GEOGRAPHY
GEOGRAPHY
this may only arise from the fragmentary character of our souices) Y ~ ’DDN, K ‘ ends of the earth ’ (Dt. 33 17 I S. 2 IO Mic. 5 4 [31 Jer. 1 6 19 Ps. 4 8 ; cp WIND), as well as from the story of the flood (Gen. 7J). In the earliest times the question of support for this earth, felt to be solid and firm, was not raised. There was water beneath it (Ex. 204 [E], Gen. 49 25 [older poem in J whence Dt. 33 13 ; see Dr. ad Zoc.1 ‘ cp Gen. 7 I T [PI) ‘ but not &til Ps. 242 (probably post-exilic seedls. Ba. Che. UPS.’ 236) does the conception of Yahwb‘s fgunding ;he karth upon the seas appear. This may be nothing more than poetic imagery. and the same remark will apply to the thought of its resting od pillars (poet. and late ; I S. 2‘ 8 Ps. 104 5 Job 38 4 Is. 48 13, etc.). A still bolder conception is that of Job 26 7 : ‘Who hangeth [the] earth upon nothingness’ (;in953 : Che. o353n). The rising and setting of the heavenly bodies gave 2. Cardinal the Hebrews, like other peoples, the points. standard of direction. They took their stand facing the sunrise. What we call the East they called the Front (nip, Gen. 2 8 128 [J], and often) orplace ofdawninf(niin ; &va~oA,j). So our West was for them the Behind(ling, Is. 9 IZ [II], cp Zech. 148 Joel 2 2 0 ) ~hut usually (from their situation in Palestine) the direction of the sea@’, Gen. 128 13 14 28 14 [J],and often). The North they called &e Left (%a?, Gen. 1415 Job239 Josh. 19 26) but usually the Hidden, or Dark (jh)-probably (if this he the true interpretation)l because in N. latitudes the N. is farthest from the course of the sun. The South was the flight I S. 23 24 [J], etc. ; ]?’e, Zech. 6 6 9 14 Job 39 26 Ex. 26 18 [PI ; chiefly in P, Ezek., and late poet.), but also (most probably) the Shining (oil; ; also poet. and late ; Dt. 33 23 Job 37 17 Eccles. 1 6 113, and often Ezek. [a BDB 204 a]), and also the Dry, Barren (322, Gen. 129 [J], and often, see Di. on Gen. 1 2 9 ; 3:!? is, however, usually a specific name-the Sout7z Country, the southern part of Jndah and the adjoinin region to the south). Cp NEGEB, E ARTH (FOUR QUARTERS OF?. How fax. did the knowledge of the Hebrews extend in these several directions? The extreme linkits, as far as 3. Extent of our canonical books testify-and their lrnown world. information was doubtless often fragmentarv and varue-were these n . ~: .~O -.~ the E. to Media, Elam, Persia, with an allusion to India (??a; see INDIA) in Esth. 1I 8 9 t (OPHIR and SINIM are doubtful); on the N. to a range of (peoples and) countries extending from Northern Armenia (Magog, Ashkenaz, Ararat, Togarmah) across Asia Minor (Gomer, Tubal, Meshek) ; on the W., past Cyprus (Kittim), Ionia (Javan), Crete (Kaphtor), Carthage (or Sicily [Elisha]), to Tartessus (Tarshish) in Spain ; on the S. to Ethiopia (Cush), and Southern Arabia (Sheba, Hadramaut). I t is possible that Hebrew knowledge extended still farther ; the Greek historians learned of regions farther N. (Thracians, Kimmerians, Herod. 4 I I J , Strabo, vii. 2 2,. Frag. 47) : the Phcenicians, if the Greeks can be believed, sailed farther W. and NW., and, conimissioned by the Egyptians, circumnavigated Africa (on the same authority, Herod. 4 4 2 ; it was under Necho, 6 ; o 594 B.C. ; cp E. Meyer, GA I. § 411 : Wiedemann, A G 627 ; Junker, Umschafing Afriikas durch die Phonizier, 1863) ; the Assyrians pushed farther to the NE. Something of this knowledge may have come to the Hebrews in Palestine, and doubtless did to the Jews of the Dispersion, before our last canonical O T book was written. Here, however, we can only conjecture. W e are without definite testimony. Within these limits certain great physical features 4. Seas. are noted, such as seas and rivers, and (less often) mountain ranges and deserts. i. Of seas the Mediterranean naturally takes the first place ; it is the sea. n:?, ‘ f h e sea’ (Nu. 1329 [El, and very often in all periods [see 0;= West, abovel) ; so also plur. O W , Judg. 5 17 and (prob.) Dan. 11 45 (Meinh., Bev.); more fully ‘the great sea of the sunset,’ Josh. 1 4 2 3 4 ([both Dl ; so in Assyrian tiarntu ra6itu sa suZnm samsi, Schr. Namen der Meere, 171&), and simplv ‘ the great sea’ (Nu.346f; Josh. 151247 [all POIRI; cp Josh. 9 1 1 Barth conjectures a relationship with Ar. ;a6ri=east wind, the meaning having become changed. This seems very doubtful, but Cp EARTH [ F O U R QUARTERS], 5 1.
Ezek. 47 1015 191: 4528); ‘great and wide-stretching sea’ (Ps. 104 25) is rather a description than a name : also ‘the hinder (or western) sea,’ Dt. 1124 34 2 (perhaps with pedantic explicitness) Zech. 148 Joel 2 20 (in these by contrast with the ‘front [or eastern] sea’). Particular parts of the Mediterranean were known as ‘ the sea of the Philistines’ (Ex. 2 3 3 1 [E]) and ’ the sea of l o p p a ’ ( z Ch. 216[15] Ezra 37). ii. The R ED SEA [ p . ~ . is ] yam Sziph (1?D-n;), referring usually to the western arm between Sinai and Egypt (Ex. 10 19 [J] 13 18 [E] and often). Sea of Siiph ’ also may be simply ‘ the sea,’ when the reference is clear from the context (Ex. 14 1626 [E], and often); also ‘sea of Egypt’ Is. 11 15). I n I K. 926 TWO: denotes the gulf of ‘Akaba; cp the parallel expression ‘Eloth on the shore of the sea‘in the land of Edom’ (2 Ch. 8 17). iii. Of local importance and often mentioned is the ‘ Salt Sea ‘ - i e . , the Dead Sea. n& 0: (Gen. 14 3 Josh. 3 16 [JE], etc.), called also “sea of the ‘ArabbHh’ (nxiy:, p,), Josh. 3 16 Dt. 3 17 2 K. 14 25, etc.; ‘the front (=eastern) sea,’ ’!bls: Pa, Ezek. 4718 Zech. 148 Joel 2 20 (see hinder sea, above, 5 2, begin.); and simply 0;’ (Is. 168 Jer. 4832). iv. More rarely we hear of the ‘ Sea of Chinncreth’ or ‘ of ChinnErdth ’ ( = Lake Gennesaret, Sea of G.il;lee), nl?? n;, Nu. 3411 Josh. 1327 [both PI, and nil!? E;, Josh. 12 3 [Dl ; simply p,, Dt. 33 23 (see CHINNERETH, GENNESAR). These seas are thus known under slightly varying names in all O T times. The O T knows nothing of the Euxine and Caspian Seas, and nothing of the smaller but nearer lakes of Van and Urumiyeh. Its acquaintance with Magog and the early history of Gomer, as well as with NE. Assyria and E. Armenia, is therefore imperfect, or else its intercst in these great sheets of water is not sufficient to secure mention of them. It is possible that t h e Persian Gulf is to be recognised in the phrase ‘desert of the Sea ’ ( q - y n ) , Is. 21 I (so Di. ; but the text is. - . doubtful ; see Che. S D O T ) . The phrase ‘from sea to sea‘ occurs three or four times (D:? O;-lv, Am. 8 I Z Zech. 9 IO Ps. 728; cp 0n ; :n Mic. 7 12) marking the limits of the region from which the Jewish exiles will return (in Mic. 7 12 read ‘ from-sea to sea ’), and of the dominion of the great future king of Israel (Zech. 9 IO Ps. 72 8). In Am. S 12, however, if the passage be genuine, the two seas intended will be the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. It is true this seems. an improbable designation of the boundaries of the northern kingdom. Hence (and for other reasons ; see AMUS,8 14) Am. 8 ~ r f :may be a later insertion. The general term sea (or seas), as a comprehensivename for the watery portion of the earth‘s surface, is. a late idea. The contrasted idea is that of dry Zand, which, in the cosmogony of P , is thought of as having emerged to view by the process of collecting within certain limits the waters that originally covered the entire earth (see Gen. 1 9 f: 2 1 8 Job 3 8 8 1 6 Ps. 6935 899 1 0 4 6 8 Prov. 829 Eccles. 17, etc.). Rivers played an important part in t h e 6’Rivers‘ history of O T times. Of foreign rivers the most important are the Euphrates and the Nile. i. The Euphrates is often simply ‘ the river.’ ,?:n Euphrates (Gem 2 14 [J]), n?$l?I (Gen. 15 18 [J] Dt. 1 7 11 34 Josh. 1 4 [D], etc.), ‘ the River,’ l?j,?o (Gen. 31 21 Ex. 23 31 Nu. 22 5 Josh. 24 zf: 14f: [all E l 2 S. 10 I6 Is. 7 20 I K. 4 24 [a 41’ 14 15 Jer. 2 18, etc.) : less often, redundantly, the river, the river Euphrates’ (Dt. 1124) and ‘ the great river, the river Euphrates’ (Gen. 15 18 Dt. 1 7 Jos’h. 14); it is called 0,because of its Vastness and might (Jer. 51 36 [Graf, not Gie.], and according to Uel. also Is. 21 I). The people believed that across the Euphrates lay their early home (Josh. 242J 14f: [E]). On the question of the earliest historical seats of the Israelites, see I SRAEL , $. 18; EXODUS i., 113; HEBREW,0 I. A RAM -N AHARAIM (Gen. 24 IO, etc. [J]) contains certainly a reference to the Euphrates; it became the ideal boundary of their land on the NE. (Gen. 1518. [JE] Dt. 1 7 1 1 2 4 Josh. I 4 [all D]), a boundary which,
1687
1688
2
~0
~~
~
GEOGRAPHY according to Israel’s tradition, Solomon for a time realised ( I K. 4 21 [5 I] 424 6s; [5 41) ; not only did the crossing of it make an epoch in the individual life (Jacob, Gen. 3121 [E]), but the Euphrates formed also a real boundjuy between the Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms and the territory to the W. Just as, on the one hand, we find Assyrian kings noting with care the fact of a passage of the Euphrates (see, e.g., C O T on I K. 201) as a departure from their own soil, so on the other, the challenging Egyptian army under Necho went thither against Assyria ( z K. 23z9), and of Nebuchadrezzar’s conquest it is said that ‘ the king of Baby. lon had taken, from the ‘ river of Egypt ’ [see EGYPT, R IVER OF] unto the River Euphrates, all that pertained to the king of Egypt’ (z K. 247) ; and so we have the promise of the return of scattered Hebrews ‘ from Egypt even to the River ’ (Mic. 7 12). The Euphrates became in poetical usage one of the boundaries of the known world, in the phrase ‘from the River unto the ends of the earth’ (Ps. 728=Zech. 910). ii. THE N ILE is known as i k i , i i y , a word of Egyptian origin meaning streurn (see EGYPT, § 6), but usually employed in the O T with the art. as a proper name. So in Gen. 41 I 3 18 Ex. 122 Am. 8 8, and often ; in Am. 8 8 9 5 it occurs also as p w n ’IN-(Nile), stream ofEgy;bf, and in Is. 19 5 Nah. 38 bis even as 0 9 ; cp Is. 27 I and ~ 3 ~ Ezek. 9 , 32 2. Although the Nile was historically less important (to the Hebrews) than the Euphrates, the references to it show a more intimate and particular acquaintance. It was bordered by reeds or sedge (VI!, Gen. 41 2 18 [see FLAG, 21; qqD, Ex. 2 3 5 [see FLAG, I]; cp ?I!.$ [see REED,I ] and ID, Is. 196) and by meadows (nil!, Is. 197 [see REED, 21); it was divided into arms, branches, or canals, D!??! ’lk: (Is. 7 IS), lis? 7.k; (Is. 19 6), ‘Nile-streams of Egypt’ (cp SHIHOR OF EGYPT). it was used for bathing (Ex.2 5 ) ’ its water for drinking (E;. 7 1821 24); it had fish (Ex. 7 21 1s: 198 cp Ekek. 29 4) and frogs (Ex. 8 3 [7 281 8 g X I [5 71)-all in JE Gassages of Hex: ; it had its periods of rising and falling (Am. 88 9 5 ) ; it occasioned abundant crops-hence the phrase ‘the seed of Shihor the harvest of the Nile’ (Is. 233 but on the text see SB0T)‘Isaiah’); the drying up of the &le was therefore the worst calamity for Egypt, Is.1958 (lX,‘river,’ is applied to the Nile only in Is. 19 5). On the ‘rivers of Cush’(1s. 18 I Zeph. 3 TO) see CUSB, 5 I. iii. The Tigris (H IDDEKE L ), being mentioned in only two books, can be treated more briefly. Gen. 214 [J] mentions the Tigris as one of the Eden rivers. The description (which is probably later than the mention of the name) is as follows : ‘ This is the one that flows in front of Assyria.’ Dan. 104 is the only other passage which refers by name to the Tigris ; it is noteworthy that the Tigris is here styled ‘ the great river’ (elsewhere the Euphrates) ; in Dan. 125 dis, 6 5 it is called lkl-another indubitable sign of late date. This scanty reference to so important a stream cannot fail to surprise us. Even more strange is it, however, that the nearer river Orontes is entirely ignored. Nor do we hear the names of Araxes and Kyros ; the Oxus and the Indus are as little known as the Ganges, the Danube, or the Tiber. The most easterly stream mentioned is the Elamite river U LAI (T.V.), and that not until the second century B . C . (Dan. 82). iv. Within a narrower area the water-courses or ‘ wiidys ’ Ital. ).iumnrn) attracted attention, being especially characteristic of Canaan and the adjacent territory, and conditioning its development. As the Euphrates was the ideal limit of Israelitish domain on the NE., so a ravine (and its stream) served the same purpose on the SW. This is the Wedy rZ-‘Arish, the natural frontier of Palestine towards Egypt (see E GYPT , ii.), described by Esarhaddon (Del. Pur. 311) as ’ the wiidy of Egypt where there was no river.’ The term naAaZ mat M u p r (‘wiidy of Egypt’) exactly represents pqrd $”, and we have a right to be surprised to find the phrase o*yyn mj,,in Gen. 15 18 (JE?). The subject is treated elsewhere (EGYPT, RIVER OF); but the present writer may express his opinion that iaj is an error of the text (observe
($a=
55
1689
GEOGRAPHY la? almost immediately afterwards) for \a!. roir rroTapo.oir for the usual xcip&ppou, or as in yo9 ; but it has aorapoir also in I K. 86;
True, 65 has dlrb Josh. 154, +&pay-
Few but the most familiar mountains or mountain Outside of Palestine ranges are brought hefoie us. the most famous mountain is that con6. nected by tradition with Moses (see S INAI ), NE. from which lay Mount S EIR (strictly, the mountain region of Seir). See also H O R , PISGAH, A RARAT , $ 3. That Mt. Taurus should be ignored is surprising, for this was the barrier between Syria and Asia Minor. Nor is anything said of Mt. Zagros, NW. of Media ; or of the Elamitic and Susian mountains. The Caucasus would be beyond the Israelitish horizon. Of deserts (lalo) as an important feature of the earth’s . 7. Deserts. surface the Hebrews were well aware (see D ESERT ). i. There were among them (see E XODUS i., zf.) early recollections of the sparsely populated regionoffering pasturage yet often desolate and wild, and not the natural home of a settled people-stretching from their own southern border farther southward to Elath and to Sinai, forming the western boundary of Edom, and extending SW. to the confines of Egypt. This is the ‘wilderness’ or desert referred to in Gen. 146, with which compare Gen. 2121 (E, ‘Ishmael dwelt in the wilderness of Paran‘), Nu. 1216 (E, a station in the wanderings), 10 12 ( P , distingnished from, and bordering on, the ‘wilderness of Sinai’), 133 (whence explorers were sent out), 26 (both P ; the addition of Kadesh in ZJ. 26 seems to be from R). It was, according t o the representation of P and D, in the desert of Paran that Israel spent most of the forty years of its wandering (see W ANDERINGS ). I t is called ‘the desert of Edom (oiiw imp) in z K. 38. Abutting on the desert of Paran ( j y ) on the N. seems to have been ‘ the desert of,Beer-sheba’ (Gen. 2114 [E]). I n P the more comprehensive name of the desert N. of Paran was the ‘desert of S i n ’ (jy-iS7p ; see ZIN); it was the southern limit of the land explored by the spies (Nu. 1321, cp 343), and in it laylcadesh (201 27146is, 3336 Dt. 3251; see on the other hand Nu. 1326, above). S. of the desert of Paran lay the desert of Sinai (see above), mentioned by name in Ex. 19 ~ f Lev. . 7 38 Nu. 1I 19 and eight times more in P, commanded by the Sinai group of mountains; NW. of that, toward Egypt, lay the desert of Sin (not s i n ) , j y z l & Ex. 1 6 1 (between Elirn and Sinai) 171 Nu. 3311 f. (all P). The portion of the desert immediately bordering on Egypt is in the older tradition connected with Shur (Ex. 1 5 2 2 [JE]), and in the later with that of Etham (Nu. 338 ; cp Ex. 1320, both P). Nearly the same seems to be meant by ‘ the wilderness of the Red Sea’ (Ex. 1318 [E]) and the wilderness by the way of the Red Sea’ (Dt. 140 21). The simple term ‘the wilderness’ is applied, now to the whole ‘desert of the wandering‘ (Ex. 2331 [E], etc.), now to a particular part ( e . $ , Ex. 1 6 2 f. and often), subject to the ordinary principles of clearness. ii. Of the great Arabian Desert we hear comparatively little, and that little relates to its western edge. ‘ T h e desert which is before Moab, on the sunrise side,’ it is called in Nu. 21 11 [JE]. In Judg. 1122 the wilderness (imlmn) is the (eastern) limit of Israelitish territory E. of the Jordan ; ‘ like a steppe-dweller in thedesert,’Jer 3 2,is a sirnileof lying in wait ; Jer. 26 24 speaks of ‘all the kings of Arabia and all the kingsof the border tribes that dwell in the desert’ (G<e., Co. emend text by excision ; cp ; but the reference to the desert remains). From the desert comes the east wind (Hos. 13 15 Jer. 4 11, cp Job 119). The Sabzeans’ of Ezek. 23 42 must, however, be given up, and perhaps the whole reference in that verse to ‘ the wilderness ’ or ‘desert’ (which without the Sabreans loses its value for our present purpose). Some familiarity with this desert is indicated also by the allusion to the ostriches in Lam. 4 3 Job 39 1 3 8 The ‘wilderness of Damascus,’ I K. 19 15 is the upper part of the same desert (if text and transl. are’right; see KINGS the Syrian Desert. This ia BOOKOF, 5 8 ; HAZAEL)-i,e., T i .
(‘??xs)
1690
GEOGRAPHY deno!ed also by the descriptive phrase ‘(Tadmor) in the wilderness (2, Ch. 8 4), after which I K. 9 18 Kr. has been shaped. t& original T AMAR (p.u.) of I K. 9 18 does not allow such a; inference. The verses just cited (it maybe observed in passing) show that cities might flourish in the midst of ‘ desert ’-see also the other late passages Josh. 15 61f: 20 8 (all P) I Ch. G 78 1631 not to mention Is. 42 ;I. (On smaller deserts in the W. Jordai teriitory cp P ALESTINE .) Even this imperfect survey shows that the Hebrews had no great interest in geography as such. The various 8. Foreign characteristics of the earths surface were countries. not noticed or thought of by then1 except as they came into some direct relation with their own life. T h e poetic imagination no doubt often laid hold of natural phenomena, and has leit us some vivid pictures. From the nature of the case, however, these are general, not specific. The spirit of exact scientific observation does not appear. Such reports as may have reached Israel of the nature of the countries in which the more distant nations dwelt seem to have made little impression. Outside of their own experience they were more concerned with persons and peoples than with soil and mountain-peak and stream, with desert and sea. Among the first countries with which we should expect to find the Hebrews making (or renewing) acquaintance would be Egypt and Ethiopia. Egypt* T h e latter country (the African Cush) seems to have come within their ken i n the eighth century n
GEOGRAPHY knowledge of the country E. of the Euphrates fromfragmentary tradition to definite acquaintance, Direct contact with Babylonia began after the fall of the N. kingdom with the famous embassy of MERODACHBALADAN to Hezekiah. Contact with Assyria naturally began earlier. In the historical books the name appears first in z K. 151929. which tells that Tiglath-pileser (HI.),= Pul, devastated (x.c. 734) the same northern districts that Benhadad had ravaged 175 years earlier (Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh [of Naphtali]) and Gilead as well (cp his own record, C O T ad Zoc.) ; but Israel had already learned to know Assyria in the previous century under A HAB and J EHU (9q.w.). Amos does not name it (but see AMOS, col. 149, foot); yet he certainly refers to it (614), and the expectation of the coming of the Assyrians underlies his book. Hosea names it often (513 7 1 1 8 9 9 3 106 115 11 121 [ z ] 1 4 3 [4]). I t is even possible that Shalmaneser IV. (z K. 173) is referred to in Hos. 1 0 1 4 as Shalman (see B ETH - ARBEL ). W e f i i d Assyria in Micah (55 [4]$, cp 7m), and abundantly in Isaiah (718 201 etc.). Nahum’s prophecy is devoted to an announcement of its overthrow (cp Zeph. 213); 2 K. l i 1 - 6 gives the account of Samaria’s fall befare it, and the deportation of the inhabitants to various places in the Assyrian empire. It need hardly be said that the Hebrews, so far as we know, made no atte1npt 1 0 COllntrllCt n mnp ll~l. No of thc \VOl!d. TP.L
._.L^_I
I , ILlCy
nau U V l l t :
maps. so, it would doubtless have appeared to us grotesque enough. Even the comparatively sober geographical data of Eratosthenes (3rd cent. B. c. )and Strabo (near the beginning of the Christian I n d i a era ; see the accompauying reproduction), who combined all the information they, could procure, with painful labor. iousness, yieia maps quite recognisable, it is w a Y a ( k c y b B o u ~ u ~ ‘true, s ~ but much distorted. Strabo’s Map of the World. After C. Miiller. Hebrew cartographers of (Am. 97, and especially Is. 181b Zeph. 3 1 o l Is. 203-5 the seventh or the fifth century B.C. would have pro[but cp I SAIAH , BOOK OF, 3 g, beg.] z K. 19g), when duced much more astonishing maps, we may be sure, the 25th- Ethiopian-dynastywas making itself felt in Attempts have been made to construct maps of the Palestine,2 An increased familiarity with Egypt is also world as known to the Hebrews, or a t least of the central portion of it, on the basis of the description of attested by the writings of the prophets. Eden and its rivers in Gen. 2.l These attempts are Isaiah (304) refers to ZOANand HANESHosea (9 6 * cp Jer. 2 16 etc.) to Moph or Noph-ie., Memphkand Nadum (38), interesting in a high degree; but the data are not with great particularity, to the Egyptian Thebes (NO-AMON, suficient in amount or in certainty to make them secure. [q.~.],Ass. Ni-i, cp Egypt nt ‘city,’ Steindorff BAS 1 5 9 6 8 ; The utmost we can say is that one or two of them are for later references to No = N o - Amon, see Jer. 4625, Ezek. 3014.16). Such remoter neighbours of Egypt as Put quite possible. At best they can claim to give only the (~73; seeonGen. 106 below, 5 m)also, and Lubim(n’$ Libyans view of one writer, at a single period. The four maps given here (after col. 1696) have a much more -if it he not the same as Lehabim [D’& Gen. lo13 [see below, modest aim. They are meant simply to indicate theactual regions 5 15141) occur for the first time in Nah. (39). 011 the earth‘s surface as now known which were embraced by Hebrew knowledge at different periohs. For purposes of comI t was, singularly enough, the Babylonian conquest parison at least, thesemayperhaps bequite asuseiulasanattempt of Tudah that made many Tudzeans better acquainted to conshuct such as the Hebrews themselves would have drawn. lo: Babylonia with Egypt. The fear caused’by the Little interest as the Hebrews had in geography in and AsSyria. murder of G EDALIAH led a large the abstract, they could not remain impervious to the remnant of the Deode to flee into lid.Geographi- influences which were enlarging their Egypt(Jer. 41 17f: 43r-7), and then began the familiarity linowledge of the world, nor wholly with Egyptian cities exhibited by Ezekiel. Of course, this Lists. escape the impulse to systematize that was but a small part of the geographical debt which the knowledge. The most conGincing ev-idence of this Hebrews owed to the Babylonians and (we may now appears in the lists which tabulate it in some detail. add) the Assyrians. Contact with these nations did These lists were arranged on a genealogical scheme, more than anything else to change their geographical representing assumed racial connection, or contiguity or 1 See especially Haupt SBOT, ‘ Isa.,’ note on 18 I ; PAOS, 1 These words at least in this disputed verse may be original. 2 In Nu. I2 I z S.18 ZIA,etc., it is only a question of isolated Mar. ’94,p. ciii. : U b a l n n d u . Meey, 1894-5,no. r5 (withmap). individuals (see CUSH,2 G ; CUSHI,3). Cp also WlMM Asien w. Euro& 2 5 2 3
..
.~
. _
1691
1692
GEOGRAPHY
GEOGRAPHY
historical association (see Di. Gen. 168); see G ENE ALOGIES i., § ~ f .They were compiled by the same hands tfiat undertook the story of the national life. The motives underlying the lists can be only conjectured. An interest in geography pure and simple was hardly one of these motives, although the geographical order is here and there discernible in the arrangement of names. The names are usually those of peoples, and it would be more exact to call the lists ethnographical. They appear to represent the circle of peoples (arranged with some regard to locality) which at the time fixed the attention of the authors. Their purpose is not the same as that of the Assyrian catalogues of trihutaries, or the more formal Egyptian lists of foreign cities and tribes. In those we have chiefly the parade of conquest: The Hebrew lists show a much more impersonal, or at least more dispassionate, interest. They include peoples with whom the Hebrews had no practical concern, and their own conquerors are named with perfect calmness. All indications point to an intellectual purpose. The impulse to write history was already at work, and with it the desire of providing a setting for the history, which should present what was known of other peoples, and indicate their organic relations. The first consecutive list of this kind appears not earlier than the end of the ninth century. Israel was firmly established in its own land,- had a fixed point of observation. David had made it compact and powerful. T h e commerce and foreign relations of Solomon had led the thoughts of the people outside their own land. T h e Phcenicians were followed, in thought, as they traversed the Mediterranean, and their reports were heard in Jerusalem as well as in Samaria. The national self-consciousness was beginning to assert itself-even although the political life was divided-so as to develop'the historical instinct, and lead to the recognition of other peoples as historical units, like themselves. Finally, a great new power was looming u p on the eastern horizon. All these circumstances contributed to the formation and systematic arrangement of historico-geographical ideas. 'The document which embodies such an arrangement is the genealogical table of the descendants of Noah's three sons in Gen. 10. This is really a list of the peoples which, at the time of the writers, seemed of consequence. The chapter is not homogeneous. It is formed by the union of two distinct lists of different dates. The older (J) was probably compiled about 800 B. C. ; the younger ( P ) perhaps 350 years later. There is great unanimity among critics in assigning to P vv. 1-7 20 z z x , 313, and practical unanimity also as to J (vv. 8-19 21 25-30); the (slight) divergences relate to the different layers of J, and to the work of the Redactor, to whomv. 24 is assigned by almost all. Neither list is preserved in its original form. The lists of J and P afford the framework for a geographical scheme. When we attempt to conibine 12n. Develop- these with the other data, however, for the purpose of tracing the growth of merit Geography. geographical knowledge among the Early Period. Hebrews, we are met by difficulties which can be surmounted only in part ; our results must often be provisional. The nature of our sources is such that it is impossible to he always sure at which point in the history a given geographical fact first appeared. The documents have passed through so many hands, that conceptions of different dates may easily be present. Conversely eographical ideas may have existed long without finding expr;s$on in the surviving literature. Especial difficulty attaches to a clear representation of the geographical horizon in the early period. Very early documents are few and the later accounts of early matters have to be received with hiscrimination. Each particular statement must he carefully weighed, and the probabilities considered. Direct Egyptian and Canaanitish influence on early geographical knowledge in Israel is an unknown quantity. We cannot jump to the conclusion that the Amarna tablets imortant as they are, represent knowledge which was, or speidily {ecame, the common property of the Hebrew invadersa century or two later. By degrees, no doubt, much geography known to the Canaanites would he appropriated by the new-comers, hut how much, and how long it took, we are wholly without means of deciding. Uncertainty meets us also as to the amount of genuine geographical material in t h i tradkons of early nomadic wanderings. We are quite in the dark as to Hebrew contact with the Hittites and the Aramaeans between the conquest and David's time. In these circumstances it has seemed wisest, both in the following descriptions and in the accompanying maps, to deal somewhat rigidly with the materials, and to require a maximum
of evidencefor the facts presented. A careful student will be able to expand the area of certainty, as evidence may seem to justify. I t would appear that to the generations following the Hebrew settlements in Canaan the outside world was of little consequence. The unanimity of traditions pointing to Egypt compels us to regard acquaintance with that country as among their earliest possessions. There is no reason to think that they had any hut the vaguest ideas of Africa to the W. and S. of Egypt. The same is true of the lower shores of the Red Sea and the interior of Arabia. T h e roving Amalekites on their southern border, the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, to the SE. and E., were of course in full view. Midian, on the eastern side'of the eastern branch of the Red Sea, was closely associated with their early wanderings, and was looked upon as Israel's half-brother (Gen. %zf.), and the story of Gideon preserves an account of a desperate conflict with a branch of the same people-predatory Bedouin, like the Amalekites, during the time of the Judges (see MIDIAN). There were traditions of an early Aramaean home, and even, as there seems no good reason to doubt, of a still earlier one in Babylonia ; local traces of Babylonian influence in Canaan may have revived and confirmed these traditions; but they can hardly have been outlined with geographical clearness. As to the northern boundary of Hebrew knowledge in this period our sources are very scanty. The one great literary monument of these troubled years, the Song of Deborah, composed in the N., and dealing with events in the N., does not carry us beyond the immediate vicinity of the plain of Megiddo. Hazor is mentioned in Judg. 4-a good source of the second order-as also in Josh. 11 (JE), and Judg. 131 33 (cp Josh. 118) carry us northward on the coast as far as Sidon. Hints a t wider knowledge of northern geography are afforded only by late documents. Reminiscences of Egyptian campaigns may n o doubt have preserved on the soil the names of northerly regions ; but from the Hebrew documents themselves we cannot derive, for this period, any acquaintance with territory northward of a line joining Sidon, Lebanon, and Hermon. On the W. the sea was the limit. There is no evidence that in this period the Hebrew mind ventured across it. If the first intercourse with Phoenicia brought knowledge of Phcenician traffic, no trace of this knowledge has been left in the records of the early time. A much more extended area and a more detailed acquaintance with Babylonia and with AramEan localities must he recognized for this period if we could suppose that Gen. 14 represents knowledge in the possession of the Hebrews at this time, whether due to their own ancient tradition, or to local history appropriated by them after the conquest. The question of the existence in this noteworthy chapter of good historical material cannot be discussed here (see GENESIS 5 sa). It is quite possible to answer the question in the hirmative, and at the same time to maintain, as the evidence requires us to do, that the chapter cannot be used as a source of information for the geographical knowledgeof the time of the Judges. CpLehmann, Alto% Chron. p. 84 ('98). The advent of the Philistines, the alliances and 126. Geographicalconquests of David, and the alliances knowledge in and luxury of Solomon widened the cent. B.D. Hebrew horizon, and filled in spaces which were nearly or quite vacant. David's wars (see D AVID , § 8) with Hadadezer and his allies must have axorded some definite acquaintance with the Aramaean country as far as the Euphrates. Maacah, Geshur, Zohah, Hamath, and Damascus now grew familiar. Mesopotamia became a neighbour. David's friendship with Hiram of Tyre must have led to knowledge of lands beyond the sea, and the Philistines brought with them to the shores of Canaan the news of Caphtor as their early island home: Caphtor is with
1693
1694
1 Ur Kasdim in J (Gen. 1128 15 7) cannot be discussed here (see UR [i.]). The present writer believes that fewer difficulties are occasioned by regarding it as original with J and as representing old tradition, than by denying either of tdese things.
GEOGRAPHY
GEOGRAPHY
received trihute from the Mediterranean cities. Of direct conprobability identified by most scholars with Crete with Israel we do not hear ; but the silence of the Hebrew ,(see PHILISTINES ; but c p CAPHTOR, CHERETHITES).~ tact records cannot prevent us from saying that, with the intimacy As the Philistines were new-comers, some report of their between Phcenicia and the house of Omri, then on the Israelitish .origin would naturally spread at once ; hence, although the throne, Israel must have learned lessons in Assyrian geography name of Caphtor does not appear till the eighth century, it is from ABur-nagir-pal. We cannot of course tell how far even the probable that it was known under David and Solomon. names of territories overrun by him on the remote Assyrian Solomon’s reign enlarged the Hebrew world still borders-Kummuh the MuSki, the Nairi-lands, the regions of the Upper and th;’Lower ZPh, and the rest-became known in more. That there were variant traditions of the extent Palestine : but Eastern Mesopotamia, the Tigris and its cities, .of his kingdom appears from I K. 5 4 compared with must have begun to take a place in Hebrew thought. 5 5 (EV 42425) and with 1124 : we cannot even tell Shalmaneser 11. (860.825 B.c.) whom Ahab’s men faced, under Benhadad, in 854, and who r&eived tribute from Jehu, must whether the Euphrates was sufficiently known in have continued the geographical teaching begun by his father. .Solomon’s time to justify the mention of Tiphsah RammBn-nirari 111. (812.783 B.c.) brought it apparently still (Thapsacus) in the late passage I K. 5 4 [424]. T h e closer home, for not only Phenicia and Israel, hut also Philistia and Edom recognised his sovereigntyby tribute, and since prohmention of ‘ Tadmor ’ ( L e . , Palmyra) in 2 Ch. 8 4 is at ably the former, and certainly the latter, in its mountain any rate valueless for the time of Solomon (see T AMAR ). fastnesses, would hardly do so without previous personal contact, On the other hand, the probable emendation of I K. we must suppose, either that two streams of Assyrian invasion 1028f. which finds there a mention of the northern enclosed Judah on the E. and on the W., or, if Edom was reached by the western route that the southern border of Judah lands Mu+ and Kue as the source of the Hebrew was skirted. In any case, h; the middle of the eighth century, supply of horses (see MIZRAIM,, z [a], CHARIOT, 5, at which time, certainly J’s geographical survey was complete, col. 726, n. I ) , brings us to the very foot of the Taurus the kingdom of Judah,’ in which J wrote, had facilities nearly as ample as those of Israel for knowing the main features of mountains. S. of which the Syrian &‘up+ lay, and even Assyrian geography. Judaean embassies were, it is true, not through the mountain-passes of the Amanus into Cilicia, yet passing to and fro carrying tribute, and bringing hack new to which 4-ue belonged (see CILICIA,5 2 ) . impressions and the stbries of strange lands, hut the knowledge A still more notable extension of geographical gained in this way by their neighbours would in the course of time naturally become theirs. .knowledge took place toward the S. If the story Shalmaneser 11. and his successors had come into close of the visit from the queen of Sheba stood by itself it relations with Babylonia, and ancestral tradition would lead the might not be enough to assure us of the actual acquaintHebrews to an especial interest and even inquisitiveness regarding it, which would result in some familiarity with local names ance of Solomon’s time with Southern Arabia. But while by no means yielding precise and full knowledge, or disl -the impulse given to exploration and commerce by pelling the mystery overhanging that ancient Semitic home. Solomon’s luxury led to the fitting out of ships on the T h e first part of J’s list that is preserved to us looks gulf of ‘Akaba, which sailed away southward o n long toward the E. It begins abruptly with a summarized cruises, bringing them into close contact with the statement regardingan individual monarch 13a J’s f; Babylonia-NIMROD [q. v.], son of Arabian shores. Besides the various tropical products (not all quite certain; see APES, GOLD, I VORY, ush. T h e sites of BABYLON and ERECH O PHIR, P EACOCKS), with which they contributed to the are well known: those of ACCAD and CALNEH ( I ) :splendour and the entertainment of the court, they are not yet identified. Shinar (ipw) most probably brought reports of distant lands, and whether or not represents the Babylonian &mer, or its dialectic variation OPHIR (4.v.) was in Arabia, it is certain that at least 5ungEr.l Whether the term land of Shinar ’ in Gen. Arabian territory bordering o n the Red Sea must have 1010 includes all Babylonia, from the sea northward, been observed and described. T h e same is true of the we cannot however say. Another tradition preserved African shore of the Red S e a ; how much further S. by J makes a plain ( q p p ) ‘ in the land of Shinar ’ the a n d E. the new knowledge stretched we cannot tell, and scene of the building of Babel, and of the sudden the voyagers themselves may have been as ignorant of dispersion of the race (Gen. 111-9 : see B A BEL ). T h e the real geographical relations of Ophir a s Columbus only contribution made by this passage t o the vexed and his sailors were in regard to the West Indies ; but question as to the geographical limits of Sum& consists i t is quite certain that a large extent of the earth‘s in the requirement that it shall contain both Babylon surface, before unknown, must from that time onward and Erech. Familiarity with the name is indicated have been taken into the more or less definite concepespecially by the expression ‘ a goodly mantle of tions of the edncated Hebrews. Shinar ‘ (Josh. 7 21 [JE] ; see RVmg.); ‘ land of Shinar ’ I t is probable that those conceptions now embraced occurs also in Zech. 5 11 Dan. 12, and Shinar, Is. 11 11. a t least one remote point in the W. Phcenician If J located his Eden (Gen. 2) in Babylonia, his geographical voyages, colonies, and settlements were already information concerning the region must he regarded as still opening markets in many quarters to the trade of vague. The Euphrates and the Tigris approach each other the cities from which they set out. It is likely that there, and were doubtless connected by canals ; but as to the rest the description is unrecognisahle. This however would the Phoenicians had planted themselves before the not’of itself disprove the theory that he ha$ that loc(ality in tenth century on the coast of Spain, a t Tartessus.2 mind. Without entering into the vexed question of CUSH(q.v.) Since Phoenician seamen went with Solomon’s ships, mentioned in Gen. 2 13 108, we may note here that A h - n q i r i pal and Shalmaneser 11. both encountered the Kaggites, a n d it a n d these ships are called ‘ ships of Tarshish ’-Le., is by no means impossible that in the mind of J there was large sea-going vessels, such as were fit to go t o already confusion between the KGSites and the Arabian and Tarshish.(I K. 1022,c p Is. 216)-there is a presumption African Ku5. The embassy of Merodach-baladan to Hezekiah (2 K. ZO), at the end of the eighth century, although it seems to i n favour of some Hebrew knowledge of Tarshish in presuppose some mutual acquaintance, was plainly a novelty, Solomon’s time (although I K. 10 was written much and is quite consistent with much mutual ignorance, as well. ([i.] q.v.) is admittedly Tartessus. later), and TARSHISH T h e assignment of the beginning of Nimrod’s Solomon’s fleets were not successfully imitated by his kingdom to Babvlonia. and the stress laid on the ” successors ; but a new agent now appears. After these 136. J’sAsSyria, subsequent founding of Assyrian cities, fleets the strongest influence in enlarging 12c. In Sth the Hebrew view of the world was the points to a n ultimate Assyrian source cent’ B*C’ westward extension of Assyrian power. for a t least vv. 10-12. ASSor, E V ‘Asshur’ (i?k&),is undoubtedly here, as in 2 14 and elsewhere, the country That. power took a fresh start under ASur-na$r-pal (885,860 B.c., see ASSVRIA, 5 3r), who marched to the Mediterranean,and of Assyria (see especially ‘ land of Assyria,‘ parallel with ‘land of Nimrod’ Mic. 5 6 [SI), not the old capital 1 The question of the identification of Caphtor is connected AHur on the W. bank of the Tigris (at Kal‘at-Sherk2.t with that of the origin of the Philistines, who are derived thence in Am. 9 7 Jer. 47 4 and probably Dt. 2 23. For recent evidence about 45 m. below Ninirad; see ASSYRIA,0 5 ) . that the Philistines came from Crete, see A. J. Evans, Creta% 1 Paul Haupt, ‘ Ueber ein Dialekt der Sumerischy Sprache ’ Picfopa@hs(‘95), 9 9 8 3 Strabo i 3 2 [481 says that the Phcenicians had sailed beyond GGN, 1880, no. 17 ; Akkadische Spyache, 1883 ; AkkadiscLe u. Sumerische Keilschrift-texte’= Ass. Bihliofhrk, Bd. 1(‘SIX); the Pillars’oi Hercules soon after the Trojan war. Cp iii. 2 1 2 8 Del. Par. 198 ; Schr. .COT on Gen. 11I ; Tiele, BAG, 7 4 8 where he speaks of Tartessus, and cites Homer’smention of it. 1696 1695
Babyionia.
,
I
I. HEBREW GEOGRAPHY IN T H E TIME O F THE JUDGES.
111. HEBREW GEOGRAPHY IN T H E 8th. CENTURY B.C.
11. HEBREW GEOGRAPHY IN T H E
10th.CENTURY
B.C.
I v . REBREW' GEOGRAPHY IN THE Sth. CENTURY B.C.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA, 1901.
i&'dkwG.BoutalZ sa
GEOGRAPHY
GEOGRAPHY
The Assyrian kingdom, like the Babylonian, is reprcand mentions Canaan and his ‘ sons.’ Verse 15 names sented by four cities (see N INEVEH , C ALAH , REHOBOTH16. J’s two of these-viz., SIDON and Heth. I R , R’EsEN),for the words, ‘that is the great city,’ in T h e Hittites, or sons of Heth, are treated Gen. 10126, which imply the view that these several cities elsewhere (see H ITTITES ). Suffice it to made up the one great Nineveh (cp Jon. 1 2 32 411,where notice that for J they are simply an aboriginal Canaanthe city is of enormous size), are probably a gloss. I t is itish people, by the side of the Phcenicians. J also who mentions the Tigris (see above, 5 , iii.). The following verses present several difficulties. Western Mesopotamia becomes familiar. Not only They contain gentilic nouns, which is peculiar,-not in dowefind t h e c i t y o f N a h o r a n d A ~ A ~ - ~ ( g~. v~. )~, l~ Aitself, I ~ for already in w. 13J the genealogical scheme besides other references to this region as of early interest has become a transparent fiction, but because of the in Hebrew migrations (Gen. 2410 ; cp 2 2 2 0 8 28 IO, disagreement in form with Sidon and Heth. In part the verses suggest the familiar list of Canaanitish etc., J ) , but the exiles of Samaria are planted by the peoples which Israel is to dispossess as contained in the account Habor (Chaboras), the river of Gozan (z K. 1 7 6 ) , and of the Exodus and march to CanAan furnished by J and D Gozan, Harran, KeSeph, (Bit-)Adini and Telassar (e.g., Ex.38 Dt.71); but in part they are different. The all figure in the conquests of Assyria (2 K. 191z), and PERIZZITES (q.v.)are wholly lacking. The Canaanites do not appear ; Canaan is here, not one among the particular peoples, all show knowledge of the same region, by the close of but the comprehensive term uniting all the rest. Heth is an the eighth century. unusual form, and is set apart from the rest of the list. There The northern border of Assyria is still obscure. At are here also five names (v. 17,f) which do not occur in the lists elsewhere, and differ from the four preceding (except the the N E corner of the Mediterranean. whilst on land we Jebusites of Jerusalem), in being plainly geographical. do not get across the Amanus, in the sea I. ‘The Arkite’ is a gentilic derived from the city name 14, J’s knowledge the island of Cyprus (Kittim) comes into Arka(Ass. Arka C O T ; mod. TeZZ ‘Arka,Burckhardt, Travels I t is not in J’s list ; but it meets us 162 ; Rob. Bk App. 183), northwaid from Tripolis at th; NW. foot of Lebanon. See ARKITE. Of the West* 2424 ( J E ) , as well as in Is. 23. 2. ‘The Sinite’ is of doubtful derivation. Del. Par. 282 I t is doubtful whether Nu.2424 belongs to an earlystratum proposes to read ‘ p c and to connect with the city Siamzu ofJE and without claiming Kittim where it first occurs in the much’ disiuted ‘oracle of Tyre’ (Is. 23 r6), we may admit (=Si&tu) ‘on the shore of the sea’ mentioned by TiglathK i t h in v. 12 as belonging to the poem, and may not pileser 111. with Arka (and Jimirm) 3 R. 946. Strabo (xvi. 2 18) unreasonably ascribe it to the hand of Isaiah. It is true that mentions a town iinna, Jerome ( Q u ~ s t t arZ . Zoc.) a civitas this would of itself take us back no further than 725 B.C. ; but the Sin; in this region and Breydenhach (Xeise, 1483) a village Syn reference to Kittim is made in such a way as to imply about 23 m. from hahy ‘Arka. See SINITE. . . previous acquaintance. 3. On ‘the Arvadite’ see ARVAD. 4. ‘The Zemarite’ is from the city Jimidra) mentioned reFrom Assyria in the NE. J’s list passes to Egypt peatedly by Tiglath-pileser 111. and his successors, 7 4 5 8 B.?. in the SW. In fhc same group are eight (Schr. COT on Gen. 1018, Del Par. 281x),and long before I” 15. J’s Egypt, etc. other peoples, marking as many territorial the Amarna letters as Sumur (Bezold, o j . cit. 155 ; otherwise Winckler op. c i f . io*);’it was known to the Greeks as urpvpa distinctions(Gen. 1013j?=1 Ch.1 IT$). (see reff.’in Di.). It is perhaps the modern Sumin .between I. First are the LUDIM, who are quite distinct from Ruid and Tripolis (Bad. PaL(3)407 ; see other reff.’ in Buhlthe L UD ( p . ~ . of ) G e n . 1 0 2 ~(P)=I Ch.117, and must GeS. Lex., s.v.)’.). Cornill restares P’!Qf in Ezek.2711 (see be sought in Africa. More we cannot say, and our GAMMADIM).. present ignorance extends to several other names in the 5. Finally ‘the Hamathite’ from the well-known city of same group. T h e very next one is an example. HAMATH (q.;.) on the Orontes; All these are places in the extreme N., and can be, 2. Of Anamim (only here, and in I Ch. 111) we in most cases, with certainty identified. know nothing geographically, and the name is not even This increases our surprise at finding: them, c p b i n e d certain textually.2 (n. 1 6 J ) with the ‘ Jebusite and the GIRCASHITE 3. K ASLUHIM , EV cASLUHIM,3 is just as obscure. ( p . ~ . and ) the H IVITE ’ ( q . ~ . )which , are either in, the See PHILISTINES. S . or are geographically vague. 4. LEHABIM perhaps =Lfibim, o q h , Libyans. ‘ The Amorite’ is a name which requires separate treatment. CWEL, however, has Aa,&ap, or Aa/3ew I Ch. [AI, whilst We may understand it to be .used here in the same sense which p q 5 is A i & m (see Nah.39 [BKAQI z Ch. 123 [BAL], 168 it bears elsewhere in the stereotyped lists of Canaanitish peoples, [BAL] ;and O??!, Dan. 1143t Baer) ;read also Lob, 275 for Heh. and assume that v. 16,as well as ‘the Hivite’ in 1). 17, IS not a part of J’s original table (see AMORITES). 213 (AV CHUB, RV CUB), Ezek. 305 ; @BAQhifives (Co. WMM The account of the sons of Canaan in J comes to an end with As. w. Eur. 115). two more general remarks : v. 18 ‘and afterward (i.e., after The passages do not help to fix the boundaries of Libya. Canaan had begotten these sons=in the course of time, b,y degrees) were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad ; v. 19 in its turn, gives the boundary of the Canaanites. It is evident from a comparison of vv. 18 and r9 that in both cases the Canaanites are the inhabitants of Canaan (Phcenician colonies, e.g., are not included). ? x h , v . 18, must therefore origination of o’nngi out of n*nana-i.e., j,’f,’m.fii; ‘northern mean ‘spread out so as to occupy the land of Canaan.’ Verses 15-18,’however, contain names ( i e . in v. 16A) which certainly land ’ (cp [ 6 ] , so Erman, Z A T W 10 I 18,f). cover substantially the Canaanitish territory; v. 186 is not in6. Pathrtisim (o$D!ns) is the gentilic from PathrBs telligible if the whole space over which they spread is already occupied by them. The characteristic names of the present list (oiing,-i.e., in Egyptian, ‘land of the S.’; in cuneiare, however, all in the N. and it seems highly probable that form, Pnttwisi), which is referred to in Jer. 441 as a the others (Jebusite Aidrite Girgashite, Hivite) are not region distinct from Migdol, Tahpanhes, and Noph, in original, hut insertedby a scride who missed the familiar forms. Jer.4415 (Graf, Gie.) and in Is. 1111 (Ba/3uAwvlas If the above criticism be sound, what J tells us is [BHAQ]) as distinct from Mizraim or Egypt, and in that the original seat of the Canaanites was in the Ezek. 30 14 among the Egyptian towns and districts N. ( = Phcenicia and Hamath), and that they spread (Noph, Zoan, No, Sin, etc.) on which judgment shall from that region over Canaan. fall. In Ezek. 2914 it is called the land of the ‘ origin ’ This obliges us to take a further step. Verse 19 cannot give the boundary of these original northern (RVmP.)of the Egyptians ( a good historical tradition). Canaanites. It does not even include them, for it goes no farther 7. On Caphtorim and (8) the Philistines see § 126. N. than Sidon and all the other names under consideration From Egypt J’s list passes northward along the coast, (Heth, Arka, Sin, Arvad, Simir, and Hamath) are to the northward of Sidon. Moreover it passes down at least as far as Gaza (reading rill:, ‘towards Gerar ’) ; but Gaza is near the 1 For a differentview see HAURAN. southern border of the Philistine territory, which must therefore 2 In Gen. aweperiecp [AI, w e p e n e w [El, a i v r i a p i a p [Ll ; in be included in the Canaanitish border ; but evidently the Ch. a v a p m p [AI awop- [Ll ; B om. Philistines are, for J not Canaanites (v. 14). 3 In Gen. X a & w m p [AI, -uho- [L], X a h o a p [El; in Ch. It appears, then, that not only the five names in 2’11. 16 17a, XauAovrap [A], - h o e ~ p [L] ; B om: but also the border-tracing z). 19, are later additions. If this is 4 ve+BaAmp [A], - h a p [ELI ; in Ch. -hip [A], -8wueip [Ll ; the case, however, the qrgl(‘spreadabroad7 ofv. 18 is no longer B om. 1698 1697
y:gu”
GEOGRAPHY
GEOGRAPHY
to be explained by ZI. 19 and may well refer to the planting of Phoenician colonies, wh[ch is more in accord with the meaning of ( e g . , Gen. 11 8f: Zeph. 3 I O Is. 241 Ezek. 11 17 and often). The next geographical reference in J is in v. 26. Verses 21-25 simply connect the Eberites with Shem, the eldest son of Noah, and fix the time of the division of the peoples. Verses 26-30 name the sons of Joktan (see J OKTAN ), and give theirlocality. The names, as far as identified, 17. J's sons prove to be Arabian (see special articles). T h e interior of the Arabian peninsula, Of Joktan* whose coast had been skirted by Solomon's fleets, was gradually disclosing itself. Hadramaut (H AZARMAVETH , Gen. 1 0 2 6 = I Ch. 120) appears for the first and only time in the OT, side by side with Sheba (see! 3): The more settled Arabian communities are coming into view. Amalek and Midian, the wilder Bedawin of the desert, have disappeared.l Verse 30 gives the limits of the territory of these descendants of Joktan :-'from El$ towards >QD the mountain of the East.' The change of Mesha to Massa @E), a branch of the Ishmaelites, is plausible. Massa would then mark the northern limit of the tribes of Yokcan. See MESHAi. Sephar, the opposite limit (l$D), must be sought in the S. if is in the N. It is usually identified (hut with doubtful warrant) with the ancient Himyarite capital Tafar, perhaps (Ges. and Buhl) the seaport of Hadramaut (near Mirbat) now called Isfar or I;&r (see SEPHAR). ' The mountain of the East' is too general an expression to give precision to undefined geographical terms (cp GOLD,$ I c). ' T h e list of J ends here. It was doubtless once fuller than it is now ; R has contented himself with a selection. The only sons of Shem to whom J devotes space, besides Eber and Peleg, are Joktan and his Arabian descendants. We miss, e g . , all reference to Aram, which J would not ignore. J has contributed only part of the materials to Gen. 10. We have now to consider the contribution of P. T h e longer the relations with Phoenicia and with Assyria continued, and the closer they became, the ,. ls. Geographical greater their effect on the geoknowledge in the graphical knowledge of the Hebrews. The fall of the Northern Kingdom 6th cent' B'C' and the settlement of foreigners in that territory meant less to them geographically than it would have done if there had been northern writers to make nse of new knowledge that the colonists brought. T h e exile of Judah took place under very different conditions, and, after the Babylonian power had passed to the Persians, the religious and literary activity at Jerusalem not only manifests a vivid acquaintance with d;otant countries before knowqonly by reports at second hand, but also shows that there were men who had learned from their own observation, as well as from the heterogeneous character of the armies which had conquered them-men who knew something of the remoter campaigns of their foreign sovereigns, and who had a growing familiarity with the traffic of the world. Accordingly the circumference of P s map is greatex than that of J. He follows a different order; hut, to aid in comparison, it will be simpler to rearrange his material, and begin, a s in the case of J , with the East. W e have particularly a wealth of eastern, northeastern, and northern details. Babylonia is of course 19.p,s Eastern familiar (see below) ; Elani (Gen. 1022) andNorthern and Susiana are now well known,Geography. Nehemiah was at home in Susa (SHUSHAN , Neh. 1 I),-Media (M ADAI ) appears often (Is. 13 17 Gen. 102 'etc. ), and had indeed probably been known for centuries ( z K. 1 7 6 ) ; it is the Assyrian Madai (Rammiin-nirari [812-783 B. 12.1-Esarhaddon [681-668]), E. of Assyria, NE. of Babylonia; its capital, E CBATANA (A CHMETHA ) is mentioned in
Ezra62. Persia appears first in Ezek. 2710 3 8 5 (see however, P ARAS ), and then abundantly in Ezra. Persia is not explicitly connected with Cyrlis before the time of the Chronicler (when it is superabnndantly joined with his name ; 2 Ch. 3622J Ezra 1 rf: 8 3 7 4 3 5). The contemporary mention of him in Is. 4428 451 does not, it is true, reveal any knowledge of Anzan, or Susiana, as his early dominion ; but neither does it displace such knowledge by the inexact substitution of Persia, which afterwards grew so familiar. P's list as preserved does not mention Babylon. I t was needless. Familiarity with Babylonia is of course a marked feature of the exilic and post-exilic literature. Besides the frequent mention of the Chaldseans from the time of their appearance before Jerusalem under Nebnchadreziar (Jer. 22 25 21 4 g etc. ) we have frequent mention of the land of the Chaldzeans. Specific mention, in Jer. 245 25 12(om. 6, Hi., Gie., etc.), also 50 I 8 25 45 51 4 54 Ezek. 1 3 12 13 ; reference, in Jer. 50 I O 51 24 35 Ezek. 11 24 16 29 23 15f: Dan. 9 I (in Is. 23 13 the text is corrupt). For the Hebrews the land of Chaldea is the land of which Babylon was the chief city. Of an earlier Chaldsean home in S. Babylonia they show no know1edge.l I t was only after Babylon became the Chald z a n capital that the Chaldaeans attained importance for Israel (Judah ; cp Merodach-baladan, z I<. 2 0 ) . Chaldaea is identified with Babylon in Ezek. 12 13 23 16,cp Jer..5Or ; see also Jer. 214 etc. In Ezek. 23 15 we have ex. plicitly 'sons of Babylon, whose home-(lit. kindred-)land is Chaldaea.' The mention of both Chaldzza(ns)and Babylon is by far most frequent in Jeremiah (Chaldaea 46 times ; Babylon 163 ; the land of Chaldza, especially Jer. 50f:) ; the expression ' land of Babel ' (Babylon) is peculiar to Jer. 5028 51 29 ; ' the kingdom of the Kasdim ' in Dan. 9 I is the kingdom of Darius. There is a reference to Southern Babylonia in the (land) MERATHAIM (rather Merathim) of Jcr. 5021, if this is equivalent to the Ass. ( m a t )mavrati, ' sea-land ' ---;.e., land on the shore of the Persian Gulf (so Del., Schr.). In what part of Babylonia P EKOD (Jer. 5021 Ezek. 2323) is to be sought is unknown ; the cuneiform Pukudu does not help us. The general situation of SHOA and K OA seems to have been determined (E. of lower Tigris). I. The absorption of Assyria into the Babylonian Empire has not prevented P and his contemporaries 20. from maintaining an acquaintance more northern countries. Eastern Geography. with Armenia (A RARAT . I ) had been introduced to the Hebrews through the account of Sennacherib's murder ( z K. 1937), was known- perhaps in a wider sense-to the author of Jer. 51 27 before the Persian conquest of Babylon, and was incorporated into P s version of the flood (Gen. 84). It has been observed [I 41, and it is not a little surprising, that neither here nor anywhere do we find biblical mention of the Armenian lakes, Van and Urumiyeh. If Arpachshad (Gen. 1022 24 ; ~ ~ ~ A R P H A X contains A D ) the name of Arrapachitis, then P s knowledge actually penetrated into the regioMhetween these lakes, and yet he does not name them. M INNI and A SHKENAZ [qg.v.] are also in Armenia, and R IPHATH and TOGARMAH at least in Western Armenia, whilst P knows G OMER [ I ] (the Gimirrai of the Assyrian inscriptions appear in Cappadocia from the time of Esarhaddon) ; see Gen. 1028 I t is plain therefore that, when P s list was made out, the Taurus and the Amanus, although still unmentioned (see above, 5 6), have ceased to be an absolute barrier. The fifth son of Japhet is Tubal, the Assyrian Tahali, and the sixthMeshech, the Assyrian MuZki(Gen. 102=r Ch. 15), almost always named together ; only in Is. 6619 does Tnhal appear without Meshech (as a distant nation ; but 6 reads Mowox for Heb. '?en, see Du., Che. SEOT, Marti), and in Ps. 1205 Meshech without Tubal ( jl or opp. Kedar). Since Bochart they ) Tibaren,. have been identified with the Moschi ( p o w p ~ and Schrader(KFG, Lc.)shows that as late as Esarhaddon the Tabali bordered on Cilicia, and that the MuZki were just NE. from them. They push up from the south like a wedge between Cappadocia and Armenia. Since thev amear in the slcond row 1 Except such as is indicated by the name UTKasdim which J hasused andwhichPrepeats(Gen.1131157, cp Neh. b,). I t is not certain, however, that P had a definite idea of the site of Ur. Still less does it ap ear that he associated the Chaldaeans specifically with S. Babygnia.
'
1 We find Midian still in the later writers of Is. 606 aud Hab. 37, where they are simply poetic representatives of distant peoples. In I K. 11 18 the text isdoubtful(Then cp Benzinger). As for Amalek if credence can be placed in I C L 442f: the last remnant of it &as destroyed in the time of Hezekiah. In Ps. 837 [E] the mention of it is in a poetic figure, either to designate present foes by the title of an ancient foe, or to describe the
character of the present ones (cp Baethgen). 1699
17m
GEOGRAPHY
.
GEOGRAPHY
of P’s northern peoples, it is now clear that P knew them before The term $5 (WF) is only here in P ; but it is characteristic they were driven faither N. See TUBAL. of the late literature, and has a consisterit, although general, Tiras(Gen.lOz=x Ch. 15) is the seventh son of Japhet’ not geographical use. The singular ’v? appears in Is. 206 used of identified with certainty; on a possible connection with) the ancient Tyrseni see TIRAS. the Palestinian coast (including Judah) and so in 23 2 6 of the On the difficdlt name ‘ Magog’ (Cen. 102) see Goc,. We can Photnician coast, and in Jer. 474 of the coastland of CAPHTC~R only infer that P set ‘ Magog’ in the N. The traditional identi(4.7~ I). in Jer. 2522 we read of ‘the kings of the coastland fication of him with the Scythians (Jos. Jer.), though without whi:h is biyond the sea’ (with kings of Tyre and Sidon). In the definite evidence, is plausible. The Scythians came down, as wider application, however, it is elsewhere pl., and is sometir.es fierce northern raiders, late in the seventh centyy (Zeph. Jer.), more sometimes less, defined. It always as far as can be and little would be known with precision about a region so disdetehned refers to coasts of the Mediter;auean. It is othertant as that from which they came. wise quite ’indefinite (of coast-lands, whether of islands or ccn2. Before passing entirely away from the N. and E. tinents, often with idea of distance) Jer. 31 IO Ezek. 26 1 5 18 6,s 273 15 35 396 Is. 41 I 5 424 IO 12 491 515 5918 609 6619 Ps. 72 I O we must notice P s account of the Ararnajans. 971Dan.llrs;fully ?:D :? ’ Is.ll1I2415Esth.101; P!lig ’:f Gen. 1023 gives four sons of Aram who in I Ch. occurs Zeph. 2 TI as in Gen. 105 ; less often the pl. is uzed of 1r7d appear as sons of Shem. Gether is unidentified. particular coasts : of Kittim Jer. 2 IO Ezek. 276, and of Elishah For Uz, the connection with Nahor (Gen. 2221) would Ezek. 277 ‘ once it means .‘islands,’ Is. 40 15 and once (if the lead us to look beyond the Euphrates, and the relation text is right; see SBOT,‘Isa.’ Heb. 201) ‘Labitable ground ’ Is. 42 15. The earliest indefinite use of the pl. is Jer. 31 IO Zepi, to Aram (Gen. 1 0 2 3 ) would make no difficulty. 2 IT ;all the others are in Is. (second and third) Ezek. Esth. Dan. The exegetical details of Job will be treated elsewhere. There and late Psalms, unless Is. 1111be an exception, which, however, is no objection to locating Uz somewhere 011 the N. side of in view of the usage, is most unlikely. See further, ISLE. the Arabian desert where indeed Ptolemy (v. 19z ) speaks of a people called the A!oira‘ who lived W. of the Euphrates. We I n v. 6 P goes on to the sons of Ham. These a r e also find Uz connected with Edom (Gen.36~8P, and Lam. 421 Knsh, Misraim, Phut, aiid Canaan. The first trto a r e [om. @I). So, too, B’s addition t o the hook of Job refers to 22. p,s Sons unquestionably African. Kush here is him as ‘dwelling in the Ausitid land on the borders of Idumrea and Ambia.’l probably the same as in Is. 181 etc. of Ham. (ai&oda)--i.e., the country S . of Eg-ypt On Jer. 2520 see Uz. Del. (Pur. 259) claims to have found the name Uz under the form ‘mat Us$ ’ on an inscription of (see ETHIOPIA). MiFraim (see MIzaA1M) has no d&Lt Shalmaneser iI. (Obelisk, 1. 154); if corr&t, U z must have been near the Orontes, but Winck. (KO1146) reads Kun(?)-uzza as substantially the same meaning as in J (I 15); Phut a man’s name. Del. (ZKF 2873) thinks of the extreme N. of occurs as early as Nahum ( 39). the Syrian desert, in the region of Palmyra;a but Lam. 4-21 Also in Jer. (469 with Kii4 and Liidim. read perhaps. opposes this. All these data cannot be made to refer to one Lubim) Ezek. (305 ’with KoH and Lud, prodably also LBb; single region ; but Robertson Smith‘s suggestion that Uz denotes see Co.’; in both these last as part of the Egyptian army; 27 10 all the scattered tribes-or rather the various tribes who with PBras [see, however, PARAS] and Liid, as in the Tyrizn worshipped the same god, ‘Aud (y,y),s a god well known to army ; 38 5 with Piras [see, however, PARAS] and KiiS as Echeathen Arabia-is not favoured by the connection of yiy with longing to the hordes of Cog) and in Is. GF 19 (Tarshish I’d Aram or with a home E. of the Euphrates, although this is not [rd. Pzit +US BQmg.1 LBd +uhal, Java.’. In Jer.4Gg);nd concdsive. Ezek. 27 io 36 03 reads)hi d s ; see Jos.; i n Nah. 39 +q+r MASH [q.v.] which occurs only here is connected by Di. .ai h@as represents D7??$ t19. ,(after Ges. Thbs.) with Mons Mas(ius), now Tzir ‘Ahdin, northOn the whole 6 points to identification with the ward from Nisibis-the mountain range separating Armenia from Mesopotamia (Straboxi. 142; Ptol. v. 18 z), which may well Libyans, or a part of them adjoining Egypt on the W. have been peopled hy Aramreans. Accepting this conjecture, we For another view see PUT. WMM As. U . Eur. 1 1 4 8 argues might proceed to identify Hiil, the remaining son of Shem, with strongly on phonetic grounds for Punt(on the African shcre of the district Ndi’n (from Ass. +u ‘sand ’?), mentioned by the Red Sea) ; but he minimizes and explains away the evilence AEur-nBTir-pal in connection with Mdns Musius (Del. Pur. 259). of 0. H e also adduces the order of names in an inscription of This, however, is uncertain. Darius (v. Spiegel A P K 54 Z. 30)‘ Putiyn KuSiya, &Iq& In the time of P light has been pouring over the W. -z.e., Punt, on t i e Red Sea codt (heginkng from the E.) KuS; -inland etc. ; but as Ynunu=Javun precedes, the orde; also. I t is possible, notwithstanding the present order from E. to W. is by no means certain. The whole matter is 21. p‘s Western of the names, that Lud, fourth son of doubtless involved and difficult. Shem (Gen. 1022))is to be identified P’s list of the sons of Migaini has not been preserved ; Geography, with Lydia, which Cyrus’s conquest knowledge of Egypt, however, although perhaps not had made familiar. Identification with ihe AfricanLud covering greater. distances than in the eighth century, (Ludim, v.13) is out of the question; and to coiinect was’ certainly more intimate, from Ta4punhes on the Lud with the Egyptian R&u (Ruten)of Northern Syria frontier (Jer. 4 3 7 8 etc., Ezek. 3018) to Thdes, far up (WMM As. u Bur. 143 3 ) is opposed by phonetic the Nile (No; Nah. 38 Ezek. 3 0 1 4 8 ; see these vv. laws (Ermnn in C O T , ad Zoc. ). The connection of Lud also for other Egyptian cities). Ezekiel (29 I O) takes Us with Shern is no insuperable obstacle to its identification as far S. as AswHn (‘from Migdol to Syene’ [read with Lydia. See L UD . Sezcdn=AgwBn]), to say nothing of Cush (see § 23). The next name (in geographical order) is quite If we reserve KEsh, the only non-African son of Ham, certain. The fourth son of Japhet is Javan = the according to P’s list (as far as preserved to us), is Ionian. In Dan. 821 1 1 2 1020, and probably in Zech. Canaan. This represents the pre-Israelitish population 913 (if the text is correct), the reference is to !he of the land which bears the same name (see C ANAAN ). Macedonian power. In Ezek. 27 13 Is. 6619 the original Passing over S EBA and H AVILAH ( Q . v . ) , we pause reference to Ionians is more prominent. See JAVAN. at the difficult tribal name SabtBh (Gen. 23’ Four descendants are assigned to Javan (Gen. 104). l o 7 , where ZI codd. have Nnxb /I I Ch. of Cush. lo,, Of these, Tarshish and Kittim, as we have seen, early [g. v . ] , which became familiar to the Hebrews ; ELISHAII Tuch and Knobi
+
~~
’” I
.
..
GEOGRAPHY
GEPHYRUN
increase in other exilic and post-exilic writers of names of tribes living in the N. Arabian and Syrian desert. I SHMAEL (q.v.) is known to J, who specifies the limits of the Ishmaelite rovings (Gen. 2518) ; but he is better known to P. I t is partly that the desert tribes encroached on former Israelitish territory, and so became known, partly that the tribes dwelling nearer Babylonia became acquaintances of the Hebrews by way of Babylon, and partly that the movements of peoples and individuals were becoming, from various causes, more frequent and extended, and general information more widely diffused. T h e population of the desert between Palestine and Babylonia became more definitely known to the Hebrews as the Jewish community was preparing to take on its later form. Of precise geographical yield there is here, however, very little. The list of Ishmael's twelve sons (Gen. 25 13 8 [PI = I Ch. 129 3 ) well illustrates the facts (see especially Di. and reff.): Such names as Kedar (Jer. 2 IO Ezek. 27 21 Is. 21 16f. etc. ) and Nebaioth (Is. 60 7 etc. ; see on these, I SHMAEL , §$ 2, 4) now begin to appear, and the prophets have .already begun to use the name AraBian with a definite significance (Jer. 2524 Ezek. 2721, see A RABIA , § I). At the end of Gen. 10 7 the list of P is interrupted by that of J. In v. 20 P reappears in a closing formula (as it does also in v. 3 r d ) . v. 2 2 3 deal with the sons of Shem (see above). With v. 23 P s list ends abruptly. I t remains only to consider a few later notices. T h e trading habits of the Jews, developed in and after 24. Thedistant the exile, not only resulted in the planting of Jewish colonies at various East in the foreign centres, such as Alexandria, Greek Period, which naturally became sources of geographical knowledge, but also doubtless led them in the track of the conquering Macedonians (cp D ISPER SI ON, § 11 J ) . W e are therefore not surprised to find, in a late book, a mention of IWDIA (Esth. 1 1 89), which marks one of the youngest geographical notes of 'the OT and the farthest eastern point reached by biblical geography. If the land of Sinim in Is. 4912 were China, the limit would be much farther eastward ; but this interpretation can no longer be maintained (see S INIM ). It will be observed that even Strabo knows nothing to the E. of India. I t is noteworthy that down to the t h e of this late reference, even after the long Hebrew contact with Babylonia and the adjacent countries to the E., there is no sign of acquaintance with the remoter Orient ; nor is there even yet any clear token of familiarity with overland trade-routes to countries as distant as India. This is quite in keeping with the silence of our Assyrian and Babylonian sources on the same subjects, and points to the conclusion that such trade-routes were opened much later, or were much niore insignificant, and perhaps shorter, than some have been inclined to suppose. T h e geography of the Apocryphal books shows the transition from the older Hebrew geography to that of 25. Apocrypha, the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. W e find much of the older eeoeraDhv continued and enlarged. Babylon is the familiar scene in Baruch, the Song of the Three Children, Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, as Media (Ecbatana, Rages) is in Tobit. The river I ~ Y D A S P ECy.v.1 S appears as a novelty in Judith 1 6 and the city of Persepolis in 2 Macc. 92. Idumea, I Macc. 42961 631 etc., is named often, Egypt occasionally (?.g.,I Macc. 111 13). In the distance are the SCYTHIANS (zMacc. 447), as an example of a barbarous people. Arabia in a wide sense is frequent (e.2.. I Macc. 1116). The names of Syria (e.$., I Macc. 11z60), COELESYRIA(e.g., I Macc. 1069, 2 Macc. 35), and Ptolemais (I Macc.51522 etc.) now appear; also the harbour of Tripolis (8th TOO ~ a Tphohrv ~ b XtpLdvos ; 2 Macc. 141),Antioch ( I Macc. 435, etc.), and Daphne near it ( z Macc. 433). As we move farther W. there is still more novelty. In the sea we have of course Cyprus ( z Macc. 1013 122) and the Cyprians (429), and Crete (e.g., I Macc. 1067) ;
on land we have Cilicia (e.g., I Macc. 1114 Judith1 7 12) and Tarsus (2Macc. 4 30) ; Asia as a kingdom (I Macc. 8 6 1113 etc. ) ; the Galatians ( 8 z ; RV I Gauls ' ). Crossing the E g e a n we have ' Alexander the Macedonia11 ' ( I Macc. 1I), and besides [T)] +j x e ~ ~ r (cp d p T ~ mpuda V K L T L ~ W Y/3aurhPa 85), in the same verse (and elsewhere) r+r 6hhd8a ; the Spartans (umcpTr&ar) appear, especially in I Macc. 122 5f: 203 W e encounter an ' old man of Athens ' in z Macc. 6 I ; but this is doubtful (see G ERON ). Especially noteworthy is I Macc. 1523, which contains a list of countries, including Sampsarnes, Samos, Rhodes, Gortyna, Cnidus, Cyrene, to which letters were sent from Rome (v. 15). The new power of Rome ( I Macc. 1IO etc. ) is often mentioned, and, farthest W. of all, the land of Spain ( I Macc. 83), T h e meagreness of reference in these books to territory E. of Media and Persia indicates in part a lack of geographical interest and in part the ignorance of the authors. The Book of Tobit, whose scene is laid in Media, shows little trace of real acquaintance even with that country. The mention of India in the additional chapters of Esther (13116 I) is a mere repetition of that in the Hebrew Esther, and that of I Macc. 88 is an F. B. obvious textual error. A survey of N T geography would take us into regions that have hitherto hardly come within view ; but such a 26. NT. survey is not necessary for the purposes of this article (see above, introduction). A large part of it would almost resolve itself into a study of the missionary journeys of Paul (see P AUL, G ALATIA ). I t is enough to refer to the wide range of his journeys in Asia Minor, Greece, and the Greek islands and lastly his journey from Jerusalem to Rome, journeys that are familiar from deservedly popular works, the latest of which is Ramsay's St. Paul the Tuavelku ( a valuable contribution). W e might almost say that to study the N T geography is to study the geography of the Roman p;ovincd of Asia. I n fact not only the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul but also the Apocalypse of John (chaps. 1-3) send us mentally on a tour of investigation in Asia. I t must not be forgotten, however, that whilst Rome could be introduced into the O T only by the Rabbinic device of taking ' Edom' as a symbol for ' Rome' (cp EDOM, § I O ) , 'Rome' itself stands written plainly again and again in the second part of the NT. Once the great missionary looks even beyond Ronienot merely to Tarshish, but to Spain (Rom. 1524 28). Thus the realised and unrealised travelling purposes of Paul embrace a large section of the Roman empire. Against his will he even visited the island of Malta, where Punic was spoken. The soil of Africa he never touched, though in a remarkable catalogue of countries of the Jewish Dispersion (Acts 2 9 J ) the ' parts of Libya about Cyrene' are mentioned, and one would almost have expected to read in the sequel that Africa as well as Asia had been visited by Christian missionaries. The Dassaze. which. as Blass remarks. is in the stvle of prophe;y, ru'nd thus, 2'Parthims and licdei niid El;;iiitcn, and the dwcllers in hlesoporami;i, in Judle:] (?)and Cnlqi:idocin, in Pontus and . k i n , in Ptirygia a i d Paniphylia, i l l Egypt iiiid the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we do hea: them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God. ' Judza ' however, is plainly a scribe's error. Jerome would read ' dyria' ; Tertullian ' Armenia ; elsewhere (see I N DI A ) ' Ionia' is proposed. There is special interest in the mention of the Jews from Parthia (see PARTHIAXS).
1703
1704
-
1
.
.
-
1
.
1
F. B.
(18 1-25).
GEON ( r H a N [BKA]), Ecclus. 2427 AV, RV G IHON ,
3 (9.v.1. GEPHYRUN (yor$ypoyN [A] om. V, Syr.), apparently the name of a city, called also Caspin (see CASPHOR),which was taken by Judas ( 2 Macc. 1213 RV) ; but the relation between the two names is obscure. The former name might plausibly be identified with the Gephyrus of Polybius (see E PHRON i , * z ) ,if the
GERA
GERASENES, COUNTRY O F THE
distance between the proposed sitesof Caspin and Ephron were not too great to permit this. Very possibly lB is corrupt (so RVmg.). Some read rrdhrv +<pais (so cod. 55. cp Vg. jirmanz pontibzls) or ys+dparv [Grot. Zo,.), where ;e$. Yight have the sense Af 'darns or mounds. AV translates, to make a bridge' (yegvpoib). GERA (Kll,, a compound of 7g? 68 ; cp Phcen. H7.3 ; r H p a [BAL]), a prominent Benjamite division to Tvhich belonged E HUD (Judg. 315), and SHIMEI,I ( z S. 1 6 5 1916 [17], I K. 28). This and the name B ECHER [y.u.] are the only Benjamite divisions mentioned in the historical books. Gera is mentioned in late genealogical lists in Gen. 4621 (@AOI. adds that he was the father of ARD) and I Ch. 835 (yepa [Bv. 51) etc. (on the complications see H. W. Hogg, J Q R 11102.114 ['98], and cp B E N JAM IN , # 9 ii. j3). I t is omitted in Nu. 2638.40. Marq. ( F m d . 22) discovers the gentilic ' N a ? in 2 S. 23 366 (MT' Bani the Gadite,' '??I) ; but see HAGRI.
the following narrative (E) with that in Gen.26(J). This is very probably correct ' otherwise we must insert 'also ' and attach the words in iuestion to 2). 2 (so Strack), a mokt undesirable expedient. The modern name Jevrir means ' pots ' ; but this is no guide to the sense of the Hebrew Gerar (cp the modern name of BEER-SHEBA). Of the two Gerars only the first is known to tradition. It is, however, not the K-ru-ru of the famous list of Thotmes III., which was hardly near Gaza ( W M M As. z. Ear. 159). Josephus apparently knows of Gerara as a Palestinian city ( A n t . i. 12 T). Eusebius mentions it as 25 R. m. S. of Eleutheropohs, and as capital of Geraritica (OS240 28 ; cp 299 74 77 80). It seems to be mentioned in the Talmud (Neub. Gdog. 65). Sozomen (Hist. 632) says that there was there a large monastery. Cp G ERRHENIANS . T. K. c.
GERAH (il?J,, prop. 'grain,' Ass. girzi, see MussArnolt ; ipohos [BAFLI, obdus [Vg.], nzri'd, zzizd [Pesh.]), Ex. 30 13Lev. 27 25 Nu. 3 47 1816 Ez. 45 rzt. See WEIGHTS AND
MEASURES.
GERAR (779, rsphpa [ADEL]), a place (and a district ?) in the extreme SW. of Palestine or, perhaps more strictly (unless a second place of the same name be meant), in N. Arabia- mentioned by J in Gen. 1019 2616 17 20 26, by E (7) in Gen. 201J (in D. z yalyapapov [E]), and by the Chronicler in z Ch. 1413 RI2l.L Yf% P A l ) . Since the time of Rowlands, it has been generally identified with the ruins called Umm eZ-Jerir, aboiit 5 m. S. of Gaza, in a deep and broad torrent-bed called Jurf eZ-JeFir (the upper^ part of the Widy Ghazzn). This identification snits 2 Ch. Z.C., where, after defeating Zerah near Mareshah (Mer'& near Bait JzbrZn), Asa pursues his foes as far as Gerar ; also Gen. 1019, where towards Gerar' is given as an alternative geographical point to 'unto Gam' (even if the latter should be a gloss, it is probably correct), and 261, where Abimelech, who resides in Gerar, is called ' king of the Philistines ' (Philistia cannot have reached much farther S. than the ' strong' city of Gaza). It is inconsistent, however, with Gen. 26z1f., where SITNAH and REHOBOTH (4.v. ) are localised in the valley of Gerar, and with Gen. 201 where ' and he sojourned in Gerar ' is an alternative geographical statement to ' and dwelt between K ADESH (i.) and S HUR ' (q4.v.) The passages just mentioned absolutely require a more southerly situation for Gerar than that proposed. by Rowlands and adopted by Robinson, Socin 143). and Miihlau (Riehm's HI.VR(2)). For these passages at any rate the site fixed upon by Trumbull (Kadesh Bamea, 6 3 J 255) and Guthe (ZDPY8215) seems indispensable. SW. of 'Ain KadZs is the Widy Jerzir, a lateral valley of the- W . esh-Sheri$, which issues into the W. e& ' A r i s h ; the name, as Robinson who describes it remarks, nearly corresponds to the Gerar of the OT. In short, it is probable that there were two Gerars, and that J , who was equally unaware of this and of the true situation of Rehoboth and the other wells, confounded them, and consequently made Abimelech a 'king of the Philistines,' which the lord of Rehoboth and Sitnah cannot have been. This view of the locality intended in the original form of the tradition, of which we have J's recast in Gen. 26, is confirmed by the version of the same folk-story given by J in his life of Abraham (Gen.l2ro-zo), where the scene of the story is laid in Mizrairn. That J understood the Mizraim of this tradition to be the land of Egypt, is obvious. There is indeed no special Egyptian colouring, but the mention of Pharaoh is enough to prove this reference. Elsewhere, however, it bas been shown (see MIZRAIM, 5 z b ) that some of the early traditions may have been misunderstood by J through his ignorance of the early application of the term' Mizraim (or Missor) to a region bordering on Edom, and adjoining the -'W'r;dy of Mizraim,' in N. Arabia (see EGYPT, BROOK OF). This region probably included the territory between Kadesh and Shur, and also the wells Rehoboth and Sitnah. Winckler ( A F 1 3 2 ) suggests that i i7391, ~ 'And ~ he sojourned in Gerar ' in Gen. 20 I may be an editorial addition, designed to harmonke
.
1705
GERASENES, THE COUNTRY OF THE. In the original tradition of the casting out of the legion of demons it was, most probably, stated that Jesus wasmet by a demoniac, or by two demoniacs, in the ' country of the Gerasenes.' The story occurs in three forms, and according to both AV and RV, the three evangelists differ as to the scene. In Mt. 828AV gives 'Gergesenes,' RV 'Gadarenes ' ; in Mk. 5 1 and Lk; 826 AV gives 'Gadarenes,' RV 'Gerasenes.' It is not very easy to say in each case which is the best,reading. In Mt Ti. Treg W H and Weiss adopt ya8apqvGv' in Mk., Ti."and' W H 'Agree ?n preferring ycpauqvGv; in i,k., WH adopts yepauqvGv, but Ti. yqs,cqvCv (so 8). ' Gergesenes ' may, however, be confidently rejected. I t has arisen out of 'Gerasenes,' and supplies an example of the tendency of the scribes to repeat the initial g in gad or g a r at the beginning of the next syllable (see GIRGASHITE). It was equally the habit of the scribes to substitute a well-known for an uncommon name. 'Gerasenes' therefore is to be preferred to ' Gadarenes,' if we can only find a Gerasa which was on the E. coast of the Sea of Galilee ; to identify this Gerasa with /era; (see G ILEAD , $j 6) is out of the question. T o start with, we have some reason to expect that there was such a place, because Origen (In Eu. Jounn. 6 2 4 ) states that there was an 'ancient city' called Gergesa near the Lake of Tiberias, and hard by it a precipice, with which the descent of the swine into the lake was traditionally connected. So also Eusebius ( O S 248 14). Under 'Gergesa, where the Lord healed the demoniacs,' he says, xai v8v Gelxvvrar ani TOG 6pous K+V n a p h ri)v hlpvqv Tij3epcd8os cis $v aal oi x&pot iawKpqpviwOqoav' rcira' kai buw Lpw. Further, in an earlier place (242 as), where ycpyawrr IS deated of, it is defined as d a t a c v a TOG 'Iop8dvov r a p a x e ~ p C v padhrs 4 Pahaas $v :hago Mavauwt. He adds
that 'it is safd to be Gerasa, a notable town of Arabia. And some say that it is, Gadara. And the Gospel makes and under Gesarinz 24424 we mention of the Gerasenes read that 'Gergasi is in Bkanitis, from which k chiidren of Israel were unable to expel the Geshurites' (cp 127 18 under ' Gesom '). The probability is that Origen and Eusebius had really heard of a place on the Sea of Galilee called Gersa, and now that it has been shown that 'on the left bank of the Wady Semak, and at the point where the hills end and the plain stretches out towards the lake,' are ruins called Kersa, and that about a mile south of this the hills approach within forty feet of the lake, terminating in ' a steep, even slope,' we can hardly doubt that here is the lost Gerasa. ' The site,' says Sir C. W. Wilson,l 'is enclosed by a wall three feet thick. On the shore of the lake are a few ruined buildings, to which the same name is given by the Bedouin.' Thomson ( L B 375), who first of all in3cated these ruins, states (in harmony with Wilson) :hat though it was but a small place the walls can be .raced all round, and there seem to have been considerible suburbs. Thomson further states that there are ancient tombs n the high grounds about the ruins of Kersa (cp
.
1 Recovery of Jerusalem, 368 ((71). 'adan, 179.
1706
Cp Schumacher, TIte
GERGESITES
GERIZIM, MOUNT
Macgregor, Rob Roy on the Jordan, 423). About Gadara on the Hieromax, caves are also abundant, and the territory of the city seems to have extended to the lake. G ADARA (4.v.).however, is a t least six miles from the lake, and though this is maintained by Keim, was certainly not intended in the original tradition. T h e possibility that Kersa is Gerasa is not taken into account by G. A. Smith ( H G 458$), who identifies it with Gergesa, and considers ' Gergesenes' to be ' the reading supported by the documents.' For a statement of the documentary evidence see WH A$). T I ; from which we can hardly avoid the inference that T a 8 a p T v i v is probably correct in Mt. I k p a q v i v in Mk. and Lk. The decision, however, is not hist&ically of great moment; y a p a q v h v is virtually supported by the hlSS which present a ysuqvdv for the reason given above and should be preferred. U t h the s&tements of Eusebins in O s , cp the parallel passages in Jerome (viz. 130 18 125 27). The most important variation is a t the close of the latter passage which reads 'quidam autem ipsam esse Gadaram zzstimant, 'sed et evangelium meminit Gergesenorum.' The authority of Eus. and Jer. for calling it Manassite appears to be merely the general statement in Josh. 13 29-31.
manded by these two grand mountains, Ebal and Gerizim, as indeed the description in another striking passage (Josh. 8 33) also presupposes. ' Near the eastern end, the vale is not more than 60 rods wide' (Thomson), and from the highest gardens in the W. corner of NHblus we turn at once to the path which skirts the rocky slopes of Gerizim. At no great distance is a platform of rock, with a projecting triangular crag, about I O ft. in diameter, from which, as from a pulpit, Jotham could easily have shouted his parable in the ears of the people below (Judg. 9 7 ) , ' running away ' afterwards (cp EV's n a k e rendering of 03-1 v. 21)before Abimelech could take him. Nor is this, probably, the only portion of the story of Abimelech which refers to Gerizim. When that tyrant heard that all the people of the tower of Shechem were gathered together, we are told, he took his men to a mountain close by to get wood to set their refuge on fire. With axes he and his men cut down branches of trees and carried out his stern plan (Judg. 947-49). T h e mountain referred to can only be Ebal or Gerizim, and the corruption of Gerizim into ZALMON [q.w., i.] or Hermon ( @ A L ) is easy. Dean Stanley's attempt to provide Gerizim with other historical associations (the meeting of Abram and hfelcbizedek and the sacrifice of Isaac) can hardly be called a success. The Samaritan traditions are of no historical value and have no sound biblical basis. Onelof them even represents Jacob as having had his great vision (Gen. 28 TIJ) on the summit of Gerizim (on the ruins called LBzez [the Luza of OS@)2745 135 131 see Rob. BR). See S AMARITANS . There are still two biblical passages in one of which possibly or Drobablv and in the other bevond any doubt Mt. Gerizim is referred tb-viz.,'Is. 661 3. th r Jn. references. 420J Certainly if Is. 661-4 is postO e exilic (and it is difficult to maintain anv Longer a n exilic date), we can hardly find any other concrete object for the passage than that first assigned by Duhm-viz., the intention of the Samaritans to build a temple to Yahw&on Mt. Gerizim3 (see I SAIAH ii. 5 21). Still, owing to the brevity of the passage we can scarcely claim more than' high probability for this conjecture. T h e second passage is also somewhat enigmatical. A modern writer quoted by Wetstein4 remarks on 2,. 2 2 , ' Christ and the woman were both agreed in the object of worship. The question she puts is only which is the true place for it. But how is that determined by the answer?' The truth is that Jesus goes beyond the question of the Samaritan woman. H e asserts (or is made to assert) that neither the Jerusalem nor the Gerizim temple is a fit place for spiritual worshippers, but also denies that the Samaritans as a body worship the Father (who requires spiritual worship) a t a l l ; and he looks forward to the time when the Samaritans shall give up the cultus on Mt. Gerizim without accepting (as the author of Is. 66 1-4 had doubtless wished) the cnltus on Mt. Zion.5 Thus Mt. Gerizim, which loomed. above Jesus and the woman as they conversed by Jacob's well ( ' i n this mountain,' ZI. 20)' gave occasion to Jesus, according to the Fourth Gospel, to enunciate the great principle of spiritual religion. W e must not, however, allow ourselves to exaggerate the blame extended by Jesus to Mt. Gerizim. Partisans of the temple at
GERGESITES (01 repyscaiol [BRA]), Judith516 AV, RV GIRGASHITES (4.v.). GERIZIM, MOUNT ( PVlJ lq [Sam. writes the two words as one, w13731: mountain of the GIRZITES' Situation. [ g . ~ . ]; less probably from 772 =7T2, ' to cut in two ' : the vocalization of a I
certainly primitive name has but slight authority ; r A p ( € ) l Z € l N [BAFL], but rhzipelN [A in Dt.ll.9 Judg. 971 and y a p i z [ a ] l ~ [VA] in 2 Macc. 5 2 3 , EV GARIZIM), the mountain (now called Je6eZ et -T;r) on the southern side of the valley or fissure in which Shechem lies, facing Ebal which is on the north. T h e height of Gerizim (properly Gerizzim) is 2849 ft. ; that of Ebal 228 ft. more. The former is composed almost entirely of nummulitic limestone ; in its rocky slopes are large caverns which were probably once quarries. The ascent a t the present day cannot be called difficult, and the splendid view from the summit amply rewards the climb. One feels that if the union of N. and S. Israel could only have been acconiplished, the sacred mountains Gerizim and Ebal, with the beautiful city nestling between them, might have been thought by Israel's leaders to have superior claims t o Mt. Zion and Jerusalem. A remarkable description is given of the situation of Gerizim in a passage hitherto much misunderstood. Moses has set before the Israelites a blessing an a curse, and directs them, when they have been broug t into the land of promise, to 'put the blessing upon Mount Gerizim, and the curse upon Mount Ebal, on the other side Jordan, beyond Jericho, towards the entrance into Shechem, in the land of the Canaanites, who dwell in the House of the Tower beside the sacred tFees [tree?] of Moreh' (Dt. ll29$)..' The terrible state of corruption into which this passage early fell, led Eusebius (OS(?, 243 89) to state that according to the Scripture Gerizim and Ehal were 'near Golgol :2. Dt.1 1 z g J which is Galgala' (I'oAyoA, K a l LzAyaAa.
4,
+
ra1;rqs dvar wAquiov 6 ./pa+++ G r G a ' u ~ a ~b Fapc<erv .a? 705 r a i p a A Bpow), and an acute proposal has been
made to identify the ' Gilgal' of the received text with the ruins called JuEjiI, SW. of the valley of Shechem (see GILGAL,§ 5). 'This however, does not suit the phrase 'over against ($>a) Gilgh,' and on grounds of principle it is undesirable to attempt identifications until the passage containing a place-name has been thoroughly scrutinised from the point of view of textual criticism. Jul6jil may represent an ancient Gilgal or cromlech ; but this does not show that it is referred to in Dt. 11 30. On the other hand, the text, as emended, gives a thoroughly accurate picture. T h e 'entrance into Shechem' is completely coni1 Cp Gen. 126. We read n&nn for ann-&; 1 if51 for -in! ; ,ypIw for wnwn ; 573nn n'i for n37m $aim $n. See C d . Bib. All that can be done to make MT intelligible has been done, especially by Dillmann ; but few will call the result very satisfactory. C. Niebuhr (Gesch.1328fl) has realized the doubtfulness of the text ; but his suggestions that a highway through the land of the Canaanites is spoken of, that Shechem is deliberately omitted, and that 'the Gilgal ' was a circumvallation of Gerizim are hardly felicitous.
x707
.
-
1 Moore (Judges246) ascribes this very plausible theory to Furrer (Wandevungen, 2 4J); cp also Baed.(? 256. But as Thomson, L B ['60] (475 remarks, several lofty precipices literally overhang Nablus. Similarly Porter (Kitto's Bf6.Cyclo). " Gerizim '). 2 May we compare the name of the village Tallfizz, a little to H I )? the N. of Ehal sometimes identified with T I R Z A (q.7~. 3 Kenig, it i.; true, sees no iiecessityfor any 'concretd motive' such as Gressmann suggests (the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem). The writer of zm. 1-4 wishes to emphasise his conviction that only a 'house of prayer' (cp 507) was 'an appropriate place of worship for Yahwe' (The Exiles' Book of Consolation, ZOIJ ['99]). Is. 66 1-4 according to him is an exilic passage, but 6 6 5 & 'were added after the building of the temple.' 4 Beaulacre, ap. Wetstein (Bowyer, CriticnZ Conjecturer,
143 r17821). 5
Cp B. Weiss, Evang. desJohannes, 193 ('86). 1708
GERON
GESHUR
Jerusalem were, in his eyes, not less 'sectarian ' than JOS,Ant. ii. 13 I (mpuos). See MOSES, and on Ex.425, partisans of the temple on Gerizim. See SAMAKI- cp C IRCUMCISION , § 2. TANS. 2. The head of the b'ne P HINEHAS (3), a family in Ezra's caravan (see E ZRA 1 5 2 2 $ 13 [ I ] d), Ezra 8 z ( y p w p [EA], -uap [Ll) The summit of this mountain testifies to a succession of = I Esd. 829 G ~ R S O (Tapouoropos N [el,yqpuwv [A], -gap [Ll). faiths. The most prominent monument is not the most important ; it consists of ruins of the castle built by GERSHON (iiV>$,for which in Ch. regularly WYI 4. Ruins. Justinian in 533 A . D . to protect the Christian and PlWll with the exception of I Ch. 6 1 [527], church erected in 475 A . D . (the foundations of which still remain). In the centre of the plateau, however, rshswN [A], 2 3 6 r H p C W N [A] : rshcwN [BAFL]). is something much more venerable-a smooth surface of rock b. Levi, is mentioned only in P and Ch. He is which is the traditional site of tp altar of the temple of the the first-born of Levi in Gen. 4611 (yqpuwv [AD]), Samaritans and therefore their Holy of Holies. The cup hollow in i;resembles those in many Syrian dolmens. and may Ex. 6 1 6 (yqpuwv [AF]) I Ch. 61, and makes up with well have been used in primaeval times for libations. Conder Kthath and Merari the three chief subdivisions of the (Syrian Stonelom, 169,f) suspects that, though this rock may Levites. Although the first-born, he is overshadowed once have been enclosed, there was no proper temple. Josephus however had 110 interest in exaggerating, and his words a r i by the Kehathites ( t o whom Aaron belonged). His plain--'; temple like that at Jerusalem (Ant. xi. 8 2). The sons Libni and Shimei (Ex. 6 17 Nu. 3 18 21 I Ch. 6 17 [ z ] drafted blocks of the walls of Justinian's castle may possibly 2 3 7 ) were known, according to the Chronicler's conbelong to a still older structure (Baed.Pj256). In the foundaception, already in David's time ( I Ch. 237-11). tions of the western wall there are some ten or twelve largp stones beneath which tradition places the 'twelve stones T h e sons of Gershon or the Gershonites (?;t+~g; brought up from the bed of the Jordan by the Israelites (Jus;. b ye8uwv[e]c [BAFL], b yqpuwv[~]i[BA]) are num420). The place where the lambs of the Samaritan passover are killed is a short way down the W. slope of the mountain a bered a t 7500 in the wilderness (Nu. 32z)-which little above the spot where the Samaritans pitch their t e k has an artificial look when we recollect that the whole seven days before the feast. For an account of the passover number of the Levites is enumerated at about three ceremony see S AMARITANS. times that number, viz. 23,000 (Nu. 2662). P deGerizim) rejoices in a copious spring of delicious water (the R E S eZ-'Ain),which may quench the thirst of the scanty band, scribes nioreover their special work at the tabernacle of Samaritans at passover time, but wns naturally insufficient and also the position taken up by them on their journeyfor the multitude gathered on the mountain and slaughtered by ings (ib. 325 4 2 4 77). Far moreiniportant, however, is Cerealis in the time of Vespasian (see Jos. B/ iii. 7 32). the notice of the cities apportioned to them (Josh. T. IC. C. 21 27 33 yqpuwv [AL] ; I Ch. 6 6 2 [47] 71-76 [56-611 yqpuwv GERQN, an Athenian, introduced by RVmg. into an [A]) ; these all lay to the N., in Manasseh beyond Jordan, account of measures taken by Anti6chus Epiphanes Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali, and if we take this against the Jewish religion ( z Macc. 61). The text has in connection with the notice of Jonathan b. Gershom b. ydpovra 'ABqvabv [VA], which, EV renders ' an old Moses in Judg. 1 8 3 0 it would appear that the priests man of Athens.' The I/ passage, I Macc. 144, speaks of Dan formed a group which traced its origin back to .of messengers sent by the king. T h e leader of these Moses, and derived its name from his first-born.l In messengers would naturally be either a civil or a military thc post-exilic and priestly genealogies the place of official under Antiochus. Gershon b. Moses is taken by Gershon b. Levi ; comProbably &vaiov is a clerical error for b v i L o X L ; Vet. Lat. pare the similar case of ELIELERb. Moses and .and Vg. have 'Antiochenum,' which may of c a m e be the conE LEAZAR b. Aaron. See G ENEALOGIES i., 5 7. jecture of a translator, but is none the worse because it is ancient. It is a further question whether yCpovra is not ibself GERSQN (rHpCwN [A]), I Esd. 829 = Ezra 82, corrupt ; RVmg., peThaps unintentionally, suggests this view. G ERSHOM , 2. But Ewald's rendering, ' a senator of Antioch' (Hist. 5 298 n. 5), is very plausible. The name of the official was no; GERUTH CKIMHAM (Dp3 niYJ), Jer. 4 1 1 7 Kr. necessary; the Ar. vers., however, gives it as Fill+ (see Grimin ad Zoc.). For a subtle but hardly necessary critical conjectur; See C HIMHAM . see Kosters, irk.T 12 496 ('78). T. K. C. GERZITES I S. 278 Kt., AVmP.; AV GERRHENIANS, R V GERRENIANS, THE ( ~ W C GEZRITES. T U N r € N N H p W N [A], B. T. r f p p H N W N [VI), evidently GESEM ( p c e M [BKA]), Judith 1 9 , RV GOSHEN. a term for the southern limit of the Syrian dominion under Antiochus Eupator ( z Macc. 1 3 2 4 ) . The town GESHAM, or rather, as in RV, Geshan (@'J., cp of Gerra (rd ycb)a, Strabo, xvi. 2 3 3 ; ye$)ov llpiov, Ptol. perhaps ,)I'!& b. JAHDAI, a Calebite ( I Ch. 2 4 7 ; iv. 511) lay between Pelusium and Rhinocolura, but can cwrap P I , rHpcwM [AI, rsicwN [L]). hardly be intended here, since the coast as far N. as 6 4 ' s v p u w p may be due to a misreading, or possibly enough Rhinocolurawas at this time Egyptian (cp Polyb. v. 8 0 3 ) . points to an original (so Ki. .!?BOT, see GERSHOM).I t T h e Syriac reads G-Z-R. More probably, however, we is noteworthy that in both cases the Calebite name finds evident analogies in names of N. Arabian origin. should read yepap$vwv, which agrees with the reading --yepapqpwuof one MS (cod. 55). ' F r o m Ptolemais GESHEM (be?.,rHcaM [BHA], r i c . [L], GOSBM), unto the Gerarenes ' (see G ERAR ) would represent the called ' the Arabian,' an ally of Sanballat and Tobiah, whole of Palestine in its widest extension from N. to S. and an opponent of Nehemiah (Neh. 2 1 9 6 1 5 6). In Compare the expression in I Macc. 1159 where Simon is made Neh. 6 6 the name takes the form GASHMU (rat$, youep I~ 100 captain of the country 'from the LADDER OF T V R (about [KC.=mg.], om. BH*A; GOSBM); the correct form is probstadia N. of Ptolemais) unto the borders of Egypt. ably Gushamu, a well-known Arabian name (cp Cook, GERSHOM (~h1.1 cp WTI in Sin. Inscriptions, Ararnaic GZossmy, s. 71. i n w j ) . anti see G ERSHOM , GESHAM; rHpcaM [BHAFL in For ihe ending -IC which occurs frequently in Nabatean inEx. and Ch.]; in JUdg. rHpcoM [B], repcwM [AI, scriptions compare iyin [&.], Neh. 12 14 (RV Malluchi, p V w . Melicu), JETHRO, and perhaps B OCHERU, and see Nald. 111 Eut. rHpC(r)N [L]). Nab. Inscr. 73 ; ZDAfG41715. See A RABIA , 5 3. s. A. c. I. The first-born of Moses and Zipporah (Ex. 222 1 8 3 ) , from whom J ONATHAN (z), the priest of the sanctuGESHUR (lid!). I . A territory. in NE. Palestine, ary at Dan (Judg. 1 8 p ) , claimed descent.2 W e also adjoining the Israelite possessions, and reckoned as find a Levitical name Shebuel b. Gershom in I Ch. Aramczan ( z S. 158). According to I Ch. 223 (om. 23 I;$ 2624. T h e popular etymology, 7j, ' a soPesh. ), Geshur and other Aramzean peoples took the journer there' (Ex. Kcc. ), is followed by d (mpuap)and It may often be Havvoth-jair from the Israelites. dangerous to treat statements of this kind in I Ch. 1-9 1 For the orthography of D L V ~(=)vi>) ~ see Frensdorff,
(?-$n),
or
Massovet. Wirtevb. 177 ;the two names are essentially identical ; cp Onam and Onan, Hemam and Hernan. 2 Bennett (Ezp. 86 ['g8] 78) points out a possible reference to Gershom ,in Judg. 1 7 7 ~ d - y fila), l as though, 'and he (was)
Gershom.
1709
1 A portion of the Merarite branch of Levites actually bears the name of Mushi-Le., the Mosaite. Observe that this Levitical name, in common with so many more is remarkable for its S. Palestinian associations ; see GENEALWIES i., 7 (v.). 1710
GESHUR
GETHSEMANE
as historical ; but the statement here made is not in itself improbable ; it implies that Geshur was at any rate N. of the Havvoth-jair. Still less reason is there to doubt the correctness of the geography of Dt. 314 Josh. 125 (late as these statements are), except indeed as to the localisation (in Dt. Z.C.) of the Havvoth-jair in Bashan rather than in N. Gilead (see HAVVOTH-JAIR). I n these passages the Geshurites and the Maacathites are mentioned together as bordering on the territory of Og king of Bashan, and therefore on that of Israd. Hence Guthe (ZDp6’12233), Wetzstein, and G. A. Smith incline to place Geshur and Maacah in thmodern province of J6lLn (Gadanitis) ; Geshur would of course be S. of Maacah. Conder (Smith‘s DBP)) and von Riess (Bi&Z-AtZasP) ’95) indeed, still prefer to idectify it with the plain of J&dtir Lhicd is SE. of Hermon and NE. of en-Nukra. This view is iot only linguistically hazardous but also im&es identifying en-Nukra with Basban, and plaiing the Havvoth-jair outside the N. boundary of Gilead. Fnrrer (ZDPV13 198) places Geshur still farther E. He identifies it with the Leja that great lava plateau which lies E. of en-Nukra and GE. of the Jehel Haurin and corresponds approximately with Trachonitis ; but Lis reasbns are very insufficient. I t is a disputable point whether Ishbaal was really king ‘over Gilead and over the Geshurites’ (2 S.-29 Pesh., Vg.). For two reasons :-First, because in Absalom’s time ( z S. 158) ‘Geshur in Aram’ (?) was an independent state, and secondly, because though in Josh. 1311 (cp v. 13) Joshua is said to have assigned Geshur and Maacah to the two-and-a-half tribes beyond Jordan, we cannot safely accept this as correct in the face of the contrary statements in Dt. 314 Josh. 125. T h e truth probably is that in Aram’ in z S. 158 an 1 ‘Geshurites’ in z S. 29 are incorrect readings. SCC GESHUR,z ; ASHURITES. In Josh. 1 2 5 Q B has ycpycua, in Dt.314 ~ B A F L[but E* yapraua, see Swetel yap UUEL (cp Eus. in OS 244 24, who takcs ysuouperpto be the city o?ycpyam~in Bashan where the Israelitcc ‘did not destroy the Geshurites); @ A F in Josh. 125y~uoup~, C L y s u o u p ~ Other forms are : in z S. 13 37 14 23 168 ys8mvp [SA], yeuuaLp [LI; in I Ch. 223 yesuovp [BI, ysuuoup [AI, yeuovp [I.] ; in Josh. 13 13 ysusr EL [Bl,,yeuoup[rlr [AL]. In Josh. 125 Pesh. exceptionally has ‘Lndor. 2. (qph?, ‘the Geshurite.’) A district at theextreme limit of Palestine, S. of Philistia, Josh. 132 (AV Geshuri), I S . 278 (EV ‘ t h e Geshurites’ ; so RV in Josh.). The former passage (late) introduces a description of the land in the SW. towards Egypt, which in Joshua’s old age still remained unconquered. A reference to the northern Geshur is therefore impossible. I n the latter passage the Hebrew text gives, as the names of peoples or districts attacked by David from Ziklag, ‘ t h e Geshurite, the Girzite or Gerizzite (see GIRZITES),and the Amalekite.’ 6 ,however, gives only two names ; one of the first two names in M T is doubtless a doublet. Wellhausen, Driver, and Budde give the preference to the second name in the form sanctioned by the Kre, viz. v n g , ‘ t h e Gizrite,’-ie., the Canaanites of ‘G EZER (so RVmg., see Judg. 129 ; I K. 916). But Gezer lay too far N. It is better to read ‘either ‘ the Girzite’ or ‘ the Geshurite,’ 1 and the latter is on the whole the more probable, for the Girzites probably belonged to northern or central Canaan. I t was probably a chieftain of these southern Geshurites whose daughter Maacah became one of David’s wives and mother of Absalom. H e is called Talmai, which is also the traditional name of a Hebronite giant (Judg. 1IO ; see HEBRON, I ) : David’s close connection with S. Palestine is well known, and the list of the children bgrn to him in Hebron in z S. 32-5 mentions the son of Abigail the Carmelite just before Absalom. Maacah is given as the name of a concubine of Caleb ( I Ch. 248). This theory accounts more fully than he rival view for Absalom’s flight recorded in 2 S. 1337 (cp 1423 158). In the southern Geshnr, close to and yet outside of Judah, the pretender would have
every opportunity of preparing for his revolt. Ahithophel (Ahiphelet ?) and Amasa, his chief supporters, belonged to S. Judah, and it was the tribe of Judah which was principally concerned in the rebellion (cp z S. 1911 [I.] The only objection to this is that in 2 S. 158 Absalom says to David, ‘ T h y servant vowed a vow while I dwelt at Geshur in Arum.’ This specification, however, would rather be expected in 2 S. 1337. I t is clear that 0 1 ~ 2‘ i n Aram’ is a gloss (for ~ i h ’ 2 ? )sug, gested by the vicinity of the northerti Geshur to that of kaacah.. The suggestion of Glaser ( A H T 242) that in Josh. 132 I S. 278 we should read for q v j a , *i;t~wil(seeASSHIJRIM)should also be mentioned. consistency would then oblige us to)change Absalom’s ‘ Geshu;‘ into ‘Ashur.’ @Bin IS. Z.C. givesonlyyBuE‘pL=)-)ivj; @BAL gives bothnames (yrusper.[A] or ~ b yeuuoupaLm v [L] a:d .rbv ye<paiov). Afterwards, instead of ‘Shnr,’ @L gives Geshur’ (yeuu:up). I n Josh. 13 2 @ B ~ W E L ~ ~ @AIL , y ~ o u p [ s ] rPesh. ‘ Endor. In 2 S. 1 3 3 7 @ a d d s ~ l p . T i l ~ p a ~ a s [ B ] (theldndofbfaacah’), ‘to e. y+p. [AI, e. y. Xahaapa [Ll. T. K. C.-S. A. C.
1
Kamph., however, retains hoth names (2.4 W 694). 1711
GETHER (YQJ, perhaps l&l=?d$ [Le. GESHUR. ZATW 8155; yalkp [AEL]), one of the ‘sons’ of A RAM (Gen. 1023, I Ch. 117 ye&P [L]).
I]: Marq.
GETHSEMANE ( r & C H M & N € l [Ti. WHI-i.e. t oil press,’ see O IL ; the word is Aramaic. but the 1. In NT. form somewhat uncertain ni, D a h . Grumm. 152. The forms yeaugpavei, y?pap. =(a)’Jpv K’J] ; GETfISEMANI, GESLMANZ) is given in Mt. 2636 Mk. 1432 as the name of the place to which Jesus retired with the disciples after the Last Supper. In both passiges it is called xwplov (see F IELD, 9 ) ; EV renders ‘place’ (but see RV”g.) ; the word answers to the Latinpvredium (so Vg. in Mk., but viZh in Mt. ). What is meant is a piece of ground enclosed by a wall or fence of some sort : this is confirmed by Jn. 181, which speaks of a ‘ garden’ (K+TOS ; see G ARDEN , 7) and uses the expressions ‘ he went in ’ (EIU+XOEY, v. I ) and I he went out: (#&p.Oev, v. 4). Lk., like Jn., does not name Gethseniane and uses the vague expression ‘ place ’ ( T ~ T O S; 2240). Possibly it belonged to owners who willingly afforded access to Jesus ; a t a l l events, he was in the habit of resorting to it (Lk. 2137 223g), and the habit was known to Judas Iscariot. Doubtless the enclosure contained a press, perhaps also a house in which the other disciples, apart from Peter, James, and John, may have sheltered. It has been conjectured that the owner may have been Mary the mother of John Mark, that she may have had some kind of country-house there, and that the young man mentioned in Mk. 1451f. may have been Mark himself suddenly aroused from his slumbers. In any case, we know that Gethseniane was situated (Jn. 18 I ) to the E. of K IDRON [q. v . , § 31 and was regarded as belonging to t h e Mt. of Olives (Lk. 21 37 2239). Thds we have to think of Jesus as quitting the town by one of the gates of the eastern wall, descending into the Kidron valley, crossing the bed of the brook, and reascending on the other side. It is at Gethsemane that the touching scenes recorded by the evangelists are placed-the agony and prayers of Jesus, the sleep of the apostles, the arrival of Judas and his train, the arrest ; the N T does not enable us to. fix the site more exactly. Tradition became more precise. From the fourth century onwards, perhaps from the time of the visit of 2. Tradition. the Empress Helena, the garden of Gethsemane has been shown at the foot of t h e Mt. of Olives on the left bank of the Kidron, some fifty yards from the present bridge. Eusebius tells us that in his day the faithful were diligent in. prayer at the place and Jerome says it had a church(0SO) 13024; 24820). T i e Franciscans, to whom the ground now belongs-it measures about 1 5 0 ft. by 140-surrounded it with a wall in 1848, adorned it with chapels, and laid it out as a European garden with walks, borders, and beds (the orientaL garden is a plantation of trees; see G ARDE N).
’I
[=(i?)’JpV
1
See AJSL 16 153 1 5 g j 1712
GEUEL
GIBBETHON
I t contains eight old olive trees which pilgrims willingly believe to date from the time of _Christ, or at least to come from trees .of that date. On the other hand, it has to be remarked not only that olives are not in the liabit of attaining so great an age, but also that, according to Josephus (BJvi. 1I/), all the trees about Jerusalem were cut down by the army of Titus at the time of the siege. The earliest trace of a tradition relative to the olives of Gethsemane does not go back farther than to the sixteenth century. Some hundred yards to the N. of the garden a cave (ancient cistern), transformed into a Latin sanctuary-the Grotto of the Agony-is shown; the suggestion is that here is the place spoken of by Lk. ( 2 2 4 1 ) as ' about a stone's cast' from where the three apostles were. T h e Greeks have a garden called Gethsemane close to but distinct from that of the Latins ; the Russians also have built a church in the neighbourhood. See PEFQ, 1887, p. 1 5 9 ; 1889, p. 176. T h e authenticity of the site, then, is not demonstrable ; but neither is it utterly improbable. Inreality, howevcr, the scene must at all events have been larger. I t may have been perhaps more to the N., or more to the S . , in the valley ; or, more probably still, further to the E., higher up on the western slope of the Mt. of Olives, though not on the very top-a site ill adapted for a retreat (Reland, 857). If Lk. ( 2 1 3 7 2 2 3 9 ) had said h s l instead of els ( ~ Llpos), b the expression would have been more conclusive against the traditional site (Eus. OSP) 24820 has a p b s @ e l ; Jer. OSz) 1 3 0 2 4 , ad radices inontis OZiiueti). T h e Emperor Hadrian caused extensive terracings to be made in the Kidron valley ; by these doubtless the previous contours were considerably modified (PEFQ, '93, p. 80).
Maccabzan wars ( I Macc. 4 15 etc. ) ; see GAZARA. Ia the time of John Hyrcanus it was taken by Antiochus VII. Sidetes ; but at the conclusion of the war the Hasmonseans were permitted to retain it, apparently khrough the intervention of the Romans (see Schurer,
74
Robinson, BRi3) 1234J ; Tohler Die Siloahqrcelle und der Oel6erg, ~gr-zzg,Dritfe Wanden& naclt Pahsfina, 353-55 ; Gatt, Beschrei6ung z2berJerusaZenr, zrrf: ; 3. Literature. Furrer, Wanderungen durch dm NLN,7981 : Keim, Le6ea Jesn von Narara 3 297; Gubrin? JPmmlem, 288J ; Petavel, ' L e Domaine de Gethsemanb, Chr-Pfien Euan&Zique, '88, pp. 2 i q - q ; 'The House of Gethsemane,' Exjos. 1891 a, pp. 220-32 ; Le Camus, Voyaze aux Pays Bi6Ziques, 1252-56 ; Conder, Bi6k Places, 204. LU. G.
3r1
GEUEL (!JK.lKJ,
hi
majesty of God ' ; cp Gray, H P N
210 ; Sam. ; royAiHA [BaTAFL]; TOYAIHA [B"(foot)b]; GUEL),b. Machi, a Gadite (Nu. 13&).
GEZER (114,cp two places, one of them near Alemo, - _ called el-lama rYZkiit. Mu'iam a d h u l d ~ n . History, 2 7 1 I: I] ; most usually rbzep [BAL]), an ancient Canaanitish citv said to have been conquered by Joshua (Josh. 1 0 3 3 [;azHc, BA] 1 2 1 2 ) , and situated on the S. border of Ephraim ( 1 6 5 , not m M T [CP V . 31; razapa [BAl,. - P W N [Ll), towards the W. ( I Ch. 7 28) ; a Levitical city (Josh. 21 21 [razapa, B ; -zep&, L], I Ch. 6 6 7 [5z]). I t remained Canaanitish (Josh. 16 IO Judg. 1 2 9 ) until ' Pharaoh, king of Egypt,' or, as has been conjectured, Pir'u, king of the N. Arabian Mu+ (see G ENUBATH , HADADi. [3], z [SI), took and burned it, and gave it as M IZRAIM , a marriage portion to his daughter, Solomon's bride ( I I<. 916,y ~ & p[A]; for B see 4 3 3 ; L 5 3 ) ; Solomon fortified it (v. 17). ' I t is mentioned in z S. 5 2 5 (AV G AZER , ya.(?pa [BAL]) = I Ch. 1 4 1 6 (yafapa [B], -{Tpa [AL] = M T m ! ~ )as the limit of David's pursuit of the Philistines ; obviously it was on the border of the Philistine territory. I n I Ch. 2 0 4 'Gezer' is given where the text of Samuel ( 2 S. 21 18) gives 'G OB .' As Maspero has pointed out, it is the Kazir (W. Max Muller, Ka-di'-ru) of Thotmes 111.'~list of names of Palestinian cities (RPC)551) ; in the Amarna tablets it appears as Gazri, whose ruler Yapabi protests his fidelity to the Pharaoh (KB5 3 2 8 8 ) . On its share in the revolt against Rameses 11. see EGYPT, 58; and on the mention of it in the ' Israel inscription ' see EGYPT, $ 60. As Gazara (ya&m) it is frequently mentioned in the 1713
GJl" 1206f: ). By Strabo (xvi. 229) it is mentioned as yasapis 'which also. the Jews appropriated'; but he seems t o have somewhat confused it with Gadara beyond Jordan. In Josephus (Ant. xii. 7 4) the form yasapa also occurs for Gezer, and, in a Notitia Ejiscopafuum, p y e i v yasdpov near Azotus is distinguished from yd&Lpa between Pella and Capitolias. At a synod in Jerusalem In 536 there were two bishops each of Gadara. In the OS (24416; 127 IO) it is Gazara (ybca'pa a 'villa' or K+?) 4 m. northward from Nicopolis. (See ZDPY 17 36-41.) The long-lost site of Gezer was discovered in 1873, by Clermont-Ganneau, close to the village of Abu 2. Site. Shiisheh, a little to the S. of Ramleh, towards Jerusalem. It is the high and isolated point known as Tell Jezer, which being just 4 m. W. by N. from 'Amwas (Emmaus-Nicopolis) is no doubt the Gazara referred to in OS. The Tell is described (see PEFM 2428-440) as having terraces of rude stone, and a sort of citadel a t its eastern end. There are alsD rock-hewn tombs, and a great reservoir near the modern European farm, and the correctness of Ganneau's identification is placed beyond dispute by his discovery of three bilingual inscriptions-one of which includes ~ ' l-which areplacedpalaeographically the word i y ' Gezer between the Hasmonaean and the Herodian periods. For the present state of the archaeological questions which, have been raised 5ee his ArchrPoZogkaZ Aesearches in Palestine 2257' Re&eiZ ~ ' A Y C A P O Z . CJYGX~. 1351:3gI , c p 401. GaAneau ;as shown that Tell Jezer is the Mont Gisart, near which in 1177 Baldwin 1V. gained a victory over Saladin. See also Lagrange, Rev. Bi61. 1899, pp. 422.427.
GEZRITES, THE ('?T$;l),Kr., for which Kt. T HE GERZITES(AVmg.) in I S. 278 (0 rszpaloc [AL]), where RV more correctly has GIRZITES (g.iu. ; see also G IRGASHITE ), mg. G IZRITES . T h e GESHURITES. (see GESHUR,2) and the Gizrites (?) are mentioned ' The Gezrites ' might mean the Canaanites. together. 3f G EZER [ q . ~ . ]but , more probably should be deleted. See G IRZITES . GIAR (n'$; r a l [BA], riaz [L]), supposed to b e the name of a place on the road in which Joab pursued Abner ( 2 S. 224). ' See, however, GIBEAH,$ 2 (6). GIANT, GIANTS.
I.
Ne?, n??, rdpA6' ;. WWl,
vCpAd'i?n, 2 S. 21 16$ Gen. 1 4 5 etc., see R APHAH (2). R EPHAIM (i.). According to Duhm, Kephainl means ( a ) giants, ( 6 )the shades ( M a n e s ) ,inasmuch as the Goddefying giants were hurled into Shi.61 and became the 2hief among the inhabitants of ShC6l. See, however, DEAD, $ 3. 2. ! h m , nqhilinr, Gen. F4 Nu. 1333t. . See NEPHILIM. 3. iia?,gi66br (yryas, often in e). The rendering is hase'd ,n the Ar. use of a666rrm for 'giant' (cp Gen. 64) ; hut moderns ?refer the sense ?warrior ; cp David'sgibb6rinz or 'warriors.' 4. npY, ANAKIM [p.v.], may also be explained as 'giants.'
GIBBAR (724 ; ~ & B e p[B], ra. [AL]), a district of. [udah mentioned in the great post-exilic list, Ezra 220 :see E ZRA ii. § 9, 8 c). It has been proposed to read ~ryzj, 'Gibeon' (so Berth.Ryssel as in 11 Neh. 7 25, y a p a o v [BNAL]), but against this see SIBEON, 5 3. Guthe prefers in's or l n n'a following I Esd. i17 (RV BAITERUS ; [uioi] pacr?pous IRA]). See BETHER i.
GIBBETHON ( ) h ~ raBaewN ~ ; [BAL]), a city vhich, according to I K. 1527 1 6 1 5 (raBawN [E]), 17, n Baasha's time and after it, belonged to the Philis.ines, and was apparently their frontier fortress towards Ephraim (see PHILISTINES). Possibly it is the same ts Gibeah of Phinehas (see GIBEAH,5 z [ z ] ) . In Josh. t is Danite ( 1 9 4 4 ; PEyeOwv [B], yapaT8wv [L]) and 1 The entire inscription, which is very short is read nnn, which M. Ganneau (Researches, 2 264)rightlyr&ders ' boundary ,f Gezer,' and supposes to define the sabbatic limit.
1714
GIBEAH
GIBEAH
Levitical (2123 ; ycOe8av [B*], yeRaipav [Bav'd.], yape. O w [A], yePRwv [L]). Conder's identification with Kihbiah, to the NE. of Lydda, reappears in PEF map, hut not in those of Fischer-Guthe or Buhl. Kihhiah does not appear to be an important site. G.' A. Smith (HG 3 5 r ) favours it ; but it is surely too far N. for a Philistine stronghold. All memory of Gibhethon seems to have been lost from a very early date. Eusebius and Jerome (OS(? 128 15 ; 246 52) after enumerating several places named Gahathon, content themselves with adding : 'there is also another y a P a 0 o v (Gabatha) of the Philistines in the Book of Kings.
GIBEAH. Any isolated eminence such as those which abound in the central plateau of Palestine might be called 3@2, gib'dh, as distinguished from hur, mountain,' ' mountain range,' or ' mountain district.' T h e distinction cannot, however, be rigorously carried ,out. W e will first consider the two places called Gibeah without anv descriDtive aualification. It must be borne in' mindthat Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon 1. qua,ification. are very liable to be confounded ; for example, in Judg. 20 IO, and perhaps i n v. 33 (but see. Budde, ad Zoc.), ' Geba' should be 'Gibeah'; in v. 31 ' Gibeah' should probably be ' Giheon ' ; in v. 43 ' Gibeah ' should perhaps be ' Geba. ' So, too, in I S. 13 2 15 142 16 ' Gibeah' has been written i n error for ' Geba' ; and in z S. 216 ' Gibeah of Saul' for ' Gibeop ' ; see the commentaries of Moore, Budde, and H. P. Smith. On I K. 1 5 2 2 see G EBA , I , and on I Ch. 8 zg ( = 9 35) see below. I . A city of Judah, included in the same group with places to the SE. of Hebron (Josh. 1557 ; yapaa [BAL]). I n I Ch. 249 it is called Gihea (~p!; yacj3ah [B], -&ha [A], y a p p a a [L]), and a Calehite origin is assigned to it. It may he (see Di.) either the Gabaa ( @.a) or the Gabatha (yapafla)of ?us. and Jer: (OSP) 2 4 55 ; 18). There is a Kb'u, no. 114 i n the name-list of Thotmes 111. (RP('4 5 53). 2. (yapaa [BAL] ; 6 pouvds [often in dL] : ol pouvol ,[Hos. 581). A city of Benjamin ( ' G . of Benjamin,' I S. 132 [?I yapee [B], IS [om. A], 1416 yapee [B] ; cp Judg. 19 14; also ' G. of the children of Benjamin,' z S. 2 3 2 9 yapaeO [B], but dLhas 700 pouuoG). I t seems to be identical with GIBEAH OF S AUL ( h ~n$p ) , I S . 1 1 4 ( ~ U ~ U U R U[A"], yaaRu [Aa?], ~ O U U ~[L]), V 132 (yapee [B]), 1 5 3 4 (pouvhv [L]), z S. 216 (yapawv [BA]. p o u v 3 [L]), Is. 1 0 2 9 (d a y y a ~ ) .but not with the G IBEATH of Josh. 1828 (yapawR [BL], -aaO [A]), nor with ' Gibeah of God' (see Q z [3]). In Hos. 5 8 9 9 700 pouvoG), l o 9 r3 PouvG) it is called ' the Gibe%h .( n ~ ? ? ? ) .T h e reference in Is. 1029 is important as clearly distinguishing the two places Geba and Gibeah. The title ' Gibeah of Saul' implies that this was Saul's birthplace (cp S AUL ) ; probably the true text of I S. 9 1 and of I Ch. 8 2 9 ( = 9 3 5 ) stated distinctly that Saul's father was of Gibeah of Benjamin.' The gentilic Gibeathite (my?!? ; 6 yepwOdr7S [BK], d yapuwvfnp [L], d rapaR ~ T T ~[A]) S occurs once ( I Ch. 123). Gibeah was the scene of one of the most elaborate narratives of the Book of Judges; chap. 20 describes how the assembled tribes captured the guilty city of Gibeah, and destroyed the Benjamite army, except 600 men (see B EN J AMIN , Q 5 ; J UDGES ii., Q 1 3 ) . ~ In the history of Saul frequent mention is made of the royal city (references above). Two passages are specially helpful in fixing its situation. From Judg. 1912-14 it appears that Gibeah was on or near the main N. road, and S. of Ramah ; and from I S. 102-7 10-13 that from Beeroth (see below, Q 2 to Geba and from Geba to Saul's home was an easy journey. Both passages become intelligible if Gibeah is located, as Gross and Valentiner
KZS
(q
(a
r3])
In I Sam. 9 I read with Marq. (Fund. IS) ]yyJ> n y > > l for n*rK), and in rCh.829 correct 'Giheon' into 'Giheah (Che.). The Bichrites (see BICHRI) dwelt at Gibeah. On 'the father of Giheon, Jehiel,' see J EIEL , 2. 2 Wi.'s attempt to show that the ark was brought by some into conuection with Gibeah, need hardly he considered here (see BENJAMIN, 5 6). 1
1'(
1715
irst suggested,l and as Robinson established, at Tell (or ruleil) el-Fiil, a bare conical hill (2754 ft. above seaevel) about 4 m. N. of Jerusalem, towards er-Riam. According to Josephus ' Gahath Saul ' was from 20 to 30 stadia iom Jerusalem on the 'way thither from Gophna (Ant. v. 2 8 and B j v . 2 I combined), whlch suits the proposed site. Moore, iowcver, would have been inclined from the narrative in Judg. 19 :o look for a site somewhat nearer to er-RSm. There are several place-names compounded with Xbeah or Gibeath ; 1-3 are represented as such in RV'"g,. I. G IBEHTH HA - A RALOTH (nyq 2. Compound nj5?p: ; pourirs r ~ dKpOpUaTl&), v 1 tile names. hill of the foreskins,' RV"g. of Josh. 53 (J). between the Jordan and Jericho, connected with :he report of the circumcision (cp G ILGAL i., Q I ) . The name suggests Amlu, a Babylonian name for the [kingdom of the dead ; a popular etymology arose when 4ralu had been forgotten (Che. ). For another view see Stade, Z A T W , '86, p. 1 3 2 8 See also HELKATHHAZZURIM. 2. GIBEAH OF P HINEHAS ( m ~ np?! ~ ? ; yapaap [B], yapaaR [AL], +[E]L~EEP), a city (cp Jos. Ant. v. 1.9) in M t . Ephraim where Aaron's son, Eleazar, was buried [Josh. 2433). Possibly it is the same as G IBBETHON . Perhaps the Geba ( y q p a ) of Eus. and Jer. (OSP) 248 3 130 5), yhich was 5 R. m. from Gophna (Jifn.) on the road to Neapolis ,NZblus), and, according to PEF Mem. 2 290, corresponds to JibiZ, NW. of JifnZ, and only I hr. from Tibneh (Timnathheres). It is of no importance that the tombs of Eleazar and Phinehas are shown at 'Amur%, situated in the plain of Makhna, SE. of Mt. Gerizim. 3. GIBEAHOF G OD ( c h m '2, d rbv pouvbv 700 ReoO I S. 105 ; but in v. 10 a simple I Gibeah' rbv Bouvbv, 48L rbv papa pouu6vl occurs). The locality is defined as being ' where is the pillar of the Philistines ' (see S AUL , 0 z n.), and, since this definition was thought necessary, it may be questioned whether .Stenning (Hastings, DB$17on) is right in identifying it with Gibeah of Saul. Prof. G. A. Smith ( H G 2 5 0 ) considers it to be the mode& Riamallah (Ewalds Ramah), about I O m. N. of Jerusalem. The names agree in meaning, and the situation of RELmallah is quite consistent with regarding TABOR [q.v . , ii.] in I S. 10 3 as a corruption of Beeroth (Bireh) and with the identification of Gibeah of Saul with Tell el-Fiil. Still, the mention of the ' pillar of the Philistines' is more favourable to the view that the Gibeah of God is identical with Geba ( L e . , J e h ' ) . W e may suppose that Saul went straight across the hillcountry from Beeroth ( ' Tabor ' in M T ) to Geba, and thence by Ramah ( I S. 1 0 1 3 , see below) to Gibeah of Benjamin. In I S. 10 13 'he came to the high place ' should be 'he came to hri-r&zrrh'--i.e. to Ramah (er-Rim). 6 B A has e k ~ b u ~ O U V ~ @L U , CIS~ b ,hvvbv u p a p a ; cp v. 10. Either Saul's uncle dwelt there, or something has fallen out of the tent between v. 73 and v. 14. This is the easiest emendation. 4. THE GIBEAHOF (THE) M OREH (Judg. 71). See M OREH i. 5. T HE GIBEAH OF (THE) HACHILAH( 1 S . 2 3 1 9 261). See H ACHILAH . 6. THE GIBEAHOF AMMAH(zS. 224). The text is in great disorder. Was there any 'wilderness of Gibeon'? and how was it that the pursuers got no farther than the district of Gibeon by sunset? Supposing some transposition and corruption to have taken place, an intelligible view of the situation can he produced. p y i ~ ,'Gibeon' may be a corruption of c ' y ~ r , ' Zehoim ' and ~ D N' Ammah' of D>piN, ' Adunimim.' In I S. 13 18 (sei H. P.' S,dith) we read of '&e hill which overhangs the valley of Zeboim. The same hill may be referred to here under the name Adummim. The 'ascent of ADUMMIM' rq.v.1 is the ascent which leads up from Jericho to the Tar 'ated-Dam; some overhanging hill may, however, have borne the same name. Read, therefore, 1 n D n 711 c'yiyg '3 V 5 - h 1dN D'DlN npX2 '(when they were come) to the hill of Adummim which fronts the vallev of Zehoim towards the desert.'f!
[anA
St.Kr. '43, p. 1082 ; ZDMG 12 I~I,$< (Moore, Judges, 414). It will he noticed that the n in n91 here becomes ;Iand IS attached to the word which probably underlies p y x . We. and Bu. eliminate n,j altogether, and suppose the 9.l to be a dittograin ; they read ;1 for n, and prefix it to 117. 1
2
1716
GIBEATH
GIBEON
7. THE GIBEAHO F G AREB (Jer. 31 39).
See G AREB
ii.
8, g, IO. Conjecturally, the Gibeah of Baal-perazim (see GIBEON, § I ) , Gibeath-jarib or Giheath-jearim (see KIRJATH-JEARIM, § I ) ; and Gibeath-Elohim (in Is. T. K. C. 1032 ; see No B ). GIBEATR (nq??: rABAA€I [AI, r.-(l A p € l M ) [B]), Josh. 1828. Usually
,I:[
rbBA,aB
identlfied wlth Gibeah of Saul, but perhaps rather a fragment of Gibeath-jearim[?] ; see K IRJATH - JEARIM , I.
GIBEATR-HA-ARALOTH
( n h g nu?!),
josh.
53 RVmg.. See GIBEAH,5 z ( I ) ; C IRCUMCISION , 0 2. GIBEATHITE ('@?d;?), I Ch. 123. See GIBEAH,
$3 1
(2).
.'
(a),
The
~
GIBEON (t\U?$, rt&w[~],BAL), a city of the Amorites 12 S. 21 2). or more definitelv of the Hivites '
(Josk: 9 3 3 ) . According to a redactor it was even ' greater than Ai ' (Josh. 102) ; but we can estimate its importance better from the fact that it was the head of a tetrapolis or confederacy of four cities, to which Chephirah, Beeroth (not perhaps the Beeroth which is disguised under MT's ' T a b o r ' in I S. 1 0 3 , and which is the modern Bireh, but a place to the SW. of Gibeon'), and Kirjath-jearim also belonged (Josh. 9 17). T h e humorous story of the deception by which they escaped the fate of Jericho and Ai is well known. I t is evidently the attempt of a later age to account at the same time for the long independence of Gibeon and for the use of the Gibeonites (o*;y?!o ; oi rapawv[e]i~ai [BX*AL ; Ayapwvlrvs K* once]) for slave-service in the Solomonic temple., The story of the war of ' the five kings of the Amorites' against Gibeon in Josh. 101-5 is but the sequel of the story of the Gibeonitish ruse, and is therefore both untraditional and unhistorical : this does not, however, necessarily involve the rejection of the at any rate traditional battle near Gibeon (Josh. 1010-14) ; see B ETHHORON , 5 3. W e next hear of the Gibeonites in the reign of Sanl, though the event referred to, as most critics have held, is not mentioned in due chronological order (cp Stenning in Hastings' DB 2170.6). Tradition told of a three years' famine in David's time, which was regarded as a punishment for Saul's having ' slain the Gibeonites' and 'thought to destroy them' ( z S. 211J). T h e motive of Saul is said to have been ' zeal for the b'ne Israel ' ; the continued occupation of cities and villages by the Gibeonites (cp z S. 21 5, end) was inconvenient for the Israelites. It has been pointed out elsewhere (see N OB ) that the deed referred to was not improbably the massacre described at length in I S. 2217-19. W e cannot, however, suppose that the priests of the sanctuary of Gibeon ( ' Gibeon,' not ' Nob,' must be read in I S. 211[z] 2291119) at the time of the massacre were Israelites. They must surely have been Gibeonites, and the fact that the Gibeonite priests aided and abetted David was probably the excuse which Saul urged for decimating the Gibeonite population.z T h e ' pool of Gibeon ' attained a melancholy notoriety through the event related in zS.212-32 (but see H ELKATH - HAZZURIM : in v. 24 @L 706 /3ouvoO). It is mentioned again in the account of the violent conduct of Ishmael b. Nethaniah after he had assassinated the Jewish governor Gedaliah (Jer, 41 1.f: ). Another act of blood-guiltiness was placed by tradition at the ' great stone which is in Gibeon' ( 2 S. 208-10 ; bL TO^ pouvoi?) ; perhaps it was recorded in order to degrade the stone, which had been treated as sacred like the ' great stone ' at Beth-shemesh ( I S. 6 14). T h e desecrating act was the murder of AMASA [piv., I] by Joab. A brighter memory was that of Yahwb's great deed ' in the plain (,my) by *'
Gibeon' (Is. 2821), if the Gibeon referred to is really the well-known city of that name, and if Isaiah's words may be explained by z S. 525 where David is said to have routed the Philistines 'from Gibeon to the approach of Gezer' (so, too, I Ch. 1416, where @ K has yupwv). Gibeon, however, though more possible than Geba (see Stenning in Hastings' DB 2 171u ) , is still too far from the Plain of liephaim to be the starting-point of David's pursnit of the foe. Perhaps in all three passages we should read ' Gibeah ' and suppose the hill-town of B AAL - PERAZIM [ q . ~ . to ] be meant. W e have already seen that there was an important sanctuary a t Gibeon in the time of Saul-most Drobablv 2. a Cununnitish sanctuary. Ear& in thk sanctuary. reign of Solomon we meet with this sanctuarv , again. " , and this time it is undoubtedly Israelitish. One of the young king's first cares was to go to Gibeon to sacrifice, 'for there was the great high place' ( I K. 3 4 ) ; the antiquity of the notice is proved by the anxiety of the Chronicler to justify the action of Solomon by the assumed fact that the tent of meeting and the brazen altar were at Gibeonl ( z Ch. 13). It is certainly remarkable that the sanctuary of Gibeon should even without the ark (which was still in the ' city of David,' I K. 8 I ) have been regarded as the right place for a newly made king to resort to for an oracle. But clearly without the spiritual aid of a great sacrificial feast Solomon could not have ventured on the solemn act of erecting a temple by which the ancient sanctuaries were to be overshadowed. Probably the sanctuary of Gibeon was chosen in preference to any other on account of its nearness to Jerusalem. Its central position made it ' t h e great high place,' and accordingly, Stade thinks, it is referred to as snch in Dt. 3312 (but see B EN J AMIN , 5 8). There is little more to add. From Josh. 9 23 27 we infer that the Canaanites of Gibeon were made temple-slaves ; cp I K. 921, and the phrase 'the children of Solomon's 3. Other servants'(Ezra258 Neh. 760 113). InICh.829-32 notices. (=93938) there may be a confusion of two statements, one referring to Gibeah (where the clan of Becher dwelt), the other to Gibeon. The father (or son?) of Gibeonmay have beenJEDIAEL(1) who was the brotherofBecher. The father (or son?) of Gibeah wbuld naturally be Becher (see I S. 91, and cp GIBEAH, $ I [ z n.]). The 'sons' mentioned in 8 30 (=936) are Bichrites (cp KISH I). In Josh. 18 25 Gibeon is assigned to the tribe of Benjamin f in Josh. 21 17 to the Levites. The men of Gibeon took part in rebuilding the wall under Nehemiah (Neh. 3 7 . @BNAom @L afiaov&qs, yafiawvci), and in one form of the iost-exilic Zst of 'the men of the people of Israel ' the ' men of Gibeon ' are mentioned (Neh. 7 25). Since however, Gibeon is separated by several names from the thre; other members of the Gibeonite tetrapolis, and its nearest neighbours are Bethlehem and Netophah, the correctness of the reading ' Gibeon' may be doubted. Ezra 2 20 has instead ' Gibbar,' which is a little nearer to the (probably) true reading l F , Bether (see GIBBAR). We can hardly hesitate to identify the ancient Gibeon with the modern village eZ-Ji6. The ancient 4. Identifica- name is no doubt strangely mutilated ; but the biblical data and the statements of Toseuhus and the Onomasticon3 all point to the correctness of the theory. A mile north of Neby Samwil (see MIZPAH,I), at the point where the road to the coast divides into two branches, rises a low, isolated hill, composed of horizontal strata of limestone, which in places form regular steps, or small terraces, from bottom to top. At other points, especially on the east, the hillside breaks down in rugged irregular precipices. Round the hill is spread out one of the richest upland plains in central Palestine -meadowlike in its smoothness and verdure, covered ~~
~~
~~
Y
,
I
1 See CHRONICLES $ 7 n. 2. The same spirit which animated the Chronicler see& have prompted the alteration of ?@? into n2]? thetoHeb. text of I K. (seecome Benzinger). .2 . Analogy firbidsinus suppose that Jib3 4has directly
a Where the 'tent of Yahwb ' referred to in I S. 17 54 (emended text : see NOB)really was, may be left uncertain.
from Gih'an (Kampffmeyer ZDPV15 27). 3 Jos. (By ii. 19 I) place; Gibeon 50 stadia NW. from TeruSalem ; Ant. vii. 1117 less correctly gives 40 stadia ; El-Jib is 5-6m. W. or N. of Jerusalem, according to the road taken.
1717
1718
1 So Buhl
Gag. 173.
GIBLITES
GIDEON
near the village with vineyards and olive groves ; and sending out branches, like the rays of a star-fish, among the rocky acclivities that encircle it. Upon the broad summit one sees old ruins-notably one massive building which was probably a castle, and among the ruins the houses of the miserable hamlet. At the eastern base of the hill, beneath a cliff, is a fine fountain. The source is in a large chamber hewn out of the rock. Not far below it, among venerable olive trees, are the remains of an open reservoir or tank, into which the surplus waters flow-no doubt the ‘ pool’ or great waters ’ of Gibeon ( 2S. 2 13 Jer. 41 12).
of the Abiezrites as he was beating out wheat secretly in the wine-press, and bade him go with his trusty clansmen1 against the Midianites. At once a divine impulse seized him ; he sounded the war-horn ; his clansmen joined him, and with them warriors of Manasseh and Ephraini. They marched early to Mount Gilboa, and took up their position on a projecting hill of that range, ‘ b y (above) the spring of HAROD[p.w ., I], while the Midianites were encamped to the north of them, beneath Mount Gilboa, in the vale.’ Towards daybreak, Gideon crept down with his armour-bearer Pu(r)ah (an Issacharite?)2 to the .hostile camp, and heard one Midianite relate to another a significant dream which T. K. C.l GIBLITES ($743),Josh.135 I K. 518(32). See he had had that night. On his return Gideon called his men to the attack. They raised the war-cry, ‘ F o r GEBAL(i.). Yahwb and for Gideon,’3 and threw the Midianites into GIDDALTI (’&??,; r o A o A A a 0 [L]), a son of such confusion that they fled_as far as the distant slopes of Abel beth m a a ~ a h . ~ T h e Israelites, however, HEMAN [p.~.]. hurried after them, and took the two princes of the I Ch. 25 4, yo8ohhaOsr [Bl, e8ohhaflL [A], v. 29 yo8opaOsr [Bl, ~ ~ B S F A [A], O L GEDDELTHZ [Jg.]. M i d i a n i t e ~and , ~ brought their heads to Gideon. Thus Midian was subdued. And Gideon judged his people GIDDEL ($74, ‘[God] has reared’ ; 3 50 ; r f A A H A forty years. He had seventy sons, besides Abimclech, [ALI). the son of his Canaanitish concubine. I. The eponym of a family or group of NETHINIMin later insertions in this narrative are due partly to a desire the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA ii., $ 9 ) ; Ezra 2 47 ( K S ~ S ~ toThe place the theophany above doubt artly to a tendency of late [Bl)=Neh. 749 (ya8qh [BNLI ua. [A])=I Esd. 5 3 0 ; EV editors to use the old narratives for 6&cation(cn 7 2-8with I S. GEDDUR (re88oup [B], ye. [A], ;a+ [L]), or CATHUA (mva [B], 1 4 t h ) , prtly to i t palriotic wish that as many t r i h as pos.il,le KaOoua [A]). might Lc shown to have had i t stwe i n Gidcon’s cxploit (in vi. 35 2. (ua8arz [L]) agroup of‘ Solomon’ssewants’ (see N ETHINIM) ‘ Aslier ’ is probably a corruptioii of ‘ lssachar ’), and pnrrly t u D in the great post-exilic list (see E ZRA ii?, 5 9); Ezra 256 desire to provide a link between this narrative and that in ch. 8. With regard to the last-mentioned point, it will be found that in (ya8qa [Bl)=Neh. 758 (ya8qh tBN1, -&A [AI, ua88ar [Ll)= ‘I 226 thedescriptionof thedirection of the flight of the Midianites, I Esd. 5 33, ISDAEL (ru8aqh [BA]). the text of which had become accidentally corrupted, was GIDEON (]\UTd, as if from 4 U Y I ‘ to fell,’ §§ 66, 77 ; manipulated in such a way as to bring Gideon across the Jordan ready to he enriched with the exploits which properly belong t i r f A f W N [BAL] ; G EDEON in Heb. 1132 AV; the name Jerubbaal. The inserted passage, 8 1-3, stands by itself. It appears also in thegencalogy of Judith[S I]) son of Joash, seems to he suggested by 12 1-3and a s . 19 41, and is a consequence of the insertion of 7 24, in which the Ephraimites are of the Manassite clan of Abiezer, dwelling at O PHRAH said to have been summoned to cut pff the fugitive Midianites. [ g . ~ . , 31, renowned through his success against the I t should also he mentioned that ‘ Jerubbaal ’ in chap. 9 seems to have been substituted by the editor for Gideon (Wi.). . Midianites, otherwise called J ERUBBAAL , Judg. 6-8, and referred to in Judg. 9 as the father of Abimelech, The Jerubbaal-story may have been somewhat as king of Shechem. The narrative is highly comfollows :plicated, and traces of composite origin abound. [At Jazer in the land of Gad (?) there dwelt a man of T h e Hebrew text, too, contains many errors which the Gadite family of Uribaal, which name he himself must, if undetected, lead the student astray. No2. Jerubbaal- bore : later generations changed it to where has criticism been more carefully and acutely Jerubbaal (?); his father’s name was applied than here ; it is only in textual and historical Toash. Now the Midianites oppressed criticism (especially in the former) that there is much Israel, driving ;way their cattle, and plundering the still to be done. A fresh combination of textual, fruits of the ground. And Jerubbaal, and ten of his literary, and historical criticism, which owes much to household, went by night, and made a slaughter among predecessors, leads to the results given below. The the M i d i a n i t e ~ . ~To avenge this the Midianites came degree of their probability varies considerably, owing to upon Jcrubbaal’s brethren in Beth-sur,s their stronghold, the large amount of sncccss attained in the early fusion and slew every one of them, whereupon they turned of the narratives. It is, however, scarcely open to doubt and went northward on their camels, plundering as they that Gideon (Gaddiel ?) and Jerubbaal (Uribaal ?) are two went, till] they came to I ( a r k ~ r , S. ~ of Hamath. different heroes (the one belonging to W. Manasseh, Jerubbaal, however, called his clan together, three the other either to Gad or to E. Manasseh) whose hundred warriors, burning with zeal for Yahwb, and respective legends have been combined and expanded with the desire for vengeance. They took the ‘ road of by successive narrators and editors. S 29. The context of the former passage shows that originally T h e Gideon-story in its earlier form began with the Jerubhaal, not Gideon, was referred to. statement that nomad invaders 4 from the Syrian desert 1 g,ln,l ‘in this thy strength’ (ti 14) needs emendation; 1. Gideon- werewont to spread themselves at harvestread perhaps ?pp(cp Gen. 14 14). time over the fertile country near Shechem 2 For (7 IO) read perhaps P UAH [u.v., 11 (Gen. 46 13 story, and over the plain of Jezrcel, plundering etc.). Cp ~SSACHAR,5 4. the crops. Then Yahwk appeared to Gideon5 at Ophrah 3 3ln ‘sword,‘ in 7 20, is an interpolation (Moore, Bu. etc.). 1 5 4 mainly from Porter’s art. ‘ Gibeon’ in Kitto’s Bi6. Cyc. 4 Read npp-n*9 $25 n++yig for niinn 5 3 rqv ~ TY a The readings of @Land in I Esd. of @EA seem to point to (7 22). The text is disfigured by jransposition and corruption. The 3 name containing ’@. editor thought of 3;l~ (;mx), which he placed near Abelme3 ‘Nothingcanbeclearer than thefact that 8 k z ~ i not s from the holah. This agrees with the probable position of ZARETHAN same source as 8 1-3with its premises in the preceding narrative. k.7J.l. Close examination shows that chaps. ti 7 are not of one piece 6 On the (probably) true name of the princes (or prince?) of throughout: 6 2 5 3 , e.@, is not the continuation of 611.24; Midian, see OREB [i.]. the second sign, h 36-40,IS strange after the miracle fi 21 ; cp also 6 Jerubhaal is possibly the same as ARELI [ q . I ~or rather ti 34 with 6 3j 7 2-8, and on the other hand 6 35 with 7 23,f Ariel (Uriel=Uribaal?), the name of a ‘son’ of Gad: ’ 8 I ’ (Moore). Cp JUDGES, 8 8. 7 C. Niebnhr riehtlv observes that the earlv fortunes of 4 In Judg. ti 3 33 7 12 Pesh. reads op’, 33 for MT’s nip $32. Jerubbaal must be rold’in the passage underlyingjudg. 6 25-22, if we could only recover it. Only a few words, perhaps, were Now 07’) (REKEM) is most probably a corrupt fragment of legible to the later narrator to whom G 25-32 is due. 5ttnn-p ‘(Jerahmeel). Pesh. appears to have the right reading. ‘The sons of Jerahmeel’ is a variant of ‘the Amalekites’; for 8 Read 7rr-n-aa for l i p p (8 18). See THEBEZ, TIRZAH, I. parallels see Job 1 3 I K. 5 IO (JOB MAHOL). 9 Read l‘pl? W3 (S IO). 5 Joash is the fader of Jerubhah, not of Gideon. See ti z g
-
-
..
1719
1720
GILBOA, MOUNT
GIDEON
like Zelophehad, is probably a corruption of Salecah (Salhad), Damascus,'] to the E. of Jogbehah (Aj6Th4, and the city which is so prominent in the story of Jerubbaal. Nobah (/
?lp??
-to suppose that on his way thither Gideon gathered in fresh volunteers ; possible, too, that the enrichment of the Jerubbaal-legend by the story of the jars and -torches is erroneous, and that this story really belonged to a second version of the Gideon-story. T h e similarity ,of the stories not unnaturally led to their combination, If Jerubbaal dwelt at azer the similarity of this name to lAbiezer would facilitate t i e cdmbination of the legends. We might also assume that Jerubbaal belonged to the GiZeadite clan of Abiezer; in I Ch. 7 18 Abiezer is a son of Hammolecheth, the sister of Gilead. I t should also benoticed that HAMMOLECHETH,
GIFT,
For
iln3D, minhah,
nntln,
teizimdh,
dv&O$pa or dvWep.a (Lk. 21 gAV), and GGpov, see SAcriiFicE; for nxbn mas'ath see T A X A T I O N A N D TllIUUTE ; for G IFT S , S PIRITUAL ()(api&a.ra), see S PIRITUAL GIFTS.
GIHON
(]in'$
and
[I
K.]
]in3 ; ,/n'$
' t o burst
forth '). From I. A spring near Jerusalem ( I K. 1333845). Ch. 3230 3314 it appears that it was to the E. of the city, and that Hezekiahs aqueduct diverted its waters. All our data point to the Virgin's Fountain (see EN2
ROGEL, SHILOAH).
For &ax3 q)>ua (8 II), which 'does not admit of any grammatical interpretation' (Moore), read ~ W I S S : = p!??~ 'Damascus.' p'5;.mx is an exegetical insertion. a 'Nobah' ought to follow 'Jogbehah.' 3 Reading for nizp (85 etc.); see SALCAH,Suc1
*COTH, I.
4
Reading
IF
for nT1:: (84).
l?? is either a gloss
.(Moore) or a corruption of []],in.
Reading o3p7 (Bu., after 65) for 0 3 1 i (8 4). See C. Niebuhr. We need not suppose YO horns I The horn takes the place of the war-cry in the corresponding part of .the Gideon.story. 7 See ZEBAH A K D ZALMUNNA.The chiefs are here called 'kings,' to heighten the glory of K i n g Jerubbaal. 8 For @ ' ! (8 1 6 3 ) read probably 'J?. There is.some con-fusion in v. 16 (see Niebuhr). Q q';? means 'thy sons, 0 king.' So Niebuhr: cp Kittel Kist. 2 SI, n. 1. 10 1; isnoobjection to this that Judg. 7 gpoints to an oligarchy rather than a monarchy. Jervbbaal was every inch a king while he lived, nor could the oligarchy of his seventy sons (9 2 ) .have lasted long. 11 Something has clearly dropped out after q%! in 8 29. 12 E. Manassite, according to Niebuhr. 5
6
56
1721
I K. 133 3845 [s]rwu [BAT.], z Ch.3230 d r l ~ w uIBI, ylslrwv [AL], 33 14yrov [%I, YOTOY [Ba.bAl, ysrwv [LI. 2. One of the four rivers of P ARADISE [ P . v . ] , Gen. 2 13 (YWV LADE], 71. [Ll). 3. The Nile, Jer. 2 18 @BNAQ( ~ W ;V Heb. line [ m o p , Q'"g.1, SHIHOR[i.]), Ecclus. 2427 RV, AV G EON (y7lwv [BKA]), and, by crit. emend. Job 40236 (see J ORDAN , § 2 ( 3 ) ) , where read 'though Gihon overflow.' This use of Gihon implies the belief of a later age that the ' Cush ' of Gen. 2 13 was the African Ethiopia.
(%e),
GILALAI the son of a priest, a musician in the procession at the dedication of the wall (see E Z R A ii., 5 13g), Neh. 1236 (rehw?al [KC.amg.L],om. BK*A). GILBOA, MOUNT (yh?$;! l?, I S. 3118 2 S. 1 6 , reBoye [AI, bot '4 lq I1 I Ch. 101,rahBoye [A], 8 ; op. rshBoye [BAL], so Jos. Ant. vi. 142, etc.; M O N S 1 The difficulty found by critics in Is. 10 26 arises probably from an error in the text (see O REB AN D ZEEB). 2 [It is possible that B represents the wold by ?rop+up;wv in hoth passages, for in Lev. 1118 this word and au'xvos may have been misplaced.] 1722
GILBOA, MOUNT
GILBOA, MOUNT GELBOUE), more rarely GILBOA(’\?!?, I S.284 2 S. 21 12) ; once, corruptly, M OUNTAINS I N G ILBOA ’?$, 2 S. 121 ; cp I S. 318 ; TA OPH [BA]).
r.
(72
The name Gilboa, which occurs in M T only in the life of Saul, but should most probably be restored in Judg. 73 (Gideon),and possibly in I K. The name* 2027 (Benhadad. see below 5- -? Tcl), - _, has no obvious meaning. T h e early guesses in the Onomasticon ( O S 3527 18053 18995) are valueless, and the modern explanation ‘ a bnbbling fountain ’ (see Ges. Lex.(8))is no better. Transposition, however, so often accounts for otherwise inexplicable words (including names) that we may conjecture the name Gilboa, or rather Haggilboa (with the article), to be a corruption (probably designed) of Gibeath Habbaal ($p? np), ‘hill of the Baal’ ; cp K IR J ATH - J EARIM , § I. The corruption, if designed, was of course early ; 48 knows only ‘Gilboa,’ and the same name was preserved in the time of Ensebius and Jerome ( O S 24781 129 14) in that of the ‘large village’ called Gelbus (Gelbu=Gelboe) in the mountains distant 6 R. m. from Scythopolis. At the present day there is a small village called Jelbfin, SW. of that other village, called Fa@‘, which has given its name to the mountain range presently to be described, and is very, naturally supposed to represent also the old name Gilboa. What then does the geographical term ‘Mount Gilboa’ designate? Gilboa (or Haggilboa, ’ the Gil2. boa’), if the name-has been rightly accounted for, belonged originally to meaning. one of the elevations in the Gilboa ridge, probably to the highest (Sheikh Burkiin), not to the ridge itself. ‘ The mountain of Gilboa,’ however, is a collective term for the entire mountain mass now known as Jebel Fa@‘, which ‘may be best described as a horn-like projection from the hills bounding the plain upon the S., which first curves round towards the W. for more than three miles, and then runs towards the N W . for five miles further, straight out into the level ground like a peninsula. The greatest height is towards the E. [Sheikh BurkLn, 1696 feet above the sea], where the curve merges in the straight line, and where the range looks down upon the valley of the Jordan and the Acropolis of Bethshan, as it starts abruptly from the plain three miles from the foot of the mountains. At the southern commencement of the curve is the village of Jelbdn. . Three miles NW. of the highest peak, where the peninsula of hills is already well out into the plain, is a second peak, some 1400 feet in height, crowned by the tolerably prosperouslooking village of el-MezBr. Still farther to the NW. are two much lower peaks, between which lies the miserable village of Niiris. NW. again from these peaks, for two miles or a little less, the range falls down into a broken and irregular tableland, narrowing and becoming lower as it goes down into the plain, and bounded by steep, but nowhere inaccessible, stony slopes. The ridge ends in three fingers, as they may be called-the two southern ones mere narrow spurs, the northern, which is the true termination of the ridge, somewhat above a mile in breadth. Across this blunt end of the whole peninsula runs the valley which separates it from the broad, flat mound, on which Jezreel was built’ (Miller, Less than fhe Least of aN Lands, 169J [‘SS]). The ridge of Gilboa, which is the southern boundary o r rampart of the Vale of Jezreel, is of bleak and bare aspect, except on the S. side, where it is used as arable and pasture land. Probably, however, it was once wooded ; one might fairly contend that when 2 S. 1ZI was written (see J ASHER , BOOK OF, z ) the ridge was not so conspicuously bare as it is a t present. The poet’s aim is not t o account for an existing phenomenon; he feels too deeply for that. Gilboa has, at least in parts, its clothing of grass and trees ; he would
Geographical
..
1723
have Gilboa compelled to sympathise with the mourning Israelites. W e have next to ask, Where are the scenes of the two great events certainly connected with Mount Gilboa 3. The ,Gilboa, to be placed ? The answer can best I and be given by quoting the two passages of Judg. 284, etc. which describe the respective encampments of Gideon and Saul. ( a ) Gideon and all the warlike force (OF?%) that was with him encamped by (or at) the fountain of Harod, while the camp of Midian was to the N. of them, beneath Mount Gilboa, in the Vale’ (Jndg. 71, emended text ; see HAROD, WELL OF, I). This was where Gideon collected his force to meet the hordes from the other side of thc Jordan. The expression ‘ b y the fountain of Harod’ is loose. Gideon’s men were separated from the fountain by a steep and rugged slope; but they had the command of the fountain. I t ‘is on the plain, but so close beneath the hill, so encompassed by rocks, that a cit. .. small detachment could secure i t ’ (Miller.. od. * 178). A reference to the fountain made it at once plain whereabouts Gideon’s force was posted. To have encamped beside ‘Ain Jiillld would have been unnatural for mountaineers like the Israelites. ( b ) At a later time, we read, ‘ the Philistines gathered together all their battalions to Aphek, while the Israelites were encamped by the fountain of HBrod which is in Jezreel’ ( I S. 291, emended text ; see HAROD, WELL OF, 2 ) ; or, as another account‘says, ’ T h e Philistines mustered, and came to Shunem, and Saul mustered all Israel, and they encamped on Gilboa ’ ( I S. 284). We are not to infer that Aphek and Shunem were close t0gether.l Aphek was in the N. of the plain of Sharon ; the two statements quoted come from different hands. They are, however, easily reconcilable. T h e mustering at Aphek was swiftly followed by the arrival of the Philistines at Shunem ; the Israelites expected this, and had no occasion to change their position. Soon, however, the Philistines must have found that they could not attack Saul’s position from Shunem; the Nahr JElad has too deep a channel, and the ascent from the lakelet below (see H A R O D )to the broken plateau above is too steep to permit a hostile attack on warriors drawn up above. An attack would be perfectly feasible, however, if the Philistines went up the far easier slopes and wiidies to the S., which lead t o open ground about the village of NBris, and directly above the ‘Ain Jiiliid.2 Thus there is a clear parallelism between the position of the Midianites and that of the Philistines, and between that of Gideon and that of Saul. Dean Stanley has given a picturesque account of the battle of Gilboa (Jewish Church, 2 2 5 A; cp Sinai and Pal. 345). According to him, the position occupted by Saul was ‘on the rise of Mount Gilhoa hard by the spring of Jezreel” the Israelites as usual keeping to the heights whilst their e&mies clung to the plain.’ The objections to ;his, however, drawn from close observation of the ground, are very strong.3 The chariots of the Philistines could not have pursued the Israelites up that steep and rugged slope. The fighting between Saul and the Philistines must have occurred on the southern slopes of Gilboa. (6) One more event may perhaps be assigned to this mountain-region-viz., the defeat of Benhadad, king of Syria, by Ahab. RV, following the received text states that ‘at the return of the year Benhadad mustered the S;rians, and went up to Aphek, to fight against Israel. And the children of Israel were mnstered, and were victualled, and went against them’ (I K. 2 0 2 5 , f i ) . ‘And were victualled,’ however, must be wrong; we require,
s.
~
~~
~
~
1 Prof. G. A. Smith formerly held that Aphek was somewhere near Jezreel (cp H. P. Smith, Snm. 244) ; now, however, he has come over to the view advocated by WRS (APHEK,7 (d), .vu,z’~. col. 192) that the Aphek in Sharon is that intended (PEFQ,
18257 P. 252). GASm. H G 403; cp Miller, Less than fhe Least o f a l t Lands, 1 7 5 ~18oJ 3 I t is inaccurate, however to represent Stanley as saying that the battle was ‘on the piain’ (Miller, 175 ; GASm. 403).
See passages referred to above.
I724
GILEAD
GILEAD
instead, a statement of the mustering-place of the Israelites. should perhaps be 'in Gilboa'; the error was obviously produced by the following word >,$) ('and went'). This is confirmed by w. 306 where we read in RV that 'Benhadad fled, and came into h e city, into an inner chamber,' a rendering which is violently extracted from an obviously corrupt text. Klo. reads ik?1 1 : i'p $y Nan:!, '. and hid himself by the fountain of Harod in Harod,' or ll!? p?!Y' , 'by the fountain in Harod.' The difficultylies in the distance between Aphek in the N. of Sharon (see APHEK,3 [bl), which is surely meant here (not el-'AfFileh) and Mount Gilboa; but the textual suggestions are extremely )plausible and a mustering of the Philistines at the same Aphek preceded'their final attack upon Saul by the southern slopes of Gilboa. Cp, however (for the whole subject of this article), SAUL. T. K. C.
ence. They apply it, when they speak most deliberately,. to the whole mountain range between the Yarmtk on the N. and the Arnon on the S.,which was cut into two parts by the great trench of the ZerkH or Jabbok (cp Dt. 312 Josh. 122 5 1 3 2 5 ) . The two parts together are sometimes called ' all Gilead' (Dt. 3101 z K. 1033). and the general term Gilead is applied to those districts on the E. of the Jordan which were in Israelitish occupation (N U . 3229 Josh. 2 2 9 Judg. 1 0 8 201 2 S. 2 4 6 I K. 4 1 9 Am. 1 3 13) ; hut also to the northern, or to the southern part alone (see for the one, Dt. 2 3 6 3 4 Josh. 171 ;, and for the other, Nu. 321 Josh. 1325). The elasticity of the term is strikingly shown by the fact that in Dt. GILEAD and, with thearticle, l&!g ; rf*),f*f*A 34 I I Macc. 5 2 0 8 ' Gilead ' even includes the region N. of the Jahbok. [BALI1), a trans- Jordanic region frequently referred to. W e have seen that the term ' Gilead ' belongs of right 1. Name. The name, which can he explained from to a large mountainous district, not to a particular the Arabic jul'ud, ' hard, rough,' is at first mountain. It would he a mistake t o sight not very appropriate, the hills and dales of Gilead Gen' 31 17-54' infer the contrary from the interesting being full of natural beauty, and well adapted for composite narrative in Gen. 3117-54. I t is true that cattle (cp Nu. 321) and for the flocks of goats which what is said of Jacob and Laban in v. 25 and of Jacob are still fed there (cp Cant. 41 ; and see H A I R , 5 I). in v. 543 implies that a particular mountain, known t o Upon the whole, Gilead is better provided with water the respective writers of these passages, was sometimes and woodland than any part of W. Palestine. Hence called in a special sense i$;3. .- y,' the mountain of (the) Merrill (Hastings, DB 2 174 a ) seems inclined to doubt Gilead ' ; but this specialisation merely indicates that the correctness of the explanation. T h e name ' hard, the mountain referred to was a conspicuous one in some rough' is, however, at once seen to he appropriate part of the Gilead range. That the two narrators J and when we study the geological formation of the country. E meant the same part of the Gilead-range can hardly. The base slopes of the mountain chain of Moab and he maintained. They both differ from the original Gilead consist of Sandstone. story (see G A LEED , I ) ; they also differ from one another. This 'is covered in part by the more recent white marls, which When Jacob uttered the fine prayer in 3 2 9 8 ( J ) h e form the curious peaks of the foothills immediately above the Jordan valley. but reaches above them to an must have been near some great ford of the Jordan. 2. Geological elevation of I& ft. above the Mediterranean Probably he was at Succoth, not very far from the ford formation. on the S., and forms the bed of the Bukei' ed-Diimieh, for the notice in tien. 3317 has surely been basin, farther E. and 1000 ft. higher. Above this lies the hard, impervious Dolomitic limestone which misplaced by the editor of JE, and in J's narrative stood appears in the rugged gray hills round the Jahbok, and 'in Jehel It is possible that the Jehel &hd, the before 324[3].4 'Ajlim rising on an average 1500 ft. above the sandstone and highest point in the Jebel Jil'iid (N. of es-Sal!, and N. forrniig the bed of the numerous springs. It also dips to\lards of the ZerkH) is J's Gilead mountain. E, however, who the Jordan valley; and the water from the surface of the plateau, sinking down to the surface of this formation, bursts makes Jacob go, after parting with Laban, to MAHANArhl out of the hill slopes on the W, in perennial brooks. It was (q.v.), presumably localises the meeting of Jacob and from the ruggedness of this hard limestone that Gilead obtained Laban near some high point of the Jebel 'Ajliin. One Its name. Above ,this again is the white chalk of the desert plateau, the same found in Samaria and Lower Galilee, with might think of the Jebel Kafkafa (3430 ft.) which is to bands of flint or chert in contorted layers or strewn in pebbles the NE. of Siif and Jerash, close to the great pilgrim on the surface. Where this formation is deep the country is road from Damascus to Mecca ; hut SOf itself (2720ft. ) bare and arid, supplied by cisterns and deep wells. Thus the has great claims on our consideration. This is one of plateau becomes desert, while the hill-slopes abound in streams and springs' (Conder, in Smith, DB('411191 a). the sites where dolmens are to be found.5 It is probable The'plateau here spoken of is that extensive highland that by the ' pillar' and the ' heap' of Gen. 3145f. the which extends eastward to the Euphrates, where narrators meant some of those primitive stone monu3. nothing but desert shrubs will grow. On ments, which are specially abundant on the E. of the the edge of this region, and rising at Jordan. usage* most 500 ft. above it, are the long According to th9theory here presented, there should mountain-ranges which from their geological formation also be such a monument on Jebel 8sha'. All that we deserve the name of Gilead. Rocky as they may he, find is a shrine (perhaps 300 years old) containing a the higher slopes are covered with pine-trees (Pinus long, open trough, said to have been the tomb of Hosea, Carica, Don., a species resembling the Aleppo pine), beside which the Bedouins kill sheep in honour of the and, as Conder says, mastic-bushes,a whilst lower down prophet.6 The trough, however, may have been preare beautiful woods of oak trees and carob trees, formceded by a cairn ; sepulchral cairns are still common ing altogether, with the addition of numerous streams among the Arabs, and Absalom's cairn (2 S. 1817) fs and springs, th'e most perfect sylvan scenery in Palestine. familiar to readers of the OT. The narrative in Gen. IS T h e 'wood of Rephaim' (so read for 'wood of directed against the attempts of the Arameans to possess Ephraim ' in 2 S. 1 8 6 ) is still represented by the thick themselves of Gilead ; the standing-stone (massEba) on groves of the Jebel 'Ajliin, with which the woods of esE's mountain and the cairn on J's were represented Salt in S. Gilead alone can compete. Far below the by E and J respectively as having been erected, Gilead range lies the Jordan Valley, which is reached by the former by Laban, the latter by Jacob, as sacred a very steep descent, and a natural division in the range boundary-stones. The masSEbH, by a slight distortion, is formed by the river Zerkii (Jabbok). The was called ' the Mispah ' to indicate that Yahwi: would Hebrew writers, whether they were conscious of the 1 Gilead is here distinguished both from Bashan and from the original meaning of Gilead or not, were well aware that tableland of hloab. 2 Jacob is here said (by J) to have pitched his tent 'on fhe the name had properly no narrow or merely local refermountain [of . .I,' p b a n on 'the mopntain of (the) Gilead. 1 [In @ occur the following forms :-Judg.lOq yaaa8 [By], 8 Tacob sacrifices on the mountain : n. 21 shows that some IO8 ~ U A U ~ L % T ' S[AL], 11; m p a + [A] I K . 413 yahaa0 [B], part'of the Gilead range is meant. E i s the writer. 4 It was followed probably by a mention of Jacob's crossing of y a h ~ 6 ~ ' ~ q s ' [419 L l a8 [L] T Ch. 5 16 y a h a F [B], Hos. 1211 (12) yahyqhois [Q isemey], Am.)l13 yahaaS(e)L'Tqs [BAQ*Fl, - L T L ~ W Y the Jabbok. Cp Holzinger, ad Zoc. vld.1 I Macc. 5 9 yahua8iTLs (A).] 6 Conder Hcth and Moa6 2 4 3 3 6 Baed. baZ.(3)163J ; cp konder, op. cit. 182. A large tree Smiih's DBW 1I I ~ 'I see also Conder, Heth andMoad, 188. stands beside the shrine which is 'one out of the very few however, Post, cidd sup. col. 465, with reference to the sacred domes E. of Jordan. Balm of Gilead. 1726 1725
rs~h
e#'??,
..
(lg$J,
*'
.
[Qt S,,,
GILEAD
GILEAD
“keep watch (and interpose) between’ Laban and mountain district ’ (Jebel Jarash), as well.as of the ruined ,Jacob, when occasion for this arose1 (z. 49). W e may city of that name. certainly infer from this that the place referred to by E If the name of Gerasa is rightly thus accounted for, was one of those called Mizpah. Possibly it was it still remains to determine what ancient city, if any, Ramath-ham-mkpeh, which in Josh. 1326 is described Ancient once stood upon its site. I t is difficnlt as the N. limit of the territory of Gad, and is elsewhere indeed to believe that the founders of that sites. called ham-miSpH (see MIZPAH,2). The cairn also magnificent city, the ruins of which still received a name : it was called Gal‘ed-ie., Heap of fascinate us, placed it upon a site unconsecrated by the Witness, implying a playful etymology of the name sanctuaries of the past. Both Ramoth-Gilead and .Gilead. Mahanaim have been thought o f : but we have reasons There is yet another conceivable inference from this sufficient for accepting neither view. Just an hour W. .singular narrative (when explained as above), against of Jerash is the wretched but well-situated village of Reimtin (Ewald‘s Ramoth-Gilead), divided by a ridge 5. Special- which a caution may be desirable. I t ization of might be supposed that when E wrote, the from Siif (Mizpah 2). Turning to the W., in two hours known as Gilead began at the the traveller comes to ‘Ajlfin (Mahanaim?), ‘nestling at Gilead. territory Jebel ‘Ajltin. T h e truth is that the the bifurcation of the valleys, in its gardens and vineJebeZ ‘AjZzjn is the representative of the whole land of yards,’ with the great castle already spoken of in the Gilead. So at least it must appear to those who approach neighbourhood : on either hand are the well-clothed Gilead from Damascus, and see, looming up beyond heights of the Jebel ‘Ajlan. A descent, a climb, and the plain of Bashan, the summits of the Jebel ‘Ajlfin. again a descent bring us to the WHdy YHbis ( a plausible On the other hand, to those w-ho come from Moab. claimant to the title of ‘the brook Cherith,‘ were it not the natural representative of Gilead will be the first for the faultiness of the reading C HERITH [p.’~.]),and to lofty range to the N. of the plateau of Heshbon-Le., an isolated round-topped hill, strewn with ruins (edthe / d e l Jil‘iid. How this latter name fixed itself just Deir)-but these not ancient-Robinson’s site for here is an obscure problem : why is the Yahwist’s If we turn to the N. of the same Jabesh-Gilead. Gilead mountain preferred to the Elohist’s ? Problems WHdy, we come to Miryamin, Merrill‘s site for the .of this kind, however, are numerous and baffling. same famous city. About seven miles off is Pella Why, for instance, is the highest mountain in this (Fahl),which ‘enjoys perhaps the finest climate, from an range- the Jebel Osha‘-named after the prophet agricultural point of view, that can be found in Syria.’ 1 Hosea? It is true, Hosea, according to the M T , The known history of Pella is a short one : but it may speaks of a city of Gilead in 68 (cp l211),and has been be noted here that, according to Eusebius ( H E 3 5 ) , thought to refer here to some locality in the Jebel the Jewish Christians fled, before the destruction of Jerusalem, to Pella. Jil‘Bd (see, however, 2). Can this have been known, however, to those who first used the Arabic name? And what shall one say of Irbid, the capital of the Surely Hosea has displaced Joshua. Who, then, predistrict of ‘Ajliin? Doubtless this was an ancient ceded Joshua ? T h e truth is hidden from us. Artrela. Was it, then, the B ETH - ARBEL of Hos. 10141 I t would seem as if this specialization of the term Onr answer will probably be in the negative; but the Gilead had already occurred by the time of Eusebius site is of strategic importance, and the name implies the a n d Jerome (see z ) ; and it should also be noticed that antiquity of the place. Es-Salt, too,-at present tlic 5 m. N. of es-Sal! there is a ruin known as Jal‘iid,2 only capital of the BelkL, and the only important plncr: perhaps the ‘Gilead’ of the Onomasticon. Not imin it-though not as strikingly placed as ‘Ajltin, must 6. Called possibly, too, another seeming& recent surely have been always a centre of population, and tliGerash place-name preserves the memory of a name lofty Jebel Usha‘ to the north must always have bce:i of Gilead, which, though but slightly crowned by an important sanctuary, surely not, however, attested, may be genuinely ancient. T h e place-name Penuel. Where the latter place was, it is not easy to referred to is Gerasa (the famous city of the Decapolis say ; SUCCOTH (I), however, is possibly the modern Tcll .of Peraea), now called J e r a ~ h .According ~ to N e ~ i b a u e r , ~ Der ‘A411a. With more confidence we can identify J o c the Midrash (SamueZ, 13) affirms the identity of Gerash BEHAH with JnbeihHt, and the JABBOK with the ‘ blue’ .and Gilead: and Sir G. Grove has noticed that the river, the ZerkH.a Arabic version of Josh. 208 2138 [36] gives RHmat A passing reference is all that can be given to the .al-JaraS for M T s ‘Ramoth in Gilead,’ and that the interesting genealogies of Gilead (Nu. 26 29-33 Josh. Jewish traveller Parchi (circa 1311 A . D .) also says, 17 1 - 3 I Ch. 7 14-19) : see MACHIR, ‘ Gilead is at present Jerash.’ That the name Gerasa ASRIEL,H EPHER (ii., z), and especially is derived from the ~ Q ~ O Y T E Sor, veterans, of Alexander Z ELOPHEHAD . The last of these names the Great is of course absurd. I t reminds us so much occurs in a mutilated form as Jidlaph in Gen. 2222 ; it is .of Girzites and Girgashites that one is tempted to susprobablyidenticalwithSalecah. and as Milcah, themother pect that a tribe called Girzim or Girshim (cp GIRGASH- of Jidlaph, is a corruption of Salecah, we see how mechaniITES) may have dwelt in Gilead in pre-Israelitish times cally the genealogies were often filled up. Nor can we ‘(cp z S. 29, where Ishbaal reigns ‘ over Gilead and here gather up the fragmentary notices of the history of over the Girshite ’ ) : see G IRZITES . Gerash, like Gilead, Gilead. The country was the eastern bulwark of may have obtained a specialized reference to a town and Palestine, and was the first district to suffer from Syrian a district later ; hence Yaktit speaks of ‘ the Jerash and Assyrian invasions. In sacred legend it is distinguished by the passage of Jacob and by the residence of J EPHTHAH [p.v.]. The names of Barzillai, David, 1 Verse 49, which, as it stands is obviously imperfect, must be Ishbaal, Ahab, Elijah (was he really a Tishbite ?-see supplemented from v. 45. Reid’ with Ball ‘And the pillar TISHBITE) also will readily occur to the reader as conwhich he set up he called “the MiSpah,” for he said,’ etc. a The two names next mentioned are Betonim (rather Botnim) nected with Gilead. The clansmen of G AD , whose name and MAHANAlhl [ q . ~ . ] . is almost treated as synonymous with Gilead (e.g.,Judg. 3 This name is not to he confounded with JiilCid the name of 5 17 I S. 137), had opportunity for learning resource and ariver which starts fiom the ‘Ain JiilCid under G I L ~ O[q.v., A 8 31. This Jiilnd is also pronounced / A h i t , which is the Ai-. form of courage in the mountains and glens of the ‘ rugged ’ Goliath. Goliath impressed the Moslem mind. Mokaddasi land. Cp G AD , 5 2. PERXA. (11th c e p . A.D.) calls the citadel of ‘Ammiin the ‘castle of Oliphant, LandofGilead(‘80) : graphic descriptigns ; Coiider, GoI iat h 4 According to Guthe (MDPV, ’98,578) Jerash, not Jerssh, 1 Le Strange, in Schumacher, Across tha/ordan, 272. Pella is the popular pronunciation. is the 5 ” o~f Talm. Jer. (Neub. Gkogr. 274); cpGASm. HG 292, 5 Gdogr. d74 Talm. zjo. 6 Zunz, quoted by Grove (Smith DH1)2 1003). He also states n. 2. that the Jews derived Gerash from’Yegar-sahadutha (Gen. 31 47). 2 On the Jabbok of Gen. 32 22, see J ABBOK , 8 2. 1728 1727
.,
~
.
MAP OF GILEAD AND AMMON I N D E X TO NAMES
Parentheses indicating a r t i c h that refer to the place-names are in certain cases added to non-dibZica2 names Laving no bi6licaZ e g u i v a h t . The n@haleticaZ arrangement usuuZ& ignores preJzzes: abu ('father of '), 'ain (' spring'),'urd& ( I district '), 'uyrn ( ' springs '), ba&r ( ' s e a '), deit ( ' house '), W i d ( ' country '), jeiedel ( ' mt.'), j i s r ( ' bridge '), @aZ'at ( ' custle '), k a n d l ( ' conduit '), @urn ( ' horn '), kasr ( ' castle '), Khirbet ( ' ruin '), k5m (' mound '), makhddet ('ford '), nahr (' r i v e r ' ) , rds ( ' head '), teZZ ( I mound '), umm ( ' mother '), wddy (' v d e y '). Elealeh, C4 Abel-Meholah, B3 M&r ElyHs, Bz Abel-shittim, B4 'Arak el-Emir, B4 (HYRAbil, C I CANUS) Abila, C I (ABEL-SHITTIM) Ephron z, C I W. el-Abyad, B3, 4 Eriha, A4 Adam, B3 Adamah, B3 Fahl or Tabakat Fahl, Bz wady el-'A?eimeh, B4 (J ABESH) AjbShat, C 3 (J OGBEHAH) . W. Fajjhs, B I 'Ajliin, Bz (GILEAD, B z ) j. Fakilt, Az jebel 'Ajliin, BCz (GILEAD, kanHt Fir'aun, BCI (CON0 7) DUITS) wHdy 'AjlCin, Bz, 3 (CHEW. Faslil, A3 RITH ) el-',&', c 4 Gadara, B I telldEr'Alla, B~(GII.EAD, $7) GerdSa, c z Amateh, B3 kaSr wHdy el-Ghafr, C I um(m) el-'Amdln, Bz (E PHRON) 'ariil: el-Amir, C4 wHdyel-Ghafr, C I (E PHRON ) 'AmmBn, C 4 (ABEL-CHERA-W. el-Ghuweir, B4 (DEAD MIM ) S EA) wHdy'AmmHn. C3, 4 Mt. Gilboa, A z Aqueduct, C I Mt. Gilead, B3 wHdy el-'Arab, B I (EPH- Gilgal, A4 RON, 2) 'ain Hajla, B4 Arbela, C I niakhadet Hajla, B4 Kh. 'Atiif, Az jebel Hakart, C3 W. el-'Aujeh, AB4 tell HammHm, B4 'Ayiin MCisH, B4 W. el-HammHm, C 3 wHdy 'Ayon MiisB, B4 Hammath, BI (BETH-PEOR) el-Hammeh, BI Batanah, B4 Kh. Hamzeh, C4 BeisHn, Az HesbBn, C4 Bethabara, B4 'ain Hesban, C4 (H ESHBON) Beth-haran, B4 wiidy HesbHn, B4 (BETHPEOR) Beth-jeshimoth, B4 Heshbon, C4 Beth-shean, Az wHdy el-HimHr, B2 Betonim, B4 el-Had, B4 W. el-Bireh, BI Humeid. Bz Bithron, Bz W. el-Humr, AB3 W. el-Bukd, A3 el-Bukba, C 3 (GILEAD, B z) W. IbtEn GhazHl, B3 Irbid, C I Camon, B r Casphor, DI Jabbok, B3 Jabesh, Bz ed-DHmieh, B3 N. JBliid, A I Dathema, D I Jal'iid, B3 (GILEAD, 5 2 ) ed-Deir, Bz (JABESH, 5 2 ) ed-Delhemiyeh, B I (DAL- Jazer, C3 < . MANUTHA) am Jenneh, Cz Der'Ht, D I Jerash, Cz (DECAPOLIS) W. Jerash, Cz, 3 Edrei, D I jebel Jiltad, B3 (GILEAD, %dun, Cz B 4)
Jericho, Crusaders', A4 Jericho of Or, A4 W. el-Jozeleh, AB3 birket Jiljiiliyeh, A4 Jogbehah, C3 wady el-Jorfeh, B4
W. er-Retem, B4 er-RujEb, B3 (ARGOB) wady er-Rujeb, B3 er-Rummiin, C 3
tell es-Sdidiyeh. B2 'ain es-Sakiit, Bz es-Salt, B3 (M AHANAIM) jebel Kafkafa, Cz (GILEAD, Samakh, BI B 4) Karawa, B3 es-SHmik, C4 Kaukab el-HawH, B I khirbet SBr, C4 (J AZER ) Kh. el-Kefrein, B4 (ABELkarn Sartabeh, A3 SHITTIM ) Scythopolis, Az tell el-Kefrein, B4 wady Sha'ib, B4 wady el-Kefrein, B~(ABEL- 'ain esh-Shamsiyeb, B2 SHITTIM ) Sheri'at el-Kebireh, B I -4 W. el-Kelt, AB4 Sheri'at el-MenHdireh. B I Kerak, BI ras umm el-Kharrilbeh,A3 W. el-Khashneh, Az Kumeim. B I bahr
La!,
B4
Maha?, C4 Mahne, Bz W. el-MHlih, Bz jebel el-Mastabeh, C 3 W. Meidan, B4 W. el-Mellaha, AB4 jebel el-Mi'rHd, B3 Miryamin. Bz ' Mizpah ' ?, Cz jisr el-MujHmf, BI W. Mukelik. B4 el-Muzeirib, D I NebH, B4 tell Nimrin, B4 (BETHABARA ) W. Nimrin, B4
wady Sir, C4 (JAZER) Kh. SiyHga, B4 Succoth, B3 Siif, Cz (GILEAD, 8 7) tell es-Sultan, A4 SFimiyeh, C4 Kh. eS-Siir, B4 'ain Suweimeh, B4 khirbet Snweimeh, B4 (BETH-JESHIMOTH) jebel bilkd e?-SuwEt, Dr Tabakat Fahl, Bz bahr Tabariyeh, BI et-Taiyibeh, B I wady et-Taiyibeh, B r W. abii THra, R4 TaricheE, BI Tibneh, Bz et-Turra, C I
jebel Oshd, B~(GILEAD, $4)
Um Kes, B I Pella, Bz (JABESH) Philadelphia, C4 kal'at er-Rabad, Bz (EPHRON, 2)
wady Yabis, Bz (JABESH) Yajiiz, C3 (JAZER) k6m YHjjBz, C 3
Zarethan, A3 Rabbath Ammon, C4 beit Zer'a, C4 (JAZER) tell er-RHmeh, B4 beit er-RHs, CI(DECAPOLIS, kafat ez-ZerkH, D3 nahr ez-ZerkH, BCD3 B 2) Reimiin, C2 (GILEAD, $ 7 ) ras umm Z6ka, Bz er - Renitheh, DI (DA- jebel ez-Zumleh, DI THEMA) (BASHAN)
GILGAL
GILGAL Heth a n d Moa6 ('83); Selah Merrill, East of Jordalz ('81); Schumacher Across theJordan ('86), contain9.Literature. ing ' A Riie through djlun,' by Guy Le Strange ; Tristram, L a n d of I s m e l ; C;. A. Smith, H G ; and Gautier, Au del2 duJourduin(2)('96). 2. A city, mentioned perhaps in Judg. 1 0 1 7 and ( B A L ) 1 2 7 ; also in Hos. 6 8 1211 [m]. Ewald (on Hos. ZZ.cc.) thinks of Mizpeh of Gilead (Judg. 1 1 2 9 ) , which was the seat of an ancient sanctuary (Judg. 11 IT ' Mizpah '). Buhl (Geogr. 262) thinks of Ramoth, or rather Ramath-Gilead ; Hitzig of Jabesh-Gilead ; Budde (on Judg. 1017) of the site of the modern Jal'tid, N. of es-Salt (see I ) , which may represent the ' Gilead ' mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome ( O S 241 42, 124 30). But 'Gilead' for ' Mizpeh of Gilead,' or the like, IS hardly conceivable, and the passages quoted, except the first, prove to be corrupt. In Judg. 10 17 'in Gilead' simply covers over the narrator's ignorance ; 11IT supplied ' Mizpah' as the place of encampment of theIsraelites; that of the Ammonites could not be determined (cp Moore's note). In Judg. 127 the text is mutilated : read probably 'in his city, in Mizpah of Gilead. In Hos. 6 8 1 2 11 [121 1 5 3 should most probably he $152 (cp yahyaho~s 1 2 11 [IZ] [J6] for yahaar3 [zu]). No doubt Hosea might have referred to a second sanctuary in Gilead, and Ruben's res. toration of 6 g is geographically and historically plausible (cp Che. Ex#., Jan. '97, p. 4 7 , 9 But the sanctuaries of Bethel and Gilgal are much more likely to he referred to than the hypothetical sanctuaries of ADAM [q.v., i.1 and 'Gilead.' For D l M in v. 7 read probably 115 n'ap 'in Beth-aven,' and read vu. 8 3 thus-'Gilgal is a city of those that work wickedness, 8 hill fortress of evildoers (O'plp npm). And a company of traitors are her priests; the way of Yahwb they reject ; they are eager to commit crimes' (w+? ~YC! '3 77: $*;+ D*!I> ~ a n : nm). In 12 11 [I21 pa 1 ~ 5 1is a corruption of nqr \+ ; the prefixed mi is a dittographed ]lN (GrP.). T.K. C.
where for ' quarries ' read perhaps <.graven images ' ; see QUARRIES. The Priestly Writer, who records the celebration of the passover at Gilgal (Josh. 5 IO-I,), describes the site as at ' the east end ' of the territory < of Jericho' ( 4 1 9 ) . In the parallel passage in Josephus (Ant. v. 14) Gilgal is given as 10 stadia or a little over a mile from Jerichb-i.e not the W. elOT Jerichd at 'Ain es-SultZn but the N T site on Kelt. Eusebius and Jerome (&' 121522 243 94) place Galgala 0'; Golgol ( ohywh) ' t o the E. of ancient Jericho,','a desert spot 2 R.m. b m Jericho ' ab illiris regionis mortahbus miro cultn habitus.' Theodosiu; (De Situ T e r m Suncia 16,circaggo A.D.), sets it at I R. m. from the citv : and later Christian records from a little less than.1 m. to as m&h as G. After the eiehth centurv the name was lost till Robinson heard a rumour ;fit in 1 8 4 (BR2 287) ; and in 1865 Zschokke (ToPo,. der W. Jordansaue, 28) heard 'Tell-Jeljul' applied to a low mound, a little more than a mile E. of modern Jericho, on the N. bank of the Kelt with a heap of stones and remains of a wall. Conder ( T e d Work 203 8)found the form JiljOliyeh applied both to some 'small mounds and to a tank. An Arab eravevard suggests the traditional sanctity of the spot; and assoccated with it is a legend, derived from the fall of Jericho. There can be little doubt that, whether the name is due to a continuoils tradition (which is probable for Jos. [Ant.V. 141 could hardly have hit on the site otherwiie) or is a Christian revival of the fourth century, the neighbouhood, and perhaps the very site, is that of the ancient sanctuarv and cam0 of Israel. It should
(Arch. Res. 2 37) wqs assured that the name Jiljiiliyeh was 'only
1 For an instance of twelve stones by the side of an altar see Ex. 244.
used by the Franks. His excavations revealed nothing decisiye, and he says 'the matter still seems to me extremely doubtful. The ark and the headquarters of the host remained here during Joshua's invasion of the hill-country, to which more than five roads opened conveniently from Gilgal, 9 6 1 0 6 J 9 1 5 (om. B"A; yahyaha [Bb*c?mg.L])43 (om. BA; yahyaha [L]) ; there is little reason for supplying another Gilgal for these passages (see below, s), some of which are perhaps mere glosses ( 1 4 6 , Judg. 21 all J E or Dt. ). The place of Gilgal in the reverence of the nation was secured for centuries. Even if it mere not the sanctuary to which Samuel went yearly in circuit ( I S. 7 16yahyah [L], see below, 3 4) it was certainly that to which he sent Saul before him (108 yahaas [B]), a t which Saul was anointed king ( l l 1 4 J ) , offered the hasty sacrifices which estranged the prophet, brought to Yahwe the devoted spoil, the &?rem (see B AN , § 2 J ) of the Amalekite campaign, and by his refusal to slaughter Agag lost his kingdom (1512-35). (The narratives here are doublets: see W. R. Smith, OTIC(? 1 3 5 8 ; see S AMUEL ii.). Under Saul as under Joshua the religious attractions of Gilgal were! supported by its military advantages. The Philistines had overrun the central range to the W. ; there was no other place in the land at which Israel could be rallied to attack them ; and Jordan and Gilead lay behind for a refuge (l347). In the following reign Judah assembled at Gilgal to meet David when he came hack over Jordan (2 S. 1915 [16] 40 [+I]) after his flight, and to escort him to the capital. At the disruption of the kingdom, Gilgal fell with the rest of the Tordan valley to N. Israel : but we have 3. The famous now a problem to decide ; whether the famous N. sanctuary of Gilgal was the sanctuary ? Gilgal of this site bv Tericho. or another Gilgal, which lay & the central ;inge to. thg N. of Bethel, and was also a place sacred to Yahwb (see 4), or still another which lay near Shechem (see 5 5 ) . Amos and Hosea, who frequently speak of the great national sanctuary, give us no hint as to where it lay : -Am. 4 4 ' come to Bethel and transgress-at Gilgal multiply transgression ' ; 5 5 ' seek not Bethel, nor come to Gilgal, for Gilgal shall taste the gall of exile ' (so one must clumsily render the prophet's play upon words hag-gi&&Zg d t h yigZdh; Hos. 4 15 come not to Gilgal and go not up to Beth-aven ' ; 9 15 ' all their evil is in I will drive them Gilgal, for there I hated them. out of mine house ' ; 1211 [I.] ' i n Gilgal they sacrifice bullocks ' or to bullocks ' or (as w e . ) ' I to demons. ' Apropos of this last verse it is interesting that the Christian fathers should have read ' Gilgal,' sometimes for ' Bethel,' some-
I729
I730
];e
$a>)?,
GILGAL (always with definite article, except 1.Name. Josh. 5 9 and M T of l 2 2 3 ) , the name of several localities in the Holy Land. Q3usually renders 51517 by the plural yahyaha [BAQFLI, as in Josephus and I Macc. So in Josh. (except 12 23 14 6,I![ 157 ; see below, $ 6), I S. (except 7 16 &v yahyaha [BA], rqv yuhyah [L] 1533 yahyah IBA]) z S. z K. Am. Hos. (except 9 15 yahyah'[BAQ], 12 IZU [rral ;aAaaS [BAQ"]). The singular yahyah occurs in Josh. 1 4 6 [B], 15 7 [ALI, Judg. 2 I 3 19 I S. 15 33 (yahyaha IL]), Hos. 9 15 Mi. Gg ; yohyoh [BA] in Dt. 1130 (but yohyo.' [Fl, oohyoh [Ll). On Josh. 12 23 see below, 0 6.
.
T h e name means literally ' t h e circle'-i.e., sacred circle of stones, the form now called 'cromlech' try archaeologists.1 Except in Galilee, such circles are not found W. of Jordan, where they may have been destroyed from the time of Josiah's reformation onwards ; but many ancient specimens are extant in E. Palestine, similar to those of Western Europe, and Arabs still construct stone circles round graves. For a picture .of a gilgaZ see PEFQ, '82, p. 72 ; and for a plan,
Survey o f E . Pal.
17.
.
The first sanctuary and camp of Israel in W. Palestine. The earliest of the documents of which the 2. Joshua,s Book of Joshua is composed ( J E ) relates that, after crossing Jordan, Joshua erected Gilgal. twelve stones which he had taken from t h e bed of the river on the W. bank ' i n the Gilgal' ( 4 3 Z O ) , and they became (v. .I$, probably Dt. ) a monument of the miraculous passage. This account agrees with the meaning of the name. T h e same document, however (with its unscientific habit of connecting placenames with events of ancient history), derives Gilgal ' I have from the reproach ' rolled away '-GallBthi, rolled ' - from Israel by Joshua when he re-instituted there the rite of CIRCUMCISION ( q . v . , 5 z), that had been in abeyance during the wanderings in the wilderness ( 5 9 ) . That the ' place ' (oiiJn, probably meaning sacred place, 515) was already so called, and was a centre of .Canaanite worship, is apparent both from the narrative quoted, and from Judg. 3 19 (yahyxh [BAL]), I
..
GILGAL
GILGAL
times for ' Dan,' as one of the two places where Jerohoam set up his golden calf (Cyril, Comnz. ih Hoseam, 5 ; [Pseud..] Epiph. De Vit. Proph. 237 ; Chmn. Pasc. 161). Thns, then, we find Gilgal in the eighth century equal in national regard with Bethel ; where the people zealously worship Yahwk, but do so under heathen fashion with impure rites that provoke his wrath. In an age passionately devoted to the sacred scenes of antiquity, such a kind of sanctuary might well be that ancient Gilgal (now belonging to N. Israel) at which, it was said, the ark had found its first rest in the land, circumcision had been restored, the first king had been anointed, and David himself had been reinstated in the affection of Judah. Beyond these general considerations, however, there is no proof to offer-unless it be found in the facts that the prophets never speak of going up to Gilgal as they do to Bethel, and that the Gilgal known to the writer of Micah 65 appears to be the Gilgal on Jordan. W e turn now to the rival Gilgals in the hill-country of Ephraim. 2. As early as the time of Eusebius there were1 ' certain who suspected a second Gilgal close to Bethel ' 4. A Gilgal (OS, s.v. yaXyaXa). This suspicion, byBethel'l aroused by the list of Samuel's circuit ( I S. 716)-Bethel,. Gilgal, Mizpah-of which Bethel and Mizpah are both on the central range, and strengthened by the prophets' close association of Bethel and Gilgal, in regard to the latter of which, as we have seen, they never use the expression ' go down,' which would have been almost inevitable in the case of a site in the Jordan valley, is raised almost to the pitch of conviction by the narrative of Elijahs last journey ( 2 K. 21-8 ; v. I rcpperxw [B*], yaXyaXa [Babmg.XL]). T h e order given is Gilgal, Bethel, Jericho for Gilgal reads Jericho, but evidently by error; for variants of B have yaXyaXwv), and it is said (a.2) that from Gilgal Elijah and Elisha 'went down to Bethel.'2 This implies a Gilgal on the central range, with at least an apparent descent on Bethel. Such an one has been found in YiljfZiyeh, about 7 m. N. of Bethel, and 2$ m. W. of the present high road, between Bethel and Shechem and Samaria. It is now a large village on the summit of a commanding hill 2441 feet above the sea. This is lower than Bethel, which is 2890 feet, but the hill is so bold and isolated that the phrase ' t o go down to Bethel' is quite appropriate. T h e view is one of the grandest in Palestine, from the sea to the hills of Gilead and as far N. as Hermon itself (Robinson, who seems to have been the first traveller to visit it, BR 3 81 ; cp PEFiW2290, map, sheet xiv.). This Gilgal, like Jericho, had its school of the prophets. That it was the same as the Gilgal of 2 K. 4 38 (yaXyaha [BAL]), Elisha's residence, seems implied by the connection of the latter (v. 42) with B AAL - SHALISHA [q.v.], another Samaritan town, also on the western watershed (see further Buhl, Geogr, 171 ; and cp G OURDS , W ILD , ad
the Jordan Gilgal. The case between them must still be regarded as open ; nor is it confined to them. There is a third Gilgal which also has strong claims to be regarded as the popular Israelite sanctuary of the eighth century. Dt. 1130: [Ebal and Gerizim] ' a r e they not beyond Jordan, to the west of the road of the sunset, 5, A Gilgal tn the land of the Canaanites, who dwell by Gerizim ? in the Arabah, over against Gilgal, beside the terebinth of Moreh ? ' As punctuated by the Masoretes the text means that it is Ebal and Gerizim that are opposite Gilgal. Taking the latter to be Gilgal by Jericho, certain Rabbis, followed by Eusebius, Jerome, and a constant Christian tradition, transferred Ebal and Gerizim to the hills inimedistely behind Jericho. Recent commentators have preferred to alter the punctuation, and taking 'over against Gilgal ' as describing the home of the Canaanites in the Arabah, have thought to secure both good grammar and accurate geography (see Driver, ad Zoc.). Dillmann, however, preserving the Massoretic punctuation, snpposed some Gilgal near Shechem ; and his hypothesis has been justified by the discovery of a modern place named Juleijil, on the plain of Makhna, I m. E. of the foot of Mt. Gerizim, 24 m. SE. of Shechem and I $ m. SW. of Siilim (PEFM2238). This suits the data of the passage. The terebinth of Moreh, ' t h e Revealer,' takes us back to Abraham, who built an altar beside it (Gen. 126). The place therefore was an ancient sanctuary, and further rendered sacred to Hebrew hearts by the worship of their great patriarch. (The only,difficulty in Dt. 1130 is the clause 'who dwell in the Arabah. It is very possible that this is a later insertion due to one who supposed that the Gilgal mentioned must be that in the Arabah by Jericho.) If then there was a Gilgal near Gerizim, sanctified by the worship of the patriarchs (for Jacob had been here as well as Abraham, Gen. 3318), and by the command of Moses to Israel to celebrate there their entry into the Promised Land, this Gilgal has equal claims with the two others we have already described, to be considered as the popular sanctuary of N. Israel in the ninth and eighth centuries. These claims have been defended in detail by Schlatter (Zuv Tojogr. u. Gesch. Paliisfhas, 2 4 6 3 ) and accepted by Buhl ( P a l z o z x ) . Schlatter makes out a most probable case. but his argument that the Makhna Juleijil wasalso the Gilgal \;here Joshua placed the camp of Israel after the conquest of Ai (96 106 15 43 146 yahyah [B]) is very doubtful, and his other, that it was the &gal of Saul's appointment to the kingdom (I S. 108&), is quite unsnccessfnl. Schlatter mistakes the Jud;ean Carmel for Mt. Carmel. [For another view of the difficult passage Dt. 1130 see GERIZIM, § 2.1 ( a l In the list of the Canaanite kings conouered bv Israel we find a 'king of the nations at Gilgal' (Josh. 1223 [Dt.]: \?!?) 093 y w a p mjc yrhyea [AI, Other yssc 7s: yahschalas [B], y a y 6 s y d y d [L]). Gilgals. In harmony with BB's reading some propose to read 'king of the nations of Galilee' (see GALILEE I). The king however is mentioned between the kingsf . (fa., g 25 and Tir;ah and Eusebius and Jerome (OS) place a yahyovhrr 6 R. m. N.' of Antipatris ; and this is represented to-day either by JiljBlieh, 4 m., or Kilkiliyeb, 6 m. N N E of Kal'at RZs-el-'Ain a probable site of ANTIPATRIS (4.u 0 2). (B) In Josh. 157 (F$ the border of udah is said to tzrn N. 'from the Oak of Achor to the Gi!gal ( l a h y a h [ALI, r a a y a 8 [?*I: 7a ayas [Bb]) which is over against the ascent of Adummim the present Tal *ated-Dam on the road from Jericho to Jerusalem). (In the parallel passage, Josh. 18i7 (P), 52518 becomes jq$*h, GELILOTH,ya+aw0 [Bl ayaMihwO-z'.e., n r $ h [AI yahrAwe [L]). This is surd; the hitherto unidentified Beth-gilgal or [AV] House of Gilgal n'? ; BN*A om., 870 a y ' y a h y a h [Nc.a mg.1 /JaLfJyah [L]) which is given in Neh. 12 29 along with the fie!ds'of Geba and Azmaveth as being 'round about Jerusalem. (So, independently, Che. [GALIJM,21, who also reads 'Beth-gilgal' for Bath-gallim' in Is. 1030.) If placed at the Tal 'at ed-Dam,Beth-gilgal would lie almost as far E. from the latter as Geha lies N. (c) On the Gilgal or Galgala of I Macc. 9 2 see A RBELA. The data undoubtedly suit best the Gilgal on the Makhna Plain, not the Gilgal suggested in 3 of that article.' G. A. S. 1 Besides the modern place-names mentioned above the only
(eB*
P .}.
If all these facts be held to justify the existence of a sanctuary and prophetic centre at Jiljiliyeh in Elisha's day, then a very strong presumption is established in favour of this being also the Gilgal famous in the time of Amoeand Hosea. Moreover Jiljiliyeh is not far from Shiloh [ q . ~ . ] and , the very curious passage in (Pseudo-) Epiphanius quoted above (§ 3), which identifies Gilgal as the shrine of the golden calf, adds 3 Qv q X w v - i . e . , Shiloh. It would go far to explain the disappearance from Israel's history of so ancient a sanctuary as Shiloh, if we could believe that its sanctity had been absorbed by that of the neighbouring Gilgal, which in such a case would have strengthened its claim to be the rival of Bethel. That, however, is only a guess : and the claims of this Samaritan Jiljiliyeh are as inconclusive as those of
1 B however, reads siniply ?fh0av or ZppXovraL [L] (812) ; cp. Schla/ter Zzrr Topo,. 149. 2 In tiis connection it is interesting that the place-name Ashkaf ( i k , cliffs of) Jiljal occurs at Ramman 33 m. E. of Bethel (PEPName Lists, p. 225, sheet xiv.).
1731
...
I
,
''
-
3iQ;
80,
1732
1
