cheenc03a.pdf

SIMEON
parts.' Even, however, if the other Judah elements
entered from the S., Simeon might first have lost a
footing temporarily gained in Central Palestine. That
might account fur the Shimeon at Semuniyeh (right
across Esdraelon from Ibrik) of Josh. llr 12m if that
is the true reading (see SHIMnor, and below, 3 6, ii.).
On the other hand the story of the partnership of
' Judah' and Simeon may not ret on prehistoric
relations so early as the settlement. It may reflect a
later time.
To the same period was assigned by Dozy a mouement,
or movements, on the pait of Simeon of which
Ch,4, the Chronicler's account is still in the form
6,
of a narrative, although it contains a good
many names. The passage (I Ch.438-+j) comains
several statements, the relation of which to one another
is not clear, the text being more or less doubrf~l.~
(G) According to 4jB-e certain Simeonifes ~urh:d down to
the dirlrict of Gedor or Gerar in %?arch of parcure for their
sheep.
(6) According too. 4, thw men qent in the time of Hczekiah
and . . . and the Meunlm who were 'there' and
banned them and dwelt in their place.
(4 According to u. 41/: some of 'them' (5- with ) Icaderr)
went to Mt. Selr and mote thow who were leR of the fugitive
Amalekites and retried chere.
i. According to Renringer there three statemenu are
divergent accounts of the same thing (KHC, 17 f ), all
of them being later insertionr into the chronicler's work.
A question more important than the date of their
inre;tion is whence thiy were dram. we murt allow
for the possibility that they come from a good source.
Of course that need not imply the correctness of the
reference to Hezekiah.6 There is nothing in itself
improbable in the Hezekiah date. The Meunim seem to
be mentionedunder Uzziah, also Arabs in Gur ( =Gerar?
and in for iy>? : Winckller. KATPI rqg, n. I : z Ch.
267 ; CP MEUNIM, 6). A little Later, under Manasseh,
according to one interpretation of a pasrage in a "Ineiform
tablet, we find Simeon as a whole reckoned as
belonging to Murri, not Judah (below. $ 6, iii.).
ii. Dozv , ID6 , /iroZliten ir Mehka lr86al. . r6 fGerm.
. A " .
Trans. so]). however, thinks that u. 3.b shows that the
events belong to the time of Saul, and in an extremely
in~eniour manner works out the followine theorv :-
1 In thir connection we may note thc absence of ail mention
of Tudnh from the Shcchem rrorv in Gen.84 58. See above.
col. 1516, n. 4.
9 For Cheyne'r view of the text se= Meuulm, II.
8 On the terr compare Winckler, MVG, 1898, pp. ?8#
4 Dory srzuer thrr it ir only the wridng do- that 13 ascribed
to Herekiah'r time (lsrari tr Mekko, 56 1491). Be!theau thinks
the reference is intended to include the cxpcdstion. It is
difficult to we how the pcrron who inrerrcd the nolie muld
SIMEON
(36 1491, 7' [6+1) and 1s. 21 rx/: t:' ism invitation to them to come
ba&(6?-7j [&.651). In rime they came to be called Irhma~l
(re?rzo Ia-9sl): cp below, % 8 iii.
DOZY'S reason for assienine " - the Simeonite movement
to theiimeof Saul doernor seemcogent : a. 3.6 (,these
were their cities unto the reign of David') in not the
Chronlcler'r : it ir a mareinal " elorr " which has intruded
so as to rev& .and their villages' (v. from the words
to which the parallel Josh. 19 shows that they belong
150 Be. ad 1oc.I. Nor can Dozv's other combinnlions
~ ~
be accepted (for a sober criticism see Grafs review,
ZD.b/L'19330-3jr [1865]).
...
111. N. I. Weinstein (Zur Gencrir dcr Agoda, 291-156
Irgorl). however, adopts most of Dozy's combin:itions.
ind azds others of his-own.
He rncr to show lhrt the Minimof Talmudic literature arc
the Mevnim of the OT, and they in the" turn Dozy's wander.
ing Simeonirei, who* name he ruppoies later writer3 to have
rvoidcd on nccolrnf of r reproach under which ,hey lay. substituting
Meunim or Minim. Mach of fhi. wemr open to the
rame kind ofcriticirm ar Dory's dirurrian.
iv. On the other hand. there seems no definite reason
~~~~~~~
to llrgc in support of t'he view that the Chronicler's
statements arc a late invention (We. Pr01.i" srz : ET
113). Why should he invent auch a story? Elsewhere
the Chronicler seems to treat Simeon as belonging
to northern Israel [but cp Ctit Bib. 16, on is.
gr-104] (2 Ch. lj9 : Ephrrim, Manusseh. Simeon: 346 :
Manarseh, Ephraim. Sin,mn, Naphtali). It would be
n strong point in favour of an early source for the siatementr
in I Ch. 439-43 if if could be proved fha~ Simeon
war still a current name in S. Palestine in the seventh
century B.C. (SR $ 6, iii.).
At thir point, accordingly, we may conveniently turn
to extm-biblical sources in search of
B,
biblie*
Extrareferences.
i. We may begin with the attempt to
find such in Thotmer 111:s list of iro
places of Upper Rfnu.
NO. 35 ir Sa-m~'-n.' and na 18 Sa-m.'-n-'-w ("a. Sa-m-'.'-w)
whxch lmb like the plural of no. 35. We nny grrnt th:
similarity ofthe names to Sime.n(cpthe rplling ofSa-ra-ha-n.);
hut wecanno! infernluch. wecannot lanrethem. ~ ~ C ~ ~ d i ~ ~
to \V. M. Mollsr they, at iwt, werenot in the S.. ar the 11rr (hc
he1iever)doer include nama in the S of Judah. Cp also
co1. 3516, rnvmber 35 and nojrs z and 3. The therefore,
that Sxmcon (dirh LEVI)~~I an early settler m Paicrtxnc
(Homm~l. ANT 268; %ye, Eoriy neb. Trd. 39s) remains a
hypothesir.
ii. Nor are we much better off a century or mare
later in the Amarnr correspondence.
~herc is a letter (KB 5, no. 2203) from Samu.~ddu, prince of
=place cxlled Sa-am-hu-np, which ir phonetically=Simeon and
1. definitely indisateil ar the namc of a. town (d"): h .. . of en in Toah. il x ie*~~ Zourouu. . , .
MT jhp*, Sel~non, B I) mentioned with Achrhaph, and
Symaon (so Buhl, Pal. 1.5) with Sem0niye2 (we below,
iii. .[XI). There ir nothing to make the idenri!y qf Samhuna
*i;h one of the plarrr mentioned in the Knrnsk ltrf lmprohrble
(so also hIeycr Glass- ?)). If the identity he heid yrohablq
ir would appedr io stah in the way of cop?ecting Suneon in
any very definite manner wtth the Bablrt as Steuernilgel
propores to cannect the Lcah tribes generally.
iii. Unfortunately, none of the later Egyptian Lists
contains a name resembling Simeon. It might be
surmised that the old towns, or at least their names.
had died out. Sayce conjecture. that Simeon preceded
Judah in the occupation of S. PalesIine, and had diraowared
.. bv the time of David 1Eurlv , , Hcb. Tmd.
392). There is a passage, however, in one of the
fragments relating to the successful Egyptian expedition
of Esarhaddon, which murt be taken account of.
1 Dory(70[63D, Gr%tz(Ge~~h. ii. 105: alheoryl;fnxbandonrd)
rollow A ~. sm. ~ h~oa. in inserting bgitiver (iil=wyovmr)
z subject to 'call.' OD a s ~pw~d reference to Sirneon in
Irfic. 1 ri (Maven, Ustcrsizh. Ib. d. Chmn. 136: Hif~lg, ad
loc.) see Graf, Stamnr Sinaeon, jz : ona supposed connrt~on of
M.- of Prov. 30, 31 r (Hinig, SjrUde Snl. 3.0 f nnd others)
ulrh Simeon we id. 31. and on other mppared mfcmncer see
whirhreceivedifsn~cfromthegrratfight(~~?~~~=Masorah~: Wein3tein (& i" 9 5 ili.).
1 Pettic, alro, place8 &mburu in Gslilee (Hisf. Egygf, 2 3x7).
1518