GILOH GIRDLE

GILOH (;i$J),
a town in thehighlands of Judah, in 3f decency (Gen. 37) as in the necessity of protecting the
the same group with Shamir (=Shaphir), Debir, and loins from the extremes of' temperature in tropical
Eshtemoh (Josh. 1551 X A N N A [B], r H h W N [AI, AANOY zountries, the girdle forms one of the oldest and most
[L]), according to M T of 2 S. 16 12 the home of Ahltho- serviceable of all articles of apparel. In Hebrew the
commonest terms for ' girdle ' are iz6i' and gig&
phel(3'$$p il'w; EN llOh€l AyTOy €IC [EN] r w h a
I , 'EzOr, 1\18 ({&a, etc.), is exactlytheAr. 'izdr, even
[BA], EK THC rrohswc AYTOY THC METAAAAA [L]).
The gentilic is Gilonite, %>$? ; 2 S. 15 12 ( 6 k ~ o v €[B],
i yihovaro
the lengthened first vowel corresponding to the long form
'izdr (Dozy, Did. dd Ytt. 32) which seems to be not
[9], yahpwvaiov [L]); z S. 2334 ( ~ ~ W V ~ L T [Bl,
O U yf1hWVLT. [AI,
merely Egyptian, since Payne-Smith has izdri from
yahaa8 [L])=r Ch. 1136 (PELONITE, $?? a corrupt reading;l Bar-Bahliil. The 'izdi', now a large outer wrapper,.
+s8wver [BN], +EAAWUL [AL]).
was originally a loin-cloth or wrapper not covering
Giloh is probably referred to by Micah in connection the upper part of the body, wound round the loins
with Ophrah and Shaphir, though the paronomasia is dis- (tied with a knot, Lane, r.n. p. 53) so as to be
guised in M T (Micah 1x1). It seems to be represented loosed if trodden on (Frey. Chi'. Ar. 72 Z. 7, and
by JdZu, the name now attached to some ruins about EinL in das Stud. etc. 298). This is the dress of
3 m. NW. of Halhfil; the situation of Bet J2E-a the Saracens in Ammianus, and is retained in the
place NW. of Bethlehem-seems too fax north. 'i&rim. Mi'zar, now a pair of drawers, is not origin-
The text of 2 S. 1.512 is corrupt but not desperately so.
'While he offered the sacrifices ' if & has any meaning at all, ally different, gum. 81 and Dozy, @. cit. Bar 'Ali
can only refer to the important sadrifices connected with Absalom's (Hoffm. 5842) explains Syr. mizrini by maydzi~or
assumption of royalty a t Hebron. Yet the position of the clause tubidin. The latter are the short drawers without
shows that it contains a statement respecting Ahithophel. The legs worn by wrestlers or sailors. It is therefore an inner
scribe must have wrongly deciphered his original. Read, wlth
Klostermann, for o'n2rn-nr l n m , n.&F hl!p, 'when he garment and so different from the (zZg6r (see below, 2).
fled to the Ziphites' (see I S. 23 19). This awakens a suspicion This suits all the passages of Or. From Is. 5 2 7 we
that Giloh was not the real name ofiihithophel's home, which may learn that it was easily loosed ((zallain Frey. Chr., Z.G. ),
have been rather a place not far to the SW. of JZIZ, viz. Keilah. from Jer. 13 I 2 K. 1 8 that it might be either of liccn
It is hy no means certain that the translator of had beforehim (o*p+) or of skin. Elijah's was of the latter material.
n53 or n5.3. H e may have had n$yp (KFilah); and even if
he had not, n$p is an easy phonetic corruption of nbpp (see Like the old Arabs, he wore but two garments, the
KEILAH). David was once in great straits at Keilah; the 'izdr and the addkrethl (Ar. rid&) ; see M ANTLE.
citizens were about to deliver him up to Saul, hut he sus- The person who wears the 'izdr has of course no shirt. So
pected them, and escaped in time ( I s. 238-13). Ahithophel the prophet Isaiah (202) has only a waist-wrapper, and this
may have warned David or Abiathar. With this clue Kloster- explains Jeremiah's 'iziir (Jer. 131). Hence it is that in Job
mann thus reads the former part of this passage, 'Absalom 12 18 the king who is humilrated is represented as wearing the
had made a league (D>*:) with Ahithophel the Keilathite 'izrir. In Ezek. 23 15 it is a peculiarity of.the Chaldeans that
(n$ypn, or 'the Keilanike,' q$ypn), who made possible his they wear for girdle above their garments an 'izriv,and this is
seen on the monuments (Perrot-Chipiez, A r t in ChaZd. etc., I
escape (h?p) from Keilah.' We thus understand David's
habitual reliance on Ahithophel's counsel, and see how Ahitho-
fig. rq 2 figs.'5 51.6). As the 'izdr is next the skin, the phrase
Is. 11; is inte Iigihle, and so the Arabs say hlrwa &inn?
phel's son came to be one of David's thirty' (see ELIAM, I). ma'+& Cizriri, meaning 'he is my near neighhour' (Lane, s.n.
The text of Micah 1 .of: is also corrupt. I t opens, ' I n Gath Phrases like 5.n 1 1 1 ~(I S. 2 4) are
tell it not,' which Nowack regards as an interpolation inserted ' ButinJob383 407Jer. 1 1 7 ~ 3 ~ n 3 ' 1 1 ~
from 2 S. 1 zo whilst G. A. Smith thinks that the words describe is like shadda izdrahu or Irti'zarahy
the doom in ;tore for Philistia as well as for the Shephelah of =shanzmara, 'tuck up the cloth so as to leave the legs bare,
Judah in which Micah's home lay (TweZne Projh. 1383). In Ham. 334, 383, n. It 1s probable, however, that a (short) 'izar
support of this G. A. Smith refers to the situation of Shaphir, was the dress of active life (sailor's tub66n is analogous), like the
the modern SawZfir in the Philistine plain. I t is not probable waist-cloth of the modern East and also of the warrior. In Ham.
however, that Micah extends his view beyond his own region:
the fate of which alone evokes his sympathy. SAPHIR[ q . ~ . ]
...
334,Z. I the warrior is 7nusharrmriw~~ 'anshawahzc-leaves
his sides hare-like Ammianus's Saracens, and cp Shanfara 1.62.
need not be SawZfir. There is one place known to us, and only iiKnn Ps. 931 simply=tjxs. But in Is. S g it is Hitbp. 'put on
one the name of which suggests a paronomasia fit to form a your 'izEr' (which in that case is a warlike dress), or is it ' be
parhllel to ' I n Bochim wee ' (sep BOCHIM), and that is Giloh.
Rend therefore, 25 '3R- 5 f.
.~ ii 33, 'in Giloh exult not.' Cp Che.
a covering and support to one another' as in Arabic ' ~ e a v a'to
hack' (lit. 'cover '), and of herbage, ta'rizara 'it grew thick and
rank, the stalks supporting each other'? Ham.657 2. I naFrwc
JQR,July 1898. T. K . C.
m a 'azzaru?L='effective stout help.' See also AsEsaZ.BaZ&ghn.a
GIMZO (irp!), a town in the Shephelah of Judah, From Zzzbr ' waist-cloth' is distinguished :-
mentioned in 2 Ch. 28 18 t (yahazw [Bl, r A M A l Z a l 2. gzgii', iiin, n$!ii~, &$gin% ({dvq, mpi{wpa), a
[A], ~ A M ~ A[L]). I It is the modern Jimzzi, about 3 belt or girdle worn round the waist outside the dress.
ni. SE. from Lydda. In modern times it is usually a coloured shawl, or
GIN ( ~ ) ~ $ i ~ , r n t + % ; ( z ) n ~ , p a hSeeFOWLING,§g.
. long piece of figured white muslin. The girdle of the
poorer classes is of coarse material, often of leather, with
GINATH (nx!, 7 7 ; r w N A e P A ] , - N U B [L]), clasps. This leathern girdle is also much used by the
'father' of T IBNI ( I K. l 6 ~ 1 f T).
. Ginath (or rather, Arabs, and by persons of condition when equipped for
Gunath, cp @) is probably a place- or clan-name. a journey. It is sometimes ornamented with work
Klo. compares 'Guni' in Gen. 4624 I Ch. 7 1 3 . We. (IJGP) in coloured worsted, or silk, or with metal studs, shells,
70 n.) refers to ' Shallum b. Jabesh' (Le., the Jadshite). heads, etc.
GINNETHO, RV Ginnethoi ('in;?. ; r s N N a e w e Such, probably, were the girdles worn by the ladies of post-
exilic Jerusalem (Is. 324) and the eulogy of the 'virtuous
[L]), a priest in Zerubbabel's band (see E ZR A ii., 6 6) ; woman' describes her (P;ov. 31 24) as making a hrigbr which
Neh. 124. In Neh. 1216 Ginnethon (]in>?)is a priestly Phcenician merchants did not disdain to buy (dp the <&vqv
~ p w u ~ofwRev. 113 15 6). The warrior used a &c?g8ras a sword-
family temp. Joiakim (see E ZRA ii., 5 6 6, § 11), which
was represented amongst the signatories to the covenant belt (2 s. 2 0 8 ; on text see Comm.; I K. 2 5 ) ; cp nI>lJ 1 3 n
(see EZ$A i., § 7). z K. 3 21, and ZI?? 'n Jndg. 3 16 etc. That other objects also
Other readings in @ are : Neh. 106 [7] rvaraQ [Bl, a v a m Q [e],
yaavvaQov [AI, yava%wO [L], 1 2 4 ysvvqfJouL [Nc.a mg. SOP.],
BK*A om. ; 12 16 yavaewp [,+a mg. inf.], BH*A om. 1 So the Baptist see Mt. 3 4 Mk. 16.
2 Elsewhere Rdbertson Smith sums up thus : 'The general
GIRDLE. Originating perhaps not so much in notions impression produced by a survey of the usage of the word is that
among the Hebrews the 'Ez@ ceased to be part of their ordinary
dress pretty early being superseded by the tunic [njnj,see
other in W. Palestine which seems to repeat the ancient T U N I C ] but that 'it was used by warriors, by the meanest
Gilgal is Jeljel, ahout 6 m. S. of Beissu(P3FNanie Lists, 161). classes,'by prophets and mourners, and that the word (or the
I t is remarkable that the name has not yet been found E. of cognate word) was also retained in proverbial phrases and
Jordan. similes, just as was the case with the Arabs' ('Notes on Hebrew
1 On the passage see Klo. Sam., ad Zoc., and cp AHITHOPHEL, Words,' I., JQR, 1892, p. 289fl). Cp also, on the * Z Z ~ Yof
end. Jeremiah, Che. Lzye and Times ofJer. 161 ('88).
I733 1734
 MIRGASHITE, GIRGASHITES
-
might be carried in it, is suggested by Dt. 53 13 [14]@ ; cp Mt.
109 Mk.6 s 1 (EV ‘purse’).
3. iWZzah, n p , Ps. 109 19 ( E V ’ girdle ’) ; q,
mezi2h,
Job 1221(for n m = nyp ; AV ‘strength,’ mg. ‘girdle,’
RV ‘belt ’).
~ Lag. Uehers. 177)~and in
Che. reads in Ps. ~ l l ’ B = i \ l(cp
.Job ninyn, ‘greaves.’ mp occurs in a doubly corrupt context
in Is. 2:ro (AV ‘strength,’ AVmg. RV ‘girdle’); ‘girdle’ for
“restraint’ is intrinsically improbable. Du., Che. read ?hF,
Ihaven.’
. being due to dittography (see Che. Crit. sa).Of the ‘ Girzites ’
4. f<iEzWim, n?r$p (bands) of costly make, worn by
women (Is. 320 ~ ~ T ~ J K L OJer. Y , 2 32 UT?$’O&T~.[S).
Jewish interpretations vary ; Isimchi and Rashi render
‘headband ’ (so AV ; RV sashes ’). The &iSfirtmwere
richly studded with jewels and were the receptacle of
the other ornaments worn by men and women.
5. The priestly ‘abnt?;, b n u (Ex. 284 3 9 3 3929 Lev.
87 164 ; all P), was a sash rather than a girdle (+(‘& ;q
bnlteus [Vg.]; see Lag. Ges. A6k. 39).2 The ‘a6@
was of great length, according to Rabbinic tradition
32 cubits long and 4 cubits wide. Josephus (Ant. iii.
7 z ) says that the ‘abnP? was four fingers broad, ‘ so
loosely woven that you would think it was the skin of a
serpentS It is embroidered with flowers of scarlet and
purple and blue and fine linen ; but the warp is nothing
but fine linen.’ It was wound under the breast, twice
round the body, was tied in an ample bow or loop, and
the ends reached the ankles. It was thrown over the
left shoulder while the priest was officiating. Driver-
White (SBOT, ‘ Leviticus,’ 70) summarily describe the
‘a6@ as ‘ a n embroidered loosely woven scarf.’ T h e
‘ a h @ was the only garment in which an intermixture
of wool and linen watspermitted. The same word is
applied to the sashes of high officers in Is. 2221.
6. On the ‘curious girdle’ (RV ‘cunningly woven band’
of the Ephod, see E PHOD , $ 3 .
1~1)
The N T terms are :-
7. <&IJ (common in OT, cp also wapa@vq IS. 1811)Acts
21 1 1 Mt. 34 ; see above.
8. crrpiKlvOca, Acts 19 12, see APRONS.
W. R. S . (I)-I. A,-S. A. C.
GIRGASHITE, GIRGASHITES (v&ne
; o rep-
recaioc [BADEFL] ; SOJos. ; Judith516 TOYC r e p -
rscaloyc, AV GEKGESITES, RV GIRGASHITES), a as gZrim or protected strangers, apparently in the days
people of Canaan, Gen. 1016 (gloss), 1521 (gloss), Josh.
310 (D2), 2411 (D2),Dt.71 Neh.98 (AV always ‘Gir-
gashites’ except Gen. 10 16, where Girgasite ; RV
alwiys ‘Girgashite’). Another form of the name is
very probably GIRZITES(y-,]), which has sometimes
been corrupted into PERIZZITES (’11~). In the Table
of Peoples the Girgashites have, properly speaking,
no place; it is to the Deuteronomist, who had
archaeological tastes, that the resuscitation of the name
is due. Apparently for a good reason he places
i t next on the list of peoples in Dt. 7 1 to that of the
Hittites. Whence did he derive i t ? Probably from
the Song of Deborah, where the slaughter of the
Kadasoni, or, as he probably read, Kadeshi or
SGadeshi, is spoken of (Judg. 521) ; the N. or Hittite
Xadeshites, see KADESH,2. ’I [rl instead of 1 [d],
:and the repeated 1[g] after the 1 [r] are ordinary errors
.of scribes. T. K. C.
1 I t :i enough to mention the analogical use of ‘girdle’ (EV
‘a ron . but see AVmg. RVw.) in Gen. 37.
f Jos.’(Anf. iii. trinsliterates apad (Niese ; a.?. aSavqO),
72)
and notes that the term in use in his day was cpcav (cp Targ.
on Ex. pnn), probably the Pers. hinzyrin; see also NSCK-
LACE.
3 [See picture in Braunius, Yesfit. Suerdot. Ffebraorurm.]
4 P h o n personal names wii], p w i i ?re
~ quoted. Are these
too derived from Kadesh? The Hittites had allies called
I735
GITTITH
GIRZITES, THE (’173 ; for the readings of d and
of EV see G EZRITES), I S. 278 Kt. There seems to
have been a widely extended pre-Israelitish tribe called
Girzites or Girshites. In fact, wherever P ERIZZITES
[ p . ~ . ]or GIRGASHITES
is read in the Hebrew text we
should probably restore Girzites or Girshites.
I t is doubtful whether ‘ Geshurites’ or ‘ Girshites’ is the correct
reading in I S. 27 8 (see GESHUR,2) ; but in z S. 2 g, instead of
‘and over the Ashurites, and over Jezreel,’ we should most
probably read simply ‘ and over the Girzites’ C!lV?-h), the rest
there is another record in the name miscalled ‘ Mount Geriz(z)im ’
(the mount of the Girzites), whilst the Girshites are also attested
by win (ie. 9 w i j see H IVITES 5 I n.) in Is. 17 I O and by the
two trans-Jordani:places called kerasa (see GILEA;), $ 6).
Another (probable) occurrence of the gentilic Gerag
has escaped notice-Boanerges, which seems to the
present writer to have come from ~aueyyepos=d!I ire,
‘ sons of Gerasa.’ That the phrase is both misread and
misinterpreted need not disturb us ; there are quite as
great misinterpretations in Lk. 6 15 ( Simon, called
Zelotes ’) and in Acts 436 (see B ARNABAS ). After mis-
understanding it, Mk. wrongly ascribed the name to
Jesus.
Parallel corruptions are perhaps Kavava?os or m v a v k q s for
Kavazos or KavlTqs= ’F22, ‘a man of Cana ’ (but cp CANANAIAN).
and c u a p r w r q s for r e p c ~ w q s ‘a man of Jericho’ (cp JUDAS
ISCARIOT 0 I). Possibly too (but see JAIRUS first note)Tirnaeus
in Bartidzus may be from a place-name ‘kiniai (see Nestle,
Marg. 91). T. K. C.
GISPA, RV Gishpa (KQ??), named after ZIHA as
an overseer of N ETHINIM in Ophel (Neh. 11211. ; rec+a
[Kc.amg.inr.L], om. BK*A). According to Ryssel his
name is a corruption of HASUPHA ( N D W ~ ) which
, follows
Ziha in the list in Ezra 243.
GITTAH-HEPHER (le0 nQJ),
Josh. 1913AV, RV
G ATH- HEPHER (g.n.).
GITTAIM (P!a$, r&ealM [BADEL] ; probably
=GittHm, ‘ place of a wine-press ’ ; on form of name
see N AMES, 5 107).
I. An unidentified town in the list of Benjamite villages
(E ZRA ii., 5 5 [a], 15 [I] u), Neh.1133 (yd+‘&fi
[Nc-amg. inf.; om. BK*A]).
2. A town where the fugitive Beerothites were received
of Saul ( 2S. 43). For thekey to this incidental notice
see I SHBAAL (I). This Gittaim can hardly have been
the Benjamite town. The persecuted Beerothites would
surely have fled to the territory of another tribe. There
were probably several Gittaims as well as several Gaths.
Thenins, Grove (Smith‘s DB),Klostermann, think the
flight was towards Gath (yaO8at [B], - B e y [A]).
3. Gittaim is also probably the name of a town in or near
Edom Gen.3635 ( B A D E L ) rCh.146 (so @ B ; @ A yeBOap
but svrO), where MT Kt.’has AVITH(q.v.). Note that vine:
yards in Edom are referred to in Nu. 20 17.
4. By a manifest error Gittaim appears in @ IS.1433 where
Sanl’s speech begins, not with the appropriate ‘Ye transgress’
ut with the difficult 2“ yeOOaip ([BL], “6.4 y~Oep),‘In
T. K. C.
GITTITE (’nJ?),
2 S. 610. See G ATH , J I.
GITTITH, ‘Set to the’ [RV], or, ‘Upon Gittith‘ [AV]
(nm?g-’w, ~,;p 7. Avviv=n+,-iy [@BNAR Syr. ~ y m m . 1 ;
f r o [or, Ps.81, in] torcuhribus [J]; &A T. Aqu& Aq. in Pss.
81 84 [Syro-Hex.], but in Ps. 8 S&p T. ~ E & T L ~ O F ( S O dlso Theod. in
Ps. S), Ps. 8 81 (om. T.;S . T . dMoud3quopdvov [A]), 84(headings).
According to Wellhausen we have a twofold question
to answer : ( I ) Is it a mode or key which is denoted by
‘ the Gittith’ ; and, ( 2 )Does Gittith mean ‘ belonging to
Gath,’ or ‘ belonging to a wine-press ’ ? The latter ques-
tion must be answered first. No doubt the vintage festi-
val had special songs of its own (one such may he al-
luded to in Is. 658), andBaethgen thinks the three psalms
with the above heading appropriate for such an occasion.
If this view of the appropriateness of the psalms be
accepted, it becomes plausible to follow those old in-
1736
 GIZONITE, THE
terpreters who read ‘ on (=with) the (treading in the)
wine-presses.’ If it be rejected, there still remains the
view that the temple music had borrowed a mode or
key or (see Tg.) instrument from the city of Gath.
Philistine influence on the temple music, however, is
scarcely credible (see, however, Hitz., Del.), and in
any case Gath had probably been destroyed before the
exile.
No theory therefore is in possession of the field, and
when we consider the frequent miswriting of these
musical headings (see, e.g., H IGGAION, S HIGGAION,
MAHALATH [ii.]), it is as natural as it is easy to read
nQ-Sy, ‘with string-music.’ 1 before 3 might easily
be dropped; the next stage of development is obvious.
Gesenius in 1839 (Thes., s . ~ had ) already given a
kindred solution (n! for nra=nm). The question rela-
tive to the mode or key cailed the Gittith disappears.
GIZONITE, THE (’3\T$q, I Ch. 1 1 3 4 ; see GUNI,I.
T. K. C.
The colloquial use of ‘ glass ’ to denote a ‘ mirror ’
GIZRITES (*?TJ?), I S.278 RVmS; AV GEZRITES. of glass, or of any other material, is found in A V of
( a ) Is. 3 2 3 (pig, tira$~avq XUKWLKU), see DRESS, 5 I
GLASS. ‘ T h e art of glass-making, unlike that of
pottery, would appear not to have been discovered (2); ( B ) I Cor. 1312 Jas. 123 ( E U O T T ~ O V ) ; see further
1. Antiquity. and practised by different nations in- LOOKING-GLASS, M IRROR.
dependently, but to have spread gradu-
ally from a single centre.’ That the Phaenicians are
not to be credited with this invention (Pliny, HA’
362665, etc.) is practically certain, since our oldest
examples of glass proceed from the countries watered
by the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. From
Egypt we have a dusky green glass bead of the queen
Hatasu (or rather Ha‘t-Sepsut, see EGYPT, 5 53), of
the middle of the fifteenth century B .c., also a light
green opaque jar of Thotmes 111. (1500 B . c . ) , ~and,
ascending higher, an amulet with the name of Nuantef
IV., of the eleventh dynasty (circa2400 R. c.).2 With
this agrees the fact that the most ancient representations
of glass-blowing belong probably to the Middle Empire,
the alleged earlier cases being capable of a different
explanation-viz., smelting (Erman, Anc. Eg. 459)’:
The Assyrians, too, were acquainted with the use of
glass (ASSYRI-4, 5 13, cp n. z’b.), and we have one of the
most important specimens of their work in the unique
transparent glass vase of the time of Sargon (722-
705 E L C . ) . ~ The recent excavations in Nippur, how-
ever, appear to permit us to carry back the use of glass
to a much earlier date.
According to Peters (Nijjur 2 134) ‘badly broken inscribed
axe-heads of a highly ornamentrh shape ’ of blue glass coloured
with cobalt (brought presumably from China) w e r i found in
mounds of the fourteenth century B . c . ~ These and other glass
objects found here had been run in moulds not blown. A
small glass bottle w a s found with the door-;ockets of Lugal-
kigub-nidudu(ci~ca4000 B.c.; o j . cit. 160, 374); but, ‘in general
the glass objects found a t Nippur were of late date, and whid
glass fragments were very numerous in the later strata there
were few or none in the earlier.’ The above examples shduld no
doubt be looked upon as exceptions, since ‘the greater part of
the glass found belonged to the post-Babylonian period’ (0).
cit. 373fi).
The use of glass among the Phoenicians begins a t a
later date.4 Their acquaintance with it was probably
derived from the Egyptians and spread abroad by them
in their trading expeditions. T o them, also, are pos-
sibly due the many specimens of coloured beads found
in many parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa.
The part played hy the Phcenicians in spreading the know-
ledge of glass-as well as certain arts, etc.-may need some
qualifying in the future (see TRADE A N D COMMERCE). I n
Cyprus, a t all events, it would appear that glass was a native
production, rather than of Phoenician origin. The art itself
was probably derived from Egypt (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kyjros,
etc., 416). That Egypt exported glass is well known (cp, e.g.,
Martial, E$. 21, 74).
- By Gnostics we are to understand a cer-
1 A. Neshitt art. ‘Glass’ in EBI9.
2 Now in th; British Museum.
3 I n the same spot were found obiects of Euboean magnesite,
implying regular intercourse with Greece.
4 The later manufacture of glass in the districts of Beirut
Tyre, and Sidon (see MISREPHOTH-MAIM) does not therefor:
concern us.
I737
GNOSIS
From the treatment which glass received in the
ancient world it is evident that in E w u t and Babv-
1.1 I
2. Biblical lonia it was held to be a precious thing, a
references. fit offering for the gods. It would, there-
.
fore. be auurouriate to find it mentioned
along with precious jewels in the eulogy of wisdom,
Job 28 17 (z&%kith, n3Ji3i, J ’ clear’ [transparency is
not implied], AV CRYSTAL, RV ‘Glass’ ; iiaXos
[BHAC]).
;ahor originally denoted any transparent stone or stone-like
substance (e.g Herod. 320). On the other hand,some vitreous
ornament is uzdoubtedly referred to in &ppnipar/ T E h&va XU&
(5.269).
I n the case of the ‘glassy sea’(@/haumilahizq,Rev. 46 15 z),
and the comparison of the golden streets of the heavenly city t o
pure ‘glass’ (Gahar, Rev. 21 1827) the earlier meaning of Sahas
perhaps holds good, although wd are reminded of the Arabian
legend that Solomon prepared in his palace a glass pavement
which the queen of Sheha mistook for water (Qoran, Sur. 27).
hidden treasures of the sand 7;
A reference to glass-makin has been found in Dt. 33 19(‘the
1 but see ZEBULUN.
See art. ‘Glass’ in EBW, and in Kitto’s Bi6. CycZ. ; also
A. Lowy, PSBA, %I$ pp. 84-86. S. A. C.
GLAZING ( X P I C M ~ [BaKA]), Ecclus. 3830. See
POTTERY.
GLEANING (a?>),Lev. 199. See AGRICULTURE,
§ 12.
GLEDE is EV’s attempt to render the apparent
Hebrew word 357 in Dt. 1413 (ryy [BAFL]). T h e
error of the scribe was corrected in the mg., and from
the mg. found its way into the text before il-Kii-nnNi (‘ and
the falcon’). That this view is correct is self-evident,
even without the confirmation supplied by the 11 passage,
Lev. 11 14. The word gkad or gled (ASgZida) is Old
English for ‘ kite,’ and has not yet entirely disappeared.
To represent the phenomena of the text we might render
‘And the bite [read ‘kite’] and the falcon.’ Tristram (NHBI
thinks that our translator means the Buzzard, and adds that
there are three species of Buzzard in Palestine. T. K. c.
GNAT. I. (~u~uy[T i.
WH].) Mentioned only
once in the Bible (Mt. 2 3 2 4 ) .
T h e gnats or mosquitoes are dipterous insects belonging to
the family Culicidae. There are many species ; they breed in
swamps and still water, the first two stages, larval and pupal,
being aquatic. The female alone inflicts the sting-like prick
with its mouth-organs’ the male insect does not leave the
neighhourhood of the b;eeding.place.
RV’s strain out a gnat is a return to the old reading
of Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva, AV’s strain at
being probably due to a misprint (see Whitney, Dict.).
Reference is made in this proverb to the scrupulous care
exercised by devout Jews (as also in the present day by
Singhalese Buddhists) in conformity with Lev. 1 1 2 3 43
(cp Chullin, f: 67 I ) . The comparison with the smallest
and largest things finds analogy in the Ta1m.-e.g.,
Shabb. 77 6, $07 $y vin- nn”, ‘ the fear of the gnat is
on the elephant’ ; cp the Ar. proverb, ‘ he eats an
elephant and is suffocated by a gnat.’
2. The word ‘ gnat ’ (‘ like gnats ’) occurs also in the
RVmg. of Is. 51 6. I t would be safer to read p i 3 (Weir, Che.),
which elsewhere AV renders L ICE [T.v.] ; in SBOT (Heb.) 14 ,
however, a bolder correction is suggested (see LOCUST 5 2 [411.
I n thecaseofthepIagueinEx. 8 1 6 [ 1 2 1 3 ‘gnat’isposs:blymore
correct. The U K V ~ $ ( e ’ sword in Ex. Z.C.) is called by Suidas
Eov
KWVWrrG8fS. A. E. S.-S. A. C.
GNOSIS. In the second century, and also to some
extent even in the third, the Church was engaged in a
1. Origin of life-and-death struggle with the Gnostics.
term,
tain class of Christians-of many different
schools, bearing a great variety of names, and diffused
all over the Hellenistic world-all having in common a
1 So Meg. 6 a interprets hn (‘sand ’) by n]& n’z13yr‘ W h i t e
glass.’
1738
 GNOSIS
certain speculative pretentiousness, all laying claim to a
special knowledge ( g m s i f )in contrast to the merefuith
of the masses, and all giving effect to their fantastic
ideas about the origin of the world and the origin of
evil in a peculiar ethic that offended the conscience of
the Church. If we could assume Carpocrates and
Cerinthus (circa 100 A . D . ) to have been the earliest
representatives of the tendency in question, and all the
writings of the N T to have been composed within the
apostolic age, biblical science as such would have no
concern with the Gnostics; and it is in point of fact
true that the name of Gnostic does not occur in the N T ,
nor is it mentioned in any extant writing earlier than
176 A.D.
However, ‘ they who make separations’ (of &TO&-
o p l ~ o v ~ e referred
s) to in the epistle of Jude (v. 19 RV)
can only be taken as Gnostics of a libertinistic com-
plexion : the emphasis laid in nv. 3 20 on the faith once
for all delivered to the saints is best explained on this
assumption, and still more, their ironical designation
as ‘ natural ’ or ‘ animal ’ ( RVmS = ~ J X L K O ;~ ) plainly
they were in the habit of calling themselves ?rveupaTrKol.
‘ spiritual men,’ as distinguished from the ordinary run
of ‘ psychical’ Christians who rested content with faith
merely. So also in z Pet., only here the author
points still more clearly at the Gnostics by his repeated
references to the true knowledge (1.f. 5f. 8 220 318).
The polemic of the Johannine Epistles has a similar
scope; if the substantive, gnosis, does not occur, the
verb I to know’ is met with all the more frequently ;
‘ we have known and believed ’ ( I Jn. 416) is, intended
to express the true knowledge that is in accord with
faith as contradistinguished from the knowledge which
sets it aside. When the Pastoral Epistles ( I Tim. 6).2
bluntly warn against the oppositions of the gnosis
which is falsely so called, the adherents of which have
erred, or ‘ missed the mark,’ concerning the faith,
it may perhaps be possible to doubt whether the
reference is to the Gnostic Marcion, who wrote ‘Anti-
theses’ about 140 A . u . , but not to deny reference to
the Gnostics altogether. FinalIy, in the Apocalypse
we have at least the reference, in the case of Thyatira
( 2 2 4 ) . to the false teachers who claim to have ‘known
the depths of Satan,’ a grim characteristic of Gnostic
speculation.
T o all the writings hitherto named as containing
allusions to Gnosticism, it might perhaps be possible to
attribute a date about the year IOO A.D.
2.
tendencies. or even later, in which case the traditional
account of the Gnostic movement as
having arisen about the end of the first century would
remain unshaken ; on other grounds also the Pastoral
Epistles have, in fact, been assigned to the second
century. Yet we are none the less compelled by the
N T to recognise certain gnorticising tendencies as exist-
ing within the apostolic church itself as well as certain
extra-Christian and pre-Christian developments bearing
a Gnostic character. In the Synoptic Gospels, it is
true, the intellectual side of religion is but rarely and
exceptionally brought forward : Lk. 1152 (key of know-
ledge), Mt. 1311and parallels (the gift of understanding
the mysteries of the kingdom), and Mt. 1127 (the know-
ledge of the Father [and of the Son] reserved for the
chosen ones only) are the leading passages. The
Fourth Gospel, however, lays an emphasis, that on this
account is all the more striking, upon the capacity to
understand. Just as the decisive confession of faith in
Christ is (669),‘we have deZiened and know that thou
art the Holy one of God,’ so elsewhere knowing and
believing are interchangeable expressions with reference
to the same objects, and the impression is left that
knowing is higher than believing. Thus, for example,
to ‘ those Jews who had believed ’ the promise is given
(S31$), ‘ If ye abide in my word ... ye shuZZ know the
.truth, and the truth shall make you free.’ The Gnosti-
cism of the Fourth Gospel is distinguished from the
1739
GNOSIS
heretical gnosis only ( I ) by the contents of the gnosis
to which it attaches so high a value-in this case
identical with the contents of faith; and ( 2 ) by the
closeness of the connection between knowledge and
faith ; here there is no such distinction as is elsewhere
drawn between the disciples who only believe and the
disciples who only know, as two separate classes.
Paul often uses the words for knowing ( ~ ~ J U K E W ,
~ T L - ~ & K E L V ) in their most ordinary sense, as for ex-
use ample in Phil. 1 1 2 219z z 45 I Cor.
3.
of YL,,;OKELV, 1437, and, inasmuch as he attributes
-
4.. to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews
Ciuu.
(Roni. 121 2 18) a knowledge of God
-in contradiction, it is true, to I Cor. 121-he is
obviously bound to assume in the case of every believer
a knowledge of God, of Christ, of the Gospel as in
Gal. 49 z Cor. 89 13 5 Phil. 3 IO (here yrvhmerv Bebv.
Xpturbv, etc.) or zCor. 214 46 Phil. 38 Col. 1gf: (here
yvwurs, &f-yvwurs, and the corresponding genitives)
without our being thereby entitled to ascribe to him a
vein of gnosticism.
In I Cor. 139 12, however, he speaks of ‘knowing’
without mentioning any particular object, and the sub-
stantive yvrjuis is, in the majority of cases, used ab-
solutely ; occasionally and exceptionally (e.g., Rom.
1133) as an attribute of God, mentioned along with his
wisdom, but elsewhere as a possession-highly to be
prized-of the man who has become a believer.
As proving that knowledge is here sharply separated from
faith it will not do to cite I Cor. 1283 where we read that to
one is given the word of knowledge and’to another faith; for in
this passage aluns, faith, is used in a narrower sense than
usoal, whilst, according to I Cor. 12 8 13 8, grosis is one of the
charismata that are bestowed only on certain individual$, and
10x1
I Cor. 8 7 [cp 8 declares expressly that all have not know-
ledge. I t is half ironically only that Paul (8 I) declares himself
as accepting the proposition that ‘we all have knowledge,’ since
in v. 2 with manifest allusion to the conceit of the Corinthians,
he disiinguishes between knowing as one ought to know and a
gnosis that, in all essentials is merely imagined. The circum-
stance also that in Gal. 49 (& r Cor. 8 3) he speaks of it as the
highest object of Christian effort that one should be known of
God rather than that one should know God, is not to he under-
stood as depreciating the high value he elsewhere attaches to
gnosis, any more than T Cor. 1 3 8 s 12 is to be so taken, where
he speaks of all knowledge in the present aeon as only in part,
and promises that in the time of perfection it shall, as imperfect,
be done away. For the same thing is said of speaking with
tongues and of prophecy and of them also, as well as of ac-
quaintance with all possihle knowledge, he says (13
they are of no profit to the man who has not love.
1s) that
It cannot be by accident merely that, in Paul, gnosis
is always met with as the precious possession of the
members of the Christian community and never as
belonging to unbelievers ; it has its place, in fact, among
the charismatic manifestations of the spirit of God,
which this same spirit bestows on individuals for the
benefit of all (I Cor. 127-11), and as such ranks with
prophecy and the gift of miracles ; he who is endowed
with knowledge-the ‘ gnostic.’ as the expression would
have been at a later date-belongs to the number of
the T P . W ~ ~ T W O ~the
, men of the spirit.
We might venture, after Paul, to define gnosis as the
result of the instruction which a ‘spiritual’ man has
4. Definition. received from the spirit of God in the
things of the spirit down to the very
depths of the Godhead ( I Cor. 28-16)in such a manner
that, possessed of the God-given teaching, he finds every-
thing dark in earth and heaven become clear to him
and (if only ‘through a glass,’ in mere outline) he sees
that which is true, where others see nothing, or only
what is false. Paul himself belonged pre-eminently to
the number of such gnostics (zCor. 1 1 6 ) , and if that
piece of ‘knowledge’ which, as we learn from I Cor. 8,
he shared with many Corinthians-that idols are nothing,
and that consequently, to speak strictly, there can be
no such thing as meat offered to idols-is of a somewhat
elementary character, we must nevertheless remain lost
in admiration at the deeper passages in his epistles
(e,f., Rom. 8 and 9-11), in which he expounds the
divine plan of salvation-at his ‘ gnosis,’ in fact. The
I740
 GNOSIS
deeper understanding of the scripture, which became
possible to him as a Christian (as in Gal. 37 42r&),
has the same origin. The gnosis of the individual
becomes fruitful for the community only, of course, by
the communication of it, whether orally or in writing ;
I Cor. 128 accordingly includes the word of knowledge
in the list of the charismata; and it is almost certain
that in I Cor. 1 4 6 the ‘teaching’ (SiSaxf) means the
communication of ‘ gnosis ’ (cp 1426), and therefore
that the ‘teachers’ ( 1 2 2 8 ) who take the third place,
immediately after apostles and prophets, in the enumera-
tion of those who possess the gifts of the spirit, are to
be thought of as ‘ Gnostics.’ Their sharp differentiation
from the prophets is somewhat surprising; in many
cases it cannot have been practically possible ; but as
Paul in I Cor. 14 6 gives to ‘ prophesying ’ the same
position with reference to ‘ revelation ’ that he gives to
‘ teaching ’ with reference to ‘ knowledge,’ he would
seem to have distinguished the word of knowledge from
prophecy much in the same way as the latter was dis-
tinguished from speaking with tongues ; those exercising
the last-named gift did so unconsciously, those who
prophesied did so in at least enthusiastic exaltation,
whilst those who gave the word of knowledge did so in
full calm consciousness and with a view to convincing
their hearers. Moreover, the contents of prophecy were
derived from former revelation and extraordinary ex-
periences, whilst the word of knowledge proceeded from
the continuous instruction of the Holy Spirit, making
use of the forms of human thought.
In I Cor. 128 Paul speaks of a word of: wisdom along-
side of a word of knowledge, and students have seldom
5. Wisdom failed to observe the close connection be-
and gnosis. tween the two ; in fact, the ‘ teaching ’ of
14626 must include them both. The dis-
tinction between them has sometimes been formulated :
thus : the essential feature of the ,word of wisdom is
that it appeals to the understanding, whilst the character
of gnosis essentially consists in intuition, in an illumina-
tion by the spirit of God, and in an immediate relation
to this spirit (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, 2264). Wis-
dom (ao@la),however, of which Paul (apart from Col.
and Eph., and apart from the fact that of course he
does not deny it to be an attribute of God) almost
always speaks in a tone of disfavour-the wisdom which,
in his view, as the ideal of the Gentiles ( I Cor. 1z z ) , pro-
ceeds from the rulers of this present world-could never
become for his theology a conception of importance
comparable with that of gnosis ; in I Cor. 2 6 8 , ,what
he opposes to the false wisdom as being the divine
wisdom which he proclaims is the contents of his own
gnosis (nu. 8 I,), and only on polemical and rhetorical
grounds is it that he speaks of wisdom, not gnosis (v, 6),
as the subject of his discourses.
The unique passage in I Cor. 12 8 can hardly be taken as im-
ymg, on Paul’s part, a deliberate co-ordination of wisdom and
E‘nowledge;
’ probably all that he desired was to mention the
gift of teaching as heading the list of the charismata, and this
he could have done with pafect clearness by using the expres-
.
sion ‘word of knowledge hut inasmuch as the Corinthians
attached great importance io wildom, and a section of them had
even perhaps chosen to rank themselves among the followers of
Apollos as being the man of wisdom, it occurred to Paul that be
ought not to allow it to appear as if he did not recognise the
‘word of wisdom ’ of (say) an Apnllos as being a charisma also
as well as his own ‘word of knowledge ’. and if in 2 Cor. 116 h i
contrasts his ‘rudeness’ in respect of spdech with his mastery in
respect of knowledge it becomes natural to take the ‘word of
wisdom’ of I Cor. l i s as a kind of speech distinguished by
correctness and brilliancy of form, as employing the resources
of a finished education and training.
To sum up: Paul reckoned gnosis as among the
highest gifts of grace belonging to the church of his day ;
6 , Summing its possessor was able to solve the riddles
of time and eternity which remained in-
up* soluble to other believers; according to
I Cor. 2 6 8 he even held that such pieces of knowledge
could be communicated only to such as were ‘ perfect,’
to Christians who, in truth, deserved to be called spiritual
1741
GOAT
men. These opinions Paul shares with the later Gnostics :
it is easily intelligible why they all, and Marcion especi-
ally, felt closer affinities with him than with any of the
other N T writers ; what separates their gnosticism from
his is the preponderance, to a greater or less degree, of
heathen elements in their speculation, whilst his own con-
fined itself to working out in a sympathetic, if speculative
way, the fundamental ideas of the gospel. That Paul
found such speculation indispensable is, however, no
personal peculiarity of his ; it was an element in his
composition that he had derived from the atmosphere of
his time ; under its influence it was that he contributed
to make Christianity, from being a religion, into a
system of religious and metaphysical thought.
At the same time Paul’s epistles, and especially
Colossians, show that already at that early date he had
to combat certa.in developments of the spirit that prided
itself on knowledge. The false teachers of Colossae (see
COLOSSIANS, § 6) become intelligible only if we take
them as judaizers on the one hand, and gnosticizers
on the other, Christians who gave th
fantastic dualistic speculation. A gnos
of this sort they must have imported with them
from without ; that is to say, gnosticism already existed
in the apostolic age, and it was introduced into the
Christian Church by the Jews. But neither had it its
ultimate origin in Judaism ; from the strong heathen
element it contains we can see that it must have been
imported from the heathen religious philosophy, under-
going manifold modification and accommodation in the
process. Respect for gnosis is a pre-Christian, Hellenic
phenomenon ; Christianity was no more successful in
withdrawing itself from the influence of this predominant
tendency of the time than it was in the case of Judaism ;
but Paul at so early a date as that of his epistle to
Colossae already found, and made use of, the oppor-
tunity to draw the line beyond which gnosis could not
be tolerated as a Christian basis, and succeeding genera-
tions of the Church only followed in his footsteps, though
with increasing earnestness as the danger increased,
when they carried on the struggle against ‘ Gnostics after
the flesh.
Cp F. C. Baur, Die ChristZ. Gnosis, ‘35, and Das Christen-
thum U . a’. chrisfZ. Kircke der ersten IahrhzlnderfeP),‘60 ;
R. A. Lipsius ‘Gnosticismus,’ in Ersch and
Literature. Gruher’s En&. vo!. lxxi., ’60’ Mansel, Thc
Gnostic Heresies, 7 5 ; J . B. kightfoot, ,St.
P a d s EjisfZes fo the Colossiansand Phzknton, 86 ; M. Fried-
lender, Der vorckristlicltejiidische Gnosticismus, ‘98.
A. J.
GOAD. I. dorbhin, 1277 (AP~ITANON ; stimulus),
I S. 1321 [also 7,. 20 d,emended text, see S B O T ] , liis, dor6h8n
Eccles. 12 IIt. 2. MaZmidh, i n h (&POTP~TOUS),
( ~ O ~ K W T ~ O V )
Judg. 331f.l 3. KCvTpov, Acts 26 14 RV. See A GRICULTURE,
0 4, col. 79.
GOAH, Jer. 31 39 RV ; AV GOATH.
GOAT. To supplement the general introductory
notes respecting large and small cattle among the
Hebrews (given elsewhere; see C ATTLE) some re-
marks upon the treatment of goats in particular are
necessary.
There are several different breedsof the genus Capru in
1. Hebrew Palestine and adjacent countries ; but it is
not possible to distinguish each precisely by
its original Hebrew name.
The generic Heb. term, common to all the Semitic family is
(I) *&, ly (Ass. enzu, Ar. ‘am, Syr. ‘ezzd; Q5 usually renders
dt,also $+os Gen. 27 g, etc.), which includes male and female
( e g . , Gen. 15 9).
To denote the he-goat (so RV), four words are found : ( 2 )
‘aft&, l?ny (Ass. atzidu, mentioned as a swift mountain animal),
AV ‘rams’ in Gen. 31 TO 12. @ ~pLyos; but K ~ L &Gen. 3 1 I O 12,
Xlpapos Ps. 509 66 15.
(3) FEjhfr, T?? a late word (Ass. !a$,bam, Syr. p j h r E y E ) ,
Dan. S 56, and’ (Aram.) Ezra 8 35 ; O?Y[$ ‘h’ Dan. 8 5 a * z Ch.
1 In Dan. 821 glossed by l’Y$ (Bev.).
=742
 GOAT
2921. @ T ~ & ~ ;O but S Xlpapos 2 Ch. 2921. B B K A L also read
[p179r in Neh. 5 18 (MT pi183 'fowls').
(4) i Z W , 1'YW hairyone'), O y [ d 'b Gen. 3'131Ezek. 4322,
etc., AV 'kid of the goats' (++os a i y i v ) , fem. 'y ni$y&Lev.
428, etc.
( 5 ) t a p & W;!, Gen.3035 32 14 [r'51, (5 Tp&yos.
The generic terms for the young animal are (6) gZa'2, ?!'
(fem. Cant. 1st), (5 +$os, or, in conjunction with ( I ) above,
n*ry[nl '13, I S. 1G 20 Gen. 27 g 16, etc. ; and (7) L h , ak, used of
both goats and sheep (Ex. 125 Dt. 144); cp CATTLE, 5 2 (6),
and see SHEEP.
The Hebrew terms refer generally to the domesticated
goat, Cupm hircus, which, it is probable, is descended
2. Species. mainly from the Persian wild goat, C.
egugms, though doubtless other strains
are mingled in its ancestry. Of the various breeds in
Palestine, the chief is the mamder, or Syrian goat, which
attains a large size. It is remarkable for its long pendant
ears, half as long again as the head, an allusion to
which is perhaps found in Am. 3 12. The hair is long,
black and silky. Both sexes are generally horned and
have short beards. Another breed which is found in
some parts of the North of Palestine is the mohair or
Angora goat. It is generally white and has long silky
hair.
The W ILD GOAT (C. e g u p u s ) extends through Asia
Minor and Persia, and in Homer's time was abun-
dant in Greece. It would be well-known to the
Assyrians, although the species occasionally figured is
doubtless (so Houghton) the Asiatic ibex-viz., the
G z p m sinuitica (colloquially called the deden). This
animal occurs in the Sinaitic peninsula, in Palestine
(but not N. of Lebanon), in Upper Egypt, and in
Arabia Petraea. It is quite distiiict from the ibex of
other countries, being rather smaller than the Alpine
species, and lighter in colour than any of its congeners.
I t is a shy animal, with a keen scent, and its coloration
is so like that of the surrounding rocks, etc., that it is
very difficult to see. It usually goes in small herds of
eight or ten, and, when feeding, has a sentry on the
look-out for enemies. The flesh is said to he excellent,
the horns, which are much smaller in the female than
in the male, are often used for knife handles, etc.
T h e generic Heb. term for the 'wild goat' is p i ' a Z (only in
pl., y&Zim, 09\v;),to whosefondness for rocky heights allusion
is made in I S. 24 2 Ps.104 18 (&a+os) Job 39 T (rpayiha+oT
a&pas). Like the GAZELLE, the ' wild ' 'or (better) ' mountain
goat is used of a woman (in n$t! Prov. 5 19, B B N A ~ ~ A o s ) ,
and occurs as a personal name (see JAEL). Another, probably
more specific term is 'a$& mentioned as a ' clean ' animal in
Dt 1 4 5 (see k L E A N 5 7
s)' The Vss. vary betweenyri'lZ(so
Taig. Pesh.), and T&LYCA~+OS (AFL B om.) which is applied
distinctively to the long-haired add beardid goat found in
Arabia and on the Phasis.1 We may probably identify the
animal with the deden or Syrian ibex (cp above).
It is possible indeed that several of the terms may b e
mere appellatives, and when we find that the Hebrew
'uyydl (Cerv&s, see. H ART ) and 'uyil (&is Aries, see
SHEEP) are virtually identical, it is natural to infer that
the Semites did not always distinguish precisely be-
tween the Cu@rineand the Ceivide and AntiloQina.
W e cannot, [herefore state exactly what animals are heant by
the Ass. amu (c A ~ A NSyr. , urniz), daSu (see PYGARG),
ditanu, iurri&u (gyr. far&: cp T ERAH ), and burha (cp Syr.
6ur&ri),although the probability is that a mouniain-goat is
referred to in each.
Goats form a large part of the wealth of a pastoral
community. In hilly and poorly watered regions they
3. Breeding. are more abundant than the sheep.
' O n the downs of Arabia where no
shrubs are to be found, there are no goats. In the
rich maritime plains their place is taken by horned
cattle, for the luxuriant grasses are too succulent for
their taste.'3 They flourish best in the southern
1 See Liddell and Scott. The gloss (6pppos (ib.) is no doubt
related to the Heb. zimir, see CHAMOIS.
2 I n Dt. 144 Pesh. for lpi, see C HAMOIS.
3 Tristram in Smith's DSP), rzood.
I743
GOAT
wilderness (Edom), and in the hills from Hebron
( I S. 252) to the top of Lebanon, and beyond Jordan
(Cant. 41 65 [cp G ILEAD , § I, H AIR ,'§ I], Gen. 3 0 3 3 . 8
3214 [IS]). They have given their name to 'Am-Jidy
(see E N -G EDI ), where they are said still to be found
(Thomson, LB 603).
As a rule they are herded with the sheep.' The
two flocks keep apart, however, the sheep browsing on
the short grass whilst the more agile and independent
goat skips along nibbling at the young shoots of trees
and shrubs. In this way great damage is done to
seedling trees, and the goat is to a large extent respon-
sible for the absence of trees in Palestine. When folded
together at night, the goats and sheep gather separately,
and round the well, while awaiting the filling of the
trough, they instinctively classify themselves separately
(Tristram, Zoc. cit. ).
The tuyii is mentioned in Pr. 3031 as one of the
things ' stately in march' (TpbyOS +ydpwos ahroAlou
[GBNAc]),,an allusion, doubtless, to the he-goat's habit
3f leading the flock (cp 'attzid Jer. 508). Hence
the latter term is applied to the leaders of the people
(Is. 149 Zech. l o 3 ; cp Jer. 5140 /I p>!m), and Ezekiel
(Ezek. 3717) contrasts the weak flock (the poor people)
with their leaders, the rams and he-goats (the rich and
powerful ; cp Dan. 8 3 5). It is plain that there is no
real affinity between this passage and Mt. 253zf: where
the blessed are separated from the cursed 'as the
shepherd divides the sheep from the kids' (tpL+ia ;
RVW. kids). This language does not imply that kids
are either less valuable or (see Post in Hastings' DB,
2 1956) less mild and tractable than sheep.3 On the
passage as a whole see SHEEP.
Herds of goats were a valuable possession in more
ways than one (CP Prov. 2726, and see CATTLE, 6 8).
Their hair was woven (&ID) by-the
4.
women into curtains, tent coverings, etc.
(Ex.3526 Nu.3120 etc., see T ENT, 5 3), and-Paul's
native country Cilicia, in particular, exported goats'
hair for this purpose (see C ILICIA, 8 3). The skins
might be used to cover the body (see below, and cp
DRESS, 5 8 ; Heb. 1137 Pv aiydots G.!ppautv), though,
in later times, this would rather be the garb of an ascetic.
More commonly they were used for bottle^.^ Goats'
flesh was, of course, eaten (see FOOD, 8 IS), and goats'
milk ( n y 3>? Prov. 2727) formed one of the main
articles of diet (see M ILK). Hence a gift or present
frequently takes the form of a goat or kid (Judg. 151
I S. 101 Gen. 3817 Tob. 212),and, as at the present
day, it is dressed and prepared for the guest by every
generous host (Judg. 6 1831315, cp Lk. 1529).
The goat was one of the commonest sacrificial victims
(Lev. 312 Gen. 15g), and most frequently comes in
''
archseology*
connection with the priestly ritual of
the sin-offering. It was the animal
selected on the great D AY OF ATONE-
MENT to bear away the sins of the people to AZAZEL.
Cp S ACRIFICE.
The, following terms are found: 7 Y (Nu. 15 27), n'iy ?'BY
2 Ch. 2921, l'pk Lev. 424, 'Y['hYU/ Lev. l S s J , Nu. 716,
fem. 'yni'yp Lev. 56, n m n n ['liy~vLev. 9 15 2 Ch. 2923.
Similarly in the Carthaginian ritual the ly and ~ 7 were
3 used as
offerings ; cp CIS I. no. 165, U.7 9.
The so-called Satyrs (see S ATYR ) must also be
referred to in passing. If we may conjecture that there
were ancient Hebrew rites wherein worshippers appeared
in goat-skins (see D RESS, 8, I SAAC , 4 ; and WRS
ReZ. S~rn.(~),467) the origin of thesd jinn-like objects
1 t&n denotes the fold of the goats (Ps. 5 0 9 ) as well as that
of the sheen.
2 The 'ffocksofkids'(O'!p '?en) in I K. 2027 is a precarious
renderinz derived from (5 ( r o l u v L a alv&u). Klostermann reads
&& ( ~ D u / I')on
, I
nvy , the bare heigh;, after the manner of kids.'
8 See Is. 116 Ecclus. 47 3.
4 See B OTTLE, 0 I. This is literally expressed in the
Palmyrene 1y 91 1'37 (Tadmor, Fiscal Inscr. [137 A.D.], B 2 48).
I744
 GOATH
of veneration becomes more obvious. It may well be
that at some early period the goat was regarded in
Canaan as a sacred animal (cp G AZELLE, H ART ),
It was so venerated by certain communities in Egypt,’
and to some extent among the Greeks.2 We know,
too, that it filled a prominent place in Babylonian
astronomy.3 A. E. S.-S. A. C.
GOATH, or better (RV) GOAR (7@i, ‘ to Goah ’),
one of the land-marks of the restored Jerusalem (Jer.
3139 f). Read ?ll?gX,‘ to the Hill ‘-i,e., probably ’ to
the Hill of God,‘ the Mt. of Olives (see Is. .1032,as
emended under NoB). Gratz (iMGWJ, 1883, p. 3 4 3 )
thinksof Gibeah of Saul ; but that is too far off. In v. 38
the new wall is traced from the Tower of Hananeel on the
the NE. to the corner-gate on the NW. ; in v. 39 from
the NW. back to the NE. on the S. side, passing by
G AREB [ii] (between the ravine of Hinnom and theValley
of Rephaim) to the Mount of Olives.
Pesh. evidently read anyxi ; cp ;ITL yapaoa, cod. 36 (Field).
QBXAQ’s rendering (Kai aapLKudo@<umaL &; ‘ ;KACKT&V
AL8ov) represents the last clause (any2 2~21)~
and seems to be a
paraphrase of a reading aya@a(cp JhaJ Syr. -Hex.) from
yaa8a (Aq.). T. K. C.
GOB (13,>\A-i.e., ‘ a cistern,’ Ges.), if the reading
be correct, is the name of the place where David’s
warriors had two encounters with the Philistines (see
D AVID , § 7 ; E LHANAN , 5 I ), z S. 2118Jt. In the 11
passage ( I Ch. 2O4J) the place is mentioned only
once (v.4), and is given1 as Gezer (so in z S. ; Then.,
Ew., with Jos. Ant. vii. 122) which is plainly a ccrrup-
tion of Iie = 33. The commentaries are just here very
meagre ; but we can hardly doubt that the true reading
in z S. is either n!, ‘ Gath’ (so Grove, Gratz, Klo.),
or (more probably) niin7, REHOBOTH( g . ~ . ) . For the
restoration of Gob in zS. 21 16 (We. and others) see
ISHBI-BENOB.
All the three encounters mentioned in 2 S. 21 18-21presumably
occurred in the same neighbourhood ; Q5 in v. 18, and M T and
E3 together in v. 20, besides the reference in v. 22 (?), support
‘Gath.’ Ges. naively remarks (Ties., s.v., 33) that ‘Gob’ beiiig
little known, @ substituted other names. The truth is that
though there probably in Talmudic times was a place called
p b (pow eZ-4fu64 B=d.(3) q ) , 4 there never was any n a d d
Gob. Either ‘ Gob ’ is a fusion of ‘ Gath ’ and ‘ Noh,’ or it is a
corruption of Rehoboth. The latter view seems preferable.
The ya&3 of @L in v. 18 is a fusion of ‘Gezer’(ya<ep), and
‘Gath’ (ye@). (Some Heb. MSS have 2 i : so also the Soncino
Bible l14881, etc. ; 7’. 18, yop [Compl 1. a<cp [ H P 2461; yapreh
[id. XI. 29236 242 etc.1; y,d [BA];‘;a& [Ll; v. 15, yop [AI,
PO+ [Bl, pop [L ; Compl. nisi vop ; cp HP). T. K. C.
GOBLET (I?&), Cant. 7 2 [3]. See BASON,I.
GOD, NAMES OF. See N AMES, 1 0 8 8
GOEL (?&). The idea expressed by the verb hi,
gri’aZ, is to resume a cZaim or right, which has lapsed
or been forfeited, tu redaim, re-vindicate, redeem, red-
i m o (to ‘ buy back ’) ; it is thus used in Lev. 2 5 2 5 8 of
1. Meaning the redemption of a field or house after it
has been sold, in 25 47 8 of the redemption
of term. of an Israelite who, through poverty, has
been obliged to sell himself as a slave to a resident
foreigner, and in 2713 15 etc., of the redemption of
something which has been vowed to Yahwe ; in the first
two of these connections, the subst. ah:, ge’uLZrih, is
used similarly, 2524 26 48 etc. In practice, how-
ever, a man was seldom able himself to ‘redeem’ a
right which had lapsed, and thus, by ancient custom,
the right (and the duty) of doing so devolved upon his
family (cp 2548 J ) , and, in particular, upon that
member of his family who was most nearly related to
him. The consequence was that the term G a d , properly
redeemer, came to denote a man’s Kinsman, and especi-
1 See Wilk. Anc. Eg, 3303, and especially Wiedemann,
Herodots Zweifes Buch cap. 46.
2 See Frazer, GoZden bough, 1 3 2 6 8 , 2 3 4 8 ; Paus. 4 105f:
3 Tensen. Itbsnrol. 76 f i
4 Neub. ‘Giogr. 76.’
7745
’ GOEL
ally his next-of kin (6 dyxcazebs, dy~cuzeu~ds,6
d Y X c u T d w ) ; see Lev. 2525 Nu. 58 Ruth 210 3 9 12
41 3 6 8 14 I K. 1611 (@BL om.), where it is rendered
so (or similarly) in AV, RV (cp Ruth 313, where
the verb ‘ to redeem ’ is rendered four times perfor7n
or do the part uf a Kinsman). What has been said is
well illustrated by Jer. 327-9, where, Jeremiah‘s cousin
Hanameel wishing to sell some property, the prophet is
represented as possessing the right of redemption, which
he proceeds to exercise ; and by Ruth 3, where, when
Naomi had determined to sell her husband’s estate in
Bethlehem, her nearest of kin, who has the right tG
redeem it (6d y x ~ u ~ e l aexpresses
), himself unable to
do so, and the right devolves upon Boaz, her next
nearest kinsman, who accordingly purchases the estate,
and takes with it Ruth, Naomi’s daughter-in-law, a s
his wife (312 44-10).
5 ~ 2 gri’al,
, to be carefully distinguished from the late verb
5 ~ 3 @‘iZ,
, ‘to defile ’ occurs chiefly in the later literature
though the antiquit; of the ideas and usages of which it is thd
expression is sufficiently attested by 2 S. 14 II I K.16 11. In
the derived meaning ‘to act as kinsman’ (2 S. 14 I I I K.16 II
and esp. Ruth and the legal codes of DHP) it is general$
fendered by &&LUT&CJ ( - m u n j s , etc.), whereas the other mean-
ings ‘to redeem, redemption, etc.’ are expressed by I;dopaL
(Gen. 48 16 and often [not always] in Is. 40-66),or, more frequently,
by huTpoGpar ( A ~ T ~ W U Letc.).
S On the use of 5 ~ in3 the meta-
phorical sense of ‘redek~ption‘from trouble, exile, death, etc.,
see BDB S.V. no. 3 (p. 145). in Job 19 25 9 5 ~ 1 ‘my, vindicator’
( R p g . ) is the vindicator of k y innocence, whether(Di., Bu.) as
against false accusations, or (Hi., Del., Che. J06 and SOL 288
Du.) as against an unjust death (see 2); on the distinction f r o d
~ Dr. on Dt. 78.
n y see
The principle of which these usages are the expression
is the desire to keep the property-or, to speak more
_.
.-
a*
penerallv,
,. the rights-of the familv.
and thegJFZha2ddm (013 5 ~ 2 or
,. intact :
) ~‘avenge;
2Efg of blood,’ is just the embodiment of a parallel
.I
amlication of the same Drincide. The n i ’ F ZY
had-ddm is the man who vindicates the rights of one
whose blood has been unjustly shed ; by primitive usage
the duty of doing this devolves upon the members of
the family, or clan (as the case may be), of the murdered
man (cp z S. 14 7 : the whole family is risen against
thy handmaid, and they said, Deliver him that smote
his brother,’ etc.) ; and any one of them (as now in
Arabia) may find himself called upon to discharge it ;
but naturally the responsibility is felt most strongly by
the more immediate relatives, and one of these is the
‘ avenger of blood,’ K ~ T ’ ox+^.
The character is one that figures in many primitive or
semi-primitivesocieties. In a completely civilised society
the right of punishment for murder, or for other crimes,
is assnmed by the state : for the revenge which might
he inflicted in haste or passion (Dt. 196)by one prompted
by personal feeling, is substituted the judgment of a cool
and impartial tribunal. In a primitive community,
however, the case is different ; what the manslayer has
there to fear is not public prosecution, but the personal
vengeance of the relatives of the slain man. Hebrew
law is an intermediate stage. Already in the Book of
the Covenant (Ex. 21 12-14) there is drawn the distinction
(which is not yet found in Homer) between intentional
and unintentional homicide, and the importance of the
distinction is insisted on in all the Codes (Dt. 1 9 1 - 1 3
Nu. 389-34), where provisions are laid down to prevent
homicide, as distinguished from murder, being visited
by death. The gC’ZZ, however, not the state, still
executes justice on the murderer ( z S. 147 I I Dt. 1912;
and, in P, Nu. 3.51921 27) : on the other hand, his
authority is Zimited; the altar of YahwB in Ex., and
the ‘cities of refuge’ in Dt. and P, are appointed a s
places at which the homicide may be secure from the
vengeance of the g8’CZ; restrictions are placed in the
way of his acting hastily or in passion (Dt. 193 6) ;
according to Josh. 2O4J (D,) the manslayer is to state
his case before the elders of the city of refuge, and, if
he has satisfied them (it is implied) of its truth, is to be
taken under their protection ; in Nu. 3524f: ( P ) the
1746

case between him and the avenger ,of blood is subject
to the decision of the ‘ congregation ; and the murderer
is to be put to death only on the evidence of more than
one witness (Nu.3530 ; cp the general rule, Dt. 191s).
The practice of blood-revenge is widely diffused,
especially among tribes in a relatively primitive stage
3. Practice of of civilisation. It is essentially con-
blood-revenge. nected with the family, or clan ; in-
deed it is found only where a clan-
system is fully developed and clan-sentiment strongly
felt. Its aim is to maintain intact the honour and
integrity of the clan ; the feeling which prompts it is
the esprit de corps of the clan. The duty is felt as a
sacred one ; in Australia, for example, for the nearest
relative of a murdered man to refuse to avenge his
death would be to repudiate a most sacred obligation,
and at the same time to incur the taunts and derision
of the entire clan. As has been said abcve, however, it
is often a matter not simply between a particular relative
of the murdered man and the murderer; the whole
clan, on each sids, is implicated, and a remorseless
and protracted blood-feud between the two clans may
he the consequence of a murder, until the penalty which
custom demands has been exacted.
Wherever the practice of blood-revenge exists, the
principle underlying it is the same; though naturally
there are many differences in the details of its applica-
tion, and many special usages and customs arise in
connexion with it. The limits of the clan implicated
vary,-sometimes it is the murderer’s more immediate
family, sometimes it includes his relations in a wider
sense; in Arabia it is the group called the &yy-
Le., the aggregate of kinsmen, living and moving
from place to place together, and bearing the same
name (WRS Kinship, 22-24, cp 36-39). Very often,
again, a T O L V . ~ , or wergiZd is taken in compensation far
a life (cp for instance Hom. ZZ. 1 8 4 9 8 f.; Tac. Germ.
ZI ; and, among the Saxons, Stubbs, Const. Hist. of
Eng. 153 143 f.157 161 f:) ; this was against Hebrew
feeling, and is strictly prohibited-implicitly in Ex.
21 12 ( J E ) Lev. 2 4 1 7 ( H ) and Dt. 1911-13, explicitly in
Nu. 3531-33 (P).‘ Where a wergiZd is accepted, its
amount varies amongst different peoples, and also in
accordance with the rank, age, or sex of the murdered
person. For other varieties of usage in connexion with
the institution, it must suffice to refer to A. H. Post,
Sfudien ZUY Entwickehngsgesch. des FamiZienrechts
113-137 [‘go]; also WRS, Kiltship, z z s 38 47 5 2 3 ; ReL
Sem.(zJ3zf: 272f: 420; PEFQ ‘97,pp. 128-130. S. R. D.
GOG and MAGOG. Magog ( 3 h Q ; M a r w r
[BADEL]), in Gen. 102=1 Ch. 1s (M&rw& [A]), IS
a ‘son’ of Japhet. The name, which should be con-
nected in some way with Gag, occnrs also in Ezek. 396
(ywy [BQ], U E [A]), where Magog is spoken of as ex-
posed to judgment (Gog, Meshech, and Tubal, v. I ) ,
and in Ezek. 382 where we have ‘Gog of the land of
Magog,’2 mentioned with Meshech and Tubal. Gog
(>\a ; ywy [BAQ]) is to come from the remote part of
the N. (3815 392). Meshech and Tubal (see T U B A L ),
as well as Gorner (386),also point northward. The
order of the names would place Magog between Cap-
padocia and Media,-Le., in Armenia, or some part
of it.
The correctness of the Hebrew text has been douhted.4
1 I t was permitted only in the case of a man or woman being
gored to death by an ox (Ex. 21 2 8 8 ) .
a Bertholet reads ‘against the land of Magog’ (‘D nsix).
3 C5 hns ywy also in Am. 7 I (pp00 OF b~ywy 6 paurhcdr), and
in Nu. 2 4 7 (see AGAC). [B* alsoXas ywy for ‘Og’ in three
places in Dt. (3 I 13 447). I n Ecclus. 45 17 ~ b yoy v [BCI (pn)
may be a corruption of dyoy& which appears in N-].
4 [In Gen. 10 z 21213 is probably a corruption of y>n, miswritten
for 7133. I n Ezek. 35 z read f7Ip y 1 x - h 1’>5mb, ‘set thy face
towardsthe landof Migdon.’ Mig(a)donisprobahlyanameofthe
Babylonian god of the underworld, which, like Beliar or Belial
(Le. Belili, see BELIAL, 8 3), was adopted as a name of Anti-
christ (see ARMAGEDDON). In Ezek. Z.C. ’1 311nn springs out of
I747
GOLAN
Wi. connects Cog with the gentilic name Gdpya, ‘of the Ian:
of G&,’ used in Am. Tab. 138 as a synonym for ‘barbarian.
Others connect it with Ass. Cagu, ruler (fmzdn) of the land
of Sahi, northward from Assyria, in the time of A9ur.bini-pal
(Schr. KGF I ~ O : KB 2 180 f : Del. Par. Z L : ~‘l’iele. Gmdr.
362): less probgbiy with Gyge;, king of Lydia (Ass. &&) a
contemporary of A h - b i n i - p a l (E. Meyer GA 1558). $he
traditional identification with the Scythians (Jos. Jer.) is plaus-
ible, but without definite evidence (see further D:. on Gen. 10 2,
Lenorm. L.c.).
For Gog and Magog in eschatology see ANTICHRIST, 8 12,
APOCALYPSE, 0 46, ESCHATOLOGV, 0 88 (6), and S CYTHIANS.
F. B.
GOG (JjB), in a genealogy of REUBEN, I Ch. 5 4 t
( r o y r [BAI, r w r [LI).
GOIIM. (I) AV NATIONS (qh; & N U N [ADEL] ;
GENTIUm LL\ ; Gen. 14 x), possibly=Gntium (Kurdistan).
See K OA, TIDAL. (2) Josh. 1223 RV. See GILGAL,5 6.
GoLAN (133; r&yhwN [BAFL], in Ch.
THN
rwA&N), a town in Bashan in the territory of the half-
tribe of Manasseh, only mentioned in Dt. 443 Josh. 208
(IhJ Kt. ; T HN rwhaN [AL]) as a city of refuge, and
in Josh. 21 27 (I151Kt. ; TH N rwA+N [AL]) = I Ch. 6 71
[561 (THN rwh&N P I ) , as a Levitical city.
The site is uncertain. Golau was known to Josephus
as yauXdvq (Ant. xiii. 15 3 ; BJ i. 4 4 8 ) ; and Eusebius
( O S 2 4 2 ) describes it as a ‘ large village in Batanaea’
which gave its name to the surrounding district, Gaulan-
itis (cp Schurer, G J Y 1 226 354). Gaulanitis is frequently
mentioned in Josephus (e.g., Ant. xvii. 8 I xviii. 46) as
part of the tetrarchy of Philip. The ancient name is still
heard in the modern /aukin-the name of an adminis-
trative district, bounded on the W. by the Jordan and
the Sea of Galilee, on the S. by the YarniCik or Sheri‘at
el-MenHdireh, on the E. by the Nahr el-‘AUHn, and on
the N. by the declivities of Hermon and the W&dy el-
‘Ajam. Schumacher (Across the Jordan, 92) thinks
that Golan may have been on the site of the present
large village, Sahem el-JaulHn, on the W. of HaurHn,
17 m. E. of the Sea of Galilee; the ruins here are
extensive, and there is a tradition current among the
inhabitants that the place had long ago been the ‘capital
of JaulHn,’ and the seat of government. It is true,
Sahem el-JaulHn is about a mile to the E. of the present
border of Jaulan ; but we do not know that the ancient
Gaulanitis was exactly co-extensive with the JaulZn of
to-day. The grounds of the identification are, however,
not such as to be conclusive.
The modern JaulSn in its western part (between the Jordan
and the Rukkad) consists of a plateau rising gradually from
a height of ahout IWO feet above the sea in the S. to upwards
of 3 w o feet above it in the N. The whole region is volcanic ;
and the country is studded with the conical peaks of extinct
volcanoes. The N. and middle tracts of this part of Janliin
are stony and wild, abounding in masses of lava which have
been emitted from the volcanoes. The soil is of little use agri-
culturally ; but it is valuable as pasturage ; wherever between
the hard basaltic blocks there is a spot of earth the most lnxuri-
ant grass springs up in winter and spring, affdrding fodder for
the cattle of the Bedouin. Parts of the country are well covered
with oaks and other trees ; and there are indications that it was
once even better wooded than it is now. The plateau
is intersected by deep wadys, mostly running in a SW. direc-
tion into the Sea of Galilee. The SW. part of this plateau, in
the angle formed by the Yarmfik and the Sea of Galilee is on
the other hand, stoneless ; the lava-rock surface graduallyhis-
appears and in its place is a rich dark brown lava soil, such as
prevails in Hauran, of extreme fertility on which wheat and
barley flourish in large quantities. Tihber is less abundant
here than it is farther north. Eastern Janlin (between the
Ru!&d and the ‘A11Bn) is, in the N., covered with a number of
-
TiiJn; 312 is a fragment of I , i ~ - 5 ~ ~ ~ ~
~
Tiras : Meshech, and Tubal, is a late insertion from Gen. 10 2,
whence also comes >i>n, which the scribe substituted for [ ~ I ~ I D .
I n 39 I asimilar emendation is required. 212, in 38 and 39, should
always be pljn. In 39 I T n>)&j-nx> is a mere expansion of
a miswritten ]IT>”. I n 39 I I 15 213 p,and in 39 16 ;1j)n>1.y
may come from Iiijni8-i.e. Harmigdon. We now perhaps see
from which source the Apocalyptist drew the name A RMA -
GEDDON [p.v.], andalso’whereArmageddon was (seeEzek. 39 TI).
T.K.C.]
I748
 GOLATH-MAIM
volcanic mounds, so that the soil here scarcely repays cultiva-
tion; in the S., though the country is still basaltic, the land is
richer and less stony, and it is accordingly inore cultivated.
Extensive ruins have been discovered in different parts of JaulPii
dating from Roman times and onwards, which show that it inus;
.once have been the home of a thriving population.
Jaulan has been described very fully, with maps, sketches,
and particulars respecting ruined sites, etc., by G. Schumacher
in The / a d & u and Across the lordan, 1-20, 41-102 (the two
last named passages dealing with Eastern Jauku, between the
Rul+Xd and the ‘Allnu). S. R. D.
’ GOLATH-MAIM. Golath-maim or Gullath-maim,
a s also Golath (Gul1ath)-illith a n d Golath (Gu1lath)-
njp n$e, ni+q
t a h t i t h (josh. 1519, ’1, ni*gnn ’P ;
Judg. 115 n+y ‘3, nyinn ’1,‘’D’1 ; EV 8 springs of
water,’ ’ the upper springs,’ ‘ the lower springs ’) are,
according t o Moore a n d Budde, proper names. See,
however, K EIL AH.
GOLD. The importance of gold in Semitic antiquity
is suggested by the n u m b e r of words for gold i n O T
Hebrew compared with biblical Greek. xpw6s and
xpuuiov ( t h e latter also=wrought gold [ I Pet. 331 a n d
gold coin) are the only Greek words. H e n c e in Is. 1312
Job 3124 and Prov. 25 12, where a second word i s
w a n t e d , 6 has to represent nn3 by A h s , AfOos ?roAu-
7eX4sI and udpsrov TOAUTEA~S. See also (d). The
Hebrew terms are :
. . (a) 3?, zEhdb, Aram. 389,AI.dhahadun, perhaps ‘ the spark-
ling’; cp >fix. Note the phrases r?m >?:, ‘refined gold’ (I K.
1018), for which 2 Ch. 917 has lh; 3 3 ‘pure
1. gold’ (@ in each case x p u u i y 8 0 d p y ; hut Pesh.
reads l’?iNp ’I, ‘gold from Ophir ’), and mn$::3 (xpuu; <ha&),
‘beaten gold,’ I K. 10 16j: 2 Ch. 9 rsf: See also U PHAZ .
(b) pin, @~Zrt&~ Ass. &uni;u, Phcen. yin (whence xpuuds,
~ p u u i o v ) ;in Hebrew, mostly poetical (Zech. 9 3 Ps. 68 13 [14]
Prov. 3 14 8 IO 19 16 16). We find it twice, however, in prose,
.according to necessary emendations of Gen. 2 11 f: and 23 16.
.
Gen. 2 1.f: should run ‘. . the whole land of Havilah where
there is the /idW-gold: where there is the &ipindu-stone,knd the
,.sL8ham’ (malac‘hite?); see O PHIR, 8 I ; O N Y X ; T OPAZ. The
sudden transition tonaive wonder(‘Thego1d ofthat land isgood’)
conceals, in fact, a reference to a kind of gold designated /idrtZf.
I n Gen. 23 16 / i i r z Z s is concealed under lassah@ (see KESITAH).
What then does himis mean? Nddeke (ZDMG, 1386, p. 728)
a n d konig) ( 2 a 137) aavocate the explanation ‘yellowish’; so
BDB, Ges.-Bnhl. Seeps. 68 13[14], yiin p i , y i q , ‘with yellowish
.for, greenish] gold,’ and cp BDB, sa., pi‘. Ps. 68 13[14], how-
ever, is corrupt (read ’n 1 ~ 2 , ‘with the glory of gold’).
yqin, /i&nis, possibly described gold in one of the stages of
Its production. ‘The bard stone [quartz] was first made brittle
by the action of fire, then hoedout with ironpichs’ ( h a T O p L K @
. .
ur86pw KaTarrOVO%TL . T U ~ ~ uUdLq p a 0 T ~ Vpappapi<ouuav
*&pa; K ~ T O U U L U ,Diod. Sic., 3 12).
(c) D??, Kithem, possibly from .\/on>, ‘to cover’ (SO ASS.,
Ar.); same word in Sab.; in Hebrew only or mostly, poetical
,(Is. 13 12 Job 28 1619 31 24 Prov. 25 12 [and )perhaps Prov. 25 11,
b y emendation, see BASKETS n. I] Lam. 4 I Dan. 10 5, hut not
Ps. 459[10] Cant. 5x1, yhe:e the text is corrupt). One of the
kinds of gold specified in Egyptian records [New Empire] is
‘the good gold of Katm’ (Erman). W. M. Muller gives the
forms K&-ti-maand, more common, Kfmt (As. u. Bur. 76).
Possibly on3, Kithem (Kafhm),also is the name of a gold.
producing place, like Ophir; in Is. 1312, as Duhm has seen,
PIN, 8phZr, is a gloss on on>. Perhaps in Gen. 1030 >igo
a l p ? Tlshould heread O?? ’1; n??b, ‘to Sophirl (Le., OPHIR,
q.v.), to the mountains of Kethem.’ Tg. recognises, at any
rate, a special kind of gold.
(d) 75 (Talm. Nr?;Tg. Mi???), paa, ‘refined, gold,’ probably
= 1 g n 3x1 (see above, a). Ps. 19 I O [IT] 21 3 [41 Prov. 8 19, hieov
TI~OV Ps.; 119 127, TOT<LOV [see TOPAZ] ; Joh 28 17 Cant. 5 15
[uKEUI~, j3due~s1,x p v u 2 [ ~ ;1 Is. 13 12 Lam. 4 2, xpuulov ; Cant.
-5 TI, K a L + a < [ B A ] , Ke+a<[N].
( e ) l’?iN, ‘Ophir,’ also could be used poetically for l*?h 2JT
‘Ophir-gold’ (Job 2224 uwderp, also Ps. 45 g [ I O ] : read i”,).2
cc) Similarly l b , st‘gh8r (uuvrhsrup6s), or 191: (Hoffm.,
1 Sophir may perhaps be simply a corruption of Ophir; H
and D are frequently confounded (e.g., ~ 1 3 for , ~ 1 2 3 ,Is. 41 3).
The forms u w + [ ~ ] ~ puw+scpa,
, uw+qpa, uw+apa occur in @.
2 Vg.’s renderings are peculiar. 1’51~ becomes (Job
28 16) tinciis India colori71~s(cp i n colore, er for on33 Dan.
10 5); Is. 13 12, mundo 06riz0, where oL&;=Ophir=(Ophir
gold.
I749
GOLD
Bu., Duhm) is perhaps used for 1?1! >?!, Job 2315, lit. ‘gold
closed up.’ See the Comm. on I K. 620. Tg. ‘0 3 x 7 ; Vg.
aurum obrizum. Most probably= Ass. &urisu sakru, ‘massive
or solid gold’ (Del. Ass. NWB 499 6). It seems that we should
read YlF ‘gold’ for 13UN (EV ‘gifts’) in Ps. 72 IO,^ and 110 for
1 7 ( k~V ‘a ~ round goblet ’) in Cant. 7 3 [z] ( j Q R 11 404 [‘gg]).
T o these we must not add the phrase 75 Dn.3 Cant. 5 II E V
‘the most fiue gold’ (the hridegroom’s hair), ’the text ieing
corrupt.%
Besides the above there are other terms (Latin, etc. )
of strange aspect, which may claim t o be mentioned.
I . Does the phrase xpuwbs d ~ v p o smean Ophir-gold? or gold-
dust (Ass. epnc [ a ] masses of earth, [61 dust)? Scarcely‘
against the lattgr view see Wi. A T Unters. 146 n. 2. Nor i i
there much to be said for Sprenger’s coiijecture(AZte Grogr. von
Arab. 56%) that both Ophir and daupos describe the reddish
colour of the best kind of gold (Ophir, therefore, not originally
a place-name).
2. bppv<ov Lat. olrussa no doubt means the test of fire
applied to g h d in a cupel .’the gold which has passed this test
I
is called aurum odrizum cp Arah. i6rZz.izrln whence a6razu,
cepit anrumpurum. But what is the origin hf bppu<ou?
At any rate, the words just mentioned have a real right
to he. That is more than we can say of the Heb. l :?, beser,
however, commonly explained as ‘ gold-ore.’3 It is suspicious,
that is>, ‘ore,’ was altogether unknowu to the ancients. There
is only one passage in which almost all moderns have found it
and only one more in which one ‘or two have suspected it;
existence. In both passages the word taken to be 1 x 3 is sur-
rounded by textual corruption, and there can hardly he a doubt
that it is itself corrupt. The passages referred to are :
( a ) Job 22 24 f.(lr?, AV ‘gold ’ : RV ‘ thy treasure’ [mg.
Heh. ‘ore’] ; ?*?,$+, AV ‘ thy defence’ ; RV renders as ’In).
It is necessary here to give the context. Budde renders’his
somewhat emended text thus :-
‘And (if thou) layest ore of gold in the dust,
And in the sand by the sea Ophir-gold,
So that the Almighty is thine ore of gold,
And his law is (as) silver unto thee.
A reference to the Hebrew will show that 1. 2 is in part happily
emended. Still the gist of the passage seems to be misappre-
hended, and the 1 x 3 of M T is not cleared up. Beer too while
adopting Budde’s reading in 1. 2, confesses that ;he ihrase-
ology of D. 24 seems to him very strange. So also, however, is
that of V . 25. Nor is Budde’s emendation, his law,’ in$ for
nigym, plausible. Duhm hardly improves upon Budde. Proh-
ably we should read thus,-
And thou wilt heap up treasures as the dust,
And as the sand of the sea Ophir-gold,
And Shaddai will he thy diadem (7irl),
And a crown of Ophir-gold ( ’ 1 3 ~ 1 ~in3r) unto thee.4
@) Ps. 68 30 [31], v?Y!B D?!? ; RV, ‘ trampling under
foot the jieces of silver.’ For this Cheyne (Ps.W 393,
doubtfully) and Nestle (JBL, ’91,p. 151) have read ‘3 ’ l p ,
‘ with (or for) pieces of silver ore’; hut the extreme doubtfulness
of 1x2 in Tob makesit preferable to read ‘3 ’IXiNL‘with store of
~ . I
silver.’ On the corrupt ‘inn see PATHROS. (Duhm is rather
disappointing here.)
I t does not, in fact, ;Sppear that the OT Hebrew has any
expression for ‘gold or? In the margin of Job 286 AV does
indeed give ‘gold ore. However. this mav onlv record the
- I ~~
impression of the translators that ;> ! niipy would not he good
Hebrew for ‘dust of gold.’ For the same reason probably
RV gives in the margin ‘and he winneth lum s of gold’;
hut the only safe rendering is that of De!itzsc#?, Dillmann,
Hoffmann, ‘and he hath gold-hearing earth. Yet this cannot
represent the poet’s meaning. No miner is mentioned in the
context, and, as Bateson Wright has seen, the parallelism re-
quires $’$?p. Probably the verse should run thus,
Its stones are the place of silver,
Its clods are the mine of g ~ l d . 5
Thus z*. 6 corresponds (as it should) to v. I. Cp SAPPHIRE.
1 I n Ezek. 27 15 j13WN should probably he $??b.
2 GrPtz(cp Bu.)would read ln3for pn3; but the best reading
seems to he \~i>3,‘like Carmel’ (see 7 6 [ 5 ] , H AIR , I). 6’s
xpuulov Ka; $a< in Cant. 5 II represents ID> on> (see UPHAZ).
This became w+aT{(Cod. 253 HP), o+aT{(Cod. 300)-i.e., on>
1 ~ (Lag.1 ~ MittkeiZ. 281). Neither form of text however
makes a good sense, and the connection of 5 I r a with 76ab ca;
scarcely he denied.
3 Abulwalid derives it from 1x3, ‘to break off.’. comparing
- T . - -
Ar. t i d w = (native gold whether dust or nugget).
4 See Ezp. T., 10 94% (Nov. ’98).
Y
1
7.5
0
 GOLD
The localities mentioned in the OT as sources of
gold (Havilah, Ophir, Sheba) are all Arabian ; Arabia
2. Sources was evidently the Eldorado of the Hebrews.
Now it is the gold of Ophir, now that of
Of gold' Sheba that rises before the mental eye;
never, for some reason, that of Havilah. Midian, too,
appears to have abounded in gold; the reference in
Nu. 3150-54 to the spoil of gold taken from the Midian-
ites comes from a very late source (P), but reflects the
traditional belief in the Midianitish gold ; Gideon, too,
is said in the legend to have won enormous spoil from
the conquered Midianites (Judg. 824-27). According to
Burton,z the ' land of Midian ' was ' evidently worked,
and in places well worked' in antiquity. There is just
one allusion in the O T to the abundance of gold in
Palestine in the pre-Israelitish period. Achan is said to
have appropriated from the spoil of Jericho zoo shekels
of silver and a ' tongue ' of gold of 50 shekels weight
(Josh. 721). One would like to know what the object
called a ' tongue ' really was. It was hardly a ' wedge '
(Jos. Ant. i. 5 IO, p i r a ; Vg. reguZa) ; both here and in
Is. 13IZ ( ' golden wedge ' for a m ) AV must be wrong ;
and even RV has been too conservative in its render-
ing of Josh. IC. Nor is there evidence for any object
of use or ornament called from its shape a ' tongue'
either in Hebrew or in A ~ s y r i a n . ~It seems a reason-
able, and it is certainly an easy, conjecture that is a
corruption of p?@, ' a cuirass ' (see BREASTPLATE [i.]) ;
the king of a city like Jericho may well have been sup-
posed by the late Hebrew narrator to have possessed
golden armour. Certainly the quantity of the precious
metals demanded as tribute by Thotmes Ill. and
Ram(e)ses I l l . could have been borne only by a very
rich country (see Brugsch, Hist. of Egypt) ; the gold
was no doubt brought to Palestine by trading cara-
vans from Arabia. In the Israelitish period Solomon's
golden shields were carried off to Egypt by SoSenk
(Shishak). See I K. 1 4 z s f . Solomon's hunger for
gold may indeed have been exaggerated by legend (cp
Jos. Ant. viii. 7 3) ; but solid fact lies under the possible
exaggeration (see O PH I R ).
The Egyptians, however, were not confined to pillag-
ing highly civilized Syria ; they were in direct relations
with gold-producing districts. At HarnmBm5.t (see
Brugsch, Gesch. Aeg. 596) and at Gebel 'AllBki, near
the country now occupied by the Ababdeh Arabs, and
also at another place bearing the same name nearer the
Red Sea, there were important gold-mines. An inter-
esting account of the mines is given in Egyptian records
( R P 8 7 5 8 ; Brugsch, op. cit. 530 ; Erman, Anc. Eg.
4631, and the 'earliest known map,' now in the
Turin museum, represents the second of these mining
districts, which was visited by Theodore Bent.4 The
precious metal was for the most part found in veins
of quartz (according to Hoffmann, the d m q of Job
28g), and Diodorus (312) gives a description of the
processes employed which throws light on some of the
Hebrew terms and phrases relative to gold in the OT.
First of all the hard stone was made brittle by fire;
then it was broken up into small pieces which were
ground to powder between two flat granite millstones.
This powder was washed on inclined tables furnished
with one or more cisterns, so that all the earthy matter
might be separated [cp Job 28 I , apt, 'where they
1 YARVAIM and UPHA? 1qq.v.I can hardly he mentioned ; these
su posed place-names arise from corruptions in the text.
The Land qf Midian Revisited ('79) 1329. Burton's
object was 'to ascertain the depth from W. ro E. of the quartz-
formation which had been worked by the ancieuts.' His ex-
ploration was stopped by the Bedouin.
3 Benzinger (HA, 190, n. z ) dismisses the rendering 'bar,'
and supposes some tongue-shaped object to be meant. We can
hardly acquiesce in this.
4 See Chabas, Les inscriptions des Mines d'Or (162) ; and cp
Burton, op. cit. 196' Rent, Southern Arabia, 373 j? Prof.
d e Goeje thinks it pdhahle that the two sets of mines, though
several hundred miles apart, may have belonged to the same
reefand have been known by the same name.
I751
GOLGOTHA
cleanse it '1, .flowing down the incline with the water.
The particles of gold were then collected, and, together
with a oertain amount of lead, salt, etc., kept for five
days and nights in closed earthen crucibles. By ex-
posure to the heat they were formed into ingots which,
having been extracted, were weighed and laid by for
use. (On this description cp Bent, Through Mashona-
Zannd, 184 ; Southern A r a b i a , 325.) The commonest
objects produced were rings (RP2 26 ; Erman, 464),
or ' thin bent strips of metal ' (Maspero, D a w n of L'iv.,
324) which were used as a basis of exchange. As
distinguished from gold rings, the gold imported by
Ha't-Sepsut from the land of Punt is called ' green ' or
' fresh ' ; probably it was in ingots.' At a later time
six kinds of gold are specified,-'mountain gold, good
gold, gold of twice, gold of thrice, gold of the weight,
and the good gold of Katni' (cp § I [c]). The wealth
of R+m(e)ses111. (the Rampsinitus of Herodotus) must,
to judge from the temple inscriptions, have been enor-
nious. 'Gold in grains, in bags filled to the weight
of 1000pounds, from the mines of Amamu in the land
of Kush, from Edfu, from Ombos, and from Kopfos,
bars of silver, pyramids of blue and green stones,' etc.
(Brugsch, Gesch. 596).
Gold (@mzsu)was in equal request in Babylonia and
Assyria, though AV's rendering in Is. 144 ' golden
city' (n????) is as impossible as the reading which it
represents. Gudea (the very ancient pat& of LagaS)
speaks (KB 3 a 37) of having received gold dust from
Rliluhha ( L e . , the Sinaitic peninsula). Nothing is said
of gold coming from Miluhba elsewhere ; probably,
however, it was not dug up in Sinai, but brought from
Egypt.Z The greater part of the Babylouian gold
doubtless came from Arabia ; but gold entered into the
tribute of all the richer conquered peoples ; Hezekiali,
for instance, paid thirty talents of gold ( 2 I<. 18 14;
KA Tcz)293).
That the art of the Goldsmith(ql\Y,Neh. 38[BKAOm.]
~ Y P U T H C [L]31 [b transliterates], 32 X A A K ~ Y C[RSA
cp Is. 4171, XAhKOyprOC [PI, Is. 4019 466 Jer. 10914
51 17 [AV in Jer. ' founder 1, x p y ~ o x o o c was
) carried
to as great a perfection in Nineveh and Babylon as in
Egypt does not appear. Merodach-Baladan, the adver-
sary of Sargon, had a canopy, a sceptre, and a bed of
gold (Sarg. Ann. 339 ; cp Del. H W B z7), and
gold was much used in architectural decoration. Still
there was a Babylonian guild of goldsmiths whose
patron was the god Ea. It may be noted here that in
Gen. 4 2.3 no mention is made of a founder of the gold-
smith's art. Yet there must have been goldsmiths at
Jerusalem, though a doubt exists whether ' goldsmiths '
in Neh. 332 should not rather be ' money-changers '
(Perles, Anal. 78). See METALS, and cp HANIII-
CRAFTS.
For the Golden Calf, see C ALF, GOLDEN.
The investigation of the sources of the gold elsewhere than
in Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia, and Palestine does not con-
cern us here. The accounts which Herodotus, Arrian, and
Diodorus give of the treasures of the great cities of Asia show
that gold-mines in widely separated regions were well-worked
(see Smith'sDict. CZaass. Ant.,s .v. 'Aurum' ; G. F. Hill, Hand-
do06 ofcreek andRoman Coins, 18-20). T. K. C.
GOLGOTHA (rOAro& [Ti. W H ] ; Syr.
]&c&), Mt. 2 7 3 3 Mk.1522 (roAroeaN [KB,
etc.]) Jn. 19 17t. The name of a place outside of Jeru-
1. Name. salem, where Jesus was crucified. I t was
'without the gate' (Heb. 13xz), and appar-
ently beside some public thoroughfare (Mt. 2739) leading
to the country (Mk.15m), but ' nigh to the city' (Jn.
1920). See CROSS, 4.
The Aramaic form of the name (st. emph. & i \ r j from
~ \ > \ l i; see Onk. Tg. on Ex. 16 16) corresponds to the Hebrew
n>$X, plgo'leth. In the Greek transliteration (except in A)
Naville, Deir el-Bahari, 12j.
1
2 Krall, C;rrcn&iss der altorient. Gesch. 48 ; cp Jensen, Z A ,
18953 P. 372.
I752
 GOLGOTHA
the second 5 of the original word has been dropped in order to
facilitate pronunciation (cp Ar. jafajaPn, and see Zahn, NT
Einl. 120). Mt., Mk., and Jn. give its interpretation as npaviov
~ d w o r the place of a skull; Lk. gives the Greek name only-
‘ to t i e place called Kranion‘ (23 33, ;ai ‘rbv T ~ O V‘rbv Kahod-
pevov rpaviov) RV ‘The skull’-or, as it is rendered in AV
, and RVmg. aker the Vg. (CaZuaria), ‘Calvary. Eusebius
mentions it as y. Kpaviov (os, 175 TI), y. Kpaviov (189 I 202 63),
and 7. Kpaviov ‘r6nor (248 21) ; Jerome gives Golgotha caharia
(OS, 61 22) and G. Zocus CaZuavirP (13025).
According to Jerome (Comment. a d E@s. 5 14 ;
Epist. 46), and Basil (in Canesii Thes. 1245) there was
a tradition that the skuU (whence the name) of Adam
was preserved in this place ; Epiphanius ( c o n k Har.
146), Ambrose(E’ist. 71), and others speak of his burial
at Golgotha (see Guthe, ‘ Grab [das heilige] ’ in P X B 3 ) ) .
Such a tradition only needs to be mentioned. The two
explanations that have found most support are-( I )
that it was so called because the place abounded in
skulls (so Jer. Comm. a d Mt. 2 7 3 3 ; cp Jeremy Taylor’s
.
description ‘Calvary , . a hill of death and dead
.
bones, polluted and impure . .’) ; ( 2 ) because for
one or more reasons it resembled a skull (so Renan,
Vie de It?sus, 4 2 9 ; Brandt, Die Evang. Gesch. 168 ;
Meyer, Comm. on Mt. 486 f: [’98], who compares the
German use of Kopf,’ ‘ Scheitel,’ and ‘ Stirn ‘).l T o
the former explanation serious objections have been
raised (see Keim, Jesu won Nua. 3 405). The latter sug-
’ gestion is, therefore, preferred by most scholars.
Several examples occur in the O T of names suggested by
the configuration of the ground (see N AMES , $99). The exist-
ence of a small village situated on a hill-top in the neighbour-
hood of Tyre called eZ.-/ums;imelL(( the little skulls ; BR 3 56
58 PEFM 194) makes it probable that a similar name was in
aicient times applied to any knoll which was thought to resemble
a skull.
Whatever be the explanation of the name, the place
intended must have been outside the city wall (so Jn.
2. Site. 1920, ‘nigh to the city’ [cp Mt.2811 Heb.
13121,and Jn. 1941, near a tomb,’ new tombs
would be outside the city). Further, it was a prominent
position (Mk. 1540 Lk.2349) and near a road (Mt. 2739
Mk. 1529): These data, however, suit several positions.
T h e traditional site, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, has
lately been proved to lie beyond the second wall(see JERUSALEM,
$32, ii.) which was the outside wall a t the date of the Crucifixion ;
and several rock tombs have been found about it. I t was near
a road. I t therefore may have been the site. The tradition in
its favour, however, does not reach behind the fourth century;
and the manner in which the site is said to have been indicated
to the Emperor Coiistantiite who removed a temple of Venus,
tlint stood over the spot, and dircovered the alleged tonil, uf
Christ and therefore erected the Church of thu Resurrection,
does not prove that the sanctity of the place was anciently, or
even at the time, publicly known (Eus. Fit. Const. 3 25). When
we consider the extension of the city over the site, the operations
i n the siege of Titus, whose principal camps were on this N.
side of the city, the devastation of Jerusalem under Hadrian
and the interval before the first attempts of Christians toidentif;
the sites, we can see how precarious the tradition is. The one
element of value in it is the statement of Eusehius that a temple
of Venus had been erected on the site ; if we may argue from
the analogous case of the Temple site on which a temple to
love was raised. this temde of Venus’is evidence that its site
Lad been regard6d by the ehristians as sacred.2
That too, however, is precarious, and by no means strong
enough to dispose of rival sites. Other sites for Golgotha have
been-suggested on several positions to the north of the city.
One first pointed out by Thenius in 1849 and adopted by
Genkral Gordon and Colonel Conder, has riceived recently a
great deal of support. I t is an eminence above the grotto of
Jeremiah outside the present wall not far from the Damascus
gate. Bgsides suiting the general data of the gospels-it is near
a road stands high, and has tombs about it-its appearance
agrees ’with Lk.’s rendering of the name ; it has a strong re-
1 The Old English ‘cop,’ on the other hand, seems t? have
meant primarily ‘summit,’ and then ‘head’ or ‘skull. See
Murray S.V.
2 A r e k n i o f thevoluminous literature on the Holy Sepulchre
and a discussion of the claims of the Church of the Holy
Seuulchre to occnDv the site of our Lord’s tomb will he found
in Athearticle ‘ Sep&hre, the Holy,’ by A. B. M‘Grigor in the
Ency. 23rit.W This article notes that the existence in the
rock on which the church is built of several ancient Jewish
tombs may be used as an argument against the site for Eusehius
(Theop/raniu, Lee’s transl., p. 199) empbasises ;he fact that
there was only one cave within it, but had there been many
the miracle of him who overthrew death should have bee;
obscured.’
57 I753
GOLIATH
semblance to a skull ; and there is a modern Jewish tradition
that it was the place of stoning in ancient times. But neither
are these things conclusive, and on the whole we must be con.
tent to believe that the scene of the greatest event in Jerusalem’s
history is still unknown. From this, of course, it also follows
that the site of Stephen’s martyrdom is uncertain.
M. A . C . , $ 1 ; G. A . S . , $ z .
GOLIATH (n$j, Ginsb. ; some editions lll$j [except
in I - C ~2051,
. 78 ; yo),l& [BAL], also
1. Earlier rohiah [B]; in pss. rohibh [BKR],
rohiae [AT]. rohiaeoc [Jos.].
For the ending see AHUZZATH.G-I-y is probably a corruption
of g-z-1.1 Goliath is a pale reflection of those so-called ‘throne-
bearers (gztzali)who ran over hill and dale a t the Deluge (Bah.
legend, Z. mo), and who are rather =the Anunnaki. those ‘ ravay-
i n s ’ (713) evil.spirits WIIVIII I l : i i ~ i n i : i ~ , Neho, etc., let I w i e :it tlte
1)cluge ; J:istruw ( L e / . of, Uab. and Asr. grc) renders Z c u / i
in the I)elugc-story . t h e deitroyern.’ It i, ii title which I,elongs
iizs-Ariir.lt arid cp Jenien, h.ostn.
us iiaiue, nie3iiiiig ‘ one rushing
X l’hilistinc giant, slain according to I S. 17 by
Ihvid, but according to a11 oldcr trxlitiun { z S. 21 19 ;
in 6 u ? o s o h a v ) hy r ~ : t , 1 I A ~ .(q.z.1.
~s Sonic (leiails-
as for cxniiiple tliat Coliatli was of ( h i l t , t h a t hc livctl in
the tiiite of David. ant1 that the staff of his spc’ar wds
like a wcaver’s benni--are cuiiiiiioit to the two btories.
r .
1hc oltlcr tradition adds, besides tlic reo1 ii:imc of the
shyer of tlie giaiit,’ the st;iteiiteiit ( 2 1 , 2 2 ; cp 6 )that
Goliath, like his three fellows, was a dcsceiidant of the
ICcphaitcs (cp Josh. 112 2 , wherc Anakini we said to
have reiti:iiiietI oiily i n Philistin). I t vas, in fact,
ttatural, so soon as the four tall I’hilistitie ch:iiiipions
had been niagiiifcd iiito giants, to account for their
extraordinary stature by making them Kcphnitcs. It
is also notcworthy t h t iii 2 S. 21 15-22 tlic Isl.ntl;te
warriors meet the gigantic I’hilistines or licpliaitrs with-
out the Ie:ist alarm, whcrcns i i i I 3. 17 Goliath siiccecds
ill p:iralysitig thc ciitirc lsrnclite :iriity.
It is ccrtain, ho\vcvcr. tliut this is not prcscntcrl to
us as the object of the giant’s appearance. Hc is c:illed
a cliaiitpioit .... . d y , a m a n of the y r r -
(03j-n
t ~a l x p i o v : ~
cp os.
~ n~tvi.. 9 1, arhs,urratirGv
~ ~ ~ ~ .
?rapard$cwv), a n d i n his speech he throws
out a direct challciige to the warriors of Israel. The
lattcr shrink lnck i n cow;irdly dismay-an iiit;iccount-
able falling hack on the part of the commrlcs of Jonatlinii
(cp I S. 141, wliiclt had to be asserted it1 ortlcr to niakc
ruoin for David. W i t h fine poetic iniaginatireiiess and
(as we sh;ill see) religious iiisigltt tlie coiiqueror pro-
vidcd for tlic giant in this later offshoot of triidition
v a s 110 traiitetl ncirrior ( 1 S. l G 1 8 beloiigs to the oldcr
story) but a shepherd boy.
In V . j6, indccd, tic is cnlled a ‘stripliiig’ (O>p); hut the same
word is applied i n I s . 4 0 ~to~one who in 7). 35 is described as
a ‘litrle boy’ (or ‘ I d ’ ) , atid tlte youtlifiil age of David is
sufficiciitly shunrti by the s c ~ r i expieased
i by Goliath at his yet
uiiapoiled coiiiplcsiun 2 (a. 42).
The young ch:impioii’s plan was simple. Ilc M ould
have recourse to his sling-thc weapon of tlic ’ liglit-
arinzrl crowd’ i i i the ariiiy of the Greeks tieforc
Ile would repleniili hi5 shepherd’s scrip with sonic good
sinootli pebbles from the ‘deep watercourse rvliiclt like a ra\,ine
separates the nrmies’(sre >;I.AH [ii.]). l i e would then trii-t to
the kccnncss of his bright cyei and tiis lightness of fooi. ’l’lie
wilding up of tlic driiiii:i i s described thus (71. 48). ‘And it
uscd to happen, when ihc Pliilistinc s t rorward and c3mu on
td meet David, that Ihvid would ha.21~and run to the b:irtlc
;may to meet the Philistine’-;.e. whenever Goliath tricd tu
come to close qiiarters witti I)avi(l,’l)avid would riiii quickly tu
the front rank of the Israelites to meet his foe tinder,this frieiidly
c x e r , and vhen the +it halted for a moment David would ruii
upon him from another aide in order to aim at I i i m hefore lie
cuiild be protected by the great aliieltl.4 ‘ I t 1:i-t David’s
opportunity ciinie ; Goliath’s fact \vas expuscd. “I‘hen D:irid
~
1 i ~ . ,yaeafu. ‘l‘he oiily alternative is to derive n.ji from
Ass. y t ~ g n f f u ,‘a Icadcr ’ (Sclicil, ‘ i i giaiit ’).
2 Sce Che. Aids, 102, n. I . ’!3lN in such n connection
certainly implies a youthful f r c h c i s of coIJur (cp (hiit. 5 io).
Compnre tlie descriptio:i of an Arab shephcrd buy quoted froio
1)ougl.ty i n lid<, 100, ,I. 2.
I / . I3 7 1 6 ; cp z\. Lniig, Hom. and t/tr l.>ic, 37jf:
4 c p J A ! , E I . I N , 5.
’754
 GOLIATH
put his hand in his bag and took thence a stone, and slang it,
and smote the Philistine in his forehead- and the stone sank
into his forehead, and he fell upon his face to the earth’ (v. 49).
Though sorely wounded Goliath was not dead. So David ‘ ran
and stood upon the Philistine,’ triumphing over his foe, like
Sanehat in a similar case in the old Egyptian story. 1 next he
drew the giant’s sword 2 from its sheath and cut off’his head.
Then the Philistines saw that the incredible.had happened, and
took to flight.
Why did the Philistines flee? Had they not still
their well-appointed infantry and their war-chariots ?
Had they not still the memory of their former victories ?
A Greek poet would have said that a god impelled
them behind with mighty hand, and struck terror into
their souls ; and indeed it was a religious dread that
seized them. They were powerless to resist the fierce
Israelites. Meantime, if the view suggested elsewhere
(No B ) be correct, David took the head of the Philistine,
and brought it to Saul ; but he put his armour in the tent
of Yahwi: (v.54).
Goliath‘s arms of attack are made of iron ; those of
defence, of bronze. ‘Jawelin of bronze’ in I S. 1 7 6
3. The arms must be a mistake (see J AVELIN, 5).
The sword was afterwards given to
ofGoliath. David the fugitive by Ahimelech ( I S.
219[10] ; cp 2210). T h e tradition said (apparently)
that David had deposited it as hallowed spoil in the
sanctuary of Nob (or Gibeon). The (reputed) weapons
of ancient divine heroes have not infrequently been
found in B a b y l ~ n i aand
, ~ a sword like that with which
a mere shepherd boy had cut off a giant’s head would
have not less supernatural power than the fairy lance
of Gilgamek There may have been stories, ’in the
fuller Odyssey of Hebrew tradition, in which this sword
played a part. If so, it is obvious that they have been
with good reason passed over.
The story of David, as edited in the Book of Samuel, is that
of a man who fought the ‘ wars of Yahw&,’and was by his God
delivered, and later ages clung with special
4. Religious affection to the story of Goliath, because of its
covering. latent religious significance (see Ecclus. 472.11,
and cp title of Ps. 144 [143] in @BKRT).6 From
the first the idea that God alone gives strength to conquer must
have been present to those who told this tale, and it is beyond
reasonable doubt that a later writer of the post-Deuteronomic
period inserted I S. 17 46f: to bring the lesson of the tale into
clearer view.6 I t is only dith an eye to this latent idea that the
legend of Goliath can be retained by critically trained teachers
and preachers. I t has indeed been urged against this changed
attitude that the story of Odysseus could be treated in the same
way. So it could, provided that there was a genuine, however
small, historical kernel in the story, and also that Odysseus
held a prominent lace in the period of preparation for the
coming of Jesus Cfrist. Such was not the case. the story of
Goliath may therefore remain unchallenged in thb repertory of
the religious teacher. Nowhere else outside of the N T does
the message of encouragement to the humble and exhortation
t? the weak in faith receive so affecting, so inspiring an expres-
sion. Such a message could not have been engrafted even on the
instructive life of David but for that process of idealisation,
which is so characteristic of some Hebrew writers, but often so
shocking to modern students.
1 Flinders Petrie Egyptian TaZes 1 110135.
2 Robertson Sm(th and Klost. think there was a conflict of
traditions, one stating that David (Saul’s armour-bearer) drew
his own sword to slay Goliath, the other that, having no sword,
he used the giant’s.
3 Che. Aids 1093
4 Maspero, ’Dawn of Ciu. 642 ; cp Revue d’AssyrioZogie,
3 5 2 3 - [‘941.
6 Ty AaveQ, lrpbp rbu Fohras. On the title in Pesb. see
SIPPAI.The Greek Psalter also rejoices in a Psalm of David
Z ~ O @ S WTOG cipi@poi), composed 876 ~ p o v o p ~ p p sT+
e IIrpbs rbvl
FohLaS [-a@](cp v.6 3 ) .
6 Verse 46 predicts the slaughter by David, not only of
Goliath, but also of the army oftbe Philistines; and announces as
the consequence of this the universal recognition of the divinity
of YahwS (cp Ps. 1847[481fl Is. 5 5 4 ; both passages late).
I n v. 47 the warriors of Israel are spoken of just as if they were
an ‘assembly’ gathered together for religious instruction (2 Ch.
20 14-20is closely parallel), and the lesson that Yahw6 ‘saveth
not with sword and spear’ is precisely that which was so dear
to the psalmists of the Second Tdmple (Ps.20 7 [SI 44 5 [6]J).
The second clause of v.46 reminds us of Ps. 792, while the
phrase ~ 1 n,n(lnq;r)
~ 3 occurs elsewhere only in late writings
,en. 1 24 30 9 2 I O Ezek. 29 5 32 4 34 28 Job 5 22 Ps. 79 2).
$eeC
o Che. Ai&, 117;cp Ku. Ri.Sa. 214, who is more definite
and satisfactory on this point than We. (Gesch.W, 268 ;ET, 266).
I755
GOPHER
The story of David and Goliath has taken the place
of another narrative which described the call of the
5. MT and @.
warrior David to the court, and his
advancement in the army as the re-
ward of his military talents (see D AVID , § I ). The
narrative, however, whether we take the version given
in M T or that in 6, no longer preserves its original
form. The former is too long, the latter too short.
Robertson Smith, indeed (with whom F. H. Woods,
Stud. BibL 129, agrees), is of opinion that @E’s
text of I S. 171-185 should be followed. He thinks
that whatever the Hebrew text has in addition has been
interpolated from some lost history of David which
gave quite a different turn to the story of Goliath (see
OTJC(z) 1 2 0 3 4318). When in 1892 Robertson
Smith revised his fine volume of Lectures he had before
him all the recent examinations of the Goliath-story
which advocate a different view of bB’stext, and was
not persuaded by the arguments of Wellhausen (who
once held the same view as his own), Kamphausen,
Stade, Budde, and Kittel. On the other hand, he has
not himself persuaded Stade and Budde, who have
expressed themselves anew since 1892, and. the present
writer, in view of the difficulties which beset Robertson
Smith’s and still more Klostermann’s theory (cp Budde,
Ri. Sa. 213 J ) ,sees no choice but to hold that if we
put aside later insertions (such as w. 46 J , pointed out
above), M T represents the one original story of David
and Goliath. Some of Robertson Smith’s observations
are, indeed, not only acute but also correct; but the
roughnesses in the text can be accounted for differently
(see Che. Expos., ‘92 6, p. ~ 5 f: 6 ; and cp Bu. SBOT;
Kamphausen, ‘ Bemerkungen zur alttest. Textkritik,’ in
the Arbeiten d. Rhein. Wiss. Pred. - Yereins. 7 1 3 3 ).
These differences among critics, however, are un-
important compared with the result on which there is
no doubt whatever. The story of Goliath has poetical
and religious truth, but not, except in a very minute
kernel, the truth of history. C p REHOBOTH, TAMMUZ.
T. K. C.
GOMER ( I ) (7a1,raMep [BADEL] ; Gen. 10zJ
I Ch. 1 5 3 yo. [L] Ezek. 386 yo. LBAQ]; Ass. Gimirrai
[Schr. KGF, 1 5 7 3 , Del. Par. 245$]), one of the
‘sons ’ of Japhet, and ‘ father ’ of Ashkenaz, Riphath,
and Togarmah (Gen., Ch.), mentioned ‘with all his
hordes ’ along with Togarmah ‘ in the uttermost parts of
the north, and all his hordes’ in Ezekiel (Z.C.). The
territory corresponds in general to Cappadocia (which
in Armenian is Gamir ( +pl. ending x); Kiepert,
Lfhrb. d. alt. Geog. 91 ; Lag. Arm. Stud. 32, 448 ;
Wbers. 77 ; see also Gimmeri = Cappadocians, Eus.
Chron. ed. Migne, 138, and note also y k p ~ p& 05
K U T T C ~ O K E S , Eus. 212). Probably their earlier home
P L O L , 4 I I ~ ;. Strabo,
was N. of the Euxine ( K L ~ ~ ~ ~ Herod.
iii. 2 12 7 2 2 2 3 : ,; cp Homer, Od. 1114 ; see Gelzer, A Z ,
‘75,p. ~ 4 ; 3Schr. KG3156 3). The Ass. Gimirrai
appear in Cappadocia from the time of Esarhaddon
(681-668B . C . ; cp, further,on Gomer, Lenorm. Origines,
ii. 13323). See CAPPADOCIA. F. B.
(2) bath Diblaim (P;j;ln n? p a , +yopep Bvyar6pa &@?ha+
[B], r.y.8. Gepyhaap [ S Q ] ; cp perhaps O:?d;l?l n’p, &r’ ~ K O U
Saij3haOalp @E@. [KA]) [RKAQ] Jer. 4822) Hosea’s wife (Hos.
13). There is no reason for supposing thatlher name, like those
of her children (see L O - RUHAMAH , JEZREEL [ii., z]), has any
symbolical import. See HOSEA, $ 6.
GOMORRAR (YI?DLJ, Gen. 1310. In Mt. 101s
(roMoppmN [Ti. WH]), AV Gomorrha. See SODOM
AND GOMORRAH.
GOODLY TREES, FRUIT OF. See APPLE, $3 z (3).
GOPHER, ( p i , Gen. 6 I 4 t ) , a very uncertain word,
3s it occurs only once and is unknown to the other
Semitic dialects.
1 For a personal name with this termination cp APPAIH,
SHAHARAIM.
r756
 GORGET GOSHEN
The ancient versions have various renderings’ @ADEL d~ presence of Jews ( I Macc. 1523) in the time of Ptolemy
(Gv’hov T E T ~ ~ Y ~ Y W(b-jmov
V and K C ~ ~ ~ V beiig
W cited as Physcon (139 B.c.). In that year, as a result of the suc-
alternatives of otfier interpreters), Vg. de li‘nis Zrevigatis, Pesh;
of juniper wood,’ and Targ. ‘of cedar wood. cessful embassy sent by Judas the Maccabee to Rome,
1. Versions. Gopher is by some moderns taken to be the name the Senate dispatched a circular-letter in favour of the
of a tree; thus Celsius (1328f.) identifies it Jews to Gortyna, and to eighteen other autonomous cities
as the cypress, being misled by the likeness of names.1 The word
and countries. We may perhaps connect their presence
may be akin to l$b ‘bitumen’-itself according to Lag. (OS with the abortive attempt of Ptolemy Philopator to
2 95 ; but see B ITUMEN) properly an Aramaic word, for which surround the extensive site of Gortyn with walls ( 2 2 2 -
the Heb. equivalent is lQn-and may also, according to the 205 B .c.).
same scholar, he connected with il’lFj, ‘sulphur,’ for which an
The city was the Roman capital of the island. The site is
Indo-European etymology is offered (see BRIMSTONE). The now marked by the poor village of &ids DeRa. Among its
most plausible suggestion therefore, is that of a fragrant ruins are those of a church dedicated to Titus, the patron saint
resinous wood (so Di.); bn; the entire uncertainty of the word of Crete ; it dates from the fourth or fifth century (cp Tit. 15)-
(see below) must he maintained with Lag. (Uehers. 218). Cortyn lies ten or twelve miles from FAIR H AVENS (Strabo, 478),
The ordinary philological means fail us in dealing so that during the long delay there (Acts27g) it is possible that
with the word Gopher. It is natural therefore to have Paul visited the city. See Spratt, Trave&andResearches in.
Crete, 2 z6J W. J. W.
2. Asoyriology. recourse to Assyriology, which accounts
(see DELUGE, J 13)for the mention of GOSHEN, but in Judith 19 AV GESEM (@a ; r E c s M
i$ (EV ‘pitch’) in Gen. 614. Is it possible that 7 ~ 1 ,or [BKAL], r E c E N [ e g . , D, through later (Hexaplaric?).
~~ . -
some word which explains it, occurred in an early form Names and inflnencel, rarely reccem r s c c e ,
Vg. Gessen, cp Jer. OS1254 Gesen
of the Babylonian Deluge-story? If so, what can that other data etc.;[also Gesem, which agrees with Jer.’s
word have been? Halevy and more recently Hommel in OT.
(Hastings, DB 1214 6) compare Bab. -Ass. g@ru; but etymology]), usually in the phrase ‘ the
this means ‘reed,’ ’ canebrake’ (Jensen, KosmoZ. 170f:, land of Goshen’ (exc. Gen. 4628a 2 0 ) . is in I and E
325f: ; butnot so HalBvy), and would have been more the name of the part of Egypt inhabited by ;he b’ne
suitable in a description of the ‘ ark ’ of Moses than in Israel from Joseph to Moses. P uses instead the.
that of Noah. i 5 ~ x y(‘ gopher-wood ’) should mean phrase ‘land of Ranieses,’ Gen. 4711, and remark-
the timber of some tree used in shipbuilding when J i s ably enough @ in 4628 appends to KaO’ + p 3 w n6Xrv
Hebraised Babylonian authority (see D ELUGE, I O) (=m$e, ‘ t o Goshen’) the explanatory gloss d s y+
took shape-most probably some kind of cedar. papEuu7. The two expressions are in d synonymous
The original Babylonian or Assyrian phrase probably ran- (see, however, JOSEPH ii., J 3). The problem is to
mBur (or g u l G , ~ Zerim-i.e., beams of cedar; see the Ass. determine the situation.
Lexx.). Overlooking (IJ)erini, the Hebrew translator mistook In 4634 Goshen is outside of Egypt and not inhabited
g u l w for a tree-name, and so produced the phrase ~ w p ~ y .
Next, a scribe, who saw 153 a t the end of the verse, miswrote by Egyptians; in v. 28 it is between Pharaoh’s and
the second word 751 ( 5 and w confounded, as in wsn? for r,S”, Joseph’s residence and Palestine ; see also Ex. 1317 as
Job 14 10 MT). ’1 to its situation on the frontier. It is (Gen. 476 11)
If this is correct, the timber used in the ark would ‘ the best of the land ’-Le., for a pastoral population ;
be cedar-wood (erinu). Possibly, too, the substitution cp v. 6 (Pharaohs cattle pasturing there). It must
of a ‘ b o x ‘ (mm) for a ‘ship’ (el@@) arose from a therefore have been unsuitable for agriculture-i. e . , too
confusion between ei-inn ‘ cedar ’ and erinnu (p),’box,’ far E. to be as regularly irrigated as most of Egypt.
‘ receptacle,’ in the phrase g u h r (gufZirZ)erini. See In Ex. 23f: a branch of the Nile flows through (I)
Che. ZATW, 1898, p. 163f: it, and a royal residence is near or in it.
When we turn to @ we get something more definite :
N.M.,§I;T.K.C.,$2.
I O Goshen is called ‘ the
GORGET ()kQ), I S. 1 7 6 AVW. See J AVELIN, 5. 2’ ~ ~ ~ k?t$sem
~ ~ ~ of Arabia’
, i (ye c y.&+t
GORGIAS ( y o p r [ ~ ] i a c CAW, but Kopriac, A in . . . Unfortunately, ‘ Arabia’
cipaolas).
I Macc. 45]), one of the Syrian generals sent by Lysias is ambiguous.
against Judas the Maccabee. It was his vain attempt to There was(1)a nomos ofEgypt called $ b apia(in the Revenue
surprise Judas by a night attack that led to the great Papyrus of Ptolemy 11. always connectelwith the ‘ Bubastite
nome’; see further Ptol. 45 53; Strabo, 803: Pliny, 59), correctly
battle of EMMAUS [q.v., I], in which the Syrian army identified by Brugscb with the 20th of Lower Egypt in the
was signally defeated (166-165 B.C.). After this, battle Egyptian lists ;1 but the Greeks (2) gave the name Arabia also
was offered to Gorgias, who declined it, and withdrew to all the land E. of the Nile. The eastern part, indeed, was
a distinct nome (see helow) called Heroopolires (possibly the
precipitately into Philistia (I Macc. 4 1 8 ) . About two Phagroriopolitesz of Strabo [8401 means ‘Arabia’); but by the
years later, being governor of Idumzza, Gorgias was Greeks (3) the name Arabia was usually extended so as to
threatened hy a small Jewish force under Joseph and include it and to reach to the Crocodile Lake (B. et-TjmsZk)).
Azaxias at Jamnia, which he put to flight ( I Macc. The choice between the alternatives seems easy : @
5 55J). In the account of the first incident given in evidently means by Arabia a special district. It can-
z M a c c . 8 8 8 , it is N ICANOR [P.v., I], not Gorgias, not well be the Arabian nome, however, as we should
who is represented as being at the head of affairs ; and expect. On the contrary it must mean a more eastern
in 2 Macc. 1232-37 the second incident, so unfortunate part of the Arabian district; the WSdy et-TuniilHt and
for the Jews, only receives passing notice (v.34), whilst its western vicinity E. of Bubastus. This is the view
a fuller but somewhat confused account is given of the of Gen. 4628 f: (see begin. of art.), where d is still
defeat and flight of Gorgias. more definite. It takes Goshen to be a city, Hero-
In 2 Macc. 1 2 32 for ‘ 1dum;ea’ (2oupuLas) we should proh- opolis( !). The discovery by Naville of this city=Tell el-
ably, but not certainly, read ‘Jamnia’ (lapveias), with Grotius Maskhiita= Pithom ( = ETHAM [q.v.]), accordingly, has
(cp T Macc. 5 58 1540 and Jos. Ant. xii. 8 6 ) and in z.36 for
‘Esdris we should )perhaps read (with 44, 64, etc. bf @) determined the centre of the region intended, and con-
‘Gorgias ’ (see ESDRIS). firmed the general assumption of scholars. There is no
evidence in the Egyptian inscriptions, however, that
GORTYNA (rOpTYNb. [KV]-N& [A]; in classical that region was ever called Goshen, a name which, as
writers rOpTyNA or rOpTyN). The rival of Cnossus we shall now see, probably represents an Egyptian
for supremacyin Crete (Strabo, 476, 478 ; Pol. 453J). name for the western nome (next I, end).
It lies in the fertile valley of the Lethaeus, in the plain We have said that the Greek district of ‘ Arabia ’ was
Messara, midway between the E. and W. extremities of
the island. Its only biblical interest is connected with the 1 On name and capital see helow 0 3.
a With Oppert and Brngsch, tb; present writer derives this
1 In the East chests are often made of the wood of Cujressus name from P a h u r , the name of the ruler of Pisaptu in the
sempervirens, which is delightfully fragrant. I n the Middle Egyptian Arabla under AHur-biini-pal ( K B2 16oA). Phagrori-
Ages they were much in request in Italy. spolis is’possibly,identical with the capital.
1757 1758
 GOSHEN GOSHEN
occupied by two Egyptian nonies, the western of which extended to the newly colonised territory to the E. of
3. I& western (the-zoth, already referred to) was by
(20th) nome the Greeks specifically called ‘ Arabia.’
*, Also the Saft ? ‘This might have bem done by the
aastern new settlers and the Palestinians. The
called gesm. This was the earlier occupied. Its sacred Egyptian lists, however, treat tliis
\oru:)
position is determined by the fact that eastern country (at least after 300 B.c . ) as
it was called ‘that of the god Sapdju),” whose chief a distinct nomos, the eighth of Lower Egypt,’ called
temple2 was in the city P-(‘house of’)Sapd(u),3 a ‘Eastern. ..
, ’ a its capital being _T(t), r h u ( t ) , _TKi(t)
name which evidently has survived in the modern Saf; (read ,Tu&??),which had the sacred name P-atunz. (See
(cp Brugsch, A 2 8116) eZ-genneh, 5 or 6 m. E. of SUCCOTH and PITHOMon the question whether these
Bubastus. Naville“ has argued that this P-sapd(u) names are identical. )
(Saf! el-Henneh), another name for which may have been The principal god was Atum of Heliopolis, dwelling in the
P-kos(?),is the +UKOLIUU, Phacusi(m), of the Tab. Peut., temple ‘seat (or house) of (the serpent) Ker/z’-evidently this
the Phaguse of Geogr. Rav., the ‘ village between Egypt was the earlier local divinity. The canal flowing through the
land was the Harma (gaJalma)3 water, so called from the many
and the Red Sea’ of Steph. Byz., because +UKOUUUU is crocodiles (h&a in the languaie of the Hamilic Trog1odytes)d
called by Ptolemy (iv. 553) the capital of the Arabian which havekiven its name also to the present TimsZh-lake. This
nome, and Strabo states that at ~ u ~ o u u uthe
u canal to lake had in ancient times the name &i-serb 5 ‘ Scoriion lake.’
the Red Sea branched off from the Nile. The eighth nome belonged to the country called ‘n 6
The definition of the position of QaKovaa in the Tab. P a t . (‘aim ? see &ant, Plin. N N 6 29, as name of the gulf
‘(36 R. m. from Pelusium), however, suits better the modern of Suez), which included the desert between the gulf
FBkiis, 16 m. NE. of Saff el-Henneh, which had been supposed
to be Phakusa by modern scholars. On the other hand that the and Heliopolis (also the modern Mokattam-mountain
Greeks might repeatedly have confounded P-kosem (P-’Sapd[ul) opposite Memphis). This desert region was originally
with a name like Pakos 5 (?)(Fikkhs) may be admitted. inhabited only by a few Semitic and some Troglodytic
However that may be, the identification of P-snpd(u) nomads ; it was unfit for agriculture, the narrow valley
(Saft el-Henneh) aiyd P-kos(em) is probable. The in: alone being reached by the yearly inundations, and that
.scriptionsdeal- irregularly. At
ingwith sacred a very reniote
geography ap- time. indeed.
ply the phrase the Egyptians
‘land ofSapdu’ had in the
to a country Wiidy et-
‘Ksm(t)of the Tumiliit, a
East ’ (Duem. strongfortifica-
Geogr. Inschr. tion called the
25). Theshrine ‘wall of the
of Saft (publ. prince,’ t o
Naville), pl. 6, guard (against
calls the gods the inroads of
of Saft ‘gods of the nomads)
K s ’connect-
,~ the most vul-
ing especially nerable spot of
Sapduwith this the Egyptian
name Ks. frontier ; 7 but
Other texts &bl;caL--,. PI-BESETH the colonisa-
combine Ksm Cl~ssicaL--.EuEASTrS tion of the
Eggptian-.P-sapdu
with the nome Modern Local-.. Saft el-Henneh eighth (east-
of Sapdu, in- G S 0 HEN. Modern European-... [Suez) ern) nomos
dicating by the seems to have
orthography been due en-
sometimes a t..~ d.v to
i r. ~- the
- ~
i ~ -
,district, sometimes a city. See 9 4 on the earliest great king Ram(e)ses or Ra‘messu 11. (in the first
mention. In any case, it is clear that the name &-sm twenty years of his reign), who mnst have improved
(Ks seems only an abbreviation or ‘defective ortho- the irrigation. The chief cities founded by him were :
graphy’) referred originally to the land immediately E.
.of Bubastus. Consequently the Semitic or at least non-Egyptian origin
of the name, proposed already 6y Semitic scholars, becomes very
Thequestionarises : Wastherangeof@m ( =Goshen*) probable. The name seems to have been obsolete after 400 B.c.,
so that 65’s small inaccuracy in making Heroopolis the capital
Sapd(u) is mentioned repeatedly as ‘lord of becomes intelligible.
the E. and of the Asiatics’ (cp Naville, The 1 On our present knowledge of the material, see Naville,
Shrine ofJa& el flenneh, 5-13 [‘SS]). In his PithomP).
chief temple (see above) he had the name ‘ van- 2 The proposed reading (nefer) of this sign is ve
quisher of the Asiatics’ ((zw mntyw), as being a god of the
frontier district. The present writer cannot follow de Rouge 4 doubtful. The site of the ‘Western ...
’ to w h i g
this name is opposed, is not quite certainly de-
(Duemichen, Naville), who finds in a coin-legend of the nomos termined.
Arabia &T& K w p ( a L I), Se$d-‘A&[sic llom.
a It was called ‘the place of the nu6s-tree’ (sycomore? lotus
._--
.,.
?I
trPP

3 Mentioned b,y A&r-bini-pal as Pisapfu or Saptu, ‘at the

g a t e of the East.
4 ?$. cit. 1 4 8 , where a full discussion of the name Goshen
is given. Earlier treatises e . ~ . in, Ehers, Drrrch Gosen sum
Sinai, are now obsolete. d n +f$ see also Daressy, Rec. trau.
no. VfA.
--6 k& or KOOF ,Qp,Qp (=Ar. yiis, see Peyron, Lex. 71) is hardly
Phakusa as Champollion (?I&. sous zes Phar. 276, cp Naville)
thought. The article p is not=pha-, fa-. Lists of bishoprics
make ‘the Arabian nome’=F@zis, which is in favour of
7 This was the point selected for attack-e.g by the English
army so recently as in the campaign against”Ar2bi. On the
history of the fortification, which seems to go hack to the first four
dynasties, see WMM A s . u. EUY.41-45. The site of it is nn-
known. We should look for it near +he ‘ Great Black Lake ’-
z.e., ahout the S. end of the ‘Crocodile Lake ’ according to the

-
Naville’s theory. earlier Dassaees. The Se-nuhvt-storv (ZZ. 2. d). however. would
place it sev&l hours’ march &om t6e.lak;: Griffith has found
a passage of dyn. 12 Kahun Pap; 2 14), which speaks of ‘ the
6 8&x.
h -6 . 2 fortification of Sa$&& (in) K s n r . Therefore the wall of the
middle empire is to be sought for in the east& part or near
8 k=g in the transcription is regular; but not Egyptian s= the entrance of the widy.
I759 1760