Sunteți pe pagina 1din 25

WISDOM OF JESUS WONDERS

The Syriac is made directly from the Greek following a M S In ancient times the heroes of mankind were
resembling Codex Alex. Whilst in general it ienders the ideas commonly represented as being distinguished from
and expressions of the original with fidelity, it diverges there-
from far more t h a n the Latin. It adds explicita and other other men by (amongst other characteristics) the
explanatory words, inserts the proper names (Cain, etc.) in manner in which they entered and departed life. They
chap. 10, transfers a number of Greek words, gives iree transla- were not born in the usual way, or, if so, out of due
tions, mistranslates and omits. On the attempt to refer it to an course ; they disappeared from life in a mysterious way,
Aramaic original see Hasse. For the Arabic version cp Hasse,
for the Armenian cp Welte and F. H. Reusch Liher Sapient. or they showed themselves superior to death by dying
grrerc etc., 1858 ; these also both come from o& Greek. cheerfully under painful circumstances. Thus both by
Fo; general works on the Jewish conception of wisdom see their birth and by their death they witnessed to their
WISUOM L ITERATURE , $ 15. For lists of critical and expository
works up to 1860 see Bretschneider and superiority. This was specially the case with founders
26. Bibliography. Grimm. Among these the following may of religions. But ‘ the faithful ’ were also called upon
be mentioned : Rabanus Maurus, t856, to bear witness. While, however, the master gave
the earliest extant commentator (in Migne); Grotius, Annoia-
tiones, 1664; Cornelius :I Lapide, Comment. in lib?. Sap., 1613; evidence of the truth of his claims by the wonderful
. .
Cappellus Comment. . in VT, 1689 (scattered observa-
tions); J.’ M. Faher, Prolusiones, 1776-77 and 1786-87; J. G.
words and works of his whole life, ‘ the faithful ’ could
in most cases only witness to the truth of them by follow-
Hasse, Salonro’s Weisheit, 1785 ; J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung ing the master’s teaching even unto death. Disciples,
i. d. Apocr. Schr. d. A T , 1795; C. G. Bretschneider, Lih.
Sapient., 1804 ; C. L. ’W. Grimm (in Kurzgc?exeget. Hand- therefore, in some cases, sought and actually found
6uch z. d. dpokr. d. A T ) , 1860 (very full and judicious, martyrdom ; in other cases they are represented by tra-
supernedes his work of 1837). Since 1860 have appeared com- dition as having so suffered, whether they did so or not.
mentaries by E. C. Rissell, 1880(in the volume o n the Apocrypha
added to the Lange series) F. W. Farrar, 1888 (in Wace’s T h e idea of witness by miracle and martyrdom is confined
Apocryplra), and Siegfried (in Kautzsch’s Apokr.) ; articles in to no single religion. C p W ONDERS. M. A. C.
Smith‘s D B (by B. F. Westcott); M‘Clintock and Strong’s
Cyclopedia: Herzog-Hauck, R E (by E. SchOrer, see also his WIZARD (’JJR!), Lev. 2027. See MAGIC, 4, iii.
GJV, etc.=Hisi. of the Iewish People, etc.); Hastings’ D B
(by Siegfried); and annotated editions by W. J. Deane (The WOLF (381; A y ~ o c; Zupur). This is the usual
Book of Wisdom, 1881), W. R. Churton(in his Uncanonicaland word for ‘wolf,‘ though in Is. 1322 RV renders o’:?,
Apocvphal Scriptures, 1884), and C. J.Bal1 (in his Variorum
Apocrypha, 1892). On the ethical ideas see Kiibel, ‘Die Ethi- ’iyyim, and SBOT oyp, tannim, by ‘wolves’ ; see
schen Anschauungen d. Weisheit Salomonis,’ in St. Kr. (1865). J ACKAL , and, on the variety of terms for wild animals,
C. H. T.
CAT. In Is. 116 a notable reference is made to the
WISDOM OF JESUS. See ECCLESIASTICUS, wolf, which as a type of ferocity is brought into contrast
SIRACH. with the lamb.2 The full force of the phrase employed
WISE MEN (D%?n), Gen. 4 1 8 . See M AGIC , 5 3, is that the wolf will, as it were, become a g5r or client
STARS, 9 5 , ZOROASTRIANISM ; c p also WISDOM of the lamb (cp S TRANGRR ).
L ITERATURE , 2. T h e wolf (Canis I u p ~ s )has a very wide range, ex-
tending practically throughout North America ( N . of
WITCH (9&?2), Dt. 1810, WITCHCRAFT (OD?), Mexico), Europe, and Asia. Many local varieties occur,
I S. 1523. See M AGIC , 2 d 3rf. which have been by various authorities raised to the
WITHES, GREEN, AVmS ‘ green [moist] cords,’ rank of species. T h e wolf is still found in Palestine
R V w . ‘new bowstrings’ (o*ni o’m;, yCfhthiirim Zuhim), Judg. (and Arabia, cp Doughty, A r . Des. 1327). It is there
somewhat lighter in colour and has a stronger and
167. On the meaning of +, Zah, see COLOURS, 0 17 ; for YW, stouter build than in Europe, rarely moves in packs,
ydihev, see CORD. Bowstrings of ‘green’ gut, not yet dried, and prowls, sometimes in pairs, round the sheepfolds
are probably meant.
a t night. By day it frequents the rocky valleys.
WITNESS. The part played by witnesses in Jewish Naturally it plays a large part in the life of the Israelites,
legal procedure has been dealt with in L A W AND and the references to its boldness and ferocity are
J USTICE , § 1 0 8
frequent (cp Gen. 4 9 2 7 Jer. 5 6 Ezek. 2 2 2 7 Hab. 1 8
T h e Hebrew word is iy, ‘24 the Aramaic sEhdd Zeph. 33). However, if the cubs be removed a t a very
( R ~ Z O ;) and in two passages in O T these two terms are early age they are susceptible of training, though they
treated as synonymous (Gem 3147. i y I/ ~ y i ? ? Job ; can rarely be trusted with strangers.
16 19, i y 11 mg). T h e Arabic word is dhid or fahid (cp The word for ‘ wolf’ is frequently used as a personal
Palmyr. i m ; see Cook, A r u m . GZoss., 5.11.). The root and clan name (cp Cook, Aram. Gloss. S.V. >xi, and
iahida (=Aram. sehid; cp iqg with Ar. Sarudu) seems see zEEB),3 and it has accordingly been held that it was
a totem-animal among certain communities (at least) of
to have meant originally ‘ to be present ’ (cp the use of
the ancient S e n i i t e ~ . ~For the wolf in Semitic legend
Iuhrrdin Koran, S u r 74 13). and then ‘ to bear (be present
and folklore see WRS, Kinship, 198, Rel. Sem.(2)88.
as) witness.’ &hid is both a witness in general, and A. E. S.
one who witnesses to the truth of his creed by dying
(see Sur. 4 7 1 3969:l. The original meaning of the WOMAN (?@e),Gen. 222.
See FAMILY, especially
Hebrew root was perhaps (as Gen. 31 47 Job 16 19 55 4-6; M ARRIAGE , esp. $3 4 - 7 ; LAW, $ 1 4 a ;
suggest) the same as in Arabic. S LAVERY ; and cp A DAM . esp. 36.
Gen. 31 44 485’2 describes how a heap of stones was witness WONDERS. The E V shows some uncertainty as
(7’; was present to remind) of some transaction ; Dt. 31 19 21 to the translation of the Hebrew and Greek synonyms.
says that the song of Moses was witness to (iy; existed or was (I) m i p u f h , is rendered by ‘wonder’ in Dt. 131 [ z ]
present to remind) the Israelites of a great achievement. For 28 46 EV, but in Ex. 7 9 Dt. 29 3 EV by ‘ miracle.’ The mean-
other instances of the use of i y in a similar sense see RDR ing of the root is uncertain, but see BDB and cp helow
where, however, the idea of the root is taken to be that & under (5).
‘reiterating, hence emphatically affirming.’
T h e word used i n the N T is pdpzus (pdrprup-). It 1 According to Hommel (Sirugetltiere, 303$), 2t$ is the jackal ;
was employed by Christians, as by Muhammedans, to see on the other hand ZDMG, 1880, p. 373, and cp J A CKA L .
describe ( I ) simply one who witnessed to the truth, and The Ass. cognate zi6u appears to denote also a bird of prey.
then ( 2 ) particularly one who gave evidence of the truth a Compare the contrast in Mt. 10 16, ‘sheep in the midst of
wolves ’ and Acts 20 29 where Paul at Miletus warns the ’ flock
by dying, and so ‘ a martyr. ’ again&the Adror ,¶ape&.
For ( I ) see Acts 1’22. The word is already used in the second a The fact that the name ‘wolf‘ is given to a sickly child,
sense (2) in the NT. So in Acts 22 zo (AV ; RV ‘witness ’), ‘that their human fragility may take on as it were a temper of
sa: a r e e?ro rb a f w i r Zre+&ou TOG p + v p d s uou ; Rev. 2 ‘3 the kind of those animals’ (cp Doughty, A r . Des. 1329) does
(AV, R V ‘witness’), ~vrirras p ~ ; p T U s pow, 6 arur6s [pow], not weaken the above argument, since, in some cases, this name
6s &~errdu% rap’ 6piv. Rev. 176 (EV), ai, &Soy 7 j v yvvaka is horne not by individuals but by whole clans (cp Kin. rg7J).
wrKuouuav i r rot a&w r ~ iy
v i o v , l t a r ex row arparos ~v 4 See Robertson Smith, J . Phil. 9 7 s $ and cp Frazer,
w a p r d p o v ‘Iquoir. Pcruranias, 2 r9jJ
5349 5350
WONDERS WONDERS
(2) R&, &le’; lit. ‘wonder,’ so EV Is. 29 14 ; cp Judg. 6 13, In any case, in view of the results of the comparative
niplclE’oth, AV ‘miracles,’ RV ‘wondrous works.’ method of study,’ it is impossible to treat the subject of
(3) niN, ‘bfh: lit. ‘sign,’ so commonly in EV, Dt. 13 I, [2] wonders or miracles on the old lines. Here, however,
28 46 etc. In Nu.‘;1 22 Ut; 11 3, g V ‘signs,’AV ‘miracle: it need only be pointed out that it is now evident that
(4) Gdvap~r,!it. power. In hlk. Y 39, AV ‘miracle, RV
‘mighty work. Cp Acts 2 22 ‘a man, approved by God among no religion can be isolated and treated separately : that
you, by miracles (RV ‘mighty works ’), wonders,, and signs, myths, and wonders, whether natural (cp below) or
. . . Guvkpeu~ dpaur rai qpa‘ors-a suggestive passage. supernatural, are not peculiar to any one system ; and
In Acts Y 13 1 9 II I Cor. 12 IO 2 8 Gal. 3 ?, EV ‘miracles’; but that the ideas of primitive man, or the savage, have
in Heb. 2 4, AV ‘miracles,’RV ‘powers.
(5) rdpas, Acts222 t i 8 1512 Heh.24, E V ‘wonders.’ Two left their mark even on the most advanced religions.
derivations are noted in Grimm-Thayer (Lexicon, s.v.), neither Comparative mythology shows that man has given
of which can he pronounced very satisfactory. They are : (I) explanations of the universe which indicate that the
‘apparently akin to the verb mpdw ; accordingly something so
strange as to cause it to be “watched or “observed”” (2) mind moves everywhere along very similar lines.
connected ‘with drnjp &orpad, etc., hence “ a sign i i the Comparative religion teaches that even when men had
hcavens.” ’ If the Heb. miphPfh (I, above) he connected with attained to no small degree of general culture they
AI. ’?#ha ‘to suffer evil ’ (see BDB, S.U. n9N), we might perhaps still demanded outward and visible signs of the efficacy
compare for rdppar the root T F L ~ P W to suffer distress ; the idea
would then he ‘ a calamity or catastrophe=a portent.’ of their faith. T h e sage, or the founder of a religion,
(6) q ? p d o v , lit. ‘sign,‘ like (3) above. So in Mk. 8 I I J Lk. who claimed to enlighten his fellows, was expected to
11 16 29,K Mt. 12 3 8 3 16 14 Jy 2 18 6 o I Cor. 122 Acts 2 22 produce evidence, apart from his teaching, that he was
Peb. 24. But AV ‘wonder, RV ’sign, Rev. 12 I. EV
miracle,’ Lk. 238 Acts4 16 22 ; AV ‘miracle,’ RV ‘sig;,’ Jn. endowed in a peculiar and extraordinary way. As a
4 5 4 1 0 4 1 2 r r 2 3 3 2 6 2 2 6 ? g r 916 1147 1237 Acts68 8 6 1512 witness to his superiority, he was expected to perform
Rev. 13 14 16 14 19 20. wonders (or give a sign, cp [ 3 ] and [6] above). And
The original idea in the word ‘wonder’ (Lat. as such a one was in most eases, owing to his superior
‘ miraculum,’ Angl. ‘ miracle ’) seems to have been that knowledge, on a higher level than his contemporaries,
of turning aside through a feeling of fear or awe (see he was, no doubt, often as a matter of fact able to do
Skeat, EtymoZ. D i r t . , S.D. ). The savage ‘ignorant of things which to them appeared wonderful ; he may often
the very rndiments of science, and trying to get a t the have been able to cure diseases, perhaps even to restore
meaning of life by what the senses seem to tell’ (to to life a body that was to all appearance lifeless; he
quote Tylor, Anthrop. 343) would often turn aside was, no doubt, often able to exercise a remarkable
when he came face to face with something new, un- influence over men’s minds, and perhaps to cure
expected, or extraordinary. certain mental diseases. It is difficult to calculate
‘The emotion named Wonder is founded on relativity. It is the effect that such a display of power would haye
more than simple novelty. One degree beyond novelty is
surprise, or the shock of what is both novel and unexpected.
Wonder contains surprise, attended with a new and distinct
.. on those who did not understand its nature. It is
easy, on the other hand, to understand that such
effect, the effect of contemplating something that rises far above evidence of a power out of the common having beed
common experience, which elevates u s with a feeling of
superiority’ (Alexander Bain, The Eiiiofioiis and the WiZZ, furnished, wonders of a different nature would also be
85,f: I18991). ascribed to the master by his disciples, especially after
A wonder’ then is something which cannot be his decease. His works and his teaching would seem
explained from the ordinary experience of mankind in to combine t o suggest that he did not ’belong to the
general at a given time, but, as Hobbes pointed out life of the earth ; he must be a favourite of one of the
(Leviathan, chap. 27), ‘ seeing admiration and wonder deities, or of the Deity, or a son of one of the deities,
a r e consequent to the knowledge wherewith men are or of the Deity, or even an actual deity come in the
endued, some more, some less, it followeth that the flesh. The wonders with which he would now be ac-
same thing may be a miracle to one and not to another.’ credited would no longer be relative and natural, but
As regards many of the wonders that .surrounded them absolute and supernatural ( i . e . , miracles). It would
(the wonder of life, the wonder of creation) primitive be represented, especially after his decease, that the
men would be very much on a level and would all be manner of his appearance in the world, and of h i s
satisfied with a fanciful explanation : but with regard disappearance from it when his mission had been
to others (the wonder or effect of certain herbs, for accomplished, were alike remarkable : that if his
instance) some men would soon, at first by chance, mother was human, his father was divine, that if he
attain some measure of knowledge and thereby them- seemed to die like other men, it was not so in reality.
selves become relatively wonderful and wonder-workers H e would no longer be described as merely healing
(medicine-men, obi-men). In the eyes of his admirers, diseases, physical and psychical, by natural, but little
however, the man who is relatively wonderful, soon understood, means. H e has become superior to the laws
grows to be very much more than this. Obviously, of nature. H e walks upon the sea and stills its waves,
therefore, there is a very close connection between commands the wind and the storm, cures instantane-
wonders or miracles and myths; the growth and ously the deaf, the dumb, and the blind, brings to life
development of both would go on almost, if not quite, those who have actually died.
simultaneously. Obviously, too, the wonder is closely This process went on even in the middle ages. ‘Principles of
connected with exorcism and sorcery. myth-formation, belonging properly to the mental state of the
‘Exorcism and sorcery pass insensibly into miracle.
the marvellous results are ascrihed to a supernatural being at
.. If savage, were by its aid [the doctrine of miraclesl’continued in
strong action in the civilised world. Mythic episodes which
enmity with the observers, the art is sorcery; but if ascribed to Europeans would have rejected contemptuously if told of savage
a friendly supernatural being, the marvellous results are classed deities or heroes, only required to be adapted to appropriate
as miracles ’ (Herbert Spencer, Principles ofSocioZogu(3l, 1 24”). local details, and to be set forth as miracles in the life of some
superhuman personage to obtain as of old a place of credit
The very word in English, as we have seen, indicates and honour in history’ (Tylor, Pvinr/tiue CuZfzre,P)1-71f;).
the way we must take if we wish to understand the Writings in which miracles figure are not historical ’in the
meaning of wonders. It is clear that a thorough modern and scientific sense of the word.
exzmination of the subject would involve an investiga- Many of the OT and NT narratives in which ‘wonders’
figure have been treated in special articles, and from various
tion into the evolution of ideas in general, into points of view. See, for instance, CREATION, DELUGE, DEnioxs,
psychology, anthropology, comparative religion and
mythology. If Dr. Bacon in his new definition of
1 Prof. Cheyne *as one of the first critics to apply this
higher criticism is thinking of the comparative method, method in the case of hiblical study. See in EBW, the articles
such an investigation would indeed come within the ‘Cosmogony’(G446&), ‘Deluge’(7 54 6 8 ) , ‘Jonah’ (13 7363),
province of that science. ’ If a new definition of the also Th. Rem. Z I I - Z I ~ (~877). For more recent examples see
higher criticism may be permitted so late,’ he says, C REATION , DELUGE, J ONAH , P URIM , etc., and cp D E M ~ N S !
T EMPTATION. See also S. A. Cook ‘Israel and Totemism,
‘ we should call it the sfudv of tKe origin and develop- in IQJ?, April 1902 ; A. S. Peake, a;t. ‘Unclean,’in Hastings’
ment of ideas ’ ( T r i p l e T r a d i t i o n of the Exodus, xxxiii. ). Dl’.
5351 5359
WOOD WORMWOOD
DLVINATION, M AGIC, PLAGUES, ACTS, GOSPELS (cp JESUS), or caterpillar of some clothes-moth is intended. See
OHN LAZARUS, h l ~ s v ,NATIVITY, R E S U R R X T ~SIMON
~N, MOTH.
-&ET& SHKITUAL GIFTS TEXPTATION. See further R. W. 2. y>in, t&‘ (also ny$n and ny%n, from a root
hlackap, The Mbinprr ~ c h o o land i t s Antecedwts (1863) ;
Hugo Winckler Geschichte Israpis, 2 (1900) ; Th. Trede, meaning ‘ to gnaw’ [Del. Neb. Lang. 66f. ; PruZ. 1151;
IV~urder~laube ln Heia’enium und in der alien Kirche (1901); cp niy$nn,!
S u p r m a t r m l Rcl. (new ed. IPS). Cp 0. Holtzmann, Leben . . and niy& as applied to the teeth), arid
]es2’. The following works, amongst others, have to he taken 3. m!, rimmdh (cp Ar. yamma ‘ berotten,’ , i m m a P ”
account of: Grant Allen, Evolution of the Idea of God; Clodd, ‘rottenness ’), are the words most commonly employed,
Myfhr nnd Dreanrs; Frazer Golden &ugh; Huxley, Hume,
also Science and Hebrew TrAdition and Science and Christian and-as in vulgar speech-indicate not so mnch earth-
Tradition; Lang, CusCona and Myth, and J l y t h , Ritual, and worms (which indeed are found in Palestine, cp below),
Relig-ion ; Lubbock (.4vehury), On@ of CiviZisation ((5) as any elongated crawling animal. 6 renders generally
1889); J . M. Robertson, Christianity and Mvthology ( 1 9 ~ ) ;
Herbert Spencer The Study of Sociology (CSS) and Principles by U K ~ X ~ andE , in Job uaxpia, and less often uij\l.is,
.of Sociology; ‘fylor, Ear& Hist. of Mankind ((31, 1878), Vg. vermis, putredo, tinpa. The tZ& which was bred
Antltmopology (188r), Primitive Culture ((4, 1891). Cp also in the manna (Ex. 1620, in n. 24 virnmdh) means
Darwin, Desrcnt of Man ; Quatrefages, ’The Hi6lilan Species
.(ZSS) ; Tolstoy, What is Religion ? X I . A. C. obviously the larva of those flies which breed in organic
WOOD (Yy), Gen. 6 14. See FOREST, and the special matter. In hot countries flies breed with extraordinary
rapidity, and maggots not uncommonly appear in sores,
articles.
etc. ; whence several allnsions are made in the O T and
WOOF (3V),Lev. 1 3 4 8 RVmg. ‘knitted stuff.’ See Apocrypha to their parasitical tendencies and especially
W EAVING , 7. to their habit of preying upon the dead (Job 7 5 2126
3420 but cp d Is. 1411,cp also I Macc. 2 6 2 Ecclus.
WOOL (%$, &w ; €PION). The sources of wool 1011193).‘ In this connection we find in pre-Christian
“available in ancient times to the inhabitants of Palestine times the first reference to the ‘ fire and worm ’ which
were three in number-the sheep, the camel, and the afterwards became popularly connected with the notions
.goat ; but, except where another animal is distinctly of a future punishment (Is. 6 6 2 4 ; cp Ecclus. 717 Judith
mentioned (Mk. 1 6 Mt. 3 4 I S. 1913), we may assume
1617 and Mk. 9 4 4 8 ) .
that the wool of the sheep is meant. An Arabic saying Death by worms, regarded with special horror by the ancients
.(cp Bochart. Hieruz. 2442) declares that the best wool (Herod.4205), is said to have Iieen the fate of Antiochus
is that of the nakcrd (see S HEEP) ; it was this wool Epiphanes ( 2 Macc. 9 5 f X ) and of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12 23) :
which hlesha, king of Moab, sent as tribute to the king hut it must not he forpotte; that such statements about eminent
hut unpopular characters were frequently made by their political
of Israel ( 2 K. 3 4 RV). Wool is probably the worst opponents in order to discredit their memory. Cp DISEASES,
conductor of heat of all the materials used for clothing, adJn., and HEKOD. 5 12, ad@=.
and for this reason aniongst others has from the earliest The reference to the destruction of vineyards (Dt.
times been used as a covering. The finest wool is that 2839). or of gonrds (Jon. 4 7), by a ‘worm,’ probably
cut from the young sheep of about eight months old, indicates some beetle-or rather insect - larva-which
and is known as l a m b s wool (Prov. 2723 26) ; later injures roots or other parts of plants ; but it may refer
.shearings yield the wether wool, which is either unwashed to certain members of the Myyriapoda (Centipedes), which
or washed, the animal in the latter case being washed have similar destructive habits and are very numerous
before submitting to the shears. As is still the case in in Palestine. With the former we may compare the
pastoral countries, the annual sheep-shearing was in Gk. ?$, Tc and Lat. cunvoZvvuhs, a kind of vine-weevil
ancient times an occasion of great gatherings and (cp Pliny, “2247).
rejoicings ( I S. 25n 2 S . 1323; see FEASTS, 5 2f:). Wood-worms, the larm of wood-boring beetles, though un-
T h e wool is usually cut a few days after the washing, mentioned in MT, are referred to in Bar. 6 19 [20],in Prov. 1 2 4
by which time it has dried. A skilful shearer will @, where a bad woman is likened to 2v .$$A? ur&A?t .~
(=a-
-I

remove the whole of the fleece in a continuous sheet, i*ninryz), also 2 5 z o a e,& u m p 6 s [&I ipariy Kai U K & A ? ~
66Ao oGrws A 6 r q bv8pb5 B A ~ K T PKap8iav
L and the Vg. of 2 S. 23 8
which is then sorted according to its quality. The (ips; est quasi tenerrimus ligni vermicuds, qui octingentos inter-
wool-stapler, whilst doing this, removes the larger and fecit impetu uno).
more conspicuous impurities, bits of straw, etc. The Finally we may note the metaphorical use of ‘ worm’ to denote
wool is then carefully washed with soft water and soap, a man of low estate or in a miserable position Job 256 Ps.
22 EL71 Is. 41 14 [not 651, cp I(. 13654 : & m e U K ~ ; ~ V &i
[ yaiy
a n d dried. At this stage it is still in the condition of KC~TO saOris.
matted locks as they come from the body of the animal, 4. y11 hci, @dZ2 dye:, AV ‘worms of the earth’
a n d before it can ke woven it must be teazed, combed (Mi. 7 17), might possibly refer to true earth-worms
.and spun into a thread (see W EAVING). According to (Oligochzta) ; but the literal meaning is ‘ crawling things
E V the wool of Damascus was especially prized at Tyre (cp 6 U ~ P O Y T E Srev) of the earth,’ and it is more likely
(Ezek. 27 18) ; 6,however, substitutes ‘ wool from that serpents are intended (so RV, cp Dt. 3224).
hliletus,’ and Davidson says, ‘possibly, wool of Zachar.’ Of the 0lisoch;eta a dozen species from Palestine have been
I t is a matter for the textual critic (see J A V A N , 5 Ig). described, all belonging to the genus Allolobojho~a to which
On the prohibition to wear ‘ a mingled stuff, wool and fourteen out of the nineteen British species belong. kive of the
linen together’ (Lev. 1919 Dt. 2211 t). see L IHEN , 7, dozen-viz., A . rdiginora, A . chlorotica, A.,Wida, A . veneta,
and A . rosea-are also British. They are not found in the arid
n. 2 , and Crit. Bib.a d Zoc. A. E. S. and sandy regions, hut are hy no means uncommon in the more
fertile districts. Cp TOLA, COLOURS, 8 14.
WORD (0Aoroc). On ‘ the Word’ see LOCOS. The
5. lp,~ 4 v i . 6 Hos.
, 5 12AVw. ( K ~ V T ~ O[BAQ]=lt$P?).
V
WORLD. ‘The .words a r e : ( I ) YTK, &e:,Gen. 1 2 4 ; word properly means ‘ rottenness’ (see BDB) ; in Prov. 12 4
(2) t&Z, I s. 2 8 ; (3) Dip, ‘8him;Ps. 73 12 ; (4)+, hiled,
Ps. 17 1.1 ; (5) Slv, /iPrleZ, Is. 38 IT ; (6) a&, Heb. 1z ; (7) fi ;
1430, however, @ gives U K ~ A ? ais, ~ , just as in Job it renders
D? by ualrpia (see above). wi&& also occurs in the Hebrew of
(8) K ~ U ~ WJn., 18 36 ; (9) o;rovp&q, Heb. 25. See E ARTH. Ecclus. 43 20, where Taylor U Q R 10 471 ; Wisdom of Ben Sira
IxiiJ) adopts the rendering ‘skin-bottle,’ and refers to Geiger’;
WORM. Worm is the rendering of the following view of Job 13 28 ( ~ U K ~ 45).
S , which he apparently favours. The
Hebrew words :- text, however, is moSt probably corrupt ; for >pi, we should read
I . D?, ~cis( ~ 4 sin) Is. 5 1 8 , t where obviously the larva nh?& briikfith, rendering ‘and he congeals ponds by his cold.’
1 ‘ Wool is a modified form of hair, distinguished hy it? slender A . E. s.-s. A. c.,1-4;T. K. c., 5.
soft, and wavy or ciirly structure, and by t ‘ehighly imhricated WORMWOOD (?;g$
.
or serrated surface of its filaments’ . . ‘At what point indeed
it can he said that an animal fibre ceases to be hair and becomes
Dt. 2918 [17] Prov. 5 4 Jer.
3 15 [14l 23 15 Lam. 3 15 19 Am. 5 7 F 12 ;2 and 1+rvBos Rev.
wool it is impossible to determine, because in every characteristic
the one class by imperceptible gradations merges into the other, 1 In the difficult passage Job19 26, ‘worms destroy this body,’
so that a continuous chain can be formed from the finest and i o mention of worms is made by the MT; cp RV, and see
softest merino to the rigid bristles of the wild hoar.’-Ency. JOB D 6 col. 2474.
Brit.&)),S.V. ‘wool.’ 2 i n this last verse AV has ‘hemlock.’
5353 5354
WORSHIP WRITING
8 I I t). The Hebrew word Zua'ritrMis in @ variously rendered In Gen.308 the right word is used-vi%, h U , prop. 'to be
r r r r p i a Dt. 29 18 [17] Lam. 3 19 Am. 6 12, p h i Prov. 5 4 Lam.
3 15 LvL'yiac Jer. 9 15 [14], &SumJer. 23 15,and $(,or Am. 5 7.1 twisted together' ; see NAPHTALI,3. Cp, further, MANASSEH,
The'word 8$tvBor nowhere occurs in @ ; but Aq. had b$.iv%rov 0 4.
for la'iincZk in Prov. 5 4 Jer. 23 15 Lam. 3 19 (?), for r8S in In the N'T adXv ' wrestling' is used as a figure for a
Jer. 9 15 [141. Vg. has amaritudo in Dt. 29 18, hut everywhere spiritual struggle (Eph. 6 12) ; we might have expected
else a6sirrthium -a renderiiig which is also supported by Pesh. p d x v (Delitzsch, in his Heb. NT, renders n p ? ? ~ ); the
and Tg.
T h e origin of the word Za'a'ncih is obscure, and the Christian's struggle not being against flesh and blood
references to it in O T are so purely symbolical, that we can hardly be called a ' wrestling. ' But the word came
learn nothing but that it was an edible substance of naturally to his lips. T h e palaestra was not, it seems,
extreme bitterness ; it is usually coupled with w N j , YZ, forbidden to Christians ; the writer of 2 Macc. 4 1 2 8 (cp
or 3g, m i YS(see G ALL ), and once with a??iip C AP ) was naturally more sensitive, and denounces the
priests of Jerusalem who, in the Hellenising movement
m t ~ i r i m(Lam. 315, see BITTER H ERBS ). But a con- under Antiochus Epiphanes, ' hastened to take part in
sensus of ancient tradition is in favour of the identifica- the unlawful provision for thepaLzstra.' The word is
tion with wormwood, and it may well denote the product happily adopted by RV, following the precedent of
of one or more species of Artemisia (perhaps Artemisia ' synagogue ' ; primarily it means a wrestling school.
juduica) of which as many as seven are enumerated by Wrestling was a favourite exercise in ancient Egypt
Tristram (ZWP 331) as found in Palestine. (Wilk. Anc. Eg. 2437 5292). I t is said to have been
N. M.-W. T. T. -D. introduced into the Olympic contests in the eighteenth
WORSHIP. See TEMPLE, 5s 3 4 8 ; SACRIFICE ; Olympiad, from which date it continued to form one of
P RAYER, and SALUTATIONS.
also SYNAGOGUE, the five games of the pmtaihZon. T. K. C.
WORSHIPPER ( N G W K O P O C ) . RV TEMPLE- WRITING. In the study of writing it is important
K EE P ER . See NEOCOROS. to remember that the word has several meanings,
WREATH. I . h 4 , g i d i Z , I K. 7 1 7 . f SeeFRINGES. 1. The !vhich must be carefully distinguished. I n
its widest sense, it includes both ideo-
2. a$), ZaycZh, I K. 7 29 30 36, RV 'wreaths of hanging work' ;
but the meaning is doubtful and even the reading uncertain.
alphabet' graphic and phonetic writing. Ideographic
See under L AVER, 9 I. writing consists in the use of symbols to represent
visible objects or the ideas which are associated with
WREATHEN WORK. (I) n i y , ' m h , EX. 2814, those objects ; by phonetic writing is meant the use of
etc. See CORD. ( 2 ) ??XW, s&ikcZh, I K.7 17,etc. See NET, 5. symbols to represent the sounds or combinations of
WRESTLING. I t is reasonable to assume that the sounds, which constitute some particular language.
early Hebrews had wrestling-matches. T h e story of When each symbol denotes a single sound, the writing
Jacob wrestling with the JZihim or divinity (Gen. 3224-31) is said to be aIplzadetic; when each symbol denotes a
seems to presuppose this. If the cycle of Jacob- syllable, the writing is called syZZu6ic. It is probable
narratives were as near to the original folk-tales as the that writing was at first purely ideographic ; but the
cycle of Samson-narratives, we should perhaps have oldest systems of writing known to us, namely, the
found Jacob indulging like Samson in sportive exhibi- hieroglyphic writing of Egypt and the cuneiform writ-
tions of his strength, for the ancestors of the Hebrews ing of Babylonia, consist of ideographic and phonetic
(not Samson alone) were imagined as endowed with symbols combined in various ways. Both in Egypt
Herculean strength (cp Gen. 2910 3145$ 3226). I t is, and in Babylonia the art of writing was practised con-
however, no sport-this wrestling of Jacob with the siderably more than three thousand years before the
divine being ; it is the conquest of the god of an already Christian era. With these systems, however, we are
conquered people which has to be effected. This is the not at present concerned, since there is no reason to
historical meaning of the story. Penuel was possibly believe that they were at any time in use among the
the citadel of SUCCOTH ( q . x ), and within the precinct of ancient Hebrews, who, like their neighbours, the Moab-
the citadel was the sanctuary (see G IDEON , 5 2). T h e ites, the Phcenicians, and the Aramaeans. employed a
Jacob-tribe had 'contended with men' and had pre- purely alphabetic system, consisting of twenty-two
vailed '-Le., had conquered Succoth and Penuel letters, usually known as the Semitic a@hudet. From
externally (Judg. 8 16 f. ) ; but its admission to full the Phcenicians this alphabet was borrowed, with certain
religious privileges had, according to the myth, to be important modifications, by the Greeks; from the
obtained by force. Sargon carried away the deities of Greeks it passed on to the other nations of Europe, so
conquered places ; hut the Jacob-tribe meant to remain that in popular language the term ' writing ' is confined
at Snccoth and Penuel, and consequently had to convert to alphabetic writing. When we speak of the writing
a hostile divinity into a friend. Cyrus did the like at of Egypt and Babylonia, we are liable to forget that in
Babylon by geniality towards the priesthood (C YRUS , this case ' writing' means something quite different from
9: 6 ) ; the Jacob-tribe chose to describe its victory in the thatThe which we ordinarily understand by it.
origin of the Semitic alphabet is extremely
symbolic language of mythology. The myth grew pale,
and the later writers did not understand it. Hosea obscure. I n the ancient world the invention was
thought that Jacob's conduct was blameworthy ; a later 2. origin. commonly ascribed to the Phcenicians,l
writer modified the story by the statement that Jacob sometimes to the Aramaeans2 or the
'wept and made supplication to him,' and it is this Egyptians;3 but these theories seem to have been
later writer whom modern preachers justifiably follow, based upon mere conjecture, as was the case with so
for he has shown them how to ' turn dross into gold.' many other beliefs current among the ancients respect-
ing the origin of arts, institutions, and the like.' I n
The word rendered ' wrestled ' in Gen. 32 (pJw! II. 25 1241 ;
modem times also the theory of the F'hcenician origin
\pJ$g, 2). 26 [zjl)has been connected by some with p?!, 'ci&i&, of the alphabet has been frequently maintained, and
' dust, as if= ' to dust oneself' ;others compare M H p?:, 'i6akak, many scholars have endeavoured to show that the Phce-
'to entangle.' Rut probably the word is corrupt (see Cvit. Bia.). nicians simply adapted to their own use certain of the
1 Plin. Nut. Hist. 5 IZ [13] (see also 7 57) ; Lucan, Pharsal.
1 The translator seems in this last case to have read n>Spt 3 220.
and in the two cases in Jer. to have wrongly connected the word 2 Diod. Sic. 5 74, Clem.Alex. Stromateis, 116.
with root my. .
3 Plato Phredrus, 58, 274 D Cicero, De nat. deor. 3 22.
a Hos. 12 2 J [3x]belongs to Hosea, who blames Jacob ; the 4 That'any genuine traditionlabout the origin of the alphabet
continuation 1s in Z)ZL pg [S-IO]. Vz. 4-6 r5-71 are eulogistic of should have survived must appear highly improbable when we
Jacob. The expression 'turn dross into gold' is from Gunkel, consider that the inventors of the vowel- oints were completely
whose treatment of the story shows much insight, though he has foreotten, although they lived in a muc%later and a far more
missed the probable historical origin of the story. civilised age.
5355 5356
WRITING WRITING
phonetic signs employed in Egyptian writing. Others Some Phcenician and Aramaic inscriptions are perhaps
have supposed that the alphabet was developed out of rather older than these two ; but there is no clear evidence
the Babylonian cuneiform c l ~ a r a c t e r . ~But, as Winckler to show how long before the ninth century the Semitic
has recently observed, the arguments for attributing the alphabet was invented. Noldeke has observed that the
invention of the alphabet to the Phaenicians are far style of the inscription of Mesh2 seems to imply the
from s a t i ~ f a c t o r y . ~W e have, it is true, no right to existence of a historical literature among the Moahites
maintain, with Winckler, that the hypothesis is improb- of the period, and what we know of the Moabites would
able in itself, for mere generalisations, such as the lead us to suppose that their civilisation was decidedly
statement that mercantile peoples are deficient in less advanced than that of their neighhours to the W .
creative power, prove nothing at all. Nor is much to Thus we may conclude with certainty that at the time
be said in favour of the rival theory put forward by him, of Mesha‘ the Semitic alphabet was not a very recent in-
namely, that the alphabet was invented in Babylonia, vention. On the other hand, the fact that in the ninth
since the Babylonians, so far as we can ascertain at century B . C . the shapes of the letters were almost
present, never made use of it for writing their own identical in regions so far apart as Moab and Ya’di
language. The inscriptions in the Semitic character does not favour the view that the alphabet had been for
which appear on some Babylonian and Assyrian weights many centuries in common use, for in that case local
and contract-tablets prove, indeed, that the alphabet types would have tended to diverge more widely, as is
was known in Babylonia ; but as these inscriptions are shown by the later history of Semitic writing. More-
in the Aramaic language it would seem that the Semitic over, the tablets discovered at Tell-el-Amarna in 1887
character was introduced into Babylonia by Aramzans. prove that about 1400B . C . the Canaanite princes con-
T h e arguments which Winckler derives from the shapes ducted their official correspondence with the Egyptian
of the letters are likewise very precarious. From the court in the Babylonian language and character. It
fact that ‘Ayin is represented by a circle he argues that would be very rash to conclude from this that the
this letter was not originally included in the alphabet cuneiform character was then commonly employed by
and that the Semitic character must therefore have been the natives of Canaan, for documents written in a
invented by a people to whom the sound of ‘Ayin was foreign language and in an extremely difficult character
unknown. But the circular form of ‘Ayin may be ex- can have been intelligible only to a small class of pro-
plained by the obvious supposition that it is meant to fessional scribes, most of them, perhaps, slaves imported
represent an I eye ’ (Heb. ‘dyin), precisely as every from other countries.’ But it is evident that if the
other letter seems to have been originally a rude portrait Canaanite princes employed, in their correspondence
of some well-known object, the name of which happened with Egypt, a language which was neither that of
to bcgin with the sound intended. In some cases both Canaan nor that of Egypt, we may with some plausi-
the shape and the n.xme of the letter clearly indicate bility conjecture that the Canaanites at that period had
the object chosen, and this serves to show that the na writing of their own.
inventors of the alphabet spoke a Semitic language. The O T does not supply us with the means of dis-
But whether they were Phoenicians, Aramzans, or covering how or when the alphabet became known to
members of some other Semitic people it is at present the Israelites. I n Genesis, as has often been remarked,
impossible to decide. 4’ there is no allusion to writing of any kind, whereas
We are not to s!ippose that the inventors of the Moses is.represented, even in the older parts of Exodus
alphabet endeavoured to distinguish the sounds of their (JE), as practising the art (Ex. 244). But from this we
language with scientific precision. It would appear cannot safely conclude more than that writing had been
that when two or more consonantal sounds bore a in use among the Israelites for some time before the
certain resemblance t.0 one another they were sometimes period of the narrator, who probahly lived in the ninth
represented by a single letter ; thus the ancient Semitic century B . C . Nor does Judg. 5 1 4 throw any light on
alphabet had only one sign for the two sibilants which the question ; whatever the phrase YZD km@may mean,
were afterwards known as Sin and Shin and distin- it cannot be explained as ‘ the pen of the scribe,‘ since
guished by a diacritical point (t.,d ) . In this case the o?t$ never has this sense either in Hebrew or Aramaic.
distinction of sound must have existed from the beginning
I t is remarkable that the ordinary Hebrew noun for
(as is proved by comparative philology), and became
even more marked in later times; we may therefore
‘ writing,’ namely Y .,.~..D ,from which ??b ‘ a scribe ’ is
assume that it existed likewise in the intermediate derived, has no etymological connection with any of
period, when the alphabet was invented. Since the the verbs which signify ‘ t o write’ ( ~ mppn, , o d i ) , and
inventors of the alphabet ignored this distinction, they this fact tends to support the theory that is a foreign
may have ignored others also, and accordingly the fact word ; whether it was borrowed from the Assyrian, as
that the ancient Semitic character does not discriminate some scholars suppose, is uncertain.
between certain sounds which are expressed by different The name of the old Canaanite city l ~ D - f l : l ~(Josh. 15 15f:
letters in Arabic (e.g., 2 and -f-, e i)and
that the alphabet originated among a people who in
is no proof Judg. 1 I I J ) might suggest that the word l?p, in the sense of
‘writing,’ was known already to the Canaanites before the
Israelite invasion. hut since the root 1 8 0 2 has a varietyof
pronunciation assimilated these sounds to one another. meanings (in Hedrew ‘ to count ‘to relate,’ in Aramaic ‘to
Of all known inscriptions in the Semitic character the shave the hair ’), it is altogether iilegitimate to found any argu-
oldest which can be dated with certainty, namely the ment upon the name in question. Cp KIRJATH-SErHER.
inscription of Meshd king of Moab,
In the days of the later kings of Judah, the art of
3. writing must have been very extensively employed, to
belongs to the earlier half of the ninth
century B.C. See M E S H A . T h e inscription of Panammk, 4. Types. judge by the frequent allusions to it in the
king of Ya’di, in the extreme N. of Syria, appears to Prophets, especially Isaiah. T h e oldest
have been set up about the beginning of the eighth extant specimens of Israelite writing, namely the Siloam
century; it is written in a peculiar Aramaic dialect.6 inscription and a number of engraved seals and gems,
1 Even in Babylonia itself, where the language of the Tell-el-
1 De Rou@ M4mob.s sur rovioine izyjtienne de Z’aiphaZef Amarna tablets was actually spoken, the knowledge of the
jAknicien (Pads 1874) ’ Masper; Hist. ancienne des @urUples cuneiform character was, in all prohahility, confined to a small
de r ~ r i ~ n t (745;1 (Paris,’ 1893). proportion of the inhabitants.
2Deecke in ZDMG31 [18771102-116. 2 It is possible that 1;D in i;p-n;?p has no connection with
3Wi. Gesclz. Isr. l(r895) ~ & f : the Heh. root 190, since Phcen. D may correspond to Heb. 7,
4The reasons which make It necessary to suspend our judr- e.,c.,Phcen. :2~=Heh. 731. The existence of a root ygi may
ment on this question are well pointed out by Lidzharski in his
Handbuch del- nordsem. E j i p a j h i k [1898] 1173f: be inferred from the name of the place p.DT(@?, ‘ t o Ziphron,’
5 See D H M Die altsemitischen Zmchmjhn von SenrLrchirZi Nu. 349).
(Vienna, 18931,and cp ARAMAIC LANGUAGE, S 2. 4 See Dr. TBS pp. xiv-xvii.
5357 5358
WRITING WRITING
seem to belong to this period. Here the shapes of the were not represented in the older Semitic writing. T h e
letters closely resemble those in the inscription of king so-called Himyaritic inscriptions fall into two classes,
Mesha'. One of the oldest Phoenician inscriptions, according to dialect-those in Sabaean and those in
that which is found on the fragments of a bronze bowl Minaean. Both dialects seem to have been spoken in
dedicated to the Baal of Lebanon ( U S i. no. 5 , see S. Arabia at about the same period, and to have been
PHBNICIA, 0 18),exhibits much the same type. But the carried northwards by mercantile colonists. Among
ordinary Phcenician writing has a decidedly more modern these inscriptions there are very few of which the date
appearance ; the down-strokes become elongated, so as can be ascertained even approximately. The theory of
to present to the eye a series of parallel lines, and the Glaser, Homniel, Sayce, and others, that the Minzean
letters thus acquire an air of uniformity which is lacking inscriptions are of enormous antiquity and that the
in the older style. Another type is offered by the latest of them were set up about 1000 B.c., has been
Aramaic inscriptions and papyri of the Persian and completely overthrown by the discovery of a Minaran
Macedonian period. The distinctive feature of these is inscription which is dated from ' the twenty-second year
that certain letters ( 2 , 1, y, 1) have open tops, as of king Ptolemy.' so that it cannot be older than the
though their upper portion had been cut off. A further third century B . c . ~ T h e dialect of the so-called
development of this Aramaic writing appears in the Thaniiidaean inscriptions, recently discovered at Al-
Nabataean and Palmyrene inscriptions, of the first UlB, about 150 m. NNW. of Medina, differs grpatly
century B.C. and onwards, which are specially remark- both from the Sabaean and the Minaran ; but the writinq
able for their frequent ligatures or joining of the letters, is nearly the same. Whether D. H. Muller be right in
a feature common to all the later styles of Aramaic considering the Thamiidzan character an earlier form
writing in use among Christians. As the Aramaic of the Sabaean is uncertain. By the beginning of the
language gradually superseded Hebrew and the kindred seventh century of our era both the Thamiidaean and
dialects spoken in Palestine, the Aramaic letters became the Sabwan writing had become obsolete in Arabia, for
more and more familiar to the Jews. T h e coins of the the alphabet employed by the Arabs at that time-the
Hasmonaran dynasty and those struck during the two parent of the Arabic character now in use-was derived
Jewish revolts (66-70and 132-135 A. D .) bear legends from the Nabatzan. I n Eastern Africa, however, the
in the old Hebrew character ; hut some Jewish inscrip- S a b z a n alphabet left a descendant, namely the very
tions of about the time of Christ are in the Aramaic peculiar character known as the athiopic.
writing, though the language is Hebrew. The particular T h e names by which the letters of the alphabet were
variety of the Aramaic character which came into use known among the Jews appear for the first time in the
at this period was called by the Jews kl'hZb mh-ubbd' 5. Names of LXX text of Lam. 1-4. Here the MSS, it
( y m g XI?), 'square writing,' or k2Lhthdb a J J i r L (-TU! >?p), IS true, vary to a considerable extent ; but

'Assyrian writing,' a name probably due to the fact the letters. there can be no doubt that the names a r e
that it was employed by the peoples of NE. Syria. substantially identical with those which were used by the
One of the most ancient specimens of the square Jews in the Middle Ages. It would seem, however,
writing is the inscription over the sepulchre of the BPnE that in very early times certain of these names were
HZzir (ivn ... 9m),
... a Jewish family, near Jerusalem the pronounced otherwise, since the names of the Greek
letters, which were borrowed from the Phoenicians,
character bears much resemblance to the Nabataean, sometimes diverge notably from the ordinary Jewish
but the lines are straighter and the ligatares less forms ; thus I'dppa (for rapAa) and 'PG ( c p Heb. dui,
frequent. In the fully developed form of the square * head ' ) appear to have a more primitive vocalisation
character the ligatures disappear altogether. There is
reason to believe that at the time when the text of the
than (ayipcc~A or yiph) and d.1 (ap ~ x sor p v s ) .
O T was definitely fixed-Le., about the beginning of the Accordingly the fact that is not a Hebrew but an
second century after Christ-the square character was Aramaic form cannot be regarded as proving anything
generally, if not invariably, employed in MSS of the with respect to the ultimate origin of the names. That
OT.2 Since that period it has continued in use among the names were liable to undergo great change in various
the Jews with very little modification. Strangely times and places is shown, moreover, by the Ethiopic
enough, the Samaritans alone remained faithful to the alphabet, in which several of the names are quite different.
old Hebrew writing, though in their attempt to adorn W e must not therefore be surprised to find that among
it they gave it a somewhat fantastic a p p e a r a n ~ e . ~ the Jewish names of the letters there are some of which
At a period which it is impossible to determine the meaning is altogether obscure, namely, yo, I:!, n'D,
accurately, but in any case several centuries before the n q '-IG qip, and >$
Christian era, the Semitic alphabet was introduced into The order in which the letters were arranged is shown
Arabia and employed for writing various Arabian dia- by the acrostich poems in the OT (Pss. 25 34 37 1115
lects, as is proved by many inscriptions which have 119 145 Prov. 3110-31 Lam. 1). In Lam.
been discovered in that country. Some of these were, 6. Order 2-4 the order is slightly different, since
until lately, known by the incorrect name Himyaritic. Of the
5 precedes p3 Among the Phoenicians
The alphabet in which they are written is evidently the arrangement of the letters seems to
derived from that of the northern Semites ; but it con- have been the same as among the Jews, for the Greek
tains several additional consonants, invented for the alphabet in its primitive form corresponded to the
purpose of expressing certain Arabic sounds which Hebrew. By what principle the order was originally
1 See Chwolson, Corpus Inso. He& no. 6 (St. Petershurg, fixed it is impossible to discover.
1882). Ancient inscrintions in the Semitic alphabet, like the
2 In the recently discovered fragments of Aquila's Greek
translation of the OT (ed. F. C. Burkitt, Cambridge, 1897) the
., Direction of oldest inscriptions *in Greek, are
Divine name y-h-w-his written in a corrupt form of the old the writing, written from right to left. The sole
Hebrew alphabet, not, as we might have expected, in the square punctuation, etc. exceptions to this rule are found
character. But it does not necessarily follow that the Hebrew
MSS used by Aquila were written in the old alphabet fhrough-
-
among the Sabaean inscriptions, a
few of which are written ~ 0 u u 7 p 0 ~ ~ 6 6 v - i . e .in ,
o u t ; the Divine Name, which, it must be remembered, was not
pronounced by the reader, may still have been written in the
ancient style after the rest of the text had been modernised. 1 See the papers by D H M in the Vienna Oriental ourn (Dzc
3 Tables showing the forms of the letters used by the N. Wieitev Zeitsch?: f z r die Kunde des Morgerrlandes{8 1-i~
16;-
Semitic nations at different periods are found in Stade's Lehr- 166 (1894).
buch der hedrriischen Grammatik (1879) and Niildeke's Kurz- 2 Named after the Thamrid (Gk. ol @apouSqvoi), an Arabian
@assre syuisckz Gramnratik (1880, (2)1898), hut far fuller tribe who inhabited those parts about the fourth century after
information may be obtained from the magnificent table hy Christ. The authors of these inscri tions, however, call them-
Euting in Chwolson's Corpus rnscr. Neb. See also P . Berger, selves not Thamrid,but Li&yyrin(p&; see D H M .%jig.Denk.
Hisfoirr de Z'dc~criturcdam ranfiquW (Paris, 1891). a u s Arabien (Vienna, 1889). 3 See LAMENTATIONS.

53.59 5360
In any case the 0.r contains very many textual corrup- is very rarely the case in copies of the OT.
tions which are due s.mply to wrong divisions of words.2 Though the insertion of vowel-letters doubtless ex-
Such mistakes were greatly facilitated by the absence of cluded certain ambiguities, the writing was still very far
special forms for final letters, like those used in the writ- from being an adequate representation of
9. vowel-
ing of the later Jews, Syrians, and Arabs. In Hebrew, points, etc. the language. Not only many of the

style this is not :allowed, and in order to fill up a line unexpressed. At length, several centuries after the
the scribes are accustomed to ' expand ' certain letters, Christian era, systematic efforts were made by the Jews,
especially N, 7, 5, n, and o. the Syrians, and the Arabs to remove this practical
The letters of the Semitic alphabet were originally inconvenience. It cannot be a mere accident that aniong
used as consonants only, the vowels being unexpressed. all three nations the introduction of the so-called vowel-
Such a :system must, of course, give rise points took place about the same period ; but how and
*' Ortho- to endless ambiguities, for in the Semitic
graphy* languages some of the most important gram-
where the idea originated is quite uncertain. As early
as the fifth century after Christ Syrian scribes had
matical distinctions (e.g., the difference between an adopted the practice of distinguishing certain words,
active and a passire verb) often depend solely on the which, though spelt alike. were pronounced differently,
vowels. The reason which led the Semites to content by means of a dot placed above or below ; and it has
themselves with this imperfect method seems to have been conjectured by Ewald and others that this was the
been that writing was at first employed only for short origin both of the Syrian and of the Jewish systems of
and well-known formulze, such as votive inscriptions, vocalisation. In any case, it would seem that at the
funereal inscriptions, and the like, not for literary works beginning of the fifth century the vowel-points were
properly so-called. At length certain of the consonants unknown to the Jews, and that by the end of the eighth
(H, n, 1, and 7)came to be used also as vowels ; hut this century they had been in use for some time. The
modification was introduced very slowly. In Phcenician Jewish scholars who introduced these signs into the text
inscriptions the vowels are never expressed save in a few of the O T are commonly known .as the iMassoretes-i. e . ,
cases at the end of a word. In the inscription of King traditionalists, from the late Heh. word mass5rzlh (nlbp),
Meshd and the Siloam inscription the vowel-letters are ' tradition.' Respecting their names and dates history
inserted somewhat more freely, but very much less is altogether silent. Though their work was of enormous
freely than in the present text of the OT.3 Among the importance, it must be remembered that aniong the Jews,
Israelites, before the exile, the general rule seems to as among the Syrians and Arabs, the vowel-points have
have b-en that no vowels were expressed in writing never been regarded as an essential part of the writing ;
except the diphthongs au and ai (which were repre- in particular the MSS of the Law and the Prophets,
s e n t d by 1 and 7 respectively), and most of the long from which lessons were read in the synagogues, appear
roweis a t the end of words. The use of vowel letters to have been generally, if not always, written without
for 22, 5, and i in the middle of words-which is frequent points, down to the present day. Those MSS of the
in the MT-apparently came into fashion a t a very late Hebrew Or which are ' pointed ' fall into two principal
period, as a cxreful examination of 65 shows.4 The classes, according to the method of vocalisation eni-
orthography of the ?resent Jewish OT is probably the ployed. T h e great majority exhibit the so-called Pales-
result of a revision (or of several revisions) by the scribes, h i m 2 system, whilst others, of which the best-known
for in all parts of the O T the use of the vowel-letters (or, example is the St. Petershurg Codex of the Prophets
as they are often called, matres kctionis) is approxi- written in 916 A . D . (published in facsimile by Strack
mately the same, thai: is to say, the oldest books do not, in 18761, have the Babylonian (or superlinear) vowel-
in this respect, differ materially from the latest. But points. These two systems possess so much in common
though we find a general uniformity of spelling through- that they must necessarily be derived from the same
out the whole of the OT, there are numberless incon- original ; but the precise relationship between them is
sistencies in matters of detail, and it often happens that still disputed. Both represent a very late stage in the
within the space of a few verses the same word is spelt pronunciation of the Hebrew language, or rather they
in two or more different ways. In no case. therefore, express the language, not as it was actually spoken, but
have me any guarantee that the vowel-letters in our text as it was chanted in the synagogues of the period.3 T h e
go back to the time of the author, and to base historical most important difference between the Palestinian and
arguments on the spelling is quite illegitim~tte.~Even the Babylonian systems is, that the Palestinian alone has
a special sign for the short vowel e (SPghdj. The Raby-
1 The Bthiopic writing, as is well known, always runs from lonian system underwent considerable change in course
left to right ' the oldest extant specimens of this writing, namely of time, as is shown by the different forms which it
two inscriptions at -4ksllrn in Abyssinia, probably belong to th;
sixth century after Christ. assumes in our MSS ; but it was ignored altogether by
2 See Dr. TBS xxx-xxxii. the great Jewish commentators and grammarians of the
3 Thus the Siloam inscription has WR (thrice) for 'C"?, and Middle Ages, and a t length sank into oblivion, until it
D x n l (twice) for C ' l W l 7 . 1 See, c.g., Co. Das Buch dz.r Propheien L'nPrhi6.l raP6. 2.. 7.
4 Dr. TBS p. rxxiiif: It mnst be remembered that many words 2 .\Is0 called ' Tillerinn,' from the fact that the city of 'l'ilvzri:ts
which the later Jews pronounced with 8 or zi originally had the wa4 one uf the principal seats of Jewish learning from the aecond
diphthong a i . Thus when we find yiy and in in the Siloam century onwards.
inscription, we sre not to reckon these as cases in which d was 3 The proniinciation of Hebrew words given in the NT and
expressed by 1. other Greek sources is often more primitive than the ronuhcia-
J. Thus the well-known fact that the form ~ 1 is 7 sometimes tion expressed bv the vowel-points. It should also { e noticed
employed in M T instead of the fem. "7 proves nothing as to that the consonant text and .the vocalisation are frequently at
the usage of the ancient Hehrew, since the 1 in this case was variance with one another, since the Former presupposes a more
probablyinserted bylatescribes (cp Dr. Deut. Introd. p. lxxxviii). ancient pronunciation than the latter. Thus in the very first
In htoabite the masc. form is written ~ 7 and , in Phcenician word of the Hebrew OT, n'eH12, the H must originally have
inscriptions we find ~7 for masc. and fem. alike, the pronunciation been pronounced as a conionant, but is treated by the hfassoretes
of course varying according to the gender. as mute.

5361 5362
WRITING YEAR
became known to European Hebraists in the nineteenth parts of sentences.' A special method of accentuation is
century. employed in the poetical books of the OT--i.e., Psalms,
Both the Palestinian and the Babylonian systems of Proverbs, and Job.Z It is scarcely necessary to observe
vocalisation are combined with an extremely elaborate that for us the value of the accents consists in the light
system of accents, which were intended to indicate not which they throw, not upon the real meaning of the text,
only the place of the accent in individual words, but also but upon the manner in which the text was understood
the musical intonation adopted in chanting, and hence the by the Massoretes. A. A. B.
greater or less degree of connection between the different

Y
YARN. See L INEN , I, W EAVING , and on z S. much more complicated than is exhibited either in the
1 7 z ~ f . [ROGELIM] see BED, 5 3. Egyptian or in the Mohammedan: it has, however,
I . p y , 'Zpn, Prov.716 RV. See L INEN , 5 ~ a 2.. Ezek. this advantage over both, that the Hebrews, at least in
ZT 19 RV &W?), See uZAL. 3. n ~ pr,n i h e h , 1 K . 10 28 AV . their reckoning of the years, though not always in
See C HARIOT , 5 5, n. 3 , WEAVIAG,
$ a. their delimitation of them, remained in agreement with
the number of the natural years.
YEAR (?l?y, Jinih). Day, month, and year are all With the ancient Israelites, as probably at the outset
indicated by nature itself as means for the measure- with all peoples, the year was a solar one, that is to
ment of time. These three units are quite independent,
however, and stand in no direct or simple relationship
*. A solar say, a natural year which was sufficiently
defined for practical purposes by the
to each other, and wherever an artificial reduction of regular recurrence of the seasons. T o
the larger unit to terms of either of the two smaller this also the Hebrew word for year seems to have
is attempted in the absence of exact astrononiical reference; for in @, Emih. at least, as in $ V L ~ U T ~ S
knowledge, inaccuracies and dislocations become [&os, CLvos], annus [annulus], jahr, y e a r (cp Gk. yupoGv),
inevitable. These are not so great when the largest of it seems permissible to conjecture some sort of reference
the three units-the year-is measured in terms of the to a return to a starting-point, a repetition of the same
smallest-the day ; but they become serious when the circular course. The solar character of the Hebrew
middle unit-the month-is taken as the basis for year, however, is demonstrated beyond all doubt by the
establishing a ratio. ancient determinations of time according to the seasons
The former course (making the day the unit) was of the year and the agricultural operations dependent
taken by the Egyptians : they had observed that after on these. Thus, for example, the annually recurring
1. In Egypt. about 365 days the sun returns to the harvest festival or feast of weeks, dated by the harvest
same position in the celestial sphere, and (Ex. 2316a 3422 Dt. 1 6 g ) , the feast of tabernacles, dated
accordingly fixed their year as being 365 days. They by the ingathering (Dt. 1613). It is proved also by
altogether left out of account any reference to the indications which clearly show that stated religious or
course of the moon, although some reminiscence of it political actions-dependent in fact on the period of
may be preserved in their division of the year into the year- always occurred at the same time of the
twelve equal parts of thirty days each, to which were year. Thus for example the autumn festival falls at
added the five remaining days as supernumerary (the so- the end of the year (Ex. 23166 3422) ; the going forth
called epugomenai). Even thus, however, it was an of the king to battle at the return of the year
artificial product that bad been manufactured from the ( z S . 11 I I K. 2022 26 I Ch. 201 z Ch. 3610). Lastly
natural year which contains 5 hours 4 8 minutes and it is shown by the ancient names of months which are
4 8 seconds more than 365 complete d a y s ; and the unmistakably connected with the regular recurrence
Egyptian year, which on every fourth anniversary began of phenomena of the seasons (see M ONTH , 5 1 ) .
a day too soon, was still a vague <ear, although it was The length of the year was hardly so accurately
only after the lapse of 1 4 6 1 Egyptian years-a so-called determined as to render impossible all uncertainty in its
Sothis period (see C HRONOLOGY , Q 19)-that the differ- Probably its limits to
ence amounted to a year too many. 5. Its length. measurement.
some extent depended on weather-
The second course (making the month the unit) was conditions and the labours necessitated by these. At
chosen by Mohammed, whose intention in prohibiting least, we have no indication from the earlier times
a, In Islam. the occasional insertion of an intercalary which would point to any exact deflnition of the year by
month was to frame a rational calendar, any precise number of days. Not till post-exilic time
but who thereby only succeeded in creating another does P seem to betray acquaintance with the fact that
artificial product completely differing from the natural the year consists of 365 days, when he so states the
year, namely the so-called purely lunar year which with number of the years of Enoch's life (Gen. 523 ; see
its twelve lunar months ( 3 5 4 to 355 days) annually E NOCH , 6 ) or when he represents the Flood, which
begins the new year some ten or eleven days too soon. began on the seventeenth day of the second month, as
T h e calendar of Israel and the Jews avoided both coming to an end on the twenty-seventh day of the
the extremes just indicated, which are the necessary second month of the following year (Gen. 7 II 8 14).
3. In Israel. consequences of a too exclusive regard This last procedure is certainly to be taken as showing
either to the day or to the month in
determining the length of the year. With the Israelites 1 As to the points in which the Babylonian accentuation differs
the method to be followed was decided by practice, from the Palestinian see Wickes' Treafise on fhc Accenfuafion
unhampered by any dominating theory about the of the Twenty-one &caZled Prose Books of f k r O T , Oxford,
natural year. This of course did not exclude modifica- 1887, pp. 142-150. It should be mentioned that Dr. Wirkes
regards the term ' Babylonian' as a misnomer.
tions as time advanced, and ultimately the modifications 2 See Wickes, A Treatise on fhr Accentuation of fke Thrrr
led in the case of the Jewish calendar to a product so-caIled PorticaZ Books, Oxford, 1881.
5363 5364
YEAR YEAR
that, assuming as he did for primitif e times an accurate that we are unable to see in it clear evidence of a year
dating according to lunar months oi which twelve made of twelve months; it is possible even that Judah may
an ordinary year of :j55 days, he wished by adding on have b&n thought of as the thirteenth district, with this
ten days more to bring the year, thus reckoned, up to as its special privilege that it became liable to the tax
the full length of a natural year of 365 days. Whether only in intercalary months. In substance, then, what
also the feast of the New Year (for which we have we are able to say is this : In the pre-exilic period it
evidence from the exilic period; Ezek. 401, cp Lev. was natural years that regulated the chronology, the
2591, which was observed, not on the first but on the changr of the year fell in autumn, and the months,
tenth day of the seventh month, is based on a similar which followed the moon, were allowed to take their
reckoning, can hardly be made out. At all events, own way, without concerning themselves much about
whatever may have been the freedom allowed in the the year.
measurement of any particular year, there are certain As in so many other things, the exile brought
facts which show that the real length of the actual profound changes into the Jewish Calendar. Away
year was by no means altogether obscure even in the 8. Exilic from their native soil, with which their
pre-exilic period. changes. worship had stood in such intimate con-
According to the reckoning in use then (in the pre- nection-a connection which Deuteronomy
exilic period) the change of the year took place in indeed had already been recently seeking to sei-er-
6. Beginning. autumn, when all the fruits of the earth they were now all the readier to take over the Babylonian
had been gathered in and the former calendar, which they had learned to rccognise as the
rain ( n l i o . 7~87-eh)u-as preparing the fields for fresh more scientifically regulated one. This change
tillage and a renewal of the yearly cycle. The autumn announces itself in a new terminology for the months
festival, or feast of the ingathering (l,aa? 15, bug and in a transference of the beginning of the year.
Down to the exile the months had been designated by
hd'dfTph), with which the yearly round of feasts was
their ancient names (so even in Deuteronomy) ; in the
closed, was observed ' a t the outgoing of the year'
exile comes in the custom of distinguishing the months
( v Q g n u p , 6&2h hnJZnZh-Ex. 23 16) or ' at the year's
from each other by numbers, and also of placing the
revolution'' (i,r+cn F p , t~kziphuthhaSJin<ih-Ex. 3422). first month in spring (cp, to begin with, the exilic
These definitions of the oldest legislation are so clear redactors of Jeremiah and Kings, Ezekiel, Haggai, and
and distinct as to make further proof unnecessary. Zechariah, then P and the final redactor of the
If any further proof were requisite, i t might be urged that the Hexateuch [e.g., Dt. 13], and also Chronicles). In
passover could not have been observed in accordance with the
precept of the newly-found law unless the new year was in course of time even the foreign Babylonian names for
autumn in the eighteenth year of Josiah (2 K. 23 23 ; cp 22 3 ) the months began to come in ; but except in Ezra615
and that on no other assumption can the fdurth year of Jehoiakid (in an Aramaic passage) and in Neh. ( I I 2 1 615) their
he made t o synchronise with the first year of Nebuchadrezzar ordinal numbers are also a t the same time given (so in
(Jer. 25 I ) and with the year of the battle of Carcheniish (Jer.
46 2). Such inferential arguments are needless. Besides, the Esther and in Macc.).' The transference of the begin-
text of these passages (cp 45)is not in a satisfactory condition. ning of the year to the spring is already witnessed to
It is wholly unwarranted, however, to regard the by the numbering of the months beginning, as in the
autumn as marking the change of the economic year, Babylonian Calendar, with the spring month ; but we
and to set over against this, as the ordinary calendar have, besides, express evidence in the ordinance of P
yenr, a civil year that had its commencement in spring. in Ex. 122 'This [the current, Passover] month shall
There is absolutely no evidence for any such system of be unto you the beginning of months : it shall be the
double accounts before the exile. first month of the year to you.' The evidence here
T h e expression ' a t the return of the year '(n!$n n>rd+ ; 2 S. supplied does not lose in weight even if the verse should
11 I I K. 20 2 2 26), which is used more than once with reference prove to be due to a later editor. For in any case the
to campaigns beginning in spring, does not speak of a beginning change of the era is carried back to a divine command.
of the year, hut is couched in such general terms as t o contain a given of old to Moses and Aaron while still in the land
definite date only when one knows that the spring is the time
for campaign3 to begin, and in itself means nothing more than of Egypt. But this of itself proves that the Israelites
'in the following year.' had once made use of another era (that beginning in
There is all the less reason for this postulating of a autumn), and that its place was taken by the spring era
beginning of the year in spring-in the interests of the only at a later date.
late P (Ex. 122), and in contradiction to the terms of I n P's account of the deluge a further proof of this author's
knowledge of the earlier employment of an autnmn era is
the oldest legislation (Ex. 2316 34zz)-inasmuch as the ohtained, only if we hold ourselves shut up to the conclusioii
period of the exile itself bears witness to the observance that he considered the flood to have hegun in autumn. But in
of the New Year festival in autumn, and in the end the that case P has not only carried hack the later designations of
old custom once more triumphed over the later innova- the months to that patriarchal period, but has also adapted these
in academic fashion to the autumn era by designating in
tion which for a time had held the year to begin in accordance with this latter era, as the second month, that which
spring. See N E W Y EAR , 5 I . by the spring era was the eighth (cp Gen. 7 11 84f: 13f:).
The question as to the relation of the months to the At what date this change came in cannot be gathered
year is niore difficult. For the earlier ages it is im- from the passage before us ; but the whole manner of
7. Relation possible to say anything with certainty. P, which is to carry back all the ordinances of the post-
ofyearto Probably the months and the years exilic community to Moses, renders it probable that in
simply ran a parallel course. without any this ordinance also we see the sanctioning of an innova-
months. attempt being made to fix a point of tion that had been introduced a t the time of the exile,
coincidence at which the year and the monthly cycle and the date of which admits of being definitely fixed by
might take a common beginning. T h e fact that in the means of the new designations the months then received.
exile the New Year festival was held on the tenth day The memory of the older custom of beginning the
of a month without any sense of strangeness (Ezek. 401, year in autumn was still vivid during the exile and took
cp Lev. 259) seems to point to this. When necessity concrete shape in an ecclesiastical New Year's festival
arose. doubtless no difficulty was felt in making a (Ezek. 401 Lev. 259 Nu. 29 I ; cp Lev. 2324). In this
thirteenth month follow upon the ordinary twelve within way from henceforward there was observed, alongside
the same year ; but there was not as yet any definite of the official civil New Year in spring. an ecclesiastical
rule, and the text of I li. 47-20, which speaks of the New Year in autumn, which was held by the ancient
division of Solomon's kingdom into twelve districts, pre-exilic custom. The beginning of the civil year fell
each of which was called upon to maintain the expenses thus on the first day of the first month (or Nisan. cor-
of the royal household for a month, has unfortunately responding to what had formerly been known as Abib).
reached us in such an imperfect state of preservation 1 I n Zech. 1 7 7 I the names of the months are a later insertion.
171 5365 5366
YEAR YEAR
T h e ecclesiastical New Year on the other hand did not this are the regulations of the Mishnah which (Rish
remain unaltered. At first it was, as already stated, R a s h h i n d , 1I ) distinguishes four commencements of the
observed according to Ezek. 401 (cp Lev. 25g)'on the year, of which the 1st of Elul, the new year for the
tenth of the seventh month (Tishri) ; but afterwards it tithing of cattle, and the 1st of Shebat, the n e y year
was transferred to the 1st of Tishri (Lev. 3324 Nu. for tlie fruit of fruit-trees, may be left out of account,
291 [PI). as being merely the terms with reference to which
The day, in tlie passages last cited, indeed is called no longer accurate reckoning of sacred dues was fixed. What is
tbh, ~ 8 5haSSanZh, a s is the day of the new year in important to notice here is that the 1st of Xisan is there
Ezek. 401, but 7yTlT Oi', yam tZni'Zh, 'day of blowing of given as the new year for kings and for the sacred feasts
trumpets' (Nu. 29 I ; cp 3pllg f1121, eikr8s ti~12'Zh, 'a (that is, as in Josephus, for religious affairs), whilst the
memorial of blowing of trumpets',' Lev: 23 24); but Lev. 25 8 1st of Tishri is the new year for the years, for the
leaves 110 room for doubt that the ' trum et blowing * must Sabbatical years, for the years of Jubilee, for tree-plant-
taken as the characteristic feature of the %.e, Year's day, and
that the exilic New Year festival had to give up its place to the iugs and vegetables (and so for the enumeration of the
day of atonement (o'Wp Ei,, yam kipp&+m, Lev. 23 27f: ; cp years). Hence the rabbinical formula explains itself:
" Nisan is the first of the months of the year, but
N E W YEAR)now transferred to loth of Tishri.
How the insertion of a thirteenth month which from Tishri is the beginning of the year." From that day
time to time was necessary was arranged, we have no to the present the 1st of Tishri has continued to be
means of knowing, the O T being silent on the subject. New Year's Day, and thus it is correct to say that the
T h e fact, however, that such insertion was actually made reckoning of the year according to the vernal era,
in order to keep the beginning of the year in approximate which was adopted by the Jews in the exile from the
coincidence with the vernal equinox, does not admit of Babylonians and afterwards received the sanction of P,
doubt; it was the practice of the Babylonians from was only an episode-a large one it is true, from the
whom the entire new calendar was borrowed. sixth to the last century ~ . c . - i n the history of the
The arrangement thus made was not disturbed till Hebrew and Jewish Calendar.
long afterwards, and even then probably only on account Throughout all these changes the year had remained
g. Seleucidan of the Seleucidan calendar which made solar. Owing to the very absence of any definite in-
the beginning of the year in autumn. flexible rule,2-which, had it existed in the early times,
calendar. At the same time i t remains a question must necessarily have been incomplete and inaccurate
whether any such alteration in the manner of reckoning -for the insertion of the intercalary months, the year
time can be proved from I Macc., for there are two was saved from becoming a vague year. This great
opposing views as to the interpretation of the dates advantage was purchased, it is true, at some cost; it
there given. Wellhausen (ZJG 208) maintains that in made the year of variable length, according as a month
I Macc. also the Seleucidan autumnal era is followed. had been inserted or not, and according to the number
On the other side range themselves, amongst others, of months of twenty-nine days and thirty days respec-
Cornill (Die siedzig Jahmochen DanieZss. 2 0 f:, 1889) tively contained in it ; and the 1st of Nisan, like New
and Schiirer with convincing reasons for concluding Year's Day, the 1st of Tishri, did not always occur at
that I Macc. in its dates follows the Babylonian vernal precisely the same point of time but varied within a
era taken over by the Jews during the exile. limited period, just as the yearly Christian festivals now
They urge :(I) the dates would not fit the events to which they (Easter, Ascension, Whitsunday) are not fixed but
are assigned, if the Seleucidan era he assumed. T o take a niovable feasts.
simple example, the events related in I Macc. 10 1-21 impera- The same peculiarities are still dis layed by the Jewish year
tively demand a longer space than the fourteen days which are even after the adoption of a special rupe for intercalation. Even
all that can he given them on the view adopted by Wellhausen. a t as late a date as the beginning of the Christian era it was
(2) The designation of the months hy ordinal numbers, of which the part of the Sanhedrin in each individual case to decide on
the first is given to the month that occurs in spring, would he the ground of direct observation whether the insertion of a
very strange if the year were held to h e g n in autumn, for in thirteenth month was required or not, just as also the visibility
that case the seventh to the twelfth month of a given year of the crescent moon decided whether or not the month had
would fall in point of time before the first to the sixth of the ended on the twenty-ninth day. The intercalary month was
same year (cp I Macc. 4 52 where the ninth month is Chislev, introduced after Adar and before Nisan, and the decision as to
10 21 where the seventh is the month of the feast of tabernacles the insertion (l?Xp) of a month and the conversion of the year
[Tishri], and 1F 14 where the eleventh month is Shebat).l ( 3 )
Similar modifications of the Seleucidan era in accordance with into an intercalary year (nllbp 7@,4 waseffected in the course
the requirements of local calendars can be shown to have of the year itself, often not till the month Adar and even then
occurred elsewhere. I n fact for the' city of Damascus the use sometimes not till after the feast of Purim Y i n other words
of exactly the same era can be proved (Schiirer).
month, which also bore the name of Adar (lW2,
- -
hardlv fourteen davs before the beeinnine bf the intercalarv
??e?
Vl, or
UT;may conclude that in the first century B.C. (as is
to be inferred for the second at any rate from Est. 3 7 ) "$"a m).
the official era began the year in the spring (on the 1st
of Nisan) ; for it, accordingly, the spring of 312 B.C. H e b r e w from Epypt in this month ; he also made the year to
begin from it as ;egards all the solemnities of divine worship
marked the beginning of the first year of the Seleucidan though as to buying and selling and all other affairs he preserved
era. Nor is it necessary to assume any other mode of the ancient order' (Mouu+s 6B rbv N&Y, 6s dun EavOrrc&, &a
reckoning in I Macc., a s a mere discrepancy about a np3rov &I Tair Boprair Gprue r a d ~oirrov2t Alyirrmv 706s
'EBpabus rrppoayayh. OGroq 6'aGr4 KaI rrpbs &rrduas 72s eis ~b
single date is not reason enough for postulating a special &;Ov TL& $pXFY, c57; /.LCvrOl € TpdUELS KaL &VAS KdL ?V &by
era for the book. ~ r o i r q m vrbv rrpirov r6upov de+;*ate).
When we come to the first century of our own era, nrm n ' m i tm w n r 33zv wm5 p u i uia p*J.
however, the case is different. For Josephus confines the a No such rule can b; found, as Klostermann has supposed
in the institution of the year of jubilee. As any evidence tha;
year that has its beginning in spring to religious &airs the precepts regarding it were ever observed is wholly wanting
only ; for buying and selling and all manner of secular the best theory-supposing, what is not very probable, tha;
business, on the other hand, the beginning of the year y&Z means intercalation-is that the idea was, by means of an
is in autumn (Ant. i. 33).a I n full agreement with artificial expedient, introduced a s an afterthought, to bring into
conformity with the solar year the old year which was errone-
ously assumed to have been lunar. What P has to tell about
1 I f in the present text of Neh. 1 I 2 I, Chislev precedes the year of jubilee is learned theory mere1y;that was never
Nisan of the same year (the year that is described as the realised in practice.
twentieth) the case is somewhat different from that referred to 3 The rule, naturally, was that each year ought to have six
in the text, their respective designations as ' t h e ninth' and 'the months of twenty-nine days and six months o i thirty days (cp
first' month being avoided. Rut too much stress ought not to Bk. of Enoch 78 r5J) : it is, however, assumed to be possible
be laid upon these passages, inasmuch as in Neh. 1 I the name in the Mishnah ('Arrikhin 22) that a year may have as few a;
of the king is not given where certainly it might have been four months, or on the other hand as many a s eight months, of
expected, and thus the accuracy of the tradition as a whole thirty days each. T h e length of the year thus varied from 352
becomes open to question. to 356 days, an intercalary year from 382 to 386 days.
2 The passage runs : 'But Moqes appointed Nisan which is
4 An ordinary year was called npld? n@.
Xanthicus as the first month for their festivals, leading forth the
5367 5368
YEAR ZABDI
Jewish tradition hands down a number of criteria also, and events were dated in accordance with the
whereby to decide whether a month requires to be characteristic occupations of the successive periods of
inserted or not ; hut in all cases the decisive considera- the year (thus, barley harvest in 2 S . 2 1 9 Ruthlzz
tion is this, that the passover, which has to he celebrated Judith 8 2 ; wheat harvest Gen. 30x4 Judg. 1 5 1 Ruth
at full moon in Nisan (14th Nisan), must not come 2 2 3 ; the ingathering of green crops, Am. 7 I [see Wellh.
before the vernal equinox, but must be celebrated when ad LOG.] ; the ripening of the earliest clusters of grapes,
the sun is in Aries (dv K p i @ TOG +Xiou KaOeudros ; Jos. NU. 1320).
.4nt. iii. 10 j). Of course the Jews of that period had Usually only two seasons of the year were formally dis-
arrived by practice. if they had not already learned it tinguished-‘summer and winter’ [autumn] (lli~;i’:c, Gen.
froin the Greeks who h:rd long been acquainted with the 6 2 2 Ps. 7417 Zech. 148, cp Is. 186) or ‘winter and harvest
eight-years’ cycle (the JKsaarvpis), at the generalisation time ’(l’se; qlh, Am. 3 15 Prov. 20 4), or ‘cold and heat ’ (lp
that, broadly speaking. an intercalary month became On,! Gen. 8 zz), or sowing and reaping’ (1’FZ: Y?l, Gen. 8 22),
necessary thrice every eight years. But ultimately, when or ‘ ploughing and reaping ’ (1‘rpJ: W:”l?, Gen. 45 6 Ex. 34 21).
regulating their calendar in the fourth century, they Winter also (lCD, Cant. 2 11) is specially mentioned.
adopted from the Greeks the nineteen-years’ cycle ( h u a a - Cp especially Dillmann’s dissertation on the calendar (see
Kar8eKaer?]pfs), dating from the Athenian astronomer MONTH, B end), We. Prol. 112-114, Reste, s o x , IjG,#msim;
Klo. Pentateuch, 419.447 (‘Ueber die
Meton in the fifth century B .c., in accordance with 10. Bibliography. kalendarische Bedeutung des Jobel-
which seven out of every nineteen years (the 3rd, 6th, jahres ’) ; Schurer, GJY 126-33 ((3)32-40),
8th. I r t h , 14th. 17th, and 19th) require an intercalary and 623.634 ((3) 745.760); KAT(”),325-326 and the chrono-
logical treatises, especially that of Ideler, ’ referred to under
month. When this rule is followed, the difference in CHRONOLOGY, $3 85. K . ILL
nineteen years amounts only to a little over two hours.
The Jews of the present day still adhere to this Metonic YELLOW. For ( I ) 2hu, sih56, Lev. 1 3 3 0 3 2 , see
calendar. 5 7 ; and for (2)
COLOIJRS, p?pl’,. . yZru&r&, Ps. 68 13, see 5 II
Alongside of the division of the year into months, and cp B 5.
immemorial usage sanctioned a division by the seasons YOKE ( $ j ) , I S. 67. See AGRICULTURE, 4

I
ZAANAIM, THE PLAIN OP, AV, with Zaanannim ( u c k IBNI om. A)=I Esd. 935, Zabadalas, RV Zabadeas
in mg. and RV text-mg. BKZAANANNIM [g.o.]-(O’lyrX p5E (3aBaSaras [BAI) .
[Kt.], D’?!Yr? ’ K [Kr.], translated dfoufKrov’mwv [El, Lva-
r a u o p i v w u [ALI, +?? LPesh.1, Sennim LVg.1).
The nomadic journeys of Heber the Kenite extended
to the plain of Zaanaim:’ or-the only correct render-
ing so far as p $ ~ is <concerned--‘theoak (or, sacred
tree?) of Bezaanannirn,’ Judg. 411 (cp MOREH, THE
P LAIN OF). It is against A V s interpretation that
according to rule ii5r I ’ oak ’) would require the article ;
on the other hand, such a name as B EZAANANNIM (4.v.)
is against all analogy. See Cn‘t. Bib. T. K. C .
ZAANAN (]!$U), Mi. 1 I I ;~see ZENAN.
ZAANANNIM, THE OAK IN (P’3JgyS fih[?3];
pwAa K a i B s u s p L f w [BI, pqAov K . Bsmvavrp [A], but w A a p
uravavsrp [LI, Pesh. v e w % san‘am [Pesh.] ; Saanunim [Vg.])
F V Josh. 19 33 (also in Jiidg. 411); AV (Josh. I.c.), arbitrarily:
[from] Allon to Zaanannjm,’ R V w . (2Z.cc.) ‘the oak (or
terebinth) of Bezaansnnim ; mentioned in the definition of
the W. boundary of Naphtali, Josh. 19 33 (cp ADAMI-NEKKB).
See BEZAANANNIM.
ZAAVAN (]!VI, in Sam. ]PlT ; Z O Y K ~ M[BADEL]),
b. Ezer, b. Seir the Horite, Gen. 36 27 ; I Ch. 1 4 2 (AV
Z A v A N ; AZOYKAN [AI, Z A Y A N [Ll).
ZABAD (l? !,
abbrev. for 9V72); see N AMES,
5 50, ZERADIAH ; z,i.BaA [HAL]). I. A Judahite,
descended from the Egyptian or MiSrite JARHA (q.. . ),
I Ch. 236J (J’apaS [B.A]). Under the designation
‘ Zahad ben Ahlai ’ he appears in I Ch. 1141 as the first
of the sixteen additional names in the Chronicler’s list <a@ov@[LI).
of David‘s heroes, as compared with 2 S. 238-39 ( r a p e r 2. Father of Baruch, who helped to repair the city wall (Neh.

[BS], [spar [A]). See AHLAI, and note that *$ai-+. 3 20, Caf3pou [Nl, p&ai [Ll). The reading of the Kr. is ZACCAI
(*,I), which is supported by Pesh. and Vg. (Z ACHAI).
like m’, occurs as a corruption of 5 ~ ~ n(Che.). i -
Perhaps 113 in ZJ. 20 should be i l l . A southern clan- ZABBUD (737, Kt.), E z r a 8 1 4 , EV. See ZABUD,2.
name is expected (see S HUTHELAH ). ZABDEUS ( Z A B A A I O C[BA]), I Esd. 9ar=Ezra 10-
2. Mentioned among the b‘ne E PHRAIM (I
12) I Ch. ZEBADIAH, 9.
7 2 1 (j-,paS [BAA].om. L?).
ZABDI (’PI!, either a gentilic, of which there are
3. One of the assassins who slew J o s h (zCh. 2426 ;
J’a/3aA [R], fapa0 [A], rapa0 [L]) ; see J OZACHAR and
two expanded’ forms ZABDIELand Z EBADIAH , or, if
fEHOLAB.4D.
these names have areligious reference, a shortened form,
4 4 . In list of those with foreign wives (see E ZRA i. 0 5 end),
viz.-4. One of the b’nC ZATTU(q.v.), Ezra 1027 (<&aSaB [e])
produced by omitting h
or 3’; note that Zabdi, I, is
= I Esd. 9 28 SABATUS, RV SABATHUS (uaSaf?os [BAI). 5 . @ne 1 See Dalman Aram. DiuZekt~Pr&n, 334 (Leipsic 1896).
of the b’nC HASHUM Ezra 1033 (<&4[BN] <aj3Sar [Ll)= 2 On a Greek’inscription (Waddington, 2597) mention is made
I Esd. 9 33 BANNAIA, ’RV SABANNEUS (u&av;acous [R], @v. of o l ;K y c ~ O c<af38i+Afov, a family whose name was a com-
[A], 3a@&a[L]). 6. @ne of the b’nE NEBO (pa.) Ezra 1043 1 pound of Zabdi and the Palmyrene deity Bal.
5369
ZABDIEL ZACHARIAS
a Zarhite .(Che. ). Cp the Syr. Zubdui in N T for Zebe- ZABULON (ZABOYAWN [Ti. WH]), Mt. 4 1 3 15 AV,
dee ; {u/3S[e]r [BAL]). R V ZEBULON.
I. b. Zerah of Judah an ancestor of ACHAN (Josh. 7 I 17J,
<apBp[rlr' [BF], <appr ;A]); in I Ch. 26 his name appears as ZACCAI ('21written $71
; abbrev. from ZACHARIAH,
ZIMRI(q.v.). 8 52, cp HAGGAI), the name of a post-exilic family ; Ezra 2 9
2. Of BENJAMIN (f 9), assigned to the b'nE S HIMEI (q.u.);
( 5 ~ x [Bl,
0 ~ -Xau [Avid.], -xaLov [Ll), Neh. 7 14 (<daw [BE(], &c-
I Ch. E 19 (<ef?8~ [L]).
xovp [AI, + q a r o v [Ll). In I Esd. 5 12 it is LAVl CORBE, or
3. The SHIPHMlTe ( I Ch. 27 27 ; DqWF, <axper b 705 UC+L [RVI CHORBE ( oppr [BA] <arxar [Ll). Zaccai is the Kr. also
[Bl, <a,&% . ..m + v l [A], <a,%% . .'. uox$ap' [L]), who was
over the vineyard produce in David's time, perhaps a native of
in Neh. 320, ,?ere Ktb. hHs ZABBAI (q.u.).
S H E P H A M (q.V.).
ZACCHEUS ( Z A K X A I O C [AV; Ti. WH], see
4. b. Asapb, an ance~torof MATTANIAH (Neh. 1117, om. ZACCAI).
I . AV ZaCCheUs an officer belonging to Judas the Maccahee
BPA, &xp[a]r [Nc.amg. SUP.L])see ZICHRI (no. 11).
(2 Macc. 10 ~ g ) idehfied
, by some with the Zacharias of I Macc.
ZABDIEL (?'&973!,either an expansion of the 5 56.
gentilic ZARDI [q.u.l, or a religious name='gift of God,' $8 21, 2 . A chief publican (bpXcTeXdvqs) who received Jesus
27 ; the attribution of Jashobeam [see I ] to the b'ne Perez-i.e., on his entry into Jericho (Lk. 191-10). There is much
probably [see PEREZ] to the Zarephathites-and the desi nation picturesqueness in the narrative; even if only a re-
of Zabdiel, 2, as 'son of the [southern] Gileadites ' [see %elow],
and of Zahdiel, 3, as an Arabian, together with many plausible flection of the more historical story in Lk. 527-32, no
parallels, favour the former view [Che.] ; < a p S [ s ] q A[BAL]). one would wish to lose the beautiful picture of the care
I. Father of J ASHOBEAM ( I Ch. 27 2). of Jesus for the meanest and most despised. T h e
2 . ' Overseer ' of the priests, temp. Nehemiah (Neh. improbabilities can hardly be denied. The only com-
1114). He is designated (at first sight very strangely) plete parallel to Lk. 1 9 5 is in Ju. 1 4 7 , l which occurs in
n9Siiiin-p ( R V ' the son of HAGGEDOI.IM,'RVmS ' one the ill-attested narrative of Nathanael. N o r is the
of the great men ' ; A V ' the son of [one of] the great crowd of curious followers ( v . 3 ) natural; it was the
object of Jesus on this journey to avoid observation.
m e n ' ; paSqh [R], p a { q h [K*], l e ~ p t q h uibs TGU
Zacchaeus's solemn act of atonement for injustice is
peylixwv [KC.amp.. L1 9 ~ O o X P ~[AI).
S~
also very abruptly introduced, nor can one easily
It can, however, be shown (cp SHAPHAT, 3) that there was a
Gilead in the Ne eh, and the case of ;r.$il ('Gedaliah'), believe that Jesus, in his present circumstances, would
from nqh7i.e., ,171, 'the Gileadite '-justifies us in reading have openly announced his intention of lodging with a
~tiy\jn-]2, son of the Gileadites' (for parallels in Neh. 38, see publican (see PUBLICAN). Zacchzus's name, too
PERFUMER). See Crit. Bi6. (Che.). (=pure, innocent), as Keim ( J e w von Nua. 3 49) points
3. ' The Arabian,' who took off the head of Alexander out, is suspiciously prophetic of his act of repentance.
Balas and sent it to Ptolemy ( I MPCC. 1117 : {upS~qhb To identify him either with NATHANAEL ( 4 . v . ) or with
spa$ [ANV], hwr [Pesh.] ; Jos. Ant. xiii. 48 ; {upei- Paul (the little) does not help us a t all. O n Lk. 1 9 4 ,
XOS). Possibly the Dioclesof Diod. (Fr. xxxii. ~ O I ) ,see see SYCOMORE.
IMALCUE. A late tradition (CIem. Rec.) makes Zacchzus a comrade of
Peter. T. K . C.
ZABUD (1921,a name belonging to the same group
as Zabdi, Zahdiel, Zebadiah, and in its origin therefore most ZACCUR (793,see NAMES, $5 3 2 , 5 2 ; but, the
probably a clan-name [Che.], but pfobably understood in later names with which Zaccur and ZICHRI [q.u.l are grouped being
times as meaning 'given [by God] ; cp P 56; the fem. form is originally ethnics, it is plain that Zaccur and Zichri too, are
ZEBUDAH. The correct reading, however, both of I and of 2 ethnics which have been converted into personal nAmes; cp
may be ZACCUR).3 ZACHER, ZECHARIAH, and see helow : <arxovp [BNAL]).
I. b. Nathan, priest (AV ' principal officer' ; c p 2 S. I . Father ofSHAMMUA(=Shimei), of REUBEN (I ..A); Nu.
8 13, A V ' chief rulers') and ' friend ' ( i . e . , ' chief 134 [PI (<arxv [Bl <a?pou [AI 3.. xovp IF1 Sayxovp [LIZ
2. AV ZaCCiur, 'a Sirneonit;, brother of 'Hammuel= Jerah-
,courtier '), of king Solomon, I K. 4 5 t (rapouS [B],, tap@. meel, and Shimei=Shimeoni; iCh. 4 2 6 (om. B {axoup [Ll).
IA], {uxoup [L]-Le., iqs! which is the reading of 3. A Merarite Levite brother of SHOHAM=MOH~, and 'Ibri=
some MSS ; cp iasl). 6 , however (except A , which *Ar%hi-i.e. N. Arabia; ( I Ch. 24 27).
4. An Alaphite Levite, brother of Nethaniah=Ethani, and
adds kppeds), omits 'priest.' Probably 'friend' ( n p l ; on Ashaelah= Jizreeli or ' Jezreelite' ( I Ch. 25 2 IO; um,youc,
<axxovS [Bl);see ZICHRI, IT.
t h e pointing see HUSHAI, n. I ) is a gloss o n 133, or, as 5. Ezra8 14 EVms..5( oup [Ll) See ZABUD, 2.
we should rather read, jzb (see MINISTER [CHIEF]); cp 6 . b. Imri (=Amariah=T,erahmeel) in list of wall-builders (see
NEHEMIAH, S I J ; EZRA I]., 5s 16[1], 15d), Neh.32 (<@amp
the paraphrastic substitute for o m 3 (rather P ~ D as )[Bl, Saxxovp [E(]).
applied to sons of David, in I Ch. 1817. The whole 7. Levite signatory to the covenant, grouped with SHERERIAH
passage ( I K. 4 5 6 6 a ) is thus read by Klostermann, and SHEBANIAH, both ethnics (see E ZRA i., % 7) ; Neh. 10 12 [13]
' And Zabud. son of Nathan, the king's friend [nyi ; or (Saxwp [Bl, SUWP [AI, Saxxyp [E(?]).
8. h. Mattaniah (*.e., Ethan1 or Temani), and father of H ANAN
" adjutant " =@?I, his (;.e., Azariah's) brother,was chief (q.u.); Neh. 13 13 (uarxovp [Ll).
of the palace' ; see AHISHAR, but c p Crif. Bib. for A writer in PSBA has suggested that Zechariah and the
related names may be connected with Zakkara, the name (of
another explanation of inlv'nu ( i i n m ) . T. K. C. uncertain pronunciation) of allies of the Purusati (=PeMtim?-
2 . A Jew belonging to the b n E Bigvai, who came see PHILISTINES, $ 3). But if so, why do we not find any of
with Ezra from Babylon, Ezra 8 1 4 (EV ZABBUD, follow- these names given to Israelites of central Palestine (see DOR,
ing the consonants of the Kt. iq [%. Ginsb.] a n d 5 z)? It is more probable that Zacher (Zecher) Zaccur, and
Zichri with Zechariah were originally the clan:names Zerah
the vowels of the Kr. 1531; {upouS [A]; om. B ; and Zarhi respectively. Cp ZERAH. T. K. C.
& q o u p [L] ; c p L in no. I ) = I Esd. 84op. where for ZACHARIAH(;lrW). I . 2 K.1429 158-1~(8?72T),
' and Zahud ' we read ' the [son] of ISTALCURUS' [EV] and (2) 2 K. 18 2 : see ZECHARIAH, z , 3.
U b TOO LVTUXKOU~OU
( ~ U T C ~ K U X K O[B], [A], b u t Kal J ~ K X O U ~ 3. (<axapmF) Mt. 2335 Lk. 1151 in KV, AV ZACHARIAS, 9.
[I,]), a monstrous name made u p of ' Iztal ' ( a misread- ZACHARIAS, in N T R V Zachariah ( Z A X A ~ I ~ C
ing of ~ 3 1 1 ,' a n d Zabud ') a n d ' ZACCUR ' ( i a r ) , the [BAL ; Ti. WH]).
reading of the Kr. and E V m g . in Ezra. 1. A priest (I Esd. 18). See ZECHARIAH, 19.
z. The name in I Esd. 115 corresponding to HEMAN in the
1 The p is to be explained in the same way as in JAMBRI, I! passage 2 Ch. 35 15 ( 6 L arpav=Heman).
peqp@ppia, etc., the confusion of 2 and D is phonetic, of 1and 3. RV ZARAIAS (q.u.) in I Esd. 58 (<apaiou [Bl, Saprow [AI,
1 graphic (cp SBOT, <Chron.' ad loc., and see Dr. TBS
p. Ixviii). 1 Plummer, indeed (St. Luke, 4-34), thinks that 'there is no
a Cp perhaps with this the Palm. name 5 2 (Mordt. ~ Be& z. need to suppose that Jesus had supernatural knowledge of the
Kund. PaZm. no. 69). name. . . . Jesus might hear the people calling to Zacchzus,
3 Zahud I is the ' ~ a x o u pson cf Nathan b w'p@ovAos' men- or might inquire. So Weiss (Leden /mu, 2 437), ' Jesus easily
tioned in I'K: 2 46 Ir (B) where 82, 93, 108 etc. read <ai,youp, 52, learned the name and character of the notorious man.' But
5 5 , etc., < ~ x o u p . Note that in 4 5 3 <aXovp is read by 82, 108, this is hardly in accordance with the intention of the evangelist,
and {aqovp by 93. See COUNSELLOR. or with the natural impression of readers.
5371 5372
ZACHARIAS ZADOK
uaparou [L]). AV,following the Geneva Bible, gives ZACHARIAS. be paralleled by the long stay of Simon the Righteous
See S ERAIAH, 8. in the temple on the Day of Atonement, when he
4. I Esd. 6 I 7 3, see Z ECHARIAH , I .
5. I Esd. 8 30 44. 6. ib. D. 37 (3axaprac [Bl). 7. I Esd. 9 27 ; prayed that the sanctuary might not be destroyed
S ~ ~ Z E C H A R20I A 21
H 22. (Talm. Jer. Yonza, 52). Cp I NCENSE , 17 , n. On the
8. Father oi J ~ S E (temp.~ H Judas Maccabaxs), ~Macc. legendary death of Zacharias. see above, 9. Cp J OHN
5 18 56-62.
THE BAPTIST. T. K . C.
9. Son of Barachias ; according to Mt. 2335, the last ZACHER, or, as RV, ZECHER(79s;zaxoyp [B],
Jewish martyr of the pre-Christian period. All the
innocent blood shed on the land (#air?js r?js)from 3aq. [AI, <e pc [Ll), I Ch. 8 31t, called, in I Ch. 9 37 Z ECHARIAH
f$.z., 6). 8 n the possible ethnic character of Zecher see
that of Abel to that of Zacharias, son of Barachias ACCUR
( ' whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar,' W O K (Phy, once $lu, I K . 1 2 6 ; 'just,' 5 6 J ;
see RV) is to be visited, says Jesus, ' on this generation.'
cp J EHOZADAK , and see S ADDUCEES .~ Similar in meaning is the
Lk., however ( l l 5 1 ) , is without 'son of Barachias,' and
form Zadduk [iJlSy], which is not unfrequent in post-hihlical
Jerome says that ' in the Gospel used by the Nazarenes
times, cp AbTsath, 4 56 ; Strack, ad Zoc. ; Lag. Nom. 2 2 5 8 Sad-
[the Gospel according to the Hebrews], instead of
son ofBarach'as we find written son of 3oiada' (in Z.C. dok is the form generally presupposed by @BNAL [raSSour] ;
U ~ W K @BXA
, in nos. 2-5 [and BA in 2 S. with exception of z S.
Mt. ). W e may, therefore, disregard the artificial 8 17 B I Ch. 29 22 A], is somewhat less common. Other variations
Gnostic and patristic legends, which state (see Prot- are U ~ O U K ,Ezra? 2 [A] ; uaSSovX, Ezek. 40 46 [A] ; uaSSor, *
evang. /ac. 2 3 J , and cp Keim, Yesus of N a z a r a , 22~9) Neh. 11 11 [L], and U&WK, 2 S. 15 24-27 [L] ; u d o v r , 2 S. 8 17
that Herod, who supposed John to be the Messiah, I Ch. 6 38 1531 15 T I [Ll, Neh. 11 I I [N], I K.4 4 [Rl -x z S. S 17

murdered Zacharias the father of John the Baptist in [AI ; raSoi, 2 S. 15 27 [AI. SADDUC, RV SADDU;(rksd. 6 2 ;
ua88ovxov [AI); SAUOC (4 Esd. 1 I).
the temple by the altar of sacrifice (see I O ) ; and not I. Zadok the son of Ahitub, a priest who held a
less the hypothesis that Jesus refers prophetically to Drominent d a c e a t David's court and olaved a " meat
Zacharias the son of Baruch (but Niese has Bapers), I

1. The zadok part in securing the throne for David's


,

who was killed ' in the middle of the temple' in the of David. successor. W e know nothing of his
first Roman war .(Jos. B3 iv. 54). I t is possible, how-
real oriein. nor can we sav , when - or
ever, that < Barachias' means the father of Zechariah how he became priest in" the royal sanctuary at Jeru-
the well-known prophet, and that it is a mere clerical salem. W e learn, however, from z S. 817 8 (cp
error for Joiada' ; possible, too, that the whole 2023-26, and see Bu. R i . Sa. 247, 154) that he was
passage has been filled out by a later writer who knew associated with Abiathar (for the correct reading see
of the horrible murder mentioned by Josephus. This Driver, TBS nd Zoc.) and with some of David's own
assnmes that Jesus really meant Zechariah b. Jehoiada sons in the priestly office a t Jerusalem. Like Abiathar
(Z ECHARIAH , 15). But the reason given for the phrase he was true to his sovereign during Absalom's revolt ;
' from -4bel to Zechariah b. Jehoiada' (that Chronicles like him he bore the ark of Yahw& when David was
is the last book in the Jewish Canon) seems very fleeing eastward from the royal city ; at David's request
inadequate (see GOSPELS, 150). According to N. he with Abiathar bore the palladium of Israel back to
Schmidt ( / B L 1922, n. I ) , Mt. 2335 once formed part the capital, and there with Abiathar did the work of a
of an ' Apocalypse of Jesus ' (cp Mt. 24) which cannot spy and supplied the king with information about the
have been written long before the end of the first designs of Absalom and the other rebels. So far Zadok
century (cp We. ZYG(31 366 ; Skizzen, 6 [1899] 2 . 8 ) . had been closely associated with that older and greater
If so, the reference to Zechariah b. Baruch was full of priest who represented the ancient family of the b'nE
significance to the original readers. Eli and that sanctuary a t Shiloh in which they had
I O . The father of J OHN THE B APTIST (q.".), men-
ministered. In the end he supplanted Abiathar
tioned only in Lk. 1 5 8-23 39-79 32. H e was of the altogether. For Zadok joined Nathan the prophet,
course of Abijah (see Schiir., Hist.ii. 12163),and his and Benaiah, captain of the foreign guards, in the
home was in an unnamed ' city of Judah.' According to harem intrigue which set aside Adonijah the legitimate
a comparatively early tradition the ' city' is 'Ain K2rim heir, and placed Solomon the son of Bath-sheba on the
(see B ETH - HACCEREM ), and Mar Zakaryd is the precise throne. Abiathar, on the contrary, stood by Joab, the
spot where Zacharias dwelt ; even recently Schick has royal princes, except of course Solomon, and the rest
spoken a word for this tradition ( Z D PY 22 [18g9] 9 0 . 8 ). d the more conservative party. Naturally, therefore,
But the fact that no name is given most probably indi- when Solomon became king, it was Zadok who anointed
cates that the narrative. in Lk. 1 had but recently arisen him; Abiathar. on the other hand, was banished to
when it was admitted by Lk. into his Gospel; the 4nathoth ; the family of Eli forfeited the priesthood,
narrator hoped to be a.ble to supply the name later (cp md the chief care of the royal chapel or temple a t
an analogous case in I S. 131, if H. P. Smith's view is [erusalem was entrusted to Zadok and his descendants.
correct). Though JWTTAH (4.v.) is philologically and In their hands it remained down to the time of the
otherwise improbable, 'Ain KBrirn (Schick) and Hebron :xile ; but we have in I S. 235 f: interesting evidence
(Ew., Keim) are also baseless fancies. From Lk. 1So 2. Zadok that the prior claims of the b'nE Eli and their
we should expect some city near the desert to be meant.
I t was in the temple, however, that Zacharias is said to and Eli. eminence long before Zadok had been heard
of, were not forgotten. The author of t h e
have received a divine announcement of the birth of a >assage in question probably belonged to the period of
son ; the announcement is made in terms partly re- .he Deuteronomic reform. Like Jeremiah (712266) he
sembling those used to Manoah's wife in Judg. 135J .egarded the temple at Shiloh as the precursor of the
Zacharias craved a sign, and is punished by dumbness .emple at Jerusalem. H e felt, therefore, that some
until the fulfilment of the promise. When the child is .eason must be given for the fact that the family of
born, the father names him John (cp Jos. Ant. xiv. 13). Eli which had officiated so long in Shiloh did not con-
The Pp*otev. /ac. seeks. to improve upon this by making . h u e to do so in Jerusalem. Politica1,grounds and the
Zacharias the high priest : he enters the Holy of Holies mthority of the king to regulate the service in his own
in his sacred attire. We are not told that it was merely
' a voice' (Bath k d ; cp Mt. 317) that Zacharias heard ; 1 [There is another view as to the origin of Zadok-viz. that
the parallel of the oracle given to John Hyrcanns, the t is a modification of a gentilic name. This seems to be favbured
high priest, as he was offering incense alone in the iy an examination of the names with which this name is associ-
tted in Chron. and Neh. It will however, be permissible to
temple (Jos. Ant. xiii. 10 3), is therefore imperfect. iold that the Zidkites (originally,' it would appear, settled in
The long stay of Zacharias in the temple, and the he Negeb) may have derived theu name from y i y , a secondary
surprise which it produced (Lk. 1 2 1 ) ~may, however, itle of the god worshipped in primitive times b\ this clan ; also
hat cultivated Israelites in later times interpreted ' Zadok' as
1 Cp the inaccuracy of the Tg. on Lam. 2 20 (ZECHARIAH, 15) neaning 'just, righteous ' (cp ZEDEKIAH,I).-T. K. c.]
5373 5374
ZADOK ZALMON
chapel had satisfied the religious ideas of a simpler age, priesthood of Zadok and Abiathar with the notions of
but did not by any means appear siificient to one who his own time, since, as descendants of Ithamar, the
had imbibed the ideas of Deuteronomy and regarded b n e Eli were often lawful priests, though not high
the priesthood as directly subject to divine regulation. priests. See E LEAZAR , ELI, ITHAMAR, and cp, further,
Accordingly he puts into the month of an anonymous SADDUCEES.
prophet the prediction that Eli's indulgence of his 2. Father of JERUSHA [q.u.l ( 2 K. 15 33 2 Ch. 271 uaSop [B]).
depraved sons was to be visited upon his descendants 3. h. Baana, in list of wall-builders (see' N E H E ~ I A9H13,,
by the loss of the priesthood. Instead of the b'ns Eli E z R A ~$9~ 16
. [I] 15d),Neh. 34(uaSoux [ N ] ) ; he isdouhtlew the
Yahwe was to raise up a new priestly race, and they signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA i., 5 7) mentioned in Neh.
were to perform priestly functions before the anointed 10 21 [221 (ua8our [AI, U ~ ~ O U[BN],
K &OK [L]). In both cases
the name occurs together with Meshezabeel.
king of Judah. The new family of priests was to share 4. b. I MMER Lp.v.1 (Neh. 329 udwx [ N ] ) .
in the perpetual endurance of the royal house. In 5. A scribe, temp. Ezra (Neh: 13 13, ua6SouK [B]).
contrast with the Zadokites, the bnE Eli were to sink W. E. A.
into obscurity and want. They were to petition their ZBHAM (Dnt; POOAAAM [BI, ZAAAM [AI, ZAAM
rivals for the most subordinate offices of the priesthood. [L]), a son of Rehoboam ( 2 Ch. 1119). Pcrhaps from
Here perhaps the writer is thinking of the priests at the nm=5xam*; note @E* and c p R AHAM (Che.).
high places who had been driven by Josiah from their
occupation, and had to depend for the future on the ZAIR (in locative npy ; € I C c e ~ w p[B] ; om. A ;
grace of the priests a t Jerusalem. True, the Deutero- BK c l w p [L]), a place on the way to Edom, where
nomical code had given the country Levites right to Jehoram, king of Judah, 'rose up by night and smote
sacrifice a t Jerusalem (Dt. 18 7f. ) ; but though some the Edomites who had surrounded him ' ( z K. 8 21). See
provision was made for them, the generous rate of D J EHORAM , z. It is strange to find that he also smote
proved impracticable. See ELI. ' the captains of the chariots,' and we are in doubt as
It is in any case certain that Ezekiel during the to the true reference of the following clause, ' a n d the
exile, in a prophecy which was written about 573 B. c., people fled to their tents.' According to Benzinger and
3. Zadok and :indicated the sole right of the Zadok- Kittel, after v. Z I U , the original narrative must have
Ezekiel. ites to the priesthood. H e draws the stated how Jehoram was surrounded in Zair (?) by the
sharpest line of demarcation between Edomites ; v. zxb (beginning 35.5 02 K $ ~ - w ! , E V ' a n d
the sons of Zadok and other Levites. I n D all Levites he rose [up] by night ') must r i a i e a defeat of Jehoram
form an ideal unity, all have in theory equal rights. which nearly issued in the death or captivity of the king.
Ezekiel, on the contrary, passes sentence on the mere T h e people who fled can only be the men of Judah.
Levites, holding them responsible for that worship on Stade, in Z A T W 21 337-340 ( I ~ o I )once , more examines
the high places which was to him no better than the passage, 2 K . 8 21-24, reaffirming his conclusion in
idolatrous. I n time to come they are, he says, to be G VZ 1537, n. I , so far as regards taking oiix as the
debarred from ' approaching' Yahwe in priestly service.
They are to be content with menial work, such as the
subject of 03, L and x$n as an intentional alteration or
slaughter of victims and cooking their flesh, keeping correction.
guard over the temple doors, etc. ; only such Levites as Instead of > ~ - , zy p 7 n N 1 , Benzinger and Kittel would read
were sons of Zadok might presume to lay the fat and something like (or iFu) i?' ? 17!'1~1. Both, however, hesitate to
blood on the altar (Ezek. 4415f:). identify Zair. Ewald thought of Zoar (1YX); it is objected that
Two changes were yet to be made in the position of 6
this place-name in B is q y o p or uiyop (implying y= ), whereas
the soqs of Zadok, one enhancing their prestige, the L
4. Zadok in p. other modifying the exclusiveness of Zair is u a w p , uiwp (Le., y= 9); see Buhl, Edomifm,65. The
L
their claims. First, whereas Ezekiel case, however, becomes entirely altered, if ~ [ l lhas l ~been mis-
frankly took for granted the novelty of those unique written (as in other passages) for t~>&. It is a plausible theory
rights which he claimed for the Zadokites, the ' Priestly t h a t the p3;sa"~esrelative to Kdom in z Samuel and Kings(mnst,
Code' somewhat later put the divine election of the if nut all of tlicni) i n their oriAinal form referred to 'Arani '-i.e.,
priestly house back to the very dawn of Israel's history, Jerahrnccl, rdrlier than 12 Edoin (cp SAUI , 6 3 : J I J K T l I E e I . , 2 ;
K i u i x ; S A I T . V a L L t x u t . ; Zoiintr). 2 K . 8 2 1 iiuw beronies
back to the time when Yahw&chose Aaron as his priest. plain. Emending the text in accordance with numerous analogies
Hence the Chronicler (I Ch. 653) was obliged to trace we get 'And Joram passed over to Mis$ur and all the chariots
the genealogy of Zadok to Eleazar the son of Aaron. with Am, and [ h a m ] the Jerahmeelites 'smote him and the
In the next place the ideal of Ezekiel was not perfectly captains of the chariots; and the people fled to their tents.'
Misgur was presumably a N. Arahian town, so called from the
realised. No doubt few Levites of inferior family, in region of Missur or Misrim (see MIZRAIM). It may have been
proportion to the Zadokite priests, returned under originally intended in {he list given in Josh. 15 52-54 by ZIOR
Zerubbahel and later under Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. V.).
(q'Miihlau (Riehm, HWB, 1813) thinks Conder's identification
739f: Ezra 8 2 5 ) . Thus the Zadokites cannot have of Zair with the pass ez-Zuwfret, in the SW. of the Dead Sea
had serious difficulty in securing that pre-eminence which worth consideration ; Buhl, however (Edomiter, 65, n. a), find;
Ezekiel claimed for them. Nevertheless it seems that a it inconsistent with 13Y.l (but @ has Ad&, S p , which may he
certain Daniel of the sons of Ithamar (Ezra 8 2 ; see right). T. K. C.
D ANIEL , 3 ) accompanied Ezra and, owing perhaps to
the wealth and consideration which his family enjoyed, ZALAPH (q>y ; caAs [Bl, CAAEI$ [HI, -caA [a]),
contrived to share in those priestly privileges which D father of Hanun (Neh. 330).
had assigned to all the Levites. Such, a t least, is the ZALMON (fiO>s, see $ 4). T h e name occurs twice
ingenious theory of Kautzsch (St.KY.,1890, p. 778f:),
in the OT, more frequently in the Talmud, but without
and we may in any case be sure that some Levites who
topographical data (Neub. Ghg. 275).
did not claim origin from Zadok were priests in the
second temple. I n their favour, then, the theory of
I. (eppwv [BAL], aeppwv [aM
in Moore], a e l p w v [Eus.
O S 29573, without indication of site]). The name given
descent was modified. It was said that Aaron had
in M T to a mountain near Shechem (Judg. 948-k).
two sons who left issue : Eleazar, father of that line In the underlying story, however, the scene of thf: doings of
t o which legitimate high priests belonged, and Ithamar, Abimelech seems to have been placed in the Negeh, m and near
the ancestor of legitimate priests but not of legitimate a place called Cusham; Jerahmeel-Cusham may also (hut cp
high priests (so P in Ex. 6 2 3 Lev. 106 Nu. 428, so also SHECHEM TOWER OF) be referred to. It is probably, therefore,
jome mountain of a Jerahmeelite range, and @M's reading may
I Ch. 246). T h e Chronicler assigns sixteen classes to
the sons of Eleazar-ie., the Zadokites-and half that
1 One might naturally think of Gerizim ; the argument offered
number to the descendants of Ithamar (I Ch. 244). In ror connecting the name with the southern peak of Hermon is
this way also he is able partially to reconcile the double perfectly absurd (see Moore, Jun'ges, 265).
5375 5376
ZALMON ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH
be taken to confirm this. For 11~1”( a t p p v ) is probably a mentionedwithZ~~~~[g.w.](Judg. 8 4 8 , Ps. 8 3 r r ) . His
popular corruptionof iu3ni.,’and we shall seefsee ZALMON, ii.) name (the pointing of w-hich seems designed to suggest
that p $ r is not improbably a popular corruption of $ ~ p; p the interpretation ‘ protection refused ’) is very probably
now Jerahmeel ’ and ‘ Ishmael ’ are repeatedly used ac synonyms
SO that in one form of the original story Mt. Jerahmeel may have
compounded with that of the old deity @h ’
(see TEMA).
been spoken of, and in :another Mt. Ishmael. The corruptions For the second part of the name we may compare the
‘ Hermon ’ and ‘Zahnon ’ may of course have been made very OT ~ 1 3 3 , ymn, and perhaps also nyjo on a Nabatzan
early. The equation, Herman= Jerahmeel, illustrates Enocli 6 6 inscription from Hegra (cp Moore, Judges, z z o ) , or
where the fallen angels are said to have descended on hlt. the first part of the place-name 5 ~ y (Josh. 1 1927; cp
Hermon. Probably Mt. Jerahmeel was meant in the original a p g , v. 1 3 , and see Neubauer, Afheneum, 28th Feb.
story ; six of the names of the fallen angels are clearly coxu t
forms of Jerrhmeel. rhe early legends may all have a Jerag- 1885 ; Baethg. Beitr. 80n. S. A. C.
meelite or N. Arabian setting. Cp Z A L M ~ N A H .
2 . AV S ALMON ( U E X ~ ~ W [BK]
V ; ueXpw [R“]), accord- ZAMBRI, 1. (ZAMBPBI [BIB-pic [AI) I Esd. 9 3 4 RV
ing to most, a mountain or mountain-range (Ps. 6814 (AV Zambis)= Ezra 1042 AMARIAH, 3.
[IS]+), the dark rocks of which (as if ~i&rmeant ‘ dark- 2. ({ap@p[c]L [AKV]) I Macc. 226, RV ZIMKI,q.v.
colonred,’ from w‘&y ; cp ni&) set off the brilliance of
the snow, when, as in the depth of winter, snow-falls
ZAMOTH (zAMoe [BA]), I Esd.gzg=Ezra 1027.
ZATTU.
occurred. The psalmist is thought to compare the dead
bodies, or perhaps the glistening arms or ornaments, of ZAMZUMMIM ( D V 3 ~ ZOXOMEIN ~ ~ ; [Bl, - M M G I N
slain warriors to snow on Zalmon. Wetzstein (A6h. [Ba.bl. Z O M Z O M M E ~ N[A], Z O M M ~ I N [FL]), a branch
appended to Del. H i d , and elsewhere) compares the of the R EPHAIM ( g . ~ . ) so
, called by the Ammonites (Dt.
auakpuvoo of Ptol. 5 1 5 (vat: l‘ect. ahuaiapor, ahuasaecos) 22o)t. Some compare Ar. zantzanma. ‘a distant rustling
which is a name for the HaurHn mountain range (alluding sound,’ and zizim, the hissing, whis’tling sound made
to the dark volcanic rocks). This is thought t o he con- by the jinn of the desert in the night’ (so Schwally,,
firmed by reference to the J e M y a u r i n in v. 15 [16], Z A T W , 1898, p. 138, and W. R Smith, up. Dr.
where Wetzstein regards the phrase n m x i n as a Deut. 40).
picturesque description of the crater-formation of this But these early names are so liable to corruption that the view
highly-volcanic region (so Che. Ps.(’) ; Guthe, ZDPV, given elsewhere of the probable variant Z UZIM (q.v.) is perhaps
more probable. T. K. C.
1889, p. 231 ; Buhl, cautiously, Pal. 1 1 8 ; but not
GASm. HG 550). ZANOAH (nsji, probably an expanded Jerahmeelite
The whole passage, however, seems to be corrupt, and an clan-name [cp Shelah and Sha’ul], and, if so, pre-
adequate restoration can only be hoped for by a searching re- sumably to be added to the group2 containing Jaazaniah,
examination of the whole passage (see Che. Ps.12)). Among the
current emendations of ]l&s, Krochmal’s n??r (derived from Jezaniah, Aznoth-tabor, Uzzen-sheerah ; the superficially
obvious meaning ‘ stench,’ though defensible [N AMES ,
Tg.) is the most plausible. Duhm’s 143g and Lagarde’s l?? 5 1061, is hardly plausible, and the parallels for such a
JSYF leave [ l D h in all its unexpected and unlikely prominence. name are all textually suspicious-see, e.g., M ADMEN ,
T. K. C.
ZALMON id^), the Ahohite, one of David’s heroes ; O PHNI , ZIPHRON ; Z A N W [BKAL]).
I. The name of a personified clan together with its
z S.2328t (ehhwN--i.e.. ft?y P I , c ~ A A ~ [AI,
M chief centre, I Ch. 418 ({apwv [BA], [L]).
E A ~ M A N [L] ; Pesh. ,calmun, Vg. selmon)= I Ch. l l z g t The reputed father is Jekuthiel a name which like Joktheel
and Eltekeh is most probably one dfthe many currknt corruptions
(I L A I , ’$2,; HAEI [BK], hi [sup ras Aa], HA& [L] ; of Jerahmeei.3 The clan refemed to was therefore of the Negeb
Pesh. ‘ a l f t ; ‘ilaz’). %e N AMES , 4. (see closing paragraph).
Inferring from the reading of @BL in P S. that the form in y 2. A city in the SHEPHELAH ( g . u . ) , Josh. 1534 ( T a m
is original, Kittel (‘Chron.’in SBOT)would read p $ y , ‘AlimBn, [B]). Also (Ges.-Bu.) mentioned in Neh. 313 ({uvwv
and Marquart compares ALEMETH(q.z’.)=hLMoN (but both [L]) and 1130 (om. BKA, &vwe [Wamg. inf.]). Robin-
these names are probably csrruptions of ‘Jerahmeel ’). The
name i)&, however, is, in itself highly probable. The three son (BR2343) identifies with ZrZn$, a ruin 26 m. s.
names i&s, y 1 ~ 5 s and , n3&s all point to the Negeball are
from ‘Ain Shems (see BETH-SHEMESH). In the preced-
ing and following groups of names in Josh. 1 5 3 4 occur
N. Arabian, and all are (or spring from) opular corruptions of
>Np,>U-a synonym, be it observed, of {ND~T. Cp Nu. 149, Zorah and Soco, which apparently suits the proposed
if the view (Crit. Bi6.) is correct which makes c h 10 on r!ani identification. In OS25838 15912 Zanoah is stated to
on’$ya, an editorial attempt to make sense of the badly-written be in the district of Eleutheropolis.
words of a gloss on ‘the people of the land,’ viz., o.swnn7. 3. A city in the hill-country of Judah. Josh.1556
&Npn,. @ , $ ~ y c (‘Jerahmeelites,
p Ishmaelites, Jerahmeel- ({aaKavuerp, taking in r,pn from v. 57 [B], {avou [L]),
ites’); for which numerous parallels can be offered (see Crit.
Bib). ‘They are our bread’ and ‘their shadow has departed Van de Velde and Robinson identify with Za‘nzifa, a ruin
from them’ are clearly impossible. There is indeed another SW. ofYuttB (Jutta, mentioned in the preceding group
theory, which would be tempting, if we were to look at these in Josh.). though, being nearlyas far S. as esh-Shuweike
names by themselves, and not In the light of convergent text- (Socoh), it might seem more plausible to connect the
critical arguments-viz., to find in )& a trace of the god &
(SLM)worshipped at Teima (see JALMUNNA). But in similar
cases a better solution is generally forthcoming. Certainly one
name with 2.
There is, however, an element of uncertainty in these identi-
of David’s heroes might well have a name corrupted from fications, owing to the transference of names and to the geo-
‘Ishmael ’ or ‘ Jerahnieel.’ T. K. C. graphical mistakes of redactors (see Soco;). The original
Zanoah, like the original Socoh, was most probably in fhe Negeb.
ZALM0NA.H (n!b?Y; C E A M ~ N A [BAL]), a stage In Neh. 1130 ‘Adullam ’ which follows ‘Zanoah was very
in the wandering in the wilderness (Nu. 3341,f.J.). probably a Jerahmeelite ’city in the Negeb, and ‘iachish’ has
The preceding station is Mt. Hor--Le. according to the theory
arisen out of ‘Eshcol’ (see NEGEB, I 7). T. K. C.
which best accounts for a multitude off&, Mt. Jerahmeel (see ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH, RV Zaphenath-paneah
MOSES $5 14-18, with 11. 2, COI. 3217). Another name of some
part of the chief Jerahmeelite mountain-range was probably 1 So Niildeke and Clermont-Ganneau, Neubauer (Atherrc~um,
Zalmon--i.e., Ishmael (:a synonym of Jerahmeel).
It is reasonable to think that the name ‘ Zalmonah ’
is only a doublet of ‘ Hor,’ and that in reality the same
149 : &
Z.C.) su gests that the same divine name should be read in Nu.
(not C$, ‘their shadow’ 1 ) ha5 departed from them,
but Yahwl: is with US.’ BBAFL’S b ~ a ‘ p d smust have arisen out
mountain district is meant hy both names. See, how- of b Klipios which a few MSS and the Arm. actually have (cp
ever, W ANDERINGS , W ILDERNESS OF. T. K. C. Neub. The MT, however, makes a very satisfactory
sense. In folk-lore the shadow is often identified with the object
ZALKUNNA (U& ; CAAMANA [KARaTL], CAA- itself (cp Frazer, GaZden Buug~,Pl1 z87), and the loss of the
shadow is regarded as the loss of life itself. [Note however
MAN a Midianiteprincealways
[R*]. hut CGAMANA[B]), the solution of the text-critical problem given ’elsewher:
(ZALMON, Z).]
1 Note that in the M T of Ps. 42 7 161 a * $ ~ a n(Jer4meelim)
y 2 See S HAPHAN UZZEN-SHEERAH.
has become ~yialn. See MIZAR, T HE H ILL OF. 3 See NEGEB,s’7, and cp JOKTHEEL.

5377 5378
ZAPHON ZAREPHATH
(r?!y$ n!??; YONeOM@hNHX [AE], YOMe. [L]; *
the mouth of the W i d y er-Rugeib ; but Buhl considers
ZAM@ANH, ~ C A M @ A N HCA@AM@ANH
~ [Aq.], ca@ae- this doubtful (PuL 159 ; Ges.-Bu. S.T. ). Josephus
@AN H [Syni.]), the Egyptian name reported to have been (Ant. xiii. 125) mentions Aawdwv (Schlatter, ZDPV
given to Joseph by the Pharaoh (Gen. 41 45). For the 19224, Avu@wu) ' n o t far from the river Jordan' (ob
older explanations see below. It has now become 3rbppwOev TOO ' I o p ~ d u o u7ro7apoG).
customary to seek explanations of the name from ancient The occurrence of Sapuna as a S. Palestinian place-
Egyptian. Lenormant compares the title of Ku-mose, a name and of Baal-zephon in the account of the Exodus
king of the seventeenth dynasty, 'zuf--n-to,'' nourisher of 2. Later may well make us somewhat critical
the world ' ( H i s t . unc. de Z'Or., 1869, 1 3 6 3 ) ; this, he towards the statements of the traditional
holds, explains Zaphnath. Since the time of Lepsius researches* text respecting a trans- Jordanic Zaphon.
(Einl. m d. C h r o n o l o g i e d e r ~ g y p f e n1382)
, most scholars There is also strong reasonto think that when Jeremiah
have explained niy3 by the Egyptian pu-'um&(dus Leben, gives prophetic warning of an invasion of Jewish
la vie, life). Brugsch (Gesch. & , 1877, p. 248) territoryfrom the north ( e . g . , Jer. 1141: 4 6 61) it is not
formerly interpreted the whole name, ' governor of the of the Scythians nor of any modern people that he is
district of the place of life' ( i . e . , of thesethroitic nome); thinking, but of a people inhabiting a land called
but in 1891 (DieAegyptologie, 240)he adopted Stein- Zaphon or Zaphan (cp Z EPHANIAH ). So in Joel2so
dorffs explanation (see ZA 2742), which is alsogiven by ' the northern [army],' as EV renders, should rather be
Crum in Hastings' DB16-556, a s the only admissible one, ' the Zephonite,' and in Ezek. 3 8 6 it is from the land of
under the form jephnacte f8nch (ze[ltl-p-nate[r]-[eeLf-'Dnb), Zaphon, in N . Arabia, that the terrible hordes of Gog
' God speaks (and) he lives,' Lieblein, however (' Mots are to appear. I n Jer. 15 12 too, ' iion from the north '
figyptiens dansla Bible,' PSBA, May 1898,pp. 2 0 2 8 ) , should not improbably be 'iron from Zaphon' : the
criticises this, and proposes the form cfnti pa-an&, ' he following words ' a n d brass' remind us that TUBAL-
,who gives the nourishment of life.' Finally, Marquart C A I N - ~ . ~ .the
, Kenite Tubal according to the general
(' Chronol. Untersuch. ,' Philologus, 7 676 f.) thinks view-was, a [the father of] every artificer of brass and
that n] ( = p )indicates that Joseph was a worshipper iron ' ; and that Rehoboth was in David's time richly
of Iten, the solar disk, the god honoured by Anien- supplied with brass (see T EBAH ).
It would take too much space to show what a bright light this
hotep 1V. ; nidal is misplaced, and belongs to the theory (in connection with the larger historical theory of the
name of Joseph's wife (D~IK). The present writer held relations between Israel-Jndah and Jerahmeel) throws on many
out as long as he could for an Egyptian explanation, passages. But it may be well to point out (referring for details
regarding niax as a corruption of niya, and explaining to Crit. Bib.) that underlying the story of the Gileadite Jeph-
thah there is an earlier story of a Jephthah in the Negeb, and
the latter in Lepsius' way ; he inclined to read Joseph's that the troublesome word i l j i g ~(EV northward) in Judg. 1 2 I
Egyptian name a s Pu-'un&, or rather Pianhi, which is should probably he rendered 'to Zaphon ' ; the original narrative
the name of a famous king of the twenty-fifth dynasty ; meant a locality in the Jerahmeelite Negeb. Also that in Josh.
13 27 the mention of Succoth and Zaphon is,followed by 'the
this might mark the date of the Joseph narrative in its rest of the kingdom of Sihon king of Heshhon. It appears as if
present form ; see E GYPT , 5 6 5 J , JOSEPH ii., @ 4, I I. P had access to early lists of names, the geographical reference
I t is of course possible that the redactor of the beautiful of which he did not always understand. T. K. C.
Joseph-story may have had such a name a s Pianhi in
his mind. But it can be made highly probable that ZARA (zapa [Ti. WH]), Mt. 1 3 AV, RV ZERAA, I-
underneath our Joseph-story there was another, the ZARACES, RV Zarakes ( Z C ~ ~ I O[B],
N Z ~ ~ A K H N
scene of which was laid in the Negeb and in the land [AL]), in I Esd. 138 represents the J EHOAHAZ (q.v.)of
of MiSrim. If we accept this, we may reasonably the corresponding passage z Ch. 364. According t o
suppose that n m p is a corruption or alteration of nwp, 2 Ch. Jehoahaz was taken by Necho to Egypt; but
and of ~ n i ~T. h e marriages of Joseph and of in the I Esd. passage he is brought by Joakim out of
Eleazar b. Aharon are plainly parallel. Eleazar (Ex. Egypt. This and other differences seem to be due to
6 2 5 ) marries a daughter of P UTIEL ( ZZarephathi), the fact that the author of I Esd. was copying from a
and has a son named PHINEHAS (= Jerahmeel) ; Joseph corrupt or illegible Ne6rew MS.
niarries a daughter of Potiphera ( ~ Z a r e p h a t h i ) ,and
his own name is called Zarephath-jerahmeel. The ZARAH (ti?].), Gen. 3830 AV, RV ZERAH,I.
marriage of Moses will also be remembered ; his wife's ZARAIAS (zapaloy [B]). (I) I Esd.58=Ezra2*
name was Zipporah, which (see MOSES, 5s 2, 4) is most SERAIAH, 7. (2) I E d 8 z ( aparou [A]) ; see ZERAHIAH (I).
probably a modification or distortion of the place-name (3)I Esd. 831 ({apatou [BAL$; see ZERAHIAH (2). (4) I Esd.
834 (<qarac [BA]); see ZEBADIAH (3).
Zarephath.
The plausibility of Egyptological explanations must be ad- ZARDEUS (zaphalac [A]), I Esd. 9 2 8 = E m 1 0 2 7
mitted even if we hold that the original narrators had a N. AZIZA.
Arabiln, not an Egyptian horizon. Already Jerome says,
. .
' Interpretatur sermone Bgyptio . salvator %undi, eo quod
orbem terra: ab imminente famis excidio IiFavit. Onk. gives,
ZAREAH (?Fy), Neh. 11 29 AV, Zareathites
' The man to whom mysteries are revealed ; ps: Jon., ' the man ('Qulg;l), I Ch. 253 AV. See ZORAH. ,

who reveals mysteries. Similarly JOC. Ant. 11.6 I , Pesh., Saad.


See also Harkavy, J o x m . As. 15 (1870) 1788; Wiedemann, ZAREPHATH (ng?? ; a CA~EITTA [BAL]), a place
SammZwzg altag. W&ter, 21 ; Levesque, Reu. Bihl., 1899, on the high-road between Tyre and Sidon (cp Jer. O S
PP. 4 1 2 8 - T. K. C . 1544), where, according to the traditional text, Elijah
ZAPHON (IiBY, cp Sapuna in the Amarna Tablets resided with a widow after leaving the brook Cherith
17416, a S. Pal. city [see KAT(3) 4791, and BAAL- (I K.1791: cE@ea[A in v. g] ; cp Lk. 426 C A P E T T T ~
ZEPHON), a Gadite city-cp the Gadite THC c l A m ~ l a c ; RV 'Zarephath, in the land of
1. The names ~ 3 3and P*?r-lying 'in the Sidon ').
traditional valley ,-i,;, , of the' Jordan (Josh. 13 27 But the difficulty of supposing that this Phmnician woman
facts* was a worshipper of Yahwh is ve great, and since (I) CHERITH
C&AN [B], - W N [AL]), and again, (p.v.) miist certainly be Rehobox, and (2) even the traditional
according to RVmg., in the account of the quarrel of text elsewhere makes Elijah seek out a refuge in N. Arabia
the Ephraimites with Jephthah (Judg. 12 I n+: RVmg. ( I K. 19 ; see MIZRAIM), we are compelled to suppose corruption
ofthe text, and to read in I K. 17 9, ' Arise, get thee to Zarephath,
' t o Z A P H O N ' ;KE@EINA [AI, CE@HNA [ L l ; 'north-
wards' EV and @iB) ; but others question the text (see
J EPHTHAH . 3, n. I). It is mentioned after Beth- 1 For Amathus, cp Burckh. Syr. 346, Buhl, Pal. 259, and
Schur. G J V l z z ~ f . It is often mentioned by JOS. (cp Ant.
nimrah and Succoth. The Jer. Talm. (Sheb. 9 2 xiii. 3 3 xiv. 5 4 BJi. 8 s), and is placed by him on the Jordan.
fol. 38 d ) identifies it with inn, the later 'AmathB, Eus., on the contrary, makes it 21 R. m. from Pella (US21976).
Amathus, and mod. 'Amateh, a little to the N. of the 2 Lagarde (06ers. 84, note *) finds the vocalisation strange ;
ZerkZ (Jabbok) on the E. bank of the Jordan, and at in Palestine we should expect n@!.
5379 5380
ZAREPHATH ZARETHAN
which belongeth to Musur’ (lW!3\ 1fK). Zarephath is also I t is an easy day’s journey from Ruheibeh (REHOBOTH hlT’s
mentioned as a border-city of Canaan in Obad. 20 (uape$eov
‘ Cherith’) to Sebaita, though Palmer was accidentally dilayed.
Possibly the’name Zarephath, as applied to a Phenician town,
[Qa]), not, however, on the north, but on the south (see appears under the disguise of h1ISREPHOTH-biAInl in Josh. 118
NEGEBp 3’ SEPHARAD).A district of the Negeb in the far
11
S. of Phest$e, was called after the Zarephathitesl S. 3016),
and David’s bodyguard was partly composed of Zarephathites.
136.
The Phenician Zarephath is the Zarputa of the
I t is true ‘ Pelethites,’ not ‘Zarephathites,’ is the traditional Egyptian Pap. Anast. 1 ( R N ) 2 IXO), and the Sariptu
reading id 2 S. 8 I8 etc. ; but gZGthi and also#eZeth in I Ch. 2 33
(Nu. 16 I) are corrupt, and ought probably to he read ~ l i r Z - of the Taylor inscription of Sennacherib (KB290)
ghathi and s l i r J j h t h reipectively (see PELETH, PELETHITES,Muhlau ( H WB(*),1814)supposes glass-manufacture to
and cp PALTI,I). have flourished at Zarephath ; Masius (in Poole’s Syn.)
It is also highly probable that the Zarephathites are the foes thought of the smelting of metals. The modern name
referred to in 2 S. 21 15-22. The nature of the war with the
Philistines here referred to has surprised many readers; it of Zarephath is Surnfeend, which is now about a mile
contrasts strongly with the warfare described in I S. 31. If, from the coast, but was on the shore in the time of the
however, PZi2im should rather be Slirejkrithim (as certainly Crusaders. See Rob. BR 2475 ; Thomson, L. and B.

in I S. 30 76) we can much more easily understand the narrative.
That ‘ Gath and ‘ Gob ’ should rather be ‘ Rehohoth ’ is pointed
ont elsewhere (REHOBOTH). It was the warriors of Musri (see
1.5~8 C p PHCENICIA, 19 4, 6.
In z S. 8 3 12 106 8 we hear of a ‘ Hadad-ezer, . .. king of
MIZRAIM, 5 2 b), famous in later tradition for their unusual Zohah,’ whose realm we must suppose to have been either in Syria
stature, who at the time referred to gave David somuch trouble. or in N. Palestine (see ZOBAH). It is however, somewhat more
Mugri may originally have included Zarephath and Rehoboth probable that 3371 (Zobah) is a niutilated and corrupt form of
(see below, on Gen. 10 1 3 J ) . Not improbably z S. 21 15 8 is nsl!, Siirefath. The name Hadad-ezer for a N. Arabian king is
properly the sequel of 2 S. 5 17-25. There is considerable reason
to suppose that David conquered Rehohoth (miswritten in 2 S. erfectly credible. The images’ of the Zarephathites (not
21 1 8 8 Gob and G a t h t o n e of the chief cities of his foes-and ’Philistines ’) are spoken of in 2 S. 5 2 r (an old narrative).
fetched the ark of Y a h d from the house of OBED-EDOM the An obscure passage in Judg. 17 7 becomes more significant if
Rehobothite (not ‘the Gittite’). A series of important cor- we suppose a reference to Zare9hath. The young Levite there
rections also becomes highly probable in z S. 5 17-25. ‘ Philis- spoken of is described as ‘out &f Bethlehem-judah, of the family
tines ’ should probably be ‘ Zarephathites’ (pngir); ‘ the valley of Judah.’ As Budde rightly sees, there is something wrong
here ; he would correct ‘ udah into ‘ Moses ’ (cp 18 30). More
of Rephaim’ should he ‘the valley of the Jerahmeelites’ ; ‘over
against the mulberry trees’should be ‘over against [Perez of] the plausibly we may read‘200,
Judah’ (’?NDm for mix. on$,! !a
Beth-jerahmeel, from Zarephath of
nmrn for nnwnn; cp
erahmeelites ; ‘in the tops ?f the mulberry tree5’ should he
’in Perez of the Jerahmeelites. Perez, be it noted here again, nioiwa for n-gi’ly in Josh.). Tradition seems to connect the
is surely a corruption of Smarefath (Zarephath) ; see PEREZ. Con- Levites with Kadesh, which was not far from Zarephath. For
sequently ‘ Baa1;perazim’ may well come from ‘ Baal-sarefath other supposed disguises of Zephath or Zarephath, see SHAPHAT,
(or -$irefathim). Lastly, in the descriptive phrase ‘fi-om Geha TISHBEH; cp also MICAH, BOOK OF? 5 4u); MEARAH;
as far as the approach to Gezer’ (2,. 25) the proper names should hIISREPHOTH-MAIM, TIRZAH, ZARETHAN. T. K. C.
he ‘ Rehoboth ’ and ‘ Gallesh ’= ‘ Kadesh ’ respectively. It also
becomes probab!e that L l ? e r e ~ - u in ~ ~z hS.’68 has arisen out of ZARETHAN, RV of ( u ) Josh. 3 16 (6) I K.4 12 (c)
‘ Sarefath-auah (strong-Zarephath). Cp P ERAZIM, PEREZ- 746. The same name is clearly represented by ZEREDAH (d)
UZZA. This involves parallel corrections in 2 S. 238-23. The 2 Ch. 4 17 and ( e ) I K. 11 26, probably also by ZERERAH (A
‘Philistines ’ should y e y probably be ‘the Zarephathites!’just
as in z. 21 ‘Egyptian should doubtless be ‘Migrite (see Judg. 7 22. ln(a)and(c) MT has i.nls; in $(6)
IT, ;> (locative),
MIZRAIM, 5 2 6). David and his gibboritn are fighting in the AV ZARTHANAH ; in (d)mml?(locative) ; in (e) mlt?. 6 in
region which adjoins their own homes (cp HARARITE, J EKAB .
ZEEL, ZIKLAG), to maintain their hold on the ‘ cities of the Jerah- ( a )gives caBrarperv [Bl, rapraBrap[eIi+[.4FL] which Hollenberg 1
meelites’ (see I S. 3029). The ‘Valley of Rephaim’ shoulc! takes to be a development of uapBav ; (6) u e h a v [B], suhra&av
-gain be the Valley of the Jerahmeelites,’ and ‘ Bethlehem [AI, uap8av [Ll; in (c) u e r p a [Bl, urapa+ [AI,. uapBav [L]; in
(7121. r4-16) is an early cxruption (like Ir hammelab) of Beth-
(4 urp8aBaL [Bl, uaSaOa [AI, uapLSa8a [Ll; In (e) i uapapa
jerahmeel. It may he added that it is probably the ‘Zarephath- [BL], 6 uapda [A], and in the long additional passage @BL twice
itei,’ not the ‘ Philistines ’ who fight against Keilah in the true has uapsrpa.
text of I S. 43 1-5. Thud in the story of David, not less than in Let us assume provisionally the correctness of the
that of Jacob, there are traces of a more ancient and in some textual readinas, and consider the aeogaohical bearings
respects very different underlying narrative. Cp also SAUL.
It is moreover in a high degree probable that the ‘En-mishpat ’
of Gen. 147 which is loosely identified in an inserted gloss
with ‘Kadish,’ should he corrected into ‘En- (or rather ‘ Ir-) the Chronicler, or the compiler from whom’he drew,
Zarephath ’-i.e. ‘fountain (rather, city) of Zarephath.’ Cer-
tainly this helps to produce a consistent story; Kadesh and identified Zarethan and Zeredah. From (f) we may a t
Zarephath will be found (see SODOM) to be both mentioned in the least infer that Zererah (?) lay to the S. of Abel-meholah.
more ancient narrative which underlies our Gen. 14, as, according A more definite result is gained from ( c ) , where (if the
to the view proposed above, both names occur in the story which text is in the main correct) it is stated that Zarethan
underlies 2 S. 5 17-25. And the only plausible explanation of
‘ Hassophereth’ or ‘ Sophereth’ in Ezra 2 55 Neh. 7 57 is that it was situated near Succoth in the Jordan valley. From
is a corruption of the same ancient place-name Zarephath. (6) no inference is possible in the present state of the text.
This latter correction points the way to another of much A still more important passage is Josh. 3 16 ( u ) . W e
greater importance-viz. o ’ n m (SBr%3.thim) for D’DlnB in Gen. learn from it that Zarethan lay beside the city called
10 14 (see PATHRUSIM).That Misrim, not Mizraim was the son Adam or Adamah (see A D A M , i.). Between Adam or
of Ham(Jerahmeel), is a view which sheds a brigdt light on a
series of obscure names (cp Crit. Si&). And no one can fail to Adamah and Succoth this passage (see J ERICHO , 8 4),
see at once how easily Zarephath might be miswritten as PUT together with I K. 746, suggests that there was a ford by
(Cen 106) and as ZEPHATH (q4.v.). The difficulties of the which the main road crossed the Jordan, and such a ford
narrative in Judg. 117 are considered elsewhere (HORMAH).It there is near the Jisr ed-Diimieh, a t the confluence of the
may, however, be pointed out again that the starting-point of the
Judahites was Kadesh-‘barnea’ (see J ERICHO , 5 2). There is Jabbok and the J ORDAN ( q . ~ .§, 7). W e must there-
a place on the way to Hormah, or rather Rahamah (see fore at any rate reject all forms of the theory that
HOK~IAH),which they would naturally attack in “passing ; it Zarethan, which lay ’ beside’ that city, was in the
is Sdaitaa (24 m. NNE. of ‘Ain Kadis). The ruins (of the
Bywntine eriod) are imposing; doubtless they stand on the vicinity of Beth-shean.2 More acceptable geographically
site of mucg older cities. At the entrance of the only pass by is the view of Van de Velde, who connects Zarethan
which Sebaita can be approached is a ruined fort on the top of with the lofty Karn Tartabeh (the K ~ B of ~ Dthe Mishna),3
a hill ’ this was probably an appendage of the ancient Zephath the great landmark of the Jordan valley, W. of Jisr ed-
which‘in spite of the imperfect phonetic correspondence of th;
names must be the Zeph.ith or Zarephath of the OT.3 We can DBmieh. To this we shall return presently.
now fully understand the journey of Elijah related in I K. 179. We pass on to the difficult passage marked above as
1 See NEGEB, 5 2. I. The cofnmentaton treat the difficulty
of ‘the land of the Philistines too lightly. The view here 1 Der Cfurr. der Alex. Ue6ers. des B. jos.. 17.
adopted is that by an error of the scribe 33s has become &g. 2 In PEFQ 1874, p. 182 Conder finds a trace of the name in
2 We might also think of Mesraifeh, N. of Sehaita but this is the ‘Ain Zahrih and the T h d Zahrah, 3 m. W. of Beissn. At
geographically less plausible. Least probable of all ’sites is the this point the opposite cliffsapproach so closely that a blockage
Nakb eg-Sah. SE. of Kurnub, though this commended itself to of the river (such as a shock of earthquake might occasion) would
Robinson (BRN 2 18r). See Trnmbull Kadesh-Bamea. leave its bed temporarily dry. Tyrwhitt Drake(PEFQ 1875,p.
3 See Palmer, Desert o f t k c ExodL<, 371fi; Rowlands the 31) thought of Tell Saran, 3 m. S. of BeisLn ; hut he ielied on
discoverer of the site, took the same view (G. Williams, hoh @ A ‘ s corrupt reading urapaw in I K. 7 46.
City, 1464) ; also Furrer (Riehm, HWBPJ654J). 3 Rash La-Skdnah, 2 3 ; cp Neubauer, G o g . du TaZm. p. 42
5381 5382
ZARETH-SHAHAR ZEBOIM
It is plausible to infer from the fact that bLplaces I, 2. Assi ned to the Benjamite (see B EN J AMIN , 0 9) clan
(e).
p. I ~, 1126 etc. Jeroboam’s residence at the time of B ERIAH (I 8h. 8 15, a<a&@ca [Bl, .. . Sin [A]), hut in n. 17 to
E LPAAL. The context probably refers to the Negeh. The
his son’s illness at uapetpa, whilst M T names are very nearly all unmistakably Jerahmeelite. ‘Gath
gives the name as Tirzah ( I K. 1417), that the true name as often, may have grown out of a mutilation of ‘ R;hohotl;’
of Jeroboam’s city was Tirzah. I t is very possible, (Che.).
7 . h. Teroham of Gedor. one of David’s warriors (I Ch. 12 7,
however, that both Zererah and ~ I R Z A H(4.v.) conceal <a&G ~ B ~ ) ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ - D A Viii.
(a) ~DI’~-II
some other name, and if our view of Solomon’s reign 4. h. Asahel, one of David’s captains (I Cb..27 7, a@Ssias [Bl,
and of the extraction of Jeroboam is correct (see <a@&as [A], -8arar [L]). See D AVID , 5 X I (c) L
5. h. Ishmael. ruler of house of Tudah ( 2 Ch. 19 11, Ca5Gieltas
SOLOMON), the name underlying them is Z AREPHATH [BA], <aPnSrac [L]). Possibly originally the same as
( q . ~ . ) . This would not, however, justify us in substi- 6. The Levite who with others was sent to the cities of Judah
tuting at once Zarephath for Zarethan in (u),(a), (c), with the book of the mn* niin (2 Ch. 178, <a@~[e]rac [BAL]).
( d ) ,and (f.). The text of these passages urgently needs The neighhouring names suggest connection with the Negeh
to be examined with a more searching criticism. The (Che.).
7. h. Meshelemiah, a Korhite (I Ch. 26 2, <n@aSms [AL],
claims of the Karn Sarfabeh deserve at least a hearing Zbx’LpLas [PI).
(cp J ERICHO , § 2). and if this site be adopted Abel- 8 h. Michael one of the b‘na Shephatiah, a post-exilic family,
nieholah will probably be the oasis of KarBwa. N. of Ezra88 (<a,%& [B], -6rar [A], -&ou [L]); in I Esd.834
ZARAIAS (<aparas[Bl om. A, <.Sa~as[LI).
Sartabeh. See J ERICHO , 5 2. It is not necessary to
b. I MMER [q.~.] Ezra10 20, <a@[e]~a[BRA], -&as [L], in
assume that Sartabeh and Sarethan are connected as I &I. 9 21 ZABDEUS ($n@aios [BA], aprurras [Ll).
names. T h e question is purely geographical. ZEBAH (nJl, zfBfs [BHARTL] ; ‘ victima, sive
Karn Saptabeh is thus described,
‘ The t i p o i the mountain is a cone, artificially shaped, and hostia,’ Jer. OS 499) a Midianite king or chieftain,
some 270 ft. high. On all sides hut the west this is practically mentioned with Zalmunna in the story of Gideon
unapproachable; on the west a trench has been (Judg. 85-21 ; cp Ps. 8311 [IZ]). Just as Zalmunna cor-
3. &3m cut and the saddle thus made lower. ‘The responds to Oreb (the vowels in both names are un-
s w a b & . ru$s on the summit consist of a central struc- original) in the parallel narrative, so Zebah corresponds
ture with a surrounding wall, and of an aque-
duct with cisterns. An old foad leads up from the south, with to Zeeb.
rock-cut steps in one place. ‘The general appearance of the The originals of the two former names are probably Ishmael
place is that of a fortress. (PEFM33g6A:) and ‘Arab ; the cpmrnon original of the two latter may be Zehib
We must not, however, treat this as more than a provisional ‘the long-haired. See GIDEON, OREB, ZALMON, 2, Z ALMUNNA.
and (in spirit) conservative conjecture, and it may he permissible T. K . C.
to refer in advance to the treatment of passages containing ZEBAIM (Dt>y;?),for ‘ Pochereth of Zebaim,’ Ezra
Zererah in Crif. Bi6. See also SWCCOTH, and cp Buhl, Pal. 181.
T. K. C. 257 AV. RV has P OCHERETH - HAZZEBAIM (4.v.).
ZARETH-SHAHAR (ln@;lrnay),Josh. 1 3 1 9 AV, ZEBEDEE ( Z ~ B ~ A , W O [Ti.
C WH], 52 ;-Le. ’131,
see Z EBADIAH ), of Galilee, the father of James and
RV Z ERETH - SHAHAR (4.v.).
John (Mt. 421 etc.).
ZARHITES (’n?!?), Nu. 2613 AV. See Z ERAH , I. ZEBIDAH (??’?T, Kt.), z K. 23 36 RV, AV
ZARTANAH (?;n?y), I K. 412’AV, RV ZARE- Z EBUDAH ( q . ~ . ) .
THAN (4.V.). ZEBINA (K;’??, as if ‘ bought,’ from Aram. ]IT,3 83,
ZARTHAN (]??I), I K . 7 4 6 A v , RV ZARETH.4N cp Palm. ~ 1 x 1 hut
~ ~ perhaps
1 really a popular corruption of
$,qyno, [the 5 in which name is often corrupted in the mouth
(4.”. 1. of the people into 1 (Che.)] ; cp also Ass.-Aram. ~ 1 3 1 ;Hilprecht
ZATHOE, RV Zathoes (zaeoHc [BA]), I Esd. gives the Jewish name Zahina from Nippur, fifth century ;
8 32 = Ezra 8 5. See JAHazIEL, 5 ; SHECHANIAH, 3 ; <av&va [B], <LLty@eiua [a], om. A2,<c@cvc~[L]), one of the b’ne
Neb0 (?.e. Nadabu ?-see NEBO 111.2) who joined in the league
ZATTU. against alien marriages ; Ezra 10 43. t
ZATTU (KqnI ; zb00oya CALI, z a e o y i a [BKI). ZEBOIIM or Zeboim (D’3X, D”3Y, D’KIY, Kt.;
The b’nE Zattu, a family in great post-exilic list (see E ZRA ii. Dy’rIy Kr. always) Gen. 10 14 Dt. 29 Hos. 1 l . t See
0g 58 c) Ezra28 (reckoned at 945; <aeoua [B])=Neh.713 A DMAH A N D ZEBOIM.
(re$oned kt 845 1840 Bl ; <a8Oourra [N])=I Esd. 5 12, Zathui
( { a ~ o u[B], <deour [A]); represented among the signatories to ZEBOIM. I . T h e valley of Zeboim (Dcq3?;? ’3 ; rai
the covenant (see E Z R A ~ $3 .7), Neh.,lO14 [IS], AV Zatthn
(<~tMoute[A], - 8 8 a m [Ll), and in the list of those with foreign THN C A M G I N [B] ; om. A ; r A l A N THN C&B&IN [LI),
wives (see E ZRA i. $ 5 end), Ezra 10 27 (<&ova [A])= I E d 9 ?8, a locality, apparently E. of Michmash, mentioned in
ZAMOTH(<.+.e [BAD. The name is to be restored in the llst the description of the path taken by one of the plunder-
of families in Ezra’s caravan ; see J AHAZIEL , 5. ing bands of the Philistines ( I S. 1318). The passage
ZAVAN (I!);,I Ch.142 AV=Gen.3627, ZAAVAN. should perhaps read thus, ‘another band took the
direction of the Gilga12 which looks down upon the
ZAZA (HI!, 5 58 ; abbrev., cp ZIZA ; OZAM [B], valley of Zeboim toward the wilderness.‘ T h e ’ wilder-
+<a, ? 6 5.5. [A], <?‘<a[Ll), h. Jonathan, a Jerahmeelite (I Ch. ness’ is thought to consist of the summits and precipitous
2 33t). See J ERAHMEEL , $ 2 (c).
sides of the mountains between the central district of
ZEALOT (0ZHAWTHC), the Greek equivalent of the Benjamin and the Jordan valley. There Grove, in 1858,
Semitic 0 K A N ~ N A ~ O(see C C A N A N ~ A N Apart ). from found a wild gorge bearing the name of Shukk-e+-Dn6ri‘
the use of the word in a theological sense (cp e.g. I Cor. - L e . , ‘ ravine of hyznas,‘ which exactly corresponds to
14 12, l+w-a? a v e u p d ~ o u[ = a v e u , u a ~ t ~ G vzealous,
]. or the Hebrew name. U p this gorge, which is N. of the
emulous, of spirits [=spiritual gifts] ; and the OT use of point at which the W d d y el-Kelt enters the Jordan
N;?, Kannd, of God‘s zeal for the keeping of the law, valley, runs the path by which Grove was conducted
etc., Ex. 205 3414), it is applied distinctively to a sect from Jericho to Jhkhmris (Smith’s DB(’) iii. 1819).
whose tenets are virtually identical with those of the Marti however (ZDPV 7125fl), thinks of the Widy
ASSASSINS (q.v.), of whom they are indeed the fore- A h pub&, a lateral valley which joins the Wrirzy eZ-KeZt
runners. As such it occurs only twice in the N T (Lk. 1 See Cook, Asant. Gloss. 71, who also quotes the Gk. form
615 Actslr3, AV Z ELOTES ) with reference to SIMON +e<a@@avap. The initial D may remind us of the initial f3 in
v. no. 51). For Kavaua~ossee Mt. 10 4 Mk. 3 18. p& and ny&yn (see MESHULI.AM, MESHELEMIAH).
“Of this sect JUDAS of Galilee was at one time a leader. 2 M T has hx? ‘the border,’ hut this does not suit the
Against the view that the author of the A s s w x j t i o M&s was a following participle. Hence some (We., Dr., Ki., Bu.) read
zealot (Schtir. GVI 2635), see APOCALVPTIC L ITERATURE, % 65. p?;?, rendering ‘the hill,’ and with doubtful justice claiming to
ZEBADIAH ( V V . T , WVT, properly an expanded follow QB. But can pxl be 50 rendered? H. P. Sm. reads nyXn
N. Arabian clan-nam;[Che., Se:zABDI, and cp ZABDIEL], thoug! (ya@ee [El, 7 u YaSaa &I), but qgqn is masc. h x n probably
susceptible of the religious explanation, ‘Yahwk has bestowed, ‘5
comes from 513 ( I S. 134 IS), which is itself most probably a
corruption of (~any. See RACHEL’S SEPULCHRE.
cp Jehozahad, 0 27 ; <a@aSu[BRALI)
5383 5384
ZEBUDAH ZEBULUN
from the S., and makes the plausible suggestion that in Unless the -6n of the Greek ZahoulGn is due to assimilation to
the Greek termination of that form, which is unlikely, since the
ancient times the present LVEdy eZ-FeZf bore the o is preserved in the Greek form of the gentilics (see 5 I , begin.)
appellation ‘ Valley of hyznas,’ which now survives only the name must in the second century B.C. have heen pronounced
in smaller gorges. C p G. A. Smith, H C , 291 ; Buhl, Zabiibn. I t should he noted, however, that Josephus twice
Pal. 98. gives the name without the termination -on (see above, 5 1,
begin.). Moreover, would not a n original Bn have become e n
2. A Benjamite town orvillage, Neh. 11 34t (n’yir ; om. BNA; (cp R EUBEN , g 9 i.)?
usposrp [xca. mg. inf.]; m p w e r u [L]), mentioned between Hadid If the name was pronounced at all like ZSbiil6n it is
and Neballat. T. K. C. difficult not to connect it with the divine name Baal-
ZEBUDAR (?I?l>T, Kr. ; ‘ given [by God],’ 5 56), as 3. Meaning. zebu1 (see Skipwith, /QR 1 1 2 4 2 [1899],
AV, or ZEBIoArr (?I??.!, Kt. which Vg. and Pesh. and CD B AALZEBUB .. -6-2,) : CD the Punic
follow), as RV, mother of Jehoiakim, z K.23361. (ishha name (fem. ) 5x.h;~ (CZS i. 158 1 3 ,from Tharrus),
[B].; eiahAa~$[A]-i.e., JIDLAPH [u.~.]; AMITAA [L] and ~ ~ T D(inscription
U from Citium, 1. 4 : Nold. %A
-z.e., HAMUTAL [ q . ~ . ]; in 2 Ch. 365, however, BBA 9 4m-405), and see below, 5 6. If the noun ZBL
gives the name as ;I>l3I=Zaccurah zs[~]xwpa; designates a lofty mansion, especially for a god (see
A M I T ~ A [LI). 5 4). it is difficult not to think of the mountain referred
Hilprecht quotes a Jewish name Zabiida on a tablet to in Dt. 3319 (see S 6), especially as the mountain
from Nippur (5th cent. B.C.). It is tempting toexplain names Lebanon, Sirion, Hermon all end in -611 (cp
the name ‘ one given [by God].’ Jebel Haur2n and Zion). Zebulun would then be. in a
Some, however, of the names of this form (f 56) clearly have a modified sense, a geographical name, like Ephraim and,
gentilic meaning, and Jehoiakim’s mother (like several other perhaps, Naphtali.’ Of course there is no suggestion
queen-mothers) came from the Negeb (see RUMAH).T. K. C. of that kind in Gen. There we seem to have. as often.
ZEBUL. (5?!,
zsBoyA [BAL]), a Shechemite, the
*. OTtions.
two ‘ explanations ’ of the name (Gen.
‘ruler’ (TV) of the city in the time of Abinielech, 3029). Yahwb had presented Leah
represented in the artful speech of Gaal as a mere officer ( 2 0 a a l with a noble gift iaibed. as if
(1’Re) of the king, Judg. 9 2 x 8 See ABIMELECH,G AAL , the name were &b:btdfin‘[E?]) ; or her i h i n d ( i d e a l ) ,
and cp We. IYG, 27. in consideration of Leah’s having presented him with a
See also, SHECHEM, $ z ; ‘Zebul’ is a possible corruption of sixth son, would act (29 a p ) in a certain way: M T
‘Ishmael. *1521* (transliterated by Jerome iezbuleni), the meaning
ZEBULUN,but ZAIWLONin AV of Mt. 413 15 and of which is uncertain, as the verb occurs nowhere else.
@ gives alpsrif? (which usually renders inl, ‘choose,’ but
Rev. 7 8 (pi?], ZebfilCin, eighteen times, especially in sometimes inn, ‘ spare,’ yDn, ‘delight in ’), of which Jerome
says: LXX interpretati s y t di&d me: c p Eth. y&,fu&eruni,
will love me ;Josephus, one born as a pledge of benevolence
t o me ’(;IwexvpauplL(vove&vd? ~i ~ p b sa h j v : Anf. i. 19 7, $ 308).
Aquila, however, has uuvoiu<ufc por, which is followed by
Jerpme himself, ‘ hahitabit mecum’ ; cp Pesh. nefhnak&la Zi.
will adhere to me.’
132, 5 2671; gentilk ’ ? h ? r ZbBOYhWN[E]ITHC [BAL EV, following Vg., renders ‘ will dwell with me’ ;
Jos.], Zebulunite, Nu. 2627, but Zebulonite, Judg. and this rendering is retained silently by Gunkel (Gen.12J
1211,L). A late writer adds the name of Zebulun in [1902] ad Zoc.), also by Ball (SBUT ad Zoc. [1896]).
his reference (Is. 823 b ) to the deportation of Tiglath- Other recent writers,* however. have adopted the
pileser described in 2 IC. 1529 (see N APHTALI , 5 3). suggestion of Guyard (J. As. 1878, 8. pp. 220-5), that
The ‘land of Zebulun,’ he says, had shared the dark 3,537, is to be explained by Ass. zabJZu, which usually
fate of the ‘ land of Naphtali.’ Only in one other place, means ‘ carry,‘ ‘ bring’ (cp Ar. zabaZa, Syr. stbal), but
however, do we hear of a land of Zebuhin (see 5 7). sometimes apparently lift 11p.3
The real territorial name may have been Naphtali (see If eabal meant ‘lift u p ’ in Hebrew, 31531. in Gen.
#a
NAIWTALI, 2, end, 4). Oue of the sources of Josh., 3020 would mean ‘will honour me.’ T h e person
indeed, seems to have known of twelve towns (Josh. indeed, writer or copyist, to whom we owe the present

19 15 b ) which were regarded as Zebulunite. Whether, text of Gen. 4913 seems to have given ZBL its now
purposely, however, or accidentally, only five of the traditional meaning of ‘ dwell’ (cp ]>p*); on the other
names have been preserved (see 5 9 i.). hand in n. 15 (Issachar) suggests the Assyr. zabklu
Even the form of the name is rather uncertain. In (see next 5, mid.).
the Hebrew consonantal text it is spelled in three ways The history of the district inhabited by Zebulun was
2. Form. (traditionally vocalised ZEbfilBn, ZEbCiliin eventful enough (cp N APHTALI , 5 3, ISSACHAR, $5 4-6,
and ZEbCllGn : see above, 5 I , begin.), the 6. References. GALILEE, 2 . J IPHTAH - EL ). I t felt
first of which would suggest a form Ziblbn like Shim‘Bn, the heavy tread of Thothnies 111. (see
SIMEON (p.v. 5 8). M T . however, vocalises them alike, the list of places, above, col. 3546). and became a part
with a full vowel between the last two radicals : zEbii1. of the Egyptian empire. Burna-Buryag, the Babylonian
i. The word zeJuZ(Ba. NB 129) without the nominal termina- king (about I ~ O O ) , regarded the district as in the
tion, is always written h?, zebu1 (without l), like a!, lP, Pharaoh’s (Amenhotep IV.) land, and complained to
whereas h>! as c o n s t a n t l y h a the 7. T h e scnj5iio d&cf&a him that his agents had been maltreated a t Hi-in-na-tu-
may, however, be simply because zebol was a n archaic word. ni (see HANNATHON) ; and letter 196 tells that its
Even if the old pronunciation WZE zi.bul (not aPhiil), which would governor had rescued Lapaya and sent him home (31,L ).
according to traditional pronunciation have given zZbd (like lie
etc.), the addition of the termination to zZbd would give zSbiil-; 1 For Land’s explanation of a confessedly difficult name see
just as minbs becomes mEniis;ih. On the other hand, if the below.
second vowel was 0,the name might be from zub2.l; cp Zubala, 2 For example Cheyne (Isa.2 1 6 03[188z1), Delitzsch ( H d .
a place in LTt. 29f, 18 mils from el-@.* in the Jauf (D. H. Miiller, Lung. 38f: [18831=ProL 62J [1886]), Schrader ( K AT19 ad Loc.
Wam&ni’s Gmg. Sudarabiens, 183 24Jf). [1882]).
3 Delitzsch cites 5 R 42 a 4 43 z~b6uZufa GAB (=+ire), ‘the
ii. Names ending in -On are common (see SIMEON, lifting u p of the breast. Moreover the ‘ lofty temple of Marduk
5 8, and cp Z I o N ) . Not so names in -in. JEshUrUn a t BABYLON (q.v., 5 5 ) was called E-sag-ila of which SAG-IL is
and JSdiithfin are no doubt exactly parallel; but till equated on the one band to the Assyrian phrases ri-Sa-ane-&-
the literary history of those words is more firmly turn (2 R 30 1 4 & 2[cp Br. 6146D, ‘high points’; na-3C-d ;a n’-
e-ii( 2 R 26 59 c [cp Br. 61481). ‘ lifting u p the head,’ Su-&ezc &z
established they afford no sure basis for comparison.2 n’-Si(z R 303 a [cp Br. 36141), and on the other hand to za6uZ
in the phra5e i-nu zu-bal ra+mz-ni-Sw (2 R 1545 e [Brun. 34151).
1 So M T and @L ; @BA avoids the resulting discrepancy b y Muss-Arnolt compares z R 47 a-b 13 where ma-fiir da-’-tu,
omitting the clause. ‘receiver of a bribe,’ is equated with ; a m zn-ab-bi-Zu: see
2 Hommel finds names in -8n apart from such names as Beitr. z. Ass. 2280. Guyard‘s suggestion was contested by
Haldon, in S. Arabia: KaidOn, ’Saywiin (Glaser : Hommel, Hal&vy(REf, 1885, a, p. 299,1887, a,p. 148); cpalso Ndldeke,
AuA U. Abhandl. gg), b u t only from +‘y rmts. ZDMG 40 729.
5385 5386
ZEBULUN ZEBULUN
What elements were united in the population of the mountain where sacrifices were offered. If there was
district in the times referred to in the earliest notices in B. Cults. a religious fair, not at all an unlikely thing,2
the OT we cannot say. On a famous occasion they are It would explain the inflow of wealth. What
said to have manifested a noble valour (Judg. 5 2 0 ) led the mountain referred to is it is impossible to guess (cp
by their leaders (v. 146).l Cp also 46 I O , and see I SSACHAR , 5 2 ) : we may only be sure that it was not,
N APHTALI , 5 3. According to J (Judg. 130) Zebulun as the Targum imagined, Zion. I t must have been
was not able to expel the Canaanites from Kitron and some mountain not far from Esdraelon. Was it per-
Nahalol (g g i. ) ; but they had to join the labour gangs.2 haps the mountain where in the Elijah story the
I t should be noted, however, that whilst a similar state- sacrifices were offered? W a s the Baal whose defeat
ment is made about the Naphtalite Canaanites in v. 33, was witnessed by Ahab known as Baal-zebul? Ahab’s
in Gen. 49 15 the subject of the sentence is an Israelite wife is said to have been called Jezebel. His son, too,
tribe (cp below, n. 3) : it is the Issacharites them- when ill sent to inquire of Baal-zebul. No doubt, as
selves that join the gangs. Or should the last couplet the story now reads, Baal-zebu1 was the god (a=+
of v. 15 (Issachar) belong to v. 14 (Zebulun)? \IDS ’ to ?rpou6XBtupa= pa@) of Ekron. That, however, may
bear’ (or should we read 5 x 5 ) would then be a play on be a gloss (or does Ekron come from Jokneam, on the
the name Zebulun, if $21 in Hebrew really meant ‘ to edge of Carmel?) : we have no knowledge anywhere
carry’ (cp above, 5 4, end). Moreover it is not at all else of such a god at Ekron. The embellished tale of
certain that the subjects to the various verbs in Judg. Elijah calling down fire on the messengers may be a
127-36 are original ; they may in some cases +e incor- very late accretion (Be. K i . ) ; but the mountain on
rectly ~ u p p l i e d . ~W e cannot tell how the newcomers which the prophet (originally Elisha?) was said to
came to terms with those who were already in possession. have been found sitting by the messengers of the oracle-
According to the Blessing of Jacob’ indeed Zebulun seeking king must surely have been some well-known
plants himself on the sea coast (Gen. 49 13). At a much sacred eminence. May it not have been the height of
later time, too, ‘the way of the sea’ (0.3 7-13) is a Baal-zebu1 I And may that not have been the mountain
synonym for Zebulun or Naphtali. I n Judg. 517 the of Zebulun of Dt. 33 ~ g a ?
saying is transferred to Asher (cp Gunkel, Gen.PI 425). Baal-zebu1 would then naturally suggest the Baal-lebanon of
The ideas which underlay these statements are lost to C I S 1 5 , which Jensen identifies with the god Amurru, ‘lord of
US.^ T h e transit traffic was no doubt important. On the mountain ’ ( b t l s b d i : Z A 11gos)-the Aramaeans ex r e d y
the via meris from Damascus across the upper Jordan say that Ahab’s god is a ‘god of the mountains’(pin +&&a
westSemitic form of the storm-god RammBn. Ramman, In
a t Jisr el-banst and down through Galilee to the coast F t , shares with gama: the title of bel-bin‘ (5 R 63 2, 35b),
see Schumacher, / a d a n , 55, and PEFQ, Ap. 1889, p. oracle-god,’ and as ‘god of the storm-flood’ (68L a67269 he
78 f.,GASm. H G 425-30. This same overland traffic wields both the lightning (I K. 18 38) and the axe (cp z K. 6 4-7?)
may be what is referred to in the grandiloquent terms (Zimmern, K A TW,4q3 447s). %en Elisha is hard pressed by
the Aramaeans it IF the mountain ’4 that is seen to be full of
of the saying in the ‘ Blessing of Moses ’ (Dt. 3 3 1 8 3 ) : chariots of fire (2 K. 6 17). Was it, in the original form of the
‘The abundance of the seas do they suck story, earth from that sacred mountain that the Rimmon-
And the hidden things of the sand. .’5 .. worshipper wanted (2 K. 5 17) to insure his success (2 K. 5 I a@)?
That the holy mountain was identified locally need not prevent
No doubt the Tesfamenf of Zebulun has much to tell about the prevalence of a less concrete, more mythological, idea
successful fishing and Targ. Onk. speaks even of subduing ( S I N A I , CONGREGATION [MOUNT OF], BAAL-ZEBUB).
provinces with sdips 6 whilst Talm. Shdb. 26 refers to the Of the place-names connected with Zebulun Rimmon
wealth derived from’traffic in purple dyes (cp ’the Issacharite
TOLA and P UAH : see ISSACHAR 7), to which Targ. pseudo-Jon. is not the only one to suggest a religious cult. On a
adds the making of glass. The view suggested above however, possible connection of Bethlehem with Lahamu, see
is perhaps more historical. Stucken, accepting the ’references E LHANAN ( 5 2, end). On suggested traces of ‘Athe
to maritime life, connects Zebulun with the sign Capricornus
(MVG, 1902,p. 189). and Kasin see E TH - KAZIN . Cp von Gall, AZtisi-ad.
Kultstatten, I 24-I 2 6.
Dt. 33 r9a, on the other hand, contains a couplet (see How much significance, if any, is to be attached to
next 0) which suggests that the population was mixed. the fact that Zebulun is classed with Issachar as a Leah
The Aramzan element must have become strong. 7.aLeah-tribe. tribe whilst Naphtali goes with Dan as
There would no doubt, however, be a strong Israelite a Bilhah-Rachel tribe. is disputed (see
party. I t seems to have been able to make its voice R ACHEL , 5 I, Z ILPAH , 5 zf., and cp TRIBES; $5 11%).
heard (see J ONAH , G ATH - HEPHER ). On the possibility T h e Bilhites, Naphtali and Dan, may have been regarded
that ‘ a greater than Jonah ’ also came from a Zebulun- as farther from the centre ; they were not in historical
ite town see N ARARETH . T h e connection of Galilee times of any importance. Zebulun, indeed, isnot much
with Judzea in later times (see G ALILEE , 5 3 , N APHTALI , more prominent. None of the great actors in the
§ 3) seems to be reflected in Ps. 68 27 [.E] (chiefs of Palestinian drama is assigned to the tribe (see, however,
Zebulun, chiefs of Naphtali). 7 On Zebulunite ‘judges ’ $$ 5 end). Its brother tribe, however, may have played
see below, 5 7. some part in the history of Israel (see I SSACHAR , 5 4):
How Dt. 331gn was meant to be read is uncertain : it is mentioned before Zebulun not only in the story of
but it appears to tell of comings of many to some Jacob’s family but also in most of the lists of the tribes.
It is rather remarkable, therefore, that the order is
1 Credit is given them for’a share in another struggle (Gideon- reversed in five more important passages : the three
Jerubbaal) in the present text of Judg. 6 356, but not in 723. poetical pieces (Judg. 5 Gen. 49 Dt. 33), and the two
2 Dn is the gang of the corvhe, not the labour. Cp conversely
the Aesyr. idiom za-bi-il kw-du-n‘ used of the corvhe, not places dealing with the partitionof Canaan (Nu. 3419-29
the pang.
3 Cp for example how Targ. Jer. has inverted the saying in 1 For ’13 C6 reads I.$oAdpsv’uovurv-i.e., either 7-17 (Josh.
Gm. 49 156 referred to above. 23 5 t) or cynn (often), or (Ball) wy-but the Greek text IS not
4 Gen. 49 13 has been emended and will he emended again and to be preferred.
again. It seems to containdouhlets. KInl is hardly possible. 2 Cp C. H. Graf, Der Segen Moses, 46 : on religious fairs cp
5 Bertholet suggests that ’>?% represents a verb, preserved in
Sprenger, AZfe Ge?:. Arab. 223f: Unfortunately we have
little direct information about the visitations of sanctuaries at a
@‘s r a s o ~ ~ o l ; v . r o v ’l?V,
= viz.,’the verb 033 = D33, ‘gather.’ Ball distance. There was probably a good deal of it. Cp ‘Dan to
had suggested 1 ~ ~ (‘pour 1 1 out’)or iyn? (‘drain’). What @’s Beersheba,’ Expositor, 5th ser., 8411-421(1898).
3 It may be noted, however, that the boundaries of Zebulun,
&rr6pra (for ynp) represents is not clear ; Cheyne (Ex#. T Naphtali and Issachar are represented RS having met at Tabor
10 qsx) suggested il$?l (wrongly for 531,whence MT h). He (cp T A B ~ R ,
$ 2). Cp Hos. 5 I, and see v. Gall, Alfisraelitiscltc
restored : ‘And the t r i a k e s of merchants shall the suck.’ Kulfsfatten, 124J
6 Pesh. findsships,mentionedin Gen. 49, and Ball txere(PSBA 4 The scene seems in the present text to he laid at Dothan.
17 167s [18951) and in Dt. 33 (PSBA 18 ~ z g J [18961). 5 Dodo the Bethlehemite can hardly be supposed to belong to
7 The flattering account of the tribal eponym in Test. 1 2 Patr. N. Palestine. otherwise the Zebulunite Bethlehem might be
(Zebulun) is remarkable. referred to in ‘connectionwith the suggestion in ISSACHAR, # 2.
5387 5388
ZEBULUN ZECHARIAH
Josh. 19).1 Cp I SSACHAR , § I, e n d ; TRIBES, mentioned, two of the towns to be referred to im-
I O , iii. mediately (Jokneam, which, according to Josh. 19 1 1 , did
On the assuniption of the early arrival of Issachar not belong to Zebulun, and Dimnah= Rimmonah) and
and Zebulun, their being nevertheless ' younger ' than KARTAH (Kartan in Josh. 21 32 is Naphtalite).
the more southern tribes has been explained by Steuer- ii. Boundary.- According to Josephus ( A n t . v. 122,
nagel as due to -their arriving later at their final seat § 84) the Zebulunites were settled as far as Gennesaret
(Einwanderuizg, 33, c ) . ~ In fact he thinks he has (phxpt reuvuaplbos) and about Carmel and the sea.
found evidence that the Zebulunites settled in mid- The delimitation of territory in Josh. 19 10-14 cannot be
Palestine for a time before moving northwards. T h e really made out. The line is given first westwards (v.
'judge' Elon (Judg. l211$) is obviously the eponym of IO$), and then eastwards (I.$), of a place already
a city or clan (or both) Elon. I n any case he is said referred to (5 8) called Sarid in MT, which may be
to have been buried in a city the name of which is TeZZ Shadzid (see S ARID ). Westward the line is
vocalised in M T as AIJALON( p . v . , z ) , but should drawn past ' Dabbesheth' (see M ARALAH , D ABBESHETH )
perhaps be ELOIV(p.. ., 2). N o such town being to the wiidy that is before Jokneani (TeN Kuimzin).
assigned to Zebulun in Josh. 19 10-16. Steuernagel Eastward it is drawn to C HISLOTH - TABOR ( I R s d ) and
supposes that the Elon meant is the Elou assigned on to D ABERATH (DebGufyeh),which belonged, accord-
in 1943 to Dan, and that the words ' i n the land of ing to 2128, to Issachar, thence, if the text is sound and
Zebulun ' were added to a Elon ' in Judg. 1212 by a we do not suppose a fusion of two accounts, turning
copyist who wished to exclude this very identification, sharp W. to JAPHIA( YqZ), only to recover a position
which seemed to him obviously incorrect. Stener- N. of Iksd but W. of Debciriyeh at G ATH - HEPHEK
nagel, on the (contrary, thinks that the excluded (el-Meeshhed), and continue a course due N. (see ETH-
interpretation is correct, and therefore holds that KAZIN) to R IMMON [RV ; (Rummiineh) on the
Zebulun, like N APHTALI ( q . ~ . , I ) , halted in central S. margin of the plain of Buttauf, across which it con-
Palestine for a.time. He admits, however, that the tinues (see N EAH , H ANNATHON ) to the 'valley of
identification he assumes is precarious. It is ; moreover, J IPHTAH - EL ' (p...), somewhere near Tell Jaf%t, due E.
the assertion that no town Elon is assigned to Zebulun of Haifa. T h e intention appears to be to give the
i n Josh. must be qualified by reference to the incom- southern and eastern boundary. Real definite frontiers
pleteness of the list of towns (see below, 5 g i). there cannot have been, as the discrepant data show
It has been customary to assign to Zebulun the (cp also I SSACHAR , N APHTALI , ASHER). Generally,
'judge' Ibzan 011 the ground of his being called a Zebulun must have lain NW. of Issachar, W . of the
Bethlehemite. Wnckler. however, holds that the southern part of Naphtali. and S(E).of Asher. On the
Bethlehem intended is the southern town, which at that exuberant fertility and bnsy life of the country, see
time would be a part of ' Benjamin' (see above, col. GASm. FIG chap. 20, and cp G ALILEE , § 4.
2583 n. I ) . On the other hand it is difficult to dis- H. W. H.
sociate Ibzan ( p ~ from) Ebez (p: Josh. 1920), a ZECHARIAH ( S V l > T , more often ;lr?7T,
as if
town assigned to Issachar (cp ABEz),3 between which ' Yahwk remembers ' [IS 32. 521 ; but the original form
and Zebulun there was probably no clear demarcation. of Zechariah was probably Zichri, which (see Z ICHRI )
P s genealogy of Zebulun is slight : 4 it contains three is a clan-name. A study of the names with which
names 5-Sered (or Seded?) and Jahleel, which we can ' Zechariah ' is grouped (e.g., Meshelemiah, from
8, Genealogical. hardly venture to distinguish from Ishme'eli) strongly confirms this [Che.] ; zA)(AplA[c]
the towns Sarid and Nahalal of Josh. [BKAQL], whence the Grzcised form Z ACHARIAS
19 IO 1 5 , in spite of the differences in the spelling,c and CP. 21. I).
Elon, on which s t e above (preceding S). Gaddiel. too, I . b. Berechiah. b. Iddo (also loosely, b. Iddo), a
the Zebulunite 's,py,' was perhaps assigned to one of prophet who, together with Haggai, is our best
these three (Sodi. V D = ~ ( * ) ~ D: Nu.1310). authority for the religious state of the early post-exilic
Is Parnach, 7119,the ' father of Elizur the Zehulunite delegate community at Jerusalem, and is the author of Zech.
to survey W. Palestine (Nu 3425), a corruption of the same 1-8. To these prophets the rebuilding of the temple
name? Helon (i5n),the 'father' of the Zehulunite census- is largely due (Ezra 51 614). It is probably this
delegate (Nu. 1 g 2 7 ' 24 29 10 16) may come from Elon. Zechariah who is mentioned as a p?-ieSt in Neh. 12 16
i. Towns.-Of the five towns remaining out of the (cp no. 1 1 ) .
list of twelve originally
- . given
- as we have seen (,"5 I ). in 2. Son of Jeroboam II., king of Israel, and the fifth
9.
Geographical. Josh. 19 (v. I S ), the only one that
can be identified with certainty is
and last king of the house of J EHU ( z K. 1429 158-12;
A V Z ACHARIAH , arupras [B in 1429, A]). Me reigned
BE7HLEHEM ( q .v. : B.Ft-La&m,7 m. N W of Nazareth). but six months, and was then slain by Shallunl b.
On the other four, of which Nahalal has been referred Jabesh in I BLEAM ( q . v ..) On the date of his accession,
to (I 8), and Shimron is of interest in connection with see CHRONOLOGY, 9 34.
the Sa-me-na of Esarhaddon (see S IMEON , 6 iii.), 3. The father of Ahi or Ahijah, the mother of Hezekiah ( z K.
see K ATTATH , NAHALAL, SHIMRON, and I DALAH . 18 2, AV ZACHARIAH{axxarou [A] ' 2 Ch. 29 I).
As often, two of the five (Kattath and Nahalal, called 4. A chief of R E U ~ E(8N13) I Cd. 5 7.
Nahalol) are probably the towns which J tells us 5. b. Meshelemiah a Korhi;e Levite, praised for his 'discreet
counsel' ( I Ch. 9 ZI 26 2 14).
Zebulun did not secure (Judg. 130). P adds the infor- 6. h. J EHIEL , of B ENJ AMIN (8 g ii.@), I Ch. 9 37, (<ax oup [AI,
mation that of forty-eight cities assigned to the Levites ewe^ [Ll), who in I Ch. 831 is called Z ACHER, RSZeoher
four were Zebulunite (Josh. 21 35) : the Nahalal just Q in pause, S a x w p [RI, SaKxovp [AI. S ~ X [Ll).P~
7. A Levite, a temple musician ( I Ch. 15 18 20 16 5), perhaps
1 The accidental omission of Zebulun in I Ch. 2-9 and of
the same as (9).
Issachar in Judg. 117-36 may be in some way connected with 8. A prie5cyI Ch. 15 24).
this change of order. 9. h. Isshiah a Levite (I Ch. 2425).
I O. b. H o d , a Merarite Levite (I Ch. 26 11).
2 Land, on the other hand, speaking of the name Zehulun
11. Father of Iddo, a Manassite ( I Ch. 27 21, <aSS[rlrov [R41).
' the mo5t difficultto explain ' says (assuming that zli6al m e a d 12. One of Jehoshaphat's commissioners for teaching the Law
'dwell') 'Can the tribe at'some time or other have been so
named h; its neighbours or kindred hecause it had a fixed abode (2 Ch. 17 7). See B EN- HAIL.
earlier than they?' ( D e Gidr Oct. 1871, p. 21, n. I). 13. An Asaphite Levite (2 Ch.2014). [ = 2 6 , see MATTHA-
NIAH.]
3 Similarly Kartan is assigned in Josh. 21 32 to Naphtali,
Kartah in II. 34 to Zebulun. 14. A son of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 21 2).
4 On its omission In I Ch. 2-9 see above n I. 15. b. Jehoiada, a reforming chief priest in the reign
5 In Jubilees 3423 Zebulun's wife is k & i n [Eth.], Adni
[Sg..l ; the Bk. of J.ishar give- Marusa (cp Charles /ud. 206). 1 Is the omission of a western houndary to he connected in
For Nahalal = Jahleel cp Jemuel = Nemuel 'in R EUBEN some way with the references to the sea in Gen. 49 14 Dt.
(I 1 2 ) . 33 18f.?
r
5389 5390
ZECHARIAH, BOOK O F ZECHARIAH, BOOK O F
of Joash, who was stoned to death in the temple court, not be limited, and it needs none, for Y a h d is its protection.
at the king’s command ( z Ch. 2 4 2 0 8 , arahpras [BA] The catastrophe of Babel (the land of the north) is near to come ;
then the exiles of Zion shall stream back from all quarters, the
Jos. Ant. ix. 8 6 ; cp references in Jer. Talm. Tuunith, converted heathen shall join them Yahrve himself will dwell in
69 I 2, Bab. Talm. Sanhedrin, 96 2, Lightfoot, Tempk- the midst of them; even now hd stirs himself from his holy
Sewice, 36). It was a Jewish saying that the blood- habitation.
3 1-10. The high priest Joshua is accused before Yahwt by
stains were never washed away until the temple was Satan, but is acquitted and given rule in Yahwt’s house and
burnt at the captivity. The Targ. on Lam. 220 ( ’ Shall courts, with the right of access to Yahwe in priestly intercession.
the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of The restoration of the temple and its service is a pledge of still
YahwB? ’) refers this especially to Zechariah, but through higher things. The promised ‘branch’ (or ‘shoot’ nnr), the
Messiah, will come ; the national kingdom is to de restored ;
a confusion calls him the son of Iddo. On the possible and a time of general felicity dawns, when every man shall sit
reference to Zechariah’s death in Mt. 23 35 Lk. 11 51, see happy under his vine and under his fig tree. As by rights the
Z ACHARIAS (9). Messianic kingdom should follow immediately on tEe exile, it is
16. A prophet who, according to the Chronicler, was probable that the prophet designs to hint in a guarded way that
Zeruhbahel, who in all other places is mentioned along with
as influential with Uzziah as the priest Jehoiada had
been with Joash ( 2 Ch. 26 5). Probably ‘ in the vision
& . ’
oshua, IS on the . point of ascending the throne of his ancestor
avid. The jewel with seven facets is already there, only the
of God‘ (Z.C.) should rather be ‘ i n the fear of God’ inscription has still to be engraved on it (39). The charges
brought against the high prirst consist simply in the obstacles
(see IZV1’LU~)-z’.e.for nim? we should read n p ? (6, that.have hitherto hindered the restoration of the temple and its
T g . , Pesh., Ar., and some MSS). According to service ; and in like manner the guilt of the land (3 9) is simply
Hitzig the author of Zech. 9-11. the still continuing domination of foreigners.
4 1-14. Beside a lighted golden candlestick of seven branches
17. An Asaphite Levite (2 Ch. 29 13, & p a s [E]). stand two olive trees-Zeruhbabel and Joshua, the two anointed
18. A Kohathite Levite ( 2 Ch. 34 12). ones-specially watched over by him whose seven eyes run
‘9. A ‘ruler of the temple’ in the time of Josiah (2 Ch. 35 8) ; through the whole earth. This explanation of the vision i s
according to Bertheau, ‘priest of the second order,’ cp 2 K.25 18 separated from the description by a n animated dialogue, not
Jer. 53 24. In I Esd. 1 8 , ZACHARIAS. quite clear in its expression, in which it is said that the mountain
Among the lists of the exiles who returned in Ena-Neh. we of obstacles shall disappear before Zeruhbahel, and that, having
find seven men of this name : begun the building of the temple, he shall also bring it toan end
20. One of the b‘ne Parosh (Ezra5 3 16 Neh. S 4, cp I Esd. in spite of those who now mock at the day of small beginnings.
8 30 41). 5 1-4. A written roll flies over the Holy Land ; this is a con-
2 1 . One of the b’nE Bebai (EzraSIr, acapras [Bl, cp I Esd. crete representation of the curse which in future will fall of itself
8 37, SaXapraL [Bl). on all crime, so that, eg., no man who has suffered theft will
22. One of the b’nE Elam (Ezra10 26, cp I Esd. 9 27). have occasion himself to pronounce a curse against the thief (cp
23. A Judahite, ancestor of Athaiah (Neh. 114). Judg. 17 2).
24. A Shilonite (Neh. 11 5 , 8&ra [D], @&LO [K]). 55-1,. Guilt, personified as a woman, is cast into an ephah-
25. One of the h’ne Pashhur (Neh. 1112, cqaprra [B]). measure with a heavy lid and carried from Judah to Chaldza,
26. An Asaphite (Neh. 12 35 41 [om. BN*A) [=ql. where it is to have its home for the future.
6 1-8. The divine teams, four in number, again traverse t h e
27. h. Jeberechiah, a contemporary of Isaiah ( S z ) , world toward the four winds, to execute Yahwe‘s commands.
That which goes northward is charged to wreak his anger on
who served with Uriah the priest, as a ‘trustworthy the N. country. The series of visions has now reached its close,
witness ’ in connection with the sign Maher-shLlL1- returning to its starting-point in 1 7 3 [On the ‘mountains of
hashbaz. Some identify him with the father of Abijah, brass’ see BRASS ; and on the colour of the horses see COLOIJRS.~
An appendix follows (69-15). Jews from Babylon have
3 ; others, with the Levite, 17. Hitzig makes him the brought gold and silver to Jerusalem; of these the prophet
author of the anonymous chaps. 12-14 of Zechariah, must make a crown designed for the ‘branch who is to build
Bertholdt, the author of chaps. 9-11. Observe that YahwFs house and sit king on the throne, hut retain a good
the name of his father is essentially the same as that understanding with the high priest. Zerubhabel is certainly
meant here and if the received text names Joshua instead of
of the father of the well-known prophet [I]. him (611), ;his s: only a correction, made for reasons easy to
understand, which breaks the context and destroys the sense and
ZECHARIAH, BOOK OF. Zechariah, son of Bere- the reference of ‘them hoth’ in v. 13.
chiah, son of Iddo, or by contraction son of Iddo (see The third section (7f.’),dated from the fourth year of Darius,
contains an inquiry whether the fast days that arose in the
1. Chaps. 1-8: Z ECHA R IAH , I), appeared as a prophet captivity are still to be observed, with a comforting and en-
in Jerusalem alongwith H AGGAI (4.v.), couraging reply of the prophet.
contents. in the second year of Darins Hystaspis
Kosters (Her-sM nun ZsrueZ, 1894) laid stress upon
(520 B. c. ), to warn and encourage the Jews to a d d & the fact that neither in Haggai nor in Zechariah do we
themselves at length to the restoration of the temple, the Jews in Jerusalem represented
which then still lay in ruins. Supported by the prophets, a, Their find
historical as consisting of returned exiles. T h e
Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah, and Joshua, the high background. fact is as stated ; but it does not pre-
priest, set about the work, and the elders of Judah built clude us from supposing that the return
and the work went forward (Ezra 5 I / 6 r4). The first of a baud of exiles may have marked the starting-point
eight chapters of the book of Zechariah exactly fit into of a new era of Jewish history. Few in number they
this historical setting. They are divided by precise indeed were, and they did not assume an exclusive-
chronological headings into three sections-(a) 11-6, attitude towards the vastly more numerous class of Jews.
in the eighth month of the second year of Darius ; ( b ) who had remained behind in Judaea, whom, rather, on
17-615. on the twentyfourth day of the eleventh month the contrary, they sought to win over to their own view,
of the same year ; ( c ) 7-8, on the fourth day of the and urged to congregate in and around Jerusalem, so,
ninth month of the fourth year of Darius. T h e first as to make the desolate ruins once more the focus of a
section is a preface containing exhortation in general new theocracy. Stade thinks that the buoyancy and
terms. joyous hopefulness which we perceive in Haggai and
T h e main section is the second ( b ) , containing a series Zechariah may have been due to the revolt of Smerdis.‘
of night visions, the significant features of which are But such a shaking of the Persian empire after the death
pointed out by an angel who stands by the prophet and of Cambyses could not possibly have been predicted as
answers his questions : still future (Hag. 2 6 ) two years after its occurrence, and
1 7 . ~ 7 . The divine chariots and horses that make the round of at a time when it had already been almost recovered
the world hy Yahwe‘s orders return to the heavenly palace and from, and, moreover, the Jews could hardly have
report that there is still no movement among the nations, no sign
of the Mes4anic crisis. Seventy years have passed and Zion rejoiced so heartily over it, their feelings tow-ards the
and the cities of Judah still mourn. Sad news! dnt Yahwt Persiqns being friendly. I t seems more likely that the
gives a comfortable assurance of his gracious return to Jerusalem Jews heard with gladness of the conquest of Bahylon-
and the rebuilding of his temple. that is to say, the second-under Darius Hystaspis.
118-21 12 1-41. Four horns representing the hostile world-
power that oppresses Israel aAd Jerusalem, are routed by four The vengeance on Babylon, which Cyrus had not fully
smiths.
21-13 [5-171. The new Jerusalem is laid out with the 1 [GVIZ rr3. The revolt of Nidintu-Bel in 521 has also heen
measuring line. I t is to have no walls, that its population may suggested (Che.Jew. Rel. Lye, 1 4 . 1
5391 5392
ZECHARJAH, BOOK O F ZECHARIAH, BOOK OF
carried out, nowat last seemed tohe accomplished and the There is a striking contrast between chaps. 1-8 and
wrath of YahwG against the land of the Korth to fnlfil chaps. 9-14, The prophecy 1-8 is closely tied to the
itself (Zech. 68 26[1o][). Thereby also was quickened *. Ch~acter.situation and the wants of the coni-
munity of Jerusalem in the second year
the more general Messianic expectation that all nations
would at last acknowledge the supremacy of YahwP. of Darius I . , and all that it aims a t is the restoration
'Yhroughout the first eight chapters the scene is of the temple and perhaps the elevation of 7~rubbabel
Jerusalem in the early part of the reign of Darius. to the throne of David. Chapters 9 8 contain no
Zerubbabel and Joshua, the prince and the priest, are trace of this historical situation and deal with quite
the leaders of the community. The great concern of other matters. They are more obscnre and more
the time and the chief practical theme of these chapters fantastic. There are corresponding differences in style
is the building of the .temple ; but its restoration is only and speech; and it is particularly to be noted that,
the earnest of greater things to follow-viz.. the glorious whilst the superscriptions in chaps. 1-8 name the
restoration of David's kingdom. The horizon of these author and give the date of each oracle with precision,
prophecies is every\rhere limited by the narrow con- those in the second part (91 121) are without name or
ditions of the time, and their aim i s clearly seen. T h e date. That both parts d o not belong to the same
visions hardly veil the thought. and the mode of expres- author must be admitted.
sion is usually simple, except in the Messianic passages, Most recent critics make the second part the older. Chaps.
where the tortuousness and obscurity are perhaps in- 9-11 are ascribed to a contcmporary of Amos and Hosea, about
tentional. Noteworthy is the affinity between some the middle of the eighth century R.c., because Ephraim is m m -
tioned a s well as Judah, and Assyria along with Egypt (IO I O ),
notions evidently not framed by the prophet himself a n d whilst the neighhours of Israel appear in 9 I$ in the same way
the prologue to Job,--the heavenly hosts that wander as in Amos 1-2. T h a t chaps. 12-14 are also pre-exilic is held to
through the earth and bring back their report to Yahwe's appear especially in the attack on idolatry and lying prophecy
(13 1.6); hut, as this prophecy speaks only of Judah and Jeru-
throne, the figure of Satan, the idea that suffering and salem, it is dated after the fall of Samnria, and 1s assigned to the
calamity are evidences; of guilt and of accusations pre- last days of the Judrean kingdom on the strength of 1%11, where
sented before God. a n allusion is seen t o the mourning for King Josiah, slain in
Passing from chaps. 1-4 to chaps. 9 8 , we at once battle a t Megiddo.
feel ourselves transported into a different world. It is more likely that chaps. 9-14 all together are of
Yahwe's word is accomplished on Syria-Phmnicia and Philistia much later date. These predictions have no affinity
(H A DR A C H [q.v.l and Damascus are first mentioned); and then , either with the prophecies of Amos,
the Messianic kingdom begins in Zion 6. Probably
Hosea, and Isaiah, or with that of Jere-
3. Chaps. 9-14 : and the Israelites detained among th; later. miah. T h e kind of eschatology which we
conb&,s, heathen, Jud;th .and Ephraim combined
receive a part in it. T h e might of the son; find in Zech. 9-14 was introduced by Ezekiel, who in
of Javan is broken in battle against this king$om (chap.9). particular is the author of the conception that the time
After a n intermezzo of three verses (101-3: Ask rain of of deliverance is to be preceded by a joint attack of all
YahwS not of the diviners') a second and quite analogous
Mcssiakc prophecy follows. T h e foreign tyrants fall ; the nations on Jerusalem, in which they come to final over-
lordship of Assyria and Egypt has a n e n d ; the autonomy throw. The importance attached to the temple service,
and martial power of the nation are restored. The scattered even in Messianic times (Zech.14), implies a n author
exiles return as citizens of the new theqcracy, all obstacles who lived in the ideas of the religious commonwealth of
in their way parting asunder as when the waves of the
Red Sea gnve passage to Israel at the founding of the old post-exilic times. So also the use of ' Zion ' as a name
theocracy (103-12). Again there is a n interlude of three verses for the theocracy. The diaspora and the cessation of
(11 1-3): fire seizes the cedars of Lebanon and the oaks of prophecy (131-6) are presupposed. A future king is
Rnshun. This is followed by the difficult passage about the
shyherds. ,The shepherds (rulers) of the nation make their hoped for ; but in the present there is no Davidic king,
floc an article of trade and treat the sheep as sheep for the only a Davidic family standing on the same level with
shambles. Therefore, the inhabited world shall fall a sacrifice other noble families in Jerusalem (127 12). The
to the tyranny of its kings, whilst Israel is delivded to a shepherd ' bastard' (mixed race) of Ashdod reminds us of Neh.
who feeds the sheep for those who make a trade of the flock
(1E)Xg ':!y!B, 11 7 11='they that sell them,' a. 5 ) and enters on 1 3 2 3 8 ; and the words of 912 ('to-day, also, do I
his office with two stave:. ' Favour' and ' Union.' He destroys
declare that I will render double unto thee') have no
' t h e three shepherds' it; one month, hut is soon weary of his sense unless they refer back to the deliverance from
flock and the flock of him. He breaks the staff Favour'--Le., Babylonian exile.
the covenant of peace with the nations-and asks the traders for Whilst chaps. 9-14, are thus all later than chaps. 1-8,
his hire. Receiving thirty pieces of silver, he casts it into the
temple treasury and breaks the staff ' Union'-ie., the brother- they are not themselves homogeneous: they fall into
hood between Judah an'3 Israel. H e is succeeded by a foolish two well-marked divisions-9-11 and 12-14.
shepherd, who neglects his flock and lets it go to ruin. At The latter division [12-141 contains two prophecies
length Yahwe iutervenes; the foolish shepherd falls by the which are little more than a standine doematic formula
sword ; two-thirds of the people perish with him in the Messianic ~, I

crisis, but the remnant of one-third forms the seed of the new of eschatology filled up with concrete
theocracy (114-17 taken with 13 7-9, according to the necessary 6.
details. and can be understood well
transposition proposed by Ewald). All this must he a n allegory enough (if need be) without our knowing the his-
of past events, the time present to the author and his hopes for
the future beginning only a t 11 17 13 7-9. torical setting. The actual situation a t the time of
Chap. 12 presents a thkd variation on the Messianic promise. composition discloses itself only in one or two features,
All heathendom is gathered together against Jerusalem and as, for example, when the country of Judah is contrasted
perishes there. Y a h d first gives victory to the conntryfolk of
Judah and then they r e s x e the capital. After this triumph the with the city of Jerusalem, and the deliverance of the
noblest houses of Jerusaleni hold, each by itself, agreat lamenta- city comes from the country-a feature which seems t o
tion over a martyr ' whom they have pierced ' (or 'whom men indicate the Maccabrean period.
have pierced'). I t is taken for granted that the readers will The former division ( g - l l ) , on the other hand-which
know who the martyr is, and the exegesis of the church applies
the passage to Christ [cp HADAD-KIMMON]. Chap. 13 7 - 6 is again falls into two sections, 91-11 3 and 114-17+137-9
a continuation of chap. 12 ; the dawn of the d a y of salvation is -is much more concrete and cannot be understood at
accompanied by a general purging away of idolatry and the all if the date of its composition is not known. I n
enthusimn of false prophets. Yet R fourth variation of the
picture of the incoming of the Messianic deli\zerance is given in 91-113 we find that it is the Greeks (913; cp JAVAN)
chap. 14. The heathen gather against Jerusalem and take the a h o are the heathen power, the enemy of God, which
city, hut d o not utterly destroy the inhahitants. Then Yahwe must be overthrown before the Messiah's kingdom
a t a time known only to himself, shall appear with all his saint;
on Mount Olivet and destroy the heathen in battle, while the can come. Assyria and Egypt, which take the place of
men of Jerusalem take refuge in their terror in the great cleft Javan in chap. 10, are the kingdom of the Seleucidae
that opens where Yahw.5 sets his foot. Now the new era begins and the Ptolemies. T h e region of H ADRACH ( qA ) ,
and eveii the heathen do homage to Yahwe hy bringing du; Damascus. and Hamath, against which the wrath of
tribute to the annual feast of tabernacles. All m Jerusalem is
holy down t o the hells on the horses and the cooking-pots [cp Yahwb is, in the first instance, directcd (91f.), is the
Crit. Bi6.1. seat, not of the old Assyrians, but of the Seleucidae.
5393 5394
ZECHER ZEDEKIAH
And inasmuch as Assyria here takes precedence of Egypt Van Kasteren (Rev.Bibl., 1895, p. 30) adopts the read-
,. we are able to fix the date of the present
Date. section more precisely as falling somewhere
ing Zerad, and plausibly identifies with Khirbt-f Seridi,
between Merj ‘Ayan (where he places ‘ the entrance of
within the first third of the second century B .c., for it Hamath’) and Hermon, to the S. of Kh. Sanbariyeh
was not till the beginning of that century that the Seleu- (see S IBRAIM ).
cidae became masters ofJudaea(SELEuCIDE,§ 7f.). T h e With regard to the second passage : Cornill thinks that the
second section ( 1 1 4 - 1 7 f 1 3 7 - 9 ) will also be of this date : original reading (see @) must have been simply ‘ t o the entrance
of Hamath’ and that ‘Zedadah’ (Le. ‘to Zedad’) was inter-
for a right understanding of it a correct apprehension polated after ‘ Hamath ’ from Nu. 348.’ ‘ (To) Hamath ’ hefore
of the historical situation is still more indispensable, ‘ Zedadah ’ w a s thus rendered useless, and so the two names
though, indeed, rendered very difficult not only by the changed places (see MT). The original @ of Ezek. did not, it
is assumed, contain the interpolation. The scribe who altered
bad state of the text, but also by our defective know- it simply made a n insertion; hence the existing MSS of QS
ledge of this period of Jewish history. By the owners represent ‘ Hamath‘ not only after but also before ‘Zedadah’
of the sheep who traffic in them we are to understand (VpaueASappa [B], vpa8’ah. [A], qpavarhaap’pa [VI, aSahaarpa8’
the Seleucid sovereigns who carried on a remunerative [VW.I).
According to the view of the geogra hicdl definitionsin Nu.
business in farming out their flocks to the shepherds. 34 and Ezek. 47 13 J? advocated egewhere (see RIBLAH,
‘The shepherds are the high priests and ethnarchs of SIBRAIM) the region referred to in the original text may have
the Jews ; by the rapid and violent changes of the been, not the land of Canaan, but the Negeb. I n that case,
Mt. Hor=Mt. Jerahmeel, Hamath=Maacath, Zedad or Zerad
shepherds the events which preceded and led up to the probably= Misgur, and Ziphron or Sibraim (to be identified)=
Maccabaean revolt are denoted. They were all of them Zarephath. Cp ZEROR. T. K. C.
worthless whether they traced their descent from Zadok ZEDECHIAS, RV Sedekias ( C ~ A ~ K I A C[BA])
or from Tobias. At last the measure of iniquity was I Esd. 146. See ZEDEKIAHi.
filled up by Menelaus, who may very well be meant by
the last cruel shepherd who is to bring on the cata- ZEDEKIAH (!iVpTi, also 3:?7?, see I, 2, 5 ,
strophe and the judgment ( 1 1 1 5 8 ) . The prominent C€~€KIA[C ] Sidl+%,the name of a king of Ashkelon,
; cp
man, who is a n exception to the rest, and does not temp. Sennacherib [ K ATN 1651).
come into the series, who takes upon him the office of I. The iast king of Judah (597-586).a son of JOSIAH
shepherd in the interests of the flock, but gives it up (2 K . 2 4 f : 2 C h . 3 6 1 0 3 ; in I Ch. 3 1 5 ~Jer.2712

when he sees that the flock is unworthy of his care, 1. Name. 281 293 4934 n*pir). According to 2 K.
might be Hyrcanus the son of Tobias. According to 2417, tiis original name was Mattaniah ; the
the (legendary) accounts we have of him he was a man king of ‘ Babel ’ (5x1) ‘ changed his name ’ to Zedekiah
of proud disposition and lofty plans who iived in undis- (Sidkiyah) when he raised this uncle of the deposed
guised enmity with his brethren the Tobiadze, overcame king to the throne of Judah. This act of sovereignty is
them and put two of them to death, and yet was unable in itself probable : cp the new name imposed by ASur-
to hold his own in Jerusalem (Jos. Ani. xii. 49 [I 2221, ed.
bani-pal on Necho I. a ( Limir-iSakku-ASur, ‘ let Aiur’s
Niese). In any case he was a person of quite a different viceroy see.’)
sort from the ordinary Jewish aristocrat. It is natural The special appropriatenessof the name selected is not obvious.
Parallel names suggest that ‘ Zedekiah’ (Sidgyah) means
to ask how we are to suppose that at his departure he properly ‘Zidkite,’and even if we suppose (rationally enough)
obtained his reward for having been shepherd. For, as that, when borne by the king it acquired the new meaning
a rule, the order was reversed and shepherds paid for ‘righteousnessof Yahw&,’3thatisby no means a clear expression
of Zedekiah‘s relation to his suzerain. No fully satisfactory
the right of feeding the sheep. But this trait in the explanation of this has been offered ; and yet Hebrew onomat-
picture is more easily understood in the case of Hyrcanus, ology cannot afford to confess itself baflled. The theory that in
whose position was quite exceptional, than in that of many passages ‘ Babel’ ti>>)= 5Nony- suggests an explanation.
the other shepherds. Perhaps his adherents may in the Since is in some OT passages probably niiswritteu for ‘ny-,
it follows that this great race-name may possibly he represented
end have given him money to leave Jerusalem when the by 137.4 Now SidkiyMu, ‘righteousness of Jerahmeel,’ is a
good understanding between them had come to a n end name that mighi cbnceivahly he given to a royal vassal of
and various external dangers were threatening. I t is Jerahmeel, after he had sworn fidelity (Ezek. 1713) to his
worth noticiug that the reward received by the shepherd suzerain.
Zedekiah was only twenty-one at his accession and it
is cast by him into the temple-treasury (1113) ; accord-
is probable that the queen-mother Hamutal made up by
ing to z Macc. 311,Hyrcanus, the son of Tobias, had a
deposit there.
a. Dangers. her own energy for the weakness of her
Literafure.-The literature of the book is cited by C. H. H. son. This certainly seems to be implied
Wright,‘ Z ~ c h w i a hand his PropJzecips,(’4 1879. See also by what Ezekiel says of her in one of his striking
Stade, Deuterozacharia’ ( Z ATW, 1881-2); and Wellhansen 5
similitudes (Ezek. 195). Whether it was so or not,
and Nowack‘s editions of the Minor Prophets. [Cp also there w a s on the part of the rulers no just political
G. A. Smith, TWPZVC Projhefs, vol. ii., and PROPHECY, 5 47.1 insight. Fidelity to the suzerain, and a strict mainten-
J. W.
ZECHER (V!),I Ch.831, RV. See ZECHARIAH, ance of the old moral traditions of Israel, would have
insured a peaceful though inglorious existence for king
i. 6. and people (cp Ezek. 176 1 4 ) . But the deportation of
ZECHRIAS (zexpioy [Bl ~ z e p i o y[AI). 1 E d . a large part of the upper class brought wealth and
81,RV=Ezra71, AZARIAH,3. political power to those who had had none of the
ZEDAD (17y; only in acc. ”f’,Y ; 377s [Sam.] ; necessary training. These new men ’ soon displayed
in a n intensified degree the vices of the worst of their
C A ~ A A A K[BLI, CAAAAAK [A], CAAAAK [F], Amdath predecessors (Ezek. 2225 27 246), and, with an obstinacy
[It.]), one of the points in the ideal northern frontier
which it is difficult for us moderns to understand,
of Canaan according to P or the later redactor (Nu.
cherished the hope of quickly throwing off the foreign
348), and also mentioned in the I/ passage of Ezekiel yoke. Meantime those who had gone into exile with
(47~5;for 453 see later). Robinson (BR 3461 n.),
Wetzstein (Reieisebe?icht, 8 8 ) , Furrer (ZDPV S q ) , 1 On the strange insertion of Zedekiah in v. 16 among the
Muhlau, and Socin, identify it with the the large village sons of Jeboiakim, see Benringer, who thinks that t h e author of
Sadud, between Riblah and Palmyra (long. 37’ E . ) ; the text may really have supposed Zedekiah to have been the
but this is too far E. if it is considered that both son of Jehoiakim, hut does not mention the possibility that the
scrihe m a y have misread the text before him. i1*ij1(Zechariah)
Hamath and Damascus are meant to be excluded. It would he a very possible name.
is also a n objection, that the implied view of the 2 Tiele BAG 356
northern frontier assumes a large part of the Lebanon 3 Cp ~ A M E S ,0 ;6, and note also Sidki-ilu, the name of an
district to be included within the Israelitish border. Ass. eponym (Del. Ass. H W B 564a).
Many besides Buhl (Pal. 6 6 ) will think that this carries
4 C o TEBALIAH. ..
The same exdanation amlies to all the
names’ ending in or beginning with;?*.
idealisation beyond what is probable (cp H OR , M OUNT ). 5 See Kraetzschmar, ad Zoc.

5395 5396
ZEDEKIAH ZEDEKIAH
Jehoiachin looked on at a distance with mingled contempt Mardnk and NabCl was introduced into the temple, or
and indignation (Ezek. 1 1 1 5 1 4 z z J ) , and Jeremiah, not that Zedekiah’s accession to the throne was without the
less than Ezekiel, recognised the moral incapacity of sanctions of Yahwism. H e thinks that it was only the
the new lords of Jerusalem. ‘ orthodox, monotheistic YahwB-cultus ’ which v a s
Whether, or how far, Nebuchadrezzar, king of abolished ; the ‘ ordinary Canannitish forms of cultus ’
Babylon, interfered in the affairs of Judah, remains (‘ no doubt partly identical with those of Zedekiah ’ )
obscure. T h e redactors of the narrative and prophetical were either allowed to remain, or, as the case might be,
writings certainly believed that the power which broke set up anew. And when Jeremiah (2717) urges the
up the national existence was the Babylonian. people to ‘ serve the king of 513 ’ that they might <live,’
When we look beneath the surface, however, we suspect that he means, ‘give up the hope of the restoration of the
there has been a great misunderstanding, and that, according to cultus in the sense of Josiah and of orthodoxy, and be
the extant fragments of the old Hebrew records, when restored
to something not unlike their original purity, it was the king of content with what is left.’ ‘This,’ Winckler adds, ‘is
J5rahmeel in N. Arabia who invaded Jewish territory, who he- the precise opposite of the demands of the Yahwk-party,
sieged and took Jerusalem and once and again carried away its to which Jeremiah, as a pro-Babylonian, is absolutely
inhabitants. We do not kkow enough of the political condition opposed.’ This scholar’s view of Jeremiah‘s attitude is
of N.Arabia to say what nation is represented by the archaising
name Jerahmeel but assume that there must have been some altogether original, and the hypothesis of the abolition
power capable Af enforcing his will on S. Palestine. It is of Yahd-worship is difficult to work out. For instance,
possible, of course, that the rBle of the N. Arabians was suhor- why should Zedekiah have given his support (as
dinate to that of the Bahylrnians (cp OeaDlAH [BOOK], 6 7);
hut this is only a hypothesis. All that we know IS that N. Winckler’s interpretation of Jer. 2 9 3 implies that he did)
Arabia was for a long ti,me regarded as the great oppressor of to a request for milder treatment by the Babylonians,
Israel. There is to some extent a similar probiem with regard when one of the chief objects of the party in favour of
to the captivity of the northern Israelites and the subsequent this request was the restoration of Jeconiah or Jehoiachin?
invasion (or invasions) of Judah in the time oi Hezekiah. We
are, however, in a worse position with regard to the captivities And is there any trace in Jeremiah or in Ezekiel of the
of Judah, for we have as yet n o cuneiform records of Babylonian supposed fact that the Yahwb-cult in the temple had
ivterference with Judah at the reported times of those cap- been violently closed, or in the records of the life of
tlvltlrs.
Another troublesome N. Arabian potentate was the king of Jeremiah that this enthusiast for YahwB was ’content
Misrim ; here again the name is an archaism.’ According to our with what was left ‘ after this catastrophe had occurred?
revised text of z K. 2 4 2 ‘hands’ of MiSrites had C p SHESHBAZZAR.
3. The already brought Judah very low in the reign of
Misrites. Jehoiakim : it is to such incursions, we helieve, It is true, the popular cults, chief among which was
’ that the 50-called Scythian rophecies ?f Jeremiah the imported Terahmeelite cult of Baal (i.e.. the sun-
really refer (see P ROPHET 5 26, end). gut, according to Jer. and the great ‘ Cnshite’ or
27 I 8 (substituting for ;he introductory verse the passage 6‘ Re’igion and %maelitish’ goddess ( L e . , either the
which now appears as Z S I ) , ~ the king of Aram (Le. not mora’ity’ moon, or less Drobablv the Dlanet
the great king of Jerahmeel, but some inferior king 0: the
border of Jewish territory) and the king of Mig~urtsent Venus),l attracted the majority’ more than &at of
ambassadors to Zedekiah, to concert a revolt. Evidently a YnhwB (as exhibited in Deuterononly). Not only
change of circumstances had occurred and the MiSrites were
now no longer anxious for the destrAction or weakening of Jeremiah but also Ezekiel2 expresses the utmost horror
Judah. This king of Miggur is no douht the personage miscalled a t this apostasy, as they regard it. Both prophets are
Pharaoh Hophra in the common text of Jer. 4430.4 For a time fully conscious of the connection between a low type of
the siege of Jerusalem by the Jerahmeelitei (which we refer to religion and immorality. It also appears that even
by anticipation) was interrupted hy a friendly diversion on the
part of a Misrite army. those Rho professed fidelity to Yahwism had extremely
It appears to be a trustworthy tradition that the callous consciences. Of this we have a striking evidence
prophet lererniah
~ . exhorted the rulers and .
” people
. of in Jer. 348-22. Certain rich citizens of Jerusalem, we
4. Jeremiah, Judah to abstain from any act of are told, emancipated their Hebrew slaves at the
Zedekiah, and rebellion, and that in doing so he was beginning of the siege (according to the prescriptions
the war-party. diametrically opposed to prophets of of Ex.21 1-4 Dt. 1 5 I,), but after the temporary raising
an inferior order (see TEREMIAII, z ; of the siege resumed possession of them. The motive
P ROPHET, §$24-26). W e have also records ofembaisies which induced the masters temDorarilv to liberate their ~~

of Zedekiah to the great king of 5 3 1 . ~ slaves was probably, not humanity, but the desire to
What messages were carried by these embassies, we increase the number of the available defenders of the
cannot of course say : the embassies had for their walls of Jerusalem.
primary object the conveyance of the annual tribute of It was in the ninth year of his reign that Zedekiah finally
gave way to the war-party and rebelled against his suzerain
Judah,6 until the fatal year when Zedekiah rebelled. first, however, taking the precaution 4
According to Winckler ( K A T i 3 ) ,2 7 8 8 ) , who holds 6. Rebellion. ‘ sending his ambassadors to plsn ({.e.
that Zedekiah’s suzerain was the king of Babylon,’ the Migrim, not Migraim), that they might giv;
embassies had another most important object, viz., the him horses and many warriors's (Ezek. 17 I;). A striking
picture is drawn by Ezekiel (21 21 [ z 6 ] x ) of the king of $22
bringing about of the restoration of the cultus of Yahwb (Jerahmeel) standing where the ways divide, and shuffling the
in the temple, which, he thinks, was in abeyance arrows before the teraphim, and then inspecting the liver of a
throughout the reign of Zedekiah owing to the destruc- sacrificed animal-two forms of divination, the first of which is
tion, or at any rate the removal, of the sacred vessels. specially characteristic of Arabia, not of Bahylonia.4 There
was a chance that he might have led his army against Rabbath-
He does not, however, say that the official worship of bnC-ammon, or, as we should most probably read Rehoboth-
hne-jerahmeel, by which is meant the capital of &im. Hut
1 Cp Winckler K A TPI 141. the oracle decided him on going to Jerusalem. So the Jerah-
2 See Duhm’s Lommencary. meelite army encamped against that strongly fortified city. On
3 On!y two kings are meant. ‘Edoy’ and ‘Moab’sh~uldb: his side, the king of Misrim was not idle. I n the spring of 587
a hiisrite army advanced towards Judah, or perhaps towards
‘.4ram (Jerahmeel) a n d Missur. B’ne Ammon,’ Tyre,
’‘
‘ Zidon ’ are also wrong ; read B’ne Jerahmeel ’ and ‘Migpur ’
(see Crit. sa.).
Rihlah-i.e., not the northern Riblah, on the E. Lank of the
Orontes, but a southern Riblah, or rather Jerahmeel, in the
4 y i ~ nis a dittographed nyig, and this springs out of 1x15 ~~~

Pir’u. 1 Read nwjn for the improbable ne,? in Jer. 3 24 ; nJ,xyoo*


5 I.e., Jerahmeel (Jer. 293 51 59, where, following @, we read
nKn instead of n x - i e . ‘from’ instead of ‘with’ Zedekiah).
for nihn in z K. 23 5 : and hyna,&j (‘ Ishmael’? Queen ’)
Guthe, however (GVI, zz.;), thinks that Zedekiah went in person for n*ciw;i n35n in Jer. 7 18 44 1 7 8 (hut cp Q UEE N OF HEAVEN).
on the occasion referred to. Certainly Manasseh, when sum- so too n * i n N n * n s in~ Jer. 116 7 18 194 443 8 prohably comes
moned hy Esar-haddon to his durhar was careful to obey. But from 5xnny *&, ‘the gods of Jerahmeel.’ Cp also Crit. Bib.
the theory adopted in the text is safe;. on Zeoh. 1 4.
2 Ez-ek. f seems to have been much misunderstood by com-
6 In 51 59 read ”?I? l@ (6 ip,y:px,, Ghpov ; see SERAIAH).
mentators. See Crit. Bib. and cp TAMMUZ.
7 Winckler’s theory, however, could of course he accomrno- 3 Winckler it is true subposes this to refer to Sheshbazzar.
dated to the view that the real suzerain of Judah at this time 4 See DIV;NATION,’$ z, and cp Lyall, Ancient A r d L
was the king of Jerahmeel. Poetry, 106.
1:2 5397 5398

S-ar putea să vă placă și