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

ZEEB ZELOPHEHAD 

southern Hamath or Maacath (see RIBLAH). It was a futile 

attempt ; flushed by victory the Cushite invaders returned, and 

on the ninth day of the fourth month of Zedekiah’s eleventh 

year, the city was taken. Zedekiah and his most faithful 

warriors took to flight. He was caught, however, and brought 

to Riblah. There his sons were put to death before his eyes ; 

he himself was blinded (cp Ezek. 12 I$, and carried in chains to 

the city of his foes.1 How Ezekiel regarded his fate, we know 

from a fiery denunciation (Ezek. 21 25 [self.‘). Cp ISRAEL, 

$8 4rf.’, JEREMIAH, $2. 

2. b. Chenaanah, a leading prophet among those 

consulted by Ahab as to the success of his proposed 

expedition against Ramoth-gilead. By means of iron 

horns the prophet symbolically announced that Yahw& 

would grant Ahab successive victories over Aram. The 

dispute with MICAIAH (4.v. ) is told in I K. 22 1 1 8 

(n.pir), z Ch. 18108 The passage not only throws 

light on the differences among the prophets, but also is 

important for the question of the origin of the prophethood. 

See PROPHET, $ 7, where it is maintained that the original 

nGWinr came from N. Arabia and that the Aramaeans with whom 

Israel contended wore, mainiy at any rate, those of the southern 

Aram-Le., the Jeralpneelite border-land. For ‘Ben Chenaanah 

we should probably read Ben Keyizzi’; cp ‘Elisha, hen 

Shaphat ’-~, Shebaniah. T. K. C. 

ZEEB (Ifc!), Judg. 725 See OREB. 

Moses, Eleazar, the princes, and all the congregation 

with a petition to he allowed to receive an inheritance 

as representing their father,4 who died in the wilderness, 

and had no sons. 4 favourable answer was given 

(vu. 7-11) ; but the decision was supplemented later 

(Nu. 56) by an order that heiresses should marry within 

their own tribe. Accordingly Zelophehads daughters 

are said to have married their father’s brothers’ sons. 

That P had access to old lists, is undeniable ; hut he 

not unfrequently represents corrupt forms of the same 

name as independent members of genealogies. It is 

therefore not impossible that in the list of six, formed 

by Zelophehad and his daughters, the same name in 

ZELBH (hy &%‘), a city of Benjamin, grouped by 

P (see TARALAH, KIRJATH-JEARIM) with ‘the Jebusite, 

the same is Jerusalem,’ and Gibeah or Kirjath (Josh. 

1828 ; om. B, CHAA[A], CEAA [L]), also referred to as 

containing the sepulchre of Kish (z S. 21 14 ; EN TH 

rrhaypb, [BAL], RV here %la). 

We cannot avoid utilising the results of our criticism of the 

text. In the list of cities of Benjamin (as well as in some of the 

accompanying tribal lists) there seems to have been serious 

geographical confusion. The Gibeonite cities for instance- 

Gibeon, Beeroth (from Rehoboth), Chephirah (a doublet to 

Beeroth), and Kirjath-jearim (as later inquiry suggests, Kirjathjerahmee1)-were 

originally represented as in the Negeb. So 

too the Zela of Josh. 18 28 was probably in the Negeb. It is, 

however, hardly possible to transfer the family of Saul from the 

territory usually known as Benjamite to the Negeh ; the relations 

between Saul and David forbid this. Some of the names of the 

Negeb, however, appear to have been carried northward by the 

clans when they left the Negeb. This may well have been the 

case with Zela, or rather-the name, like so many other names 

in Josh.18 and in the story of Saul’s personal history, being 

evidently corrupt-Shalisha. See LAISHAH, and SAUL, S 4, 

where it is pointed out that, according to what is supposed to 

be the true text of I S. 31 11-13, the bones of Saul and Jonathan 

were brought by the men of Beth-gilgal (in Benjamin) to the 

sacred tree at Beth-gilgal, and there buried. From I S. 25 44 it 

appears that Laish or rather Shalishah, was either identical 

with, or near, Beth-&gal (see GFLLIM, LAISHAH, PALTI). The 

same name seems to underlie [Bar-lzillai’ in 2 S.1727 (see 

MEPHIBOSHETH, g z), 21 8 (see MERAB), and should be restored 

in Josh. 18 28, 2 S. 21 14. Cp ZELRK. 

Some (eg., Petrie) identify the Zelah (Scla‘) of Josh. with the 

Zilu of the Amarna Tablets (181 41 45), a place which, like 

Lacbisb, threw off the Egyptian authority. T. K. C. 

ZELEK (p)?), an Ammonite, one of David’s heroes 

(2 S. 23 37 [361, ~ A c L [Bl, ~ o@Acyr [AI, b a[plpav[rlhq [BAI, 

uahd 6 avap [L]; I Ch. 11 39, urAq [BN], UfhAqK [AL], 

6 appw[elr [BA], . . . -erp [N], b appavr [Ll). 

1 Josephus cleverly works out the narrative (Ant. x. 8 2). 

different forms may occur several times. There is 

plausibility in the view that the name which underlies 

Zelophehad, Mahlah, and Milcah is Salhad, which, as 

has been shown elsewhere (GALEED, I), may underlie 

Sahadutha in Gen.3147, and appears in Dt.310 and 

elsewhere as SALEC.~H (q.v.). It is indeed probable 

that in one form of the patriarchal story Haurxn was 

much referred to (cp HARAN). The objection that 

Salhad was on the E. side of the Jordan, whereas it 

appears that P did not recognise Manasseh as havinginheritances 

in Gilead,5 is not as important as it seems, 

for the tradition that Zelophehad was ‘son of Hepher. 

son of Gilead,‘ cannot be annulled by bracketing ‘ son 

of Gilead,’ etc., in Josh. 173. In determining the sense 

of Zelophehad and the other names, we cannot ignore 

the asserted connection of Zelophehad with Gilead.6 

But further inquiry seems to be bringing out these 

results-that the school of writers represented by P 

had access to lists in which several tribes, including 

Manasseh, were located in the Negeb, that Og’s 

traditional kingdom was, not in Bashan, but in Cushan, 

and hence that Salecah is not the original name in 

Dt. 3 IO, etc., but some Negeb name such as Halusah. 

This being the case, the name of Machir’s sister &n;r- 

(HAMMOLECHETH) will be miswritten, not for Salecah, but for 

JerahmeeQith], and those of her sons Ishhod (cp HODESH). and 

Mahlah will stand for Ashhur and Jerahmeel respectively. So, 

too, of the five daughters of Zelophebd, the first, the fourth, 

1 PELETH (P.v.) in I Ch.233 is a ‘son’ of Jerahmeel--Le.. 

Zarephath was the centre of a subdivision of the Jerahmeelites. 

2 For another suggestion see MANASSEH i, 5 g [i.]. 

3 On the analysis of Josh. 17 1-6 see Oxy Hex. 2 17 : Steuerna 

el HKJosk. 217. Kuenen TA.T 114x7 

$$his passage is hconsisteht with Josh. 176, which implies. 

that each of Zelophehad’s daughters received a ‘part.’ 

6 This is SteuernagePs view (HKJosh. 215, foot). 

6 Cp MANASSEH i., $35 5, 9. 

5399 

5400

and possiblythe third wiil represent Jerahmeel, thefifrh(Tirzah) 

will come from Zarephath the second (Noah) from some form of 

Manahnth (b. Shobal), ;aLd Zelophehad will presumably he a 

compound of two ethnic or tribal names, and since these names 

have to be Negeh names, the most probable explanation of the 

name is Ishmael-hadad (cp 15s with 1 5 [SHELEPH], ~ and 7551 

[ZILPAH], which almost certainly come from ixynw). Hadad 

appears in Gen. 25 I j a:. the eighth son of Ishmael. Hepher 

and Gilead, with which Zelophehnd is also genealogically 

connected are Negeb names.1 

The nlianing of the statement that Zelophehad had five 

daughters of course is that there were five minor clans de- 

pendent oh the great central clan called Zalp-had, or Ishmael- 

hadad. T. K. C. 

(9.v. 1. 

ZEL~T~s 

(ZHhWTHC), L~, 615 AV, RV 

ZELZAH (&y), I S, lo 2. See 

SEPULCHRE. 

ZEWAIM (2*,3?! ; see Kittel, SBOT, Heb., on 

Ch.134v and On lermination see 5 1°7)’ 

. _. . 

[AI, aal*aperl* [LI). 

2. ’The name of a mountain ‘in the hill-country of 

Ephraim,’ from the top of which ABIJAH delivered an 

address to Jerobonm and the Israelitish army (z Ch. 

134 ; uo,uopwv [BAL], uapapwv [Niese], or utpapwv 

[Naber], Jos. Ant. viii. 11 z = 274). See Bertheau. 

Both I and z suggest most interesting problems. 

Conder (PEP, 187:7. p. 26), following Van de Velde 

and Robinson, identifies I. with the ruin es-Samra, 

2-3 m. W. from the Jordan and 15-16 m. in a direct line 

E. from Bethel, and points out that there are two ruins 

close together bearing the same name (Samra). Buhl 

(PnL 180) inclines to accept this combination. Those, 

however, who take this line mnst, at any rate, separate 

the city from the mountain called Zemaraim, for a 

situation overlooking the Jordan valley will hardly suit 

the Chronicler’s narrative ; v. 19 suggests that the spot 

was not far from Bethel. The matter needs reconsideration. 

We have now to indicate the new position of the questions 

resulting from our criticism of the text, and first of that relating 

to 2. We have seen (JEIIOBOAM, T ; REHOBOAM ; SHECHEM ; 

SHILOH) that the scene of the narratives respecting Jeroboam 

and Rehoboam (and of course Abijah) was placed by the original 

writers in the Negeb, the possession of which was coveted both 

by Jeroboam and by Rehoboam, as well as by the Jerahmeelites, 

because it was the ‘ HoTy Land’ of Israel and of Jerahmeel, 

containing the most ancient sacred spots of both sections 0; 

Israel and of the closely related people of Jerahmeel. ‘ Epbraim 

is as much a sonthern as a northern name, and, whatever be its 

origin (cp REPHAIM), is a syiionym of ‘ Jerahmeel.’ At the 

resent time, Bethel (perhaps=Dan-i.e., Hain$ah, see Luz ; 

F ROPHET, 8 IO; SHECHEM), Jeshanah (perhaps misread for 

Dljd, the southern Shunem, cp SHEN, SHUNEM), and Ephron 

(probably near the place miscalled Shechem, but really named 

Cu5ham-jerahmeel, see SHECHEM, z ; MACHPELAH), were in the 

hands of Jeroboam. According to the Chronicler (2 Ch. 13 IS), 

Rehoboam took these cities from Jeroboam. 

Turning now to I, we! have seen that P, as a geographer, 

often works on lists which properly belong to an ancient 

geographical survey of the Negeb. This is the case, not only 

with the name-lists of Judah, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali. 

but also with that of Benjamin (cp ZELA). The names Jericho, 

Beth-hoglah, and Emek-keziz in Josh. 18 21 probably come from 

Jerahmeel, Beth-meholah (=Beth-jerahmeel), and Maacath- 

cush, places in the Negeb ; whilst the Beth-arabah and Zemaraim 

in u. 22 probably come from Beth-‘arab and Simrim or Simr2.m. 

To say where these places stood, except that one of them is 

presumably REHOBOTH (q.v.), is beyond our power. It is 

possible (though Gen. 10 18 confirms sm) that har->imrim is the 

same as har-Eimron in Am. 3 g(?) 4 I 6 T .(see PROPHET, I 35 ; 

SHINIRON). Perhaps Simron was in the hands of Abijah 

(according to the Chronicler’s authority) and Jeroboam had 

come with the object of besieging it. Thdre is, at any rate, no 

reason whv I. and 2. should not be identified. CD ZEMARITE. 

T. K. C. 

ZEMARITE (’?Q!l), Gen. 1018 I Ch. 116. See 

GEOGRAPHY, 8 16, 4. 

1 For the southern Gilead cp RAMOTH-GILEAD, and Cn’f. 

Bi6. on Jer. 8 22. 

cap. [A], capapra [Ll), b. Becher in a genealogy of BENJAMIN 

(q.v., 8 9, ii. a), I Ch. 7 8, cp Zlhtxl (S 36). 

ENAN (Ip), place (as the text stands) in the 

SHEPHELAH, mentioned with Hadashah and Migdalgad 

(CENNA [B], -M [A], CENAM [L]). Josh. 1537T; 

presumably identical with the ZAANAN (la?’%) of Mic. 

111 (CAiNhN [Aid. and Some MSS], CENNAN [some 

MSS, Syro-Hex.], CISNNAAP [Ba,bAQ*],-~~~ [Val). 

The probability is, however, that there is a mistake, and that 

neither the Zenan of Joshua nor the Zaanan of Micah was in 

1 the ShZphSlah. As in the case of other lists of tribal placenames, 

P seems to have been indebted in Josh. 15 338 to lists 

of place-names belonging to different parts of the Negeb (see 

’ 

WARS OF THE LORD 

[BOOK OF]). Among the names which, 

critically considered, are specially favourable to this view, are 

Eshtaol, Zorah, En-gannim, Tappuah, Jarmuth, Adullam, 

bocob, Mizpeh, Joktheel, Lachish, and we may now add Zenan, 

Hadashah, and Migdal-gad, which are grouped together in 

7,. 37. That Zenan may be presumed to be identical with the 

Zaanan of Micah, is obvious. Now, if Mic. 1 he criticised in 

combination with other prophecies relative to an invasion of 

Judah, it will appear that the invaders are more probably 

.. 

those which suffer from the invasion is, not PlDW (Samaria), 

but Pl?? (SHIMRON) in the Negeb. See PROPHET, $ 38. 

ijxs will therefore presumably he=jyr (Zoan), and is (Zin), 

both of which forms appear to have been connected geo- 

graphically with the famous Kadesh (cp PARADISE, $3 6; 

SODOM). The original form, therefore, of the names in Josh. 

15 37 was not improbably ‘Zoan, Kadesh, Jerahmeel-gad [or 

simply Jerahmeel1,’and in Mic. 111, besides Shaphir (Sbamir?), 

and Beth-ezel-the latter of which is clearly a Negeb name-we 

may recognise Jerahmeel (I& nw>-n*,y= $~oni. nw*) and 

Zoan. It IS probable, however, that Zoan or Zaanan (Zenan), 

like ZIN (q.n.), comes from the widely-spread race-name Ishmael 

through the intermediate form Zibeon (iiyir). See ZIBEON, 

and cp Crif. Bi6. T. K. C. 

ZENAS (ZH NAC [Ti. WH], abbrev. from Zenodorus ; 

cp ARTEMAS, OLYMPAS, and NAMES. 5.86. end), a 

lawyer (YO~IKOS), is thus alluded to in Tit. 313 : ‘ Be 

zealous in helping Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on 

their way, that they want for nothing.’ Whether he 

was a Jewish lawyer or a Roman jurisconsult is uncertain; 

but the non-Hebrew name and the short 

criticism of VOW~KO~ in Tit. 39 (cp Zahn, EinZ. 1435) 

make for the latter, and the association with Apollos 

suggests that he was possibly of Alexandrian origin. 

In the lists of the ‘seventy’ compiled by the Pseudo-Dorotheus 

and Pseudo-Hippolytus he is made bkhop of Diospolis, and 

he is mentioned in Menrea of the Greek church as author of 

the (no longer extant) Acts of Tzlus. 

ZEPHANIAH (??DY, ‘whom Yahwb hides,’ or 

a defends,’ § 30, to which add the references CIS i. 1207, 

etc. ; Lidzbarski, Hand& 359[cp also below, 

1. Name 

and date. 2~41; CO@ONlAC). I. Son Of Cushi, the 

ninth, according to the order of his book, 

among the twelve minor prophets, flourished in the reign 

of Josiah of Judah, and apparently before the great 

reformation in the eighteenth year of that king (621 

B. c. ). For various forms of idolatry pnt down in that 

year (z K. 234J m) are spoken of by Zephaniah as still 

prevalent in Judah (1 4J ), and are specified in such a 

connection as to imply that they were not the secret sins 

of individuals, but held the first place among the national 

backslidings that could, as the prophet teaches, be re- 

moved only by a sweeping judgment on the state. Of 

the person of Zephaniah nothing is known ; but inas- 

much as his genealogy, contrary to the usual practice in 

the case of the prophets (see Is. 1 I Jer. 1 I Ezek. 13 Hos. 

1 I Joel 1 I) is carried back four generations, it has been 

conjectured that his great-great-grandfather Hezekiah 

(11) is the king of that name, and if so he will have 

belonged to the highest class of Jud;ean society. 

The genuineness and integrity of the short prophecy 

ascribed to Zephaniah do not seem to be open to reason- 

2. able doubt. Stade (GZ1644) sus- 

and integrity. pects (on account of the ideas 

expressed in them) 21-3 II and 3 ; 

and it is true, if 3 were a distinct oracie, there would be 

5401 5402

ZEPHANIAH ZEPHANIAH 

no cogent reason to ascribe it to the author of the two 

chapters that precede; for the book of the minor 

prophets is made up of short pieces, some bearing a 

name and some anonymous, and it is only old usage 

that ascribes the anonymous pieces to the last preceding 

prophet whose name is prefixed to his prophecy. But, 

though the sequence of thought in the book of Zephaniah 

is not so smooth as a western reader may desire, a 

single leading motive runs through the whole, and the 

first two chapters would be incomplete without the 

third, which, moreover, is certainly pre-exilic (vu. 1.4) 

and presents specific points of contact with what pre- 

cedes as well as a general agreement in style and idea 

[see further § 61. 

The prophecy may be divided into three parts : (i. ) 

3, Outline of the menace (1); (ii.) the admonition 

(21-37); (iii.) the promise (38-20). 

'Ontent** The dommnatinKmotive of the whole is the 

approach of a sweeping and world-Gide judgment, which the 

prophet announces as near at hand. and interprets, on the lines 

laid down by Isaiah in his prophecies about Israel and Assyria, 

as designed to destroy the wicked and prepare the way for the 

visible sovereignty of the righteous God of Israel (1 zf: 7 14-18). 

As regards Judah, which forms the subject of the first and third 

chapters, the effect of the judgment will be to sift out the idolaters 

the men of violence and wrong, the false prophets and profan; 

priests, the hardened men of the world to whom all religion is 

alike ('the men that are thickened on their lees,' 1 IS), and who 

deem that Yahwh will do neither good nor evil (1 4 6 Sf: 12 3 3Jr). 

The men who seek meekness and righteousness will he left a 

poor and lowly people, trusting in YahwFs name and eschew&g 

falsehood (23 3 12). To them a future of gladness is reserved 

a peaceful life under Yahws's immediate kingship and lovini 

protection (3 13-17). Such an ideal necessarily implies that they 

shall no longer he threatened hy hostility from without, and this 

condition is satisfied by the prophet's view of the effect of the 

iinpending judgment on the ancient enemies of his nation. The 

destruction of the Philistines on the W. and of Moah and 

Ammon on the E. (24-10) will enable the Hebrews to extend 

their settlements from the Mediterranean to the Syrian desert ; 

and their remoter oppressors, the Ethiopians and the Assyrians, 

shall also perish (2 12-15). That Ethiopia appears instead of 

Egypt is in accordance with the conditions of the time. It was 

with Ethiopic dynasts holding sway in Egypt that Assyria bad 

to contend during the seventh century B.c., when the etty 

kingdoms of Palestine were so often crushed between the colfsion 

of the two great powers, and even Psammetichus, the contem- 

porary of Josiah, and the restorer of a truly Egyptian kingdom, 

was nominally the heir of the great Ethiopian sovereigns. 

Zephaniah's conceptions are closely modelled on the 

scheme of YahwP's righteous purpose worked out by 

*' 

Isaiah a century before, when Judah first 

felt the weight of the Assyrian rod ; and 

judgment' they afford the most conclusive evidence 

of the depth and permanence of that great prophet's 

influence. Rut in one point there is an important 

divergence. In Isaiah's view, Assyria is the rod of 

God's anger; and, when the work of judgment is 

complete, and YahwP returns to the remnant of his 

people, the theodicea is completed by the fall of the 

unconscious instrument of the divine decrees before 

the inviolable walls of the holy mountain. Zephaniah, 

in like manner, looks to an all-conquering nation as 

the instrument of divine judgment on Judah and the 

rest of the known world. He represents the day 

of Yahwk, according to the old meaning of that phrase 

(WRS. P~oph.(~) 397f:). as a day of battle (not an 

assize day) ; he speaks of the guests invited to YahwB's 

sacrifice (ie., to a great slaughter), of alarm against 

fenced cities, of blood poured out as dust, of pillage 

and desolation at the hand of an enemy (17 13 16-18). 

Beyond this, however, all is vague; we hear neither 

who the sword of YahwP (212) is, nor what is to 

become of him when his work is completed. Isaiah's 

construction has in all its parts a definite reference 

to present political facts, and is worked out to a 

complete conclusion : Zephaniah borrows the ideas of 

his predecessor without attaining to his clearness of 

political conception, and so his picture is incomplete. 

The foreign conqueror, by whom Judah is to be chastised 

and Nineveh and Ethiopia destroyed, is brought 

on to the stage, but never taken off it. It is safe to 

conclude that the principal actor in the prophetic 

5403 

drama, who is thus strangely forgotten at the last, was 

not as real and prominent a figure in Zephaniah's 

political horizon as Assyria was in the horizou of Isaiah. 

At the same time, it is reasonable to think that so com- 

plete a reproduction of Isaiah's ideas in the picture of a 

new world-judgment was not formed without some 

stimulus from without; and this stimulus has been found, 

with much plausibility, in the Scythian invasion of 

western Asia, to which some of Jeremiah's earlier 

prophecies (as 5 15-17 6 1-6 22-25) also appear to refer 

(see ISRAEL, 39, col. 2246). 

Be that as it may, the comparison between Isaiah 

and Zephaniah affords an instructive example of the 

5. Contrast difference between original and repro- 

with Isaiah. ductive prophecy. All the prophets 

have certain fundamental ideas in com- 

mon, and each has learned something from his pre- 

decessors. If Zephaniah draws from Isaiah, Isaiah 

himself drew from Amos and Hosea. Isaiah, however, 

goes to his predecessors for general principles, and 

shapes the application of these principles to the con- 

ditions of his own time in a manner altogether fresh 

and independent. Zephaniah, on the other hand, goes 

to his predecessor for details; he does not clearly 

distinguish between the form and the substance of the 

prophetic ideas, and looks for a final consummation of 

the divine purpose, not only in accordance with the 

principles of Isaiah, but on the very lines wrhich that 

prophet had laid down. These lines, however, were 

drawn on the assumption that the Assyrian judgment 

was final and would be directly followed by the reign of 

righteousness. The assumption was not justified by 

the event ; the deliverance and reformation were incom- 

plete, and the inbringing of the reign of righteousness 

was again deferred. Zephaniah sees this, but fails to 

draw the true inference. He postulates a new crisis in 

history similar to the Assyrian crisis of which Isaiah 

wrote, and assumes that it will run such a course as to 

fulfil Isaiah's unfulfilled predictions. But the move- 

ments of history do not repeat themselves: and the 

workings of God's righteous providence take fresh shape 

in each new scene of the world's life, so that a prediction 

not fulfilled under the conditions for which it was given 

can never again be fulfilled in detaiZ. As it is an 

essential feature of prophecy that all ideas are not only 

presented but thought out in concrete form, and with 

reference to present historical conditions, the distinction 

between the temporary form and the permanent religious 

truth embodied in that form is also essential. The 

tendency to confound the two-to ascribe absolute truth 

to what is mere embodiment, and therefore to regard 

unfulfilled predictions as simply deferred, even where 

the form of the prediction is obviously dependent on 

mere temporary conditions of the prophet's own time- 

gained ground from the time of Zephaniah onwards, 

and culminated in the Apocalyptic literature. As it 

grew, the eternal ideas of the great prophets fell into 

the background, and were at length entirely lost in the 

crass Jewish conception of a Messianic age, which is 

little more than an apotheosis of national particularism 

and self-righteousness. 

Zephaniah's eschatology is not open to this charge : 

with him, as with Isaiah, the doctrine of the salvation of 

the remnant of Israel is inspired by spiritual convictions 

and instinct with ethical force. The emphasis still lies 

(311-13) on the moral idea of the remnant, not on the 

physical conception Israel. He does not yield to Amos 

or Isaiah in the courage with which he denounces sin 

in high places, and he is akin to Hosed in his firm hold 

of the principle that the divine governance is rooted not 

only in righteousness but in love, and that the triumph 

of love is the end of YahwB's working (3 17). Yet even 

here we see the difference between the first and the srcond 

generation of prophecy. The persuasion to which 

Hosea attains only through an intense inward struggle, 

which lends a peculiar pathos to his book, appears in 

5404


Zephaniah, as it were, ready made. There is no mental 

conflict before he can pass through the anticipation of 

devastating judgment to the assurance of the victory of 

divine love ; and the sharp transitions that characterise 

the book are not, as with Hosea, due to sudden revulsion 

of feeling, but only mark the passage to some new topic 

in the circle of received prophetic truth. 

The finest thing in the book-in spite of certain 

obscurities, which m,ay be partly due to corruptions of 

the text-is the closing passage ; but the description of 

the day of Yahwk, the dies ire dies iila of 115, which 

furnishes the text of the most striking of medizval 

hymns, has perhaps taken firmer hold of the religious 

inmgination. Least satisfactory is the treatment of the 

judpent on heathen nations, and of their subsequent 

conversion to Ynhd (38.10). In the scheme of Isaiah 

it is made clear that the fall of the power that shatters 

the nations cannot fail to be recognised as Yahwk's 

work, for Assyria falls Sefuore YerusaZem as soon as it 

seeks to go beyond the limits of the divine commission, 

and thus the doctrine ' With us is God' is openly 

vindicated before the nations. Zephaniah, on the other 

hand, assumes that the convulsions of history are 

Yahwe's work, and specially designed for the instruction 

and amendment of Israel (36J), and neglects to show 

how this conviction, which he himself derives from 

Isaiah, is to be brought home by the coming judgment 

to the heart of heathen nations. Their own gods, 

indeed, will prove helpless (211) ; but that is not 

enough to turn their eyes toward Yahwk. Here, therefore, 

there is in his eschatology a sensible lacuna, from 

which Isaiah's construction is free, and a commencement 

of the tendency to look at things from a merely 

Israelite standpoint, which is so notable a feature of 

the later Apocalyptic. 

W. R. S. 

It has seemed best to the present writer to leave the 

preceding interesting and suggestive article substantially 

as it stood in 1888 ; and to append in a supplenient 

such additions as seem to be now required. 

The integrity of the prophecy has been much more 

seriously questioned than it was in 1888. 

Kuenen ($ 78, 5-8) in 1889, whilst defending 

6. %Cent 21-3 11 against Stade, allowed-on account, 

criticism. chiefly, of the great contrast between the denunciation 

of 121 31-7 and the promises of 

3 14-20 -that 3 14-20 was a supplement, dating rohably 

from shortly after the restoration in B.C. 536. &hwally 

(ZA TW, 1890, 218 8, 238 240) ascribes to Zephaniah only 

12 13-rj, and possibly 2 1-4 (doubting this passage on account 

of 13y and 713y 2 3) ; 25-13 he treats as exilic (chiefly on 

account of the ' remnant ' 2 7 9), and 3 as post-exilic : the 'single 

leading motive' appealed to above by Robertson Smith, he 

considers to be evidence only of unity of redaction, not of 

unity of author. Wellhausen (1892, (311698) is suspkious of 

2 3, and rejects 27a,c, 8-11 ; he treats 3 as an append~x, added 

subsequently in two slages first 3 1-7 (cp Mic. 7 1-6), and then 

3 8-20 (cp Mic. 7 7-z0:+-3 i-20 being separated from 3 1-7, on 

account of the sudden change of tone and subject, consolations 

and promises following immediately upon censure and rebuke, 

and the heathen not the Jews, being threatened with punishment. 

Budde (St. Ki. 1893, pp. 3933) would admit 2 1-3 3 1-5 7 86 

[in this order] xi-13 as in harmony with the pre-exilic period, 

and a suitable sequel to 1 ; 2 4-1 j he rejects, as inconsistent with 

1 (Israel no longer, as in 1, the perpetrator of wrong, but the 

victim of wrong, which is now [a. 9 end] to be avenged) ; 3 gf: 

is excluded as breaking the connection betwen 38 and 3 Ir . 

and 3 rq-zo is alater lyrical epilogue to 3 11-r3. Cornill(Eid.,d 

1896, F, 35,3)agrees with Budde. Davidson(r896) defends(998) 

2 as a whole admitting only that 2 4-15 may in parts have been 

expanded (the Kina-rhythm seems intended to predominate in 

these verses ; but in some places, especially 2 5 7, it can be 

restored only by considerable textual alterations and 78-11 do 

not conform to it at all) ; in 3 he feels doubtful dnly about 3 IO 

(which is textually obscure and uncertain) and about the 'ex- 

tremely beautiful passage' 3 14-20, which seems to him to spring 

from a time when the judgments have already fallen upon 

Israel (u. IS), and by its jubilant tone contrasts strangely 

with the dark picture 3f guilt 3 1.3 7 and even with the more 

sombre hopeiof 3 11-I:,. Nowack(Id97) inlagrees closely with 

Wellhausen, only rejecting 2 15 as well as 2 T a,c 8-11 ; in 3, how- 

ever, he rejects only (like Budde) 39f: in addition to 3 14-20. 

G. A. Smith (1898) accepts (242-45) the whole of 2 except 28-11 ; 

in 3 he regards 3 9f: as 'obviously a later insertion,' and 3 14-20 

as clearly an epilogue


structed himself. Undoubtedly the terms of vv. 18-20 found in Isaiah in other connections (e.g. 5 26-30). The 

presuppose exile, whilst m. 11-13 suggest nothing more great and abiding religious value of the hook consists in 

than the purification of Judah in its own home ; but the profoundly earnest moral tone which pervades it, 

both exile, and riastoration from exile, are contemplated and in the prophet’s deep sense of the sin of his people, 

by Jeremiah, and Zephaniah might have added the and of the stern need which impels Yahwk, who would 

closing verses of his book many years after 311-13 was only too gladly rejoice over his people, if it would 

written, at a time when exile was seen more clearly to be 

looming in the future. It is, however, true that 3 18-20 

is more open to suspicion than 3 14-17, A final decision 

permit him to do so (317), to visit it with a discipline 

such as will purge away its unworthy members. 

Zephaniah’s gospel has been described as ‘ simple and 

on the entire question will hardly be arrived at on the austere.’ It is true, he goes back to and insists with 

basis of Zephaniah alone : it will depend on the con- pathetic eloquence ou the most primary and rudiclusion 

formed by the critic on passages of similar im- mentary of religious duties, earnestness and sincerity of 

port found in many of the other prophets (cp Introd.(’) 

229J “73 306f. 318 330 334 ; and Cheyne, Pref. to 

life, justice and integrity, humility and a simple trust in 

God. ‘A thorough purgation, the removal of the 

WRS, Proph. (‘4 xvj? ). 

wicked, the sparing of the honest and the meek ; in- 

The text of Zephaniah, while on’ the whole well preserved, 

is in several passages open to grave suspicion, 

,. Text. and in some unquestionably corrupt. Many 

sistence only upon the rudiments of morality and 

religion : faith in its simplest form of trust in a 

righteous God, and character in its basal elements 

of these have, however, been corrected, 

especially by Wellhausen, chiefly on the basis of 6. 

of meekness and truth-these alone survive the judgment‘ 

(GASm., 71). He does not, as other prophets 

A full discussion of the text belongs to a commentary (see esp. 

We., Now., and GASm.); but a few of‘the more notable 

passages may he briefly noticed here : 13 and the stumbling 

blocks with the wicked,’ is incongruous 4th the context, and 

prob. (We. Now.) alate gloss ; 156 omit proh. O’@!: and the 

) after nlZ.5 (reading then, ‘and the worshippers of YahwS, 

who swear by their king’ [‘ Molech’]); 2 I lli3; rdtisn? (Che. 

Bu.) ‘ get you shame, and be ye ashamed, 0 natian unabashed,’ 

is on the whole most proh. (Wfip means ‘to gather stubble ’) ; 

22 for the first two clauses (to chax) read with Wellhause; 

(nearly as B) ‘ before ye become as chaf fhaf passefh away 

(my f‘bg V~?-fi7 Om?); 26a read probably (63 We.) ‘and 

ChgrEth ‘shail be an habitation for shepherds ’ (723 n?.? 3C):l 

o*pi : ‘ with cottages ’-or even ‘with caves ‘-‘for is an impossible 

rendering of the existing Heb.) ; 2 7 read (@ We.) ‘ and 

the coast offhe sea (o>? \m), and (We.) ‘by the sea’ for ‘thereupon’ 

@>? for O&); 2 TI at least n:?, ‘make lean’ (cp 

Is 10 16 17 4, though the word is here strange) for ; 2 14 

+in+? cannot be right (‘all the beasts of the nations’ is no 

translationof it) : then for $p ‘(their)voice’ readprobahly(We.) 

ob, ‘the owl’ (Ps. 102 7), and for 3ln, ‘desolation,’ 3lL, ‘the 

raven ’ (65 Ew. We. : cp Is. 34 TI) ; 3 3 944 (‘leave,’ lit. cut of, 

hence reserve(?); or ‘gnaw thebones,’denom. from 07:) is very 

suspicious ; 3 7 read with @ We., for ‘so . . . concerning her,’ 

‘and all that I have commanded her shall never he cut off from 

her eyes’ (only ?’?’E for ”LF); 38 for le!, ‘to the prey’ 

read prob., with B Pesh., Hitz., Bu., We., Now., GASm, 

le), ‘for a witness ’ ; 3 IO ’XIB np ‘?g (‘my suppliants, the 

daughter of my dispersed ’ ?) is extremely suspicious ; 3 15 read, 

with @ Pesh. and nearlyall moderns, ’Nln, ‘ see,’for ’NTp ‘fear’; 

3 17 Bubl (ZA TW, 1885, p. 183) for d’?i7: proposes plausibly 

ds;, ‘will rettew (Ew. 5 282 .I) his love ’ ; 3 raa ‘for ’ (RV) is 

less probable than ‘ away from ’ ; 3 I& is suspiciou:, though the 

clause might be rendered (better than in RV), upon whom 

[referring to ‘thee’] reproach is a burden’; 320 ‘and at that 

time I will gather thee’ yields an excellent sense, hut it cannot 

be extracted from the existing text. 

As has been remarked already (§§ 3-5), Zephaniah, in 

his .prophetic ideals, follows largely in the steps of 

With Zephaniah as with Isaiah, 

8. Religious Isaiah. 

the central idea is that of ajudgment, 

teaching. 

to be executed by YahwB upon Judah, 

which will sweep away from it the proud, the religiously 

indifferent, the scoffers, the men who abuse their 

privileges and their position (33,C), and the impenitent, 

who will not listen to ‘correction’ (3~7j, but 

which will leave behind a meek and pions ‘remnant,’ 

who trust simplyin theirGod (23 312,C; cp Is. 1432, and 

contrast Is. 2 II 12 17: Zephaniah, it is to be noted, 

emphasises more strongly than Isaiah does the particular 

virtues of ‘meekness’ and ‘humility’). With Zephaniah, 

comnionly do, call the wicked to repent, or dwell upon 

the divine grace which is ever ready to forgive the 

penitent : it may be that the doom seemed to him to be 

too imminent ; the time for pleading was past : there 

remained only the separation of the evil from the good. 

But he recognises and teaches clearly the moral qualities 

which have a value in YahwXs eyes, and will not be 

swept away when the judgment comes (cp Is. 3314-16). 

Another point which is worthy of notice is Zephaniahs 

comprehensive view of history. YahwB’s hand guides 

the movement of the nations ; and by them he accomplishes 

his purposes of discipline, purgation, and salvation 

(cp Is. 1058). His ultimate purpose is that 

notonly Israel (31r-r3), but also the nations (2116 393, 

--whether these verses be Zephaniah’s or not), shall 

become the loyal and faithful servants of God. 

Ewald Pro#hefs 3 14s . the Commentaries on the Minor 

Prophet: in general (Hitz’ Keil, Pusey, Wellh., Nowack 

GASm.) :’A. B. Davidson in the Cam6. Bid 

9. Literature. (1896); Duhm, TheoZ. der Proph. (1875) 

pp. 222-5; Kirkpatrick, Doctr. of fd 

Prophets, z53fl ; J. A. Selbie’s art. in Hastings’ DB; and the 

discussions of Kuenen, Schwally, etc., which have been alread 

mentioned. An apocryphal prophecy ascribed to Zephaniag 

(‘And the spirit took me, and carried me up into the fifth 

heaven, and I saw angels called lords,’ etc.) is quoted by Clem. 

Alex. Strom. 5 TI, f 77 ; some other fragments reserved in a 

Coptic version, have also been discovered and p;%lished lately : 

see APOCRYPHA, 5 21, Schiirer, TLZ, 189 , col. 8 (who agrees 

that Steindorff‘s ‘unknown’ Apoc. is rozably that of Zeph.), 

G/Y(3) 32713 [See also PROPHETIC EITERATURE, f 40, and 

SCYTHIANS 5 6, on Zephaniah and Jeremiah, with reference to 

the prophedies on ‘the Scythians.’] 

w. R. s., $5 1-5, 9 (partly) : 

S. R. D., $$ 6-8, 9 (partly). 

2. A Kohathite (I Ch. 6 21 [36],.ua$avra [BL], -LOU [AI). 

3. 6. MAAsElAH (I), a priest temp. Zedekiah ; Jer. 21 I 29 25 

29 37 3 52 24 (BRA om.) 2 K. 25 18 (UQ~OYL~V [L]). 

4. Father of JOSIAH (2) ’ Zech. 6 IO 14. 

[All these Zephaniahs ’ ’have directly or indirectly a historical 

interest, and even if it be contended that the prophet Zephaniah 

must have given his name a religious interpretation (cp the 

statement in Is. 8 18), and have considered himself a guardian of 

the truth (cp 3 3, though to he sure Schwally and Wellhausen 

question Zephaniah‘s authorship of this passage) that the faithful 

will be protected in the day of Yahwit‘s anger, yet it is at any 

rate conceivable, and if we consider the mass of evidence 

arising from parallel ndmes, even probable, that the ‘ Zephaniahs’ 

in general belonged to families of near or remote Jerahmeelite- 

Le. N Arabian-affinities 1 and the view is capable of being 

def;nd;d that all the names kith which ‘ Zephaniah is combined 

in the OT (passing over Zeph. 1 I, in spite of the suggestion 

Cushi’) are most easily and naturaljy explained as names of the 

Negeb. From this point of view Zephaniah’ (cp Elizaphan 

and SHAPHAN ; also Crit. Bi6. 0,‘ Jer. 20 I) is an expansion of 

Saphan or Saphon, the name of a N. Arabian district-cp 

ZAPHON ; and a parallel to the confusion which may seem to 

have arisen can he found in the name Eliahba (R~*\R), if this 

however, the judgment, more distinctly than in Isaiah 1 It is worth noticing that there is a well-known Israelite gem 

(313), is a world-judgment : it embraces uZZ nations (Brit. Mus., No. 1032), with this legend, )3*39s 13 imnw$, where, 

(1.5 ,38), not only Israel (148). The figure of even if inino be rendered ‘blackish ’ or ‘ brownish’ (so Clermont- 

Yahwk s ‘ Day’ is doubtless suggested by Is. 212 8: Ganneau, PEFQ, 19~2, p. 267), we must at any rate suppose 

that it is a fantastic variation of y;ili=vnp~, so that both 

but the imagery of war and invasion, under which its father and son have names which originally belonged to districts 

approach is pictured (1 14-18), is Zephaniah’s own, though of N. Arabia. 

5407 

54408

ZEPHATH 

is really a modification of $.q~n[y]*, as maintained in Cn?. BB. 

on 2 S. 13 32. This has a distinct bearing on the history of 

Israelite religion. The third Zephaniah held a high office in !he 

temple. In Jer. 2926 he appears as the successor of ‘ the priest 

Jehoiada,’ and as having the right of granting or refusing access 

to the temple. It was held to be his duty to expel prophetic 

enthusiasts ; nevertheless he abstained from hindering Jeremiah. 

In 2 K. 25 18 (and Jer. 52 24 ?)he is represented as second priest 

(iee PRIEST 8 5, end). The fourth Zephaniah was father of a 

certain Josi)ah, into whose house the bearers of rich offerings 

froin 512 entered (temp. Zeruhbabel). See ZEKUDBABEL, and 

cp HEN. T. K. C.] 

EltaAN, 3. 

1 For the final K, cp uu.+eK, I S. 30 29 (B) : mzparScr Nu. 34 R 

In, each case K (of car) follows. 

2 See Bertheau’s commentary hut note the (less probable) 

alternative view offered in Kyle,’Ezra-Neh. 283. 

5409 

ZERAH 

3. b. Reuel [from Jerahmeel?], an Edomite clan (pointing plir Tor q7sJ EV’s ‘duke’), Gen. 36 13 17 [PI, (

ZERAHIAH , 

5411 

ZERUBBABEL 

ZERAHIAH (n;n?T ‘Yahw& has dawned,’ 5 35, cp plained as =$?; Q7T [cp Kon.2481, 1. 21. ‘begotten 

IZRAHIAH unless both these names are modifications of ethnics, 1. Data. in Babylon.’ The name may plausibly be 

see ZERA; and note that the whole body of names in the 

brought into connection with a name found 

genealogical scheme connecting Eleazar b. Aaron with Ezra, 

etc., and the names of Izrahiah‘s five sons in I Ch. 73, and that on two Babylonian contract tablets (marked V. A. Th. 

of Zerahiah‘s son in Ezra 8 4, admit of being regarded as modified 81 and V. A. Th. 143 respectively, in Peiser’s Bnb. 

ethnics [so Che 1 ’ (apara [BAL]). 

Vertruge [1890]), ZER-TIN-TIR-KI, which is usually read 

I. b. Uzzi, faker of Meraioth (I Ch. 66 [532] [(apari,

ZERUBBABEL ZETHAM 

killgdoln under the Davidic prince Zerubbabel. It is 

also held by some that there is evidence of this in the 

OT itself. Zechariah (610) mentions the arrival at 

Jerusalem of four Jews from Babylon, who brought gifts 

of silver and gold. Wellhausen thinks that in Zech. 

611 the text has been deliberately tampered with. The 

crown referred to must surely have been for Zerubbabel. 

This must either hare been expressly stated or implied. 

Wellhausen himself is content with omitting the words 

relative to the high priest, Joshua, as ihserted at a time 

when the high priest was virtually a crowned king ; but 

it may also be held that the name Joshua has displaced 

the name Zerubbabel.1 However this may be, the 

sudden disappearance of Zerubbabel from the theatre of 

political history is remarkable.2 It has been suggested 

that he may have been recalled or even put to death by 

the Persians, and that the attempt of Tattenai (see 

'I'xrxu) the satrap of Syria to stop the building of the 

temple may have some connection with this, or may at 

any rate imply a suspicion of the disloyalty of the Jews. 

Later, we find Sanbnllat professing that there is a report 

that Nehemiah aiiiis at the crow-n (Neh. 67). This 

report was doubtless erroneous ; but it may plausibly be 

supposed to be based on the fact that a Jewish pretender 

had really come forward in the past.3 

For the further development of similar ideas see Sellin, 

SerubdabeI (1898), where it is supposed that Zerubbabel 

is the martyr referred to (many think) in Is. 53, and the 

same writer's Studien ZUY Entstehung.sgesci5. der Yiid. 

(Ameinde nnch denz 6n6. ExiZ, 2 (I~oI), where some 

retractations are ma.de, and the theory is placed on what 

appears to the writer a more secure basis. Sellin still 

holds that Zerubbabel came to a violent end, but no 

longer rests this on Is. 53 or on any other passage of 

the OT. Winckler, however, is bolder. He thinks 

that both Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were set aside 

by acts of the Persian authorities, and that, whilst Sheshbazzar 

was treated gently, Zerubbabel suffered the 

punishment of impalement ; the eulogium of Zerubbabel 

is to be found in Is. 53.* 

Stade(GP712 127 [18?8l)speaksmorevaguely. ' Ifthe supreme 

Persian power heard of the hopes attaching to the Persian 

governor Zeruhbabel, we cannot wonder that it did not accommodate 

itself to the role of a tree undergoing the embrace of ivy.' 

It is possible. however, that these theories need to 

\e revised in the light of a more thorough criticism 

3. a new of the text of the OT narratives. The story 

suggested underlying Ezra, Nehemiah, and the early 

theo~. part of Daniel refers, it may be held, to a 

N. Arabian captivity of the Jews and to a 

subsequent change in their relations to their captors. 

It is unsafe to place any reliance on the proper names 

in their present form. 'niii (for the common explanations 

of which little can be said5) may, like SZ~*N and 

h i , be a corruption (manipulated by the redactor) of 

hyny (Ishmael). This has the advantage of according 

with the theory, which appears to be well snpported, 

that the names given in I Ch. 3 19 to the sons of ' Zerubbabel,' 

beginning with Meshullam (=Ishmael), are all 

1 Solew. Rei. Life, 15, n. Hitzig supposes a mere ordinary 

accident. He would insert the words* 'of Zeruhhabel and of,' 

thus accounting for the plural ' crowns. So also Marti (in Kau. 

HS). 

2 For another view see Guthe, GVI 248 (Darins's division of 

the empire into twenty satrapies, making the post at Jerusalem 

su erfluoos). 

8 So few. Kei. Lif;., 13-16, which was written independently 

of Sellin's Seru66abel (published in the same year 1898). 

See SERVANT OF THE LORD. Winckler's theories, as given 

in A OFand KA T(3J, have passed through several phases. There 

is a convenient summary of his present conclusions in the latter 

work. pp. 291.fi 

5 ' Sown in Bxhylon'surelycannotmean 'begotten in Babylon.' 

Rothstein (Genraiop'e, 65) thinks that the name was given to his 

son by Pedaiah (=Sheshhazzar) tocommemorate the happy turn 

in the fortiines of Israel and that the return of Jewish exiles was 

already as good as certjin when the child called Zeruhhabel was 

horn. Marquart (Fund. 55) however supports the view that 

Zeruhbahel (Zarubabili?) is a)Bahyloni& name. But the name, 

as explained above by Johns does not seem at all a likely one 

to have been selected'for a JLwish governor. 

54'3 

corruptions of gentilics or ethnics belonging to the 

Negeb. That ' Zerubbabel ' was really a descendant of 

David is possible, but by no means certain,' and the 

same may of conrse be said of Sheshbazzar.2 Even that 

they were returned exiles is d~ubtful.~ This is not the 

place to rewrite the history of this period-or rather to 

collect the fragments of its history-from the new point 

of view. But we may at any rate suggest that critics of 

Zechariah may have erred in supposing that the donors 

of the silver and gold mentioned in Zech.698 were 

' Babylonian Jews.' These persons appear rather to 

have been foreigners such as are referred to in Is. 60 13, 

and their gifts are such ninja (' offerings ') as Haggai 

most probably refers to in the famous prophecy in Hag. 

27. It may still, however, be held that the name of 

'Joshua ben Jehozadak' has been substituted for that 

of ' Zerubbabel' (Ishmael?), and the view that a movement 

arose among the Jews in favour of ' Zerubbabel ' 

as Messianic king still appears to have a considerable 

degree of probability. 

Rothstein (Die Genedogie des K8zigs /ojachin IC. seiptetnachkotizmen 

in geschichtl. Geleuchtung, rgoz) assumes the 

present form of the names in I Ch. 3 17-24 to be fairly correct. 

Such an emendation as that of 'Ohel' into ' Jehaiel'(85) isat any 

rate exceptional, and even here the author assumes a view of the 

formation of the name ' Jehaiel' such as the latest editor of 

Chronicles might not have disowned. The theory that 'Zerubbabel' 

was the son of Pedaiah is supported by some new 

histprical hypotheses, the hasis of which, however, needs careful 

testing. T. K. C. 

ZERUIAH (Yl:lly ; Yl:??, 'one who is perfumed 

with storax'? 5 71 ; c&poyl& [BAL]), sister of David 

(I Ch. 216), and mother of JOAB, ABISHAI, and 

ASAHEL. 

So at least the Chronicler represents ; z S. 17 25 will he considered 

presently. It would be strange, however, that in the 

list of David's high officers in 2 S. 8 16-18 Joab should be the 

only one whose mother's name was substituted for his father's. 

We have met with many cases in which the ethnic origin of a 

name has been disguised hy the addition of ;i to the gentilic 

ending 7. It is therefore not improbable that Zeruiah is an 

expansion of an ethnic namel and if so we cannot for a moment 

doubt what that name is-it is '?Sp. 11Y and 1s are several 

times given by an error for 1W-i.e., Mugri in N. Arabia (see 

MIZRAIM, 8 2 6), and Jeroboam's mother is, by a similar error, 

called ZERUAH (q.u.), instead of Migriyah. In 2 S. 2 32 the 

sepulchre of Asahel's father is said to have been in Bethlehem. 

Bethlehem probably comes from Beth-jerahmeel, and there was 

doubtless a Beth-jerahmeel in the Jerahmeelite Negeb ; cp 

MICAH, I. It was from this Beth-jerahmeel that Joah prob- 

ably came and if so we can easily believe that his father might 

be called '(especially by those who dwelt outside the Negeb) 

Misri, or Miyite,' ' Jerahmeelite' and ' Misrite' being almost, 

though not quite, synonymous. In I Ch. 2 54 (RV) we meet 

with a place Atroth(ephrath)-heth-joah whose people were 'sons 

of Salma' (i.e. connrcted with the Salmzeans-see SALMAH). 

This indirect1y)confirmi the view here taken. It would he a 

serious ohjection to this if the text of 2 S. 1725 were correct. 

The obscurity of the passage however (see NAHASH) suggests 

doubt. Elsewhere (see Ckt. Gib.) it is proposed to read 

Now Amasa was the son of Ithra an Ishmaelife, who went ii 

unto Abigail, the daughter of Achish, a Misrite. 

We can now understand better the exclamation ascribed to 

David in 2 S. 3 39 'these men the sons of Miari-i.e. fierce 

Migrites by extdtion (MT Zeruiahtare harsher &an I.' 

The alternative is to connect >'%with 'R MASTIC (q...), comparing 

;i?)!, Zilpah, 'dropping'; see NAMES, g 71. It is true, 

Zilpah too admits of another explanation (cp ZILPAH). What 

can have led Josephus to say (Ant. vii. 13) that Joah's father 

was named uaupr Suri it is difficult to say, unless it be that in 

I Ch. 4 14 Joah, "the 'father of Ceharashim' (a corruption of 

Geshurim), is called Seraiah (see SERAIAH, beg.). T. K. c. 

ZETHAM (El!, explain as ZETHAN, Z&OM [R], 

ZAIB.. zoo. [A], Z H ~ N [L]), a Gershonite Levite; 

I Ch. 238 2622. 

1 Cp Kosters Hersfez, 473 

2 According io the theory here advocated, 'Sheshbazzar' is 

an alteration of a name with N. Arabian affinities. The first 

part may, in accordance with sound method, be identified with 

ui3. Again and again in the MT we find wiw and DiD written 

in error for wi~. The second part may perhaps he a corruption 

of wn. 

3 Cp EZRA-NEHEMIAH, P, 8 ; ISRAEL, B 51 ; and cp Zntr. Is. 

Prologue, p. xxxviii; Jew. Rel. Life, 6; Kent, Hisf. of Ur 

Jnuisk PeapZc (Babylonian Period, etc.), 1323 

5414

ZETHAN ZIKLAG 

ZETHAN (IC’!, as if ‘ olive’ [§ 691, but the neighbourhood 

of Bilhan [if it be ultimately from ‘ Jerahmeel’], 

and of Tarshish and Ahish&ar, both probably from 

Ashhur, suggests nDW as the original of []lll’T or 

Zethan, ZAlehN [B], HeAN [AI, ZH€h [L]). b. BII.HAN 

in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v., 3, g ii. a), I Ch. 

7 ref. 

How deceptive apparent tree-names may he, appears from 

Birzaith h.i~>, Ges. ‘well of an olive ’) the name of a son of 

Malchiel (from ‘ Jerahmeel’). Malchiel’k brother is Heher (cp 

Judg. 4 II), among whose sons (all prohahly hearing Negeb 

names) is Japhlet (cp Peleth, b. Jerahmeel, I Ch. 2 33), which 

may ultimately come from ZAREPHATH (4.v.). T. K. c. 

ZETHAR (TIT, &B&T&z& [BKALB]). a chamberlain 

of Ahasuerus, Esth. 1 IO?. 

Gesenius ‘perhaps “star” Pers. sitar.’ But if Mehuman= 

Heman, H&hona=Hebron (Rehohoth), and Carcar= Jerahmeel, 

Zethar as prohahly=Zarephath. Cp VASHTI, ZERESH, and see 

otherwise Marq. Fund. 71. 

T. K. C. 

ZIA (Y’T ; zoys [BA], ZE& [L]), I Ch. 513, a name 

in the genealogy of GAD (q.v., i., 13) 

ZIBA (K2’Y, and K?Y ; on origin, see below ; 2 S. 

164, c[e]iB& [BAL], 

[Josh. Ani!.vii. 551). 

ciBBa [A sometimes], CIBA? 

‘Servant of the house of Saul, 

and, after Saul’s death, of Mephibosheth or Meribaal. 

On the obscure story of his treatment of Saul‘s son see 

MEPHIBOSHETH, § 2. Ziba seems to have founded 

an important family ; he had ‘fifteen sons and twenty 

servants.’ He himself had no recorded father or tribe. 

Although other views have been suggested [cp NAMES, 

$0 51 681, we can hardly doubt that N~*Y or NIX is a worn 

down form of *iy!y (Sih‘ani) or *l&V (hn‘6ni)=hynW* 

(Ishme‘eli). Ziha, like Doeg (see SAUL, 0 za), was apparently a 

N. Arabian (2 S. 9 2-12 16 1-4 19 17 29). 

T. K. C. 

ZIBEON (fiU?u, ‘hyzena’? 68 ; see below; 

CsBq-wN’), a Hivite (v. z) or rather (see v. 20) 

Horite, in the genealogy of the Esau-tribe (Gen. 362 20, 

csrsrwN [El, 24 29; I Ch. 138. C~BETWN [A], 40). 

In v. 29 he is a clan-chieftain (l&) or clan (i& see SS, 

3.u. +). 

In v. 24, underneath the strange, Midrash-like text of the 

redactor lie apparently the words, ‘it is the Anah who went 

out from’ th; Jerahmeeliies in the desert ’ ; ‘as he fed the asses 

is woven out of a marginal gloss pornn, which is one of the 

current distortions of &+mi* (cp SHECHEM, 2). Another 

ypular corruption of the same word is probably ,in (Horite). 

n v. 20 Ziheon is reckoned among the sons of ‘the Horite,’ and 

as a comment on (Horite), there still lies, under the superfluous 

phrase yi~n 9 2 ~ (RV, 3 ‘the inhabitants of the land ’), the 

gloss2 $~yna, (Ishmaelite); *>w, (like %~i>’) heing one of the 

cormptlons of ‘no-. We are now prepared to consider the origin 

of the name Zibeon, which is scarcely=‘hyaena,’ as WRS 

(1. Phil. 990), Gray (HPN 95), and other scholars have 

supposed, hut is rather a corruption of iiynw (Sime‘on), used as 

an equivalent of ’nu’ (Emael), unless indeed it comes directly 

from iynu,, a corruption of ‘,zw,, fo; which parallels can be 

adduced. Cp ZIBA, ZIN. T. K. C. 

ZIBIA (wllu, ‘gazelle,’ Cp TABleA [Acts 9361 ; 

ieBia [B], csB. [A], CAB. [L]), in a genealogy of 

BENJAMIN (p .a, 9, ii. p), I Ch. 89. 

ZIBIAH (V??, 5 68) of Beer-sheba, the mother of 

King Joash (2 K.121 z Ch.241: [L, in Ch. 

CABlA], ulL0’ [Pesh.], sebia [vg]). 

Nl,g, as often, heing 

altered from Misvur (see MOAR, $0 I, n. I, z+i.e., in the N. 

Arabian border-land. It now becomes probable that both NVJX 

and x,>s, together with ~ 3 (ZIRA) q and pyxr (ZEROIM), are 

popular corruptions of bNynw* (Ishmael). T. K. C. 

ZICHRI (W!, see NAMES, .3z, 52, but cp 

ZACCER, wbere’it is suggested that this must be a clanname 

; note the ethnic affinities of the related names ; 

zqp[,~li [BKAFLI). 

1-3. in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (9.v. 0 9 ii. p), I Ch. 8 

where observe that SHIMEI, SHASHAK (probably), and JEROHA; 

are ethnics. 

I. h. Shimei (u 19 :

ZILLAH 

5417 

* ZILPAH 

his vassal David (li S. 2f6f.; cp 301426 2 S. 11 410 from the Aramrean (Holzinger, KHC on Gen. 309 ; 

I Ch. 12 I 20). Ziklag also appears with other places in 

the far S. in Neh. 1128. In Josh. 1531 (P) it is enumerated 

among the more remote towns of Judah, but in 

Josh, 195 (P) is assigned to Sinieon. Conder's identification 

of Ziklag with Zuheilika a site 11 in. E. by S. 

of Gaza, and 19 m. SW. from Beit-Jibrin or Eleutheropolis 

(PEPQ, 1878, pp. I Z ~ ) has , been generally but 

too hastily accepted. 

The name is certainly corrupt, hut not so far as entirely to 

obscure the true name. The two names identified by Condet 

begin with'a different sibilant, and zuheilika reminds us of AI. 

zahaliku declivities,' a name which ippiies well to the three 

small hilis, nearly a mile apart, on which (see Conder) the ruins 

called Zuheilika stand. Ziklag is as corrupt as Ahishag or the 

jhplc (see SACK) of 2 R. 442. It is best to read 7$bJ or a&? 

(cp Ass. gak, 'fortress'), an ancient and famous city (see 

BEKED), repre4ented by the mod. Halqa, in the W3dy Asliij 

about 12 m. S. of Beersheha, on th: way to Ruheiheh or Rehot 

both (see map of NEGEB, A 2, after col. 3376). In Josh. 19 j6 

Ziklag is grouped with Beth-marcahoth which should be read 

Beth-rehoboth (see MARCABOTH). This fits in perfectly with 

the story of David's raids while at Ziklag. The name Haliisah 

or Halagah is also not impossibly concealed under Jekabzeel or 

KABLEEL (q.~.) ; the lists of P and of the Chronicler often contain 

corrupt variants of the same name, given as names of distinct 

places or persons. This accords with the view that 2 S. 

21 15-22 23 8-23 relates to a war of David with the Rehobothites 

and the Znrephathites (seeRE~osoTH, ZAREPHATH); the original 

text was misunderstood and wrongly edited. Very possibly the 

'hold ' (il!?Xp to which David ' fled' (read for l:! in 2 S. 

6 17) and where he was when he longed for water 'from the 

cistern of Bethlehem--.e., probably a 'Bethlehem' in the 

Ne eb was that of Haliiah, which was not far from thevalley 

of 4aar;hath (text, ' Rephaim'), where the Zarephathites (text, 

Pelktim) were arrayed against him. Haliisnh may likewise be 

the original of HAZZ&LEL[PONI] in I Ch. 43 (unless Hazzelel 

presup oses Halas'el ; see BBZALEEL), of Ahuzzath in Gen. 26 26 

and (ofcourse) of Chellus in Judith 19. Possibly Haliivh wa; 

originally the centre of the cult of the hero ISAAC (q.~., 5 I). 

The above view was formed long before the appearance of 

Winckler's Gesch. 2, where (185) it is held that Ziklag is the 

capital of the Krethi or Cherethites ; cp I S. 30 14. 

Perhaps ' Ziklaggim' (or Halusathini) may underlie the difficult 

' Casluhim' in Gen. 10 14. See MIZRAIM, col. 3164, n. I. 

'r. K. c. 

. ZILLAH ( 7 5 ' Y; , sshAa [AEL] ; .s.xLa),Gen. 4 19-23?. 

See CAINITES, 5 9. 

Baethgen, Beeitr. 160). 

In Aram. 2/ zrp means ' to drip, trickle,'l in Syriac ' to defile'; 

in Assyrian, where, however, there is the natural uncertainty as 

to whether the first radical is z or s it occurs as zu-hp&-e.g., 

in the recurring phrase [du-6i-i6] zb'-iig.fi, ' [planningj hostility.' 

If the theory of Arainaean extraction was a modification 

of an older story (cp below), the name may have 

been earlier Dilpah (cp Jidlaph, the ' uncle ' of Iiebekah; 

Gen. 2222), the root of which does occur in Hebrew. 

On the assumption that the name has been modified, 

C. Niebuhr (Gesch. 1253) connected it with Zelophehad 

(mpk ; for a suggestion as to the real origin of which 

strange name, however, see MANASSEH, 5 94, whilst 

Cheyne formerly connected both Zilpah and Zelophehad 

with ' Salhad' (above, col. 2309 near foot). This 

suggestion he regards as still tenable ; hut his present 

view is different.2 

It has always seemed strange that such widely 

separated communities as Gad and Asher should be 

a. zilpah grouped as Zilpah tribes. Their agreement 

in bearing names of deities apparently distribes. 

tinct from Yahwe has been noted elsewhere 

(ASHER, 5 I n. ; GAD, 5 z), as also their Aramrean 

elements (ASHER, 5 3, GAD, 5 2). Whether they once 

lived together is uncertain. It has been thought that 

traces of an early stay of Asher can be detected S. of the 

plain of Megiddo (cp ASHER, 5s I 3). The presence of 

Beria and of Heber and Malchiel as father and sons in 

the Asher list (Nu. 2644fl) and the same three names 

(if Michael is for Malchiel) in nearly the same relation 

in Benjamin lists (I Ch. 813 8 163) and of a clan 

Beria in an Lphraim list would be a not unnatural 

result if Ephraim and Benjamin's territory had been 

earlier occupied by Asherites (so Steuernagel, Binwand. 

30J). If the sons of Zilpah are meant in Genesis to 

be regarded as older than Joseph the seniority would be 

a natural way of reprzsenting an earlier occupation of 

the Ephraim highlands which must be assumed if we 

suppose that Asher really entered Palestine from the E. 

We might suppose that a Zilpah tribe was settled in E. 

Palestine, that part of it crossed the Jordan, and after 

staying a while in Ephraim moved northwards and 

ZILPAH (?I@)!, zsA@a [ADEL]), the mother of the 

tribes GAD and ASHER (Gen. 3010-13, J ; 3526 P) ; also 

took the name of Asher (from the older inhabitants in 

the N. ? see ASHER. 5s I 3), whilst the portion of the 

represented as the maid of Leah (2924 

1. Name. 

3526 P) and the concubine of Jacob 

(309 J; 372 46-9 P). If any explanations of the name 

Zilpah tribe which remained came to be known as Gad. 

On the other hand it is uncertain when we are meant to 

place the birth of the sons of Zilpah. Even the editor 

Zilpah were ciirrent in early Israel, the editors of the need not have intended to suggest that both Gad and 

Genesis narratives have not preserved them. It is 

hardly possible, as it perhaps is in the case of Bilhah 

{see SBOT on Gen. 303), to guess what they might 

Asher fall between Naphtali and Issachar and between 

Naphtali and Joseph (cp RACHEL, 5 IC). The sons' 

births may have been grouped artificially to facilitate 

have said.' The nearest approach to a narrative 

bearing on Zilpah is Gen. 372. That verse seems to 

represent a version of the Joseph-story in which the 

enmity against Joseph was confined to the sons of Bilhah 

and Zilpah.2 Such a story may he a late invention to 

remove the reproach from the sons of Leah (Gunkel, 

ad ZQC.), in particular from Judah; hut P may have 

found it in sources which had more to say on the 

subject. The name Zilpah cannot he explained from 

the vocabulary of the remains of Hebrew literature. 

We cannot be sure, however, that Genesis as we now 

read it regards Zilpah as Hebrew. Her mistress is a 

,daughter of Laban (cp RACHEL, 9 ~b). 

According to Test. XfI. Patr. Naph. I indeed Zilpah and 

Bilhah, who are sisters (cp Juhiiees 289)'are dakghters of a 

maid (rar8ivrrq) of Laban (ALY~) and of Sotheos 'of the stock 

of Abraham,' who wa5 carried captive from a place called Zelpha 

,(whence the name of his first-born). Elsewhere however the 

sisters are daughters cf Laban himself by a concdhine (Ps.-\on. 

on Gen. 29 24 29 Gen. radba 74, Pir& Rub. El. 36 ; cp Charles, 

Bk. of/ub. 170g 

The name Zilpah has accordingly been explained 

1 For a late example see Tcsf. XfZ. Pah-., Naph. I, quoted 

below. 

2 It is against the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah that Joseph 

speaks to Jacob in Td. XZf. Patr., Gad, I. 

the narrative (cp TRIBES, 59f.). Steuernagel, indeed, 

pleads strongly -. for the historical trustworthiness of the 

1 In Arabic 'to draw near ' hut ziIfa garden: in Ethio ic 

zelfat=reproof. YJkiit give; a water on the way to Mekta, 

Zuuljbtu. ii. 939 roJ (cp ii. 955 193). 

2 [When Steuernagel (Eimuand. 47) concludes that the clans 

derived from Zilpah, like those derived from Bilhah, were reyded 

as not so fully Israelitish as the Leah and Rachel tribes 

ecause they were of heathen origin, he does not allow for the 

possibility that Leah and her maid Zilpah are only doubles of 

Rachel and her maid Bilhah-or, etymologically, that Leah 

Rachel. and Rilhah are all corrunt frarments of lprahrneei 

(JACOB; B 3), and that Zilpah (with'whic~MrI-Hog~co~pares 

Jidlaph, most appropriately from the present point of view, for 

among his hrothersare Kemuel=Jerahmeel, and Chesed=Cush) 

is an equally corrupt fragment of a name virtually synonymous 

with Jerahmeel-viz., Ishmael. Nor can the qossihilit): he 

$ied that 'Asher' may be connected with Asshur or 

Ashhur,' one of the ethnic names of the Negeh, and Dan with 

Adan or Adon-another of these names (cp PARADISE 4 7 end 

and see Crit. 6i6.). And only a very close examinat& df th; 

texts can assure us that Gad and Asher were not originally 

located in the Negeb. That the tradition made some of the 

clans which were fused with the Jacob or Israel tribe heathenish 

(;.e., worshippers of gods other than Yahwe), will, however, he 

universally admitted. The most important passages for the 

textual critic are perhaps Gen. 29 I (on which.see JACOB, 5 3) 

and 31238 463 (on which see GALEED, GILEAD, but note 

that there seems to have been a southern Gilead, referred to 

eg., in Jer. 8 22 [see Cd. Bib.], and the probable original oi 

the much-disputed Lud, Ludim).-T.K.c.1 

5418

ZILTHAI ZIN 

Hebrew traditions, and the case can be made very 

plausible. Who are the ’ brothers’ whom Jacob finds 

in E. Palestine when he comes with Rachel (and 

Bilhah) from Laban (Gen. 3132 37 46 54) ? Must they 

not be brother tribes who had remained there when 

Jacob moved off? And, since Gad is the tribe most 

firmly settled there, may not these brothers ’ be repre- 

sented by the name Zilpah ? Steuernagel supposes that 

several tribes (Zilpah, etc.) accompanied Jacob on its 

jxirney up from its settlement S. of Palestine. The 

representation of the Zilpah tribes as younger than the 

four Leah tribes, but older than Issachar and Zebulun, 

may represent a theory as to the time of their reaching 

their several seats; and the theory may be correct. 

There are great difficulties, however. The effect of 

system may indeed be far-reaching. If Asher arrived 

somewhat early W. of Jordan, and Gad somewhat late 

E. of Jordan (GAD, S), it is difficult to see how the 

grouping of them as Zilpah tribes can be anything but 

artificial. See, further, TRIBES. 

Nor is it easy to see why Zilpah is connected with 

Leah. There is no obvious link between Gad or Asher 

3, zilpah and Judah or the other Leah tribes. Nor 

and Leah. is the relation of Zilpah to Leah even in the 

story parallel with that of Bilhah to Rachel, 

or Hagar to Sarah. In the cases of Bilhah and Hagar 

the maid’s children are born before her mistress’s and 

because the mistress has no children (cp RACHEL, 5 I h). 

In the case of Zilpah, on the contrary, Leah has no less 

than four children before the maid is called in. Is it 

possible that Leah represents two figures, the second 

being the mother of Zebulun and Issachar? These two 

SOUS were born after Zilpah’s, and a connection amon$ 

the four is more easily thinkable than in the case of the 

other Leah tribes. Issachar may have possessed part 

of the highlands of Ephraim at one time (cp ISSACHAR, 

5 4, n. 2, and Stenernagel, Einwand. IzJ), and the 

Amorite [Pinches] ; Hommel, comparing Old Arab. 

compound names, interprets ‘ protection ’ [ANT 85, cp 

88, 2301 ; but cp ZIMRI, 2 ; ZAMBP[E]I [RKAFL]). 

I. One of the sons of Zerah b. Judah (I Ch. 26), in 

Josh. 7 I called ZABDI. 

2. A descendant of Saul nientioned in a genealogy 

of BENJAMIN (q.~.. § g, ii. p), I Ch.836 (capp~ [A]= 

942). Cp ZEMIRA. 

3. ‘ Captain of the chariots,’ who conspired against 

Elah king of lsrael and killed him, and to secure his 

own position on the throne exterminated all the remnant 

of the family of Baasha. After a seven days’ reign in 

Tirzah he was besieged by Omri the general, whereupon 

like Sardanapalus he burnt the palace over his head and 

perished in the ruins (I K. 169-20). In 6 the names 

Zambri and Omri are much confused. 

4. b. SALW (q.~.). a Simeonite chief, the name given 

to the central figure in Ps narrative of the sin of the 

b’ne Israel with Midian (Nu. 256-18 P). Zimri had 

brought a Midianitess named COZBI to the camp, and 

Phinehas, moved to indignation, slew them both, in the 

‘tent’ (,me) ;l see We. Prol.@) 363, ET 3.56. See 

PHINEHAS, and cp DIBRI. S. A. C. 

ZIMRI (’?pT; om. 6; Pesh. ’Amran; Vg. Zumbri), 

one of the tribes or peoples threatened with judgment 

by Jeremiah (or by a supplementer who assumes Jere- 

miah’s mantle), Jer. 2525. 

A revision of the text of vu. 19-26 places it beyond all reason- 

able doubt that a N. Amhian people is meant. See ZIMRAN, 

SHESHACH. 

A land called Zimri whose king was allied to the kings of 

Babylon and Elam (Si: H. Rawlinson, G. Smith, etc.), does not 

exist ; the right reading of the text is ‘Namri ’(see KB 1 140 186; 

Schr. KGF ‘70). But to emend Jeremiah’s ‘Zimri’ into ‘Namri’ 

with Winckler (AORlzg2), or ‘Gomeri’ or ‘Gimirri’ (see 

GOMER) with Rost (Usterwh. 103 [18971)and Peiser (ZATIV 

17 350 [1897]), is hardly possible if we duly criticise the text of 

MT. T. K. C. 

ZIN (I?, C[E]IN, CINA, CENA; in Nu. 34 4 ENNAK 

[B; KAI follows], CEENNAK [AF], ENAK [L]. in 

Josh.153, ENNAK [Bl, CENNAK [Ba.blt CENA [AI, 

CINA [L]; Eus. Jer. enna [OS, 25337 ll810I ; 

see below). The wilderness N. of that of PARAN (q.~.) ; 

the most important place in it was Kadesh-barnea in its 

oasis (Nu.1321 201 2714 3336 343 f: Dt.5251 Josh. 

15 I [ mp Alg). More precisely, it was the wild mountainregion 

(Jos. Ant. iv. 46, speaks of a mountain called 

Sin) rising in successive slopes from the ‘ArBbah in one 

direction and et-Tih in another, which now bears the 

name of the ‘Azazimeh Arabs who inhabit it. See 

WANDERINGS, WILDERNESS OF. It has been suggesteda same may have been true at an early date even of 

ZEBULVN (q.~., § 7). 

On the other hand, the same possibilities are not 

excliided in the case of the other four Leah tribes (see 

SIMEON, 5 4). It is conceivable that Asher crossed 

[AI, urAaOa [Ll). See DAVID, 8 11 n. C. 

ZIMMAH (?QT ; ZEMMA [BL]), a Gershonite (Leviti- that Sin may mean the ‘ wall ’ of rock within which the 

cal) name ; I Ch. 6 20 k1 (cappa [AI), 42 [271 (4~ppap [Bl, -pa wilderness of Zin lies (cp ZION). 

The existence of Jp ‘ to protect’ however, is very questionable, 

and the name looks as if it had been worn down in course 

of ages. Analogy favours the view that iy (Ziu), iyy (ZOAN), ijy 

(ZENAN), and ~JKX (ZAANAN), have all come, through ]ry>v 

(ZIBEOX), from SNynw- (Ishmael). 

Lagarde, however, with much learning and plausibility, 

suggests a derivation from !”n, which in Aram. and 

Ass. means ‘axe,’ in Ethiopic ‘iron’ (&ZittheiZ. 23618 ; 

cp G. Hoffm. ZDMG 32753). Tg. Jer. gives in Nu. 

the Jordan into Ephraim before Jacob-Rachel came to 

occupy the place of the older Leah tribes (so Steuer- 

nagel). H. W. H. 

ZILTHAI, RV Zillethai (’n$Y). 

I. h. SHIMEI (q.v.) in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v., g ii. ,), 

I Ch. 8 20 (uaABsL [B], uaAer [A], d a8r [L]). 

2. One of David’s warriors, I Ch. 12 20 (uspder [BN], yaAa& 

[AI), z Ch. 20 12 (SeppaO [f(41). 

ZIMRAN (]??2i ; Sam. jlV3 ; plausibly connected 

with 7Qt, antelope ’ [see WRS, J. PhiZ. 99.1, but cp 

ZIMRI), the eldest of Abraham’s ‘sons’ by Keturah 

(Gen.25~ I Ch.132; ZEB~AN [AXE], ZEMP. [A], 

ZEMBP. [AaB], ZOMB~. [Ds‘’.1 ZEMB~., ZEMP~M PI). 

The Zaniareni, a tribe of the interior of Arabia (Plm. 

NH 632, Grotius), and Zabram, the royal town of the 

twar8otcoXrhzr, W. of Mecca, on the Red Sea (Ptol. 

vi. 7 5, Knobel) have been supposed to represent Zimran. 

But whether we ought to go so far from the Keturite 

centre-Le., the nij Y ~ K (see EAST, CHILDREN OF ; 

REKEM)-iS very dOu6tfUl. 

In Jer. 25 25 we find a people called ‘Zimri’ (Pesh. ‘ Zimran ’) 

mentioned with Arabia (i.e N. Arabia) Elam and Madai (read 

’ Jerahmeel’) and SAmoN’(on the N. Arabian border). Tuch 

disputes the’connection between ‘Zimran’ and ‘Zimri,’ but, 

from our present point of view, wrongly. Both in Gen. 25 2 and 

in Jer. 25 25 a N. Arabian people is required. See 21 MRI. 

T. K. C. 

ZIMRI (’??2!, a shortened form?--fp the name Zim- 

rida in Am. Tab. [of governors of Sidon and of Lachish], 

also in an early Bab. text, BIM Cuneif: Texts, Pt. iv., 

which also mentions Zimri-banimu, Zimri-banata the 

5419 

344 (for yy) N ~ lit), I ‘ the iron mountain,’ presupposing 

iw, and 6’s form EYY~[K] may ultiniately come from 

the same reading. 

This reading, if correct, might illustrate a number of references 

to iron in narratives or prophecies which, as the criticisni of the 

text seems to show, relate to the Negeb. See Dt. 3 11 (cp Oc) ; 

4 20 (’an iron furnace’ 11 ‘ Mizrirn ’) : 8 9 (‘whose stones are 

iron’) ; Josh. 17 16 18 Judg. 1 19 4 3 13 (Kenizzites, chariots of 

9); I K. 22 II (Zedekiah the Kenizzite [see ZEDEKIAH, 21, 

horns of iron ’) . 2 K. 6 6 (swimming iron ; see PRorHET 8 7) ’ 

Jer. 15 12 (‘iron bf ZAPHON). Ezek. 27 12 19 (Tarshish [Asihur?i 

and Javan [JePahmeel?] trafficking with iron) ; Am. 13 (the 

1 On (whence ‘alcove’), which is used to denote a 

princely dnt, as well as the bridal pavilion, see WRS, Kimh& 

171. 292 : PAVILION, 2 ; TENT, 8 4 n. 

2 Wetrstein, in Del. Ges.,(4) 578. 

5420

ZINA 

9-21 

ZIPH 

[southerii] Arammites thresh [the southern] Gilead with instruments 

of iron). Still the method of grouping names before 

seeking to account for them seems to favour the preceding 

explanation. The euva[x] in @B and the Hh3 in Tg. Jer. are at 

any rate exceptional. T. K. C. 

ZINA (K?’!), b. Shimei, a Gershonite Levite (I Ch. 

23 IO). In u. II the name becomes ZIZAH (n]*)). @BAL reads 

&‘a in both places. 

ZION (I+?, C[E]IWN). The designation, properly, 

of the ‘ Jebusite ’ stronghold at Jerusalem, which 

after its capture by David received the name ‘ David‘s 

burg,’ 2 S. 57 9. Various explanations of the name 

have been given. Gesenius ( Thes. 1164) and Lagarde 

(Ubers. 84, n.”) derive from Jnnu ‘to be dry,’ cp 

, m 

Syr. \Q’~J, which Lag. regards as the older 

form. Delitzsch (P.dvzen,(3) 170) makes the primary 

form pi:, from a;! to set up.’ Wetzstein (in Del. 

Gen.(Y 578) derives from ,&I ‘to protect,’ so that the 

name would mean ~YX, citadel ’ ; cp ZIN. 

It may be better, however, to add p’t to the group Zin, Zenan, 

Zaanan, and Zoan, and to suppose Zion to he a descendant of 

:he race-name ‘ Ishmael’ through the intermediate form iiyx 

(ZIBEON). Another corruption of the same name is probably &w 

(see SHALEM), and this most plausibly accounts for a muchdisputed 

name n5pi-p. That the first part of this name means 

‘ city,’ Sayce (see col. 2409, top) and Nestle (PhiloZoga Sacra, 

17) have independently seen. We must now add that o h is 

probably=5Nynp*, and that this is a type of corruption which 

occurs frequently in the OT. Jerusalem, then, according to 

this explanation, was originally one of the many Ishmaelite or 

phmeelite settlements in Palestine, a view which is wpporte: 

y the fact that Isaiah (29 I) calls the city of David ‘ Jerahmeel 

[corrupted into ‘ Ariel ’I, and by the equally significant statement 

of the historian that after taking the stronghold David ‘built 

round about Jerahmeel and within.’l See Crit. Bi6. It is true, 

David is said (2 8.56) to have ‘gone against the Jebusites,’ hut 

the Jehusites apparently owe their existence in the text to 

corruption, and in an earlier form of the text this seems to have 

been indicated by the scribe himself. As in Gen. 30 zo [see 

ZIBEON] and elsewhere, the corrupt reading yyxn qp‘ (EV ‘the 

inhabitants of the land ’)has grown out of ’.inyap, (Ishmaelites), 

yi~a being an editor’s insertion to make the corrupt 33tp intelligible. 

The earlier text appears to have said in 3. 6, ‘And 

the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the fshmaelites’; 

‘ Ishmaelites’ here is a synonym of ‘ Jerahmeelites. To this we 

must add that the ‘lame’ and the ‘blind ’ spoken of in the MT 

(and in @) of 2 S 5 6 8 are as imaginary as the trihal name 

‘ Jebusite’ ; o’ny and o*n~3 both being corrupt fragments of 

9 mn?‘ (see Crit. Ri6.. and cp MEPHIBOSHETH PHINEHAS). 

\‘his is no digression ; it had to he shown that &me, so closely 

connected as Zion and (Jeru-)salem had the same origin, and If 

in the course of doing so we have been enabled to show that the 

early historians at any rate did not ‘infer incorrectly’ from the 

trihal name Jebusite the existence of a city called Jebusz (of 

which the Amarna correspondence appears to have known 

nothing), this is perhaps at any rate a boon for future students. 

It is possible that the error *013* for ’95Nynp- is really a somewhat 

ancient one (see, e.g., Zech. 9 7). But Ezekiel (lti 3 45) is 

still aware that Amorites (or Arammites- Jerahmeelites) and 

Hittites (rather Rehobothites) formed the pre-Israelitish population 

of the city of Jeru:;alem. Cp OC. 

The term ‘Zion’ (we retain the term, as, even if a 

corruption, yet an ancient and a popular one) belongs 

properly, as shown elsewhere (JERUSALEM, 5s 17-20), 

to the southern part of the eastern hill, where the ‘burg 

of David ‘ stood. Above the ‘ burg’ rose the temple, 

and in usage ‘Zion’ represents the temple hill (2 K. 

1931 ; Is. 2423 ; cp 1032). Even more commonly, 

however, we find it a term for the whole of Jerusalem, 

whether in parallelism with Jerusalem (Is. 43 3019 

Am. 12 hlic. 3x0 IZ Ps. 10222) or alone (Is. 127 2816 

Jer. 3 14 Lam. 5 11). Often it is personified (Is. 409 41 27 

51 3 52 I$ 7 59 20 60 14 668 Zeph. 3 16 Zech. 117) though 

here an idealisation has taken place, the ‘ Zion ’ intended 

being really the company of those residents in the 

Holy City in the period of the Second Isaiah and of 

Ezra who, in the orthodox sense of the phrase, ‘ feared 

Yahwk.’ The phrase ng, literally ‘ the daughter 

Zion,’ is an idiomatic expression for the people of 

Jerusalem, Is. 18 522 Jer. 431, etc. (see DAUGHTER, 3). 

It remains to be added that ‘Zion,’ in I Macc. 

everywhere means the temple hill (see 437 60 554 64862 

733 1011 1427). For a Hebrew writer, who formed 

his style on classical models, this was natural. Josephus, 

writing in Greek, does not use the name. In the NT 

it occurs only in quotations from the OT, except in 

Heb. 1222 (a fine rhetorical passage) and in Rev. 141. 

How fond the later Jews became of the name Zion 

appears most clearly from the Psalms. See especially 

Ps. 875, if, with Wellhausen, we may follow 6’s &qp 

Z[~]C&V, gppei BvOpwrros), and render, 

But every one calls Zion his mother, 

And of it is every one native ; 

He himself, the Most High, keeps it.1 

T. K. C. 

ZIOR(7P’y; cwpe [B]. CwpAle [Babvid.; superscr. 

AI], clwp [AL]), a place in the hill-country of Judah 

(Josh. 1554t). It is mentioned with Arab, Bethtappuah, 

Humtah, Kirjath-nrba (‘ the same is Hebron’). 

The names Arab and Kirjatb-arba (surely from Kirjath-*arBb) 

point to the Jerahmeelite border. So also does Humtah (?.e., 

Hamat$= Maacab) and perhaps Beth-tappuah (tee NAPHTU- 

HIM). Hebron’ in the gloss on ‘Kirjath-arba’ is probably (as 

in some other cases) a corruption of ‘ Rehoboth ’ ; P may already 

have found this corruption in the written list which he seems to 

have used. Zior,’ then, is probably a corruption of the name 

of some Jerahmeelite place near Rehoboth. One cannot help 

thinking of Misgur, properly the name of a region (see hfIZKAIY, 

5 z6), but possibly also of a town (cp Cusham-jerahmeel 

[SHECHEM]). The reading of @AL may suggest an identification 

with ZAIR (p.~.). 

Van de Velde and Conder, however, identify Zior with Sa‘ir 

or (Pi7F.W 3 309) Si’air, 4$ m. N. from Hebron, where a tomb 

of Esau is shown. Eusehius (OS293 19) mentions a village Sior 

between Elia and Eleutheropolis. 

T. IC. C. 

ZIPH (?’I; Z[E]I@ [BAL]), whence the gentilic 

Ziphites, or, incorrectly [see Ps. 541, Ziphims (D?i ; 

z[e]i@aiO~~ I s. 2319 261 Ps. 54 title ZI@EOYC TI). 

I. An unidentified town belonging to Judah, situated 

towards the border of Edom (Josh. 15 24 [? B]). On the 

new theory which makes David carve out for himself 

at first a principality in the Negeh, this more southern 

Ziph may have a claim to be that intended in the early 

tradition. See 2. end. 

2. A town in the hill-country of Judah (Josh. 1555 ; 

ofc@ [R]). mentioned together with Maon, Carmel, and 

Jutah. Its connection with the clan of Caleb, which at 

one time had its seat about Hebron (but see below), is 

expressed in genealogical form in I Ch. 24~,~ and again 

in I Ch. 4 16, where Ziph and Ziphah (a?’!; T! ; jzl41a 

KUL fu‘arpa [B], &@ai K. &$a [A], f~$ K.

ZIPHION ZOAR 

never was a 'wocd' in the district of Ziph (see I S. 2315, 

EV, and see below). The country is emphatically a 

dry land, looking down on the barren wastes which lie 

above the Dead -Sea between Masada and Engedi. 

There is no moisture capable of supporting vegetable 

growth ' (PEFQ. 1875, p. 45). G. A. Smith (HG 306 n., 

307 n.) substantially agrees. 

Among the many difficult points connected with the Hebrew 

traditions is this-Was the chief Calebite city Hebron or REHO- 

BOTH (P.v.)? If the latter, then the Ziph of I Ch. 2 42 may be 

that mentioned in Josh. 15 24. And another is this-Was David's 

Ziph the first or the second place so called? The win (HORESH) 

of I S. 23 15 may very well be a corruption of iinwN (Ashhur) 

which seems to have been a name nearly equivalent to Jerah- 

meel. We may also doubt about Rehoboam's Ziph, as well as 

about the other names in 2 Ch. 11 6-10 (see REHOBOAM). 

T. K. C. 

ZIZAH (?V), I Ch. 2311. See ZINA. ' . 

ZOAN (tpk.; TANIC [BKA]), an Egyptian city. I&, 

Vg., and Tg. identify it with Tanis, certainly correctly. 

The city had the name S'nt,l in Coptic times, Dju(u)nr 

(also Djuune, Djuni). The Greeks called it Tdvrs (thus 

a). The modern Arabic name is Sin. Conseqaently, 

the name must have been prpnounced Su'ne, Su'ni, by 

the Hebrews (following the later habit of dropping the 

feminine termination [t]). 

The city, the capital of the 14th nomos of Lower 

Egypt, near the NE. edge of the Delta, was situated 

on the right bank of the Tanitic branch of the Nile, in 

a plain which is at present, in summer, a marshy prolongation 

of the Menzaleh lake, in winter a salt-desert, 

ZIPHION (ti%?), Gen. 4616 = Nu. 2615, ZEPHON 

(f.".). 

ZIPHRON (fly?!, scarcely ' stench,' see ZANOAH, 

but cp NAMES, 5 106, n. I; A G @ ~ ~ N[BJ A e@. 

[Bab]; ze@. [AL]). a point on the N. frontier of 

Canaan, Nu. 349t. According to Furrer (ZDPYSz8) 

and Socin (Baed.(2) 395). the mod. Zaferdnehl (Rob. 

gives ez-Zu'ferdneh), ESE. of er-Reskin. This, however, 

does not suit Furrer's own view of the frontier, 

for Sudud (his Zedad) is SSE. of Zuferdneh, whereas 

it should lie to the N. Hence Miihlau, in Riehm's 

The modern village of s n is inhabited mostly by fishermen. 

The adjoining mound, Sin el-hugur, 'stone 

Sari,' was excavated first in part by Mariette in 1860, 

then completely by Petrie (in 1883-84, see Turzis 1 and 

2, 1885). There were found many statues, sphinxes, 

obelisks, etc., belonging to a large temple, hegun (it 

would seem) by kings of the sixth dynasty, continued 

in the twelfth dynasty, and completed by the greatest 

builder'among the Pharaohs, Rameses 11. See, on the 

fragments of the largest monolithic colossus known, 

EGYPT, $ 37. The temple seems to have had a length 

of about 1000 ft. King Psusennes of the twenty-first 

HWB, following Wetz. (Reiseber. 88), prefers the ruins dynasty built a huge wall of bricks around it. The 

called ZzYrZn, fourteen hours NE. of Damascus. importance of the city is shown by the fact that 

There is reason to think, however, that the description 

originally referred to the Negeb (see Z~DAD), that Ziphron 

corresponds to the SIBRAIM of Ezekiel, and that both names 

are corruptions of Zarephath. See ZEDAD. T. K. C. 

ZIPPOR (Tis?, csrr@wp [BAFL]). BALAK 

(q.v.), king of Moab is called 'son of Zippor ' (Nu. 92 2 4 IO 16 

23 18 Josh. 249 Judi. 11 zs), Le., either son of a person called 

Zippor ('bird'), or 'native of Zarephath,' the Zarephathites 

being a section of the N. Arabian Misrites (see ZAREPHATH, 

MIZRAIM, $ 2 6). It is probable that just as the Edomite king 

Shad (AV Saul) was a Misrite of Rehoboth (see BEVA) so the 

hloabite king Balak was a Miyite of Zare hath (unless) indeed 

Balak was king of Mugi ; see MOSES, s r7f The Cushite wife 

of Moses hore the startlingly similar name ZIPPORAH (p.v.). 

See, however, NAMES, 5 68. 

T. K. C. 

Rameses 11. seems to have resided there and that the 

twenty-first dynasty originated from the city. In 

Esarhaddon's and ASur-bani-pal's time, Sa'nu or Si'nu 

was the seat of a prince ; on-its sack by the Assyrians 

see TIRHAKAH. In Strabo (802) it still figures as a 

considerable place. Of its ultimate downfall not much 

is known. 

The biblical mentions are as follows. In Is. 1911 13, 

ZIPPORBH ("BY; ccrr+wp~ [BAFI,]), daughter 

of Hobab or Jethro, 'priest of Midian,' and wife of 

Moses (Ex. 221, J ; 425, J ; 182, E). 

In Nu. 12 16 she is called a 'Cushite woman'; 'Misrite' 

would perhaps have been more accurate but Missur (= Musri) 

and Cush in N. Arabia were contiguous (see CUSH, 2). On the 

significance of her name (probably a distortion of Zarephath), 

and of her connection with Moses, see MOSES, $8 4, 7, and cp 

CIRCUMCISION, $ 2 ; ZAREPHATH ; ZIPPOR. 

In its present form the name means 'bird' ; cp 

NAMES, 68. There is an Aramaic proper name ~'13s 

in CZS (101) 112 122 ; the Greek equivalent being 

ue$@epa (S. A. Cook, Aram. GZuss. 102, who refers to 

Cl.-Gan. Rec. d'urchJuZ. 1885, p. 23). The nanie 

Zippor (nut Zipporah) occurs as a woman's name in 

Talm. Jer. Gittin, 5 3. T. K. C. 

ZITHRI, RV Sithri ('lnp; for origin see SETHUR), 

b. Uzziel, a (Kohathite) Levite, Ex. 6 22 (ueyeype~ [Bl, mOpsc [AI, 

uqx [FL]). 

ZIV (U), I K. 6137 RV,AVZIF. See MONTH,§Z (2). 

ZIZ, GOING UP OF (Y'?? n??Q), a pass in the 

S. of Palestine, 2 Ch. 20 16 (THN ANABACIN ACAB 

PA], T. A. THC GEOXHC ACICA [LI). The namelooks 

suspicious ; but the ordinary view that the Wady HqLsa, 

by which the old Roman road leads from En-gedi to 

Jerusalem, is meant, is plausible. 

The mention of HAZAZON-TAMAR (q.v.) in v. 2, however, 

introduces a perplexing element into the geography. For a 

way out of the difficulty, see NEGEB, ti 7. T. K. C. 

ZIZA (KJ'l, perhaps abbrev., § 58, cp ZAZA, ZUZIM). 

I. A prinde'of-SxMEoN (8 5 [ii.]), temp. Hezekiah; I Ch.437 

(aouah [B ?I

ZOBAH ZOHELETH, STONE OF 

; in Jer, 48 34 zorop CB~Al vg, Segor), a 

locality mentioned in Gen. 13 IO 142 8. 19 22 f. 30 ’ Dt. 

or ARAM-ZOBA (KIjY ‘N, z S. 106 8, but 

1. The 

RV AR.4M-ZOBAH), the home of one of 

theory. 

David’s ‘thirty’ (z S.2336; AYNAM~UC 

[BA], MACCABA [L]).’ also the name of 

an Aramaean state, whose king Hadadezer was defeated 

by David (z S.8r-14 10158). In I S.1447 ‘the kings 

of Zobah ’ are said to have been defeated by SauL2 and 

in z Ch. 83 Solomon is asserted to have taken Hamathzobah 

(patuwga [B], acpa0” uoupa [A], epa0a. [L]) ; 

the latter designation is thought to imply the same 

(erroneous ?) conception of the importance of Zobah 

which is found in (a) z S. 83 8 1015-1ga, but not in the 

narrative (6) which contains z S. 101-14 196. This at 

least is clear, that in therespective strata of narrative 

different views of the position of the kingdom of Zobah 

are suggested. If the view implied in the former 

stratum (a) is correct, the idea that David was one of 

the mightiest monarchs of his time is not an extravagant 

one, for here the kingdom of Zobah under Hadadezer 

is represented as dominating the whole of Syria, 

whereas in the latter stratum (6) Zobah appears with 

BETH-REHOB, MAACAH, and ISHTOB or TOB, as an ally 

of the Ammonites. This difference of view has been 

explained by the supposition that two different Zobahs 

have been confounded (see DAVID, g, with n. 2, 

where references are given for the evidence). One, to 

the N. of Damascus and Hamath, rich in copper 

(z S. 88), was conceivably the mat NuhaIBi3 of the 

Am. Tablets (375 45 22, etc. ), if NuhaSSi means ‘ copper ’ 

(ntn?), according to Halevy’s theory (REJZOzrg ; cp 

COPPER, 5 3). The other Zobah corresponds to the 

‘ districts of Subitu,’ referred to by AIur-bani-pal (KB 

2 217), and was S. of Damascus, perhaps (so Wi. AOF 

1467) between Haurjn and the Sea of Galilee. Two 

cities of the former Zobah (as we may provisionally say) 

are named in z S. 8 8, viz., Ektah and Berothai (on these 

see TEBAH, BEROTHAI, BEROTHAH). 

1 Marquart’s suggestion (see JOEL, 3) to read is only a 

ste towards the right solution (see 5 2). 

ZThis, however, is probably due to a partisan of Saul, who 

wishes his favourite to vie with David (SAUL, 5 3). 

3 Halevy supports this by the conjecture that illis is a contraction 

of >$?:, ‘bright yellow,’ and compares Xdrk from 

ah&, ‘copper.’ Chalcis was on the slopes of Antilibanus (cp 

ai. A T Unfers. 180). On the situation of NuhaHgi, cp Flinders 

Petrie, Syria and Egypt, 179. 

5425 

A1T of the passage of 2 S. referred to. There is grave reason, 

however, to hold that this assumption is 

2. New theory. erroneous. The Aram with which David 

had relatiorrs vas, according to the still 

discoverable earlier’form of the traditions, not the northern but 

a southerll Aram--i.e., the Jerahmeelites of the Ne&, and, 

343 Is. 155 Jer. 4834t. It is commol~ly placed to the 

SE. of thi ~~~d sea, which may be so far as 

Is, 155 and Jer, 4834 are concerned, but hardly for Gen, if we use the manv parallels and analogies of other restored 

and Dt. (Uic.). 

passages it is not difficult to recover the probable originals of 

There is in fact a considerable body of eyidence for theview names oiplaces miswritten by the redactor. It should, however, 

that the chief seat of the southern Israelitiph legends was the first of all, be noticed to the credit of Winckler that, noticing 

Jerahmeelite territory, bordering on Muv and Edom. See the combination of Beth-rehoh and Zobah, and the designation 

ISAAC, JACOB, and especially SODOM ANU GOMORRAH. The of Hadad-ezer, king of Zobah, as Beth-rehob, he has suggested 

play on the meaning of ‘ Zoar ’ in Gen. 19 20 22 is only accounted that both names represent one and the same state (GI 1141J). 

for if the true name of the city was iyso, or rather ny,?i.e., This is in fact very near the truth. The statement in 2 S. 8 3 

Mi& (hlusri). The ‘ Zoar ’ of legend was really ‘ Misur ’ ; it should’probahiy run thus, ‘And David smote Hadad [. . . .I, a 

w2’one of the citiesof Musriin N. Arabia, towardsS. Palestine. native of Rehohoth, king of Zarephatb,l when he went to tnrn 

Cp MISRAIM, $ 2 (b). Upon the new theory, Gen. 13 10, where him [David] back from the river [of Mu$ri].’z Verse 8 in its 

‘Zoar’ appears to be distinctly placed in the Jordan valley, original form probably spoke only of one royal city, viz., 

originally ran thus, ‘ And Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw that Rehoboth; of this Berah gives one and Berothai another 

the whole of Jerahmeel (p,~ 133, a primitive corruption of corruption.3 In 106 the allies of the h‘ne Ammon were probably 

given as Aram-rehoboth (to which Aram-zoha is probably ,a 

5~pn-p) was well-watered [before Yahw.5 destroyed Sodom and gloss) 4 Maacah (the southern Maacah), and Tubal ; Helam in 

&&orrah] like the gard;: of Yahwt., like the land of Migrim, vu. ~br: represents Jerahmeel (place-name). In I S. 1447 

in the direction of Missur. Here, however, it is probable that 

>xis *>in (‘the kings of Zobah’) is miswritten for ngir honi- 

Misgur really means the Zand of MisSur ; O;?rS f‘$ may be (Jerahmeel-zarephath); see SAUL P, 7. In 2 S. 23 36 we need 

omitted as an unintellijent alteration of l?Xn ”&I. Ball (cp not question the reading, ‘Igal,’ b.’Nathan, of ‘Zobah,’ for 

‘Zohah ’ here too represents ‘Zarephath, while Igal’ (like 

GARDEN, P, 4, n.) prefers reading @ ‘Zoan ’ (Pesh. ?). But ‘Joel’ and ‘ Gaal ’) is a popular corruption of ‘ Jerahmeel. 

surely ‘ like the land of Egypt ’ was Ylear enough, without a That ‘ Zarephath ’ should sometimes be used con~prehensively, 

limiting or explanatory appendage. Egypt,’ however, is not some$mes with a narrower reference, affords no ground for 

to be expected in this context, and the Hebrew traditions surprise. ‘Zarephathites ’ is constant1 used widely, and yet 

centre (as new evidence appears to shqw) in the Negeb and primarily, of course, it merely meant the people of the city of 

the N. Arabian border. For the later traditional view of Zoar Zarephath. On ‘ Hamath-zohah ’ (Maacath-zarephath), z Ch. 83 

see MOAB. and on the whole question of the original Zoar see SOLOMON $7. 

Cp SODOM. T. K. C. NSldeke (hL 1232) places Zobah ‘nearly in the region of 

ZOBAH (883, COYBA [BAL]), or more fully ARAM- Emesa. Elsewhere (see MEROM) it is suggested that Merom 

(Josh. 11 5 7) may he the second or more southerly Zohah. 

ZOBAH (8nY D78, Ps. 80 heading, CUBAA [BNR]), 

T. K. C. 

ZOBEBAH (8)3%tl), with ‘ hub’ and the ’ families 

of Aharhel, the son of Harum,’ is (perhaps) connected 

genealogically with Tekoa (>IT Coz [q.~.]), I Ch. 48 

(CABABA [BI, CUBHBA [A], CAB. [L]). See TEKOA. 

ZODIAC (Ilh!p), Job3832 RVmg., EV MAZZAROTH 

(4.~. ). See also STARS, 5 3 (d), 

ZOHBR (ink, 8 66 : ‘ reddish-white ? ’ see COLOURS, 

I 7 ; CAAP [BADEL]): 

I. Probably the name of the clan to which Ephron the Hittite 

(from Rehohothite [?I, see REHOBOTH) belonged (Gen. 238 259). 

Possibly we should read ”?!, ZERAH. 

2. h. SIMEON 

(5 9); see Zerah (4). 

3. b. Ashhur, a Judahite (1 Ch. 4 7 ; Kr. 1041, ‘ and Zohar.’ 

RVmg. ; Kt. ins?, see IZHAR, 2 ; xdr u. [BPI, rai wrap [Ll). 

ZOHELETH, STONE OF (n$g;r jq~, I Serpent’s 

Stone ’ [BDB], but see below). This stone was evidently 

sacred, like the fountain En-rogel beside which it 

stood, and in the building which enclosed it Adonijah, 

as claimant of the crown of Israel, probably held his 

sacrificial feast (I K. 19). 

Gk. readings are : h&ov 701

ZOHETH ZOROASTRIANISM 

Others (e.g. WRS, RSP) 172 and Benzinger Kbn. 4) doubtfully 

connect the sacred fountain and stone dith the Dragon's 

;Well of ,Neh. 213 (see DRAGON). Zoheleth might mean 

serpent. T. K. C. 

ZOHETH (nniT) and BEN-ZOHETH (q.~.), sons of 

Ishi, a descendant of Judah, I Ch. 420 (ZWAN [B], 

zwXAe ~41, zaw~ PI). 

ZOPHAH (n3iY ; cwxae, cw@ac PI -@~p, 

-@A 

[AI), uou$a [Ll), a name in a genealogy of ASHER G.u., $ 4 z), 

I Ch. 7 35Jt 

ZOPHAI (*g\Y), I Ch. 626 [II], see ZUPH. 

ZOPHAR (lgak ; CW@A~ [BKAC]), one of Job's 

friends, a Naaniathite (Job 211 111 201 429 [and 176 

@If). NAAMAH (q.~.) was in SW. Judah; but the 

clan which settled there was doubtless of Calebite and 

therefore of Edomite extraction (cp ' Naam,' I Ch.4 f5). 

The poet must have reckoned ' Zophar ' as an Edomite. 

Probably the writer took the name from the notices in Gen. 

36 11 15 I Ch. 136, where 15s (Gen.) or '93 (Ch.)-both forms miswritten 

for igiy (see @&occurs among the sons of Eliphaz, son 

of Esau. (See ZEPHO.) Still, ' Naamathitr ' is hardly the name 

we expect. Possibly vn~y, may have come from qnq, and this, 

by transposition, from ,>~*n. Zophar, then, like Eliphaz would 

be called a Temanite. 

Dozy's correction (see Di., zo), 'nnyi. ' a man of RAAMAH ' 

(p.~.), and Hommel's, 'yyn, ' Miniean'(cp 6, b M[slruaks and, 

2 TI 42 =?e, b M[e]rvaiou j3amA&), seem less plausible. 

T. K. C. 

ZOPHIM (PgY, CKOISI~N [BAFL]), apparently a 

mountain-district (ilta, see FIELD, I), where was the 

' height of the Pisgah,' Nu. 2314. Dillmann, but not 

Kautzsch (HS), renders 'pale ' the field of watchers,' 

and supposes that there in times of danger watchers 

were stationed, or else that there diviners were wont 

to scan the heavens or the flight of birds for omens. 

In Nu. 21 20 however 'the height of the Pisgah' is said to be 

'in the highland of doah,' or rather (see MOAB, 8 14) 'of 

Mi99ur.' This suggests that n*?4 is a corrupt or mutilated form 

of the name of a region or a clan-i.e., either of VX! or of 

O'n?l$. It was in fact probably a mountain not far from 

Zarephath that was meant in the original story. See further 

NEBO i., 8 2. T. K. C. 

ZOPHIM, RAMATHAIM. See RAMATHAIM. 

ZORAR (ncly, as if 'hornet ' ; cp ilP?'$ ; CA~AA). 

A city repeatedly mentioned, hut not easy so lo locate 

as to suit all the textual phenomena. It was closely 

connected with the story of Samson : but the scene of 

this story seems to have been differently viewed at 

different times (see SAMSON). It was Danite-of that 

there can be no doubt (Judg. 132, oapd [B] ; Josh. 

1941, aapu.9 [B]). 

Zorah is included in the same group with Eshtaol and Ashna, 

among the cities of the ShZphdah (Josh. 15 33, AV ZOREAH 

paa [Bl) : hut the kernel of the name Eshtaol (Shaol or Saul) i: 

probably Jerahmeelite. It is also mentioned in Neh. 11 29 (AV 

ZAREAH, om. BN*A, uapa [L]) and in z Ch. 11 IO as fortified by 

Rehoboam; but in both passages there seems upon critical 

grounds to he reason to think that the original text referred to 

places in the Negeh. In I Ch. 2 53 we find the ZORATHITES 

(AV ZAREATHITES, 'nel,Y;7, uapda;or [BA], uapdr [L] among 

the families of Kirjath-jearim, cp I Ch. 42 (apaeer [Bl, uapdr [A], 

uaAdqA [L]) ; also in 2 54 where the ZORITES ('pl??, quaper 

[Bl . . . pasr [A], uapaer [L]), together with the MANAHETH- 

ITES (q.v., and cp MANOAH) are sons of Salma the 'father' of 

Beth-lehem. But the genealogy is Calebite ; jearim in Kirjath- 

jearim may represent ' Jerahmeel ' ' SHOBAL and SALMA 

N. Arabian names, and Beth-lehem' certainly represents Bethjerahmeel, 

a name which, in such a context we naturally assign 

to the Negeh. Ephrath too is primahy a name of the 

Negeh. It would seem therefore that in spite of the 

assignment of Zorah to the Shephelah in Josh. 15 33, and its 

combination with Aijalon in Josh. 1941s~ we must admit that a 

confusion has been made by the redactors of the OT texts 

between a Zorah in the ShZphelSh and a place of a similar 

name (probably lpk Zoar, or '1% Zur, or even l i g Mkgur), 

and of equal strategic importance, in the Negeb not far from 

Beth-jerahmeel (confounded by redactors sometides with Bethlehem 

in Judah, sometimes with Aijalon). 

The Zorah of the Shtphelgh would be the modern 

Sar'a, which stands on an eminence on the N. side of 

5427 

are 

the WHdy Sarsr, opposite Beth-shemesh and 14 m. W. 

from Jerusalem. On the importance of the situation 

see GASm. HG 2183 The Zoar (?) of the Negeb we 

cannot venture to locate. T. K. C. 

ZOROBABEL (ZOPOBABEA [Ti. WH]), Mt. 1 IZJ 

AV, RV ZERUBBABEL. See GENEALOGIES, ii., 1 z (c). 

Names ($ I). 

Early obscurity ($ 2). 

Ancient accounts ($ 3). 

Zoroaster (0 4J). 

Date, sources (8 6J). 

Ormazd, Ahriman (0 8). 

Other spirits (08 9-11). 

Dualism ($ 12). 

ZOROASTRIANISM 

2). 

Resurrection, ' WGdom,' etc. 

($5 23-25). 

Literature (5 26, end). 

Of Mazdaism, the religion of the Perso-Iranians, 

Zoroaster is regarded as the prophet ; hence the religion 

1. Names for is often called Zoroastrianism. Western 

writers, however, more usually speak 

religion. of the doctrine of the Magi. It is not 

easy to say with certainty whether or 

not we are entitled to interchange the three terms, 

Mazdaism, Zoroastrianism, and Magism, as if they 

2. Early were synonymous. Positive information 

regarding the religious condition of 

Western Iran during the oldest historical 

period is almost entirely wanting. It is not absolutely 

certain, for example, of what faith Cyrus the Great 

was an adherent. With reference, moreover, to the 

antecedent conditions in Eastern Iran, which must have 

played an important rBle in the early development of 

the Persian religion, our sources are very scanty throughout. 

Our oldest positive witnesses for the belief in 

Mazda are the comprehensive inscriptions of Darius I., 

through which runs a strong vein of faith and pious 

devotion. Darins never wearies of glorifying the just 

and good guidance of the supreme god, Auramazda 

(Ormazd). The other gods are mentioned onlyincidentally. 

Religious matters are often spoken of quite in the 

style of the later Avesta. The greatest evil is falsehood. 

The spirit of falsehood, the adversary (cp 'Satan ') of 

Mazda, is not mentioned by any name. We are thcrefore 

confronted by the question,-Is the mere name of 

Mazda itself a positive proof of the Zoroastrian origin 

of the early Persian religion, or must the dualism be 

explicitly present as the essential mark of the prophet's 

teaching ? Herodotus, moreover, our oldest authority, 

says nothing of Ahriman in his account of the religion 

of the Persians, nor does he mention the name of 

Zoroaster. Accordingly, C. de Harlez disputes the 

view that the Persians under the first Achzemenians 

were Zoroastrians. He also lays stress on the fact that 

the burial rites of the Persians, as pictured by Herodotus 

(1 140)~ are directly opposed to the Zoroastrian 

injunctions. Darmesteter rightly objects that it is not 

the intention of Darius to publish a creed or articles of 

faith. Herodotus, in a well-known passage (7 131-140), 

describes only the religious usages of the Persians, and 

cxpressly states that he does not know the whole truth 

regarding their customs connected with the disposal of 

the bodies of the dead. Darmesteter therefqre comes 

to the conclusion that the Zoroastrian religion was in 

force in Persia at the time of Darius I. In practice, 

however, it was only the priestly caste of the Magi that 

was bound to rigid observance of the rule. Among the 

laity the religious prescriptions and usages did not have 

50 binding a force nor so wide a scope as t'ley had later 

zt the time of the Sassanians. Windischmann had 

already expressed the conviction that Darius and his 

snccessors were genuine Zoroastrians, the name Auramazda 

being as inseparable from the religion of Zoroaster 

as the name of Christ was from Christianity. 

This supposition would become a certainty if West is 

right in his conclusion that the Persian calendar, which 

is distinctly Zoroastrian in its naming of months and 

5428


days, had been introduced at the time of Darius, about 

505 B.C. The entire question as to the Achzmenians 

being Zoroastrians is still under discussion. We know, 

at least, that Artaxerxes I. and his successors were 

Zoroastrians. 

For references consult C. de Harlez, Auestu,P) 1881, Introd. 

x, xrii, ccx . Darmesteter, SBE 4 (1880), Introd. xliv (2nd ed. 

1895); Le ye%d-A-~estu (3 vols., !893), vol. 3, Introd. Ixx : Windischniann, 

Zovoastnkche Siudzen (1863), 121 ; West, SBE 47 

(r8g7), Introd. xliv. 

According to Herodotus (1132) no Persian could 

sacrifice without a Magian priest. This indirectly proves 

that there was a religious connection be- 

3. GCreeka 

1 Contrast Is. 66 3 (see Doc, 5 3). 

2 This forms part of the SeZections ofZ~-spurum. 

173 5429 


under the title, ' Marvels of Zoroastrianism,' in SBE 

47 (1897). 

These narratives have a mythical tinge that is quite 

oriental ; they are not histories, they are legends. Already 

in the Avesta Zoroaster appears for the most part 

as a legendary persondity. 

tween the Persians and the Magians. 

On Mae* Everything implied in the statements of 

He stands in personal intercourse with the divinity. At his 

appearing all nature rejoices (Ymht, 13 93) : he enters into conflict 

with the demons and rids the earth of their presence (Yasht, 

17 19) ; Satan approaches him as tempter to make him renounce 

his faith (Vendidud 196). The history of his life is a succession 

of marvels. The hivine powers themselves initiate him into 

his high calling, and during the whole of his prophetic career 

they stand by him with their counsei. 

Many scholars therefore have regarded the personality 

of the prophet as purely mythical (Darmesteter ; Kern, 

the Greeks regarding the usages and the doctrines of the according to Tiele, Kompendium, § 99). This is cer- 

Magi is genuinely Zoroastrian. The Magi allowed the tainly going too far. There is no reason to doubt the 

bodies of their dead to be torn by dogs and birds of prey. existence of the religious founder, Zoroaster ; he lives 

They regarded it as a laudable act to kill as many ants, too strongly in tradition. The legend of Zoroaster is 

snakes, and other vermin as possible, whilst they held not one to be deprived of all historical foundation. 

the life of a dog as sacred as the life of a man (Herod. 

1146). Marriage of near relations was with them a pious 

custom (Strabo, 1520). All these things are treated with 

some fulness in the Avesta. Plutarch (de 13. et Os. 46) 

Zoroaster's real name is Zarathushtra, Modern 

Persian, Zardusht; it seems to mean, 'Possessor of 

5. Tradi- old camels. ' His father was Pourushaspa, 

tional data. of the noble family of the Spitamas, his 

explains the Magian zeal for destroying all unclean 

mother DughdhBvH. Regarding his 

animal life on the ground of the Zoroastrian theology, native place there is a double tradition. According to 

and quite in accordance with the Avesta, as follows : one, the house of his father was situated in Airyana 

'Among plants, they. attribute the one to the Good Vat?jo upon a hill of the river Dareja (the modern Darya, 

Divinity, the other to the Evil Genius: similarly with in northern Azerbaijan), and Zoroaster was born there. 

regard to animals ; the dog.' birds, and the hedgehog According to the other tradition he came from Ragha 

belong to the Good Divinity ; the water-rat belongs to (Rai ; see RAGES) in Media proper. In Sassanian 

the Evil One. On this account they esteem him fortunate 

who has killed the most of these beasts.' Plutarch 

(2.6.) gives a sketch of the doctrines of the Magian 

times, Ragha as well as Atropatene was an important 

seat of the priesthood. In Ragha resided the Zarathushtrotema, 

the supreme head of the church. The 

Zoroaster and of the mythology of the Magians. He riddle of the contradiction has been solved by Jackson. 

clearly develops the outlines of the dualistic system ; According to a statement of Shahrastani, Azerbaijan 

the two primeval spirits and their incessant warfare ; was the home of Zoroaster's father, whilst his mother 

creation and counter-creation ; the division of the was by birth from Rai (Jackson, four. Am. Of-. Soc. 

universe; its limited existence; the end of the evil 15228 ; Darmesteter, SBE 4 Introd. xlvii). 

principle ; the regeneration and purification of the 

world (de Is. 47 ; p:utly drawn from Theopompus). 

Areimanios wasmentioned for the first time beside Oromazdes 

in a lost work of Aristotle, according to Diogenes Laertius 

(proem. 8). The name of Zoroaster occurs earlier in a fragment 

(29) of Xanthos, and in Plato (Alcid. 1 122)) who calls him the 

son of Oromazdes. For Western writers Zoroaster is always 

the Magus or the founder of Magianism (Plut., 2.c.; Plato, Lc.; 

Diog. Laert., proem. z : other passages in de Harlez, op. cit., 

189 :, Max Duncker, ,GAP) 450). The ancients also give some 

details as to the childhood of Zoroaster and his hermit life 

(Pliny, H.V 30 2 ; Plutarch, Numu, 4 ; Dio Chrysostom. 2 60). 

They call him sometimes a Bactrian sometimes a Median or 

Persian (cp Jackson in Jour. Amer. 6, Soc. 15 222). No reliance 

can be placed on their references to his extreme antiquity. 

Hermippus of Smyrna placed him 5000 years before the Trojan 

War ; Xanthos, doao years before Xerxes ; Aristotle assigned him 

a similar antiquity(Pliny, "30 I 2 ; Diog. Laert. proem. 2 ; c 

Jackson, Jour. Am. Or. SOC. 173, and Zoroaster, 15o-r78f 

Agathias (2 24) rightly remarks that it is no longer possible to 

determine withany certainty when he lived and legislated. ' The 

Persians,' he adds, 'say that Zoroaster lived under Hystaspes 

but do not make clear whether by this name is meant the fathe; 

of Darius or another Hystaspes. 

What the Greeks regard as the doctrines of the 

Magi the Iranians themselves call the doctrines of 

4. Iranians Zoroaster. The native accounts bring 

on Zoroaster. the personality of Zoroaster into the 

foreground. To him alone Mazda 

vouchsafed the Lawand the Holy Faith, and ordained 

him as the teacher of men. The Avesta, or Zoroastrian 

bible, makes only occasional reference to the external 

The most important traditional data of Zoroaster's 

life are as follows. When he was thirty years old, in 

a vision upon the bank of the river DHitya, the 

archangel Vohumano appeared to him and invited him 

to a conference with Mazda. This first meeting, which 

is recorded also in the Avesta (Ymna, 43), is to be 

regarded as the coming of the new religion and as the 

beginning of a new era of the world. Seven other 

conferences followed in the next ten years. In the first 

two years, at the command of the Lord, Zoroaster 

preached the new doctrine to the Kavis and Karpans- 

Le., the ruling idolatrous priests of the land-in the 

presence of the prince of the region, a Turanian ; but 

withont effect. The injunction of 'next of kin' 

marriage shocked them. He then betook himself to 

SeistHn. to ParshatgHu, who allowed himself to be 

converted, but not in public. It was only Zoroaster's 

own cousin, Maidybi-mHongha, who first openly professed 

himself his disciple, so that the prophet disheartened 

cries out : e In ten years I have won only a 

single man ! ' Mazda now sent him to the court of 

King VishtHspa. There he had first to undergo cruel 

imprisonment ; but after two years he finally overcame 

the opposition of the idolatrous priests and converted 

the king. At this time also the brother of the king, 

Zairivairi, as well as the king's son, SpentbdZta, and 

both the Vizirs, namely, the brothers Frashaoshtra and 

circumstances of Zoroaster's life, for the part of the JZmHspa, became wholly devoted to him. Zoroaster 

Avesta which was specially devoted to the story of his lived to see the great religious war with King Arejatlife, 

the so-called Spend-Nask, is lost. Its contents, 

however, have been worked into the Pahlavi literature, 

which in three places gives a description of his life. 

aspa, who invaded Iran with the Hyaonas and was 

defeated, but met his death by the hand of a Turanian, 

it is said, at the age of 77 years and 40 days. The 

These interesting accounts, two of which occur in the 

fifth and seventh hooks of the Dinkard and one in the 

Zartfisht-niimak,2 have been translated by E. W. West 

Avesta does not definitely express itself regarding the 

home of King VishtHspa : it is only the latest tradition 

that locates the seat of the king, and also the scene 

where Zoroaster successfully taught, in the E. and 

especially towards Bactria 

If there is anything historical in these notices it is the 

5430


figure of the royal patron and protector VishtZspa, 

' who with his weapon broke a path for the truth, and 

became the arm and support of the Zoroastrian religion, 

and freed it from the chains in which it had lain bound, 

and raised it to power and spread it abroad' ( Yusht, 

1399-100). His influential consort HutaosZ appears to 

have led the way by good example. Zoroaster found 

strong support at the court, moreover, in the two 

brothers, Frashaoshtra and JBmHspa. The GBthBs 

never mention the name of the king without mentioning 

with praise his two zealous and faithful counsellors. To 

both of these Zoroaster was related by marriage; he 

married Hvogvi' the daughter of Frashaoshtra ; and 

JHmHspa married Zoroaster's daughter, PouruchistH. 

As to the era of Zoroaster, the extravagant dates 

given by the Greeks have no value. Modern investiga- 

6, Date. tion avoids mere guesses and places more 

reliance on the native statements. We 

have two dates given by tradition. The one makes a 

period of 272 years intervene between the beginning of 

the religion (see above, 5) and the death of 

Alexander the Great (323 B.c.) ; whilst according to 

the other, the religion had existed in purity for about 

300 years before the invasion of Alexander. According 

to the first statement, Zoroaster would have lived from 

625 B. c. to 548 B. C. West makes the second statement 

the basis of his reckoning, and taking account of a slight 

omission in the traditional chronology makes the dates 

660.583 B.C. (cp SBE47, Introd. xxvii and xxxviii). 

These numbers fall within historical times, and the 

former comes near the era of the historical VishtHspa 

(Hystaspes). the father of Darius I. With this Hystaspes, 

who was satrap in Parthia, it was formerly usual to 

identify the Vishtaspa of the Avesta. This identification, 

however, falls to the ground, at least for the present, 

because of the totally different ancestry of the historical 

Hystaspes and of the VishtHspa of the legend. 

The chief source of information regarding the teaching 

of Zoroaster is the Avesta. This was redacted in the 

time of the Sassanidze ; it is drawn, 

,. 

however, in part at least, from older 

Bources* sources and tradition. To the oldest 

tradition belonged the so-called GHthHs. They contain 

remnants of the addresses and sermons, delivered before 

the assembled court, and put by tradition into the 

mouth of the prophet, who is conceived of as teaching, 

exhorting, and seeking to win recruits for his cause. 

The GHthZs themselves are distinguished in two respects 

from the 'younger (later) Avesta.' 

First, the person of Zoroaster appears much less legendary in 

the Gatha. The scenes of his activit and teaching are placed 

much more vividly before our eyes. ds relation to his patrons is 

much more close and real. The GSth% are marked by many 

personal allusions and references which are unknown to the 

younger Avesta. Secondly the celestial world is much more 

predominantly abstract. MatLrial and naturalistic divinities 

Ike Mithra are foreign to the Gathas. The external cult and 

ritual sink almost entirely into the background. The holy 

drink, the Haoma, is not mentioned. 

These two considerations, however, are not enough 

to enable us to distinguish sharply between the GHtha 

Zoroastrianism as the pure and original doctrine on the 

one hand, and the later Zoroastrianism as systematically 

developed and corrupted by the older popular faith 

on the other. The GEthiis are really not properly 

dogmatic and doctrinal sermons ; they are rather prophetic 

sayings, promises, and injunctions intended 

specially for the narrower community of the faithful 

and initiated; they represent the esoteric side of 

Zoroaster's teaching in its ideal bearing rather than its 

outward rules and statutes. The GHthHs are rather the 

philosophy of Zoroastrianism ; the younger Avesta is 

rather its theology together with the systematic elaboration 

of the Zoroastrian doctrine. 

The supreme God is Ahur6 Mazdso (Anc. Per., 

Azj'ramasda, Mod. Per., Uormaed or Ormaed), 'the 

wise lord.' He is called also Spent6 Mainyush-ie., 

'the holy (lit., weal-bringing) spirit '-and he is the 

5431 


creator and regent of the world. His sovereimty - _ 

8. Zoroastrian- over the universe, however, is conism 

: Ormaad, tested by his foe, the fiend primeval, 

ahriman. 

Augr6 Mainyush-Le., ' the destruc- 

tive spirit.' In the beginning of things 

these twin spirits existed independentlyof each othe;; 

they became aware of their opposing character ( Yusna, 

30 3) and swore an eternal feud (cp Yasnu. 45 2 and 

Bundahish, i. 14). Both spirits possess creative power, 

which manifests itself in the one positively and in the 

other negatively. Ormazd is light, life, and activity, 

the soul of all that is pure and good; in the ethical 

world he is law, order, and truth. His antithesis, 

Ahriman. is darkness, filth, death, and reaction ; all 

that is evil in the world; lawlessness and lies spring 

from him. Ormazd has his throne in the 'endless 

light' of heaven, in Paradise; Ahriman rules in the 

cold north, in the endless darkness of Hell, from which 

he breaks forth from time to time. Ormazd alone 

possesses omniscience and prescience ; Ahriman's 

wisdom is backward knowledge (Bunduhish, i. 9) ; he is 

always coming too late, and has to look at events after 

they are past. For the time being the two spirits 

counterbalance one another. The complete sovereignty 

of Ormazd is to come to pass in the future existence. 

The ultimate triumph of the good spirit is an ethical 

demand of the religious conscience and the quintessence 

of Zoroaster's revelation. His doctrine is dualistic in 

so far as it sets up two opposing primeval powers ; it is 

not, however, quite consistent ; the two principles are 

not endowed with equal power. The dualism of 

Zoroaster is only an episode in the existence of Ormazd, 

who is the supreme and only god from the beginning of 

the world, and remains so to eternity. 

In the realm of light, Ormazd is the sovereign lord. 

As a spirit, it is true, he is invisible to men ; but he is 

not immaterial. A flaming, firm, exalted, and 

beautiful body is attributed to him. The heaven is his 

robe. In his exalted majesty he is the ideal figure 

of an oriental king. The other divine powers and 

genii are his creation, helpers, overseers, and servants, 

his instruments and his leaders in the war against evil. 

Next to him in rank stand six archangels, the Amesha 

Spentas, ' the Immortal Holy Ones ' ; he himself is often 

9. The counted with them as the sev'enth. They 

dmesha resemble the ministers of some autocratic 

They sit round about Ormazd, 

Spentas. sovereign. 

and he holds counsel with them. According 

to their names they are pure abstractions, although 

in the GBthss they are already represented as persons. 

They have been developed partlyout of the ethical ideas of 

the old Aryan belief. As a whole, however, they are a 

true product of Zoroaster's conception. They form the 

necessary constituents of the kingdom of Mazda which 

is to be perfected, and in them the tendency of 

Zoroastrianism to personify abstract ideas takes its 

origin. In everything the Amesha Spentas are the 

truest fellow-workers of Ormazd. The care and 

guardianship of creation is entrusted to them, and they 

are regarded as tutelary divinities over the separate 

kingdoms of nature. 

The other good spirits of Ormazd are comprised 

under the name Yazata (keds), 'angels.' These are 

partly religious and ethical abstractions of Zoroastrian- 

ism l ie Rashnu (Uprightness) or Ashi Vanuhi (the good 

5432


5433 


Reward of Piety). In part they are the unforgotten 

forms of Aryan mythology, such as Mithra 

Other 

and Verethraghna (the genius of Victory, 

good *pirita. the Iranian counterpart of the Indian 

Indra Vrtrahan), or they are the familiar personifications 

of iiatural phenomena such as the sun, the 

found.' Man takes part in this conflict by all his life 

and activity in the world. By a true confession of faith, 

by every good deed, by continually keeping pure his 

body and his soul, he impairs the power of Ahriman 

and strengthens the power of goodness, and establishes 

a claim for reward upon Ormazd ; by false confession, 

moon, fire, wind (cp Herod. ~I!I). In the Gathiis by every evil deed and defilement, he increases the evil 

most of the Yazatas are not mentloned-even such as 

hold quite an important place in the later system and 

ritual, like Mithra. It is only Sraosha (holy obedience) 

and Atar, the fire, the son of Ormazd. that play a more 

important de. For the younger Avesta, special 

mention must also be made of AnBhita, goddess of the 

waters, and of the Fravashis (Fervers). the spiritual 

prototypes of men and of the good creation and at the 

same time the guardian spirits of the pious. 

and renders service to Ahriman. 

The life of man falls into two parts-its earthly 

portion and that which is lived beyond the grave. The 

*13. ~~~ here lot assigned to him afterbeath is the 

and hereafter. result and consequence of his life 

upon earth. No religion has so clearly 

grasped the ideas of guilt and merit. k strict reckoning 

of the works of men here below will be kept in heaven. 

After death, at the end of the third night, the soul 

Ahriman also has his infernal hosts which he created arrives at the head of the Cinvat6-Peretu. or Accountant's 

for the conflict with Ormazd. 

These are endowed with less individuality, 

11. Other however, than those of the kingdom of light. 

evil spirits. The Druj (Lie, Falsehood), for example, is 

opposed to Asha ; Akem Man6 (Bad Thought) 

to Vohu Mano ; and Armaiti to Tarrjmaiti (Pride or Presumption). 

In the Gathis, the Druj is mentioned more often than 

Ahriman himself. In the later texts, the word Druj signifies a 

-s cia1 class of female demons. The most familiar of these is 

ksu, the corpse spirit. The schematic system of later times 

ven Ahrimanian counterparts to each of the other 

?ie%i? gpent..s. Myriads of demons, DaEvas (Devs), make 

up the mighty horde of Ahriman. They embody all the disturhing 

elements in nature and the baser instincts in man. Of 

most of them we know only the names. The best-known among 

them is Aeshma, the demon of Wrath (see ASMODEUS). 

As soon as the two spirits encounter each other their 

active or creative, and at the same time permanent, 

12. The conflict begins. The history of this conflict 

conffict. is the history of the world. Every move 

of Ormazd is met by a counter-move 

{puityinz) of Ahriman. 

Whatever the good spirit creates, the evil spirit sullies, or, as 

the text says, 'just like a fly he rushed out upon the whole 

creation ' (Bundahisir, iii. 17). No sooner has Ormazd created 

the world than Ahriman brings upon the earth distress in the 

form of plague and noxious creatures. Ormazd brings into 

.existence the primeval bull (prototype of all animals) ; Ahriman 

tortures it to death with hunger sickness, and blows, and its 

soul (Geush Urva) complains befire the throne of Ormazd about 

the violence it has had to suffer. Ormazd comforts the soul of 

the creature with the assurance of the future coming of Zoroaster 

.(l'asna, 29;. Bundaltish, 4). Ormazd creates the first man 

,(Gays Maretan); Ahriman incites against this man Asta- 

Vidhatu, the demon of death, and thus sets death in opposition 

to life.1 

A great cleft runs through the entire world and 

divides it into two great camps-the kingdom of light 

and the realm of darkness. All creation is divided into 

that which is Ahura's and that which is Ahriman's. 

This division extends even to the language. Whenever 

mention is made of face, ears, hands, and feet, of activity, 

speaking, going, striving, a sharp distinction is made 

in the expression between good and evil beings. The 

two spirits do not carry on the struggle in person. 

They leave it to be fought out by their respective 

creations and by creatures which they send into the 

field. The field of battle is the present world. 

In the centre of the battle is man; his soul is the 

abject of the war. Man is a creation of Ormazd, who 

therefore has the right to call him to account. Ormazd. 

however, created him free in all his decisions and in 

his actions, wherefore he is accessible to the influences 

of the evil powers. This freedom of the will is clearly 

expressed in Yusnu, 3111 : e Since thou, 0 Mazda, 

didst at the.first create our being and our souls in 

accordance with thy mind, and didst create our understanding 

and our life together with the body, and works 

and words in which man according to his own will can 

frame his confession, the liar and the truth-speaker 

alike lay hold of the word, the knowing and the 

ignorant each after his own heart and understanding. 

Armaiti searches, following thy spirit, where errors are 

Bridge, over which lies the way to heaven.' Here 

takes dace the revealing - and disclosure of all its past 

14. Judicium life, the judicium parficulure. The 

particdare. angel Mithra and the angel Rashnu 

make UD the account and reckoning 

(SBE~~Z~S), or Rashnu-the Just weighs the good an; 

the evil deeds over against each other in the impartial 

balance that does not vary a hair's breadth in favour of 

any man, not even a monarch (SBE 24 18). 

Perhaps in ancient times the bridge itself was conceived of as 

a sort of automatic scale. In the case of the soul of the just 

whose good deeds outweigh his evil acts, the bridge becomes 

wide and easy of crossing. and at this moment his own religion 

comes to meet him in tie shape of a beautiful maiden, and 

accompanies him to Paradise (Garbdemiinem), where Vohu Mano 

receives him (Vend. 1930-31). In the case of the soul of the 

wicked, however, the bridge becomes as narrow as the edge of 

a razor, and when he reaches the middle of it he falls off and is 

plunged headlong into hell (SBE 17 48). 

Should the evil and the good be equally balanced, 

the soul passes into an intermediate stage of existence 

(the HarnEstakSm), and its final lot is not decided until 

the last judgment. 

Man, however, has been smitten with blindness and 

ignorance; he knows neither the eternal law nor the 

things that await him after death. He allows himself 

only too easily to be ensnared by the craft of the evil 

powers who seek to ruin his future existence. He 

worships and serves false gods, being unable to distinguish 

between truth and lies. Thus it came about 

that Ormazd graciously determined to open the eyes of 

mankind by sending a prophet to show them the right 

way of salvation. According to the later legend ( Vend. 

Zr), Ormazd at first w-ished to entrust this task to Yima 

(Jemshid), the ideal of an Iranian king ; but Yima, the 

secular man, felt himself unfitted for it and declined 

the office. He contented himself therefore with establishing 

by order of the Lord in his paradise (vuru) a 

heavenly kingdom in miniature, to serve at the same time 

as a pattern for the heavenly kingdom that was to come. 

Zoroaster at last was found fit for the mission. It was 

not without special reason, the GBthHs believe, that the 

calling of a prophet should have taken place precisely 

when it did. It was, they held, the final appeal of Ormazd 

to mankind at large. Like John the Baptist and the 

apostles of Jesus, Zoroaster believed that the fulness of 

time was near, that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. 

Through the whole of the GHthZs runs the pious hope 

that the end of the present world is not far off. Zoroaster 

himself hopes along with his followers to live to see the 

decisive turn of things, the dawn of the new and better 

aeon. Ormazd will summon together all his forces for 

a final decisive struggle, and break the power of evil 

for ever ; by his help the faithful will achieve the victory 

15. Judicium over their detested enemies. the duZvu 

worshippers, and render them poweruniversale. 

less. Then the great act (yih) will be 

accomplished. Ormazd will institute a universal world.. 

judgment (judicium universuk). 

1 This story is by some wrongly connected with the story of 

Adam in Genesis. 

1 For parallels see Che. OPs. 438, note e? 

5434


By means of an ordeal of fire and molten metal he will separate 

the good from the wicked and will judge strictly according to 

justice, punish the wicked, and assign to the good the hoped-for 

reward. Ahriman will be cast, along with all those who have 

been delivered over to him to suffer the pains of hell, into the 

abyss, where he will thenceforward lie powerless. 

Forthwith begins the one undivided kingdom of God 

in heaven and on earth. This is called, sometimes the 

good kingdom, sometimes simply the kingdom. Here 

the sun will for ever shine, and all the pious and faithful 

will live a happy life that no evil power can disturb, in 

the fellowship of Ormazd and his angels for ever. 

In one respect with regard to this, there has come 

about in the later writings a change that is easy to 

understand. In them the catastrophe and renovation 

of the world are placed in a far distant future. Whereas 

in the GMhZs Zoroaster himself is more or less clearly 

designated as the Saoshyant--i.e., the predestined 

saviour of the world-the later writings look for the 

which as a principle is already proclaimed in'the GMhHs 

( Ynsna, 485). has led to the adoption of the niosc 

scrupulous washings and lustrations and elaborate ceremonies 

of purification, as well as of many strange 

customs, such as the exposing of corpses on the Towers 

of Silence (Dakhmas). According to strict logic, offences 

against the precepts of the law cannot be undone ; but 

in the heavenly account they can be counterbalanced by 

L surplus of good works. The elaborately developed 

system of Zoroastrianism fixed the doctrine of equivalents. 

with mathematical precision, and definitely assigned 

certain useful and pious works as acts of penance for 

certain sins. But corporal chastisements also were 

prescribed ; these, in the main, were for the purpose 

of driving out the Devs that had taken possession of the 

sinner's body. In later times, however, matters were 

made easier for the sinner. For corporal punishment 

monetary fines could be substituted, and absolution from 

appearance of this Saoshyant only at the end of the 

present aeon. 

The Avesta does not contain any definite statement as to the 

division of time in the existence of the universe (vet CD Fracm. ~I . - 

Vend. 2 24). 

According to the Budehesh, the duration of this world is 

IZ,OOO years divided into periods of ~000 years each (cp Plut. 

de Is. 47). In the first 3000 years Ormazd creates his creatio; 

in its spiritual form or prototype, without Ahriman heing aware 

of it. At the beginning of the second period Ahriman raises 

himself from hell into the light and perceives the start which 

Ormazd has obtained. In this period both spirits create their 

material creation. At the heginning of the third era Ahriman 

invades the creation of Ormazd, and during this period good 

and evil counterbalance each other. At the beginning of the 

tenth millennium, Zoroaster appears, and a new prophet is 

to spring from his seed after each of the three remaining 

millennia. As the last of these Messiahs the real Saoshyant 

shall appear. 

The Saoshyant with his helpers will accomplish the 

sin became more and more a means of grace to be had 

only at the hands of the church. Confession to the 

high priest, sincere repentance and reform, remove every 

sin from the body (SBE 2495 and Vend. 371). For 

such a confession it was obligatory to recite one of the 

confessional formulas (Patets). in which the later 

literature abounds. 

The cult of the Zoroastrian religion was without pomp. 

The sacrifice is described by Strabo (732). The sacred 

l,. Worship. fire formed the central point. The 

sacrificial gifts which were offered were 

The Magi meat and milk, and more especially the 

sacred drink Haoma. The main stress was laid upon 

prayer and the ascription of glory to God. 

The systematic development of the teachings of 

Zoroaster and of the Zoroastrian law is undoubtedly 

renovation of the world (frashd-kereti). Ormazd will 

raise the dead and the Saoshyant will assemble them 

the work of the priesthood which through their strict 

exclusiveness became an hereditary caste. In the W. 

all in one place. Everyone must descend into the great they were called-Magi ; in the language of the Avesta 

flood of molten metal. To the pious this lake will seem 

like a flood of warm milk ; but to the wicked it will feel 

they are termed Athravan ; but even in the sacred texts 

the word Magi occurs in a few instances. The Athravans. 

as if they were wading in molten metal. Then, in were the privileged guardians of the religion and the 

the name of hfazda, the Saoshyant will distribute unto leaders of worship. They alone could perform the 

everyone a reward according to his works. Ormazd sacrifices (Herod. 1132), and carry out the ecclesiastical 

will hurl Ahriman powerless back into hell, which is punishments and penances ; they alone could interpret 

filled up with the molten metal, and the world will be- the law. They exercised a sort of spiritual guardianship 

come purified for ever and for aye (Bund. 30). The over the laity. Every young man, after his reception 

younger (later) Avesta speaks of the end of the world into the community of the faithful, or Mazdayasnians, 

and of the last things only in brief allusions. The 

idea. of the resurrection of the dead is quite familiar 

had to select a spiritual guide, a father-confessor (Ratu). 

The priesthood never attained political power-or never 

to it and seems to be referred to several times even in even claimed it. 

the GHthBs. 

The moral and ethical teachings of Zoroastrianism are 

sound and consistent. The moral code is summed up 

16. Ethics. in the three words ; ' good thoughts, good 

words, good deeds.' Man must enlist in 

the service of Ormazd and devote himself to the good 

cause with his whole being, and he must do every 

injury possible to Ahriman. This fundamental principle 

dominates the entire religious code and all the 

ecclesiastical legislation. Because of the general utility 

of its precepts this code represents a high standard of 

civilisation when we consider the early times to which 

it belongs. It imposed upon the faithful the duty of 

worshipping Ormazd and his spirits, of prayer, sacrifice, 

the inviolability of his creatures, the sacred respect for 

the cow (emphasised especially in the GBthHs), attention 

After the fall of the Achzmenidae (331 B.c.) Zoroastrianism 

lost greatly in power and dignity. It was suhsequently rehabilitated, 

however, by the Sassanians, 

18. History Of under whom it reached its highest pros- 

Zoroastrianism. perity. 

It was at this epoch that the 

clergy advanced to a firmly-constituted 

hierarchy, and Zoroastrianism became the official religion of the 

state favoured and protected by the government. The forma; 

tion Af sects was at this period not infrequent (cp ' Manichaeism 

in EBP)). The Zervanites flourished under Yazdeqard 11. 

(438-457 A.u.). They represented Ormazd and Ahriman as 

twin sons proceeding from the fundamental prhciple of all, the 

limitless time (Znmn akarann). The Mohammedan invasion 

(636 A.D.) with the terrible persecution of the following centuries, 

was a dedthblow to Zoroastrianism. In Persia itself only a few 

followers of Zoroaster are now found (in Kirman and Yazd). 

The Parsees in and around Bombay hold to Zoroaster as their 

prophet and adhere to the ancient usages ; but their doctrine 

has reached the stage of a pure monotheism (see PARSEES in 

EN)). 

to agriculture and arboriculture. irrigation of dry lands, If we inquire into the origin of the Zoroastrian religion 

extermination of noxious animals, charity toward one's 

co-religionists, and the observance of absolute truthfulwe 

must not lose sight of the fact that everything which 

19. Origin. is written on this point must necessarily 

ness. Above all stands the law of chastity. The faithful 

shall preserve purity, both of body and of soul. 

rest upon mere conjecture. Tradition 

has obliterated every trace of the actual process by 

The soul must be kept pure from heretical doctrines 

and the influences of the Devs, the body must be kept 

n-hich the faith came into existence, and of the particular 

factors which were active in its formation. As far as 

from coming into contact with unclean persons, with tradition is concerned the complete doctrine was revealed 

corpses, filth, or other Ahrimanian objects. Man also by Ormazd in its entirety. Already in the GBthHs the 

must not in any way defile the pure elements of Ormazd belief in inspiration predominates ; nevertheless they 

such as fire, water, and earth. This love of purity, allow us to read between the lines other things as welL 

5435 


5436


We are denied, however, a clear insight into the popular 

religion before Zoroaster and into the ancient doctrines 

of the Magi, to whom Zoroaster must have had certain 

relation, whatever the exact extent of that relation may 

have been. 

The Mazda-religion is distinguished from the naturereligion 

of kindred peoples by its dogmatic character 

and by the unity of its structure. There is a fundamental 

idea in it which is developed with absolute logic. 

It is the fundamental dogma of the two spirits, a tenet 

which contains both the problem of the world and the 

solution of its enigma This doctrine, not only in its 

beginning and foundation, bnt also, in part at least. in 

its detailed structure, is the product of a single creative 

personality ; and that personality was Zoroaster. It 

was a new religion that Zoroaster taught. This must 

not be taken, however, to mean that everything in 

Zoroastrianism is absolutely new. Zoroaster himself 

says that his desire was to purify the religion ( Yasna, 

449). In its fundamental teaching as well as in its 

completely elaborate system Zoroastrianism shows unmistakable 

traces of the old Aryan religion. 

In common with the people of India Zoroastrianism has the 

cult of fire and of Haoina; it has alsd in common with India 

the name of the chief sacrificial priest Zaota (Sk. hat&), of the 

gods Mithra and Verethraghna, and the enforcement of minute 

purificatory precepts. The Zoroastrian doctrine of the weighing 

of good and bad deeds in the balance, which determines the fate 

of the soul after death, has its faithful counterpart in the Indian 

doctrine of barman and in the balancing of dhamra and adhnnmz 

in Manu, 12zof: It is only with Zoroaster, however, 

that this doctrine is developed in its most practical and, if one 

may say so, business-like form. Already in hapatha Br3hmaca 

(11 2 7 j3) we meet with the conception of the scale in heaven on 

which good and evil deeds are weighed. The threefold diviiion 

according to thoughts, words, and deeds, is as familiar to the 

Hindus as to Zoroaster. 

It has been believed that foreign influences even are 

traceable in Zoroastrianism ; but this remains a quite 

obscure point. The isolated analogies with Turanian, 

Assyro-Babylonian, and Hebraic conceptions cannot be 

accepted as giving convincing proof of actual borrowing 

on the part of Zoroastrianism (cp C. de Harlez, Des 

Oorigines des Zooroasirisme; Z. A. Ragozin, The story of 

Xedia, BabyZon. and Persia (1888)~ p. 147 ; Tiele, 

Kompendium, par. 109 ; Darmesteter, Le Zend-Awesta. 

3, Introd. lxxiv and lvii). The hypothesis of Darmesteter 

that the doctrine of the Gilthas was influenced by 

Gnosticism, has hardly found any adherents. 

The dualistic idea of Zoroaster is not adequately 

explained by conceiving it as a remodelling of the old 

mythological opposition between gods and demons, 

influenced and favoured by the sharp contrasts in nature 

in the Iranian land (Duncker, 102 ; Darmesteter, Ormazd 

et Ahriman, 88 271; Ed. Meyer, GA 153.J). Such 

an account still leaves unexplained the transformation 

and radical change of the Aryan devas (gods) into the 

Zoroastrian daivas (devils). Just as the fiendish 

demons, daivas. are opposed to the good god Ahura in 

Zoroastrianism. so the devas and asur-as have been 

placed in opposition in India from the earliest times. 

In the oldest literature this opposition is not as yet one 

of pronounced hostility ; but it soon becomes so. The 

devas remain gods, the astlras become demons. 

Between these two phenomena of contrasted meanings 

there must be a connection of cause and effect. They 

point to an old opposition in the Aryan world of the 

gods, expressed by the words deva, asura, which grew 

to be more and more distinct and sharp with both races, 

but in exactly opposite directions. In Iran the contrast 

seems to have led at first to two distinct cults, to an 

Ahura cult and to that of the Daevas. This seems to 

have been the religious condition of affairs in Iran when 

Zoroaster appeared. We meet with hints in the GHthHs 

which show us that the people were divided between 

these two opposing cults. The opposing parties are not 

separated by distance in space or by difference of race ; 

they are found side by side. ’ Hard by the believer in 

Ahura dwells the worshipper of the damas,’ complains 

5437 


Zoroaster. Not two cults, but two stages of culture, 

are struggling for the primacy ; the Ahura worshippers 

represent the higher phase ; they are breeders of cattle, 

and in their eyes the cow is a sacred animal; the 

worshippers of the daivas on the other hand maltreat 

the cow and slaughter it in their sacrifices. From this 

religiousdifference and dissension Zoroaster seems to have 

received his first impulse for appearing in public. As 

an adherent of Ahura whose attribute is ‘The Wise 

One,’ and as prophet, he will warn men against false 

teachers and priests; and amidst the differences of 

creeds and beliefs he will guide them to the wiser choice 

in order to save their souls. What the other party 

worship as gods under the name of daiwa are in reality 

powers by whom unwitting mankind is .led to its 

destruction-evil powers, false gods, devils. Such is 

the position from which all his teaching starts ; and 

thus the change in the conception of daiwa was a 

natural development. From the daZwas proceeds all 

the evil in the world. But Zoroaster’s speculation does 

not stop here. The daivas themselves anon become 

manifest to him as teing but the instruments of a higher 

principle, that is the spiritual enemy, Ahriman. This 

Ahriman or evil principle is the most characteristic 

product of Zoroastrian speculation. From the schism 

or religious dualism of his time he derived the idea of 

the dualistic scheme of the universe which has impressed 

its character upon the whole of the religion called by 

his name. 

The literature of the subject has been cited in the course of 

the article. Consult especially Tiele, Komjendium der 

ReZipmsKescJi., or (best of all) Ed. Meyer, GA 530-573 

(1884). On Zoroaster’s life, A. V. Williams Jackson’s Zoroaster, 

fhe Projhet of Ancient Iran (New York 1898) may he specially 

recommended. See also the references) in Cheyne, OPs. (see 

below). K. F. G. 

The question of the influence of Zoroastrianism on 

Jewish religion can only relate to post-exilic Jewish 

ao. No religion. There is no evidence of any 

inAuence on Persian influence on Jewish belief before 

Israel. 

the exile; the reference which has been 

supposed in Ezek. 8 16 to a Persian 

custom is based on a mistake (see Crif. Bib.). During 

the Babylonian exile, though contact with Persians 

was doubtless possible, it was the religion of Babylonia 

that naturally exercised more influence than any other 

on the Jews. In the Babylonian hymns we find a near 

approach to the Jewish conception of God, and to the 

Jewish view of sin, whilst the Babylonian view of the 

divine creatorship is surpassed in grandeur only by the 

Zoroastrian. 

In the period which we may conventionally call post- 

exilic, Persian influence, or, more definitely, the 

al. Post-exilic. influence of Mazdaism can more easily 

be supposed. 

The Jews in Palestine 

cannot have been subject to much direct influence of 

this kind. It was rather indirectly, through the large 

Jewish colonies E. of the Euphrates and the Tigris, 

that Palestinian Judaism was affected by Persia. These 

colonies, as we know, kept up an intercourse with the 

community in Judaea. It is very possible that the idea 

of bringing what Artaxerxes is represented as calling 

‘ the wisdom of Ezra’s God which is in his hand ’ (Ezra 

725) in book form to Jerusalem was, if not suggested, 

yet strengthened by the existence of a hook-religion in 

Persia, and it would be unreasonable not to suppose 

that Jews in and near Persia gained some acquaintance 

with the Zoroastrian religion, and were influenced by it. 

The high moral tone of the best Persians (see the 

inscriptions of Darius) and of their religion could not 

but attract the best Jews (cp Mal. 1 11), and the Persian 

folk-lore would be equally attractive to Jews of a less 

spiritual turn of mind. We need not, of course, 

suppose an acquaintance on the part of the Jews with 

Zoroastrian Ziferafure; the ideas of book-religions are 

not propagated exclusively by the sacred writings. 

Eschatological and demonological ideas, in particular, 

5438


were likely to be communicated by word of mouth, and It is also not improbable that the belief in guardian 

it is in the field of eschatology, angelology, and angels (Mt. 1810 Acts1215) was promoted by the Zorodemonology 

that Persian influence on Judaism may astrian doctrine of f~uuashis (which may also illustrate 

most surely be recognised, 

Ea,-4 post-exilic Persian or Zoroastrian influence is 

not easy to prove. Jewish scribes and editors had 

other objects than that of enlightening the historical 

students of to-day, and official religious writers were 

doubtless anxious to check foreign influences, and to 

conceal the tokens of their existence. Even the protests 

of official writers, however, are useful to the 

historical stiident. The belief in Satan, as we find it 

in the OT, is thoroughly Jewish, and yet it would 

hardly have assumed its actual form without the indirect 

influence of the belief in Ahriman against which it 

became a protest (see SATAN). So too the ancient 

benediction called y@Z7 67 must have had a polemical 

intention, and yet the custom of reciting it at dawn was 

no doubt influenced by a similar Zoroastrian usage. 

It would somewhat strengthen the case for Persian 

influence on the Jews if we had other linguistic proofs 

besides the supposed derivation of ASMODEUS (p.v.) from 

AEshma-daeva. 

Such proofs, however, are wanting, nor can the 

generally accepted Zend etymology of Asmodeus be 

z2. Later. called quite certain, owing to the imperfect 

correspondence of the qualities of the two 

demons. The question needs examination in connection 

with the story of Tobit (may we refer in 

advance to a new explanation of Asmodeus in Crit. 

Bib. ?), which seems to have passed through several 

phases. It is clear, however, that, as time went on, 

Persian and Babylonian influences in combination were 

more and more felt by the Jews. Hence it is difficult 

to say whether the seven evil spirits of Mt. 1245 are to 

be traced to Babylon or to Persia, and whether the 

Book of Revelation (a Jewish even more than a Christian 

work) strikes us more by its Persian or by its Babylonian 

affinities.l Such a competent authority as E. W. West 

can see hardly any difference between the Devil of 

this book and the Zoroastrian Ahriman, whilst the 

eschatology of the later Zoroastrian books has a most 

striking resemblance to that of Revelation. The contest 

of Michael and his angels with the dragon and his angels 

is closely parallel to the contest between Vohuman6 

‘Good Mind’ and the powers of evil, and to the 

1000 years’ conflict with Azhi DahEka (the destructive 

serpent). Nor is the awful ’ lake of fire ’ wanting in the 

later Zoroastrian books. 

The seven men,’ ;.e., angels, in Ezek. 92, together 

with the seven archangels of Tobit may supply evidence 

of an earlier date for Persian influence, though (without 

here raising the question as to the original setting of 

the story of Tobit) it may be admitted that the Persian 

Amshaspands developed out of Babylonian germs. In 

fact, it is becoming more and more clear that we cannot 

always draw a sharp distinction between original and 

imported Persian beliefs. The influence of Babylonia 

upon Persia must have begun earlier than used to be 

supposed. The religion of Aura-mazda, in spite of its 

primitive Aryan roots, must have been influenced, like 

the religion of YahwB, by that of Babylonia. For 

instance, both the seven chief good spirits and the seven 

chief evil spirits of Zoroastrianism have indisputable 

Babylonian affinities. Probably, however, it would be 

correct to say that Gabriel and Michael and their companions 

are more directly akin to the Zoroastrian Amesha 

Spentas or Amshaspands (whose names are not less 

significant) than to the Igigi, or friendly genii, of the 

Babylonians. But the seven Amshaspands, even if 

borrowed, were modified Hebraistically. Yahwb not 

being (as analogy would have required) one of the 

seven.2 Cp ANGELS, § 4, n. I. 

1 Gunkel in his able work (Sch@J u. Chaos) has unduly 

ignored the Persian elements. 

2 Cp Mills, ‘Zendavesta’ (SBE), 3 145. 

the Jewish belief in the angelic hosts)-a doctrine which 

has its roots in primitive Sumerian beliefs. 

‘ That the fravashis originally meant the spirits of the dead 

(Lat. manes) is certain ; but that this conception early mingled 

with another-that of the heavenly prototypes of all beings of 

the good creation, which were objectified and regarded as the 

Sabaoth or heavenly hosts even by the ews is equally certain. 

The. conception of prototypes seems to {e of SUmero-Accadian 

origin; “my god” or “my goddess” in the Babylonian 

penitential hymns is to be understood of a guardian spirit, 

equivalent to the worshipper’s “ better-self I’ or in other words 

‘I of a fravashi ’’ ’ (Of& 499J). Cp Tiele, BkG 554 ; de Harlez: 

Auestu, Introd. mix, etc. ; hlills Zendauestu (SB) 3 279 * 

Casartelli, PhirOsojhy of the Ma&aayasnian RcZigion’ undr: 

the Sassunidr, 1378 ; Spiegel, Eran. Alteri‘humsRunde, 2 93 ; 

Che. OPs.282, 335, 420. 

How early the resurrection-idea appeared among the 

Jews, is uncertain (cp ESCHATOLOGY, index). The 

23. Resurrection. possibility of. escaping death is 

certainly implied in the story of 

Enoch; but this story was, even if not unknown, not 

popular before the post-exilic period. It appears to 

have a Babylonian origin (see ENOCH). We are on 

much safer ground when we connect the Jewish belief 

in the resurrection with Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrian 

eschatology had a profoundly moral import which must 

have been congenial to the Jews. The leaders of 

Jewish religion no doubt adopted the resurrection 

doctrine long after it had been grasped by individuals. 

They adopted it cautiously, so cautiously that we might 

easily suppose that it arose quite naturally out of the 

necessities felt in their own spiritual life. This was 

certainly not the case, unless Jewish religion is to be 

viewed as a quite exceptional product. In course of 

time, it was felt that the caution of the earlier leaders 

was unnecessary. The resurrection might safely be 

made general, and the retribution of the wicked be 

made as conspicuous as that of the righteous. Nay, 

the awards of the righteous would only then acquire 

their full attractiveness when the punishment of the 

wicked had been made as complete as possible. As 

time went on, the indebtedness of Jewish to Persian 

belief became still greater, and it is possible that the 

Messiahs function of raising the dead (Jn. 525 28) is an 

unconscious copy of the function assigned to the hero 

Saoshyant (the Beneficent One) in the Avesta.’ 

The Zoroastrian origin of the doctrine of the resurrection 

and of the regovation of the world is in itself 

probable. It is raised almost to a certainty when we 

have proved the late origin of Is. 65 f:, which clearly 

expresses the hope of the new heavens and the new 

earth2 (6517 6622), and of Is.24-27, in which occurs 

not only the promise of the abolition of death (2584 

if the text be correct, see Crit. Bib. ad Zoo..), but also a 

distinct anticipation of the resurrection of deceased 

Israelites3 (2619). This limitation of the hope to 

Israelites we may, as suggested above, ascribe to the 

caution of the religious leaders of the Jews. 

1 ‘Whose name will be the victorious Saoshyant, and whose 

name will be Astvat-ereta. He will be Saoshyant, because he 

will benefit the whole bodily world ; he will be Astvat-ereta (he 

who makes the bodily creatures rise up), because as a bodily 

creature and as a living creature, he will stand against the 

destruction of the bodily creatures, to withstand the Druj (the 

Lie-Demon) of the two-footed brood’( Fast, 13 !zg, Darmesteter’s 

transl.). The Bnndahesh, which is an expansion of genuine old 

Zoroastrian elements, is much more explicit (see ch. 50). 

2 Dr. Charles seems too bold in pronouncing the expression 

of this hope an interpolation, perhaps from Mazdean sources 

(Eschatology, 12zJ). The reference in Is. 51 16 to a reconstitution 

of the heavens and.the earth, has been commonly taken to 

be merely figurative. This is probable, if 5115f: is to be 

regarded as a part of the Second Isaiah’s work. If, however, 

chaps. 49-55 were appended to chaps. 40-48 jn the time of Ezra 

there is fairly good reason for not minimising the force of the 

language. 

3 @ perhaps gives the hope a wider scope ; it renders 26 19, 

L;va~7ljaovm.~ OL V ~ Y oi, KC.; ;yepBljaourar oi iv TO% puqweiorc. 

See SBOT, ‘ Isa.’ deb. 17% 

5439 

Z0ROASTRl”ISM 

5440

ZOROASTRIANISM BUR 

The results here arrived at are not affected by Darmesteter's 

later views on the Avesta, for (I) these views are extremely 

difficult to justify, and ( 2) Darmesteter in 1893 admitted1 that 

the defeat of Ahriman, the resurrection, and the renovation of 

the world, were already dogmatically fixed in the time of the 

Achaemenidre. 

It is much less certain, and yet far from improbable, 

that the interest of the later Jews in 'Wisdom ' was 

24. ,Wisdom.' stimulated by a kindred phenomenon in 

The stress laid in the 

Avesta and elsewhere on the two kinds of Wisdom2 Zoroastrianism. 

(heavenly and ?arthly) reminds us of the references to 

two kinds of Wisdom in Job and Proverbs. In later 

times the Jews identified the heavenly Wisdom with the 

Law; they took up, it seems, with enthusiasm the 

Zoroastrian idea of the pre-existence in heaven of the 

personified divine Law. It is also just conceivable that 

the comparatively high morality of the pre-Maccakan 

Judaism may be partly due to the influence of the 

morality of Zoroastrianism. Certainly the Zoroastrian 

phrase, ' good thoughts, good words, good deeds,' 

might have been taken as a motto by the Jewish wise 

men and psalmists, and if the received text of Pss. 16 

17 49 73 is correct, it will be reasonable to compare 

the expressions of the hope of immortality and resurrection 

which that text may be held to contain, with 

expressions of the same hope in the GiXthBs. It may 

justly be questioned, however, whether the received text 

is correct. There are phenomena which no grammatical 

or exegetical subtlety can explain away, which seem to 

compel us to assume corruption of the text. But for 

this, we should certainly not be greatly surprised to find 

the hope of a future life emerging in any part of the 

Psalter, this book in all its parts being certainly a work 

of the Persian and Greek periods. 

It has also been conjectured that the early myths of 

Genesis have a Zoroastrian origin. This view, however, 

2~. Late Judaism. was possible only before the wonderful 

discoveries in the libraries of 

Assyria. The ultimate sources of these early myths are 

probably N. Arabian and Babylonian, whilst the second 

Fargard of the Zoroastrian writing called the Vendidad, 

in its present form, may even have been influenced by 

the narratives in Genesis3 It is true, the Talmudic 

and Midrashic statements on the First Man exhibit 

strong Persian elements. But this is only what might 

be expected in the .?a& Judaism. It is remarkable that 

under the Sassanid kings Zoroastrianism appears to 

have been in some degree affected by Jewish influences 

-a slight compensation for the long-continued indebtedness 

of Jewish to Zoroastrian belief. 

Here this brief survey must close. A full exegetical 

treatrrient of the Biblical passages would have unduly 

extended this article. Enough if the close resemblance 

between Judaism and Zoroastrianism has been brought 

home to the reader. Elsewhere a parallel between 

Zoroaster and John the Baptist has been suggested. 

But, if we may follow the most respected authorities, 

this comparison does not go far enough. Indeed, there 

is no figure equal in interest to Zoroaster's : he is a 

prophet, reformer, sacred poet all in one, and has left 

an abiding impress on a faith which is as strongly 

moral as the Jewish, and without some acquaintance 

with which neither the later Judaism nor the later 

Christianity can be adequately appreciated. 

An attempt to reconsider the relation of Judaism to Zoroastrianism 

on the basis of the sacred texts and of the most 

modern authorities is to he found in Cheyne's 

26. Literature. Ok&z &fhe Psalter(l8yr), pp. 357.394-409, 

433.440 ; ' Possible Zoroastrian Influences on 

the Religion of Ancient Israel ' Expos. Times June July 

August 1891 ; 'The Book of Ps&s, its origin ahd redtion t; 

Zoroastrianism, Semitic Studies in memory of A, Kohut, 

1897, pp. 111-119; 3ew. Eel. Liye affev thc Exile, 74, 81, 151, 

I~?,ZIO,Z~I, 2588 Sef: also Moulton, Expos. Tirncs, May1898, 

~ ~~~ 

1 Le Zendavcsta 12 Ixxiii. 

2 See Che. Ex& 5 78J lm. ReL Life, 15,. 

See CREATION DELUG; 

4 Darmesteter, fin8 #ri2rej&lo+-rsane, Paris, 1891. 

5441 

pp. 352 8 (essay by a Zend scholar, putting forward the same 

r l view and the same leading facts as the first-named work). 

tave, Ueber d. Einfluss d. Parsismus auf d. fudenthum: 

1898 ; Soderblom, La Yiejuture d'apre's le Mnzaisme (1901). 

BGklen, Lferurandtschaft der ju'rfisch-christl. mit der jersiscd 

Eschafologie (~yzrz). Oldenberg (ZDMG 5043-68 [1896]) gives 

fresh reason for believing in close relations at an early date 

between Iranian and Babylonian religion. Hommel too (PSBA 

21 1378 [rsggl) points out that the foreign-looking divine name 

Assaramazas, in an Assyrian list of gods, is really Ahura-mazda . 

also that the divine names Mitra and Marun, found in Assyriad 

religious texts, are the same as the Vedic Mitra and Varuna. 

These names were borrowed by the Assyrians, according to 

Hommel, in the Kassite period (1700-1202 B.c.). Zimmern too 

(KAT(3) 346 n. I), points out, in harmony with the prisent 

article, that the relation of Parsism to Babylon needs to he more 

closely examined. K. B. G., $5 1-19 ; T. IC. c., 55 20-26. 

ZORZELLEUS (zopzehh~oy [A]), I Esd. 5 38. 

See BARZILLAI, 2. 

ZTJAR (YjU ; cwrap [BAFL]), an Issacharite (Nu. 

18 [PI). 

ZUPH (?ID), Dt.11, AVW., RV SUPH (q.~.). 

ZUPH (VlY, as if ' honeycomb '). The 'land of 

Zuph' (I S. 95, mi@ [BA], ut@ [L]) is the district 

about the unnamed city where Samuel and Saul met. 

In I S. 1 I (vauctp [B], uoua [A], uw@ [L] ; and I Ch. 

635 [zo], Kr. oou@ [BA], aou@r [L]) the descent of 

Elkanah is apparently traced back to an ancestor Zuph ; 

I Ch. 6 26 [II]. however, gives the name as Zophai, 

or as we might vocalise, Zuphi-i. e., ' the Zuphite ' 

(UOU@[E]L [BAL]). 

Most critics also find ,~)y (a Zuphite) in I S. 1 I, on which 

1W7? at the end of the verse may, it is thought, he a gloss. If, 

therefore 'Zuph ' in I S. 9 5 is the same as 'Zuph'. in I S. 1 I, 

etc., the 'land of Zuph' will mean probably the district held by 

the clan Zuph. 

It appears, however (see RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM), that the MT 

of I S. 1 I (on which I Ch. 0 35 [20] depends) is very corrupt, and 

that no use can he made of )s, or Zuph, which is probably 

7 

incorrect. The ca;se is the same with 'Zuph' in the phrase 

'the land of Zuph. Of a Zuph in Mount Ephraim (commonly 

so called) we know nothing, and the supposed reference to such 

a land throws the geography of Saul's journey into great confusion. 

IlX or (see @) ?'+ in I s. Q 5 is very possibly a corrupt 

fragment of 3>:?, Mizpah ; it is the Mizpah referred to in I S. 

'7 5 8 and 10 17, and, as 7 16 shows, specially connected with 

Samuel. See MIZPAH, I. 

Winckler indeed has suggested (Gf 2) that the land of Zuph 

(cp Ramathaim-zophim) was in the territory of Benjamin before 

the reductionof its limits by David (who according to Winckler, 

conquered Benjamin and excluded frdm it 'the hill count 

of Ephraim'). There is also the possibility that 'the hi2 

country of Ephraim' spoken of was in the Negeb, and that 1's' 

as well as qiD, comes fiom nois. There does appear to have 

been a southern Ephraim and though to find it in I S. 9 4 would 

subvert all our theories, ;et we must leave the question open 

whether the home of Saul may not have been in the Negeb, 

improbable as this may seem. 

31 is also supported hy I Ch.'820 Kt?. On the form +B?S 

(I'Ch. 611) cp Kittel, SBOT, Chron. ad loc. In T S 11 

Wcllbausen, Klostermann, Marquart, read ~ I D H lis, ' Zuph 

of Ephraim.' T. K. C. 

ZTJR (and its possible compounds). We find VU, 

Zur (sur), used as a synonym for God or as an element 

in a compound title descriptive of God as the Mighty 

One, in Is. 17 IO, and in many late exilic and post-exilic 

passages. 

See Dt. 324 15 18 30 31 [ais], 37 I S. 22 zS. 22 [=Ps. 181 

3 32 47 [dis] 23 3 Ps. 19 15 1141 28 I 31 3 [Z] 62 3 78[2 6 71 71 3 73 26 

7835 8927 [26] 9216[r51 9422 951 1441 [also 756, @] Is. 264 

3029 448 Hab. 112.1 

Among these passages Dt. 324 18 30$, I S. 23 Is. 

448 Hab. 112 are specially important, because here 'us, 

' Rock,' appears to have become altogether a synonym 

for ' God.'a To these we may perhaps add Josh. 1558, 

where BETH-ZUR (4.v.) may mean house of Zur'= 

' house of God.'3 Are we to suppose that phrases like 

1 Is. 30 29 and Hah. 1126 are probably late ; see the commentaries 

of hlarti and Nowack. 

2 In Ps. 75 6 we should probably read neither 7~)fll nor 1~1, 

but i~"?!: (cp 81 19 [IS]). 

3 Ho&el (AHT 320, cp 300) also compares the royal name 

in3 (Bir-sur) in the inscription of Panammu, king of Sam'al 

(8th cent.), and the S. Arabian woman's name ZurL'addana. 

5442

ZUR . 

rock of my salvation ' are suggested by an early divine 

title iqy, Zur (' rock ') ? If so, the author of Dt. 32 and 

those who followed him did but revert to an ancient 

usage when they employed Zur and Yahwe synonymously. 

And if this early divine title existed among the Hebrews, 

we may, not without some plausibility, regard the four 

personal names ELIZUR, PEDAHZUR, ZURIEL, and 

ZURISHADDAI (all in P) as ancient names preserved 

by the late Priestly Writing. 

The literary evidence, however, is not favourable to 

this view ; and on the sole ground of the place-name 

Bethzur (which can quite well be explained ' rock-house ' 

or ' rock-place ') we cannot venture to regard as beyond 

all doubt the early existence of a divine name Zur. If, 

therefore, the four names referred to really contain the 

(late) divine name Zur, they must be artificial coinages 

of P. But it is an objection to this view that P never 

employs the title 1)s of God. Are we to suppose, 

then, that P derived the names from some other late, 

post-deuteronomic writer? 

The difficulty can only be removed by a keener criticism of 

the MT. As the result of this we have found elsewhere that 

the four names are probahly corruptions of ethnics or gentilics. 

The corruptions in the proper names of P are so numerous that 

this theory has to be seriously considered. See PIZDAHZUR 

ZURIEL ZURISHADDAI. Cp also PASHHUR; if this word be 

corruption of Pedahzur we get another set of references to this 

name. The date of jer.20 (Pashhur chapter), however, is 

questioned (see, JEREMIAH ii, 5 6). 

On the biblical passages, cp Gray HPN xg5#', and on 

Jewish views of the meaning of Zur &e Wiegand, ZA TWlO 

8 5 8 ('90). 'r. K. c. 

292, (772, abbrev., perhaps from lWg, Mi+r in 

N. Arabia [see MIZRAIM, 5 261 cp Rekem= Jerahmeel, 

Reba='Ar%b ; coyp [BAFL]). I. A Midianitish 

chief, Nu. 25 r5 31 8 Josh. 1321. 

2. A name in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (g."., 5 9 

ii. p), cp ZEROR (I Ch. 830 ruoup [A] = 936 rmip [BKA]). 

His mother bears the Jerahmeelite name MAACAH 

(Che.). See/@I? llxxo-x~~, $5 10s 

5443 

END OF VOL. Iv 

ZUZIM 

ZURIEL (5&'llU, as if 'my rock is El,' but see 

below ; COYPIHA [BAFL]), b. Abihail, 'prince' of the 

families of Merari (Nu. 3 35jt. 

The name taken by itself might he a combination of two 

namesof God (cp ZUR). But if Ahihail is a(popu1ar) corruption 

of ' Jerahmeel ' (see MAHALATH, and cp $*n.iN if correct, in 

I Ch. 2 29) and if ' Mahli ',is a corruption of ' Jeiahme'eli ' and 

' Merari' of ' Misri ' (ie., belonging to Musur or Mugri [on the 

S. Palestinian border]'), or from some other ethnic (cp MERAB), 

it is probable that 5.q is simply an dormative, and that 

implies a clan-name i?y, possibly from igly, and ultimately from 

nDip. Cp nT5D (SOPHERETH). T. K. C. 

ZURISHADDAI (+T@?)Y, 5 43, as iT 'my rick is 

Shaddai,' but see below ; coyp[e]lcaAal [BAF], and 

coyplcabe [L]), father of the Sirneonite prince Shelumiel, 

Nu. 16 (212, COYPICAAAEI [Fl ; 736 41 lO1gt). 

Under the form SALASADAI he is mentioned along 

with his son SHELUMIEL (4. w. ) in the compiled genealogy 

of Judith (81, mpaua8ar [B], aaXa. [A], uapr. [h']). 

See GENEALOGIES i., col. 1662, n. I. 

1)s (Zur) and '@ (Shaddai?) may both be names of God (see 

ZUR SHADDAI). But names (especially in P) being so often 

corr;pt, it is not improbable that both were originally ethnics, 

and ultimately come respectively from ngis (Zarephatb) and 

s.qyav.' (Ishmael). See ZURIEL and SHADDAI. Asshur=the 

southern Geshur with which the Simeonites may have been 

connected. Po;sibly too the Danite name, AMMISHADPAX 

(T.w.), may he a distoried f&mof Ishmael, and SHELUhriEL (q.v). 

may also have a tribal reference. 

T. K. C. 

ZaZIM (D'VT), a people on the E. of the Jordan, 

Gen.14 jt (cp HAM). Sym.

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?