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

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