Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
nfaatteh is characteri:;tically post-exilic ; on the possibility of misunderstood phrase 5y1 '%J?, which is really a technical
exceprions in I K. 7 14 Mic. 6 g see Giesebrecht, Z A TW 1 2 3 9 4 1 term, and not to be rendered 1iterally.l When in 2 K.
S&et occurs throughout the OT, from JE to Ch. ; but its use In 1520, Menahem, king of Israel, is said to have exacted
post&ilic writings may he archaic. $&et also appears to bear
the sense of 'clan ' (a tribal division) in' Nu. 4 18 Judg. 20 12 the money for the tribute of all who were 5 ; ~- j ~ e , the
I S. 921 ; in all these passages, however, the text may be persons who are meant are not merely mighty warriors,
questioned.2 A third word, according to some, is 7xi@&Zh, nor merely 'mighty men of wealth' (EV), but those
"????==6+por, myydvsra (for probable etym. see Ges.W) ; see who were at once holders of property a n d subject to the
Josh. 7 17 Judg. 1 3 z 17 7 18 11. But here again critical scepticiqm obligation of military service. For in Israel, a s else-
is legitimate.$ BPth 66, 2~ n*~=02~0smspris('fathers'house'), where, those who did not belong to the propertied class
and JZejh, 7 ) N = ~ ~ h r ('
d rthousand ' ?)mayalso perhaps be added. were excluded from the ranks of the warriors (cp ARMY,
For the one see Nu. 7 2 (cp 14), Josh. 23 14; for the other,
Nu. 1 16 10 4 (cp 7 2) 35 Josh. 22 21 30 (cp Ps.(ZJ on Ps. 68 18). 4f:). I t is equally true that the propertied class,
.Ili+ih&%, 6 E t h rib and 4Ze#R however are proprly terms for which formed the mi@i&ih or clan, a n d consequently
subdivisions of the'tribes. U4ing them' for ' tribe ' WOUU seem also the SPEet or ' tribe,' alone had political rights.
to be in a certain qualified sense a relic of the old nomadic times Represented bytheirheads- theso-called oq,?, 'ancients,'
before the groups of clans could become consolidated into the
later tribes. Mi?#6h&h and G f h A6 might apparently be used p i n ' freemen ' or ' nobles,' and n ? ? '~princes ' 2-they
synonymously (see Ex.G 14 Nu. 3 24); more properly, however, must, in the pre-regal period, have monopolised the
the angwn (the Gk.' r#+p.a or +pa.rpt'a, or, to use the word
somewhat vaguely, clan , EV 'family') was made up of supreme power, both in peace a n d in war. Under
befh Zb8fh 'fathers' houses' (so EV) or z'families.' kZq%'z(EV kingly government, however, the political authority of
generally ' thousand ' ; .Nu.1 16 RVw. families ') is perhaps= the collections of territorial e clans,' denominated ' tribes,'
7xi?ja@h; cp Judg.615, 'my thousand ('S\x, EV 'my naturally faded away more a n d more. Nothing is said
family'; Moore, 'my sept') is the poorest in Manasseh,' about ' tribes ' in 2 Kings, and none of the statistical
meaning the clan of the Ahiezrites ; al:o I S. 10 19, ' by.your passages in Ezra a n d Neh., with two exceptions,
tribe.; and by jour thousands,' but v. 21, the tribe of Benjamln
by its clans' (i.nng,ru&). According to the prevalent view, the mention a tribal connection. T h e exceptions are
awmption is that the normal number of the q$F is 1000; Neh. 113-24 a n d 1125-36, both certainly late passages,
nevertheless Buhl (Ges. W) is probably right in supposing that though with an artificial antique tinge. It should,
the true meaning of the root o f PZejh is ' to hind together' (cp however, be added that the lists in the Books of Ch.
Ass. uf&, 'band'). Naturally the members of the 7 5 or ~ a n d Ezra-Neh. produce the impression, that when
'union' (?)fought together under a i& or 'captain' (I S. 1718 these books were compiled the tie of the clan had by n o
18 13 2 S. 18 I , which passage, to be sure, presupposes the nieans disappeared. This is surely natural, for this tie
meaning 'thousand' for I>?). Lastly, many scholars would had the sanction, not merely of antiquity, but of
add n-', 'kinsfolk' (=Ar. +ayyun, ' a group of families united religion. T w o proofs of this are preserved, viz. ( I ) the
by vital ties ' in I S. 18 18, if not also in Gen. 3 20 (see ADAM notice of the yearly sacrifice of David's mi@ri&ih ( I S.
A N D EVE, $ 3). and I S. 266 (so H. P. Smith). It is remarkable
2 0 6 z g ) , a n d ( 2 )the direction in the law of the Passover
that this view should have become an unquestioned tradition
among critics,4 for it seems to imply a confidence in the received in J (Ex. 1221 ; see Baentsch, ad Zoo..) that the paschal
text which, in the present state of textual inquiry, must he lamb was to be provided by each miSpihrih (INSi n p
called excessive. n2.nng,ru&), which contrasts with the legal direction
Before we consider the question of the ' twelve tribes ' given in a secondary stratum of P (Ex. 123) that every
we must endeavour to d o justice to the arrangement by 'father's house' ( x n.1) should provide a lamb for
a. clans. clans, which represents the form of social itself.
system natural to Semitic nomads. T h e The designation ' tribe ' belongs specifically to t h e
' tribe ' was n o doubt $composedof ' clans,' but there was a Israelites, a n d means, in .its fullest sense, a n association
stage of development in which there were ' clans,' but not 3. Tribes, of clans and families, living near together,
in the fuller sense of the word ' tribes.' W h a t , then, was a n d conscious of a closer mutual affinity
a ' clan ' ( m o m ) ? I t was an association of ' brothers ' than that which united them to ' Israel ' as a whole.
(Gen.2427 2915 I S.2029)--i.e., of kinsmen, or more If we are not misled through relying too implicitly on
strictly of kinsmen o n the father's side. This appears the traditional text, we nowhere find the term ovnrj,
from Judg. 91, where Abimelech speaks to ' the whole z tribes,' applied to any of the peoples with which Israel
clan ' of the family of his mother, from which his own was most closely connected.
clan was distinct.' T h a t the kinship was largely based The Edomites ('sons of Esau ') are said in Gen. 86 '5-19 40-43
o n what seems (hut wrongly seems) to Westerns fiction, (cp the 'affz2$hirrr of the Horites in wv. z g J ) to have had
a n d not on literal descent from the same father, need oqi5.u ('afZa$hZin),a term which presupposes the existence of
only be remarked in passing. T h e ' clan ' might form p&w ('iZ+hZ;tz- i.e., following Buhl, 'unions.' Evidently,
in some sense of the word, 'tribes' aremeant. The Ishmaelites,
the whole (or nearly the whole) body of citizens.
Hence place-names and clan-names are often identical ; too, are said in Gen. 25 16 to be divided into llb?-i.e., 'popula-
hence, too, such a phrase became possible in an early tions'; and in Nu. 2515 Sor (19s) is said to have been 'head of
legend as ' Ophrah of the Abiezrites ' (Judg. 6 ~ 4 ) . Of ~ a people ( n h N ; read "e??), of a father's house in I\Iidian.'s
course, however, it was also possible that more than Strangely eno:gh, in Is. 19 13 we hear of persous who are
called 'the cornersto:e ' of Egypt's ,' tribes.' Duhtn wilfully
one clan might dwell in the same city, a s in the case of makes these 'tribes into 'nomes : not less wilfully his
the Shechem of Gideon's son Abimelech. The special predecessors explain 'castes' (Herod. 2 164). Now however
characteristics of clansmen are summed u p in the often (see MIZRAIM, $ 2 6 ) it is almost beyond the poskbility of
question that the Miirites of N. Arabia are referred to, so that
1 On Driver's view see below, $ 3. hye, at least in a late literary production we have the word
2 In Nu. MT has nhy?p D*;n!, and in I S. '@lw nln?wo. i d e t applied io a neighhourinp non-Israelite people. But, as a
rule; it is only Israel that has S56,itinc..
Probably, however, both axd and *D:ncomefromnnBvn, which
seems to have been dittographed. In Judg. *uxvshould prob- Though both .%et and ma&h might conceivably
ably be ~ 3 (see 1 Moore, ad roc.). have been used by early writers in speaking of t h e
3 In Josh. 'ma should obviously he pxv (see v. 16); after primitive stage of Israel's social development, t h e
m i n , read i'nngaal, (a xarh 6rjpovs). So Steuernagel (alt.). probability is that both terms arose after the Israelites
I t is a mere slip of the scribe. In Judg., however, there is had begun to acquire territory by conquest. We may
deep-seated corruption (see Crii. Bi6.Z
4 It is or has been held by Ewald, BGttcher, Thenius, Wellh.,
Robertson Smith, Driver. Kittel. L6hr. Budde, Sienfr.-Stade. 1 See E. Meyer, GA 1449 ; Enfsf. 1 5 2 f : (cp ~ogf:).
and BDB. qtt'nnD#r) is commonly omitted'as (correct) a
gloss. See, however, a different explanation in Crit. Bi6.
2' On Judg. 8 14, where the P ' ! p are apparentlydistinguished
from the O';?!, see Moore's commentary.
6 I n Judg. 9 3 18, however theie are indications of another
view of kinship. For here 'brother'=son of the same mother. 3 Stade, however, would read O'?>c for P?h&which is
Cp K INSHIP, 5 6. probably right. Similarly in Ex.1515 may be read for
6 From Judg. 6 24, compared with 8 2 w e gather that Gideon's
clan could muster 300 able fighting men'. *5liN.
5201 5202
TRIBES TRIBES
therefore concede to Driver’ that though ma$te/t may earlier form of the tradition Moses is most probably
be in OT usage only post-exilic, it was scarcely invented connected (see MOSES, 5 4).appears to be referred to,
by P, and that, like &%e;, when used in a metaphorical in the appendix to the Book of Judges, as the head-
sense, it is at any rate suggestive of high antiquity. quarters of the Levites.l
’ Archaic,’ however, which is Driver’s word, seems to ’The convention referred to, however, definitely repre-
claim too much.2 At the time that we here suppose the sents the tribes of Israel as twelve in number. There
metaphorical use of Ebef (and of mn?t./r?) to have 6. Number is a similar convention with regard to the
arisen the creative tendency of language was still clans or tribes whose origin was traced
strong. As to the precise date when the usage was twelve. to Nahor (Gen. 2220-24), to Ishmael (Gen.
initiated, who can venture to dogmatise? W e can 1720 2513-16), and to Esau (Gen. 3615-1940-43) re-
only say that it must have been a fairly ancient, though spectively.2 Its artificiality is obvious. Never can the
not archaic period. When the Blessing of Jacob was ‘twelve tribes’ of Israel have been all in existence
written in its original form, the usage must have been together. When, e.g., Benjamin came into prominence
already in existence, not because Gen. 4916 speaks of as an independent tribe, Simeon and Levi presumably
Dan as ‘judging his people, like any of the tribes of had long suffered the fate poetically prognosticated in
Israel’ (for the text of w. 166 is q ~ e s t i o n a b l e ) ,but
~ Gen. 497. What, then, was the origin of the nuniera-
because the contents of the series of blessings require tion? More than probably it had a mythological
this view. The union of clans must, at this time, have character. Diodorus Siculus (230). in his account of
been closer than in the nomadic age, owing to the the Babylonian astronomy, after speaking of the thirty-
pressure of new conditions arising out of changed six star-gods, tells us that the Kdproi of the gods are
circumstances. And even though it cannot be historical twelve in number, to each of whom are allotted a month
that the first king was chosen by lot ( I S. lOzof: )-first and one of the signs of the zodiac. In mythological
Benjamin being selected from the other ‘ tribes,’ then style the twelve months and the twelve signs of the
Saul’s ‘clan’ and then Saul himself-we can believe zodiac could be called sons of the moon.’ I t is
that there was in that hero‘s time not only a ‘clan’ probable that, either directly or indirectly (through
of Matri, but also at least the beginnings of a ‘ tribe ‘ of some other people), a faint echo of this had reached the
Benjamin (cp S AUL , § rg). primitive Israelites. The most plausible view is that
I t is probable that the tribal association was the priests at the chief sanctuaries of the people, from
strengthened by the sanctions of religion. The names whom Israel derived a pale reflection of a mythology,
of some at least of the Israelitish tribes can be more knew of a myth of the moon-god who had twelve sons
or less plausibly explained as borrowed divine names (the months, or the signs of the zodiac);3 and it is
(see ASHER,D A N , G AD , M ANASSEH , R EUBEN ), and further probable that they connected the ancestor of
though it would be natural that some specially famous their race with the moon-god, and the constituent tribes
sanctuary should draw pilgrims not only from the tribe of their people with the moon-god’s sons. To what
on whose territory it stood, but also from other tribes, people Israel was indebted for its semi-mythic tales, is
yet we may presume that every tribe had some sanctuary matter for investigation.
of its own in which, besides YahwB, some tribal god or Elsewhere, howe\er (see PARADISB, SODOM), we have seen
divine hero was implored to give his blessing to the that other semi-mythic stories of the Israelites were most
prohably borrowed from the N. Arabian people of Jerahmeel,
tribe. and it is reasonable to suppose that the semi-mythic figure of
If we ask how many ‘ tribes of Israel’ historically Jacob (xpy.), the ancestor of the Israelites, is a reflection of the
existed together, the answer must be that, apart from a mythic ancestor of the Jerahmeelites, who was presumably
4. Number hieratic and literary convention which called Jarham (from nl,, ‘moon,’ perhaps with the Arabic
mimation). Cp col. 2363, n. z. Jacob‘s wife Rebekah ( x p l i ,
and origin. only in quite a late period can be shown Rihhkah,’) may also owe her name to popular corruption of
to have become a popular belief, the Jarham just as Isaac’s wife Rachel owes hers to popular
number must, from the nature of the case, have been distortlo; of ‘Jer*me’el.’ See REBEKAH5 2.4
Gunkel, with his wonted penetration, dmarks, ‘There must
variable. A clan may (I ), through the adhesion of other be a line leading froin the twelve Babylonian zodiac-gods to the
clans and through favouring fortune, become so large as twelve tribes of Israel ; but of what nature and how long the
to be called a ’ tribe,’ or ( z ) , through acquisition of fresh line is, cannot at present be said’ (Cm.P), 293). I t is much
territory may be inevitably impelled to bifurcation ; to see a problem, even if its solution be hidden. But the
evidence already adduced makes it difficult to doubt that the
again, a tribe may (3), through persistent ill-fortune, earliest conveyors of Babylonian myths to the Israelites were the
sink so low that its constituent clans, or those of them N. Arabian Jerahmeelites.
which survive, may seek protection in a fresh tribal Another view has been put forward by B. Luther,O
attachment. In a word, there is no sharp division and though this scholar does not deny that the number
between clans and tribesg An example of the first of B. Solo~on,s of the months may iie at the root of
these cases may be found in the growth of the tribe of
Judah (see C ALEB , 5 zf: ; JUDAH,5 5) ; of the second,
as some think, in the division of Joseph into Ephraim
de:zztnts. the numeration of the tribes, his theory
may perhaps be welcome to those who
would sooner admit the post-Solomonic
and Manasseh; of the third, in the attachment of origin of the twelve tribes ‘ than grant-the possibility
Simeonite clans to the tribe of Judah (see SIMEON). of mythological influences on biblical representations.
T h e gradual disappearance of Reuben and the destruc- It is well-known that, according to the received text of
tion of a tribe or clan called D INAH ( q . ~ . but
, cp 5 12, I K. 47 8 , Solomon divided the land of Israel into
below), and of Simeon and Levi, regarded as territorial
tribes, should also be mentioned here, though with regard 1 No harder section than Judg. 17f: can he found among the
to Levi it has to be once more pointed out that the city early narratives. Methodical correction is the only remedy
of Z AREPHATH ( q . ~ . in
) the Negeb, with which in the for the otherwise insuperable difficulties of the text. Cp
MICAH, z , and Cn’t. Bib. Griineisen’s view (@.cit., 241)that
a l i i * nnBunD (EV ‘of the family of Judah’) describes the
1 JPhiZ. 11 214 (in the course of an answer to Giesebrecht, LeJite as one who kojourned for his livelihood in the tribe of
Z A TW1242). Judah is certainly wrong. Budde at any rate, gives effect to
2 B. Luther’s phrase ( Z A 7‘ 21 14), ‘ dass der Begriff kein
% a rig& impression when he subditutes as the original text
hohes Alter hat ’ may be accepted in 70 far as it rejects the idea nvn n n m m ‘of the clan of Moses.’ For the Levites who
that the term &e!, ‘tribe,’ is archaic.
3 See Crit. Bib. ad Zoc. dwelt at Zarephath were the clan of Moses. See MOSES, § 17.
4 K. Kohler (Der Segen]nco6’s, 1867) presses the theory that 2 Cp Ewald Ffist. 1369 GENEALOGIES % 5 n. 2:
a tribal name may indicate the god anciently worshipped by the 3 For Wincher’s form df the lunar thedry, Lee his Geschichte
tribe to an impossible extent. IwmZs, 2 57. The credit of originality as well as learning is due
5 Dt. 33 19 is often su posed to refer to a mountain-sanctuary, to him.
common to tbe tribes oPZebulun and Issachar. Mt. Tabor has 4 That pny is a shorter form of $Nan,* is indisputable. See
been thought of. See, however, Crz.t. Bib. JE-ROHAM.
6 Cp Gruneisen, Alrncncultw (I~co), p. 242. 9 Z A rw,
21 34 [IgOI].
5203 5204
TRIBES TRIBES
twelve departments, each of which had to supply ' style, it would, in accordance with analogy, be stated
provision to the king and his house for a month in the ' that Israel ' and ' Judah ' were brothers, and precisely
year. S o w B. Luther is of opinion that the Solomonic
division of the land into departments was at least a
principal cause of the later theory of twelve tribes.
Solomon, it is held, found a division into tribal provinces
i1 such a genealogical description Luther finds unmistak-
ably implied in the fierce words of the ' man (i.e., men ;
u , collective)
~ of Israel' to the man (men) of Judah'
in 2 S. 1943 [44], ' I have ten parts in the king, and
(not as yet twelve) alrmeady in existence, and adopted it ~
moreover I am the firstborn (11~1,as a) rather than
so far as it was geographically suitable for his purposes. thou.'l It was not till long after the breaking- up- of
~~ ~
-
It was natural that a later generation should follow the
precedent set by this king, and reckon twelve tribal
Solomon's kingdom that Jugah became a ' son,' i . e . , a
dependent, of Israel. T h e genealogy which represents
provinces. The reason w-hy Solomon fixed upon the Judah as a son of Jacob can, it would seem, have arisen
number twelve was its supposed sacred character. (Cp only a t a time when Judah, not less than any one of
N UMBER , 5 7, and note that in the Amarna letters the ( t e n tribes,' owned the supremacy of the central
[81,81 we find the expression, not to be taken literally, Israelite power, and, one must of course add, when the
' twelve of my men '). identification of Jacob and Israel had been effected by
This view derives its plausibility from the mention of those who recast and refashioned the old tradition.
the months- 'each man had to provide victuals for a Luther, therefore, holds (p. 33) that ' the genealogy of
month in the year' ( I K. 47). But is this notice J , if not his own work, can at any rate not be much
critically acceptable ? older than the time of Ahab, when Judah became the
Kittel indeed says that the providing spoken of (cp 422-28 vassal of Israel.'
[ 5 2-81) is equivalent to the collection of taxes1 But this is by To accept this, however, as the approximate date of
no means natural. 'To provide victuals for the court month by
month' is not th? same as 'to enable Solomon to do whatsoever the representation of the tribes as twelve sons of Jacob,
his w n l desired. Stade accordingly2 criticises the whole state- simply because in the forms in which it has reached us
meut in I K. 4 7 . He thinks that there were not twelve but Judah always appears, is somewhat hasty. It is
thirteen 'prefects' (D'?$l), and that the reference to Solomon's possible that there were reckonings, now lost, of the
magnificent scale of living is due to the editor who inserted the twelve sons of Israel in which Judah was not included.
old list of prefects in the main body of chaps. 3-11 and whose As a matter of fact the number of the tribes whose
object was to enhance the glory of the king. This object he
effected but in doing so he correspondingly diminished the im- origin is accounted for genealogically by J E is not
portanc; of the prefects, who became commissariat officers. It twelve, but thirteen, so that if we take away ' Judah.'
is now possible, however, to go beyond this, and to say that, the number left will be twelve. T h e reckoning which
text-critically, the statement in I K. 476 may be regarded as
absolutely wrong,S and thaf the whole of it has most probably underlies J E is as follows,-
arisen (thanks to an ingenious editor) out of a gloss on the
incorrect word 5 ~ 7 (Israel).
~ - The region over which the
(a) The Leah-tribes (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah)
(6) The Bilhah-trihes(Dan Naphtali) . . . .. 4
a
n q x ~presided was not the land of Israel, hut the land of
Jerahmeel or IshmaLl, id,., the Negeb (see S O L O M O N , 8 6).
(c) The Zilpah-tribes (Gad,'Asher). .
( d ) The Leah-tribes (Issachar, Zehulun). ... .
.. .
.. a
a
The number of the prefects may coincide with the (e) The Rachel-trihes (Mawsseh, Ephraim) a
number conventionally given to the tribes, but either ( n A Rachel-tribe (Benjamin) . . . . . -
I
1 G V f P ) 1 5 1 9 3 (Hisf.1 3 6 2 3 : ) .
(1901). For criticisms of this able work see Gunkel,PwP),
285 ; J. C. Matthes, 'Israels nederzetting in Kanaan, Tk. T
a IJW, Ir.13, 1~ ; ~ r o l . 322-329.~ , 36 5 1 7 8 [1902].
5209 5210
TRIBES TRIBES
kingdom to the N. 01 the Sinaitic peninsula (Gen. cations, and it remains for future investigators to use
3631); this the legend describes as Jacobs flight from the works of the three eminent critics mentioned rather
Esau. From Mesopotamia, where the fusion with as mines of suggestions than as records of results. Two
Rachel' took place, the mixed tribe now called things seem to be required in order that we may take
* Joseph ' was pushed by Aramzan tribes (under Assyrian a genuine step forward. ( I ) W e must criticise the
pressure) southward. On the N. border of Gilead the Hebrew text more keenly and with more adequate
Arilmzeans made a temporary halt, while the Jacob- methods, and (2)we must look out for further help from
Rachel tribe occupied N. Gilead. Not improbably, the archceological research. Many perhaps will shake their
boundary between them was fixed by a compact near heads at the first of these requirements. But without a
the Yarmuk. ' I f this be correct, it will follow, not more thorough investigation of the text we shall not be
only that the migration of Jacob should receive a place in a position to use archzological discoveries aright
in general history, hut also that it is to be assigned to when we get them. Steuernagel for instance refers
the fourteenth century' (p. 60). T h e story in Gen. (113f: ; cp ASHER,§ I ) to W. Max Muller's statement
32z1b-32 tells of the duel between Jacob and the god of ( A s . u. Bur. 2 3 6 8 ) that in the inscriptions of Seti I.
the conquered N. Gileadites. ' Israel ' means ' El ( = and Rameses 11. a land of Aseru or As(s)aru is often
Yahwk) fights." i e . , for Jacob ; it became a war-cry mentioned as occupying W. Galilee. It is true, he
and, later on, the name of the people. T h e sequel is declines to lay any great stress upon this, though, if the
related, according to Steuernagel, in two form- in the land of Aseru were named after the tribe of Asher, it
Jacob-story and in the Book of Joshua. Attacks of the would fit in with his view, independently obtained, that
Bedouin tribes (probably) forced the Jacob-Rachel tribe the Jacob-Rachel tribe was forced by the Aramzean
to cross the Jordan, to the S . of the point where the migration into N. Gilead in the fourteenth century B.C.
Yarmuk enters it. The tribe goes to Shechem, where Others, however, are less cautious. Paton (Syria and
it acquires land by payment ( a reminiscence of ancient Pal. 126) tells us that ' i n an inscription of Sety we
payment of tribute to the Shechemites). The narrative meet for the first time 'A-sa-ru (Asher), a Canaanite or
in Gen. 35 belongs to a later time when, as a conse- Amorite tribe that subsequently was adopted into the
quence of the extension of the Rachel-tribe to the S., Hebrew confederacy, and was classified as a son of
the Benjamin tribe made itself independent. The Jacob by his concubine Zilpah.' Hommel too ( A H T
Jacob-Rachel tribe now disappears ; in future the two 228,237) thinks that the Egyptian notices can be
tribes, Joseph and Benjamin, appear in its place. In utilised for the history of the tribe of Asher. All this
the legendary style, this is expressed by saying that is precarious until the Hebrew texts have been more
soon after the arrival at Bethel, and the founding of a thoroughly explored. I t must be admitted, indeed, that
sanctuary there, Benjamin was born, and Rachel died. Hommel (as well as the present writer) has made a
As to the Leah-Zilpah tribes, Steuernagel's view is that beginning in examining those OT passages which may
they reached Canaan before the Jacob-Rachel tribe, and have a bearing on the origin of the tribe of Asher ; but
came into connection with that tribe in Canaan, on here as elsewhere nothing short o f a complete survey of
which account legend represented Leah as the wife who the biblical texts (such a s is begun in portions of the
was foisted upon Jacob. present work and will be continued and completed in
All these theories are ably defended. The least satis- critic^ Biblica) will enable us to give a fairly satisfactory
factory is the third, precisely because it is the most solution even of this comparatively small problem.
14. criticism elaborate, and aims at the fullest Very much more importance is attached by Steuer-
of theories. historical results. Almost everything nagel to the references to people called the Habiri in the
in the patriarchal narratives turns out Tell el-Amama letters (cp ASHER, I , § I ; H EBER ;
to be a typical or anticipative history of the settlement H EBREW L ANGUAGE, 5 I ; I S R A E L , 0 3). These
of the tribes in Canaan. Unfortunately Steuernagel, Habiri are identified by Steuernagel with the Israelites,
under the presence of theory, has here and there to or at least with the Leah-tribe. This too fits in with his
alter the traditional statements. The tradition states chronological theory ; he infers from it that the Negeb
that Jacob married Leah and Rachel at the same time, was occupied by the Leah-tribe about 1400 B .c., and
and afterwards Bilhah and Zilpah, and that the place that the extension of this tribe over the central highlands
was in Mesopotamia. 'This critic, however. alters the of Ephraim took place towards 1385. Now in itself
order of the marriages and the places, and represents this dating of the conquest of central Canaan is plausible
that the Bilhah tribe joined Jacob in the S. of Canaan, enough ; it approximates to that given more vaguely by
and the Rachel tribe in Mesopotamia ; Leah and Zilpah Winckler in 1 8 9 5 ~(GI114). I t must, however, he
ho%ever only joined after the immigration.2 This is stated that there is so much uncertainty about the
one great drawback. Another is that Steuernagel treats names in the early Hebrew traditions, and such tricks
his traditional material very undiscriminatingly. the con- are constantly played 11s by the ancient narrators who
nections between the legends being made as much use use the same name in different senses that for the
of as the legends themselves. For instance, the order present all such theories can only be put forward with
of the events related in Jacob's progress through great reserve.
Canaan surely does not rest on early tradition ; there It may be stated in conclusion that this is the reason
is no real traditional authority for placing the founda- why we have made no use in this article of the references
tion of Bethel before the death of Rachel at Ephrath. 16. conclusion^ to Israelitish tribes in the song of
Nor does Steuernagel allow for the probability that the Deborah. Negatively, previous critics
historical circumstances of the regal period have found have done much for the text of this song-i.e., they
a reflection in the patriarchal legend, and throughout have pointed out many corruptions as probable. But
he shows a confidence in the vitality of the earliest very little of a satisfactory character has been done for
tradition which is not justified by the experience of the correction of the text ; the old methods have once
historical critics elsewhere. more proved their inadequacy. Here as elsewhere a
But even Wellhausen's and Stade's theories cannot fresh start in criticism must be made by the application
either of them be accepted without important modifi- of a broader text-critical method.
W e are also precluded from taking up any position
1 Another explanation of ' Israel' is offered elsewhere (p. 62).
Rut both 'El fights' and 'man of Rachel'must be incorrect. 1 For Winckler's latest statement of his view on the Habiri
j x in names of the type does not mean 'God,' and no see AOFP) 90'94. Budde (The Religion of IsraeZ to the Exile
sound analogy can be offered for such a tribal name as jn, u", [18g9],6) may produce an impression that Winckler identifies the
out of which Steuernagel (as an alternative theory) doubtfully Habiri with the Israelites. This, however of course is not the
brings 5 x y ~ - . case. Winckler exprrssly guards himself aiainst being supposed
2 On Steuernagel's view (p. 47) of the traditional representa- to mean that the Habiri are to be limited to 'Israelitish' tribes
tion of the Leah-Zilpah tribes, see ZILPAH,col. 5418, n. z. or clans.
5211 5212
'TRIBUNAL TROAS
as to the question, what traces (apart from any in the +avcpoOvri 81' +pGv hv naari 767ryl which the RV
Jacob legend) the narrative books contain of changes in renders, ' but thanks he unto God, which always leadeth
the dwelling-places of the migrating Israelitish tribes. us in triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest through
A number of such traces are pointed out by Steuernagel. us the savour of his knowledge in every place,' whilst
Asher, for instance, according to this critic (p. 30), may the AV gives to OplapPeLovrt the sense 'causeth (us)
once have dwelt on what was afterwards the border- to triumph,' in spite of the fact that the causative
region of Ephraim and Benjamin. Issachar and sense does not appear elsewhere. But, unless we
Zebulun (p. IZ), dwelt anciently in the central highland desert the paths of natural exegesis, how cun God be
country (Mt. Ephraim). Dinah, Simeon, and Levi said to lead Paul and his conipanions in triumph?
(p. 14f.) were once settled near Shechem in Mt. Does not 81' +pGv in the following clause prove that
Ephraim. (Steuernagel might plausibly have referred, Paul himself is supposed to be a member of the
in proof of Simeon's having belonged to N. Israel, to triumphal procession? Another point has to be
2 Ch. 159 ; see, however, Cn't. Bib. on Is. 97-104). mentioned. J. C. M. Laurent has pointed out that
Reuben (p. IS) once had his home NE. of Judah, in vu. 12f.do not help our comprehension of the context ;
what was afterwards Benjamite territory. All these according to him, they are a marginal note (by Paul
problems, however, assume a fresh aspect as the result himself) on the statement in 116. ' T h e subject of
of a continuous text-critical investigation of the Hebrew oiyvooOpcv (v. 11) and the nominative of +pas (a.14) are
texts. T o enter, a t this point, on a piecemeal examina- the same man, the apostle. The verb BptapPe6ov7i is
tion of selected passages would require too great an excellently accounted for by the a6706 which precedes
extension of this article, and the conclusions would not in v. 1 1 . ' It is over Satan that Paul ' triumphs.' The
have the best chance of making a due impression on the reference to a ' sweet odour ' which follows harmmises
reader. with the figure of the 'triumph.' For during a
The special articles in this work on the tribes on the tribal triumph, sweet spices were burnt ; as Plutarch
'mothers,' and on Jacob, should be consulted. T i e conclusions, ( Z m i Z . ) says, the streets were BupiapLi7wv nhljpers.
sometimes tentative, may not always be in harmony, but in the
present unsettled condition of the subject this could not he Paul's preaching of God, or of Christ, is as penetrating,
otherwise. The present writer is responsible for the view that as all-pervading, as the smell of incense. It was a
the first war of Israel was for the possession of the Negeb, and brave sight-that of a Roman triumph-and worthy to
that much in the OT which has been supposed to refer to be chosen by such an enthusiast for Christ and his victory
districts of Canaan proper really refer- to the ' Holy Land of
the Israelites'-the Negeb, or N. Arabian border land. For a as Paul. ' Rome was enftfe, the streets gay with gar-
full critical monoqaph on the tribes of Israel see ' Die Israeli- lands, the temples open.' The procession, it is true,
tischen Stimme,' by .B. Luther, Z A TW 21 1-76 [1901] ; cp also presented reminders that the Christian principle was not
Bennett's article 'Tribe,' in Hastings' D B vol. iv.
T. K. C . , 1-8 11-15 ; G . B. G . , 9f. yet supreme. T h e best part was the end, when ' o n
reaching the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, the general
TRIBUNAL I'KPITH I O N : I Cor. 6 2 4 RVmg.; placed the laurel branch (in later times a palm branch)
=me word also in Jad. 2 6 Eg'judgment seat ' and in Ex. 21 6,
Judg. 5 IO [not @A], Sus.'4g [Theod., not ; in I K. 7 7 for on the lap of the image of the god, and thus offered the
P)?$e,7nG&@ and in Dan. 7 I O 26 for ]'?I din, $ ~ p l m @87 s in thank-offerings ' (see EB, art. ' Triumph ').
V. 26). c p GOVERNMENT, 8 16, LAWAND JUSTICE, 8 8 8 TRQAS Ti., W H , Acts 168 I I
( T ~ ~ A C 205 2 Cor.
TRIBUNES, MILITARY ( X I A I A P X O I ) , Rev. 19 18, 2125 z Tim. 413).
RV'"g. See ARMY( ' chiliarch '), § IO. The full name of the town was Alexandria Troas ('AAe&%pera
TRIBUTE. See T AXATION , and cp SOLOMON, 6.
6 T ~ h s Strabo,
, $31; Ptol. v. 2 4; Liv.3542. The order
.i Tpyhc 'AA&v8pera is found in Polyb. 5 111).
TRIPOLIS ( T P I ~ O A I C[VA]). It was a t the haven 1. Name. One or other part of the full form was very
a t Tripolis (TOO K a r b Tphrohtv hrpkvos) that Demetrius commonly used to designate the place (Alexandreia
in Strabo, 599 e t @ss. ; cp Polyb. 5 78. Troas alone in NT
I., son of Seleucus, mustered the ' mighty host ' and and Pliny, H N , 533, ijsaque T Y O ~ STroas
) . ~ is simply an ad:
'fleet' of which we read in 2 Macc. 1 4 1 8 C p jective, which distinguishes the ' Trojan Alexandria from the
M A C C A BEE S , 5 . As its name indicates (see PHCENICIA, many other towns called after the great conqueror. AP-
parently the simple $ T p o k is not used by Greek writers
5 ZI. col. 3759), Tripolis was divided into three quarters before the NT period, as Igading to ambiguity. For $ Tpods
(separated by walls) ; it had been founded (not earlier is the correct Greek equivalent for ' the Troad '-ie., the region
probably than 700 B .c.) by Aradians, Tyrians, and between Mt. Ida and the Hellespont, which w a s the centre of
t h e Trojan power in Homeric tradition. The 'Troad' (as the
Zidonians, and in E'ersian times Zidon. Tyre, and Aradus word is adopted in English) was spoken of by the Greeks as
held a federal council in it. From 197 B . C . onwards it $ T p y b from the time at least of Herodotus (5 122). In 2 Cor.
belonged to the Selencidz ; but towards the end of that 2 12 cis r;lu Tpod8a might therefore, so far as form goes, mean
period it fell under usurpers or tyrants,' and was plagued 'to the Troad'; but of conrse the word Alexandria must be
supplied to limit the phrase to the city in question-unless we
by robber tribes from whom it was delivered by Ponipey are prepared here to insist that Paul really meant the Troad
in 64 (see PHCENICIA, z z , col. 3763-4). and did not confine his visit to the Troad Alexandria.
The modern Tripoli or ?arBbulus, on the river Kadisha or Alexandria Troas (mod. EsRi-Stantb~i)was an im-
Abu '.4li, is situated in a fertile maritime plain covered with Dortant town and harbour on the coast of E o l i s
orchards and dominated by a castle overhanging a gorge of the
river, some parts of which are, perhaps, the work of the 2. History. (Mysia) or NW. Asia Minor, oppc;ite
crusaders. The port (el Mini) is ahout 2 m. distant, on a the SE. extremitv of the island of
small peninsula (see .PH(ENICIA,map). Tenedos ; it was half-way between Sigeium and Cape
TRIUMPH. Twice the Roman ' triumph ' is referred Lectum (which cape was rounded by the ship in passing
to figuratively, and if the general meaning in one passage from Troas to Assos. Acts 2013). Alexandria was built
(Col. 215) is plain, in the other ( z Cor.214) it is by no by Antigonus, who gathered to it the population of the
means plain. God, we are told in Col. Xc., ' triumphed neighbouring small townships-Scepsis, Cebren, Nean-
over ' the angels opposed to Christ in the henceforth dreia, Larisa, Kolonai. Hamaxitos, and Chrysa (Strabo,
annulled bond of ordinances which had been directly 604 ; cp 593 597). The town was first named Antigonia
hostile to men, and so had justified thoseangels (who had Troas, after its founder ; but subsequently Lysirnachus
in fact promulgated those ordinances?) in their opposi- changed this to Alexandria Troas (Strabo, 593 : Pliny,
tion. The words, are-oimK8vudpevos ~ Z t s oipxbs K a l H N 5 33, ' Troas, Antigonia dicta, nunc Alexandria,
7bs y o v u i a s P ~ E I Y ~ ~ T L U E Qv
V nappqoip, Bprappeliaas colonia Romana '). The importance of the city is seen
afiroljs Qv a h $ , which the RV renders, ' having put off
from himself the principalities and the powers, he made 1 Many varieties are found-$ T&V 'Ahe~av&p&wrr&s in
a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.' Polyh. 21 ,of: In an inscription at Delphi (Ditten. SyZZ.Pl,268
In z Cor. Lc., however, the rendering is disputed. T h e = Michel, RecueiZ, 655)we have TpLs &b 'AAefa&prLs followed
words are-+ 88 ~ d p t r74 r r d v ~ o r eO p r a p p d o v r l almost immediately by 'Ahstav8pdirs i r TZS Tpy6'Sos. I n Strabo
134, we find 'Ahstav8pera 7 %Tpyd8os, just as in Paus. x. 124 w;
+ p i i s 6v 74 XpturG Kal 7 3 v aup+v 7 1 j s y v h r w s a i r 0 6
~
have 'Ahrg%v8pera $ EV 6Tpy&.
52'3 5274
TROGYLLIUM TROPHIMUS
from the fact that, in the negot?ations of Antiochus the The island of Samos is separated from the mainland
Great with the Romans before the battle of Magnesia, by a channel now called the Little Boghaz,l formed by the
the Syrian king offered to surrender ' the territories of overlapping of its eastern promontory Poseidium (Cape
Lampsacus and Smyrna as well as Alexandria Troas, CoZonna) with the western spur of Mt. Mycale which
which were the original cause of the war ' (Polyb. 21 13) ; was called Trogylium2 (now Cape Santn M u k z ) . T h e
its extensive ruins. which for long have served as channel is about one mile wide (Strabo, 636, h7dKclTUl8.?
a quarry, bear testimony to its importance and 7+ Zapla [SC. M u K d h q rb 8pos] K a l ?role? a p b s ud7tu
prosperity. After the defeat of Antiochus the PaPKeiva rijs T p w y i h i o u K ~ A O U ~ P P&pas
V ~ 8uov 2 a r a -
Great, Troas fell into the hands of the Romans and U T ~ & O V mpSp6v). Strabo ( l . 6 . ) also explains that
experienced many benefits from them. I t was one of Trogylium is a spur ( d ~ app 6~a o u s ) . of Mt. Mycale and
the few Roman colonies in Asia Minor (Strabo, 593 ; that facing it there was an island of the same name.
cp Plin. H N , Z.C. ). I t dated from the time of Augustus ; Pliny ( H N 537) names three ' insule Trogiliae,' viz.,
hence the coins bear the Latin inscription cOL. TRoAD. ; Psilon, Argennon, and Sandalion. The anchorage of
COL. ALEX. TRO. ; or COL. AUG. TRO., from which we Trogylium must have been well-known to sailors, for
may infer the name 'Colonia Alexandria Augusta Strabo uses it as a point from which to measure the
Troas.'l Julius Caesar was credited with a design of distance of cape Sunium in Attica (1600 stades to the
removing the capital of the Roman world to this place W., ibid. ; the two points lie practically on the same
(Suet. JuZ. 79).and perhaps Horace (0d:iii. 3 5 7 ) hints parallel of latitude). According to the maps, there is an
at the same design on the part of Augustus (cp also anchorage a little to the east of the point, called St.
what is said of Constantine before he fixed upon the Paul's Port (see Adm. Charts, 1530 and 155s).
site of Constantinople, Zosim. 2 30 ; Zonar. 13 3). Paul sailed through this channel on his way to Jem-
Augustus. Hadrian, and Herodes Atticus contributed Salem at the close of his third missionary tour. After
to the beautification of the city. Herodes Atticus built leaving the latitude of Chios the ship ran straight across
the aqueduct of which remains can still be seen, and to the eastern point of Samos (irape@Cwpev in w. 15 need
the baths were also probably his gift (see on the baths not imply stoppage at or off the harbour of Samos
Koldewey, in AUen. Mitth. 936f:). which lies 4 or 5 m. distant to the west of Trogylium :
Through Troas in Roman times ran the coast road cp Thuc. 332). T h e night was spent in the anchorage
which encircled the peninsula, and thus there was direct of Trogylium, and Miletus was entered in the morning
- .-- and easv communication with the interior
by w a i o f Adraniyttium. From ADRA-
(see MILETUS). It is certain that there must have inter-
vened a night between Chios and Miletus, and this can
MYTTIUM (0. D. \ a road ran NE. to Cvzicus have been spent only at Samos or at Trogylium. T h e
on the Propontis. and '{hence towards the Bitiynian omission of the reference to Trogylium by the great
frontier; a road also ran southwards to Pergamos. MSS may be due to the idea that ?rape/3&Xopeveis Z d p u
T h e former of these roads may well have been in the implied a stoppage during the hours of darkness at that
main that followed by Paul when he found it impossible p o r t ; this idea may have. been strengthened by the
to penetrate into Bithynia (Acts 1675); . b u t the scanti- existence of the variant BuaPppp for hrBppa in w. 15, for by
ness of the record here reduces us to conjectures which implying that the passage to, or arrival at, Samos was
gain but little strength from the later traditions (see postponed to a somewhat late hour, it made the further
Ramsay, Churchi5), 488, Expos., Oct. 1888, p. 264 ; progress that same night to Trogylium impossible.
April 1894, p. 295). Similarly, when Paul was obliged T h e western text undoubtedly here preserves a true
to retire from Ephesus (Acts201) to Troas ( 2 Cor. Z I Z ) , reading, and the reference to Trogylium should he
he may have gone either by sea, or by the coast road retained (omitted, except in margin, by RV : ' touched
which led through Adramyttium (more probably the at Samos ; and [RVmg. many ancient authorities insert,
coast road, if the circumstances of the departure from ' ' having tarried at Trogyllium "3 the day after we came to
Ephesus are taken into account). The importance of Miletus.' See MILETUS, 5 2. W. J. W.
Troas in the itineraries of the time in this region is TROOP. The words so rendered are :
shown by the references in 2 Cor. 2 12 and Acts 205- I. 12,cad, Gen. 30 IT Is. 65 IT ; see F ORTUNE , G A D , I.
ships passing in either direction were certain to put in
at Troas. %ll, gtdzZd, 2 K. 623, etc., 'band' (BBA pov6<ovor, @L
2.
In order to clear up all ambiguity, perhaps reference should miparag. See A RMY , $ 3.
here be made t o a neighbouring town which also hore the name 3. iF?-U, 'Zgudd&k,2 S. 2 25, R V ' band '. See above.
of Troy, Novum Zlium, which is quite distinct from Alexandria
Troas. Novum Ilium (Grk. Illon) claimed to occupy the 4. 7!, &ajydh, 2 S. 23 1 1 Ps. 68 II [IO]. See BDB.
veritable site of Homer's Troy, and all antiquity allowed this 5. n?k, '&ah, Job 619, RV CAXAVAN(q.v.). See also
claim (cp Herod. 743 ; Strabo, 594. Diod. 18 4 ; Xen. Ffd.
i. 14) until it was disputed by D e m e t h s of Scepsis followed by T RADE , B 83 [6 81 col. 5195.
Strabo ; the discoveries of Schliemann have settled the question 6. 2J1, rcRe6, Is. 21 7 RV. Cp C HARIOT , 5 I.
in the affirmative. In Alexander's time the site was a mere
fortified post only occasionally occupied ; but he designed the TROPHIMUS (TPO@IMOC [Ti. WH]), an Ephesian
restoration of the town -a restoration finally effected by disciple and companion of Paul, seems to have been
Lysimachus. Having been destroyed by Fimbria in 85 B.c., the with him in Greece during his third missionary journey,
town was once more restored by Sulla (Appian, Mithr. 53) as and along with Tychicus preceded the apostle to Troas,
a favoured city exempt from tribute (Pliny H N 5 3 3 cp Tac.
Ann. 12 58, 'ut Ilienses omni publico murkre solve;entur,' in where he was joined by Paul and his party on their way
53 A.D.). This generosity on the part of the Romans was due to Syria. Trophimus was, apparently, a Gentile, and a
to their fond belief that the city was the original birthplace of mistaken impression that he had been introduced into the
their race ; intrinsically the town was of no importance at all
(cp Tac. Ana. 4 55) and in this respect was a great contrast to temple proper by Paul led to the uproar which resulted
Alexandria Troas. W. J. W. in Paul's being taken into custody and ultimately trans-
ferred to Cesar?a and Rome (Acts 204 2129). T h e
TROGYLLIUM ( T p W r Y h h l O N , Acts 2015 [TR], allusion to Trophimus in 2 Tim. 420 ('Trophimus I
where, for ITAPEBAAOMEN €IC CAMON. T H A € left at Miletus sick ') is one of several which have made
EXOMENH HAGOMEN EIC MIAHTON [WH], the T R i t necessary to postulate certain journeys of Paul of
has TTAPEBAAOMEN EIC CAMON K A I MEINANTEC E N which the N T contains no direct record, if the genuine-
Tpwryhhlw T H E X O M E N H K. T. h. [For Tpwyyhhiw ness of the Pastoral Epistles is to be maintained.
there is the variant Tp(,.)ryhl&J, which is apparently to
be preferred: see W H 2 App. 98 n.]), Acts2015 AV, 1 The Great Roghaz is on the W. of Samos, separating that
island from Icaria, and varies from 3 t o 8 m. in width ; this is
RVmg, (see end). the passage generally used by modern vessels of any size.
a Trogyllion is the form used by Ptol. 5 2 ; Strabo calls it
1 In the time of Caracalla, the coins bear the additional + Tpwyihros dxpa ; Plin. H N 5 30 calls it Trogilia. Cp Steph.
epithets ' Aurelia Antoniniana. See Head, Hist. Numnr. 470. Ryz S.V. Tp&y~hos. Trogylia in the Latin Western text. .
5215 5216
TRUMPET TRUTH
l h e name of Trophimus closes the lists of 'the seventy' by the 'faithfulness ' for a truth ' in no degree obscures this ;
Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus, which state that he and of course there are passages enough in which
suffered martyrdom at Rome along with the apostle.
' truth' is the only possible rendering of 'Pmetr'z ( e . q . Ps.
TRUMPET. I . lap, &Pren, c a h n i r f , Lev. 2 3 2 4 , 15s Prov.87 1 2 1 7 1 9 2 3 a 3 Dan.8ra). I n Dan. 8 I a the
etc. See HORN,Music, P sa. ' truth ' spoken of is apparently the religion of Yahwe.
2. ??id,G+ir (ie., 'ram's horn'; Ar. sawifir, cp Egypt. No complete parallel to this occurs in the NT, because
fhrrpnr, Ass. Sujrgaiu wild goat ' and deriv. of y&Z, below), ' the truth of the gospel ' (Gal. 2 5 14) is not bound up
Judg. 7 76, etc., K S ~ & (m;uhrr~<c?w, 7 20). See ,l.Iuslc,$ 5a. uith an elaborate cultus. but is simply life in Christ.
3. lsb, a!$!, (tdpi+?r, jLapiiFsrurih, udhwrye, I Ch. 15 a4 Certainly this life is impossible without an act of obedi-
a C h . ~ , r a7 6 1314 2 9 4 . See Music, S 56. ence to the divine will. There is a lawgiver who bids
4. 59,y&l-i.e., *ram'shorn,' so Ex. 19 13, R V w , udAmyb. us repent and believe, in order that we may have life
See hIus~c,4 5a and cp JUBILEE. in Christ. Consequently we have the singular phrases,
5. In Ezek. 7 14 M T has Y i p ? ?ype,rendered in E V 'they . .
' those who disobey the truth ' (70% . d m r 6 o G a
have blown the trumpet' (@ uahdvarr [&I u6Am L ) ; yipn, dX@eip, Rom. 2 8 ) and 'those who do not obey the
f'i&Z, however, occiirh nowhere else in the sense 2
F i l l therefore followed by To proposes to read yipn rypn,
trumpet. gospel ' (702s U, +J harcobovar 74 etayyekly, 2 Thess. 1 8 ) .
hlaset)nur.' S e i Music, 56, e n 2 T h e difficulty in grasping the sense to be assigned to
6. ?P?lp, terz?ah, Nu. 29 T, etc., see TRUh1PE.r-BLOWING.
dX@sia is greatest in the Johannine gospel and epistles.
2. a40ea in Jn. This and the connected forms occur
TRUXPET -BLOWING, DAY OF (nyiq ai', not less than eighty times in this
E\' day of blowing of [AV insert ' the'] trumpets' ; literature. T h e writer's individuality is very manifest
HMEPA C H M A C ~ A C; dies clnugoris et tvdurunr: Nu. in this; he is almost like a Zoroastrian in his intense
% I ) , or, M E M O R I A L OF ('n jl??) ; MNHMOCYNON love of truth and hatred of falsehood. ' T h e father of
C b A n l r r m N ; nemovialeclungenti6us tubis: Lev. the liar is the devil in whom there is no truth?' he says
2324). According to Lev. 2324 P Nu. 29 I Pz, the first (Jn. 8 4 4 ) . l And in the address of a letter to friends he
day of the seventh month was to be ' a day of solemn thinks it worth while to say whom I love truthfully'
rest ' on which no servile work ' was to be done, a holy (dv dXvOslq, z Jn. I ) , This hatred of shams suggests the
peculiar form of his theology or Christology. Christ is
convocation, a day, or memorial, of FrzZ'Zh. See
further JUBILEE,3 I, N E W Moon, N EW Y E A R , Y E AR + dhljeera (Jn. 1 4 6 ) ; he is full of dXlfOera (Jn. 114).
How shall we render dX.;l6eta? As Jn. 1 4 6 shows, it is
1 8 (near end), and, on the shape of the ritual trumpets,
Musrc, $ 5 (cp fig. IO). one aspect of lw$, 'life,' and as its combination with d&,
The word teni'tih is used sometimes in the sense of joyful 'way,' in that passage and with XdppLs, ' liberality,' in Jn.
shouting (Job 8 21 Ecclus. 39 15 [Heb.] I S. 4 5 Ezra3 I I 13 Nu. 1 1 4 shows, it is something which God in and through
?3az), sometimes in that of the battle-shout or alarm of war Christ generously communicates to man. I t is therefore
(Am. 114 Jer. 4 19 492 Josh. 6 5 20). Nu. 31 6 speaks in this
connection of 'the trumpets for the alarm' (nyiina niis,yn); not a bundle of intellectual truths ; it is a share of the
'
That &d&in the passages cited means trumpet-blowing divine nature ; it is real as opposed to seeming existence.
(cp Nu. 1010 Ps. 276 b!316 [IS]) follows from the law which dhfiOeta then is strictly ' reality,' and ' full of grace and
enjoined that trumpets were to be blown at each new moon. truth ' means ' full of self-cornmunicating divine life ' ;
TRUTH. The Heb. n@,
'Pmetr'z ( J p N , to be or, in plainer English, 'full of a gift of real life.'Z
firm '), requires to be rendered differently according to Certainly this can be given only to those who have some
1,Heb. and the context ; the EV, sometimes so need- inward affinity to it, to those at least who are hungry
Gk. terms. !essly addicted to a variety of rendering, for ' the bread of life ' (Jn. 6 35). Such persons are ' of
1s here as needlessly consistent in its the truth,' 2~ 75s dhvOelas (Jn. 1837 ; cp BK 705 fleoii 8 47) ;
adherence to the rendering ' truth.' As a general rule, it is their destiny to become free ; the ' truth,' manifested
' faithfulness,' ' trustworthiness,' ' permanerice ' * sure- in the Son, can make them free, make them 'sons of
ness,' 'sincerity.' are at least as likely to be the right God ' (Jn. 8 3 a 36 1 1 2 , cp Rom. 821). The work of Jesus
rendering of '8mdr'zas ' truth ' ; indeed, where 'Cineth is is to ' bear witness of the truth' (Jn. 1837) ; and when
spoken of as a divine attribute, we may constantly he ' goes away to the Father' he will ask the Father to
substitute ' faithfulness ' for the ' truth ' of EV. In the send a never-failing representative of himself, the spirit
N T a different group of renderings is called for. T h e of truth' 7 b r v r 6 p a res dXqOdas (Jn. 1417). This 'spirit'
S I' was not written, nor were the discourses on which, also bears witness, because the spirit is dX@rra (truth
ultimately, portions of it are based,' spoken in biblical itself), I Jn.56. Still the fact remains that it is ' h e
Hebrew ; it is a Greek book, though with more or less that has the Son ' that ' has life ' ( I Jn. 5 1 2 ) ~ and the
Semitic colouring. 13esides this, the religion which its Son ( i e . , the Christ), even when he has 'gone away,'
writers support was a struggling religion ; its writers ' comes ' to the disciples, indeed to each individual dis-
are conscious of antagonism to other forms of religion ciple (Jn. 14 18 21). The spirit of dA?jflaia,therefore, by
which has a direct bearing on the sense or senses in abiding in the disciples, enables them to behold' him
which they use the word dX@era. A complete examina- ( B E W ~ E ~ T Jn.
E , 1419) in a degree i n which this would
tion of passages containing the word ' truth ' in the EV otherwise be impossible. And through this supreme
is impossible. vision, they will make ever fresh progress in ' life ' and
A few may however, be referred to and alternative, even if in ' reality ' (Jn. 14 19).
inadequate, rinderings may usefully b; su gested T o return to this dhfiOeta or 'reality.' I t has
Gen. 32 IO, ' I am too small for all the jovingkhdnesses and primarily to do with moral life ; it is not an idea to be
.
for all the faithfulness ' etc. Ex 18 21 ' trustworthy men*. Dt.
354,,'a God of faithfulnesi'(sdRV)t I K . 2 4 a K . 2 0 3 , "walk thought, but a deed to be done (Jn. 629, ~ i Epyov ) TOO
In slncel-lty" z K. 2019 peace and permanence'' Ps. 2 5 5 , 6eoC ' the work which God wills ' ; Jn. 321 I Jn. 1 6
'Direct me d t h thy faithfulness' [personified] ; Ps. 3i 5, 'faith- woreiv 7i/v ctX7jOetav). Its opposite, when so regarded,
ful God ' ; Ps. 51 6, ' Thou desirest sincerity ' ' Ps. 85 10 ' Loving. is ' t o practise ill,' or a to walk in darkness,' for the
kindness and faithfulness are met together" (similariy always,
for 'mer5y and truth'); IPS. 119142, 'Thy law is sureness (itself)'; writer has almost a Zoroastrian's love of the symbol of
Is. 42 3, he shall declare t? law faithfully'; Jer. 5 3 , 'Are not Light (see L IGHT). Bnt 'reality' extends from the
thine eyes upon sincerity? moral to the intellectual sphere. There is but one
Both in OT and in NT the duty of truth-speaking is
urged, and the Psalter shows how deeply the teaching 1 Lachrnann's conjecture (Test. GY. 2, Przf. p. vii) 6s Bv
A d ? ? ~b $ G S o s should
robahly be accepted. 'Whoever speaks
of the prophets had penetrated Jewish minds, This is a li: s eaks of that w!ich is his own, for i i s father also is a
oiie of the points in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism liar. %hevers now becomes intelligible. It belongs prirbablg
manifest their inward affinity. The substitution of to the editor wEo rightly explains vu.4 5 44 (sp v.,55).
2 The Kai'in xdp. K& &AVO. is the ab ez#hcutzvvm. So, in
Jn. 4 24, i v rve6FaTb rai &AvOdp means 'in the spirit, with
1 Cp Dalman's remark, Die WorfeJcsu, 15 (foot), 16 (top). reality.'
5217 5918
TRPPHENA TUBAL
' Light ' (Jn. 14), and in bearing witness of this ' Light ' TRYPRON' (TPY@,WN [AKV] ; cp TPYI$WN,
Khe ' spirit of reality' is insensibly led on to the dis- Waddington, no. 2711 and perhaps ]lD?D the name of
closure of great intellectual truths. ' H e shall teach a Rabbi upon a Hb. inscr. quoted by Euting, SBA W
yo11 all things ' (Jn. 1426), ' shall guide you in the whole 16th July, 1885, no. 47). of Apamea, formerly an ad-
truth' (Jn. 1613), the truth of the primeval Reason herent of Alexander Balas, took advantage of the dis-
(Xbyos), and also the truth of things that are to come affection prevailing among the troops of D EMETRIUS 11.
(Jn. 1 1 8 16 13)-in accordance with the longing of the to obtain the person of ANTIOCHUS(p.w. 4), the young
primitive age for an apocalypse of the winding-up of son of Balas, whom he used as a puppet to gratify
the world. There is one other writing in which dX+3eta, his personal ambitions. Supported by the soldiers of
real as opposed to merely speculative truth, is specially Demetrius, Tryphon was enabled to defeat his rival and
prominent-the Epistle to the Ephesians. Certainly win over Antioch ( I Macc. 1139 fi). The allegiance
aX?$Bcra is still somewhat restricted in its application. of Jonathan and the Maccabzean party was gained
'l'he full scope of 'real truth' is so wide that it (vv. 5 7 3 ) , and his position became gradually stronger.
needed another name-uo+ia, 'wisdom,' or yvGuis, At last he was able to throw over Antiochus; but
'knowledge.' The fear of the Lord is the beginning fearing lest the power of the Maccabees might be
of wisdom, said the wise man of old ; this fear of the inimical to his interests, he found it necessary to march
Lord to the Christian teacher is cih@ta. T o it against Jonathan. They met at Bethshan, and, by a
8iKatou6vq, ' righteousness,' and dur6rqs, ' piety,' are stratagem, Jonathan was captured. Taking his prisoner
ascribed (Eph. 424) ; and the fruit of righteousness is with hini Tryphon proceeded to Jerusalem, but was
'in righteousness and reality' (Eph. 59). ' T h e word intercepted at Adida by Simon, Jonathan's brother.
of real truth ' ( r b u Xbyov rjjs dXqBcfas) is the ' Gospel of Tryphon pretended that the detention was due to the
your salvation ' (Eph. 113 : cp 2 Tim. 2 15). Hence non-payment of revenues, and thus obtained a ransom
disciples %re ' taught in Christ, even as real truth is in for his prisoner, whom, howsever, he failed to hand
Jesus ' (Eph. 421). Naturally, truth-speaking is one of over ; and, at last, irritated by two futile attempts to
the chief duties of such disciples (Eph. 425), but only as reach Jerusalem, slew Jonathan at Bascania (143B.c.;
one expression of that a truth ' or ' reality' which is the 131-23) ; see J ONATHAN . Tryphon's next step was to
first part of their 'panoply' (Eph. 614). I n Eph. 415 seize the throne,2 a proceeding which resulted in Simon
drXqBe6eiv Ev d y & q (RV ' speaking truth [mg. dealing and Demetrius 11. forming an alliance against their
truly] in love') means more than 'speaking truth common enemy ( 1 3 3 1 8 ) . When Demetrius was a
charitably ' ; it is both speaking and practising that real prisoner in Persia his younger brother (Antiochus
truth which Christ embodied. Sidetes) continued the struggle, and Tryphon was forced
The use of the adjectives (bXqB+, dXqBtv6s) should to flee to Dora, and thence by successive stages to
also he studied. Both are sueciallv
1 ,
freauent
s
in the Ptolemais, Orthosia, and finally to Apamea, where after
3. hxqe4r, Johannine Gospel and Epistles. Note a brief reign of three years he perished (Jos. Ant.
MrleLvdo in especially Jn. 655, ' m y flesh is a true xiii. 72). Sea SELEUCIDR, 14.
Jn. etc. meat dXqBlfs t u n ppGurs-i.e., ' a food TUBAL (5>Vl, hJl; once [A Ezek. 3911
which reallv. IDermanentlv nourishes ' :
~ ~~
2 , ~. e o k p ; once [Ezek. 27131 H C Y M I T ~ C A [U], T&
Jn. 1g ' the very light' ( ' very ' as in the Nicene Creed, c[yM]rr&NT& [ A ; see also Qm" Ezek. 3226 3821;
'very God =Bebs dXqBrvbs), the true light ' r b +Gs Thubal) and MESHECH ( Y W Q ; Sam. l W D , 1VlD;
rb dXqBiv6v ; Jn. 15 I ' the vine rightly so-called,' + MOCQX [in E&. 2713. T h ~ b p b T € I N O N T h ] ; MOsOch).
& p m X o s fi dXqBtv3 ; Jn. 173 the only, veritable God,'
W e shall first of all collect the exegetical data presented
rbv pbwov dXqBtvbv Babv. Trench' compares Pla.to, in MT, and state the current theory based upon these
Tim. 25a, aQXayos dvrws dXqBrvhs ?r6vros, ' a n ocean data ; we shall then endeavour to put the question in
worthy of the name.' But Hebrew has similar phrases, a new critical light. As the text stands, l u b a l and
nng yiig, ZZChE 'Zmeth, ' a - real G o d ' ( z Ch. 1 5 3 ) ; 1. Tubal= Meshech are always mentioned together
npg on>, I&m 'Zmeth, ' true, unfeigned hospitality,' Tibarenil except in Is. 6 6 1 9 (but see a), where
n n $v~ m~ &?sed Sel 'fmeth, ' true, unfeigned charity Tubal and Javan are mentioned together
(quoted in Jastrow, Dict. 79). dXqBtvbs is also frequent as distant nations, and in Ps. 1205, where, strangely
in Revelation, but, except in 37, always with the enough, ' Meshech' (dtpaKplivBq) is I/ to ' Kedar,' the
meaning ' trustworthy.' second in order of the sons of Ishniael, and in I Ch. 117
The use of dXqBtv6s (EV ' t r u e ' ) in Jn. 19 4 2 3 15. (om. @B) where Meshech is introduced as last in
etc. Heb. 82 (cp d Jer. 221 dXqBtvljv=np~ Q) is very order of the sons of Shem. In Ezek. 2 7 1 3 Tubal and
Meshech appear as supplying Tyre with slaves and
characteristic of the writers' belief in heavenly patterns
vessels of brass. I n 3226 they are among the nations
of earthly things. Wycliffe has the fine phrases ' a
which have gone down to ShCdl-Le., have suffered
verey light,' ' a verrei vyne,' ' the verrei tabernacle' ;
some great reverse. In 382f. (peuox [BQ]. @WOK
but in Jn. 4 23 ' trewe worshippers. '
[A ZI. 31) 391 ( p e u o ~[B]) they are mentioned as under
NT Theol. 2 378 ; Wendt (Die Lehre /em, 2 ZM p)
On the Johannine use of dA+ha(reality) see H. Holtzmann,
gives the
term perhaps too prominently an ethical sense righteous ').
the rule of Gog. Since Bochart they have been
usually identified with the Moschi (pbuxot)and Tihareni
Forther, on the presuppositions of the Johannine term, see (rrpapqvoi) who are named together by Herodotus
Holtzmann, 03.cit. 2 374f: T. K. C.
(394 7 7 ) . In the Ass. inscriptions (see Schrader,
TRYPHENA, or rather, as in RV Tryphrena KAT(2)82 8 , KGF 155 8 ; Del., Par. 250 8 ;
Winckler, G B A 172) their territory is extended farther
(TPY@AINA), and Tryphosa (TPY+CMA), 'who labour
in the Lord,' are saluted in Rom. 1612. They appear' S. than in Herodotus, the TabnZi up to C
to have been deaconesses, and not improbably were and the MuS&i NE. of the Tabali. According to
Gelzer and Schrader. a part of the Tabali, together
sisters.
The name Tryphosa is met with in Carian inscriptions (cp with the MuSki, had been driven N. by the Gimirrai
C I G 2 2819 2839), and among the monuments of the imperial (the RrppQtoc; see G OMER ) to the seats where they
household in the first century: Tryphaena appears in the were in the time of Herodotus. ASur-bani-pal's in-
apocry ha1 Acts of Paul and The& as the wife of Polemo scriptions report that the tribute of Tabal consisted
king oPCilicia. Gutschmidt has shown that there really was a
queen of that name, of Mauretanian origin ; she was repudiated entirely of ' great horses.' Cp H ORSE , 5 3 (Tabal was
by her husband Polemo 11. of Cilicia about 40 A.D. She close to Cilicia).
afterwards lived under the emperor Claudius in Roman territory
at Antioch in Pisidia (see Lipsius, Ajokv. Ap.-Gesch. 3 464-5). 1 This name (which means dihauche? was given to Diodotus,
for that was his real name, after his victory over Demetrius 11.
2 Whether he really slew the young king at this juncture (so
1 New Test. Synonyms, 31, 1 Macc. 13 31) iS uncertain ; see Cam& Bible, ad loc.
5219 5220
TTJBAL-CAIN TUNIC
It so happens, however, that all the passages in words. .ai $v would make up for the loss of ’?y, which analogy
which Tubal and Meshech are mentioned are among requires us to supply. Cp Budde, Urgesch. 13gf:
corrupt texts with most inaccurate preconceived opinions. TUMOURS ( D h U ) , I S. 5 6 9 IZ 64f. 11 17 RV, AV
In the true text of Is. 6619the natims referred to are E MERODS (4.u.).
probably those which bordered on S. Palestine, viz.,
Ashhur (Geshur), Zarephath, Jerahmeel, Cusham, TUNIC occurs only in Dan. 3 2 1 for the Aram. W D
Tubal, Jaman ; tba names are used conventionally, (see B REECHES , z ) , and in Jn. 1923 RVmg for x i d v ,
and drawn from earlier sources. Cusham’ cor- (EV ’ coat ’) ; but ’ tunic ’ admirably suits the Heb.
responds with the pouox of 6,and means the N. kuttbneth, n h p , from which, indeed, the Lat. tunica
Arabian Cush (see CUSH, 2). ‘Tubal,’ as ‘Tubal- has possibly ‘.arisen by metathesis through the medium
kain ’ (where -kain I:see TUBAL-CAIN] is equivalent to of the Greek xc76v (cp P H ~ N I C I A 5 7).
,
’ Kenites ’ ) the name of a son of Lamech ( =Jerahmeel), The Hebrew kutttneth (of uncertain derivation : but
suggests, is a N. Arabian ethnic; we meet with it in CD Drobablv Ass. kitinnt. linen. cloth : see Zehnufund.
Beitr. z. ASS.1&), commonly rendered
_ I I .
TYCHICUS ( T Y X I K O C [Ti. W H ] ) , one of the com- former island, which is now. owing to the widenine of
panions of Paul, was 'of Asia' (Acts204) and seems to a. Later Alexander's. mole-by deposits of s&d,
have joined the apostle a t some point on his 'third' notices and connected with the mainland byT hae
missionary journey, preceded him from Greece to Troas, present state. tongue of land ;t m. broad.
and accompanied him thence, it would appear, to greatest length of the ancient island.
~~
Jerusalem (Acts205). H e is mentioned in Eph. 6 2 1 from N. to S.,-is about e"m., and its area abou;
a n d Col. 47 as the ' beloved brother and faithful minister 142 acres-a small surface for so important a town.
and fellow-servant in the Lord' who was the bearer of The researches of Renan seem to have completely
the epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians to refuted the once popular idea that a great part of the
their respective destinations. z Tim. 4 IZ represents original island has disappeared by natural convulsions,
him as having been sent by the apostle from Rome to though he believes that the remains of a line cif sub-
Ephesus, and in Tit. 3 I Z the apostle proposes to send merged wall a t the S. end indicate that about 15 acres
either Tychicus or Artemas to Titus in Crete. more were once reclaimed from the sea and have been
In the listr of the 'seventy' in Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo- again lost. Confined to this narrow site-on which,
Hippolytus he is twice enumerated-once as bishop of Colo- moreover, place was found for the great temple of
phonia and once as bishop of Chalcedon. In the work of the Melkarth with its courts, and for all the necessities of a
Pqeudo-Epiphanius on the twelve apostles he is represented as a vast trade, for docks and warehouses, and for the great
disciple and attendant of the apostle Andrew, by whom he is
appointed bishop of Chalcedon. purple factories (see P URPLE ) which in the Roman time
were the chief source of wealth and made the town a n
TYRANNUS, THE SCHOOL OF, the place where unpleasant place of residence (Strabo, 162 23 ; Pliny, 5 7 6 )
Paul, after his separation with h k disciples from the -Tyre was very closely built ; Strabo tells us that the
synagogue at Ephesus, reasoned daily (Acts 199 : KaO' many-storied houses were loftier than those of Rome.
+pbpav GiaXEybpwos 2v 75 uxohfj TupCcvvou [Ti. WH]). In the Roman period the population overflowed its
There is nothing to indicate who this Tyrannus was- bounds and occupied a strip of the opposite mainland,
whether himself a rhetorician or philosopher, or merely including the ancient Palztyrus. Pliny gives to the
the hirer of the premises. D, Syr., p. marg. (see whole city. continental and insular, a compass of 19
ACTS, 5 17) has the reading T. rtvbr, dab &pas ahurrrvr R. m. ; but this account must be received with caution.
2ws 6 e ~ d r v s . C p EI'HESUS,5 4. I n Strabo's time the island .was still the city, and
TYRE (i'i, YjV, TYPOC. Ass. Sun-u, Egypt. Dam Palaetyrus on the mainland was 30 stadia off, whilst
{As. u. Eur. 18itl), the most famous of Phcenician cities. modern research indicates an extensive line of suburbs
1 - 1
1. Two Tyres; For its history, see P H ~ : N I C I A cp ; rather than one mainland city that can he definitely
references. NEBUCHADREZZAR. Though never identified with Palztyrus. The topography of Tyre is
in the uossession of the Israelites. Tvre still obscure owing to the paucity of Phcenician remains.
is mentioned in the delimitation of the territory of The present harbour is certainly the Sidonian port,
Asher, in Josh. 1929, as the 'fenced city of T y r e ' ~
(ir-yr5, i y - i y ) , or perhaps rather (following bB,Pws LIBNATH), and that i s - i s m is a corruption of iu?(cp following
rrvyijs, i'y-ip) ' [the fountain 0i-I the fortress of Tyre,' note).
the landmark referred to being the fountain, not the 1 I t is probable (see TAHTIM-HODSHI) that the present
city,2 and also in the geographical sketch of the narrative in z S. 24 is an expansion of an earlier narrative which
represented the census of David as limited to the fightihg men
of MiSSur and Jerahmeel, regions which David had recently
1 riapa, tiara (Theod., B Vg.) and the corresponding readings brought under his sway ( 2 S. 8 2, and cp MOAB,B 14). i s - l s 1 n
af Pesh. and Ar. seem to refer properly to ~ $ 1 1 3and not to is a corruption of l>X>i.e., probably, the capital of Miwur (CD
0 . ~ 5 see
; S. A. Cook, J o u n . Phil. 263706: (ISgg), followed
by Marti KHC Daniel 23 (1901). 2
2 It is kery pdssible, hAwever, that the description in w.2 9
30 is based upon a list of places in the Negeb.(cp SHIHOR-
5-5 5226
TYRE UNICORN
though it is not so large as it once was : the other impregnable fortress under the Arab empire. From 1124 to
ancient harbour (the Egyptian port) has disappeared, 1291 it was a stronghold of the crusaders, and Saladin himself
and is supposed by Renan to have lain on the other besieged it in vain. After the fall of Acre the Christians deserted
the place, which was then destroyed by the Moslhs. The
side of the island, and to be now absorbed in the present town has arisen since the Metzwilaoccnpied the district
isthmus. The most important ruins are those of the in 1766.
cathedral, with its magnificent monolith columns of See Pietschmann, Gesclr. der Ph&zic&r, 61-72 (1889); F.
rose-coloured granite, now prostrate. Jeremias, Tyrrcs 6is ZIT Zeit Nedukadnesavs (1891) ; PraSek,
Forschmng-en ZUY Gesch. des Aaltterflrums 2 21-39 (1898)’
The water supply of ancient Tyre came from the owerful Winckler, ‘Assyrien u. Tyrus seit Tiglath-pheser 111. ’ AO$
springs of RXs el-‘Ain on the mainland (perhaps the ‘ Zuntain ’ 26 5 8 T.K.C.,§I; W.R.S.,§2.
of Jo:h. 19 zg-see 5 I ), o?e hour S. of the city, where there
are still remarkable reservom, in connection with which curious
survivals of Adonis worship have been observed by Volney and TYRE, LADDER OF (KAIMAKOC TYPOY, I Macc.
other travellers. Tyre was still an important city and almost 1159) ; see LADDER OF TYRE.
.
U
UCAL (>?!), Prov. 301. See ITHIEL
AND U CAL. will break the how of Elam [Jerahmeel], the chief [source] of
their strength.‘ 1 T. K. C.
UEL ($&IN, 5 39) one of the b’ne BANI (p.v.): ULLA(&; cp Palm. N h [fern.] and Sin. wAa h;
Ezra1034 (ovqA [BabAl, Bu. [B*vid.~],~ m l A[Ll). In I Esd. 934 [BA]), an Asherite whose sons are named in I Ch. 739.
the name appears as JUEL ( w v v a [BA], iovqA [L]), cp ovqA [Bl,
r o q A [AI, iwqA [Llin 21. 35. Possibly therefore he is to be identified with one or other
of the preceding Asherites--r.g., Shual (Syrn), v. 36, or
UKNAZ (lgpj),I Ch.415, AVmg., AV ‘even Kenaz,’ A RA ( ~ i p ~ v.
) , 38. @, however, omits the names of
RV ‘ and KENAZ‘ (4.v.). d does not represent 7. Ulla and Ara, and makes Hanniel and Rizia sons of
I THRAN . See ASHER,§ 4, ii. and note.
U W (*$!in; in Dan. 82 d [87] AIAAM ; Syr. of d
OYAAM, Theod. [BAQT] T O Y oyBaA; in v. 16 d UMMAH (3pF),one of a group of place-names in
OYAAI, but with superscr. 87 a ; Theod. as in v . Josh. 1 9 2 9 (end), 30, which, since they produce great
z), mentioned in Dan. 8 2 as a river near Shushan the stylistic awkwardness, may have been introduced from
palace (?),’ in Elam ; cp zi. 16 ‘ between [the hanks of ?] Judg. 1 3 1 (Steuernagel). I t isusual to emend ;my ( M T
Ulai.’ Presumably the ( n h ) U-la-a of the Assyrian Ummah) into i>y ( M T in Judg. Z.C. ‘Acco’). See
inscriptions, described as ‘ a river whose banks are good ’ PTOLEMAIS. Geographically this can be made plaus-
(for a battle-field). The word for ‘river’ in Dan. 82 ible (see Moore, Judg. 51) ; hut whether it can be said to
($irx.’ iibdl), which in m. z 16 Theod. (BAQF) gives be favoured by a study of the variations of the MSS of
instead of ‘ Ulai,’ occurs nowhere else, and is commonly 6 ,is at any rate doubtful.
viewed as a parallel form to S ~ V ,yubal (see KO., There is a strong probability that parts of the geographical
survey in Josh. have been based upon earlier texts which referred
Lekrgeb. 2 8 8 460), Jer. 178 (EV ‘river’ ; d i ~ p & to the Negeb, where accordingly we may have to suppose that
‘ mcisture’), though d gives the Aramaic sense of ‘gate’ the clans or tribes of Israel originally dwelt. Also that n ~ y ,
( ~ p d 76s rrfihy A h u p ) . So in Dan. 8 3 Theod. [BAQT] y y 2 (Pesh.), i ~ (MT y in Judg.), and a p x o p , n m w , arxwp, and
has ovpaX where dwhas r f i X 7 ~ . In Judith16 the ~ K K U , ~ all
, ultimately come from 5~~i-11. (Jerahmeel). Notice
Syriac has ‘ Ulai,’ where the Greek has ‘ HYDASPES ’ that the valley of Achor (ii>y) in Josh. 7 24-26 is near ‘Jericho ’
-i.e., Jerahmeel (Kadesh? : see JERICHO, 5 4). How the final
( y . ~ . ): can ‘ Hydaspes’ be an error for ‘Choaspes’? editor of Josh. 19 24-31 read the name given in M T as Ummah,
At any rate, Herodotus (1188; 5 4 9 52), followed by may he left uncertain. The passage has but a doubtful
Straho (157z8), places Susa on the Choaspes ; but Pliny geographical value.
As to the Versions, Pesh. and 2 Heb. MSS (de Rossi) read
( 6 135) makes the Eulzeus the river which flows by that Of the Gk. MSS B has apxwj-3 (Le., axwp, modified by
capital. According to Noldeke, though it is possible ;rib?). A group of M$S which as a rule agree with B (16 52
53 57 77 85 131 144 236 237) read amo ; another group (44 74 76
that Susa in the days of its glory may have stretched
from the Eularus to the Choaspes (if we assume these 84 134) arKwp and the related MSS 54 75 nr[rIq@;A and V
(Holmes and ’Parsons, 111 XI) and related cursives with L
rivers to be different), it is more probable that the two Compl., Ald. and Syro-hex., in which the names are genera$
names represent the same river. Frd. Delitzsch, how- corrected after the Hebrew, appa. See conspectus in Hollen-
ever, infers confidently from the cuneiform evidence berg (ZA TW, 11coJ). T. K. C.
that the Eulgus is not the Choaspes (the Ass. Uknfi
UMPIRE (n’?iD), J o b 9 3 3 EVmg., EV DAYSMAN.
=mod. Kercha), but the Karun, which is the Pasitigris
(it-.,Lesser Tigris), up which sailed Nearchus and See M EDIATOR .
the Macedonian fleet to join Alexander. In all this, UNCLEAN. See C LEAN AND U NCLEAN .
however, the uncertainty of the original text of Daniel
and of Judith must be remembered. [On the reading UNCTION ( X P I C M ~ ) , I Jn. 220 ; RV ANOINTING.
‘ Ulai,’ see SHUSHAN,and cp Crit. Bib. T h e question
of an underlying text in which the geography was UNICORN (DK7,3 also D 9 [Job 399f.1, D’Kl [ps.
different must here be reserved. 1 92111, cp plur. DW:! [ps. 22211; MONOKEPWC ; *
Cp Noldeke, ‘ Ulai,’ Bi6. Lex. 5 5 7 6 s ; Del. Paradies, 777
1 9 3 8 , 329 : Loftus, C h a i d m andSusiana, 4 2 3 5
1 Originally Jer. 46-51 appears to have referred to the peoples
on the S. and SE. of Palestine. Owing partly to confusions of
ULAM (D$: OYAAM [BAL]). I. A Machirite geographical names, the original prophecies have been filled up
name: I Ch.716 17 (qAap [L]). Ulam’s brother is called and expanded so as to appear to have a wider scope. This is a
Rekem. Both names mean the same thing-viz., erahmeel. hi hly probable, though a new, result. See PROPHET, B 45.
Cp R EK E M , and for ‘Ulam’ cp Elam= Jerahmeel in Ezra 5 7 31, Cp Jer. 21 13 47 5 where p y a and o p y both probably come
and probably Is. 21 z Jer. 49 3 4 8 from sNnrn* (see C i i t . Bi6.).
2. Ancestor (in a genealo y of Benjamin [q.v 9 il? @I) of the 3 The Nah. pr. n. p,(CIS, 2 316) may possibly be connected
B’ne Ulam [i.e. Jerahmeef] who were disti&ished for their
archery: I Ch. 8 ; 9 / ( h a p , a A a p [B]). SeeJQR l l ~ r r Io I Z ~ , with ng.
& i 12, and-for Jerahmeelite archers, Jer. 49 35, Behold, I
g and 4 With regard to the rendering of 8 , it should be noticed
that a belief in the existence of a one-horned animal goes hack
to Aristotle ( P a r t . An. 363) who mentions as such the oryx
1 According to Jensen, however j i i N is a loan-word from and the Indian ass. Late; accounts such as that of Mia;
Ass. u66aZ .
‘ carries down cp the phrase in the Ass. inscrip- ( N a f . An. 1620) are largely influenced by the accounts of the
rhinoceros; cp Houghton in Ann. and Mag. of mat. Hist.,
tions, ‘which (i.e., the Ulaijcarries down [ubbualu] its full waters
to the sea,’ Ges. Le.r.W, S.V. Nov. 1862, and art. ‘ Unicorn ’ in Ency. Bric.(Q)
.5=7 5228
unhappy rendering of Ihe AV.I occurs some nine times between definite and indefinite article here, but must
in the OT, where it regularly gives place in RV to be derived from h y v d u r y alone. The word is trans-
WILD-OX(mg. O X - AN TEL O PE , cp Nu. 2322 etc.). I t lated ' unknown,' or 'unknowable.' Whichever be
appears as a wild untamable animal, the most unlikely accepted we must be careful to exclude all non-Athenian
of all to submit to the plough (Job 39g-rz), of great connotation. To suppose an allusion to the God of
strength (Ps.2221, parallel to aryih n'ix ( l i o n ' ) , and the Jews is clearly impossible, in spite of the fact that
agility (ib. 296, parallel to '2geel, ~ J J 'Jcalf'), whose horns the epithet ' wholly hidden ' ( ~ Y K ~ U + O Swas
) applied to
were lofty and a symbol of power and might (Nu. Yahwi: by gentile writers (Just. Mart. A d GY. 38 ;
2 3 m 2 248 Dt. 3 3 1 7 cp Ps.9211 [on which see Che., ApoL 2 1 0 ; Phil. Leg. 44). On the other hand, it is
PJ.PI]). From Is. 347 (ol dGpoi AVmS ' Rhinoceros ' ) it equally unjustifiable to read into the inscription the
the statement that Abraham came from Ur-kasdim URBANE,or rather, as in RV, Urbanus (OYPBANOC
will be a very primitive tradition-a variant to the other [Ti. WH]), is saluted as ' our fellow-worker in Christ '
statement that he came from Harriin. In P both in 'Rom. 169. T h e name is a Latin one. When, or in
traditionsare united in such a way that two journeys what capacity, Urbanus helped the apostle in his
are distinguished, the first from Ur-kasdim to HarrHn, missionary labours is not known.
the second from HarrZn to Canaan.' Urlmnus figures as bishop of Macedonia in the list of 'the
The riddle, as usually stated, admits of no satisfactory seventy' compiled by Pseudo-Dorotheus. The 6j'Fdpwpa of
solution, for the simple reason that the texts of the Peter and Paul as given by the Pseudo-Symeon Metaphrastes
6. New solu- narratives in Genesis, after having been
represents him as consecrated bishop of Tarsus by Peter.
partly corrupted in transcriptidn. were URI ('?W, perhaps a clan-name, shortened and
tion of re-edited by men who had different corrupted from Jerahme'eli [so Che.], hut see NAMES, 5 52, and
geographical presuppositions from those cp URIAH).
of the original writers. It is becoming more and more I. b. Hur-from ' Ashhur'? LChe.1-the father of BELALEEI.
probable that the original scene of the primary Hebrew (Ex. 31 2'35 30 z Ch. 15 :' o u [rlrov [B, and A in z Ch.], oup[r]r
AFL] ; I Ch. 2 20: ovp[rlr [LAL]).
legends was in the Negeb. From ' Adam ' to Joseph 2. Father of GBBER [p.w., no. 21 (I K. 4 19 : dar [BBA], a86ar
this can be traced, sometimes with virtual certainty, [L]). Cp SOLO,??!ON, Q 6, third note.
sometimes with considerable probability. The geo- 3. A post-exilic door-keeper temp. Ezra ; Ezra 10 24 ( ~ 6 0 ~ 8
graphical changes introduced were owing partly (as we [BN], wdouc[Al, oupras [L])=I Ch. 9 17 (AHIMAN;1""; arpap
have seen) to corruption, and partly to the perplexing [Bl, -Y [AL]): pTobably corrupt [Che.l)=r Esd. 9 qf ( o u p r a ~
similarity of the names in different parts of the ancient [Ll; om. E V mth BA, unless the name is buried in avqp of
mhaauqr=nin+avl)s or in ~anxouporof w. 24).
East (cp Schr. KGF 29 247). There was a I3arriin in
the N. ; there was also in all probability a H a r s n in URIAH, and in Mt. 1 6 AV, Urias (3:?SK, but no. 3
the S. (referred to, e.g., in the phrase, ' Sanballat the W:?.lK ; o y p [ ~ l i ~[BKALI).
c
Hnrsnite,' ~ n a Neh., 210. see S ANBALLAT). There The name might mean ' Yahwi: is a fire,' 8 35 ; cp ARIEL, I.
was an Aram in the N. ; there was also an Aram in It is strange, however, that a Yahwistic name should he borne
the S. The later scribes unfortunately forgot all by a Hittite. The difficulty disappears if we accept Jastrow's
about the southern Harriin and Aram. though they were theoryUBL 13 IOIJ ; see NAMES, 8 19n.,3) thatthe element
3, is often only an emphatic afformative. It is equally non-
conscientious enough to leave abundant half-conceded existent on the theory that this element h a s generally arisen
evidence of their existence. Transcriptional errors too out of *, the common termination of gentilics. n,-,i~, like
were easy. $N*>>N,URIEL, '?N, URI,is in fact most probably a corruption
1 ~ and3 w~pp , ~ and
p 113 were very easily confounded, and either of honi', Jerahmeeli, or of y ~ l y ,'Ar5bi. Cp also Urii
beside a 3 there was a form n+, which was liable to be mis-
5
1 in the Phcenician Urumilki (KARa). 185). The amount of
written a n i ? and even 1 ~ (see1 PROPHET col. 3861 n. z). evidence for such corruptions is too great to be disregarded.
I t would not be ri ht at &e opening of a lar'e field of inquiry I. A ' Hittite,'oneof David's heroes ( z S. 2339 [ouper
to assume that sue% confusions in any particufar case were more
than probable. But we are mt at the opening of an inquiry.
L], I Ch. 1141 [ouper BK]), who took part in the war
Sufficientevidence has been rodnced by the present writer to against the Ammonites under Joab, and was got rid of
justify him in the assertion tfat there is a strong probability in by David in a most cowardly way to cover over his
favour of any correction which brings any particular legend adultery with BATHSHEBA ( q . ~ . ) ,Uriah's wife ( z S. 11
1 2 9 3 I K. 1 5 ~ ) . ~
1 In Gem.(? 139 [10021 however, Gunkel falls back on the
average opinion of xholak. After stating the new mentioned 1 Set AOF, 2250-152.
in the opening sentence of the quotation he continues, 'against 2 The qualification in w. 5 (end) is wanting in BBB and is
the latter location of Ur-+iim it may, k t h jusuce (nitgutem no doubt a gloss. The redactor himself elsewhere give; David
Grund), be objected, etc. an absolute eulogy 0134 9).So Benr, Kittel.
933 5234
URIEL URIM AND THUMMIM
Our view of the notices of Uriah in 2 S. llJ, however, needs Vg. doctrina and oeritas or $erfectio), the apparatus of
revision in the light of the facts ; (I) that the list of David‘s the priestly oracle (Dt. 338 cp I O ; Nu.2721 Ezra263
heroes, which includes ‘ Uriah the Hittite,’ makes no allusion to
the reported treachery of David; (2) that the story of this [bBA
TOIC @ W T I Z O Y C I N KAI T O I C T E ~ E I O I C , bL
treachery has undoubtedly been manipulated (see BATH-
SHEBA, J EDIDI A H , SOLOMON, $ 2)) out of a regard for edifica-
. . . T E A B I W C E C I N ] = N765~ ~[aBNA
. @ W T I C W N , GL
tion; and (3) that, ‘nn being most probably a mutilated form of TOIC @WTICMOIC K b l T b l C TEhEIWCBCIN]). T h e
’niinl, ‘ Rehobothite,’ and ‘ Rabbah of the b’ne Ainmon ’ being only passage which throws any light upon the nature
not leis probably a corruption of ‘ Rehohoth of the b’ne Jerah- and use of the Urini and Thummim is I S. 1441f.
meel’ (cp R EHOBOTH) it is not conceivable that Jerahmeel the Emending after 03, we read: ‘And Saul said, “ 0 YahwLt,
Rehobothite’ (misreah in the traditional text, ‘Uriah the God of Israel, why dost thou not answer thy servant to-day? If
Hittite’) should have fought in the ranks of the Israelites on the this fault be in me or in Jonathan my son, giveUrim, and if it be
occasion referred to. Obviously Uriah‘s true designation had in thy people Israel, give Thummm.” Thereupon Saul and
been forgotten when the story of the siege received its present Jonathan were taken and the people went free. Then Saul said
expanded form. To this we must add that stories similar to “Cast between me and lonathan mv son: he whom YahwLt
that of the baleful letter to Joab are familiar to students of
primitive folklore.1 Even apart from this, it is plausible to hold,
. .
takes shall die ” . So they cagt between him and Jonathan
his son, and Jonathan was taken.
on grounds of literary criticism, that 2 S. 11 I was originally
followed by 1226 (S. A. Cook, AJSL 16156 [April 1900]; so, It is evident from 21. 41 that the question, which in
independently, Winckler). Cp, however, Budde in KHC, both cases is put as a simple alternative (cp 39), was
‘Sam.’ 250.
It is not difficult to see how Uriah may have come into the decided by casting lots ; and from o. 40 that Urim and
story of Batbsheba. BATHSHEBA (4.v.) was apparently a Thummim were the names respectively of two objects
‘Jerahnieelite’ by, origin. $Nnni. when broken up by the with which the cast was made.
carelessness of scribes, furnishes mdterial for the two words Comparing I S. 1441f: with 36 @ (cp 3 18 6) we
~ y . (Eliam)
5 ~ and n q i ~(Urjah). Errors like this often have see that the casting of lots with the Urim and Thummim
strange results in the production of legends.
2. A priest, temp. Ahaz, who acted as a witness for Isaiah (Is. was part of the method of divination by the ephod ; in
8 2). He is presumably the Uriah (AV URIJAH) who built an other places where the ephod is employed (236 g 307)
altar for Ahaz after a Damascene pattern 2 K. 16 I O J the procedure is so exactly the same as in I S. 1 4 3 6 8
b. Shemaiah of Kijath.jeanm s d n at the command of
e oiakim for prophesying against’ Jerusalem Uer. 26 20 AV that there is hardly room for doubt that in these cases
brijah). also the decision was by the same sacred lots (see
4. Father of MEREMOTH (I), a priest temp. Nehemiah, Ezra EPHOD) ; and in many others, though neither the ephod
8 33 (aprrou [LI), I E d . 862 (IRI, RV Urias; oup[alra [BI, oupb nor the Urim and Thummim is named, the same
[AI, oup~au[Ll), cp Neh. S 4 21 (AV Urijah, uoupra [N]). possibly
the Uriah present at the reading of the law under Ezra (Neh. inference may confidently he drawn (see I S. 1 0 ~ 0 8
8 4 AV Urijah; oupsra [BNC.a.Al=~ Esd. 943 EV URIAS). 2 S. 2 I 5 1 9 3 Josh. 7 1 6 8 Judg. 20 27f. ).I In the article
T. K. c. EPHOD (§ 4)it has been surmised that the Urim and
URIEL (Vrze’), ‘ the angel that was sent’ to Ezra, Thummim were kept in the ephod, and with certain
according to 4 Esd. 41 36 (?) 520 1028. manipulations secundum artem drawn or thrown from
In 4 36 he is called an archangel but RV prefers the reading it. Moslem writers describe a similar mode of divina-
JEREMIEL (4.v.). a name which’occurs nowhere else in this tion among the Arabs before Islam. Two arrow-shafts
Iterature, hut is most probably, like Jeremiah,’ one of the (without heads or feathers), on one of which was written
many distorted forms of ‘Jerahmeel’z (cp @BA, Jer. 3626).
Possibly ‘ Jeremiel’ (INni,) is a variant to ‘Raphael’ (5~31); ‘ Command,’ on the other ‘ Prohibition,’ or words of
Rapbael, according to Enoch 20 2 , is the ‘ angel of the spirits of similar purport, were placed in a receptacle, and ac-
men. Uriel, under the corrupt form ‘ Adoil,’ occurs in Tg. Jon., cording as one or the other of them was drawn out it
and in the Slavonic Enoch 25 2, not, however, as an angel. This was known whether the proposed enterprise was in
passage presupposes the explanation ‘flame of God,’ which is
hardly the original meaning. The Jerahmeelite connection of accordance with the will of the god and destined to
some of the chief angelic names in -el is noteworthy. See succeed, or not (cp Prov. 1633 Acts 1 2 6 ) . At Mecca,
MKHAEL and in illustration, note the facts which point to it is said, these lots were in the keeping of the guardians
Jerahmeeiite idfluence both healthful and the reverse, on the of the Holy House, one of whom drew an arrow when
religion of Israel (MO~ES, $ 14,PROPHET, B 6 ~ 3 . T. K. c.
man wished to decide whether to go on a journey,
URIEL ($&’?lK ; O Y P I H ~ ) . A plausible explanation to marry, etc. Sometimes three arrows were used,
of the name is ‘flame of God,’ 5 35, or, ‘God is a one of which was blank; if this was drawn the god
light,’ cp $3113,Niirbel, a Palmyrene name, de VogiiB, refused a response (cp I S. 1437 286). Other objects.
Syr. Centr. 124 ; Baeth. Be&. 86. But (I)the analogy such as white pebbles, similarly marked, were also
(contested, no doubt) of many similar names, ( 2 ) the used ; and the interrogatory could be framed in other
occurrence of the regularly formed ethnic Uri, and (3) and more complex ways2 That the divination by
the connections of the bearers of the name, may be Urim and Thummim was of this kind is the opinion
held to favour an explanation similar to that given above of J. D. Michaelis (&’os. Recht, I, § 52-three pebbles),
of URrAH-i.e., it is a Jerahmeelite or N. Arabian Ewald (AD. 390 &), and many others. T h e form
name [Che.]. of the Urim and Thummim is unknown; that they
I. The father of Michaiah, the mother of Abijah, king of
were little images (De Castro, Spencer, Gesen., and
Judah (2 Cb. 13 2). (For o u p q A 6 r b yapawv @L has aj3euuahop.) others) is a conjecture which rests solely upon an
But see MAACAH,3. erroneous identification with the teraphim. If it were
2. Chief of the Kohathites, mentioned at the bringing up of
safe to draw an inference from the size and shape of the
the ark to Jerusalem under David (I Ch. 165 I I : apt+ [B]).
3. A name in the Kohathite genealogy of ELKANAW (4.u.) receptacle provided for them in P s description of the
(I Ch. 624 [g] : o q A [Bl). high priest’s vestments, we should imagine them as
4 and 5. Periaps a collateral form of AKIEL, I (=ARELI) small flat objects, perhaps tablets of wood or bone ; but
and ARIEL, 2. it may be doubtful whether P. who, strangely enough,
URIJAH (7;?sllH), Jer. 2620 AV,’RV URIAH(3). gives no directions for the making of the Urim and
Thummim, had any definite notion what they were.
URIM AND THUMMIM ( a y ; l ) n y I q 3 6 In P the Urim and Thummim are in the keeping
of the high priest (Ex.2830 Lev. 8 8 Nu. 2721) ; they
A H ~ W C I C . Or A H ~ O I , K h l A h H 8 E l b [I S.1441 are preserved in a square pouch which is worn upon his
OCIOTHC]; Aq. Sym. Theod. ~ W T I C M O I [Sym. I S.
breast, the u?vp lqn, &&n mi$&< (EV I breastplate of
286 A H ~ O I . Dt. 338 T E ~ E I O T H C KAI AIAAXH, cp
Jerome] and TE~EIOTHTEC, T E ~ E I W C E I C , TEAEIOI ;
1 It is, of course, not imagined that in all cases in which lots
are used the Urim and Thummim are meant.
1 Miicke (Vom Eujhrat naclr Tiber, p. 75, n. I) refers to the 2 SeeIbn Hisham 1 9 7 8 ; Lane, Arab.-Et@. Lex. col. 1247;
stories of Rellerophon Pausanias, and Otto von Wittelsbach. cp Tac. Germ. IO, A d in general Van Dale, De divinafiuni6ws
2 Similarly Gunkel’ in Kau. AjuRr. 357. idulatricis in V T memorafis, chap. 4; We. Heid.@) 126f (2)
3 Urim alone, Nu.’27 21 I S. 286 ; Thummim and Urim, Dt. 133f: An example of belomancy in the OT Ezek. 21 21 [ d l ;
33 8. On the derivation and meaning see below. see Jerome adloc., and cp DIVINATION, 5 2 (il).
5235 s236
USURY uz
judgment ’ ; rather ‘ of [divine] decision, oracle’ ; see 2. The verb “$2, n&%, baatrrb, b+eAcrv (Neh. 5 7 (Kt.) Is.
B REASTPLATE ). This pouch was permanently attached 24z), gives the substantive Ki$, nzaffi, Laakqurc (Neh. 5 7 IO).
by chains and cords through rings at its corners to the 3. The verb 7@, nlifah, d a a r T F b (Kr.) (Neh. 5 7, & # d c i u ,
ephod ; the association of the Urim and Thummim with Jer. 15 IO, etc), gives 741, nJfJ/z, KaT€%TfiyWY,Ex. 22 25, AV
the ephod which we found in the historical books is thus ‘usurer,’ R V ‘creditor,’ and ‘ V I , neZ (Sr.), z K. 47, EV ‘debt’
preserved in P (EPHOD, 3). Whether this form of ( B B A baoriuerr T O ~ ~
F 6 x 0 uou,
~ s 6 L bn6rruov r b Gciverov).
consulting Yahwe was actually practised in the post- 4. r&os in Mt. 25 27 Lk. 19 23, RV ‘interest.’
exilic period is doubtful. There is no mention of it in UTA (OYTA [BA]). a post-exilic family of Nethinim
the historical books after the time of David and Solomon (I Esd. 530), unmentioned in II Ezra ( f 4 5 ) , or Nehemiah
( I K. 226 read ‘ t h e ephod’); but Hos. 3 4 shows that in
(748).
the prophet’s day the ephod-oracle was one of the things
which the popular religion could not be thought of as UTHAI ( ’ n l V 1
; oyel [BAL]).
existing without. In Neh. 765 (Ezra263 I Esd. 540), I. ICh. 94(ywB[e]r [BAl)=Neh. 11 ~,ATHAIAH.
2.One of the h’ne BIGVAI (9.v.); Ezra8 14 (ouOar [AI, wear
however, an important question affecting the rights of [L])=I Esd. 840t, Uthi (OVTOU [Bl, wear [Ll), son of Istalcurus,
certain priestly families is reserved for decision ‘ when a on which see ZABUD,2.
Uritn and Thummim priest shall arise,’ proving that
this mode of divination was then disused--the art seem-
UZ (?la ; with art. ?W?, Jer. 2 5 z o t ; on origin of
ingly lost. A reference like Ecclus. 33; [8raafwv (B). name, see G EOGRAPHY . 1 20, and note suggestion
G+WV (A,) ; cp 4510 G?hois dhqeeiar, where. moreover, below that ‘ U z ’ may be due to an early transcriber’s
Xoyfy KplUEWS also corresponds to mwn p n ] does not error). According to the traditional view, the name is
prove that it was practised in the writer’s day. Josephus connected both with a region to the N. and with a
says that the breastplate had ceased to light up (hdpaerv, region to the S. of Palestine. The facts of M T are as
his understanding of the Urim) two hundred years before follows : ( I ) Eldest son of Aram, Gen. 1023 ( W E , AEL).
his time ( A n t . iii. 89 [§ 2181); while according to the cp I Ch. 1 1 7 ( W E , A [17-23,om. B], our, L), where Uz,
Mishna (Si{& 9 1 2 ) ~the Urim and Thummim ceased Hul, etc., are among the sons of Shem, but bAagrees
with the death of the pre-exilic prophets ; but this is with M T of Gen. 1023 (so Cappellus, Houb., Ki.).
( 2 )Eldest son of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, Gen. 2221
apparently only an inference from Ezra 263.
The names Urim and Thummim as vocalised in M T (WE [A], W{ [L]). ( 3 ) Grandson of Seir the Horite,
mean ‘ Lights ’ and ‘ Perfection. ’ This pronunciation Gen. 3628 ( W E [ADL], OUE [E]), I Ch. 1 4 2 ( W E [BA], ous
is, however, unkncwn to the translaton of 6 , who [L]). (4)A land between nTixn (Egypt? Musri in N.
read the former ‘Orim. and derived it from 727, ‘ t o Arabia?) and Philistia, Jer. 2520 (not in 6 ) . (5) An
Edomite land, Lam.421 (not in (6) A land of
give decision, torah’ (cp Dt. 3 3 8 ,,)-an interpretation uncertain situation, where Job dwelt, Job 1I ( t v x h p ~
to which Sym. adheres (8daxf). Modern scholars TG A b u [ ~ ] h %; and in 6 ’ s addition to 4217). See.
have not succeeded in giving a satisfactory explanation furrlpr, G EOGRAPHY , 5 20.
of the words. If Urirn and Thummim were the names Let us consider these data in the following order :-(4), (5).
respectively of two lots which were of opposite presage, (3), (6), (I), (2). Not much need be said on (4). The clause
it is natural to infer th:it the names had a corresponding relative to Uz (?)is omitted by Graf, Cornill, Giesebrecht, and
significance ; and this presumption is still stronger if, Duhm as a gloss. It seems more probable, however, that vir7
as seems not unlikely, the words were actually written is a corruption of y i ~ nwhich
, a thoughtlessscribe wrote instead
upon the objects used for casting or drawing the lot. of o.nw55, which follows in the list of peoples. As to (s), it is
If, then, n,Dn is derived, as there is no need to question, plain from metrical considerations that yiy is superfluous : most
from the root Don ‘ be without fault,’ its opposite might probably it is a corruption of a dittographed Y-,N (6,Zai y i s ) ;
well be a derivative of 118 ‘ curse,’ the one signifying the first p seems to have come from lqyn (see L AMENTA-
that a proposed action was satisfactory to God, the other TIONS, BOOK OF, $ 8 ; MIZRAIM).As to (3), for ‘Dishon’ 6
appears to have read ‘ Kishon ’ which suggests ASkirBn 3 as the
that it provoked his wrath. This contrast would be original. Now the first-medtioned son of Dishan (a mere
still more natural if we might suppose that the Urim double of Dishon) is Hemdan-i.e., ,probably Jer&meel. The
and Thummim were originally employed in a kind of corresponding place in’ the list of Dishon’s children ought to he
ordeal such as is described in I S.1 4 3 6 8 , where the occupied by some not less important ethnic. Orem (OYN), I Ch.
2 z j , appears therefore to be excluded. MiSSur is what we
real question was one of guilt or innocence; and it is expect, and if ~ J isJ a name of purely literary origin, and has
perhaps not without significance that Saul asks that if come by an early transcriber’s error from ~ I T ourJ , ~expectation
the fault be in himself or in Jonathan the lot Urim may is justified.
come out. If this view is sound, the words should We now come to (6), and ask Where was the land of Uz,
probably be pronounced ‘6rim and tsmim. But all where Job dwelt? The data appear at first sight to be con-
flicting. Job was one of the 013 ‘JX. I t seems therefore as
such conjectures are subject to the greatest reserve. if he ought to be placed in the E. or NE. of Palestine, and this
Litzrature.-For the ‘older literature see J. G. Cppzov, can be supported by the mention of the Kasdim in Job1 17, and
A##avatrrs Listorico-ci-ificur antiguitatum, 1748, p. 75f: ; for possibly by theethnics ‘Shuhite’(?)in 211, and ‘Buzite’ in 322
the history of opinion esp. Kautzsch in PREP),s.a. 16 226-233. also by the references to Uz in ( I ) and (2) according to th;
The most important of the earlier monographs are Joh. Buxtorf, ordinary view. No stress, however, can helkd on the tradition
‘ Historia Urim et Thummim,’ in his Ezercitationes, 267 8, connecting Job with the district of Hauran called the Nukra
reprinted in Ugolini Thes. 12 3 7 5 8 ; and Spencer ‘ De Urim et (see Wetzstein’s valuable excursus in Del. ffiob(B, 55~-601)
Thummim,’inDeZeg. rit.,lib.Ydiss. 7(aud inUgolh, 1 2 4 5 3 8 ) : since it can only be traced back to the fourth century A.D:
see also Braun, De nestittr sarerdotunz, p. 593& See also the On the other hand, the names Eliphaz, B I L D A(p.v.), ~ and
literature under EPHOD; [also Haupt, ‘Bah. elements in the ZOPHAR(q.v.), and the ethnic ‘Temanite’ in 211 suggest
Levit. Ritual,’JBL 19 j 8 f: 72f: (1900): W. Muss-Arnolt, ‘The placinc the home of Job in a region S. of Paleshe, and
Urim and Thummim,’ reprinted from A J S L , July 1900l; T. C. ‘ Kasdim’ in 1 1 7 should probably rather he ‘ KuBim’ (Cushites
Foote, JBL 21 2 7 8 (1902). G. F. M. of N. Arabia), while the representation of Job and his friends as
cultivators of ‘wisdom ’ indicates that this was really the view
USURY. See L A W AND J USTICE , 5 16 ; PLEDGE ; of the writers of our present Book of Job (cp JOB, K OOK OF,
T RADE A N D COMMERCE, 5 83 ( e ) 4 (2). %? 4, 9): This latter view is also confirmed by the apocryphal
appendix to Job in B (see GEOCKAPHY, zo), and, according to
I. The commonest word i s SW!, n&k, d l W 1 , lit. ‘something the present writer’s theory, by the phrase Bent kedem in ,Job1 3
bitten off’ : T ~ K O S , uszwn (Ex. 22 2 j Lev. 25 36 f: Dt. 23 19 f: which is a corruption of been2 re+enz-i.e., sons of Jerahmeel (s&
Ps. 15 5 Prov. 28 8 Ezek. 18 8 73 17 22 12).
- ...~~~____ .~
1 The meaning of the word ]en is not known ; something like For nvny cp de Vogue, J . As. 1897,10zo2 (no. 355).
2 Unless yIJ^srepresent not only y i hut
~ also a transliteration
‘receptacle’ best suits the context. of yly. See next paragraph.
4 See also the Talmud, .S@riL 48 6, 21 6 (Urim and
Thummim lacking in second temple), and Maimonides, KPZ? ha- So ut+?in Ezek. 38 z probably comes from i j ~ ‘ Asshur’
~ ,
Amon. Manasseh was buried ‘ i n the garden of his 5. h. Bani, anoverseer, temp. Nehemiab(Neh. 1122, om. Kc.a).
6. A chief of a father’s house of Jedaiah (Neh. 12 rg 42 om.
house, in the garden of Uzza‘ ( 2 K. 21 18): the I / passage,
BK*A in both places, 4 e L [Ll, O<L [ w a mg.]). S. A. C.
z Ch. 3320, simply says, ‘in his own house,’ or (6) in
the garden of his house.’ Most scholars suppose that UZZIA (K;!? ; oz[e]ia[c] [BKAL]), the Ashterathite
near Manasseh’s palace was a plantation named after (very possibly Og’s city of Ashtaroth [Dt. 1 4 etc.] was
Uzza (Uzziah?) where Manasseh had made a family really Zarephath, a city on the N. Arabian border prob-
grave, but this is not quite satisfactory. ably conquered by David, see Z AREPHATH ; but for the
I n z K. 21 18 123 is written twice over in parallel phrases. received view see ASHTAROTH), one of David’s heroes
Omit the second (13,and read 1% n’z I??, ‘in the plantation (D AVID , § r r n , i . ) ; I Ch.1144.t T. K. C.
of the mausoleum ’ (lit. ‘ rock-house’-i.e., grave in the rock, cp UZZIAH (P?? [In in 2 K. 153034 Is. 1I , I etc., 2 Ch.
Is. 14 18 22 166). ry in the Psalter is repeatedly miswritten for
2 6 1 8 272 ; see also 5, below], either an expansion of
.
:
1
..
.
Note also that in 2 Ch. 368 @B has , , rdr iror,mjOq
‘ I L U ~ K S ~ .NI& &&57 i u yavo<a$ (yauo<au [A], T a u O<a [L])
the clan-name Uzzi (see Cn’f. Bib. on I Ch. 531) or a
&era rwv n a r i p w u a h o i . religiQus utterance = ‘ Yahwb is strength,‘ or ‘ my ’
T. K. C.
strength’ (I29): there is the same difference of
UZZAH (oza [BAL]). (?I??,
1. 2 S . 66-8, § 51;
1 That ‘Uzza’ in 2 K.211826 has anything to do with
AZZA[N] [A]) or uz&i (K.!?,
2 s. 6 3 [aza, .A] I Ch. ‘Uzziah,’ as Wellhausenonce suggested, is far from probable (see
137g-11), one of the sons of Abinadab who took part UZZA).Nor has the name Azrrya’u of Ya’udi anything to do
with our Uzziah nr Azariah. With regard to the authentication
in the bringing up of the ark from Kirjath-jearim under of the names in the OT ‘ Aiariah ’ has on the whole the support
David (see A RK , § 5 ; K IR J ATH - J EARIM ). H e and of Kings, Uzziah ’ of khronicles. More particularly, the form
his brother (i*nt ; cp A HIO ) were driving the cart upon nqy (Uzziah) occurs in z K. 15 13 (?)30 Hos. 1 I Am. 1I Zech.
145, but in zK.153234 I s . 1 1 0 1 7 1 zCh.20rfi 272 inqv
which the ark was placed, when. upon reaching a certain (Uzziahu); ,,?,iy (Azariah) in 2 K. 1421 15 I 7 17 23 27, perhaps
threshing-floor (see N ACHON ). the oxen ’ stumbled’ (see I (see Ginsb.), I Ch. 3 12, but )n*ilry (Azariahu) in a K. ! 5 6 8 .
below), whereupon Uzzah put forth his hand to steady $10, the point of view of the study of clan-names Azariah IS the
the ark (emend z S. 6 7 after I Ch. 1310 with We., Dr., most to be preferred of these forms. An examination of the
occurrences of Eleazar, Eliezer, Azariah, Azarel, Ezri, shows
Bu., and others). For this ‘ God smote him,’ and the indisputably that there was till quite late times a consciousness
place received the name P EREZ- UZZAH (q...) . T h e that Azar or Erer represented a clan of the Negeb. It is note-
Chronicler, however, accounts differently for the worthy that by their mothers the kings of Judah were much
connected with the Negeb. Very possibly the mothers of
calamity; ‘none ought to bear the ark of God but Amaziah and Uzziah came, not from ‘Jerusalem,’ but from
the Levites’ (I Ch. 152 ; cp v. 1 2 5 and col. 3463, n. I ). ‘Ishmael’ (&ail. and $ ~ ywy being liable to confusion).
T h e narrative can hardly be understood by itself; it When a queen-mother was o? erusalem, it was possibly not
must be taken in connection with 2 S. 5 17-15. It would stated : take, e.g., the cases o l t h e mothers of Hezekiah and
Manasseh. In 2 K. 15 13 6 ’ s readings are OXO<LOU [AI (cp
1 ABur-bani-pal speaks of a city called Azalla, in the far-off o o<eiau B 2 Ch. 26 I ) : 30 a x a s [R], a<aprou [A] (om. L) ; 32
land of Mas (see MKSHAi.); see Del. Pur. 243, 2981: ataprar [BAL]; 34 (o<klrar IBI, a<apLac [ALII.
5239 5240
UZZIAH UZZIAH
opinion as to ' Uzziel.' The question is hardly decided I where read ' Arammites,' and for the rest see JOK-
by the existence of the Phcen. pr. names Syxy, i h y , THEEL, SELA)that Amaziah had excited the bitter
or the Palm. 'ry and Nab. i'iy, or by the name found animosity of the Arammites or Jerahnieelites by his
on old Heb. seals-iw~, 'uzziyB'Ci, for which see Wright, ' cruelty at the rock of Kadesh. T h e notice (vv. 19-22)
Cuinp. Scm. GY. 72J -[Che.]). is very meagre, and the text is imperfect. W e can,
I. Son of Amaziah. king of Judah. whom he suc- however. venture to infer from z.19 that, according to
ceeded at the age of sixteen ( z K . 14z1=z Ch. 261). this document, Amaziah had not been carried away by
'' That the name Uzziah was changed to
Azariah at his accession is highly improb-
criticism' able. Roth names are equally religious or
Jehoash, but had sought refuge at some place in the
independent, non-Israelitish portion of the Negeb.
Thirsting, as it would appear, for vengeance, some of
rather perhaps equally non-religious, and from I Ch. the inhabitants conspired against the fallen king. H e
6 2 4 [ 9 ] and 36 [.I] we see how easy it was for nvy to fled to Eshcol or H a l u F h (?), an important city in the
become wiry, or for n ~ toy become m y . The form Negeb, but the dagger of the assassin found him there.
Azariah is the more accurate, but Uzziah may have The actors in the following scene (w. 2 0 - z z ) are the
been a popular corrnption: it is hardly worth while non-Israelites of the Negeb.
thercfore to disturb the modern usage, and substitute 'And all the Cushites bore him [to Jerusalem], and he was
Azariah for Uzziah. According to Stadel in 1887, buried in Jerusalem. .. . And the Jerahmeelites took Azariah
(16 years of age) and made him king instead of Amaziah his
there is very little information respecting Uzziah at the father, arid imposed oaths upon him. And they returned to
disposal of the historim. After stating that Azariah or Jerahmeel, after the king had lain down with his fathers.' 3
Uzziah was proclaimed king by a popular assembly, he The humiliation of Judah was now complete. First
adds that ' t h e Book of Kings knows nothing of any Israel, and then Jerahmeel. had treated it as a subject
warlike achievements of Uzziah. The king had the state. The only comfort was that Israel and Jerahmeel
misfortune to become a Ieper, so that in functions like were foes, and in a struggle between the two the wishes
that of pronouncing judgment, the discharge of which of Judah would naturally accompany Israel. ( I t will
would have brought him into contact with the people, be seen that the statement of the conquest of Elath has
he had to be represented by his son Jotham, who was arisen out of a corruption of the text.4)
invested with the office of a prefect of the palace. A s to the wars of Uzziah. According to the Chronicler,
Where the leper-king resided (see 6 )did indeed the king warred successfully against the Philistines, the
originally form a part of the tradition ; but the word in wars of Arabians, and the Meunim, and strength-
question ( 1 6 5 ) has become disfigured beyond recog-
nition. bzziah? ened the fortifications of Jerusalem, which
must have suffered greatly a t the capture
In further explanation Stade adds, 'bet hachophschit [V+?;l, of the city by Jehoash ( z Ch. 266-9). The Book of
z K. 15 5 , chopnchiit [niu~nn],2 Ch. 26 21,cannot possibly mean Kings (as we have seen) is entirely silent as to this
a n infirmary [RVkw. 'a lazar house']. The aphphesath [a+- national aggrandisement ; but elsewhere valuable in-
+oucw0 : but in 2 Ch.' a$+ouumv B an+ovuoO A] of @ seems to
suggest that it is not the original reiding. It is, however, equally
formation has been found underlying the statements of
obxure what is the Hebrew word underlying it. Probably Chronicles. Still, great exaggeration there must a t
some building in the royal fortress is meant.' 2 any rate be, as Guthe ( G VI 186) remarks. Unless we
Stade concludes with the remark that a the sixteen could bring ourselves to identify Azariah of Judah with
years which the Book of Kings gives to Jotham, include Azriya'u of Ya'udi, we could not possibly imagine the
the period during which Jotham was the regent for his sudden and unexpected revival of the martial prowess
father.' Elsewhere (567) Stade further mentions that of Judah. M'Curdy, it is true, assumes this ; he also
Uzzinh rebuilt Elath, which his father had probably thinks that therelation of Hezekiah to the Philistine city
recovered. It is clear, however, that fresh investiga- of Ekron in the time of Sennacherib, and the statement
tions of the Book of Chronicles and of the Hebrew text of Sennacherib that the cities which he had cut off from
both of Kings and of Chronicles d o not favour this Judah he gave to the kings of Ashdod. Eliron, and
extreme historical so'briety. Considering that the Book Gaza, imply a period of Judahite expansion which we
of Kings gives Uzziah a (nominal) reign of not less can only place in the reign of Uzziah. Winckler, on
than fifty-two years, an augmentation of our scanty the other hand, remarks, 'Such successes as those
material is of importance. Let us consider our situation. which are described would be possible only if Azariah
As to the accession of Uzziah, and the asszmed con- acted as the vassal of a more powerful prince. Mu+
guest of Elath, we can hardlv rest satisfied with the could not be such, for it is certain that the Philistine
2. circum- ordinary view of the circumstances of the cities would have enjoyed its special protection. There
As Kittel has pointed out, these was Assyria, no doubt ; but Azariah could have taken
stances:f :zdontained in portions of two different part in the Assyrian campaign of 773 [the last year of
uzaiahs documents, viz., z K. 147-14 and vv. 19- Shalmaneser 111.1 only as.a feudatory of Jeroboam 11.'
accession' z z : each source. in a carefullv revised ( K ATi3),262).
text, must be separately studied. From the former we There is no difficulty in supposing that either the
infer (cp JOKTHEEL). that the contest between Jehoash Chronicler has misread his authority, or the text of
and Amaziah was for the possession of the NECEB Chronicles itself has suffered conuption. There is no
( q . ~ . )a, part of which Jehoash had recovered for difficulty in supposing that Uzziah after a time broke
Israel," but which Amaziah wanted for Judah. A his oaths ' and made war on the Jerahmeelites-Le.,
decisive battle took place ' a t Beth-cusham which be- on that section of the Jerahmeelites which neither
longs to Jerahmeel,' and Amaziah was worsted and Jehoash nor (2K. 1428, explained in col. 3861, n. I)
(according to this stratum of the narrative) taken Jeroboam 11. had subdued. That he ' broke down the
captive. We now have to turn to our second fragment wall ' of Rehoboth and Ashhur,6 is improbable, but he
of narrative, remembering (this we learn from v . 7,
1 In v. 19 we read, 'And they conspired against him in
’
also have h e n a city hearing the same name (cp the place-name Negeb (Che.).
erahmeel). I . b. Kohath (cp JAHAZIEL, 3 ) ; mostly mentioned
1 ?he ‘ Philistines ’ are our old friends the ‘ Zarephathites’ last in the list of sons (Ex. 618 Nu. 319 I Ch. 62 [528] 18
(see ZAREPHATH), and the ‘Arabians of Gur-baal’ are the
‘Arabians of Jerahmeel. The ‘Maonites should be the [63]). According to Lev. 1 0 4 he was the uncle (19)of
’Ammonites,’ which, as often, is a corruption (which obtained Aaron ( a c q h [B]). Of his sons who are mentioned in
an iudeuendent existence) of ‘ Terahmeelites. Ex. 6 2 2 (see also I Ch. 2320 [@B identifies Uzziel with
2 iisk naiyn:m x w i ’inn &ii i i m ?inn-nu iunni, 3n171.
The final word IS restored from z Ch. 96 21. The strange word
Jahaziel of 5x91 2424) the most important was Elzaphan
ny~an;lcomes from nigvNn, ‘the dung-hill,’ and n)auu (as in (cp Z APHON ), who was the chief of all the Kohathites
the phrase nhprc? lp& Neh. 2 13. etc.) is a corruption of nab’
(Nu. 3 30).
=naib’. 1 Among the districts named are gaiarikka, Arka, Sianna
3 The rendering of 2 K. 5 r6 and accompanying note in the
OT of Kautvch should open the eyes of some readers. ‘But (see H ADRACH . ARICITL,SINITE).
.
the man was . . leprous.’ ‘The two omitted words mean
elsewhere, “ an able (or valiant) man ” ; either they have arise?
2 See, on the other hand, M‘Curdy, H i d . Projlt. Mon. 1 4 7 3 8
It has also been plausibly suggested that ,iu* may be meant in
from a mutilation of the text or they have got in here by mistake. the famous title of Sargon at the opening of the Nimriid inscrip-
y i ~ 3 , however, if we restore this word, is in apposition to
tio? ( K 6 2 37), ‘the subduer of Ya’udu, whose situation IS far
off. Elsewhere, Sargon calls Canaan 6ft gum& (cp KAT(?
5:E 113?. 189, and see OMRI). See SARGON, S 17.
5243 5244
WZZIEL VASHTI
The b’nc IJzziel are mentioned in I Ch. 15 IO with Amminadab in list of wall-builders (see N EHEMIAH , $ I/ ; EZRA
their chief as amounting to 1 1 2 ; and it is noteworthy that
Elzaphan appears in v. 8 as a separate clan. From Uzziel come ii., §§ 16 [I], 15 d ) , Neh. 3 8 (BBNA omits). See Ryle.
the UZZIELITES (‘!KVF?, Nu. 3 27 6 o<€n?p+rls [Bl, b o<qh’sis’ Be. -Ry., Siegfr. ad 206.
[A], o<tqA ’BLS [F], O<L+ 6 s [Ll ; I Ch. 26 23). See GENEALOGIES [Various explanations have been given of this strange phrase.
I., 8 7.
Apart from the ‘ Jerahmeelite theory,’ we may be grateful for
2. h. Ishi a captain of SIMEON (5 5) in the raid against the S. A. Cook‘s ingenious suggestion (Exp.TI0~80,and HAR-
Amalekites knd Meunim (I Ch. 442). HAIAH). But in the light of many other pwsages in which
3. b. Bela, in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (g.v., 5 9, ii. a) (I Ch. ‘ Jerahmeel’ and ‘Zarephath’ put on strange disguises, and,
7 7). in particular, of wu. 31f: (on which see Amer. /own. of TheoC.
4. A Hemanite rnusichn (1 Ch. 25 4 a4aparlA [B], who in v. 18 5440 [I~oI],and PERFUMERS), it is difficult not to decide
is called AZAREL (L however 04‘qA). somewhat positively in favour of the followin restoration,
5. In 2 Ch. 29 7 4 bzziel fig& as a son of Jeduthun, not of ‘ Next to him repaired Uzziel, son of Jerahmee?, a Zarepha;
Hernan (as above). It is also noteworthy that the name occurs thite. And next to him repaired Hananlah, son of Jerahmeel.
here in close connection with that of Elzaphan (v. 13). The historical inference of Meyer (Enfst. 153) that artisans
with no landed estate had nogem, the guild taking the place
6. ‘ Uzziel, the son of HARHAIAH ( q . ~ . goldsmiths,’
) of thegem, is therefore hardly justified.-T. K. c.]
V
VAREB (371[TFl; but MSS and Gr. Ven. 3 3 j n X ) , ‘Emek is also applied to parts of the Jordan valley (Josh.
apparently a locality in the Amorite country, towards 1327 [cp @I 17 16, and, if the text is correct, Ps. 606[8],
Moab, described as being ’ in Suphah‘ (nplb?); Nu. hut see SUCCOTH),and to the lateral valleys of the
21 14 RV. Jordan ( I Ch. 1215 [al;hdv] Cant. 21). In Ps. 6 5 1 4
AV (following 0nkelos)gives the indefensible rendering, ‘What Job 39 IO ‘ vales ’ are apparently referred to, not as the
he did in the Red Sea’; Vg. ‘ sicut fecit in mari rubro’ ;1 GI. antithesis of mountains, but as containing fertile arable
Ven. erepa& ;v Aaihanr. The rendering of @EA, however- land. But the text of these passages is disputed. AV
+ (<oop [FL]) ;~h6.yr~ea-presupposesthe reading Ini-nH
has V ALE in Gen. 143810 3714, and D ALE in Gen. 1417
q i ~ and
, studying this in the light of suggestions elsewhere (RY: vale’) 2 S. 1818 (EV). On the difference between
made with regard to the ‘stations’ of the Israelites and the
place-names in Dt. 1I Gen. 3631-39, we see that ‘Vaheb’ is the em& and the bik‘d (see z ) , see ESDRAELON. .
probably a corruption of ‘ Missur’ and ‘Snphah’ of ‘ Sarephath 2. ny??, 6i4‘dh (etym. ‘ split,’ ‘ cleft’ ; se6iov) is also
(see DI-ZAHAB SUPH). If the quotation really comes from a
poetical record bf the ancient wars we may further suppose that used in contrast to ‘mountain’ (“8, Dt. 8 7 1111,
a verb has dropped out and render ‘(he conquered) Missur and [ s c 6 t v f i ] , cp Ps. 1048). T h e etymological meaning ex-
Sarephath’ (two placis in N. Arabia on the horde‘; of S. plains Is. 404, ‘ Every bik‘ah (EV ‘ valley ’ ; @ @ddpayt ;
Palestine ; see MIZRAIM. 8 26, ZAREPHATH). I t is much more Di. ‘ravine’) shall be exalted’-ie., filled up. T h e
probable, however, that instead of ‘the book of the wars of
Yahwk’ ( 7 , ~nnnio
. 1,~)we should read ‘the list of Jerahrneel’ modern Arabic equivalent eZ-Eukd‘ is the name given
(sxnni, i a ~ and
) suppose that the Priestly Writer here intro- to the valley situated between the Lebanons. T h e
duces us to’one of his chief sources of information for N. same word is rendered PLAIN( 4 . w . ) by AV in Am. 1 5
Arabian place-names. (RV ‘valley’), Ezek. 37rf.(AVmg. ‘champaign’), and
The paasape then becomes, ‘Wherefore it is said in the list of
Jerahmecl The land of Missur and Sarephath; the land of by EV in Neh. 62 Dan. 31 (Aram. yp), Gen. 11 z Ezek.
Jerahrneel) which stretches tdwards the city of Zarephath, and 3 z 2 J (RV”W ‘valley’) 84, etc. On D t . 3 4 3 (EV
is adjacent to the border of lRli$$ur’(5Np??: 1BDp 1F: )$7y inaccurately, ‘ the plain of the valley of Jericho’) see
iyf!? n r l g 1,Y) i~p: lt: %pn>; ‘~751w:l 1~ ~15 J ORDAN , 2.
TW?).’ See Crit. Bi6. T. K. C. 3. ~ ; s(also x’q. w;, *a ; see the Lexicons), gui,g2,
etc. (etym. perhaps ‘ depression ’ ; +cipay[. also v h q ,
VAJEZATHA, RV Vaizatha (KGlj! ; zaBoyealoN
KorXds, etc., once P O U V ~ zS , K. 216 [om. A]). A fre-
[BL”], zABoyAeea [K1, zAB0yrAeA [AI, IzAeoye quently occurring word for a somewhat narrow opening
[La]), a son of H A M A N ,Esth. 99. The names of in the mountains, gorge, ravine; see (e.g.)JIPHTHAH-
Haman’s sons put a heavy strain on the traditional EL, H ARASHIM . SAMARIA, ZEBOIM, ZEPHATHAII.
theory respecting the Rook of Esther. In the case of HAMONGOG, and especially H INNOM . In I S. 1 7 3
Vaizatha the form itself is not certain, the I being ex-
ceptionally long and the I exceptionally short (a trace
(adXdv [aAL]) it apparently designates the deep channel,
dug by the turbid water torrents in the middle of the
of an early corrector’s work?). Benfey conjectures as vale (‘&ne&) of Elah. Relatively to the gui,or lower
the Persian original Wahyaz-data. valley. the ‘erne& might be called hdv, ‘mountain,’
If, however, the story has been remodelled, and in its original
form the names were such as a Hebrew writer might regard as unless we suppose in I S. 17 the combination of elements
Jerahmeelite (see PLTRlhl, 8 7), one might venture to restore m,i from two sources. See ELAH,E PHES - DAMMIM .
(cp in!, 1 IO), behind which may lie ’nais, ‘Zarephathite.’ 4. $?!, nrihal, denotes both a winter torrent and the valley it
Haman, being an Agagite, was an Amalekite (ie., Jerahmeelite). flows through. It occurs in both senses I K. 18 5. See BROOK.
T. K. C.
5. njsW3, the sh&V&ih, AV ‘vale,’ ‘valley,’ ‘low plain,’ RV
VALE, VALLEY, occurs in AV a s the rendering of ‘lowland.’ See JUDIEA, SHEPHELAH.
the following Heb. wmds : 6. a6Wv, Judith 4 4 (see SALEM, VALLEVOF) 7 3 17 10 r o f :
1. pgp, ‘tmt (etym. ‘ d e p t h ‘ ; KOIAAG cpaparf, (see BETHULIA).
rrsAion. etc. ), for which, in geographical designations, 7. $$pay[, Judith 2 8 ($Apayyas .. , xrt&ppovs,’ ravines . .
wldys ) 7 4 1 1 1 7 1 2 7 1 3 1 o L k . 3 5 ( = I s . 4 0 4 ) .
.
RV, followed by G. .4. Smith, gives ‘vale,’ is the most
natural antithesis to i;, hEr, ‘ mountain ’ (cp Mic. 1 4 VAMPIRE (nph), Prov. 30 15 RVmg. ; see LILITH
I K. 2028, iiii-n, 7z?.Gr, D. 23, cp P LAIN , 5). It is (§ 2).
applied to wide level spaces opening out of a mountain- VANIAH (VW),of the bnE B ANI ( p . ~ . ) ,in list of
ous country. About the names of most of these ‘vales’ those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., Q 5, end); Ezra 1036
considerable controversy has gathered (see A CHOR , ( o u ~ r x ~[B] a -rpe w [XI ovovma [A] ovav. [L]), apparently the
ANOS(avos[‘BA],x?om. i)of II I Esd. 9 34.
ELAH, E SDRAELON . M ULBERRY - TREE , R EPHAIM ,
SIDDIM, S UCCOTH ). The vales of Hebron and Aijalon, VASHNI (+Jdl),
I Ch. 6 28. See J OEL i., 2.
however, are well-known, and may be taken as typical.
VASHTI (*o@!:ACTIN [BKALB], oya. [La], ETI
1 Vg. continues ‘sic faciet in torrentibus Arnon. Scopuli [? BKC.a.AL in l~g]), the name of the consort of
torrentium inclinati sunt, ut requiescerent in AI, et recumberent Ahasuerus, who was divorced on account of her refusal
in finibus Moabitanim.’
2 @ continues cai TO& Xci&povs Apvov x a i m3s X F L ~ KWC‘W-
. to present herself before the guests of the king on the
rqutu K a . T O L K i r 7 a Hp, mi.I r p d u x e r r a ~d s hpiotr M w p . seventh and last day of his great banquet (Esth. 19-22).
5245 5246