GEOGRAPHY this may only arise from the fragmentary character of our souices) Y ~ K ’DDN, ‘ ends of the earth ’ (Dt. 33 17 I S. 2 IO Mic. 5 4 [31 Jer. 16 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

GEOGRAPHY

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 220)~ 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 prob- ably) 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, EARTH (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 frag- mentarv and varue-were these : On ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ - . . -.- 2 ~0

the E. to Media, Elam, Persia, with an allusion to India (??a ; see INDIA) in Esth. 1 I 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, conimis- sioned by the Egyptians, circumnavigated Africa (on the same authority, Herod. 442 ; 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. Some- thing of this knowledge may have come to the Hebrews in Palestine, and doubtless did to the Jews of the Dis- persion, before our last canonical O T book was written. Here, however, we can only conjecture. We are with- out 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:?, ‘ fhe 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 sun- set,’ Josh. 1 4 234 ([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 POI RI; 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.

1687

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. 11 24 34 2 (perhaps with pedantic explicit- ness) 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 loppa’ ( z Ch. 216[15] Ezra 37).

ii. The RED 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). In 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 he 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. SDOT).

The phrase ‘from sea to sea‘ occurs three or four times (D:? O;-lv, Am. 8 I Z Zech. 9 IO Ps. 728; cp 0;n 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 comprehensive- name 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 38816 Ps. 6935 899 1 0 4 6 8 Prov. 829 Eccles. 17, etc.).

Rivers played an important part in the 6’ Rivers‘ history of O T times.

Of foreign rivers the most important are the Euphrates

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 El 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 Vast- ness 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 ISRAEL, .$ 18; EXODUS i., 1 13; HEBREW, 0 I. ARAM-NAHARAIM (Gen. 24 IO, etc. [J]) contains cer- tainly 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,

1688

and the Nile.

GEOGRAPHY according to Israel’s tradition, Solomon for a time realised (I K. 4 21 [5 I] 424 6;s [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 Nebu- chadrezzar’s conquest it is said that ‘ the king of Baby. lon had taken, from the ‘ river of Egypt ’ [see EGYPT, RIVER 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 NILE is known as i k i , i iy , a word of Egyp- tian origin meaning streurn (see EGYPT, § 6), but usually employed in the O T with the art. as a proper name.

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 ~ 9 , Ezek. 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 XI [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 (HIDDEKEL), 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 men- tioned is the Elamite river ULAI (T.V.), and that not until the second century B.C. (Dan. 82).

iv. Within a narrower area the water-courses or ‘ wiidys ’ ($a= 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 EGYPT, 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

So in Gen. 41 I

55 1689

GEOGRAPHY l a ? almost immediately afterwards) for \a!. True, 65 has dlrb roir rroTapo.oir for the usual xcip&ppou, or as in Josh. 154, +&pay- yo9 ; but it has aorapoir also in I K. 86;

ranges are brought hefoie us. Few but the most familiar mountains or mountain

Outside of Palestine the most famous mountain is that con- nected by tradition with Moses (see

SINAI), NE. from which lay Mount SEIR (strictly, the mountain region of Seir). See also HOR, PISGAH, ARARAT, $ 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

6.

. T i .

7. Deserts. surface the Hebrews were well aware (see DESERT).

i. There were among them (see EXODUS i., zf.) early recollections of the sparsely populated region- offering 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 to the representation of P and D, in the desert of Paran that Israel spent most of the forty years of its wan- dering (see WANDERINGS). 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]). In P the more com- prehensive name of the desert N. of Paran was the ‘desert of Sin’ (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. 1 I 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 in) , 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. 1522 [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. ‘ The desert which is before Moab, on the sunrise side,’ it is called in Nu. 21 11 [JE].

In Judg. 11 22 the wilderness (imlmn) is the (eastern) limit of Israelitish territory E. of the Jordan ; ‘ like a steppe-dweller (‘??xs) 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 per-

haps 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 BOOK OF, 5 8 ; HAZAEL)-i,e., the Syrian Desert. This ia

1690

GEOGRAPHY deno!ed also by the descriptive phrase ‘(Tadmor) in the wilder- ness (2, Ch. 8 4), after which I K. 9 18 Kr. has been shaped. t& original TAMAR (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 PALESTINE.)

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. The 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 coun- tries 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* The latter country (the African Cush) seems

to have come within their ken in the eighth century

GEOGRAPHY knowledge of the country E. of the Euphrates from- fragmentary tradition to definite acquaintance,

Direct contact with Babylonia began after the fall of the N. kingdom with the famous embassy of MERODACH- BALADAN to Hezekiah. Contact with Assyria naturally began earlier. In the historical books the name appears first in z K. 1519 29. 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 AHAB and JEHU (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 93 106 115 11 121 [ z ]

1 4 3 [4]). I t is even possible that Shalmaneser IV. (z K. 173) is referred to in Hos. 1014 as Shalman (see BETH-ARBEL). We 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 n we know, made no at-

te1npt 1 0 COllntrllCt n mnp ll~l. No of thc \VOl!d.

T P . L . _ . L ^ _ I

I n d i a

I , ILlCy nau UVllt:

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 era ; see the accompauy- ing reproduction), who combined all the infor- mation they, could pro- cure, with painful labor- . .. iousness, yieia maps quite recognisable, it is

waYa(kcybBou~u~‘s~ true, but much distorted. Strabo’s Map of the World. After C. Miiller.

(Am. 97, and especially Is. 181 b Zeph. 31ol Is. 203-5 [but cp ISAIAH, BOOK OF, 3 g, beg.] z K. 19g), when the 25th-Ethiopian-dynasty was making itself felt in Palestine,2 An increased familiarity with Egypt is also attested by the writings of the prophets.

Isaiah (304) refers to ZOAN and HANES Hosea (9 6 * cp Jer. 2 16 etc.) to Moph or Noph-ie., Memphkand Nadum (38), with great particularity, to the Egyptian Thebes (NO-AMON, [q.~.], Ass. Ni-i, cp Egypt nt ‘city,’ Steindorff BAS 1 5 9 6 8 ; for later references to No = No- Amon, see Jer. 4625, Ezek. 3014.16). Such remoter neighbours of Egypt as Put (~73; seeonGen. 106 below, 5 m)also, and Lubim(n’$ Libyans -if it he not the same as Lehabim [D’& Gen. lo13 [see below, 5 15141) occur for the first time in Nah. (39).

I t was, singularly enough, the Babylonian conquest of Tudah that made many Tudzeans better acquainted .~ lo: Babylonia with Egypt. The fear caused’by the and AsSyria. murder of GEDALIAH led a large

remnant of the Deode to flee into . _ Egypt(Jer. 41 17f: 43r-7), and then began the familiarity with Egyptian cities exhibited by Ezekiel. Of course, this was but a small part of the geographical debt which the Hebrews owed to the Babylonians and (we may now add) the Assyrians. Contact with these nations did more than anything else to change their geographical

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

individuals (see CUSH, 2 G ; CUSHI, 3). 1691

Hebrew cartographers of the seventh or the fifth century B.C. would have pro- duced much more astonishing maps, we may be sure, Attempts have been made to construct maps of the world as known to the Hebrews, or a t least of the central portion of it, on the basis of the description of Eden and its rivers in Gen. 2.l These attempts are interesting in a high degree; but the data are not suficient in amount or in certainty to make them secure. The utmost we can say is that one or two of them are quite possible. At best they can claim to give only the view of one writer, at a single period.

The four maps given here (after col. 1696) have a much more modest aim. They are meant simply to indicate theactual regions 011 the earth‘s surface as now known which were embraced by Hebrew knowledge at different periohs. For purposes of com- parison at least, thesemayperhaps bequite asuseiulasanattempt to conshuct such as the Hebrews themselves would have drawn.

Little interest as the Hebrews had in geography in the abstract, they could not remain impervious to the lid. Geographi- influences which were enlarging their

linowledge of the world, nor wholly escape the impulse to systematize that Lists.

knowledge. The most conGincing ev-idence of this appears in the lists which tabulate it in some detail. These lists were arranged on a genealogical scheme, representing assumed racial connection, or contiguity or

1 See especially Haupt SBOT, ‘ Isa.,’ note on 18 I ; PAOS, Mar. ’94, p. ciii. : U b a l n n d u . Meey, 1894-5, no. r5 (withmap). Cp also WlMM Asien w. Euro& 2 5 2 3

1692

GEOGRAPHY GEOGRAPHY historical association (see Di. Gen. 168); see GENE- 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 dis- cernible in the arrangement of names. The names are usually those of peoples, and it would be more exact to call the lists eth- nographical. 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 con- cern, 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. The commerce and foreign relations of Solomon had led the thoughts of the people outside their own land. The 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 up on the eastern horizon. All these circumstances contributed to the formation and systematic arrange- ment 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.

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

merit the purpose of tracing the growth of 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 con- sidered. 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 im- ortant 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

Neither list is preserved in its original form.

1693

of evidence for 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 point- ing 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. The roving Amalekites on their southern border, the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammon- ites, 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 wander- ings, 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 tradi- tions; 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 docu- ments. Reminiscences of Egyptian campaigns may no 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 know- ledge 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. Geographical conquests 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 DAVID, § 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

1 Ur Kasdim in J (Gen. 11 28 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 repre- senting old tradition, than by denying either of tdese things.

1694

GEOGRAPHY probability identified by most scholars with Crete ,(see PHILISTINES ; but c p CAPHTOR, CHERETHITES).~

As the Philistines were new-comers, some report of their .origin would naturally spread at once ; hence, although the name of Caphtor does not appear till the eighth century, it is probable that it was known under David and Solomon.

Solomon’s reign enlarged the Hebrew world still more. That there were variant traditions of the extent .of his kingdom appears from I K. 5 4 compared with 5 5 (EV 42425) and with 11 24 : we cannot even tell whether the Euphrates was sufficiently known in .Solomon’s time to justify the mention of Tiphsah (Thapsacus) in the late passage I K. 5 4 [424]. The mention of ‘ Tadmor ’ ( L e . , Palmyra) in 2 Ch. 8 4 is at any rate valueless for the time of Solomon (see TAMAR). On the other hand, the probable emendation of I K. 1028f. which finds there a mention of the northern lands Mu+ and Kue as the source of the Hebrew supply of horses (see MIZRAIM,, z [a], CHARIOT, 5, col. 726, n. I ) , brings us to the very foot of the Taurus mountains. S. of which the Syrian &‘up+ lay, and even through the mountain-passes of the Amanus into Cilicia, to which 4-ue belonged (see CILICIA, 5 2 ) .

A still more notable extension of geographical .knowledge took place toward the S. If the story of the visit from the queen of Sheba stood by itself it might not be enough to assure us of the actual acquaint- ance of Solomon’s time with Southern Arabia. But -the impulse given to exploration and commerce by Solomon’s luxury led to the fitting out of ships on the gulf of ‘Akaba, which sailed away southward on long cruises, bringing them into close contact with the Arabian shores. Besides the various tropical products (not all quite certain; see APES, GOLD, IVORY, OPHIR, PEACOCKS), with which they contributed to the :splendour and the entertainment of the court, they brought reports of distant lands, and whether or not OPHIR (4.v.) was in Arabia, it is certain that at least Arabian territory bordering on the Red Sea must have been observed and described. The same is true of the African shore of the Red S e a ; how much further S. a n d E. the new knowledge stretched we cannot tell, and the voyagers themselves may have been as ignorant of the real geographical relations of Ophir as Columbus and his sailors were in regard to the West Indies ; but i t is quite certain that a large extent of the earth‘s surface, before unknown, must from that time onward have been taken into the more or less definite concep- tions of the edncated Hebrews.

I t is probable that those conceptions now embraced a t least one remote point in the W. Phcenician voyages, colonies, and settlements were already opening markets in many quarters to the trade of the cities from which they set out. I t is likely that the Phoenicians had planted themselves before the tenth century on the coast of Spain, a t Tartessus.2 Since Phoenician seamen went with Solomon’s ships, and these ships are called ‘ ships of Tarshish ’-Le., large sea-going vessels, such as were fit to go t o Tarshish.(I K. 1022, cp Is. 216)-there is a presumption i n favour of some Hebrew knowledge of Tarshish in Solomon’s time (although I K. 10 was written much later), and TARSHISH ([i.] q.v.) is admittedly Tartessus.

Solomon’s fleets were not successfully imitated by his successors ; but a new agent now appears. After these

12c. In Sth fleets the strongest influence in enlarging the Hebrew view of the world was the cent’ B*C’ westward extension of Assyrian power.

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

GEOGRAPHY

1 The question of the identification of Caphtor is connected 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 that the Philistines came from Crete, see A. J. Evans, Creta% Picfopa@hs (‘95), 9 9 8 3 Strabo i 3 2 [481 says that the Phcenicians had sailed beyond

the Pillars’oi Hercules soon after the Trojan war. Cp iii. 2 1 2 8 where he speaks of Tartessus, and cites Homer’s mention of it.

1695

received trihute from the Mediterranean cities. Of direct con- tact with Israel we do not hear ; but the silence of the Hebrew records cannot prevent us from saying that, with the intimacy between Phcenicia and the house of Omri, then on the Israelitish throne, Israel must have learned lessons in Assyrian geography from ABur-nagir-pal. We cannot of course tell how far even the names of territories overrun by him on the remote Assyrian borders-Kummuh the MuSki, the Nairi-lands, the regions of the Upper and th;’Lower ZPh, and the rest-became known in Palestine : but Eastern Mesopotamia, the Tigris and its cities, must have begun to take a place in Hebrew thought.

Shalmaneser 11. (860.825 B.c.) whom Ahab’s men faced, under Benhadad, in 854, and who r&eived tribute from Jehu, must have continued the geographical teaching begun by his father. RammBn-nirari 111. (812.783 B.c.) brought it apparently still closer home, for not only Phenicia and Israel, hut also Philistia and Edom recognised his sovereignty by tribute, and since proh- ably the former, and certainly the latter, in its mountain fastnesses, would hardly do so without previous personal contact, we must suppose, either that two streams of Assyrian invasion enclosed Judah on the E. and on the W., or, if Edom was reached by the western route that the southern border of Judah was skirted. In any case, h; the middle of the eighth century, at which time, certainly J’s geographical survey was complete, the kingdom of Judah,’ in which J wrote, had facilities nearly as ample as those of Israel for knowing the main features of Assyrian geography. Judaean embassies were, it is true, not yet passing to and fro carrying tribute, and bringing hack new impressions and the stbries of strange lands, hut the knowledge gained in this way by their neighbours would in the course of time naturally become theirs.

Shalmaneser 11. and his successors had come into close relations with Babylonia, and ancestral tradition would lead the Hebrews to an especial interest and even inquisitiveness regard- ing it, which would result in some familiarity with local names while by no means yielding precise and full knowledge, or disl pelling the mystery overhanging that ancient Semitic home.

The first part of J’s list that is preserved to us looks toward the E. It begins abruptly with a summarized

13a J’s statement regardingan individual monarch Babyionia. ;f Babylonia-NIMROD [q. v.], son of The sites of BABYLON and ERECH ush.

are well known: those of ACCAD and CALNEH ( I ) are not yet identified. Shinar (ipw) most probably represents the Babylonian &mer, or its dialectic variation 5ungEr.l Whether the term land of Shinar ’ in Gen. 1010 includes all Babylonia, from the sea northward, we cannot however say. Another tradition preserved by J makes a plain ( q p p ) ‘ in the land of Shinar ’ the scene of the building of Babel, and of the sudden dispersion of the race (Gen. 11 1-9 : see BABEL). The only contribution made by this passage to the vexed question as to the geographical limits of Sum& consists in the requirement that it shall contain both Babylon and Erech. Familiarity with the name is indicated especially by the expression ‘a goodly mantle of Shinar ‘ (Josh. 7 21 [JE] ; see RVmg.) ; ‘ land of Shinar ’ occurs also in Zech. 5 11 Dan. 1 2, and Shinar, Is. 11 11.

If J located his Eden (Gen. 2) in Babylonia, his geographical information concerning the region must he regarded as still vague. The Euphrates and the Tigris approach each other there, and were doubtless connected by canals ; but as to the rest the description is unrecognisahle. This however would not’of itself disprove the theory that he ha$ that loc(ality in mind. Without entering into the vexed question of CUSH (q.v.) mentioned in Gen. 2 13 108, we may note here that Ah-nq i r i pal and Shalmaneser 11. both encountered the Kaggites, and it is by no means impossible that in the mind of J there was already confusion between the KGSites and the Arabian and African Ku5. The embassy of Merodach-baladan to Hezekiah (2 K. ZO), at the end of the eighth century, although it seems to presuppose some mutual acquaintance, was plainly a novelty, and is quite consistent with much mutual ignorance, as well.

The assignment of the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom to Babvlonia. and the stress laid on the ” , I

136. J’s AsSyria, subsequent founding of Assyrian cities, points to an ultimate Assyrian source

for a t least vv. 10-12. ASSor, E V ‘Asshur’ (i?k&), is undoubtedly here, as in 2 14 and elsewhere, the country of Assyria (see especially ‘ land of Assyria,‘ parallel with ‘land of Nimrod’ Mic. 56 [SI), not the old capital AHur on the W. bank of the Tigris (at Kal‘at-Sherk2.t about 45 m. below Ninirad; see ASSYRIA, 0 5 ) .

1 Paul Haupt, ‘ Ueber ein Dialekt der Sumerischy Sprache ’ GGN, 1880, no. 17 ; Akkadische Spyache, 1883 ; AkkadiscLe u. Sumerische Keilschrift-texte ’= Ass. Bihliofhrk, Bd. 1 (‘SIX) ; Del. Par. 198 ; Schr. .COT on Gen. 11 I ; Tiele, BAG, 7 4 8

1696

I. HEBREW GEOGRAPHY IN THE TIME O F THE JUDGES.

111. HEBREW GEOGRAPHY IN THE 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. i&'dkwG.BoutalZ sa

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA, 1901.

GEOGRAPHY The Assyrian kingdom, like the Babylonian, is reprc- sented by four cities (see NINEVEH, CALAH, REHOBOTH- IR, R’EsEN), for the words, ‘that is the great city,’ in Gen. 10126, which imply the view that these several cities made up the one great Nineveh (cp Jon. 1 2 32 411, where the city is of enormous size), are probably a gloss. I t is J also who mentions the Tigris (see above,

Not only dowefind t h e c i t y o f N a h o r a n d A ~ A ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A I ~ ( g . v . ) , l besides other references to this region as of early interest in Hebrew migrations (Gen. 2410 ; cp 2 2 2 0 8 28 IO, etc., J ) , but the exiles of Samaria are planted by the Habor (Chaboras), the river of Gozan (z K. 1 7 6 ) , and Gozan, Harran, KeSeph, (Bit-)Adini and Telassar all figure in the conquests of Assyria (2 K. 191z), and all show knowledge of the same region, by the close of the eighth century.

At the N E corner of the Mediterranean. whilst on land we

5 , iii.). Western Mesopotamia becomes familiar.

The northern border of Assyria is still obscure.

GEOGRAPHY

14, J’s do not get across the Amanus, in the sea knowledge the island of Cyprus (Kittim) comes into

I t is not in J’s list ; but it meets us Of the West* y:gu” 2424 (JE), as well as in Is. 23.

I t is doubtful whether Nu.2424 belongs to an earlystratum of JE and without claiming Kittim where it first occurs in the much’ disiuted ‘oracle of Tyre’ (Is. 23 r6), we may admit K i t h in v. 12 as belonging to the poem, and may not unreasonably ascribe it to the hand of Isaiah. It is true that this would of itself take us back no further than 725 B.C. ; but the reference to Kittim is made in such a way as to imply previous . . - acquaintance.

From Assyria in the NE. J’s list passes to Egypt In fhc same group are eight

Egypt, etc. other peoples, marking as many territorial

I. First are the LUDIM, who are quite distinct from the LUD ( p . ~ . ) of Gen.102~ (P)=I Ch.117, and must be sought in Africa. More we cannot say, and our present ignorance extends to several other names in the same group.

2. Of Anamim (only here, and in I Ch. 111) we know nothing geographically, and the name is not even certain textually.2

3. KASLUHIM, EV cASLUHIM,3 is just as obscure. See PHILISTINES.

4. LEHABIM perhaps = Lfibim, o q h , Libyans. CWEL, however, has Aa,&ap, or Aa/3ew I Ch. [AI, whilst

p q 5 is A i & m (see Nah.39 [BKAQI z Ch. 123 [BAL], 168 [BAL] ; and O??!, Dan. 1143t Baer) ; read also Lob, 275 for Heh. 213 (AV CHUB, RV CUB), Ezek. 305 ; @BAQ hifives (Co. WMM As. w. Eur. 115).

15. J’s in the SW.

distinctions(Gen. 1013j?=1 Ch.1 IT$).

The very next one is an example.

The passages do not help to fix the boundaries of Libya.

origination of o’nngi out of n*nana-i.e., j,’f,’m.fii; ‘northern land ’ (cp [6 ] , so Erman, Z A TW 10 I 18,f).

6. Pathrtisim (o$D!ns) is the gentilic from PathrBs (oiing,-i.e., in Egyptian, ‘land of the S.’; in cunei- form, Pnttwisi), which is referred to in Jer. 441 as a region distinct from Migdol, Tahpanhes, and Noph, in Jer.4415 (Graf, Gie.) and in Is. 1111 (Ba/3uAwvlas [BHAQ]) as distinct from Mizraim or Egypt, and in Ezek. 30 14 among the Egyptian towns and districts (Noph, Zoan, No, Sin, etc.) on which judgment shall fall. In Ezek. 2914 it is called the land of the ‘ origin ’ (RVmP.) of the Egyptians (a good historical tradition).

7. On Caphtorim and (8) the Philistines see § 126. From Egypt J’s list passes northward along the coast,

1 For a different view see HAURAN. 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

3 In Gen. X a & w m p [AI, -uho- [L], Xahoap [El; in Ch.

4 ve+BaAmp [A], -hap [ELI ; in Ch. -hip [A], -8wueip [Ll ;

Ch. a v a p m p [AI awop- [Ll ; B om.

XauAovrap [A], -hoe~p [L] ; B om:

B om.

1697

and mentions Canaan and his ‘ sons.’ Verse 15 names two of these-viz., SIDON and Heth. The Hittites, or sons of Heth, are treated elsewhere (see HITTITES). Suffice it to

notice that for J they are simply an aboriginal Canaan- itish people, by the side of the Phcenicians.

The following verses present several difficulties. They contain gentilic nouns, which is peculiar,-not in itself, for already in w. 13J the genealogical scheme has become a transparent fiction, but because of the disagreement in form with Sidon and Heth.

In part the verses suggest the familiar list of Canaanitish peoples which Israel is to dispossess as contained in the account of the Exodus and march to CanAan furnished by J and D (e.g., Ex.38 Dt.71); but in part they are different. The PERIZZITES (q.v.) are wholly lacking. The Canaanites do not appear ; Canaan is here, not one among the particular peoples, but the comprehensive term uniting all the rest. Heth is an unusual form, and is set apart from the rest of the list. There are here also five names (v. 17,f) which do not occur in the lists elsewhere, and differ from the four preceding (except the Jebusites of Jerusalem), in being plainly geographical.

I. ‘The Arkite’ is a gentilic derived from the city name Arka(Ass. Arka C O T ; mod. TeZZ ‘Arka,Burckhardt, Travels 162 ; Rob. Bk App. 183), northwaid from Tripolis at th; NW. foot of Lebanon. See ARKITE.

2. ‘The Sinite’ is of doubtful derivation. Del. Par. 282 proposes to read ‘ p c and to connect with the city Siamzu (=Si&tu) ‘on the shore of the sea’ mentioned by Tiglath- pileser 111. with Arka (and Jimirm) 3 R. 946. Strabo (xvi. 2 18) mentions a town iinna, Jerome ( Q u ~ s t t . arZ Zoc.) a civitas Sin; in this region and Breydenhach (Xeise, 1483) a village Syn about 23 m. from hahy ‘Arka. See SINITE.

3. On ‘the Arvadite’ see ARVAD. 4. ‘The Zemarite’ is from the city Jimidra) mentioned re-

peatedly by Tiglath-pileser 111. and his successors, 7 4 5 8 B.?. (Schr. COT on Gen. 1018, Del Par. 281x), and long before I” the Amarna letters as Sumur (Bezold, o j . cit. 155 ; otherwise Winckler op. cif . io*);’it was known to the Greeks as urpvpa (see reff.’in Di.). It is perhaps the modern Sumin .between Ruid and Tripolis (Bad. PaL(3) 407 ; see other reff.’ in Buhl- GeS. Lex., s.v.)’.). Cornill restares P’!Qf in Ezek.2711 (see GAMMADIM)..

5. Finally ‘the Hamathite’ from the well-known city of HAMATH (q.;.) on the Orontes;

All these are places in the extreme N., and can be, in most cases, with certainty identified.

This increases our surprise at finding: them, c p b i n e d (n. 1 6 J ) with the ‘ Jebusite and the GIRCASHITE ( p . ~ . ) and the HIVITE’ ( q . ~ . ) , which are either in, the S . or are geographically vague.

‘ The Amorite’ is a name which requires separate treatment. We may understand it to be .used here in the same sense which it bears elsewhere in the stereotyped lists of Canaanitish peoples, and assume that v. 16, as well as ‘the Hivite’ in 1). 17, IS not a part of J’s original table (see AMORITES).

The account of the sons of Canaan in J comes to an end with two more general remarks : v. 18 ‘and afterward (i.e., after 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 mean ‘spread out so as to occupy the land of Canaan.’ Verses 15-18,’however, contain names ( i e . in v. 16A) which certainly cover substantially the Canaanitish territory; v. 186 is not in- telligible if the whole space over which they spread is already occupied by them. The characteristic names of the present list are, however, all in the N. and it seems highly probable that the others (Jebusite Aidrite Girgashite, Hivite) are not original, hut insertedby a scride who missed the familiar forms.

If the above criticism be sound, what J tells us is that the original seat of the Canaanites was in the N. (= Phcenicia and Hamath), and that they spread from that region over Canaan.

16. J’s

This obliges us to take a further step. Verse 19 cannot give the boundary of these original northern

Canaanites. It does not even include them, for it goes no farther N. than Sidon and all the other names under consideration (Heth, Arka, Sin, Arvad, Simir, and Hamath) are to the north- ward of Sidon. Moreover i t passes down at least as far as Gaza (reading rill:, ‘towards Gerar ’) ; but Gaza is near the southern border of the Philistine territory, which must therefore be included in the Canaanitish border ; but evidently the Philistines are, for J not Canaanites (v. 14).

I t appears, then, that not only the five names in 2’11. 16 17a, but also the border-tracing z). 19, are later additions. If this is the case, however, the qrgl(‘spreadabroad7 ofv. 18 is no longer

1698

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 IO 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 JOKTAN),

and give theirlocality. The names, as far as identified, 17. J's sons prove to be Arabian (see special articles).

The interior of the Arabian peninsula, Of Joktan* whose coast had been skirted by Solomon's

fleets, was gradually disclosing itself. Hadramaut (HAZARMAVETH, Gen. 1026= 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 Ishmael- ites, is plausible. Massa would then mark the northern limit of the tribes of Yokcan.

Sephar, the opposite limit (l$D), must be sought in the S. if 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).

'The 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.

The longer the relations with Phoenicia and with Assyria continued, and the closer they became, the ,. ls. Geographical greater their effect on the geo- knowledge in the graphical knowledge of the Hebrews.

The fall of the Northern Kingdom 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. The 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 con- quered 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, north- eastern, and northern details. Babylonia is of course

See MESHA i.

is in the N.

6th cent' B'C'

19. p,s Eastern familiar (see below) ; Elani (Gen. 1022) andNorthern and Susiana are now well known,- Geography. Nehemiah was at home in Susa (SHU-

SHAN, Neh. 1 I),-Media (MADAI) ap- pears 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-Esar- haddon [681-668]), E. of Assyria, NE. of Babylonia; its capital, ECBATANA (ACHMETHA) is mentioned in

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 CL 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

Ezra62 . Persia appears first in Ezek. 2710 3 8 5 (see however, PARAS), 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 43 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 substitu- tion 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 IO 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 know- 1edge.l I t was only after Babylon became the Chal- dzan capital that the Chaldaeans attained importance for Israel (Judah ; cp Merodach-baladan, z I<. 20) .

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. (ma t ) mavrati, ' sea-land ' ---;.e., land on the shore of the Persian Gulf (so Del., Schr.). In what part of Babylonia PEKOD (Jer. 5021 Ezek. 2323) is to be sought is unknown ; the cuneiform Pukudu does not help us. The general situation of SHOA and KOA 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

with more northern countries. Eastern Armenia (ARARAT. I ) had been in- Geography.

troduced to the Hebrews through the account of Sen- nacherib'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 Arpach- shad (Gen. 1022 24 ; ~ ~ ~ A R P H A X A D ) contains the name of Arrapachitis, then P s knowledge actually penetrated into the regioMhetween these lakes, and yet he does not name them. MINNI and ASHKENAZ [qg.v.] are also in Armenia, and RIPHATH and TOGARMAH at least in Western Armenia, whilst P knows GOMER [I] (the Gimir- rai 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 have been identified with the Moschi ( p o w p ~ ) and Tibaren,. 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 UT Kasdim 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. specifically with S. Babygnia.

Still less does it ap ear that he associated the Chaldaeans

17m

GEOGRAPHY . GEOGRAPHY of P’s northern peoples, it is now clear that P knew them before they were driven faither N.

Tiras(Gen.lOz=x Ch. 15) is the seventh son of Japhet’ not identified with certainty; on a possible connection with) the ancient Tyrseni see TIRAS.

On the difficdlt name ‘ Magog’ (Cen. 102) see Goc,. We can only infer that P set ‘ Magog’ in the N. The traditional identi- fication of him with the Scythians (Jos. Jer.), though without definite evidence, is plausible. The Scythians came down, as fierce northern raiders, late in the seventh centyy (Zeph. Jer.), and little would be known with precision about a region so dis- tant as that from which they came.

2. Before passing entirely away from the N. and E. we must notice P s account of the Ararnajans.

Gen. 1023 gives four sons of Aram who in I Ch. 1 r7d appear as sons of Shem. Gether is unidentified.

For Uz, the connection with Nahor (Gen. 2221) would lead us to look beyond the Euphrates, and the relation to Aram (Gen. 1023) would make no difficulty.

The exegetical details of Job will be treated elsewhere. There is no objection to locating Uz somewhere 011 the N. side of the Arabian desert where indeed Ptolemy (v. 19 z) speaks of a people called the A!oira‘ who lived W. of the Euphrates. We also find Uz connected with Edom (Gen.36~8 P, and Lam. 421 [om. @I). So, too, B’s addition to the hook of Job refers to him as ‘dwelling in the Ausitid land on the borders of Idumrea

See TUBAL.

and Ambia.’l ~

Del. (Pur. 259) claims to have found the name Uz under the form ‘mat Us$ ’ on an inscription of Shalmaneser iI. (Obelisk, 1. 154); if corr&t, Uz must have been near the Orontes, but Winck. (KO 1146) reads Kun(?)-uzza as a man’s name. Del. (ZKF 2873) thinks of the extreme N. of the Syrian desert, in the region of Palmyra;a but Lam. 4-21 opposes this. All these data cannot be made to refer to one single region ; but Robertson Smith‘s suggestion that Uz denotes all the scattered tribes-or rather the various tribes who

On Jer. 2520 see Uz.

worshipped the same god, ‘Aud (y,y),s a god well known to heathen Arabia-is not favoured by the connection of yiy with Aram or with a home E. of the Euphrates, although this is not concdsive.

MASH [q.v.] which occurs only here is connected by Di. ,(after Ges. Thbs.) with Mons Mas(ius), now Tzir ‘Ahdin, north- ward from Nisibis-the mountain range separating Armenia from Mesopotamia (Straboxi. 142; Ptol. v. 18 z), which may well have been peopled hy Aramreans. Accepting this conjecture, we might proceed to identify Hiil, the remaining son of Shem, with the district Ndi’n (from Ass. +u ‘sand ’?), mentioned by AEur-nBTir-pal in connection with Mdns Musius (Del. Pur. 259). This, however, is uncertain.

In the time of P light has been pouring over the W. It is possible, notwithstanding the present order also.

~~

21. p‘s Western of the names, that Lud, fourth son of Shem (Gen. 1022)) is to be identified with Lydia, which Cyrus’s conquest Geography,

had made familiar. Identification with ihe AfricanLud (Ludim, v.13) is out of the question; and to coiinect Lud with the Egyptian R&u (Ruten) of Northern Syria (WMM As. u Bur. 143 3) is opposed by phonetic laws (Ermnn in COT, ad Zoc. ). The connection of Lud with Shern is no insuperable obstacle to its identification with Lydia. See LUD.

The next name (in geographical order) is quite certain. The fourth son of Japhet is Javan = the Ionian. In Dan. 821 1 1 2 1020, and probably in Zech. 913 (if the text is correct), the reference is to !he Macedonian power. In Ezek. 27 13 Is. 6619 the original reference to Ionians is more prominent.

Four descendants are assigned to Javan (Gen. 104). Of these, Tarshish and Kittim, as we have seen, early became familiar to the Hebrews ; ELISHAII [g. v. ] , which occurs elsewhere only in the phrase ‘K *y ‘ const-lands of Elishah’ (Ezek. 277), may perhaps be Carthage ; on the fourth descendant see DODAKIM. The intervening spaces ofrer room for the unnamed islands and coast- lands (qiq y, Gen. 105) so abundantly referred to in the later literature.

1 ;vp&y$ Karoc&v T ” AWU[B]LTLSL driL 70;s bpiois ~rjs’ISowpaias .ai ’ApnBias. Cp also j o b 322, where 0 adds after ‘ Elihu . . of the kindred of Ram’ . . . T<S auueirrSos Xipas.

2 So Jos. (Ant. i. G4) says that Uz ( o b q s ) was the founder of Trachonitis and Damascus (cp Jer. Quat . Gen. 1023); but whence had he the tradition ?

3 See WRS Kinshi), 261 ; RSP) 43 ; We. Heid.(? 146 ; and on the other side Niild. zDnlG40183. Notice too that 65’s adjectival form a&c~[c]i~rs points also to a pronunciation ‘h~= ‘Ad, there being no distinction in Heb. between the two Arabic consonants s and d.

1701

See JAVAN.

The term $5 (WF) is only here in P ; but it is characteristic of the late literature, and has a consisterit, although general, geographical use. The singular ’v? appears in Is. 206 used of the Palestinian coast (including Judah) and so in 23 2 6 of the Photnician coast, and in Jer. 474 of the coastland of CAPHTC~R (4.7~ I). in Jer. 2522 we read of ‘the kings of the coastland whi:h is biyond the sea’ (with kings of Tyre and Sidon). In the wider application, however, it is elsewhere pl., and is sometir.es more sometimes less, defined. It always as far as can be detehned refers to coasts of the Mediter;auean. It is other- wise quite ’indefinite (of coast-lands, whether of islands or ccn- tinents, often with idea of distance) Jer. 31 IO Ezek. 26 15 18 6,s 273 15 35 396 Is. 41 I 5 424 IO 12 491 515 5918 609 6619 Ps. 72 IO

971Dan.llrs;fully D:? ’:? Is.ll1I2415Esth.101; P!lig ’:f occurs Zeph. 2 TI as in Gen. 105 ; less often the pl. is uzed of particular coasts : of Kittim Jer. 2 IO Ezek. 276, and of Elishah Ezek. 277 ‘ once it means .‘islands,’ Is. 40 15 and once (if the 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, 2 IT ;all the others are in Is. (second and third) Ezek. Esth. Dan. and late Psalms, unless Is. 11 11 be an exception, which, however, in view of the usage, is most unlikely.

These a re Knsh, Misraim, Phut, aiid Canaan. The first trto a re

See further, ISLE. In v. 6 P goes on to the sons of Ham.

22. p,s Sons unquestionably African. Kush here is probably the same as in Is. 181 etc. (ai&oda)--i.e., the country S. of Eg-ypt of Ham.

(see ETHIOPIA). MiFraim (see MIzaA1M) has no d&Lt substantially the same meaning as in J (I 15); Phut occurs as early as Nahum ( 3 9).

Also in Jer. (469 with Kii4 and Liidim. read perhaps. Lubim) Ezek. (305 ’with KoH and Lud, prodably also LBb; see Co.’; in both these last as part of the Egyptian army; 27 10 with PBras [see, however, PARAS] and Liid, as in the Tyrizn army ; 38 5 with Piras [see, however, PARAS] and KiiS as Ec- longing to the hordes of Cog) and in Is. GF 19 (Tarshish I’d [rd. Pzit +US BQmg.1 LBd +uhal, Java.’. In Jer.4Gg);nd Ezek. 27 io 36 03 reads)hi d s ; see Jos.; i n Nah. 39 + +q+r .ai h@as represents D7??$ t19.

On the whole 6 points to identification with the

For another view see PUT. WMM As. U . Eur. 1148 argues strongly on phonetic grounds for Punt(on the African shcre of the Red Sea) ; but he minimizes and explains away the evilence of 0. He also adduces the order of names in an inscription of Darius (v. Spiegel APK 54 Z. 30)‘ Putiyn KuSiya, &Iq& -z.e., Punt, on t ie Red Sea codt (heginkng from the E.) KuS; -inland etc. ; but as Ynunu=Javun precedes, the orde; from E. to W. is by no means certain. The whole matter is doubtless involved and difficult.

P’s list of the sons of Migaini has not been preserved ; knowledge of Egypt, however, although perhaps not covering greater. distances than in the eighth century, was’ certainly more intimate, from Ta4punhes on the frontier (Jer. 4 3 7 8 etc., Ezek. 3018) to Thdes, far up the Nile (No; Nah. 38 Ezek. 3 0 1 4 8 ; see these vv. also for other Egyptian cities). Ezekiel (29 IO) takes Us as far S. as AswHn (‘from Migdol to Syene’ [read Sezcdn=AgwBn]), to say nothing of Cush (see § 23).

If we reserve KEsh, the only non-African son of Ham, according to P’s list (as far as preserved to us), is Canaan. This represents the pre-Israelitish population of the land which bears the same name (see CANAAN).

Passing over SEBA and HAVILAH (Q.v.), we pause

Libyans, or a part of them adjoining Egypt on the W.

I

at the difficult tribal name SabtBh (Gen. lo7 , where ZI codd. have Nnxb /I I Ch. 23’ ’”

of Cush. lo,,

Tuch and Knobi<iropose va@aOa or Sahota (see reff. in Di.), an ancient Arabian commercial city Sab. nixiz, (but o=a?) whilst Glaser (Shiaze, 22523) think: of oa@a (Ptol. vi. 7 30): near the (W.) shore of the Persian Gulf.

Sabteca (Gen. 107) is unknown. W e have left R a h a ( h ) (Gen. lo7

See SABTECA. I Ch. l 9 ) , with

his two sons. Of these sons, Shebn has been con- sidered already (§§ 3, 171.

The descendants of Rama(h) being Arabian, it is not surprising that the same is trne of Kahah.

The name occurs elsewhere only in Ezek.2122 among the traders of Tyre (with Sheha). The g in B’s forms (see RAAMAH) agrees with Sab. naci. It is plausible to connect with the bappav;TaL (S tpbo , xvi. 424), between the pwaZoL and the XaTpaporiTar, for Sab. nepy is near Me‘in ( i y ~ ; SW. Arabia). See further RAAMAH.

In this connection it is interesting to notice the

For the other see DEDAN.

I 702

GEOGRAPHY GEPHYRUN on land we have Cilicia (e.g., I Macc. 11 14 Judith1 7 12) and Tarsus (2 Macc. 4 30) ; Asia as a kingdom (I Macc. 8 6 11 13 etc. ) ; the Galatians ( 8 z ; RV I Gauls ' ). Cross- ing the Egean we have ' Alexander the Macedonia11 ' (I Macc. 1 I), and besides [T)] +j x e ~ ~ r d p (cp T ~ V mpuda K L T L ~ W Y /3aurhPa 85), in the same verse (and elsewhere) r+r 6hhd8a ; the Spartans (umcpTr&ar) appear, especi- ally in I Macc. 122 5f: 203 W e encounter an ' old man of Athens ' in z Macc. 6 I ; but this is doubtful (see GERON). 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. 1 IO etc. ) is often mentioned, and, farthest W. of all, the land of Spain ( I Macc. 83),

The meagreness of reference in these books to territory E. of Media and Persia indicates in part a lack of geo- graphical 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 (131 16 I) is a mere repetition of that in the Hebrew Esther, and that of I Macc. 88 is an

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 PAUL, GALATIA). 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

obvious textual error. F. B.

increase in other exilic and post-exilic writers of names of tribes living in the N. Arabian and Syrian desert. ISHMAEL (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 en- croached 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. The 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 16 f. etc. ) and Nebaioth (Is. 60 7 etc. ; see on these, ISHMAEL, §$ 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 ARABIA, § 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. The trading habits of the Jews, developed in and after 24. Thedistant the exile, not only resulted in the

planting of Jewish colonies at various Greek Period, foreign centres, such as Alexandria,

which naturally became sources of geographical knowledge, but also doubtless led them in the track of the conquering Macedonians (cp DIS- PERSION, § 11 J ) . W e are therefore not surprised to find, in a late book, a mention of IWDIA (Esth. 11 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 SINIM). 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 over- land 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.

The geography of the Apocryphal books shows the transition from the older Hebrew geography to that of

East in the

- 1 . .

25. Apocrypha, the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. We find much of the older eeoeraDhv

- 1 . 1

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~YDASPES Cy.v.1 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 (z Macc. 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 T O O ~ a ~ b Tphohrv 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) ;

1703

contribution). W e might almost say that to study the NT geography

is to study the geography of the Roman p;ovincd of Asia. In 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 Ronie- not 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 l icdei 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 INDIA) ' Ionia' is proposed. There is special interest in the mention of the Jews from Parthia (see PARTHIAXS).

F. B. (18 1-25). GEON ( r H a N [BKA]), Ecclus. 2427 AV, RV GIHON,

3 (9.v. 1. GEPHYRUN (yor$ypoyN [A] om. V, Syr.), appa-

rently 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 EPHRON i ,*z) , if the

1704

GERA distance between the proposed sitesof Caspin and Ephron were not too great to permit this.

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).

68 ; cp Phcen. H7.3 ; rHpa [BAL]), a prominent Benjamite division to Tvhich belonged EHUD (Judg. 315), and SHIMEI, I ( z S. 165 1916 [17], I K. 28). This and the name BECHER [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 [B v. 51) etc. (on the complications see H. W. Hogg, J Q R 11 102.114 ['98], and cp BENJAMIN, # 9 ii. j3). I t is omitted in Nu. 2638.40. Marq. (Fmd. 22) discovers the gentilic ' N a ? in 2 S. 23 366 (MT ' Bani the Gadite,' '??I) ; but see HAGRI.

GERAH (il?J,, prop. 'grain,' Ass. girzi, see Muss- Arnolt ; ipohos [BAFLI, obdus [Vg.], nzri'd, zzizd [Pesh.]), Ex. 30 13 Lev. 27 25 Nu. 3 47 18 16 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

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 defeat- ing 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 incon- sistent, 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 KADESH (i.) and SHUR ' (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 re- marks, 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, con- founded 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 132) suggests that ii~~ 7391, 'And he sojourned in Gerar ' in Gen. 20 I may be an editorial addition, designed to harmonke

1705

Very possibly lB is corrupt (so RVmg.).

GERA (Kll,, a compound of 7g?

RI2l.L Yf% P A l ) .

GERASENES, COUNTRY O F THE 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 un- desirable 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 (WMM As. z. Ear. 159). Josephus apparently knows of Gerara as a Palestinian city (Ant . 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 GERRHENIANS.

T. K. c. 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. 51 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 WH 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 ex- ample of the tendency of the scribes to repeat the initial g in gad or gar 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 GILEAD, $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. 624) 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.

Under 'Gergesa, where the Lord healed the demoniacs,' he says, xai v8v Gelxvvrar ani TOG 6pous K+V naph 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~pCvp adhrs 4 Pahaas $v :hago M a v a u w t . 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 mention of the Gerasenes . and under Gesarinz 24424 we 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 (LB 375), who first of all in- 3cated 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 consider- ible suburbs.

Thomson further states that there are ancient tombs n the high grounds about the ruins of Kersa (cp

So also Eusebius ( O S 248 14).

1 Recovery of Jerusalem, 368 ((71). Cp Schumacher, TIte 'adan, 179.

1706

GERGESITES GERIZIM, MOUNT 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 IO 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 nake 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). The mountain referred to can only be Ebal or Gerizim, and the corruption of Gerizim into ZALMON [q.w ., i.] or Hermon (@AL) 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 SAMARITANS.

There are still two biblical passages in one of which possibly or Drobablv and in the other bevond any doubt

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. GADARA (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 Os, 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.

GERGESITES (01 repyscaiol [BRA]), Judith516 AV, RV GIRGASHITES (4.v.).

GERIZIM, MOUNT ( PVlJ lq [Sam. writes the two words as one, w13731: I mountain of the GIRZITES'

13 29-31.

Situation. [ g . ~ . ] ; less probably from 772 =7T2, ' to cut in two ' : the vocalization of a

certainly primitive name has but slight authority ; rAp (€ ) lZ€ lN [BAFL], but rhzipelN [A in Dt.ll.9 Judg. 971 and yap 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. The 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 acconi- plished, 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

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.

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.

The 'entrance into Shechem' is completely coni-

curse, and directs them, when they have been broug 4, t

1 Cp Gen. 126. We read n&nn for ann-&; 1 i f51 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 circumval- lation of Gerizim are hardly felicitous.

x707

. - 3. Other

Mt. Gerizim is referred tb-viz.,'Is. 661 references. Jn. 420J Certainly if Is. 661-4 is post-

exilic (and it is difficult to maintain anv Longer an 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 ISAIAH ii. 5 21). Still, owing to the brevity of the passage we can scarcely claim more than' high probability for this conjecture.

The second passage is also somewhat enigmatical. A modern writer quoted by Wetstein4 remarks on 2,. 22,

' 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. He 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

1 Moore (Judges 246) ascribes this very plausible theory to Furrer (Wandevungen, 2 4J); cp also Baed.(? 256. But as Thomson, LB ['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 the N. of Ehal sometimes identified with T I R Z A H (q.7~. I)? 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 665 & 'were added after the building of the temple.'

143 r17821). 4 Beaulacre, ap. Wetstein (Bowyer, CriticnZ Conjecturer,

5 Cp B. Weiss, Evang. desJohannes, 193 ('86). 1708

GERON Jerusalem were, in his eyes, not less 'sectarian ' than partisans of the temple on Gerizim. See SAMAKI- TANS.

The summit of this mountain testifies to a succession of faiths. The most prominent monument is not the most import-

ant ; it consists of ruins of the castle built by 4. Ruins. Justinian in 533 A.D. to protect the Christian

church erected in 475 A.D. (the foundations of which still remain). In the centre of the plateau, however, is something much more venerable-a smooth surface of rock which is the traditional site of tp altar of the temple of the Samaritans and therefore their Holy of Holies. The cup hollow in i;resembles those in many Syrian dolmens. and may well have been used in primaeval times for libations. Conder (Syrian Stonelom, 169,f) suspects that, though this rock may once have been enclosed, there was no proper temple. Josephus however had 110 interest in exaggerating, and his words ar i plain--'; temple like that at Jerusalem (Ant. xi. 8 2). The drafted blocks of the walls of Justinian's castle may possibly belong to a still older structure (Baed.Pj256). In the founda- tions of the western wall there are some ten or twelve largp stones beneath which tradition places the 'twelve stones brought up from the bed of the Jordan by the Israelites (Jus;. 420). The place where the lambs of the Samaritan passover are killed is a short way down the W. slope of the mountain a little above the spot where the Samaritans pitch their t e k seven days before the feast. For an account of the passover ceremony see SAMARITANS.

Gerizim) rejoices in a copious spring of delicious water (the R E S eZ-'Ain), which may quench the thirst of the scanty band, of Samaritans at passover time, but wns naturally insufficient for the multitude gathered on the mountain and slaughtered by Cerealis in the time of Vespasian (see Jos. B/ iii. 7 32).

T. IC. C.

GERQN, an Athenian, introduced by RVmg. into an account of measures taken by Anti6chus Epiphanes against the Jewish religion (z Macc. 61). The text has ydpovra 'ABqvabv [VA], which, EV renders ' an old man of Athens.' The I / passage, I Macc. 144, speaks .of messengers sent by the king. The leader of these messengers would naturally be either a civil or a military official under Antiochus.

Probably &vaiov is a clerical error for b v i L o X L ; Vet. Lat. .and Vg. have 'Antiochenum,' which may of came be the con- jecture of a translator, but is none the worse because it is ancient. It is a further question whether yCpovra is not ibself corrupt ; RVmg., peThaps unintentionally, suggests this view. But Ewald's rendering, 'a senator of Antioch' (Hist. 5 298 n. 5), is very plausible. The name of the official was no; necessary; the Ar. vers., however, gives it as Fill+ (see Grimin ad Zoc.). For a subtle but hardly necessary critical conjectur; see Kosters, irk. T 12 496 ('78).

GERRHENIANS, R V GERRENIANS, THE ( ~ W C T U N r€NNHpWN [A], B. T. r fppHNWN [VI), evidently a term for the southern limit of the Syrian dominion under Antiochus Eupator ( z Macc. 1324) . The town of Gerra ( rd ycb)a, Strabo, xvi. 233 ; ye$)ov llpiov, Ptol. iv. 511) lay between Pelusium and Rhinocolura, but can hardly be intended here, since the coast as far N. as Rhinocolurawas at this time Egyptian (cp Polyb. v. 803) . The Syriac reads G-Z-R. More probably, however, we should read yepap$vwv, which agrees with the reading --yepapqpwu of one MS (cod. 55). 'From Ptolemais unto the Gerarenes ' (see GERAR) would represent the whole of Palestine in its widest extension from N. to S.

Compare the expression in I Macc. 11 59 where Simon is made captain of the country 'from the LADDER OF T V R I ~ (about 100 stadia N. of Ptolemais) unto the borders of Egypt.

T. K. C.

GERSHOM (~h1.1 cp WTI in Sin. Inscriptions, anti see GERSHOM, GESHAM; Ex. and Ch.]; in JUdg. rHpcoM [B], repcwM [AI, rHpC(r)N [L]).

I. The first-born of Moses and Zipporah (Ex. 222 1 8 3 ) , from whom JONATHAN (z), the priest of the sanctu- ary at Dan (Judg. 1 8 p ) , claimed descent.2 We also find a Levitical name Shebuel b. Gershom in I Ch. 23 I;$ 2624. The popular etymology, o r 7j, ' a so- journer there' (Ex. Kcc. ), is followed by d (mpuap) and

1 For the orthography of D L V ~ ~ (=)vi>) see Frensdorff, 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. 177 ~ d - y l fila), as though, 'and he (was) Gershom.

1709

rHpcaM [BHAFL in

GESHUR JOS, Ant. ii. 13 I (mpuos). See MOSES, and on Ex. 425, cp CIRCUMCISION, § 2.

2. The head of the b'ne PHINEHAS (3), a family in Ezra's caravan (see EZRA 1 5 2 2 $ 13 [ I ] d), Ezra 8 z ( y p w p [EA], -uap [Ll) =I Esd. 829 G ~ R S O N (Tapouoropos [el, yqpuwv [A], -gap [Ll).

GERSHON (iiV>$, for which in Ch. regularly WYI and PlWll with the exception of I Ch. 6 1 [527], rshswN [A], 2 3 6 rHpCWN [A] : rshcwN [BAFL]). b. Levi, is mentioned only in P and Ch. He is the first-born of Levi in Gen. 4611 (yqpuwv [AD]), Ex. 616 (yqpuwv [AF]) I Ch. 61, and makes up with Kthath and Merari the three chief subdivisions of the Levites. Although the first-born, he is overshadowed by the Kehathites ( to whom Aaron belonged). His sons Libni and Shimei (Ex. 6 17 Nu. 3 18 21 I Ch. 6 17 [ z ] 2 3 7 ) were known, according to the Chronicler's con- ception, already in David's time ( I Ch. 237-11).

The sons of Gershon or the Gershonites (?;t+~g; b ye8uwv[e]c [BAFL], b yqpuwv[~]i [BA]) are num- bered a t 7500 in the wilderness (Nu. 32z)-which has an artificial look when we recollect that the whole number of the Levites is enumerated at about three times that number, viz. 23,000 (Nu. 2662). P de- scribes nioreover their special work at the tabernacle and also the position taken up by them on their journey- ings (ib. 325 424 77). Far moreiniportant, however, is the notice of the cities apportioned to them (Josh. 21 27 33 yqpuwv [AL] ; I Ch. 662 [47] 71-76 [56-611 yqpuwv [A]) ; these all lay to the N., in Manasseh beyond Jordan, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali, and if we take this in connection with the notice of Jonathan b. Gershom b. Moses in Judg. 1 8 3 0 it would appear that the priests of Dan formed a group which traced its origin back to Moses, and derived its name from his first-born.l In thc post-exilic and priestly genealogies the place of Gershon b. Moses is taken by Gershon b. Levi ; com- pare the similar case of ELIELER b. Moses and ELEAZAR b. Aaron.

GERSQN (rHpCwN [A]), I Esd. 829 = Ezra 82, GERSHOM, 2.

See CHIMHAM.

GEZRITES.

See GENEALOGIES i . , 5 7.

GERUTH CKIMHAM (Dp3 niYJ), Jer. 4117 Kr.

GERZITES (?-$n), I S. 278 Kt., AVmP.; AV

GESEM (pceM [BKA]), Judith 1 9 , RV GOSHEN. GESHAM, or rather, as in RV, Geshan (@'J., cp

perhaps &!'I), b. JAHDAI, a Calebite ( I Ch. 2 4 7 ;

cwrap P I , rHpcwM [AI, rsicwN [L]). 6 4 ' s v p u w p may be due to a misreading, or possibly enough

points to an original (so Ki. .!?BOT, see GERSHOM). I t is noteworthy that in both cases the Calebite name finds evident analogies in names of N. Arabian origin.

GESHEM (be?., rHcaM [BHA], r ic . [L], GOSBM), called ' the Arabian,' an ally of Sanballat and Tobiah, and an opponent of Nehemiah (Neh. 2 1 9 6 1 5 6). In Neh. 6 6 the name takes the form GASHMU (rat$, youep [KC.= mg.], om. BH*A; GOSBM) ; the correct form is prob- ably Gushamu, a well-known Arabian name (cp Cook, Ararnaic GZossmy, s. 71. i n w j ) .

For ihe ending -IC which occurs frequently in Nabatean in- scriptions compare iyin [&.], Neh. 12 14 (RV Malluchi, p V w . Melicu), JETHRO, and perhaps BOCHERU, and see Nald. 111 Eut. Nab. Inscr. 73 ; ZDAfG41715. See ARABIA, 5 3. s. A. c.

GESHUR (lid!). I. A territory. in NE. Palestine, adjoining the Israelite possessions, and reckoned as Aramczan ( z S. 158). According to I Ch. 223 (om. Pesh. ), Geshur and other Aramzean peoples took the Havvoth-jair from the Israelites. It may often be dangerous to treat statements of this kind in I Ch. 1-9

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.,

1710 7 (v.).

GESHUR 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).

In 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 th- modern 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 (ZDPV 13 198) 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. The 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. 125 QB has ycpycua, in Dt.314 ~ B A F L [but E* yapraua, see Swetel yap UUEL (cp Eus. in OS 244 24, who takcs ysuouperp to be the city o?ycpyam~ in Bashan where the Israelitcc ‘did not destroy the Geshurites); @AF 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.

A district at theextreme limit of Palestine, S. of Philistia, Josh. 132 (AV Geshuri), I S . 278 (EV ‘ the 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. In the latter passage the Hebrew text gives, as the names of peoples or districts attacked by David from Ziklag, ‘ the 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 sanc- tioned by the Kre, viz. v n g , ‘ the Gizrite,’-ie., the Canaanites of ‘GEZER (so RVmg., see Judg. 129 ; I K. 916). 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. 1 IO ; see HEBRON, I ) : David’s close connec- tion 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

1 Kamph., however, retains hoth names (2.4 W 694). 1711

2. (qph?, ‘the Geshurite.’)

But Gezer lay too far N.

GETHSEMANE 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, ‘Thy 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 ‘ in 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 (AHT 242) that in Josh. 132 I S. 278 we should read for qvja , *i;t~wil(see ASSHIJRIM) 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 v yeuuoupaLm [L] a:d .rbv ye<paiov). After- wards, instead of ‘Shnr,’ @L gives Geshur’ (yeuu:up). In Josh. 13 2 @B ~ W E L ~ ~ L , @AI- y ~ o u p [ s ] r Pesh. ‘ Endor. In 2 S. 1337@adds~lp.Ti l~pa~as[B]( ‘ to theldndofbfaacah’), e. y+p. [AI, e. y. Xahaapa [Ll. T. K. C.-S. A. C.

GETHER (YQJ, perhaps l&l=?d$ [Le . GESHUR. I]: Marq. ZATW 8155; yalkp [AEL]), one of the ‘sons’ of ARAM (Gen. 1023, I Ch. 117 ye&P [L]).

GETHSEMANE (r&CHM&N€l [Ti. WHI-i.e. t

’I oil press,’ see OIL ; the word is Aramaic. but the 1. In NT. form somewhat uncertain [=(i?)’JpV ni,

D a h . Grumm. 152. The forms yeaug-

MANZ) 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 FIELD, 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 con- firmed by Jn. 181, which speaks of a ‘ garden’ (K+TOS ; see GARDEN, 7) and uses the expressions ‘ he went in ’ ( E I U + X O E Y , 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 al 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 KIDRON [q. v . , § 31 and was regarded as belonging to the 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.

From the fourth century onwards, perhaps from the time of the visit of 2. Tradition. the Empress Helena, the garden of Geth-

semane has been shown at the foot of the 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). Tie Franciscans, to whom the ground now belongs-it measures about 150 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 GARDEN).

pavei, y?pap. =(a)’Jpv K’J] ; GETfISEMANI, GESL-

Tradition became more precise.

1 See AJSL 16 153 1 5 g j 1712

GEUEL 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. 1 I/), 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. (2241) as ' about a stone's cast' from where the three apostles were. The 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. 159; 1889, p. 176.

The 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. (2137 2 2 3 9 ) had said h s l instead of els ( ~ b Llpos), the expression would have been more conclusive against the traditional site (Eus. OSP) 24820 has a p b s 74 @ e l ; Jer. OSz) 13024, ad radices inontis OZiiueti). The Emperor Hadrian caused exten- sive terracings to be made in the Kidron valley ; by these doubtless the previous contours were considerably

GIBBETHON 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, GJl" 1206f: ).

By Strabo (xvi. 229) it is mentioned as yasapis 'which also. the Jews appropriated' ; but he seems to 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 Ejisco- pafuum, 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

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 the word i y ~ ' Gezer ' l-which areplacedpalaeographically between the Hasmonaean and the Herodian periods.

For the present state of the archaeological questions which, have been raised 5ee his ArchrPoZogkaZ Aesearches in Pales- tine 2257' Re&eiZ ~ ' A Y C A P O Z . CJYGX~. 1351:3gI ,cp 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.

Jerusalem.

GEZRITES, THE ('?T$;l), Kr., for which Kt. THE GERZITES (AVmg.) in IS. 278 (0 rszpaloc [AL]), where RV more correctly has GIRZITES (g.iu. ; see also GIRGASHITE), mg. GIZRITES. The GESHURITES. (see GESHUR, 2) and the Gizrites (?) are mentioned together. ' The Gezrites ' might mean the Canaanites. 3f GEZER [ q . ~ . ] , but more probably should be deleted. See GIRZITES.

GIAR (n'$ ; ra l [BA], r iaz [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 RAPHAH (2). REPHAIM (i.). According to Duhm, Kephainl means ( a ) giants, (6 ) the shades (Manes) , inasmuch as the God- defying 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 ; ~&Bep [B], ra. [AL]), a district of. [udah mentioned in the great post-exilic list, Ezra 220 :see EZRA ii. § 9,

It has been proposed to read ~ryzj, 'Gibeon' (so Berth.- Ryssel as in 11 Neh. 7 25, yapaov [BNAL]), but against this see SIBEON, 5 3. Guthe prefers in's or l n n'a following I Esd. i 17 (RV BAITERUS ; [uioi] pacr?pous IRA]).

GIBBETHON ( ) h ~ ~ ; raBaewN [BAL]), a city vhich, according to I K. 1527 1615 (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

nnn, which M. Ganneau (Researches, 2 264)rightlyr&ders ' boundary ,f Gezer,' and supposes to define the sabbatic limit.

1714

8 c).

See BETHER i.

1 The entire inscription, which is very short is read

modified (PEFQ, '93, p. 80). 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, 79- 81 : Keim, Le6ea Jesn von Narara 3 297- 3r1 ; 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.

GEUEL (!JK.lKJ, majesty of God ' ; cp Gray, HPN 210 ; Sam. hi ; 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 adhuld~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] 1212) , and situated on the S. border of Ephraim (165 , not m M T [CP V . 31; razapa [BAl,. -PWN [Ll), towards the W. (I Ch. 7 28) ; a Levitical city (Josh. 21 21

[razapa, B ; -zep&, L], I Ch. 667 [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 GENUBATH, HADAD i. [3], MIZRAIM, z [SI), took and burned it, and gave it as a marriage portion to his daughter, Solomon's bride (I I<. 916, y ~ & p [A]; for B see 433; L 5 3 ) ; Solomon fortified it (v. 17). ' I t is mentioned in z S. 5 2 5 (AV GAZER, ya.(?pa [BAL]) = I Ch. 1416 (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. In I Ch. 2 0 4 'Gezer' is given where the text of Samuel (2 S. 21 18) gives 'GOB. ' 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 (KB 5 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

GIBEAH Levitical (21 23 ; 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. 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 yaPa0ov (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.' The distinction cannot, however, be rigorously carried ,out.

We will first consider the two places called Gibeah without anv descriDtive aualification. It must be borne

Kihhiah does not appear to be an important site.

GIBEAH irst suggested,l and as Robinson established, at Tell (or ruleil) el-Fiil, a bare conical hill (2754 ft. above sea- evel) 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 Bjv. 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. GIBEHTH HA-ARALOTH (nyq 2. Compound nj5?p: ; pourirs r ~ v dKpOpUaTl&), 1 tile

hill of the foreskins,' RV"g. of Josh. 53 (J). between the Jordan and Jericho, connected with :he report of the circumcision (cp GILGAL 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, ZATW, '86, p. 1 3 2 8 See also HELKATH-

2. GIBEAH OF PHINEHAS ( m ~ ~ ? np?! ; yapaap [B], yapaaR [AL], +[E]L~EEP), a city (cp Jos. Ant. v. 1.9) in Mt. Ephraim where Aaron's son, Eleazar, was buried [Josh. 2433).

Perhaps the Geba (yqpa) 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 (Timnath- heres). 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. GIBEAH OF GOD ( c h m '2, d rbv pouvbv 700 ReoO I S. 105 ; but in v. 10 a simple I Gibeah' [anA rbv Bouvbv, 48L rbv papa pouu6vl occurs). The locality is defined as being ' where is the pillar of the Philistines ' (see SAUL, 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 (HG 250) considers it to be the mode& Riamallah (Ewalds Ramah), about IO 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 . , Jeh') . We may suppose that Saul went straight across the hill- country from Beeroth ( ' Tabor ' in MT) to Geba, and thence by Ramah ( I S. 1013 , 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 ~ U , @L CIS ~ b u ,hvvbv papa; cp v. 10. Either Saul's uncle dwelt there, or something has fallen out of the tent between v. 73 and v. 14.

4. THE GIBEAH OF (THE) MOREH (Judg. 71). See MOREH i.

5. THE GIBEAH OF (THE) HACHILAH ( 1 S . 2 3 1 9 261). See HACHILAH.

6. THE GIBEAH OF AMMAH (z S. 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 'at ed-Dam; some overhanging hill may, however, have borne the same name. Read, therefore, 1nDn 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!

names.

HAZZURIM.

Possibly it is the same as GIBBETHON.

This is the easiest emendation.

1. in' mindthat Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon qua,ification. are very liable to be confounded ; for

example, in Judg. 20 IO, and perhaps in 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. 1522 see GEBA, 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. 15 57 ; yapaa [BAL]).

I n I Ch. 249 it is called Gihea (~p!; yacj3ah [B], -&ha [A], yappaa [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 ; KZS 18). There is a Kb'u, no. 114 in 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 dL has 700 pouuoG). I t seems to be identical with GIBEAH OF SAUL ( h ~ $ n p ) , I S. 1 1 4 ( ~ U ~ U U R U [A"], yaaRu [Aa?], ~ O U U ~ V [L]), 132 (yapee [B]), 1 5 3 4 (pouvhv [L]), z S. 216 (yapawv [BA]. p o u v 3 [L]), Is. 1029 (d a y y a ~ ) . but not with the GIBEATH of Josh. 1828 (yapawR [BL], -aaO [A]), nor with ' Gibeah of God' (see Q z [3]). In Hos. 5 8 99 (q 700 pouvoG), l o 9 (a r3 PouvG) it is called ' the Gibe%h .( n~???) . The 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 SAUL) ; probably the true text of I S. 9 1 and of I Ch. 829 ( = 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 rapa- R ~ T T ~ S [A]) 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 BENJAMIN, Q 5 ; JUDGES 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 r3]) 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

1 In I Sam. 9 I read with Marq. (Fund. IS) ]yyJ> n y > > l ('1 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 JEIEL, 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).

1715

1 St.Kr. '43, p. 1082 ; ZDMG 12 I~I,$< (Moore, Judges, 414). 2 It will he noticed that the n in n91 here becomes ;I and 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 ditto- grain ; they read ;1 for n, and prefix it to 117.

1716

GIBEATH 7. THE GIBEAH OF GAREB (Jer. 31 39). See GAREB

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. 1032 ; see NoB). T. K. C.

GIBEATR (nq??: rABAA€I [AI, r b B A , a B [:I, r.-( l A p € l M ) [B]), Josh. 1828. Usually identlfied wlth Gibeah of Saul, but perhaps rather a fragment of Gibeath-jearim[?] ; see KIRJATH-JEARIM, I.

53 RVmg.. See GIBEAH, 5 z ( I ) ; CIRCUMCISION, 0 2. GIBEATR-HA-ARALOTH ( n h g nu?!), josh.

GIBEATHITE ('@?d;?), I Ch. 123. See GIBEAH,

GIBEON (t\U?$, rt&w[~], BAL), a city of the Amorites 12 S. 21 2). or more definitelv of the Hivites

$3 1 (2).

GIBEON 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 (a), 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 2 171 u) , 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 BAAL-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

' (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 'Tabor ' in I S. 103, and which is the modern Bireh, but a place to the SW. of Gibeon'), and Kirjath-jearim also belonged (Josh. 9 17). The 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 BETHHORON, 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 punish- ment for Saul's having ' slain the Gibeonites' and 'thought to destroy them' ( z S. 211J). The 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 NOB) that the deed referred to was not improbably the massacre described at length in I S. 2217-19. We can- not, 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

The ' pool of Gibeon ' attained a melancholy notoriety through the event related in zS. 212-32 (but see HELKATH-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). The 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

1 So Buhl Gag. 173. a Where the 'tent of Yahwb ' referred to in I S. 17 54 (emended

text : see NOB) really was, may be left uncertain.

1717

2. The a Cununnitish sanctuary. Ear& in thk sanctuary. reign of Solomon we meet with this

sanctuarv again. and this time it is un- ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ , " , doubtedly 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 ' the great high place,' and accordingly, Stade thinks, it is referred to as snch in Dt. 3312 (but see BENJAMIN, 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 11 3). InICh.829-32 notices. (=93938) there may be a confusion of two state-

ments, 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 IS. 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). 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

Since

Y

4. Identifica- name is no doubt strangely mutilated ; but the biblical data and the statements of Toseuhus and the Onomasticon3

, I

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

The same spirit which animated the Chronicler see& have prompted the alteration of ?@? into n2]? in the Heb. text of I K. 3 4 (see Benzinger).

1 See CHRONICLES $7 n. 2.

. . 2 Analogy firbids us to suppose that Jib has come directly

from Gih'an (Kampffmeyer ZDPV15 27). 3 Jos. (By ii. 19 I) place; Gibeon 50 stadia NW. from Teru-

Salem ; Ant. vii. 11 17 less correctly gives 40 stadia ; El-Jib is 5-6 m. W. or N. of Jerusalem, according to the road taken.

1718

GIBLITES GIDEON 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, ‘by (above) the spring of HAROD [p.w ., I], while the Midianites were encamped to the north of them, be- neath 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 he had had that night. On his return Gideon called his men to the attack. They raised the war-cry, ‘For Yahwb and for Gideon,’3 and threw the Midianites into such confusion that they fled_as far as the distant slopes of Abel - beth - m a a ~ a h . ~ The Israelites, however, hurried after them, and took the two princes of the Mid ian i t e~ ,~ and brought their heads to Gideon. Thus Midian was subdued. And Gideon judged his people forty years. He had seventy sons, besides Abimclech, the son of his Canaanitish concubine.

The later insertions in this narrative are due partly to a desire to place the theophany above doubt artly to a tendency of late editors to use the old narratives for 6&cation(cn 7 2-8 with I S.

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 (2 S. 2 13 Jer. 41 12). T. K. C.l

GIBLITES ($743), Josh.135 I K. 518(32). See

GIDDALTI (’&??,; r o A o A A a 0 [L]), a son of

I Ch. 25 4, yo8ohhaOsr [Bl, e8ohhaflL [A], v. 29 yo8opaOsr [Bl,

GIDDEL ($74, ‘[God] has reared’ ; 3 50 ; r f A A H A [ALI).

I. The eponym of a family or group of NETHINIM in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii., $ 9 ) ; Ezra 2 47 ( K S ~ S ~

[Bl)=Neh. 749 (ya8qh [BNLI ua. [A])=I Esd. 5 3 0 ; EV GEDDUR (re88oup [B], ye. [A], ;a+ [L]), or CATHUA (mva [B], KaOoua [A]).

2. (ua8arz [L]) agroup of‘ Solomon’s sewants’ (see NETHINIM) in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii?, 5 9); Ezra 256 (ya8qa [Bl)=Neh. 758 (ya8qh tBN1, -&A [AI, ua88ar [Ll)= I Esd. 5 33, ISDAEL (ru8aqh [BA]).

GIDEON (]\UTd, as if from 4 U Y I ‘ to fell,’ §§ 66, 77 ; r f A f W N [BAL] ; GEDEON in Heb. 11 32 AV; the name appears also in thegencalogy of Judith[S I]) son of Joash, of the Manassite clan of Abiezer, dwelling at OPHRAH [ g . ~ . , 31, renowned through his success against the Midianites, otherwise called JERUBBAAL, Judg. 6-8, and referred to in Judg. 9 as the father of Abimelech, king of Shechem. The narrative is highly com- plicated, and traces of composite origin abound. The Hebrew text, too, contains many errors which must, if undetected, lead the student astray. No- where has criticism been more carefully and acutely applied than here ; it is only in textual and historical criticism (especially in the former) that there is much still to be done. A fresh combination of textual, literary, and historical criticism, which owes much to predecessors, leads to the results given below. The degree of their probability varies considerably, owing to the large amount of sncccss attained in the early fusion of the narratives. It is, however, scarcely open to doubt that Gideon (Gaddiel ?) and Jerubbaal (Uribaal ?) are two different heroes (the one belonging to W. Manasseh, the other either to Gad or to E. Manasseh) whose respective legends have been combined and expanded by successive narrators and editors.

The Gideon-story in its earlier form began with the statement that nomad invaders4 from the Syrian desert 1. Gideon- werewont to spread themselves at harvest-

time over the fertile country near Shechem and over the plain of Jezrcel, plundering

Then Yahwk appeared to Gideon5 at Ophrah

1 5 4 mainly from Porter’s art. ‘ Gibeon’ in Kitto’s Bi6. Cyc. a The readings of @Land in I Esd. of @EA seem to point to

3 name containing ’@. 3 ‘Nothingcanbeclearer than thefact that 8 k z ~ i s not from the

same source as 8 1-3 with its premises in the preceding narrative. Close examination shows that chaps. ti 7 are not of one piece throughout: 6253, e.@, is not the continuation of 611.24; the second sign, h 36-40, IS strange after the miracle fi 21 ; cp also ti 34 with 6 3j 7 2-8, and on the other hand 6 35 with 7 23,f 8 I ’ (Moore).

4 In Judg. ti 3 33 7 12 Pesh. reads op’, 33 for MT’s nip $32. Now 07’) (REKEM) is most probably a corrupt fragment of 5ttnn-p ‘(Jerahmeel). Pesh. appears to have the right reading. ‘The sons of Jerahmeel’ is a variant of ‘the Amalekites’; for parallels see Job 1 3 I K. 5 IO (JOB MAHOL).

See ti zg

GEBAL (i.).

HEMAN [p.~.].

~ ~ B S F A O L [A], GEDDELTHZ [Jg.].

story, the crops.

Cp JUDGES, 8 8.

5 Joash is the fader of Jerubhah, not of Gideon.

1719

. . 1 4 t h ) , prtly to i t palriotic wish that as many t r i h as pos.il,le might Lc shown to have had i t stwe i n Gidcon’s cxploit (in vi. 35 ‘ Aslier ’ is probably a corruptioii of ‘ lssachar ’), and pnrrly tu D 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 ‘I 226 thedescriptionof thedirection of the flight of the Midianites, the text of which had become accidentally corrupted, was manipulated in such a way as to bring Gideon across the Jordan ready to he enriched with the exploits which properly belong t i Jerubbaal. The inserted passage, 8 1-3, stands by itself. It seems to he suggested by 12 1-3 and a s . 19 41, and is a con- sequence of the insertion of 7 24, in which the Ephraimites are said to have been summoned to cut pff the fugitive Midianites. I t should also he mentioned that ‘ Jerubbaal ’ in chap. 9 seems to have been substituted by the editor for Gideon (Wi.). .

The Jerubbaal-story may have been somewhat as follows :-

[At Jazer in the land of Gad (?) there dwelt a man of the Gadite family of Uribaal, which name he himself

2. Jerubbaal- bore : later generations changed it to Jerubbaal (?); his father’s name was Toash. Now the Midianites oppressed

Israel, driving ;way their cattle, and plundering the fruits of the ground. And Jerubbaal, and ten of his household, went by night, and made a slaughter among the Midiani te~.~ To avenge this the Midianites came upon Jcrubbaal’s brethren in Beth-sur,s their stronghold, and slew every one of them, whereupon they turned and went northward on their camels, plundering as they went, till] they came to I ( a r k ~ r , ~ S. of Hamath. Jerubbaal, however, called his clan together, three hundred warriors, burning with zeal for Yahwb, and with the desire for vengeance. They took the ‘ road of

S 29. Jerubhaal, not Gideon, was referred to.

read perhaps ?pp (cp Gen. 14 14).

etc.). Cp ~SSACHAR, 5 4.

The context of the former passage shows that originally

1 g,ln,l ‘in this thy strength’ (ti 14) needs emendation;

2 For PUAH [u.v., 11 (Gen. 46 13

3 3ln ‘sword,‘ in 7 20, is an interpolation (Moore, Bu. etc.). 4 Read npp-n*9 $25 n++yig for niinn 5 3 ~ rqv TY

(7 22). The text is disfigured by jransposition and corruption. The editor thought of 3;l~ (;mx), which he placed near Abelme- holah. This agrees with the probable position of ZARETHAN

6 On the (probably) true name of the princes (or prince?) of

6 Jerubhaal is possibly the same as ARELI [ q . ~ I or rather

7 C. Niebnhr riehtlv observes that the earlv fortunes of

(7 IO) read perhaps

k.7J.l. Midian, see OREB [i.].

Ariel (Uriel=Uribaal?), the name of a ‘son’ of Gad: ’ Jerubbaal must be rold’in the passage underlyingjudg. 6 25-22, if we could only recover it. Only a few words, perhaps, were legible to the later narrator to whom G 25-32 is due.

8 Read 7rr-n-aa for l i p p (8 18).

9 Read l‘pl? W3 (S IO).

See THEBEZ, TIRZAH, I.

1720

GIDEON GILBOA, MOUNT Damascus,'] to the E. of Jogbehah (Aj6Th4, and Nobah (/<anawit),a passing by Salecah3 (or Salhad) .and Penuel, at the SE. corner of the Haur?~n .~ Faint and hungry,6 Jerubbaal asked for bread for his band. The ' elders ' or ' princes '. (see GOVERNMENT, § 16) of both places, however, feared the wrath of the Midianites and

-refused the request. Both places (Penuel was probably the citadel of Salecah ; cp v. I 7 ' tower ') were threatened by Jerubbaal with punishment. And when he came t a Isarkor he divided his band into three parts (cp Gen. 1415 IS. 11 TI Job 1 1 7 ; cp 2 S. l82), and gave them

empty jars with torches inside, and said, Do as I do. Then each company blew a blast on the horn,6 and the three hundred broke the jars (with a clash), and held fast the torches. And the Midianites were panic- stricken, and Yahwb set each man's sword against his neighbour. Jerubbaal caught the two kings of Midian.7 and returned. 0 1 1 his way he punished the rulers of Salecah and Penuel,s and so announced himself as king

.of Gilead. Then came the turn of Zebah and Zalmunna, the kings of Midian, who confessed their slaughter of . Jerubbnal's brethren,g and underwent their doom. On their camels' necks were necklaces of golden crescents, which were the marks of their high dignity. These the conqueror took for himself [for the people had made him their king]. lo Then Jerubbaal ben Joash went ![to Jazer?l'], and dwelt in his own house. And be made for himself [a royal sanctuary in Jazer with an

.altar and].an ephod, the ephod which he had rilade with the golden rings (earrings?) taken from the fallen - . - . Midianites;

The insertion in Szzf: reminds us of I S. 8 7 10 19 12 12 8, Hos.99 lO9131of:, that in v. 27 expresses the view of later times that the use of the ephod was an act of infidelity to YahwB.

The essential features of the above reconstruction are -the distinction between the Gadite (or E. Manassite la?)

.and the W. Manassite heroes (due to C. Niebuhr) and the critical emendation of the text in Judg. 84-21. It is possible that the original Gideon-story represented the hero as accompanied only by his three hundred clans- men, though, since the scene of Gideon's encounter with the Midianites is in the Great Plain, it is only natural

-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. The similarity ,of the stories not unnaturally led to their combination,

azer the similarity of this name to lAbiezer would facilitate t ie 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,

If Jerubbaal dwelt at

1 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, Suc-

4 Reading IF for nT1:: (84). l?? is either a gloss

5 Reading o3p7 (Bu., after 65) for 0 3 1 i (8 4). 6 See C. Niebuhr.

*COTH, I.

.(Moore) or a corruption of []],in.

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 AKD 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.

56 1721

like Zelophehad, is probably a corruption of Salecah (Salhad), the city which is so prominent in the story of Jerubbaal.

The religious interest of these stories in their combined and expanded form was very early felt (Is. 9 4 r3], 10 26'). T o the modern student their historical and archzological interest must almost necessarily be greater. See, however, , Elmslie's striking lecture, Expositor, 1892 a, 50-65.

See'Stade's and Kittel's Histories of Israel ; and Moore's and Budde's commentaries; Wi. AOFl42-5) ; C . Niebuhr, S fud im U. Bcmerkungen zur Gesch. des nltetrn Ouimts i ['94], 1-29; and the critical literature cited by Moore and Budd;.

GIDEONI ('jVT3 ; rahsw~[e] i [BAFL]), the father of ABIDAN [q.v.], Nu. 1 1 1 (reh. [E]) 2 2 2 7 6 0 (r&

T. K. c.

[FI, rahaiwNei P I ) 65 (rebe. [FI) 1024.

GIDOM (PYT? ; rehaN P I , rehaah [ALI, \aLa+ [Pesh.], uZtra [? Vg.]), apparently the limit of the pursuit of Benjamin by ' Israel ' (Judg. 20.45).

Such a place-name is in the abstract possible, but there is no mention of it elsewhere ; hence the guesses ',Gilead,' ' Gibeon.' The text has a strong appearance of corruptness.

I. RV VULTURE (rd+Z.z P??, and rdhdmM ?lp?? [see Dr. Dt., ad Zoc.] ; the name is derived from the care it bestows on its young, cp Di. Lev., ad Zoc.), an unclean bird (Lev. 1118, ~ h w o s [BAFL], Dt. 1417+, ?ropr$uplwv [BL, om. AF2]) identi- fied as the Neophron percnopterus, the white scavenger, or Egyptian or Pharaohs vulture, belonging to the Vulturidae.

The Neojhron jeacnojteaus feeds on offal and the vilest forms of refuse, but does good service to man as a scavenger. Its nests, of sticks and rubbish are built on rocks trees or buildings, often in the suburbs of)towns, and are not do inacies- sible as is the case with many of its congeners. 'Whilst they are with the Aarab [Arabs],' says Doughty, 'they lie wheeling upon the wing all day, stooping and hovering at little height above the mend [camp]' (AT. Des. 1393). Both in Arabia and in Palestine it is a migratory bird, returning from the S. in the spring, and is usually found in pairs. In Egypt the vulture was the sacred symbol of Nekhabit, the goddess of the South (Maspero, D a m of Civ. 102).

2. @res, le, Lev. 11 13 Dt. 14 IZ RV, AV OSSIFRAGE

(q... 1. A. E. S.

GIFT, For iln3D, minhah, nntln, teizimdh,

GIER EAGLE.

dv&O$pa or dvWep.a (Lk. 21 gAV), and GGpov, see SAcriiFicE;

SPIRITUAL ()(api&a.ra), see SPIRITUAL GIFTS.

forth '). From

2 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 EN-

for nxbn mas'ath see TAXATION AND TllIUUTE ; for GIFTS,

GIHON (]in'$ and [I K.] ]in3 ; ,/n'$ ' t o burst

I. A spring near Jerusalem (I K. 1333845).

ROGEL, SHILOAH).

[AL], 33 14 yrov [%I, YOTOY [Ba.bAl, ysrwv [LI. I K. 133 3845 [s]rwu [BAT.], z Ch.3230 d r l ~ w u IBI, ylslrwv

2. One of the four rivers of PARADISE [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 GEON (y7lwv [BKA]), and, by crit. emend. Job 40236 (see JORDAN, § 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.

GILALAI (%e) , the son of a priest, a musician in the procession at the dedication of the wall (see E ZRA 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.; MONS

1 The difficulty found by critics in Is. 10 26 arises probably from an error in the text (see OREB AND ZEEB).

2 [It is possible that B represents the wold by ?rop+up;wv in hoth passages, for in Lev. 11 18 this word and au'xvos may have been misplaced.]

1722

GILBOA, MOUNT GELBOUE), more rarely GILBOA (’\?!?, I S.284 2 S. 21 12) ; once, corruptly, MOUNTAINS IN GILBOA (72 ’?$, 2 S. 121 ; cp I S. 318 ; TA OPH r. [BA]).

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. The 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 KIRJATH-JEARIM, § 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 Gil- 2. Geographical boa’), if the name-has been rightly

accounted for, belonged originally to one of the elevations in the Gilboa meaning.

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 NW. 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 prosperous- looking 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 separ- ates 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 or 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. 1 ZI was written (see JASHER, BOOK OF, z ) the ridge was not so conspicuously bare as it is a t present. The poet’s aim is not to account for an existing pheno- menon; he feels too deeply for that. Gilboa has, at least in parts, its clothing of grass and trees ; he would

1723

GILBOA, MOUNT have Gilboa compelled to sympathise with the mourning Israelites.

We 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

of Judg. I and be given by quoting the two passages s. 284, etc. which describe the respective encamp-

ments 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 ‘by the fountain of Harod’ is loose. Gideon’s men were separated from the foun- tain 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 small detachment could secure i t ’ (Miller. od. cit. . * .. ~ ~

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, ’ The 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. The mustering at Aphek was swiftly followed by the arrival of the Philistines at Shunem ; the Israelites ex- pected this, and had no occasion to change their posi- tion. 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 HAROD) to the broken plateau above is too steep to permit a hostile attack on warriors drawn up above. An attack would be per- fectly feasible, however, if the Philistines went up the far easier slopes and wiidies to the S., which lead to 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 25 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. 2025 , f i ) . ‘And were victualled,’ however, must be wrong; we require,

~~ ~

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. HG 403; cp Miller, Less than fhe Least o f a l t Lands, 175~ 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. r s ~ h should perhaps be e#'??, '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 'Ben- hadad fled, and came into h e city, into an inner chamber,' a rendering which is violently extracted from an obviously cor- rupt text. Klo. reads ik? 11: i'p $y Nan:!, '. . . and hid himself by the fountain of Harod in Harod,' or ll!? p? !'Y, 'by the fountain in Harod.' The difficulty lies 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.

GILEAD (lg$J, and, with thearticle, l&!g ; rf*),f*f*A [BALI1), a trans- Jordanic region frequently referred to. 1. Name. The name, which can he explained from

the Arabic jul 'ud, ' hard, rough,' is at first sight not very appropriate, the hills and dales of Gilead being full of natural beauty, and well adapted for cattle (cp Nu. 321) and for the flocks of goats which are still fed there (cp Cant. 41 ; and see HAIR, 5 I). Upon the whole, Gilead is better provided with water and woodland than any part of W. Palestine. Hence Merrill (Hastings, DB 2 174 a ) seems inclined to doubt the correctness of the explanation. The name ' hard, rough' is, however, at once seen to he appropriate when we study the geological formation of the country.

The base slopes of the mountain chain of Moab and Gilead consist of Sandstone.

This 'is covered in part by the more recent white marls, which form the curious peaks of the foothills immediately above the

Jordan valley. but reaches above them to an 2. Geological elevation of I& ft. above the Mediterranean

on the S., and forms the bed of the Bukei' basin, farther E. and 1000 ft. higher. Above

this lies the hard, impervious Dolomitic limestone which appears in the rugged gray hills round the Jahbok, and 'in Jehel 'Ajlim rising on an average 1500 ft. above the sandstone and forrniig the bed of the numerous springs. It also dips to\lards the Jordan valley; and the water from the surface of the plateau, sinking down to the surface of this formation, bursts out of the hill slopes on the W, in perennial brooks. It was from the ruggedness of this hard limestone that Gilead obtained Its name. Above ,this again is the white chalk of the desert plateau, the same found in Samaria and Lower Galilee, with bands of flint or chert in contorted layers or strewn in pebbles on the surface. Where this formation is deep the country is bare and arid, supplied by cisterns and deep wells. Thus the plateau becomes desert, while the hill-slopes abound in streams and springs' (Conder, in Smith, DB('4 11191 a).

The'plateau here spoken of is that extensive highland which extends eastward to the Euphrates, where

3. nothing but desert shrubs will grow. On the edge of this region, and rising at most 500 ft. above it, are the long

mountain-ranges which from their geological formation deserve the name of Gilead. Rocky as they may he, the higher slopes are covered with pine-trees (Pinus Carica, Don., a species resembling the Aleppo pine), and, as Conder says, mastic-bushes,a whilst lower down are beautiful woods of oak trees and carob trees, form- ing altogether, with the addition of numerous streams and springs, th'e most perfect sylvan scenery in Palestine. The 'wood of Rephaim' (so read for 'wood of Ephraim ' in 2 S. 1 8 6 ) is still represented by the thick groves of the Jebel 'Ajliin, with which the woods of es- Salt in S. Gilead alone can compete. Far below the Gilead range lies the Jordan Valley, which is reached by a very steep descent, and a natural division in the range is formed by the river Zerkii (Jabbok). The Hebrew writers, whether they were conscious of the original meaning of Gilead or not, were well aware that the name had properly no narrow or merely local refer-

T. K. C.

formation.

usage*

1 [In @ occur the following forms :-Judg.lOq yaaa8 [By], IO8 ~ U A U ~ L % T ' S [AL], 11; mpa+ [A] IK. 413 yahaa0 [B], y a h ~ 6 ~ ' ~ q s ' [ L l 419 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 [Qt vld.1 I Macc. 59 yahua8iTLs (A).]

Smiih's DBW 1 I I ~ I ' see also Conder, Heth andMoad, 188. S,,, however, Post, cidd sup. col. 465, with reference to the

1725

Balm of Gilead.

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 1325) . The two parts together are some- times 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 (NU. 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. 236 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. 34 I I Macc. 5 2 0 8 ' Gilead ' even includes the region N. of the Jahbok.

W e have seen that the term ' Gilead ' belongs of right to a large mountainous district, not to a particular

mountain. It would he a mistake to *' Gen' 31 17-54' infer the contrary from the interesting composite narrative in Gen. 3117-54. I t is true that what is said of Jacob and Laban in v. 25 and of Jacob in v. 543 implies that a particular mountain, known to the respective writers of these passages, was sometimes called in a special sense i$;3 y, ' the mountain of (the) Gilead ' ; but this specialisation merely indicates that the mountain referred to was a conspicuous one in some part of the Gilead range. That the two narrators J and E meant the same part of the Gilead-range can hardly. he maintained. They both differ from the original story (see GALEED, I) ; they also differ from one another. When Jacob uttered the fine prayer in 3 2 9 8 (J ) he must have been near some great ford of the Jordan. Probably he was at Succoth, not very far from the ford ed-Diimieh, for the notice in tien. 3317 has surely been misplaced by the editor of JE, and in J 's narrative stood before 324[3].4 It is possible that the Jehel &hd, the highest point in the Jebel Jil'iid (N. of es-Sal!, and N. of the ZerkH) is J's Gilead mountain. E, however, who makes Jacob go, after parting with Laban, to MAHANArhl (q.v.) , presumably localises the meeting of Jacob and Laban near some high point of the Jebel 'Ajliin. One might think of the Jebel Kafkafa (3430 ft.) which is to the NE. of Siif and Jerash, close to the great pilgrim road from Damascus to Mecca ; hut SOf itself (2720 ft. ) has great claims on our consideration. This is one of the sites where dolmens are to be found.5 It is probable that by the ' pillar' and the ' heap' of Gen. 3145f. the narrators meant some of those primitive stone monu- ments, which are specially abundant on the E. of the Jordan.

According to th9theory here presented, there should also be such a monument on Jebel 8sha'. All that we find is a shrine (perhaps 300 years old) containing a long, open trough, said to have been the tomb of Hosea, beside which the Bedouins kill sheep in honour of the prophet.6 The trough, however, may have been pre- ceded by a cairn ; sepulchral cairns are still common among the Arabs, and Absalom's cairn (2 S. 1817) fs familiar to readers of the OT. The narrative in Gen. IS directed against the attempts of the Arameans to possess themselves of Gilead ; the standing-stone (massEba) on E's mountain and the cairn on J's were represented by E and J respectively as having been erected, the former by Laban, the latter by Jacob, as sacred boundary-stones. The masSEbH, by a slight distortion, was called ' the Mispah ' to indicate that Yahwi: would

. .-

1 Gilead is here distinguished both from Bashan and from the tableland of hloab.

2 Jacob is here said (by J) to have pitched his tent 'on fhe mountain [of . . .I,' p b a n on 'the mopntain of (the) Gilead. 8 Tacob sacrifices on the mountain : n. 21 shows that some

part'of the Gilead range is meant. 4 It was followed probably by a mention of Jacob's crossing of

the Jabbok. Cp Holzinger, ad Zoc. 6 Conder Hcth and Moa6 2 4 3 3 6 Baed. baZ.(3) 163J ; cp konder, op. cit. 182. A large tree

stands beside the shrine which is 'one out of the very few sacred domes E. of Jordan.

E i s the writer.

1726

GILEAD GILEAD “keep watch (and interpose) between’ Laban and ,Jacob, when occasion for this arose1 (z. 49). We may certainly infer from this that the place referred to by E was one of those called Mizpah. Possibly it was Ramath-ham-mkpeh, which in Josh. 1326 is described as the N. limit of the territory of Gad, and is elsewhere called ham-miSpH (see MIZPAH, 2). The cairn also received a name : it was called Gal‘ed-ie., Heap of Witness, implying a playful etymology of the name .Gilead.

There is yet another conceivable inference from this .singular narrative (when explained as above), against

5. Special- which a caution may be desirable. I t ization of might be supposed that when E wrote, the

territory known as Gilead began at the Jebel ‘Ajltin. The truth is that the

JebeZ ‘AjZzjn is the representative of the whole land of Gilead. So at least it must appear to those who approach Gilead from Damascus, and see, looming up beyond the plain of Bashan, the summits of the Jebel ‘Ajlfin. On the other hand, to those w-ho come from Moab. the natural representative of Gilead will be the first lofty range to the N. of the plateau of Heshbon-Le., the / d e l Jil‘iid. How this latter name fixed itself just here is an obscure problem : why is the Yahwist’s Gilead mountain preferred to the Elohist’s ? Problems .of this kind, however, are numerous and baffling. Why, for instance, is the highest mountain in this range-the Jebel Osha‘-named after the prophet Hosea? It is true, Hosea, according to the MT, speaks of a city of Gilead in 68 (cp l211), and has been thought to refer here to some locality in the Jebel Jil‘Bd (see, however, 2). Can this have been known, however, to those who first used the Arabic name? Surely Hosea has displaced Joshua. Who, then, pre- ceded Joshua ?

I t would seem as if this specialization of the term Gilead had already occurred by the time of Eusebius and Jerome (see z ) ; and it should also be noticed that 5 m. N. of es-Sal! there is a ruin known as Jal‘iid,2 perhaps the ‘Gilead’ of the Onomasticon. Not im-

6. Called possibly, too, another seeming& recent Gerash ~ place-name preserves the memory of a name

of Gilead, which, though but slightly attested, may be genuinely ancient. The place-name referred to is Gerasa (the famous city of the Decapolis .of Peraea), now called J e r a ~ h . ~ According to Ne~ibauer ,~ the Midrash (SamueZ, 13) affirms the identity of Gerash .and Gilead: and Sir G. Grove has noticed that the Arabic version of Josh. 208 2138 [36] gives RHmat .al-JaraS for M T s ‘Ramoth in Gilead,’ and that the Jewish traveller Parchi (circa 1311 A.D.) also says, ‘ Gilead is at present Jerash.’ That the name Gerasa is derived from the ~ Q ~ O Y T E S , or veterans, of Alexander the Great is of course absurd. I t reminds us so much .of Girzites and Girgashites that one is tempted to sus- pect that a tribe called Girzim or Girshim (cp GIRGASH- ITES) may have dwelt in Gilead in pre-Israelitish times ‘(cp z S. 29, where Ishbaal reigns ‘ over Gilead and over the Girshite ’ ) : see GIRZITES. Gerash, like Gilead, may have obtained a specialized reference to a town and a district later ; hence Yaktit speaks of ‘ the Jerash

Gilead.

The truth is hidden from us.

1 Verse 49, which, as it stands is obviously imperfect, must be supplemented from v. 45. Reid’ with Ball ‘And the pillar which he set up he called “the MiSpah,” for he said,’ etc.

a The two names next mentioned are Betonim (rather Botnim) and MAHANAlhl [q.~.] .

3 This name is not to he confounded with JiilCid the name of ariver which starts fiom the ‘Ain JiilCid under G I L ~ O A [q.v., 8 31. This Jiilnd is also pronounced /Ahi t , which is the Ai-. form of Goliath. Goliath impressed the Moslem mind. Mokaddasi (11th cep . A.D.) calls the citadel of ‘Ammiin the ‘castle of Go I i a t h .

4 According to Guthe (MDPV, ’98,578) Jerash, not Jerssh, is the popular pronunciation.

5 Gdogr. d74 Talm. zjo. 6 Zunz, quoted by Grove (Smith DH1) 2 1003). He also states

that the Jews derived Gerash from’Yegar-sahadutha (Gen. 31 47).

1727

mountain district ’ (Jebel Jarash), as well.as of the ruined city of that name.

If the name of Gerasa is rightly thus accounted for, it still remains to determine what ancient city, if any, ,. Ancient once stood upon its site. I t is difficnlt

indeed to believe that the founders of that magnificent city, the ruins of which still

fascinate us, placed it upon a site unconsecrated by the sanctuaries of the past. Both Ramoth-Gilead and Mahanaim have been thought of : but we have reasons sufficient for accepting neither view. Just an hour W. of Jerash is the wretched but well-situated village of Reimtin (Ewald‘s Ramoth-Gilead), divided by a ridge from Siif (Mizpah 2 ) . Turning to the W., in two hours the traveller comes to ‘Ajlfin (Mahanaim?), ‘nestling at the bifurcation of the valleys, in its gardens and vine- yards,’ with the great castle already spoken of in the neighbourhood : on either hand are the well-clothed heights of the Jebel ‘Ajlan. A descent, a climb, and again a descent bring us to the WHdy YHbis ( a plausible claimant to the title of ‘the brook Cherith,‘ were it not for the faultiness of the reading CHERITH [p.’~.]), and to an isolated round-topped hill, strewn with ruins (ed- Deir)-but these not ancient-Robinson’s site for Jabesh-Gilead. If we turn to the N. of the same WHdy, we come to Miryamin, Merrill‘s site for the same famous city. About seven miles off is Pella (Fahl), which ‘enjoys perhaps the finest climate, from an agricultural point of view, that can be found in Syria.’ 1 The known history of Pella is a short one : but it may be noted here that, according to Eusebius (HE35) , the Jewish Christians fled, before the destruction of Jerusalem, to Pella.

And what shall one say of Irbid, the capital of the district of ‘Ajliin? Doubtless this was an ancient Artrela. Was it, then, the BETH-ARBEL of Hos. 10141 Onr answer will probably be in the negative; but the site is of strategic importance, and the name implies the antiquity of the place. Es-Salt, too,-at present tlic only capital of the BelkL, and the only important plncr: in it-though not as strikingly placed as ‘Ajltin, must surely have been always a centre of population, and tli- lofty Jebel Usha‘ to the north must always have bce:i crowned by an important sanctuary, surely not, however, Penuel. Where the latter place was, it is not easy to say ; SUCCOTH (I), however, is possibly the modern Tcll Der ‘A411a. With more confidence we can identify Joc - BEHAH with JnbeihHt, and the JABBOK with the ‘ blue’ river, the ZerkH.a

A passing reference is all that can be given to the interesting genealogies of Gilead (Nu. 26 29-33 Josh.

17 1 - 3 I Ch. 7 14-19) : see MACHIR, ASRIEL, HEPHER (ii., z), and especially ZELOPHEHAD. The last of these names

occurs in a mutilated form as Jidlaph in Gen. 2222 ; it is probablyidenticalwithSalecah. and as Milcah, themother of Jidlaph, is a corruption of Salecah, we see how mechani- cally the genealogies were often filled up. Nor can we here gather up the fragmentary notices of the history of Gilead. The country was the eastern bulwark of Palestine, and was the first district to suffer from Syrian and Assyrian invasions. In sacred legend it is dis- tinguished by the passage of Jacob and by the residence of JEPHTHAH [p.v.]. The names of Barzillai, David, Ishbaal, Ahab, Elijah (was he really a Tishbite ?-see TISHBITE) also will readily occur to the reader as con- nected with Gilead. The clansmen of GAD, whose name is almost treated as synonymous with Gilead (e.g., Judg. 5 17 I S. 137) , had opportunity for learning resource and courage in the mountains and glens of the ‘ rugged ’ land.

Oliphant, LandofGilead(‘80) : graphic descriptigns ; Coiider,

1 Le Strange, in Schumacher, Across tha/ordan, 272. Pella is the 5 ” ~ of Talm. Jer. (Neub. Gkogr. 274); cpGASm. HG 292, n. 2.

sites.

Cp GAD, 5 2. PERXA.

2 On the Jabbok of Gen. 32 22, see JABBOK, 8 2. 1728

MAP OF GILEAD AND AMMON

INDEX 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 egu ivah t . The n@haleticaZ arrangement usuuZ& ignores preJzzes: abu ('father of '), 'ain (' spring'), 'urd& ( I district '), 'uyrn ( ' springs '), ba&r ( ' s ea '), deit ( ' house '), W i d ( ' country '), jeiedel ( ' mt.'),

j isr ( ' bridge '), @aZ'at ( ' custle '), kandl ( ' conduit '), @urn ( ' horn '), kasr ( ' castle '), Khirbet ( ' ruin '), k5m ( ' mound '), makhddet ( 'ford '), nahr ( ' river ' ) , rds ( ' head '), teZZ ( I mound '), umm ( ' mother '), wddy ( ' vdey ').

Abel-Meholah, B3 Abel-shittim, B4 Abil, CI Abila, CI (ABEL-SHITTIM) W. el-Abyad, B3, 4 Adam, B3 Adamah, B3 wady el-'A?eimeh, B4 AjbShat, C3 (JOGBEHAH) 'Ajliin, Bz (GILEAD, B z ) jebel 'Ajliin, BCz (GILEAD,

0 7) wHdy 'AjlCin, Bz, 3 (CHE-

RITH) el-',&', c 4

Amateh, B3 um(m) el-'Amdln, Bz 'ariil: el-Amir, C4 'AmmBn, C4 (ABEL-CHERA-

wHdy'AmmHn. C3, 4 Aqueduct, CI

wHdy el-'Arab, BI (EPH-

Arbela, CI

Kh. 'Atiif, Az W. el-'Aujeh, AB4 'Ayiin MCisH, B4 wHdy 'Ayon MiisB, B4

(BETH-PEOR)

Batanah, B4 BeisHn, Az Bethabara, B4 Beth-haran, B4 Beth-jeshimoth, B4 Beth-shean, Az Betonim, B4 W. el-Bireh, BI Bithron, Bz W. el-Bukd, A3 el-Bukba, C3 (GILEAD, B z)

Camon, Br Casphor, DI

ed-DHmieh, B3 Dathema, DI

ed-Deir, Bz (JABESH, 5 2 ) ed-Delhemiyeh, BI (DAL-

Der'Ht, DI

Edrei, DI %dun, Cz

.

telldEr'Alla, B~(GII.EAD, $7)

MIM)

RON, 2)

MANUTHA)

Elealeh, C4 M&r ElyHs, Bz 'Arak el-Emir, B4 (HYR-

CANUS) Ephron z, CI

Eriha, A4

Fahl or Tabakat Fahl, Bz (JABESH)

W. Fajjhs, BI j. Fakilt, Az kanHt Fir'aun, BCI (CON-

DUITS) W. Faslil, A3

Gadara, BI

kaSr wHdy el-Ghafr, CI

wHdyel-Ghafr, CI (EPHRON) W. el-Ghuweir, B4 (DEAD

Mt. Gilboa, A z Mt. Gilead, B3 Gilgal, A4 'ain Hajla, B4 niakhadet Hajla, B4 jebel Hakart, C3 tell HammHm, B4 W. el-HammHm, C3 Hammath, BI

el-Hammeh, BI

Kh. Hamzeh, C4 HesbBn, C4 'ain Hesban, C4 (HESHBON) wiidy HesbHn, B4 (BETH-

Heshbon, C4 wHdy el-HimHr, B2 el-Had, B4 Humeid. Bz W. el-Humr, AB3

W. IbtEn GhazHl, B3 Irbid, CI

Jabbok, B3 Jabesh, Bz N. JBliid, AI Jal'iid, B3 (GILEAD, 5 2)

Jazer, C3 am Jenneh, Cz Jerash, Cz (DECAPOLIS) W. Jerash, Cz, 3 jebel Jiltad, B3 (GILEAD,

GerdSa, c z

(EPHRON)

SEA)

PEOR)

< .

B 4)

Jericho, Crusaders', A4 Jericho of Or, A4 W. el-Jozeleh, AB3 birket Jiljiiliyeh, A4 Jogbehah, C3 wady el-Jorfeh, B4

jebel Kafkafa, Cz (GILEAD,

Karawa, B3 Kaukab el-HawH, BI

Kh. el-Kefrein, B4 (ABEL-

tell el-Kefrein, B4 wady el-Kefrein, B~(ABEL-

SHITTIM) W. el-Kelt, AB4 Kerak, BI ras umm el-Kharrilbeh,A3 W. el-Khashneh, Az Kumeim. BI

bahr La!, B4

Maha?, C4 Mahne, Bz W. el-MHlih, Bz jebel el-Mastabeh, C3 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, DI

B 4)

SHITTIM)

NebH, B4 tell Nimrin, B4 (BETH-

ABARA) W. Nimrin, B4

jebel Oshd, B~(GILEAD, $4)

Pella, Bz (JABESH) Philadelphia, C4

kal'at er-Rabad, Bz (EPH-

Rabbath Ammon, C4 tell er-RHmeh, B4 beit er-RHs, CI(DECAPOLIS,

Reimiin, C2 (GILEAD, $ 7 ) er - Renitheh, DI (DA-

RON, 2)

B 2)

THEMA)

W. er-Retem, B4 er-RujEb, B3 (ARGOB) wady er-Rujeb, B3 er-Rummiin, C3

tell es-Sdidiyeh. B2 'ain es-Sakiit, Bz es-Salt, B3 (MAHANAIM) Samakh, BI es-SHmik, C4 khirbet SBr, C4 (JAZER) karn Sartabeh, A3 Scythopolis, Az wady Sha'ib, B4 'ain esh-Shamsiyeb, B2 Sheri'at el-Kebireh, BI-4 Sheri'at el-MenHdireh. BI

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,

(BETH-JESHIMOTH) jebel bilkd e?-SuwEt,

B4

Dr

Tabakat Fahl, Bz bahr Tabariyeh, BI et-Taiyibeh, BI

wady et-Taiyibeh, Br W. abii THra, R4 TaricheE, BI Tibneh, Bz et-Turra, CI

Um Kes, BI

wady Yabis, Bz (JABESH) Yajiiz, C3 (JAZER) k6m YHjjBz, C3

Zarethan, A3 beit Zer'a, C4 (JAZER) kafat ez-ZerkH, D3 nahr ez-ZerkH, BCD3 ras umm Z6ka, Bz jebel ez-Zumleh, DI

(BASHAN)

GILGAL GILGAL Heth a n d Moa6 ('83); Selah Merrill, East of Jordalz ('81);

Schumacher Across theJordan ('86), contain- 9.Literature. ing ' A Riie through djlun,' by Guy Le

Strange ; Tristram, Land of Ismel ; C;. A. Smith, HG; 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 ; 11 IT 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. 68 12 11 [121 1 53 should most probably he $152 (cp yahyaho~s 12 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 DlM 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> ~an:

nm). In 12 11 [I21 pa 1 ~ 5 1 is a corruption of nqr \+ ];e ; the prefixed mi is a dittographed ]lN (GrP.).

T. K. C.

GILGAL (always with definite article, $a>)?, except 1. Name. Josh. 5 9 and M T of l 2 2 3 ) , the name of

several localities in the Holy Land. yahyaha [BAQFLI,

as in Josephus and I Macc. So in Josh. (except 12 23 14 6 [!I, 15 7 ; see below, $ 6), I S. (except 7 16 &v yahyaha [BA], rqv yuhyah [L] . 15 33 yahyah IBA]) z S. z K. Am. Hos. (except 9 15 yahyah'[BAQ], 12 IZU [rral ;aAaaS [BAQ"]). The singular yahyah occurs in Josh. 146 [B], 15 7 [ALI, Judg. 2 I 3 19 I S. 15 33 (yahyaha IL]), Hos. 9 15 Mi. Gg ; yohyoh [BA] in Dt. 11 30 (but yohyo.' [Fl, oohyoh [Ll). On Josh. 12 23 see below, 0 6.

The name means literally ' the 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 ofE. Pal. 17.

I. 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 (JE) relates that, after crossing Jordan, Joshua erected twelve stones which he had taken from

the bed of the river on the W. bank ' in the Gilgal' ( 4 3 Z O ) , and they became (v. .I$, probably Dt. ) a monu- ment of the miraculous passage. This account agrees with the meaning of the name. The same document, however (with its unscientific habit of connecting place- names with events of ancient history), derives Gilgal from the reproach ' rolled away '-GallBthi, ' I have 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 wilder- ness ( 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]),

1 For an instance of twelve stones by the side of an altar see

I729

Q3 usually renders 51517 by the plural

Gilgal.

Ex. 244.

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,), de- scribes the site as at ' the east end ' of the territory < of Jericho' (419) .

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 OT Jerichd at 'Ain es-SultZn but the N T site on W. el- Kelt. Eusebius and Jerome (&' 1215 22 243 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 Term 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 (BR 2 287) ; 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 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, 96 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 16 yahyah [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 BAN, § 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 SAMUEL 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 Gilgal of this site bv Tericho. or another sanctuary ?

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&&Z gdth yigZdh; Hos. 4 15 come not to Gilgal and go not up to Beth-aven ' ; 9 15 ' all their evil is in Gilgal, for there I hated them. . . I will drive 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-

I730

GILGAL GILGAL 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 re 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, snp- posed 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 he 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

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 con- siderations, 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. We 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]). The order given is Gilgal, Bethel, Jericho (eB* 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. The 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 BAAL-SHALISHA [q.v.], another Samaritan town, also on the western watershed (see further Buhl, Geogr, 171 ; and cp GOURDS, WILD, ad

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 (PEP Name Lists, p. 225, sheet xiv.).

1731

P. }.

eighth centuries. These claims have been defended in detail by Schlatter (Zuv

Tojogr. u. Gesch. Paliisfhas, 2 4 6 3 ) and accepted by Buhl (Pal 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. 11 30 see GERIZIM, § 2.1

(a l In the list of the Canaanite kings conouered bv I , - 1

Israel we find a 'king of the nations at Gilgal' (Josh. 1223 [Dt.]: \?!?) 093 3 i Q ; y w a p mjc yrhyea [AI, '' Other yssc 7:s 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 kings .f 80, (fa., g 25 and Tir;ah and Eusebius and Jerome (OS) place a yahyovhrr 6 R. m. N.' of Antipatris ; and this is repre- sented 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 ( lahyah [ALI, raaya8 [?*I: 7a ayas [Bb]) which is over against the ascent of Adummim the present Tal *at ed-Dam on the road from Jericho to Jerusalem). (In the parallel passage, Josh. 18 i7 (P), 52518 becomes jq$*h, GELILOTH, ya+aw0 [Bl ayaMihwO-z'.e., n r $ h [AI yahr- Awe [L]). This is surd; the hitherto unidentified Beth-gilgal or [AV] House of Gilgal n'? ; BN*A om., 870 ay'yahyah [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 Jeru- salem. (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 ARBELA. The data undoubtedly suit best the Gilgal on the Makhna Plain, not the Gilgal suggested in 3

1 Besides the modern place-names mentioned above the only of that article.' G. A. S.

1732