Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
. _ . .
. .
[AI,aal*aperl* [LI). those which suffer from the invasion is, not P l D W (Samaria),
2. ’The name of a mountain ‘ i n the hill-country of
but Pl?? (SHIMRON) in the Negeb. See PROPHET, $ 38.
Ephraim,’ from the top of which ABIJAHdelivered an
address t o Jerobonm and the Israelitish army ( z Ch. ijxs will therefore presumably he=jyr (Zoan), and is (Zin),
134 ; uo,uopwv [BAL], uapapwv [Niese], or utpapwv both of which forms appear to have been connected geo-
graphically with the famous Kadesh (cp P ARADISE, $3 6 ;
[Naber], Jos. A n t . viii. 11z = 274). See Bertheau. SODOM).The original form, therefore, of the names in Josh.
Both I a n d z suggest most interesting problems. 15 37 was not improbably ‘Zoan, Kadesh, Jerahmeel-gad [or
Conder ( P E P , 187:7.p. 26), following Van d e Velde simply Jerahmeel1,’and in Mic. 111, besides Shaphir (Sbamir?),
and Beth-ezel-the latter of which is clearly a Negeb name-we
a n d Robinson, identifies I. with the ruin es-Samra, may recognise Jerahmeel (I& nw>-n*,y= $ ~ o n in. w * ) and
2-3 m. W. from the Jordan and 15-16 m. in a direct line Zoan. It IS probable, however, that Zoan or Zaanan (Zenan),
E. from Bethel, a n d points out that there are two ruins like ZIN (q.n.),comes from the widely-spread race-name Ishmael
close together bearing t h e same name (Samra). Buhl through the intermediate form Zibeon (iiyir). See ZIBEON,
(PnL 180)inclines t o accept this combination. Those, and cp C r i f . Bi6. T. K. C.
however, who take this line mnst, at any rate, separate ZENAS ( Z H NAC [Ti. WH], abbrev. from Zenodorus ;
the city from the mountain called Zemaraim, for a cp ARTEMAS, O LYMPAS, and NAMES. 5.86. end), a
situation overlooking the Jordan valley will hardly suit lawyer ( Y O ~ I K O S ) , is thus alluded to in Tit. 313 : ‘ Be
t h e Chronicler’s narrative ; v. 19 suggests that the spot zealous in helping Zenas the lawyer a n d Apollos on
was not far from Bethel. The matter needs re- their way, that they want for nothing.’ Whether h e
consideration. was a Jewish lawyer or a Roman jurisconsult is un-
We have now to indicate the new position of the questions certain; but the non-Hebrew name a n d t h e short
resulting from our criticism of the text, and first of that relating
to 2. We have seen (JEIIOBOAM, T ; REHOBOAM ; SHECHEM ; criticism of V O W ~ K O in ~ Tit. 3 9 ( c p Zahn, EinZ. 1 4 3 5 )
SHILOH) that the scene of the narratives respecting Jeroboam make for the latter, a n d the association with Apollos
and Rehoboam (and of course Abijah) was placed by the original suggests that he was possibly of Alexandrian origin.
writers in the Negeb, the possession of which was coveted both In the lists of the ‘seventy’compiled by the Pseudo-Dorotheus
by Jeroboam and by Rehoboam, as well as by the Jerahmeelites, and Pseudo-Hippolytus he is made bkhop of Diospolis, and
because it was the ‘ HoTy Land’ of Israel and of Jerahmeel, he is mentioned in Menrea of the Greek church as author of
containing the most ancient sacred spots of both sections 0; the (no longer extant) Acts of Tzlus.
Israel and of the closely related people of Jerahmeel. ‘ Epbraim
is as much a sonthern as a northern name, and, whatever be its ZEPHANIAH (??DY, ‘whom Yahwb hides,’ or
origin (cp REPHAIM),is a syiionym of ‘ Jerahmeel.’ At the
resent time, Bethel (perhaps=Dan-i.e., Hain$ah, see Luz ; a defends,’ § 30,to which a d d the references CIS i. 1207,
F ROPHET, 8 I O ; S HECHEM), Jeshanah (perhaps misread for
1. Name
etc. ; Lidzbarski, Hand& 359[cp also below,
Dljd, the southern Shunem, cp SHEN, SHUNEM), and Ephron and date. 2~41;CO@ONlAC). I. Son Of Cushi, t h e
(probably near the place miscalled Shechem, but really named ninth, according to t h e order of his book,
Cu5ham-jerahmeel, see SHECHEM, z ; MACHPELAH), were in the among the twelve minor prophets, flourished in the reign
hands of Jeroboam. According to the Chronicler ( 2 Ch. 13 IS),
Rehoboam took these cities from Jeroboam. of Josiah of Judah, a n d apparently before the great
Turning now to I , we! have seen that P, as a geographer, reformation in the eighteenth year of that king (621
often works on lists which properly belong to an ancient B. c. ). For various forms of idolatry pnt down in that
geographical survey of the Negeb. This is the case, not only year ( z K. 2 3 4 J m ) are spoken of by Zephaniah as still
with the name-lists of Judah, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali.
but also with that of Benjamin (cp ZELA). The names Jericho, prevalent in Judah (14J ), a n d a r e specified in such a
Beth-hoglah, and Emek-keziz in Josh. 18 21 probably come from connection as t o imply that they were not the secret sins
Jerahmeel, Beth-meholah (=Beth-jerahmeel), and Maacath- of individuals, but held the first place among the national
cush, places in the Negeb ; whilst the Beth-arabah and Zemaraim
in u. 2 2 probably come from Beth-‘arab and Simrim or Simr2.m. backslidings that could, as the prophet teaches, be re-
To say where these places stood, except that one of them is moved only by a sweeping judgment o n the state. Of
presumably REHOBOTH (q.v.), is beyond our power. It is t h e person of Zephaniah nothing is known ; but inas-
possible (though Gen. 10 18 confirms sm) that har->imrim is the much as his genealogy, contrary t o the usual practice i n
same as har-Eimron in Am. 3 g(?) 4 I 6 T .(see PROPHET, I 35 ;
SHINIRON).Perhaps Simron was in the hands of Abijah the case of the prophets (see Is. 1 I Jer. 1 I Ezek. 1 3 Hos.
(according to the Chronicler’s authority) and Jeroboam had 1I Joel 1I ) is carried back four generations, it has been
come with the object of besieging it. Thdre is, at any rate, no conjectured that his great-great-grandfather Hezekiah
reason whv I . and 2. should not be identified. CD ZEMARITE. (11) is the king of that name, a n d if so he will have
T. K. C .
belonged to the highest class of Jud;ean society.
ZEMARITE (’?Q!l),
Gen. 1018 I Ch. 116. See The genuineness a n d integrity of the short prophecy
GEOGRAPHY, 8 16, 4. ascribed to Zephaniah d o not seem t o be open to reason-
2. able doubt. Stade (GZ1644) sus-
and integrity. pects (on account of the ideas
1 For the southern Gilead cp RAMOTH-GILEAD, and Cn’f. expressed in them) 21-3 I I a n d 3 ;
Bi6. on Jer. 8 22. a n d it is true, if 3 were a distinct oracie, there would be
5401 5402
ZEPHANIAH ZEPHANIAH
no cogent reason to ascribe it to the author of the two drama, who is thus strangely forgotten at the last, was
chapters that precede; for the book of the minor not as real and prominent a figure in Zephaniah's
prophets is made up of short pieces, some bearing a political horizon as Assyria was in the horizou of Isaiah.
name and some anonymous, and it is only old usage At the same time, it is reasonable to think that so com-
that ascribes the anonymous pieces to the last preceding plete a reproduction of Isaiah's ideas in the picture of a
prophet whose name is prefixed to his prophecy. But, new world-judgment was not formed without some
though the sequence of thought in the book of Zephaniah stimulus from without; and this stimulus has been found,
is not so smooth as a western reader may desire, a with much plausibility, in the Scythian invasion of
single leading motive runs through the whole, and the western Asia, to which some of Jeremiah's earlier
first two chapters would be incomplete without the prophecies (as 5 15-17 6 1-6 22-25) also appear to refer
third, which, moreover, is certainly pre-exilic (vu. 1.4) (see I S R A EL , 39, col. 2246).
and presents specific points of contact with what pre- Be that as it may, the comparison between Isaiah
cedes as well as a general agreement in style and idea and Zephaniah affords an instructive example of the
[see further § 61. 5. Contrast difference between original and repro-
The prophecy may be divided into three parts : (i. ) with Isaiah. ductive prophecy. All the prophets
3, Outline of the menace (1); (ii.) the admonition have certain fundamental ideas in com-
(21-37); (iii.) the promise (38-20). mon, and each has learned something from his pre-
'Ontent** The dommnatinKmotiveof the whole is the decessors. If Zephaniah draws from Isaiah, Isaiah
approach of a sweeping and world-Gide judgment, which the himself drew from Amos and Hosea. Isaiah, however,
prophet announces as near at hand. and interprets, on the lines
laid down by Isaiah in his prophecies about Israel and Assyria, goes to his predecessors for general principles, and
as designed to destroy the wicked and prepare the way for the shapes the application of these principles to the con-
visible sovereignty of the righteous God of Israel (1 zf: 7 14-18). ditions of his own time in a manner altogether fresh
As regards Judah, which forms the subject of the first and third
chapters, the effect of the judgment will be to sift out the idolaters and independent. Zephaniah, on the other hand, goes
the men of violence and wrong, the false prophets and profan; to his predecessor for details; he does not clearly
priests, the hardened men of the world to whom all religion is distinguish between the form and the substance of the
alike ('the men that are thickened on their lees,' 1IS), and who prophetic ideas, and looks for a final consummation of
deem that Yahwh will do neither good nor evil (1 4 6 Sf: 123 3Jr).
The men who seek meekness and righteousness will he left a the divine purpose, not only in accordance with the
poor and lowly people, trusting in YahwFs name and eschew&g principles of Isaiah, but on the very lines wrhich that
falsehood (23 3 12). To them a future of gladness is reserved prophet had laid down. These lines, however, were
a peaceful life under Yahws's immediate kingship and lovini
protection (3 13-17). Such an ideal necessarily implies that they drawn on the assumption that the Assyrian judgment
shall no longer he threatened hy hostility from without, and this was final and would be directly followed by the reign of
condition is satisfied by the prophet's view of the effect of the righteousness. T h e assumption was not justified by
iinpending judgment on the ancient enemies of his nation. The the event ; the deliverance and reformation were incom-
destruction of the Philistines on the W. and of Moah and
Ammon on the E. (24-10) will enable the Hebrews to extend plete, and the inbringing of the reign of righteousness
their settlements from the Mediterranean to the Syrian desert ; was again deferred. Zephaniah sees this, but fails to
and their remoter oppressors, the Ethiopians and the Assyrians, draw the true inference. H e postulates a new crisis in
shall also perish (2 12-15). That Ethiopia appears instead of
Egypt is in accordance with the conditions of the time. I t was history similar to the Assyrian crisis of which Isaiah
with Ethiopic dynasts holding sway in Egypt that Assyria bad wrote, and assumes that it will run such a course as to
to contend during the seventh century B.c., when the etty fulfil Isaiah's unfulfilled predictions. But the move-
kingdoms of Palestine were so often crushed between the colfsion ments of history do not repeat themselves: and the
of the two great powers, and even Psammetichus, the contem-
porary of Josiah, and the restorer of a truly Egyptian kingdom, workings of God's righteous providence take fresh shape
was nominally the heir of the great Ethiopian sovereigns. in each new scene of the world's life, so that a prediction
Zephaniah's conceptions are closely modelled on the not fulfilled under the conditions for which it was given
scheme of YahwP's righteous purpose worked out by can never again be fulfilled in detaiZ. A s it is an
*' Isaiah a century before, when Judah first
felt the weight of the Assyrian rod ; and
essential feature of prophecy that all ideas are not only
presented but thought out in concrete form, and with
judgment' they afford the most conclusive evidence reference to present historical conditions, the distinction
of the depth and permanence of that great prophet's between the temporary form and the permanent religious
influence. Rut in one point there is an important truth embodied in that form is also essential. T h e
divergence. In Isaiah's view, Assyria is the rod of tendency to confound the two-to ascribe absolute truth
God's a n g e r ; and, when the work of judgment is to what is mere embodiment, and therefore to regard
complete, and YahwP returns to the remnant of his unfulfilled predictions as simply deferred, even where
people, the theodicea is completed by the fall of the the form of the prediction is obviously dependent on
unconscious instrument of the divine decrees before mere temporary conditions of the prophet's own time-
the inviolable walls of the holy mountain. Zephaniah, gained ground from the time of Zephaniah onwards,
i n like manner, looks to an all-conquering nation as and culminated in the Apocalyptic literature. As it
the instrument of divine judgment on Judah and the grew, the eternal ideas of the great prophets fell into
rest of the known world. H e represents the day the background, and were at length entirely lost in the
of Yahwk, according to the old meaning of that phrase crass Jewish conception of a Messianic age, which is
(WRS. P ~ o p h . (397f:).
~) as a day of battle (not an little more than an apotheosis of national particularism
assize day) ; he speaks of the guests invited to YahwB's and self-righteousness.
sacrifice (ie., to a great slaughter), of alarm against Zephaniah's eschatology is not open to this charge :
fenced cities, of blood poured out as dust, of pillage with him, as with Isaiah, the doctrine of the salvation of
and desolation at the hand of a n enemy (17 13 16-18). the remnant of Israel is inspired by spiritual convictions
Beyond this, however, all is vague; we hear neither and instinct with ethical force. T h e emphasis still lies
who the sword of YahwP (212)is, nor what is to (311-13)on the moral idea of the remnant, not on the
become of him when his work is completed. Isaiah's physical conception Israel. H e does not yield to Amos
construction has in all its parts a definite reference or Isaiah in the courage with which he denounces sin
to present political facts, and is worked out to a in high places, and he is akin to Hosed in his firm hold
complete conclusion : Zephaniah borrows the ideas of of the principle that the divine governance is rooted not
his predecessor without attaining to his clearness of only in righteousness but in love, and that the triumph
political conception, and so his picture is incomplete. of love is the end of YahwB's working (317). Yet even
T h e foreign conqueror, by whom Judah is to be chas- here we see the difference between the first and the srcond
tised and Nineveh and Ethiopia destroyed, is brought generation of prophecy. T h e persuasion to which
on to the stage, but never taken off it. I t is safe to Hosea attains only through an intense inward struggle,
conclude that the principal actor in the prophetic which lends a peculiar pathos to his book, appears in
5403 5404
ZEPHANIAH ZEPHANIAH
Zephaniah, as it were, ready made. There is no mental ie thinks 3 1-13 also to he an addition to the original prophecy
'which will have ended with 2 12-15), but not necessarily by
conflict before he can pass through the anticipation of inother hand than that of Zephaniah himself.
devastating judgment to the assurance of the victory of Of the passages which have been thus questioned,
divine love ; and the sharp transitions that characterise 21-3 may be accepted as Zephaniah's without any
the book are not, as with Hosea, due to sudden revulsion scruple : it forms for a prophet the almost necessary
of feeling, but only mark the passage to some new topic :ounterpart to 1. I n 24- 7 the only suspicious part is th?
in the circle of received prophetic truth. :lause 2 7 c (cp the remarks below on 3 18-20), which may
T h e finest thing in the book-in spite of certain be a gloss (Wellhausen, Nowack) ; and 2 13-15 is far
obscurities, which m,ay be partly due to corruptions of more likely to have been written before the destruction
the text-is the closing passage ; but the description of of Nineveh in 607 than after it (cp also § 3). Against
the day of Yahwk, the dies i r e dies iila of 115, which 31-8 11-13 no reasonable objection can be urged : as
furnishes the text of the most striking of medizval Budde (396) says, we are here in the pre-exilic
hymns, has perhaps taken firmer hold of the religious Jerusalem, without any trace of the exile and its experi-
inmgination. Least satisfactory is the treatment of the ences. Davidson remarks in particular that 3 1-7 is
j u d p e n t on heathen nations, and of their subsequent characterised generally by the same moral earnestness
conversion to Y n h d (38.10). I n the scheme of Isaiah as 12-23, and that the terms of 3 1-4 are such as are not
it is made clear that the fall of the power that shatters likely to have been applied to Jerusalem, except in the
the nations cannot fail to be recognised as Yahwk's pre-exilic period : 3 1 1 - 1 3 describes the Jerusalem of the
work, for Assyria falls Sefuore YerusaZem as soon as it future, purified by judgment, and naturally therefore
seeks to go beyond the limits of the divine commission, differs in tone from 3 1-7. Schwally's main argument
and thus the doctrine ' With us is G o d ' is openly ( 2 3 1 8 ) for rejecting 3 8 cannot be sustained: there
vindicated before the nations. Zephaniah, on the other is no sufficient reason for supposing that the nations a r e
hand, assumes that the convulsions of history are there gathered together q a i n s f Israel (as in Ez. 38,f and
Yahwe's work, and specially designed for the instruction post-exilic passages) ; they are assembled for punish-
and amendment of Israel ( 3 6 J ) , and neglects to show ment, and Israel is included among them. There is,
how this conviction, which he himself derives from however, a greater consensus against Zephaniah's
Isaiah, is to be brought home by the coming judgment authorship of 28-11 39J and 314-20. It is objected t o
t o the heart of heathen nations. Their own gods, 28-10 (the oracle of Moab and Ammon) that there is
indeed, will prove helpless (211); but that is not no sufficient motive for the mention of these countries
enough t o turn their eyes toward Yahwk. Here, there- about 625 B . C . (the Philistines, 25-7. would be on the line
fore, there is in his eschatology a sensible lacuna, from of march of the Scythians towards E g y p t ; indeed,
which Isaiah's construction is free, and a commence- Herodotus expressly says that they passed by Ashkelon.
ment of the tendency to look a t things from a merely 1 r o 5 j , that the reproaches of 2 8 1 0 presuppose the
Israelite standpoint, which is so notable a feature of destruction of Jerusalem, which gave occasion for them
the later Apocalyptic. W. R. S. (Ezek.25368), that (see Budde above) the attitude of
It has seemed best to the present writer to leave the the prophet towards Judah is here the exact opposite of
preceding interesting and suggestive article substantially that taken by him in 1, and that the elegiac measure,
as it stood in 1888 ; a n d to append in a supplenient which at least predominates in 24-7 12-15, does not
such additions as seem to be now required. appear in 28-10, It may, however, be doubted whether
T h e integrity of the prophecy has been much more the terms of 2 8 I O necessarily refer to the events of B.C.
seriously questioned than it was in 1888. 586, and also whether our knowledge of the tinies is
Kuenen ($ 78, 5-8) in 1889, whilst defending sufficient to justify us in declaring that no adequate
6. %Cent 21-3 1 1 against Stade, allowed-on account, motive then existed for the unfavourable mention of
criticism. chiefly, of the great contrast between the de-
nunciation of 1 2 1 31-7 and the promises of these arrogant and encroaching (Is. 1 6 6 Am. 113)
3 14-20 -that 3 14-20 was a supplement, dating rohably nations (Davidson compares Dt. 233 6) ; if Ezekiel, in
from shortly after the restoration in B.C. 536. &hwally spite of his uncompromising sense of Judah's sin (1-24),
( Z A TW, 1890, 218 8, 238 240) ascribes to Zephaniah only
1 2 1 3 - r j , and possibly 2 1-4 (doubting this passage on ac- nevertheless resents strongly (251-11) the unfriendly
count of 13y and 713y 2 3) ; 25-13he treats as exilic (chiefly on attitude of Moab and Ammon, why may not Zephaniah
account of the ' remnant ' 2 7 9), and 3 as post-exilic : the 'single have done the same ? T h e argument derived from the
leading motive' appealed to above by Robertson Smith, he change of rhythm possesses weight ; but it implies that
considers to be evidence only of unity of redaction, not of
unity of author. Wellhausen (1892, (311698) is suspkious of we are right in emending the context ( 2 5 7 12) so as to
2 3, and rejects 27a,c, 8-11 ; he treats 3 as an append~x,added restore the Kind-rhythm, and also that we have valid
subsequently in two slages first 3 1-7 (cp Mic. 7 1-6), and then grounds for supposing that Zephaniah would desire t o
3 8-20 (cp Mic. 7 7-z0:+-3 i - 2 0 being separated from 3 1-7,on
account of the sudden change of tone and subject, consolations preserve rhythmical uniformity throughout the entire
and promises following immediately upon censure and rebuke, passage ( 2 8 ' I have heard' is an evident reminiscence
and the heathen not the Jews, being threatened with punishment. of Is. 166). 2 11, however, connects imperfectly both
Budde (St.Ki. 1893, pp. 3933) would admit 2 1-3 3 1-5 7 8 6 with 210 and with 212 (observe ' y e a h ' ); and may
[in this order] xi-13 as in harmony with the pre-exilic period,
and a suitable sequel to 1 ; 2 4-1j he rejects, as inconsistent with therefore be the addition of a reader, who desiderated
1 (Israel no longer, as in 1, the perpetrator of wrong, but the here the two thoughts which the verse contains; and
victim of wrong, which is now [a.9 end] to be avenged) ; 3 gf: 39J (the conversion of the nations) connects extremely
is excluded as breaking the connection betwen 38 and 3 Ir .
and 3 rq-zo is alater lyrical epilogue to 3 11-r3. Cornill(Eid.,d badly (notice v. 9 'for t h e n ' ) with 38 (the ju@nzent on
1896, F, 35,3)agreeswith Budde. Davidson(r896)defends(998) the nations-if not, indeed, their destruction, 1 2 J ).
2 as a whole admitting only that 2 4-15 may in parts have been As regards 314-20, it is, no doubt, possible that it is. in
expanded (the Kina-rhythm seems intended to predominate in
these verses ; but in some places, especially 2 5 7, it can be G. A. Smiths words (73), a ' n e w song from God,'
restored only by considerable textual alterations and 78-11do which came to some prophet, shortly after the return,
not conform to it at all) ; in 3 he feels doubtful dnly about 3 IO a n d expressed for the remnant that survived, the
(which is textually obscure and uncertain) and about the 'ex- ' afflicted and poor' people of v. 1 2 , the brighter hopes
tremely beautiful passage' 3 14-20,which seems to him to spring
from a time when the judgments have already fallen upon which the restoration fostered. T h e picture which
Israel (u. IS), and by its jubilant tone contrasts strangely the verses delineate is, however, upon any view of
with the dark picture 3f guilt 3 1.3 7 and even with the more their origin, an ideal o n e ; and the question remains
sombre hopeiof 3 11-I:,. Nowack(Id97) inlagrees closely with
Wellhausen, only rejecting 2 15 as well as 2 T a,c 8-11 ; in 3, how- whether it is more than a lyrical development of
ever, he rejects only (like Budde) 39f: in addition to 3 14-20. the thought of vu. 11-13, such as Zephaniah, realising
G. A. Smith (1898) accepts (242-45) the whole of 2 except 28-11 ; vividly in spirit the blissful future, might have con-
in 3 he regards 3 9f: as 'obviously a later insertion,' and 3 14-20
as clearly a n epilogue <of peace and hope added at the close of 1 There is manifestly some corruption in 3 IO ; but the homage
the exile or after the return (44 f:). Baudissin (EM. 1901, of the nations is more consonant with the context than the
p. 553 8) denies to Zephaniah only 2 7n, c, 8-11 and 3 14-20 : homage of the exiled Jews.
5405 5406
ZEPHANIAH ZEPHANIAH
structed himself. Undoubtedly the terms of vv. 18-20 found in Isaiah in other connections (e.g.5 26-30). T h e
presuppose exile, whilst m.11-13 suggest nothing more great and abiding religious value of the hook consists in
than the purification of Judah in its own home ; but the profoundly earnest moral tone which pervades it,
both exile, and riastoration from exile, are contemplated and in the prophet’s deep sense of the sin of his people,
by Jeremiah, and Zephaniah might have added the and of the stern need which impels Yahwk, who would
closing verses of his book many years after 311-13 was only too gladly rejoice over his people, if it would
written, at a time when exile was seen more clearly to be permit him to do so ( 3 1 7 ) , to visit it with a discipline
looming in the future. It is, however, true that 3 18-20 such as will purge away its unworthy members.
is more open to suspicion than 3 14-17, A final decision Zephaniah’s gospel has been described as ‘ simple and
on the entire question will hardly be arrived at on the austere.’ It is true, he goes back to and insists with
basis of Zephaniah alone : it will depend on the con- pathetic eloquence ou the most primary and rudi-
clusion formed by the critic on passages of similar im- mentary of religious duties, earnestness and sincerity of
port found in many of the other prophets (cp Introd.(’) life, justice and integrity, humility and a simple trust in
229J “73 306f. 318 330 334 ; and Cheyne, Pref. to God. ‘ A thorough purgation, the removal of the
W R S , Proph. (‘4 x v j ? ). wicked, the sparing of the honest and the meek ; in-
T h e text of Zephaniah, while on’ the whole well pre- sistence only upon the rudiments of morality and
served, is in several passages open to grave suspicion, religion : faith in its simplest form of trust in a
,. Text. and in some unquestionably corrupt. Many righteous God, and character in its basal elements
of these have, however, been corrected, of meekness and truth- these alone survive the judg-
especially by Wellhausen, chiefly on the basis of 6. ment‘ (GASm., 71). H e does not, as other prophets
A full discussion of the text belongs to a commentary (see esp. comnionly do, call the wicked to repent, or dwell upon
We., Now., and GASm.); but a few of‘the more notable the divine grace which is ever ready to forgive the
passages may he briefly noticed here : 1 3 and the stumbling penitent : it may be that the doom seemed to him to be
blocks with the wicked,’ is incongruous 4 t h the context, and
prob. (We. Now.) alate gloss ; 1 5 6 omit proh. :!@’O and the too imminent ; the time for pleading was past : there
) after nlZ.5 (reading then, ‘and the worshippers of YahwS,
remained only the separation of the evil from the good.
who swear by their king’ [‘ Molech’]); 2 I lli3; rdtisn? (Che. But he recognises and teaches clearly the moral qualities
Bu.) ‘ get you shame, and be ye ashamed, 0 natian unabashed,’ which have a value in YahwXs eyes, and will not be
is on the whole most proh. (Wfip means ‘to gather stubble ’) ; swept away when the judgment comes (cp Is. 3314-16).
2 2 for the first two clauses (to chax) read with Wellhause;
Another point which is worthy of notice is Zephaniahs
(nearly as B) ‘ before y e become as c h a f fhafpassefh away comprehensive view of history. YahwB’s hand guides
(my f‘bg V ~ ? - f i 7O m ? ) ; 2 6 a read probably (63 We.) ‘and the movement of the nations ; and by them he accom-
ChgrEth ‘shail be an habitation for shepherds ’ (723 n?.? 3C):l plishes his purposes of discipline, purgation, and salva-
o*pi: ‘ with cottages ’-or even ‘with caves ‘-‘for is an im- tion (cp Is. 1 0 5 8 ) . His ultimate purpose is that
possible rendering of the existing Heb.) ; 2 7 read (@ We.) ‘and notonly Israel (31r-r3), but also the nations (21163 9 3 ,
the coast offhe sea (o>? \m), and (We.) ‘by the sea’ for ‘there- --whether these verses be Zephaniah’s or not), shall
become the loyal and faithful servants of God.
upon’ @>? for O&); 2 T I a t least n:?, ‘make lean’ (cp
Is 10 16 17 4, though the word is here strange) for ; 2 14
.
Ewald Pro#hefs 3 1 4 s the Commentaries on the Minor
Prophet: in general (Hitz’ Keil, Pusey, Wellh., Nowack
+in+? cannot be right (‘all the beasts of the nations’ is no GASm.) :’A. B. Davidson in the Cam6. B i d
translationof it) : then for $ p ‘(their)voice’ readprobahly(We.) 9. Literature. (1896); Duhm, TheoZ. der Proph. (1875)
pp. 222-5; Kirkpatrick, Doctr. of fd
ob, ‘the o w l ’ (Ps. 102 7), and for 3ln, ‘desolation,’ 3lL, ‘the Prophets, z53fl ; J. A. Selbie’s art. in Hastings’ DB; and the
raven ’ (65 Ew. We. : cp Is. 34 T I ) ; 3 3 9 4 4 (‘leave,’ lit. cut of, discussions of Kuenen, Schwally, etc., which have been alread
hence reserve(?); or ‘gnaw thebones,’denom. from 07:)is very mentioned. An apocryphal prophecy ascribed to Zephaniag
suspicious ; 3 7 read with @ We., for ‘ s o ... concerning her,’
‘and all that I have commanded her shall never he cut off from
(‘And the spirit took me, and carried me up into the fifth
heaven, and I saw angels called lords,’ etc.) is quoted by Clem.
Alex. Strom. 5 T I , f 77 ; some other fragments reserved in a
her eyes’ (only ?’?’E for ” L F ) ; 3 8 for le!, ‘to the prey’ Coptic version, have also been discovered and p;%lished lately :
read prob., with B Pesh., Hitz., Bu., We., Now., GASm, see APOCRYPHA, 5 21, Schiirer, TLZ,189 , col. 8 (who agrees
le), ‘for a witness ’ ; 3 IO ’ X I B np ‘?g (‘my suppliants, the that Steindorff‘s ‘unknown’ Apoc. is rozably that of Zeph.),
G/Y(3) 3 2 7 1 3 [See also P ROPHETIC EITERATURE, f 40, and
daughter of my dispersed ’ ?) is extremely suspicious ; 3 15 read, SCYTHIANS 5 6, on Zephaniah and Jeremiah, with reference to
with @ Pesh. and nearlyall moderns, ’Nln, ‘ see,’for ’NTp ‘fear’; the prophedies on ‘the Scythians.’]
3 17 Bubl (ZA TW,1885, p. 183) for d’?i7: proposes plausibly w. R . s., $5 1-5,9 (partly) :
S. R. D . , $$ 6-8, 9 (partly).
d s ; , ‘will rettew (Ew. 5 282 .I) his love ’ ; 3 raa ‘for ’ (RV) is 2. A Kohathite ( I Ch. 6 21 [36],.ua$avra [BL], -LOU [AI).
less probable than ‘ away from ’ ; 3 I& is suspiciou:, though the 3. 6. MAAsElAH (I), a priest temp. Zedekiah ; Jer. 21 I 29 25
clause might be rendered (better than in RV), upon whom
[referring to ‘thee’] reproach is a burden’; 320 ‘and a t that 29 37 3 52 24 (BRA om.) 2 K. 25 18 ( U Q ~ O Y L ~ [L]).
V
time I will gather thee’ yields an excellent sense, hut it cannot 4. Father of JOSIAH (2) ’ Zech. 6 IO 14.
be extracted from the existing text. [All these Zephaniahs ’ ’have directly or indirectly a historical
interest, and even if it be contended that the prophet Zephaniah
As has been remarked already (§§ 3-5),Zephaniah, in must have given his name a religious interpretation (cp the
his .prophetic ideals, follows largely in the steps of statement in Is. 8 18), and have considered himself a guardian of
the truth (cp 3 3, though to he sure Schwally and Wellhausen
With Zephaniah as with Isaiah, question Zephaniah‘s authorship of this passage) that the faithful
8. Religious Isaiah.
the central idea is that of ajudgment, will be protected in the day of Yahwit‘s anger, yet it is at any
teaching. to be executed by YahwB upon Judah, rate conceivable, and if we consider the mass of evidence
which will sweep away from it the proud, the religiously arising from parallel ndmes, even probable, that the ‘ Zephaniahs’
in general belonged to families of near or remote Jerahmeelite-
indifferent, the scoffers, the men who abuse their Le. N Arabian-affinities 1 and the view is capable of being
privileges and their position ( 3 3 , C ) , and the impeni- def;nd;d that all the names kith which ‘ Zephaniah is combined
tent, who will not listen to ‘correction’ ( 3 ~ 7 j ,but in the OT (passing over Zeph. 1I, in spite of the suggestion
Cushi’) are most easily and naturaljy explained as names of the
which will leave behind a meek and pions ‘remnant,’ Negeb. From this point of view Zephaniah’ (cp Elizaphan
who trust simplyin theirGod (23 312,C; cp Is. 1 4 3 2 , and and S HAPHA N ; also Crit. Bi6. 0,‘ Jer. 20 I) is an expansion of
contrast Is. 2 I I 12 17: Zephaniah, it is to be noted, Saphan or Saphon, the name of a N. Arabian district-cp
emphasises more strongly than Isaiah does the particular ZAPHON ; and a parallel to the confusion which may seem to
have arisen can he found in the name Eliahba ( R ~ * \ R )if, this
virtues of ‘meekness’ and ‘humility’). With Zephaniah,
however, the judgment, more distinctly than in Isaiah 1 It is worth noticing that there is a well-known Israelite gem
(313), is a world-judgment : it embraces uZZ nations (Brit. Mus., No. 1032), with this legend, )3*39s13 imnw$, where,
(1.5 , 3 8 ) , not only Israel ( 1 4 8 ) . The figure of even if inino be rendered ‘blackish ’ or ‘ brownish’ (so Clermont-
Yahwk s ‘ D a y ’ is doubtless suggested by Is. 212 8 : Ganneau, PEFQ, 19~2, p. 267), we must a t any rate suppose
that it is a fantastic variation of y ; i l i = v n p ~ , so that both
but the imagery of war and invasion, under which its father and son have names which originally belonged to districts
approach is pictured (1 14-18), is Zephaniah’s own, though of N. Arabia.
5407 54408
ZEPHATH ZERAH
is really a modification of $.q~n[y]*,as maintained in Cn?.BB. 3. b. Reuel [from Jerahmeel?], a n Edomite clan (pointing p l i r
on 2 S. 13 32. This has a distinct bearing on the history of Tor q7sJ EV’s ‘duke’), Gen. 36 13 17 [PI, (<ape [ADELI, &pf
Israelite religion. The third Zephaniah held a high office in !he
temple. In Jer. 2926 he appears as the successor of ‘ the priest -D v. 171) I Ch. 1 3 7 ({apes [B], {ape [Ba.b AL]), represented as
Jehoiada,’ and as having the right of granting or refusing access the fathe; of J O D A B [q.~.](Gen. 36 33 [om. E ] I Ch. 144).
to the temple. It was held to be his duty to expel prophetic 4. b. SIMEON($ 9). Nu. 26 13 [PI ; I Ch. 4 2 4 (<apes IBI,
enthusiasts ; nevertheless he abstained from hindering Jeremiah. Sapas [A]), also called ZOHAR (1nS; uaap ; Gen. 46 IO [uaaADl,
In 2 K. 25 18 (and Jer. 52 24 ?)he is represented as second priest Ex.G 15). From him is derived the patronymic ZARHITE, RV
(iee PRIEST 8 5 , end). The fourth Zephaniah was father of a ZI.RAHITE; cp I supya.
certain Josi)ah, into whose house the bearers of rich offerings
froin 512 entered (temp. Zeruhbabel). See ZEKUDBABEL, and 5 . Zerah the Cushite, ( ~ + p . ; rape 1AIBro$ ; Jos. Ant.
cp H E N . T. K. C.] 812 @paror), defeated by Asa. king of Judah ( z Ch.
I
ZEPHATH (nay ; § 2 0 ; c e a s K 1 [BLI, Ceaep 14 9-15 [S-I~]). T h e overwhelming defeat w-hich Asa is
[.I]),a Canaanite city taken by the men of SIMEONsaid to have inflicted upon Zerah, in spite of his relatively
!§ 4) and Judah (Judg. 1 17). Probably a corruption of sniall force, is a detail peculiarto the Chronicler. To take
LAKEPHATH( 9 . v . ) [Che.]. For a northern Zephath the story as it stands is impossible (see C HRONICLES ,
see P ALESTINE , 15, col. 3546, no. 116. 8 ,f). What Asa’s power really amounted to we
know from I K . 1516.22 ; of Zerah the Cushite nothing
ZEPHATHAH (n&’$, Jos. Ant. viii. 121, c&B&ea), is reported elsewhere. It is true, many O T critics (incl.
a valley a by M A R R S ! I A H(’g . ~ . ) where
, Asa defeated Ewald and Graf) have adopted Champollion’s view that
Zerzh the Cushite, z Ch. 14 IO. If the Mareshah referred Osorkon I. (zznd dyn.) is intended ; others (incl. Sayce,
to is the Mer‘aS S. of Et-jibrin, it is simplest t o read Crit. &/on. 363 3 )have preferred Osorkon 11. But
njigr. SXphGnHh. with Hitzig, Gratz. Kohler, Buhl, why either king should be called a Cushite has not been
Benzinger, following @PA ~L a,r dpopp2v (Pesh. omits). explained (see the suggestions described in Kohler,
It is possible, however, that there was a Mareshnh in the BibL Gesch. 3 3 2 1 f), and without this it is useless
Negeb, near Zephath or Zarephath, and that A s ’ s fight with
Zerah was to defend Judahite possessions in the Negeb. The to show that Osorkon 11. made a campaign against
mention of Gerar (u. 14) somewhat favours this view (see Syria and Palestine (Naville, Bubastis [EEF]. 1891,
GER.AR). This affects the question as to the birthplace 0; p. 51). Other scholars (incl. Kuenen, Stade, Wellh.)
Micah, and the geography of Mic. 11 0 8 T. K. C. have therefore rejected the narrative altogether.
ZEPHO (\a?; c a @ a p [ADEL]), b. Eliphaz, an Winckler, however, has pointed out that, a s probably
Edomite chieftain or rather, reading q h , clan (Gen. 36 I I 15). in the case of the captivity of MANASSEH [ q . ~ . ] , there
In I Ch. 1 3 6 his name appears as Ziphi (‘?F uw+ap [BA], may be a historical element in the statements of the
uempauq [L], a secondary form from um+oupl). After @5(except Chronicler, and suggested that ’pi3 should perhaps be
L in T Ch.) we may read l+. See ZOPHAR. . - KaSSite ( = Chaldzean), and that the invasion came
ZEPHON (flax), b. Gad, whence the family of the from Babylonia ( A T Unfeys. 1 6 0 8 ) . More satisfactory
ZEPHONITES (’?\!is?): NU.2615 (6, 21.24, c&@wN is his later view ( K AT(3) 144) that Zerah was a ‘Cushite,’
in the sense that he was a ruler of S. Arabia (Matin).
[RL]. om. A ; c a ~ $ a ~ [ e ][BAL]). l I n Gen.4616 Honimel, on the other hand, points out that several of
the name appears as ZIPHION(]l’Fy, ua@wv [ADL]). the oldest princes of Saba bore the title‘nyi ( = n ~ r; see.
C p Z APHON . which may with much plausibility be ad init.), and thinks that a S a b z a n invasion is in-
taken as the name of a district in N. Arabia (see C d . tended.2 T h e evidence of the Hebrew texts, how-
Bib. on Is. 1413 Jer. 1 1 3 3 6 I Ezek. 3 2 3 0 386 etc.). ever, points rather to N. than to S. Arabia as indicated
The Gadite clans had Jerahmeelite names (e.g., Shuni, Areli),
perhaps recording a sojourn in the Negeb. But cp GAD, 8 11. by Cush, and in the Ass. texts ‘ KuSi and Melubba’ is
the ordinary designation of N. Arabia.
ZER (7x ; ~ y p o c[BAL]) an unknown ‘fenced city’ That Zerah is a ‘Jerahmeelite’ name is beyond question, and
of Naphtali mentioned between ZIDDIM and HAMMATH (Josh. ‘Cushite’ and ‘ Misrite’are so nearly equivalent that ‘Zernh
1935). It is probable that the text has hecome confused and the Ciishite’ may have meant much the same as Zerah the
amplified through the recurrence of i&n) and (a.);~, and that Misrite. Cp ‘ Cushi, king of Miyim,’ if we may soread in 2 Ch.
1~ should be omitted. 12 i.3 This view seems to be confirmed by the description of
Asa’s success in 2 Ch. 14 1 3 - x ~ . The ‘cities about Gerar ’ are
ZERAH in??,if primarily a personal name [cp I I ] surely the cities of the Cushites. Now the Gerar ’ referred to
may be equivalent 1.0 n1lK [s 501, or to the Sab. is not Umm el-JerXr, 5 m. S. of Gaza, hut in the Widy Jeriir,
SW of ‘Ain Gadis (see GERAR). I n v. 15 moreover under-
n. pr. ill1 ]ill7 ‘magnificent’ ; cp Z ERAHIAH , also lying the present corrupt text, is the statement that ksa and
J A C O B , col. 2311 ; [BADEFL]). his men smote and carried captive the Jerahmeelites.4 Clearly
I. Twin-brother of Perez (Gen.3830 [J], 4612 [PI ‘JFrahmeelites’ and Cushites’ are synonymous terms. Add to
AV in both ZARAH,Nu. 2620 [PI, Mt. 1 3 , AV ZSRA) ; this thaf in 168 the allies of the Cushites are called the Lubim.
‘Luhim is miswritten for ‘Ludim’-i.e., not the Lydian
see JLTDAH, z , f , P EREZ . In the only other passage mercenaries of Egypt, but ‘the Gil’adim’-i.e., the men of the
prior to P. he appear:j as the ancestor of A CHAN (Josh. southern Gilead (in the Negeh), the same people who are
718 24 [JE], cp 7 1 2220 [PI). According to I Ch. 26 mentioned in 2 Ch. 12 3 as the allies of ‘ Cushi, king of Misrim.’
his sons were Ziniri, Ethan. Heman, Calcol. and Dara It may be objected (cp GASm. T7ueZue Pvophets, 2 753, n. 6)
that the mention of Mareshah (2 Ch. 149J) favours the theory
(see E THAN ). T h e B’ne Zerah were a family living in of an Egyptian invasion, and a t any rate is adverse to the view
Jerusalem in post-exilic times ( I Ch. 96 rqm [L]). a that the southern Gerar is referred to. But the mention of
member of which was the royal commissary for Jewish the valley of Zephathah (u. IO) suggests that a Mareshah in the
Negeb is intended, and this suggestion accords with the other
affairs, Pethahiah ( N r h . 1124 ; om. BX*A, rape [KC.”]). phenomena pointing toa Cushite-ie. N. Arabian invader. See
The patronymic, ZARHITE,RV Zerahite (Nu. 26 20 ’?l?g ; ZEPHATHAH. It is probable that th; feud betwe‘en the Israel-
6 {apa[clL [RAFLI) is .used of Achan (Josh. 7 17 [ b ] pal.]^ ites and the Jerahmeelites, Cushites, and Misrites was long
[BAFLJ), Sibbecai (I Ch.?7*1 T+ 3 a p ~ a[B], TQ <aparT IL], anterior to the fall of the kingdom of Judah. T. I(. C.
om. A), and of MaharaL (zh. u. 13 TY 3ap.r [Bl, T+ -par CALI);
and occurs also in EV under the form IZRAHITE ( n v ? , rather Sayce, 364, frankly calls it a mistake of the Chronicler. In
’fll!?) applied to Shamhuth, I Ch. 278. Here Marqnart, Fund. fact, the kings of the twentf-second dynasty bear for the most
19, would read ’Fl! (7 *?ii:): W , see SHAMMAH, $ 5. part Libyan names (see EGYPT, 5 64).
2. A Gershonite Levice ( I Ch. 621 [6] 41 [26]. raapa, caapar
Ex$T 8 378, cp 4 3 1 3 . ; A H T 315, note I .
[B], a<aprou [A in 7’. 41]), whose son is named Ethni (u. 41)-a 3 We assume that pw*w IS miswritten for ,013. See SHISHAIC,
combination which resembles Ethan b. Zerah (u. sup.); see I2.
E l t a A N , 3. 4 Read n h ! n i - l D’$KyDu* 73? D h t D n 1 3 O n .
Hommel, it is true, emends differently (Exp.T, as above). @
has c c ~ v d c+uewv [ K T ~ v W V I ,706s ~ipa<ou[rl&(cp 22 I aA[e]rpo-
1 For the final K , cp uu.+eK, I S. 30 29 (B) : mzparScr Nu. 34 R
In, each case K (of car) follows. <ov& [EA], apa<awLarp [L], where M T has Z~XJ?~?);&&o$aw;
2 See Bertheau’s commentary hut note the (less probable) Pesh. ‘tents of the Arabs.’ But 7 5 7 and ~ njpn are both corrupt
alternative view offered in Kyle,’Ezra-Neh. 283. fragments of s~nny.
5409 5410
ZERAHIAH , ZERUBBABEL
ZERAHIAH (n;n?T ‘Yahw&has dawned,’ 5 35, cp plained as =$?;
Q7T [cp Kon.2481, 1. 21. ‘begotten
IZRAHIAH
unless both these names are modifications of ethnics, 1. Data. in Babylon.’ T h e name may plausibly be
see ZERA; and note that the whole body of names in the brought into connection with a name found
genealogical scheme connecting Eleazar b. Aaron with Ezra,
etc., and the names of Izrahiah‘s five sons in I Ch. 73, and that on two Babylonian contract tablets (marked V. A. Th.
of Zerahiah‘s son in Ezra 8 4, admit of being regarded as modified 81 and V. A. T h . 143 respectively, in Peiser’s Bnb.
ethnics [so Che 1’ (apara [BAL]). Vertruge [1890]), Z ER - TIN - TIR - KI , which is usually read
I . b. Uzzi, faker of Meraioth ( I Ch. 66 [532] [(apari, <aprqs
AI 51 [36], E z r a 7 4 z 4 E s d . 1 ~ARNA). In I E s d . 8 ~he IS IRr- or Zlr-Babili, though as a matter of fact the phonetic
called ZARAIAS (<paLou [ALI, om. B). reading Zarubabil is found. T h e meaning of this name,
2. Father of E LIEHOENAI (=Ishmael?), of the b’ne Pahath- in its full form, according to C. H. W . Johns, is
moah-$.e., (most probably) Nephtoah-missur-a district in the probably ‘ Marduk preserves the rightful seed [heir] to
Negeb, Ezra84 (capraa [B])=I Esd. 831 ZARAIAS((aparou
[BAL]). See Crit. 62. Babylon.’ This assumes that the name is a contraction
from Marduk-zLru-Babili-IiSir; see, however, below).
ZERED, THE VALLEY OF, or BROOK OF (5n~ T h e facts of the history of Zerubbabel are much dis-
771; Nu. + a p a r r a Z ~ P E TP I , zape [AI, zAp& puted, and the O T references still appear to await some
[L] ; Dt. +.Z A ~ E T[BAL, but zap€ AaPonce], zap& fresh illumination. These references (excluding the
[F] ; torrentem Zared), named in E’s itinerary in Nu. manifest interpolations in I Esd. 4 13 56) are : Hag.
21 12, also in Dt. 213Jt T h e prevailing tendency is 1 I 12 14 22 4 P I 23 Zech. 4 6 I Ch. 319 Ezra 2 2 32 5 2 Neh.
to identify it with the WZdy Kerak (Dillmann, Driver, 7 7 I Esd. 5 8 56 7 0 6 2 18 27 zgt. Authorities agree in
Stenernagel, A. T. Chapman), a deep and narrow gorge stating that he was sou of Shealtiel (or, as thrice in
running past Kerak in a NW. direction to the Dead Haggai, Shaltiel), except Zechariah, who is silent as to
Sea. In the upper part of its course it is called the his parentage, and the Chronicler, who makes him
WEdy ‘Ain el-Franji. the son of Pedaiah, and the nephew of Shealtiel. T h e
There is, however, reason to think that the document in Chronicler represents him as a descendant of David.
Nu. 21 has come down to us, especially so far as relates to
geography, in a very distor:ed form. See NAHALIEL, WARS In the other passages this is not stated. Haggai
O F THE LORD, R OO K OF. Upon this theory, which demands four times appends to his name the title ‘9ehah (see
close examination, ‘ Zered’ should be some place-name in the E. G OVERNOR , I ) of Judah,’ and Zechariah implies that
of the Negeb, and the name ‘ Zered ’ is most easily accounted for he occupies the highest position among the Jews at
as a corruption of Jizreel (JEZREEL,2). T. K. C.
home. In Ezra 22=Neh. 7 7 he is represented as the
ZEREDA, RV Zeredah (Z?ly),I K i . 1 1 ~ 6 and leader of a band of captives who returned to Judah.
Zeredathah ( Z i I 1 l y ) AV, 2 Ch. 417. See ZARE- Haggai, by the title ‘ m y (=YahwB‘s) servant’ (Hag.
TITAN. 2 23 ; cp Zech. 3 8). indicates that Zerubbabel has received
Z R E R A T H , RV Zererah (???.y
; rapArAeA [B], a special mission from God. and both Haggai and
Zechariah (cp also Ezra 5 ~ f).represent Zerubbabel and
K U ~ [$VIuuv~-yp.!vt [AL]), a place towards which Jeshua or Joshua, the high priest, as having been insti-
the Midianites fled, in the story of Gideon (Judg. 72.). gated by them to rebuild the temple. T h e most remark-
See G IDEON , Z ARETHAN .
able reference of all remains. It is in the same passage
ZERESH (dy ; z w c ~ p a[BKLaP], c. [A]), wife of of Haggai which contains the address to Zerubbabel as
Haman the Agagite, Esth. 5 1014 613.t ‘ m y servant,’ and consists of a n emphatic statement
The importance attached by Haman to her counsel favours the that when the great overthrow of the powers (or power?)
view that she was originally a representative of some place or hostile to Israel occurs, Zerubbabel will receive the
clan. Comparing ZETHAR (qu.),and assuming that the scene highest proofs of the divine favour and protection. These
of the story of Esther was originally laid in the Negeh we may
perhaps see in Zeresh (Zereth?) a mutilated form of Zirephath. are the few dry, bare facts which find expression in the
Earlier critics explained it as ‘golden’ (Pers. ser, ‘gold’). For MT. T h e ea.rlier tradition, howel-er, was certainly not
another view see Jensen, WZKM, 1892,p. 64. Cp also PURIM, so meagre, and traces of the fuller record can, in all
8 7, ESTHER, 8 3. T. K. C.
probability, yet be discerned. It is only because the
ZERETH (nl?),b. Helah, a Judahite name, points to be examined are so new that there is still con-
I Ch. 4 7 (ape0 [Bl, uapd [AI, uap@ [Ll). Perhaps a corrupt siderable divergence of opinion.
form of nm? (Che.). A provisional view, which probably contains some
-
ZERETH SHAHAR, or (AV), Zareth shahar - historical truth, is Ss follows. T h e family of David was
(inp;l-n7y; CEPAAA K N CCEIIWN EN TW opoi 2. provisional not altogether ruined by the catastrophe
€NAB FBI, CAPO K A I ciwp E.T.O. E N ~ K[AI, cape of the exile. There is a tradition that
view’ even Jehoiachin benefited by a change
E. T. 0. EMAK [L]), a Reubeuite city of doubtful name
(see below), situated ‘ o n a mountain of the valley’ of feeling towards him on the part of Nebuchadrezzar’s
(Josh. 13 ~ g ) - - i . e . , on one of the mountains E. of the son and successor, E VIL - MERODACH (p.v.). I t is also
Jordan valley (cp v. 27), and not impossibly on that stated that SHESHBAZZAR ( p . ~ . ) the
, ‘prince’ ( ~ 1 ~ or
3 )
described at length in Jos. Blvii. 6 1-3 (see MACHZRUS). ‘ governor ’ (mm),received the sacred vessels from Nebu-
T o the NW. of this mountain is the Wddy es-Sara, chadrezzar, and went with a royal commission to rebuild
with a hot spring called ‘ A i n es-Sara (ZDPV2221244 ; the temple, that he did actually lay the foundation-stone.
cp Tristram, Land of Moa6, 2 5 7 8 ) , in which name but that the building was soon afterwards interrupted.
Buhl ( P a l 268) finds an echo of nix, Sereth. This Sheshbazzar has been identified with the Shenazzar
The name Zereth-hdgalpr, however, seems to become clearer of I Ch. 318, who is represented as a son of Jeconiah.
from the point of view adopted in the article SIHON. ,nun It is supposed that Zerubbabel had succeeded his uncle
should represent TlncgN ‘ Ashhur ’ (cp I Ch. 4 5), and nTy should in the governorship by the year 520 B. c., when Haggai
come from noiy, ‘Zarephath.’ Josh. 13 16-20, as it now stands,
may not correctly represent the original document. and Zechariah stirred up the people to resume the
T. K. C. building of the temple, and that the breaking out of
ZERI (’?y), I Ch. 253. In I Ch. 25 I I I ZRI . revolts in different parts of the Persian empire may
have stimulated hopes of the revival of an independent
ZEROR (Thy ; apsA [BA], CAP& [L]). a Benjamite,
1 On these see E ZRA (THE GREEK), 8 6 , and cp Guthe’s notes
ancestor of Kish (I S. 9 It); in T Ch. 8 30 ZUR. Marquart in Kau. ApoKr. (1898). That the ~ ~ r d v r u ~ofo cI Esd. 4 58 was
(Fund.15) prefers nr. 1)xnmight be possible (cp ZEDAD). originally Zeruhbabel (cp Jos. Ant. xi. 3 I) is plainly impossible,
ZERUAH ( ZplW CAPOYA [A], on BL see col. 2404, even if Zerubbabel was not the same person as Sheshhazzar or
Sanabassar, and was not the leader of the first migration of the
n. z), mother of Jerdboam I. ( I K. 1126). The name is prob- Jews to Palestine. According to Howoxth however the theory
ably a corruption of np!:, ‘ a Misrite (N. Arabian) woman.’ respecting Zerubbabel here referred to was’ ‘ a sufficiknt reason,
See JEROBOAM, I, and cp ZERUIAH. T. K. C.
and the only one, for the elasion of this particularly edifying
passage from the canonical Ezra, and in consequence its exclusion
from the canon ’ (‘ Some Unconventional Views on the Text of
ZERUBBABEL (573?~,
z o p o ~ a ~ commonly
E~, ex- the Bible,’ PSBA 23 316).
5411 5412
ZERUBBABEL ZETHAM
killgdoln under the Davidic prince Zerubbabel. It is corruptions of gentilics or ethnics belonging to the
also held by some that there is evidence of this in the Negeb. T h a t ' Zerubbabel ' was really a descendant of
OT itself. Zechariah (610) mentions the arrival at David is possible, but by no means certain,' and the
Jerusalem of four Jews from Babylon, who brought gifts same may of conrse be said of Sheshbazzar.2 Even that
of silver and gold. Wellhausen thinks that in Zech. they were returned exiles is d ~ u b t f u l . ~This is not the
611 the text has been deliberately tampered with. T h e place to rewrite the history of this period- or rather to
crown referred to must surely have been for Zerubbabel. collect the fragments of its history-from the new point
This must either hare been expressly stated or implied. of view. But we may at any rate suggest that critics of
Wellhausen himself is content with omitting the words Zechariah may have erred in supposing that the donors
relative to the high priest, Joshua, as ihserted at a time of the silver and gold mentioned in Z e c h . 6 9 8 were
when the high priest was virtually a crowned king ; but ' Babylonian Jews.' These persons appear rather to
it may also be held that the name Joshua has displaced have been foreigners such as are referred to in Is. 60 13,
the name Zerubbabel.1 However this may be, the and their gifts are such ninja ( ' offerings ') as Haggai
sudden disappearance of Zerubbabel from the theatre of most probably refers to in the famous prophecy in Hag.
political history is remarkable.2 It has been suggested 27. It may still, however, be held that the name of
that he may have been recalled or even put to death by 'Joshua ben Jehozadak' has been substituted for that
the Persians, and that the attempt of Tattenai (see of ' Zerubbabel' (Ishmael?), and the view that a move-
'I'xrxu) the satrap of Syria to stop the building of the ment arose among the Jews in favour of ' Zerubbabel '
temple may have some connection with this, or may at as Messianic king still appears to have a considerable
any rate imply a suspicion of the disloyalty of the Jews. degree of probability.
Later, we find Sanbnllat professing that there is a report Rothstein (Die Genedogie des K8zigs /ojachin IC.seiptet-
that Nehemiah aiiiis at the crow-n (Neh. 67). This nachkotizmen in geschichtl. Geleuchtung, rgoz) assumes the
present form of the names in I Ch. 3 17-24 to be fairly correct.
report was doubtless erroneous ; but i t may plausibly be Such an emendation as that of 'Ohel' into ' Jehaiel'(85) isat any
supposed to be based on the fact that a Jewish pretender rate exceptional, and even here the author assumes a view of the
had really come forward in the past.3 formation of the name ' Jehaiel' such as the latest editor of
Chronicles might not have disowned. The theory that 'Zerub-
For the further development of similar ideas see Sellin, babel' was the son of Pedaiah is supported by some new
SerubdabeI (1898),where it is supposed that Zerubbabel histprical hypotheses, the hasis of which, however, needs careful
is the martyr referred to (many think) in Is. 53,and the testing. T. K. C.
same writer's Studien ZUY Entstehung.sgesci5. der Yiid. ZERUIAH (Yl:lly ; Yl:??, ' o n e who is perfumed
(Ameinde nnch denz 6n6. ExiZ, 2 (I~oI),where some
with storax'? 5 71 ; c&poyl& [BAL]), sister of David
retractations are ma.de, and the theory is placed on what
( I Ch. 216), and mother of J OAB , A BISHAI , and
appears to the writer a more secure basis. Sellin still
ASAHEL.
holds that Zerubbabel came to a violent end, but n o So at least the Chronicler represents ; z S. 17 25 will he con-
longer rests this on Is. 53 or on any other passage of sidered presently. It would be strange, however, that in the
the OT. Winckler, however, is bolder. H e thinks list of David's high officers in 2 S. 8 16-18 Joab should be the
that both Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were set aside only one whose mother's name was substituted for his father's.
We have met with many cases in which the ethnic origin of a
by acts of the Persian authorities, and that, whilst Shesh- name has been disguised hy the addition of ;i to the gentilic
bazzar was treated gently, Zerubbabel suffered the ending 7. It is therefore not improbable that Zeruiah is an
punishment of impalement ; the eulogium of Zerubbabel expansion of an ethnic namel and if so we cannot for a moment
is to be found in Is. 53.* doubt what that name is-it is '?Sp. 11Y and 1s are several
Stade(GP712 127 [18?8l)speaksmorevaguely. ' Ifthe supreme times given by an error for 1W-i.e., Mugri in N. Arabia (see
Persian power heard of the hopes attaching to the Persian MIZRAIM,8 2 6), and Jeroboam's mother is, by a similar error,
governor Zeruhbabel, we cannot wonder that it did not accommo- called ZERUAH (q.u.), instead of Migriyah. In 2 S. 2 32 the
date itself to the role of a tree undergoing the embrace of ivy.' sepulchre of Asahel's father is said to have been in Bethlehem.
It is possible. however, that these theories need to Bethlehem probably comes from Beth-jerahmeel, and there was
\e revised in the light of a more thorough criticism doubtless a Beth-jerahmeel in the Jerahmeelite Negeb ; cp
a
3. new of the text of the O T narratives. T h e story M ICAH, I. It was from this Beth-jerahmeel that Joah prob-
ably came and if so we can easily believe that his father might
suggested underlying Ezra, Nehemiah, and the early be called '(especially by those who dwelt outside the Negeb)
t h e o ~ . part of Daniel refers, it may be held, to a Misri, or Miyite,' ' Jerahmeelite' and ' Misrite' being almost,
N. Arabian captivity of the Jews and to a though not quite, synonymous. In I Ch. 2 54 (RV) we meet
subsequent change in their relations to their captors. with a place Atroth(ephrath)-heth-joah whose people were 'sons
of Salma' (i.e. connrcted with the Salmzeans-see S ALMAH ).
It is unsafe to place any reliance on the proper names This indirect1y)confirmi the view here taken. It would he a
in their present form. ' n i i i (for the common explana- serious ohjection to this if the text of 2 S. 1725 were correct.
tions of which little can be said5) may, like S Z ~ * Nand The obscurity of the passage however (see NAHASH) suggests
doubt. Elsewhere (see Ckt. Gib.) it is proposed to read
h i , be a corruption (manipulated by the redactor) of Now Amasa was the son of Ithra an Ishmaelife, who went i i
h y n y (Ishmael). This has the advantage of accord- unto Abigail, the daughter of Achish, a Misrite.
ing with the theory, which appears to be well snpported, We can now understand better the exclamation ascribed to
that the names given in I Ch. 3 19 to the sons of ' Zerub- David in 2 S. 3 39 'these men the sons of Miari-i.e. fierce
Migrites by extdtion (MT Zeruiahtare harsher &an I.'
babel,' beginning with Meshullam (=Ishmael), are all The alternative is to connect >'%with 'R MASTIC (q...), com-
1 S o l e w . Rei. Life, 15, n.Hitzig supposes a mere ordinary paring ;i?)Zilpah,
!, 'dropping'; see N AMES , g 71. It is true,
accident. H e would insert the words*'of Zeruhhabel and of,' Zilpah too admits of another explanation (cp ZILPAH). What
thus accounting for the plural ' crowns. So also Marti (in Kau. can have led Josephus to say (Ant. vii. 13) that Joah's father
HS). was named uaupr Suri it is difficult to say, unless it be that in
2 For another view see Guthe, G V I 248 (Darins's division of I Ch. 4 14 Joah, "the 'father of Ceharashim' (a corruption of
the empire into twenty satrapies, making the post at Jerusalem Geshurim), is called Seraiah (see S ERAIAH , beg.). T. K. c.
su erfluoos).
8 So f e w . K e i . Lif;.,13-16, which was written independently ZETHAM (El!, explain as ZETHAN, Z&OM [R],
of Sellin's Seru66abel (published in the same year 1898). ZAIB.. zoo. [A], Z H ~ N [L]), a Gershonite Levite;
See SERVANT O F T H E L O RD . Winckler's theories, as given
I Ch. 238 2622.
in A OFand K A T(3J, have passed through several phases. There
is a convenient summary of his present conclusions in the latter 1 Cp Kosters Hersfez, 4 7 3
work. pp. 291.fi 2 According io the theory here advocated, 'Sheshbazzar' is
5 ' Sown in Bxhylon'surelycannotmean 'begotten in Babylon.'
Rothstein (Genraiop'e, 65) thinks that the name was given to his an alteration of a name with N. Arabian affinities. The first
son by Pedaiah (=Sheshhazzar) tocommemorate the happy turn part may, in accordance with sound method, be identified with
in the fortiines of Israel and that the return of Jewish exiles was ui3. Again and again in the MT we find w i w and DiD written
already as good as certjin when the child called Zeruhhabel was in error for w i ~ . The second part may perhaps he a corruption
horn. Marquart (Fund.55) however supports the view that of w n .
Zeruhbahel (Zarubabili?) is a)Bahyloni& name. But the name, 3 Cp E ZRA -N EHEMIAH , P, 8 ; I SRAEL , B 51 ; and cp Zntr. Is.
as explained above by Johns does not seem at all a likely one Prologue, p. xxxviii; J e w . Rel. Life, 6 ; Kent, Hisf. of U r
to have been selected'for a JLwish governor. Jnuisk PeapZc (Babylonian Period, etc.), 1 3 2 3
54'3 5414
ZETHAN ZIKLAG
ZETHAN (IC’!,
as if ‘ olive’ [§ 691, but the neigh- Now Zihia ( ~ q s in
) I Ch. 8 g is grouped with Jobah Mesha
and Malcam. Judging from numerous analogies it c& hard14
bourhood of Bilhan [if it be ultimately from ‘Jerahmeel’], be doubted that of these three names (a)and (c) come from
a n d of Tarshish and Ahish&ar, both probably from ‘Jerabmeel’ and (6) from Ishmael,’ while the names of the
Ashhur, suggests nDW as the original of []lll’T or father and mother (Shaharaini and Hodesh) are both distortions
Zethan, Z A l e h N [B], H e A N [AI, ZH€h [L]). b. BII.HAN of ‘ Ashbur ’ (a synonym of Jerabmeel) ; naturally enough they
dwell in the ‘field (highland) of Migvur,’ >Nl,g, as often, heing
in a genealogy of B EN J AMIN (q.v., 3, g ii. a ) , I Ch. altered from Misvur (see MOAR,$0 I , n. I, z+i.e., in the N.
7 ref. Arabian border-land. It now becomes probable that both NVJX
How deceptive apparent tree-names may he, appears from and x,>s, together with ~ 3 (ZIRA)
q and p y x r (ZEROIM), are
Birzaith h.i~>, Ges. ‘well of an olive ’) the name of a son of popular corruptions of bNynw* (Ishmael). T. K. C.
Malchiel (from ‘ Jerahmeel’). Malchiel’k brother is Heher (cp
Judg. 4 II), among whose sons (all prohahly hearing Negeb ZICHRI (W!, see N AMES , .3z, 5 2 , but c p
names) is Japhlet (cp Peleth, b. Jerahmeel, I Ch. 2 33), which ZACCER,wbere’it is suggested that this must be a clan-
may ultimately come from ZAREPHATH (4.v.). T. K. c.
name ; note the ethnic affinities of the related names ;
ZETHAR (TIT,&B&T&z& [BKALB]). a chamberlain zqp[,~li[BKAFLI).
of Ahasuerus, Esth. 1 IO?. 1-3. in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (9.v. 0 9 ii. p), I Ch. 8
Gesenius ‘perhaps “star” Pers. sitar.’ But if Mehuman= where observe that SHIMEI, SHASHAK (probably), and JEROHA;
Heman, H&hona=Hebron (Rehohoth), and Carcar= Jerahmeel, are ethnics.
Zethar as prohahly=Zarephath. Cp VASHTI,ZERESH,and see I . h. Shimei (u 19 : <a per [B]).
otherwise Marq. Fund. 71. 2. h. Shashak iv. z3 ; &p [AI).
T. K. C.
P.
. 3. Jeroham (u. 27 : <axpcc [B]).
ZIA (Y’T
; zoys [BA], Z E & [L]), I Ch. 5 1 3 , a name Father’ of Joel (one of the developments of ‘Jerahmeel?),
i n 4 k of Benjamite inhahitants of Jerusalem (E ZRA ii;, g 5 [b],
in the genealogy of G AD (q.v., i., 13) g 1 5 [ r ] a ) : Neh.119.
5. Of REUBEN (5 13, end), I Ch. 27 16. The name stands close
ZIBA (K2’Y, and K?Y ; on origin, see below ; 2 S. to the ‘Jerahmeelite names, Shephatiah, Maacah, Kemuel,
164, c[e]iB& [BAL], ciBBa [A sometimes], C I B A ? Elihu, etc.
[Josh. Ani!.vii. 551). ‘Servant of the house of Saul, 6. A Judahite, father of AMASIAH (2 Ch. 17 16 : < s p a [B]
<axp~JA]). pmasiah, like Amasa and Amasai, comes ultimatel;
a n d , after Saul’s death, of Mephibosheth or Meribaal. from Ishme eli.
On the obscure story of his treatment of Saul‘s son see 7. An Ephraimite warrior(n Ch. 28 7 :+Kp[C]L [BA], <axapiac
M EPHIBOSHETH , § 2. Ziba seems to have founded [Ll).
8. Father of ELISNAPHAT, 2 Ch. 23 I ( c a ~ a p r e[Bl, -LOU [A]).
a n important family ; he had ‘fifteen sons and twenty Elishaphat is a variant to S HEPHATIAH (F
servants.’ H e himself had no recorded father or tribe. h. Izhar, a Kohathite Levite (E
Although other views have been suggested [cp NAMES, ev?dently a clan-name, may come from Mini (Misri).
$0 5 1 681, we can hardly doubt that N ~ * Yor NIX is a worn IO. A Levite overseer, b. Eliezer, h. Mob&-i.~., of N. Arabian
down form of *iy!y (Sih‘ani) or *l&V (hn‘6ni)=hynW* origin (1 Ch. 26 25).
r i . An Asaphite Levite in list of inhahitants of Jerusalem
(Ishme‘eli). Ziha, like Doeg (see SAUL, 0 za), was apparently a (E ZRA ii., B 5 [a1 5 15 la) I Ch. 915,in 11 Neh. 1117 called
N. Arabian ( 2 S. 9 2-12 16 1-4 19 17 29). T. K. C. ZABDI; see Z A C ~ U(4).R Bkther of Micha (from Jerahmeel),
and son of Asaph (perhaps from Sarephath).
ZIBEON (fiU?u, ‘hyzena’? 68 ; see below; 12. A priest of the course of Ahijah, temp. Joiakim (E ZRA
CsBq-wN’), a Hivite (v. z ) or rather (see v. 2 0 ) ii., B 6 3 0 11) Neh.1217 BN*A, (om. <+xaptar [Ll). The
Horite, in the genealogy of the Esau-tribe (Gen. 362 20, predominant type of these priestly names IS probably ethnic ;
MESHULLAM (q...) precedes Zichri, PILTAI (q.v.)follows. Zichri
c s r s r w N [El, 24 2 9 ; I Ch. 138. C ~ B E T W N [A], 40). must surely be a clan-name from the Negeb. T. K. C.
In v. 29 he is a clan-chieftain (l&)or clan &i( see SS,
3.u. +). ZIDDIM (n’?%gas if ‘ the sides’), more correctly
In v. 24, underneath the strange, Midrash-like text of the H A Z Z I D D I Ma , fortified city of Naphtali (Josh. 1 9 3 5 ;
redactor lie apparently the words, ‘it is the Anah who went assedina [Vg,] ; & c e A s i ~[Eus. OS(*) 224 951). T h e
out from’ th; Jerahmeeliies in the desert ’ ; ‘ a s he fed the asses Jer. Talm. (Meg. 11) represents Hazziddim to be
is woven out of a marginal gloss pornn, which is one of the Kephar Hicja, which perhaps = Hattin, NW. of Tiberias
current distortions of &+mi* (cp SHECHEM, 2). Another (Neub. (;dog?: 207 ; Buhl, Pal. 2 1 9 ) . Some MSS read
ypular corruption of the same word is probably ,in (Horite).
n v. 20 Ziheon is reckoned among the sons of ‘the Horite,’ and o*isil (so @PAL T(;V Tuplov). See ZER.
as a comment on (Horite), there still lies, under the super- [It is very possible that P’swork is ha*ed here upon a geo-
fluous phrase y i ~ 9n 2 ~ (RV,
3 ‘the inhabitants of the land ’), the graphical survey of the Negeh, which included the cities of the
Naphtuhim (see Crit. Rib. on Gen. 10 13). Several of the names
gloss2 $~yna, (Ishmaelite); *>w, (like %~i>’) heing one of the in m. 35-38 have the appearance of heing names of the Negeb.
cormptlons of ‘no-. We are now prepared to consider the origin O’?+? might he explained in the same way as a? !;! (see
of the name Zibeon, which is scarcely=‘hyaena,’ as WRS
(1.Phil.990), Gray ( H P N 95), and other scholars have SIDDIM).-T. K. c.]
supposed, hut is rather a corruption of iiynw (Sime‘on), used as
an equivalent of ’nu’ (Emael), unless indeed it comes directly
ZIDKIJAH (;?“zlu),
Neh. 101 AV, RV Z EDEKIAH
from iynu,, a corruption of ‘,zw,, fo; which parallels can be , 5).
($7.2,.
a n d Zibia is in itself plausible, in spite of the pointing. ZIIM (a’!?), Is. 1321, etc. AVmg.. See CAT.
But though such an interpretation may possibly be
ancient, the theory that early Hebrew personal names ZIKLAG (& ; in pause and in z S. 1 >$??; in
were derived from animals has become so questionable I Ch. 12 I 20 [ Z I Bii., Ginsb.] 2>?’,; usuallyuerreAaar[Bl, ur.fhay
that we must look in each case for some other more [A], v e x . [L]; hut with the following variants UlKehar [B],
probable explanation. ~ ~ durucXa[ear],
q , u u d a [AL u i r d e i [Nc.a mg. inf.], urrahoe
[L]; while in Ch. B has orha UwKha ow hap ; and N UwKha,
1 The representation of y(=Ar. 2) by y is not uncommon; u w r a y ; and in I S. 30 I [first‘time] B a n J L read r r e i h a ; Jos.
Ant. vi. 13 ro uwchha ; Siceleg: zcnakZax, eenkalag).
c p Wr. Comp. Sem. Gr. 42$, and ~ ~ ~ B E R n. I Ar. H ,
2 is probably a fragment of SNnni., of which tribal name W e first hear of Ziklag as in the possession of Achish,
$~ynw is used as a synonym. king of Gath, by whom it was given as a residence to
5415 54’6
ZILLAH * ZILPAH
his vassal David (li S.2 f 6 f . ; cp 301426 2 S. 11 410 from the Aramrean (Holzinger, K H C on Gen. 309 ;
I Ch. 12 I 20). Ziklag also appears with other places in Baethgen, Beeitr. 160).
t h e far S. in Neh. 1128. In Josh. 1531 ( P ) it is enumer- In Aram. 2/ zrp means ' to drip, trickle,'l in Syriac ' to defile';
ated among the more remote towns of Judah, but in in Assyrian, where, however, there is the natural uncertainty as
to whether the first radical is z or s it occurs as zu-hp&-e.g.,
Josh, 195 (P) is assigned to Sinieon. Conder's identi- in the recurring phrase [du-6i-i6]zb'-iig.fi, ' [planningjhostility.'
fication of Ziklag with Zuheilika a site 11 in. E. by S. If the theory of Arainaean extraction was a modifica-
o f Gaza, and 19 m. SW. from Beit-Jibrin or Eleuthero- tion of an older story ( c p below), t h e name may have
polis (PEPQ, 1878, pp. I Z ~ ) has , been generally but been earlier Dilpah ( c p Jidlaph, the ' uncle ' of Iiebekah;
too hastily accepted. Gen. 2222), the root of which does occur in Hebrew.
The name is certainly corrupt, hut not so far as entirely to On the assumption that the name has been modified,
obscure the true name. The two names identified by Condet
begin with'a different sibilant, and zuheilika reminds us of AI. C. Niebuhr (Gesch. 1253) connected it with Zelophehad
zahaliku declivities,' a name which ippiies well to the three ( m p k ; for a suggestion as to the real origin of which
small hilis, nearly a mile apart, on which (see Conder) the ruins strange name, however, see MANASSEH, 5 9 4 , whilst
called Zuheilika stand. Ziklag is as corrupt as Ahishag or the
Cheyne formerly connected both Zilpah and Zelophehad
jhplc (see SACK) of 2 R.442. It is best to read 7$bJ or a&? with ' Salhad' (above, col. 2309 near foot). This
(cp Ass. g a k , 'fortress'), an ancient and famous city (see
BEKED), repre4ented by the mod. Halqa, in the W3dy Asliij suggestion he regards as still tenable ; hut his present
about 12 m. S. of Beersheha, on ht: way to Ruheiheh or Rehot view is different.2
both (see map of NEGEB,A 2, after col. 3376). In Josh. 19 j 6 It has always seemed strange that such widely
Ziklag is grouped with Beth-marcahoth which should be read separated communities as G a d and Asher should be
Beth-rehoboth (see MARCABOTH). This fits in perfectly with
the story of David's raids while at Ziklag. The name Haliisah a. zilpah grouped as Zilpah tribes. Their agreement
or Halagah is also not impossibly concealed under Jekabzeel or in bearing names of deities apparently dis-
KABLEEL ( q . ~ . ); the lists of P and of the Chronicler often con- tribes. tinct from Yahwe has been noted elsewhere
tain corrupt variants of the same name, given as names of dis-
tinct places or persons. This accords with the view that 2 S. (ASHER, 5 I n. ; G AD , 5 z ) , a s also their Aramrean
21 15-22 23 8-23 relates to a war of David with the Rehobothites elements (ASHER,5 3 , G AD, 5 2). Whether they once
and the Znrephathites (seeRE~osoTH, ZAREPHATH); the original lived together is uncertain. I t has been thought that
text was misunderstood and wrongly edited. Very possibly the traces of an early stay of Asher can be detected S. of t h e
'hold ' (il!?Xp to which David ' fled' (read for ll:! in 2 S.
plain of Megiddo ( c p ASHER, 5s I 3 ) . The presence of
6 17) and where he was when he longed for water 'from the
cistern of Bethlehem--.e., probably a 'Bethlehem' in the Beria a n d of Heber a n d Malchiel as father a n d sons in
Ne eb was that of Haliiah, which was not far from thevalley the Asher list (Nu. 2644fl) a n d the same three names
of 4aar;hath (text, ' Rephaim'), where the Zarephathites (text, (if Michael is for Malchiel) i n nearly the same relation
Pelktim) were arrayed against him. Haliisnh may likewise be in Benjamin lists ( I Ch. 8138 1 6 3 ) a n d of a clan
the original of HAZZ&LEL[PONI] in I Ch. 43 (unless Hazzelel
presup oses Halas'el ;see BBZALEEL), of Ahuzzath in Gen. 26 26 Beria in an Lphraim list would be a not unnatural
and (ofcourse) of Chellus in Judith 19. Possibly Haliivh wa; result if Ephraim a n d Benjamin's territory had been
originally the centre of the cult of the hero ISAAC ( q . ~ . ,5 I). earlier occupied by Asherites (so Steuernagel, Binwand.
The above view was formed long before the appearance of
Winckler's Gesch. 2, where (185) it is held that Ziklag is the 30J). If the sons of Zilpah are meant in Genesis to
capital of the Krethi or Cherethites ; cp I S. 30 14. be regarded as older than Joseph the seniority would be
Perhaps ' Ziklaggim' (or Halusathini) may underlie the diffi- a natural way of reprzsenting an earlier occupation of
cult ' Casluhim' in Gen. 10 14. See MIZRAIM, col. 3164, n. I. t h e Ephraim highlands which must be assumed if we
'r. K. c. suppose that Asher really entered Palestine from the E.
See CAINITES, 5 9.
5
. ZILLAH ( 7 Y, ; sshAa [AEL] ; .s.xLa),Gen. 4 19-23?.
' We might suppose that a Zilpah tribe was settled in E.
Palestine, that part of it crossed the Jordan, a n d after
staying a while in Ephraim moved northwards and
ZILPAH (?I@)!, zsA@a[ADEL]), the mother of the took the name of Asher (from the older inhabitants in
tribes G AD and ASHER (Gen. 3010-13,J ; 3526 P) ; also the N. ? see ASHER.5s I 3 ) , whilst the portion of the
represented as the maid of Leah (2924 Zilpah tribe which remained came t o be known a s Gad.
1. Name.
3526 P) and the concubine of Jacob On the other hand it is uncertain when we are meant to
(309 J ; 372 46-9 P). If any explanations of the name place the birth of the sons of Zilpah. Even the editor
Zilpah were ciirrent i n early Israel, the editors of the need not have intended t o suggest that both Gad a n d
Genesis narratives have not preserved them. It is Asher fall between Naphtali a n d Issachar and between
hardly possible, as it perhaps is in the case of Bilhah Naphtali a n d Joseph ( c p RACHEL, 5 IC). The sons'
{see SBOT on Gen. 303), t o guess what they might births may have been grouped artificially t o facilitate
have said.' T h e nearest approach to a narrative the narrative (cp T RIBES , 59f.). Steuernagel, indeed,
bearing on Zilpah is Gen. 372. T h a t verse seems to pleads strongly - . for the historical trustworthiness of the
represent a version of the Joseph-story in which the 1 In Arabic 'to draw near ' hut ziIfa garden: in Ethio ic
enmity against Joseph was confined t o the sons of Bilhah zelfat=reproof. YJkiit give; a water on the way to Mekta,
a n d Zilpah.2 Such a story may he a late invention to Zuuljbtu. ii. 939 roJ (cp ii. 955 193).
2 [When Steuernagel (Eimuand.47) concludes that the clans
remove the reproach from the sons of Leah (Gunkel, derived from Zilpah, like those derived from Bilhah, were re-
ad ZQC.), in particular from Judah; hut P may have y d e d as not so fully Israelitish as the Leah and Rachel tribes
found it in sources which had more to say on the ecause they were of heathen origin, he does not allow for the
subject. T h e name Zilpah cannot he explained from possibility that Leah and her maid Zilpah are only doubles of
Rachel and her maid Bilhah-or, etymologically, that Leah
the vocabulary of the remains of Hebrew literature. Rachel. and Rilhah are all corrunt frarments of lprahrneei
W e cannot be sure, however, that Genesis as we now (JACOB; B 3), and that Zilpah ( w i t h ' w h i c ~ M r I - H o g ~ c o ~ p a r e s
read it regards Zilpah as Hebrew. Her mistress is a Jidlaph, most appropriately from the present point of view, for
among his hrothersare Kemuel=Jerahmeel, and Chesed=Cush)
,daughter of Laban ( c p RACHEL, 9 ~ b ) . is an equally corrupt fragment of a name virtually synonymous
According to Test. X f I . Patr. Naph. I indeed Zilpah and with Jerahmeel-viz., Ishmael. Nor can the qossihilit): he
Bilhah, who are sisters (cp Juhiiees 289)'are dakghters of a $ied that 'Asher' may be connected with Asshur or
maid (rar8ivrrq) of Laban ( A L Yand
~ ) of Sotheos 'of the stock Ashhur,' one of the ethnic names of the Negeh, and Dan with
of Abraham,' who wa5 carried captive from a place called Zelpha Adan or Adon-another of these names (cp PARADISE 4 7 end
,(whence the name of his first-born). Elsewhere however the and see Crit. 6i6.). And only a very close examinat& df th;
sisters are daughters cf Laban himself by a concdhine (Ps.-\on. texts can assure us that Gad and Asher were not originally
on Gen. 29 24 29 Gen. radba 74, Pir& Rub. El. 36 ; cp Charles, located in the Negeb. That the tradition made some of the
Bk.of/ub. 170g clans which were fused with the Jacob or Israel tribe heathenish
T h e name Zilpah has accordingly been explained (;.e., worshippers of gods other than Yahwe), will, however, he
universally admitted. The most important passages for the
textual critic are perhaps Gen. 29 I (on which.see JACOB, 5 3)
1 For a late example see Tcsf. XfZ. Pah-., Naph. I, quoted and 3 1 2 3 8 4 6 3 (on which see GALEED, GILEAD, but note
below. that there seems to have been a southern Gilead, referred to
2 It is against the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah that Joseph e g . , in Jer. 8 22 [see C d . Bib.], and the probable original oi
speaks to Jacob in T d .X Z f . Patr., Gad, I. the much-disputed Lud, Ludim).-T.K.c.1
5417 5418
ZILTHAI ZIN
Hebrew traditions, and the case can be made very Amorite [Pinches] ; Hommel, comparing Old Arab.
plausible. Who are the ’ brothers’ whom Jacob finds compound names, interprets ‘ protection ’ [ANT 85, cp
in E. Palestine when he comes with Rachel (and 88, 2301 ; but cp Z IMRI, 2 ; ZAMBP[E]I [RKAFL]).
Bilhah) from Laban (Gen. 3132 37 46 54) ? Must they I. One of the sons of Zerah b. Judah ( I Ch. 26), in
not be brother tribes who had remained there when Josh. 7 I called Z ABDI.
Jacob moved off? And, since Gad is the tribe most 2 . A descendant of Saul nientioned in a genealogy
firmly settled there, may not these brothers ’ be repre- of B EN J AMIN ( q . ~ . .§ g, ii. p), I Ch.836 ( c a p p ~[A]=
sented by the name Zilpah ? Steuernagel supposes that 942). Cp Z EMIRA .
several tribes (Zilpah, etc.) accompanied Jacob on its 3. ‘ Captain of the chariots,’ who conspired against
jxirney up from its settlement S. of Palestine. T h e Elah king of lsrael and killed him, and to secure his
representation of the Zilpah tribes as younger than the own position on the throne exterminated all the remnant
four Leah tribes, but older than Issachar and Zebulun, of the family of Baasha. After a seven days’ reign in
may represent a theory as to the time of their reaching Tirzah he was besieged by Omri the general, whereupon
their several seats; and the theory may be correct. like Sardanapalus he burnt the palace over his head and
There are great difficulties, however. The effect of perished in the ruins ( I K. 169-20). In 6 the names
system may indeed be far-reaching. If Asher arrived Zambri and Omri are much confused.
somewhat early W. of Jordan, and Gad somewhat late 4. b. SALW( q . ~ . )a. Simeonite chief, the name given
E. of Jordan (G AD , S), it is difficult to see how the to the central figure in P s narrative of the sin of the
grouping of them as Zilpah tribes can be anything but b’ne Israel with Midian (Nu. 256-18 P). Zimri had
artificial. See, further, T RIBES. brought a Midianitess named COZBI to the camp, and
Nor is it easy to see why Zilpah is connected with Phinehas, moved to indignation, slew them both, i n the
Leah. There is no obvious link between Gad or Asher ‘ t e n t ’ (,me)
; l see We. Prol.@)363, E T 3.56. See
3, zilpah and Judah or the other Leah tribes. Nor PHINEHAS,and cp D IBRI. S. A. C.
and Leah. is t h e relation of Zilpah to Leah even in the
story parallel with that of Bilhah t o Rachel, ZIMRI (’?pT;om. 6 ; Pesh. ’Amran; Vg. Zumbri),
or Hagar to Sarah. In the cases of Bilhah and Hagar one of the tribes or peoples threatened with judgment
the maid’s children are born before her mistress’s a n d by Jeremiah (or by a supplementer who assumes Jere-
because the mistress has no children (cp R ACHEL , 5 I h ) . miah’s mantle), Jer. 2525.
I n the case of Zilpah, on the contrary, Leah has n o less A revision of the text of vu. 19-26 places it beyond all reason-
than four children before the maid is called in. Is it able doubt that a N. Amhian people is meant. See ZIMRAN,
S HESHACH.
possible that Leah represents two figures, the second A land called Zimri whose king was allied to the kings of
being the mother of Zebulun and Issachar? These two Babylon and Elam (Si: H. Rawlinson, G. Smith, etc.), does not
SOUS were born after Zilpah’s, and a connection amon$
exist ; the right reading of the text is ‘Namri ’(see KB 1 140 186;
Schr. KGF ‘70). But to emend Jeremiah’s ‘Zimri’ into ‘Namri’
the four is more easily thinkable than in the case of the with Winckler (AORlzg2), or ‘Gomeri’ or ‘Gimirri’ (see
other Leah tribes. Issachar may have possessed part GOMER) with Rost ( U s t e r w h . 103 [18971)and Peiser (ZATIV
of the highlands of Ephraim at one time (cp I SSACHAR , 17 350 [1897]), is hardly possible if we duly criticise the text of
5 4, n. 2, and Stenernagel, Einwand. I z J ) , and the MT. T. K . C.
same may have been true at a n early date even of ZIN (I?, C[E]IN, CINA, C E N A ; in Nu. 34 4 E N N A K
ZEBULVN ( q . ~ . §, 7). [ B ; KAI follows], CEENNAK [AF], ENAK [L]. in
On the other hand, the same possibilities are not Josh.153, E N N A K [Bl, C E N N A K [Ba.blt CENA [AI,
excliided in the case of the other four Leah tribes (see C I N A [L]; Eus. Jer. enna [OS, 25337 ll810I ;
SIMEON, 5 4). I t is conceivable that Asher crossed see below). T h e wilderness N. of that of PARAN( q . ~ .;)
the Jordan into Ephraim before Jacob-Rachel came to the most important place in it was Kadesh-barnea in i t s
occupy the place of the older Leah tribes (so Steuer- oasis (Nu.1321 2 0 1 2714 3336 3 4 3 f: Dt.5251 Josh.
nagel). H. W. H. 1 5 I [ m pAlg). More precisely, it was the wild mountain-
ZILTHAI, RV Zillethai (’n$Y). region (Jos. Ant. iv. 46, speaks of a mountain called
. h. S HIMEI (q.v.) in a genealogy of B ENJAMIN (q.v., g ii. ,¶),
I Sin) rising in successive slopes from the ‘ArBbah in one
ICh. 8 20 (uaABsL [B], uaAer [A], d a 8 r [L]). direction and et-Tih in another, which now bears t h e
2. One of David’s warriors, I Ch. 12 20 ( u s p d e r [BN], yaAa& name of the ‘Azazimeh Arabs who inhabit it. See
[AI, urAaOa [Ll). See D AVID, 8 11 n. C. W ANDERINGS , W ILDERNESS OF. It has been suggested a
ZIMMAH (?QT ; ZEMMA [BL]), a Gershonite (Leviti- that Sin may mean the ‘ wall ’ of rock within which t h e
cal) name ; I Ch. 6 20 k1 (cappa [AI), 42 [271 ( 4 ~ p p a p[Bl, -pa wilderness of Zin lies (cp Z ION).
[AI), z Ch. 20 12 (SeppaO [f(41). The existence of J p ‘ to protect’ however, is very question-
ZIMRAN (]??2i; Sam. jlV3 ; plausibly connected able, and the name looks as if it had been worn down in course
of ages. Analogy favours the view that iy (Ziu), iyy (ZOAN), ijy
with 7Qt, antelope ’ [see WRS, J. PhiZ. 99.1, but c p (ZENAN),and ~ J K X(ZAANAN), have all come, through ]ry>v
Z IMRI ), the eldest of Abraham’s ‘sons’ by Keturah (ZIBEOX),from SNynw- (Ishmael).
( G e n . 2 5 ~ I Ch.132; Z E B ~ A N [AXE], ZEMP. [A],
Lagarde, however, with much learning and plausibility,
ZEMBP. [AaB], Z O M B ~ . [Ds‘’.1 Z E M B ~ . , Z E M P ~ MPI). suggests a derivation from !”n, which in Aram. and
T h e Zaniareni, a tribe of the interior of Arabia (Plm.
Ass. means ‘ a x e , ’in Ethiopic ‘ i r o n ’ (&ZittheiZ. 2 3 6 1 8 ;
N H 632, Grotius), and Zabram, the royal town of the cp G. Hoffm. ZDMG 32753). Tg. Jer. gives in Nu.
twar8otcoXrhzr, W. of Mecca, on the Red Sea (Ptol. 344 (for y y ) N ~ lit), I ‘ the iron mountain,’ presuppos-
vi. 7 5 , Knobel) have been supposed to represent Zimran.
ing iw, and 6 ’ s form E Y Y ~ [ K ]may ultiniately come from
But whether we ought to go so far from the Keturite the same reading.
centre-Le., the n i j Y ~ K(see EAST, CHILDREN OF ;
This reading, if correct, might illustrate a number of references
REKEM)-iS very dOu6tfUl. to iron in narratives or prophecies which, as the criticisni of the
In Jer. 25 25 we find a people called ‘Zimri’ (Pesh. ‘ Zimran ’) text seems to show, relate to the Negeb. See Dt. 3 11(cp Oc) ;
mentioned with Arabia (i.e N. Arabia) Elam and Madai (read
’ Jerahmeel’) and SAmoN’(on the N. Arabian border). Tuch
4 20 (’an iron furnace’ 11 ‘ Mizrirn ’) : 8 9 (‘whose stones are
iron’) ; Josh. 17 16 18 Judg. 119 4 3 13 (Kenizzites, chariots of
disputes the’connection between ‘Zimran’ and ‘Zimri,’ but, 9); I K. 22 I I (Zedekiah the Kenizzite [see ZEDEKIAH, 21,
from our present point of view, wrongly. Both in Gen. 25 2 and .
horns of iron ’) 2 K. 6 6 (swimming iron ; see P R o r H E T 8 7) ’
in Jer. 25 25 a N. Arabian people is required. See 21MRI. Jer. 15 12 (‘iron bf ZAPHON). Ezek. 27 12 19 (Tarshish [Asihur?i
T. K. C. and Javan [JePahmeel?] trafficking with iron) ; Am. 1 3 (the
ZIMRI (’??2!, a shortened form?--fp the name Zim-
1 On (whence ‘alcove’), which is used to denote a
rida in Am. Tab. [of governors of Sidon and of Lachish],
princely dnt, as well as the bridal pavilion, see WRS, Kimh&
also in an early Bab. text, BIM Cuneif: Texts, Pt. iv., 171. 292 : P AVILION , 2 ; T ENT, 8 4 n.
which also mentions Zimri-banimu, Zimri-banata the 2 Wetrstein, in Del. Ges.,(4) 578.
5419 5420
ZINA ZIPH
[southerii] Arammites thresh [the southern] Gilead with instru- Holy City in the period of the Second Isaiah and of
ments of iron). Still the method of grouping names before Ezra who, in the orthodox sense of the phrase, ‘ feared
seeking to account for them seems to favour the preceding Yahwk.’ The phrase ng, literally ‘ the daughter
explanation. The e u v a [ x ] in @ B and the H h 3 in Tg. Jer. are at
any rate exceptional. T. K. C. Zion,’ is an idiomatic expression for the people of
Jerusalem, Is. 1 8 522 Jer. 431, etc. (see D AUGHTER , 3).
ZINA (K?’!),b. Shimei, a Gershonite Levite ( I Ch.
It remains to be added that ‘Zion,’ in I Macc.
23 IO). In u. I I the name becomes ZIZAH(n]*)). @BAL reads everywhere means the temple hill (see 437 60 554 64862
&‘a in both places.
733 10111427). For a Hebrew writer, who formed
ZION (I+?, C[E]IWN). T h e designation, properly, his style on classical models, this was natural. Josephus,
of the ‘ Jebusite ’ stronghold a t Jerusalem, which writing in Greek, does not use the name. In the N T
after its capture by David received the name ‘ David‘s it occurs only in quotations from the OT, except in
burg,’ 2 S. 57 9. Various explanations of the name Heb. 1222 ( a fine rhetorical passage) and in Rev. 141.
have been given. Gesenius ( Thes. 1164) and Lagarde How fond the later Jews became of the name Zion
(Ubers. 84, n.”) derive from Jnnu ‘ t o be dry,’ cp appears most clearly from the Psalms. See especially
, m
Syr. \Q’~J, which Lag. regards as the older Ps. 875, if, with Wellhausen, we may follow 6 ’ s &qp
Z [ ~ ] C &gppei
V , BvOpwrros), and render,
form. Delitzsch (P.dvzen,(3)1 7 0 ) makes the primary But every one calls Zion his mother,
form pi:, from !a; to set up.’ Wetzstein (in Del. And of it is every one native ;
He himself, the Most High, keeps it.1
Gen.(Y 578) derives from ,&I ‘ t o protect,’ so that the T. K . C.
name would mean ~ Y X citadel , ’ ; cp ZIN.
I t may be better, however, to add p’t to the group Zin, Zenan, ZIOR(7P’y; c w p e [B]. CwpAle [Babvid.;superscr.
Zaanan, and Zoan, and to suppose Zion to he a descendant of AI ] , c l w p [AL]), a place in the hill-country of Judah
:he race-name ‘ Ishmael’ through the intermediate form i i y x (Josh. 1 5 5 4 t ) . It is mentioned with Arab, Beth-
(ZIBEON). Another corruption of the same name is probably &w tappuah, Humtah, Kirjath-nrba ( ‘ the same i s Hebron’).
(see SHALEM), and this most plausibly accounts for a much- The names Arab and Kirjatb-arba (surely from Kirjath-*arBb)
disputed name n5pi-p. That the first part of this name means point to the Jerahmeelite border. So also does Humtah (?.e.,
‘ city,’ Sayce (see col. 2409, top) and Nestle (PhiloZoga Sacra, Hamat$= Maacab) and perhaps Beth-tappuah (tee NAPHTU-
17) have independently seen. We must now add that o h is HIM). Hebron’ in the gloss on ‘Kirjath-arba’i s probably (as
probably=5Nynp*, and that this i s a type of corruption which in some other cases) a corruption of ‘ Rehoboth ’ ; P may already
occurs frequently in the OT. Jerusalem, then, according to have found this corruption in the written list which he seems to
this explanation, was originally one of the many Ishmaelite or have used. Zior,’ then, i s probably a corruption of the name
p h m e e l i t e settlements in Palestine, a view which is wpporte: of some Jerahmeelite place near Rehoboth. One cannot help
y the fact that Isaiah (29I ) calls the city of David ‘ Jerahmeel thinking of Misgur, properly the name of a region (see h f I Z K A I Y ,
[corrupted into ‘ Ariel ’I, and by the equally significant statement 5 z 6 ) , but possibly also of a town (cp Cusham-jerahmeel
of the historian that after taking the stronghold David ‘built [SHECHEM]).The reading of @AL may suggest an identification
round about Jerahmeel and within.’l See Crit. Bi6. It is true, with ZAIR( p . ~ . ) .
David is said (2 8.56) to have ‘gone against the Jebusites,’ hut Van de Velde and Conder, however, identify Zior with Sa‘ir
the Jehusites apparently owe their existence in the text to or (Pi7F.W 3 309) Si’air, 4$ m. N. from Hebron, where a tomb
corruption, and in an earlier form of the text this seems to have of Esau is shown. Eusehius (OS293 19) mentions a village Sior
been indicated by the scribe himself. As in Gen. 30 zo [see between E l i a and Eleutheropolis. T. IC. C.
ZIBEON] and elsewhere, the corrupt reading yyxn qp‘ (EV ‘the ZIPH (?’I; Z[E]I@ [BAL]), whence the gentilic
inhabitants of the land ’)hasgrown out of ’.inyap, (Ishmaelites),
y i ~ being
a an editor’s insertion to make the corrupt 3 3 t p in- Ziphites, or, incorrectly [see Ps. 541, Ziphims (D?i ;
telligible. The earlier text appears to have said in 3. 6, ‘And z[e]i@aiO~~ I s.2319 261 Ps. 54 title Z I @ E O Y C TI).
the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the fshmaelites’; I. An unidentified town belonging to Judah, situated
‘ Ishmaelites’here i s a synonym of ‘Jerahmeelites. To this we towards the border of Edom (Josh. 15 24 [? B]). On the
must add that the ‘lame’ and the ‘blind ’ spoken of in the M T
(and in @) of 2 S 5 6 8 are as imaginary as the trihal name new theory which makes David carve out for himself
‘ Jebusite’ ; o’ny and o * n ~ 3both being corrupt fragments of at first a principality in the Negeh, this more southern
9 mn?‘ (see Crit. Ri6.. and cp MEPHIBOSHETH PHINEHAS). Ziph may have a claim to be that intended in the early
\‘his is no digression ; it had to he shown that &me, so closely tradition. See 2. end.
connected as Zion and (Jeru-)salem had the same origin, and I f 2 . A town in the hill-country of Judah (Josh. 1555 ;
in the course of doing so we have been enabled to show that the
early historians at any rate did not ‘infer incorrectly’ from the ofc@ [R]). mentioned together with Maon, Carmel, and
trihal name Jebusite the existence of a city called Jebusz (of Jutah. Its connection with the clan of Caleb, which at
which the Amarna correspondence appears to have known one time had its seat about Hebron (but see below), is
nothing), this i s perhaps a t any rate a boon for future students.
It is possible that the error *013*for ’95Nynp- is really a some- expressed in genealogical form in I Ch. 2 4 ~and , ~ again
what ancient one (see, e.g., Zech. 9 7). But Ezekiel (lti 3 45) is in I Ch. 4 16, where Ziph and Ziphah (a?’!; T! ; jzl41a
still aware that Amorites (or Arammites-Jerahmeelites) and K U L fu‘arpa [B], &@ai K . &$a [A], f ~ $K . <~$a[L]) are
Hittites (rather Rehobothites) formed the pre-Israelitish popula-
tion of the city of Jeru:;alem. Cp OC. ‘sons’ of (the unknown) JEHALELEEL ( 4 . v . ) . Ziph
T h e term ‘ Z i o n ’ (we retain the term, as, even if a and that part of the wilderness of Judah to which it
corruption, yet an ancient and a popular one) belongs gave its name are mentioned in the account of David’s
properly, as shown elsewhere (JERUSALEM, 5s 17-20), outlawry ( I S. 2 3 1 4 f l ) , and the surrounding hill country
to the southern part of the eastern hill, where the ‘burg with its many caves supplied admirable ‘ lurking places ’
of David ‘ stood. Above the ‘ burg’ rose the temple, and ‘strongholds’ ( I S.231419, and cp I Macc. 231).
and in usage ‘ Z i o n ’ represents the temple hill ( 2 K. See Conder’s description of the fantastic cones and
1931 ; Is. 2423 ; cp 1032). Even more commonly, knife-like ridges of the hills of Ziph (PEFQ,1875,
however, we find it a term for the whole of Jerusalem, P. 43).
whether in parallelism with Jerusalem (Is. 43 3019 Ziph existed in the time of Jerome, who places it 8
Am. 1 2 hlic. 3x0 IZ Ps. 10222) or alone (Is. 1 2 7 2816 R. m. from Hebron ( O S ! 2 ) 1 5 9 ~ 4 cp ; 2 5 8 4 0 8 ) . This
Jer. 3 14 Lam. 5 11). Often it is personified (Is. 409 41 27 is too much by nearly half. T h e true site was found
513 52 I $ 7 59 20 60 14 668 Zeph. 3 16 Zech. 117) though by Robinson at TeZZ Zg a conspicuous mound, 2882
here a n idealisation has taken place, the ‘ Zion ’ intended ft. above sea-level, and 8-9 m. SE. of Hehron, with no
being really the company of those residents in the trace of buildings a t the present day, but with some
cisterns. A little to the E., on a low hill or ridge,
1 That Hibn and Kibp?, wherever they occur, are mispointed, there are broken walls and foundations ; but these do
can hardly be doubted. They are corrupt fragments of $xnny* not represent the city fortified by Rehoboani ( z Ch. 118 :
(see MILLO). In z S. 5 9 the in prefixed to N l b n ha3 arisen in see below). Conder endeavours to show that there
this way. The scribe began to write isn without the initial 3, 1 Furness’s translation (Psalwzs, SSOT). But cp Che. Ps.,P)
and left $D uncancelled. Afterwards I n w a s ‘corrected’into 1”’ and Rertholet, S t e l l m 782.
2 So Driver, in Hastings, DB 2 &, expressing the common 2 ~ap[elroa[cl [BAl&T MESHA[q u.1) the father’ of Ziph,
opinion. is in zCh. 11 8 mentioned Aong with Ziph’(<er@[B]).
9-21 5422
ZIPHION ZOAR
never was a 'wocd' in the district of Ziph (see I S. 2315, ZIZAH (?V), I Ch. 2311. See ZINA. ' .
EV, and see below). T h e country is emphatically a
dry land, looking down on the barren wastes which lie ZOAN (tpk.; TANIC [BKA]), an Egyptian city. I&,
above the Dead -Sea between Masada and Engedi. Vg., and Tg. identify it with Tanis, certainly correctly.
There is no moisture capable of supporting vegetable T h e city had the name S'nt,l in Coptic times, Dju(u)nr
growth ' (PEFQ. 1875, p. 45). G. A. Smith ( H G 306 n., (also Djuune, Djuni). T h e Greeks called it Tdvrs (thus
307 n.) substantially agrees. a). T h e modern Arabic name is S i n . Conseqaently,
Among the many difficult points connected with the Hebrew the name must have been prpnounced Su'ne, Su'ni, by
traditions is this-Was the chief Calebite city Hebron or REHO- the Hebrews (following the later habit of dropping the
BOTH (P.v.)? If the latter, then the Ziph of I Ch. 2 42 may be feminine termination [t]).
that mentioned in Josh. 15 24. And another is this-Was David's
Ziph the first or the second place so called? The win (HORESH) T h e city, the capital of the 14th nomos of Lower
of I S. 23 15 may very well be a corruption of iinwN (Ashhur) Egypt, near the NE. edge of the Delta, was situated
which seems to have been a name nearly equivalent to Jerah- on the right bank of the Tanitic branch of the Nile, in
meel. We may also doubt about Rehoboam's Ziph, as well as a plain which is at present, in summer, a marshy pro-
about the other names in 2 Ch. 116-10 (see REHOBOAM). longation of the Menzaleh lake, in winter a salt-desert,
T. K. C.
T h e modern village of s n is inhabited mostly by fisher-
ZIPHION (ti%?), Gen. 4616 = Nu. 2615, Z EPHON men. T h e adjoining mound, Sin el-hugur, 'stone
(f.".). Sari,' was excavated first in part by Mariette in 1860,
ZIPHRON (fly?!, scarcely ' stench,' see Z ANOAH , then completely by Petrie (in 1883-84,see Turzis 1 and
but cp N AMES , 5 106, n. I ; A G @ ~ ~ N [BJ A e@. 2, 1885). There were found many statues, sphinxes,
[Bab]; ze@. [AL]). a point on the N. frontier of obelisks, etc., belonging to a large temple, hegun ( i t
Canaan, Nu. 349t. According to Furrer ( Z D P Y S z 8 ) would seem) by kings of the sixth dynasty, continued
and Socin (Baed.(2) 395). the mod. Zaferdnehl (Rob. in the twelfth dynasty, and completed by the greatest
gives ez-Zu'ferdneh), ESE. of er-Reskin. This, how- builder'among the Pharaohs, Rameses 11. See, on the
ever, does not suit Furrer's own view of the frontier, fragments of the largest monolithic colossus known,
for Sudud (his Zedad) is SSE. of Zuferdneh, whereas E GYPT, $ 37. T h e temple seems to have had a length
it should lie to the N. Hence Miihlau, in Riehm's of about 1000 ft. King Psusennes of the twenty-first
H W B , following Wetz. (Reiseber. 8 8 ) , prefers the ruins dynasty built a huge wall of bricks around it. T h e
called ZzYrZn, fourteen hours NE. of Damascus. importance of the city is shown by the fact that
There is reason to think, however, that the description Rameses 11. seems to have resided there and that the
originally referred to the Negeb (see Z~DAD), that Ziphron twenty-first dynasty originated from the city. In
corresponds to the SIBRAIM of Ezekiel, and that both names Esarhaddon's and ASur-bani-pal's time, Sa'nu or Si'nu
are corruptions of Zarephath. See ZEDAD. T. K. C.
was the seat of a prince ; on-its sack by the Assyrians
ZIPPOR (Tis?, c s r r @ w p [BAFL]). B ALAK see TIRHAKAH. In Strabo (802)it still figures as a
(q.v.), king of Moab is called 'son of Zippor ' (Nu. 92 2 4 IO 16 considerable place. Of its ultimate downfall not much
23 18 Josh. 249 Judi. 11zs), Le., either son of a person called
Zippor ('bird'), or 'native of Zarephath,' the Zarephathites is known.
being a section of the N. Arabian Misrites (see ZAREPHATH, T h e biblical mentions are as follows. In Is. 191113,
MIZRAIM, $ 2 6). It is probable that just as the Edomite king the princes of Zoan represent Egypt (13 11 with Noph-
Shad (AV Saul) was a Misrite of Rehoboth (see BEVA) so the
hloabite king Balak was a Miyite of Zare hath (unless) indeed Memphis). In 304,the Israelites are blamed for send-
s
Balak was king of Mugi ; see MOSES, r7f The Cushite wife ing embassies to Zoan ; the passage looks as if the
of Moses hore the startlingly similar name ZIPPORAH (p.v.). Pharaohs were still residing at Zoan a t times. In
See, however, NAMES, 5 68. T. K. C. Ezek. 30 14, Zoan stands parallel with the old capital of
ZIPPORBH ("BY; c c r r + w p ~[BAFI,]), daughter Upper Egypt, No, which shows that in Lower Egypt
of Hobab or Jethro, 'priest of Midian,' and wife of only Memphis can have rivalled Tanis in importance.
Moses (Ex. 221,J ; 425, J ; 182, E). Perhaps it is thus to be explained that Ps. 78 (12 43)
In Nu. 12 16 she is called a 'Cushite woman'; 'Misrite' speaks of the wonders done a in the land of Egypt, In
would perhaps have been more accurate but Missur (= Musri) the field of Zoan ' in Moses' time. Zoan-Tanis seems
and Cush in N. Arabia were contiguous (see CUSH,2). On the
significance of her name (probably a distortion of Zarephath), to have been considered as the capital of Egypt, or a t
and of her connection with Moses, see MOSES, $8 4, 7, and cp least of the Delta, in the time of the psalmist. T h e
CIRCUMCISION, $ 2 ; ZAREPHATH ; ZIPPOR. inference that Zoan was the residence of Pharaoh in
In its present form the name means ' b i r d ' ; c p Moses' time and that ' fields of Zoan ' and Goshen were
N AMES , 68. There is an Aramaic proper name ~'13s equivalent expressions has often been drawn by scholars,
in CZS (101) 112 122 ; t h e Greek equivalent being especially by Brugsch, who tried to show the identity of
ue$@epa (S. A. Cook, Aram. GZuss. 102, who refers to Rameses and Zoan. Brngsch's arguments however,
Cl.-Gan. Rec. d'urchJuZ. 1885, p. 23). T h e nanie are fallacious (although Rameses 11. may have resided
Zippor (nut Zipporah) occurs as a woman's name in here, see above); certainly Goshen cannot have extended
Talm. Jer. Gittin, 5 3. T. K. C . to the surroundings of Tanis.
ZITHRI, RV Sithri ('lnp; for origin see S ETHUR), The curious remark Nu. 1322 (Hebron was built
b. Uzziel, a (Kohathite) Levite, Ex. 6 22 (ueyeype~[Bl, m O p s c [AI, seven years before Zoan in Egypt) seems to imply that
u q x [FL]). the writer considered Tanis as one of the oldest cities of
ZIV ( U ) , I K.6137 RV,AVZIF. See M O N T H , § Z (2). Egypt. Indeed, we can trace it to the sixth dynasty
(see above) ; as capital of the nome it may belong to
ZIZ, GOING UP OF (Y'?? n??Q),a pass in the prehistoric times. Chronological conclusions about the
S. of Palestine, 2 Ch. 20 16 ( THN ANABACIN ACAB date of Hebron's foundation cannot, of course, be drawn
P A ] , T. A. THC GEOXHC ACICA [LI). T h e namelooks from the biblical remark, whether taken literally or not.*
suspicious ; but the ordinary view that the Wady HqLsa, W. M. M.
by which the old Roman road leads from En-gedi to
Jerusalem, is meant, is plausible.
ZOAR (WY, in Gen. 19 22 30 v\Y; CHrwp
5443 5444
END OF VOL. Iv