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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 dependent 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 complete 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 predecessors. 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 conditions 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 incomplete, 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
Page 1: ZEEB ZELOPHEHAD southern Hamath or
Page 5 and 6: ZEPHANIAH ZEPHANIAH structed himsel
Page 7 and 8: ZERAHIAH , 5411 ZERUBBABEL ZERAHIAH
Page 9 and 10: ZETHAN ZIKLAG ZETHAN (IC’!, as if
Page 11 and 12: ZILTHAI ZIN Hebrew traditions, and
Page 13 and 14: ZIPHION ZOAR never was a 'wocd' in
Page 15 and 16: ZOHETH ZOROASTRIANISM Others (e.g.
Page 17 and 18: ZOROASTRIANISM figure of the royal
Page 19 and 20: ZOROASTRIANISM By means of an ordea
Page 21 and 22: ZOROASTRIANISM were likely to be co
Page 23: ZUR . rock of my salvation ' are su

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?