Encylodaedia Biblica; a critical dictionary of the literary, political and ...

GEOGRAPHY
this may only arise from the fragmentary character of our
souices) Y ~ ’DDN, K ‘ ends of the earth ’ (Dt. 33 17 I S. 2 IO Mic.
54 [31 Jer. 16 19 Ps. 48; cp WIND), as well as from the story
of the flood (Gen. 7J).
In the earliest times the question of support for this
earth, felt to be solid and firm, was not raised.
There was water beneath it (Ex. 204 [E], Gen. 49 25 [older
poem in J whence Dt. 33 13 ; see Dr. ad Zoc.1 ‘ cp Gen. 7 IT [PI) ‘
but not &til Ps. 242 (probably post-exilic seedls. Ba. Che. UPS.’
236) does the conception of Yahwb‘s fgunding ;he karth upon
the seas appear. This may be nothing more than poetic imagery.
and the same remark will apply to the thought of its resting od
pillars (poet. and late ; I S. ‘2 8 Ps. 104 5 Job 38 4 Is. 48 13, etc.).
A still bolder conception is that of Job 26 7 : ‘Who hangeth [the]
earth upon nothingness’ (;in953 : Che. o353n).
The rising and setting of the heavenly bodies gave
2. Cardinal the Hebrews, like other peoples, the
points. standard of direction. They took their
stand facing the sunrise.
What we call the East they called the Front (nip, Gen. 28
128 [J], and often) orplace ofdawninf(niin ; &va~oA,j). So our
West was for them the Behind(ling, Is. 9 IZ [II], cp Zech. 148
Joel 220)~ hut usually (from their situation in Palestine) the
direction of the sea@’, Gen. 128 13 14 28 14 [J], and often). The
North they called &e Left (%a?, Gen. 1415 Job239 Josh.
19 26) but usually the Hidden, or Dark (jh)-probably (if this
he the true interpretation)l because in N. latitudes the N. is
farthest from the course of the sun. The South was the flight
I S. 23 24 [J], etc. ; ]?’e, Zech. 6 6 9 14 Job 39 26 Ex. 26 18
[PI ; chiefly in P, Ezek., and late poet.), but also (most prob-
ably) the Shining (oil; ; also poet. and late ; Dt. 33 23 Job 37 17
Eccles. 16 113, and often Ezek. [a BDB 204 a]), and also
the Dry, Barren (322, Gen. 129 [J], and often, see Di. on Gen.
129; 3:!? is, however, usually a specific name-the Sout7z
Country, the southern part of Jndah and the adjoinin region to
the south). Cp NEGEB, EARTH (FOUR QUARTERS OF?.
How fax. did the knowledge of the Hebrews extend in
these several directions? The extreme linkits, as far as
3. Extent of our canonical books testify-and their
1 Barth conjectures a relationship with Ar. ;a6ri=east wind,
the meaning having become changed. This seems very doubtful,
but Cp EARTH [FOUR QUARTERS], 5 1.
1687
GEOGRAPHY
Ezek. 47 1015 191: 4528); ‘great and wide-stretching sea’ (Ps.
104 25) is rather a description than a name : also ‘the hinder
(or western) sea,’ Dt. 11 24 34 2 (perhaps with pedantic explicitness)
Zech. 148 Joel 2 20 (in these by contrast with the ‘front
[or eastern] sea’).
Particular parts of the Mediterranean were known as
‘ the sea of the Philistines’ (Ex. 2331 [E]) and ’ the
sea of loppa’ (z Ch. 216[15] Ezra 37).
ii. The RED SEA [p.~.] is yam Sziph (1?D-n;), referring
usually to the western arm between Sinai and Egypt
(Ex. 10 19 [J] 13 18 [E] and often).
Sea of Siiph ’ also may be simply ‘ the sea,’ when the reference
is clear from the context (Ex. 14 1626 [E], and often); also ‘sea
of Egypt’ Is. 11 15). In I K. 926 TWO: denotes the gulf of
‘Akaba; cp the parallel expression ‘Eloth on the shore of the
sea‘in the land of Edom’ (2 Ch. 8 17).
iii. Of local importance and often mentioned is the
‘ Salt Sea ‘-ie., the Dead Sea.
n& 0: (Gen. 14 3 Josh. 3 16 [JE], etc.), called also “sea of
the ‘ArabbHh’ (nxiy:, p,), Josh. 3 16 Dt. 3 17 2 K. 14 25, etc.;
‘the front (=eastern) sea,’ ’!bls: Pa, Ezek. 4718 Zech. 148
Joel 2 20 (see hinder sea, above, 5 2, begin.); and simply 0;’
(Is. 168 Jer. 4832).
iv. More rarely we hear of the ‘ Sea of Chinncreth’
or ‘ of ChinnErdth ’ ( = Lake Gennesaret, Sea of G.il;lee),
nl?? n;, Nu. 3411 Josh. 1327 [both PI, and nil!? E;, Josh.
12 3 [Dl ; simply p,, Dt. 33 23 (see CHINNERETH, GENNESAR).
These seas are thus known under slightly varying
names in all OT times.
The OT knows nothing of the Euxine and Caspian
Seas, and nothing of the smaller but nearer lakes of
Van and Urumiyeh. Its acquaintance with Magog and
the early history of Gomer, as well as with NE. Assyria
and E. Armenia, is therefore imperfect, or else its
intercst in these great sheets of water is not sufficient
to secure mention of them. It is possible that the
Persian Gulf is to be recognised in the phrase ‘desert
lrnown world. information was doubtless often frag- of the Sea ’ (q-yn), Is. 21 I (so Di. ; but the text is.
mentarv and varue-were ~~ ~ these .~~~-. : . On
2 -.-
~0
doubtful ; see Che.
the E. to Media, Elam, Persia, with an
SDOT).
allusion to India
(??a ; see INDIA) in Esth. 1 I 89t (OPHIR and SINIM are The phrase ‘from sea to sea‘ occurs three or four times (D:?
doubtful); on the N. to a range of (peoples and) countries O;-lv, Am. 8 IZ Zech. 9 IO Ps. 728; cp 0;n n: Mic. 7 12) marking
extending from Northern Armenia (Magog, Ashkenaz, the limits of the region from which the Jewish exiles will return
(in Mic. 7 12 read ‘ from-sea to sea ’), and of the dominion of the
Ararat, Togarmah) across Asia Minor (Gomer, Tubal, great future king of Israel (Zech. 9 IO Ps. 72 8). In Am. S 12,
Meshek) ; on the W., past Cyprus (Kittim), Ionia however, if the passage be genuine, the two seas intended will
(Javan), Crete (Kaphtor), Carthage (or Sicily [Elisha]), be the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean. It is true this seems.
to Tartessus (Tarshish) in Spain ; on the S. to Ethiopia
an improbable designation of the boundaries of the northern
kingdom. Hence (and for other reasons ; see AMUS, 8 14) Am.
(Cush), and Southern Arabia (Sheba, Hadramaut). 8 ~ rf: may be a later insertion.
It is possible that Hebrew knowledge extended still
The general term sea (or seas), as a comprehensivefarther
; the Greek historians learned of regions farther
name for the watery portion of the earth‘s surface, is.
N. (Thracians, Kimmerians, Herod. 4 IIJ, Strabo, vii. a late idea. The contrasted idea is that of dry Zand,
2 2,. Frag. 47) : the Phcenicians, if the Greeks can be
which, in the cosmogony of P, is thought of as having
believed, sailed farther W. and NW., and, conimisemerged
to view by the process of collecting within
sioned by the Egyptians, circumnavigated Africa (on the
certain limits the waters that originally covered the
same authority, Herod. 442 ; it was under Necho, 6;o- entire earth (see Gen. 19 f: 218 Job 38816 Ps. 6935
594 B.C. ; cp E. Meyer, GA I. § 411 : Wiedemann, AG 899 10468 Prov. 829 Eccles. 17, etc.).
627 ; Junker, Umschafing Afriikas durch die Phonizier,
1863) ; the Assyrians pushed farther to the NE. Some-
Rivers played an important part in the
thing of this knowledge may have come to the Hebrews
6’ Rivers‘ history of OT times.
in Palestine, and doubtless did to the Jews of the Dis-
Of foreign rivers the most important are the Euphrates
persion, before our last canonical OT book was written.
and the Nile.
Here, however, we can only conjecture. We are withi.
The Euphrates is often simply ‘ the river.’
out definite testimony.
n:?, Euphrates (Gem 2 14 [J]), n?$l?I (Gen. 15 18 [J] Dt. 17 Within these limits certain great physical features 11 34 Josh. 14 [D], etc.), ‘ the River,’ l?j,?o (Gen. 31 21 Ex. 23 31
4. Seas. are noted, such as seas and rivers, and (less Nu. 22 5 Josh. 24 zf: 14f: [all El 2 S. 10 I6 Is. 7 20 I K. 4 24 [a 41’
often) mountain ranges and deserts.
14 15 Jer. 2 18, etc.) : less often, redundantly, the river, the river
Euphrates’ (Dt. 1124) and ‘ the great river, the river Euphrates’
i. Of seas the Mediterranean naturally takes the first (Gen. 15 18 Dt. 17 Jos’h. 14); it is called 0, because of its Vastplace
; it is the sea.
ness and might (Jer. 51 36 [Graf, not Gie.], and according to Uel.
n:?, ‘fhe sea’ (Nu. 1329 [El, and very often in all periods also Is. 21 I).
[see 0; = West, abovel) ; so also plur. OW, Judg. 5 17 and (prob.)
The people believed that across the Euphrates lay
Dan. 11 45 (Meinh., Bev.); more fully ‘the great sea of the
their early home (Josh. 242J 14f: [E]). On the
sunset,’
Josh. 14 234 ([both Dl ; so in Assyrian tiarntu ra6itu sa question of the earliest historical seats of the Israelites,
suZnm samsi, Schr. Namen der Meere, 171&), and simplv ‘ the see ISRAEL, .$ 18; EXODUS i., 1 13; HEBREW, 0 I.
great sea’ (Nu.346f; Josh. 151247 [all POI RI; cp Josh. 91 ARAM-NAHARAIM (Gen. 24 IO, etc. [J]) contains certainly
a reference to the Euphrates; it became the
ideal boundary of their land on the NE. (Gen. 1518.
[JE] Dt. 17 1124 Josh. I4 [all D]), a boundary which,
1688

GEOGRAPHY
according to Israel’s tradition, Solomon for a time
realised (I K. 4 21 [5 I] 424 6;s [5 41) ; not only did the
crossing of it make an epoch in the individual life
(Jacob, Gen. 3121 [E]), but the Euphrates formed also
a real boundjuy between the Assyrian and Babylonian
kingdoms and the territory to the W. Just as, on the
one hand, we find Assyrian kings noting with care the
fact of a passage of the Euphrates (see, e.g., COT on
I K. 201) as a departure from their own soil, so on
the other, the challenging Egyptian army under Necho
went thither against Assyria (z K. 23z9), and of Nebu-
chadrezzar’s conquest it is said that ‘ the king of Baby.
lon had taken, from the ‘ river of Egypt ’ [see EGYPT,
RIVER OF] unto the River Euphrates, all that pertained
to the king of Egypt’ (z K. 247) ; and so we have the
promise of the return of scattered Hebrews ‘ from Egypt
even to the River ’ (Mic. 7 12). The Euphrates became
in poetical usage one of the boundaries of the known
world, in the phrase ‘from the River unto the ends of
the earth’ (Ps. 728=Zech. 910).
ii. THE NILE is known as iki, iiy, a word of Egyp-
tian origin meaning streurn (see EGYPT, § 6), but usually
55 1689
GEOGRAPHY
la? almost immediately afterwards) for \a!. True, 65 has dlrb
roir rroTapo.oir for the usual xcip&ppou, or as in Josh. 154, +&pay-
yo9 ; but it has aorapoir also in I K. 86;
Few but the most familiar mountains or mountain
ranges are brought hefoie us. Outside of Palestine
6.
the most famous mountain is that con-
nected by tradition with Moses (see
SINAI), NE. from which lay Mount SEIR (strictly, the
mountain region of Seir). See also HOR, PISGAH,
ARARAT, $ 3. That Mt. Taurus should be ignored is
surprising, for this was the barrier between Syria and
Asia Minor. Nor is anything said of Mt. Zagros, NW.
of Media ; or of the Elamitic and Susian mountains.
The Caucasus would be beyond the Israelitish horizon.
. Ti. Of deserts (lalo) as an important feature of the earth’s
employed in the OT with the art. as a proper name.
So in Gen. 41 I 3 18 Ex. 122 Am. 8 8, and often ; in Am. 8 8
9 5 it occurs also as pwn ’IN- (Nile), stream ofEgy;bf, and in
Is. 19 5 Nah. 38 bis even as 09 ; cp Is. 27 I and ~ 3 ~ Ezek. 9 , 32 2.
Although the Nile was historically less important (to
the Hebrews) than the Euphrates, the references to it
show a more intimate and particular acquaintance.
It was bordered by reeds or sedge (VI!, Gen. 41 2 18 [see
7. Deserts. surface the Hebrews were well aware
(see DESERT).
i. There were among them (see EXODUS i., zf.)
early recollections of the sparsely populated regionoffering
pasturage yet often desolate and wild, and not
the natural home of a settled people-stretching from
their own southern border farther southward to Elath
and to Sinai, forming the western boundary of Edom,
and extending SW. to the confines of Egypt. This is
the ‘wilderness’ or desert referred to in Gen. 146, with
which compare Gen. 2121 (E, ‘Ishmael dwelt in the
wilderness of Paran‘), Nu. 1216 (E, a station in the
wanderings), 10 12 (P, distingnished from, and bordering
on, the ‘wilderness of Sinai’), 133 (whence explorers
were sent out), 26 (both P ; the addition of Kadesh
FLAG, 21; qqD, Ex. 235 [see FLAG, I]; cp ?I!.$ [see REED, I]
and ID, Is. 196) and by meadows (nil!, Is. 197 [see REED, 21);
in ZJ. 26 seems to be from R). It was, according to
the representation of P and D, in the desert of Paran
it was divided into arms, branches, or canals, D!??! ’lk: (Is. that Israel spent most of the forty years of its wan-
7 IS), lis? 7.k; (Is. 19 6), ‘ Nile-streams of Egypt’ (cp SHIHOR dering (see WANDERINGS). It is called ‘the desert
OF EGYPT). it was used for bathing (Ex. 2 5) ’ its water for of Edom (oiiw imp) in z K. 38. Abutting on the desert
drinking (E;. 7 1821 24); it had fish (Ex. 7 21 1s: 198 cp Ekek.
29 4) and frogs (Ex. 8 3 [7 281 8 g XI [5 71)-all in JE Gassages of of Paran ( jy) on the N. seems to have been ‘ the desert
Hex: ; it had its periods of rising and falling (Am. 88 9 5) ; it of,Beer-sheba’ (Gen. 2114 [E]). In P the more comoccasioned
abundant crops-hence the phrase ‘the seed of
Shihor the harvest of the Nile’ (Is. 233 but on the text see
prehensive name of the desert N. of Paran was the
SB0T)‘Isaiah’); the drying up of the &le was therefore the ‘desert of Sin’ (jy-iS7p ; see ZIN); it was the southern
worst calamity for Egypt, Is.1958 (lX, ‘river,’ is applied to limit of the land explored by the spies (Nu. 1321, cp
the Nile only in Is. 19 5). On the ‘rivers of Cush’(1s. 18 I Zeph.
3 TO) see CUSB, 5 I.
343), and in it laylcadesh (201 27146is, 3336 Dt. 3251;
see on the other hand Nu. 1326, above). S. of the
iii. The Tigris (HIDDEKEL), being mentioned in
only two books, can be treated more briefly.
Gen. 214 [J] mentions the Tigris as one of the Eden
rivers. The description (which is probably later than
the mention of the name) is as follows : ‘ This is the
one that flows in front of Assyria.’ Dan. 104 is the
only other passage which refers by name to the Tigris ;
it is noteworthy that the Tigris is here styled ‘ the great
river’ (elsewhere the Euphrates) ; in Dan. 125 dis, 65 it is called lkl-another indubitable sign of late date.
This scanty reference to so important a stream cannot
desert of Paran lay the desert of Sinai (see above),
mentioned by name in Ex. 19 ~f. Lev. 7 38 Nu. 1 I 19 and
eight times more in P, commanded by the Sinai group
of mountains; NW. of that, toward Egypt, lay the
desert of Sin (not sin), jyzl& Ex. 161 (between
Elirn and Sinai) 171 Nu. 3311 f. (all P). The portion
of the desert immediately bordering on Egypt is in the
older tradition connected with Shur (Ex. 1522 [JE]), and
in the later with that of Etham (Nu. 338 ; cp Ex. 1320,
both P). Nearly the same seems to be meant by ‘ the
wilderness of the Red Sea’ (Ex. 1318 [E]) and the
fail to surprise us. Even more strange is it, however, wilderness by the way of the Red Sea’ (Dt. 140 21).
that the nearer river Orontes is entirely ignored. Nor The simple term ‘the wilderness’ is applied, now to
do we hear the names of Araxes and Kyros ; the Oxus
and the Indus are as little known as the Ganges, the
Danube, or the Tiber. The most easterly stream menthe
whole ‘desert of the wandering‘ (Ex. 2331 [E],
etc.), now to a particular part (e.$, Ex. 162 f. and
often), subject to the ordinary principles of clearness.
tioned is the Elamite river ULAI (T.V.), and that not
until the second century B.C. (Dan. 82).
iv. Within a narrower area the water-courses or
‘ wiidys ’ ($a= Ital. ).iumnrn) attracted attention, being
ii. Of the great Arabian Desert we hear comparatively
little, and that little relates to its western edge. ‘ The
desert which is before Moab, on the sunrise side,’ it is
called in Nu. 21 11 [JE].
especially characteristic of Canaan and the adjacent
territory, and conditioning its development. As the
Euphrates was the ideal limit of Israelitish domain on
the NE., so a ravine (and its stream) served the same
purpose on the SW. This is the Wedy rZ-‘Arish, the
natural frontier of Palestine towards Egypt (see EGYPT,
ii.), described by Esarhaddon (Del. Pur. 311) as ’ the
wiidy of Egypt where there was no river.’
The term naAaZ mat Mupr (‘wiidy of Egypt’) exactly
represents pqrd $”, and we have a right to be surprised to
find the phrase o*yyn mj,,in Gen. 15 18 (JE?). The subject is
treated elsewhere (EGYPT, RIVER OF); but the present writer
may express his opinion that iaj is an error of the text (observe
In Judg. 11 22 the wilderness (imlmn) is the (eastern) limit of
Israelitish territory E. of the Jordan ; ‘ like a steppe-dweller
(‘??xs) in thedesert,’Jer 3 2, is a sirnileof lying in wait ; Jer. 26 24
speaks of ‘all the kings of Arabia and all the kingsof the border
tribes that dwell in the desert’ (G

GEOGRAPHY
deno!ed also by the descriptive phrase ‘(Tadmor) in the wilder-
ness (2, Ch. 8 4), after which I K. 9 18 Kr. has been shaped.
t& original TAMAR (p.u.) of I K. 9 18 does not allow such a;
inference. The verses just cited (it maybe observed in passing)
show that cities might flourish in the midst of ‘ desert ’-see also
the other late passages Josh. 15 61f: 20 8 (all P) I Ch. G 78 1631
not to mention Is. 42 ;I. (On smaller deserts in the W. Jordai
teriitory cp PALESTINE.)
Even this imperfect survey shows that the Hebrews
had no great interest in geography as such. The various
8. Foreign characteristics of the earths surface were
countries. not noticed or thought of by then1 except
as they came into some direct relation with
their own life. The poetic imagination no doubt often
laid hold of natural phenomena, and has leit us some
vivid pictures. From the nature of the case, however,
these are general, not specific. The spirit of exact
scientific observation does not appear. Such reports
as may have reached Israel of the nature of the coun-
tries in which the more distant nations dwelt seem to
have made little impression. Outside of their own
experience they were more concerned with persons and
peoples than with soil and mountain-peak and stream,
with desert and sea.
Among the first countries with which we should
expect to find the Hebrews making (or renewing)
acquaintance would be Egypt and Ethiopia.
Egypt* The latter country (the African Cush) seems
to have come within their ken in the eighth century
n
Strabo’s Map of the World. After C. Miiller.
(Am. 97, and especially Is. 181 b Zeph. 31ol Is. 203-5
[but cp ISAIAH, BOOK OF, 3 g, beg.] z K. 19g), when
the 25th-Ethiopian-dynasty was making itself felt in
Palestine,2 An increased familiarity with Egypt is also
attested by the writings of the prophets.
Isaiah (304) refers to ZOAN and HANES Hosea (9 6 * cp Jer.
2 16 etc.) to Moph or Noph-ie., Memphkand Nadum (38),
with great particularity, to the Egyptian Thebes (NO-AMON,
[q.~.], Ass. Ni-i, cp Egypt nt ‘city,’ Steindorff BAS 15968;
for later references to No = No- Amon, see Jer. 4625,
Ezek. 3014.16). Such remoter neighbours of Egypt as Put
(~73; seeonGen. 106 below, 5 m)also, and Lubim(n’$ Libyans
-if it he not the same as Lehabim [D’& Gen. lo13 [see below,
5 15141) occur for the first time in Nah. (39).
It was, singularly enough, the Babylonian conquest
of Tudah that made many .~ Tudzeans better acquainted
lo: Babylonia with Egypt. The fear caused’by the
and AsSyria. murder of GEDALIAH led a large
remnant of the Deode ._ to flee into
Egypt(Jer. 41 17f: 43r-7), and then began the familiarity
with Egyptian cities exhibited by Ezekiel. Of course, this
was but a small part of the geographical debt which the
Hebrews owed to the Babylonians and (we may now
add) the Assyrians. Contact with these nations did
more than anything else to change their geographical
1 These words at least in this disputed verse may be original.
2 In Nu. I2 I z S. 18 ZIA, etc., it is only a question of isolated
individuals (see CUSH, 2 G ; CUSHI, 3).
1691
GEOGRAPHY
knowledge of the country E. of the Euphrates fromfragmentary
tradition to definite acquaintance,
Direct contact with Babylonia began after the fall of
the N. kingdom with the famous embassy of MERODACH-
BALADAN to Hezekiah. Contact with Assyria naturally
began earlier. In the historical books the name appears
first in z K. 1519 29. which tells that Tiglath-pileser
(HI.), = Pul, devastated (x.c. 734) the same northern
districts that Benhadad had ravaged 175 years earlier
(Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh [of Naphtali])
and Gilead as well (cp his own record, COT ad Zoc.) ;
but Israel had already learned to know Assyria in the
previous century under AHAB and JEHU (9q.w.). Amos
does not name it (but see AMOS, col. 149, foot);
yet he certainly refers to it (614), and the expectation of
the coming of the Assyrians underlies his book. Hosea
names it often (513 711 89 93 106 115 11 121 [z]
143 [4]). It is even possible that Shalmaneser IV.
(z K. 173) is referred to in Hos. 1014 as Shalman (see
BETH-ARBEL). We fiid Assyria in Micah (55 [4]$,
cp 7m), and abundantly in Isaiah (718 201 etc.).
Nahum’s prophecy is devoted to an announcement of
its overthrow (cp Zeph. 213); 2 K. li1-6 gives the
account of Samaria’s fall befare it, and the deportation
of the inhabitants to various places in the Assyrian
empire.
It need hardly be said that the Hebrews, so far as
we know, made no atte1npt
10 COllntrllCt n mnp
ll~l. No of thc \VOl!d.
TP.L ._.L^_I
I, ILlCy nau UVllt:
maps. so, it would
I n d i a
doubtless have appeared
to us grotesque enough.
Even the comparatively
sober geographical data
of Eratosthenes (3rd cent.
B. c. )and Strabo (near the
beginning of the Christian
era ; see the accompauying
reproduction), who
combined all the information
they, could procure,
with painful labor-
. ..
iousness, yieia maps
quite recognisable, it is
waYa(kcybBou~u~‘s~ true, but much distorted.
Hebrew cartographers of
the seventh or the fifth century B.C. would have produced
much more astonishing maps, we may be sure,
Attempts have been made to construct maps of the
world as known to the Hebrews, or at least of the
central portion of it, on the basis of the description of
Eden and its rivers in Gen. 2.l These attempts are
interesting in a high degree; but the data are not
suficient in amount or in certainty to make them secure.
The utmost we can say is that one or two of them are
quite possible. At best they can claim to give only the
view of one writer, at a single period.
The four maps given here (after col. 1696) have a much more
modest aim. They are meant simply to indicate theactual regions
011 the earth‘s surface as now known which were embraced by
Hebrew knowledge at different periohs. For purposes of com-
parison at least, thesemayperhaps bequite asuseiulasanattempt
to conshuct such as the Hebrews themselves would have drawn.
Little interest as the Hebrews had in geography in
the abstract, they could not remain impervious to the
lid. Geographi- influences which were enlarging their
linowledge of the world, nor wholly
Lists.
escape the impulse to systematize that
knowledge. The most conGincing ev-idence of this
appears in the lists which tabulate it in some detail.
These lists were arranged on a genealogical scheme,
representing assumed racial connection, or contiguity or
1 See especially Haupt SBOT, ‘ Isa.,’ note on 18 I ; PAOS,
Mar. ’94, p. ciii. : Ubalnndu. Meey, 1894-5, no. r5 (withmap).
Cp also WlMM Asien w. Euro& 2523
1692

GEOGRAPHY GEOGRAPHY
historical association (see Di. Gen. 168); see GENE-
ALOGIES i., § ~f. They were compiled by the same
hands tfiat undertook the story of the national life.
The motives underlying the lists can be only conjectured. An
interest in geography pure and simple was hardly one of these
motives, although the geographical order is here and there discernible
in the arrangement of names. The names are usually
those of peoples, and it would be more exact to call the lists ethnographical.
They appear to represent the circle of peoples
(arranged with some regard to locality) which at the time fixed
the attention of the authors. Their purpose is not the same as
that of the Assyrian catalogues of trihutaries, or the more formal
Egyptian lists of foreign cities and tribes. In those we have
chiefly the parade of conquest: The Hebrew lists show a much
more impersonal, or at least more dispassionate, interest. They
include peoples with whom the Hebrews had no practical concern,
and their own conquerors are named with perfect calmness.
All indications point to an intellectual purpose. The impulse
to write history was already at work, and with it the desire of
providing a setting for the history, which should present what
was known of other peoples, and indicate their organic relations.
The first consecutive list of this kind appears not
earlier than the end of the ninth century. Israel was
firmly established in its own land,-had a fixed point
of observation. David had made it compact and
powerful. The commerce and foreign relations of
Solomon had led the thoughts of the people outside
their own land. The Phcenicians were followed, in
thought, as they traversed the Mediterranean, and their
reports were heard in Jerusalem as well as in Samaria.
The national self-consciousness was beginning to assert
itself-even although the political life was divided-so
as to develop'the historical instinct, and lead to the
recognition of other peoples as historical units, like
themselves. Finally, a great new power was looming
up on the eastern horizon. All these circumstances
contributed to the formation and systematic arrangement
of historico-geographical ideas.
'The document which embodies such an arrangement
is the genealogical table of the descendants of Noah's
three sons in Gen. 10. This is really a list of the
peoples which, at the time of the writers, seemed of
consequence. The chapter is not homogeneous. It is
formed by the union of two distinct lists of different
dates. The older (J) was probably compiled about
800 B. C. ; the younger (P) perhaps 350 years later.
There is great unanimity among critics in assigning to P vv.
1-7 20 zzx, 313, and practical unanimity also as to J (vv. 8-19
21 25-30); the (slight) divergences relate to the different layers
of J, and to the work of the Redactor, to whomv. 24 is assigned
by almost all. Neither list is preserved in its original form.
The lists of J and P afford the framework for a
geographical scheme. When we attempt to conibine
12n. Develop- these with the other data, however, for
the purpose of tracing the growth of
merit
Geography. geographical knowledge among the
Early Period. Hebrews, we are met by difficulties
which can be surmounted only in part ;
our results must often be provisional.
The nature of our sources is such that it is impossible to he
always sure at which point in the history a given geographical
fact first appeared. The documents have passed through so
many hands, that conceptions of different dates may easily be
present. Conversely eographical ideas may have existed long
without finding expr;s$on in the surviving literature.
Especial difficulty attaches to a clear representation
of the geographical horizon in the early period.
Very early documents are few and the later accounts of early
matters have to be received with hiscrimination. Each particular
statement must he carefully weighed, and the probabilities considered.
Direct Egyptian and Canaanitish influence on early
geographical knowledge in Israel is an unknown quantity. We
cannot jump to the conclusion that the Amarna tablets imortant
as they are, represent knowledge which was, or speidily
{ecame, the common property of the Hebrew invadersa century
or two later. By degrees, no doubt, much geography known to
the Canaanites would he appropriated by the new-comers, hut
how much, and how long it took, we are wholly without means
of deciding. Uncertainty meets us also as to the amount of
genuine geographical material in thi tradkons of early nomadic
wanderings. We are quite in the dark as to Hebrew contact
with the Hittites and the Aramaeans between the conquest and
David's time.
In these circumstances it has seemed wisest, both in the
following descriptions and in the accompanying maps, to deal
somewhat rigidly with the materials, and to require a maximum
1693
of evidence for the facts presented. A careful student will be able
to expand the area of certainty, as evidence may seem to justify.
It would appear that to the generations following the
Hebrew settlements in Canaan the outside world was of
little consequence. The unanimity of traditions point-
ing to Egypt compels us to regard acquaintance with
that country as among their earliest possessions. There
is no reason to think that they had any hut the vaguest
ideas of Africa to the W. and S. of Egypt. The same
is true of the lower shores of the Red Sea and the
interior of Arabia. The roving Amalekites on their
southern border, the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammon-
ites, to the SE. and E., were of course in full view.
Midian, on the eastern side'of the eastern branch of the
Red Sea, was closely associated with their early wander-
ings, and was looked upon as Israel's half-brother
(Gen. %zf.), and the story of Gideon preserves an
account of a desperate conflict with a branch of the
same people-predatory Bedouin, like the Amalekites,
during the time of the Judges (see MIDIAN). There
were traditions of an early Aramaean home, and even,
as there seems no good reason to doubt, of a still earlier
one in Babylonia ; local traces of Babylonian influence
in Canaan may have revived and confirmed these tradi-
tions; but they can hardly have been outlined with
geographical clearness. As to the northern boundary
of Hebrew knowledge in this period our sources are
very scanty. The one great literary monument of these
troubled years, the Song of Deborah, composed in the
N., and dealing with events in the N., does not carry
us beyond the immediate vicinity of the plain of
Megiddo. Hazor is mentioned in Judg. 4-a good
source of the second order-as also in Josh. 11 (JE),
and Judg. 131 33 (cp Josh. 118) carry us northward on
the coast as far as Sidon. Hints at wider knowledge
of northern geography are afforded only by late docu-
ments. Reminiscences of Egyptian campaigns may no
doubt have preserved on the soil the names of northerly
regions ; but from the Hebrew documents themselves
we cannot derive, for this period, any acquaintance
with territory northward of a line joining Sidon, Lebanon,
and Hermon.
On the W. the sea was the limit. There is no
evidence that in this period the Hebrew mind ventured
across it. If the first intercourse with Phoenicia brought
knowledge of Phcenician traffic, no trace of this know-
ledge has been left in the records of the early time.
A much more extended area and a more detailed acquaintance
with Babylonia and with AramEan localities must he recognized
for this period if we could suppose that Gen. 14 represents
knowledge in the possession of the Hebrews at this time,
whether due to their own ancient tradition, or to local history
appropriated by them after the conquest. The question of the
existence in this noteworthy chapter of good historical material
cannot be discussed here (see GENESIS 5 sa). It is quite
possible to answer the question in the hirmative, and at the
same time to maintain, as the evidence requires us to do, that
the chapter cannot be used as a source of information for the
geographical knowledgeof the time of the Judges. CpLehmann,
Alto% Chron. p. 84 ('98).
The advent of the Philistines, the alliances and
126. Geographical conquests of David, and the alliances
knowledge in and luxury of Solomon widened the
cent. B.D. Hebrew horizon, and filled in spaces
which were nearly or quite vacant.
David's wars (see DAVID, § 8) with Hadadezer and
his allies must have axorded some definite acquaintance
with the Aramaean country as far as the Euphrates.
Maacah, Geshur, Zohah, Hamath, and Damascus
now grew familiar. Mesopotamia became a neighbour.
David's friendship with Hiram of Tyre must have led to
knowledge of lands beyond the sea, and the Philistines
brought with them to the shores of Canaan the news of
Caphtor as their early island home: Caphtor is with
1 Ur Kasdim in J (Gen. 11 28 15 7) cannot be discussed here
(see UR [i.]). The present writer believes that fewer difficulties
are occasioned by regarding it as original with J and as repre-
senting old tradition, than by denying either of tdese things.
1694

GEOGRAPHY
probability identified by most scholars with Crete
,(see PHILISTINES ; but cp CAPHTOR, CHERETHITES).~
As the Philistines were new-comers, some report of their
.origin would naturally spread at once ; hence, although the
name of Caphtor does not appear till the eighth century, it is
probable that it was known under David and Solomon.
Solomon’s reign enlarged the Hebrew world still
more. That there were variant traditions of the extent
.of his kingdom appears from I K. 54 compared with
5 5 (EV 42425) and with 11 24 : we cannot even tell
whether the Euphrates was sufficiently known in
.Solomon’s time to justify the mention of Tiphsah
(Thapsacus) in the late passage I K. 5 4 [424]. The
mention of ‘ Tadmor ’ (Le., Palmyra) in 2 Ch. 8 4 is at
any rate valueless for the time of Solomon (see TAMAR).
On the other hand, the probable emendation of I K.
1028f. which finds there a mention of the northern
lands Mu+ and Kue as the source of the Hebrew
supply of horses (see MIZRAIM,, z [a], CHARIOT, 5,
col. 726, n. I), brings us to the very foot of the Taurus
mountains. S. of which the Syrian &‘up+ lay, and even
through the mountain-passes of the Amanus into Cilicia,
to which 4-ue belonged (see CILICIA, 5 2).
A still more notable extension of geographical
.knowledge took place toward the S. If the story
of the visit from the queen of Sheba stood by itself it
might not be enough to assure us of the actual acquaint-
ance of Solomon’s time with Southern Arabia. But
-the impulse given to exploration and commerce by
Solomon’s luxury led to the fitting out of ships on the
gulf of ‘Akaba, which sailed away southward on long
cruises, bringing them into close contact with the
Arabian shores. Besides the various tropical products
(not all quite certain; see APES, GOLD, IVORY,
OPHIR, PEACOCKS), with which they contributed to the
:splendour and the entertainment of the court, they
brought reports of distant lands, and whether or not
OPHIR (4.v.) was in Arabia, it is certain that at least
Arabian territory bordering on the Red Sea must have
been observed and described. The same is true of the
African shore of the Red Sea; how much further S.
and E. the new knowledge stretched we cannot tell, and
the voyagers themselves may have been as ignorant of
the real geographical relations of Ophir as Columbus
and his sailors were in regard to the West Indies ; but
it is quite certain that a large extent of the earth‘s
surface, before unknown, must from that time onward
have been taken into the more or less definite concep-
tions of the edncated Hebrews.
It is probable that those conceptions now embraced
at least one remote point in the W. Phcenician
voyages, colonies, and settlements were already
opening markets in many quarters to the trade of
the cities from which they set out. It is likely that
the Phoenicians had planted themselves before the
tenth century on the coast of Spain, at Tartessus.2
Since Phoenician seamen went with Solomon’s ships,
and these ships are called ‘ ships of Tarshish ’-Le.,
large sea-going vessels, such as were fit to go to
Tarshish.(I K. 1022, cp Is. 216)-there is a presumption
in favour of some Hebrew knowledge of Tarshish in
GEOGRAPHY
received trihute from the Mediterranean cities. Of direct con-
tact with Israel we do not hear ; but the silence of the Hebrew
records cannot prevent us from saying that, with the intimacy
between Phcenicia and the house of Omri, then on the Israelitish
throne, Israel must have learned lessons in Assyrian geography
from ABur-nagir-pal. We cannot of course tell how far even the
names of territories overrun by him on the remote Assyrian
borders-Kummuh the MuSki, the Nairi-lands, the regions of
the Upper and th;’Lower ZPh, and the rest-became known in
Palestine : but Eastern Mesopotamia, the Tigris and its cities,
must have begun to take a place in Hebrew thought.
Shalmaneser 11. (860.825 B.c.) whom Ahab’s men faced, under
Benhadad, in 854, and who r&eived tribute from Jehu, must
have continued the geographical teaching begun by his father.
RammBn-nirari 111. (812.783 B.c.) brought it apparently still
closer home, for not only Phenicia and Israel, hut also Philistia
and Edom recognised his sovereignty by tribute, and since proh-
ably the former, and certainly the latter, in its mountain
fastnesses, would hardly do so without previous personal contact,
we must suppose, either that two streams of Assyrian invasion
enclosed Judah on the E. and on the W., or, if Edom was
reached by the western route that the southern border of Judah
was skirted. In any case, h; the middle of the eighth century,
at which time, certainly J’s geographical survey was complete,
the kingdom of Judah,’ in which J wrote, had facilities nearly
as ample as those of Israel for knowing the main features of
Assyrian geography. Judaean embassies were, it is true, not
yet passing to and fro carrying tribute, and bringing hack new
impressions and the stbries of strange lands, hut the knowledge
gained in this way by their neighbours would in the course of
time naturally become theirs.
Shalmaneser 11. and his successors had come into close
relations with Babylonia, and ancestral tradition would lead the
Hebrews to an especial interest and even inquisitiveness regard-
ing it, which would result in some familiarity with local names
while by no means yielding precise and full knowledge, or disl
pelling the mystery overhanging that ancient Semitic home.
The first part of J’s list that is preserved to us looks
toward the E. It begins abruptly with a summarized
statement regardingan individual monarch
Babyionia. 13a J’s ;f Babylonia-NIMROD [q. v.], son of
ush. The sites of BABYLON and ERECH
are well known: those of ACCAD and CALNEH (I)
are not yet identified. Shinar (ipw) most probably
represents the Babylonian &mer, or its dialectic variation
5ungEr.l Whether the term land of Shinar ’ in Gen.
1010 includes all Babylonia, from the sea northward,
we cannot however say. Another tradition preserved
by J makes a plain (qpp) ‘ in the land of Shinar ’ the
scene of the building of Babel, and of the sudden
dispersion of the race (Gen. 11 1-9 : see BABEL). The
only contribution made by this passage to the vexed
question as to the geographical limits of Sum& consists
in the requirement that it shall contain both Babylon
and Erech. Familiarity with the name is indicated
especially by the expression ‘a goodly mantle of
Shinar ‘ (Josh. 7 21 [JE] ; see RVmg.) ; ‘ land of Shinar ’
occurs also in Zech. 5 11 Dan. 1 2, and Shinar, Is. 11 11.
If J located his Eden (Gen. 2) in Babylonia, his geographical
information concerning the region must he regarded as still
vague. The Euphrates and the Tigris approach each other
there, and were doubtless connected by canals ; but as to the
rest the description is unrecognisahle. This however would
not’of itself disprove the theory that he ha$ that loc(ality in
mind. Without entering into the vexed question of CUSH (q.v.)
mentioned in Gen. 2 13 108, we may note here that Ah-nqiri
pal and Shalmaneser 11. both encountered the Kaggites, and it
is by no means impossible that in the mind of J there was
already confusion between the KGSites and the Arabian and
African Ku5. The embassy of Merodach-baladan to Hezekiah
(2 K. ZO), at the end of the eighth century, although it seems to
Solomon’s time (although I K. 10 was written much presuppose some mutual acquaintance, was plainly a novelty,
and is quite consistent with much mutual ignorance, as well.
later), and TARSHISH ([i.] q.v.) is admittedly Tartessus.
Solomon’s fleets were not successfully imitated by his
The assignment of the beginning of Nimrod’s
successors ; but a new agent now appears. After these
kingdom ” to Babvlonia. and the stress laid on the
, I
fleets the strongest influence in enlarging
136. J’s AsSyria, subsequent founding of Assyrian cities,
12c. In Sth
the Hebrew view of the world was the
points to an ultimate Assyrian source
cent’ B*C’
westward extension of Assyrian power.
for at least vv. 10-12. ASSor, EV ‘Asshur’ (i?k&), is
That. power took a fresh start under ASur-na$r-pal (885,860 undoubtedly here, as in 2 14 and elsewhere, the country
B.c., see ASSVRIA, 5 3r), who marched to the Mediterranean, and of Assyria (see especially ‘ land of Assyria,‘ parallel
1 The question of the identification of Caphtor is connected
with ‘land of Nimrod’ Mic. 56 [SI), not the old capital
with that of the origin of the Philistines, who are derived thence AHur on the W. bank of the Tigris (at Kal‘at-Sherk2.t
in Am. 9 7 Jer. 47 4 and probably Dt. 2 23. For recent evidence about 45 m. below Ninirad; see ASSYRIA, 0 5).
that the Philistines came from Crete, see A. J. Evans, Creta%
Picfopa@hs (‘95), 998
1 Paul Haupt, ‘ Ueber ein Dialekt der Sumerischy Sprache ’
3 Strabo i 3 2 [481 says that the Phcenicians had sailed beyond GGN, 1880, no. 17 ; Akkadische Spyache, 1883 ; AkkadiscLe
the Pillars’oi Hercules soon after the Trojan war. Cp iii. 2 128 u. Sumerische Keilschrift-texte ’= Ass. Bihliofhrk, Bd. 1 (‘SIX) ;
where he speaks of Tartessus, and cites Homer’s mention of it. Del. Par. 198 ; Schr. .COT on Gen. 11 I ; Tiele, BAG, 748 1695
1696

I. HEBREW GEOGRAPHY IN THE TIME OF THE JUDGES.
111. HEBREW GEOGRAPHY IN THE 8th. CENTURY B.C.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BIBLICA, 1901.
11. HEBREW GEOGRAPHY IN THE 10th. CENTURY B.C.
Iv. REBREW' GEOGRAPHY IN THE Sth. CENTURY B.C.
i&'dkwG.BoutalZ sa

GEOGRAPHY
GEOGRAPHY
The Assyrian kingdom, like the Babylonian, is reprc- and mentions Canaan and his ‘ sons.’ Verse 15 names
sented by four cities (see NINEVEH, CALAH, REHOBOTH-
two of these-viz., SIDON and Heth.
IR, R’EsEN), for the words, ‘that is the great city,’ in
16. J’s
The Hittites, or sons of Heth, are treated
Gen. 10126, which imply the view that these several cities
elsewhere (see HITTITES). Suffice it to
made up the one great Nineveh (cp Jon. 12 32 411, where notice that for J they are simply an aboriginal Canaanthe
city is of enormous size), are probably a gloss. It is
J also who mentions the Tigris (see above, 5, iii.).
itish people, by the side of the Phcenicians.
The following verses present several difficulties.
Western Mesopotamia becomes familiar. Not only They contain gentilic nouns, which is peculiar,-not in
dowefind thecityofNahorandA~A~-~~~~~AI~ (g.v.),l itself, for already in w. 13J the genealogical scheme
besides other references to this region as of early interest has become a transparent fiction, but because of the
in Hebrew migrations (Gen. 2410 ; cp 22208 28 IO, disagreement in form with Sidon and Heth.
etc., J), but the exiles of Samaria are planted by the In part the verses suggest the familiar list of Canaanitish
Habor (Chaboras), the river of Gozan (z K. 176), and peoples which Israel is to dispossess as contained in the account
of the Exodus and march to CanAan furnished by J and D
Gozan, Harran, KeSeph, (Bit-)Adini and Telassar (e.g., Ex.38 Dt.71); but in part they are different. The
all figure in the conquests of Assyria (2 K. 191z), and PERIZZITES (q.v.) are wholly lacking. The Canaanites do not
all show knowledge of the same region, by the close of appear ; Canaan is here, not one among the particular peoples,
the eighth century.
but the comprehensive term uniting all the rest. Heth is an
unusual form, and is set apart from the rest of the list. There
The northern border of Assyria is still obscure. At are here also five names (v. 17,f) which do not occur in the lists
the NE corner of the Mediterranean. whilst on land we elsewhere, and differ from the four preceding (except the
do not get across the Amanus, in the sea Jebusites of Jerusalem), in being plainly geographical.
14,
knowledge
J’s
I. ‘The Arkite’ is a gentilic derived from the city name
the island of Cyprus (Kittim) comes into Arka(Ass. Arka COT; mod. TeZZ ‘Arka,Burckhardt, Travels
It is not in J’s list ; but it meets us 162 ; Rob. Bk App. 183), northwaid from Tripolis at th;
Of the West* y:gu” 2424 (JE), as well as in Is. 23. NW. foot of Lebanon. See ARKITE.
2.
It is doubtful whether Nu.2424 belongs to an earlystratum
‘The Sinite’ is of doubtful derivation. Del. Par. 282
of JE and without claiming Kittim where it first occurs in the proposes to read ‘pc and to connect with the city Siamzu
much’ disiuted ‘oracle of Tyre’ (Is. 23 r6), we may admit (=Si&tu) ‘on the shore of the sea’ mentioned by Tiglath-
Kith in v. 12 as belonging to the poem, and may not pileser 111. with Arka (and Jimirm) 3 R. 946. Strabo (xvi. 2 18)
unreasonably ascribe it to the hand of Isaiah. It is true that mentions a town iinna, Jerome (Qu~stt. arZ Zoc.) a civitas
this would of itself take us back no further than 725 B.C. ; but the Sin; in this region and Breydenhach (Xeise, 1483) a village Syn
reference to Kittim is made in such a way as to imply ..- previous about 23 m. from hahy ‘Arka. See SINITE.
acquaintance.
3. On ‘the Arvadite’ see ARVAD.
From Assyria in the NE. J’s list passes to Egypt 4. ‘The Zemarite’ is from the city Jimidra) mentioned rein
the SW. In fhc same group are eight
peatedly by Tiglath-pileser 111. and his successors, 7458 B.?.
15.
Egypt,
J’s
(Schr. COT on Gen. 1018, Del Par. 281x), and long before I”
etc. other peoples, marking as many territorial the Amarna letters as Sumur (Bezold, oj. cit. 155 ; otherwise
distinctions(Gen. 1013j?=1 Ch.1 IT$). Winckler op. cif. io*);’it was known to the Greeks as urpvpa
I. First are the LUDIM, who are quite distinct from (see reff.’in Di.). It is perhaps the modern Sumin .between
Ruid and Tripolis (Bad. PaL(3) 407 ; see other reff.’ in Buhlthe
LUD (p.~.) of Gen.102~ (P)=I Ch.117, and must
GeS. Lex., s.v.)’.). Cornill restares P’!Qf in Ezek.2711 (see
be sought in Africa. More we cannot say, and our
GAMMADIM)..
present ignorance extends to several other names in the 5. Finally ‘the Hamathite’ from the well-known city of
same group. The very next one is an example. HAMATH (q.;.) on the Orontes;
2. Of Anamim (only here, and in I Ch. 111) we All these are places in the extreme N., and can be,
know nothing geographically, and the name is not even in most cases, with certainty identified.
certain textually.2
3. KASLUHIM, EV cASLUHIM,3 is just as obscure.
See PHILISTINES.
4. LEHABIM perhaps = Lfibim, oqh, Libyans.
CWEL, however, has Aa,&ap, or Aa/3ew I Ch. [AI, whilst
pq5 is Ai&m (see Nah.39 [BKAQI z Ch. 123 [BAL], 168
[BAL] ; and O?!, Dan. 1143t Baer) ; read also Lob, 275 for Heh.
213 (AV CHUB, RV CUB), Ezek. 305 ; @BAQ hifives (Co. WMM
As. w. Eur. 115).
The passages do not help to fix the boundaries of Libya.
This increases our surprise at finding: them, cpbined
(n. 16J) with the ‘ Jebusite and the GIRCASHITE
(p.~.) and the HIVITE’ (q.~.), which are either in, the
S. or are geographically vague.
‘ The Amorite’ is a name which requires separate treatment.
We may understand it to be .used here in the same sense which
it bears elsewhere in the stereotyped lists of Canaanitish peoples,
and assume that v. 16, as well as ‘the Hivite’ in 1). 17, IS not a
part of J’s original table (see AMORITES).
The account of the sons of Canaan in J comes to an end with
two more general remarks : v. 18 ‘and afterward (i.e., after
Canaan had begotten these sons=in the course of time, b,y
degrees) were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad ;
v. 19 in its turn, gives the boundary of the Canaanites.
It is evident from a comparison of vv. 18 and r9 that in both
cases the Canaanites are the inhabitants of Canaan (Phcenician
origination of o’nngi out of n*nana-i.e., j,’f,’m.fii; ‘northern
land ’ (cp [6], so Erman, ZA TW 10 I 18,f).
6. Pathrtisim (o$D!ns) is the gentilic from PathrBs
(oiing,-i.e., in Egyptian, ‘land of the S.’; in cuneiform,
Pnttwisi), which is referred to in Jer. 441 as a
region distinct from Migdol, Tahpanhes, and Noph, in
Jer.4415 (Graf, Gie.) and in Is. 1111 (Ba/3uAwvlas
[BHAQ]) as distinct from Mizraim or Egypt, and in
Ezek. 30 14 among the Egyptian towns and districts
(Noph, Zoan, No, Sin, etc.) on which judgment shall
fall. In Ezek. 2914 it is called the land of the ‘ origin ’
(RVmP.) of the Egyptians (a good historical tradition).
7. On Caphtorim and (8) the Philistines see § 126.
From Egypt J’s list passes northward along the coast,
1 For a different view see HAURAN.
2 In Gen. aweperiecp [AI, wepenew [El, aivriapiap [Ll ; in
Ch. avapmp [AI awop- [Ll ; B om.
3 In Gen. Xa&wmp [AI, -uho- [L], Xahoap [El; in Ch.
XauAovrap [A], -hoe~p [L] ; B om:
4 ve+BaAmp [A], -hap [ELI ; in Ch. -hip [A], -8wueip [Ll ;
B om.
colonies, e.g., are not included). ?xh, v. 18, must therefore
mean ‘spread out so as to occupy the land of Canaan.’ Verses
15-18,’however, contain names (ie. in v. 16A) which certainly
cover substantially the Canaanitish territory; v. 186 is not intelligible
if the whole space over which they spread is already
occupied by them. The characteristic names of the present list
are, however, all in the N. and it seems highly probable that
the others (Jebusite Aidrite Girgashite, Hivite) are not
original, hut insertedby a scride who missed the familiar forms.
If the above criticism be sound, what J tells us is
that the original seat of the Canaanites was in the
N. (= Phcenicia and Hamath), and that they spread
from that region over Canaan.
This obliges us to take a further step.
Verse 19 cannot give the boundary of these original northern
Canaanites. It does not even include them, for it goes no farther
N. than Sidon and all the other names under consideration
(Heth, Arka, Sin, Arvad, Simir, and Hamath) are to the northward
of Sidon. Moreover it passes down at least as far as
Gaza (reading rill:, ‘towards Gerar ’) ; but Gaza is near the
southern border of the Philistine territory, which must therefore
be included in the Canaanitish border ; but evidently the
Philistines are, for J not Canaanites (v. 14).
It appears, then, that not only the five names in 2’11. 16 17a,
but also the border-tracing z). 19, are later additions. If this is
the case, however, the qrgl(‘spreadabroad7 ofv. 18 is no longer
1697
1698

GEOGRAPHY GEOGRAPHY
to be explained by ZI. 19 and may well refer to the planting of
Phoenician colonies, wh[ch is more in accord with the meaning
of (eg., Gen. 11 8f: Zeph. 3 IO Is. 241 Ezek. 11 17 and often).
The next geographical reference in J is in v. 26.
Verses 21-25 simply connect the Eberites with Shem, the eldest
son of Noah, and fix the time of the division of the peoples.
Verses 26-30 name the sons of Joktan (see JOKTAN),
and give theirlocality. The names, as far as identified,
17. J's sons prove to be Arabian (see special articles).
The interior of the Arabian peninsula,
Of Joktan* whose coast had been skirted by Solomon's
fleets, was gradually disclosing itself. Hadramaut
(HAZARMAVETH, Gen. 1026= I Ch. 120) appears for the
first and only time in the OT, side by side with Sheba
(see! 3): The more settled Arabian communities are
coming into view. Amalek and Midian, the wilder
Bedawin of the desert, have disappeared.l
Verse 30 gives the limits of the territory of these descendants
of Joktan :-'from El$ towards >QD the mountain of the East.'
The change of Mesha to Massa @E), a branch of the Ishmael-
ites, is plausible. Massa would then mark the northern limit of
the tribes of Yokcan. See MESHA i.
Sephar, the opposite limit (l$D), must be sought in the S. if
is in the N. It is usually identified (hut with doubtful
warrant) with the ancient Himyarite capital Tafar, perhaps
(Ges. and Buhl) the seaport of Hadramaut (near Mirbat) now
called Isfar or I;&r (see SEPHAR).
' The mountain of the East' is too general an expression to
give precision to undefined geographical terms (cp GOLD, $ I c).
'The list of J ends here. It was doubtless once fuller
than it is now ; R has contented himself with a selection.
The only sons of Shem to whom J devotes space, besides
Eber and Peleg, are Joktan and his Arabian descendants. We
miss, eg., all reference to Aram, which J would not ignore.
J has contributed only part of the materials to Gen.
10. We have now to consider the contribution of P.
The longer the relations with Phoenicia and with
Assyria continued, and the closer they became, the
,. ls. Geographical greater their effect on the geo-
knowledge in the graphical knowledge of the Hebrews.
6th cent' B'C'
The fall of the Northern Kingdom
and the settlement of foreigners in
that territory meant less to them geographically than it
would have done if there had been northern writers to
make nse of new knowledge that the colonists brought.
The exile of Judah took place under very different
conditions, and, after the Babylonian power had passed
to the Persians, the religious and literary activity at
Jerusalem not only manifests a vivid acquaintance with
d;otant countries before knowqonly by reports at second
hand, but also shows that there were men who had
learned from their own observation, as well as from the
heterogeneous character of the armies which had con-
quered them-men who knew something of the remoter
campaigns of their foreign sovereigns, and who had a
growing familiarity with the traffic of the world.
Accordingly the circumference of Ps map is greatex
than that of J. He follows a different order; hut, to
aid in comparison, it will be simpler to rearrange his
material, and begin, as in the case of J, with the East.
We have particularly a wealth of eastern, north-
eastern, and northern details. Babylonia is of course
19. p,s Eastern familiar (see below) ; Elani (Gen. 1022)
andNorthern and Susiana are now well known,-
Geography. Nehemiah was at home in Susa (SHU-
SHAN, Neh. 1 I),-Media (MADAI) ap-
pears often (Is. 13 17 Gen. 102 'etc. ), and ' had indeed
probably been known for centuries (z K. 176) ; it is the
Assyrian Madai (Rammiin-nirari [812-783 B. 12.1-Esar-
haddon [681-668]), E. of Assyria, NE. of Babylonia;
its capital, ECBATANA (ACHMETHA) is mentioned in
1 We find Midian still in the later writers of Is. 606 aud Hab.
37, where they are simply poetic representatives of distant
peoples. In I K. 11 18 the text isdoubtful(Then cp Benzinger).
As for Amalek if credence can be placed in I CL 442f: the last
remnant of it &as destroyed in the time of Hezekiah. In Ps.
837 [E] the mention of it is in a poetic figure, either to designate
present foes by the title of an ancient foe, or to describe the
character of the present ones (cp Baethgen).
1699
Ezra62. Persia appears first in Ezek. 2710 385 (see
however, PARAS), and then abundantly in Ezra.
Persia is not explicitly connected with Cyrlis before the time
of the Chronicler (when it is superabnndantly joined with his
name ; 2 Ch. 3622J Ezra 1 rf: 8 3 7 43 5). The contemporary
mention of him in Is. 4428 451 does not, it is true, reveal any
knowledge of Anzan, or Susiana, as his early dominion ; but
neither does it displace such knowledge by the inexact substitution
of Persia, which afterwards grew so familiar.
P's list as preserved does not mention Babylon. It
was needless. Familiarity with Babylonia is of course
a marked feature of the exilic and post-exilic literature.
Besides the frequent mention of the Chaldseans from
the time of their appearance before Jerusalem under
Nebnchadreziar (Jer. 22 25 21 4 g etc. ) we have frequent
mention of the land of the Chaldzeans.
Specific mention, in Jer. 245 25 12 (om. 6, Hi., Gie., etc.), also
50 I 8 25 45 51 4 54 Ezek. 13 12 13 ; reference, in Jer. 50 IO 51 24 35
Ezek. 11 24 16 29 23 15f: Dan. 9 I (in Is. 23 13 the text is corrupt).
For the Hebrews the land of Chaldea is the land of
which Babylon was the chief city. Of an earlier
Chaldsean home in S. Babylonia they show no know-
1edge.l It was only after Babylon became the Chaldzan
capital that the Chaldaeans attained importance
for Israel (Judah ; cp Merodach-baladan, z I

GEOGRAPHY . GEOGRAPHY
of P’s northern peoples, it is now clear that P knew them before
they were driven faither N. See TUBAL.
Tiras(Gen.lOz=x Ch. 15) is the seventh son of Japhet’ not
identified with certainty; on a possible connection with) the
ancient Tyrseni see TIRAS.
On the difficdlt name ‘ Magog’ (Cen. 102) see Goc,. We can
only infer that P set ‘ Magog’ in the N. The traditional identi-
fication of him with the Scythians (Jos. Jer.), though without
definite evidence, is plausible. The Scythians came down, as
fierce northern raiders, late in the seventh centyy (Zeph. Jer.),
and little would be known with precision about a region so dis-
tant as that from which they came.
2. Before passing entirely away from the N. and E.
we must notice Ps account of the Ararnajans.
Gen. 1023 gives four sons of Aram who in I Ch.
1 r7d appear as sons of Shem. Gether is unidentified.
For Uz, the connection with Nahor (Gen. 2221) would
lead us to look beyond the Euphrates, and the relation
to Aram (Gen. 1023) would make no difficulty.
The exegetical details of Job will be treated elsewhere. There
is no objection to locating Uz somewhere 011 the N. side of
the Arabian desert where indeed Ptolemy (v. 19 z) speaks of a
people called the A!oira‘ who lived W. of the Euphrates. We
also find Uz connected with Edom (Gen.36~8 P, and Lam. 421
[om. @I). So, too, B’s addition to the hook of Job refers to
him as ‘dwelling in the Ausitid land on the borders of Idumrea
and Ambia.’l ~
On Jer. 2520 see Uz. Del. (Pur. 259) claims to have found
the name Uz under the form ‘mat Us$ ’ on an inscription of
Shalmaneser iI. (Obelisk, 1. 154); if corr&t, Uz must have been
near the Orontes, but Winck. (KO 1146) reads Kun(?)-uzza as
a man’s name. Del. (ZKF 2873) thinks of the extreme N. of
the Syrian desert, in the region of Palmyra;a but Lam. 4-21
opposes this. All these data cannot be made to refer to one
single region ; but Robertson Smith‘s suggestion that Uz denotes
all the scattered tribes-or rather the various tribes who
worshipped the same god, ‘Aud (y,y),s a god well known to
heathen Arabia-is not favoured by the connection of yiy with
Aram or with a home E. of the Euphrates, although this is not
concdsive.
MASH [q.v.] which occurs only here is connected by Di.
,(after Ges. Thbs.) with Mons Mas(ius), now Tzir ‘Ahdin, north-
ward from Nisibis-the mountain range separating Armenia
from Mesopotamia (Straboxi. 142; Ptol. v. 18 z), which may well
have been peopled hy Aramreans. Accepting this conjecture, we
might proceed to identify Hiil, the remaining son of Shem, with
the district Ndi’n (from Ass. +u ‘sand ’?), mentioned by
AEur-nBTir-pal in connection with Mdns Musius (Del. Pur. 259).
This, however, is uncertain.
The term $5 (WF) is only here in P ; but it is characteristic
of the late literature, and has a consisterit, although general,
geographical use. The singular ’v? appears in Is. 206 used of
the Palestinian coast (including Judah) and so in 23 2 6 of the
Photnician coast, and in Jer. 474 of the coastland of CAPHTC~R
(4.7~ I). in Jer. 2522 we read of ‘the kings of the coastland
whi:h is biyond the sea’ (with kings of Tyre and Sidon). In the
wider application, however, it is elsewhere pl., and is sometir.es
more sometimes less, defined. It always as far as can be
detehned refers to coasts of the Mediter;auean. It is otherwise
quite ’indefinite (of coast-lands, whether of islands or ccntinents,
often with idea of distance) Jer. 31 IO Ezek. 26 15 18 6,s
273 15 35 396 Is. 41 I 5 424 IO 12 491 515 5918 609 6619 Ps. 72 IO
971Dan.llrs;fully D:? ’:? Is.ll1I2415Esth.101; P!lig ’:f
occurs Zeph. 2 TI as in Gen. 105 ; less often the pl. is uzed of
particular coasts : of Kittim Jer. 2 IO Ezek. 276, and of Elishah
Ezek. 277 ‘ once it means .‘islands,’ Is. 40 15 and once (if the
text is right; see SBOT, ‘Isa.’ Heb. 201) ‘Labitable ground ’
Is. 42 15. The earliest indefinite use of the pl. is Jer. 31 IO Zepi,
2 IT ;all the others are in Is. (second and third) Ezek. Esth. Dan.
and late Psalms, unless Is. 11 11 be an exception, which, however,
in view of the usage, is most unlikely. See further, ISLE.
In v. 6 P goes on to the sons of Ham. These are
Knsh, Misraim, Phut, aiid Canaan. The first trto are
22. p,s Sons unquestionably African. Kush here is
probably the same as in Is. 181 etc.
of Ham.
(ai&oda)--i.e., the country S. of Eg-ypt
(see ETHIOPIA). MiFraim (see MIzaA1M) has no d&Lt
substantially the same meaning as in J (I 15); Phut
occurs as early as Nahum (3 9).
Also in Jer. (469 with Kii4 and Liidim. read perhaps.
Lubim) Ezek. (305 ’with KoH and Lud, prodably also LBb;
see Co.’; in both these last as part of the Egyptian army; 27 10
with PBras [see, however, PARAS] and Liid, as in the Tyrizn
army ; 38 5 with Piras [see, however, PARAS] and KiiS as Ec-
longing to the hordes of Cog) and in Is. GF 19 (Tarshish I’d
[rd. Pzit +US BQmg.1 LBd +uhal, Java.’. In Jer.4Gg);nd
Ezek. 27 io 36 03 reads)hi ds ; see Jos.; in Nah. 39 + +q+r
.ai h@as represents D7??$ t19.
On the whole 6 points to identification with the
Libyans, or a part of them adjoining Egypt on the W.
For another view see PUT. WMM As. U. Eur. 1148 argues
strongly on phonetic grounds for Punt(on the African shcre of
the Red Sea) ; but he minimizes and explains away the evilence
of 0. He also adduces the order of names in an inscription of
Darius (v. Spiegel APK 54 Z. 30)‘ Putiyn KuSiya, &Iq&
In the time of P light has been pouring over the W. -z.e., Punt, on tie Red Sea codt (heginkng from the E.)
also. It is possible, notwithstanding the present order KuS; -inland etc. ; but as Ynunu=Javun precedes, the orde;
~~
21. p‘s Western of the names, that Lud, fourth son of from E. to W. is by no means certain. The whole matter is
doubtless involved and difficult.
Shem (Gen. 1022)) is to be identified
Geography,
P’s list of the sons of Migaini has not been preserved ;
with Lydia, which Cyrus’s conquest
knowledge of Egypt, however, although perhaps not
had made familiar. Identification with ihe AfricanLud covering greater. distances than in the eighth century,
(Ludim, v.13) is out of the question; and to coiinect was’ certainly more intimate, from Ta4punhes on the
Lud with the Egyptian R&u (Ruten) of Northern Syria
frontier (Jer. 4378 etc., Ezek. 3018) to Thdes, far up
(WMM As. u Bur. 143 3) is opposed by phonetic the Nile (No; Nah. 38 Ezek. 30148 ; see these vv.
laws (Ermnn in COT, ad Zoc. ). The connection of Lud also for other Egyptian cities). Ezekiel (29 IO) takes Us
with Shern is no insuperable obstacle to its identification as far S. as AswHn (‘from Migdol to Syene’ [read
with Lydia. See LUD.
Sezcdn=AgwBn]), to say nothing of Cush (see § 23).
The next name (in geographical order) is quite If we reserve KEsh, the only non-African son of Ham,
certain. The fourth son of Japhet is Javan = the
according to P’s list (as far as preserved to us), is
Ionian. In Dan. 821 112 1020, and probably in Zech. Canaan. This represents the pre-Israelitish population
913 (if the text is correct), the reference is to !he of the land which bears the same name (see CANAAN).
Macedonian power. In Ezek. 27 13 Is. 6619 the original Passing over SEBA and HAVILAH (Q.v.), we pause
I
reference to Ionians is more prominent. See JAVAN.
at the difficult tribal name SabtBh (Gen.
Four descendants are assigned to Javan (Gen. 104). 23’ ’” lo7, where ZI codd. have Nnxb /I I Ch.
Of these, Tarshish and Kittim, as we have seen, early of Cush. lo,,
became familiar to the Hebrews ; ELISHAII [g. v.], which Tuch and Knobi

GEOGRAPHY GEPHYRUN
increase in other exilic and post-exilic writers of names
of tribes living in the N. Arabian and Syrian desert.
ISHMAEL (q.v.) is known to J, who specifies the limits
of the Ishmaelite rovings (Gen. 2518) ; but he is better
known to P. It is partly that the desert tribes en-
croached on former Israelitish territory, and so became
known, partly that the tribes dwelling nearer Babylonia
became acquaintances of the Hebrews by way of
Babylon, and partly that the movements of peoples and
individuals were becoming, from various causes, more
frequent and extended, and general information more
widely diffused. The population of the desert between
Palestine and Babylonia became more definitely known
to the Hebrews as the Jewish community was preparing
to take on its later form. Of precise geographical yield
there is here, however, very little. The list of Ishmael's
twelve sons (Gen. 25 13 8 [PI = I Ch. 129 3) well
illustrates the facts (see especially Di. and reff.):
Such names as Kedar (Jer. 2 IO Ezek. 27 21 Is. 21 16 f.
etc. ) and Nebaioth (Is. 60 7 etc. ; see on these, ISHMAEL,
§$ 2, 4) now begin to appear, and the prophets have
.already begun to use the name AraBian with a definite
significance (Jer. 2524 Ezek. 2721, see ARABIA, § I).
At the end of Gen. 10 7 the list of P is interrupted by that of
J. In v. 20 P reappears in a closing formula (as it does also in
v. 3rd). v. 223 deal with the sons of Shem (see above). With
v. 23 Ps list ends abruptly.
It remains only to consider a few later notices. The
trading habits of the Jews, developed in and after
24. Thedistant the exile, not only resulted in the
1703
on land we have Cilicia (e.g., I Macc. 11 14 Judith1 7 12)
and Tarsus (2 Macc. 4 30) ; Asia as a kingdom (I Macc.
8 6 11 13 etc. ) ; the Galatians ( 8 z ; RV I Gauls ' ). Crossing
the Egean we have ' Alexander the Macedonia11 '
(I Macc. 1 I), and besides [T)] +j xe~~rdp (cp T ~ V
mpuda
/3aurhPa 85), in the same verse (and elsewhere)
KLTL~WY
r+r 6hhd8a ; the Spartans (umcpTr&ar) appear, especially
in I Macc. 122 5f: 203 We encounter an ' old
man of Athens ' in z Macc. 6 I ; but this is doubtful (see
GERON). Especially noteworthy is I Macc. 1523, which
contains a list of countries, including Sampsarnes, Samos,
Rhodes, Gortyna, Cnidus, Cyrene, to which letters were
sent from Rome (v. 15). The new power of Rome
(I Macc. 1 IO etc. ) is often mentioned, and, farthest W.
of all, the land of Spain (I Macc. 83),
The meagreness of reference in these books to territory
E. of Media and Persia indicates in part a lack of geographical
interest and in part the ignorance of the
authors. The Book of Tobit, whose scene is laid in
Media, shows little trace of real acquaintance even with
that country. The mention of India in the additional
chapters of Esther (131 16 I) is a mere repetition of that
in the Hebrew Esther, and that of I Macc. 88 is an
obvious textual error. F. B.
A survey of NT geography would take us into regions
that have hitherto hardly come within view ; but such a
26. NT. survey is not necessary for the purposes of this
article (see above, introduction). A large
planting of Jewish colonies at various
Greek
East in
Period,
the
foreign centres, such as Alexandria,
which naturally became sources of
part of it would almost resolve itself into a study of the
missionary journeys of Paul (see PAUL, GALATIA). It
is enough to refer to the wide range of his journeys in
Asia Minor, Greece, and the Greek islands and lastly
geographical knowledge, but also doubtless led them his journey from Jerusalem to Rome, journeys that are
in the track of the conquering Macedonians (cp DIS-
PERSION, § 11 J). We are therefore not surprised to
find, in a late book, a mention of IWDIA (Esth. 11 89),
which marks one of the youngest geographical notes of
familiar from deservedly popular works, the latest of
which is Ramsay's St. Paul the Tuavelku (a valuable
contribution).
We might almost say that to study the NT geography
'the OT and the farthest eastern point reached by is to study the geography of the Roman p;ovincd of
biblical geography. If the land of Sinim in Is. 4912 Asia. In fact not only the Acts of the Apostles and
were China, the limit would be much farther eastward ;
but this interpretation can no longer be maintained (see
the Epistles of Paul but also the Apocalypse of John
(chaps. 1-3) send us mentally on a tour of investigation
SINIM). It will be observed that even Strabo knows
nothing to the E. of India.
It is noteworthy that down to the the of this late
reference, even after the long Hebrew contact with
in Asia. It must not be forgotten, however, that whilst
Rome could be introduced into the OT only by the
Rabbinic device of taking ' Edom' as a symbol for
' Rome' (cp EDOM, § IO), 'Rome' itself stands written
Babylonia and the adjacent countries to the E., there plainly again and again in the second part of the NT.
is no sign of acquaintance with the remoter Orient ; nor Once the great missionary looks even beyond Ronieis
there even yet any clear token of familiarity with over- not merely to Tarshish, but to Spain (Rom. 1524 28).
land trade-routes to countries as distant as India. This Thus the realised and unrealised travelling purposes
is quite in keeping with the silence of our Assyrian and of Paul embrace a large section of the Roman
Babylonian sources on the same subjects, and points to empire. Against his will he even visited the island of
the conclusion that such trade-routes were opened much Malta, where Punic was spoken. The soil of Africa he
later, or were much niore insignificant, and perhaps
shorter, than some have been inclined to suppose.
The geography of the Apocryphal books shows the
transition from the older Hebrew geography to that of
- 1 . .
25. Apocrypha, the Hellenistic and Roman worlds.
We find much of the older eeoeraDhv
- 1 . 1
continued and enlarged. Babylon is the familiar scene
in Baruch, the Song of the Three Children, Susannah,
Bel and the Dragon, as Media (Ecbatana, Rages) is in
Tobit. The river I~YDASPES Cy.v.1 appears as a
novelty in Judith 16 and the city of Persepolis in 2 Macc.
92. Idumea, I Macc. 42961 631 etc., is named often,
Egypt occasionally (?.g., I Macc. 111 13). In the
distance are the SCYTHIANS (z Macc. 447), as an example
of a barbarous people. Arabia in a wide sense is
frequent (e.2.. I Macc. 1116). The names of Syria
(e.$., I Macc. 11z60), COELESYRIA (e.g., I Macc.
1069, 2 Macc. 35), and Ptolemais (I Macc.51522 etc.)
never touched, though in a remarkable catalogue of
countries of the Jewish Dispersion (Acts 2 9 J ) the
' parts of Libya about Cyrene' are mentioned, and one
would almost have expected to read in the sequel that
Africa as well as Asia had been visited by Christian
missionaries.
The Dassaze. which. as Blass remarks. is in the stvle of
prophe;y, ru'nd thus, 2' Parthims and licdei niid El;;iiitcn,
and the dwcllers in hlesoporami;i, in Judle:] (?)and Cnlqi:idocin,
in Pontus and .kin, in Ptirygia aid Paniphylia, ill Egypt iiiid
the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome,
both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we do hea:
them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God.
' Judza ' however, is plainly a scribe's error. Jerome would
read ' dyria' ; Tertullian ' Armenia ; elsewhere (see INDIA)
' Ionia' is proposed. There is special interest in the mention of
the Jews from Parthia (see PARTHIAXS).
F. B. (18 1-25).
GEON (rHaN [BKA]), Ecclus. 2427 AV, RV GIHON,
3 (9.v. 1.
now appear; also the harbour of Tripolis (8th TOO
~ a Tphohrv ~ b XtpLdvos ; 2 Macc. 141), Antioch (I Macc.
GEPHYRUN (yor$ypoyN [A] om. V, Syr.), apparently
the name of a city, called also Caspin (see
435, etc.), and Daphne near it (z Macc. 433).
CASPHOR), which was taken by Judas (2 Macc.
As we move farther W. there is still more novelty.
In the sea we have of course Cyprus (z Macc. 1013 122)
1213 RV) ; but the relation between the two names is
obscure. The former name might plausibly be identified
and the Cyprians (429), and Crete (e.g., I Macc. 1067) ; with the Gephyrus of Polybius (see EPHRON i,*z), if the
1704

GERA
distance between the proposed sitesof Caspin and Ephron
were not too great to permit this.
Very possibly lB is corrupt (so RVmg.). Some read rrdhrv
+

GERGESITES GERIZIM, MOUNT
Macgregor, Rob Roy on the Jordan, 423). About manded by these two grand mountains, Ebal and
Gadara on the Hieromax, caves are also abundant, and Gerizim, as indeed the description in another striking
the territory of the city seems to have extended to the passage (Josh. 8 33) also presupposes. ' Near the
lake. GADARA (4.v.). however, is at least six miles eastern end, the vale is not more than 60 rods wide'
from the lake, and though this is maintained by Keim, (Thomson), and from the highest gardens in the W.
was certainly not intended in the original tradition. corner of NHblus we turn at once to the path which
The possibility that Kersa is Gerasa is not taken into skirts the rocky slopes of Gerizim. At no great distance
account by G. A. Smith (HG 458$), who identifies it is a platform of rock, with a projecting triangular crag,
with Gergesa, and considers ' Gergesenes' to be ' the about IO ft. in diameter, from which, as from a pulpit,
reading supported by the documents.'
Jotham could easily have shouted his parable in the
For a statement of the documentary evidence see WH A$). ears of the people below (Judg. 9 7), ' running away '
TI; from which we can hardly avoid the inference that
afterwards (cp EV's nake rendering of 03-1 v. 21) before
Ta8apTviv is probably correct in Mt. Ikpaqviv in Mk. and
Lk. The decision, however, is not hist&ically of great moment; Abimelech could take him. Nor is this, probably, the
yapaqvhv is virtually supported by the hlSS which present only portion of the story of Abimelech which refers to
a ysuqvdv for the reason given above and should be preferred. Gerizim. When that tyrant heard that all the people
Uth the s&tements of Eusebins in Os, cp the parallel passages
in Jerome (viz. 130 18 125 27). The most important variation is of the tower of Shechem were gathered together, we are
at the close of the latter passage which reads 'quidam autem told, he took his men to a mountain close by to get
ipsam esse Gadaram zzstimant, 'sed et evangelium meminit wood to set their refuge on fire. With axes he and his
Gergesenorum.' The authority of Eus. and Jer. for calling it
Manassite appears to be merely the general statement in Josh. men cut down branches of trees and carried out his
13 29-31.
stern plan (Judg. 947-49). The mountain referred to can
only be Ebal or Gerizim, and the corruption of Gerizim
GERGESITES (01 repyscaiol [BRA]), Judith516
into ZALMON [q.w ., i.] or Hermon (@AL)
AV, RV GIRGASHITES (4.v.).
is easy.
Dean Stanley's attempt to provide Gerizim with other
GERIZIM, MOUNT ( PVlJ lq [Sam. writes the two historical associations (the meeting of Abram and hfelcbizedek
and the sacrifice of Isaac) can hardly be called a success. The
words as one, w13731: I mountain of the GIRZITES' Samaritan traditions are of no historical value and have no
Situation. [g.~.] ; less probably from 772 =7T2, sound biblical basis. Onelof them even represents Jacob as
' to cut in two ' : the vocalization of a having had his great vision (Gen. 28 TIJ) on the summit of
Gerizim (on the ruins called LBzez [the Luza of OS@) 2745
certainly primitive name has but slight authority ; 135 131 see Rob. BR). See SAMARITANS.
rAp(€)lZ€lN [BAFL], but rhzipelN [A in Dt.ll.9 There are still two biblical passages in one of which
Judg. 971 and yapiz[a]l~ [VA] in 2 Macc. 523, EV possibly or Drobablv and in the other bevond any doubt
GARIZIM), the mountain (now called Je6eZ et -T;r) . -
on
Mt. Gerizim is referred tb-viz.,'Is. 661
the southern side of the valley or fissure in which references. 3.
Other Jn. 420J Certainly if Is. 661-4 is post-
Shechem lies, facing Ebal which is on the north.
exilic (and it is difficult to maintain anv
The height of Gerizim (properly Gerizzim) is 2849 ft. ; Longer an exilic date), we can hardly find any other
that of Ebal 228 ft. more. The former is composed concrete object for the passage than that first assigned
almost entirely of nummulitic limestone ; in its rocky by Duhm-viz., the intention of the Samaritans to
slopes are large caverns which were probably once build a temple to Yahw& on Mt. Gerizim3 (see ISAIAH
quarries. The ascent at the present day cannot be ii. 5 21). Still, owing to the brevity of the passage
called difficult, and the splendid view from the summit we can scarcely claim more than' high probability
amply rewards the climb. One feels that if the union for this conjecture.
of N. and S. Israel could only have been acconi- The second passage is also somewhat enigmatical.
plished, the sacred mountains Gerizim and Ebal, with A modern writer quoted by Wetstein4 remarks on 2,. 22,
the beautiful city nestling between them, might have ' Christ and the woman were both agreed in the object
been thought by Israel's leaders to have superior claims of worship. The question she puts is only which is
to Mt. Zion and Jerusalem.
the true place for it. But how is that determined by
A remarkable description is given of the situation of the answer?' The truth is that Jesus goes beyond the
Gerizim in a passage hitherto much misunderstood. question of the Samaritan woman. He asserts (or is
Moses has set before the Israelites a blessing an a made to assert) that neither the Jerusalem nor the Gerizim
curse, and directs them, when they have been broug 4, t temple is a fit place for spiritual worshippers, but also
denies that the Samaritans as a body worship the Father
(who requires spiritual worship) at all; and he looks
forward to the time when the Samaritans shall give up
the cultus on Mt. Gerizim without accepting (as the
author of Is. 66 1-4 had doubtless wished) the cnltus on
Mt. Zion.5 Thus Mt. Gerizim, which loomed. above
Jesus and the woman as they conversed by Jacob's well
('in this mountain,' ZI. 20)' gave occasion to Jesus,
according to the Fourth Gospel, to enunciate the great
principle of spiritual religion. We must not, however,
allow ourselves to exaggerate the blame extended by
Jesus to Mt. Gerizim. Partisans of the temple at
into the land of promise, to 'put the blessing upon
Mount Gerizim, and the curse upon Mount Ebal, on
the other side Jordan, beyond Jericho, towards the
entrance into Shechem, in the land of the Canaanites,
who dwell in the House of the Tower beside the sacred
tFees [tree?] of Moreh' (Dt. ll29$)..'
The terrible state of corruption into which this passage early
fell, led Eusebius (OS(?, 243 89) to state that according to the
Scripture Gerizim and Ehal were 'near Golgol
:2. Dt. 11zgJ which is Galgala' (I'oAyoA, + Kal LzAyaAa.
ra1;rqs dvar wAquiov 6 ./pa+++ GrGa'u~a ~b
Fapca)
Gilgh,' and on grounds of principle it is undesirable to attempt
identifications until the passage containing a place-name has
been thoroughly scrutinised from the point of view of textual
criticism. Jul6jil may represent an ancient Gilgal or cromlech ;
but this does not show that it is referred to in Dt. 11 30. On
the other hand, the text, as emended, gives a thoroughly accurate
picture.
The 'entrance into Shechem' is completely coni-
1 Cp Gen. 126. We read n&nn for ann-&; 1 if51 for
-in! ; ,ypIw for wnwn ; 573nn n'i for n37m $aim $n. See
Cd. Bib. All that can be done to make MT intelligible has
been done, especially by Dillmann ; but few will call the result
very satisfactory. C. Niebuhr (Gesch. 1328fl) has realized the
doubtfulness of the text ; but his suggestions that a highway
through the land of the Canaanites is spoken of, that Shechem
is deliberately omitted, and that 'the Gilgal ' was a circumval-
lation of Gerizim are hardly felicitous.
x707
1 Moore (Judges 246) ascribes this very plausible theory to
Furrer (Wandevungen, 2 4J); cp also Baed.(? 256. But as
Thomson, LB ['60] (475 remarks, several lofty precipices
literally overhang Nablus. Similarly Porter (Kitto's Bf6. Cyclo).
" Gerizim ').
2 May we compare the name of the village Tallfizz, a little to
the N. of Ehal sometimes identified with TIRZAH (q.7~. I)?
3 Kenig, it i.; true, sees no iiecessityfor any 'concretd motive'
such as Gressmann suggests (the rebuilding of the temple at
Jerusalem). The writer of zm. 1-4 wishes to emphasise his
conviction that only a 'house of prayer' (cp 507) was 'an
appropriate place of worship for Yahwe' (The Exiles' Book of
Consolation, ZOIJ ['99]). Is. 66 1-4 according to him is an exilic
passage, but 665 & 'were added after the building of the
temple.'
4 Beaulacre, ap. Wetstein (Bowyer, CriticnZ Conjecturer,
143 r17821).
5 Cp B. Weiss, Evang. desJohannes, 193 ('86).
1708

GERON
1 For the orthography of DLV~~ (=)vi>) see Frensdorff,
Massovet. Wirtevb. 177 ; the two names are essentially identical ;
cp Onam and Onan, Hemam and Hernan.
2 Bennett (Ezp. 86 ['g8] 78) points out a possible reference to
Gershom ,in Judg. 177 ~d-yl fila), as though, 'and he (was)
Gershom.
1709
GESHUR
Jerusalem were, in his eyes, not less 'sectarian ' than JOS, Ant. ii. 13 I (mpuos). See MOSES, and on Ex. 425,
partisans of the temple on Gerizim. See SAMAKI- cp CIRCUMCISION, § 2.
TANS.
2. The head of the b'ne PHINEHAS (3), a family in Ezra's caravan
The summit of this mountain testifies to a succession of (see EZRA 1 5 2 2 $ 13 [ I] d), Ezra 8 z (ypwp [EA], -uap [Ll)
faiths. The most prominent monument is not the most import- =I Esd. 829 G~RSON (Tapouoropos [el, yqpuwv [A], -gap [Ll).
ant ; it consists of ruins of the castle built by
4. Ruins. Justinian in 533 A.D. to protect the Christian GERSHON (iiV>$, for which in Ch. regularly WYI
church erected in 475 A.D. (the foundations of and PlWll with the exception of I Ch. 61 [527],
which still remain). In the centre of the plateau, however,
is something much more venerable-a smooth surface of rock
rshswN [A], 236 rHpCWN [A] : rshcwN [BAFL]).
which is the traditional site of tp altar of the temple of the b. Levi, is mentioned only in P and Ch. He is
Samaritans and therefore their Holy of Holies. The cup the first-born of Levi in Gen. 4611 (yqpuwv [AD]),
hollow in i;resembles those in many Syrian dolmens. and may Ex. 616 (yqpuwv [AF]) I Ch. 61, and makes up with
well have been used in primaeval times for libations. Conder Kthath and Merari the three chief subdivisions of the
(Syrian Stonelom, 169,f) suspects that, though this rock may
once have been enclosed, there was no proper temple. Josephus Levites. Although the first-born, he is overshadowed
however had 110 interest in exaggerating, and his words ari by the Kehathites (to whom Aaron belonged). His
plain--'; temple like that at Jerusalem (Ant. xi. 8 2). The sons Libni and Shimei (Ex. 6 17 Nu. 3 18 21 I Ch. 6 17 [z]
drafted blocks of the walls of Justinian's castle may possibly
belong to a still older structure (Baed.Pj256). In the founda- 237) were known, according to the Chronicler's contions
of the western wall there are some ten or twelve largp ception, already in David's time ( I Ch. 237-11).
stones beneath which tradition places the 'twelve stones The sons of Gershon or the Gershonites (?;t+~g;
brought up from the bed of the Jordan by the Israelites (Jus;.
420). The place where the lambs of the Samaritan passover b ye8uwv[e]c [BAFL], b yqpuwv[~]i [BA]) are numare
killed is a short way down the W. slope of the mountain a bered at 7500 in the wilderness (Nu. 32z)-which
little above the spot where the Samaritans pitch their tek has an artificial look when we recollect that the whole
seven days before the feast. For an account of the passover
ceremony see SAMARITANS.
number of the Levites is enumerated at about three
Gerizim) rejoices in a copious spring of delicious water (the times that number, viz. 23,000 (Nu. 2662). P de-
RES eZ-'Ain), which may quench the thirst of the scanty band, scribes nioreover their special work at the tabernacle
of Samaritans at passover time, but wns naturally insufficient
for the multitude gathered on the mountain and slaughtered by
and also the position taken up by them on their journey-
Cerealis in the time of Vespasian (see Jos. B/ iii. 7 32).
ings (ib. 325 424 77). Far moreiniportant, however, is
T. IC. C. the notice of the cities apportioned to them (Josh.
21 27 33 yqpuwv [AL] ; I Ch. 662 [47] 71-76 [56-611 yqpuwv
GERQN, an Athenian, introduced by RVmg. into an
[A]) ; these all lay to the N., in Manasseh beyond Jordan,
account of measures taken by Anti6chus Epiphanes
Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali, and if we take this
against the Jewish religion (z Macc. 61). The text has
in connection with the notice of Jonathan b. Gershom b.
ydpovra 'ABqvabv [VA], which, EV renders ' an old
Moses in Judg. 1830 it would appear that the priests
man of Athens.' The I/ passage, I Macc. 144, speaks
of Dan formed a group which traced its origin back to
.of messengers sent by the king. The leader of these
Moses, and derived its name from his first-born.l In
messengers would naturally be either a civil or a military
thc post-exilic and priestly genealogies the place of
official under Antiochus.
Gershon b. Moses is taken by Gershon b. Levi ; com-
Probably &vaiov is a clerical error for bviLoXL ; Vet. Lat.
.and Vg. have 'Antiochenum,' which may of came be the conpare
the similar case of ELIELER b. Moses and
jecture of a translator, but is none the worse because it is ELEAZAR b. Aaron. See GENEALOGIES i., 5 7.
ancient. It is a further question whether yCpovra is not ibself
corrupt ; RVmg., peThaps unintentionally, suggests this view. GERSQN (rHpCwN [A]), I Esd. 829 = Ezra 82,
But Ewald's rendering, 'a senator of Antioch' (Hist. 5 298 GERSHOM, 2.
n. 5), is very plausible. The name of the official was no;
necessary; the Ar. vers., however, gives it as Fill+ (see Grimin GERUTH CKIMHAM (Dp3 niYJ), Jer. 4117 Kr.
ad Zoc.). For a subtle but hardly necessary critical conjectur; See CHIMHAM.
see Kosters, irk. T 12 496 ('78).
T. K. C.
GERZITES (?-$n), I S. 278 Kt., AVmP.; AV
GERRHENIANS, RV GERRENIANS, THE (~WC
GEZRITES.
TUN r€NNHpWN [A], B. T. rfppHNWN [VI), evidently
a term for the southern limit of the Syrian dominion GESEM (pceM [BKA]), Judith 19, RV GOSHEN.
under Antiochus Eupator (z Macc. 1324). The town GESHAM, or rather, as in RV, Geshan (@'J., cp
of Gerra (rd ycb)a, Strabo, xvi. 233 ; ye$)ov llpiov, Ptol. perhaps &!'I), b. JAHDAI, a Calebite (I Ch. 247;
iv. 511) lay between Pelusium and Rhinocolura, but can
hardly be intended here, since the coast as far N. as cwrap PI, rHpcwM [AI, rsicwN [L]).
64's vpuwp may be due to a misreading, or possibly enough
Rhinocolurawas at this time Egyptian (cp Polyb. v. 803). points to an original (so Ki. .!?BOT, see GERSHOM). It
The Syriac reads G-Z-R. More probably, however, we is noteworthy that in both cases the Calebite name finds evident
should read yepap$vwv, which agrees with the reading analogies in names of N. Arabian origin.
--yepapqpwu of one MS (cod. 55). 'From Ptolemais GESHEM (be?., rHcaM [BHA], ric. [L], GOSBM),
unto the Gerarenes ' (see GERAR) would represent the called ' the Arabian,' an ally of Sanballat and Tobiah,
whole of Palestine in its widest extension from N. to S. and an opponent of Nehemiah (Neh. 219 615 6). In
Compare the expression in I Macc. 11 59 where Simon is made
captain of the country 'from the LADDER OF TVRI~ (about
Neh. 66 the name takes the form GASHMU (rat$, youep
100
stadia N. of Ptolemais) unto the borders of Egypt.
[KC.= mg.], om. BH*A; GOSBM) ; the correct form is probably
Gushamu, a well-known Arabian name (cp Cook,
GERSHOM (~h1.1 cp WTI in Sin. Inscriptions,
Ararnaic GZossmy, s. 71. inwj).
anti see GERSHOM, GESHAM; rHpcaM [BHAFL in For ihe ending -IC which occurs frequently in Nabatean in-
Ex. and Ch.]; in JUdg. rHpcoM [B], repcwM [AI, scriptions compare iyin [&.], Neh. 12 14 (RV Malluchi, pVw. rHpC(r)N [L]).
Melicu), JETHRO, and perhaps BOCHERU, and see Nald. 111 Eut.
I. The first-born of Moses and Zipporah (Ex. 222
Nab. Inscr. 73 ; ZDAfG41715. See ARABIA, 5 3. s. A. c.
183), from whom JONATHAN (z), the priest of the sanctu- GESHUR (lid!). I. A territory. in NE. Palestine,
ary at Dan (Judg. 18p), claimed descent.2 We also
adjoining the Israelite possessions, and reckoned as
find a Levitical name Shebuel b. Gershom in I Ch.
Aramczan (z S. 158). According to I Ch. 223 (om.
23 I;$ 2624. The popular etymology, or 7j, ' a so-
Pesh. ), Geshur and other Aramzean peoples took the
journer there' (Ex. Kcc. ), is followed by d (mpuap) and Havvoth-jair from the Israelites. It may often be
dangerous to treat statements of this kind in I Ch. 1-9
1 A portion of the Merarite branch of Levites actually bears
the name of Mushi-Le., the Mosaite. Observe that this
Levitical name, in common with so many more is remarkable for
its S. Palestinian associations ; see GENEALWIES i., 7 (v.).
1710

GESHUR
as historical ; but the statement here made is not in itself
improbable ; it implies that Geshur was at any rate N.
of the Havvoth-jair. Still less reason is there to doubt
the correctness of the geography of Dt. 314 Josh. 125
(late as these statements are), except indeed as to the
localisation (in Dt. Z.C.) of the Havvoth-jair in Bashan
rather than in N. Gilead (see HAVVOTH-JAIR).
In these passages the Geshurites and the Maacathites
are mentioned together as bordering on the territory of
Og king of Bashan, and therefore on that of Israd.
Hence Guthe (ZDp6’12233), Wetzstein, and G. A.
Smith incline to place Geshur and Maacah in thmodern
province of J6lLn (Gadanitis) ; Geshur would
of course be S. of Maacah.
Conder (Smith‘s DBP)) and von Riess (Bi&Z-AtZasP) ’95)
indeed, still prefer to idectify it with the plain of J&dtir Lhicd
is SE. of Hermon and NE. of en-Nukra. This view is iot only
linguistically hazardous but also im&es identifying en-Nukra
with Basban, and plaiing the Havvoth-jair outside the N.
boundary of Gilead. Fnrrer (ZDPV 13 198) places Geshur still
farther E. He identifies it with the Leja that great lava
plateau which lies E. of en-Nukra and GE. of the Jehel
Haurin and corresponds approximately with Trachonitis ; but
Lis reasbns are very insufficient.
It is a disputable point whether Ishbaal was really
king ‘over Gilead and over the Geshurites’ (2 S.-29
Pesh., Vg.). For two reasons :-First, because in
Absalom’s time (z S. 158) ‘Geshur in Aram’ (?) was
an independent state, and secondly, because though in
Josh. 1311 (cp v. 13) Joshua is said to have assigned
Geshur and Maacah to the two-and-a-half tribes beyond
Jordan, we cannot safely accept this as correct in the
face of the contrary statements in Dt. 314 Josh. 125.
The truth probably is that in Aram’ in z S. 158 an 1
‘Geshurites’ in z S. 29 are incorrect readings. SCC
GESHUR, z ; ASHURITES.
In Josh. 125 QB has ycpycua, in Dt.314 ~BAFL [but E*
yapraua, see Swetel yap UUEL (cp Eus. in OS 244 24, who takcs
ysuouperp to be the city o?ycpyam~ in Bashan where the Israelitcc
‘did not destroy the Geshurites); @AF in Josh. 125y~uoup~, CL
ysuoup~ Other forms are : in z S. 13 37 14 23 168 ys8mvp [SA],
yeuuaLp [LI; in I Ch. 223 yesuovp [BI, ysuuoup [AI, yeuovp [I.] ;
in Josh. 13 13 ysusr EL [Bl,,yeuoup[rlr [AL]. In Josh. 125 Pesh.
exceptionally has ‘ Lndor.
2. (qph?, ‘the Geshurite.’) A district at theextreme
limit of Palestine, S. of Philistia, Josh. 132 (AV
Geshuri), I S. 278 (EV ‘the Geshurites’ ; so RV
in Josh.). The former passage (late) introduces a
description of the land in the SW. towards Egypt, which
in Joshua’s old age still remained unconquered. A
reference to the northern Geshur is therefore impossible.
In the latter passage the Hebrew text gives, as the
names of peoples or districts attacked by David from
Ziklag, ‘the Geshurite, the Girzite or Gerizzite (see
GIRZITES), and the Amalekite.’ 6, however, gives
only two names ; one of the first two names in MT
is doubtless a doublet. Wellhausen, Driver, and Budde
give the preference to the second name in the form sanctioned
by the Kre, viz. vng, ‘the Gizrite,’-ie., the
Canaanites of ‘GEZER (so RVmg., see Judg. 129 ; I K.
916). But Gezer lay too far N. It is better to read
‘either ‘ the Girzite’ or ‘ the Geshurite,’ 1 and the latter
is on the whole the more probable, for the Girzites
probably belonged to northern or central Canaan. It
was probably a chieftain of these southern Geshurites
whose daughter Maacah became one of David’s wives
and mother of Absalom. He is called Talmai, which
is also the traditional name of a Hebronite giant
(Judg. 1 IO ; see HEBRON, I) : David’s close connection
with S. Palestine is well known, and the list of the
children bgrn to him in Hebron in z S. 32-5 mentions
the son of Abigail the Carmelite just before Absalom.
Maacah is given as the name of a concubine of Caleb
(I Ch. 248). This theory accounts more fully than
he rival view for Absalom’s flight recorded in 2 S.
1337 (cp 1423 158). In the southern Geshnr, close to
and yet outside of Judah, the pretender would have
1 Kamph., however, retains hoth names (2.4 W 694).
1711
GETHSEMANE
every opportunity of preparing for his revolt. Ahithophel
(Ahiphelet ?) and Amasa, his chief supporters, belonged
to S. Judah, and it was the tribe of Judah which was
principally concerned in the rebellion (cp z S. 1911 [I.]
The only objection to this is that in 2 S. 158
Absalom says to David, ‘Thy servant vowed a vow
while I dwelt at Geshur in Arum.’ This specification,
however, would rather be expected in 2 S. 1337. It is
clear that 01~2 ‘in Aram’ is a gloss (for ~ih’2?), suggested
by the vicinity of the northerti Geshur to that of
kaacah..
The suggestion of Glaser (AHT 242) that in Josh. 132 I S.
278 we should read for qvja, *i;t~wil(see ASSHIJRIM) should
also be mentioned. consistency would then oblige us to)change
Absalom’s ‘ Geshu;‘ into ‘ Ashur.’
@Bin IS. Z.C. givesonlyyBuE‘pL=)-)ivj ; @BAL gives bothnames
(yrusper.[A] or ~ bv yeuuoupaLm [L] a:d .rbv ye

GEUEL
GIBBETHON
It contains eight old olive trees which pilgrims Maccabzan wars (I Macc. 4 15 etc. ) ; see GAZARA. Ia
willingly believe to date from the time of _Christ, or at the time of John Hyrcanus it was taken by Antiochus
least to come from trees .of that date. On the other VII. Sidetes ; but at the conclusion of the war the
hand, it has to be remarked not only that olives are not Hasmonseans were permitted to retain it, apparently
in the liabit of attaining so great an age, but also that,
according to Josephus (BJvi. 1 I/), all the trees about
khrough the intervention of the Romans (see Schurer,
GJl" 1206f: ).
Jerusalem were cut down by the army of Titus at the
time of the siege. The earliest trace of a tradition
relative to the olives of Gethsemane does not go back
farther than to the sixteenth century. Some hundred
yards to the N. of the garden a cave (ancient cistern),
transformed into a Latin sanctuary-the Grotto of the
Agony-is shown; the suggestion is that here is the
place spoken of by Lk. (2241) as ' about a stone's cast'
from where the three apostles were. The Greeks have
a garden called Gethsemane close to but distinct from
that of the Latins ; the Russians also have built a church
in the neighbourhood. See PEFQ, 1887, p. 159;
1889, p. 176.
The authenticity of the site, then, is not demonstrable ;
but neither is it utterly improbable. Inreality, howevcr,
the scene must at all events have been larger. It may
have been perhaps more to the N., or more to the S.,
in the valley ; or, more probably still, further to the E.,
higher up on the western slope of the Mt. of Olives,
though not on the very top-a site ill adapted for a
retreat (Reland, 857). If Lk. (2137 2239) had said hsl
instead of els ( ~ Llpos), b the expression would have been
more conclusive against the traditional site (Eus. OSP)
24820 has apbs 74 @el; Jer. OSz) 13024, ad radices
inontis OZiiueti). The Emperor Hadrian caused extensive
terracings to be made in the Kidron valley ; by these
doubtless the previous contours were considerably
By Strabo (xvi. 229) it is mentioned as yasapis 'which also.
the Jews appropriated' ; but he seems to have somewhat confused
it with Gadara beyond Jordan. In Josephus (Ant. xii. 7 4) the
form yasapa also occurs for Gezer, and, in a Notitia Ejiscopafuum,
pyeiv yasdpov near Azotus is distinguished from
yd&Lpa between Pella and Capitolias. At a synod in Jerusalem
In 536 there were two bishops each of Gadara. In the OS
(24416; 127 IO) it is Gazara (ybca'pa a 'villa' or K+?) 4 m.
northward from Nicopolis. (See ZDPY 17 36-41.)
The long-lost site of Gezer was discovered in 1873,
by Clermont-Ganneau, close to the village of Abu
2. Site. Shiisheh, a little to the S. of Ramleh, towards
Jerusalem. It is the high and isolated point
known as Tell Jezer, which being just 4 m. W. by
N. from 'Amwas (Emmaus-Nicopolis) is no doubt the
Gazara referred to in OS. The Tell is described (see
PEFM 2428-440) as having terraces of rude stone, and
a sort of citadel at its eastern end. There are alsD
rock-hewn tombs, and a great reservoir near the modern
European farm, and the correctness of Ganneau's
identification is placed beyond dispute by his discovery
of three bilingual inscriptions-one of which includes
the word i y ' Gezer ~ ' l-which areplacedpalaeographically
between the Hasmonaean and the Herodian periods.
For the present state of the archaeological questions which,
have been raised 5ee his ArchrPoZogkaZ Aesearches in Palestine
2257' Re&eiZ ~'AYCAPOZ. CJYGX~. 1351:3gI ,cp 401.
GaAneau ;as shown that Tell Jezer is the Mont Gisart, near
which in 1177 Baldwin 1V. gained a victory over Saladin. See
also Lagrange, Rev. Bi61. 1899, pp. 422.427.
modified (PEFQ, '93, p. 80).
GEZRITES, THE ('?T$;l), Kr., for which Kt. THE
Robinson, BRi3) 1234J ; Tohler Die Siloahqrcelle und der
Oel6erg, ~gr-zzg, Dritfe Wanden& naclt Pahsfina, 353-55 ; GERZITES (AVmg.) in IS. 278 (0 rszpaloc [AL]),
Gatt, Beschrei6ung z2berJerusaZenr, zrrf: ; where RV more correctly has GIRZITES (g.iu. ; see
3. Literature. Furrer, Wanderungen durch dm NLN, 79- also GIRGASHITE), mg. GIZRITES. The GESHURITES.
81 : Keim, Le6ea Jesn von Narara 3 297-
(see GESHUR, 2) 3r1 ; Gubrin? JPmmlem, and the Gizrites (?) are mentioned
288J ; Petavel, 'Le Domaine de
Gethsemanb, Chr-Pfien Euan&Zique, '88, pp. 2iq-q ; 'The together. ' The Gezrites ' might mean the Canaanites.
House of Gethsemane,' Exjos. 1891 a, pp. 220-32 ; Le Camus, 3f GEZER [q.~.], but more probably should be deleted.
Voyaze aux Pays Bi6Ziques, 1252-56 ; Conder, Bi6k Places, See GIRZITES.
204. LU. G.
GIAR (n'$ ; ral [BA], riaz [L]), supposed to be
GEUEL (!JK.lKJ, majesty of God ' ; cp Gray, HPN
the name of a place on the road in which Joab pursued
210 ; Sam. hi ; royAiHA [BaTAFL] ; TOYAIHA Abner (2 S. 224). ' See, however, GIBEAH, $ 2 (6).
[B"(foot)b] ; GUEL), b. Machi, a Gadite (Nu. 13&).
GIANT, GIANTS. I. Ne?, n??, rdpA6' ;. WWl,
GEZER (114, cp two places, one of them near
Alemo, -_ called el-lama rYZkiit. Mu'iam adhuld~n.
History, 271 I: I] ; most usually rbzep [BAL]), an
ancient Canaanitish citv said to have been
conquered by Joshua (Josh. 1033 [;azHc, BA] 1212),
and situated on the S. border of Ephraim (165, not m
MT [CP V. 31; razapa [BAl,. -PWN [Ll), towards
the W. (I Ch. 7 28) ; a Levitical city (Josh. 21 21
[razapa, B ; -zep&, L], I Ch. 667 [5z]). It remained
Canaanitish (Josh. 16 IO Judg. 129) until ' Pharaoh, king
of Egypt,' or, as has been conjectured, Pir'u, king of
vCpAd'i?n, 2 S. 21 16$ Gen. 145 etc., see RAPHAH (2).
REPHAIM (i.). According to Duhm, Kephainl means
(a) giants, (6) the shades (Manes), inasmuch as the Goddefying
giants were hurled into Shi.61 and became the
2hief among the inhabitants of ShC6l. See, however,
DEAD, $ 3.
2. !hm, nqhilinr, Gen. F4 Nu. 1333t. . See NEPHILIM.
3. iia?, gi66br (yryas, often in e). The rendering is hase'd
,n the Ar. use of a666rrm for 'giant' (cp Gen. 64) ; hut moderns
?refer the sense ?warrior ; cp David'sgibb6rinz or 'warriors.'
4. npY, ANAKIM [p.v.], may also be explained as 'giants.'
the N. Arabian Mu+ (see GENUBATH, HADAD i. [3],
MIZRAIM, z [SI), took and burned it, and gave it as
a marriage portion to his daughter, Solomon's bride
(I I

GIBEAH
Levitical (21 23 ; ycOe8av [B*], yeRaipav [Bav'd.], yape-
.Ow [A], yePRwv [L]).
Conder's identification with Kihbiah, to the NE. of Lydda,
reappears in PEF map, hut not in those of Fischer-Guthe or
Buhl. Kihhiah does not appear to be an important site. G.'
A. Smith (HG 35r) favours it ; but it is surely too far N. for
a Philistine stronghold. All memory of Gibhethon seems to
have been lost from a very early date. Eusebius and Jerome
(OS(? 128 15 ; 246 52) after enumerating several places named
Gahathon, content themselves with adding : 'there is also another
yaPa0ov (Gabatha) of the Philistines in the Book of Kings.
GIBEAH. Any isolated eminence such as those
which abound in the central plateau of Palestine might
be called 3@2, gib'dh, as distinguished from hur,
mountain,' ' mountain range,' or ' mountain district.'
The distinction cannot, however, be rigorously carried
,out.
We will first consider the two places called Gibeah
without anv descriDtive aualification. It must be borne
GIBEAH
irst suggested,l and as Robinson established, at Tell (or
ruleil) el-Fiil, a bare conical hill (2754 ft. above sea-
evel) about 4 m. N. of Jerusalem, towards er-Riam.
According to Josephus ' Gahath Saul ' was from 20 to 30 stadia
iom Jerusalem on the 'way thither from Gophna (Ant. v. 28
and Bjv. 2 I combined), whlch suits the proposed site. Moore,
iowcver, would have been inclined from the narrative in Judg. 19
:o look for a site somewhat nearer to er-RSm.
There are several place-names compounded with
Xbeah or Gibeath ; 1-3 are represented as such in RV'"g,.
I. GIBEHTH HA-ARALOTH (nyq
2. Compound nj5?p: ; pourirs r ~ v
names.
dKpOpUaTl&), 1 tile
hill of the foreskins,' RV"g. of Josh.
53 (J). between the Jordan and Jericho, connected with
:he report of the circumcision (cp GILGAL i., Q I).
The name suggests Amlu, a Babylonian name for the
[kingdom of the dead ; a popular etymology arose when
4ralu had been forgotten (Che. ). For another view see
Stade, ZATW, '86, p. 1328 See also HELKATHin'
mindthat Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon
HAZZURIM.
qua,ification. 1.
are very liable to be confounded ; for
example, in Judg. 20 IO, and perhaps 2. GIBEAH OF PHINEHAS (m~~? np?! ; yapaap [B],
in v. 33 (but see. Budde, ad Zoc.), ' Geba' should be yapaaR [AL], +[E]L~EEP), a city (cp Jos. Ant. v. 1.9) in
'Gibeah'; in v. 31 ' Gibeah' should probably be Mt. Ephraim where Aaron's son, Eleazar, was buried
' Giheon ' ; in v. 43 ' Gibeah ' should perhaps be ' Geba. ' [Josh. 2433). Possibly it is the same as GIBBETHON.
So, too, in I S. 13 Perhaps the Geba (yqpa) of Eus. and Jer. (OSP) 248 3 130 5),
2 15 142 16 ' Gibeah' has been written
yhich was 5 R. m. from Gophna (Jifn.) on the road to Neapolis
in error for ' Geba' ; and in z S. 216 ' Gibeah of Saul' ,NZblus), and, according to PEF Mem. 2 290, corresponds to
for ' Gibeop ' ; see the commentaries of Moore, Budde, JibiZ, NW. of JifnZ, and only I hr. from Tibneh (Timnathand
H. P. Smith. On I K. 1522 see GEBA, I, and on heres). It is of no importance that the tombs of Eleazar and
Phinehas are shown at 'Amur%, situated in the plain of
I Ch. 8 zg ( = 9 35) see below.
Makhna, SE. of Mt. Gerizim.
I. A city of Judah, included in the same group with 3. GIBEAH OF GOD (chm '2, d rbv pouvbv 700 ReoO
places to the SE. of Hebron (Josh. 15 57 ; yapaa [BAL]). I S. 105 ; but in v. 10 a simple I Gibeah' [anA rbv
In I Ch. 249 it is called Gihea (~p!; yacj3ah [B], -&ha [A], Bouvbv, 48L rbv papa pouu6vl occurs). The locality is
yappaa [L]), and a Calehite origin is assigned to it. It may he defined as being ' where is the pillar of the Philistines '
(see Di.) either the Gabaa ( @.a) or the Gabatha (yapafla) of (see SAUL, 0 z n.), and, since this definition was thought
?us. and Jer: (OSP) 24 55 ; KZS 18). There is a Kb'u, no. 114
in the name-list of Thotmes 111. (RP('4 5 53).
necessary, it may be questioned whether .Stenning
2. (yapaa [BAL] ; 6 pouvds [often in dL] : ol pouvol (Hastings, DB$17on) is right in identifying it with
,[Hos. 581). A city of Benjamin ('G. of Benjamin,' Gibeah of Saul. Prof. G. A. Smith (HG 250) considers
I S. 132 [?I yapee [B], IS [om. A], 1416 yapee [B] ; cp it to be the mode& Riamallah (Ewalds Ramah), about
IO Judg. 19 14; also ' G. of the children of Benjamin,' z S. m. N. of Jerusalem. The names agree in meaning,
2329 yapaeO [B], but dL has 700 pouuoG). It seems to and the situation of RELmallah is quite consistent with
be identical with GIBEAH OF SAUL (h~$ np), I S. regarding TABOR [q. v., ii.] in I S. 10 3 as a corruption
of Beeroth (Bireh) and with the identification of Gibeah
114 (~U~UURU [A"], yaaRu [Aa?], ~ O U U ~ [L]), V 132 of Saul with Tell el-Fiil. Still, the mention of the ' pillar
(yapee [B]), 1534 (pouvhv [L]), z S. 216 (yapawv [BA]. of the Philistines' is more favourable to the view that
pouv3 [L]), Is. 1029 (d ayya~). but not with the the Gibeah of God is identical with Geba (Le., Jeh').
GIBEATH of Josh. 1828 (yapawR [BL], -aaO [A]), nor
We may suppose that Saul went straight across the hillwith
' Gibeah of God' (see Q z [3]). In Hos. 58 99 (q country from Beeroth (' Tabor ' in MT) to Geba, and
700 pouvoG), lo9 (a r3 PouvG) it is called ' the Gibe%h
thence by Ramah (I S. 1013, see below) to Gibeah of
.( n~???). The reference in Is. 1029 is important as clearly Benjamin.
distinguishing the two places Geba and Gibeah. The title In I S. 10 13 'he came to the high place ' should be 'he came
' Gibeah of Saul' implies that this was Saul's birthplace to hri-r&zrrh'--i.e. to Ramah (er-Rim). 6BA has ek ~ b u
~OUV~U, @L CIS ~ b,hvvbv u papa; cp v. 10.
(cp SAUL) ; probably the true text of
Either Saul's uncle
I S. 91 and of
dwelt there, or something has fallen out of the tent between
I Ch. 829 (=935) stated distinctly that Saul's father v. 73 and v. 14. This is the easiest emendation.
was of Gibeah of Benjamin.' The gentilic Gibeathite 4. THE GIBEAH OF (THE) MOREH (Judg. 71). See
(my?!? ; 6 yepwOdr7S [BK], d yapuwvfnp [L], d rapa- MOREH i.
R~TT~S [A]) occurs once (I Ch. 123).
5. THE GIBEAH OF (THE) HACHILAH (1S.2319
Gibeah was the scene of one of the most elaborate 261). See HACHILAH.
narratives of the Book of Judges; chap. 20 describes 6. THE GIBEAH OF AMMAH (z S. 224). The text is
how the assembled tribes captured the guilty city of in great disorder.
Gibeah, and destroyed the Benjamite army, except 600 Was there any 'wilderness of Gibeon'? and how was it that
men (see BENJAMIN, Q 5 ; the pursuers got no farther than the district of Gibeon by
JUDGES ii., Q 13).~ In the
sunset? Supposing some transposition and corruption to have
history of Saul frequent mention is made of the royal taken place, an intelligible view of the situation can he
city (references above). Two passages are specially produced. pyi~, 'Gibeon' may be a corruption of c'y~r,
helpful in fixing its situation. From Judg. 1912-14 it ' Zehoim ' and ~DN ' Ammah' of D>piN, ' Adunimim.' In I S.
appears that Gibeah was on or near the main N. road, 13 18 (sei H. P.' S,dith) we read of '&e hill which overhangs the
and S. of Ramah ; and from I S. 102-7 10-13 that from valley of Zeboim. The same hill may be referred to here under
the name Adummim. The 'ascent of ADUMMIM' rq.v.1 is the
Beeroth (see below, Q 2 r3]) to Geba and from Geba to ascent which leads up from Jericho to the Tar 'at ed-Dam; some
Saul's home was an easy journey. Both passages become overhanging hill may, however, have borne the same name.
intelligible if Gibeah is located, as Gross and Valentiner Read, therefore, 1nDn 711 c'yiyg '3 V5-h 1dN D'DlN npX2
'(when they were come) to the hill of Adummim which fronts
1 In I Sam. 9 I read with Marq. (Fund. IS) ]yyJ> ny>>l the vallev of Zehoim towards the desert.'f!
('1 for n*rK), and in rCh.829 correct 'Giheon' into 'Giheah
(Che.). The Bichrites (see BICHRI) dwelt at Gibeah. On 'the
father of Giheon, Jehiel,' see JEIEL, 2.
2 Wi.'s attempt to show that the ark was brought by some
into conuection with Gibeah, need hardly he considered here
(see BENJAMIN, 5 6).
1715
1 St.Kr. '43, p. 1082 ; ZDMG 12 I~I,$< (Moore, Judges, 414).
2 It will he noticed that the n in n91 here becomes ;I and IS
attached to the word which probably underlies pyx. We. and
Bu. eliminate n,j altogether, and suppose the 9.l to be a ditto-
grain ; they read ;1 for n, and prefix it to 117.
1716

GIBEATH
1717
GIBEON
7. THE GIBEAH OF GAREB (Jer. 31 39). See GAREB Gibeon' (Is. 2821), if the Gibeon referred to is really
ii.
8, g, IO. Conjecturally, the Gibeah of Baal-perazim
the well-known city of that name, and if Isaiah's words
may be explained by z S. 525 (a), where David is said
(see GIBEON, § I), Gibeath-jarib or Giheath-jearim to have routed the Philistines 'from Gibeon to the
(see KIRJATH-JEARIM, § I) ; and Gibeath-Elohim (in Is. approach of Gezer' (so, too, I Ch. 1416, where @K has
1032 ; see NoB). T. K. C. yupwv). Gibeon, however, though more possible than
Geba (see Stenning in Hastings'
GIBEATR (nq??: rABAA€I [AI, rbBA,aB [:I,
DB 2 171 u), is still too far
from the Plain of liephaim to be the starting-point of
r.-( lAp€lM) [B]), Josh. 1828. Usually identlfied wlth
David's pursnit of the foe. Perhaps in all three passages
Gibeah of Saul, but perhaps rather a fragment of
we should read ' Gibeah ' and suppose the hill-town of
Gibeath-jearim[?] ; see KIRJATH-JEARIM, I.
BAAL-PERAZIM [q.~.] to be meant.
GIBEATR-HA-ARALOTH (nhg nu?!), josh. We have already seen that there was an important
53 RVmg.. See GIBEAH, 5 z (I) ; CIRCUMCISION, 0 sanctuary at Gibeon in the time of Saul-most Drobablv
2.
2. The a Cununnitish sanctuary. Ear& in thk
GIBEATHITE ('@?d;?), I Ch. 123. See GIBEAH, sanctuary. reign of Solomon we meet with this
$3 1 (2).
sanctuarv again. and this ~ time ~~ it ~~ is ~~
, " ,
un-
GIBEON (t\U?$, rt&w[~], BAL), a city of the
doubtedly Israelitish. One of the young king's first
cares was to
Amorites 12 S. 21
go to Gibeon to sacrifice, 'for there was
2). or more definitelv of the Hivites
' (Josk: 933). According to a redactor it
the great high place' (I K. 34) ; the antiquity of the
'*
was even ' greater than Ai ' (Josh. 102) ;
notice is proved by the anxiety of the Chronicler to
but we can estimate its importance better from the fact
justify the action of Solomon by the assumed fact that
the tent of meeting and the brazen altar were at Gibeonl
that it was the head of a tetrapolis or confederacy of
four cities, to which Chephirah, Beeroth (not perhaps
(z Ch. 13). It is certainly remarkable that the sanctuary
the Beeroth which is disguised under MT's 'Tabor' in
of Gibeon should even without the ark (which was still
I S. 103, and which is the modern Bireh, but a place to
in the ' city of David,' I K. 8 I) have been regarded as
the right place for
the SW. of Gibeon'), and Kirjath-jearim also
a newly made king to resort to for
belonged
(Josh. 9 17). The humorous story of the deception by
an oracle. But clearly without the spiritual aid of a
which they escaped the fate of Jericho and Ai is well
great sacrificial feast Solomon could not have ventured
on the solemn act of erecting a temple by which the
.' known. It is evidently the attempt of a later age
to account at the same time for the long independence
ancient sanctuaries were to be overshadowed. Probably
of Gibeon and for the use of the Gibeonites (o*;y?!o ; oi
the sanctuary of Gibeon was chosen in preference to any
other on account of its nearness to Jerusalem. Its
rapawv[e]i~ai [BX*AL ; Ayapwvlrvs K* once]) for central position made it 'the great high place,' and
slave-service in the Solomonic temple., The story of accordingly, Stade thinks, it is referred to as snch in
the war of ' the five kings of the Amorites' against
Dt. 3312 (but see BENJAMIN, 5 8).
Gibeon in Josh. 101-5 is but the sequel of the story of
There is little more to add. From Josh. 9 23 27 we infer that
the Gibeonitish ruse, and is therefore both untraditional the Canaanites of Gibeon were made temple-slaves ; cp I K.
and unhistorical : this does not, however, necessarily
921, and the phrase 'the children of Solomon's
involve the rejection of the at any rate traditional battle 3. Other servants'(Ezra258 Neh. 760 11 3). InICh.829-32
near Gibeon (Josh. 1010-14) ; see BETHHORON, 5 3. We notices. (=93938) there may be a confusion of two statements,
one referring to Gibeah (where the clan of
next hear of the Gibeonites in the reign of Sanl, though Becher dwelt), the other to Gibeon. The father (or son?) of
the event referred to, as most critics have held, is not Gibeonmay have beenJEDIAEL(1) who was the brotherofBecher.
mentioned in due chronological order (cp Stenning in
The father (or son?) of Gibeah wbuld naturally be Becher (see
IS. 91, and cp GIBEAH, $ I [z n.]). The 'sons' mentioned in
Hastings' DB 2170.6). Tradition told of a three years' 8 30 (=936) are Bichrites (cp KISH I). In Josh. 18 25 Gibeon is
famine in David's time, which was regarded as a punish- assigned to the tribe of Benjamin f in Josh. 21 17 to the Levites.
ment for Saul's having ' slain the Gibeonites' and The men of Gibeon took part in rebuilding the wall under
'thought to destroy them' (z S. 211J). The motive Nehemiah (Neh. 3 7. @BNAom @L afiaov&qs, yafiawvci), and
in one form of the iost-exilic Zst of 'the men of the people of
of Saul is said to have been ' zeal for the b'ne Israel ' ; Israel ' the ' men of Gibeon ' are mentioned (Neh. 7 25). Since
the continued occupation of cities and villages by the however, Gibeon is separated by several names from the thre;
Gibeonites (cp z S. 21 5, end) was inconvenient for the other members of the Gibeonite tetrapolis, and its nearest
Israelites. It has been pointed out elsewhere (see NOB)
neighbours are Bethlehem and Netophah, the correctness of
the reading ' Gibeon' may be doubted. Ezra 2 20 has instead
that the deed referred to was not improbably the ' Gibbar,' which is a little nearer to the (probably) true reading
massacre described at length in I S. 2217-19. We can- lF, Bether (see GIBBAR).
not, however, suppose that the priests of the sanctuary
We can hardly hesitate to identify the ancient
of Gibeon (' Gibeon,' not ' Nob,' must be read in I S.
Gibeon with the modern village eZ-Ji6. The ancient
Y
211 [z] 2291119) at the time of the massacre were
4. Identifica- name is no doubt strangely mutilated ;
Israelites. They must surely have been Gibeonites, and
but the biblical data and the statements
the fact that the Gibeonite priests aided and abetted
of Toseuhus and the Onomasticon3
, I
David was probably the excuse which Saul urged for
all point to the correctness of the theory. A mile
decimating the Gibeonite population.z
north
The ' pool of Gibeon ' attained a
of Neby Samwil (see MIZPAH, I), at the point
melancholy notoriety
where the road to the coast divides into two branches,
through the event related in zS. 212-32 (but see
rises a low, isolated hill, composed of horizontal
HELKATH-HAZZURIM : in v. 24 @L 706 /3ouvoO). It is
strata of limestone, which in places form regular
mentioned again in the account of the violent conduct
steps, or small terraces, from bottom to top. At other
of Ishmael b. Nethaniah after he had assassinated the
points, especially on the east, the hillside breaks down
Jewish governor Gedaliah (Jer, 41 1.f: ). Another act
in rugged irregular precipices. Round the hill is spread
of blood-guiltiness was placed by tradition at the ' great
out one of the richest upland plains in central Palestine
stone which is in Gibeon' (2 S. 208-10 ; bL TO^ pouvoi?) ;
-meadowlike in its smoothness and verdure, covered
perhaps it was recorded in order to degrade the stone,
which had been treated as sacred like the ' great stone ' 1 See CHRONICLES $7 n. 2. The same spirit which animated
at Beth-shemesh (I S. 6 14). The desecrating act was the the Chronicler see& have prompted the alteration of
murder of AMASA [piv., I] by Joab. A brighter memory ?@? .. 2 Analogy into n2]? firbids in us the to Heb. suppose text of that I K. Jib 34 has (see come Benzinger). directly
was that of Yahwb's great deed ' in the plain (,my) by
1 So Buhl Gag. 173.
a Where the 'tent of Yahwb ' referred to in I S. 17 54 (emended
text : see NOB) really was, may be left uncertain.
from Gih'an (Kampffmeyer ZDPV15 27).
3 Jos. (By ii. 19 I) place; Gibeon 50 stadia NW. from Teru-
Salem ; Ant. vii. 11 17 less correctly gives 40 stadia ; El-Jib is
5-6 m. W. or N. of Jerusalem, according to the road taken.
1718

GIBLITES GIDEON
near the village with vineyards and olive groves ; and
sending out branches, like the rays of a star-fish,
among the rocky acclivities that encircle it. Upon the
broad summit one sees old ruins-notably one massive
building which was probably a castle, and among the
ruins the houses of the miserable hamlet. At the
eastern base of the hill, beneath a cliff, is a fine
fountain. The source is in a large chamber hewn out
of the rock. Not far below it, among venerable olive
trees, are the remains of an open reservoir or tank, into
which the surplus waters flow-no doubt the ‘ pool’ or
great waters ’ of Gibeon (2 S. 2 13 Jer. 41 12).
T. K. C.l
GIBLITES ($743), Josh.135 I K. 518(32). See
GEBAL (i.).
GIDEON (]\UTd, as if from 4UYI ‘ to fell,’ §§ 66, 77 ;
rfAfWN [BAL] ; GEDEON in Heb. 11 32 AV; the name
appears also in thegencalogy of Judith[S I]) son of Joash,
of the Manassite clan of Abiezer, dwelling at OPHRAH
[g.~., 31, renowned through his success against the
Midianites, otherwise called JERUBBAAL, Judg. 6-8,
and referred to in Judg. 9 as the father of Abimelech,
king of Shechem. The narrative is highly complicated,
and traces of composite origin abound.
The Hebrew text, too, contains many errors which
must, if undetected, lead the student astray. Nowhere
has criticism been more carefully and acutely
applied than here ; it is only in textual and historical
criticism (especially in the former) that there is much
still to be done. A fresh combination of textual,
literary, and historical criticism, which owes much to
predecessors, leads to the results given below. The
degree of their probability varies considerably, owing to
the large amount of sncccss attained in the early fusion
of the narratives. It is, however, scarcely open to doubt
that Gideon (Gaddiel ?) and Jerubbaal (Uribaal ?) are two
different heroes (the one belonging to W. Manasseh,
the other either to Gad or to E. Manasseh) whose
respective legends have been combined and expanded
by successive narrators and editors.
The Gideon-story in its earlier form began with the
statement that nomad invaders4 from the Syrian desert
1. Gideon- werewont to spread themselves at harvesttime
over the fertile country near Shechem
story, and over the plain of Jezrcel, plundering
the crops. Then Yahwk appeared to Gideon5 at Ophrah
1 5 4 mainly from Porter’s art. ‘ Gibeon’ in Kitto’s Bi6. Cyc.
a The readings of @Land in I Esd. of @EA seem to point to
3 name containing ’@.
3 ‘Nothingcanbeclearer than thefact that 8 kz~is not from the
same source as 8 1-3 with its premises in the preceding narrative.
Close examination shows that chaps. ti 7 are not of one piece
throughout: 6253, e.@, is not the continuation of 611.24;
the second sign, h 36-40, IS strange after the miracle fi 21 ; cp also
ti 34 with 6 3j 7 2-8, and on the other hand 6 35 with 7 23,f
8 I ’ (Moore). Cp JUDGES, 8 8.
4 In Judg. ti 3 33 7 12 Pesh. reads op’, 33 for MT’s nip $32.
Now 07’) (REKEM) is most probably a corrupt fragment of
5ttnn-p ‘(Jerahmeel). Pesh. appears to have the right reading.
‘The sons of Jerahmeel’ is a variant of ‘the Amalekites’; for
parallels see Job 13 I K. 5 IO (JOB MAHOL).
5 Joash is the fader of Jerubhah, not of Gideon. See ti zg
1719
of the Abiezrites as he was beating out wheat secretly in
the wine-press, and bade him go with his trusty clansmen1
against the Midianites. At once a divine impulse seized
him ; he sounded the war-horn ; his clansmen joined
him, and with them warriors of Manasseh and Ephraini.
They marched early to Mount Gilboa, and took up
their position on a projecting hill of that range, ‘by
(above) the spring of HAROD [p.w ., I], while the
Midianites were encamped to the north of them, be-
neath Mount Gilboa, in the vale.’ Towards daybreak,
Gideon crept down with his armour-bearer Pu(r)ah (an
Issacharite?)2 to the .hostile camp, and heard one
Midianite relate to another a significant dream which
he had had that night. On his return Gideon called his
men to the attack. They raised the war-cry, ‘For
Yahwb and for Gideon,’3 and threw the Midianites into
such confusion that they fled_as far as the distant slopes
of Abel - beth - maa~ah.~ The Israelites, however,
GIDDALTI (’&??,; roAoAAa0 [L]), a son of
HEMAN [p.~.].
I Ch. 25 4, yo8ohhaOsr [Bl, e8ohhaflL [A], v. 29 yo8opaOsr [Bl, hurried after them, and took the two princes of the
~~BSFAOL [A], GEDDELTHZ [Jg.].
Midianite~,~ and brought their heads to Gideon. Thus
Midian was subdued. And Gideon judged his people
GIDDEL ($74, ‘[God] has reared’ ; 3 50 ; rfAAHA forty years. He had seventy sons, besides Abimclech,
[ALI).
the son of his Canaanitish concubine.
I. The eponym of a family or group of NETHINIM in
the great post-exilic list (see
The later insertions in this narrative are due partly to a desire
EZRA ii., $ 9); Ezra 2 47 ( K S ~ S ~
to place the theophany above doubt artly to a tendency of late
[Bl)=Neh. 749 (ya8qh [BNLI ua. [A])=I Esd. 5 30; EV editors to use the old narratives for 6&cation(cn .. 7 2-8 with I S.
GEDDUR (re88oup [B], ye. [A], ;a+ [L]), or CATHUA (mva [B], 14th), prtly to it palriotic wish that as many trih as pos.il,le
KaOoua [A]).
might Lc shown to have had it stwe in Gidcon’s cxploit (in vi. 35
2. (ua8arz [L]) agroup of‘ Solomon’s sewants’ (see NETHINIM) ‘ Aslier ’ is probably a corruptioii of ‘ lssachar ’), and pnrrly tu D
in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii?, 5 9); Ezra 256 desire to provide a link between this narrative and that in ch. 8.
(ya8qa [Bl)=Neh. 758 (ya8qh tBN1, -&A [AI, ua88ar [Ll)= With regard to the last-mentioned point, it will be found that in
I Esd. 5 33, ISDAEL (ru8aqh [BA]).
‘I 226 thedescriptionof thedirection of the flight of the Midianites,
the text of which had become accidentally corrupted, was
manipulated in such a way as to bring Gideon across the Jordan
ready to he enriched with the exploits which properly belong ti
Jerubbaal. The inserted passage, 8 1-3, stands by itself. It
seems to he suggested by 12 1-3 and as. 19 41, and is a consequence
of the insertion of 7 24, in which the Ephraimites are
said to have been summoned to cut pff the fugitive Midianites.
It should also he mentioned that ‘ Jerubbaal ’ in chap. 9 seems
to have been substituted by the editor for Gideon (Wi.). .
The Jerubbaal-story may have been somewhat as
follows :-
[At Jazer in the land of Gad (?) there dwelt a man of
the Gadite family of Uribaal, which name he himself
2. Jerubbaal- bore : later generations changed it to
Jerubbaal (?); his father’s name was
Toash. Now the Midianites oppressed
Israel, driving ;way their cattle, and plundering the
fruits of the ground. And Jerubbaal, and ten of his
household, went by night, and made a slaughter among
the Midianite~.~ To avenge this the Midianites came
upon Jcrubbaal’s brethren in Beth-sur,s their stronghold,
and slew every one of them, whereupon they turned
and went northward on their camels, plundering as they
went, till] they came to I(ark~r,~ S. of Hamath.
Jerubbaal, however, called his clan together, three
hundred warriors, burning with zeal for Yahwb, and
with the desire for vengeance. They took the ‘ road of
S 29. The context of the former passage shows that originally
Jerubhaal, not Gideon, was referred to.
1 g,ln,l ‘in this thy strength’ (ti 14) needs emendation;
read perhaps ?pp (cp Gen. 14 14).
2 For (7 IO) read perhaps PUAH [u.v., 11 (Gen. 46 13
etc.). Cp ~SSACHAR, 5 4.
3 3ln ‘sword,‘ in 7 20, is an interpolation (Moore, Bu. etc.).
4 Read npp-n*9 $25 n++yig for niinn 5 3 rqv ~ TY
(7 2). The text is disfigured by jransposition and corruption. The
editor thought of 3;l~ (;mx), which he placed near Abelmeholah.
This agrees with the probable position of ZARETHAN
k.7J.l.
6 On the (probably) true name of the princes (or prince?) of
Midian, see OREB [i.].
6 Jerubhaal is possibly the same as ARELI [q.~ I or rather
Ariel (Uriel=Uribaal?), the name of a ‘son’ of Gad: ’
7 C. Niebnhr riehtlv observes that the earlv fortunes of
Jerubbaal must be rold’in the passage underlyingjudg. 6 25-22,
if we could only recover it. Only a few words, perhaps, were
legible to the later narrator to whom G 25-32 is due.
8 Read 7rr-n-aa for lipp (8 18). See THEBEZ, TIRZAH, I.
9 Read l‘pl? W3 (S IO).
1720

GIDEON GILBOA, MOUNT
Damascus,'] to the E. of Jogbehah (Aj6Th4, and
Nobah (/

GILBOA, MOUNT
1723
GILBOA, MOUNT
GELBOUE), more rarely GILBOA (’\?!?, I S.284 2 S.
21 12) ; once, corruptly, MOUNTAINS IN GILBOA (72 ’?$,
2 S. 121 ; cp I S. 318 ; TA OPH r. [BA]).
The name Gilboa, which occurs in MT only in the
life of Saul, but should most probably be restored in
Judg. 73 (Gideon), and possibly in I K.
The name* 2027 (Benhadad. see below 5 - - ? Tcl), - _,
has no obvious meaning. The early guesses in the
Onomasticon (OS 3527 18053 18995) are valueless, and
the modern explanation ‘ a bnbbling fountain ’ (see Ges.
Lex.(8)) is no better. Transposition, however, so often
accounts for otherwise inexplicable words (including
names) that we may conjecture the name Gilboa, or
rather Haggilboa (with the article), to be a corruption
(probably designed) of Gibeath Habbaal ($p? np),
‘hill of the Baal’ ; cp KIRJATH-JEARIM, § I. The
corruption, if designed, was of course early ; 48 knows
only ‘Gilboa,’ and the same name was preserved in
the time of Ensebius and Jerome (OS 24781 129 14) in
that of the ‘large village’ called Gelbus (Gelbu=Gelboe)
in the mountains distant 6 R. m. from Scythopolis. At
the present day there is a small village called Jelbfin,
SW. of that other village, called Fa@‘, which has given
its name to the mountain range presently to be described,
and is very, naturally supposed to represent also the old
name Gilboa.
What then does the geographical term ‘Mount
Gilboa’ designate? Gilboa (or Haggilboa, ’ the Gil-
2. Geographical boa’), if the name-has been rightly
accounted for, belonged originally to
meaning.
one of the elevations in the Gilboa
ridge, probably to the highest (Sheikh Burkiin), not to
the ridge itself. ‘ The mountain of Gilboa,’ however,
is a collective term for the entire mountain mass now
known as Jebel Fa@‘, which ‘may be best described
as a horn-like projection from the hills bounding the
plain upon the S., which first curves round towards the
W. for more than three miles, and then runs towards
the NW. for five miles further, straight out into the
level ground like a peninsula. The greatest height is
towards the E. [Sheikh BurkLn, 1696 feet above the
sea], where the curve merges in the straight line, and
where the range looks down upon the valley of the
Jordan and the Acropolis of Bethshan, as it starts
abruptly from the plain three miles from the foot of the
mountains. At the southern commencement of the
curve is the village of Jelbdn. . . . Three miles NW.
of the highest peak, where the peninsula of hills is
already well out into the plain, is a second peak, some
1400 feet in height, crowned by the tolerably prosperouslooking
village of el-MezBr. Still farther to the NW.
are two much lower peaks, between which lies the
miserable village of Niiris. NW. again from these
peaks, for two miles or a little less, the range falls down
into a broken and irregular tableland, narrowing and
becoming lower as it goes down into the plain, and
bounded by steep, but nowhere inaccessible, stony
slopes. The ridge ends in three fingers, as they may
be called-the two southern ones mere narrow spurs,
have Gilboa compelled to sympathise with the mourning
Israelites.
We have next to ask, Where are the scenes of the
two great events certainly connected with Mount Gilboa
3. The , Gilboa, to be placed ? The answer can best
I and be given by quoting the two passages
of Judg. s. 284, etc. which describe the respective encampments
of Gideon and Saul. (a) Gideon
and all the warlike force (OF?%) that was with him
encamped by (or at) the fountain of Harod, while the
camp of Midian was to the N. of them, beneath Mount
Gilboa, in the Vale’ (Jndg. 71, emended text ; see
HAROD, WELL OF, I). This was where Gideon collected
his force to meet the hordes from the other side of thc
Jordan. The expression ‘by the fountain of Harod’
is loose. Gideon’s men were separated from the fountain
by a steep and rugged slope; but they had the
command of the fountain. It ‘is on the plain, but so
close beneath the hill, so encompassed by rocks, that
a . small ~ ~ detachment could secure it’ (Miller. . od. * cit.
178). A reference to the fountain made it at once
plain whereabouts Gideon’s force was posted. To
have encamped beside ‘Ain Jiillld would have been
unnatural for mountaineers like the Israelites.
(b) At a later time, we read, ‘ the Philistines gathered
together all their battalions to Aphek, while the
Israelites were encamped by the fountain of HBrod
which is in Jezreel’ (I S. 291, emended text ; see
HAROD, WELL OF, 2) ; or, as another account‘says, ’ The
Philistines mustered, and came to Shunem, and Saul
mustered all Israel, and they encamped on Gilboa ’ (I S.
284). We are not to infer that Aphek and Shunem
were close t0gether.l Aphek was in the N. of the
plain of Sharon ; the two statements quoted come from
different hands. They are, however, easily reconcilable.
The mustering at Aphek was swiftly followed by the
arrival of the Philistines at Shunem ; the Israelites expected
this, and had no occasion to change their position.
Soon, however, the Philistines must have found
that they could not attack Saul’s position from Shunem;
the Nahr JElad has too deep a channel, and the ascent
from the lakelet below (see HAROD) to the broken
plateau above is too steep to permit a hostile attack on
warriors drawn up above. An attack would be perfectly
feasible, however, if the Philistines went up the
far easier slopes and wiidies to the S., which lead to
open ground about the village of NBris, and directly
above the ‘Ain Jiiliid.2 Thus there is a clear parallelism
between the position of the Midianites and that of the
Philistines, and between that of Gideon and that of
Saul.
Dean Stanley has given a picturesque account of the battle
of Gilboa (Jewish Church, 2 25 A; cp Sinai and Pal. 345).
According to him, the position occupted by Saul was ‘on the
rise of Mount Gilhoa hard by the spring of Jezreel” the
Israelites as usual keeping to the heights whilst their e&mies
clung to the plain.’ The objections to ;his, however, drawn
from close observation of the ground, are very strong.3 The
chariots of the Philistines could not have pursued the Israelites
up that steep and rugged slope. The fighting between Saul and
the Philistines must have occurred on the southern slopes of
Gilboa.
the northern, which is the true termination of the ridge, (6) One more event may perhaps be assigned to this
somewhat above a mile in breadth. Across this blunt mountain-region-viz., the defeat of Benhadad, king of
end of the whole peninsula runs the valley which separ- Syria, by Ahab.
ates it from the broad, flat mound, on which Jezreel
was built’ (Miller, Less than fhe Least of aN Lands,
169J [‘SS]).
The ridge of Gilboa, which is the southern boundary
or rampart of the Vale of Jezreel, is of bleak and bare
RV, following the received text states that ‘at the return of
the year Benhadad mustered the S;rians, and went up to Aphek,
to fight against Israel. And the children of Israel were mnstered,
and were victualled, and went against them’ (I K. 2025,fi).
‘And were victualled,’ however, must be wrong; we require,
~~ ~
aspect, except on the S. side, where it is used as arable
and pasture land. Probably, however, it was once
wooded ; one might fairly contend that when 2 S. 1 ZI
was written (see JASHER, BOOK OF, z) the ridge was
not so conspicuously bare as it is at present. The
poet’s aim is not to account for an existing phenomenon;
he feels too deeply for that. Gilboa has, at
least in parts, its clothing of grass and trees ; he would
1 Prof. G. A. Smith formerly held that Aphek was somewhere
near Jezreel (cp H. P. Smith, Snm. 244) ; now, however, he has
come over to the view advocated by WRS (APHEK, 7 (d), .vu,z’~.
col. 192) that the Aphek in Sharon is that intended (PEFQ,
18257 P. 252).
GASm. HG 403; cp Miller, Less than fhe Least ofalt
Lands, 175~ 18oJ
3 It is inaccurate, however to represent Stanley as saying
that the battle was ‘on the piain’ (Miller, 175 ; GASm. 403).
See passages referred to above.
I724

s~h
GILEAD GILEAD
instead, a statement of the mustering-place of the Israelites. ence. They apply it, when they speak most deliberately,.
should perhaps be e#'??, 'in Gilboa'; the error was to the whole mountain range between the Yarmtk on the
obviously produced by the following word >,$) ('and went'). N. and the Arnon on the S., which was cut into two parts
This is confirmed by w. 306 where we read in RV that 'Ben- by the great trench of the ZerkH or Jabbok (cp Dt. 312
hadad fled, and came into he city, into an inner chamber,' a
rendering which is violently extracted from an obviously cor- Josh. 122 5 1325). The two parts together are somerupt
text. Klo. reads ik? 1: i'p $y Nan:!, '. . . and hid times called ' all Gilead' (Dt. 3101 z K. 1033). and the
himself by the fountain of Harod in Harod,' or ll!? p? !'Y, general term Gilead is applied to those districts on the
'by the fountain in Harod.' The difficulty lies in the distance E. of the Jordan which were in Israelitish occupation
between Aphek in the N. of Sharon (see APHEK, 3 [bl), which (NU. 3229 Josh. 229 Judg. 108 201 2 S. 246 I K. 419
is surely meant here (not el-'AfFileh) and Mount Gilboa; but Am. 13 13) ; hut also to the northern, or to the southern
the textual suggestions are extremely )plausible and a mustering
of the Philistines at the same Aphek preceded'their final attack
part alone (see for the one, Dt. 236 3 4 Josh. 171 ;,
upon Saul by the southern slopes of Gilboa. Cp, however (for and for the other, Nu. 321 Josh. 1325). The elasticity
the whole subject of this article), SAUL. T. K. C. of the term is strikingly shown by the fact that in Dt.
GILEAD (lg$J, and, with thearticle, l&!g ; rf*),f*f*A 34 I I Macc. 5208 ' Gilead ' even includes the region
N. of the Jahbok.
[BALI1), a trans- Jordanic region frequently referred to.
We have seen that the term ' Gilead ' belongs of right
1. Name. The name, which can he explained from
to a large mountainous district, not to a particular
the Arabic jul'ud, ' hard, rough,' is at first
mountain. It would he a mistake to
sight not very appropriate, the hills and dales of Gilead *' Gen' 31 17-54' infer the contrary from the interesting
being full of natural beauty, and well adapted for
composite narrative in Gen. 3117-54. It is true that
cattle (cp Nu. 321) and for the flocks of goats which
what is said of Jacob and Laban in v. 25 and of Jacob
are still fed there (cp Cant. 41 ; and see HAIR, 5 I).
in v. 543 implies that a particular mountain, known to
Upon the whole, Gilead is better provided with water
the respective writers of these passages, was sometimes
and woodland than any part of W. Palestine. Hence
called in a special sense i$;3
Merrill (Hastings, DB 2 174 a) seems inclined to doubt
. .- y, ' the mountain of (the)
the correctness of the explanation. The name ' hard,
Gilead ' ; but this specialisation merely indicates that
rough' is, however, at once seen to he appropriate
the mountain referred to was a conspicuous one in some
when we study the geological formation of the country. part of the Gilead range. That the two narrators J and
The base slopes of the mountain chain of Moab and E meant the same part of the Gilead-range can hardly.
Gilead consist of Sandstone.
he maintained. They both differ from the original
This 'is covered in part by the more recent white marls, which story (see GALEED, I) ; they also differ from one another.
form the curious peaks of the foothills immediately above the When Jacob uttered the fine prayer in 329 8 (J) he
Jordan valley. but reaches above them to an must have been near some great ford of the Jordan.
2. Geological elevation of I& ft. above the Mediterranean
on the S., and forms the bed of the Bukei' Probably he was at Succoth, not very far from the ford
formation.
basin, farther E. and 1000 ft. higher. Above ed-Diimieh, for the notice in tien. 3317 has surely been
this lies the hard, impervious Dolomitic limestone which misplaced by the editor of JE, and in J's narrative stood
appears in the rugged gray hills round the Jahbok, and 'in Jehel before 324[3].4 It is possible that the Jehel &hd, the
'Ajlim rising on an average 1500 ft. above the sandstone and
forrniig the bed of the numerous springs. It also dips to\lards highest point in the Jebel Jil'iid (N. of es-Sal!, and N.
the Jordan valley; and the water from the surface of the of the ZerkH) is J's Gilead mountain. E, however, who
plateau, sinking down to the surface of this formation, bursts makes Jacob go, after parting with Laban, to MAHANArhl
out of the hill slopes on the W, in perennial brooks. It was
from the ruggedness of this hard limestone that Gilead obtained
(q.v.), presumably localises the meeting of Jacob and
Its name. Above ,this again is the white chalk of the desert Laban near some high point of the Jebel 'Ajliin. One
plateau, the same found in Samaria and Lower Galilee, with might think of the Jebel Kafkafa (3430 ft.) which is to
bands of flint or chert in contorted layers or strewn in pebbles the NE. of Siif and Jerash, close to the great pilgrim
on the surface. Where this formation is deep the country is
bare and arid, supplied by cisterns and deep wells. Thus the road from Damascus to Mecca ; hut SOf itself (2720 ft. )
plateau becomes desert, while the hill-slopes abound in streams has great claims on our consideration. This is one of
and springs' (Conder, in Smith, DB('4 11191 a).
the sites where dolmens are to be found.5 It is probable
The'plateau here spoken of is that extensive highland that by the ' pillar' and the ' heap' of Gen. 3145f. the
which extends eastward to the Euphrates, where narrators meant some of those primitive stone monu-
3. nothing but desert shrubs will grow. On ments, which are specially abundant on the E. of the
the edge of this region, and rising at Jordan.
usage*
most 500 ft. above it, are the long According to th9theory here presented, there should
mountain-ranges which from their geological formation also be such a monument on Jebel 8sha'. All that we
deserve the name of Gilead. Rocky as they may he, find is a shrine (perhaps 300 years old) containing a
the higher slopes are covered with pine-trees (Pinus long, open trough, said to have been the tomb of Hosea,
Carica, Don., a species resembling the Aleppo pine), beside which the Bedouins kill sheep in honour of the
and, as Conder says, mastic-bushes,a whilst lower down prophet.6 The trough, however, may have been preare
beautiful woods of oak trees and carob trees, form- ceded by a cairn ; sepulchral cairns are still common
ing altogether, with the addition of numerous streams among the Arabs, and Absalom's cairn (2 S. 1817) fs
and springs, th'e most perfect sylvan scenery in Palestine. familiar to readers of the OT. The narrative in Gen. IS
The 'wood of Rephaim' (so read for 'wood of directed against the attempts of the Arameans to possess
Ephraim ' in 2 S. 186) is still represented by the thick themselves of Gilead ; the standing-stone (massEba) on
groves of the Jebel 'Ajliin, with which the woods of es- E's mountain and the cairn on J's were represented
Salt in S. Gilead alone can compete. Far below the by E and J respectively as having been erected,
Gilead range lies the Jordan Valley, which is reached by the former by Laban, the latter by Jacob, as sacred
a very steep descent, and a natural division in the range boundary-stones. The masSEbH, by a slight distortion,
is formed by the river Zerkii (Jabbok). The was called ' the Mispah ' to indicate that Yahwi: would
Hebrew writers, whether they were conscious of the
1 Gilead is here distinguished both from Bashan and from the
original meaning of Gilead or not, were well aware that tableland of hloab.
the name had properly no narrow or merely local refer- 2 Jacob is here said (by J) to have pitched his tent 'on fhe
mountain [of . . .I,' pban on 'the mopntain of (the) Gilead.
1 [In @ occur the following forms :-Judg.lOq yaaa8 [By], 8 Tacob sacrifices on the mountain : n. 21 shows that some
IO8 ~UAU~L%T'S [AL], 11; mpa+ [A] IK. 413 yahaa0 [B], part'of the Gilead range is meant. E is the writer.
yah~6~'~qs'[Ll 419 a8 [L] T Ch. 5 16 yahaF [B], Hos. 1211 (12) 4 It was followed probably by a mention of Jacob's crossing of
yahyqhois [Q isemey], Am.)l13 yahaaS(e)L'Tqs [BAQ*Fl, -LTL~WY the Jabbok. Cp Holzinger, ad Zoc.
[Qt vld.1 I Macc. 59 yahua8iTLs (A).]
6 Conder Hcth and Moa6 2433
Smiih's DBW 1 II~I ' see also Conder, Heth andMoad, 188. 6 Baed. baZ.(3) 163J ; cp konder, op. cit. 182. A large tree
S,,, however, Post, cidd sup. col. 465, with reference to the stands beside the shrine which is 'one out of the very few
Balm of Gilead.
sacred domes E. of Jordan.
1725
1726

GILEAD GILEAD
“keep watch (and interpose) between’ Laban and
,Jacob, when occasion for this arose1 (z. 49). We may
certainly infer from this that the place referred to by E
was one of those called Mizpah. Possibly it was
Ramath-ham-mkpeh, which in Josh. 1326 is described
as the N. limit of the territory of Gad, and is elsewhere
called ham-miSpH (see MIZPAH, 2). The cairn also
received a name : it was called Gal‘ed-ie., Heap of
Witness, implying a playful etymology of the name
.Gilead.
There is yet another conceivable inference from this
.singular narrative (when explained as above), against
5. Special- which a caution may be desirable. It
ization of might be supposed that when E wrote, the
Gilead.
territory known as Gilead began at the
Jebel ‘Ajltin. The truth is that the
JebeZ ‘AjZzjn is the representative of the whole land of
Gilead. So at least it must appear to those who approach
Gilead from Damascus, and see, looming up beyond
the plain of Bashan, the summits of the Jebel ‘Ajlfin.
On the other hand, to those w-ho come from Moab.
the natural representative of Gilead will be the first
lofty range to the N. of the plateau of Heshbon-Le.,
the /del Jil‘iid. How this latter name fixed itself just
here is an obscure problem : why is the Yahwist’s
Gilead mountain preferred to the Elohist’s ? Problems
.of this kind, however, are numerous and baffling.
Why, for instance, is the highest mountain in this
range-the Jebel Osha‘-named after the prophet
Hosea? It is true, Hosea, according to the MT,
speaks of a city of Gilead in 68 (cp l211), and has been
thought to refer here to some locality in the Jebel
Jil‘Bd (see, however, 2). Can this have been known,
however, to those who first used the Arabic name?
1727
mountain district ’ (Jebel Jarash), as well.as of the ruined
city of that name.
If the name of Gerasa is rightly thus accounted for,
it still remains to determine what ancient city, if any,
,. Ancient once stood upon its site. It is difficnlt
sites.
indeed to believe that the founders of that
magnificent city, the ruins of which still
fascinate us, placed it upon a site unconsecrated by the
sanctuaries of the past. Both Ramoth-Gilead and
Mahanaim have been thought of: but we have reasons
sufficient for accepting neither view. Just an hour W.
of Jerash is the wretched but well-situated village of
Reimtin (Ewald‘s Ramoth-Gilead), divided by a ridge
from Siif (Mizpah 2). Turning to the W., in two hours
the traveller comes to ‘Ajlfin (Mahanaim?), ‘nestling at
the bifurcation of the valleys, in its gardens and vine-
yards,’ with the great castle already spoken of in the
neighbourhood : on either hand are the well-clothed
heights of the Jebel ‘Ajlan. A descent, a climb, and
again a descent bring us to the WHdy YHbis (a plausible
claimant to the title of ‘the brook Cherith,‘ were it not
for the faultiness of the reading CHERITH [p.’~.]), and to
an isolated round-topped hill, strewn with ruins (ed-
Deir)-but these not ancient-Robinson’s site for
Jabesh-Gilead. If we turn to the N. of the same
WHdy, we come to Miryamin, Merrill‘s site for the
same famous city. About seven miles off is Pella
Surely Hosea has displaced Joshua. Who, then, pre-
(Fahl), which ‘enjoys perhaps the finest climate, from an
agricultural point of view, that can be found in Syria.’ 1
The known history of Pella is a short one : but it may
be noted here that, according to Eusebius (HE35),
the Jewish Christians fled, before the destruction of
Jerusalem, to Pella.
And what shall one say of Irbid, the capital of the
district of ‘Ajliin? Doubtless this was an ancient
ceded Joshua ? The truth is hidden from us.
Artrela. Was it, then, the BETH-ARBEL of Hos. 10141
It would seem as if this specialization of the term Onr answer will probably be in the negative; but the
Gilead had already occurred by the time of Eusebius site is of strategic importance, and the name implies the
and Jerome (see z) ; and it should also be noticed that
5 m. N. of es-Sal! there is a ruin known as Jal‘iid,2
antiquity of the place. Es-Salt, too,-at present tlic
only capital of the BelkL, and the only important plncr:
perhaps the ‘Gilead’ of the Onomasticon. Not im-
6. Called possibly, too, another seeming& recent
Gerash ~ place-name preserves the memory of a name
in it-though not as strikingly placed as ‘Ajltin, must
surely have been always a centre of population, and tlilofty
Jebel Usha‘ to the north must always have bce:i
of Gilead, which, though but slightly crowned by an important sanctuary, surely not, however,
attested, may be genuinely ancient. The place-name Penuel. Where the latter place was, it is not easy to
referred to is Gerasa (the famous city of the Decapolis say ; SUCCOTH (I), however, is possibly the modern Tcll
.of Peraea), now called Jera~h.~ According to Ne~ibauer,~ Der ‘A411a. With more confidence we can identify Jocthe
Midrash (SamueZ, 13) affirms the identity of Gerash BEHAH with JnbeihHt, and the JABBOK with the ‘ blue’
.and Gilead: and Sir G. Grove has noticed that the river, the ZerkH.a
Arabic version of Josh. 208 2138 [36] gives RHmat
.al-JaraS for MTs ‘Ramoth in Gilead,’ and that the
Jewish traveller Parchi (circa 1311 A.D.) also says,
‘ Gilead is at present Jerash.’ That the name Gerasa
A passing reference is all that can be given to the
interesting genealogies of Gilead (Nu. 26 29-33 Josh.
17 1-3 I Ch. 7 14-19) : see MACHIR,
ASRIEL, HEPHER (ii., z), and especially
is derived from the ~Q~OYTES, or veterans, of Alexander
ZELOPHEHAD. The last of these names
the Great is of course absurd. It reminds us so much occurs in a mutilated form as Jidlaph in Gen. 2222 ; it is
.of Girzites and Girgashites that one is tempted to sus- probablyidenticalwithSalecah. and as Milcah, themother
pect that a tribe called Girzim or Girshim (cp GIRGASH- of Jidlaph, is a corruption of Salecah, we see how mechani-
ITES) may have dwelt in Gilead in pre-Israelitish times
‘(cp z S. 29, where Ishbaal reigns ‘ over Gilead and
over the Girshite ’) : see GIRZITES. Gerash, like Gilead,
cally the genealogies were often filled up. Nor can we
here gather up the fragmentary notices of the history of
Gilead. The country was the eastern bulwark of
may have obtained a specialized reference to a town and
a district later ; hence Yaktit speaks of ‘ the Jerash
Palestine, and was the first district to suffer from Syrian
and Assyrian invasions. In sacred legend it is distinguished
by the passage of Jacob and by the residence
1 Verse 49, which, as it stands is obviously imperfect, must be
supplemented from v. 45. Reid’ with Ball ‘And the pillar
which he set up he called “the MiSpah,” for he said,’ etc.
a The two names next mentioned are Betonim (rather Botnim)
and MAHANAlhl [q.~.].
3 This name is not to he confounded with JiilCid the name of
ariver which starts fiom the ‘Ain JiilCid under GIL~OA [q.v., 8 31.
This Jiilnd is also pronounced /Ahit, which is the Ai-. form of
Goliath. Goliath impressed the Moslem mind. Mokaddasi
(11th cep. A.D.) calls the citadel of ‘Ammiin the ‘castle of
Go I i a t h .
4 According to Guthe (MDPV, ’98,578) Jerash, not Jerssh,
is the popular pronunciation.
5 Gdogr. d74 Talm. zjo.
6 Zunz, quoted by Grove (Smith DH1) 2 1003). He also states
that the Jews derived Gerash from’Yegar-sahadutha (Gen. 31 47).
of JEPHTHAH [p.v.]. The names of Barzillai, David,
Ishbaal, Ahab, Elijah (was he really a Tishbite ?-see
TISHBITE) also will readily occur to the reader as connected
with Gilead. The clansmen of GAD, whose name
is almost treated as synonymous with Gilead (e.g., Judg.
5 17 I S. 137), had opportunity for learning resource and
courage in the mountains and glens of the ‘ rugged ’
land. Cp GAD, 5 2. PERXA.
Oliphant, LandofGilead(‘80) : graphic descriptigns ; Coiider,
1 Le Strange, in Schumacher, Across tha/ordan, 272. Pella
is the 5 ” of ~ Talm. Jer. (Neub. Gkogr. 274); cpGASm. HG 292,
n. 2.
2 On the Jabbok of Gen. 32 22, see JABBOK, 8 2.
1728

MAP OF GILEAD AND AMMON
INDEX TO NAMES
Parentheses indicating artich that refer to the place-names are in certain cases added to non-dibZica2 names Laving
no bi6licaZ eguivaht. The n@haleticaZ arrangement usuuZ& ignores preJzzes: abu ('father of '), 'ain
(' spring'), 'urd& ( I district '), 'uyrn (' springs '), ba&r ('sea '), deit (' house '), Wid (' country '), jeiedel (' mt.'),
jisr (' bridge '), @aZ'at ( ' custle '), kandl ( ' conduit '), @urn ( ' horn '), kasr ( ' castle '), Khirbet ( ' ruin '), k5m
(' mound '), makhddet ('ford '), nahr (' river'), rds ( ' head '), teZZ ( I mound '), umm ( ' mother '), wddy
(' vdey ').
Abel-Meholah, B3
Abel-shittim, B4
Abil, CI
Abila, CI (ABEL-SHITTIM)
W. el-Abyad, B3, 4
Adam, B3
Adamah, B3
wady el-'A?eimeh, B4
AjbShat, C3 (JOGBEHAH)
'Ajliin, Bz (GILEAD, B z) .
jebel 'Ajliin, BCz (GILEAD,
0 7)
wHdy 'AjlCin, Bz, 3 (CHE-
RITH)
el-',&', c4
telldEr'Alla, B~(GII.EAD, $7)
Amateh, B3
um(m) el-'Amdln, Bz
'ariil: el-Amir, C4
'AmmBn, C4 (ABEL-CHERA-
MIM)
wHdy'AmmHn. C3, 4
Aqueduct, CI
wHdy el-'Arab, BI (EPH-
RON, 2)
Arbela, CI
Kh. 'Atiif, Az
W. el-'Aujeh, AB4
'Ayiin MCisH, B4
wHdy 'Ayon MiisB, B4
(BETH-PEOR)
Batanah, B4
BeisHn, Az
Bethabara, B4
Beth-haran, B4
Beth-jeshimoth, B4
Beth-shean, Az
Betonim, B4
W. el-Bireh, BI
Bithron, Bz
W. el-Bukd, A3
el-Bukba, C3 (GILEAD, B z)
Camon, Br
Casphor, DI
Edrei, DI
%dun, Cz
Elealeh, C4
M&r ElyHs, Bz
'Arak el-Emir, B4 (HYR-
CANUS)
Ephron z, CI
Eriha, A4
Fahl or Tabakat Fahl, Bz
(JABESH)
W. Fajjhs, BI
j. Fakilt, Az
kanHt Fir'aun, BCI (CON-
DUITS)
W. Faslil, A3
Gadara, BI
GerdSa, cz kaSr wHdy el-Ghafr, CI
(EPHRON)
wHdyel-Ghafr, CI (EPHRON)
W. el-Ghuweir, B4 (DEAD
SEA)
Mt. Gilboa, Az
Mt. Gilead, B3
Gilgal, A4
'ain Hajla, B4
niakhadet Hajla, B4
jebel Hakart, C3
tell HammHm, B4
W. el-HammHm, C3
Hammath, BI
el-Hammeh, BI
Kh. Hamzeh, C4
HesbBn, C4
'ain Hesban, C4 (HESHBON)
wiidy HesbHn, B4 (BETH-
PEOR)
Heshbon, C4
wHdy el-HimHr, B2
el-Had, B4
Humeid. Bz
W. el-Humr, AB3
ed-DHmieh, B3
Dathema, DI
ed-Deir, Bz (JABESH, 52)
ed-Delhemiyeh, BI (DAL- Jazer, C3
< .
MANUTHA)
Der'Ht, DI
W. IbtEn GhazHl, B3
Irbid, CI
Jabbok, B3
Jabesh, Bz
N. JBliid, AI
Jal'iid, B3 (GILEAD, 5 2)
am Jenneh, Cz
Jerash, Cz (DECAPOLIS)
W. Jerash, Cz, 3
jebel Jiltad, B3 (GILEAD,
B 4)
Jericho, Crusaders', A4
Jericho of Or, A4
W. el-Jozeleh, AB3
birket Jiljiiliyeh, A4
Jogbehah, C3
wady el-Jorfeh, B4
jebel Kafkafa, Cz (GILEAD,
B 4)
Karawa, B3
Kaukab el-HawH, BI
Kh. el-Kefrein, B4 (ABEL-
SHITTIM)
tell el-Kefrein, B4
wady el-Kefrein, B~(ABEL-
SHITTIM)
W. el-Kelt, AB4
Kerak, BI
ras umm el-Kharrilbeh,A3
W. el-Khashneh, Az
Kumeim. BI
bahr La!, B4
Maha?, C4
Mahne, Bz
W. el-MHlih, Bz
jebel el-Mastabeh, C3
W. Meidan, B4
W. el-Mellaha, AB4
jebel el-Mi'rHd, B3
Miryamin. Bz
' Mizpah ' ?, Cz
jisr el-MujHmf, BI
W. Mukelik. B4
el-Muzeirib, DI
NebH, B4
tell Nimrin, B4 (BETH-
ABARA)
W. Nimrin, B4
jebel Oshd, B~(GILEAD, $4)
Pella, Bz (JABESH)
Philadelphia, C4
kal'at er-Rabad, Bz (EPH-
RON, 2)
Rabbath Ammon, C4
tell er-RHmeh, B4
beit er-RHs, CI(DECAPOLIS,
B 2)
Reimiin, C2 (GILEAD, $7)
er - Renitheh, DI (DA-
THEMA)
W. er-Retem, B4
er-RujEb, B3 (ARGOB)
wady er-Rujeb, B3
er-Rummiin, C3
tell es-Sdidiyeh. B2
'ain es-Sakiit, Bz
es-Salt, B3 (MAHANAIM)
Samakh, BI
es-SHmik, C4
khirbet SBr, C4 (JAZER)
karn Sartabeh, A3
Scythopolis, Az
wady Sha'ib, B4
'ain esh-Shamsiyeb, B2
Sheri'at el-Kebireh, BI-4
Sheri'at el-MenHdireh. BI
wady Sir, C4 (JAZER)
Kh. SiyHga, B4
Succoth, B3
Siif, Cz (GILEAD, 8 7)
tell es-Sultan, A4
SFimiyeh, C4
Kh. eS-Siir, B4
'ain Suweimeh, B4
khirbet Snweimeh,
(BETH-JESHIMOTH)
jebel bilkd e?-SuwEt,
Tabakat Fahl, Bz
bahr Tabariyeh, BI
et-Taiyibeh, BI
wady et-Taiyibeh, Br
W. abii THra, R4
TaricheE, BI
Tibneh, Bz
et-Turra, CI
Um Kes, BI
Dr
B4
wady Yabis, Bz (JABESH)
Yajiiz, C3 (JAZER)
k6m YHjjBz, C3
Zarethan, A3
beit Zer'a, C4 (JAZER)
kafat ez-ZerkH, D3
nahr ez-ZerkH, BCD3
ras umm Z6ka, Bz
jebel ez-Zumleh, DI
(BASHAN)

GILGAL GILGAL
Heth and Moa6 ('83); Selah Merrill, East of Jordalz ('81);
Schumacher Across theJordan ('86), contain-
9.Literature. ing 'A Riie through djlun,' by Guy Le
Strange ; Tristram, Land of Ismel; C;. A.
Smith, HG; and Gautier, Au del2 duJourduin(2) ('96).
2. A city, mentioned perhaps in Judg. 1017 and
(BAL) 127; also in Hos. 68 1211 [m]. Ewald (on
Hos. ZZ.cc.) thinks of Mizpeh of Gilead (Judg. 1129),
which was the seat of an ancient sanctuary (Judg. 11 IT
' Mizpah '). Buhl (Geogr. 262) thinks of Ramoth, or
rather Ramath-Gilead ; Hitzig of Jabesh-Gilead ; Budde
(on Judg. 1017) of the site of the modern Jal'tid, N. of
es-Salt (see I), which may represent the ' Gilead '
mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome (OS 241 42, 124
30). But 'Gilead' for ' Mizpeh of Gilead,' or the like,
IS hardly conceivable, and the passages quoted, except
the first, prove to be corrupt.
In Judg. 10 17 'in Gilead' simply covers over the narrator's
ignorance ; 11 IT supplied ' Mizpah' as the place of encampment
of theIsraelites; that of the Ammonites could not be determined
(cp Moore's note). In Judg. 127 the text is mutilated : read
probably 'in his city, in Mizpah of Gilead. In Hos. 68
12 11 [121 1 53 should most probably he $152 (cp yahyaho~s
12 11 [IZ] [J6] for yahaar3 [zu]). No doubt Hosea might have
referred to a second sanctuary in Gilead, and Ruben's res.
toration of 6 g is geographically and historically plausible
(cp Che. Ex#., Jan. '97, p. 47,9 But the sanctuaries of
Bethel and Gilgal are much more likely to he referred to than
the hypothetical sanctuaries of ADAM [q.v., i.1 and 'Gilead.' For
DlM in v. 7 read probably 115 n'ap 'in Beth-aven,' and read
vu. 83 thus-'Gilgal is a city of those that work wickedness, 8
hill fortress of evildoers (O'plp npm). And a company of
traitors are her priests; the way of Yahwb they reject ; they are
eager to commit crimes' (w+? ~YC! '3 77: $*;+ D*!I> ~an:
nm). In 12 11 [I21 pa 1~51
is a corruption of nqr \+
];e ; the prefixed mi is a dittographed ]lN (GrP.). T. K. C.
GILGAL (always with definite article, $a>)?, except
1. Name. Josh. 59 and MT of l223), the name of
several localities in the Holy Land.
Q3 usually renders 51517 by the plural
yahyaha [BAQFLI,
as in Josephus and I Macc. So in Josh. (except 12 23 14 6 [!I,
15 7 ; see below, $ 6), I S. (except 7 16 &v yahyaha [BA], rqv
yuhyah [L] . 15 33 yahyah IBA]) z S. z K. Am. Hos. (except
9 15 yahyah'[BAQ], 12 IZU [rral ;aAaaS [BAQ"]). The singular
yahyah occurs in Josh. 146 [B], 15 7 [ALI, Judg. 2 I 3 19 I S.
15 33 (yahyaha IL]), Hos. 9 15 Mi. Gg ; yohyoh [BA] in Dt. 11 30
(but yohyo.' [Fl, oohyoh [Ll). On Josh. 12 23 see below, 0 6.
The name means literally 'the circle'-i.e., sacred
circle of stones, the form now called 'cromlech' try
archaeologists.1 Except in Galilee, such circles are not
found W. of Jordan, where they may have been
destroyed from the time of Josiah's reformation onwards ;
but many ancient specimens are extant in E. Palestine,
similar to those of Western Europe, and Arabs still
construct stone circles round graves. For a picture
.of a gilgaZ see PEFQ, '82, p. 72 ; and for a plan,
Survey ofE. Pal. 17.
I. The first sanctuary and camp of Israel in W.
Palestine. The earliest of the documents of which the
2. Joshua,s Book of Joshua is composed (JE) relates
Gilgal.
that, after crossing Jordan, Joshua erected
twelve stones which he had taken from
the bed of the river on the W. bank 'in the Gilgal'
(4 3 ZO), and they became (v. .I$, probably Dt. ) a monu-
ment of the miraculous passage. This account agrees
with the meaning of the name. The same document,
however (with its unscientific habit of connecting place-
names with events of ancient history), derives Gilgal
from the reproach ' rolled away '-GallBthi, ' I have
rolled ' -from Israel by Joshua when he re-instituted
there the rite of CIRCUMCISION (q.v., 5 z), that had
been in abeyance during the wanderings in the wilder-
ness (59). That the ' place ' (oiiJn, probably meaning
sacred place, 515) was already so called, and was a
centre of .Canaanite worship, is apparent both from the
narrative quoted, and from Judg. 3 19 (yahyxh [BAL]),
1 For an instance of twelve stones by the side of an altar see
Ex. 244.
I729
where for ' quarries ' read perhaps

GILGAL GILGAL
times for ' Dan,' as one of the two places where Jerohoam set up the Jordan Gilgal. The case between them must still
his golden calf (Cyril, Comnz. ih Hoseam, 5 ; [Pseud..] Epiph.
De Vit. Proph.
be regarded as open ; nor is it confined to them. There
237 ; Chmn. Pasc. 161).
is a third Gilgal which also has strong claims to be
Thns, then, we find Gilgal in the eighth century
regarded as the popular Israelite sanctuary of the eighth
equal in national regard with Bethel ; where the people
century.
zealously worship Yahwk, but do so under heathen
Dt. 1130: [Ebal and Gerizim] . . . 'are they not
fashion with impure rites that provoke his wrath. In
beyond Jordan, to the west of the road of the sunset,
an age passionately devoted to the sacred scenes of
5, A Gilgal tn the land of the Canaanites, who dwell
antiquity, such a kind of sanctuary might well be that
by Gerizim ? in the Arabah, over against Gilgal, beside
ancient Gilgal (now belonging to N. Israel) at which,
the terebinth of Moreh ? ' As punctuated
it was said, the ark had found its first rest in the land,
by the Masoretes the text means that it is Ebal and
circumcision had been restored, the first king had been
Gerizim that are opposite Gilgal. Taking the latter to
anointed, and David himself had been reinstated in
be Gilgal by Jericho, certain Rabbis, followed by
the affection of Judah. Beyond these general con-
Eusebius, Jerome, and a constant Christian tradition,
siderations, however, there is no proof to offer-unless
transferred Ebal and Gerizim to the hills inimedistely
it be found in the facts that the prophets never speak of
behind Jericho. Recent commentators have preferred
going up to Gilgal as they do to Bethel, and that the
to alter the punctuation, and taking 'over against
Gilgal known to the writer of Micah 65 appears to be
Gilgal ' as describing the home of the Canaanites in the
the Gilgal on Jordan. We turn now to the rival Gilgals
Arabah, have thought to secure both good grammar
in the hill-country of Ephraim.
and accurate geography (see Driver, ad Zoc.). Dillmann,
2. As early as the time of Eusebius there were1
however, preserving the Massoretic punctuation, snp-
' certain who suspected a second Gilgal close to Bethel '
posed some Gilgal near Shechem ; and his hypothesis
4. A Gilgal (OS, s.v. yaXyaXa). This suspicion, has been justified by the discovery of a modern place
byBethel'l aroused by the list of Samuel's circuit
named Juleijil, on the plain of Makhna, I m. E. of
(I S. 716)-Bethel,. Gilgal, Mizpah-of
the foot of Mt. Gerizim, 24 m. SE. of Shechem and
which Bethel and Mizpah are both on the central range,
I$ m. SW. of Siilim (PEFM2238). This suits the
and strengthened by the prophets' close association of
data of the passage. The terebinth of Moreh, 'the
Bethel and Gilgal, in regard to the latter of which, as
Revealer,' takes us back to Abraham, who built an
we have seen, they never use the expression ' go down,'
altar beside it (Gen. 126). The place therefore was an
which would have been almost inevitable in the case of
ancient sanctuary, and further rendered sacred to Hebrew
a site in the Jordan valley, is raised almost to the pitch
hearts by the worship of their great patriarch.
of conviction by the narrative of Elijahs last journey (The only,difficulty in Dt. 1130 is the clause 'who dwell in
(2 K. 21-8 ; v. I rcpperxw [B*], yaXyaXa [Babmg.XL]). the Arabah. It is very possible that this is a later insertion
The order given is Gilgal, Bethel, Jericho (eB* for due to one who supposed that the Gilgal mentioned must be
Gilgal reads Jericho, but evidently by error; for that in the Arabah by Jericho.)
variants of B have yaXyaXwv), and it is said (a. 2) that If then there was a Gilgal near Gerizim, sanctified by
from Gilgal Elijah and Elisha 'went down to Bethel.'2 the worship of the patriarchs (for Jacob had been here
This implies a Gilgal on the central range, with at least as well as Abraham, Gen. 3318), and by the command
an apparent descent on Bethel. Such an one has been of Moses to Israel to celebrate there their entry into the
found in YiljfZiyeh, about 7 m. N. of Bethel, and 2$ m. Promised Land, this Gilgal has equal claims with the
W. of the present high road, between Bethel and two others we have already described, to be considered
Shechem and Samaria. It is now a large village on as the popular sanctuary of N. Israel in the ninth and
the summit of a commanding hill 2441 feet above the eighth centuries.
sea. This is lower than Bethel, which is 2890 feet, but
These claims have been defended in detail by Schlatter (Zuv
Tojogr. u. Gesch. Paliisfhas, 2463) and accepted by Buhl
the hill is so bold and isolated that the phrase 'to go (Pal zozx). Schlatter makes out a most probable case. but
down to Bethel' is quite appropriate. The view is one his argument that the Makhna Juleijil wasalso the Gilgal \;here
of the grandest in Palestine, from the sea to the hills of Joshua placed the camp of Israel after the conquest of Ai (96
106 15 43 146 yahyah [B]) is very doubtful, and his other, that it
Gilead and as far N. as Hermon itself (Robinson, who was the &gal of Saul's appointment to the kingdom (I S. 108&),
seems to have been the first traveller to visit it, BR 3 81 ; is quite unsnccessfnl. Schlatter mistakes the Jud;ean Carmel
cp PEFiW2290, map, sheet xiv.). This Gilgal, like for Mt. Carmel. [For another view of the difficult passage Dt.
11 30
Jericho, had its school of the prophets. That it was
see GERIZIM, § 2.1
(al In the list of the Canaanite kings conouered bv
I , - 1
the same as the Gilgal of 2 K. 4 38 (yaXyaha [BAL]), Israel we find a 'king of the nations at Gilgal' (Josh. 1223
Elisha's residence, seems implied by the connection of
[Dt.]: \?!?) 093 3iQ; ywap mjc yrhyea [AI,
the latter (v. 42) with BAAL-SHALISHA [q.v.], another '' Other yssc 7:s yahschalas [B], yay 6 s ydyd [L]).
Samaritan town, also on the western watershed (see Gilgals. In harmony with BB's reading some propose to
further Buhl, Geogr, 171 ; and cp GOURDS, WILD, ad
P. }.
80, (fa., g 25 and Tir;ah and Eusebius and Jerome (OS)
If all these facts be held to justify the existence of a place a yahyovhrr 6 R. m. N.' of Antipatris ; and this is represanctuary
and prophetic centre at Jiljiliyeh in Elisha's sented to-day either by JiljBlieh, 4 m., or Kilkiliyeb, 6 m. NNE
day, then a very strong presumption is established in of Kal'at RZs-el-'Ain a probable site of ANTIPATRIS (4.u 0 2).
(B) In Josh. 157 (F$ the border of udah is said to tzrn N.
favour of this being also the Gilgal famous in the time 'from the Oak of Achor to the Gi!gal (lahyah [ALI, raaya8 [?*I:
of Amoeand Hosea. Moreover Jiljiliyeh is not far from 7a ayas [Bb]) which is over against the ascent of Adummim
Shiloh [q.~.], and the very curious passage in (Pseudo-) the present Tal *at ed-Dam on the road from Jericho to Jerusalem).
Epiphanius quoted above (§ 3), which identifies Gilgal as (In the parallel passage, Josh. 18 i7 (P), 52518 becomes jq$*h,
the shrine of the golden calf, adds 3 Qv qXwv-i.e.,
GELILOTH, ya+aw0 [Bl ayaMihwO-z'.e., nr$h [AI yahr-
Awe [L]). This is surd; the hitherto unidentified Beth-gilgal
Shiloh. It would go far to explain the disappearance
or [AV] House of Gilgal n'? ; BN*A om., 870 ay'yahyah
from Israel's history of so ancient a sanctuary as Shiloh,
[Nc.a mg.1 /JaLfJyah [L]) which is given in Neh. 12 29 along with
if we could believe that its sanctity had been absorbed the fie!ds'of Geba and Azmaveth as being 'round about Jeruby
that of the neighbouring Gilgal, which in such a salem. (So, independently, Che. [GALIJM, 21, who also reads
case would have strengthened its claim to be the rival of 'Beth-gilgal' for Bath-gallim' in Is. 1030.) If placed at the
Tal 'at ed-Dam,Beth-gilgal would lie almost as far E. from the
Bethel. That, however, is only a guess : and the claims latter as Geha lies N.
of this Samaritan Jiljiliyeh are as inconclusive as those of (c) On the Gilgal or Galgala of I Macc. 92 see
1 B however, reads siniply ?fh0av or ZppXovraL [L] (812) ; cp. ARBELA. The data undoubtedly suit best the Gilgal
Schla/ter Zzrr Topo,. 149.
on the Makhna Plain, not the Gilgal suggested in 3
2 In tiis connection it is interesting that the place-name
Ashkaf (ik, cliffs of) Jiljal occurs at Ramman 33 m. E. of of that article.' G. A. S.
Bethel (PEP Name Lists, p. 225, sheet xiv.).
1 Besides the modern place-names mentioned above the only
1731
read 'king of the nations of Galilee' (see GALILEE
I). The king however is mentioned between the kings .f
1732