TRIBES
nfaatteh is characteri:;tically post-exilic ; on the possibility of
exceprions in I K. 7 14 Mic. 6 g see Giesebrecht, Z A TW 1 2 3 9 4 1
S&et occurs throughout the OT, from JE to Ch. ; but its use In
post&ilic writings may he archaic. $&et also appears to bear
the sense of 'clan ' (a tribal division) in' Nu. 4 18 Judg. 20 12
I S. 921 ; in all these passages, however, the text may be
questioned.2 A third word, according to some, is 7xi@&Zh,
"????==6+por, myydvsra (for probable etym. see Ges.W) ; see
Josh. 7 17 Judg. 1 3 z 17 7 18 11. But here again critical scepticiqm
is legitimate.$ BPth 66, 2~ n*~=02~0smspris('fathers'house'), where, those who did not belong to the propertied class
and JZejh, 7 ) N = ~ ~ h r ('
d rthousand ' ?)mayalso perhaps be added.
For the one see Nu. 7 2 (cp 14), Josh. 23 14; for the other,
Nu. 1 16 10 4 (cp 7 2) 35 Josh. 22 21 30 (cp Ps.(ZJ on Ps. 68 18).
.Ili+ih&%, 6 E t h rib and 4Ze#R however are proprly terms for
subdivisions of the'tribes. U4ing them' for ' tribe ' WOUU seem also the SPEet or ' tribe,' alone had political rights.
to be in a certain qualified sense a relic of the old nomadic times
before the groups of clans could become consolidated into the
later tribes. Mi?#6h&h and G f h A6 might apparently be used
synonymously (see Ex.G 14 Nu. 3 24); more properly, however,
the angwn (the Gk.' r#+p.a or +pa.rpt'a, or, to use the word
somewhat vaguely, clan , EV 'family') was made up of
befh Zb8fh 'fathers' houses' (so EV) or z'families.' kZq%'z(EV
generally ' thousand ' ; .Nu.1 16 RVw. families ') is perhaps=
7xi?ja@h; cp Judg.615, 'my thousand ('S\x, EV 'my
family'; Moore, 'my sept') is the poorest in Manasseh,'
meaning the clan of the Ahiezrites ; al:o I S. 10 19, ' by.your
tribe.; and by jour thousands,' but v. 21, the tribe of Benjamln
by its clans' (i.nng,ru&). According to the prevalent view, the
awmption is that the normal number of the q$F is 1000; Neh. 113-24 a n d 1125-36, both certainly late passages,
nevertheless Buhl (Ges. W) is probably right in supposing that
the true meaning of the root o f PZejh is ' to hind together' (cp
Ass. uf&, 'band'). Naturally the members of the 7 5 or
'union' (?)fought together under a i& or 'captain' (I S. 1718 these books were compiled the tie of the clan had by n o
18 13 2 S. 18 I , which passage, to be sure, presupposes the
meaning 'thousand' for I>?). Lastly, many scholars would
add n-', 'kinsfolk' (=Ar. +ayyun, ' a group of families united
by vital ties ' in I S. 18 18, if not also in Gen. 3 20 (see ADAM
A N D EVE, $ 3). and I S. 266 (so H. P. Smith). It is remarkable
that this view should have become an unquestioned tradition
among critics,4 for it seems to imply a confidence in the received
text which, in the present state of textual inquiry, must he
called excessive.
Before we consider the question of the ' twelve tribes '
we must endeavour to d o justice to the arrangement by
a. clans. clans, which represents the form of social itself.
system natural to Semitic nomads. T h e
' tribe ' was n o doubt $composedof ' clans,' but there was a
stage of development in which there were ' clans,' but not
in the fuller sense of the word ' tribes.' W h a t , then, was
a ' clan ' ( m o m ) ? I t was an association of ' brothers '
(Gen.2427 2915 I S.2029)--i.e., of kinsmen, or more
strictly of kinsmen o n the father's side. This appears
from Judg. 91, where Abimelech speaks to ' the whole
clan ' of the family of his mother, from which his own
clan was distinct.' T h a t the kinship was largely based
o n what seems (hut wrongly seems) to Westerns fiction,
a n d not on literal descent from the same father, need
only be remarked in passing. T h e ' clan ' might form
the whole (or nearly the whole) body of citizens.
Hence place-names and clan-names are often identical ;
hence, too, such a phrase became possible in an early
legend as ' Ophrah of the Abiezrites ' (Judg. 6 ~ 4 ) . Of
course, however, it was also possible that more than
one clan might dwell in the same city, a s in the case of
the Shechem of Gideon's son Abimelech. The special
characteristics of clansmen are summed u p in the often
1 On Driver's view see below, $ 3.
2 In Nu. MT has nhy?p D*;n!, and in I S. '@lw nln?wo.
Probably, however, both axd and *D:ncomefromnnBvn, which
seems to have been dittographed. In Judg. *uxvshould prob-
ably be ~ 3 (see 1 Moore, ad roc.).
3 In Josh. 'ma should obviously he pxv (see v. 16); after
m i n , read i'nngaal, (a xarh 6rjpovs). So Steuernagel (alt.).
I t is a mere slip of the scribe. In Judg., however, there is
deep-seated corruption (see Crii. Bi6.Z
4 It is or has been held by Ewald, BGttcher, Thenius, Wellh.,
Robertson Smith, Driver. Kittel. L6hr. Budde, Sienfr.-Stade.
and BDB. qtt'nnD#r) is commonly omitted'as (correct) a
gloss. See, however, a different explanation in Crit. Bi6.
6 I n Judg. 9 3 18, however theie are indications of another
view of kinship. For here 'brother'=son of the same mother.
Cp K INSHIP, 5 6.
6 From Judg. 6 24, compared with 8 2 w e gather that Gideon's
clan could muster 300 able fighting men'.
5201
TRIBES
misunderstood phrase 5y1 '%J?, which is really a technical
term, and not to be rendered 1iterally.l When in 2 K.
1520, Menahem, king of Israel, is said to have exacted
the money for the tribute of all who were 5 ; ~- j ~ e , the
persons who are meant are not merely mighty warriors,
nor merely 'mighty men of wealth' (EV), but those
who were at once holders of property a n d subject to the
obligation of military service. For in Israel, a s else-
were excluded from the ranks of the warriors (cp ARMY,
4f:). I t is equally true that the propertied class,
which formed the mi@i&ih or clan, a n d consequently
Represented bytheirheads- theso-called oq,?, 'ancients,'
p i n ' freemen ' or ' nobles,' and n ? ? '~princes ' 2-they
must, in the pre-regal period, have monopolised the
supreme power, both in peace a n d in war. Under
kingly government, however, the political authority of
the collections of territorial e clans,' denominated ' tribes,'
naturally faded away more a n d more. Nothing is said
about ' tribes ' in 2 Kings, and none of the statistical
passages in Ezra a n d Neh., with two exceptions,
mention a tribal connection. T h e exceptions are
though with an artificial antique tinge. It should,
however, be added that the lists in the Books of Ch.
~ a n d Ezra-Neh. produce the impression, that when
nieans disappeared. This is surely natural, for this tie
had the sanction, not merely of antiquity, but of
religion. T w o proofs of this are preserved, viz. ( I ) the
notice of the yearly sacrifice of David's mi@ri&ih ( I S.
2 0 6 z g ) , a n d ( 2 )the direction in the law of the Passover
in J (Ex. 1221 ; see Baentsch, ad Zoo..) that the paschal
lamb was to be provided by each miSpihrih (INSi n p
n2.nng,ru&), which contrasts with the legal direction
given in a secondary stratum of P (Ex. 123) that every
'father's house' ( x n.1) should provide a lamb for
The designation ' tribe ' belongs specifically to t h e
Israelites, a n d means, in .its fullest sense, a n association
3. Tribes, of clans and families, living near together,
a n d conscious of a closer mutual affinity
than that which united them to ' Israel ' as a whole.
If we are not misled through relying too implicitly on
the traditional text, we nowhere find the term ovnrj,
z tribes,' applied to any of the peoples with which Israel
was most closely connected.
The Edomites ('sons of Esau ') are said in Gen. 86 '5-19 40-43
(cp the 'affz2$hirrr of the Horites in wv. z g J ) to have had
oqi5.u ('afZa$hZin),a term which presupposes the existence of
p&w ('iZ+hZ;tz- i.e., following Buhl, 'unions.' Evidently,
in some sense of the word, 'tribes' aremeant. The Ishmaelites,
too, are said in Gen. 25 16 to be divided into llb?-i.e., 'popula-
tions'; and in Nu. 2515 Sor (19s) is said to have been 'head of
~ a people ( n h N ; read "e??), of a father's house in I\Iidian.'s
Strangely eno:gh, in Is. 19 13 we hear of persous who are
called 'the cornersto:e ' of Egypt's ,' tribes.' Duhtn wilfully
makes these 'tribes into 'nomes : not less wilfully his
predecessors explain 'castes' (Herod. 2 164). Now however
(see MIZRAIM, $ 2 6 ) it is almost beyond the poskbility of
question that the Miirites of N. Arabia are referred to, so that
hye, at least in a late literary production we have the word
i d e t applied io a neighhourinp non-Israelite people. But, as a
rule; it is only Israel that has S56,itinc..
Though both .%et and ma&h might conceivably
have been used by early writers in speaking of t h e
primitive stage of Israel's social development, t h e
probability is that both terms arose after the Israelites
had begun to acquire territory by conquest. We may
1 See E. Meyer, GA 1449 ; Enfsf. 1 5 2 f : (cp ~ogf:).
2' On Judg. 8 14, where the P ' ! p are apparentlydistinguished
from the O';?!, see Moore's commentary.
3 Stade, however, would read O'?>c for P?h&which is
probably right. Similarly in Ex.1515 may be read for
*5liN.
5202
 TRIBES
therefore concede to Driver’ that though ma$te/t may
be in OT usage only post-exilic, it was scarcely invented
by P, and that, like &%e;, when used in a metaphorical
sense, it is at any rate suggestive of high antiquity.
’ Archaic,’ however, which is Driver’s word, seems to
claim too much.2 At the time that we here suppose the
metaphorical use of Ebef (and of mn?t./r?) to have
arisen the creative tendency of language was still
strong. As to the precise date when the usage was
initiated, who can venture to dogmatise? W e can
only say that it must have been a fairly ancient, though
not archaic period. When the Blessing of Jacob was
written in its original form, the usage must have been
already in existence, not because Gen. 4916 speaks of
Dan as ‘judging his people, like any of the tribes of
Israel’ (for the text of w. 166 is q ~ e s t i o n a b l e ) ,but
~ Gen. 497. What, then, was the origin of the nuniera-
because the contents of the series of blessings require
this view. The union of clans must, at this time, have
been closer than in the nomadic age, owing to the
pressure of new conditions arising out of changed
circumstances. And even though it cannot be historical
that the first king was chosen by lot ( I S. lOzof: )-first
Benjamin being selected from the other ‘ tribes,’ then
Saul’s ‘clan’ and then Saul himself-we can believe
that there was in that hero‘s time not only a ‘clan’
of Matri, but also at least the beginnings of a ‘ tribe ‘ of
Benjamin (cp S AUL , § rg).
I t is probable that the tribal association was
strengthened by the sanctions of religion. The names
of some at least of the Israelitish tribes can be more
or less plausibly explained as borrowed divine names
(see ASHER,D A N , G AD , M ANASSEH , R EUBEN ), and
though it would be natural that some specially famous
sanctuary should draw pilgrims not only from the tribe
on whose territory it stood, but also from other tribes,
yet we may presume that every tribe had some sanctuary
of its own in which, besides YahwB, some tribal god or
divine hero was implored to give his blessing to the
tribe.
If we ask how many ‘ tribes of Israel’ historically
existed together, the answer must be that, apart from a
4. Number hieratic and literary convention which
and origin. only in quite a late period can be shown
to have become a popular belief, the
number must, from the nature of the case, have been
variable. A clan may (I ), through the adhesion of other
clans and through favouring fortune, become so large as
to be called a ’ tribe,’ or ( z ) , through acquisition of fresh
territory may be inevitably impelled to bifurcation ;
again, a tribe may (3), through persistent ill-fortune,
sink so low that its constituent clans, or those of them
which survive, may seek protection in a fresh tribal
attachment. In a word, there is no sharp division
between clans and tribesg An example of the first of
these cases may be found in the growth of the tribe of
Judah (see C ALEB , 5 zf: ; JUDAH,5 5) ; of the second,
as some think, in the division of Joseph into Ephraim
and Manasseh; of the third, in the attachment of
Simeonite clans to the tribe of Judah (see SIMEON).
T h e gradual disappearance of Reuben and the destruc-
tion of a tribe or clan called D INAH ( q . ~ . but
, cp 5 12,
below), and of Simeon and Levi, regarded as territorial
tribes, should also be mentioned here, though with regard
to Levi it has to be once more pointed out that the city
of Z AREPHATH ( q . ~ . in
) the Negeb, with which in the
1 JPhiZ. 11 214 (in the course of an answer to Giesebrecht,
Z A TW1242).
2 B. Luther’s phrase ( Z A 7‘ 21 14), ‘ dass der Begriff kein
% a rig& impression when he subditutes as the original text
hohes Alter hat ’ may be accepted in 70 far as it rejects the idea
that the term &e!, ‘tribe,’ is archaic.
3 See Crit. Bib. ad Zoc.
4 K. Kohler (Der Segen]nco6’s, 1867) presses the theory that
a tribal name may indicate the god anciently worshipped by the
tribe to an impossible extent.
5 Dt. 33 19 is often su posed to refer to a mountain-sanctuary,
common to tbe tribes oPZebulun and Issachar. Mt. Tabor has
been thought of. See, however, Crz.t. Bib.
6 Cp Gruneisen, Alrncncultw (I~co), p. 242.
5203
TRIBES
earlier form of the tradition Moses is most probably
connected (see MOSES, 5 4).appears to be referred to,
in the appendix to the Book of Judges, as the head-
quarters of the Levites.l
’The convention referred to, however, definitely repre-
sents the tribes of Israel as twelve in number. There
6. Number is a similar convention with regard to the
clans or tribes whose origin was traced
twelve. to Nahor (Gen. 2220-24), to Ishmael (Gen.
1720 2513-16), and to Esau (Gen. 3615-1940-43) re-
spectively.2 Its artificiality is obvious. Never can the
‘twelve tribes’ of Israel have been all in existence
together. When, e.g., Benjamin came into prominence
as an independent tribe, Simeon and Levi presumably
had long suffered the fate poetically prognosticated in
tion? More than probably it had a mythological
character. Diodorus Siculus (230). in his account of
the Babylonian astronomy, after speaking of the thirty-
six star-gods, tells us that the Kdproi of the gods are
twelve in number, to each of whom are allotted a month
and one of the signs of the zodiac. In mythological
style the twelve months and the twelve signs of the
zodiac could be called sons of the moon.’ I t is
probable that, either directly or indirectly (through
some other people), a faint echo of this had reached the
primitive Israelites. The most plausible view is that
the priests at the chief sanctuaries of the people, from
whom Israel derived a pale reflection of a mythology,
knew of a myth of the moon-god who had twelve sons
(the months, or the signs of the zodiac);3 and it is
further probable that they connected the ancestor of
their race with the moon-god, and the constituent tribes
of their people with the moon-god’s sons. To what
people Israel was indebted for its semi-mythic tales, is
matter for investigation.
Elsewhere, howe\er (see PARADISB, SODOM), we have seen
that other semi-mythic stories of the Israelites were most
prohably borrowed from the N. Arabian people of Jerahmeel,
and it is reasonable to suppose that the semi-mythic figure of
Jacob (xpy.), the ancestor of the Israelites, is a reflection of the
mythic ancestor of the Jerahmeelites, who was presumably
called Jarham (from nl,, ‘moon,’ perhaps with the Arabic
mimation). Cp col. 2363, n. z. Jacob‘s wife Rebekah ( x p l i ,
Rihhkah,’) may also owe her name to popular corruption of
Jarham just as Isaac’s wife Rachel owes hers to popular
distortlo; of ‘Jer*me’el.’ See REBEKAH5 2.4
Gunkel, with his wonted penetration, dmarks, ‘There must
be a line leading froin the twelve Babylonian zodiac-gods to the
twelve tribes of Israel ; but of what nature and how long the
line is, cannot at present be said’ (Cm.P), 293). I t is much
to see a problem, even if its solution be hidden. But the
evidence already adduced makes it difficult to doubt that the
earliest conveyors of Babylonian myths to the Israelites were the
N. Arabian Jerahmeelites.
Another view has been put forward by B. Luther,O
and though this scholar does not deny that the number
B. Solo~on,s of the months may iie at the root of
de:zztnts. the numeration of the tribes, his theory
may perhaps be welcome to those who
would sooner admit the post-Solomonic
origin of the twelve tribes ‘ than grant-the possibility
of mythological influences on biblical representations.
It is well-known that, according to the received text of
I K. 47 8 , Solomon divided the land of Israel into
1 No harder section than Judg. 17f: can he found among the
early narratives. Methodical correction is the only remedy
for the otherwise insuperable difficulties of the text. Cp
MICAH, z , and Cn’t. Bib. Griineisen’s view (@.cit., 241)that
a l i i * nnBunD (EV ‘of the family of Judah’) describes the
LeJite as one who kojourned for his livelihood in the tribe of
Judah is certainly wrong. Budde at any rate, gives effect to
nvn n n m m ‘of the clan of Moses.’ For the Levites who
dwelt at Zarephath were the clan of Moses. See MOSES, § 17.
2 Cp Ewald Ffist. 1369 GENEALOGIES % 5 n. 2:
3 For Wincher’s form df the lunar thedry, Lee his Geschichte
IwmZs, 2 57. The credit of originality as well as learning is due
to him.
4 That pny is a shorter form of $Nan,* is indisputable. See
JE-ROHAM.
9 Z A rw,
21 34 [IgOI].
5204
 TRIBES
twelve departments, each of which had to supply ' style, it would, in accordance with analogy, be stated
provision to the king and his house for a month in the
year. S o w B. Luther is of opinion that the Solomonic
division of the land into departments was at least a
principal cause of the later theory of twelve tribes.
Solomon, it is held, found a division into tribal provinces
(not as yet twelve) alrmeady in existence, and adopted it
so far as it was geographically suitable for his purposes.
~~ ~
-
It was natural that a later generation should follow the
precedent set by this king, and reckon twelve tribal
provinces. The reason w-hy Solomon fixed upon the
number twelve was its supposed sacred character. (Cp
N UMBER , 5 7, and note that in the Amarna letters
[81,81 we find the expression, not to be taken literally,
' twelve of my men ').
This view derives its plausibility from the mention of
the months- 'each man had to provide victuals for a
month in the year' ( I K. 47). But is this notice
critically acceptable ?
Kittel indeed says that the providing spoken of (cp 422-28
[ 5 2-81) is equivalent to the collection of taxes1 But this is by
no means natural. 'To provide victuals for the court month by
month' is not th? same as 'to enable Solomon to do whatsoever
his w n l desired. Stade accordingly2 criticises the whole state-
meut in I K. 4 7 . He thinks that there were not twelve but
thirteen 'prefects' (D'?$l), and that the reference to Solomon's
magnificent scale of living is due to the editor who inserted the
old list of prefects in the main body of chaps. 3-11 and whose
object was to enhance the glory of the king. This object he
effected but in doing so he correspondingly diminished the im-
portanc; of the prefects, who became commissariat officers. It
is now possible, however, to go beyond this, and to say that,
text-critically, the statement in I K. 476 may be regarded as
absolutely wrong,S and thaf the whole of it has most probably
arisen (thanks to an ingenious editor) out of a gloss on the
incorrect word 5 ~ 7 (Israel).
~ - The region over which the
n q x ~presided was not the land of Israel, hut the land of
Jerahmeel or IshmaLl, id,., the Negeb (see S O L O M O N , 8 6).
The number of the prefects may coincide with the
number conventionally given to the tribes, but either
the coincidence is accidental (twelve, as we have seen,
was a sacred number), or the number of the prefects
was suggested by that of the tribes, not vice vena.
We must, therefore, still hold that the traditional
number of the tribes is. due to a hieratic theorv respecting
., Another the ancestor of the Israelites and his cannot speak of Joseph, but only of Manasseh and
T o this it may perhaps be ob-
early theory. sons. iected that, as statistics show, Israel is
'the older a n d the original designation of the tribes
united by Moses,' and that the O T prose-writers of all
ages use ' Israel ' and, less frequently, the phrase ' b'nE
Israel,' as the name of the people. If this may be
taken to imply that Israel, not Jacob, was originally
regarded as the name of the ancestor of the Israelites,
must we not question ithe originality of the representation
of the tribes as descended from sons of Jacob? This
criticism may plausibly be supported by the remark
that 'Jacob' as a designation of the whole people is
nowhere found in prose-writings, and that the phrase
' b'ne Ja'akob ' occurs only twice in prose literature, viz.
-in I K. 1831 and 2 I(. 1734, both which passages are
to be assigned to redactors. T h e right answer perhaps
is, not that 'Israel' was preferred to 'Jacob,' as the
higher or religions name, but that according to the
original view ' Israel ' and ' Judah ' were both sons of
Jacob5-i.e., of Jarham or Jerahmeel. For the earliest
accounts of the historical relation between Israel and
Judah exclude the idea that Judah was even theoretically
regarded as a part of Israel: 'Israel and Judah,' as
B. Luther remarks, ' are opposed as two equal powers.'
If this relation were to be expressed in genealogical
1 KCnige (KK), 32 : cp Gesrh. 2 161 (Hist. 2 186).
2 GVI, 130j. Ewald and E. Meyer also adopt the number
thirteen. Cp however, Renzinger and Kittel ad Zoc.
3 The sectibn 52.8 [EV 422-281 also calls for the application
of a keener textual criticism. See S O L O M O N , 5 6,n. I, and Cvit. TBS,ad roc.
Bi6.
4 Staerk, Sfudien ZUY Religions- and Spraclgeschichfe des
A T,2 70.
5 B. Luther, op. cif. 32, of course without any reference to
Jerahmeel.
166 5205
TRIBES
' that Israel ' and ' Judah ' were brothers, and precisely
i1 such a genealogical description Luther finds unmistak-
ably implied in the fierce words of the ' man (i.e., men ;
u , collective)
~ of Israel' to the man (men) of Judah'
in 2 S. 1943 [44], ' I have ten parts in the king, and
~
moreover I am the firstborn (11~1,as a) rather than
thou.'l It was not till long after the breaking- up- of
Solomon's kingdom that Jugah became a ' son,' i . e . , a
dependent, of Israel. T h e genealogy which represents
Judah as a son of Jacob can, it would seem, have arisen
only a t a time when Judah, not less than any one of
the ( t e n tribes,' owned the supremacy of the central
Israelite power, and, one must of course add, when the
identification of Jacob and Israel had been effected by
those who recast and refashioned the old tradition.
Luther, therefore, holds (p. 33) that ' the genealogy of
J , if not his own work, can at any rate not be much
older than the time of Ahab, when Judah became the
vassal of Israel.'
To accept this, however, as the approximate date of
the representation of the tribes as twelve sons of Jacob,
simply because in the forms in which it has reached us
Judah always appears, is somewhat hasty. It is
possible that there were reckonings, now lost, of the
twelve sons of Israel in which Judah was not included.
As a matter of fact the number of the tribes whose
origin is accounted for genealogically by J E is not
twelve, but thirteen, so that if we take away ' Judah.'
the number left will be twelve. T h e reckoning which
underlies J E is as follows,-
(a) The Leah-tribes (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah)
(6) The Bilhah-trihes(Dan Naphtali) . . . .. 4
a
(c) The Zilpah-tribes (Gad,'Asher). .
( d ) The Leah-tribes (Issachar, Zehulun). ... .
.. .
.. a
a
(e) The Rachel-trihes (Mawsseh, Ephraim) a
( n A Rachel-tribe (Benjamin) . . . . . -
I
13
It' is true, there is evident trace (in J ) of an earlier
arrangement, which included Dinah and excluded
Benjamin. This, however, does not affect our present
argument, which is that if we are counting tribes, we
Ephraim. That there ever existed a tribe which in-
cluded the later (?) Ephraim and Manasseh, and passed
under the name of Joseph, cannot be shown with any
certainty ; we cannot appeal to Nu. 13x1 because the
text there is evidently in disorder (see JOSEPH [TRIBE].
8 I, n. I). Winckler's conclusion may here be
mentioned without of course committing him to more
than he has said. ' That Joseph is not a tribal name,
hut a genealogical form [creation] is proved by the
circumstance that his doaain [Shechem] is in possession
of the tribe of Ephraini, who therefore has to be Joseph's
son' ( G I , 268). Mr. Hogg, on the other hand, thinks
that not improbably 'Joseph and Ephraim are simply
two names, older and younger, tribal and geographical,
for the same thing ' (J OSEPH . § 2).
W e may here refer to the possibility of other reckon-
ings of the tribes-ten, eleven, and thirteen. ( a ) Ten
sons of Israel may perhaps be referred to
8. Other in z S. 1943 (see above). ( a ) Eleven sons
reckonina' seem to be implied by I K. 1131 J , ?
where Ahijah the Shilonite bids Jeroboam take only ten
of the rent pieces of his garment, symbolising ten tribes,
because one tribe was to be left for Rehoboam. Kittel
indeed alters ' ten ' into ' eleven ' (cp n. 30), whilst d as
arbitrarily reads ' two tribes ' for ' one tribe ' in 2'. 32.
1 Bu;de, however (Sam. K H C , 29j), thinks it safer to explain
thus ; the North is conscious of its unity, and therefore feels
itself not a row of brothers hut one brother, under the name
Israel, as opposed to Judah.' On the reading 1132 see Driver,
2 On the geography of the statement in its original form, see
SrrrLoH 2. It may he added that in Dt. 316-2 the number of
the trih;s is left dophtful. V. 13 opens with tie words, 'And
of Joseph he said ; this implies that there are eleven tribes.
But 7). 176 introduces a reference to Ephraim and Mana4seh.
526
 TRIBES TRIBES
Since, however, we must take some liberty with the their influence ; so far it will speak for itself. It will
text, is it not least hazardous to read 'eleven' for only remain to consider how far and with what resulrs
'twelve' in a. 30, and to suppose either that, as in the two principles conflict with one another and what
Dt. 33, Simeon is omitted, as having early disappeared, other influences over the arrangements can be detected.
or that Levi is omitted as not being a territorial tribe ? The two wives of Jacob, Leah and Rachel, are indicated by
(c) The adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by Israel L and R respectively ; Leah's handmaid, Zilpah, by I, Rachel's
(Gen. 4 8 1 3 8 , E) makes the n u m b s of Jacob's, sons handmaid, Bilhah, by r. The order of birth from the same
mother is indicated. by index figures, and the grandsons of
thirteen (see above). Similarly the sons of Joktan Rachel by Joseph, who also fall to be considered, by an ad-
(Gen. 1026-29)and Keturah2 (Gen. 281-4) appear to be ditional index letter, thus :-
reckoned as thirteen. T. K. C. L1 =Reuben. R l =Joseph.
[As to the different biblical arrangements of the L'a = HenoGh (eldest son of R1*= Manasseh.
Reuben. Rib= Ephraim.
tribes, it is strange but true that there are more than La =Sirneon. R d = Beniamin.
twenty. In the following section, these twenty are LJ =Levi. r l =Dad
tabulated, and a brief indication will be given of the L4 =Judah. 1% = N a htali.

relative influence of the different principles that govern L5 = Issacbar.

L6 =Zebulun.
=d.11
12 =Asher.
them. The earlier and more interesting extra-bihlical
lists are included in the examiqation. For a fuller The sources whence the lists are derived are indicated to the
right hand, the references axe given at the foot of the list.
treatment see G. B. Gray, The Lists of the Twelve 1 , Ll% ~ 1 11% 2 L56 R12 JE.
Tribes,' Exp., March 1902, pp. ~ z y a 4 0 . It will, it is 2. LlZJ46.5 r1 112 r2 R12 Early Poem.
hoped, become abundantly clear that in spite of the 3. Ll4S Rlb Lffi 11 118 11 Early Poem.
4. L l M RI2 rll 112 P.
great variety of arrangement there is always some 5. L l m Ra r1.d 112 P.
controlling principle. ] 6. LlWa6 112 Rl2 rl9 P.
The twelve tribes, or sons ' of Jacob, are mentioned 7. L12a R l W r1 1% rs P.
by name together some twenty-five times in O T a n d 8. L l Z 4 5 Rlb2 L6 Rl* rl 12 ,Z 11 P.
9. LIZ 11 L4.56Rlb2 r l 12 ~1 P.
N T ; and except in Nu. 2 7 10 14-29 the IO. I .12 11 L4.56 Rlab2 r l 12 r2 P.
8. Lists :
geographical arrangement of the names is always 11. L1- r1 R12 Z 112 Ch.
orders. different. I n all there are upwards of ra. LIB- r2 RXb2 rl Ch.
13. LO 112 r2 R1a LW6 Rl2 Rev.
twenty different arrangements. Early 14. L124.56 R1bS 11 rl P 12
extra-biblical literature, such as the Book of Jubilees 15. LlZMM rlP 111 RlZ
Q. Jubilees.
and the writings of Philo, repeat some of the biblical LlZi4w 11 112 +2 R9 Philo.
arrangements, but also contain fresh variations. 17. L2s4J R1.d I L1 112 L6 r12 D.
I n Charles's Eook of Iu6iZees ('902) rp. ~ 7 0 8the text of 18. rl la r2 Rlab L14 I R2 LzaS 11 Eiek.
the dates given for the birth of the seve:a children'is discussed. 19. L a I LIS 11 I Rlb2 1 r l I2 r2 P.
20. L4 12 11 I Ls r l Le 1 L156 I L* R2 L1* Jubilees.
In the present text of Jubilees the birth of Dan is placed in
an earlier year than the birth of Judah ; but this must he due I . Gen. 29 31x-30 24 35 1619: ; 11. I Ch. 2 i f i
to textual corruption for it is out of accord not only with the ubilees 28 11-24 3233. 12. I Ch. 27 1 6 s
order in which the 'tribes are mentioned but also with the 2. de". 49. 13. Rev. 'ij j ?
express statement of 21 17,? There are se:eral similar errors in 3. Dt. 55. 14. Nu. 120-43 e.
the text of Jubilees and later works dependent on it. 4. Gen. 36 23-26 ; Ant. 15. Jubilees 34 x1; Test. xii.
In a few cases where the tribes are mentioned in ii. 7 4 ; Jubileesizs. Patr.
connection with the conquest or distribution of the 5. Ex.11-5. 16. Philo, Dreams, 2 5 ; A&-
6. Gen. 46 9 J? ; Jubilees 1 26.
country, geographical considerations have overridden 44 13# ; cp Nu. 26 QB. 17. Dt. 27 12-14.
all others; and in two other instances (Jos. 1315J, 7. Nu. 15-15. 18. Eeek. 48 1-7 a p g .
I Ch. 4-6) these considerations constitute the main 8. Nu.13kij. 19. Nu. 2 7 10 14-99.
9. Nu. I 20.43. 20. Jubilees 8 5 fi
principle of arrangement. These lists are not included 10. Nu. 26.
in the following table and may be briefly discussed at
once. The most perfect geographical arrangement is T h e last four lists (17-20)are somewhat different i n
found in Jos. 214-7 (cp I Ch. 6 5 4 3 ) : here the tribes character from the first sixteen ; for in them the tribes
are mentioned in four groups, the southern first, then are distributed for various purposes into two or more
the midland, then the northern and then the eastern. groups, which are marked above by the perpendicular
In Nu. 34 1 8 8 Judg. 1 and Jos. Ant. v. 1 2 2 only the line.
western tribes are included; the order of mention is T h e two principles that have obviously influenced
from S. to N., but in Judg. and Jos. Dan is mentioned the various arrangements conflict with one another ; for
last, either in consequence of its subsequent position in the sons of the handmaids, in virtue of seniority, come
the extreme N., or as being descended from a hand- between the first four and the last two of Leah's children.
maid. In Jos. 13 15J the eastern tribes Reuben and Since the simple order of birth is never adopted except
Gad are treated apart (13),but in the discussion of the in the story of the births, the tendency to group t h e
western tribes (15f.) a strict geographical order is not tribes according to their respective mothers was clearly
followed ; considerations of the importance of the tribes stronger than the tendency to group according to age.
appear to have modified the tendency of the arranger to Further, the least departure from the order of birth,
follow a S. to N. order. I n I Ch. 4-8 the southern required in order to maintain the maternal groups in-
tribes Judah and Simeon come first, then the three tact, would he to place the children of the handmaids
eastern tribes and the rest in an order governed by no immediately after Leah's six children. This, however
obvious principle. The one common feature of these (except in the later lists-NT, Philo, Jubilees), is a
arrangements is the marked tendency to survey the comparatively infrequent arrangement ; far more fre-
tribes from S. to N. ; of the contrary tendency there is quently the children of the full wife Rachel, though
nowhere the slightest trace. younger, precede the children of the handmaids. An
The main considerations that have governed the obvious cross principle is adopted but once (no. 6 ; see
order of the remaining and far more numerous lists of also Nu. 26 6).
lo, Other the tribes are obviously the traditional order The tendency to keep the children of the two full
wives in two distinct groups is far stronger than that to.
orders. of births and the several 'mothers' or
'wives' of Jacob from whom the tribes keep the children of the two handmaids distinct ; indeed,
traced their descent. On this account these lists are a tendency to keep the children of the two handmaids
here tabulated by means of symbols that will show at a in two distinct groups can hardly be said to exist. T h e
glance the extent to which these principles have exerted handmaid tribes are to be regarded as constituting a
single class in which considerable freedom of arrange-
1 Cp GENEALOGIES 8 5 (on the reason for the enumeration of
the priestly tribe of Lkvi). ment prevailed.
2 The ' sons of Dedan in o. 3 are interpolated. It will only be possible to refer briefly to some of t h e
5207 5QOB
 TRIBES
chief apparent or real violations of the principles just
indicated.
In some lists Judah, though the fourth son of Leah, stands
first (13 19 20 : cp Nu. 34 19 Josh. 21 4 and other geographical
lists). 'The' reason it can scarcely he questioned, is the pre-
eminence of the tribe.
In the camp order ( ~ g ) ,Judah is given the superior eastern
position ; otherwise, the four groups are constituted and arranged
In such an order as to do least violence to the principle that
son5 of the same mother should be kept together and in the
order of their birth. Since Levi is necessarily omitted from the
scheme, Leah's sons fail to make two complete groups of three,
the second group is completed by Gad, the eldest son of Leah's
handmaid. IO seem to be so far influenced by this list
that Gad fol?;? &neon. On the other hand, the separation
of Dan from the other handmaid tribes in T I and 12 is not easy
of explanation.
In lists 2 and 3 Zebulun, exceptionally, pFecedes Issachar.
As hoth these lists occur in poems of earlier orlgin than JE, it is
possible that the arrangement represents an earlier theory of
the relative ages of the two tribes, according to which all the
sons of Leah were older than any of the sons of other mothers,
Zebulun was older than Issachar, and the relative ages of the
handmaid tribes were not the same as in the later scheme.
Benjamin precedes Joseph (RU) in only one (no. 3) of the
twenty lists ; in another (no. 8) it stands between Ephraim and
Manasseh (Rlb2la). Both these arrangements are extremely
anomalous, and each occurs in a list that contains other anoma-
lies. In the case of no. E theanomalies are almost certainly due
t o an accidental transposition in the text. If in Nu. 13 vu. 1.f:
be placed before z ~ i .8J, three anomalies are at once removed
and an entirely normal list restored ( L 1 m R1*b2 r1 12 12 11). In
Dt. 33 unless the text has suffered very serious dislocation, the
order &as originally altogether anomalous.
In no. 13 also, a simple transposition,by which 7 ~ 7 ) .9 6 should
be made to follow a. 8 in Rev 7 would restore a far more
normal list (L41BS RPL 112 r2 R1.) khere R1* (Manasseh) is an
intentional or accidental substitute for Dan (9).
In 17 and 18, and to a much slighter extent in 20, the tendency
to maintain the traditional groups still exerts itself, but is
checked by other considerations. The second group in 17 con-
sists of the trihes whose duty it was to curse; the tribes selected
for this purpose are, not unnaturally, the less eminent hand-
maid tribes and the youngest son of Leah ; why Leah's eldest
son completes the group is not clear, unless the cnrse pronounced
on him in Gen.49 has influenced the selection. In Ezek. a
similar slightness of regard for the handmad tribes has given
them positions most remote from the holy district.
G. B. G.
The problems which have just been stated and illus-
trated, differ in their degree of importance, and the
ll. current most interesting of them advance but
slowly towards a satisfactory solution.
theories : More particularly, opinions are divided
relative to the inner meaning of the first list
of the tribes (that of J E ) , and of the traditions whichare
connected with it. Ewald long ago expressed the convic-
tion' that, rightly understood, such a list must convey
important information relative to the ' pre-Egyptian
period of Israel's history,' and we may, at any rate,
agree with him thal., even allowing for the extreme
uncertainty of tradition with regard to details, and for
the probability of the intermixture of elements derived
from the circumstances of later ages, something of
value may be obtainable by the historical critic from
the genealogical narrative of JE. Wellhausen and
Stade deserve special gratitude for the acuteness with
which they have studied hoth this and the other tra-
ditional narratives relative to the origin of the tribes.
According to Wellhausen,z with whom Guthe ( G VZ,
1899, p. 41) and probably Bennett (Hastings' DR,s.n.
'Tribes') and Paton (Syria and PaZcstine, 1902, pp.
124,138,etc. ) agree, the original Israelitish tribes were
seven in number, six of which belong to the group
represented by Jacob's wife Leah, and one to that
represented by his other wife Rachel. It was the latter
tribe-viz., Joseph, which (according to these critics)
alone sojourned in Egypt (cp EXODUS, 5 2). T h e
combination of the Leah and the Rachel tribes was
probably effected by Moses, who came from the Sinaitic
peninsula to conduct the Hebrews thither from Goshen.
The sons of the concubines (Bilhah and 2ilpah)-viz.,
Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher-are not in the same
full sense sons of Jacob or Israel; these tribes were
1 G V f P ) 1 5 1 9 3 (Hisf.1 3 6 2 3 : ) .
a IJW, Ir.13, 1~ ; ~ r o l . 322-329.~ ,
5209
TRIBES
probably of very mixed origin, and joined the b n e
Israel later. On what principle the Bilhah and Zilpah
groups were arranged, is not clear. Guthe thinks that
these two couples of tribes had come into specially close
relations with Joseph and with either Reuben or
Issachar and Zebulun respectively, and that this was
expressed genealogically by the statement that their
mothers were the handmaids, in the one case of Rachel,
in the other of Leah. For the further movements of
the tribes, according to Guthe, see I SRAEL , 7.
Stade' is of opinion that the legend of Jacob and
Joseph in its present form presupposes the division of
12. Stade. the kingdoms. Leah, the legitimate but
slighted wife, represents the kingdom of
Judah, Rachel that of Israel. The assignment of a
tribe to Leah or to Rachel depends o n the question
whether the tribe canie earlier or later into the country
W. of the Jordan.2 The details of the legend cannot,
for the most part, be interpreted historically. Bilhah
was probably connected with Rachel for geographical
reasons: but not so Zilpah with Leah. W h y the
insignificant Reuben is made the firstborn, is obscure.
' If the precedence given to Reuben reflects actions of
this tribe, these actions must go back to the moxt re-
mote antiquity.' Why, too, are Issachar and Zebulun
grouped with Judah, and Gad with Asher? Here
again, political circumstances may be reflected. It is
only Joseph and Benjamin whose position is quite
clear ; they reached distinction only a t a late period.
Benjamin branched off from Joseph (cp 2 S. 1921, I
[Shimei] have come the first of all the house of Joseph ' )
before Joseph split into Ephraim and Manasseh.
Dinah is merely a genealogical creation. She represents
a n Israelitish minority in the population of the Canaan-
ite city of Shechem in the pre-regal period (cp D I N A H ,
5 I). The story of Dinah (Gen. 34) and that of Tamar
(Gen. 38) are the oldest parts of the tribal legend, and
indicate on what lines the occupation of Palestine really
proceeded. In the formation of the tribes, not only
the vicinity of Israelite clans, brit the intermixture of
non-Israelitish elements were important factors. As we
find them in the historical period, they arose on this
sideof the Jordan. On the question of the sojourn in
Egypt, Stade is in agreement with Wellhausen.
A new impulse has been given to these inquiries by
Steuernagel, -
- who has made a very thorough and critical
13. Steuernagel, study of the legends of the immigra-
tion of the tribes of Israel into
According to him, it is the Rachel-tribes
which have the first right to be called sons of Jacob.
They arose through the fusion of the ' genuine Israel-
itish' tribe Jacob, and the Aramaic tribe Rachel. T h e
Jacob-tribe thus lost its independent existence, and by
degrees the tribal name Jacob gave way to the new
name Joseph. The name Jacob itself, however, did
not disappear. The facts of the origin of the Joseph-
tribe led to the traditional statement that Joseph was
the son of Jacob and Rachel. Steuernagel, however,
also seeks to throw light on the early history of the
Jacob-tribe, which was led out of Egypt by Moses, and
dwelt in the eastern steppe-country to the S. of Canaan,
by Sinai, where the tribe allied itself to the Horite clan
Bilhan (=Bilhah). but, together with other tribes, was
driven further by the Edomites, who had formed a
1 GVllW 145f: : 'Lea und Rahel ' Z A TW1112-116; ' Wo
enstanden die genealogischen Sagen) iiber den Unprung der,
Hebraer ' ? Z A TW1 347-350 ; ' Entstehung des Volkes Israel,
Akad. Reden, 97-12'.
2 Z A TW 1113. In GV11147, however, Stade cautions us
against looking to the genealogical legend for any disclosures
as to the course of events in the immigration into Canaan. For
a criticism of Stade's view on the combination of two systems
one representing them as wives of Jacob and the other as sons:
see Steuernagel,Die Einwand. gf:: Rodertson, Ear& Xeiigion
of Israel, 499$,
3 Die Einwandemngder lsraplitiscLrn St&zma in Kaman
(1901). For criticisms of this able work see Gunkel,PwP),
285 ; J. C. Matthes, 'Israels nederzetting in Kanaan, Tk. T
36 5 1 7 8 [1902].
5210
 TRIBES
kingdom to the N. 01 the Sinaitic peninsula (Gen.
3631); this the legend describes as Jacobs flight from
Esau. From Mesopotamia, where the fusion with
Rachel' took place, the mixed tribe now called
* Joseph ' was pushed by Aramzan tribes (under Assyrian
pressure) southward. On the N. border of Gilead the
Arilmzeans made a temporary halt, while the Jacob-
Rachel tribe occupied N. Gilead. Not improbably, the
boundary between them was fixed by a compact near
the Yarmuk. ' I f this be correct, it will follow, not
only that the migration of Jacob should receive a place
in general history, hut also that it is to be assigned to
the fourteenth century' (p. 60). T h e story in Gen.
32z1b-32 tells of the duel between Jacob and the god of
the conquered N. Gileadites. ' Israel ' means ' El ( =
Yahwk) fights." i e . , for Jacob ; it became a war-cry
and, later on, the name of the people. T h e sequel is
related, according to Steuernagel, in two form- in the
Jacob-story and in the Book of Joshua. Attacks of the
Bedouin tribes (probably) forced the Jacob-Rachel tribe
to cross the Jordan, to the S . of the point where the
Yarmuk enters it. The tribe goes to Shechem, where
it acquires land by payment ( a reminiscence of ancient
payment of tribute to the Shechemites). The narrative
in Gen. 35 belongs to a later time when, as a conse-
quence of the extension of the Rachel-tribe to the S.,
the Benjamin tribe made itself independent. The
Jacob-Rachel tribe now disappears ; in future the two
tribes, Joseph and Benjamin, appear in its place. In
the legendary style, this is expressed by saying that
soon after the arrival at Bethel, and the founding of a
sanctuary there, Benjamin was born, and Rachel died.
As to the Leah-Zilpah tribes, Steuernagel's view is that
they reached Canaan before the Jacob-Rachel tribe, and
came into connection with that tribe in Canaan, on
which account legend represented Leah as the wife who
was foisted upon Jacob.
All these theories are ably defended. The least satis-
factory is the third, precisely because it is the most
14. criticism elaborate, and aims at the fullest
of theories. historical results. Almost everything
in the patriarchal narratives turns out
to be a typical or anticipative history of the settlement
of the tribes in Canaan. Unfortunately Steuernagel,
under the presence of theory, has here and there to
alter the traditional statements. The tradition states
that Jacob married Leah and Rachel at the same time,
and afterwards Bilhah and Zilpah, and that the place
was in Mesopotamia. 'This critic, however. alters the
order of the marriages and the places, and represents
that the Bilhah tribe joined Jacob in the S. of Canaan,
and the Rachel tribe in Mesopotamia ; Leah and Zilpah
ho%ever only joined after the immigration.2 This is
one great drawback. Another is that Steuernagel treats
his traditional material very undiscriminatingly. the con-
nections between the legends being made as much use
of as the legends themselves. For instance, the order
of the events related in Jacob's progress through
Canaan surely does not rest on early tradition ; there
is no real traditional authority for placing the founda-
tion of Bethel before the death of Rachel at Ephrath.
Nor does Steuernagel allow for the probability that the
historical circumstances of the regal period have found
a reflection in the patriarchal legend, and throughout
he shows a confidence in the vitality of the earliest
tradition which is not justified by the experience of
historical critics elsewhere.
But even Wellhausen's and Stade's theories cannot
either of them be accepted without important modifi-
1 Another explanation of ' Israel' is offered elsewhere (p. 62).
Rut both 'El fights' and 'man of Rachel'must be incorrect.
j x in names of the type does not mean 'God,' and no
sound analogy can be offered for such a tribal name as jn, u",
out of which Steuernagel (as an alternative theory) doubtfully
brings 5 x y ~ - .
2 On Steuernagel's view (p. 47) of the traditional representa-
tion of the Leah-Zilpah tribes, see ZILPAH,col. 5418, n. z.
5211
TRIBES
cations, and it remains for future investigators to use
the works of the three eminent critics mentioned rather
as mines of suggestions than as records of results. Two
things seem to be required in order that we may take
a genuine step forward. ( I ) W e must criticise the
Hebrew text more keenly and with more adequate
methods, and (2)we must look out for further help from
archceological research. Many perhaps will shake their
heads at the first of these requirements. But without a
more thorough investigation of the text we shall not be
in a position to use archzological discoveries aright
when we get them. Steuernagel for instance refers
(113f: ; cp ASHER,§ I ) to W. Max Muller's statement
( A s . u. Bur. 2 3 6 8 ) that in the inscriptions of Seti I.
and Rameses 11. a land of Aseru or As(s)aru is often
mentioned as occupying W. Galilee. It is true, he
declines to lay any great stress upon this, though, if the
land of Aseru were named after the tribe of Asher, it
would fit in with his view, independently obtained, that
the Jacob-Rachel tribe was forced by the Aramzean
migration into N. Gilead in the fourteenth century B.C.
Others, however, are less cautious. Paton (Syria and
Pal. 126) tells us that ' i n an inscription of Sety we
meet for the first time 'A-sa-ru (Asher), a Canaanite or
Amorite tribe that subsequently was adopted into the
Hebrew confederacy, and was classified as a son of
Jacob by his concubine Zilpah.' Hommel too ( A H T
228,237) thinks that the Egyptian notices can be
utilised for the history of the tribe of Asher. All this
is precarious until the Hebrew texts have been more
thoroughly explored. I t must be admitted, indeed, that
Hommel (as well as the present writer) has made a
beginning in examining those OT passages which may
have a bearing on the origin of the tribe of Asher ; but
here as elsewhere nothing short o f a complete survey of
the biblical texts (such a s is begun in portions of the
present work and will be continued and completed in
critic^ Biblica) will enable us to give a fairly satisfactory
solution even of this comparatively small problem.
Very much more importance is attached by Steuer-
nagel to the references to people called the Habiri in the
Tell el-Amama letters (cp ASHER, I , § I ; H EBER ;
H EBREW L ANGUAGE, 5 I ; I S R A E L , 0 3). These
Habiri are identified by Steuernagel with the Israelites,
or at least with the Leah-tribe. This too fits in with his
chronological theory ; he infers from it that the Negeb
was occupied by the Leah-tribe about 1400 B .c., and
that the extension of this tribe over the central highlands
of Ephraim took place towards 1385. Now in itself
this dating of the conquest of central Canaan is plausible
enough ; it approximates to that given more vaguely by
Winckler in 1 8 9 5 ~(GI114). I t must, however, he
stated that there is so much uncertainty about the
names in the early Hebrew traditions, and such tricks
are constantly played 11s by the ancient narrators who
use the same name in different senses that for the
present all such theories can only be put forward with
great reserve.
It may be stated in conclusion that this is the reason
why we have made no use in this article of the references
16. conclusion^ to Israelitish tribes in the song of
Deborah. Negatively, previous critics
have done much for the text of this song-i.e., they
have pointed out many corruptions as probable. But
very little of a satisfactory character has been done for
the correction of the text ; the old methods have once
more proved their inadequacy. Here as elsewhere a
fresh start in criticism must be made by the application
of a broader text-critical method.
W e are also precluded from taking up any position
1 For Winckler's latest statement of his view on the Habiri
see AOFP) 90'94. Budde (The Religion of IsraeZ to the Exile
[18g9],6) may produce an impression that Winckler identifies the
Habiri with the Israelites. This, however of course is not the
case. Winckler exprrssly guards himself aiainst being supposed
to mean that the Habiri are to be limited to 'Israelitish' tribes
or clans.
5212
 'TRIBUNAL
as to the question, what traces (apart from any in the
Jacob legend) the narrative books contain of changes in
the dwelling-places of the migrating Israelitish tribes.
A number of such traces are pointed out by Steuernagel.
Asher, for instance, according to this critic (p. 30), may
once have dwelt on what was afterwards the border-
region of Ephraim and Benjamin. Issachar and
Zebulun (p. IZ), dwelt anciently in the central highland
country (Mt. Ephraim). Dinah, Simeon, and Levi
(p. 14f.) were once settled near Shechem in Mt.
Ephraim. (Steuernagel might plausibly have referred,
in proof of Simeon's having belonged to N. Israel, to
2 Ch. 159 ; see, however, Cn't. Bib. on Is. 97-104).
Reuben (p. IS) once had his home NE. of Judah, in
what was afterwards Benjamite territory. All these
problems, however, assume a fresh aspect as the result
of a continuous text-critical investigation of the Hebrew
texts. T o enter, a t this point, on a piecemeal examina-
tion of selected passages would require too great an
extension of this article, and the conclusions would not
have the best chance of making a due impression on the
reader.
The special articles in this work on the tribes on the tribal
'mothers,' and on Jacob, should be consulted. T i e conclusions,
sometimes tentative, may not always be in harmony, but in the
present unsettled condition of the subject this could not he
otherwise. The present writer is responsible for the view that
the first war of Israel was for the possession of the Negeb, and
that much in the OT which has been supposed to refer to
districts of Canaan proper really refer- to the ' Holy Land of
the Israelites'-the Negeb, or N. Arabian border land. For a
full critical monoqaph on the tribes of Israel see ' Die Israeli-
tischen Stimme,' by .B. Luther, Z A TW 21 1-76 [1901] ; cp also
Bennett's article 'Tribe,' in Hastings' D B vol. iv.
T. K. C . , 1-8 11-15 ; G . B. G . , 9f.
TRIBUNAL I'KPITH I O N : I Cor. 6 2 4 RVmg.;
=me word also in Jad. 2 6 Eg'judgment seat ' and in Ex. 21 6,
Judg. 5 IO [not @A], Sus.'4g [Theod., not ; in I K. 7 7 for
P)?$e,7nG&@ and in Dan. 7 I O 26 for ]'?I din, $ ~ p l m @87 s in
V. 26). c p GOVERNMENT, 8 16, LAWAND JUSTICE, 8 8 8
TRIBUNES, MILITARY ( X I A I A P X O I ) , Rev. 19 18,
RV'"g. See ARMY( ' chiliarch '), § IO.
TRIBUTE. See T AXATION , and cp SOLOMON, 6.
TRIPOLIS ( T P I ~ O A I C[VA]). It was a t the haven
a t Tripolis (TOO K a r b Tphrohtv hrpkvos) that Demetrius
I., son of Seleucus, mustered the ' mighty host ' and
'fleet' of which we read in 2 Macc. 1 4 1 8 C p
M A C C A BEE S , 5 . As its name indicates (see PHCENICIA,
5 ZI. col. 3759), Tripolis was divided into three quarters
(separated by walls) ; it had been founded (not earlier
probably than 700 B .c.) by Aradians, Tyrians, and
Zidonians, and in E'ersian times Zidon. Tyre, and Aradus
held a federal council in it. From 197 B . C . onwards it
belonged to the Selencidz ; but towards the end of that
period it fell under usurpers or tyrants,' and was plagued
by robber tribes from whom it was delivered by Ponipey
in 64 (see PHCENICIA, z z , col. 3763-4).
The modern Tripoli or ?arBbulus, on the river Kadisha or
Abu '.4li, is situated in a fertile maritime plain covered with
orchards and dominated by a castle overhanging a gorge of the
river, some parts of which are, perhaps, the work of the
crusaders. The port (el Mini) is ahout 2 m. distant, on a
small peninsula (see .PH(ENICIA,map).
TRIUMPH. Twice the Roman ' triumph ' is referred
to figuratively, and if the general meaning in one passage
(Col. 215) is plain, in the other ( z Cor.214) it is by no
means plain. God, we are told in Col. Xc., ' triumphed
over ' the angels opposed to Christ in the henceforth
annulled bond of ordinances which had been directly
hostile to men, and so had justified thoseangels (who had
in fact promulgated those ordinances?) in their opposi-
tion. The words, are-oimK8vudpevos ~ Z t s oipxbs K a l
7bs y o v u i a s P ~ E I Y ~ ~ T L U E Qv
V nappqoip, Bprappeliaas
afiroljs Qv a h $ , which the RV renders, ' having put off
from himself the principalities and the powers, he made
a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.'
In z Cor. Lc., however, the rendering is disputed. T h e
words are-+ 88 ~ d p t r74 r r d v ~ o r eO p r a p p d o v r l
+ p i i s 6v 74 XpturG Kal 7 3 v aup+v 7 1 j s y v h r w s a i r 0 6
52'3
TROAS
+avcpoOvri 81' +pGv hv naari 767ryl which the RV
renders, ' but thanks he unto God, which always leadeth
us in triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest through
us the savour of his knowledge in every place,' whilst
the AV gives to OplapPeLovrt the sense 'causeth (us)
to triumph,' in spite of the fact that the causative
sense does not appear elsewhere. But, unless we
desert the paths of natural exegesis, how cun God be
said to lead Paul and his conipanions in triumph?
Does not 81' +pGv in the following clause prove that
Paul himself is supposed to be a member of the
triumphal procession? Another point has to be
mentioned. J. C. M. Laurent has pointed out that
vu. 12f.do not help our comprehension of the context ;
according to him, they are a marginal note (by Paul
himself) on the statement in 116. ' T h e subject of
oiyvooOpcv (v. 11) and the nominative of +pas (a.14) are
the same man, the apostle. The verb BptapPe6ov7i is
excellently accounted for by the a6706 which precedes
in v. 1 1 . ' It is over Satan that Paul ' triumphs.' The
reference to a ' sweet odour ' which follows harmmises
with the figure of the 'triumph.' For during a
triumph, sweet spices were burnt ; as Plutarch
( Z m i Z . ) says, the streets were BupiapLi7wv nhljpers.
Paul's preaching of God, or of Christ, is as penetrating,
as all-pervading, as the smell of incense. It was a
brave sight-that of a Roman triumph-and worthy to
be chosen by such an enthusiast for Christ and his victory
as Paul. ' Rome was enftfe, the streets gay with gar-
lands, the temples open.' The procession, it is true,
presented reminders that the Christian principle was not
yet supreme. T h e best part was the end, when ' o n
reaching the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, the general
placed the laurel branch (in later times a palm branch)
on the lap of the image of the god, and thus offered the
thank-offerings ' (see EB, art. ' Triumph ').
TRQAS Ti., W H , Acts 168 I I
( T ~ ~ A C 205 2 Cor.
2125 z Tim. 413).
The full name of the town was Alexandria Troas ('AAe&%pera
6 T ~ h s Strabo,
, $31; Ptol. v. 2 4; Liv.3542. The order
.i Tpyhc 'AA&v8pera is found in Polyb. 5 111).
1. Name. One or other part of the full form was very
commonly used to designate the place (Alexandreia
in Strabo, 599 e t @ss. ; cp Polyb. 5 78. Troas alone in NT
and Pliny, H N , 533, ijsaque T Y O ~ STroas
) . ~ is simply an ad:
jective, which distinguishes the ' Trojan Alexandria from the
many other towns called after the great conqueror. AP-
parently the simple $ T p o k is not used by Greek writers
before the NT period, as Igading to ambiguity. For $ Tpods
is the correct Greek equivalent for ' the Troad '-ie., the region
between Mt. Ida and the Hellespont, which w a s the centre of
t h e Trojan power in Homeric tradition. The 'Troad' (as the
word is adopted in English) was spoken of by the Greeks as
$ T p y b from the time at least of Herodotus (5 122). In 2 Cor.
2 12 cis r;lu Tpod8a might therefore, so far as form goes, mean
'to the Troad'; but of conrse the word Alexandria must be
supplied to limit the phrase to the city in question-unless we
are prepared here to insist that Paul really meant the Troad
and did not confine his visit to the Troad Alexandria.
Alexandria Troas (mod. EsRi-Stantb~i)was an im-
Dortant town and harbour on the coast of E o l i s
2. History. (Mysia) or NW. Asia Minor, oppc;ite
the SE. extremitv of the island of
Tenedos ; it was half-way between Sigeium and Cape
Lectum (which cape was rounded by the ship in passing
from Troas to Assos. Acts 2013). Alexandria was built
by Antigonus, who gathered to it the population of the
neighbouring small townships-Scepsis, Cebren, Nean-
dreia, Larisa, Kolonai. Hamaxitos, and Chrysa (Strabo,
604 ; cp 593 597). The town was first named Antigonia
Troas, after its founder ; but subsequently Lysirnachus
changed this to Alexandria Troas (Strabo, 593 : Pliny,
H N 5 33, ' Troas, Antigonia dicta, nunc Alexandria,
colonia Romana '). The importance of the city is seen
1 Many varieties are found-$ T&V 'Ahe~av&p&wrr&s in
Polyh. 21 ,of: In an inscription at Delphi (Ditten. SyZZ.Pl,268
= Michel, RecueiZ, 655)we have TpLs &b 'AAefa&prLs followed
almost immediately by 'Ahstav8pdirs i r TZS Tpy6'Sos. I n Strabo
134, we find 'Ahstav8pera 7 %Tpyd8os, just as in Paus. x. 124 w;
~
have 'Ahrg%v8pera $ EV 6Tpy&.
5274
 TROGYLLIUM
from the fact that, in the negot?ations of Antiochus the
Great with the Romans before the battle of Magnesia,
the Syrian king offered to surrender ' the territories of
Lampsacus and Smyrna as well as Alexandria Troas,
which were the original cause of the war ' (Polyb. 21 13) ;
its extensive ruins. which for long have served as
a quarry, bear testimony to its importance and
prosperity. After the defeat of Antiochus the
Great, Troas fell into the hands of the Romans and
experienced many benefits from them. I t was one of
the few Roman colonies in Asia Minor (Strabo, 593 ;
cp Plin. H N , Z.C. ). I t dated from the time of Augustus ;
hence the coins bear the Latin inscription cOL. TRoAD. ;
COL. ALEX. TRO. ; or COL. AUG. TRO., from which we
may infer the name 'Colonia Alexandria Augusta
Troas.'l Julius Caesar was credited with a design of
removing the capital of the Roman world to this place
(Suet. JuZ. 79).and perhaps Horace (0d:iii. 3 5 7 ) hints
at the same design on the part of Augustus (cp also
what is said of Constantine before he fixed upon the
site of Constantinople, Zosim. 2 30 ; Zonar. 13 3).
Augustus. Hadrian, and Herodes Atticus contributed
to the beautification of the city. Herodes Atticus built
the aqueduct of which remains can still be seen, and
the baths were also probably his gift (see on the baths
Koldewey, in AUen. Mitth. 936f:).
Through Troas in Roman times ran the coast road
which encircled the peninsula, and thus there was direct
- .-- and easv communication with the interior
by w a i o f Adraniyttium. From ADRA-
MYTTIUM (0. D. \ a road ran NE. to Cvzicus
on the Propontis. and '{hence towards the Bitiynian
frontier; a road also ran southwards to Pergamos.
T h e former of these roads may well have been in the
main that followed by Paul when he found it impossible
to penetrate into Bithynia (Acts 1675); . b u t the scanti-
ness of the record here reduces us to conjectures which
gain but little strength from the later traditions (see
Ramsay, Churchi5), 488, Expos., Oct. 1888, p. 264 ;
April 1894, p. 295). Similarly, when Paul was obliged
to retire from Ephesus (Acts201) to Troas ( 2 Cor. Z I Z ) ,
he may have gone either by sea, or by the coast road
which led through Adramyttium (more probably the
coast road, if the circumstances of the departure from
Ephesus are taken into account). The importance of
Troas in the itineraries of the time in this region is
shown by the references in 2 Cor. 2 12 and Acts 205-
ships passing in either direction were certain to put in
at Troas.
In order to clear up all ambiguity, perhaps reference should
here be made t o a neighbouring town which also hore the name
of Troy, Novum Zlium, which is quite distinct from Alexandria
Troas. Novum Ilium (Grk. Illon) claimed to occupy the
veritable site of Homer's Troy, and all antiquity allowed this
claim (cp Herod. 743 ; Strabo, 594. Diod. 18 4 ; Xen. Ffd.
i. 14) until it was disputed by D e m e t h s of Scepsis followed by
Strabo ; the discoveries of Schliemann have settled the question
in the affirmative. In Alexander's time the site was a mere
fortified post only occasionally occupied ; but he designed the
restoration of the town -a restoration finally effected by
Lysimachus. Having been destroyed by Fimbria in 85 B.c., the
town was once more restored by Sulla (Appian, Mithr. 53) as
a favoured city exempt from tribute (Pliny H N 5 3 3 cp Tac.
Ann. 12 58, 'ut Ilienses omni publico murkre solve;entur,' in
53 A.D.). This generosity on the part of the Romans was due
to their fond belief that the city was the original birthplace of
their race ; intrinsically the town was of no importance at all
(cp Tac. Ana. 4 55) and in this respect was a great contrast to
Alexandria Troas. W. J. W.
TROGYLLIUM ( T p W r Y h h l O N , Acts 2015 [TR],
where, for ITAPEBAAOMEN €IC CAMON. T H A €
EXOMENH HAGOMEN EIC MIAHTON [WH], the T R
has TTAPEBAAOMEN EIC CAMON K A I MEINANTEC E N
Tpwryhhlw T H E X O M E N H K. T. h. [For Tpwyyhhiw
there is the variant Tp(,.)ryhl&J, which is apparently to
be preferred: see W H 2 App. 98 n.]), Acts2015 AV,
RVmg, (see end).
1 In the time of Caracalla, the coins bear the additional
epithets ' Aurelia Antoniniana. See Head, Hist. Numnr. 470.
5215
TROPHIMUS
The island of Samos is separated from the mainland
by a channel now called the Little Boghaz,l formed by the
overlapping of its eastern promontory Poseidium (Cape
CoZonna) with the western spur of Mt. Mycale which
was called Trogylium2 (now Cape Santn M u k z ) . T h e
channel is about one mile wide (Strabo, 636, h7dKclTUl8.?
7+ Zapla [SC. M u K d h q rb 8pos] K a l ?role? a p b s ud7tu
PaPKeiva rijs T p w y i h i o u K ~ A O U ~ P P&pas
V ~ 8uov 2 a r a -
U T ~ & O V mpSp6v). Strabo ( l . 6 . ) also explains that
Trogylium is a spur ( d ~ app 6~a o u s ) . of Mt. Mycale and
that facing it there was an island of the same name.
Pliny ( H N 537) names three ' insule Trogiliae,' viz.,
Psilon, Argennon, and Sandalion. The anchorage of
Trogylium must have been well-known to sailors, for
Strabo uses it as a point from which to measure the
distance of cape Sunium in Attica (1600 stades to the
W., ibid. ; the two points lie practically on the same
parallel of latitude). According to the maps, there is an
anchorage a little to the east of the point, called St.
Paul's Port (see Adm. Charts, 1530 and 155s).
Paul sailed through this channel on his way to Jem-
Salem at the close of his third missionary tour. After
leaving the latitude of Chios the ship ran straight across
to the eastern point of Samos (irape@Cwpev in w. 15 need
not imply stoppage at or off the harbour of Samos
which lies 4 or 5 m. distant to the west of Trogylium :
cp Thuc. 332). T h e night was spent in the anchorage
of Trogylium, and Miletus was entered in the morning
(see MILETUS). It is certain that there must have inter-
vened a night between Chios and Miletus, and this can
have been spent only at Samos or at Trogylium. T h e
omission of the reference to Trogylium by the great
MSS may be due to the idea that ?rape/3&Xopeveis Z d p u
implied a stoppage during the hours of darkness at that
p o r t ; this idea may have. been strengthened by the
existence of the variant BuaPppp for hrBppa in w. 15, for by
implying that the passage to, or arrival at, Samos was
postponed to a somewhat late hour, it made the further
progress that same night to Trogylium impossible.
T h e western text undoubtedly here preserves a true
reading, and the reference to Trogylium should he
retained (omitted, except in margin, by RV : ' touched
at Samos ; and [RVmg. many ancient authorities insert,
' ' having tarried at Trogyllium "3 the day after we came to
Miletus.' See MILETUS, 5 2. W. J. W.
TROOP. The words so rendered are :
I. 12,cad, Gen. 30 IT Is. 65 IT ; see F ORTUNE , G A D , I.
%ll, gtdzZd, 2 K. 623, etc., 'band' (BBA pov6<ovor, @L
2.
miparag. See A RMY , $ 3.
3. iF?-U, 'Zgudd&k,2 S. 2 25, R V ' band '. See above.
4. 7!, &ajydh, 2 S. 23 1 1 Ps. 68 II [IO]. See BDB.
5. n?k, '&ah, Job 619, RV CAXAVAN(q.v.). See also
T RADE , B 83 [6 81 col. 5195.
6. 2J1, rcRe6, Is. 21 7 RV. Cp C HARIOT , 5 I.
TROPHIMUS (TPO@IMOC [Ti. WH]), an Ephesian
disciple and companion of Paul, seems to have been
with him in Greece during his third missionary journey,
and along with Tychicus preceded the apostle to Troas,
where he was joined by Paul and his party on their way
to Syria. Trophimus was, apparently, a Gentile, and a
mistaken impression that he had been introduced into the
temple proper by Paul led to the uproar which resulted
in Paul's being taken into custody and ultimately trans-
ferred to Cesar?a and Rome (Acts 204 2129). T h e
allusion to Trophimus in 2 Tim. 420 ('Trophimus I
left at Miletus sick ') is one of several which have made
i t necessary to postulate certain journeys of Paul of
which the N T contains no direct record, if the genuine-
ness of the Pastoral Epistles is to be maintained.
1 The Great Roghaz is on the W. of Samos, separating that
island from Icaria, and varies from 3 t o 8 m. in width ; this is
the passage generally used by modern vessels of any size.
a Trogyllion is the form used by Ptol. 5 2 ; Strabo calls it
+ Tpwyihros dxpa ; Plin. H N 5 30 calls it Trogilia. Cp Steph.
Ryz S.V. Tp&y~hos. Trogylia in the Latin Western text. .
5216
 TRUMPET
l h e name of Trophimus closes the lists of 'the seventy' by the
Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus, which state that he
suffered martyrdom at Rome along with the apostle.
TRUMPET. I . lap, &Pren, c a h n i r f , Lev. 2 3 2 4 ,
etc. See HORN,Music, P sa.
2. ??id,G+ir (ie., 'ram's horn'; Ar. sawifir, cp Egypt.
fhrrpnr, Ass. Sujrgaiu wild goat ' and deriv. of y&Z, below),
Judg. 7 76, etc., K S ~ & (m;uhrr~<c?w, 7 20). See ,l.Iuslc,$ 5a.
3. lsb, a!$!, (tdpi+?r, jLapiiFsrurih, udhwrye, I Ch. 15 a4
a C h . ~ , r a7 6 1314 2 9 4 . See Music, S 56.
4. 59,y&l-i.e., *ram'shorn,' so Ex. 19 13, R V w , udAmyb.
See hIus~c,4 5a and cp JUBILEE.
5. In Ezek. 7 14 M T has Y i p ? ?ype,rendered in E V 'they
have blown the trumpet' (@ uahdvarr [&I u6Am L ) ; yipn,
f'i&Z, however, occiirh nowhere else in the sense 2
F i l l therefore followed by To proposes to read yipn rypn,
trumpet.
hlaset)nur.' S e i Music, 56, e n 2
6. ?P?lp, terz?ah, Nu. 29 T, etc., see TRUh1PE.r-BLOWING.
TRUXPET -BLOWING, DAY OF (nyiq ai',
E\' day of blowing of [AV insert ' the'] trumpets' ;
HMEPA C H M A C ~ A C; dies clnugoris et tvdurunr: Nu.
% I ) , or, M E M O R I A L OF ('n jl??) ; MNHMOCYNON
C b A n l r r m N ; nemovialeclungenti6us tubis: Lev.
2324). According to Lev. 2324 P Nu. 29 I Pz, the first
day of the seventh month was to be ' a day of solemn
rest ' on which no servile work ' was to be done, a holy
convocation, a day, or memorial, of FrzZ'Zh. See
further JUBILEE,3 I, N E W Moon, N EW Y E A R , Y E AR
1 8 (near end), and, on the shape of the ritual trumpets,
Musrc, $ 5 (cp fig. IO).
The word teni'tih is used sometimes in the sense of joyful
shouting (Job 8 21 Ecclus. 39 15 [Heb.] I S. 4 5 Ezra3 I I 13 Nu.
?3az), sometimes in that of the battle-shout or alarm of war
(Am. 114 Jer. 4 19 492 Josh. 6 5 20). Nu. 31 6 speaks in this
connection of 'the trumpets for the alarm' (nyiina niis,yn);
'
That &d&in the passages cited means trumpet-blowing
(cp Nu. 1010 Ps. 276 b!316 [IS]) follows from the law which
enjoined that trumpets were to be blown at each new moon.
TRUTH. The Heb. n@,
'Pmetr'z ( J p N , to be
firm '), requires to be rendered differently according to
1,Heb. and the context ; the EV, sometimes so need-
Gk. terms. !essly addicted to a variety of rendering,
1s here as needlessly consistent in its
adherence to the rendering ' truth.' As a general rule,
' faithfulness,' ' trustworthiness,' ' permanerice ' * sure-
ness,' 'sincerity.' are at least as likely to be the right
rendering of '8mdr'zas ' truth ' ; indeed, where 'Cineth is
spoken of as a divine attribute, we may constantly
substitute ' faithfulness ' for the ' truth ' of EV. In the
N T a different group of renderings is called for. T h e
S I' was not written, nor were the discourses on which,
ultimately, portions of it are based,' spoken in biblical
Hebrew ; it is a Greek book, though with more or less
Semitic colouring. 13esides this, the religion which its
writers support was a struggling religion ; its writers
are conscious of antagonism to other forms of religion
which has a direct bearing on the sense or senses in
which they use the word dX@era. A complete examina-
tion of passages containing the word ' truth ' in the EV
is impossible.
A few may however, be referred to and alternative, even if
inadequate, rinderings may usefully b; su gested
Gen. 32 IO, ' I am too small for all the jovingkhdnesses and
.
for all the faithfulness ' etc. Ex 18 21 ' trustworthy men*. Dt.
354,,'a God of faithfulnesi'(sdRV)t I K . 2 4 a K . 2 0 3 , "walk
In slncel-lty" z K. 2019 peace and permanence'' Ps. 2 5 5 ,
'Direct me d t h thy faithfulness' [personified] ; Ps. 3i 5, 'faith-
ful God ' ; Ps. 51 6, ' Thou desirest sincerity ' ' Ps. 85 10 ' Loving.
kindness and faithfulness are met together" (similariy always,
for 'mer5y and truth'); IPS. 119142, 'Thy law is sureness (itself)';
Is. 42 3, he shall declare t? law faithfully'; Jer. 5 3 , 'Are not
thine eyes upon sincerity?
Both in OT and in NT the duty of truth-speaking is
urged, and the Psalter shows how deeply the teaching
of the prophets had penetrated Jewish minds, This is
oiie of the points in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism
manifest their inward affinity. The substitution of
1 Cp Dalman's remark, Die WorfeJcsu, 15 (foot), 16 (top).
5217
TRUTH
'faithfulness ' for a truth ' in no degree obscures this ;
and of course there are passages enough in which
' truth' is the only possible rendering of 'Pmetr'z ( e . q . Ps.
15s Prov.87 1 2 1 7 1 9 2 3 a 3 Dan.8ra). I n Dan. 8 I a the
' truth ' spoken of is apparently the religion of Yahwe.
No complete parallel to this occurs in the NT, because
' the truth of the gospel ' (Gal. 2 5 14) is not bound up
uith an elaborate cultus. but is simply life in Christ.
Certainly this life is impossible without an act of obedi-
ence to the divine will. There is a lawgiver who bids
us repent and believe, in order that we may have life
in Christ. Consequently we have the singular phrases,
. .
' those who disobey the truth ' (70% . d m r 6 o G a
dX@eip, Rom. 2 8 ) and 'those who do not obey the
gospel ' (702s U, +J harcobovar 74 etayyekly, 2 Thess. 1 8 ) .
T h e difficulty in grasping the sense to be assigned to
dX@sia is greatest in the Johannine gospel and epistles.
2. a40ea in Jn. This and the connected forms occur
not less than eighty times in this
literature. T h e writer's individuality is very manifest
in this; he is almost like a Zoroastrian in his intense
love of truth and hatred of falsehood. ' T h e father of
the liar is the devil in whom there is no truth?' he says
(Jn. 8 4 4 ) . l And in the address of a letter to friends he
thinks it worth while to say whom I love truthfully'
(dv dXvOslq, z Jn. I ) , This hatred of shams suggests the
peculiar form of his theology or Christology. Christ is
+ dhljeera (Jn. 1 4 6 ) ; he is full of dXlfOera (Jn. 114).
How shall we render dX.;l6eta? As Jn. 1 4 6 shows, it is
one aspect of lw$, 'life,' and as its combination with d&,
'way,' in that passage and with XdppLs, ' liberality,' in Jn.
1 1 4 shows, it is something which God in and through
Christ generously communicates to man. I t is therefore
not a bundle of intellectual truths ; it is a share of the
divine nature ; it is real as opposed to seeming existence.
dhfiOeta then is strictly ' reality,' and ' full of grace and
truth ' means ' full of self-cornmunicating divine life ' ;
or, in plainer English, 'full of a gift of real life.'Z
Certainly this can be given only to those who have some
inward affinity to it, to those at least who are hungry
for ' the bread of life ' (Jn. 6 35). Such persons are ' of
the truth,' 2~ 75s dhvOelas (Jn. 1837 ; cp BK 705 fleoii 8 47) ;
it is their destiny to become free ; the ' truth,' manifested
in the Son, can make them free, make them 'sons of
God ' (Jn. 8 3 a 36 1 1 2 , cp Rom. 821). The work of Jesus
is to ' bear witness of the truth' (Jn. 1837) ; and when
he ' goes away to the Father' he will ask the Father to
send a never-failing representative of himself, the spirit
of truth' 7 b r v r 6 p a res dXqOdas (Jn. 1417). This 'spirit'
also bears witness, because the spirit is dX@rra (truth
itself), I Jn.56. Still the fact remains that it is ' h e
that has the Son ' that ' has life ' ( I Jn. 5 1 2 ) ~ and the
Son ( i e . , the Christ), even when he has 'gone away,'
' comes ' to the disciples, indeed to each individual dis-
ciple (Jn. 14 18 21). The spirit of dA?jflaia,therefore, by
abiding in the disciples, enables them to behold' him
( B E W ~ E ~ T Jn.
E , 1419) in a degree i n which this would
otherwise be impossible. And through this supreme
vision, they will make ever fresh progress in ' life ' and
in ' reality ' (Jn. 14 19).
T o return to this dhfiOeta or 'reality.' I t has
primarily to do with moral life ; it is not an idea to be
thought, but a deed to be done (Jn. 629, ~ i Epyov ) TOO
6eoC ' the work which God wills ' ; Jn. 321 I Jn. 1 6
woreiv 7i/v ctX7jOetav). Its opposite, when so regarded,
is ' t o practise ill,' or a to walk in darkness,' for the
writer has almost a Zoroastrian's love of the symbol of
Light (see L IGHT). Bnt 'reality' extends from the
moral to the intellectual sphere. There is but one
1 Lachrnann's conjecture (Test. GY. 2, Przf. p. vii) 6s Bv
A d ? ? ~b $ G S o s should
robahly be accepted. 'Whoever speaks
a li: s eaks of that w!ich is his own, for i i s father also is a
liar. %hevers now becomes intelligible. It belongs prirbablg
to the editor wEo rightly explains vu.4 5 44 (sp v.,55).
2 The Kai'in xdp. K& &AVO. is the ab ez#hcutzvvm. So, in
Jn. 4 24, i v rve6FaTb rai &AvOdp means 'in the spirit, with
reality.'
5918
 TRPPHENA
' Light ' (Jn. 14), and in bearing witness of this ' Light '
Khe ' spirit of reality' is insensibly led on to the dis-
closure of great intellectual truths. ' H e shall teach
yo11 all things ' (Jn. 1426), ' shall guide you in the whole
truth' (Jn. 1613), the truth of the primeval Reason
(Xbyos), and also the truth of things that are to come
(Jn. 1 1 8 16 13)-in accordance with the longing of the
primitive age for an apocalypse of the winding-up of
the world. There is one other writing in which dX+3eta,
real as opposed to merely speculative truth, is specially
prominent-the Epistle to the Ephesians. Certainly
aX?$Bcra is still somewhat restricted in its application.
'l'he full scope of 'real truth' is so wide that it
needed another name-uo+ia, 'wisdom,' or yvGuis,
'knowledge.' The fear of the Lord is the beginning
of wisdom, said the wise man of old ; this fear of the
Lord to the Christian teacher is cih@ta. T o it
8iKatou6vq, ' righteousness,' and dur6rqs, ' piety,' are
ascribed (Eph. 424) ; and the fruit of righteousness is
'in righteousness and reality' (Eph. 59). ' T h e word
of real truth ' ( r b u Xbyov rjjs dXqBcfas) is the ' Gospel of
your salvation ' (Eph. 113 : cp 2 Tim. 2 15). Hence
disciples %re ' taught in Christ, even as real truth is in
Jesus ' (Eph. 421). Naturally, truth-speaking is one of
the chief duties of such disciples (Eph. 425), but only as
one expression of that a truth ' or ' reality' which is the
first part of their 'panoply' (Eph. 614). I n Eph. 415
drXqBe6eiv Ev d y & q (RV ' speaking truth [mg. dealing
truly] in love') means more than 'speaking truth
charitably ' ; it is both speaking and practising that real
truth which Christ embodied.
The use of the adjectives (bXqB+, dXqBtv6s) should
also he studied. Both are sueciallv
1 ,
freauent
s
in the
3. hxqe4r, Johannine Gospel and Epistles. Note
MrleLvdo in especially Jn. 655, ' m y flesh is a true
Jn. etc. meat dXqBlfs t u n ppGurs-i.e., ' a food
which reallv. IDermanentlv nourishes ' :
~ ~~
2 , ~.
Jn. 1g ' the very light' ( ' very ' as in the Nicene Creed,
'very God =Bebs dXqBrvbs), the true light ' r b +Gs
rb dXqBiv6v ; Jn. 15 I ' the vine rightly so-called,' + MOCQX [in E&. 2713. T h ~ b p b T € I N O N T h ] ; MOsOch).
& p m X o s fi dXqBtv3 ; Jn. 173 the only, veritable God,'
rbv pbwov dXqBtvbv Babv. Trench' compares Pla.to,
Tim. 25a, aQXayos dvrws dXqBrvhs ?r6vros, ' a n ocean
worthy of the name.' But Hebrew has similar phrases,
nng yiig, ZZChE 'Zmeth, ' a - real G o d ' ( z Ch. 1 5 3 ) ;
npg on>, I&m 'Zmeth, ' true, unfeigned hospitality,'
n n $v~ m~ &?sed Sel 'fmeth, ' true, unfeigned charity
(quoted in Jastrow, Dict. 79). dXqBtvbs is also frequent
in Revelation, but, except in 37, always with the
meaning ' trustworthy.'
The use of dXqBtv6s (EV ' t r u e ' ) in Jn. 19 4 2 3 15.
etc. Heb. 82 (cp d Jer. 221 dXqBtvljv=np~ Q) is very
characteristic of the writers' belief in heavenly patterns
of earthly things. Wycliffe has the fine phrases ' a
verey light,' ' a verrei vyne,' ' the verrei tabernacle' ;
but in Jn. 4 23 ' trewe worshippers. '
NT Theol. 2 378 ; Wendt (Die Lehre /em, 2 ZM p)
On the Johannine use of dA+ha(reality) see H. Holtzmann,
gives the
term perhaps too prominently an ethical sense righteous ').
Forther, on the presuppositions of the Johannine term, see
Holtzmann, 03.cit. 2 374f: T. K. C.
TRYPHENA, or rather, as in RV Tryphrena
(TPY@AINA), and Tryphosa (TPY+CMA), 'who labour
in the Lord,' are saluted in Rom. 1612. They appear'
to have been deaconesses, and not improbably were
sisters.
The name Tryphosa is met with in Carian inscriptions (cp
C I G 2 2819 2839), and among the monuments of the imperial
household in the first century: Tryphaena appears in the
apocry ha1 Acts of Paul and The& as the wife of Polemo
king oPCilicia. Gutschmidt has shown that there really was a
queen of that name, of Mauretanian origin ; she was repudiated
by her husband Polemo 11. of Cilicia about 40 A.D. She
afterwards lived under the emperor Claudius in Roman territory
at Antioch in Pisidia (see Lipsius, Ajokv. Ap.-Gesch. 3 464-5).
1 New Test. Synonyms, 31,
5219
TUBAL
TRYPRON' (TPY@,WN [AKV] ; cp TPYI$WN,
Waddington, no. 2711 and perhaps ]lD?D the name of
a Rabbi upon a Hb. inscr. quoted by Euting, SBA W
16th July, 1885, no. 47). of Apamea, formerly an ad-
herent of Alexander Balas, took advantage of the dis-
affection prevailing among the troops of D EMETRIUS 11.
to obtain the person of ANTIOCHUS(p.w. 4), the young
son of Balas, whom he used as a puppet to gratify
his personal ambitions. Supported by the soldiers of
Demetrius, Tryphon was enabled to defeat his rival and
win over Antioch ( I Macc. 1139 fi). The allegiance
of Jonathan and the Maccabzean party was gained
(vv. 5 7 3 ) , and his position became gradually stronger.
At last he was able to throw over Antiochus; but
fearing lest the power of the Maccabees might be
inimical to his interests, he found it necessary to march
against Jonathan. They met at Bethshan, and, by a
stratagem, Jonathan was captured. Taking his prisoner
with hini Tryphon proceeded to Jerusalem, but was
intercepted at Adida by Simon, Jonathan's brother.
Tryphon pretended that the detention was due to the
non-payment of revenues, and thus obtained a ransom
for his prisoner, whom, howsever, he failed to hand
over ; and, at last, irritated by two futile attempts to
reach Jerusalem, slew Jonathan at Bascania (143B.c.;
131-23) ; see J ONATHAN . Tryphon's next step was to
seize the throne,2 a proceeding which resulted in Simon
and Demetrius 11. forming an alliance against their
common enemy ( 1 3 3 1 8 ) . When Demetrius was a
prisoner in Persia his younger brother (Antiochus
Sidetes) continued the struggle, and Tryphon was forced
to flee to Dora, and thence by successive stages to
Ptolemais, Orthosia, and finally to Apamea, where after
a brief reign of three years he perished (Jos. Ant.
xiii. 72). Sea SELEUCIDR, 14.
TUBAL (5>Vl, hJl; once [A Ezek. 3911
e o k p ; once [Ezek. 27131 H C Y M I T ~ C A [U], T&
c[yM]rr&NT& [ A ; see also Qm" Ezek. 3226 3821;
Thubal) and MESHECH ( Y W Q ; Sam. l W D , 1VlD;
W e shall first of all collect the exegetical data presented
in MT, and state the current theory based upon these
data ; we shall then endeavour to put the question in
a new critical light. As the text stands, l u b a l and
1. Tubal= Meshech are always mentioned together
Tibarenil except in Is. 6 6 1 9 (but see a), where
Tubal and Javan are mentioned together
as distant nations, and in Ps. 1205, where, strangely
enough, ' Meshech' (dtpaKplivBq) is I/ to ' Kedar,' the
second in order of the sons of Ishniael, and in I Ch. 117
(om. @B) where Meshech is introduced as last in
order of the sons of Shem. In Ezek. 2 7 1 3 Tubal and
Meshech appear as supplying Tyre with slaves and
vessels of brass. I n 3226 they are among the nations
which have gone down to ShCdl-Le., have suffered
some great reverse. In 382f. (peuox [BQ]. @WOK
[A ZI. 31) 391 ( p e u o ~[B]) they are mentioned as under
the rule of Gog. Since Bochart they have been
usually identified with the Moschi (pbuxot)and Tihareni
(rrpapqvoi) who are named together by Herodotus
(394 7 7 ) . In the Ass. inscriptions (see Schrader,
KAT(2)82 8 , KGF 155 8 ; Del., Par. 250 8 ;
Winckler, G B A 172) their territory is extended farther
S. than in Herodotus, the TabnZi up to C
and the MuS&i NE. of the Tabali. According to
Gelzer and Schrader. a part of the Tabali, together
with the MuSki, had been driven N. by the Gimirrai
(the RrppQtoc; see G OMER ) to the seats where they
were in the time of Herodotus. ASur-bani-pal's in-
scriptions report that the tribute of Tabal consisted
entirely of ' great horses.' Cp H ORSE , 5 3 (Tabal was
close to Cilicia).
1 This name (which means dihauche? was given to Diodotus,
for that was his real name, after his victory over Demetrius 11.
2 Whether he really slew the young king at this juncture (so
1 Macc. 13 31) iS uncertain ; see Cam& Bible, ad loc.
5220
 TTJBAL-CAIN
It so happens, however, that all the passages in
which Tubal and Meshech are mentioned are among
Bratikgbbal? those which labour under a strong
suspicion of having been manipulated
__
by editors, who approached the already
corrupt texts with most inaccurate preconceived opinions.
In the true text of Is. 6619the natims referred to are
probably those which bordered on S. Palestine, viz.,
Ashhur (Geshur), Zarephath, Jerahmeel, Cusham,
Tubal, Jaman ; tba names are used conventionally,
and drawn from earlier sources. Cusham’ cor-
responds with the pouox of 6,and means the N.
Arabian Cush (see CUSH, 2). ‘Tubal,’ as ‘Tubal-
kain ’ (where -kain I:see TUBAL-CAIN] is equivalent to
’ Kenites ’ ) the name of a son of Lamech ( =Jerahmeel),
suggests, is a N. Arabian ethnic; we meet with it in
I K. 1631 under the disguise of 5 y 3 n ~ (see P ROPHET ,
5 7, col. 3862, n. I), and in Is. 76 under that of
T ABEAL [ g . ~ . ] ,and there is an echo of it in the name
of the patriarch Bethuel, in the place-name Bethul (Josh.
194), also in T o b (land of), and in the personal names
T EBALIAH , T OBIEL, TOBIJAH.
Ps. 1205 has been very much misunderstood ;but none of the
critical commentators ;affects to suppose that the explanation
which he gives is quite satisfactory. The reference to N .
Arabian oppression in the Psalms is so pervasive (see PSALMS,
8s 2 8 8 ) that we cannot hesitate toread, ‘ Woe is me that I sojourn
in Cusham’ (for arallels see S HE CHEM). On I Ch. 117 see
below. In Ezek. 27 I the right reading isapproximately ‘Jaman
(or Jamin =Jerahmeef), Tubal, and Cusham.’ Their merchandise
is, besides ‘vessels of brass (or, bronze),’ not ‘human persons,
but ivory (read O’?’BT]f. cp I K. 10 22). In Ezek. 32 26 ‘Tubal ’
and ‘ Cnsham ’ (so read) are beyond doubt N. Arabian peoples ;
‘ Asshnr ’ and ‘ Elam,’ or rather,Ashhurand F h m e e l , precfde,
‘Edom’ and ‘the Zidonians or ’rather Edom’ and the
Misrites’ follow. In 38 2 39 i’Gog is the representative of the
coliective N. Arabian power-the ‘Zepbonite’ of Joel 2 2 0 ;
‘Tubal ’ and ‘ Cusham ’ are again required.
W e have reserved for the end the Chronicler’s repre-
sentation of Meshech as a son of Shem in I Ch.
117 (pouox). In Gen. 1023 M T gives M ASH (q.v.).
Critics (e.g., Kittel, Benzinger) agree in rejecting the
Chronicler’s reading. In truth ‘ Meshech ’ is wrong,
hut not more wrong than ‘ Meshech’ in II. 5. The
right reading in both passages is ‘Cnsham.’ The
same names occur in Gen. 10 from which the Chronicler
borrows more than once. The significance attached hy
critics to the Table of Nations is out of all proportion
to its real worth. See Crit. Bib. T. K. C .
TUBAL-CAIN (I!? k’Tll7 : BoBsh [AEL] ; TubuZ-
cain), one of the sons of Lamech (Gen. 4 z z ) t . See
CAINITES, 5 IO, where the view is taken that Tubal-cain
is a humanised god (cp Gunkel, Gen. 48, ‘vielleicht
verklungene Gotter’?), and the text is emended in
accordance with Kaiitzsch and others, omitting w&
( l @ i f =a hammerer 77) and inserting *?,: ‘ father of. ’
T h e theory of a N. Arabian Tubal (see T UBAL , 5 z ) ,
however, compels us to recommend another view in
preference. Tubal-cain = Tubal of Kain-Le., the
Kenite Tubal-is thLe eponym of a N. Arabian people
of mercantile habits, who brought ‘ ivory and vessels of
brass ’ to the market of the great Misrite capital (cp Jer.
15 12, as explained under Z APHON). That the home of
Tubal is in N. .4rabia, we cannot pause here to show
(see T UBAL , 5 2 ) ; but the result seems unassailable.
The mysterious word v& ( M T @?I) can now be ex-
plained. Like ],p, it is a collective term for a N. Arabian
people-viz., the L,ETUSHIM, mentioned in Gen. 2 5 3
among the sons of Dedan. between the Asshurim ( =
Ashhur or Geshur) and the Leummini, or rather the
Jerahme’elim. The name of the third son of Lamech
( L e . , Jerahmeel), therefore, is possibly Tubal of Kain
and Letesh (to distinguish him from any other Tubal).
The alternative is, not any of the renderings mentioned
by Dillmdnn and D’elitzsch,but a still more searching
criticism (see Crit. B i b . ) .
@ has K a i 3” instead of Karv ;originally perhaps it had all three
5211
TUNIC
words. .ai $v would make up for the loss of ’?y, which analogy
requires us to supply. Cp Budde, Urgesch. 13gf:
TUBIENI (TOYBIANOYC
‘ m e n of TOB’( g . ~ . ) .
T. K. C.
[VI), z Macc. 1217, RVmg
TUMOURS ( D h U ) , I S. 5 6 9 IZ 64f. 11 17 RV, AV
E MERODS (4.u.).
TUNIC occurs only in Dan. 3 2 1 for the Aram. W D
(see B REECHES , z ) , and in Jn. 1923 RVmg for x i d v ,
(EV ’ coat ’) ; but ’ tunic ’ admirably suits the Heb.
kuttbneth, n h p , from which, indeed, the Lat. tunica
has possibly ‘.arisen by metathesis through the medium
of the Greek xc76v (cp P H ~ N I C I A 5 7).
,
The Hebrew kutttneth (of uncertain derivation : but
CD Drobablv Ass. kitinnt. linen. cloth : see Zehnufund.
Beitr. z. ASS.1&), commonly rendered
_ I I .
1. ‘coat,’ was a short, sleeveless garment
tunic’ worn next the bodv and held together
by a girdle of linen, leather, etc. (G IRDLE , z). As
-
a garment for females it was doubtless longer, and
appears to have answered to the Simluh worn by men
(in Cant. 5 3 it is put off at night-time); see M ANTLE .
T h e kuft&eth has evidently been derived in the first
instance from the G IRDLE ( I ), and in Gen. 321 is a
simple covering made of skins. In later times it was
made of wool or flax, but would naturally vary in
fineness according to the wearer’s taste and means.
Besides being a priestly garment (see below, z ) , the
Kutttneth is worn also by men of distinction as an
official ‘ robe’ (Is. 2221 EV). A distinctive garment of
this nature is implied in Joseph’s RPfhLineth passim,
D’DB.. n i n: ~
I
(Gen. 3 7 3 23 p),which, as we learn from a
gloss in z S. 1518, was worn also by the maiden
daughters of a king. It appears to have been a long
garment with sleeves (cp RVmg. Gen. Z.c.),-thus re-
sembling the Ionian XiThv-and was perhaps of
Canaanite origin. I t is difficult to determine from the
monuments whether an inner garment or tunic was
worn as well as the outer robe or mantle. On the
whole, everything points to a very general simplicity in
matters of dress. See further M ANTLE , § I.
Other varieties of the tunic were adopted by the Jews
in the Roman period (D RESS , 5 4 end), among them
the &iZzi@ (pi’m), an under-robe reaching to the heels.
I t was commonly made of wool ; but linen and even
papyrus was used.
The Greek xtTL5v (in N T ‘ coat,’ Mt. 10 IO Acts 9 39
etc. ; garments,’ Jude 23), like kutt&th, is applied to
an under-garment and thus distinguished itself from
i p d n o v , the richer outer garment (see M ANTLE ). This
forms the point of the Logion in Mt. 540 ; it is other-
wise in Lk. 629, where the transposition (xm. ‘ coat‘
following [ P U T . ‘cloke‘) indicates the order in which
the garments would be torn off. In its appearance the
x i d v was sometimes a short woollen shirt without
sleeves (Dorian), and sometimes a long linen tunic
reaching to the feet (Ionian) ; see Dict. CLuss. A n t . ,
s. v. ‘ Tunica ’.
The kutt&th was worn by all priests (Ex. 298 4014
Lev. 813 lO5).‘ It was made of fine linen and is de-
a. priestly scribed by Josephus ( A n t . iii. 72)as a fine
tunic. linen vestment GmX?js uivS6vos j3uuuivqs
called xs8opivq, from xi8ov ‘ linen.’ I t
1 Sleeves appear to be referred to also in Is. 52 I O Ezek. 4 7.
Joseph‘s ‘coat of many colours’ (‘pieces’ mg.) is highly im-
probable and must be given up, although with regret. seem5
to mean (as in Aram ) palm (of band) or sole (of foot); so @
(in Sam.) X L T rap&& ~ [BA, Aq I x. B ~ ~ p a y o h[Ll, ~ d ~
x. X E L ~ L G W T [Sym.].
~S See also N e a t l e , ’ h T W ipz, p. r69 who
suggests the meaning ‘seamless coat,’ and points to the pirallel
with Jn. 19 23.
In @ it regularly renders niU2, but also l g (thrice), and
(once each) lp (see DRESS),and S’YD (M ANTLE , 5 z [6]).
Plur. of all the priestly garments, Ezra 269 p h . 7 70 72 EV
‘ garments’ ; cp Xc&veq Mk. 14 63 EV ‘clothes.
5212
 TURBAN
reached down to the feet ( r o S . ; ) p ~ sand
) fitted close to the
body, and had sleeves which were tied fast to the arms.
The garment was girt to the breast by a girdle (cp
G IRDLE , 5),and had a narrow aperture about the neck.
Josephus adds, moreover, that it was called p u a a p a v ~ r
(var. mussabuaan,etc. ). The high priest’s Rutt&zneth’was,
according to Josephus ( A n t . iii. 74), the same as that of
the rest of the priests ; but the name given to it in Ex. 284,
RPtitGzeth tuJbag ( p v n nm3, ’ broidered coat,’ RV I coat
of chequer work ’), shows that some particular kind of
tunic is meant.
Unfortunately the exact signification of y3vn is uncertain.
It is to be connected doubtless with the nix3vn of Ex. 27 I I etc.
on the one hand, and probably with the massabasnn ( = y l v n )
of Josephus (Z.C.), on the other. The root-meaning of y>lsi is sup- that the wearer could cover his face with it, in which
posed to convey the idea of intertwining (cp Dr. on 2 S. lg), in
which case the niy3~5mwould he some kind of filigree-work for
jewels(see OUCHES, and cp E MBROIDERY, B 3), whilst the priestly
garment might well represent some woven garment not
necessarily seamless,a but ornamented and adorned with vkrious
patterns. The Targ. on Ex. 284 renders HxDiD N j i n r t h a t is, P?@N;$ ( E V ‘exceeding in dyed attire ’ RVW. ‘ dyed
perhaps, a garment woven into patterns, hut this is not certain.
In Assyrian ramrisu seems to mean ‘set with jewels ’ (see Del.
H W B 6246). @ B i L read xcr. K O O V C ~ ~ T ~ which
V , ~ suggests a tZbzilim=Ass. ?ubZu, turban,’ but the word ,does not
tasseled or fringed garment. Cp FRINGES.
I. A.-S. A. C .
TUMAN. Instead of restricting ourselves to the may have tapered to a point. I t is worn by people of
voluminous cloth-wrapper with which the word turban
1. Varieties. is associated, it will be convenient under
this heading to deal generally with head-
coverings of all kinds. A head-covering is not an
indispensable protection, like the G IRDLE ( g .) ~for
instance. I t does not appear to have been worn in
Europe in the earliest times, and the monuments of
Egypt and Babylonia clearly prove that even in those
countries, too, it was not in habitual use. Not un-
frequently, a narrow fillet encircles the head and binds
the hair close. This custom is w-idespread among both
sexes, and is frequently met with in Assyria and adjacent
countries. Shishak’s Hebrew prisoner at Karnak is
thus depicted. Naturally this fillet varied in material
and ornamentation, and a good example of the elaborate
nature of an Assyrian fillet is seen in Perrot-Chipiez
( A r t in Chald., etc., 1105); cp CROWN, D IADEM.
Some covering like the modern kefqeeh must, how-
ever, have been in use among the Hebrews. The
k e f g e h is a square or oblong piece of wool or silk,
folded triangularly and tied by a cord, ‘a& which
protects not only the head, but also the neck, cheeks,
and throat. Coverings more or less approximating
to this are seen in monuments from Assyria (op. cit.
2129, fig. 6 2 ; cp W M M As. u. EYY. 13g), and were
worn in Palestine (As. u. E7rr. z94f:). The turban
proper was perhaps a later introduction among the
Hebrews, although a certain variety of it seems to have
been worn at an early time by the nomad inhabitants
of the Sinaitic peninsula ( A s . u. Bur. 138J).
A specifically feminine attire, confined (it would seem) to
Palestine, is the long garment worn by the wnmen of Lachish.
It covers the head, with the exception of the face, and descends
over the back to the feet, thus hearing a general resemblance to
the classical&zwzmeurn.
A covering of the nature of the turban is no doubt
implied in the post-exilic term ~a‘%q;ah, ( d t o wind
a. Hebrew in a coil, cp Is. 2218), which was worn by
thenoble of both sexes (Job29 14 ‘ diadem ,’
terms. RVmS ‘ turban,’ Is. 3 2 3 ‘hoods,’ RV
‘ turbans,’ cp Is. 623 ‘diadem,’ and Ecclus. 4766 of
David [StdSypa]), and even by priests (Zech. 35 KISapls
1 For the ‘ tunics’(nijn$ mentioned between the ‘breeches’
and ‘ robe ’ in Ecclus. 45 ac, the s i n s should doubtless he read
with @BNA r & j p ~ .
a The mi‘i2, we know, w a s seamless; cp MANTLE, S 2 [71.
The meaning of l?@? ’Tl? (Ex. 31 IO, etc.), too, is obscure :
cp col. 1x37, n. I, and see Baentsch ad loc.
3 Cp KOUU&X [AFL ; W T O L , Bl >or the verb ny3p Ex. 28 39
(treated as a plu. constr.), and for the ~ * ~ * 3of 1pIs. 3 18 (see
CAUL,and N ECKLACE, a n.).
9-43
TURBAN
‘ mitre,’ RVmg. ‘ turban,’ diadem ’).l A similar allusion
is found in Ezek. 1610 (egp q@$n~!, R V W ‘ I bound
thee with Q tire of fine linen,’ cp Orelli, C o . , etc.).a
a , ‘ ropes ’) of I K. 2031
T h e hdba‘lim ( n h n , u ~ o ~ v lEV
sometimes taken to represent a primitive substitute for
a fillet for the hair (so Nowack, H A 1125, Penzinger,
H A 104),may be taken otherwise to express the sub-
missiveness of the men referred to. Ahab might drag
them away as captives, and they would not r e ~ i s t . ~
This agrees with the mention of sackcloth girt around
their loins, as a sign of humiliation. Of the particular
form of the ’dphZr, ??E, of I K . 2038 4 1 t RV (‘ head-
band ’) we are ignorant ; the context, however, shows
case it may have resembled the kefqeh (cp Ass. apart,
upru, covering, head-gear).4
A head-dress of some elaborate nature and of Haby-
lonian origin is alluded to in Ezek. 2315 0 ’ 5 ~ 9’nnp
turbans ’). According to Delitzsch (Baer, Eeek. p. xii. ),
seem to be substantiated.6 Another head-dress more
ornate than the ordinary turban is the $P?Y (-ma), which
‘
distinction, male (Ezek. 24 17 a3, E V tire ’) and female
(Is. 320 AV ‘ bonnet,’ RV a head-tire’), by priests (Ex.
3928 Ezek. 4418,AV ‘bonnet,’ RV ‘tire’), and by the
bridegroom (Is. 61 3 IO), see CHAPLET.
I t is not unlikely that we may find in the $ 8 ; ~the
well-known conical head-gear worn by warriors, kings
and gods of Assyria, Babylonia, and of the Hittites?6
At all events it is exceedingly probable that this particular
covering is the kind alluded to in the kurbpZa, H>:~Z, of
Dan. 321 (AV ‘ h a t ’ ’ m g I turban,’ RV ‘mantle’)
which, from its shape, signifies in later Jewish-Aramaic
and Syriac ‘ c o c k s comb.‘ The Gr. Ven. correctly
renders by K U ~ , ~ U U ~which
U, is actually likened to a
cocks comb in Arist. Av. 487. The RV rendering
‘ mantle ’ relies too much upon the doubtful h ? g of
I Ch. 1 5 ~ 7 .In ~ the same passage (Dan. 321) ‘turban’
1. With sdnIj/z cp the high priest’s mi~n&htt%(M IT RE ,
I [a]) and cp c6. 3157 nn. a and 9. In Job 29 14 (above) the
$nZ h’ and mP‘il are lmblems of justice, and possibly typify
the {ieh Driest.
2 For h i s use of d x n cp Ex. 299 Lev. 8 13, and perhaps Ass.
4i6&, head-band (Beifi. z. Ass. 1499 5253).
3 Cp the representations on the Assyrian and Egyptian
monuments where captives are dragged ~- away . by
. ropes
- round
their necks.
4 See Barth, Btymolog. Stud. 19. The Ass. parallel (Del.
Prol. 54) greatly increases the probability that mu, in spite of
the ease of corruption in more than one way, is the correct
reading. The vocalisation, however is uncertain. The Ass.
root ajam ‘ t o cover, clothe perm:ts‘us to assume that the
garment wds a mantle which cbu d be drawn over the head (see
J u s may ) come from a different root
..
further, note on lFB, below). Targ. J. ”I5gn ‘cloak’ (cp Syr.
(-=p, or
perhaps u = m r in M H to plait, weave=*?).
5 ‘Turban’ is traced hack to AI., Pers., and Hind. dur(6and;
it is the same word as ‘tulip,’ Ital. tu2ipano (prop. a turban-like
flower). With this cp the similes used by .Jose hus in his
description of the high priest’s mitre (col. 3156, B 27. If iub2u
can he proved (it is not cited by Del. NWB, pr Muss-Ainolt),
the resemblance between the two becomes significant.
6 [It is difficult not to conjecture that ~ N is
B really the Ass.
apnr, which (cp Jensen, Kosmol. 105, n. 2) is a synonym of a@
the royal cap (not crown). See CreatioyEpic 7 11, Let him
make the ajvriti, or royal caps, to shine. This view makes it
still easier to accept the theory that 1 3 in ~ I K. 2038 41 is the
Ass. word referred to. For ?DE(will then no longer be isolated.
-T.K.C.] See Perrot-Chipiez, A r t in ChaZd., etc.1 106; A r t
in /ud. 2 27 145 etc., and for the view that azzi is a crown or
tiara Hommel k?2hnra6.Altert. 37 (Munich 18 9)
7 From this ;endering Fox deduced the dell-$nown Quaker
doctrine prohibiting the removal of the hat even in the presence
of royalty (Bevan. Dan. 84).
8 A head-coverin of this kind may have developed into the
Roman piZeus whicf it has been suggested was first introduced
through the mediu; of Carthage (0. Schrader, Realenq. d.
Indogerm. Altert. 455).
5214
 TURPENTINE TREE
occurs in the RVmg. for de? (.4V 'hosen,' RV 'tunic').
This rendering, implying an identification with adrauos,
' broad-brimmed hat,' is extremely improbable ; see
B REECHES , 2.l
For the sake of completeness it may be useful to note (u) the
primitive straw hat worn by Sinaitic Bedouins (see WMM As.
u. Bur. 295), (6) the characteristic Hittite head-gear, curiously 5 7 9 ; but see S OLOMON) ; it is also mentioned in the
resembling, i n its outline, the modern silk hat. Without the
brim the Hittite hat resembles the elaborate crown of Marduk-
idin-agi (see Perrot-Chipiez, A r t in CAuZd. etc., 2 fig. 43), a
variety, which, surmounted by a knob, recur; in several forms
in representations of Assyrian monarchs (see op. cit. 1fig. 22).
Final!y ( c ) reference i&y be made to the use of feathers in head another in that of Amos (Am. 19f: ) ; and three times in
-coverings. The Ethiopians of Tirhakah, as represented upon
slabs in the British Museum, wear a feather in front, which is
held in position with a ribbon 01 band, and AHur-bani-pal's
Arabians are adorned with a peculiar feathered crown which
recurs in one shape or another, not only in S. Arabia (Hommel,
SBdaiara6,Altert. d. Wiener Hofnruseums, 32 8 ; Munich,
r899), but also in Ararat (Brit. Mus.), and Lycia, and other
regions of Western Asia Minor (W. M. Muller, As. U. Bur.
36&2)C~~, CHAPLET, CROWN, DIADEM, HELMET, and, for the
priestly head-dresses, MITRE. I. A.-S. A. C.
TURPENTINE TREE ( T E P E M I N ~ O C [B]), Ecclus.
2416A v , R v T E R E B I N T H (4.v.).
TURRETS (ni+&s). Cant. 4 4 R v w , EVARMOURY possibly the Israelites may have known it as Has or
.(q... ).
TURTLE (~\n) Cant. 212). TTJRTU DOVE, see
DOVE.
TUTOR ( E ~ I T ~ O ~ O Gal.,4z,
C ) , RV 'guardian' ; in
+
Mt. 20 8 Lk. 83 E V ' steward. See STEWARD.
TYCHICUS ( T Y X I K O C [Ti. W H ] ) , one of the com-
panions of Paul, was 'of Asia' (Acts204) and seems to
have joined the apostle a t some point on his 'third'
missionary journey, preceded him from Greece to Troas,
and accompanied him thence, it would appear, to
Jerusalem (Acts205). H e is mentioned in Eph. 6 2 1
a n d Col. 47 as the ' beloved brother and faithful minister
and fellow-servant in the Lord' who was the bearer of
the epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians to
their respective destinations. z Tim. 4 IZ represents
him as having been sent by the apostle from Rome to
Ephesus, and in Tit. 3 I Z the apostle proposes to send
either Tychicus or Artemas to Titus in Crete.
In the listr of the 'seventy' in Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo- again lost. Confined to this narrow site-on which,
Hippolytus he is twice enumerated-once as bishop of Colo-
phonia and once as bishop of Chalcedon. In the work of the
Pqeudo-Epiphanius on the twelve apostles he is represented as a
disciple and attendant of the apostle Andrew, by whom he is
appointed bishop of Chalcedon.
TYRANNUS, THE SCHOOL OF, the place where
Paul, after his separation with h k disciples from the
synagogue at Ephesus, reasoned daily (Acts 199 : KaO'
+pbpav GiaXEybpwos 2v 75 uxohfj TupCcvvou [Ti. WH]).
There is nothing to indicate who this Tyrannus was-
whether himself a rhetorician or philosopher, or merely
the hirer of the premises. D, Syr., p. marg. (see
ACTS, 5 17) has the reading T. rtvbr, dab &pas ahurrrvr
2ws 6 e ~ d r v s . C p EI'HESUS,5 4.
TYRE (i'i, YjV, TYPOC. Ass. Sun-u, Egypt. Dam
{As. u. Eur. 18itl), the most famous of Phcenician cities.
1 - 1
1. Two Tyres; For its history, see P H ~ : N I C I A cp ; rather than one mainland city that can he definitely
references. NEBUCHADREZZAR. Though never
in the uossession of the Israelites. Tvre still obscure owing to the paucity of Phcenician remains.
is mentioned in the delimitation of the territory of
Asher, in Josh. 1929, as the 'fenced city of T y r e '
(ir-yr5, i y - i y ) , or perhaps rather (following bB,Pws
rrvyijs, i'y-ip) ' [the fountain 0i-I the fortress of Tyre,'
the landmark referred to being the fountain, not the
city,2 and also in the geographical sketch of the
1 riapa, tiara (Theod., B Vg.) and the corresponding readings
af Pesh. and Ar. seem to refer properly to ~ $ 1 1 3and not to
0 . ~ 5 see
; S. A. Cook, J o u n . Phil. 263706: (ISgg), followed
by Marti KHC Daniel 23 (1901).
2 It is kery pdssible, hAwever, that the description in w.2 9
30 is based upon a list of places in the Negeb.(cp SHIHOR-
5-5
TYRE
operations of Joab at the census, z S . 247 (GBAfiaxap,
63 @xrbppav T~Jpou),where, however, the mention of
Tyre as on the mainland must be due either to a late
hand or to corruption of the text.l From the present
text of the O T it would appear that Tyre and Israel
had close relations in the time of Solomon ( I K.
times of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah (Ezra 37 [@E awpetv
=men of Tyre] Neh. 13 16 [ d B K A om.]). A prophecy
on Tyre finds a place in the Book of lsaiah (Is. 23) ; and
our Psalter glances are taken at Tyre (Ps. 4512 [13] 83 7
[8] 874). Unfortunately in all these prophetic and poetic
passages-not excepting Is. 23-and also in Joel 3 [4]4
Zech. 92$, the reading ' T y r e ' is open to doubt (cp
MIZRAIM. 5 z 6 , SIDON,5 3). Where Tyre is certainly
referred to ( L e . , in Josh., and Ezra-Neh., and in Ezek.
26-28, as redacted by the editor?), it is the island-city
that is meant. S o also in z hlacc. 4 1 8 3 Mk. 3 8 hlt.
1 1 a I J (Lk. 1 0 1 3 0 Mk. 7 2 4 (Mt. 1 5 2 1 ) 31 Acts 1220,
passages of great interest, but not to be dealt with in a
geographical article.2 Palaetyrus had an ancient name
of its own, which PraSek has detected in the name UHu ;
H6sah (see HOSAH). This city appears to have been
ruined by the cruel A h - b a n i - p a l ; all the buildings
that remained were demolished by Alexander, when
about to construct the mole by which he was enabled t o
reach the island city.
The modern Tyre (Szir) lies at the N W . end of the
T. K . C.
former island, which is now. owing to the widenine of
a. Later Alexander's. mole-by deposits of s&d,
notices and connected with the mainland byT hae
present state. tongue of land ;t m. broad.
greatest length of the ancient island.
~~
from N. to S.,-is about e"m., and its area abou;
142 acres-a small surface for so important a town.
The researches of Renan seem to have completely
refuted the once popular idea that a great part of the
original island has disappeared by natural convulsions,
though he believes that the remains of a line cif sub-
merged wall a t the S. end indicate that about 15 acres
more were once reclaimed from the sea and have been
moreover, place was found for the great temple of
Melkarth with its courts, and for all the necessities of a
vast trade, for docks and warehouses, and for the great
purple factories (see P URPLE ) which in the Roman time
were the chief source of wealth and made the town a n
unpleasant place of residence (Strabo, 162 23 ; Pliny, 5 7 6 )
-Tyre was very closely built ; Strabo tells us that the
many-storied houses were loftier than those of Rome.
In the Roman period the population overflowed its
bounds and occupied a strip of the opposite mainland,
including the ancient Palztyrus. Pliny gives to the
whole city. continental and insular, a compass of 19
R. m. ; but this account must be received with caution.
I n Strabo's time the island .was still the city, and
Palaetyrus on the mainland was 30 stadia off, whilst
modern research indicates an extensive line of suburbs
identified with Palztyrus. The topography of Tyre is
The present harbour is certainly the Sidonian port,
~
LIBNATH), and that i s - i s m is a corruption of iu?(cp following
note).
1 I t is probable (see TAHTIM-HODSHI) that the present
narrative in z S. 24 is an expansion of an earlier narrative which
represented the census of David as limited to the fightihg men
of MiSSur and Jerahmeel, regions which David had recently
brought under his sway ( 2 S. 8 2, and cp MOAB,B 14). i s - l s 1 n
is a corruption of l>X>i.e., probably, the capital of Miwur (CD
2
5226
 TYRE
though it is not so large as it once was : the other
ancient harbour (the Egyptian port) has disappeared,
and is supposed by Renan to have lain on the other
side of the island, and to be now absorbed in the
isthmus. The most important ruins are those of the
cathedral, with its magnificent monolith columns of
rose-coloured granite, now prostrate.
The water supply of ancient Tyre came from the owerful
springs of RXs el-‘Ain on the mainland (perhaps the ‘ Zuntain ’
of Jo:h. 19 zg-see 5 I ), o?e hour S. of the city, where there
are still remarkable reservom, in connection with which curious
survivals of Adonis worship have been observed by Volney and
other travellers. Tyre was still an important city and almost
U
UCAL (>?!), Prov. 301. See ITHIEL
AND U CAL.
UEL ($&IN, 5 39) one of the b’ne BANI (p.v.):
Ezra1034 (ovqA [BabAl, Bu. [B*vid.~],~ m l A[Ll). In I Esd. 934
the name appears as JUEL ( w v v a [BA], iovqA [L]), cp ovqA [Bl,
r o q A [AI, iwqA [Llin 21. 35.
UKNAZ (lgpj),I Ch.415, AVmg., AV ‘even Kenaz,’
RV ‘ and KENAZ‘ (4.v.). d does not represent 7.
U W (*$!in; in Dan. 82 d [87] AIAAM ; Syr. of d
OYAAM, Theod. [BAQT] T O Y oyBaA; in v. 16 d
OYAAI, but with superscr. 87 a ; Theod. as in v .
z), mentioned in Dan. 8 2 as a river near Shushan the
palace (?),’ in Elam ; cp zi. 16 ‘ between [the hanks of ?]
Ulai.’ Presumably the ( n h ) U-la-a of the Assyrian
inscriptions, described as ‘ a river whose banks are good ’
(for a battle-field). The word for ‘river’ in Dan. 82
($irx.’ iibdl), which in m. z 16 Theod. (BAQF) gives
instead of ‘ Ulai,’ occurs nowhere else, and is commonly
viewed as a parallel form to S ~ V ,yubal (see KO.,
Lekrgeb. 2 8 8 460), Jer. 178 (EV ‘river’ ; d i ~ p &
‘ mcisture’), though d gives the Aramaic sense of ‘gate’
( ~ p d 76s rrfihy A h u p ) . So in Dan. 8 3 Theod. [BAQT]
has ovpaX where dwhas r f i X 7 ~ . In Judith16 the
Syriac has ‘ Ulai,’ where the Greek has ‘ HYDASPES ’ that the valley of Achor (ii>y) in Josh. 7 24-26 is near ‘Jericho ’
( y . ~ . ): can ‘ Hydaspes’ be an error for ‘Choaspes’?
At any rate, Herodotus (1188; 5 4 9 52), followed by
Straho (157z8), places Susa on the Choaspes ; but Pliny
( 6 135) makes the Eulzeus the river which flows by that
capital. According to Noldeke, though it is possible
that Susa in the days of its glory may have stretched
from the Eularus to the Choaspes (if we assume these
rivers to be different), it is more probable that the two
names represent the same river. Frd. Delitzsch, how-
ever, infers confidently from the cuneiform evidence
that the Eulgus is not the Choaspes (the Ass. Uknfi
=mod. Kercha), but the Karun, which is the Pasitigris
(it-.,Lesser Tigris), up which sailed Nearchus and
the Macedonian fleet to join Alexander. In all this,
however, the uncertainty of the original text of Daniel
and of Judith must be remembered. [On the reading
‘ Ulai,’ see SHUSHAN,and cp Crit. Bib. T h e question
of an underlying text in which the geography was
different must here be reserved. 1
Cp Noldeke, ‘ Ulai,’ Bi6. Lex. 5 5 7 6 s ; Del. Paradies, 777
1 9 3 8 , 329 : Loftus, C h a i d m andSusiana, 4 2 3 5
ULAM (D$: OYAAM [BAL]). I. A Machirite
name: I Ch.716 17 (qAap [L]). Ulam’s brother is called
Rekem. Both names mean the same thing-viz., erahmeel.
Cp R EK E M , and for ‘Ulam’ cp Elam= Jerahmeel in Ezra 5 7 31,
and probably Is. 21 z Jer. 49 3 4 8
2. Ancestor (in a genealo y of Benjamin [q.v 9 il? @I) of the
B’ne Ulam [i.e. Jerahmeef] who were disti&ished for their
archery: I Ch. 8 ; 9 / ( h a p , a A a p [B]). SeeJQR l l ~ r r Io I Z ~ ,
& i 12, and-for Jerahmeelite archers, Jer. 49 35, Behold, I
g and
1 According to Jensen, however j i i N is a loan-word from
Ass. u66aZ .
‘ carries down cp the phrase in the Ass. inscrip-
tions, ‘which (i.e., the Ulaijcarries down [ubbualu] its full waters
to the sea,’ Ges. Le.r.W, S.V.
.5=7
UNICORN
impregnable fortress under the Arab empire. From 1124 to
1291 it was a stronghold of the crusaders, and Saladin himself
besieged it in vain. After the fall of Acre the Christians deserted
the place, which was then destroyed by the Moslhs. The
present town has arisen since the Metzwilaoccnpied the district
in 1766.
See Pietschmann, Gesclr. der Ph&zic&r, 61-72 (1889); F.
Jeremias, Tyrrcs 6is ZIT Zeit Nedukadnesavs (1891) ; PraSek,
Forschmng-en ZUY Gesch. des Aaltterflrums 2 21-39 (1898)’
Winckler, ‘Assyrien u. Tyrus seit Tiglath-pheser 111. ’ AO$
26 5 8 T.K.C.,§I; W.R.S.,§2.
TYRE, LADDER OF (KAIMAKOC TYPOY, I Macc.
1159) ; see LADDER OF TYRE.
.
will break the how of Elam [Jerahmeel], the chief [source] of
their strength.‘ 1 T. K. C.
ULLA(&; cp Palm. N h [fern.] and Sin. wAa h;
[BA]), an Asherite whose sons are named in I Ch. 739.
Possibly therefore he is to be identified with one or other
of the preceding Asherites--r.g., Shual (Syrn), v. 36, or
A RA ( ~ i p ~ v.
) , 38. @, however, omits the names of
Ulla and Ara, and makes Hanniel and Rizia sons of
I THRAN . See ASHER,§ 4, ii. and note.
UMMAH (3pF),one of a group of place-names in
Josh. 1 9 2 9 (end), 30, which, since they produce great
stylistic awkwardness, may have been introduced from
Judg. 1 3 1 (Steuernagel). I t isusual to emend ;my ( M T
Ummah) into i>y ( M T in Judg. Z.C. ‘Acco’). See
PTOLEMAIS. Geographically this can be made plaus-
ible (see Moore, Judg. 51) ; hut whether it can be said to
be favoured by a study of the variations of the MSS of
6 ,is at any rate doubtful.
There is a strong probability that parts of the geographical
survey in Josh. have been based upon earlier texts which referred
to the Negeb, where accordingly we may have to suppose that
the clans or tribes of Israel originally dwelt. Also that n ~ y ,
y y 2 (Pesh.), i ~ (MT y in Judg.), and a p x o p , n m w , arxwp, and
~ K K U , ~ all
, ultimately come from 5~~i-11. (Jerahmeel). Notice
-i.e., Jerahmeel (Kadesh? : see JERICHO, 5 4). How the final
editor of Josh. 19 24-31 read the name given in M T as Ummah,
may he left uncertain. The passage has but a doubtful
geographical value.
As to the Versions, Pesh. and 2 Heb. MSS (de Rossi) read
Of the Gk. MSS B has apxwj-3 (Le., axwp, modified by
;rib?). A group of M$S which as a rule agree with B (16 52
53 57 77 85 131 144 236 237) read amo ; another group (44 74 76
84 134) arKwp and the related MSS 54 75 nr[rIq@;A and V
(Holmes and ’Parsons, 111 XI) and related cursives with L
Compl., Ald. and Syro-hex., in which the names are genera$
corrected after the Hebrew, appa. See conspectus in Hollen-
berg (ZA TW, 11coJ). T. K. C.
UMPIRE (n’?iD), J o b 9 3 3 EVmg., EV DAYSMAN.
See M EDIATOR .
UNCLEAN. See C LEAN AND U NCLEAN .
UNCTION ( X P I C M ~ ) , I Jn. 220 ; RV ANOINTING.
UNICORN (DK7,3 also D 9 [Job 399f.1, D’Kl [ps.
92111, cp plur. DW:! [ps. 22211; MONOKEPWC ; *
1 Originally Jer. 46-51 appears to have referred to the peoples
on the S. and SE. of Palestine. Owing partly to confusions of
geographical names, the original prophecies have been filled up
and expanded so as to appear to have a wider scope. This is a
hi hly probable, though a new, result. See PROPHET, B 45.
Cp Jer. 21 13 47 5 where p y a and o p y both probably come
from sNnrn* (see C i i t . Bi6.).
3 The Nah. pr. n. p,(CIS, 2 316) may possibly be connected
with ng.
4 With regard to the rendering of 8 , it should be noticed
that a belief in the existence of a one-horned animal goes hack
to Aristotle ( P a r t . An. 363) who mentions as such the oryx
and the Indian ass. Late; accounts such as that of Mia;
( N a f . An. 1620) are largely influenced by the accounts of the
rhinoceros; cp Houghton in Ann. and Mag. of mat. Hist.,
Nov. 1862, and art. ‘ Unicorn ’ in Ency. Bric.(Q)
5228
unhappy rendering of Ihe AV.I occurs some nine times
in the OT, where it regularly gives place in RV to
WILD-OX(mg. O X - AN TEL O PE , cp Nu. 2322 etc.). I t
appears as a wild untamable animal, the most unlikely
of all to submit to the plough (Job 39g-rz), of great
strength (Ps.2221, parallel to aryih n'ix ( l i o n ' ) , and
agility (ib. 296, parallel to '2geel, ~ J J 'Jcalf'), whose horns
were lofty and a symbol of power and might (Nu.
2 3 m 2 248 Dt. 3 3 1 7 cp Ps.9211 [on which see Che.,
PJ.PI]). From Is. 347 (ol dGpoi AVmS ' Rhinoceros ' ) it
it was often employed in metaphors of strength, and at
times occurs in parallelism with piru, elephant. Hence
it is not improbable that the animal referred to is
the Aurochs, the Urus of Julius Cresar (BG 628),
who mentions it as existing in the forests of Central
Europe, and the Bor primigenius of naturalists. Its
teeth were found by Tristrani in Lebanon, in the valley
of the Nahr-el-Kalb, which is just in theneighbourhood
where Tiglath-pileser I. (1120-1IOO B . c . ) claimed to
have killed the rimu. The Aurochs was of great size
and, to judge by records, of great ferocity; it was
hunted and killed by prehistoric man, as skulls which
are occasionally found pierced with flint instruments
testify. I t probably lingered in remote parts of Europe
till the middle ages, and it is believed to have been the
ancestor of the domesticated breeds of cattle. Probably
its least altered descendants are the wild herds of
certain English parlrs such as Chillingham, though
these have certainly fallen off in size, in which they
compare unfavourably with fossil remains of the B.
primigeniz~s.~See Fr. Del. Neb. Lang. 6 3 ; Schr.
K A T , 256 ; Honimd, Saugethiere, 227.
A similar animal is the 'wild cow' or wadiha which, according
to Doughty ( A r . Des. 1p8), may probably he the nN1. Though
of no great size it has dangerous horns measuring sometimes 23
inches (cp illustration o# cif. 327) with which when maddened
with wounds it will inflict fatal iAjuries. The animal goes in
herds of three to five, and only the keenest hunter can hope to
catch one.
1he literary hidory oi the unicorn in claTsical and medixval
agcs 113s been treated by C. Cohn, Gesch. d. Einhornr (Berlin,
1896-7). A. E. S.-S. A. C.
UNKNOWN GOD, ALTAR TO THE (ArNWcTW
[Ti. WH] ; AV, RVmg. ' to the Unknown G o d '
RV ' to an Unknown G o d ' Acts 17 23). I t is of little
moment which rendering we adopt ; difference in
1 In Dt. 33 '7 the horns of the unicorn are spoken of, and to
evade the difficulty AV has to render the sing. nN1 by the plural.
2 By P e l nigyin, Nu. Z.C., RV 'strength of the wild-ox,' we
should rather understand the reference to he to the animal's horns
(so RVw.). nigyin, lit. 'eminences,' from qy,=yg: cp Ar.
yafa', a hill, and yafa'a, to ascend. [For a conJecture, see
_.~ .l_l_,
rrit R;A
. I
3 According to its ideogram, a ' mountain-ox,' cp Del., Enfsf.
Schrzyt, 56.
4 The old conventiorlal representation of the unicorn is in-
geniously explained by Haupt (' Psalms ' SBOT E T 173). On
the reliefs from the N. palace of Assur-bani-bal &e see the
king grasping a lion hy the ear and piercing his body with a
spear. Another re resents an arrow fixed in the lion's forehead.
The existence of tge unicorn seems to be derived from Persian
sculptures at Persepolis and Susa and these in turn were
undoubtedly influenced by Assyro-BAhylonian sculptures. The
conception ofthe horn, accordingtoHaupt, has accordingly arisen
from the imagination of the Persian artist who combined the
arrow and ear I
5 In Arabic the cognate rz"m is applied to the Antelo@
Lermryx, a meek and graceful animal, an inhabitant of the
deserts of Arabia and NE. Africa-the very opposite of the
Ass. and Heb. Dtii. When the older wild bull hecanreextinct,
the oryx from its size and general aspect was the natural legatee
of its name (cp Che. .on Is. 347). Cp the similar variation
in the meanings of l b p and n>ytq in Heh. and the cognate
languages.
Sa29
between definite and indefinite article here, but must
be derived from h y v d u r y alone. The word is trans-
lated ' unknown,' or 'unknowable.' Whichever be
accepted we must be careful to exclude all non-Athenian
connotation. To suppose an allusion to the God of
the Jews is clearly impossible, in spite of the fact that
the epithet ' wholly hidden ' ( ~ Y K ~ U + O Swas
) applied to
Yahwi: by gentile writers (Just. Mart. A d GY. 38 ;
ApoL 2 1 0 ; Phil. Leg. 44). On the other hand, it is
equally unjustifiable to read into the inscription the
' gods called unknown, and of heroes ' ( j 3 w p i 66 Be& r e
dvopafo&wv d y v d u r w v Kai ?jpdjov). It would be
most natural to take this to mean several altars, each
with the inscription in the singular ; but it is difficult to
do this in the face of what Pausanias says at Olympia,
' beside it is an altar of Unknown Gods' (rpds ad@ 6'
6uriv 'AyvdJu~wBeGv Pwp6s, v. 14 8). Philostratus in his
life of Apollonius (6 3) writes. ' it is more prudent to
speak well of all the gods, and especially at Athens, where
are found also altars of unknown deities' (uwq5pouPurepov
r b r e p 1 ~ d v r w ve& € 8 heyew Kat raiira 'AB.ilvlptv, 06
Kai d y v 3 u r w v 6aip6vwu Pwfioi Y G p v v ~ a r;) where again
it is impossible to say whether the altars bore
the words 'Ayvdurols Oeois or 'Ayudury 8eG. The
significance of such altars is clear from Diog. Laert.
1 110. Epimenides in his purification of Athens is
said to have turned out some black and white sheep on
the Areopagus, directing attendants to follow and
watch them, and on the spot where the animals lay
down altars were built T $ rpouljaourr Bet& This ex-
pression cannot be translated, ' the appropriate local
deities' (Grote), indicating that in each instance the
divinity was a recognised and familiar one : this is
clear from the words which immediately follow (8Bev
tri K a i vGv turiv d p e % Karh robs Gljpovs 7Gv ' A B ~ v a l w v
p w p o h d v w v d p u s ) . The people on this and possibly
on subsequent occasions knew not what divinity had
been offended and required propitiation. In Rome i n
precisely the same way it often taxed the inventive
powers of the College of Pontifices to say what god had
sent prodigies. Sometimes they named him from the
manifestation itself- e.g., Aius Locutius, the Voice
which forewarned the city of the approaching Gauls ;
sometimes, being in doubt, they used the formula ' sive
dei sive de=' (Aul. Gell. 2 3 8 ) . It is on this principle that
we find a woman imprecating curses on her rival and
praying to the deities of the hot spring, 'uti vos aquEe
ferventes, sive vos Nimfas (Nymphas) sive alio quo
nomine vultis appellari, uti vos earn interimatis' (Ins.
Urb. Rom. 141). In a well known passage of Horace
we have ' Matutine Pater, seu Iane libentius audis ' ( S a t .
ii. 6 M). In the passage quoted from Diog. it is possible,
however, that by dvwvtpous we should understand the
altars to have been altogether without inscription. If so,
we see that our examples fall into three classes, according
to the degree of doubt in the worshipper's mind. The
altar may be left without inscription ; whether it is god
or goddess that claims it cannot be guessed. Or again,
it is inscribed ' t o the unknown god,' in the singular
or plural. In the third case the deity is known, but
the votary is ignorant of the proper mode of address.
We may mention, but only to dismiss it, the theory that in the
case of Athens these altars dated from a time when writing was
unknown and were subsequently inscribed when men no longer
knew to what god they had been raised. We must reject also
Jerome's statement (ad Til. 112) that the inscription ran ' to
the gods of Asia and Europe, to unknown and strange gods' :
the whole point of the reference in the speech lies in its being
an exact quotation. Jerome may indeed have seen such an
inscription as he mentions ; but it was certainly not that alluded
to in Acts.
5230
 UNLEAVENED BREAD
If we take the far less probable rendering ' to the
unknowable god,' we must understand the words to
refer to the mysteriousness of God. W e may then
compare the inscription on the figure of the Egyptian
Isis- 'I am, and was, and shall b e ; no man hath
lifted my veil ' (Plnt. De Is. et Os. ). Still better is the
inscription on an altar of Mithra found at Ostia-
'signum indeprehensibilis Dei. ' (For analogies, see
Frazer, Paus. 233. ) W.J. W.
UNLEAVENED BREAD (n$Q), Gen. 193, etc.
See B READ , I , L EAVEN , J 2, and PASSOVER, J I $ 15.
UNNI ('J? ; perhaps shortened from "22 [=either
the probable gentilic ' AnZni (so Che. ; cp CVit. Bib.
on I Ch. 324 1518), or ' Yahw&answers,' J 521).
I. A Levitical door-keeper, a musician ( I Ch. 15 18 ; ehrwqh
roqh [ K ] a m [A] avautas [L]' 2.'. M : wvei [BN], avaui [AI,
i%'as [Ll). ' Cp Ki; ' Chron.' SiOT,udloc.
2. RV Unno, a Levite, temp. Nehemiah (Neh. 1 2 9 Kt. iiy;
om. BnaA, m v a i [~ca.mg.][L]). In L cava' is a doublet of
& v e ~ p o l i o w o=D'!y. Omitting 'And Bakhukiah' (as a gloss
from Neh. 11 x7), render ' e n d their brethren took up the strain
(ranged) over against thim. So Guthe(SB0T [Heh.], adloc.) ;
cp Be.-Kys. ad loc.1
UPHBZ (!%IN) in the phrases gold from Uphaz' andT hcommerce
and 'gold of Uphaz' (7ptNQ >gl, zdhib mZ'ujhZx,
Jer.109, TYK Dn:, KCthetn 'uph&, Dan.105) is an
imaginary place-name. Both passages are corrupt, the
former most probably, the latter certainly. Later
scribes, who knew the rare phrase ip 12,e M B b
mziphhnz ( I K. 10 18; see G OLD , J I If.] and n.),
imagined this to mean gold from Uphaz' ( I ~ K 'DI, 2.
m2'z@rEz), and read this or (in Dan. 105) a phrase like
this, in the indistinctly written text which they were
copying.
( 0 ) The M T of Jer. 109 is not well supported. Vg. has
aurzrandeOfhaz, but @ ~ p u u i o v p o ~ [ B A Q ] , x . p w ~ a s [ ~ I - - i . e . , commerce between Ur and Egypt passed over its more difficult
lain 231 : while Tg., Pesh., Syr.-Hex. (mg.), and Theod. pre-
suppose l $ K p . Giesebr. (hut not Co.) reasonably adopts
this ; cp pi2 for p i 1 Ezek. 114. (6) The phrase in Dan. l o 5 is
rendered Bv xpuuly +a< by Theod. [BAQ]' @iWhowever,
instead of rendering it, translates what is reall; a cdrrupt form
of two dittographed words from the line above, except that it
appends to this 15, ie., it gives 6 d e h p i v o s j3liuuiua rai a v
bu+b mpis{wupiwos j3vuuOy K a L I Kp i u o v aim05 +os (where
+w5 is simply a Graxised j5 ; cp $4Cant. 5 11). @'s Hebrew
MS must therefore have had, not I D ~ Kon, but is ,'inn1 0.12.
The second word was indistinctly written, and was read by him
\3hn?. But we must not suppose that MT is really more
correct. 'Girded with gold of Uphaz' (or as e ' s text ran,
'with refined gold ') is not a natural expre;sion. We should
almost if not quite certainly correct IOlK O n 3 1 into 12 np???,
'with embroidery of gold.' A magnificently embroidered girdle
is what we expect to hear of; the correction is easy, self-evident.
Probably lain is an earlier reading than i ~ ; i~ii*ina
~ would
resemble jQiD nn. It is also of course more plausible : the con-
text does not suggest the mention of a locality. It is worth
noting thnt J. D. Michaelis explained 1 3 1 237 ~ as jBiND i m : also
that in Cant. 511 B read 151on3 ; Thecd. 1 3 i ~ on3 (Lag.).
Cp GOLD. T. K. C .
lJ.R OF THE CFIALDEES, lit. U r Kasdim (79N is not indeed plain ; for no other Ur is mentioned in
n'qp ; [ H I Xwpa2 [ T U N ] X ~ A A A I U N [BNADEL] i the OT. That, however, is a mere trifle. The considera-
cp Acts 7 4 , & yes XaXGaLwv ; Syr. 'UT
theory. dCKaZdayya'; (&e)
Ur ChaZdeorurn, but in Neh.
i f l e ChaZdeomm, alluding to the
Rabbinic.explanation of ' U r ' ==fire, withwhich a
singular Aggadic legend i s connected ; see Jewish
Encyclopedia, 191,and cp Koran, Sur. 21), Gen. 1 1 2 8 31
157. The place whence Abram set out on the journey
to Canaan, also mentioned in Neh. 97t. That Ur is the
1 The following word n n . n ~ ,if not a corruption for p;IqnN
' after them,' may have been introduced to give a meaning to ' 2
and the already corrupt rip Q& s ,Be.-Rys. point
~ n q n a~
out, is unnecessary here ; cp 3. 24.
a [Probably B read p~for ii~, rather p p a is a translitera-
tion of i iconfused(?)
~ with yry.1
5231
UR O F THE CHALDEES
old Babylonian city of Uru (mod. Mukayyar, on the right
bank of the Euphrates, about 40 m. SE. from Warka and
about 135 m. SE. from Babylon) is altogether more likely
than Rawlinson's identification with Erech ( q ? ~ ) ,the
mod. Warka,' and is generally accepted ; even Dill-
mann in 1892 (Gen.(6),214). after holding out long
against the view, substantially adopted it. The chief
opponent of the theory at present is Kittel (Hist. 11818 ;
and earlier, TheoZ. Stud. aus LVurtt. 72158). T h e
fact that there is no other known Ur in the territory of
the Kasdim than the Babylonian Ur is a great difficulty
in the way of rejecting the identification, especially since
language and literature point so decisively to close
relationship between Hebrews and Babylonians. If it
is difficult to reconcile with other statements of J or of P
-whomentionsUr Kasdim(Gen. 11y)-that onlypoints
more strongly to the strength of the tradition in favour
of the Babylonian Ur. But in fact the difficulties are
not so formidable as Kittel thinks. [and the compara-
tive antiquity of the tradition is shown by Judith 5 6
Jubilees 11 Acts 7 4 . Cp Francis Brown, JBL, Dec.
1887, pp. 4 6 8 ; Del. Par. 22bf. ; Budde, tirgeschichte,
433f. ; Schrader, HWB(2),172gf: ; and see references
in Dillmann's note on Gen. 11 281.
e greatness of the city of Uru in politics, religion,
is well brought out by Hommel, GBA
212-218 325-329 (cp his Die semit.
::; a.
Of a
b
'::
VoZKcr u. Sprachen, 204-211); see
also B ABYLONIA, J 48. Rogers (HBA
2371f:) thus describes its situation.
' The river Euphrates flowed just past its gates, affording
easy transportation for stone and wood from its upper waters,
to which the Lebanon, rich in cedars, and the Amanus were
readily accessible. The Wady Rummein came close to the city
and linked it with central and southern Arabia and along that
road came gold and precious stones, and gums )and perfumes to
be converted into incense for temple-worship. Another road
went across the very desert itself, and, provided with wells of
water, conducted trade to southern Syria, the peninsula of Sinai,
and across into Africa This was the shortest road to Africa, and
hut much shorter route than the one by way of Haran and
Palestine. Nearly opposite the city the Shatt-el-Hat emptied
into the Euphrates, and so afforded a passage for boats into the
Tigris, thus opening to the commerce of Ur the vast country
tributary to that river. Here, then, were roads and rivers
leading to the N., E., and W but there was also a great outlet
to the southward. The guphrates made access to the
Persian Gulf easy. No city lay S. of Ur on that river except
Eridu and Eridu w a s no competitor in the world of commerce,
for it ;as devoted only to temples and to gods-a city given up
to religion.'
The local god of Uru was Nannaru or Sin, the
moon-god ; cp Eupolemus (Eus. Prep. Ev. 917),ac-
.cording to whom the Babylonian city Kafiapfvq (Moon-
city) was called by some n6Xrs Otp$.
These details are doubly interesting if Abraham was
a historical personage, or even if the tribe which
regarded him as its ancestor once lived a pastoral life in
the neighbourhood of Uru (cp Tomkins, LVe of
Abraham('), 7 8). Certainly it is still the average
opinion of scholars that the Ur-kasdim, with which P
at any rate, if not also JE, closely connects Abraham,
is this S. Babylonian city. W h y '-kasdim ' was added,
tions which induce Kittel' to reject the prevalent theory
are as follows :-
( I ) T h e genealogy given by P in Gen. 11 IO j ?
assumes that the Semites of ArpachSads time migrated
3. gitters gradually from N. Armenia to Mesopo-
They then moved on to Harran.
wTjy In harmony with the above fact P
states (Gen. 84) that the ark ' rested on the mountains
1 [This view was adopted by Loftus, ChaZdea and Susiuna,
126 (1857). The Syrian Christians, however, maintain Edessa
to he the Ursasdm of the patriarch.]
1 The English translation of the H i s f o y (1 181, 4) gives
an important modifcation of view as regards Armenian
Chaldaeans'; Kittel now withdraws one of his original
arguments.
5232
 UR OF THE CHALDEES
of Ararat,' which must be on the N. or NW. of
-4ssyria. Here is the starting-point of the subsequent
history. Can we imagine him suddenly transporting
the Semites to the mouth of the Euphrates, and making
this their starting-point, simply to bring them back to
the place where they once stood with Serug ?
( 3 ) W e also meet with ' Ur-kasdim' in the Jz
stratum (1128 157). Now J does not state where the
ark grounded. Budde therefore conjectures that J
must have meant a mountain in the S . of the land
of the Two Rivers, corresponding to Mt. NiSir in the
Babylonian story. From this point Noah's descendants
will have pressed on to Ur, in S. Babylonia. Terah
and Abraham are then supposed to have migrated to
Harran. 'This conjecture is not a very solid one ; but in
any case ' what a marvellous zigzag we must ascribe to
J2, if we make him lake the Semites from the mountain
in the S. on which they landed, to Mesopotamia in
the N.(Peleg, Serug), thence to Ur-Mugheir, and thence
to Haran ! '
Gunkel, too (Gee. 145 [I~oI]), does not accept the
favourite identification.1 ' The Kasdini,' he says, ' a r e
not the Chaldaeans of the " land of the
~,
Giunkel's. sea" [S. Babylonia], but the people of the
same name reckoned in 2222 among the
Nahorids ; cp also Job 117 2 K. 242 and see Winckler
AOR2),2 250-252. From the description in Gen. 1131 we
can only infer that the way from Ur-kasdim to Canaan
passed by HarrEn. Against this location of Ur-kasdim
it may be objected that we know both Uru and Harranu
to have been famous seats of moon-worship, so that
these two places appear to have an inner connection.
But this coincidence may be accidental. At any rate
the statement that Abraham came from Ur-kasdim
will be a very primitive tradition-a variant to the other
statement that he came from Harriin. In P both
traditionsare united in such a way that two journeys
are distinguished, the first from Ur-kasdim to HarrHn,
the second from HarrZn to Canaan.'
The riddle, as usually stated, admits of no satisfactory
solution, for the simple reason that the texts of the
6. New solu- narratives in Genesis, after having been
partly corrupted in transcriptidn. were
tion of re-edited by men who had different
geographical presuppositions from those
of the original writers. It is becoming more and more
probable that the original scene of the primary Hebrew
legends was in the Negeb. From ' Adam ' to Joseph
this can be traced, sometimes with virtual certainty,
sometimes with considerable probability. The geo-
graphical changes introduced were owing partly (as we
have seen) to corruption, and partly to the perplexing
similarity of the names in different parts of the ancient
East (cp Schr. KGF 29 247). There was a I3arriin in
the N. ; there was also in all probability a H a r s n in
the S. (referred to, e.g., in the phrase, ' Sanballat the
Hnrsnite,' ~ n a Neh., 210. see S ANBALLAT). There
was an Aram in the N. ; there was also an Aram in
the S. The later scribes unfortunately forgot all
about the southern Harriin and Aram. though they were
conscientious enough to leave abundant half-conceded
evidence of their existence. Transcriptional errors too
were easy.
1 ~ and3 w~pp , ~ and
p 113 were very easily confounded, and
beside a 3 there was a form n+, which was liable to be mis-
5
1 in the Phcenician Urumilki (KARa). 185). The amount of
written a n i ? and even 1 ~ (see1 PROPHET col. 3861 n. z).
I t would not be ri ht at &e opening of a lar'e field of inquiry
to assume that sue% confusions in any particufar case were more
than probable. But we are mt at the opening of an inquiry.
Sufficientevidence has been rodnced by the present writer to
justify him in the assertion tfat there is a strong probability in
favour of any correction which brings any particular legend
1 In Gem.(? 139 [10021 however, Gunkel falls back on the
average opinion of xholak. After stating the new mentioned
in the opening sentence of the quotation he continues, 'against
the latter location of Ur-+iim it may, k t h jusuce (nitgutem
Grund), be objected, etc.
933
URIAH
referred to away from the N. into the S. (i.e., into the Negeb).
I n a continuous survey of the sagas or legends of Genesis it would
be possible to make this clear to virtual demonstration. All that
can he done here is to point out that, given the presuppositions
obtained by the study of other passa es, we have a right to
make the following emendations whict affect the question of
Ur-kasdim.'
3. Chesed (le?) comes from d$>--i.e., ' Cush ' in N. Arabia '
(See CUSH, 2).
4 Dammesek (?e?:)sometimes comes from D ! ? 3 'Cusham.
5. KZna'an (]p!q) sometimes comes from Up Kenaz'
I n spite of the attempts of Gunkel and Wincklerl to justify the
traditional reading, it remains for us no mere stru gling
hypothesis but a fact that the ' Kasdim ' of Job 117 z I? 24 z
are. the N. Arabian Cushites (see J O B BOOK OF, 8 14 ; OBADIA~
(Book), col. 3460, n. I). We are 'now bound to go farther
and to assert that accordin to the ori@J tradition Abrahad
(the Jerahmeelite patriarchTfirst dwelt in 'Arab-cush, and thence
went to garran in the land of Kenaz. It will be remembered
that Caleb was known a s a Kenizzite andas the hero of Hebron
which name appears to have supilanted the original nanid
REHOBOTH (p.w.). Abram or Abraham too migrated to Hebron,
or rather Rehoboth-the well-known Rehoboth in the Negeb ;
he retained however a 'son of Cusham ' 'a Cushamite ' whom
he had bronght from 'Arab-cush (Gen. 1; z ; see Crii. Rk). I n
the same chapter which states this circumstance we read (w. 7) a
solemn assurance of Yahw&that he had brought Abraham from
Arab-cush to possess the land of Kenaz. I t is difficult to believe
that the ori inal writers (or schools of writers) whom we
5
symbolise as and E were unalhare of this. On Neh. 9 7 we
must content ourselves with referring to Crit. Bib. It is enough
to have stated distinctly here the original tradition.
F. B. 5 I ; T. K. c. $5 2-5.
UR (W),one of David's 'thirty' ( I C h . l l 3 5 t ;
ceyp P I . coyp [KI, wp [AI.oyp [LI). One would
have expected Uri ( ' 7 ~ ;) but see ELIPHELET,
2.
URBANE,or rather, as in RV, Urbanus (OYPBANOC
[Ti. WH]), is saluted as ' our fellow-worker in Christ '
in 'Rom. 169. T h e name is a Latin one. When, or in
what capacity, Urbanus helped the apostle in his
missionary labours is not known.
Urlmnus figures as bishop of Macedonia in the list of 'the
seventy' compiled by Pseudo-Dorotheus. The 6j'Fdpwpa of
Peter and Paul as given by the Pseudo-Symeon Metaphrastes
represents him as consecrated bishop of Tarsus by Peter.
URI ('?W, perhaps a clan-name, shortened and
corrupted from Jerahme'eli [so Che.], hut see NAMES, 5 52, and
cp URIAH).
I. b. Hur-from ' Ashhur'? LChe.1-the father of BELALEEI.
(Ex. 31 2'35 30 z Ch. 15 :' o u [rlrov [B, and A in z Ch.], oup[r]r
AFL] ; I Ch. 2 20: ovp[rlr [LAL]).
2. Father of GBBER [p.w., no. 21 (I K. 4 19 : dar [BBA], a86ar
[L]). Cp SOLO,??!ON, Q 6, third note.
3. A post-exilic door-keeper temp. Ezra ; Ezra 10 24 ( ~ 6 0 ~ 8
[BN], wdouc[Al, oupras [L])=I Ch. 9 17 (AHIMAN;1""; arpap
[Bl, -Y [AL]): pTobably corrupt [Che.l)=r Esd. 9 qf ( o u p r a ~
[Ll; om. E V mth BA, unless the name is buried in avqp of
mhaauqr=nin+avl)s or in ~anxouporof w. 24).
URIAH, and in Mt. 1 6 AV, Urias (3:?SK, but no. 3
W:?.lK ; o y p [ ~ l i ~[BKALI).
c
The name might mean ' Yahwi: is a fire,' 8 35 ; cp ARIEL, I.
It is strange, however, that a Yahwistic name should he borne
by a Hittite. The difficulty disappears if we accept Jastrow's
theoryUBL 13 IOIJ ; see NAMES, 8 19n.,3) thatthe element
3, is often only an emphatic afformative. It is equally non-
existent on the theory that this element h a s generally arisen
out of *, the common termination of gentilics. n,-,i~, like
$N*>>N,URIEL, '?N, URI,is in fact most probably a corruption
either of honi', Jerahmeeli, or of y ~ l y ,'Ar5bi. Cp also Urii
evidence for such corruptions is too great to be disregarded.
I. A ' Hittite,'oneof David's heroes ( z S. 2339 [ouper
L], I Ch. 1141 [ouper BK]), who took part in the war
against the Ammonites under Joab, and was got rid of
by David in a most cowardly way to cover over his
adultery with BATHSHEBA ( q . ~ . ) ,Uriah's wife ( z S. 11
1 2 9 3 I K. 1 5 ~ ) . ~
1 Set AOF, 2250-152.
2 The qualification in w. 5 (end) is wanting in BBB and is
no doubt a gloss. The redactor himself elsewhere give; David
an absolute eulogy 0134 9).So Benr, Kittel.
5234
 URIEL
Our view of the notices of Uriah in 2 S. llJ, however, needs
revision in the light of the facts ; (I) that the list of David‘s
heroes, which includes ‘ Uriah the Hittite,’ makes no allusion to
the reported treachery of David; (2) that the story of this
treachery has undoubtedly been manipulated (see BATH-
SHEBA, J EDIDI A H , SOLOMON, $ 2)) out of a regard for edifica-
tion; and (3) that, ‘nn being most probably a mutilated form of
’niinl, ‘ Rehobothite,’ and ‘ Rabbah of the b’ne Ainmon ’ being
not leis probably a corruption of ‘ Rehohoth of the b’ne Jerah-
meel’ (cp R EHOBOTH) it is not conceivable that Jerahmeel the
Rehobothite’ (misreah in the traditional text, ‘Uriah the
Hittite’) should have fought in the ranks of the Israelites on the
occasion referred to. Obviously Uriah‘s true designation had
been forgotten when the story of the siege received its present
expanded form. To this we must add that stories similar to
that of the baleful letter to Joab are familiar to students of
primitive folklore.1 Even apart from this, it is plausible to hold,
on grounds of literary criticism, that 2 S. 11 I was originally
followed by 1226 (S. A. Cook, AJSL 16156 [April 1900]; so,
independently, Winckler). Cp, however, Budde in KHC,
‘Sam.’ 250.
It is not difficult to see how Uriah may have come into the
story of Batbsheba. BATHSHEBA (4.v.) was apparently a
‘Jerahnieelite’ by, origin. $Nnni. when broken up by the
carelessness of scribes, furnishes mdterial for the two words
~ y . (Eliam)
5 ~ and n q i ~(Urjah). Errors like this often have
strange results in the production of legends.
2. A priest, temp. Ahaz, who acted as a witness for Isaiah (Is.
8 2). He is presumably the Uriah (AV URIJAH) who built an
altar for Ahaz after a Damascene pattern 2 K. 16 I O J
b. Shemaiah of Kijath.jeanm s d n at the command of
e oiakim for prophesying against’ Jerusalem Uer. 26 20 AV
brijah).
4. Father of MEREMOTH (I), a priest temp. Nehemiah, Ezra
8 33 (aprrou [LI), I E d . 862 (IRI, RV Urias; oup[alra [BI, oupb
[AI, oup~au[Ll), cp Neh. S 4 21 (AV Urijah, uoupra [N]). possibly
the Uriah present at the reading of the law under Ezra (Neh.
8 4 AV Urijah; oupsra [BNC.a.Al=~ Esd. 943 EV URIAS).
T. K. c.
URIEL (Vrze’), ‘ the angel that was sent’ to Ezra,
according to 4 Esd. 41 36 (?) 520 1028.
In 4 36 he is called an archangel but RV prefers the reading
JEREMIEL (4.v.). a name which’occurs nowhere else in this
Iterature, hut is most probably, like Jeremiah,’ one of the
many distorted forms of ‘Jerahmeel’z (cp @BA, Jer. 3626).
Possibly ‘ Jeremiel’ (INni,) is a variant to ‘Raphael’ (5~31); ‘ Command,’ on the other ‘ Prohibition,’ or words of
Rapbael, according to Enoch 20 2 , is the ‘ angel of the spirits of
men. Uriel, under the corrupt form ‘ Adoil,’ occurs in Tg. Jon.,
and in the Slavonic Enoch 25 2, not, however, as an angel. This
passage presupposes the explanation ‘flame of God,’ which is
hardly the original meaning. The Jerahmeelite connection of
some of the chief angelic names in -el is noteworthy. See
MKHAEL and in illustration, note the facts which point to
Jerahmeeiite idfluence both healthful and the reverse, on the
religion of Israel (MO~ES, $ 14,PROPHET, B 6 ~ 3 . T. K. c.
URIEL ($&’?lK ; O Y P I H ~ ) . A plausible explanation
of the name is ‘flame of God,’ 5 35, or, ‘God is a
light,’ cp $3113,Niirbel, a Palmyrene name, de VogiiB,
Syr. Centr. 124 ; Baeth. Be&. 86. But (I)the analogy
(contested, no doubt) of many similar names, ( 2 ) the
occurrence of the regularly formed ethnic Uri, and (3)
the connections of the bearers of the name, may be
held to favour an explanation similar to that given above
of URrAH-i.e., it is a Jerahmeelite or N. Arabian
name [Che.].
I. The father of Michaiah, the mother of Abijah, king of
Judah (2 Cb. 13 2). (For o u p q A 6 r b yapawv @L has aj3euuahop.)
But see MAACAH,3.
2. Chief of the Kohathites, mentioned at the bringing up of
the ark to Jerusalem under David (I Ch. 165 I I : apt+ [B]).
3. A name in the Kohathite genealogy of ELKANAW (4.u.) receptacle provided for them in P s description of the
(I Ch. 624 [g] : o q A [Bl).
4 and 5. Periaps a collateral form of AKIEL, I (=ARELI) small flat objects, perhaps tablets of wood or bone ; but
and ARIEL, 2.
URIJAH (7;?sllH), Jer. 2620 AV,’RV URIAH(3).
URIM AND THUMMIM ( a y ; l ) n y I q 3 6
A H ~ W C I C . Or A H ~ O I , K h l A h H 8 E l b [I S.1441
OCIOTHC]; Aq. Sym. Theod. ~ W T I C M O I [Sym. I S.
286 A H ~ O I . Dt. 338 T E ~ E I O T H C KAI AIAAXH, cp
Jerome] and TE~EIOTHTEC, T E ~ E I W C E I C , TEAEIOI ;
1 Miicke (Vom Eujhrat naclr Tiber, p. 75, n. I) refers to the
stories of Rellerophon Pausanias, and Otto von Wittelsbach.
2 Similarly Gunkel’ in Kau. AjuRr. 357.
3 Urim alone, Nu.’27 21 I S. 286 ; Thummim and Urim, Dt.
33 8. On the derivation and meaning see below.
5235
URIM AND THUMMIM
Vg. doctrina and oeritas or $erfectio), the apparatus of
the priestly oracle (Dt. 338 cp I O ; Nu.2721 Ezra263
[bBA
TOIC @ W T I Z O Y C I N KAI T O I C T E ~ E I O I C , bL
. . . T E A B I W C E C I N ] = N765~ ~[aBNA
. @ W T I C W N , GL
TOIC @WTICMOIC K b l T b l C TEhEIWCBCIN]). T h e
only passage which throws any light upon the nature
and use of the Urini and Thummim is I S. 1441f.
Emending after 03, we read: ‘And Saul said, “ 0 YahwLt,
God of Israel, why dost thou not answer thy servant to-day? If
this fault be in me or in Jonathan my son, giveUrim, and if it be
in thy people Israel, give Thummm.” Thereupon Saul and
Jonathan were taken and the people went free. Then Saul said
“Cast between me and lonathan mv son: he whom YahwLt
. .
takes shall die ” . So they cagt between him and Jonathan
his son, and Jonathan was taken.
It is evident from 21. 41 that the question, which in
both cases is put as a simple alternative (cp 39), was
decided by casting lots ; and from o. 40 that Urim and
Thummim were the names respectively of two objects
with which the cast was made.
Comparing I S. 1441f: with 36 @ (cp 3 18 6) we
see that the casting of lots with the Urim and Thummim
was part of the method of divination by the ephod ; in
other places where the ephod is employed (236 g 307)
the procedure is so exactly the same as in I S. 1 4 3 6 8
that there is hardly room for doubt that in these cases
also the decision was by the same sacred lots (see
EPHOD) ; and in many others, though neither the ephod
nor the Urim and Thummim is named, the same
inference may confidently he drawn (see I S. 1 0 ~ 0 8
2 S. 2 I 5 1 9 3 Josh. 7 1 6 8 Judg. 20 27f. ).I In the article
EPHOD (§ 4)it has been surmised that the Urim and
Thummim were kept in the ephod, and with certain
manipulations secundum artem drawn or thrown from
it. Moslem writers describe a similar mode of divina-
tion among the Arabs before Islam. Two arrow-shafts
(without heads or feathers), on one of which was written
similar purport, were placed in a receptacle, and ac-
cording as one or the other of them was drawn out it
was known whether the proposed enterprise was in
accordance with the will of the god and destined to
succeed, or not (cp Prov. 1633 Acts 1 2 6 ) . At Mecca,
it is said, these lots were in the keeping of the guardians
of the Holy House, one of whom drew an arrow when
man wished to decide whether to go on a journey,
to marry, etc. Sometimes three arrows were used,
one of which was blank; if this was drawn the god
refused a response (cp I S. 1437 286). Other objects.
such as white pebbles, similarly marked, were also
used ; and the interrogatory could be framed in other
and more complex ways2 That the divination by
Urim and Thummim was of this kind is the opinion
of J. D. Michaelis (&’os. Recht, I, § 52-three pebbles),
Ewald (AD. 390 &), and many others. T h e form
of the Urim and Thummim is unknown; that they
were little images (De Castro, Spencer, Gesen., and
others) is a conjecture which rests solely upon an
erroneous identification with the teraphim. If it were
safe to draw an inference from the size and shape of the
high priest’s vestments, we should imagine them as
it may be doubtful whether P. who, strangely enough,
gives no directions for the making of the Urim and
Thummim, had any definite notion what they were.
In P the Urim and Thummim are in the keeping
of the high priest (Ex.2830 Lev. 8 8 Nu. 2721) ; they
are preserved in a square pouch which is worn upon his
breast, the u?vp lqn, &&n mi$&< (EV I breastplate of
1 It is, of course, not imagined that in all cases in which lots
are used the Urim and Thummim are meant.
2 SeeIbn Hisham 1 9 7 8 ; Lane, Arab.-Et@. Lex. col. 1247;
cp Tac. Germ. IO, A d in general Van Dale, De divinafiuni6ws
idulatricis in V T memorafis, chap. 4; We. Heid.@) 126f (2)
133f: An example of belomancy in the OT Ezek. 21 21 [ d l ;
see Jerome adloc., and cp DIVINATION, 5 2 (il).
s236
 USURY
judgment ’ ; rather ‘ of [divine] decision, oracle’ ; see
B REASTPLATE ). This pouch was permanently attached
by chains and cords through rings at its corners to the
ephod ; the association of the Urim and Thummim with
the ephod which we found in the historical books is thus
preserved in P (EPHOD, 3). Whether this form of
consulting Yahwe was actually practised in the post-
exilic period is doubtful. There is no mention of it in
the historical books after the time of David and Solomon
( I K. 226 read ‘ t h e ephod’); but Hos. 3 4 shows that in
the prophet’s day the ephod-oracle was one of the things
which the popular religion could not be thought of as
existing without. In Neh. 765 (Ezra263 I Esd. 540),
however, an important question affecting the rights of
certain priestly families is reserved for decision ‘ when a
Uritn and Thummim priest shall arise,’ proving that
this mode of divination was then disused--the art seem-
ingly lost. A reference like Ecclus. 33; [8raafwv (B).
G+WV (A,) ; cp 4510 G?hois dhqeeiar, where. moreover,
Xoyfy KplUEWS also corresponds to mwn p n ] does not
prove that it was practised in the writer’s day. Josephus
says that the breastplate had ceased to light up (hdpaerv,
his understanding of the Urim) two hundred years before
his time ( A n t . iii. 89 [§ 2181); while according to the
Mishna (Si{& 9 1 2 ) ~the Urim and Thummim ceased
with the death of the pre-exilic prophets ; but this is
apparently only an inference from Ezra 263.
The names Urim and Thummim as vocalised in M T
mean ‘ Lights ’ and ‘ Perfection. ’ This pronunciation
is, however, unkncwn to the translaton of 6 , who
read the former ‘Orim. and derived it from 727, ‘ t o
give decision, torah’ (cp Dt. 3 3 8 ,,)-an interpretation
to which Sym. adheres (8daxf). Modern scholars
have not succeeded in giving a satisfactory explanation
of the words. If Urirn and Thummim were the names
respectively of two lots which were of opposite presage,
it is natural to infer th:it the names had a corresponding
significance ; and this presumption is still stronger if,
as seems not unlikely, the words were actually written
upon the objects used for casting or drawing the lot.
If, then, n,Dn is derived, as there is no need to question,
from the root Don ‘ be without fault,’ its opposite might
well be a derivative of 118 ‘ curse,’ the one signifying
that a proposed action was satisfactory to God, the other
that it provoked his wrath. This contrast would be
still more natural if we might suppose that the Urim
and Thummim were originally employed in a kind of
ordeal such as is described in I S.1 4 3 6 8 , where the
real question was one of guilt or innocence; and it is
perhaps not without significance that Saul asks that if
the fault be in himself or in Jonathan the lot Urim may
come out. If this view is sound, the words should
probably be pronounced ‘6rim and tsmim. But all
such conjectures are subject to the greatest reserve.
Litzrature.-For the ‘older literature see J. G. Cppzov,
A##avatrrs Listorico-ci-ificur antiguitatum, 1748, p. 75f: ; for
the history of opinion esp. Kautzsch in PREP),s.a. 16 226-233.
The most important of the earlier monographs are Joh. Buxtorf,
‘ Historia Urim et Thummim,’ in his Ezercitationes, 267 8,
reprinted in Ugolini Thes. 12 3 7 5 8 ; and Spencer ‘ De Urim et
Thummim,’inDeZeg. rit.,lib.Ydiss. 7(aud inUgolh, 1 2 4 5 3 8 ) :
see also Braun, De nestittr sarerdotunz, p. 593& See also the
literature under EPHOD; [also Haupt, ‘Bah. elements in the
Levit. Ritual,’JBL 19 j 8 f: 72f: (1900): W. Muss-Arnolt, ‘The
Urim and Thummim,’ reprinted from A J S L , July 1900l; T. C.
Foote, JBL 21 2 7 8 (1902). G. F. M.
USURY. See L A W AND J USTICE , 5 16 ; PLEDGE ;
T RADE A N D COMMERCE, 5 83 ( e ) 4 (2).
I. The commonest word i s SW!, n&k, d l W 1 , lit. ‘something
bitten off’ : T ~ K O S , uszwn (Ex. 22 2 j Lev. 25 36 f: Dt. 23 19 f:
Ps. 15 5 Prov. 28 8 Ezek. 18 8 73 17 22 12).
- ...~~~____ .~
1 The meaning of the word ]en is not known ; something like
‘receptacle’ best suits the context.
4 See also the Talmud, .S@riL 48 6, 21 6 (Urim and
Thummim lacking in second temple), and Maimonides, KPZ? ha-
rni+dliSh, 10, $ 10.
3 That n - 1 ~
is perhaps to be connected with 7 1 was
~ sug-
gested by Wellhausen, ProL(2)479 n.
167 5237
uz
2. The verb “$2, n&%, baatrrb, b+eAcrv (Neh. 5 7 (Kt.) Is.
24z), gives the substantive Ki$, nzaffi, Laakqurc (Neh. 5 7 IO).
3. The verb 7@, nlifah, d a a r T F b (Kr.) (Neh. 5 7, & # d c i u ,
Jer. 15 IO, etc), gives 741, nJfJ/z, KaT€%TfiyWY,Ex. 22 25, AV
‘usurer,’ R V ‘creditor,’ and ‘ V I , neZ (Sr.), z K. 47, EV ‘debt’
( B B A baoriuerr T O ~ ~
F 6 x 0 uou,
~ s 6 L bn6rruov r b Gciverov).
4. r&os in Mt. 25 27 Lk. 19 23, RV ‘interest.’
UTA (OYTA [BA]). a post-exilic family of Nethinim
(I Esd. 530), unmentioned in II Ezra ( f 4 5 ) , or Nehemiah
(748).
UTHAI ( ’ n l V 1
; oyel [BAL]).
I. ICh. 94(ywB[e]r [BAl)=Neh. 11 ~,ATHAIAH.
2.One of the h’ne BIGVAI (9.v.); Ezra8 14 (ouOar [AI, wear
[L])=I Esd. 840t, Uthi (OVTOU [Bl, wear [Ll), son of Istalcurus,
on which see ZABUD,2.
UZ (?la ; with art. ?W?, Jer. 2 5 z o t ; on origin of
name, see G EOGRAPHY . 1 20, and note suggestion
below that ‘ U z ’ may be due to an early transcriber’s
error). According to the traditional view, the name is
connected both with a region to the N. and with a
region to the S. of Palestine. The facts of M T are as
follows : ( I ) Eldest son of Aram, Gen. 1023 ( W E , AEL).
cp I Ch. 1 1 7 ( W E , A [17-23,om. B], our, L), where Uz,
Hul, etc., are among the sons of Shem, but bAagrees
with M T of Gen. 1023 (so Cappellus, Houb., Ki.).
( 2 )Eldest son of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, Gen. 2221
(WE [A], W{ [L]). ( 3 ) Grandson of Seir the Horite,
Gen. 3628 ( W E [ADL], OUE [E]), I Ch. 1 4 2 ( W E [BA], ous
[L]). (4)A land between nTixn (Egypt? Musri in N.
Arabia?) and Philistia, Jer. 2520 (not in 6 ) . (5) An
Edomite land, Lam.421 (not in (6) A land of
uncertain situation, where Job dwelt, Job 1I ( t v x h p ~
TG A b u [ ~ ] h %; and in 6 ’ s addition to 4217). See.
furrlpr, G EOGRAPHY , 5 20.
Let us consider these data in the following order :-(4), (5).
(3), (6), (I), (2). Not much need be said on (4). The clause
relative to Uz (?)is omitted by Graf, Cornill, Giesebrecht, and
Duhm as a gloss. It seems more probable, however, that vir7
is a corruption of y i ~ nwhich
, a thoughtlessscribe wrote instead
of o.nw55, which follows in the list of peoples. As to (s), it is
plain from metrical considerations that yiy is superfluous : most
probably it is a corruption of a dittographed Y-,N (6,Zai y i s ) ;
the first p seems to have come from lqyn (see L AMENTA-
TIONS, BOOK OF, $ 8 ; MIZRAIM).As to (3), for ‘Dishon’ 6
appears to have read ‘ Kishon ’ which suggests ASkirBn 3 as the
original. Now the first-medtioned son of Dishan (a mere
double of Dishon) is Hemdan-i.e., ,probably Jer&meel. The
corresponding place in’ the list of Dishon’s children ought to he
occupied by some not less important ethnic. Orem (OYN), I Ch.
2 z j , appears therefore to be excluded. MiSSur is what we
expect, and if ~ J isJ a name of purely literary origin, and has
come by an early transcriber’s error from ~ I T ourJ , ~expectation
is justified.
We now come to (6), and ask Where was the land of Uz,
where Job dwelt? The data appear at first sight to be con-
flicting. Job was one of the 013 ‘JX. I t seems therefore as
if he ought to be placed in the E. or NE. of Palestine, and this
can be supported by the mention of the Kasdim in Job1 17, and
possibly by theethnics ‘Shuhite’(?)in 211, and ‘Buzite’ in 322
also by the references to Uz in ( I ) and (2) according to th;
ordinary view. No stress, however, can helkd on the tradition
connecting Job with the district of Hauran called the Nukra
(see Wetzstein’s valuable excursus in Del. ffiob(B, 55~-601)
since it can only be traced back to the fourth century A.D:
On the other hand, the names Eliphaz, B I L D A(p.v.), ~ and
ZOPHAR(q.v.), and the ethnic ‘Temanite’ in 211 suggest
placinc the home of Job in a region S. of Paleshe, and
‘ Kasdim’ in 1 1 7 should probably rather he ‘ KuBim’ (Cushites
of N. Arabia), while the representation of Job and his friends as
cultivators of ‘wisdom ’ indicates that this was really the view
of the writers of our present Book of Job (cp JOB, K OOK OF,
%? 4, 9): This latter view is also confirmed by the apocryphal
appendix to Job in B (see GEOCKAPHY, zo), and, according to
the present writer’s theory, by the phrase Bent kedem in ,Job1 3
which is a corruption of been2 re+enz-i.e., sons of Jerahmeel (s&
For nvny cp de Vogue, J . As. 1897,10zo2 (no. 355).
2 Unless yIJ^srepresent not only y i hut
~ also a transliteration
of yly. See next paragraph.
So ut+?in Ezek. 38 z probably comes from i j ~ ‘ Asshur’
~ ,
(the southern Asshur). See ROSH.
In Lam. 4 21 YlN seems to have come from %-i.e., 1 X i ; see
above, on (5).
5238
 UZAI
REKEM). As to ( I ) and (z), we have seen elsewhere (see, e.g.,,
MIZRAIM)that Gen. 10 has been largely recast so that ‘ Aram
originally meant the N. Arabian tribes knowh collectively as
:A erahmeel,’ and it is possible that’ the names Nahor ’ and
arau’ were originally attached to the Negeb.
To sum up. The two sets of data do not really conflict, if
Aram and Nahor are primarily names of clans and districts in
the Negeb, and not where later writers placed then in the NE.
of Palestine. This is not a mere struggling hypothesis, but
accords with a large series of parallel phenomena. If however
we hesitate to admit this view (which im lies that ‘Arb' come:
from ‘ Jerahmeel’), we may still find a pEusible reconciliation of
the data (see Jon, RUUKOF, 5 4). At any rate, a new critical
treatment of the name may not be altogether unwelcome.
Theories that are simple frequently prove to be erroneous. Cp
Budde, Hioh, ‘ Vorwort,’ pp. ix-xi. T. K. C .
UZAI (’1.7R~ y e [BK],i e y z a i [A], oyz. [L]). father
of Falal (Neh. 3 2 5 ) .
UZAL ($K ; Sam. h’K ; AIZHA), son of Joktan,
Gen. 1027 (om. E), I Ch.121 (om. B, A ! ~ H N [A],
oyzah [L]), and, by a necessaly correction, Ezek.
27 19,where ironwork ( L e . , sword-blades?), cassia, and
calamus (spice) appear among the articles of trade from
Uzal. T h e name is obscure. Ar. tradition makes
A z i Z the ancient name of the capital of Yemen, later
known as Jan‘ii (see Di. ed Zoc. and reff.). The con-
nection of the two names is disputed by Glaser ( S k i m e ,
2 277 310427 434), who prefers to seek for Uzal near
Medina.’
On the text of the whole verse see Cornill (Ez., ad Zoc.).
$? for SiWP is supported by some MSS, e, Pesh., and
nearly all moderns. AV renders *going to and fro’; RV
strangely relegates the above reading (‘from Uzal’) to the
margin, and translates ‘yarn,’ based apparently on a passive
formation of SiN=Aram. Sly, ‘to spin.’ This weakening of
to N does occur in Heb., but not often enough to warrant such
!rendering (cp W. Wright, Corn). GY. Sem. 48 1.17). [See also
Crii. 6 i 6 . on Gen. 10 27 Ezek. 27 19.1 F. B.
UZZA, THE GARDEN OF (Hie 14, . . . KHTTOC
OZA [BAL]: Pesh. g‘itth gmz; hovtus Am), the spot
where Manasseh and Anion, and according to 6 8 (see
below) Jehoiakim were buried ( 2 K. 21 18 26). The
most important passage is 2 K.2118, because the
Chronicler, too, refers to the spot where Manasseh was
buried; he makes no such statement in the case of
Amon. Manasseh was buried ‘ i n the garden of his
house, in the garden of Uzza‘ ( 2 K. 21 18): the I / passage,
z Ch. 3320, simply says, ‘in his own house,’ or (6) in
the garden of his house.’ Most scholars suppose that
near Manasseh’s palace was a plantation named after
Uzza (Uzziah?) where Manasseh had made a family
grave, but this is not quite satisfactory.
I n z K. 21 18 123 is written twice over in parallel phrases.
Omit the second (13,and read 1% n’z I??, ‘in the plantation
of the mausoleum ’ (lit. ‘ rock-house’-i.e., grave in the rock, cp
Is. 14 18 22 166). ry in the Psalter is repeatedly miswritten for
.
:
1
..
.
Note also that in 2 Ch. 368 @B has , , rdr iror,mjOq
‘ I L U ~ K S ~ .NI& &&57 i u yavo<a$ (yauo<au [A], T a u O<a [L])
&era rwv n a r i p w u a h o i .
T. K. C.
UZZAH (oza [BAL]). (?I??,
1. 2 S . 66-8, § 51;
AZZA[N] [A]) or uz&i (K.!?,
2 s. 6 3 [aza, .A] I Ch.
137g-11), one of the sons of Abinadab who took part
in the bringing up of the ark from Kirjath-jearim under
David (see A RK , § 5 ; K IR J ATH - J EARIM ). H e and
his brother (i*nt ; cp A HIO ) were driving the cart upon
which the ark was placed, when. upon reaching a certain
threshing-floor (see N ACHON ). the oxen ’ stumbled’ (see
below), whereupon Uzzah put forth his hand to steady
the ark (emend z S. 6 7 after I Ch. 1310 with We., Dr.,
Bu., and others). For this ‘ God smote him,’ and the
place received the name P EREZ- UZZAH (q...) . T h e
Chronicler, however, accounts differently for the
calamity; ‘none ought to bear the ark of God but
the Levites’ (I Ch. 152 ; cp v. 1 2 5 and col. 3463, n. I ).
T h e narrative can hardly be understood by itself; it
must be taken in connection with 2 S. 5 17-15. It would
1 ABur-bani-pal speaks of a city called Azalla, in the far-off
land of Mas (see MKSHAi.); see Del. Pur. 243, 2981:
5239
UZZIAH
appear (see REHOBOTH, Z AREPHATH ) that, according
to the story which underlies this passage and 2 S,
2115-22 and 2 3 8 8 , D8vid and his gi6b&-im won a
great victory over the Zarephathites and the Rehoboth-
ites, and by textual corruption ZarephathJazzah (the
name in the original text) became Perez-uzzah, and so
an imaginary person was produced, called Uzzah.
T h e corrupt word Perez naturally suggested a divine
judgment (cp Ex. 1922 Ps. 6 0 3 [I]). The story is recog-
nised as historical by W a d e (Old Test. Hist. 248),
but it is perhaps wiser to regard it as artificial. See
P EREZ .
‘ Stumbled ’ is evidently the sense required in 2 S. 6 6, though
AV gives ‘shook’(RV ‘stumbled ’. with margins). i ~ ~ how- w .
ever, is not the right word; pe;haps it is the residuum of
Wpbn?, ‘ wavered violently.‘ For other views see Dr. and Bu.
(ZtHt).
2. AV UZZA (?$J), a Merarite ( I Ch. 629[14]: a<a [AI, o<m
[Ll). Cp GENEALOGIES i., 9 7 (ii. d). T, K . C.
S HERAH .
-
UZZEN SHEERAH, UZZEN - SHERAH. See
UZZI (’$P,a perfectly regular abbreviated form of
[for Cheyne’s view see UZZIAH], cp Palm.
’ID ; O Z [ ~ ] I [BAL] generally).
I . b. Bukki, in the genealogical list connecting
Eleazar and Zadok ( I Ch. 6 5 [531], cp v. 51 [36], o{tvX
[L]). This list is given also in E z r a 7 2 8 (uaoutu [B],
ortuc [A], o@ou [L]), but with the omission of all names
between Meraioth and Azariah (the father of Arnariah).
In I Esd. 82 the name appears as SAVIAS (om. B, uaouta
[A], oftou [L]); for OZIAS(AV E ZIAS ) here represents
Azariah (oC[e]tou [B], e c ~ o u[A], (aparou [L]), and @B
by further omitting Uzzi and his son Zerahiah makes
Azariah the son of Bukki-a proceeding which is based
on a confusion between in*iry and ’ry. Jos. (Ant.viii. 13)
replaces Uzzi and Zerahiah by tw[a]Bap~s. See G ENE -
ALOGIES i., § 7 [iV.].
’
2. b. Tola, a chief of ~ S S A C H A R(8 7, end), I Ch. 7 21: (<tcppa
IB 8. 31).
3. h. Bola b. B EN J AMIN (0 g, ii. a ) , I Ch. 77 ; cp UZZA ( I Ch.
s 7).
4. h. Michri of B ENJAMIN (5 g, iii.),I Ch. 3 8 (o<iou [L]).
5. h. Bani, anoverseer, temp. Nehemiab(Neh. 1122, om. Kc.a).
6. A chief of a father’s house of Jedaiah (Neh. 12 rg 42 om.
BK*A in both places, 4 e L [Ll, O<L [ w a mg.]). S. A. C.
UZZIA (K;!? ; oz[e]ia[c] [BKAL]), the Ashterathite
(very possibly Og’s city of Ashtaroth [Dt. 1 4 etc.] was
really Zarephath, a city on the N. Arabian border prob-
ably conquered by David, see Z AREPHATH ; but for the
received view see ASHTAROTH), one of David’s heroes
(D AVID , § r r n , i . ) ; I Ch.1144.t T. K. C.
UZZIAH (P?? [In in 2 K. 153034 Is. 1I , I etc., 2 Ch.
2 6 1 8 272 ; see also 5, below], either an expansion of
the clan-name Uzzi (see Cn’f. Bib. on I Ch. 531) or a
religiQus utterance = ‘ Yahwb is strength,‘ or ‘ my ’
strength’ (I29): there is the same difference of
1 That ‘Uzza’ in 2 K.211826 has anything to do with
‘Uzziah,’ as Wellhausenonce suggested, is far from probable (see
UZZA).Nor has the name Azrrya’u of Ya’udi anything to do
with our Uzziah nr Azariah. With regard to the authentication
of the names in the OT ‘ Aiariah ’ has on the whole the support
of Kings, Uzziah ’ of khronicles. More particularly, the form
nqy (Uzziah) occurs in z K. 15 13 (?)30 Hos. 1 I Am. 1I Zech.
145, but in zK.153234 I s . 1 1 0 1 7 1 zCh.20rfi 272 inqv
(Uzziahu); ,,?,iy (Azariah) in 2 K. 1421 15 I 7 17 23 27, perhaps
I (see Ginsb.), I Ch. 3 12, but )n*ilry (Azariahu) in a K. ! 5 6 8 .
$10, the point of view of the study of clan-names Azariah IS the
most to be preferred of these forms. An examination of the
occurrences of Eleazar, Eliezer, Azariah, Azarel, Ezri, shows
indisputably that there was till quite late times a consciousness
that Azar or Erer represented a clan of the Negeb. It is note-
worthy that by their mothers the kings of Judah were much
connected with the Negeb. Very possibly the mothers of
Amaziah and Uzziah came, not from ‘Jerusalem,’ but from
‘Ishmael’ (&ail. and $ ~ ywy being liable to confusion).
When a queen-mother was o? erusalem, it was possibly not
stated : take, e.g., the cases o l t h e mothers of Hezekiah and
Manasseh. In 2 K. 15 13 6 ’ s readings are OXO<LOU [AI (cp
o o<eiau B 2 Ch. 26 I ) : 30 a x a s [R], a<aprou [A] (om. L) ; 32
ataprar [BAL]; 34 (o<klrar IBI, a<apLac [ALII.
5240
 UZZIAH
opinion as to ' Uzziel.' The question is hardly decided
by the existence of the Phcen. pr. names Syxy, i h y ,
or the Palm. 'ry and Nab. i'iy, or by the name found
on old Heb. seals-iw~, 'uzziyB'Ci, for which see Wright, '
Cuinp. Scm. GY. 72J -[Che.]).
I. Son of Amaziah. king of Judah. whom he suc-
ceeded at the age of sixteen ( z K . 14z1=z Ch. 261).
'' That the name Uzziah was changed to
Azariah at his accession is highly improb-
criticism' able. Roth names are equally religious or
rather perhaps equally non-religious, and from I Ch.
6 2 4 [ 9 ] and 36 [.I] we see how easy it was for nvy to
become wiry, or for n ~ toy become m y . The form
Azariah is the more accurate, but Uzziah may have
been a popular corrnption: it is hardly worth while
thercfore to disturb the modern usage, and substitute
Azariah for Uzziah. According to Stadel in 1887,
there is very little information respecting Uzziah at the
disposal of the historim. After stating that Azariah or
Uzziah was proclaimed king by a popular assembly, he
adds that ' t h e Book of Kings knows nothing of any
warlike achievements of Uzziah. The king had the
misfortune to become a Ieper, so that in functions like
that of pronouncing judgment, the discharge of which
would have brought him into contact with the people,
he had to be represented by his son Jotham, who was
invested with the office of a prefect of the palace.
Where the leper-king resided (see 6 )did indeed
originally form a part of the tradition ; but the word in
question ( 1 6 5 ) has become disfigured beyond recog-
nition.
In further explanation Stade adds, 'bet hachophschit [V+?;l,
z K. 15 5 , chopnchiit [niu~nn],2 Ch. 26 21,cannot possibly mean
a n infirmary [RVkw. 'a lazar house']. The aphphesath [a+-
+oucw0 : but in 2 Ch.' a$+ouumv B an+ovuoO A] of @ seems to
suggest that it is not the original reiding. It is, however, equally
obxure what is the Hebrew word underlying it. Probably
some building in the royal fortress is meant.' 2
Stade concludes with the remark that a the sixteen
years which the Book of Kings gives to Jotham, include
the period during which Jotham was the regent for his
father.' Elsewhere (567) Stade further mentions that
Uzzinh rebuilt Elath, which his father had probably
recovered. It is clear, however, that fresh investiga-
tions of the Book of Chronicles and of the Hebrew text
both of Kings and of Chronicles d o not favour this
extreme historical so'briety. Considering that the Book
of Kings gives Uzziah a (nominal) reign of not less
than fifty-two years, an augmentation of our scanty
material is of importance. Let us consider our situation.
As to the accession of Uzziah, and the asszmed con-
guest of Elath, we can hardlv rest satisfied with the
2. circum- ordinary view of the circumstances of the
As Kittel has pointed out, these
stances:f :zdontained in portions of two different
uzaiahs documents, viz., z K. 147-14 and vv. 19-
accession' z z : each source. in a carefullv revised
text, must be separately studied. From the former we
infer (cp JOKTHEEL). that the contest between Jehoash
and Amaziah was for the possession of the NECEB
( q . ~ . )a, part of which Jehoash had recovered for
Israel," but which Amaziah wanted for Judah.
decisive battle took place ' a t Beth-cusham which be-
longs to Jerahmeel,' and Amaziah was worsted and
(according to this stratum of the narrative) taken
captive. We now have to turn to our second fragment
of narrative, remembering (this we learn from v . 7,
1 GVIl569f:
a For Stade'sfullerexpressionofopinion, seeZA T1Y6 156.159
(1886).
. __
., where, iateraiia, it is sureested t h a t the true readine mav
I
h a r e been q l h ? n'g, Jer. 3622 (Am. 3 1 5 P i . e . , the winter
palace.
9 Kittel wrongly detaches v. 22, and assigns it to the same
document as m. 7-14. The text, in its true form, does not
ap ear to allow this.
f In 2 K. 13 25 the reference is to cities in the Neqeb: the
present t e x t of 1033 is full of distortions of names of districts
and places in t h a t region. See Crit. Bib.
5241
UZZIAH
I where read ' Arammites,' and for the rest see JOK-
THEEL, SELA)that Amaziah had excited the bitter
animosity of the Arammites or Jerahnieelites by his
cruelty at the rock of Kadesh. T h e notice (vv. 19-22)
is very meagre, and the text is imperfect. W e can,
however. venture to infer from z.19 that, according to
this document, Amaziah had not been carried away by
Jehoash, but had sought refuge at some place in the
independent, non-Israelitish portion of the Negeb.
Thirsting, as it would appear, for vengeance, some of
the inhabitants conspired against the fallen king. H e
fled to Eshcol or H a l u F h (?), an important city in the
Negeb, but the dagger of the assassin found him there.
The actors in the following scene (w. 2 0 - z z ) are the
non-Israelites of the Negeb.
'And all the Cushites bore him [to Jerusalem], and he was
buried in Jerusalem. .. . And the Jerahmeelites took Azariah
(16 years of age) and made him king instead of Amaziah his
father, arid imposed oaths upon him. And they returned to
Jerahmeel, after the king had lain down with his fathers.' 3
The humiliation of Judah was now complete. First
Israel, and then Jerahmeel. had treated it as a subject
state. The only comfort was that Israel and Jerahmeel
were foes, and in a struggle between the two the wishes
of Judah would naturally accompany Israel. ( I t will
be seen that the statement of the conquest of Elath has
arisen out of a corruption of the text.4)
A s to the wars of Uzziah. According to the Chronicler,
the king warred successfully against the Philistines, the
wars of Arabians, and the Meunim, and strength-
bzziah? ened the fortifications of Jerusalem, which
must have suffered greatly a t the capture
of the city by Jehoash ( z Ch. 266-9). The Book of
Kings (as we have seen) is entirely silent as to this
national aggrandisement ; but elsewhere valuable in-
formation has been found underlying the statements of
Chronicles. Still, great exaggeration there must a t
any rate be, as Guthe ( G VI 186) remarks. Unless we
could bring ourselves to identify Azariah of Judah with
Azriya'u of Ya'udi, we could not possibly imagine the
sudden and unexpected revival of the martial prowess
of Judah. M'Curdy, it is true, assumes this ; he also
thinks that therelation of Hezekiah to the Philistine city
of Ekron in the time of Sennacherib, and the statement
of Sennacherib that the cities which he had cut off from
Judah he gave to the kings of Ashdod. Eliron, and
Gaza, imply a period of Judahite expansion which we
can only place in the reign of Uzziah. Winckler, on
the other hand, remarks, 'Such successes as those
which are described would be possible only if Azariah
acted as the vassal of a more powerful prince. Mu+
could not be such, for it is certain that the Philistine
cities would have enjoyed its special protection. There
was Assyria, no doubt ; but Azariah could have taken
part in the Assyrian campaign of 773 [the last year of
Shalmaneser 111.1 only as.a feudatory of Jeroboam 11.'
( K ATi3),262).
There is no difficulty in supposing that either the
Chronicler has misread his authority, or the text of
Chronicles itself has suffered conuption. There is no
difficulty in supposing that Uzziah after a time broke
A his oaths ' and made war on the Jerahmeelites-Le.,
on that section of the Jerahmeelites which neither
Jehoash nor (2K. 1428, explained in col. 3861, n. I)
Jeroboam 11. had subdued. That he ' broke down the
wall ' of Rehoboth and Ashhur,6 is improbable, but he
1 In v. 19 we read, 'And they conspired against him in
Ishmael' ($xyow,, as elsewhere, for &v>l.).
2 Reading 5 2 0 for
~ u.25. The same change may he required
_
in Mic. 113.
3 For t h e corrections see Crz'f. Bi6.
4 The emendation in 2 K. 14 z z a (ni5N3 tnE( E(>>) ; cp Ezek.
17 13) has already been suggested by Klostermann who, how-
ever, makes Jeroboam 11. the subject of the verh. To con-
nect 2,. 22, either in whole or in part, with v. 7 (as most propose),
i.
.s VWV diffirnlt.
-.. -...
5 -Hist. ProjR. Mon. 13x2,n. I ; ' Uzziah and the Philistines'
Expos. 1891 6, pp. 388;396.
6 So read for ' Gath (as often) and ' Ashdod ' (as Am. 3 9). A
5242
 UZZIAH
may have made successful incursions into the Jerah-
meelite land,’ and have inflicted a check on his enemies.
More than this we cannot say, and underlying the
account of Uzziahs leprosy there is probably a record
of a great humiliation sustained by the king.
As to Uzziah’s leprosy (cp LEPROSY, 5 5 , iv.). In.
2 Ch. 26 16-21 he is said to have been struck with leprosy
4. Reported as a punishment for attempting to usurp
the office of the priesthood by burning
leprosy. incense in the temple, in spite of the well-
established fact that the ancient kings from time to
time exercised sacerdotal functions. But in 2 K. 15 5
all that is said is, And Yahwe smote the king, so that
he became a leper unto the day of his death, and
dwelt in the house * * ’ (the last word appears untrans-
latable). Has something been omitted by the compiler
of Kings, and if so, did it agree with Chronicles? To
answer the latter question in the affirmative is difficult,
the story in Chronicles being so clearly post-exilic.
The case is parallel to that of 2 K. 1422. The true text
probably runs nearly as follows :-‘ And Jerahnieel led
the king away to MisSur to the day of his death, and
he dwelt in Beth-zarephath of Missur. ’ a
The mother of Jeroboam I. was called in error ‘ a
leper,’ whereas really she was a Misrite (col. 2404, n.
2 ) ; Naaman in the earlier form of his story was called,
not a leper ( 2 K. 5 1 ) , but a M i ~ r i t e . ~And Uzziah,
too, in the narrative from which the compiler of Kings
drew, must have been brought into connection with the
Migrites. Like Manasseh (probably), Uzziah was carried
into captivity by the MiSrites or Jerahmeelites of N.
Arabia ; but unlike Manasseh he did not return. Mean-
time, his son Jotham was necessarily regent at Jeru-
salem.
As to the earthquake, a detail so romantically used
by Josephus ( A n t . ix. 104). In Zech. 145 Am. 1I (title)
6. Earthqu~~e. we find obscure references to an earth-
quake in Uzziah’s reign, and the sug-
gestion has been’ hazarded that this earthquake may
have suggested the imagery of Is. 2 19-21 and Am. 4 11.
I t is true, the available evidence for the fact is very late,
and Wellhausen throws doubt on its historical character
(cp AMOS, 5 4). In Zech. 145 we should probably read,
‘ as ye fled before Ashhur ’ (VneN), and in Am. 1I, ‘ two
years before Ashhur w-as rooied out.’ The Zech.
passage alludes to the frequent raids of Jerahmeelites or
Ashhurites from N. Arabia, and the Am. passage prob-
ably to the events attending the successes of Jeroboam
11. in the Negeb (see 0 2).
As to references to Uzziah in Isaiah. That there is
such a reference in Is. 61,is unquestionable. In Is.
6. uzxiah in 26-8 12-16, however, it is only to Jotham,
first as regent and then as king, that the
Isaiah. prophetic writer’s descriptions can be
safely held to apply. Exegesis, of course, is unaffected
by this result. T. K. C .
W e have no further information respecting Uzziah,
region in or near the Kegeb was called Aahhur, and there must
’
also have h e n a city hearing the same name (cp the place-name
erahmeel).
1 ?he ‘ Philistines ’ are our old friends the ‘ Zarephathites’
(see ZAREPHATH), and the ‘Arabians of Gur-baal’ are the
‘Arabians of Jerahmeel. The ‘Maonites should be the
’Ammonites,’ which, as often, is a corruption (which obtained
an iudeuendent existence) of ‘ Terahmeelites.
2 iisk naiyn:m x w i ’inn &ii i i m ?inn-nu iunni, 3n171.
The final word IS restored from z Ch. 96 21. The strange word
ny~an;lcomes from nigvNn, ‘the dung-hill,’ and n)auu (as in
the phrase nhprc? lp& Neh. 2 13. etc.) is a corruption of nab’
=naib’.
3 The rendering of 2 K. 5 r6 and accompanying note in the
OT of Kautvch should open the eyes of some readers. ‘But
.
the man was . . leprous.’ ‘The two omitted words mean
elsewhere, “ an able (or valiant) man ” ; either they have arise?
from a mutilation of the text or they have got in here by mistake.
y i ~ 3 , however, if we restore this word, is in apposition to
5:E 113?.
5243
UZZIEL
unless we may venture to identify Azariah of Jiidah
,. Bzriya,u, with an important personage in an
inscription of Tiglath-pileser 111. This
is he Uzziah monarch informs 11s that in his reign
(738 B . C . ) nineteen districts situated in the neighbour-
hood of Hamath banded themselves against him under
Az-(or Iz-)ri-ya-u of Ya-u-di, but were eventually over-
come (see KAT(2) 217$, KB 2 2 5 8 , Tiele, B A G
229J). T h e identification of Azriyau of Ya’udi with
Azariah (=Uzziah) of Judah proposed by the late
George Smith the Assyriologist. and after him by
Schrader ( K G F 3 9 9 8 ) , who ably supported it against
A. von Gutschmid, was accepted by Winckler in 1892,
and is even now defended by M‘Curdy (HPM 1348,f),
C. F. Kent (Hist. He6. 2 126j, and Rogers
( H B A 211gJ). A strong opposition has, however,
been raised to it (see, e.g., Wellh. JDT 20632; Klo.
Sa.-KO.4 9 6 ; Wi. A O F 1 1 8 ; KAPaJ 54, and,
following Winckler, Che. Zntr. Is. 4). Ahaz, it has
been urged, was reigning four years later (734 R. c., see
A HAZ ), and the deaths of Uzziah and Jotham must
therefore have been almost contemporaneous. The as-
sertion that Jotham himself may have possibly taken the
field, and not Uzziah (M‘Curdy, Fist. Prqph. &Ion.
1414), on the theory that p i f a c i t per a S u m f a c i t per
se, is scarcely borne out by the precise wording of the
cuneiform text. But a far greater objection is the diffi-
culty of supposing that Uzziah of Judah should ever have
wished to interfere with Tiglath-pileser, that he should
ever have been in a position to undertake such an
expedition, and that he should have been the leader of
a band of tribes representing a district extending from
the Orontes to the sea, and from the northern flanks of
Lebanon and Anti-libanus to the sea of Antioch ; for ’
whatever his relations with Jeroboam 11. may have
been, it is at all events clear that the statement in 2 K.
1428 cannot be called in to support the identification
(see J EROBOAM ii. j.
These objections are urged &th great force by
Winckler ( A O F 1 IO^), who, dismissing the old identifi-
cation, would explain Ya-u-di as the well-known wv of
the Zenjirli inscriptions mentioned in the steles of
Panammu and Hadad. a view which is favourably
quoted by Kittel (KOnise, 263), and unreservedly ac-
cepted by Hommel (art. ‘ Assyria,’ Hastings’
S. A. C .
2. One of the b’nE Kohath, in the genealogy of HEMAN, I Ch.
624[9]=36 [ Z I ]AZARIAH, 2Wl!y.
?. One of the h’nE HARIM, Ezra 10 21= I Esd. 9 21 AZARIAS
(bit o<ias [LI).
4. Father of Athainh in list of Judahite inhabitants of Jeru-
salem (E ZRA , ii., 5 5 6, 5 15, I a) (Neh. 11 4, a&S LBI, a4dva
1x1).
5. Father of JONATHAN, g (1 Ch. 27 25, ?>
.)!;
T.K.C.,§S1-6; S . A . C . , § 7 .
UZZIEL ($&’j$, § 29 ; either a clan name [cp
UZZIAH], the -el being only formative,’ or= ‘God is my
strength.’ 5 29 ;, , O Z [ B ] I , H ~ [BAFL]), a name found
only in post-exihc writings, and in connection with
names capable of being regarded as clan-names of the
Negeb (Che.).
I . b. Kohath (cp JAHAZIEL, 3 ) ; mostly mentioned
last in the list of sons (Ex. 618 Nu. 319 I Ch. 62 [528] 18
[63]). According to Lev. 1 0 4 he was the uncle (19)of
Aaron ( a c q h [B]). Of his sons who are mentioned in
Ex. 6 2 2 (see also I Ch. 2320 [@B identifies Uzziel with
Jahaziel of 5x91 2424) the most important was Elzaphan
(cp Z APHON ), who was the chief of all the Kohathites
(Nu. 3 30).
1 Among the districts named are gaiarikka, Arka, Sianna
(see H ADRACH . ARICITL,SINITE).
2 See, on the other hand, M‘Curdy, H i d . Projlt. Mon. 1 4 7 3 8
It has also been plausibly suggested that ,iu* may be meant in
the famous title of Sargon at the opening of the Nimriid inscrip-
tio? ( K 6 2 37), ‘the subduer of Ya’udu, whose situation IS far
off. Elsewhere, Sargon calls Canaan 6ft gum& (cp KAT(?
189, and see OMRI). See SARGON, S 17.
5244
 WZZIEL
The b’nc IJzziel are mentioned in I Ch. 15 IO with Amminadab
their chief as amounting to 1 1 2 ; and it is noteworthy that
Elzaphan appears in v. 8 as a separate clan. From Uzziel come
the UZZIELITES (‘!KVF?, Nu. 3 27 6 o<€n?p+rls [Bl, b o<qh’sis’
[A], o<tqA ’BLS [F], O<L+ 6 s [Ll ; I Ch. 26 23). See GENEALOGIES
I., 8 7.
2. h. Ishi a captain of SIMEON (5 5) in the raid against the
Amalekites knd Meunim (I Ch. 442).
3. b. Bela, in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (g.v., 5 9, ii. a) (I Ch.
7 7).
4. A Hemanite rnusichn (1 Ch. 25 4 a4aparlA [B], who in v. 18
is called AZAREL (L however 04‘qA).
5. In 2 Ch. 29 7 4 bzziel fig& as a son of Jeduthun, not of
Hernan (as above). It is also noteworthy that the name occurs
here in close connection with that of Elzaphan (v. 13).
6. ‘ Uzziel, the son of HARHAIAH ( q . ~ . goldsmiths,’
) of thegem, is therefore hardly justified.-T. K. c.]
VAREB (371[TFl; but MSS and Gr. Ven. 3 3 j n X ) ,
apparently a locality in the Amorite country, towards
Moab, described as being ’ in Suphah‘ (nplb?); Nu.
21 14 RV.
AV (following 0nkelos)gives the indefensible rendering, ‘What
he did in the Red Sea’; Vg. ‘ sicut fecit in mari rubro’ ;1 GI.
Ven. erepa& ;v Aaihanr. The rendering of @EA, however-
+ (<oop [FL]) ;~h6.yr~ea-presupposesthe reading Ini-nH
q i ~ and
, studying this in the light of suggestions elsewhere
made with regard to the ‘stations’ of the Israelites and the
place-names in Dt. 1I Gen. 3631-39, we see that ‘Vaheb’ is
probably a corruption of ‘ Missur’ and ‘Snphah’ of ‘ Sarephath
(see DI-ZAHAB SUPH). If the quotation really comes from a
poetical record bf the ancient wars we may further suppose that
a verb has dropped out and render ‘(he conquered) Missur and
Sarephath’ (two placis in N. Arabia on the horde‘; of S.
Palestine ; see MIZRAIM. 8 26, ZAREPHATH). I t is much more
probable, however, that instead of ‘the book of the wars of
Yahwk’ ( 7 , ~nnnio
. 1,~)we should read ‘the list of Jerahrneel’
(sxnni, i a ~ and
) suppose that the Priestly Writer here intro-
duces us to’one of his chief sources of information for N.
Arabian place-names.
The paasape then becomes, ‘Wherefore it is said in the list of
Jerahmecl The land of Missur and Sarephath; the land of
Jerahrneel) which stretches tdwards the city of Zarephath, and
is adjacent to the border of lRli$$ur’(5Np??: 1BDp 1F: )$7y
iyf!? n r l g 1,Y) i~p: lt: %pn>; ‘~751w:l
TW?).’ See Crit. Bi6.
VAJEZATHA, RV Vaizatha (KGlj! ; zaBoyealoN
[BL”], zABoyAeea [K1, zAB0yrAeA [AI, IzAeoye
[La]), a son of H A M A N ,Esth. 99. The names of
Haman’s sons put a heavy strain on the traditional
theory respecting the Rook of Esther. In the case of
Vaizatha the form itself is not certain, the I being ex-
ceptionally long and the I exceptionally short (a trace
of an early corrector’s work?). Benfey conjectures as
the Persian original Wahyaz-data.
If, however, the story has been remodelled, and in its original
form the names were such as a Hebrew writer might regard as
Jerahmeelite (see PLTRlhl, 8 7), one might venture to restore m,i
(cp in!, 1 IO), behind which may lie ’nais, ‘Zarephathite.’
Haman, being an Agagite, was an Amalekite (ie., Jerahmeelite).
VALE, VALLEY, occurs in AV a s the rendering of
the following Heb. wmds :
1. pgp, ‘tmt (etym. ‘ d e p t h ‘ ; KOIAAG cpaparf,
rrsAion. etc. ), for which, in geographical designations,
RV, followed by G. .4. Smith, gives ‘vale,’ is the most
natural antithesis to i;, hEr, ‘ mountain ’ (cp Mic. 1 4
I K. 2028, iiii-n, 7z?.Gr, D. 23, cp P LAIN , 5). It is
applied to wide level spaces opening out of a mountain-
ous country. About the names of most of these ‘vales’
considerable controversy has gathered (see A CHOR ,
ELAH, E SDRAELON . M ULBERRY - TREE , R EPHAIM ,
SIDDIM, S UCCOTH ). The vales of Hebron and Aijalon,
however, are well-known, and may be taken as typical.
1 Vg. continues ‘sic faciet in torrentibus Arnon. Scopuli
torrentium inclinati sunt, ut requiescerent in AI, et recumberent
in finibus Moabitanim.’
2 @ continues cai TO& Xci&povs Apvov x a i m3s X F L ~ KWC‘W-
rqutu K a . T O L K i r 7 a Hp, mi.I r p d u x e r r a ~d s hpiotr M w p .
5245
VASHTI
in list of wall-builders (see N EHEMIAH , $ I/ ; EZRA
ii., §§ 16 [I], 15 d ) , Neh. 3 8 (BBNA omits). See Ryle.
Be. -Ry., Siegfr. ad 206.
[Various explanations have been given of this strange phrase.
Apart from the ‘ Jerahmeelite theory,’ we may be grateful for
S. A. Cook‘s ingenious suggestion (Exp.TI0~80,and HAR-
HAIAH). But in the light of many other pwsages in which
‘ Jerahmeel’ and ‘Zarephath’ put on strange disguises, and,
in particular, of wu. 31f: (on which see Amer. /own. of TheoC.
5440 [I~oI],and PERFUMERS), it is difficult not to decide
somewhat positively in favour of the followin restoration,
‘ Next to him repaired Uzziel, son of Jerahmee?, a Zarepha;
thite. And next to him repaired Hananlah, son of Jerahmeel.
The historical inference of Meyer (Enfst. 153) that artisans
with no landed estate had nogem, the guild taking the place
V
‘Emek is also applied to parts of the Jordan valley (Josh.
1327 [cp @I 17 16, and, if the text is correct, Ps. 606[8],
hut see SUCCOTH),and to the lateral valleys of the
Jordan ( I Ch. 1215 [al;hdv] Cant. 21). In Ps. 6 5 1 4
Job 39 IO ‘ vales ’ are apparently referred to, not as the
antithesis of mountains, but as containing fertile arable
land. But the text of these passages is disputed. AV
has V ALE in Gen. 143810 3714, and D ALE in Gen. 1417
(RY: vale’) 2 S. 1818 (EV). On the difference between
the em& and the bik‘d (see z ) , see ESDRAELON. .
2. ny??, 6i4‘dh (etym. ‘ split,’ ‘ cleft’ ; se6iov) is also
used in contrast to ‘mountain’ (“8, Dt. 8 7 1111,
[ s c 6 t v f i ] , cp Ps. 1048). T h e etymological meaning ex-
plains Is. 404, ‘ Every bik‘ah (EV ‘ valley ’ ; @ @ddpayt ;
Di. ‘ravine’) shall be exalted’-ie., filled up. T h e
modern Arabic equivalent eZ-Eukd‘ is the name given
to the valley situated between the Lebanons. T h e
same word is rendered PLAIN( 4 . w . ) by AV in Am. 1 5
(RV ‘valley’), Ezek. 37rf.(AVmg. ‘champaign’), and
by EV in Neh. 62 Dan. 31 (Aram. yp), Gen. 11 z Ezek.
3 z 2 J (RV”W ‘valley’) 84, etc. On D t . 3 4 3 (EV
inaccurately, ‘ the plain of the valley of Jericho’) see
1~ ~15 J ORDAN , 2.
T. K. C. 3. ~ ; s(also x’q. w;, *a ; see the Lexicons), gui,g2,
etc. (etym. perhaps ‘ depression ’ ; +cipay[. also v h q ,
KorXds, etc., once P O U V ~ zS , K. 216 [om. A]). A fre-
quently occurring word for a somewhat narrow opening
in the mountains, gorge, ravine; see (e.g.)JIPHTHAH-
EL, H ARASHIM . SAMARIA, ZEBOIM, ZEPHATHAII.
HAMONGOG, and especially H INNOM . In I S. 1 7 3
(adXdv [aAL]) it apparently designates the deep channel,
dug by the turbid water torrents in the middle of the
vale (‘&ne&) of Elah. Relatively to the gui,or lower
valley. the ‘erne& might be called hdv, ‘mountain,’
unless we suppose in I S. 17 the combination of elements
from two sources. See ELAH,E PHES - DAMMIM .
4. $?!, nrihal, denotes both a winter torrent and the valley it
flows through. It occurs in both senses I K. 18 5. See BROOK.
T. K. C.
5. njsW3, the sh&V&ih, AV ‘vale,’ ‘valley,’ ‘low plain,’ RV
‘lowland.’ See JUDIEA, SHEPHELAH.
6. a6Wv, Judith 4 4 (see SALEM, VALLEVOF) 7 3 17 10 r o f :
(see BETHULIA).
7. $$pay[, Judith 2 8 ($Apayyas .. , xrt&ppovs,’ ravines . .
wldys ) 7 4 1 1 1 7 1 2 7 1 3 1 o L k . 3 5 ( = I s . 4 0 4 ) .
.
VAMPIRE (nph), Prov. 30 15 RVmg. ; see LILITH
(§ 2).
VANIAH (VW),of the bnE B ANI ( p . ~ . ) ,in list of
those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., Q 5, end); Ezra 1036
( o u ~ r x ~[B] a -rpe w [XI ovovma [A] ovav. [L]), apparently the
ANOS(avos[‘BA],x?om. i)of II I Esd. 9 34.
VASHNI (+Jdl),
I Ch. 6 28. See J OEL i., 2.
VASHTI (*o@!:ACTIN [BKALB], oya. [La], ETI
[? BKC.a.AL in l~g]), the name of the consort of
Ahasuerus, who was divorced on account of her refusal
. to present herself before the guests of the king on the
seventh and last day of his great banquet (Esth. 19-22).
5246