Skip to main content

Full text of "Dictionary of the Bible .."

See other formats



. .*s-^ 

.-•. ■ *^£:: 









Presented by C^ Vt7^.r\C/CSS C>l\(S(7\ 









'■■:';■.;.>?' •.-^•,i.„.i4 














Entered, according to Act of Congress, in tlie year 1860, by 

HuRi) AND Houghton, 

hi the Clerk's Office of tlie District Court for tiie Soutliern District of New York. 






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

11. B. Rev. Henry Bailey, B. D., Warden of St. Augustine's College, Can- 

terbury ; late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 
EL B, Rev. HoRATius Bonar, D. T>., 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 H. B., are vrrittea 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, M. A., Vicar of Hay, Brecknock- 

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

T. E. B. Rev. Thomas Edward Bro\vn, 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 Broavne, D. D., Lord Bishop of Ely. 
W. T. B. Rev. William Thomas Bullock, M. A., Assistant Secretary of the 

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


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


G. E. L. C. Right Rev. George Edward L-i-NCH 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 Edavard 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. 

VV. F. Right Rev. William Fitzgerald, D. D., Lord Bishop of Killaloe. 




F. G. 

F. W. G. 



B. H. 


H— s. 




C. H. 


A. H. 


D. H. 


J. H. 


. H. 


S. H. 




. B. J. 


. H. L. 



J. B. L. 



. M. 












s. r 





. \V 

. p. 








. s. 





Rev Francis Garden, M. A., Subdean of Her Majestj's C'hapola 

Rev. F. William Gotch, I/L. D., President of the Baptist College, 

Bristol ; late Hebrew Examiner in the University of London. 
George Grove, Crystal Palace, Sydenham. 

Prof. Horatio Balch Hackett, D. D., LL. D., Theolc^ical Institu- 
tion, Newton, Mass. 
Rev. Ernest Hawkins, B. D., Secretary of the Society for the Propa- 
gation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 
Rev. Henry Hayman, 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 Ickworth. 
Rev. James Augustus Hessey, D. C. L., Head Master of Merchant 

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

Rev. James 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, J). 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 Layard, D. C. L., M. P. 
Rev. Stanley Leathes, M. A., M. R. S. L., Hebrew Lecturer in 

King's College, London. 
Rev. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, D. D., Hulsean 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. 

Au^^ustine's College, Canterbi:ry. 
Ven. Thomas John.son Oumerod, M. A., Archdeacon of Suffolk; 

late Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. 
Rev. John James Stewart Perowne, B. D., Vice-Principal of Sl 

David's College, Lampeter. 
Rev. Thomas Thomason Perowne, B. D., Fellow and Tutor of 

Corpus Cliristi 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. Asscnv 



blj^s College, Belfast ; Author of " Handbook of Syria and Palestine," 
and " Five Years in Damascus." 

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

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

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

tory, Oxford. 

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

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

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

A. P. S. Rev. Arthur Penrhyn 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, Iklost Rev. William Thomson, D. D., Lord Archbishop of York. 

S. P. T. Samuel Pkid-eaux 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 Greathara 

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

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


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

B. F. W. Rev. Brooke Foss Westcott, M. A., Assistant Master of Harrow 

School ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 

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

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


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

Cambridge, Mass. 

8. C. B Prof. 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 ot 
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

EI. Prof Horatio Balch Hackett, D. D., LL. D., Theological Semi- 

nary, Rochester, New York. 

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

F. W. H. Rev. Fkkdkiuck Whitmouk Holland, F. R. G. S., London. 

A H. Prof Ai.vah 11o\ey, D. D., Theological Institution, Newton, Mass. 



Prof. AsAHEL Clark Kkxdrick, D. D., University of Rochester, N. Y 

Prof. Charles Marsh Mead, Ph. D., Theol. Sem., Andover, Mass. 

Prof. Edwards Amasa Park, D. D., Theol. Seminary, Andover, ^lass. 

Rev. William Edwards Park, Lawrence, Mass. 

Prof. Andrew Prestox Peabody, D. D., LL. D., Harvard College, 
Cambridge, Mass. 

Rev. George E. Post, M. D., Tripoli, S\Tia. 
R. Prof. Rensselaer David Chanceford Robbins, Middlebury Col- 
lege, Vt. 

Rev. Philip Schaff, D. D., New York. 

Prof. Henry Boyxton Smith, D. D., LL. D., Union Theological 
Seminary, New York. 

Rev. Calvin Ellis Stowe, D. D., Hartford, Conn. 

Prof. Daniel Smith Talcott, D. D., Theol. Seminary, Bangor, Me. 

Prof. Joseph Hexry Thayer, M. A., Theol. Seminary, Andover, Mass. 

Rev. Joseph Parrish Thompson, D. D., New York. 

Rev. Cornelius V. A. Van Dyck, D. D., Beiriit, Sj-ria. 

Rev. William Hayes Ward, :M. A., New York. 

Prof. William Fairfield Warren, D. D., Boston Theological Senc 
inary, Boston, Mass. 

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

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. 






















R. D. 

C. R. 




















A. V. 


. H 

[. W. 


. F 

. W. 







Aid. The Aldine edition of the Septuagint, 1518. 

Alex. The Codex Alexandrinus (5th cent.), edited by Baber, 1816-28. 

A. V. The authorized (common) English version of the Bible. 

Comp. The Septuagint as printed in the Complutensian Polyglott, 1514-17, published 

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

Rom. The Roman edition of the Septuagint, 1587. The readings ol tiid Septuagin< 

for which no authority is specified are also from this source. 
Sin. The Codex Sinaiticus (4th cent.), published by Tischendorf in 1862. Thie 

and FA. are parts of the same manuscript. 
Vat. The Codex Vaticanus 1209 (4th cent.), according to Mai's edition, publislied 

by Vercellone in 1857. " Vat. H." denotes readings of the MS, (differing 

from Mai), given in Holmes and Parsons's edition of the Septuagint, 1798- 

1827. " Vat.^ " distinguishes the primary reading of the MS. from " Vat.'^" 

or " 2. m.," the alteration of a later reviser. 




GENNES'ARET, SEA OF i\iixvn Tevyr,- 
ffaper, Luke v. 1; liScop TevvricTiip, 1 Mace. xi. 
67), called in the 0. T. " the Sea of Chinnereth," 
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 ~ip3'*2, which may 
possibly be a corruption of n"133, though some 
derive the word from Gannah, "a garden," and 
Sharon, the name of a plain between Tabor and 
this lake (Onom. s. v. :S,apiiv; Reland, pp. 193, 
259). Josephus calls it revfria-apTriv \i/xi'riv (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 " {yrjv FevvriaapeT, 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. QaKacra-a ttjj TaKiXalas, from the 
province of Galilee which bordered on its western 
side (Matt. iv. ]8; Mark vii. 31^ John vi. 1); and 
QaKaffffa t»)9 Ti0f pianos, from the celebrated city 
(John vi. 1, [xxi. 1]). Eusebius calls it Ai/xv-rj 
Ti&epids (Onom. s. v. ^apwv, 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 modern name is Bahr Tuba- 

riyeh {^iS^yj^ y^). 

In Josh. xi. 2 " the plains south of Chinneroth " 
are mentioned. It is the sea and not the city that 
is here referred to (comp. Deut. iii. 17 ; Josh. xii. 
3); and " the plains " are those along the banks of 
the Jordan. Most 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 fittm their occupation as fishermen (Luke v. 
1-11 ) ; and near its shores he spake many of his 
parables, 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 i/umerous large vil- 
lages dotted the plains and hill-sides around (Por- 
ter, ffandbook, p. 421). 

The Sea of Gennesaret is of an oval shape, about 
Uurteeu geogr'»phical oules long, and six broad. 


Josephus gives the length at 140 stadia, and the 
breadth forty (B. J. iii. 10, § 7); and Pliny saya 
it measured x\i. M. p. by vi. (//. iV. xiv.). Both 
these are so near the truth that they could scarcely 
have lieen 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, Bibt. Hes. i. 613). Like almost all 
lakes of volcanic origin it occupies the bottom of a 
great basin, the sides of which shelve down with a 
uniform slope from the surroundint; 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 
writer 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 quanti'7 and temperature of the water 
were much 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 Egyf>- 
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 


among the basalt rocks ; palms flourish luxuriantly, 
•nd 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 tlie sun, that many warm and 
brackish springs flow into it, and that it is supplied 
by the Jordan, which rushes into its northern end, 
a turbid, ruddy torrent. The lake aliounds in fish 
now as in ancient times. Some are of the s.ame 
species as those got in the Nile, such as the Silurm, 
the Muf/il, and another called by Hasselquist <S/?r/- 
nis GaULeus (Riisi-, pp. 181, 412 f . ; comp. Joseph. 
B. J. iii. 10, § 7). The fishery, like the soil of 
the surrounding country, is s-otlly neglected. One 
little crazy boat is tiie sole representative of tiie 
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 tlie shore, and watching 
his opportunity, throws it roiuid 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 piclted 
up, and taken to the market of Tiberias ! (I'orter, 
Handbook, p. 4.'J2.) 

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 Tilterias 
nlone retains a wretched remnant of its former 
prosperity. J. L. P. 

GENNETTS (rtwaToi, Alex. Teweoy: Ge»- 
nteus), father of ApoUonius, who was one of several 
generals (aTpaTrjyol) commanding towns in Pales- 
tine, who molested the Jews wliile Lysias was gov- 
ernor for Antiochus Eupator (2 Mace. xii. 2). 
Luther understands the word as an adjective (yev- 
^a7os = well-born), and has "des edlen ApoUo- 

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

C^^S, the nations, the surrounding nations, ybr- 
eiyners, as opposed to Israel (Neh. v. 8). In Gen. 
X. 5 it occurs in its most indefinite sense = the far- 
distant inhabitants of the Western Isles, without 
the slightest accessory notion of heathenism, or 
barbarism. In Lev., Dent., Ps., the term is ap- 
plied 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 compreliensive 
and its most hostile view; hostile in presence of 
rictorious rivals, comprehensive with reference to 
the triumphs of a spiritual future. 

Notwitlistandiiig the disa<;reealile connotation of 
Ibe tenn, tl\e Jews were able to use it, even in the 


plural, in a purely technical, geographical sense. Sc 
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 Gilgal," where probably, as 
afUTwards in (ialilee, foreigners, Gentiles, were set- 
tled among the Jews. 

For " Galilee of tlie Gentiles," comp. Matt. iv. 
IT) with Is. ix. ], wliere A. V. '-Galilee of the 

nations." In Heb. D'^12n b''b2, the " circle of 
the Gentiles; " hot ({^oxh", ''"^/^n, ha-Galeel; 
whence the name Galilee applied to a district «hicb 
was largely peopled by the Gentiles, especially th« 

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

II. New Ttslmnent. — 1. Tlie Greek fOvos in 
sing, means a people or nation (Matt. xxiv. 7; Acts 
ii. 5, &c.), and even tlie Jewish people (Luke \\i. 

5, xxiii. 2, Ac. ; comp. "*'12, supr. ). It is only in 
the pi. that it is used for the Heb. n^"12, heathen, 
Gentiles (comp. e6i/os, heathen, ethnic): in JIatt. 
xxi. 43 edi/ei alkides to, but does not directly stand 
for, " the Gentiles." As equivalent to Gentiles it 
is found in the Epistles of St. Paul, but not always 
in an invidious sense (e. g. Rom. xi. 13; Eph. iii. 

2. "EAAtjv, John vii. 3.5, t] Sia(nroph rwv 'E\- 
\-r]vwv, " tlie Jews dispensed among the (Jentiles," 
Porn. iii. 9, 'louSoious /col "EAArji/os, Jews and 

llie A. V. is not consistent in its treatment of 
this word ; sometimes rendering it by Greek (Acts 
xiv. 1, xvii. 4; Kom. 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 
"EAAtjj/ is equivalent to Greek simply (as Acts xvi. 
1, 3) are much fewer than those where it is equiva- 
lent to (Jentile. 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 'EWrjytff- 
fx6s appears as synonymous with a\\o(pv\i<rfjiis 
(comp. vi. 9); and in Is. ix. 12 tiie LXX. renders 

D'^I^tt^bp by "EAATjms; and so the Greek Fathers 
defended the Cliristian faith irphs "EAArjj'aj, and 
Kciff 'Z\\i\vwv. [Gkkek; Hkathkn.] 

T. E. B. 

GENU'BATH (H?.?? \iHft, ^'es] ■ Tavir 
fidd'- Gemibnth), the son of H.adad, an Edomite 
of the royal family, by an Egyptian princess, the 
sister of Tahpenes, the queen of the Pharaoli who 
governed Eg3pt in tlie latter part of the reign of 
David (1 K. xi. 20; comp. 10). (Jcnubath was 
bom in the palace of Pharaoh, and weaned by the 
queen herself; after which he became a member 
of the royal establishment, on the same footing as 
one of tlie sons of Pharaoh. The fragment of 
Edomite chronicle in which this is contained is 
very remarkaiile, and ni.ay l>e comjared with that 
in Gen. xxxvi. Genubath is not again mentioned 
or alluded to. 

GE'ON (TrtwV- Gehim), i. e. Giiiox, one of 
the four rivers of ICden ; introduce*!, with the .Ionian. 
I and probably the Nile, into a figure in the praise 


>f wisdom, Pxclus. xxiv. 27. This is merely the 
Greek form of the Hebrew name, the same which 
ks used by the LXX. iu (Jen. ii. 13. 

GE'RA (S^a Igrain, Hide loeight, Ges.]: 
r77pa; [in 1 Clir. viii. 5, Rom. Vat. Vipd- Gem]), 
one of the "^^ons," i. e. descendants, of Benjamin, 
eimmerated in Gen. xlvi. 21, as already living at 
the time of .Jacob's migration into EgJiJ*- He 
was son of Bela (1 Chr. viii. 3). [Bkla.] The 
text <.f this last passage is very corrupt ; and the 
different Geras there named seem to reduce them- 
selves into one — the same as the son of liela. 
Gera, who is named Judg. iii. 15 as the ancestor 
of Ehud, and in 2 Sam. xvi. 5 as the ancestor 
of Shimei who cursed David [Bechkk], is prol)- 
ably also the same person. Gera is not men- 
tioned in the list of Benjamite fiimilies 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. KaUsch has 
some long and rather perplexed obsen-ations 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 Ifecher 
and Gera irom the list in Num. is thus explained, 

is that for the two names TIM and ti?S"1 (Ehi 

and Rosh) in Gen., we have the one name DI^PIS 

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

therefore seems certain that ti^SHVPIS in Gen 
b 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, Muppim, the initial 
m is an error for sh. It should be Shuppim, as in 
Num. xxvi. 39 ; 1 Chr. vii. 12. The final m of 
Ahiram, and the initial sh of Shuppim, have thus 
been transposed. To the remarks made under 
Becheu should be added that the great destruction 
of the Benjamites recorded in Judg. xx. may ac- 
oount for the introduction of so many new names 
in the later Benjamite lists of 1 Chr. vii. and viii., 
»f which several seem to be women's names. 

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

GE'RAR ("1^3 \cirde, distinct, Fiirst; ahwk, 
''esidence, Sim., Ges.]: Fepapd [oi- Tipapa'-, in 2 



Chr., TeSajp: Gerarn;'] Joseph. Ant. 1. 12, § I; 
a very ancient city south of Gaza. It occurs chieih 
Genesis (x. I'J, xx. 1, xxvi. 1, 6, [17, 20, 26]) 
also mcidentally in 2 Clir. xiv. 13, Ii. In Genesi. 
the people are spoken of as Philistines; but thei; 
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, xx\a. 26, 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, 26,« Beer-sheba would 
seem to be just on the verge of this territory, and 
perhaps to Ije its limit towards the N. E. For its 
southern boundary, though very uncertain, none is 
more probable than the wadies el-Aiish ("River 
of Egypt" [torrent, bn3]) and d-'Ain; south 
of which the neighboring " wilderness of Paran " 
(xx. 15, xxi. 22, 34) may be probably reckoned to 
begin. 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).'' WiUiams {[My City, i. 46)' speaks 
of a .Joorf el-Gerar as now existing, three lioura 
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 
Kuhniheh an impossible site, as Robinson thinks it 
(see his map at end of vol. i. and i. 197), for 
Rehoboth. There is also a Wady eUJerur laid 
down S. of the wadies alwve-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 el-' Ain. Robin- 
son (ii. 44) appears to prefer the Wady es-Sheri-nh, 
running to the sea south of Gaza.c Eusebius {de 
Sit. if Num. Loc. Heb. s. v.) makes Gerar 25 milea 
S. from Eleutheropolis, which would be about the 
latitude of lieer-sheba; but see Jerome, Lib. Qiieest. 
Heb. Gen. xxii. 3. Bered (xvi. 14) may perhaps 
have lain in this territory. In 1 Chr. iv. 39, the 
LXX. read Gerar, ds t7)v Fepapa, for Gedor; a 
substitution which is not without some claims U: 
support. [Beked; Beeis-siieba; Gedor.] 
H. H. 
* GERAR, VALLEY OF. [Gerar.] 

a The well where Isaac and Abimelech covenanted 
Is distinguished by the 1,XX. from the Beer-sheba 
where Abraham did so, the former being called (ppeap 
ipKov, the latter <j)p4ap opKi<7-/u.oO. 

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

i; • In his Phijs. Geogr. (p. 123) Robinson says 
qemly that this valley was doubtless " some portion or 

hi^anch of these valleys south and southeast of Gaza." 
Van de Velde (ii. 183) heard of " a site called Um ti- 
Gerar, about 3 hours from Gaza, and about the sam« 
distance fix)m the sea," though without any ruins t« 
indicate its antiquity. Thomson says {Lanfl and Book^ 
ii. 348) that Gerar ha.s not yet been discovered, bu 
can hardly fail to be brought to light, "just as Boon M 
it is safe to travel in that region." H 



GERASA iNpaaa, I'UA. ; r^^daaa, :<ot 
Eccles.: Arab. Jerask, ypJyS^). This name does 

not occur in the 0. T., nor in the Uecei\ed 'i'ext of 
the N T. But it is now generally adniitte<i that in 
Matt. viii. 28 "Ger<vsene3" sui)ersedes "Gadarenes." 
Uerasa was a celebrated city on the eastern borders 
of I'ertea (Joseph. B. J. iii. 3, § 3), placed by some 
in the province of Ccelesyria and reijfion of Decapolis 
(Steph. s. v.), by others in Arabia (Epiph. adv. 
Jlcev. ; Origen. «« Johaii.). These various state- 
ments do not arise from any 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 
Gerasa. It is situated amid the mountains of 
Gilead, 20 miles east of the .Jordan, and 25 north of 
Philadelphia, the ancient Kabbath- Amnion. Several 
MS.S. read Ttpaffttvoov instead of TepyicrTivuv, in 
Matt. viii. 28; but the city of (ierasa lay too far 
from the Sea of Tiberias to admit the possibility 
of the miracles having been wrought in its vicinity. 
If the reading Tepaff-qviov be the true one, the 
X<^p<''^ "district," must then have been very large, 
including Gadara and its environs ; and Matthew 
thus uses a broader appellation, where Mark and 
Luke use a more specific one. This is not improb- 
able; as .Jerome (ad Obad.) states that Gilead was 
in his day called Gcra-sa; and Origen affirms that 
T(pa<rriuu>v was the ancient reading {Opp. iv. p. 
140). [Gadaija.] 

It is not known when or by whom Gerasa was 
founded. It is first mentioned by Joseplnis as 
having i>een captured by Alexander Janna!Us {circ. 
B. C. 85; .Joseph. B. ./. i. 4, § 8). It was one of 
the cities the .lews burned in revenge for the mas- 
sacre of their countrymen at CiEsarea, at the com- 
mencement of their last war with tiie Itonians ; and 
it bad scarcely recovered from this calamity when 
the Kmperor 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 
?8ca|)e, enslaved their families, and plundered tlieir 
dwellings (.Joseph. B. ./. iv. 9, § 1). It apj^ars 
to have been nearly a century subsequent to this 
period that Gerasa attained its greiitest prosperity, 
and was adorned with those monuments whicli give 
it a place among the proudest cities of Syria. His- 
tory tells us nothing of this, but the fi-agments 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. i>. 1.38-80). It subsequently became the 
seat of a bishopric. There is no evidence that the 
city was ever occupied by the Saracens. There are 
no 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 Homan, or at lexst ante-Islamic; every 
structure remains as the hand of the destroyer or 
the earthquake shock lefl it — ruinous and de- 

Tlie ruins of Gerasa are by far the most beauti- 
ful and exteuHive cast of the Jordan. They are 
jitiKited on both sides of a shallow valley that runs 
from north U> south through a, high undulating 
plain, and falls into the Znikn (the ancient Jal)b(ik) 
at the distance of about 5 miles. A little rivulet, 
thickly fringed with oleander, winds through the 
miley, giving life and l)eauty to the descried city. 
llio first view of the ruins is very striking; and 


such as have enjoyed it will not soon forget tin 
impression made upon the mind. The 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 tenq)les; 
the heavy ma.sses of masonry that distinguish the 
positions of the great theatres; and the vast field 
of shapeless ruins ri.sing gradually from the green 
banks of the rivulet to the battlemented heights on 
each side — all combine in forming a picture sich 
as is rarely equaled. The form of the city is an 
irregular square, each side measuring nearly a mile. 
It was surroimded by a strong wall, a large portion 
of which, with its flanking towers at intervals, is 
in a good state of ]>reservation. Three gateways 
are still nearly perfect; and within the city upwards 
of Iwo liuiidred and lliirly cohxmna remain on their 
pedestals. (I''ull descriptions of Gerasa are given 
in the Ilamlbook for Syr. and Pal. ; Burckhardfs 
Trartls in Syria ; Buckingham's Arab Tribes ; 
patters Pal. und Syr.) J. L. P. 

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

GER'GESITES, THE {oi Ttpy^ffaioi: 
Vulg. omits), Jud. v. 16. [GiKGAsniTEs.] 

GER'IZIM (always D'^-pr- IH, har-Goriz- 
zim, the mountain of the Gerizzites, from ''•p^, 
G'rizzi, dwellers in a shorn {i. e. desert) land, from 
'"^^i (/araz, to cut ofT; possibly the tribe subdued 
by David, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8: rapt('iv, [Vat. Alex. 
-Cfif, Pxc. Alex. Deut. xi. 2!). ra<,''(p€ij':] Garizim), 
a mountain designated by Closes, in conjunction 
with Mount, 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- 
temal 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 uijon Gerizini and Ebal. .^ix of the 
tribes — .Simeon, Levi (but* Joseph l)eing repre- 
sented by two tribes, Levi's actual place probably 
was as assigned below), Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and 
I5enjamin were to take their stand iqwn the former 
to bless; and six, namely — Heuben, Gad, Asher, 
Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali — upon the Latter to 
curse (Deut. xxvii. 12-13). Apparently, the Ark 
halted mid-way between the two mountains, en- 
coiniiassed by the priests and Invites, thus divided 
l)y it into two bands, with Joshua for their cory- 
phaeus. He the blessings and cursings succes- 
sively (Josh. viii. 33, 34), to be re-echoed by the 
Ixvites on either side of him, and responded to by 
the tribes in their double array with a loud .\men 
(Deut. xxvii. 14). Curiously enough, only the 
formula for the curses is given (ibid. ver. 14-26); 
and it was upon Klial, and not Gerizini, where the 
altar of whr)le un wrought 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- 
nomiced) written upon them, were to be set up 
(Deut. xxvii. 4-6) — a significant omen for a jieo- 
ple entering joyously upon their new inheritjince, 
and yet the song of Moses abounds with foreliou- 
ings still more sinister and plain-s|)okeii (Deut 
xxxii. 5, 6, and 15-28). 

The next question is, Has Closes defined the lo 


alities of Lbal and Geiizim? Standing on the 
saateni side of the Jordan, in tlie land of Moab 
(Deut. i. 5), he asks: "Are they not on the other 
side Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down 
(». e. at some distance to the W.), in the land of 
the Canaaiiites, which dwell in the champaign over 
against Gilgal (t. e. whose territory — not these 
mountains — ojmmenced 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. 
Kii. 6 " 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 Gerizlm, in Ugol. Tliesaur. p. dccxxv., 
in Josephus the form is " Sicima"), and accordingly 
Judcr. ix. 7, Jotham is made to address his cele- 
brated parable to the men of Shechem from " the 
top of Mount (ierizim." The " hill of Moreh," 
mentioned in the history of Gideon his father, may 
have been a mountain overhanging 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 siwken 
I'ery 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 tlie 
above solemnity, and retraced his steps so soon 
afterwards to Gilgal, as to have been found there 
by the Gilieonites (Josh. ix. 0; comp. viii. 30-35). 
Yet the distance between Ai and Shechem is not 
go long (under two dajs' 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 
niisplaeed. 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 Invites, 
standing in the midst of the valley — thus abridg- 
ing the distance by one half — and not by the sis 
tribes on either hill, who only responded. How 
indeed could 600,000 men and upwards, besides 
women and children (comp. Num. ii. 32 with Judg. 
IX. 2 and 17 ), have been accommodated in a smaller 
Bpace? Besides in those days of assemblies " «ub 
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 the Scriptural position of Ebal and 
Gerizim to have been — where they are now placed 
— in the territory of the tribe of Ephraim; the 
latter of them overhanging the city of Shechem or 
Bicima, as Josephus, following the Scriptural nar- 
■ative, asserts. Even Eusebius, in another work of 
ais (Prieo. Jivaiu/. is. 22), quotes some Unes from 
fbeodotiis, in which the true position of Ebal and 



Gerizim is described with great force and accuracy 
and St. Jerome, while following Eusebius in th 
Onomasticon, in his ordinary correspondence doei 
not hesitate to connect Sichem or Neapolis, thf 
well of Jacob, and Mount Gerizim {Ep. cviii. c. 
13, ed. Migne). Procopius of Gaza does nothing 
more than follow Eusebius, and that clumsily 
(Reland, PaUB.U. lib. ii. c. 13, p. 503); but his 
more accurate namesake of Cwsarea expressly as- 
serts that Gerizim rose over Neapolis (De ui^dif. 
v. 7 ) — that I'^bal was not a peak of Gerizim (v. 
Quaresm. Elucid. T. S. lib. vii. Per. i. c. 8), but 
a distinct mountain to the N. of it, and separated 
from it by the valley in which Shecliem stood, we 
are not called upon here to prove; nor again, that 
El^al 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 least where it descends towards NablHs. 
It is a far more important question whether Geri- 
zim was the mountain on which Abraham waa 
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 Corn, 
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 liigh 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 (ierizim 
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 Iwth. 
Jerusalem unquestionably stands upon high ground : 
but owing to tlie 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., tlie 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, Geograph. Did. of the H. 
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, ^\ (f P. 
p. 235), and the lovely and tortuous expanse of 
plain (the Mukhnn) stretched as a carpet of many 
colors beneath its feet.« Neither is the appearance, 
which it would " present to a traveller ad\ancing 
up the Philistine plain " {ibid. p. 252) — the direc- 
tion from which Abraham came — to be overlooked. 
It is by no means necessary, as IMr. Porter thinks 
{Handbook of S. # P. i. 339), that he should 
have started from Beer-sheba (see Gen. 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 i* visible afar off" (ibid 
p. 251), and from thence, with the mount alwayj 

a * From the top of Gerizim the traveller enjoys " 
prospect unique in the Holy Land." See it well de 
scribed in Tristram's Ltmd of Israel p. 151, 1st ed. 



in view, he w jiiM proceed to the exact •' place 
which God bad told him of" in all solenniity — for 
again, it is not necessaiy that he shoulil have ar- 
rived on the actual spot during the third day. All 
<>hat is said in the narrative, is that, trutu the time 
that it hove in sight, he and Isaac parted from the 
young men, and went on together alone. I'lie 
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 which 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 fii-st, 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 
Moriali; though a certain sjwt upon it was ever 
afterwards to Abraham personally " Jehovah- 
jireh "), called Moreli, or Jloriah, 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 sjiecial revelation or vision, as the 
express words of Scripture say, which look place 
" by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite " 
(2 Chr. iii. 1; comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 16). If it be 
thought strange that a place once called by the 
" Tatlier of the faithful " Jeliovah-jireh, should 
have been merged by Jloses, and ever afterwards, 
in a general name so different from it in sense and 
oiigin as Gerizim; it would be still more strange, 
that, if Mount jMoriah 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 thitt .losephus, 
in more than one place, asserts that where .\bra- 
hani offered, there the temple was afterwards built 
{Ant. i. 1-3, § 2, and vii. 13, § 9). Yet the same 
Josephus makes God bid Abraham go to the moun- 
tani — not the land — of .Moiiah; having omitted 
all mention of the plains of Moreh in his account 
of the preceding narrative. Besides, in more than 
one place he shows that he bore no love to the Sa- 
maritans (ilA'l. xi. 8, § 6, and xii. 5. § 5). St. 
Jerome follows Josephus ( Qiuesl. in (Jen. xxii. 5, 
ed. Migne), but with his uncertainty aiiout the site 
of Gerizim, what else could he have done? Besides 
it api)ears from the Oiiommlicon (s. v.) that he 
con.sidered the hill of Moreh (Judg. vii. 1) to be 
the same with Moriah. And who that is aware of 
the extravagance of the liabbinical traditions re- 
specting Mount Moriah can attach weight to any 
one of them ? (Cuna;us, JJe Jiejmljl. Iltb. lib. ii. 
12). I'inally, the Christian tradition, which makes 
the site of Ai>raham's sacrifice to have lieen on 
Calvary, will derive countenance from neither Jose- 
phus nor St. Jerome, unless the sites of the Tem- 
ple and of the (Jruciflxion are admitted to have 
been the siune. 

Another tradition of the Samaritans is far less 
tnwtworthy; namely, that Mount (Jerizim was the 
B()ot where Melchisalech met Abraham — though 
there certainly was a Snlem or Shalem in that 
iieigiiliorhood (CJeji. xxxiii. 18; Stanley, N. (j- /'. 
p. 247 tf.). The first nlfcir erected in the land of 
Abraham, and the first appearance of .lehovah to 
him ill it, was in the ]ilain of Moreh near Sicliem 
(<mt xii. ft); but the moiiiitiiiii overhangiiij; that 
ntj (atutuming our view to be correct) had not yet 


been hallowed to him for the of hie life by tha 
decisive trial of his faith, which was made ther* 
subsetjueiitly. He can hardly therefore be suppostxl 
to have deviated from his road so far, which lay 
through the plain of the Jordan : nor again is it 
Ukely that he would have found the king of Si>dom 
so far away from his own territory (Gen. xiv. 17 
S.). Lastly, the altar which Jacob built was 
not on Gerizim, as the Samaritans contend, 
though probably about its base, at the head of the 
pLvin between it and Ebal, " in the parcel of a 
field " which that patriarch purchased from the 
children of Ilanior, and where he spread his ttnt 
(Gen. xxxiii. 18-20). Here was likewise his well 
(John iv. G); and the tomb of his son Joseph 
(.losh. xxiv. 32), both of which are still shown; 
the former surmounted by the remains of a vaulted 
chamber, and with the ruins of a church hard by 
(Hobinson, liibl. lies. ii. 283) the Latter, with "a 
fruitful vine" trailing over its white-washed hi- 
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 Le the s:vid tomb (Stanley, S. cj- P. p. 241, note). 
The tradition (Kobinson, ii. 283, note) that the 
twelve patriarchs were buried there likewise (it 
should have made them eleven without Joseph, or 
thirteen, including his two stins), i)robably depends 
upon Acts vii. IG, where, unless we are to suppose 
confusion in the narrative, ain-Si should be read 
for 'A/Sf/oa^i, which may well hav^been suggested 
to the copyist from its recurrence, v. 17; while 
auT6s, from having already occurretl, v. 15, might 
have been thought suspicious. 

We now enter upon the second phase in the his- 
tory of Gerizim. According to Josephus, a niarria!;e 
contracted between Manasseh, brother of Jaddus. 
the then high-priest, and the daughter of Sanliallat 
the Cutha'an (comp. 2 K. xvii. 24), having created 
a great stir amongst the Jews, who had been 
strictly forbidden to contract alien marriages (I'^r. 
ix. 2; Nell. xiii. 23) — Sanl)allat, in order to rec- 
oncile his son-in-law to this uiip(i])ular atHnity, ob- 
tained leave from .\lexander tiie (ireat to build a 
temple upon Mount Gerizim, and to inaugurate a 
rival priesthood and altar there to those of Jerusa- 
lem (AnI. xi. 8, §§ 2-4, and for the liarmonizing 
of the names and dates, Prideaux, Cmntct. i. 396 
ff., M'Caul's ed.). "Samaria thenceforth," says 
Prideaux, " became the common refuge and asylum 
of the refractory Jews " (ibid. ; see also Josepli. 
AnI. xi. 8, § 7), and for a time, at least, their 
temple seems to ha\e been called by the name of a 
(Jreek deity (.int. xii. 5, § 5). Hence one of the 
first acts of H\rcanus, when the death of Antiochus 
Sidetes had set his hands free, was to seize Shcchem, 
and destroy tlie temple upon Gerizim, after it hnW 
stood there 200 years {Ant. xiii. 'J, § 1). But the 
destruction of tlieir temple by no means crushed 
the rancor of the Samaritans, 'i'lie road from 
Galilee to Judaa lay then, as now, through Sa- 
maria, skirting tlie foot of (Jerizim (John iv. 4). 
Here wi\s a constant occasion for religious contro- 
versy and for outiiige. " How is it that Thou, be- 
ing a Jew, to drink of me, which am a woman 
of Samaria?" said tlie female to our Lord at the 
well of Jacob, where both p.arties would always be 
sure to meet. "Our fathers worshippefl in llii' 
mountain, and ye say that in .?enisalem is the pl«c« 
where men ought to worship?" . . . Subse«|ueiitlj 
we read of tlie depredatious committed oi that nai 


ipon a party of Galileans (Ant. xx. 6, § 1). The 
iberal attitude, first of the Saviour, and then of 
his disciples (Acts viii. 14), was thrown away upon 
ill those who would not abandon tlieir creed. And 
Geriziin continued to be the focus of outbreaks 
through successive centuries. One, under Pilate, 
while it led to their severe cliastisenient, procured 
the disgrace of that ill-starred magistrate, who had 
crucified "Jesus, the king of the Jews," with im- 
punity (Ant. xviii. 4, § 1). Another hostile gath- 
ering on the same sjxit caused a slaughter of 10,000 
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 (,'hristians inhabiting Nea[X)lis — now 
powerful, and under a bishop — in the reign of 
Zeno. Terebinthus at once carried the news of 
this outrage to Byzantium: 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. De .-Edif. v. 7). It is probably the 
ruins of these buildings which meet the eye of the 
modern traveller (Handb. of S. </ P. ii. 339). 
Previously to this time, the Samaritans had Ijeen a 
numerous and important sect — sufficiently so, in- 
deed, to tie carefully distinguished from the Jews 
and Cselicolists in the Theodosian code. This last 
outrage led to their comparative disappearance from 
history. TraveUers of the 12th, 1-tth, and 17th 
centuries take notice of their existen-ce, but extreme 
paucity {Early Travels, by Wright, pp. 81, 181, 
and 432), and their number now, as in those days, 
is said to be below 200 (Robinson, Bibl. Res. 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 l>ord had said, 
" Woman, believe me. the hour cometh, when ye 
shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusa- 
lem ((. 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 
therefore no longer able to ofier up bloody sacrifices 
according to the law of Jloses — 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 
small but united nationality (the spot is accurately 
marked out by Dr. liobinson, Btbl. Res. ii. 277 ).« 
Their copy of the Law, probably the work of Ma- 
nasseh, and known to the fathers of the 2d and 3d 
cenliries (Prideaux, Connect, i. 600; and Robin- 
son, ii. 297-301), was, in the I7th, vindicated 
torn oblivion by Scaliger, Usher, Morinus, and 



a ♦ The reader mil find under Passovee (Amer. ed.) 

particular account of the manner in which the Sa- 

Biaritans celebrate that great festival on Gerizim. On 

3«rizka anU the modem Samaritans interesting infor- 

others; and no traveller now visits Palestme witt 
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- 
hammetlans. Their prostrations' are directed to- 
wards it wherever they are; its holiest spot in theii 
estimation being the traditional site of the taber- 
nacle, near that on which they Ijelieve Abraham to 
have offered his son. Both these spots ai-e 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. Kobinson, 
BM. Res. ii. 202 and 299, evidently did not see 
this 0)1 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, Biss. ap. Ugolin. Tliesaur.- 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. tf P. p. 248) and 
controverted by Dr. Thomson {Lmul and Book, ii. 
212), is brought forward by the writer of the above, 
on grounds which appear to us wholly unsubstan- 

(1.) The assumed identity of Moreh and Moriah 
cannot be admitted. There is a radical differenca 
in their roots (Robinson's Gesen. Ileb. Lex. s. vv.), 
which is conceded by Stanley; and the reasoning 
about "the plains of jMoreh, the land of vision,'' 
" called jMoreh, or jSIoriah, from the noble vision 
of natm'e," etc., is irrelevant. ]Murphy {Comni. 
in loc.'. justly observes : " As the two names occui 
in the same document, and differ in form, they nat- 
urally denote different things." 

(2.) The distance of Gerizim from Beer-.»heba 
is fatal to this hypothesis. The suggestion chat 
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. [Bekk-shkba.] From 
this point Jerusalem is three days, and Gerizim twc 
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 writer, 
following Stanley, sends the party to Gerizim, is 
an unknown and improbable route. 

(3. ) The suggestion of Mr. Ffoulkes alwve, 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 j'oung men and 
went on together alone," these writers all overlook 
the fact that from this point the wood for the burnt- 
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 wairant the 
supposition that he could have borne it for a day g 
journey, or a half-day's — in which case it would 
seem that the donkey and servants might have 

mation will be found in Mills's Tfiree Montks' Residenet 
at Nablii.i, Lond. 1864 ; and in Mr. Grove's paper On 
tlie Modern tSamarilans in Vacation Tourists for I86i 



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

(4.) The commanding position of Gerizim, with 
the wide prospect from its sununit, is iiot a necessary, 
»nor probable, element in the decision of the ques- 
tion. It was to the land of Moriah that the patri- 
arch was directed, some one of the eminences of 
which, apparently not yet named, the Lord was to 
designate as his destination. In favor of tierizim 
as an elevated site, Stanley lays stress upon the 
phrase, ^^ 1 1 /'led up his eyes," forgetting that this 
identical phrase had been applied (Gen. xiii. 10) 
to Lot's survey of the plain of the Jordan Ulutv 

(5.) The Samaritan tradition is unreliable. 
From the time that a rival temple to that on Mo- 
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 lloriah (Gen. xxii. 2) in 
their version, is of the same character with this 
claim. Had this been the traditionary site of tiie 
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 liistorian forbids the in- 
timation that he was capable of robl>ing 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 Detween 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 will be ex- 
amined in their place. [Moiu.Mi, Amer. «I.J 
Whether that theory be accepted or rejected, the 
claims of Gerizim appear to us too slightly sujv 
ported to entitle them to any weight in the discus- 
sion. S. W. 

GER'IZITES, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8. [Giohzitks.] 

GERRHE'NIANS, THE («a.s rHv Ffp^jj- 
»/cSi/; Alex. Tevvrtpwy' nd Gerreiws), named in 2 
Mace. xiii. 2-i only, as one limit of the district 
committed by Antiochus I'-npator to the govern- 
ment of Judas Maccabseus, 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 I'alestine, and, from the 
nature of the case, the tierrhenians, wherever they 
were, must have been south of I'toleniais. Grotius 
seems to have been tlie first to suggest that the 
town (ierrhon or tJerrha was intended, which lay 
between Pelusium and Khinocolura ( Wady d- 
Arish). But it has been pointed out by l-^wald 
(fJeschichle, iv. 365, note) that the coast a.s far 
north as the latter place was at that time in pos- 
Kssion of I'-gypt, and he thereon conjectures that 
the inhabitants of the ancient city of Gkhak, S. 
E. of (laza, the residence of Abraham and Isaac, 
are meant. In supixirt of this Grinnn {Ktirz;/. 
Hnwtb. ad loe.) mentions that at least one MS. 
reads Ttpap-qviiiv, wliicli would without difficulty 
yt corrupted to Ttphii)vwv. 

It seems to have l>een overlooke<l that Mie Syriac 
(early, and entitled to much respect) has 


Gozor (>^N^)- By this maybe intended eitha 
(«) the ancient Gkzku, wiiich was near the sea. 
somewhere about Joppa; or (h) Gaza, which appeirs 
sometimes to t:dve that form in these l)ooks. In 
the former case tiie government of Judas would 
contain half, in tlie latter the whole, of the coast 
of I'alestine. The latter is most prolialtly correct, 
as otherwise the important district of Idumwa, 
with the great fortress of Betiisuii.\, would have 
been left unprovided for. G. 

GER'SHOM (in the earlier books U^l}., 
in Chr. generally D'"ltt7'12). 1. {T-npiran: in 
Judg. Tr)pffwv, [Vat. M. FripcToiJ., Vat. 11.] and 
Alex. T7)pawix\ Joseph. Tnpaos- O'ersnm, Ger- 
som.) The first-born son of Moses and Zipporah 
(Ex. ii. 22; xviii. 3). The name is explained in these 

passages as if C127 13 (Ger shnm) = a stranger 
there, in allusion to Moses' being a'foreigner in 
Midian — " For he said, I have been a stranger 
(6'e;-) in a foreign land." This signification is 
adopted by Josephus (Ant. ii. 13, § 1), and also 
by the LXX. in the form of the name which they 
give — r-ripcroLfx; but according to Gesenius (Then. 
p. 30G b), its true meaning, taking it as a Hebrew 

word, is "expulsion," from a root W~}^, being only 
another form of Gekshon (see also Fiirst, Ilandwb.). 
The circumcision of Gershom is probably related 
in Ex. iv. 25. He does not apjiear 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 Jater. (a.) One of these was a 
remarkable person — "Jonathan the son of Ger- 
shom," tiie "young man the Levite," whom we 
first encounter on his way from Bethlehem-Judah 
td Micah's house at Mount Ephraim (Judg. xvii. 
7 ), and who subsecjuently 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 Hebrew text, 
to "Manas.seh," as it now stands both in the text 
and the A. V., is explained under Maxasseii. 
(6.) But at least one of the other branches of the 
family preserved its allegiance to Jehovah, for when 
the courses of the Invites were settled l)y king Da- 
vid, the " sons of Jloses the man of God " received 
honorable prominence, and Shebuel chief of the 

sons of Gershom was apjwintetl ruler (T'33) of 
the treasures. (1 Chr. xxiii. 15-17; xxvi. 24-28.) 

2. The fonn under which the name Gekshon 
— the eldest son of I^vi — is given in several pas- 
sages of Chronicles, namely, 1 Chr. vi. IC, 17, 20, 
43, G2, 71; xv. 7. The Hebrew is almost alter- 
nately DtC'ia, and n"lti7"13 ; the LXX. adhere to 
their ordinary rendering of Gershon; [Horn.] Vat. 
Tf^auv, Alex. V7\p<Tuiv, [exc. vi. 43, Vat. TftZ(ra)v, 
and XV. 7, Alex. Brjpauv, Vat. EA. Ti)pffaix'^ 
Viilg. Gerson and Gersom. 

3. (DtriS : T-npadv, [Vat.] Alex. Trip<ru>n- 
Gersom), the representative of the priestly family 
of Phinehas, among those who accompanied Ezra 
from B.ibylon (I-Jtr. viii. 2). In I-Lsdras the name 
is Gekson. G. 

GER'SHON iy^dl^. •■ in Gen. rvpTdu, in 
other books uniforn)ly re5o-a>»'; and so also Alex- 
with three exceptions; Joseph. Ant. ii. 7, § 4 
I Trjpffd/iTjj: [Geratm]), the eldest of the three 80n» 


A Levi, born before the descent of Jacobs" fomily I 
into Egypt (Geu. xlvi. 11 ; Ex. vi. 16). But thougla I 
tlie eldest born, the families of Gershon were out- 
stripped in f;inie by their younger brethren of Ko- 
hath, froiu wliom sprang Moses and the priestly 
line of Aaron." Gershon's sous were Liuni and 
SiiiMi (Ex. vi. 17; Num. iii. 18, 21; 1 Chr. vi. 
17 ), and their families were duly recognized in 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 Asaph "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 
are 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' IMerarites. At the same date the 
efficient men were 2,G30 (iv. 40). On the occasion 
of the second census the numbers of the Levites 
are given only in gross (Num. xxvi. 02). The 
sons of Gershon had charge of the fabrics of the 
Tabernacle — die coverings, curtains, hanguigs, 
and cords (Num. iii. 25, 26; iv. 25, 26); for the 
transport 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 IMerarites 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 Manasseh beyond Jordan ; four in 
Issachar; four in Asher; and three in Naphtali. 
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 service of the Tabernacle after its erection at 
Jerusalem, or in the Temple. The sons of Jedu- 
thun " prophesied with a harp," and the sons of 
Heman " Ufted 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, 

N23), perhaps after the, special prompting of Da- 
vid himself (xxv. 2). Others of the Gershonites, 
sons of L'aadan, 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 slightly differ 
ent form of Gershom. [Gersiiom, 2.] See also 
Gershonites. G. 

GERSHONITES, THE (^327-ian, i. e. 
the Gershunnite : d Tihtruv, b V^Zffuvl [Vat. -vei] ; 
viol VihcKcvi [Vat. -vei\ ; Alex, [in Josh, and 1 



« See an instance of this in 1 Chr. vi. 2-15, where 
the line of Kohath Ls given, to the exclusion of the 
ather two families. 

6 The LXX. has rendered the passa?? referred to 
is loUows : — Ka.\ l&ov rj yjj KarCfjKeiTO anb afqKoi'TOi 
J airb reXafti^ovp(Alex. TeKafxa-ovp ) TeTetxio-iaeVio 
Ml iiuf yrjs XlyvTTTov. The word GeUimsour may be 

Chr.,] r-rjpcTQiv' [Gersonita, Gerson,Jtlii Gwionaf 
Gersom]), the family descended from Gkkshon <r 
Geksiio.m, 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). 

" TiikGersiio.nite" [r-fjpo-coj/i, reScroji'i ; Vat 
r-ripcrcoffi, ryipffo/xvei; Alex, r-qpaoovsi, Tr)pawvi 
Gtrsonni, Gtrsoiiites], as applied to individuals, 
occurs in 1 Chr. xxvi. 21 (Laadan), xxix. 8 (Jehiel). 


GER'SON irjipa-eiu; [Vat. corrupt:] Ger- 
somas), 1 Esdr. viii. 29. [Gershom, 3.] 

GER'ZITES, THE 0!!?^, or ^-n^rf- 
(Ges. T/ies. p. 301) — the Girzite, or the Gerizzite: 
Vat. omits, Alex, rovre^paiou- Gerzi and Gezn 
[VJ, but in his Qiuest. lltbr. Jerome has Getvi: 
Syr. and Arab. Godulii), 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 Sara, xxvii. 8). They were rich in 
Bedouin treasures — " sheep, oxen, asses, camela, 
and apparel" (ver. 9; corap. xv. 3; 1 Chr. 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 Masorets (Keri) into Giz- 
rites, which form [or rather Gezrites] our trans- 
lators have adopted in the text. The change ia 
supported by the Targum, and by the Alex. MS. 
of the LXX. as above. There is not, however, any 
apparent reason for relinquishing the older form of 
the name, the interest of which lies in its con- 
nection with that of Mount Gerizim. In 'he naice 
of that ancient mountain we have the only reni;iin- 
ing trace of the presence of this old tribe of Bt 
douins in central I'alestine- They appear to hav3 
occupied it at a very early period, and to have 
reUnquished it in company with the Amalekitca, 
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. [Fiirst accepts the same view.] It has 
been since adopted by Stanley {S. if P. p. 237, 
note). Gesenius interprets the name as " dweUers 
in the dry, barren country." G. 

GE'SEM, THE LAND OF (yr, TeereV: 
tei-rn Jesse), the Gre^k form of the Hebrew name 
GosHEX (Jud. i. 9). 

GE'SHAM 0^% i. e. Geshan {filthy, Ges.] ; 
Seaydp, Alex. Tr)p(r<iijx- Gesan), one of the sons 
of .Jahdai, in the genealogy of Judah and family 
of Caleb (1 Chr. ii. 47). Nothuig further con- 
cerning him has been yet traced. The name, as it 
stands in our present Bililes, is a corruption of the 
A. V. of 1611, which has, accurately, Geshan. 
Burrington, usually very careful, has Geshur (Tablf 
xi. 1, 280), but without giving any authority. 

a corruption of the Hebrew jri'Mam . . Shurah (A. V 
" of old . . to Shur ''), or it may contain a mention 
of the name Telem or Telaim, a place in the extreme 
south of Judah (Josh. xv. 24), which bore a prominent 
part in a former attack on the Amalekites (1 Sam. xv. 
4). In the latter case V has been read for T. (S#« 
Lennerke ; Fiirst's Handwb. && ) 

90t> GESHAN 

• GESHAN (1 Chr. ii. 47), the correct form 
3f a nanie for which Gksiia.m hiUi been improperly 
iubstituted in modern editions of the A. V. 


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

[covjjofe(tUly,Jirmness, l''iir.stj : rrjffo/x: [Gust in,] 
Gossem), an Arabian, mentioned in Xeh. ii. lii, 
and vi. 1, 2, 6, who, with " Sanbaliat the lloronite, 
and Tobiah, the servant, the Annnonite," opposed 
Neheniiah in tlie repairing of Jerusalem. Gesheni, 
we may conclude, was an inhabitant of Arabia 
I'etraea, or of the Arabian Desert, and probably tlie 
chief of a tribe which, like most of the tribes on 
the eastern frontier of Palestine, was, in the time 
of the Captivity and the subsequent period, allied 
with the Persians or with any peoples thrciiteniui; 
the Jewish nation. Geshem, like Sanballat and 
Tobiah, seems to have been one of the " gov ernors 
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 .\shdodites, 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 chaptcj-s 
Li., iv., and vi. The Arabic name corresponding to 
Geshfem cannot easily be identified. Jiisim (or 

Gasim, *.aa/Ls>.) is one of very remote antiquity ; 

and Jashum (|Vwww^') is the name of an historical 

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

GE'SHUR OW^ and n^^tT?, a bridc/e: 
[FfSa-ovp, exc. 2 Sam. iii. 3, Tefffflp, Vat. reiretp] 
1 Ohr. ii. 23, Alex. Tiatxovp, iii- 2, Tetrovp- Ges- 
sitr :] Arab. ywCTv, Jessiir), a Uttle principality 

in the northeastern comer of Bashan, adjoining 
the province of Argob (Ueut. iii. 14), and the king- 
dom of .\ram (.Syria in the A. V.; 2 Sam. xv. 8; 
comp. 1 Chr. ii. 23). It was within the boundary 
of the allotted territory of Mansisseh, 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 
pelativas after the nuirder of his brother. The wild 
acts of Absalom's life may have been to some extent 
'>• results of maternal training: they were at least 
cha.'acteristic -'' the stock from which he sprung. 
He remained ui "Geshur of .A '."am " until he was 
taken back to Jerusalem by Joab (2 Sam. xiii. 37, 
XV. S). It is highly probable that Geshur was a 
gection of tlie wild and rugged region, now called 
f-l-LeJfili, among whose rocky fastnesses the (Jesh- 
orites might dwell in security while the whole sur- 
rounding plains were occu|)ied by the Isnielites. 
On the north the Lcjali bordei's on the territory 
of Daniaxcus, the ancient Aram ; and in Scripture 
the name is so intimately connectwl with llashan 
ind Ari^ob, that one is led to sup|X)se it formed 
part of them (Dent. iii. 13, 14; 1 Chr. ii. 23; Josh. 
diL 12, 13). [AicGou.J J. L. P. 


• The bridge over the Jordan above tnt sea ot 
Galilee no doubt stands where one must have sto^" 
in ancient times. [Bkiuge, Amer. etl.] It maj 
be, says Hobinson {PJii/s. Geot/r. p. 155), "that 
the adjacent district on the east of the Jordan took 

the name of Geshur C^^tt'S), as if ' Bridge-land ' ; 
at any rate Geshur and the Geshurites were in this 
vicinity." H. 

GESH'URI and GESH'URITES (''"1^1273 : 
[in Deut., Vapyatrt, Vat. Alex, -aei; Comp. r««r- 
aovpi; in Josh., Alex Ffaovpi; xii. 5, Ffpyeal, 
Vat. -ffef. xiii. 2, 11, 13, retripi, Vat. Feffftpei; 
1 Sam., Teffipi, ^'at. -ati-; Alex, reaepff- Gt»- 
suri.} 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 i,Josh. xiii. 2; 1 Sam. 
xxvii. 8); they are mentioned in connection with 
the Gezrites and Amalekites. [Gezek, p. 909.] 
J. L. P. 

GE'THER (^r^^.: Tarip ; [Alex, rae^p:] 
Gtllier), the third, in order, of the sons of Aram 
(Gen. X. 23). No satisfactory trace of the |)cople 
sprung from this stock has been found. The tlieories 
of Bocliart and otliers, which rest on improbable 
etymologies, are without support; while ihe sug- 
gestions of Carians (llieron.), Bactrians (Joseph. 

Ant.), and JULcfw^ (Saad.), are not better 

founded. (See Bocbart, Plmletj, ii. 10, and Winer, 
4-. v.). Kalisch proposes Gksiiuh; but he does not 
adduce any argument in its favor, except the sim- 
ilarity of sound, and the pernmtation of Aramajaii 
and Hebrew letters. 

The Arabs write the name yjLt (Ghathir); 

and, in the mythical history of their country, it is 
said that the probably aboriginal tribes of Th.-nnood, 
Tasur, Jadces, and "Ad (the last, in the second 
generation, tlii-ough 'Ood), were descended from 
Ghiithir (Caussin [de PercevalJ, A'ss'f/, i. 8, !). 23; 
Abul-l'idii, llkl. Anitisl. l(i). These traditions 
are in tiie highest degree untrustworthy; and, as 
we have stated in Akahia, the tril)es referred to 
were, almost demonstrably, not of Semitic origin. 
See Akauia, Aua.m, and Naijatii.e.vns. 

E. S. P. 
GETHSEM'ANE (n3, gath, a "wine- 
press," and ^PC?, slienien, "oil;" redarit^avd 
j [so Tisoh.; Lachm. Treg. -j/e?], or more generally 
1 rfdcvfiavij), a small " farm," as the I'rench would 
1 say, " un bkn aiix champs " (^f^pioy =■ dyer, 
I pnc'Hum ; or as the Vulgate, rilln ; A. Y. " place; " 
1 Matt. xxvi. 36; Mark xiv. 32), situated across the 
brook Kedron (John xviii. 1), probably at the foot 
of Mount Olivet (l.uke xxii. 3!t), to'the N. W., 
and about J or J of a mile English from the walls 
of .leru.salem. There was a "garden," or rather 
orchard (ktjttos), attached to it, to which the olive, 
fig. and |iome«:i-anate doubtless invited resort by 
their " hospitaiile shade." And we know from the 
Evangelists SS. Luke (xxii. 3"J) and John (xviii. 2) 
that our Ix)rd ofttimcs resorted thither with hu 
disciples. " It was on the road to Bethany," say* 
Mr. (Jreswell (llnnn. Diss, xiii.), "and the fnj.iilj 
of Ij»/arus might have pos.scssion8 there;" bui, if 
80, it should have bw>n nither on the S V. side of 
the mountain where Bethany lies : part of which, U 


may De rtiuarked, being the property of the village 
still, as it may well have been then, is even now 
called Bethany {el-Azurti/th ) 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 al)ounded with gardens and 
ple.asure-grounds {wapaSeicrois, 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 
indeed a favorite paddock or close, half-a-mile or 
more to the north, on the same side of the con- 
tinuation of the vaUey of the Kedron, the property 
of a wealthy Turk, where the JMohammedan ladies 
pass the 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 offsprmg of a single event — the 
Agony of the Son of God on the evening preceding 
His Passion. Hpfb empliatioallv, as Isaiah had 


foretold, and as the name imports, were fulfilled 
those dark words, "I have trodden I he wii.e- press 
alone" (Ixiii. 3; comp. Kev. xiv. 20, '-tue wine- 
press . . . without the cilij"). -'The period of 
the year," proceeds Mr. Greswell, " was the Vernal 
Equinox : the day of the month about two days 
I 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 
1 Thursday, or rather, according to the Jews, Friday 
[ — for the suu had set. The time, accoiding to 
j Mr. Greswell, would be the last watch of the night, 
between our 11 and 12 o'clock. Any recapitulation 
of the circumstances of that ineftiilile event would 
be unnecessary ; any commentsi upon it unseason 
J aljle. A modern garden, in which are eight ven- 
erable olive-trees, and a grotto to the north, de- 
1 tached from it, and in closer connection with the 
I Church of the Sepulchre of the Virgin — in fact 
with the road to the summit of the mountain run- 
mivj lietween them, as it did also in the days of 

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

the Crusaders (Sanuti Sea-et. Fidel. Cruc. lib. iii. 
p. xiv. c. 9) — both securely inclosed, and under 
'ock and key, are pointed out as making up the 
true Gethsemane. These may, or may not, be the 
spots which Eusebius, St. Jerome {Liber de Situ 
et Nomiiiibus, 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 
upon what accords most with its instincts and pre- 
dilections. Accordingly the pilgrims of antiquity 
Bay nothing about those time-honored olive-trees, 

j whose age the poetic minds of a Lamartine or a 
Stanley shrink from criticising — they were doubt- 
less not so imposing in the 6th century ; still, had 
they been noticed, they would have aftbrded undy- 
ing witness to the locality — while, on the other 
hand, few modern travellers would inquire for, and 
adore, with Antoninus, 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 express 

a • El-AznrUjeh is th? Arabic name, Jerived from language i 
(Azanis. l{(!tliany i.s current only among foreigners, tiou. 
or thoiie rf fc reign origin. In this instance the native 1 

the more distinctive Chnstiau appella- 


teinis (see particularly ^. J. vi. 1, § 1, a passajje 
which must have escajied Mr. Williams, Ihly City, '' 
vol. ii. p. 437, 2(1 ed., who only ciies v. 3, § 2, and I 
vi. 8, § 1). Uesides, the 10th legicn, arriving from 
Jericho, were jwstcd about the Mount of Olives 
(v. 2, § 3; and conip. vi. 2, § 8), and, in the course | 
of the siege, a wall was carried along the valley of 
the Kedron 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 
Rpot: unless, like the sacred olive of the Acrop- 
olis (Hiilir ad Ikrud. viii. 55), they may have 
reproduced themselves. XlaundreU {luuiij Travels 
!n P<d. by Wright, p. 471) and (^uaresmius (Klucid. 
T. S. lib. iv. per. v. ch. 7) apiiear to have been the 
first to notice them, not more than three centuries 
ago: the former arguing against, and the latter in 
Sivor of, their reputed antiquity; but nobody read- 
ing their accounts would imagine that there were 
then no more than eight, the locality of Gethsemane 
lieing supiwsed the same. Parallel claims, to be 
sure, are not wanting in the cedars of I^banon, 
which are still \isited with so much enthusiasm : in 
the terebinth, or oak of JIamre, which was standing 
in the days of Constantiiie the Great, and even 
worshipped (V'ales. ad Euseb. Vit. Const, iii. 53), 
and the fig-tree {Ficus daslica) near Nerbudda in 
India, which native historians assert to be 2,500 
years old (Patterson's .Jmirmdofa Tour in Efjypt, 
4c., p. 202, note). Still more appositely there were 
oUve-trees near Linternum 250 years old, according 
to Pliny, in his time, which ai-e recorded to have 
survived to the middle of the tenth century ( Wouvmu 
Diet, d'l/isl. Nat. Paris, 184G, vol. xxi>. p. 61). 
]•:. 8. I'f. 
* Gethsemane, which means " oli\e-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" (/c^jttos), but 
we are not by any means to transfer to that term 
our ideas of its meaning. It is to be remembered, 
as Stanhy remarks (S. </ 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 inclose-s tiie reputed Gethsemane, 
is comparatively modern. A series of rude pictures 
(utterly out 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 Chrisfs passion, such as 
the scourging, the mockery of the soldiers, the 
sinking Ijeneath the cross, and the like. The eight 
oUve-trees iiere, though still verdant and productive, 
are s'* decayed as to require to be propi)ed up with 
heap* of stones against their trunks in order to 
prevent their iieing blown down by the wind. Trees 
of this class are proverliially 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 (Jhise in das Moryenlmid, ii. 521)." 
Stanley also speaks of them " as the most venerable 
of Iheir race on the face of the earth ... the most 

o • An argument for the great nge of these trees 
hM been drawn from the fict that a medino (an olj 
TurkiHh coin) ii< the governmental tax paid on eiirh 
>De of tb)« group, which was tbo tax on trees at the 


afTecting of the sacred memorials in or about Jero 
salem." (S. <f P. p. 450, 1st ed.) 

There are two or three indications in the Gospel 
history which may guide us as to the general situ- 
ation of this ever memorable spot to which the 
Saviour repaired on the night of his betrayal. It 
is quite certain that Gethsemane was on the western 
slope of Olivet, and near the base of that mountain 
where it sinks down into the valley of the Kedron. 
When it is said that " Jesus went fortli with his 
disciples be3ond the brook Kedron, where was 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. 40: "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 carne prepared 
with lights to follow him into these lurking-places. 

The present inclosure known as Gethsemane 
fiJfills all these conditions ; and so also, it may Ijo 
claimed, would any other spot similarly situated 
across the brook, and along tlie westei n declivity in 
front of Jerusalem. Tischendoif {Reise in den 
Orient, i. 312) finds the traditionary locality " in per- 
fect harmony with all that we learn from the I'^vange- 
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." llobinson alleges no positive reasons 
against the common identification. " The authen- 
ticity of the sacred garden," says Williams (Holy 
City, ii. 437), " I choose rather to believe than to 
defend." iJut 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. \N'e may sit down there, and read the nar- 
rative of wUat the Saviour endured for our re- 
demption, and feel assured that we are near the 
pLice where he prayed, " Saying, Father, not my 
will, but thine I* 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 to Jerusalem 
from Itethany after having seen the I.,ord taken up 
into heaven passed Gethsemane on the way. What 
new thoughts must have arisen in their minds, 

thne of the Saracenic conquest of Jerusalem, A. «. 686. 
Since that period the Snltnn reoeivcs half of the frutta 
of every tree as hU tributu. (See Rauuier, raliutina, 
p. 309,'4tcAufl.) H. 


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

GEU'EL (^^?^W2, Sam. bW^a [Goers ex- 
altation, Ges.]: TovSiriK; [Vat. Tovhir)\-] Ouel), 
son of Machi: ruler of the tribe of Gad, and its 
representative among the spies sent from the wil- 
derness of Paran to explore the Promised Land 
(Num. xiii. 15). 

GE'ZER ("1T2, in pause ^T| [steep place, 
precipice, Fiirst, Ges.] : Ta^tp, rf(ep [Alex. 1 K. 
ix. 15, 16 J, TdCapa, [ra^Tipd; Josh. x. 3-3. Vat. 
raCrjs; 1 Chr. xiv. 16, FA. ra^apaV-] Gazer, 
[Geser, Gnzera]), an ancient city of Canaan, whose 
king, Horam, or Elam, coming 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 jNIediterra- 
nean (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. 2y ) ; 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- 
izzites, were still dwelling there, and paying tribute 
to Israel (1 K. ix. 16). At this time it must in fact 
have been independent of Israelite rule, for Pharaoh 
had burnt it to the ground and killed its inhabi- 
tants, and then presented the site to his daughter, 
Solomon's queen. But it was immediately rebuilt 
by the king; and though not heard of again till 
after the Captivity, yet it played a somewhat prom- 
inent part in the later struggles of the nation. 

Ewald (Gesch. iii. 280; cornp. 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 Soloiijon to Hamath- 
zobah in the neighborhood of the latter, indications 
of a revolt of the 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, conip. 2 Sam. xxi. 18). The exact 
site of Gezer has not been discovered ; but its gen- 
eral position is not difficult to infer. It must have 
been bet\yeen 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 
BeiVur et-tahta is the last outpost, and forms the 
regular coast road of communication with Egypt 
(1 K. ix. 16). It is therefore appropriately named 
as the last point to which David's pursuit of the 
Philistines extended (2 Sam. v. 25; 1 Chr. xiv 
16 >>) ; and as the scene of at least one sharp en 

o If Lachish be where Van de Velde and Porter 
would place it, at Um Likis, near Gaza, at least 40 
miles from the sotithern boundary of Ephraim, there 
is some ground for suspecting the existence of two 
Sezers, and this is confirmed by the order in which it 
Is mentioned in the list, of Josh. xii. with Hebron, 
Eglon, and Debir. There is not, however, any meiins 
if determining this 

fi lu these two places the word, being at the end 
>f a period, has, accordiDg to Hebrew custom, its first 


counter (1 Chr. xx. 4), this plain being their owt 
pecuhar territory (corap. Jos. Ant. viii. »>, § 1, To- 
^opo, TTiv rrjs VlaKaKTTiywv x^^paJ virdpxovaav) 
and as commanding the conmiunication between 
Eg^-pt and the new capital, Jerusalem, it was an 
imiK)rtant point for Solomon to fortify. By Euse- 
bius it is mentioned as four miles north of Nicopo- 
lis (Ainwcis); a position exactly occupied by the 
important town Jimzu, the ancient Gimzo, and 
corresponding well with the requirements of Joshua. 
But this hardly agrees with the indications of the 
1st book of JIaccabees, which speak of it as between 
Emmaus {Amioas) and Azotus and Jamnia; and 
again as on the confines of Azotus. In tlie neigh- 
borhood 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 to\\Ti as Gazara was in 
the time of the jNlaccabees 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 Bamleh 
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'RITES, THE 0']T2n, accur. the Giz^ 
rile: [Vat. omits; Alex.] tov Te^paiov- 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 Gkzek 
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. [Gekzitks, the.] 

GI'AH {TV}, [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 Ammah — " which faces 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^3, ». e. a rariue of 
glen; a \'iew also taken in the Vulgate. 

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

1. They are first spoken of in Gen. vi. 4, undei 
the name Nepliilim (D'^7^?? • LXX. yiyavres 
Aquil. eirnrinTovTes; Symm. ^laTot : Vu\g. (/ifjan. 

vowel lengthened, and stands in the text as Gazer 
and in these two places only the name is so transferre« 
to the A. V. But, to be consistent, the same chang* 
should have been made in several other passages, 
where 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 oqb, when the difference arises fronc 
nothing but au emphatic accent. 



it-s.- Ouk. S^'inS: Luther, Tt/mnnen). The word 

IS derived either from H^IQ, or M7Q (= " niar- 

veioiis"), or, as is generally believed, from ^23, 
either in the sense to throw down, or to fall 
(^fallen angels, Jarchi, cf. Is. xiv. 1'2; i.uke x. 
18); or meaning " ^{paiej in-uentts" (Geseii.), or 
collapsi (by euphemism, Boettcher, de hiferin, p. 
y2); but certainly not "because men fell from ter- 
ror of them " (as K. Kimchi). That the word 
means ^^r/iunt" is clear from Num. xiii. 32, 33, 

and is confirmed by WvQ3, the Chaldee name for 
"the aery giant" Orion (Job. ix. 9, xxxviii. 31; Is. 
xiii. 10; Targ.), unless this name arise from the 
obliqui'y of the constellation {(Jen. of Earth, 
p. 35). 

Hut we now come to the remarkable conjectures 
about the origin of these N'ephilim in Gen. vi. 1-4. 
(An immense amount has been written on this pas- 
sage. See Kurtz, Die Khen tier SO/uie Gutles, &c., 
Berlin, 1857; EwAd,J(ilirb. 1854, p. 12G; Govett's 
Isaiah UnJ'ulJilled ; Faber'a Afant/ Mausions, in 
the Journal of Sue. Lit., Oct. 1858, &c.) We 
are told that "there were Nephilim in the eartli," 
and that "afterwards (koI ^eV iKitvo, LXX.) the 
" sons of God " mingling witli the beautiful " daugh- 
ters of men" produced a race of violent and inso- 
lent Gibborim (D^"52l2). This latter word is also 
rendered by the LXX. yiyavTes, but we shall set- 
hereafter that the meaning is more general. It is 
clear however that no statement is made that the 
Nephilim themselves sprang from this uidiallowed 
union. \\'ho then were they ? Taking the usual 

derivation (v23), 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 tlie Nephilim the same as the 
Gibborim, namely, tiie ofupriiKj of wicked mar- 
riages. This latter supposition can only be ac- 
cepted if we iidmi* either (1) that there were two 
kinds of Nephilin., — those who existed before the 
unequal intercourse, and those produced by it 
(Heidegger, IIi«t Pair, xi.), or (2) by following 
the Vulgate rendering, jmslquam enim im/nnKi 
sunt, etc. Hut tlie conmion rendering seems to In- 
correct, nor is there much prol;ability in Abon 

Ezra's explanation, that )5"*'7n^ ("after that") 

means 713^n "IHM (t. e. "after the deluge "), 
and is an allusion to the Anakims. 

The genealogy of the Nephilim then, or at any 
rate of t/ie emliest Nephilim, is not recorded in 
Scripture, and the nam<» itself is so mysterious 
that we are lost in conjecture respecting tiicm. 

2. The sons of the marriages moitioned in Gen. 

vi. 1-4, are called (Hhborim (D"*n22, from '^5^» 
to be stron//), a general name meaning rxiwerful 
(ufipiorTal Ka\ irayrhi viTfpowTal /foAoC, .(oseph. 
Ant. i. 3, § 1 ; -y^y iraiSfs rhv vovv iK^iPirravrti 
Tov Koyl^fcrdai k.t.K., I'hilo de Gi(jaut., p. 270; 
comp. Is. iii. 2. xlix. 24; \'j.. xxxii. 21). They 
were not necessarily giants in our sense of the word 
'Theodorct, (imngl. 48). Yet, a-s w:ls natural, tiipse 
powerful ciiiefs were almost universally represented 
M men of extra<>rdina'i|' stature. The LXX. rcn- 
ler the word ylyavrts, and call Nimrod a -yi'-yos 
tvyrty'oi H <-^h«". i. 10); Augustine calla them Sdi- 


tui-ogi {de Civ. Dei, xv. 4) ; Chrysostom J^pese. 
fvfxriKe7s, Tlieodoret TraixfjLfytdeis (comp. liar, iii 
20, eii/jifyedfis, eVio-rajuevoi ir6\fij.ov)- 

Hut ivho were the parents of these gianta; whc 
are " the sons of God " (D^nib^H "^3?) ? The 
opinions are various: (1.) 3/en of pmcer {viol Su- 
vaaTtv6vTU)v, Symm., Hiei«n. Qiuest. Ileb. ad loc.; 
S*n-l?n^3?, Onk.; n^3Dbu;^32, Samar.; 
so too Selden, Vorst. &c.), (comp. Ps. ii. 7, Ixxxii. 
G, Ixxxix. 27; Mic. v. 5, &c.). The expression will 
then exactly resemble Homer's Aioytvth ^a<Ti\rj(s, 
and the Chinese Tidn-tseii, " son of heaven," as a 

title of the Emperor (Gesen. s. v. ]5). Hut why 
should the union of the high-born and low-born 
produce offspring unusual for their size and 
strength ? (2. ) Afen with great gifts, " in the 
image of God" (Hitter, Schumann); (3.) Cainites 
aiTogantly assuming the title (Paulus); or (4.) the 
pious Sethites (comp. Gen. iv. 20; Maimon. Mor. 
Neboch. i. 14; Suid. «. w. Svd and fiiaiyufiias \ 
Cedren. Hist. Comp. p. 10; Aug. de Civ. Dei, xv. 
23; Chrysost. Horn. 22, in Gen.; Theod. in Gen. 
Quasi. 47; Cyril, c. Jul. ix., <t-c.). A host of 
modern commentators catch at this explanation, 
but Gen. iv. 20 has probably no connection with 
the subject. Other texts quoted in favor of the 
view are Deut. xiv. 1,2; I's. Ixxiii. 15; I'rov. xiv. 
20; Hos. i. 10; K'oni. viii. 14, ic. Still the mere 
antithesis in the verse, as well as other considen- 
tions, tend strongly against tliis gloss, which inde-^i 
is built on a foregone conclusion. Compare hofi- 
ever the Indian notion of the two races of men 
Suras and Asuras (children of the sun and of tlie 
moon, Nork, Bnim. uml liubb. p. 204 ff.), and the 
Persian belief in the marriage of Djemshid with 
the sister of a der, whence sprang black and im- 
pious men (Kalisch, Gen. p. 175). (5.) Worship- 
pers of false gods (7ra?5€S tuv dfuv, Aqu.) making 
■^S^ = " servants " (comp. Deut. xiv. 1; Prov. xiv. 
20;' Ex. xxxii. 1; Oeut. iv. 28, Ac). This view is 
ably supported in Genesis of luvrth and Afon, p. 
39 f. (0.) Devils, such as the Incubi and Suc- 
cubi. Such was the belief of the Cabbalists (Va- 
lesius, de S. Philos"/>h. cap. 8). That these beings 
can have intercourse with women St. Augustine 
declares it would be folly to doubt, and it was tlie 
universal belief in the l^ast. Mohanmied makes 
one of the ancestors of Halkis (Jueen of Slieba a 
demon, and Damir says he had heard a Moham- 
medan doctor ojieidy boast of having married ii> 
succession four demon wives (Hochart, llieroz. i. 
p. 747). Indeed the belief still exists (I ane"s Mod. 
K(/ypt. i. ch. X. ad in.) (7.) ( losely allied to this 
is the oldest opinion, that they were an;/th (Syy*- 
\oi TOO 0eoC, LXX., for such was the old reading, 
not vloi, Au<;. de Cii: Dei, xv. 23; so too Josenh. 
Ant. i. 3, § 1; Phil, de Git/, ii. 358; Clem. Alex. 
Strom, iii. 7, § 09; Snip. Sever. Hist. Script, tti 
Grthod. 1. i. Ac. ; comp. Job i. 0, ii. 1 ; Ps. xxix. 
1. .lob iv. 18). The rare expression "sons of (lod " 
certainly means angels in Job xxxviii. 7, i. C, ii. I, 
and that such is the meaning in Gen. vi. 4 also, 
was the most prevalent opinion l)oth in the Jewish 
and early Christian Church. 

It was pntlably this very ancient view which 
i;ave rise to the spurious book of l''noch, and the 
notion ipioled from it by St. Jude ((!), and alluded 
to by .St. Peter (2 Pet. ii. 4; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 10 
Tert. de \1r</. i'tl. 7). According to this boo* 


9erl«n angels, sent by God to guard the earth 
i'Eyfj'fiyopoi, (pv\aKes), were perverted by the 
bea'jty of women, " went after strange flesh," 
taught sorcery, finery {lamina. Irifillorum, circuhs 
ex aure, Tert., etc.), and being banished from 
heaven Lad sons 3,000 culjits high, thus originating 
a celestial and terrestrial race of demons — " Unde 
modo vagi subvertunt corpora multa " (Commodi- 
ani Instruct. IJL, Cultus Dcemonum) t. e. they are 
still tlie 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, Ixv. xvi. 
8, and for the very curious questions connected 
with this name, see Bocbart, Hieroz. i. p. 652 ff. ; 
Kab. Eliezer, cap. 22 ; Bereshith Hob. ad Gen. vi. 2 ; 
Sennert, f/e Gignntibus, iii.). 

Against this notion (which Hiivernick calls " the 
silliest whim of the Alexandrian Gnostics and Cab- 
aUstic Kabbis") Heidegger {Hist. Patr. 1. c.) 
quotes Matt. xxii. 30; Luke xxiv. 39, and similar 
testimonies. Philastrius (Adv. Ilieres. cap. 108) 
characterizes it as a heresy, and Chrysostom (Horn. 
22) even calls it rb fi\d<T<pr]fxa iKe7vo. Yet Jude 
is explicit, and the question is not so much what 
con be, as what rvas believed. The fathers ahnost 
unanimously accepted these fables, and TertuUian 
argues warmly (partly on expedient grounds ! ) for 
the genuineness of the book of EnocR. The an- 
gels were called '£yp-r)yopoi, a word used by Aquil. 

and Symm. to render the Chaldee "1^3? (Dan. iv. 
13 ff.: Vulg. ri(/il: LXX. ejp; Lex. Cyrilli, &y- 
ye\oi ^ aypvTTvoL ; Fabric. Cod. Pseudepirp: V. T. 
p. 180), and therefore used, as in the Zend-Avesta, 
of good guardian angels, and applied especially to 

archangels in the Syriac liturgies (cf. ~'^''i% Is. 
sxi. 11), but more often of e«l angels (Castelli 
Lex. Syr. p. 649; ^C3\ig. ad Euseb. Chron. p. 403; 

Gesen. s. v. T^r). The story of the Egregori is 
given at length in Tert. de Cull. Fern. i. 2, ii. 10 ; 
Commodianus, Instruct, iii. ; Lactant. Div. Inst. ii. 
14; Testnm. Patriarch. [Ruben,'] c. v., etc. Every 
one wUl remember the allusions to the same inter- 
pretation in Milton, Par. Reg. ii. 179 — 

" Before the Flood, thou with thy lusty crew, 
False-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 modem poems 
cannot sufficiently be reprobated. 

We need hardly say how closely allied this is to 
the Greek legends which connected the 6.ypia <pv\a 
yiydvToov with the gods (Hom. Od. vii. 205; I'au- 
san. viii. 29), and made Sai/jioves sons of the gods 
(Plat. Apobg. riiJ.ideoi; Cratyl. § 32). Indeed the 
whole heathen tradition resembles the one before 
us (Cumberland's Sanchoniatho, p. 24; Hom. Od. 
x\. 306 ff.; Hes. Theog. 185, 0pp. et D. 144; 
I'lat. Rep. ii. § 17, p. 604 E; de Legg. iii. § 16, 
p. 805 A; Ov. Metam. i. 151; Luc. iv. 593; Lucian, 
it Ded Syr., &c.; cf. Grot, de Ver. i. 6); and the 
Greek translators of the Bible make the resemblance 
still more close by introducing such words as S^o- 
MOLXoi, y7]yev('is, and even Tiraver, to which last 
losqphus (/. 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 of 
Uiew demon-chiefs is identical with that of heathen 



story (Job \xn. 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 obser\e 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 heathen 
mythology, and repeatedly appear in the groundless 
imaginings of the liabbinic interpreters. If then' 
were fallen angels whose lawless desires gave birth 
to a monstrous progeny, both they and their intol 
erable offspring were destroyed by the deluge, which 
was the retribution on their wickedness, and they 
have no existence in the baptized and renovated 

Before passing to the other giants-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 
sajs 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. ap. Anl. Cell. iii. 10; 
Jer. on Matt, 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 ff.; Lucret. ii. 1151; Virg. yEn. xii. 
900; Juv. XV. 69), although it is now a matter of 
absolute certainty from tlie 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 (Myl/iolog. vi. 21), and 
Macrobius {Snturn. i. 20). 

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

3. The Hici'iFAni, a name which frequently oc- 
curs, and in some remarkable passages. The earli- 
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 
(Ueut. ii. 10, 20), and Og the giant king of Bashan 
said to be "the only remnant of them " (Ueut. 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 
anns against the Hebrews (2 Sam. xxi. 18 ff. ; 1 
Chr. XX. 4). In the latter passage there seems 
however to be some confusion between the Jiephaim 
and the sons of a particidar giant of Gath, named 
Kapha. Such a name may have been conjectured 
as that of a founder of the race, like the names 
Ion, Dorus, Teut, etc. (Boettcher, de Infeiis, p. 96, 
n. ; Kapha 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 Kephaim " {Koi\h.s rwvTna- 
vwv, 2 Sam. v. 18 ; 1 Chr. xi. 15 ; Is. xvii. 5 ; k. 
ruiv yiyivTWv, Joseph. Ant. vii. 4, § 1 ), a rich 
valley S. W. of Jerusalem, derived its name fron? 
I That they were not Canaanites is clear fifwir 



there Ring no allusion to them in Gen. x. 15-19. 
They were probably one of those aboriginal people 
to whose existence the traditions of many nations 
testify, and of whose genealogy tlie Uible gives us 
no information. The few names recorded have, 
as Ewald remarks, a Semitic aspect {GfscJiich. dts 
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 esjiecially the inhabitants of the coasts 
and islands" (Kalisch on Gen. p. 351). 

D^S2"1 is rendered by the Greek versions very 
variously ('Pa(pael^, yiyavrt^, yriyevels, deofxa- 
Xoi, Tnayts, and tarpoi, Vulg. viedici ; LXX. 
t's. Ixxxvii. 10; Is. xxvi. 14, where it is confused 

with C'SQ"! J cf. Gen. 1. 2, and sometimes viKpoU 
TfOvTiKSres, especially in the I'lter versions). In 
A. V. the words used for it are " Kepbaim," 
"giants," and "the dead." That it has the latter 
meaning in many passages is certain (Ps. Ixxxviii. 
10; Prov. ii. 18, ix. 18, xxi. 10; h. xxvi. 19, 14). 
[De.\d, Thk, Amer. ed.] The question arises, 
how are these meanings to be reconciled ? Gese- 
nius gives no derivation for the national name, and 

derives 1 = mortui, from '^S'^, sunavit, and the 
proper name Rapha 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 ^p"^> renmit, "unstrung with fear," K. 
Bechai on Dent, ii.); Vitringa and Ililler from the 
notion of kmjlh involved in stretching out a corpse, 
or from the fancy that spirits appear in more than 
human size (HiUer, iiyntu(jm. /feniien. p. 205; 
Virg. Ain. ii. 772, &c.). J. D. Michaelis {rid 
Ij)ivth s. Poes. p. 4CC) endeavored to prove that the 
Kephaim, etc., were Troglodytes, and that hence 
they came to be identified with the dead. Passing 

over other conjectures, Boettcher sees in i^2"^ and 

HDH a double root, and thinks that the giants 

were called D"*S5"1 {Innrjuefucli) by an euphe- 
mism ; and that the dead were so called by a title 
which will thus exactly parallel the Greek Katx6vrts, 
KfKixt]K6Tis (comp. Huttmann, Lexil. ii. 2;J7 ft'.). 
His arguments are too elaborate to quote, but see 
Iteettclicr, pp. 94-100. An attentive consideration 
gcems to leave little room for doubt that the dead 
were called Hcjihaim (as Gesenius also hints) from 
some notion of Sheol being the residence of the 
fallen spirits or buried giants. The passages wliicli 
seem most strongly to prove this are Prov. xxi. 10 
(where oljviously something more than mere pliysi- 
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 ^linV ioi &piavm rfis yns, LXX.) 
if taken in its literal meaning of (/oats, may mean 
evil spirits rejiresent^d in that form (cf. I^v. xvii. 
7); and cs|)ecially .lob xxvi. 5, (i. "Behold the 
:;yantcs (.\. V. 'dead things') grown under the 
waters " (Douay version), where there seems to !« 
clear allusioTi to .some subaqueous pri.son of rel>el- 
Houg spirits like tliat in which (according to the 
Hindoo li-gend) N'islniu the water-god confines a 
race of giajits (cf. iri/A.cioxoj, aa a title of Neptune, 


Hes. Theoff. 732; Nork, Bram. und Rabb. p. Sit 
ff.). [Oo; Gol.IATH.] 

Branches of this great imknown people went 
called Kniim, Anakim, and Zuzini. 

* In Prov. xxi. 16, it is said of the man who 
wanders from the ways of wisdom, that " he ihall 
remain in the congregation of the dead " (properly, 
of the a/uides, that is, disembodied spirits; see art. 
Dkad). The meaning b, — 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 off, 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 fnhabitanta. 

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. E.MIM (C'*Q''S : LXX. 'Oju/xiV, 'lfj.fia7ot\ 
smitten by Chedorlaomer at Shaveh Kiriathaim 
(Gen. .xiv. 5), and occupying the country after- 
wards held by the Moabites (Ueut. ii. 10), who 
gave them the name CQ"*W, " terrors " The 
word rendered "tall" may perhaps be merely 
"haughty" (la-xvouTfs)- [Emi.m.J 

5. An*MvIM (C^i735). The imbecile terror of 
the spies exaggerated their proportions into some- 
thing superhuman (Num. xiii. 28, 33), and their 
name became proverbial (Ueut. ii. 10. ix. 2). 
[Ana KIM. J 

0. ZuziM (0"*^!), whose principal town was 
Ham (Gen. xiv. 5), and who lived between the 
Arnon and the Jabbok, being a northeni tribe of 
Kephaim. The Ammonites, who defeated then:, 
called them C'SlJpT (Dent. 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 (Nephilim and Gibborim) there is 
no necessity to supjwse that there was anything 
very remarkable in the size of these nations, be- 
yond the general fact of their l>eing finely jjrojior- 
tioned. Nothing can lie built on the exaggeration 
of the spies (Num. xiii. 3'J), and Og, Goliath, 
Ishbi-bcnot), etc. (see under the names themselves) 
are obviously mentioned as exceptional cases. Th« 


Tewfl however (misled by supposed relics) thought 
otherwise (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. ff. the Guayaquilists 
and people of Paraguay) do not exceed six feet 
and a half. It was long thought that the Patago- 
niaus were men of enormous stature, and the asser- 
tions of the old voyagers on the point were positive. 
For instance Pigafetta ( Voyage 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, Wallis, 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 belief (until very recent times) in 
the existence of fabulously enormous men, arose 
from fancied giant-graves (see De la Valle's Travels 
in Persia, ii. 8U), and above all from the discovery 
of huge bones, which were taken for those of men, 
in days when comparative 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 
he had seen at Utica a hundred times larger than 
ordinary teeth {De Civ. Dei, xv. 9). No doubt it 
once belonged to an elephant. Vives, in his com- 
meptary on the place, mentions a tooth as big as a 
fist, which was shown at St. Christopher's. In fact 
this source of delusian has only very recently been 
dispelled (Sennert, De Giyaut. passim; jMartin'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 Oxfordsliire. 

On the other hand, isolated instances of mon- 
strosity are sufficiently attested to prove that beings 
like Goliath and his kinsmen may have existed. 
Columella {R. R. iii. 8, § 2) mentions Navius Pol- 
lio as one, and Pliny says that in the time of 
Claudius Coesar 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 feign 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, 
surnamed " 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 preserved 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 Worthies, StafTordshire). 

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 Rabb. p. 210 ad Jin. ; Ewald, Gesch. i. 305-312; 
Winer, s. v. Riesen, etc. ; Gesen. s. v. D'^SQT ; 
Rosenmiiller, Kalisch, et Comment, ad hen cit. ; 
Eosenm. Alfertlmmsk. ii. ; Boettcher, de Inferis, p. 
35 f. ; Heidegger, Hist. Pair. xi. ; Hfivernick's 
ftUrwl. to Pentat p. 345 f. ; Home's ItUrod. i. 

GIBE AH 9iy 

148; Faber's Bampt. Lect iii. 7; Maith.nd's Ent- 
vin ; Ong. of Pagan Idol. i. 217, in Maitland'i 
False Worship, 1-67; Pritchard's iVa^ Hist, of 
Man, v. 489 f. ; HamUton On the Pentat. pp. 189- 
201; Papers on the Kephaim by Jliss F. Corbaux, 
Journ. ff Sacr. Lit. 1851. There are also mono- 
graphs by Cassanion, Sangutelli, and Sennert; we 
have only met with the latter {Dissert. Hist. PhiL 
de Gigantibus, Vittemb. 1663) ; it is interesting and 
learned, but extraordinarily credulous. F. W. F. 

GIB'BAR ("122 [hero, or high, gigantic]: 
ro/Se'p: [Vat. Taj8€/> :] Gebbnr). 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 Gibeox. 

GIBTBETHON (V"^n?2 [eminence, hill: in 
Josh.,] Beyifiwv, reeeSdv, Alex. Ta^adwu, Vafie- 
dwV, [in 1 K., Ta^adiLv, Vat. 1 K. xv. 27, Fo- 
fiawv' Gebbethon,] Gabathon), a town allotted to 
the tribe of Dan (Josh. xix. 44), and afterwards 
given with its "suburbs" to the Kohathite Levites 
(xxi. 23). Being, like most of the towns of Dan, 
either in or close to the Philistines' country, it wj^a 
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; x\i. 17). 
VVliat 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 
(ttoXi'xi"?) called Gabe, in the 17th mile from Cass- 
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'EA (S^32 [hilUnhabitant, Fiirst; hill, 
Gesen.]: Fai/SaA; Alex. rai;8aa: 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 Gibeah in Judah. The mention of 
Madmannah (49, comp. Josh. xv. 31), as well as of 
Ziph (42) and Maon (45), seems to carry us to a 
locality considerably south of Hebron. [Gibeah, 
1.] On the other hand Madmannah 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 (nr^a, derived, according to Ge 

senius {Thes. pp. 259, 260), from a root, V'DSi, 
signifying to be round or humped ; comp. the Latin 
gibbus, English gibbous; the Arabic (J>j^,jebel, 
a mountain, and the German gipfel). A word em- 
ployed in the Bible to denote a " hil! " —that is, 
an eminence of less considerable height and extent 

than a " mountain," the term for which is "1il| 
har. For the distinction between the two terms, 
see Ps. cxlviii. 9 ; Prov. viii. 25 ; Is. ii. 2, xl. 4, <fec. 
In the historical books gibeah is commonly applied 
to the bald rounded hills of central Palestine, es- 
pecially in the neighborhood of Jerusalem (Stanley, 
App. § 25). Like most words of this kiud it gave 
its name to several towns and places in Pilestirie 



irliich would doubtless be geiier.ill)' on or near a 
bill. Tliev are — 

1. (iiii'KAii (rajStuf: Gabaa), a city in the 
oiountaiii-district ol Judali, named with Slaon and 
ihe southern Carniel (Josh. xv. 57; and comp. 1 
(Jlir. ij. 49, &c.). In the Oitomaslicon a villafje 
named Gabatha is mentioned as containing the 
monument of Habakkuk the prophet, and lying 
twelve miles from Eleutheroi>olis. The direction, 
however, is not stated. I'ossibly it was identical 
with Keihili, which is given as eastward froni IJeu- 
theropolis (Kusebius says seventeen, .Jerome eight 
miles) on the road to Hebron, and is also mentioned 
as containing the monument of Mabakkuk. But 
neither of these can be the place intended in Joshua, 
since that would appear to have been to the S. K. 
of Hebron, near where Camiel and Maon are still 
existing. For the same reason this (Jibeah cannot 
be that discovered by Hobinson as .ftba'h in the 
Wndy Mttsun; not far west of Bethlehem, and ten 
miles north of Hebron (Kob. ii. G, IG). Its site is 
therefore yet to seek. 

2. Gib'eath (ny53 : rajSatiO; Alex, rafiaad: 
Gnbaath). This is enumerated among the last 
group of the towns of Benjamin, next to Jerusalem 
(Josh, xviii. 28). It is generally taken to be tiie 
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," — (iibeath and not Gibeah, — may it not be- 
long to the following name, Kirjath {i. e. Kirjath- 
jearim, as some MS.S. 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 fouileen, 
but this is not a serious objection, as in these cata- 
logues discrepancies not unfrequently occur between 
the numliers of the towns, and that stated as tlie 
gum of the enumeration (comp. Josh. xv. 32, 30; 
xix. 6, &c.). In this very list there is reason to 
believe that Zelah and ha-Mleph are not separate 
names, but one. The lists of Joshua, though in 
the main coeval with the division of the country, 
must 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 tlie lists of the towns of the tribe. 

3. (ny^an: 4w riji fiovp^-, [Alex. e^/goy^o:] 
in Uab'iii), the place in which the Ark remained 
from the time of its return by the I'hilistines till 
its removal by Uavid (2 Sara. vi. 3, 4; comp. 1 

a For instance, Beth-inarcaboth, " house of char- 
iots," and Hazar-susali, " village of horaee " (Josh. 
xix. 5), would seem to date from the time of Solomon, 
when the traffic in articles began with Egypt. 

h nn37D, A. V. '' meadows of Olbcah," taking the 
word [afltr the Targum and K. Kimchi] as Madrfh, an 
open field (Stanley, App. § ID); the LXX. [Itom. Vat.) 
Iransfers the Hebrew won! liternlly, JAapaayafii; [6 
MSS. read Maapi I'o^oa or ttj? V. ; but Comp. Aid., 
with Alex, and about 15 other MSS., irrb Sva-ii.un' 

njf TaPai;] the Syriuc has f ; ■'V'O = cave. The 
Hebrew word for care, Mehrrih, diflcrs from that 
xiopted lo the A V. only in the Towel-polota ; and 


Sam. vii. 1, 2). The name h)is the definite jit 
iole, and in 1 Sam. vii. 1 [as here in the margin o( 
the A v.] it is translated " the hill." (See Xo. 
2 above.) 

4. Giu'e.vh-of-Ben'jamin. Thiis town does 
not appear in the lists of the cities of Benjamin 
in Josh, xviii. (1.) We first encounter it in the 
tragical story of the Ixvite and his concultine, when 
it brought all but extermination on the tribe (Judg 

six., XX.). It was then a " city " ("T^37) with the 
usual open street (3^n~1) or square (Judg. xix. 15 
17,20), and containing 700 "chosen men" (xx. 
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 genend 
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 e;istem travellers they would 
come "over against Jebus" in two hours, say 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 Xablus road, in the 
direction of Mount Ephraim (xix. 13, comp. 1). 
Bamah and Gibeah both lay in sight of the road, 
Giljeah apparently the nearest; and when the sud- 
den sunset of that climate, unacconipanietl by more 
than a very brief twilight, made further progress 
impossible, they " turned aside " from the beaten 
track to the town where one of the party was to 
meet a dreadful death (Judg. xix. ti-15). Later 
indications of the story seem to show that a little 
north of the town the main track dividetl into two 

— one, the present Nabliis road, leading up t« 
Bethel, the " house of God," and the other taking 
to Gibeah-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 (iibeah," in which the liers in wait 
concealed themselves until the signal was given = 
(XX. 33). 

During this narrative the name is given simply 
as "(jibeah," 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 " Gil)eah of Benjamin," but 

here the Hebrew is not Gibeah, but Geba — 2732. 
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 Tultil tl-Fid [" hill of beans "], 
a conspicuous eminence just four miles north cf 

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

• IJcrtheau (Biu-.h iter Richler i/. Kul. p. 224) objectt 
to the meaning " cave " that tlie licrs-in-wnit are said 
(ver. 2!t) to have been set "roiim/ abniit Oibcnh." He 
understands the last part of ver. 33 to mean that the 
men of Israel came forth from their ambush icegen 
ilir Enlhllissiins: t'"" Ofba', "on account of the com- 
plete cxf>o.sure of Oeba" by the withdrawal of the 
IJciijiiniitos (vv. 31, 32). Buxt<jrf, Tremellius iind 
others give nearly the same interpretation, rendering 
the Inst clause of the verso " post denudalioiMni 
Oibcii'." A 

c JoMpbua, Ant. r. 2, J 11. 


Fernaa^em to the right of the road. Two milc8 
Deyond it and full in view is er-Ram, in all prob- 
ibility the ancient I{amah, and between the two 
the main road divides, one branch going off to the 
right to the village of Jebn, while the other con- 
tinues its course upwards to Beilin, the modern 
representative of Bethel. (See No. 5 below.) 

(2.) We next meet with Gibeah of Benjamin 
during the Philistine 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 
<iet)a, the present Jebn on the south side of the 
IViidy Stiminit. In their front, across the wady, 
which is here about a mile wide, and divided by 
several swells lower than the side eminences, was 
Saul in the town of Jlichmash, the modern Mukh- 
tnds, and holding also " Jlount Bethel," that is, 
the heights on the north of the great wady — Beir 
Diicdn, Burka, Tdl el-IIajnr, as far as Beitin itself 
South of the Philistine camp, and about three 
miles in its rear, was Jonathan, in Gibeah -of- Ben- 
jamin, M'ith a thousand chosen warriors (xiii. 2). 
The 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 meintime it increased the difficulties of 
Israel, for the Phihstines (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 ilichmash, and 
down the eastern passes, to Gilgal, near Jericho in 
the Jordan valley (xiii. 4, 7). They then estab- 
lished themselves at ilichmash, formerly the head- 
quarters of Saul, and from thence sent out their 
bands of plunderers, north, west, and east (vv. 17, 
18). But 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 Gelia, and consolidated his little 
force in Gibeah, where he was joined by his father, 
with Sanmel the prophet, 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 
(jJilgal. with a force sorely diminished by desertion 
to the Philistine camp (xiv. 21), and flight (xiii. 7) 
— a mere remnant (/caTaAei/x^o) of the people fol- 
lowing in the rear of the little band (LXX.). Then 
occurred the feat of tlie hero and his armor-bearer. 
In the stillness and darkness of the night they de- 
scended the hill of (lilieah, 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 
warrison of the Philistines just as the day was 

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

a 1 Sam. xiv. 3. In ver. 18 the ark is said to have 
jeen at Gibeah ; but this is in direct contradiction to 
\jie statement of vii. 1, compared with 2 Sam. vi. a, 4, 
md 1 Chr. xiii. 3; and also to those of the LXX. and 
loBophus at tliif place. The Hebrew words for ark and 

»pbod — p~!S and TISS — are very similar, and 
•n«>' havp been mistaken for one another (Ewald, 
1jr*.tch. iii 46. note ; Stanley, p. 2iJ6). 


tcred on the rocky summit of Michmash, their prac- 
ticed eyes quickly discovered the unusual stir in 
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 3onriict. The nmster- 
roU 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 e\ery one of the heights of the 
country (0afj.(id) the people rose against the hated 
invaders, and before the day was out there was not 
a city, even of Mount Kphraim, to which the 
struggle had not spread. [Jonathan.] 

(o.) As " Gibeah of Benjamin " this place is re- 
ferred to in 2 Sam. xxiii. 2y [LXX. ra$a4d: Vulg. 
Gnbnath'\ (comp. 1 Chr. xi. 31 {^ovv6s- Gabaatli]), 
and as '* Gibeah "it is mentioned by Hosea (v. 8, 
ix. 9, X. 9 [LXX. 01 ^ovvoi, 6 fiouv6s] ), hut it 
does not again appear in the history. It is, however, 
almost without doubt identical with — 

5. Gib'eaii-of-Saul {\>^ViW n^SS : the 
LXX. do not recognize this name except in 2 Sam. 
xxi. G, where they have ra$awv 2aouA, and Is. x. 
■30, ir6\is 2aouA [Vulg. (labaatli Sniilis], else- 
where simply rafiad or [Alex.] raPaadd). 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 (Aiit. vi. 4, § 
6), " he belonged." In the subsequent narrative 
the town bears its full name (xi. 4), and the king 
is living 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 his 
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 h:is not been found in connection with anj 
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 Titleil el-Ful. Josephus (5. J. v. 2, § 1), de- 
scribing Titus's march from Cfesarea to Jerusalem, 

6 We owe this touch to Josephus : vKO<l>aLivov(rrit 
flSri TTJs rifif pas (A7it. vi. 6, § 2). 

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

cl The word in this verse rendered •' hill " is no( 
gibeah but liar, i. e. " mountain," a :«ingular channe 
aud not quite inteUi<pble. 



fires his route as though Samaria to Gophna, 
itheuce a day's march to a valley " called by the 
Jews the Valley of Thorns, near a, certain village 
;alled Gabathsaoule, distant from Jerusalem about 
thirty stadia," i. e. just the distance of Tiiltil tl- 
FuL Here he was joined by a part of his anny 
from F'-mmaus (Nicopolis), who would naturally 
pome up the road by IJeth-horon and Gibeon, the 
same which still falls into the northern road close 
to Tultil el-Ful. In both tliese respects therefore 
the agreement is complete, and (libeah of Benjamin 
must be taken as identical with Gibeah of Saul. 
The discovery is due to Dr. Robinson (i. 577-79), 
though it was partly suggested by a writer in i&7m(/. 
uml Kritlken. 

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 IJenjamite district to Jerusalem. Commencing 
with Ai, to the east of the present Beitiri, the route 
proc(«ds by Muklimds, across the "passages" of 
the IVady Smoeinit to Jeba on the opposite side; 
and then by er-Rani and Ttileil el-Ful, villages 
actually on the present road, to the heights north 
of Jerusalem, from which the city is visible. Gallim, 
Madmenah, and Gebim, none of which have been 
yet identified, must have been, like Anathoth 
(Anain), villages on one side or tlie 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 " Migron," 
"precipice," would very probably, like "Gibeah," 
be borne by more than one town. 

In 1 Sam. xxii. G, xxiii. 19, xxvi. 1, " Gibeah " 
[LXX. fiovv6s' V'ulg. Gabaa\ doubtless stands for 
G. of Saul. 

6. Giu'eaii-in-tiik Field (nit2?5 HV^? : 
Va&ah. iv aypy; [Alex. r. ev toj aypw:] Gaban), 
named only in Judg. xx. 31, as the place to which 

one of the "highways" (nivpP) led from 
Gil)eah-of-I5enjamin, — " of which one goeth up to 
IJethel, and one to Gibeah-in-the-fickl." li^adeli, 
'iie word here rendered " field," is applied si)ccially 
W cultivated ground, " as distinguislied from town, 
desert, or garden " (Stanley, App. § 1.5). Cultiva- 
tion was 80 general throughout this district, that 
the terr.i 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 nnmiiig 
on to Bbil'tn (Itethel), and the other diverging to 
the right to Jeba ((Jeba). The attack on Gibeah 
came from the north (comp. xx. 18, 19, and 20, 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 " apjiear 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- 
-ersed, and ' Gibeah " is put for " Geba." 

The " meadows of Gaba" (^53 ' ^- ^- Gibeah; 
Judg. XX. .'53) have no connection with the "field," 
the Hel)rew words being entirely different. As 
itated aI)ovc, the word rendered " meadows " is 
trobably accunUely " cave." [(Jkh.x, )). 877 ".] 


7. There are several other names '•ompoandsd 
of Gibeah, which are given in a translated fonn in 
the A. v., probably from their appearing not U 
belong to towns. These are : — 

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


(2.) [Tafiahp 4>eve(5 (Vat. *ej-); Alex. Aid. 
raHaad *. : Uiiba„ik Phinets.] The " hill of 
I'liiNKiiAs" iti Mount Kphraim (Josh. xxiv. 33). 
This may be the Jtbin on the left of the Nablug 
road, half-way between Bethel and Shiloh ; or the 
Jeba north of Nublus (Hob. ii. 2Go 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 hick of the name am wig the vil- 
lages of Central Palestine. 

(3.) The "hill of MoKEH" (Judg. vii. 1). 

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

(5.) [Vulg. 1 Sam. xxvi. 3, Gnbaa Hachila.'] 
The " hill of Haciiilah" (1 Sam. xxiii. 19, xxvi. 
1, [-3]). 

(G.) The "hill of Ammah " (2 Sam. ii. 24). 

(7.) The "hill Gakeb" (Jer. xxxi. 39). , 

GIB'EATH, Josh, xviii. 28. [Gibeah, 2.] 

GIB'EATHITE, THE (\nr?2n • <, 
Ta^adiTt)s\ [Vat. FA. T(fiwei;-r7)$; Alex. roj8o5i- 
TTjs:] Gabnathilis), i. e. the native of Gibeah (1 
Chr. xii. 3); in this case Shemaah, or "the 
Shemaah," father of two Benjamites, " Saul's 
brethren," who joined David. 

GIB'EON (]'"137?2, i. e. behmjing to a hill: 
Ta^awv\ [Vat. 1 K! ix. 2, Ta&awQ, Jer. xli. 12, 
ra/3aa> ;] Joseph. Ta^aw ■■ Gabtnni), one of the 
four" cities of the Hivite.s, 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, to have been 
the largest of tlie four — "a great city, like one of 
the royal cities " — larger than Ai (x. 2). Its men 
too were all practiced warriors ( Gibborim, C^SS). 
(libeon 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 " rctiuiiing with Zerub- 
babel (Neh. vii. 25: in the list of Ezra the name 
is altered to (Jibbar), and assisting Nehemiah in 
the repair of the wall of Jenisalcm (iii. 7 ). In the 
post-biblical times it was the scene of a victory by 
the Jews over the Roman troops under Cestius 
(iallus, which offers in many respects a close parallel 
to that of Joshua over the Canaanites (Jos. B.J. 
ii. 19, § 7; Stnnley, -S'. (f- P. p. 212V 

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

" 9o Josh. ix. 17. Josephua (Ant. v. 1, § 16) > 


the left at Tukil el-Ful (Gibeah) on that branch 
of it which leads westward to Jatia, finds himself, 
aftar 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, and rise in well-defined 
mameions from broad undulating valleys of tolerable 
extent and fertile soil. This is the central plateau 
of the country, the " land of Benjamin ; " and these 
round hills are the Gibeahs, Gebas, Gibeons, and 
Kamahs, whose names occur so frequently in the 
records of this district. Retaining its ancient name 
almost intact, tl-.Jib stands on the northernmost 
of a couple of these mameions, just at the place 
where the road to the sea parts into two branches, 
the one by the lower level of the Wady Suleimdii, 
the other by the heights of the Beth-borons, to 
Ginizo, Lydda, and Joppa. T'he road passes at a 
Uiart distance to the north of the base of the hill 


of ei-Jib. The strata of the hills in this cigtrict 
: lie much more horizontally than those fiirthei 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 Neby Snmidl. The 
natural terraces are carried round tlae hill like con- 
I 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 e.Kcavated 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 leet by 100, 
i. c. of rather smaller dimensions tlian the lower 
pool at Hebron. This is doubtless the " pool of 
Gibeon" at which Aimer and Joab met together 
with the troops of Ish-hosheth and David, and where 

Gibeon and Nebi SamwA, from N. \Y. 

that sharp conflict took place which ended in the 
death of Asahel, and 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'^ST '0^12) 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 (gVi rivi TT-qyrj rrj? 
irSXews ouK aTrctf^ei/, Ant. v. 1, § 17), the five kings 
of the Amorites were encamped when .Joshua burst 
upon them from Gilgal. The " wilderness of 
Gibeon " (2 Sam. ii. 24 — the Midbar, i. e. rather 
the waste pasture-grounds — must have been to the 
eaat, beyond the circle or suburb of cultivated fields, 
and towards the neighboring swells, which bear the 

1 B'>th here and in 1 K. iii. 4, Josephus substitutes 
UAsvo for Qilieon {Ant. x. 9, § 5, vui 2, § 1). [ 

names of Jedireh and B'w Xeballah. Such is the 
situation of Gibeon, fulfilling in position every re- 
quirement of the notices of the Bible, Josephus 
Eusebius, and .Jerome. Its distance from Jerusaknr 
by the main road is as nearly as possible 6 J miles; 
but there is a more direct road reducing it to 5 

The name of Gibeon is most familiar to us in 
connection with the artifice by which its inhabitants 
otitained 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. 
[J0.SI1UA; Bi:TH-HOhON.] 

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


preniei)iUtt(!d by both imrties, iu)less we siuipose 
that .loab had lieaid of the intention of the Ben- 
janiiteb to revisit from tlie distant Maliariaini their 
native villages, and had seized the opportunity to 
try his stren<;th with Abner. The details of this 
iisasti-ous encounter are elsewhere given. [JoAu.] 
The place where the struggle began received a name 
from the circumstance, and seems to have been 
long afterwards known as the " field of die strong 
men." [IIelkatii-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 (jibeon may be accoiuited for 
by supposing that 4ie w<\s making a search for this 
Benjamite among the towns of his tribe. The two 
nvals 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 nmrdered Abner, 
but with circumstances of a still more revolting 
character. [Joah; Aums, p. 159.] 

It is remarkable that the retribution for this 
crowning act of perfidy shoidd have overtaken Joab 
close to the very spot on which it had been com- 
mitted. For it was to the tabernacle at Gibeon 
(I 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 bunit-oflering were for some time 
(Ocated on the "high place" attache<i to or near 
the town. We are not informed whether this 
" high ])lace " had any fame for sanctity before the 
tabernacle came there; but if not, it would have 
probalily 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 NtOy Saminl, 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"n5n npsirT) 

wonid 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 (Sinni ami Pal. p. 21G). But the word 
has not always that meaning, and may equally 
imply eminence in other respects, e. rj. superior 
sanctity to the numerous other high places — 
Bethel, KamaJi, Mizpeh, Gibeah — which surrounded 
it on every side. The main objection to this identi- 

" The Hebrew preposition (^Cl?) almost implies 
Ihiit they were on or tourtiing tlie Rtone. 

'' Tlic viirious gtutioHH of tlie Tabernacle and the 
Ark, from their entry on the Promised Ijind to their 
flual deposition in the Temple at Jerusalem, will be 
examined under T\iikrnacle. Menntiiiie, with refor- 
•nce to the above, it may be snid that though not cx- 
pretwly stjitt-d to have been at Nob, it may be con- 
elaiiiv«1y Inferr'nl from the mention of the " shew 
Irewl ' (1 Sam xxi. 0). The " ephod " (9) and the 


fication is the distance of Nehij Snmml from Gil>eno 
— more than a mile — and the absence of taj 
closer connection therewith than with any other of 
the neighborijig places. The most natural position 
for the high place of Gibeon is the twin mount 
inmiediately south of el-J'ib — so close as to be all 
iiut a part of the town, and yet quit* separate and 
distinct. The testimony of Kpiphanius, by which 
Jlr. Stanley supports his conjecture, namely, that 
the " Mount of Gabaon " was the highest round 
Jerusalem {Adv. Iltweses, i. 394), should be received 
with caution, standing as it does quite alone, and 
belonging to an aire which, though early, was 
marked by ignorance, and by the most improbable 

To this high place, wherever situated, the " taber- 
nacle of the congregation " — the sacred tent which 
had accom])anied the children of Israel through the 
whole of their w anderings — 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 ''roni Kirjath-jearim, to the new tent which he 
had pitched for it on Mount 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 
ai)pears to refer to David. But the text of the 
passage is disputed, and the authorities are divided 

i)etween Dti7 =r " he put," and DC" = "w,as there." 
Whether king David transferred the tabomacle to 
Gilieon or not, he certainly appointed the staff of 
priests to offer the daily sacrifices there on the 
brazen altar of jMoses, 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), assi-sted by the famous musicians Heman and 
Jeduthun (41). 

One of the earliest acts 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 
officers of the state — the captains of hundreds an 1 
thousands, the judges, the governors, and the chief 
of the fathers — and the sacrifice consisted of a 
thousand burnt-offerings'^ (1 K. iii. 4). And this 
glimpse of Gibeon in all the splendor of its greatest 
prosperity — the smoke of the tiiousand animals 
rising from the venerable altar on the comnuuiding 
height of "the great high place" — the clang of 
" tnmipets and cymbals and musical instrumenta 
of God" (1 Chr. xvi. 42) resounding through the 
valleys far and near — is virtually the last we have 
of it. In a few years the temple at .Icrusalem was 
completed, and then the tabern.acle was once more 
taken down and removefl. Again " all the men 
of Israel as.scmble<l themselves " to king Solomon, 
with the "elders of Israel," and the priests and 
the I.«vites brought up both the tabernacle and the 

expression ". lK>fore Jehovnh " ((>) prove nothing eithei 
way. Josephiis throws no liffht on it. 

c It would be very sjitisliu-tory to t>elieTe, with 
Thoi.ison ( /-a«'/ nn'/ Bonk, ii. Ml), that the presmt 
Wadi/ SiiUimnn, i. c. " Solomon's valley." which ;om- 
mences on the west side of Oibpon, and leads down to 
the Plain of Sharon, derivj-d its name from this rltdt. 
But the modem immes of places in R-ilcstlne nft*D 
spiiiiK from very modem )H!rs<)iis or rirrumslniicoa 
and, without rontirmation or iuvestiKatlon, this caa 
not be received 


tfk, and " all the holy vessels that were in the 
tabernacle" (I K. viii. 3; Joseph. Aiii. viii. i, § 1), 
and placed the venerable relics in their new home, 
there to remain until the plunder of the city by 
Nebuchadnezzar. The introduction of the name 
of ( iibeon 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 apijear 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 Uavid had pitched for the ark 
on its arrival m 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''337?2n : ol 
I afiaojv'iTai [Vat. -y€i-] : Gabaonita), the people 
of Gibeoii, and perhaps also of the three cities asso- 
ciated with Gibeon (.Josh. ix. 17) — Hivites; and 
who, on tiie discoxery 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 nairative, 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) Ismaiah, 
one of the Benjamites who joined David in his dif- 
ficulties (I 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 .4.zur, a false prophet from Gibeon, who opposed 
Jeremiah, and shortly afterwards died (Jer. xxviii. 
1, 10, 13, 17). G. 

GIB'LITES, THE Ob^^PT, i. e. singular, 
Uie Giblite : TaKia.9 ^vXiarififl; Alex. Fa^At [*■ :] 
conjinin). The " land of the Giblite " is men- 
tioned in connection with Lebanon in the enumera- 
tion of the portions of the Promised Land remain- 
ing to be conquered by Joshua (Josh. xiii. 5). The 
ancient versions, as will be seen above, give no help, 
but 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 slopes 
of Lebanon. The one name is a regular derivative 
from the other (see Gesenius, T/ies. p. 258 b). We 
nave here a confirmation of the identity of the 
Aphek mentioned in this passage with Afhn, which 
was overlooked by the writer when examining the 
latter name [Ai'iiek, 2] ; and the whole passage 
is instructive, as showing how very far the limits 
»f tha country designed for the Israelites exceeded 
(Jiose which they actually occupied. 



a * Dean Stanley describes the artifice of the abo- 
riginal Gibeonites, and the acts of revenge of their de- 
(ceaJantB against the family of Saul, wifh his wonted 

The Giblites are again named (though not in 
the A. V. [except in the margin]) in 1 K. v. 18 
(D"'753n : [Rom. Vat. omit;] Alex, oi Bi^Moi 
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 as 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. 

GIUDAL'TI C^ri^^a [/■ have praised]. 
rodoWaei; [Vat. roSok\a0ei, roSojuaSei;] Alex. 
FeSoXAadi, TeSSeXef. GecUellhi, Gedelthi]), 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 (7|T2 [very great, gigantic]: TeS- 
S-()\, [raSrjA.; in Ezr., Vat. KeSeS; in Neh., Alex. 
2a5rjA.:] Gwklel, [Geddel]). 1. Children of Giddel 
(Bene-Giddtl) 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. [TeHx, TaSaTJA; Vat. reSrja, FaSTjA (so FA. 
in Neh.); Alex. reSSrjA, roSSrjA: Geddd, Jeddel.] 
Bene-Giddel were also among the "servants of 
Solomon" who returned to Judtea in the same 
caravan (Ezr. ii. 56; Neh. vii. 58). In 1 Esdraa 
this is given as Isdael. 

GID'EON (VTl^ia, from VIX a sucker, or 
better = (■( hewer, i. e. a brave warrior; comp. Is. 
X. 33; TeSectfc: 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 Hehr. Conivi. § x.xi.). Some have identified 
the angel who appeared to Gideon {(pavraa/xa 
veavicTKOv fJ-opcpfj, Jos. Aril. v. 6) with the prophet 
mentioned in vi.' 8, which will remind the reader 
of the legends about Malachi in Origen and other 
connnentators. I'aulus (Exeg. Conserv. ii. 190 ff.) 
endeavors to give the nan-ative 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 (tKOTrre, LXX.) in the wine- 

vividness and skill {History of t/ie Jeivis/t Ciwch, 1 
264, and ii. 36). See also Rizpah. H 



press, to conceal it from the predatory tyrants. 
After a natural hesitation he accepted the conunis- 
lion of a deliverer, and learned the true character of 
his visitant from a miraculous sign (vi. 12-23); 
and being reassured from tlie 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 wa.« ordered to throw down the altar of 
Baal and cut down the Asherah (A. V. "grove") 
upon it [AsuEU.Mi], with the wood of which he 
was to otter in sacrifice his father's " second bullock 
of seven years old," an expression in which some 
gee an allusion to the seven years of servitude (vi. 
2G, 1). Perhaps that particular bullock is specified 
because it had l)een reserved by his father to sacri- 
fice to Baal (liosenmiiller, Scliol. ad loc), for Joasli 
seems to have been a priest of that worship. Ber- 
theau can hardly be rigiit in supposing that Gideon 
was to offer tiw bullocks {liicht. p. 115). At any 
rate the minute touch is valuable as an indication 
of truth in the story (see Kwald, Gesch. ii. 498, 
and 7iole). Gideon, assisted by ten faithful servants, 
obeyed the vision, and next morning ran the risk 
of being stoned : but Joash appea.sed the popular 
hidignation by u.sing the common argument that 
Baal was capable of defending his own majesty 
(comp. 1 K. xviii. 27). This circumstance gave 

to Gideon the surname of 73727''! (" ^^^ I^=*^l 
plead," vi. 32; LXX. 'lfpo$da\), a standing in- 
stance of national irony, expressive of Baal's impo- 
tence. AViner thinks that this irony was increased 

hy the fact that V^?^"!** was a surname of the 
Phoenician Hercules (comp. Movers, Phimiz. i. 434). 
We have similar cases of contempt in tiie names 
Sychar, Baal-zebul, etc. (Liglitfoot, Ihr. IJebr. 
ad Mail., xii. 24). In consequence of this name 
some have identified Gideon with a certain priest 
'lep6fM^a\os, nientioned in Kusebius {Prwp. Evmuj. 
i. 10) as having given nuicli accurate information 
to .Sanchoniatiio the Berytian (Bochart, Pliiihr/. p. 
77G; Muetius, Deni. Kvnng. p. 84, Ac), but this 
opinion cannot be maintained (Ewald, (ivsch. ii. 
494; (iesen. s. i-.). We also find the name in the 
form .lerul)beslieth (2 Sam. xi. 21 ; comp. I-^h-baal, 
1 Chr. viii. 33 with Ish-bosheth 2 Sam. ii. tt'.). 
Ewald (p. 495, n.) brings forward several arguments 
against the supposed origin of the name. 

2. After this Ijegins the second act«f Gideon's 
life. " Clothed " by the Spirit of God (Judg. vi. 
34; comp. 1 (hr. xii. 18; Luke xxiv. 49), he blew 
a trumpet; and, joined by "Zebulun, Na])litali, and 
even tlie reluctant Asher " (wliich tribes were 
chiefly endangered by the Midianites), and possibly 
ako by some of ilie original inhabitants, who would 
suffer from these jiredatory "sons of the liast " no 
less than the Israelites themselves, he encampe<l on 
the sloi)es of Gilboa, from whicii he overlooked the 
plains of I'^sdnielon covered by the tents of Midian 
(Stanley, S. <)■• P. p. 243)." Strengthened by a 
double sign from God (to which Ewald gives a 
itrange figurative meaning, Gesch. ii. 500), he re- 

" It is curious to flnj "lamps and pitchers" in 
nse for a similur purpose at this very rlay in the 
Itrects of Cairo. The Znbil or Ai:ha of the poliro 
rarrin.s with him at night "a torch which hums, soon 
ifter it is lighted, without a Hamc. exreptlng wlien it is 
wiLVviX ttirougli till! air, when it siulilcnly bla/x'S forth: 
H therefore answers tlie siunc pur|)Osc as our dark 
Ai^bsm. Tlu burning end is sovitlimts conceiiled in a 


duced his army of 32,000 l)y the usual procininatia 
(Deut. XX. 8; comp. 1 Mace. iii. 56). The cxpie* 
sion "let him depart from Mount (iilead " is per 
plexing; Dathe would render it " to Mount Gilead " 
-on the other side of Jordan; and Clericus reads 
5*273, Gilboa; but Ewald is probably right iu 
regarding tlie name as a sort of war-cry and gen- 
eral designation of the Manassites. (See, too, 
Gesen. Tlies. p. 804, n.) By a second test at " the 
spring of trembling " (now probably 'ylm Jdlud, 
on which see Stanley, S. ij- P. p. 342), he again 
reduced the nunilier of his followers to 300 (Judg. 
vii. 5 f ), whom Josephus explains to have been the 
most cowardly in the army (Ant. v. G, § 3). I'inally, 
being encouraged by words fortuitously overheard 
(what the later Jews termed the Bath Kol; comp. 
1 Sam. XIV. 9, 10, Liglitfoot, Jlor. Ihbr. ad Mall. 
iii. 14) iu the relation of a significant dream, he 
framed his plans, which were admiralily adapted to 
strike a panic terror into the huge and undisciplined 
nomad liost (Judg. viii. 15-18). We know from 
history tliat large and irregular oriental armies are 
especially liable to sudden outbursts of uncontrol- 
Lible 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 echoes which the tnmipets 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 remeniiierpd, too, that 
the sound of 300 trumpets would make them sup- 
pose that a corresponding number of companies 
were attacking them." I'or specimens of similar 
stratagems see Liv. xxii. 16; I'olya'n. Stvateg. ii. 
37; Erontin. ii. 4; Sail. Juy. 99; Niebuhr, Desc^. 
(k fAraOie, p. 304; Jown. As 1841, ii. 516 
(quoted by Ewald, Kosenmiiller, and \\iner). 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 adojited 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 Midianites, breaking into their wild jieculiar 
cries, fled headlong " down the descent to the Jor- 
dan," to the "house of the Acacia" (Beth-shittah) 
and the "meadow of the dance" (Aliel-meholah), 
but were intercepted liy the E|ihraimites (to whom 
notice had been sent, vii. 24) at the fords of Beth- 
barah, wliere, after a stcoiul fight, the princes Oreb 
and Zeeb ("the Kaven " and "the Wolf") were 
detected and slain — the former at a rock, and the 
latter concealed in a, to which their names 
were afterwards given. Meanwhile the " higher 
slieykhs Zebah and Zalmmina had already esca[)ed," 
and Gideon (after pacifying — by a soft answer, 
which became proverbial — the haughty tribe of 
Ephraim, viii. 1-3) pursued tiieni into easlerii Ma- 
nasseh, and. bursting upon them in their fancied 
security among the tents of their Bedouin country- 
men (see Kakkoh), won his lliird victory, and 
avenged on the Midianitish emirs the massacre of 

small pot or jar. or covered with somctliing else, wheo 
not required to give light " (Lane's Mod. Eai/i'l. i. ch 

b • The war-cry was properly, " For .lehoT.ih an<; 
for Gideon." The A. V. inserts " the sword," but Uul 
has no warrant, and restricts too much the Idea. 


tiii kingly l/rethren whom they had slain »t Tabor 
(viii. 18 t). In these three battles only 15 000 out 
Df 120,000 Midianites escaped alive. It is indeed 
stated in Judg. viii. 10. that 120,000 Midianites 
bad already yi'&w ; hut 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 
Peniel. The memory of this splendid deliverance 
took deep root in the national traditions (1 Sam. 
xii. 11; Ps. Ixxsiii. 11; Is. ix. 4, x. 26; Heb. xi. 32). 

3. After this there was a peace 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 Saul, he had owed a part of his 
popularity to his princely appearance (Judg. viii. 18). 
In this third stage of his Ufe occur ahke his most 
noble and his most questionable acts, namely, the 
refusal of the monarchy on theocratic grounds, and 
the irregular consecration of a jeweled ephod, formed 
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 (riife Rosenmiiller, On Jwl;/. iii. 11), insuper- 
able difficulties remain. If, however, as has been 
suggested by Lord A. Mervey, several of the judge- 
ships really synchronize instead of being successive, 
nmch of the confusion vanishes. For instance, he 
supposes (from a comparison of Judg. iii., viii., and 
xii.) that there was a combined movement under 
thre*^ great chiefs, Ehud, Gideon and Jephthah, by 
which the Israelites emancipated themselves from 
the dominion of the Jloabites, Annnouites, 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 difierent 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 we treated in the same manner the histories 
of Mercia, Kent, Essex, Wessex, and Northmnber- 
land, before England became one kingdom" (6'e- 
nenloff. of' our Lord, p. 238). It is new well known 
that a similar source of error has long existed in 
the chronology of Egypt. F. W. F. 

GIDEO'NI C'?^?"!!! or once "'^'l^lS [apros- 
trator, luarrior]: Taiioipi; [Vat. TeS'euvei, Ta- 
Sfwvfi, etc.:] Gedeonis [gen.]). Abidan, son of 
Gideoni, wiis the chief man of the tribe of Benja- 
min at the time of the census in the wilderness of 
filial (Num. i. 11; ii. 22; vii. 60, 65; x. 24). 

GT'DOM (Ci7"T3 [n cutting down, desohling]: 
rthar; Alex. I'aAaaS: [('onip. Aid. TaSadfj.]), a. 
place named only in J udg. xx. 45, as the limit to 



wnicn the pursuit of Benjamin extended after th« 
final battle of Gibeah. It would ajipear to hav 
been situated between Gibeah ( Tuleil el-Fiil) and 
the cliff Iiimn.on (probably Rummmi, 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. [Menl'CAIi, Amer. 
ed.] The reading of the Alex. LXX., " Gilead," 
can hardly he taken as well founded. In the Vul- 
gate the word does not seem to be represented. 

GIER-EAGLE (Cn"1, racham; nDRn, 
rdclidmd/i : kvkvos, Tropcpvpioov- iwr/j/zy/'fo), an 
unclean bird mentioned in Lev. xi. 18 and Deut. 
xiv. 17.. There is no reason to doubt that the 
racham of the Hebrew Scriptures is identical in 

reality as in name with the racham (|vi>-j) of the 

Arabs, namely, the Egyptian vulture {Xeophrmi 
percnopterus); see Gesner, 7Je ^ri6. p. 176; Bo- 
chart, H'teroz. 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 " {KVKfos), while in Deut. /. c. the 
" purple water-hen " {Porphyrio hy icint/iinus) ia 
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 liird which is very 
nffectionote to its young," which is perfectly true 
of the Egyptian vulture, but not more so than of 
other birds. The .Arabian wiiters relate many 
fables of the Racham, some of which the reader 
may see in the f/itrozoicon of Bochart (iii. p. 56). 
The Egyptian vulture, according to Bruce, is called 
by the Europeans in Egypt " Pharaoh's Hen." It 

Egyptian Vulture. 

is generally distributed throughout Egypt, and Mr 
I Tristram says it is common in Palestine, and breedj 
in great numbers in the valley of the Cedron {/bis, 
i. 23). Though a bird of decidedly unprepossessing 
appearance and of disgusting habits, the I'^gyptians, 
like all other Orientals, 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. 388, 
folio), there are several flocks of the Ach Bobba, 
" white father." — a name given it hy the Turk* 

922 GIFT 

partly out of the reverence they have for it, partly 
from the color of its pluiiiiige, — " wliich, like the 
ravens about our nietroiwlis, feed upon the carrion 
and nastiiiess that is thrown without the city." 
■i'oung birds are of a brown color with a few white 
feathers ; adult specimens are white, except the pri- 
niai'y and a jwrtioii of the secondary winj;- feathers, 
which are black. Naturalists have referred this 
vulture to the nepKi/SirTepos or opfiirfKapyos of 
Aristotle {/list. Aiiim. ix. 21, § 2, ed. Schneid.). 
W. II. 

* There are two birds known as iv^) among 

the .\rabs in Egypt. The first is the vulture known 
as Ktopliron percnnptei-us. It is found extensively 
in all parts of I'^jypt, 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 tiie quill-feathers, 
which are a grayish black. The appearance of this 
bird soaring (in circles) over and around the towns 
in Kgypt, with its bright yellow beak and neck and 
crop, and white body, and dark wing- feathers, is 
exceedingly beautiful. 

The second is the Pelecanus onocrotnlus, found 
\n large numbers in I^gypt, and about Lake Hiileh 
in Palestine. This is probably the bird intended Ijv 

Dn"n 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. Tlie word "Ht^) translated "cor- 
morant" in Lev. xi. 17 and Deut. xiv. 17 more 
proi)erly suits the Diver {t'ohjmhu.t], of whicli there 
is a large species in Egyjjt. G. 1'-. V. 

GIFT, llie 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, Ijirth, Uike place without presents: e\en a 
visit, if of a fonual nature, nmst be prefaced by a 
present. AVe cannot adduce a more remarkable 
proof of the important part which presents play in 
the social life of the I'kst, 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 (J^T^^'^) 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); maselli 

(nSlptt) expresses the converse idea of a present 
from a su])erior to an inferior, as from a king to his 
gulijccts (ICstli. ii. 18); hence it is used of a poition 
of food sent by the master of the house to his in- 
Terior guests (Gen. xliii. 34; 2 Sam. xi. 8); nisselli 

(nSl^3) has very much the same sense (2 Sam. 
lix. 42); berac'ih (n!3'13), literally a " blessing," 
(b UBwl 'viii're the present is one of a coin|)limentary 
Diiture, either accompanied with good wishes, or 
^ven as a (oknn of affection (Cien. xxxiii. 1 1 ; Judg. 
.16; 1 Sam xxv. 27, xxx. 20; 2 K. v. 15): and 


agaui, shoclmd {1T}W) is a gift for the pui-joae d 
escaping punishment, presented either to a julgt 
(Ex. xxiii. 8; Deut. x. 17), or to a conquuroi 

(2 K. xvi. 8). Other terms, as matldn {)r\12] 
were used more genei..lly. 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 which is frequently 
illustrated in the sculptures of Assyria and Egypt; 
hence the numerous insUmces in which the present 
was no voluntary act, but an exaction (Judg. iii. 
15-18; 2 Sam. viii. 2, C; 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. 2!), Ixxvi. 11; Is. xviii. 7). Again, the pres- 
ent taken to a prophet was viewed very nmch in 
the hght 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 ininchch (as in the 
instances quoted), a shuchnd, or bribe (Is. i 23, v. 
2'5; Ez. xxii. 12; Mic. iii. 11). But even allowing 
for these, which are hardly "gifts" in our 
sense of the term, there is still a large excess re- 
maining in the practice of tht 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 exi)ected 
(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 
bridegroom not only paid the pai-ents for his bride 
(A. V. "dowry"), but also gave the bride certain 
presents (Gen. xxxiv. 12; comp. Gen. xxiv. 22), 
while the father of the bride gave her a present on 
stndiny litr awanj^ as is expressed in the term shil- 

luchhn {WPrl'W) (1 K. ix. 16); and again, the 
portions of the sons of concubuies were paid in the 
form of presents (Gen. xxv. G). 

The nature of the presents was as various as 
wore the occasions: food (1 Sam. ix. 7, xvi. 20, xxv. 
11), sheep and cattle ((Jen. xxxii. 1.3-15; Judg. xv. 
8), gold (2 Sam. xviii. 11; Job xlii. 11; Matt. ii. 
11), jewels ((jcn. xxiv. 53), furniture, and vessels 
for eating and drinking (2 Sam. xvii. 28), delica- 
cies, such as spices, honey, etc. ((Jen. 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 (l^sth. vi. 8; Dan. v. IG; 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 refussil of a jjresent 
was regarded as a high indignity, and this con- 
stituted the aggravated insult noticed in Matt, 
xxii. 11, the marriage robe having l)een offered 
and refused (Trench, Pnvabks). No less an in- 
sult was it, not to bring a present wlien the posi 
tion of the parties demanded it () Sam. x. 27). 

w. L. a 


C4IHOX (Pn^a [stream]: Tewy; Alen.. Tt 
wv: (iehon). 1. The second river of Paradise (Gen. 
j. 13). The name does not again occur in the 
Hebrew te.'it of the 0. T.; but m the LXX. it 
[FTjai;/] is used in Jer. ii. 18, as an equivalent for 
tlie word Shichor or Sihor, t. e. the Nile, and in 
F^clus. xxiv. 27 (A. V. "Geon"). All that can 
be said upon it will be found under Eden, p. 658 f. 

2. (]\-'3, and in Chron. t^TVl : [in 1 K.,] 
rj Tidv, [Vat. Teicoi/, Alex, o TicoV, in 2 Chr. xxxii. 
;50,] rei'2v, [Vat. 2eia>v, Alex. ricoV, in 2 Chr. 
sxxiii. 14, /caret v6toi', Comp. tov reioJj/:] Gihoii.) 
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 — " brmg him down (Dril^n) upon (v]?) 
Gihon " — " they are come up (^/l?^) 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 
(bn3). In this latter place Gihon is named to 
designate the direction of the wall built by Jlanas- 
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 ill which it is mentioned suggests 
this belief, or at least that it had given its name to 
some water — " Hezekiah also stopped the upper 
source or issue (S^"1X3, from S^^, 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 
Jkrl'S.vlem ; 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 " Gihou-in-the- valley ; " where 
it will be observed that niclud (" torrent " or 
" wady ") is the word always employed for the val- 
ley of the Kedron, east of Jerusalem — the so- 
called Valley of Jehoshaphat; rje ("ravine" or 
"glen") being as constantly employed for the Val- 
ley of Hiiiaom, 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- 
gum of Jonathan, and thfe SjTiac and Arabic Ver- 
sions, have Shiloha, i. e. Siloam (Arab. .4J/i-Shi- 
loha) 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 
inswer to the course of a wall inclosing " the city 
Df David " (2 Chr. xxxiii. 14); and (5) the omis- 
sion of Gihon from the very detailed catalogue of 
Keh. iv. is explained. G. 

a. * This name arose from a misapprehension of Ps. I less it be the Hill of Moreh (Judg. vii 1). Jerome, in 
Vcxxix. 13 (12). as ?f Hermou and Tabor, being there | the 4th century, is the first who speaks of it as Ker- 
spoken of together, must have been near each other, men. (See Rob. Fkys. Gtogr. p. 27.) H 

rtiig Jibel ed-Dtiki/ is not mentioned in the Bible, uu- I 

GIL'ALAI [3 syl.] Cbbs [perh. weighty 
powerful, Fiirst]: [Horn.] TeAcoA; [Vat. 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. 30). 

GILBO'A (V'2?2. bvbbling fountain, fewn. 
ba and V^2 : Te\^3v4: [Alex. 2 Sam. i. 6, 
Te/Soue:] Oelboe),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 offering" (2 Sam. i. 21). Uf th« 
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, calletl 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 (Onum. 
s. V. remove}- The village is now called Jtliion 
(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 ui 
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. I'heir modern 
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 imperisii- 
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 
requurements of the history imply. We have the 
j name of the ridge Gilboa, on which the battle was 
fought, transmitted to us in that of Jelhiin, applied 
to a village on the southern slope of this ridge, 
known to travellers as Little Hermon," but among 


the Ditives as Jtbtt td-Diihy. The ridge rises out 
of the plaiii of lisdraeloii, and, running eastward, 
links down into tlie valley of the Jordan. The 
Israelites at first pitched their tents at Jezreel, the 
present Zcr'in on the western declivity of Gilboa, 
ind near a fountain (1 Sam. xxix. 1), undoubtedly 
the present 'Ain Jdliid, 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- 
mits of the ridge up which their forces were driven 
iis the tide of battle turned against them in the 
progress of the fight. The I'hilistines encamped 
at first at Shunem (1 Sam. xxviii. 4), now called 
Soldiii, 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 higiier 
ground behind them. On the other hand, the 
camp of the I'hilistines was visible, distant only 
eight or ten miles, from the camp of Israel. Hence 
when " Saul saw the host of the I'hilistines, he was 
afraid, and his heart greatly trembled." The I'hilis- 
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 I'hilistines are next mentioned 
as rallying their forces at Apliek (1 Bam. 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 I'hilistines 
made tiieir direct attack on the Israelites. Further, 
we rea<l that the conquerors, after the battle, carried 
the bodies of Saul and his sons to I5eth-shean, and 
hung them up on the walls of that city. Beth- 
shean was a stronghold of the riiilistines which the 
Israelites had never wrested from them. That 
place, evidently, reappears in the present Beisdii, 
which is on the eastern slope of the Gilboa range, 
visible in fact from Jezreel, and still remarkable lor 
its strength of jwsition 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 nuist 
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 sucli a necromancer, on 
the north side of Diihy, at the west end of which 
was Shunem. Hence Saul, leaving his camp at 
Jezreel, could steal his way under cover of the night 
across the intervening valley, and over the moderate 
iunmiit whicli he would have to ascend, and then, 
after consulting the woman with "a familiar spirit 
at Endor, could return to his forces without his 
departure lieing 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 
jf each other. A person may start from any one 
of them and make the circuit of them all in a few 
houm. The date a.ssigned to this battle is u. c. 

a • I'ossibly the Philistines. iuRteiul of tjiklng the 
aoArltiiiio route, mny have crossed the Jordan and 
nai -bad north on tliat side of the river. II. 


1055, later but a little than the tiai-itionar/ age oi 
the siege of Troy. It is seldom tiiat a record of 
remote events can be subjected to so severe a scru- 
tiny as this. 

For other sketches which reproduce more or less 
fully the occurrences of this battle, the reuder may 
see \'an de \'elde ( Travels in Hi/r. ij- J'(d. ii. 3G8 
tf.); Stanley (A", tj- /'. p. 33'J f., Amer. ed.); Rob- 
inson (BiO. Jits. iii. 173 ff., Isted.); and Porter 
{Uandbovk, ii. 355 fl'.). Some of the writers difler 
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 striking manner 
(Jticisli C/(Ui ill, h. -iO ft'.). For geographical in- 
formation respecting this group of places, see espe- 
cially Kob. B/iys. (Jco(/r. ])p. -iO-'iS, and IJitter'a 
Gtoyr. of Pakslinc, Gage's transl., ii. 321-336. 


GIL'EAD (157^2 [see below] : PaAaaS: Gn. 
laud), a mountainous region east of the Jordan; 
bounded on the north by Bashan, on the east by 
the Arabian jjlateau, and on the south by Moab 
and Amnion (Gen. xxxi. 21; Dent. iii. 12-17). It 
is sometimes called " Mount Gilead " (Gen. xxxl 
25, "TV 72n ~in), sometimes " the land of GU- 

ead" (Num. xxxii. 1, "7^72 VT?^) ; ^^"^ 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 I^b- 
anon (Judg. iii. 3) — they both comprehend the 
whole range, and tlie range of Gilead embraced the 
whole province. The name Gilead, as is usual iu 
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 province, which is, 
as the name imjilies, a " level, fertile tract." 

The statements in (ien. xxxi. 48 are not opposed 
to this etymology. The old name of the district 

was 11^ v3 (Gilead), but by a sliglit change in the 
pronunciation, the radical letters being retained, 
the meaning was made beautifully applicable to the 
" heap of stones " Jacob and Laban had built up— 

" and Eaban said, this heaj} ( /3) is a witness ("T3?) 
between me and thee this day. Therefore was the 
name of it called Gal-eed" {IV /^, the htnp oj 
witness). Those acquainted with the modem 
Arabs and their literature will see how intensely 
such a play upon the word would be ajiiueciated 
by them. It does not appear that the interview 
between Jacob and his father-in-law took place on 
any particular nioimtain peak. Jacob, having 
passed the Euphrates, " set his face toward Jlount 
(iilead;" he struck across the desert by the great 
fountain at Palmyra; then traversed the eastern 
part of the plain of Damascus, and the i)lateau of 
Bashan, and entered Gilead from the northeast. 
" In the Mount (Jilead I^nban overtook him " — 
apparently soon alter he entered tlie district; for 
when they separated again, Jacob went on his wa\ 
and arrived at Mahanaim, which must have been 
considerably north of the river Jabbok (Gen. xxxii. 
1, 2, 22). 

The extent of Gilecd we can ascertain with tol- 
erable ex.ietness from incidental noticw in tiie Hoi; 
Scriytures. The Jordan waa its western border (I 


ten. xiii. 7; 2 K. x. 33). \ comparison of a 
Duiuher of passages shows that the river Hieromax, 
the mocler.'i Shennt. el-Mniullmr, separated it from 
Bashan on the north. "Half Gilead " is said to 
have been possessed by Sihon kins; of the Amorites, 
and the other lialf by Og kin§ of Bashan; and the 
river Jabbok was the division between the two 
kingdoms (Dent. iii. 1-2; Josh. xii. 1-5). The 
ball' of Gilead posses5ed 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 Joi'dan valley to the Sea of Galilee (Josh. xiii. 
27); and yet '■'■all 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 (]tt72, like the 

Arabic Kk'Ji^, 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 awaj' 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- 
ern 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 (Dent. ii. 3G, 
iii. 12). It seems, however, that the southern sec- 
tion of their territory was not included in 
In Josh. xiii. 9-11 it is intimated that tiie "plain 
of Medeba " ("the Mishor " it is called), north of 
the Anion, is not in Gilead; and when speaking 
of the cities of refuge, Moses describes Bezer, which 
was given out of the tribe of Reuben, as being 
"in the wilderness, in the pltin country {i. e. in 

the country of the Mishor;' IW'^Tpn VT!^)) 
while Ramoth is said to be in Gilead (Deut. iv. 
43). This southern plateau was also called "the 
land of Jazer " (Num. xxxii. 1; 2 Sam. xxiv. 5; 
compare also Josh. xiii. 16-25). The valley of 
Heshbon may therefore, in aU 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 th6 proper limits of Gilead, 
the name is used in a wider sense in two or three 
parts of Scripture. IMoses, for example, is said to 
have seen, from the top of Pisgah, " all the land of 
Gilead unto Dan " (Deut. xxxiv. 1); and in Judg. 
XX. 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 lying between the Jabbok and the 
Hieromax is now called ./tbel Ajli'in ; while that to 
rhe south of the Jabbok constitutes the modern 
orovince of Belki. One of the most conspicuous 



a • Mr. Tristram regards the peak called JebH Osha, 
V the aacient Mount Gilead, said by the people of the 
toantrj to contain the tomb of Hosea. For a descrip- 

peaks in the mountain range still retains the an 
cient name, beitig called Jebel Jil'dil, " Mount 
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 Raniath-Miz- 
peh of Josh. xiii. 26; and the " Mizpeh of Gilead," 
from which Jephthah " passed over unto the chil- 
dren of Ammon " (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-Sall occupies the site of the old " city 
of refuge " in Gad, Ramoth-Giiead. [Ramoth- 


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

Mishor (-1127"'a and ~ltt7"'D) 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 re;d 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 Jordan valley, which 
averages about 1,000 feet. Their outline is singu- 
larly uniform, resembling a massive wall running 
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. if P. p. 
320). It is everywhere co%ered with luxuriant 
lerbage. 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 ,Iabbok, 
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 is 
referred to under the name Ham, and was inhabited 
by the giant Zuzims. The kings of the East whc 
came to punish the rebellious " cities of the plain," 
first attacked the Hephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, 
i. e. in the country now called Haurdn ; then they 
advanced southwards against the " Zuzims in 
Ham;" and next against the Emims in Shaveh- 
Kiriathaim, which subsequently possessed b\ 
the Moabites (Gen. xiv. 5: Deut. ii. 9-19). [See 
Emims; Rephaim.] We hear nothing more of 

tion of the magnificent view from that summit, se« 
Land of Isra^h P. 556, Ist eA. b 



Jilead tiU the inAasion of the country by the 
(sraelitcs. One hiilf of it was then in tiie hands 
of Sihon king of tiie Aniorites, who had a short 
time previously driven out the .Moahites. ()<;, king 
of Baslian, -had tlie otlier section north of tiie Jab- 
bok. The Israelites defeated the former at Jahaz, 
and the latter at ICdrei, and took possession of Gilead 
and Uashan (Num. xxi. 2i ff.). The rich pasture 
land of Gilead, with its shady forests, and copious 
streams, attracted the attention of Keul)en and (iad, 
who " had a very great multitude of cattle," and 
was allotted to them. The luture history and habits 
of the tribes that occupied Gilead were greatly 
affected by the character of the country, liich 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 Bedawtn they lived in a constant state of war- 
fare, just as .Jacob had predicted of Gad — -'a troop 
shall plunder him; but he shall jdundtv at the 
last" (Gen. xlix. 19). The sons of Ishmael were 
Bubdued and plundered in the time of Saul (1 Chr. 
V. 9 ff.); and the children of Amnion in the days 
of Jephthah and David (.ludg. xi. 32 AT.; 2 Sam. 
X. 12 ff".). Their wandering tent life, and their 
almost inaccessil)le country, made thein in ancient 
times what the Bedawy 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 rel)ellion of a 
beloved son; and the surrounding tribes, with a 
characteristic hospitality, carried presents of the 
best they [wssessed to the fiiUen monarch (2 Sam. 
xvii. 22 ff). Elijah the Tishbite a Gileadite 
(1 K. xvii. 1); and in his .simple garb, w'ild aspect, 
abrupt address, wonderfully active haliits, and 
movements so rapid as to evarle tlie search of his 
watchful and bitter foes, we see all the character- 
istics of the genuine Bedawy, ennobled by a high 
prophetic mission. [Gad.] 

Gilejid was a frontier land, exposed to the first 
attacks of the Syrian and Assyrian invadei-s, and 
to the unceasing raids of the desert tribes — " Be- 
cause Macliir the first-born of Mana.sseli was a man 
of war, therefore he had Bashan and (Jilead " (.Josh. 
xvii. 1). Under the wild and wayward .Jephthah, 
Mizpeh of Gilead became the gathering place of the 
trans-.Iordanic tribes (.ludg. xi. 29); and in subse- 
quent times the neighboring stronghold of Kampth- 
(iilead 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 (raAatfS) occurs several times 
in the histfjry of the Maccabees (1 Mace. v. 9 ff'.): 
and also in Jo.scphus, but generally with the Greek 
termination — roAoaSrns or TaKa^7]vi\ (AnI. xiii. 
U, § 2; B. ./. i. 4, § J). Under the Roman 
dominion the country l)ei:ime more settled and 
civilized; and the great cities of Gadara, I'ella, and 
itenusa, with rhihulelpliia on its southeastern i)order, 
speedily rose to ojiulence and s[)lendor. In one of 
these (I'ella) the Christians of .Jerusalem found a 
sanctuary when the armies of I'itus gathered round 
the devoted city (Kuseb. II. K. iii. 5). Under 
Mohanimetlan rule the country has again lapsed 
bto Bemi-barbarism. Some scatt/?red villages amid 


the fastnesses of Jtbd Ajlihi, and a few fierce mn 
dering tril)e3, constitute the whole ppulation of 
Gilead. They are nominally subject to the Porte 
but their allegiance sits lightly upon them. 

For the scenery, products, antiquities, and historj 
of Gilead, the following works may be consulted. 
Burckhardts Trnv. in Sqi: ; Bucldngham's Arnb 
Tribes ; Irby and Mangles, Traveh ; Porter's 
lluntlbook, and Fire I'enrs in Damascus ; Stanley's 
•Sin. and Pal. ; Hitter's Pal. ami Syna. 

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 
L'lericus and others, that the true reading in this 

place should be V^??, Gilboa, instead of "T^ba. 
Gideon was encamped at the " spring of Harod," 
which is at the l) of Mount Gilljoa. A copyist 
would easily make the mistake, and ignorance of 
geography would pre\ent it from being afterwards 
detected. For other explanations, see Ewald, O'escli. 
ii. 500; Schwarz, p. 1G4, nole ; Gesen. 7'lies. p. 
804, note. 

* As regards Gilead (2), Bertheau also {Buck der 
liichter, p. 120), would substitute Gilboa for that 
name in Judg. vii. .1. Keil and Dehtzsch hesitate 
between that view and the conclusion that there 
may have been a single mountain or a range so 
caUed near Jezreel, just as in Josh. xv. 10, we 
read of a Jlount Seir in the territory of Judah 
otherwise unknown ( Com. on Joshua, Jwit/es, and 
Ruth, p. 341). Dr. Wordsworth has the following 
note on this perplexed qu&stion : " Probably the 
western half-tribe of Mana.sseli expressed its con- 
nection with the eastern half-trii)e by calling one 
of its mountains by the same name. Mount (Jilead, 
as the famous mountain bearing that name in the 
eastern division of their tril)e (Gen. xxxi. 21-2.5, 
xxxvii. 25; Num. xxxii. 1, 40, &c.). INIay we not 
.see 'a return of the compliment' (if the expres- 
sion may he used) in another name which has 
perplexed the commentators, 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 ICphraim was on the east. Perhaps 
that half-tribe of Manasseh, which was in the east, 
marked its connection with ICphraim, its brother 
tribe, by calling a wood in its own neighborhood 
by that name." (See his f/oly Bible tcith NoUs, 
ii. pt. i. p. 111.) Ca.ssel (liichter, p. 71) thinks 
that Gilead here may denote in effect character 
rather than locality: the Minint of Gilead^ the 
community of the warlike Manassites (Josh. xvii. 
1 ), now so fitly represented by Gideon, spning from 
that tribe (Judg. vi. 15). The cowardly deserve no 
place in the home of such heroes, and should sep- 
arate themselves from them. II. 

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

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

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

OIL'EADITES, THE (1V^2 Judg. xil. 

a • I'mbably a pntronymic ^ ^TV 72, a Ollwidifc, ^f ,^8 father belnft unknown, that of hls coantij 
Jophfhnh l.'i called both when first' and Inut mon- Htinds In plnco of It. Seu Cassel, Rithler u. Ruth i» 
»o«^l (.liidg xl. 1, and xll. 7). Tlie i)onional imuie lunge's Pibelwerk, p. 102. U 


1,6. '''Tijbsn: Judg. xii. 4, 5, TaAoaS; Num. 
Kvi. 29, ra\oo5^ [Vat. -5€i] ; Judg. x. 3, 6 
rc»\aa5; [Judg. xi. 1, 40, xii. 7; 2 Sam. xvii. 27, 
six. 31; 1 K. ii. 7; Ezr. ii. 61; Neh. vii. 63,] 6 
PaAaaSiTTj? [Vat. -Set-, exc. Judg. xi. 40, Vat. 
PoAoaSj ; Alex, o roAooSiriy, o raAaaSeirris, 
[and Judg. xii. 5, aydpes ra\aa5:] GcdniditcB, 
(Jalamliles, vlri Gnl tad). A branch of the tribe cf 
Manasseh, descended from Gilead. There appears to 
have been an old standing feud between thcra 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, 
because the}- said. Runagates of Ephraim are 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 anh 
T(A)v TfTpaKoaiaiy [Vulg. deJUils Gala iditar urn]. 

GIL'GAL (always with the article but once. 
v372l^5 [the circuit, ike rolling, see below]: 
Ti\yd\a (plural); [in Deut. xi. 30, To\y6\; Josh, 
xiv. 6, Rom. Vat. TaKyih'-^ G(dynlri [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 first 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, conip. 3); where also they kept tlieir first pass- 
over in the land of Canaan (v. lOJ. It was in the 

" end of the east of Jericho " ( ^ HT'TP "^r^lT? • 
A. V. " in the east border of Jericho "), apparently 
on a hillock or rising ground (v. 3, comp. 9) in the 
Arl)oth-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 
ft-om which the sacred historian derives the name: 
" ' This day I have rolled away {fjnlliothi) the re- 
proach of Egypt from oft" jou." Therefore the name 
of the place is called Gilgal « to this day." By 
Josephus {Ant. v. 1, § 11) it is said to signify 
'' freedom " (eKevOeptov)- The camp thus estab- 
lished at Gilgal remained there during the early 
part of the conquest (ix. 6, x. 6, 7, 9, 15, 43); and 
we may probably infer from one narrative that 
loshua 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 Philistine!", col- 
lected his feeble force at the site of the old camp 
(1 Sam. xiii. 4, 7); but this is the only occurrenv.? 
at all connecting it v/ith war. It was now one of 
the "holy cities" (ol r]yia(rfxevot) — if we accept 
the addition of the LXX. — to which Samuel reg- 
ilarly resorted, where he administered justice (1 
Sam. \-ii. 16), and where burnt-offerings and peace- 
offerings were accustomed to be offered "before 
relrovah" (x. 8, xi. 15, xiii. 8, 9-12, xv. 21); and 
3n one occasion a sacrifice of a more terrible de- 

« This derivation of the name ;annot apply in the 
case ot the other Gilgals mentioned below. May it 
uot bo the adaptation to Hebrew of a name previously 
txiating in the former language of the country ? 

'' Such is the real force ■?' the Hebrew text (xix. 40). 


scription than either (xv. 33). The air of tli€ 
narrative all through leads to the conclusion that 
at the time of these occurrences it was the chief 
sancfuary of the central portion of the nation (see 
X. 8, xi. 14, XV. 12, 21). But there is no sign of 
its beuig a town ; no mention of building, or of its 
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 years 
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 mimediately 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 Isniel in the middle period of its 
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 Apocrypha nor the N. T. 
is it mentioned. Later authorities are 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 stiU distinguishable, if we 
are to take literally the expression of the J-^iAt. 
Paulw (§ 12). The distance from Jericho was 
then two miles. The siwt was left uncultivated, 
but regarded with great veneration by the residents , 
" locus desertus . . . ab illius regionis mortalibus 
miro cultu habitus" {Onoin. Galgala). When 
Arculf waa there at the end of the seventh century 
the place was shown at five miles from .lericho. A 
large church covered the site, in whicli the twelve 
stones were ranged. The church and stones were 
seen by Willibakl, thirty years later, but he givea 
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 Mohnrfer, 
a little S. E. of er-Hiha, is marked as possil)le; but 
no explanation is afforded either in bis Syria, or 
his J/emoir, 

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

"go down" (^1"?.^) from Gilgal to Bethel (2 K 
ii. 1), in opposition to the repeated expressions ol 
the narratives in Joshua and 1 Samuel, in whicL 
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 thaJ 
John the Baptist pointed when he said that God wa» 
" able of t/iese stones to raise up children unto 
Abraham" (Thietmar, Ptrtgr. 31>. 



hiffher level than Bethel, and it wks probably that 
it which Elisha worked tlie ■niiracle of healing on 
Uie poisonous pottage (2 K. iv. 38). Perhaps tiie 
expression of 2 K. ii. 1, coupled with the " came 
again " of iv. 38, may indicate tiiat Klisha resided 
there, 'i'lie mention of IJaal-shalisha (iv. 42j gives 
a clew to its situation, when taken with the notice 
of Eusebius ( Omnu. IJethsarisa) that that place was 
fifteen miles from Diospolis (Lydda) towards the 
north. In that very position stand now the ruins 
bearing the name of Jiljilieh, i. e. (iilgal. (See 
Van de VeMe's map, and Rob. iii. 139.) 


or ratlier perhaps the " king of Goim-at-Gilgal " 
(ba^;!^ □•;hS""?]l?P : [^a<n\ebs rd rrjs TaAi- 
Kaia^; Alex. $. rveifn, ttjs reKyea (conip. Aid. 
FaAyfA): rex (/tntium Gal<jal\),\& mentioned in 
the catalogue of the chiefs overthrown Ijy Joshua 
(Josh. xii. 23). The name occurs next to Don 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 otiier place of the nan;e yet known. Eusebius 
and Jerome ( Oiuun. Gelgel) speak of a " Galgulis " 
six miles N. of Antipatris. This is slightly more 
suitable, but has not been identified. \Vhut these 
Gidm were has been discussed under Heathkn. 
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; comp. 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 (Snliin), 
and rather more than the same distance from Bethel 
{Beilin). This suits the requirements of the story 
of I'^lijah and IClisha 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 maritime plain, more suited for the 
residence for the sons of the prophets. In position 
it appears to be not less tlian 500 or 000 feet above 
Bethel (Van de Vclde, Mtmoir, p. 170). It may 
!« 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 
Kilkilieli, lies about two miles E. of Kefr Saba. 

4. [ra\yd\; Vat. tu AyaS- Valyala.'] A 
Gilgal is s|)oken of in Josh. xv. 7, in describing the 
north Ijorder of Judah. In the parallel list (Josh. 
Kviii. 17) it i? given as (^iKLII.otii, and under that 
word an attempt is made to show that Gilgal, i. e. 
♦ he Gilgal near Jericho, is probably correct. G. 

GI'LOH (n'*72 [exile. Ges. ; or, caslle, mount., 
Dietr.]: TTiAti/i, Alex. rTjAcui/; [Vat. om. ; Comp. 
rtKti;] in Sam. TwAci, [('0111)). TsAci: C/'iVo] ), a town 
iti the mountainon.s part of Judah, named in tiie 
first group, with Deiiir and Eshtemoh (Josh. xv. 51). 
lU only interest to us lies in the fact of its having 
wen the native place of the famous Ahithophel (2 
Sam. XV. 12), wliere he w;i.s residing when Absalom 
sent for him to Ileiiron, and whitlier he returne<l 
V> dentruy himself after his counsel had been set 


aside for that of Hushai (xvii. 23). 'Ihe site \im 
not yet been met with. 

GIXONITE, THE ('bb^2n and ^3^371 • 
0€»ccof f [Vat. -yet], TeAoji'iTrjy [Vat. -I'ej-], Alex 
riKtiifaws, [reiAcoj/tTTjj: Gilvnites]), i. e. the na- 
tive of Giloh (as Shilonite, from Shiloh): applied 
only to Ahithophel the famous counsellor (2 Sain. 
XV. 12; xxiii. 34). 

GIM'ZO (ITpa [place of sycamores]: ^ 
Fafi^ci; Alex. ra/latCai-- [Oamzo]), a town which 
with its dependent villages (Hebrew "daughters'') 
Wiis taken possession of by the Philistines in the 
reign of Aliaz (2 Chr. xxviii. 18). The name — 
which occurs nowhere but here — is mentioned with 
Tinmath, 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 Ljdda, south of the road between Jerusalem and 
Jaffa, just where the hills of the highland finally 
break down into the maritime 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 from Jerusalem 
(that by the Beth-horons, and that by WaJy Su- 
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. Ifobinson (ii. 249). 


GIN, a trap for birds or beasts : it consisted of 
a net (Hp), and a stick to act as a springe (t£'|?_"1D) ; 
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?"*? [prulection, Fiirst; or, 
(jarclen, (Jesen.] : TwvaO' Gineih), father of TiBNl, 
who after the death of Zimri disputed the throne 
of Israel with Omri (1 K. xvi. 21, 22). 

GIN'NETHO C^inpS [gardener], i. e. Gin- 
nethoi; [Hom. Vat. Alex, omit; PA.'* Tivvii\6ovi 
Comp. TfvaduV-] Genlhun), one of the "chief' 

C^irS'^^ heads) of the priests and Levites who 
returned to Judaea with Zerubbabel (Neh. jtii. 4). 
He is doubtless the same person as 

GIN'NETHON (Vin32 [as above]: rayya- 
edy, rayaewd; [in x. 6, Vat. Tyarod, Alex. Toai'- 
yaBoiy, P-V. AyarwO; in xii. l(i, Vat. .Mex. PA.i 
omit: I 0'e»M(i«), a priest who sealed the covenaiii 
with Nehemiah (Neh. x. G). He was head of a 
family, and one of his descendants is mentioned in 
the list of i)riests and I.evites at a later period (xii. 
16). He is probably the same person as the pre- 

GIRDLE, an essential article of dress in tne 
I'just. ;uid worn both by men and women. The 
corresponding Hebrew words are: (1.) 'T^3rj or 
n~112n, 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.) "TITS, especially used 
of tlie girdles worn by men; whether by propheU 


I K. i. 8, Jer. siii. 1; soldiers, 1&. v. 27; Ez. xxiii. 
15 , or kings iu their military capacity, Job xii. 18. 
(3.) nV2 or n^TP» used of the girdle worn by 
men alone. Job xii'. 21, Ps. cix. 19, Is. xxiii. 10. 
(4.) t232Si, the girdle worn by the priests and state 
officers. In addition to these, b'^^'^H?, Is. iii. 
24, is a costly girdle worn by women. The Vul- 
gate renders it fascia pectoralis. It would thus 
seem to correspond with the Latin stropliium, a 
belt worn by women about the breast. In the 
LXX. however, it is translated x^ruiy ne(Toir6p- 
fvpos, "a tunic shot with purple," and Gesenius 
[Thts.] has ''■buntes Feyerkkid'' (comp. Schroe- 
der, de TVs<. MiU. pp. 137, 1-38, 404). The 
D'^n^t^n mentioned in Is. iii. 20, Jer. ii. 32, were 
probably girdles, although both Kimchi and Jarchi 
consider them as fillets for the hair. In the latter 
passage the Vulgate has again fascia pectortdis, 
and the LXX. (rTr)dode(Tfji.isy an appropriate bridal 

The common girdle was made of leather (2 K. 
i. 8 ; Matt. iii. 4), like that worn by the Bedouins of 
the present day, whom Curzon describes as " armed 
with a long crooked knife, and a pistol or two stuck 
in a red leathern girdle" {Jfotm.U. of the Levant, 
p. 7). In the time of Chardin the nobles of Min- 
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 Joiirney, 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 (Prov. 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 D^'^^H^ "^"1^^, Is. xi. 5; 

D^'^bn "ihTW, 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 alx)ut the waist, the 
sword or dagger was suspended fhjm 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 muliebriter ductus acinacem suspenderat, cui 
ex gemma era* vagina." Hence girding up the loins 
denotes preparation for battle or for active exertion. 
In times of mourning, girdles of sackcloth were 



a * In contnist with such girdles, John's was " a 
leathern girdle " (Matt. iii. 4), in conformity with the 
timple habits wliich characterized the stern reformer. 


worn as marks of humiliation and sorrow (Is. iii. 
24; xxii. 12). 

In consequence of the costly materials of which 
girdles were made, they were frequently given aa 
presents (1 Sam. xviii. 4; 2 Sam. xviii. 11), as is 
still the custom m Persia (cf. Morier, p. 93). 

llages were given to the queens of Persia to 
supply them with girdles (Xenoph. Anad. i. 4, § 9 ; 
Plat. Ale. i. p. 123). 

They were used as pockets, as among the Arabs 
still (Niebuhr, Bescr. p. 56), and as purses, one 
end of the girdle being folded back for the purpose 
(Matt. X. 9; Mark vi. 8). Hence "zonaiu per- 
dere," " to lose one's purse " (Hor. EjAsl. ii. 2, 40; 
comp. Juv. xiv. 297). Inkhorns were also carried 
in the girdle (Ez. ix. 2). 

The tD3Iiy, or girdle worn by the priests about 
the close-fitting tunic (Ex. xxviii. 39; xxxix. 29), 
is described by Josephus (Ani. iii. 7, § 2 ) as made 
of linen 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 ]ris. Sand. c. 8), the girdle 
worn both by tlie 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 (-£/?. ad Fabiolam, de Vest. Sac.) follows 
Josephus. With regard to the manner in which 
the girdle was embroidered, the "needlework" 
(D)T1 nii75^? Ex. xxviii. 39) is distinguished iu 
the IMishna from the "cunning-work" (rTt£?2?Q 
3CPn, 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. 
Jama, c. 8). So also Maimonides (de Vas. Sancf 
viii. ]5). But Jarchi on Ex. xxvi. 31, 36, explains 
the difference as consisting in this, that in the 
former case the figures on the two sides are the 
same, whereas in the latter they are different. 

In all passages, except Is. xxii. 21, ^3?^ is 
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 " (3ti?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 twined linen." Josephus describes it 
as sewn to the breastplate. After passing once 
round it was tied in front upon lie seam, the ends 
hanging down {Aiit. iii. 7, § 5). According to 
Maimonides it was of woven work. 

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

GIRGASHITES, THE ("^CJanan, t. e. aA 



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. 10 ; in 
the latter THE Gihgasite; elsewhere uniformly 
plural, as above: 6 Fepyfaalos, and so also Jo- 
seplius: (j'erycsceus [but Ueut. vii. 1, GeryezcBus]), 
one of the nations who were in possession of Canaiin 
before the entrance thither of the children of Israel. 
The name occurs in the following passages: Gen. 
I. 10, 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. 0, § 2) that we possess 
the name and nothing more; not even the more 
defijiite notices of position, or the slight glimpses 
of character, general or individual, with which we 
are favored in the c:ise 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 {Tepyic-qvuv 
in Hec. Text, and in a few MSS. mentioned by 
Epiphanius and Origen, Tipyiaaiuiv)-, as on the 
east side of the Sea of Galilee, since that name is 
now generally recognized as repocrrjvoij', — " Gera- 
senes," — and therefore as having no connection 
with the Girgasliites. G. 

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

* GIS'CHALA [TitTxaXa: Kabb. I^U tt712, 

Gusli Ckalab: Arab, luiwil, el-Jhh), 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 in Galilee to surrender to 
the Roman arms (Joseph. B. ./. ii. 20, § ; iv. 2, 
§§ 1-5). It has been identified by Dr. IJobinson 
as the modern d-Jish, which was destroyed by an 
earthquake m 18-37 {Bibl. lies. iii. 308 ff., 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 

AlII.AH.] S. W. 

GIS'PA (SQipa [hearkeninr/] : [FA.3] Fetr- 
<pd; [Comp. r(a<pds'y Kom. Vat. Alex. FA.i 
omit:] Giisjjhn), 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-HE'PHER, Josh. xix. 13. 

GITTA'IM (D'^.riS, i. e. two wine-jrresses : 
[in 2 Sam.,] rfflai'/U, [Vat. TtBai,'] Alex. TteOeiix: 
[in Neil. xi. 33, Kom. Vat. Alex. 1 A.' omit; 1 A.» 
r«fl6i/it:J Gtlhfum), a place incidentally mentioned 
in 2 Sam. iv. 3, where the meaning appears to be that 
the inhabitants of I5eeroth, which was allotted to 
Benjamin, had been con)pelled to fly from that place, 
and had taken refuge at (iittaim. IJeeroth was 
one of the towns of the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 17); 
•nd the cause of the (light of it,s people may have 
lv«n (thi.ugh this is b\it conjecture) Saul's persecu- 
tion of tJie Gibeonites alluded to in 2 Sam. xxi. 2. 
SitUim is again mentioned [Neh. xi. 33] in the 


list of places inhabited by the lienjaudtea aftei 
their return from the Captivity, witli Hamah, Ne- 
j ballat, Lod, and other known towns of Iteujannn 
to the N. W. of Jerusalem. The two may be the 
same ; though, if the persecution of the lierothitea 
proceeded from Benjamin, as we must infer it did, 
they would hardly choose as a refuge a place within 
the limita of that tribe. Gittaim is the dual form 
of the word Gath, which suggests the Philistine 
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 (Jetthaim roll me a great stone." 
But this is not supported by any other of the 
ancient versions, which unanimousl}' adhere to tho 
Hebr. text, and probably proceeds from a mistake 
or corruption of the Hebrew word Ci^l^S : A. V. 
"ye ha\e transgressed." It further occurs in the 
LXX. in Gen. xxxvi. 35 and 1 Chr. i. 40, as the 
representative of Aaith, a change not so intelligible 
as the other, and equally unsupported by the other 
old versions. G. 

GIT'TITES (D^n2, patron, from n? : 
[rfBaTot, Alex, reddaioi-- GetlKei]), the 600 meo 
who followed David from Gath, under Ittai the 

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

Gittite" C^nsn). We can scarcely think, how- 
ever, that he was so named from the royal city of 
the Philistines. JMay he not have been from 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 Levites (Josh. xxi. 24), 
of whom Obed-edom seems to have been one (1 
Chr. XX vi. 4)"? J. L. P. 

GIT'TITH (n^nS) [see infra], a musical 
instrument, by some supposed to have been used 
by the people of Gath, and thence to have been 
introduced by David into Palestine; and by others 

(who identify i'T'.nS with jlB, 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 i^^rilin /V, 
occasionally found in the heading of Psalms, is, 
" On the instrument S~nD"'D (Cinora), which waa 
brought from Gath." Haslii, whilst he admits 
Gittith to be a musical instrument, in the manu- 
facture of which the artisans of Gath excelled, 
quotes a Talnmdic authority which would assign 
to the word a different meaning. '• Our sages," 
says he, " have remarked ' On the nations if'.o are 
in future to be trodden down likii a wine-press.' " 
(Comp. Is. Lxiii. 3.) But neither of the Psalms, 
viii., Ixxxi., or Ixxxiv., which have Gittith for n 
heading, contains any thing that may be connected 
with such an idea. The interpretation of the LXX. 
imip rwv \7)vii>v, "for tlie wine-presses," is con- 
demned by Aben-I'lzra and other eminent Jewish 
scholars. Piirst {Concordance) describes Gittith 
as a hollow instrument, from jHn^, to di-cpen 
(synonymous with v"^7n). D. W. M. 

GI'ZONITE, THE C'2'"^T3n : h Tiiwyimt 


[V»t. corrupt;] Alex, o Tccvyi'- Gezoniies). "The 
ions of Hashem the Gizonite " are named amongst 
the warriors of David's guard (1 Chr. xi. 34). In 
the parallel list of 2 Sam. xxiii. the word is entirely 
omitted; and the conclusion of Kennicott, who 
sxaniines the passage at length, is tliat the name 
should be Godni [see Guni], a proper name, and 
not an appellative {Dissert, pp. 11)9-203). [No 
place corresponding to the name is known.] 

* GIZ'RITES. [Gerzites.] 

GLASS (n''P^3T : D'aA.os: vitmm). The word 
occurs only in Job xxviii. 17, where in the A. V. 
it is rendered "crystal." It comes from T]?! ('» 
be picre), 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 Htbr. ; and Hamberger, Hist. Vitri ex an^ 
fiquitnte eruia, quoted by Gesen. s. v.). Sym- 
raachus renders it KpiicrraWos, but that is rather 
intended by tt?'^33 (Job xxviii. 18, A. V. " pearls," 
LXX. yd fits, a word which also means "ice; " cf. 
Plin. //. N. xxxvii. 2), and mil. (Ez. i. 22). It 
Beenis then that Job xxviii. 17 contains the only 
allusion to glass found in the 0. T., and even this 
reference is disputed. Besides Symmachus, others 
also render it Siavyrj KpvffraWov (Schleusner, 
Thesaur. s. v. vaXos), and it is argued that the 
word ua\os frequently means crystal. Thus the 
Schol. on Aristoph. Nub. 764, defines D'aAor (when 
it occurs in old writers) as Siacpavris \idos ioiKws 
vd\o}, and Hesychius gives as its equivalent \iBos 
Ti/jiios. In Herodotus (iii. 24) it is clear that veKos 
must mean crystal, for he says, r/ Se <T(pt ttoWtj 
Koi evepyos 6pv(T<TiTai, and Achilles Tatius speaks 
at crystal as va\os opwpvyfiffTi (ii- 3; Baehr, On 



Uerod. ii. 44; Heeren, JJeen, ii. 1, 335). Othen 
consider n^iD^DT to be amber, or eiectrum, <x 
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. Fron- 
paintings representing the process of glassblowlng 
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 ago 
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 aa 
the Exodus have been discovered in Egypt. Glass 
beads known to be ancient have been found in 
Africa, and also (it is said) in Cornwall and Ireland, 
which are in all probability the relics of an old 
Phoenician trade (Wilkinson, in Rnwlinson''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 Bab. p. 197, 503). 
This is the earUest known specimen of transparenl 

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

Egyptian Olass Blowers. (Wilkinson.) 

inpcificial vitrification. There is little doubt that 
the honor of the discovery belongs to the Egyptians. 
Pliny gives no date for his celebrated story of the 
discovery of glass from the solitary accident of some 
J'hoenician sailors using blocks of natron to support 
h'^ir saucepans when they were unable to find 
itones for the purpose (//. N. xxxvi. 65). But this 
iccount is less likely than the supposition that 
fitreous matter first attracted obsei'vation from the 
L«*toio of lighting fires on the sand. •' in a country 
inducing natron or subcarbonate of soda" (liaw- 

linson's Her-od. j.1 82). It has been pointed oui 
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 the 

a * This Belus is the modem Nahr Nn'm^n which 
fiows into the Mediterranean just south of Akka. th« 
O. T. Accho and the N. T. Ptolemais. I' 



moat fiuiious in the ancient world " {Diet, of Ant. 
«rt. Vitruin, where everything requisite to the 
illustration of the classical allusions to glass may 
be found). Some find a remarkable reference to 
tliis little river (respecting which see I'lin. //. N. 
V. 17, xxxvi. 65; Joseph. B. J. ii. 10, § 2; Tac. 
Jlisl. V. 7) in the blessing to the tribe of Zebulun, 
" they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and 
Df treasures hid in the sand" (Deut. xxxiii. 19). 
Both the name Belus (Heland, quoted in Diet, oj 

Geogr. s. v. and the Hebrew word 7"in, "sand " 
(Calmet, s. v.) have been suggested as derivations 
for the Greek voLKos, whicli is however, in all prob- 
ability, from an Egyptian root. was not only known to the ancients, but 
used by them (as AVinckehnann thinks) far more 
extensively than in D>oderu times. Phny even tells 
us that it wag employed in wainscoting (vitrea; 
cameriB, //. N. xxxvi. 64; Stat. Sylc. i. v. 42). 
The Egyptians knew the art of cutting, grinding, 
and engraving it, and they could even inlay it with 
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. H. N. xxxvii. 26, 33, 75). This 
is probably the explanation of the incredibly large 
gems which we find mentioned in ancient authors; 
e. y. Larcher considers that the emerald column 
alluded to by Herodotus (ii. 44) was "du verre 
colorti dont rint(''rieur ^tait eclaird par des lampes." 
Strabo was told by an .\lexandrian glass-maker 
that this success was partly due to a rare and-val- 
uable earth found in Egypt (Beckmann, History 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 
(I'lin. xxxvi. 26). 

Some suppose that the proper name mD"1tt.'')!2 
C"JQ (l/urninffs by the waters) contains an allusion 
to Sidonian glass-factories (Jleier 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 that 
place (Lord A. Hervey, On the Geneahgits, p. 228), 
or from hot springs. 

In the N. T. glass is alluded to as an emblem 
of brightness (Uev 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 JIirhoiss. Eor, strange to say, 
although the ancients were aware of the reflective 
power of glass, and althougli the Sidonians usetl it 
for mirrors (I'lin. //. iV. xxxvi. 66), yet for some 
unexplained reason mirrors of glass must have 
prove<l unsuccessful, since even under the empire 
they were universally made of metal, which is at 
oni;e less perfect, more expensive, and more difficult 
to preserve {Diet, of Ant. art. Speculum). 

• r. w. F. 

GLEANING (Hlb^^ as applied to produce 
genoiiUy, I2pv rather to com). The remarks 
under Cok.nhh on the definite character of the 
rights of the poor, or rather of poor relations and 
dependants, to a share of tlie crop, are especially 
exemplified in the iuHtance of Huth gleaning in the 
6eld of Boaz. I'mir young women, recojrnized as 
leii.g " hia maidens," were gleaning his field, and 


on her daiui upon him by near affinity being madfl 
known, she was bidden to join them and not go to 
any otiier field ; but for this, the reaper* it seems 
would have driven her away (Huth ii. 6, 8, 9). The 
gleaning of fruit trees, as well as of cornfields, waa 
reserved for the poor. Hence the proveib ol Gideon, 
Judg. viii. 2. Maimonides indeed lays down tht 
principle ( Constitutiones de donis pauperum, 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. Conglilutiones de donis paupe rum, cap. iv. 
H. H. 

GLEDE, the old name for the common kite 
{Milms ater), occurs only in Deut. xiv. 13 (nS"1) 

among the unclean birds of prey, and if HS"! 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 we 

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

read HS^ in Deut. also. The LXX. have yvi^i in 
both places. W. D. 

GNAT {Kcivwip), 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 
SiuKi^w signifying to strain through (a sieve, ete.), 
to filter (see Trench, On the Auth. \'ers., 1st ed. 
p. 131) [2d ed. p. 172]. The Greek Kwvwyf/ is the 
generic word for gnat. W. D. 

GOAD. Tlie equivalent terms in the Hebrew 

are (1) ITZhf^ (Judg. iii. 31), and (2) I^T}'! 
(1 Sam. xiii. 21; Eccl. xii. 11). The explanation 
given by Jahn {Archwol. i. 4, § 59) is that the 
former represents the pole, and the latter the iron 
spike "vith which it was shod for the puqx)9e 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 he fasttntd ; while in 
1 Sam. xiii. the point of the ploughshare is more 
probably intended. The former does probably refer 
to the goad, tlie long handle of which might be 
used as a fonnidable weapon (comp. Horn. //. vi. 
135), though even this was understood 
by the LXX. as a ploughshare (^y tw auoTpSwoSi)- 
it should also be noted that the etymological Ibrce 

of the word is that of guiding (from TO^, to teach) 
rather than goading (Sa-nlschiitz, Archuol. i. 105). 
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 Europe and western Asia, 
consists of a rod about eight feet long, brought tc 
a sliarp point and sometimes cased with iron at the 
head (Manner's Ohservatiims, iii. 348). 'Ilie ex- 
pression "to kick against the go-ids " (Acts ix. 5; 
A. V. " the pricks"), was proverbially used by the 
Greeks for unavailing resistance to superior jwwei 
(comp. yRsch. Agam. 1633, Prom. 323; Eurip. 
Harch. 791). W. L. B. 

* Tlie use of the gojid in driving animals, which 
is still connnon in the East, is implied ui 2 K. iv 
24, where it explains a slight obscurity in the ve-ee 
as given in the \. V. Mounted on her donkey — 


the fiivorite mode of traveUing with oriental ladies - 
tl* Slniiiamiiiite, intent on the utmost dispatch, 
directs iier servant, running by her side, to 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 ui Judg. iii. 31, 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 goat and she-goat in A. V., thp most 
common is Tl? = Syr. J)-^, Ai-ab. yLfc, Phoen. 

S^a. The Indo-Germanic languages have a similar 
word in Sanskr. ag'a ^ goat, ag'd = she-goat, 
Germ, geis or gems, Greek aX^, aty'^S' ^^^ ^^^^' 
vation from fT27, 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, xx.xii. 14; 
Num. XV. 27. In Judg. vi. 19 D"^-T3; "^"[2 is ren- 
dered kid, and in Deut. xiv. 4 W^'^_ TW is 
rendered the goat, but properly signifies Jiock of 
goats. D"^-?!!? is used elliptically for goats' hair in 
Ex. xxvi. 7, xxxvi. 14, Ac, Num. xxxi. 20, and in 
1 Sam. xix. 13. 

2. D^/l^') are wild or mountain goats, and are 
rendered wild goats in the three passages of Scrip- 
ture in which the word occurs, namely, 1 Sam. 
sxiv. 2, Job xxxix. 1, and Ps. civ. 18. The word 
is from a root ^1?^, to ascend or climb, and is the 
Heb. name of the ibex, which abounds in the moun 
tainous parts of the ancient territory of Jloab. Ii 
Job xxxix. 1, the LXX. have Tf)aye\d<pci)y werpas. 

3. IpM is rendered the wild goat in Deut. xiv. 
5, and occurs only in this passage. It is a con 
tracted form of mp3W, according to I^ee, who 
renders it gazelle, but it is more properly the tra 
gelaphus or goat-deer (Shaw. Suppl. p. 76). 

4. l^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. 
i. 8 it signifies he-goats, leaders of tlie 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 

roob "rn^j ^ *^') to place, to prepare. 

5 *^'*?^ occurs in 2 Chr. xxix. 21, and in Dan. 
dii. 5, 8 — it is followed by D^-TVn, and signifies 
a he-goat of the goats. Gesenius derives it from 
"1D^, to leap. It is a word found only in the later 
books f fthe 0. T. In Ezr. vi. 17 we find the 
Chald. form of the word, "I^D?. 

I. ^"*^^? is translated goat, and signifies prop- 
erly a he-goat, being derived from "^^t^, to staiul 
m end, to bristle. It occurs frequently in Leviticus 
«d Numbers (nS^Iin "^""VW), and is the goat 

GOAT 938 

of the sin-ofifering. Lev. ix. 3, 15, x. 16. The wok 
is used as an adjective with ~1"^S^ in Dan. viii. 21 
and the goat, the rough one, is the king of 

7. IZ^'^.in is from a root 27''ri, o strike. It is 
rendered he-goat in Gen. xxx. 35, xxxii. 15, Prov. 
XXX. 31, and 2 Chr. xvii. 11. It does not occur 

8. bTSTJ, 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 fpi(f)os and €pt(J)joi' = a young 
goat, or kid; and hi Heb. ix. 12, 13, 19, and x. 4, 
rpdyos = he-goat. Goat-skins, in Heb. xi. 37, are 
in the Greek, eV alyelon SepfiaaiV, and in Judg. 
ii. 17 aJyas is rendered goats. W. D. 

There appear to be two or three varieties of the 
common goat (Hircus mgagrus) 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 {Cajtra 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 (Capra 
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 difiers 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. Egppt. i. 223). 
Col. Ham. Smith (Griflith's An. King. iv. 308) 
describes three Egyptian breeds: one with long 
hair, depressed horns, ears small and pendent; 
aiiotiier 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 tliat eat of 
Mount Gilead," probably alludes to the fine hair 
of the Angora breed. Some have very plausibly 
supposed that the prophet Amos (iii. 12), wlien he 
speaks of a shepherd " taking out of the mouth of 
the lion two legs or a piece of an ear," alludes to 
tlie 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, probably, to the 
stately march of the leader of the flock, which was 
always associated iu 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 the LXX. understands the allusion, koI 
rpdyos Tjyov/jifvos aiTroAiou." 

As to the ye' Slim (D'^7^^- ' rpayp^apoi, k\ar 

a Comp. Theocritus, /(/. viii. 49, 'fi rpaye, tSlv Ktth 
kSlv alyit xvep ; and Virg. Ed. vii. 7, " Vir gregig Ip« 

934. GOAT 

^01^ ibnt*: "wild j;oats." A. V.), it is not at a7\ 
improbable, as the Vulg. interprets the word, that 
lome species of iOex is denoted, perhaps the Cnpra 
Siiuikica (Ehreiib.), the Bedeii or Jaela of I'-gypt 
and Arabia. This ibex was noticed at Sinai by 
Ehrenberg and Heniprich {Sym. Pliys. t. 18), and 
by Burckhardt. (Trav. p. 52G), who (p. 405) thus 


the (ikko of the Pentateuch, which might formerfy 
have inhabited the Lebanon, though it is not found 
in i'alestine now. Perhaps the paseiig ( Cup. ago- 
(jius, ( 'uv. ) which some have taken to be the parent 
stock of the common goat, and whicti at present 
inhabits the mountains of Persia and Caucasus, 
may have in Biblical times been found in Palestine 
ind tnay be the (dko of Scripture But we alio;* 
this 13 mere conjecture. \V. H. 

Long-eared Syrian goat 

gpaaks of these animals : " In all the valleys south 
of the Modjeb, and particularly in those of Modjcb 
and El Ahsa, large herds of mountain goats, called 
by the Arabs Bedeji ( ^^i\^ ), are met with. This 
is the steinbock" or bouquetin of the Swiss and 
Tyrol Alps. They pasture in flocks of foity and 
fifty together. Great numbers of them are killed 
by the people of Kerek and Tafyle, who hold their 
flesh in high estimation. They sell the large knotty 
horns to the Hebrew merchants, who carry them to 
.lerusalem, 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 hunt«rs hide themselves among the reeds on 
the banks of streams where the animals resort in 
the evening to drink, 'lliey also asserted that, 
when pursued, they will throw themsehes from a 
height of fifty feet and more upon their heads with- 
out receiving any injury." llasselquist (7';7(f. p. 
190) speaks of rock goats ( Capm cervicnpra, Linn.) 
which he saw hunted with falcons near Nazareth. 
But the C. c-ri-icapm of Linnaeus is an antelope 
{Aniilope ceii-ico/trn, Pall.). 

There is con.siderable difficulty attending the 

identification of the a/cko C^pS), which the LXX. 
render by Tpaye\a<pos, and the Vulg. troijilnphus. 
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 akko to the "Am of the Persians, i. e tlie V<i- 
vre<iluspyfjfiri/iis, or the " tailless roe " (Shaw, Ztu'il. 
ii. 287), of Ci'ntiTd Asia. If we could satisfactorily 
est-iblish the identity of the Persian word with the 
Hebrew, the animal in question might represent 

a The Cti/ira f>innitica la not Identical with the 
BwlM ibex or steinbock (C. Ibex), though It is a closely 
lUkd <pecie8. 

Goat of Mount Sinai 

GOAT, SCAPE. [Atonement, Day of.] 

GO'ATH (n:^? [seeiafrn]: the LXX. seem 
to have had a difl'erent text, and read e'| iK\€Krciiv 
\i6ciiv- Goatha), a ilace apparently in the nei<;h- 
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 ih 
being added to connect the Hebrew particle of mo- 
tion,— Goathah) is derived by Gesenius from nV2, 
"to low," as a cow. In accordance with this is the 
rendering of the Targum, which has for Goah, 

Sb?? n?'''?2 = '/'e heifer's pool. The Syriac, 
on the other hand, has j^OOi^^ leromto, "to 

the eminence," perhaps reading HS^ (Fiirst, 
Ilanilwh. p. 269 b)fi Owing to the presence of 
the letter Ain in Goath, the resembUinee between 
it and Golgotha does noi exist in the original to 
the same degree as in English. [Gui-cotha.] 

GOB (32, and 3^3, perhaps = a pit or ditch; 
Tfd, ^^P6^L, Alex, [in ver. 19] ruj8; [Comp. Nw/3:] 
Gob), a place mentioned only in 2 Sam. xxi. 18, 19, 
as the scene of two encounters lietween David's 
warriors and the Phihstines. In the parallel ac- 
count — of the first of these only— in 1 Chr. xx. 
4, the name is given as (iK/.KH, and this, as well as 
the omission of any locality for the second event, 
is supjiorted l>y .losephus {Aut. vii. 12, § 2). On 
the other hand the LXX. and Syriac have Gath 
in the first case, a name which in Hebrew niuc*" 
resembles Gob; and this appears to be borne out 

b • FiirHt makes the Syriac = Felahiigel, rock-hiU (nal 
aa above). B. 


ay the account of a third and subsequent figbt, 
which all agree happened at Gath (2 Sam. xxi. 20 ; 
1 Chr. XX. G), and which, from the terms of the 
narrative, seems to have occurred at the same place 
IS the others. The suggestion of Nob — which 
Davidson {Hebr. Text) reports as in many MSS. 
and which i« also found in copies of the LXX. — 
is not admissible on account of the situation of 
that place. G. 

GOBLET (]3i^: Kparrip-- crater; joined with 
"inD to express roundness, Cant. vii. 2; Gesen. 
Thes. pp. 22, 39 ; in plur. Ex. xxiv. 6, A. V. " ba- 
sons;" Is. xxii. 24, LXX. literally ayavdd- crale- 
rce: A. V. "cups"), a circular vessel for wine or 
other Uquid. [Basin.] H. W. P. 

tism, vii. 5, p. 239.] 

* GOD SPEED is the translation of x"-ipeiv 
in 2 John 10, 11, the Greek form of salutation. It 
has been transferred from the Anglo-Saxon c/od- 
tpkUg, but with a different meanmg there, namely, 
"good-speed." H. 

GOG. 1. (2*12: Toiy., [Comp. Aid. rc5y:] 
Gofj.). 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. 
xxiv. 7, Gog is substituted for Agag. 

GO'LAN Cj '12 [a circle, region, Dietr. 
Fiirst ; migration, Ges.] : TavXdv, [in 1 Chr. vi. 
71, Ti>s\d,v; Alex, also in Josh. TuiKaV- Gaulon, 
exc. Deut. Golan] ), a city of Bashan (]tt733 lV"13, 
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 ( Onoin. s. v. ; lieland, 
p. 815), its very site is now unknown. Some have 
supposed that the village of Nawn, on the eastern 
border of Jauldn, around which are extensive ruins 
(see Handbook for Syr. and Pal.), is' identical 
svith 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 {Ta.v\dvi\, B. J. i. 4, § 4, and 8); he, 
however, more frequently speaks of the province 
which took its name from it, Gaulanitis {Xav\av7- 
TLs)- When the kingdom of Israel was overthrown 
by the Assyrians, and the dominion of the Jews in 
Bashan ceased, it appears that tlie aboriginal tribes, 
before kept in sabjeetion, but never annihilated, 
rose again to some power, and rent the cou;)try 
into provinces. Two of these provinces at least 
were 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 
laptivity Bashan appears in Jewish history as one 
Kingdom; but subsequent to that period it is spo- 
ken of as divided into four provinces — Gaulamtis, 
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 power it became the 
be«d of a Large province, the extent of which is 

GOLAN 93i 

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

(lJ-5^ is the Arabic form of the Hebrew 

]^12. from which is derived the Greek rauAaj't- 
Tis) correspond so far with tliose of Gaulanitis; 
we may, therefore, safely assume that their north- 
ern and eastern iDOundaries are also identical. Jau- 
lan is bounded on the north by Jedur (the ancient 
Iturcea), and on the east by Hanran [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 Kid' at el-Htisn 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 

3fishor ('^W''72) is given in 1 K. xx. 23, 2.5 — 
" the plain " in which the Syrians were overthrown 
by the Israelites, near Aphek, which perhaps stood 
upon the site of the modern Fik (Stanley, App. 
§ 6; Handbook for S. and P. p. 42.5). 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 Ivcbanon (Keland, 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 deseiled. 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 its 
pasture is lost — the tender grass of early spring. 
The flocks of the Turkmans and el-Fwlhl Arabs — 
the only tribes that remain permanently in this 
region — are not able to consume it; and the 
Wmtzeh, those " children of the East " who spread 
over the land like locusts, and " whose camels aie 
without number " (Judg. vii. 12), only arrive about 



the beginning of jNIay. At tliat season tlic whole 
eountry is covei-ed with them — their black tent'» 
pitched in circles near the fountains; their cattle 
thicivly dotting the vast plain; and their fierce cav- 
aliers roaming far and wide, " their hand against 
wery man, and every man's hand against them." 

For fuller accoimts of the scenery, antiquities, 
•nd history of (iaulanitis, see Porters I/drulbook 
for Syr. and Piil. pp. 295, 424, 4G1, 5-31; Five 
Years in Damnscus, ii. 250; Journal of Sac. Lit. 
vi. 282; Burckhardt's Trav. in Si/r. p. 277. 

J. L. P. 

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

1. nnj) the common name, connected with 
3n!5 (to be ydlow), as (/eld, from gel, yellow. 
Various epithets are applied to it: as, "fine" (2 
Chr. iii. 3), "refined " (1 Chr. xxviii. 18), " pure" 
(Kx. XXV. 11). In opposition to these, " beaten " gold 

(ta^nC? 'T) is probably m/a;«rfgold; LXX. ^AotcJj; 
used of Solomon's shields (1 K. x. 16). 

2. I'^'^D (Kfi/LffiKiov) treasured, i. e. fine gold 
(1 K. vi. 20, vii. 49, &c.}. Many names of precious 
substances in Hebrew come from roots signifying 

concealment, as ")"1D!2p (Gen. xliii. 23, A. V. 
" treasure "'). 

3. TQ, pure or native gold (Job xxviii. 17 ; Cant. 
V. 15; probably from TTQ, (o separate). Kosen- 
miiller (Allerthumsk. iv. p. 49) makes it come from 
a Syriac root meaning solid or massy; but "I'^n^ 
(2 Chr. ix. 17) corresponds to TS^tt (1 K. x. 18). 
The LXX. render it by xiOos riixios, xpwC'O" 
iirvpov (Is. xiii. 12 ; llieodot. 6,irf<pdov ; comp. 
Thuc. ii. 13; Tlin. xxxiii. 19, obrussn). In I's. 
jxix. 127, tlie LXX. render it totto^ioi/ (A. V. 
"fine gold"); but Schleusner happily conjectures 
rb tta^iov, the Hebrew word being adopted to avoid 
the repetition oi ■)^pvcros (Thes. s. r. T<j7ra^; Hesych. 
S. V. -iri^iov). 

4. D-3, gold earth, or a mass of raw ore (Job 
xxii. 24, &irvpov, A. V. "gold as dust"). 

The poetical names for gold are : 

1. Dn3 (also implying something concealed ) ; 
LXX. ^pvffiov; and in Is. xiii. 12, \idos iro\v- 
Tehiii. In Job xxxvii. 22, it is rendereti in A. V. 
"fair weather;" LXX. vf^rj xpvffavyovVTa. 
(Comp. Zech. iv. 12.) 

2. y^'^n, = dut/ out (Prov. viii. 10), a gen- 
eral name, which has become special, Ps. Ixviii. 
13, wliire it cannot mean gems, as .some suppose 
(IJochart, Hicroz. tom. ii. p. 9). Rlichaelis con 
Dects the word charuiz with the (jreck -x^pvcos. 

(iold was known from the very earliest times 
(Gen. ii. H). Phny attrilnites the discovery of 
it (at Mount Pangaeus), and the art of working it 
to (adinns (//. N. vii. 57); and his statement is 
adopted by Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom, i. 303, 
sd. Pott.). It was at first chiefly use<l for onin 
nenta, etc. (Gen. xxiv. 22); and although Abraliam 


is said to have been " very rich in cattle, in silver 
and in gold" (Gen. xiii. 2), yet no mention of it 
as used in purchases, is made till :ifter his return 
from lilgypt. Coined money was not kjiown to the 
ancients («. </. Hom. //. vii. 473) till a compara- 
tively late period ; and on the Egyi)tian tombs gold 
is represented as being weighed in rings for com- 
mercial purjjoses. (Comp. Gen. xliii. 21.) Xo coins 
are found in the ruins of Egyjit or Assyria (l^yard'g 
Xiii. ii. 418). " Kven so late as the time of David 
gold was not used as a standard of value, Init waa 
considered merely as a very precious article of com- 
merce, and was weit/lied hke other aiticles " ( lahn, 
Arch. Bibl. § 115, 1 Chr. xxi. 25). 

Gold was extremely abundant in ancient times 
(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; Ksth. 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. !)8, and other authorities quoted by Layard, ii. 

The chief countries mentioned as producing gold 
are Arabia, Sheba, and Ophir (1 K. ix. 28, x. 1 ; 
Job xxviii. 16: in Job xxii. 24, the word Ophir is 
used for gold). Gold is not foiuid in Aral)ia now 
(Niebuhr's Travels, p. 141), but it used to be 
(Artemidor. ap. Strab. xvi. 3, 18, where he speaks 
of an Arabian river <|/f/7;ua xp^*^"^ Karatpfpwv)- 
Diodoms also says that it was foinid tiiere native 
(awvpov) in good-size<l nuggets {^w\dpia)- Some 
su)ii»(jse that Ophir was an Arabian port to which 
gold was brought (comp. 2 Chr. ii. 7, ix. 10). 
Other gold-l>earing countries were Uphaz (Jer. x. 
9; D.'m. x. 5) and Parvaini (2 Chr. iii. 6). 

Jletallurgic 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, H"!^) '* 
alluded to in connection with the overhying of 
idoLs with gold-leaf (Kosenmiiller's Minerals of 
Script, pp. -id-ol). [IL\M)iCK.\KT.] P'. W. F. 
* GOLDSMITH. [Handichaft.] 
GOL'GOTHA (ro^yodR [ashdl]: Golgotha), 
the Helirew name of the spot at which our Lord 
was crucifie<l (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- 
p.ire Gabbatha, Gethsemane, etc.), omits the He- 
brew term and gives only its Greek e()uivalent, 
Kpaviov- The word Calvary, which in Luke xxiii. 
33 is retained in the A. V. from the Vulgate, as 
the rendering of npaviov, obscures the statement 
of St. Luke, whose words are really as follows: 
" the place which is called ' a skull ' " — not, as in 
the other Gosjiels, Kpaviov, "of a skull;" thus 
employing the (Jreek term exactly as they do the 
Hebrew one. [Cai.vahy, Anier. ed.]. This He- 
brew, or rather Chaldee, term, was doubtless 



Snbaba. Gulgoltn, m pure Hebrew H^ 
aiiplied to the skull on account of its round globu- 
lar form, that being the idea at the root of th« 

Two exi>lanations of the name are given : (l)tha» 
it was a s])ot where executions ojrdinarily took place, 
and therefore abounded in skulls; but iccording t« 
the Jewish law these muit have heei buried, aiu) 


ijerefors wcfl' no more likely to confer a name on 
the spot than any other part of the skeleton. In 
this case too the Greek should be t6kos Kpavlwy, 
" of skulls," instead of Kpavioo, " of a skull," 
still 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 
ikull-like, and therefore a mound or hillock, in 
accordance with the common phrase — for which 
there is no direct authority — " Mount 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 
siwt. 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|a) Tjjs TTvK-ni (Heb. xiii. 12) but close to the city, 
eyyhi rrjs rrdXecos (.John xix. 20); apparently near 
a thoroughfare on which there were passers-l)y. 
This road or path led out of the " country " '' 
(a.yp6i)- It was probably the ordinary spot for 
executions. Why should it have been otherwise ? 
To tliose 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 
"leading Him away" went to any other than the 
usual place for what must have been a common 
operation. HoweTcr, in the place (eV t<^ rSnco) 
itself — at the very spot — was a garden or orchard 

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

A tradition at one time preva'led that Adam was 
buried on Golgotha, that from his skull it derived 
its name, and that at the t'rucifixion 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" (eVj\|/aiy(re« for eTrt- 
(pavan). See .Jerome, Comin. uii Matt, xxvii. .33, 
and the quotation in Reland, Pal. p. 800; also 
Saswulf, in Early Travels, p. 39. The skull com- 
monly introduced iu early pictures of the Crucifixion 
refers to this. 

A connection has been supposed to e.xist between 
GoATH and Golgotha, but at the best this is mere 
conjecture, and there is not in the original the 
same similarity between the two names — 71373 

and Sn 72^11 — which exists in their English or 
Latin garb, and which probably occasioned the 
suggestion. G. 

GOLI'ATH (n^bs [splendor, brilliant, Dietr. ; 
Dut see below]: ToXidd: 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 Philis- 
tines after their dispersion by the Ammonites (Deut. 
ii. 20, 21; 2 Sam. xxi. 22). Some trace of this 
r)ndition may be preserved in the giant's name, if 

a 8t. Matthe-.v too has the article in Codet B. 


it be connected with H^'^S, an exile. SiDioniB.. 
however, derives it from an .Arabic word meaning 
stout" (Gesen. Thes. s. v.). His height was 
six cubits and a span," which, taking the cubit 
at 21 inches, would make him lOi feet high. But 
the LXX. and Josephus read '■\foitr 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 
Alcoeus (airoAeiTTOi'Ta fxiaf fj.6vov iraxeooi' anh 
ire/jLiruv, ap. Strab. xiii. p. 617, with Mliller'a 
emendation). Even on this computation Goliath 
would be, as Josephus calls him, avfip Trafifj.fyeOf(r- 
Taros — 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 brook, 
" By our means you shall slay the giant," etc. 
(Hottinger, Hist. Orient, i. 3, p. Ill ff". ; D'Her 
helot, s. V. Gialut). The fancies of the Rabbis are 
yet more extraordinary. After the \ictory David 
cut off Goliath's head (1 Sam. xvii. 51; comp. 
Herod, iv. 6; Xenoph. Anah.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, 
Gesch. iii. 94), while he hung the armor in his 

The scene of this famous combat was the Valley 
of the Terebinth, between Shochoh and Azekah, 
probably among the western passes of Benjamin, 
although a confused modern tradition has given the 
name of 'Ain Jalud (spring of Goliatli) to the 
spring of Harod, or " trembling " (Stanley, p. 342; 
Judg. vii. 1). [Elaii, v.m.lky 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 
Elhanan, also a Bethlehemite. St. Jerome ( Qiuest. 
ffebr. ad loc.) makes the unlikely conjecrture that 
I'^lhanan was another name of David. The A. V. 
here interpolates the words "the brother of," from 
1 (Jhr. XX. 5, where this giant is called " Lahmi.' 
rhis will be found fully examined under Ei • 


In the title of the Psalm added to the Psalter in 
the LXX. we find tw AavlS wphs rhu ToAiaS; and 
although the allusions are vague, it is perhaps pos- 
sible that this Psalm may have been writteii after 
the victory. This Psalm is given at length under 
David, p. 5.54 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, Einl. iii. 
915; Ewald, Poet. Biicher des A. B. i. Ill); 

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

f> But the Vulgate has de villa. 



GOTVIER Ptt2 [comjjleleness]: Tafitp; [in 
Ezek., Pofifp'] Comer). 1. The eldest son of 
Juplietli, aiulthc fatlier of Ashkenaz, Kiphath, and 
Togarmah (On. x. 2, 3; [1 Chr. i. 5, G]). His 
name is 8ul)se<iiiently noticed but once (Ez. xxxviii. 
6) as an ally or subject of the Scythian king Gog. 
He is generally recognized as the progenitor of tlie 
early Cimmerians, of the later Cimbri and the other 
branches of the Celtic faniilj-, and of the modern 
Gael and Cymry, the latter preser\ing with very 
slight deviation the original name. The Cimme- 
rians, when first known to us, occupied tlie Tauric 
Chersonese, where they left traces of their presence 
hi the ancient names, Cimmerian Bosphorus, Cim- 
merian Isthimis, Mount Cimmerium, the district 
Cimmeria, and particularly the Cinmierian walls 
(Her. iv. 12, 4.5, 100: yEsch. Prom. Vinci. 7-29), and 
in the modern name Crimea. They forsook this 
al)ode under the pressure of the .Scythian trilies, 
and during the early part of the 7th century i$. c. 
they [wured over the western part of Asia Minor, 
committing immense devastation, and defjing for 
more than half a century the power of the Lydian 
kings. They were finally expelled by Alyattes, w itii 
the exception of a few, who settled at Sinope and 
Antandrus. It was about the same period that 
Ezekiel noticed them, as acthig in conjunction with 
Armenia (Togarmah) and Magog (Scythia). The 
connection tetween Gomer and Armenia is sup- 
ported by the tradition, preserved by Moses 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 aiid the people are to be recognized in the 
Cimbri, whose abodes were fixed during the Iioman 
Empire in the north and west of liui-oije, partic- 
ularly in the Cimbric Chersonese {Dtnmnrk), on 
the coast between the Elbe and liliine, 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 ^\'ales. The latter 
name preserves a greater similarity to the original 
Gomer than either of the classical forms, the con- 
Bonants being identical. The link to connect Cymry 
with Cimbri is furnished by the forms Cambria 
and Cumber-lnni. The whole Celtic race may 
therefore be regarded as descended from (Jomer, 
and thus the opinion of Josephus {Ant. i. G, § 1), 
that the Galatians were sprung from him, may be 
reconciled with the view propounded. A'arious 
other conjectures have been hazarded on the sub- 
ject: Bochart (Plrnlea, iii. 81) identifies tlie name 
on etymological grounds with I'hrygia ; Wahl 
{Asitn, i. 274 ) projwses Cappadocia ; and Kalisch 
(Comm. on Gen.) seeks to identify it with the 
Chomari, a nation in Bactriana, noticed by Ptolemy 
(▼i. 11, § C). 

2. [V6nfp.^ The daughter of Diblaim, and 
conculiine of llosea (i. ."}). The name is significant 
of a maiden, ripe for marriage, and connects well 


with thv nanu Dnti.UM, which is alrw derived 
from the subject oi finil. W. L. li. 

GOMOR'RAH (nnb?, Gh'morali, prob- 
ably sttbrnersiim, from '^'5^, an unused root; in 
Arabic .. t p , (/hamara, ia to "overwhelm with 

water": rifiop()a- G(mwrilia), 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 to 
the rescue. Four out of the five were afterwards 
destroyed by the Lord with fire from heaven (Gen. 
xix. 23-29). One of them only, Zoar or Bela, 
which was its original name, was spared at the 
request of l>ot, 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 their overthrow. What 
that atrocity was may be gathered from Gen. 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. 6 ; 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. ;/■ 
Ueut. xxxii. 32; Is. i. 9, 10: Jer. xxiii. 14). Je- 
rusalem herself is tiiere unequi\ocally called Sodom, 
and her people Gomorrah, for their enormities: just 
in the same way that the corruptions of the Church 
of Konie 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 Tyre and Sidon, Ca- 
pernaimi, Chorazin, and Bethsaida were guilty, when 
they "repented not," in spite of "the mighty 
works" which they had witnessed (Matt. x. 15); 
and St. INIark 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 t)f 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." 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 sul>- 
nierged in the lake (/?. ./. 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 were destroyed 
by sulimersion — though they m.ay have been sub- 
merged afterwards when destroyed — for their de- 
struction is expressly attributed to the brimstone 
and fire rained upon them from heaven ((ien. xix. 
24; see also Deut. xxix. 23, and Zeph. ii. 9; also 
St. Peter and St. Jurle before cited). And St. 
.Jerome in the Onomaslicmi s;xy<s of Sodom, " civitag 

u "ThU view, wc think, is incorrect. We have no 
rewon to rp(?nr<l the ppoord (Gen. xiv. 3), nt U-nst In 
tlie fonii In wlilrh we have it, as older than the date 
at the dentructioii of the cities. The next remark 
«lau in recanl to Josephua must bd an inadvertence. 

Joecphus docs not affirm that Sodom was in tlie T»ta 
of Sldtlini. He 'ays that It lay near it , and his tw« 
testimonies, quoted in the urticle above, ar« etidraij 
consistent. fi- W. 


jnpioruni diviii > igne consiimpta juxta mare mor- 
tuum," and so of the rest {ibid. s. v.). The whole 
subject is ablj handled by Cellarius (ap. Uyol. 
Thesaur. vii. pp. dccxsxix.-kxviii.l. though it is 
not always necessary to agree with his conclusions. 
Among modern travellers, Ur. Robinson shows that 
the .Jordan oould not have ever flowed into the gulf 
of 'Akahuh ; on the contrary that the rivers of the 
desert themselves flow northwards into the Dead 
Sea. [Arab.iH.] 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 the Jordan flowed; 
though he admits it to have 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 Waihj 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 connected with the miraculous 
destruction of the cities — volcanic agency, that of 
earthquakes and the like {Bi/J. Rts. ii. 187-192, 
2d ed. ). He nught have adduced the great earth- 
quake at Lislion 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. c/ 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, Earlt/ Travels, p. 4.54). I\I. de Saulcy 
was the first to point out ruins along the shores 
(the Rtcljom^el-Mezorrhel ; and more particularly 
apiopos to our present subject, Gvumran on the 
N. \V.). Both perhaps are right. Gomorrah (as 
its very name implies) may have been more 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 all, upon the shore. (See gen- 
erally Mr. Isaac's Bead Sea.) [Sodom, Amer. ed.] 
E. S. Ff. 

GOMOR'RHA, the manner in which the 
name Gojiokk.\h is written in the A. V. of the 
Apocryphal books and the New Testament, follow- 
ing the Greek form of the word, 'i'6fxoppa (2 Esdr. 
ii. 8; Matt. x. 15; Mark vi. 11; Kom. ix. 29; Jude 
T; 2 Pet. ii. 6). 

Sfo-n-6Tris), employed in the A. V. of the master 
of 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 V 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. d. 
14. The Hebrew "IQh ^!J2?, trees of Gopher, does 
not occur in the cognate dialects. The A. V. has 
made no attempt at translation: the LXX. (|u\a 
r€Tpd7a)va) and Vulgate {liffna UevigaUi), eUcited 
by metathesis of ") and ^ ("123 = ?1""1), the for- 


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

The conjectures of cedar (Aben Ezra, Onk 
.Jonath. and Kabbins generally), wood most proper 
Ui Jioat (Kimchi), the Greek KeSpeAaTri (Jua 
Tremell. ; Buxt.), pine (Avenar. ; Munst.), tur- 
pentine (Castalio), are little better than gratuitous. 
The rendering cedar has been defended by Pclletier, 
who refers to the great abundance of this tree in 
Asia, and the durability of its timber. 

The Mohammedan equi\alent is sag, by which 
Herbelot understands the Indian plane-tree. Two 
principal conjectures, however, iiave been proposed : 
(1.) By Is. Vossius {Diss, de LXX. Interj). c. 12) 
that "IS 2 ^"n 23, resin; whence 3 "^^Jl?, meaning 
any trees of the resinous kind, such as pine, fir, 
etc. (2.) By Fuller {Miscell. Sac. iv. 5), Bochart 
{Phnleg, i. 4), Celsius {Hierobut. pt. i. p. 328), 
Hasse {Entdeclcunijen, pt. ii. p. 78), that Gopher i.i^ 
cypress, in favor of which opinion (adopted by 
Gesen. Lex.) they adduce the similarity in sound 
of gopher and c}'press {KvTrap^yo(pep)\ 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 (AJrian. vii. p. 
161, ed. Steph.). 

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

GOR'GIAS (iJop-yj'ar; [Alex. 1 Mace. iii. 38, 
2 Mace. xii. 35, 37, Topyna's; 1 Mace. iv. 5, Kop- 
7ias] ), a general in the service of Antiochus Epi- 
phanes (1 jNIacc. iii. 38, avr\p Swarhs twu (piKaiv 
Tov fia(7i\ea>s\ cf. 2 Mace. viii. 9), who was ap- 
pointed by his regent Lysias to a command in the 
expedition against Juda;a B. c. 106, in which he 
was defeated by Judas Maccabaeus with great loss 
(1 Mace. iv. 1 ff.). At a later time (b. c. 164) 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 Mace, is very obscure. He is 
represented there as acting in a military capacity 
(2 Mace. X. 14, (xrpaTriyhs roiv tAitoiv (V)» 
hardly of Coele-Syria, as Grimm ('- c.) takes it), 
apparently in concert with the Idumaeans, 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 'la/xvfias aTpaTTj 
ySs)- The hostility of the Jews towards him i3 
described in strong terms (2 Mace. xii. 35. rhv 
KarapaTov, A. V. "that cursed man "); atd while 
his success is only noticed in passing, hi^ 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's 
generals, and occurs at later times among the east- 
ern Greeks. B. F. W. 

GORTY'NA {r6pTwai [rSprvva in 1 Mace.] , 
in clas>ical WTiters, r6pTwa or ropTvV- [Gorti/na] ). 
a city of Crete, and in ancient times its most im • 


jortant city, next to Ciiossus. The only direct 
Biblical interest of Gortyna is in the (act that it 
appears from 1 Mace. xv. 23 to have contained 
Jewish residents. [Cisktk.] The circuiustanee 
alluded to in this passage took place in the reign 
of Ptolemy Physcon; and it is j)ossil)le that the 
Jews had increased in Crete during the reign of 
his predecessor Ptolemy Philonietor, who received 
many of them into Kgypt, and who also rebuilt 
some parts of Gortyna (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 wa-s near Fair Havens; so 
that St. Paul may jjossibly have preached the gos- 
pel there, when on his voyage to Home (Acts xxvii. 
8, 9). (iortyna seems to have been the capital of 
the island under the Homans. Por the remains on 
the old site and in the neighborhood, see the J/»- 
seum of Cl((ssic(d Antiquities, ii. 277-280. 

J. S. H. 

GO'SHEN 0^2: reo-eV; [Gen. xlvi. 29, 
'Hpdaii/ ttSKis; 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," "|tt''2 ^1}^^, 
but ako Goshen simply. It appears to have borne 
another name, "the land of Kameses," V"?.^ 

DDPVI (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 dynast}- 
to which we assign this king, the fifteenth [Kuvit; 
JosKPii], appears to have resided part of the year 
at Jlemphis, and part of the year, at harvest-time, 
at Avaris on the Hubastite or I'elusiac branch of the 
Nile: this, Manetho tells us, was the custom of the 
first king (Joseph, c. Aj/im. i. 14). In the account 
of the arrival of Jacob it is said of the patriarch : 
"He sent Judah before him unto Joseph, to direct 
his face unto CJoshen : 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, 2'J). This land was therefore be- 
tween Joseph's residence at the time and tlie frontier 
of Palestine, and apparently tlie extreme province 
towards that frontier. The advice that Josej)!! 
gave his brethren as to their conduct to Pharaoh 
further characterizes the territory: " When Pharaoh 
shall call you, and shall say, \\ hat [is] your occu- 
pation V Then ye shall say. Thy servants have been 
herdsmen of cattle (n3i7P "'tt7?H) from our youth 
even until now, both we [and] also om- fathers: 
that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every 

shepherd (^i^— i^^"^) ['*] ^n abomination unto 
the Egyptians" (xlvi. 33, 34). It is remarkable 
that in Coptic Uf'JJC signifies both " a shepherd " 
and "disgrace" and the like (Kosellini, Mimmaenii 
Storici, i. 177). This passage shows that (ioshen 
wa« scarcely regarded om a part of I'-gypt ProiK-r, 
»nd vroH not peopled by Egyptians — characteristics 
hat woidd |K>Hitively itidicate a frontier province. 
Hut it is not to be infcrrefl that (ioshen had no 
Egyptian inhaliitants at this jieriod : at the time 
Bf the t«n plagues such ore distinctly mentioned. 


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

and the mention of the 3^ 2"!?? who 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 he Hebrew, or Semitic 
— idthough we do not venture with Jerome to de- 
rive it from Dlt'S — for it also occurs as the nac* 
of a district and of a town in the south of Pales- 
tine (iiij'rn, 2), where we could scarcely expect an 
ap[)ellation 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 Haal-zephon, are Semitic [Haal-zk- 
I'liox], the only positive exceptions being the cities 
Pithoni and liameses, 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 
re(iuest of Joseph's brethren, and in the account of 
their settling : "And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, 
saying. Thy 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, 
tiien m.ake them rulei-s o\er my cattle. . . . And 
Joseph placed his fath>rand his brethren, and gave 
them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best 
of the land, in the land of Kameses, as Pharaoh 
had commanded" (Gen. xlvii. 5, G, 11). (ioshen 
was thus a pastoral country where some of Pha- 
raoh's cattle were kept. The expression " in the 

best of the land," V'il^^V' 2^""^? (^«' rfj 0e\- 
tiVttj yfj, in optimo loco), must, we think, be rel- 
ative, the best of the land for a pastoral people 
(although we do not accept Michaelis' reading 

S > (I ^ 
"pastures" by comparison with i*_j»Ji«jO, Siippl. 

p. 1072; see Gesen. Tlies. s. v. DtS^tt), for in the 
matter of fertility 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 1'Vyptians, must also be borne in 
mind. The clearest indications of the exact position 
of Goshen are those afforded by the narrative of 
the ICxodus. The Israelites set out from the towTi 
of Kameses 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- 
|x)int two routes lay before them, " the way of the 
land of the Philistines . . . that [was] ijear," and 
" the way of the wilderness of the Hed Sea " (Ex. 
xiii. 17, 18). 1 rom these indications we infer that 
the land of (ioshen must have in part been near 
the eastern side of the ancient Delta, Kameses ly- 
ing within the valley now called the Wddi-t-Tumty- 
lilt, about thirty miles in a direct course from the 
ancient western shore of the Arabian Gulf [Ex- 

ttI)l!S, Till;]. 

The results of the foi^going examination of 
Biblical evidence are that the lai d of Goshen kk) 


Oct ween the eastern part of the ancient Delta and 
the western border of Palestine, that it w;is scarcely 
a part of Egypt I'roper, was inhabited by other 
foreigners besides the Israelites, and was in its 
geographical names rather Semitic than Egyptian; 
that it was a pasture-land, especially suited to a 
shepherd-people, and sufficient for the Israelites, 
who there prospered, and were sep.arate from the 
main body of the Egyptians ; and lastly, that one 
of its towns lay near the western extremity of the 
Wddi-t-Tuineylut. These indications, except only 
that of sufficiency, to be afterwards considered, seem 
to us decisively to indicate the Wddi-t- Tumeyldt, 
the valley 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, tlie distance from the Red 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 difficulty 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 GO square geographical miles. If we 
suppose 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 
Aralis to h.ave 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 2-10,000 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 
great armies of the Pharaohs, requires a diflferent 
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 
still denser than that of our rich and thickly-pop- 
ulated Yorkshire. We do not think, therefore, that 
the small sup<,rficies presents any serious difficulty. 

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


garded, although in this particular case too much 
stress should not be laid on it, since the tradition 
of Goshen and its inhabitants must hav j 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 popular knowl- 
edge of Egyptian matters. In Gen. xlv. 10, foi 

"}tt72 the LXX. has Teaffx 'Apapias- The ex- 
planatory word may be understood either 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 were far more extensive than 
under the Ptolemies. On either supposition the 
passage is favorable to our identification. In Gen. 
xlvi. 28, instead of "Jt?72 n:27lSI, the LXX. has 
Kad^ 'Hpaicvu ir6\iy, if yfj 'Pa/j.e<ro-p (or us -yjj^ 
'Potyueo-o-fj), seemingly identifying Rameses with 
Heroiipohs. It is scarcely pos.sible to fix the 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 Rameses 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 " Pithom 
and Raamses," rrj;/ re Tletdci, Kal 'Pafxetrcrfi, koI 
"O-v, 7] iariv 'WKiovttoMs- Eusebius identifies 
Rameses with Avaris, the Shepherd-stronghold on 
the Pelusiac branch of the J^ile (ap. Cramer, 
Anecd. Paris, ii. p. 174). The evidence of the 
LXX. version therefore lends a general support to 
the theory we have advocated. [See E.xodus, 
THE.] R. S. P. 

2. ("|t^'2: roaSiJi: [Gosen ; Josh. x. 41, in 
Vulg. ed. ' 1590,] Gtssen, [ed. 1593,] Gozen) the 
" land " or the " country (both VT?^) 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 Shefelah, is expressly specified in addition to 
Goshen (here with the article). In this place too 
the situation of Goshen — if the order of the state- 
ment be any indication — would seem to be between 
the "south" and the Shefelah (A. V. "valley"). 
If Goshen was any portion of this rich pL-\in, 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 the 
name may be far older, and may retain a trace of 
early intercourse between Egypt and the south of 
the promised land. For such intercourse comp. 1 
Chr. vii. 21. 

3. [Toa-of/i. : Gosen.] A town of the same name 
is once mentioned in company with Deljir, 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, Ang. Sax. good mesa-^f/e or neios, which is a 
translation of the Greek euayyeKtov) is applied to 
the four inspired histories of the life and teaching 


jf Christ contained in tlie Xpw Testament, of whirh 
separate accounts will ue given in their place. 
lMattiikw; Makk; Lukk; J(jiix.] It may be 
fairly said that the genuineness of these four nar- 
ratives rests ujwn better evidence than that of any 
other iiiicient writings. 'J'hey were all composed 
during the latter half of the first century: those 
of St. Matthew and St. Mark some yciirs before 
the destruction of Jerusalem; that of St. Luke 
probably about A. D. G4; and that of St. John 
towards the close of the century, liefore the end 
of the second century, there is abundant evidence 
that the four (Josijels, as one collection, were gen- 
erally used and accepted. Irenteus, wlio suttered 
martyrdom about A. i). 202, the disciple of Poly- 
caq) and Papias, who, from having been in Asia, 
in Gaul, and in Home, had ample means of know- 
ing the belief of various churches, says that the 
authority of the four (ioapels was so far confirmed 
that even the heretics of his time could not reject 
them, but were obliged to attempt to prove their 
tenets out of one or other of them ( Cimir. Jker. iii. 
11, § 7). TertuUian, in a work written about A. i). 
208, mentions the four Gospels, two of them as the 
work of Apostles, and two as that of the disciples 
of Apostles {njwstolici); and rests their authority 
on their apostolic origin (Adv. Marcion. lib. iv. c. 
2). Origen, who was born about a. d. 185, and 
died A. u. 253, describes the Gospels in a charac- 

o • Theophilus does not use the term " Evangelists," 
but spe.iks of " the I'rophets " of the Old Testjimcnt 
and " the Gospels " as alike divinely inspired {Ad 
Autol. lib. iii. c. 12, p. 218, ed. Otto), and expressly 
names John as among those " moved by the Spirit," 
quoting John i. 1 {Mil. ii. 22, p. 120). After citing a 
passage from the IJook of I'roverbs on the duty of 
chastity, he says, " Hut the Kvangelie voice teaches 
purity yet more imperatively," quoting Matt. v. 28, 32 
{ibitl. Iii. 13). Further on, ho introduces a quotation 
from Matthew with the expression, " The Oospel says " 
{ibid. iii. 14). 

Among the writers who bear testimony to the gen- 
eral reception of the Uospcls by Christians before tlie of the second century, Clement might well have 
been mentioned, who succeeded I'antajnus as president 
of the cclebmted Catechetical School at Alexandria 
about A. D. 190. and was one of the most learned men 
of his age. His citations from all the Uospels as 
authoritative are not only most abundant, but he ex- 
pressly speaks of " the four Gospels which liai'e been 
handid down to us," In contrast with an obsicure 
apocryphal book, " The Oospel according to the Kgyp- 
tlans," used by certain heretics {Strom, iii. 13, 0pp. 
p. 663, ed. Potter). A. 

6 • The Muratorian fragment exprt^.ssly designates 
the Gospels of Luke and ilohn as the " third " and 
'■fourth ■' in order ; and the iinixjrfect sentence with 
which it Ijcglns applies to Mark. A note of time in 
the document Itself appears to indicate that it was 
composed not far from a. d. 170, perhaps earlier ; but 
tlie question of the date is not wholly free from diffi- 
culty. ft<,-ccnt critical editions and discussions of this 
Interesting rvlic of Christian antiquity may be found 
In Credncr's Orscli. dts Neiilrst. Knnon, hrrausa. vtm 
Volkmnr (Ilerl. 1860). pp. 141-170, 341-304 ; Ililgen- 
feld'g Drr Kanon v. die Kntik des N. T. (Halle, 1808). 
»p. 39-43 ; and Westcoffs Hist, of the C<\non of the 
.V. r. 2d nd. (Ix)nd. 1886), pp. 184-198, 406-J80. 

The Htatements that follow In the text In regard to 
early cltiitions from the Gosih-Ih require some modlflca- 
tion. Tlie earliest formal quotation from any of the 
9oK|H-l« appears to ho found In the e))lstle ascribed to 
Bartml)!i.« (see IUrnaiia'?), where the saying '' Many are 
aille<l, but few chosen '" Is Introduced by un yfypan-Tot, 
>M it Is written " (Damab. c. 4 ; Mutt. zxll. 14). With 


teristic strain of metaphor as " the [four] elementa 
of the Church's faith, of which the whole wtrld, 
reconciled to (iod in Christ, is composed" {In 
Julxtn. [torn. i. § G]). Elsewhere, in commenting 
on the opening words of St. Luke, he draws a line 
between the inspiral Gospels and such productions 
as " the Gospel according to the Egyptians," " the 
CJospel of the Twelve," and the like {Jhmiil. in 
Luc, 0pp. iii. 932 f.). Although Theophilus, who 
became sixth (seventh?) bishop of Antioch about 
A. 1). 1G8, spejiks only of "the Evangehsts," with- 
out adding their 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." Ijut from Jerome we know that The- 
ophilus arranged the records of the four Evangelists 
into one work (Lpist. ad Ali/iis. iv. p. 197). Tatian, 
who died about a. d. 170 (V), .compiled a JJiaUs- 
s(ii-uT), or Harmony of the Gospels. The Muratorian 
fragment (Muratori, Aiiti'j. Jt. iii. p. 854; Kouth, 
Ittl. Sun: vol. iv. [vol. i. ed. alt.] ), which, even if 
it be not by Cains and of the second century, is at 
least a very old monument of the Homan Church, 
describes the Gospels of Luke and John ; but time 
and carelessness seem to Imve destroyed the sen- 
tences relating to Matthew and JMark.* Another 
source of evidence is open to us, in the citations 
from the Gosjjels found in the earliest writers. Bar- 
nabas, Clemens Konianus, and I'olycarp, quote pas- 

thls exception, there is no express reference to any 
written Oo.spel in the remains of the so-called Apostol- 
ical Fathers. Clement of Kome (E/ 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 I'olycarp two short sentences, "Judge not, 
that ye be not judged," and " The spirit indeed is 
willing, but the Hesh is weak," are given precisely as 
we have them in Matthew. The epistles attributed 
to Ignatius have a considerable number of expressions 
which appear to imply an acquaintjince with words of 
Christ preserved by Matthew and John ; but they con- 
tain no formal quotation of the Gosjiels ; 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 that the words of 
Jesus and the facts in his history which they have 
recorded may have been derived by them from oral 
tradition. Their writings serve to confirm the truth 
of the Gospels, but cannot be appealed to as aUbrding 
direct proof of their genuineness. 

When we come to Justin Martyr, however, we stand 
on firmer ground. He, Indeed, docs not name the 
Kvangelists ; and it cannot be said that '' many of his 
quotations are found verbatim in the Oospel of John." 
His quotations, however, from the " Memoirs of the 
Apostles," dt " Memoirs compo.»ed by tiiu .\po3tlo8, 
which lire called Uoapeli " {Apol. i. c. 66), or as lie de- 
scribes them in one place more particularly, " Memoirs 
composed by Apostles of Christ and their companions " 
{Dml. c. Trtjph. c. 103), are such as to leave no reason- 
able doubt of his use of the first thrive Gospels ; and 
his use of the fourth Gospel, though contested by most 
of the critics of the Tiiblngen school, Is now concedeu 
even by Hilgenfeld {Ziilsrhr. f. uiss. Throl. 1865, p. 
336). The sulyect of Justin Mortyr"s quotations is dis- 
cussed lu a masterly manner by Mr. Norton In his 
Orniiineness of the Gospels, i. 200-23it. and with fuller 
[detail by Scmlsch, Die npnstol. n,nktrurdiuknl,n </..> 
[ MHTlyrirsJiistinHS{nnmh. 1848,, and Westcott (History 
; of the Canon of th' X. T., 2d ed.. pp. 83-145). II 
must not be forgotten that the " iMemoirs of th» 
|ApD8tl««" used by J ua«*i Martyr were sacrel bookft 


•ages from them, but not with verbal exactness 
rhe testimony of Justin Martyr (born about a. d. 
99, martyred a. d. 1G5) is much fuller; many of 
his quotations are found verbatim in the Gospels of 
St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. .John, and possibly 
of St ISIark also, whose words it is more difficult to 
separate. The quotations from St. Matthew are 
the most numerous. In historical references, the 
mode of quotation is more free, and the narrative 
occasionally unites those of Matthew and Luke : in 
a very few cases he alludes to matters not mentioned 
in the canonical (iospels. Besides these, St. Mat- 
thew appears to be quoted by the author of the 
ICpistle to Diognetus, by Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Ta- 
tian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus. Eusebius re- 
cords that Pantienus found in India ( V the south 
of .\rabia ?) 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 Martyr and Athenagoras appear 
to quote his Gospel, and Irenaeus does so by name. 
St. Luke is quoted by Justin, Irenaeus, 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 tFiat 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 the Gospels ; and as there was the greatest 
hostility between them, if the Gospels had become 
known in the Church aftw the dissension arose, 
the heretics would never have accepted them as 
genuine from such a quarter. But the Gnostics 
and Marcionit«s arose early in the second century ; 
and therefore it is probable that 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 26 
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 
Chi'istian world, is utterly incredible. The " Memoirs "' 
therefore of which Justin speaks must have been our 
present Gospels. 

The importance 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 establish 
the genuineness of the Gospels has been regarded as 
much more analogous than it is to that by which we 
prove historically the genuineness of other ancient 
books ; that is to say. through the mention of their 
titles and authors, and quotations from and notices of 
Vhem, 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 
of their genuineness did not involve the most monient- 
3US of all questions in the history of our race, — 
whether Christianity be a special manifestation of God's 
Icve toward man, or only the most remarkable devel- 
opment of those tendencies to fanaticism which exist 
In human nature. Reasoning in the manner supposed, 
we find their genuineness unequivocally asserted by 
Uwnieufl ; we may satisfy ourselves tha. they were 
"•■iriTeU as ttenuine by Justin Martyr ; we find the 


in 364, and that of the third Council of Carthage 
in 397, in 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 line of distinction waa 
dra\xn 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 sanctior. out of the GospeU 
for their doctrines: nor could they venture on the 
easier path of an entire rejection, because the 
Gospels were everywhere known to be genuine. As 
a matter of literary history, nothing can be better 
estaljlished than the genuineness of the Gospels; 
and if in these latest times they have been ;issailed, 
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. I^ndon, 1847,' 2d ed. [3 vols. Cambridge 
and Boston, 1846-48] ; Kirchhofer, Quellensamm- 
hinr/ zur Geschichtt des N. T. Canons, Ziirich, 
1844; De Wette, Ze/;?'iMf/i (kr hist.-krit. Einki- 
tuny, etc., 5th ed., Berlin, 1852 [translated by F. 
Frothingham, Boston, 1858 ; 6th ed. of the original, 
by Messner and Liinemann, Berl. 1860] ; Hug's 
Kinleitunrj, etc., Fosdick's [American] translation 
with Stuart's Notes [Aiidover, 1836] ; Olshausen, 
Biblischer Commentdi; Introduction, and his 
Echtheit der vier canon. Evanfjelien, 1823; Jer. 
Jones, Method of settling the Canonical Authority 
of the N. jT., Oxford, 1798, 2 vols.; F. C. Baur, 
Krit. Untersuchunrjen uber die knnon. Evan(/elien, 
Tiibingen, 1847; Keuss, Geschichte der heiligen 
Schriften N. T. [4th ed., Braunschweig, 18G4] ; 
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 couunon 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 hnkg 
which will bear no weight. 

But the direct historical evidence for the genuion 
ness of the Gospels ... is of a very different kinu 
from what we have just been considering. It consist* 
in the indisputiible 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 have 
been deeply interested to ascertain the truth. And 
this fact does not merely Involve the testimony of the 
great btiy of Christians to the genuineness of the 
Gospels , t is itself a phenomenon admitting of no 
explanation, except that the four Gospels had all been 
haudeJ down w genuine from the Apostolic age, and 
had every where accompanied our religion as it spread 
through the world." {Geniiinrntss of tUe Gospetf 
vol. i. Additional Noten, p. cclxix. f; A 



I ; Rev. B. F. Wcstcotfs l/istonj of N. T. Ctinon, 
London, 1859 [211 ed. 18GG] ; Gieseler, Uistorisch- 
kritUrlivr Vt'rsur/i iiber (lit J^nstehurif/, t/r., der 
iciin/lllclun t'A-'iiKjtlien, I>eipzig, 1818. [For 
jilier works on the subject, see the addition to this 

On comparing tliese four books one with another, 
a peculiar difficulty claims attention, which has had 
much to do with the controversy as to their genuine- 
ness. In the fourth Gospel the narrative coincides 
with that of the other three in a few pa-ssages only. 
rutting aside the account of the I'assion, there are 
only three fticts which John relates in common with 
the other Kvangelists. Two of these are, the feed- 
ing of the five thousand, and the storm on the !jea 
of (Jalilee (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 feet 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 Mark, and the admonition 
to Judas apiK-ars in Matthew; and John combines 
in his narrative all these particulars. Whilst the 
three present the life of Jesus in Galilee, John fol- 
lows him into Judrea; nor sliould we know, but for 
him, tliat our Lord had journeyed to Jerusalem at 
the prescribed feasts. Only one discoui-se of our 
Lord 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 
Gosjjel which should more expressly than the others 
set forth Jesus as the Incarnate AVord of God: if 
he also had in view the beginnings of the errors of 
Ceriiithus and others before him at the time, as 
Irenanis and Jerome assert, the polemical purpose 
is quite subordinate to the dogmatic. He does not 
war against a temporary error, but preaches for all 
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 
contriliuted 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 sufficiently re- 
corded. [John.] 

In the other three Gospels there is a great amount 
of agreement. If we supjwse 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 Mark only, 5 by Mark and Luke 
only, and 14 by Matthew and Luke. To these 
must be added b peculiar to Matthew, 2 to Mark, 
uid 9 to Luke; and the enumeration is complete. 
But this applies only to general coincidence as to 
the facts narratetl: the amoiuit of verbal coinci- 
dence, that is, the passages cither verbally the same, 
or coinciding in the use of many of the same words, 
is much umaller. " I'y far the larger jwrtion," 
gays I'rofe.>sor Andrews Norton {(Jenuintuesg, i. p. 
240, 2d c<l. [Addit. Notes, p. cvii. f, Amer. ed.]). 
" of thia verbal agreement is found in the recital 
of the words of others, and particularly of the words 
of Jesus. Thus, in Matthew's (iosiiel, the pas-sases 
rerbally coincident with one or both of the other 
two (;os|irls anioimt to k-ss than a sixth part of it.i 
contents: ami of thi.s about seven eighths occur in 
tlw recital of the ««'ord8 of othera, and only aliout 


one eighth in what, by way of distinction, I mat 
call mere narrative, in which the Evangelist, speak- 
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 has still less agree- 
ment of expression with the other I'vangelists. 
The passages in which it is found amount only to 
about a tenth part of his Gospel ; and Vmt an in 
considerable portion of it appears in the narrative 
— less than a twentieth part. These proportions 
should be further compared with those which the 
narrative part of each (lospel bears to that in which 
the words of others are professedly repe:itcd. Mat- 
thew's narrative occupies about one fourth of hia 
Gospel ; Mark'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 ]\Iark as one to four, and in Luke as one to 

Without going minutely into the examination 
of examples, w hich would be desirable if space per- 
mitted, the leading facts connected with the sub- 
ject may be thus summed up: The verbal and 
material agreement of the three first Evangelists is 
such as docs 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 e\ents, as in the call of the 
four first disciples, that of Matthew, and the Trans- 
figuration, the agreement even 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 tiiat part of the history in 
his plan. The agreenieiit in the narrative portions 
of the Gospels begins with the Baptism of John, 
and reaches its highest point in the account of the 
I'assion of our Lord and the facts that jireccded it ; 
so that a direct ratio miirht almost be said to exist 
between the amount of agreement and the nearness 
of the facts related to the I'assion. After this 
event, in the account of His burial and resurrection, 
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 fVom the Old Testament, the Evange- 
lists, or two of them, sometimes exhil)it 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 iv. 
8. Matt. xi. 10= Mark i. 2= Luke vii. 27, Ac.). 
I'.xcept as to 24 verses, the Gos})cl of Mark con- 
tains no princiiml facts which are not found in 
Matthew and Luke; but he often snpi)lie.s details 
omitted iiy them, and these are often such as would 
belong to the graphic accoimt of an eye-witness. 
There are no cases in wiiich Matthew and Luke 
exactly harmonize, where .Mark docs not also coin- 
cide with tiicni. Ill several jilaces the wonls of 
Mark have wniu'tiiiiit: in cnnimon with each of the 
otlier narratives, lu aa to form a connecting Uiik 


between them, where their words slightly differ. 
The examples of verbal agreement between Mark 
and Luke are not so long or so numerous as those 
between Matthew and Luke, and Matthew and 
Mark; but as to the arrangement of events Mark 
and Luke frequently coincide, where Jlatthew differs 
from them. These are the leading particulars; but 
they are very f;ir from giving a complete notion of 
a phenomenon that is well worthy of that attention 
and reverent study of the sacred text by which 
alone it can be fully and fairly apprehended. 

These facts exhibit the three Gospels as three 
distinct records of the life and works of the Re- 
deemer, but with a greater amount of agreement 
than three wholly independent accounts could be 
expected to exhibit. The agreement would be no 
ditfieulty, without the differences; it would only 
mark the one divine source from which they are 
all derived — the Holy 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 very 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 enumerated. 
The first and most obvious suggestion would be, 
that the narrators made use of each other's work. 
Accordingly Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, and 
many others, have endeavored to ascertain which 
(iospel is to be regarded as the first; which is 
copied from the first; 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 (Bp. Marsh's Miclinelis, iii. p. 172; 
l)e VV^ette, Hamlbuch, § 22 ff.) When we are told 
by men of research that the (Jospel of St. Mark is 
plainly founded upon the other two, as Griesbach, 
liusching, and others assure us; and again, that 
the Gospel of St. Mark is certainly the primitive 
(iospel, on which the other two are founded, as by 
Wilke, Bruno Bauer, and others, both sides reljing 
luainly 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 
that so much time and learning have been devoted 
to it. It assumes that 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, 


such deviations, which in writers wholly indepenii 
ent «f each other are only the guarantee of theil 
independence, cannot appear in those who copy 
from each otlier, without showing a certain willful- 
ness — an intention to contradict and alter — that 
seems quite irreconcilable with any view of inspira- 
tion. These general objections will be found to 
take a still more cogent shape 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 primitive Gospel, or tliat 
this very Gospel bears evident signs of being the 
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 
Mlchnelis, vol. iii., part ii. p. 171 ff.). 

The supposition of a common original from 
which the three Gospels 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 {Umres. li. 6), but the e| auTTjs r^y irr/yi}? 
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 establish a written document as 
the common original of the three Gospels, will be 
gained perhaps from Bishop Marsh's (Mich<ielis, 
vol. iii. part ii.) account of Eichhorn's hypothesis, 
and of his own, additions to it. It appeared to 
Eichhom that the portions which are common to 
all the three Gospels were contained in a certain 
common document, from which they all drew. 
Niemeyer had ah'eady 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. IMatthew and St. 
Mark, but not to St. Luke, and at the same time 
occupy places in the Gospels of St. Matthew and 
St. Mark which correspond to each other, were ad- 
ditions made in the copies used by St. Matthew 
and St. Mark, but not in the copy used by St. 
Luke; and, in like maimer, 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 

the omission by the second or third, of matter in that he can reconstruct the original document, and 

serted by tlie 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 admitted to be. The re- 
placement of a word by a synonym, neither more 
nor less apt, the oanission of a saying in one place 
and insertion of it in another, the occasional trans- 
position of events; these are not in conformity with 
the iialiits of a time in which composition was little 
itudiad, ai;d only practiced as a necessity. Besides, 

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 preceding, 
used by St. Mark. 

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

As there is no external evidence worth consider- 
ing that this original or any of its immerous copies 
ever existed, the value of this elaborate hypothesin 



mast depend upon its furnishing the only explana- 
tion, and tliat a sufficient one, of the facts of •the 
text. IJisliop Marsh, however, finds it necessary, 
ill order to eoniijlete tlie 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 them; and this, on one side, de- 
prives Kichhoru's theory of the merit of complete- 
ness, and, on the other, presents a much broader 
surface to the obvious objections. He assumes the 
existence of — 

1. A Hebrew original. 

2. A Greek translation. 

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

4. Another, with another set of alterations and 

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

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

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

8. A wholly distinct Hebrew document, in which 
our I>ord'8 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 Helirew 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. Mark had no matter in con- 
nection with St. Matthew, he had frequently re- 
course to St. Luke's Gosi)el" (]>. 3G1). One is 
hardly surprised after this to leani that Eichhorn 
soon after put forth a revised hypothesis {Jinldtuny 
in dns jV. 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 provided for one, 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- 
hom's theorj-, an additional Greek version. 

It will be allowed that this elaljorate hypothesis, 
whether in the fonn given it by Marsh 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 
assumed 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 
supplied on demand. A theory so prolific in as- 
sumptions may still stand, if it can be proved that 
no other solution is possiljle; but since this cannot 
1)C shown, even as against the modified theory of 
Gratz (Neuer Versurli, etc., 1812), then we are 
remindc<I of the schoolman's caution, etifia mm 
sunt multij/licnniln jnaler neregtilatem. To assume 
for every new cla.S8 of facts the existence of another 
complete etiition and recension of the original work 
ia quite gratuitous; the documents might have been 
»» easily supposed to be fragmentary memorials, 
WTOUglit in by the Evangelists into the web of the 
sriKinal Gospel; or the coincidence8 might be, as 


Gratz supposes, cases where one Gospel Una been 
interpolated by portions of another. Then thf 
"origuial Gospel" is supposed to have been of 
such authority as to be circulated everywhere : yet 
so defective, aa 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>er8ally 
accepted in the Church ; and yet there is no record 
of its existence. The force of this dilemma haa 
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 basis of three 
canonical Gospels: and various attempts have been 
made to escajw from it. IJertholdt 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 tha: 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 (iospel of 
Marcion there would be a transcript, though cor- 
rupted, of this primitive docunient. But there is 
no proof at all that St. Paul used any written 
Ciospel; and as to that of Marcion, if the work of 
Hahn had not settled the question, the researches 
of such writers as Volckmar, Zeller, Kitschl, and 
Hilgenfeld, are held to have proved that the old 
opinion of TertuUian and Epiphanius is also the 
true one, and that the so-called Gospel 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; Gie-seler, p. 57; Weisse, KmnyeJkvfnfge, 
p. 73.) We must conclude then that the work has 
perished 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 Nehe- 
miah, if a writer here and there arose, his works 
became known, if at all, in Greek tnuislations 
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 came (Acts iv. 13; 
James ii. 5). Even the second law {httntpuxTfts)-. 
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 WTiting. The theory of Eichhorn is only 
probable amidst a people given to literary habits, 
and in a class of that people where education was 
good and literary activity likely to prevail: the 
conditions here are tlie very reverse (see (iieselerV 
able argument, j). 5!t ft".). These are only a few 
of the objections which may be raised, on critical 
and historical grounds, ag.ainst th* 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, ^^'e are oflered here u 


Miginal Gospel composed by some unknown per- 
wn; pnibably not an apostle, as Eichhom admits, 
in 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 pronded. Out of such unattested materials 
the three Evangelists composed their Gospels. So 
far as they allowed their materials to buid and 
guide them, so far their worth as independent wit- 
nesses is lessened. But, according to Eichhom, 
they all felt bound to admit Ihe ichole of the origi- 
nal document, so that it is possible to recover it 
from tliem l)y a simple process. As to all the pas- 
gages, then, in which this document is employed, 
it is not the Evangelist, but an anonymous prede- 
cessor to whom we are listening — not Matthew the 
Apostle, and Mark 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 thouglit 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 Person 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 curcumstances which are supposed to 
have affected their composition. 

Bibliography. — The English student will find 
In Bp. Marsh's Translation of Michaelts's Introd. 
to N. T. iii. 2, 1803, an account of Eichhorn's 
earher theory and of his own. Veysie's Examina- 
tion of Mr. Marsh's Hypothesis, 1808, has sug- 
gested many of the objections. In Bp. Thirlwall's 
Translation of Schleiennacher on St. Luke, 1825, 
Introduction, is an account of the whole question. 
Other principal works are, an essay of Eichhom, in 
the 5th vol. Allc/emeine Bibliothek der biblischen 
Literatur, 1794; the Essay of Bp. Marsh, just 
quoted; Eichhom, Einleitung in das N. T. 1804; 
Gratz. Neuer Versuch die Enstehung der drey 
ersten Evang. zu erklaren, 1812; Bertholdt, His- 
tor. kritische Einleitung in sdmmtliche kanon. und 
apok. Schriften des A. und N. T., 1812-1819; 
and the work of Gieseler, quoted above. See also 
l)e Wette, Lehrbuch, and Westcott, Introduction, 
already quoted ; also Weisse, Evangelienfrage, 
1856. [For a fuller account of the literature of 
ihe subject, see addition to the present article.] 

There is another supposition to account for these 
facts, of which perhaps Gieseler has been the most 
»cut« expositor. It is probable that none of the 
Gospels was written until many years after the day 
3f Pentecost, on which the Holy Spirit descended 
XI the assembled disciples. From that day com- 


menced at Jerusalem the work of preaching tht 
Gospel and converting the world. So sedulona 
were the Apostles in this work that they divested 
themselves of the labor of ministering to the poor 
in order that they might give themselves " contin- 
ually to prayer and to the ministry of the word " 
(Acts vi.). Prayer and preaching were the business 
of their lives. Now their 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 riders to stigmatize 
as an impostor. The ministry of our Lord went 
on principally in Galilee; the first preaching was 
addressed to people in Judaea. There was no writ- 
ten record to which the hearers might be referred 
for historical details, and therefore the preachers 
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 Caesarea, and 
Paul at Antioch, preach alike the facts 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 aiwstolic 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 was 
no vvTitten Gospel to put into their hands, it might 
be desirable that the oral instruction should be as 
far as possible one and the same to all. It is by 
no means certain that the interval between the 
mission of the Comforter and his work of directing 
the writing of the first Gospel was so long as is 
here supposed: the date of the Hebrew St. Mat- 
thew may be earlier. [Matthew.] 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, the answer would be, that for 
the first few years the poweifid working of the 
Holy Spirit in the living members of the church 
supplied the place of those records, which, as soon 
as the brightness of his presence began to be at all 
withdrawn, became iiidispensable in order to pre- 
vent the corruption of the Gospel history by false 
teachei-s. He was promised as one who should 
"teach them all things, and bring nil things to 
their remembrance, whatsover " the Lord had " said 
unto them " (John xiv. 26). 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 Pet. i. 12); and he is described as a witness 
with the Apostles, rather than through them, of 
the things which tliey had seen during the course 
of a ministry which they had shared (John xv. 26, 
27; Acts v. 32. Compare Acts xv. 28). The per- 
sonal authority of the Apostles as eye-witnesses of 
what they preached is not set aside by this divini 



iid: again and iii^nin they descril)e them«r>ives as 
■'wibiessps" to facts (Acts ii. 32, iii. 15, x. 39, Ac); 
Mid when a vacancy occurs in their number through 
Uie full of Judas, it is almost assumed as a thing 
i)f 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 teachings of the Holy 
Spirit consisted, not in whispering to them facts 
which they had not witnessed, but rather in re- 
viving the fading remembrance, and tlirowing out 
into their true importance events atid 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 he were known to be working in and 
with them and directing them, and manifesting 
that 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 
RS 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 tliey were still preaching the oral (iospel in 
the strength of the Holy Ghost, tliey were admon- 
ished l)y the same divine Person to prepare those 
written lecords which were hereafter to be the daily 
spiritual food of all the church of Christ." Nor 
is there anytliing uimatural 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 the church 
was to be when written books were to be the means 
of edification. They quote the scriptures of tlie 
Old Testament frequently in their discourses; and 
as their Jewish education iiad accustomed them to 
the use of the words of the Bible as well as the 
matter, they would do no violence to their prejudices 
in assimilating the new records to the old, and in 
reducing them to a "/iw-ni of sound words." They 
were all .lews of Palestine, of humble origin, all 
alike cliosen, we may suppose, ibr the loving zeal 
with which they would observe the works of their 
Master and aftenvards 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-( 'haldaic, 
which was a poor and scanty language; and though 
Greek w.-\s now widely spread, and was the language 
even of several places in Palestine (Josephus, Ant. 
xvii. 11, § 4; IS. J. iii. 9, § 1), though it prevailwl 
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, partook of the poverty of the speech whici 

a The opening words of St. Luke's Oospcl, " Foras- 
much as many have tjiken in hand to set forth in order 

dcrlamtion of those things which are most surel 
believed among us, even as they delivered them unto 
D8, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and 
ministers of the word," npiM-ar to mean that manj 
persons who heard the preaching of tlie AiMwtles wrote 
down what they lioard, In order to preserve it In a 
(wnuanuDt furui. Tliu word " many " cannot refer 


it replaced ; as, indeed, it is impossible to boriOQ 
a whole language witho'it borrowing the habits of 
thought upon which it has built itself. Whilst 
modern taste aims at a variety of expression, and 
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- 
atin-e, would all lead us to expect that the Apostlea 
would have no such feeling. As to this, we have 
more than mere conjecture to rely on. Occasional 
repetitions occur in the Gospels (Luke vii. 19, 20; 
xix. 31, 34), such as a writer in a more copiou? 
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.), once 
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, admita 
of an explanation, — whilst the third deviates .some- 
what more in expression, and has one pa.ssage pe- 
culiar to itself. The vision of Cornelius is aJso 
three times related (Acts x. 3-6, 30-32; xi. 13, 
14), where the words of the angel in the two first 
are almost precisely alike, and the rest very similar, 
whilst the other is an abridged account of the same 
facts. The vision of Peter is twice related (Acts 
X. 10-16; xi. 5-10), and, except in one or two 
expressions, the agreement is verbally exact. The.'se 
places from the Acts, which, both as to the'ir re- 
semblance and their difference, may be compared 
to the narratives 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 assume a common form, 
more or less fixed ; and that the portions of tha 
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, Ijut to the fact that the 
apostolic preaching had already clothed itself in a 
settled or usual form of wort'-s, to which the writers 
inclined to conform without I'eeling bound to do so ; 
and the differences which occur, often in the closest 
proximity to tlie harmonies, arise from the feeling 
of independence with which each wrote what he 
had seen and heard, or, in the case of Mark and 
Luke, what apostolic witnesses had told him. The 
harmonies, as we have seen, liegin with the baptism 
of John; that is, with the consecration of the Lord 
to his messianic othce; and with this event prolv 
ably the ordinary preaching of the Apostles would 
begin, for its purport was that Jesus is the Messiah, 
and that as Messiah he suflTered, died, and rose 
again. They are very frequent as we approach the 
period of the Passion, because the sufli-'iings of the 
Lord wowld be nnich in the mouth of every one 
who preached the (Jospel, and all would become 
familiar with the words in which the Apostles de- 

to St. Matthew ond St. Mark only ; and if the pa.«sag« 
implies an intention to supersede the writings alluded 
to, then these two Evangelists cannot bo included 
under them. Partial and incomplete reports of the 
preaching of the Apostles, written with a g' ed oim 
but without authority, arw intended : and, if we may 
argue from St. Luke's sphere of obs<Tvation, tney wen 
probably comjx)8ed by Greek converts. 


wribwl it. But as regards the Resurrection, which 
differed from the Passion in that it was a fact which 
the enemies of Christianity felt hound to dispute 
(Matt, xxviii. 15), it is possible that the divergence 
arose from the intention of each Evangelist to con- 
tribute something towards the weight of evidence 
for this central truth. Accordingly, all the four, 
even St. Mark (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 that he was risen indeed. The verbal 
agreement is greater where th*^ words of otliers are 
recorded, and greatest of all where they are those 
of Jesus, because here the apostolic preaching 
would be esiiecially exact ; and where the historical 
fact is the utterance of certain words, the duty of 
the historian is nan-owed to a bare record of them. 
(See the works of Gieseler, Norton, Westcott, 
VVeisse, and others already quoted.) 

That this opinion would explain many of the 
facts connected with the text is certain. Whetiier, 
besides conforming U> 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 prol)ably find on examination some places 
which could best be explained on this supposition. 
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 Gosijel 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. Mark, with so little of narrative peculiar to 
himself, brings out by many minute circumstances 
a more vivid delineation of our Ix)rd's completely 
human life ; that St. Luke puts forward the work 
of Redemption as a universal benefit, and shows 
Jesus 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 
bved him, of his relation to the Father, and of 
the relation of the Holy Spirit to both. The inde- 
pendence of the writers is thus established ; and if 
Ihey seem to have here and there used each other's 
recount, which it is perhaps impossible to prove or 
iisprove, such cases will not compromise that claim 
irhich alone gives vslue to a plurality of witnesses. 

How does this last theory bear upon our belief 
a the inspiration of the Gospels ? This momentous 
question admits of a satisfactory reply. Our blessed 
Lord, on five different occasions, promised to the 
4|)08tl£s the divine guidance, to teach and enlighten 



them in their dangers (Matt. x. 19; Luke lii. 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 teact 
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 shows. 
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 JMaster'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 his 
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 wliat 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 themselves were persons to whom 
Christ's promises of supernatural guidance had been 
extended, but it certainly 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 coriipanions of apostles — shared 
their dangers, confronted hostile tribunals, had to 
teach and preach — there is reason to think thai 
they equally enjoyed what they equally needed. It 
Acts XV. 28, the Holy Ghost is spken of as the 
common guide and light of all the brethren, not of 
apostles only; nay, to speak it revei'ently, 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 wi'itten by inspired men 
in fi-ee and close communication with inspired 
apostles. But supposing that the portion of the 
three first (jrospels 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 lx)rd 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 Eichhorn 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 
of events. Everything narrated must be substan- 
tially and exactly true, and the comparison of the 
Gospels one with another offers us nothing that 
does not 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 strict chronological order, or had pretended 
that his record was not only true but complete, 
then one inversion of order, or one omission of a 



lyUable, would convict him of inaccuracy. 'But if 
It is plain — if it is all but avowed — that minute 
chronolos^ical 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 
jud. 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. W§ have 
seen that each Gospel 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 
gorrows 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 ui St. John that we read that "Jesus wept; " 
and there is nothing, even in the last discourse of 
Jesus, as reported l)y St. John, that opens a deeper 
view of his divine nature tlian the words in St. 
Matthew (xi. 25-30) beginning, " I thank thee, O 
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou 
hast Lid 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 diflereiice 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 oi^ened by the Holy 
Spirit to comprehend features of such unspeakable 
rsidiance. Not only does this highest " harmony 
of the Gospels " manifest itself to every pious reader 
of the Bible, but the lower harmony — the agree- 
ment of fact and word in all that relates to the 
ministry of the I^ord, in all that would contribute 
to a true view of his spotless character — exists 
also, and cannot be denied. For example, ali tell 
ua alike that Jesus was transfigured on tlie mount; 
that the s/it/cimili of divuie glory shone upon his 
face; that Moses the lawgiver and Elijah tiie jjrophet 
talked with him ; and that the voice from heaven 
bare witness 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 tliat Jesus raiscfl them ? or that St. 
Luke alone tells us that for a part of the time they 
were heavy with sleep? Again, one Kvangehst, in 
describing our Lord's temptation, follows the order 
of the occurrences, another arranges according to 
the degrees of temptation, and the third, paasing 
over all particulars, merely mentions that our l^rd 
was temjtted. Is there anything here to shake our 
faith in the writers as credible historians'/ Do we 
treat other histories in this exacting spirit? Is not 
the very independence of treatment the pledge to 
U8 that we have really three witnesses to the fact 
hat Jesus was tempted like as we are? for if the 
Evangelists were cojiyists, nothing would have been 
nore easy than to remove such an obvious dilTerence 
Hi this. The histories are true according to any 
teHt that should be ap))lied to a history; and the 
s\'enta that they select — tiiough we could not pre- 


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

There is a perverted form of the theory we ar€ 
considering which pretends tliat the facts of thi 
Redeemer's life remained in the state of an oral 
tradition till the latter part of tlie second century 
and that the four Gospels were not written till thai 
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 tiie changeable and 
insecure form of an oral account. 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 Gosiwls are spuri- 
ous; and orthodox writers ascribe without contra- 
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 exposed runs in this vicious circle: 
" Tliere are no miracles, therefore the accounts of 
them must have grown up in the course of a century 
from popular exaggeration, and as tlie 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, unadonietl nari-ativcs, without any outbursts 
of national prejuiiice, 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 
I^zai-us 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 be;iring on the gosijel accounts 
in detail. l>et it be reniemberetl, however, that a 
complete harmony, including the chronological ar- 
rangement and the exact succession . of all events, 
was not intended by the sacred writers to be con- 
structetl ; indeed the data for it are pointedly with- 
held. Here most of the places where there is some 
special difHculty, 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 eases 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, (iriesbach, 
Synopsis Jirnnytliorwii, 1770: Ue ^^■ette and 
Liicke, Syn. J-A-av;/., [1818,] 1842; Hi diger, Syn. 
Jivntiff., 1829; Clausen, Qnnlvor Kvnng. Tabula 
Synopticce, 1829; Greswell's Ilnrmimy [Ilannonin 
KvinujtUcii^eA. 5ta, Oxon. 185G] awl Dissertntumt 
[2d ed., 4 vols, in 5, Oxford, 1837], n most im- 
portant work ; the Hev. I. A\illiams On the (josjtti* , 
Theile's (Jreck Teslnmtnl ; and TischendorPs SyTt, 
Aran//. 1854 [2d od. 18(i4]; besides the well-known 
works of Lightfoot, Macknight, Newcome, and 
licbinson.) [For other works of this class, m 
ad litiou to the present article.] W. T. 




I — In the following Table, where all the references under a given section are printed in heavy type, k 
under " Two Genealogies," it is to be understood that some special difficulty besets the harmony 
Where one or more references under a given section are in light, and one or more in heavy type, it is to 
be understood that the former are given as in their proper place, and that it is more or less doubtAil 
whether the latter are to be considered as parallel narratives or not. 


Preface, to Theophilus .... 
Annunciation of the Baptist's birth 
Annunciation of the birth of Jesus 
Mary visits Elizabeth . . 
Birth of John the Baptist . 
Birth of Jesus Christ . 
' Two Genealogies .... 
The watching Shepherds . 
The Circumcision . . . 
Presentation in the Temple 
The wise men from the East 
Flight to Egypt .... 
Disputing with the Doctors 
Ministry of John the Baptist 
Baptism of Jesus Christ . 
The Temptation .... 
Andrew and another see Jesus 
Simon, now Cephas . . 
Philip and Nathanael . 
The water made wine . 
Passover (1st) and cleansing the Temple 


Christ and John baptizing . 
The woman of Samaria 
John the Baptist iu prison 
Return to Galilee . . . 
The synagogue at Nazareth 
The nobleman's son . . . 
Capernaum. Four Apostles called 
Demoniac healed there . . 
Simon's wife's mother healed 
Circuit round Galilee 
Healing a leper .... 
Christ stills the storm . . 
Demoniacs in land of Gadarenes . 
Jairus's daughter. Woman healed 
Blind men, and demoniac 
Healing the paralytic . 
Matthew the publican . 
" Thy disciples fast not " 
Journey to Jerusalem to 2d Passover 
Pool of Bethesda. Power of Christ 
Plucking ears of corn on Sabbath 
The withered hand. Miracles 
The Twelve Apostles 
The Sermon on the Mount 
The centurion's servant . . 
The widow's son at Nain . 
Messengers from John . . 
Woe to the cities of Galilee 
Call to the meek and suffering 
Anointing the feet of Jesus 
Second circuit round Galilee 
Parable of the Sower . . 

" Candle under a Bushel 

" the Sower . 

" the Wheat and Tares 

" Grain of Mustard-seed 

'■ Leaven . . . 
On teacbiog by parables 

St. Matthew. 

i. 18-25 
i. 1-17 

ii. 1-12 
ii. 13-23 

iii. 1-12 
iii. 13-17 
iv. 1-11 

iv. 12; xiv. 3 
iv. 12 

iv. 18-22 

viii. 14-17 
iv. 23-25 
viii. 1-4 
viii. 18-27 
viii. 28-34 
ix. 18-26 
ix. 27-34 
ix. 1-8 
ix. 9-13 
ix. 14-17 

xii. 1-8 
xii. 9-21 
X. 2-4 
V. 1-vii, 

viii. 5-13 

xi. 2-19 
xi. 20-24 
xi. 25-30 

xiii. 24-30 
xiii. 31, 32 
xiii. 33 
xiu. 34, 35 

St. Mark. 

i. 1-8 
i. 9-11 
i. 12, 13 

i. 14; vi. 17 
i. 14, 15 

i. 16-20 
i. 21-28 
i. 29-34 
i. 35-39 
i. 40-45 
iv. 35-41 
V. 1-20 
V. 21-43 

ii. i-12 ' 
u. 13-17 
ii. 18-22 

ii. 23-23 
iii. 1-12 
in. 13-19 

iv. 1-20 
iv. 21-25 
iv. 26-29 

iv. 30-32 

iv. 33, 34 

St. Luke. 

i. 1-4 
i. 5-25 

i. 39-56 
i. 57-80 
ii. 1-7 
iii. 23-38 
ii. 8-20 
ii. 21 
u. 22-38 

ii. 39 
ii. 40-52 
iii. 1-18 
iii. 21, 22 
iv. 1-13 

iii. 19, 20 
iv. 14, 15 
iv. 16-30 

V. 1-11 

iv. 31-37 
iv. 38-41 
iv. 42-44 
v. 12-16 
viii. 22-25 
viii. 26-39 
viii. 40-56 

V. 17-26 
V. 27-32 
v. 33-39 

vi. 1-5 
vi. 6-11 
vi. 12-16 
vi. 17-49 
vii. 1-10 
\ii. 11-17 
vu. 18-35 

vu. 36-50 
viii. 1-3 
viii. 4-15 
viii. 16-18 

xiii. 18, 19 
xiii. 20, 21 

St. John. 

i. 15-31 
i. 32-34 

i. 35-40 
i. 41, 42 
i. 43-51 
ii. 1-11 
ii. l£-22 
ii. 23-iii. 2] 
iii. 22-36 
iv. 1-42 
iii. 24 
iv. 43-45 

iv. 46-54 

v. 1 
V. ^47 

iv. 46-64 



8t. Matthew. 

St. Mar 

I. St. Luke. 


Wheat and tares explained .... 

xiii. 30-43 

The tre:isure, the pearl, the net 

xiii. 44-52 

His mother and His brethren . 

xii. 46-50 

iu! 31-3 

5 viii. 19-21 

Reception at Nazareth . . . 

xiii. 53-58 

vi. 1-6 


Third circuit round Galilee 

ix. 35-38; ( 
xi.l j 


vi. 6 

Sending forth of the Twelve . 

vi. 7-13 

ix. 1-6 

Herod's ojjinion of Jesus . . 

xiv. 1, 2 

vi. 14-16 

ix. 7-9 

Death of John the Baptist . 

xiv. 3-12 

vi. 17-29 

Approach of Passover (3d) 

vi 4 

Feeding of the five thousand . 

xiv. 13-21 

vi. 30-44 

ix. 10-17 

vi 1-15 

Walking on the sea . . . . 

xiv. 22-33 

vi. 45-52 


yf 16-21 

AUracles in Gennesaret . . . 
The bread of Ufe 

xiv. 34-36 

vi. 53-56 


T 12-65 

The wp-ashen hands .... 

XV. 1-20 

vii. 1-23 


The Syrophcenician woman . 

XV. 21-28 

vii. 24-3 


Miracles of healing .... 

XV. 29-31 

vii. 31-3 


Feeding of the four thousand . 

XV. 32-39 

viii. 1-9 

The sign from heaven . . . 

xvi. 1-4 

viii. 10-1 

3 '. '. 

The leaven of the Pharisees . 

xvi. 5-12 

viii. 14-2 


Bhnd man healed .... 

viii. 22-2 


Peter's profession of faith , . 

xvi! 13-19 

viii. 27-2 

9 ix. 18-20 

A. 66-71 

The Passion foretold . . . 

xvi. 20-28 

viii. 30-L 

s. 1 is. 21-27 

Tlie Transfiguration .... 

xvii. 1-9 

ix. 2-10 

ix. 28-36 


xvii. 10-13 

ix. 11-13 

The lunatic healed .... 

xvii. 14-21 

ix. 14-29 

is. 37-42 

The Passion again foretold . . 

xvii. 22, 23 

ix. 30-32 

ix. 43-45 

Fish caught for the tribute . 

xvii. 24-27- 

The little child 

xviii. 1-5 

ix. 33-37 

ix. '46-48 

One casting out devils . . , 

ix. 38-41 

ix. 49, 50 


xviii. 6-9 

ix. 42-48 

xvii. 2 

The lost sheep 

xviii. 10-14 

XV. 4-7 

Forgiveness of injuries . . . 

xviii. 15-17 

Bhiding and loosing . . . 

xviii. 18-20 


Forgiveness. Parable . . . 

xviii. 21-35 

" Salted with fire " . . . . 

ix. 49, 5C 

Journey to Jerusalem . . . 


ix. 51 

vii. 1-10 

Fire from heaven 

ix. 52-5G 

Answers to disciples .... 

viii. 19-22 

ix. 57-62 

The Seventy disciples . . . 

X. 1-16 

Discussions at Feast of Tabemacl 


vii. 11-53 

\V\)man taken in iwlultery . . 


viii. 1-11 

Dispute with the Pharisees . . 


viii. 12-68 

The man bom blind . . . 


ix. 1-41 

nie good Shepherd .... 


X. 1-21 

The return of the Seventy . . 


X. 17-24 

The good Samaritan . . . 


X. 25-37 

Mary and Martha .... 

X. 38-42 

The Ix)rd's Prayer .... 

vi. 9-13 

xi. 1-4 

Prayer effectual 

vii. 7-11 

xi. 5-13 

» Through IJeelzebub "... 

xii. 22-37 

iii." 20-C 

>0 xi. 14-23 

The unclean spirit returning . 

xii. 43-45 

xi. 24-28 

The sign of Jonah .... 

xii. 38-42 

xi. 29-32 

The light of the body . . . 

( V. 15 ; vi. 
1 22, 23 


xi. 33-30 

The Pharisees 

xi. 37-54 

What to fear 

X. 26-33 

xu. 1-12 

" Master, speak to my brother" 

xii. 13-15 


vi. 25-33 


xii. 16-31 

>\'atch fulness 

xii. 32-59 

Galileans that perished . . . 

xiii. 1-9 

Woman healed on Sabbath . 

xiii. 10-17 

rhe grain of mustard-seed . 

xiii. 31, 32 

iv. 30-C 

J2 xiii. 18, 19 

The leaven 

xUi. 33 

xiii. 20, 21 

Towards Jenisnlem .... 

xiii. 22 

' Are there few that be saved ? " 

xiii. 2:!-30 

Warning against Herod . . 


xiii. 31-33 

•0 Jerusalem, Jerosalem " . 

xxiii. 37-39 

xui. 34, 35 




St. Matthew. 

St. Mar 

k. St. Luke. 

St. John. 

Dropsy healed on Sahbath-day . . 


xiv. 1-6 

Choosing the chief rooms 

xiv. 7-14 

Parable of the Great Supper .... 

xxii. 1-14 


xiv. 15-24 

Following Christ with the Cross . . . 

X. 37, 38 

xiv. 25-35 

Parables of Lost Sheep, Piece of Money, ) 

Prodigal Son, Unjust Steward, Rich > 

XV. xvi. 

Man and Lazarus ) 


xviii. 6-15 
xvii. 20 

xvii. 1-4 
xvii. 5-10 

Faith and Merit 

The ten lepers 

xvii. 11-19 

How the kingdom cometh 

xvu. 20-37 

Parable of the Unjust Judge .... 

xviii. 1-8 

" the Pharisee and Publican . . 


xviii. 9-14 


xix. 1-12 
xix. 13-15 

X. 1-12 
X. 13-16 

xviii. 1.5-17 

Infants brought to Jesus 

The rich man inquiring 

xix. 16-26 

X. 17-27 

xviii. 18-27 

Promises to the disciples 

xix. 27-30 

X. 28-31 

xviii. 28-30 

Laborers in the vineyard 

XX. 1-16 

Death of Christ foretold 

XX. 17-19 

X. 32-34 

xviii. 31-34 

Request of James and John .... 

XX. 20-28 

X. 35-45 

Blind men at Jericho 

XX. 29-34 

X. 46-52 

xviii. 35-43 


xix. 1-10 

Parable of the Ten Talents .... 

XXV. 14-30 

xix. 11-28 

Feast of Dedication 


X. 22-39 

Beyond Jordan 



X. 40-42 

Raising of Lazarus 


xi. 1-44 

Meeting of the Sanhedrim .... 



xi. 45-53 

Christ in Ephraim 


xi. 54-57 

The anointing by ]\Iary 

xxvi. 6-13 

xiv. 3-9 

vii. 36-50 

xu. 1-11 

Christ enters Jerusalem 

xxi. 1-11 

xi. 1-10 

xix. 29-44 

xii. 12-19' 

Cleansing of the Temple (2d). . . , 

xxi. 12-16 

xi. 15-18 

xix. 45-48 

ii. 13-22 

The barren fig-tree 

xxi. 17-22 

( xi. 11-1 
J 19-2 

ti • ■ 

Pray, and forgive 

vi. 14, 15 

xi. 24-26 

" By what authority," etc 

xxi. 23-27 

xi. 27-33 

XX. 1-8 

Parable of the Two Sons 

xxi. 28-32 

" the Wicked Husbandmen . . 

xxi. 33-16 

xii. 1-12 

XX.' 9-19' 

" the Wedding Garment . . . 

xxii. 1-14 

xiv. 16-24 

Tlie tribute-money 

xxii. 15-22 

xii.' 13-1 

7 XX. 20-26 

The state of the risen 

xxii. 23-33 

xii. 18-2 

7 XX. 27-40 

The great Commandment 

xxii. 34-40 

xii. 28-3 


David's Son and David's Lord . . . 

xxii. 41-46 

xii. 35-3 

7 XX. 41-44 

Against the Pharisees . . . . ' . , 

xxiii. 1-39 

xii. 38-4 

3 XX. 45-47 

The widow's mite 

xii. 41-4 

t xxi. 1-4 

Christ's second coming 

xxiv. 1-51 

xiii. 1-37 

xxi. 5-38 

Parable of the Ten Virgins .... 

XXV. 1-13 


" the Talents 

XXV. 14-30 

xix. 11-28 

The Last Judgment 

XXV. 31-46 

Greeks visit Jesus. Voice from heaven . 


xii. 20-36 

Reflections of John 


xii. 36-50 

Last Passover (4th). Jews conspire 

xxvi. 1-5 

xiv." 1, 2 

xxii. 1, 2 

Judas Iscariot 

xxvi. 14-16 

xiv. 10, 1 

1 xxii. 3-6 

Paschal Supper 

xxvi. 17-29 

xiv. 12-2 

5 xxii. 7-23 

xiii. 1-35 

Contention of the Apostles .... 

xxii. 24-30 

Peter's fall foretold 

xxvi. 30-35 

xiv. 26-3 

1 xxii. 31-39 

xiii. 36-38 

Last discourse. The departure; the j 
Comforter ) 


xiv. 1-31 

The vine and the b-anches. Abiding ( 
in love 1 

• • 

XV. 1-27 

Work of the Comforter in disciples 

xvi. 1-33 

The prayer of Christ 

xvii. 1-26 


xxvi. 36-46 

xiv.' 32-4 

2 xxii. 40-46 

xviii. 1 

rhe betw'.yal 

xxvi. 47-56 

xiv. 43-5 

2 xxii. 47-53 

xvui. 2-11 

Before Annas (Caiaphas). Peter's denial 

( XX ri. 57, ) 
I 58, 69-75 i 

I xiv. 53, 
1 54, 66-7 

2 1 xxii. 54-62 

xviii. 12-27 

Before the Sanhedrim 

xxvi. 59-68 

xiv. 55-6 

5 xxii. 63-71 

defoie PUate 

( xxvii. 1, ) 
1 2, 11-14 i 

XV. 1-5 

xxiu. 1-3 

xviii. 28 




rhe Traitor's death . . . . 
Before llerotl 

Accusation and Condemnation 

Treatment by the soldiers . . 

The Crucifixion 

The mother of Jesus . . . 
Mockin<;s and raiLngs . . . 

The malefivctor 

Tlie deiitli 

Darkness and other portents . 

The hystanders 

The side pierced 

The burial 

'I'he guard of the sepulchre 

The UesuiTection . . . . 

Disciples going to Emmaus . 

Appearances in Jerusalem . . 

At the Sea of Tiberias . . . 

On the Mount in Galilee . . 

Unrecorded Works .... 



XX vu, 




5-» -56 

. 1-10 





XV. 42-47 

12, 13 

19' 20 

xxiii. 36, 37 

j xxiii. 26-34 

: xxiii. 35-39 
'. xxiii. 40-43 
I xxiii. 46 
' xxiii. 44, 45 
xxui. 47-49 

xxiii. 50-56 

xxiv. 1-12 
xxiv. 13-35 
xxiv. 30-49 


( xviii. 29-4C 
I xix. 1-ie 
xix. 2, 3 
xix. 17-24 
xix. 25-27 

xix. 28- 

xix. 31-37 
xix. 38-42 

XX. 19-29 
xxi. 1-23 

XX. 30. 31; 
xxi. 24, 2£ 

• The theory wliich bears the name of Strauss 
louW hardly have originatal anywliere 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 LiJ'e of Jesuf, 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 intelligence and promise, as com- 
pared with his external advantages, and the 
object of admiration in the humble family circle in 
which his lot was cast. lie early became a dis- 
ciple of .John the liaptist; 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. 'I'hey procured his execution a.s a 
traitor; but his disciples, Itelieving that the Jles- 
iiah could not <lie, maintained that he must have 
ri.sen alive from the sepulchre, and, a.s he had not 
been seen among men after his crucifixion, that he 
had ascended to heaven. This simple life-story 
became the ba-sis of a scries of myths — narratives 
not intentionally false or consciously invented, but 
gome of them the growth of popular credulity, 
others, 8ynil)olical forms in which his disciples 
louglit to embody the doctrines and precepts which 
ia<l lieen the staple of his discourses, llis mirac- 
nlous birth was imagined and believed, because it 

W. T. 

seemed impossible that the Messiah should have 
been born like other men. Supernatural works 
were ascribed to him, because the Hebrew legends 
had ascribed such works to tlie ancient proi)hets, 
and it could not be that he who was greater than 
they, and of whom tliey were thought to have writ- 
ten glowing predictions, should not liave performed 
more nimierous 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, bec.iuse 
it was inconceivable that he should have returned 
to life witiiout 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 construclive 
imagination of dwellers in portions of Galilee where 
he had tarried but a little 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 constantly 
added to the multiform oral Gospel propagated and 
transmitted by his disciples. Witiiin that jx-riod, 
various persons, none of them apostles or intimate 
friends of .Jesus, compiled such narratives as had 
come to their e;irs; and of these narratives there 
have come down to us our four Gosjjels, together 
with other fragmentary stories of equal authority, 
which bear the popular designation of the Apocry- 
phal G0S]K'ls. 

Such wiis the complexion of Strauss's mythica 
theory, as develo])ed in his Life of./tsus," publislied 
in 1835-30, rei)catc<ily republished, and sutliciently 
well known in this coiuitry by a cheap reprint of a 
moderately good luiglish translation. In his new 
work, issued in 1864, The Life of Jeans, for tk* 

a Das Leben Jksu, kritisch bearbtittt. 


Serman People » he departs from his former posi- 
aon so far as to charge the propagandists and his- 
torians of Christianity with willful and conscious 
falsifications, and to maintam with the critics of 
the 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, Strauss 
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- 
gelists. How is- tliis 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 interrupted. 
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 IMessianic 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 ha\'e 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 the 
narrative which bears any resemblance or analogy 
to any incident related in the Old Testament, is 
mythical. But (4), on the other band, Jesus was 
a Hebrew, confined within the narrow circle of 
Jewish ideas, and riot 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 thau 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 that 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 sacred 
personage, the world would regard as simply idiotic. 
But this is not all. (5.) Though ariiong 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 
considered as separate authorities, for some unex- 
plained and to us inscrutable reason, this law does 
not apply to the Gospels. In them, every discrep- 
incy, however minute, casts just suspicion on an 
(lleged fact or a recorded discourse or conversation. 
This suspicion is extended even to the omissirn or 
.he varied narration of very slight particulars, with- 

Dit Lfbin Jesu fur das Deutsche Votk. 


out making any allowance for the different points of 
view which several independent witnesses must of 
necessity occupy, or for tlie different portions of a 
prolonged transaction or discourse which would 
reach their eyes or ears, according as they were 
:arer or more remote, earlier or later on the 
ground, more or less absorbed in what was passing. 
Vll, therefore, in which the Evangehsts vary from 
one another, is mythical. But while their variance 
always indicates a myth (6), their very close agree 
menti 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 Life 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 as 
symboHcal of the spiritual history of mankind. 
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 thr 
invisible father. Spirit. It works miracles; for it 
subdues Nature in and around itself by the power 
of the Spirit. It is sinless; fof pollution cleaves 
to the individual, but does not affect the race 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 
there is none,) has become a symbolical representa- 
tion of true spiritual philosophy. 

We will now offer some of the leading consider- 
ations, which are fairly urged against the mythical 

1. This theory assumes that miracles are impos- 
sible. But why are they impossible, if there be a 
God ? The power which established the order of 
nature includes the power to suspend or modify it, a3 
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 sen-ed 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. All 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, Romans, 
ancient, modern, the lights of dark ages, the cho- 
sen representatives of every philosophical school, the 



finisliwl ])roduct of the hi^rhest civilization of every 
type, refuriners, 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 John ; from Kenelon, Xavier, Boyle, Doddridge, 
MartjTi, Hehcr, Judson, Channing, men whose 
genius and culture conspired with their piety to 
make them greatly good, down to the unlettered 
Bedford tinker, .lohn Pounds the cobbler, the Dairy- 
man's daughter, with just education enougii 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 civilized 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 
spirit, 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, — 
such 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 ill point of fact a belief in miracles has borne 
an essential part in the development of such char- 
acters, then are miracles not only possii)le, 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 
emf)Owercd and endowetl Teacher and Saviour. 

Miracle, lying as it does clearly within the scope 
of omnipotence, needs only adequate testimony to 
BuVistantiate it. Human testimony is indeed ap- 
pealed to in proof of the unbroken order of nature; 
but, 80 far aa it goes, it proves the opposite. We 
can trace back no line of testimony which does not 
reach a miraculous epoch. Nay, if there be any 
me element of human nature which is uni ver- 
bal, with exceptions as rare as idiocy or insanity, it 
is the appetency for miracle. So strong is this, 
that at tlie jiresent day none are so ready to receive 
the drivellings of hyjter-electrified women as utter- 


surdities of the newest form of necromancy, M 
those who set aside the miracles of the New I'esiu- 
ment and cast contempt on the risen Saviour 
Such V)eing 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 jjhenomenon 
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 
mjths connected with the history and religion of 
the ancient nations, we shall find that they had 
their origin prior to the era of written literature; 
that their evident nucleus is to be sought in his- 
torical personages and events of a very early date; 
that they grew into fantastic 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 historj- 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 ha\e of them apiiear to 
have been extant in the earliest period of (ireek 
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 is similar with the distinctively Koman 
m^-ths and the mythical portions of IJoman history. 
They are all very considerably anterior to the earliest 
written history and literature of Pome, llie 
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 indixidual lives and the successive 
stages of public and national affairs in that age are 
detailed with the same Uteralness with which the 
history of the seventeenth or eighteenth centuij is 
written. Yet, had the conditions for the growth 
of myths existetl, there were not wantini;, 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 ftiller supply of the material for 
myths in the life of Hercules, or of Cadmus, or of 
Medea, than in that of Julius Ctrsar, or of Marcus 
Antonius, or of ( leopatra. Nor can it be mahi- 
tained that in this respect Judiea was at an earlier 
and more primitive stage of culture than Pome or 
I^g^-pt. Josephus, the .Icwish historian, was bom 
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 Gospel* 

from departed spiriU, and to accept the ab- i la addition to what we believe to have lH«n tht 


miracles of the Old Testament, he records many 
undoubted myths of the early Hebrew ages; but 
his history of bis own times, with now and then 
1 tx)uch of the marvellous, has no more of the 
mythical element or tendency than we find in tlie 
narratives of the same epoch by Roman historians. 
In fine, there was nothing in' that age more than 
in this, wliich could give rise or currency to a 
mythical history. 

3. ]Myths are vague, dateless, incoherent, dreamy, 
poetical; while the Gospels are eminently prosaic, 
circumstantial, 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, 
{'IS he was leyally reckoned being the literal ren- 
dering of the words employed by the Evangelist, us 
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 tliey 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 
amilkr 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 have ^mtten in an inflated style, with a 

profusion of epithets, with frequent appeals to the 
sentiment of the marvellous, not unmixed with the 
show of argument to convince the incredulous. 
When 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 
tad become so conversant with miracle, either in 
jbeir own experience or through their intimacy with 
eye-witnesses, that events aside from the ordinary 
course of nature had ceased to be contemplated with 

4. Another conclusive argument against the 
mythical theory is derived from the sufferings and 
ihe martyrdoms of the primitive Christians. Strauss 
admits that the earliest of our Gospels assumed its 
present form within thirty or forty years after the 
death of Jesus. At that time there were still livinc: 
Treat multitudes, \t ho muyt have been cont^jniporary 



and coeval with Jesus, and who had the means ot 
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 truth. Now 
no fact in history is more certain than that, within 
forty years from the death of Christ, large numlicrs 
of persons, many of them natives of Judaea, suffered 
the severest persecution, and incurred painfiU and 
ignominious death by fire, by crucifixion, and by 
exposure to wld 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 iiow 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 or less than human if they 
threw away their lives for mere exazgerations 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 mt.rtyrdom as a 
Christian believer. Paul's epistles show him to 
have been a man of emhient power and culture, — in 
the opinion of many, the greatest man that God 
ever made ; in the judgment of all, far al)ove medioc- 
rity. Bom 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 undonbting 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 life- 
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 our 
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. 
There is no doubt whatever that from the lifetime 
jf Jesus commenced the moral reireneration of 
humanity. Virtues which had hardly a name be- 
fore, sprang into being. Vices which had Ixwd 
embalmed in wmg and cherished in the heart of the 
highest civilization of the lioman empire, were con- 


demned and denounced. A loftier etbical standard 
— a standard which has not yet been improved 
iijKjn — was held forth by the earliest Christian 
writers, and recognized in all the Christian com- 
munities. There were among the early Christians 
t3pes of character, which have never been surpassed, 
hardly equalled since. Strauss maintains that there 
are no uncaused effbcts, — no effects which have not 
causes fully conmiensurate with themselves. A 
Jewish youth, half-enthusiast, half-impostor, must 
have been immeasurably inferior to those great 
philosophers and moralists of classic antiquity, who 
hartlly 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 l)een a very poor example of it He might 
have founded a sect of fanatics, but not a body of 
Bingidarly 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 rcforn:ation that 
followed the ministry of Jesus, only by supposing 
him endowed with a higher and caln er wisdom, 
with a keener sense of truth and right, with a more 
commanding influence over the human heart and 
conscience, than has ever belonge<l 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 prei-minence. 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 assmnption 
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 tlie 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 docmatical grounds rejected some 
of them, and would have found it convenient to 
reject all, — not even by Jewish and Gentile op- 
posers of Christianity, who argued vehemently and 
Oitteriy against their contents without impugning 
their genuineness. Justin Martyr, who wrote about 
the middle of the second century, speaks repeatedly 
of Memoirs of the Apostle? called Gos[)els. and in 
his frequent recapitulation of what he professes to 
have drawn from this source there are numerous 
coincidences with our (iospels, not only in the facts 
narrated, but in words and in passages of consid- 
erable length. From his extant works we could 
almost ref)roduce the gospel history. He was a 
man of singularly inquisitive mind, of philosophical 
.rainine, of large and varied erudition; and it is 
■nipossible that he should not have known whether 
these books were received without question, or 
whether they rested under the susjiicion of spurious 
nithorMhip. Irena-us, who wrote a little later, gives 
1 detailcil description of our four Gospels, naming 
heir n-^ijertive authors, and stating the order in 
which and the circumstances under which they were 
»m[ie«ed ; and he writes, not only in his own 


name, but in that of the whole church, saying Ilia 
these books were not and had not been called h 
question by any. These are but specimens of verj 
numerous authorities that might be cited. About 
the same time, Celsus wrote against Christianity, 
and he drew so largely from our (;os))els as the 
authorized narratives' of the life of ( 'hrist, that a 
connected history of that life might almost be made 
from the extant passages quoted froni his writings 
by his Christian opponents. 

In the middle and the latter half of the second 
cenlury, there were large bodies of Christians in 
every part of the civilized world, and the copies of 
the Gospels nnist have been numbered by many 
thousands. Their universal reception as the works 
of the men wliose names they now bear can be 
accounted for only by their genuineness. Suppose 
that they were spurious, yet written and circulated 
in the lifetime of the Ajjostles,— 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 
Irenoeus. Suppose that they were first put ic cir- 
culation under the names they now bear, after the 
death of the Apostles, — it is inconceivable that 
tliere 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 
have 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, JIark, 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 Luke 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 Gosi)els. are still extant. But we 
have ample evidence that no such writings were 
e\cr received as of authority, read in the churches, 
or sanctioned by the office- beareis and leading men 
in the Christian comnuuiities; and most ot them 
disappeared at an early date. Now it is impossible 
to account for the discrediting and suppression of 
these writings, unless the Church was in the pos- 
session of authoritative records. If our (iospels 
had no higher authority than belonged to those 
narratives, all the accounts of the life of Jesug 
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 wei-e 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 four 
(ios])els crowded all others out of tiie 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 Gos|ieis 
were written by the men whose names they bear; 
and if this 1 e provetl, by the confession of Strauss 
himself the mythical theory is untenable. 

A. V. P. 

* /Jlcrntiirf. The preceding article would l)« 
incomplete without some further notice of t!ie lit 
eralure of the suliject, which it will be conveniem 
to distribute under sover.U heads. 


1. Cniical history of the Gospels; their origin, 
nutuai relation, and credibility. In addition to 
the works refeiTed to above (np. 943, 947), the fol- 
lowing may be mentioned: Tholuck, Die Glaub- 
wiirdiykeil der evang. Geschichte, 2« Aufl., Hamb. 
1838; Ullmann, Historisch oder Mythisch ? Hamb. 
1838; Furness, Jesus and his Biographers, Philad. 
1838, an enlargement of his Remarks on the Four 
Gospels ; Gfrorer, Die heilige Sage, 2 Abth., and 
Das Hdligthum u. d. Wahrheit, Stuttg. 1838; C. 
H. Weisse, Die evang. Geschichte, kril. u. philos. 
bearbeitet, 2 Bde. Leipz. 1838; Wilke, Der Ur- 
e.vangelist, oder exeg. krit. Untersuchung iib. d. 
Verwandlschaflsrerhdltniss der drei ersten Evan- 
gelien, Dresd. 1838; Hennell, Inquiry concerning 
the Origin of Christianity (1st ed. 1838), 2d ed. 
Lond. 1841; Bruno Bauer, Kritik der evang. Gesch. 
der Synoptiker, 3 Bde. Berl. 1841-42; and Kritik 
der Evangelien u. Gesch. ihres Ursprungs, 4 Bde. 
Berl. 1850-52; Ebrard, Wissenschaftliche Kritik 
d. evang. Geschichte (1st ed. 1841), 2e umgearb. 
Aufl. Erlaugen, 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 GosjkIs, 
Cambr. (Eng.) 1840-44; Isaac Williams, Thoughts 
m the Study of the Gospels, Lond. 1842; F. J. 
Schwarz, Neue Untersuchungen iibtr d. Verwandt- 
schafts- Verhallniss der synopt. Evangelien, Tiib. 
1844; (Anon.) Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre 
Verfasser und ihr Verhditniss zu einander, Leipz. 
1845; J. R. Beard, Voices of the Church in reply 
to Strauss, Lond. 1845; C. L. W. Grimm, Die 
Glaubwilrdigkeit der evang. Geschichte, Jena, 1845, 
in opposition to Strauss and Bauer; Thiersch, Ver- 
such zur Herstellung d. histor. Standpunkts fir d. 
Kritik d. neutest. Schriften, Erlangen, 1845, comp. 
Baur, Der Kritiker u. der Fanaliker, 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-Kritik, Berl. 1846, 
valuable; Davidson, Introd. to the New Test. vol. 
i. I^nd. 1848; Ewald, Ursprung U7id 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., .52-72; comp. also ix. 
49-87, X. 83-114, xu. 212-224; also his Die drei 
ersten Evangelien iibersezt u. erkldrl, Gott. 1850; 
Hilgenfeld, Krit. Untersuchungen iiber die Evan- 
gelien Justin's, u. s. w. Halle, 1850; Das Markns- 
Evangelium, Leipz. 1850; arts, in Theol. Jahrb. 
1852, pp. 102-132, 259-293 ; Die Evangelien nach 
Hirer Entstehung u. gesch. Bedeutung, Leipz. 1854; 
arts, in Theol. Jahrb. 1857, pp. 381-440, 498- 
532, and in his Zeitschr.f. luiss. TIteol. 1859, 1861, 
and 1862-67, passim; Baur, Kritische Unter- 
sucliungen 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 Das Chris- 
k^nthum der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 2® Ausg., 
Tiib. 1860; Ritsclil, Ueber den gegenwartigen 
Stand der Kritik der synopt. Evangelien, in Theol. 
Jahrb. 1851, pp. 480-538; C. E. Stowe, The Four 
Gospels, and the Hegelian Assaidts upon them, in 
Ihe Bibl. Sacra for July 1851 and Jan. 1852, re- 
printed in Journ. of Sac. Lit. Oct. 1865 and Jan. 
1.866; Da Costa, The Four Witnesses (trans, from 
-.he Dutch), Lond. 1851, reprinted New York, 1855 ; 
r. R. Birks, Eorce Evangelicce, or ihe Internal 



Evidence of the Gospel History, Lond. 1852; C 
R. Kiistlin, Der Ursprung u. d. Komposition d 
synopt. Evangelien, Stuitg. 1853; James Smith 
of Jordanhill, Diss, on the Origin and Connection 
of the Gospels, Edin. 1853; F. X. Patritius (Cath.), 
De Evangeliis, Friburgi, 1853; G. F. Simmons, 
The Gospels, etc. in the (Boston) Christian Exam- 
iner, May, 1853; J. H. ISIorison, Genuineness of 
the Gospels, ibid. Jan. 1854; C. F. Ranke, De 
Libris histor. 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 Evangelienfrage in ihrem gegen- 
icdrtigen Stadium, I^ipz. 1856; Reuss, arts, in 
the Strasbourg Revue de Thiol, vols. x. xi. xv., 
and Nouvelle Revue de Theol. 1858, ii. 15-72, 
comp. his Gesch. d. heiligen Schriften N. T. 
3e Ausg. 18G0, § 179 ff. ; Volkmar, Die Religion 
Jvsu, etc. Leipz. 1857 ; J. T. Tobler, Die Evan- 
gelienfrage, Ziirich, 1858, comp. Hilgenfeld's 
Zeitschr.f. wiss. Tlieol. 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 
ivith the Evangelists, 2 vols. Boston, 18.59-64; 
Westcott, Introd. to ihe Study of the Gospels, ■ 
Cambr. 1860, 3d ed. 1867, Amer. reprint, Boston, 
1862, 12mo; Furness, Origin of ihe Gospels, in 
Christ. Exam, for Jan. 1861, comp. his Veil partly 
lifted (1864), pp. 227-301; Weiss, Zur Enisieh- 
ungsgeschichte der synopt. Evangelien, in the 
Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1861, pp. 29-100, 646-713, 
comp. his arts. Die Redestdcke des apostal. Mat- 
ihdus, in Jahrb. f Deutsclie Theol. 1864, ix. 49- 
140, and Die Erzdhlungsstiicke d. apost. Maiihdus, 
il)id. 1865, X. 319-376; C. Wittichen, Bemerkungen 
iiber die Temlenz und den Lehrgehalt der synopt. 
Reden Jesu, in the Jahrb. f Deutsche Theol. 1862, 
vii. 314-372, and Ueber den histor. Charakter der 
synopt. Ernnqelien, ibid. 1866, xi. 427-482; Bleek, 
Einl. in das N. T., Berl. 1862, 2d ed. 1866; Holtz- 
niann, Die synopt. Evangelien, ilir Urspruujj u 
gesch. C/iarakler, Leipz. 1863; Eichthal, Z,es £'«««- 
giles, 2 torn. Paris, 1863 ; G. A. Freytag, Die Sym- 
phonie der Evangelien, 'Neu-Uuppm, 1863; Alex 
Roberts, Discussions on the Gospels, 2d ed., Edin 
1864; G. P. Fisher, Tlie Mythical Theory of 
Strauss, in the New Englander for April, 1864, 
excellent; Origin of the First Three Gospels, ihid. 
Oct. 1864; Genuineness of ihe Fourili Gospel, in 
Bibl. Sacra, April, 1864; all reprinted, witli addi- 
tions, in his Essays on the Supernatural Origin of 
Christianity, New York, 1866; Weizsiicker, Unter- 
suchungen iiber die evang. Geschichte, litre Quel- 
len, u. den Gang Hirer Entwickelung, Gotha, 1864, 
comp. Weiss's review in Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1866, 
pp. 129-176 ; JI. Nicolas, Etudes crit. sur la Bible 
— Nouveau Testament, Paris, 1864 ; the Abb^ 
Meignan, Les Evangiles et la critique au XIX* 
si'ccle, Paris, 1864; *r. C. Burt, Hours among the 
Gospels, Philad. 1865, 12mo; Tischendorf, Wann 
lourden unsere Evangelien verfassi 'i Leipz. 1865, 
4th ed., greatly enlarged, 1866, Eng. trans, b^ 
W. L. Gage, Boston, 1868 (Amer. Tract. Soc), 
Hilgenfeld, Constantin Tischendorf als Defensor 
fidei, in his Zeitschr. f wiss. theol. 18G5, pp. 
329-343 ; Volkmar, Der Ursprung unserer Evan- 
gelien nach den Urkunden, Zurich, 1866 (Tisch- 



eiidorf has replied to Hils^ciifeld and Volkraar in 
his 4th edition); J. H. Scholten, Dt ouiUle Ge- 
rui^t//(*st«, etc., I>eideii, 18G0, trans, by Manchot, 
Die dltesCe7i Zeur/nisse bttrij/ind die Schrijhn cles 
N'. T. Idilorisch untersuc/it, Hrenien, 18G7, in op- 
position to Tischendorf; Hofstede de Groot, Basil- 
ides (lis enter Zetiye f. Alter u. Autorildi iietiUst. 
Scltri/ten, u. s. w. Leipz. 1808 [ISO"], against 
Scliolten; J. I. Monibert, The Oriyin vf (he (Jos- 
p^ts, in tlie Bihl. Sacra for .Inly and Oct. 1806, 
with particular reference to Stniuss's New Life 
of Jesus ; L. A. Sabatier, Essai siir Its sou7-ces 
de la, vie de Jesus, Paris, 1806; A. Ueville, La 
question des evanyiles devant la criliijue mwlerne, 
in Rev. des Deux Mondes, 1 niai and 1 juin, 
1806; II. U. Maijboom, O'eschiedenis e7i Critiek 
der Marcus-IIypothese, Ainst. 1806 ; Klosterniann, 
Das Marcus-Lvanaelium nach seinem Quellen- 
wcrfhef. d. evang. Geschichte, Gtitt. 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. 1805, 
Jan. Apr. and July, 1860, and Jan. 1867, — an 
original and valuable series of articles, which oui;ht 
to be published separately. Holtzniann, Der yegen- 
wdrtige Stand der Kvangelienfrcge, in Bunsen's 
BUtelwerk, Bd. viii. (1806), pp. 2^-77, gives a good 
survey of the literature. For other reviews of 
the literature, see Hilgenfeld's Der Kamm u. die 
Kritik des N. T. (Halle, 186-3), and Uhlhorn's 
article, Die kircherdiislorischen Arbeilen des Juhr- 
zehents von 18.51-1860, in tlie Zeit^schi-ift f. hist. 
Theol. for 1860, see esp. pp. 6-19. 

2. Harmonies of the Gospels, ami their Chro- 
nology. In addition to the works named above (p. 
950), the following deserve mention here: Lach- 
mann, De Ordiiie Narralioniim in Evangeliis 
Synopticis, in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1835, pp. 
57a-590, comp. his Nov. Test. torn. ii. (1850), pp. 
xiii.-xxv. ; Gelpke, Ueber die Anwdn. d. Erzdh- 
lungen in den synopt. Evangelien. Sendschreiben 
an K. Ijachmann, Bern, 18;J9; l^ant Carpenter, 
Ajiostolical Harmony of the Gospels, 2d ed., Lond. 
18.38; J. G. Sonimer, Synoptische Tafeln [11] /. 
d. Krilik u. Exegese der drei ersten Evangelien, 
Bonn, 1842; AVieseler, Chronol. Synopse der vier 
Evangelien, Ilamb. 1843, Eng. trans. I^nd. 1804, 
comp. bis art. Zeitrechnung, neutestamentliche, in 
Herzog's Real-Encykl. xxi. 543 ff. ; S. F. Jarvis, 
Chronol. Introd. to tlie Hist, of the Church, con- 
taining an Original Harmony of the Ftmr Gospels, 
Ix)nd. 1844, and New York, 1845, comp. J. L. 
Kingsley in the New Englander for April, 1847, 
»nd July, 1818; II. B. liackett. Synoptical Study 
of the Gospels, in Bibl. Sacra for Feb. 1840; J. 
V. G. L. Kraffl, Chronol. u. Harm. d. vier Evan- 

ielien, l'>lang. 1848; Anger, Synopsis Evangg. 
fatt. Afarci Lucw, cum Locis (pun supersunt par- 
'iflltlis Lilterarum el Traditionuni Irenwo anti>jui- 
ifi'um, Lips. 1852, valuable; James Strong, New 
fjarmimy anil Ex/msition of the Gospels, with 
Chnniiil. and Toimg, Dissertations, finely illus- 
ttifc<l, Xcw York, 1852, large 8vo; Harmony of 
the GospcU, in (he 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 Diatesstiron, \jonA. 1853, 4to; 
MimprisH, Treasury Harmony ami Practical Ex 
jotition of the Four Evangelists, Ix)nd. 1855, 4to; 
IJchtonslein, Lebensgeschirhte d. Ilerrn Jesu 
Christiin rhnmoliigisrher Uebevsirht, I'.rlanu. 1850; 
(E. Iv Hide) Logical Order of Uie Gospel Nan-a- 


lives, in the Christ. Examiner for Sept 1858, ano 
System and Order of' Christ s Ministry, ibid. Jan. 
1804; M. 11. Schulze, Erangelientafd als e»n« 
iibersichtl. Darstellung d. synopt. Evv. in ihrem 
Verwandtschaftsverhdltnis zu einander, u. s. w. 
Ix'ipz. 1801; Chavannes, Determination de quel- 
i/ues dates de I'hist. evangelique, iu the Sti-a-sbourg 
Rev. de Theol. 1803, pp. 209-248; Bunsen's Bibel- 
werk, Bd. viii. (1800), pp. 115-322, comp. Bd. Ix. 
(Leben Jesu); Sevin, Die drei ersten Evangelien 
synoptisch zusammengestellt, Wiesbaden, 1860, 
(jreek after the Codex Sinaiticus, with the varia- 
tions of the Bee. Text; Enii, Evangelien- Ueber- 
sicht : sdmmtliche vier kanon. Ew., auf 7 Bldttert, 
. . . wortlicli nach der ojfiziellen Uebersetzung d. ' 
Ziircherischen I^amleskirche bearbeitet, u. s. w. 
Zurich, 1867. A Harmony of the Gospels in Greek 
(Tischendorf 's text), with various readings, notes, 
tables, etc., by the Kev. Frederic Garduier, is now 
in press (New York, 1808). 

3. Convnentaries. I'assing by older works, we 
may notice Campbell, Fintr Gospels translated, with 
Notes, reprinted Andover, 18.37, 2 vols. 8vo, val- 
uable for the Preliminary Dissertations; Kuinoel 
(Iviihni 1), Comm. in Libr. 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 Evv., 3 Theile, Heidelb. 1830-33; 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Exeg. Schriften zum N. T. 
Bd. i. in 2 Th. (.Matt., Mark, Luke), Jena, 1844-45, 
jjosthumous ; his Theol. Auslegung d. Johan. 
Schriften (1844-45) is more imjxirtant; Olshaiisen, 
Bibl. Comm. Bde. i. and ii. Abth. 1, 2, 4* Autl. 
rev. von Ebrard, KcJnigsb. 1853-02, Eng. trans, 
revised by A. C. Kendrick, Now York, 1856-57; 
Meyer, Krit. exeg. Komm. tib. das N. T. Abth. 
i., ii. (Matt., 5th ed. 1804; Mark and Luke, 
5th ed. 1867; John, 4tb ed. 1862); De Wette, 
Kurzgef. exeg. Handb. zum N. T. Bd. 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 Aufl., 
7 Theile, Barmen, 1851-55, Eng. trans. 8 vols, 
lulin. 1855-61; John Brown, Discourses oftd Say- 
ings of our Lord Jesus Christ, 3 vols. Edin. 1850, 
reprinted in 2 vols. N^w York, 1804; F^wald, Die 
drei ersten Ew. iibers. u. erklart, Gitt. 1850, and 
Die Johan. Sch-iften iibers. u. erklart, Gott. 1801- 
02; Norton, New Translation of the Gospels, with 
Notes, 2 vols. Boston, 1855, posthumous; Joel 
Jones (Judge), Notes on Scripture, Philad. 1861; 
Bleek, Synopt. Erkldrung der drei ersten Evange- 
lien, 2 Bde. Leipz. 1862; Bunsen's Bibelwerk, Bd. 
iv. Th. i. (1802), ed. by Holtzmann, translation 
with brief notes; and the Greek Testaments of 
Bloomfield (Oth ed. 1855), Alford (5th ed. 1863), 
Webster and Wilkinson (1855), and Wordsworth 
(4th ed. 1800). Of I«inge's great Bib,licerk, 
"critical, theological, and lioniilotical," the vols, 
on .Matthew, Mark, and Luke have been translated 
and published in this country, with valuable iuldi- 
tions, luider the general editorship of Dr. Schaff 
(New York, 1805-<i6); the volume on John is in 
press. Nast's Commentary (Matt, and Mark, Cin- 
cinnati, 1804) is on a plan. This volume 
has a valuaiile General Introduction to the Go.«[)els, 
treating of their, authenticity, hannony 
etc., which has also been issued separately. Since 
the pui)lication of the Bev. .Albert Barnes's Notes 
im the (Jospels, 2 vols. New York, 1832, 17th ed. 
revised, 1847 ^when 32,000 copies had already 


been sold), numerous popular commentaries have 
appeared in this country, representing more or less 
the theological views of different religious denom- 
inations, as hj H. J. Ripley (Baptist), 2 vols. Boston, 
] 837-38; Jos. Longliing (Methodist), 4 vols. IGmo, 
New York, 1841-14 ; A. A. Livermore (Uni- 
tarian), 2 vols. Boston, 184; -42; L. K. Paige 
(Universalist), 2 vols. Boston, 1844-45; M. W. 
.lacobus, 3 vols. New York, 1848-5G ; C. H. Hall 
(Episcopalian), 2 vols. New York, 18.57 ; J. J. Owen, 
3 vols. New York, 1857-60; D. D. Wliedon (Meth- 
odist), 2 vols New York, 1860-66; and I. P. 
Warren, jVtw Test, ivitli Notes, vol. i. Boston, 1867 
(Araer. Tr. Soc). Of works illustrating portions of 
the Gospels, Abp. Trench's Notes on the Parables 
(1841, 9th ed. 1864), Notes on the Miracles (1846, 
7th ed. 1860), and Studies in the Gospels (18G7), 
of all of which we have American editions, deserve 
particular mention. Wichelhaus has written an 
elaborate commentary on the history of the Passion 
Week [Atisjuhrl. Kornm. zu d. Gesch. des Leidens 
Jcsu Christi, 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 Cukist. A. 

GOTHOLFAS. Josias, son of Gotholias (Fo- 
6o\iov- Gothvlice), was one of the sons of Elani 
who returned from Babylon with Esdras (1 Esdr. 
viii. 33). The name is the same as Athaliah, 
with the connnon 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 Athaliah was both a male and female 

GOTHO'NIEL {rodovi-fiX, i. e. Othniel ; 
fSin.' ToQoviov, gen.:J Gothoniel), father of Cha- 
bris, who was one of the governors (apxovfes) of 
the city of Bethulia (Jud. vi. 15). 

GOURD. I. l^iTi?' °^^y ^" J°"- '^- 6-10: 
KoKoKvi/dri- hedera. A difference of opinion has 
long existed as to the plant which is intended by 
this word. The argument is as old -is Jerome, 
whose rendering hedera was impugned by Augus- 
tine as a heresy ! In reality Jerome'n rendering 
was not intended to be critical, but rather as a kind 
of pis aller necessitated by the want of a proper 
Latin word to express the original. Besides he was 
unwilling to leave it in merely Latinized Hebrew 
(kihdi/on), which might have occasioned misappre- 
hensions. Augustine, following the LXX. and Syr. 
Versions, was in favor of the rendering t/ourd, 
which was adopted by Luther, the A. V., etc. In 
Jerome's description of the plant called in Syr. 
Icnri), and Punic el-keroa, Celsius recognizes the 
Hicinus Pnlma Christi, or Castor-oil plant {fliero- 
bot. ii. 273 AT.; Bochart, Hieroz. ii. 293, 623). 
The Riciincs was seen by Niebuhr (Descript. of 
Arab. p. 148) at Basra, where it was distinguished 
by the name el-keroa ; by Rauwolf ( Tnw. p. 52 ) 
it was noticed in great abundance near Tripoli, 
where the Arabs called it eUkerun ; while both 
Hasselquist and Robinson observed very large speci- 
mens of it in the neighborhood of Jericho (" Ri- 
ciims in altitudinem arboris insignis, ' Hasselq. p. 
555; see also Rob. i. 553). 

Nieliuiir observes that the Jews and Christians 
at Mosul (Nineveh) maintained that the tree whicli 
•hiltered Jonah was not " el-keroa," but " ei-iverra," 



a sort of gourd, '."his revival of the August, i-en 
dering has been defended by J. Iv Fabei {Notes on 
flarmer's Observations, etc. i. 145). And it must 
be confessed that the evidently miraculous charac- 
ter of the narrative in Jon. deprives the Palina 
Christi of any special claim to identification on the 
ground of its rapid growth and decay, as described 
by Niebuhr. Mucii more important, liowever, 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 conversed 
with by Niebuhr. But most decisive of all seems 
the derivation of the Hebrew word from the Egyp- 
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. Suj)pl.); and 

confirmed by the Talmudical p'^p 'J^l?', kik-oil, 
prepared from the seeds of the Ricinus (Buxt. Lex. 
Chald. Talmud, col. 2029), and Dioscorides, iy. 
164, where KpoTuv (= Palma Christi) is described 
under the name of klki, and the oO made from its 
seeds is called kiklvov eXaiov- 

n. ri'^VJ^^^, and D"'27|55. (1.) In 2 K- iv. 
39 ; a fruit used as food, disagreeable to the t;iste, 
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 

n'^ti>'jD3 : &/jLwe\oi' if T(j) aypaS: vilem silves- 
trem ; whence in A. V. " wild vine " [2 K. iv. 39]. 
The fruit is called in Hebrew as above; toXviti] 
aypia, LXX. = aypia KoKoKvvQri, Suid. : colocyn- 
ihides agri; "wild gourds," A. V. 

The inconsistency of all these renderings is man- 
ifest ; but the fact is that the Hebrew name of the 
2dant may denote any shrub which grows in ten- 
ch-ils, such as the colocynth, or the cucumber. 
Rosenmiiller and Gesenius pronounce in favor of 
the luild cucumber, Cucumis agrestis or asininm 
(Cels. Hierobot. i. 393 fl'.). This opinion is con- 
firmed by the derivation from l?f?3, 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, &c.). 

T. E. B. 

There can, we think, be no reasonable doubt that 
the k'lkayon which afforded 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 sal- 
dom attaining a greater height than three or four 
feet, receives its generic name from the resemljlance 
its fruit was anciently supposed to bear to the 
acarus ("tick") of that name. See Dioscorides 
(iv. 161, ed. Sprengel) and PUny (//. A^ 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" (niyj^S, 
pnkkuoth) of 2 K. iv. 39, which one of "the sons 
of tlie prophets" gathered ignorantly, supposing 
them to be good for food, there can be no donht 



Ihat it is a species of the gourd tribe (Cticur- 
Utaceie), which contain some plants of a very bitter 
and dan(;erous cliaracter. The leaves and tendrils 
of this family of plants bear some resemblance to 
those of the vine. Henoe the expression,*' wild 
vine;"" and as several kinds of CucurbitnceiK, 
such as melons, pumpkins, etc., are favorite articles 
of refreshing fowl amongst the Orientals, we can 
easily imderstand the cause of the mistake. 

The plants which have been by different writers 
identified with the pakkiKjth are the following: the 
colocynth, or coloquintida (Citrullus colocyntlns) ; 
the Cucumis proplielnrum, or globe cucumber ; 
and the Ecbalium {Momordiai) elateriuni; all of 
which have claims to denote the plant in question. 

The etymology of the word from V\^, " to split 
or burst open," has been thought to favor the iden- 
tification of the plant with the Jicbnlium elatcrium,'> 
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 
&ypios aiKvos of Dioscorides (iv. 152) and Theo- 
' hrastus (vii. 6, § 4, &c.), and the Cucumis syl- 
•is of Pliny (//. N. xx. 2). Celsius {flitrob. 
39.3), Rosenmiiller (Bi/jl. Bot. p. 128), Winer 
W. Jiealiv. i. 525), and Gesenius {Tlies. p. 1122), 
in favor of this explanation, and, it must be 
fessed, not without some reason. 'J'he old ver- 
I, however, understand the colocyntli, the fruit 
Inch is about the size of an orange. The 
draktk me<licine in such general is a prepara- 
tion from this plant. Michaelis (Siippl. Lux. Ihb. 
p. 344) and Oedmann ( I't/'w. Samm. iv. 88) adopt 
this explanation; and since, according to Kitto 
{Pict. Blbl. 1. c.), the dry gourds of the colocynth, 
when crushed, burst with a crashing noise, there is 
much rea.son for being satisfied with an explanation 
which has authority, etymology, and generJ suit- 
ftbleness in its favor. AH the above-named plants 
are found in the East. W. \l. 

a " One went out into the field to gather potherbs 
(n'l'S), »nd found a wild vine " {niW 122). 


a 4^. 




• There is a Letter relating to .Jonah's Gourd in 
the Bibl. Sacra, xii. 396 ff., from the late Rev. H. 
Lobdell, M. D., missionary at Musi'd in ^lesopotamia. 
He says that " the Mohammedans, Christians, and 
Jews all agree in referring the plant to the kerUt, 
a kind of pumpkin peculiar to the East. The 
leaves are lartje, and the rapidity 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 squasli. It has no more than a generic resem- 
blance to the gourd of the United States, tiiough I 
suppose that both are species of the curtirbila. It 
is grown in great abundance on the alluvial banks 
of the Tigris, and on the plain between tlie river 
and ruins of Nineveh, which is about a mile wide." 
He gives leasons for supposing that the l.XX. ko- 
KoKvvdi) was really meant to designate that plant. 
Dr. I'usey (Jonah, p. 259) follows those who adopt 
our marginal rendering as correct, namely, palmcrist 
or tlie castor-oil plant as described above. He re- 
marks concerning this plant (which nmst be true, 
])erhaps, of any plant with which the k'tkayun was 
identical) that wliile the rapidity of its growth was 
sui)ematural, it was a growth in conformity with 
the natural character of the product. H. 

GOVERNOR. In the A. V. this one Eng- 
lish word is tlie representative of no less than ten 
Hebrew and four [five] Greek words. To discrim- 
inate between them is the object of the following 

1. n^^^j alluph, the chief of a tribe or family, 

n^^) elfph (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 to tlie " dukes " of 
YAom (Gen. xxxiv.). The LXX. have retained the 
etymological »ignificanfe of the wonl in rendering 
it by ^i\iapxos i« Zech. ix. 7 ; xii. 5, 6 (comp. 
tt7"'btt-^, from Wb^). Tlie usage in other pas- 
sages seems to imply a more intimate relationship 
than that which would exist between a chieflaio 

b From ixfioMm. 


tnd his fellow-clansmen, and to express the closest 
friendship, AUuph is then " a guide, director, 
counsellor" (Ps. Iv. 13; Frov. ii. 17; Jer. iii. 4), 
the object of confidence or trust (Mic. v. 2). 

2. T>\iy^^ chokek (Judg. v. 9), and 3. pp^PiP, 
m'clwkek (Judg. v. 14), denote a ruler in his ca- 
pacity of lawgiver and dispenser of justice (Gen. 
xlix. 10; Prov. viii. 15; comp. Judg. v. 14, with 
Is. X. 1). 

4. Vtt7t2, moshel, a ruler considered especially as 
having power 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 king's body-guard (cf. 2 K. xi. 19). 

5. T^^^, ndgid, is connected etymologic^Uy with 
"T2.3 and ^2D, 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), wiio 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 EJiakim (2 K. xviii. 
18). It is {)erhaps the equivalent of olKoi'6/jios, 
Horn. xvi. 23, and of UpoardTrjT, 1 Esdr. vii. 2 
(cf. 1 Esdr. i. 8). 

6. S^tt?3, Tidsi. 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). 
[t appears to be synonymous with aUupk in 2 Chr. 

i. 2, D'^Sa;? = n"l3« •'tt^Sn (cf. 2 Chr. v. 2). 
In general it denotes a man of elevated rank. In 
later times the title was given to the president of 
the great Sanhedrim (Selden, Be Synedriis, ii. 6, 
§ 1). 

7. nnQ, peckdh, is probably a word of Assyrian 
origin. It is applied in 1 K. x. 15 to the petty 
chieftains who were tributary to Solomon (2 Chr. 
x. 14); to the military commander of the Syrians 
.1 K. XX. 24), the Assyrians (2 K. xriii. 24), the 
Chaldaeans (Jer. Ii. 23), and the Medes (Jer. Ii. 28). 
Under the Persian viceroys, during the Babylonian 
C!aptivity, the land of the Hebrews appears to have 
>een portioned out among " governors " (ninS, 
pachuth) inferior in rank to the satraps (Ezr. viii. 
do), like the other provinces which were under the 
dominion of the Persian king (Neh. ii. 7, 9). It 
b impossible to determine the precise limits of their 


authority, or the functions which they had tc per- 
form. They formed a part of the Babylonian sys- 
tem of government, and are expressly distinguished 
from the D''32p, s'gdnim (Jer. Ii. 23, 28), to 
whom, as well as to the satraps, they seem to have 
been inferior (Dan. iii. 2, 3, 27); as also from the 
iD'^nii?, sdrhn (Esth. iii. 12, viii. 9), who, on the 
other hand, had a subordinate jurisdiction. Shesh- 
bazzar, the "prince" (W"^tt73, 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. G3; Neh. viii. 9). 
Zenibbabel, the representative of the royal family 
of Judah, is also called the "governor" of Judah 
(Hag. i. 1), but whether in consequence of his 
lX)sition 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 eirapxos of Syria 
and Phoenicia (cf. 1 I^sd. vi. 3); the same term- 
being employed to denote the Roman proconsul or 
proprtetor 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. 26, 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 
wers 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^i^^) pakid, denotes simply a person ap- 
jmn/ed to any office. It is used of the officers pro- 
posed to he 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 ndf/id (2 Chr. xxxi. 12, 13), or pdkid 
mgid (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. Iii. 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. \i. 5, § 3). 

9. tD"'yK7, shrillit, 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. "1^7, sar, a chief, in any capacity. Th« 
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. 6). 
The chief officer of a city, in his civic capacity, wag 
thus designated (1 K. xxii. 26; 2, K. xxiii. 8). 
The same dignitary is elsewhere described as " ow* 



the city" (Neh. xi. 9). In Judg. ix. 30 sar is 
sjnouymous with jhU-'uI in ver. 28, and with both 

pakid and ndt/id in 1 Chr. xxiv. 5. "^!?^ 
n"13^~Tffin, sure hamm'dindtfi, "the princes of 
provinces " (1 K. xx. 14), appear to have held a 
somewhat similar position to the "governors" 
under the Persian kings. 

11- 'EOt/dpxvit 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. The term is applied in 1 Mace. xiv. 47, xv. 
1 to Simon the high-priest, who was made general 
and dhnnrch of the .lews, as a vassal of Demetrius. 
From this the office would appear to be distinct 
from a military command. The jurisdiction of 
Archelaus, called by Josejihus {B. J. ii. 6, § 3) an 
ethnarchy, extended over Iduma^a, Samaria, and 
all Juda2a, the half of his father's kingdom, which 
he held as the emperor's vassiU. Hut, on the otlier 
hand, Strabo (xvii. 13), in enumerating the officers 
who formed part of the machinery of the Koman 
government in Egypt, mentions ethnarchs appar- 
'ently as inferior both to tiie military commanders 
and to the nomarchs, or governors of districts. 
Again, the prefect of the colony of Jews in Alex- 
andria (called by Philo yeva.pxi)s, ''^- ii Flacc. 
§ 10) is designated by tliis title in the edict of 
Claudius given l)y .Josephus (Ant. xix. 5, § 2). 
According to Strabo (.Joseph. Ant. xiv. 7, § 2) he 
exercised the prerogatives of an ordinary independent 
ruler. It has tlierefore been conjectured that the 
ethnarch of Damascus was merely the governor of 
the resident Jews, and this conjecture receives some 
»up|>ort 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 limited 
jurisdiction would be styled " the ethnarch of 
Aretas the king; " and as the term is clearly capa- 
ble of a wide range of meaning, it was most likely 
intended to denote one who held the city and dis- 
trict of Damascus as the king's vassal or repre- 

12. 'Hytixdv, the procuratm- of Judaoa 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. OlKov6ixoi (Gal. iv. 2), a steward; apparently 
intrusted with the management of a minor's prop- 

14. 'Apx'rpiKKivot, John ii. 9, "the governw 
of the fe;ist." It has been conjectured, but with- 
out much show of probability, that this officer cor- 
responded to the (TuyUTToo-iapxos of the (Jreeks, 
whose duties are descrilicd by I'lutarch {Syinjxis. 
QtuEst. 4), and to the arbiter bibeiuli of the Homans. 
Lightfoot supposes him to have befn a kind of 
chaplain, who pronounced the blessings upon the 
wine that was drunk during the seven days of the 
niarriasje feast. Again, some have taken him to 
be equivalent to the Tpaitf^oiroiSs, who is defined 
by Tolhix ( Omm. vi. 1 ) as one who had the charge 
of all the servants at a feast, the caners, cup- 
bearers, cooks, etc. Hut there is nothing in the 
narrative of the marriage fea.<*t at Cana which woulil 
learJ to the supposition tiiat the &pxtrplK\ivos held 

n • On thn contrary, Ki'irat mnintainH (Umii)w. g. T ) 
'.hat a region iind a river tioru tliin name (thn latt«r the 
K-sit-Os'ti, Bitt4sr'g ErJk. viii. OSX), 615). Tlie district 


the rank of a servant. He api)ears .-«lher to have 
been on intimate terms witli the bridegi-oom, and 
to have presided at the banquet in his stead. The 
duties of the master of a feast are given at fuJl 
length in Kcclus. xxxv. (xxxii.). 

In the Apocryphal books, in addition to the coin 
mon words, &pxan>, ScirirJTT/y, ffTparTjySs, whicj 
are rendered "governor," we find ^iriaTaTris ('. 
Esdr. i. 8; Jud. ii. 14), which closely correspono" 

to *1^f7? • eTopxos "sed of Zerubbabcl and Tatna 
(1 Esdr. vi. 3, 2'J, vii. 1), and irpoo-TciTTjj, appliei 
to Sheshbazzar (1 Esdr. ii. 12), both of which rep 

resent ^T^^ '■ UpoffrdTrjs (1 Esdr. vii. 2) am 
TTpoardTTjs rov Upov (2 Mace. iii. 4), "the gov 
emor of the temple" ^T^l^ (cf. 2 Chr. xxxv. 8) 
and o-oTpaTTTjs (1 E.sdr. iii. 2, 21), "a satrap," not 
always used in its strict sense, but as the equivalent 
of (TTpaT-ny6s (Jud. V. 2, vii. 8). 

, W. A. W. 

* 15. 'O ebdvyoiv, the goveifior (diri(/€nf,\u]g.), 
Jas. iii. 4, where the pilot or helmsman is meant. 
Both Kv^ipvriTt)s (.\cts xxvii. 11 and Rev. xviii. 
17) and the Latin gubermttm:, -vihence our "gov- 
ernor " is derived, denote the man at the helm of 
the vessel. H. 

GO'ZAN (]T12 [peril, quarry, Ges. ; ^ot.<!«, 
ford, I'iirst]: Toi^av, [Vat. 2 K. xvii. 6, Tw^ap, 
and 1 Chr., Xcu^ap:] (Jozan, [in Is., Gozmn]) seems 
in the A. V. of 1 Chr. v. 20 to be the name of a 
river; but in Kings (2 K. xvii. G, 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 (jozan 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-Pileser, and 
Shalmaneser, or po.ssibly Sargon. It has Icen 
variously placed; but it is probably identical with 
the Gmiztmitis of I'tolemy (Geoyrnph. v. 18), and 
may be regarded as rejjresented by the Mygdonia of 
other writers (Strab., Polyb., etc.). It was the tract 
watered by the 1 labor ('A^6p^as, or Xa/Stipos), 
the modern Klmbour, the gre;it Mesopotaniian 
affluent of the Euj)hrates. Mr. I.ayard descrilies 
this region as one of remarkable fertility {Aimnli 
ami Bnbyhm, pp. 209-313). According to the 
LXX. Ilalah and llubor were both rivers of Cozan 
(2 K. xvii. 0); but this is a mistranslation of the 
Hebrew text, and it is corrected in the following 
chapter, where we have the term " river" used in 
the singular of the llabor only. Halah seems to 
have been a region adjoining (iozan. [Hai.ah.] 
With res])ect to the term Mygdonia. which became 
the recognized name of the region in classic times, 
and which Strabo (xvi. 1, § 27) and Plutarch 
(Lucull. c. 32) absurdly connect with the Mace- 
donian Mygdones, it may be observed that it is 

merely (Jozan, with the participial or adjectival 13 
prefixed. Tlie (Jreek writers always represent the 
Semitic z by their own d. Thus (Jaza became 
Ca</yti», Achsib became Ecf/ippa, the river Znh 
l)ecanie the />iaba, and M'gozan became Mjgfon. 

The conjunction of Cozan with Ilaran or Hwran 
in Isaiah (xxxvii. 12) is in entire agreement with 

was on the rivor, anil a ford tlienj (see above) may haft 
given name to butli. U. 


ihe position here assigned to the former. Aa Gozan 
was the district on the Khabuur, so Haran was 
that upon the Billh, the next affluent of the 
Euphrates. [See Cuahran.] The AssjTian kings, 
having conquered the one, would naturally go on 
to the other. G. H. 

GRA'BA CAypa^d ; [so Aid. ; Vat.] Alex, 
[and 10 other MSS.J 'Ayya^a.' Armacha), I Esdr. 
V. 29. [Hagaha.J 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 the initial A, 
which even the corrupt Vulgate retains. 

* GRAFT (Rom. xi. 17 flF.). [See Oi.ive.] 

GRAPE. [Vine.] 

GRASS. 1. This is the ordinary rendering of 
the Heb. word T^^H, which signifies properly an 

inclosed spot, from the root "lY^^^ 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, &a. 
As the herbage rapidly fades under the parching 
heat of the sun of Palestine, it has afforded to the 
sacred writers an image of the fleeting nature of 
human fortunes (Job viii. 12; Ps. xxxvii. 2), and 
also of the brevity of human life (Is. xl. 6, 7 ; Ps. 

sc. 5). The LXX. render 1"*^n by fiordur) and 
ir6a, but most frequently by x^Rtos, a word which 
in Greek has passed through the very same modifi- 
cations of meaning as its Hebrew representative: 
x6pT0f = P'onen, "fodder," is proijerly a court 
or inclosed space for cattle to feed in (Hom. //. xi. 
774), and then any feeding-place whether inclosed 
or not (Bar. Iph. T. 1.34, x'^P'^oi ivSevSpoi). 
Gesenius questions whether "I^^R, x<ipTos, and 
the Sansk. /ia/tV = " green " T ay rot be traceable 
to the same root. 

2. In .Jer. 1. 11, A. V. renders Sr»T nb?^3 
as (he heifer at grass, and the LXX. ws fiotS'ta. eV 
Pordvi)- It should be " as the heifer treading out 
corn" (comp. Hos. x. 11). Sti?^ comes from 
U'^1, conierere, iriturare, and has been con- 
founded with Sti7^, (jranien, from root Mti7'^, 
to germinate. This is the word rendered c/rass 
in Gen. i. 11, 12, where it is distinguished from 

3t]?17, 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 
spontaneously from the soil. The LXX. render it 
by X^'^'7' as well as by x^p-ros, fioravr], and ■jr6a. 

3. In Num. xxii. 4, where mention is made of 
the ox licking up the grass of the field, the Heb. 

word is pll.'l, which elsewhere is rendered green, 
rhen followed by Stt)"^ or 3ty37, as in Gen. i. 
it;, and Ps. xxxvii. 2. It answers to the German 
das Griirie, and comes from the root p"2"^j to 
lourish like grass. 

4 ^tt7y is used in Deut., in the Psalms, and 
n the I'ropliets, and, as distinguished from Stt''^, 


signifies herbs for human food (Gen. i. 30 ; Ps. ci? 
14), but also fodder for cattle (Deut. xi 15; Jer. 
xiv. 6). It is tlie grass of the field (Gen. 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^Rtos" 

W. D. 


THOTH, Amer. ed.] 


* GRATE. [Altar.] 
GRAVE. [Bukial.] 

GREAVES {'nn'$12). This word occurs in 
the A. V. only in 1 Sam. xvii. G, 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 Kfrj/iils of the 
Greeks, which derived its name from its covering 
the Kv7)fjL7), i- e. the part of the leg above-named. 
But the Mitzchah 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 C^7in) of Goliath. It appears to be derived 
from a root signifying brightness, as of a star (see 
Gesenius and Fiirst). 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;" though in our 
ignorance of the details of the arms of the He- 
brews and the Philistines we cannot conjecture 
more closelj' as to its nature. At the same time it 
must be allowed that all the old versions, including 
Josephus, give it the meaning of a piece of armor 
for the leg — some even for the thigh. G. 


histories of Greece and Palestine are as little con- 
nected as those of any other two nations exercising 
the 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 
Jlosaic idea of the Western world seems to have 
been suflBciently indefinite. It is possible that 
Closes 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 indication of a geo- 
graphical locality ; and yet it is not improbable that 
his Egyptian teachers were almost equally in the 
dark as to the position 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 liy the nature of the 
relation which we can conceive as existing in his 
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 the first quasi- 
historical event which awakened the curiosity, and 
stimulated the imagination of the Egyptian | riests, 

a * In Matt. xiii. 26 and Mark iv. 28 xopro^ Is ren- 
dered " blade," and in 1 Cor. iii. 12 '■ hay " Tlu 
other transla.tion occurs 12 times. H 


ma the story of Paris and Helen (Ilorod. ii. 43, 
51, 52, and 112). At the time of tlie Kxodas, 
Iherefore, it is not liiiely that Greece had entered 
into any definite relation whatever with Kgvpt. 
Withdrawn from the sea-coast, and only <;nidually 
fighting their way to it during the period of the 
Judges, the Hebrews can have had no opportunity 
of forming connections with the Gn^ks. I'roni the 
time of JMoses to that of Joel, we have no notice 
of the Greeks in the Hehrew writings, except that 
which was contained in the word Javan (tJen. x. 
2); and it does not seem probalile 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, ^^'hen, indeed, they came into 
contact with the lonians of Asia Minor, and recog- 
nized them as the long-lost islaiiders of the western 
migration, it was natui-al that they should mark 
the similarity of sound between ]^^ = ^V and 
lones, and the ajiplication of that name to the 
Asiatic Greeks would tend to satisfy in some meas- 
ure a longing to realize the Jlosaic ethnography. 
Accordingly the 0. T. word which is (Jrecia, in 

A. V. Greece, Greeks, etc., is in Hebrew 7^"*? Jn- 
van (Joel iii. 6; Dan. viii. 21): the Hebrew, how- 
ever, is sometimes retained (Is. Ixvi. li); I'Js. xxvii. 
13). In Gen. x. 2, the LXX. have Koi 'Ituuav 
Ka\ 'EAiira, with which Kosenmiiller compares 
Herod, i. 56-58, and professes to discover the two 
elements of the Greek race. I'rom 'iwvav lie gets 
the Ionian or Pelasgian, from 'EAura (for which he 
supposes the Ileb. original Htt?"' /S), the Hellenic 
element. This is excessively fanciful, and the de- 
gree of accuracy which it implies upon an ethno- 
logical question cannot possil)ly 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. Tlie medium of communica- 
tion seenis to have been the '1 yrian slave-merchant. 
About B. c. 800 Joel speaks of the Tyrians as sell- 
ing the children of Judali to the Grecians (Joel iii. 
6); and in Kz. xxvii. 13 the Greeks are mentioned 
as bartering their brazen vessels for slaves. On the 
other hand, Bochart says that the Greek s'.aves 
were highly valued throughout the I'^ast (Geoi/r. 
Sac. pt. i.lib. iii. c. 3, p. 175); and it is probalile 
that the Tyrians took advantage of the calamities 
which befell either nation to sell them as slaves to 
the other. Aljundant opportunities would be af- 
forded by the attsicks 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 tJrecce occurs in Dan. viii. 
21, etc., where the history of Alexander and his 
successors is rapidly sketched. Zechariah (ix. 13) 
foretells the triumphs of the Maccabees against the 
Grteco-SjTian empire, while Isaiah looks forward 
to the conversion of the Greeks, amongst other 
Gentiles, through the instrumentality of Jewish 
miBsionaries (Ixvi. 19). For the connection between 
the Jews and the qua8i-(ireek kingdoms which 
sprang out of the divided empire of Alexander 
reference should be made to other articles. 

The presence of Alexander himself at .lerusaleni, 
and his respectful demeanor, are described by Jose- 
olius (AnI. xi. 8, § 3); and some Jews are even 
laid If have joinefl him in his expedition against 
Versia (Hecat. ap. Joseph, c. AjAwi. ii. 4), as the 


Samaritans had already done ui the siege of Tyn 
(Joseph. Anl. xi. 8, §§ 4-6). lu 1 Mace. xii. 5-23 
(about iJ. c. 180), and Joseph. Ant. xii. 4, § 10, 
we have an account of an embassy and letter sent 
by the l>aceda'monians to the Jews. [Akeus; 
O.MAS.] The most remarkable feature in the 
transaction is the claim which the Lacedajmonians 
prefer to kindretl with the Jews, and which Areus 
professes to establish by reference to a book. It is 
by no means unlikely that two declining nations, 
the one crouching beneath a Roman, the other be- 
nesith a Graeco-Syrian invader, should draw together 
in face of the conimon c:damity. This may have 
been the' case, or we may with Jahn (IJelj. Vvmvi. 
ix. 01, note) regard the aft'air as a piece of pompoua 
trifling or idle cm-iosity, at a j)eriod when "• all na- 
tions were curious to ascertain their origin, and 
their relation.ship to other nations." 

The notices of the Jewish people which occur iu 
Greek writers have been collected by Josephus (c. 
Apion. i. 22). The chief are Pythagoras, Herod- 
otus, Choerilus, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Hec- 
atjeus. 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 
Pyth.-M^oras, he cites llermippuss life; for Aristotle, 
Clearchus; but it should be remembered that the 
Neo-Platonism of these authorities makes them 
connxiratively 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 \Vest. This style of thought was further de- 
veloped by lamblichus; and a very good sjiecimen 
of it may V)e seen in Le Clerc's notes on Grotius, 
(It Vtrit. It has been alily and vehemently assail>'d 
by Hitter, I list. Phil. b. i."c. 3. 

Herodotus mentions the Syrians of Paksilne as 
confessing that they derived the rite of circumcision 
from the Kgyptiaiis (ii. 104). Biihr, however, does 
not think it likely that Herodotus visited the inte- 
rior of Palestine, though he was acquainted with 
the sea-coast, ((^n the other hand see Dahlmann, 
pp. 55, 56, Kngl. 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 incidental notices in ii. 159 
and iii. 5, not to mention that the site of KaSurts 
is still a disputed question. 

The victory of Pharoah-Necho over Josiah at 
Megiddo is recorded by Herodotus (comp. Herod 
ii. 15!) with 2 K. xxiii.'2U n'., 2 (hr. xxxv. 20 ff.). 
It is singular that Josephus should have oniitt«ii 
these references, and cited Hei-odotus only as men- 
tioning the rite of cireumcision. 

The work of Theophrastus cited is not extant; 
he enumerates amongst other oaths that of L'orbun. 

Chterilus is supi)0se<l by Josephus to descril>e 
the Jews in a by no me-ans flattering portrait of a 
people who accom|)anie<i Xerxes in his exi>editioD 
against Greece. The chief points of identificatiou 
are, their si)eaking the Phoenician language, ano" 
dwelling in the Hvlijinean numnUiins, near ti broad 
lake, which according to Josephus was the Dead 

The Hecaticus of Josej)hus is Hecata-us of Ab- 
dera, a contemporary of Alexander the (ireat, and 
Ptolemy son of Ijigus. The authenticity of th« 
History of the Jews attributed to him bv J(m* 


{ihns lias been called in question by Origen and 

After the complete subjugation of the Greeks by 
the Romans, and the absorption into the Roman 
empire of the kingdoms which were formed out of 
the dominions of Alexander, the political connection 
between tlie Greeks and Jews as two independent 
nations no longer existed. 

The name of the country, Greece, occurs once in 
N. T., Acts XX. 2, "EKKas = Greece, i. e. Greece 
Proper, as opposed to Macedonia." In the A. V. 
of O. T. the word Gi-eek is not found ; either Ja- 
van is retained, or, as in Joel iii. 6, the word is 
rendered by Grecian, 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 otlier hand, a distinction is ob- 
served, "¥.Wi}v being rendered Greek, and 'EAArj;'- 
JO-TTjy Grecian. The difference of the English 
terminations, however, is not sufficient to convey 
the difference of meanings. "'E.KXriv in N. T. is 
either 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. 
'EAATji/ts, Mark vii. 26, Acts xvii. 12. 'EWtj^kt- 
T-i)s (properly " one who speaks Greek " ) is a foreign 
Jew; opposed, therefore, not to 'Iou5a?oj, but to 
'E.Sparoj-, a home-Jew, one who dwelt in Palestine. 
So Schleusner, etc.: according to Salmasius, how- 
ever, the Hellenists were Greek proselytes, who bad 



become Christians ; so "Wolf, Parkhurst, etc., argu- 
ing from Acts xi. 20, where 'EA.Arjj'icTToi are con- 
trasted witli 'Iou5a7oi in 19. The question resolvo 
itsell' partly into a textual one, Griesbach having 
adopted the reading "EAA.Tjj'as, 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^_3nQ "^"^If"!! {zarzir mothnayim), 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, aKeKTwp ifjLTTepnraTuv iv drjKeiaii fv\l/vxos, 
i. e. " a cock as it proudly struts 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 
( Tlies. p. 435), Schultens ( Comment, ad Prov. 1. c), 
Bochart {ffieroz. ii. 684), Rosenmiiller (Schol. ad 
Prcw. 1. c, and Not. ad Bock. 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 Stone. 
(Fergusson's Nineveh and Fersepolis, p. 298.) 

later, Maurer ( Comment. &ram. in Vet. Test. 1. c. ) 
decides unhesitatingly in favor of a " wrestler," 
when girt alx)ut the loins for a contest. He refers 
to Buxtorf [Lex. Chald. Talm. p. 692) to show that 
zarzir is used in the Tabiiud to express " a wrestler," 
and thus concludes: " Sed ne opus quidem est hoc 
loco quanquam minime contemnendo, quuni accinc- 
tuni esse in neminem magis cadat quam in lucta- 
torem, ita ut haec 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 
expression, "comely in going; " and the suitable- 
ness of the Hebrew words, zarzir mothnayim, is 
ibvious to every reader. W. H. 

♦ GRINDERS, Eccl. xii. 3. [Almomd.J 


GROVE. A word used in the A. V., with two 
exceptions, to translate the mysterious Hebrew term 
Asherah (rTTlTS). This terra 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. (oAo-os) and of the Vulgate 
(Jucus). This is evident from many passages, and 
especially from 2 K. xxiii. 6, where we find that 
Josiah "brought out the Asherah " (translated by 
our version " the grove ") " from the house of the 

" * 'EAAa? stands there for the stricter 'Kxaia. (see temal grounds. It is a question of mixed evidence 
Vets xviii. 12. and xix. 21). Wetstein has shown (Nov. \ Without this reading it is impossible to see how the 
Test. ii. 590) that Luke was justified in that use of the ' sphere of the preacliers in ver. 19 differs from that of 
Verm. H. j those in ver. 20. It would have been nothing new a1 

^ * Also, Tischendorf, De Wette, Mej'er, and others, this time to preach to the Greek-speaking Jews; aee^ 
Klopt 'EAATjvas, partly on external, and partlj on in- e. g., Acts ii. 9, and ix. 20. B 

968 GROVE 

Lord" (comp. also Judg. iii. 7; IK. xiv. 23, xnii. 
19). In many passages the "groves" are grouped 
with molten and graven images in a manner tliat 
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 Asherali was ; 
but in addition to the views set forth under Ash- 
EKAH, 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 which occurs so frequently on Assyrian 
sculptures, and is shown in the preceding woodcut. 
The connection is ingeniously maintained by JNIr. 
Fergusson in his Ninrrek ami Persepolh restwed 
(pp. 299-304), to which the reader is refeiTed. 

2. The two exceptions noticed above are Gen. xxi. 
33 and 1 Sam. xxii. G (margin), where "gro\e " is 

employed to render the word /2?S, E$hd, which 
in the text of the latter passage, and in 1 Sam. 
xxxi. 13, is translated " tree " Professor Stanlev 
{S. if P. § 77 ; also p. 21, not«) would have EshA 
to be a tamarisk ; but this is controverted by Bonar 
{JLancl of Prom.), on the ground of the thin and 
shadeless nature of that tree. It is now, however, 
generally recognized (amongst others, see Gesen. 
Thts. Y>. bO b\ Stanley, S. cj- P. App. § 7G, 3, 
p. 142 note, 220 note, and passim), that the word 

Elon, ^T /^?, 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. G); of Meonenim 
(Judg. ix. 37); and of Tabor (1 Sara. x. 3). In 
all these cases the LXX. have Spvs or liaKauos; 
the Vulgate — which the A. V. probably followetl 
— valHs or convallis, in the last three, however, 

In the religions of the ancient heathen world 
gi-oves 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, dt Sac- 
rific. 10; see Carpzov, yJ/>/). Crit. p. 332), and from 
the earliest times groves are mentioned in connec- 
tion with religious worship ((Jen. xii. G, 7, xiii. 18; 
Deut. xi. 30; A. V. "plain; " see above). Their 
high antiquity, refreshing shade, solenm silence, 
and awe-inspiring solitude, as well as the striking 
illustration they afford of natural life, marked them 
out as tlie fit localities, or even the actual objects of 
worship (" Lucos et in lis silentia ipsa adoi-amus," 
Plin. xii. 1 ; " Secretum luci . . . et admiratio 
unibrse fidem tibi numinis facit," Sen. Kp. xii. ; 
"Quo posses viso dicere Numen habet," Ov. F(tst. 
Iii. 295; "Sacra nemus accubet umbra," Virg. 
Georg. iii. 334; Ov. Mtt. viii. 743; Ez. vi. 13; Is. 
Ivii. 5; Hos. iv. 13). Tliis last passage hints at 
.tnother and darker reason why gro\es were oppor- 
Ijne for the degraded services of idolatry; their 
ihadow hid the atrocities and obscenities of hea- 
then worship. The groves were generally foimd 
connectc<l with temples, and often had the right of 
affording an asylum (Tac. Gei-m. 9, 40; Herod, ii. 
138; Virg. Aln. i. 441, ii. 512; Sil Ital. i. 81). 
Some have supposed that even the Jewish Temple 
had a rifxtvos i)lantcd with palm and cedar (Ps. xcii. 
12, 13) and olive (Pa. Hi. 8) as the mosque which 
•tands on its site now has. This is more than 


doubtful ; but we know that a celebrated jak stooc 
by the sanctuary at Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 26; Judtr 
ix. G; Stanley, S. cf P. p. 142). We find repeated 
mention of groves consecrated with deep supersti- 
tion to piu-ticular gods (Liv. vii. 25, xxiv. 3, xxxv. 
51; Tac. Ann. ii. 12, 51, etc., iv. 73, etc.). For 
this reason they were stringently forbidden to the 
Jews (Ex. x.xxiv. 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 {V&hnc. B'M. Antiq. p. 290). 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. G, 37) and the burial 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 groves of Mamre were long a 
place of worship (Sozomen, //. Ii. ii. 4; Euseb. 
VH. Constant. 81; Keland, Pakest. p. 714). There 
are in Scripture many memorable trees ; e. y. 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 
tlie heathen ext«ndetl to a regular worship of them 
" Tree-worship may be traced from the interior of 
Africa, not only into I'^'yp* ""^ Arabia, but also 
onward uninterruptedly into Palestine and Syria, 
Assyria, Persia, India, Thibet, Siam, the Philip- 
pine Islands, China, Jap:m, and Siberia; also west- 
ward into Asia Minor, (Jreece, 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 forn)s of idolatry " 
{Gen. of Earth ami Man, p. 139). " The worship 
of trees even goes back among the Iraunians to the 
rules of Horn, called in the Zend-Avesta the pro- 
mulgator of the old law. We know from Herodo- 
tus the delight which Xerxes took in the great 
plane-tree in Lydia, on which he bestowed golden 
oniaments, and appointed for it a sentinel in the 
))erson of one of the ' immortal ten thousand.' 
The early veneration of trees was associated, by the 
moist and refreshing canopy of foliage, with that of 
sacred fountains. 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 be- 
came olijects of venenition from the beauty of their 
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 temple of 
\pollo at Grynion in Ju)lis; and the grove of 
(Jolone is celebrated in the renowned chorus of 
Sophocles" (Humboldt, Cosmos, ii. »(!, Eng. ed.). 
The custom of adorning trees "with jewels and 
mantles " was very ancient and universal (Herod, 
vii. 31; vElian. V. II. ii. 14; Theocr. Id. xviii.; 
Ov. ^fvt. viii. 723, 74."); Arnol). adv. Gentes,i. 39), 
and even still exists in the East. 

The oracidnr trees of antiquity are well knowi 


(«. xvi. 233; OJ. v. '237; Soph. Track. 754; Virg. 
Georg. ii. 16; Sil. Ital. iii. 11). Each god had 
some sacred tree (Virg. Ed. vii. CI ft'.). The Etru- 
rians are said to have worshipped a palm [a holm- 
tree, ikx, Plin. H. N. xvi. 44, al. 87]. and the 
Celts an oak (Max. Tyr. Dissert, viii: 8, in Uodwyn's 
Mus. ami Aar. ii. 4). On the Uruidic \eneration 
of oak-groves, see Pliny, H. 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. [list, of 
Afnn, pp. 525-539, 3d ed.; Park's Travels, p. 65). 
So too the ancient Egyptians (Itawlinson's Ihrod. 
ii. 298). Long after the 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 Orelli, 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 (HS^) originally signified a 
" cook," and as butchering fell to the lot of the 
cook in Eastern countries, it gained the secondary 
sense 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 i^^) 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; IK. i. 5), like 
the cursores of the Roman Emperors (Senec. £'p. 
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 arms were kept ready for use 
(1 K. xiv. 28; 2 Chr. xii. 11). [Footman.] 

(3.) The terms mishmereih {rn72W72) and 

niishmdr ("n^^E/'Q) 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 viishmarto (innDti7Z2) for the pres- 
ent reading in 2 Sam. xxiii. 23. Benaiah being 
appointed "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 Capt.\in, [and Captain of the 
Guard, Amer. ed.] W. L. B. 

GUDGCDAH (with the art. n-Ta"T2n: 
TaSyaS: Gadgad), Deut. x. 7. [HoR Hag'id- 



* GUEST-CHAMBER. [House.] 

* GUILTY. The phrase "guilty of death " 
(A. V.) Num. XXXV. 31; Tob. vi. 12; Matt. xxvi. 
?6 , Mark xiv. 64, contrary to the present idiom of 
}ur language, signifies " deserving the penalty of 
leath," being perhaps an imitation of the Latin 


reus mortis. " He is guilty " in Matt, xxiii. 1 
(A. v.), is the translation of the same Greek won 
(6(pei\€i) which in ver. 16 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'lba [spring, bubblings], plu- 
ral of n vij), 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; Judg. 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 (7^3) 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 BorOavls 
[so Kom.; Vat. BoeOavet^], and rijv TovaieAdi/, 
the latter doubtless a mere corruption of the He- 
brew. The Alex. MS., as usual, is faithful to the 
Hebrew text [reading rwKaO]- In . Judges both 
have kurpaiais. An attempt has been lately made 
by Dr. Rosen to identify these springs with the 
'Ain Nunkur near Hebron (see Zeitsc/irift der D. 
M. G. 1857), « but the identification can hardly bo 
recei\ed without fuller confirmation (Stanley, S. ^ 
P. App. § 54). [Debiu.] G. 

GU'NI C'3J12 [sorrmtful, njflicted, Dieti.]: 
Twvi [Vat. -ve{\, 6 Tavvi [Vat. -vet] ; Alex, rwwi: 
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 — 
"Gunite; " as if already a family at the time of 
its first mention (conip. .\rodi, Hushim, etc.). 

2. \Vovvi-] --^ descendant of Gad; father of 
Abdiel, a chief man in his tribe (1 Chr. v. 15). 

GU'NITES, THE ("'^'lUri [the Gunite] : 6 
Fauvi; [Vat. -j/ei; Alex, o Fuvfi:] Gunitce), the 
" family " which sprang from Guni, son of Naph- 
tali (Num. xxvi. 48). There is not in the Hebrew 
any ditFerence between tlie two names, of the indi- 
vidual and the family. 

GUR, THE GOING UP TO (l-liJ-nb^a 
^ the ascent or steep of Giir, or the lion's wlielp, 
Ges. Thes. p. 275: eV tw ava^aivnv Tai; [Comp. 
iv rrj avafidaei Tovp'.^ ascensus Garer), an ascent 
or rising ground, at which Ahaziah received his 
death-blow while flyuig from Jehu after the slaugh- 
ter of Joram (2 K. ix. 27). It is described as at 
(3) Ibleam, and on the way between Jezroel and 
Beth-hag-gan (A. V. "the garden-house"). As 
the latter is identified with tolerable probability 
with the present Jenin, we may conclude that the 
ascent of Gur was some place mpre than usually 
steep on the difficult road which leads from the 
plain of Esdraelon to Jenin. By Josephus it i? 

a * Dr. Robinson thinks that ^Ain Nunkur ma.j 
have some relation to these springs {Pkyi. ffeogr. p 


mentioned (Ant. ix. G, § 4) merely as "a certain | 
Jficent " (tv Ttvi irpoafidad)- Neither it nor 
Ibleam have been yet recovered. 

For the details of the occurrence see Jiiiiu. For 
other ascents see Adummim, Akhahbim, Ziz. 


GUR-BA'AL (b?2-n^a [„b(xle of Baal] : 
werpa- Gurbanl), a place or district in which dwelt 
Arabians, as recorded in 2 t'hr. xxvi. 7. It ap- 
pears from the context to have been in the country 
lying between Palestine and tlie Arabian peninsula: 
but this, although probable, and although the LXX. 
reading is in fa\or of the conjecture, cannot be 
proved, no site having been assigned to it. The 
Arab geographers mention a place called Haal, on 
the Syrian road, north of El-Medeeneh {MarasUl, 

B. V. Jau ). The Targum, as Winer (s. v.) re- 
marks, reads "in^n ^''nnn ^Wn^V _ "Arabs 
li\ing in Gerar " — suggesting "T^S instead of 
"W2 1 but there is no further evidence to strengthen 
this supposition. [.See also Gku.vh.] The inge- 
nious conjectures of Itochart (Phaleg, ii. 22) re- 
Bpecting tlie Xlehunim, who are mentioned together 
with the " Arabians that dwelt in Gur-Baal," may 
be considered in reference to the Meliunim, although 
they are far-fetched. [.Mkiiunim.] E. S. P. 

* GUTTER. This word occurs in the difficult 
passage 2 Sam. v. 6-8, translated in the A. V. as 
follows: " (G.) And the king and his men went to 
Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of 
the land ; which spake unto David, saying, Exce|)t 
thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt 
not come in hither; thinking, David camiot 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 sniiteth the Jebusites, and 
the lame, and the blind, f/ifit are hated of David's 
Boul, he shdll be chief ami cnplain. Wherefore 
they said, The blind and the lame shall not come 
into the house." 

So long ago as 1.546, Sebastian Jliinster (Hebreio 
Bible, fol. ed., in be.) said of this passage, "Est 
locus ille valde obscurus." The lapse of more than 
300 years has not much mended the matter, and 
the passage is still "iviWe obscurus." Our limits 
here forbid a full discussion of the points at issue." 
But without attempting to examine every gram- 
matical difficulty, we may reach a better translation 
than the aliove, 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 
next following clause out of its proper connection 


and makes it meaniimless. (2.) The words reiw 
dered -except thou take away the blind and the 
lame," should lie tran.slated, " but the blind and 
the lame will turn thee away." * (3.) The apodosia. 
or after-clause, corresponding to the expression, 
any one that smites " (= if any one smites), i» 
not expressed in the Helirew. 'Ihis is a fa\orit« 
liebrew idiuni, where for any reason it is felt to !« 
unnecessary to complete the construction. See, 
e. ij., Ex. xx.xii. 32, in the A. V. Here, the ol ject 
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. Neither 
of these oljects required the completion of the sen- 
tence, which would readily be understood to be the 
offer of a reward for the service. A dash should 
therefore be put (as in the A. V. Ex. xxxii. 32) 
after the word "soul" (omitting the words in ital- 
ics), to indicate the sentence is incomplete.' 
(4.) In ver. 8 there is also, as in ver. G, 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 def. art.), we should translate, 
" a Jebusite." (6.) The word translated " gutter," 
T13^, is here properly a wnier-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 !« taken in the same construction as 
" a .lebusite " {even the blitul and the lime): or, 
as 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, H< ttcher, and others, think necessary, or 
to a change of punctuation and an unauthorized 
sense of the word "l"i3V) proposed by l^wald and 
ado])ted by Kcil, we obtain the following gram- 
matically correct rendering : 

" (G.) And the king and his men went to Jeru- 
salem, to the Jebusite inhabiting the land. And 
he spake to David, sajing. Thou slialt 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 Jebusite, and nets t« 
the water-course, and the lame and the blind hated 

of David's soul . Therefore they say, Blind 

and lame shall not come into the house." '' 

The Jebusites, confident in the strength of their 

a • See, for the later criticism of the paRsage, Mau- 
rer, Com. ^am. crii. vol i. p. 180; Thenius, 'Jit Ba- 
ther Sftmiiels erklart (Kxegct. llandbuch) 2te Aufl. 1804 :, <lir Biirlirr iler Oironik erildrt (In the same 
work) 1S;">4 : Bottehcr, in the Zeitschrift tier D. Mors;. 
Gesrltsrlinfl , 1867, pp. 'M-Vl, and Neiie rxestt. krit. 
murnlfte, Ite Abth., 1863, p. 151; Kell, dit BUc/itr 
6a-niifh, mA. T. J. C. 

b ' There la no necessity for a change of pointing 

'ry^T'Dn). The Infin. form Is the more emphatic'n (Qefl. H'h. dram. § 131,4). T. J. C. 

• • In the A. V. the nfter-clausc Is luppUcd in the 
rds, "he shall br chirf and captain," Italicized to 

show that they are not in tlie Hebrew text. To the 
common reader, with nothing but the tranplation to 
guide him. thoy seem to bo " clutched out of the air."' 
as the GernianB exprcKS it. But a reference to 1 Chr. 
xi. shows tlint tho.'ic wonis, though thoy have no 
right here, are not a pure invention of the translator. 
The reader of the Hebrew text, if thase words arc ne- 
cessary to make sense of the pafwage, wa« in the nanit 
predicament nn the English reader of the A. V. would 
be without them T. .1. C. 

'' • The above translation is nearly wonl for word 
the same as that of De Wetto ; which Is so cIokb lo thi 
Hebrew that any literal rendering must be almost Ter 
bally coiucidont with It. T. J. 


poeition, wLich had successfully resisted repeated 
ittempts to capture it, siieeriuifly said to l)avid, 
"the blind and the lame will turn thee away;" 
needing only to say, "David shall not come in 
liither.' « 

Uavid 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 
supplied 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, II., fourth paragraph, foot-note. 

A review of the principal interpretations of Jew- 
ish and Christian scholars would be interesting and 
instructive; but there is aot space for it here. 

T. J. C. 


HAAHASHTARI (^"irilf nh?n, with the 
article, =</ie Ahashtante [perh. covrier, mesnent/er, 
Fiirst]: rhu 'Aaadrip; [Vat. AaripaV,] Alex. Ao- 
6ripa'- Ahnsthari), a man, or a family, immediately 
descended from Ashur, "fiither of Tekoa" by his 
second wife Naarah (1 Chr. iv. 6). The name does 
not appear again, nor is there any trace of a place 
of similar name. 

HABA'IAH [3 syl.] (HpO, inNeh. n;3n 
[but JISS. and editions vary in both places; whom 
Jtliomih prulects]: Aa&eia, 'E0ia; Ales. OI3ata, 
[E^ej'a; in Neh., Vat. EjSeio, FA. A/Sei'a:] Jf"bi'i, 
Habia). Bene-Chabaijah were among the sons of 
the priests who returned from Babjlon with Zerub- 
babel, but whose genealogy being imperfect, were 
not allowed to ser\e (Ezr. ii. 61; Neh. vii. 63). 
It is not clear from the passage whether they w^ere 
among the descendants of Barzillai the Gileadite. 
In the lists of 1 Esdras the name is given as 
Obdia [marg. Hobaiah]. 

(n^j?50 [_embracing, as a token of love, Ges., 
Fiirst] : Jerome, Prol. in Hdb., renders it by the 
Greek nepiKriypis; ' Afi^aKovfx: Habncuc). Other 
Greek forms of the name are 'A^$aKov/x, which 
Suidas erroneously renders Trarryp iyepaews, 
'A&aKovfi (Georg. Cedrenus), 'A/ujSa/cow, and 
'A/8j3a/covK (Dorotheus, Doctr. 2). The Latin 
forms are Ambacum, Ambaeuc, 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 Rabbinical tradition that Habakkuk was the 
son of the Shunammite woman whom Elislia re- 
stored to life is repeated by Abarbanel in his com- 
mentary, and has no other foundation than a fanci- 
ful etymology of the prophet's name, based on the 
expression in 2 K. iv. 16. Equally unfounded is 
the tradition that he was the sentinel set by Isaiah 
to watch for the destruction of Babylon (comp. Is. 
xxi. 16 with Hab. ii. 1). In the title of the history 
of Bel and the Dragon, as found in the LXX. 
fersion in Origen's Telmpli, the author is called 



a * Recent excavations on the southern slope of 
Mount Zion show that this vaunting of the Jebusites 
Iras not without some foundation. " From the posi- 
ion and appearance of this escarpment [one discovered 
here] it must have formed part of tlie defenses of 
idle old city, the wall running along the crest ; . . . 
the CU'ps A'hicU lead down thi ^ alley of Ilinnom could 

" Habakkuk, the son of Joshua, of the tribe of Levi.' 
Some have supposed this apocryphal writer to hi 
identical with the prophet (Jerome, ProoRm. in 
Dan. ). The psalm in ch. 3 and its title are thought 
to favor the opinion that Habakkuk w;is a Levite 
(Delitzsch, /Iibakuk, p. iii.). Pseudo-Epiphanius 
(vol. ii. p. 240, de Vitis Propfietavum) and Doro- 
theus [Chruu. Pascli. p. 150) say that he was of 
BrjOCoKTip or BrtdiTovxdp {Btihacat, Isid. Hispal. 
c. 47), of the tribe of Simeon. This may have 
been the same as Bethzacharias, where Judas ^lac- 
cabfeus was defeated by Antiochus Eupator (1 ilacc. 
vi. 32, 33). The same authors relate that when 
Jerusalem was sacked by Nebuchadnezzar, Habak- 
kuk fled to Ostracine, and remained there till after 
the Chaldaeans had left the city, when he returned 
to his own country and died at his farm two years 
before the return from Babylon, b. 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-Hebrseus, and Eutychius. It is quoted from 
Joseph ben Gorion (B. J. xi. 3) by Abarltanel 
(Coinm. OH Hab.), and seriously refuted by him on 
chronological grounds. The scene of the event was 
shown to mediajval travellers . on the road from 
Jerusalem to Bethlehem {Enrhj Travels in Pales- 
tine, p. 2y). Habakkuk is said to have been buried 
at Keilah in the tribe of Judah, eight miles E. 
of Eleutheropolis (Eusebius, Onomasticon). Eab- 
binical tradition places his tomb at Chukkok, of the 
tribe of Naphtali, now called Jakuk. In the days 
of Zebenus, bishop of Eleutheropolis, according to 
Nicephorus (//. E. xii. 48) and Sozomen (//. E. 
vii. 28 ), the remains of the prophets Habakkuk and 
Micah were discovered at Keilah. 

2. The Rabbinical traditions agree in placing 
Habakkuk with Joel and Nahum in the reign of 
Manasseh (cf Seder Olam Rabbn and Zuta, and 
Tseni'wh D niil). This date is adopted by Kimchi 
and Abarbanel among the Rabbis, and by \\'itsius. 
Kalinsky, and Jahn among modern writers. The 
general corruption and lawlessness which prevailed 
in the reign of .Manasseh are supposed to be 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 
(Chronogrnphii, pp. 214, 230, 240) makes him 
contemporary with F^ekiel, and extends the period 
of his prophecy from the time of JIanasseh to that 
of Daniel and Joshua the son of Josedech. The 
Chronicon I'aschale places him later, first mention 
ing him in the beginning of the reign of Josiah 
((Jlymp. 32), as contemporary with Zephaniah and 
Xahum : and again in the beginning of the reign 
of Cyrus (Olymp. 42), as contemporary with Daniel 
and Ezekiel in Persia, with Haggai and Zechariah 
in Judsea, and with Baruch in Egypt. Davidson 
{Home's Intr. ii. 968), following Keil, decides in 
favor of the early part of the reign of Josiah. 
Calmet, Jaeger, Ewald, De ^^'ette, Rosenmiiller, 
Knobel, Maurer, Hitzig, and Meier agree in assign- 
ing the commencement of Habakkuk"s prophecy tc 

be defended by a couple of men against any force, be- 
fore the invention of fire-arms. The escarpniont waf 
probably carried down to the valley in a succesHion of 
terraces ;• the large amount of rubbish, hcwevur, will 
not allow anything to be seen clearly." (See^-znc* 
Survey of Jerusalem, p. 61, Lond. 1865.) H. 



the reign of Jehoiakini, tliou2;h they are dividcvl as 
to the exact period to which it is to be referred. 
Kiiohel {Der Prophedsm. d. Ihbr.) and Meier 
{(Jesch. d. /wet. nat. Liter, d. Ihbr.) are in favor 
of the coinmenccnient of the Chaldsean era, after 
tlie battle of Carchemish (it. c. COG), when .ludaF-a 
was first threatened by the victors. But the ques- 
tion of the date of Habakivuk's [irophecy has been 
discussed in the most exhaustive manner by 
iJelitzsch {Der Prophet Ilabnlcuk, Kinl. § 3), and 
thouj;h his arguments are ratiier ingenious than 
convincing, they are well deserving of consideration 
as based upon internal evidence. The conclusion 
at which he arrives is that Habakkuk delivered his 
prophecy about the 12th or 13th year of .losiah 
(b. c. 630 or C29), 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 sanle 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 i)ackwards from tlie 
Chaldaean invasion, the date above assigned would 
involve no violation of probability, though the 
argument does not amount to a proof. I'lom the 
similarity of Hab. ii. 20 and Zeph. i. 7, Dclitzsch 
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 superscrijjtion of his prophecy, 
lived in the time of Josiah, and from iii. 5 must 
have prophesied after the worsiiij) of Jehovah was 
restored, that is, after the twelltli year of that 
king's reign. It is i)robabIe tiiat he wrote about 
B. c. 624. Between this period therefore and the 
12th year of Josiah (n. c. 630) Kelitzsch 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. I.'i 
with Jer. Ii. 58, &c.). The latter therefore must 
have written al)out 630 or 029 n. c:. This view 
receives some confirmation from the position of his 
prophecy in the 0. T. Canon. 

3. Instead of looking upon the prophecy as an 
organic whole, liosenmiiller 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 tliat 
of Zedekiah, when Jerusalem was besieged for the 
third time iiy Nebuchadnezzar. Kalinsky ( Vdtic. 
Chabac. et Nah.) makes four divisions, and refers 
tlie prophecy not to Nebuchadnezzar, but to Esar- 
haddon. But in such an arbitrary arrangement 
the tnie character of the comi)osition 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 
Kwift 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 (Jhaldiean hosts, but, confident 
that God has oidy employed tiiem 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 
enduring form the vision of God's retributive 
'ustice, as revealed to his pro|)hetic eye (ii. 2, 3). 
The doom of the Chaldojans is first foretold in gen- 


eral terms (ii. 4 G), and the announcement is fol 
lowed by a series of denunciations pronounced upon 
them by the nations who had suffered from theii 
oppression (ii. 6-20). The stropiiical arrangement 
of these "woes" is a remarkable feature of the 
prophecy. They are distributed in strophes of three 
verses each, 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 containi 
the character of the sin, the second the development 
of the woe, while the third is confirn)atory of the 
woe denounced. The fifth strophe diffei-s from the 
others in form in having a verse introductory to 
the woe. The prominent vices of the Chaldaeans' 
cliaracter, as delineated in i. 5-11, are made the 
subjects of separate denunciations; their insatiable 
ambition (ii. 6-8), 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., " Ilabakkuk's 
Pindaric ode" (Ewald), a composition unrivaled 
for boldness of conception, sublimity of thought, 
and majesty of diction. This constitutes, in De- 
litzsch's opinion, " the second grand division of the 
entire prophecy, as the subjective reflex of the two 
subdivisions of the fu-st, and the lyrical recapitula- 
tion of the whole." It is the echo of the feelings 
aroused in the pr'jphet'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 tlie prophecy, it is in itself 
a perfect whole, as is sufhciently evident from ita 
lyrical character, and tlie nnisical arrangement by 
which it was adapted for use in the temple service. 

In other parts of the A. V". the name is given as 
HAiiBACuc, and Ahacuc. W. A. \V. 

* Among the few separate commentaries on this 
prophet we ha\c Der Prophet Hnbakuk; nu.<t/elei/t, 
by Franz Delitzs^h (I.eipz. 1843). 'i'his 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, Comm. de Hab. I 'atic. 
(1840). For a Ust of the still older writers, see 
Keil's Lehrb. der hist.-kril. Einl. in dos A. T. p. 
302 (2te .\ufl.). The commentaries on the Minor 
Prophets, or the Prophets generally, contain of 
course Habakkuk; F. Hitzig, Die zuiilf U. Prophe- 
ttn. pp. 253-277 (1838, 3o Aufl. 1863); Ewald, Die 
Prophelen des A. B. i. 373-389 (1840); ISIaurer, 
Comm. Gram. Hist. Ciil. in Proph. Minoreg, ii. 
528 flr.; Umbreit, Prakt. Comm. ub. d. Proph. lid. 
iv. Th. i. (1845); Keil and Delitzsch, Bibl. Comm.. 
ub. d. 12 kl. Proph. (1866); Henderson, Mimn- 
Prophets (1845, Amcr. ed. 1860); G. H. Noyes, 
New Trans, of the Ileb. Prophets, 3d ed. (1860), 
vol. i.; Henry C'owles, Minor Prophets, with Notes 
Critical, Explanatory, and Practical (New York, 

For the personal history of the prophet, see 
especially Delitzsch's De IJabicuci Projihettv Vita 
at)jue Jitate (2d ed. 1844), and Umbreifs Ilaba^ 
kuk in Herzog's Ileal- lincyk. v. 435-438. The 
laf ter represents him as " a great propliet among 
the minor prophets, and one of the greatest among 
the great prophets." Ue Wettc 8.ays of his style and 
genius; " While in his sphere of prophetic repre- 
sentation he may be comjared with the l>est of th» 
prophets, a Joel, Amos, Nahum, Isaiah, in the lyr'K 


passage (ch. iii.) he surpasses every thing which 
the poetry of the Hebrews has to show in this 
species of composition. He exhibits the greatest 
strength and fullness, an imaguiation capable of the 
loftiest nights, without ever sacrificing beauty and 
clearness. His rhythm is at the same time per- 
fectly free, and yet measured. His diction is fresh 
and pure." (See his Einl. in das A. Test., p. 338, 
5te Ausg. ) Lowth awards to him the highest sub- 
limity (Lect. xxviii. in his Poetry of the He- 
brews). " The anthem " at the close of the book, 
gays 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 
vf the flebrtiv Poet,^, p. 2.5-5, 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 b&stower of the ample spiritual 
consolations which that trust secures. (Comp. 2 
Cor. iv. 8flF.) H. 

HABAZINI'AH (H^^^^nq [perh. lic/ht of 
Jehovah, Ges. : collection by./nh, Fiirst] : Xafiaffiv, 
[Vat. FA. -aeiv:] Habs<^nin), apparently the head 
of one of the families of the Kkchabites: his 
descendant Jaazaniah was the chief man among 
them in the time of Jeremiah (.Jer. xxxv. 3). 

HAB'BACUC CAfx0aKovfx: Ilnbacuc), the 
form in which the name of the prophet Habakkuk 
is given in the Apocrypha (Bel, 3.3-.39). 

HABERGEON, a coat of mail covering the 
neck and breast. The Hebrew terms are M^Hin, 

n^~;tt7, and l'"^"^1^- 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 (AiyoOdprj^), 
worn by the Egyptians (Her. 11. 182, iii. 47), and 
the Greeks {/l. ii. 529, 830). The second, shirydh, 
occurs only in Job xli. 26, and is regarded as 

another form of s/i /;•?/«« ("|^nti?), 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 zeugma. The third, shiryon, occurs as an 
article of defensive armor in 1 Sam. xvii. 5, 2 Chr. 
xxvi. U, and Neh. iv. 16. W. L. B. 

HA'BOR ("lli^n [perh. rich in vegetntion, 
Dietr. ; but see Fiirst]: 'A^dp, Xa^iip; [Vat. 2 
K. xviii. 11, Affiaip--] IJnbor), 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. [Chebar.] It is 
identified beyond all reasonable doubt with the 
famous affluent of the P^uphrates, which is called 
Aborrhas {'A&Sppas) by Strabo (xvi. 1, § 27) and 
•'rocopius {Btll. Pers. ii. 5); Aburas ('A^oupoy) 
Dy Isidore of Charax (p. 4), Abora {' A&dpa) by 
Zosimus (iii. 12), and Chaboras {Xa^Jopas), jy 

a For the "wood" the LXX. hare iv T17 koxv^, 
WMlin(t t:7"Tn foi tt7~)n. .\nd 80 too Josephua. i 


Pliny and Ptolemy (v. 18). The stream in ques- 
tion still bears the name of the Khabour. It riowa 
from several sources in the mountain-chain, which 
in about the 37th parallel closes in the valley of the 
Tigris upon the south — the Mons JIasius of Strabo 
and Ptolemy, at present the KharcJ B.igh. The 
chief source is said to be " a little to the west of 
Mardin'" (Layard, Nin. and Bub. p. 309, note); 
but the upper course of the river is still very im- 
perfectly known. The main stream was seen by 
yir. Layard floNving from the northwest as he stood 
on the conical hill of Kouknb (about lat. 36° 20', 
long. 41°); and here it was joined by an important , 
tributary, the Jenijer, which flowed down to it 
from Nisibis. Both streams were here fordable, 
but the river formed by their union had to be 
crossed by a raft. It flowed in a tortuous course 
through rich meads covered with flowers, having 
a general direction about S. S. W. to its junction 
with the Euphrates at Karkesi", the ancient Cir- 
cesium. The country on both sides of the river 
was covered with mounds, the remains of cities 
belonging to the AssjTian period. 

The Khabour occurs under that name in an 
Assyrian inscription of the ninth century before 
our era. G. R. 

HACHALI'AH (n^^^O [u-hom Jehovah 
afflicts, Ges. 6te Aufl.] : XeAKia, 'AxaAi'a; [Vat. 
Xf\Keta, Axe^ia; Alex. Axa\ia: FA. AxoAia, 
Ax«Aio:] Hechlia, Huhelia), the father of Nehe- 
miah (Neh. i. 1; x. 1). 

n^^pnn [hlll of darkness, Ges., or of barren- 
ness, Fiirst] : d fiovvhs rod (and 6 [but Alex, tov] ) 
'ExeAa; [in 1 Sam. xxvi. 1, Vat. XeKfj.a0, Alex. 
Ax'AoO collis, and Gabaa, Hachila), a hill appar- 
ently situated in a wood « in the wilderness or waste 
land ('^^^p) in the neighborhood of Ziph ; in the 
fastnesses, or passes, of which David and his six 
hundred followers were lurking when the Ziphites 
informed Saul of his whereabouts (1 Sam. xxiii. 
19; comp. 14, 1.5, 18). The special topographical 
note is added, that it was "on the right (xxiii. I'J, 
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" (/^ 

"'SS, A. V. "before"), that is, the waste ban-en 
district. As Saul approached, David drew down 
from the hill into the lower ground (xxvi. 3), stiD 
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 

(TT"]^, 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 is 
not quite clear) to be dignified by the title of " the 

mountain " ("^"^f!^ : in the latter, the A. 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, ^^"^T] 
A. V. "a rock") from* which David desceiideil 

The Hebrew exactly answers to onr e\pr«»stt<^n 
"descended the cliff" : the "into" in the text o. tb« 



iuU) tLe midbar of JIaon. I'laces 1 earing the 
oames of Zipli and ilaon are still found in the 
jouth of Judah — in all probability the identical 
Bites of those ancient towns. They are sufticiently 
close to each other for the district between them to 
bear indiscriminately the name of both. But the 
wood has vanished, and no trace of the name Hachi- 
lali has yet Ijeen discovered, nor has the ground been 
examined with the view to see if the minute indi- 
cations of the story can be recognized. By Euse- 
bius and Jerome ( Oiiomnsticon) Kcheln is named 
as a village then standing; but the situation — 
seven miles from Eleutheroixjlis, t. e. on the N. W. 
of Hebron — would be too far from Ziph and Maon ; 
and as Reland has pointed out, they probably con- 
founded it with Keilah (comp. Onom. " Ceeilah " ; 
and Keland, p. 745). ' G. 

HACH'MONITE (1 Chr. xxvii. 32; xi. 11), 
both renderings — the former the correct one — of 

the same Hebrew words ^3"1tt!pn"^2 =«o« of a 
Hacmontte: vlhs 'Axafidy, 'Axa^f; [^'at- Axa- 
fiavei, AxafJ-ei; Sin. in 1 Chr. xi., Axafiaufi;] 
Alex. Axo/uavi: J/ncltamoni). Two of the Bene- 
Hacmoni [sons of H.] are named in these passages, 
Jehiix in the former, and Jashobka.m in the lat- 
ter. Hachnion or Hachmoni was 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), possilily 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. [Tachmonitk.] See Ivennicott, Diss. 
pp. 72, 82, who calls attention to the fact that 
names given in Chronicles with Bm are in Sam- 
uel given without the Ben, but with the definite 
axticle. G. 

HA'DAD (T^n [s/iarpness, Gesen., power- 
ful, Fiirst]: 'ASdS,' ["AStp,] XoySdy: Iladad). 
This name occurs frequently in the history of the 
SjTian and luiomite dynasties. It was originally 
the indigenous appellation of the sun among the 
Syrians (Macrob. Sriturnal. i. 2-3; Plin. 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. T/ies. p. 218). 
The'title appears to have been an official one, like 
Pharaoh ; and perhaps it is so used by Nicolaus Da- 
mascenua, as quoted by Josephus (Ant. vii. 5, § 2), 
in reference to the Syrian king who aided Hadad- 
ezer (2 Sam. viii. 5). Joseplius appears to have 
used the name in the same sense, where he substi- 
tutes it for Henhadad {Aiit. ix. 8, § 7, compared 
with 2 K. xiii. 24). The name appeai-s occasionally 
in the alterefl form Hadar ^ien. xxv. 15, xxxvi. 39, 
compared with 1 Chr. i. 30, 50). 

1- ["flQ: XouSdv, Alex. Xo58o8: nadad.] 
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 Alltei H'tol. vi. 7, 
^ 15), Altcne, and L'hnltni (Plin. vi. 32) hear af- 
hiity to the original name. 


2. (T^rr [^((Cf, one who throws himself agaiijt 
the enemy, bietr. : 'A5a5: Adnd].) Tlie second 
was a king of l:dom, who gained an important 
victory over the Midianites on the field of Moah 
(Gen. xxxvi. 35; '1 Chr. i. 40): the position of hii 
territory is marked by his capital, Avith. [Avith.] 

3. ("f"7l7 ['A5<£i: 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 kings: 
the change to the dukedom is pointedly connected 
with his death in 1 Chr. i. 51. [Hadah, 2.] 

4- n^n ["ASep: Adad].) The last of the 
name was a member of the royal house of VAova 
(1 K. xi. 14 ff.), probably the grandson of the one 
last noticed. (In ver. 17 it is given in tlie muti- 
lated form of 11^.) 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 Hight, from the words, "they arose 
out of Midian " (ver. 18). Thenius {Comm. in 
loc.) surmises that the reading has been corrupted 

from ^"127^ to ^^T^j and that the place intended 
is Jfaon, i. e. the regidence for the time being 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 MoSiava of Ptol. vi. 7, § 2: some 
of the MSS. of the LXX. supply the words t^j 
■n-6\€0}s before MaSidfi. I'haraoh, the predecessor 
of Solomon's father-in-law, treated him kiiully, 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 be 
gained the sovereignty over Syria (ver. 25). The 
LXX., however, refers the whole of ver. 25 to him, 

and sub.stitutes for C"^S (Syi-ia), 'ESdfx (f-dom). 
This reduces the whole to a consistent and intel- 
ligible narrative. Hadad, according to this account, 
succeeded in his attempt, and carried on a border 
warfare on the Israelites from his own territory. 
Josephus (Aril. viii. 7, § 6) retains the reading 
Syria, and represents Hadad as having failed in 
his attempt on Idumtea, and then having joined 
Kezon, from whom he received a portion of Syria. 
If the present text is correct, the concluding words 
of ver. 25 must l>e referred to Kezon, and be con- 
sidered- as a repetition in an am])lified form of the 
concluding words of the previous verse. 

W. L. n. 

HADADE'ZER ("iTyiin : S 'ASpaa^ip, 
in both MSS.: [in 1 K',' I?oni.'ASo5tV<p; '^'»''- 
Af paSpaCapi Alex. ASaSf^fp: Adnreztr]), 2 Sam. 
viii. 3-li; 1 K. xi. 23. [Hadaue/.ki!.] 

HA'DAD-RIM'MON Q^fi-I 17 T [««« 
infra]: Kontrhi Pouvoi'. Adndremmon) is, accord- 

A. V. Is derived from Mic- I,XX. ,;? anil the Vulgate " "The Initial letter is diffprent from that of th« 
•</. S'ee .leroine's explanation, '■ ad petmm, id e«t, ad ' names whioh follow. The proper aisUuctiou would to 
aUuiuiiiai Icx'Uiii," in lilii Ciiitrst. Hcbr. ad loc. ChiLdad and Iladod. H 


Sig to the ordinary interpretation of Zech. xii. 11, 
ft place in the valley of Megiddo, named after two 
Syrian idoU, where a national lamentation was held 
for the death of king Josiah in the last of the four 
great battles (see Stanley, S. cf- P. Lx.) which have 
made the plain of Esdraelon famous in Hebrew 
history (see 2 K. xxiii. 29 ; 2 Chr. xxxv. 23 ; Jo- 
seph. Ant. X. 5, § 1). The LXX. translate the 
word "pomegranate;" and the Greek commenta- 
tors, using that version, see here no reference to 
Josiah. Jonathan, the Chaldee interpreter, fol- 
lowed by Jarchi, understands it to be the name of 
the son of king Tabrimon who was opposed to 
Aliab at Kamoth-Gilead. But it has been taken 
for the place at which Josiah died by most inter- 
preters since Jerome, who states {Comin. in Zach.) 
that it was the name of a city which was called in 
his time Maximianopolis, 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 planctu Hadadr. in the 
Nov. Thes. TheoL-phil. i. 101. W. T. B. 

HA'DAE, ("lin [perh. chnmhtr]: XoSSaj/: 
Hadar), a sou of Ishmael (Gen. xxv. 15); written 
in 1 Chr. 1. 30 ffadad (1171 : XouSdv, [Alex. 
Xo55o5 :] Hadad) ; but Gesenius supiwses the for- 
mer to be the true reading of the name. It has 
not been identified, 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 contain traces of the Ish- 
maelite tribe sprung from Hadar. The mountain 
Hadad, belonging to Ttyma [Tema] on the bor- 
ders of the Syrian desert, north of Jil-Afedeenelt, is 
perhaps the most likely to be correctly identified 
with the ancient dwellings of this tribe; it stands 
among a group of names of the sons of Ishmael, 
containing Dumah {Doomah), Kedar (Keyddr), 
and Tema ( Teymd). E. S. P. 

2- ("^IlT [perh. omnment, honor'], with a dif- 
ferent aspirate to [from] the preceding : 'ApdS vlhs 
BapdS, Alex. Apad: Ada)-). 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 wfe, are given. In the parallel list in 1 
Chr. i. [50] he appears as H.adad. We know 
from another source (1 K. xi. 1-1, &c.) that Hadad 
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 Hadar 
being correct in the present case : its isolation is 
probably a proof that it is a diflferent name from 
the others, however similar. 

HADARE'ZER (1T?11l7 b^'hose help is 
Hadad, Ges.] : 'ASpoaCap; Alex. ASpa(ap, [and 
GOgenr. Aid. FA.; Comp. genr. 'ASaSeCfp:] Adar- 
ezcr), sou of Kehob (2 Sam. viii. 3); the king of 
the Aramite state of Zobah, who, while on his way 
to " estabUsh his dominion " at the Euphrates, was 
overtaken by Darid, defeated vfith great loss both 
of charicts, horses, and men (1 Chr. xviii. 3, 4), 
uid driven with the remnant of his force to the 
Dther side of the river (xix. 16). The golden 

irea|K>n3 captured on this occasion (ISvK"', A. V. 


"shields of gold"), a thousand in numlter, wen 
taken by David to Jerusalem (xviii. 7), and ded- 
icated to Jehovah. The foreign aniia were pre- 
sened in the Temple, and were long known as king 
David's (2 Chr. xxiii. 9; Cant. iv. i). [Arsis; 
Shelet, p. 162.] 

Not daunted by this defeat, Hadarezer seized au 
early opportunity of attempting to revenge himself; 
and after the first repulse of the Ammonites and 
their SjTian allies by Joab, he sent his army to 
the assistance of his kindred the people of Maachah, 
Rehob, 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 

captain of the host (SS^Jn ~1C27) they crossed 
the Euphrates, joined the other Syrians, and en- 
camped at a place called IIelaji. 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 horse-soldiers 
killed, the petty sovereigns who had before been 
subject to Hadarezer submitted themselves to Da- 
«d, and the great Sjrian confederacy was, for the 
time, at an end. 

But one of Hadarezer's more immediate retain- 
ers, Rezon ben-Eliadah, made his escape from the 
army, and gathering rouTid him some fugitives Uke 
himself, formed them into one of those marauding 
ravaging "bands" (7^72) which found a con- 
genial refuge in the thinly peopled districts between 
the Jordan and the Euphrates (2 K. v. 2; 1 Chr. 
v. 18-22). ilaking their way to Damascus, thej 
possessed themselves of the city. Kezon 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 Israel " 
. . . "he abhorred Israel" (1 K. xi. 23-25). 

In the narrative of David's Syrian campaign in 
2 Sam. viii. 3-12 this name is given as Hadad-ezer, 
and also in 1 K. xi. 23. liut in 2 Sara, 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. 

HAD'ASHAH (HliJiq [neto, Ges.] : 'A8- 
ao-dv, Alex. ASaaa' Hudassa), one of the towns 
of Judah, in the Shefelah or maritime low-country, 
named between Zenan and Migdal-gad, in the sec- 
ond group (Josh. XV. 37 only). By p:usebius it is 
spoken of as lying near "Taphna,'' j. e. Gophna. 
But if by this Eusebius intends the well-known 
Gophna, there must be some error, as Gophna was 
several miles noith of Jerusalem, near the direct 
north road to Nadltis. No satisfactory reason pre- 
sents itself why Hadashah should not be the Adasa 
of the Maccabrean history. Hitherto it has eluded 
discovery in modern times. G. 

* HADES. [Dead, The ; Deep, The ; 

HADAS'SAH (H^in [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 "Aroaaa, th# 
name of the daughter of Cyrus. 


HADATTAH {'nPiin, [new] : 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. 
sv. 25); but the Masoret accents of the Hebrew 
connect the word with that preceding it, as if it 
were Hazor-chadattali, i. e. New Hiizor, in distinc- 
tion from the place of the same name in ver. 2.}. 
This reading is expressly sanctioned by Eiiseliius 
and Jerome, who speak ( Oiiom. •' Asor ") of " New 
Hiizor " as lying in their day to the east of and 
near Ascalon. (See also Keland, p. 708.) But 
Ascalon, as Robinson has pointed out (ii. 34, note), 
is in the Sheftlnh, 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. Tristram {Laud of hrael, p. 310, 2d ed.) 
speaks of some ruins in the south of Judah, on a 
" brow southeast of ^Vady Ztiwemth, which the 
Arabs said was called Ilodaddh."' He thinks it 
possible that the Hadattah of Joshua (xv. 25) may 
have been there. H. 

HA'DID n"'"Tn, sharp, possibly fttim its sit- 
uation on some craggy eminence, Ges. Thes. 440: 
'A5(S [_'■ by comb, with preceding name, in Ezr., 
Ao5o5t, Vat. Ao5apa)0, Alex. \vMuiv AoSaSiS : in 
Neh. vii., Ao5a5i5, Vat. FA. Ao5o5<o; in Neh. xi., 
LXX. omit:] Undid), a place named, with Lod 
(Lydda) and Ono, only in the later books of the 
history (I'!zr. ii. 33; Neh. vii. 37, xi. 34), but yet 
BO as to imply its earlier existence. In the time 
of Eusebius {Onom. "Adlthaim") a towai called 
Aditha, or Adatha, existed to the east of Diospolis 
(Lydda). This was probably Hadid. The Adida 
of the Maccabaean history cannot be the same place, 
a.s it is distinctly specified as in the maritime or 
Philistine plain further south — " Adida in Sephe- 
la" (1 Mace. xii. 38) — with which agi'ces the de- 
scription of Josephus {Ant. xiii. C, § 5). About 
three miles east of Ludd stands a village called el- 
Hadithth, marked in Van de Velde's map. This 
is described by the old Jewish traveller ha-Parchi 
a-s being " on the summit of a round hill," and 
identified by him, no doubt correctly, with Hadid. 
See Zunz, in Asher's I^enj. of Titdda, ii. 439. 


HADTiAI [2 syl.] C^b^n [resHnff or keeping 
holiday] : 'EASai; [Vat. Xoa5;] Alex. ASSi: Adali), 
a man of J'-phraim ; father of Amasa, who was one 
of the chiefs of the tribe in the reign of Pekah 
(2 Chr. xxviii. 12). 

HADO'RAM (D"l'l"in [possibl^- fre-wor- 
shippers: see Fiirst] : '05o/5(ia; [Alex. lapoS, 
KeSoupoi/; (Jump. 'Obopfid/ji, 'iSoopd/j.--] Adumm, 
[Adoram]), the fifth son of Joktan (Gen. x. 27; 
1 Chr. i. 21). His settlements, unlike those of 
many of Joktiui's sons, have not been identified, 
bochart sup|x)sed that the Adramitae represented 
Lis descendants; but afterwards lielieved, as later 
critics have also, that this [leople was the same as 
the (.'hatramotitip, or peojile of Hadraniiiwt {Pha- 
kff, ii. c. 17). [ILvzAHMAVKTii.] Fresnel cites 

a • De Wctte'H translation of these yerses (Die 
Heilige Schri/I. 1S58), ii> more literal, and certainly 
more Intelil(^l)lo : (1) " Utterance of the word of Je- 
hovah again.Ht the land lladrach, and upon DamftscuR 
it CjinoR down (for .lehovah has an e.vo upon men, 
md all the tribes of Israel); (2) and also against 


an Arab author who identifies Hadoram with Jttr 
hum (4"'« Lettre, Jonrn. Asiotique, iii« s^rie, vi. 
220); but this is highly improbable; nor is the 
suggestion of Iladhoarii, by C'aussin {Essai, i. 30) 
more likely : the latter being one of the aborigina. 
tribes of Arabia, such as 'A'd, Thamood, etc. 
[Akabia.] E. S. p. 

2. (C^hiq: 'ASoypa^; [Vat. ISovpaafi; FA. 
ISoupafx:] Alex. Aovpa/x'- Adoram), son of Tou or 
Toi king of Hamath; his father's ambassador to 
congratulate David on his victory over Hadarezer 
king of Zobah (1 Chr. xviii. 10), and the bearer of 
valual)le presents in the form of articles of antique 
manufacture (Joseph.), in gold, silver, and Ijrass. 
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 {Ant. vii. 5, § 4) 
it is given as 'ASupa/xos. 

3. {WyVl: 6 'ASwvipdfii [Vat. -1/61-;] Alex. 
ASaipa/j.: Aduram.) The form assumed in Chron- 
icles by the name of the inteiidant of taxes under 
David, Solomon, and Kehoboam, who lost his life 
in the re^■olt at Shechem after the coronation of the 
last-named prince (2 Cbr. x. 18). He was sent by 
Kehoboam to appease the tumult, possibly 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 ineflectual, 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 Adomkam, but in Samuel (2 Sam. 
XX. 24) as Adokam. By Josephus, in both tli( 
first and last case, he is called 'AStipa/xos. 

HA'DRACH i'^'p.n [see infra]: ^eSpdx . 
[Alex. 2,eSpaK; Aid. with 13 MSS. 'ASpdx-] ll»'l- 
rach), 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 lladrach, 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 tli^ 
district, with its borders, is here generally stated, 
although it does not appear, as is commonly 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 
still remains unknown. It is true that R. 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 (CJ\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 acceiitance. Those of 
Movers {Phi>niz.),'> Bleek, and others are purely 

llamath which bordei-s thereon, Tyre and Sidon : tot 
it is very wLso " (comp. Ez. xxviii. 3 IT.). H. 

b • Jlovers does not propose any Iwal identification 
(if that be meant here), but supposes Adark, an Assyr- 
ian war-god {Pliihiiz. i. 478), to be intended. Kor 
Blcek's theory, see above B- 


hypotlietical, and the same must be said of the 
theory of Alphens [Van Alphen], in his monograph 
De terra Hadrach et Damasco (Traj. Eh. 1723, 
referred to by Winer, s. v.). A solution of tlie 
difficulties surrounding the name may perhaps be 
found by supposing that it is derived from H.vdar. 
E. S. P. 
* Another conjecture may be mentioned, namely, 
that Hadrach is the name of some Syrian king 
otherwise unknown. It was not uncommon for 
heathen kings to bear the names of their gods. 
Gesenius (T/iesaur. i. 449) favors this opinion after 
Bleek. (See Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 268.) 
Vaihinger argues for it, and attempts to show that 
the Icing in question may have been the one who 
reigned between Benhadad III. and Rezin, about the 
time of Uzziah and Jeroboam II. (See Herz. Real- 
Eiicyk. v. i-to. ) The data are insufficient for so defi- 
nite a conclusion. Hengstenberg adopts the Jewish 
symbolic explanation, namely, that Hadrach (de- 
rived from in and IT^ = strong-weak) denotes 
the Persian kingdom as destined, according to pro- 
phetic aimouncement, notwithstanding its power, 
to be utterly overthrown. Winer {Bibl. Renltv. 
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 
Chrlstology of the 0. T., iii. 371 ff. (trans. Edinb. 
1858). ' H. 

HA'GAB (rjSn [locust]: 'Ayd^: Hagab). 
Bene-Hagab [sons of Hagab] were among the Ne- 
thiuim who returned from Babylon with Zerubba- 
bel (Ezr. ii. 46). In the parallel list in Nehemiah, 
tliis and the name preceding it are omitted. In 
the Apocryphal Esdras [v. 30] it is given as 

HAG'ABA (^*?30 ■ 'Aya/Ja; [Alex. Ayya- 
jSaO Ilagaba). 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 (HaDq [locust] : "Aya/ScJ : 
H(ignba), under which it is found in the parallel 
list of Ezr. ii. 45. In Esdras it is given as Gr.vba. 

HA'GAR (~l2n [flighty. "Ayap: Agar), m\ 
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 0. T. and in the N. T. (in the latter 
as part of her typical character) ; and the condition 
of a slave was one essential of her position as a 
legal concubine. It is recorded that " when she 
saw that she had conceived, her mistress was des- 
pised in her eyes " (4), and Sarah, with the anger, 
we may suppose, of a free woman, rather than of a 
wife, reproached Abraham for tlie results of her 
own act : " Jly \vrong be upon thee : I have given 
my 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 
h'llf-sister; and with the apparent want of purpose 



n It seems to be unnecessary to assume (as Kalisch 
jes. Comment, on Genesis) that we have here another 
roof of Abraham's faith. This e.xplanatioa of the 

that he before displayed in Egypt, and afterwards 
at the court of Abimelech « (in contrast to his f.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 Barely given; nor can 
we think, from the unchangeableness of eastern cus- 
toms, and the strongly-marked national character 
of those 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 face,'' turning her ste))s 
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 Lx)rd 
found her, charged her to return and submit herself 
under the hands of her mistress, and delivered the 
remarkable prophecy respecting her unborn child, 
recorded in ver. 10-12. [Isiimael.] " 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 [i. e. lived] after vision [of God]? 
Wherefore the well was called Bkkh-lahai-koi" 
(13, 14). On her return, Hagar gave birth to 
Ishmael, and Abraham was then eighty-six yeare 

Mention is not again made of Hagar in the his- 
tory of Abraham until the feast at the weaning of, 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 cliild 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 the voice 
of the lad, and the angel of God called to Hagar 
out of heaven, and said unto her. What aileth thee, 
Hagar ? Fear not, for God hath heard the voice of 
the lad where he [is]. Arise, lift up the 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 oarrative appear to 
warrant it, unless Abraham regarded Hagar's son M 
the heir of the promise : ;omp. Oen. xvii. IS. 

978 HAGAR 

the assumption of its being a myth). "Das Ereig- 
niss ist so eiiifach urid den orientalischen Sitten so 
an^emessen, das wir liier gewiss eine rein histor- 
ische Saf;e vor uns halien " (litalwort. s. v. 
" Ilagar "). 

The name of Hagar occurs elsewhere only when 
she takes a wife to Islimael (xxi. 21), and in the 
genealogy (xxv. 12). St. i'aul refers to her as the 
type of the old covenant, likening her to Mount 
Sinai, the Mount of the Law (Gal. iv. 22 if.). 

In Mohammedan tradition Ilagar (wSfcLiCj 

H;ijir, or Hiigir) 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 Mohammed. In the same 
manner she is said to ha\e dwelt and been buried 
at Mekkeh, and the well Zemzem in the sacred in- 
cisure of the temple of Mekkeh is pointed out by 
the Muslims 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 14 ft'. Dean Stanley very prop- 
erly calls attention to this trait of the patriarchal 
history as illustrated in this instance, as well .as 
others. (Jeicish Church, i. 40 ff.) See also, on 
this characteristic of these early records, Blunt's 
Veracity of the Bmks of ^[ofes. Hess brings out 
impressively this feature of the Bible in his 6' 
ichichte de'r Patriarchen (2 I5de. Tiibing. 1785). It 
appears from Gal. iv. 24, where Paul speaks of the 
dissensions in Abniham's family, that the jealousy 
between IIagar"s .son and the heir of promise pro- 
ceeded much further than the 0. T. relates, liii- 
etschi has a brief article on " H.agar" in Herzog"s 
Rt'd-Kncyk. v. 4G9 f. Ur. AVilliams {Holy City, 
i. 463-408) inserts an extended account of the sup- 
posed discovery by Mr. Rowlands of Beer-lahai-roi, 
the well in the desert, at which, after her expulsion 
from the house of Abr.aham, 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 Egypt, and is called AfvUuhhi (more 
correctly Muweilih, says Riietschi), the name being 
regarded as the same, except in the first syllable the 
change of Beer. " well," for jlfoi, " water." Near 
it is also found an elaborate excavation in the rocks 
which the Arabs call Beil-fl(i(/<tr, i. e. "house 
of Hagar." Keil and Delitzsch (in Gen. xvi. 14) 
incline to adopt this identification. Knobel {Gen- 
esis, p. 147) is lesi?. decided. Dr. Uobinson's note 
(Bibl. Res., 2d ed. i. 18!)) throws some discredit on 
the accuracy of this report. 

Hagar occurs in Gal. iv. 25 (T. R. & A. V.), 
not as a personal name (fj "Ayap), but as a word 
or local name (rh "Ayap) applied to Mount Sinai 
in Arabia. The Arabic %3t, pronounced very 

much like this name, means a "stone," and m.ay 
have been in use in the neighborhood of Sinai as 
one of its local designations. (See Meyer on Gal. 
iv. 2.5). There is no testimony that the mount 
was so called out of this passage; but aa I'.wald 
remarks respecting this point {Ndchti-inj in 1 
Sewhchreihtn iles Ajxistch, p. 40.'} ff.), Paul is so 
much the less to be charged witii an ern)r here 
Uufimuck u he himself hiul travelled in that part 


of Arabia, and as an apostle, had remained thew • 
long time." (See Gal. i. 17 f.) Some conjecture 
that this name was transfeired to the mountain from 
an Araiiian town so called, where, according to one 
account, Hagar is said to have been buried. But, 
on the other hand, it is not certain that rb "Ayap 
really belongs to the Greek text, though the weight 
of critical opinion affirms it (see Meyer, in loc). 
The questions both as to the origin of the name 
and the gen\iineness of the reading are .carefully 
examined in Lightfoot's Commenliuy on Galatians 
(pp. 178, 18IJ ff. 2d ed.), though perhaps he un- 
derstates the testimony for rh"Ayap. H. 

C^S^~]3n : 'Ayapr)voi, 'AyapaTot, [etc. :] ^17^- 
reni, Aijiirei), a people dwelling to the east of Pal- 
estine, with whom the tribe of Reuben made war 
in the time of Saul, and " who fell by their hand, 
and they dwelt in their tents throughout all 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 with 
the Ilagarites, with Jetur, and Nephish, and No- 
dab, and they were helped against them, and the 
llagaritea were delivered into their hand, and all 
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 
teiTitory occupied by them, was complete, for the 
Israelites " dwelt in their ste.ids until the Captivity " 
(ver. 22). The same people, as confederate against 
Israel, are mentioned in Ps. Ixxxiii. : " The tab- 
ernacles of Edom and the Ishuiaehtes; of Moab 
and the Hagarenes; Gebal, Amnion, and Amalek; 
the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; .Xssur 
also is joined with them; they have holpen the 
children of Lot" (ver. G-8). 

Who these [jeople were is a question that eannot 
readily be decided, though it is generally believed 
that they were named after H.agar. Their geo- 
graphical position, as inferred from the al)Ove 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 
Ghr. V. 1!)), as before quoted, with that of Nodah, 
whom Gesenius supposes to be another son (though 
he is not found in the genealogical lists, and must 
remain doubtful [NooAu]), seems to indicate that 
these ll.agarenes were named after Hagar; but in 
the passage in Ps. Ixxxiii., the Ishmaelites are ap- 
parently distinguished from the Hagarenes (cf. Bar. 
iii. 2.3). May they have been thus called after a 
town or district named after Hagar, and not only 
because they were her descendants V It is needless 
to follow the suggestion of some writers, that Ilagar 
may have bi-en the mother of other children after 
her sejiaration from .Vbraham (as the Bible 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 Ihrjer (the inhaliitants of which 
were ])robal)ly the same as the .\gnri of Stralx), xvi. 
p. 707, Dionys. Perieg. 950, Plin. vi. 32. and Pfol. 
V. 1!), 2) rei)rcsent the ancient name and a dwell- 
ing of the Hagarenes; but it is reasonable to 8U{)- 

pose that they do. Ilejer, or Ilejera ( vJSXtf,, accor jing to Yiikoot, Musfitiirak, s. v , 

but also, according to Kdmoo$. 



»nd Winer write it), is the capital town, and also 
» subdivision of the province of northeastern 
Arabia called El-Balnryv, or, as some writers say, 
the name of the province itself {Mjishtarak and 
Mardsid., s. v.), on the borders of the I'ersian Gulf. 
It is a low and fertile country, frequented for its 
abundant water and pasturage by the wandering 
tribes of the neighboring deserts and of the high 
land of Nejd. For the Agr»i, see the Dictionary 
of Geography. There is another Hejer, a pla<;e 
near El-Medeeneh. 

on the borders 

■Die district of Hajar ( w^ ) 
of Desert Arabia, north of El-Medeeneh, has been 
thought to possess a trace, in its name, of the Ha- 
garenes. It is, at least, less likely than Hejer to 
do so, both from situation and etymology. The 
tract, however, is curious from the caves that it is 
reported to contain, in which, say the Arabs, dwelt 
the old tribe of Thamood. 

Two Hagarites are mentioned in the 0. T. : see 
MiBHAR and Jaziz. E. S. P. 

HA'GERITE, THE 0")?nn : (, 'Ayapirm; 
[Vat. ropeiTTjy:] Agareits). Jaziz the Hagerite, 
t. e. the descendant of Hagar, had the charge of 

David's sheep (^SIJ, A. V. " flocks; " 1 Chr. xxvii. 
31). The word appears in the other forms of Ha- 
UAKITES and Hagarenes. 

HAG'GAI [2syl.] (^3n [festivey.'KyyoTios; 
[Sin. Kyyeos in Hag., except inscription, and so 
Alex, in tlie inscr. of Ps. cxlv.-cxlviii. :] Afjffmis), 
the tenth in order of the mino? prophets, and first 
of those who prophesied after the Captivity. With 
regard to his tribe and parentage both history and 
tradition are alike silent. Some, indeed, taking 

in its literal sense the expression nirT^ TJS/D 
{ninlac yUwvdh) in i. 13, have imagined that he 
was an angel in human shape (.Jerome, Cumm. in 
loc). In the absence of any direct evidence on 
the point, it is more than 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 tliat 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 
(b. c. 535), was suspended during the reigns of 
his successors, Carabyses and Pseudo-Smerdis, in 
consequence of the determined hostility of the Sa- 
maritans. On the accession of Darius Hystaspis 
(b. c. 521), the prophets Haggai and Zechariah 
urged the renewal of the undertaking, and obtained 
the permission and assistance of the king (Ezr. v. 
1, vi. 1-i; Joseph. Ant. xi. 4). Animated by the 
high courage {magni spiritus, Jerome) of these de- 
voted men, the people prosecuted tlie work with 
vigor, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 
the sixth year of Darius (b. c. 51G). According to 
tradition, Haggai was born in Babylon, was a young 
man when he came to Jerusalem, and was buried 
with honor near the sepulchres of the priests (Isidor. 
Hispal. c. 49 ; Pseudo-Dorotheus, in Chvon. Pasch. 
'51 d). It has hence been conjectured that he was 
if priestly rank. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, 
iccording to the Jewish writers, were the men who 
ipere with Daniel when he saw the vision related 
ji Dan. X. 7; and were after the Captivity mem- 
>er8 of the Great Synagogue, which consisted of 
120 elders ( C '.-t, in'. 65). The Seder Olani Zula 


places their death in the 52d year of the Mode* 
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, Introd.). In 
the Roman Martyrology Hosea and Haggai are 
joined in the catalogue of'saints {Ada Sanctor. 
4 Julii). The question of Haggai's probable con- 
nection with the authorship of the book of Ezra 
will be found fully discussed in the article under 
that head, pp. 805, 806. 

The names of Haggai and Zechariah are asso- 
ciated in the LXX. in the titles of Ps. 137, 14&- 
148; in the Vulgate in those of Ps. Ill, 145; and 
in the Peshito Syriac in those of Ps. 125, 126, 145, 
146, 147, 148. It may be that tradition assigned 
to these prophets the arrangement of the above- 
mentioned psalms for use in the temple service, just 
as Ps. Ixiv. is in the Vulgate attributed ta Jere- 
miah and Ezekiel, and the name of the former is 
inscribed at the head of Ps. cxxxvi. in the LXX. 
According to Pseudo Epiphanius {de 1 'itis Proph. ), 
Haggai was the first who chanted the Hallelujah 
in the second temple: "wherefore," he adds, "we 
say ' Hallelujah, which is the hymn of Haggai 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 lixclus. xlix. 11 (cf. Hag. 
ii. 23) and Heb. xii. 26 (Hag. ii. 0). 

The style of his writing is generally tame and 
prosaic, though at times it rises to the dignity of 
severe invective, when the prophet rebukes his 
countrymen for their selfish indolence and neglect 
of God's house. But the brevity of the prophecies 
is so great, and the poverty of expression which 
characterizes them so striking, as to give rise to a 
conjecture, not without reason, that in their present 
form they are but the outline or summary of the 
original discourses. They were delivered in the 
second j'ear of Darius Hystaspis (b. c. 520), at 
Intervals from the 1st day of the 6th 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 
eflTorts 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 their 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 God's presence (i. 
13), and twenty- four days after the building was 
resumed. A month had scarcely elapsed when the 
work seqms to have slackened, and the enthusiasm 
of the people aljated. The 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. 3-9). Yet the people 
were still inactive, and ttvo months afterwards we 
find him again censuring their sluggishness, which 
rendered worthless all their ceremonial observances. 
But the rebuke was accompanied by a repetition 
of the promise (ii. 10-19). On the *ame duy, thf 



foiir-and-tweiiticth of the ninth month, the prophet 1 
delivered liis last prophec}', addressed to Zerubbal)el, 
prince of Judah, the representative of the royal 
tamily of David, and as such the lineal ancestor of 
the Messiah. This closing prediction foreshadows 
the establishment of the Messianic kingdom upon 
Jie overthrow of the thrones of the nations (ii. 
20-23). W. A. AV. 

* For the later esegetical works on the prophets 
which include Haggai, see under Habakkuk. 
Keil gives a list of the older commentaries or mon- 
ographs in his Lehrb. der hut. hit Einl. in d. 
A. T. p. 308 (2te Aufl.). Oehler treats of the 
prophet's personal history in Herzog's Rml-Encyk. 
\. 471 f. Bleek (Kinl. in dns A. Ttst. p. 549) 
agrees with those (Ewald, Hiivemick, Keil) who 
think that Haggai hved long enough to see both 
the first and the second temples. On the Mes- 
sianic passage of this prophet (ii. C-9), the reader 
may consult, in addition to the commentators, 
Hengstenberg, Christoloyy of the 0. T. iii. 243- 
271 (Keith's trans.); Hasse, Geschichte des Alten 
Bundes, p. 203 ff. ; Smith, J. P., Scripture Tes- 
timony to the Messiah, i. 283 ff. (5th ed. Lond. 
1859); and Tholuck, Die Propheten u. ihre Weis- 
$agungen (2ter Abdnick), p. 156, a few words only. 


HAG'GERI ("'l^r, i- e- Hagri, allagarite: 
'Ayapi; [Vat. FA. -pei\] Alex. Arapoi': Agnrai). 
" MiHUAK 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. 30 — has " Bani the Gadite " (''"TSn). This 
Kennicott decides to have been the original, from 
which I lagged has been corrupted {Dissert, p. 
214). The Targum has Bar Gedd (SI? "12). 

HAG'GI C'Sn [festive] : 'Ayyt's, Alex. A7- 
yfts; [in Num., 'A771, Vat. -761:] U^i/Uh ^^ff.'P): 
second son of Gad (Gen. xlvi. 10; Num. xxvi. 15), 

founder of the Haggites C'ann). It will be ob- 
served that the name, though given as that of an 
individual, is really a patronymic, precisely the same 
as of the family. 

HAGGI'AH (n*3n [festival of .Jehovah] : 
'Ayyia; [Vat. A/xa:] JInggin), a Lcvite, one of 
the descendants of ISIerari (1 Chr. vi. 30). 

HAG'GITES, THE O^HTl : 6 'Ayyl ; 
[Vat. -7€i:] Agitce), the famrly sprung from 
Haggi, second son of Gad (Num. xxvi. 15) 

HAG'GITH {n^lT}, a dancer: 'AyylB; 
Alex. *s«'7ie, A710, [A7€(0,] A77610; [Vat. *e7- 
7eie, A77eie;] .Joseph. 'A771OTJ: Haggilh, Ag- 
gilli), one of David's wives, of whom nothing is 
told us except tliat she was the mother of Adonijah, 
who is commonly designated as "the soaof llag- 
gith" (2 Sam. iii. 4: 1 K. i. 5, 11, ii. 13; 1 Chr. 
iii. 2). He was, like Absalom, renowned for hi.s 
handsome presence. In the first and last of the 
above passages Ilaggith is fourth in order of men- 
tion among the wives, Adonijah being aUo fourth 
Hnong the sons. His birth happened at Hebron 
(2 Sam. iii. 2, 5) shortly aftc that of Absalom (1 
K. i. 6 ; where it will be observed that the words 
"his mother" are inserted by the translators). 

HA'GIA ('A7i(£ ['A7<a, Bofi, Holmes & Par- 
loas]: Aggia). 1 I'jidr. v. M. [IlArrii,.! 


HA' I OVn [the stone-heap, or iidns]: 'Ay 
yai'. Ilai). The form in which the well-known 
l)lace A I 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, 
•ecognized 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 the 
abo^■e two passages, the name is given in the first 
Ainah, and in the second Cephrak, as if Cephi- 

RAH. G. 

*HAIL. [Plagues, The Ten; Snow.] 

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 

raven," of youth (Cant. v. 11), or in the 

" crown of glory " that encircled the head of old 

e (Prov. xvi. 31). The customs of ancient na- 
tions in regard to tlie hair varied considerably : the 
Egyptians allowed the women to wear it long, but 
kept the heads of men closely shaved from early 
childhood (Her. ii. 30, iii. 12; Wilkinson's Ancient 
ians, ii. 327, 328). The Greeks admired 

Grecian manner of wearing the hair. (Ilope"s Cos- 

long hair, whether in men or women, as is evi- 
denced in the expression KapriKOfiiaivrfs 'Axaioi, 
and in the representations of their divinities, es- 
pecially Bacchus and Apollo, whose long locks were 
a symbol of perpetual youth. The Assyrians also 
wore it long (Her. i. W5), the flowing curls being 
o-athcred together in a hea^'y cluster on the back, 
as represented in tlie sculptures of Nineveh. The 
Hebrews, on the other hand, while they encouraged 
the growth of hair, obsened the natural dis- 
tinction between the sexes by allowing the women 
to wear it long (Luke vii. 38; .lohn xi. 2; 1 Cor. 
xi. 6 ff.), 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 Egyptians, arose no doubt 
partly from natural taste, but partly also from legal 
enactments. Clipping the hair in a certain manner 
and offering the locks, in early times connected 
with religious worship. Many of the Arabians 
practiced a peculiar tonsure in honor of tlieir (Jod 
Orotid (Her. iii. 8, KeipovTai TrfpiTpSxo-^a, ■"■»* 
pi^vpovvrfs Tovs Kpord(pous), and hence the He- 
brews were foHiidden to " round the comers (HSG, 
lit. the extremity) of their heads" (Lev. xix. 27), 
meaning the locks along the forehead and temples, 
and l)ehind the ears. This tonsure is described in 
the LXX. by a peculiar expression fftaSr) (= the 
classical ffKd<pioi>), probably derived from the He- 
brew n"'^"'^ (comp. Bochart, Can. i. 6, p. 379). 
That the practice of the Arabi.ins was well known 
to the Hebrews, appears from the expressioB 
nSQ ^!l^!Jp, roundid at to the bcks, by wh'jh 


they arc descril^d (Jer. ix. 26; xxv. 23; xlix. 32; 

fee marginal translation of the A. V.)- The pro- 
biliition against cutting off the hair on the death 
af a relatise (Deut. xiv. 1^ was piobably grounded 
on a similar reason. In addition to tliese regula- 
tions, the Hebrews dreaded baldness, as it was fre- 
quentl}' the result of leprosy (Lev. xiii. 40 ff. ), and 
hence formed one of the disqualifications for the 
priesthood (Lev. xsi. 20, LXX.). [Baldness.] 
The rule imposed upon the priests, and probably 
followed by the rest of the community, was that 
the hair should be polled (DDS, Ez. xliv. 20), 
neither being shaved, nor allowed to grow too long 
(Lev xxi. 5; Ez. I. c). What was the precise 
length usually worn, we have no means of ascer- 
taining; but from various expressions, sucli as 

tt?Ml V}^, lit. to let loose the head or the hair 
(= solvere crines, Virg. ^n. iii. 65, xi. 3.5 ; deniis- 
sos lugentis more capillos, Ov. Ep. 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 (of. Ez. xxiv. 17); and 
again I^S 71^2, to uncover the ear, previous to 
making any communication of importance (1 Sam. 
KX. 2, 12, xxii. 8, A. V., margin), as though the 
hair fell o\er the ear, we may conclude that men 
wore their hair somewhat longer than is usual with 

as. The word 37^3, used as = hair (Xum. vi. 5; 
Ez. xliv. 20), is especially indicative of its fret 
yrnwtJi (cf. Knobel, Comni. iu Lev. xxi. 10). I>oiig 
tiair was admired in the case o£ young men ; it is 
esjiecially noticed in the description of Absalom's 
person (2 Sam. siv. 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 Observations, iv. 321), the more probable 

being that the numeral "2 (20) has been turned into 

"I (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 
same authority {Ant. viii. 7, § 3, fxT]Ki(TTav Kadei- 
U-evoi xi'Vas). The care requisite to keep the hair 
ill order in such cases must ha\e 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, Exercit. on 1 Cor. xi. 14), 
and was practiced by the Nazarites (Num. vi. 5; 
Judg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17; 1 Sam. L 11), and occa- 
sionally by others in token of special mercies (Acts 
xviii. 18); it was not unusual among the Egj'ptians 
when on a journey (Diod. i. 18). [Nazakite.] 
In times of affliction the hair was altogether cut oft' 
(Is. iii. 17, 24, xv. 2, xxii. 12; Jer. vii. 2U, xlviii. 
37; Am. viii. 10: Joseph. R. J. ii. 15, § 1), the 
practice of the Hebrews being in this respect the 
reverse of that of the Egyptians, who let their hair 
prow long in time of mourning (Herod, ii. 36), 
»'iaving their heads when the term was over (Gen. 
rli. 14); but resembling that of the Greeks, as fre- 
|uently noticed by classical writers (e. g. Soph. Aj. 
ri74; Eurip. Ekcir. 143, 241). Tearing the hair 
Ezr. ix. 3) and letting it go disheveled, as already 
wticed, were similar tokens of grief. [Mourning.] 
The practice of the modern Arabs in regard to the 
length of their hair varies; generally the men allow 
i to grow its natural length, the tresses hanging 

HAIR 981 

down to the breast and sometimes to the waist, af- 
fording substantial protection to the head and neck 
against the violence of the sun's ravs (Burckhardt'e 
Notes, 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 (line's Mod. 
Egypt, i. 52, 71). Wigs were commonly used by 
the latter people (Wilkinson, ii. 324), but not by 
the Hebrews: Josephus {Vit. § 11) notices an in- 
stance of false hair (Trept^err; K.6ya\) 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 
;\Iedes the wig was worn by the upper classes (Xen. 
Cyrop. 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, i. 5): a similar hue is probably in- 
tended by the jnirple of Cant. vii. 5, the term being 
broadly used (as the Greek iropcpvpfos in a similar 
application = jueAay, Anacr. 28). A fictitious hue 
was occasionally obtained by sprinkling gold-<lust 
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=7"'P'^3 (A. V. "crimson," margin) with- 
out good reason, though the similarity of the words 
may have suggested the subsequent reference to 
purple. 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 Romans, among whom it was com- 
mon (Aristoph. Eccles. 736; jMartial, 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 sprinkling 

(p'^'^, Hos. vii. 9 ; comp. a similar use of spargere, 
Propert. 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 ((iesen. and Hitzig), does not bear the 
sense of blossoming at all. Pure white hair wag 
deemed characteristic of the Divine Majesty (Dan. 
vii. 9; Rev. i. 14). 

The chief beauty of the hair consisted in curls, 
whether of a natural or artificial character. The 
Hebrew terms are highly expressive: to omit the 

word n!2^, — rendered "locks" in Cant. iv. 1, 
3, vi. 7, and Is. xlvii. 2, but more probably mean 
mg a veil, — we have C"^yJ^7ri (Cant. v. 11), 
properly pendulous flexible boughs (according to 

982 HAIR 

Jie IJfX , ixdrat the shoots of the palm-tiiw^ 
irhich supplied an image of the coma penduLi ; 

nS^!i (I-,z. viii. 3), a similar image borrowed from 
the cune of a blossom: \^2V (Cant. iv. 9), a lock 
falling over the shoulders like a chain of ear-pendants 
(in nno nine cuUi ttti, Vulg., which is better than 

the A. v., " with one chain of thy neck"); Cl^m 
(Cant. vii. 5, A. V. "galleries"), properly the 
channels by which water was brought to the flocks, 
which supplied an image either of the amin Jlutm, 
or of the regularity iii which the locks were ar- 
ranged; n-^"^ (Cant. vii. 5), again an expression 
for comii ptmlitla, borrowed from the threads hang- 
ing down from an unfinished woof; and lastly 
ntt'|7a TlbVip (Is. iii. 24, A. V. " well set 
hair "), i)roperly plaited work, i. e. gratefully curved 
locks. With regard to the mode of dressing the 
hair, we have no very precise information ; the 
terms usetl are of a general character, as of Jezebel 

(2 K. i.x. 30), :}l3"'ri, {. e. she (ulurned her head; 
of Judith (x. 3), ditra^e, i. e. airnmjtd (the A. V. 
has " braided," and the Vulg. diacrimiiKit-il, here 
used in a technical sense in the reference to the 
disa-iiniiKile or hair-pin); of Herod (Joseph. Ant. 

Xiv. 9, § 4), K(KOfffi1}fJi4vOS TTJ avvdfffii TTJS K6fi.7)S, 

and of those wiio adopted feminine fashions {B. J. 
iv. 9, § 10), nSpas ffwOeTt^Sfxtyot. 'l"he terms 
used in the N. T. (-KXiyixaaiv, 1 Tim. ii. 9; 
ffxir\oKris Tpixcov, 1 I't't- iii- •^) ^>"e also of a gen- 
eral character; Schleusner (Lex. s. v.) understands 
them of curUwj rather than plaiting. The arrange- 
ment of Samson's hair into seven locks, or more 

properly braids (mD /PJ'?) fro™ ^\2^i '** »"<«'- 

Egyptian Wlg^ (Wilkinson.) 
•Annqe: (rttpai, lA'X.; Judg. xvi. 13, 19), in- 
lOlTM the practice of plaiting, which was also 


familiar to the Egyptians (Wilkinson, ii. 335) aoA 
Greeks (llom. Jl. xiv. 170). The locks were prob- 
ably kept in their pkce by a fillet, as in llgj^i 
(AN'ilkinson, t. c). 

Ornaments were worked into the hair, as prac 
ticed by the modern I'Igyptians, who " add to each 
braid three black silk cords with little omanienu 
of gold " (I^ne, i. 71): the LXX. understands the 
term D'^D^^V.' (Is. iii. 18, A. V. "cauls"), as 
applying to such oniaments {^uTr\6Kia): Schrocder 
(de \\$l. Mul. Ihh. cap. 2) approves of this, and 
conjectures that they were sun-flu iped, i. e. circular, 
aa distinct from the " round tires like the mocn," 
J. e. the orescent-shaped ornaments used for neck- 
laces. The Arabian women attach small bells to 
the tresses of their hair (Niebuhr, V(»j"t/e, i. 133). 
Other terms, sometimes understood as applying 
to the hair, are of doubtful signification, e. y. 

□>p>~in (Is. iii. 22: acus : " crisping-pins " ), 

more probal)ly purses, as in 2 K. v. 23; C^'lp?!? 
(Is. iii. 20, "head-bands"), bridal yirdks, accord- 
ing to Schroeder and other authorities; C'^'ISC 
(Is. iii. 20, discnminalio, Vulg. i. e. pins used foi 
keeping the hair parted ; cf. Jerome in Eufin. iii. 
cap. ult.), more probably tvrbims. Combs and 
hair-pins are mentioned in the Talmud ; the Egyp- 
tian combs were made of wood and double, one side 
having large, and the other small teeth (Wilkinson, 
ii. 343); from the ornamental devices worked on 
them we may infer that they were worn in the hair. 
Witii reg.ird to other ornaments worn about the 
head, see Ili;.\i)-niu:ss. The Hebrews, Uke other 
nations of antiquity, anointed the hair profusely 
with ointments, which were generally compounded 
of various aromatic ingredients (liuth 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. Josepli. Ant. xix. 4, § 1, xpica^evoj fivpots 
tV Ke(t>aKt'}v, ws anh ffvvovfflas)- It is periiaps 
in relerence 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 Jews 
in our Saviour's time to swear by the hair (Matt. 
V. 30), much as the I^yptian women still swear by 
the side-lock, and the men by their beards (I^ajie;, 
i. 52, 71, notes). 

Hair was employed by the Hebrews as ar irnage 
of what was kast valwibh in man's person (1 Sam. 
xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 K. i. 52; Matt. x. Z>'j\ 
Luke xii. 7, xxi. 18; Acts xxvii. 34); as well r.. 
of what was innumtrabk (I's. xl. 12, Ixix. 4); or 
particularly _//«f (Judg. xx. 10). In Is. vii. 2v\ it 
represents the various productions of the field, tre^ 
crops, etc. ; like upos KfKOfiVf^tfov vKr) of ( allirn 
Dian. 41, or the Inimus coniniis of Stat. Tlub. v. 
502. Hair "as tiie hair of women " (liev. ix. 8), 
means long and inidressed hair, wiiicli in later 
times was regarded as an image of barbaric rude- 
ness (Hengstenberg, Comm. in Inc.). 

W. L. B. 

HAK'KATAN (^^rvL^ [d't small or r"^y]: 
'AKKaTdv, [Vat. AKarav] J.rnlou). Johanan, 
■on of Hakkntan, was the chief of tlie Hrne-.\zp«d 
[sons of A.] who rrturne*! from Hab^l(>n witli Kjira 
(Fj;r. viii. 12). The name is probiJily Katan, with 
the definite article prefixed. In tlie Apocrypha. 
i:8dras it is 


HAK'KOZ {t'^\^Tl llhe (horn] : 5 Kcis; 
[Comp.] Alex. 'AKKcis' Accos), a priest, the chief 
Df the seventh course in the service of the sanctuary, 
as appointed by David (1 Chr. xxiv. 10). In Ezr. 
[i. fil the name occurs again as that of a family of 
priests; though here the prefix is taken by our 
translators — and no doubt correctly — as the 
definite article, and the name appears as Koz. 
The same thing also occurs in Neh. iii. 4, 21. In 
Esdras Accoz. 

HAKU'PHA (MS^pn [bent, crooked, Ges. ; 
incitement, Fiirst] : 'AKov(pd, 'Axi^a ! [Vat. 
A<t>€iKa, Axei(pa; FA. in Neh., AKetcpa:] Hacu- 
pha). Bene-Chakupha [sons of C] were among 
the families of Nethinini who returned from. Baby- 
ion with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 51; Neh. vii. 53). 
In Esdras (1 Esdr. v. 31) the name is given as 


HA'LAH (nbq : 'A\a.e, Xac^x; [Alex. A\- 
Aae, AXae, Xa\a:] Hala, {Lahela]) is probably a 
different place from the Calah of Gen. x. 11. [See 
Calah.] It may with some confidence be identi- 
fied with the Chalcitis {XakKlTis) 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 Khabour, above its junction with the 
Jerujer (Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 312, note; 2 
K. [xvii. 6,] xviii. 11; 1 Chr. v. 26). G. K. 

HA'LAK, THE MOUNT (with the article, 
p7nrT '^'ilT\ = the smooth mountain : upos rod 
XeKxd'-' [Vat. in Josh, xi., AA.6/c;] Alex. A\aic, 
or AA.O/C: 7J«rs mantis), 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 Ghor 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 Sela. 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 Helkath 
hat-tzurim, the " field of the strong " (Stanley, 
App. § 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 terms (/cara- 
(TvpTi and ffvpcav)- H. 

HAL'HUL (b^nbn Ifull of hollows^ 
Fiirst]: AlKovi.; [Vat. *A\oi.a;] Alex. AXov} : 
Walhul), a town of Judah in the mountain district 
ne of the group containing Beth-zu; and Gedor 

a ♦ FiirBt gays (Hebr. Lex. a. v.) that the Talmud 
inderstands the place to be Holwan, a five days' 
journey from Bagdad. H, 

HALL 983 

(Josh. XV. 58). Jerome, in the Onomaslicon (undef 
Elul), reports the existence of a hamlet (mllula) 
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 i miles from the latter. 
Opposite it, on the other side of the road, is Beit- 
siir, the modern representative of Beth-zur, and a 
little further to the north is Jedur, the ancient 
Gedor. [Beth-zuk.] The site is marked by the 
ruins of walls and foundations, amongst which 
stands a dilapidated mosk bearing the name oi 
Neby Yunus — the prophet Jonah (Rob. i. 210). 
In a Jewish tradition quoted by Hettinger ( Cippi 
Hebraici, p. 32) it is said to be the burial-place of 
Gad, David's seer. See also the citations of Zunz 
in Asher's Benj. of Tudela (ii. 437, note). G. 

HA'LI OtTI [necklace] : 'AKep; Alex. OoXei: 
Chali), a town on the boundary of Asher, named 
between Helkath and Beten (Josh. xix. 25). Noth- 
ing is known of its situation. Schwarz (p. I'Jl) 
compares the name with Chelmon, the equivalent 
in the Latui of Cyajhon in the Greek of Jud. 
vii. 3. G. 

HALIOARNAS'SUS {'AKindpyaffaos) "i 
Caiua, a city of great renown, as being the birth- 
place of Herodotus and of the later historian Diony- 
sius, and as embellished by the Mausoleum erected 
by Artemisia, but of no Biblical interest except as 
the residence of a Jewish jx)pulation 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 -rrpoaevxas 
iroieladai Trphs rfj BaKdaffTi Kara rh iraTpiov eOoi, 
is interesting when compared with Acts xvi. 13. 
This city was celebrated for its harbor and for the 
strength of its fortifications; but it ne\er recovered 
the damage which it suffered after Alexander's 
siege. A plan of the site is given in Ross, Reisen 
(ufden Griech. Inseln. (See vol. iv. p. 30.) The 
sculptures of the Mausoleum are the subject of a 
paper by Mr. Newton in the Classicnl Museum, 
and many of them are now in the British Museum. 
The modern name of the place is Budrum. 

J. S. H. 

* See particularly on Halicamassus the impor- 
tant work of i\Ir. Newton, History of Discoveries at 
Halicarnassus, Cnidus, and Brnnchidw, 2 vols, 
text and 1 vol. plates, London, 1802-63. A. 

HALLELU'JAH. [Alleluia.] 

HALL (avK-rj. atrium), used of the court of 
the high-priest's house (Luke xxii. 55). AvK'f) is 
in A. V. Matt. xxvi. 60, Mark xiv. 66, John xviii. 
15, "palace;" Vulg. atrium; irpoavKiov, Mark 
xiv. 68, "porch;" Vulg. ante atrium. In Matt, 
xxvii. 27 and Jlark xv. 16, au\-fj is syn. with 
wpaiTcipiov, which in John xviii. 28 is in A. V. 
"judgment-hall." AuK-fi is the equivalent for 
"11?n, an inclosed or fortified space (Ges. p. 512), 
in many places in O. T. where Vulg. and A. V. 
have respectively villa or viculus, " village," Oi 
atrium, " court," chiefly of the tabernacle or temple. 
The hall or court of a house or palace would prob- 
ably be an uiclosed but uncovered space, impludum, 

b It Is not unworthy of notice that, though ao fai 
from Jerusalem, Jerome speaks of it as "in ttut di* 
trict ofiElia." 


on a lower level than the apartments of the lowest 
fioor which looked into it. The irpoavKiov was the 
vestibule leadinj; to it, called also, ftlatt. xxvi 71, 
KvKiov- LCoUHT, Amer. ed.; ilousK.] 

H. W. J>. 

HALLO'HESH (tt^mbn [the u-hispercr, 
enchanter]: 'AKwi\s; Alex. AS&>: ^/o//es), one of 
the "chief of the people" who sealed the covenant 
with Nehemiah (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 
probal)le from another passage iu which it is given 
in the A. V. as 

[as above]: 'AA- 
\co7J$; [Vat. FA. HAeio:] Alohes). Shallum, sou 
of llal-lochesh, was "ruler of the half part of 
Jeru.siileni " at the time of the repair of the wall 
by Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 12). According to the 
Hebrew spelling, the name is identical with Hau- 
bOHESH. [The A. V. ed. IGU, following the 
Genevan version, spells the name falsely Halloesh. 

HAM (Cn [swarthy]: xd/^: Cham). 1. The 
name of one of the three sons of Noah, apparently 
the second iu age. It is probably derived from 

DDn, " to be warm," and signifies "warm" or 
" hot." This meaning seems to be confirmed by 
that of the Egyptian word Kkm (Egypt), which 
we believe to be the l^gyptian equivalent of Ham, 
and which, as an adjective, signifies " black," prob- 
ably implying warmth as well as blackness. 
[Egyi'I'.J If the Hebrew and Egyptian words be 
the same. Ham must mean the swarthy or sun- 
burnt, like Al6io\f/, which has been derived from 
the Coptic name of Ethiopia, GOytJCUj but 
which we should be inclined to trace to OOCJJ^ " a 
boundary," unless the Sahidic GOCMCU niay 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 
lase of Noah (Gen. v. 2!i), and implied in that of 
Japhetli (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 tlie sunl)urnt Egyptians and C'usliites. 

Of the history of I lam nothing is related except 
his irreverence to his father, and the curse which 
that patriarch pronounced — the fulfillment of which 
b evident in the history of the Ilamites. 

The sons of Ham are stated to have been " Cush 
and Mizraim and I'hut and Canaan " (Gen. x. C ; 
comp. 1 Chr. i. 8). It is remarkable that a dual 
form (Mizraim) should occur in tlie first generation, 
indicating A country, and not a person or a tribe, 
and we are therefore inclined to suppose that the 

gentile noun in the plural D^"1^7p, difTering alone 

in the pointing from C'lT'V?? originally stood 
here, whicli would be quite consistent with the 
plural forms of tlie names of tlie Mizraite tribes 
which follow, and analogous to the singular forms 
of the names of the Canaaiiite tribes, except the 
Sidonians, wiio are mentioned not as a nation, but 
under the name of (heir forefather Sidon. 

The name of Ilsini alone, of the three sons of 
^foAll, if our identilication be correct, is known to 
iure been given to a country. I'^gypt is recognized 


as the " land of Ham " in the Bible (Pg. li-^, 
61, cv. 2;J, cvi. 22), and this, though it does nol 
prove the identity of the Egyptian name with that 
of the patriarch, certainly favors it, and establishes 
tiie historical fact that Egypt, settled l)y the de- 
scendants of Ham, was peculiarly his territory. 
The name Mizraim we believe to confirm this. The 
restriction of Ham to Egypt, unlike the case, if we 
may reason infercntially, of his bretliren, may be 
accounted for by the very early civilization of this 
part of the Ilamite territory, while much of the 
rest was comparatively barbarous. Egypt may also 
have ijeen the first settlement of tlie Ilamites 
whence colonies went forth, as we know to ha%e 
been the case with the Philistines. [Capiixok.] 

The settlements of the descendants of ("ush 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 I'lthiopians of the 
(irceks. 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 Ninirod'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 Egyjit, 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 Kkksif, or Kksii, which is 
obviously the same as Cush, to Ethiopia above 
l'4rypt. The sons of Cush are stated to liave been 
•Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, l\aamah,and Sabtechah: it 
is added that the sons of Kaaniah were Sheba and 
Dedan, and that " Cush begat Ninirod." Certain 
of these names recur in the lists of the descendants 
of Joktan and of Abraham by Keturah, a circum- 
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. [Akabia.] Seba is geiiern'ly identi- 
fied witli Meroe, and there seems to be little doubt 
that at the time of Solomon the chief kingdom of 
I'^thiopia above Egypt was that of Seba. [Skua.] 
The postdiluvian Havilah seems to be restricted to 
Arabia. [Havilah.] Sabtah and Sabtechah are 
probably Arabian names : this is certainly the case 
with Paamah, Sheba, and Dedan, which are rec- 
ognized on the Persian Gulf. [Saijtaii; Sab- 
TiiciiAu; Haamaii; Shkba; Dkdan.] Nimrod 
is a descendant of Cush, but it is not certain that 
he is a son, and his is the only name which is 
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 hi* 
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 Ticris northwards. [CusH.] 

If, as we suppose, Mizraim in the lists of Gen. x 
and 1 Chr. i. stand for Mizrim, we should take the 
singular Maxnr to be the name of the progcnitoi 
of the Egyptian tribes. It is remarkable that MazoT 
appears to he identical in signification with Ham, 
80 that it may be but another name of the patri- 
arch. [EciYiT.] In this ciise the mention of Mie- 
raim (or Mizrim) would bo geographical, fUil not 
indicative of a Mazor, son of Ham. 


The Mizraitej, like the descenflants of Hain, 
xjupj a territory wider than that bearing the name 
jf Miziaira. We may, however, suppose that Miz- 
raira included all the first settlements, and that in 
remote times other tribes besides the Philistines 
migrated, or extended their territories, i'his we 
may infer to have been the case with the Lehabim 
(Lubim) or Libyans, for JNIanetho speaks of them 
as in the remotest period of Egyptian history sub- 
ject to the Pharaohs. He tells us that under the 
first king of the Third Dynasty, of Memphites, 
Necherophes, or Necherochis, " th& Libyans re- 
.olted from the Egyptians, but, on account of a 
wonderful mcrease of the moon, submitted through 
fear" « (Cory's Anc. Frar/. 2d ed. pp. 100, 101). 
It is unlikely that at this very early time the 
Memphit« kingdom ruled far, if at all, 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 ; Anamiji ; Lehabi.m.] 
The Naphtuhim seem to have been just be\ ond the 
western border. [Nvphtuhi.m.] The Pathrusim 
and Caphtorim were in Egypt, and probalily the 
Casluhim also. [Pathros; CAriixoK: Caslu- 
HiM.] The Philistim are the only iMizraite tribe 
that we know to have passed into Asia : their first 
establishment was in Egypt, for they came out of 
Caphtor. [Cai'HTOK.] 

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 Lubim 
(Nah. iii. U), with Cush and Ludim (the Mizraite 
Ludim y), as supplying part of the army of Pha- 
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 tribes, 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 noraa...c people cor- 
responding to it. [Phut.] 

Respecting the geographical position of the 
Canaanit«s 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 
Umits as those of their settlements it is stated 
" afterward were the families of the Canaanites 
spread abroad " (Gen. x. 18, 19). One of their 
most important extensions was to the northeast, 
where was a great branch of the Hittite nation in 
the valley of the Orontes, constantly mentioned in 
the wars of the Pharaohs [Egypt], and in those 
of ttie kings of Assyria. Two passages which have 
occasioned much controversy may be here noticed. 
In the account of Abraham's entrance into Pales- 
tine it is said. " And the Canaanite [was] then in 
the land" (xii. 6); and as to a somewhat later 
time, that of the separation of Abraham and Lot, 
KB read that " the Canaanite and tlie Perizzite 
dwelled then in the land" (xiii. 7). These pas- 
sages have been supposed either to be late glosses. 

HAM P85 

or to indicate that the Pentateuch was \Tritten \t 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 population 
expelled by the Hamite and Abrahamite settlers. 
This population was important in the time of the 
war of Chedorlaomer ; but at the Exodus, 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. Keceutly Bunsen has applied the 
term " Hamitism." or as he writes it Chamitism, 
to the Egyptian language, or rather family. He 
jilaces it at the head of the " 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 " ( OutUiies, vol. i. p. 183). Sir H. Raw- 
linson has a])phed the term Cushite to the primitive 
language of Baby'onia, and the same term has been 
used for the ancient lanuuage of the southern coast 
of Arabia. This terminolocry depends, in every in- 
stance, upon the race of the nation speaking the 
language, and not upon any theory of a Hamitic 
class. I'here is evidence which, at the first view, 
would incUne 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," ^V5? ^"^?^ (Is. xix. 
18), although those speaking it are elsewhere said 
to speak i'T'l^n';, Judaice (2 K. xviii. 26. 28; 
Is. xxxvi. 11, 1.3;' Neh. xiii. 24). But the one 
term, as Gesenius remarks (Gram. Introd.), 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 Rephaite), 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 Eg}T)tian 
language would also offer great difficulties, unless it 
were held to be but partly of Hamitic origin, since 
it is mainly of an entirely diff'erent class to [from]' 
the Semitic. It is mainly Nigritian, but it also 
contains Semitic elements. We are of opinion that 
the groundwork is Nigritian, and that the Semitic 
part is a layer added to a complete Nigritian lan- 

alt has been supposed that some or all of the with most of those notices that occur m the oldm 
notices of events in Mauetho's lists were inserted by dynasties. 
'opyist« Ttijs cannot, we think, have been the case 

986 HAM 

juage. The two elements are mixed, but not fused. 
This opinion those Semitic scholars who have 
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 oi' 
the difficulty seems to be, that what we call Semitic 
ia early Noachian. 

An inquiry into the history of the Hamite na- 
tions presents considerable difficulties, since it can- 
not be determined in the cases of the most imjior- 
tant of those commonly held to be Hamite that 
they were purely of that stock. It is certain that 
the three most illustrious Hamite nations — the 
Cushites, the Phoenicians, and the Egyptians — 
were greatly mixed with foreign peoples. 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 children of Japheth and Shem. Their archi- 
tecture has a solid grandeur that we look for in 
vain elsewhere. Egypt, Babylonia, and Soutliern 
Arabia alike afford proofs of this, and the few re- 
maining monuments of the Phoenicians are of the 
same class. \\'liat is very important*as indicating 
the purely Hamite character of the monuments to 
which we refer is that tlie 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 forms. 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 neighboring nomadic peoples. The Philis- 
tines afford a remarkalile 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 st«rile deserts, held 
its freedom far longer than the rest; yet even in 
the days of Solomon 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 overtlu-own by the Joktanites that 
the scanty remains of their history are alone known 
to us through tradition. Yet the stoi-y of the mag- 
nificence of the ancient kings of Yemen is so per- 
fectly in accordaTice 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 
of the Canaanites is similar; and if that of the 
Phoenicians be an exception, it must be recollected 
that they became a merchant class, as I'^zekiel's 
famous description of Tyre sliows (chap, xxvii). In 
Bpeaking of Hamite characteristics we do not in- 
tend it to be inferred tiiat tiiey were necessarily 
altogetiier of Hamite origin, and not at least partly 
borrowed. li- S. P. 

2. (Dn [mutllltuk, people, Fiirst], Gen. xiv. 5; 
Snm. Cn, Cli'im) According to the Masoretic 
text, ( Ik ilorlaomcr and his allies smote t!ie Zuzim 
ft a place called Ham. If, as seems likely, the 


Zuzin be the sime as the Zamzummmi, llan 
must be placed in what was afterwards the Ammo- 
nite territory. Hence it has been conjectured b} 

I'uch, that Ham is but another form of the name 
of the chief stronghold of the children of -•l«m>on, 
Kabbah, now .Iwi-man. The LXX. and Vulg., 
however, throw some doubt upon Uie ISIasoretie 

eading: the former has, as tb? rendering of 

Cn2 D'^T^THTIS'I : nal iQu-r) IcTXvpa Oyuo oi^- 
To7s; and the latter, et Zuzim cum eis, which 
shows that tlrcy read CHS : 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 had 
gone to the assistance of the Kephaim, a deviation 
would have been necessary. The Samaritan Version 

has nW^^,Lii>hiiIi, perhaps intending the Lasha 
of Gen. X. 19, which by some is identified with 
(Jalhrlioe on the N. E. quarter of the Dead Sea. 
The Targums of Onkelos and Pseudojon. have 
SriTprr, Ilemta. Schwarz (217) suggests Ilumei- 

tk (in Van de Velde's map Ilumeilat), one mile 
above liabba, tlie ancient Ar-Moab, on the Koman 
road. [ZuziMS.] 

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 possibly their 
predecessors, are said to have been " of Ham " 

(DH"]^ : e'/c iS)v vlojv Xdfj.: de siirpe Cham, 1 
Chr. iv. 40). This may indicate that a Hamite 
tribe was settled here, or, more precisely, that there 
w;is an Egyptian settlement. The connection of 
Egypt with this part of Palestine will be noticed 
under Zi;k,\ii. Ham may, however, here be iu no 
way connected with the patriarch or with Egypt. 

HA'MAN Cl^n [celebrated (Pers.), or = 
Mercury (Sansk.), Eiirst] : A/adv- Ammi), the chief 
minister or vizier of king Ahasuerus (Esth. iii. 1). 
After the failure of his attenqjt to cut off all the 
Jews in the Persian empire, he was hanged on the 
gallows which he had erected for Jlordecai. Most 
probably he is the same Aman who is mentioned 
as the ojjprcssor of Acliiacharus (Tob. xiv. 10). 
Tiie Targum and Josephus (Ant. x'l. C, § 5) inter- 
pret tlie description of him — the Agagite — as 
signifying that he was of Amalekitish descent; but 
he is called a IMacedonian by the LXX. in Esth. 
ix. 24 (cf. iii. 1), and a Persian by Sulpicius Seve- 
rus. Prideaux (Con7iexi(m, anno 453) computes 
the sum which he offered to pay into the royal 
treasury at more than i:2,000,000 sterling. iMod- 
ern Jews are said to be in the habit of designating 
any Christian enemy by his name (Eisenmenger, 
L'lil. Jud. i. 721). [See addition under Estiieu, 
Book ok.] W. T. B. 

HA'MATH (n'?n [fortress, citadet] : 
'Hjuafl, "Hfjide, Aifide- Kmath) appars to liave 
been the priMci])nl city of I'pper Syria from the 
time of tlie I'.xodns to that of the jiropliet Amos. 
It uas situated in the valley of the Onmtis, about 
half-way between its source near lianUnk, and tba 
bend wliich it makes at Jisr-hadid. It thus natu- 
rally commanded the whole of the Orontes valley, 
from the low screen of hills wliich forms the water- 
shed between tlie Orontes and the l.Uihiy —the 
"entrance of Hamatli," a.s it is called in Scripture 
(Num. xxxiv. 8; Josh. xiii. 5, Ac.) — to the defili 




7f Daphne below Antioch; and this ti-aot appears following reasons: (1.) The northern boundary of 
:o have formed the kingdom of Hamath, during the Israelites was certainly north of Kiblah, for the 
ifie time of its independence. j east border descends from Hazar-enan to Shephara, 

The liamathites were a Hamitic race, and are and from Shepham to Itiblah. Kiblah is still 
mcluded among the descendants of Canaan ((jen. known by its ancient name, and is found south of 
X. 18). There is no reason to suppose with Mr. j Hums Lake about six or eight hours. The "en- 
Kenrick {Phceiucia, p. GO), that they were ever in '• trance " must therefore lie north of this town. (2.) 
any sense Phoenicians. We must regard them as : It must lie east of Moimt Hor. Now, if JMount 
closely akin to the Hittites on whom they bordered, | Hor be, as it probably is, the range of Lebanon, 
and with whom they were generally in alliance, j the question is readily solved by a reference to the 
Nothing appears of the power of Hamath, beyond physical geography of the region. The ranges of 
the geographical notices which show it to be a well- 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 Anti- 
Lebanon and the low hills which lie eastward of 
Hamath. 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 Kuldl el-flusn and the iVIediterrauean : 
eastward to the great plain of the Syrian desert: 
and southward toward Baal-gad in Coele-Syria. 
This will appear at a glance from the accompany- 
ing plan of the country, in which it will be seen 

known place (Nimi. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 8; Josh. xiii. 
5; &c ), until the time of David, when we hear 
that Toi, kuig of Hamath, had " had wars " with 
Hadadezer, 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 whom 
that monarch ruled, who " brought presents and 
served Solomon all the d»'s of his life." The 
" store-cities,;' which Solomon " built in Hamath " 
(2 Chr. viii. 4), were perhaps staples for trade, the 
importance of the Orontes valley as a line of traffic 
l)eing always great. On the death of Solomon and 
the separation of the two kingdoms, Hamath 
seems to have regained its independence. In 
the Assyrian inscriptions of the time of Ahab 
(b. c. yOO) 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 .leroboam the sec- 
ond "recovered 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. 
Antioclius Epiphanes appears to have 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 Ezek. xlvii. 16), and possibly later. 
The^ natives, however, called it Hamath, even 
in St. Jerome's time; and its present name, 
Hamah, is but very slightly altered from the 
fincient form. 

Burckhardt visited Ilamnh 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 — Hndlier, El DJisr, El Aleynt, and ^ 
El ,}ftfline, the last being the quarter of the ii.C^i 
Christians. The population, according to §r\ 
him, was at that time 30,000. The town 
possessed few antiquities, and was chiefly re- 
markable for its huge water-wheols, whereby ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ j^^^^^ showing ( 
the gardens and the houses in the upper town 
were 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 
1 Travels in Syria, pp. 140-147. See also Pococke, the south or the west would this locality be appro- 
Trnvels in the East, vol. i.; Irby and Mangles, priately described as an entrance, (o.) It is im- 
Travels, p. 244 ; and Stanley, S. tf P. pp. 40ti, probable that the lands of Hamath ever extended 
i07 \ G. R. as far south as the height of land between ths 

* The "entrance of Hamath" is not is stated, I^ontes and the Orontes, or in fact into the south- 
it the water-shed between the L'tany and the em division of Ccele-Syria at all. Hums would 
'Jrontes, which would place it too far .south, for the have been its natural limit from the sea, to oiii 

' entrance to Hamath. 



journeying along the coast from Tripoli to La- 
«akia. I>ebaiion and the Nusairiyeh range are seen 
hi profile, with tlie gap between them. A similar 
view is presented from the remaining cardinal 
poinU G. E. P. 


HATVIATHITE, THE (^^^^^^T : & 'a^ 
di: Amal/aeus, Ilamathteus), one of the familiei 
descended from Canaan, named last in tiie list 
((Jen. X. 18; 1 Chr. i. 16). The place of their sct^ 
tlement was doubtless IIamatu. 

Nusairiyeh MCs 


Entrance to Uamath &t<in the W. 

HA'MATH-ZO'BAH {n^'\'^-i^T2n : 
BauraiBd; [Alex. AtfjLaO l,ai$a:\ i:malh-SuAa)'i!i 
said to have been attacked and conquered by Sol- 
omon (2 Chr. viii. 3). It has been conjectured to 
be the same as Uamath, here regarded as included 
in Aram-Zoliah — a geographical expression which 
has usually a narrower meaning. But the name 
llamath-Zobah would seem rather suited to an- 
other Hamatl) which was distinguished from the 
"Great Hamath," by the suffix "Zobah." Com- 
pare \\Z.moW\- (J Head, which is thus distinguished 
from Kamah in Benjamin. G. R. 

♦HAMI'TAL, 2 K. xxiii. 31, is the reading 
of the A. V. ed. 1011 for Hajiutal. A. 

HAM'MATH (H^n [loarm sprhuj] : 'Ci^aO- 
uSoKfd — the last two syllables a corruption of tlie 
name following; [Alex. A/xdd ; [Aid. 'A;u/xa0:] 
Kmath), one of the fortified cities in the territory 
allotted to Naphtali (Josh. xix. 35). It is not 
possible from this list to determine its ])osition, 
but the notices of the Tahnudists, collected by 
Lightfoot in his C/iorocjrap/iicdl Century, and 
Chor. Decttd, leave no doubt that it was near Ti- 
berias, one mile distant — in fact that it had its 
name, Cbannnath, "hot batlis," 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 
(,K(l)tJL7\ . . . ovK Airueev) from Tiberias" (Ant. 
xviii. 2, § 3), and as where Vespasian had en- 
camped " before Up6) Tiberias" (B. J. iv. 1, § 3). 
Remains of the wall of this encampment .were rec- 
ognized by Irhy and Mangles (p. 89 i). In both 
cases Josephus names the hot springs or baths, add- 
ing in the latter, that such is the interpretation of 
the name 'A/u^ooDs, and that the waters are me- 
dicinal. Tlie Jlitmvidm, at present three « in 
number, still send up their hot and sulphureous 
waters, at a spot ratlier more than a mile south of 
the modem town, at the extremity of the ruins of 
the ancient city (Rob. ii. 383, 384; Van de Yelde, 
ii. 309). 

It is difficult, however, to reconcile with this 
position other observations of the Talmudists, 
^uot«d on the same place, by Lightfoot, to the 
. effect that Chammath was called also the " wells 
of (Jailara," from its proximity to that place, and 
%Igo tliat lialf the town was on the east side of the 
lordan and half on the west, with a bridge between 
-hem — the fact lieing that the ancient Tilierias 

was at least 4 miles, and the Ilammam 2j, from 
the present embouchure of the Jordan. The same 
difficulty besets the account of Parclii (in Zunz's 
Appendix to Benjamin of Tudela, ii. 403). He 
places the wells entirely on the east of Jordan. 

In the list of Levitici^cities given out of Naph- 
tali (Josh. xxi. 32), the name of this place seems 
to be given as Majimoth-doij, and in 1 Chr. vi. 
76 it is further altered to Hajijiox. G. 

HAMMED A'THA (Sn-T^n : 'A/xaUeos; 

[Alex. AvauaOaSos, A/xadaSos ■] Ainad(ithus), 
father of the infamous Ilaman, and commonly des- 
ignated as "the Agagite" (Esth. iii. 1, 10; viii. 
5; ix. 24), though also without that title (ix. 10). 
By Gesenius {Lex. 185.5, p. 539) the name is taken 
to be Medatha, preceded by the definite article. 
For other explanations, see l-iirst, Ilandwb. [Zend, 
= gicen by llaomo, an Ized], and Simonis, Ono- 
nidsticon, p. 58G. The latter derives it from a Per- 
sian word meaning " double." For the terraination 
compare AmuATMA. 

HAMME'LECH (TlbT^n [the king]: rov 
$aa-iKeus. Amelecli), rendered in the A. V. as 
a proper name (.ler. xxxvi. 26; xxxviii. G); but 
there is no apparent re.ison for supposing it to be 
anything but the ordinary Hebrew word for "the 
king," i. e. in the first case Jehoiakim, and in the 
latter Zedekiah. If this is so, it enables us to con- 
nect with the royal family of Judah two persons, 
Jerachmcel and ilalciah, 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.) Pattish 

(Ji?>tSQ, connected ctymologically with Traracrff-ai, 
to strike), which was used by the gold-beater (Is. 
xli. 7, A. V. "carpenter") to overlay with silver 
and "smooth" the surface of the image; as well 
as by the qu.irry-man (.ler. xxiii. 29). (2.) Mak- 
kabah (nD|vtt [and n2|vP]l properly a tool for 
Iwlluicing, 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^lQ^n). used only in Judg. v. 26, and then 
with the addition of the word "workmen's" by 
way of explanation. (4.) A kind of hammer, 
named mnppelz {\' C^), Jer. Ii. 20 (A. V. " battle- 
axe"), or mJ'pliUz (V"*?^)' l''ov. xxv. 18 (A. V. 

■Mr. Porter (Handb. for S,/r. ^ Pat. Ii. 422) and throe others a few pace* ftirther •outh (■•• u3m 
3f f.-ur oprinijn : one under the old bath-house, Rob. BM. Rr3. iii. 259). H. 


•» maul " /, was used as a weapon of war. " Ham- 
mer " is used figu-ativelv for any overwhelming 
Tower, whetlier worldly (Jer. 1. 23), or spiritual 
(Jer. xxiii. 29 [comp. Heb. iv. 12J). W. L. B. 

* From nnf?^ comes JMaccabeeus or Maccabee 
[Maccabees, the]. The hammer used by Jael 
(Judg. V. 26) was not of iron, but a wooden mal- 
let, such as the Arabs use now for driving down 
their tent-pins. (See Thomson's L^md ami Book, 
ii. 149.) In the Hebrew, it is spoken of as "■the 
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 K. vi. 7 that no sound of hanuner, 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 grfeat size near the city, and in the 
reign of Solomon this quarry, in its whole extent, 
was without the limits 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 Suirey rif Jerusalem, pp. 63, 64. H. 

HAMMOLE'KETH (n^V^n, with the 
article = ^Ae Queen: rj Vla\ex(6'- Rerjinn), a 
woman introduced in the genealogies of Jlanasseh 
as daughter of Machir and sister of Gilead (1 Chr. 
vii. 17, 18), and as having among her children 
Abi-kzek, from whose family sprang the great 
judge Gideon. The Targum translates the name 

by n?^P "^=-w^o reigned. The Jewish tra- 
dition, as preserved by Kimchi in his commentary 
on the passage, i.s that " she used to reign over a 
portion of the land which belonged to Gilead," 
and that for that reason her lineage has been pre- 

HAM'MON Cl'ian \1iot or sunny] : ['e^€- 
lJLa(i>v\] Alex. Ayuoij/: Hamon). 1. A city in 
Asher (Josh. xi.K. 23), apparently not far from Zi- 
don-rabbah, or " Great Zidon." Dr. Schultz sug- 
gested its identification with the modem village of 
Hamul, near the coast, about 10 miles below Tyre 
(Rob. iii. 66), but this is doubtful both in etymology 
and position. 

2. [Xa/xdiQ; Alex. Xo^uwv.] A city allotted 
out of the tribe of Naphtali to the Levites (1 Chr. 
vi. 76), and answering to the somewhat similar 
names Hajimath and Hammoth-dok in Joshua. 


HAM'MOTH-DOR' ("1^"^ nbn [warm 
xjJi-ings, abode]: 'Nefj-ixad; Alex. E/jLadSuip: Am- 
moth Dor), a city of Naphtali, allotted with its 
Buburbs to the Gershonite Levites, and for a city 
of refuge (Josh. xxi. 32). Unless there were two 
places of the same or very similar name in Naph- 
tali, this is identical with Hammath. Why the 
BufMx Dor is addod it is hard to tell, uidess the word 
refers in some way to the situation of the ]jlace on 
the coast, in which fact only had it (as far as we 
snow) any resemblance to Dok, on the shore of the 
Mediterranean In 1 Chr. \-i. 76 'he name is con- 
tracted to IlA.MMO?i. u. 



HAMO'NAH (n2ian Itumult, how cf a 
multitude]: XVoXvav^piov: Amona), 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. 


{X\l "Jl^n S'^S = T-fTiwe (/ Gog's multitude: 
TaX rh iroXvavSpiov rov rwy- vallis multitudinis 
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'MOR ("T^XSn, i. e. in Hebrew a large he ■ 
ass, the figure employed by Jacob for Issachar: 
'Efx/xcip: 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 destruction on himself, 
his father, and the whole of their city (Gen. xxxiii. 
19; xxxiv. 2, 4, 6, 8, 13, 18, 20, 24, 26). Hamor 
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-Hamor, and he 
himself, in records narrating events long subsequent 
to this, is styled Ilanuir-Abi Sheceni (Josh. xxiv. 
32:'' Judg. ix. 28; Acts vii. 16). In the second 
of these passages his name is used as a signal of 
revolt, when the remnant of the ancient Hivites 
attempted to rise against Abimelech son of Gideon. 
[Shkchem.] For the t\\\e Abi-Shtceia, "father 
of Shechem," compare "father 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 Ejijior, and Abraham is 
said to have bought his sepulchre from the " sons 
of Emmor." 

HAMU'EL (bS^an [see infra], i. e. Ham- 
muel: ' hixovi]\: Aniuel), 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 ]\ISS. the name is given as Chammiiel. 

* The latter form exchanges the soft guttural for 
the hard. It signifies "heat" and hence "anger 
of God" (Gesen.), or "God is a sun" (Fiirst). 


HA'MUL (b^!2n [pitied, ^ared] : Sam. 

7S1Q~! : 'Uij.ou7]\, 'lafiovy; [Alex, in Num., 
la/dovrjA; Comp. 'AfxovK, Xa^oi^A:] Hamul), the 
younger son of Pharez, Judah's son by Tamar 
(Gen. xlvi. 12; 1 Chr. ii. 5). Hamul waa head of 
the family of the Hamulites (Num. xx^i. 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 ("•b^^Snn [set 
above]: 'laixovvi, Alex. la/xovr]\i; [Comp. 'Ayuoir 

n The LXX. have here read the word without it« 
ioitla' g-uttural. and rendered it napa ritv 'Aiiopoaiui' 
'■' froui the Amorites." 


Aft] Jlamitlllce), the family (nn5t??C) of the 
preceding (Xiim. xxvi. 21). 

HAIVIU'TAL (bt^^!:q = perh. kin to the 
dew. 'A/uiToA.; [^'at. Ajutirai, Mitot; Alex. A/it- 
ToA. -Tafl:J in Jer. 'AyuftrooA. [.\lex. -^i-] : ^/h/- 
<«/), daiij^hter of Jeremiah of Libiiah ; one of the 
wives of king Josiah, and mother of the unfor- 
tunate princes .lehoahaz (2 K. xxiii. 31), and Mat- 
taniah or Zedckiah (2 K. xxiv. 18; Jer. Hi. 1). 
lu the two last passages the name is given in the 
original text as V^^^P, Chaviital, a reading 
which the LXX. follow throughout. 

* Curiously enough, in the fii-st passage, but 
in neither of the two last, the A. V. ed. IGll reads 
Haniital. A. 

HAN AM 'EEL [properly Hanamel, in 3 

3yl] (bsp^n [perh. bS33q whom God has 
given, Gesen.] : 'Aya/xffiX- Hanameel), son of 
Shalluni, and cousin of Jeremiah. Wlien Judaja 
was occupied by the ('haldwans, Jerusalem be- 
leaguere<i, and Jeremiah in prison, the prophet 
bouglit 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 conip 44). The suburban fields belong- 
ing to the trilje of l^vi could not be sold {I^v. 
XXV. 34); but possibly Hanameel may have inher- 
ited property Irom his mother. Compare the case 
of Haniabas, who also was a Levite; and the note 
of Grotius on Acts iv. 37. Henderson (on Jer. 
rxxii. 7) supposes that a portion of the Levitical 
sstates might be sold within the tribe. 

W. T. B. 

HA'NAN (73n [</i-aciovs, merciful]: 'Avdv- 
Ilanan). 1. One of the chief people of the tribe 
of Benjamin (1 (.'hr. viii. 23). 

2. The last of the six sons of Azel, a descend- 
ant of Saul (1 Chr. viii. 38; ix. 44). 

3. [FA. Kvvav.] "Son of Maachah," i. e. 
possibly a Syrian of Arani-.M;iachali, one of the 
heroes of David's guard, according to the extended 
list of 1 Chr. xi. 43. 

4. [I A. rayav.] Bene-Chanan [sons of C] 
were among the Nethinim who returned from Bab- 
ylon with Zerubbaijel (I'jsr. ii. 40; Neh. vii. 49). 
In the parallel list, 1 Esdr. v. 30, the name is given 
as Anan. 

5. (LXX. omit^ [Rom. and Alex, in Neh. x. 10 
read Avay, but Vat. and FA.' omit].) One of the 
Invites wiio assisted I'Jjra in his public exposition 
of the law (Neh. viii. 7). The same person is 
probably mentioned in x. 10 as sealing the cov- 
enant, since se\eral of the .same names occur in 
botii passages. 

6. [Vat. oniita.] One of the '.'heads" of the 
"people," that is of the laymen, who also sealed 
the covenant (x. 22). 

7. (AiVaf; [FA. Aiw.]) Another of the chief 
laymen on the same occasion (x. 2(i). 

8. [I'W. Aaj'oj'.] Son of Zaccur, son of Mat- 
taniah, wiiom N'ehemiah made one of the store- 
keeijcrs of the ])rovi»i<)iis collected as tithes (Neh. 
xiii. 13). He was probaldy a layman, in which 
ra.<«e the four storekeepers represented the four chief 
tlasses of tiie j)eople — priests, scribes, I.«vites. and 

0. Son of Igd.iliahn "the man of God" (Jer. 
ixxv. 4). The sons of lliuian bad a chamber in 


the Temple. Tlic A'at. LXX. gives the name Imet 
— 'Iwvay uiou 'Ayay'tov [FA. Away vtnu Aj* 

HANAN'EEL [properly Hananel, in 3 syl.j 
THE TOWER OF (bsp3q b??n : nipyos 
'AyafxtriA'- Itirrig //(imitieel), a tower wliich formed 
part of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 1, xii. 39). 
From these two passages, particularly from the 
former, it miglit almost be inferred that Hananeel 
was but another name for the Tower of Meah 

(nSffin = 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 breacli 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 passage 
in which it is named (Zech. xiv. 10) also connects 
this tower with the "corner 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." [Jekusalem.] 

HANA'NI C^^^n [fjracious]: [Rom. Ayay, 
Ayayias: Alex.] Ayavi'- /I(tnani). 1. One of the 
sons of Heman, David's Seer, who were separated 
for song in the house of the Lord, and head of the 
18th course of the service (1 Chr. xxv. 4, 25). 

2. ['Ayavl; Vat. -yd, once -/xei; Alex. 1 K. 
xvi. 7, Ayavia-] A Seer who rebuked (h. C. 941) 
Asa, king of Judah, for his want of faith in God, 
which he Imd showed by buying off the hostility 
of Benhadad 1. king of Syria (2 Chr. xvi. 7). For 
this he was imprisoned by Asa (10). He (or another 
llanani) 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. ["Avavl; "\'at. l-'A. -vet; Alex. Ayayia] One 
of the priests who in the time of Ezra were con- 
nected with strange wives (]'>-r. x. 20). In Esdras 
the name is Anania.s. 

4. ['Ayay'i, Avayia: FA. in i. 2, Ayay-] A 
brother of Nehemiah, who returned n. c. 440 from 
.Terusalem to Susa (Neh. i. 2); and was afterwards 
made governor of Jerusalem under Nehemiah 
(vii. 2.) 

5. ['Ayavl; Vat. Alex. FAi omit.] A priest 
mentioned in Neh. xii. 30. W. T. B. 

HANANI'AH (n;?2q and 'IH^p^q ['chom 
Jehovah has <jiven]: 'Acacia; ['Acacias:] Ana- 
nias, [liana Ilia,] and I/ananias. In New Test. 
'Acaci'os: Amtnias). 

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 I.evites were 
divided by king David. The sons of Heman wert? 
especially employed to blow the homs (1 Chr. xxv. 
4, 5, 23). 

2. One of the chief captains of the army of king 
Uzziali (2 ( hr. xxvi. 1 1 ). 

3. Father of Zedi Riah, one of the princes in the 
reign of .lehoiakim kmg of Judah (.ler. xxxvi. 12). 

4. .S<in of .\zur, a Ilenjamite of Gilx-on and « 
false prophet in the reiijn of Zc<lekiah king of .ludah 
III the 4tli year of his reign, u. c. 590, llauwiwt 


(lithBtood Jeremiah the prophet, and publicly 
prophesied in tlie temple that within two years 
Jeconiah and all his fellow-captives, with the vessels 
of the Ix)rd"s house which Nebuchadnezzar had 
taken away to Babylon, should be brought back to 
Jerusalem (Jer. xxviii.): an indication tliat treach- 
erous negotiations were ah-eady secretly opened with 
Pharaoh- Hophra (who had just succeeded Fsam- 
mis 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, Amnion, Moab, Tyre, and Zidon, 
for the purpose of organizing resistance to Nebu- 
chadnezzar, in combination no doubt with the pro- 
jected movements of Pharaoh-Hophra. Hananiah 
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 Judjea 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 yoke„s of iron, so firm was the donunion 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, 
Hananiah; Jehovah hath not sent thee; but thou 
makest this people to trust in a lie. Therefore thus 
saith Jehovah, Behold I will cast thee from off the 
face of the earth: this year thou sbalt die, because 
thou hast taught relielliiti against Jehovah. So 
Hananiah the prophet died the same year, in the 
seventh month " (Jer. xxviii.). The above history 
of Hananiah 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 
policy, 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 in 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 
lomparison 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 Chaldseans and the destruction of the city, 
iccording to the prediction of Jeremiah. This his- 
X)ry of Hananiah also illustrates the marner in 
which the false prophets hindered the mission, and 
»b8tructed the beneficent effects of the ministry, of 

« Pharaoh-Hophra succeeded Psammis, B. c. 595. are fixed by that of the conqueat of Eeypt by 
th» dktes of the Egyptian reigns from Psaminetichus bysee. 


the true propliets, and affords a remarkable example 
of the way in which they prophesie<l 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 Chaldajans (Jer. xxxvii. 

6. Head of a Benjamite house (1 Chr. viii. 24), 

7. The Hebrew name of Shadrach. [Shad- 
RACH.] He was of the house of David, according 
to Jewish tradition (Dan. i. 3, C, 7, 11, 19 ; ii. 17). 

8. Son of Zerubbabel, 1 Chr. iii. 19, from whom 
Christ derived his descent. He is the same person 
who is by St. Luke called 'Icoavvas, Joanna, and 
who, when Khesa is discarded, appears tliere 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^35n (Hananiah) is compounded 
of ^3n and the Divine name, which always takes 
the form H^, or TI^, at the end of compounded 
names (as in Jerem-iah, Shephet-iah, Nehem-iah, 
.\zar-iah, etc.). It meant gratios'e dedit Bominus. 

.Joanna Cj^ni^) is compounded of* the Divine 
name, which at the beginning of compound names 
takes the form "1"^, or IH^^ (as in Jeho-shua, Jeho- 

shaphat, Jo-zadak, etc. ), and the same word, ^iH, 
and me;ins Domiims f/rntiose dedit. Examples of a 
similar transposition of the elements of a compound 
name in speaking of the game individual, are 

n^2S3^ Jecon-iah, and '|''?t'^'^-' Jeho-jachin, 
of the same king of Judah; Ahaz-iah and Jeho- 
aliaz of the same son of Jehoram ; Eli-am, and 
.\nmii-el, of the father of Bath-sheba ; and ICl-asah 
for Asah-el, and Ishma-el, for Eli-shama, in some 
ilSS. of Ezr. x. lb 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 Nehemiah 
(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 same as 
is mentioned xii. 41. 

11. Head of the priestly course of Jeremiah in 
the days of Joiakim the high-priest, Neh. xii. 12. 

12. Ruler of the palace (71^*2(1 ~IJ27) at 
Jerusalem under Nehemiah. He is described aa 
" a faithful man, and one who feared God above 
many." His office seems to have lieen one of 
authority and trust, and perhaps the same as that 
of Eliakim, who was " over the house '' in the reign 
of Hezekiah. [EbiAKni.] The jflrrangements for 
guarding the gates of Jerusalem were intrusted to 
him with Hanani, the Tirshatha's brother. Prideauji 
thinks that the appointment of Hanani and Hananiah 


lodicates that at this time Nehemiah returned to 
Persia, but without sufficient ground. Nehemiah 
■eerus to have been contiiuiously at Jenisalem for 
gome time after the completion of the wall (vii. 5, 
65, viii. 9, x. 1). If, too, the term (n"n"'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'8 absence. In this case Hananiah would be 
a priest, perhaps of the 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 .... concernitig Jerusalem, and 
said, I-et not the gates," etc. There is no authority 
lor rendering 7^ by " over " — " He gave such 
an one charge over Jerusalem." The passages 
quoted by Gesenius are not one of them to the 

13. An Israelite, Neh. x. 23 (Hebr. 24). [Ana- 

14. Other Hananiahs will be found under Ana- 
MA.s, the Greek form of the name. A. C. H. 

HANDICRAFT (re'xi'n, (pyatrla: «'•■', 
nrtijicium, Acts xviii. 3, xix. 25; Kev. xviii. 22). 
Although the e.\tent cannot be ascertained to which 
those arts weit: 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 .\nierica, the wants of life, as 
well as the arts which supply them, are few; and 
it is only among the city-dwellers that both of 
them are multiplied and make progress. This sub- 
ject cannot, of course, be followed out here ; in the 
present article brief notices can only be given of 
such handicraft trades as are mentioned in Scrip- 

1. The preparation of iron for use either in war 
in agriculture, or for domestic purposes, was doubt- 
less one of the earliest applications of labor ; and 
together with iron, working in brass, or rather cop- 
per alloyed with tin, bronze (nttTt?, Gesen 
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. Work; 
and Days, 150; Wilkinson, Anc. K<j. 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 in tools, for the con 
struction of the Ark (Gen. vi. 14, IG). 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 
!« iscertained; but we know that iron was used 
for warlike purposes l)y (he Assyrians (Layard, 
Nin. and Dab. p. 1!»4), and on the other hand that 
stone- tipped arrows, as was the case also in Mexico, 
were used in the earlier times by the Ecyptians as 
well as the Persians and (j reeks, and that stone or 
Hint knives coiftinued to be used by them, and by 
the inhabitants of the desert, and also by the Jews, 
for religious purposes after tiie introduction of iron 
■«ito general use (Wilkinson, Anc. r.(j. i. 363, 3&4, 
.1. 103; Prescott, .l/.x/V.-, i. 118; Kx. iv. 25; 
loeh. V. 2; Is* Kgypt. room, Prit. Mus. case 36, 
}7). In the construction of the Tabernacle, copper. 


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 from 
their Kgyptian education, whilst the Canaanite 
inhabitants of Palestine and Syria were in full jws- 
session of its use both for warUke and domestic 
purposes (Ex. xx. 25, xxv. 3, xxvii. 19; Num 
XXXV. 10; Deut. iii. 11, iv. 20, viii. 9; Josli. viii. 
31, xvii. IG, 18). After the establishment of the 

Jews in Canaan, the occupation of a smith (inH) 
became recognized as a distinct employment (1 
Sam. xiii. 19). The designer of a higher order 

appears to have been called specially — ti^H (Ges. 
p. 531; Ex. XXXV. 30, 35; 2 Chr. xxvi. 15; 
Saalschiitz, Arch. Ilebi: c. 14, § IG). The smith's 
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 (^"^1!^ : apyvpo- 
kSttos, x'^"^^''"^^ '■ ^''[/entarius, aurifix) must 
have found emjiloyment both among the Hebrews 
.and the neighboring nations in very early times, 
as a))pears from the ornaments sent by Abraham 
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 learnt 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. G, 39; Neh. iii. 8; Is. xliv. 12). 
A'arious processes of the goldsniiths' work (No. 
1 ) are illustrated by ICgyptian monuments (Wilkin- 
son, Anc. ICfjypt. ii". 136, 152, 1G2). 

After the conquest frequent notices are found 
both of moulded and wrought metal, including 
soldering, which last had long been known in 
I'^gypt; but the Phoenicians appear to have jws- 
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. xli. 7; Wisd. xv. 4; 

Egypti:iii l!l,.\\-i iiH-, and umall Hre-plaoo with clieeka 
to coufine and reflect the heat. (Wilkinson.) 

Ecclus. xxxviii. 28; Bar. vi. 50, 55, 57 [or Epist. 
of Jer. vl. 60, 65, 57]; Wilkinson, ii. 162). [Zakk- 
riiATii.] Even in the desert, mention is m:^f 
of beating gold uito plates, cutting it into wire, aud 


Hiso of setting precious stones in gold (Ex. xxxis. 
3, tj, &c.; Beckmann, Hist, of Inv. ii. 414; Gas. 
p. 1229). 

Among the toob of the smith are mentioned — 

tongs (Q^niO^^, \a&is, forceps, Ges. p. 761, 


Is. vi. 6), hammer (tt?'^I32, (T<pvpi., malleus, U«* 
p. 1101), anvU (Q375, Ges. p. 1118), beUows 
(np^, ipvcri]T'i)p, sufflaUyrium, Ges. p. 896 ; Is. 

iK. 7; Jer. vi. 29; Ecclus. xxx-iii. 28; Wilkinson, 
ii. 31(5). 

In N. T. Alexander " the coppersmith " (6 xa^" 

Kfis) of Ephesus is mentioned, where also was 

carried on that trade in "silver shrines" ivaoi 

iurfvpol), which was represented by Demetrius the 


silversmith (apyvpoKSiros) as being in danger from 
the spread of Christianity (Acts six. 24, 28; 2 
Tim. iv. 14). [See also Smith.] 

2. The work of the carpenter (D"'237 W'^H, 
rtKTwy, artifex lignarius) is often mentioned id 



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 ol 
Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4. Chisels and drills. 

5. Part of drill. 

6. Nut of wood belonging to drill. 

7. 8. Saws. 

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 m 


the rebuilding under Zerubbabel, no mention b 
made of foreign workmen, though in the latter 
case the timber is expressly said to have been 
brought by sea to Joppa by Zidonians (2 K. xii. 
il ; 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 mentioned : the 

rule (Tntt?, ixerpov, n<yrma, 
possibly a chalk pencil, Ges. p. 
1337), measuring-line (Ip, Ges. 
p. 1201), compass (HJ^np, 
■irapaypa<pls, circimig, Ges. 
p. 450), plane, or smoothing 

instrument (n^^!Jp?5, K6\\a, 
runcbia, Ges. pp. 1228, 1338), 
axe CJT^IS, Ges. p. 302, or 

d'^lV., Ges. p. 123G, h^itm, 

The process of the work, and 
the tools used by Egyptian car- 
penters, and also coojiers and 
wheelwrights, are displayed in 
Egyptian monuments and relics ; 
the former, including dovetailing, 
veneering, drilling, glueing, var- 
nishing, and inlaying, may be 
seen in Wilkinson, Anc. Kgypt. 
ii. 1 1 1-1 It). Of the latter many 
specimens, including saws, hatch- 
ets, knives, awls, nails, a hone, 
and a drill, also turned objects 
in bone, exist in the British 
3Iuseuni, 1st Egvptian room, 
case 42-43, Nos". G()4G-618S. 
See also Wilkinson, ii. p. 113, 
fig. 3U5. 

In N. T. the occupation of a 
. carpenter {reKTcev) is mentioned 
in connection with Joseph the 
husband of the Virgin Mary, and ascribed to our 
Lord himself by way of reproach (Mark vi. 3; 
Matt. xiii. 55; and Just. Maxt. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 

ntrr, (Wilkinson.) 
Fig. 9. Horn of oil. 

10. Mallet. 

11. Basket of nulls. 

12. Basket which held th 

1 2 

Veneering and the use of glue. (Wilkinson.) 
piece of dark wood applied to one of ordinary quality, 6. c, adre, fixed into n blc;k of wood of the snnie color ai 
e, a ruler ; and/, a square, similar to those used by our carpenters, g-, a box. Fig 2 is grinding something 
^ue-pot on the fire, j, a piece of glue. Fig. 8 applying the glue with a brush, t- 

.3. The masons (□''"^"t^, wall-lmilders, Ges. p. ] in the word D V?2, men of Gebal, Jebail, Byb- 
26!') employed by Pavid and Solomon, at least the Ins (Ges. p. S.'iS; 1 K. v. 18; Ez. xxvii. 9; 
enief of them, were J'ha'iiicians, as is implied also \ Burckhardt, !<yria, p. 179). Among their inipl»- 




menu are mentioned the saw (m3tt, npluu), the •^P^'^serited on Egyptian monuments (Wilkinson, 
■'•• • '^ ' j -4wc. Lffypt. ii. 313, 314), or preserved in the Brit- 
plumb-line (TJ3S, Ges. p. 125), the measuring- ish Museum (1st Egyptian room, Nos. 6114, 6038) 
J /-T^-i , , ^ -,^..1, ' 'T^® '^''g® stones used in Solomon's Temple are 

reed {n:in, KaAa/xos, cakimm, Ges. p. 1221). j said by Josephus to have been fitted together exactly 
bciue of these, and also the chisel and mallet, are | without either mortar or cramps, but the foundar- 

»ijn stones to have been fastened with lead (Joseph. 
int viii. 3, § 2 ; xv. 11, § 3). For ordinary build- 

<ng mortar, T^tf? (Ges. p. 1328) was used; 
sometimes, perhaps, bitumen, as was the case at 

Babylon (Gen. xi. 3). The lime, clay, and Btraw 
of which mortar is generally composed in the East, 
requires to be very carefully mixed and united so 
as to resist wet (Lane, Mod. Egypt, i. 27; Shaw, 
Trav. p. 206). The wail "daubed with untem 



Carpenters. (Wilkinson.) 
I a hole in tlio seat of a cliair, s. t t, legs of chair, u u, adzes, 
a square, w, mar planiag or polishing the leg of a chair. 

Masons. (Wilkinson.) 
Put 1. levelling, and Part 2 squaring a stcoB. 

An Rpj'ptlan loom. (Wilkinson.) 
t k a thnttle, not tlirown, but put in wilh the liauJ. 
hook at each end. 


pered mortar " of Ezekiel (xiii 
10) was perhaps a sort of co!>- 
wall of mud or clay without 

lime Ppri, Ges. p. 1510) 
which would give way under 
heavy rain. The use of white- 
wash on tombs is remarked by 
our Lord (Matt, xxiii. 27. See 
also i\lishn,i. M(iaser Sheni, v. 
1). Houses mfected 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 exerci.sed to .some extent 
for the fishing-vessels on the 
lake of Gennesaret (Matt. viii. 
23, ix. 1; John xxi. 3, 8). 
Solomon built, at lilzion- Geber, 
ships for his foreign trade, which 
were manned by Phoenician 
crews, an experiment which Je- 
hosliaphat endeavored in vain to 
renew (1 K. ix. 26, 27, xxii. 48; 
2Chr. 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 " (D'^ni^'^, 
fivpfypoi, pif/me7ifni-ii), who ap- 
pear to have fsnned a guild or 
association (Ex. xxx. 25, 35; 
Neh. iii. 8; 2 Chr. xvi. 14; 
Eccles. vii. 1, x. 1; I'cclus 
xxxviii. 8). 

6. The arts of spinning and 
weaving both wool and linen 
were carried on in early times, 
a.s they are still usually among 
the Bedouins, by women. The 
women s\nm 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 attril)uted to the good 
house-wife is her skill and in- 
dustry in these arts (Kx. xxxv. 
25, 26; Lev. six. 10; Deut. 
xxii. 11; 2 K. xxiii. 7; Ez. xvi. 
16; Prov. xxxi. 13, 24; Burck- 
hardt. Notes im Bed. i. 65; 
comp. Horn. //. i. 123; Od. i. 
356, ii. 104). The loom, wiUi 

its beam ("T^Dp, fjifaavriov, 
Ikiatm-ium, 1 Sam. xvii. 7 ; 
Ges. p. 883), pin, (IH^, 
■niatrdSos, clnriis, Judg. \v\. 
14; Ges. p. 643), and shuttle 

(3T?y, Spoufvs, Job vii. 6; 
Ges. p. 14fi) was, j>erhaps, in- 
troduceil later, but as early aa 
David's time (1 Sam. xvii. 7), 
and worked by men, ns was the 
case in I'^gypt, contrary to the 
practice of other nations. ThU 
trade also appears to have b«ec 


practiced hereditarily (1 Clir. iv. 21 ; Herod, ii. 35 ; 
Soph. (Ed. Col. 339). 

Together with weaving we read also of era- 
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. -i, xxxix. 6-13). 

7. Besides these ai"ts, 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. iii. 4; Acts ix. 43; 
Mishn. MegiU. iii. 2). Shoe-makers, barbers, and 
tailors are mentioned in the Mishna (^Pesach. iv. 
6): the barber (2^3, Kovpevs, Ges. p. 283), or 
his occupation, by Ezekiel (v. 1; Lev. xiv. 8; Num. 
ri. 5; Josephus, Ant. xvi. If, § 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 {(TKrji/oiroioi) are noticed in the Acts 
(xviii. 3), and frequent allusion is made to the trade 
of the potters. 

8. Bakers (n"^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 
Jewisli, are spoken of 1 Cor. k. 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. Firke Ab. ii. 2; Kiddush. 
iv. 14). Some trades, however, were regarded as 
less honorable (.Jahn, Bibl. Arch. § 84). 

Some, if not aU trades, had special localities, as 
v?as the case formerly in European, and is now ui 
Eastern cities (Jer. xxxvii. 21 ; 1 Cor. x. 25 ; Jo- 
seph. B. J. V. 4, § 1, and 8, § 1; Mishn. Becor. 
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, Bibl. 
Antiq. c. V. § 81-84; Saalschiitz, Hebr. Arch. c. 
14; Winer, s. v. Handiocrke). [Musical In- 
struments; Potteky; Glass; Leather.] 
H. W. P. 
The two former of these terms, as used in the A. V. 
= (Tov'Sapiov, the latter =; aifuiKivdtov ■ they are 
classed together, inasmuch as they refer to objects 
of a very similar character. Both words are of 
Latin origin: (rovSiipwy = sudarium from sufh, 
"to sweat;" the Lutheran translation preserves 
the reference to its etymology in its rendering, 
Bchwelsstuch ; tri/j.iKli'9iov=^sem{cinctmm, i. e. "a 
half girdle." Neither is much used by classical 
writers; the mdnrium is referred to as used for 
.riping the face (" candido frontem sudario tergeret," 
^uintil. \i. 3), or hands ("sudario manus tergens, 
juod in coUo habebat," Petrou. infragni. Truyur. 
c. 67); and also as worn ova the face for the pur- 
pose of concealment (Sueton. in Nei-on. a. 48); the 
word was introduced by the Romans into Palestine, 
where it was adopted by the Jews, in the form 
<^^1^D aa := nn'StSa, in Ruth iu. 15. The 

HANES 997 

sudarium is noticed in the N. T. m 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 crwn of the head 
under the chin — and lastly as an article of 
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. £pigr. 153, and by Petron. in Satyr. 
c. 94. The distinction between the ductus and the 
semicinctium consisted in its width (Isidor. Orig. 
xix. 33): with regard to the character of the (tj/xi- 
KivOiov, the oidy inference firom 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 smlarium and the semiciiicliam 
was very small, for he explauis the latter by the 
former, a-ifMiKivdiof (paKt6\iov i) a-ovSaptof, the 
<l>aKi6\iou being a species of head-dress : Hesychius 
likewise explains (ri/j.iKluetoi/ by <pa.Ki6\iov. Ac- 
cording to the scholiast (m Cod. Sleph.), as quoted 
by Schleusner {Lex. s. v. a-ovSdpiov), the distinc- 
tion between the two terras is that the sudatium 
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 purjwses, like the article now called lungi 
among the Arabs, which is applied sometimes a3 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 (D3n: 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"OTt elalv ii/Tavn apxvyol ^yye- 
\oi TTovripoi, evidently following an entirely differ- 
ent reading. Hanes has been supposed by Vit- 
ringa, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, and Gesenius, to be 
the same as Heracleopohs Magna in the Heptano- 

mis, Copt, e^nec, ^nec, ^jihc. 

This identification depends wholly upon the simi- 
larity of the two names : a consideration of the 
sense of the passage in which Hanes occurs show.i 
its great improbability. The prophecy is a reproof 
of the Jews for trusting iu Egypt; and according 
to the IMasoretic 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 Ph.araoh, he is 
probably not an Ethiopian of the XX^^th dynasty, 
for the kings of that line are mentioned by name — 
So, Tirhakah — but a sovereign of the XXIIId dy- 
nasty, which, according«to Manetho, was of Tanite 
kings. It is supposed that the last kmg 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 wa« 
probably his capital, and in any case then the most 
important city of the eastern part of I.owfr Egypt. 
Hanes was most probably in its neighborh )od; and * 


we are disposed to think that the Chald. Paraphr. 
a right in identifjiug it with Dn^^r^FI, or 
Dn3?nri, once written, if the Kethibh be nor- 
rect, in the form Dp_2nri, Daphnae, a fortified 
town on the eastern 'frontier. [Tahpanhes.] 
Gesenius remarks, as a kind of apology for the 
identification of Manes with Heracleopolis JIagna, 
that the ktter was formerly a royal city. It is true 
that in Manetho's list the IXth and Xth dynasties 
are said to have been of Heracleopohte kings ; but 
it has been lately suggested, on strong grounds, by 
Sir Gardner Wilkinson, that this is a mistake in 
the case of the IXth dynasty for Ilermonthites 
(Herocl. ed. Itawlinson, 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. K- S. P. 
* HANGING. [Punishment.] 
represent both different words in the original, and 
different articles in the furniture of the Temple. 
(1.) The "hanging" (TIDtt : iTviffTraffTpov'- ten- 
twium) was a curtain or '■ covering " (as the word 
radically means) to close an entrance; one wa* placed 
before the door of the Tabernacle (Ex. xxvi. 3G, 
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. IG, xxxviii. 
18; Num. iv. 2G); the term is also apphed to the 
vail that concealed the Holy of Holies, in the full 
expression " vail of the covering " (Ex. xxxv. 12, 
xxxix. 34, xl. 21; Num. iv. 5). [Cuktaixs, 2.] 
(2.) The "hangings" (D^V/i?- to-ria: tenloria) 
were used for covering the walls' of the court of the 
Tabernacle, just as tapestry was in modem times 
(Ex. xxvii. 9, xxxv. 17, xxxviii. 9; Niun. iii. 2G, iv. 
26). The rendering in the LXX. implies that they 
were made of the same substance as the sails of a 
ship, J. e. (as explained by Kashi) "meshy, not 
woven: " tliis opuiion is, however, incorrect, as the 
material of which they were constructed was " fine 
twined Unen." The hangings were carried only 
five cubits high, or half the height of the walls of 
the court (Ex. xxvii. 18; comp. xxvi. IG). [Tab- 


In 2 K. xxiii. 7, the term bultim, C"^i\ 2l, 
strictly "houses," A. V. "hangings," is probably 
intended to describe tents used as portable sanctu- 
aries. W. L. B. 

HAN'IEL (^S"*3n, »'• «• Channiel [grace of 
(iixl]: 'kvii]\ [V;>t. -vii-Y IJankl), one of the 
sons of L'Ua, a cliief prince, and a choice hero in 
the tribe of Asher (1 Chr. vti. 39).. [Hannikl.] 

HAN 'N AH Ci^^r}, grace, OT prayer: "Kwa: 
Anwi), one of the wives of Elkanah, and mother 
of Samuel (1 Sam. i. ii.); a prophetess of conaid- 
eral)le repute, tliough her claim to that title is based 
upon one production only, namely, the hynm of 
.hank-tgiving for the birth of her son. This hynm 
« in the liighest order of prophetic |MJetry ; its re- 
iemt>lance to that of tiio Virgin Mary (comp. 1 
Sam. ii. 1-10 with Luke i. 4G-,55; see also P». 
♦aiii., has been noticed l)y the commentators; and 


it is specially remarkal)le as containing the fiiwl 
designation of the Messiah under that name. In 
the Targum it has been subjected to a process of 
magniloquent dilution, for which it would be difli- 
cult to find a parallel even in the pompous vagarie* 
of that paraphrase (Eichhora, Einl. ii. p. 68) 
[Sa-muel.] T. E. Ii. 

HAN'NATHON (iriSn [(/mceful, or gra- 
chmsly disposed]: 'Afjuid; Alex. EvvaBwO'- Iltma- 
tlion), 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 (^S;3n: 'Av.tjA: Ilanniel), 
son of Ephod; as prince (Nasi) of Manasseh he 
assisted in the division of the Promised Land 
(Num. xxxiv. 23). The name is the same as 

HA'NOCH (TT"^rn [see on Enoch] : 'Evtix- 
Henoch). 1. The third in order of the children 
of ISIidian, and therefore descended from Abraham 
by Keturah (Gen. xxv. 4). In the parallel list of 
1 Chr. i. 33, the name is given in the A. V. as 

2. (T|"13n: 'Evdx- Henoch), eldest son of 
Keuben (Gen. xlvi. 9; Ex. vi. 14; Num. xxvi. 5; 
1 Chr. V. 3y, and founder of the family of 

HA'NOCHITES, THE {^^2r:]r} : Sri^Los 
TOW "Ep(ix' f'tmilia Ilenochiiarum), Num. xxvi. 

* The Hebrew of Hanoch is the same as that of 
Enoch, and belongs to two other persons [Enoch]. 
'iliere is no good reason for this twofold orthogra- 
phy. H. 

HA'NUN (1^317 [graciovs]: 'Avvdv, ['Avdy, 
etc.:] Hanon). 1. Son of Nahash (2 Sam. x. 1, 
2; 1 Chr. xix. 1, 2), king of Amnion al)Out 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. C). 
AV. T. B. 

2. ['Avoui/: Jlnnun.] A man who, with the 
people of Zanoah, repaired the ravine-gate in the 
wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 13). 

3. ['Avwfi; Vat. FA. Avou^x; Comp. 'Aviiv- 
l/iiiiun.] A man specified as "the Gth son of 
Zalaph," who also assiste<l in the repair of the 
wall, apparently on the east side (Neh. iii. 30). 

* HAPHARA'IM, so A. V. ed. IGll, and 
other early editions, also the Bishops' Bible; in 
many later editicms, less con-ectly, 

HAPHRA'IM (□^"^Cn, i. e. ( Ihaphiiraim : 
'A7/V; [Vat. AvfiJ/;] Alex. A<>»€floei^: ll«ph(n«- 
im), a city of, mentioned next to Shuneni 
(Josh. xix. 19). The name possibly signifies "two 
pits." In the OmwwslUwi ("") it is 
spoken as still known under the name of Afiarea 
(Eus. 'A(t>paiix), and as standing six miles north 
of Legio. About that distance northeast oi Ltjjun, 
and two miles west of Solum (the ancient Shuneni), 
stands the village of eZ-'yl/ii/e A (jJ^,ftJL,M), which 

may l>e the representiitive of Chapharaim, the gut- 
tural Ain having tidien the place of the Hebrew 
t'hflh. G. 

HA'RA (S'ln [mminlnin-lniul, Ges..]: Am) 
which appeius only in I Chr. v. 26, and even t»«er« 


M omitted by the LXX., is either a place r^.terly 
ankuown, or it must be regarded as identical with 

Haran or Charran ('i'77^' *'^® Mesopotamian city 
to which Abraham came from Ur. The names in 
Chronicles often vary from those elsewhere used in 
Scripture, being later forms ; and Hai-a would 
nearly correspond to Carrhce^ 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 carried off by Pul 
and Tiglath-Pileser were settled iu Harran on the 
Btlik, while the greater number were conveyed to 
the Chahour. (Compare 1 Chr. v. 26 with 2 K. 
ivii. 6, xviii. 11, and xix. 12; and see articles on 
'harran and Habor.) G. R. 

HAR'ADAH (n"T"^nn, with the article 
[the trenMlng']: XapaSdd- Aracla), a. desert sta- 
tion of the Israehtes, Num. xxxiii. 24, 25; its 
position is uncertain. H. H. 

HA'RAN. 1. (pn [a strong one, FUrst: 
prob. montnnus, mountaineer, Gesen.] : 'Appdy: 
Jos. 'Apdvrjs- Ara7i). The third son of Terah, 
and therefore youngest brother of Abram (Gen. 
xi. 26 ). Three children are ascribed to him — 
Lot (27, 31), and two daughters, namely, Jlilcah, 
who married her uncle Nahor (29), and Iscah ^29), 
of whom we merely ix)ssess her name, though hv 
Bome (e. g. 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 Ninu-od for his wavering 
conduct during the fiery trial of Abraham. (See 
a theTargum Ps. Jonathan; Jerome's Qticest. in Ge- 
nesim, and the notes thereto in the edit, of Jligne. ) 
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. (Aav; Alex. ApaV- Aran.) A Gershonite 
lyevite in the time of David, one of the family of 
Shimei (1 Chr. xxiii. 9). G. 

HA'RAN ("llj^n, I. e.Chai-an: 'Apa/t; [Vat] 
Ales. AppaV- Hamn), a son of the great Caleb by 
his concubine Ephah (1 Chr. ii. 46). He himself 
had a son named Gazez. 

HA'RAN (T^n [scorched, arid, Gesen.; a 
noble, freeman, Fiirst] : Xappdv, Strab., Ptol. 
Kdppat : 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 
Nahor established themselves. Haran is therefore 
called " the city of Nahor" (comp. Gen. xxiv. 10 
\dth xxvii. 4-3). It is said to be in Mesopotamia 
Gen. xxiv. 10), or more definitely, in Padan-Aram 
(xxv. 20), which is the "cultivated district at the 
foot of the hills " (Stanley's .S. cf- P., p. 129 note), 
a name well applying to the beautiful stretch of 
Bountry which lies below Mount Masius between 
the Khabour and the Euphrates. [Padax-aram.] 
Here, about midway in this district, is a town still 
jalied Harran, which really seems never to have 
ih&nged its appellation, and beyond any reasonable 

HARAN 999 

doubt is the Haran or Charran of Scripture 
(Bochart's Phaleg, i. 14; Ewald's Geschichte, i. 
384). It is remarkable that the people of Harran 
retained to a late time the Chaldoean language and 
the worship of Chaldaean deities (Asseman. Bibl. 
Or. i. 327; Chwolsohn's Ssabier und der Ssabis- 
mus, ii. 39). Harran 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 m 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 Julian 
(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 (Acts 
vii. 2, 4. G. R. 

* A controvei-sy has recently sprung up respecting 
the situation of the patriarchal Haran which re- 
quires notice here. Within a few years a Uttle 
village known as Haran-el-Awamdd has been dis- 
covered, about four hours east of Damascus, on the 
borders of the lake into which the Barada (Abana) 
flows. Dr. Beke ( Origines Biblicce, Lond. 1834) 
had thrown out the idea that the Scripture Haran 
was not, as generally supposed, in Mesopotamia, Imt 
must have been near Damascus He now main- 
tains that this Hdrdn, so unexpectedly brought to 
light between " Abana and Pharpar, ri\ ers of Da- 
mascus," must be the identical Haran (or Charran) 
of the Bible in Aram-naharaim, i. 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 .lacob, 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 knowii 
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 
and the other pursuing. The chase was a close 
one, as all the language indicates. Jacob com- 
plains that Laban had " followed hotly " after him. 
The swift dromedaries would be brought into 
requisition if the ordinary camels were not swift 
enough. The speed of these animals i» such, sayi 



Sii- Henry Rawlinson (wlio has seen si, much of the 
East), that they " consume but 8 days in crossing 
the desert from Damascus to Ikghdad, a distance 
of nearly 500 miles." He thinks it unquestionable 
that Laban could have " traversed the entire dis- 
tance from Hanin to Gilead in 7 days" (Athenieum, 
April I'J, 18(J2). I'or examples of the capacity of 
such camels for making long and rapid journeys, 
see the Ptnny Cyclopcedia, vi. 191. 

Secondly, the expression (which is entirely correct 
for tiie Heljrew) that Laban's journey before com- 
ing up with Jacob was a " seven days' journey," 
is indefinite, and may include 8 or days as well 
as 7. "Seven," as Gcsenius 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's making such a journey in such time, 
the difficulty in the case of Jacob would seem to be 
still greater; since, accompanied as he was with 
Hocks and herds and women and children, he must 
have travelled much more slowly. To this it 
may be replied that the nari-ative 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 wliicii would consume three or four days 
more; so as in reality to give Jacob the advantage 
of five or six days liefore he finally started in 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. I'orter, who is so familiar with Eastern 
life, has drawn out this suggestion in a form that 
appears not unreasonable. Jacob could quietly 
move his flocks down to the banks of the liuphrates 
and send them across the river, without exciting 
suspicion ; since then, as now, the flocks of the great 
proprietors roamed over a wide region (Gen. xxxi. 
1-3). In like 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 aif enemy (vers. 17, 18). All this 
might take place before Lal)an 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 Eupiirates and Gile;ul, 
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 
could 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 
moment, under similar circumstances, accomplisli 
tho distance in 10 days, which is the shortest pe- 
rifxl we can, according to the Scripture account, 
iLssign to the journey (vers. 22, 2.'}). We must not 
judge of the capabilities of Arab women and chil- 
dren, flocks and herds, according to our Western 
ideas and experience." (See Atheiunum, May 24, 

1 )r. IJeke's other incidental confirmations of his 
heory ar; ess important. It is urged that imless 
Ahraiiam was living near Damascus, he could not 
uve ha<l a servant in his household who w:us cidletl 


" Eliezer of Damascus " (Gen. xv. 2). Tin 
answer to this is that the servant himself ma) pos- 
sibly have been born there and have wandered t-o 
the further East before Abraham's migration : or 
more probably, may have sprung from a family that 
belonged originally to Damascus. Mr. Porter says 
" I knew w'ell in Damascus two men, one called 
Ibrahim el-IIaleby. ' Abraham of Aleppo ' ; and the 
other Elias el-Akkawy, ' Elias of Akka,' neither of 
whom had ever been in the town whose name he 
bore. Their ancestors had come from those towns: 
and that is all such expressions usually signify in 
the East " (Athemeum, December 7, 18G1.) 

The coincidence of the name proves nothing as 
to the identification in question. The name (if it 
be Aral)ic) means 'arid,' 'scorched,' and refers no 
doubt to the Syrian IlCiran as being on the im- 
mediate confines of the desert. The affix Amwiad, 
"columns," comes from five Ionic pillars, forty feet 
high, which appear among the mud-houses of the 
villiige. (See Porter's Ilamlb. 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 le-ast; 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 Chari-an 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 diflered from 
the Jews of his time, since both Philo (c/e 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 I/dran-el-Awnmad, and felt that 
he saw the Scripture scene of Jacob's arrival, and 
of the presence of Kachel with " her father's sheep 
which she kept," retinacted 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 distinguisli 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, t. e. "Syria of the two rivers" 
(in the A. V. " Jlesopotaraia"). This expression 
occurs also in Dent, xxiii. 4 and Judg. iii. 8, and 
implies a historic notoriety which answers perfectly 
to the Tigris and luiphrates, but not to rivers of 
such limited local importance as the Abana and 
Pliarjjar, streams of Damascus. (2.) Aram-Dam- 
niesek (the •' SjTia Damascena" of Pliny) is the 
ap|>ellation of Southern Syria (see 2 Sam. viii. 6 
and Is. vii. 8), and is a difTerent region from Aram- 
naharaim where Haran was. (3.) Jacob in going 
to Hanm went to "the land of the people of the 
I'jist" (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 frtmi .Anm-naharaim, f])eak3 of himself 
a.s having been brought " out of ilie mountains of 
the East'' (Dent, xxiii. 5: Num. xxiii. 7). (4.) 
The '."iver which Jacob crossed in his flight from 


(Atun Is teraied "iHSn, i. e. «• the river," as the 
Euphrates is so often termed by way of eminence 
(Gen. xxxi. 21; Es. xxiii. 33; Josh. xxiv. 2, 3, &c.). 
(5.) The ancient versions (the Targums. the Syriac 
ind the Arabic Pentateuch) actually insert Eu- 
phrates ill Gen. xxxi. 21, and thus show how familiar 
the authors were with the peculiar Hebrew mode 
of designating that river. (6.) The places associ- 
ated with Haran, as Gozan, Kezeph, Eden (2 Kings 
iix. 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. 10, § 1 ) not only places Haran in Mesopo- 
tamia, but (referring to Aljraham'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 livuig traditions connect Abraham's life in 
Haran with ilesopotamia and not with Damascus. 
Ainsworth, who visited Haidn, says that the people 
there preserve the memory of the patriarch's liistory ; 
they tell where he encamped, where he crossed the 
Euphrates, and how he and his herds found a 
resting-place at Beroea, now Aleppo {llestnrclus 
in Assyria., etc., p. 152 f. ). H. 

HA'RARITE, THE (''~]"^nn, perhaps = 
the mountnincer, Ges. T/ies. p. -392: de Arcu-i, or 
Orori, Ararites), the designation of three men 
connected with David's guard. 

1. {6 'Apovxa^os- i'ie Arari.]) " Agke, 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. CApojSiTTjy; [Vat. Alex. -Set-: de Orori.]) 
" Shajim.vh the Hararite " is named as one of the 
thirty in 2 Sara, xxiii. 33. In 1 Chr. xi. 34 
[ApapC, Vat.i Apaxe'i 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, " Jonatlian son of 
Shammah the Hararite ' ' — Shammah being iden- 
tical with Shimei, David's brother. 

3. {"SiapaovpiTTjs, 6 'Apapl [Vat. -pei-, -pei- 
Arorites, Ararites.]) " Shar.vk (2 Sam. xxiii. 
it3) or Sacar (1 Chr. xi. 35) the Hararite " was 
the father of Ahiam, another member of the guard. 
Kennicott inclines to take Sacar as the correct 

HARBO'NA (W3'l2"!n [prob. Pers. ass- 
driver,Ges.] : ©appa, Alex. Oapejiwa; [Comp.Xap- 
jScoj/a:] tl irbon'i), 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 (n^in^n [see above]: 
Booyadav, [FA.l Bovya&a: Corop. Xap/Soira:] 
Harbonit). [Written thus in Esth. vii. 9, but the 
iame name as the foregoing. — H.] 

HARE (n^i?"?^, nrnebeth: Sacrinrovs '■ lepus) 
scours only in Lev. xi. 6 and Deut. xiv. 7, amongst 
jhe animals disallowed as food by the Mosaic law. 
Tbere is no doubt at all that arnebeth denotes a 
'hare," and in all probability the species Ltpm 



Sinaiticus, which Ehrenberg and Hemprich {Symb 
Phys.) mention as occurring in the valleys of 
Arabia Petra;a and Mount Sinai, and L. Synacus, 
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 
LeporidcB., as the L. ^i^t/yptius and the L. ^'Elhiopi- 
cus, if a distinct species from L. Sinaiticus, which 
are tbund in the Bible lands. The hare is at this 

day called amcb (y_^jv') by 

Arabs m Pales- 

tine and Syria (see Kussell's Nat. Hist, of Aleppo^ 
ii 154, 2d ed.). The Saavirous, i- e. " rough foot," 

Hare of Mount Sinai. 

is identical with Xayds, 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 [(?()NKy], 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 
a-s a native. It is doubtful whether Aristotle was 
acquainted with the r.abbit, as he never alludes to 
any burrowing \a.yuis or haavirovs'> but, on the 
other hand set tiie pas'^age ni m 2*^ ^ 3 w litre 
the young of the SatruTrous are saul to be Urn 

Haie of Mount Lebanon. 

blind," which will apply to the rabbit alone. Pliiiy 
{N. H. viii. 55), expressly notices rabbits (funiculi), 
wliieh occur in such numbers in the Balearic Islands 
as to destroy the harvests He also notices th« 



practice of ferreting these animals, and thus driving 
them out of tlieir burrows. In confirmation of 
Pliiiy's remarks, we may observe that tliere is a 
small island of the Balearic group called C'onejera, 
i. e. in Spanish a "rabbit-warren," which at this 
day is abundantly stocked with these animals. The 
hare was erroneously thought by tlie ancient Jews 
to have chewed the cu<l, wlio were no doubt misled, 
as in the case of the sluijihan (Jlijrax), by the habit 
these animals ha\e of moving the jaw about. 

" Hares are so plentiful in the envircus of Aleppo," 
says 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 
are hunted in Syria with greyhound and falconl 
W. H. 

HAR'EL (with the def. art. b«"inn : rh 
apiriK'- Atiel). In the margin of Ez. xliii. 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 sVxopo or 
hearth of the altar of burnt ofl^ring, covered by the 
network on which the sacrifices were placed o\er 
the burning wood. This explanation Gesenius 
adopts, and brings forward as a parallel the Ai-ab. 

8»|, ireh, "a hearth or fireplace," akin to the 
Heb. I^M, ui; " light, flame." Fiirst {Handw. 

s. V.) derives it from an unused root ^"^l^j hara, 
" to glow, burn," with the termination -il; but the 
only authority for the root is its presumed existence 
m the word Hurel. Ewald {Die Propheien des A. 
B. ii. 373) identifies Harel and Ariel, and refers 
them both to a root n~lS, ardh, akin to "H^M, ur. 
W. A. W. 

HA'REPH CTl^n [plucking off]: 'Ap'ifi; 
f\^at. Apfi/j.;] Alex. Apsi; [Comp. 'Apiip-] H"- 
riph), a name occurring in the genealogies of Judah, 
as a son of Caleb, and as "father of Beth-gader" 
(1 Chr. ii. 31, only). In the lists of I'Jir. ii. and 
Nell. vii. the similar name Hakipii is found; but 
nothing appears to establish a connection between 
the two. 


Pnn : iv TriKei" in lx)th MSS. — reading "1"'2? 

for "T"' — 2opi/(: [Vat.'2opeiK;] Alex. 'AptaO: 
[Comp. Xap'fid'] in snltum Ifaret), in which David 
took refuge, after, at the instigation of the prophet 
Gad, he had quitted the " hold " or fastness of the 
cave of Adutlam — if indeed it was Adullam and 
not Mi/.peh of Moab, wiiich is not quite clear (1 
Sam. xxii. 5). Nothing appears in the narrative 
by which the position of this forest, which has long 
Bince disappeared, can be a.scertained, except the 
very general remark that it was in the " land of 
Judah," i. e. according to JosephuR, the inheritance 
proper of that tribe, r^iv K\r]povxi<^v rris (pvXrjs, 

a The same ix>aaing \n found In JoscphuH (Ant. y\. nlonc in which the reading of Josephus 
1, 1 4). This U one of three Instances in this chapter tho llebrew text, and ogreeg with the LXX. 


as opposed to the " desert," rijv epr)ixiav, in whiek 
he had before been lurking {Anl. vi. 12, § 4). \Xt 
might take it to be the " wood " in the " wilder 
ness of Ziph " in which he was subsequently hidden 
(xxiii. 15. 1!)), but that the Hebrew term is ditlerent 
{chovesh instead of yaar). In the Onoinnstiron^ 
" Arith " is said to have then existed west of 

HARHA'IAH [3 syl] (H^qin {Jehocm 
is an(jry\: 'Apaxios ; [Vat. Alex. FA. omit:] 
Avai(i). Uzziel son of Charhaiah, of the goldsmiths, 
assisted in the repair of the wall of Jerusalem 
under Neheiniah (Neh. iii. 8). [Some MSS. read 

T^'^^Xl = Jchovnlt is a jvotectiun, Fiirst.] 

HAR'HAS (Dn-iri: -Apds; [Vat. Apaas:] 
Arans), an ancestor of Shallum the husband of 
Huldah, the prophetess in the time of Josiah (2 
K. xxii. 14). In the j.arallel passage in Chronicles 
the name is given as Ha&kah. 

HAR'HUR ("l^nin [root "IfH, to bum, 
sliine: hence disliiiclion, Fiirst: but Ges., iiiftam- 
vKi/iun] : 'Apovp; [in Neh., Vat. FA. Apovfj.:]' Ilnr- 
litir). Bene-Charchur were among the Nethinim 
\\lio returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Fzr. 
ii. 51 ; Neh. vii. 53). In the Apocryphal Fsdraa 
the name has become AssuK, I'hakacim. 

HA'RIM (□"in Iflat-nosecq). 1. (Xo/)(/3; 
[Comp.] Alex. Xaprifx'- Hiii-im), a priest who had 
charge of the third division in the house of God 
(1 Chr. xxiv. 8). 

2. ('HpeV, ['Hpa/i: in Neh. x. -5, 'Ipifi, Vat. 
Eipa/x;] Alex. 'HpcV- U^"'''"h Hartm^ 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, probal)ly 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>,r. x. 21). In the 
parallel to this latter passage in Esdnis the name 
is given Annas. 

3. ('Ape; [Vat. Alex. FA^ omit: ffarain.]) 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 KkiiUivi (C"in to CD"!) 
by a not unfrequent transposition of letters. 

4. ['Hpt{/i, exc. Ezr. ii. 32, Rom. 'HA«(yu; Neh, 
x. 27, Aid. Alex. 'Peoifx'- I/(irim, Ikri'm, Ifarem, 
/larnn.] Anotlier family of Bene-Harim [sons of 
H.], tiiree 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 apjiear 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 [iiHliimnnlrniii,Ges.; but 
VuTsl, one early-bom, strout/]: 'Apicp; [Vat. Ap«i;] 


AJex Ape./i, [A/)i(/); FA. Apeiij), Apet] Hnreph), 
ihiudred and twelve of the Bene-Chariph [sons 
jf C] returned from the Captivity with Zerubbabel 
(Neh. vii. 2-t). The name occurs again among the 
"heads of the people" who sealed the covenant 
(x. 19 [20 in Ilebr.]). In the lists of Ezra and 
Esdras, Ilariph appears as Jokah » and Azeph- 
ORiTH respectively. An almost identical name, 
Hareph L^nH, a plucking off'\, appears in the 
lists of Judaii [1 Chr. ii. 51] as the father of Beth- 
Kader [comp. Haruphitk]. 

HARLOT (mhT, often with Hti^M, HnpS, 

nti7^|7). That this condition of persons existed 
in the earliest states of society is clear from Gen. 
sxxviii. 15. So Rahab (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 
sm, 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. 
Alale relatives " were probably allowed a practically 
unlimited discretion in punishing family dishonor 
incurred by their women's unchastity (Gen. xxxviii. 
24 ). The provision of Lev. 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, wlien so near the sanctuary, they 
■night be viewed as approximating (JNIichaelis, L'lws 
/Moses, art. 2G8). Yet it seems to be assumed 
that the harlot cl.ass would exist, and the prohibi- 
tion of Deut. xxiii. 18, forbidding oflerings 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 ^K7^|^ (meaning properly " con- 
secrated") points to one description of persons, 
and n*~133 ("strange woman") to another, of( 
whom this class mostly consisted. The first term 
refers to the impure worship of the Syrian (i Astarte 
(Num. XXV. 1; comp. Herod, i. 199; Justin, xviii. 
5; Strabo, vili. p. 378, xii. p. 559; Val. Max. ii. 6, 
15; August, de Civ. Dei, iv. 4), whose votaries, as 
.dolatry 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 ; 
Jer. ii. 20 ; comp. Ex. xxxiv. 15, IG ; 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, 

« * Jor.ah (n~lV, first or early rain) is simply = 
Hariph, if the latter means (see above) the early rain 
nhich begins to fall in Palestine about the middle of 
Jctober. H. 

b DeyUng, Observ. Saa Ii. 476, Wn>p"T3"1D, i. e. 

c Philo (Lib. de spec. Legib. 6, 7) contends that 
wKoredom was punished under the Mosaic law with 


and hardly could enter into the view of the Mosaic 
institutes. As regards the foshions involved in the 
practice, similar outward marks seem to have at- 
tended its earliest forms to those which we trace in 
the classical writers, e. rj. 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. Siit. xvi.; Juv. vi. 118 foil.; Dougtoei 
Anulect. Sacr'. Exc. xxiv.). Public singing in the 
streets occurs also (Is. xxiii. IG; 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. IG, lived as Greek hetaerse 
sometimes did, in a house together {IHcl. Gr.- and 
Rom. Ant. s. v. Hetcera). 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 
Perse, i. 163, ed. 1711), as also may Luke xv. 30, 
for the sums lavished on them (ib. 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 Dougtsei Anal. Sacr. ad loc), where 
the victim is further allured by a promised sacri- 
ficial banquet (comp. Ter. A"m«. 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 ui 
crease of polygamy, and consequently lowered the 
estimate of marriage. The corrupt practices im- 
ported by Gentile converts into the (Jhurch occasion 
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 TTopveia there, chiefly from its context, which 
may be seen discussed at length in Deyling's Observ. 
Sacr. ii. 470, foil; Schoettgen, f/or. flebr. i. 468; 
Spencer and Hammond, ad toe. 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 Jlichaelis's Laws of Moses, bk. v. art. 
2G8; Selden, de Ux. Heb. i. Ig! iii. 12, and de Jur. 
Natur. V. 4, together with Schoettgen, and the 
authorities there quoted, may be consulted. 

The words ^^n"! n'"13-Tn'1, 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 
Jos'jphus. H. H. 

HARNETHER (l^^^n [etym. uncer- 
tain]: 'Apvafdp; [Vat. corrupt:] Harnapher), 
one of the sous 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. 

d So at Corinth were 1000 iepoSoCAoi dedicated to 
Aphrodite and the gross sins of her worship, and sim 
ilarly at Comana, in Armenia (Strabo, II. c). 

« A5t 

ai yvvaiKei 

T>)s oSov T0U5 TrapioiTas 

^vvapird^ova-i (Theophr. Char, xxviii.). So Catnllns 
(Carm. xxxvii. 16) speaks converiselj of semiiarit 


ipring oj Cliarod [i. e. of (rembliiif/], T~in ^'^V : 
wiiyii ' A^ttS, Alex, rriv y-qv loep : f>jns qui voca- 
lur Harad), a spring by w'S) which Gideon and 
his great army encamped on tlie morning of the day 
which ended in the rout of the iMidianites (.Iiulg. 
vii. 1), and where the trial of the jieople by their 
mode of drinking apparently took place. Tiie word, 
slightly altered, recurs in the proclamation to the 

host: "Whosoever is fearful and trembhng (T^^H) 
chared) let him return" (ver. 3): but it is impos- 
sible to decide whether the name Charod wa.'!,as Prof. 
Stanley proposes, liestowed on account of the trem- 
bling, or whetiier the mention of the trembling was 
suggested by tiie previously e.\jsting 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 Philistines — when 
he " was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly," 
at the sight of their fierce hosts (1 Sam. xxviii. 5). 
The 'Ain Jalihl, with which I'rof. Stanley would 
identify llarod (6\ # P.) is very suitable to the 
circumstances, as being at present the largest spring 
in the neighborhood, and as fornimg a pool of con- 
siderable size at wliich great numbers uiiglit drink 
(Kob. ii. 323). But if at that time so copious, 
would it not have been seized by the Slidianites 
before Gideon's arrival? However, if the Mm Ja- 
lud be not this spring, we are \ery much in the 
dark, since the "hill of Moreh," the only land- 
mark afforded us (\ii. 1), has not been recognized. 
The only hill of .Moreh of which we have any certain 
knowledge was by Shecheni, 25 miles to the .south. 
If 'Ain Jalud be Harod, then Jtbd JJuliy must be 

It is quite possible that the name Jalud is a 
corruption of Ilarod. 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'^On [patronym., 
see below]: <5 'PovBalos; Alex, o ApovSaios, [o 
ApuSatos-] de Harodi), the designation of two of 
the thirty-seven warriors of David's guard, Sham- 
MAii and Eliica (2 Sam. xxiii. 25), doubtless de- 
rived from a place named Harod, either that just 
spoken of or some other. In the parallel pa.ssage 
of Chronicles by a change of letter the name ap- 
pears as IlAIiOKlTE. 

HARO'EH (nt;<""irT, i. 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 " (I Chr. ii. 
62). The Vulg. translates this and the following 
words, ''qui videbat dimidium requietionum." A 
wmewhat similar name — Kkaiaii — is given in 
V. 2 as the son of Shobal, but there is nothing to 
•sstaMish tlie identity of the two. 

HA'KORITE, THE C^lT^nn [see IIa- 
noDiTi:]: 6 'A/)a>p{; [Vat. FA. o A5i;] Alex. 
9a5'- Arorllis), the title given to Shammoth, 
HM of the warriors of David's guard (1 Chr. xi. 27), 


We have here an example of the minjtt diiwrep- 
ancies which exist between these two parallel lists 
In this case it appears to have arisen from an ex- 
change of 1, D, for "1, R, and that at a very early 

date, since the LXX. is in agreement witli the 
present Ilelirew text. But there are other differ 
enccs, for which see Siiammah. 

HARO'SHETH (nttJ-^Q. Charosheth 
[icorking in wood, siotie, etc., Ges. ; or cily of 
crafts, of artificial woi-k,YuTs,t\: 'Apt(r(od; [Vat. 
Apfiffcod; Alex. Aaeipwd, in ver. 16, Spv/iov'-] 
Ilarosetit), or rather " llarosheth of the Gentiles," 
as it was called (probably for the same reiison that 
Galilee was afterwards), from the mixed races that 
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-IIukh), from which the Jordan 
issues fortli 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 
(.ludg. iv. 2), whose capital, Hazor, one of the 
fenced cities assigned to the children of Naphtali 
(.Josh. xix. 30), lay to the northwest of it; and it 
was the point to wliich the \1ctorious IsraeUtes 
under Barak pursued the discomfited host and 
cliariots 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). 
Neitlier 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 ;dl those 
kingdoms" (.Josh. xi. 6, 10), had been taken afid 
burnt by Joshua; its king, Jabin I., put to the 
sword; and the whole confederation of the (.'anaan- 
ites of the north broken and slauglitered in the 
celebrated battle of the waters of Merom (.losh. 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 failetl before in the Piiilistiue plain (Judg. 
i. 19). Herein was the great difficulty of subdu- 
ing plains, similar to that of the Jordan, beside 
whicli llarosheth 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 weajwus. (Tlie 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- 
jaii, 1 K. i. 5 ; while tlie climax was reached under 
Solomon, 1 K. iv. 26.) And then it was that 
tiieir decadence set in ! They were strong in 
faitli when they hamstrung the horses and burned, 
the chariots with fire of the kings of Hazor, of 
Madon, of Shiniron, and of Achshaph (Josh. xi. 1). 
And yet so rapidly did they decline when their 
illustrious le.ader 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 
Jaliin, the territory of whose ancestors had been 
assigned to the tribe of Naphtali, claimed the dis- 
tinction of being the first to revolt against and 
ithake off tlie dominion of Israel in his newlj 
acquired inherit.ance. But tlie victory won bj 


Drborah 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 (I'a. Ixxxiii. 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 (Lancl and Book, ii. 14.3) sup- 
poses Harosheth to be the high Tell called ffuro- 
thieh, near the base of Canuel, where the Kishon 
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 op the other 
side of the river, and hence somewhat nearer the 
scene of the Ueborah-Barak battle. This writer says 
that tiarvtiiteh is the Arabic form of the Hebrew 
Harosheth, and (according to his view of the di- 
rection of the flight) lies directly in the way of the 
retreat of Sisera's forces. It is about eight miles 
from Megiddo, and in the neighborhood of Accho 
(' Akka), and hence exiictly in the region where the 
Gentile " nations," to which Harosheth belonged, 
still 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 modem 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 possibly 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 preser\ed. H. 



HARP ("1133, Kinnor), in Greek Kivvvpa 
or Kivvpa, from the Hebrew word, the sound of 
which corresponds with the thing signified, like the 
German knurr en, " to produce a shrill tone " 
(Liddell and Scott). Gesenius inchnes to the 

opinion that "1^33 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 little doubt 
that it was the earliest instrument with which man 
was acquainted, as the writer of the Pentateuch 
assigns its invention, together with that of the 

^2^37, U(jnb, incorrectly translated " organ " in 
the A. v., to the antediluvian period (Gen. Iv. 21). 
Dr. Kalisch {Hid. and Cril. Com. on the Old Test.) 
considers Kinnor to stand for the whole class of 
rtringed instruments {yeffinoth), as l^gnb, says 
he, "is the tj'pe of all wind instruments." Writers 
rho connect the Kivvpa with Kivvp6s (wailing), 
Kiyioouai H lament), conjecture that this uistru- 

ment was only employed by the Greeks on occa- 
sions of sorrow and distress. If this were the case 
with the Greeks it was far different 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 Irhanksgivuig 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 priva-e 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 Uke 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.) 

INIoab " (Is. xvi. 11) has impressed some Biblical 
critics with the idea that the kinnor had a lugu- 
brious sound; but this is an error, since "HDDS 

l^n^ refers to the vibration of the chords agjd 
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 Shiltt 
Hagyibborim describes it as resembling the modem 
harp ; Pfeiffer gives it the form of a guitar : anil 
St. Jerome declaren it to have resembled in r>bap« 



the Gieek letter delUi; and this last view is sup- 
poited by Hieronjinus, quoted by Joel Brill in the 
preface to Meiulflgsohn's Psalms. Joseplius re- 
cords (AtUiq. vii. 12, § 3) that the kinnor had ten 
strings, and 'Jiat it was played on with the plec- 
trum ; others assign to it twenty-four, and in the 
IShiUe lIn()<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 Da\id played on 
the kinnor with his hand. As it is reasonable to 
suppose that there was a smaller and a larger kin- 
nor^ inasmuch as it was sonietinies played by the 
Israelites whilst walking (1 Sam. x. 5), the opinion 
of Munk — " on jouait peut-etre des deux manieres, 
Huivant lea dimensions de l' instrument " — is well 

Egyptian harps. (From the tomb at Tnebes, called 


entitled to consideration. The Talmud {Mass. 
Biracolli) has preserved a curious tradition to tiie 
effect thut 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^ntt7n bv -I*l33 — "harp on the 
Sheminith " (1 Chr. xv. 21) — was so called from 
its eight strings. Many learned writers, including 
the author of Sliilte Ilagyibboi-im, identify the word 
" Sheminith " with the ocf-ave; 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. [Shkminith.] The 
skill of the Jews on the kinnoi- appears to have 
reached its highest point of jierfection in the age 
of David, the effect of whose performances, as well 
as of thoie by the members of the " Schools of 
the Prophets," are described as truly marvelous 
(romp. 3 Sam. i. 5, xvi. 23, and xix. 20). 

D. W. M. 

HARROW. The word so rendered 2 Sam. 
xii. 31, 1 f 'hr. xx. 3 (V''':f7) '* probably a thresh- 
ing-machine, the verb rendered "to harrow" 
(lltt?), Is. xxviii. 24; Job xxxix. 10; Hos. x. 11, 
jxpresses apparently the breaking of the clods, and 
Is 80 far analogous to our harrowing, but whether 
ione by any such machine as we call "a harrow," 
■B very doubtful. In modern Palestine, oxen are 
iometimes turned in to trample the clods, and in 
lonie T>art8 of Asia a bush of thorns is drag^d 
>v«r the surface, but all these processes, if used. 


occur (not after, but) before the seed is committed 
to the soil. [See Agricultuue.] H. H. 

HAR'SHA (Wtr-in [ffor/, Ges. 6te Aufl.; 
see Fiirst] : 'Ap(rd; ['ASao-ai/; in Ezr., Yat. Apr/- 
tra-] Ilarsa). Jfene-Charslia [sons of C] were 
among the families of Nethinim who came back 
from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Kzr. ii. 52; Neh. 
vii. 54). In the parallel list in Esdras the name is 


HART (VN: iKa<pos: cei-vus). 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 w-as 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 C^ _''S, 
" rams " (as given in the LXX. and Vulg.). The 
proper name Ajalon is derived from oyynl.^ and im- 
plies that harts were numerous in the neighbor- 
hood. W. L. B. 

The Heb. masc. noun ayynl ( vJS), which is al- 
ways rendered f\a(poi by th« LXX., denotes, there 
can be no doubt, some species of Ceiridce (deer 
tribe), either the Damn vulrjaris, fallow-deer, or 
the Cervus Bnrbarus, the Barbary deer, the south- 
ern representative of the European stag {C. ela- 
plius), which occurs in Tunis and the coast of 
l^arbary. We have, however, no evidence to sliow 
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) obsened the fallow-deer on Motmt Tal)or. 
Sir G. Wilkinson says (.Inc. J-^ffypt. p. 227, 8vo 
ed.l, "The stag with branching horns figured at 
ISeni Il.-iiisan in also unknown in the valley of tht 


STle; 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 Red Sea." This is 
doubtless the Cervus Barharus. 

JNlost of the deer tribe are careful to conceal their 
salves after birth for a time. May 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 
iKoLCpos, we may inchne to the belief that the Cer- 
vus Bnrbarus is the deer denoted. The feminine 
noun nb*S, ayydldli, occurs frequently in the 
O. T. For the Scriptural allusions see under 
Hind. W. H. 

* The word Jo I 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 

goat J^^. " G. E. P. 

HA'RUM (Dnn [elevated, hfty-]: 'laplv, 
[Vat.] Alex, lapeifn.'- 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 (n'?^"'^ [slit^nosed, Ges.] : 
'Epco;ucJ(|)^[Va,t. Epco/^afl:] Haromnph), father or 
ancestor ot Jedaiah, who assisted in the repair of 
the wall of .Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 10). 

HARU'PHITE, THE CD^nqn [patro- 
nym., see Hmiph] : d Xapatcpi-qX ; [Vat. FA. 
-(pfi-nW Aid.] Alex. 'Apov(pl-- [Ilanipkites]), the 
designation of Shephatiahu, one of the 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"^"!!]!. 

HA'RUZ (V^"in {zealms, active']: 'Apovs: 
Harus), a nian of Jotbah, father of ^Nleshullemeth, 
queen of Maiiasseh, and mother of Ajion king of 
Fudah (2 K. xxi. 19). 

HARVEST. [Agriculture.] 

HASADI'AH (n^lOn {ichom Jehovah 
Itrves]: 'AcraSia: Hnsadin), one of a group of five 
persons among the descendants of the royal line of 
Judah (1 Chr. iii. 20), apparently sons of Zerub- 
babel, the leader of the return from Babylon. It 
has 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 (nSpr^rr, l e. has-Sennuah 
[the hated]; 'Aaivod; [Vat. Aai/a;] Alex. Ao-a- 
coi/o: Asrma), a Benjamite, of one of the chief 
families in the tribe (1 Chr. ix. 7). The name is 
"eally Senuah, with the definite article prefixed. 

HASHABI'AH (n;j:?tt?q, and with final «, 

in^5^'q ; 'Ao-o/Sios, ['Ao-a^ia, 'Aaefiias,] 
AtrtBla, [etc.:] Hasabias, [Hasabia, Hasebias,] 



Hnsebin), a name signifying "regarded of Jeiio- 
vah," much in request among the Levites, espe- 
cially at the date of the return from Babylon. 

1. A jMerarite Levite, son of Aniaziah, in the 
ine of Ethan the singer (1 Chr. vi. 45; Heb. 30) 

2. Another Merarite Levite (1 Chr. ix. 14). 

3. Chashabia'hu: another Levite, the fourth 
of the six sous 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 Hebronites, «". e. 
descendants of Hebron the sou of Kobath, one of 
the chief families of the Levites (1 Chr. xxvi. 30) 
He and the 1,700 men of his kindred had super • 
intendence for King David over business botli 
sacred and secular on the west" of Jordan. Pos- 
sibly this is the same person as 

5. The son of Keniuel, who was "prince" 

("IC^) of the tribe of Levi in the time of David 
(1 Chr. xxvii. 17). 

6. Chashabia'hu: another Levite, one of the 

"chiefs" l^'^.^?) of his tribe, who oflBciated for 
King Josiah at ' his great passover-feast (2 Chr. 
XXXV. 9). In the parallel account of 1 Esdras the 
name appears as Assabias. 

7. A Merarite Levite who accompanied Ezra 
from Babylon (Ezr. viii. 19). In 1 Esdras the 
name is Askbi.v. 

8. One of the chiefs of the priests (and there 
fore of the faniilj of Kohath) who formed part of 
the same caravan (Ezr. viii. 24). In 1 Esdras tha 
name is Assanias. 

9. "Ruler" ("127) of half the circuit or envi- 
rons (TJvS) of Keilah; he repaired a portion of 
the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 

10. One of the Levites who sealed the covenant 
of reformation after the return from tlie Captivity 
(Neh. X. 11). Probably this is the person named 

as one of the " chiefs " C^ttJS"^) of the Levites in 
the times immediately subsequent to the retun) 
from Babylon (xii. 24; comp. 26). 

11. Another Levits, 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 relaton 
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 waa at this time, in ver. 35). But see 

12. Another Levite in the same list of attend- 
ants on the Temple ; son of Mattauiah (Neh. xi. 

13. A priest of the family of Hilkiah in the 
days of Joiakira son of Jeshua, that is in the gen- 
eration after the return from the Captivity (Neh. 
xii. 21; comp. 1, 10, 20). 

HASHAB'NAH (n25I?n [see supra]: 
['Ea-a-ttfiavd; Alex. Etra^ora, and so Vat. FA., 

a This i« one of the instances la which the word 
ift«f (beyond) w used for the west side of Jordan, To 

remove the anomaly, our tran8lat<>n have lenlerad ■ 

" on thifi side." 



exc. the wrong division of words:] Hasebnn), one 
of the chief ("heads") of the "people" (t. e. the 
laymen) who sealed the covenant at the same time 
with Nehemiah (Neh. x 25). 

HASHABNI'AH (n;?3li'n [irhom Jeho- 
vah rei/ards]: 'Affa^avla; [Vat. Ao-o/Saveayti ;] 
Alex. A(r0ayia\ [FA. A.a$fueaix-] Ihtsebonui). 
1. Father of llattush, who repaired part of the 
wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 10). 

2. [Ila^ibnia.'] A Levite who was among those 
who officiated at the great fast under lizra and 
Nehemiah when the covenant was sealed (Neh. ix. 
5). This and several other names are omitted in 
both MSS. of the LXX. 

HASHBAD'AlSrA (n3":T5l??n [irHelllfjence 
injudfjing^ Gesen.] : 'AirajSaSyua; [Vat. FA.i. 
omit; Alex. A(ra;8oa^a:] llitsbndunu), one of the 
men (probably Levites) who stood on Ezra's left 
hand while he read the law to the people in Jeru- 
salem (Neh. viii. 4). 

HA'SHEM (Dtt^n [perh. fat, rich, Ges.] : 
'Ao-a/u; [Vat. FA. corrupt: Assem]). The sons 
of Hasheni the Gizonite are named amongst the 
members of David's guard in the catalogue of 1 
Chr. (xi. 34.) In the parallel list 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 
sons of Ilashem, Guni " {Dissertation, pp. 198- 

HASHMAN'NIM (D^?tt^'n : np^(70as- 
lei/ati). This word occurs only in the Hebrew of 
Ps. Ixviii. 31 : " Hashniannim (A. V. "prin(?es") 
shall come out of I'"gypt, Cush shall make her hands 
to hiistcn to God." In order to render this word 
"princes," or the like, modern Hebraists have had 
recourse to extremely improbable derivations from 
the Arabic. The old deri\ ation from the civil name 
of Hermopolis Magna in the Ileptanomis, presened 

I, «<the two 

in the modern Arabic v -^ ^« « -■'^'- 
Ashmoons," seems to us more reasonable 


ancient Egj-ptian name is Ha-shmen or Ila-shmoon 
the abode of eight ; the sound of the signs for eight 
however, we tiike alone from tlie Coptic, and Brugscl 
reads them Sesennu {Geor/. Imchr. i. pp. 219, 220), 
but not, as we think, on conclusive grounds. The 
Coptic form is CyJULOVJl 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 
circimistance that Hermopolis Magna was the great 
city of the l^gyptian Hermes, Thoth, the god of 
wisdom ; and tlie meaning might therefore be that 
even the wisest ICgyptians should come to the tem 
pie, a.s well as the distant Cushites. R. S. P. 

HASHMO'NAH (n:btt'n [frmtfulne^s] 
2e\iJ.<i>i'a; Alex. AcfA/JLUva'- )fesmonu), a station 
of the Israelites, mentioned Num. xxxiii. 29, as next 
before Moscroth, which, from xx. 28 and Heut. x 
5, wa.s near Mount Hor; this tends to indicate the 
ocality of IIa.shmonah. H. H. 

HA'SHUB (nit^n, t. c. Chasshub [associate, 
friend, or intilUf/enl]: 'A(tov$' Asub). The re- 
duplication of the Sli has been overlooked in the 
A. v., ami the name is identical with that eLse- 
vlurj correctly given as IIassiiuu. 


1. A son of Pahath-Moab who agsi^ted in Ibl 
repair of the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 23). 

. Another man who assisted in the same work, 
but at another part of the wall (Neh. iii. 11). 

3. [Vat. FA. AaovO.] The name is mentioned 
a<;ain among the heads of the "people" (that is 
the laymen) who sealed the covenant with Nehe- 
miah (Neh. X. 23). It may belong to eithei of the 

4. [Horn, omits; Vat. Alex. FA. Affov0.] A 
Merarite Levite (Neh. xi. 15). In 1 Chr. ix. 14, 
he appears again as Hasshub. 

HASHU'BAH (nStrn [esteevied, or asso- 
ciated]: 'Ao-oiy/Se; Alex. A(Tf$a'- Ilasaba), the 
first of a group of five men, apparently the latter 
half of the family of Zerubbabel (1 Chr. iii. 20). 
For a suggestion concerning these persons, see 

HA'SHUM (Dtrn {rich, distinguished:]: 
^Aaovfi, 'Affdjii [etc.: Hasum, Hasom, Ilasem]). 

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 family was among those who sealed the cove- 
nant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 18). [In 1 Esdr. 
ix. 33 the name is Asosi.] 

2. ('Ao-tiju; [Vat. FA.i omit:] Asum.) The 
name occurs amongst the priests or Invites who 
stood on Ezra's left hand while he readnhe law to 
the congregation (Neh. viii. 4). In 1 I'3sdr. ix. 44 
the name is given corruptly as Lotiiasubus. 

HASHU'PHA (S^tt'O [uncovered]: 'Ao- 
(pa; [Alex. FA. AffeKpa- Ilasiipha]). one of the 
families of Nethinim who returned from captivity 
in the first caravan (Neh. vii. 46). The name ia 
accurately Hasupiia, as in Ezr. ii. 43. [Asipha.] 

HAS'RAH (n"jpn [perh. splendw; Fiirst] : 
'Apas; [Vat. XeWrii;] Alex. Ecfftpv- I^asra), 
the form in which the name IIaiuias is given iii 
2 Chr. xxxiv. 22 (comp. 2 K. xxii. 14). 

HASSENA'AH (nSDDn [the thorn-hedge, 
Fiirst]: 'Aaavd; [Vat. AcaV, FA. Atravaa:] 
Asnaa). The Bene-has-senaah [sons of Ilassenaah] 
rebuilt the fish-gate in the repair of the wall of 
Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 3). The name is doubtless 
that of the place mentioned in Vj.r. ii. 35, and Neh. 
vii. 38 — SiiNAAH, with the addition of the defi- 
nite article. Perhaps it has some connection with 
the rock or cliff Skneji (1 Sam. xiv. 4). 

HAS'SHUB (n^tSJn [intelligent, knotnng, 
Ges.] : 'A(rai/3 : Ilassuh), a Merarite Levite (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 Hasiiub. 

HASUTHA (St^trri [uncovered, nale<q: 
'A(rov(pd ; [Vat. Aaovcpf ■] Hasupha). IJene 
Cbasi\])ha [sons of C.] were among the Nethinin 
who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (ICzr. 
ii. 4.'t). In Nehemiah the name is inaccurately 
given in the A. V. [as in the Genevan version] 
HAsmTi'iiA; in Esdi-as it is A.sii'iiA. 

HAT. [IlKAD-DitKss, at the end of the art.] 

HA'TACn ("il»7L! [I'ers. eunuch, Geien.) 
'Axpaearoj; Alex. [ver. 5,] Axpadf.s; [ver. 9, 


with FA.i, AxOpadatos; Conip. 'AflaxO ^tJxich), 
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 rhu fui/ovxoy aiirrjs. 

HA'THATH (nnq [fearfut]:'Aede: Ha- 
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). 

HATI'PHA (Wp'^ipn [seized, captive] : 
'Arovcpd, 'ATKpd; [in Ezr., Alex. ATi(j>a; in 
Neh., Vat. Alex. FA. AreKpa:] Hatipha). Bene- 
Chatipha [sons of C] were among the Nethinim 
who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. 
ii, 54; Neh. vii. 56). [Atipha.] 

HATI'TA (SKj'^t^n \d'KJ(ling, exploi-ing]: 
'hTtrd; [in Ezr., Vat. Atijto; in Neh., Vat. FA. 
Aieira:] natila). Bene-Chatita [sons of C] were 
among the " porters " or " children of the porters " 
(D*'~}V.^O) «'• e. the gate-keepers), a division of 
the Ixvites who returned from the Captivity with 
Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 42; Neh. vii. 45). In Esdras 
the name is abbreviated to Teta. 

HAT'TIL (b'^^n [wavering, or decaying]: 
'AtiA, 'Ett7)\; Alex. AttjA., [Ettt)A.; in Ezr., 
Vat. Areia; in Neh., Vat. FA. EyrjA.:] nutil). 
Bene-Chattil [sons of C] were among the "chil- 
dren of Solomon's slaves " who came back from 
captivity with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 57 ; Neh. vii. 
5ii). [Hagia.] 

HAT'TUSH (tZJ^ltan [prob. assembled, Ges.; 
cimteiider, Fiirst] : Xottous, ' Attovs, [etc.:] Ilai- 
tiis). 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 Jerusalem (Ezr. viii. 2), whither 
Zerubbabel himself had also come only seventy or 
eighty years before (Ezr. 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 sealing 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 
ill 1 Chr. iii., Ixird A. Hervey proposes to read the 
genealogy in that chapter as if he were the nephew 
)f Zerubbabel, Shemaiah in ver. 22 being taken as 
.dentinal with Shimei in ver. 19. For these pro- 
»osals the reader is referred to Lord Hervey' s 
Genealogies, pp. 103, 307, 322. &c. [Lettus; 


2. {'AttovO [Vat. FA. Arovd; Alex, uvtovs; 
Comp. 'Attows-] ) Son of Hashabniah ; one of those 
tvho assisted Nehemiah in the repair of the wall of 
Jerusalem (Neh. iii. 10). 

HAU'RAN O'^f} [see infra]: Ahpavlrii: 



province of Palestine 

twice mentioned by Ezekiel in defining the north- 
eastern border of the Promised Land (xlvii. 16, 18). 
Had we no other data fbr determining its situation 
we should conclude from his words that it lay north 
of Damascus. There can be little doulit, however, 
that it is identical with the well-known Grei k prov- 


ince of Auranitis, and the modern ffawdn. 1 te 
name is probably derived from the word n^H, flur, 

hole or cave; " the region still abounds in caves 
which the old inhabitants excavated partly to serve 
as cisterns for the collection of water, and partlj 
for granaries in which to secure their grain from 
plunderers. Josephus frequently mentions Auran- 
itis in connection with Trachonitis, Batansea, and 
Gaulanitis, which with it constituted the ancient 
kingdom of Bashan {B. J. i. 20, § 4; ii. 17, § i). 
It formed part of that TpaxovinSos X'^P"- '"efe'Ted 
to by Luke (iii. 1) as subject 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 Batanaga, and on the 
south by the great plain of Moab (Jer. xlviii. 21). 
I'he surface is perfectly flat and the soil is among 
the richest in Syria. Not a stone is to be seen 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 his Giant Cities 
of Bashan ; Wetzstein's Reisebencht iih. Hauran 
n. die Trachonen (Berlin, 1861)]). Some Arab 
geographers have described the Iliuran as much 
more extensive than here stated (Bohaed. Mt. Sal. 
ed. Schult. p. 70; Abulfed. Tab. Syr. s. v.); and 
at the present day the name is appUed by those nt 
n distance to the whole country east of Jaulan ; 
but the inhabitants themselves define it as above. 
J. L. P. 

* HAVENS, FAIR. [Fair HavexNs.] 

HAVI'LAH (nb"'in [circIe,district,¥i\Tst'] 
Evi\d, Evei\d: Ilerila). 1. A son of Cush (Gei' 
X. 7); and — 

2. A son of Joktan (x. 29). Various theories 
have been advanced respecting these obscure peoples. 
It appears to be most probable that both stocks 
settled in the same country, and there intermarried ; 
thus receiving one name, and forming one race, 
with a common descent. It is immaterial to the 
argument to decide whether in such instances the 
settlements were contemporaneous, or whether new 
innnigrants took the name of the older settlers. In 
the case of Havilah, it seems that the Cushite 
people of this name formed the westernmost colony 
of Cush along the south of Arabia, and that the 
Joktanites were an earlier colonization. It is com- 
monly thought that the district of Khfiwliin 

(,.jj)k^), 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 
Khiiwliins {Descr. 270, 280), and it has hence been 
argued by some that we have thus the Cushite and 
the Joktanite Havilah. The second Khdtddn, how- 
ever, is a town, and not a large and well-knowii 
district like the first, or more northern one; and 
the hypothesis i)ased on Niebuhr's assertion is un- 
necessary, if the theory of a double settlement be 


adopted. There is also another towti in the Yemen 

caU-d llau-hin (^^^^i>). 

The district of Khawlfui lies between the city of 
San'ii and the Hijaz, i. e. in the northwestern 
portion of the Yemen. It took its name, according 
to the Arabs, from Khiiwliin, a descendant of Kahtiin 
[.Ioktan] (.)fnrdsi(l, a. v.), or, as some say, of 
Kahlan, brother of Himyer (Caussin, J-.'ssni, i. 113. 
and tab. ii.). This genealogy says little more than 
that the name was Joktanite; and the difference 
between KahtAn and Kahhin may he neclected. 
both being descendants of the first Joktanite settler, 
and the whole of these early traditions pointins to 
a Joktanite settlement, without perhaps a distinct 
preservation of Joktan's name, and certainly none 
of a correct genealogy from him downwards. 

Khiiwliin is a fertile territory, embracing a larjre 
part of myrrhiferous Arabia: mountainotis; with 
plenty of water; and supporting a large population. 
It is a tract of Arabia better knowni to both ancients 
and moderns than the 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 yElius (lallus, and 
the scene of great persecutions of the (,'hristians by 
Dhu-Nuwiis, the last of the Tubbaas before the 
Abyssinian conquest of Arabia, in the year 52-3 of 
our era (cf. Caussin, Essni, i. 121 ff.). I'or the 
Cliau]anita>, see the Dictionary of (koyvapiiy. 

An argument against the identity of Khiiwldn 
and llavilah ha,s been found in the mentions of a 
llavilah on the border of the Ishmaelites, " as thou 
goest to Assyria" (Gen. xxv. 18), and also on that 
of the Amalekites (1 Sam. xv. 7). It is not liow- 
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 have 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, EuiAar 
in both instances, according to their spelling of the 
Havilah of Gen. ii. 11. 

Tliose who separate the Cushite and Joktanite 
Havilah either place them in Niebuhr's two Khiiw- 
liins (as already stated), or they place 2 on the 
north of the peninsula, following the supposed 
argument derived from Gen. xxv. 18, and 1 Sam. 
XV. 7, and finding the name in that of (he XavXo- 
Toioi (I'-ratostb. (ip. Strabo, xvi. 7G7), between the 
Nabatai and the Agrai, and in that of the town 

of aLoj-a. on the Persian Gulf (Niebuhr, Descr. 

342). A Joktanite settlement so far north is how- 
ever very improbable. They discover 1 in the A\ alita^ 
on the .African coast (I'tol. iv. 7; Arrian, Pirijil. 
203, ed. Miiller), the modem name of the shore of 
the Sinus Avalatis being, says (Jesenins, Zeylah = 
Zuweylah = Havilah, and Saadiah having three 
times in Gen. written Zeylah for Havilah. Hut 
(Jesenius seems to have overlooked tiie true orthog- 
raphy of the name of the modern country, which 

is not iXjj, but )»AjV. with a final letter very 

rarely abided to the Helirew. 

K. s. r 

HAVI'LAH ([Ei-iAot; Alex. Ei;«iAot: Ihv- 
iltith] (Jen. ii. 11). [Kukn, p. 057.] 

HA'VOTH-JA'IR ("l^N^ nT\, i. e. Ghav- 
foth Jair {viUnf/eg of Jair, i. e. of (he etilit/lit- 


ener]: fwavKfis and Kwfiai 'laip, QavdO [ Iat», 

etc.:] (7('«.s-, Ildvoth Jair, ricultis Jair, [etc.]) 
certain villages on the east of Jordan, in Gilead oi 
Bashan. The word Chanali, M'hich occurs in the 
Bible in this coimection only, is perhaps best ex- 
plained by the similar term in modern Arabic, 
which denotes a small collection of huts or hovelf 
in a country place (see the citations in Gesenius, 
Thes. 4.51; and Stanley, -S. if P. App. § 84). 

(1.) The earliest notice of the Ilavoth-jair is in 
Num. xxxii. 41, in the account of the settlement 
of the Transjordanic country, where Jair, son of 
llanasseh, is stated to have taken some villages 
(A. V. "the small towTis;" but there is no article 
in the Hebrew) of (iilead — which was allotted to 
his tribe — and to have named them after himself, 
Havvothjair. (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 the villages are referred to, but there must bo 
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 Havvoth- 
jair are reckoned with other districts as making up 
sixty "cities" (Q"'~)3?). In 1 K. iv. 13 they are 
named as part of the commissariat district of Ben- 
geber, next in order to the "sixty great cities " of 
Argob. There is apparently some confusion iu 
these different statements as to what the sixty cities 
really consisted of, and if the interpretation of 
Chav\ah given above be correct, (he application of 
the word " city " to such transient erections is 
remarkable and 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- 
portant, as has been the case in our own country 
with more than one place still designated as a 
"hamlet," though long since a populous town. 
(4.) No less doubtful is the number of the Ilavoth- 
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 .lair, 
by whose thirty sons they were governed, and for 
whom the original number may have been increased. 

The word C^"^^V, " cities," is perhaps employed 
here for the sake of the play which it affords with 
C'"]^??, "ass-colts." [Jaik; Bashan-havoth- 
jair.] G. 

HAWK (V-3- w*^'*- itpa^- accipiter), the trans- 
lation of the above-named Heb. term, which occurs 
in Lev. xi. 10 and Deut. xiv. 15 as one of the un- 
clean birds, and in Job xxxix. 20, where it i.s asked, 
" Doth the nits fly by thy wisdom and stretch her 
wings towards the south 'i " The word is doubtless 
generic, as appears from the expression in Deut. 
and Lev. " after his kind," and includei various 
s]>ccies of the Falccmida, with more esfjccial allusion 
perliaps to the small ditimal birds, such as the 
kestrel (Falco linnuncutus), the hoi by (fhf/xu 
triorcliis siMiiteo), the gregarious lesser kestrel 
{Tinntinnilus ccnr//7i'.<), common about the ruiiu 
in the plain districts of Palestine, all of which mn 


probably known to the ancient Hebrews. With 
respect to the passage in Job {l. c), which appears 
to allude to the migratory habits of hawks, it is 
curious to obserxe that of the ten or twelve lesser 
raptors of Palestine, nearly all are summer migrants. 
The kestrel remains all the year, but T. cenckris, 
Micronisiis aabar, Hyp. eleonorm, and F. melitnnp- 
terus, are ail migrants from the south. Besides 
the above-named smaller hawks, the two magnificent 
species, F. Saker and F. lannrhis, are summer 



Fcdco Saker. 

visitors to Palestine. " On one occasion," says 
Mr. Tristram, to whom we are indebted for nuicli 
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 
Sfiq'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,' par excellence." These two 
species of falcons, and perhaps the hobby and 
goshawk {Astur palumbarius) are employed by the 
Arabs in Syria and Palestine for the purpose of 
taking partridges, sand-grouse, quails, herons, 
gazelles, hares, etc. Dr. Russell {Nat. Hist, of 
Aleppo, ii. p. 196, 2d ed.) has given the Arabic 
names of several fiUcons, but it is probable that 
some at least of these names apply rather to the 
different sexes than to distinct species. See a very 
graphic description of the sport of falconry, as pur- 
sued by the Arabs of N. Africa, in the Ibis, i. p. 
284; and comp. Thomson, The Land and the Book, 
p. 208 (i. 30!}-.311, Am. ed.). 

Whether falconry was pursued by the ancient 
Orientals or not, is a question we have been unable 
o deterjiiine decisively. No representation of such 
ft sport occurs on the monuments of ancient Egypt 
(see Wilkinson, Anc. Er/. i. p. 221), neither is there 
*ny definite allusion to falconry in the Bible. With 
regard, however, to the negative evidence supplied 

a • The word Safr, wJLo, is the nan 
Ofitores, of the falcons, hawks, and kites. 

by the monuments of Egypt, we mv^t be carefti 
ere we draw a coticlusion; for the camel 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, game, and wild 
animals, are not unfrequent on the monuments, it 
seems probable the art was not known to the Egyp- 
tians. Nothing definite can be learnt from the 
passage in 1 Sam. xxvi. 20, which speaks of "a 
partridge hunted on the mountains," as this maj 
allude to the method of taking these birds by 
" throw-sticks," etc. [Partridge.] The hind or 
hart "panting after the water-brooks " (I's. xlii. 1) 
may appear at first 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 {Comment, on 
Ps. 1. c. ) has argued, it seems pretty clear that the 
exhaustion spoken of is to be understood as arising 
not from pursuit, but from some prevailing drought, 
as in Ps. Ixiii. 1, "My soul thirsteth for thee in a 
dry 1,1 nd." (See also' Joel i. 20.) The poetical 
version of Brady and Tate — 

" As pants the hart for cooling streams 
When heated in the chase," 
has therefore somewhat prejudged the matter. For 
the question as to whether falcom-y was known tc 
the ancient Greeks, see Beckmann, History of 7iv 
venlions (i. 198-205, Bohn's ed.). W. H. 

HAY (T^^ri) chatzir: iv t^ TreSiw x^^po^i 
xipros- prata, herba), the rendering of the A. V. 
in Prov. xxvii. 2-5, and Is. xv. G, of the above-namev^ 
Heb. term, which occurs frequently in the 0. T., 
and denotes " grass " of any kind, from an unused 
root, "to be green." [Grass.] In Num. xi. 5. 
this word is properly translated " leeks." [Leek.] 
Harmer {Observrit. i. 425, ed. 1797), quoting from 
a jNIS. paper of Sir J. Chardin, states that hay is 
not made anywhere in the East, and that the 
feniun 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 grass, and probably 
made use of the dry material. See Ps. xxxvii. 2. 

" They shall soon be cut down (^7^^), and wither 
as the green herb; " Ps. Ixxii. 6, " Like rain upon 
the mown grass " (^3). See also Am. vii. 1, " The 

king's mowings" ("H^^'^ ''iT?) • and Ps. cxxix. 
7, where of the " grass upon the housetops " {Poa 
nnmia?) it is said that "the mower ("I^J^p) 
fiUeth not his hand " with it, " nor he that bindeth 
sheaves his bosom." We 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," says this writer, " if the tender grass * 
is but just beginning to show itself, the hay, which 
is grass cut and dried after it has arrived at ma- 
turity, ought by no means to be associated with it, 
still less ought it to be placed before it." But 
where is the impropriety ? The tender grast 

(Stt?^) may refer to the springing nfter-grast. 

f> " The hay appeareth, and the tender grass sbewetli 
itself, and herbs of the i untains are gathenMl " 

1012 HAZAEL 

will the " hay " to the hny-gi-ass. Ilowerer, in tne 
two passages in question, where alone tlie A. V. 
renders duilzir hy "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, cha.tJiasha which, ap- 
parently from an unused root signif} ing " to be 
dry," * is rendered in the only two places where 
the word occurs (Is. v. 2i, xxxiii. 11) "chaff" in 
the Authorized Version. We do not, however, 
mean to assert that the chashnsh 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) (tT^^), perhaps hke 
our nfter-f/rass, denotes the mown grass as it grows 
afresh after the harvest ; like the Chwilum fcenum 
of Pliny (//. N. viii. 28). W. H. 

HAZ'AEL (bStn [El (God) is seeing, Fiirst, 
Ges.] : 'A^o^A : Hiizael) was a king of Damascus, 
who reigned from about b. c. 88G to b. c. 840. 
He appears to have been previously a person in a 
high position at the court of Ben-hadad, and was 
sent by his master to l>:iisha, when that prophet 
visited Damascus, to inquire if he would recover 
from the malady under which he was suffering. 
Elisha's answer that Ben-hadad mii/ht recover, but 
would die, and his announcement to Hazael that 
he would one day be king of Syria, which seems 
to have been the fulfillment of the commission given 
to Elijah (1 K. xix. 15) to appoint Hazael king — 
led to the murder of Ben-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 Ramoth- 
(iilead {idid. viii. 28). The Assyrian inscriptions 
show that about this time a bloody and destructive 
war was being wagSd between the Assyrians on the 
one side, and the Syrians, Hittites, Hamathites, 
a. i I'licenicians on the other. [See Daimascvs.] 
Ben-hadad had recently suffered several severe defeats 
at the hands of the Assyrian king; and upon tlie 
accession of H.izael the war was s])eedily renewed. 
Hazael took up a position in the fastnesses of the 
Anti-Libaiius, but was there attacked by the As- 
syrians, who defeated him with great loss, killing 
10,000 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 
trouliles appear to have occupied the attention of 
the Assyrians, who made no more expeditions into 
these parts for about a century. The Syrians 
rapidly recovered tlieir losses; and towards the close 
of the reign of Jehu, Hazael led them against the 
Israelites (about n. c. 8G0), whom he "smote in 
all their coasts" (2 K. x. 32), thus accomplishing 
the prophecy of Klisha {ibid. viii. 12). His main 
attack fell ujwn the eastern provinces, where he 
ravaged " all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and 

a WWn, allied to the Arabic 
yrheshU/i), which Frcytag thus explains, " Ilerba, 
vend. Hiccior : scil. Pabulum siccum, foenuni (ut 


Tiride ct rccens.' 

' "The ArabH of the divert iilwaje lall the dry 


tne Keubenites, and the iManassites, from Aroer, 
which is by the river Amon, even Gilead and 
Bashan " {i/jid. x. 33). After this he seems to 
have held the kingdom of Israel in a species of sub- 
jection {ibid. xiii. 3-7, ;ind 22); and towards th« 
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 foun^in the treasures of the 
house of the Lord, and m the king'.s house " (2 K. 
xii. 18). Hazael appears to have died about tho 
year b. c. 840 (ibid. xiii. 24), having reigned 46 
years. He left his crown to his son Beu-hadad 
(ibid.). G. K. 

* The true import of Hazael's answer to tho 
prophet on being informed of his future destiny 
(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 Hel)rew : " ^^'hat is thy 
servant, the dog, that he should do tliis great 
thing V" The use of the definite article in the 
Hebrew, as well as the congniity of the expression, 
requires this rendering.'^ [Do(;.] 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 instrument of 
punishment) was destiiied to bum up. Some under- 
stood by " the house" Damascus itself, and others 
Hazael's family or personal descendants. But the 
clause which follows — " the palaces of Ben-hadad " 
— as Haur (Dir Prcplnt Amos, p. 217) points out, 
favors the other explanation. H. 

HAZA'IAH [3 syl.] (H^q : [Jcliot-ah de- 
cidis or vieirs]: 'O^o; [Vat. FA. 0^«ja:] Ilazia), 
a m.-m of Judah of the family of the Shilonites 
A. V. "Shiloni"), or descendant.s of Shel.mi 
(Neb. xi. 5). 
HA'ZAR-AD'DAR, etc. [Hazek.] 
HAZARMATETH (niin^iyq : [i" Gen.,] 
2ap/iiiO; [.Alex.- Aaapfiwd ; in 1 Chr., Bom. Vat. 
omit, Alex. AoOyUCD^-'J Asnrmoth ; the court of 
death, Ges.), tlie third, in order, of the sons o( 
Joktan (Gen. x. 2(i). The name is preserved, 
almost literally, in the Arabic J/odramd-dA 

( cy •jOw.^CL^ ) and Hadrummct f v;i>«jO y,^,^ I, 

juicelcos herbage of the Sahara, which is ready made 
hay while it is growing, c/ieshU/i, in contrndLstinctiou 
from the fre.<ih gmas of better soils." — [II. B. Tristram.) 
e • Ocscnius ( Thes. p. 685) : " Quis enim sum servua 
tuus canis, ut tantnni rem perflcium ? " Kcil (Eiichrt 
der Kiini;:r): "Was ist dcin Knecht. der llund (d. h. 
fin so veriiclitlic'her Kerl . .) rlasp er so groan 

Dingo thun golltc?" Thonius {liiicher drr Ki'nige) 
" Deiii Knwht, der Ilund I " T. J. 0. 


Mid (he appellation yf a province and an ancient 
people of Soutlieni Arabia. This identification of 
the settlement of Ilazarmaveth is accepted by Bib- 
lical scholars as not admitting of dispute. It 
rests not only on the occurrence of the name, but 
is supported 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 »everal others of the sons of Joktan. The 
pifivince of Hadramiiwt is situate east of the 
modern Yemen (anciently, as shown iu Akabia, 
the limits of the latter province embraced almost 
the whole of the south of the peninsula), extend- 
ing to the districts of Shihr and Mahreh. Its cap- 
ital is Shibani, a very ancient city, of which the 
native writers give curious accounts, and its chief 
ports are Mirbdt, Zafari [Sei'hah], and Kisheem, 
from whence a great trade was carried on in an- 
cient times witli India and Africa. Hadramawt 
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-ldreesee, ed. Jomard, i. p. 54; 
Niehuhr, Dtscr. 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 slieykh of Kesheem (Niebuhr, /. c. 
et seq.). The early kings of Hadramiiwt were 
Joktanites, distinct from the descendants of Y'aa- 
rub, the progenitor of the Joktanite Aral)S gener- 
ally ; and it is hence to be inferred that they were 
seitarately descended from Ha^armaveth. They 
maintained their independence against the power- 
ful kings of Himyer, until the latter were subdued 
at the Abyssinian invasion (Ibn-Khakloou, ap. 
Caussin, Eis<u^ i. 135 fF.). Tlie Greeks and 
Komans call the people of Hadramiiwt. variously, 
Chatramotitse, Chatrammit«, etc.; and there is 
little doubt that they were the same as tlie Adra- 
mitae, etc. (the latter not applying to the descend- 
ants of Hauoram, as some have suggested); while 
the native appellation of an inhabitant, Hadramee, 
comes very near Adramitte in sound. The mod- 
ern people, although mixed with other races, are 
strongly characterized by fierce, fanatical, and rest- 
less disix)sitions. They are enterprising merchants, 
well known for their trading and travelling pro- 
pensities. E. S. P. 

HAZ'AZON-TA'MAR, 2 Chr. XX. 2. [Ha- 

HAZEL (t^b). The Hebrew term luz occurs 
only in Gen. xxx. .37, where it is coupled with the 
«' 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 luz; in 
favor of the former we have Kimchi, Rashi, Lu- 
ther, and others ; while the Vulgate, Saadias, and 
(iesenius adopt the latter view. The rendering in 
the LXX., Klip, 'cv, 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 word 
n the Hebrew language, egoz (T^!lS), which is 

« Id 2 K. XX 4, the Maaorets {Keri) have substi- 
«ted Tin (A. V. "court ") for the T<37n of the 

HAZER 1013 

applicable to the hazel. The strongest argument 
on the other side arises from the circumstance <A 
another word, s/idh';d (~fi7.^'), having reference tc 
the almond ; it is supposed, however, that the lat- 
ter applies to the Jruit exclusively, and the word 
under discussion to the tree : Rosenmiiller identi- 
fies the shdked with the cultivated, and luz with 
the wild almond-tree. For a description of the 
almond-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 (^'i'lsbb^n : 'Eo-TjAe/S- 
^(ii/; Alex.E(TriX\e\(pusu'- Asalelphuni), the sistei 
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 "^~ (see 
Ges. Lehrgeb. der Ilebr. Spraclie, p. 514). It is 
variously explained : protection of the presence 
(Fiirst); or, sliade 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 ("i;?n, {. e. Chatzer, from "l^H, 
to surround 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 modern 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, to^vn. 

As a proper name it appears in the A. V. — 

1. In the plural, Hazehim, and Hazeeoth, 
for which see below. 

2. In the slightly different form of Hazok. 

3. In composition with other words, giving a 
special designation to the particular "village" in- 
tended. When thus in union with another word 
the name is Ilazar (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. H.\'zar-ad'dar ("I^^? "I?n : iTTavXis 
^ApdS, SdpaSa'- Alex. A55apa: Villa nomine Adar, 
Addai'), 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), the name appears in the shorter form of Addar 
(A. V. Adar), and an additional place is named 
on each side of it. The site of Hazar-addar does 
not appear to have been encountered in modern 

The LXX. reading might lead to the belief that 
Hazaraddar was identical with Arad, a Canaan- 

original text. The same change should piobably h» 
made ia Jer. xli. 7. [See Ishjuel. 6.1 

1014 HAZER 

ite city which lay in this direction, but the pres- 
ence of tlie Ain in the latter name forbids such an 

2. Ha'zah-e'naN {^^V "l^n [in I'Jiek. 
ilvii. 17, I'^TV '^'$r\']=t^W,(/e of $/,]ini,s: 
'Apfffvaty, [avKr) tov Aivdv, au. t. AiAa/x; Vat. in 
Num., Apo-e.-aei/u;] Alex. Afftpvaiv, avAr) tov 
Atvav- VMi Knun, Atrium Emm, [.-1. A'n/"(]), 
the place at wliich the northern l)oundary of tlie 
land promised to the children of Israel was to ter- 
minate (Num. xxxiv. 9), and the exstern boundary 
commence (10). It is again mentioned in I'lze- 
kiel's prophecy (xlvii. 17, xlviii. 1) of what the ul- 
timate extent of the land will be. These bounda- 
ries are traced by Mr. Porter, who would identify 
Haz;ir-«nan with A'u)»/(7e*n = " the two cities," a 
village more than sixty miles K. N. E. of Damas- 
cus, the chief ground for the identification appa- 
rently being the presence at Kuryelein of " large 
fountains," the only ones in that "vast region," a 
circumstance with which the name of Ilazar enan 
well agrees (Porter, Dammcus, i. 2.52, ii. 3.58). 
The great distance from Damascus and the body 
of Palestine is the main impediment to the recep- 
tion of this identification. 

3. Ha'zak-gad'dah (rr^S "IVn \yillageof 
Ga/ldalt or fortune : Kom. Sept, Vat. Sepej/u;] 
Alex. Acr€p7a55a: Aser-GwMi), one of (he towns 
in the southern district of .ludah (.Josh. x\. 27), 
named between Moladah and Heshmon. No trace 
of the situation of this place appears in the Ono- 
vinslicon, or in any of the modern travellers. In 
Van de ^'elde■s map a site named Jurrah is marked 
as close to Molada (tl-MHIi), but it is perhaps too 
much to assume that Gaddah has taken this form 
by the change so frequent in the East of D to K. 

4. Ha'zar-hat-ti'con ("|""1D'"nn "I^H [tht 
middle village']: hh\r) rov '^avvaf, [Alex, cor- 
rupt:] Damns Tichon), a place named in Ezekiel's 
prophecy of tlie ultimate boundaries of the land (I'lz. 
xlvii. 10), and specified as being on the boundary 

( A2^ 7M) of Ilauran. It is not yet known. 

5. Ha'zah-shl-'al {bv^W n'^n = fox-vil- 
Inge : XoAo(rea>A.(£, 'Apaaika, 'EtrepcouoA; Alex. 
Ao-aptrouAo, [2ep(T0i/Aa, etc. :J Unstrsual, Jlosar- 
iiiliiil), a town in the southern district of Judah, 
lying lii'twcon Hazar-gaddah and Beer-slieba (.Josh. 
XV. 28, xix. 3; 1 Chr. iv. 28). It is mentioned in 
the same connection after the return irom the Cap- 
tivity (Xch. xi. 27). The site has not yet been 
conclusively recovered; but in Van de Velde's map 
(1858) a site, Siiweli, is marked at about the right 
spot, wiiicii may be a con'uption of the original 
name. This district has been only very slightly 
expioretl ; when it is so we may look for most in- 
teresting infonnation. 

6. IIa'zau-su'sah (HD^D '^!;^ = 7lO)•s€-l•J7- 
^f//e: 2apaovffiv [Vat. -fffivj; Alex. Aatoaovaift.'- 
[i/asersiigd]), one of the "cities" allotted to 
Simeon in the extreme south of tiie territory of 
Judah (.Josh. xix. 5). Neither it nor its com- 
panion ISKTii-MAiiCAnoTii, the "house of char- 
lots," arc named in the hst of the towns of Judah 
In chap. XV., but Uiey are included in those of 


Simeon in 1 Chr. iv. 31, with the express 8t*t» 
ment that they existed before and up to the time 
of David. This appears to invalidate Professor 
SUiiiley's suggestion (S. c/ P. p. 1«0) that they 
were the depots for the trade with I'^vpt in char- 
iots and horses, which commenced in the reign of 
Solomon. Still, it is difficult to know to what 
else to ascribe the names of places situated, iia 
these were, in the Bedouin country, where a chariot 
must have Ijeen unknown, and where even horses 
seem carefully excluded from the possessions of the 
inhabitants — " camels, sheep, oxen, and asses " 
(1 Sam. xxvii. 9). In truth the difficulty arises 
only on the assumption that the names are He- 
brew, and that they are to be interpreted accord- 
ingly. It would cease if we could believe them to 
be in the former language of the country, adopted 
by the Hebrews, and so altered as to bear 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 have occuired in all languages, though 
not yet recognized in the particular case of the 
early local names of Palestine. 

7. Ha'zak-su'sij[ (□"'P^D "ir.n, village </ 
hm-ses: 'Hfniffovo-euffiv, &s if '•Vri; [V;xt. H/it- 
ffvi ews Opoyu; Alex. HfjLtav Eooertfj.:] /lusarsu- 
sim), the form under which the preceding name 
appears in the list of the towns of Simeon in 1 
Chr. iv. 31. G. 

HAZE'RIM. The Avims, or more accu- 
rately the Avvim, a tribe commemorated in a frag- 
ment of very ancient history, as the early inhabi- 
tants of tiie southwestern portion of Palestine, are 
therein said to have lived " in the villages (A. V. 

"Hazerim," D"»"1Vn2 ['Ao-Tjocie; Alex. A<rv 
pud'- If'iserim]), as far as Gaza " (Deut. ii. 23), 
before their expulsion by the Cajjhtorim. The 
word is the plural of Hazkk, noticed above, and 
as far as we can now appreciate the significance of 
tiie term, it implies that tlie 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 (n'l~lVn [simiuns, camping 
grmwds]: 'Ao-np(i6\ [in Deut., Ai)\uv- Ifase- 
voih ,•] Num. xi. 35, xii. IG, xxxiii. 17, Deut. i. 1), 
a station of the Israelites in the desert, mentioned 
next to Kibroth-Hattaavah, and perhaps recogniz- 
able in the Arabic I-, -n "^^ Ihulhera (Robinson, 

i. 151 ; Stanley, S. if P. pp. 81, 82), wliitli lies aliout 
eighteen hours' distance from Sinai on the n-ad to 
the Akabah. The word ai)pears to mean the sort 
of uninclosed villages in which the IJedouins ara 
found to congregate. [Hazkh.] H. H. 


TA'MAR (l^ri "l^?:n," but in Chron. 

n ^^!JVn [prob. rcet place of pabns, pnlm- 
marsh, Dietr. ; r(yrvs of palms, pnlm-foresi, FiirstJ: 
'Atraaoi/da/jidp, or ' Affaaav Qafxdp: [.Vlex. A«ra- 
«rac 0., Avavau 0.; Vat. in 2 Chr.. Atrau 0a- 
fiapa'-] Asasonlliam'ir), the name under which, at 
a very early period of the history of Palestine, and 

a Tbe trannlatora of the A. V. have curiously re- where tho Hebrew Is Ilazazon, they have 
used thr t to Torlatlona of the name. In Oeneitls, thb opposite in Chronicleg 


j\ a document believed by many 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 Hazazon-Tamar when the four 
kings made their incursion, and fought their suc- 
;essful 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) — wlien 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 thom. Here the explanation, " which 
is En-gedi," is added. The existence of the ear- 
lier appellation, after En-gedi kad 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 AccHO, Bethsaiua, 

Ha^azon-tamar is interpreted in Hebrew to mean 
the "pruning or felling of the palm" (Gesen. 
Thes. p. 512). Jerome (Qucest. in Gen.) renders 
it wbs palmarum. This interpretation of the name 
is borne out by the ancient reputation of the palms 
of En-gedi (Ecclus. xxiv. 14, and the citations from 
PUny, given under that name). The Samaritan 

Version has "'ID 3.lbD = the Valley of Cadi, 
possibly a coiTuption of En-gedi. The Targums 
have En-gedi. 

Perhaps this was the "city of palm trees" {fr 
hat-tenianm) out of which the Kenites, the tribe 
of Moses' father-in-law, went up into the wilder- 
ness of Judah, after the conquest of the country 
(Judg. i. 16). If this were so, the allusion of 
Balaam to the Kenite (Num. xxiv. 21) is at once 
explained. Standing as he wa.s on one of the lofty 
points of the liighlands opposite Jericho, the west- 
ern shore of the Dead Sea as far as En-gedi would 
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. (f P., 
p. 225, n. i). ' G. 

HA'ZIEL (bssnn [EVsiGod's) beholding]-. 
'leiriW [Vat. Ei€i7?\:] Ales. A^'tjA.: Hosid), a 
Levite in the time of king David, of the family of 
Shimei or Shimi, the jounger branch of the Ger- 
shonites (1 Chr. xxiii. 9). 

HA'ZO ('l*n [look, vlsMily, Yurst]: 'A^aD: 
Azau), a son of Nahor, by Milcah his wife (Gen. 
ixii. 22): perhaps, says Geseuius, for niTlTT, "a 
vision." The name is unknown, and the settle- 
ments of the descendants of Hazo cannot be ascer- 
tained. The only clew is to be found in the iden- 
tificatijn of Chesed, and the other sons of Nahor; 
and hence he must, in all hkelihood, be placed in 
IJr of the Chaldees, or the adjacent countries. 
IJunsen {Blbelioerk, i. pt. 2, p. 49) suggests Cha- 
lene by the Euphrates, in Mesopotamia, or the 
Chazene in Assyria (Strabo, xvi. p. 736). 

E. S. P. 

HA'ZOR ("l*"l^n \inclosure, castle]: 'Aacip; 
[Alex, in 1 K. is. 15, Affep:] Asoi; [Rasor]). 
I. A fortified city, which on the occupation of the 
(ountry was allotted to Naphtali (Josh. xix. 36). 
tts position was apparently between Piamah and 
Kedesh {ibicl. xii. 19). on the high ground over- 
ooking the I,ake of Merom {virepKeiTai tt)s le/ne- 


XccviriSos Kifj.v7is, Joseph. AnI. v. 5, § 1). ITiere is 
no reason for supposing jt a different place from 
that of which Jabin was khig (Josh. xi. 1), both 
when Joshua gained his signal victory over the 
nortliern confederation, and when Deborah and 
Barak routed his general Sisera (Judg. iv. 2, 17; 
1 Sam. xii. 9). It was the prhicipal city of the 
whole of the North Palestine, " the head of all 
those kingdoms " (.Josh. xi. 10, and see Onoraasti- 
con, Asor). Like the other strong places of that 

part, it stood on an eminence ( vFI, Josh. xi. 13, 
A. V. "strength"), but the district around must 
ha\e 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, 6, 9; 
Judg. iv. 3). Hazor 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. Whether 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 the chief pretexts for his levy of 
taxes (1 K. ix. 15). Later still it is mentioned in 
the list of the towns and districts whose inhabi- 
tants were carried oft' to Assyria by Tiglath-Pileser 
(2 K. XV. 29; Joseph. Ant. ix. 11, § 1). We en- 
counter it once more in 1 ^lacc. 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 irtSlov: A. V. Nasor) to meet Demetrius, 
who was in possession of Kadesh (xi. 63; Joseph, 
as above). [Nasor.] 

Several places bearing names probably derived 
from ancient Hazors have been discovered in this 
distrift. A list will be found in Rob. iii. 366, note 
(and compare also Van de \'elde, Syr. and Pal. ii. 
178; Porter. Damascus,!. 304). But none of these 
answer to the requirements of this Hazor. The 
nearest is the site suggested by Dr. Robinson, 
namely, Tell Khuralbeli, " 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 Illle/i, that we may 
accept it until a better is discovered (Rob. iii. 364, 

* The ruins of a Large city of very ancient date 
have recently been found about two miles southeast 
of Kedes (Kedesh, 3), on an isolated hill called 
Tell Harah, The walls of the citadel and a por- 
tion of the city walls are distinctly traceable. 
Captain Wilson, of the Palestine Exploring Expe- 
dition, inclines to regard this place as the site of 
the Bible Hazor (.Josh. xix. 36), instead of Tell 
KImraibeh. {SeeJoiirn. of Sacr. Literature, April, 
1866, p. 24.5.) It is not said that the ancient name, 
or any similar one, still adheres to the locality. 
Thomson proposes liazere or Hazery as the site of 
this Hazor, northwest of the Hiileh (Merom), and 
in the centre of the mountainous region which over- 
hangs that lake: the ruins are very extensive as 
well as ancient, and a living tradition among the 
Arabs sujiprrts this claim (see Land and Book, i 
439). IL-binson objects to this identification that it 


M too remote from the Th'ikli, and is within the limits 
of Asher, and not in those of Naplitali (Josh. xix. 
32, 30). For liitter's view that this Ilazor is a Ila- 
zuvy on the rocky slojies above Banins (Ciusarea 
Philippi), first lieard of by Bnrckhardt in that 
quarter, see his Gtor/r. of Palestine, Gage's trans., 
ii. 221-225. Robinson states that the few remains 
on a knoll there which bears this name are whoU)- 
unimportant, and indicate nothing more than a 
Mezra'ah, or goat village (Later lies. iii. 402). It 
is not surprising that a name which signifies 
" stronghold," or " fortification," should belong 
to various places, both ancient and modem. H. 

2. CAa-opieapfaiv, 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. 23). It is mentioned nowhere else, 
nor has it yet been identified (see Rob. ii. 34, note). 
The Vatican ]Ji.X. unites Hazor with the name 
following it, Ithnan; which causes Reland to main- 
tain that they form but one (Pal. pp. 144, 708); 
but the LXX. text of this list is so corrupt, that it 
seems impossible to argue trom it. In the Alex. 
MS. Hazor is entirely omitted, while Ithnan again 
is joined to Ziph. 

3. (I.XX. omits; [Cod. Sarrav. Acwp rriu Kai- 
vrjV, Comp. Alaffdip rijy Kaivr^v-] Anor iiora.) 
Hazor-IJadattah, = " new Hazor," possibly conti-a- 
distinguisiied from that just mentioned ; another 
of the southern towns of Judah (Josh. xv. 2.5). 
The words are improperly separated in the A. V. 

4. ('Ao-epcov, aiirrt 'Airdip; Alex. [Aaepcofx, 
avTrf] Aaoipa/iia/j.' Ilesvon, laec est Asor.) " llez- 
ron which is Hazor" (Josh. xv. 25); but whether 
it be intended that it is tlie same Ilazor 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. ([Vat. Alex. FA.i omit ; Comp. FA.«] 
'Acwp'- Asor.) A place in which the Benjamites 
resided after their return from the Capti\ity (Neh. 
xi. 33). 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 
Bame place with Baal-IIazoh, though there is no 
positive evidence beyond the name in favor of such 
an identification. 

The word appears in combination — with Baal 
in Baal-IIazou, with Ain in F>n-Haz<>1!. G. 

* 6. (^ av\r): Asor.) In Jer. xlix. 28-33, Ha- 
zor appears to denote a region of Arabia imder the 
poverimient of .several sheiks (see ver. 38, " king- 
doms of Hazor"), whose desolation is predicted by 
ihe propliet in connection with that of Kkdar. 
The inhaljitants are described (ver. 31) as a nation 
dwelling " without gates or bars,' ' i. e. not in cities, 
but in unwalled villages, D''~lVn (comp. ICzek. 
ixxviii. 11, and see Hazek, Hazkkim), from 
which circumstance some woidd derive the name 
(gee Hitzig on Jer. xhx. 28; Winer, Jienlir., art. 
f/azor, 4; and the Rev. J. L. Porter, art. I/<tzor, 
i, in Kitto's Cycl. of Bibl. Lit., 3d ed.). A. 

* HEAD-BANDS (Is. iii. 20), probably an 
ucorrect translation ; see Gikdlk. H. 

HEAD-DRESS. Hie Hebrews do not ap- 
pear to ha\e regarded a covering for the head as 
tin essential article of dress. The earliest notice 
ire hnve of sudi a thing is in connection with the 


sacerdotal vestments, and in this case it is descrilietf 
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 
(Xum. V. 18), and the regulations regarding the 
leper (Lev. xiii. 45), in both of which the "uncov- 
ering of the head " refers undoubtedly to the lioir, * 
leiuls 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 tzaniph (r|'*31?) is noticed 
as being worn by nobles (Job xxix. 14), ladies (Is. 
iii. 23), and kings (Is. Ixii. 3), while the peer 

("IMQ) was an article of holiday dress (Is. Ixi. 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; Bar. v. 
2). The former of these tenus undoubteilly de- 
scribes a kind of turban : its primary sense C^?^, 
"to roll around") expresses the folds of linen 
rvound round the head, and its form probably re- 
sembled that of the high-priest's tnitznepheth (a 
word derived from the same root, and identical in 
meaning, for in Zech. iii. 5, tzanipli = initznepheth), 
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 term, )x^er, primarily 
means an ornament, and is so rendered in the A. V. 
(Is. Ixi. 10; see also ver. 3, "beauty"), and is 
specifically applied to the he:id-dress from its orna- 
mental char.icter. It is uncertain what the terra 
properly describes: tlie modern turban consists oi 
two parts, tlie knook, a stiff, round cap occasionally 
rising to a considerable height, and the slutsli, a 
long piece of muslin wound about it (Itussell, Alej>- 
po, i. 104) : Josephus' account of the high-priest's 

Modem Syrian and Egyptian llead-drcMM. 

head-dress implies a similar construction; for h« 
s.ays that it was made of thick bands of linen don- 
bled round many times, and sewn together: th« 
whole covered l)y a piece of fine linrin to conoeat 
the scams. Saalschiitz (Archueol. i. 27, note) tag- 


gests that the tzaniph and the /)f"^;- represent the 
iliiish and the ttuuk, the latter rising high above 
the other, and so the most prominent and striiiing 
feature. In favor of this explanation it may be 
remarked that Va^ peer is more particularly con- 
nected with the miybaah, the high cap of the or- 
dinary priests, in tx. xxxix. 28, while the tzdniph, 
as we have seen, resembled the high-priest's mitre, 
in which the cap was concealed by the linen folds. 
The olijection, however, to this explanation is that 
the etymological force of peer is not brought out : 
may not that term have applied to the jewels and 
other ornaments with which the turban is frequently 
decorated (Russell, i. 106), some of which are rep- 
resented in the accompanying illustration bor- 
rowed from Lane's ^[od. Etjypt. Append. A. The 
term used for putting on either the tzaniph or the 

Modern Egyptian Head-dresses. (Lane.) 

peei- is ti^^r^j " to bind round " (Ex. zxix. 9 ; 
Lev. viii. 13): hence the words in Ez. 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 wrapped 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 Russell's Aleppo, i. 

If the tzaniph and the peer were reserved for 
holiday attire, it remains for us to inquire whether 
any and what covering was ordinarily worn over 
the head. It appears that frequently the robes 
supplied the place of a head-dress, being so ample 
that they might be thrown over the head at pleas- 
ure: the rddid and the fsdiph at all events were 
so used [Dress], and the veil served a similar pur- 
pose. [Veil.] The ordinary head-dress of the 
Bedouin consists of the kejfiyeh, a square handker- 
chiif, generally of red and yellow cotton, or cotton 
and silk, folded so that three of the corners hang 
down over the l)ack and shoulders, leaving the face 
exposed, {ind bound roimd the head by a cord 
(Burckhardt, Notes, i. 48). It is not improbable 
that a similar covering was used l.y the Hebrews 
Dn certain occasions: the "kerchief" in Ez. xiii. 
18, has been so understood by some writers (Har- 
aier. Observations, ii. 393), though the word more 
probably refers to a species of veil ; and the ffifii- 
tlvdiov (Acts six. 12, A V. "apron"), as ex- 

HEARTH 1017 

plained by Suidas (rb r^y KetpaArjs <p6pT]fj.a.\ wai 
applicable to the purposes of a head-dress. [HAJfD- 
KEKCHIEK.] 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 usually uncovered, as is still the case in 
many parts of Arabia (Wellsted, Travels, i. 73). 
The introduction of the Greek hat {ireraa-os) by 
Jason, as an article of dress adapted to the (lynmro- 
siani, was regarded as a national dishonor (2 Mace, 
iv. 12): in shape and material the ik'mshs very 
much resembled the common felt hats of this couo- 
try {Diet, of Ant. art. Pileus). 

Bedouin Ilead-dress : the Keffiyeh. 
The Assyrian head-dress is described in Ez. xxiii. 
15 under the terms C^/^ntp "^H^"'?, " exceed- 
ing in dyed attire;" it is doubtful, however, 
whether iMdhn describes the colored material of 
the head-<lress {tiarce a coloril)US quibus ilnctcB 
sint) ; another sense has been assigned to it more 
approjiriate to the description of a turban (fasciit 
obvok'it, Ges. Thes. p. 542). The term s'ruche 
[''n^l'^p] 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 (S 73"13) properly applies 
to a cloak. \V. L. B. 

HEARTH. 1. nW: eVxapa; nrula (Ges 
69), a pot or brazier for containing fire. 2. ^)7.'^t3 
m. and mrjltt /. ; KavffTpa, Kavais- incenJium 
(Ges. p. 620). 3. "I^S, or "iVS (Zech. xii. 6). 
Sa\6s-- caminus; in dual, D^^'^S (Lev. xi. 35): 
XuTp6TTo^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 ves.sel sunk in 
the ground, which forms the oven. This plate oi 

"hearth" is in Arabic v;&.LlO, tajen ; a word 

which has probably passed into Greek in r^yavov. 
The cakes baked "on the hearth" (Gen. xviii. 6 
iyKpv(pias, subcinericios panes) were probal)ly 
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; P. della Valle, nar/gi, i. 437; 
Harmer, 06s. i. p. 477, and note; Rauwolff, TraveU 
ap. Ray, ii. 163; Shaw, Travels, p. 231; Niebubr, 


HEATH I: Arable, p. 45; Schlousner, Lex Vel. 
Test, rriyavov, Ges. s. v. TOV, p. 997.) [Fikk.J 
IL W. P. 
HEATH 0??'"1"l?, 'urS^er, and ^'H^'S, 
'ar'dr:" r] aypio^uvplKt], ovos &ypios '■ myrtca). 
The proiiliet .lereiniah compares the man '• who 
niaketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth 
from the Lord," to the Uir'dr in the desert (xvii. 
G). Aj^ain, in tlie jud£;ment of Moab (xlviii. G). 
to her iniiabitants it is said, " Flee, save your lives, 
and he like the 'uroer in the wilderness," where 
the margin has "a naked tree." There seems no 
reason to doubt Cebius' conclusion {Hierob. ii. 195). 

that the 'nr'dr is identical with the 'ai-'ar (y£.y£. ^ 

of Arabic writers, which is some species of juniper. 
Hobinson {Bib. lies. ii. 125, 6) states that when 
he wivs in the pass of Nemela he observed juniper 
trees (.\rab. 'nr'nr) on the porph3Ty rocks al)ove. 
The berries, he adds, have the appearance and taste 
of the conmion 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 chfFs and needles." 
This appears to be the Juniperus Sabina, or savin, 
with small scale-like leaves, which are pressed close 
to the stem, and which is described as being a 
gloomy-looking bush inhabiting the most sterile 
soil (see Enfjlish Cycl. N. Hist. iii. 311); a charac- 
ter which is obviously well suited to the naked or 
diMitute tree spoken of by the prophet. I'osen- 
miiller's explanation of the Hebrew word, which is 
also adopted by jMaurer, "qui destitutus versatur" 
(Schol. ad .Jer. xvii. 6), is very unsatisfactory. 
Not to mention the tamencifs 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 Rosenmiiller's interpretation ap- 
pears to us to spoil the whole. Even more unsatis- 
factory is Michaelis (Svpp. Lex. I/eb. p. 1971), 
who thinks "guinea hens" {Nuinida mclear/ris) 
are intended! Gesenius {TJies. p. 1073, 4) under- 
stands these two Heb. terms to denote "parietinae, 
sedificia eversa" (ruins); but it is more in accord- 
ance witli the Scriptural passages to suppose that 
some tree is intended, which explanation, moreover, 
has the sanction of the LXX. and Vulgate, and 
of the nodern use of a kindred Arabic word. 

W. IL 

HEATHEN. The Hebrew words "^'"12, D';'l2, 
g/ii, 'joijiin, together with their Greek equivalents 
i6vo\, tdvri, have been somewhat arbitrarily ren- 
dered "nations," "gentiles," and "heathen" in 
the \. V. It will be interesting to trace the man- 
ner ill wliicii a term, primarily and essentially gen- 
eral in its signification, acquired that more restricted 
sense which was afterwards attached to it. Its 
development is parallel witli that of the Hebrew 
people, and its meaning at any period may be t.aken 
M significant of their relative position with regard 
to the surrounding nations. 


I 1. While as yet the .Jewish nation had no poliU 
cal existence, f/oyim denoted generally the natiuni 
of the world, especially including the immediate 
descendants of Abraham (Gen. xviii. 18; comp. 
Gal. iii. 10). The latter, as they grew in niuiibers 
and importance, were distinguished in a most 
marked manner from the natiolis by whom they 
were surrounded, and were provided with a code o,' 
laws and a religious ritual, which made the dis- 
tinction still more peculiar. They were essentially 
a separate people (Lev. xx. 23); separate in habits, 
morals, and religion, and bound to maintain their 
separate character by denunciations of the most 
terrible judgments (l<ev. xxvi. 14-38; Deut. xxvlii.). 
On their march through the desert they encountered 
the most obstinate resistance from Amalek, " chief 
of the ffi'iyiin " (Num. xxiv. 20). in whose sight the 
deliverance from Egypt was achieved (Lev. xxvi. 
45). During the conquest of Canaan and the sub- 
sequent wars of extermination, which the Israelites 
for several generations carried on against their 
enemies, the seven nations of the Canaanites, 
Aniorites, Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, Perizzites, 
and (iirgashites (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 f/'hjiin. With these the Israelites 
were forliidden 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 tlie worship 
of false gods, and the foul practices of idolaters 
(I.ev. xviii. xx.), and these constituted their chief 
distinctions, as (joyim, from the worshippers 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 fjoyint, the de- 
graded tribes who submitted to their arms, that 
the Israelites were permitted to purchase their 
bond servants (Lev. xxv. 44, 45), and this special 
enactment seems to have had the eflect of giving 
to a n.ational tradition the force and sanction of a 
law (comp. (Jen. xxxi. 15). In later times this 
regulation was strictly adhered to. To the words 
of I-xcl. ii. 7 " I bi)ii'.iht men-servants and maid- 
servants," the Targum adds, " of the children of 
Ham, and the rest of the foreign nations." 

And not only were the Israelites forbidden to 
intermarry with these </<»iim, but the latter were 
virtually excluded from the po.ssibility of becoming 
naturalized. An Ammonite or iMoabite was shut 
out from the congregation of Jehovah even to the 
tenth generation (Deut. xxiii. 3), while an I'klomite 
or Egyptian was admitted in the third (vers. 7, 8). 
'I'he necessity of maintaining a separation so broadly 
marked is ever more and more manifest as we 
follow the Israelites through their history, and ol>- 
serve their constantly recurring tendency to idolatry. 
Ofiense and punishment followed each other with 
all the regularity of cause and eflect (Judg. ii. 12, 
iii. G-8, Ac). 

2. But, even in early Jewish times, the tenii 
f/oi/im received by anticipation a significance of 

o From tho root "nV, "' to be naked,"' In allusion 
c the bare nature of the rocks on which the Juniperus 

Sabina often grows. Comp. Ps. cH. 17, pv^^ri 
137"!Vn " the prayer of the destitute " (or 111 cUi) 


wider range than the national experience (I^v. xxvi. 
33, 08; Deut. XXX. 1), and as the latter was grad- 
ually developed during the prosperous times of the 
monarcty, tlie goyim were the surrounding nations 
i^enerally, 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. 2C>). Later still, it is ap- 
plied to the Babylou'3,ns who took Jerusalem (Neb. 
V. 8; I's. Ixxix. 1, 6, 10), to the destroyers of Moab 
(Is. xvi. 8), and to the several nations among 
whom the Jews were scattered duruig the Captivity 
(Ps. evi. 47: Jer. xlvi. 28; Lam. i. 3, Ac), 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 (Xeh. v. 
17), and who are described as fearing Jehovah, 
while serving their own gods (2 K. xvii. 29-33; 
Ezr. vi. 21). 

Tracing the synonymous term iQvr) through the 
Apocryphal writings, we find that it is applied to 
the nations around Palestine (1 Mace. i. 11), in- 
cluding the Syrians and Philistines of the army of 
Gorgias (1 Mace. 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-worshippers (1 
Mace. iii. 48; Wisd. 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. G8; 1 Esdr. viii. 85). Following the 
customs of the fii'iyim at this period denoted the 
neglect or concealment of circumcision (1 Mace. 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 Greek 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 (ireek influence became more extensively 
felt in Asia Minor, and the (ireek language was 
generally used, Hellenism and heathenism became 
convertible terms, and a Greek was synonymous 
with a foreigner of any nation. This is smgularly 
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 iQvt]. In its narrowest sense 
it is opposed to " those of the circumcision " (Acts 
X. 45; cf. Esth. xiv. 15, where a.\\6Tptos = a7repi- 
TfxrjTos), and is contrasted with Israel, the people 
of Jehovah (Luke ii. 32), thus representing the 

Hebrew Q^IS at one stage of its history. But, like 
goyim, it also denotes the people of the earth gen- 
•srally (Acts xvii. 26; Gal. iii. 14). In Matt. vi. 7 
iQvik6s is applied to an idolater. 

But, in addition to its significance as an etnno- 
irraphical term, </6yhn had a moral sense wnich 
must not be overlooked. In Ps. ix. 5, 15, 17 (comp. 
Ez. vii. 21) the word stands in parallelism with 

^V7' '■<'*'''"> ^^'^ wicked, as distinguished by his 

HEAVEN 1019 

moral obliquity (see Hupfeld on Ps. i. 1); and in 
ver. 17 the people thus designated are desciibed as 
"foTgetters of God," that know not Jehovali (Jer. 
x. 25). Again in Ps. lix. 5 it is to some extent 
commensurate in meaning with ^."IW "^^32, boi/de 
aoen, " iniquitous transgressors; " and in these pas- 
sages, as well as in Ps. x. 16, it has a deeper sig- 
nificance than tliat of a merely national distinction, 
although the latter idea is never entirely lost sight 

In later Jewish literature a technical definition 
of the word is laid down which is certainly not of 
universal application. Elias Levita (quoted by 
lusenmenger, Entdecktes Juchnt/iiun, i. 665) ex- 
plains the sing. </6i as denoting one who is not of 
Israelitish birth. This can only have reference to 
its after signification ; in the O. T. the singular is 
never used of an individual, hut is a collective term, 
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 12^13, goyim, and 

D'^SS, uminim, the former being defined as the 
nations who had served Israel, while the latter were 
those who had not {Jalkut Chadusli, fol. 20, no. 
20; Eisenmenger, i. 667). Abarbanel on Joel iiL 
2 applies the former to both Christians and Turks, 
or Ishmaelites, while in Sq)her Jtichadn (fol. 148, 
col. 2) the Christians alone are distinguished by 
this appellation. Eisenmenger gives some curious 
examples of the disabilities under which a goi 
labored. One who kept sabbaths was judged de- 
serving of death (ii. 206 ), and the study of the law 
was prohibited to him under the same penalty; 
but on the latter point the doctors are at issue (ii. 
209). W. A. W. 

HEAVEN. There are four Hebrew words 
thus rendered in the 0. T., which we may briefly 

notice. 1. V^p!^ {arepiwiiu' firmmnentum ; Luth. 

Vestt), a solid, from 2?f2^) " to beat out; " 
a word used primarily of the hanmiering out of 
metal (Ex. xxxix. 3, Num. xvi. 38). The fuller 

expression is D'^^t^PT T'^f^"' (Gen. i. 14 f.). 
That Closes understood it to mean a solid expanse 
is clear from his representing it as the barrier be- 
tween the upper and lower waters (Gen. i. 6 f.), 
i. 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 supposed to float 

(Ps. cxxxvi. 6). Through its open lattices (n"l2~IN 
Gen. vii. 11; 2 K. vii. 2, 19; comiv K6crKivov, 
Aristoph. Nub. 373) or doors (C^H^"^, Ps. btxviii. 
23) the dew and snow and hail are poured upon 
the earth (Job xxxviii. 22, 37, where we have the 
curious expression "bottles of heaven," "utres 
coeli"). This firm vault, which Job describes as 
being "strong as a molten looking-glass " (xxxvii. 
18), is transparent, like pellucid sapphire, and 
splendid as crystal (Dan. xii. 3; Ex. xxiv. 10; Ez. 
i. 22; Kev. 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). I/i 
it, like gems or golden lamps, the stars are fixed to 
give light to the earth, and regulate the seasons 
(Gen. i. 14-19); and the whole magnificent, im- 



measurable stnicture (Jer. xxxi. 37) is supported 
by tlie mountains as its pillars, or strong founda- 
tions (Ps. xviii. 7; 2 Sam. xxii. 8; Job xxvi. 11). 
Similarly the CIreeks believed in an oiipavhs 
ToKvxa.\Kos (Horn. Jl. v. 504), or (rtSriptos (Horn. 
Od. XV. 328), or dSo/uao-roj (Orph. Uijmm. ad 
Caelum), which the philosoi)hers called cmp4fjiviov, 
or KpvffraWoeiSfs (Kmped. op. Flul. dn Phil. 
Plac. ii. 11; Artemid. op. Sen Nat. Qiues/. \ii. 
13; quoted by Gesenius, s. r.) 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 much of the old phraseology, 
and are fluctuating and undecided in their terms. 
Wsewhere, 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 

o"ly V'l"?"?, but also nit^W, Dhna, and 
C^l^ntj?, for which reason we have thrown to- 
gether under the former word the chief features 
ascribed by the Jewish writers to this portion of 
the universe. [Fih.majient, Amer. ed.J 

2. :2^J2W is derived from HntW, "to be 
high." 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 
Co-smos (Ueut. xxxii. 1; Is. i. 2; Ps. cxlviii. 13). 
" Heaven of heavens " is their expression of in- 
finity (Xeh. ix. 6; Kcclus. xvi. 18). 

3. C1"1Q. used for heaven in Ps. xviii. IG; 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 " -Mountain of 
Meeting," like Albordsh, the northern hill of Baby- 
lonish mythology (Is. xiv. 13), or the Greek Olijni- 
pus, or the Hindoo Merit, the Chinese Kuenlun, or 
the Arabian Caf (.see Kalisch, Gen. p. 24, and 
the authorities there quoted), since such a fancy is 
incompatilile with the pure monotheism of the Old 

4. □"*f^ntt7, "expanses," with reference to the 
extent of heaven, as the last two words were de- 
rived from its htiglu ; hence this word is often 

used together with C_^K^, as in Deut. xxxiii. 2G; 
Job XXXV. 5. In the A. V. it is sometimes ren- 
dered clouds, for which the fuller term is ''SV 
D"'i:n^7 *(P8. xviii. 12). The word pflC? 
means first "to pound," and then " to wear out." 
So that, according to some, "clouds" (from the 
notion of dust) is the ori<jinal meaning of the word. 
Geseniu-s, however, rejects this opinion ( Thug. s. v.). 
In the N. T. we frequently have the word ovpa 
n.i, which some consider to he a Hebraism, or a 
pluial of excellence (Schleusner, f.ex. Nm: Test., 
\. v.). St. Paul's expression etos rplrou ovpavov 
(2 Cor. xii. 2) has led to much conjecture, (iro- 
tiu8 Buid that the Jews divided the heaven into 
three |)art8, namely, (1.) Nubiferum, the air or at 
mospiiere, where clouds gather. (2.) ,\striferum, the 
firmament, in which the sun, moon, and at.ars are 
6xed. (.1.) Enipjreum, or Angeliferum, the upper 
beaveri, the abode of God and his angels, i. e. 1 


b^w Dbi2? (or l7^■:-^) ; 2. "jiDn^n obis 

(or n^l2W)] and 3. )Vbvn 0^137 (or 

" heaven of heavens," D^ttli? '^T2W). This cu- 
riously explicit statement is entirely unsupjiorted 
by Rabbinic authority, but it is hardly fair of 
Meyer to call it a Jiclion, 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 Rabbis spoke 
of two heavens (cf. Deut. x. 14, " the heaven and 
the heaven of heavens "), or seven (eTrro oi/pavovs 
ovs rives apidfiovat Kar itravd^acriv, Clem. 
Alex. Strom, iv. 7, p. 630). " Resch Lakisch dixit 
septem esse coelos, quorum nomina sunt, 1. velum ; 
2. expansum; 3. nubes; 4. habitaculum; 5. hab- 
itiitio; G. 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, ud 2 
Cor. xii. 2). Of all these definitions and deduc- 
tions we may remark simply with Origen, tTrrot S* 
ovpavovs fl o\ws Tripi(M>pi(TfjLivov aptO/xSu avTuv al 
(pfpi/xivaL iv rals (KKA-qaiais tov &eov ovK 
airayyeWova-i ypuKpal (c. Ci/.s. vi. c. 21. p. 289) 
[/. e. " of seven heavens, or any definite number 
of heavens, the Scriptures received iu 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 oliject of this Dictionary 
is not practical, init 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, however, remark 
that as heaven was used metaphorically to signify 
the abode of Jehovah, it is constantly employed in 
the N. T. to signify the abode 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. 

HE'BER. The Heb. I^?? and "^fl are 
more forcibly distinguished than the English Eber 
and Heber. In its usfe, however, of this merely 
aspirate distinction the A. Y. of the O. T. is con- 
sistent : Eber always = '^5??' f^'^d Heber "ISO- 
In Luke iii. 35, Heber = Eber, 'EjSf'p; the distinc- 
tion so carefully observed in the O. T. having been 
neglected l)y the translators of the N. T. 

The LXX. has a similar distinction, though not 

consistently carried out. It expnjsses "^337 by 
"Efiep (Gen. x. 21),-'Ej3«p (1 Chr. i. 25), 'Effpal- 
ovs (Num. xxiv. 24); while "ISH is variously 
given as Xofi6p, Xafftp, 'A)3op, or 'A/8*p. In 
these words, iiowever, we can clearly perceive two 
distinct groups of equivalents, suggested by the 
effort to express two radically diflTerent forms. The 
transition from Xo&6p through Xo/Sf'p to 'Afitp i» 
sufficiently obvious. 

The Vulg. expresses both indiflerently liy Heber 
except in Judg. iv. 11 ff., where Haber is probablj 


juggcsteil by the LXX. XajSe'f.; and Num. xxiv. 1 
24, Helrrceos, evidently after the LXX. 'E^paious. 
Excluding Luke iii. 35, where Heber =; Eber, we 
have in the 0. T. six of the name. 

1. Grandson of the Patriarch Asher (Gen. xlvi. 
17; 1 Chr. vii. 31; Num. xxvi. 45). 

2. Of the tribe of Judah (1 Civ. iv. 18). 

3. ['n^7)5; Alex. Ioj/StjS; Comp. 'Eflep; //e- 
ber.] A Gadite (1 Chr. v. 13). 

4. A Benjamite (1 Chr. viii. 17). 

5. [nyS^Si Vat. H/SSt/; Aid. 'A^ep: JMer.] 
Another Benjamite (1 Chr. viii. 22). 

6. Heber, the Kenite, the husband of Jael 
(.ludg. iv. 11-17, v. 24). It is a question how he 
could be a Kenite, and yet trace his descent from 
I loliab, or .Jethro, who was priest of Midiau. 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. 10), and of the Kenites generally (in 1 Sam. xv. 
ij, they appear among the Amalekites)- It should 
be observed that .Jethro is never called a Midian- 
ite, but expressly a Kenite (Judg. i. IG); that the 
expression " priest of jNlidian," 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 w;xa the final settlement of 
Heber: a tent seems to have been his sole habita- 
tion when his wife smote Sisera (Judg. iv. 21). 

7. CE/Sep: lltbtr.) The form in which the 
name of the patriarch Ebek is given in the ge- 
nealogy. Luke iii. 35. T. E. B. 

HE'BERITES, THE Ol^On : 6 Xo0epi 
[Vat. -pel] : IfeberiUe). Descendants of Heber, 
a branch of the tribe of Asher (Num. xxvi. 45) 
W. A. W, 

* HEBREW LANGUAGE. See Shemitic 

Languagks, §§ 0-13. 

HE'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 '^?^. 

III. Appellative from "^^l?. 

IV. Patronymic from Eber. 

I. From Abram, Abrcei, and by euphony Ile- 
brmi (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. 10). The eu- 
phony alleged by Ambrose is quite imperceptible, 
and there is no parallel in the I. at. mendie = me- 

II. ^"131?, from ~15^= crossed over," ap 
plied by the Canaanites to Abraham upon hi* 
Tossing the Euphiates (Gen. xiv. 13, where LXX. 
Kfp6.rT)s =trrmgltur'. This derivation is open to 
he itrong objection that Hebrew nouns ending in 

we either patronymics, or gentilic nouns (Bux- 



torf, Leusden). This is a technical objectiot 
which, though fatal to the TrepoTTjs, or aj)pell<ilivi 
derivation as traced back to the verb, does not 

apply to the same as referred to the noun '^337. 
The analogy of GalU, Angli, Hispani derived from 
Gallia, Anglia, Hispania (Leusd.), is a complete 
blunder in ethnography ; and at any rate it Mould 
confirm rather than destroy the derivation from the 

III. 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 distinc- 
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 a pro- 
genitor Eber (which is the fourth and last deriva- 
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, K. Bechai, Paul 
Burg., jMiinster, Grotius, Scaliger, Selden, liosenm., 
Gesen., Eichhorn ; the former is supported by Jo- 
seph., Suidas, Bochart, Vatablus, DrusJus, Vossius, 
Buxtorf, Hottinger, Leusden, Whiston, Bauer. As 

regards the derivation from "l^^i the noun (oi 
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 Canaanite 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 "l^y = ""7?'!? "15^- If we accept R.>- 
senm. Schol. on Num. x.xiv. 24, according to which 
Eber by parallelism with Asshur = Tran^Euphi-a- 
tian, this challenge is met. But if not, the fa- 
cility of the abbreviation is sufficient to create a 
presumption in its favor; while the derivation with 
which it is associated harmonizes more perfectly 
than any other with the later usage <t{ the word 
Hebrew, and is confirmed by negative arguments 
of the strongest kind. In fact it seems almost 
impossible for the defenders of the patronymic 
Eber theory to get over the difficulty arising from 
the circumstance that no special prominence is in 
the genealogy assigned to Eber, such as might en- 
title him to the position of head or founder of the 
race. From the genealogictd scheme in Gen. xi. 
10-20, it does not ajjpear that the Jews thought 
of El;er as a source primary, or even secondarj-, of 
the national descent. The genealogy neither start* 
from him, nor in its uniform sequence does ii rasl 


upon him with any emphasis. There is nothing to 
distinguish Eber above Arphaxad, I'elea;, or Serng. 
Like them lie is but a link in the chain by which 
Sbem 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 Edoniites ; beyond Isaac 
they were in danger of being confounded with the 
Ishmaehtes. The predominant figure of the em- 
phatically Hebrew Abraham might tempt them 
beyond those points of afHnity with other races, so 
distasteful, so anti-national; but it is almost incon- 
ceivable that they would \'oluntarily originate, and 
perpetuate an appellation of tliemselves which 
landed them on a platform of ancestry where they 
met the whole population of Arabia (Gen. x. 25, 

As might have been expected, an attempt has 
been made to show tliat the position which Eber 
occupies in the genealogy is one of no ordinai'y 
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 children 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 tliat 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 E. 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, I'gypt (ver. l-j) is mentioned a,s the W. limit 
of the same great race; and these two extremes 
having been ascertained, the historian proceeds 
(ver. 15-10) to fill up his ethnographic sketch 
with the intermediate tribes of the Canaanites. 
Ill short, in ver. 6-20, 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 Assluir, 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 I^ber," 
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 tlie derivation of Hebrew from ICber is 
Bouglit in tiie supiwsititious fact that Eber was the 
only descendant of Noah who preser\ed the one 
primeval language; and it is maintained that this 
^nguage transmitted liy Eber to the Hebrews, and 
to them alone of all his dcs'^endants, constitutes a pe- 
luliar and special relation (Theodor , Voss., Eeusd.). 

It is obvious to remark that this tiieory rests 
upon three entirely gratuitous assumptions: first, 
that the primeval language has been preserved; 
nexl, that Eber alone preserved it; lastly, that 
having so preserved it, he comnumicat«d it to his 
son I'elcg, but not to his son -loktan. 

The first assumption is utterly at variance with 
Uie most certain results of ethnology: the two 
•thero are grossly improbabl". The Hebrew of tlie 


0. T. was not the language of Abraham when ht 
first entered Palestine: whether he inherited his 
language from ICber or not, decidedly the language 
which he did speak must have been Chaldee (comp, 
Gen. xxxi. 47), and not Hebrew (Eicbhorn). This 
supposed primeval language was in fact the Ian 
guage of the Canaanites, assumed by Abraham as 
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 (TrepaxTjr) derivation is strongly 
confirmed by the historical use of the word flebreto. 
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 tribes, 
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. C: 1 Sam. iv. 6, 9, xiii. 
19, xiv. 11, xxix. 3), or where they are opposed to 
foreign nations (Gen. xliii. 32 ; Ex. i. 15, ii. 11 ; 
Deut. XV. 12; 1 Sam. xiii. 3, 7). So in Greek 
and lioman writers we find the name Hebrews, or, 
in later times, Jews (Pausan. v. 5, § 2, vi. 24, § 6; 
Plut. Si/mpos. 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 trom 
all others (Luke xxiii. 38; John v. 2, xix. 13; 
Acts xxi. 40, xxvi. 14; Kev. ix. 11); while in 2 
Cor. xi. 22, the word is used as only second to Js- 
raelile in the expression of national peculiaritj'. 

Gesenins has successfully controverted the opin- 
ion that the term Israelite was a sacred name, and 
Hebrew the common apjiellation. 

Briefly, we suppose that Hebrew was originally a 
Cis-Euphratian word ajiplied to Trans-lCuphratian 
immigrants; it was accepted by these inmiigrants 
in their external relations ; and after the general 
substitution of the word Jew, it still found a place 
in that marked and special feature of national con- 
tradistinction, the language (,lo.seph. Ant. i. G, §4; 
Suidas, s. v. 'EPpahi; Euseb. de Pnvp. Evang. 
ii. 4; Ambrose, Comment, in Phil. iii. 5; August. 
QiuEst. in Gen. 24; Consens. Evang. 14; comp. 
Retract. IG; Grot. Annot. ad Gen. xiv. 13; Voss. 
Etym. s. V. stiprn; Bochart, Phaleg, ii. 14; Buxt. 
Diss, de Ling. Heb. Conserv. 31; Ilottinger, Tlies. 
i. 1, 2; Leusden, PInl. Heb. J)iss. '21,1; Baunr, 
Kntwur/, etc., § xi. ; Rosenm. Sc/iol. ad Gen. x. 
21, xiv. 13, and Num. xxiv. 24; Eichhorn, Einleit. 
i. p. 60; Gesen. Lex., and Gesch. d. Heb. Spr. 11, 
12). T. E. B. 

HE'BREWESS (nn^y : 'E»pala: He 
hriea). A Hebrew woman (Jer. xxxiv. 9). 

W. A. W. 

principal questions wbich liave been raised, and the 
opinions which are current respecting this epistU 
may be considered under the following heads: 

I. Its canonical authority. 

H. Its author. 

II L To whom W!i8 it addressed? 

IN'. Where and when was it written? 

\'. In what language was it writt«u? 



VI. Condition of the Hebrews, and scope of the 

\ II. Literature connected with it. 

I. The most important question that can be en- 
tertained in connection with this epistle touches 
its canonical " authority. 

The 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 pecuUar 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 I'et. iii. 15 as a distinct reference to St. I^aul'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 nuist 
not be limited to the Epistle to the Hebrews; or if 
it include only (see 2 Pet. iii. 1) the Jews named 
in 1 I'et. i. 1, there may be special reference to the 
Galatians (vi. 7-9) and Ephesians (ii. 3-5), but 
not to the Hebrews. 

Was it then received and transmitted as canon- 
ical by the immediate successors of the Apostles'? 
The most important witness among these, Clement 
(a. d. 70 or 95), 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 Mr. Westcott ( On ilit Cunon, p. 
32), into Clement's mind. Little stress can be laid 
upon the few possible allusions to it in Barnabas, 
Hermas, I^olycarp, 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 Methoil 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 Credibiiity of the Gos- 
rtel History is a storehouse of ancient authorities. 
But both these great works are nearly superseded for 
ordinary purposes by the invaluable compendium of 
the Rev. B. F. Westcott, On the Canon of the New 
T- s'a7nent, to which the first part of this article is 
greatlv indebted. [There is a 2d edition of this work. 
Loud." 1866.] 

i> 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. 
Tlie index of Otto's edition of Justin contains niOi'e 
than 50 references by Justin to tlie epistles of St. 
Paul; while Prof. Jowett {On the Thessalonians, etc., 
1st ed. i. 345) puta forth in England the statement 
hat Justin was unacquainted with St. Paul and his 

* This sfcitement is modified in the 2d edi'ion of 
Prof. Jowett's work (Lond. 1859). He there says (i. 
444) that " Justin refers to the Twelve in several pas- 
iaftes, but nowhere in his genuine writings mentions 
is Paal. And when speaking of thn books read in 

canonical by Clement writing from Rome ; by Jui- 
tin Afartyr,* familiar with the traditions of Italy 
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 suiject necessarily leads 
us to expect him to refer to it. Two heretical 
teachers, Basilides at Alexandria and ]\Iarcion at 
Home, are recorded as distinctly rejecting the 

But at the close of that period, in the North 
African church, where first the Gospel found utter- 
ance in the L.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 Mediterranean, 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 nuich of that oral tradition in 
which, with many otlier 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 Greek 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. 
Tertullian, 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 episties, and, even in his 
books of Scripture Testimonies against the Jews, 
never makes the slightest reference to it. Iren.'eus, 
who came in his youth to Gaul, defending in his 

the Christian assemblies, he names only the Gospels 
and the Prophets. {Apol. 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 60 references by 
Justin to the epistles of St Paul "' is net correct, if 
his index to Justin's undisputed wi,rks is intended, the 
number being only 39 (exclusive of 6 to the Kpistle to 
the Hebrews), and 16 of these being to quotationa 
from or allusions to the Old Testament common to 
Justin and St. Paul. In most of the remainder, the 
correspondence in language between Justin and the 
epistles of St. Paul is not close. Still the evidence 
that Justin was acquainted with the ^vritings of the 
great Apostle to the Gentiles appears to be satisfac- 
tory. See particularly on this point the articles of 
Otto in Illgen's Znlsr'hr. f. d. hist. Theo'., 1842, Helt 
2, pp. 41-54, and 1843, Heft 1, pp. 34-43. In such 
works as the two Apologies and the Dialogue with 
Trypho, quotations^ from St. Paul were not to be ex- 
pected. That Justin was acquainted with the Epistle 
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. West 
cott. Canon of the New Test., 2d ed., p. 146 ff. 



great work the Divinity of Christ, never quotes, 
Bcarccly refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews. The 
Murntoriai) I'Yagnient on the ( 'anon leaves it out 
uf tlie list of St. Paul's epistles. So did Caius 
!»nd Hippolytus, who wrote at Kome in Greek; and 
so did Victorinus of Pannonia. But in the fourth 
century its authority began to revi\e; it was re- 
ceived by Hilary of I'oitiers, Lucifer and Faustinus 
of Cagliari, l-'abius and Victorinus of Konie, Am- 
brose of Milan, and Philaster {'^) and Gaudentius 
lof Brescia. At the end of the fourth century, 
Jerome, tlie most learned and critical of the Latin 
Fathers, reviewed tlie conflicting opinions as to the 
authority of this epistle. He considered that the 
prevailing, though not universal \iew of the Latin 
churches, was of less weight than the view, not 
only of ancient writers, but also of all the (ireek 
and all tlie 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 tlie declaration of these two eminent men, the 
Latin churches united with the East in receiving 
the epistle. The 3d Council of Carthage, a. u. 
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 lias not been ascertained. Some critics 
have conjectured that the Montanist or the Nova- 
tian controversy instigated, and that the Arian 
controversy dissipated, so much opposition as pro- 
ceeded from orthodox Christians. The references 
vO St. Paul in the Clementine Homilies have led 
other critics to the startling theory that orthodox 
Cliristiaiis at Koine, in the middle of the second 
century, commonly regarded and described St. 
I'aul 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 Cliurch 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, diltering in its style from every apostolic 
epistle, abounding in arguments and appealing to 
sentiments which were always foreign to the Gai- 
tile, and growing less familiar to the .lewish mind. 
So they went a step beyond the church of Alexan- 
dria, whicli, while doubting the authorship of this 
epistle, always acknowledged its authority. The 
church of .lerusalem, 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 tiie foimtain-head of in- 
I'orination which satisfied tlie Isastern and Greek 
churches. But the church of Jerusalem was early 
hidden in exile and obscurity. And Palestine, 
after the destruction of .Jerusalem, became unknown 
ground to that of " dwellers in Libya about 
(-'yrene, and strangers of Home," who once main- 
taineil close religious intercourse with it. All these 

considerations may help to account for the fact 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 l^etweeen 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 
(ireek or Syriac writer ever expressed a doubt. It 
was acknowledged in various public documents; 
received by the franiers of the Apostolical (Consti- 
tutions (about A. 1). 250, Beveti'tc/t); quoted in 
the epistle of the Synod of Antioch, a. d. 209; 
ajipealed to by the debaters in the first Council of 
Nice; included in that catalogue of canonical books 
which was added (pei-haps afterwards) to the canons 
of the Council of Laodicea, A. i). 305; and sanc- 
tioned by the Quinisextuie Council at Constanti- 
noiile, 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 
tlie Apostle, who had built not only gold, silver, and 
precious stones, but also wood, hay, and stubl)le 
upon his master's foundation. And whereas the 
(jreek Church in the fourth century gave it some- 
times the tenth « place, or at other times, iis it now 
does, and as the Syrian, Koman, and English 
churches do, the fourteenth place among the epis- 
tles of St. Paul, Luther, when he printed his ver- 
sion of the Bil)le, separated this book from St. 
Patil's epistles, and placed it with the epistles of 
St. .James and St. Jude, next before the lievela- 
tion; indicating by this change of order his opin- 
ion tliat 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 Lutiieran (,'hurch. 

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 aflfected 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 infomiation and 
calm judgment. 

H. 117,0 Hvcf the nuihm- of the K/mtlet — Thia 
question is of less practical importance than the 
last; for many books are leceived as canonical, 
whilst little or nothing is known of their writers. 
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 {npiid Euseh. //. A', vi. U) and 
Chrysostom, by supposing that St. Paul withheld 
his name, lest tlie sight of it should rejiel any .Jew- 
ish Christians who might still regard him rather 
as an enemy of the law (Acts xxi. 21) than as a 
benefactor to their nation (Acts xxiv. 17). And 

« Tlio Viitican Coflox (U), a. c. 3'»0, bears tracus of 
in earlier luMlgnuicnt of the flftli place to the Ep. to 
'ha UebrewR. [See Vvt.?., p. 3Uu '^, Amer. ed.] 

b See Bleek, i. pp. 247 and 447. 



Paiitanus, or some other pretlecessor of Clement, 
adds that St. Paul would not write to the Jews as 
an AiX)stIe because he regarded the Lord liimself 
as their Apostle (see the remarkable expression, 
Heb. iii. i, twice quoted by Justin Martyr, Ajwl. 
i. 12, 63). 

It was the custom of the earliest fathers to quote 
(jassaj;es of Scripture without naming the writer 
(jr the book which supplied theui. IJut tliere is no 
reason to doul)t that at first, everywhere, except in 
North Africa, St. i'aul was regarded as the author. 
■' Among the Greek fiithers." says ( Jlshausen ( Ujjus- 
cula, p. 95), no one is named either in Egypt, or 
iu Syria, Palestine, Asia, or Greece, wlio is opposed 
to the opinion that this epistle proceeds from St. 
Paul." The ^Vlexandriau fathers, whether guided 
by tradition or by critical discernment, are the ear- 
liest to note the discrepancy of style ijetween this 
episcle and the other tliirteen. And they received 
it in the same sense that the speech in Acts xxii. 
1-21 is received as St. Paul's. Clement ascribed 
to St. [>uke the translation of the epistle into 
Greek from a Heljrew original of St. Paul. Ori- 
gen, embracing tiie opinion of those who, he says, 
preceded him, believed that the thoughts were St. 
I'aul's, the language and composition St. Luke's 
or Clement's of Rome. TertuUian, knowing noth- 
ing of any connection of St. Paul with the epis- 
ile. names Barnabas as the reputed author accord- 
ing to the North African tradition, wliich 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 tlie dissonance of style) 
that it was written l)y Barnabas or Clement. At 
Uome Clement was silent as to the author of this 
as of the other epistles wliich he quotes; and the 

" Professor Blunt, On the Ri^ht Use of the Early 
Fut'ierx, pp. 439 111 . gives a complete view of the evi- 
lieuce of Clement, Origen, and Eusebius as to the 
authorship of the epistle. 

'' Iu tills 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 Oifices for the Visitation of the Sick 
and the Solemnization of Matrimony. 

c Bis'.iop Pearson {Di'. surce.^xivie prinnim Romee 
fpiscoporum, ch. viii. § 8) says that the way in which 
Timothy is mentioned (xiii. 2.3) .'eems to hiiu a suffi- 
cient proof that St. Paul was the author of this epistle. 
For another view of tliis passage see Bleek, i. 273. 

d * It has been asserted by some German critics, as 
Schulz and Seytl.irth, t!iat an unusually large propor- 
tion of aTraf Aeyofiei/m, 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 
this point. (Sse his Comm. on Hebrews, 2d ed., p. 
217 Sf., 22.J ff.) As the result of this examination, he 
finds in 1 Cor. 230 words which occur nowhere else 
in the writings of Paul ; while in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, according 'to the reckoning of Seyff:irth, 
, 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 Epistl" to the He- 
brews as compared with that in 1 Cut. is, according to 
Prof. Stuirt, in the proportion of 1 to li. Hence he 
argues, ttiat " if the number of arra^ Keyofxeva iu our 
epistle proves that it was not from the hand of Paul, 
It must be more abundantly evident that Paul cannot 
have Oeen the author ef the First Epistle to the Cor- 

The facts in the case, however, are very different 

writers who follow him, down to the middle of the 
fourtli century, only touch on the point to deny 
that the epistle is St. Paul's. 

The 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 Eusebius; " 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 tliose of other Apostles. This place it held 
everywhere till tlie time of Luther; as if to indi- 
cate the deliberate and final acquiescence of th 
universal church in the opinion that it i^ 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 the result has 
not been any considerable disturbance 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 Kev. C. Forster ( The Apos- 
tolical Authority of the Kpistle to the He/jrews), 
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 flebrews. 
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 aira^ ktyoixeva in 1st Corinthians are found 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, to make the 
comparison tolerably fair, should be as.«umed 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 tho 
number of peculiar words in 1 Cor. to be about 217 
On the other hand, the number of aTrof Aeyo/u.ej'a iu 
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 
300. (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 a-n-a^ Aeyd/iieva 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 tnere number of pecu- 
liar word*! ; but if this matter is to be discu-^sed at all, 
it is desirable that the facts should be correctly pre- 
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 Himyaritlc 
Inscriptions, his One Primeval Langiiase, and his New 
Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three H^a- 
enly Witnesses (1 John v. 7), recently published A 



Lect. ix., leans to the same conclusion. Dr. S. 
Davidson, in his lutroduction to the New TesUt- 
ment, ^ives 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, 
yt. Luke coiperated 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 
ApoUos was tlie author, has been widely adopted 
by Le Clerc, Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, Bunsen, 
and others." [AroLLOs, Anier. 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 trfiining and method of stating doc- 
truial truth differed from St. Paul's. The distin- 
guished name of H. ICwald 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 
.lerusalem to a church in some important Italian 
town, 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 the traditionary account. They can- 
not be said • to rise out of the 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 
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 Pastofal Epistles and the preced- 
ing nine'? or in speeches so diverse as those which 
are severally addressed to pagans at Athens and 
l.ycaonia, 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 
Jeru.salem kept the Nazarite vow, and made con- 
cessions to Hebrew (Jhristians; who professed to 
become "all things 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- 
I)al truth was known in the world, whether it had 
become current in Alexandrian philosophy, or in 
Rabbinical tradition ? 

If it be asked to what extent, and by whom was 
St. Paul assisted in the composition of this epistle, 

the reply must be in the words of Origin, •• Wbt 
wrote [i. e. as in l!om. xvi. 22, wrote from the au- 
thor's dictation '] this epistle, only God knows.' 
The style is not quite like that of Clement of 
Home. Both style and sentiment are quite unlike 
those of the author of the Epistle of Barnabas 
Of the three apostolic men named by Alrican 
fathers, St. Luke is the most Ukely to have shared in 
the composition of this epistle. The similarity in 
phraseology which exists between the acknowledged 
writings of St. Luke-and this epistle; his constant 
companionship with St. Paul, and his habit of lis- 
tening to and recording the Apostle's arguments, 
form a strong jiresumption 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 been asked by those who 
regard joint-autiiorship 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 lind 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 Si. 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 
at Cwsarea ; 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 Coesarea'i' 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. Tu whom WHS the Epistle 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 Ilelirew 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 l>y containing several direct 
personal appeids, and from a homily, i)y closing 
with messages anrl salutations. Its present title, 
which, though ancient, cannot be proved to have 

a Among these must now be placed Dean Alford, 
who in the fourth volume of his Greek Trxlament (pub- 
lished since the above article was in type), discusses 
the question with great care and candor, and concludes 
that the epi.ttle wjis written by Apollos to the Romans, 
ibout A. ». G9, from Ephesus. 

'> Among are some, who, unlike Origcn, deny 
tnat Barnabas is the author of the epiatle which bears 
bl« name. If it be granted that we have no specimen 
of hU style, the hypothesis which connoctn him with 
the Kplstle to the Hebrews l)ecome8 less improbable. 
Ilanv circumstances show that he possesiicd some (luol- 

ifications for writing such an epistle ; such as his I*- 
vitical descent, his priestly education, hi» reputation 
at .lerusalem, his acquaintance with Uentile churcUeSi 
his company with St. Paul, the tradition of TertuUian, 

c Hmemann, followed by Dean Alford, argue* that 
Origcn must have meant liere, as he confes.scdly doe( 
a few lines further on, to indicate an author, not • 
scribe, by 6 ypo>//« ; but he aclinowledgcs that f 
son, Stenglein, and Delitzsch, do not allow the i 



been inscribed by the writer of the epistle, might 
have been given to it, in accordance with the use 
of the term Hebrews in the X. 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 famiUar 
with," and attached to, tlie Temple-sej-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 'I'emple. accustomed to dis- 
cuss the interpretation of Scripture, and acquainted 
with the prevaiUng Alexandrian philosophy —such 
a church would be pecuUarly fit to appreciate this 
epistle, tor it takes from the Book of Psalms 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 
this circumstance has been pointed out as incon- 
sistent with the tone of indeijendent 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 (Meb. 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 (he 
Roinnns 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 Jerusalem, Hebrew 
was a dead language, acquired only with much pains 
by the learned. The Scriptures were popularly 
known in Aramaic or Greek: quotations were made 
from memory, and verified by memory. Probably 
Prof. Jowett is correct in his inference (1st edit. i. 
361), that St. Paul did not faniilinrhj know the 
Hebrew original, while he possessed a minute knowl- 
edge of the' LXX. 

Ebrard limits the primary circle of readers even 
to a section of the church at Jerusalem. Consid- 
»ring such passages as v. 12, vi. 10, x. 32, as prob- 
ably inapplicable to the whole of that church, he 
lonjeetuies that St. Paid wrote to some neophytes 
nrhose conversion, though not mentioned in the 
Acts, may have been partly due to the Apostle's 

« For an explanation of the alleged ignorance of the 
luthor of Heb. ix. as to the furniture of the Temple, 
Bee Ebrard's Commentary on the passage, or Professor 
Stuart's Excursus, xvi. and xvii. 

h The influence of the Alexandrian school did not 
begin with Vhilo, and was not confined to Alexandria. 
[Alexandria.] The means and the evidence of its 
progress may be traced in the writings of the son of 
Mrach (Maurice's Moral niirt M tn/ihi/siial P'lilnsop/iy, 

§ 8, p. 234). the author of the Book of Wisdom 
Ewald, 'Jfsrlikhlt. iv. 548). Aristobulua, E^kiel. Philo. 

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- 
Mhere; 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 Kome and Csesarea, 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 Ephesus. 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 when was ii icritten ? — Eastern 
traditions of the fourth century, in connection with 
the opinion that St. Paul is the writer, name Italy 
and Home, or Athens, as the place from whence 
the epistle was written. 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. 
Caesarea 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 
tr.adition. Prom the expression " they of {air6) 
Italy," xiii. 24, it has been inferred tliat the writer 
could not have been in Italy; but Winer (Gram- 
niatik, § G6, 6), denies that the preposition neces- 
sarily has that force. 

The epistle was evidently written before the 
destruction of .Jerusalem in a. d. 70. The whole 
argument, and specially the passages viii. 4 and ff., 
ix. G 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 usual course of Divine 
service was carried on without interruption. A 
Christian reader, keenly watching in the doomed ' 
city for the fulfillment of his 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 
immedinlely before the catastrophe. The 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 
comiect the first reference with the martyrdom <* 
of St. James at the Passover A. D. 62. Modem 
criticism has not destroyed, though it has weakened, 

and Theodotus (Ewald, iv. 297) ; in the phraseology 
of St. John (Prof. Jowett, On the T/ie ssalonians , etc 
1st edit. i. 408), and the arguments of St. Paul (ibid 
p. 3G1) ; in the establishment of an Alexandrian syn 
agogue at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 9), and the existence of 
schools of scriptural interpretation there (Ewald, Ge 
schichte, v. 63. and vi. 231). 

c See Josephus, B. J. vi. 5, § 3. 

(I See Josephus, Ant. xx. 9, § 1 ; Euseb. H. E U 
23 ; and Rccogu. Clement, i. 70, ip. Cofeler. i 509 



Jie connection of this epistle with St. Paul's 
Roman captivity (A. u. Gl-63) by substituting the 
reading to7s Sear/jiiois, " the prisoners," for rots 
Sf(7fjio7s fiov (A. V. "me in my bonds)," x. 34; 
by proposing to interpret airoXfXvfXfvov, xiii 23, as 
"sent away," rather than "set at liberty ;" and 
bv urging that the condition of the writer, as por- 
trayed in xiii. 18, 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 Albinus succeeded Festus 
as procurator. 

V. In what language was it written f — 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 in I'^useb. //. 
£. 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. 'Jliis 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 I'eshito, has never been re- 
garded otherwise than as a translation. Among 
the few mudern supporters of an Aramaic original 
the most distinguished are Joseph Hallet, an Eng- 
lish writer in 1727 (whose able essay is most easily 
accessible in a Latin translation in AVolf s Cnroi 
PhihAogicce, iv. 806-837), and J. D. IMichaelis, 
Krkldr. des Briefes an die //ebrcier. lileek (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 Sia6r]Kr], 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 Ilebreics, and scope of the 
Epistle. — 'l"hc 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 multiplied, and 
as the growing turbulence of the nation ripened 
into the insurrection of a. i>. 66. Personal violence, 
spoliation of property, exclusion from tl)e synagogue, 
ind domestic strife were tiie universal forms of per- 
secution. Hut in Jerusalem there was one addi- 
tional weapon in the hands of the predominant 
oppressors of the Christians, 'llieir magnificent 
national Temple, hallowed to every Jew by ancient 
historical and by gentler personal recollections, with 
Its irresistible attractions, its soothing strains, and 
mysterious ceremonies, might be shut against the 

a See the ingenioufi, but perhaps orerstrained, in- 
larpretAtion of Ileb. xi. in Thiersch's Commentatio 
Huitirica lie Epislola ad Hebr<ros- 

Hebrew Christian. And even if. amid the fieroi 
factions and frequent oscillations of authority ut 
Jerusalem, this afhiction were not often laid upon 
him, yet there was a secret burden which every 
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 Christ. 
For, as afHictions multiplied round them, and made 
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 
tlieir Christianity, to be receding from the Ciod of 
their fathers, and losing that means of comniunion 
with Him 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 hiro 
for the loss which was pressing" the Hebrew* 
Christian more and more. 

James, the bishop of Jerusalem, had just left hie 
place vacant by a martyr's death. Neither tc 
Cephas at Babylon, nor to John at Ephesus, the 
tliird 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 canit 
to him from Home 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 with a love 
ever ready to iireak 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 witli 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 \ery love from way- 
ward children who might refuse to hear divine and 
saving truth, when it fell from the lips 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 (.'hrist the Son of God you 
have an all-sufficient Mediator, nearer than angels 
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 was in- 
tended to be subservient; His atonement is the 
eternal reality'' of which sacrifices are but the 
passing shadow; His city heavenly, not made with 
Iiands. 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 
[)repared for coming woe, full of etiergy, and hope, 
and holiness, and love." 

Such was the teaching of the Epistle to the H* 

(< S<H) Bishop Butler's Analogy, ii. 5, | 6. 



brews. We do not possess the means of tracing 
out step by st«p its eiTect upon them ; but we know 
that the result at which it aimed was achieved. 
The church at Jerusalem did not apostatize. It 
migrated to I'ella (Eusebius, //. K. iii. 5); and 
there, no longer dwindled under the cold shadow 
of overhanging Judaism, it followed the Hebrew 
Christians of the Dispersion in gradually entering 
on the possession of the full Uberty which the law 
of Christ allows to all. 

And this great epistle remains to after times, a 
keystone Ijinding together that succession of inspired 
men which spans over the ages between ]\Ioses and 
St. John. It teaches the Christian student the sub- 
stantial identity of the re\elation of God, whether 
given through the Prophets, or through the Son; 
for it shows that God's purjwses are unchangeable, 
however di\erse]y 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. Lilerature connected loUli t/ie. KpisUe. — 
In addition to the books already referred to, four 
sommentaries may be selected as the best repre- 
sentatives of distinct lines of thought; — those of 
Chrysostom, Calvin, I'^tius, and Bleek. Liineniann 
(1855 [;id ed. 18(>7]), and Delitzsch (1858) have 
recently added valuable commentaries to those 
already in existence. 

The commentaries aecessible to the English 
reader are those of Professor Stuart (of Andover, 
U. S. [2d eti., 1833, abridged by Prof. li. D. C. 
Robbing, Andover, I860]), and of Ebrard, trans- 
lated by the Pev. J. Fulton [in vol. vi. of Olshausen's 
Bibl. Coium., 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. l^nd. 1734] are praised by Dr. 
I )oddridge. Among the well-known collections of 
Enghsh notes on the Greek text or English version 
of the N. T., those of Hammond, Pell, Whitby, 
Macknight, Wordsworth, and Alford may be par- 
ticularly mentioned. In Prof. Stanley's Sermons 
and Kssaijs on (lie Apostolical A(je there is a 
thoughtful and eloquent sermon on this epistle; 
BJid it is the subject of three Warburtonian Lec- 
tures^ by the Kev. F. D. Maurice [Loud. 1840] . 

A tolerably complete list of commentaries on 
this epistle may be found in Bleek, vol. ii. pp. 10- 
16, and a comprehensive but shorter list at the end 
of 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 {Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 
388 ff.), Schott (fsagof/e, 1830, §§ 79-87 ),'Schleier- 
iraeher (Einl. ins N. T. p. 439), Ixchler (Das AjM>st. 
Zeitalt. p. 159 f.), Wieseler {Chron. d. Apost. 
Ztitalt. p. 504 f.), and in a separate treatise {Un- 
ersuchung iiber den Hebraerbrief, Kiel, 1861), 
rwest«n (Doffmatik, 4te Aufl., i. 95, and in Piper's 
Evangel. Kalender for 1858, p. 43 f.), Kostlin (in 
Baur and Zeller's Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 425 f.), 
Credner (Gesc/i. des Neutest. Kanon, edited by 
Tolkmar, p. 161), Schmid (Bibl. Theol. des N. T. 
72), KeiuM (Gesch.des N. T. 4te Ausg.), Weias 

(Stud. u. Krit. 1850 p. 142) Sch.neckenburger 
(Btitrdge, and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 283 f.), 
Hase (kirchengesch. 7te Aufl. § 39, p. 6SG of the 
Amer. trans.), Lange (Das Apost. Zeitalier, i 
185 f.), Ptitschl (Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 89), 
Liinemann (Handb. p. 1 f., 3te Aufl. 1867, 13th 
pt. of Meyer's Komm. ub. d. N. T.), Von Gerlach 
(Das N. T. etc., Einl. p. xxxiv.), ilessner (Die 
Lchre der Apostel, p. 293 ff.), Kiehm (Lehrbegr. 
des Uebrder-Br., neue Ausg. 1867), Moll (in 
Lange's Bibelwerk), Holtzmann (in Bunsen's Bibelr^ 
loerk, viii. 512 fF.), the Roman Catholics Feilmoser 
(Einl. ins N. T. p. 359), Lutterbeck (Neutest. 
Lehrbegr. ii. 245), Maier (Comm. ub. d. Brief an 
die Hebrder, 1861), and among writers in English, 
Norton (in the Christian Exam. 1827 to 1829), 
Palfrey (Relation between Judaism and Christianity, 
pp. 311-331), Tregelles (in Home's J7itroductiun, 
10th ed., iv. 585), Schaff" (Apostolic Church, p. 641 
f. ), Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epp. of St. 
Paul, new ed. chap, xsviii. ), Westcott ( Canon oj 
N. T. 2d ed. p. 314), and others. Injustice 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.) The absence of a 
salutation, and in general the treatise-like charac- 
ter of the epistle. The explanation of Pantaenus ( ?) 
is inadequate, for Paul might have 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 hia 
ordinary manner of composition for some unknown 
re;ison, admits the facts, but adopts what, in view 
of the thirteen extant s[iecimens of his epistolary 
."tyle, is the less probable explanation of them. (2.) 
The peculiarities relative to the emphnjment 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 Afwstle (Cod. Vat.), 
Paul commonly introduces his quotations as " Scrip- 
ture," often gives the name of the human author, 
but in the epistle the quotations, with but a single 
exception (ii. 6), are attributed more or less du-ectly 
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 eV Xpiarw, which occurs 78 times in the 
acknowledged epistles of Paul (being found in all 
e.xcept 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 as long as the aggregate length of the 
other thirteen; the phrase 6 Kvpios 'Irjo-oi/y XpiCT6s 
(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 
€vayy(KiOp. though used 60 times by Paul, and 
in ail bis epistles except that to Titus, is noi met 



•rith in this epistle; .he tcim irariip, applied to 
liod 30 by Paul (exclusive of U instances in 
which God is called the Fatlier of Christ), and 
ucciuTing in every one of his epistles, is so used 
but once in the I'^pistle to the Hebrews, and then 
Dy way of antithesis (Heb. xii. 9). (b.) It sub- 
Btitutes certain synonymous words and constructions 
in phii^a of those usual with Paul: ex. gr. ^ta- 
dairoSotria for the simple fxiaOSs employed by Paul ; 
fifToxov elyai, etc., instead of Paul's KoivaivSi' 
etc. ; tlie intransitive use of Ka6i(u in the phrase 
KaOi^w if Se^LO, rnu Oeov, where Paul the verb 
transitively ; tlis" expression Siairai/TSs, fls rh izav- 
reKfs, 61$ TO S'^J^ewes instead of Paul's travroTe. 
(c.) It eirtiibits noticeable peculiarities of expres- 
sion: ^he phrase tls rh 5i7jv6/fe$ belongs to this 
claSs also ; other specimens are the use of oaov . . . 
Kara roffovro or outcd, TO<TovT(f> . . . ocra>, or 
Scrtii alone, and of irapa and vwfp in expressing 
comparison; connectives, like edvTrep (three times), 
o6ey (six times), which are never used by Paul, 
(d.) And in general its language and style dift'er 
from Paul's — its language, in being less He- 
braistic, more literary, more idiomatic in construc- 
tion; its style,, in being less impa-ssioned, more 
regular, more rhythmical and euphonious. These 
diifferences 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 sati.sfactorily 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 
Ajwstle's history we can find no room for such an 
inter\'al, 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 lal)or might have been appreciated (cf 
2 Cor. xi. 0); 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 Pauline authorship do not amount to 
a conflict in any particular with the presentations of 
truth made liy the Apostle; nor are its divergencies 
from the Pauline type of doctrine so marked as 
those of James and John. Still, it has peculiarities 
which are distinctive: Paul delights to present the 
Gospel as justification before God though faith in 
thetJrucitieid One; in the Kpistle to the Hebrews, on 
the other hand, it is represented as consummatetl 
Judaism. In accordance with this fundamental 
difltrence, the epistle defines and illustrates faith 
in a generic sense, as trust in God's assurances and 
as antithetic to sight: whereas with Paul faith is 
specific — a sinner's in — and antithetic 
(generally) to works: it sets forth the etenial higii- 
priesthood of the Messiah, while Paul dwells u[)on 
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 
ot life: it is conspicuous, too, among the N. T. 
writings for its spiritualizing, at times half-mystical, 
mode of interpreting the (). T. Further, these 
ditferc^nt presentations of the (Jhristian doctrine are 
.0 geneial made to rest, ujwn diHerent grounds: 
Vaul speaks as the messeui^er of God, often referring. 

indeed, to the O. T., but still oftenei ' :}uietly assum- 
ing plenary authority to declare trut.i not revealed 
to holy men of old; but the write) to the llelirews 
rests his teaching upon Biblical statements almost 

HI. Among the matters personal which seem U 
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 ordinary province 
of labor (cf. Gal. ii. 9; Rom. xv. 20). (2.) The 
omission of any justification of his apostolic course 
relative to Judaism; and, assuming the epistle to 
have been destined for believers at Jerusalem, his 
use of language implyin-^ affectionate intimacy with 
them (xiii. PJ, etc.; cf Acts xxi. 17 f.). (3.) The 
cool, historic style in 'which reference is made to 
the earl}- persecutions and martyrdoms of the church 
at Jerusalem (xiii. 7, xii. 4). In these Paul had 
been a prominent a.;tor; and such passages as 1 
Cor. xv. 9; 1 Tim. i. 12 f., show how //«- 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 Christ. 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, 16; ii. 6; 1 Cor. ix. 1; xi. 
23; Eph. iii. 2, 3; 2 Cor. xi. 5). The reply, that 
the writer here uses the plural communicatively and, 
strictly speaking, does not mean to include himself, 
is unsatisfactory. For he does not quietly drop a 
distinction out of sight; he expre.ssly 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 revelation from heaven. 

These internal arguments are not offset by the 
evidence from tradition. Kespecting that evidence, 
statements like Olihausen's give an impression not 
altogether con-eet. I'or, not to mention that Fuse- 
bnis, although often citing the epistle as Paul's, 
elsewhere admits (as Origen had virtually done 
before him, Kuseb. //. /.'. vi. 25) that its apostolic 
origin was not wholly unquestioned by the oriental 
churches (//. 7^. iii. 3), and in another passa;;e 
(//. JC. vi. 13) even classes it himself among the 
anlikyomtna, it is noticeable that the Alexandrian 
testimony from the very first gives evidence that 
the epi.=tle was felt to possess characteristics at 
variance with Pauline authorship. The statement 
of Clement that the e])istle was translated from the 

I 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 s:ime statement — tliat it was written 
by Paul'? Further, in the conflict of testimony 
between the Fast and the West, it is not altogether 
clear that the probabilities favor the Fast. Haifa 
century liefore we find the epistle nientioned in the 

j Fast, and hardly thirty years after it was written, it 
was known and prized at Pome liy a man anciently 

I believed to have been a fellow- laborer with the 
Apostle. It seems hardly po.ssible that, had I'aul 
been its author, Clement should have been ignorant 
of the fact; or that, the fact once known, knowl 

j edge of it should have died out while tiie epistle 

' itself survived. And yet in all parts of the Weit — 


n Gaul, Italy, Africa — the epistle was regarded 
ia un-Pauline. 

The tlieory that Paul was meuiately or indirectly 
the author, has been adopted by Hug {Eiid. ii. 
i22 f.), Ebrard (in Olshausen's Cum. on N. T., vi. 
620, Kcndrick's etl.), Guericke ((Jes'-iiiuiifi/esch. des 
N. T. p. 419 f.), Davidson {Introduction to the 
N. T. ill 256 f.), Delitzsch (in Kudelbach and 
Guericke's Zeitsch: for 18-4!), trans, in the A'vitnt/tl. 
Rev. Mercersburg, Oct. 1850, p. 184 ff, and in 
his Com. p. 707), Bloomfield (Or. TtsL, 9th ed., 
ii. 574 tf.), Roberts {Discusuwns on the Gospels, pt. 
i. chap. vi. ). and others, who think Luke to have 
given the epistle its present form; by Thiersch (in 
the Progr. named above, and in Die Kirch e im 
Ajjost. Zeitdt. p. 197 f.), Conybeare (as above), and 
others, 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 lespecting the theory 
of mediate authorship it may be remarked : If Paul 
dictated the epistle, and Luke or some other scribe 
merely jjenned it, Paul 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 be 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 epii'tle, and insufficient 
to remove the difficulties in the case. Onco mote, 
if we suppose the ideas to be in tlie main Paul's, 
but their present form to be due to some one else, 
then Paul, not having participated actively in the 
work of composnig the epistle, cannot according to 
the ordinary use of language be called its author. 
Whatever be the cap.icity in which Paul associates 
Timothy, Silvanus, and Sosthenes with himself in 
the salutation prefixed U> 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 ICpistle 
to the Hebrews, even if it had historic warrant, 
would not answer the purpose designed. For the 
style of the 1st Epistle to the (,'orinthians, in which 
Sosthenes is conjoined with Paul, bears the Apostle's 
impress as unmistakably as does the style of the 
2d Epistle to the Corinthians, where Timothy writes 
in the salutation. .A.nd in both, the individuality 
of the Apostle is as sharply defined as it is in the 
Epistle to the lionians. (The philological evidence 
thought l>y Delitzsch to show Luke's hand in the 
composition, h.^s been collected and examined by 
LUnemann, as above, § I.) 

The opinion that Paul was the proper and sole 
author (besides the modern advocates of it already 
jamed), has been defended by Gelpke (Vindicice, 
jtc), a writer in the Spirit of the Pdfjrims for 
.828 and 1829 (in reply to Prof. Norton), Gurney 
■.in the Bibl. Repos. for 1832, p. 409 ff., t..tracfed 
from Biblical Notes and Dissertations, Lond. 1830), 
Stier (Der Bi-iefan die Hebrder, ii. p. 422), Lewin 
(Life and Epp. of St. Paul, ii. 832-899), writers 
in the Journal of' Sacred Lit. for 1860, pp. 102 ft'.. 
193 ff.. Hofmann (Schriftbeireis. ii. 2, 2te Aufl., 
p. 378, cf. p. 105), Robbins (in the Bibl. Sncra for 
1861, ?. 469 ff.), cf. Tobler (in Hilgenfeld's Ztilschr. 

HEBRON 1031 

for 1864, p. 353 ff); Wordsworth {Gr. 7e*L ii 
(1.) 361 ff.); Stovie {Oriyin and Hist, of the Books 
of the Bible, 1867, p. 379 ff.). Pond (in the Crnig. 
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 Liinem. Handb. Eiul. § 2), has been 
adopted by Kt.stlin (as above, p. 388 ff. ), Wieseler 
(as above, and hi the Stud. u. Krit. for 1867, p. 
665 ff.), Conybeare and Howson (as above), Bunsen 
{Hippol. and his Age, ii. 140, Germ. ed. i. 365), 
Hilgenfeld (Zeilschr.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. 190J. Rome as its 
destination has been advocated fully by Holtzmanu 
in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift for 1867, pp. 1-35. 

The date of the epistle is fixed by Ebrard at 
A. V. 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 Riehm, Hilgenfeld (as 
above) 64-66 ; De Wette, Liinemann, and others 65- 
67; Ewald '• summer of 66"; Bunsen 67; Cony- 
beare and Howson, Bleek {Einl. i/is N. T. p. 533) 
63-9; Alford 68-70. 

The doctrine of the epistle has been specially 
discussed by Neander (Plantinr/, etc. bk. vi. chap 
ii. Robinson's ed. p. 487 f.), KiJstlin {Johan. Lehr- 
begr. p. 387 ff.), Reuss {/Ilsloire de In Theologic 
Chretienne, tom. ii.), ^lessner (as above), most 
fully by Riehm (as above); its Christology by Moll 
(in a series of programs, 1854 ff.), A. Sarrus (Jesus 
Christ d'apres I'auteur de I'Ep. av^ Hebr., Strasb. 
1861 ). and Beyschlag ( Christologie des iV. T., 1866, 
p. 176 ff). The Melchisedec priesthood is treated of 
by Auberlen (Stud. u. Krit. for 1857, p. 453 ff.). 

Its mode of employing the 0. T. has been con- 
sidered by De Wette ( Theol. Zeitschr. by Schleierm., 
De Wette and Liicke, 3te Heft, p. 1 ff.), Tholuck 
(Beilage i. to his Com., also published separatelj 
with the title Das alte Test, im N. T., 5te Aufl 
1861), and Fairhairn (Typology of Script, hk. n. 
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 'lYanslation with Notes published 
by the AmMcan Bible Union (N. Y. 1857, 4to), R 
E. Pattison (Bost. 1859), Stuart (edited and revised 
by Prof. Robbins, 4th ed. Andover, 1860), Moll (in 
Lange's Bibdwerh, 1861), jMaier (Rom. Cath. 
1861), Reuss (in French, 1862), Brown (edited by 
D. Smith, D. D., 2 vols. Edin. and I^nd. 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 (I'l"^??! [unim, alliance]: Xt- 
Bpu)v\ [Horn, in 1 Chr. xv. 9, XePpdfj.-] Hebron). 

1. The third son of Kohath, who was the seconi 
son of l.evi; the younger brother of Amram, father 

a * See also Norton, in the Christian E-runi'imr 
1828, V. 37-70, and a trans of the 3.1 ed of ThoIuck'« 
D'ls A. T. iin A'. T. by KeT. C A. Aiken, in the Bibl 
^iacta for Jub, 1854. A 

1082 HEBRON 

•»f Moses and Aaron (l^x. vi. 18; Num. iii. 19; 1 
Chr. vi. 2, 18, xxiii. 12). Tbe iiuiuediate children 
of Hebron are not mentioned by name (comp. Ex. 
fi. 21, 22), but he was the founder of a " family " 
{Misli/xicliah) of Hebronitcs (Num. iii. 27, xxvi. 
58; 1 Chr. xxvi. 23, 30, 31) or Bcne-llebron (1 
(^hr. XV. 9, xxiii. 19), who are often mentioned in 
the enumerations of the Levites in the passages 
above cited. Jkiuaii was the head of the family 
iu the time of David (1 Chr. xxiii. 19, xxvi. 31, 
xxiv. 23 : in the last of these passat;es 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 Janer in Gilead (a place not elsewhere 
named as a Levitical city), " mighty men of \alor " 
(7^n ^32), 2,700 in nimiber, who were superin- 
tendenl s for the king over the two and a half tribes 
in regard to all matt ere 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. 42, 43), where 
Mareshah is said to have been the " fathel- of 
Hebron," who 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-/ur, etc. But it is impossible at present 
to s:iy whether these names are intended to be 
those of the places themselves or of persons who 
founded them. G. 

HB'BRON ("l''^"^?n [see syjmQ: Xs^pdfx 
and Xefi^dv- \_lhbion ;'\ Mace. v. 05, Cheln-un :] 

Arab. Q>jJ^* = the friend), a city of Judah 
(Josh. XV. 54) ; situated among the mountains 
(Josh. XX. 7), 20 Homan miles south of Jerusalem, 
ind the same distance north of Becr-sheba ( Oiioin. 
s. v. "ApKci). nel)ron 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 jears before Zoan in 
F-gypt " (Num. xiii. 22). But when was Zoan 
built? It is well we can prove the high antiquity 
of Hebron independently of Egypt's mystic annals. 
It was a well known town when Abraham entered 
Canaan 3780 years ago (Gen. xiii. 18). Its original 

name was Kirjath-Arba (3?2~]S-n^li7 : LXX., 
Kipiae-ap0oKa-f<pfp, Judg. i. 10), " ihe city of 
Arba;" so called from Arba, the father of Anak, 
and progenitor of the giant Anakim (.Fosh. xxi. 11. 
XV. 13, 14). It was sometimes called Mamre. 
doubtless from Abraham's friend and ally, Manire 
the Amorite (Gen. xxiii. 19, xxxv. 27); but the 
" oak of Jlamre," where the Patriarch so often 
pitched his tent, appears to have been not in, i)ut 
near Heliron. [Mamkk.] The chief interest of this 
city arises from its having been tlie scene of some 
of the most remarkable events in the lives of the 


patriarchs. Sarah died at Hebron; ana A)ir<ihani 
then bought from Ephron the Hittite the field aiid 
cave of Alachpelah, to serve as a family tomb (Gen. 
xxiii. 2-20). 'i'iie cave is still there; and the mas- 
sive walls of the llnrum or mosque, within which it 
lies, form the most remarkable object iu the whole 
city. [MACiU'KL.\ir.] * Abraham is called by 
Mohammedan;. el-KliulH, " the Friend," i «. of 
God, and this is the modern name of Hebron. 
When the Israelites entered I'alestine Hebion was 
taken by Joshua from the descendants of Anak, 
and given to Caleb (Josh. x. 30, xiv. 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 into the hands 
of the Edomites, from whom it was rescued by 
Judas Maccabaus (Neh. xi. 25: 1 Mace v. 65; 
Joseph. Ant. xii. 8, § 6). A short tmie hefore the 
capture of Jerusalem Hebron was burned by an 
officer of Vespasian (Joseph. B. J. iv. 9, § 9). 
xVbotit the beginning of the 12th century it was 
captured by the Cru.saders. It subsequently lay for 
a time in ruins (Albert Aq. vii. 15; Saiwulf in 
/iarli/ 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, surrounded by 
rocky hills. This, in all j)robability, is that " valley 
of ICshcol," whence the Jewish spies got the great 
bunch of grapes (Num. xiii. 23). Its sides are still 
clothed with luxuriant ^■ineyards, and its grapes are 
considered the finest in Southern I'alestine. Groves 
of gray olives, and some other fruit-trees, give 
variety to the scene. The valley nnis from north 
to south: and the main quarter of the town, sur- 
mounted by the lofty walls of the venei-alile lliirnm, 
lies partly on the eastern s!o|)c (Gen. xxxvii. 14; 
comp. xxiii. 10). [Esiicoi..] The houses are all 
of stone, solidlj built, flat-roofal, each having one 
or two small cupolas. The town has no wails, 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, liy 55 Iiroad. 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). About a mile 
from the town, up the valley, is one of the largest 
oak-trees in I'alestine. It stands quite alone in the 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 m.ay be, it stiU 
l)ears the name of the patriarch. (Porter's ffind- 
book; p. 07 ff.; Bob. ii. 73 ff.) J. L. f 

a The expiession here is literally " were 8u)>erin- 
♦ndents of Israel beyond ('^3^^) Jordan lor the 
west (nS'^l^iC) in all the business,"' etc " Be- 
yond Jordan " generally mcnnB " on the east," but 
lere, Indnced probably by the word tollowiiiR. " west- 
ward, " niir trnpFliitors have rendered it " on this side "' 
ooBi; Dent. i. 1, 5, Josh. ix. 1, &c.). May not the 

meaning be that Hachabiah and his brethren weni 
settled on the western side of the Transjordaule 
country ? 

b • The visit of the Prince of Wales to Hebron w«« 
ninde after this article on Hebron wag Vritten. Th« 
results of the attempt on that occasion to explore th« 
celcbnitod Mnsqiie there, will be stated ander Macs 
PELAH (Amer. ed.). B. 


a. (V"'?^' ^°^ "I'l"^?? : 'EA&ciu, Alex. Ax- 
)av' Achran, later editions Abran). One of the 
"wwns in the territory of Asher (Josh. xix. 28), on 
kh'c) boundary of the trilie. It is named next to 

HEBRON 1033 

Rehol), and is apparently m the neighbomood of 
Zidon. By Eusebius and Jerome it is merely men- 
tioned (Onomnst. Achran), and no one in modeiT 
times has discovered its site. It will be observed 
that the name in the original is quite diflferent from 

ttat 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 
Df by G, or by the vowel only, as is their usual 
justoni. But, in addition, it is not certain whether 
the name should not rather be Ebdon or Abdon 

(7n357), since that form is fovmd in many MSS. 

(Davidson, Ilebr. Text; Ges. Tke$. p. 9»U), 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 is 
obviously corrupt) unanimously retain the R 
[Abdon.] G. 

* Kirjath Arba does not appear to have been th* 



oriyinal name of Hebron; but sini])ly the name 
immediately prior to the Israelitish occupancy. l'"or 
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 u-lien Caleb took it, as 
we learn from the same passage. But in Abraham's 
time there was a different occupant, Manire 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 nameV 
The first mention of the place (Gen. xiii. 18) would 
obviously indicate Hebron as the previous and 
original name — subsequently displaced (iu part at 
least) by ]\Iamre, 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 C^^'l-l^n : d Xt- 
^piiv, b Xf^pcovi [Vat. -vii] : Iltbivni, IhbroniUe). 
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 
of the family west of the Jordan was Ilashabiah ; 
while on the east in the land of Gilead were Jerijah 
and his brethren, " men of valor," over the Heuben- 
ites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of JIanasseh 
(1 Chr. xxvi. 30, 31, 32). W. A. AV. 

HEDGE ("113, "i;T5, T^'^'l'^; nS^Dtt, 

n3^ti7P : (ppajfjiis)- 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 ("li}?., geder, 
Prov. xxiv. 31; Ez. xiii. 10), or a fence of other 
materials. "^^S, ^dc/er, and n~1^3, </'(/«(«//, are 
used of the hedge of a vineyard (Num. xxii. 24: 
Ps. lxx:xix. 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 summer (Num. xxxii. 16). The 
stone walls which surround the sheepfolds of modern 
Palestuie are frequently crowned with sharp thorns 
(Thomson, Land and Book, i. 299), a custom at 
least as ancient as the time of Homer ( Od. xiv. 10), 
when a kind of prickly pear {axfpSos) was used 
for that purpose, as well as for the fences of corn- 
fields at a later period (Arist. /.'cd. 3.55). 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; JIark xii. 1), which was a favorite haunt of 
serpents (I'xcl. x. 8), and a retreat for locusts from 
the cold (Nah.,iii. 17). Such walls are described 
by Maundrell as surrounding the gardens of Damaf- 
cus. " They are built of great pieces of earth, made 
in the fa.shion 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 
another, make a cheap, ex])editiou8, and, in this 
dry country, a durable wall" (h'ailii Trot: in P<d. 
p. 4871. .\ wall or fence of this kind is c]e;»rly 
distinguished in Is. v. 5 from the tangled hedge, 

np^it'P, m'MicAh (nSOr?, Mic. vii. 4), which 
«aa planted ajTan additional safeguard to the vine- 


xard (i:f Ecclus. xxviii. 24), and was compoB^ of 
the tlnrny shn»bs with which Palestine abounds. 
The pricidy pear, a si)ecic.s of cactus, so frequeiitly 
employed for this purpose in the East at present, ia 
believed to be of comparatively modern introduction. 
I'he 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, »ill be 
at once recognized (Prov. xv. 19; cf. Hos. ii. (i). 
The narrow paths between the hedges of the vine- 
yards and gardens, " with a ferroe 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] (''in [Persian name, Ges.] : 
rat': Jiytus), one of the eunuchs (A. V. " cham- 
berlains " of the court of Ahasuerus, who had spe- 
cial charge of the women of the harem (Ksth. ii. 
8, 15). According to the Hebrew 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 (S3n: Egeus), probably a Persian 
name. Aja signifies eunuch in Sanskrit, in accord- 

ance with which the LXX. have 

TO) evvovx<f' 

Hegias, 'Hyias-, is mentioned by Ctesias as one of 
the people about Xerxes, Gesenius, Thes. Addenda, 
p. 83 b. 

HEIFER (nb^^, n-3: Sti/xaA.j: vacca). 
The Hebrew language has no expression that ex- 
actly corresponds to our heifer; for both iglidi and 
pandi are applied to cows that have cahecl (1 Sam. 
vi. 7-12; Job xxi. 10: Is. vii. 21): indeed eylah 
means a young animal of any species, the full ex- 
pression being efjlah biiknr, " heifer of kine " 
(Deut. xxi. 3:1 Sam. xvi. 2; Is. vii. 21). The 
heifer or young cow was not conmionly used for 
ploughing, but only for treading out the corn (Hos. 
X. 11; but see Judg. xiv. 18)," when it ran about 
without any headstall (I)eut. 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.. tinsiibdutd, in Is. 
XV. 5, Jer. xlviii. 34 ; but it is much more probably 
to be taken as a projier name, Kghith Shelishiynli, 
such names being not unconmion. The sense of 
"dissolute" is conveyed undoubtedly in Am. iv. 1. 
The comparison of Kgypt to a "fair heifer" (Jer. 
xlvi. 20) may be an allusion to the well-known form 
under which Apis was worshi])ped (to which we 
may also refer the wonls in vcr. 15, as understood 
in the LXX., " Why is the bullock, ix6axos iic 
\eKT6s, swept away V "), the " destruction " threat- 
ened being the bite of the gad-Hy, to which the 
word keretz would fitly apply. " To jjlough with 
anotlier man's heifer" (Judg. xiv. 18) implies tliat 
an advantage has been gained by unfair means. 
The |)roper names Eglah, ICn-eglaim, and l^irah, 
are derived from the Hebrew terms at the head of 
this article, W. L. B. 

HEIR. The Hebrew ifistitutions relative to 
inheritance were of a very sim))le chanicter. Uudet 
the patriarchal system the proixrty was divided 

a • PlouRliing with helfors. ns Implli^d In t)iM pa* 
enge, is (ionietin\e,s practiced In Pale.stiiie at preMnl 
(See lUiistr. of Scriplvre, p. 163) II 


unong the sons of the legitimate wives (Gen. xxi. 
10, xxiv. 36, xx\. 5), a larger portion being assigned 
to one, generally the eldest, on whom devolved the 
duty of maintaining the females of the family. 
[BiRTHRiGHf.] 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 (Gen. .xlix. 1 ff.), but this may have been 
restricted to 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 rigidly 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. xxis. 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 
condition 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 brotlier of the deceased; if no brother, to the 
paternal uncle; and, failing these, to the next of 
kin (Num. xxvii. 9-il). 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 red-jeming the property of the widow (Ruth iv. 
1 ff. ), if it |iad been either sold or mortgaged : this 

obligation was termed H^SSn t^QipTS ("the 
right of inheritance"), and was exercised in other 
cases besides that of marriage (.ler. 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 alieu- 
a*Jon 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, whieU under the jjatriarchal re(jime had been 
at the disposal 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 (Jaleb 
presented a field (Josh. xv. 18, 19; Judg. i. 15), is 
au 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 
heirship, as 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 embodied 

in the Hebrew language itself, for the word 12?"^^ 
(A. V. "to inherit") implies possession, and very 

a * It has been suggested that in Gal. iv. 2 Paul 
may have referred to a peculiar testamentary law 
among the Galatians (see Gcius, In.'<titutiones, i. § 55) 
conferring on the father a right to determine the time 
Df the son's majority, instead of its being fixed by 
•tatute. In that case we should have an instance of 
*ie facility with which Paul could avail himself of his 
Knowledge of minute local regulations in the lands 
which he visited. (See Baumg.-Crusius, Comm. Uhn 
i'-n Brief nn ilie GnlnUr, p. 91.) But that passage in 
Siiiui, when moi't closely examined, proves not to be 

HELAM 1035 

often /"am We possession (Dent, ii." 12; Judg. i. 29 
xi. 24), and a similar idea lies at the I'oot of the 

words n-TnS and n7n3, generally tran.slatec 
" inheritance." Testamentary dispositions were of 
course superfluous: the nearest approach to the 
idea is the blessin//, 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 Ron)e (Heb. ix. 17), whence the 
custom was introduced intoJudsea:" several wills 
are noticed by Josephus in connection with the 
Herods {Anf. xiii. 16, § 1, xvii. 3, § 2; B.J. ii. 2 

With regard to personal 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 
Ufe-time is imjilied in Luke xv. 11-13: a distinc- 
tion may be noted between ouala, a general term 
applicable to personalty, and KXytpovofiiu, the I'lmled 
property, which could only be di\'ided after the 
father's death (Luke xii. 13). 

There is a striking resemblance between the He- 
brew and .\thenian customs of heirship, particularly 
as regards heiresses (eViKAnpoi), ^vho were, in both 
nations, bound to marry their nearest relation : the 
property did not vest in the hu5band 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 fother, 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. 'ETri/cATjpos). W. L. B. 

HE'LAH (nS^n Irusi-]: 'AwU; Alex. 
A\aa'- Hnlnn), one of the two wives of Ashur, 
fiither of Tekoa (1 Chr. iv. 5). Her three cliildreu 
are enumerated in ver. 7. In the LXX. the pas- 
sage is ^■ery nujch confused, the sons being ascribed 
to different wives from what they are in the Hebrew 

HE'LAM •" V^n [peA. power of the people, 
Ges.]: AiAa^u: Ilelum), a place east of the Jor- 
dan, but west of the Euphrates ("the river"), at 
which the Syrians 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 (n72S^n), but the final syllable is 
probably only the particle of motion. This longer 
form, XaXaixcLK, the present text * of the LXX. 
inserts in ver. 16 as if the name of the river [l)ut 
Alex, and Comp. omit it] ; while in the two other 
places it has kiKafj., corresponding to the Hebrew 
text. By Josephus {Ant. vii. 6, § 3) the name is 

decisive as to the existence of such a righ t among the 
Galatians (see Lightfoot's St. Paul's Epistle to tki' Ga- 
latian.", p. 164, 2d ed.). The Apostle, in arguing his 
point (Gal. iv. 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 f.ithc r. H. 

h This is probably a late addition, since in the IJOL 
text as it stool in Origin's H japla, XaXa-iiaK w«fl 
omitted after iroTaixov (s^e Bahrdt, a I ic). 


pveii as XoAa/ict, and as being that of the king of 
the Syrians beyonii Euphrates — irphs XaAafiai 
rhv 7WU wepai/ Eu<J)parou 'S.vpwu I3a(ri\ea. 

In (lie \'iilgate no name is inserted after ^fiuviuin ; 
but in \er. 10, for -'came to Helam," we find ad- 

dii.clt txcrciium eoruin, reading D^'^H, "their 
army." This too is the rendering of the old trans- 
lator Ajuila — eV auTwv — of wliose ver- 
sion v;r. 16 has survived. In 17 the Vulgate 
agrees witli the A. V. 

Many conjectures have been made as to the lo- 
cality of Ilelitm; l)ut to none of them does any 
certainty attach. Tlie most feasible perhaps is tliat 
it is identical with Alamatha, a town named by 
I'tolcmy, and located by him on the west of the 
Euphrates near Nicephorium. G. 

HEL'BAH (na^O [faq-XefiU: [Alex. 
2x:e5ia;/ (ace); Conip. 'EAjSa:] Hdh<i), a town 
of Asher, jirobably on the plain of Phoenicia, not 
f;u- from Sidon (j'udg. i. 31). J. L. P. 

HEL'BON (l""l2^n {fat, i. e. fruitful]-. 
Xf\ficl)v\ [Alex. Xe&poov]), a place only mentioned 
once in Scripture. Ezekiel, in describing the wealth 
and conmierce of Tyre, says, " Damascus was thy 
merchant in the wine of Helbon [xxvii. 18]." The 
Vulgate translates these words in vino pinr/ui ; and 
some other ancient versions also make the word 
descriptive of the quality of the wine. There can 
be no doubt, however, that Helbon is a proper name. 
Strabo si)eaks of the wine of Chalybon (olvov eK 
^upias rhv XaKv&Jii'iou) from Syria as among the 
luxuries in which the kings of Persia indulged 
(xv. p. 735); and Athenseus assigns it to Damas- 
cus (i. 22). Geographers have hitherto represented 
Helbon as identical with the city of Aleppo, called 

H'dc/j (^_ji^2>-) by the Arabs; but there are 
strong reasons against this. The whole force and 
beauty 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. ^V'lly, therefore, should the Damascenes 
supply wine of Aleppo, conveying it a long and 
difiieult journey overland ? If strange merchants 
had engaged in this trade, we should naturally ex^ 
pect them to be some mai-itime people who could 
carry it cheaply along the coast from the port of 

A few years ago the writer directed attention to 
tt village and district within a few miles of Damas- 
cus, still bearing the ancient name HMon (the 

> o ^ 

Arabic ...aA^ corresponds exactly to the He- 
brew ^^27n), and still celebrated as producing 
the finest grapes in the country. (See Journal of 
Si: v.. Lit. .July 18.53, p. 20(t; Plve Years in Da- 
mascus, ii. 330 fr.). Tliere cannot be a doubt that 
this village, and not Alepjx), is the Helbon of Eze- 
kiel and Strabo. The village is situated in a wild 
plen, high up in Antilebanon. The remains of 
loine large and beautiful structures are strewn 
uround it. The l)ott<)m and sides of the glen are 
tovered with terraced vineyards: and the whole 
lurrounding country is rich in vines and fig-trees 
\/Iaml6. Jw Syr. and Pal., pp. 495-6). 

J. L. P. 
• The discovery of tliis Helbon is one of the re- 
Mtlls of niissionaKj- lalwr in tiiat part of the I^ast. 


Jlr. Porter, who writes the article above, was for- 
merly connected with the mission at Damascug. 
Dr. Robinson accepts the proposed identification 
as unquestionably correct. The name alone ia 
not decisive, for Haleb (.\leppo) may answer tc 
Helbon ; but Aleppo " produces no wine of any 
reputation; nor is Damascus the natural chan- 
nel of commerce between Aleppo and Tyre" (Later 
lies. iii. 472). Eairbairn (Lzehicl and the Book 
of his Prophecy, p. 301, 2d ed.) follows the old 
opinion. Riietschi (Ilerzog's Real.-Encyk. v. 098) 
makes Ezekiel's Hellion and this one near Damas- 
cus the same, but thinks Ptolemy's Chalybon (see 
above) too far north to be identical with them. 

HELCHI'AH (XeX/ci'as; [Vat. -««-] Ihl- 
cias), 1 Esdr. viii. 1. [Hilkiah.] 

HELCHT'AS {Thlcias) the same person as 
the preceding, 2 Esdr. i. 1. [Hilkiah.] 

HEL'DAI [2 syl.] C^'^Sri {worklly, tran- 
sient]-. XoASi'a; [Vat. XoXScio:] Alex. XoASai': 
Iloldai). 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 Heleji. The EXX. translate 
trapa tuv upxdvraiv. 

HE'LEB (nbn [milL-\-. Vat. omits; Alex. 
A\a(p; [Coinp. 'EAayS:] Ihkd), son of IJaanah, 
the Netophathite, one of the heroes cf king Da- 
vid's guard (2 Sam. xxiii. 29). In the parallel Lst 
the name is gw&n as — 

HEXED ("T^'H: X0o<^5; [FA.XoaoS;] Alex. 
E\o5; I/eled), 1 Chr. xi. -30 [where he is mentioned 
as one of -'the valiant men " of David's army]. 

HE'LEK iri^n [part, portion]: XeKty, 
Alex. XeAe/c; [in Josh., Ke\eC, Alex. <i.eAeK:] 
I/etec), one of the descendants of Manasseii, the 
second son of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 30), and founder 
of the family of the IIei>ekites. The IJene- 
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 (^t7^^1^, i. e. the 
Chelkite: 6 XeKeyi [Vat. -yti]', Alex. X€A«ki: 
familia Iltlecitarum), the family descended from 
the foregoing (Num. xxvi. 30). 

HE'LEM (Dipn [hammer or blow]: [Rom. 
Boj/TjeAct/u; Vat. BaAaa^; Alex.] EAoyu: Ihlem). 
A man named among the descendants of Asher, in 
a passage evidently much disordered (1 Chr. vii. 
35). If it be intended that lie was the brother of 
Shamer, then he may be identical with Hotham, in 
ver. 32, the name having been altered in copying; 
but this is mere conjecture. Purrington (i. 265) 
quotes two Ikbrew MSS., in which the name if 

written DlT!, Cheles. 

2. [EXX. TOis virofi.ft'ovai.] A man men- 
tioned only in Zech. vi. 14. Apparently the sanM 
who is given as Hkluai in ver. 10 (Ewald, Pfjpk 
eten. ii. 536, note). 


HE'LEPH (^bn [exchange, instead of 'I: 
M-nAci/u; Alex. MeAec^i — both include the prep- 
asition prefixed : Htleph ), the place from which the 
boundary of the trilie of Naphtali started (Josh. 
six. 33), but where situated, or on which quarter, 
cannot be ascertained from tlie text. Yan de Velde 
{Memoir, p. 320) proposes to identify it with Beit- 
lij\ an ancient site, nearl)- due east of the Jins 
Abyml, and west of Kades, on the edge of a very 
marked ravine, which probably formed part of the 
boundary l)etween Naphtali and Asher (Van de 
Velde, ^i/ri(i, i. 233 ; and see his map, 1858). G. 

HE'LEZ (V^n [perh. loins, thigh, Gesen.] : 
5eAA.'^s — the initial 2 is probably from the end 
of the preceding word, [XeAArjs; 1 Chr. xxvii. 10 
Vat. Xeo-ATjs;] Alex. EAArjs, XeAArjs: If ties, Uti- 
les). 1. One of " the thirty " of David's guard 
(2 Sam. xxiii. 2G ; 1 Chr. xi. 27 : in the latter, 

^^n\ an Ephraimite, and captain of the seventh 
monthly course (1 Chr. xxvii. 10). In both these 
passages of Chronicles he is called "the Pelonite," 
of which Kennicott decides that "the I'altite " of 
Samuel is a corniption ( Dissertation, etc., pp. 183- 
184). [Paltitk.] 

Si. [XsAArjy: Htlles.] A man of Judah, son 
of Azariah (1 Chr ii. 39); a descendant of Jerah- 
meel, of the great family of Hezron. 

HE LI ('HA.', 'HAei: Heli), the father of Jo- 
seph, the husband of the Virgin iMary (Luke iii. 
23); maintained by Lord 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, Gentdlogies, pp. 130, 138.) The 
.name, as we possess it, is the same as that employed 
by the LXX. in the 0. T. to render the Hebrew 

'^/'S, Ei.i the high-priest. 

2. The third of three names inserted between 
Amrroi! and Amai;i.\s in the genealogy of Ezra, 
iu 2 Esdr. i. 2 (compare Ezr. vii. 2, 3). 
HELI'AS, 2 Esdr. vii. 39. [Em.tah.] 
HELIODO'RUS ('HXiSS'jopos {'/'ft of the 
svn]), the treasurer {6 iirl tu>v irpayfj.a.Taiv) of 
Seleucus Philopator, who was commissioned by the 
king, at the instigation of Apollonius [AroL- 
Lo.MUs] 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 '" {eTTKpdvfia), in consequence of which he 
fell down "compassed with great darkness," and 
<peechles3. He was afterwards restored at the in- 
tercession of the high-priest Onias, and bore wit- 
ness to the king of the in\'iolable 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, 
takes no notice of it ; and the author of the so- 
called iv. ^lacc. attril)utes the attempt to plunder 
the Temple to Apollonius, and differs in his account 
of the miraculous interposition, though he distinctly 
recognizes it (de Mace. 4 oiipavSdfv fcptiriroi npov- 
pdvriffav &yyi\oi . , . Kara-ma^v 5e 7]fii6avris 
b AiroAKiivtos . . .)• Heliodorus afterwards 
murdered Seleucus, and mar'e an unsuccessful 
attempt to seize the Syrian crown b. c. 175 (App. 
i^i/r. p. 4.5). Cf. Wemsdorf, De fide Lt/j. .\fncc. 
j liv. liaphael's grand picture of " Heliodorus " 
*n\\ be known to most by copies and entrra^ngs, if 
aot by the original. B. F. W. 



HEL'KAI [2 syl.] Ci^bn [whose portion it 
Jehovah]: 'EKKai; [Vat. Alex. FA.i omit:] fftlci), 
a priest of the family of Meraioth (or JNleremoth, 
see ver. 3), who was Uving in the days of Joiakim 
the high-priest, i. e. in the generation following the 
return from Babylon under Jeshua and Zerubbabe) 
(Xeh. xii. 15; conip. 10, 12). 

HEL'KATH (Hil^O [feld]: ■E|eA€/ce0, 
[XeAKar;] Alex. XeKfcad, [QiAKad-] ILdcnth, 
and Jhlcath), 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 north; 
but nothing absolutely certain can be said thereon, 
nor has any traveller recovered the site of Helkath. 
Eusebius and Jerome report the name much cor- 
rupted ( Oiiom. Ethae), but evidently knew nothing 
of the place. Schwarz (p. 191) suggests the village 
Yerkri, which lies about 8 miles east of Alcka (see 
Van de Velde's map); but this requires further 

In the list of Levitical cities in 1 Chr. vi. Hu- 
KOK is substituted for Helkath. G. 

D"*"]'^n [feld of the sharp edges, Keil; but see 
infra]: fjiepU Twy eVi^ouAcoj' — perhaps reading 
2^"]^ ; Aquila, KAvjpoy tcoj/ (Trepewy • Ager 
robustorum), a smooth piece of ground, apparently 
close to the pool of Gibeon, where the combat took 
place between the two parties of Toab's men and 
Abner's men, which ended in the death of the 
whole of the combatants, and brought <.ii a general 
battle (2 Sam. ii. IG). [Gibeon; Juab.] Va- 
rious interpretations are given of the name. In 
addition to those given above, Gesenius ( Thes. p. 
485 o) renders it "the field of swords." The 
margin of the A. V. has " the field of strong men," 
agreeing with Aquila and the Vulgate; V.wald 
{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 by 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, in loc). H. 

HELKI'AS {XeXKias\ [Vat. XeAfceioy :] 
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 S//eo/ (VlStZ;, or Vstp : "AiSt??, and once 
edvaTos, 2 Sara.'xxii. 6: Inferi or Jnferna, or 
sometimes Mors). AVe say unfortunately, because 

— although, as St. Augustine truly asserts, Sheol, 
with its equivalents fnfei-i and Hades, are never 
used in a r/ow/ sense (De Gen. ad Lit. xii. 33), yet 

— the ]<:nglish word Hell is mixed up with num- 
berless as.sociations entirely foreign to the minds of 
the ancient Hebrews. It would perhaps have been 
better to retain the Hebrew word Sheul, or els€ 
render it always by "the grave" or "the pit." 
Ewald accepts Luther's word Holle ; even Unter' 
vtl', which is suggested by De Wette, uivolves com- 
ceptions too human for the purpose. 



Passing aver the derivations suggested by older 
»i titers, it is now generally agreed that the word 

comes from the root vSJi7, "to make hollow" 
(comp. Germ. IIolU, "hell/" with Hohle, "a hol- 
low "), and therefore means the vast hollow subter- 
niueaii restiiig-place which is the common receptacle 
of the dead (Ges. Thts. p. 1348; BCttcher, d<i Jn- 
feris, 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. IG). Some have fancied (as Jahn, Arcli. 
BiU. § 203, Eng. ed.) that the Jews, like the 
Gi-eeks, believed in infernal ri\ers: thus Clemens 
Alex, defines Gehenna as " a river of fire " {Fracjm. 
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 
{Apohg. 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 Kephaim and ill-spirits (Ps. Ixxxvi. 
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. 7X(«6««i). 

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. \. 
by the word " Hell." But 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 Shevl ui 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 m a place of infernal anguish. An 
attentive examination of all the passages in which 
the word occurs will show that the Hebrew notions 
respecting Sheol were of a vague description. The 
rewards and punishments of the Mosaic law were 
temporal, and it was only gradually and slowly that 
God revealed to his chosen peo[)le a knowledge of 
future rewards and punishments. Generally speak- 
ing, the Ilel>rews regarded the grave as the final 
end of all sentient and intelligent existence, " the 
land where nil things arc forgotten'' (Ps. Ixxxviii. 
10-12; Is. xxxviii. 9-20; Ps. vi. 5; Eccl. ix. 10: 
Ecclus. r.vii. 27, 28). Even the righteous Hezekiah 
trembled lest, "when his eyes closed upon the cheru- 
bim and the mercy seat," he should no longer "see 
the Ix)rd, even the Ix)rd in the land of the living." 
In the N. T. the word Hades (like Sheol) some- 
times means merely "the grave" (Kev. xx. 13; 
Acts ii. 31; 1 Cor. xv. 55), or in general "the 
unseen world." It is in tiiis sense that the creeds 
say of our Lord Karri\6fv iv aSt) or gi'j S.Sov, dc- 
Kewlil ad in/'eros, or inferva, meaning " the state 
7f the dead in general, without any restriction of 

lappineas or misery" (I$everidge on Art. iii.), a 
doctrine certainly, though only virtu.^ly, expressed 
In Scriptin-e ( iv. 9; Acts ii. 25-31). Sim- 
ilarly .1 iscphus uses Hades as the name of the place 

irh«nce ihc soul of Sauniel was evoked (Ant. vi. 14, 


§ 2). Elsewhere in the N. T. Hades is used of i 
place of torment (Luke xvi. 23; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Malt 
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 tlie 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 Patliers generally (Tert. de Animd, c. Iv. ; Je- 
rome in Keel, iii.; Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. 
§ 105, &c. ; see Pearson on Creed, Art. v.), and of 
many moderns (Trench on the Parables, p. 467; 
.\lford on I.ulce xvi. 23). In holding this 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 in 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 will 
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 whicli is the proper hell. It is the 
place of painful restraint {<pv\aK7), 1 Pet. iii. 19; 
a&uaaos, Luke viii. 31), wliere the souls of the 
wicked are reserved to the judgment of the great 
day." But respecting tl.e condition of the dead 
wlietlier before or af^.T the resurrection we know 
very little indeed; nor shall we know anything 
certain until tlie awful curtains of mortality are 
drawn aside. Dogmatism on this topic appears to 
be peculiarly misplaced. [.See] 

'i'lie word most frequently used in the N. T. for 
tlie place of future punishment is Gehenna, (yt- 
fvva), or Gehenna of Jire (rj y. tov nvpSs), and 
this word we must notice only so far as our purpose 
requires; for further information see Gkhknna 
and Hi.NXo.M. The valley of Ilinnom, for which 
Gehenna is the Greek repre.sentati\e, once pleasant 
witli the waters of Siloa (" in-igua et nemorosa, 
])lenaque deliciis," Hieron. ad Jer. vii. 19, 31 ; 
Matt. V. 22), and which afterwards regained its old 
appearance {^^ hodierjne hortorum praibens delicias," 
id.), was with its horrible associations of Moloch- 
worship (Jer. vii. 31, xix. 2-G; 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 whicli 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 H. Kimehi) to presene it 
from absolute putrefaction (see authorities quoted 
in Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. v. Ilinnom, etc.). The 
fire and the worm were fit emblems of anguish, 
and as such had seized hold of the Jewish imag- 
ination (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 of the valley of Ilinnom was named 
Tophet (2 K. xxiii 10; for its history and deriva- 
tion Bee Toimii:t), a word u.sed for what is defiled 
and abominable (Jer. vii. 31, 32, rix. C-13). It 
was applied by the Kabbis to a place of future tor- 
ment ( Targ. on Is. xxx. 33 ; Talm. Krubin, f. 19, 
1 ; Ifc ttcher, pp. 80, 85), but does not occur in th( 
X. T. In tlie vivid |)icture of Isaiah (tix. 33), 


which is full of fine irony against the enemy, the 
Dame is applied to purposes of threatening (with a 
probalile allusion to the recent acts of Hezekiali, see 
koseuniiiller, ad he). Besides the authorities 
quoted, see Bochart {Phaleg, p. 528), Ewald {Propli. 
ii. 55), Selden {cle Diis Syris, p. 172 flT.), Wilson 
(Lruuls of the Bible, i. 499), etc. 

The subject of the punishment 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 
necromaney, or conjuring by the spirits of the dead, 
Ca practice prohibited by law, and yet resorted to 
by a monarch of Israel); the constant assertion 
that the dead were gathered to tlieir fathers, though 
buried fai away ; the explicit and deliberate utter- 
ances of many passages, e. (/., 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 tmdoubtedly true, that 
under the older economy the whole subject was 
much less distinct than under the new, and the 
Hades of the N. T. expresses more than the S/ievl 
of the 0. T. (See Fairbaim, Henneneut. .Manuul, 
p. 290 fF.) SIteol 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 community of lot or identity of abode 
or condition. 

S/ieol, the unknown region into which the dying 
disappeared, was naturally and alwa3's invested with 
gloom to a sinful race. But the vague term was 
c ipable of becoming more or less definite according 
',o the writer's thought. Most 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. 7., Job xi. 8, Ps. 
f xxxix. 8, Am. ix. 2 ; sometimes a place of extreme 
luftering, Ps. Ixxxvi. 13, ix. 17, Prov. xxiii. 14. (See 
bihl. Sncrn, xiii. 155 ff.) No passage of the 0. 
v., we believe, impUes that the spirits of the good 
ind bad were there ':)rought together. The often 
jited passage (Is. xiv. 9) implies the contrary, 



showing us only the heathen kings meeting anotha 
king in mockery. 

To translate this Hebrew term, the LXX. 
adopted the nearest Greek word. Hades, which by 
derivation signifies the invisible world. But ttie 
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 
t|je natural man, so throughout the IST. 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 (^hrist 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 (.'or. XV. 55 ; hut 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 Ruttcher, Be Inferis Rebusque ]}Ost Mortem 
futiu-is ex Hebireofum et Grmcorum Opinionibus, 
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 
JJfe (4th ed. New York, 1866), Nos. 1734-1863. 
See also the art. of Oehler, Unsterblic/ikeit, Lehre 
lies A. Test., in Herzog's Real-Encyk. xxi. 409 
428 ; and Hiivernick's Vorlesungen tiber die The 
ologie des A. T., pp. 105-111. A. 

HELLENIST {'EAXrjyto-T^s : Grcecus ; cf. 
'E.\\rivi(Tij.6s, 2 Mace, iv 13). In one of the 
earliest notices of the first Christian Church at 
Jerusalem (Acts vi. 1), two distinct parties are 
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 agaui, when St. Paul first visited 
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),« but there 
the context, as well as the form of the sentence 

a * un that paK.«age see the note under Queec 
Qrekks (Amer. ed.) B 


(«tt2 vphi Tovi 'E., though tlie koI is doubtful), 
leems to requiie the other reading " Greeks " 
("EAATjfes), wliich is supported hy great external 
evidence, as the true ant'thesis to " Jews " 
"louSalois, not 'ESpo/ois, v- I'J)- 

The nan)e, according to its derivatioti, whether 
the original verb ('EAAt/vi'^o) ) t>e taken, acrording 
to the common analogy of similar forms {MriSi^ui, 
^fiTTiKi^ai, ^iKnnri(w)i in the general sense of 
adopting tlie spirit and character of (Jreeks, or, in 
the more limited sense of using' the Greek language 
'Xeii. AniO. vii. 3, § 25), marks a class distin- 
2uishcd by peculiar habits, and not by descent, 
riius the Hellenists as a body included not only 
the pmsflytcs of Greek (or foreign) parentage (oi 
(Tffi6fj.evoi"E\\7ives, Acts xvii. 4 (?); oi crf^6fjifvoi 
irpoo-r/AyToi, Acts xiii. 43; oi (Ti06/xit'Oi, Acts 
xvii. 17), but also those .lews who, by settling in 
foreiicn countries, had adopted the prevalent form 
of the current Greek civilization, and with it the 
use of the conniion Greek dialect, to the exclusion 
of the Aramaic, which was the national representa- 
tive of the ancient Hebrew. Hellenism was thus 
B type of life, and not an indication of origin. 
Hellenists might be Greeks, but when the latter 
Lfcim is used ("EAArj^es, -lohn xii. 20), the point 
of race and not of creed is that wliich is foremost 
in the mind of the writer. 

The general influence of the Greek conquests in 
the I'^st, the rise and spread of the Jewish DU- 
persum, and tiie essential antagonism of Jew and 
Greek, have been noticed in other articles [Ai.kx- 


Antkk iius IV. Ei'iPHANKs], and it remains only 
to characterize briefly the elements which the Hel- 
lenists contriliuted to the language of the N. T., 
and the immediate effects which they produced 
upon the Apostolic teaching: — 

1. The flexil)ility of the Greek language gained 
for it in ancient time a genei-al currency similar to 
that which I'reiich enjoys in modern luirope; but 
with this important difference, that (Jreek was not 
only the language of educated men, but also tiie 
language of the masses in the great centres of com- 
merce. The colonies of Alexander and his succes- 
sors originally established what has iieen called the 
Macedonian dialect throughout tlie Kast; but even 
in this the prevailing power of Attic literature 
made itself distinctly felt. Peculiar words and 
forms adopted at Alexandria were undoubtedly of 
Macedonian origin, but tlie later Attic may be 
justly re;;arded as the real basis of Oriental (ireck. 
I'his first t3i)e w:vs, however, soon modified, at least 
in common use, by contact with other languages. 
'Hie 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 
were determined in the first instance by the con- 
ditions under which they were formed, and which 
afterwards pa.ssed away with the circumstances 
v/hich had produced them. I>nt one of dialects 
has been preserved after the ruin of the jwople 
among whom it arose, liy beintt consecrated to the 
noblest service which langua<_'e has yet fulfilled. In 
other cases the dialecta fierished together with the 
communities who used tiiem 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 I'ligland and 
Germany, gave a definiteness and fixity to the 
popular language which could not have been gained 


mthout the existence of some recognized standard 
The style of the LXX. itself is, indeed, different in 
diff^erent parts, but the same general character rum 
through the whole, and the variations which it 
jireseiits are not greater than those which exist in 
the different books of the N. T. 

The functions which this Jewish-Greek had to 
discharge were of the widest application, and the 
language itself combined the most opposite features. 
It was essentially a fusion of Eastern and Western 
thought. For disregarding peculiarities of inflexion 
and novel words, the characteristic of the Hellenistic 
dialect is the comi)ination of a Hebrew spirit with 
a (ireek body, of a Hebrew form with (ireek words. 
The conception belongs to one race, and the expres- 
sion to another. Nor is it too much to say that 
this combination was one of the most important 
preparations for the reception of Christianity, and 
one of the most important aids for the adequate 
expression of its teaching. On the one hand, by 
the sjiread of the Hellenistic Greek, the deeji, 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 transfeired 
to the service of revelation. In the fullness of time, 
when the great message came, a language was pre- 
])ared to convey it ; and thus the very dialect of the 
N. T. forms a great lesson in the true philosophy 
of history and liecomes 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- 
iiii; to it. For it will follow that its deviations 
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. \ popular, and even a 
cornipt, dialect is not less precise, or, in other 
words, is not less human than a polished one, 
thou!;h its interpretation may often be more diffi- 
cult from the want of materials for analysis. Hut 
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, 
])rovides him with the history of the language which 
lie has to study. 

2. The adojition 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 
remaineil unchanged. In every resjiect the tb()u;:ht, 
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 visible 
in the new dialect, so it remained undestroyed by 
the new conditions wliich regulated its action. 
While the Hellenistic Jews followed their natural 
instinct for trade, which was oriiiinally curl>ed by 
the Mosaic Law, and gainetl a deejier insight into 
foreign character, and with this a truer 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 uain respect and attention even from thoe* 
who did not openly embrace their religion. Hel- 
lenism accomplished for the outer world whit tli* 


Return [Cyrus] accomplished for the Palestinian 
Jews: it nad the necessary step between a religion 
of form and a religion of spirit : it witnessed against 
Judaism as final and universal, and it witnessed 
for it, as the foundation of a spiritual religion which 
should be bound by no local restrictions. Under 
the influence of this wider instruction a Greek body 
gi'ew up around the Synagogue, not admitted into 
Jie Jewish Church, and yet holding a recognized 
position with regard to it, which was able to appre- 
hend the Afwstolic teaching, and ready to receive 
it. The IleUeiiists 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 
the place of the priest, and a service of prayer and 
praise and exhortation had succeeded in daily life 
to the 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 
DisPEHSiox.] Unity coexisted with dispersion; 
and the organization of a catholic church was 
foreshadowed, not only in the widening breadth of 
loctrine, but even externally in the scattered coni- 
'iiiuiities which looked to Jerusalem as their com- 
non centre. 

In another aspect Hellenism served as the prep- 
jration for a catholic creed. As it furnished the 
(aiiguage of Christianity, it supplied also that 
literary instinct which counteracted the traditional 
reserxe 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. 
Mattliew, 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, till the Church of North Africa 
rose into importance in the time of TertuUian. 
The Canon of the Christian Scriptures, the early 
( 'reeds, and the Liturgies, are the memorials of this 
Hellenistic predonjuiance 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 (Jranmiar 
{(Jramiii. d. N. T. t'pracliulioms, Gte Aufl. 1855 
[7k Aufl. by Liinemann, 1867]) has done great 
service hi establishing the idea of law in N. T. 
language, which was obUterated by earlier inter- 
preters, but even Winer does not investigate the 
origin of the peculiarities of the Hellenistic dialect. 
The idioms of the N. T. cannot 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. For this work even the materials are as 
yet deficient. The text of the LXX. is still in a 
most unsatisfactory condition ; and while Bruder's 
( oncordance leaves nothing to be desired for the 
vocabulary of the N. T., Trommius's Concordance 
to the LXX., however useful, is quite untrustworthy 
faf critical purposes. [See J>anguage ok ime 


New Testament, Amer. ed. ; also New Testa- 
ment, IV.] B. F. W. 

HELMET. [Arms, p. IGl.] 

HE'LON (|bn [strmig, powerful] : Xo«A<iv: 
Heluii), 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. This is the term used in the 
authorized English Version, and in the Kheinis 
N. T. for afTiA-h^pei?, 1 Cor. xii. 28. The Vulgate 
translates, opituliitiunes ; Wycliff'e, helpijn<jis (help- 
ings); Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva Bible, 
helpers ; Luther, Heifer. The noun occurs only 
once in the N. T., but the verb avTiha/x^dvofxai, 
i. e. to take in turn, to lay hold of, to help, also to 
lake part in, occurs three times, Luke i. 5-1 (" hath 
holpen his servant Israel "), Acts xs. 35 ("to sup- 
port the weak"), 1 Tim. vi. 2 (oi ttjs evepyeaias 
avTiKafM^afSfxeyot, "partakers of the benefit"). 
With the classics avTl\ri\l/is signifies a taking in 
turn, seizure ; receipt ; perception, but with the 
later \mters and in the O. T. Apocrjpha (2 ISIacc. 
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 hi 1 Cor. xii., and it is so 
understood by nearly all the commentators from 
Chrysostom (dcTexeceai rwv affQfvwv) down to 
De Wette, Meyer, Allbrd, Wordsworth, and Kling 
(in Lange's Bibdwerk). It corresponds with the 
meaning of the verb in Luke i. 5-1 and Acts xx. 35, 
and suits the connection. Paul enumerates the 
avTiK7]\l/ets among the charismata, and puts them 
between the miracidous powers (Swaneis and 
Xap'^o'/J-ara lajxaTwv) which were not confined to 
any particular office, and the gifts of government 
and administration {Kv^^pv-ha-eis) which belonged 
especially to the presbyter-bishops, and in the 
highest degree to the Apostles as the gubernatores 
ecclesicE. 'AvTi\r)\l/eis 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 
tlie gilt in its practical operation and application; 
comp. SiuKoviat, 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 avriKrirpis, SiaKovia, 
and ayuTrri for the benefit of suffering humanity. 

P. S 

* HELPS, Acts xxvii. 17 {fio-{,0itai). See 
Shii^s, Undergirding. 

HEM OF GARMENT (H^''^: Kpiaiti- 
5oi/: fmbria). The importance which the later 
.lews, esijecially the Pharisees (Matt, xxiii. 5). 
attached to the hem or fringe of their garments 
was founded U])on 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 first 
instance the ordinary mode of finishing the robe, 
the ends of the threads composing the woof being 



left in order to prevent the cloth from unraveling, | 
just as ill the Egyptian calasijis (Her. ii. 81; 
Wilkiiison's Ancii^nl Kijyplians, ii. 90), and in the 
Assyrian robes as represented in the bas-reliefs of 
Niueveli, the blue ribbon being added to strengthen 
the border. The Hebrew word tzizitit is expressive 
of this fretted eihje : the Greek Kpaainha (the 
etymology of which is uncertain, being variously 
traced to KpoaaSs, &Kpos ntSov, and Kprinis) ap- 
plies to the e(l(/e of a river or mountain (Xen. JJisl. 
(Jr. ill. 2, § IG, iv. G, § 8), and is explained by 
Hesychius as to iv rcS ^Kpip tov ifxariov KfK\wff- 
fieva. fxifxixara /cot rh &Kpov ai/rov. The beijed 
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 omamentetl 
with a " ribbon of blue," or rather dark vivltt, the 
ribbon itself being, as we may conclude from the 

word used, V^H^) *s narrow as a thread or piece 
of string. The Jews attached great sanctity to this 
fringe (Matt. ix. 20, xiv. 3G ; 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, Appanil. p. ]!)8). It was 
appended in later times to the t(dith more especially, 
as being the robe usually worn at devotions : whence 
the proverbial saying quoted by Lightfoot ( h'xercit. 
on Matt. V. 40), " He that takes care of his fringes 
desen'cs a good coat." W. L. Ii. 

HE'MAM (CXS^n [exterminnting, or rag- 
ing]: hlfxav'- Iltmcm). Hori (i. e. Horite) and 
Hemam were sons (A. V. " children," 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 HoMAii, which is probably the correct 

HE'MAN ("I'S^n [^''"e. reliable] : [Al/xovdv, 
AiVo)/; Alex.] Ai/xav, [H^tioj/: J'^man, Hevian]). 
1. Son of Zerah, 1 Chr. ii. 6; 1 K. iv. 31. See 
following article. 

2. [Ai>ar; Vat. 1 Chr. xxv. 6, Atfxaufi, 2 Chr. 
xxix. 14, Clyaifj-av; Alex. Ps. Ixxxviii. 1, Aida/j.' 
Hemam, Heman, Jtman.] Son of Joel, and grand- 
son of Samuel the prophet, a Kohathite. He is 

called "the singer" (T^^ti^^n), rather, the ?««- 
sician, 1 Chr. vi. 33, and was the first of the three 
chief I^evites to whom was committed the vocal and 
instrumental music of the temple-service in the 
reign of David, as we read 1 Chr. xv. 16-22, Asaph 
and ICthan, or rather, according to xxv. 1, 3, Jedu- 
thun," being his colleagues. [Jkdutiiun.] 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 confuse<l, 
owing to two collateral lines having got mixed. A 
rectitication of this genealogy will be found at p. 
214 of the Genealogies of our Lord, wliere it is 
shown that Ileman 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 seer in the 
icatters of Gwi," the word HTn, " seer," which 


in 2 Chr. xxxv. 15 is applied to Jeduthun, and tn 
xxix. 20 to Asaph, being probably used in the same 

sense as is W23, " prophesied," of Asaph and Jedu- 
thun in xxv. 1-3. We there learn that Heman 
lad fourteen sons, and three daughters [Hana- 
MAH 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 l.evites, 
who "were instructed in the songs of tlie Lord," 
or rather, in sacred music. Whether or no this 
Heman is the person to whom the 88th Psalm is 
ascribed is doubtful. The chief reason for suppos- 
ing him to be the same is, that as otlift- Psalms are 
ascribed to Asaph and Jeduthun, so it is Ukely that 
tills one should be to Heman the singer. But on 
the other hand he is there called ' the Ezrahite; '" 
and the 8yth Psalm is ascribed to " I'.than the 
Ezrahite."'' But since Heman and Ethan are 
described in 1 Chr. ii. 6, as " sons of Zerah," it is 
in the highest degree probable that ICzrahite means 
"of the family of Zerah," and consequently that 
Heman of the 88th Psalm is different irom 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 Ezrahite, Heman, Chalcol, 
and Darda, the sons of JMahol, a list corresponding 
with the names of the sons of Zerah, in 1 Chr. ii. 
6. The inference irom which is that there was a 
Heman, different from Heman the singer, of the 
family of Zerah the son of Judah, and tiiat he is 
distinguished from Heman the singer, the Levite, 
by being called the Ezrahite. As regards the age 
when Heman the Ezrahite lived, the only thing 
that can be asserted is that he livetl before 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 lirother lived. 
They are probably mentioned in this aliridged 
genealogy, only as having been illustrious persons 
of their family. Nor is anything known 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 SUtli Psalm, ascribed to 
Ethan, seems to be subsequent to the overllirow of 
the kingdom of Judah, unless possibly the caLimi- 
ties described in the latter [jart 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 Barzillai, and was so 
reckoned in the genealogy of Zerah, then all the 
notices of Heman might point to the same ])erson, 
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 joine<l 
with those other worthies whose wisdom w.xs only 
exceetled l)y that of Solomon. Eut it is impossible 
to assert that this was the case. 

Hosenm. Proleg. in Psalm, p. xvii. ; J. (Jlshau- 
sen, on J'tnlms, Kinleil. p. 22 {Kurzytf. Exeg 
llundb.). A. C. H. 

• ^n"*H nnd )in"n^ are probably only clerical 
WrUtlong. 8«e also 2 Chr. xxix. 18, 14. 

<> St. Augustine's copy read, with the L.XX., Isrntl- 

ite, for Ezrahitf, In the titles to the 88tli and SStk 
Psalins. His explanation of the title of I's. IxxxviH 
is a rurious specimen of splrituallziuif InterpratatioD 


HE'MATH (npn [fortress, citadet]: At- 
wa«; [Vat.] Alex. E^ad: Emath). Another form 
— not warranted by the Hebrew — of the well- 
known name Hajiath (Am. vi. 14). 

HE'MATH (n^n i. e. Hammath [heat, 
warm apriny]: Ai/jidd; [Vat. Mf<rr]ixa'-] Vulg. 
translates de caiore), a person, or a place, named 
in the genealogical lists of Judah, as the origin of 
the Kenites, and the "father" of the house of 
Rechau (1 Chr. ii. 55). 

HEM'DAN ("j^pn [/>fea6Tn< o«e, Fiirst]; 
'AfiaSi: Amdam or Ilamdmn, some copies Ham- 
dan), the eldest son of Dishon, son of Anah the 
Horite (Gen. xxxvi. 26). In the parallel list of 
1 Chr. (i. 41) the name is changed to Ilamran 

(^"ipn), which in the A. V. is given as Amram, 
probably following the Vulgate Hamram, in the MSS. Amaran. 

The name Hemdan is by Knobel {Genesis, p. 
256) compared with those of Ifumeidif and Haiii- 
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 el-Busaireh, 
probably the ancient Bozrah, on the road to 
Petra. (See Burckhardt, Syna, etc., pp. 695, 
407.) ft 

HEM'LOCK. [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. (xapty), 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 
except in the passages (Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Luke xiii. 
34) 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, Vesp. 811). That a bird, so intimately 
connected with the household, and so common in 
Palestine, as we know from Rabbinical 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. 234).« W. L. B". 

HE'NA (^2n [depression, loio land, Fiirst] : 
'Avd; [in 2 K. six., Vat. Ai/er, Alex. Atva; in Is., 
by confusion with next word, Rom. ' Avayovydva, 
Vat. Sin. Auayovyaua-] 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 Afosaib), is an ancient 
tcwn callwi Ana or Anah, which seems to have been 



» * The pommon barn-door fowl are met with every- 
nhore in Sjria at the present day. The peasants rely 
on them, and the eggs from them, as one of their chief 
l>«aiis of subsistence (Thomson, Land and Book. ii. 

in former times a place of considerable inportanca 
It is mentioned by Abulfeda, by William of TjTe 
and others (see Asseman. Bibl. Or. vol. iii. pt. ii. 
p. 560, and p. 717). The conjecture by some (se« 
Winer's Reahcorterbiich, s. v.) that this may b€ 
Hena, is probable, and deserves acceptance. A 
further conjecture identifies Ana with a town called 

Anat (n is merely (he feminine termination), 
which is mentioned m the Assyrian inscriptions as 
situated on an island in the Euphrates (box Tal- 
bot's Assyrian Texts, 21; \ji.ya.rA's, Nineveh ami 
Babylon, 355) at some distance below its junction 
with the Ckabour ; and which appears as Anatho 
VAuadui) 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 upon the left bank ; but between 
them is " a string of islands " (Chesney's lOuphrates 
Expedition, i. 53), on one or more of which the an- 
cient city may have been situated. G. R. 

HEN'ADAD (TT3n [favor of Hadad, 
Fiirst, Ges.] : 'Hvo5a5, [etc. :] Henadad, Ena- 
dad), the head of a family of Levites who took a 
prominent part in the rebuilding of tlie Temple 
under .Jeshua (Ezr. iii. 9). Bavai and Binnui 
(Neh. iii. 18, 24), who assisted in 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 (Tf'laq: 'Eftix'- ffe»ock). i. 
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 V^ulgate. 

2. So tiiey 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 ("|t:n [aicdiy.'0<p4p: Hepher). 
1. A descendant of iManasseh. The youngest of 
the sons of Gilead (Num. xxvi. 32), and head of 
the family of the Heimieiutks. Hepher waa 
father of ZELorHEHAD (xxvi. 33, xxvii. 1 ; [.Josh, 
xvii. 2, 3] ), whose daughters first raised the ques- 
tion of the right of a woman having no brother, 
to hold the property of her father. 

2. ('H(|)aA: Hepher.) 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. 'Ac^ocp; Aid. 'A^ip-I 
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 passages, is 
that the names in Samuel are the originals, and 
that Hepher is a mere corruption of them. 

HE'PHER ("iSn [aioeliy. '0<p€p; [Vat 
hi 1 K. corrupt; Comp. 'E<f)6p ] Opher), ^ \)\a,<x 
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 douht meant in tin 
Saviour's illustration (Luke xi. 12), which implies alM 
that they were very abundant. H 


Hejiiier" (H V"l^> tei-ra Epiier), -KUch is named 
B'ith Socoh as one of Solomon's coinmissariat dis- 
tricts (1 K. iv. 10). To judge from tliis catalogue 
it l;iy towards the south of central I'alestine, at 
any rate below Dor. so that there cannot be any 
coiniection between it and Gath-iiepher, which 
wa.s m Zebulun near Sepphoris. 

HE'PHERITES, THE Ol^rin [patro- 
nym., see above], i. e. the Ihplieritt: 6 '0(ptpl 
[Vat. -per]: familia Hepheritarum)^ the family 
of Hepher the son of Gtle;id (Num. xxvi. 32). 

HEPH'ZIEAH (rTn-*''^?q : e^'Arj^a iix6v- 
volunUts mea in ea). 1. A name signifying My 
dttiijht 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 (Vrl^' chnphetz) in thee." 

2. ('Av(/i/3a; [Vat.l Oxf/eifia:] Alex. 0(p(n$a; 
Joseph. 'Ax<)3a: Hciphsiba). It was actually the 
name of tlie 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 gi\'en us to the character of this queen., 
But if she was an adherent of Jehovah — and this 
the wife of 1 lezekiah could not fail to be — it is 
not impossible that the words of Is. Ixii. 4 may 
contain a complimentary allusion to her. 

HERALD (Sp"13 [from the Pers., crier, 
ddlcr, Uietr. J ). 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 
Kvpiartru} and Kpd^ca, and with our "cry." There 
is an evident allusion to the office of the herald in 
the expressions Kfipvacrai, K-rtpv^, and K-ftpvyfj.a, 
which are frequent in the N. T., and which are but 
inadequately lendered by " preach," etc. The 
term "herald " might be substituted in 1 Tim. ii. 
7; 2 Tim. i. 11; 2 Pet. ii. 5. W. L. B. 

HER'CULES ('Hpo/cArjs [Hera's glory]), the 
name commonly applied by the western nations to 
ihe tutelary deity of Tyre, whose national title was 
Afelkait" (Flip bo, i. e. Hip ~]h72, the Lin;/ 
oj' the ciiy = TroAiovxos, MeAiKapos, Phil. Hybl. 
ap. Euseb. P^^(ep. h'v. i. 10). The identification 
was based upon a similarity of the legends and at- 
tributes referred to the two deities, but Herodotus 
(ii. 44) recognized their distinctness, and dwells on 
the extreme antiquity of the Tyrian rite (Herod. 
/. c; cf. .Strabo, xvi. p. 757; Arr. Alex. ii. 16; Jo- 
seph. Ant. viii. 5, § 3; c. Apion. i. 18). The wor- 
ship of Melkart was spread throughout the Tyrian 
colonies, and was especially established at Cartilage 
(cf. IIam//ca?-), where it was celebrated e\en with 
human sacrifices (I'lin. //. N. xxxvi. 4 (o); cf. 
Jer. xix. 5). Mention is made of pul>lic embassies 
lont from the colonies to the mother state to honor 
tiie national God (Arr. Alex. ii. 24; Q. Curt, iv 
2 ; Polyb. xxxi. 20), and this fact places in a clearer 

t This Identification is distinctly made in a Maltese 
Inncnption quoted by Qesenius (Ersch und Gruber 

Encyklnj). s. v. Bel., and Thesaurus, 8. v. 7373), 
•there "1^ v37!3 iH^p VD answers to 'HpoxAei ap- 

6 These were rommon, and arc frequently alluded j ^ ^^^ ^^^ 

Lgoatfl'-uiilK cheese 


light the offense of Jason in sendinj^ cnvojB lti9 ' 
povs) to his festival (2 Mace. iv. 19 IT.). 

There can be little doubt but that Jlelkart is tht 
proper name of the Baal — the Prince (v372n^ 
— mentioned in the later history of the O. T. I'hc 
worship of "Baal" introduced from Tyre (1 
K. xvi. 31; cf. 2 K. xi. 18) after the earlier CV 
naanitish idolatry had been put down (1 Sam. vii. 
4; cf. 1 K. xi. 5-8), and Jlelkart (Hercules) and 
Astarte appear in the same close relation (Joseph. 
Ant. 1. c.) as Baal and Astarte. The objections 
which are urged against the identification appear 
to have httle weight; but the supposed connections 
between Melkart and other gods (Moloch, etc.) 
which have been suggested (Pauly, Real-Kncyd. 
s. v. Melctirth) appear less likely (cf. Gesenius, I. 
c. ; Movers, Phbnizier, i. 176 ff., 385 ff.). [Ba.\l.] 

The direct derivation of the word Hercules from 
Phoenician roots, either as 7D~in, circuiior, the 
traveller, in reference to the course of the sun, with 
whom he was identified, or to the journeys of the 

hero, or again as 7D^S CApxa^fvs, Etyyn- M.), 
the strong conquers, has little probability. 

B. F. W. 

HERD, HERDSMAN. The herd was 

greatly regarded both in the patriarchal and Mo- 
saic period. Its multiplying was considered as a 
ble3singj»and its decrease as a (Gen. xiii. 2; 
Deut. 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 \alue which was conmionly pos- 
sessed (1 K. xviii. 5). Bence we see the force of 
Saul's threat (1 Sanv xi. 7). The herd yielded the 
most esteemed sacrifice (Num. vii. 3; Ps. Ixix. 31; 
Is Ixvi. 3); also flesh-meat and milk, chiefly con- 
verted, 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. Anini. 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 aj;e up to wliich 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- 
cultural and general usefulness of the ox, in plough- 
ing, threshing [Aghicultuke], and 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; Jer. 
xlviii. 34; comp. PUn. //. N. viii. 70, ed. Par.). 
In the moist sea.son, when grass abounded in the 
waste lands, especially in the " south " rcgiou, 

means cheese of cows' milk ; nS^H, Arab. I g ^j 
Gen. xviii. 8, Is. vii. 15, 2 Sam. xvii.' 29, Job xx. 17, 
Judg. V. 25, ProT. xxx. 33, is properly rendered "bul/- 
ter " (which Gesenius, s. v., is niistulien in dcclariug 
to be " hardly known to the Orientals, except af a 

to. The expr<-s(-ion "Ip^'iT^CtT, 2 Sum. xvii. 

medicine "). The word n3''D3, Job x. 10, is the e 
. applied by the Hedouins to I 
[Butter; Cheese] 




Egyptian farm-yard. (Wilkinson.) 

herds grazed there ; e: g. in Carmel on the W. side 
of the Dead Sea (1 Sam. xxv. 2; 2 Chr. xxd. 10). 
Uothan also. ftlLshcr. and Sharon fGen. xxxvii. 17 ; 
;omp. Robinson, iii. 122; Stanley, S. if P. pp. 
247, 2G0, 484, 48-5; 1 Chr. xxvii. 29; Is. Ixv. 10) 
were favorite pastures. For such purposes Uzziah 
built towers m the wilderness (2 Chr. xxvi. 10). 
Not only,« l)ut foliage, is acceptable to the 
ox, and the hills and woods of Bashan and Gilead 
afforded V>o(h 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 Manasseh 
who settled there, retained something of the no- 
madic character and handed down some image of 
the patriarchal life (Stanley, S. (/• 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 l)estowed 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 pla<;ue 
of hail was sent to smite especially the cattle {Vs. 
Ixxviii. 48), the first-born of which also were smitten 
(Ex. xii. 29). The Israelites departing stipulated for 
(Ex. X. 20) and took " much cattle " with them (xii. 
38). [WiLUEKXESs OF Wanderuhg.] Cattle 

k deformed oxherd, so represented to mark contempt, 
.ormed thus one of the traditions of the Israelitish 
nation in its greatest period, and became almost a 
part of that greatness. They are the object of 

o In Num. ixii. 4, the word p'H'', in A. V. «gra«e," 
really includes all vegetation. 'Comp. Ex. x. 15, Is. 
txxvu. 27 ; Cato, de R. iJ. c. 30 ; Varro, de R. R. i. 
15, and ii 5. '^*^n. Job viii. 12, xl. 15, seems used 
■Ji a signification equally wide. [Grass.] 

'' Rabbis difler on the question whether the owner 
if the animal waA under this enactment liable or not 

providential care and legislative ordinance (Ex. xx 
10, xxi. 28,* xxxiv. 19 ; l^v. xix. 19, xxv. 7 ; Deut. 
xi. 15, xxii. 1, 4, 10, xxv. 4; Ps. civ. 14; Is. xxx. 
23; Jon. iv. 11), and even the I^evites, though not 
holding land, were allowed cattle (Num. xxxv. 2, 
3). When pasture failed, a mixture of various 

grains (called. Job vi. 5, 7*^7?? rendered "fodder" 
in the A. V., and. Is. xxx. 24, " provender :" « 
comp. the Roman fai-rago and oajmuin, Plin. xviiL 

10 and 42) was used, as also 75^1^1 j "chopped 
straw" (Gen. xxiv. 25; Is. xi. 7, Isv. 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 indisi)ensable for shelter at certain seasons (Ex. 
ix. 6, 19). The herd, after its harvest-duty was 
done, which probably 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), t. e. probably in some pastures 
closely adjoining, like the " suburbs " apjwinted for 
the cattle of the I>evites (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), aud the case of Amalek is ex- 
ceptional, probably to mark the 
extreme curse to which that people 
was devoted (Ex. xvii. 14; 1 Sam. 
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 his 
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 liLi 
cattle." David's herd-masters were 
(Wilkinson ) ^^^"n ^^^ chief officers of state. In 
Solomon's time the relative import- 
ance of the pursuit declined as commerce grew, but 
It was still extensive (I'xcl. ii. 7; 1 K. iv. 23). It 
must have greatly suffered from the inroads of tb» 

liable. See (ie Re Rust. Veterujn Hebrrrorum, c. U. ; 
Ugolini, xxix. 

c The word seems to be derived from V^2, to mix. 
The passage in Isaiah probably means that in th« 
abundant yield of the crops the cattle should eat el . 
the best, such as was usually consumed by man. 

1046 HERES 

meniies to which the country under the later kings 
rf Judah and Israel was exposed. L zziah, 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 foUowetl this 
occupation (Am. i. 1, vii. 14). A goad was used 

(Jndg. iii. 31; 1 Sam. xiii. 21, T3^0, "I?"7"5)> 
being, as mostly, a staff armed with a spike. l"or 
the word Herd as applied to swine, see Swim:; 
and on the general sulject, Ugolini, xxix., de R. R. 
vett. Hehr. 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 Iu-ha-iieres. 

HE'RESH (ttnri = flHi^cer: 'Ap^j; [Vat. 
PapaiTjX;] Alex. Apf s : carpentarivs), a Levite; 
one of the staff attached to tlie tabernacle (1 Chr. 
ix. 15). 

HER'MAS ('Epfias, from 'Epuvs, the " Greek 
god of gain," or Mercury), the name of a person 
to whom St. Paul sends greeting in his I'^pistle to 
the Romans (xvi. 14), and consequently then resi- 
dent in I.'ome, and a ( 'hristian : and yet the origin 
of the name, like that of the other four mentioned 
in the same >erse, is Greek. However, in those 
days, even a Jew, like St. Paul himself, might ac- 
quire l.'oman citizenship. IrenKus, TertuUian, and 
Origen, agree in attributing to him the work called 
the <S7/(-;>//er</.- which, from the name of Clement 
occurring in it, is supposed 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- 
k)wing age, and brother to Pius I.; others again 
ha\e argued against its genuineness. (Cave, I/>st. 
Ul. s. v.; Bull, Dcfens. Fid. Nic. i. 2, 3-6; Din- 
dorf, Pr(ef. ml JJtrma Past.) From internal 
evidence, its author, whoever he was, appears to 
have been a married man and father of a family : 
a deep mystic, but without ecclesiastical rank. 
Further, the work in question i.s 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 Potrts, torn. i. p. 17). It may be styled 
the Pilf/rlvi's Progress of ante-Nicene times; and 
is divided into three parts: the first containing 
fuur visions, the sec<jnd twelve moral and spiritual 
precepts, and the third ten siniiUtudes, e.ich in- 
tendetl to sliadow forth some verity (Caillau, iOid.). 
Every man, acct^rding to this writer, is attended by 
a good and bad angel, who are continually attempt- 
ing to affect his course through life; a doctrine 
which forcibly recalls the f»l>le of Prodicus respect- 
tig the choice of Hercules (Xenoph. Mtm. ii. 1). 

The Hernias of the Kpistle to the Romans is 
eelebrated as a saint in the Roman calendar on 
May 9 (ISutler's Lives of tlie Saints, May 9). 

E. S. Ff. 

n • Nciirly the whole of the Greek text of the Shrp- 
keri) h«« now l)een recovered from a manuscript found 
tX Moiint Athfm by ConHtantine Simonidea, and a con- 
Memble perl Ion of the work i» precerved in the Cnrltx 


HERTVIES CEp/i^s), the name of a maii nsa- 
tibned in the same epistle with the preceding (Hcia. 
xvi. 14). "According to the Greeks," s:iys t'ahnet 
(Did. 8. v.), " he was one of the Seventy disciples, 
and afterwards Bishop of IJalmatia." His festival 
occui-s in tlieir calendar upon April 8 (Neale, /'«»<- 
em a.urdi, ii. 774). E. S. Ff. 

* HER'MES, Acts xiv. 12. [MEitcuHY.] 
HERMOG'ENES CEpixoyfyns) [Oi»n of 
Ihrmts], a person mentioned by St. Paul in the 
latest of all his epistles (2 Tipi. i. 15; see Alford's 
PruUy. c. vii. § 35), when "all in Asia" (». e. 
those whom he had left there) " had turned away 
from him," and among their number " Phygellus 
and Hermogenes." It does not appear whether 
they had merely forsaken his cause, now that he 
was in bonds, through fear, like those of whom St. 
Cyprian treats in his eelebrated work De Lopsis ; 
or whether, like Hytiienaius and Philetus (iOid. ch. 
ii. 18), they had embraced false doctrine. It is 
just possible that tliere may be a contrast intended 
lietMeen tliese two sets of deserters. According to 
the legendary history, bearing the name of Abdias 
(Fabricii Cod. Apocryph. 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 suflered in the reign of Doniitian (Hofmann, 
Lex. Unir. s. v.; Alford on 2 Tim. i. 15), nor the 
Hermogenes against whom TertuUian wrote — still 
less the martyrs of the tireek calendar (Neale, 
Kasiern Clinich, ii. p. 770, January 24, and p. 
781, September 1) — are to be confbunded with the 
person now under notice, of whom nothing more 
is known. E. S. Ff. 

HER'MON (V'^'Iiin [/>rwHj««=w/, lofty]: 
'Afpfxtiv- [I/ermov]), a mountain on the north- 
eastern border of Palestine (Dent. iii. 8; Josh. xii. 
1), over against Lel)anon (Josh. xi. 17), adjoining 
the i)lateau of Baslian (1 Chr. v. 23). Its situa- 
tion being thus clearly defined in Scripture, there 
can be no donI)t as to its identity. It stands at 
the southern end, and is the culminating point of 
the Anti-Libanus range; it towers high above the 
ancient border-city of Dan and the fountains of the 
Jordan, and is the niost conspicuous and beautiftd 
mountain in Palestine or Syria. The name J/er- 
mon was doubtless suggested by its appearance — 
" a lofty prominent peak," visible from afar 

(ptt'nn has the same meaning as the Arabic 

^ .yj-^ ) ; just as Lebanon was suggested by the 

white character of its limestone strata. Other 
names were also given to Hermon, each in lice 
manner descriptive of some striking feature. The 

Sidonians called it Sinm ("I'^'^ir, from TTVir, 
"to glitter"), and the Aniorites Senir P"*3ip, 
from "13Ji7 " to clatter "), both signifying " breast- 
plate," and suggested by its rounded glittering top, 
when the sun's rays were reflected by the snow that 
covers it (Deut. iii. 9; Cant. iv. 8; Ex. xxvii. 6). 

at UipBic In 1866, better by Tlschendorf in Dressell 
Pairts A/watolm, Lips 1857 (2d «d. with the readingi 
of the Co(l. Shi. 1863); but the best edition i." th»t of 
HilKtnf.lcl, Kiisc. iii. of his Norum Ttitanntuuwi exm 

aitinif i.iililished by TlsrheiKlort in ISfB. The I Canontm rtctptui}!. Lips. 1800. 

ilTeek text 

tlrst published by Anger and Uiudorf 


[t wa» also named Sion, •' the elevated " ("jN^tt^), 
lowering over all its compeers (Deut. iv. 45;. So 
now, at the present day, it is called Jebei esh-Skeikh 

( ^sA-CiJ 1 (>A^ p " tte chief mountain " — a 
name it well deserves ; and Jebel eth-Thelj 
y^,Jju\ Ju.:^), "snowy mountain," which 

svery 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 U^ in Ex. xxvii. 
12, A. V. " west; " Josh. viii. 9). They conquered 
all the land east of the Jordan, " from the river 
Amon unto Mount Hermon " (Deut. iii. 8, iv. 48; 
Josh. xi. 17). Baal-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 Manasseh conquered their whole al- 
lotted territory, they are said to have " increased 
from Bashan unto Baal-hermon and Senir, and 
unto Mount Hermou " (1 Chr. v. 2-3). In one 
passage Hermon would almost seem to be used to 

signify " north," as the word "sea" (C"*) is for 
"west" — "the north and the south Thou hast 
created them; Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in 
thy name" (Ps. Ixxxix. 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 
the coast, from the mountains of Samaria, from 
the Jordan valley, from the heights of Moab and 
Gilead, from tlie plateau of Baihan, 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 geographical puzzle — " As the dew of 
Hermon, the dew that descended on the momitains 

of Zion" (Ps. cxxxiii. 3). Zion (P*^) is prob- 
ably used here for Sion (^S'^tt7), one of the old 
names of Herm6n (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 
Ps. xlii. 7 (6), " I will remember thee from the land 
of the Jordan and the Herinom (D^J^tt'^n) — 
[lerhaps also for the three appellations in 1 Chr. v. 
23. On one of the summits are curious and inter- 
esting ruins. Round a rock which forms the crest 
of the peak are the foundations of a rude circular 
wall, composed of massive stones; and within the 
lircle is a large heap of hewn stones, suTounding 



a * It is against this equivalence that the consonants 
*re diffierent (see above) and that the meanings are dif- 
fsront {lofty : sunny, bright). Besides, to make the dew 
MT Rawuon fall upon itself renders what follows irrel- 

the remains of a small and ^ery ancitnt 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 (v372 

lSa~}n, 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 vertice ejus insiyne tenipluin, quod ab 
ethnicis cultui habetur e regione Paneadis et Li- 
bani " — reference must here be made to the build- 
ing whose ruins are still seen ( Oiiom. s. v. Hermon), 
It is remarkable that Hermon was anciently en- 
compassed by a circle of temples, nil 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 Maslems? (See Handb. 
for Syr. and Pal. 454, 457; Keland, Pal. p. 323 

The height of Hermon has never been measured, 
though it has been often estimated. It is unques- 
tionably the second mountain in Syria, ranking 
next to the summit of Lebanon near the Cedars, 
and only a few hundred feet lower than it. It 
may safely be estimated at 10,000 feet. It rises 
up an obtuse truncated cone, from 2000 to 3000 
feet above the ridges that radiate from it — thus 
having a more commanding aspect than any other 
mountain in Syria. The cone is entirely naked. 
A coating of disintegrated limestone covers the 
surface, rendering it smooth and bleak. The snow 
never disappears ft'oni its summit. In spring and 
early sunmier the top is entirely cohered. 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 (Reland, p. 326), gave the name 
Hermon to the range of Jebel ed-Duhy near Tabor, 
the better to explain Ps. Ixxxix. 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 to 
the top of Hermon, and the view from it has not 
been often described. We 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 sis months. 
We had looked at him from Sidon, from Tyre, 
from Carmel, from Gerizira, from the hills aijout 
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 emljossed map 
that lay spread at our feet. The only drawback was 
a light fleecy cloud which stretched from Carmel's 
top all along th" Lebanon, till it rested upon Je6ei 
Sunnin, close to Baal-bee. But it lifted sufficiently 

evant ; for we can refer the blessing and the spiritual 
life spoken of only to Zion, the aw td mount. Sm 
under IIebmo^, the Dew of. H- 

1048 HERMON 

to give us a peep of tlie Slcditi'mnean in tlirec 
Dlaces, and anioiij^st them of 'l'}re. There \v;is a 
haze, too, over the Glior so that we could only i 
see as far as Jtbel Ajluii and Gilead ; but Lakes j 
Huleh and (iennesaret, sunk in the depths beneath | 
us, and reflecting the sunligut, were magnificent. 
We could scarcely realize that at one glance we 
were taking in the whole of the land through which, | 
for move than six months, we had been incessantly I 
wandering. Not less striking were the views to \ 
the north and east, with the head waters of the j 
Awiij (Pharpar) rising beneath us, and the Bin-whi \ 
(Abana), 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 
briglitness of Damascus, and then turned up the 
wide opening of Coele-Syria, until shut in by Leb- 

" A ruined temple of Baal, constructed of squared 
stones arranged nearly in a circle, crowns the high- 
est of the three peaks of Hermon, all very close 
together. We spent a great part of the day on 
the summit, but were before long painfully affected 
by 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 exploi-ation, 
see BiU. Sdcra, xi. 41-56. See the notices, also, 
in Mr. Porter's Handbook, ii. 453 fT. Thomson 
(Land ami Book; ii. 4-38) speaks of his surprise at 
finding that from the shores of the Dead Sea he 
liad a distinct view of " Mount Hermon towering 
to the sky far, far up the Glwr 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 Jloab [Nkiso, 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 H^tJ' 
"to glitter," n 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 tlie snow on its summit and stretching 
in long lines down its declivities, it glows and 
sparkles under the rays of the sun as if robed in a 
vesture of silver. 

It is altogether probable that the Saviour's trans- 
figuration took place on some one of the heights 
of Hermon. The Evangelists relate the occurrence 
in connection with the Saviour's visit to Ca'sarea 
Philippi, which was in that neighborhood. Hence 
also the healing of the lunatic boy (Luke ix. ;)" ) 
took place at the foot of Hermon. Dean Alford 
assumes (Grfek Test. i. 1G8) that Jesus had been 
journeying southward from Casiirea Philippi dur- 
ing the six or eight days which immediately 
preceded the transfiguration, and hence infers that 
the high mountain which lie a.scended must be 
•ought near Caijcrnaum. But that is not the more 
obvious view. Neither of the Evangelista says tliat 

a • So (Jesenius in IIofTmann's ed. 1847 ; but accord- 
ing to Dietrich and Fiirst, from iT^l?', 'o weavf lo- 
f ether, fasten, as in uialiing a shield. U. 


.Icsus was journeying .southward during these dr.yi : 
but, on the contrary, having stated just before that 
Jesus came into "the parts" (Matt. xvi. 13) oi 
•'the villages" (^Lark viii. 27) of ('apsareii Philippi, 
they leave us to understand tliat lie preached dur- 
ing the time mentioned, in that region, and ther. 
came to the mountain there on which he was trans- 
figured. [Tabok.] IL* 

* HERMON, DEW OF. The dew on this 
mountain is proverbially excellent and abundant 
(see Ps. cxxxiii. 3). " More copious dew," says Tris- 
tram (Laml of Israel, p. 008 f. 2d ed.), "we ne\fr 
experienced than that on Hermon. Everything 
was drenched with it, and the tents were small pro- 
tection. The under sides of our macintosh sheets 
were in water, our guns were rusted, dew-drops 

were hanging everywhere The hot air in 

the daytime comes streaming up the Ghor from the 
Huleh, while Hermon arrests all the moisture, and 
deposits it congealed at nights." As Mr. Porter 
states, " one of its hills is appropriately called Tell 
Abu Nedij, i. e. ' Father of the Dew,' for the clouds 
seem to cling with peculiar fondness round its 
wooded top and the little \\e\y of Sheikh Abv 
Nedij, which crowns it " {Handbook, Ji. 463). 
Van de Velde (Syr. and Pal. i. 126) testifies to 
this peculiarity of Hennon. 

It has jjerplexed commentators not a little to ex- 
plain how the Psalmist (cxxxiii. 3) could speak 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 ajipears there as locally different from that 
which descended on Mount Zion. But the He- 
brew sentence will not bear that construction (see 
Ilupfeld, Die Psalinen, 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. Hujifeld (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 jis applied here may represent Zion as 
realizing the idea of that Ijlessing, both spiritual 
and natural, in the highest degree. IK.ttcher 
(Aelirenlese zum A. T., p. 58) assumes an appel- 
lative sense of T1D"in, i. e. dew (not of any par- 
ticular mountain of that name), but of lofty heights 
generally, which would include Zion. Hengsten- 
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 llermons. H. 

HER'MONITES, THE (D^a^'^'in : 'Ep- 
jxuvtii^' Ilermoniim) [in the A. V.]. Properly 
the " Hermons," with reference to the three [or 
two ?] summits of Mount Hermon (Ps. xlii. 6 [7] ). 
[Hkumon, p. 1047.] W. A. W. 

*HER'MONS (according to the Hebrew), 
Ps. xlii. 7 (0). Only one mountain is known in 
tlie Bilile as Hermon; the plural name refers, no 
doubt, to the different summits for which this was 
noted. [Hehsion.] See also Bob. Phys. Geogr. 
p. 347. H. 

HER'OD ('Hpt/'STjr, «• e- Hero'des). The 
Hkhodia.n Family The history of the Hero- 
dian family presents »ne side of the last doelop- 
ment of tlie Jewish nation. The evils which had 
existed in the hierarchy which grew up after th« 
Heturn, found an unexpected embodimenl in tht- 


tynnny of a forelcn usurper. Fteligiou was adopted 
as a policy; and the llellenizing designs of Anti- 
ochus Epii)liaues were carried out, at least in their 
gpirit, 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 I^rd, 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 establishment 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 
Herods; but neglecting the exaggerated statements 
of friends and enemies," it seems certain that they 
were of Idumaean 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, 
Geschickte, iv. 477, note). 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. An/. 
xiii. 9, § I); 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 themsehes the name of Jews (Joseph. Ant. 
XX. 7. § 7; 5. .J. i. 10, § 4, iv. 4, § 4). 

The general jjolicy of the whole Herodian f;imily, 
though modified by the personal characteristics of 
the 8uccessi\e rulers, was the same. It centred in 
the endeavor to found a great and independent 
kingdom, in which the power of .Judaism should 
8ubser\'e to the consolidation of a state. The pro- 
tection of H(jme 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 
pnd, and not to a mere subject monarchy. Such a 
consummation of the Jewish hopes seems to have 
found some measure of acceptance at first [Hk- 
uoDiAjjs] ; 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. Judentlnims, i. 322, 325, 421), 
that the ofBce itself was deprived of its sacred dig- 
nity (comp. Acts xxiii. 2 ff. ; Jost, 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 
same names, and the several accounts of Josephus 
are not consistent in every detail. The following 
table, however, seems to offer a satisfactory sum- 

a The Jewish partisans of Herod (Nicolaus Damas- 
•€nus. rip. Jos. Ant. xiv. 1, 3) sought to raise him to 
the dijinity of a descent from one of the noble fami- 
lies which returned from Babylon ; and, on the other 
hand, early Chrit:tian writers represented his origin as 
utterly mean and servile. Africanus has preserved a 
tradition (Routh, Rel'. Sacr. ii. p. 235), on the authority 
of " the natunil kinsmen of the Saviour," which makes 
lotipater, the fattter of Herod, the son of one Herod. 

HEROD 1049 

mary of his statements. The members of the 
Herodian family \Nho are mentioned in the N. T 
are distinguished by capitals. 

Josephus is the one great authority for the his- 
tory of the Herodian family. The scanty notices 
wliich occur in Hebrew and classic writers throw 
very little additional light upon the events which 
he narrates. Of modern writers ICwald 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. 
Where the original sources are so accessible, mono- 
graphs are of little use. The following are quoted 
by Winer: Noldii /list. Idumwa . . . Iraneq. 
1000; E. Spanhemii Stemnia . J . //erodis M., 
which are reprinted in Havercamp's Josephus (ii. 
331 ft". ; 402 ff ). 

I. Hki'.od the Great ('HpciSrjy) was the sec- 
ond son of Antipater, who was appointed jjrocurator 
of Judaea by Juhus Ciesar, 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. !), § 2), ai'J shortly 
afterwards that of Coele-Syria. When .Antony 
came to Syria, b. c. 41, he appointed Herod and 
his elder brother Phasael tetrarchs of .Juda-a (Jo- 
seph. A7it. xiv. 13, § 1). Herod was forced to 
abandon .Judaea next year by an invasion of the 
I'arthians, who supported the claims of .Antigonus, 
the representative of the Asmonajan dynasty, and 
fled to Home (is. c. 40). .-Vt Home he was weD 
received by Antony and Octavian, and was ap- 
pointed by the senate king of Juda;a to the exclu- 
sion of the Hasmontean line (.Joseph. Ant. xiv. 14, 
§ 4; App. Beli. C. 39). In the course of a fiew 
years, by the help of the Honians, he took .Jerusalem 
(b. c. 37), and completely established 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. Alter the 
battle of Actiuni he visited Octavian at Khodes. 
and his noble bearing won for him the favor of the 
conqueror, who confirmed him in the possession of 
the kingdom, u. c. 31, and in the next yea. iu- 
creased it by the addition of several important 
cities (.Joseph. Ant. xv. 10, § 1 flP.), 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 l)y 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 JIariamne, 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- 
bulus, in whom the chief hope of the people 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 robberB, 
and kept by them, as his father could not pay his ran- 
som. The locality (cf. Philo, Leg. ad Caiii?n, | 30) 
no less than the office, was calculated to fix a heavy 
reproach upon the name (cf. Itouth, ad toe). This 
story is repeated with great inaccuracy by Epiphanins 
(Hrrr. XX.). 
6 * Dindorfs ed. of Josephus (/. c. jreads twenty -five. A. 









-S — 





Is " ' 

= o 






-f « 












^ _ 





— K 3 














Qpater, his eldest son. who had been their most i 
ictive accuser, and the order for his execution was 
iniong 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 year which marks the true date of 
the Nativity. [Jesus Ciiiust.] 

These terrible acts of bloodshed which Herod 
perpetrated in his own family were accompanied by 
otliers among his subjects equally terrible, from the 
numbers who fell \ictims to them. The infirmities 
of his later years exasperated him to yet greater 
cruelty; and, according to the well-known story, 
he ordered the nol>les 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 Joseplius has 
passed it over in silence. The number of children 
in Bethlehem and "all the borders thereof" (eV 
Tracrii' rols opiots) 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 effected (airoffTelXas avf7\iv)- The 
scene of open and undisguised violence which has 
been consecrated by Christian art is wholly at va- 
riance with what may be supposetl to have been the 
historic reality. At a later time the murder of the 
children seems to have been connected with the 
death of Antipater. Thus, accoi-ding to the anec- 
dote preserved by JMacrobius (c. a. u. 410 ), " Au- 
gustus, cum audisset inter pueros quos in S3Tia 
Herodes, IJex Juda'orum, intra biniatum (Matt. ii. 
16; il). Vulg. a biiniitti et infra) jussit interfici, 
filium quoque ejus occisum, ait : Melius est Herodis 
porcum esse quam filium" (Macrob. Sat. ii. 4) 
But Joseplius has pre.served two very remarkable 
references to a massacre which Herod caused to be 
made shortly before his death, which may throw 
an additional light upon the history. In this it is 
said 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 ^apicraios) " in refusing to take the 
oath of allegiance to the Roman emperor, while 
they looked forward to a chantje in the voijul line 
(Joseph. Ant. xvii. 2, § 6; cf. Lardner, Credibility, 
etc., i. 278 ff., 332 f., 349 f.). How far this event 
may have been directly connected with the murder 
at Bethlehem it is impossible to say, from the ob- 
scurity of the details, but its occasion and charac- 
ter throw a great light upon St. iNIatthew's nar 

In dealing with the religious feelings or preju- 
dices of the Jews, Herod showed as great contempt 
for public opinion as in the execution of his per 
sonal vengeance. He signalized his elevation to 
the throne by offerings to the Cai)itoline .lupiter 
(.lost, Gesch. d. Judenlhunsi, i. 318), and sur- 
rounded his pereoii oy foreign mercenaries, some of 
tvhoni had been formerly in the serv ice of Cleopatra 
|Jos. Ant. XV. 7, § 3; xvii. I, § 1 ; 8, § 3). Hi 
toins and those of his successors Ijore only Greek 

a The language of St. Matthew offers an InRtructive 
contrast tc tliat of Justin .M. {Dial. c. Tn/ph. 78) 
»'Upa)6>)S . . n-di'Ta? olttAu)? tous nalSairoii 

HEROD 1051 

Itgbnds; and he introduced houthen 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 ti-aditions describe him as successively the 
servant of the Hasmonaeans and the Romans, and 
relate that one Habbin 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 tlie affec- 
tions of the Jews by his cruelty and disregard for 
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 com- 
pleted in a year and a half (Jos. Ant. xv. 11, § 6). 
The surrounding 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 tlie Lord's visit to Jerusalem at the 
beginning of His ministry, it was said that the 
Temple was " built {wKoSofMr)eri) in forty and six 
years " (John ii. 20), a phrase which expresses the 
whole period from the commencement 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, ^'Stj St 
Tcire Ka\ rh Uphu eTfTeXearo) in the time of 
Hei-od 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 Teniple at Jerusalem, he re- 
built also the Temple at Samaria (Jos. Anc. xv. 8, 
§5), and made provision in his new city Csesarea 
for the celebration of heathen worship (.Jos. Ant. 
XV. 9, § .5); and it has been supposed (.lost, Gesch. 
d. .ludenth. i. 323) that the rebuilding of the Temple 
furnished him with the opportunity of destroying 
the authentic collection of genealogies which was 
of the highest importance to the priestly families. 
Herod, as appears from his public desiiins, 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 sec in the charactei 
of Herod any of the true elements of greatness 
Some have even supposed that the title — the greai 

— is a mistranslation for the elder (SD"^, Jost, i. 
319, note; 6 fxeyas, Ewald, Gesch. iv. 473, Ac.); 
and yet on tlie other hand he seems to have pos- 
sessed the good qualities of our own Henry 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 )et prudent, oppress-^ 
ive and yet profuse, he had many of the character 
istica which make a popular hero; and the title 

iv Bii9\een cKeKfvirev avaxpeOrjuax. Cf. Orig. e. dt*. 
i. p. 47, eJ. Spenc. 6 Se 'Hpui&ri<; avel\i- ira»Ta rd c» 
Br)0\eitJL xai rots opt'oit aiiTrji iraiSi'a . . . 



which may ha\e heeii first given iu admiration of 
■uccessful despotism now serves to bring out in 
clearer contrast the terrible price at which the suc- 
cess was i)urchascd. 

Copper Coin of Herod the Great. 

Obv. HPWAOY. Bunch of grapes. Rev. E0NAPXO. 

Macedonian hehiiet : in the field caduceug. 

II. IIkhod Antipas CAvTiTraTpoi, 'Avriiras) 
was the son of Ilerod the Great by JIalthace, a 
Samaritan (Jos. AnI. xvii. ], § 3). His lather had 
originally destined him as his succe.ssor in the king- 
dom (cf. Matt. ii. 22; Akchklau.s), but by the 
last change of his will appointed him " tetrarch of 
Calilee and Pera;a " (Jos. Ant. xvii. 8, § 1, 'Up. 6 
TfTpapxris, Matt. xiv. 1; Luke iii. I'J, ix. 7; Acts 
xiii. 1; cf. Luke iii. 1, TcpapxouvTos ti}s VaAi- 
Kalas 'Up.), which brought him a yearly revenue 
of 200 talents (.Jos. Ant. xvii. 1-3, § 4; cf. Luke viii. 
3, Xov(a firiTp6iroy 'Up.)- He first married 
a daughter of Aretas, " king of Arabia Petrsea," 
but after some time (Jos. Ant. xviii. 5, § 1) he 
made o\ertures of marriage to Herodias, the wife 
of his half-brother Heiod-l'hilip, which she received 
favorably. Aretas, indignant at the insult ofiered 
to his daughter, found a pretext for invading the 
territory of Herod, and defeated him with great 
loss (Jos. /. c). This defeat, according to the famous 
passage in Josephus {.-int. xviii. 5, § 2), was attrib- 
uted by many to the murder of John the Baptist, 
which had been comnjitted by Aiitipas shortly 
before, under the influence of