Search the history of over 505 billion pages on the Internet.
Open Library
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
http://www.archive.org/details/1889dictionaryofb02smituoft
t^
DR. WILLIAM SMITH'S
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;
COMPRISING ITS
ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY,
AND NATURAL HISTORY.
REVISED AND EDITED BY
PROFESSOR H. B. HACKETT, D. D.
WITH THE COOPERATION OP
EZRA ABBOT, LL. D.
ASSISTANT LIBRAaiAN OP HABTABD COIXSaB.
VOLUME II.
GENNESARET, SEA OF, to MARKET.
BOSTON:
HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY.
2Dt)e Htoer0ioe press^, CambriDge*
1889.
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,
RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE:
STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY
II. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.
WRITERS IN THE ENGLISH EDITION.
OnriALS NAMES.
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-
shire.
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,
Herefordshire.
F. C. C. Rev. Frederic Charles Cook, M. A., Chaplain in Ordinary to the
Queen.
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,
Oxford,
W. F. Right Rev. Wllliam Fitzgerald, D. D., Lord Bishop of Killaloe.
'iii)
IV
LIST OF WlilTERS.
rNiriALs.
F.
G.
F.
w. a
G.
H.
B. H.
E.
H— s.
H.
H.
A.
C. H.
J.
A. H.
J.
D. H.
J.
J. H.
W
. H.
J.
S. H.
E.
H.
W
. B. J.
A.
11. L.
S.
L.
J. B. L.
D.
W. M.
F.
M.
Oppert.
E.
R. 0.
T.
J. 0.
J.
J. S. P.
T.
T. P.
H.
\V. P.
E.
H. P.
E.
S. P.
R.
S. P.
J.
L. P.
Rev. Fraxcis Garden, M. A., Subdean of Her Majesty's Chapels
Royal.
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,
Kew.
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
LIST OF WRITERS. ^
NAMES.
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-
bridge.
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
Hospital.
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,
Oxford.
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-
bridge.
WRITERS IN THE AMERICAN EDITION.
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.
»f LIST OF WRITERS.
IKITIAIft WAMES.
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.
ABBREVIATIONS.
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
1522.
FA. The Codex Friderico-Augustanus (4th cent.), published by Tlschendorf in
1846.
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.
DICTIONARY
OF
BIBLICAL ANTIQUITIES, BIOGRAPHY, GEOGRAPHY,
AND NATURAL HISTORY.
GENNESARET, SEA OF
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
parab.es, 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.
57
GENNESARET, SEA OF
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
(897)
898 GENNEUS
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-
nius."
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
GEON
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
Phoenicians.
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.
1,6).
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
Gentiles.
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
GERA
>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
GERAR, VALLEY OF 899
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
900
GERASA
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-
serted.
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
GERIZIM
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
GElilZIM
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
901
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.
902
GERIZIM
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
GERIZIM
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
I
GERIZIM
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
GERIZIM
90S
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-
tial.
(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
H
904
GERIZITES
been left at home. The company halted, appar-
ently, not very far from the spot of the intended
«acrifice.
(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
him.
(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
GERSHON
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
GERSHONITES, THE
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
GESHAM 906
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).
G.
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 )
906
GESHAN
* 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.
A.
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.
GETHSEMANE
* 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.
GESH'URI and GESH'URITES On^tTa :
[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
GETHSEMANE
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
GETHSEMANE
907
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.
^08
GETHSEMANB
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
GETHSEMANE
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.) «.
GEUEL
<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.
[Gazeka.]
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-
GIANTS
909
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.
910
GIANTS
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-
GIANTS
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!
GIANTS
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
GIANTS
yii
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
earth.
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
them.
That they were not Cauaanites is clear ftoiP
912 GIANTS
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,
GIANTS
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).
[Anakim.]
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«
GIBEAH
913
i
GIANTS
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
58
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,
914
GIBEAH
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
GIBEAH
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 progre.ss
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.
GIBEAH
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
breaking.*
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-
GIBEAH
911
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.
916
GIBEAH
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 «.]
GIBEOIf
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
GiLGAL.
(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.]
GIB'EATHITE, THE OOy^SH • <,
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;
Beeroth
GIBEON
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
GIBEON 917
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
miles.
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
918 GIBEON
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
GIBEON
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
conclusions.
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
i
GIBEONITES, THE
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.
GIDEON
919
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.
920
GIDEON
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-
GIDEON
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
iv.).
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.
H
GIDEONI
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
GIER-EA(iLE
921
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.
G.
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
922
GIFT
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
GIFT
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
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.
GILBOA
923
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
92i
GILBOA
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.
GILEAI)
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.
H.
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
GILEAD
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
GILEAD
925
« • 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-
GlLEAD.]
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
h
926
GILEAD
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
GILEADITES, THE
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
GILGAL
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).
GILGAL 927
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\.
928
GILOH
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.)
3, The "KING OF THE NATIONS OF GiLGAL,"
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
GIRDLE
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).
G.
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-
ceding.
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
GIRDLE
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
ornamer.t.
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
GIRGASHITES, THE
929
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.
H.
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.
[Embkoiderek.]
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-
930
GIRGASITE, THE
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
foregoing.
* 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.
LGath-Hepher.]
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
GIZONITE, 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 ;
GIZRITES
"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
GLASS
931
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
glass.
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
-iW
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
932 GLEANING,
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
GOAD
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 Ea.st, 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 —
GOAT
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
GOAT
938
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
Javan."
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
elsewhere.
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^
caper."
934
GOAT
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
GOB
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.]
G.
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
GOBLET
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.
* GODLINESS, MYSTERY OF. [Bap-
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
^30
GOLD
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
GOLGOTHA
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.
264).
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
word.
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
I
GOLIATH
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
(«f)7ros).
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.
[Jerusalem.]
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.
GOLIATH 987
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
tent.
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.
938
GOMER
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
G(>M0RRA11
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.
GOMORRHA
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).
* GOODMAN OF THE HOUSE (oIko-
^€<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-
GORTYNA
939
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-
tators.
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.
?iO GOSHEN
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.
GOSHEN
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
GOSHEN
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-
GOSPELS
941
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
942 GOSPELS
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
GOSPELS
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
GOSPELS
•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
GOSPELS 943
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
944
GOSPELS
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
article.]
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
GOSPELS
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
ten."
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
GOSPELS
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,
BO
GOSPELS 946
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
946 GOSPELS
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
additions.
4. Another, with another set of alterations and
additions.
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.
Matthew.
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
GOSPELS
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
GOSPELS
>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:-
GOSPELS
947
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
948
GOSPELS
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
GOSPELS
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.
GOSPELS
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
GOSPELS
949
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
950
GOSPELS
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-
GOSPELS
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.
GOSPELS
951
TABLE OF THE HARMONY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
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
Nicodemus
.
!
,
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
952
GOSPELS
TABLE OF THE HARMONY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS — (con«mu«d).
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
X.
xiv. 1, 2
xiv. 3-12
xiv. 13-21
xiv. 22-33
xiv. 34-36
xv.*l~20*
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
vi.*9-l3
vii. 7-11
xii. 22-37
xii. 43-45
xii. 38-42
( V. 15 ; vi.
1 22, 23
xxiii.
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
)
r
3 '. '.
1
6
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
Elijah
The lunatic healed
The Passion a^ain foretold . .
Fish caught for the tribute . .
The little child
One casting out devils ....
Offenses
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 " .
Jovetousness
VVatchfulnesa
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 "' . .
GOSPELS 96f
TABLE OF TUB HARMONY OF THE FOUR Q0SPEh3 — (continued.)
[)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 . . .
Offenses
Faith and Merit ....
The ten lei^ers ....
How the kingdom cometh .
Parable of the Unjust Judge
" the Pharisee and Publican
Divorce
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 . .
Zacchseus
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
Comforter
The vine and the b'^nches. Abiding
in love
Work of the Comforter in disciples
The prayer of Christ . .
Sethsemane
rhe betiayal
Before Annas (Caiaphas). Peter*
Before the Sanhedrim . . .
defoie PiJatc
the
St. Matthew.
denia.
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
xxii.
40-46
xviii. 1
xxii.
47-53
xviii. 2-11
xxii.
54-62
xviii. 12-27
xxii.
63-71
xxiii
.1-3
xviU. 28
954
GOSPELS
TABLE OF THE HARMONY OF THE FOUR Q^)SPELB — {ccntinved).
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 . . .
Ascension
St. Matthew.
xxvii.
3-10
xxvdi.
15-26
xxvii.
27-31
xxvii.
32-38
xxvii.
39-44
xxvii.
50
xxvii.
45-53
xxvn.
54-56
xxvii.
57-61
xxvii.
62-66
xxvui
. 11-15
xxvui
.1-10
•
•
xxviii
. 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.
GOSPELS
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.
GOSPELS 955
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
theory.
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«
956
GOSPELS
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-
GOSPELS
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«
GOSPELS
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
imazement.
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
GOSPELS 957
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-
958 GOSPELS
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
GOSPELS
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.
GOSPELS
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
GOSPELS
95£
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-
960 GOSPELS
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-
GOSPELS
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
f
GOTHOLIAS
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
uame.
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,"
61
GOURD
<jfn
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
962
GOURD
GOVERNOR
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).
Colocynth.
* 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
article.
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.
GOVERNOK
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
GOVERNOR
96g
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
364
GOVERNOR
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-
sentative.
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-
erty.
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
GOZAN
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
URABA
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^"''^,
GREECE, GREEKS, ETC. 966
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.
* GRASS ON THE HOUSE-TOP. [AnA-
THOTH, Amer. ed.]
GRASSHOPPER. [Locust.]
* 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.
GREECE, GREEKS, GRECIANS. The
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
966 GREECE, GllEEKS, ETC
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
GREECE: CHEEKS, ETC
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
Sea.
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»»
GREECE GREEKS, ETC
ihuH baa been called iu question by Origen and
>ihet8.
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
^68 GIIOVE
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,
querciis.
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
GROVE
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
GUARD
{^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-
OAI).]
GUEST. [Hospitality.]
♦ GUEST-CHAMBER. [House.]
♦ GUILTY. The phrase guilty of death "
A. V.) Num. XXXV. 31; Tob. ... 12; Matt. xxvi.
$6 , Mark xiv. 64, contrary to tne present idiom of
»ur lansruage, signifies " deserving the penalty of
leath," being perhaps an imitation of the Latin
GUR, THE GOING UP TO 9GS
7-eus mortis. " He is guilty " in Matt, xxiii. 1.
(A. v.), is the translation of the same Greek w(»rc
i6(pei\€i) which in ver. 10 is rendered "he is a
debtor." A better translation in both cases would
be, " he is bound," i. e. by his oath. A.
GUL'LOTH (n"*1 ^2 Ispi-im/, bubbling$\, 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
970 GUR-BAAL
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.
G.
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
GUTTER
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.
HAAHASHTARI
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.
H.
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].
HABAK'KUK or HAB AKKUK
(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
HABAKKUK
971
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.
372
HABAKKUK
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-
HABAKKUK
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,
1800).
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
HABAZINIAH
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 Eiid.in 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.
HACHILAH, THE HILL 97b
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).
HACH'ILAH, THE HILL (^^52
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
di^
HApHMONI
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'MONI, SON OF, and THE
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.
HADAD-RIMMON
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 la.st 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
HADAR
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.
k
HAD ASS AIT 9/t
"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 :
"E.LL.]
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.
^76
HADATTAH
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.
G.
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
HADRACH
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.
HAGaB
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
Agaba.
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
C2
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 tho.se 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
old.
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
HAGAREJ^ES
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.
HAGARE'NES, HA'GARITES (D'"}jn,
^ *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
HAGEUITE
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
I
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
HAGGAI 979
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*
980
IIANGERI
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.
H.
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).
G.
HA'GIA CA7ia ['A7Jc^, Bos, Holmes & Par-
lons]: Aggia), 1 Esdr. v. 34. [Hattil.1
HAIR
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
HAIK
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
HAKKATAN
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.
HAKKOZ
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
ACIPIIA.
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
i
a ♦ Fiirst says (Hebr. Lex. s. v.) that the Talmud
luderstands the place to be Holiojin, a five days'
loomey ^-om Ba(;dad. 11.
HALL
(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."
984 HALLOHESH
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.
-A.]
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
HAM
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.
HAINI
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/
./nasties.
'hose notices that occur in the old»>r
986
HAM
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 ii.to 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
HA MATH
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
HAMATH
HAMArH
9'S7
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-
k
(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«
•^88
HAMATHITE, THE
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.
HAMxMER
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.
HAMMOLEKEIH
•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-
served.
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.
G.
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.
HAMULITES, THE
989
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.
HAMON-GOG', THE VALLEY OF
(!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).
H.
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. '
990
HAMUTAL
M:] Hamulitoe), the family (HnQt?'^) of the
preceding (Num. xxvi. 21).
HAMU'TAL (b^^!:n=perh. kin to the
detv: 'A/itTctA.; [Vat. A.fi(:iTai, 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
Kymen.
9. Son of Igdaliahu " the man of God " (Jer.
Btrv. 4). TTie sons of Hanan had a chamber in
HANANIAH
the Temple. The Vat. LXX. gives the name twioi
— 'Icovav viov ^Avavlov [FA. Avvav vinv A v
vavwv]-
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
HANANIAH
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
HANANIAH
991
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.
13).
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).
[Anai^ias.]
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
byses.
992 HAKDICRAFT
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
point.
13. An Israelite, Neh. x. 23 (Hebr. 24). [Ana-
nias.]
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-
ture.
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,
HANDICRAFT'
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*
HANDICRAFT
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,
HANDICRAFT 998
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^
k
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
994
HANDICRAFT
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
HANDICRAFr
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,
securis).
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;
Matt.
88).
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-
HANDICRAFT
vents are mentioned the saw (n^rip,
plumb-Une (ITJS, Ges. p. 125), the
reed (n^n, KaKafios, calamtis, Ges.
HANDICRAFT
996
/ \ 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
996
HANDICRAFT
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.
HANDICRAFT
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
HANDKERCHIEF
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-
STKUMKNTS; POTTERY; GlASS; LEATHER.]
H. W. p.
HANDKERCHIEF, NAPKIN, APRON.
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
HANES Wt
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
^98 HANGINCI
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.]
HANGING; HANGINGS. These terms
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-
ernacle.]
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
HARA
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
Haniel.
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
Henoch.
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.
5.
* 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
HARADAH
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
L
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,
1862.)
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
HAKAN
" 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
HARARITE, THE
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
name.
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
HARE
1001
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«
1002
HAREL
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.
HA'RETH, THE FOREST OF OVl
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
HARIPH
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
Jerusalem.
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.
[Rehum.]
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
HARLOT
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; «•
»av3o#cevTpia.
<? Philo {Lib. de spec. Legib. 6, 7) contends that
vkoredom was pimished under the Mosaic law with
HAROD, THE WELL OP 1008
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.
1004
HAEODITE, THE
^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
Moreh.
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)
HAROSHETH
"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
HARP
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*
1006
HARROW
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
Belzoni's.)
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,
HART
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
CllAREA.
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
HARUM
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
HASHABNAH
1007
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.
17).
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
Nehemiah.
12. Another Levite in the same list cf attend-
ants on the Temple ; son of Mattaniah (Neh. xi.
22).
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."
1008 HASHABNIAH
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-
203).
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.
HATACH
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
foregoing.
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
Hasa'diah.
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
HATHATH
•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;
Sjiechakiah.]
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-
HAVILAH
1009
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
(..tj)*-^), 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«
1010 HAVILAH
•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-
HAWK
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««
HAWK
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 "
1012
HAZAEL
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
HAZARMAVETH
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 .^-...vig^ ),
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 .) da.ss er so groM*
Dinge thun sollte?"' Theuius {Biicher der Konigi)
" Dein Knecht, der llund ! " T. J. 0.
HAZAZON-TAMAB
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-
kezon-Tamar.]
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
speci.al 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
times.
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
Inference.
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,
HAZEZON-TAIMAR
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.
HAZ'EZON-TA'MAR,and HAZ AZOJS^
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
HAZIEL
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,
etc.
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
HAZOR
101£
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,
365).
* 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
lOlC)
HEAD-BANDS
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
HEAD-DRESS
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-
HEAD-DRESS
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.
102.
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.
k
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.
HEATHEN
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^
HEATHEN
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.
lV.it, 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
of.
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«
1020
HEAVEN
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
Testament.
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.
o.EBEiR
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
HEBRP]W LANGUAGE
»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-
didie.
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-
HEBREW
1021
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
noun.
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,
30).
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
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO 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.
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE. Tht
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 ?
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE
1023
TI. Condition of the Hebrews, and scope of the
iplrtle.
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
writings.
* 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
epistle.
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.
1024
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE
(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.
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE
1025
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-
inthians."
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
1026
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE
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,
etc.
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
sity
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
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE 1027
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.
I
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
1028
HEBEEWS, EPISTLE TO THE
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.
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE
1029
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
1030
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE
irith in this epistle; iiie teim var-fip, applied to
God 36 tinr.es 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 . . .
KOTO TOCrOVTO OT OVTW, TO<TOVT(f) . . . OffOJ, Or
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*
exclusively.
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 —
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE
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.
HEBRON
1031
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
HEBRON
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.
HEBRON
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
HEBRON
1038
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
1034
HEBRONITES, THE
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-
HEIll
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
HEIR
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
HELAM
1036
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
§3).
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
text.
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
Aleppo.
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.
HELEM
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.
H.
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).
HELEPH
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
examination.
In the list of I^evitical cities in 1 Chr. vi. Hu-
KOK is substituted for Helkath. G.
HEL'KATH HAZ'ZURIM (nf^bll
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.
1038
HELL
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,
HELL
§ 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
HELL
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,
HELLENIST
1089
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-
1040
HELLENIST
[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-
ANDKIl THE (iHEAT; AlEXANDUIA ; DlSPEKSION ;
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
HELLENIST
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
HELLENIST
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,
66
HEM OF GARMENT 1041
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
form.
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
HEMAN
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
HEMATH
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,
407.)
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>i.vayovyo.ua.
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
1044 HEPHEKITES, THE
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
HERD
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.]
HERD
HERD
1045
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#»
(Wilkinson.)
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.
1046
HERES
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
HERMON
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.
HERMON
[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
ff.)
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.
1048
HERMON
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-
anon.
" 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.
HEROD
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
HEROD
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-
k
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.
1050
HEBOD
-n
J
Q^
I
-^1-
H
-i: .Q
j8 «Q,
-1-
II
-4
g
d
•B
^fl
-8 —
~H
Ph
^
§
"v
y-^m
-I ^1
y
p^
e- g
g
-^f
-g-
5
5
11
s
y-V
c?
g
-oS
•c
g
(»
H„
rt.
-ill
1
Ji
S
jm
—'o^''^ii
C!K®M
-ti-al,
ffl
<o/-voa
II -d
1f
eo C.B h
s
^"^tl
s
a II "
2 ID II
i
-^7
3
■> S Moo
II
I .III
■g 5; 01 a) Oi
^1
- I
H t
*J
4!
I
I
5-
"m X M
ml
2§gl
^rf
:si
Sdgf
•
HM-J
fj
«
1
1
.|
s
HEROU
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 es.se 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
native.
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
HEROD
1051
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 . .
HEROD
HEROD
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 produced a revenue of 400 (Joseph. B. J. ii.
6, § 3) or 600 talents (Ant. xvii. 13, 5). For the
time he received the title of Ethnarch, with the
promise of that of king, if he proved worthy of it
(Joseph. I. c). His conduct justified the fears
which his character inspired. After violating the
Mosaic law by the marriage with Glaphyra, his
brother's widow (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 13, § 1), he
roused his subjects by bis tyranny and cruelty to
appeal to Pome for redress.'' Augustus at once
summoned him to his presence, and after his cause
was heard he was banished to Vienne in (janl
(a. d. 7), where probabl