GALLEY
a corruption of P’?b?, ‘pomegranate trees.‘ @ has rrapa-
Spopais, Aq. PqmmLp Symm. elA$pam. Read vi. 56, ‘ pleasant
are they as an orchkrd of pomegranate trees’ (cp 4 73). So
Cheyne, 3QR,Jan. 1899; see COLOURS, 5 15.
(3) BVT, ra&ii,,Kt. ( ~ . mKr.) in plur., Cant. 1 7 7 AVms ;
hut EV ‘rafters. Q ?arvi&a.ra, Symm. + a ~ v i r u c ~ qQuint.
, sed loci morbum ’). This allusion gives us the only corroboration
UTPO+S. This sense is best reached by reading i*n>y(Syr.
Ldai, Niild.), with Budde. Wetzstein (Del. Hoheslied
u. Koh. 165) would read Ug’il] ‘and our walls’(L?’n=Y’n).
(4) n$, &%m, o h , i%im, Ezek. 40 1 6 3 A V w . (EV ‘arches,’
RVmg. colonnade’). 6 transliterates. See TEMPLE.
GALLEY ( ~ : g h g )IS,. 3321. See SHIP.
GALLIM (&3, r&A€[i]M [BWLI).
I. A place included among the additional ‘ cities ’ of
Judah in b ’ s text of Josh. 155 9 a (PahXlp [A] ; see SBOT,
‘ Joshua,’Heb.). Itoccurs between Karem(’AinK8rim;
see BETH-HACCEREM) and Baither (Bitlir; see BETHER
i.) ; it was therefore W. of Jerusalem.
2 . A hamlet to the N. of Jerusalem, mentioned with
Laishah and Apathoth, Is. 1 0 3 0 ( y d A c ~ p[AQ], rahsrp
[M,*]). It was the home of Palti, the husband of
Michal (see BAHURIM), I S. 2 5 4 4 (poppa [B], yahhei
[A], -66. [forte A”], yohlae [L] ; ye9ha [Jos.]). No
plausible identification has been offered ; the text is
probably corrupt. Elsewhere ( S B O T , Isaiah, Heb.,
Addenda)l it is proposed to read, for o.,$?-ng (EV
‘ daughter of Gallim ’), ’&! n$i. A place called Beth-
gilgal is mentioned in Neh. 1229 (RV) in connection with
Geba and Azmaveth, and one called Gilgal in Josh. 157,
and Geliloth in Josh. 18 17. Probably the same village is
meant in all the three passages (so independently
G. A. Smith [GILGAL, 5 6 ( d ) ] ) : we cannot identify it,
but we know whereabouts it must have stood. It
seems to have grown up near a cromlech facing the
ascent of Adummim which formed n conspicuous land-
mark, and was probably regarded as sacred.
For Gallim in Vg. Is. 158 see EGLAIM. T. K. C.
GALL10 (rahhlwN [Ti. WH]), proconsul (AV
‘ deputy’)
- - . of Achaia probably towards the end of Paul’s
1. Facts from eighteen months’ sojourn in Corinth
classical (about 53 A.D.). His father, M.
Annzeus Seneca, was a rhetorician of
sources, Corduba (Cordova), whence he migrated
to Rome and became an ‘equa; his mother He& was
also probably a native of Spain (hence eguestri et pro-
vz’nciaZi Zuco uvtus in Tac. Ann. 14 53). L. Annzeus
Seneca the philosopher, and L. Annzeus Mela, the geo-
grapher and father of the poet Lucan, were his full
brothers, both younger than himself; his own name was
Marcus Annzeus Novatus, and to him under this name
Seneca addresses his hooks De Zra. From his father he
received a careful education, and in Rome he attracted
the notice of L. Junius Gallio, a rhetorician of repute (cp
Tac. Ann. 63). who ultimately adopted him, so that his
full name became apparently L. Junius Annzus Gallio.
Gallio’s younger brother Seneca was in banishment in
Corsica from 41 to 49 A . D . , when he was recalled by
Agrippina to be Nero’s tutor (Tac. A n n . 128). There
is no sufficient reason, perhaps, to suppose that Gallio
shared in his brother’sdisgrace (but cp Ramsay, St.Paul,
258). Towards the close of the reign of Claudius, he
received the governorship of the province of Actaia.
Achaia being a senatorial province between 27 B.C. and 15
A . D ., and again from 44 A.D. onwards,2 the term proconsul
(&&haros) is rightly used in Acts 18 12, for the governor of such
provinces bore always the title ‘proconsul,’ hut in the case of
Achaia the governors were of prztorian rank only, five years at
least intervening between the prretorship and the appointment
to a province (Marq.-Momms. Riim. Staatsu. 1 545). We thus
know only approximately the date of Gallio’s przztorship ; nor
is the year of his consulship ascertained ; it was presumably
later than his governorship. That he actually held the consul-
ship is known from Pliny ( H N 3 1 3 3 ) , who tells us that he left
1 Cp ‘Geographical Gains from Textual Criticism,’ EXpositor,
Se t. 1899.
f Under Nero it received ‘liberty’ for a time in 67 A.D. (Suet.
Nero 24), but Vespasian soon withdrew the useless gift.
1637
GAMALIEL
Rome post comuZatunz on a voyage for his health. This must
have been a different occasion from that recorded by Seneca,
who says t h a t Gallio sufferedfrom fever in Achaia, and went a
voyage in consequence ( E j . Mor. 18 I [lo4 I ] : ‘ illud mihi in ore
erat domini mei Gallionis, qui cum in Achaia febrim habere
coepisset, protints navem adsendit clamitans non corporis esse,
of the proconsulship recorded in Acts. I t has been suggested
that the L. Junius given as consul suflectus with A. Marcellus
at some time under Nrro on a wax tablet from Poinpeii is to he
identified with Gallio (Nipp. in Hermes12 130). We know t h a t
he was in Rome in Nero’s fifth year (Dio Cass. 61 20=58 A.D.).
His appeal for mercy saved his life for the moment when Seneca
was driven to suicide in 65 A.D. (Tac. An%. 15 73) ; hut next year
he also was one of Nero’s victims (Dio Cass. 62 25 Jer. Chroz.
Eus.).
Gallio’s genial and lovable and thoroughly upright character
is sketched for us by his brother, and is summed up in the
epithet ‘dulcis’ applied to him hy Statins (Silv. 27 32) and by
Senecahimself(haf. Qu. 4 pref.:-‘ quem nemo non parum amat,
etiam qui amare plus non potest . ..
Nemo etiim mortalium
uni tam dulcis estr quam hic omnibus’). Dio (6035) records a
witticism of his, In which he spoke of Claudius who was
poisoned by his wife Messalina, as ‘unco in coelum’ raptus’ (in
allusion to the deificationof dead emperors, and the haling of
dead malefactors through the streets to the Tiber).
It has often been remarked that the narrative in Acts
accords perfectly with Gallio’s character as otherwise
2.
in Acts. known ; but the erroneous impression
given by the phrase of AV in Acts 18 17
( ‘ and Gallio cared for none of those things ’) has ‘ made
his name proverbial for indifferentism in the Christian
world ’ (Farrar, St. P a d ,410). To speak of his ‘ char-
acteristic indifference,’ or ‘ disdainful justice,’ secms
beside the mark. Ramsay (Church in K . B y . 349
z.) points out that the Jews ‘could act against the
Roman Paul only by arousing official Roman action on
some pretext.’ It is a mistake to imagine that becmse
Judaism was a d i g i u &ita Gallio could be invoked in
the interests of Jewish orthodoxy (the recorded instances
of official protection when Jewish privileges were
attacked by municipal authorities are of quite different
nature) : in other words, the accusation, if exactly
reproduced in v. 13, was designedly vague, and by thc
words ‘ contrary to the law ’ it was intended that Gnllio
should understand Roman. law, .which.alone.he was con-
cerned to administer (so also Zahn, E i n b i t . 1 190).
Further, in order to gain a correct conception of the
incident, all idea of tumuZt must be rejected (Kar-
E T ~ U T ~ U 6poBupa86r
~ V of v. 12 merely signifies united
action on the part of the ‘community of Jews’ a t
Corinth). ‘ It is clear that Gallio’s short speech
represents theconclusion of a series of inquiries’ (Ramsay,
St. Paul,258),in which the attempt of the Jews to prove
that Paul’s teaching put him outside the pale of Judaism,
and so rendered him liable for introducing a new
religion (cp the charge at Philippi, Acts 1 6 2 1 , and
Thessalonica, Acts 1 7 7 ) revealed the true grounds of
their action. Gallio’s refusal to accept a prosecution
‘ seems to show that he shared the broad and generous
views of his brother about the policy of Rome in regard
to the various religions of the provinces ’ (Ramsay, ib.
259). W.J. W.
GALLOWS (yp), Esth. 5x4 etc. ; AVW and RVW-
‘ tree.’ See HANGISG, i.
GAMAEL (raMaHA [A]), I Esd. 8 zg=Ezra 8 2.
DANIEL [q.v., 31.
GAMALIEL (5&)??,
; ‘ El is a reward’ ; § 28 ; cp
GAMUL, and Palm. 5 K h 3 ; r a M a A l H A [BAL and
Ti. WHlI.
I. b. Pedahzur, a chief of Manasseh (Nu. 110 220
7 5 4 5 9 1 0 2 3 [PI?).
2. Gamaliel, or RabbZn Gamaliel the elder, who,
iccording to Jewish tradition, was the son of Simeon
and the grandson of the famous Hi1lel.l is twice
mentioned in the NT. Of his biography little is known
beyond the facts that, early in the first century, he lived
and taught in Jerusalem, where Saul of Tarsus is said
to have been for some time his pupil (Acts 2 2 3 ) ; that
1 Against this, however, see Schiir. Hist. 2 363.
1638
 GAMES
h e was a student of Greek literature ; and that he was
a member of the Sanhedrin, which body he successfully
counselled to moderation in their treatment of the fol-
lowers of Jesus (i6. 5 3 4 8 ) .
It would be extremely interesting to have tome outside con.
firmation of the two notices in the NT. That Paul himself
makes no reference in his epistles to his teacher, appears
strange. Looking back on his past history the apostle describes
himself (Phil. 3 5 Jr) in a way that we should hardly have
expected in a pupil of Gamaliel, if the ' rahban ' is to be judged
by the notice in Acts 5 3 4 3 Zahn (EirrL12) 135 48 503) warns
u s not to exaggerate the Hellenistic influences of Paul's home.
His Pharisaism was an inheritance from his fathers (cp Acts 2 5 6
R V a son of Pharisees ') ; but in this case why did he choosk
out Gamaliel? The problem seems insoluble.
According to Wendt, Acts538f: may be based on some
traditional saying of Gamaliel, which the author of Acts (who
may have heard that Gamaliel's advice determined the action
of the Sanhedrin) applied to the present case. Certainly pro-
visional conjectures of this sort may he admitted. Any close
connection, however, between Paul and Gamaliel is not without
its difficulty.
There is a late and otherwise improbable Christian tradition
to the effect that Gamaliel ultimately became a Christian
and received baptism at the hands of Peter and John ; the Sam;
tradition located the tomb of 'Saint Gamaliel' a t Pisa.1 This
tradition, however, is almost conclusively refuted by the fact that
he is spoken of in the records of Judaism as having been the
first of the seven 'rabhans' (see RABB~). Such an honorific
title would scarcely have been bestowed upon a Christian Jew.
The Talmudists speak of him as having been the
president of the Sanhedrin during the reigns of Tiberius,
Caligula, and Claudius. This, however, is certainly
unhistorical, as may be seen from the N T and Josephus,
where it is invariably the high ,priest who presides over
the council. It should be added that the name Gamaliel
is of frequent occurrence in the history of later Judaism.
A grandson of the elder Gamaliel, who bore the same
name, was the master and friend of Aquila, the
' Onkelos ' of the Babylonian Talmud.
See Schiirer GVZ 2 299 J ' Derenb. Pa2. 239-246 ; Gritz,
Gesch.W3a 3 4 4 8 ; Ew. Hist: 7 1g3f:
GAMES ( 2 Macc. 414). See H ELLENISM, 5 5.
GAMMADIM, AV Gammadims (D'?p$,but some
MSS 0'703;@yha~~c[BAQ]--i.e., n97Pv,with which
Pesh. agrees ; &Ah&K A I M H A O ~ [Qmg. Symm.]--i.e.,
n'tp nq;l; myrMalol CA~.YI, T E T E ~ E C M E N O I
[Aq.] - L e . , n ' p ; rOM&h€lM[Theod.] ; 'Ki7PtDP
' C+ppadocians ' [Tg.] ; PYG,if,er [Vg., deriving from
tpl, Judg. 316; see CUBIT]). I n describing the
political and commercial relations of Tyre, Ezekiel
(2711) says that 'the sons of Arvad were on [Tyre's]
walls, and the Gammadim on [its] towers.' Plainly
a proper name is required, and since ' Cappadocians '
(Lagarde) and ' Cimmerians ' (Halevy) do not accord
well with the Phcenicians of Arvad, it is evidently
wrong to emend pi131 into pqni, with Lagarde and
Haldvy. Bearing in mind the numerous corruptions
in the text of Ezek. 27, we need not hesitate to
read pq>y 'the Simyrites' (or people of Simyra),
called in E V ' the Zemarite(s) ' (so Co. Ezech., ad Zoc. ;
Wi. A T Unt. 180). o>ior might easily be corrupted
either into p-mw (a)
or into p i n 1 (M, etc.). ' T h e
Arvadite ' and ' the Zemarite ' are mentioned together
i n Gen. 1018. Thus we once more get evidence of the
close relation between Gen. 10 and Ezek. 27.
That a name so unfamiliar in later times as Kamadu (the
Egyptian form) or Kumidi ( A m . Za6. 87 75, a i d elsewhere)
should be referred to (as le]) is improbable, though it is not
unnatural that some scholars,2 who (needlessly) think Cornill's
conjecture 'violent,' should think of identifying the two names.
I n A m . Tad. 87, Kumidi and Sumuraa are even brought into
some degree of connection ' Rib Addi states there that the fall
ardfy possible to hold Kumidi for the
assent of E. Meyer and Petrie, recognises
the mod. KZmid el-LBz, 29 m. SE. of
Beiret, 31 m. WNW. of Damascus. This is certainly 'an
excellent position to command the upper Lirlni basin,' so that
1 Cp CZem Recoc. 165 ; Photius, cod. 171, p. 199.
2 WMM E. Meyer.
3Siimur; should be the later Simyra=Ass. Simirra though
Winckler (KB5 4 0 ~ )doubts this. Cp Flinderi Petri;, Syria
andfigJ$t, 183.
1639
GARDEN
the identification of Kumidi has a geographical value apart
from the doubtful combination proposed by Muller. Cp WMM,
As. u. fiur. 193; E. Meyer, 'Glossen' in r%gyptiaca, 72;
Lag. Miitheilungm, 1 2x1 ; USP), 367. T. K. C.
GAMUL (hD& 'benefited,' 5 56 ; rAMOyh [B],
-OYHA [A],KA. [L]), representative of the twenty-second
(so M T and eAL) or the twenty-first (so 65.) of the
courses of priests ( I Ch. 2 4 17).
GAR (so Aldine ed.), RV GAS (rat [BA], om. L),
a group of children of Solomon's servants (see NETHI-
N I M ) in the great,post-exilic list (EZRAii., 5 g, 5 8 c),
one of eight inserted in I Esd. 5 34 after Pochereth-
hazzebaim of / / Ezra 2 57 = Neh. 7 59.
GARDEN (12 gun, Ass. gunnutu, Arab. junnut"",
Syr. gannethi).
The Sem. word is derived from the root 31 ganar; 'cover,'
'protect,' the garden being secluded fi-om the surrounding
I
uncultivated country and the incursions of strangers, and con-
cealed by overshadowing trees from observation (cp FfcUex. iv.
115, I T C ~ L C L ~ ~ ~ E ' V WO LQ ~ ~ ~ W S O L ) . I n the Persian and the Greek
period Hebrew also used D??? pard& (rrapdGemos), park or
garden of larger extent than &OF (or ]I)
; s;e Neh. 2 8 Cant.
4 13 Eccles. 2 5 . I n Assyrian kirli (pl. -uti) means a plantation
of trees.
' Gardens ' of the sort just described came in very early
times to be specially attached to temples and also to the
1. Egypt, residences of wealthy persons. An illustra-
tion of the former will be found figured in
Lepsius' Denkmuleer (3g5), reproduced from the wall-
painting in the tomb of Meryre', high priest of King
Chuen'aten of the eighteenth dynasty (circa 1400 B. c. ;
discovered at Tell el-'Am%rna). This figure represents
the temple of the sun with the surrounding buildinzs.
The space that intervenes between the buildings is planted
with trees, and in every case the base of the trunk is
enclosed in a round ridge of earth hollow in the centre
in order to retain the water. Apparently there are a!co
water-tanks for irrigation. All features, however, are
not quite clear. From the same tomb we obtain other
graphic details. A small house, the private residence
of the priest, is depicted,' and in one corner we have a
glimpse of the garden portrayed in the conventional
forms of old-world artists in which perspective is dis-
regarded. Among the trees we can recognise the fig, the
pomegranate, and the palm, whilst an arbour covered
by a trailing grape-bearing vine is clearly visible.
The Theban tombs frequently represent gardens of
considerable size divided into separate enclosures for
vines, dates, and sycomores respectively. The i n k -
esting illustration given in Wilkinson, Am. Eg. 1377,
Erman, Lve in Anc. Eg. 195,represents alarge garden
of rectangular shape siirrounded by a wall. A canal
of water flows in front. Between it and the wall there
is a row of trees.
We quote from Erman's description :-
The house is concealed ' in the furthest corner of the garden ;
no sound from the stirring life on the canal could penetrate its
seclusion. ...There is no entrance except in front where a
broad flight of steps leads down from the large porter's lodge
to two small doors which open upon the canal. Through the
chief entrance ..
. we pass out of a small door directly into
the vineyard which is seen in the centre of the plan. The
.
luxuriant vines.. are trainedon trellis-workbuiltup withstone-
through these vine walks the path leads straight up to thd
house. If we pass, however, through either of the side doors
we come to a part of the garden resembling a small park ; her:
there is a fish-pond siirrounded with palmsand shrubs. . ..
Two doors lead out of this garden ; one into the palm-garden
which occupies a narrow strip on either side of the p.ece
of ground; the other door leads into the hinder portion of
the garden. Whether we enter the right or left side we now
.
come again to a "cool tank." . . A pretty little arbour stands
at the head of the pond ; here the master would sit in the evening
and watch the water-birds at their play in the water amongst
the lotus and papyrus plants. Finally at the back surroyded
by a double row of palms and high trees lies the house itself. . . .
Egyptian sovereigns took great interest in horticulture.
Ranieses 111. (1200 B .c.), according to the Harris
papyrus (i. 8 3 J ) , made 'great vineyards, walks shaded
by all kinds of fruit-trees laden with their fruit, asacred
way splendid with flowers from all countries.' Queen
Ha't-Sepsut (Hatasu), living about 1500 B. c., imported
1640
 GARDEN
thirty-one incense trees from their habitats by the Red
Sea.
In a footnote to Sir G. Wilkinson’s work (1 378) we have a
long list of trees which was discovered in the tomb of an officer
of Thotmes I. In this catalogue we finddate-palms, sycomores,
acacias, quinces, tamarisks, willows, and figs.
In Babylonia and Assyria the features of garden culti-
vation are very similar and there also monarchs interested
2. AsSyria themselves in the art. Among ancient
and Babylonia. Babylonian documents we read of a kept (cp Cjmp. i. 314). From Neh. 2 8 we acquire the
earden similar to that inst mentioned.
This belonged to-Merodach-baladan anb contained the
names of seventy-two trees, shrubs, and plants. This
inscription, called the ‘ garden tablet,’ is entitled at the
close ganndti f a Marduk-aplu-iddina f a r r i , Gardens
of King Merodach-baladan.’
Assyrian kings, as well a s Babylonian, took a pride
in planting gardens with choice and rare trees, brought
from other lands. Tiglath-pileser I. (I IOO B. c. ) evinces
this fondness for horticulture.
I n his prism inscription (col. 717.27) he says : ‘Cedar-trees
uvkarinr and aZZakanu trees I took away from the lands whici
I had conquered; trees which no one among my predecessors
[lit.former kings, my fathers] had planted, I planted them in
thc parks ( K i r 8 f z ) . Valuable garden-fruit which was not to
he found in my own country I brought away, and caused the
plantations of Assyria to bear these fruits.’l
Four centuries
~~ ~ (see P A R A D I S E )
later Sennacherib,
in describing his
‘palace without
r i v a 1,’ announces
that he planted a
great park ‘re-
sembling the Am-
anus land (moun-
tain),’ in which
were ‘all kinds of
f r a g r a n t plants,
fruit-trees, and the
produce of the
mountains and of
Chaldea. ’
Amid some obscure
details we learn that
a canal was dug I+
kaspa from the river
Husur and that a
Gonddasmade. Vines
and other fruit-trees
as well as sirdu trees,
cypresses, and palms River and Garden. 4fter Lavard.
were planted. Birds
and other wild animals were placed among them.2 A bas-relief
representing a river and gardens watered by a canal discovered
by Layard at Kuyunjik, perhaps furnishes a rough hustration.
Esarhaddon also fin two Iorism-inscriDtions). after
5~ I I ,
describing the erection of a palace of hewn stone and
cedar, passes on to describe (col. 6 1 4 3 ) the adjoining
park thus : ‘ A lofty plantation like the Hamanu moun-
tain, overgrown with all kinds of sweet-smelling bushes,
I placed by its side ’ ( K B2 138).
From the deeds of Babylonian purchase and sale’puhlinhed
by Peiser we may infer that a plantation of date-palms ( K M
giJ’imrnari), sometimes bordering on a canal (&irZr),formed a
not infrequent accompaniment of a Babylonian private dwelling
(Peiser, KeiZinsch. Actenst&ke, Sargonstein, col. 423-25 ; 1 2 I).
From the Babylonians the Persians acquired the art
of horticulture and carried it to considerable perfection.
3. Persia. Thence the skill in planting, as well as
the name for a cultivated park ( p a i r i d a b a ) , Ex#. T. 10401 (June ’gg), who critically emends (JQR Jan.
spread to the Hebrews (~719)and also to the Greeks
(napiseraor ; see PARADISE).
I t is from Greek writers that we mainly derive our information
respecting these parks. Thus Xeno hon employs the wordpara-
a’eisos in describing the large p a r i attached to the palace of
Cyrus at K e l z n z in Phrygia throuxh which the river Maeander
flowed, and which was stocked with wild animals of the chase.
1 KB 141 ; u5%6 is rendere$ as Pa‘el of e&&.
2 See Meissner and Rost’s Bauinschriften Sanheribs,’ 14-16
and notes, p. 39f: Evetts in Z A , Nov. 1888, gives another
text.
1641
GARDEN
Its extent may he surmised from the fact that Cyrus here re-
viewed his contingent of II,OM Greeks (Am&.i. 2 7 8 ) .
A biblical hint as to the size of these parks is conveyed
in Esth. 1 5 where we are told that the Persian king gave
a feast to all the inhabitants of Shushan in the precincts
of the royal park attached to the palace. From HeZLen.
iv. 1 1 5 we learn that Pharnabazus also had his enclosed
parks at Daskyleum, where animals for the chase were
additional detail that the keeper of the royal parks was
an important court official by whom building materials
were granted.
It is surely possible that Canaanite civilization
presented features in the matter of garden cultivation
*. Canaan, analogous to those of the ancient empires
of the Nile and of the Euphrates and
Tigris. Phoenician inscriptions, however, yield us no
information on the subject, whilst the biblical evidence
is exceedingly scanty.
Under the circumstances mentioned above ($ 4)the
features presented by the Paradise-narrative Gen. 2 8-17
6.The are of special interest and, value. The
main portion of this account is acknow-
Paradise ledged to belong to the earlier stratum
narrative. of J (J,). It is pointed out elsewhere
that zv. 10-14 a r e
probably a later
addition 2 to the
narrative of J1.
The critical result
is of considerable
*importance as we
thereby eliminate
the most definite
Babylonian traits
(mention of Eu-
phrates, Tigris, AS-
Sur, etc.) from the
narrative. There is
accordingly left to
usa Palestiniannar-
rative apparently
based on an ancient
tradition of Baby-
lonian origin which
had survived for
several centuries at
least on ,Canaanite
soil and had then been remoulded.
Even when m ~10-14 . are removed from the section,
there remain traits in the narrative that remind us of
Assyria and Babylonia (see again P ARADISE ). T h e
expression ‘all kinds of trees agreeable to sight and
good for food ’ ( z .9) recalls the phraseology of Esar-
haddon’s above- quoted inscription ZCaZa ri@i ZL i j i
&urruSu ‘ all kinds of fragrant spices .and shrubs ’ (cp
Khorsab. 143);and if we adopt the Assyriological
explanation of 7~ as not ‘mist’ but ‘stream of water’
(cp Esarh. col. vi. 19 J ) , the counterpart of the
Babylonian irrigation canal is restored to us and the
picture is fairly complete. It is clear too from Nu. 24 6 (J?
-see BALAAM,5 5) that garden-plantations were
familiar features in Palestinian scenery in pre-exilic times.
On the text of this difficult passage see Dillmann, also Cheyne,
1900) the text more folly ; cp C EDAR ; PALM-TREE.
What are the precise facts underlying the tradition
6. Solomon,s of Solomon’s botanic yore ( I K. 433
[5 131)~ cannot be determined ; but
plant-lore. Phoenician influences would help to
1 The text of Gen. 13 IO is disputed ; hut Ball may he correct
in reading O ! S & ‘Egypt,’ and ‘Zoan.’ If so, a familiarity
with Egyptian gardens is presupposed in the narrator. [See,
however MIZRAIM 2 d Z O A R . ]
2 Budhe, to whdse crftical sagacity this observation is due,
assigns the addition t o the time of Ahaz (Urges& 515).
1642
 GARDEN
account for the great king’s interest in plants. Later
kings, at any rate, had their plantations. Ahab, who
had a passion f i r building. coveted Naboths vineyard
in order to secure a suitable plantation as an adjunct
t o his palace ( I K. 21 2). In Heb. ~2713, zan hayylirlih,
furnishes, however, a very vague conception of its
character.
Gardens were naturally chosen as burial -places.
Trees having a sacred character are often conjoined
,. Gardens
with tombs (cp Gen. 358 and K S 2 )
burial-places. that Thus in 2 K. 21 1826 we read
196).Manasseh and also his son were
buriedin the ‘garden of Uzza’ (s~~MANASSEH, UZZAii. ).
I n the time of Jesus, family burying-places were
frequently in gardens (Jn. 1941).
Through ‘the king’s garden’ the Jewish soldiers
escaped, when Terusalem was caDtured bv the armies
8, ither reR. :-of Nebuchadrezz’ar ( z K.’% 4 Jer. 39 4
Neh. 315 ; see plan in Stade’s G VZ
1593). In all these cases we have
not a single descriptive trait presented in the biblical
record. We, must therefore supply this lack by the
legitimate inferences which may be drawn from the
general features of Hebrew civilization presented in O T
literature. In the first place it is evident that in the
eighth and the following century Israel had advanced in
civilization. Am. 315 clearly shows that it was a
common custom for the wealthy Hebrew citizen to
have a winter and a summer mansion.2 These were
adorned with cedar woodwork and inlaid ivory (cp Is.
9 gf: [a$]). That gardens possessing orchards affording
a grateful shade were attached, may he accepted as
certain (cp Am. 5:~). These would contain the well-
known Palestinian fruit trees, the vine, fig, and pome-
granate. The ideal bf a happy life ‘ t o sit under the
shade of one’s own vine and fig tree’ ( I K. 425 [55]
2 IC. 1831 Mic. 44, cp Jn. 150), as well as the general
features of the Paradise narrative, enable us to supply
these main traits. Probably in pe-exiZz’c Israel fruit-
trees predominated. Nowhere do we read of fragrant
plants or trees.
By Hos. 4 13 Is. 1 2 9 and 17 IO we are reminded that
Hebrew sanctuaries had their plantations in sacred en-
closures in which stood the terebinth, the oak, and the
(see P OPLAR ), together with the sacred pole repre-
senting the deity Asherah (see ASHERAH). Some
different kind of sacred plantation is referred to in
Is. 1710 as ‘ plants of pleasance.’ The view that they
were connected with the worship of Adonis (see RVmg.)
is not improbable. Robertson Smith ( P r o ~ h(I). 273, 425)
thinks that pots of quickly withering flowers are referred
The women who wept for Tammuz (Ezek. 814)
may have covered the bier of their god with such pots
or baskets. See, further, ADONIS.
Among the consequences of the Babylonian exile we
1 The combination of this phrase with Egypt in Dt. 11IO
gives the impression of good irrigation and elaborate cultivation
(cp Gen. 13 IO). On the other hand, the expression in Prov. 15 17
l~z> nm$ ‘daily portion [so T o y ; Che. ‘meal’] of vegetables’
&FT& h&dvov) suggests the idea of a homely meal to which
the exceptional and festive meal of animal diet is placed in con-
trast. This view is reflected in @‘s rendering K+OS haxdvwv;
Ahab‘s garden, therefore, must have fallen far short of a true
nap&wos. But is a disparaging epithet here purposely
applied, and can we detect the influence of Judaic and Deu-
teronomic redaction (designated Dzby Kittel)? See ‘ Ahah’ in
Hzstings’ DB,ad$%.
2 See HOUSE # 3 and cp H)nv n q in the Bar-Rekub in-
scription from AnjirlZ
3 [In Is. 1711 the swift destruction of the ‘gardens’ is not
presqnted in M T so vividly as we should expect. The trouble
is wlth the second part of the verse, the text of which Che.
( ‘ I d a h , ’ SSOT, Heb., 195) has critically emended, so that the
whole verse runs thus :-
(Even) though as soon as thou plantest them, thou fencest
them in
And earl; hringest thy shoots.to blossom
T h y grape-gathering shall perish in the &y of sudden terror,
And thy young plants at the crash 9f ruin.]
1643
GARMENT
may venture to place the improvement of Jewish horti-
As we pass into the literature of
9. Later. culture.
the Persian and the Greek period, the por-
trayals o$ gardens become more vivid and detailed.
See especially the picture of the ‘garden barred and
bolted,’ with its ‘well of living waters,’ and its fruit-
trees and fragrant plants in Cant. 412-16 62, and the
description in Eccles. 2 4-6 (see C ANTICLES , § 15 ;
B ATH - RABBIM ). The comparison of the righteous to
a well-watered garden (Is. 53 11) suggests that the
writer was well acquainted with Babylonian canal
irrigation. This resembles the imagery of Ps. 1 3 , and
similar language appears in Ecclesiasticus, where wisdom
is compared to various trees ( 2 4 1 3 3 ) , as the cedar,
palm, rose, olive, cinnamon, and so forth, and lastly to
a garden canal’ (v.3 0 3 ) . The Book of Enoch, too,
yields some illustrations of our subject. In 323f:
(Charles) we read, ‘And I came into the garden of
righteousness, and saw beyond those trees many large
trees growing there, including the tree of wisdom of
which Adam and Eve ate, and which was like the carob
tree’ (see HUSKS). So in 6112, we have the ‘garden
of life.’
We may infer from these descriptions that rich men
in the Persian and Greek periods delighted in their
gardens (cp Susan. 4, 15). In the time of Josephus,
Jerusalem was crowded with gardens and hedges outside
its walls in the Gihon valley (?) which debouches into
the Kidron (BJv.22).In the midst of these Titus
nearly lost his-life. Probably the garden of GETH-
SEMANE (4.v.)was not remote from this spot.
Baruch 6 70 [69] (Ep. of Jeremy) gives us an additional
feature of magic superstition noticed by the Hellenistic
Jewish writer. Gardens (including parks as well a s the
homely cucumber field) were provided not only with
keepers (cp H UT ), but also with ?rpopauKdvra ‘scare-
crows ’ to ward off evil spirits and probably birds and
beasts as well. 0. c. w.
GARDEN HOUSE (]J? nQ),
2 K. 927. See BETH-
HAGGAN.
GAREB (>?I, leprous,’ § 66), the ITHRITE, one of
David‘s heroes. 6 ’ s readings are :-
2 S. 23 38 : yqpap b 26’0evaios [Bl, yapq.9 b d p t 7 q s [AI, yapcp
b r d e p [Ll ; in I Ch. 11 40 : yapqopar ro8qpa [Bl, yapqope L. [N],
yap$ re&ppl. [A], y. b d 3 p L [L].
GAREB, THE HILL (312 ; BOYNWN rApHB
[BKAQ]), is named only in Jer. 3139t. as a landmark
indicating the future great expansion of Jerusalem ; see
GOATH. Possibly it is the hill described in Josh. 158
a t the N. limit of the Plain of Rephaim (Buhl, 95). In
this case, G-R-B may be transposed from G-B-R--Z’.~.,
Gibbor[im], a synonym of R EPHAIM [p.v., i.].
T. K. C.
GMLIZIM (rAplz[€]IN [VA]), 2 Macc. 523 ; RV
GERILIM.
GARLAND. RV rendering of 783,peZr, Is. 61 3 IO ;
see T URBAN. EV rendering of u&ppa, Acts 14 13 ; see CHAPLET.
GARLIC (DV?lrsi ; C K O ~ A A[BAF], -poAa [I,], Nu.
l l s f ) bears the same name in Heb. Syr. and Ar., and
its identity with AZLiiunz sativunz, L., or some kindred
species is thus assured. Pliny’s statement (xix. 632),
‘alium cepasque inter deos in iureiurando habet
Egyptus’ (cp Juv. Sat. 15), points at least to such
plants being common in ancient Egypt, though, accord-
ing to Wilkinson (3350), ‘there is no direct evidence
from the monuments of their having been sacred. ’ It
is not indigenous in W. Asia, but is a native of Zungaria,
from which it must have been carried westward in pre-
historic times. N. M.-W. T. T.-D.
GARMENT, EV’s rendering of (u)somegenerd terms
a
1 Cp also 4027, where the fear of the Lord is compared to
‘ garden of blessing.
a De Candolle (O+. 5r) suggests that it was not represented
because it was considered impure by the priests.
r644
 GARMITE
for dress-viz., l?:, Jiged, Gen. 39 rz&; d U ) , kbhzi;, Job 30 18;
“ZP, rnu‘ZtJh, Is. G13; n’W, iith, Ps. 736 (DRESS, 55 I , 3),
l p , madh, Lev. G i o ; &%pa, Mt. 22 I I (DRESS, 5 3); and also (6)
of certain special articles of dress, nlgfr, ’add&reth,Gen. 25 25
Josh. 721 (RV ‘mantle’); ?I$? SinrZcih,
’, Gen. 923; Z&@,
iahziih, I K. 11 29 : $‘!IO, tahrih, Esth. 8 15 (RV ‘ robe ’) ;
i p k m v Mt. 9 16, r m A $ Mk. 165 (RV ‘robe’) ;v&js Lk. 244
(RV ‘apparel’), for all of which see, further,’ MANTLE. For
nln3,
. .. kuttbneth,2 S. 13 18 etc., X L T ~ UJude 23, nos$pqs Rev. 113,is not assigned in Josh. to any of the Israelitish tribes, and
see TUNIC. Cp, further, DRESS.
GARMITE ( V 2 1 ~ ~ )the , gentilic name applied to
K EILAH in I Ch. 419, perhaps miswritten for Calebite
(&a); cp CARMI, I.
@’s text in II. 19 evidently differed much from M T though
it is not easy to restore that text exactly owing to the tran-
scriptional errors (arapa [Bl, 6 TappL [A]: d yappeL [L], zmri
[Pesh.]). T. K. C.
GARRISON is used to render rnagci6 (3@, once rate, a Gittite named Ittai was the leader of 600 men
“ X p ?na::&%h, I S. 14 12) in E V of I S. 1323 1 4 1 8 2 S. 2314.
For ne$ (X’y!) in I S. 105 133 f: (see SAUL, $ z n.), a S. 8 6 14
a Ch. 172 (EV ‘garrison’), a preferable translation is ‘officer’
(or the like) in spite of I Ch. 1116 (where 1) 2 S. 23 14 has 2:”.
Mzcgab 2$’p Judg. 96 ( R V w ‘garrison’) is probably an in-
tentional altkration of ”?BQ ‘pillar’ (EV), which rendering in
RVofEzek.ZG~~(o.pn b q ) is to be preferred to AV’s ‘strong
garrisons’ (cp RV mg. ‘o6elisks’); see PILLAR, MASSEBAH.
2 Cor. 11 32 AV +povpdu is rendered ‘ kept ... with a garriso? than the time of Amos ; see AMOS, 6 J ) reference seems
for which RV prefers ‘guarded’ (cp Phil. 47). Cp, generally,
FORTRESS.
GAS (rat [BA].), I Esd. 534 RV, AV GAR.
GASHMU (any$), Neh. 66. See GESHEM.
GATAM (Day3 ; r o e o ~ f A D E L ] ) one , of the ‘ sons ’ attested as a historical fact by Sargon himself, who says,
of Eliphazin Gen. 36 I I I Ch. 1 3 6 (yo[wlOafi [BAD; in Gen. 36 16
(yof3a [AL]) called a clan (read qi$).
GATE (-@@, Td‘ar; ITYAH, also TTYAWN [BAFL] ; mentioned between Ashdod and the port of Ashdod (?)
cp Bib. Aram. V>T Dan. 249 3 2 6 ) , used collectively of
the whole structure, including posts (n%lrp,rnZzzziz2h).
and doors (n)?,, M e t i % ) , as well as the open space before
it (ring, p/ti%u&,ITYAWN ; cp Josh. 204). The doors
themselves (the dual, Dt. 3 5 etc., suggests that there
were two) seem not to have been hinged to the posts
but to have revolved upon pins in sockets. When closed
they were kept secure by ’ bolts ’ or ‘ bars ’ ( n 9 y 6e~ii&). derives plausibility from the fact that Goliath was
made of metal ( I K. 4 13), but often of some destructible
material (see Am. 1 5 Nah. 313). For the denom. i y i ~ , ‘ Gath ’ for ‘ Gob ’ in v. 18
SO‘~=Y,‘ gate-keeper,’ see PORTER.
One of the exploits of Samson (Judg. 16 1-3) may be mentioned
here. When lodging at Gaza the hero rose in the middle of
the night and went to the gate of the city. There he ‘laid hold
-of the doors of the city-gate and the two gate-posts, and pulled
them up, together with the bar,’ and carried off the doors and
the whole framework to the top of the hill facing Hebronl
(say 40 m.). The origin of the story can here only be glanced
at. We may have in it a mere practical joke in keeping with
Samson‘s jovial character. But a connection with some early
mythical phrase, misunderstood by later generations, is not
excluded. The descent of Heracles to the gates of the nether
world has been compared by Steinthal.2
The sanctity of gates is well known (cp THRESHOLD,
§ z ) ; the gates of Babylon had their special names, and
temples beside them. This partly explains why justice
was administered ‘ i n the gate’ ( z S. 152 Dt. 2119 etc.),
.and this perhaps is how ‘your gates’came to be equivalent
to ‘your cities’ (Dt. 1212 etc. ; cp Ps. 872, ‘the gates
of Zion ‘ [I ‘ the dwellings of Jacob ’). The ‘ gates ’ were
also symbolical of the might of the city-gates of bronze
,such as could not easily be broken. Hence we read of
the ‘gates of Hades’ (Mt. 1618)--i.e., the power of
Hades (traditionally described as a city).
In N T 06pa is translated ‘gate,’ Acts 3 z AV; but cp D OOR .
The usual terms are r6Aq (Lk. 7 12; cp the ‘gate Beautiful,’ Acts
3 IO), and rvA&v, the latter of a palace (Lk.16zo), house (Acts
10 17), or porch (Mt. 2671 ; cp C OURT , PORCH).
1 Possibly, however, (as Che. suggests), ‘Hebron’ should be
“Sliaruhen’ (see GAZA, SHARUHEN).
2 Goldziher, Hehew Mythology, 4q.f:
I645
GATH
Compare, further, CITY, $ 2 (a), D OOR , FORTRESS, 55 z, 5 ;
J ERUSALEM ,T EMPLE .
GATH (na,‘wine-press’; rse[BKAL]; Jos. rlTT&;
Vn. G Z T H ) , one of
Y
the five roval
Philistines ori urincelv
(josh. 33 I s.
cities
617). ofThe
the
References* ethnic form is GITTITE (m ; 6 ye88aios
[BAL]) ; see z S. 6 1.3 15 18 etc. ; whether GITTITHin
Ps. 8 (title)means ‘ Gittite,’ is disputed ( ~ ~ ~ G I T T I TItH ) .
in Josh. 1122 (D)[bB om.] it is mentioned as inhabited by
ANAKIM. The Philistine champion, Goliath, came from
Gath ( I S. 1 7 4 etc.), and David took refuge with Achish,
king of Gath ( I S. 2 1 T O [.I] 272 ;l see DAVID. § 5).%
According to I Ch. 181 David ‘took Gath and her
towns out of the hand of the Philistines‘; this state-
ment, however, may be based on a conjectural restora-
tion of a defective text (see METHEG-AMMAH). At any
in the service of David ( 2 S. 1518, emended text ; see
ITTAI, I ), and on one occasion had equal rank with Joab
and Abishai (182). Rehoboam is said to have fortified
Gath ( 2Ch. 118) ; but Uzziah, according to z Ch. 266,
found Gath still a Philistine city, and when warring
against the Philistines ‘broke down the wall of Gath.’
About fifty years earlier the Syrian king Hazael is said
to have taken Gath as a preliminary to the siege of
Jerusalem (2 K. 1217). In Am. 6 2 (a passage later
to be made to another disaster that befell Gath- a
disaster similar to, and nearly contemporaneous with,
that which befell Calneh in 738 and Hamath in 720.
The presumption, therefore, is, that Gath, as well as
Ashdod, was taken by Sargon in 711. This is indeed
‘ Asdudu, Gimtu, Asdudimmu I besieged, I conquered ’
(Khorsahad inscr., 104J ). That Gimtu ( =Gath) is here
is probably no mere error of a scribe, but indicates that
Gath then formed part of the Ashdodite territory (see
ASHDOD). This may perhaps explain the fact that
Amos (16-8), Zeph. ( 2 4 ) , Jer. (? 475), and 11. Zech.
( Q s J )make no mention of Gath among the Philistine
cities ; it had fallen to a secondary position.
We also find Gath mentioned in a fragmentary context
in 2 S. 21 20 22 (David’s war with the Philistines). This
certainly a Gittite. @B* and Pesh. (Gra.) also read
(aL
Ta{d3), and Gratz would
read ‘ Gath’ for ‘ Gob’ in v. 19 (see GOB).
Gath ’ is referred to also in I S. 17 52 (cp @ ; see H. P. Smith)
and in the elegy of David (2 S.1 m), a reminiscence of whici
has produced the doubtless incorrect reading in Mic. 1I O , ”17
W&#, ‘ Tell it not in Gath.’ @ agrees in reading ‘in Gath,’
and introduces a reference in the next clause to ot s u a K a p [Sw.
ot du aicrp], ‘the Anakim.’ Elhorst and Winckler ( A T Unters.
185) would read h * > y sh???, ~. . ‘in Gilgal rejoice not’;
Cheyne, for the sake of geographical consistency, ?5’?5-5#iis??,
‘in Giloh rejoice not’ (JQR 10 573f: [‘981). e
‘ Gath of Philistia ’ (as Am. 6 z calls it) is very prohably
referred to (as Kn-tu) in the Palestinian list of Thotmes
I I I . , nos. 63, 70, 93 (XPI*)548‘)), and (as Gimti and
Ginti) in the Amarna tablets ( 1 8 3 8 ~ ;1856). A.m.
Tab. 1838 a will be referred to again (see GEZER, 3 I ) ; it
states that the warriors of Gazri (Gezer), Gimti (Gath),
and Kilti (Keilah) have joined together to attack the
land of Rubuti and of Urusalim (Jerusalem). The sites
of Gazri, Kilti, and Urusalim are known; those of
Gimti and Rubuti have to be investigated. Gimti ought
to lie between Gazri and Urusalim, and it ought to be
not less important a fortress than these places.
The biblical evidence with regard to the site of Gath
1 On these and some other passages, however, see JUDAH,
B 4f.
2 Possibly, too, David took a wife from Gath (see HAGGITH).
3 So Wi. (Text6uch 29) and Peiser (KB 267).
4 This can hardly de douhted. See WMM As. u,EUP.393
(cp 159); E. Meyer, ‘ Glossen’ in ATgyyPliaca, 73.
1646
 GATH
is not as decisive as could he wished. The most definite
2. Site, passage is z Ch. 116-10, where, in the list of
the cities fortified by Rehoboam, Gath occurs
after Soco and Adullam and before Mareshah and Ziph.
If, however, the Chronicler means the Philistine Gath,
one cannot help thinking that he is in error (Jos.
seems to call this place e m a , or m a ) ; such an error
might account for the name Betogabra borne by
Eleutheropolis at a later time (see ELEUTHEROPOLIS,
I ). Such a name a s 'Wine-press-town,' however,
may surely have been borne by more than two places
in S. Palestine. Conder speaks of a large ruin called
Jenneta, S. of Bet Jibrin, which he proposes for the
Kn-tu in the list of Thotmes 111. (no. 70). From I S.
1 7 5 2 (RV G AI [q...]) we gather simply that Gath lay
more inland than Ekron.
The notices of Ens. and Jer. (OSP) 244 20 127 IS) are so con-
fused that we are driven to suppose that'they had no exact
knowledge of the site of the Philistine city. Josephus (Ant. v.
122) places Gath within the tribe of Dan, and couples it with
Jamnia ;the Crusaders actually identified the two places.
At present there are two sites which have been de-
fended by geographers of repute. M. Clermont-Ganneau
(PEFQ, July '99, p. 204) has lately revived the theory
of Thomson ( L B , 564) and Tristram (Bible Places)
that Gath, Elentheropolis, and Bet Jibrin are the same
place. The most plausible argument is derived from
the name Moresheth-Gath (Mic. 1 1 4 ) , which is thought
to suggest that Mareshah was a suburb of Gath.
Mareshah, however, was no mere suburb; and if ' Gath '
in Mic. 1 1 4 is correct, we must regard it, with Wellhausen
(KZ. Proph.(')), as a vocative, and render ' Therefore
must thou, 0 Gath, give farewell gifts to Moresheth.'
More probably, however, n i is a corruption of n2 (cp
Che. /QR 1 0 5 7 6 8 , and see MORASTHITE).
There is only one site that seems to meet all the
requirements of the case : it is worth mentioning, even
if Dr. Bliss's excavations should one day prove it to he
the wrong one. It is Tell e,r-Sijfyehl (collis clams.
William of Tyre), the BZaanca guardu of the Crusaders,
a tall white cliff 300 ft. above the valley of Elah, 18 m.
from Ashkelon, IZ from Ashdod, and 6 from Eleu-
theropolis. J. L. Porter made a careful topographical
study of Philistia in 1858 with the result that he con-
vinced himself of the claims of Tell es-S&fiyeh to he
the ancient Gath. Some of our best geographers have
followed him, though others prefer to keep Tell es-Ssfiyeh
for the Mizpeh of Josh. 1538. The objection of Sir C.
Warren (Hastings, DB 2 1 1 4 a ) ' that the sites of other
Philistine fenced cities ' d o not present any natural
features capable of defence,' does not seem decisive.
The disappearance of Gath from history is surely not
more surprising than many other sudden blows to
flourishing fortified cities.
The site,'says Porter, 'is a most commanding one, and would
form, when fortified, the key of Philistia. It is close to the
mountains of Judah. The Tell is about zoo ft. high with steep
sides, now in part terraced for vineyards-Gath signifies a wine-
press.' 'On the summit are the foundations of an old castle,
proba y that built, or rebuilt, by the Crusaders ; and all around
the hivare great quantities of old building stones. On the NE.
is a projecting shoulder, and the declivities below it appear to
have been scarped. Here stands the modernvillage. Its houses
are all composed of ancient materials, and around it are ruins
and.fragments of columns. In the sides of the hill, especially
towards the S., a great number of cisterns have been excavated
in the limestone rock' (Kitto's Bi6L CycL 276; cp Porter,
Hand6k.for S and P 252).
Dr. Bliss's first report of his exploration of Tell eg-sifiyeh
(PEFQ, July '99) leaves it quite uncertain whether Gaih was,
or was not, on this interesting and important site. Inscriptions,
however, such as will determine the point, may be reasonably
hoped for. Dr. Bliss states ('Second Report ' PEFQ Oct. '99)
that the boundary of the ancient city on the b. E ahd W. has
been determined by the discovery of a massive rlmpart. The
town was irregular in shape, measuring about 400 yds. in
maximum length and ahout zoo yds. in maximum breadth, and
thus contained a space about six times the size of the fort on
1 Clermont-Ganneau states that the locality figures upon the
mosaic map of Medeba under the Greek name of Saphitha, a
name which shows that it was still flourishing during the Byzan-
tine period (PEFQ, Oct. '99, p. 359).
1647
GAZA
Tell ZakariyZ (Azekah?). The city walls are 12 ft. thick : they
me built without mortar, like those a t Tell ZakariyB, but are
twice as thick and twice as high ; they are preserved in places
to a height of 33 ft., and show a system of buttresses regularly
spaced. They rest not on the rock, but on some 6 ft. to IO ft.
of ddhris, which is characterised by very early pre-Israelitish
pottery. As their massive foundations must have been sunk in
a considerable quantity of soil, we gather that they were not
erected much before Jewish times. The gate has still to be
found. At the NE. of the Tell, a t a depth of from 18 to 20 ft.,
has been discovered what appears to be a primitive sanctuary,
with three standing stones or menhirs surrounded by a rude
enclosure (cp WRS IZeZ..!&.PJ .-A).
it is shown by the
pottery to belong to what Dr. Bliss calls ;he later pre-Israelite
period. It is unnecessary to give details of minor discoveries.
I t is much to be regretted that the position of the village and
the cemeteries prevents a complete examination of the site of Tell
es-Slfiyeh which must certainly have been occupied by a fortress
ldng befo; the appearance of the Israelites and the Philistines.
T. K. C.
GATH-HEPHER (1Fn;l n B : re0XoBep [BI, r a 3 -
o + p ~[L]; cp H EPHER ), a place on the border of
Zcbulun, where the prophet Jonah was horn ( z K. 1425,
r& AXOBEP [A]), mistakenly called GITTAH-HEPHEK
in AV of Josh. 1 9 1 3 (RV, Gath-hepher ; r,&epe [B].
r A l e e A [AIAl, rseeAe @ep [Ll): Jerome (Puomm. in
/os.) says that the tomb of Jonah was shown in his
day at the small village (haud grandis uiczrZus) of
Geth, 2 K. m. from Sepphoris on the road to Tiberias.
In Talm. Jer. ( S h W i z h 6 I ) the place is called
Hepher 1 ; a disciple of the school of Sepphoris could
live at Hepher, because the two places were not
12 m. apart. Benjamin of Tudela (12th cent.) states
that the tomb of Jonah lay on a mountain near Sep-
phoris. These data seem to point to the village of el-
Meshhed, about 3 m. NE. from Nazareth and 2 E. by
S. from Sepphoris, where a tomb of Jonah is shown ;
the place lies between Y2fa (Japhia) and Rummsneh
(Rimmon), as Gath-hepher did, according to Josh. 19 I Z ~ .
'r. K . c.
GATH-RIMMON (frDl-nJ). A Danite town
I.
(Josh. 1 9 4 5 , yeOpeppwv [BAL]), assigned to the Levites
(Josh. 2 1 2 4 , yeOepeppwv [B]). On the apparent mis-
statement of I Ch. 6 5 4 [69] (yeOwpwv [B]) see D AN ,
8. Gath-rimmon must have lain a little to the E. of
Joppa. In 'OS 2 4 6 5 9 it is placed between Diospolis
and Eleutheropolis; but this is too far S. A yeOOa
(Gath), however, is mentioned ( O S 246 73) as situated
between Antipatris and Jamnia, and as otherwise
called ylOOap. Knobel suggests that this may he the
GITTAIM of the O T ; and our Gath-rimmon. There is
a city called Giti-rimu[nu?] in Am. Tab. 164 45.
2. A miswritten name in text of Josh. 212s (rspaflcr [El,
j3a&ra [AI, but y ~ f l p p p o v[L]). Gath-rimmon occurs in v. 24-
The true reading must be either Beth-shean (]tw-n'I), which i s
supported by @m and @ A (Hunq), or, .less prob?bly,
Bileam ( I Ch. G 5 5 [ 7 o l t i . r . , ImLEAM [T.V.]. Dllmann prefers
the latter; but we want a compound name corresponding t o
Gath-rimmon. ~ ~ v -can j yeasily
~ have become j l n [ d - n ~ . Beth-
shean and Ibleam are both mentioned in Josh. 17 X I .
T. K. C .
GAULANITIS. See GOLAN.
GAULS ( 0 1 raAbTAl [VA]), I Macc. 82 z Macc. 820
R V ; RV'"g. in 2 Macc. and AV GALATIANS. See
G ALATIA , 32.
GAUZE, in Is. 40 22, RVmg. rendering of $7, d!&;
EV C URTAIN. The Hebrew word is doubtful; @ Kapapa,
suggesting (Klo., Che. SBOT),whilst Aq., Symm., Theod.
have A E ~ (p:V).
GAZA, or AZZAH [q.u.] ("Ig ; raza [BAL] ; Ass.
ga-zi-ti, ga-ax-xu-tu, fia-(as)-za-at-tu;Eg. Ga-pa-&
OT
[WMM As. U. Eur. 1591; Geutilic
'n$'a, o
razaioc [BAL], Josh. 1 3 3
references' AV Gazathites, RV Gazites). T h e
most southern ( 2 K. 1 5 8 ) of the five chief cities of
Philistia ( I s.
6 1 7 ; cp Zeph. 2 4 Zech. 9 5 ) , mentioned
in the lists of Rameses 11. and 111. (RP(I 6 2 7 4 1 ) .
In primitive times it was the S. limit of the AVVIM[ I ]
1 Neub. Gdop. du Talm.201.
1648
 GAZA
(Dt. 2 q ) , and afterwards was regarded as the most
southern point of Palestine (Judg. 6 4 ; cp Gen. 101g),
and of the province W. of the Euphrates ( I I<. 424
[54] [@BHAL omit]).
According to Judg. 118 (yacep [A*vid]) it was conquered by the
.
tribe of Judah but this verse is inconsistent with D. 19,and is
based on a misunderstood gloss (see Budde’s note). In Josh.
15 47 (.R)Gaza is assigned to Judah; hut this late passage has no
historical authority. The enigmatical A VVA (AV A VA) in
2 K. 17 24, and IVVAH in z K. 18 34 19 13 Is. 37 13, should very
possibly be Azzah=Gaza (nip for niy). See A VVA .
Gaza is mentioned once again in Judges (16 1-3) ; the
passage has a twofold interest, legendary (see G ATE )
and topographical. An error has made its way into
the text, which can perhaps be corrected ; this we shall
reserve for the close of the article. The next reference
of interest (for I K. 4 2 4 [54] is late and unimportant) is
concerned with Hezekiah’s victory over the Philistines
‘ a s far as Gaza’ ( 2 R. 188). This victory is probably
connected with the circumstance that Hezekiah sym-
pathised with Ashdod in its rebellion against Assyria
(713-711B.c.),whereas Gaza remained quiet. Heze-
kiah‘s success against Gaza, however, was not lasting,
for in 701 Sennacherib transferred a part of the territory
of Judah to his faithful vassal Sil-Bel (?) of Ga2a.l This
strong city, however, had not always been so devoted to
Assyria. In 734 B.C. u a n u n sought, though in vain,
to resist Tiglath-pileser, and in 720 Sargon in his turn
had to take the field against this same king. How ill
Hanun fared at the battle of Raphia is well known (see
SAIIGON).
What happened to Gaza‘we are not told; hut if tkieemendatian
of 2 K. 18 34, etc., proposed above he accepted, Sargon carried
away the idols of Gam, or, at any rate, introduced ASur as the
supreme deity. (The local deity of Gaza was called Marna
‘ Lord’ or ‘0”: Lord.’) So much at any rate would be implied
by the words, Where are the gods of Hamath and of Arpad-
of Sepharvaim and ofAzzah [Gaza]?’ Regardful of its commerce,
Gaza seems from this time forward to have been punctual in its
payment of tribute. Nahuna’id says that all his vassals as far
south as Gaza contributed to the building of the temple a t
warran (555 B.c.).
In the prophets there are three references to Gaza.
Of these, Am. 16f: is the only one that is undoubtedly
genuine. Gaza is there threatened with punishment for
delivering up Hebrew slaves to Edom, a country with
which it naturally had close trade relations. Zeph. 2 4 - 6
is without a historical point of contact, and may there-
fore be a late insertion, framed on old models (see
Z EPHANIAH ii.) ; so also Jer. 47 1-7 (where the heading
is late ; only Qng. of 65 has -ytl@,v), and Zech. 9 5 (see
J EREMIAH ii. ; ZECHARIAH ii. ). Herodotus, writing
probably in the time of Nehemiah, calls the city of Gaza
K U ~ U T L;S he says that it seemed to him not inferior to
Sardis ( 3 ~ ) . ~
In the NT there is one reference to Gaza (5 3) ; but
before referring to it we must briefly sketch the later
2. Later history of the city. Its name means ‘the
strong’ ; and this strength is illustrated by
history. its resistance for five months (332B.c.)to
the powerful engines employed by Alexander in besieg-
ing it (Arrian, AZex. 226$ ; Q. Curt. iv. 67) ; Strabo
(as quoted next col., n. 5 ) states that it was destroyed
at this time, and that it ‘ remained deserted ’ until his
day. If, however, Strabo wrote this, he committed an
error, for Gaza was a strong place in the wars of the
Ptolemies and Seleucidae, and is mentioned as such in
the story of Jonathan the Maccabee ( I Macc. 1 1 6 1 f . ) . ~
It was razed to the ground by the fierce Alexander
JannEeus after a year’s siege (Ani.xiii. 1 3 3 ) . Gabinius,
governor of Syria, rebuilt it (Ant.xiv. 53) ; Augustus
gave it to Herod (Ant.xv. 7 3 ) , after whose death it
was annexed to the province of Syria (Ant.xvii. 1 1 4 ) .
In 65 A.D. it was destroyed by the Jews (BJ ii. 181)
but soon recovered. Mela (temp. Claudins) calls it
‘ ingens urbs et niunita admodum ’ ; Eusebins ( O S a )242
1 Taylor cylinder 3 25 ‘ cp Wi. GI 1 z z o f .
2 On the Kadyti;of Hlrod. 2 159 see JOSIAH, g z.
3 In I Macc. 13 43,too, the MSS read ‘Gaza.’ See, however,
GAZARA.
1649
GAZA
62) says that it ‘even now remains, a notable city of
Palestine.’ The most southern fortress of the Crusaders,
however, was not Gaza, but Daroma,-Le., Der el-
Balah, S . of Gaza, near the Egyptian fr0ntier.l ’ See
further, GASm. HG 187-189.
W e now turn to the much-disputed passage, Acts 826.
As Philip was starting to meet the Ethiopian eunuch,
3. Acts 826 an angel said to him, ‘Arise, and go
examined. toward the south unto the way that goeth
down from Jerusalem unto Gaza: the
same is desert’ (so RV)--aii~q h - l v tpqpos. Many
commentators (e.g., Holtzmann and Blass) suppose one
of the roads from Jerusalem to Gaza to be meant. This
view is best supported by Robinson (BR2 6 4 0 8 ) .
‘The most frequented at the present day, although the longest,
is the way by Ramleh. Anciently, there appear to have been
two more direct roads ; one down the great WZdy es-SarSr by
Beth-shemesh, and then passing near Tell e?-$lfiyeh ; the other
to Gaza through a more southern tract. Both these roads exist
a t the present day ; and the latter now actually passes through
the desert; that is through a tract of country without villages,
inhabited only by iomadic Arahs.’
I t is not, however, the most natural interpretation of a;? &r&v
Zpypos that these remarks presuppose. If the phrase were 4,
2 m w +qpos, Robinson’s view would he, very much more
plausible. We could not, indeed illustrate hy Arrian’s words.
(bk. 3, p. 211) referring to the &me of Alexander, B p + p 6’
&ar .riv 6Sbv S~’bvv8piav (quoted by Wetstein), because the
narrator expressly says that there was water to he found on the
road,2 so that the eunuch could he baptized.
The word ‘ this ’ (aihq), however, must surely mean
G a ~ anot, ~ the road to Gaza, and then the difficulty arises.
that Gaza in the time of Philip was (as we have seen) a
large and flourishing city. Hug’s explanation that the
words a h q K . T . ~ . refer to the destruction of Gaza by the
Jews in 65 A. D,. , mentioned by Josephus (BJ ii. 18 I),
is forced ; what object would the notice serve? It has.
often been held (e.g.,by Erasmns) that after Old Gam
had been destroyed, the new city was built on another
site. G. A. Smith ( H G 187) defends this with much.
plausibility. He thinks that the road to Egypt passed
by the deserted Gaza, not by the new city, which
was nearer the sea (but does not this involve an
unnatural use of aikrq?). And even if old Gaza were
not absolutely deserted in Philip’s time-even if the fine
position had drawn people back, yet ‘ the name tpqpos
might stick to it.’ Evidently this is not quite satisfactory.
If Gaza were characterised at all, some other epithet
than tpqpos would have been used, at least if the notice
aihq K.T.X. comes from the writer of Acts. But does.
it really come from that writer?
From Beza’s time to our own the words have repeatedly been
viewed as a gloss and it can hardly be denied that the clearness
of the narrative Lains by their omission. Schmiedel4 suggests
that they may hare a purelyliterary origin and be the marginal
note of a man who knew, perhaps from St;aho,s that Gam had
been destroyed, and wondered that the road to a deserted city
should be mentioned.
The only alternative to treating the words as a gloss
seems to be to suppose a lacuna in the text, and to read
a8Tq t b l , TX~)G.IOP T ? ~ S6p$pou, ‘ the same is near the
desert ’ (whence the Ethiopian eunuch comes).
From its position as the last town on the road
to Egypt Gaza was bound to be a place of import-
4. Site, etc. ance (cp GASm. H G 184). Even now
It has tolerable bazaars, resorted to by
native travellers.
1 Conder PEFQ 1875, p. 160.
2 Robins& (B/i i641) suggests t h a t the water in the Wady
el-Hesy may he intended. There is no such water in the second
part of the road by B&tJihrin, which from its directness comes
first into consideration. I n the time of Eus. the spring con-
nected with the story was on‘the road to Hebron. Since 1483
A.D. a well in the Valley of Roses near ‘Ain KZrim has been
pointed out by tradition.
3 So Wetstein, who thinks that the narrator remarks the
coincidence that the prefect of the treasure (y85a) was on the
road to Gaza. H e also quotes ancient authors who state that
Gaza was so named from its riches.
4 Theol. Z. aus d e r Schweitz, 98, p: 5 0 3
5 Straho xvi. 2 30,ELSo&s TOT< yavopcvy, KaTsuraupf‘vq 6 ’ h b
AL&v8pou, i a i plvvouua Z qpos. The correctness of the last
ihree words, however, is dnputed. Jos. (By ii. 18 I ) remarks
that when Gabinius rebuilt Gaza, it had been ‘long time desert.’
1650
 GAZA
The modern town (Gkazza)consists of four quarters, resembling
30 many large villages. Of these, one stands on the flat top of a
hill, whilst the others are on the plain below.1 The hill, within
which no doubt are the ruins of successive cities, is crowned by
the great mosque which was qriginally a Christian church, built
by the Crusaders ont of ancient materials. The town bas no
walls; but the sites of gates remain, and one of them (see
below) is actually showu as that of the gate famous in the story
o f Samson (GATE). Broad, yellow sandhills separate Gaza
from thesea; the sand is steadily encroaching on the cultivated
ground. However, between the sand and a long ridge of low
hills parallel to the coast the fertile soil produces abundance of
the choicest fruit and vegetables. A large and magnificent olive
grove, said to be of great antiquity, stretches to the northward ;
orchards of fruit and palm trees encompass the suburbs.2
The exact site of ancient Gam is doubtful. It is
certain, however, that the town stood on a hill in the
time of Alexander, and this hill may have been that on
which the main part of the modern Gaza stands.
Broad mounds,' says Conder, ' surround this eminence, and
appear in the middle of the buildings. The ruins among the
sandhills seem to be those of the ancient Majumas or port. ' A
beautiful garden of lemons, surrounded by a mound, seems to
mark the site of this second town ; near it is a ruined jetty on
the seashore.'3
Samson's gate, referred to above, is on the SE., and,
riding farther for a mile, we come to the hill of el-
Munpr, which commands a wide view over the whole
plain away to the distant mountains that encircle
Hebron. It is the highest point in the ridge of hills on
the E . , and is pointed out as the hill ( 1 1 ~ )to which
Samson carried the gate. Porter and Conder accept
this as the 'real site.' Gautier, too (Souv. 128),thinks
that el-Mun@r must be the mound which the biblical
narrator had in view. But how should the giant have
got tired so soon ? and how can ' before Hebron ' mean
' looking towards the distant Hebron mountains ' ?
Hebron,' however, is an improbable reading. The
Danite champion would naturally keep to the SW. of
Palestine. Probably the true reading in Judg. , 1 6 3 is
' before Sharuhen,' not ' before Hebron.' On the site
of Sharuhen, or Shaaraim, see S HARUHEN.
Besides the works referred to see Reland Pal. 788 fl ;
Guhrin, Jude%; Stark, Gaza ('5;) ; Gardner, index 2 1 7 8 8 '
Gautier, Souuenirs, 1 6 6 5 (W '98, pp. 114-134); Gatt in ZDPJ
~ ~
10 149 ('88), (plan of Gaza). T. K. C.
GAZA, RV AZZAH(?@ ; I Ch. 7 2 8 ; so in most
printed Bibles). There is much variation; n;? (cp
EPHRAIM, 13) and ;r?p ; vyqy and m n g are also sup-
ported. RVmg. (following Gi., Ba.) gives AYYAH
(3;y; yatav [B], ya@ [A], at] asra [L]). The Philis-
tine Gaza cannot be meant. The text may be corrupt.
GAZARA ( SO RV always), GAZERA (rAZ&p&[N]
IAKV]); one of the three chief fortresses of Judaea in
the early Maccabzean story. Judas the Maccabee
pursued Gorgias as far as Gazera ( I Macc. 4 15 y a u ~ p u v
[A]: yaf: [KV]). Bacchides, the adversary of Jonathan,
fortified it against the Jews ( 9 5 2 ; Jos. Ant. xiii. 1 3 ) , and
among the exploits of his great successor Simon, the
conquest of this stronghold takes a leading place
( I Macc. 1343-48 ; 4 cp 147 [ - p J z l p ~ . AKV], 33f.
[ y a p a b r , K"1, 15 28 35 [ya&zp?ywy, A]).
A different account of this event is given in 2 Macc. 1032-38.
The writer who is opposed to Simon because he assumed the
high-priestfy dignity transfers this achievement to his hero
Judas, whose behavdur is so described as to contrast with the
conduct ascribed to Simon in the authentic historical record of
I Macc. (see Kosters TAT, 1878, p. 51gf:' M ACCABEES
SECOND, 5 zJ). Josephus (Ant. xiii. 6 7 9 2 ; Bfi. 22), as nigh;
b e expected, follows the account given in I Macc.: nor can we
attach any historical importance to the strongly biassed state-
ment of z Macc.
On obtaining possession of Gazara Simon installed
his son John there as commander-in-chief of the Jewish
1 Porter in Kitto's Bi6L CycZ., S.D. 'Gaza.'
9 Robinson ; Porter.
3 PEFQ, '75,p. 161.
4 We are indebted to Josephus for the right reading in D.
43, which is required by v. 53 (cp u. 48) and by subsequent
references to Gazara. T h e MSS and versions, however, read
' Gam' (ya{av [ANV]) ;so AV, but not RV. Cp Schiirer, G/V(9
1194, n. 12.
1651
GAZEZ
forces (see M ACCABEES i . , 7). Gazara or Gazera is
of course the same place as GEZER ( g . v . , 5 I ). There
is no occasion to seek for a second Gazara in order to
avoid a discrepancy between I Macc. and 2 Macc.
GAZELLE, the better rendering of sc6i ('J,Y, fern.
8333,abzyyah.; 80p~n's [BAFLI), adopted by RV in Dt. 12 15 2 2
14 5 15 z z I K. 423 [5 31 (11 $R, 'uyyril; see HART), and by R V w
in Is. 13 14 ( 8 O p K a 6 l O V , 6) Prov. 6 5 etc.1 for AV R OE @.u.).
The gazelle-the word is derived through the Ar.
gad- w a s known to Assyrians, Aramaeans and
Arabians alike under the cognate forms ;a6i(u, ?u6y&,and
inby,, respectively; it is still common in all the country
S. of Lebanon, and extends into N. Africa, and Asia
Minor.
The modern representative GazeZIa dorcas is commonly known
in Arabia as the ihobby(cp Doughty A r . Des. Index s 71.). I t
stands two feet in height at the shdulder, and its ho&, which
are lyrate, attain a length of 13 inches. In the broad sandy
plains it is white in colour, but in the volcanic districts dark
gray, closely approaching the colour of basalt (dr. Des.
1328 395). For other species see ANTELOPE.
The gazelle has always been remarkable for its
graceful appearance and its extraordinary speed (cp
2 S. 2 18 I Ch. 128). It is usually found in small herds,
and is hunted at the present day by the Arabs with
dogs and falcons. The ' chased gazelle ' was a frequent
sight not only in Palestine (Is. 1 3 1 4 Prov. 65), but also
in Assyria, and Egypt (see illustration in Riehm's
N W B 1 669).
The flesh of the gazelle was eaten by the Hebrews
( I K. 4 2 3
[53]Dt. 1 4 5 ) ; but theauimal wasnotaccepted
as a sacrifice (Dt. 1215 zz 15m-even among the
Arabs a gazelle is regarded as an inferior substitute for
a sheep (We. Heid.(9 115). Whatever , b e the origin
of this usage, it can scarcely be due, at all events, to
the belief that so common an animal would be an
unwohhy sacrifice.
Abundant analogy suggests that an animal that may be eaten,
but not .sacrificed, possessed a t an early period a sacred char-
acter, and also was associatkd closely with sorne deity.3 Now
in Arabia there were herds of sacred gazelles at Tabala and
Mecca, even in the time of Islam(We. Hei2.P) 106, cp W R S ReL
Sem.12) 46fi), and it was told of the clan Harith of S. Arabia that
when they come across a dead gazelle they wash and bury
it and the whole tribe mourn over it for seven days (ReL
Sbrn.12) 444). The latter practice implies either that the members
of the tribe considered themselves of one kin with it, or that it
was to them a deity (cp the weeping for AD ON!^ [g.u.l).4 The
gazelles of Mecca were probably connected with the cult of el-
Uzza, who is usually identified with Aphrodite (Venus, Ash-
toreth), and Robertson Smith points out that among the
Sabaeans the antelope was connected with the worship of 'Athtar
(see ASHTORETH, 5 3), and has been found figured upon coins
from the Pbcenician Laodiceas along with the star and the dove
symbols of Ashtoreth (Kin. 1g4d). Was the gazelle sacred t;
Ashtoreth?
Personal names derived from the gazelle are found in the
Ar. clan-name Zabyin the S. Judeau ZIBIAH(cp also ZIBIA),
and the later D ~ R C AndA S TABITHA.See further GOAT.
A. E. S.-S. A. C.
GAZER (?J$), z S. 5 2 5 AV, RV G EZER.
GAZEZ (ng6 is twice mentioned in I Ch. 246, as a
son of Caleb b. Hezron by his concubine Ephah and as the son
of Caleb's son Haran : I Cb. 246 (6 yr<ovs [BA]: b ya<ei, but in
466 b p < a s [L], i111 [Pesh.]). Pesh., omitting all mention of
Mom and (the first) Gazez, presents the simple genealogical
series, Caleb Haran and Gazez. Honbigant supposes the
second Gazez)to be =<error for JAHDAI (u. 47).
1 In 2 S. 2 18 T Ch. 1 2 8 however RV follows AV.
2 Hence used as a s i d l e in desdribing female charms by the
Arab poet up to the present day; cp Cant. 2 9 etc., and see
Hommel, S&gelhiere, 271, who notes Indian analogies. ';yg
in z S. 119, for which the interpretation the 'gazelle ' has bein
suggested, should perhaps be pointed '?y;! ; see, however,
H. P. Smith, ad Zoc.
3 To whom (according to analogy) it was probably sacrificed
on exceptional occasions.
4 The two views however are not unrelated.
5 The annual st&-sacrifick at Laodicea illustrates n. 2 above.
6 We., De gent. et fa#. Jud., 26, would point IE. The
readings ys<wo, ya<ei are due to scribes' errors; but cp @L's
second reading yacabc.
1652
 GAZZAM
GAZZAM (n'l$i rAzAM [L]), family Of N ETHINIM
in the great post-exilic list (see EZRAii., 9 9), Ezra 2 48 (ya3ep
[BA])=Neh.751(yq3a~[BKA])=1Esd. 531 (Ka<qpa[B], ya. [A],
GAZERA[EV]).
GEBA, or (thrice in AV) GABA.
I. ( Y a j ; r a B A A [BAL]), a town of Benjamin, men-
tioned certainly in Josh. 1824 21 17 (rAOae [Bl, r A B € E
[A], TAB€ [L]), 1 S . 1316 ( r A B € € [B; A om.], 145
( r A B A € [B, A om.]), 2 K. 238 (rAlBAh [B]), I C h .
645 [60] (raBai [B], rAB€E [AI, raBsai [L]), Ezra 226
= I Esd. 520 (AV GABDES, RV GABBE; KABBHC [B],
K A I y. [AI), Neb. 7 3 0 (TAMAA [Bl, TABAA [N]), 1229
(rABA€ [Nc'a'mg']t rAB€€ [L]), 1% 1029 (not in @),
Zech. 1410 ( r A k BX"I'1, rAB€€ [NC.aA1, rABeh [QI),
and hardly less certainly in the emended texts of
I S. 132 (rABes [B, A om.]), 15 (A om.), 142
BOYNOY ; A. om.), 16 ( r A B € € [Bl), and perhaps also
in I K. 1 5 2 2 (see below). On the confusions between
Geba and Gibeah see GIBEAH,8 I.
During the Philistine domination there was a tri-
umphal 'pillar' (see S AUL ) at Geba ( I S. 133 ; r6 pouv4;
[BL ; A,om.]), the primitive sanctity of which place is
shown by its second title (according to a probable inter-
pretation of I s. 105 [@ rbv pouu6vl; see GIBEAH, they bordered them' (Then. Klo Benz cp Ges.-B;hl and
8 2 [ 3 ] ) , 'Gibeah of God.' The pillar was probably ofthe G I B L ~ T E ~ ( R ~ G E B A L;I~TvEr Sj ~ y a h c a O g v h r u ~ [B],
dedicated to the god of the Philistines. It was from
Geba that J ONATHAN started on the daring enterprise
described in I S. 14 ; the expressions of v. 5 prove that
Geba was on the S. and Michmash on the N. of a
ravine ; the ravine is the wild glen of Suweinit ; and
Geba must consequently be the modern 3eba'. Under
ASA [p.v.] Geba was fortified with the stones and timber
with which Baasha had begun the fortification of Ramah
( I K. 1522=2 Ch. 166). So at least the present text
states. I t is a question, however, whether either Gibeah
(Buhl, Pal. 171) or Gibeon may not rather be meant.
I n I K. 15 22 &5 (rb[&v L] povvbv pwiaFw) certainly favours period it was under the patronage of Hathor-Astarte,
Gibeah ; Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon are easily confonnded. Nor
can we in any case be quite sure that Geba from this period
forward marked the N. limit of the southern kingdom 1 Zech.
1410 ('from Geba to Rimmon') and 2 K. 238 (in its'present
form) not being of pre-exilic origin. I t may also be noted that melek (lhn.), king of Byblus (CZS 1,no. I ). There may
in Is. 10 28-32 which describes the route of a northern invader, be an allusion to the 'Lady of Gebal' in Is. 104,
the writer takLs an equal interest in the fate of Aiath(Ai), Geba
and Jerusalem.* I t may plausibly be inferred that Ai was ne&
the border of Jndah when this passage was written, and we know
that Josiah claimed sovereign authority over Bethel, NW. of
Ai-Jebd is about st m. N. from Jerusalem ; it stands on the Phoenician, Egyptian, and Assyrian (Babylonian) deities.
top of a rocky ridge, commanding an extensive view, especially
towards Der DiwSn (near Ai)and et-Tayyibeh. The large hewn
stones that appear in the foundadoh and walls of the houses
are evidently ancient.
2. (yarpac [B], -av,[N], ~ a c p a v[A]), a place in N.
Palestine, between which and Scythopolis Holofernes is
said to have encamped (Judith 310). According to
Grove (Smith's LIB(') 1659) it is the modern Ieba', in a
strong position, 3 ni. N. of Samaria on the road to
Jenin (En-gannim); but this is not near enough to
Scythopolis; the place was N. of Dothan (see D. 9 ) .
It is perhaps rather ENGANNIM [q.v., 21, the l'rvala of
Josephus, which is on the boundary between the moun-
tains of Samaria and the plain of Esdraelon. Cp, how-
ever, Buhl, 210. T. K. C.
GEBAh ($34, ' mountain-height,' probadly a false
vocalisation for gG6iZ; cp Ass. \g21blii, @ala), the
Byblus of the Greeks, and, according to ancient legends,
one of the oldest places of the habitable globe, still
survives in the small maritime village /e6eiZ,3 S. of
el-Batriin (Botrys) and about 4 m. N. of Nahr Zbrahim
(the river Adonis). It is rich in archzeological remains,
dating from the early times of Egyptian suzerainty ; cp
Renan, Miss. de Ph&. 1 5 3 8 ; Baed. p~Z.1~) 386, and
1 So Stenning in Hastings' D E 2 I16 b.
2 Grove (Smith's DBP) 1658~)argues from the reference to.
the bivouac (Ph) at Geha that this place is mentioned 'as the
northern hoimdary ' of Judah. This seems rather arbitrary.
3 At the time of its capture by the Crusaders it was known as
Gi6Zet.
1653 . 1654
GEBAL
on its religions associations esp. Maspero, Struggte of
the Nations, 1 7 2 8
Like all Phcenicians the men of Gebal were renowned
sailors, and were skilled in shipbuilding (cp Ezek. 279,
pupXwr CB"Q"'g.1, pc. [B ? vid.AQa], yu~paX puphij
[Qm"]), a reputation of many centuries' standing. The
Egyptian KUpnf ( K = 2 , p = 3, n = 5) is already a well-
known seaport (see WMM As. u. Bur. 1888)). Gebal
is frequently mentioned in the Amarna tablets (GubaZ,
GubZa) and in the later cuneiform inscriptions. The
names of some of its kings have been preserved.
These are TB-ki-ru-b-'-r+ in the Egyptian Pap. Go-
lenischeff ( A s . u. Bur. 3 9 5 J ) , . cp Punic Sicharbas
(both = 5y2-i21) ; Si-bi-it-ti-bi-'-li (5y>-ny>d?) temp.
Tiglath-pileser 111. ; Mil-ki-a-sa-pa (qm-dm), temp.
Esarhaddon ; and U-rn-mil-ki (cp l$niN, ancestor of
1 5 1i~-p below), temp. Sennacherib.
Apart from the passage in Ezekiel (above) further reference to
Gehal in the OT is obscure. Were the Gebalites, as RV
supposes, employed by Solomon as stone-masons in the building
of the temple, I K. 5 18 [32] (n-i:!?or rather '233, cp above)?
The specific mention of Gebal after the 'build& of Hiram'
is strange and unnatural. AV's rendering 'stone-squarers is
equally unreliable, and the suggested emendation 0?5~1~), 'and
BDB, s.v.), finds scantysuppd.rt.1 'Again ['n Josh. 13 5, t h l land
~erp
T. y. yaphi +.
[AI, T. H'
,pa' + L ~ L U T L C L ~ [Ll) is mentioned by
Dz as one of the con ne3 of the land unconquered hy Israel.
Di. (cp also Bennett, SBOY3 has already pointed out that the
present M T is corrupt, and reads *!U> (1.V). It seems
probable, however, that (pm)bas corruptly arisen from
the following iij35n ; we'have no r e a ~ o nto suppose that Gebal
was the name of a district in D s time. The difficultyis evaded
in a different manner by Bu., Steuernagel, who read y i ~ n
j i J 3 +an.
Gebal, famous as the birthplace of Philo, was formerly
the centre of the Tammuz cult. Already in the Egyptian
with whom we may compare the 6LZiit F .a Gu6Za of
frequent occurrence in Am. Tab., and the $33 n5pz
upon the well-known Phoenician inscription of Yehaw-
where, according to the emended text (see Lag.
Academy, 15th Dec. 1870), the (northern) Israelites
are taunted with their futile attempts to propitiate
The words are :
Beltis has sunk down Osiris is broken,
And under the slain h e y fall.
The first line of the couplet seems to have taken the
place of some effaced words ; it represents, therefore,
the thoughts of a writer later than Isaiah (cp Am. 5 26).
By Beltis (the female counterpart of BEL) he means the
goddess of Gebal, whose cultus was fused with that
of the Egyptian Isis (see Che. ' Isaiah,' SBOT, ad h,).
S. A. C.
GEBAL (574). Among the enemies of Israel
enumerated in Ps. 83; [8] ( N A I % ~ A [Bl, rAlBAh
[NC,"(?R)], r s B A A [A(?R)T])2 we find the name of
Gebal. This has long ago been identified with /ib6Z,
the term used by Arabic writers, and even by the Arabs
of the present day, to designate the northern part of
Mount Seir, the ancient home of the Edomites. The
Arabic name /id&?, which means simply ' mountains,'
' mountain country,' probably came into use at the time
when the Arabic-speaking Nabataeans took possession
of the country in question, while the Edomites settled
in southern Judzea
1 $233 elsewhere 'to set bounds for' (with people, etc., as
obj.). A connection with n!y, nh!p does not help us. No
stress can be placed upon the rendering of @ ( K a l gpahav [Bl,
2vQahov [Ll, p ~ p h ~ o[A!).
r I t is probable that B and L have
simply adopted the reading fro- its similarity to the M T ($23
misread 533; for examples see Dr. ad I S. 5 4, and We. TBS
TO n. 583).
2 A psalm of the Maccabean period.
 GEBER
I n Jos. ( A n i . ii. 12 and iii. 2 I) the country is called ~ o ~ ~ A ~ T L GEDEON
a form with a peculiar vocalisation ; but the same writer employ;
yapaAiraL as the nom% gentile ( A n i . ix. 9 1). Eus. (OS)
several times mentions ycpahqwj (so apparently Steph. Byz.
(Jos. AnL iii. 2 I]) as well as yaj3aAqvrj and yapah‘nmj. The
name is likewise found often in the Targums, somewhat rarely
in the Pesh.,l to represent the Heh. y y $ (SEIR). T. N.
GEBER (773,, ‘ a man,’ see NAMES, § 64,and on
vocalisation, § 6).
I. The son of Geber or: better, BBN-GEBER (so AVm9. and
RV) was prefect of Argob under Solomon ( I K. 4 13 ; u;bs yapcp
[BAI, vi. yapep- [Ll, yapapqs [Jos. Ant. viii. 2 31). See RAMOTH- ye88wprnp [L]), may have been a native of this place.
GILEAD (2).
n. Geber b. Uri, prefect of the land of Gad (s: BBA; MT
wrongly ‘Gilead’), whxch is described further as the country
of Sihon’z $1 K. 4 18 [rgl, ulbs ~ S Q L[Bl, v l . aSSaL [Ll,,yaPep vi.
aSar [AI). Uri’ is hardly right. Klo. suggests ‘ Unah’ (z S.
23 38) ; hut 65 suggests hp, ‘ Iddo ’ (I Ch. G 21 [6l, a8fr [BI); a
Zechariah b. Iddo held another prefecture beyond Jordan(v. 14).
HIUUAI (cp @L aSSac) is less probable. The close of the verse
contains a great error. The Hebrew (with which contrast EV)
has ‘one prefect who was in the land’-an imperfect and qu$e
unintelligible clause. Ewaldand Tg. read ‘in thelandof Judah ;
but this leaves the most faulty part of the clause untouched-
&., that which precedes ‘who’ @!). Klo., who has done so probably (see KIDRON,§ I ) Gederah in Josh. 1536=
much for this obscure section reads ‘and ope (chief) prefect
was over all the prefects who &re in the land ; he also supplies
the name of this chief prefect from v. 5 where we read, ‘And
Azariah b. Nathan was over the prefects.” T. K. C.
GEBIM (D’?Aa, riBQElp [BXAQ]),a place near
Jerusalem, mentioned between Madmenah (?) and
Nob (71, Is. 1031-t’. Eusebius and Jerome ( O S J ) 2482
1305) identify it with Geba, 5 R. m. N. of Gophna,
probably the mod. /Ski, and Conder (Hastings’ DB
2 1 ~ 7a ) approves this ; but neither Jibia nor el-Jib
(usually held to be GIBEON [q.v.. 8 41). with which
Hitzig (cp PBFQ (’75)183) identifies Gebim, is in the
right district. No such place as Gebim is known else-
where, and several names in Is. 1028-32 are probably,
or even certainly, corrupt.
This name in particular (‘the cisterns’?) is in itself improb-
able. I t is proposed (SBOT, ‘ Isa.’ Addenda) to read
?.e., Bahurim ; this place seems to have been not far from Jeru-
salem on the old road to Jericho. The emendation suits the
mention of Annthoth in 71. 30 and of the Mt. of Olives (if this
is really referred to; see NOB) in v. 32. T. K. C.
GECKO (3zM),Lev. 1130.F RV,AV FERRET [ g . ~ . ] . ~ ~ ~ ( C E D R
GEDALIAH (93$7$, and i$?J in I, 4, 5 ; ‘ YahwB
is great,’ 3 38 ; found also on tombs near Nippur,
time of Darius [Hilprecht] ; [o] robohlac [BNAQL]).
I. b. Ahikam b. Shaphan, a Jewish governor of
Judah (under Nebuchadrezzar), who resided at Mizpah.
A man of upright character, trusted alike by Jews and
by Chaldzans, he was cruelly murdered, as a nominee of
the hated Babylonians, together with the Chaldzeans
who were about him. One of the traders of the Jewish
guerilla bands (Johanan b. Kareah) heard of the plot
against the governor’s life, and warned him; but in vain.
H e was treacherously slain by I SHMAEL [ q . ~ . 2 , 1, who,
with ten companions, had been entertained by the
governor. Johanan pursued the murderer, but was
only able to deliver the Jewish captives whom Ishmael
bad carried off ( z K. 2522 Jer. 40 [d 471 5- 41 [d481 16 ;
in Jer. 408 yaha8rav [Q”g.], 41 I $ a*’m y o h m [K’]).
See AMMON, 5 (end) ; ISHMAEL, z ; I SRAEL, § 43 ; abbreviation in the Heb.. ( ’ ~ n i i ~ ) .
JEREMIAH.
2. b. Pashhur, a chief beloneinn - - to -Terusalem,.temp.- -Teremiah, repetition
Jer. 38 I (yohras [K*I).
3. b. Hezekinh, an ancestor of Zephaniah (Zeph. 1 I ) .
4. b. Jeduthun, I Ch. 253 (TOUUU [ e l ) g ( ~ ~ ~ O [Bl).
U L Q
5. One of the b’ne JESHUA [q.zJ., ii., 51, Ezra 10 I S (yaSaAsm
[BA], y a h a S a ~ a[ N ] -Satas [L1)= I Esd. 9 19, JOADANUS (rw8avos
rwa8avos [A],’caSSa~as [L], a corruption of ya8aAcras ; see
I 2 f o r m in aL).
GEDDUR (reAAoyp [A]), I Esd. 530=Ezra 247,
GIDDEL, I ; or GAHAR.
1 For its use in Samaritan cp Gen. 33 14 16 3 6 8 3 ; in the Targ.
see Levy, N K W l 1 2 3 . I n Syr. cp Payne Smith, Thes. 647
and see I Ch. 44: z Ch. 20 I O 25 I I 14 and Ecclus. 5026 (Pesh.).’
2 The words, and of Og, king of Bashan,’ are obviously an
incorrect interpolation (see v. 13).
1655
GEDOR
s (rsbswN [A], rsAc.$dN [K],om. B),Judith
8 I ; also Heb. 1132 (rsAfw N [Ti. WH]) ; RV GIDEON
14.a. 1.
GEDER (174-ie., ‘wall’ or ‘fortified place’ ; cp
GEDERAH), one of the thirty-one royal Canaanite cities
in the list of Joshua’s conquests, mentioned with Gezer,
Debir, Arad, and Libnah ; Josh. 1?13 ( a c o ~[B], r a h c p
[AL and Eus. OS(‘)244271). B AAL - HANAN , 2, the
Gederite ( I Ch. 2 7 2 8 , *?l?,y d w p e i ~ ? [B], ] ~ y d w p [.A],
See also BETH-GADER. It should be noted that in
I Ch. 2 5 1 Beth-gader seems, according to one view of
u. 55, to stand in close relation to Kirjath-sepher.
GEDERAH. I. (3>’l!q-i.e., ‘the enclosed [forti-
fied] place,’ cp Geder, rahsipa [OS(’) 245371). Ore
of the towns in the lowland of Judah mentioned with
Adnllam, Socoh, Azekah, and Shaaraiin (Josh. 1 5 2 6
ya8qpa [BA], -rp. [L]). Its position agrees fairly with
that of the Kh. J e d i ~ e h(see GEDEROTH) ; but more
K E ~ ~ Wof Y I Macc. 153g=morl. 4-u?rn. The gentilic
Gederathite ( I Ch. 1 2 4 : ? n m g , ya8upaOemp [El],
ya8apa [K], ya8?]pwOi,[AL]), applied to JOZABAD,
[ p . ~ . , I], may be derived from this place, or may
refer to the Judahite GEDOR [ q . ~ . ,I].
2 . Gederah ( a p ? ) is mentioned with NETAIM (O’pQi) in a
singular account of a guild of brothers of the B’ne SHELAH 1q.v.
1 1 ; I Ch. 4 2 3 KV. A?, however, translates ‘(among) plant;
(ni@‘im) and hedges @ftnih); cp RVmg.. (aCacrp rai
g,Baqpa [B], am. K a L yaSqpa [AI, wa. K ~ yaSeLpow L [L].) See
HELAH, I.
GEDEROTH (nh?!, Josh. 1541, or ”la, 2 Ch. 2818;
r & A H pwe [AL]), one of the third group (which includes
Lachish, Eglon, and Lahmani) of lowland cities of
Judah; Josh. 1 5 4 1 (rsAAwp [B]). It is menticned
also in 2 Ch. 2818 ( r a h ~ p w[B]) along with Beth-
shemesh, Aijalon, and Soco as having been taken from
Ahaz by the Philistines. This collocation suggests
that there may have been two cities of the same name,
one lying more to the E. than the other. The more
westerly is probably the K E ~ P W V[AKV]of I Macc. 1 5 3 9 4 1
RVKIDRON,
ON, ~ ~ d p w v [ A ] 1i n5 3 9 ; X E , ~ , N W
K E ~ ~[VA], K E ~ ~ W[K’]. in 1 5 4 1 ) , and the
W V
yespolis [Gedrus] of Eusebius and Jerome ( O S 127 32
2 4 5 3 9 ) , defined by them as a’verylarge village I O R.m.
from Lydda on the road to Eleutheropolis (cp Buhl, PuL
188). This corresponds fairly well with the modern
‘ K@YU 34 m. S.by W. from ‘Akir ’ (Ekron), or ’ Ghedem
about 4 m. SE. of Jabneh’ ; but the site seems to be
too much in Philistine territory. The more easterly one
may possibly be the Khirbet Jedireh (see ,PEP‘ map,
sheet 14) situated in close proximity to ‘Ain-Shems
(Beth-shemesh) and YHl6 (Aijalon).
I n Jer. 41 17 for Geruth-chimliam we should probably
read Gidroth-chimham (see CHIMHAM).
GEDEROTHAIM (n!nil.i, place of enclosures,’
see NAMES, 3 IO^), a place in the Shephelah of Judah,
Josh. 1 5 3 6 1 , in which passage dBAL has ai ai QrradheLs
abres, possibly through misunderstanding a mark of
Niild. (Unteusuch. 101) omits Gederothaim, as du2to a corrupt
of Gederah ; similarly Miihlau in Riehm’s WWBPI.
GEDOR ( l \ l $ , - i . e . , ‘ enclosure’ ; rsAwp [BAL]).
I. Acityin the hill country of Judah: Josh. 1558 (ye88wv
[B]),I Ch. 127 (ye88wp [KL]), the modernJedzzr, asmall
rum, 2890 feet above sea-level, 69 m. N. from Hebron,
somewhat westward of the road to Bethlehem, with
which also should perhaps be identified the BETH-
GADER ( 4 . V . ) Of I Ch. 251.
In I ci;. x j j : (;edor, SOCO.and ZmoaIi are represented as
zccond cuiiiins of 1Ghtcmon ; thcy were gcmdchildren of MEI:FI)
iiy his lewinh wife whilct I<4itemoa \vas Itis grandchild through
his Egyptian (?)wife. In I Ch. 4 4 Gedor is bought into genea-
loeical relationshiD with Bethlehem: in I Ch. 811 (Sour, IBI.
 GE-HARASHIM
2 . For Gedor (113) in I Ch. 439 we ought to read with d
G ERAR (ycpapa [BAL]-ie., l:!). See S IMEON .
GE-HARASHIM (n16>Y#’A,), I Ch. 4 1 4 RV, and
Gehaharashim (a’y>n?’J), Neh. 1 1 3 5 RV”g.. See
’ C HARASHIM .
GEHAZI (’re’j. a n d ’rnJ= ‘ valley of vision ’ ?, c p
Is. 2 2 5 ; r!ez[E]i [BAL], G i e z i ; or perhaps rather
G IHONI [’In+!, see V ISION, VALLEY OF], 76), t h e
confidential servant (7yJ)of Elisha. H e is introduced
twice in the story of t h e Shunammite woman ( z K .
4 1 2 1 4 z j - 3 1 ) ; first as suggesting t h a t the birth of a son
would be t h e most acceptable return for her hospitality
(vv. 13-rj, however, seem to interrupt t h e text, a n d m a y
c o m e from another source ; see KA T 3 p ) , a n d secondly
as running before Elisha to lay the p r o p h e t ’ s staff on
t h e d e a d child’s face. H e is mentioned again a t the
close of the story of N a a m a n a s fraudulently obtaining
f r o m the restored leper t w o talents of silver a n d two
‘ I changes of raiment,’---i.e., sets of costly or holiday
g a r m e n t s , a n d as being smitten with the ‘leprosy of
N a a m a n ’ ( z K. 520-27). S e e L EPROSY. Another
narrative (8 4 ), evidently out of chronological order
(see especially Kue. Ond. i. 6.,§ 2 5 , n. 12 j ) ,repre-
s e n t s Gehazi as engaged in familiar converse with a
king of Israel who is questioning h i m o n the great
d e e d s of Elisha (see ELISHA, 0 2). W. E. A.
. GEHENNA ( r € d N N A [Ti. WH]; also r$€NNA,b u t
incorrectly, the word being derived from Aram. Ogl?). On the
original Hebrew expression, and on the position and history of
the locality so designated see H I N N O ’Mand on eschatological
developments, see ESCHATOLVGY, B$ I;& 63 (3) 70 (iiix) 8 1
(3, iii.).
GELILOTH,--i.e.,stone-circles(Josh. 18 17; r A h l A U 0
IB1) ArahhIhw0 [A4], rAhlhw0 [L]). See G ILGAL,
5 6 (a), a n d GALLIM,2.
GEMALLI (+$!X), father of AMMIEL,I , Nu. 1312
(ramal P I , ramahi [ALL M.lhi [Fl).
GEMARIAH (932??33, ??p$, ‘ G o d accomplishes,’
P 31 ; y p a p [ ~ l ~[CNAQI).
as
I . ‘ T e son of S HAPHAN and father of Michaiah, mentioned in
connection with the reading of Jeremiah‘s prophecy by Baruch
(Jer. 3 6 1 0 3 12, 25).
2. b. Hilkiah; he was sent by Zedekiah to Nebuchadrezzar
and bore a letter of Jeremiah to the captive Jews (Jer. 293).
GENEALOGIES. T h e word ‘ genealogy ’ is fre-
quently found in the ordinary sense of an enumeration of
ancestors and descendants in the natural
1. Character- order of succession, in the EV of Chron..
istics. Ezra-Neh., where bn’l (deriv. uncertain)
‘genealogy ‘(Neh. 75t), and itsdenominative
en’nn ‘to reckon by genealogy,’ are used to express the book
and the act of registration respectively. The Hithpael of ,$
is once found with the meaning ‘ to declare one’s pedigree’ in
Nu. 1 1 8 [PI, and the derivative tZedzth (nil$.@, ‘generations,’
is of frequent occurrence, especially in P in G ENESIS (T.v., 5 z )
to denote genealogies properly so called. This is the sense i i
which the English word is used in RV of Heh. 7 3 (byavsahi-
yqms), 6 (p? yevcahoyodpevos).
TO form a correct estimate of t h e nature a n d worth
of O T genealogies we must remember t h a t the terms of
relationship a r e used in a wider sense a m o n g t h e
Semites t h a n with us. W h e n two o r more clans have
a traditional sentiment of unity a n d regard each other
a s brothers ( c p GOVERNMENT, § g, e n d ) , this m a y b e a
survival from a time when the g r o u p s formed but. o n e ;
o n the other h a n d , - a historical tradition of a c o m m o n
ancestor does not always necessarily follow, since,
1 48 renders ysvsahoyah?ai ( I Ch. 5 I), ZyrarahoXli;Fw (2 Ch.
31 18 [B]), r a r a h o x r u p 6 s (six times), K a r a h o x i a ( z Ch. 31 18 [AI),
Bpr9pd~ (four times) ; ,%!3hlov r i c uvvo%as [BRA], 8. r. yewaa-
hoyias [L] for bn,n y o (Neh. 7 5). I n Ezra 262 n ’ w n v i y is
simply transliterated O L pe6’weuap (BA ; but oi yevsahoyouures
in L). From bnv (on-) are derived the later names of the books
of Chron.-Ezra-Neh. ; viz.-Dni;l 93n3 nihn (€Jab. Bathm,
15 a), o m n n i m (Pes. 62).
54 1657
GENEALOGIES
according to Semitic custom, a n y covenant relation
makes m e n brothers.’
Other terms ‘father “mother “son ‘and ‘daughter ‘are used
in an equally &de s e d e (see K I ~ H I’$6P etc.). It is: common
Semitic idiom to call a land or town’the’father or mother of its
inhabitants or of its various divisions. thus Mizraim begets
Ludim, etc. (Gen. 1013). S A L M A [q.v.] isihefatherofBeth-lehem
(rCh.25 I), the dependenciesofBeth-shean are called its ‘daughters’
(Judg. 1 2 7 ;cp DAUGHTER), and the niemhers ofany guild or clan
are frequently referred to as ‘ sons ’ (cp e.g. sons of JEDUTHUN).’I
Observe also such notices as ‘Gilead be& Jephthah’ (Judg.
11ib, based on vu. Ia 7 ; see Moore, SB#T, adluc.).
Hence t h e scheme b y which statistical information
a n d geographical d a t a a r e represented in the form of a
narrative, or an ethnology, becomes perfectly intelligible
( c p Gen. 10 2220-24 25 1-4 13-16, a n d see below). I t is
always possible t o put into the form of a genealogy t h e
composition a n d relative history of a n y people o r place
a t a n y given time,3 a n d obviously, therefore, lists which
have originated a t different times (when clan o r tribal-
divisions m a y h a v e varied) will be found to contain
formal contradictions.
T h e early conception of t h e formation a n d division of
clans a n d tribes in t h e Semitic world is most clearly
2. Theory of seen in t h e genealogical schemes of t h e
Genealogists. Arabs.5 It was commonly assumed b y
them t h a t all groups were patriarchal
tribes formed by subdivision of a n original stbck o n t h e
system of kinship through male-descent, a n d t h a t each
tribe bore the name or cognomen of the c o m m o n
ancestor.
After a while, it was supposed, a tribe would break up into
two or more divisions, each embracing the descendants of one of
thesons of the great ancestor and each taking its name from
him. Successive divisions and subdivisions would take place
until at length there would be a number of divisions, clans,
septs, etc., all of which traced themselves back to a common
ancestor (see G OVERNMENT , 5 2). In Arabia, there were, in
fact, two ultimate stocks, the Yemenite (Kahtrin)or S. Arabian,
(cp J VKTAN ), and the Ishmaelite (‘Adn&, suhdivided into
Nizdr, Ma‘add) or N. Arahian, and every individual who
porsessed a nisba, or gentilic, was able to trace his genealogy
back to one of these.
Similarly in Israel every m a n b y virtue of his being a
member of a clan or tribe was able to point t o Jacob,
the father of all the tribes, as his great ancestor.6 N o w
this theory- for it is nothing more- is based u p o n t h e
mode of reckoning descent in the male line, which, as
is becoming ever more generally recognised, is a n
aftergrowth a n d h a s superseded t h e m o r e primitive
method of m a t r i a r c h y ; see GOVERKMENT, $8
.. 2-4,
K INSHIP , 9 3 J
I. T h e great majority of 01’genealogies of in&-
vidzrals a r e found only in post-exilic writings. W h e r e a s
in Judges; Samuel, a n d K i n g s there a r e
’. Rise of gen- scarcely a n y genealogical statistics a t
all, Chronicles a n d the writings be-
longing to its a g e a r e full of them. W e find & trace
i n t h e earliest times of a n y special class (similar, e.g., t o
t h a t found a m o n g some tribes in I n d i a a n d elseu-here)
whose business it was t o keep a knowledge of the facts
of relationship. Genealogies of individuals a r e t h e
exception, a n d those which a r e found rarely reach back
m o r e t h a n one o r two generations.7
1 Thus Amos (19) speaks of Tyre (but see MIzRArM, S 26)
and Israel as allied by a ‘covenant of brothers’ (O‘nR n.73).
2 As a corollary to this the taking of a wife is sometimes used
genealogically to signify that a clan (personified as a man) has
settled upon a certain district (personified as a woman); see
AZUBAH, I, and cp CALEB, 3f: See also DAUGHTER, 3 $,
F ATHER .
3 For artificial examples see Sprenger, Das Lrben u. d. Lehhre
d. Muhammad, iii. cxliv; G. A. B. Wright, W a s ZssraeZ emsr
in E p M ? 33J
4 This may explain, e.g., why S HEBA (g.71., iii.) is a son of Cush
in Gen. 10 7 hut a son of Joktan ib. 28. See also T I M N A , Uz.
5 On Arabian genealogies see Sprenger, 0). c i f . iii. cxx-clxxx,
and, more especially, Robertson Smith‘s luminous exposition in
Kinship, chap. I.
6 Whether the names Jacob-Israel may represent a fusion
of two separate stocks cannot he discussed here ; see T RIBES .
7 Contrast, for example, the brief Joshua b. Nun (Josh. 1 I )
with the lengthy ancestry ascribed to Bezaleel (Ex. 35 30 [PI).
The exceptions will be found to be due chiefly to the presence
o f a conflate text.
1658
 GENEALOGIES
The same remark ho\ds good also in the case of the older
Arabian genealogies. Meyer ’(EnLt. 163) observes that an
analysis of the AI. genealogies in Wiistenfeld’s tables shows
that those of the contemporaries of Mohammad hardly ever go
hack heyond the grandfather often not e\,en heyond the father.
A census-taking is m e n t i o h in z S. 24, but the chapter is
not an early one, and even civic lists are only alluded to in
comparatively late passages (cp Dt. 232-8 [3-g] J.er. 22 30 Ex.
32 3 2 [PI Ps. 56 8 [g] 69 28 [zg] 87 6 Mal. 3 16 Ezek. 13 g Dan.
12 I Is. 4 3 [see I S A I A H ii., 8 51 etc.).
There is no reason for doudtine. however. that a distribution
I S. 1021 can scarcely refer to pre-Davidic times ; the unity of
Israel, there represented, is in itself a sign of a later view. I n
Josh. I.c., Achan is nsually designated ‘I>. Zerah’ simply (see
BennPtt, SBOT), and Zerah is hetter known as a post-exilic
Jndahite clan.1
I t may be added that genealogies were not common among
the Egyptians of the Old Empire. It is always the individual,
seldom the race or family, who is dealt with. A genealogy of
seven generations, cited a t the beginning of the eighteenth
dynasty, and another reaching hack to the grandfather, in the
following dynasty, are therefore exceptional. Complete genea-
logical trees only appear during the latest epoch of Egyptian
history, in the times of the Ethiopian kings, the Psammetichi
and the Persians. There is no trace of surnames, not even of
vague appellatives, until we reach the decadence of the Egyptian
kingdom (Erman, Lzye in Anc. Bg. 158).
2. Genealogical zeal among the Jews seems to have
first arisen during the Exile. They feared lest the coti-
tinuity of the race should be broken ; they desired to be
written in the register ( m 2 ) of the house of Israel’ (cp
Ezek. 139) ; and hence it happened as one of the results
of their religions isolation that the man who could claim
descent from the exiles in Babylon was considered to be
a member of the community rather than the native of
Judrea.% This importance attached to genealogical
pretension and to the proof of the absence of foreign
admixture is one of the chief evidences of the legal
spirit manifested among the Jews after the Exile, which
could hardly have appeared before the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah. In the case of the priests a special impetus
was afforded by the newly established desire to dis-
tinguish between the priests, the sons of Z AD OK, and the
Levites-a feeling which appears in Ezekiel as a novelty.
The growth of the care bestowed upon priestly gene-
alogies is well known (see below, § 7 [iv.]), and an
early example of the result is seen in Ezra 2 5 9 5 , a
passage belonging perhaps to a register of the restored
Israel (see E ZRA ii., § 9) where certain families, both
secular (the b’ne Delaiah, Nekoda, Tobiah) and priestly
(the b’ne Habaiah, Hakkoz, Barzillai), were unable to
produce their genealogies, in consequence of which the
latter were deemed ‘ polluted ’ and dismissed from the
priesthood.3
3. T o Arabia again we may turn for an instructive example of
the rise of a love for genealogies (see W R S Kin. 6 8 ) . I n
the reign of the caliph Omar I. a system ofregisters was drawn
u p to prove the right of each claimant, whowas entitled through
kinship with the prophet or through participation in his early
struggles, to the spoil taken from the ‘mfidels,’ and to ensure its
just distribution among the ‘true believers.’ A great impetus
was thus given to genealogical research, and from that time
onwards the genealogists became an important class. Much
oral tradition existed, and doubtless material was to be found in
the official records; hut as these sources were fragmentary and
limited in range, conjecture had to be resorted t0.4 T h e
genealogists made the pedigree of Mohammad (obviously a most
untrustworthy one) the back-hone of all their work, and grouped
the northern Arabs in such a way that every great ancestor or
tribe was a hrother or cousin of some ancestor of Mohammad.
To make the number of ancestors tally with the lapse of time
presumed to int-rvene, ‘dummy’ names ( e . ~ .Kais,
, ‘Amr, Zaid,
1 Note that 191 ‘to name,’ >n>‘ t o write’ or ‘enrol,‘ are late
usages. D’??? (Nu. 11266), it is true, occurs in a context
which may be ascribed to a late Elohist source, hut the word is
part of a gloss (see ELDAD A N D MEDAD).
2 We. Prol. ET, 494.
3 T h e oass&e is later than Ezra : the names of the oriestlv’
families dccur &where in the book,’cp Meyer, Entst. ;70.
4 But the shortness of memory among the Arabs is well
known-indeed in the time of Mohammad they had no trnst-
worthy tradition of any of the great nations which flourished
after the time of Christ (cp N6ld. Amalckitw, zj 8 ; W R S
J. P 7 d 9 so).
1659
GENEALOGIES
‘Abdallah) were introduced1 I n dealing with the older
material, place. nanies were transformed into ancestors or
ancestresses, and sometimes even tribal designations were taken
and treated as the names of ancestors.2 I t was to the ad-
vantage of a weak community to discover some bond of con-
nection with a stronger neighhour, whilst a powerful chief was
equally desirous of including as wide a kinship as possible.
Moreover it was the scheme of the genealogist to treat the
political :omhinations of his time as the expression of ancient
bonds in kinship (for an example see SPARTA). The inevitable
result was much genealogical fiction ; not only were the names
of his own time thrown back by the genealogist into the past,
hut also those which had become traditionally famous were
inserted in the ancestry of his contemporaries, and the more
honourable the individual the more reputable and famous became
his ancestry. I n fine, ‘the system of the genealogists and the
method by which traditional data are worked into the system
are totally unworthy of credit’ (Kin. 11).
The OT genealogies begin with the creation of man-
kind. A man and a woman stand at the head3 (see
4. Genealogies ADAM A N D EVE), and a series of seven
names carries mankind down to Lamech
in Genesis. (Gen. 41-24 rT1). This list, like the old
yevmhoyinr of the Greeks,? iszoubtless the remains of
a historical connection once woven ont of primitive
stories, and deals with the introduction of civilisation
(see CAINITES ; HISTORICAL L I T E R A T U R E , 2).
A parallel genealogy based on it is given by P in chap. 5 ; i t
is a dry uninteresting list, and the primitive simplicity of the
legend is cumbered with a complicated system of chronology
(CAIwrEs, 5 12, SETHITES).P’s genealogies in Genesis are
based throughout upon a specific scheme (GENESIS, 8 z), in
marked contrast with those in JE-where they are merely the
string connecting the narratives-they form in fact the principal
feature of his history.
For Gen. 10, which in the form of a genealogy gives
a conspectus of the surrounding nations, and shows the
supposed relation of the Hebrews to the other peoples
of the habitable globe, ~ ~ ~ G E O G R A §P THI JY , P now
confines himself to Shem, the ‘ father ’ of the Hebrews,
and brings us down by a list of seven names to Terah,
Abraham’s father (chap. 11).6 Here again there is much
dispute as to the nature of the names occurring in the list,
although it is probable that they are ethnographicaLG
From Abraham onwards a number of old genealogies
are presented by J. Jacob and Esau are brothers, the
former intentionally represented as the younger (see
ESAU). Moab and Ben-Ammi (Ammon) are sons of
Lot (cp the Edplkiite.name LOTAN),and the relationship
presumed between Israel (Jacob), Edoin (Esau), Moab
and Ammon points to their belief in having had at
some time a common history. The close relationship
with Aram which finds expression in Gen. 2 8 8 ex-
presses a feeling which could hardly have arisen before
David‘s time.
The assumption that certain tribes were of Aramaean origin
may perhaps explain that phase of the early Hebrew tradition
which brings the patriarch Jacob into connection with Aram
and marries him to an Aramzan stock. Wheu tribes of different
origin unite their early tribal traditions (Urgeschichfe)become
fused, with ;he result that they possess a tradition in common.
Other genealogies express relations between Ishmael
1 These were got by doubling known names or using personal
names of no tribal significance,’ (Kin. I O ); c p the Gershonite
genealogies 8 7 (iii. 6) below.
2 The A;. Khozii‘a (‘separated ones ’) were so called because
they broke off from the Asd in the great Yemenite dispersion.
The genealogists, however, made K h o d a the name of their
ancestor (see W R S Kins. 17). The member of the dog-tribe
‘6anu KiZiib’ were siniilarly made to descend from an ancestor
‘Kihid.’ The genealogical notices of Anak and Arba were not
less curiously derived ; see ANAKIM.
3 This is a later conception, for, on the analogy of other
peoples, the Hebrews would have traced themselves hack to
gods or demigods ; and, indeed traces of this are found in the
early writings; cp Gen. 61. fior Arabian examples see Kin.
I7f:
4 Of such a kind. probably, are the ‘genealogies‘referred t:
in Tit. 3 ,c I Tim. 14 ; the combination ‘ m y f h sand genealogies
is significant.
5 The triple division of the h‘ne Terah finds an analogy in the
three Levitical heads and the three giiilds ofsingers.
6 T h e list includes ;he mythical ancestor of all Hebrews-viz.,
‘,!?bey’ (see E BER , I). Similarly the Berbers (lit. ‘barbarians ’)
invented an ancestor Berr whom thev, influenced by Moham-
medan lore, connected with Noah. (Another genealogy repre-
sents their ancestor as ‘Berber,‘ a descendant ofCanaan h. H a m
h. Noah.)
1660
 GENEALOGIES
and Isaac (half-brothers), and tribes of the great spice-
hearing region in S. Arabia are traced from Abraham
through a wife who bears the significant name Keturah
( ' incense ' ) ; Gen. 25 1-6(J).
A later genealogy makes Ishmael the father of certain
Arahian tribes which, a t the time of its compilation, occupied
the Syrian desert (Gen. 25 13 P). ' Ishmael, in post-exilic and
Rabbinical times, became the common designation for the
Arabs generally, and these, in turn, were wont to trace their
ancestry hack to Nabit (Nehaioth), or K a & p (Joktan), sons
of Ishmael ; cp above, $2.
Jacob, the younger' son of Isaac, is understood to be
the father of the twelve tribes, the chief of whom were
descended from his wives, R ACHEL and
5. Tribal
L EAH [ q q . ~ . ] . That four of the tribes
are sons of concubines might show that
they were looked upon as of less importance, and as not
belonging to Israel in the same sense as the others
(see D AN i. ; G OVERNMENT , S 13).
I t is only in the later writings that the twelve tribes are
represented as coexistent and enjoying unbroken continuity.
Moreover the number twelve is certainly artificial 2 and was
ohtained,'either by the omission of Levi or by reckoning the two
'sons' of Joseph as one.
Further, it may be questioned whether 'Judah' with its S.
Palestinian elements (see CALEB,JERAHMEEL) was ever a tribe
previous tn the time of David, and whether the priestly tribe
of Levi does not owe its enumeration among the 'twelve' to
the desire to place its members on the same genealogical footing
with the rest. See, further, J UDAH , LEVI,and cp T RIBES .
The subdivisions of the tribes are enumerated in
Gen. 468-27 Ex. 614-26 Nu. 265-51 [all PI, and at greater
length in I Ch. 2 8 For an estimation of their contents
and value, see the separate article^.^
It must suffice here to observe that a study of the
names which are found in these tribal lists often affords
suggestive hints concerning the relations of the tribes to
one another. The truth of the old folk-legend which
spoke of Israel and Edom as brothers is fully borne out
by the significant number of names common to Edom
and Judah (and Benja~nin).~ 'The tribe of Simeon,
though unknown in historical times, seems, nevertheless,
to have dwelt on the extreme SW. of Judah, and hence
it is not surprising to.find.'names in the Simeonite list
which have affinities witkEdom (see BILHAH, I , SHAWL),
Judah (Z ERAH , HAMUEL), Ishmael (MIBSAM, MISHMA)
and Jerahmeel (ISHI). See also below, 5 7 [v.].
It has been stated above (5 3 [I]) that the great majority
of genealogies are found only in P and kindred literature
(Ch.-Ezra-Neh.), and it remains now to
c h & ~ ~ ~ e rconsider
,s their genuineness and value. It
genealogies. is only just to suppose that the Chronicler
had older lists to work upon; but the
Oriental genealogist was no incorruptible judge, and
not only would he he sure to have spurious evidence
placed before him- 'a IOVUZLS homo desires a noble
pedigree '-hut his lists when fragmentary would have
to he supplemented and ~ornpleted.~Faithful to the
spirit of his age he idealizes and magnifies the past,
and in many of his genealogies we are able to see that
he employed the same methods as did his Arabian
brother centuries later.
1 It is noticeable how many of the descendants of Terah who
became famous and strong were the younger sons. Sce J.
Tacobs. ' Tunior Right in Genesis' (Stzldies in Biblical
ArcheoZoyy). - are a step nearer the famous triple division-the three
2 Cp the nnmher of the b'ne Nahor (Gen. 2 2 2 0 s ) the b'ne
Ishmael (Gen. 25 1 3 J ) the families of Gad and Ash& (Nu.2B
1 5 8 4 4 3 ) and of Ebhraim and Manasseh (id. 28-37). For
non-Semitic analogies see Spiegel, Evanisch AZtevfumskunde,
22 3 8
3 The tribes with their suhdivisions amount to seventy; this
number too is most prohahly artificial.
4 Cokmo; tn (a)Edom and Judah are Hnsham (cp Hushah),
Iram (cp Ira) Jether (cp Ithran and see J ETHETH ) Korah
Onam (cp Onin), Shohal and Zerah ; (6) Edom and B'enjamin:
Ashhel (cp Ashhea), Iri (cp Iru, IRAM),Jeush, Manahath,
Shepho (cp Shephupham and SHUPPIM?),Onam (cp Oni),
Bela Johab.
5 $he nature of the hook of Iddo the Seer. nCh. 121q. is
unknown. wn*nn$, as Hi. suggests, may have been accidentally
transposed from 11 16 : cp Be. C Z ~ Z Q C . The Chronicler's 'ancient
records' of I Ch. 4 226 are equally obscure, although in point of
age they may have been only exilic.
1661
GENEALOGIES
Thus over sixteen of the twenty-four 'heads ' ordained b y
David ( I Ch. 24) are names of post-exilic priests and Levites
and it is only reasonable to suspect that the Chronicler desire;
to show that the honourable families of his own day lived, or
were founded, centuries previously under David.
A list in Neh. 11 13 mentions 'Meshillemoth b. Immer." But
the name Meshillemoth is essentially the same as Meshullam
and when the writer of I Ch. 9 TZ found in his copies 600th form;
(so, at least, we are entitled to assume) he accordingly wrote
down 'Meshullam h. Meshillemoth (so @ B A L for Meshillemith ;
see M ESHILLEMOTH. 2) h. Immer ' (for another similar instance
cp below 0 7 [iv.] end):
Of a different character are the lists in I Ch.2 18-24 730-40,
u*hereit is evident that we are dealing no longer with individuals
but with clan- or place-names; cp Gray, HPN 239f: In
I Ch. 2, for example one can distinguish pre-exilic from post-
exilic sources, and i;is pnssihle to see expressed in genealogical
form the fact which is known from other sources, that Caleh,
whose seat in pre-exilic times lay in the Negeb of Judah,
migrated north, and after the Exile appears in the district around
Jerusalem (see Wellh. De Gent. ; C HRONICLES, $ I O ; and c p
CAI.EB,$ zJ).
The structure and nature of the names themselves may some-
times prove helpful in considering the antiquity of a list, and
the fact that the majority of the names in the list I Ch. 4 3 - 4 7
are those of the Chronicler's own time and 'are a t least not
genuine survivals' makes it probable that the list is largely an
invention (Gray, op. cit. 236J). I t is not difficult to observe
the methods of the genealogist in compiling ancestral lists, and a
good example is seen in the post-exilic genealogy of David which
IS wholly wanting in the earlier writings (see D AVID, $ I a,
n. I). I t is the object of the author of EST HER (q.v., $ I, end) to
make Mordecai a Benjamite, and so, when he fashions a genea-
loqical list he includes among the ancestors of Mordecai such
wkll-know; Benjamites as Kish and Shimei (Eee S HIMEI , IO),
whilst the second Targum actually adds Machir and Mephi-
hosheth.1
(i. ) Method.-Fuller details regarding the intricate
genealogies of the Levites and priests must he sought
-7. Lev[tical for in the minor- biographical articles ;
and Priestly here it must suffice to indicate the lines
genealogies. upon which the Hebrew (post -exilic)
genealogist seems to have worked, and
to try to discov& the various views to which he intended
his lists to give expression.
To start with the belief that these genealogies are wholly trust-
worthy nr that they proceeded from one hand2 would quickly
involve ns i n a hopeless maze. Contrast, for example, theancestry
which I Ch. 6 gives of the three contemporaries Asaiab (seven
members I C ~ 63o[r51
. 156) Ethan (twelve) and Heman
(nearly tkenty),3 and observe 'that Ethan's iinm:diate ancestors
reappear in the time of Hezekiah (2 Ch. 29 12). Libni and
Shimei are both Gershonite and Merarite divisions ; Jahath
and Shimei are varyingly sons and grandsons of Gershon.
Amasai and Mahath, like Mushi and Mahli, are sometimes
brothers, at other times father and son. Instances of similar
inconsistencies might easily he multiplied.
In order to gain some idea of the origin of the
Levitical genealogies we may start with the working
theory that they are the result of later genealogizing shill,
which has endeavoured to bring together into some sort
of family relationship clans and divisions formerly quite
distinct (cp 1z above). Thus we find that one of the
simplest lists of the Levitical families enumerates merely
the clans of Jeshua, Bani (or Binnui), Hodaviah (Judah,
Hodiah), and Kadmiel (cp Ezra 2 40 [see H ODAVIAH , 41
3gNeh. 94).4 Another equally simple hut more interest-
ing scheme in Nu. 2 6 ~ enumerates
8 ~ five mip&Zh of the
Levites-m!, '?hi?, h> om.), 9+, and ' n y
Again, when I Ch. 155-7 divides the Levites among the
families of Gershom, Kehath (EV Kohath), Merari,
Elizaphan, Hebron, and Uzziel, it is apparent that we
1 Cp Salamiel b. Salasadai (Le. Shelnmiel, b. Zurishaddai,
the Simeonites, Nu. 1 6 ) in Judith's Lenealogy (8 I).
a A study of the name-lists alone supports the recognized
view that P, in its present form, is composite. Similarly the
genealogical and other lists of the Chronicler in Ch..Ezra-Neh.
are not from the same hand. On the whole, it is probable that
some of the latest specimens of genealogical zeal survive in the
genealogies of the high priests, and the three singers ( I Ch. 6).
3 Note further the inconsistency in the number of generations
from Judah to David, from Levi to Zadok, and from Levi to
Heman (see Wright Was Israel, etc. 76J).
4 The names renknd us of priestly families. This older
division seems to have died out-with the doubtful excep-
tions of Hashahiah h. Kadmiel, a Levite in I Ch. 27 17 (reading
$N?nTp for M T KEMUEL),and the b'ne Bunni (Neh. 1115 11
I Ch. 9 14 y~).
5 The verse is hardly from the same source as vv. 57, 598.
1662
 GENEALOGIES
great names have been introduced, but are on an equality
with the rest. At a later stage Libni is assigned either
to Gershon or to Merari, to the latter of which Mahli
:and Mushi were consistently reckoned ; the rest were
.ascribed to Kehath.a
(ii.) Singers and Porters. -Together with these
developments we have to notice the gradual ‘ Levitizing ’
,of divisions and classes formerly distinct-viz. the singers
.and porters (or doorkeepers).
(a)The familiar triple division of Asaph, Heman, and Ethan
(or Jeduthun), assigned to Gershon, Kehath, and Merari
respectively (I Ch. 6), is preceded by an earlier in Neb. 11 17
where the singers are Mattaniah b. Mica, Bakbukiah (seg
BAKBAKKAR), and Abda (or Obadiah) b. Shammua.3 A later
hand has probably supplied the names of ancestors tending to
associate them with Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun (cp 4BBA).
(a) Now the singers or ‘ b n e Asaph ’ were primarily
kept distinct from the porters, and both classes were
separated from the Levites (Ezra 2 4 1 Neh. 7 4 4 ; see
WRS, O T / C ( z )204) ; see ASAPH, 3. The next step
was the inclusion of the guild of porters in the name
‘ Korah,’ although it must be observed that Korah is
not yet a Levite. He is absent from the list of Levites
i n I Ch. 23, and in the earlier phase of P’s account of
the rebellion in Nu. 16 Korah is actually not yet a Levite
{cpKne. Hex. 334$, and see KORAHii., 5 z ) . ~ Next
we find that. both Asaph and Korah are Levitical
divisions. There are, therefore, Levites of Asaph ( 2 Ch.
2913, cp2014), and Levitesof the Korahites ( 2 Ch. 2019).
Still another stage finds Asaph incorporated in Korah
under the eponym of Abiasaph or Ebiasaph (see ASAPH,
3 , A BIASAPH ), and finally Korah is assigned to Kehath
-observe that in 2 Ch. 2019 Korah and Kehath are still
distinct-and, strangely enough, Asaph is removed from
Korah b. Kehath and assigned to Gershon.
(c) Traces of these changes are seen in the survival of the
eponym Ahiasaph (see ASAPH?) which is reckoned as a ‘son ’ of
Korah, and in the fortunes oi &rain names belonging to these
classes. In z Ch. 29 13 Mattaniah and Zechariah are of the
b’ne Asaph (cp Zaccur and Nethaniah, sons of Asaph in I Ch.
2 5 ~ in
) ~2 Ch. 20 14 they reappear in the genealogy of Jahaziel
a n Asaphite Levite.6 Comparing I Ch. 9 19 31 (Mattithiah)
26 ~ f we
: ,find them sons of Shallum (or Meshelemiah) traced
through Asaph to Korah : and finally Zechariah and Meshullam
(=Shallurn) turn up a s Kehathites in 2 Ch. 34 12.
(4 According to the later genealogies the singers and porters
Ethan (or Jeduthun) Hosah and Obed-edom belong to Merari.
Quite consistently, tierefore, the names Hashabiah and Jeshaiah
appear as sons of Merari (Ezra 8 rg), or sons of Jeduthun ( I Ch.
25 3), and the former is a Merarite ( I Ch. 9 I ), and a member of
Ethan’s genealogy ( I Ch. 6 4 5 [30]). Of t%e two sons of the
Merarite Jeduthun, Uzziel and Shemaiah (2 Ch. 29 14), the latter
is a descendant of Jeduthun ( I Ch. 9 16=Neh. 11 17 [Shammua]),
asonof Ohed-edom(1 Ch.264), anda MerariteLevite(1 Ch.9 14),
and both names perhaps go to build up the genealogy of the
Merarite Asaiah in the forms Shimea b. Uzza (I Ch. 6 zgf:
[14 AI). Similarly Hilkiah and Shimri, ‘sons ’ of the Merarite
Hosnh (I Ch. 26 10s) may perhaps correspond to the Shemer
and Hilkiah in the kenealogy of the Merarite Ethan (I Ch.
645f: [30$]). See also IBRI.
Not only was Asaph removed from Korah to Gershon,
but it is probable that Ethan was once ascribed to
Gershon, and, curiously enough, from I Ch. 1 5 7 17 we
should expect to find that Heman, too, wasGershonite ! 7
This is apparently due to the fact that the three
heads of the ‘singers‘ were, at one stage, treated
1 Mahli appears to be distinct from Merari in Ezra8 18f:
2 Observe that Elizaphan is a ‘son’ of Uzziel, the Kehathite,
i n Nu. 330(P).
3 @ E A omits the second name ; perhaps the earliest division
was a twofold one.
4 Strictly speaking the guilds of the porters (Obed-edom
Jeduthun, Hosah, et:) are assigned to Korah and Merari ; c i
I Ch. 26 1-19. They seem to be separated from the Levites proper
in nu. z o f i (in v. 17 read ~ 1 , snmr&). Note that when the
Asaphite Kar@(u. I) is made a Levite in 2 Ch. 31 14 he appears
as the son of Heman (reading for n>,y)-Asaph, Korah, and
Heman are (in the final stage) consistently assigned to Kehath.
5 ‘ But Israelite,’ adds Kuenen ; on this, however, see below,
v., col. &65.
6 Cp also Mattaniahand Levites of the b’ne Asaph(1 Ch.
9 IS).
7 See E THAN, 3, and cp Jahath, Shimei and Lihni, names
common to Gershon and Merari. Shimei: also, is the name
of a soil of Jeduthun C=Ethan); se; SHIMEI, 12.
1663
GENEALOGIES
as independent Levitical divisions (see Neh. 1115-17),1
and in the process of incorporating a N the Levites
among the three ‘ sons ’ of Levi, the positions of the
heads of the singers were not at first definitely settled.
(iii:) Levitical Zisists in I d.6.-The Chronicler’s
method of building up genealogies from names tradition-
ally current will account for the remarkable incon-
sistencies and striking resemblances which the most
superficial consideration reveals.
a ) Some of the Merarite names in I Ch. G have already been
nhiced (above [ii.] 4. Of the others, Malluch-and Amzi (ti44 46)
have riestly associations (cp Neh. 11 12) Mahli and Mushi are
usual6 brother clans, and the former ’is also the head of a
Merarite genealogy ending with ASAIAH[31 (I Ch. 6 291: [14,Ll).
I t is, moreover, a feature of considerable significance that tliii
Merarite list has little in common with that in I Ch. 23ir-23,
2427-34 which probahly represents an earlier stage in the
genealogical schemes.2
(6) The Gershonite genealogies in I Ch.6 descend (a) to
Jeatherai (or Ethni), and (8) to Asaph the intermediate names
being probably ‘dummy’ names (Maaskiah [of which Baaseiah
is a corruption], Berechiah, Malchijah, Michael are sufficiently
colourless and common). The names nni-p n ~ ~ . i- p ~ seem
y
to be related in some way to the Gershoiiite nsy 13 p y and
;In1 13 nN1’ of 2 Ch. 29 12.3
(c) The largest and most important branch of post-
exilic Levites are the b’ne Kehath, the most prominent
branches of which are Amram-to which Moses (the
father of the subdivision Gershon) and Aaron belong-
and Korah b. Izhar b. Kehath. Korah is associated
with the porters (see above), and his three ‘sons’
Assir, Abiasaph, and Elkanah (Ex. 6 24 etc.) are here
descendants in a regular line ( I Ch. 637[22]). The
ancestry of the Korahite Heman is rendered particularly
complicated by repetitions6 The names in z Ch. 20 1 2 3
again proved an invaluable quarry for the genealogist, and
from them he borrowed Mahath b. Amasai, and Joel b.
Azariah. The list comprises, appropriately enough,
names borrowed from the genealogy of Samuel, who, as
the genealogist knew, was a doorkeeper ( I S. 3 1 5 ) . ~
(iv. ) Nigh priests’ geneaZogy.-The high priests from
Aaron to the captivity are traced through Amram
to Kehath ( I Ch. 6 3-15 [529-41], cp 49-53).
The list is substantially the same as the genealogy of Ezra in
Ezra 7 I (= I Esd. 8 z), which recurs, with some changes, in
2 Esd. 1.7 That in T Ch. 6 starhwith (1-3) Aaron, Eleazar, and
Phinehas, names common to and derived from, P. (4) AbishuaB
(Abiezer, Jos. Ant. v. 11 5 ) ii no longer extant. The following
five names are new(5-g) :-Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, and
Amariah (in Jos. Ant. viii. 1 3 ; Bukki, Joatham, Meraioth Aro-
phaeus). Nos. 10.12 : Ahitub, Zadok, and Ahimaaz are dirived
from I and P S. (see AHITUBI, AHIMAAZ, I). Of nos. 13-15
(Azariah, Johanan, Azariah) it must be to the first that the
misplaced note 6 ob [5366] refers; it is related to I K. 426
(also a gloss). Nos. 16-18 duplicate 9-11 and finally nos. 19-22
(Shallum, Hilkiah, Azariah, Seraiah) carr;ns down to Jehozadak.
An allowance of forty years for each generation gives us nearly
960 years, agreeing approximately with the received post-exilic
chronology. The thirteenth name will coincide with the
rebuilding ofthe temple and the twenty-thirds with the captivity ;
cp the similar artificiality in G ENEALOGIES ii., p I .
The unhistorical nature of this list of high priests
needs no demonstration. The inclusion of Zadok is as
remarkable as the ignoring of the famous line from Eli
to Abiathar (I S.), due, perhaps, to the later exaltation
of the Zadokites (see ZADOK,l).1° We find no men-
1 2 Cb. 2912.14 enumerates Levites of Kehath Gershon
Merari Elizaphan(see $ 7 [i.] end) Asaph Heman, and Jeduthun:
2 Ndte, e.g., the mention of Mbses, 23)14f:
3 Perhaps we may connect the Gershonite 5 ~ 1 . (I Ch. 15 7)
with Joel & i t for M T 5ck) b. Eliasaph in Nu. 3 24.
4 In I Ch. 6 22 [7] his ‘father’ is called Amminadab : but see
ELISHEBA.
5 Elkanah to Elk;inah. 6 14 i5a [Igzoal=z5 [iolf: Joel to
Ebiasaph 366 37n=23 [ 7 ] 3 ” ’ ”.
6 Hence. also. we see tlle appropriateness (and probable
3rigin)of the chbice of the names Elkanah and Rerechiah (in r
Ch. 9 166 Levites only. in i6. 15 23 door-keepers), the latter of
which is borne by the fAther of Asaph.
7 See, for other lists, Jos. Ant.
QZUWZ.
x.86, and the Jewish Seder
8 Perhaps rather Ab-yeshua ‘father of Jeshua ’ ; cp JESHUA.
9 Jos. Ant. (xx. 10) speaks of 31 names.
10 When, for example, Abiathar is assigned a lower order in
I Ch. 24 3 6 this is perhaps a later genealogical fashioning to
1664
 GENEALOGIES
tion of Jehoiada, Zebhariah, or Urijah ; nos. 15-18find
no support in the historical books, nor can we reconcile
the priests Amariah ( z Ch. 191,1), Azariah ( z Ch. 2 6 1 7
311o), Hilkiah ( z Ch. 3 4 9 ) with no. zof:
So highly was Ezra the scribe esteemed that his name takes the
placeof Jehozadak, and heappearsinEzra 7 2 as the son of Seraiah
a t the end of the long list of high priests. (Nos. 9.~4however
are omitted in I Esd. 8 z Esd. 1 and by M T [and ’@BAL] i;
‘Ezra I C ) H e is thus made to be: contemporary of ZEDEKIAH,
who’li;ed 130 years previously. His genealogy in 2 Esd.
however has received an interesting addition ; between nos. I;
and 171’z-e inserted the names of Eli, Phinehas. and Ahijah
derived directly from T S. (cp 14 3). The new names in Jos. (An;
X. 86) and the SZa’er ‘ O l Z m are of no critical value ; the former
enumerates ten names between nos. 13 and 19,several of which
recur in the latter writing.2
The key to the origin of the high priests’ genealogy
is perhaps found in Neh. 1111,where nos. 20, 19, 18,
Meraioth ( =Amdriah, no. 16?), and 17are the ancestors
of the priest Seraiah, the grandfather of Jeshua (cp
I Ch. 614[54o], Ezra3z) in the ascending line. It is
interesting to find that ]I I Ch. 911 has Azariah for
Seraiah, and that the genealogist has been content to
incorporate 80th names in the list of high priests (no.
zrf:),an exact parallel to which procedure is seen in
I Ch. 9 12 (see above, 5 6). The intervening names from
Aaron downwards would be easily supplied once the
start had been made (observe the duplicates). A place
had to be found for Zadok, and (as in I Ch. 24 ; cp 5 6)
the most important care of the genealogist was to in-
troduce priestly names famous in his own time or
traditionally renowned.
(v. ) Origin qfLevitica2 names.-Whenit is recognised
that the Levitical genealogies have passed through
several stages before reaching their present form, it is
obvions that in discussing the origin of the Levites
too much stress must not be laid upon the names of the
three great heads. As representing Levitical divisions
they have no great claim to antiquity. Gershon is
derived directly from Gershom h. ‘Moses, and it is not
impossible that Merari ($??n,an ethnic) has originated
from Miriam ( q p , cp M ERAIOTH ). This leads us to
the ‘ Mosaic ’ origin of Levitical names, the most famous
example of which is Miishi--’ the Mosai’te’ (see also
ELIEZER, GERSHOM, GERSHON, MUSHI).
That names in the family of Moses were derived from Levi
{I Ch. 23 14) is a perversion in the interests of a post-exilic age’
note that Sbebuel b. Gershom b. Moses (I Ch. 23 16) is no othe;
than Shubael, an Amramite (I Ch. 2410); and that Shelomith b.
Eliezer ( I Ch. 26 25J) becomes chief of the (Levitical) b‘ne Izhar
(23 18).3 I t is curious, also, to find in the genealogy of the Levite
Gershom, properly the son of Moses, the names SHIMEI(11)
JAHATH (2)) Zimmah (ne]), and Z ERAH (z), corresponding t;
S HAMMAH ( I ) , NAHATH(I), Mizzah (nro), and Z ERAH (3), sons
of the Edomite Reuel (Gen. 3613), the traditional name of
Moses’ father-in-law.
Suggestive of S. Palestinian origin are, moreover, the
names K ORAH ( q . ~ . i.),
, JESHUAand, in Nu. 2658,
Mahli (cp MAHALATH), where, moreover, the ethnics
Hebroni and Libni remind usof the S. Palestinian Hebron
and Libnah. The ‘ Hebronite’ Jekameam (oyepv) per-
haps derives his name from o y ~ p ?(see J OKNEAM ), the
Merarite Eder and Jeremoth (nin,?)from Eder (Josh.
1 5 2 1 ) and n r q (see J ARMUTH ), and the Kehathite
Shamir from the locality in Josh. 1548. Jerahmeel b.
Mahli b. Merari is, in itself, a significant hint for the
origin of some of the Levitical clans”; for other con-
account for the omission of his ‘house ’ in the list of high priests
(but see A BIATHAR, and cp WRS, OTJCP) 266, n. I).
1 Arna and Marimoth, Aziei and Amarias, correspond to 7 3
respectively.
&as and Pedaiah, iou~~hos and Joel i d a p o c and Jotham,
ou Las and Urijah vqp‘ao and Neriah o d r a s and Hoshaiah.
k
The Aaronite’Eleazar is later thjn the Mosa’ite Eliezer just
as Shubael is probably amodification of the Calebite Shobal (see
SHUBAEL).
4 Undue stress, perhaps should not be laid upon the circum-
stance that Ahihail and O h d are names common to Jerahmeel
and Merari (&e latter through Obed-edom). Abihail (see
MICHAL)perhaps occurs also in the family of Kish (also a
Merarite name, see KISH, 2). With the Jerabmeelite Zaza we
may probably connect the Gershonite Zizah (I Ch. 23 IT).
1665
GENEALOGIES O F JESUS
nections see AMASAI ( I ) , AMASA,JEUSH. Finally,
one notes the un-Hebraic character of several of the
Levitical names (Kehath, Ithamar, Izhar, Jeatherai [if
correct], etc.), which, perhaps, may be due to their S.
Palestinian origin ; cp the name GERSHOM (4. v. ). The
eponym Simeon,’ the ‘ brother ’ of Levi, has probably
left its mark in the Levitical division Shimei,2 variously
assigned to Gershon or Merari, and it is not impossible
that the Kehathite Izhar (ins?)was primarily the same as
the ‘son’ of Simeon who is named ins (see J A H A T H ,
2, n.).3 These evidences, pointing to a S. Palestinian
origin for the Levites, agree with the tradition that
YahwB’s worship came from the S.4 See LEVITES.
From the above evidence we may infer that the Levites came
from the S. of Palestine, and that they were not confined to any
one particular tribe or clan. This makes it probable that the
term ‘ Levite’ (on its meaning see Hommel, A H T 278,E) was
a later designation applied to special members of the southern
clans who it has been suggested elsewhere, had come originally
from Kadksh-barnea (EXODUS i. §I 4 5 KADESH i. $3). Since
therefore, there is reason for supposin)g that such well-know;
figures as E THAN (2), HEMAN and OBED-EDOM were of southern
extraction (see also MAHOL), it would appear that the Chronicler
was not wholly unwarranted in making them Levites. More-
over, when he ascribes to David the inanguration and establish-
ing of the Levites, may this not be merely based upon the
circumstance that the southern clans did actually attain import-
ance first under David 1
The care spent over genealogies by no means
diminished in later times (I Macc. 2 I Bar. 1I Tob. 1 I),
8. Genealogies and in the time of Josephus (c. A$. 1;,
inlater times. see also V i t a , I) all the priests were
able to adduce evidence to show the
purity of their descent by means of public documents
which he refers to as Gvpoular BQhm. According to
the Talmud (Kidd.76 b ) there were men who spent their
time yholly in making and studying genealogies which
were based upon those in Ch.-E~ra-Neh.~But when
Elizabeth is called a daughter of Aaron (Lk. 15),
Anna an Asherite (ib. 2 3 6 ) , or Pan1 a Benjamite (Ram.
11I ) , and Hillel the Babylonian is traced back to David
(even the ,’desposyni’ in Domitian’s time claimed a
direct descent from David), we cannot suppose that
every link in the long chain of ancestors was known.
Yet, how great a a s the importance attached to the
registry of birth and ancestry is proved by the gene-
alogies prefixed to the gospels of Matthew and Luke in
which Christ’s origin is traced back to Abraham and
Adam respectively (see article below).
See Sprenger, Das Leben n. a’. Lehre a’. Mohamnzea’: W R S
Kinship and Marriage in Ear& Arabia (especially chap. 1):
Wellh. de Genti6us etc. ProZ.(*)211 3 ;
9. Literature. art. ‘Genealogy’ in kBBn .’Guthe GVI (‘99)
2-6 ; art. Genealogy’ bykurtiss i’n Hasting2
D B ( a useful collectionof material); and M. Berlin, ‘ Gershonite
and Merarite Genealogies’ in JQR 12 2 9 1 3 (1900) (illustrates
their complicated character, and seeks to show that the Levites
fell into twenty-four subdivisions corresponding to the ‘heads’ in
I Ch. 24 1-19). For general principles‘see M‘Lennan, Studies
in Anc. Hist., 2nd ser., chap. 9, Examples of fabricated
genealogies,’ and on the genealogical knowledge in the time of
Jesus, see Dalm. W o r f r l e s u(‘98), 2 6 2 5 S. A . C.
GENEALOGIES OF JESUS IN MATTHEW AND
LUKE. While Mk. and Jn. manifest no interest in
the pedigree of Jesns (piphos yev.!uews ’IvuoD XpimoD
[Ti. WH])-Jn. 7-27 representing the tenet of Messianic
doctrine current among the Jews (cp Weber, Syst. d.
aZtsyn. Theol. 339 3 )that the origin of the Messiah
is a secret-the two fuller gospels produce formal
genealogical tables.
The first point of interest was to prove that Jesns was
1 The name may survive in the Assyrian land of Sa-mi-n[al
on the road S. to M q r i (Wi. Mu+, efc., 8).
2 See W R S JPh. 996 (‘80).
3 Of the Simeonite names which are reported (I Ch. 42439,
several are elsewhere borne by Lerites: Rephaiah, Seraiah, and
Shallum are also Judahite, andone (see H0~1)distinctlysuggests
a S. Palestinian origin.
4 Thus =.E. there were worshippers of Yahwi: at Zephath in
the time Af E l i a h ( I K. 17 g, M T Zarephath, see Z AREPHATH).
5 Cp Talm. viis N ~ N nmn vi im and Pes. 6 2 6 ,
where it is said that the commentaries on I Ch. 8 37-9 44 (from
Azel to Azel) amounted to goo camel-loads. For the Mii‘iliatlt
 GENEALOGIES O F JESUS
descended from David. For whilst this question is only
1. Aim and once touched upon in Jn. ( 7 4 2 ) and only
thrice in Mk. ( 1 0 4 7 f: 1110 1235-37), the
c ~ ~ Davidic
~ ~
sonship~ appearsr . in Mt. and Lk.
(not to speak of the passages parallel to
those cited from Mk.) as a matter of fLindamenta1
importance in the preliminary history (cp Lk. 1 2 7 32 69
2411 Mt. 120, and in the story of the Magi, Mt. 2 , the
designation of the ' new-born king of the Jews '), as it is
also emphasized further, in a manner analogous to the
casesinMk.,inMt. 9 2 7 BZ3 1 5 2 2 . Thegenealogies, how-
ever, reach back even beyond David: in Mt. to Abraham,
in Lk. to Adam. This tracing of the line back to Adam
(Lk.), may be connected with the conception of the
Messiah as a second Adam, for which reason the
patriarchal head of the new mankind is brought into
relation to that of the old. On the same analogy, since
there is no interest, anywhere else in the NT, in regard-
ing Christ as the son of Abraham, the tracing back of
the line at least as far as to him might be due to a wish
to bring into mutual relation the father of the people of
promise and the father of the people of fulfilment.
That the pedigree in Mt. is in a special degree specifically
Jewish in its character, appears from its delight in playing with
numbers-three series each of twice seven names-and from the
succession downwards from David being traced through the line
of Jewish kings. The pedigree adopted by Lk. at least does
not emphasize numerical features (11 x 7), follows a different
branch of David's family, and does not pause at Abraham any
more than at David. We may perhaps distinguish it as the
Hellenistic, and Mt.'s as the Palestinian, attempt to con-
' son of Zorohahel is Ahiud (apiou8 [v. 131) in the former and Rhesa
nect Jesus the Messiah with sacred history by a genealogy.
That the one came into the hands of the first evangelist, the
other into the hauds of the third, may be accidental.
The two genealogies are beyond doubt mutually
independent scholarly attempts. That adopted by Mt.
2. lVIt.'s list, (11-17) follows the linguistic fotm of
Gen. 418 Ruth 418-22 I Ch. 210-14, the
heading, the phrase ' Book of the Generation ' (Piphos
yev&~ews),being taken from Gen. 51. The table con-
tains thrice fourteen names, fourteen from Abraham to
David, fourteen from David to Jechoniah, fourteen from
Jechoniah to Jesus.
T h e reckoning, however, is not quite accurate. For the first
series (vv. 2-6) needs hoth Agraham and David and the third
(ov. 12-16) both Jechoniah and Christ, to make'up the number
fourteen, and yet the second series (vv. 6-11)must count either
David or Jechoniah over again, without which it contains but
thirteen names (see, further, below, a).
(a)The series from Abraham to David (vu. 2-6) is taken from
I Ch. 21-14; only, in addition to the case of Thamar (RV
Tamar) the wife of Judah (v. 3), mention is twice made of the
mother, viz. in the case of Rachab (RV Rahab v. j) the mother,
and of Ruth (v. 5) the wife, of Booz (RV Boaz)-the latter
based on Ruth 413, the former without any support from the
O T and indeed in the face of chronological impossibility.
. Rabbinic scholars also interested themselves in these women.
On Tamar and Ruth compare Weber, Altsynag. TheoZ. 341.
Rahab they transformed into an inn-keeper (Jos. Ant. v. 127)and
trsced to her eightprophets(Lightfoot HOT.Heb. 180. Menschen,
N T u . TaZwz. 40). She was an objkct of interest'also to the
early Christians, as Heh. 1131 and James 225 show; Perhaps
they interpreted 'harlot' allegorically as 'heathen : the fact
that Ruth was a Moahite, and Rahah a heathen, would then
explain the interest of Christians in their mention in the pedigree
of the Messiah.
(6) In the second series (vu. 6-11)the list of kings is
reduced to fourteen.
As compared with I Ch. 3 II Joash (mas), Amaziah (apaucas)
a n d Azariah (a<apa) are omitted hetween Ozias (RV Uzziah,
o<cLas)and Joatham (RV Jotham ~ o a O a [v. , ~ g]), and Jehoiakim
(roamip) hetween Josias (RV Jbsiah ; twuaas) and Jechonias
(RV Jechoniah, q o v i a s [v. 111). Zedekiah (ue8eKLas) may he
represented by brethren'. (&6eX$ads [v. 111) inasmuch as,
according to T Ch. 3 16 2 Ch. 3G IO he is mentioned as hrother-
sole brother it is true-of Jechoniah (L~XOYLUS) (otherwise in
Jer. 371 and 2 K. 2417). Perhaps Jehoiakim (roamip) dropped
out later, so that the second series also originally contained four-
teen names.
(c) For the third series (vv. 12-16) there is no authority in the
O T which mentions ( I Ch. 3 17 Ezra5 3 Neh. 12 I Hag. 1I ) only
Salathiel (RV Shealtiel; rraha6r~h[v. 121) and Zorohahel (RV
Zerubhahel; <opopapeh [v.123]), andwehave nohint of the origin
of the names. For the rest, the names fromnavid to Jechoniah
are to be distributed over a period of about 460 years, those
from Jechoniah to Christ over one of ahout j g o years.
The genealogy given by Lk. (323-38) begins with
1667
GENEALOGIES O F JESUS
Christ and leads upwards, using the simple formula,
3. Lk.,s list. usually employed in the O T in giving
names, of adding the father's name in
the genitive.
The series from David to Adam (7w. 32-38) follows the lists of
I Ch.11-424-27 21-14 and Ruth418-22. However, in the line
From Abraham to Adam (vu. 34-38) the name Cainan (Kawap
BN etc.]) is used a second time (v. 36; cp v.37) between Sala (RV.
Shelah ; uaha [v. 351) and Arphaxad (ap$aga8 [v. 361) ; while
in the line from David to.Ahraham (vu. 32-34) a6perv (E: etc. ;
omitted in EV . Admin in R V w ) and apwi (RV Arni AV has .
'Aram') have'been inserted (v. 33) in place of upap'between
Aminadah (apwa8ap) and Esrom(cuppop). Neither change finds
any support in the OT. Arni (apvei) might indeed he an ancient
variant for Aram (apap). In this case, what we have is the
insertion of new names at some place that seemed suitahle hefdre
and at another after Abraham--additions which, like the
omissions of Mt. may he explained by the love for round
numbers. For thkre arc now (vu. 38-31) from Adam to David
(inclbsive) 35 (i.e., jx 7) names, or (if we look more c1osely)from
Adam to Abraham (vu. 38-34) 3 x 7 and from Isaac to David (vv.
34-31) 2 x 7 (ie., 14 as in Mt.). Between Christ and David (vv.
23-31), however, Lk. gives us a list nowhere to he found in
the OT. Instead of the line of kings he gives us that of
David's son N ATHAN [2] (va6ap: I Ch. 35). I t is all the
more remarkable that the list coincides with that of Mt. in
the names Salathiel (RV Shealtiel; uaha0qh) and Zoro-
babel (RV Zeruhhabel, <opopap.\, v. 27) and in no more. From
Nathan ( v d a p [BN*] v. 31) to Salathiel (v. 27) we have again
3 X 7 names, and so from Zorohabel to Christ (Mt. giving in each
case fourteen or rather from Zorobabel only twelve). T h e
father of Salaihief, howevir is called Jechonias (RV Jechoniah
rqovias [v. 121) in Mt., Nhri (vqpei [u. 271) in.Lk.; while th;
-
(pquu [v. 271) in the latter. The intention, however, is in hoth
cases unmistakably the same, in spite of the divergence of the
genealogies, to find a place in a list for the two famous names.
The agreement on the other hand of Mt. and Lk. in the name
of Joseph's grandfather, Matthan (paOOuv [v. I 51) and Matthat
paOOa0 [?I. 241 respectively, may well he accidental, since the
father and son of the latter bear quite different names in the two
lists.
Lk.'s plan of following, not the royal line, but a
lateral branch of David's house, may have been clue to
*.andtheirvalue.
The two lists the reflection that the Messiah could
not come of the line rejected in
Techoniah (Ter. 2 2 2 8 70 36 7 0 ) . The
conjecture that one of the get;kalogies f&ows'the line of
Mary is excluded by the fact that both end in Joseph,
as well a s by the Hebrew custom of attending only t@
the genus patris. Moreover it is Joseph, not Mary,
that Lk. declares to be of Davidic descent (127 2 4 ) .
The two genealogies are independent attempts to
establish the ancestiy of Jesus as Messiah and thus t o
connect him with the sacred past. The round numbers
figuring in both of them show how little they aimed at
simply reproducing documents. The complete diver-
gence makes it more probable that the pedigree did not
admit of documentary establishment. All that was.
postulated was descent from Zerubbabel, David, and
Abraham. The mode of supplying the intervening links
was a matter of indifference. Proof of the physical
descent of Jesus from David was doubtless not to b e
found. Nor in Jesus' days was there need for such;
for the Messiah was in any case dejzwe David's son-
i e . , heir and legitimate successor ; and if any one ever
had occasion to turn this ideal into a natnral sonship,
this was done by deducing the latter from the former.
If Jesus was the Messiah, he was David's son, and no
documentary proof of the fact was needed. For there
is no trace anywhere of any one's having deduced the
Messiahship of Jesus from his being son of David, or
having sought to oppose the former claim by questioning
the latter. H . v. S.
[One singular error in Lk.'s genealogy may be
indicated here, themore so as Bacon (Hastings, DB 2 14o),
5. Rhesa, etc, following Plnmmer (Comm. on St.Lukei
104),has perhaps notexplaineditaright.
It is the introduction of the name Rhesa (pvua) between
Joanan (so RV ; AV Joanna) and Zorobabel (Lk.327).
The view of these two scholars is that Rhesa is simply t h e
Aram. word N e ' l (Reshs)), 'chief,' which was mistaken (as Dr.
Plummer puts it) by 'some Jewish copyist (1)' for a fresh name
in the genealogy, but which was really a title appended to the
1666
 GENE818
name Zerubbahel. Thus the original order of the names will have
been, Zerubbabel-Resha, Joanan, Juda. The title of Zerubbabel,
however was not, as far as we know, i7Jshd. H e was
‘ govern& of Judah’ ; not merely one of the ‘ heads ’ of the com-
munity, but in supreme authority ; in Hag. 1 I 2 2 the Targ.
renders ngg ‘governor (of)’ by N?!. We must not, of course,
follow Herzfeld (Gesch. A,379 8) in his inferences from the
Breviarium of the pseudb-Philo (on which cp o j . cil. 264f:). If,
then a disarrangement of names is to he supposed, it is better to
idenhfy Rhesa with ASSIR[g.w 1 and to suppose the original
order to have heen this ‘the si; of Joaiian, the son of Zoro-
babel, the son of Salathiel the son of Assir, the son of Neri.’
’Assir his son ’ is a Talmudc reading in I Ch. 3 17 and may have
been that adopted in the genealogy reproduced in our text of
Lk. 323-38. 7 3 might,
~ ~hy accidental transposition of letters,
easily become “0’1 or N;D? ; or, since the error began in a Greek
document, a m p might become p q u a @quia). Note that pehxeb
(Melchi) may be a fragment of pfAx[6I~pap ( I Ch. 318), nwuap
(Cosam)of o w a p o [ 8 ] , and even perhaps +asap of vaBa&as
[~AvaSa@;though see ELMODAM. W. C. Allen ( E x j . T.
11 1 3 5 8 ) has argued that the writer of Mt. compiled the gene-
alogy in chap. 1 with the help of I Ch. 1-3 ; it is clear at any rate
that the second genealogy is partly derived from this source.-
T,K. C.] H.v.s.,$$i-4; T.K.C.,$S.
GENESIS
Name (8 I). J and E in Gen. 12-50 (5 5).
Narrative : Age of J and E (5 6).
Of P (B 2J). J in e n . 1-11(W 7).
Of JE (* ”. Special sources ($ 8).
Bibliography (5 9).
Genesis is to modern apprehension the first book
of a comprehensive Hebrew history from the creation
1. Name and of the world to the destruction of
contents. Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar (Gem-
2 K.) ; more particularly of its former
half, whicc ends with the conquest and settlement of
Canaan (Gem-Josh.). T o the Jews who made the
division, however, Genesis was the first part of a
smaller whole, ending with the death of Moses (Gen.-
Dt. ), which, from its predominating character, they
called the law (Torah), and which they divided into
five books (Pentateuch).‘ The first book, whose open-
ing chapters describe the creation of the world, bears in
the Greek Bible the title r i v e a s K ~ u ~ ~ ocommonly
u , ~
abbreviated I’Cveu~s,~ which is derived from Gen. 2 4
(CBAEL).In Hebrew it is usually cited by its first words
n*vNil (‘ In the beginning’).“
races of men to one another, and the place of the Semites, and
articularly of the Hebrews, among them’ and second The
kistory of the Forefathers of the Israelitisd Peoile, hegihing
with the migration of the Terahites (11 27-32), and ending with
the burial of Jacob at Hebron and the death of Joseph in Egypt
(50). The periods of this history are represented by three
generations: Abraham (12 1-25 18), Isaac (25 19-3G), and Jacob
(37-50). In each of these periods the sou through whom the
line descends becomes the central figure in the story before the
death of his father ; the other branches of the family are briefly
catalogued and dismissed (the sons of Ketimah, 25 1-4; Ishmael
2512-18; Esau, 36: cp also Moah and Ammon, 1930.38; th;
descendants of Nahor, 2220-24). The goal of the history is
kept constantly in view by a series of promises of numerous
posterity and of possession of the land of Canaan, made first to
Abraham and repeated in like terms to Isaac and Jacob.5 A
similar method appears in 1-11 26. Closer examination shows a
somewhat more artificial scheme marked by the recurrence of
the formula, ‘This is the genealogy of N. N.,’ by which the book
appears to be divided into tensections: viz--1.46 51-68 69-929
10 1-11 g 11 10-2611 27-25 11 25 12-18 25 19-35 29 36 1-43 37-50.
It is a fortunate circumstance that the author of the
1 Cp C ANON $5 6, 2 3 f l
2 Title in coh. A.
8 Philo, de Abrahanzo, $ I. See Ryle, Philo and H O ~ 8 For such tkonstruction see Bacon, Genesis, 3 1 5 8 ; Fripp,
Scribtun. x x . f.
4 b TJCL Ori& in Eus. HE 6 2 5 ; Beresith Jer. ProZ. gal.
5 {he,; promises or covenants are found in doth the principal
strata of the narrative : 17 1-8 26 1-4 35 9-12 48 3f: (P); 12 1-3
13 14-1715 5 13-16 18 18 f: ; 22 15-18 26 2.5 24 2727-29 28 13.1 j
40 I O (chiefly J and RIE).
6 The formula catachrestically applied to the creation of
heaven and earth’(cosmogony) has been transposed to the end
of the section ( 2 4 a ) at the begiAning of which it originallystood.
1669
GENESIS
Pentateuch has so faithfully .~ preserved the representation
and even the language of the earlier
2. Sources:
works from which he borrows. This
renders critical analysis possible, and enables us to
recover, at least in part, the older histories from which
our Pentateuch was compi1ed.l These older works are
primarily two, one of which is commonly called, from
its predominating interest in the religious and especially
the sacerdotal institutions of Israel, The Priestly History
and Law-book ( P ) ; the other, from its affinity with the
literature of the flourishing period of prophecy, is
sometimes named The Prophetic History The
former is marked by such peculiarities of matter, style,
and diction that the parts of Genesis which are derived
from P are easily separated from JE ; and consequently
in this part of the analysis there is substantial un-
animity among critics.3 It is not always so easy to
distinguish from P the additions and changes which
were made by the author, or rather compiler, of our
Hexateuch ( R p ) , or by later editors ; since both RP and
the diaskeuasts who followed him belonged to the school
of priestly scribes, and in thought and expression show
close affinity to P. In Genesis, however, the additions
are of small e ~ t e n tand
, ~ the changes only such as the
union of two distinct and not always consentaneous
sources rendered n e c e ~ s a r y . ~For the present purpose,
therefore, the priestly stratum may be treated as a
whole.
To it are assigned :6 Gen. 11-23 4 a 5 1-28 30.32 G y z z 7 6 11
13.16~17a 18-21 ( z z a 236 in part Rp), 24 8 I 2u 36- j 13a 14-19
91-17 28 29 101.7 z o z z f : 31f: 1110-27 31f: 1 2 4 6 5 136 I I b
r z a (14)7 161a 3 1 5 3 17 1929 2116 26-5 23 2 5 7 . 1 1 ~12-17 rgf-
266 28 34f: 27 46 28 1.9 20 24 zS6 29 30 z z a 31 186 33 18a (34 I-3*
4-6 8.10 13* 14* 15-17 20-24 25* 27 zg-late midrashic addition)
35 5 (R,) g - q * 226.29 36 56-840-43 (I-5a9-39 R, in part after
other sources) 37 I za 41 36 46 47 (1 R,) 4G6f: (8-27 R, or later)
47 5b 6 8 7-11 a7a*b 28483-6 (7 RP)491a 286-33a 501zf:
The reconstruction of P discloses no serious gaps ;
and the redactor’s partiality for this source makes it
antecedently probable that he preserved it substantially
intact. It thus appears that P’s Genesis-if we may
use the name thus-was much shorter than the history
of the same period in The groundwork of P is a
series of interconnected genealogies-viz., Adam (5 1-28
3 0 - p ) , Noah (Sqf:), Noah’s sons (101-720 z z f i
3 1 f i ) , Shem ( l l 1 0 - 2 6 ) , Terah ( 1 1 2 7 3 1 f i ) , Ishmael
( 2 5 1 z - 1 7 ) , Isaac (2519f: 266), Esau (36), Jacob (35
226-26 372).’O These are constructed upon a uniform
plan : each bears the title, ‘This is the genealogy of
N. N. ’ ; each begins with a brief recapitulation con-
necting it with the preceding table ; l1 the method is the
same throughout. The genealogies are made the basis
of a systematic chronology ; and short historical
notices are appended to them, as in the case of
c p HISTORICAL LITERATURE 3.
2 This name must not he taken ’to imply that JE was written
by prophets nor that it has in the proper sense a prophetic
character; itill less must ‘prophetic’ be understood to connote
antagonism to the priesthood. ‘Popular History’ would
perhaps be a better designation.
3 See Niild. Unlersuch. 1869, pp. 1-144. For a comparison
of the analyses of different critics ?ee Bacon, Hebraica 4 216-243,
5 7-17 or the tables appended’ io Holzinger’s EinZ. Typo-
graph:cal presentations of the sources will be found in the
works of Kautzsch and Socin, Bacon Fripp, Addis, Ball and
Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, the)titles of which are given
in 5 9. For the history of the analysis see HEXATEUCH, 5 18
4 They are found especially in 14 34 36 4G.
5 On the procedure of R, in Genesis, see Kue. Hex. 5 16,
n. 12 : Co. EinZ.P) 14) 7 5 8
6 The asterisk indicates contamination.
7 See below. 6 8.
1 5 1 8 , or Addis, 2 1 9 3 8
9 By a rough estimate, P in Genesis is about one-third as
ong as J, and three-fifthsas long as E. In Gen. 12-50 P is only
mefifth as long as J, though the latter has been much abridged
.
iv R.-.
,=
10 Here the title only remains in place.
11 Similar recapitulations in the following hooks ; see E XODUS,
1 2, n. 2.
12 See CHRONOLOGY, $ 4 .
1670
 GENESIS
Abraham and Lot ( 1 2 4 6 5 1 3 6 116 I Z U 16 IU 3 15f:
1979); but the only things in the story of the patriarchs
which are related in any detail are the covenant with
Abraham (17 ; cp 359-12 483-6) and the purchase of
the family sepulchre at Hebron (23). With the ex-
ception of these chapters, the patriarchal history in P is
a meagre abstract,l and would hardly be intelligible
except to readers familiar with the fuller narratives. In
the primzeval history the creation and the flood are
narrated at some length ; for all the rest we have only
genealogies and a chronology. The author's predom-
inating interest in the history of religious institutions is
apparent throughout. The sabbath had its beginning
and its perpetual type in the rest of God after the
creation of the world; the prohibition of eating flesh
with the blood in it is the new commandment given to
Noahband his sons (i.e. to all mankind ) after the flood ;
the covenant with Abraham has the seal of circumcision,
practised, in somewhat different form, by Ishmaelites
(and presumably Edomites) as well as Israelites. T h e
contrasted accounts of the marriages of Esau and Jacob
( 2 6 3 4 f : 2 7 4 6 289) reflect the stress which strict Judaism
put upon purity of race-unlike Edom, Israel shunned
intermixture with the peoples of Canaan.
In contrast with the popular character of J E the
treatment of the history in P rnakes the immession of
3. a work of study and reflection. An
with and E. antiquarian interest is often npparent.
The unconscious anachronisms of the
older writers, in whose pictures of the past their own
present is always recognisable, are sedulously avoided ;
in their place we find a calculated archaism. The chief
sources of P in the patriarchal history were obviously
the same older narratives which, united with P, have
been preserved to us-viz., J and E ; nor is it demon-
strable that in these chapters any other sources were
employed.2 In the primaeval history the dependence
of P upon J is evident; but the problem is rendered
difficult by the lack of homogeneity in J itself (see § 7).
T h e marked differences between P and J in the story of
the flood are most naturally explained by the hypothesis
of recurrence to the Babylonian original, perhaps in a
variant form. It has been conjectured, not without
plausibility, that Gen. 1 is based upon a Yahwistic cos-
mogony which it supplanted ; but the relation of this
assumed original to the main stock of J is obscure.
I n any case our J was not P s sole source in Gen. 1-11.3
From its very nature P's compend lacks the living
interest of J E s fuller narrative. From a literary point
of view also there is a vast distance between the free-
dom, ease, and poetic charm of the older writers and
the stiff and constrained style of P, who always seems
to be labonring not to be misunder~tood.~Theologic-
ally, on the other hand, P stands on a higher plane
than his predecessors. The unity of God is assumed
without controversy; God is absolute and supramundane ;
creation is a transcendent act for which a specific term
is necessary ; history is in an eminent sense the work
of God, the execution of a divine plan; revelation is
without sensible mediation-theophanies,angels, dreams
have disappeared ; its successive stages, marked by the
names of God-Elohim, El-Shaddai, YahwB-corre-
.spond to three stages in the history of religion, the
covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Israel.
religious institutions of Israel had their origin at Sinai ;
sacrifices were not offered in the patriarchal age.
Anthropomorphisms are avoided, or reduced to those
harmless figures without which men can hardly speak
of a personal God at a l l ; anthropopathisms are still
more scrupulously shunned. The mythical elements
1 See Wellhausen, Pr0Z.W 331-336=Hist. Isr. 3 2 7 8 ('84).
2 Even for Gen. 23 it is perhaps unnecessary to assume a
snecial source. Gen. 14 was not contained in P ! RCP 8 8.
- 3 On these points see HoGingei,-E%Z.-g 45.- ' - - - " --
4 See H EXATEUCH Ei 19 where these points are more fully
discussed. On the &le & P see Nald. Unfem. 108 19:: Hol-
zinger, E X . 3 4 9 8 ; Dr. Znfrod(6)1 2 9 3
1671
GENESIS
in the primzeval histocy are almost completely eIiminated
or neutralised. The chapters in the lives of the fore-
fathers which gave offence to a more refined morality
are passed over in silence. The colourlessness of P s
narrative is in p a t due to this expurgation. Alike in
the lofty theology, the historical pragmatism, and the
moral depuration, the reflection of a later age is mani-
fest.1
The removal of P leaves a continuous and almost
complete history, extending, like that of P, from the
creation of the world to the death of
*' Sources: JE*Joseph,2 in which we recognise the
second chief source used by the author of ouI- Genesis
(JE). This narrative has a distinctly popular character,
resembling the older parts of the books of Judges and
Samuel. The stories are such as we may suppose to
have been gathered from living tradition, and they are
told with the spirit and freedom of the best folk-tales.
Compared with P, this source as a whole represents a
less advanced stage of religions development. Certain
differences in this respect which may be observed in
particular stories, as well as some diversities of con-
ception and expression, might be attributed to the diverse
origin of the stories or to divergence in oral trzdition.
The numerous and striking doublets in the patriarchal
history, however, and especially the way in which they are
combined, prove that the material of JE was not drawn
immediately from popular tradition, that the author
had before him at least two older written histories of
this period.3 One of these histories (J) from the be-
ginning uses the name Yahwb; the other (E), like P,
throughout Genesis employs only EZ5hfm or hii-EZihhim
-a peculiarity which for a time deceived the critics,
and led them to attribute the elohistic stories of the
patriarchs to P, with which they have otherwise no
affinity.4 In all other respects E is much more nearly
akin to J ; the resemblanbe in matter, form, and spirit
IS indeed so close that, where for any reason the criterion
>f the divine names fails us, it is often impossible to
ietermine with confidence from which of the two sources,
I or E, certain parts of the composite narrative are
lerived. The difficulty of the analysis is enhanced by
.he fact that the author of the older history (RJE)united
lis parallel sources more intimately, and in general
reated his material more freely than did the author of
)nr Genesis (Rp).5 In the analysis of J E there is there-
'ore a wider margin of uncertainty, and much greater
liversity of opinion among critics.
T h e narrative of E begins abruptly in Gen. 20, plunging into
.he midst of the story of Ahraham:a the beginning has not
ieen preserved.7 I n 20-22 E is the principal source (J in 21 ~n
za 66 7-combined with P-33 22 20-24 ; RJe 20 18 21 34 22 146-
r8). I n 24f: the removal of the parts assigned above to P (0 2 )
.eaves the narrative of J unmixed.8 At the beginning of 26
:1-6)RIE has enlarged upon the original text of J which may be
Pcognised in iaa 6 za 3 a 6 (5 Rn); 15 18 are also by R,,;
:he remainder is from J. In 27 1.4; J is the main source : 6;t
:he duplication at more than one oint and certain peculiarities
If expression show that the (closery parallel) narrative of E has
also been laid under contribution ; to the latter we may with
iome probability ascribe the verses which represent Jacob as
ieceiving his father by wearing kid skin on his neck and hands.9
* See We. ProZ.14) chap. 8=Hist. Isv., chap. 8 ['84]' Sta.
?VI 2 1 4 4 8 ; HolziAger, Einl. 3 7 6 3 ; Dr. Introd.(6).1i.8
Z%Exhibitedin Addis, T h e Documents of fhe Hexatezrch, 1
..93).
The 8 This may be most clearlyseen in Gen. 20-22. Cp HIS-
rORICAI. L ITERATURE, (i Zf:
4 See HEXATEUCH 05 2 6 8 12.
6 Those critics whd l<keb i . suppose that E and J separately
Mere united with P b; R are lkd in their analvsis to ascribe to
I a great deal which belongs to RJE,and thus to form an errone-
IUS notion of the character of J.
6 E seems to have been used, however, by R,, in the first
rerses of 15.
7 For a conjecture as to the reason, see Kue. Hex. 8, n. 8.
3n the question whether E originally had a primaeval history
. 2arallel to Gen. 1-11 see below, 0 7.
8 Some transposition has probably taken place in 24-26.
9 An exact analysis is impossible; by more or less proh-
ible conjecture we may assign to E 16 46 11-13 16 186 1921-23
!8a zgaa soap 336 34 39.
1672
 GENESIS
I n 28 10-22,uv. II f: 17 f: 20-22 are from E (13-16R,,). The
greater part of 29f: is from J : but with a considerable, though
not always precisely definable, admixture of E-notice the
interchange of Yahwe and Eliibim the double etdmologies of
the names of several of Jacob's chidren (30 16 and 18, 20, 23 and
24). and the different accounts of Laban's contract with Jacob
(30 25&).' Chap. 31 is chiefly from E (J in I 3 z 5 - q 46 48-so*).
To E belong also 31 55-3:! z [33 1-31 136-21 [146-22] 23 [24] ; the
rest of the chapter is from J (P RJE 9-12 [10-131 32 [331). I n
33 J is still the chief source (E in 56, perhaps 8-IO*186-20). The
groundwork of 34 is J (I-3* 7 II $ 13" 19 25" 26 30 3 ) ;the
second element, ascribed by some critics to Ez, is more probably
of later origin (see above, $2). Chap. 35 1-8 16-20 are chiefly E ;
21 f:* J (the rest of the chapter is from P). Chap. 36 10-39, or
at least 31-39 are ascribed by many to J (or Jz). I n 37 J is
found in z* 3 f: 12-18 (in the main) zoa 21 236 25-27 28* 32 f:
35 ; the remainder is from E. I n the rest of the story of Joseph
the two sonrces are not so closely interwoven; the author's
method was to make large extracts from one or the other intro-
ducing here and there traits taken from the parallel na&ative.
Thus 38 39 are almost wholly from J (traces of E in 3Q 1-7) ; 40-
42 are from E, with spotadic verses or clauses of J (4016 36 56
156 ; 41 4149* ; 42 z a 46-6a 7 27 f:38) : 4 3 3 again are from J
(E only in 41 14 236) : 46-4R 5a are chiefly E (J in 45 ~a z* 46 5*
13f: 28 46ra); 4628-476 4713-26 29-31 is from J ; in 48 E is
found in I 86 9a 106-12r5f: 20-22 : the rest (after P is removed)
is J. Chap. 49 1-27 the so-called Blessing of Jacob was prob-
ably included in J. ' Chap. 50 1-11 14 are chiefly, if hot wholly,
from J : 15-25 from E. For a fuller exhibition of the grounds
and resnlts of the analysis, and discussion of particular points,
see the works whose titles are given in 5 9. '
The history of the patriarchs is related at considerable
-
length in both T and E. The two narratives are in
5. Character of general closely parallel, representing
the sources : slightly different versions of the same
and E in stories. These chapters therefore offer
most favourable opportunity for a
Gen. 12-60.2 the comparison of the two sources. From
a literary point of view J is the better narrator. His
vocabulary is rich and varied : while the intractable
Semitic sentence becomes in his hands wonderfully
flexible and expressive. He tells his story directly,
swiftly, with almost epic breadth, and with just that
degree of circumstance which gives the note of reality.
Nor is he simply content to bring before us with un-
equalled vividness the external action ; he makes us
enter into the inner drama, the feelings, and motives of
the actors.3
The religious element in the stories &constant and
pervasive. The forefathers are favourites of YahwB,
who guides them in all their migrations, and is with
them everywhere to protect and bless them. He appears
to them in person, and holds converse with them as a
man with his friends; they answer him with pious
reverence, but with the freedom of intimacy.' YahwA
is the living God of simple faith and childlike imagina-
tion ; reflection has not yet begun to find his immediate
intervention in the ordinary affairs of men inconsistent
with his exalted Godhead. The morality of the patri-
archs naturally reflects in the main the moral standards
of the author's age ; in this, as in religion, the forefathers
are idealised by popular legend, and are not consciously
created ideal figures. A didactic aim, a disposition to
underscore the lesson of the story, nowhere appears.
The ' fine vein of ethical and religious reflection ' which
has sometimes been attributed to J is the result in part
of an erroneous analysis : in part it comes of ascribing
to the author the very modern reflections of his inter-
preters. Of the influence of the prophetic movement
of the eighth century there is no trace in those parts
of J which on other grounds we have reason to regard as
original ; the work represents the soil in which the new
prophecyhad its roots, not the first fruits of that prophecy.
E is not quite the equal of J in the art of narrative or
in mastery of the language : though the distance between
them is not very great. The treatment is on the whole
1 In 29 E is generally recognised in I 15-18 ; others include
15-23, or even 15-30 (except 26, and the verses given to P). In
30 the parts ascribed to E are I -3a 6 8 17-2oa zzaj3 236 26 28 :
in 30 3 1 3 RJBhas made many additions or changes.
2 See especially Holzinger, EinZ., $8 13-17, 24.26; Kittel,
Nisi. 1 A 8.
3 Sei, e.g., Gen. 43f. 4 See, e.g., Gen. 18.
1673
GENESIS
less poetical, the impression which his story makes less
vivid. Compared with the parallels in J, the patriarchal
legends in E show the beginnings of theological reflec-
tion. The consistent avoidance of the name YahwA
down to the moment of its revelation to Moses (Ex. 3 14)
is evidence of this. The story of the offering of Isaac,
teaching that God refuses human sacrifice, and accepts
a ram instead of the firstborn, is also from E.' True
theophanies, such as J describes, do not occur in E ; if
God appears to men, it is not in bodily reality, but in
dreams ; when he speaks to them, it is by a voice from
heaven. The idealising of the patriarchs goes a step
farther : Abraham, for example, is a prophet, whose
intercession is effectual with G o d ; a disposition to
remove or mitigate offensive traits of the tradition is
hardly to be ignored. There is also a touch of learning
in E ; he notes that the Syrian Laban spoke Aramaic
(Jegar-sahadutha; but see G ALEED , I), and that the
ancestors of Israel in their old home beyond the
Euphrates were heathen ; especially in things
Egyptian - topography, customs, nanies, etc., he
brings out a good deal of knowledge. In this also E
appears to be younger than J.
The great mass of material common to J and E , and.
the close resemblance, even in details, between the two
versions of the patriarchal story, prove that they must
have had a proximate common source, in which the
traditions of the forefathers had been united, and to a
certain degree fixed.
I n this common stock, from which both J and E are drawn, a
fusion of the traditions of Israel and Judah had already been
effected ; traditions of the central sanctuaries-Bethel, Shechem
Gilgal-stand side by side with those of Hebron and the remote;
south-Beersheba and Beer-lahai-roi-and of Mahanaim and
Penuel E. of the Jordan.8 There can he no doubt that this
fusion took d a c e in Israel. rather than in Tudah :4 observe that
-in J as we'll as in E-Richel is the beloved of facoh Leah the
unloved wife who was foisted on him by deceit. tdat Joseph
and Benjamin are his favourite sons ; and that Jos)epb is the one
character who is throughout above reproach, The variations
which J and E present in the reproduction of this common tra-
dition are in part attributable to the individuality of the authors
in part as has been already intimated, to a somewhat differen;
religio;s point of view; in part, however, they reflect the
particular interests of Israel and Judah. When we find, for
example, in the story of Joseph and his brethren that in E
Reuben is the good brother who tries to save Joseph'from them
and is afterwards their leader and spokesman, as it was hi:
birthright to be, whilst in J this d e is played by Judah, we can
hardly fail to recognise in the latter a Judean recension of a
story which in its origin was certainly Ephraimite.
, ~ E was written
Critics are agreed, without d i ~ s e n tthat
in the northern kingdom. In regard to J there is not
the- same unanimity, some scholars
6. Age of
attributing it also to an Ephraimite
and E author,' whilst the maioritv believe it to
_I n
Or JWE'- be of Tudaean origin. .Thk reasons for
the former opinion, however, prove no more than that
the common stock of Israelite tradition from which both
J and E are drawn was collected and systematised
at the Ephraimite sanctuaries (5 5 , end). On the
other hand, we have already noted in the story of Joseph
(5 5 , end) one decisive indication that J gives us :L
Judzan version of the history. This is confirmed by
other evidence. The legends of Abraham and especially
of Isaac-the heroes of the southern saga-are given
much more fully in J than in E ; and, what is more
significant, the original locality of the story is preserved,
whilst in E Abraham is removed from Hebron to Beer-
jheba, a sanctuary much frequented by pilgrims from
the northern kingdom. In other points also the greater
interest of J in the situation in the south of Palestine is
1 Not, however, from the oldest stratum.
2 These passages, like 22, are believed by some critics to be
,econdary (Ez).
3 The brother pairs, Isaac /and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau,
6eerhaps belonged originally to the southern and the northern
radition respectively. The real relation of Jacob to Israel is
lot clear. see JACOB 4 6.
4 We. > m l . ( 4 ) 323 Holz. EhL 161.
5 [See, however Wi. GI, ii.1 6 See Holz. EinL 08 20, 28, 61.
7 Schr., Reuss in a modified form also Kue.
1674
 GENESIS
manifest ; note the genealogies of (Joktan) Keturah,
Ishmael, Esau (all J ; see G ENEALOGIES i., fj 4) ; the
large space given to the relations of Jacob and Esau ;
local Judzan clan-legends such as Gen. 3 8 ; Kenite
traditions in the primzval history, etc. (see C AIN ).
There is no evidence of literary dependence on either
side ; what J and E have in common is drawn from the
common stock of tradition. A comparison of the two
such as we have made in fj 5 , especially in their religious
standpoint, shows that J is the more primitive ; E gives
signs of more advanced historical and theological reflec-
tion. Since we have no reason to think that the
development of the southern kingdom was much behind
that of Israel, we may safely infer that J is the older of
the two sources.1 Both were written at a time when
the national spirit was unbroken, and when the ancient
holy places which are the scenes of so much of the
patriarchal history were in all their glory. Nor did the
authors who tell with so much interest of the founding
of the cultus at these sanctuaries dream that the worship
which was offered to YahwA there in their own day was
not acceptable to him. They wrote, therefore, before
the fall of the northern kingdom (734, 721 B . c . ) ; and
since even E is untouched by the teaching or the spirit
of Hosea,2 we must take our lower limit at least a
generation earlier, say about 750 B.C.
The rare historical allusions in Genesis do not enable us t o
determine the date of the two sources more exactly. Gen. 9 2 j
presupposes the complete subjection of the Canaanites, the work
of David and Solomon ; 27 29 u) refers to the conquest of Edom
by David, and 40 to the re-establishment of its independence
under Joram (died 842 B.C. ; 2 K. 8 2 0 3 ) * 31 44 3 (J and E)
derives its significance from the conflicts bltween Israel and the
Aramaeans of Damascus over the frontier in Gilead in the second
half of the ninth century. The Egyptian names in the story of
JoFeph (E. 7Ez) in the judgment of competent Egyptologists
point to thd iimes of the twenty-sixth dynasty (7th cent. B.c.).
T o this century Gen. 22 also probably brings us.
The allusions in the prophets of the eighth century,
especially in Amos and Hosea, to the patriarchal stories
are not of such a nature as to make it certain whether
they are derived from J or E, or from some other source.
On the w:iole. so far as the evidence in Genesis goes,
we should be inclined to assign to E a date near the
middle of the eighth century, while J may be put a half-
century or more earlier.
Additions have been made to both J and E by later hands.
Thus, Gen. 1 2 10.20, though exhibiting affinity to J, is manifestly
a younger variant of the story 266.11 ( ) and is violently
intruded in its present connection. A n u m k of other passages
are regarded by most critics as secondary accretions to the
original narrative of J ; 3 it is in some cases difficult to say
whether they should be ascribed to RJEor to previous editors of
J. (On the strata of J in the primaeval history see 5 7 below.)
T h e secondary elements in E are in Genesis of lbss importance;
one strand of 34 is by some thought to have this origin.&
In uniting J and E, RIE plainly desired to make the
history as complete as possible, and took pains to omit
no significant detail which he found in either narrative.5
H e adapted his method to the nature of the sources and
their mutual relations ; sometimes transcribing almost
unchanged long passages from one or the other, some-
times so closely interweaving them as to baffle our
analysis. In general he appears to reproduce the text
of his authors faithfully, though not altogether so
mechanically as Rp. His own additions are for the
most part designed either to connect and harmonise the
extracts from the sources or to emphasise the religious
motives of the history. The language of these additions
resembles that of J rather than of E ; but in both thought
and style there is a marked approximation to the
1 This is of course not inconsistent with the fact that in many
cases E has preserved a more primitive form of the tradition.
2 Later additions to E (Ez), which in Genesis are not
many, are here disrecarded.
8 (:en. 13
GENESIS
3euteronomic school. There is no doubt that the
iuthor was a Judzean, and that his history was composed
n the seventh century. In Genesis there is nothing to
ndicate whether he wrote before or after the reforms of
.he year 621. Nor are there in this book more than
iporadic traces of a Deuteronomistic redaction.
We have seen that E first appears in the story of
4braham (Gen.20-22 ; perhaps in 151-j) ; if this source
,. in the also included a history of the beginnings
Primseval of mankind, no part of it has been
History, reserved.^ In the primaeval history
Gen. l-ll.l the subtraction of P leaves a narrative
which has the general characteristics of J.
lloser examination shows, however, that this narrative
s not consistent throughout. It was long ago observed
that by the side of the Yahwistic version of the deluge-
myth there are passages which know nothing of the
qeat flood, and by all their implications exclude such a
Zatastrophe. This is conspicuously the case with the
iccount of the origin of civilisation among the posterity
3f Cain (417-24); further, in 920-27111-9 (see C AINITES ,
z ; D ELUGE , 8 14). Nor, if we remove the story of
the flood and what else is obviously connected with it,
does the remainder appear to be homogeneous ; chap.
41-16,for example, is in striking conflict with 417-22 (see
C A I N ). The conviction has thus forced itself upon
xitics that J in Gen. 1-11 is not a unit; and much
labour and ingenuity have been expended in efforts to
solve the difficult problems which the chapters p r e ~ e n t . ~
The simplest hypothesis is that the original primaeval history
of J, which embraced 2 46-34 I za 166-24 6 1-49 20-27111-5, was
;u plemented by another writer who introduced the Babylonian
deyuge-myth ; a Sethite genealogy (now supplanted by Ps) of
which only 4 25f: 5 zg remain (see SETHITES) ; and an ethno-
graphical table in the form of a genealogy of which parts are
preserved in chap. 10 : chap. 4 za* 3 - r 6 a though also secondary,
IS of different ori& and was probabl; inserted by an earlier
hand.4 A metgodical and acute attempt to explain the
phenomena by the hypothesis of composition has been made by
Budde,5 who supposes that two distinct, though not independ-
ent, Yahwistic versions of the primaeval history were combined
by, a third hand. The older of these (I,),the ancient Hebrew
primseval history, comprised substantially the same parts of
Gen. 1-11 that are ascribed by Kuenen to the original text of
J. A. later writer (J?) enlarged this to a primaeval history of
mankind by taking up the Babylonian mythical cycle trans-
formed in the spirit of a lofty monotheism. This writer incor-
porated in his work as much of J as he was able to adapt to his
other material and to his religious standpoint ; producing thus,
not a n enlarged edition of J1 hut a counterpart designed to
supersede it. A subsequent editor (J3) united J1 and J2,
harmonising them as well as he was able. It was in this com-
posite form that the Yahwistic narrative in Gen. 1-11 lay before
the author of the Hexateuch (Rp) and was by him combined
with the primreval history of P.6
Two chapters in Genesis have been thought to be
derived from special sources. (a)Gen. 14 narrates the
8. Special campaign of Chedorlaomer, king of Elam,
and his allies or vassals in Palestine,
sources ; Abraham's pursuit of them, deliverance of
Gen'14-49' Lot, recovery of the spoil of Sodom, and
meeting with Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of
EL'eIy6n.
Opinions differ widely about the historical value of this
chapter, some critics regarding it as a factitious legend, without
any discoverable basis of fact, whilst others take it for a substan-
tially trustworthy record of that remote age. This much
controverted question is discussed in the article CHEDORLAOMER ;
here we must confine ourselves to the literary problem. It is
now generally recognised that in its present form the story
cannot be derived from any one of the chief sources of the
1 For the literature see 5 9.
2 Among the Greeks Zoilus wrote a history from the theogony
to the death of Philip (his own time), while Ephorus began his
history with the migration of the Heracleidre.
3 For a synopsis of various theories see Holzinger, Einl.
$ '9.
4 Thus Kue. Hex. 5 13, n. 26 ; similarly We. CH(3)7-14.
6 Li'rgesch. 4 5 j 3
6 Budde endearours to define minutely the work of these
successive redactors and to restore the primitive text of J1.
For a synopsis of his argument and results, see Holzinger. I n
accordance with his theoryofthe relation of thesources, Dillmann
ascribes the flood stratum in Gen 1-11to J ; the passages which
conflict with this part of the narrative were found by J in one of
his sources (presumably E) and recast by him.
1676
 GENESIS
Pentateuch. Dillmann and Kittel (cp Ewald) endeavour to
show that the late author (R or RP) found the substance of the
story in E, which in turn drew the facts from an older special
source, presumably a Canaanite account of the Elamite invasion.1
The point of view and interest of the story are, however, dis-
tinctlv Israelite throushout : there is no trace of a different
repregentation ; the supposed foreign original can hardly have
furnished more than the mere setting-Dillmann himself admits
that it may only have narrated the successful participation of
the Hebrews in the war against the Eastern Kings-and for this
it is unnecessary to assume a special source. Nor is the
hypothesis that E furnished the basis of the present text much
better supported.
The impression which the contents and style of the
chapter make as a whole is of affinity with P and the
midrashic elements in Chronicles rather than with the
older Israelite historians.
(4) Gen. 49 ~ 2 is7 a ~poem, in which the dying
patriarch Jacob delineates the character and forecasts
the future of his twelve sons. Praises for some and
prophecies of power and prosperity are mingled with
severe censure of others and unfavourable predictions,
so that Testament of Jacob would be a more suitable
name for the poem than B l e ~ s i n g . ~The predictions
reflect historical events long subsequent to the supposed
time of their utterance-the settlement of the tribes in
Palestine, the decadence of Reuben, the breaking up of
Simeon and Levi, the rise of Judah to preeminence.
Nothing in the poem points to a date earlier than the
establishment of the Davidic kingdom.
The blessing of Joseph is thought by many critics to contain
allusions to the northern kingdom (266), and t o the Syrian wars
of the ninth century (233) to which a reference is also found in
rg(Gad);4 the interpretalion of these verses is, however, con-
troverted. Reminiscences of the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5) are
unmistakable in 13f. on the other hand the blessing of Moses
(Dt. 33) is plainly de’pkndent upon Gen. 49.5
Some scholars question whether the historical back-
ground is the same throughout ; the chapter seems to
them rather a collection of sayings of diverse-origin and
age, from the period of the Judges to that of the Syrian
wars, to which only a unity of redaction belongs6
The poem as a whole makes, however, the impression
of a work of one conception, though it is not free from
glosses and perhaps longer interpolations.‘
The pre-eminence given to Judah leaves no doubt
that the author was of that tribe ; the historical allusions
which can be most certainly traced (in 4 to Gen. 3522 in
5-7 to Gen. 34) are to the Judaean Tradition (J). It is,
therefore, generally, and with all probability, inferred
that tlfe Testament of Tacob was incorporated in 1.
See CHEDoRLAoMER and related articles.
2 See Diestel Der Segen Jaco6s, ’53 : J. P. N. Land, DPs-
pufatio de carAine Jacobi, ’58 : C. Kohler, Der Segen lac06,
~ Midyasclt ‘67‘ Doorninck, De
writ B e r k i s i c l t t i ~ u ndes
Zegen van /ah06 83. C. J. Ball ’PSB’A17 164-191 (‘95)’
Zimmern Der Jikohsskgen und der Tierkreis ’ Z A 7 1 6 1 d
‘
(‘92); Cdeyne, The Blessings on Asher Naphtal!, and Joseph,’
PSBA, June ’99. Older literature in D>.Gen.M 456.
3 I n this respect it differs from the Blessing of Moses, Dt. 33.
4 We.. Kue., St.
6
6
See DEUTERONOMV
Renan Land Kue$en.
8 25f:
7 Verse i o is p h c u l a r l y suspected : and a6bmay he. Fripp
(ZA TlV 11 2 6 2 8 [‘91])regards 246-26 as a later addition.
1677
GENNESAR
criticism; The Hexateuclt, edited by J. E. Carpenter and G.
Harford-Battersby, 1900. The most exhaustive recent discussion
of the analysis of Genesis is that carried o n in Nebraica by
Professor W. R. Harper (5 18-73 243-291 G 1-48) and Professor
W. H. Green (8. 5 137-1896 log-138 161-zr1 7 1-38) ; see also
W. H. Green, The Unity ofGenesix, ’95. G. F. M.
GENNZUS (r€NN&lOy [VI), 2 Macc. 122 RV, AV
GENNEUS
(4.u.).
GENNESAR ( [ ~ b8Swp T O G ] y e v v ~ u a p[A], I Macc.
1167) and Gennesaret ( y e v v ~ u a p e but
~ ; D, It. (Vg.),
Pesh., Syr. Cur. and Lewis, y e v u ~ u a p )a, name of the
Sea of Galilee, derived from a district, also called Gen-
nesaret, on the W. side of the sea;towards its N. end :
Mt. 1434 and Mk. 653, ‘they came to the land, unto
Gennesaret’ (Qsl T+V y+jv elr y. [WH]); Lk. 51, ‘he
was standing by the lake of Gennesaret’ ( r a p 8 T+V
Xlyvl)v 7 . ) . The best form is Gennesar, the ~ D * U
( ~ D W A )of the Talmud and the Targums, the yev~uuap
of Josephus (7. M p v ~or 4 ~ W U T U U ~ ~ T L S Talmud
).
and Targums identify Gennesaret with the Chinnereth
of the OT-;.e., the name belongs primarily to a city
supposed by the Jews to have lain on the W. shore of
the Sea of Galilee.
Thus, ‘ Chinnereth,’ said R. Johanan (Mer. 6a), ‘is Gen-
nesarat. Why? Because its fruits are as sweet as the artichoke
Q“$).’ According to R. Berachya, however (Bey. Fa& g8),
Gennesar was so called because it had princely gardens ( 7 2
D’!$).1 Though Dillmann accepts the old Jewish identification,
it is difficult to see the critical grounds for this. The very old
name Chinnereth cannot be corrupted 2 from the recent name
Gennesar nor can Gennesar have arisen out of Chinnereth.
It is proiable however that Chinnereth was on the Sea of
Galilee, and dot imposs:ble that Chorazin is a popular distor-
tion of the old name Chinnereth (transposition of letters, and
e for U). Chinnereth (misvocalized?) may be connected with
Ass. KarEnm, (I) ‘ vine,’ (2) ‘wine’;3 Gennesar is most probably
from 13, ‘garden’ or ‘plantation,’ and 101 ‘Galilee’4 (or a
district of Galilee), a collateral form of which name (7x3 or r,i?tj)
is implied in the use of NazorEan (va<opaiac) for Galilean in
Mt. 223, and in the phrase the [Nekarite Bethlehem,’ (& n q
n9y4[11) in contradistinction to ‘Bethlehem of Judah * (see
N AZARETH, and cp JOSEPH iii., SJ).
The classical passage on the Zand of Gennesaret is
Jos. BJiii. 10 8.5 The length of the district is estimated
at 30 stadia, its breadth at 20. ‘ I t is marvellous in
beauty. The hardy walnut-tree grows there, but none
the less the palm, which flourishes in hot climes, and
close to it fig and olive trees. An ambition of nature,
one might call it. Of the most princely fruits-grapes
and figs-it gives an unbroken supply for ten months
together, as well as other kinds. In addition to this
excellent temperature, it is watered by a most fertilizing
spring called ~ a ~ a p u a o u(Capernaum).’
p The Talmud
is equally enthusiastic (see Neub. GLogy. 45).
It is no doubt the plain of el-GhuwEr (the little Gh6r),
which stretches, ‘ i n the form of an irregular paral-
lelogram, verging almost to a crescent,‘6from the cliffs
at ‘Ain et-Tin (‘fountain of the fig tree’) to the hill
behind Mejdel, on the S., a space measuring 3 m.
by 14 m. It is shut in by rugged hills, except on the
N. and NW., where there is a steep descent from the
hill-country of Naphtali, and from the plains of Lower
Galilee, respectively. Its soil is a rich, basaltic loam,
but cultivated only in patches. The rest is covered
with thickets of neb15 trees, oleanders, dwarf palm< and
gigantic thistles and brambles. The melons and cu-
cumbers grown on the plain are the best and earliest
in Palestine. This is of course due to the great depres-
sion of the plain.
The principal spring is the ‘Ain el-Mudauwera (‘round
1 Similarly M. Schultze (Gramnz. der arum. Mutterspr.
/ e m , 45, ‘gardens of a princess ’).
2 Cp Keim, 3esus of Nazara, ET, 2 363 ; Porter in Kitto’s
Cyclojea‘ia.
,-
3 Cp Jos. Bliii. 108, quoted in next paragraph.
4 Buhl (Geow. ”,, after We. IIGI1).
112). _ , 220.
, n.- 7 (who.
~ how-
ever, following Jerome, makes N;! ‘valley’ the first part of the
,
name).
6 Cp GASm. HG 446. 6 Rob. B X 3 277.
1678
 GENNEUS
fountain ’), which is 25 minutes NW. of el-Mejdel. T h e
basin, enclosed by a round wall, and alive with small
fish, is concealed by thickets ; but the water wells out in
a full stream. The spring which excites the enthusiasm
of Josephus is no doubt the ‘Ain eL-Tiibiga.
The Greek name mentioned in the texts of the Pilgrims was
HeptapEgon ; there are in fact seven springs, mostly hot, which
to-day supply motive power to a mill. An aqueduct hewn in
the rock brought the water southward to the plain. This is
one reason why Tell H a m can hardly be the ancient Capernaum.
Josephus (see above) is positive as to the name, and there was
certainly no provision for guiding the water towards Tell Htim.1
‘Ain et-Tin, near which is Khan Minyeh (the most probable site
for C APERNAUM), is distinguished for the sweetness of Its water,
which bursts forth impetuously and hurries to the lake. Close
at hand are other springs; hence, in Burckhardt’s time, the
pastures of Minyeh were proverbial for their richness. The
largest volume of water, however is that supplied by the WLdy
er-Rabadiyeh, which is scattered ‘over the plain in all direc-
tions by small canals and watercourses (Rob. BR 3 285). On
the sites of biblical localities, and on the gospel references, see
GALILEE, S EA OF. T. K. C.
GENNEUS RV Gennzeus( r e N N& Ioy [VI - Neoy [A] ;
in Syr. *jj73), apparently the father of APOLLONIUS,5 (2 Macc.
12z), who is thus distinguished from the other two men of that
name mentioned in z Macc. 3 5 421.
GENTILES. The Hebrew term GQim (i?k!)-i. e . ,
‘ nations ’-is specially used for the aggregate of non-
Israelite nations (Neh. 58), as opposed to and con-
trasted with Israel, socially, racially, politically (Ps. 21),
and religiously (Ps. 135 15). As connoting this contrast,
1. Terms. gu’yim is translated in AV often, and in R V
less frequently (see Preface), ‘ Gentiles ’ or
‘heathen ’ (in d commonly bOvy, in Vg. gentes), w4iilst
py, ‘am (used of Israel-e.g., Ex. 1513 Is. 426 Di.), is
rendered ‘people’ A d s , $puZus. In Rom. 2 9 J , AV
inconsistently renders PXXyv ‘ Gentile,’ thus effacing the
later antithesis between Jew and Greek (see H ELLENISM,
§ 2).
In the Apocrypha and N T the same distinction is preserved
side by side with the new one just referred to. In Lk. 2 32 t B q
and ha& uou m p q h are contrasted.
From another point of view the contrast between Israelites
and non-Israelites is expressed by the term pyd7, &Zi7il,
‘wicked’ = 093, gi?yim ‘nations’ @.E., Ps. 0 5 [GI). Other
general terms used synonymously with gtyirn are : 1]3~y Elijah it shows little trace of any religious particularism. I t is
‘ainmiiit, Lev. 20 24 26 Ps. 33 IO, and often ; n?BN ’umntint,
Ps. 117 I ; p 5 , Ze’ummzm, Ps. 2 I. All these terms=jeoj&s,
Also O ~ K n r‘hdnz, ‘man,’ Jer. 3220 zech. 9 I and ~ 7 ~ - 9 1 2 have risen to theconsciousness that Yahwb wasabsolutelyunique
b’ne ’ddhdin, ‘ sons of men,’ Ps. 53 z 131 (Smend, T ReL-gesch:
380); fill!, ’tu:!, ‘man,’ Ps.56 I [ z ] (We., in Smend, 380).
Similarly, in NT,xdufios is used of the world, excluding and
opposed to the Church.
The individual foreigner is q23, nokke, E V ‘stranger,’
‘breigner’; -m-q~, 6’ne nzhhcir, RV ‘strangers’; 71, e&?, EV
‘stranger’; or, if he becomes a resident alien, 73, ~ Z Y ,E V
‘stranger,“sojourner’; ldin, ta&iZA, E V ‘stranger “sojourner.’
I n the later books of O T (z Ch. 30 zj ; Bertholet, SdZZungd. ISY. conditioned by the chronic hostility common to half-
178) and in later Heh., 72, gzr, ‘Proselyte.’ Cp STRANGER,
PROSELYTE.
During its nomad life, Israel was scarcely a well-
defined whole, clearly marked off from all non-Israelite
peoples; its constituent elements were
2. Israel before
the Conquest still somewhat variable. Some of the
tribes or clans which afterwards con-
of Canaan. stituted Israel may have been, at times,
connected with non-Israelites as closely as with Israel, if
not moreclosely. Israel, at this stage, figures as aloosely
connected group of tribes or clans, similar in character
to the other groups which made up the wandering
population of the Arabian and Syrian deserts. Genesis
(J, fdlowed later by P) suggests that the first stage of
the religious differentiation of Israel is the consciousness
on the part of these Arab and Syrian nomads of a
religious and ethical status distinct from that of the
more civilised Chaldaeans. In response to a divine call
Abraham and Lot migrate westward.
In our present text o z y P narrates the migration of Terah
and therefore of Nahor the ancestor of Laban hut that of Nahor
seems implied in J, Gen. 24 : cp E, 31 53 ‘th; God of Abraham
and the God of -Nahor.’ T h k group,-Abraham, Lot, Nahor,
1 C p H. von Soden, Reisebyieje, 5 160(‘98).
1679
GENTILES
stands for Israel the Ishmaelite Keturaite and other Arabs
(Gen. 2220-24), Akmon, Moab aAd Edom, dnd Arani. So in
Gen. 9 26 Yahwb is the God of Shem. Also Lot-&?., Moab Hnd
Ammon-is the subject of Yahwb‘s special care ; Ishmael and
Edom are blessed of Yahwi:, and Laban speaks of Jacob as
‘Blessed of Yahwi:,’ Gen. 2431.
As these ideas of tribal kinship are not likely to have
arisen after the settlement in Palestine, we may prob-
ably regard them as handed down by tradition from
the nomad period. Thus apparently the Israelite
tribes in their nomad state regarded themselves as part
of a complex of tribes of a similar religious status, in a
measure superior to or, at any rate, distinct from that
of other peoples. At the same time each tribe and
group of tribes would have its own sacra, whose
sanctity, however, could not differ in kind from those of
other tribes. Thus, on the one hand, the idea of the
@yim or non-Israelite peoples as contrasted in religious
status with Israel was for the present impossible-(a)
because Israel was not yet a nation clearly marked off‘
from kindred clans, ( b ) because Israel was unconscious
of any difference in kind between its own and other
religions. On the other hand, the elements of the dis-
tinction between Israel and the gciyim were present-
(a) in the special relation of Israel and its kindred
tribes to YahwB, and ( b ) in the possession by each tribe
or group of tribes of its own special sacra.
T h e settlement in Canaan and the stirring incidents
that Dreceded it, united Israel by a common history, cut
3.israel in off the nation iron, the nomad <ribes,
Canaaninthe and fixed and defined not only its
pre-prophetic national scope, constitution, and life,
.. but also its suecial relation to YahwB.
The necessar; wars of the earlv ueriod.,
, I
and especially the strong united monarchy of Saul,
David, and Solomon contributed to strengthen the new-
born self-consciousness of Israel. The settlement in
Canaan, however, as has been shown elsewhere, also
brought into play an exactly opposite tendency (see
ISRAEL, $ 8 J S GOVERNMENT, IIJT).
I n the early periods of the settlement in Canaan, Israel had
no sense of any marked contrast, religious or otherwise, between
itself and the Canaanites, so that down to the appearance of
true, it made special claims for its national God, but only in the
same sense as the nejghbouring peoples. It does not seem to
and had universal and exclusive claims to obedience. Othe;
gods also are thought of as real, with .legitimate claims over
their own peoples. An exile from the land of Yahwi: must serve
other gods (. S. 2619). Probably Am. 7 17 Hos. 9 3 8 represent
traditional ideas in speaking of foreign lands as unclean-i.e.,
not admitting of the worship of Yahwb. Chemosh is able to
bestow an inheritance on the Ammonites (Judg. 1124 ; Smend,
IXIJ).
The attitude of Israel towards foreigners is largely
civilised nations in primitive times. War is sacred,
and YahwB the national champion ; hence the enemies
of Israel are also the enemies of YahwB, and their de-
struction (see B A N , § z J )is a religious act well-pleasing
to him. On the other hand, hospitality to strangers
is a sacred duty, and the resident alien (73,) is carefully
protected and provided for. Moreover, Israel had
friends and allies as well as enemies. The patriarchal
narratives of J E were doubtless current during this
period. The close kinship claimed with Moab, Edom,
Ammon, Aram, and the Arabs suggests friendship and
even a certain community of religious feeling between
Israel and many of its neighbours (see above) ; compare
the alliances with Tyre and Hamath. Moreover, accord-
ing to J, the human race is of one divinely-created stock
descended through Noah from Adam. Neither the
character of Israel itself nor its relations to its neigh-.
bours suggest that the term foreigner connoted any
religious ideas peculiar to Israel. On the other hand,
the population of the Hebrew state was very hetero-
geneous. In addition to the surviving Canaanites, ac-
cording to Ex. 1238 Nu. 114 (JE), Israel included foreign
elements before the settlement ; and the many refer-
1680
 GENTILES
ences to resident aliens ( o w ) suggest that there were
in Israel considerable numbers of other foreigners.1
As has been well pointed out, the religious status
of foreigners in Israel did not differ essentially from
their status elsewhere. The relations of Israel to resi-
dent aliens are political and social rather than spirituaLa
This does not of course apply to the permanent non-
Israelite population, Canaanites, etc. As we have seen,
the interaction of religious influences between the latter
and Israel is a most important feature in the develop-
nient of the Hebrew attitude towards non-Israelites and
their religion. During this period the tendency \\.as
towards assimilation and syncretism.
In tracing the development of the doctrine of the
g@im, it is convenient to treat the prophets and Judaism
The Prophets. as two consecutive stages ; but no
hard and fast chronological line can
be drawn between them : they overlap for a considerable
period. It is not merely that there were germs of
Judaism in the prophets, and that the writings, and,
in some measure, the ideas and spirit of the prophets
survived even to the Christian e r a ; the great move-
ment which began with Amos and Hosea continued at
least till 2 Isaiah ; whilst Judaism begins formally in
Deuteronomy, and Ezekiel belongs far more to the
Judaistic than to the prophetic stage of,’Jewish theology.
i. PurticziZua,-ism.-Jewish particularism had its root
in the reaction against the syncretistic terfdencies of the
previous period. Elijah, Elisha. and their successors
felt that Baal-worship, or any confusion of Yahwi: with
Baal or Moloch, or any assimilation of his worship to
theirs, corrupted the national life and dissolved that
close union of Yahwb with Israel which was essential
to the very existcnce of the nation. The struggle was
continued, in varying forms, till the fall of Jerusalem
in 70 A.D. In a measure the prophets started from
the conception of national gods to whom the nation
should be loyal (Jer. 2 n - e . 8 , Israel to Yahwb ; but
their application of ,the principle was novel. National
gods expected a profusion of sacrifices from their
peoples ; but if they were duly honoured they did not
grudge any tribute offered by their worshippers to other
gods. The prophets and JE, however, claimed for
Yahwb Israel’s exclusive homage (Ex. 203).
This protest againstyahwe heingconfounded or associated with
‘other gods’ involved an assertion of his unique character and
authority. When the prophetic revelation declared the absolute
morality of Yahwk it implied alike his uniqueness (Kayser-
Marti OT Theol. T)42) and his supremacy. ‘ Other gods ’ who
neithir professed morality themselves nor exacted it fro; their
worshippers, were obviously inferior and abominable (ni>pb ;
Dt. 7 25f: 27 15 Is. 44 19). Yahwe‘s supremacy over the nations
is implied in the prophetic oracles concerning foreign nations,
in his use of Assyria and Chaldaea as instruments to chastise
Israel and this uniqueness and supremacy are most fully stated
in 2 &ah ; cp also the use of the general term Elahim’for the
God of Israel in E. While stress is chiefly laid on the incom-
parable superiority of Yahwe the necessary deductions as to
‘other gods ’ are drawn with ’increasing clearness. A certain
reality is still ascribed to them, and their worship by other nations
seems regarded as legitimate : Dt. 4 19 has been interpreted to
mean that Yahwkassigned the host of heaven asobjectsofworship
toall thenationsunder thewhole heaven(cp Jer. 2ri),and,accord-
ing to Smend (182, zo6), Jer. 2 8 23 13 Is. 3022 31 7 recognise
a certain reality in heathen gods. Still, they are D’)’>c, ‘no.
gods’ (Is. 2 8 etc. Hab. 218 Ezek. 3013)~ D$?h$ 25, ‘not gods ’
Uer. 2 11) ; in Dt. 7 26 their images are banned (OlV.) ; so in I K.
18 Yahwk is shown to he ‘the God’(O’?h? by the discomfiture
of Baal (cp 2 K. 5 15 19 15-18 Is. 41 2 3 x ) . I n Is. 44 9-20 and
the dependent passage, Jer. 10 1-9 (post-exilic addition), the
foreign gods are identified with their idols and overwhelmed
with contempt as stocks and stones. In Ezek. 3013 the ‘no-
gods’ are to perish; cp the Aramaic gloss, Jer. 10 TI.
This exaltation of Yahwk, in all its varying aspects,
established a religious contrast between Israel and other
nations. (a)Baal-worship and the corruptions of the
high places had arisen from intercourse with foreigners,
1 The .@rim however, are sometimes Israelites, living in a
strange clan or’tribe. Cp J EREMIAH ii.
2 Bertholet, 76, slightly paraphrased.
1681
GENTILES
hence the religious polemic tended to social separatism..
( a ) The inferiority of foreign gods implied the religious.
inferiority of foreigners. ( 6 ) The foreign invaders did
not recognise that they were instruments of Yahwi: ;
they went beyond their commission in oppressing Israel,
and did not acknowledge YahwFs supremacy. Hence
they excited the righteous indignation of their victims ;
they set themselves in opposition to YahwB, and gciyinz
came to represent a world at enmity with him, and
therefore doomed to destruction (Jer. 102s ; Schultz,
O T Theol 2 3 7 3 8 , ET). ( d )The exaltation of Yahwi:,
the God of Israel (Dt. passim), implied the exaltation
of Israel. Israel is the wife of Yahwi: (Hos. 2 3 Jer. 2 2
Ezek. 16 Is. 545f:), united with him by a special
covenant (Hos. 218 [zo] Jer. 11IO, etc.). Judah (and
especially Jerusalem) is exalted as the special dwelling
of Yahwi: : Am. 1z Mic. 4 1-3 =Is. 2 2 - 4 (the authorship
and date of these passages is matter of controversy).
The growing tendency to particularism is clear in the
literature. The prophets consistently denounce foreign
alliances.
E, in the relations of Abraham ‘the Prophet ’ to Abimelech,
Gen. 20 21 22-3r, foreshadows the spiritual re eminence of
Israel (Xertholet 84). According to Smend 6 9 7 j the concep-
tion of the anti-rhigious character of the Gentiles is first found
in Hos. 8 T O 9 I. Dt. 7 1-6 displays fierce hostility to the
Canaanites of Western Palestine, probably as types of foreign
races. All intermarriage with them is forbidden. In Dt. 23
3 [4] the Ammonites and Moahites are excluded from the con-
gregation of Israel to the tenth generation. So in Hah. 1 4 1 3
Israel is righteous (771) and the Chaldzeans wicked (Ye?).
Lam. 1IO says of the gQim who sackqd Jerusalem ‘ whom thou
$lidst forbid to enter thy congregation.
ii. UniuersaZisism.-Nevertheless,the prophetic exalta-
tion of Yahwb tended not only to particularism but also
to universalism. It was, indeed, natural that the suprem-
acy of Yahw6 over the nations should be thought of
a s manifesting itself in their chastisement ; thus many
of the oracles of the nations seem to contemplate their
utter ruin, especially Jer. 25 15-33 4628. Naturally, too,
in Is. 60, etc., Israel shares YahwB‘s political supremacy.
Still, as time went on, it was obvious that although
many calamities befell the gciyim, and great empires
like Assyria disappeared, yet the gciyim as a whole
remained. The fact that their extinction was not,. at
any rate, the immediate purpose of Yahwb is recognised
and explained in two ways : (u)Some passages speak
of the restoration or renewed prosperity of at least a
remnant of certain nations-e.g., Jer. 46 26 (Egypt)
4 8 4 7 l (Moab) 4 9 6 ’ (Ammon) 4 9 3 g 1 (Elam) Ezek. 29
13 8’ (Egypt). (6) Other passages contemplate a
double judgment of the giyim, one in the immediate
future from which they may recover, and another later,
which will involve their complete and final overthrow.
I n Ezek. 3 8 J , after the overthrow df Chaldaea, which
was to be the prelude to the restoration of the Jews,
Gog and Magog are induced to attack Judah that they
may be totally destroyed (cp Is. 2422 6 6 1 8 s Zeph. 3
8 3 ;Smend, 381 3). Again, however much Israel
might be interested in its own political supremacy,
politics were closely connected with religion. Thus
YahwB‘s supremacy implied religious claims upon the
pciy&z, his supremacy was not complete unless they
acknowledged and obeyed him; but he was the God
of Israel, and such obedience implied the religious
supremacy of Israel.
So in Is. 2 2-42= Mic. 4 1-3 all nations are to come to Zion t o
learn the true religion ; in Is. 19 18-25 2 Egypt and Assyria are to
be united with Israel as Yahwe‘s people; in Is. 23 17f 2 the
merchandise of Tyre is to he consecrated to Yahwk (interpreta-
tion doubtful); in Jer. 12 1 4 8 the neighboursof Israel are to he
restored if they will learn the ways of Yahwk (cp 3 17 J Q 16
1 9 3 : ) . These ideas of the comprehensio? ofg8iyim amongst the
worshippers of Yahwk and of the misslon of Israel to reveal
him, reach their clima; in the passages in which 2 Isaiah sets
forth the servant of Yahw$--i.e., Israel-as ‘ a light to the Gen-
1 According to Kau Co., Jer. 4626 49 6.39 are by Jeremiah,
but 48 47 is a gloss (noi’in a). All these passages are somewhat
doubtful. Cp Jeremiah ii.
2 Date and authorship doubtful.
1682
 GENTILES
tiles ’ and ‘my salvation unto the ends of the earth ’ (49 6 . cp
51 4). So in 42 5 Yahwb’s care is for all mankind in 45 2 2 Ya’hwb
appeals to all the ends of the earth to turn to hit;, in 44 5 45 14fl
5 5 4 s the restoration of Israel leads the gi)uint to recognise
Yahw&as the one God; cp I K. 841-43.
Similarly, Dt. shows a kindly feeling towards some of the
kindred nations ;in 2 1-13 it was Yahwb who gave Esau and Moah
their inheritance, and the children of Esau are the brethren of
Israel ; in 23 7 [SI Edomites and Egyptians are conimended to
the kindly consideration of Israel. Yahwl? is not wholly taken
up with Israel, he cares in like manner for Philistines and
Syrians (Am. 97). Nebuchadrezzar is his servant (Jer. 25 9 )
and Cyrus his anointed (Is. 45 I).
Moreover Dt. extends to (he resident alien a share in the
religious duties and privileges of the Israelite (16,10-17; parti-
cipation in feasts). The provision of sabbath rest for the g 2 i
i n Ex. 2010 2312 is often regarded as due to RD (Bertholet,
102).
Whenever OT consciously deals with the doctrine of
man it recognises a religious relation of man as man
with Yahwk; hence the gu;yim are the objects of the
justice of Yahwh and may perish under his chastisements,
but they may also honour and obey him and receive his
favours.
We have seen that the prophetic refelation, in exalt-
ing YahwB above other gods, initiated two apparently
B. Judaism. contrary tendencies towards (i.) Jewish
particularism, (ii. ) universalism in re-
ligion; with a tendency to identify the giyim more
closely with Israel. We have now tn trace the further
development of these tendencies.
I t should he noted, however first of all, that the prophetic
exaltation of Yahw& by no me& developed, as we might have
expected it to do, into an abstract monotheism. I t is not
upon the imaginary character of other gods that Judaism dwells
but upon their subordination to the only God worthy of the nam:
(Ps. 18 31 [32]). The constant reference to the sacred objects
of heathenism as ‘abominations,’ ‘filth, etc., suggests of itself
that a kind of reality, a kind of sanctity (s??)attaches t o them
(Smend, 206, n. I ); they continue to belong to the class of
superhuman beings, either as angels or as demons. This, how-
ever, does but intensify the earnestness of Jewish opposition to
heathenism. Hence the old question as to the position of
thegdr27H came to be viewed in a new light. If the Jews were
t o be absolutely separate from the gay&, they had to decide
whether to exclude the g 2 H m altogether or to include them in
Israel. They adopted the latter course. The gZrim, who had
shared the captivity, shared also the antagonism of the Jews
to the Chaldzeans; the differences between Jews and g&+m
were forgotten in the infinitely greater differences between both
and their oppressors (Bertholet 110). Thus, for Ezek. 4722
and P (Ex. 12 49, etc.), the religibus status of theg2Hwz is prac-
tically identical with that of the Jews. Two important non-
Israelite bodies were at last formally incorporated into the
Jewish community by being genealogically connected with
Israelite tribes, the Kenites with Judah, I Ch. 2 55 4 13, the
temple-servants with the Levites, I Ch. 631-48 [16-23] 914-34.
See KENITE, NETHINIM.
i. JewW particuZoarism.--The shame and misery of
the exile and of much of the post-exilic period fostered
and deepened Jewish hatred of foreigners. Their con-
sciousness of spiritual pre-eminence prompted them to
claim political distinction. Yahwk gives Egypt, Ethiopia,
and Seba as a ransom for Israel (Is. 4 3 3 ) . They were
constantly exasperated by the contrast between their
claims and their achievements. The old prophetic con-
demnation of Israel as corrupt, and the consequent
sentence of ruin, lay in the background. The psalter
-which, at any rate in its present form, mainly ex-
presses the sentiments of post-exilic Judaism -dwells
with much iteration on the contrast between Israel,
sinful indeed, but yet the righteous people of YahwB,
and the g@im, who are wicked (o’yvi) and G o d s
enemies (Ps. 82[3] 682 744-23 833[4] 8951[52]). Israel
still looked for deliverance through the ruin of the g q i m
(Hag. 221J Zech. 118-21 p 1 - 4 1 14 Dan. 121 Ps. 2 ;
cp A RMAGEDDON , Rev. 16 12-16 19 11-21). The in-
tensity of Jewish feeling towards foreigners is specially
shown by Pss. 7 35 69 109 and the Book of Esther.
Moreover, the legislation from Dt., through Ezek., the
Law of Holiness, and the various Priestly Laws, to the
Mishna and the Talmud, all tended to make the Jews
a race apart. Not only were foreigners excluded from
the temple and intermarriage with them strictly for-
bidden, but the manifold regulations as to ceremonial
1683
GENTILES
cleanness produced mutual dislike and contempt be-
tween Jew and Gentile. They prevented any mitigation
of race antipathy by social intercourse ; and made every
distinction between Jew and Gentile a mark of religious
superiority, a token that Israel is k d i f (EV ‘ holy ’ ; see
C LEAN , § I ) , as becomes the people of YahwB.
Even the two rites of the eucharist and baptism have been
most fruitful sources of bitterness and schism in Christendom.
The countless rites of Judaism worked similar results still more
effectually. Theological contrasts intensified the mutual aliena-
tion. Prophets might see mankind a t the feet of the God of
Israel ; but there were no signs of any realisation of such visions.
Meanwhile these same prophets had put an end to the old indiffer-
ence to and tolerance of the worship of other gods by foreigners.
The fierce and scornful denunciation of these gods obviously
involved the condemnation of their worshippers (Is. 4124 449
419 52 I IT ; Smend, 371). As far as foreigners understood the
Jewish faith, this assumption of superiority would be intensely
irritating, scorn would beget scorn, and mutual alienation and
hostility would rapidly increase.
Thus the Exile would naturally incline loyal and
zealous Jews to particularism ; and exiles who returned
with Ezra and Nehemiah or at an earlier period would
be specially loyal and zealous. Palestine, as they
found it on their return, was wholly at variance with all
their religious ideals. Indeed the very existence of
revealed religion was in jeopardy. The population left
behind in Palestine after Samaria and Jerusalem had
fallen was probably as heterogeneous in race as that of
the old Hebrew states. Samaria, moreover, had been
partially repeopled by foreigners who, in a fashion,
worshipped Yahwh and became amalgamated with the
remnant of the Israelites, thus introducing a new link
between Israel and the g@im During the Exile rela-
tions were established between these Samaritans, the
remnant of the Jews, and the neighbouring tribes. Thus
the Jews in post-exilic Palestine tended to become
a mixed community, with an eclectic faith, in
which Yahwh, though the highest in rank, would have.
been indistinguishable in character from the foreign gods.
T h e Jews, indeed, would have been a mere section of a
loose aggregate of peoples in Palestine (Ezra41f.). In
spite of Ezra 4 3 , ‘ We have nothing in common, that ye
should join us in building a temple for our God,” in
which Zerubbabel repudiates all connection with the
Samaritans, it is clear that both among the nobles
and among the people Ezra found many Jews who lived
in the closest intercourse with their Samaritan and
Gentile neighbours. The connection had been cemented
by frequent intermarriage. Ezra and Nehemiah speci-
ally attacked this latter practice, and after a long and
desperate struggle succeeded in dissolving many, if not
all, of these alliances, and in rendering such marriages
.illegal in the future (Ezra 9f: Neh. 1030 1 3 , see EZRAi.
5 5 f:). Thus they prevented the Jews from being merged
in the neighbouring tribes, and made them a people by
themselves, cut off from thegiyim as bya physical barrier.
By the establishment of a Samaritan religious community,
with a temple of its own, Nehemiah’s enemies confessed
themselves defeated. They no longer hoped to force
themselves into the temple at Jerusalem and the Jewish
fellowship. Henceforward the orthodox doctrine re-
specting the giyim was that of P ; they were unclean
persons, whose presence would pollute the sacred land,
people, and temple, and who were therefore to be kept
aloof from these as much as possible. Ezra 6 2 1 speaks
of those who ‘ separated themselves from the unclean-
ness of the giyim of the country.’ P s denunciations of
the abominations (njgin) of the Canaanites and of all
association with them are a standard to determine the
behaviour of the Jews towards other foreigners (Lev.
18 24-30 20 23 Nu. 33 50-56 ; cp Is. 35 8 521 Ps. 10 16 78 55
791).
ii. UniversaZism in ReZigion.-The tendency to
1 In view of Kosters’ theory of the post-exilic period, it has
been doubted whether these words are correctly ascribed to
Zeruhhahel (Bertholet, 125); but a t any rate it seems certain
that they were the watchword of a Judaistic party before the
advent of Ezra.
1684
 GENTILES
particularism, however, did not extinguish the uni-
versalist aspect of the prophctic teaching ; partly no
doubt because the writings of the prophets were read
and their authority acknowledged. The actual political
opponents of Ezra and Nehemiah seem to have been
worldly and half-heathen ; yet earnest, spiritual men,
who may have given a general support to the reforms,
protested against pushing particularism to extremes ;
Ruth (on the date see RUTH, BOOK OF) favours mixed
marriages, and Jonah is a strong protest against hatred
towards thegqim.
Other universalist passsages were probably written without
a n y thought of their relation to current particularism ' they were
ideal rather than practical. The catholic spirit of tde prophets
which (as we have seen, $j 4 ii.) especially manifests itself i;
z Isaiah, reappears in Is. 1919-25 (on the date, see ISAIAH ii.
4 9 [xoj), Zech. 1416 etc. This tendency shows itself even i;
the strlctly Judaistic literature. P (Gen. 191-7) recogiiises the
divine origin and sanctity of man as man; Zech.21r [IS] 9 7
.Mal. 1 1 1 Tob. 1311 speak of many nations submitting them-
selves to God. Moreover the form of the Wisdom literature
is cosmopolitan: the contrast is not between Jew and Gentile,
b u t between wise and foolish.
Finally, particularism and universalism blended in
proselytising. Mankind might all enjoy the divine
-favour, and yet this favour might still be strictly limited
to Jews, by the simple condition that mankind must
become Jews, must receive circumcision, the physical
token of Judaism, and adopt its social and religious
customs. Even in this attempted combination the old
antagonism broke out afresh. The school of Hillel (cp
Mt. 2 3 1 5 ) were zealous in proselytising and sought to
-make admission to Judaism easy ; the school of Sham-
nili were strongly opposed to proselytes ; and relics of
-the conflict are still to be read in the Talmud (Bertholet
3 1 9 8 ) . On the other hand, Jewish particularism was
constantly endangered by the influence of H ELLENISM
~(q...) and by political relations with foreign powers.
The Jews prayed and offered sacrifices for their suzerains (Jer.
'29 7 Ezra 6 g J 7 15-23 I Macc. 7 33 Bar. 1 I I Jos. Bjii. 17 z) and
for friendly nations ( I Macc. 1:! I I: Spartans) ; Pss. 45 and 72 have
been supposed to be written in honour of Ptolemy Philadelphus.
'The Maccabees and the Herods had very close and often very
friendly relations with foreign powers, Greek, Roman, Arab,
GEOGRAPHY (BIBLICAL)
CONTENTS
'I. Descriptive : No maps ($j I I U ) .
Earlv notions (5 1). Geographical lists (5 Id).
Card'inal points'(8'a).
Extent of known world ($j 3). 11. Deuelopvzcnt of geogruphical knmuledge:
Seas, rivers, mountains, deserts ($8 4-7). Early period (5 12 a).
Foreign countries : Egypt, Babylonia, Tenth century (5 12 6).
Assyria (5s 8-10 a ) . Eighth century (I 12 c).
MAPS
Geographical horizon of Israel at various
periods (after col. 1696). ] Map no.
Map no.
I.
2.
Pre-monarchic.
I n 10th cent.
The object of this article is not to discuss the identi-
fication of places. That can in general be done better
under the several place-names.z and is here a means,
not an end. The object is to investigate the nature of
the geographical conceptions of the Hebrews and the
extent of their geographical information. The last three
centuries (zoo B. C . - 1 0 0 A. D. ) of the period covered by the
scheme of this EncycZo$u?diu are treated more briefly,
because, as the Hebrews became more and more a part
of the Hellenistic or the Roman world, they came to
share more and more fully the general geographical
1 Theoutlinemaps(after col. 16g6)are tentative and suggestive
merely. Nothing is indicated as known at any period for which
there does not appear to be documentary evidence; on the
other hand the argument from silence is not to be pressed with
reference td details, and the actual line dividing the known from
the unknown must have been vague and fluctuating. The
maps are intended only as hints to aid the reader in forming
some general idea of the expansion of Israel's horizon.
2 On the further question of the correctness of the traditional
reading of some place-names, see NAMES, $ 88.
1685
GEOGRAPHY
Syrian, and Parthian. These relations often led foreigners to
adopt Judaism and circumcision ; but they also exercised a
strong influence upon the Jews. The DISPERSION ( p . v . ) of the
Jews had a similar twofold effect.
Thus from B.C. zoo we constantly meet with a strong
Hellmising party in Palestine, and a similar tendency
asserted itself elsewhere. It was checked in Palestine
by the success of the Maccabzan revolt and the zeal of
the Pharisees. Christianity, by drawing to itself the
universalist elements, secured the victory over particular-
ism in Judaism. Judaistic Christians, indeed, attempted
to secure that Gentiles should not be admitted to the
Church, unless they became Jews ; but Paul finally
delivered Christianity from Jewish exclusiveness by en-
forcing the principle that in Christ ' there is neither Jew
nor Greek.' Here we touch the fringe of a new and great
subject-HELLENISM (p.. .). c p GALATIANS, § &zf:
Oehler, O T TheoL (ET) 1168-242 2398.405' Schultz O T
TheoL (ET) 2 373-382; SmeAd, AT ReL-gesch. ;11-1~9, 1;o-qg
147-150, 348-423. Kayser A T Theol (2) (ed
6 . Literature. Marti) and (3) (called Gesih. d. isvaei Rel.):
$j$j 23,.35, 45 ; Di. A T Theol. 15-52, 35p40Z"
291-297, 305.307;i cp 118T 131 p
Cheyne, OPs. 291-;97,"305:3;5 4 z 3 4 >1k6igJJ ii
145f:
Benzinger H A and Nowack H A , s.v. Heidkn'; Heiden' ; Bertholet
DieStelZ&d;; ZsraeZiten und d e r l u d e n ~u
BU den Fvemden (.96):
W. H. B.
GENUBATH (n>!q r A N H B A e [BAL]), son of
Hadad the Edomite ( I K. 11SO). The text is in much
disorder (see HADADi., 3 ; M IZRAIM , 5 z a). W e
shall best restore v . ~ g f :as follows, assuming that Hadad
had fled to Mizrim (the N. Arabian MuSri), the king
of which land, or of the larger realm to which it
belonged, was called Pir'u-'And he gave him as a
wife the sister of his (own) wife, and she bore him
his son Genubath and reared him (&?p Klo.) in the
midst of Pir'u's house. And Genubath'was in the house
of Pir'u in the midst of Pir'u's sons.' Probably Genn-
bath, like his father, became a fierce enemy of Israel.
His name (Gunubath?) may mean 'foreigner'; cp Ar.
jnnubu, ' peregrinus fuit ' (cp, however, N AMES , 63,
78). Speculations based on Egyptian (PSBA 1 0 3 7 2 8 )
are misplaced. See JQR 1 1 5 5 1 8 ('99). T. K. C.
J's list ($8 13-17).
Fifth century B.C. ($ IS).
P's list ($5 19-23).
East in Greek period (5 24).
Apocryphal books ($j 25).
New Testament (5 26).
'
] Map no. 3. I n 8th cent.
Map no. 4. I n 5th cent. I Map of the world according
to Straho (col. 16gl).
ideas and information of a world that lies beyond the
immediate scope of the work ; see Strabo's map (below,
col. 1691).
Among the ancient Hebrews there is little evidence of
interest in geography as a scientific study. Their view
'' of the earth as a whole seems to have been
for the most part unreflecting and dependent
notions' on their common experience of natural
phenomena.
Chief among these were the apparent rising and setting
of the heavenly bodies (especially the sun), and the
horizon-line enclosing the visible earth.
The sun 'goes out' (NY', Judg. 531 Gen.1923 [JI Is. 1310;
~ ~is sun-rise,
l n Ps. 1 9 7 [ 6 ] ) in the morning, and at night 'goes
in ' ( w i ~ , Gen. 15 12 17 [J] 28 II [E], and often ; Nan is sun-sei,
Ps. 104 19 = IVest, Dt. 11 30 Jos. 14). Reflection upon this appears
in the very late passage Eccles. 15.
The earth is a stationary mass ; its trembling is a sign
of supernatural power (Judg. 5 4 Is. 21s 21).
That its surface is relatively flat and circumscribed, seems to
follow from the eipression (poetical and comparatively late ; but
1686