Bah. p. 197, 503). 
This is the earUest known specimen of transparent 

The disbelief in the antiquity of glass (in spite 
of the distinct statements of early writers) is dif- 
ficult to account for, because the invention must 
almost naturally arise in making bricks or pottery, 
during which processes there must be at least a 


Egyptian Glass Blowers. (T^kinson.) 

lupeificial ntrification. There is little doubt that 
ihe honor of the discovery oelongs to the Egj^tians. 
Pliny gives no date for his celebrated story of the 
discovery of glass from the solitary accident of some 
Phoenician sailors using blocks of natron to support 
Jieir saucepans when they were unable to find 
itones for the purpose {H. N. xxxvi. 65). But this 
account is less likely than the supposition that 
ritreous matter first attracted observation from the 
tfwtom of lighting fires on the sand. " in a country 
Producing natron or subcarbonate of soda" (Raw- 

linson's Herod, ii. 82). It has been pointed om 
that Pliny's story may have originated in the fact 
that the sand of the Syrian river Belus,« at the 
mouth of which the incident is supposed to have 
occurred, "was esteemed peculiarly suitable for 
glass-making, and exported in great quantities to 
the workshops of Sidon and Alexandria, long tha 

a * This Belua is the modem Nakr Na'man whiob 
flows into the ftTAditerranean just south of 4.kka, tha 
0. T. Accho and tne N T, Ptolemais. P 


most fiimoua in the anciient world " {Diet, oj Ant. 
art. Vitrum, where everything requisite to the 
illustration of the classical allusions to glass may 
be found). Some find a remarkable reference to 
this little river (respecting which see J'lin. H. N. 
V. 17, xxxvi. 65; Joseph. B. J. ii. 10, § 2; Tac. 
Hist. v. 7) in the blessing to the tribe of Zebulun, 
" they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and 
of treasures hid in the sand" (Deut. xxxiii. 19). 
Both the name Belus (Keland, quoted in Diet, oj 

Geogr. s. v. and the Hebrew word vlH, " sand " 
(Calmet, s. v.) have been suggested as derivations 
for the Greek 0a\os, which is however, in all prob- 
ability, from an Egyptian root. 

Glass was not only known to the ancients, but 
used by them (as Winckehnann thinks) far more 
extensively than in modern times. PUny even tells 
us that it was employed in wainscoting (vitreae 
camerae, //. A^. xxxvi. 64; Stat. Sylv. i. v. 42). 
The Egyptians knew the art of cutting, grinding, 
and engraving it, and they could even inlay it witla 
gold or enamel, and " permeate opaque glass with 
designs of various colors." Besides this they could 
color it with such brilliancy as to be able to imitate 
precious stones in a manner which often defied 
detection (Plin. //. N. xxxvii. 26, 33, 75). This 
is probably the explanation of the incredibly large 
gems which we find mentioned in ancient authors ; 
e. g. Larcher considers that the emerald column 
alluded to by Herodotus (ii. 44) was " du verre 
colord dont I'intc^rieur ^tait ^clairc^ par des lampes." 
Strabo was told by an Alexandrian glass-maker 
that this success was partly due to a rare and val- 
uable earth found in Egypt (Beckmann, liistm-y of 
Inventions, "Colored Glass," i. 195 f. Eng. Transl-, 
also iii. 208 f., iv. 54). Yet the perfectly clear and 
transparent glass was considered the most valuable 
(Plin. xxxvi. 26). 

Some suppose that the proper name mQl.trD 
C^D (burnings by the waters) contains an allusion 
to Sidonian glass-factories (Meier on Jos. xi. 8, xiii. 
6), but it is much more probable that it was so 
called from the burning of Jabin's chariots at tliat 
place (Lord A. Hervey, On the Geneabgies, p. 228), 
or from hot springs. 

In the N. T. glass is alluded to as an emblem 
of brightness (Rev iv. 6, xv. 2, xxi. 18). The 
three other places where the word occurs in the 
A. V. (1 Cor. xiii. 12; 2 Cor. iii. 18; Jam. i. 23), 
as also the word "glasses" (Is. iii. 23), are con- 
sidered under Mirrors. For, strange to say, 
although the ancients were aware of the reflective 
power of glass, and although the Sidonians used it 
for mirrors (Plin. //. N. xxxvi. 66), yet for some 
unexplained reason mirrors of glass must have 
proved unsuccessful, since even under the empire 
they were universally made of metal, which is at 
once less perfect, more expensive, and more difficult 
to preserve (Diet, of Ant. art. Speculum). 

F. W. F. 

GLEANING (n'lbbi: as applied to produce 

generally, t^i7/7 rather to com). The remarks 
under Cornkr on the definite character of the 
rights of the poor, or rather of poor relations and 
dependants, to a share of the crop, are especially 
exemplified in the instance of Ruth gleaning in the 
field of Boaz. Poor young women, recognized as 
heitig "hia maidens," were gleaning his field, and 


on her claim upon him by near affinity being 
known, she was bidden to join them and not go to 
any other field ; but for this, the reapen* it seenu 
would have driven her away (Ruth ii. 6, 8, 9). The 
gleaning of fruit trees, as well as of cornfields, was 
reserved for the poor. Hence the proveib of Gideon, 
Judg. viii. 2. Slaimonides indeed lays down th« 
principle ( Constitutiones de donis jmuperum, cap. 
ii. 1), that whatever crop or growth is fit for food, 
is kept, and gathered all at once, and carried into 
store, is liable to that law. See for further remarks, 
Maimon. Constitutiones de donis pauperum, c&t^. iv. 

H. H. 

GLEDE, the old name for the common kif« 

(Milvus ater), occurs only in Deut. xiv. 13 (f^^^) 

among the unclean birds of prey, and if HST be 
the correct reading, we must suppose the name to 
have been taken from the bird's acuteness of vision; 
but as in the parallel passage in Lev. xi. 14 wo 

find nS^, vultur, it is probable that we should 

read HS'^ in Deut. also. The LXX. have y^ in 
both places. W. D. 

GNAT {K(lova)T]i)i mentioned only in the prover- 
bial expression used by our Saviour in Matt, xxiii. 
24, " Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and 
swallow a camel." " Strain at, in the A. V., seems 
to be a typographical error, since the translations 
before the A. V. had "strain out,''' the Greek word 
divXl^co signifying to strain through (a sieve, etc.), 
to filter (see Trench, On the Auth. Vers., Ist ed. 
p. 131) [2d ed. p. 172]. The Greek k^jvu^ is the 
generic word for gnat. W. D. 

GOAD. The equivalent terms in the Hebrew 
are (1) l^ibD (Judg. ui. 31), and (2) ]n"}'ij 
(1 Sam. xiii. 21; Eccl. xii. 11). The explanation 
given by Jahn (Archceol. i. 4, § 59) is that the 
former represents the pole, and the latter the iron 
spike 'rith which it was shod for the purpose of 
goading. With regard to the latter, however, it 
may refer to anything pointed, and the tenor of 
Eccl. xii. requires rather the sense of a peg or nail, 
anything in short which can be fastened ; while in 
1 Sam. xiii. the point of the pkmghshare is more 
probably intended. The former does probably refer 
to the goad, the long handle of which might be 
used as a formidable weapon (comp. Hom. //. vi. 
135), though even this was otherwise understood 
by the LXX. as a ploughshare (eV t<S auoTp6iroSi). 
it should also be noted that the etymological force 

of the word is that of giiiding (from "Tp^, to teach) 
rather than goading (Saalschiitz, Archdol. i. K5). 
There are undoubted references to the use of the 
goad in driving oxen in Ecclus. xxxviii. 25, and 
Acts xxvi. 14. The instrument, as still used in the 
countries of southern Eui-ope and western Asia, 
consists of a rod about eight feet long, brought tc 
a sharp point and sometimes cased with iron at the 
head (Harmer's Observations, iii. 348). The ex- 
pression "to kick against tJ'e goads" (Acts ix. 5; 
A. V. " the pricks"), was proverbially used by the 
Greeks for unavailing resistance to superior power 
(comp. M%c\x. Agam. 1633, Prom. 323; Eurip 
Bacch. 791). W. L. B. 

* The use of the goad in driving animals, which 
is still common in the, is implied in 2 K. iv 
24, where it explains a slight obscurity in the ve-ie 
as given in the A. V. Mounted on her donli ey — 


Jie fevorite mode of travelling with oriental ladies - 
the Sliuiiammite, intent on the utmost dispatch, 
directs her servant, runninj; by her side, tc urge 
the animal with the goad to its full speed. 

The long ox-goad, used in the field, with an iron 
point at one end, and an iron paddle at the other 
to clean the plough in the furrows, often was, and 
still is, a massive implement. In the hands of a 
strong and valiant man, like Shamgar, as repre- 
sented in Judg. iii. 81, it would be a destructive 
weapon. (See Hackett's Illustr. of Scripture, p. 
155.) S. W. 

GOAT. 1. Of the Hebrew words which are 
translated yoai and she-goat in A. V., the most 

common is TS7 = Syr. jl-^, Ai-ab. wLfr, Phoen. 

&^a- The Indo-Germanic languages have a similar 
word in Sanskr. afa = goat, a(/'d = she-goat, 
Germ, ffeis or <jems, Greek a% aly6s- The deri- 
vation from TT3?, to be strong^ points to he-goat as 
the original meaning, but it is also specially used 
for she-goat, as iu Gen. xv. 9, xxxi. 38, xxxii. 14; 

Num. XV. 27. In Judg. vi. 19 U^')V ^'IS is ren- 
dered kid, and in Deut. xiv. 4 D"^'T37 r\W is 
rendered the goat, but properly signifies Jiock of 
goats. D"^-tl7 is used elliptically for goats' hair in 
Ex. xxvi. 7, xxxvi. 14, &c., Num. xxxi. 20, and in 
1 Sam. xix. 13. 

2. Q"^ /^^ are wild or mountain goats, and are 
rendered loild goats in the three passages of Scrip- 
ture in which the word occurs, namely, 1 Sam. 
xxiv. 2, Job xxxix. 1, and Ps. civ. 18. The word 

is from a root V^^, to ascend or climb, and is the 
Heb. name of the ibex, which abounds in the moun- 
tainous parts of the ancient territory of Moab. In 
Job xxxix. 1, the LXX. have rpayeXdcpcov Trerpas. 

3. 1)"?M is rendered the wild goat in Deut. xiv. 
5, and occurs only in this passage. It is a con- 
tracted form of nipDM, according to Lee, who 
renders it gazelle, but it is more properly the tra- 
gelaphus or goat-deer (Shaw. Suppl. p. 76). 

4. I^n^, a he-goat, as Gesenius thinks, of four 
months old — strong and vigorous. It occurs only 
in the plural, and is rendered by A. V. indifferently 
goats and he-goats (see Ps. 1. 9 and 13). In Jer. 
1. 8 it signifies he-goats, leaders of the flock, and 
hence its metaphorical use in Is. xiv. 9 for chief 
ones of the earth, and in Zech. x. 3, where goats 
= principal men, chiefs. It is derived from the 
rsKvt "Tni7, to set, to place, to prepare. 

5 "T^?^ occurs in 2 Ghr. xxix. 21, and in Dan. 
fiii 5, 8 — it is followed by □"^•tVn, and signifies 
» he-goat of the goats. Gesenius derives it from 
"13^, to leap. It is a word found only in the later 
books <[ the 0. T. In Ezr. vi. 17 we find the 
Chald. form of the word, "I'^C^. 

I. "T^37iZ7 is translated goat, and signifies prcp- 
nly a he-goat, being derived from '^VW, to stand 
n end, to bristle. It occurs frequently in Leviticus 
Cd Numbers (n«^nn I^I^tp), and is the goat 



of the sin-offering, Lev. ix. 3, 15, x. 16. The worf 
is used as an adjective w'th T^Dl^ iu Dan. viii. 21, 
" — and the goat, the rough one, is the king of 

7. 'Q^\Pi is from a root 127*^^1, o strike. It ia 
rendered he-goat in Gen. xxx. 35, xxxii. 15, Prov. 
xxx. 31, and 2 Chr. xvii. 11. It does not occur 

8. ^t^^l?* scape-goat in Lev. xvi. 8, 10, 26 
On this word see Atonement, Day of, p. 197. 

In the N. T. the words rendered goats in Matt 
XXV. 32, 33, are €pi<pos and ipl<\>iou=^^ young 
goat, or kid ; and in Heb. ix. 12, 13, 19, and x. 4, 
rpdyos = he-goat. Goat-skins, in Heb. xi. 37, are 
in the Greek, eV alyeiois Sepfiacriv; and in Judg. 
ii. 17 aJyas is rendered goats. W. D. 

There appear to be two or three varieties of the 
common goat {Hir'cus cegagrus) at present bred in 
Palestine and Syria, but whether they are identical 
with those which were reared by the ancient He- 
brews it is not possible to say. The most marked 
varieties are the Syrian goat (Capra Mambrica, 
Linn.), with long thick pendent ears, which are 
often, says Russell {Nat. Hist, of Aleppo, ii. 150, 
2d ed.), a foot long, and the Angora goat (Capi-a 
Angorensis, Linn.), with fine long hair. The Syr- 
ian goat is mentioned by Aristotle {Hist. An. ix. 
27, § 3). There is also a variety that differs but 
little from British specimens. Goats have from the 
earliest ages been considered important animals in 
rural economy, both on account of the milk they 
afford, and the excellency of the flesh of the young 
animals. The goat is figured on the Egyptian 
monuments (see VV^ilkinson's Anc. Egypt, i. 223). 
Col. Ham. Smith (Griffith's An. King. iv. 308) 
describes three Egyptian breeds: one with long 
hair, depressed horns, ears small and pendent; 
anotlier with horns very spiral, and ears longer 
than the head ; and a third, which occurs in Upper 
Egypt, without horns. 

Goats were offered as sacrifices (Lev. iii. 12, ix. 15 ; 
Ex. xii. 5, etc.); their milk was used as food (Prov. 
xxvii. 27); their flesh was eaten (Deut. xiv. 4; Gen. 
xxvii. 9); their hair was used for the curtains of 
the tabernacle (Ex. xxvi. 7, xxxvi. 14), and for 
stuffing bolsters (1 Sam. xix. 13); their skins were 
sometimes used as clothing (Heb. xi. 37). 

The passage in Cant. iv. 1, which compares the 
hair of the beloved to " a flock of goats that eat of 
Mount Gilead," probably alludes to the fine hair 
of the Angora breed. Some have very plausibly 
supposed that the pro'phet Amos (iii. 12), when he 
speaks of a shepherd " taking out of the mouth of 
the lion two legs or a piece of an ear,"" alludes to 
the long pendulous ears of the Syrian breed (see 
Harmer's Obser. iv. 162). In Prov. xxx. 31, a he- 
goat is mentioned as one of the " four things which 
are comely in going; " in allusion, prolmbly, to the 
stately march of the leader of the flock, which was 
always associated in the minds of the Hebrews 
with the notion of dignity. Hence the metaphor 
in Is. xiv. 9, " all the chief ones (margin, ' great 
goats') of the earth." So the Alexandrine ver- 
sion of •'he LXX. understands the allusion, koH 
Tpdyos 7)you/j.euos aiiroXlov.'* 

As to the ye'elim (D*^ V^**. : rpaye\a(poi, kKat 

a Tx^mp. Theocritus, Id. viii. 49, '12 rpaye, tSlv Xev 
kSlv aiyat xvep ; and Virg. Ed. vii. 7, " Vir gregis ips^ 



fof. ibnes: "wild goats," A. V.), it is not at all 
bnprobable, as the Vulg. interprets the word, that 
■ome species of ibex is denoted, perhaps the Copra 
Sinaiiica (Ehrenb. ), the Beden or Jaela of Egypt 
and Arabia. This ibex was noticed at Sinai 'by 
Ehrwiberg and Hemprich {Sym. Phys. t. 18), and 
by Burckhardt {Trav. p. 526), who (p. 405) thus 


the akko of the Pentateuch, which might foraottfj 
have inhabited the Lebanon, though it is not found 
in Palestine now. Perhaps the paseng ( Cop. aga- 
grtis, Cuv.) which some have taken to be the parent 
stock of the common goat, and whicn at present 
inhabits the mountains of Persia and Caucasus, 
may have in Biblical times been found in Palestine, 
and may be the akko of Scripture. But we allov 
this is mere conjecture. W. H. 

Long-eared Syrian goat. 

ipeaks of these animals : " In all the valleys south 
of the Modjeb, and particularly in those of INIodjeb 
and El Ahsa, large herds of mountain goats, called 

by the Arabs Beden ( i^tX^ ), s^re met with. This 
is the steinbock« or bouquetin of the Swiss and 
Tyrol Alps. They pasture in flocks of forty and 
fifty together. Great numbers of them are killed 
by the people of Kerek and Taf^le, who hold their 
flesh in high estimation. They sell the large knotty 
horns to the Hebrew merchants, who carry them to 
Jerusalem, where they are worked into handles for 

knives and daggers The Arabs told me 

that it is difficult to get a shot at them, and that 
the hunters hide themselves among the reeds on 
the banks of streams where the animals resort in 
the evening to drink. They also asserted that, 
when pursued, they will throw themselves from a 
height of fifty feet and more upon their heads with- 
out receiving any injury." Hasselquist (Trar. p. 
190) speaks of rock goats {Copra certicopro, Linn.) 
^hich he saw hunted with falcons near Nazareth. 
But the C. cervicajn-a of Linnaeus is an antelope 
{Antilope cervicopra, Pall.). 

There is considerable difiiculty attending the 

identification of the akko C^p^?), which the LXX. 
render by rpayeXacpos, and the Vulg. tragelaphus. 
The word, which occurs only in Deut. xiv. 5 as one 
of the animals that might be eaten, is rendered 
" wild goat " by the A. V. Some have referred 
the okko to the ahu of the Persians, i. e the Ca- 
vreolus pygargus, or the " tailless roe " (Shaw, Zool. 
li. 287), of Central Asia. If we could satisfactorily 
establish the identity of the Persian word with the 
Hebrew, the animal in question might represent 

o The Cxijna Sinaitica is not identical with the 
Bi?iflfl ibex or steinbock (C. Ibez), though it is a closely 
illisd species. 

Goat of Mount Sinai. 

GOAT, SCAPE. [Atonement, Day of.] 

GO^ATH (nr2 [see infra] : the LXX. 
to have had a different text, and read e| e/cAe/crcDv 
KiQojv- Goatha), a place apparently in the neigh- 
borhood of Jerusalem, and named, in connection 
with the hill Gareb, only in Jer. xxxi. 39. The 
name (which is accurately Goah, as above, the th 
being added to connect the Hebrew particle of mo- 
tion,— Goathah) is derived by Gesenius from 71V^, 
" to low," as a cow. In accordance with this is the 
rendering of the Targum, which has for Goah, 

Wb?^ ri?*''nS = the heifer's pool. The Syriac, 

on the other hand, has j^^O*.!^, leromto^ "to 

the eminence," perhaps reading nK'5 (Fiirst, 
Tlandwb. p. 269 b).b Owing to the presence of 
the letter Ain in Goath, the resemblance between 
it and Golgotha does not exist in the original to 
the same degree as in English. [Golgotha.] 

GOB (2^, and 2^2, perhaps = a pit or ditch'. 
Fee, "P6h, Alex, [in ver. 19] ro)3; [Comp. Nw)80 
Gob), a place mentioned o)dy in 2 Sam. xxi. 18, 19, 
as the scene of two encounters between David'g 
warriors and the Philistines. In the parallel ac- 
count — of the first of these only = in 1 Chr. xx. 
4, the name is given as Gezer, and this, as well as 
the omission of any locality for the second event, 
is supported by Josephus {Ant. vii. 12, § 2). On 
the other hand the LXX. and Syriac have Gath 
in the first case, a name which in Hebrew muc** 
resembles Gob ; and this appears to be bonie out 

& * Fiirst makes the Syriac •. 
as above). 

Jfelshiigel, rock-hiU (r 


sy the account of a third and subsequent fight, 
fMeh all agree happened at Gath (2 Sam. xxi. 20 ; 
1 Chr. XX. G), and which, from the terms of the 
oarrative, seems to have occurred at the same place 
313 the others. The suggestion Df Nob — which 
Davidson {Uebr. Text) reports as in many MSS. 
and which is also found in copies of the LXX. — 
is not admissible on account of the situatioc of 
that place. G. 

GOBLET (PM : Kparrip - crater ; joined with 

inp to express roundness. Cant. vii. 2; Gesen. 
Thes. pp. 22, 39 ; in plur. Ex. xxiv. 6, A. V. " ba- 
sons;" Is. xxii. 2-i, LXX. hterally ayavcifl: crate- 
rce: A. V. "cups"), a circular vessel for wine or 
other hquid. [Basin.] H. W. P. 

tism, vii. 5, p. 239.] 

* GOD SPEED is the translation of xaip^^J^ 
in 2 John 10, 11, the Greek form of salutation. It 
has been transferred from the Anglo-Saxon god- 
spedifj, but with a different meaning there, namely, 
"good-speed." H. 

GOG. 1. D'la: Toiy, [Comp. Aid. Tc^y:] 
Go(j.). A Reubenite (1 Chr. v. 4); according to 
the Hebrew text son of Shemaiah. The LXX. 
have a different text throughout the passage. 

2. [Magog.] 

3. In the Samarit. Codex and LXX. of Num. 
ixiv. 7, Gog is substituted for Agag. 

GO'LAN (^^^2 [a, circle, region, Dietr. 
Fiirst ; migration, Ges.] : TavXdv, [in 1 Chr, vi. 
71, ToKiVi Alex, also in Josh. TcoAaj/: Gaulon, 

exc. Deut. Golan] ), a city of Bashan CjtZ^SS ^ ^"^Sj 
Deut. iv. 43) allotted out of the half tribe of Ma- 
nasseh to the Levites (Josh. xxi. 27), and one of 
the three cities of refuge east of the Jordan (xx. 8). 
We find no further notice of it in Scripture; and 
though Eusebius and Jerome say it was still an im- 
portant place in their time ( Onom. s. v. ; Reland, 
p. 815), its very site is now unknown. Some have 
supposed that the village of Naioa, on the eastern 
border of Jauldn, around which are extensive ruins 
(see Handbook for Syr. and Pal.), is identical 
with the ancient Golan ; but for this there is not a 
shadow of evidence ; and Nawa besides is much too 
far to the eastward. 

The city of Golan is several times referred to by 
Josephus {TavKavT], B. J. i. 4, § 4, and 8); he, 
however, more frequently speaks of the province 
which took its name from it, Gaulanitis {TavKavl- 
ris)' When the kingdom of Israel was overthrown 
by the Assyrians, and the dominion of the Jews in 
Bashan ceased, it appears that the aboriginal tribes, 
before kept in sabjection, but never annihilated, 
rose again to some power, and rent the country 
into provinces. Two of these provinces at least 
vera of ancient origin [Trachonitis and Hau- 
RAn], and had been distinct principalities previous 
to the time when Og or his predecessors united 
them under one sceptre. Before the Babylonish 
raptivity Bashan appears in Jewish history as one 

» Kingdom ; but subsequent to that period it is spo- 
ken of as divided into four provinces — Gaulauitis, 
Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Batanea (Joseph. Ant. 
Iv. 5, § 3, and 7, § 4, i. 6, § 4, xvi. 9, § 1; B.J. 
I. 20, ? 4, iii. 3, § 1, iv. 1, § 1). It seems that 
when the city of Golan rose to powe* it became the 
head of a large province, the extent of whiih is 

GOLAN 98£ 

pretty accurately given by Josephus, espwjially when 
his statements are compared with the modem di- 
visions of Bashan. It lay east of Galilee, and north 
of Gadarrtis (Gadara, Joseph. B. J. iii. 3, § 1). 
Gamala, an important town on the eastern bank 
of the Sea of Galilee, now called El-IIusn (see 
Handbook for Syr. and Pal.), and the province 
attached to it, were included in Gaulanitis (B. I. 
iv. 1, § 1). But the boundary of the provinces of 
Gadara and Gamala must evidently have been the 
river liieromax, which may therefore be regarded 
aa the south border of Gaulanitis. The Jordan 
from the Sea of Galilee to its fountains at Dan and 
Csesarea-Philippi, formed the western boundary 
(B. J. iii. 3, § 5). It is important to observe that 
the boundaries of the modern province of Jauldn 

( lO^^^ ^ ^^® Arabic form of the Hebrew 

1 v12, from which is derived the Greek ravXaui- 
Tis) correspond so far with those of Gaulanitis; 
we may, therefore, safely assume that their north- 
ern and eastern boundaries are also identical. Jau- 
lan is bounded on the north by Jedur (the ancient 
Itw'cea), and on the east by Hauran [Hauran]. 
The principal cities of Gaulanitis were Golan, Hip- 
pos, Gamala, Julias or Bethsaida (Mark viii. 22), 
Seleucia, and Sogane (Joseph. B. J. iii. 3, § 1, and 
5, iv. 1, § 1). The site of Bethsaida is at a small 
tell on the left bank of the Jordan [Bethsaida] ; 
the ruins of KuVat el-Husn mark the place of Ga- 
mala ; but nothing definite is known of the others. 
The greater part of Gaulanitis is a flat and fertile 
table-land, well-watered, and clothed with luxuriant 
grass. It is probably to this region the name 

Mishor {^W^72i) is given in 1 K. xx. 23, 25 — 
" the plain " in which the Syrians were overthrown 
by the Israelites, near Aphek, which perhaps stood 
upon the site of the modem Fik (Stanley, App. 
§ 6; Handbook for S. and P. p. 425). The 
western side of Gaulanitis, along the Sea of Gali- 
lee, is steep, rugged, and bare. It is upwards of 
2,500 feet in height, and when seen from the city 
of Tiberias resembles a mountain range, though in 
reality it is only the supporting wall of the plateau. 
It was this remarkable feature which led the ancient 
geographers to suppose that the mountain range of 
Gilead was joined to Lebanon (Reland, p. 342). 
Further north, along the bank of the upper Jordan, 
the plateau breaks down in a series of terraces, , 
which, though somewhat rocky, are covered with 
rich soil, and clothed in spring with the most lux- 
uriant herbage, spangled with multitudes of bright 
and beautiful flowers. A range of low, round- 
topped, picturesque hills, extends southwards foi 
nearly 20 miles from the base of Hermon along 
the western edge of the plateau. These are in 
places covered with noble forests of prickly oak and 
terebinth. Gaulanitis was once densely populated, 
but it is now almost completely deserted. The 
writer has a list of the towns and villages which it 
once contained; and in it are the names of 127 
places, all of which, with the exception of about 
eleven, are now uninhabited. Only a few patches 
of its soil are cultivated ; and the very best of ita 
pasture is lost — the tender grass of early spring. 
The flocks of the Turkmans and el-Fiulkl Arabs — 
the only triues that remain nermanently in thia 
region — are not able to consume it; and the 
^Anazeh, those " children of the East " who spread 
over the land like locusts, and " wnose camels arc 
without number " (Judg. vii. 12), onlv anive about 



the beginning of May. At that season the whole 
»untry is covered with them — their black tents 
pitched in circles near the fountains ; their cattle 
thickly dotting the vast plain ; and their fierce cav- 
aliers roamitig far and wide, " their hand against 
avery man, and every man's hand against them." 

For fuller accounts of the scenery, antiquities, 
and history of Gaulanitis, see Porter's Handbook 
far Syr. and Pal. pp. 295, 424-, 461, 531; Five 
Years in Damascus., ii. 250 ; Journal of Sac. Lit. 
ri. 282 ; Burckhardt's Trav. in Syr. p. 277. 

J. L. P. 

GOLD, the most valuable of metals, from its 
color, lustre, weight, ductUity, and other useful 
properties (PUn. //. N. xxxiii. 19). Hence it is 
used as an emblem of purity (Job xxiii. 10) and 
nobility (Lam. iv. 1). There are six Hebrew words 
used to denote it, and four of them occur in Job 
xxviii. 15, 16, 17. These are; 

1. )2nT, the common name, connected with 

Dn^ {to be yellow), as geld, from gel, yellow. 
Various epithets are appUed to it: as, "fine" (2 
Chr. iii. 5), "refined " (1 Chr. xxviii. 18), " pure" 
(Ex. XXV. 11). In opposition to these, " beaten " gold 

(tO^nti? T) is probably mixed gold ; LXX. i\aT6s ; 
used of Solomon's shields (1 K. x. 16). 

2. 1^30 {K€ifi'f]Kiou) treasured, i. e. fine gold 
(1 K. vi. 20, vii. 49, &c.). Many names of precious 
substances in Hebrew come from roots sigiufying 

concealment, as 'jl^^.'^'^ (Gen. xUii. 23, A. V. 
" treasure "). 

3. TQ, pure or native gold (Job xxviii. 17 ; Cant. 

V. 15; probably from ^*^, to separate). Rosen- 
miiller (Alterthumsk. iv. p. 49) makes it come from 
a Syriac root meaning solid or massy; but "11 HID 

(2 Chr. ix. 17) corresponds to TQ^in (1 K. x. 18). 
The LXX. render it by xiOos rl/j-ios, xP'^^^ov 
&Trvpop (Is. xiii. 12 ; Theodot. i.Tve<pdov ; comp. 
Thuc. ii. 13; PUn. xxxiii. 19, obrussa). In Ps. 
cxix. 127, the LXX. render it roird^iov (A. V. 
"fine gold"); but Schleusner happily conjectures 
rh ird^iou, the Hebrew word being adopted to avoid 
the repetition of ^pvaos (Thes. s. v. r6Tra(i Hesych. 
9. V. TrdCiov)- 

4. D— 3, gold earth, or a mass of raw ore (Job 
xxii. 24, 'dirvpou, A. V. "gold as dust"). 

The poetical names for gold are : 

1. DnS (also implying something concealed); 
LXX. xp^(^^ov; and in Is. xiii. 12, XiOos iroXv- 
Te\'f]s. In Job xxxvii. 22, it is rendered in A. V. 
"fair weather;" LXX. pe^r} xpi/crau'yoiJj'Ta. 
(Comp. Zech. iv. 12.) 

2. \^^"^n, = c?«^ out (Prov. viii. 10), a gen- 
sral name, which has become special, Ps. Ixviii. 
13, where it cannot mean gems, as some suppose 
(Bochart, Ilieroz. torn. ii. p. 9). Michaelis con- 
nects the word chdrutz wdth the Greek ^pvcros- 

Gold was known from the very earliest times 
(Gen. ii. 11). Pliny attributes the discovery of 
it (at JMount Pangseus), and the art of working it, 
to Cadmus {H. N. vii. 57); and his statement is 
awlopted by Clemens Alexandrinus {Stroin. i. 363, 
ed. Pott.). It was at first chiefly used for orna- 
foeats, etc. (Gen. xxiv. 22) ; and although Abraham 


is said to have been "very rich in cattle, in «lvee 
and in gold " (Gen. xiii. 2), yet no mention of it 
as used in purchases, is made till after hiii retun 
from Egypt. Coined money was not knowii to th« 
ancients (e. g. Hom. //. vii. 473) till a compara- 
tively late period ; and on the Egyptian tombs gold 
is represented as being weighed in rings for com- 
mercial purposes. (Comp. Gen. xliii. 21.) No coins 
are found in the ruins of Egypt or Assyria (I^yard's 
Nin. ii. 418). " Even so late as the tin.e of David 
gold was not used as a standard of value, but was 
considered merely as a very precious article of com- 
merce, and was weighed hke other ai tides " (Jahn, 
Ai^ch. Bibl. § 115, 1 Chr. xxi. 25). 

Gold was extremely abundant in ancient tim2» 
(1 Chr. xxii. 14; 2 Chr. i. 15, ix. 9; Nah. ii. 9; 
Dan. iii. 1); but this did not depreciate its value, 
because of the enormous quantities consumed by 
the wealthy in furniture, etc. (1 K. vi. 22, x. pas- 
sim; Cant. iii. 9, 10; Esth. i. 6; Jer. x. 9; comp. 
Hom. Od. xix. 55; Herod, ix. 82). Probably too 
the art of gilding was known extensively, being 
applied even to the battlements of a city (Herod. 
i. 98 , and other authorities quoted by Layard, ii. 

The chief countries mentioned as producing gold 
are Arabia, Sheba, and Ophir (1 K. ix. 28, x. 1 ; 
Job xxviii. 16 : in Job xxii. 24, the word Ophir is 
used for gold ). Gold is not found in Arabia now 
(Niebuhr's Travels, p. 141), but it used to be 
(Artemidor. ap. Strab. xvi. 3, 18, where he speaks 
of an Arabian river y\/riyixa xpv<^ov KaTa<p4p(ov)' 
Diodorus also says that it was found there native 
(dirupov) in good-sized nuggets ifiuKapia)- Some 
suppose that Ophir was an Arabian port to which 
gold was brought (comp. 2 Chr. ii. 7, ix. 10). 
Other gold-bearing countries were Uphaz (Jer. x. 
9; Dan. x. 5) and Parvaim (2 Chr. iii. 6). 

Metallurgic processes are mentioned in Ps. Ixvi. 
10, Prov. xvii. 3, xxvii. 21 ; and in Is. xlvi. 6, the 

trade of goldsmith (cf. Judg. xvii. 4, ^^2) is 
alluded to in connection ■with the overlaying of 
idols with gold-leaf (Rosenmiiller's Minerals of 
Script, pp. 46-51). [Hakdickaft.] F. W. F. 

* GOLDSMITH. [Handicraft.] 

GOL^GOTHA (roXyoea [a skull]: Golgotha), 
the Hebrew name of the spot at which our Lord 
was crucified (Matt, xxvii. 33; Mark xv. 22; John 
xix. 17). By these three Evangelists it is inter- 
preted to mean the " place of a skull." St. Luke, 
in accordance with his practice in other cases (com- 
pare Gabbatha, Gethsemane, etc.), omits the He- 
brew term and gives only its Greek equivalent, 
Kpaviov- The word Calvary, which in Luke xxiii. 
33 is retained in the A. V. from the Vulgate, as 
the rendering of Kpaviov, obscures the statement 
of St. Luke, whose words are really as follows: 
" the place which is called ' a skull ' " — not, as in 
the other Gosj^els, Kpaviov, "of a skull;" thus 
employing the Greek term exactly as Ihey do the 
Hebrew one. [Calvary, Amer. ed.]- This He- 
brew, or rather Chaldee, term, was doubtless 

Sribsbil, Gulgolta, in pure Hebrew nVsba, 
applied to the skull on account of its round globu- 
lar form, that being the idea at the root of the 

Two explanations of the name are given : (1) that 
it was a spot where executions ordinarily took place 
and therefore abounded in skulls; liut riccording t« 
the Jewish law these mu »t have beer buri'^, aiiC 




i'lersfore were no more likely to confer a name on 
khe spot than any other part of the skeleton. In 
lihia case too <lie Greek should be "Sttos Kpaviwv, 
"of skulls," instead of Kpaviov, ''of a skull," 
gtill less "a skull" as in the Hebrew, and in the 
Greek of St. Luke. Or (-2) it may come from the 
look or form of the spot itself, bald, round, and 
skull-like, and tlierefore a mound or hillock, in 
accordance with the conmion phrase — for which 
there is no direct authox'ity — " JMount Calvary." 
Whichever of these is the correct explanation — 
and there is apparently no means of deciding with 
certainty — Golgotha seems to have been a known 
si)ot. This is to be gathered from the way in which 
it is mentioned in the Gospels, each except St. 
Matthew « having the definite article — " the place 
Golgotha " — " the place which is called a skull " 
— " the place (A. V. omits the article) called of, 
or after, a skull." It was "outside the gate," 
e|aj TTJs irvArjs (Heb. xiii. 12) but close to the city, 
iyyv9 TTJs irSXccos (John xix. 20); apparently near 
a thoroughfare on which there were passers-by. 
This road or path led out of the " country " '' 
(aypSs)- It was probably the ordinary spot for 
executions. AVhy should it have been otherwise ? 
To those at least who carried the sentence into 
effect, Christ was but an ordinary criminal; and 
there is not a word to indicate that the soldiers in 
"leadhig Him away" went to any other than the 
usual place for what must have been a common 
operation. Howerer, in the place (eV t^ rSiro}) 
itself — at the very spot — was a garden or orchard 

These are all the indications of the nature and 
situation of Golgotha which present themselves in 
the N. T. Its locality in regard to Jerusalem is 
fully examined in the description of the city. 

A tradition at one time prevailed that Adam was 
buried on Golgotha, that from his skull it derived 
its name, and that at the Crucifixion the drops of 
Christ's blood fell on the skull and raised Adam to 
life, whereby the ancient prophecy quoted by St. 
Paul in Eph. v. 14 received its fulfillment— "Awake, 
thou Adam that sleepest," — so the old versions 
appear to have run — " and arise from the dead, 
for Christ shall touch thee " (e7rti//ou<ret for eVt- 
(^ouo-et). See Jerome, Comm. on Matt, xxvii. 33, 
and the quotation in Keland, Pal. p. 860; also 
Saewulf, in E(trlij Travels, p. 39. The skull com- 
monly introduced in early pictures of the Cmcifixion 
refers to this. 

A connection has been supposed to exist between 
GoATii and Golgotha, but at the best this is mere 
conjecture, and there is not in the original the 

same simdarity between the two names — HV^ 

and Sn737i — which exists in theur English or 
Latin garb, and which probably occasioned the 
suggestion. G. 

GOLI'ATH (n^Vs [splendor, brilliant, Dietr. ; 
5ut see below]: roxidd: Goliath), a famous giant 
Df Gath, who " morning and evening for forty days " 
lefied the armies of Israel (1 Sam. xvii.). He was 
possibly descended from the old Rephaim, of whom 
\ scattered remnant took refuge with the Phihs- 
tines after their dispersion by the Anjmonites (Deut. 
ii. 20, 21; 2 Sam. xxi. 22). Some trace of this 
))ndition may be preserved in the giant's name, if 

« 8t. Matthew too has the article in Codex B. 


it be connected with H^'^S, an exile. Sisionu. 
however, derives it from an Arabic word meaning 
"stout" (Gesen. Tlies. s. v.). His height was 
" six cubits and a span," which, taking the cubit 
at 21 inches, would make him 10^ feet high. But 
the LXX. and Josephus read '■'■four cubits and a 
span" (1 Sam. xvii. 4; Joseph. Ant. vi. 9, § 1). 
This will make him about the same size as the 
royal champion slain by Antimenidas, brother of 
Alcaeus (ctTroAeiTroi'Ta [xXav \i6vov waxeoou eiTrb 
irefiirwu, ap. Strab. xiii. p. 617, with Midler's 
emendation). Even on this computation Goliath 
would be, as Josephus calls him, avijp irafifieyedeT- 
TUTos — a truly enormous man. 

The circumstances of the combat are in all 
respects Homeric; free from any of the puerile 
legends which oriental imagination subsequently 
introduced into it — as for instance that the stones 
used by David called out to him from the In-ook, 
" By our means you shall slay the giant," etc. 
(Hottinger, Ilisl. Orient, i. 3, p. Ill AT.; D'Her 
belot, s. V. Gialut). The fancies of the Kabbis are 
yet more extraordinary. After the victory David 
cut off Goliath's head (1 Sam. xvii. 51; comp. 
Herod, iv. 6 ; Xenoph. Anab. v. 4, § 17 ; Niebuhr 
mentions a similar custom among the Arabs, Descr. 
Winer, s. v.), which he brought to Jerusalem 
(probably after his accession to the throne, Ewald, 
Gescli. iii. 94), while he hung the armor in his 

The scene of this famous combat was the Valley 
of the Terebinth, between Shochoh and Azekah, 
probably among the western passes of Benjamin, 
although a confused modern tradition has given the 
name of 'Ain Jalud (spring of Goliath) to the 
spring of Harod, or " trembling " (Stanley, p. 342; 
Judg. vii. 1). [Elah, valley of.] 

In 2 Sam. xxi. 19, we find that another Goliath 
of Gath, of whom it is also said that " the staff of 
his spear was like a weaver's beam," was slain by 
Ellianan, also a Bethlehem ite. St. Jerome ( QiUBst. 
Ihbr. ad loc.) makes the unlikely conjecture that 
Elhanan was another name of David. The A. V . 
here interpolates the words " the brother of," from 
1 (^hr. XX. 5, where this giant is called " Lahmi.' 
This will be found fully examined under El - 

HAN an. 

In the title of the Psalm added to the Psalter in 
the LXX. we find tw AoulS irphs rhu ro\id5; and 
although the allusions are vague, it is perhaps pos- 
sible that this Psalm may have been v\Titten after 
the victory. This Psalm is given at length under 
David, p. 554 b. It is strange that we find no 
more definite allusions to this combat in Hebrew 
poetry ; but it is the opinion of some that the song 
now attributed to Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 1-10) was 
originally written really in commemoration of 
David's triumph on this occasion (Thenius, die 
Biicher Sam. p. 8; comp. Bertholdt, FAnl iii. 
915; Ewald, Poet. Biicher des A. B. i. 111). 

By the Mohammedans Saul and Goliath are 
called Taluth and Galuth ( Jalut in Koran ), perhaps 
for the sake of the homoioteletifon, of which they 
are so fond (Hottinger, flist. Orient, i. 3, p. 28). 
Abulfeda .nentions a Canaanite king of the name 
Jalut (Hisi. Antehlam. p. 176, in Winer s. v.); and, 
according to Ahmed al-Fassi, Gialout was a dynastio 
name of the old giant-chiefs (D'Herbelot, s. y. 
FcJasthin). [Giants.] F. W. F. 

& But the Vuljcate has rfe viUix. 



GO'MER n^'2 Ic07n2)leteness]: Ta/iep; [in 

Ezek., ro/xep:] Comer). 1. The eldest son of 
Japheth, and the father of Ashkenaz, Kiphath, and 
Togarmah (Gen. x. 2, 3; [1 Chr. i. 5, G]). His 
name is subsequently noticed but once (Ez. xxxviii. 
6) as an ally or subject of the Scythian king Gog. 
He is generally recognized as the progenitor of the 
early Cimmerians, of the later Cimbri and the other 
branches of the Celtic family, and of the modern 
Gael and Cymry, the latter presemng with very 
slight deviation the original name. The Cimme- 
rians, when first known to us, occupied the Tauric 
Chersonese, where they left traces of their presence 
in the ancient names, Cimmerian Bosphorus, Cim- 
merian Isthmus, Mount Cimmerium, the district 
Cimmeria, and particularly the Cimmerian walls 
(Her. iv. 12, 45, 100: ^sch. Prom. Vinct. 729), and 
in the modern name Crimea. They forsook this 
abode under the pressure of the Scythian tribes, 
and during the early part of the 7th century B. c. 
they poured over the western part of Asia Minor, 
committing immense devastation, and defying for 
more than half a century the power of the Lydian 
kings. They were finally ex])elled by Alyattes, with 
the exception of a few, who settled at Sinope and 
Antandrus. It was about the same period that 
Ezekiel noticed them, as acting in conjunction with 
Armenia (Togarmah) and Magog (Scythia). The 
connection between Gomer and Armenia is sup- 
iwrted by the tradition, preserved by IMoses of 
Chorene (i. 11), that Gamir was the ancestor of 
the Haichian kings of the latter country. After 
the expulsion of the Cimmerians from Asia Minor 
their name disappears in its original form; but 
there can be little reasonable doubt that both the 
name and the people are to be recognized in the 
Cimbri, whose abodes were fixed during the Roman 
Empire in the north and west of Europe, partic- 
ularly in the Cimbric Chersonese {Denmark)., on 
the coast between the Elbe and Rhine, and in Bel- 
gium, whence they had crossed to Britain, and 
occupied at one period the whole of the British isles, 
but were ultimately driven back to the western and 
northern districts, which their descendants still 
occupy in two great divisions, the Gael in Ireland 
and Scotland, the Cymry in Wales. The latter 
name preserves a greater similarity to the original 
Gomer than either of the classical forms, the con- 
sonants being identical. The link to connect Cymry 
with Cimbri is furnished by the forms Cambria 
and Cumber-land. The whole Celtic race may 
therefore be regarded as descended from Gomer, 
ind thus the opinion of Josephus {Ant. i. 6, § 1), 
that the Galatians were sprung from him, may be 
reconciled with the view propounded. Various 
other conjectures have been hazarded on the sub- 
ject: Bochart {Phaleg, iii. 81) identifies the name 
on etymological gi'ounds with Phrygia ; Wahl 
{Asien, i. 274) proposes Cappadocia; and Kalisch 
' Comni. on Gen.) seeks to identify it with the 
Jhomari, a nation in Bactriana, noticed by Ptolemy 
(vi. 11, § 6). 

2. [TSfjLep.'] The daughter of Diblaim, and 
concubine of Hosea (i. 3). The name is significant 
<rf a maiden, ripe for marriage, and connects well 


with th^ nanu DiBLAiai, which is \\ao derivud 
from the subject of fruit. W. L. U. 

GOMOR'RAH {'H'^TIV, Gh'morah, prob- 
ably submersion, from '^'2"'^''^" unused root; in 
Arabic y4-h, ghamara, is to "overwhelm with 

water": r6/xop^a: GomorrliU), one of the five 
"citifs of the plain," or "vale of Siddim," that 
under their respective kings joined battle there 
with Chedorlaomer (Gen. xiv. 2-8) and his allies, 
b} whom they were discomfited till Abram came tc 
the rescue. Four out of the five were afterwards 
destroyed by the Lord with fii-e from heaven (Gen. 
xix. 23-29). One of them only, Zoar or Bela, 
which was its original name, was spared at the 
request of Lot, in order that he might take refuge 
there. Of these Gomorrah seems to have been 
only second to Sodom in importance, as well as in 
the wickedness that led to tlieir overthrow. What 
that atrocity was may be gathered from Gon. xix. 
4-8. Their miserable fate is held up as a warning 
to the children of Israel (Deut. xxix. 23;; as a 
precedent for the destruction of Babylon (Is. xiii. 
19, and Jer. 1. 40), of Edom (Jer. xlix. 18), of 
Moab (Zeph. ii. 9), and even of Israel (Am. iv. 
11). By St. Peter in the N. T., and by St. Jude 
(2 Pet. ii. (i; Jude, vv. 4-7), it is made "an en- 
sample unto those that after should live ungodly," 
or "deny Christ." Similarly their wickedness 
rings as a proverb throughout the prophecies (e. g. 
Deut. xxxii. 32; Is. i. 9, 10; Jer. xxiii. 14). Je- 
rusalem herself is there unequivocally called Sodom, 
and her people Gomorrah, for their enormities; just 
in the same way that the con-uptions of the Church 
of Kome have caused her to be called Babylon. On 
the other hand, according to the N. T., there is a 
sin which exceeds even that of Sodom and Gomor- 
rah, that, namely 'J which T}Te and Sidon, Ca- 
pernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida were guilty, when 
they "repented not," in spite of "the mighty 
works" which they had witnessed (Matt. x. 15); 
and St. jNIark has ranged under the same category 
all those who would not receive the preaching of 
the Apostles (vi. 11). 

To turn to their geographical position, one pas- 
sage of Scripture seems expressly to assert that the 
vale of Siddim had become the "salt," or dead, 
"sea" (Gen. xiv. 3), called elsewhere too the "sea 
of the plain" (Josh. xii. 3); the expression, how- 
ever, occurs antecedently to their overthrow.a Jo- 
sephus {Ant. i. 9) says that the lake Asphaltites or 
Dead Sea, was formed out of what used to be the 
valley where Sodom stood; but elsewhere he de- 
clares that the territory of Sodom was not suIh 
merged in the lake {B. J. iv. 8, § 4), but still 
existed parched and burnt up, as is the appearance 
of that region still; and certainly nothing in Scrip- 
ture would lead to the idea that they wen; destroyetl 
by submersion — though they may have been sub- 
merged afterwards when destroyed — for their de- 
struction is expressly attributed to the brimstone 
and fire rained upon them from heaven (Gen. xix. 
24; see also Deut. xxix. 23, and Zeph. ii. 9; also 
St. Peter and St. Jude before cited). And St. 
Jerome in the Onomasticon says of Sodom, "ci\ita» 

u ♦ This view, we think, is incorrect. We have no 
reason to regard the record (Gen. xiv. 3), at least in 
the form in which we have it, as older than the date 
»f the destruction of the cities. The next remark 
«]bo in reitard to Josephus must be an inadvertence. 

Josephus does not affirm that Sodom was in the rait 
of Siddim. He ^ays that it lay near it , and his twt 
testimonies, quoted in the article above, are entini* 
consistent. S W. 


jnpioruni divin ) igne consiimpta juxtz. mare mor- 
tuum," and so of the rest {ibid. s. v.). The whole 
lulyect is ably handled by Cellarius (ap. Uyol. 
Thesaur. vii. pp. decxxxix.-lxxviii.l, though it is 
not always necessary to agree with his conclusions. 
Among modern travellers, Dr. Robinson shows tha* 
the Jordaii could not have ever flowed into the gulf 
of \ikabuh ; on the contrary that the rivers of the 
desert themselves flow northwards into the Dead 
Sea. [ArakaII.] And this, added to the con- 
figuration and deep depression of the valley, serves 
in his opinion to prove that there must have been 
always a lake there, into which tlie Jordan flowed ; 
though he admits it to ha\-e been of far less extent 
than it now is, and even the whole southern part 
of it to have been added subsequently to the over- 
throw of the four cities, which stood, according to 
him, at the original south end of it, Zoar probably 
being situated in the mouth of IVady Kerak, as it 
opens upon the isthmus of the peninsula. In the 
same plain, he remarks, were slime pits, or wells of 
bitumen (Gen. xiv. 10; "salt-pits" also, Zeph. ii. 
9); while the enlargement of the lake he considers 
to have been caused by some convulsion or catas- 
trophe of nature coimected with the miraculous 
destruction of the cities — volcanic agency, that of 
earthquakes and the like {Bibl. Res. ii. 187-192, 
2d ed. ). He might have adduced the great earth- 
quake at Lisbon as a case in point. The great 
difference of level between the bottoms of the 
northern and southern ends of the lake, the former 
1,300, the latter only 13 feet below the surface, sin- 
gularly confirms the above view ([Stanley, S. if P. 
p. 287, 2d ed.). Pilgrims of Palestine formerly 
saw, or fancied that they saw, ruins of towns at the 
bottom of the sea, not far from the shore (see 
Maundrell, J-Jcaiy Travels, p. 454). M. de Saulcy 
was the first to ix)int out ruins along the shores 
(the Redjom-el-Mezorrhel ; and more particularly 
aptijpos to our present subject, Gvumran on the 
N. W.). Both perhaps are right. Gomorrah (as 
its very name implies) may have been mere or less 
submerged with the other three, subsequently to 
their destruction by fire; while the ruins of Zoar, 
inasmuch as it did not share their fate, would be 
found, if found at aU, upon the shore. (See gen- 
erally Mr. Isaac's Dead Sea.) [Sodom, Amer. ed.] 

E. S. Ff. 
GOMOR'RHA, the manner in which the 
name Goiiokrah is written in the A. V. of the 
Apocryphal books and the New Testament, follow- 
ing the Greek form of the word, rSfioppa (2 Esdr. 
ii. 8; Matt. x. 15 ; Mark vi. 11 ; Rom. ix. 29 ; Jude 
r- 2 Pet. ii. 6). 

^€<rir6Tris), employed in the A. V. of the master 
»f the house (Matt. xx. 11), and simply equivalent 
to that expression, without any reference to moral 
character. This was a common usage when the A. 
V. was made. The Greek term being the same, 
there was no good reason for saying " goodman of 
the house" in that veise, and "house holder" at 
the beginning of the parable (ver. 1). See Trench, 
Authorized Version, p. 96 (1859). H. 

GOPHER WOOD. Only once in Gen. vi. 
14. The Hebrew "l^D "^"^V., trees of Gopher, does 
not occur in the cognate dialects. The A. V. has 
(nade no attempt at translation : the LXX (|uAa 
Ttrpdycova) and Vulgate {lif/7ia kevit/ata] elicited 

by mjtathesls of H and ^ ("123 — ^'^'3), the for- 



mer having reference to square blocks, tut by tiu 
axe, the latter to planks smoothed by the plane, 
have not found much favor with modem commen- 

The conjectures of cedar (Aben Ezra, Onk 
Jonath. and Raljbins generally), wood most jjrcper 
to float (Kimchi), the Greek KeSpeXdrr] (Juu 
Tremell. ; Buxt.), 7>iHe (Avenar. ; Munst.), tur- 
peniine (Castalio), are little better than gratuitous. 
The rendering cedar has been defended by PoUetier, 
who refers to the great abundance of this tree in 
Asia, and the durability of its timber. 

The Mohammedan equivalent is sig, by which 
Herbelot understands the Indian plane-tree. Two 
principal conjectures, however, have been proposed : 
(1.) By Is. Vossius {Diss, de LXX. Jnterp. c. 12) 

that "^521 = "123, resitt; whence H "^^^^^j iiiP-'i»ing 
any trees of the resinous kind, such as pine, fir, 
etc. (2.) By Fuller {Miscell. Sac. iv. 5), Bochart 
{Phaleg, i. 4), Celsius {IJierobot. pt. i. p. 328), 
Hasse {Entdeckunfjen, pt. ii. p. 78), that Gopher Ls 
cypress, in favor of which opinion (adopted by 
Gesen. Lex.) they adduce the similarity in sound 
of gopher and cypress (Kuirap = yocfxp) ; the suit- 
ability of the cypress for ship-building; and the 
fact that this tree abounded in Babylonia, and more 
particularly in Adiabene, where it supplied Alex- 
ander with timber for a whole fleet (Arrian. vii. p. 
IGl, ed. Steph.). 

A tradition is mentioned in Eutychius (Annals, 
p. 34) to the effect that the Ark was made of the 
wood SadJ, by which is probably meant not the 
ebony, but the Junijyerus Sabina, a species of cy- 
press (Bochart and Cels. ; Rosenm. Sc/wl. ad Gen. 
vi. 14, and Alterthumsk. vol. iv. pt. 1). T. E. B. 

GOR'GIAS (Topylas, [Alex. 1 Mace. iii. 38, 
2 Mace. xii. 35, 37, Topycia^; 1 Mace. iv. 5, Kop- 
yio.s\ )i a general in the service of Antiochus Epi- 
phanes (1 INIacc. iii. 38, 0Lv)}p Svyarhs twu (pi\wv 
Tov fiaa-iAccas; cf. 2 Mace. viii. 9), who was ap- 
pointed by his regent Lysias to a command in the 
expedition against Judaja n. c. 106, in which he 
was defeated by Judas Maccabaeus with great loss 
(1 Mace. iv. 1 ff".). At a later time (b. c. 104) he 
held a garrison in Jamnia, and defeated the forces 
of Joseph and Azarias, who attacked him contrary 
to the orders of Judas (1 Mace. v. 56 ff". ; Joseph. 
Ant. xii. 8, § 6 ; 2 Mace. xii. 32). The account 
of Gorgias in 2 jNIacc. is very obscure. He is 
represented there as acting in a military capacity 
(2 Mace. X. 14, (rTpaTrjyhs rwv r6ira}v (?), 
hardly of Ccele-Syria, as Grinmi (/, c.) takes it), 
apparently in concert with the Idumoeans, and 
afterwards he is described, according to the present 
text as, "governor of Idumaea" (2 Mace. xii. 32), 
though it is possible (Giotius, Grimm, I. c.) that 
the reading is an error for " governor of Jamnia " 
(Joseph. Ant. xii. 8, § 6, o rrjs 'lafiveias OTparr)- 
yos)- The hostility of the Jews towards him is 
described in strong terms (2 Mace. xii. 35. Thv 
KardpaTou, A. V. "that cursed man "); ai d while 
his success is only noticed in passing, hi;j defeat 
and flight are given in detail, though confusedly 
{2 Mace. xii. 34-38; cf. Joseph. /. c). 

The name itself was borne by one of Alexander'j 
generals, and occurs at later times among the east- 
ern Greeks. B. F. W. 

GORTY'N A (rSpTvvai [rSprwa in 1 Mace.] 
in ciassiical writers, rSprvva or roprvV. [Gortyna])^ 
a city of Crete, and in ancient times its most ia. 


jortant city, next to Cnossus. The only direct 
Biblical interest of Gortyna is in the fact that it 
appears from 1 Mace. xv. 23 to have contained 
Jewish residents. [Cukte.] The circumstance 
alluded to in tliis passage took place in the reign 
of Ptolemy Physcon; and it is possible that the 
Jews had increased in Crete during the reign of 
his predecessor Ptolemy Philometor, who recei\ed 
many of them into Egypt, and who also rebuilt 
some parts of (Jortyna (Strab. x. p. 478). 'I'his 
city was nearly half-way between the eastern and 
western extremities of the island; and it is worth 
while to notice that it was near Fair Havens; so 
that St. l*aul may possiljly have preached the gos- 
jxil there, when on his voyage to Rome (Acts xxvii. 
8, 9). Gortyna seems to have been the capital of 
the island under the Komans. For the remains on 
the old site and in the neighborhood, see the Mu- 
seum of Cl((sstccU Antiquities, ii. 277-280. 

J. S. H. 

GO'SHEN ("Jtra: reo-e^; [Gen. xlvi. 29, 
'HpdoQJv ttSKis'i for ver. 28 see below:] Gessen), a 
word of uncertain etymology, the name of a part 
of Egypt where the Israelites dwelt for the whole 
period of their sojourn in that country. It is 

usually called the "land of Goshen," ^t^'H V'T'^? 
but also Goshen simply. It appears to have borne 
another name, "the land of Rameses," VTl^ 

DDPPn (Gen. xlvii. 11), unless this be the name 
of a district of Goshen. The first mention of Go- 
shen is in Joseph's message to his father : " Thou 
shalt dwell in the land of Goshen, and thou shalt 
be near unto me " (Gen. xlv. 10). This shows that 
the territory was near the usual royal residence or 
the residence of Joseph's Pharaoh. The dynasty 
to which we assign this king, the fifteenth [Egyit; 
JosKPii], appears to have resided part of the year 
at IMemphis, and part of the year, at harvest-time, 
at Avaris on the Bubastite or Pelusiac branch of the 
Nile: this, Manetho tells us, was the custom of the 
first king (Joseph, c. Apicm. i. 14). In the account 
of the arri\'al of Jacob it is said of the patriarch : 
" He sent Judah before him unto Joseph, to direct 
his face unto Goshen ; and they came into the land 
of Goshen. And Joseph made ready his chariot, 
and went up to meet Israel his father, to Goshen " 
(Gen. xlvi. 28, 29). This land was therefore be- 
tween Joseph's residence at the time and the frontier 
of Palestine, and apparently the extreme province 
towards that frontier. The advice that Joseph 
gave his brethren as to their conduct to Pharaoh 
further characterizes the territory: " When Pharaoh 
shall call you, and shall say, What [is] your occu- 
pation ? Then ye shall say. Thy servants have been 

herdsmen of cattle (HIirTp "*t?*3S) from our youth 
even until now, both we [and] also our fathers: 
that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen ; for every 

shepherd (]S^ "^r?"^) [is] an abomination unto 
the Egyptians " (xlvi. 33, 34). It is remarkable 
that in Coptic Cy JUC signifies both " a shepherd " 
and " disgrace " and the like (Rosellini, Monumenti 
Sfnnji, i. 177). This passage shows that (lOshen 
nas scarcely regarded as a part of Egypt Proper, 
and was not peopled by Egyptians — characteristics 
iat would positively indicate a frontier province. 
But it is not to be inferred that Goshen had no 
Egyptian iuhal)itants at this period : at the time 
9f the ten plagues such are distinctly mentioned. 


That there was, moreover, a foreign populatioi be- 
sides the Israelites, seems evident from the aconml 
of the calamity of Ephraim's house [Heiuah], 

and the mention of the HT 2']^ wlio went out at 
the Exodus (Ex. xii. 38), notices referring to the 
earlier and the later period of the sojourn. The 
name Goshen itself appears to be Hebrew, or Semitic 
— although we do not venture with Jerome to de- 
rive it from Dt?'2 — for it also occurs as the natae 
of a district and of a town in the south of Palea- 
tine (infra, 2), where we could scarcely cxpe<u an 
appellation of Egyptian origin unless given after 
the Exodus, which in this case does not seem likely. 
It is also noticeable that some of the names of 
places in Goshen or its neighborhood, as certainly 
Migdol and Baal-zephon, are Semitic [Baal-ze- 
phon], the only positive exceptions being the cities 
Pithom and Rameses, built during the oppression. 
The next mention of Goshen confirms the previous 
inference that its position was between Canaan and 
the Delta (Gen. xlvii. 1). The nature of the 
country is indicated more clearly than in the pas- 
sage last quoted in the answer of Pharaoh to the 
request of Joseph's brethren, and in the accoimt of 
their settling : " And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, 
saying' I'^y father and thy brethren are come unto 
thee: the land of Egypt [is] before thee; in the 
best of the land make thy father and brethren to 
dwell : in the land of Goshen let them dwell : and 
if thou knowest [any] men of activity among them, 
then make them rulers o^•er my cattle. . . . And 
Joseph placed his fathirand his brethren, and gave 
them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best 
of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh 
had commanded" (Gen. xlvii. 5, G, 11). Goshen 
was thus a pastoral country where some of Pha- 
raoh's cattle were kept. The expression " in the 

best of the land," V^^*? ^^^^4^ (eV tt] 0e\' 
ricrTT) 777, in optimo loco), must, we think, be rel- 
ative,' the best of the land for a pastoral people 
(although we do not accept JNIichaelis' reading 

" pastures " by comparison with V»3*Ji5«jO, Suppl. 

p. 1072; see Gesen. Thes. s. v. ^t2^^), for in the 
matter of fertihty the richest parts of Egypt are 
those nearest to the Nile, a position which, as will 
be seen, we cannot assign to Goshen. The suf- 
ficiency of this tract for the Israelites, their pros- 
perity there, and their virtual separation, as is 
evident from the account of the plagues, from the 
great body of the Egj'ptians, must also be borne in 
mind. The clearest indications of the exact position 
of Goshen are those aflTorded by the nairative of 
the ICxodus. The Israelites set out from the town 
of Rameses in the land of Goshen, made two days' 
journey to " the edge of the wilderness," and in one 
day more reached the Red Sea. At the starting- 
point two routes lay before them, " the way of the 
land of the Philistines . . . that [was] near," and 
" the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea " (Ex. 
xiii. 17, 18). From these indications we infer that 
the land of Goshen must have in part been neai 
the eastern side of the ancient Delta, Rameses ly- 
ing within the valley now called the Wikli-f- Tuiuey^ 
Idt, about thirty miles in a direct course from th« 
ancient western shore of the Arabian Gulf [Ex 
ODcs, the]. 

The results of the foregoing examination 0/ 
Biblical evidence are that tlie lar d of Goshen Uj 


jct\reen the eastern part of the uicient Delta and 
the western border of Palestine, that it was scarcely 
a part of I*4^ypt Proper, was inhabited by other 
foreigners besides the Israelites, and was in its 
geographical names rather Senii'-.ic than Egyptian ; 
that it was a pasture-land, especially suited to a 
shepherd-people, and sufficient for the Israelites, 
who there prospered, and were separate from the 
main body of the Egyptians; and lastly, that one 
of its towns lay near the wes.ern extremity of the 
Wwli-t- Tumeyldt. These indications, except only 
that of sufficiency, to be afterwards considered, seem 
to us decisively to indicate the Wdcli-t- Tumeyldt, 
the vidley along which anciently llowed the canal 
of the Ked Sea. Other identifications seem to us 
to be utterly untenable. If with Lepsius we place 
Goshen below Heliopolis, near Bubastis and Bil- 
beys, the distance from tlie Ked Sea of three days' 
journey of the Israelites, and the separate character 
of the country, are violently set aside. If we con- 
sider it the same as the Bucolia, we have either the 
same diiHculty as to the distance, or we must imagine 
a route almost wholly through the wilderness, in- 
stead of only for the last third or less of its distance. 

Having thus concluded that the land of Goshen 
appears to have corresponded to the Wddi-t- Tumey- 
ldt. we have to consider whether the extent of this 
tract would be sufficient for the sustenance of the 
Israelites. The superficial extent of the Wddi-t- 
Tumeyldt, if we include the whole cultivable part 
of the natural valley, which may somewhat exceed 
that of the tract bearing this appellation, is prob- 
ably under 60 square geographical miles. If we 
supiwse the entire Israelite population at the time 
of the Exodus to have been 1,800,000, and the 
whole population, including Egyptians and foreign- 
ers other than the Israelites, about 2,000,000, this 
would give no less than between 30,000 and 40,000 
inhabitants to the square mile, which would be 
half as dense as the ordinary population of an 
eastern city. It must be remembered, however, 
that we need not suppose the Israelites to have 
been limited to the valley for pasture, but like the 
Arabs to have led their flocks into fertile tracts of 
the deserts around, and that we have taken for our 
estimate an extreme sum, that of the people at the 
Exodus. For the greater part of the sojourn their 
numbers must have been far lower, and before the 
Exodus they seem to have been partly spread about 
the territory of the oppressor, although collected at 
Rameses at the time of their departure. One very 
large place, like the Shepherd-stronghold of Avaris, 
which Manetho relates to have had at the first a 
garrison of 240,000 men, would also greatly dimin- 
ish the disproportion of population to superficies. 
The very small superficial extent of Egypt in rela- 
tion to the population necessary to the construction 
of the vast monuments, and the maintenance of the 
gresit armies of the Pharaohs, requires a different 
proportion to that of other countries — a condition 
fully explained by the extraordinary fertility of the 
soil. Even now, when the population is almost at 
the lowest point it has reached in history, when vil- 
lages have replaced towns, and hamlets villages, it is 
Btill denser than that of our rich and thickly-pop- 
ulated Yorkshire. We do not think, therefore, that 
the small superficies presents any serious difficulty. 

Thus far we have reasoned alone on the evidence 
'^f the Hebrew text. The LXX. version, however, 
presents some curious evidence whicn must not be 
jAiKcti by unnoticed. The testimony of this ver- 
lUMi in any Egyptian matter is not to be disre- 



garded, although in this particular case too mucL 
stress should not be laid on it, since the tradition 
of Goshen and its inhabitants must ha\ 5 become 
very faint among the Egyptians at the t me when 
the Pentateuch was translated, and we have no 
warrant for attributing to the translator or trans- 
lators any more than a general and iwpnlar knowl- 
edge of Egyptian matters. In Gen. xlv. 10, for 

1^'2 the LXX. has Tecrh/jL 'Apafiias- The ex- 
planatory word may be imderstood eitlier as mean- 
ing that Goshen lay in the region of Lower Egypt 
to the east of the Delta, or else as indicating that 
the Arabian Nome was partly or wholly the same. 
In the latter case it must be remembered that the 
Nonies very anciently wei-e far more extensive than 
under the Ptolemies. On either supposition the 
passage is favorable to our identification. In Gen 

xlvi. 28, instead of ^t^a n^nS, the LXX. haa 
Kad^ 'Upcacoi/ irSkiu, iy yfj "Pajx^aafj (or ets yriv 
'Payuecro-/)), seemh)gly identifying Kameses with 
Herocpolis. It is scarcely possible to fix tlie site 
of the latter town, but there is no doubt that it 
lay in the valley not far from the ancient head of 
the Arabian Gulf. Its position is too near the gulf 
for the Kameses of Scripture, and it was probably 
chosen merely because at the time when the trans- 
lation was made it was the chief place of the terri- 
tory where the Israelites had been. It must be 
noted, however, that in Ex. i. 11, the LXX., fol- 
lowed by the Coptic, reads, instead of " Pitbom 
and Kaamses," tt]v re nei9(v, Koi 'Pa^uewcrJj, Kal 
"riu, 7} ia-Tiu 'HXioviroAis- Eusebius identifies 
Kameses with Avaris, the Shepherd-stronghold on 
the Pelusiac branch of the Nile (ap. Cramer, 
Aneccl. Paris, ii. p. 174). The evidence of the 
LXX. version therefore lends a general support to 
the theory we have advocated. [See Exodus, 
THE.] K. S. P. 

2. (]tt''2 : roa-Sfi' [Gosen ; Josh. x. 41, in 
Vulg. ed.'l590,] Gesseii, [ed. 1503,] Cozen) the 
" land" or the "country (both \^"i^S) of Goshen," 
is twice named as a district in Southern Palestine 
(Josh. X. 41, xi. 16). From the first of these it 
would seem to have lain between Gaza and Gibeon, 
and therefore to be some part of the maritime plain 
of Judah ; but in the latter passage, that plain — 
the SheJ'elak, is expressly specified in addition to 
Goshen (here with the article). In this [lace too 
the situation of Goshen — if the order of tlie state- 
ment be any indication — would seem to be between 
the "south" and the Shefdnh (A. V. "valley"). 
If Goshen was any portion of this rich plain, is it 
not possible that its fertility may have suggested 
the name to the Israelites ? but this is not more 
than mere conjecture. On the other hand tho 
name may be far older, and may retain a trace of 
early intercourse between I^gypt and the south ol 
the promised land. For such intercourse conip. 1 
Chr. vii. 21. 

3. \Vo(TOft.' GoaenJ] A town of the same nam3 
is once mentioned in company with Debir, Socoh, 
and others, as in the mountains of Judah (Josh. 
XV. 51). There is nothing to connect this place 
with the district last spoken of. It has not yet 
been identified. G. 

GOSPELS. The name Gospel (from god and 
spell, Aug. Sax. (jood messnye or news, which is a 
translation of the Greek euayyekiov) is applied to 
the ijur inspred histories of the life and teaching 


jf Christ contained in the New Testament, of which 
leparate accounts will be given in their place. 
lM^tthew; Makk; Luke; John.] It may be 
fairly said that the genuineness of these four nar- 
ratives rests upon better evidence than that of any 
otliei ancient writings. 'I'hey were all composed 
during the latter half of the first century : those 
of St. Matthew and St. Mark some years before 
the destruction of Jerusalem; that of St. Luke 
probably about A. D. 64; and that of St. John 
towards the close of the century. Before the end 
of the second century, there is abundant evidence 
that the four Gospels, as one collection, were gen- 
erally used and accepted. Irena^us, who suffered 
martyrdom about A. i). 202, the disciple of Poly- 
carp and Papias, who, from having been in Asia, 
in Gaul, and in Konie, had ample means of know- 
ing the belief of various churches, says that the 
authority of the four Gospels was so far confirmed 
that even the heretics of his time could not reject 
them, but were obliged to attempt to prove tbeir 
tenets out of one or other of them ( Contr. Beer. iii. 
11, § 7). Tertullian, in a work written about A. u. 
208, mentions the four Gospels, two of them as the 
work of Apostles, and two as that of the disciples 
of Apostles {apostoUci); and rests their authority 
on their apostoUc origin {Adv. Marcion. lib. iv. c. 
2). Origen, who was born about A. D. 185, and 
died A. D. 253, describes the Gospels in a charac- 

a * Theophilus does not use the temi " Evangelists," 
but speaks of " the Prophets " of the Old Testament 
and " the Gospels " as alike divinely inspired (Ad 
Aiitol. lib. iii. c. 12, p. 218, ed. Otto), and expressly 
names John as among those " moved by the Spirit," 
quoting John i. 1 {ibid. ii. 22, p. 120). After citing a 
passage from the Book of Proverbs on the duty of 
chastity, he says, " But the Evangelic voice teaches 
purity yet more imperatively," quoting Matt. v. 28, 32 
{ibijJ. iii. 13). Further on, he introduces a quotation 
from Matthew with the expression, " The Gospel says " 
{ibid. iii. 14). 

Among the writers who bear testimony to the gen- 
eral reception of the Gospels by Christians before the 
close of the second century, Clement might well have 
been mentioned, who succeeded Pantsenus as president 
of the celebrated Catechetical School at Alexandria 
about A. D. 190. and was one of the most learned men 
of his age. His citations from all the Gospels as 
luthoritative are not only most abundant, but he ex- 
pressly speaks of " the four Gospels which have been 
handed down to us," in contrast with an obscure 
apocryphal book, " The Gospel according to the Egyp- 
tians," used by certain heretics {Strom, iii. 13, 0pp. 
p. 553, ed. Potter). A. 

b * The Muratorian fragment expressly designates 
he Gospels of Luke and John as the " third " and 

fourth " in order ; and the imperfect sentence with 
Khich it begins applies to Mark. A note of time in 
the document itself appears to indicate that it was 
oomposed not far from a. d. 170, perhaps earlier ; but 
the question of the date is not wholly free from diffi- 
culty. Recent critical editions and discussions of this 
Interesting relic of Christian antiquity may be found 
In Credner's Gesih. des Neulest. Knnon, herauss:. von 
Volk7?iar (Ber\. 1860), pp. 141-170, 341-364; Uilgen- 
feld's Der Kanon n. die Kritik des N. T. (Halle, 1863). 
>p. 39-43 ; and Westcott's Hist, of the Canon of tlie 
N. T., 2d ed. (Lond. 1866), pp. 184-193, 466-480. 

The statements that follow in the text in regard to 
sarly citations from the Gospels require some modifica- 
Kon. The earliest formal quotation from any of the 
Sospeis appears to be found in the epistle ascribed to 
Barnabas (see Barnabas), where the saying " Many are 
sailed, but few chosen '• is introduced by a>? yeypanrai, 
•*M it is written " (Bamab. c. 4 ; Matt. xxii. 14). With 


teristic strain of metaphor as " the [four] elemmtl 
of the Church's faith, of which the whole woiid, 
reconciled to God in Christ, is composed " {Jn 
Johan. [tom. i. § 6] ). Elsewhere, in commenting 
on the opening words of St. Luke, he draws a Una 
between the inspired Gospels and such productiona 
" the Gospel according to the Egyptians," " tha 
Gospel of the Twelve," and the hke {Jhmil. in 
Luc, 0pp. iii. 932 f.). Although TheophiiUS, who 
became sixth (seventh?) bishop of Antioch about 
A. I). 1G8, speaks only of "the Evangehsts," with- 
out adding tlieir names {Ad Autol. iii. pp. 124, 125), 
we might fairly conclude with Gieseler that he 
refers to the collection of four, already known in 
his time.« But from Jerome we know that The- 
ophilus arranged the records of the four Evangelists 
hito one work {Ejnst. ad Ahjas. iv. p. 197). 'i'atian, 
who died about A. D. 170 (?), compiled a Diaies- 
saron, or Hai'mony of the Gospels. I'he Muratorian 
fragment (Muratori, Antiq. It. iii. p. 854; Kouth, 
lid. Sacr. vol. iv. [vol. i. ed. alt.] ), which, even if 
it be not by Caius and of the second century, is at 
least a very old monument of the Koman Church, 
describes the Gospels of Luke and John ; but time 
and carelessness seem to have destroyed the sen- 
tences relating to Matthew and JNIark.'' Another 
source of evidence is open to us, in the citations 
from the Gospels found in the earliest writers. Bar- 
nabas, Clemens Komanus, and Polycarp, quote pas- 

this exception, there is no express reference to any 
written Gospel in the remains of the so-called Apostol- 
ical Fathers. Clement of Rome {Epist. cc. 13, 46) and 
Polycarp {Epist. cc. 2, 7), using the expression, " The 
Lord said," or its equivalent, quote sayings of Christ 
in a form agreeing in essential meaning, but not ver- 
bally, with passages in Matthew and Luke ; except 
that in Polycarp two short sentences, "Judge not, 
that ye be not judged," and " The spirit indeed is 
willing, but the tiesh is weak," are given precisely a^ 
we have them in Matthew. The epistles attributed 
to Ignatius have a considerable number of exprcssioni 
svhich appear to imply an acquaintance with words of 
Christ preserved by Matthew and John ; but they con- 
tiiin no formal quotation of the Gospels ; and the un- 
certainty respecting both the authorship and the text 
of these epistles is such as to make it unsafe to rest 
any argument on them. In regard to the Apostolical 
Fathers in general, it is obvious tliat the words of 
Jesus and the facts in his history whicli they hav« 
recorded may have been derived by them from oiul 
tradition. Their writings serve to confirm the truth 
of the Gospels, but cannot be appealed to as affording 
direct proof of their genuineness. 

When we come to Justin Martyr, however, we stand 
on firmer ground. Ue, indeed, does not name the 
Evangelists : and it cannot be said that " many of his 
quotiitions are found verbatim in the Gospel of John." 
llis quotations, however, from the " Memoirs of the 
Apostles," o|» " Memoirs composed by tiio Apostles, 
ichich are called Gospels " {Apol. i. c. 66), or as he de- 
scribes them in one place more pjirticularly, " Memoirs 
composed by Apostles of Christ and their companions " 
{Dial. c. Tnjph. c. 103), are such as to leave no rejison- 
able doubt of his use of the first three Gospels ; and 
his use of the fourth Gospel , though contested by most 
of the critics of the Tiibingeu school is now concederi 
even by Hilgenfeld {Zeitsrhr. f. wist Theol. IStJo, p 
336). The subject of Justin Martyr's quotations is di» 
cussed in a masterly manner by Mr. Norton in his 
Genuineness of the Gospels, i. 200-239, and with fullei 
detail by Semisch, Die apostol. Denkwiirdi^keiten dt, 
Martynrs Jiistitius {Hsimh. 1848), and Wcstcott (History 
of the Canon of the N. T., 2d ed.. pp. 83-145). 1/ 
nuist not be forgotten that the " Memoirs of th« 
Apostles" used by Justin Martyr were sacre^i booka 


•iges from them, but not with verbal exactness ) 
rhe testimony of Justin Mirtyr (born about a. d. 
d!), martyred a. d. 165) is much fuller; many of 
his quotations are found verbatim in the Gospels of 
St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, and possibly 
■jf St Mark also, whose words it is more difficult to 
separate. The quotations from St. Matthew are 
the most numerous. In historical references, tlie 
mode of quotation is more free, and the narrative 
occasionally unites those of Matthew and Luke : in 
a Nery few cases he alludes to matters not mentioned 
in the canonical Gospels. Besides these, St. Mat- 
thew appears to be quoted by the author of the 
Epistle to Diognetus, by llegesippus, Irenieus, Ta- 
tian, Athcnagoras, and Theophilus. Eusebius re- 
cords that Pantaenus found in India ( ? the south 
of Arabia V) Christians who used the Gospel of St. 
Matthew. All this shows that long before the end 
of the second century the Gospel of St. Matthew 
was in general use. From the fact that St. Mark's 
Gospel has few places peculiar to it, it is more 
difficult to identify citations not expressly assigned 
to him : but Justin Maityr and Athenagoras appear 
to quote his Gospel, and Irena;us does so by name. 
St. Luke is quoted by Justin, Irenieus, Tatian, 
Athenagoras, and Theophilus ; and St. John by all 
of these, with the addition of Ignatius, the Epistle 
to Diognetus, and Polycrates. From these we may 
conclude that before the end of the second century 
the Gospel collection was well known and in general 
use. There is yet another line of evidence. The 
heretical sects, as well as the Fathers of the Church, 
knew tlie Gospels ; and as there was the greatest 
hostility between them, if tlie Gospels had become 
known in the Church aftei- the dissension arose, 
the heretics would never have accepted them as 
genuine from such a quarter. But tlie Gnostics 
Hud Marcionites arose early in the second century ; 
and therefore it is probable tliat the Gospels were 
then accepted, and thus they are traced back almost 
to the times of the Apostles (Olshausen). Upon a 
review of all the witnesses, from the Apostolic 
Fathers down to the Canon of the Laodicean Council 

read in the churches on the Lord's day, in connection 
with the Prophets of the Old Testament (Justin, ApoL 
I. c. 67). The supposition that in the interval of 25 
or 30 years between the time of Justin and Irenaeus 
these books disappeared, and a wholly different set was 
silently substituted in their place throughout the 
Christian world, is utterly incredible. The '' Memoirs "' 
therefore of which Justin speaks must have been our 
present Gospels. 

The iDiporbmce of the subject will justify the inser- 
tion of the following remarks of Mr. Norton on the 
peculiar nature, of the evidence for the genuineness of 
the Gospels. lie observes : 

" The mode of reasoning by which we may estabUsh 
the genuineness of the Gospels has been regarded as 
much move analogous than it is to that by which we 
prove historically the genuineness of other ancient 
books ; that is to say, through tlie mention of their 
titles and authors, and quotations from and notices of 
Ihem, in individual, unconnected writers. This mode 
i)f reasoning is, in its nature, satisfactory ; and would 
be so in its application to the Gospels, if the question 
?f their genuineness did not involve the most moment 
■•lis of all questions in the history of our race, ^ 
whether Christianity be a special manifestation of God's 
love toward man. or only the most remarkable devel- 
opment of those tendencies to fanaticism which exist 
In human nature. Reasoning in the manner supposed, 
ire find tlunr genuineness unequivocally asserted by 
ireiueUB ; we may satisfy ourselves tha- thef were 
enured SIS genuine by Justin Martyr ; we tri the 


in 364, and that of the third Council of Carthaga 
m 397, hi both of which the four Gospels are num- 
bered in the Canon of Scripture, there can hardly 
be room for any candid person to doubt that from 
the first the four Gospels were recognized as genuine 
and as inspired ; that a sharp hue of distinction waa 
drawn between them and the so-called apocryphal 
Gospels, of which the number was very great; that, 
from the citations of passages, the Gospels bearing 
these four names were the same as those which we 
possess in our Bibles under the same names; that 
unbelievers, like Celsus, did not deny the genuine- 
ness of the Gospels, even when rejecting their con • 
tents ; and, lastly, that heretics thought it necessary 
to plead some kind of sanction out of the Gospels 
for their doctrines : nor could they venture on the 
easier path of an entire rejection, because the 
Gospels were everywhere known to be genuine. Aa 
a matter of literary history, nothing can be better 
established than the genuineness of the Gospels; 
and if in these latest times they have been assailed, 
it is plain that theological doubts have been con- 
cerned in the attack. The authority of the books has 
been denied from a wish to set aside their contents. 
Out of a mass of authorities the following may be 
selected: Norton, On the Genuineness of the Gospels, 
2 vols. London, 1847, 2d ed. [3 vols. Cambridge 
and Boston, 1846-48] ; Kirchhofer, Quellensamm- 
lung zur Gesdnchte des N. T. Canons, Ziirich, 
1844; De Wette, Lelirbuch der Jdst.-krit. Einlei- 
tumj, etc., 5th ed., Berhn, 1852 [translated by F. 
Frothingham, Boston, 1858 ; Gth ed. of the original, 
by Messiier and Liinemann, Berl. 1860] ; Hug's 
Einleitung, etc., Fosdick's [American] translation 
with Stuart's Notes [Andover, 1836] ; Olshausen, 
Biblischer Commentary Introduction, and hig 
EcJdheit der vier canon. Evan(/elien, 1823; Jer. 
Jones, Method of settlinc/ the Canonical Authority 
of the N. r., Oxford, 1798, 2 vols.; F.. C. Baur, 
Krit. Untersuchumien iiher die kanon. Evangtlien, 
Tijbingen, 1847; Keuss, Geschichte der heilic/en 
Schriften N. T. [4th ed., Braunschweig, 1864] ; 
Dean Alford's Greek Testament, Prolegomena, vol 

Gospels of Matthew and Mark mentioned in the be- 
ginning of the second century by Papias ; and to the 
genuineness of St. Luke's Gospel we have his own 
attestation in the Acts of the Apostles. Confining 
ourselves to this narrow mode of proof, we arrive at 
what in a common case would be a satisfactory con- 
clusion. But when we endeavor to strengthen this 
evidence by appealing to the writings ascribed to 
Apostolical Fathers, we in fact weaken its force. At 
the very extremity of the chain of evidence, where it 
ought to be strongest, we are attaching defective links 
which will bear no weight. 

But the direct historical evidence for the genuino 
ness of the Gospels ... is of a very different kina 
from what we have just been considering. It consists 
in the indisputable fact, that throughout a community 
of millions of individuals, scattered over Europe, Asia, 
and Africa, the Gospels were regarded with the highest 
reverence, as the works of those to whom they are 
ascribed, at so early a period that there could be no 
difficulty in determining whether they were genuine 
or not, and when every intelligent Christian must hava 
been deeply interested to ascertain the truth. And 
this fact does not merely involve the testimon}' of the 
great bt Jy of Christians to the genuineness of the 
Gospels ; t i« itself a phenomenon admitting of no 
explanation, evcent that the four Gospels had all been 
handed down w genuine from the Apostolic age, and 
had every where accompanied our religion as it sprea</ 
through the world." {Genuineness of the Gosptli 
vol. i Additional c otes, p. cclxix. f.) A 



I ; Key. B. F. Westcott's f/ist07-y of N. T. Canon, 
r^ndon, 1859 [2d ed. 1866] ; Gieseler, IJlstorisch- 
kritischtr Versuch iibcr die Enstchim;/, (fc, der 
ichn/tlichen Evangelien, Leipzig, 18J8. [For 
jther works on the subject, see the addition to this 

On comparing these four books one with another, 
a peculiar ditficulty claims attention, which has had 
much to do with the controversy as to their geimine- 
ness. In the fourth Gospel the narrative coincides 
with that of the other three in a few passages only. 
Putting aside the account of the Passion, there are 
only three facts which John relates in conunon with 
the other Evangelists. Two of these are, the feed- 
ing of the five thousand, and the storm on the Sea 
of Galilee (ch. vi.), which appear to be introduced 
in connection with the discourse that arose out of 
the miracle, related by John alone. The third is 
the anointing of His leet by Mary ; and it is worthy 
of notice that the narrative of John recalls some- 
thing of each of the other three : the actions of the 
woman are drawn from Luke, the ointment and its 
value are described in INIark, and the admonition 
to Judas appears in iNIatthew; and John combines 
in his narrative all these particulars. Whilst the 
three present the life of Jesus in (Jalilee, John fol- 
lows him into JudiEa; nor should we know, but for 
him, that our Lord had journe3ed to Jerusalem at 
the prescribed feasts. Only one discoui-se of our 
Jx)rd that was delivered in Galilee, that in the 6th 
chapter, is recorded by John. The disciple whom 
Jesus loved had it put into his mind to write a 
Gospel which should more expressly than the others 
set forth Jesus as the Licarnate Word of God : if 
he also had in view the beginnings of the errors of 
Cerinthus and others before him at the time, as 
Irenseus and Jerome assert, the polemical purpose 
is quite subordinate to the dogmatic. He does not 
war against a temporary error, but preaches for aU 
time that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, in 
order that believing we may have life through His 
name. Now many of the facts omitted by St. John 
and recorded by the rest are such as would have 
contributed most directly to this great design ; why 
then are they omitted V The received explanation 
is the only satisfactory one, namely, that John, 
writing last, at the close of the first century, had 
seen the other Gospels, and purposely abstained 
from writing anew what they had sufiiciently re- 
corded. [.loTTN.] 

In the other three Gospels there is a great amount 
of agreement. If we suppose the history that they 
contain to be divided into sections, in 42 of these 
all the three narratives coincide, 12 more are given 
by Matthew and INIark oidy, 5 by Mark and Luke 
only, and 14 by Matthew and Luke. To these 
must be added 5 peculiar to Matthew, 2 to Mark, 
ind 9 to Luke; and the enumeration is complete. 
But this applies only to general coincidence as to 
the facts narrated: the amount of verbal coinci- 
dence, that is, the passages either verbally the same, 
or coinciding in the use of many of the same words, 
is much smaller. " Cy far the larger portion," 
aays Profeosor Andrews Norton {Genuineness, i. p. 
240, 2d ed. [Addit. Notes, p. cvii. f., Amer. ed.]), 
" of thia verbal agreement is found in the recital 
pf the words of others, and particularly of the words 
of Jesus. Thus, in Matthew's Gospel, the passages 
ferbally coincident with one or both of the other 
two Gospels amount to less than a sixth part of its 
>8ontent8 ; and of this about seven eighths occur in 
(jhs racilal of the words of others, and only about 


one eighth in what, by way of distinction, I maf 
call mere narrative, in which the Evangelist, 8))eak- 
ing in his own person, was unrestrained in the 
choice of his expressions. In Mark, the proportion 
of coincident passages to the whole contents of the 
Gospel is about one sixth, of which not one fifth 
occurs in the narrative. Luke Jias still less agree- 
ment of expression with the other Evangelists. 
The passages in which it is I'onnd amount only to 
about a tenth part of his Gospel ; and but an in 
considerable poition of it appears in the narrative 
— less than a twentieth part. I'hese proportions 
should be further compared with those which the 
narrative part of each Gospel bears to that in which 
the Mords of others are professedly repeated. jNIat- 
thew's narrative occupies about one fourth of hia 
Gospel ; jNIark's about one half, and Luke's about one 
third. It may easily be computed, therefore, that 
the proportion of verbal coincidence found in the nar- 
rative part of each Gospel, compared with what ex- 
ists in the other part, is about in the following 
ratios : in Matthew as one to somewhat more than 
two. in Mark as one to fom-, and ui Luke as one to 

Without going minutely into the examination 
of examples, which woidd be desirable if space per- 
mitted, the leading facts connected with the sub- 
ject may be thus sunnned up: The verbal and 
material agreement of the three first Evangelists is 
such as does not occur in any other authors who 
have written independently of one another. The 
verbal agreement is greater where the spoken words 
of others are cited than where facts are recorded ; 
and greatest in quotations of the words of our Lord. 
But in some leading events, as in the call of the 
four first disciples, that of iMatthew, and the Trans- 
figuration, the agreement e\en in expression is 
remarkable: there are also narratives where there 
is no verbal harmony in the outset, but only in the 
crisis or emphatic part of the story (Matt. viii. 3 = 
Mark i. 41 = Luke v. 13, and Matt. xiv. 19, 20 = 
Mark vi. 41-43 = Luke ix. 16, 17). The narratives 
of our Lord's early life, as given by St. Matthew 
and St. Luke, have little in common: while St. 
Mark does not include that part of the history in 
his plan. The agreement in the narrative portions 
of the Gospels begins with the Baptism of John, 
and reaches its highe-st point in the account of the 
Passion of our Lord and the facts that preceded it; 
so that a direct ratio miuht almost be said to exist 
between the amount of agreement and the nearness 
of the fivcts related to the Passion. After this 
event, in the account of His burial and resunection. 
the coincidences are few. The language of all three 
is Greek, with Hebrew idioms: the Hebraisms are 
most abundant in St. Mark, and fewest in St. Luke. 
In quotations from the Old Testament, the Evange- 
lists, or two of them, .sometimes exhibit a verbal 
agreement, although they differ from the Hebrew 
and from the Septuagint version (Matt. iii. 3 =^ 
Mark i. 3 = Luke iii. 4. Matt. iv. 10 = Luke i> 
8. Matt. xi. 10 = :Mark i. 2 == Luke vii. 27, &c.;. 
Except as to 24 ^'erses, the Gosj)el of Mark con- 
tains no principal facts which are not found in 
Matthew and Luke : liut he often supplies detaibi 
omitted by them, and these are often such as would 
belong to the graphic aceoimt of an eye-witnes«. 
There are no cases in which Matthew and Luks 
exactly harmonize, where Mark does not also coin- 
cide with them. In several places the words of 
INIark have something ui conunon with each of th« 
other narratives, so as to form a connecting link 


itweeu them, where their words slightly differ. 
!"he examples of verbal agreement between Mark 
.!id l.uke are not so long or so numerous as those 
r-tween Matthew and Luke, and Matthew and 
»lark; but as to the arrangement of events Mark 
,iid Luke frequently coincide, where Matthew differs 
rom them. These are the leadhig particulars; but 
hey are very for from giving a complete notion of 
i phenomenon that is well worthy of that attention 
ind reverent study of the sacred text by which 
i!one it can be fully and fairly apprehended. 

These facts exhilut the three Gospels as three 
'i;3tinct records of the life and works of the Ke- 
eemer, but with a greater amount of agreement 
lan three wholly independent accounts could be 
xpxted to exhibit. The agreement would be no 
ifficulty, witiiout the differences; it would oidy 
'lark the one divine source fronj which they are 
.11 derived — the 1 loly Spirit, who spake by the 
prophets. The difference of form and style, with- 
out the agreement, would offer no difficulty, since 
there may be a substantial harmony between ac- 
counts that differ greatly in mode of expression, 
and the vei'y difference might be a guarantee of 
independence. The harmony and the variety, the 
agreement and the differences, form together the 
problem with which Biblical critics have occupied 
themselves for a century and a half. 

The attempts at a solution are so many, that 
they can be more easily classified than ermmerated. 
The first and most o!)\ious suggestion would be, 
that the nan'ators made use of each other's work. 
Accordingly Grotius, -Mill, W'etstein, Griesbach, and 
many others, have endeavored to ascertain which 
Gospel is to be regarded as the first; which is 
copied from tlie fu-st; and which is the last, and 
copied from the other two. It is remarkable that 
each of the six possible combinations has found 
advocates ; and this of itself proves the uncertainty 
of the theory (lip. Marsh's MlchntUs, iii. p. 172; 
De Wette, llandbuch, § 22 ff.) When we are told 
by men of research that the (iospel of St. Mark is 
plainly founded upon the other two, as Griesbach, 
Biisching, and others assure us; and again, that 
the Gospel of St. Mark is certainly the primitive 
Gospel, on which the other two are founded, as by 
Wilke, Bruno Bauer, and others, both sides relying 
mainly on facts that lie within the compass of the 
text, we are not disposed to expect much fruit from 
the discussion. But the theory in its crude form 
is in itself most improbable; and the wonder is 
ihat so much time and learning have been devoted 
to it. It assumes tliat an Evangelist has taken up 
the work of his predecessor, and without substantial 
alteration has made a few changes in form, a few 
additions and retrenchments, and has then allowed 
the whole to go forth under his name. Whatever 
order of the three is adopted to favor the hypothesis, 
the omission by the second or third, of matter in- 
serted by the first, offers a great difficulty; since it 
would indicate a tacit opinion that these passages 
are either less useful or of less authority than the 
rest. The nature of the alterations is not such as 
we should expect to find in an age little given to 
literary composition, and in writings so simple and 
unlearned as these are admit*^ed to be. The re- 
placement of a word by a synonym, neither more 
nor less apt, the omission of a sayhig in one place 
and insertion of it in another, the occasional trans- 
position of events ; these are not in conformity with 
the habits of a time in which composition was little 
itudied, ajjd only practiced tis a necessity. Besides, 


such deviations, which in writers wholly indep«i4« 
ent of each other are only the guarantee of theii 
independence, cannot appear in those who copy 
from each other, without showing a certain willful- 
ness — an intention to contritdict and alter — that 
seems quite irreconcilable with any view of inspira- 
tion. These general objections will be found to 
take a still more cogent shaj)e against any particular 
form of this hypothesis: whether it is attempted to 
show that the Gospel of St. Mark, as the shortest, 
is also the earliest and primiti\e Gospel, or that 
this very Gospel bears evident signs of being tlie 
latest, a compilation from the other two; or that 
the order in the canon of Scripture is also the 
chronological order — and all these views have 
found defenders at no distant date — the theory 
that each EvangeUst only copied from his predeces- 
sor offers the same general features, a plausible 
argument from a few facts, which is met by in- 
superable difficulties as soon as the remaining facts 
are taken in (Gieseler, pp. 35, 36; Bp. Marsh's 
^^chaelis, vol. iii., part ii. p. 171 ff.). 

The supjxtsition of a connnon original from 
which the three Gos[x;ls were drawn, each with 
more or less modification, would naturally occur 
to those who rejected the notion that the Evange- 
lists had copied from each other. A passage of 
Epiphanius has been often quoted in support of 
this {Iheres. li. G), but the e| aurvjs t/js tr-nyris 
no doubt refers to the inspiring Spirit from which 
all three drew their authority, and not to any 
earthly copy, written or oral, of His divine mes- 
sage. The best notion of that class of specula- 
tions which would estabhsh a written document as 
the common original of the three Gospels, will be 
gained perhaps from Bishop INIarsli's {Mlcluielis, 
vol. iii. part ii.) account of Eichhorn's hypothesis, 
and of his own additions to it. It apj^eared to 
Eichhorn that the portions which are connnon to 
all the three Gospels were contained in a certain 
common document, from which they all drew. 
Niemeyer had already assumed that copies of such 
a document had got into circulation, and had been 
altered and annotated by different hands. Now 
Eichhorn tries to show, from an exact comparison 
of passages, that " the sections, whether great or 
small, which are common to St. Matthew and St. 
Mark, but not to St. Luke, and at the same time 
occupy places in the Gospels of St. jNIatthew and 
St. JNIark which correspond to each other, were ad- 
ditions matle in the copies used by St. Matthew 
and St. Mark, but not in the copy used by St. 
Luke; and, in like manner, that the sections found 
in the corresponding places of the Gospels of St. 
Mark and St. Luke, but not contained in the Gos- 
pel of St. Matthew, were additions made in the 
copies used by St. Mark and St. Luke" (p. 192). 
Thus Eichhorn considers himself entitled to assume 
that he can reconstruct the original document, and 
also that there must have been four other docu- 
ments to account for the phenomena of the text. 
Thus he makes — 

1. The original document. 

2. An altered copy which St. Matthew used. 

3. An altered copy which St. Luke used. 

4. A third copy, made from the two preced", g, 
used by St. Mark. 

5. A fourth altered copy, used by St. Matthew 
and St. Luke in common. 

As> *here is no external evidence worth consider- 
ing that this original or any of its numerous copiea 
ever existed, the value of this elaborate hypotlieain 


must depend upon its furnishing the only explana- 
tion, and that a sufficient one, of the facts of the 
text, liishop Marsh, however, finds it necessarj^, 
in order to complete the account of the text, to 
raise the number of documents to eight, still with- 
out producing any external evidence for the exist- 
ence of any of tliera; and this, on one side, de- 
prives Eichhorn's theory of the merit of complete- 
ness, and, on the other, presents a much broader 
surface to the obvious oljections. He assumes the 
existence of — 

1. A Hebrew original. 

'2. A Greek translation. 

3. A transcript of No. 1, with alterations and 

4. Another, with another set of alterations and 

6. Another, combining both the preceding, used 
by St. Mark, who also used No. 2. 

6. Another, with the alterations and additions 
of No. 3, and with further additions, used by St. 

7. Another, with those of No. 4 and further ad- 
ditions, used by St. Luke, who also used No. 2. 

8. A wholly distinct Hebrew document, in which 
our Lord's precepts, parables, and discourses were 
recorded, but not in chronological order; used both 
by St. Matthew and St. Luke. 

To this it is added, that " as the Gospels of St. 
Mark and St. Luke contain Greek translations of 
Hebrew materials, which were incorporated into 
St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel, the person who trans- 
lated St. Matthew's Hebrew Gospel into Greek fre- 
quently derived assistance from the Gospel of St. 
Mark, where he had matter in connection with 
St. Matthew: and in those places, but in those 
places only, where St. JNIark had no matter in con- 
nection with St. Matthew, he had fi-equently re- 
course to St. Luke's Gosi)el" (p. 3G1). One is 
hardly surprised after this to learn that Eichhorn 
soon after put forth a revised hypothesis {Eiildtuny 
in das N. T. 1804), in which a supposed Greek 
translation of a supposed Aramaic original took a 
conspicuous part; nor that Hug was able to point 
out that even the most liberal assumption of written 
documents had not pro\ided for one case, that of 
the verbal agreement of St. Mark and St. Luke, to 
the exclusion of St. Matthew; and which, though 
it is of rare occurrence, would require, on Eich- 
horn's theory, an additional Greek version. 

It will be allowed that this elaliorate hypothesis, 
whether in the form given it by INIarsh or by Eich- 
horn, possesses almost every fault that can be 
charged against an argument of that kind. For 
every new class of facts a new document must be 
assufned to have existed ; and Hug's objection does 
not really weaken the theory, since the new class 
of coincidences he mentions only requires a new 
version of the "original Gospel,'' which can be 
suppUed on demand. A theory so prolific in as- 
sumptions may still stand, if it can be proved that 
no other solution is possible ; but since this cannot 
be shown, even as against the modified theory of 
Gratz {Neutr Versuch, etc., 1812), then we are 
reminded of the schoolman's caution, entia rum 
sunt multipiicnnda jyrceier necessitatem. To assume 
for every new class of facts the existence of another 
complete edition and recension of the original work 
k quite gratuitous ; the documents might have been 
9S easily supposed to be fragmentary memorials, 
WTOUglit in by the Evangelists into the web of the 
Briginal Gospel ; or the coincidences might be, as 


Gratz supposes, cases where one Gospel ltu« beea 
interpolated by portions of another. Then the 
" original Gospel " is supposed to have been of 
such authority as to be circulated everywhere: yet 
so defective, as to require annotation from any 
hand ; so little reverenced, that no hand spared it. 
If all the Evangelists agreed to draw from such a 
work, it must have been widely if not uni\ersally 
accepted in the Church; and yet there is no record 
of its existence. The force of this dilemma has 
been felt by the supporters of the theory: if the 
work was of high authority, it would have been 
preserved, or at least mentioned; if of lower au- 
thority, it could not have become the b^sis of three 
canonical Gospels : and various attempts have been 
made to escajje from it. Bertholdt tries to find 
traces of its existence in the titles of works othei 
than our present Gospels, which were current in 
the earliest ages; but Gieseler has so diminished 
the force of his arguments, that only one of them 
need here be mentioned. Bertholdt ingeniously 
argues that a Gospel used by St. Paul, and trans- 
mitted to the Christians in Pontus, was the basis 
of Marcion's Gospel ; and assumes that it was also 
the "original Gospel:" so that in the Gospel of 
INIarcion there would be a transcript, though cor- 
rupted, of this primitive document. But there is 
no proof at all that St. Paul used any written 
CJospel; and as to that of Marcion, if the work of 
Hahn had not settled the question, the researches 
of such writers as N'olckmar, Zeller, P»itschl, and 
tlilgenfeld, are held to ha\e proved that the old 
opinion of Tertullian and Epiphanius is also the 
true one, and that the so-called fiospel of Marcion 
was not an independent work, but an abridged ver- 
sion of St. Luke's Gospel, altered by the heretic to 
suit his peculiar tenets. (See Bertholdt, iii. 1208- 
1223; Gieseler, p. 57; Weisse, Kvmuitlkvfrage^ 
p. 73.) ^^'e must conclude then that the work has 
lievished without record. Not only has this fate 
befallen the Aramaic or Hebrew original, but the 
translation and the five or six recensions. But it 
may well be asked whether the state of letters in 
Palestine at this time was such as to make this 
constant editing, translating, annotating, and en- 
riching of a history a natural and probable process. 
With the independence of the Jews their literature 
had declined; from the time of Ezra and Nebe- 
miah, if a writer here and there arose, his works 
became known, if at all, in Greek translations 
through the Alexandrine Jews. That the period 
of which we are speaking was for the Jews one of 
very little literary activity, is generally admitted ; 
and if this applies to all classes of the people, it 
would be true of the humble and uneducated class 
from which the first converts cime (jVcts iv. 13; 
James ii. 5). Even the second law (Scurepc^jcreij), 
which grew up after the Captivity, and in which 
the knowledge of the learned class consisted, wa* 
handed down by oral tradition, without being re- 
duced to writing. The theory of Eichhorn is only 
probable amidst a people given to literary habits, 
and in a class of that peojjle where education was 
good and literary activity hkely to prevail: the 
conditions here are the very reverse (see Gieseler'a 
able argument, p. 59 fF.). These are only a few 
of the objections which may be raised, on criticai 
and historical grounds, against the theory of Eich- 
horn and Marsh. 

But it must not be forgotten that this question 
reaches beyond history and criticism, and has a 
deep theological interest. We are oflered here M 


>ri^inal G )spel composed by somft unknown per- 
son; probably not an apostle, as Kichhorn admits, 
n his endeavor to account for the loss of the book. 
This was translated by one equally unknown ; and 
the various persons, into whose hands the two docu- 
ments came, all equally unknown, exercised freely 
the power of altering and extending the materials 
thus provided. Out of such unattested materials 
the three Evangelists composed their Gospels. So 
far as they allowed their materials to bind and 
guide them, so far their worth as independent wit- 
nesses is lessened. But, according to Eichhorn, 
they all felt bound to admit ilie whole of the origi- 
nal document, so that it is possible to recover it 
fipom theni by a simple process. As to all the pas- 
lages, then, in which this document is employed, 
it is not the Evangelist, but an anonymous prede- 
3essor to whom we are listening — not JNIatthew the 
Apostle, and iMark the companion of apostles, and 
Luke the beloved of the Apostle Paul, are affording 
us the strength of their testimony, but one witness 
whose name no one has thought fit to record. If, 
indeed, all three Evangelists confined themselves to 
this document, this of itself would be a guarantee 
of its fidelity and of the respect in which it was 
held ; but no one seems to have taken it in hand 
that did not think himself entitled to amend it. 
Surely serious people would have a right to ask, if 
the critical objections were less decisive, with what 
view of inspiration such a hypothesis could be rec- 
onciled. The internal evidence of the truth of 
the Gospel, in the harmonious and self-consistent 
representation of the I^erson of Jesus, and in the 
promises and precepts which meet the innermost 
needs of a heart stricken with the consciousness of 
sin, would still remain to us. But the wholesome 
confidence with which we now rely on the Gospels 
as pure, true, and genuine histories of the life of 
-Jesus, composed by four independent witnesses in- 
spired for that work, would be taken away. Even 
the testimony of the writers of the second century 
to the universal acceptance of these books would be 
invalidated, from their silence and ignorance about 
the strange circumstances which are supposed to 
have aftected their composition. 

Bibliography. — The English student will find 
in Bp. Marsh's Trandalion of Michaelis's Introd. 
to N. T. iii. 2, 1803, an account of Eichhorn's 
earlier theory and of his own. Veysie's Examina- 
tion of Mr. Marsli's Hypothesis, 1808, has sug- 
gested many of the objections. In Bp. Thii-lwall's 
Translation of Schleierm'tcher on St. Luke, 1825, 
Introduction, is an account of the whole question. 
Other principal works are, an essay of Eichhorn, in 
the 5th vol. AlUjemeine Bibliothek der bihlischen 
Literatur, 1794; the Essay of Bp. Marsh, just 
I uoted; Eichhorn, Einkitunfj in das N. T. 1804; 
Gratz. Neuer Versuch die Enstehung der drey 
erslen Evany, zu erUciren, 1812; Bertholdt, Ilis- 
tor. kritische Einfeiturif/ in sdmmtllche knnon. und 
apok. Schiiften des A. und N. T., 1812-1819; 
and the work of Gieseler, quoted above. See also 
De Wette, Lehrbuch, and Westcott, Introduction, 
already quoted ; also Weisse, Evangelienfra<je, 
185G. [For a fuller account of the literature of 
the subject, see addition to the present article.] 

There is another supposition to account for these 
facts, of which perhaps Gieseler has been tne most 
•cute expositor. It is probable that none of the 
Gtospels was written until many years after the day 
3€ Pentecost, on which the Holy Spirit descended 
901 the assembled disciples. From that day con:- 



menced at Jerusalem the work cf preaching th€ 
Gospel and converting the world. So seduloua 
were the Apostles in this work that they divested 
themselves of the labor of ministering to the jioor 
in order that tliey might give tliemselves " contin- 
ually to prayer and to the ministry of the word" 
(Acts vi.). Prayer and preaching \\ere the business 
of their lives. Now tlieir preaching must have 
been, from the nature of the case, in great part 
historical ; it must have been based upon an account 
of the life and acts of Jesus of Nazareth. They 
had been the eye-witnesses of a wondrous life, of 
acts and sufferings that had an influence over all 
the world : many of their hearers had never heard 
of Jesus, many others had received false accounts of 
one whom it suited the Jewish rulers to stigmatize 
as an impostor. Tlie ministry of our Lord went 
on principally in Galilee; the first preaching was 
addressed to people in Judaja. There was no writ- 
ten record to which the hearers might be referred 
for historical details, and therefore the [)reacher3 
must furnish not only inferences from the life of 
our Lord, but the facts of the life itself. The 
preaching, then, must have been of such a kind as 
to be to the hearers what the reading of lessons 
from the Gospels is to us. So far as the records of 
apostolic preaching in the Acts of the Apostles go, 
they confirm this view. Peter at Cajsarea, and 
Paul at Antioch, preach alike the focts of the Re- 
deemer's life and death. There is no improbability 
in supposing that in the course of twenty or thirty 
years' assiduous teaching, without a written Gos- 
pel, the matter of the apostolic preaching should 
have taken a settled form. Not only might the 
Apostles think it well that their own accounts 
should agree, as in substance so in form ; but the 
teachers whom they sent forth, or left behind in 
the churches they visited, would have to be pre- 
pared for their mission; and, so long as there waa 
no written Gospel to put into their hands, it might 
be desirable that the oral instruction sliould be as 
far as jwssible one and the same to all. It is by 
no means certain that the interval between the 
mission of the C'omforter and his work of directing 
the writing of the first Gospel was so lung as is 
here supposed: the date of the Hebrew St. Mat- 
thew may be earlier. [Matthkw.] But the ar- 
gument remains the same: the preaching of the 
Apostles would probably begin to take one settled 
form, if at all, during the first years of their min- 
istry. If it were allowed us to ask why God in 
his providence saw fit to defer the gift of a written 
Gospel to his people, tlie answer would be, that for 
the first few years the powerful working of the 
Holy Spirit in the living members of the church 
supplied the jilace of those records, which, as soon 
as the brightness of his presence began to be at all 
withdrawn, became indispensable in order to pre- 
vent the corruption of the Gospel history by fiilse 
teachei's. He was promised as one who should 
" teach them all things, and bring -dl things to 
their remembrance, whatsover " the ix;rd had " said 
unto them " (John xiv. 2(5). And more than once 
his aid is spoken of as needful, even for the proc- 
lamation of the facts that relate to Christ (Acts i. 
8; 1 P-^t. i. 12); and he is described as a witness 
with the Apostles, rather than through them, of 
the things which they had seen during the course 
of a ministry which they had shared (John xv. 20, 
27; Acts v. 32. Compare Acts xv. 28). The i>er- 
sonal qirthority of the Apostles as eye-witnesses of 
what *i"^y preached is not set aside by this divini 



aid: again and again they describe themsplves as 
''witnessps '' to facts (Acts ii. 32, iii. 15, x. 39, &c.); 
Mid wiien a vacancy occurs in their number through 
the fall of Judas, it is almost assumed as a thing 
of course that his successor shall be chosen from 
those " which had companied with them all the 
time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among 
them " (Acts i. 21). The teachhigs of the Holy 
Spirit consisted, not in whisi)ering to them facts 
which they had not witnessed, but rather in re- 
viving the fading remembrance, and throwing out 
into their true importance events and sayings that 
had been esteemed too lightly at the time they 
took place. But the Apostles could not have 
spoken of the Spirit as they did (Acts v. 32, xv. 
28) unless lie were known to be working in and 
with them and directing them, and manifesting 
diat this was the case by unmistakable signs. 
Here is the answer, both to the question why was 
it not the first care of the Apostles to prepare a 
written Gospel, and also to the scruples of those 
who fear that the supposition of an oral Gospel 
would give a precedent for those views of tradition 
which have been the bane of the Christian church 
as they were of the Jewish. The guidance of the 
Holy Spirit supplied for a time such aid as made 
a written Gospel unnecessary ; but the Apostles saw 
the dangers and errors which a traditional Gospel 
would be exposed to in the course of time ; and, 
whilst they were still preacliing the oral Gosi)el in 
the strength of the Holy Ghost, they were admon- 
islied by the same divine Person to prepare those 
written records which were hereafter to be the daily 
spiritual food of all the church of Christ." Nor 
is there anything unnatural in the supposition that 
the Apostles intentionally uttered their witness in 
the same order, and even, for the most part, in the 
same form of words. They would thus approach 
most nearly to the condition in which tlie church 
was to be when written books were to be the means 
of edification. They quote the scriptures of the 
Old Testament frequently in their discourses; and 
as their Jewish education had accustomed them to 
the use of the words of the Bible as well as the 
matter, they would do no Auolence to their prejudices 
in assimilating the new records to the old, and in 
reducing theui to a ^'■furm of sound words." They 
were all Jews of Palestine, of humble origin, all 
alike chosen, we may suppose, for the loving zeal 
with which they would observe the works of their 
Master and afterwards propagate his name ; so that 
the tendency to variance, arising from peculiarities 
of education, taste, and character, would be re- 
duced to its lowest in such a body. The language 
of their first preaching was the Syro-Chaldaic, 
which was a poor and scanty language; and though 
Greek was now widely spread, and was the language 
even of several places in Palestine (Josephus, Ant. 
xvii. 11, § 4; B. ./. iii. 9, § 1), though it prevailed 
in Antioch, whence the first missions to Greeks and 
Hellenists, or Jews who spoke Greek, proceeded 
(Acts xi. 2',\ xiii. 1-3), the Greek tongue, as used 
by Jews, pai'took of the poverty of the speech which 

a The opening words of St. Luke's Gospel, " Foras- 
^ucn as umuy have tsxkeri in liand to set forth in order 

lecliu-ation of those things wliich are most surely 
Delievcd among us, even as they delivered them unto 
us, wliich from the beginning were eye-witnesses aud 
ministers of the wora," appear to mean that many 
persons who lieard the preacliing of the Apostles wrote 
Sown what they heard, in order to preserve it in a 
pexiuanent form, 'the word " many " cannot refer 


it replaced ; as, indeed, it is impossible to borrow 
a whole language witho'it borrowing the habits of 
thought upon which it has built itself. Whilst 
modern taste aims at a \aiiety of expression, aud 
abhors a repetition of the same phrases as monoto- 
nous, the simplicity of the men, and their lan- 
guage, and their education, and the state of liter- 
ature, would all lead us to expect that the Apostles 
would have no such feeling. As to this, we have 
more than mere conjecture to rely on. Occasional 
repetitions occur in the Gospels (Luke \ii. l<i, 20; 
xix. 31, 34), such as a writer in a mere cnpiou? 
and cultivated language would perhaps have sought 
to avoid. In the Acts, the conversion of St. Paul 
is three times related (Acts ix., xxii., xxvi.), cnce 
by the writer and twice by St. Paul himself; and 
the two first harmonize exactly, except as to a few 
expressions, and as to one more important circum- 
stance (ix. 7 = xxii, 9), — which, however, admits 
of an explanation, — whilst the thh-d deviates some- 
what more in expression, and has one passage pe- 
culiar to itself. The vision of Cornelius is also 
three times related (Acts x. 3-G, 30-32; xi. 13, 
14), where the words of the angel in the two first 
are almost precisely alike, and the rest vei-y similar, 
whilst the other is an abridged account of the same 
facts. The vision of Peter is twice related (Acts 
X. 10-lG; xi. 5-10), and, except in one or two 
expressions, the agreement is verbally exact. These 
places from the Acts, which, both as to their re- 
semblance and their difference, may be compared 
to the narrati\es of the Evangelists, show the same 
tendency to a common form of narrative which, 
according to the present view, may have influenced 
the preaching of the Apostles. It is supposed, 
then, that the preaching of the Apostles, and the 
teaching whereby they prepared others to preach, 
as they did, would tend to a.ssume a common form, 
more or less fixed; and that the portions of th« 
three Gospels which harmonize most exactly owe 
their agreement not to the fact that they were 
copied from each other, although it is impossible 
to say that the later writer made no use of the 
earlier one, nor to the existence of any original 
document now lost to us, but to the fact that the 
apostolic preaching had already clothed itself in a 
settled or usual form of wonJs, to which the writers 
inclined to confonn without feeling bound to do so; 
and the differences which occur, often in the closest 
proximity to the harmonies, arise from the feeling 
of independence with which each wrote what he 
had seen and heard, or, in the case of INIark and 
Luke, what apostolic witnesses hatl told him. The 
harmonies, as we have seen, begin with the baptism 
of John ; that is, with the consecration of the Lord 
to his messianic office; and with this event prob- 
ably the ordinary preaching of the Apostles would 
begin, for its purport was that Jesus is the iles.siah, 
and that as Messiah he suflfered, died, and rose 
again. They are very frequent as we approach the 
period of the Passion, because the sutierings of the 
Lord would be much in the mouth of e\ery one 
who preached the Gospel, and all would become 
familiar with the words in which the Apostles da. 

to St. Matthew and St. Mark only ; and if the piv.«.sag« 
implies an intention to supersede the <vritings alluded 
to, then these two Evangelists cannot be included 
under them. Partial and incomplete reports of the 
preaching of the Apostles, written with a g< ed aim 
but without authority, are intended ; and, if w« m»j 
argue from St. Luke's sphere of observation, tnejf WMi 
probably fcomposed by Greek coaverts. 


jcribal it. Hut as regards the Kesurrection, which 
differed from the Passion in that it was a fact whlcli 
ihe oiieiiiies of C'hristiaiiity felt bound to dispute 
(Matt, xxviii. 15), it is possible that the divergence 
arose from tlie intention of each EvangeUst to con- 
tribute something towards tlie weight of evidence 
for this central truth. Accordingly, all the four, 
sven St. JNIark (xvi. 14), who oftener throws a new 
light upon old ground than opens out new, men- 
tion distinct acts and appearances of the Lord to 
establish tliat he was risen indeed. The verbal 
agreement is greater where the words of others are 
recorded, and greatest of all where they are those 
of Jesus, because here the apostolic preaching 
9f ould be especially exact ; and where the historical 
fact is the utterance of certain words, the duty of 
the historian is narrowed to a bare record of them. 
(See the works of Gieseler, Norton, Westcott, 
Weisse, and others already quoted.) 

That this opinion would explain many of the 
facts coimected with the text is certain. Whether, 
besides conforming to the words and arrangement 
of the apostolic preaching, the Evangelists did in 
any cases make use of each other's work or not, it 
would require a more careful investigation of de- 
tails to discuss than space permits. Every reader 
would probably find on examination some places 
which could best be explained on this supijosition. 
Nor does this involve a sacrifice of the independ- 
ence of the narrator. If each of the three drew 
the substance of his narrative from the one com- 
mon strain of preaching that everywhere prevailed, 
to have departed entirely in a written account from 
the common form of words to which Christian 
ears were beginning to be familiar, would not have 
been independence but willfulness. To follow here 
and there the words and arrangement of another 
written Gospel already current would not compro- 
mise the writer's independent position. If the 
principal part of the narrative was the voice of the 
whole church, a few portions might be conformed 
to another writer without altering the character of 
the testimony. In the separate articles on the Gos- 
pels it will be shown that, however close may be 
the agreement of the Evangelists, the independent 
position of each appears from the contents of his 
book, and has been recognized by writers of all 
ages. It will appear that St. Matthew describes 
the kingdom of Messiah, as founded in the Old 
Testament and fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth ; that 
St. ^lark, with so little of narrative peculiar to 
himself, brings out by many minute circumstances 
a more vivid delineation of our Lord's completely 
human life; that St. Luke puts forward the work 
of Redemption as a universal benefit, and shows 
JlsUs not only as the Messiah of the chosen people 
but as the Saviour of the world; that St. John, 
writing last of all, passed over most of what his 
predecessors had related, in order to set forth more 
fully all that he had heard from the Master who 
lived him, of his relation to the Father, and of 
the relation of the Holy Spirit to both. The inde- 
[>endence of the writers is thus established ; and if 
ihey seem to have here and there used each other's 
iccount, which it is perhaps impossible to prove or 
lisprove, such cases will not compromise that claim 
vhich alone gives v?lue to a plurality of witnesses. 
How does this last theory bear upon our belief 
a the inspiration of the (Jospels ? This momentous 
Hiestion admits of a satisfactory reply. Our blessed 
Lord, on five different occasions, promised to the 
the divine guidance, to teach and enlighten 



them in their dangers (^Nlatt. x. 19; Lukt xii. 11 
12; Mark xiii. 11; and John xiv., xv., xvi.). H 
bade them take no thought about defending them 
selves before judges; he promised them the Spirit 
of Truth to guide them into all truth, to teacl: 
them all things, and bring all things to their re- 
membrance. That this promise was fully realized 
to them the history of the Acts sufficiently sliows. 
But if the divine assistance was given them in their 
discourses and preaching, it would be rendered 
equally when they were about to put down in 
writing the same gospel which they preached: and, 
as this would be their greatest time of need, the 
aid would be granted then most surely. So that, 
as to St. Matthew and St. John, we may say that 
their Gospels are inspired because the writers of 
them were inspired, according to their INIaster's 
promise; for it is impossible to suppose that He 
who put words into their mouths when they stood 
before a human tribunal, with no greater fear than 
that of death before them, would withhold hia 
light and truth when the want of them would mis- 
lead the whole Church of Christ and turn the light 
that was in it into darkness. The case of the other 
two Evangelists is somewhat different. It has 
always been held that they were under the guid- 
ance of Apostles in what they wrote — St. Mark 
under that of St. Peter, and St. Luke under that 
of St. Paul. We are not expressly told, indeed, that 
these Evangelists therasehes were persons to whom 
Christ's promises of supernatural guidance had been 
extended, but it cei'tainly was not confined to the 
twelve to whom it was originally made, as the case 
of St. Paul himself proves, who was admitted to all 
the privileges of an apostle, though, as it were, 
" born out of due time; " and as St. Mark and St. 
Luke were the companions of apostles — shared 
their dangers, confronted hostile tribunals, had to 
teach and preach — there is reason to think that 
they equally enjoyed what they equally needed. Id 
Acts XV. 28, the Holy Ghost is spoken of as the 
common guide and light of all the brethren, not of 
apostles only; nay, to speak it reverently, as one 
of themselves. So that the Gospels of St. Mark 
and St. Luke appear to have been admitted into 
the canon of Scripture as written by inspired men 
in free and close communication with inspired 
apostles. But supposing that the portion of the 
tliree first Gospels which is common to all has been 
derived from the preaching of the Apostles in gen- 
eral, then it is drawn directly from a source which 
we know from our Lord himself to have been in- 
spired. It comes to us from those Apostles into 
whose mouths Christ promised to put the words of 
his Holy Spirit. It is not from an anonymous 
writing, as Eichhom thinks — it is not that the 
three witnesses are really one, as Story and others 
have suggested in the theory of copying — but that 
the daily preaching of all apostles and teachers has 
found three independent transcribers in the three 
Evangelists. Now the inspiration of an historical 
writing will consist in its truth, and in its selection 
oi events. Everything narrated must be substan- 
tially and exactly true, and the conparison of the 
Gospels jne with another offers us nothing that 
does no* answer to this test. There are differences 
of arrangement of events ; here some details of a 
narrative or a discourse are supplied which are 
wanting there; and if the writer had professed to 
follow a stn-.t chronological order, or had protended 
that his rec\)rd was not only true l)ut complete. 
I then one uircrsion of order, or one omission ol i 



lyllable, would convict liim of inaccuracy. But if 
tt is plain — if it is all but avowed — that minute 
chronological data are not part of the writer's pur- 
pose — if it is also plain that nothing but a selection 
of the facts is intended, or, indeed, possible (John 
xxi. 25) — then the proper test to apply is, whether 
each gives us a picture of the life and ministry of 
Jesus of Nazareth that is self-consistent and con- 
Bistent with the others, such as would be suitable 
to the use of those who were to believe on His 
Name — for this is their evident intention. About 
the answer there should be no doubt. We have 
seen that each Gosi)el has its own features, and that 
the divine element has controlled the human, but 
not destroyed it. But the picture which they con- 
spire to draw is one full of harmony. The Saviour 
they all describe is the same loving, tender guide 
of his disciples, sympathizing with them in the 
Borrows and temptations of earthly life, yet ever 
ready to enlighten that life by rays of truth out of 
the infinite world where the Father sits upon his 
throne. It has been said that St. Matthew por- 
trays rather the human side, and St. John the 
divine; but this holds good only in a limited sense. 
It is ill St. John that we read that "Jesus wept; " 
and there is nothing, even in the last discourse of 
Jesus, as reported by St. John, that opens a deeper 
view of his divine nature than the words in St. 
Matthew (xi. 25-30) beginning, " I thank thee, 
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou 
hast hid these things from the wise and prudent 
and hast revealed them unto babes." All reveal 
the same divine and human Teacher; four copies 
of the same portrait, perhaps with a difference of 
expression, yet still the same, are drawn here, and 
it is a portrait the like of which no one had ever 
delineated before, or, indeed, could have done, ex- 
cept from having looked on it with observant eyes, 
and from having had the mind opened by the Holy 
Spirit to comprehend features of such uns|5eakable 
radiance. Not only does this highest " harmony 
of the Gospels " manifest itself to every pious reader 
of the Bil>le, but the lower harmony — the agree- 
ment of fact and word in all that relates to the 
ministry of the Lord, in all that would contribute 
to a true view of his spotless character — exists 
also, and cannot be denied. For example, all tell 
us alike that Jesus was transfigured on the mount; 
that the slwhinah of divine glory shone upon his 
face ; that Moses the lawgiver and Elijah the prophet 
talked with him ; and that the voice from heaven 
bare witi;ess to him. Is it any imputation upon 
the truth of the histories that St. Matthew alone 
tells us that the witnesses fell prostrate to the 
earth, and that Jesus raised them? or that St. 
Luke alone tells us that for a part of the time they 
were heavy with sleep? Again, one Evangelist, in 
describing our Lord's temptation, follows the order 
of the occurrences, another arranges according to 
the degrees of temptation, and the third, passing 
over all particulars, merely mentions that our I^rd 
was tempted. Is there anything here to shake our 
faith in the writers as credible historians V Do we 
treat other histories in this exacting spirit? Is not 
the very independence of treatment the pledge to 
OS that we have really three witnesses to the fact 
hat Jesus was tempted like as we are? for if the 
Evangelists were coj)yists, nothing would have been 
iiore ejwy than to remove such an obvious difference 
w this. The histories are true according to any 
test that should be applied to a history ; and the 
events that they select — though we could not pre- 


sume to say that they were more important that 
what are omitted, except from the fact of the omis- 
sion — are at least such as to have given the whoU 
Christian Church a clear conception of the lie- 
deemer's life, so that none has ever complained of 
insufficient means of knowing him. 

There is a perverted form of the theory we an 
considering which pretends that the facts of tlu 
Redeemer's life remained in the state of an oral 
tradition till the latter part of the second century 
and that the four Gospels were not written till that 
time. The difference is not of degree but of kind 
between the opinion that the Gospels were written 
during the lifetime of the Apostles, who were eye- 
witnesses, and the notion that for nearly a century 
after the oldest of them had passed to his rest th« 
events were only preserved in the changeable and 
insecure form of an oral accoimt. But for the latter 
opinion there is not one spark of historical evidence. 
Heretics of the second century who would gladly 
have rejected and exposed a new gospel that made 
against them never hint that the Gospels are spuri- 
ous ; and orthodox writers ascribe without contrar 
diction the authorship of the books to those whose 
names they bear. The theory was invented to 
accord with the assumption that miracles are im- 
possible, but upon no evidence whatever; and the 
argument when exijosed runs in this vicious circle: 
" There are no miracles, therefore the accounts of 
them nmst have grown up in the course of a century 
from popular exaggeration, and as the accounts are 
not contemporaneous it is not proved that there are 
miracles!" That the Jewish mind in its lowest 
decay should have invented the character of Jesus 
of Nazareth, and the sublime system of morality 
contained in his teaching — that four writers should 
have fixed the popular impression in four plain, 
simple, unadorned narratives, without any outbursts 
of national prejudice, or any attempt to give a 
political tone to the events they wrote of — would 
be in itself a miracle harder to believe than that 
Lazaius came out at the Lord's call from his four- 
days' tomb. 

It will be an appropriate conclusion to this im- 
perfect sketch to give a conspectus of the harmony 
of the Gospels, by which the several theories may 
be examined in their bearing on the gospel account* 
fin detail. I^t it be remembered, liowever, that a 
complete harmony, including the chronological ar- 
rangement and the exact succession of all events, 
was not intended by the sacred wTiters to be con- 
structed; indeed the data for it are pointedly with- 
held. Here most of the places where there is some 
special diflBculty, and where there has been a ques- 
tion whether the events are parallel or distinct, are 
marked by figures in different type. The sections 
might in many cases have been subdivided but for 
the limits of space, but the reader can supply this 
defect for himself as cases arise. (The principal 
works employed in constructing it are, Griesbach, 
Synopsis Evangellorum^ 1776: I)e Wette and 
Liicke, Syn. J-X-auf/., [1818,] 1842; R( diger, Syn. 
Evang.^ 1829; Clausen, Quntuor Kvang. Tabula. 
SynopticcB., 1829; Greswell's llnrnvmy [^llavmonia 
Evangelica, ed. 5ta, Oxon. 1856] and Dissertatioiu 
[2d ed., 4 vols, in 5, Oxford, 1837], a most im- 
portant work; the Kev. I. Williams On (he Gos/)els , 
Theile's Greek Testnimni ; and Tischendorfs Syiu 
Evang. 1854 [2d ed. 1864] ; besides the well-known 
works of Lightfoot, Macknight, Newcome, and 
Robinson.) [For other works of this class, aet 
ad.lition to the present article.] W. T. 




IB — Tn the following Table, where all the references under a given section are printed in heavy type, » 
Ufldcir ''Two Genealogies," it is to oe understood that some special difficulty besets the bannon; 
Where one or more references under a given section are in light, and one or more in lieavy type, it is to 
be understood that the former are given as in their proper place, and that it is more or less doubtful 
whether the latter are to be considered as parallel narratives or not. 

St. Matthew. 

St. Blark. 

St. Luke. 

St. John. 

The Word" 




i. 1-14 

Preface, to Tbeophilus .... 



i. i-4 

Annunciation of the Baptist's birth . . 



i. 5-25 

Annunciation ol' tlie birth of Jesus . . 



i. 26-38 

Mary visits I-^li/.abeth 

, , 

i. 39-56 

Birth of .lohii the Baptist ... 



i. 57-80 

Birth of Jesus Christ 

i. 18-25 


ii. 1-7 

Two Genealogies 

i. 1-17 

iii. 23-38 

The watching Shepherds 


ii. 8-20 

The Circumcision 


ii. 21 

Presentation in the Temple .... 



ii. 22-38 

The wise men from the East . . 

ii. 1-12 


Flight to JCgypt 

ii. 13-23 


ii. 39 

Disputhig with the Doctors .... 


ii. 40-52 

Ministry of John the Baptist .... 

iii. 1-12 

i. 1-8 

iii. 1-18 

i. 15-31 

Baptism of Jesus Christ 

iii. 13-17 

i. 9-11 

iii. 21, 22 

i. 32-34 

The Temptation 

iv. 1-11 

i. 12, 13 

iv. 1-13 

Andrew and another see Jesus . . . 




i. 35-40 

Simon, iiow Cephas 




i. 41, 42 

Philip and Nathanael 



i. 43-51 

The water made wine 


, , 

ii. 1-11 

Passover (1st) and cleansing the Temple 



ii. 12-22 





ii. 2:3-iii. 21 

Christ and John baptizing 



, . 

iii. 22-36 

The woman of Samaria . . . 



iv. 1-42 

John the Baptist in prison .... 

iv. 12; xiv. 3 

i. 14; vi. 17 

iii. 19, 20 

iii. 24 

Return to Galilee 

iv. 12 

i. 14, 15 

iv. 14, 15 

iv. 43-45 

The synagogue at Xazareth . . . 



iv. 16-30 

The nobleman's son 


• • 


iv. 46-54 

Capernaum. Four Apostles called . . 

iv. 18-22 

i. 16-20 

V. 1-11 

Demoniac healed there 


i. 21-28 

iv. 31-37 

Simon's wife's mother healed . . . 

viii. 14-17 

i. 29-34 

iv. 38-41 

Circuit round GaUlee 

iv. 23-25 

i. 35-39 

iv. 42-44 

Healing a leper ..... . . 

viii. 1-4 

i. 40-45 

V. 12-10 

Christ stills the storm 

viii. 18-27 

iv. 35-41 

viii. 22-25 

Demoniacs in land of Gadarenes . . . 

viii. 28-34 

v. 1-20 

viii. 26-39 

Jairus's daughter. Woman healed . . 

ix. 18-36 

v. 21-43 

viii. 40-56 

BUnd men, and demoniac 

ix. 27-34 

Healing the paralytic 

ix. 1-8 

ii. 1-12 

V. 17-26 

Matthew the publican ... 

ix. 9-13 

ii. 13-17 

V. 27-32 

" Thy disciples fast not " . . . 

ix. 14-17 

ii. 18-22 

V. 33-39 

Journey to Jerusalem to 2d Passover ; 



v. 1 

Pool of Bethesda. Power of Christ . . 




V. 2 47 

Plucking ears of corn on Sabbath . . 

xii. 1-8 

ii. 23-28 

vi. 1-5 

The withered hand. Miracles . . . 

xii. 9-21 

iii. 1-12 

vi. 6-11 

The Twelve Apostles 

X. 2-4 

iii. 13-19 

vi. 12-16 

The Sermon on the Mount .... 

V. 1-vu. 29 


vi. 17-49 

The centurion's servant 

viu. 5-13 

vii. 1-10 

iv. 4b M 

The widow's son at Nain 



ni. 11-17 

Messengers from John 

xi. 2-19 

vii. 18-35 

Woe to the cities of Galilee .... 

xi. 20-24 

Uall to the meek and suffering . . . 

xi. 25-30 

Anointing tiie feet of Jesus .... 

vii. 36-50 

Becond circuit round Galilee .... 

viii. 1-3 

Parable of the Sower 

xiii. 1-23 

iv. 1-20 * 

viii. 4-15 

" Candh under a Bushel . . . 


iv. 21-25 

viii. 16-18 

" the Sewer 


iv. 26-29 

« the ^Vheat and Tares .... 

xiii". 24-30 


" Grain of Mustard-seed . . . 

xiii. 31, 32 

iv. *30-32 

Trill, 18, 19 

«• Leaven 

xiii. 33 

. . 

xiii. 20, 21 

3n teaching by parables . . 

dii. 34, 35 

iv. 33, 34 




St. Matthew. 

St. Marl 

:. St. Luke. 

St. Jdm. 

Wheat and tares explained . . 
The treasure, the pearl, the net . 
His mother and His brethren . . 

xiii. 36-43 
xiii. 44-52 
xii. 46-50 
xiii. 53-58 
ix. 35-38; / 
xi.l i 


xiv. 1, 2 
xiv. 3-12 

xiv. 13-21 
xiv. 22-33 
xiv. 34-36 

XV. 21-28 
XV. 29-31 
XV. 32-39 
xvi. 1-4 
xvi. 5-12 

xvi. 13-19 
xvi. 20-28 
xvii. 1-9 
xvii. 10-13 
xvii. 14-21 
xvii. 22, 23 
xvii. 24-27 
xviii. 1-5 

xviii. 6-9 
xviii. 10-14 
xviii. 15-17 
xviii. 18-20 
xviii. 21-35 

viu'. 19-22 

vii. 7-11 
xii. 22-37 
xii. 43-45 
xii. 38-42 
( V. 15 ; vi. 
1 22, 23 
X. 26-33 

vi. 25-33 

xiii. 31, 32 
xiii. 33 

xxiii. 37-39 

iii. 31-3 
vi. 1-6 
n. 6 

vi. 7-13 
vi. 14-16 
vi. 17-29 

vi. *30-44 
vi. 45-52 
vi. 53-56 

vii.' 1-23 
vii. 24-3( 
vii. 31-3' 
viii. 1-9 
viu. 10-1 
viii. 14-2 
viu. 22-2 
viii. 27-2 
viii. 30-b 
ix. 2-10 
ix. 11-13 
ix. 14-29 
ix. 30-32 

ix. 33-37 
ix. 38-41 
ix. 42-48 

ix. '49, 50 
iii. 20-C 


iv. dO-2 

5 viii. 19-21 

ix. 1-6 
ix. 7-9 

ix. 10-17 


3 '. '. 


9 ix. 18-20 

I. 1 ix. 21-27 

ix. 28-36 

ix. 37-42 
ix. 43-45 

ix. 46-48 
ix. 49, 50 
xvii. 2 
XV. 4-7 

ix. 51 
ix. 52-56 
ix. 57-62 
X. 1-16 

X. 17-24' 
X. 25-37 
X. 38-42 
xi. 1-4 
xi. 5-13 
\0 xi. 14-23 
xi. 24-28 
xi. 29-32 

xi. 33-36 

xi. 37-54 
xii. 1-12 
xii. 13-15 
xii. 16-31 
xii. 32-59 
xiii. 1-9 
xiii. 10-17 
2 xiii. 18, 19 
xiii. 20, 21 
xiii. 22 
xiii. 23-30 
xiii. 31-33 
xiu. 34, 35 

Third circuit round Galilee . . 
Sending forth of the Twelve . . . 

Death of John the Baptist . . 
Approach of I'assover (3d) . . 
Feeding of the five thousand . . 
Walking on the sea 

vi 4 
vi 1-15 
v^ 16-21 

The bread of life 

The washen hands 

T 'ja-es 

Tlie Syroph(Bnician woman . . 

Feeding of the lour thousand . . 

The leaven of the Pharisees . . 

Peter's profession of faith . . 

#d. ee-'yi 

The Passion foretold .... 

The Transfiguration 


The lunatic healed 

The Passion a^ain foretold . . 

Fish caught for the tribute . . 
The little child 

One casting out devils .... 

The lost sheep . . . 

Forgiveness of injuries .... 

Binding and loosing .... 

Forgiveness. Parable .... 

" Salted with fire " 

Journey to Jerusalem .... 

Fire from heaven 

Answers to disciples 

ni. 1-10 

Tlie Seventy disciples .... 
Discussions at Feast of Tabernacles 
Woman taken in adultery . . . 
Dispute with the Pharisees . . . 
The man born blind .... 

The good Shepherd 

The return of the Seventy . . . 
The good Samaritan .... 

Mary and Martha 

The Lord's Prayer 

\ii. 11-53 
viii. 1-11 
viii. 12-5J 
ix. 1-41 
X. 1-21 

*rayer effectual 

Through Beelzebub " . . . . 
The unclean spirit returning . . 
The sign of Jonah 

The light of the body .... 

The IMiarisees 

W'lat to fear 

" Master, speak to my brother " . 


ialileans that perished .... 
Woman healed on Sabbath . . 
rhe grain of mustard-seed . . 
The leaven 

Towards Jerusalem 

' Are there few that be saved ? " . 
Warning against Herod . . . 
'0 Jerusalem, Jer.isaleui "' . . 



[)ropsy healed on Sabbath-day 
Choosing the chief rooms . . . . 

Parable of the Great Supper . . . 
Following Clirist with the Cross . . 
Parables of Lost Sheep, Piece of Money, 

Prodigal Son, Unjust Steward, Rich 

Man and Lazarus . . . 


Faith and Merit .... 
The ten lei^ers .... 
How the kingdom cometh . 
Parable of the Unjust Judge 
" the Pharisee and Publican 


Infants brought to Jesus . 
The rich man inquiring 
Promises to the disciples . 
Laborers in the vineyard 
Death of Christ foretold . 
Request of James and John 
Blind men at Jericho . . 


Parable of the Ten Talents 
Feast of Dedication . . . 
Beyond Jordan .... 
Raising of Lazarus . . . 
Meeting of the Sanhedrim 
Christ in Ephraim . . . 
The anointing by Mary 
Christ enters Jerusalem 
Cleansing of the Temple (2d) 

The barren fig-tree . . . 

Pray, and forgive . . , 
"By what authority," etc. 
Parable of the Two Sons . 

» the Wicked Husbandmen 

" the Wedding Garment 
The tribute-money .... 
The state of the risen . . . 
The great Commandment . . 
David's Son and David's Lord 
Against the Pharisees . . . 
The widow's mite .... 
Christ's second coming . . . 
Parable of the Ten Virgins . 

" the Talents .... 
The Last Judgment .... 
Greeks visit Jesus. Voice from heaven 
Eleflections of John . . . 
Last Passover (4th), Jews conspire 

Judas Iscariot 

Paschal Supper 

Contention of the Apostles 
Peter's fall foretold .... 
Last discourse. The departure 


The vine and the b'^nches. Abiding 

in love 

Work of the Comforter in disciples 
The prayer of Christ . . 


rhe betiayal 

Before Annas (Caiaphas). Peter* 
Before the Sanhedrim . . . 
defoie PiJatc 


St. Matthew. 


xxii. 1-14 
X. 37, 38 

xviii. 6-15 
xvii. 20 

xix. 1-12 
xix. 13-15 
xix. 16-26 
xix. 27-30 
XX. 1-16 
XX. 17-19 
XX. 20-28 
XX. 29-34 

XXV. L4-30 

xxvi. 6-13 
xxi. 1-11 
xxi. 12-16 

xxi. 17-22 

vi, 14, 15 
xxi. 23-27 
xxi. 28-32 
xxi. 33-46 
xxii. 1-14 
xxii. 15-22 
xxii. 23-33 
xxii. 34-40 
xxii. 41-46 
xxiii. 1-39 

xxiv. 1-51 
XXV. 1-13 
XXV. 14-30 
XXV. 31-46 

xxvi. 1-5 
xxvi. 14-16 
xxvi. 17-29 

xxvi. 30-35 

xxvi. 36-46 
xxvi. 47-56 
( XX 7i. 57 ] 
I 58,69-75 j 
xxvi. 59-68 
( xxvii. 1, j 
I 2, 11-14 j 

St. Mark. 

X. 1-12 
X. 13-16 
X. 17-27 
X. 28-31 

X. 32-34 
X. 35-45 
X. 46-52 

xiv. 3-9 
xi. 1-10 
xi. 15-18 
I xi. 11-14, 
/ 19-23 
xi. 24-26 
xi. 27-33 

xii. 1-12 

xii. 13-17 
xii. 18-27 
xii. 28-34 
xii. 35-37 
xii. 38-40 
xii. 41-44 
xiii. 1-37 

xiv. 1, 2 
xiv. 10, 11 
xiv. 12-25 

xiv. 26-31 

xiv. 32-42 
xiv. 43-52 
I xiv. 53, 
I 54,66-72 
xiv. 55-65 

St. Luke. 

XV. 1-5 

xiv. 1-6 
xiv. 7-14 
xiv. 15-24 
xiv. 25-35 

XV. xvi. 

xvii. 1-4 
xvii. 5-10 
xvii. 11-19 
xvii. 20-37 
xviii. 1-8 
xviii. 9-14 

xviii. 15-17 
xviii. 18-27 
xviii. 28-30 

xviii. 31-34 

xviii. 35-43 
xix. 1-10 
xix. 11-28 

vii. 36-50 
xix. 29-44 
xix. 45-48 

XX. 1-8 

XX. 9-19 
xiv. 16-24 
XX. 20-26 
XX. 27-40 

XX. 41-44 
XX. 45-47 
xxi. 1-4 
xxi. 5-38 

xix. 11-28 

xxii. 1, 2 
xxii. 3-6 
xxii. 7-23 
xxii. 24r-30 
xxii. 31-39 

St. John. 

X. 22-35J 
X. 40-42 
xi. 1-44 
xi. 45-53 
xi. 54-57 
xii. 1-11 
xii. 12-19 
ii. 13-22 

xii. 20-36 
xii. 36-50 

xiii. 1-35 

aii. 36-38 
xiv. 1-31 

XV. 1-27 



xvi. 1-33 
xvii. 1-26 



xviii. 1 



xviii. 2-11 



xviii. 12-27 





xviU. 28 




rhe Traitor's death 
Before Herod . . 

Accusation and Condemnation 

Treatment by the soldiers . . 

The Crucifixion 

The mother of Jesus . . . 
Mockings and raikngs . . . 

The malefactor 

The death 

Darlcness and other portents . 

The bystanders 

The side pierced 

The burial 

The guard of the sepulchre 

The Ilesurrection . . . 
Disciples going to Emmaus 
Appearances in Jerusalem . 
At the Sea of Tiberias . . 
On the Mount in Galilee . 

Unrecorded Works . . . 


St. Matthew. 






















. 11-15 






. 16-20 



St. Mark. 

XV. 6-15 

XV. 16-20 
XV. 21-28 

XV. 29-32 

XV. 37 
XV. 33-38 
XV. 39-41 

XV. 42-47 

xvi. 1-11 
xvi. 12, 13 
xvi. 14-18 

xvi. 19, 20 

St. Luke. 

St John. 

xxiii. 4-11 

xxiii. 13-25 

xxiii. 36, 37 
xxiu. 26-34 

xxiii. 35-39 
xxiii. 40-43 
xxiii. 46 
xxiii. 44, 45 
xxiii. 47-49 

xxiii. 50-56 

xxiv. 1-12 
xxiv. 13-35 
xxiv. 36-49 

xxiv. 50-53 

I xviii. 29-41. 
I xix. 1-ie 
xix. 2, 3 
xix. 17-24 
xix. 25-27 

xix. 28-30 

xix. 31-37 
xix. 38-42 

XX. 1-18 

XX. 19-29 
xxi. 1-23 

XX. 30. 31; 
xxi. 24, 25 

* The theory which bears the name of Strauss 
•wuld hardly have originated anywhere but in Ger- 
many, nor is it easy for an Anglo-Saxon mind to 
conceive of its being seriously propounded and act- 
ually believed. It is far from being clearly defined 
and self-consistent in the author's own statement; 
and his Life of Jesus, while a work of great learn- 
ing in detail, is singularly deficient in comprehen- 
siveness and unity. 

The theory, in brief, is this. Jesus was the son 
of Joseph and Mary. In his childhood he man- 
ifested unusual intelUgence and promise, as com- 
pared with his external advantages, and was the 
object of admiration in the humble family circle in 
which his lot was cast. He early became a dis- 
ciple of John the Baptist; and, from strong sym- 
pathy with his enthusiastic expectation of the 
speedy advent of the Messiah (an expectation 
vividly entertained by all loyal Jews of that 
day), he conceived the idea of assuming that 
character himself, and personated it so successfully 
as to become his own dupe, and thus to pass un- 
consciously from imposture to self-delusion. He 
made proselytes, chose disciples, uttered discourses 
which impressed themselves profoundly upon the 
popular mind, and drew upon himself the hostility 
of the chief men of the nation, especially of the 
Pharisees. They procured his execution as a 
traitor; but his disciples, beheving that the Mes- 
siah could not die, maintained that he must have 
risen alive from the sepulchre, and, as he had not 
been seen among men after his crucifixion, that he 
lad ascended to heaven. This simple life-story 
eecame the basis of a series of myths — narratives 
not intentionally false or consciously invented, but 
«ome of them the growth of popular credulity, 
ethers, symbolical forms in which his disciples 
•ought to embody the doctrines and precepts which 
aad been the staple of his discourses. His mirac- 
nbus birth was imagined and believed, because it 

W. T. 

seemed impossible that the Messiah should have 
been born like other men. Supernatural worka 
were ascribed to him, because the Hebrew legends 
had ascribed such works to the ancient prophets, 
and it could not be that he who was greater than 
they, and of whom they were thought to have writ- 
ten glowing predictions, should not have performed 
more numerous and more marvellous miracles than 
any of them. His appearances after his resurrec- 
tion were inferred, defined as to time and place, and 
incorporated into the faith of his disciples, because 
it was inconceivable that he should have retm-ned 
to life without being seen. These myths had their 
origin chiefly outside of the circle of the Apostles and 
the persons most closely intimate with Jesus, and 
were probably due in great part to the constructive 
imagination of dwellex's in portions of Gahlee where 
he had tarried but a Uttle while, or of admirers 
who had been his companions but for a brief period. 
The mythical element, once introduced into his 
history, had a rapid growth for some thirty, forty, 
or fifty years after his death, and new incidents in 
accordance with the Messianic ideal were constantl) 
added to the multiform oral Gospel propagated and 
transmitted by his disciples. Within that period, 
various persons, none of them apostles or intimate 
friends of Jesus, compiled such narratives as had 
come to their ears; and of these narratives there 
have come down to us our four Gospels, together 
with other fragmentary stories of equal authority 
wliich bear the popular designation of the Apocry 
phal Gospels. 

Such was the complexion of Strauss's mythica 
theory, as developed in his Life of Jesus," pubUshed 
in 1835-36, repeatedly repubhshed, and sufficiently 
well known in this country by a cheap reprint of a 
moderately good English translation. In his new 
work, issued in 1864, The Life of Jesus, for tk* 

a Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbtittt. 


German Peopleo^ he departs from liis former posi- 
ion so far as to charge the propaajaiidista and his- 
korians of Christianity with willful and conscious 
SJsifications, and to maintam with the critics of 
she Tubingen school that the four Gospels were 
written, in great part, to sanction and promote the 
dogmatic beliefs of their respective authors, and 
that they thus represent so many divergent theolog- 
ical tendencies. In assuming this ground, Sti'auss 
enlarges the definition of the term myth, which no 
longer denotes merely the fabulous outgrowth or em- 
bodiment of an idea without fraudulent intent, but 
includes such wanton falsehoods as are designed to 
express, promulgate, or sanction theological dogmas. 
We have said that Strauss admits an historical 
oasis for the mythical structure reared by the Evan- 
geUsts. How is this basis to be determined ? How 
are we to distinguish between facts and myths? 
(1.) The usual order of nature cannot in any in- 
stance, way, or measure, have been interi'upted. 
Therefore every supernatural incident must be 
accounted as mythical. (2.) Jesus having been 
regarded as the Messiah, it was inevitable that rep- 
resentations should have been made of him in 
accordance with the Messianic notions of his time 
and people, and with the predictions deemed Mes- 
sianic in the writings of the Hebrew prophets. 
Consequently, all such representations, though in- 
volving nothing supernatural, such as his descent 
from David and his flight into Egypt, are at least 
suspicious, and may be safely set down as myths. 
(3.) His admirers would have been likely to attrib- 
ute to him sayings and deeds corresponding with 
those recorded of various distinguished persons in 
Jewish history. Therefore, every portion of tlie 
narrative which bears any resemblance or analogy 
to any incident related in the Old Testament, is 
mythical. But (4), on the other hand, Jesus was 
a Hebrew, confined within the narrow circle of 
Jewish ideas, and not under any training or influ- 
ence which could have enlarged that circle. Con- 
sequently every alleged utterance of his, and every 
idea of his mission and character, that is broader 
and higher than the narrowest Judaism, is also 
mythical. Thus we have an historical personage, 
of whom the critic denies at once everything na 
tional and everything extra-national. By parity of 
reasoning, we might, in the biography of Washing- 
ton, cast suspicion on everything tliat he is alleged 
to have said or done as a loyal American, because 
he was one, and his biographer would of course 
ascribe to him the attributes of an American ; and 
on everything that he is alleged to have said or 
done from the impulse of a larger humanity, be- 
cause, being an American, it was impossible that 
he should have been anything more — a style of 
criticism which, with reference to any but a saered 
personage, the world would regard as simply idiotic. 
But this is not all. (5.) Though among secular 
historians, even of well-known periods and events, 
there are discrepancies in minor details, and these 
are held to be confirmations of ^ the main facts, as 
evincing the mutual independence of the writers 
tonsidered as sepa,rate authorities, for some unex- 
plained and to us nscrutable reason, this law does 
not apply to the Gospels. In then- every discrep- 
incy, however minute, casts just suspicion on an 
lUeged fact or a recorded discourse or conversation. 
This suspicion is extended e\'en to the omission or 
Jie varied narration of very shght particulars, with- 

a Ba% Lebm Jesu/ur das Deutsche Volk. 


out making any allowance for the different points of 
v'ew which several independent witnesses must of 
necessity occupy, or for the different portions of a 
prolonged transaction or discourse which would 
reach their eyes or ears, according as they were 
nearer or more remote, earlier or later on the 
ground, more or less absorbed in what was passing. 
All, therefore, in which the lilvangelists vary from 
one another, is mythical. But while their variance 
always indicates a myth (G), their very close agree 
ment demands the same construction ; for wherever 
the several narrators coincide circumstantially and 
verbally, their coincidence indicates some common 
legendary source. Thus mutually inconsistent and 
contradictory are the several tests empbyed by 
Strauss to separate myth from fact. Practically, 
were Strauss's LiJ'e of Jesus lost to the world, one 
might reconstruct it, by classing as a myth, under 
one or more of the heads that we have specified, 
every fact in the history of Jesus, and every deed or 
utterance of his, which indicates either the divinity 
of his mission, his unparalleled wisdom, or the 
transcendent loveliness, purity, and excellence of 
his character. 

Yet, while Jesus is represented as in part self- 
deluded, and in part an impostor, and his biography 
as in all its distinctive features utterly fictitious, 
strange to say, Strauss recognizes this biography aa 
symbohcal of the spiritual history of mankhid. 
What is false of the individual Jesus is true of the 
race. Humanity is " God manifest in the flesh," 
the child of the visible mother, Nature, and the 
invisible father. Spirit. It works miracles; for it 
subdues Nature in and around itself by the power 
of the Spirit. It is sinless; for pollution cleaves 
to the individual, but does not aflect the i-ace or 
its history. It dies, rises, and ascends to heaven ; 
for the suppression of its personal and earthly life 

— in other words, the annihilation of individual 
men by death — is a reunion with the All-Father, 
Spirit. Faith in this metaphysical fan'ago is jus- 
tifying and sanctifying Christian faith. Thus a 
history, which is the joint product of imposture 
and credulity, by a strange chance, (for providence 
tliere is none,) has become a symbolical representa- 
tion of true spiritual philosophy. 

We will now offer some of the leading consider- 
ations, which are fairly urged against the mythical 

1. This theory assumes that miracles are impos- 
sible. But why are they impossible, if there be a 
God ? The power which established the order of 
nature includes the power to suspend or modify it, aa 
the greater includes the less. If that order was es- 
tablished with a moral and spiritual purpose, for the 
benefit of reasoning, accountable, immortal beings, 
and if that same purpose may be sensed by the sus- 
pension of proximate causes at any one epoch of 
human history, then we may expect to find authentic 
vestiges of such an epoch. AH that is needed in 
order to make miracles credible is the discovery of 
an adequate purpose, a justifying end. Such a 
purpose, such an end, is the development of the 
highest forms of goodness in human conduct and 
character; and whether miracles — real or imagined 

— have borne an essential part in such development, 
is an historical question which we are competent to 
answer. Suppose that we write down the names 
of all the men who have left a reputation for pre- 
eminent excellence, — Orientals, Greeks, Komans, 
ancient, modern, the lights of dark ages, the cho- 
sen representatives of every philosophical school, tb« 



Bnisbed product of the highest civilization of every 
ty|je, reformers, philanthropists, those who have 
■domed the loftiest stations, those who have made 
lowly stations illustrious. Let us then separate 
the names into two columns, wTiting the Christians 
in one column, all the rest in the other. We shall 
find that we have made a horizontal division, — 
that the least in the Christian column is greater 
than the greatest out of it. From Paul, Peter, 
and .lohn ; from Fenelon, Xavier, Boyle, Doddridge, 
Martyn, Heber, Judson, Channing, men whose 
genius and culture conspired with their piety to 
make them greatly good, down to the unlettered 
Bedford tinker, John Pounds the cobbler, the Dairy- 
man's daughter, with just education enough to read 
her Bible and to know the will of her Lord, we 
find traits of character, which in part are not 
shared, in any degree, in part are but remotely ap- 
proached, by the best men out of the Christian pale. 
Now when we look into the forming elements and 
processes of these Christian characters, we shall 
find that the miracles of the New Testament hold 
a foremost place, and we shall find it impossible 
even to conceive of their formation under the myth- 
ical theory. It is absurd to think of Paul as com- 
passing sea and land, laying bare his back to the 
scourge, reaching after the crown of martyrdom, 
to defend a mythical resurrection and ascension of 
humanity; of Martyn or Judson as forsaking all 
the joys of civihzed life, and encountering hardships 
worse than death, to preach Straussianism ; of the 
Gospel according to Strauss as taking the place of 
Matthew's or John's Gospel in the hands of the 
tinker or the dairy-maid, developing the saintly 
Bpirit, heralding the triumphant deaths, of which 
we have such frequent record in the annals of the 
poor. These holy men and women have been guided 
and sustained in virtue by the authority of a di- 
vinely commissioned Lawgiver, whose words they 
have received because he had been proclaimed and 
attested as the Son of God by power from on high. 
They have had a working faith in immortality, — 
Buch a faith as no reasoning, or analogy, or instinct 
has ever given, — because they have stood in thought 
by the bier at the gates of Nain and by the tomb 
of Bethany ; because they have seen the light that 
streams from the broken sepulchre of the crucified, 
and heard the voice of the resurrection-angel. 
Now if the development of the highest style of 
human character is a purpose worthy of God, and 
if in point of fact a belief in miracles has borne 
an essential part in the development of such char- 
acters, then are miracles not only possible, but an- 
tecedently probable and intrinsically credible. And 
this is an argument which cannot be impeached till 
Straussianism has furnished at least a few finished 
characters, which we can place by the side of those 
that have been formed by faith in a miraculously 
empowered and endowed Teacher and Saviour. 
Miracle, lying as it does clearly within the scope 
/ f omnipotence, needs only adequate testimony to 

nbstantiate it. Human testimony is indeed ap- 
pealed to in proof of the unbroken order of nature ; 
but, so far as it goes, it proves the opposite. We 
can trace back no Une of testimony which does not 
reach a miraculous epoch. Nay, if there be any 
■)ne element of human nature which is univer- 
sal, with exceptions as rare as idiocy or insanity, it 
is the appetency for miracle. So strong is this, 
that at the present day none are so ready to receive 
the diivellings of hyper-electrified women as utter- 
uicee from departed spirits, and to accept the ab- 


surdities of the newest form of i ecronaaiicy, m 
those who set aside the miracles of the New Tesia- 
ment and cast contempt on the risen Saviour 
Such being the instinctive craving of human nature 
for that which is above nature, it is intrinsically 
probable that God has met this craving by authentic 
voices from the spirit-realm, by authentic glimpses 
from behind the veil of sense, by authentic forth- 
reachings of the omnipotent arm from beneath the 
mantle of proximate causes. 

2. Strauss is self-refuted on his own ground. 
He maintains the uniformity of the law of causation 
in all time, equally in the material and the intel- 
lectual universe, so that no intellectual phenomenon 
can make its appearance, except from causes and 
under conditions adapted to bring it into being. 
Myths, therefore, cannot originate, except from 
causes and under conditions favorable to their birth 
and growth. Now, if we examine the undoubted 
myths connected with the history and religion of 
the ancient nations, we shall find that they had 
their origin prior to the era of written hterature ; 
that their evident nucleus is to be sought in his- 
torical personages and events of a very early date; 
that they grew into iantastic forms and vast pro- 
portions by their transmission from tongue to 
tongue, whether in story or in song; that their 
various versions are the result of oral tradition 
through different channels, as in the separate states 
of Greece, and among the aboriginal tribes and pre- 
historical colonists of Italy; and that they receiveo 
no essential additions or modifications after the 
age at which authentic history begins. Thus the 
latest of the gods, demigods and wonder-working 
heroes of Grecian fable — such of them as ever lived 
— lived seven centuries before Herodotus, and not 
less than four centuries before Hesiod and Homer; 
the various accounts we have of them appear to 
have been extant in the earliest period of Greek 
literature; and we have no proof of the origin of 
any extended fable or of the existence of any per- 
sonage who became mythical, after that period. 
The case is similar with the distinctively Boman 
myths and the mythical portions of Boman history. 
They are all very considerably anterior to the earliest 
written history and literature of Rome. The 
mythical and the historical periods of all nations 
are entirely distinct, the one from the other. Now 
the Christian era falls far within the historical 
period. Single prodigies are indeed related in the 
history of that age, as they are from time to time 
in modern and even recent history; but the leading 
incidents of individual lives and the successive 
stages of public and national affairs in that age are 
detailed with the same hteralness with which the 
history of the seventeenth or eighteenth century is 
WKJtten. Yet, had the conditions for the growth 
of myths existed, there were not wanting, then, 
personages, whose vast abilities, strange vicissitudes 
of fortune, and extended fame would have made 
them mythical. It is hardly possible that there 
could have been a fuller supply of the material for 
myths in the Ufe of Hercules, or of Cadmus, or of 
Medea, than in that of Juhus Caesar, or of Marcus 
Antonius, or of Cleopatra. Nor can it be main- 
tained that in this respect Judaea was at an earlier 
and more primitive stage of culture than Kome or 
Egypt. Josephus, the Jewish historian, was bora 
about the time of the death of Jesus Christ, and 
wrote very nearly at the period assigned by StrauM 
for the composition of the earliest of our Gospels- 
In addition to what we believe to have Nien th« 


miracles of the Old Testament, he reerrds many 
undoubled myths of the early Hebrew ages; but 
his history of liis own times, with now and then 
a touch of the marvellous, has no more of the 
mythical element or tendency than we find in the 
narratives of the same epoch by Roman historians. 
In fine, there was nothing in that age more than 
in this, which could give rise or currency to a 
mythical history. 

3. Myths are vague, dateless, incoherent, dreamy, 
poetical ; while the Gospels are eminently prosaic, 
pircumstantial, abounding in careful descriptions 
of persons, and designations of places and times. 
The genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are 
represented by Strauss as mythical; but nothing 
could be more thoroughly opposed to our idea of a 
myth, and to the character of the acknowledged 
myths of antiquity, than such catalogues of names. 
We believe both these genealogies to be authentic ; 
for Matthew alone professes to give the natural and 
actual ancestry of Joseph, while Luke expressly 
says that he is giving the legal genealogy of Jesus, 
{as he ivas legally reckoned being the literal ren- 
dering of the words employed by the Evangelist, ws 
ivofii^iTo,) and it is well known that the legal 
genealogy of a Jew might diverge very widely from 
the line of his actual parentage. But even were we 
to admit the alleged inconsistency of the two, they 
both bear incontestable marks of having been copied 
from existing documents, and not imagined or in- 
vented. All through the Gospels we find, in close 
connection with the miracles of Christ, details of 
common Jewish life, often so minute and trivial, 
that they would have been wholly beneath the aim 
of ambitious fiction or tumid fancy, and could have 
found a place in the narrative only because they 
actually occurred. The miracles are not in a setting 
of their own kind, as they would have been in a 
fictitious narrative. They are imbedded in a sin- 
gularly natural and lifelike, humble and unpretend- 
ing history. The style of the Evangelists is not 
that of men who either wondered themselves, or 
expected others to wonder, at what they related; 
but it is the unambitious style of men who ex- 
)ected to be believed, and who were perfectly 
amiliflr with the marvellous events they described, 
lad they related these events from rumor, from a 
: eated imagination, or with a disposition to deceive, 
-hey must hare written in an inflated style, with a 
profusion of epithets, with frequent appeals to the 
gentiment of the marvellous, not unmixed with the 
show of argument to convince the incredulous. 
WTien we find on the current of the Gospel history 
not a ripple of swollen diction, not a quickening of 
the rhetorical pulse, not a deviation from the quiet, 
prosaic, circumstantial flow of narrative, in describ- 
ing such events as the walking upon the sea, the 
raising of Lazarus, the ascension of Jesus Christ to 
heaven, we can account for this unparalleled literary 
phenomenon only by supposing that the wiiters 
bad become so conversant with miracle, either in 
iieir own experience or through their intimacy with 
"e-witnesses, that events aside from the ordinary 
ourse of nature had ceased to be contemplated with 

4. Another conclusive argument against the 
mythical theory is derived from the sufferings and 
ihe martyrdoms of the primitive Christians. Strauss 
admits that the earliest of our Gospels assumed its 
present form within thirty or forty years after the 
death of Jesus. At that time there were still livLig 
^reat multitudes, m ho muyt have been contemporary 


and coeval with Jesus, and who had the means ol 
ascertaining the truth with regard to his personal 
history. Mere fable, which involved no serious 
consequences to those who received it, might have 
passed unquestioned, and might have been devoured 
by weak men and superstitious women with easy 
credulity. But men are not wont to stake their 
reputation, their property, their lives, on stories 
which they have the means of testing, without look- 
ing carefully into the evidence of their tnith. Now 
no fact in history is more certain than that, within 
forty years from the death of Christ, large numbers 
of persons, many of them natives of Judaea, suffered 
the severest persecution, and incurred painful and 
ignominious death by fire, by crucifixion, and by 
exposure to wild beasts, in consequence of their 
professed belief in the divine mission, the miracu- 
lous endowments, and the resurrection of Jesus. 
Many of these persons were men of intelligence and 
cultivation. They must have known how far the 
alleged facts of the life of Jesus were confirmed by 
eye-witnesses, and how far and on what grounds 
they were called in question. They lived at a time 
when they could have tried the witnesses, and they 
must have been more cr less than human if they 
threw away their lives for mere exaggerations or 
fables. The genuineness of several of Paul's epistles 
is admitted by Strauss, and neither he nor any one 
else doubts the fact of Paul's protracted sacrifices 
and sufferings, and his ultimate martyrdom as a 
Christian behever, Paul's epistles show him to 
have been a man of eminent power and culture, — in 
the opinion of many, the greatest man that God 
ever made ; in the judgment of all, far above medioc- 
rity. Born a Jew, educated in Jerusalem, familiar 
with the alleged scenes and witnesses of the miracles 
of Jesus, at first a persecutor of the infant church, 
he could have become a believer and a champion 
of the Christian faith only on strong evidence, and 
with a full knowledge of the grounds for unbelief 
and doubt; and we have his own statement of what 
he believed, and especially of his undoubting belief 
in the crowning miracle of the resurrection of Jesus. 
We know of no man whose testimony as to the 
state of the argument as it stood in the very Hfe- 
time of the coevals of Jesus could be worth so much 
as his ; and it is inconceivable that he, of all men, 
should have suffered or died in attestation of what 
he supposed or suspected to be myths. But we 
must multiply his testimony by hundreds, nay, by 
thousands, in order to represent the full amount 
and weight of the testimony of martyrdom. Now 
while we have not the slightest doubt that out 
Gospels were written, three of them at least at an 
earlier date than Strauss assigns to the first, and 
all of them by the men whose names they bear, we 
should deem them, if possible, more surely authen- 
ticated as to their contents, did we suppose them 
anonymous works of a later date ; for in that case 
they would embody narratives already sealed by the 
martyr -blood of a cloud of witnesses, and thus would 
be not the mere story of their authors, but the 
story of the collective church. 

5. The character of the primitive Christians is 
an impregnable argument for the truth of the 
Gospel-history, as opposed to the mythical theory. 
Therfr 's no doubt whatever that from the lifetime 
jf Jexns commenced the moral regeneration of 
humamty. Virtues which had hardly a name be- 
fore, sprang into being. Vices which had been 
embalmed in song and cherished in the heart of th( 
highest civilization of the Roman empire, were con- 


demned and denounced. A loftier ethical standard 
— a standard which has not yet been improved 
upon — was held forth by the earhest Christian 
writers, and recognized in all the Christian com- 
munities. There were among the early Christians 
types of character, which have never been surpassed, 
hardly equalled since. Strauss maintains that there 
are no uncaused eflfbcts, — no effects which have not 
causes fully commensurate with themselves. A 
Jewish youth, half-enthusiast, half-impostor, must 
have been immeasurably inferior to those great 
philosophers and moralists of classic antiquity, who 
hardly made an impression on the depravity of 
their own and succeeding times. Such a youth 
must have had very vague notions of morality, and 
have been a very poor example of it He might 
have founded a sect of fanatics, but not a body of 
singularly pure, true and holy men. There is a 
glaring inadequacy, — nay, an entire and irrecon- 
cilable discrepancy between the cause and the effect. 
We can account for the moral reformation that 
followed the ministry of Jesus, only by supposing 
him endowed with a higher and calmer wisdom, 
with a keener sense of truth and right, with a more 
commanding influence over the human heart and 
conscience, than has ever belonged to any other 
being that the world has seen. Outwardly he was 
a humbly bom, illiterate Jew, in a degenerate age, 
of a corrupt national stock; and there is no way 
of accounting for his superiority over all other 
teachers of truth and duty, unless we believe that 
he held by the gift of God a preeminence, of which 
his alleged sway over nature and victory over death 
were but the natural and fitting expression. 

6. Strauss bases his theory on the assumption 
that our Gospels were not written by the men whose 
names they bear, but were the productions of 
authors now unknown, at later and uncertain 
periods; and he admits that the mythical fabric 
which he supposes the Gospels to be could not have 
had its origin under the hands, or with the sanction, 
of apostles or their companions. But the genuine- 
ness of no ancient, we might almost say, of no 
modem work, rests on stronger evidence than does 
the authorship cf our Gospels by the men whose 
names they bear. In the earlier ages their com- 
position by their now reputed authors was never 
denied or called in question, — not even by the 
heretics who on dogmatical grounds rejected some 
Df them, and would have found it convenient to 
^ject all, — not even by Jewish and Gentile op- 
X)sers of Christianity, who argued vehemently and 
oitterly against their contents without impugning 
their genuineness. Justin Martyr, who wrote about 
the middle of the second century, speaks repeatedly 
of Memoirs of the Apostles called Gospels, and in 
his frequent recapitulation of what he professes to 
have drawn from this source there are numerous 
coincidences with our Gospels, not only in the facts 
narrated, but in words and in passages of consid- 
erable length. From his extant works we could 
almost reproduce the gospel history. He was a 
man of singularly inquisitive mind, of philosophical 
.raining, of large and varied erudition ; and it is 
impossible that he should not have known whether 
hese books were received without question, or 
♦whether they rested under the suspicion of spurious 
luthorship. Irenseus, who wrote a little later, gives 
a detailed description of our four Gospels, naming 
Lheir respective authors, and stating the order in 
which and the circumstances under which they were 
X>mpeied j and he writes, not only in his own 


name, but in that of the whole church, saying llia 
these books were not and had not been called in 
question by any. These are but specimens of vcrj 
numerous authorities that might be cited. Abon. 
the same time, Celsus wrote against Christianity 
and he drew so largely from our Gospels as the 
authorized narratives of the life of Christ, that a 
connected history of that life might almost be made 
from the extant passages quoted from his ^vritings 
by his Christian opponents. 

In the middle and the latter half of the second 
cen'cury, there were large bodies of Christiang in 
every part of the civilized world, and the copies of 
the Gospels must have been numbered by many 
thousands. Their universal reception as the works 
of the men whose names they now bear can be 
accounted for only by their genuineness. Suppose 
that they were spurious, yet WTitten and circulated 
in the lifetime of the Apostles,— it is impossible that 
they should not have openly denied their author- 
ship, and that this denial should not have left 
traces of itself in the days of Justin Martyr and 
Irenaeus. Suppose that they were first put ir cir- 
culation under the names they now bear, after the 
death of the Apostles, — it is inconceivable that 
there should not have been men shrewd enough to 
ask why they had not appeared while their authors 
were living, and their late appearance would have 
given rise to doubts and questions which would not 
ha\e been quieted for several generations. Suppose 
that they were first issued and circulated anony- 
mously, — there must have been a time when the 
names of Matthew, ^lark, Luke, and John were 
first attached to them, and it is impossible that 
the attaching of the names of well-known men as 
authors to books which had been anonymous should 
not have been attended by grave doubt. 

The statement of L'uke in the Introduction of 
his Gospel, and the very nature of the case render 
it certain that numerous other accounts, more or 
less authentic, of the life of Christ were early 
written, and some such accounts, commonly called 
the Apocryphal Gospels, are still extant. But Me 
have ample evidence that no such writings were 
ever received as of authority, read in the churches, 
or sanctioned by the office-bearers and leading men 
in the Christian communities; and most ot them 
disappeared at an early date. Nom' it is impossible 
to account for the discrediting and suppression of 
these wTitings, unless the Church was in the pos- 
session of authoritative records. If our Gospels 
had no higher authority than belonged to those 
narratives, all the accounts of the life of Jesus 
would have been received and transmitted with 
equal credit. But if there were four narratives 
written by eye-witnesses and their accredited com- 
panions, while all the rest were written by persons 
of inferior means of information and of inferior 
authority, then may we account, as we can in no 
other way, for the admitted fact that these foui 
Gospels crowded all others out of the Church, and 
drove them into discredit, almost into oblivion. 

We have then abundant reason to believe, and 
no reason to doubt, that our present four Gospeia 
were written by the men whose names they bear- 
and if this be proved, by the confession of Strauss 
himself the mythical theory is untenable. 

A. P. P. 

* Literature. The preceding article would b« 
incomplete without some further notice of the lit 
erature of the subject, which it will be convenient 
to distribute under several heads. 


1. Ciiticnl history of the Gospels ; their origin, 
nutual relation, and credibility. In addition to 
the works refeiTed to above (np. 943, 947), the fol- 
lowing may be mentioned: Tboluck, Die Glaub- 
wiirdiffkeil der evang. Geschichte, 2e Autl., Hamb. 
1838; Ullmann, Historisch oder Mythisch f Hamb. 
1838 ; Furness, Jesus and his Biographers, Philad. 
1838, an enlargement of his Bemnrks on the Four 
Gospels ; Gfrorer, Die heilige Sage, 2 Abth., and 
Das Ileiligthum u. d. Wahrheit, Stuttg. 1838; C. 
II. Weisse, Die evang. Geschichte, krit. u. phibs. 
bearbeitet, 2 Bde. Leipz. 1838; Wilke, Der Ur- 
evangelist, oder exeg. krit. Untersuchung ub. ci. 
Verwandtschaftsverhdltniss der drei ersten Evan- 
gelien, Dresd. 1838; Hennell, Inquiry concerning 
the Origin of Christianity (1st ed. 1838), 2d ed. 
I^nd. 1841; Bruno Bauer, Kntik der evang. Gesch. 
der Synoptiker, 3 Bde. Berl. 1841-42; and Kritik 
der Evangelien u. Gesch. Hires Ursprungs, 4 Bde. 
Berl. 1850-52; Ebrard, WissenschaftUche Kritik 
d. evang. Geschichte (1st ed. 1841), 2e umgearb. 
A.ufl. Erlangen, 1850, English translation, con- 
densed, Edin. 1863 ; W. H. Mill, On the attempted 
Application of Pantheistic Principles to the 
Theory and Historic Criticism of the Gospels, 
Cambr. (Eng.) 1840-44; Isaac Williams, Thoughts 
on the Study of the Gospels, Lond. 1842; F. J. 
Schwarz, Neue Untersuchung en uber d. Verwandt- 
schafts- Verhdltniss der synopt. Evnngtlien, Tiib. 
1844; (Anon.) Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre 
Verfasser und ihr Verhdltniss zu einnnder, Leipz. 
1845; J. R. Beard, Voices of the Church in reply 
to Strauss, Lond. 1845; C. L. W. Grimm, Die 
Glaubiviii^digkeit der evang. Geschichte, Jena, 1845, 
in opposition to Strauss and Bauer • Thiersch, Ver- 
such zur Herstellung d. histor. Standpunkls far d. 
Kritik d. neutest. Schriften, Erlangen, 1845, comp. 
Baur, Der Kritiker u. der Fanatiker, u. s. w. 
Stuttg. 1846, and Thiersch, Einige Worte ub. d. 
Aechtheit d. neutest. Schriften, 1846; Schwegler, 
Das nachapostolische Zeitalter, 2 Bde. Tiib. 1846 ; 
Bleek, Beitrdge zur Evangelien-Kritlk, Berl. 1846, 
valuable; Davidson, Introd. to the Neiv Test. vol. 
'. Ix)nd. 1848; Ewald, Ursprung und wesen der 
Evangelien, in his Jahrb. d. Bibl. wissenschaft, 
1848-1854, namely, i. 113-154; ii. 180-224; iii. 
140-183; V. 178-207; vi. 32-72; comp. also ix. 
49-87, X. 83-114, xii. 212-224; also his Die drei 
ersten Evajigelien ilbersezt u. erkldri, Gutt. 1850; 
Hilgenfeld, Krit. Untersuchung en iiber die Evan- 
gelien Justin's, u. 3. w. Halle, 1850; D::is Marktcs- 
Evangelium, Leipz. 1850; arts, in Theol. Jahrb. 
1852, pp. 102-132, 259-293 ; Die Evangelien nach 
ihrer Entstehung u. gesch. Bedeutung, Leipz. 1854; 
arts, in Theol. Jahrb. 1857, pp. 381-440, 498- 
532, and in his Zeitschr. f. wlss. Theol. 1859, 1861, 
and 1862-67, jmssim; Baur, Kritische Unter- 
mchungen iib. d. kanon. Evangelien, Tiib. 1847, 
already noticed ; Das Markusevangelium, Tiib. 
1851; arts, in Theol. Jahrb. 1853, pp. 54-93; 
1854, pp. 196-287, and Zeitschr. f wiss. Theol. 
1859 ; for a summary of results, see his Dis Chris- 
enthum der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 2^ Ausg._ 
Tiib. 1860; Ritschl, Ueber den gegenicdrtiger. 
Stand der Kritik der synopt. Evangelien, in Tneol. 
/ahrb. 1851, pp. 480-538; C. E. Stowe, The Four 
Gospels, and the Hegelian Assaults upon them, in 
the Bibl. Sacra for July 1851 and Jan. 1852, re- 
printed in Journ. of Sac. Lit. Oct. 1865 and Jan. 
1866; Da Costa, The Four WLnesses (trans, from 
•■he Dutch), Lond. 1851, reprinted New York, 1855 ; 
r. R. Birks, Horm EvangtUcca or the Internal 



Evidence of the Gospel History, I^ntl. 1862; C 
R. Kostlin, Der Ursprung u. d. Kompositiyn d. 
synopt. Evangelien, Stuttg. 1853; James Smith 
of Jordanhill, Diss, on the Origin and Connectior 
of the Gospels, Edin. 1853; F. X. Patritius (Cath.), 
be Evangeliis, Friburgi, 1853; G. F. Simmons. 
The Gospels, etc. in the (Boston) Christian Exam- 
iner, May, 1853; J. H. Morison, Genuineness of 
the Gospels, ibid. Jan. 1854; C. F. Ranke, De 
Libris histm\ Novi Test., Berol. 1855; Norton, 
Internal Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gos- 
pels, including " Remarks on Strauss's Life of 
Jesus," Boston, 1855 (posthumous), — an abridged 
edition of his admirable work on the external Ev- 
idences of the Genuineness of the Gospels (see p. 
943), has just been published, Boston, 1867; C. 
H. Weisse, Die Evang elienf rage in ihreni gegen- 
wdrtigen Stadium, Leipz. 1856; Reuss, arts, in 
the Strasbourg Revue de Theol. vols. x. xi. xv., 
and Nouvelle Revue de Theol. 1858, ii. 15-72, 
comp. his Gesch. d. heiligen Schriften N. T. 
3e Ausg. 1860, § 179 ff.; Volkmar, Die Religion 
Jesu, etc. Leipz. 1857; J. T. Tobler, Die Evan- 
gelienfrage, Ziirich, 1858, comp. Hilgenfeld's 
Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1859 and 1860; Scherer, 
Notes sur les evangiles synoptiques, 6 articles in 
the Nouvelle Rev. de Theol. (Strasbourg), 1859 
and 1860, vols, iii., iv., and v. ; I. Nichols, Hours 
with the Evangelists, 2 vols. Boston, 1859-64; 
Westcott, Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, 
Cambr. 1860, 3d ed. 1867, Amer. reprint, Boston, 
1862, 12mo; Furness, Origin of the Gospels, in 
Christ. Exam, for Jan. 1861, comp. his Veil partly 
lifted (1864), pp. 227-301; Weiss, Zur Entsteh- 
ungsgeschichte der synopt. Evangelien, in the 
Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1861, pp. 29-100, 646-713, 
comp. his arts. Die Redestiicke des aposiol. Mat- 
thdus, in Jahrb. f Deutsche Theol. 1864, ix. 49- 
140, and Die Erzahlungsstucke d. apost. Matthdm, 
ibid. 1865, x. 319-376 ; C. Wittichen, Bemerkungen 
iiber die Tendenz und den Lehrgehalt der synopt. 
Reden Jesu, in the Jahrb. f Deutsche Theol. 1862, 
vii. 314-372, and Ueber den histor. Charakter der 
synopt. Evangelien, ibid. 1866, xi. 427-482 ; Bleek, 
Einl. in das N. T, Berl. 18G2, 2d ed. 1866 ; Holtz- 
mann. Die synopt. Evangelien, ihr Urspruruj u 
gesch. Charakter, Leipz. 1863 ; Eichthal, Les Evan- 
giles, 2 tom. Paris, 1863 ; G. A. Freytag, Die Sym- 
phonie der Evangelien, Neu-Ruppin, 1863 ; Alex 
Roberts, Discussions on the Gospels, 2d ed., Edin 
1864; G. P. Fisher, The Mythical Theory of 
Strauss, in the New Englander for April, 1864, 
excellent; Oiigin of the First Three Gospels, ihid. 
Oct. 1864; Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, in 
Bibl. Sacra, April, 1864; all reprinted, with addi- 
tions, in his Essays on the Supernatural Origin of 
Christianity, New York, 1866 ; Weizsacker, Unter- 
suchungen iiber die evang. Geschichte, ihre QueU 
len, u. den Gang ihrer Entwickelung, Gotha, 1864, 
comp. Weiss's review in Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1866, 
pp. 129-176 ; M. Nicolas, lEtudes crit. sur la Bible 
— Nouveau Testament, Paris, 1864 ; the Abb^ 
Meignan, Les jSvangiles et la critique au XfX* 
siecle, Paris, 1864; N. C. Burt, Hours am<mg the 
Gospels, VhiUd. 1865, 12mo; Tischendorf, Wann 
tourden unsere Evangelien verfasst ? Leipz. 1865, 
4th ed., greatly enlarged, 1866, Eng. trans, by 
W. L. Gage, Boston, 1868 (Amer. Tract. Soc); 
Hilgenfeld, Const antin Tischendorf als Defensor 
fidei, in his Zeitschr. f. wlss. Theol. 1865, pp. 
329-343 ; Volkmar, Der Ursprung unserer Evan^ 
gelien nach den Urkunden, Ziirich, 1866 (Tiach- 


widorf has replied tx) Hilgenfeld and Volkraar in 
his 4th edition); J. H. Scholten, De oudste 6'e- 
luigenissen, etc., Leiden, 1866, trans, by Manchot, 
Die cUtesten Zeuynisse betrejf'end die Schriften des 
N. T. historisch untersucht^ Bremen, 1867, in op- 
position to Tischendorf ; Hofstede de Groot, Basii- 
ides als erster Ztiuje f. Aller u. Autoritat neutest. 
Schriften, u. s. w. Leipz. 1868 [1867], against 
Scholten; J. L Mombert, The Origin of the Gos- 
oels, in the Bibl. Sacra for July and Oct. 1866, 
with particular reference to Strauss 's New Life 
of Jesus ; L. A. Sabatier, Jissai sur les sources 
de la vie de Jesics, Paris, 1866; A. Reville, La 
question des evangiles devnnt la cHtique moderne, 
in Rev. des Deux Mondes, 1 mai and 1 juin, 
1866; H. U. Maijboom, Geschiedenis en Critiek 
der Marcus-Hypothese, Amst. 1866 ; Klostermann, 
Das Marcus-Lvanaelium nach seinem Quellen- 
werthef. d. evang. Geschichte, Gott. 1867: C A. 
Row. The Historical Character of the Gospels 
tested by an Examination of their Contents, in the 
Journ. of Sacred Lit. for July and Oct. 1865, 
Jan. Apr. and July, 1866, and Jan. 1867, — an 
original and valuable series of articles, which ought 
to be published separately. Holtzmann, Der gegen- 
wdrtige Stand der Evangelievfrcge, in Bunsen's 
Bibelwerk, Bd. viii. (1866), pp. 2-3--77, gives a good 
survey of the literature. For other reviews of 
the literature, see Hilgenfeld's Der Kanon u. die 
Kritik des N. T. (Halle, 1863), and Uhlhorn's 
article, Die kirchenhistorischen Arbeiten des Jahr- 
zehents von 1851-1860, in the Zeiischrift f. hist. 
TheoL for 1866, see esp. pp. 6-19. 

2. Harmonies of the Gospels, and their Chro- 
nology. In addition to the works named above (p. 
950), the following deserve mention here: Lach- 
mann, De Ordine Narrationum in Kvangeliis 
Synopticis, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1835, pp. 
570-590, comp. his Nov. Test. torn. ii. (1850), pp. 
xiii.-xxv. ; Gelpke, Ueber die Ancn'dn. d. Erzali- 
lungen in den synopt. Evangelien. Sendschreiben 
an K. Lachmann, Bern, 1839; I^ant Cai'penter, 
Apostolical Harmony of the Gospels, 2d ed., Ix)nd. 
1838 ; J. G. Sommer, Synoptische Tafeln [11] /. 
d. Kritik u. Exegese der drei ersten Evangelien, 
Bonn, 1842; Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse der vier 
Evangelien, Harab. 1843, Eng. trans. Lond. 1864, 
comp. his art. Zeitrechnung, neutestamentliche, in 
Herzog's Real-Encykl. xxi. 543 fF. ; S. F. Jarvis, 
Chronol. Introd. to the Hist, of the Church, con- 
taining an Original Harmony of the Four Gospels, 
Lond. 1844, and New York, 1845, comp. J. L. 
Kingsley in the New Englander for April, 1847, 
and July, 1848 ; H. B. Hackett, Synoptical Study 
of the Gospels, in Bibl. Sacra for Feb. 1846; J. 
C. G. L. KrafFt, Chronol. u. Harm. d. vier Evan- 
gelien, Erlang. 1848; Anger, Synopsis Evangg. 
Matt. Marci Lucce, cum Locis qwz supersunt par- 
allelis Litterarum et Traditionum Irenoe.o antiqui- 
orum. Lips. 1852, valuable; James Strong, Neio 
Harmony and Exposition of the Gospels, loith 
Chronol. and Topog. Dissertations, finely illus- 
trated. New York, 1852, large 8vo; Harmony of 
the Gospels, in the Greek of the Received Text, 
by the same, New York, 1854, 12mo; Stroud, 
New Greek Harm, of the Four Gospels, compris- 
ing a Synopsis and a Diatessaron, Lond. 1853, 4to ; 
Mirapriss, Treasury Harmony and Practical Ex 
position of the Four Evangelists, rx)nd. 1855, 4to; 
Lichtonstein, Lebensgeschichte d. Herrn Jesu 
Christi in chronologischer Uebersicht, Erlang. 1866; 
(E. E. Hale) Logical Order of the Gosptl Narra- 


lives, in the ChHst. Examiner for Sept. 1858, ano 
System and Order of Christ s Ministry, ibid. Jan. 
1864 ; M. H. Schulze, Evangtlientajel als erne 
Ubersichtl. Darstellung d. synopt. Ew. in ihrem 
Verwandtschaftsverhdltnis zu einander, u. s. w 
I^ipz. 1861; Chavannes, Determination de quel" 
ques dates de Vhist. evangelique, i.i the Strasbourg 
Rev. de Theol. 1863, pp. 209-248 ; Bunsen's Bibel- 
loerk, Bd. viii. (1866), pp. 115-322, comp. Bd. ix. 
{Leben Jesu) ; Sevin, Die drei ersten Evangelien 
synoptisch zusammengesttllt, Wiesbaden, 1866, 
Greek after the Codex Sinaiticns, with the varia- 
tions of the Rec. Text; Emi, Evang elien-Ueber- 
sicht: sdmmtUche vier kanon. Ew., auf 7 Bldtieiit 
. . . wortlich nach der offiziellen Uebersetzung d. 
Zilrcherischen I^andeskirche bearbeitet, u. s. w. 
Ziirich, 1867. A Harmony of the Gosjjels in Greek 
(Tischendorf 's text), with various readings, notes, 
tables, etc., by the Rev. Frederic Gardiner, is now 
in press (New York, 1868). 

3. Commentaries. Passing by older works, we 
may notice Campbell, Four Gospels translated, mth 
Notes, reprinted Andover, 1837, 2 vols. 8vo, val- 
uable for the Preliminary Dissertations; Kuinoel 
(Kiihniil), Comm. in IJbr. N. T. historicos, 4 vols. 
Lips. (Matt., 4th ed. 1837; Mark and Luke, 4th 
ed. 1843; John, 3d ed. 1825), often unsound in 
philology, but still useful; Paulus, Exeg. Handb. 
lib. die drei ersten Ew., 3 Theile, Heidelb. 1830-33; 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Exeg. Schiiften zum N. T. 
Bd. i. in 2 Th. (Matt., Mark, Luke), Jena, 1844-45, 
posthumous ; his TheoL Auslegung d. J oh an. 
Schriften (1844-45) is more imiwrtant; Olshausen, 
Bibl. Cmim. I3de. i. and ii. Abth. 1, 2, 4fi Aufl. 
rev. von Ebrard, Konigsb. 1853-62, Eng. trans, 
revised by A. C. Kendrick, New York, 1856-57; 
^leyer, Krit. exeg. Komm. ub. das N. T. Abth. 
i., ii. Giitt. (Matt., 5th ed. 1864; Mark and Luke 
5th ed. 1867; John, 4th ed. 1862); De Wette, 
Kurzgef exeg. Handb. zum N. T. 13d. i. Th. i.- 
iii. Leipz. (Matt., 4th ed. by Messner, 1857 ; Luke 
and Mark, 3d ed. 1846; John, 5th ed. by Briickner, 
1863); Stier, Die Reden des Herrn Jesu, 2e Auti., 
7 Theile, Barmen, 1851-55, Eng. trans. 8 vols. 
Edin. 1855-61; John Brown, Discourses and Say- 
ings of our Lord Jesus Christ, 3 vols. Edin. 1850, 
reprinted in 2 vols. New York, 1864 ; Ewald, Die 
drei ersten Ew. iibers. u. erklart, Gcitt. 1850, and 
Die Johan. Schriften iibers. u. erklart, Gott. 1861- 
62; Norton, New Translation of the Gospels, with 
Notes, 2 vols. Boston, 1855, posthumous; Joel 
Jones (Judge), Notes on Scr-i/Hure, Philad. 1861; 
Bleek, Synopt. Erkldrung der drei ersten Evange- 
lien, 2 Bde. Leipz. 1862; Bunsen's Bibelwerk, Bd. 
iv. Th. i. (1862), ed. by Holtzmann, translation 
with brief notes; and the Greek Testaments of 
Bloomfield (9th ed. 1855), Alford (5th ed. 1863), 
Webster and Wilkinson (1855), and Wordsworth 
(4th ed. 1866). Of lunge's great Bibelwerk, 
" critical, theological, and homiletical," the vols, 
on Matthew, Mark, and Luke have been translated 
and published in this country, with valuable addi- 
tions, under the general editorship of Dr. Schaff 
(New York, 1865-66); the volume on John is in 
press. Nast's Commentary (Matt, and Mark, Cin- 
cinnati, 1864) is on a similar plan. This volunw 
has a valuable General Introduction to the Gospels, 
treating of their genuineness, authenticity, hanuony 
etc., which has also been issued separately. Since 
the publication of the Rev. Albert liarnes's Notet 
on the Gospels, 2 vols. New York, 1832, 17th ed. 
revised, 1847 (when 32,000 copies had aireadj 



been sold), numerous popular commentaries have] 
api)enre(l in this country, representing more or less 
the Uieological views of different religious denom- 
inations, as by H. .1. Ulpley (Baptist), 2 vols. Boston, 
]837-;J8; Jos. I^ngking (Methodist), 4 vols. IGmo, 
New York, 1841-44 ; A. A. Livermore (Uni- 
tarian), 2 vols. Boston, 184; -42; L. R. Paige 
(Univevsalist), 2 vols. Boston, 1844-45; M. W. 
Jacobus, 3 vols. New York, 1848-56 ; C. II. Hall 
(Episcopalian). 2 vols. New York, 1857; J. J. Owen, 
3 vols. New Yo.-k, 1857-60 ^. D. Whedon (Meth- 
odist), 2 vols New York, 1860-66; and I. P. 
Warren, Ntio Tent, loitk Notes, vol. i. Boston, 1867 
(Amer. Tr. Soc). Of works illustratuig portions of 
the Gospels, Abp. Trench's Notes on the Paiutbks 
(1841, 9th ed. 1864), Notes on the Miracles (1846, 
7th ed. 1800), and Studies in the Gospels (1867), 
of all of which we have American editions, deserve 
particular mention, ^\''ichelhaus has written an 
elaborate commentary on the history of the Passion 
Week {Aus/'iihrl. Komm. zu d. Gesch. des Leidens 
Jesu Chnsti, Halle, 1855). Of the works named 
above, the most valuable in a critical and philo- 
logical point of view are those of Meyer, De Wette, 
and Bleek. For treatises on the separate Gospels, 
see their respective names ; see also the article 
Jesus Christ. A. 

GOTHOLrAS. Josias, son of Gotholias (Po- 
doXiov- Gotholite), was one of the sons of Elam 
who returned from Babylon with Esdras (1 Esdr. 
viii. 33). The name is the same as Athaliah, 
with the common substitution of the Greek G for 
the Hebrew guttural Ain (comp. Gomorrah, Gaza, 
etc.). This passage compared with 2 K. xi. 1, &c. 
shows that Athaliali was both a male and female 

GOTHO'NIEL {VodoviiiX, L e. Othniel ; 
[Sin. I ToQoviov, gen. :J Gothoniel), father of Cha- 
bris, who was one of the governors (apxoj/Tes) of 
the city of Bethulia (Jud. vi. 15). 

GOURD. I. ]V|5*'|7, only in Jon. iv. G-10: 
KoXoKvvBr]' hedera. A difference of opinion has 
long existed as to the plant which is intended by 
this word. The argument is as old us Jerome, 
whose rendering hedera was impugned by Augus- 
tine as a heresy ! In reality Jerome'« rendering 
was not intended to be critical, but rather as a kind 
of 2iis aller necessitated by the want of a proper 
Latin word to express the original. Besides he was 
unwilUng to leave it in merely Latinized Hebrew 
(kikayon), which might have occasioned misappre- 
hensions. Augustine, following the LXX. and Syr. 
Versions, was in favor of the rendering yourd, 
which was adopted by Luther, the A. V., etc. In 
Jerome's description of the plant called in Syr. 
Icaro, and Punic el-keroa, Celsius recognizes the 
Ricinus Palnia Christi, or Castor-oil plant {fliero- 
bot. ii. 273 ff.; Bochart, Hiei-oz. ii. 293, 623). 
The Riciniis was seen by Niebuhr {De script, of 
Arab. p. 148) at Basra, where it was distinguished 
by the name el-keroa; by Rauwolf (Trav. p. 52) 
it was noticed in great abundance near Tripoli, 
where the Arabs called it el-kerua; while both 
Hasselquist and Robinson observed very large speci- 
mens of it in the neighborhood of Jericho (" Ri- 
cmus in altitudinem arboris insignis,' Hasselq. p. 
555; see also Rob. i. 553). 

Niebuhr observes that the Jews and Christians 
Kt Mosul (Nineveli) maintained that tht, ^ree which 
■hdterec Jonah was not " el-keroa," but " el-kerra," 



a sort of gourd, '.'his revival of the August, ren 
dering has been defended by J. E. Eabei (Notes r>n 
Ilarmer's Observations, etc. i. 145). And it nnist 
be confessed that the evidently miraculous charac» 
ter of the narrative in Jon. deprives the Palnia 
Christi of any special claim to identification on the 
ground of its rapid growth and decay, as describe/l 
by Niebuhr. Much more important, however, is 
it to observe the tree-like character of this plant, 
rendering it more suitable for the purpose which it 
is stated to have fulfilled ; also the authority of the 
Palestine Jews who were contemporaries of Jerome, 
as compared with that of the Mosul Jews convened 
with by Niebuhr. But most decisive of all seems 
the derivation of the Hebrew word from the I'^gyp- 
tian kiki (Herod, ii. 94; comp. Biihr, ad loc. ; and 
Jablonsky, Opusc. pt. i. p. 110) established by Cel- 
sius, with whose arguments Michaelis declares him 
self entirely satisfied (J. D. Mich. Supjd.); and 

confirmed by the Talmudical P'^P ]^^^^., kik-oil, 
prepared from the seeds of the Ricinus (Buxt. Lex. 
Chald. Talmud, col. 2029), and Dioscorides, vr. 
164, where KpSruu {=Palma Christi) is described 
under the name of kIki, and the oil made from its 
seeds is called kiklvov eAaiov- 

IL n*"117)?Q, and D^rfl?. (1.) In 2 K- iv. 
39 ; a fruit used as food, disagreeable to the taste, 
and supposed to be poisonous. (2.) In 1 K. vi. 
18, vii. 24, as an architectural ornament, where A. 
V. " knops." In Hebrew the plant is described as 

•^"^^ f? V • ^I^T^^^ou iv To3 aypq): vifem silves- 
trem ; whence in A. V. " wild vine " [2 K. iv. 39]. 
The fruit is called in Hebrew as above; ToXv-nt] 
aypia, LXX. = aypia KoXoKvvOriy Suid. : colocyn- 
ihides ayri; "wild gourds,'' A. V. 

The inconsistency of all these renderings is man- 
ifest; but the fact is that the Hebrew name of the 
j)lant may denote any shrub which grows in ten - 
drils, such as the colocynth, or the cucumber. 
Rosenmiiller and Gesenius pronounce in favor of 
the wikl cucumber^ Cucumis ayrestis or asininus 
(Cels. Hierobot. i. 393 ff.). This opinion is con- 
firmed by the derivation from ^f7Q, to burst. The 
wild cucumber bursts at the touch of the finger, 
and scatters its seeds, which the colocynth does not 
(Rosenm. Alterthumsk. iv. pt. 1, (fee). 

T. E. B. 

There can, we think, be no reasonable doubt that 
the kikayon which aflfbrded shade to the prophet 
Jonah before Nineveh is the Ricinus communis, or 
castor-oil plant, which, formerly a native of Asia, 
is now naturalized in America, Africa, and the south 
of Europe. This plant, which varies considerably 
in size, being in India a tree, but in England sel 
dom attaining a greater height than three or four 
feet, receives its generic name from the resemblance 
its fruit was anciently supposed to bear to the 
acarus ("tick") of that name. See Dioscorides 
(iv. 161, ed. Sprengel) and Pliny (ff. N. xv. 7). 
The leaves are large and palmate, with serrated 
lobes, and would form an excellent shelter for the 
sun-stricken prophet. The seeds contain the oil so 
well known under the name of "castor-oil," which 
has for ages been in high repute as a medicine. 

With regard to the " wild gourds " (DIl^fyQ, 
pakkuoth) of 2 K. iv. 39, which one of "the sons 
of the prophets " gathered ignorantly, supposing 
them to be good for food, there can be no doubt 




Castor-oil plant. 

that it is a sjjecies of the gourd tribe {Cucur- 
bitncece), which contain some plants of a very bitter 
and dangerous character. The leaves and tendrils 
of this family of plants hear some resemblance to 
those of the vine. Hence the expression, " wild 
vine;"" and as several kinds of Cucurbitncece, 
such as melons, pumpkins, etc., are favorite articles 
of refreshing food amongst the Orientals, we can 
easily understand the cause of the mistake. 

The plants which have been by different writers 
identified with the pakkuoth are the following : the 
colocynth, or coloquintida {Cifrullus colocynthis) \ 
the Cucumis prop/ietarum, or globe cucumber ; 
and the Ecbalium (Mormn-dica) elaterium; all of 
which have claims to denote the plant in question. 

The etymology of the word from VJ^Q, " to split 
or burst open," has been thought to favor the iden- 
tification of the plant with the Ecbnlium elaterium^^ 
or " squirting cucumber," so called from the elas- 
ticity with which the fruit, when ripe, opens and 
scatters the seeds when touched. This is the 
6.ypios criKvos of Dioscorides (iv. 152) and Theo- 
phrastus (vii. 6, § 4, &c.), and the Cucumis syU 
veslris of Pliny (//. N. xx. 2). Celsius (Hierob. 
I 393), Rosenraiiller {Bibl. Bot. p. 128), Winer 
{B'M. Realw. i. 625), and Gesenius ( r/?es. p. 1122), 
are in favor of this explanation, and, it must be 
confessed, not without some reason. The old ver- 
sions, however, understand the colocynth, the fruit 
uf which is about the size of an orange. The 
drastic medicine in such general use is a prepara- 
tion from this plant. Michaelis {Suppl. Lex. Heb. 
p. 3-i4) and Oedmann ( Verm. Samm. iv. 88) adopt 
this explanation; and since, according to Kitto 
{Pict. Bibl. 1. c. ), the dry gourds of the colocynth, 
when crushed, burst with a crashing noise, there is 
much reason for being satisfied with an explanation 
which has authority, etymology, and general suit- 
ablenftss in its favor. All the above-named plants 
are found in the East. W. H. 

a One went out into the field to gather potnerlw 
(inns), And found a wild vine " {niW ]E;2). 


* There is a Letter relating to Jonah's Gourd in 
the Bibl. Sacra, xii. 39G ff., from the late Rev. H. 
I^bdell, M. D., missionary at Mosid in Mesopotamia. 
He says that " the Mohammedans, Christians, and 
Jews all agree in referring the plant to the ker'a, 
a kind of pumpkin pecuhar to the East. The 
leaves are large, and the rajjidity of the growth of 
the plant is astonishing. Its fruit is, for the most 
part, eaten in a fresh state, and is somewhat like 
the squash. It has no more than a generic resem- 
blance to the gourd of the United States, though I 
suppose that both are species of the cucurbita. It 
is grown in great abundance on the alluvial banks 
of the Tigris, and on the plain between the river 
and ruins of Nineveh, which is about a mile wide." 
He gives J easons for supposing that the LXX. ko- 
KoKvvQf] was really meant to designate that plant. 
Dr. Pusey (Jonah, p. 259) follows those who adopt 
our marginal rendering as correct, namely, pal?7iC7nst 
or the castor-oil plant as described above. He re- 
marks conceniing this plant (which must be true, 
perhaps, of any plant with which the kikdyon was 
identical) that while the rapidity of its growth was 
supernatural, it was a growth in confonnity with 
the natural character of the product. H. 

GOVERNOR. In the A. V. this one Eng- 
lish word is the representative of no less than ten 
Hebrew and four [five] Greek words. To discrim- 
inate between them is the object of the following 

1. ^^\ S, alMph, the chief of a tribe or family, 

?lbw, eleph (Judg. vi. 15; Is. Ix. 22; Mic. v. 2), 
and equivalent to the " prince of a thousand " of 
Ex. xviii. 21 , or the " head of a thousand " of Num. 
i. 16. It is the term applied tc the " dukes " of 
Edom (Gen. xxxiv.). The LXX. have retained the 
etymological significance of the word in rendering 
it by x^^'i-f'-PX'^^ ^" Zech. ix. 7 ; xii. 5, (comp. 
^"^r^T*' ^°"^ ^' ''^^•)' The usage in other pas- 
sages seems to imply a more intimate i elationship 
than that which would exist between a chieftftiB 

b From eKBdWm. 


vad his fellow-clansmen, and to express the closest 
friendship. AUuph is then " a guide, director, 
counsellor" (Ps. Iv. 13; Prov. ii. 17; Jer. iii. 4), 
the object of confidence or trust (Mic. v. 2). 

2. YiTiy^^ chokek (Judg. v. 9), and 3. prP.^HTP, 
m'clwkek (Judg. v. 14), denote a ruler in his ca- 
pacity of Idwyiver and dispenser of justice (Gen. 
kUx. 10; Prov. viii. 15; comp. Judg. v. 14, with 
Is. X. 1). 

4. vti7D, moshel, a ruler considered especially as 
having /»<?2i'er over the property and persons of his 
subjects; whether his authority were absolute, as in 
Josh. xii. 2, of Sihon, and in Ps. cv. 20, of Pharaoh ; 
or delegated, as in the case of Abraham's steward 
(Gen. xxiv. 2), and Joseph as second to Pharaoh 
(Gen. xlv. 8, 26, Ps. cv. 21). The "governors of 
the people " in 2 Chr. xxiii. 20 appear to have been 
the khig's body-guard (cf. 2 K. xi. 19). 

5. "T"^^3, ndffid, is connected etymologically with 

"Tjp and *T!l3, and denotes a prominent personage, 
whatever his capacity. It is applied to a king as 
the military and civil chief of his people (2- Sam. 
V. 2, vi. 21; 1 Chr. xxix. 22), to the general of an 
army (2 Chr. xxxii. 21), and to the head of a tribe 
(2 Chr. xix. 11). The heir- apparent to the crown 
was thus designated (2 Chr. xi. 22), as holding a 
prominent position among the king's sons. The 
term is also used of persons who fulfilled certain 
offices in the temple, and is applied equally to the 
high-priest (2 Chr. xxxi. 10, 13), as to inferior 
priests (2 Chr. xxxv. 8) to whose charge were com- 
mitted the treasures and the dedicated things (1 
Chr. xxvi. 24), and to Levites appointed for special 
service (2 Chr. xxxi. 12). It denotes an officer of 
high rank in the palace, the lord high chamberlain 
(2 Chr. xxviii. 7), who is also described as "over 
the household " (1 K. iv. 6), or " over the house " 
(1 K. xviii. 3). Such was the office held by Shebna, 
the scribe, or secretary of state (Is. xxii. 15), and 
in which he was succeeded by Eliakim (2 K. xviii. 
J 8). It is perhaps the equivalent of oIkouS/jlos, 
Kom. xvi. 23, and of iepoaTaTTjs, 1 Esdr. vii. 2 
(ef. 1 Esdr. i. 8). 

6. W^tTJ, nasi. The prevailing idea in this 
word is that of elevation. It is applied to the 
chief of the tribe (Gen. xvii. 20; Num. ii. 3, &c.), 
to the heads of sections of a tribe (Num. iii. 32, 
vii. 2), and to a powerful sheykh (Gen. xxiii. 6). 
It appears to be synonymous with aUiiph in 2 Chr. 

i. 2, D\SJi7; == n""in« •'trWl (cf. 2 Chr. v. 2). 
In general it denotes a man of elevated rank. In 
jater times the title was given to the president of 
kha great Sanhedrim (Selden, De Synedriis, ii. 6, 

7. nnQ, pechdh, is probably a word of Assyrian 
origin. It is applied in 1 K. x. 15 to the petty 
rbicftains who were tributary to Solomon (2 Chr. 
X. 14); to the military commander of the Syrians 
1 K. XX. 24), the Assyrians (2 K. xviii. 24), the 
.'haldieans (Jer. U. 23), and the Medes (Jer. Ii. 28). 
Jn.ler the Persian viceroys, during the Babylonian 
Captivity, the land of the Hebrews appear^, to liav3 

I een portioned out among "governors" (n^n3. 
pacholk) inferior in rank to the satraps (Ezr. vii'.. 
io), like the other provinces which were under the 
iominion of the Persian king (Neh. ii. 7, 9). It 
k impossible to determine the precise limits of their 



authority, or the functions which they had tc per- 
form. They formed a part of the liabylonian sys- 
tem of government, and are expressly distinguished 

from the D^^^O, s'(/dnim (Jer. Ii. 23, 28), to 
whom, as well as to the satraps, they seem to have 
been hiferior (Uan. iii. 2, 3, 27); as also from the 

uD^nti?, sdrim (Esth. iii. 12, viii. 9), who, on the 
otlier hand, had a subordinate jurisdiction. Shesh- 
bazzar, the "prince" (W'tpD, Ezr. i. 8)of Judah, 
was appointed by Cyrus " governor " of Jerusalem 
(Ezr. V. 14), or "governor of the Jews," as he is 
elsewhere designated (Ezr. vi. 7), an office to which 
Nehemiah afterwards succeeded (Neh. v. 14) under 
the title of Tirshatha (Ezr. ii. 63; Neh. viii. 9). 
Zerubbabel, the representative of the royal family 
of Judah, is also called the "governor" of Judah 
(Hag. i. 1), biit whether in consequence of hia 
position in the tribe or from his official rank is not 
quite clear. Tatnai, the " governor " beyond the 
river, is spoken of by Josephus {Ant. xi. 4, § 4) 
under the name of Sisines, as erraoxos of Syria 
and Phoenicia (cf. 1 Esd. vi. 3); the same term 
being employed to denote the Roman proconsul or 
propraetor as well as the procurator (Jos. Ant. xx. 

8, § 1). It appears from Ezr. vi. 8 that these 
governors were intrusted with the collection of the 
king's taxes; and from Neh. v. 18, xii. 20, that 
they were supported by a contribution levied upon 
the people, which was technically termed " the 
bread of the governor " (comp. Ezr. iv. 14). They 
were probably assisted in discharging their official 
duties by a council (Ezr. iv. 7, vi. 6). In the 
Peshito version of Neh. iii. 11, Pahath Moab is not 
taken as a proper name, but is rendered " chief of 
Moab; " and a similar translation is given in other 
passages where the words occur, as in Ezr. ii. 6, 
Neh. vii. 11, x. 14. The "governor" beyond the 
river had a judgment-seat at Jerusalem, from which 
probably he administered justice when making a 
progress through his province (Neh. iii. 7). 

8. T^r?^? pdkid, denotes simply a person ap- 
pointed to any office. It is used of the officers pro- 
posed to be appointed by Joseph (Gen. xii. 34); of 
Zebul, Abimelech's lieutenant (Judg. ix. 28); of 
an officer of the high-priest (2 Chr. xxiv. 11), in- 
ferior to the 7ur(/id (2 Chr. xxxi. 12, 13), or pdkid 
ndgid (Jer. xx. 1 ) ; and of a priest or Levite of high 
rank (Neh. xi. 14, 22). The same term is applied 
to the eunuch who was over the men of war (2 K. 
XXV. 19; Jer. Hi. 25), and to an officer appointed 
for especial service (Esth. ii. 3). In the passage 
of Jer. XX. above quoted it probably denotes the 
captain of the temple guard mentioned in Acts iv. 
1, v. 24, and by Josephus {B. J. vi. 5, § 3). 

' 9. 10^ V W, shallit, a man of authority. Applied 
to Joseph as Pharaoh's prime minister (Gen. xlii. 
6); to Arioch, the captain of the guard, to the king 
of Babylon (Dan. ii. 15), and to Daniel as third in 
rank under Belshazzar (Dan. v. 29). 

10. "n^, sar, a chief, in any capacity. Tho 
term is used equally of the general of an army (Gen. 
xxi. 22), or the commander of a division (1 K. xvi. 

9, xi. 24), as of the governor of Pharaoh's prison 
(Gen. xxxix. 21), and the chief of his butlers and 
bakers (Gen. xl. 2), or herdsmen (Gen. xlvii. 0). 
The chief officer of a city, in his civic capacity, waa 
thus designated (1 K. xxii. 26; 2 K. xxiii. 8) 
The same dignitary is elsewhere described aa " om 



the city" (Neh. xi. 9). In Judg, ix. 30 sar is 
lynuuymous with ^jcU-jcZ in ver. 28, and witli botii 

pakid and iiag 

in 1 Chr. xxiv. 5. 

hamTn'dmdth, "the princes of 
provinces " (I K. xx. 14), appear to have held a 
somewhat similar position to the "governors" 
under the Persian kings. 

11. 'EBi/dpxv^, 2 Cor. xi. 32 — an officer of rank 
under Aretas, the Arabian king of Damascus. It 
is not easy to determine the capacity in which he 
acted, 'i'lie term is applied in 1 Mace. xiv. 47, xv. 
1 to Simon the high-i)riest, who was made general 
and ethnarch of the Jews, as a vassal of Demetrius. 
From this the office would appear to be distinct 
from a militaiy command. The jurisdiction of 
Arohelaus, called by Josephus {B. J. ii. G, § 3) an 
ethnarchy, extended over Idumaea, Samaria, and 
ail Judtea, the half of his father's kingdom, which 
he held as the emperor's vassal. But, on the other 
hand, Strabo (xvii. 13), in enumerating the officers 
who formed part of the machinery of the Roman 
government in Egypt, mentions ethnarchs appar- 
ently as inferior both to the military commanders 
and to the nomarchs, or governors of districts. 
Again, the prefect of the colony of Jews in Alex- 
andria (called by Philo yevdpxn^, ^'^- *" J'^iftcc. 
§ 10) is designated by this title in the edict of 
Claudius given by Josephus {Ant. xix. 5, § 2). 
According to Strabo (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 7, § 2) he 
exercised the prerogatives of an ordinary independent 
ruler. It has therefore been conjectured that the 
ethnarch of Damascus was merely the governor of 
the resident Jews, and this conjecture receives some 
support from the parallel narrative in Acts ix. 24, 
where the Jews alone are said to have taken part 
in the conspiracy against the Apostle. But it does 
not seem probable that an officer of such Umited 
jurisdiction would be styled " the ethnarch of 
Aretas the king; " and as the term is clearly capa- 
ble of a wide range of meaning, it was most likely 
intended to denote one who held the city and dis- 
trict of Damascus as the king's vassal or repre- 

12. 'Uyefxdu, the procurator of Judaea under the 
Romans (Matt, xxvii. 2, etc.). The verb is em- 
ployed (Luke ii. 2) to denote the nature of the 
jurisdiction of Quirinus over the imperial province 
of Syria. 

13. OIkov6/j.o^ (Gal. iv. 2), a steward; apparently 
uitrusted with the management of a minor's prop- 

14. 'ApxtTplK\Luos, John ii. 9, " the governor 
of the feast." It has been coiyectured, but with- 
out much show of probability, that this officer cor- 
responded to the avjJiiTocrlapxos of the Greeks, 
whose duties are described by l^lutarch {Syiiij)os. 
Qucesl. 4), and to the arbiter bibendi of the Romans. 
Lightfoot supposes him to have been a kind of 
chaplain, who pronounced the blessings upon the 
wine that was drunk during the seven days of the 
marriage feast. Again, some have taken him to 
be equivalent to the Tpa-Ki^oirods, who is defined 
by Pollux ( Onom. vi. 1 ) as one who had the charge 
of all the servants at a feast, the carvers, cup- 
bearers, cooks, etc. But there is nothing in the 
narrative of the marriage feast at Cana which would 
lead to the supposition that the apxiTpiKhivos held 


the rank of a servant. He appears rather to hftvc 

been on intimate terms with the bi idcgrcom, and 
to have presided at the banquet in his stead. Th« 
duties of the master of a feast are given at ftiJl 
length in Ecclus. xxxv. (xxxii.). 

In the Apocryphal books, in addition to the com 
mon words, 6,pxci}v, 5€(nr6T7)Si arparriyos, wluc3 
are rendered "governor," we find eTrio-Tarrjs (' 
Esdr. i. 8; Jud. ii. 14), which closely correspono"* 

to 'T'^17^ • 67rapxos "sed of Zerubbabel and Tatn» 
(1 Esdr. vi. 3, 29, vii. 1), and Trpoo-rc^TTjy, applies 
to Sheshbazzar (1 Esdr. ii. 12), both of which rep 

resent TIHB : UpoardT-ns (1 Esdr. vii. 2) am 
irpo(TTdry]s Tov Upov (2 Mace. iii. 4), "the gov 
ernor of the temple" ='7'^3T (cf. 2 Chr. xxxv. 8) 
and aaTpdir-qs (1 Esdr. iii. 2, 21), "a satrap," not 
always used in its strict sense, but as the equivalent 
of a-TpuT-nyds (Jud. v. 2, vii. 8). 

W. A. W. 

* 15. 'O euOvvcou, the governor (dirigens^Yulg.)^ 
Jas. iii. 4, where the pilot or helmsman is meant. 
Both KvfiepvriT'ns (Acts xxvii. 11 and Rev. xviii, 
17 ) and the Latin gubernalor^ whence our " gov- 
ernor" is derived, denote the man at the helm of 
the vessel. H. 

GO'ZAN CjpS [perh. quarry^ Ges. ; jmss^ 
ford, Fiirst] : Voo^dv, [Vat. 2 K. xvii. 6, Tw^ap, 
and 1 Chr., XcoCap:] Gozan, [in Is., Gozam]) seems 
in the A. V. of 1 Chr. v. 26 to be the name of a 
river; but in Kings (2 K. xvii. 6, and xviii. 11) it 
is evidently applied not to a river but a country." 
Where Kings and Chronicles differ, the authority 
of the latter is weak : and the name Gozan will 
therefore be taken in the present article for the 
name of a tract of country. 

Gozan was the tract to which the Israelites were 
carried away captive by Pul, Tiglath-Pilcser, and 
Shalmaneser, or possibly Sargon. It has been 
variously placed ; but it is probably identical with 
the Gauzanitis of Ptolemy {Geogrnph. v. 18), and 
may be regarded as represented by the Mj-gdonia of 
other writers (Strab., Polyb., etc.). It w:vs the tract 
watered by the Habor {'A^6pf)as, or Xa/8ajpas), 
the modern Khohimr, the great Mesoiwtamian 
affluent of the Euphrates. Mr. Layard describes 
this region as one of remarkable fertility {Aimrelt 
ami Babylon, pp. 2G9-313). According to the 
LXX. Ilalah and Habor were both riv irs of Gozan 
(2 K. xvii. G); but this is a mistransl ition of the 
Hebrew text, and it is corrected in t'le following 
chapter, where we have the term " rivci " used in 
the singular of the Habor only. Halali seems to 
have been a region adjoining Gozan. [Halau.] 
With respftct to the term Mygdonia, which became 
the recognized name of the region in classic times, 
and which Strabo (xvi. 1, § 27) and I'lutarch 
{LucuU. c. 32) absurdly connect with the Mace- 
donian Mygdones, it may be obsened that it is 

merely Gozan, with the participial or adjectival ^ 
prefixed. The Greek writers always represent the 
Semitic z by their own d. Thus Gaza became 
Car/ytis, Acluib became Ea^ppa, the river Zab 
became the 7)iaba, and M'go^an became IMyg /on. 

The conjunction of Gozan with Haran or HpJTau 
in Isaiah (xxxvii. 12) is in entire agreement witk 

a ♦ On th«! contrary, Fiirst maintains {Hnndw " " ^ was on the river, and a ford there (see above) may h* 
that a region and a river bore this name (the hitter rne • given name to both. U- 

Ctse^Oaen, Bittors jErdA viii. 590, 615). The district i 


the position here assigned to the former. As Gozan 
WB» the district on the K/ialjour, so Haran was 
that u[>ori the Biiik, the next affluent of the 
Euphrates. [See Ciiakran.] Tiie Assyrian kings, 
having conquered the one, would naturally go on 
to the other. G. K. 

GRA'BA CAypa^d ; [so Aid. ; Vat.] Alex, 
[and 10 other AISS.J 'Ayya^Sa: Armncha), I Esdr. 
V. 2!J. [Hagaba.] As is the case with many 
names in the A. V. of the Apocryphal books, it is 
not obvious whence our translators got the form 
they have here employed — without tlie initial A, 
which even the corrupt Vulgate retains. 

* GRAFT (Rom. xi. 17 ff.). [See Olive.] 

GRAPE. [Vine.] 

GRASS. 1. This is the ordinary rendering of 
th3 Ucb. word T^!^n, which signifies properly an 

inclosed spot, from the root "l^n, to inclose ; but 
this root also has the second meaning to flourish, 
and hence the noun frequently signifies "fodder," 
" food of cattle." In this sense it occurs in 1 K. 
xviii. 5; Job xl. 15; Ps. civ. 14; Is. xv. 6, &c. 
As the herbage rapidly fades under tlie parching 
heat of the sun of Palestine, it has afforded to the 
sacred writers an image of the fleeting nature of 
binnan fortunes (Job viii. 12; Ps. xxxvii. 2), and 
also of the brevity of human life (Is. xl. 6, 7 ; Ps. 

«c. 5). The LXX. render "I'^^n by fiorduri and 
ir6a, but most frequently by x'^Rtos, a word which 
in Cireck has passed through the very same modifi- 
cations of meaning as its Hebrew representative: 
x6pT0^ = f/''((nien, "fodder," is properly a court 
or inclosed space for cattle to feed in (Horn. /L xi. 
774), and then any feedmg-place whether inclosed 
or not (b>ar. Jph. T. 134, x'^P'^'oi euSeuBpoi)- 
Gesenius questions whether "^^^H, x^pTos, and 
the Sansk. /m/t7 = " green" a: ay rot be traceable 
to the same root. 

2. In Jer. I. 11, A. V. renders StfH nb33?3 
as the heifer at f/rass, and the LXX. ws fio'iSia iu 
fioToivri' It should be " as the heifer treading out 

corn" (comp. Hos. x. 11). SK?"^ comes from 
l?^^, coiiterere, triturare, and has been con- 
founded with Stlv^, gramen, from root Mt?7"^, 
bo germinate. This is the word rendered (/rass 
in Gen. i. 11, 12, where it is distinguished from 

— K737, the latter signifying herbs suitable for 

human food, while the former is herbage for cattle. 

Gesenius says it is used chiefly concerning grass, 

which has no seed (at least none obvious to general 

observers), and the smaller weeds which spring up 

iponLineously from the soil. The LXX. render it 

H by x>'h: "^^ '^^ '^ as by x^pros, ^OToiur), and TrJa. 

B 3. In Xu-U. xz'ii. 4, where mention is made of 

B Ihe ox hcking Uiy the grass of the field, the Heb. 

^B word is pT?.*!? which elsewhere is rendered green, 
^K, rhen followed by SK?! or ^^V, as in Gen. i. 
^B i[\ and Ps. xxxvii. 2. It answers to the German 

ins Griine, and comes from the root p^**? to 
lourish like grass. 

4 'D.WV is used m Deut., in the Psalms, and 
II the I'rophets, and, as distinguished from S^"''^, 


signifies herbs for human food (Gen. i. 30 ; Fa. dr 
14), but also fodder for cattle (Deut. xi 15; Jer. 
xiv. 6). It is the grass of the field (Gcii. ii. 5 
Ex. ix. 22) and of the mountain (Is. xiii. 15 
Prov. xxvii. 25). 

In the N. T. wherever the word grass occurs it 
is the representative of the Greek x^P^os-^ 

W. D. 


THOTH, Amer. ed.] 


* GRATE. [Altar.] 
GRAVE. [Burial.] 

GREAVES {"nni^p). This word occurs in 
the A. V. only in 1 Sam. xvii. 6, in the description 
of the equipment of Goliath — " he had greaves of 
brass upon his legs." Its ordinary meaning is a 
piece of defensive armor which reached from the 
foot to the knee, and thus protected the shin of the 
wearer. This was the case with the Kurjfiis of the 
Greeks, which derived its name from its covering 
the KvrjfMT], i- e. the part of the leg above-named. 
Hut the Alitzchah of the above passage can hardly 
have been armor of this nature. Whatever the 
armor was, it was not worn on the legs, but on the 

feet ("^ Vin) of Goliath. It appears to be derived 
from a root signifying brightness, as of a star (see 
Gesenius and lurst). The word is not in either 
the dual or plural number, but is singular. It 
would therefore appear to have been more a kind 
of shoe or boot than a "greave;" tliough in our 
ignorance of the details of the arms of the He- 
brews and the Philistines we cannot conjecture 
more closely as to its nature. At the same time it 
must be allowed tliat all the old versions, includuig 
Josephus, give it the meaning of a piece of armor 
for the leg — some even for the thigh. G. 


histories of Greece and Palestine are as little con- 
nected as those of any other two nations exercising 
tlie same influence on the destinies of mankind 
could well be. 

The Homeric Epos in its widest range does not 
include the Hebrews, while on the other hand the 
Mosaic idea of the Western world seems to have 
been sufficiently indefinite. It is possible that 
jNIoses may have derived some geographical outlines 
from the Egyptians ; but he does not use them in 
Gen. X. 2-5, where he mentions the descendants of 
Javan as peopling the isles of the Gentiles. This 
is merely the vaguest possible ijidication of a geo- 
graphical locality ; and yet it is not improbable that 
liis Egyptian teachers were almost equally in the 
dark as to the jwsition of a country which had not 
at that time arrived at a unity sufficiently imposing 
to arrest the attention of its neighl)ors. The 
amount and precision of the information possessed 
by Moses must be measured by the nature of the 
relation which we can conceive as existing in hia 
time between Greece and Egypt. Now it appears 
from Herodotus that prior to the Trojan war the 
current of tradition, sacred and mythological, set 
from Egypt towards Greece; and tlie first quasi- 
historical ever*, which awakened the curiosity, and 
stimulated the imagination of the Egyptian j riests, 

« * In Matt. xiii. 26 and Mark iv. 28 xoproi is rea 
dered " blade," and in 1 Cor. iii. 12 '• hay '- Th» 
other trano-dtioa occurs 12 times. H 


jTM the story of Paris and Helen (Herod, ii. 43, 
51, 52, and 112). At the time of the Exodus, 
therefore, it is not likely that Greece had entered 
into any definite relation whatever with Egypt. 
Withdrawn from the sea-coast, and only gradually 
fighting their way to it during the period of the 
Judges, the Hebrews can have had no opportunity 
of forming connections with the Grcieks. From the 
time of Moses to that of Joel, we have no notice 
of the Greeks in the Hebrew writings, except that 
which was contained in the word Javan (Gen. x. 
2); and it does not seem jirobable that during this 
period the word had any peculiar significance for a 
Jew, except in so far as it was associated with the 
idea of islanders. AVhen, indeed, they came into 
contact with the lonians of Asia 3Iinor, and recog- 
nized them as the long-lost islanders of the western 
migration, it was natural that they should mark 

the similarity of sound between )"!** = 1^^ and 
lones, and the application of that name to the 
Asiatic Greeks would tend to satisfy in some meas- 
ure a longing to realize the Mosaic ethnography. 
Accordingly the 0. T. word which is Grecia, in 

A. V. Greece, Greeks, etc., is in Hebrew "JV, Ja- 
van (Joel iii. 6; Dan. viii. 21): the Hebrew, how- 
ever, is sometimes retained (Is. Ixvi. 19 ; I'^z. xxvii. 
]3). In Gen. x. 2, the LXX. have kol 'idvav 
Koi ^E\icrd, with which Eosenmiiller compares 
Herod, i. 5G-58, and professes to discover the two 
elements of the Greek race. From 'Ic^uav he gets 
the Ionian or Pelasgian, fi'om 'EAktcI (for which he 

supposes the Heb. original ntt?"^/S), the Hellenic 
element. This is excessively fanciful, and the de- 
gree of accuracy which it implies upon an ethno- 
logical question cannot possibly be attributed to 
Moses, and is by no means necessarily involved in 
the fact of his divine inspiration. 

The Greeks and Hebrews met for the first time 
in the slave-market. The medium of conmiunica- 
tion seems to have been the Tyrian slave-merchant. 
About B. c. 800 Joel speaks of the Tyrians as sell- 
ing the children of Judah to the Grecians (Joel iii. 
6); and in Ez. xxvii. 13 the Greeks are mentioned 
as bartering their brazen vessels for slaves. On the 
other hand, Bochart says that the Greek slaves 
were highly valued throughout the East {Geocjr. 
Sac. pt. i. Hb. iii. c. 3, p. 175); and it is probable 
that the Tyrians took advantage of the calamities 
which befell either nation to sell them as slaves to 
the other. Abundant opportunities would be af- 
forded by the attacks of the Lydian monarchy on 
the one people, and the Syrian on the other; and 
it is certain that Tyre would let slip no occasion of 
replenishing her slave-market. 

Prophetical notice of Greece occurs in Dan. viii. 
21, etc., where the history of Alexander and his 
successors is rapidly sketclied. Zechariah (ix. 13) 
foretells the triumphs of the Maccabees against the 
Graeco-Syrian empire, while Isaiah looks forward 
jO the conversion of the Greeks, amongst other 
Gentiles, through the instrumentality of Jewish 
missionaries (Ixvi. 19). For the connection between 
the Jews and the quasi-Greek kingdoms which 
sprang out of the divided empire of Alexander, 
reference should be made to other articles. 

The presence of Alexander himself at Jerusalem, 
and his respectful demeanor, are described by Jose- 
ohus (Ant. xi. 8, § 3); and some Jews are even 
laid t(> have joined him in his expedition against 
Penis (Hecat. ap. Joseph, c. Ajpion. 11. 4), as the 


Samaritans had ah^jady done in the siege of Tyn 
(Joseph. Ant. xi. 8, §§ 4-6). In 1 Mace. xil. 5-23 
(about B. c. 380), and Joseph. Ant. xii. 4, § 10 
we have an account of an embassy and letter sent 
by the Lacedaemonians to the Jews. [AJtEUS 
Onias.] The most remarkal)le feature m the 
transaction is the claim which the Lacedaemonians 
prefer to khidred with the Jews, and which Areua 
professes to establish by reference to a V)Ook. It is 
by no means unlikely that two decUning nations, 
the one crouching beneath a Roman, the other be- 
neiith a Gra^co-Syrian invader, should draw together 
in face of the common calamity. This may have 
been the case, or we may with Jahn (HeO. Cwnm. 
ix. 91, note) regard the affair as a piece of jKLipoiu 
trifling or idle curiosity, at a period when »• all na- 
tions were curious to ascertain their origin, and 
their x-elationship to other nations." 

The notices of the Jewish people which occur ii. 
Greek writers have been collected by Josephus (c. 
Apion. i. 22). The chief are Pythagoras, Herod- 
otus, Chcerilus, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Hec- 
ataeus. The main drift of the argument of Jose- 
phus is to show that the Greek authors derived 
their materials from Jewish sources, or with more 
or less distinctness referred to Jewish history. For 
Pythagoi-as, he cites Hermippus's lifie; for Aristotle, 
Clearchus; but it should be remembered that the 
Neo-Platonism of these authorities makes them 
comparatively worthless; that Hermippus in par- 
ticular belongs to that Alexandrian school which 
made it its business to fuse the Hebrew traditions 
with the philosophy of Greece, and propitiated the 
genius of Orientalism by denying the merit of orig- 
inality to the great and independent thinkers of 
the West. This style of thought was further de- 
veloped by lamblichus; and a very good specimen 
of It may be seen in Le Clerc's notes on Grotius, 
de Verit. It has been ably and vehemently assall*>d 
by Ritter, Hist. Phil. b. i. c. 3. 

Herodotus mentions the Syrians of Palestine as 
confessing that they deri\ed the rite of circumcision 
from the Egyptians (ii. 104). liiilir, however, does 
not think it likely that Hero<lotus visited the inte- 
rior of Palestine, though he was acquainted with 
the sea-coast. (On the other hand see Dahlmann, 
pp. 55, 56, Engl, transl.) It is almost impossibl* 
to suppose that Herodotus could have visited Jeru- 
salem without giving us some more detailed accourt 
of it than the merely uicidental notices in ii. 159 
and iii. 5, not to mention that the site of KctSurts 
is still a disputed question. 

The victory of Pharoah-Necho over Josiah at 
Megiddo is recorded by Herodotus (comp. Herod 
ii. 159 with 2 K. xxiii/29 fT., 2 Chr. xxxv. 20 AT.). 
It is singular that Josephus should have omitted 
these references, and cited Herodotus only as men- 
tioning the rite of circumcision. 

The work of Theophrastus cited is not extant; 
he enumerates amongst other oaths that of Corbaru 

Chcerilus is supposed by Josephus to describe 
the Jews in a by no means flattering portrait of a 
people who accompanied Xerxes in his expeciitioD 
against Greece. The chief points of identification 
are, their speaking the Phoenician language, and 
dwelling in the Solymean mountains, near a broad 
lake, which according to Josephus was the Dead 

The Hecataeus of Josephus is Hecataeus of Ab- 
dera, a contemporary of Alexander the Great, an^ 
Ptolemy son of Lagus. The authenticity of th< 
History of the Jews attributed to him by Jo»» 


ihuH baa been called iu question by Origen and 

After the complete subjugation of the Greeks by 
the Romans, and the absorption into the Roman 
empire of the kingdoms which were formed out of 
the douiinions of Alexander, the political connection 
between the Greek? and Jews as two independent 
nations no longer existed. 

The name of the country, Greece, occurs once in 
N". T., Acts XX. 2, "EWas = (ireece, i. e. Greece 
Proper, as opposed to Macedonia." In the A. V. 
of 0. T. the word Greek is not found ; either Ja- 
raa^ls retained, or, as in Joel iii. (i, the word is 
rendered by 6'reciVm. In Maccabees Greeks and 
Grecians seem to be used indifferently (comp. 1 
Mace. i. 10, vi. 2; also 2 Mace. iv. 10, Greekish). 
In N. T., on the other hand, a distinction is ob- 
Berved, "EAAtji/ being rendered Greek^ and 'EA\rjj/- 
{(TT^s Grecian. The difference of the English 
terminations, however, is not sufficient to convey 
the difference of meanings. "EAAtji' in N, T. is 
sither a Greek by race, as in Acts xvi. 1-3, xviii. 
17, Rom. i. 14; or more frequently a Gentile, as 
opposed to a Jew (Rom. ii. 9, 10, etc.); so fem. 
'E\\7]uis, Mark vii. 2G, Acts xvii. 12. 'EAXrjvKT- 
T-fis (properly •' one who speaks Greek ") is a foreign 
Jew; opposed, therefore, not to 'loudaios, but to 
'EjSpoioy, a home-Jew, one who dwelt in Palestine. 
So Schleusner, etc.: according to Salmasius, how- 
ever, the Hellenists were Greek proselytes, who had 

GROVE 967 

become Christians; so Wolf, Parkhi.rst, etc., argn- 
ing from Acts xi. 20, where 'EWriyicTTai are con- 
trasted with 'louSaTot in 1!>- The question resolvft 
itself partly into a textual one, Griesbach having 
adopted the reading "EAAtji/os, and so also Lach- 
mann.'^ T. E. B. 

* GREEK LANGUAGE. [Hellenist; 
Language of the New Testament.] 

* GREETING. [Salutation.] 
GREYHOUND, the translation in the text 

of the A. V. (Prov. xxx. 31) of the Hebrew 
words D^jnZS "1^]f"l^ {zarzir viothnayim), i. e. 
" one girt about the loins." See margin, where it 
is conjectured that the "horse" is the animal de- 
noted by this expression. The Alexandrine version 
of the LXX. has the following curious interpreta- 
tion, aAe/fTwp ifxirepLTvaToiu eV OrjAeiais €v\pvxos, 
i. e. " a cock as it proudlystruts amongst the hens." 
Somewhat similar is the Vulgate, " gallus succinc- 
tus lumbos." Various are the opinions as to what 
animal " comely in going " is here intended. Some 
think "a leopard," others " an eagle," or "a man 
girt with armor," or " a zebra," etc. Geseniua 
( Thes. p. 435), Schultens ( Comment, ad Prov. 1. c), 
Bochart (Hieroz. ii. 684), Rosenmiiller (SchoL ad 
Prov. 1. c., and Not. ad Boch. 1. c), Fuller {Mis- 
cell. Sac. V. 12), are in favor of a " war-horse girt 
with trappings " being the thing signified. But, 

Sacred symbolic Tree of the Assyrians. From Lord Aberdeen's Black Stune. 
(Fergusson's Nineveh and Persepolis, p. 298.) 

later, Maurer {Comment. Gram, in Vet. Test. 1. c.) 
decides unhesitatingly in favor of a " wrestler," 
when girt about the loins for a contest. He refers 
to Buxtorf {Lex. Chald. Talm. p. 092) to show that 
zarzir is used in the Talmud to express " a wrestler," 
and thus concludes: " Sed ne opus quidem est hoc 
loco quauquam minime contemnendo, quum accinc- 
tum esse in neminem magis cadat quam in lucta- 
torem, ita ut hsec significatio certa sit per se." 
There is certainly great probability that Maurer is 
correct. The grace and activity of the practiced 
athlete agrees well with the notion conveyed by the 
gxpression, "comely in going; " and the suitable- 
aess of the Hebrew words, zarzir mothnayhn, is 
obvious to every reader. W. H. 

« * 'EAAas stands there for the stricter 'Axata (see 
icts xvni. 12. and xix. 21). Wetstein has shown {Nov. 
rest. ii. 590) that Luke was justified la that use of the 
term. H. 

b * Also, Tischendorf, De Wette, Meyer, and others, 
ldopt'£AAi)i/as, partly on external, and partly on in- 

* GRINDERS, Eccl. xii. 3. [Almond.J 
GRINDING. [Mill.] 
GROVE. A word used in the A. V., with two 
exceptions, to translate the mysterious Hebrew term 

Asherah (n"y^;S). This term is examined under 
its own head (p. 173), where it is observed that 
almost all modem interpreters agree that an idol 
or image of some kind must be intended, and not 
a grove, as our translators render, following the 
version of the LXX. (^Aaos) and of the Vulgate 
{lucus). This is evident from many passages, and 
especially from 2 K. xxiii. G, where we find that 
Josiah "brought out the Asherah " (translated by 
our version " the grove ") " from the house of the 

temal grcj^ds. It is a question of mixed evidence 
Without this reading it is impossible to see how the 
sphere uf the preachers in ver. 19 differs from that of 
those ir. ver. 20. It would have been nothing new at 
,„is time to preach to the Greek-speaking Jews ; see 
e. g.. Acts ii. 9, and ix. 20. H 


Lord " (oomp. also Judg. iii. 7 ; 1 K. xiv. 23, xviii. 
1!>). In many passages the " groves " are grouped 
with molten and graven images in a manner that 
leaves no doubt that some idol was intended (2 
Chr. xxxiii. 19, xxxiv. 3, 4; Is. xvii. 8). There 
has been much dispute as to what the Asherah was ; 
hut in addition to the views set forth under Asii- 
KitAH, we must not omit to notice a probable con- 
nection between this symbol or image — whatever 
it was — and the sacred symbolic tree, the repre- 
sentation of wliich occurs so frequently on Assyrian 
sculptures, and is shown in the preceding woodcut. 
'I'he connection is ingeniously maintained by Mr. 
Fergusson in his Nineveh and Persepolis restored 
(pp. 299-304), to which the reader is referred. 

2. The two exceptions noticed above are Gen. xxi. 
33 and 1 Sam. xxii. 6 (margin), where "grove " is 

employed to render the word / ^'W, Eslieh which 
in the text of tlie latter passage, and in 1 Sam. 
xxxi. 13, is translated " tree " Professor Staidey 
(;S. cj- P. § 77; also p. 21, note) would have Kshcl 
to be a tamarisk ; but this is controverted by Bonar 
{Land of Prom.), on the ground of the thin and 
shadeless nature of that tree. It is now, however, 
generally recognized (amongst others, see Gesen. 
Thes. p. 50 b; Stanley, S. c/ P. App. § 7G, 3, 
p. 142 note, 220 note, and j^'t^sim), that the word 

Elon, p vM, which is uniformly rendered by the 
A. V. " plain," signifies a grove or plantation. 
Such were the Elon of Mamre (Gen. xiii. 18, xiv. 
13, xviii. 1); of Moreh (Gen. xii. G; Deut. xi. 30); 
of Zaanaim (Judg. iv. 11), orZaanannim (Josh. xix. 
33); of the pillar (Judg. ix. 6); of Meonenim 
(Judg. ix. 37); and of Tabor (1 Sam. x. 3). In 
all these cases the LXX. have dpvs or fid\avos'-, 
the Vulgate — which the A. V. probably followed 
— vaUis or convallls, in the last three, however, 

In the religions of the ancient heathen world 
groves play a prominent part. In old times altars 
only were erected to the gods. It was thought 
wrong to shut up the gods within walls, and hence, 
as Pliny expressly tells us, trees were the first tem- 
ples (//. N. xii. 2; Tac. Germ. 9; Lucian, de Sac- 
rife. 10; see Carpzov, ^/;»/». Crit. p. 332), and from 
the earliest times groves are mentioned in connec- 
tion with religious worship ((Jen. xii. 6, 7, xiii. 18; 
Deut. xi. 30; A. V. "plain; " see above). Their 
high antiquity, refreshing shade, solemn silence, 
and awe-inspiring solitude, as well as the striking 
illustration they afford of natural life, marked tliem 
out as the fit localities, or even the actual objects of 
worship (" Lucos et in iis silentia ipsa adoramus," 
I'lin. xii. 1; " Secretum luci . . . et admiratio 
umbrae fidem tibi numinis facit," Sen. Ap. xii.; 
" Quo posses viso dicere Numen habet," Ov. Fast. 
iii. 295; "Sacra nemus accubet umbra," Virg. 
Gtcrff. iii. 334; Ov. Met. viii. 743; Ez. vi. 13; Is. 
vii. 5; Hos. iv. 13). This last passage hints at 
tnother and darker reason why groves were oppor- 
bjne for the degraded services of idolatry; their 
shadow hid the atrocities and obscenities of hea- 
then worship. The groves were generally found 
connected with temples, and often had the right of 
affording an asylum (Tac. Germ. 9, 40; Herod, ii. 
138; Yirg. yEn. i. 441, ii. 512; Sil. Ital. i. 81). 
Borne have supposed that even the Jnvish Temple 
hsd a r^fievos planted with palm and cedar (Ps. xcii. 
..2, 13) and olive (Ps. Iii. 8) as the mosque which 
•Unds on its site now has. This is more than 


doubtful ; but we know that a celebrated ilk utooc 
by the sanctuary at Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 2G ; Juda; 
ix. 6; Stanley, S. <f P. p. 142). We find repeateo 
mention of groves consecrated with deep supersti- 
tion to particular gods (Liv. vii. 25, xxiv. 3, xxxv 
51; Tac. A7in. ii. 12, 51, etc., iv. 73, etc.). For 
this reason they were stringently forbidden to the 
Jews (Ex. xxxiv. 13; Jer. xvii. 2; Ez. xx. 28), and 
Maimonides even says that it is forbidden to sit 
under the shade of any green tree where an idol 
statue was (Fabric. BiOL Antiq. p. 2i>0). Yet we 
find abundant indications that the Hebrews fell 
the influence of groves on the mind (" the spirit in 
the woods," Wordsworth), and therefore selected 
them for solemn purposes, such as great national 
meetings (Judg. ix. 6, 37) and the bm-ial of the 
dead (Gen. xxxv. 8; 1 Sam. xxxi. 13). Those 
connected with patriarchal history were peculiarly 
liable to superstitious reverence (Am. v. 5, viii. 14), 
and we find that the gi'oves of iNIamre were long a 
place of worship (Sozomen, //. E. ii. 4; Euseb. 
Vit. Constant. 81; Keland, Palcest. p. 714). There 
are in Scripture many memorable trees ; e. g. Allon- 
bachuth (Gen. xxxv. 8), the tamarisk (but see 
above) in Gibeah (1 Sam. xxii. 6), the terebinth 
in Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 2G, under which the law 
was set up), the palm-tree of Deborah (Judg. iv. 5), 
the terebinth of enchantments (Judg. ix. 37), the 
terebinth of wanderers (Judg. iv. 11) and others 
(1 Sam. xiv. 2, x. 3, sometimes "plain" in A. V., 
Vulg. "convallis "). 

This observation of particular trees was among 
the heathen extended to a regular worship of them 
" Tree-worship may be traced from the interior of 
Africa, not only into Egypt and Arabia, but also 
onward uninterruptedly into Palestine and Syria, 
Assyria, Persia, India, Thibet, Siam, the Philip- 
pine Islands, China, Japan, and Siberia; also west- 
ward into Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, and other 
countries ; and in most of the countries here named 
it obtains in the present day, combined as it has 
been in other parts with various forms of idolatry " 
{(Jen. of Earth ami Man, p. 139). "The worship 
of trees even goes back among the Iraunians to tlie 
rules of Hom, called in the Zend-Avesta the pro- 
mulgator of the old law. W& know from Herodo- 
tus the delight which Xerxes took in the great 
plane-tree in Lydia, on which he bestowed golden 
ornaments, and appointed for it a sentinel in the 
)>erson of 0)ie of the ' immortal ten thousand.' 
The early veneration of trees was associated, by the 
moist and refreshing canopy of foliage, with that of 
sacred ibuntains. In similar connection with the 
early worship of Nature were among the Hellenic 
nations the fame of the great palm-tree of Delos, 
and of an aged platanus in Arcadia. The Bud- 
dhists of Ceylon venerate the colossal Indian fig-tree 
of Anurah-depura. ... As single trees thus l)e- 
came objects of veneration from the beauty of theit 
form, so did also groups of trees, under the name 
of 'groves of gods.' Pausanias (i. 21, § 9) is full 
of the praise of a grove belonging to the teirple of 
Apollo at Grynion in J^^olis; and the grove of 
Colone is celebrated in the renowned chorus of 
Sophocles" (Humboldt, Cosmos, ii. 96, Eng. ed.). 
The custom of adorning trees " with jewels and 
mantles " was very ancient and universal (Herod 
vii. 31; JEVmn, V. II. ii. 14; Theocr. Id. xviii. 
Ov. Met. viii. 723, 745; Arnob. adv. Gentes, i. 39 
and even still exists in the East. 

The oracular trees oi antiquity are well knowi 


{^iL xri 233; Od. v. 237; Soph. Track. 754; Virg. 
Gi'org. ii. 10; Sil. Ital. iii. 11). Each god had 
jome sacred tree (Virg. Ed. vii. 61 fF.). The Etru- 
rians are said to have worshipped a palm [a holm- 
tree, iiex, Plin. //. N. xvi. -l-l, al. 87]. and the 
Celts an oak (^lax. Tyr. Dhsert. viii. 8, in Godwyn's 
Mas. ami Anr. ii. 4). On the Umidic veneration 
of oak-gro\es, see I'liny, //. N. xvi. 44 [al. 95] ; Tac. 
Ann. xiv. 30. In the same way, according to the mis- 
sionary Oldendorp, the Negroes "have sacred groves, 
the abodes of a deity, which no Negro ventures to 
enter except the priests " (Prichard, Nat. Hist, of 
,\fan, pp. 52.5-539, 3d ed.; Park's Travels, p. 65). 
So too the ancient Egyptians (Rawlinson's Herod. 
ii. 298). Long after tlie introduction of Christianity 
it was found necessary to forbid all abuse of trees 
and groves to the purposes of superstition (Harduin, 
Act. Concil. i. 988; see OreUi, ad Tac. Germ. 9). 

F. W. F. 
GUARD. The Hebrew terms commonly used 
had reference to the special duties which the body- 
guard of a monarch had to perform. 

(1.) Tabbach (HSl^) originally signified a 
" cook," and as butchering fell to the lot of the 
cook in Eastern countries, it gained the secondary 
Bense of " executioner," and is applied to the body- 
guard of the kings of Egypt (Gen. xxxvii. 36), and 
Babylon (2 K. xxv. 8 ; Jer. xxxix. 9, xl. 1 ; Dan. 
ii. 14). [Executioner.] 

(2.) Ralz (V'') properly means a " runner," 
and is the ordinary term employed for the attend- 
ants of the Jewish kings, whose office it was to run 
before the chariot (2 Sam. xv. 1; 1 K. i. 5), like 
the cursores of the Roman Emperors (Senec. Ep. 
87, 126). That the Jewish "runners " superadded 
the ordinary duties of a military guard, appears 
from several passages (1 Sam. xxii. 17; 2 K. x. 25, 
xi. 6; 2 Chr. xii. 10). It was their office also to 
carry despatches (2 Chr. xxx. 6). They had a 
guard-room set apart for their use in the king's 
palace, in which their arras were kept ready for use 
(I K. xiv. 28; 2 Chr. xii. 11). [Footman.] 

(3.) The terms mishmercih {rnT^WT^i) and 

mishmdr ("n^StTD) express properly the act of 
watching, but are occasionally transferred to the 
persons who kept watch (Neh. iv. 9, 22, vii. 3, xii. 
9 ; Job vii. 12). The A. V. is probably correct in 

substituting mishmarto (^rVyi'^ll) for the pres- 
ent reading in 2 Sam. xxiii. 23, Benaiah being 
nppointed "captain of the guard," as Josephus 
{Ant. vii. 14, § 4) relates, and not privy councillor: 
the same error has crept into the text in 1 Sam. 
xxii. 14, where the words " which goeth at thy bid- 
ding " may originally have been " captain of the 
body-guard." For the duties of the captain of the 
guard, see Captain, [and Captain of the 
GuAKD, Amer. ed.J W. L. B. 

GUDGO'DAH (with the art. ninSH: 
PaSyaS: Gadr/ad), Deut. x. 7. [HoR Hagid- 


GUEST. [Hospitality.] 

♦ GUEST-CHAMBER. [House.] 

♦ GUILTY. The phrase guilty of death " 
A. V.) Num. XXXV. 31; Tob. ... 12; Matt. xxvi. 
$6 , Mark xiv. 64, contrary to tne present idiom of 
»ur lansruage, signifies " deserving the penalty of 
leath," being perhaps an imitation of the Latin 


7-eus mortis. " He is guilty " in Matt, xxiii. 1. 

(A. v.), is the translation of the same Greek w(»rc 
i6(pei\€i) which in ver. 10 is rendered "he is a 
debtor." A better translation in both cases would 
be, " he is bound," i. e. by his oath. A. 

GUL'LOTH (n"*1 ^2 Ispi-im/, bubbling$\, plu- 

ral of n^S), a Hebrew term of unfrequent occur- 
rence in the Bible, and used only in two passages — 
and those identical relations of the same occurrence 
— to denote a natural object, namely, the springs 
added by the great Caleb to the south land in the 
neighborhood of Debir, which formed the dowry of 
his daughter Achsah (Josh. xv. 19 ; .ludg. i. 15). 
The springs were " upper " and " lower " — possi- 
bly one at the top and the other the bottom of a 
ravine or glen; and they may have derived their 
unusual name from their appearance being different 
to [from] that of the ordinary springs of the coun- 
try. The root (7^2) has the force of rolling or 
tumbling over, and perhaps this may imply that 
they welled up in that round or mushroom form 
which is not uncommon here, though apparently 
most rare in Palestine. The rendering of the Vat. 
LXX. is singular. In Josh, it has tV BorOauis 
[so Rom.; Vat. BoeOaueis], and tt]v Tovaiexdv, 
the latter doubtless a mere corruption of the He- 
brew. The Alex. ISIS., as usual, is faithful to the 
Hebrew text [reading TuiKaO]- In Judges both 
have XvTpcccris. An attempt has been lately made 
by Dr. Rosen to identify these springs with the 
'Ain JVim/cur near Hebron (see Ztltschrift der D. 
M. G. 1857),« but the identification can hardly be 
received without fuller confirmation (Stanley, S. ^ 
P. App. § 54). [Debik.] G. 

GU'NI {^y(2. [sorrowful, afflicted, Dieti.]: 
Tuvi [Vat. -j/et], b Tavvi [Vat. -vii\ ; Alex. Tcavvi- 
Guni). 1. A son of Naphtali ((Jen. xlvi. 24; 1 
Chr. vii. 13), the founder of the family of the Gu- 
nites (Num. xxvi. 48). Like several others of the 
early Israelite names, Guni is a patronymic — 
"Guiute; " as if already a family at the time of 
its first mention (comp. Arodi, Hushim, etc.). 

2. [Pouj/t.] A descendant of Gad; father of 
Abdiel, a chief man in his tribe (1 Chr. v. 15). 

GU'NITES, THE (^3!^2n [the Guniie] : & 
Fauui; [Vat. -uei; Alex, o Fcduui:] Gunitm), the 
" family " which sprang from Guni, son of Naph- 
tali (Num. xxvi. 48). There is not in the Hebrew 
any difference between the two names, of the indi- 
vidual and the family. 

GUR, THE GOING UP TO (l-'ia-nb^.D 
= the ascent or steep of Gur, or the lum's whelp, 
Ges. Thes. p. 275: eV tw aua^aiueiv rai; [Comp. 
iu rfj avafid<Tei Tovp:] ascensus Gaver), an ascent 
or rising ground, at which Ahaziah received his 
death-blow while flying from Jehu after the slaugh- 
ter of Joram (2 K. ix. 27). It is described as at 

(S) Ibleam, and on the way between Jezrcel and 
Beth-hag-gan (A. V. "the garden-house"). As 
the latter is identified with toleralile probability 
with the present Jenln, we may conclude that the 
ascent of Gur was some place mure than usually 
steep on the difficult road which leads from the 
plain of Esdraelon to Jtnin. By -Josephus it is 

a * Dr. Robinson thinks that ^Ain Nunkur maj 
nave some relation to these springs {Phys. (Hogr. p 


mentionefl (Anf. ix. d, § 4) merely as " a certain 
aacent " (^u rivi Trpoa^da-ei)' Neither it nor 
[bleani have l)een yet recovered. 

For the dt;tails of the occurrence see Jktiu. For 
other ascents sf»»' AnuM:MiM, Akrabbim, Ziz. 


GUR-BA'AL (bVS-n^a [abode of Baal] : 
nerpa- (ivrlr.inl)^ a place or district in which dwelt 
Arabians, as recorded in 2 Chr. xxvi. 7. It ap- 
pears from the context, to have been in the country 
lying between Palestine and the Arabian jieninsula; 
but this, although probable, and although the LXX. 
reading is in favor of the conjecture, cannot be 
proved, no site having been assigned to it. The 
iVrab geographers mention a place called Baal, on 
the Syrian road, north of El-Medeeneh {Mar add ^ 

B. V. {J^SLi ). The Targum, as Winer (s. v.) re- 
marks, reads nnnn ^^H^f ^Sa^y - "Arabs 
liA'ing in Gerar " — suggesting 1")2 instead of 

"T^ » but there is no further evidence to strengthen 
this supposition. [See also Gkkau.] The inge- 
nious conjectures of liochart (Phaleg, ii. 22) re- 
specting the Mehunim, who are mentioned together 
with the " Arabians that dwelt in Gur-Baal," may 
be considered in reference to the Mehunim, although 
they are far-fetched. [Mkhumm.] E. S. P. 

* GUTTER. This word occurs in the difficult 
passage 2 Sam. v. (i-M, translated in the A. V. as 
follows: " (0.) And the king and his men went to 
Jerusalem unto the Jebusitos, the inhabitants of 
the land ; which spake unto David, saying. Except 
thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt 
not come in hither; thinking, David cannot come 
In hither. (7.) Nevertheless, David took the strong- 
hold of Zion ; the same is the city of David. (8. ) 
And David said on that day. Whosoever getteth 
up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and 
the lame, and the blind, (hat are hated of David's 
Boul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore 
they said. The blind and the lame shall not come 
into the house." 

So long ago as 1546, Sebastian !Munster (Hebrew 
Bible, fol. ed., in be.) said of this passage, "Est 
locus ille valde obscurus." The lapse of more than 
300 years has not nmch mended the matter, and 
the passage is still " vakle obgctirus.''^ Our Hmits 
here forbid a full discussion of the points at issue.a 
But without attempting to examine every gram- 
matical ditiiculty, we may reach a better translation 
than the above, by attending to the following 
points: — (1.) The two clauses, " except thou take 
away the blind and the lame," and " thou shalt 
not come in hither," are improperly transposed in 
the above version : and this transposition puts the 
oext following clause out of its proper connection. 

a * See, for the later criticism of the passage, Mau- 
rnr, Com. gram. crit. vol i. p. 180 ; Thenius, die Bii- 
t/wT Sa7nuels erkVdrl (Exeget. Ilandbucb ) 2te Aufl. 1864 ; 
Berfcheau, die Biicher rln Ckronik erklart (in the same 
work) 1854 ; Bottcher, in the Zeitschrift der D. Morg. 
Gesellschnfl, 1857, pp. 540-42, and Neue exeget. krit. 
mhrenlfsp, Ite Abth., 1863, p. 151; Keil, die Biicher 
Samuels, 18G4. T. J. C. 

6 * There is no necessity for a change of pointing 

'ryT^Drr). The Infin. form is the more emphatic 
fcpressioii (Gea. Heh. Gram. § 131, 4). T. J. C. 

e • Tn the A. V. the after-clause is supplied in the 
«eril, "he shall -V rhipf and captain,'''' italicized to 


and makes it meaningless. (2.) The wordg itn 

derod " except thou take away the blind and the 
lame," should be translated, " but the blind and 
the lame will turn tl)ee away." ^ (3.) The apodosis, 
or after-clause, corresponding to the expression, 
" any one that smites " (= if any one smites), ia 
not expressed in the Hebrew. This is a favorite 
Hebrew idiom, where for any reason it is felt to be 
unnecessary to com])lete the construction. See, 
e. (J., Ex. xxxii. 32, in the A. V. Hero, the object 
was two -fold : first, to state what David proposed 
to his warriors as the means of capturing the strong- 
hold; and secondly, to account for the proverbial 
saying that arose from this occurrence. Neithor 
of these ol>jects required the completion of the sen- 
tence, which would reaflily be understood to be the 
offer of a reward for the service. A daah should 
therefore be put (as in the A. V. Ex. xxxii. 32) 
after the word "soul" (omitting the words in ital- 
if-s), to indicate that the sentence is inoomplote.c 
(4.) In ver. 8 there is also, as in ver. 6, an im- 
proper transposition of two clauses, " whosoever 
getteth up to the gutter," "and smiteth the Jebu- 
sites." (5.) In ver. 8, instead of "the Jebusites 
(plural with the dcf. art.), we should translate, 
" a Jebusite." (6.) The word translated " gutter," 

"H^S^, is here properly a tcater-course. It is de- 
rived from a verb which apparently expresses the 
sound of rushing water. It occurs in only one 
other passage, Ps. xlii. 8, and is there applied to a 
mountain torrent, or a cataract (A. V. " water- 
spouts"). (7.) The words, "the blind and the 
lame," may be taken in the same construction as 
" a Jebusite " {even the blind and the lame); or, 
a.s the sentence is manifestly left unfinished, they 
may be regarded as a part of the incomplete con- 
struction, having no grammatical relation to the 
preceding words. 

Thus without resorting to the violent method of 
conjectural emendation of the text, which Maurer, 
Thenius, B(ittcher, and others, think necessary, or 
to a change of punctuation and an unauthorized 

sense of the word "li3V» pi^posed by Ewald and 
adopted by Keil, we obtain the following gram- 
matically correct rendering : 

" (6.) And the king and his men went to Jeru- 
salem, to the Jebusite inhabiting the land. And 
he spake to David, sa}-ing, Thou shalt not come in 
hither; but the blind and the lame will turn thee 
away, saying, David shall not come in hither. 

(7.) And David took the stronghold of Zion: that 
is, the city of David. (8.) And David said on that 
day. Any one that smites a .Tebusite, and gets txi 
the water-course, and the lame and the blind hat«l 

of David's soul . Therefore they say, Blind 

and lame shall not come into the house." (^ 

The Jebusites, confident in the strength of their 

show that they are not in the Hebrew text. To thr 
common reader, with nothing but the translation t<; 
guide him, they seem to be " clutched out of the air," 
as the Germans express it. But a referen.'e to 1 Chr. 
xi. 6 shows that these words, though they have no 
right here, are not a pure invention of the translator 
The reader of the Hebrew text, if those words arc ne- 
cessary to make sense of the passage, was in the sani« 
predicament as the English reader of the A. V. would 
be without them T. J. C. 

<f * The above translation is nearly word for word 
the same as that of De Wette ; which is so cloee to thi 
Hebrew that any literal rendering must be almost v«r 
bally coincident with it. T. J. C. 


pOBitioii, which had successfully resisted repeated 
attempts to capture it, sneerinj^ly said to Da /id, 
'•the bli id and the lame will turn thee away;" 
needing only to say, " David shall not come in 
hither.' « 

David took this stronghold (ver. 7); and how 
this was effected is intimated in ver. 8. If the 
water-course could be reached, by which water was 
5up])lied to the besieged, the reduction of the strong- 
hold must soon follow. On the import of the last 
clause in ver. 8, compare the suggestion in the ar- 
ticle Jerusalem, 11., fourth paragraph, foot-note. 

A review of the principal interpretations of Jew- 
ish and Christian scholars would be interesting and 
ins!iructive ; but there is not space for it here. 

T. J. C. 


HAAHASHTARI (nntpni^H, with the 
article, =:i/<e Ahns/ifarite [perh. courier, messenger, 
Fiirst]: rlv 'AacrO-fip', [Vat. A<Tr)pav;] Alex. Ao- 
9r]pa- Ahasihari), a man, or a family, immediately 
descended from Ashur, "father of Tekoa" by his 
second wife Naarah (1 Chr. iv. G). The name does 
not appear again, nor is there any trace of a place 
of similar name. 

HABA'IAH [3 syl.] (Hjnq, inNeh. H^nn 
[but MSS. and editions vary in both places; whom 
J tliQvnh protects]: Aafieia, 'E/8ia; Alex. O/Sata, 
[E/Seia; in Neh., Vat. E^eia, FA. Afieia'-] Hobin, 
Habit). J5eue-Cha.baijah were among the sons of 
the priests who returned from Babylon with Zerub- 
babel, but whose genealogy being imperfect, were 
not allowed to serve (Ezr. ii. 61; Neh. vii. 03). 
It is not clear from the passage whether they were 
among the descendants of Barzillai the Gileadite. 
In the lists of 1 Esdras the name is given as 
Obdia [niarg. Hobaiah]. 

(p^pZin {embracing, as a token of love, Ges., 
Fiirst] : Jerome, Prol. in Ilab., renders it by the 
Greek TrspiA-qypis] 'Afi^aKovjx' liabncuc). Other 
Greek forms of the name are 'A$l3a.Kov/x, which 
Suidas erroneously renders irar^p iyepcrews, 
'A^aKov/jL (Georg. Cedreiuis), ' Ajx^aKovK, and 
'A/8/3a/cou/c (Dorotheus, Doctr. 2). The Latin 
forms are Ambacum, Ambacuc, and Ab'icuc. 

1. Of the facts of the prophet's life we have no 
certain information, and with regard to the period 
of his prophecy there is great division of opinion. 
The liabbinical tradition that Ilabakkuk was the 
.son of the Shunammite woman whom Elisha re- 
stored to life is repeated by Abarbanel in his com- 
mentary, and has no other foundation than a fanci- 
ful etynology of the prophet's name, based on the 
expression in 2 K. iv. IG. Equally unfounded is 
the tradition that he was the sentinel set by Isaiah 
to watch for the destruction of Babylon (corap. Is. 
xxi. 10 with Hab. ii. 1). In the title of the history 
of Bel and the Dragon, as found in the LXX. 
version in Origen's Tttrophi, the author is called 



a * Recent excavations on the southern slope of 
Mount Zion show that this vaunting of the Jebusites 
ras not without some foundation. " From the posi- 
aon and apijcarance of this escarpment [one discovered 
here] it must have formed pnrt of the defenses of 
ihfl old city, the wall running along the crest ; . . . 
liM lit i« which lead down the a alley of Ilinnom could 

" Habakkuk, the son of Joshua, of the tribe of Levi.' 
Some have supposed this apocryphal writer to bt 
identical with the prophet (Jerome, Prn(e.m. in 
Dan.). The psalm in ch. 3 and its title are thought 
to favor the opinion that Habakkuk was a Levite 
(Delit/.sch, Hibnkuk, p. iii.). Bseudo-Epiphanius 
(vol. ii. p. 24:0, de Vilis Prophetarum) and Doro- 
theus {Chron. Pasch. p. 150) say that he was of 
Br]e(oK7}p or BrjOiTOvxap {Bethacni, Isid. Hispal. 
c. 47), of the tribe of Simeon. This may have 
been the same as Bethzacharias, where Judas Mac- 
cabseus was defeated by Antiochus Eupator (1 Mace, 
vi. 32, 33). 'I'lie same authors relate that when 
Jerusalem was sacked by Nebuchadnezzar, Habak- 
kuk fled to Osti-acine, and remained there till after 
the Chaldoeans had left the city, when he returned 
to his own country and died at his farm two years 
before the return irom Babylon, n. c. 538. It was 
during his residence in Judaea that he is said to 
have carried food to Daniel in the den of lions at 
Babylon. This legend is given in the history of 
Bel and the Dragon, and is repeated by Eusebius, 
Bar-Hebrasus, and Eutychius. It is quoted from 
Joseph ben Gorion {B. ./. xi. 3) by Abarbanel 
( Coniin. on Flab. ), and seriously refuted by him on 
chronological grounds. The scene of the event was 
shown to mediaeval travellers on the road from 
Jerusalem to Bethlehem {Early Travels in Pales- 
tine, p. 2 )). Habakkuk is said to have been buried 
at Keilah in the tribe of Judah, eight miles E. 
of Eleutheropolis (Eusel)ius, Onomasticon). Rab- 
binical tradition places his tomb at Chukkok, of the 
tribe of Naphtali, now called Jakulc. In the days 
of Zelienus, bishop of F^leutheropolis, according to 
Nicephorus (//. A', xii. 48) and Sozomen {11. E. 
vii. 28), the remains of the prophets Habakkuk and 
Micah were discovered at Keilah. 

2. The Kabbinical traditions agree in placing 
Flabakkuk with Joel and Nahum in the reign of 
Manasseh (cf Seder Olain Rabbn and Zu/a, and 
Tseinach D ivid). This date is adopted by Kimchi 
and Abarbanel among the Kabbis, and by Witsius. 
Kalinsky, and Jahn among modern writers. The 
general corruption and lawlessness which prevailed 
in the reign of Manasseh are supposed to })e referred 
to in Hab. i. 2-4. Both Kalinsky and Jahn con- 
jecture that Habakkuk may have been one of the 
prophets mentioned in 2 K. xxi. 10. Syncellus 
{C/irono(/)-ap}nrf, pp. 214, 230, 240) makes him 
contemporary with Ezekiel, and extends the period 
of his prophecy from the time of Manasseh to that 
of Daniel and Joshua the son of .losedech. The 
Chronicon Paschale places him later, first mention 
ing him in the beginning of the reign of Josiah 
((Jlymp. 32), as contemporary with Zephaniah and 
Nahum ; and again in the beginning of the reign 
of Cyrus (Olymp. 42), as contemporary with Danid 
and lilzekiel in Persia, with Haggai and Zecbariah 
in Judaea, and with Baruch in Egypt Davidson 
{florne's Intr. ii. 908), following Keil, decides in 
favor of the early part of the reign of Josiah. 
Calmet, Jaeger, Ewald, De Wette, Rosenmiiller, 
Knobel, Maurer, Hitzig, and Meier agree in assign- 
ing the commencement of Habakkuk's prophecy to 

be defended by a couple of men against any force, be- 
fore the invention of fi-e-arms. The escarpment was 
probabl". carried down to the valley in a succession of 
terraces the large amount of rubbish, however, will 
not allow anything to be seen clearly." (See Ordnanct 
Survey of Jerusalem, p. 61. Lond. 1865.) H. 



the reign of Jehoiakim, though they are divid&^l as 
to the exact period to which it is to be referred. 
Knobel {Der Prophetism. d. Ihhr.) and Meier 
{Gesch. d. poet. nat. Liter, d. Hebr.) are in favor 
af the commencement of the Chaldaean era, after 
the battle of Carchemish (b. c. 60G), when Judaea 
was first threatened by the victors. But the ques- 
tion of the date of Habakkuk's prophecy has been 
discussed in the most exhaustive manner by 
Dehtzsch {Der Prophet Ilabakuk^ Einl. § 3), and 
though his arguments are rather ingenious than 
convincing, they are well deserving of consideration 
as based upon internal evidence. The conclusion 
it which he arrives is that Habakkuk delivered his 
orophecy about the 12th or 13th year of Josiah 
T.. c. 030 or 029), for reasons of which the follow- 
ing is a summary. In Hab. i. 5 the expression 
"in your days" shows that the fulfillment of the 
prophecy would take place in the lifetime of those 
to whom it was addressed. The same phrase in 
Jer. xvi. 9 embraces a period of at most twenty 
years, while in Ez. xii. 25 it denotes about six 
years, and therefore, reckoning backwards from the 
('haldasan invasion, the date above assigned would 
involve no violation of probability, though the 
argument does not amount to a proof. From the 
similarity of Hab. ii. 20 and Zeph. i. 7, Delitzsch 
infers that the latter is an imitation, the former 
being the original. He supports this conclusion 
by many collateral arguments. Now Zephaniah, 
according to the superscription of his prophecy, 
lived in the time of .Josiah, and from iii. 5 must 
have prophesied after the worship of Jehovah was 
restored, that is, after the twelfth yevir of that 
king's reign. It is probable that he wrote about 
B. c. 024. Between this period therefore and the 
12th year of Josiah (r. c. 030) Dehtzsch places 
Habakkuk. But Jeremiah began to prophesy in 
the 13th year of Josiah, and many passages are 
borrowed by him from Habakkuk (cf. Hab. ii. 13 
with Jer. Ii. 58, &c.). The latter therefore must 
have written about 030 or 029 B. c. This view 
receives some confirmation from the position of his 
prophecy in the O. T, Canon. 

3. Instead of looking upon the prophecy as an 
organic whole, Rosenmiiller divided it into three 
parts corresponding to the chapters, and assigned 
the first chapter to the reign of Jehoiakim, the 
second to that of Jehoiachin, and the third to that 
of Zedekiah, when Jerusalem was besieged for the 
third time i)y Nebuchadnezzar. Kalinsky ( Vatic. 
Chdbac. et Nah.) makes four divisions, and refers 
the prophecy not to Nebuchadnezzar, but to Esar- 
haddon. But in such an arbitrary arrangement 
he true chax-acter of the composition as a perfectly 
developed poem is entirely lost sight of. The 
prophet commences by announcing his office and 
Important mission (i. 1). He bewails the corruption 
and social disorganization by which he is sur- 
rounded, and cries to Jehovah for help (i. 2-4). 
Next follows the reply of the Deity, threatening 
swift vengeance (i. 5-11). The prophet, trans- 
ferring himself to the near future foreshadowed in 
the divine threatenings, sees the rapacity and boast- 
ful impiety of the Chaldoean bests, but, confident 
that God has only employed them as the instru- 
ments of correction, assumes (ii. 1) an attitude of 
hopeful expectancy, and waits to see the issue. 
He receives the divine command to write in an 
sndiiring form the vision of God's retributive 
Ufltice, as reveale<i to his prophetic eye (ii. 2, 3). 
rhe doom of the Chaldaeans is first foretold in gen- 


eral terms (ii. 4 0), and the announcement is kH 
lowed by a series of derumciations pronounced up(» 
them by the nations who had suffered from theu 
oppression (ii. 0-20). The strophical arrangement 
of these "M'oes" is a remarkable feature of the 
prophecy. They are distributed in strophes of thi*ee 
verses eaeh, characterized by a certain regularity 
of structure. The first four commence with a 
" Woe! " and close with a vei-se beginning with 

**3 (for). The first verse of each of these contains 
the character of the sin, the second the development 
of the woe, while the third is confirmatory of the 
woe denounced. The fifth strophe diffei-s from the 
others in form in having a verse introductory tc 
the woe. The prominent vices of the Chaldaeans' 
character, as delineated in i. 5-11, are made the 
subjects of separate denunciations; their insatiable 
ambition (ii. 0-8), their covetousness (ii. 9-11). 
cruelty (ii. 12-14), drunkenness (ii. 15-17), and 
idolatry (ii. 18-20). The whole concludes with 
the magnificent psalm in chap, iii., " Habakkuk'? 
Pindaric ode" (Ewald), a composition unrivaled 
for boldness of conception, subhmity of thought, 
and majesty of diction. This constitutes, in De- 
htzseh's opinion, " the second grand division of the 
entire prophecy, as the subjective reflex of the two 
subdivisions of the first, and the lyrical recapitula- 
tion of the whole." It is the echo of the feelings 
aroused in the prophet's mind by the divine answers 
to his appeals ; fear in anticipation of the threatened 
judgments, and thankfulness and joy at the prom- 
ised retribution. But, though intimately connected 
with the former part of the prophecy, it is in itself 
a perfect whole, as is sufficiently evident from ita 
lyrical character, and the musical arrangement by 
which it wa.s adapted for use in the temple service. 

In other parts of the A. V. the name is given aa 
Haubacuc, and Abacuc. W. A. W. 

* Among the few separate commentaries on this 
prophet we have Der Prophet Ilnbakuk; nusf/elegt, 
by Franz Delitzsch (Leipz. 1843). This author 
gives a list in that volume (p. xxiv. f.) of other 
single works of an earlier date, with critical notices 
of their value. Of these he commends especially 
that of G. F. L. Baumlein, Coinm. de Hah. Vatic. 
(1840). For a list of the still older writers, see 
Keil's Lehrb. der hist.-krit. Einl. in das A. T. p. 
302 (2te Aufl.). The commentaries on the Minoi 
I'rophets. or the Prophets generally, contain of 
course Habakkuk: F. Hitzig, Die ziciilf kl. Prophe 
ten, pp. 253-277 (1838, 3^ Aufl. 1803); Ewald, L>ie 
Propheten des A. B. i. 373-389 (1840); Maurer, 
Comm. Gram. Hist. Crit. in Proph. Minares. ii. 
528 ff. ; Umbreit, Prakt. Comm. iib. d. Proph. Bd. 
iv. Th. i. (1845); Keil and Delitzsch, Bibl. Comm 
iib. d. 12 kl. Proph. (1800); Henderson, Minor 
Prophets (1845, Amer. ed. 1800); G. R. Noyes, 
New Trans, of the Ileb. Prophets, 3d ed. (1800), 
vol. i. ; Henry Cowles, Minor Prophets, icith Note.'i 
Critical, Explanatory, and Practical (New York, 

For the personal history of the prophet, see 
especially Dehtzsch's De JIabacuci Propliettv Vita 
atque yEtate (2d ed. 1844), and Umbreit's Ilaba- 
kuk in Ilerzog's Real-Encyk. v. 435-438. The 
latter represents him as " a great prophet among 
the minor prophets, and one of the greatest among 
the great prophets." De Wette says of his style and 
genius: " While in his sphere of prophetic repre- 
sentation he may be compared with the best of th 
prophets, a Joel, Amos, Naluim, Isaiah, in the lyrk 


passajje (ch. iii.) lie surpasses every thing which' 
the poetry of the Hebrews has U> show in tliis 
species of composition, lie exhibits the greatest ! 
strength and fullness, an imagination capable of the 
loftiest dights, without ever sacriticing beauty and 
slearness. Mis rhythm is at the same time per- 
fectly free, and yet measured. His diction is fresh 
and pure." (See his dus A. Test., p. 338, 
5te Ausg.) Lovvth awards to him the highest sub- 
limity (Lect. xxviii. in his Poetry of the He- 
brews). " The anthem " at the close of the book, 
says Isaac Taylor, " unequaled in majesty and 
splendor of language and imagery, gives expression 
in terms the most affecting to an intense spiritual 
feeling; and, on this ground, it so fully embodies 
these religious sentiments as to satisfy Christian 
piety, even of the loftiest order." (See his Spirit 
of the llebreio Podi^., p. 255, Amer. ed.) The 
doctrine impersonated in the prophet's experience 
is that the soul, though stripped of all outward pos- 
sessions and cut off from every human resource, may 
still be happy in God alone as the object of its 
confidence and the bestower of the ample spiritual 
consolations which that trust secures. (Comp. 2 
Cor. iv. 8 ff.) H. 

HABAZINFAH (HJ^^^q Q)erh. light of 
Jehovah, Ges. : collection by J ah, Fiirst] : Xa^aaiu'-, 
[Vat. FA. -areiu-] Ifabsinia), apparently the head 
of one of the families of the Ki:ciia.bites: his 
descendant -Jaazaniali was the chief man among 
them in the time of Jeremiah (Jer. xxxv. 3). 

HAB'BACUC ('A/ii8a/cou;U : Habacuc), the 
form in which the name of the prophet Habakkuk 
is given in the Apocrypha (Bel, 33-39). 

HABERGEON", a coat of mail covering the 
neck and breast. The Hebrew terms are S"in/^, 

nj"lK7, and "J V^l??. The first, tachdra, occurs 
only in Ex. xxviii. 32, xxxix. 23, and is noticed 
incidentally to illustrate the mode of making the 
aperture for the head in the sacerdotal meil. It was 
probably similar to the linen corslet {XiuoficLpr]^)^ 
worn l)y the Egyptians (Her. ii. 182, iii. 47), and 
the Greeks (//. ii. 52D, 830). The second, shirydli, 
occurs only in Job xli. 26, and is regarded as 

another form of s/(i/-yrtrt (^nty), a "breastplate" 
(Is. lix. 17); this sense has been questioned, as the 
context requires offensive rather than defensive 
armor; but the objection may be met by the sup- 
position of an extended sense being given to the 
verb, according to the grammatical usage known 
as zeiKjjiia. The third, shiryon, occurs as an 
article of defensive armor in 1 Sam. xvii. 5, 2 Chr. 
Jtxvi. 14, and Neh. iv. 16. W. L. B. 

HA'BOR (Tl^n [perh. rich in vegetation, 
Dietr. ; but see Fiirst] : 'AjSojp, Xa^wp ; [Vat. 2 
K. xviii. 11, A$ia}p:] /labor), the "river of 
Gozan " (2 K. xvii. 6, and xviii. 11 [also 1 Chr. 
V. 26]) has been already distinguished from the 
Chebar or Chobar of Ezekiel. [Ciikp.ak.] It is 
identified beyond all reasonal)le doubt with the 
famous affluent of the Euphrates, which is called 
Aborrhas {'A$6p'pa9) by Strabo (xvi. 1, § 27) and 
^rocopius {BtU. J'ers. ii. 5); Aburas { f>.$ovpas) 
ov Isidore of Charax (p. 4), Abora ('Apipa) by 
?08imus (iii. 12), and Chaboras {Xal3'J>pas), by 

*» For tlie "wood" the LXX. have iv rrj xatvp, 
leadinK W'^'H for WlH. And so too Josephus. 


Pliny and Ptolemy (v. 18). The stream in ques- 
tion still bears the name of the Khabour. It flowi 
from several sources in the mountain-chain, which 
in about the 37th jjarallel closes in the valley of the 
Tigris upon the south — the Mons Masius of Strabo 
and Ptolemy, at juesent the Kharej iJagh. The 
chief source is said to be " a Uttle to the west of 
Mardin'" (Layard, Nm. and Bab. p. 309, note); 
but the upper course of the river is still very im- 
perfectly known. The main stream was seen by 
INlr. Layard fiowiiig from the northwest as he stood 
on the conical hill of Kouknb (about lat. 36° 20', 
long. 41°); and here it was joined by aii important 
tributary, the Jeriijer, which flowed down to U 
from Nisibis. Both streams were here fordable, 
but the river formed by their union had to Iw 
crossed by a raft. It flowed in a tortuous course 
through rich meads covered with flowers, havinr; 
a general direction about S. S. W. to its junction 
with the F^uphrates at Karkesia, the ancient Cir- 
cesium. The country on both sides of the river 
was covered with mounds, the remains of cities 
belonging to the Assyrian period. 

The Khiib(mr occurs under that name in an 
Assyrian hiscription of the ninth century before 
our era. G. R. 

HACHALI'AH (n^J^^D {lohom Jehovah 
afflicts, Ges. 6te Aufl.] : XeA/cta, 'AxaAta; [Vat. 
XeA/ceta, Ax^Aia; Alex. AxaAia; F'A. AxoAta, 
AxeA-ia:] Hechlia, Hahelia), the father of Nehe- 
miah (Neh. i. 1; x. 1). 


n^'^pnn [hill of darkness, Ges., or of barren- 
ness, Fiirst] : o fiowhs tov (and o [but Alex, rov^ ) 
'ExeAa; [in 1 Sam. xxvi. 1, Vat. XeX/xaO, Alex. 
Ax'Aa:] collis, and Gabaa, Ilachila), a hill appar- 
ently situated in a wood « in the wilderness or waste 

land ('n3"Tp) in the neighborhood of Ziph ; in the 
fastnesses, or passes, of which David and his six 
hundred followers were lurking when the Ziphitea 
informed Saul of his whereabouts (1 Sam. xxiii. 
19; comp. 14, 15, 18). The special topographicaJ 
note is added, that it was "on the right (xxiii. 19, 
A. V. 'south ') of the Jeshimon," or, according to 
what may be a second account of the same tran- 
saction (xxvi. 1-3), "facing the Jeshimon" (7^ 

'^'^B, A. V. "before"), that is, the waste barren 
district. As Saul approached, David drew down 
from the hill into the lower ground (xx,vi. 3), still 
probably remaining concealed by the wood which 
then covered the country. Saul advanced to the 
hill, and bivouacked there by the side of the road 

(Tyn^I, A. V. "way"), which appears to have run 
over the hill or close below it. It was during this 
nocturnal halt that the romantic adventure of the 
spear and cruse of water took place. In xxiii. 14 
and xxvi. 13 this hill would seem (though this ia 
not quite clear) to be dignified by the title of " the 

mountain " (nnn : in the latter, the xV. V. has 
"hill " and in both the article is missed); but, on 
the other hand, the same eminence appears to be 

again designated as " the cliff" (xxiii. 25, ^^PSH 
A. V. "a rock") from^ which David descended 

b The Ileorew exactly answers to our cxpreMloii 
"descended the cliff" : the "into" in the text of Hm 



Into tLe midbav of Maon. Places learing the 
aames of Ziph and Maou are still found in the 
south of Judah — in all probabiUty the identical 
sites of those ancient towns. They are sufficiently 
close to each other for the district between them to 
bear uidisci'iniinately the name of both. But the 
wood has vanished, and no trace of the name Hachi- 
lah has yet been discovered, nor has the ground been 
examined with the view to see if the mumte indi- 
cations of the story can be recognized. By Euse- 
bius and Jerome {Oiwmasticon) Echda is named 
as a village then standing; but the situation — 
seven miles from hLleutheropolis, i. e. on the N. W. 
of Hebron — would be too far from Ziph and Maon ; 
and as Keland has pointed out, they probably con- 
founded it with Keilah (comp. Onom. " Ceeilah " ; 
and lieland, p. 745). G. 

HACH'MONITE (1 Chr. xxvii. 22; xi. 11), 
both renderings — the former the correct one — of 

the same Hebrew words "^DlDpH"*!? =son of a 
Hacmonite: vlhs 'Axafidu, 'Axa/^i; [Vat. Ax"' 
ixavei, Axaytie*; Shi. in 1 Chr. xi., Axa/J-avvL',] 
Alex. AxajULaut- JIachamoni). Two of the Bene- 
Hacmoni [sons of H.] are named in these passages, 
Jehikl, in the former, and Jasiioiskam hi the lat- 
ter. Hachmon or Hachmoni >\'as no doubt the 
founder of a family to which these men belonged : 
the actual father of Jashobeam was Zabdiel (1 Chr. 
xxvii. 2), and he is also said to have belonged to 
the Korhites (1 Chr. xii. 6), possibly the Levites 
descended from Korah. But the name Hachmon 
nowhere appears in the genealogies of the Levites. 
In 2 Sam. xxiii. 8 the name is altered to the Tach- 
cemonite. [Taciimomtk.] See Kennicott, Diss. 
pp. 72, 82, who calls attention to the fact that 
names given in Chronicles with Ben are in Sam- 
uel given without the Ben, but with the definite 
article. G. 

HA'DAD (TtJD [skaiymess, Gesen., power- 
ful, Fiirst]: 'A5a5,* ["ASep,] Xovddv'. Iladad). 
This name occurs frequently in the history of the 
Syrian and Edoraite dynasties. It was originally 
the indigenous appellation of the sun among the 
Syrians (Macrob. Saiurnnl. i. 23; Phn. xxxvii. 11), 
and was thence transferred to the king, as the 
highest of earthly authorities, in the forms Hadad, 
Ben-hadad (" worshipper of Hadad"), and Hadad- 
ezer ("assisted by Hadad," Gesen. Thes. p. 218). 
The title appears to have been an official one, like 
Pharaoh ; and perhaps it is so used by Nicolaus Da- 
mascenus, as quoted by Josephus (Ant. vii. 6, § 2), 
in reference to the Syrian king who aided Hadad- 
ezer (2 Sam. viii. 5). Josephus appears to have 
used the name in the same sense, where he substi- 
tutes it for Benhadad {A7it. ix. 8, § 7, compared 
with 2 K. xiii. 24). The name appeju's occasionally 
in the altered form Hadar (Gen. xxv. 15, xxxvi. 39, 
compared with 1 Chr. i. 30, 50). 

1- ["^"jn* XovSdu, Alex. XoSSoS: JIadnd.] 
The first of the name« was a son of Ishmael (Gen. 
xxv. 15 [Hadak, 1]: 1 Chr. i. 30). His descend- 
ants probably occupied the western coast of the 
Persian Gulf, where the names Attcei (Ptol. vi. 7, 
I 15), Atfene, and Chaieni (Plin. vi. 32) bear af- 
.Inity to the original name. 


2. (T'lrT \brave, one who throws himst-lf agidiaj 
the enemy, Dietr. : 'ASaS: Adad].) The second 
was a king of Edom, who gained nn iipportant 
victory over the Midianites on the field of Moab 
(Gen. xxxvi. 35; 1 Chr. i. 40): the position of hii 
territory is marked by his capital, Avith. [Avrni.] 

3. (Tjn ['A5aS: Adad].) The third was also 
a king of Edom, with Pau for his capital (1 Chr. 
i. 50). [Pau.] He was the last of the khigs: 
the change to the dukedom is pointe<lly connected 
with his death in 1 Chr. i. 51. [Hauak, 2.] 

^- OtJD ["ASep: Adad].) The of the 
name was a member of the royal house of l^douj 
(1 K. xi. 14 ff.), probably the grandson of the one 
last noticed. (In ver. 17 it is gi\en in the muti- 
lated form of TlW.) In his childhood he escaped 
the massacre under Joab, in which his father ap- 
pears to have perished, and fled with a band of 
followers into Egypt. Some difficulty arises in the 
account of his flight, from the words. " they arose 
out of Midian " (ver. 18). Thenius (Comm. in 
loc.) surmises that the reading has been corrupted 

from P^^ to I^T^j and that the place intended 
is Maon, i. e. the residence for the time lieing of the 
royal family. Other explanations are that Midian 
was the territory of some of the Midianitish tribes 
in the peninsula of Sinai, or that it is the name 
of a town, the Modiava of Ptol. vi. 7, § 2: some 
of the MSS. of the LXX. supply the words ttjs 
TTtJAews before MoSto/i. Pliaraoh, the predecessor 
of Solomon's father-in-law, treated him kindly, and 
gave him his sister-in-law in marriage. After Da- 
vid's death Hadad resolved to attempt the recovery 
of his dominion: Pharaoh in vain discouraged 
him, and upon this he left Egypt and returned to 
his own country (see the addition to ver. 22 in the 
LXX.; the omission of the clause in the Hebrew 
probably arose from an error of the transcriber). 
It does not appear from the text as it now stands, 
how Hadad became subsequently to this an " ad- 
versary unto Solomon " (ver. 14), still less how he 
gained the sovereignty over Syria (ver. 25). The 
LXX., however, refers the whole of ver. 25 to him, 

and substitutes for D*^S (Syria), 'ESw/jl (Ldom). 
This reduces the whole to a consistent and intel- 
ligible narrative. Hadad, according to this account, 
succeeded in his attempt, and cumed on a border 
warfare on the Israelites from his own territory. 
Josephus (Ant. viii. 7, § G) retains the reading 
S}ria, and represents Hadad as having failed in 
his attempt on Idumaea, and then having joined 
Kezon, from whom he i'ecei\ed a portion of Syria. 
If the present text is correct, the concluding words 
of ver. 25 must be referred to Pezon, and be con- 
sidered as a repetition in an anipUfied form of the 
concluding words of the previous verse. 

W. L. B. 

HADADE'ZER (l^^l^n : b 'ASpaaCdp, 
in both MSS.; [in 1 K., Pom. 'ASaSc^'cp; Vai. 
AcpaSpaCap ; Alex. ASaSelep : Adarezer] ), 2 Sam. 
viii. 3-12; 1 K. xi. 23. [Hadauezkii.] 

HA'DAD-RIM'MON Cj'^"} '^7.7 [set 
infra] : KOTnrhs poStvos- Adadremmon) is, accord- 

1. V ii derived from ^he LXX. eis and the Vulgate 
%d. See Jerome's explanation, " ad petram, id est, ad 
ntlMimuxu locum," in his QucBst. Hebr. ad loc. 

a * The initial letter is different from that of thu 
names which follow. The projver distiuctdon would In 
Ghadad aud Hadad. B 


Sig to the ordinary interpretation of ''iech. xii. 11, 
% place in tiie valley of Megiddo, named after two 
Syrian idols, where a national lamentation was held 
for the deatli of kint:; Josiah in the last of the four 
great battles (see Stanley, ^. cj- P. ix.) which have 
made the plain of Ksdi-aelon famous in Hebrew 
history (see 2 Iv. xxiii. 29; 2 Chr. xxxv. 23; Jo- 
seph. 'AhL X. 6, § 1). The LXX. translate the 
word "pomegranate;" and the Greek conunenta- 
tors, using that version, see here no reference to 
.losiah. Jonathan, the Chaldee interpreter, fol- 
lowed by Jarchi, understands it to be the name of 
the son of king Tabrimon who was opposed to 
Ahab at liamoth-Gilead. But it has been taken 
for the place at which Josiah died by most inter- 
preters since Jerome, who states {Comm. in Zach.) 
that it was the name of a city which was called in 
his time JMaximianopolis, and was not far from 
Jezreel. Van de Velde (i. 355) thinks that he has 
identified the very site, and that the more ancient 
name still lingers on the spot. There is a treatise 
by Wichmanshausen, De jAanciu Iladadr. in the 
Nuc. Thes. Thtol.-phiL i. 101. W. T. B. 

HA'DAR (1in [perh. chamber']'. XoUav: 
Haclar), a son of Islimael (Gen. xxv. 15); written 
in 1 Chr. i. 30 JIadad ("Tin : Xovddv, [Alex. 
XoSSaS :] Ilndad) ; but Gesenius sui)poses the for- 
mer to be the true reading of the name. It has 
not been identitied, in a satisfactory way, with the 
appellation of any tribe or place in Arabia, or on 
the Syrian frontier; but names identical with, or 
very closely resembling it, are not uncommon in 
those parts, and may contahi traces of the Ish- 
maelite tribe sprung from Iladar. The mountain 
Hadad, belonging to Teynid [Tema] on the bor- 
ders of the Syrian desert, north of Kl-Medeeneh^ is 
[)erhaps the most likely to be correctly identified 
with the ancient dwelhngs of this tribe; it stands 
among a group of names of the sons of Ishmael, 
containing Dumah {JJoomuh), Kedar (Keydur), 
and Tema ( Tctjuui). E. S. F. 

2. ("^"IlT [pcrh. ornament^ honor-], with a dif- 
ferent aspirate to [from] the preceduig : 'Apd8 vlhs 
BapdS, Alex. ApaO'- Adar). One of the kings of 
Edom, successor of Baal-hanan ben-Achbor (Gen. 
xxxvi. 39), and, if we may so understand the state- 
ment of ver. 31, about contemporary with Saul. 
The name of his city, and the name and genealogy 
of his wife, are given. In tlie i)arallel list in 1 
Chr. i. [50] he appears as Hai>au. We know 
from another source (1 K. xi. 14, &c.) that Iladad 
was one of the names of the royal family of Edom. 
Indeed, it occurs in this very list (Gen. xxxvi. 35). 
But perhaps this fact is in favor of the form Iladar 
being correct in the present case: its isolation is 
probably a proof that it is a different name from 
the others, however similar. 

HADARE'ZER (^.^^IIlT \}<'^iose help is 
Hadad, (ies.] : 'Adpaa(dp{ Alex. ASpa^ap, [and 
wgenr. Aid. FA.: Comp. genr. 'ASaSe^'ep."] Adar- 
ezer), son of IJehob (2 Sam. viii. 3); the king of 
the Aramite state of Zobah, who, while on his way 
M "establish his dominion " at the ICuphrates, was 
overtaken by David, defeated with great loss both 
of chariots, horses, and men (1 Chr. xviii. 3, 4), 
wid driven with the remnant of his force to the 
other side of the river (xix. 16). The golden 

ireapous captured on this occasion (l^S^y^, A. V. 



"shields of gold"), a thousand in nwrnbcr, wen 
taken by David to Jerusalem (xviii. 7), and ded- 
icated to Jehovah. The foreign arms were pre- 
served in the Temple, and were long known as king 
David's (2 Chr. xxiii. 9; Cant. iv. 4). [Arms; 
IShelet, p. 162.] 

Not daunted by this defeat, Hadarezer seized an 
early opportunity of attempting to re\cnge himself; 
and after the first repulse of the Aninionites and 
their Syrian allies by Joab, he sent his army to 
the assistance of his kindred the people of jMaachah, 
Kehob, and Ishtob (1 Chr. xix. 16; 2 Sam. x. 15, 
comp. 8). The army was a large one, as is evident 
from the numbers of the slain ; and it was espe- 
cially strong in horse-soldiers (1 Chr. xix. 18). 
Under the command of Shophach, or Shobach, the 

captaua of the host (Sl2*^n "Iti?) they crossed 
the Euphrates, joined the other Syrians, and en- 
camped at a place called IIiCLAiAi. The moment 
was a critical one, and David himself came from Je- 
rusalem to take the command of the Israelite army. 
As on the former occasion, the rout was complete: 
seven hundred chariots were captured, seven thou- 
sand charioteers and forty thousand hoi'se-soldiers 
killed, the petty sovereigns who had before been 
subject to Hadarezer submitted themselves to Da- 
vid, and the great S}riau confederacy was, for the 
time, at an end. 

But one of Hadarezer's more immediate retain- 
ers, Rkzon ben-lQiadah, made his escape from the 
army, and gathering round him some fugitixes hke 
himself, formed them into one of those marauding 

ravaging "bands" ("T^12) which found a con- 
genial refuge hi the thinly ijeopled districts between 
the Jordan and the Euphrates (2 K. v. 2; 1 Clir. 
V. 18-22). Making their way to Damascus, they 
possessed themsehes of the city. Bezon became 
king, and at once began to avenge the loss of his 
countrymen by the course of " mischief" to Israel 
which he pursued down to the end of Solomon's 
reign, and which is summed up in the emphatic 
words " he was an adversary (a ' Satan ') to Isi'ael " 
. . . "he abhorred Israel" (1 K. xi. 23-25). 

In the narrative of David's Syrian campaign hi 
2 Sam. viii. 3-12 this name is given as Hadad-ezer, 
and also in 1 K. xi. 23. But in 2 Sam. x., and in 
all its other occurrences in the Hebrew text as well 
as in the LXX. (both MSS.), and in Josephus, the 
form Hadarezer is maintained. G. 

H AD'ASHAH (HK^iq [new, Ges.] : 'AS- 
aadv, Alex. Adaaa'- llndassa), one of the towui 
of Judah, in the Shefetuh or maritime low-country, 
named between Zenan and Migdal-gad, in the sec- 
ond group (Josh. XV. 37 only). By Eusebius it ia 
spoken of as lying near " Tai)hna," i. e. Gophna. 
But if by this Eusebius intends the well-known 
Gophna, there must be some error, as Gophna was 
several miles north of Jerusalem, near the direct 
north road to Nablus. No satisfactory reason pre- 
sents itself why Hadashah should not be the Adasa 
of the Maccaba^an history. Hitherto it has eluded 
discovery in modern times. G. 

* HADES. [Dead, The ; Deep, The : 


HADAS'SAH (nDlH \myrtle] : LXX. 
omit : Edissa), a name, probably the earlier name^ 
of Esther (Esth. ii 7). Gesenius {Thes. p. 366) 
suggests that it is identical with ''Aroaaoi tbi 
name of the daughter of Cyrus. 



HADAT^TAH (nr^iq Inew] : LXX. 
jniit: nova). According to the A. V., one of the 

towns of Judah in the extreme south 'Hazor, 

Hadattah, and Kerioth, and Hezron," etc. (Josh. 
XV. 25); but the jVlasoret accents of the Hebrew 
connect the word with that preceding it, as if it 
were Hazor-chadattah, /. e. New Hazor, in distinc- 
tion from the place of the same name in ver. 23. 
This reading is expressly sanctioned by Eusebius 
and Jerome, who speak {Onom. •' Asor") of " New 
Hazor " as lying in their day to the east of and 
near Ascalon. (See also Keland, p. 708.) But 
Ascalon, as Kobinson has pointed out (ii. 34, note), 
is hi the S/u'/eltih, and not in the South, and would, 
if named in Joshua at all, be included in the second 
division of the list, beginning at ver. 33, instead of 
where it is, not far from Kedesh. G. 

* Mr. "J'ristram {Land of Israel, p. 310, 2d ed.) 
speaks of some ruins in the south of Judah, on a 
"brow southeast of Wady Zuweirah, which the 
Arabs said was called Hadadah.'^ He thinks it 
possible that the Hadattah of Joshua (xv. 25) may 
have been there. H. 

HA'DID (T^^n, sharp, possibly from its sit- 
uation on some craggy eminence, Ges. Thes. 446 : 
'A5t8 [ V by comb, with preceding name, in Ezr., 
AoSaSt, Vat. Aodapcae, Alex. AwSScoi/ AoSaSiS: in 
Neh. vii., Ao5a5i5, Vat. FA. AoSaSza; in Neh. xi., 
LXX. omit:] Iladid), a place named, with Lod 
(Lydda) and Ono, only in the later books of the 
history (Ezr. ii. 33; Neh. vii. 37, xi. 34), but yet 
BO as to imply its earlier existence. In the time 
of Eusebius {Onom. "Adithaim") a town called 
Aditha, or Adatha, existed to the east of DiospoUs 
(Lydda). This was probably Hadid. The Adida 
of the Maccabiean history cannot be the same place, 
as it is distinctly si^ecified as in the maritime or 
Phihstine plahi further south — " Adida in Sephe- 
La " (1 iSIacc. xii. 38) — with which agrees the de- 
scription of Josephus {Ant. xiii. 6, § 5). About 
three miles east of Ludd stands a village called el- 
Jladit/icfi, marked in Van de Velde's map. This 
is described l)y the old Jewish traveller ha-Parchi 
as being " on the summit of a round hill," and 
identified by him, no doubt correctly, with Hadid. 
See Zunz, in Asher's Benj. of TudtUt, ii. 439. 


HADXAI [2 syl.] C'^in [restmg or keepin^j 
holiday] : 'EASat; [Vat. Xoa5;] Alex. A5St: Adnli), 
a man of Ephraim; father of Aniasa, who was one 
of the chiefs of the tribe in the reign of Pekah 
(2 Chr. xxviii. 32). 

HADO'HAM (D'j'TfrT [possil)ly fire-ioor- 
ihippers' see FiirstJ : 'OSoppci; [Alex. la/JoS, 
KeSoupoi/; Comp. 'Ohoppd[ji, 'iSojpa/iO Aduram, 
\_Ado'rani\), the fifth sou of Joktan (Gen. x. 27; 
1 Chr. i. 21). His settlements, unlike those of 
many of Joktan's sons, have not been identified. 
Bochart suj^posed that the Adramitae represented 
Ills descendants; but afterwards believed, as later 
critics have also, that this people was the same as 
the Chatramotitse, or people of Hadramawt {Pha- 
kg ii. c. 17). [Hazakmaveth.] Fresnel cites 

a * De Wette's translation of these rerses {Die 
HtHige Schn'ft, 1858), is more literal, and certainly 
more inteliijjible : (1) "Utterance of the word of Je- 
hovah against the land Iladrach, and upon Damascus 
t cjines down (for Jehovah has an eje upon men, 
Ukd all tb« tribes of Israel) ; (2) and also against 


an Arab author who identifies Hadoram with Jio* 
fiu?n (4"« LHtre, Jimrn. Asiatique, iUe s^rie, vi. 
220); but this is highly improbable; nor is tht 
suggestion of Had/ioord, by Caussin {L'ssai, i. 30) 
more likely: the latter being one of the aborigina. 
tribes of Arabia, such as 'A'd, Thamood, etc 
[Arabia.] E. S. P. 

2. (D'JITn: 'ASovpa/x; [Vat. IBovpaafi] FA 
iSovpa/j.;] Alex. Aovpa/j.- Adorani), son of Tou or 
Toi king of Hamatli; his lather's ambassador to 
congratulate David on his \ictory over Hadarezer 
king of Zobah (1 Chr. xviii. 10), and the bearer of 
valuable presents ui the iorm of articles of antique 
manufacture (Josei)h.), in gold, silver, and brass. 
In the parallel narrative of 2 Sam. viii. the name 
is given as Joram ; but this being a contraction of 
Jehoram, which contains the name of Jehovah, is 
peculiarly an Israelite appellation, and we may 
therefore conclude that Hadoram is the genuine 
form of the name. By Josephus {A7d. vii. 5, § 4) 
it is given as 'ASctjpafios. 

3. (□^iri: d'ABwuipafi; [Vat. -yet-;] Alex. 
ABupa/x- Aduram.) The form assumed in Chron- 
icles by the name of the intendant of taxes under 
David, Solomon, and Kehoboam, who lost his life 
in the revolt at Shechem after the coronation of the 
last-named prince (2 Chr. x. 18). He was sent by 
Kehoboam to appease the tunmlt, possil)ly as being 
one of the old and moderate party ; but the choice 
of the chief officer of the taxes was not a happy 
one. His interference was ineffectual, and he him- 
self fell a victim: "all Israel stoned him with stones 
that he died." In Kings the name is given in the 
longer form of Adoxikam, but in Samuel (2 Sam. 
XX. 24) as Adouam. By Josephus, in both the 
first and last case, he is called 'Adwpafxos. 

HATDRACH Cniin [see »//)•«]: ^eSpdx . 
[Alex. 2e8/JOK; Aid. with 13 MSS. 'Adpdx'] ^^('<f- 
vach), a country of Syria, mentioned once only, by 
the prophet Zechariah, in the following words: 
" The burden of the word of Jehovah in the land 
of Iladrach, and Damascus [shall be] the rest 
thereof: when the eyes of man, as of all the tribes 
of Israel, shall be toward Jehovah. And Hamath 
also shall border thereby; Tyrus and Zidon, though 
it be very wise " (ix. 1, 2)." The position of the 
district, with its borders, is here generally stated, 
although it does not appear, a^j is connnonly as- 
sumed, that it was on the east of Damascus; but 
the name itself seems to have wholly disappeared; 
and the ingenuity of critics has been exercised on 
it without attaining any trustworthy results. It 
stdl remains unknown. It is true that Ii. Jose of 
Damascus identifies it with the site of an important 
city east of Damascus; and Joseph Abassi makes 

mention of a place called Hadrak (w\tX^); 

but, with Gesenius, we may well distrust these 
writers. The vague statement of Cyril Alex, seems 
to be founded on no particular facts beyond those 
contained in the prophecy of Zechariah. Besides 
these identifications we can point to none that pos- 
sesses the smallest claim to acceptance. Those of 
Movers {Phoniz.),^ Bleek, and others are purejy 

Hamath which borders thereon. Tyre and Sidon ; toi 
it is very wise " (comp. Ez. xxviii. 3 IT.). H. 

^ * Movers does not propose any local identificatioi 
(if that be meant here), but supposes Adark, an Assyr 
ian war-god {Pho/iiz. i. 478), to be intended. Fa 
Bleek's theory, see above B. 


hyputbetical, and the same nust be said of the 
theory of Alphens [Van Alph-'n], in his monograph 
De ten'a f/ndrach d D imn,*co (Traj. Rh. 172'J, 
referred to by Winer, s. v.). A solution of the 
difficulties surrounding the name may perhaps be 
found by supposing that it is derived from Hadak. 

E. S. P. 
* Another conjecture may be mentioned, namely, 
that Hadrach is the name of some Syrian king 
otherwise miknown. It was not uncommon for 
heathen kings to bear the names of their gods. 
Gesenius {Thesaur. i. 44 J) favors this opinion after 
lileek. (See T/wol. Siiul u. Krit. 1852, p. 268.) 
V'aihinger argues for it, and attempts to show that 
tlie king in question may have bi^en the one who 
reigned between Benhadad III. and Rezin, about the 
time of Uzziah and Jeroboam II. (See Herz. Real- 
Encyk. v. 445. ) The data are insufficient for so defi- 
nite a conclusion. Ilengstenberg adopts the Jewish 
symbolic explanation, namely, that Hadrach (de- 
rived from "TH and T^"} = strong-weak) denotes 
the Persian kingdom as destined, according to pro- 
phetic announcement, notwithstanding its power, 
to be utterly overthrown. Winer {Blhl. Renho. 
i. 454) speaks of this as not improbably correct. 
Hengstenberg discusses the question at length un- 
der the head of " The Land of Hadrach," in his 
Christoloyy of the 0. T., iii. 371 ff. (trans. Edinb. 
1858). ' H. 

HA'GAB (njn {locusty. 'Ayd$: Hnyab). 
Bene-Uagab [sons of Hagab] were among the Ne- 
thinim who returned from Babylon with Zerubba- 
bel (Ezr. ii. 40). In the parallel list in Nehemiah, 
this and the name preceding it are omitted. In 
the Apocryphal Esdras [v. 30] it is given as 

HAG'ABA (>*?5n: 'AyajSci; [Alex. A77a- 
)8a:] Ilagalxi). Bene-Hagaba were among the 
Nethinim who came back from captivity with 
Zerubbabel (Neh. vii. 48). The name is slightly 
different in form from — 

HAG'ABAH (Hnjq [locusf] : "Aya^d : 
Hagaba), under which it is found in the parallel 
list of Ezr. ii. 45. In Esdras it is given as Graba. 

HA'GAR ("l^n [flight]: "Ayap: Agar), an 
Egyptian woman, the handmaid, or slave, of Sarah 
(Gen. xvi. 1), whom the latter gave as a concubine 
to Abraham, after he had dwelt ten years in the 
land of Canaan and had no children by Sarah (xvi. 
2 and 3). That she was a bondwoman is stated 
both in the O. T. and in the N. T. (in the latter 
as part of her typical character) ; and the condition 
»f a slave was one essential of her position as a 
legal concubine. It is recorded that " when she 
»aw that she had conceived, her mistress was des- 
pised in her ejes " (4), and Sarah, with the anger, 
we may suppose, of a free woman, rather than of a 
wife, roproachod Abraham for the results of her 
^n act : " My \vrong be upon thee : I have given 
.ay maid into thy bosom ; and when she saw that 
she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: Je- 
hovah judge between me and thee." Abraham's 
answer seems to have been forced from him by his 
love for the wife of many years, who besides was his 
half-sister; and with the apparent want of purpose 

a It seems to be unnecessary to assume (as Kali.^cli 
ma, Comment, on Genesis)t\vAt we have here ani^^.iL'r 
<rf Abraham's faith. This explanation of the 

HAGAR 977 

that he before displayed in Egypt, and after;rarvljj 
at the court of Abimelech « (in contrast to his i'rm 
courage and constancy when directed by God), he 
said, '' Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her 
as it pleaseth thee." This permission was neces- 
sary in an eastern household, but it is worthy of 
remark that it is now very rarely gi\ en ; nor win 
we think, from the unchangeableness of eastern cus- 
toms, and the strongly-marked national character 
of peoples, that it was usual anciently lo 
allow a wife to deal hardly with a slave in Hagar's 
position. Yet the truth and individuality of the 
vivid narrative is enforced by this apparent depart- 
ure from usage : " And when Sarai dealt hardly 
with her, she fled from her fiice,'" turning her steps 
towards her native land through the great wilder- 
ness traversed by the Egyptian road. By the foun- 
tain in the way to Shur, the angel of the Lord 
found her, charged her to return and suljmit herself 
under the hands of her mistress, and delivered the 
remarkable prophecy respecting her unborn child, 
recorded in ver. 10-12. [Ishmakl.] " And she 
called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, 
Thou God art a God of vision ; for she said. Have 
I then seen [^. e. lived] after vision [of God]? 
Wherefore the well was called Beeh-lahai-I{OI " 
(13, 14). On her return, Hagar gave birth to 
Ishmael, and Abrahaui was then eighty-six years 

Mention is not again made of Hagar in the his- 
tory of Abraham until the feast at the weaning of 
Isaac, when " Sarah saw the son of Hagar the 
Egyptian, which she had borne unto Abraham, 
mocking"; and in exact sequence with the first 
flight of Hagar, we now read of her expulsion. 
" Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this 
bondwoman and her son ; for the son of this bond- 
woman shall not be heir with my son, [even] with 
Isaac " (xxi. 9, 10). Abraham, in his grief, and 
unwillingness thus to act, was comforted by God, 
with the assurance that in Isaac should his seed be 
called, and that a nation should also be raised of 
the bondwoman's son. In his trustful obedience, 
we read, in the pathetic narrative, " Abraham rose 
up early in the morning, and took bread, and a 
bottle of water, and gave [it] unto Hagar, putting 
[it] on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her 
away, and she departed and wandered in the wil- 
derness of Beersheba. And the water was spent 
in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of 
the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over 
against [him] a good way off', as it were a bow- 
shot ; for she said. Let me not see the death of the 
child. And she sat over against [him], and lifted 
up her voice and wept. And God heard tlie voice 
of the lad, and the angel of God called to Hagar 
out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, 
Hagar? Eear not, for God hath heard the voice of 
the lad where he [is]. Arise, lift up tlie lad, and 
hold him in thine hand, for I will make him a great 
nation. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a 
well of water, and she went and filled the bottle [skin] 
with water, and gave the lad to drink" (xxi. 14- 
19). The verisimilitude, oriental exactness, and 
simple beauty of this story are internal evidences 
attesting its truth apart from all other evidence; 
and even Winer says (in alluding to the subterfuge 
of skepticism that Hagar = flight — would lead to 

event is not required, nor does the narrative appear to 
warrant it, unless Abraham rej?arded Ilagar's son M 
the heir of the promi«p : 'omp. (Jan. xvii. 18. 

978 HAGAR 

toe assumption of its being a myth). " Das Ereig- 
nisa iat so eiiifach unci den orientalischen Sitten so 
angemessen, das wir liier gewiss eine rein histor- 
ische Sage vor uns liabeu" {Realivort. s. v. 
"Ilagar "). 

The name of Hagar occurs elsewhere only when 
she takes a wife to Ishmael (xxi. 21), and in the 
genealogy (xxv. 12). St. Paul refers to lur as the 
type of the old covenant, likening her to Mount 
Sinai, the Mount of the Law (Gal. iv. 22 ti\). 

In Mohammedan tradition Hagar (^;5».L;C 

Ilajir, or Hagir) is represented as the wife of Abra- 
ham, as might be expected when we remember that 
Ishmael is the head of the Arab nation, and the 
reputed ancestor of IMohanimed. In the same 
manner she is said to have dwelt and been buried 
at Mekkeh, and the well Zemzem in the sacred in- 
closure of the temple of INIekkeh is ix)inted out by 
the INIuslims as the well which was miraculously 
formed for Ishmael in the wilderness. E. S. P. 

* The truthfulness to nature which is so mani- 
fest in the incidents related of Hagar and Ishmael 
(as suggested above), bears strong testimony to the 
fidelity of the narrative. See especially Gen. xvi. 
6; xxi. 10, 11, and U ff". Dean Stanley very prop- 
erly calls attention to this trait of the patriarchal 
history as illustrated in this instance, as well as 
others. {JeivUli Churchy i. 40 ff.) See also, on 
this characteristic of these early records, Blunt's 
Veracif}/ of Hit Books of Moses. Hess brings out 
impressively this feature of the Bible in his Ge- 
tchichte der Patrinrchen (2 I3de. Tubing. 1785). It 
appears from Gal. iv. 24, where Paul speaks of the 
dissensions in Aliraham's family, that the jealousy 
between Ilagar's son and the heir of promise pro- 
ceeded much further than the O. T. relates. Rii- 
etschi has a brief article on " Hagar" in Herzog's 
Renl.Kncyk. v. 409 f. Mr. Williams {Uohj City, 
i. 463-408 ^ inserts an extended account of the sup- 
posed discovery by Mr. Rowlands of lieer-lahai-roi, 
the well in the desert, at which, after her expulsion 
from the house of Abraham, the angel of the Lord 
appeared to Hagar ((Jen. xvi. 7 ff.). It is said to 
be about 5 hours from Kadesh, on the way from 
Beer-sheba to Ivjvpt, and is called Moilahhi (more 
correctly Muweili/i, says Riietschi), the name being 
regarded as the same, except in the first syllable the 
change of /ieer. *' well," for Mol, " water." Near 
it is also found an elaborate excavation in the rocks 
which the Arabs call Bnt-IIafjnr, i. e. "house 
of Hagar." Keil and Delitzsch (in Gen. xvi. 14) 
incline to adopt this identification. Knobel {Gen- 
esis, p. 147) is less decided. Dr. Robinson's note 
{Bibl. Ris., 2d ed. i. 180) throws some discredit on 
the accuracy of this report. 

Hagar occurs in Gal. iv. 25 (T. R. & A. V.), 
not as a personal name (^ "Ayap), but as a word 
or local name (rb "Ayap) appUed to Mount Sinai 
in Arabia. The Arabic 


of Arabia, and as an apostle, had remained (hem a 
long time." (See Gal. i. 17 f.) Some conjectur* 
that this name was transfeired to the mountain from 
an Arabian town so called, where, according to one 
accoimt, Hagar is said to have l)een buried^ But, 
on the other hand, it is not certain that rb "Ayap 
really belongs to the Greek text, though the weight 
of critical opmion affirms it (see Meyor, in he.). 
The questions both as to the origin of the name 
and the genuineness of the reading are carefully 
examined in Lightfoot's Comment' iry on Galatiam 
(pp. 178, 189 ff 2d ed.), tliongh perhaps he un- 
derstates the testimony for rh " Ay ap. H. 


^ *7 l^yj ' ^Ayapr]yoi, ^Ayapaioi, [etc. :] A(/a 
rem, Ayarei), a people dwelling to the ej<st of Pal 
estine, with whom the tiilie of Reuben made waj 
in the time of Saul, and " who fell by tlieir hand, 
and they dwelt in their tents throughout aU the 
east [landj of Gilead " (1 Chr. v. 10); and again, 
in ver. 18-20, the sons of Reuben, and the Gadites 
and half the tribe of ^Manasseh " made war with 
the Hagai-ites, with Jetur, and Nephish, and No- 
dab, and they were helped against them, and the 
Hagarites were delivered into their hand, and aU 
that were with them." The spoil here recorded to 
have been taken shows the wealth and importance 
of these tribes ; and the conquest, at least of the 
territory occupied by them, was complete, for the 
Israehtes " dwelt in their steads until the Captivity " 
(ver. 22). The same people, as confederate against 
Israel, are mentioned in Ps. Ixxxiii. : " The tab- 
ernacles of Edom and the Ishmaelites; of Moab 
and the Hagarenes; Gebal, Ammon, and Amalek; 
the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assur 

«3^, pronounced very 

much like this name, means a » stone," and may 
have been in use in the neighborhood of Sinai as 
one of its local designations. (See INIeyer on Gal. 
iv. 25). There is no testimony that the mount 
was so called out of this passage; but as Ewald 
remarks respecting this point {Nachirag in his 
Serulschreibm iks Apostels, p. 493 ff.), Paul is so 
much the less to be charged with an error here, 
basmuch aa he himself kul travelled in that part 

also is joined with them; they have holpen the 
children of Lot " (ver. G-8). 

Who these people were is a question that cannot 
readily be decided, though it is generally believed 
that they were named after Hagar. Their geo- 
graphical position, as inferred from the above pas- 
sages, was in the " east country," where dwelt the 
descendants of Ishmael; the occurrence of the 
names of two of his sons, .letur and Nephish (1 
Chr. V. 19), as before quoted, with that of Nodab, 
whom Gesenius supjxtses to be another son (though 
he is not found in the genealogical lists, and must 
remain doubtful [Nouah]), seems to indicate that 
these Hagarenes were named after Hagar; but in 
the passage in Ps. Ixxxiii., the Ishmaelites are ap- 
parently distinguished iiom the Hagarenes (cf. Bar. 
iii. 23). ]May they have been thus called after a 
town or district na)ned after Hagar, and not only 
because they were her descendants? It is needless 
to follow the suggestion of some writers, that Hagar 
may have been the mother of other children after 
her separation from Abraham (as the Bil)le and 
tradition are silent on the question), and it is in 
itself highly improbable. 

It is also uncertain whether the important town 
and district of Herjer (the inhabitants of which 
\vere probably the same as the Agraji of Stralx), xvi. 
p. 707, Dionys. Perieg. 950, Plin. vi. 32, and Ptol. 
v. 19, 2) represent the ancient name and a dwell- 
ing of the Hagarenes; but it is reasonable to sup- 
pose that they do. Hejer, or Tlejera ( ^.ivi 
mdeclinable, accoriing to Yakoot, Mushlmak^ g. v 

G ^ ^ 
but also, according to Kdmoos, «.^!^j&, as ((€0es 


uid Winer write it), is the capital town and also 
% subdivision of tlie province of no-tlieastern 
Arabia called El-Bahreyit, or, as some writers oay, 
the name of the province itself {.Uuslit'trak and 
Mardsid, s. v.), on the borders of the Persian Gulf. 
It is a low and fertile country, frequented foi its 
abundant water and pasturage by the wandering 
tribes of the neigliboring deserts and of the high 
land of Nejd. For the Agrsei, see tlie Diclionavy 
of Gen<jraphy. Thei*e is another Jlejer, a place 
near Ei-^Iedeeneh. 

The district of Hajar ( vBi), on the borders 


of Desert Arabia, north of El-Medeeneli, has been 
thought to possess a trace, in its name, of the Ila- 
garenes. It is, at least, less likely than Hejer to 
do so, both from situation and etymology. The 
tract, however, is curious from tlie caves that it is 
reported to contain, in which, say the Arabs, dwelt 
the old tribe of Thaniood. 

Two llagarites are mentioned in the 0. T. : see 
MiBiiAu and Jaziz. E. S. P. 

HA'GERITE, THE 0");inrT : b 'Ayaplrvs; 
[Vat. TapeiT-qs-] Afjareus). Jaziz the Hagerite, 
i. e. the descendant of Hagar, had the charge of 

David's sheep ("}S^, A. V. " flocks; " 1 Chr. xxvii. 
31). The word appears in tiie other forms of Ha- 
GARiTES and Hagakenes. 

HAG'GAI [2syl.] (^2(1 [festive] :'Ayya7os; 
[Sin. A77eos in Hag., except inscription, and so 
Alex, in the inscr. of l*s. cxlv.-cxlviii. :] A(/(jceus), 
the tenth in order of the minor i)rophets, and first 
of those who prophesied after the Cai)tivity. With 
regard to his tribe and parentage both history and 
tradition are alike silent. Some, indeed, taking 

in its literal sense the expression nlH") "JT^/P 
{malac y'hvvdh) in i. 13, have imagined that he 
was an angel in human shape (Jerome, Cvniiii. in 
loc). In the absence of any direct evidence on 
the point, it is more tlian probable that he was one 
of the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel and 
Joshua; and Ewald {Die Proph. d. Alt. B.) is 
even tempted to infer from ii. 3 that he may have 
been one of the few survivors who had seen the first 
temple in its splendor. The rebuilding of the 
temple, which was commenced in the reign of Cyrus 
(u. c. 535), was suspended during the reigns of 
his successors, Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis, in 
consequence of the determined hostility of the Sa- 
maritans. On the accession of Darius llystaspis 
(b. c. 521), tlie prophets Haggai and Zechariah 
urged the renewal of the undertaking, and obtained 
the permission and assistance of the king (Ezr. v. 
1, vi. 14: ; Joseph. Ant. xi. 4). Animated by the 
high courage {ningni spintus, Jerome) of these de- 
voted men, the people prosecuted the work with 
vigor, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 
the ?:iti. year of Darius (n. c. 510). According to 
faratatioi:, Haggai was born in Babylon, was a young 
man when he came to Jerusalem, and was buried 
vfith honor near the sepulchres of the priests (Isidor. 
Hispal. c. 4ii; Pseudo-Dorotheus, in Citron. Pasch. 
•51 d). It has lience been conjectured that he was 
\f priestly rank. Ilaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 
iccording to the Jewish writers, were the men who 
srere with Daniel when he saw the vision related 
n Dan. x. 7 ; and were after the Captivit} mem- 
»en of the Groat Synagogue, which consisted of 
.80 elders ( Cozn, iii. 65). The Seder Olam Zuta 


places their death in the 52d }ear of the Medei 
and Persians; while the extravagance of another 
tradition makes Haggai survive till the entry of 
Alexander the Great into Jerusalem, and even till 
the time of our Saviour (Carpzov, Inlrod.). In 
the Koman INIartyrology Ilosea and Ilaggai are 
joined in the catalogue of saints {Acln S motor. 
4 Julii). The question of Haggai's |)ro!ialile con- 
nection with the authorship of the look of Ezra 
will be found fully discussed in the article under 
that head, pp. 8i.)5, 8U(j. 

The names of Haggai and Zechariah are asso- 
ciated in the LXX. hi the titles of Ps. 1'37, 145- 
148; in the Vulgate hi tliose of Ps. Ill, U.'j; and 
hi the Peshito Syriac in those of Ps. 12.">, 12i;, 145, 
14G, 147, 148. it may be that tradition assigned 
to these prophets the arrangenient of the above- 
mentioned psalms for use in tlie temple service, just 
as Ps. Ixiv. is in the Vulgate attributed to Jere- 
miah and Ezekiel, and the name of tiie iormer is 
inscribed at the head of Ps. cxxxvi. in the LXX. 
According to Pseudo ICpiplianius {de iV//.s Proph.), 
Haggai was the first who chanted the Hallelujah 
in the second temple: "wherefore," he adds, "we 
say ' Hallelujah, which is the hymn of Ilaggai and 
Zechariah.' " Haggai is mentioned in the Apoc- 
rypha as Aggeus, in 1 Esdr. vi. 1, vii. 3; 2 Esdr. 
i. 40; and is alluded to in I'^cclus. xlix. 11 (cf. Hag. 
ii. 23) and Heb. xii. 2(> (Hag. ii. G). 

The style of his writing is generally tame and 
prosaic, though at times it rises to. tlie dignity of 
severe invective, when the prophet reliukes his 
countrymen for their selfish indolence and neglect 
of God's house. But the brevity of the proiihecies 
is so great, and the poverty of expression which 
characterizes them so striking, as to give rise to a 
conjecture, not witliout reason, that in their present 
form they are but the outline or summary of the 
original discourses. They were delivered in the 
second year of Darius llystaspis (n. c. 520), at 
intervals from the 1st day of the 0th month to the 
24th day of the 9th month in the same year. 

In his first message to the people the prophet 
denounced the listlessness of the .Jews, who dwelt 
in their " panelled houses," while the temple of 
the Lord was roofless and desolate. The displeas- 
ure of God was manifest in the failure of all their 
efforts for their own gratification. The heavens 
were "stayed from dew," and the earth was 
"stayed from her fruit." They had neglected that 
which should have been tlieir first care, and reaped 
the due wages of their selfishness (i. 4-11). The 
words of the prophet sank deep into the hearts of 
the people and their leaders. They acknowledged 
the voice of God speaking by his servant, and 
obeyed the command. Their obedience was re- 
warded with the assurance of Gods presence (i. 
13), and twenty- four days after tlie building was 
resumed. A month had .scarcely elapsed when the 
work seems to have slackened, and the enthusiasm 
of the people abated. Tlie prophet, ever ready to 
rekindle their zeal, encouraged the flagging spirits 
of the chiefs with the renewed assurance of God's 
presence, and the fresh promise that, stately and 
magnificent as was the temple of their wisest king, 
the glory of the latter house should be greater than 
the glory of the former (ii. 3-i)). Yet the jieopl** 
w^re still inactive, and two months afterwards we 
hud him again censuring their .sluggishness, whi^h 
rendered worthless all their ceremonial oljservances; 
But the rebiL3was accompanied by a repetUion 
of the promise (ii. 10-m^ On the same day, th* 



four-and- twentieth of the ninth month, the prophet 
delivered his last prophecy, addressed to Zerubbabel, 
prince of Judah, the representative of the royal 
family of David, and as such the lineal ancestor of 
the jMessiah. This closinj;^ prediction foreshadows 
the establishment of the Messianic kingdom upon 
che o\erthrow of the thrones of the nations (ii. 
20-23). W. A. \V. 

* For the later exegetical works on the prophets 
which include Ilaggai, see under Habakkuk. 
Keil gives a list of the older conmientaries or mon- 
ographs in his Lahrh. der hist. hit. Einl. in d. 
A. T. p. 308 (2te Aufl.). Oehler treats of the 
prophet's personal history in Ilerzog's Reai-Encyk. 
V. 471 f. Bleek {FAnl in das A. Test. p. 549) 
agrees with those (Ewald, Hiivernick, Keil) who 
think that Haggai lived long enough to see both 
the first and the second temples. On the Mes- 
sianic passage of this prophet (ii. G-9), the reader 
may consult, in addition to the commentators, 
Hengstenberg, C/irisiolof/y of the 0. T. iii. 243- 
271 (Keith's trans.); Hasse, GescJiichte des Alten 
8undes, p. 203 ff.; Smith, J. P., Scriptuvt Tes- 
timony to the ]\[essi(th, i. 283 tf. (5th ed. Lond. 
1859); and Tholuck, Dit Pm/zheteti u. ihre Weis- 
gagunyen (2t€r Abdruck), p. 156, a few words only. 


HAG'GERI {^^^'0, I e. Hagri, a Ihujarite: 
^hyapi; [Vat. FA. -pei:] Alex. Arapai": Agarai). 
'* MiBiiAU son of Haggeri " was one of the mighty 
men of David's guard, according to the catalogue 
of 1 Chr. xi. 38. The parallel passage — 2 Sam. 

xxiii. 36 — has " Bani the Gadite " (^"Tjn). This 
Kennicott decides to have been the original, from 
which Haggeri has been corrupted {Dissert, p. 

214). The Targum has Bar Gedd (S"!? "la). 

HAG'GI C^2n [festive] : 'Aryry, Alex. Ar 
yeis; [in Num., *A77t, Vat. -7et:] llaggi, Afj(ji\ 
second son of Gad (Gen. xlvi. 16; Num. xxvi. 15), 

founder of the Haggites ("SHn). It will be ob- 
served that the name, thougii given as that of an 
individual, is really a patronymic, precisely the same 
as of the family. 

HAGGl'AH {'!^'^^r\ [festival of Jehovah] : 
*A77ta; [Vat. Afia'] J/aggia), a Levite, one of 
the descendants of Merari (1 Chr. vi. 30). 

HAG'GITES, THE C^riT] : 6 'Ayyl ; 
[Vat. -y€i'-] Agitce), the family sprung from 
Haggt, second son of Gad (Num. xxvi. 15). 

HAG'GITH {n^^^, a dancer: 'AyylO; 
Alex. ^fvyiO, AyiO, [Ayeid,] Ayyeid; [Vat. ^^y- 
yeiO, Ayyeid;] .loseph. 'A77t07j: Ilaggith, Ag- 
gith), one of David's wives, of whom nothing is 
told us except that she was the mother of Adonijah, 
who is commonly designated as " the son of Hag- 
gith" (2 Sam. iii. 4; 1 K. i. 5, 11, ii. 13; 1 Chr. 
iii. 2). He was, like Absalom, renowned for his 
handsome presence. In the first and last of the 
bove passages Ilaggith is fourth in order of men- 
uou among the wives, Adonijah being also fourth 
imong the sons. His birth happened at Hebron 
(2 Sam. iii. 2, 5) shortly aftc that of Ab.salom (1 
K.. i. 6 ; where it will be oliserved that the words 
"his mother" are inserted by the translators). 

HA'GIA CA7ia ['A7Jc^, Bos, Holmes & Par- 
lons]: Aggia), 1 Esdr. v. 34. [Hattil.1 


HA' I (**Vn [the stone-heap^ ox I'uim.]'. 'A7 
701: flai). The form in which the well-knowi 
place Ai appears in the A. V. on its first intro- 
duction (Gen. xii. 8; xiii. 3). It arises from th« 
translators having in these places, and these only 
recognized the definite article with which Ai is 
invariably and emphatically accompanied in the 
Hebrew. [More probably it comes from the Vul- 
gate. — A.]. In the Samaritan Version of tlic 
above two passages, the name is given in the first 
Ainah, and in the second Cephrah, as if C'EiMfi- 

KAH. G. 

*HAIL. [Plaguks, Thk Tkn; Sxow.J 

HAIR. The Hebrews were fully alive to the 
importance of the hair as an element of personal 
beauty, whether as seen in the " curled locks, black 
as a raven," of youth (Cant. v. 11), or in the 
"crown of glory" that encircled the head of old 
age (Prov. xvi. 31). The cu.stoms of ancient na- 
tions in regard to the hair varied considerably : the 
Egyptians allowed the women to wear it long, but 
kept the heads of men closely sha\ed from early 
childhood (Her. ii. 36, iii. 12; Wilkinson's Ancitnl 
Egyptians, ii. 327, 328). The Greeks admired 

Grecian manner of wearing the hair. (Hope's Cos- 
/> tunies.) 

long hair, whether in raen or women, as is evi- 
denced in the expression Kap7jKoibL6o}UTfs 'Axaiol, 
and in the representations of tlieir divinities, es- 
pecially Bacchus and Apollo, whose long locks were 
a symbol of perpetual youth. The Assyrians also 
wore it long (Her. i. 195), the flowing curls being 
gathered together in a heavy cluster on the back, 
as represented in the sculj)tures of Nineveh. The 
Hebrews, on the other hand, wiiile they encouraged 
the growth of hair, ob.served the natural dis- 
tinction between the .sexes by allowing the women 
to wear it long (lAdvC \ii. 38; John xi. 2; 1 Cor. 
xi. 6 AT.), while the men restrained theirs by fre- 
quent clippings to a moderate length. This differ- 
ence between the Hebrews and the surrounding 
nations, especially the l^gyptians, arose no doubt 
partly from natural taste, but jiartly also from legal 
enactments. Clipping the hair in a certain manner 
and offering the locks, was in early times cor.nectci 
with religious worship. Many of the Arabians 
practiced a peculiar tonsure in honor of their God 
Orotal (Her. iii. 8, K^ipouTai irepirpoxaXa, irt- 
pi^vpouuT€s Tovs KpoTOLfpous), and hence tlie He- 
brews were forbidden to " round the comers (nSQ, 
lit. the extremity) of their heads" (Lev. xix. 27), 
meaniiig the locks along the forehead and temples, 
and behind the ears. This tonsure is described in 
the LXX. by a peculiar expression a-iaSt] (=the 
classical a-Kdcpiov), probably derived from the He- 
brew n*^^"^^ (comp. Bochart, Can. i. 6, p. 379). 
That the practice of the Arabians was well known 
to the Hebrews, appears from the Bxpressioi 

nSQ "^y^l^p, rounded as to the locks, by wh^tl 


ttiey are described (Jer. ix. 26; xxv. 23: xlix. 32: 
lee marc^inal translation of the A. V.)- The pro- 
hihition against cutting off the hair on the death 
of a relative (Deut. xiv. 1^ was pibbably grounded 
on a similar reason. In addition to these regida- 
tions, the Hebrews dreaded baldness, as it was fre- 
quently the result of leprosy (Lev. xiii. 40 fF. ), and 
hence formed one of the disqriahfications for the 
priesthood (Lev. xxi. 20, LXX.). [Baldness.] 
The nde imposed upon the priests, and probably 
followed by the rest of the community, was that 

the hair should be j^olkd (D0|, Ez. xliv. 20), 
neither being shaved, nor allowed to grow too long 
(Lev xxi. 5; Ez. I. c). \yhat was the precise 
length usually worn, we have no means of ascer- 
taining; but from various expressions, such as 

tt/S"! '3'y^, lit. to let loose the head or the hair 
(= solvere Cfines, Virg. A'Jn. iii. 65, xi. 35 ; demis- 
Sds luf/eniis more cnpillos, Ov. Lp. x. 137) by un- 
binding the head-band and letting it go disheveled 
(Lev. X. 6, A. V. '■'■ uncover your heads "), which 
was done in mourning (cf. Ez. xxiv. 17); and 

again ]tS n^2, to uncover the ear, previous to 

making any communication of importance (1 Sam. 
tx. 2, 12, xxii. 8, A. V., margin), as though the 
hair fell over the ear, we may conclude that men 
wore their hair somewhat longer than is usual with 

as. The word !S7~l5, used as = hair (Xum. vi. 5 ; 
Ez. xliv. 20), is especially indicative of its free 
yrowtli (cf. Knobel, Coinm. in Lev. xxi. 10). lx>ug 
hair was admired in the case of young men ; it is 
especially noticed in the description of Absalom's 
person (2 Sam. xiv. 26), the inconceivable weight 
of whose hair, as given in the text (200 shekels), 
has led to a variety of explanations (comp. Har- 
mer's Observatkms, iv. 321), the more probable 

being that the numeral 2 (20) has been turned into 

1 (200): Josephus {Ant. vii. 8, § 5) adds, that it 
was cut every eighth day. The hair was also worn 
long by the body-guard of Solomon, according to the 
Bame authority {Ant. viii. 7, § 3, yUTj/fiVra? Kadei- 
fiteVot x**'"''"^)* ^'^^ *^*^® requisite to keep the hair 
in order in such cases must have been very great, 
and hence the practice of wearing long hair was 
unusual, and only resorted to as an act of religious 
observance, in which case it was a " sign of humil- 
iation and self-denial, and of a certain religious 
slovenliness " (Lightfoot, Kxercit. on 1 Cor. xi. 14), 
and was practiced by the Nazarites (Num. vi. 5 ; 
Judg. xiii. 6, xvi. 17; 1 Sam. i. 11), and occa- 
sionally by others in token of special mercies (Acts 
xviii. 18); it was not unusual among the Egyptians 
when on a journey (Diod. i. 18). [Nazakite.] 
In times of affliction the hair was altogether cut off 
(Is. iii. 17, 24, xv. 2, xxii. 12; Jer. vii. 29, xlviii. 
37; Am. viii. 10; Joseph. B. J. u. 15, § 1), the 
pr.ictice of the Hebrews being in this respect the 
reverse of that of the Egyptians, who let their hair 
^row long in time of mourning (Herod, ii. 36), 
having their heads when the term was ov^t (Gen. 
rli. 14); but resembling that of the Greeks, as fre- 
quently noticed by classical writers (e. y. Soph. Aj. 
ri74; Eurip. Electr. 143, 241). Tearing the hair 
Ezr. ix. 3) and letting it gu disheveled, as already 
wticed, were similar tokens of grief. TMourising.] 
Tbe practice of the modern Arabs in regard to the 
length of their hair varies ; generally the men allow 
t to grow its Datural length, the tresses hanging 

HAIR 981 

down to the breast and sometimes to the wal?t, Af- 
fording substantial protection to the head and neck 
against the violence of the sun's rays (Hiu'ckhardt's 
Nohs, i. 49; Wellsted's Travels, i. 33, 53, 73). 
The modern Egyptians retain the practices of their 
ancestors, shaving the heads of the men, but suffer- 
ing the women's hair to grow long (Lane's Mod. 
Egypt, i. 52, 71). Wigs were commonly usod by 
the latter -people (Wilkinson, ii. 324), but not by 
the Hebrews: Josepluis ( 177. §11) notices an in- 
stance of false hair {irepiOiTi) K6^'r]) being used for 
the purpose of disguise. Whether the ample ring- 
lets of the Assyrian monarchs, as represented in 
the sculptures of Nineveh, were real or artificial, is 
doubtful (Layard's Nineveh, ii. 328). Among the 
iMedes the wig was worn by the upper classes (Xen. 
Cijrop. i. 3, § 2). 

Egyptian Wigs. (Wilkinson.) 

The usual and favorite color of the hair was black 
(Cant. V. 11), as is indicated in the comparisons to 
a "flock of goats" and the "tents of Kedar" 
(Cant. iv. 1, L 5): a similar hue is probably in- 
tended by the 2>urjde of Cant. vii. 5, the term i^eing 
broadly used (as the Greek -Kopcpvp^os in a sinular 
application = ^e'Aaj, Anacr. 28). A fictitious hue 
was occasionally obtained by sprinkling gold-dust 
on the hair (Joseph. Ant. viii. 7, § 3). It does 
not appear that dyes were ordinarily used; the 
"Carmel" of Cant. vii. 5 has been understood 

as = b'^p~l3 (A. V. "crimson," margin) with- 
out good reason, though the similarity of the words 
may have suggested the subsequent reference to 
piu-ple. Herod is said to have dyed his gray hair 
for the purpose of concealing his age {Ant. xvi. 8, 
§ 1), but the practice may have been borrowed from 
the Greeks or Komans, among whom it was com- 
mon (Aristoph. Eccles. 736; Martial, Ep. iii. 43; 
Propert. ii. 18, 24, 26): from Matt. v. 36, we may 
infer that it was not usual among the Hebrews. 
The approach of age was marked by a spiinkling 

(p^f , Hos. vii. 9 ; comp. a similar use of spargere, 
I'ropert. iii. 4, 24) of gray hairs, which soon over- 
spread the whole head (Gen. xiii. 38, xliv. 29 ; 1 
K. ii. 6, 9; Prov. xvi. 31, xx. 29). The reference 
to the almond in Eccl. xii. 5, has been explained 
of the white blossoms of that tree, as emblematic 
of old age : it may be observed, however, that the 
color of the flower is pink rather than white, and 
that the verb in that passage, according to high 
authorities (Gesen. and Hitzig), does not bear the 
sense of blossoming at all. Pure white hair was 
deemed characteristic of the Divine Majesty (Uan. 
vii. 9; Rev. i. 14). 

The chief beauty of the hair consisted in curls, 
whet'ner of a natural or artificial character. The 
Hebrew terms are highly expressive: to omit the 

. worci n^y, — rendered "locks" in Cant. iv. 1, 

I T - ' ' 

I 3, VT. 7, and Is. xlvii. 2, but more probably mean- 
ing a veil, — we have C^vj^vri (Cant. v. 11), 
' properly pendulous flexible boughs (according id 

982 HAIK 

'Jie liXX , ixdrai the shoots of the palm-iiee^ 
which supplied an image of the coma pendula ; 

tll^^l^ (Y^. viii. 3), a sinnlar image borrowed from 

the curve of a blossom: p3p (Cant. iv. 9), a lock 
falling over the shoulders like a chain of ear-pendants 
{in uno crine colli hd, Vulg., which is better than 

the A. v., " with one chain of thy neck ") ; C^t^m 
(Cant. Wi. 6, A. V. "galleries"), properly the 
channels by which water was l)rought to the flocks, 
which supplied an image either of the coma Jlueits, 
or of the regularity in which the locks were ar- 
ranged; n*-"T' (Cant. vii. 5), again an expression 
for coma jH'ndula, borrowed from the threads hang- 
ing down from an unfinished woof; and lastly 

nii^P?^ nt^"'5?^ (is. iU. 24, a. v. » well set 
hair "), properly plaited wcn-h^ i. e. gracefully cuned 
locks. With regard to the mode of dressing the 
hair, we have no very precise information ; the 
terms used are of a general character, as of Jezebel 

(2 K. ix. 30), litD'^ri, i. e. she adorned her head; 
of Judith (x. 3), SieVa^e, i. e. arranged (the A. V. 
has " braided," and the Vulg. discriminaiit^ here 
used in a technical sense in the reference to the 
discnminalt or hair-pin); of Herod (Joseph. Ant. 
xiv. 9, § 4), KeKoa-fjLrjfMfvos ttj crupdiaei rrjs k6ixt}Si 
and of those who adopted feminine fashions {B. J. 
iv. 9, § 10), K6fxa'i awdeTiC6iui.€voi. The terms 
used in the N. T. {ir^eyfjLaaiy, I Tim. ii. 9; 
ifnr\oKris rpixcov, 1 I'et. iii. 3) are also of a gen- 
eral character; Schleusner {Lex. s. v.) understands 
them of curlinrj rather than plaiting. The arrange- 
ment of Samson's bail- into seven locks, or more 

^vo^vly braids (niD/riD, from ^7^? to inter- 

Eeyptian Wigs. (Wilkinson.) 
sUftW^e; (Tfipal, LXX.; Judg. xvi. 13, 19), in- 
fiAnm the i,ractice of plaiting, which was also 


familiar to the Egyptians (Wilkinson, ii 335) and 
Greeks (llom. //. xiv. 17G). The locks were prob- 
ably kept in their place by a fillet, as in EgypI 
(Wilkinson, /. c). 

Ornaments were worked into the hair, as prac- 
ticed by the modern Egyptians, who " add to eacli 
braid three black silk cords with little ornanicnt? 
of gold" (Lane, i. 71): the LXX. understands the 

term C^D^n**" (Is. iii. 18, A. V. "cauls"), a* 
applying to such ornaments {iairXoKia)', Schroedei 
(c/e Vest. Mul. Ileb. cap. 2) approves of this, and 
conjectures that they were sun-sluqjed, i. e. circular, 
as distinct from the "round tires like the mocn,' 
i. e. the crescent-shaped ornaments used for neck 
laces. The Arabian women attach small bells to 
the tresses of their hair (Niebuhr, Voyaf/e, i. 133). 
Other terms, sometimes understood as applying 
to the hair, are of doubtful signification, e. g. 

□*'^'^"]n (Is. iii. 22: acus : "crisping-pins"), 

more probably purses, as in 2 K. v. 23; D'^'lli^i? 
(Is. iii. 20, "head-bands"), bridal girdles, accord- 
ing to Schroeder and other authorities; D'*'^S5 
(Is. iii. 20, disci-iminalla, Vulg. i. e. pins used foi 
keeping the hair parted ; cf. Jerome in Riijin. iii. 
cap. ult.), more prol)ably turbms. Combs and 
hair-pins are mentioned in the Talmud : the Egyp- 
tian combs were made of wood and dculile, one side 
having large, and the other small teeth (Wilkinson, 
ii. 343); from the ornamental devices worked on 
them M-e may infer that they were worn in the hair. 
With regard to other ornaments worn about the 
head, see Head-phkss. The Hebrews, like other 
nations of antiquity, anointed the hair profusely 
with ointments, which were generally compounded 
of various aromatic ingredients (Huth iii. 3; 2 Sam. 
xiv. 2; Ps. xxiii. 5, xiv. 7, xcii. 10; Eccl. ix. 8; 
Is. iii. 24); more especially on occasion of festivities 
or hospitality (Matt. vi. 17, xxvi. 7; Luke vii. 46; 
cf. Joseph. Ant. xix. 4, § 1, xpt<Ta./xfvos /xvpois 
T^v Kf<pa\-f)v, &)j anh avvovalas)- It is perhaps 
in reference to the glossy appearance so imparted 
to it that the hair is described as purple (Cant. 
vii. 5). 

It appears to have been the custom of the JewH 
in our Saviour's time to swear by the hair (Matt. 
V. 30), much as the ICgyptian women still swear by 
the side- lock, and the men by their beards (Lane, 
1.52, 71, notes). 

Hair was employed by the Hebrews as an iruage 
of what was least valuable in man's person (1 Sam. 
xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 K. i. 52; Matt. x. .?0; 
Luke xii. 7, xxi. 18; Acts xxvii. 34); as well ?m 
of what was innumerable (Ps. xl. 12, Ixix. 4); or 
particularly /«e (Judg. xx. IG). In Is. vii. 2v\ it 
represents the various productions of the fitld, tre."*, 
crops, etc. ; like vpos K^KOfx'r)fxivov v\r) of Callim 
Dian. 41, or the Inimus comans of Stat. Jlieb. ▼. 
502. Hair " as the hair of women " (liev. ix. 8}, 
means long and undressed hair, whicli in latex 
times was regarded as an image of barlaric nide- 
ness (Hengstenberg, Comm. in be). 

W. L. B. 

HAK'KATAN" (1^1^^ ['/'f small ov young] : 
^AKKurdu; [Vat. AKaraV-] Kccetan). .lohaiian, 
Bon of Hakkatan, was the chief of the Bone-Azg»>! 
[sons of A.] who returned from Haltylon with Ezii 
(Ezr. viii. 12). The name is probably Ratan, witi 
the definite article prefixed. In the Apocrypha. 
F^dras it is Acatan. 


HAK'KOZ (Vp'^ ['/'« '/'O'"^] ' ^ K«s; 
[Comp.] Alex. 'Akkws'- Accos), a priest, the chief 
3f the seventh course in the service of the sanctuary, 
as appointed by David (1 Chr. xxiv. 10). In Ezr. 
li. 61 the name occurs again as that of a family of 
priests; though here the prefix is taken by our 
translators — and no doabt correctly — as the 
definite article, and the name appears as Koz. 
The same thing also occurs in Neh. iii. 4, 21. In 
Esdras Accoz. 

H AKU'PHA (Sp^pn Ibent, crooked, Ges. ; 
iwdtcnunt, Fiirst] : 'AKovcpd, 'Ax'^e^ > [Vat. 
\<beiKa, Ax^Kpa; EA. in Neh., A«ei^a:] ffncii- 
pna), Bene-Chakupha [sons of C] were among 
the families of Nethinim who returned from Baby- 
lon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 51; Neh. vii. 53). 
In Esdras (1 Esdr. v. 31) the name is given as 

HAXAH (nbq : 'AAa€, Xaax; [Alex. AA- 
\ae, AAae, XaAa:] Jfrda, [Lahela]) is probably a 
different place from the Caluh of Gen. x. 11. [See 
Calah.] It may with some confidence be identi- 
fied with the Chalcitis (XaKKlris) of Ptolemy (v. 
18). which he places between Anthemusia (cf. Strab. 
xvi. 1, § 27) and Gauzanitis.'' The name is thought 
to remain in the modern Gla, a large mound on 
the upper Khnboiir, above its junction with the 
Jerujtr (Layard, Nia. and Bub. p. 312, note; 2 
K. [xvii. G,] xviii. 11; 1 Chr. v. 26). G. K. 

HA'LAK, THE MOUI^T (with the article, 
\)^'r\T\ '^T\'n = the smooth mountain : 6pos tov 
XeAxci; [Vat. in Josh, xi., AAe«;] Alex. AAaw, 
or A\oK' pcirs montis), a mountain twice, and 
twice only, named as the southern limit of Joshua's 
conquests — " the Mount Halak which goeth up to 
Seir " (.Josh. xi. 17, xii. 7), but which has not yet 
been identified — has not apparently been sought 
for — by travellers. Keil suggests the line of chalk 
cliffs which cross the valley of the Ghor at about 6 
miles south of the Dead Sea, and form at once the 
southern limit of the Ghoi' and the northern limit 
of the Arabah. [Arabah, p. 135 a.] And this 
suggestion would be plausible enough, if there were 
any example of the word har, "mountain," being 
applied to such a vertical cliff as this, which rather 
answers to what we suppose was intended by the 
term Sda. The word which is at the root of the 
name (supposing it to be Hebrew), and which has 
the force of smoothness or baldness, has ramified 
into other terms, as Helkah, an even plot of ground, 
like those of Jacob (Gen. xxxiii. 19) or Naboth (2 
K. ix. 25), or that which gave its name to llelkath 
hat-tzurim, the " field of the strong " (Stanley, 
'Vpp. § 20). G. 

•HALE (Luke xii. 58; Acts viii. 3) is the 
original form of "haul," sometimes still used in 
formal discourse. In both the above passages it 
-neans to drag men by force before magistrates. 
That is the import also of the Greek tenns (/cara- 
<rvpr) and cvpcav)- H. 

HAL'HUL (bnn^n Ifull of hollows, 
Fiirst]: AlXova'-, [Vat. 'AAoua;] Alex. A\ov}.'. 
flalhul), a town of Judah in the mountain district, 
ne of the group containing Beth-zu' ind Gedor 


a ♦ Fiirst says (Hebr. Lex. s. v.) that the Talmud 
luderstands the place to be Holiojin, a five days' 
loomey ^-om Ba(;dad. 11. 


(Josh. XV. 58). Jerome, in the Ouomasticon (undcf 
Elul), reports the existence of a hamlet {villula) 
named " Alula," near Hebron.'' The name still 
remains unaltered, attached to a conspicuous hill 
a mile to the left of the road from .Jerusalem to 
Hebron, between 3 and 4 miles from the latter. 
Opposite it, on the other side of the road, is Bdt- 
sih; the modem representative of Beth-zur, and a 
Uttle further to the north is Jedi'ir, the ancient 
Gedor. [Betii-zuu.] The site is marked by the 
ruins of walls and foundations, amongst which 
stands a dilapidated mosk bearing the name ol 
Neby Yunus — the prophet Jonah (Kob. i. 216). 
In a Jewish tradition quoted by Hottinger ( Cippi 
Hebraici, p. 32) it is said to be the burial-place of 
Gad, David's seer. See also the citations of Zunz 
in Aslier's Benj. of Tudda (ii. 437, note). G. 

HA'LI C^vn [necUace] : 'AAe<^; Alex. OoAet: 
Chnli), a town on the boundary of Asher, named 
between Helkath and Beten (Josh. xix. 25). Noth- 
ing is known of its situation. Schwarz (p. lUl) 
compares the name with Chelmon, the equivalent 
in the Latin of Cya:mon in the Greek of Jud. 
vii. 3. G. 

HALICARNAS'SUS i'AKiKdpuairaos) in 
Caria, a city of great renown, as being the birth- 
place of Herodotus and of the later historian Diony- 
sius, and as embellished by the Alausoleum erected 
by Artemisia, but of no Biblical interest except as 
the residence of a Jewish population in the periods 
between the Old and New Testament histories. In 
1 Mace. XV. 23, this city is specified as containing 
such a population. The decree in Joseph. Ant. xiv. 
10, § 23, where the Romans direct that the Jews 
of Halicarnassus shall be allowed ras npoa-evx^s 
TTOieTadai irphs rfj daAaaar) Karh. rh irdrpiov tdos, 
is interesting when compared with Acts xvi. 13. 
This city was celebrated for its harbor and for the 
strength of its fortifications ; but it never recovered 
the damage which it suffered after Alexander's 
siege. A plan of the site is given in Ross, Reisen 
aif den Griech. Inseln. (See vol. iv. p. 30.) The 
sculptures of the Mausoleum are the subject of a 
paper by Mr. Newton in the Classicd Museum^ 
and many of them are now in the British Museum. 
The modern name of the place is Budn'im. 

J. S. II 

* See particularly on Halicarnassus the impor- 
tant work of Mr. Newton, IJidory of Discoveries at 
flalicarnassus, Cnldus, ami Branchidce, 2 vols, 
text and 1 vol. plates, London, 1862-63. A. 

HALLELU'JAH. [Alleluia.] 

HALL {aifX-fi- atrium), used of the court of 
the high-priest's house (Luke xxii. 55). AvA-f) ia 
in A. V. Matt. xxvi. 69, Mark xiv. 6(1, John xviii. 
15, "palace;" Vulg. atrium; irpoavhiov, Mark 
xiv. 68, " porch ;" Vulg. ante atrium.. In Matt 
xxvii. 27 and Mark xv. 16, owAtj is syn. with 
TrpaiTcipiou, which in John xviii. 28 is in A. V. 
"judgment-hall." Av\^ is the equivalent foi 

n^n, an inclosed or fortified space (Ges. p. 512) 
in many places in O. T. where Vulg. and A. V. 
have respectively villa or vie alas, " village," o« 
atrium, "court," chiefly of the tabernacle or temple. 
The hall or court of a house or palace would prob- 
ably be an inclosed but uncovered space, impluviwn, 

b It is not unworthy of notice that, though so &i 
from Jerusalem, .Jerome speaks of it as " in b* fir 
trict of iE'H." 


Ml a lower level than the ai^artments of the lowest 
Boor which looked into it. The irpoavkiov was the 
restibule leiiding to it, called also, Matt, xxvi 71, 
vvKwV' [Couirr, Anler.^ ed. ; Housk.] 

H. W. P. 

HALLO'HESH (ITnSVn [the wldsperer, 
enchanter]: 'AAwrjs; Alex. A5w: AloJies)^ one oi 
the " chief of the people " who sealed the covenant 
with Neheniiah (Neh. x. 24). The name is Lochesh, 
with the definite article prefixed. That it is the 
name of a family, and not of an individual, appears 
probable from another passage in which it is given 
ill the A. V. as 

HALO'HESH (tTn^Vn [as above]: 'A\- 
A.aJ7}s; [Vat. FA. HAem:] Alohes). ShaJlum, son 
of Hal-lochesh, was "ruler of the half part of 
Jerusalem " at the time of the repair of the wall 
by Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 12). According to the 
Hebrew spelling, the name is identical with Hal- 
LOHE^^f. [The A. V. ed. 1611, following the 
Genevan version, spells the name falsely Hjilloesh. 

HAM (on [swnrihy]: Xa/x: Cham). 1. The 
Dame of one of the three sons of Noah, apparently 
the second in age. It is probably derived from 

DDH, "to be warm," and signifies "wann" or 
" hot." This meaning seems to be confirmed by 
that of the Egyptian word Kkm (Egypt), which 
we believe to be the Egyptian equivalent of Ham, 
and which, as an adjective, signifies "black," prob- 
ably implying warmth as well as blackness. 
[Egypt.J If the Hebrew and P^.gyptian words be 
the same. Ham must mean the swarthy or sun- 
burnt, like Aidio\p, which has been derived from 
the Coptic name of Ethiopia, GOCUCDj but 
which we should be inclined to trace to OOCU , "a 
boundary," unless the Sahidic GOCWCU may be 

derived from Keesh (Cush). It is observable that 
the names of Noah and his sons appear to have 
had prophetic significations. This is stated in the 
case of Noah (Gen. v. 29), and implied in that of 
Japheth (ix. 27), and it can scarcely be doubted 
that the same must be concluded as to Shem. 
Ham may therefore have been so named as pro- 
genitor of the sunburnt Egyptians and Cushites. 

Of the history of Ham nothing is related except 
his irreverence to his father, and the curse which 
that patriarch proiiounced — the fulfillment of which 
is evident in the history of the Hamites. 

The sons of Ham are stated to have been " Cush 
and Mizraim and Phut and Canaan" (Gen. x. 6; 
comp. 1 Chr. i. 8). It is remarkable that a dual 
form (Mizraim) should occur in the first generation, 
mdicating a country, and not a person or a tribe, 
and we are therefore inclined to suppose that the 

gentile noun in the plural □'^"I'HTp, differing alone 

in the pointing from Q'^^T'?) originally stood 
here, which would be quite consistent with the 
plural forms of the names of the IMizraite tribes 
which follow, and analogous to the singular forms 
of the names of the Canaanite tribes, except the 
Sidonians, who are mentioned not as a nation, but 
ander the name of (heir forefather Sidon. 

The name of Ham alone, of the three sons of 
N^oah, if our identification be correct, is known to 
iare been given to a country. Egypt is recognized 


as the " land of Ham " in the Bible (Pg. tpTift 
51, cv. 23, cvi. 22), and this, though it does not 
prove the identity of the Egyptian name with that 
of the patriarch, certainly favors it, and establishej 
the historical fact that Egypt, settled by the de- 
scendants of Ham, was jieculiarly his territory. 
The name Mizraim we believe to confirm this. The 
restriction of Ham to Egypt, milike the case, if we 
may reason inferentially, of his brethren, may be 
accounted for by the very early civilization of thia 
part of the Hamite territory, while much of the 
rest was comparatively barl^arous. Egypt may also 
have been the first settlement of the Hamites 
whence colonies went forth, as we know to have 
been the case with the Philistines. [Capiitor.] 

The settlements of the descendants of (Jush have 
occasioned tlie greatest difficulty to critics. The 
main question upon which everything turns is 
whether there was an eastern and a western Cush, 
like the eastern and western Ethiopians of the 
Greeks. This has been usually decided on the 
Biblical evidence as to the land of Cush and the 
Cushites, without reference to that as to the several 
names designating in Gen. x. his progeny, or, ex- 
cept in Nimrod's case, the territories held by it, or 
both. By a more inductive method we have been 
led to the conclusion that settlements of Cush ex- 
tended from Babylonia along the shores of the 
Indian Ocean to Ethiopia above Egypt, and to the 
supposition that there was an eastern as well as a 
western Cush : historically the latter inference must 
be correct; geographically it may be less certain 
of the postdiluvian world. The ancient Egyptians 
applied the name Kkesh, or Kksh, which is 
obviously the same as Cush, to Ethiopia above 
Egypt. The sons of Cush are stated to have been 
Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtechah : it 
is added that the sons of Raamah were Sheba and 
Dedan, and that " Cush begat Nimrod." Certain 
of these names recur in the lists of the descendants 
of Joktan and of Abraham by Keturah, a circimi- 
stance which must be explained, in most cases, as 
historical evidence tends to show, by the settlement 
of Cushites, Joktanites, and Abrahamites in the 
same regions. [Arabia.] Seba is generally identi- 
fied with Meroti, and there seems to be little doubt 
that at the time of Solomon the chief kingdom of 
Ethiopia above P>gypt was that of Seba. [Seka.] 
The postdiluvian Havilah seems to be restricted to 
Arabia. [Havilah.] Sabtah and Sabtechah are 
probably Arabian names : this is certainly the case 
with Raamah, Sheba, and Dedan, which are rec- 
ognized on the Persian Gulf. [Sabtah; Sab- 
techah; Raamah; Sheba; Dedan.] Nimrod 
is a descendant of Cush, but it is not certain that 
he is a son, and his is the only name which ia 
positively personal and not territorial in the list of 
the descendants of Cush. The account of his first 
kingdom in Babylonia, and of the extension of hio 
rule into Assyria, and the foundation of Nineveh - ^ 
for this we take to be the meaning of Gen. x. 11^ 
12 — indicates a spread of Hamite colonists along 
the Euphrates and Tigris northwards. [Cush.] 

If, as we suppose, Alizraim in the lists of Gen. x 
and 1 Chr. i. stand for Mizrim, we should take thf 
singular Mazor to be the name of the progenitoi 
of the Egyptian tribes. It is remarkable that Mazoi 
appears to be identical in signification with Ham 
so that it may be but another name of the patri 
arch. [Egyit.] In this case the mention of Mia 
raim (or Mizrim) would be geographical, ani do 
indicative of a Maaor, son of Ham. 


The MizraitCA, like the descendants of Ham, 
Koup} a territory wider than that beaiing the name 
){ iMi/jainu We may, hcwever, suppose that Miz- 
:aim included all the first settlements, and that in 
remote times other triber besides the Philistines 
migratetl, or extended their territox'ies. This we 
may infer to have been tlie case witn the Lehabim 
(Lubim) or Libyans, for Alanetho speaks of them 
as in the remotest period of Egyptian history sub- 
ject to the I'haraohs. He tells us that under the 
first king of the Third Dynasty, of Memphites, 
Necherophes, or Necherochis, " the Libyans re- 
.olted from the Egyptians, but, on account of a 
>vonderfu] increase of the moon, submitted through 
Tear" « (Cory's Am. Ft'cuj. 2d ed. pp. 100, 101). 
It is unlikely that at this very early time the 
Memphite kingdom ruled far, if at aU, beyond the 
western boundary of Egypt. 

The Ludim appear to have been beyond Egypt 
to the west, so probably the Anamim, and certainly 
the Lehabim. [Ludim ; Anamim ; Lemabim.] 
The Naphtuhim seem to have been just beyond the 
western border. [Naphtuhi.m.] The I'athrusim 
and Caphtorim were in PLgypt, and probably the 
Casluhim also. [Patiikos; Capiitok: Casli;- 
HiM.] The Philistim are the only Mizraite tribe 
that we know to have passed into Asia : their first 
establishment was in Egypt, for they came out of 
Caphtor. [Capiitok.] 

Phut has been always placed in Africa. In the 
Bible, Phut occurs as an ally or supporter of Egyp- 
tian Thebes, mentioned with Cush and Lul)im 
(Nah. iii. 9), with Cush and Ludim (the iNIizraite 
Ludim?), as supplying part of the army of Piia- 
raoh-Necho (Jer. xlvi. 9), as involved in the calam- 
ities of Egypt together with Cush, Lud, and Chub 
[Chub] (Ez. xxx. 5), as furnishing, with Persia, 
Lud, and other lands or trites, mercenaries for the 
service of Tyre (xxvii. 10), and with Persia and 
Cush as supplying part of the army of Gog (xxxviii. 
5). There can therefore be little doubt that Phut 
is to be placed in Africa, where we find, in the 
Egyptian inscriptions, a great nomadic people cor- 
responding to it. [Phut.] 

Respecting the geographical position of the 
(!!anaanites there is no dispute, although all the 
names are not identified. The Hamathites alone 
of those identified were settled in early times wholly 
beyond the land of Canaan. Perhaps there was a 
primeval extension of the Canaanite tribes after 
their first establishment in the land called after 
their ancestor, for before the specification of its 
limits as tliose of their settlements it is stated 
" afterward were the families of the Canaanites 
pread abroad " (Gen. x. 18, 19). One of their 
.jost important extensions was to the northeast, 
where was a great branch of the llittite nation in 
the valley of the Orontes, constantly mentioned in 
i/he wars of the Pharaohs [Egypt], and in those 
of ttie kings of Assyria. Two passages which have 
occasioned much controversy may be here noticed. 
[n the account of Abraham's entrance into Pales- 
tine it is said. " And the Canaanite [was] then in 
the land" (xii. 6); aiid as to a somewhat later 
ime, that of the separation of Abraham and Lot, 
ve read that "the Canaanite and the Perizzi^e 
dwelled then in the land " (xiii. 7 ). These pas- 
sages have been supposed either to be late glosses. 

alt has been supposed that some or all of the 
lotices of events in Manetho's li;«cs were inserted by 
•opyiflttf This cauaot, we think, have been the case 

HAM r85 

or to indicate that the Pentateuch was written \\, a 
late period. A comparison of all the passages re- 
ferring to the primitive history of Palestine and 
Idumaea shows that there was an earlier jxjpulation 
expelled by the Hamite and Abrahaniite settlers. 
This population was important in the time of the 
war of Chedorlaoraer ; but at the I'lxodus, more 
than four hundred years afterwards, there was but 
a remnant of it. It is most natural therefore to 
infer that the two passages under consideration 
mean that the Canaanite settlers were already in 
the land, not that they were'still there. 

Philologers are not agreed as to a Hamitic class 
of languages. Recently Bunsen has applied the 
t«rin " Hamitism." or as he writes it Chamitisra, 
to the Egyptian language, or rather family. He 
places it at the head of tlie " Semitic stock," to 
which he considers it as but partially belonging, 
and thus describes it: — " Chamitism, or ante-his- 
torical Semitism: the Chamitic deposit in Egypt; 
its daughter, the Demotic Egyptian ; and its end 
the Coptic" {Outlines, v(51. i. p. 183). Sir H. Raw- 
linson has applied the term Cushite to tli^ prin)itive 
laiiguage of Babylonia, and the same term has been 
used for the ancient language of the soutliern coast 
of Arabia. This terminology depends, in every in- 
stance, upon the race of the nation speaking the 
language, and not upon any theory of a Hamitic 
class. There is evidence which, at the first view, 
would incline us to consider that the term Semitic, 
as applied to the Syro-Arabic class, should be 
changed to Hamitic ; but on a more careful exami- 
nation it becomes evident that any absolute classi- 
fication of languages into groups corresponding to 
the three great Noachian families is not tenable. 
The Biblical evidence seems, at first sight, in favor 
of Hebrew being classed as a Hamitic rather than 
a Semitic form of speech. It is called in the Bible 

" the language of Canaan," "j^5-? ■»^?^ (Is- xix. 
18), although those speaking it are elsewhere said 
to speak H'^'l^n';, Judaich (2 K. xviii. 26, 28; 
Is. xxxvi. 11, 13; Neh. xiii. 24). But the one 
term, as Gesenius remarks (Gram. Iiitrod.), indi 
cates the country where the language was spoken, 
the other as evidently indicates a people by whom 
it was spoken: thus the question of its being a 
Hamitic or Semitic language is not touched ; for 
the circumstance that it was the language of Ca- 
naan is agreeable with its being either indigenous 
(and therefore either Canaanite or Kephaite), or 
adopted (and therefore perhaps Semitic). The 
names of Canaanite persons and places, as Gese- 
nius has observed (l. c), conclusively show that the 
Canaanites spoke what we call Hebrew. Elsewhere 
we might find evidence of the use of a so-called 
Semitic language by nations either partly or wholly 
of Hamite origin. This evidence would favor the 
theory that Hebrew was Hamitic ; but on the other 
hand we should be unable to dissociate Semitic 
languages from Semitic peoples. The Egyptian 
language would also offer great diflSculties, unless if 
were held to be but partly of Hamitic origin, since 
it is mainly of an entirely different class to [from] 
the Semitic. It is mainly Nigritian, but it also 
contains Semitic elements. We are of opinion that 
the irroundwork is Nigritian, and that the Semitic 
part is a layer added to a complete Nigritian lan- 

witD most 0/ 

'hose notices that occur in the old»>r 



pu^e. The two elements are mixed, but not fused. 
This opinion those Semitic scholars who liave 
studied the subject share with us. Some Iranian 
scholars hold that the two elements are mixed, and 
that the ancient Egyptian represents the transition 
from Turanian to Semitic. The only solution of 
the difficulty seems to be, that what we call Semitic 
is early Noachian. 

An inquiry the history of the Hamite na- 
tions presents considerable difficulties, since it can- 
not be det3r:iiined in the cases of the most impor- 
tant of those commonly held to be Hamite that 
they were purely of that stock. It is certahi that 
Ihe thi'ee most illustrious Hamite nations — the 
Cushites, the PlKenieians, and the Egyptians — 
were greatly mixetl with foreign ijeoples. In Baby- 
lonia the Hamite element seems to have been ab- 
sorbed by the Shemite, but not in the earliest times. 
There are some common characteristics, however, 
which appear to connect the different branches of 
the Hamite family, and to distinguish them from 
the childreu of Japheth and Shem. Their archi- 
tecture haS a solid grandeur that we look for in 
vain elsewhere. Egypt, Babylonia, and Southern 
Arabia alike afford proofs of this, and the few re- 
maining monuments of the Phoenicians are of the 
same class. What is very important as indicating 
the purely Hamite character of the monumeiits to 
which we refer is that the earliest in Egypt are the 
most characteristic, while the earlier in Babylonia 
do not yield in this respect to the later. The na- 
tional mind seems in all these cases to have been 
[represented in?] these material fonns. The early 
history of each of the chief Hamite nations shows 
great power of organizing an extensive kingdom, of 
acquiring material greatness, and checking the in- 
roads of neighlwring nomadic j^eoples. The Philis- 
tines afford a xemarkable instance of these qualities. 
In every case, however, the more energetic sons of 
Shem or Japheth have at last fallen upon the rich 
Hamite territories and despoiled them. Egypt, 
favored by a position fenced round with nearly im- 
passable barriers — on the north an almost haven- 
less coast, on the east and west sterile deserts, held 
its freedom far longer than the rest; yet even in 
the days of Solon)on the throne was filled by for- 
eigners, who, if Hamites, were Shemite enough in 
their belief to revolutionize the religion of the coun- 
try. In Babylonia the Medes had already captured 
Nimrod's city more than 2000 years before the 
Christian era. The Hamites of Soutiiern Arabia 
were so early overthrown by the Joktanites that 
the scanty remains of their history are alone known 
to us through tradition. Yet the story of the mag- 
nificence of the ancient kings of Yemen is so per- 
fectly in accordance with all we know of the Ham- 
ites that it is almost enough of itself to prove what 
other evidence has so well established. The history 
r>f the Canaanites is similar; and if that of the 
Phoenicians be an exception, it must be recollected 
that they became a merchant class, as Ezekiel's 
famous description of Tyre shows (chap, xxvii). In 
speaking of Hamite characteristics we do not in- 
tend it to be inferred that they were necessarily 
altogether of Hamite origin, and not at least partly 
X)rrowed. R. S. P. 

2. (Dn \multitude, pec^le, FUrst], Gen. si v. 5; 

Sam. on, Cham) According to the Masoretic 
text, Chedorlaomer and his alhes smote tlie Zuzim 
d a place called Ham. If, as seems lilcely, the 


Zuziir be the siuie as the Zamzummim, Wtjk. 
must be placed in what was afterwards the Ammo- 
nite territory. Hence it has been conjectured bj 
Tuch, that Ham is but another form of the nam« 
of the chief stronghold of the children of Aiimnjn. 
Kabbah, now ylm-man. ITie LXX. and Vulg^ 
however, throw some doubt upon tlie Masoreti< 
iea<lhig: the former has, as tl:3 rendering of 

Cn? □^'r-1-Tn-nt^'l : ^a\ idy-n l<rx^'pa 'dfm air 
To7s] and the latter, ei Zuzim cum eis, which 
shows that they read DnSl : but the Mas. ren- 
dering seems the more hkely, as each clause men - 
tions a nation, and its capital or stronghold ; al- 
though it must be allowed that if the Zuzim h:ui 
gone to the assistance of the liephaim, a deviation 
would have been necessary. The Samaritan Version 

has nW^^,LishaJi, perhaps intending the Lasha 
of Gen. X. 19, which by some is identified with 
Calliriioe on the N. E. quarter of the Dead Sea. 
The Targums of Onkelos and Pseudojon. have 

MPl?pn, Ilemta. Schwarz (217) suggests Humei- 
math (in Van de Velde's map Ilumeitat), one mile 
above Mabba, the ancient Ar-Moab, on the lioman 
road. [Zuzim s.] 

3. In the account of a migration of the Simeon- 
ites to the valley of Gedor, and their destroying the 
pastoral inhabitants, the latter, or jwssibly their 
predecessors, are said to have been " of Ham " 

(Cn"]Z2 : e'/c ruv viav Xd/x'- de stirpe Cham, 1 
Chr. iv. 40). This may indicate that a Hamite 
tril>e was settled here, or, more precisely, that there 
was an Egyptian settlement. 'J'lie connection of 
Egypt with this part of Palestine will be noticed 
under Zekah. Ham may, however, here 'be in no 
way connected with the patriarch or with Egypt. 

HA'MAN O^n [celebrated (Pers.), or = 
Mercury (Sansk.), Fiirst] : A.jxd.v- Avian), the chief 
minister or vizier of king Ahasuerus (Esth. iii. 1). 
After the failure of his attempt to cut off all the 
Jews in the I'ersian empire, he was hanged on the 
gallows which he had erected for Mordecai. IVIost 
probably he is the same Aman who is mentioned 
as the oppresjsor of Achiacharus (Tob. xiv. 10). 
The Targum and Josephus {Ant. xi. G, § 5) inter- 
pret the description of him — the Agagite — as 
signifying that he was of Amalekitish descent; but 
he is called a Macedonian by the LXX. in Esth. 
ix. 24 (cf. iii. 1), and a Persian by Sulpicius Seve 
rus. Prideaux {Connexion, anno 45-3) computes 
the sum which he offered to pay into the royal 
treasury at more than £2,000,000 sterling. Mod- 
ern Jews aie said to be in the habit of designating 
any Christian enemy by his name (Eisenmenger, 
Ent. Jud. i. 721). [See addition mider EsxHEii, 
Book of.] W. T. B. 

HA'MATH (HT^n \_fortress, citadel] : 
'H/xdO, ^Ufide, AlfidO: Ematli) appears to have 
been the principal city of Upper Syria from the 
time of the Exodus to that of the prophet Amos. 
It was situated in the valley of the Orontes, about 
half-way between its soiu-ce near Baalbek, and the 
bend which it makes at Jisr-hadid. It thus natu- 
rally commanded the whole of the Orontes valley 
from the low screen of hills which forms the wat^ 
shed between the Orontes and the LiU'iny —the 
"entrance of Hamath," as it is called in Scripture 
(Num. xxxiv. 8; Josh. xiii. 5, &c.) — to the defik 




jf Daphne below Antioch aii(i tliis ti-uot appears following reasons: (1.) The northern loundary of 
to have formed the kingdom of Hamath, during the Israelites was certainly north of Kiblali, for die 

ihe time of its independence. 

The Haraathites were a Hamitic race and are 
included among the descendants of Canaan (Gen. 
i. 18). There is no reason to suppose witn Mr. 
Kenrick (P/iaeiiicin, p. 60), that they were ever in 
any sense Phoenicians. We must regard them as 
closely akin to the Ilittites on whom they bordered, 
and with whom they were generally in alliance. 
Nothing appears of the power of Hamath, beyond 
the geographical notices which show it to be a well- 
known place (Num. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 8; Josh. xiii. 
5 ; &c ), until the time of David, when we hear 
that Toi, king of Hamath, had " had wars " with 
lladadezer, king of Zobah, and on the defeat of 
the latter by David, sent his son to congratulate 
the Jewish monarch (2 Sam. viii. 10), and (appa- 
rently) to put Hamath under his protection. Ha- 
math seems clearly to have been included in the 
dominions of Solomon (1 K. iv. 21-4); and its king 
was no doubt one of those many princes over whovn 
that monarch ruled, who " brought presents and 
served Solomon all the days of his life." The 
"store-cities," which Solomon " built in Hamath " 

east border descends from Hazar-enan to Shephara, 
and from Shepham to liibkih. Itiblah is still 
known by its ancient name, and is found south of 
Hums Lake about six or eight hours. The " en- 
trance " must theref(,'re lie north of this town. (2.) 
It must lie east of Mount Hor. Now, if Blount 
Hor be, as it probably is, the range of Lebanon, 
the question is readily solved by a reference to the 
physical geography of the region. The ranges of 
Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon terminate opposite 
Hums Lake by bold and decided declivities. There 
is then a rolling country for a distance of about 
ten miles north of the Lebanon chain, after which 
rises the lower range of the Nusairiyeh mountains 
A wider space of plain intervenes between Ar ti 
Lebanon and the low hills which lie eastward of 
Llamath. The city of Hums lies at the intersec- 
tion of the arms of the cross thus formed, and 
toward each of the cardinal points of the compass 
there is an " entering in " between the hills. 
Thus northward the pass leads to Hamath; west- 
ward to Kiddt el-flusn and the JNIediterranean : 
eastward to the great plain of tlie Syrian desert; 
and southward toward Baal-gad in Ccele-Syria. 
This will appear at a glance from the accompany- 


(2 Chr. viii. 4), were perhaps staples for trade, the 
importance of the Orontes valley as a line of traffic 

being always great. On the death of Solomon and | ing plan of the country, in which it will be 
the separation of the two kingdoms, Flamath 
seems to have regahied its independence. In 
tlie Assyrian inscriptions of the time of Ahab 
(b. c. 900) it appears as a separate power, in 
alliance with the Syrians of Damascus, the 
Hittites, and the Phoenicians. About three- 
quarters of a century later Jeroboam the sec- 
ond "recovei-ed Hamath" (2 K. xiv. 28); he 
seems to have dismantled the place, whence 
the prophet Amos, who wrote in his reign 
(Am. i. 1), couples "Hamath the great" 
with Gath, as an instance of desolation {ib. vi. 
2). Soon afterwards the Assyrians took it (2 
K. xviii. 34, xix. 13, &c.), and from this time 
it ceased to be a place of much importance. 
Antiochus Kpiphanes appears to liave changed 
its name to Epiphaneia, an appellation under 
which it was known to the Greeks and Romans 
from his time to that of St. Jerome ( Com- 
ment, in Kzek. xlvii. 16), and possibly later. 
The natives, however, called it Hamath, even 
in St. Jerome's time: and its present name, 
Hamnh, is but very slightly altered from the 
ancient form. 

Burckhardt visited Ilamah in 1812. He 
describes it as situated on both sides of the 
Orontes, partly on the declivity of a hill, 
partly in the plain, and as divided into four 
quarters — Iladhei; El Djisi\ El Ahij U, and y^^ 
El Metline, the last being the quarter of the //jj ' 
Christians. The population, according to | 
him, was at that time 30,000. The town 
possessed few antiquities, and was chiefly re- 
markal)le for its huge water-wheels, whereby j^^^j^ around Hums, showing the " entrance to Hamath.'* 
the gardens and the houses in the upper town 

R-ere supplied from the Orontes. The neighboring that the plain of Hums opens to the four points of 
territory he calls " the granary of Northern Syria" the compass. Especially to one journeying from 
\ Travels in Syria, pp. 146-147. See also Pococke, | the south or the west would this locality be appro- 
Travels in the East, vol. i.; Irby and Mangles, ; priately described as an mtrnnce. (o.) It is im- 
Travds, p. 244; and Stamcy, S. (f P. pp. 406, i probable that the lands of Hamath ever extended 
407). G. R. as far south as the height of land between ths 

* llie « entrance of Hamath " is not as stated, ' Leontes and the Orontes, or in fact into the south- 
it tho water-shed between the Litany and ♦•he ern division of Coele-Syria at all. Hums would 
iMmtea, which would place it too far south, for the have teen its natural limit from the sea, to oa« 



journeyinc; along the coast from Tripoli to La- 
lakia. I^b.inon and the Xusairiyeh range are seen 
41 profile, with the gap between them. A similar 
view is presented from the remaining cardinal 
points G. E. P. 


HA'MATHITE, THE (^^^^U : d'A^a 

0i: Anidi/ums, Ilcanathceus), one of the familiei 
descended from Cansian, named last in the ligl 
(Gen. X. 18; 1 Chr. i. 16). The place of their set- 
tlement was doubtless 11a3LA.tu. 

MiiBaJriyeh Mts 

Entrance to Ilamath from the W. 

HA'MATH-zo'BAH {'nn'^y'min : 

Baia-coHoi; [Alex. Aifiad 2aj)8a:] Kmaih-Suba) h 
said to have been attacked and conquered by Sol- 
omon (2 Chr. viii. 3). It has been conjectured to 
be the same as Hamath, here regarded as included 
in Aram-Zoltah — a geographical expression which 
has usually a narrower meaning. J3ut the name 
Hamath-Zobnh would seem rather suited to an- 
other Hamath which was distinguished from the 
"Great Hamath," by the suffix " Zobah." Com- 
pare Kan)oth-0V/efl(7, which is thus distinguished 
from Kamah in Benjamin. G. K. 

* HAMI'TAL, 2 K. xxiii. 31, is the readmg 
of the A. V. ed. 1611 for Hamutal. A. 

HAM'M ATH (n?2n [zm;-m sy;Wn^] : 'n/ta^- 
<5oK60 — the last two syllables a corruption of the 
jame followhig; [Alex. Ayua0 ; [Aid. A^/ia^:] 
^maih), one of the fortified cities in the territory 
lllotted to Naphtali (Josh. xix. 35). It is not 
V)ssible from this list to determine its position, 
but the notices of the Talmudists, collected by 
Lightfoot in his Choiographical Century, and 
Ckor. Decad, leave no doubt that it was near Ti- 
berias, one mile distant — in fact that it had its 
name, Cbammath, " hot baths," because it con- 
tained those of Tiberias. In accordance with this 
are the slight notices of Josephus, who mentions it 
under the name of Emmaus as a " village not far 
indlifir} . . . ouK &Tr(i}deu) from Tiberias " (Ant. 
xviii. 2, § 3), and as where Vespasian had en- 
camped " before (irp6) Tiberias " (B. J. iv. 1, § 3). 
Remains of the wall of this encampment were rec- 
ognized by Irby and Mangles (p. 89 b). In both 
3ases Josephus names the hot springs or baths, add- 
ng in tlie latter, that such is the interpretation of 
he name 'Aixjxaovs, and that the waters are me- 
'icinal. The Hammani, at present three « in 
lumber, still send up their hot and sulphureous 
waters, at a spot rather more than a mile south of 
the modern town, at the extremity of the ruins of 
the ancient city (Rob. ii. 383, 384 ; Van de Velde, 
u. 399). 

It is difficult, however, to reconcile with this 
position other observations of the Talmudists, 
quoted on the same place, by Lightfoot, to the 
effect that Chammath was called also the " wells 
of Gadara," from its proximity to that place, and 
%l80 that half tlie t<nvn was on the east side of the 
Jordan and lialf on the west, witli a bridge between 
JierQ — the fact lieing that the ancient Tiberias 

was at least 4 miles, and the Hammam 2^, from 
the present embouchure of the Jordan. The same 
difficulty besets the account of Parchi (in Zunz's 
Appendix to Benjamin of Tudela, ii. 403). He 
places the wells entirely on the east of Jordan. 

In the Hst of Levitical cities given out of Naph- 
taU (Josh. xxi. 32), the name of this place seems 
to be given as Hammoth-doh, and in 1 Chr. vi. 
76 it is further altered to Hajimon. G. 

HAMMEDA'THA (Sni^n : 'A/xaSddos; 
[Alex. Ava/nadaSos, AfiadaSos '•] Ainadathus), 
father of the infamous Hainan, and commonly des- 
ignated as "the Agagite" (Esth. iii. 1, 10; viii. 
6; ix. 24), though also without that title (ix. 10). 
By Gesenius {Lex. 1855, p. 539) the name is taken 
to be Medatha, preceded by the definite article. 
For other explanations, see Fiirst, Ilandwb. [Zend, 
=^ given by Ilaomo, an Ized], and Simonis, Ono- 
mnsticun, p. 586. The latter derives it froni a Per- 
sian word meaning " double." For the termination 
compare Aridatiia. 

HAMME'LECH ("nb^n Ithe ling]: roZ 
fiaa-iXecos- Amelech), rendered in the A. V. as 
a proper name (Jer. xxxvi. 26; xxxviii. 6); but 
there is no apparent reason for supposing it to be 
anytliing but the ordinary Hebrew word for " the 
king," i. e. in the first case Jehoiakim, and in the 
ktter Zedekiah. If this is so, it enables us to con- 
nect with the royal family of Judah two pei-sons, 
Jerachmeel and INIalciah, who do not appear in the 
A. V. as members thereof. G. 

HAMMER. The Hebrew language has sev- 
eral names for this indispensable tool. (1.) Pattlsh 

{W^XS}^, connected etymologically with TraTcto-o-w, 
to strike), which was used by the gold-beater (Is. 
xU. 7, A. V. "carpenter") to overlay with silver 
and "smooth" the surface of the image; as well 
as by the quarry-man (Jer. xxiii. 29). (2.) Mnk- 

kdbah (n^fvp [and Hlliv.P]), properly a tool for 
hollowing, hence a stone-cutter's mallet (1 K. vi. 
7), and generally any workman's hammer (Judg. 
iv. 21; Is. xliv. 12;' Jer. x. 4). (3.) Ilalmuth 

(n^tt7n). used only in Judg. v. 26, and thee 
with the addition of the word "workmen's" bj 
way of explanation. (4.) A kind of hammar 

named mappetz (V D^), Jer. Ii. 20 (A. V. " battle- 
axe "), or mepliitz {y^tT2), Prov. xxv. 18 (A. V 

« *Wr. I'orter (Handb. for Si/r. ^ Pal. ii. 422) and three others a few paces further south (see alw 
d1 iouv springs : one under the old bath-house, I Rob. Bibl. Res. iii. 259). H. 


•i fnaul " ), was used as a weapon of war. " Ham- 
Iter" is used figu-ativelv for any overwhelming 
power, whetlier worldly (^Jer. 1. 23), or soiri+ual 
(Jer. xxiii. 21) [comp. Heb. iv. 12J). W. L. B. 

* From n^p^ comes Maccabaeus or Maccabee 
[Maccabees, the]. The hammer used by Jael 
(Judg. V. 2G) was not of iron, but a wooden mal- 
let, such as the Arabs use now for driving down 
their tent-pins. (See 'J'homson's Land and Book, 
ii. 149.) In the Hebrew, it is spoken of as "//ie 
hammer," as being the one kept for that purpose. 
The nail driven through Sisera's temples was also 
one of the wooden tent-pins. This particularity 
points to a scene drawn from actual life. It is said 
in 1 Iv. vi. 7 that no sound of hammer, or axe, or 
any iron tool, was heard in building the Temple, 
because it " was built of stone made ready " at the 
quarry. The immense cavern under Jerusalem, 
where undoubtedly most of the building material 
of the ancient city was obtained, furnishes inci- 
dental confirmation of this statement. " The heaps 
of chippings which lie about show that the stone 
was dressed on the. spot. . . . There are no other 
quarries of any great size near the city, and in the 
reign of Solomon this quarry, in its whole extent, 
was without the Umits of the city " (Barclay's City 
of the Great King, p. 468, 1st ed. (1865)). See 
also the account of this subterranean gallery in the 
Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem, pp. 63, 64. H. 

HAMMOLE'KETH (n^V^n, with the 
article = //^e Queen: r] MaXexfO- Regina), a 
woman introduced in the genealogies of IManasseh 
as daughter of Machirand sister of Gilead (1 Chr. 
vii. 17, 18), and as having among her children 
Abi-ezer, from whose family sprang the great 
judge Gideon. The Targum translates the name 

by np^P "^=>,tc/«o reigned. The Jewish tra- 
dition, as preserved by Kimchi in his commentary 
on the passage, is that " she used to reign over a 
portion of the land which belonged to Gilead," 
and that for that reason her lineage has been pre- 

HAM'MON iV^r} [hot or sunny] : ['E^ue- 
fiacov',] Alex. Aficav'- Hamon). 1. A city in 
Asher (Josh. xix. 28), apparently not far from Zi- 
don-rabbah, or " Great Zidon." Dr. Schultz sug- 
gested its identification with the modern village of 
Hamid, near the coast, about 10 miles below Tyre 
(Rob. iii. 66), but this is doubtful both in etymology 
and position. 

2. [Xa/xdO; Alex. Xa/ucau.] A city allotted 
3ut of the tribe of Naphtali to the Levites (1 Chr. 
vi. 76), and answering to the somewhat similar 
names Ham math and Ham moth-dor in Joshua. 


HAM'MOTH-DOR' (IS'T nbn [tvarm 
sj)rings, abode]: Ne^/ici0; Alex. E/xaOdcvp: Anv- 
moih Dor), a city of Naphtali, allotted with its 
suburbs to the Gershonite Levites, antl for a city 
of refuge (Josh. xxi. 32). Unless ther*^ were two 
places of the same or very similar name in Xnph- 
tali, this is identical with Hammath. \V'iy the 
fiifflx Dor is addf^d it is hard to tell, unless toe WDrd 
efers in some way to the situation of the piace on 
ihe coast, in which fact oidy had it (^as far a« we 
Know) any resemblance to Dor, on the shore of the 
Mediterranean In 1 Chr. vl. 76 the name is cou- 
»r»cfced to Hammon. G. 



HAMO'NAH (njIDH Itumult, im»e of a 
muHilude]: UoXvdvSpiov- Amonn), the name of 
a city mentioned in a highly obscure passage of 
Ezekiel (xxxix. 16); apparently that of the place 
in or near which the multitudes of Gog should be 
buried after their great slaughter by God, and which 
is to derive its name — "multitude" — from that 
circumstance. G. 


(!l12l P^n S^3l = rnrtne of Gog's multitude: 
Ya\ rh TvoKvdvhpLov rev Twy- vallis vmltitiidinis 
Gog), the name to be bestowed on a ravine or glen, 
previously known as " the ravine of the passengers 
on the east of the sea," after the burial there of 
" Gog and all his multitude " (Ez. xxxix. 11, 15). 

HA'MOE, (Tl^n, i. e. in Hebrew a large he • 
ass, the figure employed by Jacob for Issachar: 
' E/uLfMcap : Hemor), a Hivite (or according to the 
Alex. LXX. a Horite), who at the time of the en- 
trance of Jacob on Palestine was prince {Nasi) of 
the land and city of Shechem, and father of the 
impetuous young man of the latter name whose ill 
treatment of Dinah brought desti-uction on himself, 
his father, and the whole of their city (Gen. xxxiiu 
19; xxxiv. 2, 4, 6, 8, 13, 18, 20, 24, 26). Ilamor 
would seem to have been a person of great influ 
ence, because, though alive at the time, the men of 
his tribe are called after him Bene-IIamor, and he 
himself, in records narrating events long subsequent 
to this, is styled Hamor-Abi- Shecem (Josh. xxiv. 
32: « Judg. ix. 28; Acts vii. 16). In the second 
of these passages his name is used as a signal of 
re\olt, when the remnant of the ancient Hivites 
attempted to rise against Abimelech son of Gideon. 
[Shechem.] For the title Abi-Shecem, " father 
of Shechem," compare "fiither of Bethlehem," 
"father of Tekoah," and others in the early lists 
of 1 Chr. ii., iv. In Acts vii. 16 the name is given 
in the Greek form of Emmor, and Abraham ia 
said to have bought his sepulchre from the " sons 
of Emmor." 

HAMU'EL (bS^^n [see infra], i. e. Ilam- 
muel: 'AfiovfjA' Amuel), a man of Simeon; son 
of Mishma, of the family of Shaul (1 Chr. iv. 26), 
from whom, if we follow the records of this pas- 
sage, it would seem the whole tribe of Simeon 
located in Palestine were derived. In many He- 
brew MSS. the name is given as ChammCiel. 

* The latter form exchanges the soft guttural fox 
the hard. It signifies "heat" and hence "anger 
of God" (Gesen.), or "God is a sun" (Fiirst). 


HA'MUL (b^Dn [pitied, spared] : Sam. 

vSIDn : 'UnoirfiXf 'laiJ,ovv; [Alex, in Num., 
la/xouTjA ; Comp. ' A^uouA., Xa/xowA :] JTamul\ the 
younger son of Pharez, Judah's son by Tamar 
(Gren. \lvi. 12; 1 Chr. ii. 5). Hamul was head of 
the family of the Hamulites (Num. xxvi. 21), but 
none of the genealogy of his descendants is pre- 
served in the lists of 1 Chronicles, though those of 
the descendants of Zerah are fully given. 

HA'MULITES, THE 0^=^!2nrT [set 
above]: ' la/xovj/ 1, Alex. lafjLOvrjKi; [Comp. 'i.^ov- 

a The LXX. have here read the word without iti 
initia? guttural, and rendered it napa rSiy 'Ajxoppai»» 
" from the Amoiitea. ' 



M:] Hamulitoe), the family (HnQt?'^) of the 
preceding (Num. xxvi. 21). 

HAMU'TAL (b^^!:n=perh. kin to the 
detv: 'A/itTctA.; [Vat., Mtrar; Alex. A/xi- 
TaK -raO ;] in Jer. 'A/xeiTdaX [Alex, -/xi-] : Ami- 
tol), daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah; one of the 
wives of king Josiah, and mother of the unfor- 
tunate princes Jehoahaz (2 K. xxiii. 31), and Mat- 
taniah or Zedekiah (2 K. xxiv. 18; Jer. Hi. 1). 
In the two last passages the name is given in the 

original text as ^^'^^H, Chamital, a reading 
which the LXX. follow throughout. 

* Curiously enough, in the first passage, but 
in neither of the two last, the A. V. ed. 1611 reads 
Hamjtal. A. 

HANAM''EEL [properly Hanamel, in 3 
3yl] (bwp^n [perh. bS3Dn who7n God has 
(jiren, Gesen.] : 'Ai/a/xe^A: Hanameel), son of 
Shallum, and cousin of Jeremiah. When Judaea 
was occupied by the Chaldaeans, Jerusalem be- 
leaguered, and Jeremiah in prison, the prophet 
bought a field of Hanameel in token of his assur- 
ance that a time was to come when land should be 
once more a secure possession (Jer. xxxii. 7, 8, 9, 
12; and comp 44). The suburban fields belong- 
ing to the tribe of Levi could not be sold (Lev. 
XXV. 34) ; but possibly Hanameel may have inher- 
ited property from his mother. Compare the case 
of Barnabas, who also was a Levite ; and the note 
of Grotius on Acts iv. 37. Henderson (on Jer. 
xxxii. 7) supposes that a portion of the Levitical 
sstates might be sold within the tribe. 

W. T. B. 

HAINAN ("J3n {gracious, merciful]: 'Avdv. 
Uanan). 1. One of the chief people of the tribe 
I Benjamin (1 Chr. viii. 23). 

2. The last of the six sons of Azel, a descend- 
ant of Saul (1 Chr. viii. 38; ix. 44). 

3. [FA. Auvav.] " Son of Maachah," i. e. 
possibly a Syrian of Aram-Maachah, one of the 
heroes of David's guard, according to the extended 
ist of 1 Chr. xi. 43. 

4. [FA. Vavav.] Bene-Chanan [sons of C] 
were among the Nethinim who returned from Bab- 

'lon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 46; Neh. vii. 49). 
ji the parallel list, 1 Esdr. v. 30, the name is given 
as Anan. 

5. (LXX. omits [Rom. and Alex, in Neh. x. 10 
read Kvav, but Vat. and FA.' omit].) One of the 
I^evites who assisted Ezra in his public exposition 
■»f the law (Neh. viii. 7). The same person is 
:)robal)ly mentioned in x. 10 as sealing the cov- 
enant, since several of the same names occur in 
both passages. 

6. [Vat. omits.] One of the "heads" of the 
people," that is of the laymen, who also sealed 

the covenant (x. 22). 

7. {Pdv6.v\ [FA. Atj/tt.]) Another of the chief 
laymen on the same occasion (x. 26). 

8. [FA. Aavav.] Son of Zaccur, son of Mat- 
vniah, whom Nehemiah made one of the store- 
keepers of the provisions collected 'as tithes (Neh. 
xiii. 13). He was probably a layman, in which 
lase the four storekeepers represented the four chief 
classes of the people — priests, scribes, Levites, and 

9. Son of Igdaliahu " the man of God " (Jer. 
Btrv. 4). TTie sons of Hanan had a chamber in 


the Temple. The Vat. LXX. gives the name twioi 
— 'Icovav viov ^Avavlov [FA. Avvav vinv A v 

HANAN^EEL {properly Kananel. in 3 syl. 
THE TOWER OF (bspDQ b?5D : n^ipyoi 
^Auajj-e^K '• turris Hananeel), a tower which formed 
part of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 1, xii. 39). 
From these two passages, particularly from tlie 
former, it might almost be inferred that Hananeel 
was but another name for the Tower of Meah 

(71^1^71 = the hundred): at any rate they were 
close together, and stood between the sheep-gate 
and the fish-gate. This tower is further mentioned 
in Jer. xxxi. 38, where the reference appears to be 
to an extensive breach in the wall, reaching from 
that spot to the " gate of the corner " (comp. Neh. 
iii. 24, 32), and which the prophet is announcing 
shall be " rebuilt to Jehovah " and " not be thrown 
down any more for ever." The remaining pa.ssage 
in which it is named (Zech. xiv. 10) also connects 
this tower with the " comer gate," which lay on 
the other side of the sheep-gate. This verse is ren- 
dered by Ewald with a different punctuation to 
[from] the A. V. — " from the gate of Benjamin, 
on to the place of the first (or early) gate, on to 
the corner-gate and Tower Hananeel, on to the 
king's wine-presses." [Jehusalem.] 

HANA'NI C'Djn [gracious]: [Rom. Avav, 
Avavias'- Alex.] Avaui'. Hanani). 1. One of the 
sons of Hem an, David's Seer, who were separated 
for song in the house of the lx)rd, and head of the 
18th course of the service (1 Chr. xxv. 4, 25). 

2. [^Avavl; Vat. -vn, once -fi^i; Alex. 1 K. 
xvi. 7, Avavia-] A Seer who rebuked (u. c. 941) 
Asa, king of Judah, for his want of faith in God, 
which he had showed by buying off the hostility 
of Benhadad L king of Syria (2 Chr. xvi. 7). For 
this he was imprisoned by Asa (10). He (or another 
Hanani) was the father of Jehu the Seer, who testi- 
fied against Baasha (1 K. xvi. 1, 7), and Jehosh- 
aphat (2 Chr. xix. 2, xx. 34). 

3. [Ayoj/i; Vat. FA. -j/et; Alex. Avavia] One 
of the priests who in the time of Ezra were con- 
nected with strange wives (l^zr. x. 20). In I^draa 
the name is Anamas. 

4. [^Avavi, Avaviw, FA. in i. 2, Avav-] A 
brother of Nehemiah, who returned b. c. 446 from 
Jerusalem to Susa (Neh. i. 2); and was afterwards 
made governor of .Jerusalem under Nehemiah 
(vii. 2.) 

5. {lAvavi', Vat. Alex. FAi omit.] A priest 
mentioned in Neh. xii. 36. W. T. B. 

HANANTAH {T^'^'Wi, and ^n^lp^Q [whom 
Jehovah has given]: 'Avavia; ['Avavias'] Ana- 
nias, [Hanania,] and Ilananias. In New Test. 
^Avavias' Ananias). 

1. One of the 14 sons of Heman the singer, and 
chief of the sixteenth out of the 24 courses or wards 
into which the 288 musicians of the l^evites were 
divided by king David. The sons of Heman were 
especially employed to blow the horns (1 Chr. xxv. 
4, 5, 23). 

2. One of the chief captains of the army of king 
Uzziah (2 Chr. xxvi. 11). 

3. Father of Zed< kiah, one of the nrinces in th« 
reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah (Jei. xxxvi. 12) 

4. Son of Azur, a Benjamite of Gibeon and a 
false prophet in the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah 
In the 4th year of his reign, b. c. 595, HauanisI 


withstood Jeremiah the prophet, and pubhcly 
prophesied in the temple that within two years 
Jeconiah and all his fellow-captives, with the vessels 
of the Lord's house which Nebuchadnezzar had 
taken away to Babylon, should be brought back to 
Jerusalem (Jer. xxviii.): an indication that treach- 
erous negotiations were already secretly opened with 
I'haraoh-Hophra (who had just succeeded Psam- 
rnis on the Egyptian throne"), and that strong 
hopes were entertained of the destruction of the 
Babylonian power by him. The preceding chapter 
(xxvii. 3) shows further that a league was already 
in progress between Judah and tlie neighboring 
nations of Edom, Ammon, Moab, Tyre, and Zidon, 
for the purpose of organizing resistance to Nebu- 
chadnezzar, in combination no doubt with the pro- 
jected movement? of Pharaoh-Hophra. llananiah 
corroborated his prophecy by taking from off the 
neck of Jeremiah the yoke which he wore by Di- 
vine command (Jer. xxvii., in token of the subjec- 
tion of Judaea and the neighboring countries to the 
Babylonian empire), and breaking it, adding, "Thus 
saith Jehovah, Even so will I break the yoke of 
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from the neck of 
all nations within the space of two full years." But 
Jeremiah was bid to go and tell Hananiah that for 
the wooden yokes which he had broken he should 
make yokes of iron, so firm was the dominion of 
Babylon destined to be for seventy years. The 
prophet Jeremiah added this rebuke and prediction 
of Hananiah's death, the fulfillment of which closes 
the history of this false prophet. " Hear now, 
llananiah; Jehovah hath not sent thee; but thou 
makest this people to trust in a He. Therefore thus 
saith -Jehovah, Behold I will cast thee from off the 
face of the earth : this year thou shalt die, because 
thou hast taught rebellion against Jehovah. So 
llananiah the prophet died the same year, in the 
seventh month " (Jer. xxviii.). The above history 
of llananiah is of great interest, as throwing much 
light upon the Jewish politics of that eventful time, 
divided as parties were into the partizans of Baby- 
lon on one hand, and Egypt on the other. It also 
exhibits the machinery of false prophecies, by which 
the irreligious party sought to promote their own 
poUcy, in a very distinct form. At the same time 
too that it explains in general the sort of political 
calculation on which such false prophecies were 
hazarded, it supplies an important clew in partic- 
ular by which to judge of the date of Pharaoh- 
Hophra's (or Apries') accession to the Egyptian 
throne, and the commencement of his ineffectual 
effort to restore the power of Egypt (which had 
been prostrate since Necho's overthrow, Jer. xlvi. 
2) upon the ruins of the Babylonian empire. The 
leaning to Egypt, indicated by Hananiah's prophecy 
as having begun hi the fourth of Zedekiah, had in 
the sixth of his reign issued in open defection from 
Nebuchadnezzar, and in the guilt of perjury, which 
cost Zedekiah his crown and his life, as we learn 
from Ez. xvii. 12-20; the date being fixed by a 
comparison of Ez. viii. 1 with xx. 1. The tem- 
porary success of the intrigue which is described 
in Jer. xxxvii. was speedily followed by the return 
of the Chaldaeans and the destruction of the city, 
iccording to the prediction of Jeremiah. This his- 
/)ry of Hananiah also illustrates the majner in 
thich the false prophets hindered the mission, and 
•bstructed the bereficent eifects of the ministry, of 

« Pharaoh-Hophra succeeded Psammla, B. o. 595. 
fkt 4«Mi of the Egyptian reigns from Psammetichxu 



the true prophets, and affords a remarkaltle example 
of the way in which they prophesied smooth things, 
and said peace when there was no peace (comp. 1 
K. xxii. 11, 24, 25). 

5. Grandfather of Irijah, the captain of the ward 
at the gate of Benjamin who arrested Jeremiah on 
a charge of deserting to the Chaldaans (Jer. xxxvii. 

6. Head of a Benjamite house (1 Chr. viii. 24). 

7. The Hebrew name of Shadrach. [Suad- 
RACii.] He was of the house of Uavid, according 
to Jewish tradition (Dan. i. 3, 6, 7, 11, 19; ii. 17). 

8. Son of Zerubbabel, ] Chr. iii. 19, from whom 
Cheist derived his descent. He is the same person 
who is by St. Luke called ''Iwauyas, Joanna, and 
who, when Khesa is discarded, appears there also 
as Zerubbabel's son [Genealogy of Christ.] 
The identity of the two names Hananiah and 
Joanna is apparent immediately we compare them 

in Hebrew. n"^35Cl (Hananiah) is comix)unded 

of "JSn and the Divine name, which always takes 

the form H'', or ^H^, at the end of compounded 
names (as in Jerem-iah, Shephet-iah, Nehem-iah, 
Azar-iah, etc.). It meant grat'wsh dedit Dominus. 

Joanna (pHV) is compounded of the Divine 
name, which at the beginning of compound names 
takes the form V, or ^^^^ (as in Jeho-shua, Jeho- 

shaphat, Jo-zadak, etc.), and the same word, ^217, 
and means Dominus graiiose dedit. Examples of a 
similar transposition of the elements of a compound 
name in speaking of the same individual, are 

n^DlD)*, Jecon-iah, and "J "^3^111% Jeho-jachin, 
of the same king of Judah ; Ahaz-iah and Jeho- 
ahaz of the same son of Jehoram ; Eli-am, and 
Ammi-el, of the father of Bath-sheba; and El-asah 
for Asah-el, and Ishma-el, for Eli-shama, in some 
MSS. of Ezr. X. 15 and 2 K. xxv. 25. This iden- 
tification is of great importance, as bringing St. 
Luke's genealogy into harmony with the Old Testa- 
ment. Nothing more is known of Hananiah. 

9. The two names Hananiah and Jehohanan 
stand side by side, Ezr. x. 28, as sons of Bebai, who 
returned with Ezra from Babylon. 

10. A priest, one of the " apothecaries " (which 
see) or makers of the sacred ointments and incense 
(Ex. XXX. 22-38, 1 Chr. ix. 30), who built a portion 
of the wall of Jerusalem in the days of Nehennah 
(Neh. iii. 8). He may be the same as is mentioned 
in ver. 30 as having repaired another portion. If 
so, he was son of Shelemiah ; perhaps the sair e a.s 
is mentioned xii. 41. 

11. Head of the priestly course of Jeremiah ir 
the days of Joiakim the high-priest, Neh. xii. lii.. 

12. Ruler of the palace (HH^Sn 'W) at 
Jerusalem under Nehemiah. He is described a» 
<' a faithful man, and one who feared God al)ov« 
many.'' His office seems to have been one of 
authority and trust, and perhaps the same as that, 
of Eliakim, who was " over the house '" in the reign 

I of Hezekiah. [Eliakim.] The arrangements for 
I guarding the gates of Jerusalem were intrusted tc 
nim with Hanani, the Tirshatha's brother. Prideaux 
thinks that the appointment of Hanani and Hananiah 

are fixed by that of thf sonquest of BfCypt by Oua 



Indicates that at this time Nehemiah returned to 
Persia, but witliout sufficient ground. Nehemiah 
seems to have been continuously at Jerusalem for 
some time after the completion of the wall (vii. 5, 

65, viii. 9, x. 1). If, too, the term (nn>2n 
means, as Gesenius supposes, and as the use of it 
in Neh. ii. 8 makes not improbable, not the palace, 
but the fortress of the Temple, called by Josephus 
fidpis — there is still less reason to imagine Nehe- 
miah's absence. In this case Hananiah would be 
a priest, perhaps of *he same family as the preced- 
ing. The rendering moreover of Neh. vii. 2, 3, 
should probably be, " And I enjoined (or gave 
orders to) Hanani . • and Hananiah the captains 
of the fortress .... concerning Jerusalem, and 
said, Let not the gates," etc. 1'here is no authority 

for rendering /3? by •' over " — " He gave such 
an one charge ovei' Jerusalem." The pa.ssages 
quoted by Gesenius are not one of them to tne 

13. An Israelite, Neh. x. 23 (Hebr. 24). [Ana- 

14. Other Ilananiahs will be found under Ana- 
nias, the Greek form of the name. A. C. H. 

HANDICRAFT {r^xvn, ipyaaia- ars, 
artificium, Acts xviii. 3, xix. 25; Kev. xviii. 22). 
Although the extent cannot be ascertained to which 
those arts were carried on whose invention is as- 
cribed to Tubal- Cain, it is probable that this was 
proportionate to the nomadic or settled habits of 
the antediluvian races. Among nomad races, as 
the Bedouin Arabs, or the tribes of Northern and 
Central Asia and of America, the wants of life, as 
well as the arts whicli supply them, are few; and 
it is only among the city-dwellers that both of 
them are multiplied and make progi-ess. This sub- 
ject cannot, of course, be followed out here ; in the 
present article brief notices can only be given of 
Buch handicraft trades as are mentioned in Scrip- 

1. The preparation of iron for use either in war, 
in agriculture, or for domestic purposes, was doubt- 
less one of the earliest applications of labor; and, 
together with iron, working in brass, or rather cop- 
per alloyed with tin, bronze (nVTl?, Gesen. p. 
875), is mentioned in the same passage as practiced 
In antediluvian times (Gen. iv. 22). The use of 
this last is usually considered as an art of higher 
antiquity even than that of iron (Hesiod. Works 
and Bays, 150; Wilkinson, Anc. Ey. ii. p. 152, 
abridg.), and there can be no doubt that metal, 
whether iron or bronze, must have been largely 
used, either in material or m tools, for the con- 
struction of the Ark (Gen. vi. 14, 16). Whether 
the weapons for war or chase used by the early 
warriors of Syria and Assyria, or the arrow-heads 
of the archer Ishuiael were of bronze or iron, cannot 
1)6 Ascertained; but we know that iron was used 
fov warlike purposes by the Assyrians (Layard, 
Nin. and Bab. p. 194), and on the other hand that 
stone- tipped arrows, as was the case also in Mexico, 
were used ir the earlier times by the Egyptians as 
well as the Persians and Greeks, and that stone or 
flint knives continued to be used by them, and by 
.he inhabitants of the desert, and also by the Jews, 
■ tor religious purposes after the introduction of iron 
uato general use (Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. i. 353, 354, 
,i. 163; Prescott, Mexico, i. 118; Ex. iv. 25, 
Joflh. V. 2; Is*^ Ecypt. room, Brit. Mus. case 36, 
37) 111 the construction of the Taberuiicle. co))per, 


but no iron, appears to have been used, though the 
use of iron was at the same period well known to 
the Jews, both from their own use of it and fron' 
their Egyptian education, whilst the Canaanite 
inhabitants of Palestine and Syria were in full pos- 
session of its use Ijoth for warlike and domestic 
purposes (Ex. xx. 25, xxv. 3, xxvii. 19; Xum 
XXXV. 16; Deut. iii. 11, iv. 20, viii. 9; Josh. \iii. 
31, xvii. 16, 18). After the establishment of the 

Jews in Canaan, the occupation of a smith (I? "^P) 
became recognized as a distinct employment (1 
Sam. xiii. 19). The designer of a higher order 

appears to have been called specially ~f^T (Ges. 
p. 531; Ex. XXXV. 30, 35; 2 Chr. xxvi. 15: 
Saalschiitz, Arch. Ilehr. c. 14, § 16). The smith"^ 
work and its results are often mentioned in Scrip 
ture (2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 K. vi. 7; 2 Chr. xxvi. 14: 
Is. xliv. 12, liv. 16). Among the captives taken 
to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar were 1000 "crafts- 
men " and smiths, who were probably of the 
superior kind (2 K. xxiv. 16; Jer. xxix. 2). 

The worker in gold and silver (^"7.*^-* • ap7ypo- 
K6iros, xwf'^'^'JS • nrgentarim, aurifex) nmst 
have found employment both among the Hebrews 
and the neighboring nations in very early times, 
as appears from the ornaments sefat by Abi-aham 
to Kebekah (Gen. xxiv. 22, 53, xxxv. 4, xxxviii. 18; 
Deut. vii. 25). But whatever skill the Hebrews 
possessed, it is quite clear that they must have 
learned much from Egypt and its " iron -furnaces," 
both in metal work and in the arts of setting and 
polishing precious stones; arts which were turned 
to account both in the construction of the Taber- 
nacle and the making of the priests' ornaments, 
and also in the casting of the golden calf as well 
as its destruction by Moses, probably, as suggested 
by Goguet, by a method which he had leanit in 
Egypt (Gen. xli. 42; Ex. iii. 22, xii. 35, xxxi. 4, 
5, xxxii. 2, 4, 20, 24, xxxvii. 17, 24, xxxviii. 4, 8, 
24, 25, xxxix. 6, 39; Neh. iii. 8; Is. xliv. 12). 
Various processes of the goldsmiths' work (No. 
1 ) are illustrated by Egyptian monuments (Wilkin- 
son, Anc. Egypt ii. 136, 152, 162). 

After the conquest frequent notices are found 
both of moulded and wrought metal, including 
soldering, which last had long been known in 
Egypt; but the Phoenicians appear to have pos- 
sessed greater skill than the Jews in these arts, at 
least in Solomon's time (Judg. viii. 24, 27, xvii. 
4; 1 K. vii. 13, 45, 46; Is. xU. 7; Wisd. xv 4: 

Egyptian Blow-pipe, and small fire-place with cbe«k« 
to confine and reflect the heat. (Wilkinson.) 

Eoclus. xxxviii. 28; Bar. vi. 50, 55, 57 [or Kpist. 
of Jer. vi. 50, 55, 57] ; Wilkinson, ii. 162). [Zarb- 
phath.] Even in the desert, mention is made 
of beating gold into plates, cutting it into wire, an* 


kIm) of setting precious stones in gold (Ex. xxxix. 
3, 6, Ac; Beckmann, Hist, of Inv. ii, 414; Ges. 
p. 1229). 

Among the tools of the smith are mentioned — 

tongs (D^nfJ^^, Xaplsy forceps, Ges. p. 761, 


Is. vi. 6), hammer (^7*^155, a<pvpdf maUem, Gek 
p. 1101), anvU (D?75, Ges. p. 1118), bellowi 
(nQ^, (pvariT'fipf sufflatorium, Ges. p. 896; Ii^ 


ju. 7; Jer. vi. 29; Ecclus. xxxviii. 28; Wilkinson, 
U. 318). 

In N. T. Alexander " the coppersmith " {6 x<^- 
Ktis) of Ephesus is mentioned, where also was 
earried on that trade in "silver shrines" (t/ao\ 
iuyyvpo7), which was represented by Demetrius the 

silversmith (apyvpoKSiros) as being in danger from 
the spread of Christianity (Acts xix. 24, 28; 3 
Tim. iv. 14). [See also Smith.] 

2. The work of the carpenter {U^'^V Wyi^ 
r4KTC0y, artifex UgnaHui) is often mantioned in 



Scripture (e. g. Gen. vi. 14; Ex. xxxvii.; Is. xliv. 
13). In the palace built by David for himself the 
workmen employed were chiefly Phoenicians sent 
by Hiram (2 Sam. v. 11; 1 Chr. xiv. 1), as most 

Tools of an Kgj pti.m Carpenter. (Wilkinson.) 
Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4. Chisels and drills. Fig. 9. Horn of oil. 

6. Part of drill. 10. Mallet. 

6. Nut of wood belonging to drill. 11. IJasket of nails. 

7, 8. Saws. 12. Basket which held them, carpenter {rfKTwv) is mentioned 

in connection with Joseph the 


the rebuilding under Zerubbabel, no mmtioa ll 
made of foreign workmen, though in the latter 
case the timber is expressly said to have bewi 
brought by sea to Joppa by Zidonians (2 K. xlL 
11; 2 Chr. xxiv. 12; Ezra iii. 7). 
That the Jewish carpenters must 
ha\e been able to carve with 
some skill is evident from Is. xli. 
7, xliv. 13, in which last passage 
some of the implements used in 
the trade are mei tioned : the 

rule ("TT??^\ fierpov, norma, 
possibly a chalk pencil, Gca. p. 
1337), measuring-Une Op, Gea 
p. 1201), compass (H^^np, 
irapaypacpis, circtnus, Ges. 
p. 450), plane, or smoothing 

instrument (n^^l^p?^, K6\\ay 
inmcinn, Ges. pp. 1228, 1338), 

axe Q^"J|, Ges. p. 302, or 

d^'lp,, Ges. p. 1236, h^(m, 

The process of the work, and 
the tools used by Egyptian car- 
penters, and also coopers and 
wheelwrights, are displayed in 
Egyptian monuments and relics; 
the former, including dovetailing, 
veneering, drillmg, glueing, var- 
nishing, and inlaying, may be 
seen in Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. 
ii. 1 1 1-1 19. Of the latter many 
s|>eciniens, including saws, hatch- 
ets, knives, awls, nails, a hone, 
and a drill, also turned objects 
in bone, exist in the British 
Museum, 1st Egj'ptian room, 
case 42-43, Nos. 6046-6188. 
See also Wilkinson, ii. p. 113 
fig. 395. 

In N. T. the occupation of 

probably were those, or at least the principal of 
those who were employed by Solomon in his works 
(1 K. V. 6). But in the repairs of the Temple, 
executed under Joash king of Judah, and also in 

husband of the Virgin Mary, and ascribed to our 
Lord himself by way of reproach (Mark vi. 3; 


xiii. 55; and Just. Mart. Died. c. Tryph. e. 

1 2 

Veneering and the use of glue. (Wilkinson.) 
%ft piece of dark wood applied to one of ordinary quality, 6. c, adze, fixed into a blcsk of wood of the same color at 
e, a ruler ; and/, a square, similar to those used by our carpenters, g-, a box. Fig 2 is grinding something 
<, glue-pot on the fire, j, a piece of glue. Fig. 3 applying the glue with a brush, f . 

8. The masons (C'^'^'T'!'., wall-builders, Ges. p. 
269) employed by David and Solomon, at least the 
d^ef of tbem. were Phoenicians, as is implied also 

in the word D'^/^S, men of Gebal, Jebafl, Byb- 
lus (Ges. p. •-'•)«: 1 K. v. 18; Ez. xxvii. &; 
Burckhardt, ^yria, p. 179). Among their irople- 


vents are mentioned the saw (n^rip, 
plumb-Une (ITJS, Ges. p. 125), the 
reed (n^n, KaKafios, calamtis, Ges. 



/ \ ii,p ' represented on Egyptian monuments ("WilkinsMi, 
irplcav), tne , ^^^ ^.^^^^ .. g^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ preserved in the Brit- 
measuring- j ish Museum (1st Egyptian room, Nos. 6114, 6038) 
I The large stones used in Solomon's Temple are 
p. 1221). j gaid by Josephus to have been fitted together exactlj 
Seme of these, and also the chisel and mallet, are | without either mortar or cramps, but the '"' — "' 

Hon stones to have been fastened with lead (Joseph. 
Ant viii. 3, § 2; xv. 11, § 3). For ordinary buUd- 

og mortar, "I'"'*'' (Ges. p. 1328) was used; 
■onietimes, perhaps, bitumen, a* was the case at 

Babylon (Gen. xi. 3). The lime, clay, and straw 
of which mortar is generally composed in the East, 
requires to be very carefully mixed and united so 
as to resist wet (Lane, Mocl. Egypt, i. 27; Shaw, 
Trav.^. 206). The wall "daubed with untem 



Carpenters. (WilklnBon.) 
drills a hole in the seat of a chair, s. t t, legs of chair, u u, 
», • square. u>, man planing or polishing the leg of a chair, 

Masons. (Wilkinscm.) 
Put 1. leyelling, and Part 2 squaring a 

An Egyptian loom. (Wilkinson.) 

i b a fliiittle, not thrown, but put in with the hand. It had a 

hook at each end. 


pered mortar" of Ezekid («iO 

10) was perhaps a sort oi' cofa- 
wall of mud or clay without 

lime (ben, Ges. p. 1516). 
which would give way under 
heavy rain. The use of white- 
wash on tombs is remarked by 
our Lord (Matt, xxiii. 27. See 
also Mishna, Mnaser Sheni, v. 
1). Houses infected with leprosy 
were required by the Law to be 
re-plastered (Lev. xiv. 40-45). 

4. Akin to the craft of the 
carpenter is that of ship and 
boat-building, which must have 
been exercised to some extent 
for the fishing-vessels on the 
lake of Gennesaret (Matt. viiL 
23, ix. 1; John xxi. 3, 8). 
Solomon built, at Ezion-Geber, 
ships for his foreign trade, which 
were manned by Phoenician 
crews, an experiment which Je- 
hoshaphat endeavored in vain to 
renew (1 K. ix. 26, 27, xxii. 48; 
2 Chr. XX. 36, 37). 

5. The perfumes used in the 
religious services, and in later 
times in the funeral rites of 
monarchs, imply knowledge and 
practice in the art of the 

" apothecaries " (CPp^, 
fjLvp€y\/ol, pigmentarii), who ap- 
pear to have firmed a guild or 
association (Ex. xxx. 25, 35; 
Neh. iu. 8; 2 Chr. xvi. 14; 
Eccles. vii. 1, x. 1; Eccluj^ 
xxxviii. 8). 

6. The arts of spinning and 
weaving both wool and linen 
were carried on in early times, 
as they are still usually among 
the Bedouins, by women. The 
women spun and wove goat's 
hair and flax for the Tabernacle, 
as in later times their skill was 
employed in like manner for 
idolatrous purposes. One of the 
excellences attributed to the good 
house-wife is her skill and in- 
dustry in these arts (Ex. xxxv. 
25, 26; Lev. xix. 19; Deu\ 
xxii. 11 ; 2 K. xxiii. 7 ; Ez. xvi. 
16; Prov. xxxi. 13, 24; Burck- 
hardt, Notes on Bed. i. 65; 
comp. Horn. //. i. 123; Od. L 
356, ii. 104). Tbe loom, with 

its beam (TlDp, /xfadiniov, 
liciaiorium, 1 Sam. xvii. 7 ; 

Ges. p. 883), pin, HtT, 
irda-ffoXos, clavus, Judg. xvi. 
14; Ges. p. 643), and shuttle 

(2T}^» 5ponevs, Job vii. 6; 
Ges. p. 146) was, ^lerhaps, in- 
troduced later, but as early a« 
David's time (1 Sam. xvii. 7), 
and worked by men, as was tha 
case in Egypt, contrary to the 
practice of other nations. Thii 
trade also appears to have beca 


pnctioed hereditarily (1 Chr. iv. 21 ; Herod, ii. 35 ; 
Soph. (Ed. Col. 339). 

Together with weavir^ we read also of em- 
broidery, in which gold and silver threads were 
interwoven with the body of the stuff, sometimes 
in figure patterns, or with precious stones set in the 
needlework (Ex. xxvi. 1, xxviii. 4, xxxix. 6-13). 

7. Besides these arts, those of dyeing and of 
dressing cloth were practiced in Palestine, and 
those also of tanning and dressing leather (Josh. 
ii. 15-18; 2 K. i. 8; Matt. ui. 4; Acts ix. 43; 
Mishn. Megill. iii. 2). Shoe-makers, barbers, and 
tailors are mentioned in the Mishna (Pesach. iv. 

6): the barber (2 v|, Koupevs, Ges. p. 283), or 
his occupation, by Ezekiel (v. 1 ; Lev. xiv. 8 ; Num. 
n. 5; Josephus, Ant. xvi. 11, § 5; B. J. i. 27, 
§ 5; Mishn. Shabb. i. 2), and the tailor (i. 3), 
plasterers, glaziers, and glass vessels, painters, and 
goldworkers are mentioned in Mishn. (Chel. viii. 
9, xxix. 3, 4, XXX. 1). 

Tent-makers {,(TKi)voirotoi) are noticed in the Acts 
(xviii. 3), and frequent allusion is made to the trade 
of the potters. 

8. Bakers (D"^5S, Ges. p. 136) are noticed in 
Scripture as carrying on their trade (Jer. xxxvii. 
21; Hos. vii. 4; Mishn. Chel. xv. 2); and the well- 
known valley Tyropoeon probably derived its name 
from the occupation of the cheese-makers, its in- 
habitants (Joseph. B. J. v. 4, 1). Butchers, not 
Jewish, are spoken of 1 Cor. x. 25. 

Trade in all its branches was much developed 
after the Captivity; and for a father to teach his 
son a trade was reckoned not only honorable but 
indispensable (Mishn. Pirke Ab. ii. 2; Kiddush. 
iv. 14). Some trades, however, were regarded as 
less honorable (Jahn, BM. Arch. § 84). 

Some, if not all trades, had special localities, as 
was tlie case formerly in European, and is now in 
Eastern cities (Jer. xxxvii. 21 ; 1 Cor. x. 25 ; Jo- 
seph. B. J. v. 4, § 1, and 8, § 1; Mishn. Beaw. 
V. 1 ; Russell, Aleppo, i. 20 ; Chardin, Voyages, 
vii. 274, 394; Lane, Mod. Egyp. ii. 145). 

One feature, distinguishing Jewish from other 
workmen, deserves peculiar notice, namely, that 
they were not slaves, nor were their trades neces- 
sarily hereditary, as was and is so often the case 
among other, especially heathen nations (Jahn, BM. 
Antiq. c. v. § 81-84; Saalschiitz, Hebr. Arch. c. 
14; Winer, s. v. Handwtrke). [Musical In- 


H. W. p. 

The two former of these terms, as used in the A. V. 
=^ aovdcipiou, the laiter = a L/juKivOiou: they are 
classed together, inasmuch as they refer to objects 
■>f a very similar character. Both words are of 
.^tin origin: a-ou^dpiou ^= sudariwri from sudo, 
"to sweat;'' the Lutheran translation preserves 
the reference to its etymology in its rendering, 
schivelsstuch ; aiiu.LKivdiov = se7nicinctium, i. e. "a 
half girdle." Neither is much used by classical 
writers; the sud'iriam is referred to as used for 
^ping the face (" candido frontem sudario tergeret," 
^uintil. \\. 3), or hands ("sudario manus tergens, 
jUod in coUo habebat," Petron. infragm. Trugur. 
c. 67 ) ; and also as worn ovei. the face for the pur- 
Dose of concealment (Sueton. in Neron. c. 48); the 
word was introduced by the Romans int/i Palestine, 
frhere it was adopted oy the Jews, in the fjrm 

S"ni J ag := nn^t::^, in Ruth iu. 15. ^3 


sudarium is noticed in the N. T. as a wrapper to 

fold up money (Luke xix. 20) — as a cloth bound 
about the head of a corpse (John xi. 44, xx. 7), 
bemg probably brought from the crown of the head 
under the chin — and lastly as an article of dress 
that could be easily removed (Acts xix. 12), proba- 
ably a handkerchief worn on the head hke the keffieh 
of the Bedouins. The semicinctium is noticed by 
Martial xiv. Epigr. 153, and by Petron. in Satyr. 
c. 94. The distinction between the ductus and the 
semicinctium consisted in its width (Isidor. Grig. 
xix. 33) : with regard to the character of the aifit- 
Khdiou, the only inference from the passage in 
which it occurs (Acts xix. 12) is that it was easily 
removed from the person, and probably was worn 
next to the skin. According to Suidas the distinc- 
tion between the sudarium and the semicinctium 
was very small, for he explains the latter by the 
former, (nfiiKiudiou' (paKiSXiov ^ (rouZdpiou, the 
(paKi6\iov being a species of head-dress : Hesychius 
likewise explains ai^iiKiveiov by (paKi6\iov. Ac- 
cording to the scholiast (in Cod. Sieph.), as quoted 
by Schleusner (Lex. s. v. crovSdpLou), the distinc- 
tion between the two terms is that tlie sudarium 
was worn on the head, and the semicinctium used 
as a handkerchief. The difference was probably 
not in the shape, but in the use of the article ; we 
may conceive them to have been bands of linen of 
greater or less size, which might be adapted to 
many purposes, like the article now called lungi 
among the Arabs, which is applied sometimes as a 
girdle, at other times as a turban (Wellsted, Trav- 
els, i. 321). W. L. B. 

* HAND-MAID. [Concubine; Slave.] 

* HAND-MILL. [Mill.] 

* HAND-STAVE. [Staff.] 
HA'NES (DDn : Hanes), a place in Egypt 

only mentioned in Is. xxx. 4: "For his princes 
were at Zoan, and his messengers came to Hanes." 
The LXX. has "Ort ilalv eV Tctj/ei a.pxnyol &YYe- 
\oi TTovripoij evidently following an entirely differ- 
ent reading. Hanes has been supposed by Vit- 
ringa, MichaeUs, Rosenmiiller, and Gesenius, to be 
the same as Heracleopolis Magna in the Heptano- 

mis, Copt, egiiec, gJiec, gxiHC. 

This identification depends wholly upon the simi- 
larity of the two names : a consideration of the 
sense of the passage in which Hanes occurs shows 
its great improbability. The prophecy is a reproof 
of the Jews for trusting in Egypt ; and according 
to the Masoretic text, mention is made of an em- 
bassy, perhaps from Hoshea, or else from Ahaz, or 
possibly Hezekiah, to a Pharaoh. As the king 
whose assistance is asked is called Pharaoh, he is 
probably not an Ethiopian of the XXVth dynasty, 
for the kings of that line are mentioned by name — 
So, Tirhakah — but a sovereign of the XXIlId dy- 
nasty, which, according to Manetho, was of Tanite 
kings. It is supposed that the last king of the 
latter dynasty, Manetho's Zet, is the Sethos of 
Herodotus, the king in whose time Sennacherib's 
army perished, and who appears to have been men- 
tioned under the title of Pharaoh by Rabshakeh 
(Is. xxxvi. 6; 2 K. xviii. 21), though it is just 
possible that Tirhakah may have been intended 
If the reference be to an embassy to Zet, Zoan wai 
probably his capital, and in any case then the most 
important city of the eastern part of Lovrtr Egypt» 
Hanes was most probably iu its neighborh kkI; and 


ire are disposed to think that the Chald. Paraphr. 
■ right in identifying it with CinD^Piil, or 
DTOCnrn, once written, if the Kethibh be cor- 
rect, in the form DpSnri, Daphnae, a fortified 
town on the eastern frontier. [Tahpanhks.] 
Gesenius remarks, as a kind of apology for the 
identification of Hanes with Heracleopolis Magna, 
that the latter was formerly a royal city. It is true 
that 5 a Manetho's list the IXth and Xth dynasties 
are said to have been of Heracleopolite kings ; but 
it lias been lately suggested, on strong grounds, by 
Sir Gardner Wilkinson, that this is a mistake in 
the case of the IXth dynasty for Hermonthites 
{Herod, ed. Kawlinson, vol. ii. p. 348). If this 
supposition be correct as to the IXth dynasty, it 
must also be so as to the Xth ; but the circum- 
stance whether Heracleopolis was a royal city or 
not, a thousand years before Isaiah's time, is obvi- 
ously of no consequence here. li. S. P. 

* HANGING. [Punishment.] 

represent both different words in the original, and 
different articles in the furniture of the Temple. 

(l.)The "hanging" (IJ?? ^ inia-n-aarpoy: ten- 
torium) was a curtain or " covering " (as the word 
radically means) to close an entrance ; one was placed 
before the door of the Tabernacle (Ex. xxvi. 36, 
37, xxxix. 38); it was made of variegated stuff 
wrought with needlework, and was hung on five 
pillars of acacia wood ; another was placed before 
the entrance of the court (Ex. xxvii. 16, xxxviii. 
18; Num. iv. 26); the term is also applied to the 
vail that concealed the Holy of UoUes, in the full 
expression " vail of the covering " (Ex. xxxv. 12, 
xxxix. 34, xl. 21 ; Num. iv. 5). [Cuktains, 2.] 

(2.) The » hangings "(C^V^I?: itnia: tentoria) 
were used for covering the walls of the court of the 
Tabernacle, just as tapestry was in modei-n times 
(Ex. xxvii. 9, xxxv. 17, xxxviii. 9; Num. iii. 26, iv. 
26). The rendering in the LXX. implies that they 
were made of the same substance as the sails of a 
ship, i. e. (as explained by Rashi) "meshy, not 
woven: " this ophiion is, however, incorrect, as the 
material of which they were constructed was " fine 
twined linen." The hangings were carried only 
five cubits high, or half the height of the walls of 
the court (Ex. xxvii. 18; comp. xxvi. 16). [Tab- 

In 2 K. xxiii. 7, the term 6o«m, DT; 2l, 
strictly " houses," A. V. " hangings," is probably 
intended to describe tents used as portable sanctu- 
aries. W. L. B. 

HAN'IEL (bS'^an, i. e. Channiel [grace of 
God] : 'Avi^A. [Vat. -vei-] '• IJaniel), one of the 
sons of UUa, a chief prince, and a choice hero in 
the tribe of Asher (1 Chr. vii. 39). [Hanniel.] 

HAN 'N AH (nan, grace, or jn-ayer: "Avva: 
Anna), one of the wives of Elkanah, and mother 
of Samuel (1 Sain. i. ii.); a prophetess of consid- 
erable repute, though her claim to that title is based 
upon one production only, namely, the hymn of 
•.hanksgiving for the birth of her son. This hymn 
« in the highest order of prophetic poetry ; its re- 
•emblance to that of the Virgin Mary (comp. 1 
Sam. ii. 1-10 with Luke i. 46-55; see also Ps. 
adii.^ has been noticed by the commentators; and 


it is specially remarkable as containing the first 
designation of the Messiah under that name. Id 
the Targum it has been subjected to a process of 
magniloquent dilution, for which it would be diffi- 
cult to find a parallel even in the pompous vagariei 
of that paraphrase (Eichhora, £inl. ii. p. 68) 
[Samuel.] T. E. B. 

HAN'NATHON (Yn^Tl [graceful, or gra- 
ciously disposed}: 'Afidd; Alex. Euvadwd: liana- 
thon), one of the cities of Zebulun, a point appa- 
rently on the northern boundary (Josh. xix. 14) 
It has not yet been identified. G. 

HAN'NIEL (bS^an: 'Ai.i/;\: Hanniel), 
son of Ephod; as prince (Nasi) of Manasseh he 
assisted in the division of the Promised l^nd 
(Num. xxxiv. 23). The name is the same as 

HA'NOCH (Tf"5q [see on Enoch] : 'Evdx- 
Henoch). 1. The third in order of the children 
of INIidian, and therefore descended from Abraliam 
by Keturah (Gen. xxv. 4). In the parallel list of 
1 Chr. i. 33, the name is given m the A. V. as 

2. (Tfiar]: 'Evdl>x' Henoch), eldest son of 
Reuben (Gen. xlvi. 9; Ex. vi. 14; Num. xxvi. 5; 
1 Chr. V. 3), and founder of the family of 

HA'NOCHITES, THE C'^bnn : Srj^^os 
Tov 'Ey(i>x' f^"^^^ Henochitarum), Num. xxvi. 

* The Hebrew of Hanoch is the same as that of 
Enoch, and belongs to two other persons [Enoch]. 
There is no good reason for this twofold orthogra- 
phy. H. 

HA'NUN (1^2n [gracious]: 'Aypcav, ['Avav, 
etc. :] Hanon). 1. Son of Nahash (2 Sam. x. 1, 
2; 1 Chr. xix. 1, 2), king of Ammon about b. c. 
1037, who dishonored the ambassadors of David 
(2 Sam. X. 4), and involved the Ammonites in a 
disastrous war (2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 Chr. xix. 6). 

W. T. B. 

2. ['Apovv: Hanun.] A man who, with the 
people of Zanoah, repaired the ravine-gate ui the 
wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 13). 

3. ['Avcofj.] Vat. FA. Avovfx; Comp. 'Avwv: 
Hanun.] A man specified as "the 6th son of 
Zalaph," who also assisted in the repair of the 
wall, apparently on the east side (Neh. iii. 30). 

* HAPHARA'IM, so A. V. ed. 1611, and 
other early editions, also the Bishops' Bible; in 
many later editions, less con-ectly, 

HAPHRA'IM (D^"]5q, t. c. Chapharaim: 
^Ayiv\ [Vat. A7€t»';] Alex. Atpfpatifi'- HapharO' 
'ini), a city of Issachar, mentioned next to Shunem 
(Josh. xix. 19). The name possibly signifies "two 
pits." In the Onomasticon ("Aphraim") it ia 
spoken as still known under the name of Aflarea 
(Eus. ^Acppai/j.), and as standing six miles north 
of Legio. About that distance northeast of Lejj'un, 
and two miles west of Solum (the ancient Shunem)^ 

stands the village of ePAfukh ( HJ^JiXJ I ), which 

may be the representative of Chapharaim, the gut- 
tural Ain having taken the place of the Hebrew 
CheOi. G. 

HA'RA (M'^n [mmintain-latid, Ges.] : Ara) 
which appears only in 1 Chr. v. 26, and even t*»«t 


M omitted by the LXX.. is eitner a place rtterly 

• anknown, or" it must be regarded as identical with 
Haran or Charran ("I'jn)) the Mesopotamian city 
to which Abraham came from Ur. The names in 
Chronicles often vary from those elsewhere used in 
Scripture, being later forms ; and Ilura would 
nearly correspond to C'arrlice, which we know from 
Strabo and Ptolemy to have been the appellation 
by which Haran was known to the Greeks. We 
may assume then the author of Chronicles to mean, 
that a portion of the Israelites earned off by Pul 
and Tiglath-inieser were settled in Ilarran on the 
Belik, while the greater number were conveyed to 
the Chabaur. (Compare 1 Chr. v. 26 with 2 K. 
Kvii. 6, xviii. 11, and xix. 12; and see articles on 
*HAKRAN and Habok.) G. R. 

HAR'ADAH (H'l'jnn, with the article 
[the tremblmy]: XapaddB-- 'Arada), a desert sta- 
tion of the Israelites, Num. xxxiii. 2i, 25; its 
position is uncertain. H. H. 

HA'RAN. 1. d"^"^ [« strong one, FUrst: 
prob. montanus, mountaineer, Gesen.] : "Appdul 
Jos. 'ApduT]s' Aran). The third son of Terah, 
and therefoi-e youngest brother of Abram (Gen. 
xi. 26). Three children are ascribed to him — 
Lot (27, 31), and two daughters, namely, Milcah, 
who married her uncle Nahor (29), and Iscah C29), 
of whom we merely possess her name, though bv 
gome (e. (/. Josephus) she is held to be identical 
with Sarah. Haran was born in Ur of the Chal- 
dees, and he died there while his father was still 
living (28). His sepulchre was still shown there 
when Josephus wrote his history (Ant. i. 6, § 5). 
The ancient Jewish tradition is that Haran was 
burnt in the furnace of Nimrod for his wavering 
conduct during the fiery trial of Abraham. (See 
the Targum Fs. Jonathan ; Jerome's Qitcest. in Ge- 
nesim, and the notes thereto in the edit, of Migne. ) 
This tradition seems to have originated in a trans- 
lation of the word Ur, which in Hebrew signifies 
" fire." It will be observed that although this 
name and that of the country appear the same in 
the A. v., there is in the original a certain differ- 
ence between them; the latter commencing with 
the harsh guttural Cheth. 

2. (Aaj/; Alex. Apav: Aran.) A Gershonite 
Levite in the time of David, one of the family of 
Shimei (1 Chr. xxiii. 9). G. 

HA'RAN (i:^n, i.e.Charan: 'Apdfi; [Vat.] 
Alex. Appav' Haran), a son of the great Caleb by 
his concubine Ephah (1 Chr. ii. 46). He himself 
had a son named Gazez. 

HA'RAN (]"^n [scorched, arid, Gesen.; a 

noble, freeman, Furst] : Xappdv, Strab., Ptol. 

Kdppai ' Haran), is the name of the place whither 

Abraham migrated with his family from Ur of the 

Chaldees, and where the descendants of his brother 

^ahor established themselves. Haran is therefore 

tilled " the city of Nahor" (comp. Gen. xxiv. 10 

— rith xxvii. 43). It is said to be in Mesopotamia 

m yGen. xxiv. 10), or more definitely, in Padan-Aram 

B ,xxv. 20), which is the " cultivated district at the 

m toot of the hills " (Stanley's S. cf P., p. 129 note), 

m name well applying to the beautiful stretch of 

m country which lies below Mount Masius between 

■' the Khabour and the Euphrates. [Padak-aram.] 

■ Here, about midway m this district, is a town stiL 

■ saued Harrdn, which really seems never to have 
K jhuiged its appellation, and beyond any reasonable 


HARAN 999 

doubt is the Haran or Chan-an of Scriptnre 
(Bochart's Phaleg, i. 14; Ewald's Geschichte, i. 
384). It is remarkable that the people of Harrdn 
retained to a late time the Chaldaean language and 
the worship of Chaldaean deities (Asseman. Bibl. 
Or. i. 327 ; Chwolsohn's Ssabier und der Ssnbis- 
mns, ii. 39). Harrdn lies upon the Belilk (ancient 
Bilichus), a small affluent of the Euphrates, which 
falls into it nearly in long. 39°. It was famous 
among the Romans for being near the scene of the 
defeat of Crassus (Plin. H. N. v. 24). About the 
time of the Christian era it appears to have been 
included in the kingdom of Edessa (Mos. Chor. ii. 
32), which was ruled by Agbarus. Afterwards it 
passed with that kingdom under the dominion of 
the Romans, and appears as a Roman city in the 
wars of Caracalla (Mos. Chor. ii. 72) and Juhan 
(Jo. Malal. p. 329). It is now a small village in- 
habited by a few families of Arabs. 

In the A. V. of the New Test, the name follows 
the Greek form, and is given as Charran (Acta 
vii. 2, 4. G. R. 

* A controversy has recently sprung up respecting 
the situation of the patriarchal Haran which re- 
quires notice here. Within a few years a little 
village known as Hdrdn-el-Awamad has been dis- 
covered, about four hours east of Damascus, on the 
borders of the lake into which the Barada (Abana) 
flows. Dr. Beke {Otiyines Biblicce, Lond. 1834) 
had thrown out the idea that the Scripture Haran 
was not, as generally supposed, in Mesopotamia, but 
must have been near Damascus. He now main- 
tains that this Hdrdn, so unexpectedly brought to 
light between " Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Da- 
mascus," must be the identical Haran (or Charran) 
of the 13ible in Aram-naharaim, t. e. Aram of the 
two rivers. In 1861 Dr. Beke made a journey to 
Palestine, with special reference to this question. 
The argument on which he mainly relies is the 
fact that Laban, in his pursuit of Jacob, appears to 
have travelled from Haran to Gilead on the east 
of the Jordan in 7 days (Gen. xxxi. 23), whereas 
the actual distance of Haran from Gilead is about 
300 geographical miles, and would make in that 
country an ordinary journey of 15 or 20 days. An 
Arab tribe on its ordinary migrations moves from 
12 to 15 miles a day, and a caravan from 20 to 23 
miles a day. On the other hand, it is not a little 
remarkable that Dr. Beke himself went over the 
ground, step by step, between Hdrdn-el-Awamdd 
and Gilead, and found the time to be five days, 
hence very nearly the time that Laban was on the 
way before he overtook Jacob in Gilead. 

It must be owned that this rapidity of Laban's 
pursuit of Jacob from Haran is not a slight diffi- 
culty. For its removal we can only resort to cer- 
tain suppositions in the case, which of course we 
are at liberty to make if the Scripture text does not 
exclude them, and if they are justified by the known 
customs of the country and the age. 

First, we may assume that Laban, taking with 
him only some of his sons or other near kinsmen 
("his brothers," see Gen. xxxi. 23), was unin 
cumbered with baggage or women and children 
and hence moved with all the despatch of which 
eastern travelling admits. One party was fleeing 
an(f the other pursuing. The chase was a close 
one, as all tha language indicates. Jacob com- 
plains thai Laban had " followed hotly " after him. 
The swift dromedaries would be brought into 
requisition if the ordinary camels were nr^t swift 
enough. The speed of these animals i^ such, aaji 

1000 HARAN 

Sir Henry Eawlinson (who has seen bc much of the 
East), that they " consume but 8 days in crossing 
the desert from Damascus to Baghdad, a distance 
of nearly 500 miles." He thinks it unquestionable 
that Laban could have " traversed the entire dis- 
tance from Haran to Gilead in 7 days " {Athenaeum^ 
April 19, 18G2). For examples of the capacity of 
such camels for making long and rapid journeys, 
see the Penny Cyclopcedia, vi. 191. 

Secondly, the expression (which is entirely correct 
for the Hebrew) that Laban's journey before com- 
ing up with Jacob was a "seven days' journey," 
is indefinite, and may include 8 or 9 days as well 
as 7. "Seven," as Gesenius states, "is a round 
number, and stands in the Hebrew for any number 
less than 10." A week's time, in this wider sense, 
would bring the distance still more easily within 
an expeditious traveller's reach. 

But whatever may be thought of the possibility 
of Laban' 3 making such a journey in such time, 
the difficulty in the case of Jacob would seem to be 
still greater; suice, accompanied as he was with 
flocks and herds and women and children, he must 
have travelled much more slowly. To this it 
may be replied that the narrative does not restrict 
us to the three days which passed before Laban 
became aware of Jacob's departure added to the 
seven days which passed before he overtook Jacob 
in Gilead. It is very possible that Laban, on hear- 
ing so suddenly that Jacob had fled, was not in a 
situation to follow at once, but had preparations to 
make which would consume three or four days 
more; so as in reality to give Jacob the advantage 
of five or six days before he finally started hi pur- 
suit. It is altogether probable too that the wary 
Jacob adopted measures before setting out which 
would greatly accelerate his flight. (See Gen. xxxi. 
20. ) Mr. Porter, who is so familiar with Eastern 
life, has drawn out this suggestion in a form that 
appeal's not unreasonable. Jacob could quietly 
move his flocks down to the banks of the Euphrates 
and send them across the river, without exciting 
suspicion ; since then, as now, the flocks of the great 
proprietors roamed over a wide ^egion (Gen. xxxi. 
1-3). In hke manner before starting himself he 
could have sent his wives and children across the 
river, and hurried them forward with all the des- 
patch which at this day characterizes an Arab tribe 
fleeing before an enemy (vers. 17, 18). All this 
might take place before Laban was aware of Jacob's 
purpose; and they were then at least 3 days' dis- 
tant from each other (vers. 19-22). The inter- 
vening region between the Euphrates and Gilead, 
a distance of 250 miles, is a vast plain, with only 
one ridge of hills ; and thus Jacob " could march 
forward straight as an arrow." If, as supposed, 
his flocks and family were already in advance, he 
jould travel for the first two or three days at a very 
rapid pace. " Now, I maintain " (says this writer), 
' that any of the tribes of the desert would at this 
noment, under similar circumstances, accomphsh 
rhe distance in 10 days, which is the shortest pe- 
riod we can, according to the Scripture account, 
assign to the journey (vers. 22, 23). We must not 
judge of the capabilities of Arab women and chil- 
dren, flocks and herds, according to our Western 
ideas and experience." (See Atheiioeum, May 24, 

Dr. Beke's other incidental confirmations of his 
heory ars ess important. It is urged that unless 
A.braliam was living near Damascus, he could not 
uve had a servant in his household who was called 


" Eliezer of Damascus " (Gen. xv. 2). Tlw 
answer to this is that the servant himself may po» 
sibly have been born there and have wandered to 
the further East before Abraham's migration : cr 
more probably, may have sprung from a family that 
belonged originally to Damascus. Mr. Porter sayg 
" I knew well in Damascus two men, one called 
Ibrahim el-Haleby, ' Abraham of Aleppo ' ; and the 
other Elias el-Akkawy, ' EUas of Akka,' neither of 
whom had ever been in the town wliose name he 
bore. Their ancestors had come from those towns . 
and that is all such expressions usually signify in 
the East" {Athenoeum.^ December 7, 1861.) 

The coincidence of the name proves nothing as 
to the identification in question. The name (if it 
be Arabic) means 'arid,' 'scorched,' and refers no 
doubt to the Syrian Haran as being on the im- 
mediate confines of the desert. The affix Awamad^ 
"columns," comes from five Ionic pillars, forty feet 
high, which appear among the mud-houses of the 
village. (See Porter's Handb. of Syr. and Pal. 
ii. 497.) 

Again, the inference from Acts vii. 2, that Ste- 
phen opposes Charran to Mesopotamia in such a 
way as to imply that Charran lay outside the latter, 
is unnecessary, to say the least; for he may mean 
equally as well that Abraham was called twice in 
Mesopotamia, i. e. not only in the part of that prov- 
ince where Charran was known to be, but still ear- 
lier in the more northern part of it known as " the 
land of the Chaldees," the original home and seat 
of the Abrahamic race. Not only so, but the latter 
must be Stephen's meaning, unless he differed irom 
the Jews of his time, since both Philo {de Abr. ii. 
pp. 11, 14, ed. Mang.) and Josephus {Ant. i. 7, § 1) 
relate that Abraham was called thus twice in the 
land of his nativity and kindred, and in this view 
they follow the manifest implication of the O. T., 
as we see from Gen. xv. 7 and Neh. ix. 7 (comp. 
Gen. xii. 1-4). 

Dr. Beke found " flocks of sheep, and maidens 
drawing water," at Ildrdn-et^Awnmdd, and felt that 
he saw the Scripture scene of Jacob's arrival, and 
of the presence of Rachel with " her father's sheep 
which she kept," reenacted before his eyes. But 
that is an occurrence so common in eastern villages 
at the present day, especially along the skirts of the 
desert, that it can hardly be said to distinguish one 
place from another. 

But the reasons for the traditional opinion en- 
tirely outweigh those against it. (1.) The city of 
Nahor or Haran (Gen. xxiv. 10) is certainly in 
Aram-naharaim, i. e. " Syria of the two rivers " 
(in the A. V. "Mesopotamia"). This expression 
occurs also in Deut. xxiii. 4 and Judg. iii. 8, and 
implies a historic notoriety which answers perfectly 
to the Tigris and Euphrates, but not to rivers of 
such hmited local importance as the Abana and 
Pharpar, streams of Damascus. (2.) Aram-Dam- 
mesek (the -'Syria Damascena" of Pliny) is the 
appellation of Southern Syria (see 2 Sam. \m. 6 
and Is. vii. 8), and is a diff'erent region ^ )m Aram- 
naharaim where Haran was. (3.) Jacob in going 
to Haran went to "the land of the people of the 
East" (Gen. xxix. 1), which is not appropriate to 
so near a region as that of Damascus, and one 
almost north of Palestine, but is so to that beyond 
the Euphrates. In accordance with this, Balaam, 
who came from Aram-naharaim, fjx'aks of himself 
as having been brought " out of the mountains f/ 
the East'' (Deut. xxiii. 5: Num. xxiii. 7). (4 
The iriver which Jacob crossed in his flight froo 


tAixAD is termed "in2n, i. e. ♦• vhe river," as the 
Euphrates is so often termed by way of eminence 
(Gen. xxxi. 21; Fjc. xxiii. 33; Josh. xxiv. 2, 3, &c.). 
(5.) The ancient versions (the Targums, the Syriac 
and the Arabic Pentateuch) actually insert Eu- 
phrates in Gen. xxxi. 21, and thus show how famihar 
the authors were with the pecuUar Hebrew mode 
of designating that river. (6.) The places associ- 
ated with Haran, as Gozan, Kezeph, Eden (2 Kings 
six. 12; Is. xxxvi. 12), and Canneh (Ez. xxvii. 23), 
point to the region of the Euphrates as the seat of 
this entire group of cities. (7.) Incidental allusions 
(as in Gen. xxiv. 4-8; xxviii. 20, 21) show that 
Haran was very far distant from Canaan, whereas 
Damascus is upon its very border. So, too, Josephus 
(Ant. i. 16, § 1) not only places Haran in Mesopo- 
tamia, but (referring to Abraham's sending Eliezer 
to procure a wife for Isaac) sets forth its great dis- 
tance from Canaan, as making the journey thither 
formidable and tedious in the highest degree. (8.) 
The Uving traditions connect Abraham's life in 
Haran with Mesopotamia and not with Damascus. 
Ainsworth, who visited Ildrdn, says that the people 
there preserve the memory of the patriarch's history ; 
they tell where he encamped, where he crossed the 
Euphrates, and how he and his herds found a 
resting-place at Beroea, now Aleppo {Researches 
in Assyria, etc., p. 152 f.). H. 

HA'RARITE, THE (^"]';ir!'I^» perhaps = 
the mountaineer, Ges. Thes. p. 392 : de Arari, or 
Oroii, Arariies), the designation of three men 
connected with David's guard. 

1. {6 'hpovxouos' {de Arari.]) « Agee, a 
Hararite" (there is no article here in the Hebrew), 
father of Shammah, the third of the three chiefs 
of the heroes (2 Sam. xxiii. 11). In the parallel 
passage, 1 Chr. xi., the name of this warrior is 
entirely omitted. 

2. ('ApcoSiTTjs; [Vat. Alex. -Set-: de Orori.']) 
» Shammah the Hararite " is named as one of the 
thirty in 2 Sam. xxiii. 33. In 1 Chr. xi. 34 
[Apapi; Vat.i Apaxet, 2. m. Apapei: Ararites] 
the name is altered to Shage. Kennicott's con- 
clusion, from a minute investigation, is that the 
passage should stand in both, " Jonathan son of 
Shammah the Hararite " — Shammah being iden- 
tical with Shimei, David's brother. 

3. {'XapaovpirriSi 6 ^Apapi [Vat. -pet-, -pei' 
Arorites, Ararites.']) " Sharar (2 Sam. xxiii. 
?{3) or Sacar (1 Chr. xi. 35) the Hararite " was 
the father of Ahiam, another member of the guard. 
Kennicott inclines to take Sacar as the correct 

HARBO'NA (W3'in"in [prob. Pers. ass- 
driver, Ges.] : @dp^a, Alex, bape^wa ; [Comp. Xap- 
Pwvd'] Harbona), the third of the seven chamber- 
lains, or eunuchs, who served king Ahasuerus (Esth. 
i. 10), and who suggested Haman's being hung on 
his own gallows (vii. 9). In the latter passage the 
name is 

HARBO'NAH (njin^n [see above]: 
^ooyaddv 'i [FA.i BovyaBa', Corap. Xap^avoL'^ 
Harbona). [Written thus in Esth. vii. 9, but the 
lame name as the foregoing. — H.] 

HARE (n5?.'?W, arnebeth: Sa<r{/irajs: lepua) 
dccurs only in Lev.'xi. 6 and Deut. xiv. 7, amongst 
jhe animals disallowed as food by the Mosaic law. 
rhcre \% no doubt at all that arnebeth ienotes a 
' han't 9nd in all probability the sp6ciea Lepus 



Sinaiticus, which Ehrenberg and Hemprich {Symb. 
Phys.) mention as occurring in the valleys of 
Arabia Petrsea and Mount Sinai, and L. Syriacus^ 
which the same authors state is found in the Leb- 
anon, are those which were best known to the 
ancient Hebrews ; though there are other kinds of 
Leparidce, as the L. ^yyptius and the L. ^Jthiqpi- 
cus, if a distinct species from L. ISinaiticus, which 
are found in the J3ible lands. The hare is at this 

day called arneb (>_^\l) by the Arabs m Pales- 
tine and Syria (see Russell's Nat. Hist, of Aleppo, 
ii 154, 2d ed.). The SatrvTrowy, i. e. " rough foot," 

Hare of Mount Sinai. 

is identical with Kaydos, and is the term which 
Aristotle generally applies to the hare: indeed, he 
only uses the latter word once in his History of 
Animals (viii. 27, § 4). We are of opinion, as we 
have elsewhere stated [Coxey], that the rabbit 
(L. cuniculus) was unknown to the ancient He- 
brews, at any rate in its wild state; nor does it 
appear to be at present known in Syria or Palestine 
as a native. It is doubtful whether Aristotle was 
acquainted with the rabbit, as he never alludes to 
any burrowing Xaydos or SaTUTrous; but, on the 
other hand, see the passage in vi. 28, § 3, where 
the young of the Saainrovs are said to be " bom 

Hare of Mount Lebanon. 

blind," which will apply to the rabbit alone. Pliny 
(N. h riii. 55), expressly notices rabbits (cuniculi), 
which jccur in such numbers in the Balearic Islands 
as to destroy the harvests He also notices th« 



practice of ferreting these animals, and thus driving 
them out of their burrows. In confirmation of 
Pliny's remarks, we may observe that there is a 
small island of the Balearic group called Conejera, 
i. c. in Spanish a " rabbit-warren," which at this 
day is abundantly stocked with these animals. The 
hare was erroneously thought by the ancient Jews 
to have chewed the cud, who were no doubt misled, 
as in the case of the shdphan (JJyrax), by the habit 
these animals have of moving the jaw about. 

" Hares are so plentiful in the environs of Aleppo," 
Bays Dr. Russell (p. 158), "that it was no uncom- 
mon thing to see the gentlemen who went out a 
sporting twice a week return with four or five brace 
hung in triumph at the girths of the servants' 
horses." The Turks and the natives, he adds, do 
not eat the hare; but the Arabs, who have a peculiar 
mode of dressing it, are fond of its flesh. Hares 
•re hunted in Syria with grevhound and falcon. 

W. H. 

HAR'EL (with the def. art. bwnnn : rb 
h.pii]K' Ariel). In the marghi of Ez. xUii. 15 the 
word rendered " altar " in the text is given " Harel, 
t. e. the mountain of God." The LXX., Vulg., 
and Arab, evidently regarded it as the same with 
"Ariel "in the same verse. Our translators fol- 
lowed the Targum of Jonathan in translating it 
"altar." Junius explains it of the iax<i-pa or 
hearth of the altar of burnt offering, covered by the 
network on which the sacrifices were placed over 
the burning wood. This explanation Gesenius 
adopts, and brings forward as a parallel the Arab. 

8*1, ireh, «' a hearth or fireplace," akin to the 

Heb. "I^M, Hr, "Ught, flame." Furst {Handw. 

8. V.) derives it from an unused root ^"ij^l^' ^^^^i 
" to glow, burn," with the termination -el; but the 
puly authority for the root is its presumed existence 
in the word Harel. Ewald {Die Propheten des A. 
B. ii. 373) identifies Harel and Ariel, and refers 

them both to a root rT^S, drdh^ akin to I^S, ur. 

W. A. W. 
HAIIEPH (n":?n Iplucking off]: 'Apifi] 
[Vat. Apetju;] Alex. Apei; [Comp. 'Ap^<|):] ffd- 
riph), a name occurring in the genealogies of Judah, 
as a son of Caleb, and as "father of Beth-gader " 
(1 Chr. ii. 51, only). In the lists of Ezr. ii. and 
Neh. vii. the similar name Hariph is found; but 
nothing appears to establish a connection between 
the two. 


rinn : h ir6\eL « in both MSS. — readmg "T^2? 

for "12?'^ — 2o/)i/c; [Vat. 2opei/c;] Alex. 'ApidO; 
[Comp. Xap-fjd-] in saltum Haret), in which David 
took refuge, after, at the instigation of the prophet 
Gad, he had quitted the " hold " or fastness of the 
cave of AduUam — if indeed it was AduUam and 
not Mizpeh of Moab, which is not quite clear (1 
Sam. xxii. 5). Nothing appears in the narrative 
by which the position of this forest, which has long 
Binoe disappeared, can be ascertained, except the 
rery general remark that it was in the " land of 
Judah," i. e. according to Josephus, the inheritance 
proper of that tribe, r^v KX-qpovx^o^v rrjs <pv\ri5. 

o The same leading is found in Josephus {Ant. vi. 
a, § 4). Tills is one of three instances in tiiis chapter 


as opposed to the " desert," t^v iprj/xiau, in wiu^ 
he had before been lurking {Anl. vi. 12, § 4). W« 
might take it to be tlie "wood" in the "wilder- 
ness of Ziph " in which he was subsequently hidden 
(xxiii. 15, 19), but that the Hebrew tenn is different 
{choresh instead of yaar). In the Onomasticoriy 
" Arith " is said to have then existed west of 

HARHA'IAH [3 syl.] (Hl^q^in [Jehovah 
is angry] : 'Apax'ias ; [Vat. Alex. FA. omit:] 
Araia). Uzziel son of Charhaiah, of the goldsmiths, 
assisted in the repair of the wall of Jerusalem 
under Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 8). [Some MSS. read 

Tl^TTl^ = Jehovah is a protection, Fiirst.] 

HAR'HAS (Dnnn: 'Apcis; [Vat. Apoos:] 
Araas), an ancestor of Shallum the husband of 
Htddah, the prophetess in the time of Josiah (2 
K. xxii. 14). In the parallel passage in Chronicles 
the name is given as HAbRAH. 

HAR'HUR ("l^n-^n [root TTH, to hum, 
shine : hence distinction, Fiirst : but Ges., inflam- 
mation] : 'Apovp; [in Neh., Vat. FA. Apoi;/x:] Har- 
hw). Bene-Charchur were among the Nethinim 
Mho returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. 
ii. 51 ; Neh. vii. 53). In the Apocryphal Esdraa 
the name has become AssuR, Pharacim. 

HA'RIM (Dnn [flat^osed]). 1. (Xapi$; 
[Comp.] Alex. Xap-fjix' Hanm), a priest who had 
charge of the third division in the house of God 
(1 Chr. xxiv. 8). 

2. ('Hp6>, ['Hpci/i; in Neh. x. 5, 'Ip{{/i, Vat. 
Et/jOju;] Alex. 'Wpdjx' [Haiini, Harem, Arem.]) 
Bene-Harim, probably descendants of the above, to 
the number of 1017, came up from Babylon with 
Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 39; Neh. vii. 42). [Carme.] 
The name, probably as representing the family, is 
mentioned amongst those who sealed the covenant 
with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 5); and amongst the 
priests who had to put away their foreign wives 
were five of the sons of Harim (l'>zr. x. 21). In the 
parallel to this latter passage in Esdras the name 
is given Annas. 

3. ('Ape; [Vat. Alex. FAi omit: Haram.]) It 
further occurs in a list of the families of priests 
"who went up with Zerubbabel and Jeshua," and 
of those who were their descendants in the next 
generation — in the days of Joiakim the son of 
Jeshua (Neh. xii. 15). In the former list (xii. 3) 

the name is changed to Keiium (Cnpl to Cm) 
by a not unfrequent transposition of letters. 

4. ['Hoci/i, exc. Ezr. ii. 32, Rom. 'HAtf/*; Neh. 
X. 27, Ala. Alex. 'Peoii/i: Ilanm, Hereni, Harem, 
Haran.] Another family of Bene-Harim [sons of 
H.], three hundred and twenty in number, came 
from the Captivity in the same caravan (Ezr. ii. 
32; Neh. vii. 35). These were laymen, and seem 
to have taken their name from a place, at least the 
contiguous names in the list are certainly those of 
places. These also appear among those who had 
married foreign wives (Ezr. x. 31), as well as those 
who sealed the covenant (Neh. x. 27). [Eanes.] 

HA'RIPH (n"^*!^ \autumnal rain, Ges.; but 
Fiirst, one early-born, strong] : 'Apl<p ; [Vat. Ape* ;] 

alone in which the reading of Josephus departs 
the Hebrew text, and agroes with the LXX 


Mw Aptiji, [Api(p; FA. A/)ti0, Apei-] Hareph) 
khuidred and twelve of the Bene-Chariph [sons 
3f C] returned from the Captivity with Zerubbabel 
(Neh. vii. 2-4). The name occurs again among the 
"heads of the people'' who sealed the covenant 
(x. 19 [20 in llebr.]). In the lists of Ezra and 
Esdras, Hariph appears as Jorah « and Azei'h- 
URITH respectively. An almost identical name, 

Hareph L^nn, a plucking offl^ appears in the 
lists of Judah [1 Chr. ii. 51] as the father of Beth- 
gader [comp. Haruphite]. 

HARLOT (n^Sr, often with HtS^N, ^*P^^, 

TlWyif). That this condition of persons existed 
in the earliest states of society is clear from Gen. 
xxxviii. 15. So Kahab (Josh. ii. 1), who is said 
by the Chaldee paraph, {ad he), to have been an 
innkeeper,'' but if there were such persons, consider- 
ing what we know of Canaanitish morals (Lev. 
xviii. 27), we may conclude that they would, if 
women, have been of this class. The law forbids 
(xix. 29) the father's compelling his daughter to 
sin, but does not mention it as a voluntary mode 
of life on her part without his complicity. It could 
indeed hardly be so. The isolated act which is the 
subject of Deut. xxii. 28, 29, is not to the purpose. 
Male relatives ^ were probably allowed a practically 
unlimited discretion in punishing family dishonor 
incurred by their women's unchastity (Gen. xxxviii. 
24 ). The provision of I^v. xxi. 9, regarding the 
priest's daughter, may have arisen from the fact of 
his home being less guarded owing to his absence 
when ministering, as well as from the scandal to 
sanctity so involved. Perhaps such abominations 
might, if not thus severely marked, lead the way 
to the excesses of Gentile ritualistic fornication, to 
vhich indeed, when so near the sanctuary, they 
Taight be viewed as approximating (Michaelis, Laws 
f Moses, art. 268). Yet it seems to be assumed 
that the harlot class would exist, and the prohibi- 
tion of Deut. xxiii. 18, forbidding offerings from 
the wages of such sin, is perhaps due to the con- 
tagion of heathen example, in whose worship prac- 
tices abounded which the Israelites were taught to 

abhor. The term HK'^i? (meaning properly "con- 
secrated") points to one description of persons, 
and nj")?3 ("strange woman") to another, of 
whom this class mostly consisted. The first term 
refers to the impure worship of the Syrian ^ Astarte 
(Num. XXV. 1; comp. Herod, i. 199; Justin, xviii. 
5 ; Strabo, viii. p. 378, xii. p. 559 ; Val. Max. ii. 6, 
15; August, de Civ. Dei, iv. 4), whose votaries, as 
idolatry progressed, would be recruited from the 
daughters of Israel; hence the common mention 
of both these sins in the Prophets, the one indeed 
being a metaphor of the other (Is. i. 21, Ivii. 8; 
Jsr. ii. 20; comp. Ex. xxxiv. 15, 16; Jer. iii. 1, 2, 
6, Ez. xvi. xxiii.; Hos. i. 2, ii. 4, 5, iv. 11, 13, 14, 
15, V. 3). The latter class would grow up with 
the growth of great cities and of foreign intercourse, 

a * Jorah (H'! V, first or early rain) is simply = 
Hariph, if the latter means (see above) the early rain 
which begins to fall in Palestine about the middL o*" 
Dctober. i_ 

6 D^vling, Observ. Sacf M. 476, Wn^TS'^Q; «• 

<? Philo {Lib. de spec. Legib. 6, 7) contends that 
vkoredom was pimished under the Mosaic law with 


and hardly could enter into the view of the Mosaio 
institutes. As regards the fashions involved in the 
practice, similar outward marks seem to have at- 
tended its earliest forms to those which we trace in 
tlie classical writers, e. g. a distinctive dress and a 
seat by the way-side (Gen. xxxviii. 14; comp. Ez. 
xvi. 16, 25; Bar. vi. 43 [or Epist. of Jer. 43];* 
Petron. Arb. Sat. xvi.; Juv. vi. 118 foil.; Dougtaei 
Analect. Sacr. Exc. xxiv.). Public singing in the 
streets occurs also (Is. xxiii. 16; Ecclus. ix. 4). 
Those who thus published their infamy were of the 
worst repute, others had houses of resort, and both 
classes seem to have been known among the Jews 
(Prov. vii. 8-12, xxiii. 28; Ecclus. ix. 7, 8); the 
two women, 1 K. iii. 16, lived as Greek hetaerse 
sometimes did, in a house together (Diet. Gr. and 
Rom. Ant. s. v. Ihtmra). The baneful fascination 
ascribed to them in Prov. vii. 21-23 may be com- 
pared with what Chardin says of similar effects 
among the young nobility of Persia ( Voyages en 
Ptrse, i. 163, ed. 1711), as also may Luke xv. 30, 
for the sums lavished on them {10. 162). In earlier 
times the price of a kid is mentioned (Gen. xxxviii.), 
and great wealth doubtless sometimes accrued to 
them (Ez. xvi. 33, 39, xxiii. 26). But lust, as dis- 
tinct from gain, appears as the inducement in Prov. 
vii. 14, 15 (see Dougtaei Anal. Sacr. ad loc), where 
the victim is further allured by a promised sacri- 
ficial banquet (comp. Ter. J^un. iii. 3). The "har- 
lots" are classed with "publicans," as those who 
lay under the ban of society in the N. T. (Matt 
xxi. 32). No doubt they multiplied with the in- 
crease of polygamy, and consequently lowered the 
estimate of marriage. The corrupt i)ractices im- 
ported by Gentile converts into the Church occasicm 
most of the other passages in which allusions to the 
subject there occur, 1 Cor. v. 1, 9, 11 ; 2 Cor. xii. 
21; 1 Thess. iv. 3; 1 Tim. i. 10. The decree, 
Acts XV. 29, has occasioned doubts as to the mean- 
ing of iropi/eia there, chiefly from its context, which 
may be seen discussed at length in Deyling's Observ. 
Sacr. ii. 470, foil.; Schoettgen, ffor. Ihbr. i. 468; 
Spencer and Hammond, ad loc. The simplest 
sense however seems the most probable. The chil- 
dren of such persons were held in contempt, and 
could not exercise privileges nor inherit (John viii. 
41; Deut. xxiii. 2; Judg. xi. 1, 2). On the gen- 
eral subject Michaehs's Laws of Moses, bk. v. art. 
268; Selden, de Ux. Ileb. i. 16, iii. 12, and de Jur. 
Natur. V. 4, together with Schoettgen, and the 
authorities there quoted, may be consulted. 

The words -l!^!!"; ri'l^-Vn"), A. V. "and they 
washed his armor " (1 K. xxii.*38) should be "and 
the harlots washed," which is not only the natural 
rendering, but in accordance with the LXX. and 
JosC'phus. H. H. 

HARNETHER (''^5'^n [etym. uncer- 
tain]: 'Apua(pdp; [Vat. corrupt:] Ifarnapker), 
one of the sons of Zophah, of the tribe of Asher 
(1 Chr. vii. 36). 

HA'ROD, THE WELL OF (accur. the 

stoning ; but this is, by Selden {de Ux. Heb. iii. 18), 
shown to be unfounded. 

rf So at Corinth were 1000 lepoSovKot dedicated to 
Aphrodite and the gross sins of her worsliip, and sim 
ilarly at Comana, in Armenia (Strabo, //. c). 

8 Aurai ai yvuaiKes eK tijs oSov toi»s napiovraf 
fvvapTrd^ovo-i (Theophr. Char, xxviii.). So Catnlliu 
(Carm. xxxvii. 16) speaks convergel} of semitnrit 
\ maclii. 



^artng of Charod [i. e. of trembling]^ "^"^H ^''3?: 
irT/7^ 'A^efS, Alex, ttjv ynv loep : y<wM 2«<i "^oca- 
tur ffarad), a spring by (v^) which Gideon and 
his great army encamped on the morning of the day 
which ended in the rout of the Midianites (Judg. 
vii. 1), and where the trial of the people by their 
mode of drinking apparently took place. The word, 
Blightly altered, recurs in the proclamation to the 

host : " Whosoever is fearful and trembling ("T7"7' 
chared) let him return" (ver. 3): but it is impos- 
Bible to decide whether the name Charod was, as Prof. 
Stanley proposes, bestowed on account of the trem- 
bling, or whether the mention of the trembling was 
suggested by the previously existing name of the 
fountain : either would suit the paronomastic vein 
in which these ancient records so delight. The 
word chared (A. V. "was afraid") recurs in the 
description of another event which took place in 
this neighborhood, possibly at this very spot — 
Saul's last encounter with the PhiUstines — when 
he " was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly," 
at the sight of their fierce hosts (1 Sam. xxviii. 5). 
The ^Ain Jali'id, with which Prof. Stanley would 
identify llarod {S. if P.) is very suitable to the 
circumstances, as being at present the largest spring 
in the neighborhood, and as forming a pool of con- 
siderable size, at which great numbers might drink 
(Rob. ii. 323). But if at that time so copious, 
would it not have been seized by the Midianites 
before Gideon's arrival ? However, if the ^Ain Ja- 
lud be not this spring, we are very much in the 
dark, since the "hill of Moreh," the only land- 
mark afforded us (vii. 1), has not been recognized. 
The only hill of Moreh of which we have any certain 
knowledge was by Shechem, 25 miles to the south. 
If Mm Jalud be Harod, then Jebd Duhy must be 

It is quite possible that the name Jalud is a 
corruption of Harod. In that case it is a good 
example of the manner in which local names ac- 
quire a new meaning in passing from one language 
to another. Harod itself probably underwent a 
similar process after the arrival of the Hebrews in 
Canaan, and the paronomastic turn given to Gid- 
eon's speech, as above, may be an indication of the 
change. G. 

HA'RODITE, THE C^l'^Dn [patronym., 
see below]: & ''Povhaios'i Alex, o ApovSaios, [o 
Apudaios :] de Ilarodi), the designation of two of 
the thirty-seven warriors of David's guard, Sham- 
MAH and Elika (2 Sam. xxiii. 25), doubtless de- 
rived from a place named Harod, either that just 
spoken of or some other. In the parallel passage 
of Chronicles by a change of letter the name ap- 
pears as Harorite. 

HARO'EH (nS'nn, l e. ha-Roeh = the 
teer: 'Apad [Vat. corrupt]), a name occurring in 
the genealogical lists of Judah as one of the sons 
of " Shobal, father of Kirjath-jearim " (1 Chr. ii. 
52). The Vulg. translates this and the following 
words, ''qui videbat dimidium requietionum." A 
somewhat similar name — Reaiah — is given in 
V. 2 as the son of Shobal, but there is nothing to 
t«tablish the identity of the two. 

HA'RORITE, THE (*'T"inn [see Ha- 
bodite]: 6 'Apwpf; [Vat. FA. o ASt;] Alex. 
9aSt: Aroriies), the title given to Shammoth, 
MM of the warriors of David's guard (1 Chr. xi. 27) 


"We have here an example of the minute di«!re*i 
ancies which exist between these two parallel lista 
In this case it appears to have arisen from an ex- 
change of "T, D, for "1, R, and that at a very earlj 
date, since the LXX. is in agreement with the 
present Hebrew text. But there are other differ' 
ences, for which see Shammah. 

HARO'SHETH (ritt?"^D, Chardsheth 
[tcorking in wood, stone, etc., Ges. ; or city of 
crofts, of artificial work, FuT&t]: 'Apiadcd; [Vat 
Aoeic-coe; Alex. AaeipwO, in ver. 16, Spv/xov-} 
liaroseth), or rather " Harosheth of the Gentiles," 
as it was called (probably for the same reason that 
Galilee was afterwards), from the mixed races Ihat 
inhabited it, a city in the north of the land of Ca- 
naan, supposed to have stood on the west coast of 
the lake Merom (el-IIuleh), from which the Jordan 
issues forth in one unbroken stream, and in the 
portion of the tribe of Naphtali. It was the res- 
idence of Sisera, captain of Jabin, king of Canaan 
(Judg. iv. 2), whose capital, Hazor, one of the 
fenced cities assigned to the children of Naphtali 
(Josh. xix. 36), lay to the northwest of it; and it 
was the point to which the victorious Israelites 
under Barak pursued the discomfited host and 
chariots of the second potentate of that name 
(Judg. iv. 16). Probably from intermarriage with 
the conquered Canaanites. the name of Sisera be- 
came afterwards a family name (Ezr. ii. 53). 
Neither is it irrelevant to allude to this coincidence 
in connection with the moral effects of this deci- 
sive victory ; for Hazor, once " the head of all those 
kingdoms " (Josh. xi. 6, 10), had been taken and 
burnt by Joshua; its king, Jabin I., put to the 
sword ; and the whole confederation of the Canaan- 
ites of the north broken and slaughtered in the 
celebrated battle of the waters of Merom (Josh. xi. 
5-14) — the first time that " chariots and horses " 
appear in array against the invading host, and are 
so summarily disposed of, according to Divine 
command, under Joshua ; but which subsequently 
the children of Joseph feared to face in the valley 
of Jezreel (Josh. xvii. 16-18); and which Judah 
actually failed before in the Philistine plain (Judg. 
i. 19). Herein was the great diflSculty of subdu- 
ing plains, similar to that of the Jordan, beside 
which Harosheth stood. It was not till the Israel- 
ites had asked for and obtained a king, that they 
began " to multiply chariots and horses " to them- 
selves, contrary to the express words of the law 
(Deut. xvii. 16), as it were to fight the enemy with 
his own weapons. (The first instance occurs 2 
Sam. viii. 4, comp. 1 Chr. xviii. 4; next in the 
histories of Absalom, 2 Sam. xv. 1, and of Adoni- 
jah, 1 K. i. 5; while the climax was reached under 
Solomon, 1 K. iv. 26.) And then it was that 
their decadence set in! They were strong in 
faith when they hamstrung the horses and burned 
the chariots with fire of the kings of Hazor, of 
Madon, of Shimron, and of Achshaph (Josh. xi. 1). 
And yet so rapidly did they decline when their 
illustrious leader was no more, that the city of 
Hazor had risen from its ruins; and in contrast to 
the kings of Mesopotamia and of Moab (Judg. iii.), 
who were both of them foreign potentates, another 
Jabin, the territory of whose ancestors hail been 
assigned to the tribe of Naphtali, claimed the dia 
tinction of being the first to revolt against and 
shake off the dominion of Israel in his newlj 
acquired inheritance. But the nctory won bT 


Deborah and Barak was well worthy of the song of 
triumph which it inspired (Judg. v.), and of the 
proverbial celebrity which ever afterwards attached 
to it (1*8. kxxiii. 9, 10). The whole territory was 
gradually won back, to be held permanently, as it 
would seem (Judg. iv. 24) ; at all events we hear 
nothing more of Hazor, Harosheth, or the Canaan- 
ites of the north, in the succeeding wars. 

The site of Harosheth does not appear to have 
been identified by any modern traveller. 

E. S. Ff. 

* Dr. Thomson {Land and Book, ii. 143) sup- 
poses Harosheth to be the high Tell called JIaro- 
thiehy near the base of Carmel, where the ELishon 
flows along toward the sea. " I have no doubt," 
he says, " of this identification." A castle there 
would guard the pass along the Kishon into the 
plain of Esdraelon, and the ruins still found on this 
" enormous double mound " show that a strong for- 
tress must have stood here in former times. A village 
of the same name occurs higher up on the other 
side of the river, and hence somewhat nearer the 
scene of the Ueborah-Barak battle. This writer says 
that I/aruthieh is the Arabic form of the Hebrew 
Harosheth, and (according to his view of the di- 
rection of the flight) Ues directly in the way of the 
retreat of Sisera's forces. It is about eight miles 
from Megiddo, and in the neighborhood of Accho 
CAkka), and hence exactly in the region where the 
Gentile " nations," to which Harosheth belonged, 
Btill dwelt and were powerful ; for we learn from 
Judg. i. 31 that the Hebrews had been unable to 
drive them out from that part of the country. 

En-dor is mentioned (Ps. Ixxxiii. 10) as a place 
of slaughter on this occasion. Hence, Stanley, in 
his graphic sketch (Jewish Church, i. 359), repre- 
sents the Canaanites as escaping in the opposite 
direction, through the eastern branch of the plain, 
and thence onward to Harosheth, supposed by him 
to be among the northern hills of Galilee. En-dor 
was not far from Tabor (the modeni village is dis- 
tinctly visible from its top), and in that passage of 
the Psalmist it may be named as a vague designa- 
tion of the battle-field, while possbly those who 
"perished at En-dor" were some of the fugitives 
driven in that direction, about whose destruction 
there was something remarkable, as known by some 
tradition not otherwise preserved. H. 

HARP ("T^S?, Kinnor), in Greek Kivvvpa. 
or Kiv6pa, from the Hebrew word, the sound of 
which corresponds with the thing signified, Uke the 
Grerman knarren, "to produce a shrill tone" 
(Liddell and Scott). Gesenius incHnes to the 

opinion that T)3!3 is derived from "^33, « an 
unused onomatopoetic root, which means to give 
forth a tremulous and stridulous sound, like that 
of a string when touched." The kinnor was the 
national instrument of the Hebrews, and was well 
known throughout Asia. There can be Uttle doubt 
that it was the earliest instrument with which man 
was acquainted, as the writer of the Pentateuch 
BSgigus its invention, together with that of the 

^3'1^, Ugab, incorrectly translated " organ " in 
the A. v., tx) the antediluvian period (Gen. iv. 21). 
Dr. Kaliseh {Hist, and Crit. Com. on the Old Test.) 
eonsiders Kinnor to stand for the whole class of 
itringed instruments {Neginoth), as Ugah, says 
he, " is the type of all wind instruments." Writers 
irho connect the Kiuvpa with Ku/up6s (wailing), 
Ktrioofiai (I lament), conjecture that this instru- 

HARP 10()6 

ment was only employed by the Greeks on occa- 
sions of sorrow and distress. K this were the case 
with the Greeks it was far diflferent with the He- 
brews, amongst whom the kinnor served as an ac- 
companiment to songs of cheerfulness and mirth 
as well as of praise and thanksgiving to the Su- 
preme Being (Gen. xxxi. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 23; 2 
Chr XX. 28; Ps xxxiii. 2), and was very rarely 

Egyptian harp. (ChampoUion.) 

used, if ever, in times of private or national afflic- 
tion. The Jewish bard finds no employment for 
the kinnor during the Babylonian Captivity, but 
describes it as put aside or suspended on the wil- 
lows (Ps. cxxxvii. 2); and in hke manner Job's 
harp " is changed into mourning " (xxx. 31 ), whilst 
the hand of grief pressed heavily upon him. The 
passage "my bowels shall sound like a harp for 

Assyrian harps. (Nineveh marbles.) 

Moab" (Is. xvi. 11) has impressed some BiblicaJ 
critics with the idea that the kinnor had a lugu- 
brious sound; but this is an error, since HID 33 

yt2iT\** refers to the vibration of the chords and 
not to the sound of the instrument (Gesen. and 
Hitzig, in Comment.). 

Touching the shape of the kinnor a great differ- 
ence of opinion prevails. The author of Shilte 
Haggihborim describes it as resembling the modem 
harp ; Pfeiffer gives it the form of a guitar ; and 
St. Jerome declares it to have resembled in shap* 



khe Greek letter delta; and this last new is sup- 
ported by Hieronymus, quoted by Joel Brill in the 
preface to Mendelssohn's Psalms. Joseplius re- 
cords {Antiq. vii. 12, § 3) that the kinnor had ten 
strings, and ♦Jiat it was played on with the plec- 
trum ; otherb assign to it twenty-four, and in the 
ShilLe IJ(uj<jibborim it is said to have had forty- 
seven. Josephus's statement, however, ought not 
to be received as conclusive, as it is in open contra- 
diction to what is set forth in the 1st book of 
Samuel (xvi. 23, xviii. 10), that Uavid played on 
the kinmn' with his hand. As it is reasonable to 
suppose that there was a smaller and a largei' Hn- 
nor, inasmuch as it was sometimes played by the 
Israelites whilst walkmg (1 Sam. x. 5), the opinion 
of Munk — " on jouait peut-etre des deux manieres, 
wivant les dimensions de I'uistrument " — is well 

Egyptian harps. (From the tomb at Tnebes, called 

entitled to consideration. The Talmud {Moss. 
Btracoih) has preserved a curious tradition to the 
effect that over the bed of David, facing the north, 
a kinnor was suspended, and that when at midnight 
the north wind touched the chords they vibrated 
and produced musical sounds. 

The n"^2'^r3tt;n b^ "T13D — "Imrp on the 
Sheminith" (1 Chr. xv. 21) — was so called from 
,ts eight strings. Many learned writers, including 
the author of Shilte IIag<jibbwiin, identify the word 
" Sheminith " with the octave; but it would indeed 
be rash to conclude that the ancient Hebrews un- 
derstood the octave in the sense in which it is em- 
ployed in modern times. [Siieminitii.] The 
skill of the .Jews on the kinnor appears to have 
reached its highest point of perfection in the age 
of David, the effect of whose performances, as well 
as of those by the members of the " Schools of 
the Prophets," are described as truly marvelous 
(oomp. 1 Sam. x. 5, xvi. 23, and xix. 20). 

D. W. M. 

HARROW. The word so rendered 2 Sam. 

xU. 31, 1 Chr. XX. 3 (V^"]^) is probably a thresh- 
ing-machine, the verb rendered "to harrow" 
(Tib), Is. xxviii. 24; Job xxxix. 10; Hos. x. 11, 
expresses apparently the breaking of the clods, and 
is so far analogous to our harrowing, but whether 
done by any such machine as we call "a harrow" 
'« very doubtfiil. In modern Palestine, oxen are 
■cmetimes turned in to trample the clods, and in 
•ome parts of Asia a bush of thorns is dragged 
owr Ui« Burfacft, but all these processes, if used, 


occur (not after, but) before the seed is committod 
to the soil. [See Agricultuke.] H. II. 

HAR'SHA (Str-in \deaf, Ges. Gte Aufl.; 
see Fiirst] : 'Apad; ['ASacdv; in Ezr., Vat. Aprr- 
aa'] Ilarsa). Bene-Charsha [sons of C] were 
among the families of Nethinim who came back 
from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 52; Neh. 
vii. 54). In the parallel list in Esdras the name is 


HART (bjS: ixacpos- cervus). The hart 
is reckoned among the clean animals (Deut. xii. 
15, xiv. 5, XV. 22), and seems, from the passages 
quoted as well as from 1 K. iv. 23, to have been 
commonly killed for food. Its activity furnishes 
an apt comparison in Is. xxxv. 6, though in this 
respect the hind was more commonly selected by 
the sacred writers. In Ps. xlii. 1 the feminine ter- 
mination of the verb renders an emendation neces- 
sary: we must therefore substitute the hind; and 

again in Lam. i. 6 the true reading is Q^^'^S, 
" rams " (as given in the J^XX. and ViJg.). The 
proper name Ajalon is derived from ayyal^ and im- 
plies that harts were numerous in the neighbor- 
hood. W. L. B. 

The Heb. masc. noun ayyal ( /'*S), which is al- 
ways rendered e\a(po9 by the EXX., denotes, there 
can be no doubt, some species of Cervidce (deer 
tribe), either the Damn i-ult/ai-is, fallow-deer, or 
the Cervus Barbarus, the Barbary deer, the south- 
em representative of the European stag (C. ela- 
phus), which occurs in Tunis and the coast of 
IBarbary. We have, however, no evidence to show 
that the Barbary deer ever inhabited Palestine, 
though there is no reason why it may not have 
done so in primitive times. Hasselquist {Trav. 

Barbary deer. 

p. 211) observed the fallow-deer on Mount Tabor. 
Sir G. Wilkinson says (Anc. Egypt, p. 227, 8vo 
ed.), "The stag with branching horns figured at 
Beni Hassan is also unknown in the valley of the 


mis; but it is still seen in the vicinity of the Na- 
tron lakes, as about Tunis, though not in the des- 
ert between the river and the Ked Sea." This is 
doubtless the Cei-vus Barharus. 

Most of the deer tribe are careful to conceal their 
3alves after birth for a time. IMay there not be 
Bome allusion to this circumstance in Job xxxix. 1, 
» Canst thou mark when the hinds do calve? " etc. 
Perhaps, as the LXX. uniformly renders ayyal by 
iKa(pos, we may incline to the belief that the Cer- 
vus Barbarus is the deer denoted. The feminine 

noun n v^S, ayydldh, occurs frequently in the 
O. T. For the Scriptural allusions see under 
Hind. W. H. 

* The word Jol in Arabic is not confined to 

any particular species, but is as general as our word 
deer. It in fact applies as well to the mountain 



G. E. P. 

goat J»^^. 

HA'RUM Conn [elevated, hfty]: 'lapiv, 
[Vat.] Alex, lapei/j.' Arum). A name occurring 
in one of the most ooscure portions of the geneal- 
ogies of Judah, in which Coz is said to have begot- 
ten "the families of Aharhel son of Harum" (1 
Chr. iv. 8). 

HARU'MAPH (^'^^""11 [sUt-nosed, Ges.] : 
'Epcofidcj); [Vat. Epwfiad:] Ilaromaph), father or 
ancestor of Jedaiah, who assisted in the repair of 
the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 10). 

HARU'PHITE, THE C^Cnnrin [patro- 
aym., see Hnriph] : 6 Xapai(piri\ ; [Vat. FA. 
-<f)€irjK; Aid.] Alex. 'KpovcpU [Ilarupkiies]), the 
designation of Shephatiahu, one of tiie Korhites 
who repaired to David at Ziklag when he was in 
distress (1 Chr. xii. 5). The Masorets read the 

word Hariphite, and point it accordingly, '^D'^'ir]. 

HA'RUZ (V*"^"1'7 I'^^^^i active']: 'ApoCs: 
/laitis), a nian of Jotbah, father of MeshuUemeth, 
queen of Manasseb, and mother of Amon king oi 
fudah (2 K. xxi. 19). 

HARVEST. [Agriculture.] 

HASADI'AH (n^lOn [whom Jehovah 
brves]: 'AtraSia: Hasadia), one o^ a group of five 
persons among the descendants of tha royal line of 
Judah (1 Chr. iii. 20), apparently sons of Zerub- 
babel, the leader of the retui'n from Babylon. It 
b-^s been conjectured that this latter half of the 
family was born after the restoration, since some 
of the names, and amongst them this one — " be- 
loved of Jehovah," appear to embody the hopeful 
feeling of that time. [Asadias.] 

HASENU'AH (nS^Sn, i. e, has-Sennuah 
[the hated]; ^Aaivod; [Vat. Aava(] Alex. Aca- 
t/oua' Asana), a Benjamite, of one of the chief 
iiamilies in the tribe (1 Chr. ix. 7). The name is 
■really Senuah, with the definite article prefixed. 

HASHABI'AH (n^^t^'Q, and with final «; 

"inptt^n? 'Ao-ajSios, ['Ao-ajSto, AcejSias,] 
KtrtBlut [etc.:] Hasabias, [Hasabia, Hasebias,] 

ffasebia), a name signifying " regarded of Jeho- 
vah," much in request among the I^evites, espd- 
cially at the date of the return from Babylon. 

1. A Merarite Levito, son of Amaziah, in the 
line of Ethan the singer (1 Chr. vi. 45; Heb. 30) 

2. Another Merarite Levite (1 Chr. ix. 14). 

3. Chashabia'iiu: another Levite, the fourth 
of the six sons of Jeduthun (the sixth is omitted 
here, but is supplied in ver. 17), who played the 
harp in the service of the house of God under 
David's order (1 Chr. xxv. 3), and had charge of 
the twelfth course (19). 

4. Chashabia'hu: one of the Ilebronites, i. e. 
descendants of Hebron the son of Kohath, one of 
the chief families of the Levites (1 Chr. xxvi. 30) 
He and the 1,700 men of his kindred had supei • 
intendence for King David over business both 
sacred and secular on the west « of Jordan. Pos- 
sibly this is the same person as 

5. The son of Kemuel, who was "prince" 

(")C^) of the tribe of Levi in the time of David 
(1 Chr. xxvii. 17). 

6. Chashabia'hu : another Levite, one of the 

"chiefs" O^P) of his tribe, who officiated for 
King Josiah at his great passover-feast (2 Chr. 
XXXV. 9). In the parallel account of 1 Esdras the 
name appears as Ass a bias. 

7. A Merarite Levite who accompanied Ezra 
from Babylon (Ezr. viii. 19). In 1 Esdras the 
name is Asebia. 

8. One of the chiefs of the priests (and there- 
fore of the famil} of Kohath) who formed part of 
the same caravan (Ezr. viii. 24). In 1 Esdras the 
name is Assanias. 

9. " Ruler " (~lti?) of half the cu-cuit or envi- 
rons (Tfr?Q) of Keilah; he repaired a portion of 
the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 

10. One of the Levites who sealed the covenant 
of reformation after the return from the Captivity 
(Neh. X. 11). Probably this is the person named 

as one of the " chiefs " (**t^'Sl'^) of the Levites in 
the times immediately subsequent to the return 
from Babylon (xii. 24; comp. 2G). 

11. Another Levite, son of Bunni (Neh. xi. 15). 
Notwithstanding the remarkable correspondence 
between the lists in this chapter and those in 1 
Chr. ix. — and in none more than in this verse 
compared with 1 Chr. ix. 14 — it does not appeal 
that they can be identical, inasmuch as this relates 
to the times after the Captivity, while that in Chron- 
icles refers to the original establishment of the ark 
at Jerusalem by David, and of the tabernacle (comp 
19, 21, and the mention of Gibeon, where the 
tabernacle was au this time, in ver. 35). But see 

12. Another Levite in the same list cf attend- 
ants on the Temple ; son of Mattaniah (Neh. xi. 

13. A priest of the family of Hilkiah in the 
days of Joiakim son of Jeshua, that is in the gen- 
eration after the return from the Captivity (Neh. 
xii 21; comp. 1, 10,26). 

HASHAB'NAH (n^^trq [see mpra]: 
['Effffafiavoi', Alex. Ecra^av'a, and so Vat. FA., 

a This is one of the mstances in which the word 
tim (beyond) is used for the west side of Jordan. To 

remove the anomaly, our translators have tendHend ■ 
" on this side." 


8XC. the wrong division of words :] Hasebna), one 
of the chief ("heads ") of the "people " (i. c. the 
laymen) who sealed the covenant at the same time 
with Nehemiah (Neh. x 25). 

HASHAENFAH (n;?ntt'q [wTimnJeho. 
mh rer/arth]: ' Kaa^avia; [Vat. " AtraiSaj/ea^;] 
Alex. Aa-/3ai/m; [FA. AtriSei/ea/i:] Hasebonia). 
1. Father of Hattush, who repaired part of the 
wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 10). 

2. [^Hasebnia.'] A Levite who was among those 
who officiated at the great fast under Ezra and 
Nehemiah when the covenant was sealed (Neh. ix. 
5 ). This and several other names are omitted in 
both MSS. of the LXX. 

HASHBAD'ANA (nj^^Stril [intelligence 
in judging^ Gesen.] : 'A(Ta/8a5/xo; [Tat. FA.i 
omit; Alex. Aca/Saayuo :] Ilasbadana), one of the 
men (probably Levites) who stood on Ezra's left 
hand while he read the law to the people in Jeru- 
Balem (Neh. viii. 4). 

HA'SHEM (Dt?;;! [perh. fat, rich, Ges.] : 
'Ao-Oju; [Vat. FA. corrupt: Assem]). The sons 
of Hashem the Gizonite are named amongst the 
members of David's guard in the catalogue of 1 
Chr. (xi. 34.) In the parallel hst of 2 Sam. xxiii. 
we find " of the sons of Jashen, Jonathan." After 
a lengthened examination, Kennicott decides that 
the text of both passages originally stood " of the 
Bons of Hashem, Guni" {Dissertation^ pp. 198- 

HASHMAN'NIM vC^2»t?'n : irpia fiats' 
legati). This word occurs only in the Hebrew of 
Ps. Ixviii. 31: " Hashmannim (A. V. "princes") 
shaU come out of Egypt, Cush shall make her hands 
to hasten to God." In order to render this word 
"princes," or the hke, modern Hebraists have had 
recourse to extremely improbable derivations from 
tlie Arabic. The old derivation from the civil name 
of Hermopolis Magna in the Heptanomis, preserved 

in the modern Arabic ^^w^j«„^*CCi!, "the two 

Ashmoons," seems to us more reasonable. The 
ancient Egyptian name is Ha-shmen or Ha-shmoon, 
the abode of eight; the sound of the signs for eight, 
\iowever, we take alone from the Coptic, and Brugsch 
leads them Sesennu {Geog. Inschr. i. pp. 219, 220), 
but not, as we think, on conclusive grounds. The 
Coptic form is CyJULOVil S, "the two 
Shmoons," like the Arabic. If we suppose that 
Hashmannim is a proper name and signifies Her- 
mopolites, the mention might be explained by the 
circumstance that Hermopolis Magna was the great 
city of the Egyptian Hermes, Thoth, the god of 
irisdom ; and the meaning might therefore be that 
even the wisest Egyptians should come to the tem- 
ple, as well as the distant Cushites. R. S. P. 

HASHMO'NAH (HDbipn [fmitfulness-] : 
SeAjWcom; Alex. Ao-e\fiQ}va'- Jffesmona), a station 
of the IsraeUtes, mentioned Num. xxxiii. 29, as next 
before Moseroth, which, from xx. 28 and Deut. x. 
6, was near Mount Hor; this tends to indicate the 
.ocalitj' of Hashmonah. H. H. 

HA'SHUB {'y\*^^T2, 1 e. Chasshub [associate, 
friend, or intelligent^ : 'A<tov$ : Asub). The re- 
luplication of the Sh has been overlooked in the 
A. v., and the name is identical with that else- 
vherd correctly given as Hasshub. 


1. A son of Pahath-Moab who asaiated in the 

repair of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 23). 

2. Another man who assisted in the same work 
but at another part of the wall (Neh. iii. 11). 

3. [Vat. FA. AffovO.] The name is mentioned 
again among the heads of the " people " (that is 
the laymen) who sealed the covenant with Nehe- 
miah (Neh. X. 23). It may belong to eithei of the 

4. [Kom. omits; Vat. Alex. FA. Ao-ou/S.] A 
Merarite Levite (Neh. xi. 15). In 1 Chr. ix. 14 
he appears again as Hasshub. 

HASHU'BAH (n^tpq [esteemed, or asso- 
ciated]: 'Ao-oujSe'; Alex. Affefia'- JJasaba), th« 
first of a group of five men, apparently the latter 
half of the family of Zerubbabel (1 Chr. iii. 20). 
For a suggestion concerning these persons, see 

HA'SHUM (Dtrn [rich, distinguished]: 
^Aaoifi, 'Aardfi [etc. : ' Ha sum, Hasom, Hasem] ). 

1. Bene-Chashum, two hundred and twenty-three 
in number, came back from Babylon with Zerub- 
babel (Ezr. ii. 19; Neh. vii. 22). Seven men of 
them had married foreign wives from whom they 
had to separate (Ezr. x. 33). The chief man of 
the fjimily was among those who sealed the cove- 
nant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 18). [In 1 Esdr. 
ix. 33 the name is Asom.] 

2. CAa-dofJL', [Vat. FA.i omit:] Asnm.) The 
name occurs amongst the priests or Levites who 
stood on Ezra's left hand while he read the law to 
the congregation (Neh. viii. 4). In 1 Esdr. ix. 44 
the name is given corruptly as Lothasubus. 

HASHU'PHA {^tWr\ [uncovered]: 'A<r- 
(pd; [Alex. FA. Aa-ft<pa'- Hasupha]), one of the 
families of Nethinim who returned from captivity 
in the first caravan (Neh. vii. 46). The name is 
accurately Hasupha, as in Ezr. ii. 43. [Asipha.] 

HAS'RAH (nnpn [perh. sjilendor, Furst] : 
'Apis'i [Vat. XeAAi7s;] Alex. Ea(repv\Hasi'a), 
the form in which the name Harhas is given iu 
2 Chr. xxxiv. 22 (comp. 2 K. xxii. 14). 

HASSENA'AH (nSjrpn [the thoi-n-hedge, 
Fiirst]: 'Acavd; [Vat. Aaav; FA. Aaavaa:] 
Asnaa). The Bene-has-senaah [sons of Hassenaah] 
rebuilt the fish-gate in the repair of the wall of 
Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 3). The name is doubtlesa 
that of the place mentioned in Ezr. ii. 35, and Neh. 
vii. 38 — Senaah, with the addition of the defi- 
nite article. Perhaps it has some connection with 
the rock or cUfF Sekeh (1 Sam. xiv. 4). 

HAS'SHUB (:i^t2?n [intelligent, knowing 
Ges.] : 'A<rc6i3 : Hasmb), a Merarite Invite (1 
Chr. ix. 14). He appears to be mentioned again 
in Neh. xi. 15, in what may be a repetition of the 
same genealogy; but here the A. V. have given ths 
name as Hashub. 

HASUTHA (S^^irn [uncovered, naTced]: 
'A<Tov<pd ; [Vat. A<Tov(p€ :] Hasupha). Bene 
Chasftpha [sons of C] were among the Nethinin 
who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. 
ii. 43). In Nehemiah the name is uiaccuratelj 
given in the A. V. [as in the Genevan version^ 
Hashupha ; in Esdi-as it is Asipha. 

HAT. [Head-dress, at the end ot the art.J 

HA'TACH C?|nq [Pers. eunuch, Geeen.j 
'Axpaflatos; Alex. [ver. 5,] Axpoefos; [wr. 9 


•rith FA.l, Ax^pa^atos; Conip. 'A0axO Athach), 
one of the eunuchs (A. V. "chamberlains") in the 
court of Ahasuerus, in immediate attendance on 
Esther (Esth. iv. 5, 6, 9, 10). The LXX. alter 
ver. 5 to rhv ^huovxov auTTjs. 

HA'THATH (nHQ U'earfuC]-. 'AOdd: Hn- 
that), a man in the genealogy of Judah; one of 
the sons of Othniel the Kenazite, the well-known 
judge of Israel (1 Chr. iv. 13). 

HATITHA (WD^'t^n [seized, captivt] : 
'ATOv<pa, 'Art^a; [in Ezr., Alex. Kricpa; in 
Neh., Vat. Alex. FA. ATe«/)o:] Hatipha). Bene- 
Chatipha [sons of C] were among the Nethinim 
v*ho returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. 
ii. 54; Neh. vii. 56). [Atii'HA.] 

HATI'TA (ST^^tS'I^ [dlf/ffiriff, explming]: 
'hrird; [in Ezr., Vat. ArTyra; in Neh., Vat. FA. 
Ai etra:] Halita). Bene-Chatita [sons of C] were 
among the " porters " or " children of the porters " 

(□"^n^t^n, ;. e. the gate-keepers), a division of 
the Invites who returned from the Captivity with 
Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 42; Neh. vii. 45). In Esdras 
the name is abbreviated to Teta. 

HAT'TIL (b"'I2in {wavering, or decaying] : 
'AtiA, 'Ett^A; Alex. AttiA, [EtttjX; in Ezr., 
Vat. Areta; in Neh., Vat. FA. E77)A:] HntU). 
llene-Chattil [sons of C] were among the " chil- 
dren of Solomon's slaves " who came back from 
captivity with Zerubbabel (l^^r. ii. 67 ; Neh. vii. 
59). [Hagia.] 

HAT'TUSH (tr^tSn [prob. assembled, Ges. ; 
contender, Fiirst] : Xarrovs, ' A.TTovi, [etc.:] II it- 
tus). 1. A descendant of the kings of Judah, 
apparently one of the "sons of Shechaniah " (1 
Chr. iii. 22), in the fourth or fifth generation from 
Zerubbabel. A person of the same name, expressly 
specified as one of the "sons of David of the sons 
of Shechaniah," accompanied Ezra on his journey 
from Babylon to .Terusalem (Ezr. viii. 2), whither 
Zerubbabel himself had also come only seventy or 
eighty years before (I^r. ii. 1, 2). Indeed, in 
another statement Hattush is said to have actually 
returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 2). At any 
rate he took part in the seahng of the covenant 
with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 4). To obviate the dis- 
crepancy between these last-mentioned statements 
and the interval between Hattush and Zerubbabel 
in 1 Chr. iii., Lord A. Hervey proposes to read the 
genealogy in that chapter as if he were the nephew 
if Zerubbabel, Shemaiah in ver. 22 being taken as 
dentinal with Shimei in ver. 19. For these pro- 
»)Osals the reader is referred to Lord Hei-vey's 
(Jeneaiogies, pp. 103, 307, 322. &c. [Lkttus; 

2. {"AttovO [Vat. FA. AtovO; Alex, uvtovs' 
Comp. 'Attovs-] ) Son of Hashabniah ; one of those 
jvho assisted Nehemiah in the repair of the wall of 
Jeiiisalem (Neh. iii. 10). 

HAU'RAN O^p [see infra]: AypavTr/s: 

. tt" 

Auran: Arab. ..»i\«-^.), a province of Palesthie 

twice mentioned by Ezekiel in defining the north- 
eastern border of the Promised Land (xlvii. 16, 18). 
Had we no other data for determining its situation 
we should conclude from his words that it lay north 
of Damascus. There can be little doubt, however, 
that it is identical with the well-known Gre> k prov- 



ince of Auranitis, and the modem VaurAn. Tlie 
name is probably derived from the word H^n, Ilur, 
■' a hole or cave; " the region still abounds in caves 
which the old inhabitants excavated partly io aerve 
as cisterns for the collection of water, and partly 
for granaries in which to secure their grain from 
plunderers. .Tosephus frequently mentions Auran- 
itis in connection with Trachonitis, Batana;a, and 
Gaulanitis, which with it constituted the ancient 
kingdom of Bashan {B. J. i. 20, § 4; ii. 17, § 4^. 
It formed part of that Tpax(^viri5os X'*>P°- referred 
to by Luke (iii. 1) as suiycct to Philip the tetrarch 
(comp. Joseph. Ant. xvii. 11, § 4). It is bounded 
on the west by Gaulanitis, on the north by the 
wild and rocky district of Trachonitis, on the east 
by the mountainous region of Batansea, and on the 
south by the great plain of Moab (Jer. xlviii. 21). 
The surface is perfectly flat and the soil is among 
the richest in Syria. Not a stone is to be .Heen save 
on the few low volcanic tells that rise up here and 
there, like islands in a sea. It contains upwards 
of a hundred towns and villages, most of them now 
deserted, though not ruined. The buildings in 
many of these are remarkable, the walls are of great 
thickness, and the roofs and doors are of stone, 
evidently of remote antiquity (see Porter's Five 
Years in Damascus, vol. ii. [also liis Giant Cities 
of Bashan ; Wetzstein's Beisebericht iib. TIauran 
n. die Trachonen (Berlin, 1861)]). Some Arab 
geographers have described the JIauran as much 
more extensive than here stated (l^haed. Vit. Sal. 
ed. Schult. p. 70; Abulfed. Tab. Syr. s. v.); and 
at the present day the name is apphed by those at 
a distance to the whole country east of Jaulan ; 
but the inhabitants themselves define it as above. 

J. L. P. 
* HAVENS, FAIR. [Fair Havens.] 
HAVI'LAH (nVin \circle,district,Tnmt] 
Ei'tAa, EwetAa: Hevila). 1. A son of Cush (Ger 
X. 7); and — 

2. A son of Joktan (x. 29). Various theories 
have been advanced respecting these obscure peoples. 
It ap])ears to be most probable that both stocks 
settled in the same country, and there intermairied ; 
thus receiving one name, and forming one race, 
with a common descent. It is innnaterial to the 
argument to decide whether in such instances the 
settlements were contemporaneous, or whether new 
inmiigrants took the name of the older settlers. In 
the case of Havilah, it seems that the Cushite 
people of this name fonned the westernmost colony 
of ( 'ush along the south of Arabia, and that the 
Joktanites were an earlier colonization. It is com- 
monly thought that the district of Khawkic 

(*-^), in the Yemen, preserves the trace 
of this ancient people; and the similarity of name 
(^ being interchangeable with H, and the ter- 
mination being redundant), and the group of Jok- 
tanite names in the Yemen, render the identifica- 
tion probable. Niebuhr states that there are two 
Kliiiwli'ms (Descr. 270, 280 j, and it has hence been 
argued by some that we have thus the Cushite and 
the Joktanite Havilah. The second Khawlan, how- 
ever, is a tf)wn, and not a laige and weU-knowii 
district like the first, or more northern one; and 
the hyiwtliesis based on Niebuhr's assertion is un- 
necessary, if the theory o*" a doulile settlement b« 


•dopted. There is also another town in the Yemen 

sailed llawlan {^"^yS*). 

Tlie district of Khiiwlan lies between the city of 
San'ii and the Hijaz, i. e. in the northwestern 
lX)rtioi) of the Yemen. It took its name, according 
to the Arabs, from Khiiwlan, a descendant of Kahtan 
[.Ioktan] (Mardsi(f, s. v.), or, as some say, of 
Kahlan, brother of Himyer (Caussin, /ksv//, i. ]13, 
and tab. ii.). This geiiealo<];y says little more than 
that the name was -loktanite; and the difference 
between Kahtan and Kahlan may be neglected, 
b<^th behig descendants of the first Joktanite settler, 
and the whole of these early traditions pointing to 
a Joktanite settlement, without perhaps a distinct 
presei'vation of Joktan's name, and certainly none 
of a conect genealogy from him downwards. 

Khawlan is a fertile territory, embracing a large 
part of myrrhiferous Arai)ia; mountainous; with 
plenty of water; and su])porting a large population. 
It is a tract of Arabia better known to both ancients 
and moderns than the rest of the Yemen, and the 
eastern and central provinces. It adjoins Nejran 
(the district and town of that name), mentioned in 
the account of the expedition of yl'lius (iallus, and 
the scene of great {KJisecutions of tl.e ( christians by 
Dhu-Nuwjis, the last of the l'ubl)ajis before the 
Abyssinian conquest of Arabia, in the year 523 ol 
our era (cf. Caussin, K^a/ti, i. 1*21 ff.). For the 
Chaulanitae, see the Dictiirtmry of (j!eo(/rr>/)iaj. 

An argument against the identity of Ivhawhin 
and Havilah has been foiuid in the mentions of a 
Ilavilah on the border of the Ishmaehtes, " as thou 
goest to Assyria" (Cen. xxv. 18), and also on that 
of the Amalekites (1 Sam. xv. 7). It is not how- 
ever necessary that these passages should refer to 1 
or 2 : the place named may be a town or country 
called after them ; or it may ha\ e some reference 
to the Havilah named in the description of the 
rivers of the garden of Kden; and the LXX. render 
it, following apparently the last supposition, EwtAciT 
in both instances, according to their si>elling of the 
Havilah of Gen. ii. 11. 

Those who separate the Cushite and Joktanite 
Havilah either place them in Niebuhr's two Khjiw- 
ians (as already stated), or they place 2 on the 
north of the peninsida, following the supposed 
argument derived from Gen. xxv. 18, and 1 Sam. 
XV. 7, and finding the name in that of the Xav\o- 
ra7oi (Eratosth. oj). Strabo, xvi. 767), between the 
Nabata-i and the Agr«i, and in that of the town 

of ILOa.^- on the Persian Gulf (Niebuhr, Dtscr. 

342). A Joktanite settlement so far north is how- 
ever very improbable. They discover 1 in the Avahtae 
on the African coast (Ptol. iv. 7; Arrian, Ptripl. 
263, ed. Midler), the modern name of the shore of 
the Sinus Avalatis being, says Gesenius, Zeylah = 
Zuweylah = Ilavilah, and Saadiah having three 
times in Gen. WTitten Zeylah for Havilah. But 
Gesenius seems to have overlooked the true orthog- 
raphy of the name of the modern country, which 

is not icoV, but /^-OV, with a final letter very 
rarely added to the Hebrew. E. S. P. 

HAVFLAH ([EufAar; Alex. EuetAor: Hev- 
Hath] Gen. ii. 11). [Edkn, p. 657.] 

HA'VOTH-JAaR ("!''S; n^r, I e. Chav- 
roth Jair [yiUayes of Jair, i. e. of the enlight- 


ener]: ^iravK^is and Kui^jiai 'latp, 0aiici;9 [ Iaij», 
etc. :] vicus, Ifavoth Jair, iriculus Jair, [etc.]) 
certain villages on the east of Jordan, in Gilead M 
Bashan. The word Chavvali, which occurs in the 
Bible in this connection only, is perhaps best ex- 
plaine<l by the similar term in modern Arabic, 
which denotes a small collection of huts or hovel? 
in a country place (see the citations in Gesenius, 
Thes. 451; and Stanley, S. (f P. App. § 84). 

(1.) The earliest notice of the Havoth-jair is in 
Num. xxxii. 41, in the account of the settlement 
of the Transjordanic country, where Jair, son of 
INIanasseh, is stated to have taken some ullages 
(A. V. "the small tovras; " but there is no article 
in the Hebrew) of Gilead — which was allotted to 
his tribe — and to have named them after himself, 
Havvoth-jair. (2.) In Deut. iii. 14 it is said that 
Jair " took all the tract of Argob, unto the bound- 
ary of the Geshurite and the Maacathite, and called 
them after his own name, Bashan-havoth jair." 
Here tlie villages are referred to, but there must l^e 
a hiatus after the word " Maacathite," in which 
they were mentioned, or else there is nothing to 
justify the plural "them." (3.) In the records 
of Manasseh in Josh. xiii. 30 and 1 Chr. ii. 23 
(A. v., in both "towns of Jair"), the HavToth- 
jair are reckoned with other districts as making up 

sixty "cities" (U^'^V). In 1 K. iv. 13 they are 
named as part of the conuuissariat district of Ben- 
geber, next in order to the "sixty great cities" of 
Argob. There is apparently some confusion iu 
these different statements :us to what the sixty cities 
really consisted of, and if the interpretation of 
Chavvah given above be correct, the application of 
tlie word " city " to such transient erections ia 
remarkable atid puzzling. Perhaps the remoteness 
and inaccessibility of the Transjordanic district in 
which they lay may explain the one, and our igno- 
rance of the real force of the Hebrew word Ir, ren- 
dered "city," the other. Or perhaps, though 
retaining their ancient name, they had changed 
their original condition, and had become more im- 
jx)rtant, as has been the case in our OMn country 
with more than one place still designated as a 
"hamlet," though long since a popukms town. 
(4.) No less doubtful is tlie number of tlie Havoth- 
jair. In 1 Chr. ii. 22 they are specified as twenty- 
three, but in Judg. x. 4, as thirty. In the latter 
passage, however, the allusion is to a second Jair, 
by whose thirty sons they were governed, and for 
whom the original number may have been increased. 

The word D'^'l^V, " cities," is perhaps employed 
here for the sake of the play which it aflbrds with 
^■^^3^, "ass-colts." [Jaik; Bashan-havotii- 
JAIR.] G. 

HAWK (V5' ^'«' (Vpa|: «c«)/?7e?'), the trans- 
lation of the above-named Heb. term, which occurs 
in lev. xi. 16 and Deut. xiv. 15 as one of the un- 
clean birds, and in Job xxxix. 26, where it is asked, 
" Doth the nets fly by thy wisdom and stretch her 
wings towards the south ? " The word is doubtless 
generic, as appears from the expression in Deut. 
and Lev. " after his kind," and includes varioua 
species of the Falconidce, with more esp^-cial allusion 
perhaps to the small diurnal birds, such as the 
kestrel {Folco tinnuncvlus), fhe hoi by {HypO' 
trinirhis stMuteo), the gregarious lesser kestrel 
{Tinmmcnlus cenc/nis), common about the ruin* 
in the plain districts of Palestine, all of irhich w«« 


probably known to the ancient Hebrews. With 
respect to the passajje in .lob (/. c), which appears 
to allude to the mii^ratory habits of hawks, it is 
curious to observe that of tlie ten or twelve lesser 
raptors of Tulestine, nearly all are summer migrants. 
The kestrel remains all the year, but T. cenchris, 
Micronisus oabar, Hyp. e.leonoiw, and F. mehmnp- 
tertts, are all migrants from the south. Besides 
the above-named smaller hawks, the two magnificent 
species, F. Snker and F. lanarius, are summer 

FaUo Saker. 

visitors to Palestine. » On one occasion," says 
Mr. Tristram, to whom we are indebted for much 
information on the subject of the birds of Palestine, 
"while riding with an Arab guide I observed a 
falcon of large size rise close to us. The guide, 
when I pointed it out to him, exclaimed, ' Ta'ir 
(SVrg'r.' « Tair, the Arabic for ' bird,' is universally 
throughout N. Africa and the East applied to those 
falcons which are capable of being trained for hunt- 
ing, i. e. ' the bird,' pnr excellence.'" These two 
species of fiilcons, and perhaps the hobby and 
goshawk (Aslitr pulwubarius) are employed by the 
Arabs in Syria and Palestine for the purpose of 
taking partridges, sand-grouse, quails, herons, 
gazelles, hares, etc. Dr. Russell {NaL [list, of 
Aleppo, ii. p. 190, 2d ed.) has ijlven the Arabic 
names of sevend falcons, but it is probable that 
some at least of these names apply rather to the 
ditlerent sexes than to distinct species. See a very 
graphic description of the sport of falconry, as pur- 
Mind by the Aral)s of N. Africa, in the Ibis, i. p. 
*28 J : and comp. Thomson, The Land and the Book, 
p. 208 (i. 30i)-yil, Am. ed.). 

Whether falconry was pursued by the ancient 
Orientals or not, is a question we have been unaWe 
o determine decisively. No representation of such 
a sport occurs on the monuments of ancient Egypt 
(see Wilkinson, Anc. A'//, i. p. 221), neither is there 
»ny definite allusion to falconry in the Bible. With 
regard, however, to the negative evidence supplied 

o * The word Sa^V, wiLo, is the name of all the 

9ptor«s, of the filcons, hawks, and kites. 

G. E. P. 

HA\ 1011 

by the monuments of Eg}^)!, we xa\^si be careAi 
ere we draw a conclusion ; for the eamel is not rej>. 
resented, though we have Biblical evidence to show 
that this animal was used by the Egyptians as 
early as the time of Abraham ; still, as instances 
of various modes of capturing fish, gurae, and wild 
animals, are not unfrequent on the raonuments, it 
seems probable the art was not known to the Egyp- 
tians. Nothing definite can be learnt from the 
passage in J Sum. xxvi. 20, which speaks of "a 
partridge hunted on the mountains," as this raaj 
allude to the method of taking these birds by 
" throw-sticks," etc. [Pakthidgk.] 'Hie hind or 
hart "panting after the water-brooks " (Ps. xlii. 1) 
may appear at firet sight to refer to the mode at 
present adopted in the East of taking gazelles, deer, 
and bustards, with the united aid of falcon and 
greyhound: but, as Hengstenberg (Coiument. on 
Ps. 1. c.) has arguetl, it seems pretty clear that the 
exhaustion spoken of is to be understtxHl as arising 
not from pursuit, but from some prevailing drought, 
as in Ps. Ixiii. 1, " My soul tliirsteth lor thee In a 
dry land.''' (See also Joel i. 20.) The poetical 
version of Brady and Tate — 

" As pants the hart for cooliuij streams 
AVhen heated in the chase," 

has therefore somewhat prejudged the matter. FoT 
the question as to whether falconry was known to 
the ancient Greeks, see Beckmann, HUtory of L%~ 
ventions (i. 198-205, Bohn's ed.). W. "li. 

HAY (T^l'n, chatzir: iv Ted ireSiev x^^pos^ 
X^pros'. prrda, tierba), the rendering of the A. V. 
in Prov. xxvii. 25, and Is. xv. 6, of the above-namet^ 
Heb. term, which occurs fret]uently in the O. T., 
and denotes "grass" of any kind, fmm an unuse<i 
root, "to be green." [Gkass.] In Num. xi. 5, 
this word is properly translated " leeks." [Lkkk.] 
Harmer {Observnt. i. 425, ed. 17!)7), quoting from 
a IMS. paper of Sir J. Chardin, states that hay is 
not made anywhere in the East, and that the 
fenum of the Vulg. (aliis locis) and the " hay '* 
of the A. V. are therefore errors of translation. It 
is quite probable that the modern Orientals do not 
make hay in our sense of the term ; but it is certain 
that the ancients did mow their gKiss, and probably 
made use of the dry material. See Ps. xxxvii. 2, 

" They shall soon be cut down (^^^^), and wither 
as the green herb; " Ps. Ixxii. 6, " Like rain upon 
the mown gniss " C*"?^. See also Am. vii. 1, " The 

king's mowings" (Tf^^H "'^TS) : and Ps.,cxxix. 
7, where of the "grass upon the housetops " (Poa 
iinnua ?) it is said (hat "the mower (*1^1p) 
filleth not his hand " with it, " nor he that bindeth 
sheaves his bosom." AVe do not see, therefore, 
with the author of Fragments in Continuation of 
Calmet (No. clxxviii.), any gross impropriety in our 
version of Prov. xxvii. 25, or in that of Is. xv. 6. 
" Certainly," sjiys this writer, " if the tender gi'ass * 
is but just beginning to show itself, the hay, which 
is grass cut and dried after it has arri\e(J at ma- 
turity, ought by no means to be associated with it, 
stil! less ought it to be placed before it." But 
where is the impropriety V ITie tender yras* 

(St?^jT) may refer to the springing nfler-grasi^ 

ft " The hay appeareth, and the tender grass shewetk 
itself, and herbs of the mixiutains are gathered " 



Mid the " hay " to the hay-<jrass. However, m tne 
two passages in question, where alone the A. V. 
renders didtzir by " hay," the word would certainly 
be better translated by "grass." We may remark 
that there is an express Hebrew term for " dry 
grass" or "hay," namely, chashosfi,^ which, ap- 
parently from an unused root signifying " to be 
dry," f' is rendered in the only two places where 
the word occurs (Is. v. 2-i, xxxiii. 11) "chaff" in 
the Authorized Version. We do not, however, 
mean to assert that the chashash of the Orientals 
represents our modern English hay. Doubtless the 
" dry grass " was not stacked, but only cut in small 
quantities, and then consumed. The grass of " the 

latter growth" (Am. vii. 1) (ITp,^), perhaps hke 
our after-grass^ denotes the mown grass as it grows 
afiesh after the harvest ; like the Chordum foRnum 
of I'liny {H. N. viii. 28). W. II. 

HAZ'AEL (bSjn IKl (God) is seeing, Furst, 
Ges.] : 'A^a^A : Hazael) was a king of Damascus, 
who reigned from about b. c. 886 to n. c. 840. 
He appears to have been previously a i)erson in a 
high position at the court of lien-hadad, and was 
sent by his master to Elisha, when that prophet 
visited Damascus, to inquire if he would recover 
from the malady under which he was suffering. 
Klisha's answer that lien-hadad might recover, but 
wimld die, and his announcement to Hazael that 
he would one day te king of Syria, which seems 
to have been the fulfillment of the commission given 
to Elijah (1 K. xix. 15) to apix)int Hazael kuig — 
led to the murder of IJen-hadad by his ambitious 
servant, who forthwith mounted the throne (2 K. 
viii. 7-15). He was soon engaged in hostilities 
with Ahaziah king of Judah, and Jehoram king of 
Israel, for the possession of the city of IJamoth- 
(jilead {ibid. viii. 28). The Assyrian inscriptions 
show that aV)out this time a bloody and destructive 
war was being waged between the Assyrians on the 
one side, and the Syrians, Hittites, Hamathites, 
ai d Vftft-nicians on the other. [See Damascus.] 
lieii-hatlad had recently suffered several severe defeats 
at the hands of the Assyrian king; and upon the 
accession of Hazael the war was speedily renewed. 
Hazael ♦^'^lok up a {wsition in the fastnesses of the 
Anti-LibaiiUs, but was there attacked by the As- 
«yrians, who defeatetl him with great loss, killing 
16,000 of his warriors, and capturing more than 
1100 chariots. Three years later the Assyrians 
once more entered Syria in force; but on this 
occasion Hazael submitted and helped to furnish 
the invaders with supplies. After this, internal 
troubles appear to have occupied the attention of 
the Assyrians, who ma<le no more expeditions into 
tliese parts for al)out a century. The Syrians 
rai'idly recovered their losses ; and towards the close 
of the reign of Jehu, Hazael led them against the 
Israelites (alx)ut b. c. 860), whom he "smote in 
all their coasts" (2 K. x. 32), thus accomplishing 
the prophecy of Elislia (ibid. viii. 12). His main 
attack fell upon the eastern provinces, where he 
ravaged " all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and 

a WWn, allied to the Arabic 

^c/i€sAlsh), which Freytag thus explains, " Herba, 
verul. siccior : scit. Pabulum giccum, foenum (ut 

- y^-. \ viride et recens." 

• " Tlifi irabs of tho desert always lall the dry 


the Keubenites, and the Manassites, from Aroer, 
which is by the river Amon, even Gilead and 
Bashiin " (ibid. x. 33). After this he seems to 
have held the kingdom of Israel in a species of sub- 
jection {ibid. xiii. 3-7, and 22); and towards the 
close of his life he even threatened the kingdom of 
Judah. Having taken Gath {ibid. xii. 17; conip. 
Am. vi. 2), he proceeded to attack Jerusalem, de- 
feated the Jews in an engagement (2 Chr. xxiv. 24), 
and was about to assault the city, when Joash 
induced him to retire by presenting him with " all 
the gold that was found in the treasures of the 
house of the Lord, and in the king's house " (2 K. 
xii. 18). Hazael appears to have died about the 
year b. c. 840 {ibid. xiii. 24), having reigneil 4<> 
years. He left his crown to his son Ben-hadad 
{ibid.). G. l{. 

* The true import of HazaePs answer to the 
prophet on being informed of his future destuiy 
(2 K. viii. 13), does not appear in the A. V.: 
" But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should 
do this great thing? " This is the language of a 
proud and self-approving spirit, spurning an unde- 
served imputation : " Thy servant is not a dog 
that he should do this great thing." It is ob- 
vious, moreover, that in this form the terms of the 
question are incongruous. If he had said. Is thy 
servant a dog, that he should do so base a thing, 
the question would have been consistent with it- 
self. But the incongruity disappears, and the per- 
tinency of the illustration is obvious, when we 
render according to the Hebrew: "What is thy 
servant, the dog, that he should do this great 
thing?" The use of the definite article in the 
Hebrew, as well as the congruity of the expression, 
requires this rendering.*' [Doc] T. J, C. 

* HAZ'AEL, HOUSE OF (Am. i. 4). 
probably some well-known edifice or palace, which 
this king had built at Damascus, and which, ac- 
cording to the prophet, the fire (God's in.strument of 
punishment) was destined to bum up. Some under- 
stood by " the house" Damascus itself, and others 
Hazael's family or [jersonal descendants. But the 
clause which follows — " the palaces of Ben-hadad " 
— as Baur {/kr Prophet Amos, p. 217) points out, 
favors the other explanation. H. 

HAZA'IAH [3 syl.] (n;^q : [Jehai^ah de- 
cides ov vie US']'. 'oO'a: [Vat. FA. O^fa:] Hnzia\ 
a man of Judah of the family of the Shilonitei 
A. V. "Shiloni"), or descendants of Shelaii 
(Neh. xi. 5). 
HA'ZAR-AD'DAR, ete. [Hazer.] 
HAZARMA'VETH (n;}pn'_ r^ : [in Gen.,} 
:S.apii.u>d; [Alex.- A(rapfjLu>e\ in 1 Chr., Horn. \at 
omit, Alex. ApafioDO'-] Js'innoth; the court o; 
death, Ges.), the third, in order, of the sons o 
Joktan (Gen. x. 26). The name is present d 
almost literally, in the Arabic Hadratnavi 

( O^-'OwO.^ ) and Ihtdrumawt { ■^ii.'a .^^ ), 

juiceless herbage of the Sahara, which i« re.ady mad* 
hay while it is growing:, cliesh's/i, in contradistinction 
from the fresh grass of better soils." — [H. B. Tristram. 
c * Gesenius ( T/us. p. 685) : " Quis eniui sum servus 
tuus cani.'», ut tantani rem perficiam ? " Keil {Bilcht^ 
der KlJni^e): "Was i*it dcin Knecht. der Hund {d. k- 
ein so veri'chtlicher Kerl .) er so groM* 

Dinge thun sollte?"' Theuius {Biicher der Konigi) 
" Dein Knecht, der llund ! " T. J. 0. 


and the appellation of a province and an ancient 
people of .Southern Arabia. This identification of 
the settlement of Hazarniaveth is accepted by Bil)- 
lical scholars its not admitting of dispute. It 
rests not only on the occurrence of the name, but 
is sui)ported by the proved fact that Joktan settled 
in the Yemen, along the south coast of Arabia, by 
the physical characteristics of the inhabitants of 
this region, and by the identification of the names 
of several otliers of the sons of Joktan. The 
pi'ivince of Hadramiiwt is situate east of the 
viodein Yemen (anciently, as shown in Arauia, 
the limits of the latter province embraced almost 
(he whole of the south of the peninsula), extend- 
uig to the districts of Shihr and Makreh. Its cap- 
ital is Shibam, a very ancient city, of which the 
native writers give curious accounts, and its chief 
ports are Mirbat, Zafari [Sepiiak], and Kisheem, 
from whence a great trade was carried on in an- 
cient times with India and Africa. Hadramiiwt 
itself is generally cultivated, in contrast to the con- 
tiguous sandy deserts (called El-Ahkaf, where lived 
the gigantic race of 'A'd), is partly mountainous, 
with watered valleys, and is still celebrated for its 
frankincense (El-Idreesee, ed. Joniard, i. p. 54; 
Niebuhr, Descr. p. 245), exporting also gum-arabic, 
myrrh, dragon's blood, and aloes, the latter, how- 
ever, being chiefly from Socotra, which is under 
the rule of the sheykh of Kesheem (Niebuhr, /. c. 
e.t stq.). The early kings of Hadramawt were 
Joktanites, distinct from the descendants of Yaa- 
rub, the progenitor of the Joktanite Arabs gener- 
ally ; and it is hence to be inferred that they were 
separately descended from Hazarmaveth. They 
mahitained their independence against the p(5wer- 
ful kings of Himyer, until the latter were subdued 
at the Abyssinian invasion (Ibn-Khaldoon, ap. 
Caussin, Essai^ i. 135 ff.)- The Greeks and 
Romans call the people of Hadramawt. variously, 
Chatramotitse, Chatrammitse, etc.; and there is 
little doubt that they were the same as the Adra- 
mitai, etc. (the latter not applying to the descend- 
ants of Hadouam, as some have suggested); while 
the native appellation of an inhabitant, lladramee, 
comes very near Adramitae in sound. Tlie mod- 
ern people, although mixed with other races, are 
strongly characterized by fierce, fanatical, and rest- 
less dispositions. They are enterprising mercliants, 
well known for their trading and travelling pro- 
pensities. E. S. 1*. 

HAZ'AZON-TA'MAR, 2 Chr. xx. 2. [TTa- 

HAZEL (T^b). The Hebrew term luz occurs 
only in Gen. xxx. 37, where it is coupled with tlie 
' poplar " and " chestnut," as one of the trees from 
which Jacob cut the rods, which he afterwards 
peeled. Authorities are divided between the hazel 
and the almond-tree, as representing the Uiz ; in 
favor of the former we have Kimchi, Hashi, Lu- 
ther, and others; while the Vulgate, Saadins, and 
Gesenius adopt the latter view. The rendering in 
Ihe LXX., Kap'ovi is equally applicable to either. 
We think the latter most probably correct, both 
because the Arabic word luz is undoubtedly the 
"almond-tree," and because there is another vrord 

n the Hebrew language eyuz (T1DS), whicli is 

a lo 2 K. XX 4, the Masorets {Keri) have substi- 
•^ n!^n (A. V. "court ") for the H^OT of the 

HAZER 1018 

applicable to the hazel. The strongest argument 
on the other side arises from the circumstance <A 

another word, shdked {l^}^)-, having reference tc 
tlie almond; it is supposed, howe\er, that the lat- 
ter applies to the fruit exclusively, and the word 
imder discussion to the tree: Kosenmiiller identi- 
fies the shdked with the cultivated, and luz with 
the wild almond-tree. For a description of the 
ahilond-tree, see the article on that subject. The 
Hebrew term appears as a proper name in Luz, the 
old appellation of Bethel. W. L. B. 

HAZELELPO'NI (^^Ssb^'^H : 'Eo-ryAe/S- 

ficou; Alex.EaTi\\e\(p(av'- Asilelphuni), ihe sister 
of the sons of Etam in the genealogies of Judah 
(1 Chr. iv. 3). The name has the definite article 
prefixed, and is accurately " the Tzelelponite," a? 
of a family rather than an individual. 

* That the name is genealogical rather than in- 
dividual appears also from the appended "^"7 (see 
Ges. Lehryeb. der ITebr. Sprac/ie, p. 514). It is 
variously explained : pi-otection of ihe presence 
(Fiirst); or, shade coming upon me (Ges.). Ewald 
makes the name still more expressive: Give shade 
thou who seest me, i. e. God (Lehrbuch, p. 502). 
This gives a different force to the ending. H. 

HA'ZER ("l:?n, i. e. Chatzer, from •"^'P, 
to suiTound or inclose), a word which is of not un- 
frequent occurrence in the Bible in the sense of a 
" court " or quadrangle to a palace" or other build- 
ing, but which topographically seems generally em- 
ployed for the " villages " of people in a roving and 
unsettled life, the semi-permanent collections of 
dwellings which are described by travellers among 
the modem Arabs to consist of rough stone walls 
covered with the tent cloths, and thus holding a 
middle position between the tent of the wanderer 
— so transitory as to furnish an image of the sud- 
den termination of life (Is. xxxviii. 12) — and the 
settled, permanent, town. 

As a proper name it appears in the A. V. — 

1. In the plural, Hazekim, and Hazeroth, 
for which see below. 

2. In the slightly different form of Hazor. 

3. In composition with other words, giving a designation to the particular " village " in- 
tended. When thus in union with another word 
the name is Hazar (Chatzar). The following are 
the places so named, and it should not be over- 
looked that they are all in the wilderness itself, or 
else quite on the confines of civilized country: — 

1. Ha'zar-ad'dar C^";TS-l!fn: ^TrawAts 
'Apa5, 2,dpaBa: Alex. Addapa: Villa nomine Adai\ 
Addar), a place named as one of the landmarks on 
the southern boundary of the land promised to 
Israel between Kadesh-barnea and Azmon (Num. 
xxxiv. 4). In the specification of the south boun- 
dary of the country actually possessed (Josh. xv. 
3), tlie name appears in the shorter form of Addar 
(A. V. Ai^AU), and an additional place is named 
on each side of it. The site of Hazar-addar does 
not appear to have been encountered in modern 

The LXX. reading might lead to the belief that 
Hazar addar was identical with Arad, a Canaan- 

original text. The same change should piobably 
made in Jer. xli. 7. [See Ishsiaki.. 6.] 

1014 H4ZER 

te city which lay in this direction, but the pres- 
ence of the Aln in the latter name forbids such an 

2. Ha'zak-e'nan OTV n^n [in Ezek. 

rivii. 17, ]'^2'^V 1'^n]=viUaffe of spi-inr/s: 
Aoa-evaiu, [ai/A-rj tov Aifdv, av. r. AiKd/j.'; Vat. in 
Num., Aptre.-aetjLt:] Alex. Aaepuaiv, ayA.17 tou 
Aiuav: VUbi A'nun, Atrium Enon, \_A. Ennn\), 
the place at which the northern boundary of the 
land promised to the children of Israel was to ter- 
minate (Num. xxxiv. 9), and the eastern boundary 
commence (10). It is again mentioned in TLze- 
kiel's prophecy (xlvii. 17. xlviii. 1) of what the ul- 
timate extent of the land will be. These bounda- 
lies are traced by Mr. Porter, who would identify 
llazar-enan with Ku7-yeiein = ^nhe two cities," a 
village more than sixty miles E. N. E. of Damas- 
cus, the chief ground for the identification appa- 
rently being the presence at Kuryeldn of «' large 
fountains," the only ones in that " vast region," a 
circumstance with which 1 he name of Hazar enan 
well agrees (Porter, Damascus^ i, 252, ii. 358). 
The great distance from I)an)ascus and the body 
of Palestine is the main nnpediment to the recep- 
tion of this identification. 

3. Ha'zak-gad'dah (iT^S "^^0 [village of 
Gaddah or fortum: Rom. Se/)^, Vat. Sepej/t;] 
Alex. Acepyoi^Za' Aser-Gaclda), one of (he towns 
in the soutliern district of Judah (Josh. x\. 27), 
named between JMoladah and Heshmon. No trace 
of the situation of this place appears in the Oiio- 
masticon^ or in any of the modern travellers. In 
Van de Velde's map a site named Jurrah is marked 
as close to ]\Iulada (el-.]fll/i), but it is perhaps too 
much to Hs.suiue that (iaddali has taken this form 
by the change so frequent in the East of D to R. 

4. HA'>CAI{-ItAT-TI''CON (pD'^rin "^Vn [the 

middle villa f/t]: Au\^ tov :^avvdu; [Alex, cor- 
rupt:] Dinnns Tirlion)^ a place named in I'^^ekiel's 
prophecy of tlie ultimate boundaries of the land (I^z. 
xlvii. 1(3), and specified as being on the boundary 

( ADS^ 7M) of Hauran. It is not yet known. 

5. Ha'zah-shu'al (br^tt? -irn = /ox-«7- 
Inge: XaAao-ewAo, 'AfKTwAa, 'Ecre/xrouoA; Alex. 
A<rap<rou\a, [2ep(roi»Aa, etc. :J /J((seisual, Hasar- 
6u/wl), a town in the southern district of Judah, 
lying Iwjtween Ilazar-gaddah and IJeer-sheba (Josh. 
XV. 28, xix. 3; 1 Chr. iv. 28). It is mentioned in 
the same connection after the return from the Cap- 
tivity (Nell. xi. 27). The site has not yet l)een 
conclusi\ely recovered; but in Van de Velde's map 
(1858) a site, Sawt/i, is marked at about the right 
Bpot, wliicli may be a corruption of the original 
name. This district has been only very slightly 
explored ; when it is so we may look for most in- 
teresting infonnation. 

6.11a '/a II. su^sAH (nOO n Y n = /wrse-vH- 
l(ige: 2ap<rov<riv [V^at. -cretj'] ; Alex. Acrepa-ovaifi'. 
yiustrsiisd])^ one of the "cities" allotted to 
Simeon in the extreme south of the territory of 
\\i\xh. (Josh. xix. 5). Neither it nor its com- 
panion Bktii-;makcaboth, the "house of char- 
lots," arc named in the list of the towns of Judah 
lu chap. XV., but iTiey are included in those of 

The translators of the A. V. have curiously rp- 
i\w *T>o variations of the name. In G«nosis, 


Simeon in 1 Chr. iv. 31, with the express «Ut» 
ment that they existed before and up to the tim€ 
of David. This appears to invalidate Professor 
Stanley's suggestion (^'. ^ P. p. 160) that thej 
were the depots for the trade witli Egypt in char- 
iots and horses, which commenced iti tlie reign of 
Solomon. Still, it is difficult to know to what 
else to ascribe the names of places situated, as 
these were, in the Bedouin coimtry, where a chariot 
must have been unknown, and where even horses 
seem carefully excluded from the possessions of the 
inhabitants — " camels, sheep, oxen, and a-sses " 
(1 Sam. xxvii. D). In truth the difficulty arises 
only on the assumption that the names are lie- 
brew, and that they are to l)e interpreted accord- 
ingly. It would cease if we could believe them to 
be in the former language of the coimtr3-, adopted 
by the Hebrews, and so altered as to liear a mean- 
ing in Hebrew. This is exactly the process which 
the Hebrew names have in their turn undergone 
from the Arabs, and is in fact one which is well 
known to ha\e occurred in all languages, though 
not yet recognized in the particular case of the 
early local names of Palestine. 

7. Ha'zak-su'sim (Q^P^D "^"Hj village of 

horses : 'Hfxia-ouaecorrlv, as if "**' H ; [Vat. H/t<- 
<rwy ecus Opafj.; Alex. Ufiiau Ewa-i/j.:] Hasarsu- 
si/n), the form imder which the preceding name 
appears in the list of the towns of Simeon in 3 
Chr. iv. 31. G. 

HAZE'RIM. The Avi:m.s, or more accu- 
rately the Avvim, a tribe commemorated in a frag- 
ment of very ancient history, as the early inhabi- 
tants of the southwestern portion of Palestine, are 
therein said to have lived " in the villages (A. V. 

" Hazerim," C^'^rnS ['Aa-nZwO; Alex. Actj- 
pwd: If'seriiu]), as ' far as Gaza " (Dent. ii. 23), 
before their expulsion by the Caphtorim. The 
word is the plural of IIazkh, noticed above, and 
as far as we can now appreciate the significance of 
the term, it implies that the Avvim were a wan- 
dering tribe who had retained in their new locality 
the transitory form of encampment of their origina 
desert-life. G. 

HAZE'ROTH (nSn';n [stations, camping 
grounds]: 'Aa-ppcoO; [in Dent., Ahxdiv' Hose- 
roth ;] Num. xi. 35, xii. 16, xxxiii. 17, Deut. i. 1), 
a station of the Israelites in the desert, mentioned 
next to Ivibroth-Hattaavah, and [jcrhaps recogniz- 
able in the Arabic jwCL.^, Ifudhera (Robinson, 

i. 151 ; Stanley, S. <f P. pp. 81, 82), which lies alx)ut 
eighteen hours' distance from Sinai on the ruad to 
the Akabah. The word ap|)ears to mean the son 
of uninclosed villages in whicli the liedoains an 
found to congregate. [Ha/.kh.] II. II. 


TA'MAR (-l^ri I't^r.n," but in a.roi;. 

n ]^VVn [prob. wet place of palms, palm- 
marsh, Dietr. ; roics of pains, palm-foi-es1, FiirstJ* 
'Aa-aa-ouOafidp, or ^Aoraaau Qafxdp; [Alex. Aaa- 
(Tav @., Auaa-av 0.; Vat. in 2 Chr., Ao-a/t ea- 
fiapa.:] Asns<mtham'ir), the name under which, al 
a very early period of the history of Palestine, and 

where the Hebrew is Hazazon, t'aey have Ilaaeson, •&< 
thb opposite in Chronicles 


jj a document believed by manj to be the oldest 
of all these early records, we first hear of the place 
which afterwards became En-gedi. The Amor- 
ites were dwelling at Ilazayon-Tamar when the four 
kings made their incursion, and fought their suc- 
cessful battle with the five (Gen. xiv. 7). The 
name occurs only once again — in the records of 
the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chr. xx. 2) — when he is 
warned of the approach of the horde of Ammon- 
ites, Moabites, Mehunim, and men of Blount Seir. 
whom he afterwards so completely destroyed, and 
who were no doubt pursuing thus far exactly the 
same route as the Assyrians had done a thousand 
years before them. Here the explanation, " which 
is En-gedi," is added. The existence of the ear- 
lier appellation, after En-gedi had been so long in 
use, is a remarkable instance of the tenacity of 
these old oriental names, of which more modern 
instances are frequent. See Acciio, Bethsaida, 

Hazazon-tamar is interpreted in Hebrew to mean 
the "pruning or felling of the palm" (Gesen. 
Thes. p. 512). Jerome (Qimst. in Gen.) renders 
it urbs pnlinarum. This interpretation of tlie name 
is borne out by the ancient reputation of the palms 
of En-gedi (Ecclus. xxiv. 14, and the citations from 
Pliny, given under that name). The Samaritan 

Version has **"T3 3.lbD = the Valley of Cadi, 
possibly a corruption of En-gedi. The Targums 
have En-gedi. 

Perhaps this w;ia the "city of palm trees " (//• 
kat-temanin) out of which the Kenites, the tribe 
of Moses' father-in-law, went up into the wilder- 
ness of .ludah, after the conquest of the country 
(Judg. i. l(j). If this were so, the allusion of 
Balaam to the Ivenite (Num. xxiv. 21) is at once 
explained. Standing as he was on one of tlie lofty 
points of the liighlands opposite Jericho, the west- 
ern shore of the Dead Sea as far as I'^n-gedi woidd 
be before him, and the cliff, in the clefts of which 
the Kenites had fixed their secure "nest," would 
be a prominent object in the view. This has been 
already alluded to by Professor Stanley {S. tf P., 
p. 225, n. 4). ' G. 

HA'ZIEL (bsnn [ATs (God's) beholdinfj'] : 
'l6i^\; [Vat. EieiTjM] Alex. A^jtjA: Ilosltl), a 
Levite in the time of king David, of the family of 
Shimei or Shimi, the younger branch of the Ger- 
shonites (1 Chr. xxiii. 9). 

HA'ZO OTH [/ooAi, tm6i%, Furst] : 'A^aD: 
Azmi), a son of Nahor, by Milcah his wife (Gen. 
uii. 22): perhaps, says Gesenius, for niTrT, "a 
nsion." The name is unknown, and the settle- 
ments of tlie descendants of Hazo cannot be ascer- 
tained. Tlie only clew is to be found in the iden- 
ttficati)n of Chescd, and the other sons of Nahor; 
and hence lie must, in all likeUhood, be placed in 
Ur of the Chaldees, or the adjacent countries. 
Dunsen (Bibc/iuerk^ i. pt. 2, p. 49) suggests Cha- 
lene by the Euphrates, hi Mesopotamia, or the 
Chazene in Assyria (Strabo, xvi. p. 736). 

E. S. P. 

HA^ZOll ("T^^n [indnsure, ensile]'. ^Aacip; 
[Alex, in 1 K. ix. 15, Aaep:] Asor., [Tlasor]). 
I. A fortified city, which on tlie occupation of the 
jountry was allotted to Naphtali (Josh. xix. 36) 
Its positioti was apparently between Hamah and 
Kedeih {ibid. xii. 19). on the high grouna over- 
ooking the l^ke of Merom {birepKaTat. t7]s Se^e 



XooviTiSos \ifJLvr]s, Joseph. AnL v. 5, § 1 ). There if 
no reason for supposing it a different place from 
that of which Jabin was king (Josh. xi. 1), both 
when Joshua gained his signal victory over the 
northern confederation, and when Deborah and 
Barak routed his general Sisera (Judg. iv. 2, 17 
1 Sam. xii. 9). It was the principal city of the 
whole of the North Palestine, "the head of all 
those kingdoms " (Josh. xi. 10, and see Onomasti- 
con, Asor). Like the other strong places of that 

part, it stood on an eminence ( /i^, Josh. xi. 13 
A. V. "strength "), but the district around must 
have been on the whole flat, and suitable for the 
manoeuvres of the " very many " chariots and 
horses which formed part of the forces of the king 
of Hazor and his confederates (Josh. xi. 4, U, 9: 
.Judg. iv. 3). Ilazcr was the only one of those 
northern cities which was burnt by Joshua; doubt- 
less it was too strong and important to leave stand- 
ing in his rear, ^^'^hether it was rebuilt by the 
men of Naphtali, or by the second Jabin (Judg. 
iv.), we are not told, but Solomon did not overlook 
so important a post, and the fortification of Hazor, 
Megiddo, and Gezer, the points of defense for the 
entrance from Syria and Assyria, the plain of 
Esdraelon, and the great maritime lowland respec- 
tively, was one of tlie chief pretexts for his levy of 
taxes (1 K. ix. 15). Later still it is mentioned in 
the hst of the towns and districts whose inhabi- 
tants were carried off to Assyria by Tiglath-Pileser 
(2 K. XV. 29; Joseph. Ant. ix. 11, § 1). We en- 
counter it once more in 1 Mace. xi. 67, where Jon- 
athan, after encamping for the night at the " water 
of Genesar," advances to the "plain of Asor" 
(Joseph. Ant. xiii. 5, § 7; the Greek text of the 
Maccabees has prefixed an n from the preceding 
word TreStov: A. V. Nasor) to meet Demetrius, 
who was in possession of Kadesh (xi. 63; Joseph. 
as above). [Nasou.] 

Several places beai-ing names probably derived 
from ancient llazors have been discovered in this 
district. A list will he found in Rob. iii. 366, note 
(and compare also Van de Velde, Sijr. and P(d. ii. 
178; Porter. D.iniascus/i. 304). But none of these 
answer to the requirements of this Hazor. The 
nearest is the site suggested by Dr. Robinson, 
namely, Tfll Kliuvaibth, " the ruins," which, 
though without any direct evidence of name or 
tradition in its favor, is so suitable, in its situa- 
tion on a rocky eminence, and in its proximity 
both to Kedesh and the Lake HUeh, that we may 
accept it until a better is discovered (Rob. iii. 364, 

* The ruins of a large city of very ancient date 
have recently been found about two miles southeast 
of Kedes (Kkdksh, 3), on an isolated hill called 
Tell llnrnh. The walls of the citadel and a por- 
tion of the city walls are distinctly traceable. 
Captain Wilson, of the I'alestine Exploring Expe- 
dition, inclines to regard this place as the site of 
the Bihle Hazor (Josh. xix. 36), instead of Tell 
Khuraibeh. {See. foam, of Sacr. IJterature, April, 
1866, p. 245.) It is not said that the ancient name, 
or any ainilar one, still adheres to the locality 
Thomson t)ropose3 IJazere or Ilazevy as the site of 
this Hazor, northwest of the TIMeh (Merom), and 
in the centre of the mountainous region which over- 
hangs tliat lake: the ruins are very extensive as 
well as an'^ient, and a living tradition among the 
Arabs suppnts this claim (.see Land and Buofo, i 
439). Robinson objects to this identification that it 



is too remote from the IluMi^ and is within the limits 
of Asher, and not in those of Naphtali (Josh. xix. 
82, 36 ). Yut Hitter's view that this Hazor is a IJa- 
tury on the rocky slopes above Banins (Cfesarea 
Philippi), first heard of by Burckhardt in that 
quarter, see his (leofjr. of Palestine^ Gajje's trans., 
ii. 22 1-225. Robinson states that the few remains 
on a knoll there which bears this name are wholly 
unimportant, and indicate nothing more than a 
Mtzra.ah, or goat village {Later Res. iii. 402). It 
is not surprising that a name which signifies 
'^- stronghold," or " fortification," should belong 
to various places, both ancient and modern. H. j 

2. C Aaopiojpyai'u^ including the following name: 
Alex, omits : Asor.) One of the " cities " of Judah 
in the extreme south, named next in order to Ke- | 
desh (Josh xv. 2-i). It is mentioned nowhere else, 
nor has it yet been identified (see Rob. ii. 34. note). 
The Vatican LXX. unites Ilazor with the name 
following it, Ithnan; which causes Keland to main- 
tahi that they form but one {Pal. pp. 144, 708): 
but the LXX. text of this list is so corrupt, that it 
Beems impossible to argue h-om it. In the Alex. 
MS. Hazor is entirely omitted, while Ithnan again 
is joined to Ziph. 

3. (LXX. omits; [Cod. Sarrav. Aaoip rrfv Kai- 
vt)v\ Comp. hlaalap t))v Kaivi]v:^ Asor nova.) 
Ilazor-IIadattah, = " new Hazor," jwssibly contra- 
distinguished from that just mentioned; another 
of the southern towns of Judah (Josh. xv. 25). 
The words arc improperly separated in the A. V. 

4. CAaepdoy, aurrj 'Arrtip; Alex. [Aa-epu/j., 
ouTTj] Aawpafia/x' Tlesron, Itcec est Asor.) " Hez- 
ron which is Ilazor" (Josh. xv. 25); but whether 
it be intended that it is the same Hazor as either 
of those named before, or that the name was orig- 
inally Hazor, and had been changed to Hezron, we 
cannot now decide. 

5. ([\'at. Alex. FA.i omit ; Comp. FA.=^] 
'Acrcip' Asor.) A place in which the Benjamites 
resided after their return from the Captivity (Neh. 
jci. 3.3). From the places mentioned with it, as 
Anathoth, Nob, Ramah, etc., it would seem to have 
lain north of Jerusalem, and at no great distance 
therefrom. But it has not yet been discovered. 
The above conditions are not against its being the 
same place with Baai^Hazoh, though there is no 
positive evidence beyond the name in favor of such 
an identification. 

The word appears in combination — with ]5aal 
in Baai^Haz(M{, with Ain in En-Hazok. G. 

*6. {'q avA-f]: Asor.) In Jer. xlix. 28-33, Ha- 
Eor appears lo denote a region of Arabia under the 
government of several sheiks (see ver. 38, " king- 
doms of Hazor"), whose desolation is pi-edicted by 
.he prophet in connection with that of Kedak. 
The inhabitants are described (ver. 31) as a nation 
dwelling " without gates or bars," i. e. not in cities, 

but in unwalled villages, D'^'I^'H (comp. Ezek. 
ixxviii. 11, and see Hazeu, Hazehim), from 
which circumstance some would derive the name 
(see Hitzig on Jer. xlix. 28; Winer, Realic, art. 
flazor.1 4; and the Rev. J. L. Porter, art. Hazor, 
t, in Kitto's Cycl. of Bibl. Lit, 3d ed.). A. 

* HEAD-BANDS (Is. iii. 20), probably an 
ncorrect translation ; see Girdle. H. 

HEAD-DRESS. The Hebrews do not ap- 
pear to have regarded a covering for the head as 
Ml essential article of dress. The earliest notice 
we have of such a thing is in comiectiou with the 


sacerdotal vestments, and in this case it is descrilNatf 
as an ornamental appendage "for glory and foi 
beauty" (Ex. xxviii. 40). The absence of anj 
allusion to a head-dress in passages where we should 
expect to meet with it, as in the trial of jealousy 
(Num. v. 18), and the regidations regarding the 
lei:)er (Lev. xiii. 45), in both of which the "uncov- 
ering of the head " refers undoubtedly to the hair, 
leads to the inference that it was not ordinarily 
worn in the Mosaic age; and this is confirmed by 
the practice, frequently alluded to, of covering the 
head with the mantle. I'^ven in after times it seems 
to have been reserved especially for purposes of 

ornament : thus the tzdmph (y\^y^) is noticed 
as being worn by nobles (Job xxix. 14), ladies (Is 
iii. 23), and kings (Is. Ixii. 3), while the peer 

(~1S5) was an article of holiday dress (Is. bd. 3, 
A. V. " beauty; " Ez. xxiv. 17, 23), and was worn 
at weddings (Is. Ixi. 10): the use of the fiirpa was 
restricted to similar occasions (Jud. xvi. 8; Bai". v. 
2). The former of these terms undoubtedly de- 
scribes a kind of turban : its primary sense (^3^*? 
"to roll around") expresses the folds of linen 
icound rouml the head, and its form probably re- 
sembled that of the high-priest's mitznephtth (a 
word derived from the same root, and identical in 
meaning, for in Zech. iii. 5, tzdmph = mitznepheth), 
as described by Josephus {Ant. iii. 7, § 3). The 
renderings of the term in the A. V., " hood " (Is. 
iii. 23), "diadem" (Job xxix. 14; Is. Ixii. 3), 
" mitre " (Zech. iii. 5), do not convey the right idea 
of its meaning. The other tenn, peer, primarily 
means an oiimment, and is so rendered in the A. V. 
(Is. Ixi. 10; see also ver. 3, "beauty"), and is 
specifically applied to the head-dress from its orna- 
mental character. It is uncertain what the terra 
properly describes : the modern turban consists ol 
two parts, the kaook, a stiflf", round cap occasionally 
rising to a considerable height, and the shosh, a 
long piece of muslin wound about it (Russell, Alep- 
po, i. 104) : Josephus' account of the high-priest's 

Modem Syrian and Egyptian Head-drcMea. 

head-dress implies a similar construction; for hi 
says that it was made of thick bands of linen dou- 
bled round many times, and se^vn together: th« 
whole covered by a piece of fine linon to conoett 
the aeania. SaaJschiitz {Archceol. i. 27, note.) sag- 


gests that the tzaniph and the peer rspresent the 
shash and tlie kaook, the latter rising high above 
the other, and so the most prominent and striking 
feature. In favor of this explanation it may be 
remarked that the peer is more particularly con- 
nected with the miybaah, the high cap of the or- 
dinary priests, in Ex. xxxix. 28, while the tzdnip/i, 
as we have seen, resembled the high-priest's mitre, 
in wliich the cap was concealed by the linen folds. 
Tlie objection, however, to this explanation is that 
the etymological force of pee/- is not brought out : 
may not that term have applied to the jewels and 
I'ther ornaments with which the turban is frequently 
decorated (Russell, i. lOG), some of which are rep- 
resented iu the accompanying illustration bor- 
rowed from Lane's Mod. Eyypt. Append. A. The 
term used for putting on either the tzaniph or the 

Modern Egyptian Head-dresses. (Lane.) 

peer is ^"'5^, " to bind round " (Ex. xxix. 9 ; 
Lev. viii. 13): hence the words in ¥j.. xvi. 10, "I 
girded thee about with fine linen," are to be un- 
derstood of the turban ; and by the use of the same 
term Jonah (ii. 5) represents the weeds wrapi)ed as 
a turban round his head. The turban as now worn 
in the East varies very much in shape; the most 
prevalent forms are shown in Kussell's Aleppo, i. 

If the tzaniph and the peer were reserved for 
holiday attire, it remains for us to inquire whether 
any and what covering was ordinarily worn over 
the head. It appears that frequently the robes 
supplied the place of a head-dress, being so ample 
that they might be thrown over the head at pleas- 
ure: the rddid and the tsdlph at all events were 
%o used [Dress], and the veil served a similar pur- 
pose. [Veil.] The ordinary head-dress of the 
Hedouin consists of the kej/iyeh, a square handker- 
chiif, generally of red and yellow cotton, or cotton 
and silk, folded so that three of the comers hang 
down over the back and shoulders, leaving the face 
exposed, and bound round the head by a cord 
(Burckhardt, Notes, i. 48). It is not improbable 
that a similar covering was used by the Hebrews 
»n certair. occasions: the "kerchief" in Iu. xiii. 
18, has been so understood by some writers (Har- 
dier, Ohservntions, ii. 393), though the word more 
frobably refers to a species of veil : and the a-ifxi- 
xiy'diQv (Acts xix. 12, A V. "apron"), as ex- 

HEARTH 1017 

plained by Suidas {rh rr\s Ke<pa\rjs <p6p7}fjia\ WM 
applicable to the purposes of a head-dress. [Hani>- 
KERCiUEK.] Neither of these cases, however, sup- 
plies positive evidence on the point, and the general 
absence of allusions leads to the inference that the 
head was ususdly uncovered, as is still the case in 
many parts of Arabia (^^'ellsted, Travels, i. 7<J)- 
The introduction of the Greek hat {ir^Taaos) by 
Jason, as an article of dress adapted to the </ymnn- 
sium, was regarded as a national dishonor (2 iMacc. 
iv. 12): in shape and material the petasus very 
much resembled the common felt hats of this coun- 
try {Diet, oj' Ant. art. Pikus). 

Bedouin Ilead-dress : the Kefflyeh. 
The Assyrian head-dress is described in Ez. xxiii. 
15 under the terms D**7^D^ '^n^"ip, " exceed- 
ing in dyed attire;" it is doubtful, however, 
whether ttbulim describes the colored material of 
the head-dress {tiarce a coloribus quibus tincta 
sint) ; another sense has been assigned to it more 
appropriate to the description of a turban {fasciis 
obvolvit, Ges. Thes. p. 542). Tlie term s'ruche 

["^n^np] expresses the flowing character of the 
Eastern head-dress, as it falls down over the back 
(Layard, Nineveh, ii. 308). The word rendered 

" hats " in Dan. iii. 21 (SvSnS) properly applies 
to a cloak. ^ ' ' W. L. B. 

HEARTH. 1. nS: iaxdpa: arula (Ges 
69), a pot or brazier for containing fire. 2. 1)7.^^ 
m. and mp*!^ /. : Kavarpa, Kaixris- incemlitm 
(Ges. p. 620). 3. 1''3, or "iVS (Zech. xii. 6). 

Sa\6s' can anus ; in dual, D^"?^? (Lev. xi. 35): 
XvTp6iTo^es ■ chytropodes ; A. V. " ranges for pots " 
(Ges. p. 672). 

One way of baking, much practiced in the East, 
is to place the dough on an iron plate, either laid 
on, or supported on legs above the vessel sunk in 
the ground, which forms the oven. This plate oi 

"hearth" is in Arabic ..w^LlO, tajen ; a word 

which has probably passed into Greek in r-ffyavov. 
The cakes baked "on the hearth" (Gen. xviii. 6 
iyKpvcpias, snbcinericios pines) were probably 
baked in the existing Bedouin manner, on hot 
stones covered with ashes. The " hearth " of king 
Jehoiakim's winter palace, Jer. xxxvi. 23, was pos- 
sibly a pan or brazier of charcoal. (Burckhardt, 
Notes on Bed. i. 58; V. della Valle, llaf/t/t, i. 437; 
Harmer, Oi5/.s. i. p. 477,and note; HauwolflT, TraveU. 
ap. Ray, ii. 163 ; Shaw, frnvels, p. 231 ; Niehuhr. 


1018 HEATH 

Lescr. dt l" Arable, p. 45; Schleusner, Lex Vet. 
Test. T-nyayop; Ges. s. v. nj;% p. 997.) [Fiitii.] 

H. W. P. 
HEATH OV^')V,, ^dro^Sr, and "117^V, 
^ar'ar : « rj aypiOfxvpiKr], 6vos 6,ypios ' myiica). 
The prophet eleremiah compares the man " who 
niaketh Hash his arm, and whose heart departeth 
from the Lord," to the \ir'dr in the desert (xvii. 
B). Again, in the judgment of INIoab (xlviii. G), 
to her inhabitants it is said, " Flee, save your lives, 
and be like the ^droer in the wilderness," where 
the margin has "a naked tree." There seems no 
mison to doubt Celsius' conclusion {Ilitrob. ii. 195), 

that the ''ar''ar is identical with the ^ar^ar {y£.y£.) 

oi Arabic writers, which is some species of juniper. 
IkObinson (Bib. lies. ii. 125, 6) states that when 
he was in the pass of Nemela he observed junijier 
trees (Arab, 'ar'ar) on the porphyry rocks above. 
The berries, he adds, have the appearance and taste 
of the common juniper, except that there is more 
of the aroma of the pine. '• These trees were ten 
or fifteen feet in height, and hung upon the rocks 
even to the summits of the clifls and needles." 
This appears to be the Juniperus Snbiiia, or savin, 
with small scale-like leaves, which are pressed close 
to the stem, and which is descrilied as being a 
gloomy-looking bush inhaljiting the most sterile 
soil (see En(jlisli CycL N. Hist. iii. 311); a charac- 
ter which is obviously well suited to the naked or 
dtstilute tree spoken of by the prophet. IJosen- 
miilier's explanation of the Hebrew word, which is 
also adopted by Maurer, " qui destitutus versatur " 
(Schol. (id Jer. xvii. 6), is very unsatisfactory. 
Not to mention the lameness of the comparison, it 
is evidently contradicted by the antithesis in ver. 8: 
Cursed is he that trusteth in man ... he shall 
be like the juniper that grows on the bare rocks of 
the desert: Blessed is the man that trusteth in 
the Lord ... he shall be as a tree planted by the 
waters. The contrast between the shrub of the 
arid desert and the tree growing by the waters is 
very striking; but Kosenmiiller's interpretation ap- 
pears to us to spoil the whole. Even more unsatis- 
factory is Michaelis {Svpp. Lex. Jfeb. p. 1971), 
who thinks " guinea hens " {Numida meleagris) 
are intended! Gesenius {Tlies. p. 107.3, 4) under- 
stands these two Heb. terms to denote " parietinae, 
sedificia eversa" (ruins); but it is more in accord- 
ance with the Scriptural passages to suppose that 
some tree is intended, which explanation, moreover, 
has the sanction of the LXX. and Vulgate, and 
of the modern use of a kindred Arabic word. 

W. H. 

HEATHEN. The Hebrew words '^'lll, D';'l2, 
g6i., goyiin, together with their Greek equivalents 
l^j/oy, €0*'i7, h«'*^ve been somewhat arbitrarily ren- 
dered "nations," "gentiles," and "heathen" in 
the A. V. It will be interesting to trace the man- 
ner in which a term, primarily and essentially gen- 
ei'al in its signiiication, acquired that more restricted 
gense which was afterwards attached to it. Its 
deve'opni'^nt is parallel with that of the Hebrew 
people, and its meaning at any period may be taken 
as significant of their relative position with regard 
to the surroundmg nations. 


I 1. While as yet the Jewish nation hiul no pdlti 

cal existence, f/oyim denoted generally the nationi 
of the world, especially including the immediate 
descendants of Abraham (Gen. xviii. 18; comp. 
Gal. t!i. Hi). The latter, as they grew in nuDiben 
and imjK>rtunce, were distinguished in a most 
marked maimer from the nations by whom thev 
were surrounded, and were provided with a code a' 
laws and a religious ritual, which made the dis- 
tinction still more pecuhar. They were essentially 
a separate people (Lev. xx. 23); separate hi habits, 
morals, and religion, and bound to maintain their 
separate character by denunciations of the most 
terrible judgments (Uv. xxvi. 14-38; Deut. xx\iii.). 
On their march through the desert they encountered 
the most obstinate resistance from Amalek, " chief 
of the goyiin " (Num. xxiv. 20), in whose sight tic 
deliverance from Egypt was achieved (l>ev. xxvi. 
45). During the conquest of Canaan and the sul>- 
sequent wars of extermination, which the IsraeUtes 
for several generations carried on against their 
enemies, the seven nations of the Canaanites, 
Amorites, Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, Perizzites, 
and Girgashites (Ex. xxxiv. 24), together with the 
remnants of them who were left to prove Israel 
(Josh, xxiii. 13; Judg. iii. 1; Ps. Ixxviii. 55), and 
teach them war (Judg. iii. 2), received the especial 
appellation of fjoyim. With these the Israelites 
were forbidden to associate (Josh, xxiii. 7); inter- 
marriages were prohil)ited (Josh, xxiii. 12; 1 K. 
xi. 2); and as a warning against disobedience the 
fate of the nations of Canaan was kept constantly 
before their eyes (Lev. xviii. 24, 25; Deut. xviii. 
12). They are ever associated with the worship 
of false gods, and the foul practices of idolaters 
(I^v. xviii. XX.), and these constituted their chief 
distinctions, as ydy'un, from the worsliipi)ere of the 
one God, the people of Jehovah (Num. xv. 41; 
Deut. xxviii. 10). This distinction was maintained 
in its full force during the early times of the mon- 
archy (2 Sam. vii. 23; 1 K. xi. 4-8, xiv. 24; Ps. 
cvi. 35). It was from among the f/oyim, the de- 
graded tribes who submitted to their arms, that 
the Israelites were permitted to purchase their 
bond servants (l.ev. xxv. 44, 45), and this special 
enactment seems to have had the effect of giving 
to a national tradition the force and sanction of a 
law (comp. Gen. xxxi. 15). In later times this 
regulation was strictly adhered to. To the words 
of Eccl. ii. 7 "I bought men-servants and maid- 
servants," the Targuni adds, " of the children of 
Ham, and the rest of the foreign nations." 

And not only were the Israelites forbidden to 
intermarry with these goyim, but the latter were 
virtually excluded from the possibility of becoming 
naturalized. An Ammonite or INIoabite was shut 
out from the congregation of Jehovah even to the 
tenth generation (Deut. xxiii. 3), while an Momile 
or Egyptian was admitted in the third (vers. 7, 8). 
The necessity of maintaining a separation so broadly 
marked is ever more and more manifest as we 
follow the Israelites through their history, and oIh 
serve their constantly recurring tendency to idolatry. 
Offense and punishment followed each other with 
all the regularity of cause and effect (Judg. ii. 12, 
iii. G-8, &c.). 

2. But, even in early Jewish times, the tenu 
ffoyim received by anticipation a significajice of 

a From the root "11^, " to be naked," in allusion 
th* bare nature of the rocks on which the Juniperus 

Sabina often grows. Comp. Ps. cii. 17, H^Cip 
"i^npn « the prayer of the destitute » (or lU e)m^ 


wider range than the national experience (F-ev. xxvi. 
33, 38; Deut. xxx. 1), anc' as the latter was grad- 
ually developed during the prosperous times of the 
monarcfcy, tlie ffoi/im were the surrounding nations 
generally, with whom the Israelites were brought 
into contact by the extension of their commerce, 
and whose idolatrous practices they readily adopted 
(Ez. xxiii. 30; Am. v. 26). Later still, it is a])- 
plied to the Babylonians who took Jerusalem (Neh. 
V. 8; Vs. Ixxix. 1, 6, 10), to tlie destroyers of Moab 
(Is. xvi. 8), and to the several nations among 
whom the Jews were scattered during the Captivity 
(Ps. cvi. 47; Jer. xlvi. 28; Lam. i. 3, &c.), the 
practice of idolatry still being their characteristic 
distinction (Is. xxxvi. 18; Jer. x. 2, 3, xiv. 22). 
This signification it retained after the return from 
Babylon, though it was used in a more limited 
sense as denoting the mixed race of colonists who 
settled in Palestine during the Captivity (Neh. v. 
17), and who are described as fearing Jehovah, 
while serving their own gods (2 K. xvii. 29-33; 
Kzr. vi. 21). 

Tracing the synonymous term ^dvr) through the 
Ai>ocryphal writings, we find that it is applied to 
the nations around I'alestine (1 Mace. i. 11), in- 
cluding the Syrians and Philistines of the army of 
Gorgias (1 ISJacc. iii. 41, iv. 7, 11, 14), as well as 
the people of Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidon (1 Mace. 
V. 9, 10, 15). They were image-worshippei*s (1 
Mace. iii. 48; AVisd. xv. 15), whose customs and 
fashions the Jews seem still to have had an uncon- 
querable propensity to imitate, but on whom they 
were bound by national tradition to take vengeance 
(1 Mace. ii. 68; 1 Esdr. viii. 85). Following the 
customs of the f/oyiin at this period denoted the 
neglect or concealment of circumcision (1 jNIacc. i. 
15), disregard of sacrifices, profanation of the Sab- 
bath, eating of swine's flesh and meat offered to 
idols (2 Mace. vi. 6-9, 18, xv. 1, 2), and adoption 
of the Creek national games (2 Mace. iv. 12, 14). 
In all points Judaism and heathenism are strongly 
contrasted. The " barbarous multitude " in 2 
Mace. ii. 21 are opposed to those who played the 
man for Judaism, and the distinction now becomes 
an ecclesiastical one (comp. Matt, xviii. 17). In 
2 Esdr. iii. 33, 34, the "gentes" are defined as 
those "qui habitant in seculo" (comp. Matt. vi. 
32; Luke xii. 30). 

As the Greek influence became more extensively 
felt in Asia Minor, and the Greek language was 
generally used, Hellenism and heathenism became 
convertible terms, and a Greek was synonymous 
with a foreigner of any nation. This is singularly 
evident in the Syriac of 2 Mace. v. 9, 10, 13 ; cf. 
John vii. 35 ; 1 Cor. x. 32 ; 2 Mace. xi. 2. 

In the N. T. again we find various shades of 
meaning attached to ^Out). In its narrowest sense 
it is opposed to " those of the circumcision " (Acts 
X. 45; cf. Esth. xiv. 15, where hKK6Tpio% = atrepi- 
TfxrjTos), and is contrasted with Israel, the people 
of Jehovah (Luke ii. 32), thus representing the 

Hebrew D"^/12 at one stage of its history. But, like 
yoyim, it also denotes the people of the earth gen- 
erally (Acts xvii. 26 ; Gal. iii. 14). In Matt. vi. 7 
^^vl^^.6s is applied to an idolater., in addition to its significance as an etnno- 
iraphical term, ynjlm had a moral sei'«e wnich 
must not be overlooked. In Ps. ix. 5, 15, i7 (comp. 
Ez. vii. 21) the word stands in parallelism with 

S7tt7n, i^ha^ the wicked, as dialinguisJ-^^ by his 

HEAVEN 1019 

moral obliquity (see Hupfeld on I's. i. 1); ;iu«i in 
ver. 17 the people thus designated are desciil>Ml aa 
" fo7 getters of God," that know not Jehovah (.Jer. 
X. 25). Again in Ps. lix. 5 it is to some extent 

commensurate in meaning with 'J.'jS ''^liSi, f/'t/Je 
dven, "iniquitous transgressors; " and in these ikis- 
sages, as well ss in Ps. x. 16, it has a deejk v siir- 
nificance than that of a merely national distinction, 
although the latter idea is never entirely lost sight 

In later Jewish literature a technical dtllnition 
of the word is laid down which is certainly not of 
universal application. I'^lias Levita (quoted by 
Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Juckntkwn, i. 665) ex- 
plains the sing, (joi as denoting one who is n4)t of 
Israelitish birth, lliis can only have reference to 
its after signification ; in the O. T. the singular is 
never used of an individual, but is a collective tenn, 
applied equally to the Israelites (Josh. iii. 17) as to 
the nations of Canaan (Lev. xx. 23), and denotes 
simply a body politic. Another distinction, equally 

unsupported, is made between D^13, yoyim. and 

D^^S, nmimm, the former being defined as the 
nations who had served Israel, while the latter were 
those who had not {Jalkut Chadush, fol. 2 ). no. 
20; Eisenmenger, i. 667). Abarbanel on .I<;el iii, 
2 applies the former to both Christians and I'nrks, 
or Islnnaelites, while in Scpher Jucli(tsm (fol. 148, 
col. 2) the Christians alone are distinguishtvl by 
this appellation. Eisenmenger gives some cm-ious 
examples of the disabilities under which a f/6i 
laboi-ed. One who kept sabbaths was judged de- 
serving of death (ii. 206), and the study of the lav» 
was pi-ohibited to him under the same jjen.ilty; 
but on the latter point the doctors are at is.sue (ii. 
209). \V. A. W. 

HEAVEN. There are four Hebrew worda 
thus renderetl in the O. T., which we ma}- briefly 

notice. 1. ^"^(7"^ (arepecoua'- Jirmftmentwii : Luth. 

Veste), a solid expanse, from ^rZ"*, " to beat f)ut ; " 
a woi-d used primarily of the hammering out of 
metal (Ex. xxxix, 3, Num. xvi. 38). Tlie fuller 

expression is D")^?^!! V^\T1 (Gen. i. 14 {.;. 

That INIoses understood it to mean a solid exjianse 
is clear from his representing it as the barrier be- 
tween the upper and lower waters (Gen. i. 6 f.), 
^. e. as separating the reservoir of the celestial ocean 
(Ps. civ. 3, xxix. 3) from the waters of the earth, 
or those on which the earth was supjwsed to float 

(Ps. cxxxvi. 6). Through its opeji lattices (HIS^pM 
Gen. vii. 11; 2 K. vii. 2, 19; comp. k6(tki.voV) 
Aristoph. Nvb. 373) or doors (C^il^^) I's- Ixiviii. 

23) the dew and snow and hail are poured upon 
the earth (Job xxxviii. 23, 37, where we have the 
curious expression "bottles of heaven," "utres 
cceli"). This firm vault, which Job describes as 
being "strong as a molten looking-glass " (xxxvii. 
i 18), is transparent, like pellucid sappliire, and 
splendid as crystal (Dan. xii. 3; Ex. xxiv. 10; Ez. 
.. 22; Rev. iv. 6), over which rests the throne of 
God (Is. Ixvi. 1; Ez. i. 26), and which is opened 
for the descent of angels, or for prophetic visions 
(Gen. xxviii. 17; Ez. i. 1; Acts vii. 56, x. 11). la 
it, like gems or golden lamps, the stars are fixed to 
give light to the earth, and regulate the season! 
(Gen. i. 14-19); and the whole magnificent, im« 



measurable structure (Jer. xxxi. 37) is supported 
by the mountains as its pillars, or strong founda- 
tious (Ps. xviii. 7; 2 Sam. xxii. 8; Job xxvi. 11). 
Similarly the Greeks believed in an ovpavhs 
^■oKvxaKKos (Ilom. Jl. v. 504), or aihiipios (Horn. 
Od. XV. 328), or a^aixcwTos (Orph. Hymm. ad 
Cceluui)^ which the philosophers called aTip^fxviov, 
or Kova-TaWoeiScs (Emi^ed. ap. Plvi. dt Pldl. 
Plac. ii. 11 ; Artemid. np. Sen Nat. Quasi, vii. 
13; quoted by Gesenius, s. v.) It is clear that 
very many of the above notions were mere meta- 
phors resulting from the simple primitive concep- 
tion, and that later writers among the Hebrews 
had arrived at more scientific views, although of 
course they retained nmch of the old phraseology, 
and are fluctuating and undecided in their terms. 
KIsewhere, for instance, the heavens are likened to 
a curtain (Ps. civ. 2; Is. xl. 22). In A. V. 
"heaven " and "heavens" are used to render not 

only ^^7^, but also D^^tJ\ Ch"ia, and 

D*^f7nt£7, for which reason we have thrown to- 
getlier under the former word the chief features 
ascribed by the Jewish writers to this {wrtion of 
the universe. [Fikjiamkm-, Amer. ed.j 

2. W^^\r is derived from nDt^\ "to be 
Ligh." This is the word used in the expression 
" the heaven and the earth," or " the upper and 
lower regions " (Gen. i. 1), which was a periphra- 
sis to supply the want of a single word for the 
Cosmos (Ueut. xxxii. 1; Is. i. 2; Ps. cxlviii. 13). 
" Heaven of heavens " is their expression of in- 
finity (Neh. ix. 6; Ecclus. xvi. 18). 

3. DT^^, used for heaven in Ps. xviii. 16; Jer. 
XXV. 30 ; Is. xxiv. 18. Properly speaking it means 
a mountain, as in Ps. cii. 19, Ez. xvii. 23. It 
must not, however, be supposed for a moment that 
the Hebrews had any notion of a " Mountiun of 
Meeting," like Albordsh, the northern hill of Baby- 
lonish mythology (Is. xiv. 13), or the Greek Olym- 
pus, or tiie Hindoo Meru, the Chinese Kiienlun., or 
the Arabian Caf (see Kalisch, Gen. p. 24, and 
the authorities there quoted), since such a fancy is 
incompatible with the pure monotheism of the Old 

4. □'^)7ntZ7, "expanses," with reference to the 
extent of heaven, as the last two words were de- 
rived fronj its height; hence this word is often 

used together with C^^tT, as in Deut. xxxiii. 26 ; 
Job XXXV. 5. In the A. V. it b sometimes ren- 
deied chvils, for which the ftxller term is ^ZTD 
C^r^n^ (Ps. xviii. 12). The word pHtT 
means first " to pound," and then " to wear out." 
So that, according to some, " clouds " (from the 
notion of dusl) is the oriyincd meaning of the word. 
Grcsenius. however, rejects this opinion ( Thes. s. v.). 
In the N. T. we frequently have the word ovpa 
»(,', which some consider to be a Hebraism, or a 
Dluial of excellence (Schleusner, Lex. Nov. Test., 
%. v.). St. Paul's expression eajy rpirov ovpauov 
(2 Cor. xii. 2^ has led to much conjecture. Gro- 
i'iu<i said that the Jews divided the heaven into 
three parts, namely, fl.) Nubiferum, the air or at- 
tti<)sj»liere, where clouds gather. (2.) Astriferuni, the 
firmament, in which the sun, moon, and stars are 
fixed. (3.) Empyreum, or Angeliferum, the upper 
be&veu, the abode of God and his angels, i. t. 1. 


bcir? nh^v (or i?^■7n) ; 2. f i^n'^n obts 

(or D^22tt7); and 3. "iVbVil Ub^V (or 

" heaven of heavens," U'T^W ^'T^W), This cu- 
riously explicit statement is entirely unsupported 
by Kabbinic authority, but it is hardly fair of 
jNIeyer to call it a fiction, for it may be supposed 
to rest on some vague Biblical evidence (cf. Dan. 
iv. 12, <-the fowls of the heaven; " Gen. xxii. 17, 
"the stars of the heaven;" Ps. ii. 4, "he that 
sitteth in the heavens," etc.). The Kal)bis spoke 
of two heavens (cf. Deut. x. 14, " the heaven and 
the heaven of heavens"), or seven (eTrra ovpauovs 
ous riv(s apid/jLovari /car' €iraya.fia<riu, Clem. 
Alex. Strom, iv. 7, p. 636). " Kesch Lakisch dixit 
septem esse coelos, quorum nomina sunt, 1. velum; 
2. expansum; 3. nubes; 4. habitaculum; 5. hab- 
itatio; 6. sedes fixa; 7. Araboth," or sometimes 
"the treasury." At the sin of Adam, God as- 
cended into the first; at the sin of Cain into the 
second; during the generation of Enoch into the 
third, etc. ; afterwards God descended downwards 
into the sixth at the time of Abraham, into the 
fifth during the life of Isaac, and so on down to 
the time of Moses, when He redescended into the 
first (see many passages quoted by Wetstein, ad 2 
Cor. xii. 2). Of all these definitions and deduc- 
tions we may remark simply with Origen, eTrro 5f 
ovpavovs ^ oKws irepicopKrfievov api6fi6u avTwv al 
(pepdfJLeuai 4i/ rais iKK\r]crlais tov ©eoO ovK 
airayyeWovai ypatpal (c. CeU. vi^ c. 21, p. 289) 
[i. e. " of seven heavens, or any definite number 
of heavens, the Scriptures received in the churches 
of God do not inform us "]. 

If nothing has here been said on the secondary 
senses attached to the word " heaven," the omis- 
sion is intentional. The object of this Dictionary 
is not practical, but exegetical ; not theological, but 
critical and explanatory. A treatise on the nature 
and conditions of future beatitude would here be 
wholly out of place. We may, howe\er, remark 
that as heaven was used metaphorically to signify 
the alx)de of Jehovah, it is constantly employed in 
the N. T. to signify the al)ode of the spirits of the 
just. (See for example Matt. v. 12, vi, 20; Luke 
X. 20, xii. 33; 2 Cor. v. 1; Col. i. 5.) 

F. W. F. 

* HEAVE-OFFERING. [Sacrifice.] 
HE'BER. The Heb. 'inV and "nn aw 

more forcibly distinguished than the English Eber 
and Heber. In its use, however, of this merely 
aspirate distinction the A. V. of the O. T. is con- 
sistent: Eber always = "^^r?' ^i^d Heber "l^rT' 
In Luke iii. 35, Heber = Ei)er, 'E$€p; the distino 
tion so carefully observed in the O. T. having been 
neglected by the ti-anslators of the N. T. 

The LXX. has a similar distinction, though not 

consistently carried out. It expnjsses ^5?? ^J 
"Efiep (Gen. x. 21), "Effep (1 Chr. i. 25), 'E&pai- 
0V5 (Num. xxiv. 24); while "I^C? is variously 
given as Xo&6p, Xa^ep, 'A$<ip, or 'A$ep. In 
these words, however, we can clearly perceive two 
distinct groups of equivalents, suggested by the 
efi!brt to express two radically different forms. T^- 
transition from Xo$6p through Xa&fp to 'A/Scp -• 
sufficiently obvious. 

The Vulg. expresses both indiflferentl} liy Heber 
except in Judg. iv. 11 ff., where Haber is prubablj 


»iigg(9ted by the LXX. Xa^ff,: and Num. xxiv. 
24, JJeirr<JBOs, evidently after the LXX. 'E^paiovs. 
pjtcluding Luke iii. 35, where Heber = Eber, we 
have in the O. T. six of the name. 

1. Grandson of the Patriarch Asher (Gen. xlvi. 
17; 1 Clir. vii. 31; Num. xxvi. 45). 

2. Of the tribe of Judah (1 Ch.-. iv. 18). 

3. ['n)87}5; Alex. IwjSrjS; Comp. 'Efie>: He- 
ber.] A Gadite (1 Chr. v. 13). 

4. A Benjamite (1 Chr. viii. 17). 

5. ['n3V)5; Vat. nySSn; Aid. 'A)3e>: Heber.] 
Another Benjamite (1 Chr. viii. 22). 

6. Heber, the Kenite, the husband of Jael 
(Judg. iv. 11-17, V. 24). It is a question how he 
could be a Kenite, and yet trace his descent from 
Uobab, or Jetliro, who was priest of Midian. The 
solution is probably to be sought in the nomadic 
habits of the tribe, as shown in the case of Heber 
himself, of the family to which he belonged (Judg. 
i. 16), and of the Kenites generally (in 1 Sam. xv. 
6, they appear among the Amalekites)- It should 
he observed that Jethro is never called a Midian- 
ite, but expressly a Kenite (Judg. i. IG); that the 
expression " priest of Midian," may merely serve 
to indicate the country in which Jethro resided ; 
lastly, that there would seem to have been two 
successive migrations of the Kenites into Palestine, 
one under the sanction of the tribe of Judah at 
the time of the original occupation, and attributed 
to Jethro's descendants generally (Judg. i. 10); 
the other a special, nomadic expedition of Heber' s 
family, which led them to Kedesh in Naphtali, at 
that time the debatable ground between the north- 
ern tribes, and Jabin, King of Canaan. We are 
not to infer that this was the final settlement of 
Heber : a tent seems to have been his sole habita- 
tion when his wife smote Sisera (Judg. iv. 21). 

7. CEjSep: Heber.) The form in which the 
name of the patriarch Eber is given in the ge- 
nealogy. Luke iii. 35. T. E. B. 

HE'BERITES, THE ^"^POn : 6 Xo0epi 
[Yat. -pel] : Jleberitce). Descendants of Heber, 
a branch of the tribe of Asher (Num. xxvi. 45). 

W. A. W. 

* HEBREW LANGUAGE. See Shemitic 
Languages, §§ 6-13. 

FE'BREW, HE'BREWS. This word first 
occurs as applied to Abraham (Gen. xiv. 13): it 
was afterwards given as a name to his descendants. 

Four derivations have been proposed : — 

I. Patronymic from Abram. 

II. Appellative from "l^V* 

III. Appellative from ^5^. 

IV. Patronymic from Eber. 

I. From Abram, Abrcei, and by euphony Ile- 
Irmi (August., Ambrose). Displaying, as it does, 
the utmost ignorance of the language, this deriva- 
tion was never extensively adopted, and was even 
retracted by Augustine {Retract. 16). The eu- 
phony alleged by Ambrose is quite imperceptible, 
and there is no parallel in the Lat. meridie =t. me- 

II. "^"IIIlV, from 1537= crossed Dver, ■ ap- 
plied by the Canatnites tc Abraham upon hii 
-Tossing the Euphiates ((ien. xiv. 13, where LXX. 
xepdrrti ■=transitor\ This derivation is open to 
he strong objection that Hebrew nouns ending in 

Me eitbor patronymics, or gentilic nouns (Bux- 



torf, Leugden). This is a technical objectktt 
which, though fatal to the -Kepdrris, or apj}eltntivt 
derivation as traced back to the verb, does not 

apply to the same as referred to the noun "13!S7, 
Th' analogy of Galli, Angli, Hispani derived from 
Gallia, Anglia, Hispania (Leusd.), is a coniplet* 
blunder in ethnography ; and at any rate it would 
confirm rather than destroy the derivation from the 

HI. This latter comes next in review, and is es- 
sentially the same with II. ; since both rest upon 
the hypothesis that Abraham and his posterity 
were called Hebrews in order to express a distino- 
tion between the races E. and W. of the Euphrates. 
The question of fact is not essential whether Abra- 
ham was the first person to whom the word was 
applied, his posterity as such inheriting the name; 
or whether his posterity equally with himself were 
by the Canaanites regarded as men from " the other 
side " of the river. The real question at issue is 
whether the Hebrews were so called from % pro- 
genitor Eber (which is the fourth and last derivs- 
tion), or from a country which had been the 
cradle of their race, and from which they had 
emigrated westward into Palestine ; in short, 
whether the word Hebrew is a patronymic, or a 
gentile noun. 

IV. The latter opinion in one or other of its 
phases indicated above is that suggested by the 
LXX., and maintained by Jerome, Theodor., (Jri- 
gen, Chrysost., Arias Montanus, R. Bechai, Paid 
Burg., Miinster, Grotius, Scaliger, Selden, liosenm., 
Gesen., Eichhom ; the former is supported by Jo- 
seph., Suidas, Bochart, Vatablus, Drusius, Vossius!, 
Buxtorf, Hottinger, Leusden, Whiston, Bauer. As 

regards the derivation from "^^V, the noun (or 
according to others the prep.), Leusden himself, 
the great supporter of the Buxtorfian theory, indi- 
cates the obvious analogy of Transmarini, Tran- 
sylvani, Transalpini, words which from the de- 
scription of a fixed and local relation attained in 
process of time to the independence and mobility 
of a gentile name. So natural indeed is it to 
suppose that Eber (trans, on the other side) was 
the term used by a Canaan ite to denote the coun- 
try E. of the Euphrates, and Hebrew the name 
which he applied to the inhabitants of that coun- 
try, that Leusden is driven to stake the entire 
issue as between derivations III. and IV. upon a 
challenge to produce any passage of the O. T. in 

which "inr = "1573^? "^???- If we accept Hu- 
senm. Sc'hol. on Num. xxiv. 24, according to which 
Eber by parallelism with Asshur= Trans-Euphia- 
tian, this challenge is met. But if not, the fa- 
cility of the abbreviation is suflacient to create a 
presumption in its favor; while the derivation with 
which it is associated harmonizes more perfectlj 
than any other with the later usage of the word 
Hebrew, and is confirmed by negative arguments 
of the strongest kind. In fact it seeuis almost 
impossible for the defenders of the patronymic 
Eber theory to get over the difficulty arising from 
the circumstance that no special prominence is io 
the genealogy assigned to PLber, such as might en- 
title him to the position of head or founder of the 
race. From the genealogical scheme in Gen. xi. 
10-26, it does not apjiear that the Jews thought 
of Eber as a source primary, or even secondary, of 
the national descent. The genealogy neither starts 
from him, nor in its uniform sequence does it real 

1022 HEBREW 

upon him with any emphasis. There is nothing to 
distiiiijuish Eber above Arphaxad, Peleg, or Senig. 
Like them he is but a link in the chain by which 
Sheni is connected with Abraham. Indeed the 
tendency of the Israelitish retrospect is to stop at 
Jacob. It is with Jacob that their history as a 
nation begins : beyond Jacob they held their an- 
cestry in common with the Edomites; beyond Isaac 
they were in danger of being confounded with the 
Ishii-aelites. The predominant figure of the em- 
phatically Hebrew Abraham might tempt them 
be_\(ind those points of affinity with other races, so 
distasteful, so anti-national; but it is almost incon- 
ceivable that they would voluntarily originate, and 
peipetuate an appellation of themselves which 
landed them on a platform of ancestry where they 
met the whole population of Arabia (Gen. x. 25, 

As might have been expected, an attempt has 
been made to show that the position which Eber 
occupies in the genealogy is one of no ordinary 
kind, and that the Hebrews stood in a relation to 
him which was held by none other of his descend- 
ants, and might therefore be called par excellence 
" the childrcn of Eber." 

There is, however, only one passage in which it 
Is possible to imagine any peculiar resting-point as 
connected with the name of Eber. In Gen. x. 21 
Shem is called " the father of all the children of 
Eber." But the passage is apparently not so much 
genealogical as ethnographical ; and in this view it 
seems evident that the words are intended to con- 
trast Shem with Ham and Japheth, and especially 
with the former. Now Babel is plainly fixed as 
the extreme V.. limit of the posterity of Ham (ver. 
10), from whose land Nimrod went out into As- 
syria (ver. 11, margin of A. V.): in the next 
place, Egypt (ver. 13) is mentioned as the W. limit 
of the same great rnce; and these two extremes 
having been ascertained, the historian proceeds 
(ver. 15-li)) to fill up his ethnographic sketch 
with the intermediate tribes of the Canaanites. 
In short, in ver. G-20, we have indications of three 
geographical points which distinguish the posterity 
of Ham, namely, Egypt, Palestine, and Babylon. 
At the last-mentioned city, at the river Euphrates, 
their proper occupancy, unaffected by the excep- 
tional movement of Asshur, terminated, and at the 
same point that of the descendants of Shem began. 
Accordingly, the sharpest contrast that could be 
devised is obtained by generally classing these lat- 
ter nations as those beyond the river Euphrates; 
and the words " father of all the children of Eber," 
i. e. father of the nations to the east of the Eu- 
phrates, find an intelligible place in the context. 

But a more tangible ground for the specialty 
implied in the derivation of Hebrew from Eber is 
Bouglit in the supposititious fact that Eber was the 
only descendant of Noah who preserved the one 
niinieval language; and it is maintained that this 
janguage transmitted by Eber to the Hebrews, and 
to them alone of all his des.^ndants, constitutes a pe- 
juliarand si)ecial relation (Theodor., Voss., Leusd.). 

It is obvious to remark that this theory rests 
upon three entirely gi-atuitous assumptions : first, 
that the primeval language has been preserved ; 
next, that Eber alone preserved it; lastly, that 
having so preserved it, he comnnmicated it to his 
50ti Peleg, but not to his son Joktan. 

The fin;t assumption is utterly at variance with 
the most certain results of ethnology: the two 
/there are grossly improbable. The Hebrew of the 


0. T. was not the language of Abraham when h« 
first entered Palestine: whether he inherited hii 
language from Eber or not, decidedly the language 
which he did speak must have been Chaldee (comp 
Gen. xxxi. 47), and not Hebrew (Eichhorn). This 
supposed primeval language was in fJact the Ian 
guage of the Canaanites, assumed by Abraham aa 
more or less akin to that in which he had been 
brought up, and could not possibly have been 
transmitted to him by Eber. 

The appellative {irepd.T7]s) derivation is stronglj 
confirmed by the historical use of the word Thbrexc. 
A patronymic would naturally be in use only among 
the people themselves, while the appellative which 
had been originally applied to them as strangers in 
a strange land would probably continue to desig- 
nate them in their relations to neighboring tril)es, 
and would be their current name among foreign 
nations. This is precisely the case with the terms 
Israelite and Hebrew respectively. The former 
was used by the Jews of themselves among them- 
selves, the latter was the name by which they were 
known to foreigners. It is used either when for- 
eigners are introduced as speaking (Gen. xxxix. 14, 
17, xli. 12; Ex. i. 16, ii. G: 1 Sam. iv. 6, 9, xiii. 
19, xiv. 11, xxix. 3), or where they are opposed to 
foreign nations (Gen. xhii. 32; Ex. i. 15, ii. 11; 
Deut. XV. 12; 1 Sam. xiii. 3, 7). So in Greek 
and Roman writers we find the name Hebrews^ or, 
in later times, Jews (Pausan. v. 5, § 2, vi. 24, § 6; 
Pint. Sympos. iv. 6, 1 ; Tac. Hist. v. 1 ; Joseph. 
passim). In N. T. we find the same contrast be- 
tween Hebrews and foreigners (Acts vi. 1; Phil, 
iii. 5); the Hebrew language is distinguished from 
all others (Luke xxiii. 38; John v. 2, xix. 13; 
Acts xxi. 40, xxvi. 14; Rev. ix. 11); while in 2 
Cor. xi. 22, the word is used as only second to I»- 
raelite in the expression of national peculiarity. 

Gesenius has successfiilly controverted the opin- 
ion that the term Israelite was a sacred name, and 
Hebrew the common api^ellation. 

Briefly, M'e suppose that Hebrew was originally a 
Cis-Euphratian word applied to Trans-Euphratian 
immigrants; it was accepted by these immigrants 
in their external relations ; and after the general 
substitution of the word ./e?p, it still found a place 
in that marked and special feature of national con- 
tradistinction, the language (Joseph. Ant. i. 6, §4; 
Suidas, s. v. 'E^patoi; Euseb. de Prcep. Evang. 
ii. 4; Ambrose, Comment, in Phil. iii. 5; August. 
Qucest. in Gen. 24; Consens. Evany. 14; comp. 
Retract. 16; Grot. Annot. ad Gen. xiv. 13; Voss. 
Etym. s. V. sujn'a ; Bochart, Plialeg, ii. 14 ; Buxt. 
Diss, de Ling. Ileb. C'onserr. 31; Hottinger, Thes. 
i. 1, 2; Leusden, Phil. Heb. Diss. 21, 1; Bauer. 
Entwui'f^ etc., § xi. ; Rosenm. Schvl. ad Gen. x. 
21, xiv. 13, and Num. xxiv. 24; Eichhora, Einktt, 
i. p. 60; Gesen. Lex., and Gesch. d. Ileb. Spr. 1], 
12). T. E. B. 

HE'BREWESS (HJ-ID^ : 'E^pcda: He 
brcea). A Hebrew woman (Jer. xxxiv. 9). 

W. A. W. 

principal questions which have been raised, and tht 
opinions which are current respecting this epistif 
may be considered under the following heads: 

I. Its canonical authority. 

II. Its author. 

III. To whom was it addressed ? 

IV. AVhere and when was it written? 

V. In what language was it written ? 



TI. Condition of the Hebrews, and scope of the 

VII. Literature connected with it. 

I. The moat important question that can be en- 
tertauied in connection with tliis epistle touches 
Its canonical « authority. 

I'he universal Church, by allowing it a place 
among the Holy Scriptures, acknowledges that there 
is nothing in its contents inconsistent with the rest 
of the Bible. But the peculiar position which is 
assigned to it among the epistles shows a trace of 
doubts as to its authorship or canonical authority, 
two points which were blended together in primi- 
tive times. Has it then a just claim to be received 
by us as a portion of that Bible which contains the 
rule of our faith and the rule of our practice, laid 
down by Christ and his Apostles? Was it re- 
garded as such by the Primitive Church, to whose 
clearly-expressed judgment in this matter all later 
generations of Christians agree to defer ? 

Of course, if we possessed a declaration by an 
inspired apostle that this epistle is canonical, all 
discussion would be superfluous. But the inter- 
pretation (by F. Spanheim and later writers) of 
2 Pet. iii. 15 as a distinct reference to St. Paul's 
Epistle to the Hebrews seems scarcely tenable. 
For, if the "you" whom St. Peter addresses be 
all Christians (see 2 Pet. i. 2), the reference must 
not be limited to the Epistle to the Hebrews ; or if 
it include only (see 2 Pet. iii. 1) the Jews named 
in 1 Pet. i. 1, there may be special reference to the 
Galatians (vi. 7-9) and Ephesians (ii. 3-5), but 
not to the Ilelirews. 

Was it then received and transmitted as canon- 
ical by the immediate successors of the Apostles ? 
The most Important witness among these, Clement 
(a. u. 7U or US), refers to this epistle in the same 
way as, and more frequently than, to any other 
canonical book. It seems to have been " wholly 
transfused," says ^Ir. Westcott {On the C<(non^ p. 
32), into Clement's mind. Little stress can be laid 
n\K>n the few possible allusions to it in Barnabas, 
Hennas, Polycarp, and Ignatius. But among the 
extant authorities of orthodox Christianity during 
the first century after the epistle was written, there 
is not one dissentient voice, whilst it Is received as 

a The Rev. J. Jones, in his Metkml of settling the 
Canonical Authority of the N. T., indicates the way in 
which an inquiry into this subject should be con- 
ducted ; and Dr. N. Lardner's Credihitity of the Gos- 
nel History is a storehouse of ancient authorities. 
But both these great works are nearly superseded for 
ordinary pur{>oses by the invaluable compendium of 
the Rev. B. F. Westcott, On the Canon of the New 
Tes'ameni, to which the first part of this article is 
greatly indebted. [There is a 2d edition of this work, 
Lend. 1886.] 

ft Lardner's remark, that it was not the method of 
Justin to use allusions so often as other authors have 
done, may supply us with something like a middle 
point between the conflicting declarations of two liv- 
ing writers, both entitled to be heard with attention. 
Tb** index of Otto's edition of Justin contains more 
than 50 references by Justin to the epistles of St. 
Paul; while Prof. Jowett (On the Thessa'onians, etc., 
Iflt ed. i. 345) puts forth in England the statement 
kat Justin was unacquainted with St. Paul and his 

* This statement is modified in the 2d edIMon of 
Prof. Jowetfs work (Lond. 1859). lie there says (i. 
444' that "Justin refers to the Twelve in several pas- 
■mexa, but nowhere in his genuine writings mentions 
It r»ul. And when gpvaking of th*i books read in 

canonical by Clement writing from Rome; by Jug- 
tin Martyr,ft famiUar with the traditions of Italj 
and Asia; by his contemporaries, Pinytus (?) the 
Cretan bishop, and the predecessors of Clement and 
Origen at Alexandria; and by the compilers of the 
Peshito version of the New Testament. Among 
the writers of this period who make no reference to 
it, there is not one whose subject necessarily leads 
us to expect him to refer to it. Two heretical 
teachers, Basilides at Alexandria and ISIarcion at 
Rome, are recorded as distinctly rejecting the 

But at the close of that period, in the Ncrth 
African church, where first the Gospel found utter- 
ance in the I^atin tongue, orthodox Christianity 
first doubted the canonical authority of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews. The Gospel, spreading from Je- 
rusalem along the northern and southern shores of 
the jNIediterranean, does not appear to have borne 
fruit in North Africa until after the destruction of 
Jerusalem had curtailed intercourse with Palestine 
And it came thither not on the lips of an inspired 
apostle, but shorn of much of that oral tradition io 
which, with many other facts, was embodied the 
ground of the eastern belief in the canonical au- 
thority and authorship of this anonymous epistle. 
To the old Latin version of the Scriptures, which 
was completed probably about A. d. 170, this epis- 
tle seems to have been added as a composition of 
Barnabas, and as destitute of canonical authority. 
The opinion or tradition thus embodied in that age 
and country cannot be traced further back. About 
that time the Roman Church also began to speak 
Latin; and even its latest (ireek writers gave up, 
we know not why, the full faith of the Eastern 
Church in the canonical authority of this epistle. 

During the next two centuries the extant fathers 
of the Roman and North African churches regard 
the epistle as a book of no canonical authority. 
TertuUian, if he quotes it, disclaims its authority 
and speaks of it as a good kind of apocryphal book 
written by Barnabas. Cyprian leaves it out of the 
number of St. Paul's epistles, and, even in his 
books of Scripture Testimonies against the Jews, 
never makes the slightest reference to it. Irenseus, 
who came in his youth to Gaul, defending in his 

the Christian assemblie.i, he names only the Gospels 
and the Prophets. {A/ioL i. 67.) ... On the 
other hand, it is true that in numerous quotations 
from the Old Testament, Justin appears to follow St. 
Paul." The statement that " the index of Otto's edi- 
tion of Justin contains more than 50 references by 
Justin to the epistles of St Paul ' is net correct, if 
his index to Justin's unrlisfnitfc/ Vi^rks is mtended, the 
number being only S9 (exclusive of 6 to the Epistle to 
the Hebrews), and 16 of these being to quotations 
from or allusions to the Old Testament common tc 
Justin and St. Paul. In most of the remainder, the 
correspondence in language between Justin and the 
epistles of St. Pau. is not close. Still the evidence 
that Justin was acquainted with the writings of the 
great Apostle to the Gentiles appears to be satisfac- 
tory. See particularly on this point the articles of 
Otto in lUgen's Zeilschr. f. d. hist. T/ieo'., 1842, Heft 
2, pp. 41-54, and 1843, Heft 1, pp. 34-43. In such 
works as the two Apologies and the Dialogue with 
Trypho, r/yo:atiotis from St. Paul were not to be ex- 
pected. That Justin was acquainted with the Epistlo 
to the Hebrews is also probable, but that he regarded 
it as " canonical " can hardly be proved or disproved 
See the careful and judicious remarks of Mr. Wm^ 
cott. Canon of the New Test., 2d ed., p. 146 ff. 



(treat work tlie Divinity of Christ, never quotes, 
scarcely refers to the lq)istle to the Hebrews. The 
Muratorian Fragment on the Canon leaves it out 
uf the list of 8t. Paul's epistles. So did Caius 
xnd Hippolytus, who wrote at Rome in Greek; and 
80 did Victorinus of Pannonia. But hi the fourth 
century its authority began to revive; it was re- 
ceived by Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer and Faustinus 
of Cagliari, Fabius and Victorinus of Rome, Am- 
nrose of Milan, and Philaster (V) and Gaudentius 
of Brescia. At the end of the fourth century, 
Jerome, the most learned and critical of the Latin 
Fathers, reviewed the conflicting opinions as to the 
authority of this epistle. He considered that the 
prevailing, though not universal view of the Latin 
churches, was of less weight than the view, not 
only of ancient writers, but also of all the (ireek 
and all the Eastern churches, where the epistle 
was received as canonical and read daily; and he 
pronounced a decided opinion in favor of its au- 
thority. The great contemporary light of North 
Africa, St. Augustine, held a similar opinion. And 
after the declaration of these two eminent men, the 
Latin churches united with the East in receiving 
the epistle. The 3d Council of Carthage, A. D. 
397, and a decretal of Pope Innocent, A. D. 416, 
gave a final confirmation to their decision. 

Such was the course and the end of the only 
considerable opposition which has been made to the 
canonical authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
Its origin has not been ascertained. Some critics 
have conjectured that the INIontanist or the Nova- 
tian controversy instigated, and that the Arian 
controversy dissipated, so much opposition as pro- 
ceeded from ortliodox Christians. The references 
M St. i'aul in the Clementine Homilies have led 
other critics to the startfmg theory that orthodox 
Christians at Rome, in the middle of the second 
century, commonly regarded and described St. 
Paul as an enemy of the Faith; — a theory which, 
if it were established, would be a much stranger 
fact than the rejection of the least accredited of 
the epistles which bear the Apostle's name. But 
perhaps it is more probable that that jealous care, 
with which the (jhurch everywhere, in the second 
century, had learned to scrutinize all books claim- 
ing canonical authority, misled, in this instance, 
the churches of North Africa and Rome. For to 
them this epistle was an anonymous writing, un- 
like an epistle in its opening, unlike a treatise in 
its end, differing in its style from every ajwstolic 
epistle, abounding in arguments and appealing to 
sentiments which were always foreign to the Gen- 
tile, and growing less familiar to the Jewish mind. 
So they went a step beyond the church of Alexan- 
dria, which, while doubting the authorship of this 
epistle, always acknowledged its authority. The 
;hurch of Jerusalem, as the original receiver of 
the epistle, was the depository of that oral testi- 
mony on which both its authorship and canonical 
authority rested, and was the fountain-head of in- 
formation which satisfied the Eastern and Greek 
churches. But the church of Jerusalem was early 
hidden in exile and obscurity. And Palestine, 
after the destruction of Jerusalem, became unknown 
;round to that class of " dwellers in Libya about 
Cyrene, and strangers of Rome," who once main- 
tsiiiied close religious intercourse with it. All these 

a The 'Vatican Codex (B), a. d. 850, bears traces of 
Ui earlier asElgumeut of the fifth place to the Ep. to 
'Jm Hebrews [See Bi««:, p. 306 t, Amer, ed.] 

considerations may help to account for the fiwjt that 
the Latin churches hesitated to receive an epistle, 
the credentials of which, from peculiar circum- 
stances, were originally imperfect, and had become 
inaccessible to them when their version of Scrip- 
ture was in process of formation, until religious' 
intercourse betweeen East and West again grew 
frequent and intimate in the fourth century. 

But such doubts were confined to the Latin 
churches from the middle of the second to the 
close of the fourth century. All the rest of ortho- 
dox Christendom from the beginning was agreed 
upon the canonical authority of this epistle. No 
Greek or Syriac writer ever expressed a doubt. It 
was acknowledged in various public documents; 
received by the framers of the Apostolical Consti- 
tutions (about A. 1). 250, Beveridge); quoted in 
the epistle of the Synod of Antioch, A. D. 269; 
appealed to by the debaters in the first Council of 
Nice ; included in that catalogue of canonical books 
which was added (perhaps afterwards) to the canons 
of the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 365; and sanc- 
tioned by the Quinisextine Coimcil at Constanti- 
nople, A. D. 692. 

Cardinal Cajetan, the opponent of Luther, was* 
the first to disturb the tradition of a thousand 
years, and to deny the authority of this epistle. 
Erasmus, Calvin, and Beza questioned only its au- 
thorship. The bolder spirit of Luther, unable to 
perceive its agreement with St. Paul's doctrine, 
pronounced it to be the work of some disciple of 
the AiX)stle, who had built not only gold, silver, and 
precious stones, but also wood, hay, and stubble 
upon his master's foundation. And whereas the 
Greek Church in the fom-th century gave it some- 
times the tenth « place, or at other times, aa it now 
does, and as the Syrian, Roman, and English 
ohurches do, the fourteenth place among the epis- 
tles of St. Paul, Luther, when he printed his ver- 
sion of the Bible, separated this book from St. 
Paul's epistles, and placed it with the epistles of 
St. James and St. Jude, next before the Reveiar 
tion ; indicating by this change of order his opin- 
ion that the four relegated books are of less im- 
portance and less authority *» than the rest of the 
New Testament. His opinion found some promo 
ters ; but it has not been adopted in any confession 
of the Lutheran Church. 

The canonical authority of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews is then secure, so far as it can be estab- 
lished by the tradition of Christian churches. The 
doubts which affected it were admitted in remote 
places, or in the failure of knowledge, or under the 
pressure of times of intellectual excitement; and 
they have disappeared before full information and 
calm judgment. 

II. Who tons the author of the Epistle? — This 
question is of less practical importance than the 
last; for many books are received as canonical, 
whilst little or nothing is known of their writer*. 
In this epistle the superscription, the ordinary 
source of information, is wanting. Its omission 
has been accounted for, since the days of Clement 
of Alexandria (apud F.useb. II. E. vi. 14) and 
Chrysostom, by supposing that St. Paul withheld 
his name, lest the sight of it should repel any Jew- 
ish Christians who might still regard him rather 
aa an enemy of the law (Acts xxi. 21 ) than aa a 
benefactor to their nation (Acts xxiv. 17). And 

h See Bleek, i. pp. 217 and 447. 



Pantnnus, or some other predecessor of Clement, 
adds that St. Paul would not write to the Jews as 
an Apostle because he regarded the Lord himself 
as their Apostle (see the remarkable expression, 
Heb. iii. 1, twice quoted by Justin Martyr, Apul. 
i. 12, 63). 

It was the custom of the earliest fathers to quote 
passages of Scripture without naming the writer 
or the book which supplied them. But there is no 
reason to doubt that at first, everywhere, except in 
North Africa, St. Paid was regarded as the author. 
' Among the Greek fathers," says Olshausen ( Ojms- 
cu/a, p. 95), no one is named either in Egypt, or 
in Syria, Palestine, Asia, or Greece, who is opposed 
to the opinion that this epistle proceeds from St. 
i'aul." The Alexandrian fathers, whether guided 
by tradition or by critical discernment, are the ear- 
liest to note the discrepancy of style between this 
epistle and the other thirteen. And they received 
it in the same sense that the speech in Acts xxii. 
i-21 is received as St. Paul's. Clement ascribed 
to St. Luke the translation of the epistle into 
Greek from a Hebrew original of St. Paul. Ori- 
gen, embracing the opinion of those who, he says, 
preceded him, believed that the thoughts were St. 
Paul's, the language and composition St. Luke"s 
or Clement's of Rome. Tertullian, knowing noth- 
ing of any connection of St. Paul with the epis- 
tle, names Barnabas as the reputed author accord- 
ing to the North African tradition, which in the 
time of Augustine had taken the less definite shape 
of a denial by some that the epistle was St. Paul's, 
and in the time of Isidore of Seville appears as a 
Latin opinion (founded on the dissonance of style) 
that it was written by Barnabas or Clement. At 
Kome Clement was silent as to the author of this 
as of the other epistles which he quotes ; and the 

a Professor Blunt, On the Right Use of the Early 
Fathers, pp. 439^444, gives a complete view of the evi- 
dence of Clemeut, Origen, and Eusebius as to the 
authorship of the epistle. 

b In this sense may be fairly understood the indi- 
rect declaration that this epistle is St. Paul's, which 
the Church of England puts into the mouth of her 
ministers in the Offices for the Visitation of the Sick 
and the Solemnization of Matrimony. 

c Bishop Pearson {De succeisione priorum Romcp, 
episcoporum, ch. viii. § 8) says that the way in which 
Timothy is mentioned (xiii. 23) seems to him a suffi- 
cient proof that St. Paul was the author of this epistle. 
For another view of this passage see Bleek, i. 273. 

d *lt has been asserted by some German critics, as 
Soiiulz and Seyffarth, that an unusually large propor- 
tion of aira| Keyofxeva, or peculiar words, is found in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews as compared with other 
epistles of Paul. This is denied by Prof Stuart, who 
institutes an elaborate comparison between this epistle 
and the First Epistle to the Corinthians in reference to 
Hiis point. (Sae his Comm. on Hebrews, 2d ed., p. 
217 .f.. 223 ff.) As the result of this examination, he 
finda in 1 Cor. 230 words which occur nowhere else 
in the writings of Paul ; while in the Epistle to the 
Ilebre'.vs, according to the reckoning of SeyfFarth, 
there are only 118 words of this class. Taking into 
account the comparative length of the two epistles, 
the number of peculiar words in the Epistle to the He- 
brews as compared with that in 1 Ci/r. is, according to 
Prof Stuart, in the proportion of 1 to Ij. Hence he 
argues, that " if the number of xtto^ keyofxeva in our 
epistle proves that it was not from the hand of Paul, 
\t must be more abundantly evident that Paul cannot 
have been the author ef the First Epis'le to the Cor- 

The fiwits in the case, however, are very diiferent 

writers who follow him, down to the middle of the 
fourth century, only touch on the point to deny 
that the epistle is St. Paul's. 

riie view of the Alexandrian fathers, a middle 
point between the Eastern and Western traditions, 
won its way in the Church. It was adopted as the 
most probable opinion by lilusebius ; « and its grad- 
ual reception may have led to the silent transfer 
which was made about his time, of this epistle 
from the tenth place in the Greek Canon to the 
fourteenth, at the end of St. Paul's epistles, and 
before those of other Apostles. This place it held 
everywhere till the time of Luther; as if to indi- 
cate the deliberate and final acquiescence of th 
universal church in the opinion that it is one of 
the works of St. Paul, but not in the same full 
sense '' as the other ten [nine] epistles, addressed to 
particular churches, are his. 

In the last three centuries every word and phrase 
in the epistle has been scrutinized with the most 
exact care for historical and grammatical evidence 
as to the authorship. The conclusions of Individ • 
ual inquirers are very diverse; but tlie result has 
not been any considerable disttirliance of the an 
cient tradition.^" No new kind of difficulty has 
been discovered: no hypothesis open to fewer ob- 
jections than the tradition has been devised. The 
laborious work of the Rev. ('. Forster {The Apos- 
tolical Authority of the Kpidle to the Hebreios), 
which is a storehouse of grammatical evidence, ad- 
vocates the opinion that St. Paul was the author 
of the language, as well as the thoughts of the 
epistle. Professor Stuart, in the Introduction to 
his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
discusses the internal evidence at great length, and 
agrees in opinion with Mr. Forster. «' Dr. C. 
Wordsworth, On the Canon of the Scriptures^ 

from what Prof. Stuart supposes. In the first place, 
20 of his ttTraf keyoiLeva in 1st Corinthians are found 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, to make the 
comparison tolerably fair, should be assumed as Pau- 
line ; 5 others are found only in quotations ; and 13 
more do not properly belong in the list, while 25 should 
be added to it. Correcting these errors, we find the 
number of peculiar words in 1 Cor. to be about 217 
On the other hand, the number of aTra^ Keyojxiva in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, not reckoning, of course, 
those in quotations from the Old Testament, instead 
of being only 118, as Prof. Stuart assumes, is about 
800. (The precise numbers vary a little according to 
the text of the Greek Testament adopted as the basis 
of comparison.) Leaving out of account quotations 
from the Old Testament, the number of lines in the 
1st Epistle to the Corinthians, in Knapp's edition ot 
the Greek Testament, is 922 ; in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, 640. We have then the proportion — 640 
922 : : 300 : 432 ; showing that if the number of pecu 
liar words was as great in 1 Corinthians in proportion 
to its length as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, we 
should find there 432 instead of about 217. In other 
words, the number of aTra^ Aryojuteva in Hebrews 
exceeds that in 1 Corinthians in nearly the propor- 
tion of 2 to 1. No judicious critic would rest an ar 
gument in such a case on the were number of pecu 
liar words ; but if this matter is to be discussed at all, 
it is desirable that the facts should be correctly pi-e- 
sented. There is much that is erroneous or fallacious 
in Professor Stuart's other remarks on the internal evi- 
dence. The work of Mr. Forster in relation to this 
subject (mentioned above), displays the same intellect 
ual characteristics as his treatise on the Himyaritlo 
Inscriptions, his One Primeval Language, and his Neio 
P'ea for the Authfnticity of the Text of the Three Hea^' 
enlv Witnesses (1 John V. 7), recently published A 



Lect. ix., Jeans to the same conclusion. Dr. S. 
Davidson, in his Introduction to the New Testa- 
ment, gives a very careful and minute summary of 
the arguments of all the principal modern critics 
who reason upon the internal evidence, and con- 
cludes, in substantial agreement with the Alexan- 
drian tradition, that St. Paul was the author of the 
epistle, and that, as regards its phraseology and style, 
St. Luke coiiperated with him in making it what it 
now appears. The tendency of opinion in Ger- 
many has been to ascribe the epistle to some other 
author than St. Paul. Luther's conjecture, that 
Apollos was the author, has been widely adopted 
by I-ie Clerc, iJleek, De Wette, Tholuck, Bunsen, 
and others." [Apollos, Amer. ed.] Barnabas 
has been named by Wieseler, Thiersch, and others,^ 
Luke by Grotius, Silas by others. Neander attri- 
butes it to some apostolic man of the Pauline 
school, whose training and method of stating doc- 
trinal truth differed from St. Paul's.- The distin- 
guished name of H. Ewald has been given recently 
to the hypothesis (partly anticipated by Wetstein), 
that it was written neither by St. Paul, nor to the 
Hebrews, but by some Jewish teacher residing at 
Jerusalem to a church in some important Italian 
tOT\7i, which is supposed to have sent a deputation 
to Palestine. Most of these guesses are quite des- 
titute of historical evidence, and require the sup- 
port of imaginary facts to place them on a seeming 
equality with tlie traditionary account. They can- 
not be said to rise out of tlie region of possibility 
into that of probability ; but they are such as any 
man of leisure and learning might multiply till 
they include every name in the limited list that we 
possess of St. Paul's contemporaries. 

The tradition of the Alexandrian fathers is not 
without some difficulties. It is truly said that the 
style of reasoning is different from that which St. 
Paul uses in his acknowledged epistles. But it 
may be replied, — Is the adoption of a different 
style of reasoning inconsistent with the versatility 
of that mind which could express itself in writings 
so diverse as the Pastoral Epistles and the preced- 
ing nine ? or in speeches so diverse as those which 
are severally addressed to pagans at Athens and 
Lycaonia, to Jews at Pisidian Antioch, to Christian 
elders at Miletus? Is not such diversity just what 
might be expected from the man who in Syrian 
Antioch resisted circumcision and St. Peter, but in 
Jenisalem kept tlie Nazarite vow, and made con- 
cessions to Hebrew Christians; who professed to 
become "all thhigs to all men" (1 Cor. ix. 22); 
whose education qualified him to express his 
thoughts in the idiom of either Syria or Greece, 
and to vindicate to Christianity whatever of eter- 
pal truth was known in tlie world, whether it had 
become current in Alexandrian philosophy, or in 
Itabbinical tradition '? 

If it be asked to what extent, and by whom was 
St. Paul assisted in the composition of this epistle, 

a Among those must now be placed Dean Alford, 
who in the fourth volume of his Greek Testmnent (pub- 
lished since the above article was in type), discusses 
the question with great care and candor, and concludes 
that the epistle wiu« written by Apollos to the Romans, 
»bout A. D. 69. from Kphesus. 

*> Among these are some, who, unlike Origen, deny 
toat Barnabas is the author of the epistle which bears 
bis name. If it be granted that we have no specimen 
of his style, the hypotliesis which connects him with 
the Epistle to the Ihibrews becomes less improbable. 
Many circumstances show thi.t he possessed some qual- 

the reply must be in the words of OrigiMi, " Wic 
wrote \i. e. as in Kom. xvi. 22, wrote from the aa- 
thor's dictation c] this epistle, only God knows.'' 
The style is not quite like that of Clement of 
Rome, lioth style and sentiment are quite unlike 
those of the author of the Epistle of Barnabas 
Of the three apostolic men named by African 
fathers, St. Luke is the most likely to have shared in 
the composition of this epistle. The similarity ir 
phraseology which exists between the acknowledgf d 
writings of St. Luke-and this epistle; his constai t 
companionship with St. Paul, and his habit of liu- 
tening to and recording the Apostle's argumei'te 
form a strong presumption in his favor. 

But if St. Luke were joint-author with St. Paul, 
what share in the composition is to be assigned to 
him '? This question has I>een i.sked by those who 
regard joint-authorship as an impossibility, and 
ascribe the epistle to some other writer than St. 
Paul; Perhaps it is not easy, certainly it is not 
necessary, to find an answer which would satisfy or 
silence persons who pursue an historical inquiry 
into the region of conjecture. Who shall define 
the exact responsibility of Timothy or Silvanus, or 
Sosthenes in those seven epistles which St. Paul 
inscribes with some of their names conjointly with 
his own ? To what extent does St. Mark's lan- 
guage clothe the inspired recollections of St. Peter, 
which, according to ancient tradition, are recorded 
in the second Gospel? Or, to take the acknowl- 
edged writings of St. Luke himself, — what is the 
share of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the 
word " (Luke i. 2), or what is the share of St. Paul 
himself in that Gospel, which some persons, not 
without countenance from tradition, conjecture that 
St. Luke wrote under his master's eye, in the prison 
atCaesarea; or who shall assign to the follower and 
the master their portions respectively in those seven 
characteristic speeches at Antioch, Lystra, Athens, 
Miletus, Jerusalem, and Caesarea? If St. Luke 
wrote down St. Paul's Gospel, and condensed his 
missionary speeches, may he not have taken after- 
wards a more important share in the composition 
of this epistle? 

III. To whom was the Kpistle sent f — This ques- 
tion was agitated as early as the time of Chrysos- 
tom, who replies — to the Jews in Jerusalem and 
Palestine. The ancient tradition preserved by 
Clement of Alexandria, that it was originally writ- 
ten in Hebrew by St. Paul, points to the same 
quarter. The unfaltering tenacity with which the 
Eastern Church from the beginning maintained the 
authority of this epistle leads to the inference that 
it was sent thither with sufficient credentials in the 
first instance. Like the First Epistle of St. .John 
it has no inscription embodied in its text, and yet 
it differs from a treatise by containing several direct 
personal appeals, and from a homily, by closing 
with messages and salutations. Its present title, 
which, though ancient, cannot be proved to have 

ifications for writing such an epistle ; such as his Le« 
vitical descent, his priestly education, his reputation 
at Jerusalem, his acqu.aintance with Gentile churches, 
his company with St. Paul, the tradition of TertuUian, 

c Liinemann, followed by Dean Alford, argues that 
Origen must have meant here, as he confessedly doet 
a few lines further on, to iudicjite an author, not a 
scribe, by 6 ypd\l/a<; ; but he acknowledges thatOIshav 
sen, Stcngleiu, and Delitzsch, do not allow the luvm 

been inscribed by the writer of the epistle, niiglit 
have been given to it, in accordance with the use 
3f the term Hebrews in the N. T., if it had been 
addressed either to Jews who hved at Jerusalem, 
and spoke Aramaic (Acts vi. 1), or to the descend- 
ants of Abraham generally (2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil, 
iii. 5). 

But the argument of the epistle is such as could 
be used with most effect to a church consisting 
exclusively of Jews by birth, personally familiar 
vvith,« and attached to, the Temple-sei-vice. And 
such a community (as Bleek, Ihbider, i. 31, argues) 
could be found only in Jerusalem and its neighbor- 
hood. And if the church at Jerusalem retained its 
fonner distinction of including a great company of 
priests (Acts vi. 7) — a class professionally familiar 
with the songs of the Temple, accustomed to dis- 
cuss the interpretation of Scripture, and acquainted 
with the prevailing Alexandrian philosophy — such 
a church would be peculiarly fit to appreciate this 
epistle. For it takes from the l^ok of l^salms the 
remarkable proportion of sixteen out of thirty-two 
quotations from the 0. T., which it contains. It 
relies so much on deductions from Scripture that 
tills circumstance has been pointed out as incon- 
sistent with the tone of independent apostolic au- 
thority, which characterizes the undoubted epistles 
of St. Paul. And so frequent is the use of Alex- 
andrian philosophy and exegesis that it has sug- 
gested to some critics ApoUos as the writer, to 
others the Alexandrian church as the primary re- 
cipient of the epistle.'' If certain members of the 
church at Jerusalem possessed goods (Ileb. x. 34), 
and the means of ministering to distress (vi. 10), 
this fact is not irreconcilable, as has been sup- 
posed, with the deep poverty of other inhabitants 
of Jerusalem (Rom. xv. 20, &c.); but it agrees 
exactly with the condition of that church thirty 
years previously (Acts ii. 45, and iv. 34), and with 
the historical estimate of the material prosperity 
of the Jews at this time (Merivale, History of the 
Romans under the Empire, vi. 531, ch. lix.). If 
St. Paul quotes to Hebrews the LXX. without cor- 
recting it where it differs from the Hebrew, this 
agrees with his practice in other epistles, and with 
the fact that, as elsewhere so in .lerusalem, Hebrew 
^as a dead language, acquired only mth much pains 
)y the learned. The Scriptures were popularly 
known in Aramaic or Greek : quotations were made 
ftom memory, and verified by memory. Probably 
Prof. Jowett is correct in his inference (1st edit. i. 
16 1), that St. Paul did not familin-hj know the 
Hebrew original, while he possessed a minute knowl- 
etlgeof the LXX. 

Ebrard limits the primary circle of readers even 
to a section of the church at Jerusalem. Consid- 
ving such passages as v. 12, vi. 10, x. 32, as prob- 
liWy inapplicable to tlie whole of that church, he 
sonjectures that St. Paul wrote to some neophytes 
«rhose conversion, though not mentioned in the 
A-Cts, may have been partly due to the Apostle's 


influence in the time of his last recorded sojourn in 
Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 22). 

Some critics have maintained that this epistle 
was addressed directly to Jewish believers every- 
where ; others have restricted it to those who dwelt 
in Asia and Greece. Almost every city in which 
St. Paul labored has been selected by some critic 
as the place to which it was originally sent. Not 
only Home and CiEsarea, where St. Paul was long 
imprisoned, but, amid the profound silence of its 
early Fathers, Alexandria also, which he never saw, 
have each found their advocates. And one con- 
jecture connects this epistle specially with the 
Gentile Christians of P^phesus. These guesses agree 
in being entirely unsupported by historical evidence; 
and each of them has some special plausibility com- 
bined with difficulties peculiar to itself. 

IV. Where and witen was it 2C>-itten ? — Eastern 
traditions of the fourth century, in connection with 
the opinion that St. Paul is the writer, name Italy 
and Pome, or Athens, as the place from whence 
the epistle was M'ritten. Either place would agree 
with, perhaps was suggested by, the mention of 
Timothy in the last chapter. An inference in favor 
of Rome may be drawn from the Apostle's long 
captivity there in company with Timothy and Luke, 
(^ssarea is open to a similar inference; and it has 
been conjecturally named as the place of the com- 
position of the Epp. to the Colossians, Ephesians, 
and Philippians: but it is not supported by any 
tradition. From the expression " they of (d7r(i) 
Italy," xiii. 24, it has been inferred that the writer 
could not have been in Italy; but Winer (Gram- 
mafifc, § 06, 0), denies that the preposition neces- 
sarily has that force. 

The epistle was evidently WTitten before the 
destruction of Jerusalem in A. i). 70. The whole 
argument, and specially the passages viii. 4 and ff., 
ix. and ff. (where the present tenses of the Greek 
are unaccountably changed into past in the English 
version), and xiii. 10 and fF. imply that the Temple 
was standing, and that its usuai course of Divine 
service was carried on without interruption. A 
Christian reader, keenly watching in the doomed « 
city for the fulfillment of liis Lord's prediction, 
would at once understand the ominous references 
to •' that which beareth thorns and briers, and is 
rejected, and is nigh unto cursing, whose end is to 
be burned;" "that which decayeth and waxetb 
old, and is ready to vanish away; " and the coming 
of the expected " Day," and the removing of those 
things that are shaken, vi. 8, viii. 13, x. 25, 37, xii. 
27. But these forebodings seem less distinct and 
circumstantial than they might have been if uttered 
immedi'ttely before the catastrophe. 'I'he references 
to former teachers xiii. 7, and earlier instruction v. 
12, and x. 32, might .suit any time after the first 
years of the church; but it would be interesting to 
cormect the first reference with the martyrdom ** 
of St. James at the Passover A. T>. 02." Modem 
criticism has not destroyed, though it has weakened. 


a For an explanation of the alleged ignorance of the 
Author of Ileh. ix. as to the furniture of the Temple, 
gee BbrardV Coinmentarii on the passage, or Professor 
Stuart's Emirs, IS, xvi. and xvii. 

*> The ititiuMiice of fhe Alexandrian school did not 
begin with I'hiio, and was not confined to Alexandria. 
[ALEXAxniUA.] The means and the evidence of its 
progress may he traced in the writings of the son of 
Mrach (Mail rice's Mura' ami Mf/ap/u/sirnl Philnsnphy. 

§ 8, p. 2.^). tlie author of the Book of Wisdom 
Ewald, (xfic/iirhu: iv. 548), Aristobulus, Bzekiel, Philo. 

and Theodotus (Ewald, iv. 297) ; in the phrastKjIogy 
of St. John (Prof. Jowett, On the T/ifssnlomnns, etc 
1st edit. i. 408), and the arguments of St. Paul {ibid 
p. 3)1) ; in the establishment of an .\Iexandrian syn 
agogue at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 9), and the existence of 
schools of ."scriptural interpretation there (Ewald, Ge 
sckidile, V. (53, and vi. 2fSD. 

c See Josephus, B. J. vi. 5, ^ 3. 

fl See Josephus, Ant. xx 9," § 1 ; Euseb. H. M H 
23 ; and Rccogu. Clement, i 70, jip. Cot*ler. i 509 



Jm connection of this epistle with St. Paul's 
Roman captivity (a. d. 61-63) by substituting the 
reading toIs 8e(rfi.iois, "the prisoners," for ro7s 
Seo-yuoij fxav (A. V. "me in my bonds)," x. 34; 
by proposing to interpret aTroAcAu^fVoj/, xiii 23, as 
•'sent away," rather than "set athberty;" and 
bv urging that the condition of the writer, as por- 
trayed in xiii. ]8, 19, 23, is not necessarily that 
of a prisoner, and that there may possibly be no 
allusion to it in xiii. 3. On the whole, the date 
which best agrees with the traditionary account of 
the authorship and destination of the epistle is 
A. D. 63, about the end of St. Paul's imprisonment 
at Rome, or a year after Albinua succeeded Festus 
as procurator. 

V. Jn lohat language was it tci'iiten ? — Like 
St. Matthew's Gospel, the Epistle to the Hebrews 
has afforded ground for much unimportant contro- 
versy respecting the language in which it was 
originally written. The earliest statement is that 
of Clement of Alexandria (preserved hi Euseb. //. 
/,\ vi. 14), to the effect that it was written by St. 
Paul in Hebrew, and translated by St. Luke into 
Greek ; and hence, as Clement observes, arises the 
identity of the style of the epistle and that of the 
Acts. This statement is repeated, after a long 
interval, by Eusebius, Theodoret, Jerome, and sev- 
eral later fathers: but it is not noticed by the 
majority. Nothing is said to lead us to regard it 
as a tradition, rather than a conjecture suggested 
by the style of the epistle. No person is said to 
have used or seen a Hebrew original. The Aramaic 
copy, included in the Peshito, has never been re- 
garded otherwise than as a translation. Among 
the few modern supporters of an Aramaic original 
the most distinguished are Joseph Hallet, an Eng- 
lish wiiter in 1727 (whose able essay is most easily 
accessible in a Latin translation in Wolfs Curce 
Philobgicce, iv. 806-837), and J. D. MichaeHs, 
Erhldr. des Briefes an die Jhbrder. Bleek (i. 
6-23), argues in support of a Greek original, on 
the grounds of (1) the purity and easy flow of the 
Greek; (2) the use of Greek words which could 
not be adequately expressed in Hebrew without 
long periphrase ; (3) the use of paronomasia — 
under which head he disallows the inference against 
an Aramaic original which has been drawn from 
the double sense given to Siad-fiKT], ix. 15; and 
(4) the use of the Septuagint in quotations and 
references which do not correspond with the He- 
brew text. 

VL Condition of the Hebrews, and scope of the 
Epistle. — The numerous Christian churches scat- 
tered throughout Judaea (Acts ix. 31 ; Gal. i. 22) 
were continually exposed to persecution from the 
Jews (1 Thess. ii. 14), which would become more 
searching and extensive as churches multiphed, and 
as the growing turbulence of the nation ripened 
into the insurrection of a. d. 66. Personal ^•iolence, 
spoliation of property, exclusion from the synagogue, 
and domestic strife were the universal forms of per- 
secution. But in Jerusalem there was one addi- 
tional weapon in the bands of the predominant 
oppressors of the Christians. Their magnificent 
national Temple, hallowed to every Jew by ancient 
historical and by gentler personal recollections, with 
Ita LrTt.5istible attractions, its soothing strains, and 
Waysterious ceremonies, might be shut against the 

o See the ingenious, but perhaps cverstrained, in- 
lopratation of Heb. xi. in Thiersch's ilommentatio 
ffaUtnce de Z^stola ad Hebrceos- 

Hebrew Christian. And even if, amid the ficnt 

factions and frequent oscillations of authority u 
Jerusalem, this affliction were not often laid upon 
him, yet there was a secret burden which evwy 
Hebrew Christian bore within him — the knowledge 
that the end of all the beauty and awfulness of 
Zion was rapidly approaching. Paralyzed, perhaps, 
by this consciousness, and enfeebled by their attach- 
ment to a lower form of Christianity, they became 
stationary in knowledge, weak in faith, void of 
energy, and even in danger of apostasy from Chridt. 
For, as afflictions multiplied round them, and nvdde 
them feel more keenly their dependence on God. 
and their need of near and frequent and associated 
approach to Him, they seemed, in consequence of 
their Christianity, to be receding from the Gwl o' 
their fathers, and losing that means of communiou 
with Hiin which they used to enjoy. Angels, Moses 
and the High-priest — their intercessors in heaven 
in the grave, and on earth — became of less im- 
portance in the creed of the Jewish Christian ; theii 
glory waned as he grew in Christian experience 
Already he felt that the Lord's day was superseding 
the Sabbath, the New Covenant the Old. What 
could take the place of the Temple, and that which 
was behind the veil, and the Levitical sacrifices, 
and the Holy City, when they should cease to exist ; 
What compensation could Christianity offer him 
for the loss which was pressing" the Hebrew 
Christian more and more. 

James, the bishop of Jerusalem, had just left hia 
place vacant by a martyr's death. Neither tc 
Cephas at Babylon, nor to John at Ephesus, the 
third pillar of the Apostolic Church, was it given 
to understand all the greatness of his want, and to 
speak to him the word in season. But there came 
tu him from Rome the voice of one who had been 
the foremost in sounding the depth and breadth of 
that love of Christ which was all but incompre- 
hensible to the Jew, one who feeling more than any 
other Apostle the weight of the care of all the 
churches, yet clung to his own people Mith a love 
ever ready to break out in impassioned words, and 
unsought and ill-requited deeds of kindness. He 
whom Jerusalem had sent away in chains to Rome 
again lifted up his voice in the hallowed city among 
his countrymen; but with words and arguments 
suited to their capacity, with a strange, borrowed 
accent, and a tone in which reigned no apostolic 
authority, and a face veiled in very love from way- 
ward children who might refuse to hear divine and 
saving truth, when it fell from the hps of Paul. 

He meets the Hebrew Christians on their own 
ground. His answer is — " Your new faith gives 
you Christ, and, in Christ, all you seek, all your 
fathers sought. In Christ the Son of God you 
have an all-sufficient Mediator, nearer than angi^ls 
to the Father, eminent above Moses as a benefactor, 
more sympathizing and more prevailing than the 
high-priest as an intercessor: His sabbath awaits 
you in heaven; to His covenant the old M'as in- 
tended to be subservient; His atonement is the 
eternal reality^ of which sacrifices are but tht 
passing shadow; His city heavenly, not made with 
hands. Having Him, believe in Him with all your 
heart, with a faith in the unseen future, strong aa 
that of the saints of old, patient under present, and 
prepared for coming woe, full of energy, and hope 
and holiness, and love." 

Such was the teaching of the Epistle to the He 

b Se« Bishop Butler's Analogy^ ii. 5, } 6. 



brews. We do not possess the means of tracing 
Dut step by step its effect upon tlieni : but we know 
that the result at which it aimed was achieved. 
I'he church at Jerusalem did not apostatize. It 
migrated to Pella (Eusebiua H. E. iii. 5); and 
there, no longer dwindled und3r the cold shadow 
of overhanging Judaism, it followed the Hebrew 
Christians of the Dispersion in gradually entering 
on the possession of the full liberty which the law 
of Christ allows to all. 

And this great epistle remains to after times, a 
keystone binding together that succession of inspired 
WAV. which spans over the ages between jMoses and 
St. John. It teaches the Christian student the sub- 
stantial identity of the revelation of God, whether 
given thix>ugh the Prophets, or through the Son; 
for it shows that God's purposes are unchangeable, 
however diversely in different ages they have been 
" reflected in broken and fitful rays, glancing back 
from the troubled waters of the human soul." It 
is a source of inexhaustible comfort to every Chris- 
tian sufferer in inward perplexity, or amid "re- 
proaches and afflictions." It is a pattern to every 
Christian teacher of the method in which larger 
views should be imparted, gently, re\erently, and 
seasonably, to feeble spirits prone to cling to ancient 
forms, and to rest in accustomed feelings. 

VII. Literature connected with the Epistle.- — 
In addition to the books already referred to, four 
commentaries may be selected as the best repre- 
Bentati\es of distinct lines of thought ; — those of 
Chrysostom, Calvin, Estius, and Bleek. Liinemann 
(1855 [3d ed. 18G7]), and Delitzsch (1858) have 
recently added valuable commentaries to those 
already in existence. 

The conmientaries accessible to the English 
reader are those of Professor Stuart (of Andover, 
U. S. [2d ed., 1833, abridged by Prof. li. D. C. 
Bobbins, Andover, I860]), and of Ebrard, trans- 
lated by the Rev. J. Fulton [in vol. vi. of Olshausen's 
Bibl. Comm., Amer. ed.]. Dr. Owen's Exercita- 
tions on the Hebrews are not chiefly valuable as an 
attempt at exegesis. The Paraphrase and Notes 
of Peirce [2d ed. Ix)nd. 1734] are praised by Dr. 
Doddridge. Among the well-known collections of 
English notes on the Greek text or English version 
of the N. T., those of Hanmiond, Fell, Whitby, 
Macknight, Wordsworth, and Alford may be par- 
ticularly mentioned. In Prof. Stanley's Sermons 
and Essays on the Apostolical Age there is a 
thoughtful and eloquent sermon on this epistle; 
and it is the subject of three Warburtonian Lec- 
tures, by the Rev. F. D. Maurice [Lond. 1846]. 

A tolerably complete list of commentaries on 
this epistle may be found in Bleek, vol. ii. pp. 10- 
IP, and a comprehensive but shorter list at the end 
if Ebrard's Commentary. W. T. B. 

* The opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews 
was not written by Paul has found favor with many 
besides those whose names have been mentioned. 
Among these are Ullmann {Stiul. u. Krit. 1828, p. 
^8 ff.), Schott {lsa(jo(je, 1830, §§ 79-87), Schleier- 
.racher {Einl. ins N. t. p. 439), I.^hler {Das Apost. 
Zeitalt p. 159 f.), Wiesder {Chron. d. Apost. 
Zeitnlt p. 504 f.), and in a separate treatise {Un- 
^rsuchung iiber den IIebr^erbrieJ\ Kiel, 1861), 
Pwesten {Dof/matik, 4te Aufl., i. 95, and in Piper's 
Emnijel. Kalender fo- 1858, p. 43 f.), Kostlin (in 
Baur and Zeller's Theol Jahrb. 1854, p. 425 ), 
Dredner (Gesch. des Neulest. Koaon, edited .-v 
rolkmar, p. 161), Schmid {Bibl. Thtol. des N. T. 

72), iieiws {Gesch. des N. T. 4te Ausg.), Weiss 

{Stud. u. Krit. 1859 p. 142) Schaeckeiibui]g«r 
{Beitrdge, and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 283 f.), 
Hase {kirchengesch. 7te Aufl. § 39, p. 636 of the 
Amer. ti-ans.), Lange {Das Ajx)st. Zeitalter, i 
185 f.), Ritschl {Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 89), 
Liinemann {llandb. p. 1 f., 3te Aufl. 1867, 13th 
pt. of Meyer's Komm. ilb. d. N. T.), Von Gerlacb 
{Das N. T. etc., Einl. p. xxxiv.), Messner {Die 
Lehre der Apostel, p. 293 ff.), Riehm {Lehrbegr. 
des Hebrder-Br., neue Ausg. 1867), Moll (in 
Lange's Bibelwerk), Holtzmann (in IJunsen's Bibel- 
iverk, viii. 512 ff.\ the Roman Catholics Feilmoser 
{Einl. ins N. T. p. 359), Lutterbeck {Neutest. 
Lehrbegr. ii. 245), Maier {Comm. iib. d. Brie/ an 
die Hebj-der, 1861), and among writers in English, 
Norton (in the Christian Exam. 1827 to 1829), 
Palfrey {Relation between Jtulaism and Christianity^ 
pp. 311-331), Tregelles (in Home's Jniroduction, 
10th ed., iv. 585), Schaff ( J/>o*'/!o/ic' Church, p. 641 
f.), Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epp. of St. 
Paul, new ed. chap, xxviii.), Westcott {Canon oj 
N. T. 2d ed. p. 314), and others. In justice to this 
opinion, the chief arguments urged in its support 
may be more particularly stated. Those furnished 
by the epistle itself may be classified according to 
their general nature as formal, doctrinal, personal : 
I. To the first class belong, (1.) Tlie absence of a 
salutation., and in general the treatise-like charac- 
ter of the epistle. The explanation of Pantaenus ( ?) 
is inadequate, for Paul might ha\e sent a salutation 
without styling himself "apostle" (cf. Epp. to 
Phil. Thess. Philem.); the supposition of Clement 
of Alexandria attributes to the Apostle a procedure 
which, even if quite worthy of him, was hardly 
practicable, certainly hazardous, and plainly at 
variance with the indications that the author was 
known to his readers (cf. xiii. 18, 19, 22 f.); the 
assumption that Paul in this epistle abandoned his 
ordinary manner of composition for some unlcnown 
reason, admits the facts, but adopts what, in view 
of the thirteen extant specimens of his epistolary 
?tyle, is the less probalile explanation of them. (2.) 
The peculiaiities relative to the employment of the 
0. T. Paul quotes the O. T. freely, in the epistle 
it is quoted with punctilious accuracy; Paul very 
often gives evidence of having the Hebrew in mind, 
the epistle almost (if not quite) uniformly repro- 
duces the LXX. version, and that, too, in a form of 
the text (Cod. Alex.) differing generally from the 
LXX. text employed by the Apostle (Cod. Vat.), 
Paul commonly introduces his quotations as " Scrip- 
ture," often gives the name of the Imman author, 
but in the epistle the quotations, with but a single 
exception (ii. 6), are attributed more or less directly 
to God. (3.) The characteristics of expression. 
(a.) The epistle is destitute of many of Paul's 
favorite expressions — expressions which, being of a 
general nature and pertinent in any epistle, betray 
the Apostle's habits of thought. For instance, the 
phrase e^ XpiaTw, which occurs 78 times in the 
acknowledged epistles of Paul (being found in all 
except the short Epistle to Titus), does not occur 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, although this epistle, 
quotations excluded, is rather more than one 
seventh ag long as the aggregate length of the 
other thirteen; the phrase 6 Kvpios ^Irjaovs XpiCT6i 
(variously modified as respects arrangement and 
pronouns), which occurs in every one of Paul's 
epistles, and more than 80 times in all, is not to 
be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews; the word 
^vayyiKiov. though used GO times by Paul, and 
in all his epistles except that to Titus, is not met 



irith in this epistle; iiie teim var-fip, applied to 
God 36 by Paul (exclusive of G instances in 
which God is called the lather of Christ), and 
occurring in every one of his epistles, is so used 
but once in the Epistle to the Heorews, and then 
Dy way of antithesis (Heb. xii. 9). (b.) It sub- 
stitutes certain synonymous words and constructions 
in plaoe of those usual with Paul: ex. gr. jjucr- 
OairoSoaia for the simple jxiadSs employed by Paul ; 
fifToxou elvai, etc., instead of Pauls koiucoj/Su 
etc. ; the intransitive use of Kadi^co in the plirase 
KaOiCca iv 5e|ia rod dead, where Paul uses the verb 
transitively ; the expression 5ia7rauT6s, ds rh irav- 
re\es, eh rh 5n}V€Kes instead of Paul's Traj/rore. 
(c) It exhibits noticeable pecuUarities of expres- 
sion; the phrase els rh SirjueKcs belongs to this 
class also ; other specimens are the use of oaou . . . 


So-oi'aVone, and of Tropo and uTrep in expressing 
comparison; connectives, like iduTrep (three times), 
Sdev (six times), which are never used by Paul, 
(d.) And in general its language and style differ 
from Paul's — its language, in being less He- 
braistic, more literary, more idiomatic in construc- 
tion; its style, in being less impassioned, more 
regular, more rhythmical and euphonious. These 
differences have been generally conceded from the 
first, and by such judges as Clement of Alexandria 
and Origen, to whom Greek was vernacular. They 
are not satisfactorily accounted for by supposing a 
considerable interval of time to have elapsed be- 
tween the composition of the other epistles and 
this — for so far as we are acquainted with the 
Apostle's history we can find no room for such an 
interval, and his style as exhibited in the other 
epistles shows no tendency towards the required 
transformation ; nor by assuming that Paul elabo 
rated his style because writing to Jews — for the 
Jews were not accustomed to finished Greek, and 
he who ' to the Jews became as a Jew ' did not 
trouble himself to polish his style on occasions 
when such labor might have been appreciated (cf 
2 Cor. xi. G); nor by attributing the literary 
elegance of the epistle to its amanuensis — for the 
other epistles were dictated to different persons, 
yet exhibit evident marks of a common author. 

II. The doctrinal indications at variance with the 
theory of its PauUne authorship do not amount to 
a conflict in any particular with the presentations of 
truth matle by the Apostle ; nor are its divergencies 
from the Pauline type of doctrine so marked as 
those of James and John. Still, it has pocuharities 
which are distinctive : Paul delights to present the 
Gospel as justification before God though faith in 
the Crucified One; in the Epistle to the Hebrews, on 
the other hand, it is represented as consummated 
Judaism. In accordance with this fundamental 
difference, the epistle defines and illustrates iaith 
in a generic sense, as trust in God's assurances and 
as antithetic to sight; whereas with Paul faith is 
specific — a sinner's trust in Christ — and antithetic 
/generally) to works: it sets forth the eternal high- 
priesthood of the Messiah, while Paul dwells ujwn 
Christ's triumphant resurrection: in it the seed of 
Abraham are believing Jews, while Paul everywhere 
makes Gentiles joint-heirs with Jews of the grace 
of life: it is conspicuous, too, among the N. T. 
imtings for its spiritualizing, at times half-mystical, 
mode of interpreting the 0. T. Further, these 
iifferent presentations of the Christian doctrine are 
jD general made to rest upon different grounds: 
PkjI speaks as the messenger of God, often referring, 

indeed, to the 0. T., but still oftenei quietly a«iim> 
ing plenary authority to declare truta not revealed 
to holy men of old ; but the writer to the Hebrew! 
rests his teaching upon Biblical statements almoh* 

III. Among the matters personal which seem ^ 
conflict with the opinion that the epistle is Paul's, 
are enumerated, (1.) The circumstance that it is 
addressed to Jewish readers: -if Paul wrote it, he 
departed, in doing so, from his orduiary province 
of labor (cf. Gal. ii. 9; Kom. xv. 20). (2.) The 
omission of any justification of his apostohc course 
relative to Judaism; and, assuming the epistle to 
have been destined for believers at Jerusalem, his 
use of language imi)lying affectionate intimacy witli 
them (xiii. 19, etc.; cf. Acts xxi. 17 f.). (3.) Thi 
cool, historic style in which reference is made to 
the early persecutions and martyrdoms of the church 
at Jerusalem (xiii. 7, xii. 4). In these Paul had 
been a prominent actor; and such passages as 1 
Cor. XV. 9 ; 1 Tim. i. 12 f., show how he was ac- 
customed to allude to them, even in writing to 
third parties. (4.) The intimation (ii. 3) that the 
writer, like his readers, received the Gospel indirectly, 
through those who had been the personal disciples 
of (,'hrist. Paul, on the contrary, uniformly insists 
that he did not receive the Gospel through any 
human channel, but by direct revelation ; and he ac- 
cordingly claims coequality with the other Apostles 
(Gal. i. 1, 11, 12, 15, IG; ii. 6; 1 Cor. ix. 1; xi. 
2-3; Eph. iii. 2, 3; 2 Cor. xi. 5). The reply, that 
the writer here uses the plural comnjunicatively and, 
strictly sjjeaking, does not mean to include himself, 
is unsatisfactory. For he does not quietly drop a 
distinction out of sight; he expressly designates 
three separate classes, namely, " the Lord," "them 
that heard," and "we," and, in the face of this 
explicit distinction, includes himself in the third 
class — this he does, although his argument would 
have been strengthened had he been able (like Paul) 
to appeal to a direct re\elation from heaven. 

These internal arguments are not offset by the 
evidence from tradition. KespLcthig that evidence, 
statements like Olshausen's give an impression not 
altogether con-ect. For, not to mention that F^use- 
bius, although often citing the epistle as Paul's, 
elsewhere admits (as Origen had virtually done 
before him, Euseb. //. £. vi. 25) that its apostolic 
origin was not wholly unquestioned by the oriental 
churches (//. Ji. iii. 3), and in another passage 
(//. £. vi. 13) even classes it himself among the 
ant'degomtna, it is noticeable that the Alexandrian 
testimony from the very first gi\es evidence that 
the epi.«tle was felt to possess characteristics at 
vaiiance with Pauline authorship. The statement 
of Clement that the epistle was translated from the 
Hebrew, is now almost unanimously regarded as 
incorrect ; how then can we be assured of the truth 
of the accompanying assertion — or rather, the other 
half of the same statement — that it was written 
by Paul? Further, in the conflict of testimony 
between the East and the West, it is not altogether 
clear that the probabilities favor the East. Haifa 
century before we find the epistle mentioned ui the 
FLast, and hardly thirty years after it was written, it 
was known and prized at Konie by a man anciently 
believed to have been a fellow-laborer with the 
Apostle. It seems hardly possible that, had Pan 
keen its author, Clement should have been ignoraS^ 
of the fact; or that, the fact once known, knowl 
edge of it should have died out while the epistb 
itself survived. And yet in all parts of the Wwt — 


a Gaul, Italy, Africa — the epistle was regarded 
ts un-Pauline. 

The theory that Paul was mediately or indirectly 
the author, has been adopted by Hug {Einl. ii. 
422 f.), Ebrard (in OLshausen's Com. on N. T., vi. 
320, Kendrick's ed.), Guericke {Gesamtnfyesch. des 
N. T. p. 419 f.), Davidson {Introiluction to the 
iV. T. iii. 256 f.), Delitzsch (in Kudelbach and 
Guericke's Zeitschr. for 1849, trans, in the EvdiKjel. 
Rev. Mercersburg, Oct. 1850, p. 184 fF., and in 
his Cum. p. 707), Bloomfield {(Jr. Test., 9th ed., 
ii. 574 tf.), Roberts {Discussions on the Gospels, pt. 
i. chap, vi.), and others, who tliink Luke to have 
given the epistle its present form ; by Thiersch (in 
the I'rogr. named above, and in Die Kirche ini 
Ajjost. Zeitalt. p. 197 f.), Conybeare (as above), and 
otliers, who make Barnabas chiefly responsible for 
its style; by Olshausen {Opusc. p. 118 fF.), who 
supposes that sundry presbyters were concerned in 
its origin; and by many who regai-d the Apostle's 
assistant as unknown. Now respecting the theory 
of mediate authorship it may be remarked : If Paul 
dictated the epistle, and Luke or some other scribe 
merely penned it, l*aul remains its sole author; 
this was his usual mode of composing; this mode 
of composition does not occasion any perceptible 
diversity in his style; hence, this form of the 
hypothesis is useless as an explanation of the 
epistle's peculiarities. Again, if the epistle is 
assumed to he the joint production of Paul and some 
friend or friends, the assumption is unnatural, with- 
out evidence, without unequivocal analogy in the 
origin of any other inspired epiytle, and insufficient 
to remove the diflficulties in the case. Once more, 
if we suppose the ideas to be in the main Paul's, 
but their present form to be due to some one else, 
then Paul, not having participated actively in the 
work of com^x^smg the epistle, cannot according to 
the ordinary use of language be called its author. 
Whatever be the capacity in which Paul associates 
Timothy, Silvanus, and Sosthenes with himself in 
the salutation prefixed to some of his epistles, — and 
it is noteworthy that he does not on this account 
hesitate to continue in the 1st pers. sing, (see Phil, 
i. 3), or to use the 3d pers. of his associate at the 
very next mention of him (ii. 19), — the assumption 
of some similar associate in composing the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, even if it had historic warrant, 
would not answer the purpose designed. For the 
gtyle of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, in which 
Sosthenes is conjoined with Paul, bears the Apostle's 
in) press as unmistakably as does the style of the 
2d Epistle to the Corinthians, where Timothy writes 
in tlie salutation. And in both, the individuality 
of Ihe Apostle is as sharply defined as it is in the 
Epistle to the Romans. (The philological evidence 
thought by DeUtzsch to show Luke's hand in the 
composition, has been collected and examined by 
Liinemann, as above, § 1.) 

The opinion that Paul was the proper and sole 
luthor (besides the modern advocates of it already 
aamed), has been defended by Gelpke (Vimlicice. 
•ilc), a writer in the Spirit of the Pilf/rims for 
.828 and 1829 (in reply to Prof. Norton), Gurney 
;in the Bihl. Repos. for 1832, p. 409 ff., e^tracteid 
from Biblical Notes and Dissertations, Lond. 1830), 
Btier {Der Brief an die Ilebrder, ii. p. 42i„ Lewin 
life and Ej>p. of St. Paid, ii. 832-899;, writers 
: the .foiirnal of Sacred Lit. for 1860, pp. 10^ ff., 
193 ff., Hofmann {Schriftbeweis, ii. 2, 2te A"^. 
3. 378, of. p. 105), Bobbins (in the Bihi Sacra for 
1861, p. 469 ff.), cf. Tobler (in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 



for 1864, p. 353 ff.); Wordsworth (Gr. Ttti. ii. 
(1.) 361 ff.) ; Stowe ( Onyin and Hist, of the Books 
of the Bible, 1867, p. 379 ff.). Pond (in the Cong, 
Review for Jan. 1868, p. 29 ff. ) ; — see a review of 
the evidence in favor of, and against, the Pauline 
authorship, in the Bibl. Sacra for Oct. 1867. 

The opinion that the epistle was destined orig- 
inally for Alexandrian readers (in opposition to 
which see LUnem. Haiulb. Einl. § 2), has been 
adopted by KtJstlin (as above, p. 388 ff. ), Wieseler 
(as above, and in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1867, p. 
665 ff.), Conybeare and Howson (as above), Bunsen 
{Hippol. and his Aye, ii. 140, Germ. ed. i. 365), 
Hilgenfeld {Zeitschr. f. wiss. TheoL, 1858, p. 103), 
Ritschl (as above), and seems to be favored by 
Muratori's Fragment (see Westcott, Canon of the 
N. T. 2d ed. p. 480, cf. p. 190). Rome as its 
destination has been advocated fully by Holtzmaim 
in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrif't for 1867, pp. 1-35. 

The date of the epistle is fixed by Ebrard at 
A. D. 62; by Lardner, Davidson, Schaff, Lindsay, 
and others at 63; by Lange (in Herzog's Real- 
Encyk. xi. 245) towards 64; by Stuart, Tholuck, and 
others about 64 ; by Wieseler in the year 64 "be- 
tween spring and July"; by Riehra, Hilgenfeld (aa 
above) 64-66 ; De Wette, Liinemann, and others 65- 
67; Ewald '• summer of 66"; Bunsen 67; Cony- 
beare and Howson, Bleek {Einl. ins N. T. p. 533) 
68-9; Alford 68-70. 

The doctrine of the epistle has been specially 
discussed by Neander {Plantiny, etc. bk. vi. chap, 
ii. Robinson's ed. p. 487 f.), Kcisthn {Johan. Lehr- 
beyr. p. 387 ff.), Reuss {Uistoire de la Theoloyie 
Chretienne, tom. ii.), Messner (as above), most 
fully by Riehni (as above) ; its Christology by Moll 
(in a series of programs, 1854 ff.), A. Sarrus {Jesm 
Christ d'apres Vauteur de VEp. avx Ilebr., Strasb. 
1861), and Beyschlag ( Christoloyie des N. T., 1866, 
p. 176 ff.). The JMelchisedec priesthood is treated of 
by Auberlen {Stud. u. Krit. for 1857, p. 453 ff.). 

Its mode of employing the O. T. has been con- 
sidered by De Wette ( Theol. Zeitschr. by Schleierm., 
De Wette and Lucke, 3te Heft, p. 1 ff.), Tholuck 
{Beilaye i. to his Com., also published separately 
with the title Das alte Test, im N. 7'., 5te Aufl. 
1861), and Fairbairn {Typohyy of Script, bk. ii. 
Append. B, vi., Amer. ed. vol. i. p. 362 ff.).« 

To the recent commentators already named may 
be added: Turner (revised and corrected edition 
N. Y. 1855), Sampson (edited by Dabney from the 
author's MS. notes, N. Y. 1856), A. S. Patterson 
(Edin. 1856), the Translation with Notes published ^ 

by the American Bible Union (N. Y. 1857, 4to), R. 
E. Pattison (Bost. 1859), Stuart (edited and revised 
by Prof. Robbins, 4th ed-. Andover, 1800), Moll (in 
Lange's Bibelwerk, 1861), Maier (Rom. Cath. 
1861), Reuss (in French, 1862), Brown (edited by 
D. Smith, D. D., 2 vols. Edin. and Lond. 1862), 
Lindsay (2 vols. Phil, title-page edition, 1867), 
The Epistle to the Hebrews, compared with the 

0. T., 5th ed., by Mrs. A. L. Newton, N. Y. 1867 (of 
a devotional cast), Longking (N. Y. 1867), Ripley 
(in press, Boston, .Jan. 1868). J. H. T. 

HE'BRON (l""^^5n [unim, alliance]: X*- 
$pd!)v; [Rom. in 1 Chr. xv. 9, Xe^puifx-] Hebron). 

1. The third son of Kohath, who was the (leconj 
son of Levi ; the younger brother of Amram, father 

a * See also Norton, in the Christian Exaininer 
1828, V. 37-70, and a trans, of the 3d ed of Tlioluck'i 
Das A. T. im N. T. by Rev. C A. Aiken, in the BM 
.Sana for July, 1864. A 

1032 HEBRON 

tt Moses and Aaron (Ex. vi. 18; Num. iii. 19; 1 
Chr. vi. 2, 18, xxiii. 12). The immediate children 
of Hebron are not mentioned by name (comp. Kx. 
li. 21, 22), but he was the founder of a " family " 
{Alishpachah) of Ilebronites (Num. iii. 27, xxvi. 
58; 1 Chr. xxvi. 23, 30, 31) or Bene-Ilebron (1 
Chr. XV. 9, xxiii. 19), who are often mentioned in 
the enumerations of the Levites in the passages 
above cited. Jkiuah was the head of the family 
in the time of David (1 Chr. xxiii. 19, xxvi. 31, 
Kxiv. 23 : in the last of these passages the name of 
Hebron does not now exist in the Hebrew, but has 
been supplied in the A. V. from the other lists). 
In the last year of David's reign we find them 
settled at Jazer in Gilead (a place not elsewhere 
named as a l^evitical city), " mighty men of valor " 

(7^n ''.^S), 2,700 in number, who were superin- 
tendents for the king over the two and a half tribes 
in regard to all matters sacred and secular (1 Chr. 
xxvi. 31, 32). At the same time 1700 of the family 
under Hasiiabiah held the same office on the west" 
of Jordan (ver. 30). 

2. This name appears in the genealogical lists 
of the tribe of Judah (1 Chr. ii. -12, 43), where 
Mareshah is said to have been the " father of 
Hebron," Avho again had four sons, one of whom 
was Tappuach. The three names just mentioned 
are those of places, as are also many others in the 
subsequent branches of this genealogy — Ziph, 
Maon, Beth-zur, etc. But it is imj^ossible at present 
to say whether these names are intended to be 
those of the places themselves or of persons who 
founded them. G. 

HE'BRON (V'^'^^n [see «?//??•«]: X^fipdofx 
and XejSpcoj/." [Hebron; 1 Mace. v. 65, Chebi'on :] 

Arab. ^y^^iL* =^ the friend), a city of Judah 
(Josh. XV. 54) ; situated among the mountains 
(Josh. XX. 7), 20 Roman miles south of Jerusalem, 
and the same distance north of ]3eer-sheba ( Onom. 
8. V. 'ApKci))- Hebron is one of the most ancient 
cities in the world still existing; and in this re- 
spect it is the rival of Damascus. It was built, 
says a sacred writer, " seven years before Zoan in 
Egypt " (Num. xiii. 22). But when was Zoan 
built? It is well we can prove the high antiquity 
of Hebron independently of l^gypfs mystic annals. 
It was a well-known town when Abraham entered 
Canaan 3780 years ago (Gen. xiii. 18). Its original 

uame was Kirjath-Arba (^2"lW-n^"1|7 : LXX., 
Kipiad-apfioK(T€(j)ep, Judg. i. 10), " the city of 
Arba;" so called from Arba, the father of Anak, 
and progenitor of the giant Anakim (Josh. xxi. 11, 
XV. 13, 14). It was sometimes called Mamre, 
doubtless from Abraham's friend and ally, IMamre 
tho Amorite (Gen. xxiii. 19, xxxv. 27); but the 
" oak of Mamre," where the Patriarch so often 
pitched his tent, appears to have been not in, but 
near Hebron. [Mamke.] The chief interest of this 
city arises from its having been the scene of some 
of the most remarkable events in the lives of the 

a The expression here is literally " were superin- 
«ndents of Israel beyond ("1D17Xi) Jordan for the 

"««it (nS"!''"^) in all the business,'' etc " Be- 
fond J )rdan " generally means '< on ^ne east," but 
■er«, induced probably by the word loUowing, " west- 
%»rd," our translators have rendered it " on this side " 
toms- I^ut. i. 1, 5, Josh, ix 1, &c.). May not the 


patriarchs. Sarah died at Hebnin ; and Abrahaa 

then bought from Ephron the Hittite ilie field and 
cave of Machpelah, to serve as a family tomb (Gen. 
xxiii. 2-20). The cave is still there; and the mas- 
sive walls of the Ilaram or mosque, within which it 
lies, form the most remarkable object in the whole 
city. [Machpelah.] ^ Abraham is called by 
Mohammedans el-Khulil, " the Friend," i *.. of 
God, and this is the modern name of Hebron. 
When the Israelites entered Palestine Hebion was 
taken by Joshua from the descendants of Anak, 
and given to Caleb (Josh. x. 36, xiv. 6-15, xv. 13, 
14). It was assigned to the Levites, and made " a 
city of refuge" (Josh. xxi. 11-13). Here David 
first established the seat of his government, and 
dwelt during the seven years and a half he reigned 
over Judah (2 Sam. v. 5). Hebron was rebuilt 
after the Captivity ; but it soon fell mto the hands 
of the Edomites, from whom it was rescued by 
Judas Maccaba;us (Neh. xi. 25; 1 Mace v. 65; 
Joseph. Ant. xii. 8, § 6). A short tmie before the 
capture of Jerusalem Hebron was burned by an 
ofKcer of Vespasian (Joseph. B. J. iv. 9, § 9). 
About the beginning of the 12th century it was 
captured by the Crusaders. It subsequently lay for 
a time in ruins (Albert Aq. vii. 15; Ssewulf in 
h'arlfj Travels in Pal., p. 45); but in A. D. 1167 
it was made the seat of a Latin bishopric (WilL 
Tyr. XX. 3). In 1187 it reverted to the Muslems, 
and has ever since remained in their hands. 

Hebron now contains about 5000 inhabitants, 
of whom some 50 families are Jews. It is pictur- 
esquely situated in a narrow valley, sun-ounded by 
rocky hills. This, in all probability, is that " valley 
of I^shcol," whence the Jewish spies got the great 
bunch of grapes (Num. xiii. 23). Its sides are still 
clothed with luxuriant vineyards, and its grapes are 
considered the finest in Southern Palestine. Groves 
of gray olives, and some other fruitr-trees, give 
variety to the scene. The valley runs from north 
to south ; and the main quarter of the town, sur- 
mounted by the lofty walls of the veneralJe Ilaram, 
lies partly on the eastern slope (Gen. xxxvii. 14; 
comp. xxiii. 19). [Eshcol.] The houses are all 
of stone, solidly built, flat-roofed, each having one 
or two small cupolas. The town has no walls, but 
the main streets opening on the principal roads 
have gates. In the bottom of the valley south of 
the town is a large tank, 130 ft. square, by 50 deep; 
the sides are solidly built with hewn stones. At 
the northern end of the principal quarter is another, 
measuring 85 ft. long, by 55 broad. Both are of 
high antiquity; and one of them, probably the 
former, is that over which David hanged the mur- 
derers of Ish-bosheth (2 Sam. iv. 12). Al)0utamile 
from the town, up the valley, is one of the largest 
oak-trees in Palestine. It stands quite alone in the 
midst of the vineyards. It is 23 ft. in girth, and 
its branches cover a space 90 ft. in diameter. This, 
say some, is the very tree beneath which Abraham 
pitched his tent ; but, however this may be, it still 
bears the name of the patriarch. (Porter's ff'Lnd- 
booh, p. 67 ff.; Eob. ii. 73 K) J. L. f 

meaning be that Hashabiah and his brethren wer» 
settled on the western side of the Transjoi-danic 
country ? 

b * The visit of the Prince of Wales to Hebron wai 
made after this article on Hebron was Vritten. Th» 
results of the attempt on that occasion to oiplore tht 
celebrated Mosque there, will be stated ander Mac9 
PELAH (Amer. ed.). H. 


a. (V-)?r, and ihn?^ : 'EA^:^!/, Alex. Ax" 
3av'' Achj-nn, later editions Abran).- One of the 
towns in the territory of Asher (Josh. xix. 28), on 
Lh<! boundary of the tribe. It is named next to 



Rehob, and is apparently in the ticighboitiood of 
Zidon. By Eusebius and Jerome it is merely men- 
tioned {Onomast. Achran), and no one in nioderr 
times has discovered its site. It will be observed 
that the name in the original is quite different from 

that of Hebron, the well-known city of Judah (No 
1), although in the A. V. they are the same, our 
translators having represented the ain by H, instead 
rf by G, or by the vowel only, as is their usual 
sustom. But, in addition, it is not certain whether 
lie name should not rather be Ebdon or Abdon 

"inSlS?), gince that form is found in many MSS. 

(Davidson, Hebr. Text; Ges. Thes. p. 980), and 
since an Abdon is named amongst the Levitical 
cities of Asher in other lists, which otherwise would 
be unmentioned here. On the other hand, the old 
versions (excepting only the Vat. LXX., which ia 
obviously corrupt) unanimously retain the K. 

[AUDON.] G. 

* Ki^ath Arba does not appear to bare been tlw 



orifjinal name of Hebron; but simply the name 
Immediately prior to the Israelitish occupancy. For 
we are told that it was so called from Arba, the 
father of Anak (Josh. xv. 13, 14); and the children 
of Anak were the occupants when Caleb took it, as 
we learn from the same passage. But in Abraham's 
time there was a different occupant, Mamre the 
ally of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 13, 24): and the place 
was then called by his name (Gen. xxiii. 19, xxxv. 
27). This appellation, then, preceded that of Kir- 
jath Arba. But as the place was a very ancient 
one (Num. xiii. 22), and as Mamre was Abraham's 
contemporary, it had some name older than either 
of these two. What was that previous name? 
The first mention of the place (Gen. xiii. 18) would 
obviously indicate Hebron as the previous and 
original name — subsequently displaced (in part at 
least) by Mamre, afterwards by Arba, but restored 
to its ancient and time-honored rights when Arba's 
descendants, the Anakim, were driven out by the 
descendants of Abraham. S. C. B. 

HE'BRONITES, THE ("^21^50: S Xe- 
fipdcv, 6 Xe^puvi [Vat. -vei] : Hebvoni, JIebronit<e). 
A family of Kohathite Levites, descendants of He- 
bron the son of Kohath (Num. iii. 27, xxvi. 58; 
1 Chr. xxvi. 23). In the reign of David the chief 
t)f the family west of the Jordan was Hashabiah; 
while on the east in the land of Gilead were Jerijah 
and his brethren, " men of valor," over the Reuben- 
ites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of IManasseh 
(1 Chr. xxvi. 30, 31, 32). W. A. W. 

HEDGE ("11|, n:j?l, nni5; U'^^O'D, 

HD^ti^D : (ppa-yfi6s)- The first three words thus 
rendered in the A. V., as well as their Greek equiv- 
alent, denote simply that which surrounds or in- 
closes, whether it be a stone wall ("1^2, geder, 
Prov. xxiv. 31; Ez. xiii. 10), or a fence of other 

materials. "^^2. gader, and n"n^2, g\Urah, are 
used of the hedge of a vineyard (Num. xxii. 24; 
Ps. Ixxxix. 40; 1 Chr. iv. 23), and the latter is 
employed to describe the wide walls of stone, or 
fences of thorn, which served as a shelter for sheep 
in winter and sunnner (Num. xxxii. 16). The 
stone walls which surround the sheepfolds of modern 
Palestine are frequently crowned with sharp thorns 
(Thomson, iMiid and Book, i. 299), a custom at 
least as ancient as the time of Homer ( Od. xiv. 10), 
when a kind of prickly pear (ax^p^os) was used 
for that purpose, as well as for the fences of corn- 
fields at a later period (Arist. Fed. 355). In order 
to protect the vineyards from the ravages of wild 
beasts (Ps. Ixxx. 12) it was customary to surround 
them with a wall of loose stones or mud (Matt. xxi. 
33; Mark xii. 1), which was a favorite haunt of 
'erpents (Eccl. x. 8). and a retreat for locusts from 
je cold (Nah. iii. 17). Such walls are described 
.. y Maundrell as sun-ounding the gardens of Damai?- 
cus. " They are built of great pieces of earth, made 
in the fashion of brick and hardened in the sun. 
In their dimensions they are each two yards long 
and somewhat more than one broad, and half a 
yard thick. Two rows of these, placed one upon 
•nether, make a cheap, expeditious, and, in this 
dry country, a durable wall " {Early Trnv. in Pal. 
p. 487). A wall or fence of this kind is clearly 
distinguished in Is. v. 5 from the tangled hedge, 

n2^i27P, m'sucah (nS^r)!^, Mic. vii. 4), which 

«M planted as an additional safeguard to the \-ine- 


yard (rf. Ecclus. xxviii. 24), and was composed of 
the thorny shrubs with which Palestine aboundt 
The prickly pear, a species of cactus, so frequentlj 
employed for this purpose in the East at present, ii 
believed to be of comparatively modern introduction 
The aptness of the comparison of a tangled hedge 
of thorn to the difficulties which a slothful man 
conjures up as an excuse for his inactivity, will be 
at once recognized (Prov. xv. 19; cf. Hos. ii. 6). 
The narrow paths between the hedges of the vine- 
yards and gardens, " with a fence on this side and 
a fence on that side" (Num. xxii. 24), are distin- 
guished from the " highways," or more frequented 
tracks, in Luke xiv. 23. W. A. W. 

HE'GAI [2 syl.] (^2n [Persian name, Ges.]: 
Td'c: Jigeus), one of the eunuchs (A. V. " cham- 
berlains " of the court of Ahasuerus, who had spe- 
cial charge of the women of the harem (Esth. ii. 
8, 15). -Accoi-ding to the Helirew text he was a 
distinct person from the " keeper of the concubines '" 
— Shaashgaz (14), but the LXX. have the sama 
name in 14 as in 8, while in 15 they omit it alto- 
gether. In verse 3 the name is given under the 
different form of — 

HE'GE (S2n : Egem\ probably a Persian 
name. Aja signifies eunuch in Sanskrit, in accord- 
ance with which the LXX. have t<5 evvovx(f. 
Hegias, 'H7/as, is mentioned by Ctesias as one of 
the people about Xerxes, Gesenius, Thts. Addenda, 
p. 83 b. 

HEIFER (nb^^, n~5: U^xaXis: vacca). 
The Hebrew language has no expression that ex- 
actly corresponds to our heifer; for both eglah and 
pnrah are applied to cows that have calved (1 Sam. 
vi. 7-12; Job xxi. 10; Is. vii. 21): indeed eglah 
means a young animal of any species, the full ex- 
pression being egl<di bakar, " heifer of kine " 
(Deut. xxi. 3; 1 Sam. xvi. 2; Is. vii. 21). The 
heifer or young cow was not commonly used for 
ploughing, but only for treading out the com (Hos. 
X. 11; but see Judg. xiv. 18),« when it ran about 
without any headstall (Deut. xxv. 4); hence the 
expression an "unbroken heifer" (Hos. iv. 16; 
A. V. " backsliding "), to which Israel is compared. 
A similar sense has been attached to the expression 
" calf of three years old," i. e., vnsubdued, in Is. 
XV. 5, Jer. xlviii. 34 ; but it is much more probably 
to be taken as a proper name, Kglath Shelishiyah, 
such names being not uncommon. The sense of 
"dissolute" is conveyed undoubtedly in Am. iv. 1. 
The comparison of Egypt to a "fair heifer" (Jer. 
xlvi. 20) may be an allusion to the well-known form 
under which Apis was worshipped (to which we 
may also refer the words in ver. 15, as understood 
in the LXX., " Why is the bullock, ix6axos €k- 
\€Kt6s, swept away? "), the " destruction " threat- 
ened being the bite of the gad-fly, to which the 
word kerefz would fitly apply. " To plough with 
another man's heifer" (Judg. xiv. 18) imphes that 
an advantage has been gained by tmfair means. 
The proper names Eglah, En-eglaim, and "arah, 
are derived from the Hebrew terms at the head of 
this article. W. L. B. 

HEIR. The Hebrew institutions relative tt 
inheritance were of a very simple character. Under 
the patriarchal system the property was divided 

a * Ploughing with heifers, as implied In tJiat pa* 
sage, is sometimes practiced in Palestine at preeeot 
(See lUustr. of Scripture, p. 163.) II 


unong the sons of the legitimate wives (Gen. xxi. 
10, xxiv. 36, XXV. 5), a larger portion being assigned 
to one, generally the eldest, on whom devolved the 
duty of maintaining the females of the fdmily. 
[BiuTHRiGHT.] The sons of concubines were 
portioned off with presents (Gen. xxv. 6): occa- 
sionally they were placed on a par with the legiti- 
mate sons (Gren. xlix. 1 ff.), but this may have been 
restricted to cases where the children had been 
adopted by the legitimate wife (Gen. xxx. 3). At 
a later period the exclusion of the sons of concu- 
bines was ligidly enforced (Judg. xi. 1 ff. ). Daugh- 
ters had no share in the patrimony (Gen. xxxi. 14), 
but received a marriage portion, consisting of a 
maid-servant (Gen. xxix. 24, 29), or some other 
property. As a matter of special favor they some- 
times took part with the sons (Job xlii. 15). The 
Mosaic law regulated the succession to real prop- 
erty thus : it was to be divided among the sons, 
the eldest receiving a double portion (Deut. xxi. 
17), the others equal shares: if there were no sons, 
it went to the daughters (Num. xxvii. 8), on the 
tondition that they did not marry out of their own 
tribe (Num. xxxvi. 6 ff.; Tob. vi. 12, vii. 13), 
otherwise the patrimony was forfeited (Joseph. Ant. 
iv. 7, § 5). If there were no daughters, it went to 
the brother of the deceased ; if no brother, to the 
paternal uncle; and, failing these, to the next of 
kin (Xum. xxvii. 9-j1). In the case of a widow 
being left without children, the nearest of kin on 
her husband's side had the right of marrying her, 
and in the event of his refusal the next of kin 
(Ruth iii. 12, 13): with him rested the obligation 
of redeeming the property of the widow (Ruth iv. 
1 ff. ), if it had been either sold or mortgaged : this 

obligation was termed n--S2n t^^^tt'^ ("the 
right of inheritance''), and was exercised in other 
cases besides that of marriage (Jer. xxxii. 7 ff.). 
If none stepped forward to marry the widow, the 
inheritance remained with her until her death, and 
then reverted to the next of kin. The object of 
these regulations evidently was to prevent the alien- 
ation of the land, and to retain it in the same 
family : the Mosaic law enforced, in short, a strict 
entail. Even the assignment of the double por- 
tion, which under the patriarchal reghiie had been 
at the di^jjosal of the father (Gen. xlviii. 22), was 
by the Mosaic law limited to the eldest son (Deut. 
xxi. 15-17). The case of Achsah, to whom Caleb 
presented a field (Josh. xv. 18, 19; Judg. i. 15), is 
ar, exception: but perhaps even in that instance 
the land reverted to Caleb's descendants either at 
the death of Achsah or in the year of Jubilee. The 
land being thus so strictly tied up, the notion of 
fieirsli'p^a^we understand it, was hardly known to 
the Jews: succession was a matter of right, and 
not of favor — a state of things which is eml)otlied 

in Iho Hebrew language itself, for the word tT^T^ 

sal -T 

(A. V. " to inherit") implies possession, and very 



a * It has been suggested that in Gal. iv. 2 Paul 
may have referred to a peculiar testamentary law 
among the Galatians (see Ge-ius, Instil ittiones, i. § 55) 
conferring on the father a right to determine the time 
of the son's majority, instead of its being fixed by 
itatute. In that case we should have an instance of 
t\e facility with which Paul could avail himself of his 
Knowledge of minute local regulations in the lands 
lehirh he visited. (See Baumg.-Crusius, Comm. iiber 
Pn Britf an die Galater, p. 91.) But that passage in 
3aiu3, wh«a moi3 closely examined, proves not to be 

often /orctWe possession (Deut. ii. 12; Judg. i. 29, 
xi. 24), and a similar idea lies at the root of the 

words n*TnS and HvnD, generally translatec 
" inheritance." Testamentary dispositions were of 
course superfluous: the nearest approach to the 
idea is the blessinr/, which in early times conveyed 
temporal as well as spiritual benefits (Gen. xxvii. 
19, 37; Josh. xv. 19). The references to wills in 
St. Paul's writings are borrowed from the usages 
of Greece and Rome (Heb. ix. 17), whence the 
custom was introduced into Judfta : « several wills 
are noticed by Josephus in connection with thf 
Herods {Ant. xiii. 16, § 1, xvii. 3, § 2; B. J. ii. 2 

With regard to persond property, it may be pre 
sumed that the owner had some authority over it, 
at all events during his lifetime. The admission 
of a slave to a portion of the inheritance with the 
sons (Prov. xvii. 2) probably applies only to the 
personalty. A presentation of half the personalty 
formed the marriage portion of Tobit's wife (Tob. 
viii. 21). A distribution of goods during the father's 
life-time is implied in Luke xv, 11-13: a distinc- 
tion may be noted between ovaia, a general term 
applicable to personalty, and K\7}povoixia, the landed 
property, which could only be divided after the 
father's death (Luke xii. 13). 

There is a striking resemblance between the He- 
brew and Athenian customs of heirship, particularly 
as regards heiresses {iTriKkrfpoi), who were, in both 
nations, bound to marry their nearest relation : the 
property did not vest in the husband even for his 
lifetime, but devolved upon the son of the heiress 
as soon as he was of age, who also bore the name, 
not of his father, but of his maternal grandfather. 
The object in both countries was the same, namely, 
to preserve the name and property of every family 
{Diet, of Ant. art. 'EwiKXrjpos)- W. L. B. 

HEX AH (nsbr^ [rmi]: ^Acvdd] Alex. 
AXaa- ffnlan), one of the two wives of Ashur, 
father of Tekoa (1 Chr. iv. 5). Her three children 
are enumerated in ver. 7. In the LXX. the pas- 
sage is very nuich confused, the sons being ascribed 
to different wives from what they are in the Hebrpw 

HE'LAM (" v"^n [perh. power of the people, 
Ges.]: AlxdjUL'- Thlam), a place east of the Jor- 
dan, but west of the Euphrates ("the river "), at 
which the iSyrians were collected by Hadarezer, and 
at which David met and defeated them (2 Sam. x. 
16, 17). In the latter verse the name appears as» 

Chelamah (H^Sbn), but the final syllable is 
probably only the particle of motion. This longer 
form, XaAainoLK, the present text'' of the LXX. 
inserts in ver. 16 as if the name of the river [bnf 
Alex, and Comp. omit it] ; while in the two other 
places it has Alxdfi, corresponding to the Hebrew 
text. By Josephus {Ant. vii. 6, § 3) the name ia 

decisive as to the existence of such a righ t among the 
Galatians (see Ligbtfoot's St. PauPs Epistle to the Ga- 
latians, p. 164, 2d ed.). The Apostle, in arguing hii 
point (Gal. if 2), may have framed a case of this na 
ture for the sake of illustration, or have had in mind 
a certain discretionary power which the Roman laws 
granted to the fx^htr. H. 

b This is probably a late addition, since in the LXX 
text as it stooi in Origin's H>aapla, XaAa/u,dit w«i 
omitted after Trorafj-oj (sje Bahrdt, a / Lc). 

1036 HELBAH 

given as Xa> a/xd, and aa being that of the king of 
the Syrians beyond Euphrates — irphs Xa\afi^i 
rhv ruu irtpav Eixppdr w 'Zvptnv fiaaiXea. 

In the Vulgate no name is inserted after fluvium ; 
but in ver. 16, for "came to Helam," we find acl- 

duxit ixercitum eorum, reading Dv'^H, "their 
army." This too is the rendering of the old trans- 
lator Aquila — iv 5uudfj.ei aurcou — of whose ver- 
sion v;i. 36 has survived. In 17 the Vulgate 
agrees with the A. V. 

jMauy conjectures have been made as to the lo- 
cality of J/eln?n; but to none of them does any 
certainty attach. Ilie most feasible perhaps is that 
it is identical witli Alamatha, a to^vn named by 
Ptolemy, and located by him on the west of the 
Luphrates near Nicephorium. G. 

HEL'BAH (n|lbr7 [faQiXefiBd; [Alex. 
2xe5iai/ (ace); Comp. 'E\)8c£:] /hlba), a town 
of Asher, probably on the plain of Phoenicia, not 
far from Sidon (Judg. i. 31). J. L. P. 

HEL'BON Cj'lS^n [fat, I e. fruitful]: 
X€\fi(av; [Alex. Xe^pwj/]), a place only mentioned 
once in Scripture. Ezekiel, in describing the wealth 
and commerce of Tyre, says, " Damascus was thy 
merchant in the wine of Helbon [xxvii. 18]." The 
Vulgate translates these words in vino pin(jui ; and 
some other ancient versions also make the word 
descriptive of the quality of tlie wine. There can 
be no doubt, however, that Helbon is a proper name. 
Strabo speaks of the wine of Chalybon (ohov ck 
ISvpias rhv XoKv^mviov) from Syria as among the 
luxuries in which the kings of Persia indulged 
(xv. p. 735); and Atlienaeus assigns it to Damas- 
cus (i. 22). Geographers have hitherto represented 
Helbon as identical with the city of Aleppo, called 

Hdleh (v^/J,^.) by the Arabs; but there are 
strong reasons against this. The whole force and 
l)eauty of the description in Ezekiel consists in this, 
that in the great market of Tyre every kingdom 
and city found ample demand for its own staple 
products. Why, therefore, should the Damascenes 
supply wine of Aleppo, conveying it a long and 
difficult journey overland ? If strange merchants 
had engaged in this trade, we should naturally ex- 
pect them to be some maritime people who could 
carry it cheaply along the coast from the port of 

A few years ago the writer directed attention to 
a village and district within a few miles of Damas- 
cus, still bearing the ancient name Helbon (the 

Arabic ^yjiXs- corresponds exactly to the He- 
brew P2l yn), and still celebrated sa producing 
the finest grapes in the country. (See Journal of 
Sac. Lit. July 1853, p. 2G0; Fire Years in Da- 
mascus, ii. 330 fF.). There cannot be a doubt that 
this village, and not Aleppo, is the Helbon of Eze- 
kiel and Strabo. The village is situated in a wild 
glen, high up in Antilehanon. The remains of 
lome large and beautiful structures are strewii 
Around it. The bottom and sides of the glen are 
tov?red with terraced vineyards; and the whole 
juirounding country is rich in vines and fig-trees 
[Handb. fm- Sijr. and Pal, pp. 495-6). 

J. L. P. 
* The discovery of this Helbon is one of the re- 
•olte of missionary labor in that part of the East. 


Mr. Ptirter, who wn'tx?a the article above, was for 
merly connected with the mission at Damaacna 
Dr. Robinson accepts the proposed identification 
as unquestionably correct. The name alone if 
not decisive, for Hakb (Aleppo) may answer to 
Helbon; but Aleppo "produces no wine of any 
reputation; nor is Damascus the natural chan- 
nel of commerce between Aleppo and Tyre" (Later 
Res. iii. 472). Fairbairn {Ezekiel and the Book 
of his Prophecy, p. 301, 2d ed.) follows the old 
opinion. Klietschi (Herzog's Real.-Encyk. v. 698) 
makes P^ekiel's Helbon and this one near Damas- 
cus the same, but thinks Ptolemy's Chalybon (see 
above) too far north to be identical with them. 


HELCHFAH (XcA/c/as; [Vat. -xet-.J HeU 
das), 1 Esdr. viii. 1. [Hilkiah.] 

HELCHFAS (Helcias) the same person aa 
the preceding, 2 Esdr. i. 1. [Hilki/^h.] 

HEL'DAI [2 syl.] {^I^ri [wai^klfv, tran- 
sient']: XoXdla; [Vat. Xo\5eia:] Alex. XoASaT: 
Iluldai). 1. The twelfth captain of the monthly 
courses for the temple service (1 Chr. xxvii. 15). 
He is specified as " the Netophathite," and as a 
descendant of Othniel. 

2. An Israelite who seems to have returned from 
the Captivity; for whom, with others, Zechariah 
was commanded to make certain crowns as memo- 
rials (Zech. vi. 10). In ver. 14 the name appears 
to be changed to Helem. The LXX. translate 
iraph. Twv apx^VTUJV. 

HE'LEB (3^n [milk]: Vat. omits; Alex. 
A\oA; [Comp. 'EAdE)3:] Tided), son of liaanah, 
the Netophathite, one of the heroes of king Da- 
vid's guard (.2 Sam. xxiii. 29). In the parallel list 
the name is given as — 

HE'LED ("r^n: x0aJ5; [FA.XoaoS;] Alex. 
EAo5 : Heled), 1 Chr. xi. 30 [where he is mentioned 
as one of •' the valiant men " of David's army]. 

HE'LEK (^Ipn [j)art, portiem]: Xe\ey, 
Alex. XeAe/c; [in Josh., KeAeX> Alex. 4>€AeK:] 
Helec), one of the descendants of Manasseh, the 
second son of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 30), and founder 
of the family of the Helekites. The Bene- 
Chelek [sons of C] are mentioned in Josh. xvii. 2 
as of much importance in their tribe. The name 
has not however survived, at least it has not yet 
been met with. 

HE'LEKITES, THE OI^^OlT, i. e. the 
Chelkite: 6 Xe\eyi [Vat. -^ej],* Alex. XeAewi: 
faviilia Ilelecitarum), the family descended from 
the foregoing (Num. xxvi. 30). 

HE'LEM (Obn {hammer or bloid]: [Rom. 
'Ravi]iXdfi', Vat. BaAao/x; Alex.] EAo/i: Hderi). 
A man named among the descendants of Asher, ir 
a passage evidently much disordered (1 Chr. vii 
35). If it be intended that he wa« the brother of 
Shamer, then he may be identical with Hotham, ir 
ver. 32, the name having been altered in copying 
but this is mere conjecture. Burrington (i. 265 
quotes two Hebrew MSS., in which the name 

written Obll, Cheles. 

2. [LXX. ToTs uTTO/xeVouo-t.] A man men- 
tioned only in Zech. vi. 14. Apparently the iaxM 
who is given as Heldai in ver. 10 (Ewald, l'r(Jfk 
eten, ii. 536, note). 


IlEXEPH (^^n [exchange, instead o/]: 
MiiAdju; Alex. MeAe^ — both inchule the prep- 
osition prefixed: Beleph), the pkice from which the 
boundary of the tribe of Naphtali started (Josh. 
six. 'iS), but where situated, or on which quarter, 
cannot be ascertained from the text. Van de Velde 
(Memoir, p. 320) proposes to identify it with Beit- 
iij\ an ancient site, nearly due east of the lias 
Afiyad, and west of Kades, on the edge of a very 
marked ravine, which probably formed part of the 
boundary between Naphtali and Asher (Van de 
Velde, Syria, i. 233 ; and see his map, 1858). G. 

HE'LEZ (V!?D [perh. bins, thiyh, Gesen.]: 
S,eW-i]s — the initial 5 is probably from the end 
of the preceding word, [XeAATjy; 1 Chr. xxvii. 10 
Vat. XeaA-Tjs;] Alex. EA.A.r;s, XcAAtjs: Heks, Htl- 
les). 1. One of "the thirty" of David's guard 
(2 Sam. xxiii. 26 ; 1 Chr. xi. 27 : in the latter, 

^ vH), an Ephraimite, and captain of the seventh 
monthly course (1 Chr. xxvii. 10). In both these 
passages of Chronicles he is called " the Pelouite," 
of which Kennicott decides that "the I'altite " of 
Samuel is a corruption (Dissertation, etc., pp. 183- 
184). [Paltite.] 

2. [XeAA-i]?: Helles.] A man of Judah, son 
of Azariah (1 Chr. ii. 39); a descendant of Jerah- 
nieel, of the great family of Hezron. 

HE'LI ('HAi, 'U\ei: Heli), the father of Jo- 
seph, the husband of the Virgin Mary (Luke iii. 
23); maintained by Ix)rd A. Hervey, the latest in- 
vestigator of the genealogy of Christ, to have been 
the real brother of Jacob the father of the Virgin 
herself. (Hervey, Genealogies, pp. 130, 138.) The 
name, as we possess it, is the same as that employed 
by the LXX. in the O. T. to render the Hebrew 

*^/V, Eli the high-priest. 

2. The third of three names inserted between 
AcjaTOB and Aim A ui AS in the genealogy of Ezra, 
in'^^lsdr. i. 2 (compare Ezr. vii. 2, 3). 
HELI'AS, 2 Esdr. vii. 39. [Elijah.] 
HELIODO'RUS ('H\i6Boopos [gift of the 
sun]), the treasurer (6 eVi tuv TrpaypLaruu) of 
Seleucus Philopator, who was commissioned by the 
king, at the instigation of ApoUonius [Apol- 
LONius] to carry away the private treasures depos- 
ited in the Temple at Jerusalem. According to 
the narrative in 2 Mace. iii. 9 ff., he was stayed 
from the execution of his design by a " great ap- 
parition " (iiricpdvcia), in consequence of which he 
fell down "compassed with great darkness," and 
speechless. • He was afterwards restored at the in- 
tercession of the high-priest Onias, and bore wit- 
ness to the king of the inviolable majesty of the 
Temple (2 Mace. iii.). The full details of the nar- 
rative are not supported by any other evidence. 
Josephus, who was unacquainted with 2 Mace, 
akes no notice of it; and the author of the so- 
tilled iv. Mace, attributes the attempt to plunder 
the Temple to ApoUonius, and differs hi his account 
of the miraculous interposition, though he distinctly 
recognizes it (de Mace. 4 oupavSOev ^cpiinroi irpov- 
pdviqaau ayy^Koi . . . KaTaTreo-cbi' Se rjfxiBavr^s 
h AiroWwuios . . .)• Heliodonw xfterwards 
murdered Seleucus, and mar'.e an unsuccessful 
attempt to seize the Syrian crown b. c. 175 (App. 
Syr. p. 4.5). Cf. Wernsdorf, De fide Lib. Mace. 
\ liv. Hanhael's gra,id picture of " Heliodorus " 
idll be kn<'wn to most by copies and enirravings, if 
Kt by the orijiinal. B. F. W. 

HELL 1087 

HEL'KAI [2 syl.] C^fjbn [whose porOcm it 
Jehovah]'. 'EA/cai'; [Vat. Alex. FA.i omit:] Helci\ 
a priest of the family of Meraioth (or INIeremoth, 
see ver. 3), who was living in the days of Joiakim 
the high-priest, i. e. in the generation following the 
return from Babylon under Jeshua and Zerubbabel 
(Neh. xu. 15; comp. 10, 12). 

HEL^KATH {np}?0 ifield]: 'EleAeKed, 
[XeA/cc^r;] Alex. XeAwa^, [GeAKa^:] JIalcath, 
and lltlcath), the town named as the starting-point 
for the boundary of the tribe of Asher (Josh. xix. 
25), and allotted with its "suburbs" to the Ger- 
shonite Levites (xxi. 31). The enumeration of the 
boundary seems to proceed from south to norths 
but nothing absolutely certain can be said thereoo, 
nor has any traveller recovered the site of Helkath. 
Eusebius and Jerome report the name much cor- 
rupted (Onom. Ethae), but evidently knew nothing 
of the place. Schwarz (p. 191) suggests the village 
Yerka, which lies about 8 miles east of Akka (see 
Van de Velde' s map); but this requires furthef 

In the list of I^evitical cities in 1 Chr. vi. Hu- 
KOK is substituted for Helkath. G. 


C^n'^n [field of the sharp edges, Keil; but see 
infra]: jxepls tuu eVtjSouAajj/ — perhaps reading 

S"^"!^ ; Aquila, KArjpos tmv arepecau • Ager 
vobustorum), a smooth piece of ground, apparently 
close to the pool of Gibeon, where the combat took 
place between the two parties of Joab's men and 
Abner's men, which ended in the death of the 
whole of the combatants, and brought en a general 
battle (2 Sam. ii. 16). [Gibeon; J<»ab.] Va- 
rious interpretations are given of the name. In 
addition to those given above, Gesenius ( Thes. p. 
485 a) renders it "the field of swords." The 
margin of the A. V. has " the field of strong men," 
agreeing with Aquila and the Vulgate; Ewald 
(Gesch. iii. 147), " das Feld der Tiickischen." G. 

* The field received its name from the bloody 
duel fought there, as expressly said (2 Sam. ii. 16). 
The Scripture words put before us the horrible scene* 
" And they caught every one his fellow l)y the head 
and thrust his sword in his fellow's side; so they 
fell down together: wherefore that place was called 
Helkath-hazzurim." The name may be ==" field 
of the rocks," i. e. of the strong men, firm as rock» 
(see Wordsworth, i?i he). H. 

HELKI'AS (XeA/ctas; [Vat. XeAwems:] 
Vulg. omits). A fourth variation of the name of 
Hilkiah the high priest, 1 Esdr. i. 8. [Hilkiah.] 

HELL. This is the word generally and unfor- 
tunately used by our translators to render the He- 
brew Shed (biStr, or VSK7 : "AzStj?, and once 
Qavaros, 2 Sam.* xxii. 6: Jnftri or Inferno, oi 
sometimes Mors). We say unfortunately, because 

— although, as St. Augustine truly asserts, Shcol, 
with its equivalents fnferi and Hades, are never 
used in a good sense (De Gen. ad Lit. xii. 33), yet 

— the English word Hell is mixed up with num- 
berless associations entirely foreign to the minds of 
the ancient Hebrews. It would perhaps have been 
bet<^er tr retain the Hebrew word Sheol, or elae 
render it always by " the grave " or " the pit." 
Ewald accepts Luther's word Mile; even Utiten 
icet, which is su<;gested by De ^Vette, involves oo» 
ceptions too human for the purpose. 



Passing over the derivations suggested by older 
writers, it is now generally agreed that the word 

eomes from the root vSti7, "to make hollow" 
(conip. Germ. Ilolle, "heU,'' with Hohle, "a hol- 
low "), and therefore means the vast hollow subter- 
raiiean restiiiij-place which is the common receptacle 
of the dead (Ges. TItts. p. 1348; 13 i ttcher, de Jn- 
ferls, c. iv. p. 137 ff.; Ewald, ad Ps. p. 42). It 
is deep (Job xi. 8) and dark (Job x. 21, 22), in the 
centre of the earth (Num. xvi. 30; Deut. xxxii. 22), 
having within it depths on depths (Prov. ix. 18), 
and fastened with gates (Is. xxxviii. 10) and bars 
(Job xvii. 16). Some have fancied (as Jahn, Arch. 
Bibl. § 203, Eng. ed.) that the Jews, like the 
Greeks, believed in infernal rivers: thus Clemens 
Alex, defines Gehenna as " a river of fire " {Fraym. 
38 ), and expressly compares it to the fiery rivers of 
Tartarus {Strom, v. 14, 92); and Tertullian says 
that it was supposed to resemble Pyriphlegethon 
{Apohtj. cap. xlvii.). The notion, however, is not 
found in Scripture, for Ps. xviii. 5 is a mere met- 
aphor. In this cavernous realm are the souls of 
dead men, the Pephaim and ill-spirits (Ps. lxxx\d. 
13, Ixxxix. 48; Prov. xxiii. 14; Ez. xxxi. 17, xxxii. 
21). It is all-devouring (Prov. i. 12, xxx. 16), in- 
satiable (Is. v. 14), and remorseless (Cant. viii. 6). 
The shadows, not of men only, but even of trees 
and kingdoms, are placed in Sheol (Is. xiv. 9-20; 
Ez. xxxi. 14-18, xxxii. passim). 

It is clear that in many passages of the 0. T. 
Sheol can only mean "the grave," and is so ren- 
dered in the A. V. (see, for example. Gen. xxxvii. 
35, xlii. 38; 1 Sam. ii. 6; Job xiv. 13). In other 
passages, however, it seems to involve a notion of 
punishment, and is therefore rendered in the A. V. 
by the word " Hell." Put in many cases this 
translation misleads the reader. It is obvious, for 
instance, that Job xi. 8; Ps. cxxxix. 8; Am. ix. 
2 (where "hell" is used as the antithesis of 
"heaven"), merely illustrate the Jewish notions 
of the locality of ISheol in the bowels of the earth. 
Even Ps. ix. 17, Prov. xv. 24, v. 5, ix. 18, seem to 
refer rather to the danger of terrible and precipitate 
death than co a place of infernal anguish. An 
attentive examination of all the pjissages in which 
the word occurs will show that the Hei)rew notions 
respecting Sheol were of a vague description. The 
rewards and punishments of the Mosaic law were 
teniDoral, and it was only gradually and slowly that 
3ud revealed to his chosen people a knowledge of 
future rewards and punishments. Generally speak- 
ing, the Hebrews i-egarded the grave as the final 
end of all .sentient and intelligent existence, " the 
land where "// things are Jhrgoften" (Ps. Ixxxviii. 
10-12; Is. xxxviii. 9-20: Ps. vi. 5: Eccl. ix. 10: 
Ixclus. xvii. 27, 28). Even the righteous Hezekiah 
trembled lest, " when his eyes closed upon the cheru- 
tim and the mercy seat," he should no longer "see 
the Lord, even the Lord in the land of the living." 

In the X. T. the word Hades (like Sheol) some- 
times means merely "the grave" (Rev. xx. 13; 
Acts ii. 31; 1 Cor. xv. 55), or in general ''the 
unseen world." It is in this sense that the creeds 
lay of our Lord Karr\\e^v iv oSr? or ds a^ov, de- 
cendit ad inferos, or in/erna, meaning " the state 
jf the dead in general, without any restriction of 
lappiness or misery" (Heveridge on Art. iii.), a 
doctrine certainly, though only virtually, expressed 
In Scripture (Eph. iv. 9; Acts ii. 25-31). Sim- 
ilarly J jsephus uses Hades as the name of the place 
Irfafliioe the soul of Samuel was evoked {Anl. vi. 14, 


§ 2). Elsewhere in the N. T. Hades is used of • 
place of torment (Luke xvi. 23; 2 Vet. ii. 4; MatL 
xi. 23, &c.). Consequently it has been the prev- 
alent, almost the universal, notion that Hades is 
an intermediate state between death and resurrec- 
tion, divided into two parts, one the abode of the 
blessed and the other of the lost. This was the 
belief of the Jews after the exile, who gave to the 
places the names of Paradise and Gehenna (Joseph. 
Ant. xviii. 1, § 3; cf. Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. vv.), of 
the Fathers generally (Tert. de Anima, c. Iv. ; Je- 
rome in Eccl. iii.; Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. 
§ 105, &c. ; see Pearson on Greedy Art. \.) and of 
many moderns (Trench on the Parables p. 467; 
Alford on Luke xvi. 23). In holding .his view, 
main reliance is placed on the parable of Dives and 
Lazarus; but it is impossible to ground the proof 
of an important theological doctrine on a passage 
which confessedly abounds iu Jewish metaphors. 
" Theologia parabolica non est demonstrativa " is a 
rule too valuable to be forgotten ; and if we are to 
turn rhetoric into logic, and build a dogma on 
every metaphor, our belief will be of a vague and 
contradictory character. " Abraham's bosom," 
says Dean Trench, " is not heaven, though it wiU 
issue in heaven, so neither is Hades hell, though to 
issue in it, when death and Hades shall be cast into 
the lake of fire which is the proper hell. It is the 
place of painful restraint {(pv\aK-fi, 1 Pet. iii. 19; 
&0ua(ros, Luke viii. 31), where the souls of the 
wicked are reserved to the judgment of the great 
day." But respecting the condition of the dead 
whether before or aft-ur the resurrection we know 
very little indeed; nor shall we know anything 
certain until the awful curtains of mortality are 
drawn aside. Dogmatism on this topic appears to 
be peculiarly misplaced. [See Pajjadise.] 

The word most frequently used in the N. T. for 
the place of future punishment is Gehenna {yt- 
evva), or Gehenna of Jire (rj y. rod vvp6s), and 
this word we must notice only so far as our purpose 
requires; for further information see Gkhenna 
and HIXN03I. The valley of Hinnom, for which 
Gehenna is the Greek representative, once pleasant 
with the waters of Siloa (" irrigua et nemorosa, 
plenaque deliciis," Hieron. ad Jer. vii. 19, 31; 
Matt. v. 22), and which afterwards regained its old 
appearance (" hodieque hortorum praebens delicias," 
id.), was with its horrible associations of ]Moloch- 
worship (Jer. vii. 31, xix. 2-6; 2 K. xxiii. 10) so 
abhorrent to Jewish feeling that they adopted the 
word as a symbol of disgust and torment. The 
feeling was kept up by the pollution which the val- 
ley underwent at the hands of Josiah, after which 
it was made the common sink of all the filth and 
corruption in the city, ghastly fires being kept 
burning (according to R. Kimchi) to preserve it 
from absolute putrefaction (see authorities quoted 
in Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. v. Hinnom, etc.). The 
fire and the worm were fit emblems of anguish, 
and as such had seized hold of the Jewish iraag- 
hiation (Is. Ixvi. 24; Jud. xvi. 17; Ecclus. vii. 17); 
hence the application of the word Gehenna and its 
accessories in Matt. v. 22, 29, 30 : Luke xii. 5. 

A part of the valley of Hinnom was named 
Tophet (2 K. xxiii 10 ; for its history and deriva- 
tion .see Tophet), a word used for what is defiled 
and abominable (Jer. vii. 31, 32, xix. 6-13). It 
was apphed by the Rabbis to a place of future tor- 
ment (Targ. on Is. xxx. 33; Talm. Endnn, f. 19 
1; Rittcher, pp. 80, 85), but does not occur in thi 
N. T: In the vivid picture of Isaiah (xxx. 33 


Nrhlch is full ^f fine irony against the enemy, the 
Dame is applied to purposes of threatening (with a 
probable allusion to the recent acts of Hezekiali, see 
iiosenmiiller, ad loc). IJesides the authorities 
quoted, see Hochart (Plialey, p. 528), Ewald {Proph. 
ii. 55), Selden {de Dils <S?//is, p. 172 ff.), Wilson 
{Lmids of the Bible, i. 41)9), etc. 

The subject of the punisliment of the wicked, 
and of Hell as a place of torment, belongs to a 
Theological rather than a Biblical Dictionary. 

F. W. F. 

* Some of the positions in the previous article 
cannot be viewed as well established. That " gen- 
erally speaking, the Hebrews regarded the grave 
as the final end of all . sentient and intelligent 
existence " is a statement opposed to the results 
of the best scholarship. Against it stand such 
considerations as these: a four hundred years' 
residence of the Israelites among a people proved 
to have held the doctrine of a future life; the He- 
brew doctrine of the nature of the soul ; the trans- 
lation of Enoch and Elijah ; the prevalent views of 
uecronianey, or conjuring by the spirits of the dead, 
(a practice prohibited by law, and yet resorted to 
by a monarch of Israel); the constant assertion 
that the dead were gathered to their fathers, though 
buried fai away ; the explicit and deliberate utter- 
ances of many passages, e. g., the 16th, 17th, 49th, 
72d Psalms, Eccles. xii. 13, 14, Daniel xii. 2, 3 ; 
and the known fact that the doctrine of immortality 
existed among the Jews (excepting the small sect 
of Sadducees) at the time of Christ. The utterances 
about the silence and inactivity of the grave must 
therefore be understood from the present point of 
view, and as having reference to the activities of 
this life. 

The statements of Gesenius and very many others 
about the gates and bars of Hades simply convert 
rhetoric into logic, and might with equal propriety 
invest the Kingdom of Heaven with " keys." The 
theory so prevalent, that Hades was the common 
province of departed spirits, divided, however, into 
two compartments. Paradise and Gehenna, seems to 
have been founded more upon the classical writers 
and the Rabbins — to whom it appeals so largely — 
than upon the Bible. It is undoubtedly true, that 
under the older economy the whole subject was 
much less distinct than under the new, and the 
H'.ides of the N". T. expresses more than the Sheol 
of the 0. T. (See Fairbairn, Jlermeneut. Manual, 
p. 230 ft'. ) Sheol was, no doubt, the unseen world, 
the state of the dead generally. So in modern 
times we often intentionally limit our views, and 
speak of the other world, the invisible world, the 
undiscovered country, the grave, the spirit land, 
etc. But vagueness of designation is not to be con- 
founded with comnmnity of lot or identity of abode 
or condition. 

Sheul, the unknown region into which the dying 
disappeared, was naturally and always invested with 
gloom to a sinful race. But the vague term was 
capable of becoming more or less definite according 
o the writer's thought. JNIost commonly it was 
simply the grave, as we use the phrase ; sometimes 
the state of death in general; sometimes a dismal 
place opposed to heaven, e. </., Job xi. 8, Ps. 
cxrxix. 8, Xm. ix. 2 ; sometimes a place of extreme 
»uftering, Ps. ixxxvi. 13, ix. 17, P^'^v. xxiii. 14. (See 
BUjL Sacra, xiii. 155 fF.) No passage of the O. 
v., we believe, implies that the spirits of the good 
ind bad were there brought together. The often 
jited passage (ta. xiv. 9) implies the contrary, 



showing us only the heathen kings meeting anotbec 
king in mockery. 

To translate this Hebrew term, the LXX, 
adopted the nearest Greek word. Hades, which bj' 
derivation, signifies the invisible world. But the 
Greek word could not carry Greek notions into 
Hebrew theology. 

When Christ and his Apostles came, they nat- 
urally laid hold of this Greek word already intro- 
duced into religious use. But, of course, they em- 
ployed it from their own stand -point. And as it 
was the purpose of their mission to make more 
distinct the doctrine of retribution, and as under 
their teachings death became still more terrible to 
the natural man, so throughout the N. T. Hades 
seems invariably viewed as the enemy of man, and 
from its alliance with sin and its doom, as hostile 
to Christ and his church. In many mstances it is 
with strict propriety translated " hell." Even in 
Acts ii. 27, 31, quoted from the 0. T., Hades is 
the abode of the wicked dead. In Luke xvi. 23 it 
certainly is the place of torment. In Matt. xvi. 18 
it is the abode and centre of those powers that were 
arrayed against (Christ and his church. In Luke 
x. 15, Matt. xi. 23, it is the opposite of heaven. 
The word occurs, according to the Received Text, 
in 1 Cor. xv. 55 ; but the reading is not supported 
by the older MSS. The only remaining instances 
are the four that occur in Rev. i. 18, vi. 8, xx. 13, 
14, where, though in three of these cases personified, 
it is still viewed as a terror to man and a foe to 
Christ and his kingdom, over which at length he 
has gained the victory. While therefore Gehenna 
is the term which most distinctly designates the 
place of future punishment, Hades also repeatedly 
is nearly its equivalent ; and, notwithstanding the 
greater vagueness of the terms, it remains true, as 
Augustin asserts, that neither Hades nor Sheol are 
ever used in a good sense, or (we may add) in any 
other than a sense that carries the notion of terror, 

S. C. B. 

* For a full discussion of the terms and passages 
of the Old Testament relating to this subject, con- 
sult Bottcher, De Inferis Rebusque post Mortem 
futuris ex Hebrceorum et Grcecorum Opinionibits^ 
Dresd. 1846, and for a view of the literature per- 
taining to it, see the bibliographical Appendix to 
Alger's Critical Hist, of the Doctrine of a Future 
Life (4th ed. New York, 1866), Nos. 1734-1863. 
See also the art. of Oehler, Uns',erbUdikeit, Lehre 
des A. Test., in Herzog's Real-EncyTc. xxi. 409 
428 ; and Havernick's Vorlesuntjen uber die The- 
olofjie des A. T., pp. 105-111. A. 

HELLENIST {'EKK'nvKTr'hs : Grcecus ; cf. 
''K\Ky]vi(Tfx6s, 2 Mace, iv 13). In one of tli« 
earliest notices of the first Christian Church at 
Jerusalem (Acts vi. 1), two distinct parties art 
recognized among its members, " Hebrews " and 
" Hellenists " (Grecians), who appear to stand to- 
wards one another in some degree in a relation of 
jealous rivalry. So again, when St. Paul first visitetl 
Jerusalem after his conversion, he " spake and dis 
puted with the Hellenists" (Acts ix. 29), as if 
expecting to find more sympathy among them than 
with the rulers of the Jews. The term Hellenist 
occurs once again in the N. T. according to the 
common text, in the account of the foundation of 
the church at Antioch (Acts xi. 20),a but there 
the context, as weh as the form of the sentence 

a * un that passage see the note under Gauci; 
Qkeees (Amer. ed.). Q- 



[kuI vphs Tovs 'E., though the koI is doubtful), 
leercs to require the other reading " Greeks " 
C'EAArjj/es), which is supported by great external 
evidence, as the true antithesis to " Jews " 
i'louSaiois, not 'E.Bpaiois, v. 19). 

The name, according to its derivation, whether 
the original verb ('EAAtji/jXco) be taken, according 
to the common analogy of similar forms (M7jSt^a>, 
'AttiklCco, ^iAnnri(ca), in the general sense of 
adopting the spirit and character of (ireeks, or, in 
the more limited sense of using the Greek language 
(Xen. An'tb. vii. 3, § 25), marks a class distin- 
guished by peculiar habits, and not by descent, 
rims the Hellenists as a body included not only 
the proselytes of Greek (or foreign) parentage (oi 
(r€fi6jULe}/0L"EA\'nv€S, Acts xvii. 4 ( ?) ; ot (re^S/x^voi 
irpocTTjAvToi, Acts xiii. 43; oi (Tifiojx^voii Acts 
xvii. 17), but also those Jews who, by settling in 
foreign countries, had adopted the prevalent form 
of the current Greek civilization, and with it the 
use of the common Greek dialect, to the exclusion 
of the Aramaic, which was the national representa- 
tive of the ancient Hebrew. Hellenism was thus 
a type of hfe, and not an indication of origin. 
Hellenists might be Greeks, but when the latter 
term is used ("EAATjves, John xii. 20), the point 
of race and not of creed is that which is foremost 
in the mind of the writer. 

The general influence of the (ireek conquests in 
the East, the rise and spre<ad of the Jewish Dis- 
perslon, and the essential antagonism of Jew and 
Greek, have been noticed in other articles [Alkx- 


Antiochus IV. Epiphanes], and it remains only 
to characterize briefly the elements which the Hel- 
lenists contributed to the language of the N. T., 
and the immediate effects which they produced 
upon the Apostolic teaching: — 

1. The flexibility of the Greek language gained 
for it in ancient time a general currency similar to 
that which French enjoys in modern Europe; but 
with this important difference, that Greek was not 
only the language of educated men, but also the 
language of the masses in the great centres of com- 
merce. The colonies of Alexander and his succes- 
Bors originally established what has been called the 
Macedonian dialect throughout the East ; but even 
in this the prevailing power of Attic literature 
made itself distinctly felt. PecuHar words and 
forms adopted at Alexandria were undoubtedly of 
Macedonian origin, but the later Attic may 1)€ 
justly regarded as the real basis of Oriental Greek. 
This first type was, however, soon modified, at least 
in conmion use, by contact with other languages. 
The vocabulary was enriched by the addition of 
foreign words, and the syntax was modified by new 
constructions. In this way a variety of local dialects 
must have arisen, the specific characters of which 
vrere determined in the first instance by the con- 
ditions under which they were formed, and which 
afterwards passed away with the circumstances 
ivhich had produced them. But one of these dialects 
has been preserved after the ruin of the people 
among whom it arose, by being consecrated to the 
noblest service which language has yet fulfilled. In 
other cases the dialects perished together with the 
communities who used tliem in the common inter- 
course of life, but in that of the Jews the Alexan- 
drine version of the O. T., acting in this respect 
like the great vernacular versions of England and 
Gennany, gave a definiteness and fixity to the 
popular language which could not have been gained 


without the existence of some recognized staudiinL 
The style of the LXX. itsel! is, indeed, different in 
different parts, but the same general character runs 
through the whole, and the variations which it 
presents are not greater than those which exist in 
the different books of tlie N. T. 

The functions which this Jewish-Greek had to 
discharge were of the widest appHcation, and the 
language itself combined the most opposite features. 
It was essentially a fusion of Eastern aiid Western 
thought. For disregarding peculiarities of inflexion 
and novel words, the characteristic of the Hellenistic 
dialect is the combination of a Hebrew spii-it with 
a Greek body, of a Hebrew form with (ireek words. 
The conception belongs to one race, and the expics- 
sion to another. Nor is it too much to say tl at 
this combination was one of the most impoitaut 
preparations for the reception of (Jhristianity, and 
one of the most important aids for the adequate 
expression of its teaching. On the one hand, by 
the spread of the Hellenistic Greek, the deep, the- 
ocratic aspect of the world and life, which distin- 
guishes Jewish thought, was placed before men at 
large; and on the other, the subtle truths, which 
philosophy had gained from the analysis of mind 
and action, and enshrined in words, were transferred 
to the service of revelation. In the fullness of time, 
when the great message came, a language was pre- 
pared to convey it; and thus the very dialect of the 
N. T. forms a great lesson in the true philosophy 
of history and becomes in itself a monument of the 
providential government of mankind. 

This view of the Hellenistic dialect will at once 
remove one of the commonest misconceptions relat- 
ing to it. For it >\ill follow that its deviationa 
from the ordinary laws of classic Greek are them- 
selves bound by some common law, and that irreg- 
ularities of construction and altered usages of words 
are to be traced to their first source, and inter- 
preted strictly according to the original conception 
out of which they sprang. A popular, and even a 
corrupt, dialect is not less precise, or, in other 
words, is not less human than a polished one, 
though its interpretiition may often be more diffi-. 
cult from the want of materials for analysis. But 
in the case of the N. T., the books themselves 
furnish an ample store for the critic, and the Sep- 
tuagint, when compared with the Hebrew text, 
provides him with the history of the language which 
he has to study. 

2. The adoption of a strange language was essen- 
tially characteristic of the true nature of Hellenism. 
The purely outward elements of the national life 
were laid aside with a facility of which history offers 
few examples, while the inner character of the people 
remained unchanged. In every respect the thought, 
so to speak, was clothed in a new dress. Hellenism 
was, as it were, a fresh incorporation of Judaism 
according to altered laws of life and worship. But 
as the Hebrew spirit made itself distinctly visibta 
in the new dialect, so it remained undestroyed by 
the new conditions which regulated its action. 
While the Hellenistic Jews followed their natural 
instinct for trade, which was originally curbed by 
the Mosaic Law, and gained a deeper insight into 
foreign character, and with this a tnier sympathy, 
or at least a wider tolerance towards foreign opin- 
ions, they found means at the same time to extend 
the knowledge of the principles of their divine faith, 
and to gain respect and attention even from those 
who did not openly embrace their religion. Hel- 
lenism accomplished for the outer world what tin 


Return [Cyrus] accomplished for the Palestinian 
Jevss: it wad the necessary step between a religion 
of form and a reUijion of spirit: it witnessed against 
Judaism as final and luiiversal, and it witnessed 
for it, as the foundation of a spiritual religion wliich 
should be bound by no local restrictions. Under 
the influence of this wider instruction a Greelt body 
grew up around tlie Synagogue, not admitted into 
ihe Jewish Church, and yet holding a recognized 
position with regard to it, which was al)le to appre- 
hend the Apostolic teaching, and ready to receive 
it. The Hellenists themselves were at once mis- 
sionaries to the heathen, and prophets to their own 
countrymen. Their lives were an abiding protest 
against polytheism and pantheism, and they re- 
tained with unshaken zeal the sum of their ancient 
creed, when the preacher had popularly occupied 
tlie place of the priest, and a service of prayer and 
praise and exhortation had succeeded in daily life 
to tlie elaborate ritual of the Temple. Yet this new 
development of Judaism was obtained without the 
sacrifice of national ties. The connection of the 
Hellenists with the Temple was not broken, except 
in the case of some of the Egyptian Jews. [The 
DisPKKSiON.] Unity coexisted with dispersion; 
and the organization of a catholic church was 
foreshadowed, not only in the widening breadth of 
ioctrine, but even externally in the scattered com- 
Miunities which looked to Jerusalem as their com- 
jiou centre. 

In another aspect Hellenism served as the prep- 
iration for a catholic creed. As it furnished the 
language of Christianity, it supplied also that 
literary instinct which counteracted the traditional 
reserve of the Palestinian Jews. The writings of 
the N. T., and all the writings of the Apostolic age, 
with the exception of the original Gospel of St. 
Matthew, were, as far as we know, Greek; and 
Greek seems to have remained the sole vehicle of 
Christian literature, and the principal medium of 
Christian worship, tiU the Church of North Africa 
rose into importance in the time of Teitullian. 
The Canon of the Christian Scriptures, the early 
Creeds, and the Liturgies, are the memorials of this 
Hellenistic predonnnance in the Church, and the 
types of its working ; and if in later times the Greek 
spirit descended to the investigation of painful subtle- 
ties, it may be questioned whether the fullness 
of Christian truth could have been developed with- 
out the power of Greek thought tempered by He- 
brew discipline. 

The general relations of Hellenism to Judaism 
are well treated in the histories of Ewald and Jost; 
but the Hellenistic language is as yet, critically 
speaking, almost unexplored. Winer's Grammar 
{Gramm. d. N. T. Sprac/ddioms, 6te Aufl. 1855 
[7e Aufl. by Liinemann, 1867]) has done great 
service in establishing the idea of law in N. T. 
language, which was obliterated by earlier inter- 
preters, but even \N'^iner does not investigate the 
origin of the peculiarities of the Hellenistic dialect. 
Tlie idioms of the N. T. camiot be discussed apart 
from those of the LXX. ; and no explanation can 
be considered perfect which does not take into 
account the origin of the corresponding Hebrew 
idioms. Tor this work even the materials are as 
yet deficient. The text of the LXX. is stC in a 
most unsatisfactory condition ; and while Bruder's 
Concordance leaves nothing to be desired for the 
vocabulary of the N. T., Trommius's Concordance 
to the LXX., however useful, is quite untrustworthy 
lor critical purposes. [See Lakguage of the, 


New Testament, Amer. ed.; also New Testa- 
ment, IV.] B. F. W. 

HELMET. [Arms, p. 161.] 

HE'LON (|bn [strong, power/til]: Xai\dju: 
Helon), father of Eliab, who was the chief man of 
the tribe of Zebulun, when the census was taken in 
the wilderness of Sinai (Num. i. 9, ii. 7, vii. 24, 
•29, X. 16). 

* HELPS. ITiis is the term used in the 
autliorized English Version, and in the Rheima 
N. T. for auTiAiiypeis, 1 Cor. xii. 28. The Vulgate 
translates, (piiulationes ; Wycliffe, helpynyu (help- 
ings); Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva Bible, 
helpers; Luther, Heifer. The noun occur; only 
once in the N. T., but the verb avTi\a/j.^a.yoiJiai, 
i. e. to take in turn, to lay hold qf\ to help, also to 
take part in, occurs three times, Luke i. 54 (" hath 
holpen his servant Israel "), Acts xx. 35 ("to sup- 
port the weak"), 1 Tim. vi. 2 {ol rrjs evepyecias 
avTiXajx^auSfxevoi, "partakers of the benefit"). 
With the classics a.vTi\T)y\/is signifies a taking in 
turn, seizure ; receipt ; lierception, but with the 
later writers and in the O. T. Apocrypha (2 Mace, 
viii. 19; 3 Mace. v. 50; Ecclus. xi. 12; li. 7; 1 
Esdr. viii. 27 al. ) also aid, support. This must be 
the meaning of the word in 1 Cor. xii., and it is so 
understood by nearly all the commentators from 
Chrysostom {avTex^a-Oai rSiU aaOeu&v) down to 
De Wette, Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, and Kling 
(in Lange's Bibelicerk). It coiTesponds with the 
meaning of the verb in Luke i. 54 and Acts xx. 35, 
and suits the connection. Paul enumerates the 
auri\r)\peis among the charismata, and puts them 
between the miracidous powers {Suudpeis and 
Xctpia/jLara lajxaToov) which were not confined to 
any particular oflice, and the gifts of government 
and administration (Kv^epv-fjceis) which belonged 
especially to the presbyter-bishops, and in the 
highest degree to the Apostles as the gubernatwea 
ecdesice. 'AuTi\r]\peLs doubtless comprehends the 
various duties of the deacons and deaconesses of 
the Apostles' church, especially the care of the poor 
and the sick. We may take it, however, in a more 
comprehensive sense for Christian charity and phi- 
lanthropy. The plural indicates the diversity of 
the gift in its practical operation and application ; 
comp. SiaKoviai, 1 Cor. xii. 5. These helps or 
helpings are represented here as a gift of the Spirit. 
The duty is based on the possession of the gift, but 
the gift is not confined to the deacons or any class 
of church officers. It is found also among the laity, 
especially the female portion, in all ages and all 
branches of Christendom. But from time to time 
God raises up heroes of Christian charity and angels 
of mercy whom He endows, in an extraordinary 
measure, with the charisma of auTiArjypis., SiaKoyia, 
and aydir-n for the benefit of suflfering humanity. 

P. S. 

* HELPS, Acts xxvii. 17 {^o-hO^iai). See 
Shirs, Undergirding. 

HEM OF GARMENT (n^^^: Kpdciri- 
hov- fmbria). The importance which the later 
Jews, especially the Pharisees (Matt, xxiii. 5), 
attached to the hem or fringe of their garments 
was founded upon the regulation in Num. xv. 38, 
39, which attached a symbolical meaning to it. 
We must not, however, conclude that the fringe 
owed its origin to that passage: it was in the firet 
instance the ordinary mode of finishing the robe, 
tht» ends of the threads compo'ing the woof 

1042 HEMAM 

left in order to preve)it the cloth from unraveling, 
just aa in the Egyptian caladris (Her. ii. 81; 
Wilkinson's Ancient Kyypt'wiu, ii. 90), and in the 
Assyrian robes as represented in the bas-reUefs of 
Nineveh, the blue ribbon being added to strengthen 
the border. The Hebrew word tzizUli is expressive 
of this fretted edge: the Greek Kpiair^ha (the 
etymology of which is uncertain, being variously 
traced to KpoacrSs, &Kpos neSou, and Kpriiris) ap- 
plies to the ed(/e of a river or mountain (Xen. Hist. 
Gr. iii. 2, § IG, iv. 6 § 8), and is explained by 
Hesychius as ra iv t&J UKpu rov ifMariov Ke/cAoxr- 
jLieW pd/x/uLara kol rb &Kpov aurov. The be(^ed 
or outer robe was a simple quadrangular piece of 
cloth, and generally so worn that two of the corners 
hung down in front : these corners were ornamented 
with a " ribbon of blue," or rather dnrk violet, the 
ribbon itself being, as we may conclude from the 

word used, v"^inQ, as narrow as a thread or piece 
of string. The Jews attached great sanctity to this 
fringe (Matt. ix. 20, xiv. 30 ; Luke viii. 44), and 
the Pharisees made it more prominent than it was 
originally designed to be, enlarging both the fringe 
and the ribbon to an undue width (Matt, xxiii. 5). 
Directions were given as to the number of threads 
of which it ought to be composed, and other par- 
ticulars, to each of which a symbolical meaning 
was attached (Carpzov, Apparnt. p. 398). It was 
appended in later times to the talith more especially, 
as being the robe usually worn at devotions : whence 
the proverbial saying quoted by Lightfoot {Exerdt. 
on Matt. v. 40), " He that takes care of his fringes 
deserves a good coat." W. L. B. 

HE'MAM (CD**!! [exterminnting, or rag- 
ing'\: AI/jlolv: Heman). Hori {i. e. Horite) and 
Hemam were sons (A. V. " cliildren," but the 
word is Bene) of Lotan, the eldest son of Seir (Gen. 
xxxvi. 22). In the list in 1 Chr. i. the name ap- 
pears as HoMAM, which is probably the correct 

HE'MAN Ofy'll [true, reliable] : [Alfiovdv, 
Aivdu'i Alex.] Ai/nav, [Huoi/: Kman, Hemari]). 
1. Son of Zerah, 1 Chr. ii'. 6; 1 K. iv. 31. See 
following article. 

2. lAifxdv, Vat. 1 Chr. xxv. 6, Ai/xavei, 2 Clu-. 
xxix. 14, Q.uaifj.av; Alex. Ps. Ixxxviii. 1, AiOa/x- 
Hemam, Heman, Eman.] Son of Joel, and grand- 
son of Samuel the prophet, a Kohathite. He is 

called "the singer" (TlltZ^^n), rather, the mu- 
sician, 1 Chr. vi. 33, and was' the first of the three 
chief Levites to whom was committed the vocal and 
instrumental music of the temple-service in the 
reign of David, as we read 1 Chr. xv. lG-22, Asaph 
and Ethan, or rather, according to xxv. 1, 3, Jedu- 
£hun,« being his colleagues. [Jeduthun.] The 
genealogy of Heman is given in 1 Chr. vi. 33-38 
(A. v.), but the generations between Assir, the 
son of Korah, and Samuel are somewhat confused, 
owing to two collateral lines having got mixed. A 
rectification of this genealogy will be found at p. 
214 of t/ie Genealogies of' our Loi-d, where it is 
shown that Heman is 14th in descent from I^vi. 
A further account of Heman is given 1 Chr. xxv., 
where he is called (ver. 5) " the king's sr^r in the 

tnatiers of God," the word HTn, " seer," which 


in 2 Chr. xxxv. 15 is applied to Jedulhun, and ia 
xxix. ZO to Asaph, being probably used in the 

sense as is MSD, '< prophesied," of Asaph and Jeda- 
thun in xxv. 1-3. We there learn that Heman 
had fourteen sons, and three daughters [Hana- 
NiAH I.], of which the sons all assisted in the 
music under their father, and each of whom was 
head of one of the twenty-four wards of Invites, 
who " were instructed in the songs of th^ Lord," 
or rather, in sacred music. Whether or no thii! 
Heman is the person to whom the 88th Psalm ia 
ascribed is doubtful. The chief reason for supjjos- 
ing him to be the same is, that as other Psalms ari- 
ascribed to Asaph and Jeduthun, so it la Ukely that 
this one should be to Heman the singer. But on 
the other hand he is there called * the Ezrahite; " 
and the 89th Psalm is ascribed to " Ethan the 
lizrahite." '^ But since Heman and Ethan are 
described in 1 Chr. ii. G, as " sons of Zerah," it ia 
in the highest degree probable that Ezrahite means 
"of the family of Zerah," and consequently that 
Heman of the 88th Psalm is different from Heman 
the singer, the Kohathite. In 1 K. iv. 31 again 
(Heb. V. 11), we have mention, as of the wisest of 
mankind, of Ethan the l<2zrahite, Heman, Chalcol, 
and Darda, the sons of INIahol, a list corresponding 
with the names of the sons of Zerah, in 1 Chr. ii. 
6. The inference from which is that there was a 
Heman, different from Henian the singer, of the 
family of Zerah the son of Judah, and that he is 
distinguished from Heman the singer, the Invite, 
by being called the LIzrahite. As regards the age 
when Heman the Ezrahite lived, the only thing 
that can be asserted is that he lived belbre Solomon, 
who was said to be " wiser than Heman," and after 
Zerah the son of Judah. His being called "son 
of Zerah " in 1 Chr. ii. 6 indicates nothing as to 
the precise age when he and his brother lived. 
They are probably mentioned in this abridged 
genealogy, only as having been illustrious persons 
of their family. Nor is anything kno^vn of Mahol 
their father. It is of course uncertain whether the 
tradition which ascribed the 88th Psalm to Heman's 
authorship is trustworthy. Nor is there anything 
in the Psalm itself which clearly marks the time 
of its composition. The 89th Psalm, ascribed to 
Ethan, seems to be subsequent to the overthrow of 
the kingdom of Judah, unless possibly the calami- 
ties described in the latter part of the Psalm may 
be understood of David's flight at Absalom's rebel- 
lion, in which case ver. 41 would allude to Shimei 
the son of Gera. 

If Heman the Kohathite, or his father, had mar- 
ried an heiress of the house of Zerah, as the sons of 
Hakkoz did of the house of BarziUai, and was so 
reckoned in the genealogy of Zerah, then all the 
notices of Heman might point to the same person, 
and the musical skill of David's chief musician, 
and the wisdom of David's seer, and the genius of 
the author of the 88th Psalm, concurring in the 
same individual, would make him fit to be joined 
with those other worthies whose wisdom was only 
exceeded by that of Solomon. Put it is impossible 
to assert that this was the case. 

Rosenm. Proleg. in Psalm, p. xvii. ; J. Olshai* 
sen, on Psalms, Einleit. p. 22 {Kurzgef. Exe^ 
Handb.). A. C H. 

« ^rT'M and prrn*^ are probably only clerical 
miations. See also 2 Chr. xxix. 13, 14. 
fc St. Augusline'B copy read, with the LXX., Israel- 

ite, for Ezrahite, in the titles to the 88th and 89ti 
Psalms. His explanation of the title of Ps. Ixxx^iM 
is a curious specimen of spiritualizing interpretation 


HE'MATH (n^n [fortress, citaatq-. At- 
%ad; [Vat.] AleK. E^a0: hmath\ Anotner form 
— not warranted by the Hebrew — of the well- 
known name Hajiath (Am. vi. 14). 

HE'MATH (ri^n i. e. Hammath [heat, 
warm spriny]: AlfxdO; [Vat. MecrTj/xa:] Vulg. 
translates de cnlore), a person, or a place, named 
in the genealogical hsts of Judah, as the origin of 
the Kenites, and the " father " of the house of 
Rechab (1 Chr. ii. 55). 

HEM'DAN (I^PD [pleasant one, Fiirst] : 
Pi.ixa^a'- Aindam or Ilanidam, some copies Ham- 
dan), the eldest son of Dishon, son of Anah the 
liorite (Gen. xxxvi. 26). In the parallel list of 
1 Chr. (i. 41) the name is changed to Ilamran 

(^npn), which in the A. V. is given as AmrA]m, 
probably following the Vulgate Hamram, in the 
earliest MSS. A mar an. 

The name Heradan is by Knobel {Genesis, p. 
256) compared with those of Humeidy and Ham- 
ady, two of the five families of the tribe of Omran 
or Amran, who are located to the E. and S. E. of 
Akaba. Also with the Bene-Hamyde, who are 
found a short distance S. of Kerek (S. E. corner 
of the Dead Sea); and from thence to et-Busaireh, 
probably the ancient B(JZKAH, on the road to 
Petra. (See Burckhardt, Syna, etc., pp. 695, 

HEMXOCK. [Gall.] 

HEN ("|n [favor, grace'] : Hem). According 
to the rendering of the passage (Zech. vi. 14) 
adopted in the A. V. Hen (or accurately Chen) is 
the name of a son of Zephaniah, and apparently 
the same who is called Josiah in ver. 10. But by 
the LXX. (;^a/jts), Ewald {Gunst), and other in- 
terpreters, the words are taken to mean " for the 
favor of the son of Zephaniah." 

HEN. The hen is nowhere noticed in the Bible 
I xcept in the passages (Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Luke xiii. 
o4) where our Saviour touchingly compares His 
anxiety to save Jerusalem to the tender care of a 
hen '• gathering her chickens under her wings." 
The word employed is opvis, which is used in the 
same specific sense in classical Greek (Aristoph. 
Av. 102, Vesj). 811). That a bird, so intimately 
connected with the household, and so common in 
Palestine, as we know from Kabbinical sources, 
should receive such slight notice, is certainly sin- 
gular; it is almost equally singular that it is no- 
where represented in the paintings of ancient Egypt 
(Wilkinson, i. 2:34 ).« W. L. B. 

HE'NA (^3n [depressim, low land, Fiirst]: 
'Ai/a; [in 2 K. xix.. Vat. Aves, Alex. Atvo; in Is., 
by confusion with next word, Rom. ' l> 
Vat. Sin. Avayouyaua'-] Ana) seems to have been 
one of the chief cities of a monarchical state which 
the Assyrian kings had reduced shortly before the 
time of Sennacherib (2 K [xviii. 34,] xix. 13; Is. 
rxxvii. 13). Its connection with Sepharvaim, or 
Sippara, would lead us to place it in Babylonia, or 
at any rate on the Euphrates. Here, at no great 
listance from Sippara (now Mosaib), . an accient 
Vcwn calleil Ana or Anah, which seems to have been 

o * The common barn-door fowl are met with tsrer^- 
Kti«re in S>ria at the present day. The peasants rely 
>o them, and the eggs from them, as one of their cnief 
of gubgistence (Thomson, Land and Book, ii. 

HEPHBR 1043 

in former times a place of considerable ir.iportancA 
It is mentioned by Abulfeda, by William of Tyre, 
and others (see Asseman. BiU. Or. vol. iii. pt. iL 
p. 560, and p. 717). The conjecture by some (see 
Winer's Rtalworierbuch, s. v.) that this may be 
Hena, is probable, and deserves acceptance. A 
further conjecture identifies Ana with a town called 

Anat (n is merely the feminine termination), 
which is mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions as 
situated on an island in the Euphrates (iox Tal- 
bot's Assyrian Texts, 21 ; Layard's Nineveh and 
Babylon, 355) at some distance below its junction 
with the Chabour ; and which appears as Anatho 
CAuaOu)) in Isidore of Charax {Mans. Parth. p. 4). 
The modern Anat is on the right bank of the 
stream, while the name also attaches to some ruins 
a little lower down u^wn the left bank ; but between 
them is " a string of islands" (Chesney's Euphrates 
Expedition, i. 53), on one or more of which the an- 
cient city may have been situated. G. R. 

HEN'ADAD ("f^^H [favor of Hadad, 
Fiirst, Ges.] : 'HwSciS, [etc. :] Henadad, Ena- 
dad), the head of a family of Levites who took a 
prominent part in the rebuilding of the Temple 
under Jeshua (Ezr. iii. 9). Bavai and Binnui 
(Neh. iii. 18, 24), who assisted hi the repair of the 
wall of the city, probably belonged to the same 
family. The latter also represented his family at 
the signing of the covenant (Neh. x. 9). 

HE'NOCH Cn^iO: 'Evc^x: H^'noch). L 
The form in which the well-known name Enoch is 
given in the A. V. of 1 Chr. i. 3. The Hebrew 
word is the same both here and in Genesis, namely, 
Chanoc. Perhaps in the present case our transla- 
tors followed the Vulgate. 

2. So they appear also to have done in 1 Chr. 
i. 33 with a name which in Gen. xxv. 4 is more 
accurately given as Hanoch. 

HE'PHER ("l^n [a well]: '0<^6>: Hepher). 
1. A descendant of jManasseh. The youngest of 
the sons of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 32), and head of 
the family of the Hepheritks. Hepher was 
father of Zelophkhad (xxvi. 33, xxvii. 1; [Josh, 
xvii. 2, 3]), whose daughters first mised the ques-. 
tion of the right of a woman having no brother, 
to hold the property of her father. 

2. {''HcpaA- Ilepher.) The second son of Naa- 
rah, one of the two wives of Ashur, the " father of 
Tekoa" (1 Chr. iv. 6), in the genealogy of Judah. 

3. [Rom. Vat. Alex. FA. corrupted by false di- 
vision of the words ; Comp. ^A<pap ; Aid. ' A(^€p.] 
The Mecherathite, one of the heroes of David's 
guard, according to the list of 1 Chr. xi. 36. In 
the catalogue of 2 Samuel this name does not 
exist (see xxiii. 34); and the conclusion of Kenni- 
cott, after a full investigation of the {iJissages, is 
that the names in Samuel are the originals, and 
that Hepher is a mere corruption of them. 

HETHER OSn [a well]: '0<pip; [Vat, 
in 1 K. corrupt; Comp. 'E^ep'J Opher), a place 
in ancient Canaan, which, though not mentioned in 
the history of the conquest, occurs in the list of 
conquered kings (Josh. xii. 17). It was on the west 
of Jordan (comp. 7). So was also the " land of 

552). The eggs of the hen are no doubt meant in thi 
Saviour's illustration (Luke xi. 12), which impliev alM 
that they were very abundant. fl 


Hepher " (H V")^j terra Epher\ which is named 
mth Soc<jh as one of Solomon's commissariat dis- 
tricts (1 K. iv. 10). To judge from this catalogue 
it l:iy towards the south of central Palestme, at 
an}' rate below Dor. so that there cannot be any 
connection between it and Gath-hepher, which 
was 'uv Zebulun near Sepphoris. 

HETHERITES, THE 0*l?rin [patro- 
nym., see above], i. e. the Ilepherite: 6 '0</)ept 
[Vat. -pec-] : familia Htpheritarum.\ the family 
of Ilepher the son of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 32). 

HEPH'ZIBAH (nn-'^'^pri : Qixy^^a ifi6v: 
tolunifts niea in ea). 1. A name signifying My 
delight in her, which is to be borne by the restored 
Jerusalem (Is. Ixii. 4). The succeeding sentence 
contains a play on the word — " for Jehovah de- 

lighteth (V?n, chaphttz) hi thee." 

2. ('Ai//i/3a; [Vat.i OifetySa:] Alex. O^xrt/So; 
Joseph. Ax^^o.' Haphsiba). It was actually the 
name of the queen of King Hezekiah, and the 
mother of Manasseh (2 K. xxi. 1). In the par- 
allel account (2 Chr. xxxiii. 1) her name is omitted. 
No clue is given us to the character of this queen. 
But if she was an adherent of Jehovah — and this 
the wife of Hezekiah could not fail to be — it is 
not imix)ssible that the words of Is. Ixii. 4 may 
contaiji a complimentary allusion to her. 

HERALD (Hn"l3 [from the Pers., aier, 
caller, Dietr.] ). The only notice of this officer in 
the O. T. occurs in Dan. iii. 4; the term there 
used is connected etymologically with the Greek 
Kripi(r(rco and Kpd^u, and with our " cry." There 
is an evident allusion to the office of the herald in 
the expressions Kr]pvc(rci), K-npv^, and K-fipvyfia, 
which are frequent in the N. 1 ., and which are but 
inadequately rendered by " preach," etc. The 
term " herald " might be substituted in 1 Tim. ii. 
T; 2 Tim. i. 11; 2 Pet. ii. 5. W. L. B. 

HER'CULES ('HoaKKrjs [Hera's fflory]), the 
I ame commonly appliea by the western nations to 
fciie tutelary deity of Tyre, whose national title was 

Melkr(ri « (mp btt, i. c. Hip "^b^, (he kim/ 
of the city = ttoKiovxos, MeAi/cooos, Phil. Bybl. 
ap. Euseb. Prmp. Ev. i. 10). The identification 
was based ujjou a similarity of the legends and at- 
tributes referred to tlie two deities, but Herodotus 
(ii. 44) recognized their distinctness, and dwells on 
the extreme antiquity of the Tyrian rite (Herod. 
l. c. ; cf. Stralx), xvi. p. 757 ; Arr. Alex. ii. 16 ; Jo- 
seph. Ant. viii. 5, § 3; c. Apion. i. 18). The wor- 
ship of Melkait was spread throughout the Tyrian 
colonies, and was especially established at Carthage 
(cf. H&milcar), where it was celebrated even with 
auman sacrifices (Plin. If. N. xxxvi. 4 (5); cf. 
Jer. xix. 5). Mention is made of public embassies 
lent from the colonies to the mother state to honor 
the national God (Arr. Alex. ii. 24; Q. Curt. iv. 
8; Polyb. xxxi. 20), and this fact places in a clearer 

a This identification is dlBtinctly made in a Maltese 
Inscnptiou quoted by Gesenius (Erscii and Gruber's 

Encyklop. e. v. Bel., and Tlusatirus, s. v. v37l2), 
• Here n!2 V^m mp VX2 answers to 'UpeucKeZ ap- 

6 Thttse were common, and are frequently alluded 
tt. The sxprcstaon "IpS'jI'^Str, 2 Sam. xvii. 29 


light the offense of Jason in sending esiToyi (#cv 

povs) to his festival (2 Mace. iv. 19 ff.). 

There can be little doubt but that Melkart is the 

proper name of the Baal — the Prince (v^21l'/ 
— mentioned in the later history of the 0. T. The 
worship of " Baal " was introduced from Tyre (1 
K. xvi. 31; cf. 2 K. xi. 18) after the earlier Ca- 
naanitish idolatry had been put down (1 Sam. vii. 
4; cf. 1 K. xi. 5-8), and Melkart (Hercules) and 
Astarte apj^ear in the same close relation (Joseph. 
A7it. 1. c.) as Baal and Astarte. The objections 
which are urged against the identification apjjear 
to have little weight; but the supposed connecli^uB 
between Melkart and other gods (Moloch, et. 
which have been suggested (Pauly, Real-KncycL 
s. v. Melan-ih) appear less likely (cf. Gesenius, / 
c. ,• Movers, Phonizier, i. 176 ff., 385 ff.). [Baal.] 
The direct derivation of the word Hercules from 

Phoenician roots, either as V^'^H, circuitor, the 
traveller, ui reference to the course of the sun, with 
whom he was identified, or to the journeys of the 

hero, or agam as VIDIS {' Apxa.\evs, Etym. J/.), 
the strong conquers, has little probability. 

B. F. W. 

HERD, HERDSMAN. The herd wa8 
greatly regarded both in the patriarchal and Mo- 
saic period. Its nmltiplying was considered as a 
blessing, and its decrease as a curse (Gen. xiii. 2; 
Dent. vii. 14, xxviii. 4; Ps. cvii. 38, cxliv. 14; Jer. 
Ii. 23). The ox was the most precious stock next 
to horse and mule, and (since those were rare) the 
thing of greatest value which was commonly ix)s- 
sesscd (1 K. xviii. 5). Hence we see the force of 
Saul's threat (1 Sam. xi. 7). llie herd yielded the 
most esteemed sacrifice (Num. vii. 3 ; Ps. Ixix. 01 
Is Ixvi. 3); also flesh-meat and milk, chiefly con- 
veited, probably, into butter and cheese (Deut 
xxxii. 14; 2 Sam. xvii. 29), which such milk yields 
more copiously than that of small cattle ^ (Arist 
Hist. Aiiim. iii. 20). The full-grown ox is hardly 
ever slaughtered in Syria ; but, both for sacrificial 
and convivial purposes, tlie young animal was pre- 
ferred (Ex. xxix. 1) — perhaps three years might 
be the age up to which it was so regarded (Gen. xv. 
9) — and is spoken of as a special dainty (Gen. 
xviii. 8; Am. vi. 4; Luke xv. 23). The case of 
Gideon's sacrifice was one of exigency (Judg. vi. 
25) and exceptional. So that of the people (1 Sam. 
xiv. 32) was an act of wanton excess. The agri- 
cultund and general usefulness of tlie ox, hi plough- 
ing, threshuig [Agriculturk], aiid as a beast of 
burden (1 Chr. xii. 40; Is. xlvi. 1\ made such a 
slaughtering seem wasteful; nor, owing to diffi- 
culties of grazing, fattening, etc., is beef the prod- 
uct of an eastern climate. The animal was broken 
to service probably in his third year (Is. xv. 5; Jet. 
xlviii. 34; comp. Plin. H. N. viii. 70, ed. Par.), 
[n the moist season, when grass abounded hi the 
waste lands, especially in the " south " region, 

means cheese of cows' milk ; HS^P? ^^^- ' | '^i 
Gen. xviii. 8, Is. vii. 15, 2 Sam. xvii. 29, Job xx. 17, 
Judg. y. 25, Prov. xxx. 33, is properly rendered " bulr 
ter" (which Gesenius, «. r., is mistaken in declaring 
to be "hardly known to the Orientals, except a< a 

medicine "). The word H^'^IlS, Job x. 10, is the aaaa» 

. , applied by the Bedoiiins to I 

as the Arab 

.goats '-milk cheese. [D(nT£K; Ch££8S.] 




Egyptian farm-yard. (Wilkinson.) 

herds grazed there ; e. g. in Carmel on the W. side 
Df the Dead Sea (1 Sam. xxv. 2; 2 Chr. xxvi. 10). 
Dothan also. Mishor. and Sharon CGen. xxxvii. 17; 
;omp. Kobinson, ill. 122; Stanley, S. (f P. pp. 
247, 260, 484, 48.^; 1 Chr. xxvii. 29; Is. Ixv. 10) 
were favorite pastures. For such purposes Uzziah 
built towers ni the wilderness (2 Chr. xxvi. 10). 
Not only grass," but foliage, is acceptable to the 
ox, and the hills and woods of Bashan and Gilead 
afforded both abundantly; on such upland (Ps. 1. 
10; ixv. 12) pastures cattle might graze, as also, 
of course, by river sides, when driven by the 
heat from the regions of the "wilderness." Es- 
pecially was the eastern table-land (Ez. xxxix. 18; 
Num. xxxii. 4) "a place for cattle," and the pas- 
toral tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half INIanasseh 
who settled there, retained something of the no- 
madic character and handed down some image of 
the patriarchal life (Stanley, S. <f P. pp. 324-5). 
Herdsmen, etc., in Egypt were a low, perhaps the 
lowest, caste; hence as Joseph's kindred, through 
his position, were brought into contact with the 
highest castes, they are described as '• an abomina- 
tion;" but of the abundance of cattle in Egypt, 
and of the care there bestowed on them, there is 
no doubt (Gen. xlvii. 6, 17; Ex. ix. 4, 20). Brands 
were used to distinguish the owner's herds (Wil- 
kinson, iii. 8, 195; iv. 125-131). So the plague 
of hail was sent to smite especially the cattle (I's. 
Ixxviii. 48), the first-bom of which also were smitten 
(Ex. xii. 29). The Israelites departing stipulated for 
(Ex. x. 26) and took " much cattle " with them (xii. 
38). [Wilderness of Wandering.] Cattle 

A. deformed oxherd, so represented to mark contempt 

K)nned thus one of the traditions of the Israelitish 
pation in its greatest period, and became almost a 
•art of that greatness. They are the object of 

a In Num. xxii. 4, the word p"!*;, In A. V. " grass," 
wally includes all vegetation. C^r'p. Ex. x. 15, Is. 
ixxvii. 27 ; Cato, de R. R. c. 20; Varro, de R. R. i. 

15, and if 6. "^^^n. Job viii. 12, xl. 15, seems use W 
In a signification equally wide. [Grass.] 

ft Rabbis differ on the question whetUer the owner 
jC the animal was under this enactment liable or not 

providential care and legislative ordinance (Ex. xx 
10, xxi. 28,'> xxxiv. 19 ; I^v. xix. 19, xxv. 7 ; Deut. 
xi. 15, xxii. 1, 4, 10, xxv. 4; Vs. civ. 14; Is. xxx. 
23; Jon. iv. 11), and even the Levites, though not 
holding land, were allowed cattle (Num. xxxv. 2, 
3). When pasture failed, a mixture of various 

grains (called. Job vi. 5, v'^V?, rendered "fodder" 
in the A. V., and. Is. xxx.' 24, " provender ;" c 
comp. the Roman /hrra^/o and ocyimun, Rlin. xviii. 

10 and 42) was used, as also 15^^? "chopped 
straw" (Gen. xxiv. 25; Is. xi. 7, Ixv. 25), which 
was torn in pieces by the threshing-machine and 
used probably for feeding in stalls. These last 
formed an important adjunct to cattle-keeping, be- 
ing indispensable for shelter at certain seasons (Ex. 
ix. 6, 19). The herd, after its harvest-duty was 
done, which probalily caused it to be in high con- 
dition, was specially worth caring for; at the same 
time most open pastures would have failed because 
of the heat. It was then probably stalled, and 
would continue so until vegetation returned. Hence 
the failure of "the herd" from "the stalls" is 
mentioned as a feature of scarcity (Hab. iii. 17). 
"Calves of the stall" (Mai. iv. 2; Prov. xv. 17) 
are the objects of watchful care. The Reubenites, 
etc., bestowed their cattle " in cities " when they 
passed the Jordan to share the toils of conquest 
(Deut. iii. 19), i. e. probably in some pastures 
closely adjoining, like the "suburbs" appointed for 
the cattle of the Invites (Num. xxxv. 2, 3; Josh, 
xxi. 2). Cattle were ordinarily allowed as a prey 
in war to the captor (Deut. xx. 14; Josh. viii. 
2), and the case of Amalek is ex- 
ceptional, probably to mark the 
extreme curse to which that people 
was devoted (Ex. xvii. 14; 1 Sara. 
XV. 3). The occupation of herds- 
man was honorable in early times 
(Gen. xlvii. 6; 1 Sam. xi. 5: 1 Chr. 
xxvii. 29, xxviii. 1). Saul himself 
assumed it in the interval of hia 
cares as king; also Doeg was cer- 
tainly high in his confidence (1 Sam. 
xxi. 7). Pharaoh made some of 
Joseph's brethren "rulers over hia 
cattle." David's herd-masters were 
among his chief officers of state. In 
Solomon's time the relative import- 
ance of the pursuit declined as commerce grew, but 
It was still extensive (Eccl. ii. 7; 1 K. iv. 23). It 
must have greatly suffered from the mroads of th#» 


liable. See de Re Rust. Yeterum Hebrceorum, c. il.; 
Ugolini, xxix. 

c The word seems to be derived from V v2, to mtx. 

-T ' 

The passage in Isaiah probably means that in thfl 
abundant yield of the crops the cattle should eat af 
the best, such as was usually consumed by man. 



nemies to which the country under the later kings 
af Judah and Israel was exposed. Uzziah, however, 
(2 Chr. xxvi. 10), and Hezekiah (xxxii. 28, 29), 
resuming command of the open country, revived it. 
Josiah also seems to have been rich in herds (xxxv. 
7-9). The prophet Amos at first followed this 
occupation (Am. i. 1, vii. 14). A goad was used 

(Judg. iii. 31; 1 Sam. xiii. 21, ^^^P, I?"??), 
being, as mostly, a staff armed with a spike. For 
the word Herd as applied to swine, see Sw^ine; 
and on the general subject, Ugolini, xxix., de R. R. 
vett. Hebr. c. ii., which will be found nearly ex- 
haustive of it. H. H. 

HE'RES (Is. xix. 18; A. V. "destruction " or 
*• the sun " ). See Ir-ha-heres. 

HE'RESH {^"yQr^ artificer: 'Ap^s; [Vat. 
PapatTjA;] Alex. Apes' carpentarius), a Levite; 
one of the staff attached to the tabernacle (1 Chr. 
Ix. 15). 

HER'MAS CEp/iSs, from 'Epjxrjs, the " Greek 
god of gain," or Mercury), the name of a person 
to whom St. Paul sends greeting in his Epistle to 
the Eomans (xvi. 14), and consequently then resi- 
dent in Rome, and a Christian : and yet the origin 
of the name, like that of the other four mentioned 
in the same verse, is Greek. However, in those 
days, even a Jew, like St. Paul himself, might ac- 
quire Koman citizenship. Irenaeus, TertuUian, and 
Origen, agree in attributing to him the work called 
the Shepherd: which, from the name of Clement 
occurring in it, is sujiposed to have been written in 
the pontificate of Clement I.; while others affirm 
it to have been the work of a namesake in the fol- 
lowing age, and brother to Pius I.; others again 
have argued a<;ainst its genuineness. (Cave, Hist. 
Lit. s. V. ; Bull, lUfens. Fid. Nic. i. 2, 3-6 ; Din- 
dorf, Prcef. ml Hermoe Past.) From internal 
evidence, its author, whoever he was, appears to 
have been a married man and father of a family : 
a deep mystic, l)ut without ecclesiastical rank. 
Further, the work in question is supposed to have 
been originally written in Greek — in which lan- 
guage it is frequently cited by the Greek Fathers — 
though it now only exists entire in a Latin version." 
It was never received into the canon ; but yet was 
generally cited with respect only second to that 
which was paid to the authoritative books of the 
N. T., and was held to be in some sense inspired 
(Caillau's Potres, tom. i. p. 17). It may be styled 
the Pilgrim'' a Progress of ante-Nicene times: and 
is divided into three parts: the first containing 
four visions, the second twelve moral and spiritual 
precepts, and the third ten similitudes, each in- 
tended to shadow forth some verity (Caillau, ihid.). 
Every man, according to this writer, is attended by 
a good and bad angel, who are continually attempt- 
ing to affect his course through life; a doctrhie 
which forcibly recalls the fable of Prodicus respect- 
ng Ihe choice of Hercules (Xenoph. Mem. ii. 1). 

The Hennas of the Epistle to the Romans is 
celebrated as a saint in the Roman calendar on 
Way 9 (Butler's Lives of the Saints, May 9). 

E. S. Ff. 

n • Nearly the whole of the Greek text of the Sfiep- 
hcrJ has now been recovered from a manuscript found 
fct Mount A thos by Constantine Simonides, and a con- 
nderable p(»rtion of the work is preserved in the Codex 
6inaitiryu!t published by Tischendorf in 1862. The 
flxsek text was first published by Anger and Dindorf 


HER^MES ('Epfirjs), the name of a maii luaa- 
tioned in the same epistle with the preceding (Hem. 
xvi. 14). "According to the (Jreeks," says Calmel 
(Diet. s. v.), " he was one of the Seventy disciples 
and afterwards Bishop of Dalmatia." His festiva 
occurs in their calendar ujwn April 8 (Neale, East- 
em Church., ii. 774). E. S. Fl. 

* HER'MES, Acts xiv. 12. [MKRrrRy.] 
HERMOG'ENES {'Epfi(,y4v7]s) [tevn (f 
Hermes'\, a person mentioned by St. Paul in the 
latest of all his epistles (2 Tim. i. 15: see Alford'ft 
Proleg. c. vii. § ;J6), when "all hi Asia" (t. c. 
those whom he had left there) " had turned away 
from him," a):d among tlieir number " Phygelhis 
and Hermogenes." It dtK's not appear whether 
they had merely forsaken iiis cause, jk w that he 
was in l)onds, through fear, like those of whom St. 
Cyprian treats in his celebrated work JJe Lapsis; 
or whether, like Hymena-us and Philetus (ibid. eh. 
ii. 18), they had embraced false doctrine. It is 
just possible that there may be a contrast intended 
between tliese two sets of deserters. According to 
the legendary history, bearing the name of Abdiaa 
(Faitricii Cod. Apocryiih. N. T. p. 517), Hermog- 
enes had been a magician, and was, with Philetus, 
converted by St. James the Great, who destroyed 
the charm of his spells. Neither the Hermogenes, 
who suffei-ed in the reign of Domitian (Hofraann, 
Lex. Univ. s. v.; Alford on 2 Tim. i. ]5), nor the 
Hermogenes against whom TertuUian wTote — still 
less the martyrs of the (Jreek calendar (Neale, 
Eastern Church, ii. p. 770, January 24, and p. 
781, September 1) — are to be confounded with the 
person now under notice, of whom nothing more 
is knov^Ti. E. S. Ff. 

HER'MON ('i^^"]^ iprominent, lofty]: 
^Aep/iclov'. [ffermon']), a mountain on the north- 
eastern bonier of Palestine (Deut. iii. 8 ; Josh. xii. 
1), over against Lebanon (Josh. xi. 17), adjoining 
the plateau of Bashan (1 Chr. v. 23). Its situa^ 
tion being thus clearly defined in ^Scripture, there 
can be no doubt as to its identity. It stands at 
the southern end, and is the culminating point of 
the Anti-Lil)anus range; it towers high above the 
ancient border-city of Dan and the fountains of the 
Jordan, and is the niost conspicuous and beautiful 
mountain in Palestine or Syria. The name Her- 
mon was doubtless suggested by its appearance — 
" a lofty prominent peak," visible from afar 

(^"^Din has the same meaning as the Arabic 

j»w^j; just as Lebanon was suggested by the 

white character of its limestone strata. Other 
names were also given to Hermon, each iu lice 
manner descriptive of some striking feature. The 

Sidonians called it Siiion Cj V'lP", from nnr\ 

"to glitter"), and the Amorites Senir ('^'^Dti?, 

from "^5^ " to clatter "), both signifying *' 'nreaat- 
plate," and suggested by its rounde<I glittering top, 
when the sun's rays were reflected by the snow that 
covers it (Deut. iii. 9; Cant. iv. 8; I'z. xxvii. 5). 

at Leipsic in 1866, better by Tischendorf in Drcsserf 
^atres Apostolia\ Lips. 1857 (2d ed. with the rcadingi 
of the Cod. Sin. 1863); but the best edition is that of 
Hilgenfeld, Fasc. iii. of his Novum Tisiamentum eactn 
Canonem receptiim, Lips. 186G. A. 


[t fnw also named Sion, •« the elevated " ("JW'ti?) 
towering over all its compeers (Deut. iv. 48). S^* 
now, at the present day, it is callea Jebel esh-Sheikh 

( ^sA^mJ I J^^ ), "the chief mountain " — a 
name it well deserves ; and Jebd eth-ThelJ 
(^«Ajui ;J»a:^J, "snowy mountain," which 

every man who sees it will say is peculiarly appro- 
priate. When the whole country is parched with 
the summer-sun, white lines of snow streak the 
head of Hermon. This mountain was the great 
landmark of the Israelites. It was associated with 
their northern border almost as intimately as the 

sea was with the western (see D*^ in Ex. xxvii. 
12, A. V. " west; " Josh. viii. 9). They conquered 
all the land east of the Jordan, " from the river 
Ai'non unto Mount Hermon " (Deut. iii. 8, iv. 48; 
Josh. xi. 17). 15aal-gad, the border-city before 
Dan became historic, is described as " under Mount 
Hermon" (Josh. xiii. 5, xi. 17); and when the 
half-tribe of IManasseh conquered their whole al- 
lotted ten-itory, they are said to have " increased 
from Bashan unto Baal-hermon and Senir, and 
unto Mount Hermon" (1 Chr. v. 23). In one 
passage Hermon would ahnost seem to be used to 

signify "north," as the wurd "sea" (C**) is for 
"west" — "the north and the south Thou hast 
created them ; Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in 
thy name" (Ps. Lxxxix. 12). The reason of this 
is obvious. From whatever part of Palestine the 
Israelite turned his eyes northward, Hermon was 
there, terminating the view. From the plain along 
tlie coast, from the mountains of Samaria, from 
the Jordan valley, from the heights of iMoab and 
Gilead, from the plateau of Bashan, that pale-blue, 
snow-capped cone forms the one feature on the 
northern horizon. The " dew of Hermon " is once 
referred to in a passage which has long been con- 
sidered a geograjjhical puzzle — "As the dew of 
Hermon, tlae dew that descended on the mountains 

of Zion " (Ps. cxxxiu. 3). Zion {)y$) is prob- 
ably used here for Sion ("jW''t£7), one of the old 
names of Hermon (Deut. iv. 48). « The snow on 
the summit of this mountain condenses the vapors 
that float during the summer in the higher regions 
of the atmosphere, causing light clouds to hover 
around it, and abundant dew to descend on it, 
while the whole country elsewhere is parched, and 
the whole heaven elsewhere cloudless. 

Hermon has three summits, situated like the 
angles of a triangle, and about a quarter of a mile 
from each other. They do not differ much in ele- 
vation. This may account for the expression in 
Pa. xlii. 7 (6), " I will remember thee from the land 

ftf the Jordan and the Ilermons (□"^J1Q"}n) — 
perhaps also for the three appellations in 1 Chr. v. 
'«'3. On one of the summits are curious and inter- 
esting ruins. Pound a rock wliich forms the crest 
af the peak are the foundations of a ruoe circular 
•fall, composed of massive stones; and \v»»-hin the 
lircle is a large heap of hewn stones, suTOunding 

a * It is against this equivalence that the consonants 
Are different (see above) and that the meanings are dif 
(brent (lofty : sunnj/y briskt). Besides, to make the de\» 
af Hwiuon fiall upon itself renders what follovT-a irrel 

HERMON 1047 

the remains of a small and very ancient temple. 
This is evidently one of those " high places," which 
the old inhabitants of Palestine, and the Jews fre- 
quently in imitation of them, set up " upon every 
high mountain and upon every hill " (Deut. xii. 2; 
2 K. xvii. 10, 11). In two passages of Scripture 

this mountain is called Baal-hermon (v^3 

flD"}!!, Judg. iii. 3; 1 Chr. v. 23); and the 
only reason that can be assigned for it is that Baal 
was there worshipped. Jerome says of it, "dici- 
turque in vtrtice cjioi imiyne (em/dum, quod ab 
ethnicis cultui habetur e regione Paneadis et Li- 
bani " — reference must here l)e made to the build- 
ing whose ruins are still seen {Onuni. s. v. Hermon), 
It is remarkable that Hermon was anciently en- 
compassed by a circle of temples, oil facing the 
summit. Can it be that this mountain was the 
great sanctuary of Baal, and that it was to the 
old Syrians what Jerusalem was to the Jews, and 
what Mekkah is to the Muslems? (See Handb. 
for Syr. and Pal. 454, 457 ; lieland. Pal. p. 323 

The height of Hermon has never been measured, 
though it has been often estimated. It is unques- 
tionably the second mountain in Syria, ranking 
next to the summit of Lebanon near the Cedars, 
and only a few hundred feet lower than it. It 
may safely be estimated at 10,000 feet. It rises 
up an obtuse truncated cone, from 2000 to 3000 
feet above the ridges that radiate from it — thus 
having a more commanding aspect than any other 
mountain in Syria. The cone is entirely naked. 
A coating of disintegrated limestone covers the 
surface, rendering it smooth and bleak. The snow 
never disappears from its summit. In spring and 
early summer the top is entirely covered. As sum- 
mer advances the snow gradually melts from the 
tops of the ridges, but remains in long glittering 
streaks in the ravines that radiate from the centre, 
looking in the distance like the white locks that 
scantily cover the head of old age. (See Five 
Years in Damascus, vol. i.) 

A tradition, originating apparently about the 
time of Jerome (Keland, p. 32G), gave the name 
Hermon to the range of Jebd ed-Duhy near Tabor, 
the better to explain Ps. lxxxix. 12. The name 
still continues in the monasteries of Palestine, and 
has thus crept into books of travel. [Gilboa, 
note.'] J. L. P. 

* But few of the travellers in Syria have gone io 
the top of Hermon, and the view from it has net 
been often described. AVe are indebted to Mr. 
Tristram for the following sketch {Land of Israel^ 
p. 614, 2ded.): — 

" We were at last on Hermon, whose snowy head 
had been a sort of pole-star for the last six months. 
We had looked at him from Sidon, from Tyre, 
from Carmel, from Gerizim, from the bills about 
Jerusalem, from the Dead Sea, from Gilead, and 
from Nebo; and now we were looking down on 
them all, as they stood out from the embossed map 
that lay spread at our feet. The only drawback was 
a light fleecy cloud which stretched from Carmel's 
top all along tb° I^banon, till it rested upon Jebel 
Sunnin, close to Baal-bee. But it lifted sufBciently 

evant ; for we can refer the blessing and the spiritual 
life spoken of only to Zion, the sar "ed mount. Sm 
under HLermojj, the Dew of. H. 



to give us a peep of the jMediterranean in three 
places, and amongst them of Tyre. There was a 
haze, too, over the Giior so that we could only 
see as far as Jebel Ajlun and Gilead ; but Lakes 
Huleh and Gennesaret, sunk in the depths beneath 
us, and reflecting the sunlignt, were magnificent. 
We could scarcely realize that at one glance we 
were taking in the whole of the land through which, 
for more than six months, we had been incessantly 
wandering. Not less striking were the views to 
the north and east, with the head waters of the 
Aw(tj (Pharpar) rising beneath us, and the Bitrada 
(Ahana), in the far distance, both rivers marking 
the courses of their fertilizing streams by the deep 
green lines of verdure, till the eye rested on the 
brightness of Damascus, and then turned up the 
wide opening of Ccele-Syria, until shut in by Leb- 

" A ruined temple of Baal, constructed of squared 
stones arranged nearly in a circle, crowns the high- 
est of the three peaks of Hermon, all very close 
together. We spent a great part of the day on 
the summit, but were before long painfully affected 
ny the rarity of the atmosphere. The sun had 
sunk behind Lebanon before we descended to our 
tents, but long after we had lost him he continued 
to paint and gild Hermon with a beautiful ming- 
ling of Alpine and desert hues." 

Mr. Porter, author of Five Years in Damascus, 
ascended Hermon in 1852. For an extended ac- 
count of the incidents and results of the exijloration, 
see BiOL Sacra, xi. 41-5G. See the notices, also, 
in Mr. Porter's Handbook, ii. 453 fF. Thomson 
{Land and Booh, ii. 438) speaks of his surprise at 
unding that from the shores of the Dead Sea he 
had a distinct view of " Mount Hermon towering 
to the sky far, for up the Ghor to the north." It 
was a new evidence, he adds, that Moses also could 
have seen Hermon (Deut. xxxiv. 1 fF.) from the 
mountains of Moab [Neuo, Amer. ed.]. 

Sirion or Shirion, the Sidonian name of Hermon, 
signifies a "breast-plate," or "coat of mail; " and 

if (as assumed above), it be derived from 
"to glitter," « it refers, naturally, not to any sup- 
posed resemblance of figure or shape, but to the 
shining appearance of that piece of armor. Her- 
mon answers remarkably to that description. As 
Been at a distance through the transparent atmos- 
phere, with the snow on its summit and stretching 
m long lines down its declivities, it glows and 
•iparkles under the rays of the sun aa if robed in a 
vesture of silver. 

It is altogether probable that the Saviour's trans- 
•iguration took place on some one of the heights 
af Hermon. The Evangelists relate the occurrence 
ji connection with the Saviour's visit to Ceesarea 
Philippi, which was in that neighborhood. Hence 
also the healing of the lunatic boy (Luke ix. 37) 
took place at the foot of Hermon. Dean Alford 
assumes {Greek Test. i. 1G8) that Jesus had been 
journeying southward from Caesarea Philippi dur- 
ing the six or eight days which immediately 
preceded the transfiguration, and hence infers that 
the high mountain which he ascended must be 
■ought near Capernaum. But that is not the more 
obvious view. Neither of the Evangelists says that 

a • So Oesenius in Hofftnann's ed. 1847 ; but accord- 
tag. to Dietrich and Fiirst, from H"?^'', ^o wmve to- 

— » ' T T ' 

ftther^ JcMen, as in making a shield. H. 


Jesus was journeying southward during these dayi 
but, on the contrary, having stated just before that 
Jesus came into " the parts " (Matt. xvi. 13) d 
•' the villages '" (Mark viii. 27) of Caesarea Philippi, 
they leave us to understand that he preached dui 
ing the time mentioned, in that region, and thee 
came to the mountain there on which he was trans- 
figured. [Tabok.] H. 

* HERMON, DEW OF. The dew on this 
mountain is proverbially excellent and abundant 
(see Ps. cxxxiii. 3). " More copious dew," says Tris- 
tram {Land of Israel, p. 008 f. 2d ed. ), " we never 
experienced than that on Hermon. Everything 
was drenched with it, and the tents were smjjl pro- 
tection. The under sides of our macintosh sheets 
were in water, our guns were rusted, dew-drops 

were lianging everywhere The hot air in 

the daytime comes streaming up the Ghor from the 
liuleh, while Hermon arrests all the moisture, and 
dejwsits it congealed at nights." As !Mr. Porter 
states, " one of its hills is appropriately called Tell 
Abu Nedy, i. e. ' Father of the Dew,' for the clouds 
seem to cling with i^eculiar fondness round its 
wooded top and the little Wely of Sheikh Abu 
Nedy, which crowns it " {Handbook, ii. 463). 
Van de Velde {Syr. and Pal. i. 12G) testifies to 
this peculiarity of Hermon. 

It has |)erplexed commentators not a little to ex- 
plain how the Psalmist (cxxxiii. 3) could 3peak of 
the dew of Hermon in the north of Palestine as 
falling on Zion in Jerusalem. The A. V. does not 
show the difficulty; for the words "and the dew" 
being interpolated between the clauses, the dew of 
Hermon appeai-s there as locally different from that 
which descended on Mount Zion. But the He- 
brew sentence will not bear that construction (see 
Hupfeld, Die Psalnien, iv. 320). Nor, where the 
places are so far apart from each other, can we think 
of the dew as carried in the atmosphere from one 
place to the other. Hupfeld (iv. 322) suggests that 
perhaps "as the dew of Hermon " may be a for- 
mula of blessing (comp. the curse on Gilboa, 2 Sam. 
i. 21 ), and as applied here may represent Zion as 
realizing the idea of that blessing, both spiritual 
and natural, in the highest degree. Blttcher 
{Aehrenlese zum A. T., p. 58) assumes an appel- 
lative sense of ^'^!2"in, t". e. dew (not of any par- 
ticular mountain of that name), but of lofty heiglt* 
generally, which would include Zion. Hengst£:> 
berg's explanation is not essentially different from 
this {Die Psalmen, iv. 83), except that with him 
the generalized idea would be := Hermon-dew, in- 
stead of = Dew of Hermons. H 

HER'MONITES, THE (D^3^^"]rj : 'Ep- 
fxayifi/jL' Hei'moniim) [in the A. V.]. Properly 
the " Hermons," with reference to the three [of 
two ?] summits of INIount Hermon (Ps. xlii. 6 [7] ) 
[Hermon, p. 1047.] W. A. W. 

*HER'MONS (according to the Hebrew) 
Ps. xlii. 7 (6). Only one mountain is known ir 
the Bible as Hermon ; the plural name refers, n« 
doubt, to the difl^erent summits for which this waa 
noted. [Hermon.] See also Kob. Phys. Geogr, 
p. 347. H. 

HER'OD ('HptoSTjs, I. c. Hero'des). Tire 
Herodian Family The history of the Hero- 
dian family presents pne side of the last de\elop- 
ment of the Jewish nation. The evils which had 
existed in the hierarchy which grew up after tht 
Return, found an unexpected embodiment ir thi 


kTranny of a foreign usurper. Religion was adopted 
M a policy ; and the Hellenizing designs of Anti- 
ochus Epiphanes were carried out, at least in their 
ipirit, by men who professed to observe the Law. 
Side by side with the spiritual "kingdom of God," 
proclaimed by John the Baptist, and founded by 
the Lord, a kingdom of the world was established, 
which in its external splendor recalled the tradi- 
tional magnificence of Solomon. The simultaneous 
realization of the two principles, national and spir- 
itual, which had long variously influenced the Jews, 
in the estabhshment of a dynasty and a church, is 
a fact pregnant with instruction. In the fullness 
of time a descendant of Esau established a false 
counterpart of the promised glories of Messiah. 

Various accounts are given of the ancestry of the 
.Heroda; but neglecting the exaggerated statements 
of friends and enemies," it seems certain that they 
were of Idumsean descent (Jos. Ant. xiv. 1, 3), a 
fact which is indicated by the forms of some of the 
names which were retained in the family (Ewald, 
Geschichte, iv. 477, 7ioie). But though aliens by 
race, the Herods were Jews in faith. The Idu- 
maeans had been conquered and brought over to 
Judaism by John Hyrcanus (b. c. 130, Jos. Ant. 
xiii. 9, § 1); and from the time of their conversion 
they remained constant to their new religion, look- 
ing upon Jerusalem as their mother city and claim- 
ing for themselves the name of Jews (Joseph. Aid. 
XX. 7, § 7; 5. J. i. 10, § 4, iv. 4, § 4). 

The general policy of the whole Herodian family, 
though modified by the personal characteristics of 
the successive rulers, was the same. It centred in 
the endeavor to found a great and independent 
kingdom, in which the power of Judaism should 
subserve to the consolidation of a state. The pro- 
tection of Rome was in the first instance a neces- 
sity, but the designs of Herod I. and Agrippa I. 
point to an independent eastern empire as their 
end, and not to a mere subject monarchy. Such a 
consummation of the .Jewish hopes seems to have 
found some measure of acceptance at first [He- 
RODiANs] ; and by a natural reaction the temporal 
dominion of the Herods opened the way to the 
destruction of the Jewish nationality. The religion 
which was degraded into the instrument of unscru- 
pulous ambition lost its power to quicken a united 
people. The high-priests were appointed and de- 
posed by Herod I. and his successors with such a 
reckless disregard for the character of their office 
(Jost, Gesch. d. Judentliums, i. 322, 325, 421), 
that the oflfice itself was deprived of its sacred dig- 
nity (comp. Acts xxiii. 2 ff. ; .Tost, 430, &c.). The 
nation was divided, and amidst the conflict of sects 
a universal faith arose, which more than fulfilled 
the nobler hopes that found no satisfaction in the 
treacherous grandeur of a court. 

The family relations of the Herods are singularly 
complicated from the frequent recurrence of the 
•«ame names, and the several accounts of Josephus 
are not consistent in every detail. The following 
table, however, seems to offer a satisfactory sum- 


a The Jewish partisans of Herod (Nicolaus Damaj- 
•enus, ap. Jos. Ant. xiv. 1, 3) sought to raise him to 
the dignity of a descent from one of the noble fami- 
lies which returned from Babylon ; and, on the other 
hand, early Christian writers represented his origin as 
tterly mean and servile. Africanus has preserved a 
Tadition (Routh, Retl. Sacr. ii. p. 235), on the authority 
of " the natural kinsmen of the Saviour," which makes 
iatipater, the father of Herod, the son of one Herod, 

HEROD 1(^49 

mary of his statements. The members jf the 
Herodian family who are mentioned in the N. T 
are distinguished by capitals. 

Josephus is the one great authority for the hi». 
tory of the Herodian iamily. The scanty notices 
which occur in Hei)rew and classic writers throw 
\ety little additional light upon the events which 
he narrates. Of modern writers Ewald has treated 
the whole subject with the widest and clearest view. 
Jost in his several works has added to the records 
of Josephus gleanings from later Jewish writers. 
NVhere the original sources are so accessible, mono- 
graphs are of little use. The following are quoted 
by Winer: Noldii Hi^.. Idumeea . . . Eraneq. 
1660; E. Spanhemii Stevima . . . Herodis M.j 
which are reprinted in Havercamp's Josephui (ii. 
331 ff".; 402 ff".). 

1. Hkkod the Great ('HpcoSy/s) was the sec- 
ond son of Antipater, who was appointed procurator 
of Judoea by JuUus Caesar, b. c. 47, and (Jypros, 
an Arabian of noble descent (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 7, 
§3). At the time of his father's elevation, though 
only fifteen ^ years old, he received the government 
of Galilee (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 9, § 2), and shortly 
afterwards that of Ccele-Syria. When Antony 
came to Syria, b. c. 41, he appohited Herod and 
his elder brother Phasael tetrarchs of Judsea (Jo- 
seph. Ant. xiv. 13, § 1). Herod was forced to 
abandon Judaea next year by an invasion of the 
Parthians, who supported the claims of Antigonus, 
the representative of the Asmonsean dynasty, and 
fled to Rome (b. c. 40). At Rome he was well 
received by Antony and Octavian, and was ap- 
pointed by the senate king of Judaea to the exclu- 
sion of the Hasmonsean hne (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 14, 
§ 4; App. Bdl. C. 39). In the course of a few 
years, by the help of the Romans, he took Jerusalem 
(b. c. 37), and completely estabhshed his authority 
throughout his dominions. An expedition which 
he was forced to make against Arabia saved him 
from taking an active part in the civil war, though 
he was devoted to the cause of Antony. After the 
battle of Actium he visited Octavian at Rhodes, 
and his noble bearing won for him the favor of the 
conqueror, who confirmed him in the possession of 
the kingdom, b. c. 31, and in the next yea. la- 
creased it by the addition of several important 
cities (Joseph. Ant. xv. 10, § 1 flf.), and afterwards 
gave him the province of Trachonitis and the dis- 
trict of Paneas (.Joseph. Ant. 1. c). The remainder 
of the reign of Herod was undisturbed by external 
troubles, but his domestic life was embittered by 
an almost uninterrupted series of injuries and cruel 
acts of vengeance. Hyrcanus, the grandfather of 
his wife Mariamne, was put to death shortly before 
his visit to Augustus. Mariamne herself, to whom 
he was passionately devoted, was next sacrificed to 
his jealousy. One execution followed another, till 
at last, in b. c. 6, he was persuaded to put to death 
the two sons of Mariamne, Alexander and Aristo- 
l)ulus, in whom the chief hope of the ijeople lay. 
Two years afterwards he condemned to death An- 

a slave attached to the service of a temple of Apollo at 
Ascalon, who was taken prisoner by Idumsean robben, 
and kept by them, as his father could not pay his ran- 
som. The locality (of. Philo, Leg. ad Caium, § 30) 
no less than the office, was calculated to fix a heavy 
reproach upon the name (cf. llouth, nd loc). This 
story is repeated with great inaccuracy by Epipbaniiis 

{HrPT. XX.). 

b * Dindorf s ed. of Jcsephus (/. c.) reads twenty -five. A. 









-i: .Q 

j8 «Q, 








-8 — 







-I ^1 



e- g 



























II -d 


eo C.B h 




a II " 

2 ID II 




■> S Moo 



■g 5; 01 a) Oi 


- I 

H t 






"m X M 















tipater, hia eldest son, who had been their most ] 
Mtive accuser, and the order for his execution was 
among the last acts of Herod's life, for he died 
himself five days after the death of his son, B. c. 
4, in the same yeur which marks the true date of 
the Nativity. [Jesus Christ.] 

These terrible acts of bloodshed which Herod 
peri)etrated in his own family were accompanied by 
others among his subjects equally terrible, from the 
numbers who fell victims to them. The infirmities 
of his later years exasperated him to yet greater 
cruelty; and, according to the well-known story, 
he ordered the nobles whom he had called to him 
in his last moments to be executed immediately 
after his decease, that so at least his death might 
be attended by universal mourning (Joseph. Ant. 
xvii. 6, § 5). It was at the time of this fatal ill- 
ness that he must have caused the slaughter of the 
infants at Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 16-18), and from 
the comparative insignificance of the murder of a 
few young children in an unimportant village when 
contrasted with the deeds which he carried out or 
designed, it is not surprising that Josephus has 
passed it over m silence. The number of children 
in Bethlehem and "all the borders thereof" (eV 
iraaiv to7s Spiois) may be estimated at about ten 
or twelve ; " and the language of the Evangelist 
leaves in complete uncertainty the method in which 
the deed was eftected {aTrocmiXas auelKev)- The 
scene of open and undisguised violence which has 
been consecrated by Christian art is wholly at va- 
riance with what may be supposed to have been the 
historic reahty. At a later time the murder of the 
children seems to have been connected with the 
death of Antipater. Thus, according to the anec- 
dote preserved by Macrobius (c. A. D. 410), "Au- 
gustus, gum audisset inter pueros quos in Syria 
Herodes, Kex Judajorum, intra bimatum (INIatt. ii. 
16; ib. Vulg. a bimatu et infra) jussit interfici, 
filium quoque ejus occisuin, ait ; Melius est Herodis 
porcum quam filium" (Macrob. Sut. ii. 4) 
But Josephus has preserved two very remarkable 
references to a massacre which Herod cause^l to be 
made shortly before his death, which may throw 
an additional light upon the history. In this it is 
Baid that Herod did not spare " those who seemed 
most dear to him" {Ant xvi. 11, § 7), but "slew 
all those of his own family who sided with the 
Pharisees (o ^apicroios) " in refusing to take the 
oath of allegiance to the lioman emperor, while 
*jhey looked forward to a chaiuje in the royal line 
(Joseph. Ant. xvii. 2, § 6; cf. Lardner, Credibility, 
'tc., i. 278 ff., 332 f., 349 f.). How far this event 
Jiay have been directly connected with the murder 
at Bethlehem it is impossible to say, fi-om the ob- 
scurity of the details, but its occasion and charac- 
ter throw a great light upon St. Matthew's nar 

In dealing with the religious feelings or preju- 
dices of the Jews, Herod showed as great contempt 
for public opinion as in the execution of his per- 
sonal vengeance. He signalized his elevation to 
the throne by offerings to the Capitoline Jupiter 
(Jost, Gesch. d. Judenthums, i. 318), and sur- 
rounded his pei-soti Dy foreign mercenaries, some of 
whom had been formerly in the service of Cleopatra 
;jos. Ant. XV. 7, § 3; xvii. 1, § 1; 8, § 3). His 
loins and those of his successors bore only Greek 



a The language of St. Matthew offers an instructive 
contrast to that of Justin M. {Dial. c. Tnjph. 78): 
I 'Hp<o2i>)S ■ . , TrdiTas oiTrXws tous iraiSas tows 

legends; and he introduced heathen games within 
the walls of Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. xv. 8, § 1). He 
displayed ostentatiously his favor towards foreigners 
(Jos. Ant. xvi. 5, § 3), and oppressed the old Jew- 
ish aristocracy (Jos. Ant. xv. 1, § 1). The later 
Jewish traditions describe him as successively the 
sei"vant of the Hasmonseans and the Romans, and 
relate that one Rabbin only survived the persecu- 
tion which he directed against them, purchasing 
his life by the loss of sight (Jost, i. 319, &c.). 

While Herod alienated in this manner the afTee- 
tions of the Jews by his cruelty and disregard f(W 
the Law, he adorned Jerusalem with many splendid 
monuments of his taste and magnificence. The 
Temple, which he rebuilt with scrupulous care, so 
that it might seem to be a restoration of the old 
one rather than a new building (Jos. Ant. xv. § 11), 
was the greatest of these works. The restoration 
was begun b. c. 20, and the Temple itself was conu- 
pleted in a year and a half (Jos. Ant. xv. 11, § 6). 
The surreunding buildings occupied eight years 
more (Jos. Ant. xv. 11, § 5). But fresh additions 
were constantly made in succeeding years, so that 
at the time of the Lord's visit to Jerusalem at the 
beginning of His ministry, it w;\s said that the 
Temple was " built {cpKodofj.^O'rf) in forty and six 
years " (John ii. 20), a phrase which expresses the 
whole periotl from the conmiencenient of Herod's 
work to the completion of the latest addition then 
made, for the final completion of the whole build- 
ing is placed by Josephus {Ant. xx. 8, § 7, jjSr] 5l 
t6t( koX rb Uphv 6T6TeA6trTo) in the time of 
Herod Agrippa II. (c. A. d. 50). 

Yet even this splendid work was not likely to 
mislead the Jews as to the real spirit of the king. 
While he rebuilt the Temple at Jerusalem, he re- 
built also the Temple at Samaria (Jos. Ant. xv. 8, 
§5), and made provision in his new city Csesarea 
for the celebration of heathen worship (Jos. AiU 
XV. 9, § 5); and it has been supposetl (Jost, Gesch. 
d. Jvdtnth. i. 323) that the rebuilding of the Temple 
furnished him with the opportunity of destroying 
tlie authentic collection of genealogies which was 
of the highest importance to the priestly families. 
Herod, as appears from his public designs, affected 
the dignity of a second Solomon, but he joined the 
license of that monarch to his magnificence; and 
it was said that the monument which he raised over 
the royal tombs was due to the fear which seized 
him after a sacrilegious attempt to rob them of 
secret treasures (Jos. Ant. xvi. 7, § 1). 

It is, perhaps, difficult to see in the charactei 
of Herod any of the true elements of greatness 
Some have even supjwsed that the title — the greed 

— is a mistranslation for the elder (W^H, Jo3t, i. 
319, note ; 6 /xeyas, Ewald, Gesch. iv. 473, Ac.); 
and yet on the other hand he seems to hav3 poa- 
sessed the good qualities of our own Heni*y VIII. 
with his vices. He maintained peace at home 
during a long reign by the vigor and timely gen- 
erosity of his administration. Abroad he conciliated 
the good-will of the Romans under circumstances of 
unusual difficulty. His ostentatious display and 
even his arbitrary tyranny was calculated to inspire 
Orientals with awe. Bold and yet prudent, oppress- 
ive and yet profuse, he had many of the character 
i'tica which make a popular hero; and the title 

t. Byfikfen BKekevaev ai>asf>e0r)vai. Cf. Orig. e. CtU 
. p. 47, ed. Speuc. 6 &e 'HpuiST)s onetAe iravTa t4 h 
B-,.'A.€€fi. Kai Tols opiocs auTTJs iracSta . . 



ffhich may have been first given in admiration of I answers to the general tenor of Lis life. He 

successful despotism now serves to bring out m 
clearer contrast the terrible price at which the suc- 
cess was purchased. 

Copper Coin of Herod the Great. 

Obv. HPtoAOY. Bunch of grapes. Rev. EeNAPXO, 

Macedonian helmet : in the field caduceus. 

II. Herod Antifas CAuTlirarpos, 'AfTtVay) 
was the son of Herod the Great by ]\Ialthace, a 
Samaritan (Jos. Ant. xvii. 1, § 3). His father had 
originally destined him as his successor in the king- 
dom (cf. Matt. ii. 22; ARCnKi>AUs), but by the 
last change of his will appointed him " tetrarch of 
Galilee and Peraea" (Jos. Ant. xvii. 8, § 1, 'Hp. 6 
TcrpdpxnSy Matt. xiv. 1 ; Luke iii. 19, ix. 7 ; Acts 
xiii. 1; cf. Luke iii. 1, re'^papxovuTOs ttjs FaA-t- 
\aias 'Up.)-, which brought him a yearly revenue 
of 200 talents (Jos. Ant. xvii. 1-3, § 4; cf. Luke viii. 
3, Xov(a iirtTp6irov 'H/?.)- He first married 
a daughter of Aretas, <' king of Arabia Petraea," 
but after some time (Jos. Ant. xviii. 5, § 1) he 
made overtures of marriage to Herodias, the wife 
of his half-brother Heixxl-Philip, which she received 
favorably. Aretas, indignant at the insult offered 
to his daughter, found a pretext for invading the 
territory of Herod, and defeated him with great 
less (Jos. /. c). This defeat, according to the famous 
passage in Josephus {Ant. xviii. 6, § 2), was attrib- 
uted by many to the murder of John the Baptist, 
which had been committed by Antipas shortly 
before, under the influence of Herodias (Matt. xiv. 
4ff'.; Mark vi. 17 fF.; Luke iii. 19). At a later 
time the ambition of Herodias proved the cause 
of her husljand's ruin. She urged him to go to 
Rome to gain the title of king (cf. Mark vi. 14, 6 
^ aa- i\€v s 'Up. by courtesy), which had been 
granted to his nephew Agrippa ; but he was opposed 
at the court of Caligula by the emissaries of Agrippa 
[Hkkod AojuprA]. and condemned to perpetual 
banishment at Lugdunum, A. D. 39 (Jos. Ant. xviii. 
7, § 2), whence he apiiears to have retired after- 
wards to SjKiin (B. J. ii. 9, § 6; but see note on 
p. 796). Herodias voluntarily shared his punish- 
ment, and he died in exile. [Herodias.] 

Pilate took occasion from our Ix)rd's residence 
in Galilee to send Him for examination (Luke xxiii. 
6 fF.)to Herod Antipas, who came up to Jerusalem 
to celebrate the Passover (cf. Joe. A7U. xviii. 6, § 3), 
»nd thus heal the feud which had existed between 
the tetrarch and himself (Luke xxiii. 12; cf. Luke 
liii. 1, Trepl twv VaKiXaioov^ uv rh cuyia Ti'iKaTOS 
"iM^isp ficTO. TWJ' dvfficov avTciv)-" 'I'he share 
*hich Antipas thus took in the Passion is specially 
noticed in the Acts (iv. 27) in connection with Ps. 
ii. 1, 2. Hig character, as it appears in the Gospels, 

scrupulous (Luke iii. 19, vepl iravruv u)v dwolriertt 
TToyrjpwf), tyrannical (Luke xiii. 31), and weak 
(Matt. xiv. 9). Yet his cruelty was marked by 
cimning (Luke xiii. 32, tj? aAc^Tre/ct ravTrj), and 
followed by remorse (Mark vi. 14). In contrast 
with Pilate he presents the type of an Eastern 
despot, capricious, sensual, and superstitious. This 
last element of superstition is both natural and 
clearly marked. For a time " he heard John 
gladly" (Mark vi. 20), and was anxious to see 
Jesus (Luke ix. 9, xxiii. 8), in the exjiectation, as it 
is said, of witnessing some miracle wrought by Him 
(Luke xiii. 31, xxiii. 8). 

The city of Tiberias, which Antipas founded 
and named in honor of the emi^eror, was the most 
conspicuous monument o^" his long reign ; but, like 
the rest of the Herodian family, he showed his 
passion for building cities in several places, restor- 
ing Sepphoris, near Tabor, which had been de- 
stroyed in the wars after the death of Herod the 
Great (Jos. Ant. xvii. 12, § 9; xviii. 2, § 1) and 
Betharamphtha (Beth-haram) in Peraea, which he 
named Julias, "from the wife of the emperor" 
(Jos. Ant. xviii. 2, 1 ; Hieron. Euseb. Chrun. a. d. 
29, Livlas). 

III. Archklaus i'Apx^f^aos [ruler of the 
peo/jle] ) was, like Herod Antipas, the son of Herod 
the Great and Malthace. He was brought up with 
his brother at Pome (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 1, § 3), 
and in consequence of the accusations of his eldest 
brother Antipater, the son of Doris, he was ex- 
cluded by his father's will from any share in his 
dominions. Afterwards, however, by a second 
change, the " kingdom " was left to him, which 
had been designed for his brother Antiijas (Joseph. 
Ant. xvii. 8, § 1), and it was this unexi^ected 
arrangement which led to the retreat of Joseph to 
Galilee (Matt. ii. 22). Archelaus did not enter on 
his power without strong opposition and bloodshed 
(Joseph. Anf.. xvii. 9); but Augustus confirmed the 
will of Heixjd in its essential provisions, and gave 
Archelaus the government of " Iduma'A, Judaea, 
and Samaria, with the cities of Cajsarea, Sebaste, 
Joppa, and Jerusalem " (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 13, § 5), 
which prod