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

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