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

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.