PSSACHAR
Bucher des ATPI, '99-Appendices 305 f.. K. Budde,
Die Bucher Richter und Samuel, '90. F. Marhuart Funda-
mente isvaelit. u d jud. Gesch., 196 ; d. H. Bateso: Wright
Was Israel ever in Egypt? '95 , A. H. Sayce, The had;
History of the Hebrews, '97 ; Ear& f s v a d and the Surround-
ing Nations, 'gg ; Fr. Hommel Ancient Hebrew Tyadition
Illustrated by the Monuments) i7' A. Freiherr von Gall,
Altisr. Kultstatten, '98 ; H. Winc lir Alttest. Unters., 92
E. Archinard, fsrael et ses voisins akatigues, la Phinicie)
. Winckler ( G I 256), on Shechem's sacred mountain. On
IAram. et rAssyrie de I'ijoque de Salomon d celle de Sani
zhen3, '90 ; M. Diedlafoy, L e roi David, '97 ; H. Winckler,
Musri iMelu&a Ma'Zn '98; W. Robertson Smith 31e
Proplr;ts of Israel and tFhrplace in HistoryPl, '95 ; K;sters,
Net Herstel von Israel in Let Persische Tgdvak, '94 ; A. van
Hoonacker. iVouveZles h d e s SUI ?a Rerta2watiorr l&w nhr>.r
I'exile de Babylone, '96 ; A: Kuenen, Gesammelte 2bhan&. i.
6ibL Wiss. (from the Dutch by K. Budde, '94); Ed. Meyer,
Die Entst. des judenthums, 96 ; W. Tudeich, Kleinaszat.
Studien, 'gz ; B. Niese Geschl der g&ech. and makedon.
Staaten, '93 ; H. Willrich, Juden u. Gricchen v o r der makka-
baischen Erhebung, '95 ; F. P. Mahaffy, The Empire of the
PtoZemies. ' 0 4 : E. Schiirer. Gach. dzs iiid. VoZka iwt Z~itaZteer
Bd. 5 '85. A. Bertholet, Die
Stellung der Zsvaeliten f i n d derlude; zu )den Fremden, '96 ;
Chevne. lewislt Relipiaus Life after the Exile. '08 : B. Stade.
Die*En&t.a.' Yolkei Zsrael;'g9:, K. Budde Th; Religmc 03
Zsrael to the Ex& 19w. U. Wilcken ' Eih Actenstuck zum
jiidischen Rriege Tr&m's,')kermes, 27 {87) ; A. Schlatter, ' Die
Tage Trajan's und Hadrian's,' Beitruge ZUY F5rderung Christ-
licher Theologi2, ed. by A. Schlatter and H. Cremer, 1('97), 3
heft. See also PROPHECY, and other special articles.
H. G.
ISSACHAR (7;Vk: ; [ ~ I i c c a x a p [BAL], some-
times l c b ~ [B*bF]
~ p ; in Rev. 7 7 some MSS l c a q a p ;
Jos. I C A X ~ P H C ; on the name see below, 3, 6 end),
apparently the name borne by the inhabitapts of the tract
lying between the highlands of Ephraim on the S. and
those of Naphtali on the N. ; between the lowlands of
Zebulun on the NW. and the deep Jordan valley on
the E.
Issachar finds prominent mention in the present text
of the battle-song i n Tndg. 5. It would be natural that
1. Rarely t h i br& of the struggle should fall there.
mentioned. It is noteworthy, however, that whilst
Tosh. 21 28 ( I Ch. 6 7 2 1571) assigns
Daberath to I&char, Josh. 19 12 places it & t h e bor;der
of Zebulun. Moreover, in the passage where Issachar
is mentioned in Judg. 5 the text is uncertain. There is
no quite unambiguous evidence that Deborah or
Daberath (whether a person 1 or a town) or Barak,
helonged to Issachar (see D EBORAH , 5 2 3). Can
there have been a desire to suppress the name of
Issachar? It is not quite impossible. The writer to
whom is due the enumeration of tribes summoned by
Gideon (Judg. 6 35) and of tribes that gathered together
to pursue Midian (7 23), if rightly represented by MT,S
omits Issachar-the very tribe which, one would sup-
pose, would be most intimately concerned, and (if
we suppose that Purah is a corruption of Puah; see
GIDEON, I n.) may have supplied Gideon with his
attendant. Similarly, Issachar is allowed no part in the
fight described i n Judg. 4. Still more strange, perhaps,
is the omission of the same tribe from the list of those
summarily told of in the latter part of Judg. l.4 More-
over in the ' Blessing of Jacob ' the reference to Issachar
is rather disparaging, and in both the ' Blessings ' Issa-
char yields precedence to Zebulun, although in Gen. 30
Issachar is the elder of the brothers. I s d l this acci-
dental ? Or can a reason be found ?
Issachar's being a Leah-tribe associates it with
Zebulun (cp the connexion of the two in Dt. 3318f:),
2. Special and they are mentioned together in the
Song of Deborah (Judg. 5 14) ) : their
territories were contiguous. What is
1 Moore Budde and others.
2 C. Niebuhr ' Wi. GI2 '126.
3 Of course th; text may be corrupt ; see GTDEON, $ I , where
it is proposed to read ' Issachar ' in the Gideon ?,tory for Asher
''~%~?%ZIS suggests that Issachar may have been included
in Joseph ; Bu. ( R i S a 4 4 8 ) and Moore (judp. 49) suggest that
it was omitted through accident or design in abridgment.
2a89
ISSACHAR
noteworthy, however, is that the 'Blessing of Moses'
connects the tribes not as comrades in war (as in Judg.
5 ) but as guardians of a great religious fair (Dt. 33 18f: ) ;
as if they had formed a northern confederation like that
of Shechem which had its religious centre, according to
what mountain such a gathering of northern clans may
have been held does not appear ; possibly on Tabor
(Herder, Graf, Steuernagel 7) or Carnie1 (Knohel, Cer-
tholet). Nor have we any clue as to the deity who Mas
thus honoured, unless we can venture to find a veiled
hint in a well-known story connected with the birth of
Issachar and Zebulun.
Reuben found dGdri'im (see M ANDRAKE ). These
naturally belonged to Leah, the fruitful mother ; but
Rachel bartered for a share. Issachar and Zebulun were
born to Leah, Joseph to Rachel. Whatever be the mean-
ing of Reuben's-being assigned to Leah (see R EUBEN ),
the tribe u'as mixed up with G AD [q.w , § 31. Now Mesha
tells us (Z. 12) that when he took Ataroth from Gad h e
carried off ;nilS H ~ Nwhich, implies a cult of some kind.
The Gadite cult may have been shared by Reuben : un-
less, indeed, 'Reuben' in Gen. 3 0 1 4 was originally 'Gad,'
whose birth has just been told of (w. ;I) : Gad could h e
called Leah's son. If there underlies the story of the
dGdU'im the fact of an old cult, it i s a little difficult to
extricate it naturally; but it is noteworthy that the
Issacharite tribal hero Tola, or his clan Puah, is said
to be ' son of Dodo ' (nil; the text -of the passage,
however, is doubtful ; see 5 7).
It seems certain that pbpular etymology connected the
name Issachar with the Hebrew root T&, 'wages ' (cp
3. Nasle. the gloss 6 PUT^ pluBos [BAL] and Jos. PK
pIuBou vev6pevos) and in J's form of the
theory the hire had to do with the mandrakes (Gen.
30 q ) . l It has been thought that religious ideas some-
times led to the omission of certain tribe-names (cp
G AD , 2). If the omission of Issachar was inten-
tional, the reason may have been political (see below,
p) ; but implications involved in the 'Duda' story
might be enough. Or if the connection of the name
with an Egyptian god Sokar (which is in fact one of
the alternatives proposed by C. J. Ball, SBOT on Gen.
30 18 ; see below, 6) was held by some in ancient
times, it is barely possible that this may have been dis-
advantageous'to the tribe.
The first syllable of Issachar may possibly have been taken by
J to be the Hebrew word W*N (so We. TBS, p. v also 9 5 3 and
Ball, o j . cit.), the whole name being explaiAed as 'man of
hire.' Another popular explanation may have been W:.
(cp Jer. 31 16 = z Ch. 15 7 Eccles. 4 9) ; perhaps also l $ iNe:.%
T h e theory that the name is compound is not impossible (cp
M a n y modern writers, however, incline to the view that
$It 6).is simple.8
Thus Ball compares the Arabic Gkar ;4 Nestle
(AJSL 13 175J ['971) seems to favour Wellhausen's comparison
of the Nabataan name ZaXp?h-os,6 and Cheyne thinks Is-
sachar is a popular corruption of Yizrab[el] ([$~ln.rr+),which h e
has suggested as perhaps the original'of Israel ( 5 ~ 1 ~ 3and ) of
Jezreel (ixyli?) (see JACOB, 5 6 ) : Jeveel lies on the Lorders of
Issachar. On the second part of the name see further, below,
0 6.
1 In E Leah gave up her handmaid to Jacob (v. 18).
a The name appears in the consonantal text invariably a s
VWW'. This is printed lawe!, that is with the KrE l?@: ; but in
different authorities occur the following five other forms : l?U$':
(without dazhesh), l $ W , l$cvl, l?$p; ; on which
see Ginsburg, Zntrod. 250-254 (cp Baer-Del. Gen. 84x).
3 The view that the second w was meant to show that the w is
~,not &, is supported by Nestle(AJSL 13 175J,Trans. ZX Or.
Cong. 2 62) who, however, believes that the was really b. The
double w may however be due to 'Volksetyrnologie.'
4 'Sorrel,' Ar 'reddish-brown' of horses (cp Lane,. a< voc.
Wi. G I 2 2x1,n. I) ; cp Gen. 49 14a, and note the derlvatlon of
7 p n (see Ass): The phonetic equivalent of Issachar in Arabic
IS yaskur, which pccurs as a tribal name (see, e.g., YXkiit 3 2x8
2. 14) ; cp $ ~ i , w , in a Minaan inscription from Mad%' in Sdeh
(DHM E#. Denk. no. xxv. 1.4 ; see further Muller's note, p. 48).
5 Heid.PI 3, n. j ;'znd ed. omits.
2?90
 ISSACHAR
If we judged by appearances we should conclude that
in historical times Issachar played no im-
’‘ in portant part. Some of the kings of Israel,
history’ however, appear to have been men of
Issachar.
There seems to be no sufficient reason to doubt that
one of the older sources of Kings called Baasha ‘son
of Ahijah, of the house of Issachar ’ ( I K. 16 271.’ Of
the origin of Omri nothing is said ; but that he also was
of Issachar is for several reasons not improbable. If
then there is anything in the notion that there was a
tendency to avoid mentioning Issachar (see above, $0
1 - 3 ) it might be suggested that under the Jehu dynasty it
became the fashion to disparage the ‘house of Issachar.’
It would not be strange if this were so. On the other
hand Jehu himself may have belonged to the house of
Issachar.
That would be the most natural explanation of his being
called in inscriptions of Shalmaneser 11. ‘son of Omri’ (KAT
189J 208); note also the phrase ‘statutes of Omri ’ (Mic. B 16 ;
see O MRI I). However that may he Jehu was a trusted general
of Ahah ’and Jehoram. The last ’king of the line was slain
near Ibleam. Jehu’s father’s name is given as Jehoshaphat,
the name (not a common one) of the governor of Issachar in the
listinrK.4 whereinMT(v. 17)heissaidtobesonofParuah but
Paruah shohd probablyrather be Puah, the Issacharclan.4 jehu
is oftener, however, called son of Nimshi. This is obscure; hut
i f we may explain it on the analogy of the Punic n j i II~ to ~ y l i i .
Nimshi would imply the cult of a god vj, which might be the
‘same as that referred to in the Issacharite BAASHA[q.v.].5
On the other hand Jehu may have been a southerner.
There are not lacking features of his policy that would fit in
with such a theory (see J EHU $ 2) and Nimshi may have been n
southern name (cp Abishai, ’Am& ; and, for the first part of
the name, Naomi and Elnaam [ I Ch. 11 461).
Whether the dynasties of Omri and Jehu were from
Issachar or not-and the saying in Gen. 4914f: suggests
I. Geographical that Issachar supplied, rather than
conditibns, employed, gangs of labourers-there
were not wanting influences that
might have enabled men of that tribe to take a leading
place. If ‘ nature has manifestly set Esdraelon in the
a r m s of Samaria,’6 it has also assigned it a different
lot. Commenting on the ‘ Blessing ’ of Issachar (Gen.
4 9 1 4 ) G. A. Smith says (p. 3 8 3 ) ‘ T o the highlander
looking down upon it, Esdraelon is room to stretch in
and he happy.’ The most important point, however,
is that the plain of Megiddo is the natural route from
Sharon to the Jordan. From the earliest times it
contained the sites of fortress towns (see E SDRAELON).
Though its connection with Ephraim and with Gilead
was very close, we have no hint how it became connected
with Israel ; perhaps in self-defence against the inroads
of the still unsettled peoples of the east ; or in connec-
tion with some other great struggle.’
1 @ A ’ s oilcou a u a x a p indeed, may not he strong evidence
confirmatory of M T ; h d dBneed not be opposedreally. PeAaav
o ULOS a x m a may be a dittograph of Baaua u. a. due to homoio-
teleuton (aurov .. . OLKOU) (the x a p of @n’s eXapa&u [fXapaKwUeU ment (GI2 158, etc.), that Saul was a Jabeshite (cp S AUL), is
L)] for w a r of @A’S mara.$fwlooks oddly like the end of m u a x a p ) .
L I .adds I u u a x a p of M T after pe66apa (=psAaav of @B).
2 H e was chief general under the ‘house of Issachar,’ and we
are not told his origin. I t is plain that Ahab had a palace a t
Jezreel (although ‘which was in Jezreel’ in I K. 21 I may be an
insertion [d om.]), which continued to be the home of the
family. The original owner of the hill of Samaria may have
been an Issacharite (cp the clan of Shimron). I t should not be
ignored that in the Chronick/s list of Davidic tribal princes,
i h e prince of Issachar is called Omri (I Ch. 27 18). Naturally
in such a list (cp Gray, HPN185f: r88), no stress can be laid
on this; hut traditional names do occur in the liqt : see Ephraim,
Benjamin. (By a strange coincidence the plain of Megiddo is
now called Merj ihn ‘Xmir.) Here might he mentioned also
the Phcenician policy of the house of Omri. Cp Smith, 0619
14876 Guthe G V I 1 3 8
3 Shl, onelof his h o k e was called Jerohoam.
4 The ’I may be from i b which perhaps stood between 915
and i 3 o w 3 , as in d B u r o s ~ o u a u o u S f v i u u a ~ a p ( i . e . , i w 3)a 13, cites do not seem to be really parallel, the meaning there is ‘the
and practically in @L V . p a p u a o v x (Le., n i w i 2 p = i v ais 13)EV
tuu.
5 If the Jehu dynasty also belonged to the house of Issachar
a political reason for the rise of a fashion of disparaging
lssachar is hard to find.
6 GASm. HG379.
7 Gnthe (GVZ 73), who accepts I S. 11as it stands, infers from
2291
ISSACHAR
It appears that at one time the plain of Megiddo was
pretty completely under the power of the Philistines.’
6. Prehistoric At least, the Zakl;ar(i) (TB-[k]-ka-
ra-[y]), who were associated with them
times’ had firmly established themselves at
nor in the 12th century.2 Who the people were who
suffered from these intruders we are not told. It might
be supposed that they would hardly be Israelites, who
probably settled first in the highlands ; that the strangers
would be interested merely or mainly in the trade-routes
and the cities lying on them, and that it was from them
that these were won by Israel. That may be so. The
struggle, echoes of which we find in Judg. 5 , may con-
ceivably have had this very result. No more, however,
can we be sure that the land was found in the un-
disturbed possession of ‘Canaanites.’ We hear of
the district first in the time of Thotmes 111. and it
was thereafter more or less continually in the power
of Egypt or contesting that power. The Amarna
correspondence, however, shows us not only the open
country but also the towns (e.$. Megiddo [Z<B5193])
threatened by the Habiri. The one thing that seems
to be clear is that the population must have been even
more than usually mixed.3
It is not impossible that some Egyptians might remain
when Egypt finally withdrew-. At least, there would
be natives or settlers who had, been attached to them
in one capacity or another, especially mercenaries.
The Egyptian derivation of the name Issachar referred
to above (0 3 ) , therefore, is perhaps not quite impossible.
Issachar is the only name of the ‘twelve tribes ’ (besides
Naphtali) from which no gentilic is formed in the OT,‘
which makes it not improbable that it is a compound
name. The Moabites knew a neighbouring people as
Ish-gad (see G AD, § I ) . It may be, then, that there
was in the Gilboa district a community known to their
neighbours by some such name as Is-sachar-ie., the
men of the god Sakar-as Ish-gad were the men of
the god Gad (G A D , § ~ f : ) . ~
Another theory (Che. C r i f . Ei6.) not open in the same way
to the ohjection referred to below, regards v w w * as a popular
euphonic adaptation of a primitive tribal name Ish-heres ( D i n w + )
‘ man of the sun’ ’ cp the place-name Beth-shemesh (Josh. 19 22) ;
hut the author of this theory prefers the explanation Yizrab [dl
mentioned above (§ 3, end).
The difficulty (referred to above) in the way of snpposing
‘
that Issachar’ contains a reference to a god Sokar, is that, al-
though, according to the SakkHra list, a king of the second
dynasty (the Sesakhris of Manetho) bore a name compounded
with that of this deity and such compounds were favourites
(Erman, Am. Eg. 1595 in the old empire (cp Seker-$‘a-ba’n;
Lieblein, Dict. de mrns /Ei#rog?v#lzipes, no. 1359 and others),
there does not appear to he any evidence that the name of this
god was used in forming proper names outside of Egypt.
Saul’s choosing Bezek as mustering place (I S. 118) that he
counted on drawinm from Issachar and the northern tribes.
Bezek, however, is Tust opposite Jahesh, and Winckler’s argu-
certainly plausible. Even if it were to be held, with Cheyne,
that Jabesh-gilead is a corruption of some other name, Guthe’s
inference is not conclusive : the mention of Hezek might be a
consequence of the corruption (see S AUL , # I, near end).
1 This statement may stand even if it should be held that the
people referred to in the original fbrm of the story in Sam. as
holding Israel in subjection werenot the Philistines. See S A U L
§ 4 and ZAREPHATH,where other related changes in the readin;
of ;he traditional story are proposed.
2 WMM, +WAG, I ~ c o ,;~cp . D OR.
3 Guthe thinks that Issachar and Zebulun came from across
Jordan and probably were pushed into their later seats by
Joseph’when it followed (GVI 50). Cp § 8, end.
4 In the case of y x u p w w , however, in Judg. 10, it is just
possible that a final , has been lost before the following ~ 1 7 ) .
Otherwise we must insert p (Moore), or substitute it for W’N,
before i3gqp. It is difficult, a t all events to follow Budde
(ad roc.) in regarding the text as sound. Nu: 25 8 14, which he
1sra;lite’ : here it is ‘ a n Issacharite.’ See, further, the article
cited below
below, next col. n. 3.
hgyptian god Sakar not very much is known. His
5 Of the Egyptian
name is met with chiefly in combination, as Ptah-Sokar or
Ptah-Osiris-Sokar. Originally apparently a sun-god, he ‘becLme
thegnd liar’ $ox+ of the Memphitenphite Xecropolis,’ ultimatelygiving
ultimately giving
:demann, Petrie).
his name to the modern village SakkPra (Wiedemann,
2292
 ISSACHAR
I t is true the letters S K R ( ~ ~occur
D ) in several proper names
at Carthage : a god i [ ~ l o a i a n( C I S 1 253 L2541; cp i m m inn
in a Maktar inscr., Lidzbarski, Ejhemeris, 149); 1 3 ~
(CIS1 267 372 ; Eut. 152) ; but in each case 1 3 is~preceded by
a, and the name i>Dni2y (in a Sidon inscription : Rev. dAss.
11. 3, p. 76 I‘9.1) seems to show that the divine name is not 133
but 13DD. Nor is the name $yii>D, also at Carthage (CZS
11218 1354)~decisive. There does not seem to he any unarn-
higuous case of iyl preceded by a divine name. 1 3 is ~ there-
fore probably, as elsewhere, for 137 (so Lidzharski, Ep/ienzeris,
We find a Sacar (i3b) in T Ch. 113j, as father of
3:;id‘s hero Ahiam the HARARITE (of Arad? Adoral) ‘ but in
11 2 S. 23 33 Sacar becomes Sharar. See also ISHSECHEL.;
In I Ch. 26 5 a certain Issachar is seventh son of Obed-edom :
but there may he dittography : i j w w * ~ W W ? . Similarly in the
case of Sacar, the fourth son (u. 4) : i 3 k o ~ 5 t j ? .
The later historyof Issachar is obscure (cp SCYTHIANS).
How few people are expressly said to
., Later have belonged to Issachar has been
history.
genealogi;s, noted already (§ 4, begin.). For an
interesting case see S HUNAMITE , SHU-
LAMITE; for a tradition regarding N. Israel’s great
prophet, see H OSEA , 9. With Belemoth, the name
of his supposed birthplace, cp e’s Baithemoth men-
tioned below, § 8.
On the Issacharite ‘spy’ (Nu. 13 7) see JosEPHi., 5 I n. On
the representatives of Issachar in the list (I K. 4) of Solomon’s
prefects and in the Chronicler’s list (I Ch. 27)of David‘s captains
(1~) of trihes (Omri) see above, 5 4, with footnote (4).
In Tola we have a typical case of the equivalence of
‘ genealogies ’ and ‘ annals. ’ According to Judg. 10I $
‘Shamir in Mt. Ephraim’ boasted that it was theresting-
place of Tola, son of Puah, son of Dodo, an Issacharite
‘judge’ of Israel. In P s ‘genealogy’ of Issachar
part of this story appears as a simple list of names.*
For ‘Tola the son of Puah who dwelt (xv)in Shamir’
we find four sons of Issachar : Tola, Puah, Jashub2 Italy was used as a geographical term in the same sense
( n w - ) , Shimron.
In the geneqlogical lists there is nothing equivalent to the
‘hen Dodo’ inserted in Judg. 10 I after Puah. I t is therefore
not improbable that ‘hen Dodo‘ is to be explained as a marginal
note 3 and ‘Mount Ephraim’ as a (perhaps erroneous) gloss on
Shatkir or Shimron (@BAL ZaCapeLa); cp Gen. 46 13 Num.
26 2 3 3 I Ch. 7 I. It is not likely that the genealogy contained
a name KAREAH.4
With regard to the Issachar clan names it is remark-
able that Shamir is a precious stone (D IAMOND , § 2),
whilst Tola is a dye-producing worm, and Puah,
apparently, a dye-producing plant. On this coincidence
see, further, ZEBULUN.
To the four names given in P the Chronicler adds eleven de-
scendants of Tola, four of whom are ‘sons’ of Yizrah-yah (cp
above, 5 3, end).
P s geographical details about Issachar are not clear.
Instead of a ‘boundary’ (u. 18) we find a list of towns (omit
AV ‘toward,’ RV ’unto‘-<.e. the 7 pf n5uyil*-with the ver-
sions), eAding with a fragment of boundary
8. P’s boundary. I. 2z)-Tabor (@B yar0pwp [‘land of
Tabor’?], @A Oa+wO, @L eapwp, some
MSS j3aiOspwO : see helow, n. 5), and two unknown places :
S HAHAZUMAH and BETH-SHEMESH. The (thirteen : so Pesh.5)
towns in the list are JEZREEL (Zer‘in)on a northern promontory
of Gilboa C HESULLOTH (IKsdl)below the hills of en-NgSira,
SHUNEM (S8Zem) on the SW. slope of Nebi Dahi H APHARAIM
perhaps (el-Farriye!) on the hills between Carmel knd el-Lejjiin
SHIONperhaps (‘Am Sha‘in?) across the plain NW. of Neb:
Dahi A NAHARATH perhaps (‘Arrlne?) on the lower hills west
of ‘dilboa, R ABBITH [q.~.], KISHION(Kidshon?; Tell abu
KudEs?), EBEZ (g.v.), R EMETH (g...), E N -G ANNIM (/enin),
E N - HADDAH (for En-harod?, ‘ A h JaZGd) and BETH-PAZZEZ. and Gershom. The supposition that Eli was a member
To these places is to be added JARMUTH (JAsh. 21 z8)= RAMOTH of this guild is manifestly uncritical, and has been
(I Ch. 7 73 [ 5 S ] ) which is the third of the four Levitical cities in
Issachar : Kxsiion (Josh.)=Kedesh (I Ch.), Daberath, Jarmnth
=Ramoth, and En-gannim (Josh.)=Anem (I Ch.).
1 On the question of the relative priority of P’s list and Judg.
10 I, see the article referred to in n. 3.
2 For the variants see JASHUB.
3 See an article on the genealogy of Issachar and Tola in the
O L Z 3 3 6 6 3 [19wl, where, for example, it is suggested that
‘hen Dodo’ possibly means ‘son of his d&-a gloss due to
the fact that Tola is represented as son of his younger brother.
4 Tlie reading Kupw(Kupve) in eight minuscules, sixofmkick
omif ’id Yissdhzr, is probably a fragment of ‘ Issachar ’ or
’ i 3 w w * (see preceding col. n. 4).
5 @ almost unanimously omits v. 22 6. MT reads sixteen.’
Possibly ‘to Tabor’ (axn2) was read as a place-name : Beth-
bar(?) ;cp several ofQ’svariants. This would give sixteen towns.
2293
ITHIEL
According to Josh. 17 IO (also P) Issachar bordered
on Manasseh on the (S.) W. (cp E PHRAIM, 5 6), whilst
~ ~ 2
according to zw. 11-13 ( J ) the most important cities in
Issachar (see s)--Beth-shean, Ibleam, Taaiiach,
Megiddo (with Dor)-were, with their districts,’ claimed
by Manasseh and eventually made dependent by Israel
(cp Judg. 127 I Ch. 729). H. W. H.
ISSHIAH (p&[once V I : ~ .-$ ~ = W V N , ‘man of
T .
Jab"; I E C C [ B ] I ~ [ B A L I ) .
I. AV ISHIAH,
an Issacbarite (I Ch. 73, m n a [Bl, LEU. [AI,
wu. [L], Jesiu [Vg.]).
2. AV JESIAH.a Korahite. one of David’s warriors (I Ch. 126.
- I
ln.w’, ;quouver [BU], ieuia [AI, LBUUOUB [Ll,/esia [Vg.]). See
D AVID , 5 11 (aiii.).
3. The head of the b’ne Rehabiah ( I Ch. 2421 om. B, m a a s
[AI, L O U . [L], Jesias [Vg.]) : in I Ch. 26 25 his name appears as
JESHAIAII (??a’+$ wuaLas [BA], cwmf [Ll).
..
4. AV JESIAH b. Uzziel (Jahaziel), a Levite (I Ch. 23 20
luau [B] ~wu~us’[L], Jesiu [Vg.]), of whose sons Zechariah i;
alone merkoned (ib 24 25 cuLa [B] au. and LW. [A], iwuLou [Ll).
5. Ishijah, RV isshijkh, one Af the b’ue HARIMin list of
those with foreign wives (see E ZRA i., 8 5, end); Ezra 1031
(Leumas [L])=I Esd. 9 32, ASEAS(auaras [BA]).
ISSUE (29, irpp, etc.), 1,ev. 1 2 ~1 5 2 etc. See
MEDICINE.
ISTALCURUS ( i c ~ & A ~ o y p[A]),
o y I Esd. 840. See
ZABUD,2 , and cp UTHAI.
ISUAH (3!@,), I Ch. 730 : RV ISHVAH.
ISUI (9)@), Gen. 4617 ; RV ISHVI.
ITALIAN BAND ( H CTTEIPA H KAAOYMENH
ITAAIKH), Acts101. See CORNELIUS, I , and cp
ARMY, IO.
ITALY ( ITAAI&). From the age of Augustus the word
in which we use it now. See further ROME ; ROMANS.
I t occurs four times in the N T viz. Acts 101 ‘the Italian
’s
band’(see ARMY, % TO, CORNELIUS x):Acts 182,’the expulsion
ofthe Jews ‘from Italy ’ 11 ‘from RAme‘ ;Acts 27 I Paul’s voyage
t o Italy, i.e. to Rdme; Heb. 1324, ‘those bf Italy’ (see
E 5 9).
HEBREWS, E ~ I S T LTO,
ITCH (Dln), Dt. 2827t. See DISEASES, 3.
ITHAI (’n’y), I Ch. 1131. See ITTAI.
ITHAMAR (TO?’&, derivation uncertain, ‘ father of
Tainar ’ ? ’K being perhaps for ’2K,cp ABIEZER and
I-EZER; but ‘K is more probably a fragment of a
divine name, see ICHABOD, JEZEBEL ; le&M&p[BAFL]),
the name of a guild of priests which, to judge from I Ch.
243f., was of less importance than that of E LEAZAR
(4.v.). See GENEALOGIES, § 7 [iv.], ZADOK,and cp
C . Niebnhr, Gerch. d. e&. Zeitulters, 1280. It is in
accordance with this that in the priestly genealogies
Ithamar appears as the youngest (4th) son of Aaron,
Eleazar being the third (Ex. 0 23 28 I Nu. 3 zf., cp Lev.
1061216 [PI). In P s description of the wanderings
Ithamar is represented as superintending the Gershon-
ites and Merarites (Nu. 428 33 78). The Kohathites
(to which the high-priestly family belonged) are not
under his charge. The guild is mentioned again in
the list of the returning exiles (Ezra&= I Esd. 8 2 9 , cera-.
papou [B]). It is curious to notice that in this passage
the name occurs in connection with the b’ne Phinehas
shown to rest upon a misunderstanding ; see ELI, 2.
S. A. C.
ITHIEL (!J&YWK, perhaps ‘ E l is with me,’ cp IM-
M ANUEL ; and see N AMES , 5 28),in list of Benjamite in-
habitants of Jerusalem (see E ZRA ii., § 5 [a], $ 1 5 [I] a),
Neb. 117t (&ieIHA [BA], ~ € 0[.K ; a dittographed c],
€0. CLI).
Although the Nabataean name 5yn.u is closely parallel (CZS
2 196), its meaning 1s equally uncertain-‘ Bel exists,’ o?’, he
whom Bel leads ’; to render ‘Bel is with me’ is, of course, Impos-
sible, since the;preposition nu is not used in Aramaic.
1 Quoted by Driver (TBS 92) in connection with the
mysterious ISHVI
(g.~.).
2294
 ITHIEL AND UCAL
ITHIEL AND UCAL (52y) 5H'j7ye[)1,TOIC nlc-
TEYOYCIN CIEW K A I ITAYOMAI). personal names in
Prov. 30 I , where RV renders ' The words of Agur the
son of Jakeh ; the oracle. The man saith Unto Ithiel
and unto Ucal.' It is usual to retain 'Agur son of
Yakeb ' as the name of some unknown Jewish or non-
Jewish sage, but to get rid of Ithiel and Ucal by
changes of points or consonants. Thus Kamphaiisen
(Kau. H S ) renders v. I (after the heading), 'The man
speaks (saying), I wearied myself about God, I wearied
myself about God, and pined away' (&J; so Del.,
Frank. ). This, however, implies an unusual construction
of the verb n& with an accusative. Hitzig, Delitzsch,
Frankenberg prefer to make 5 ~ 'God,' , a vocative ;
but the context does not suggest an address to God.
' Agur son of Jakeh ' is almost equally hard to explain.
Toy owns perplexity. ( W A C , however, puts us on the
right track. rois mur. Oe3 represents 58 *~m&, all of
which can still be traced in MT, except that N stands
for the second n (see further C ~ i tBi6.
. ). The text prob-
ably is, ' The words of the man (called) hak-kehkleth,
the guilty one, to those who believe in God.' Cp KOHE-
LETH. T. K. C.
ITRLAH ( 3$ny)lJosh. 19 4a RV, AV JETHLAH.
ITHMAR (ann!),a Moabite, named in David's army-
list ( I Ch. 1 1 4 6 f ; &€MA [BXJ I&. [A], l&&M [L]).
ITHNAN (Qqf,'5 I O ) , a
town in the southern part
of Judah,l mentioned along with Kedesh and Hazor in
Josh. 1 5 2 3 ( A C O ~ I W N A I NKAI MAINAM P I for Hazer
and Ithnan ; NAZI@ [A] for Ithnan, Ziph in v. 24 ;
IONAN [L]). See ETHNAN.
XTHRA(K>?!), zS.1725t. E V W JETHER(q.v.,3).
ITHRAN (17Jf, 'eminent'; cp JETHRO). I. A
Horite clan-name, Gen. 3626 (LeOpau [ADE], re. [L])=
I Ch. 141 ( y d p a p [B], d p a u [AL]). See DISHON.
2.In a genealogy of ASHER(q.7,. 5 4 ii.), I Ch. 7 37 (&pa [B],
c&p [A], om. L). In I Ch. 7 38 tde name apparently recurs as
JETHER 6 (ln:, ~ e . 4 7[B],
~ d e p [AI). @L gives eepav (i.e.,
Ithran?) for Ulla the father of Hanniel and Rizia (u. 39); see
ARAH,i.
, 5 46, cp ABIATHAR, JETHER,
JETHRO, AMMI [NAMESWITH], and see below ; see
also Grax, HPN 49 55; I ~ ~ P A A M P I , iaepoac
[Jos.]), the sixth son of David by Eglah, zS. 3 5
(eie0apaaM [A], I E ~ ~ A[L]), M I Ch. 3 3 (@&PAM
[B], I E @ ~ & [ A ] M[AL]) ; see D AVID , 5 I I ~ . The name
IS miswritteu J ERIMOTH (g.v.,9 ) in 2 Ch. 1118, where
we should probably read Mahalath (see M AHALATH ),
daughter of Ithream and of Abihail daughter of Saul.'
The Chronicler, who draws from an older source, not
knowing Abihail (a name corrupted elsewhere into
M ICHAL ) as a daughter of Saul, has emended h e
into 2 ~ 3 5(Eliab).
~ Accepting the old view which
identifies Ithream's mother EGLAH (P.v.)with Michal,
Klostermann suggests that Ithream ( i . e . , ' residue of a
kinsfolk') described the child of Michal as a repre-
sentative of the almost extinct family of Saul. In itself
this view is not unplausible (cp Jndg. 7 6 ) , at least if
Klostermann's explanation of Eglah be in some form
accepted; but it seems to the present writer to be
opposed by the analogy of the names Rehoboam, Jero-
boam. T o explain Rehoboam as ' the people is wide,'
and Jeroboam as ' the people increases' (see N AMES ,
46) appears arbitrary; a m in such names (when
genuine) is, at any rate in the older period, presumably
a divine title (see A MMON , § I ) , and Ithream ought to
mean ' the (divine)kinsman is pre-eminence.' T.K . C.
ITHRITES, THE ('ld'?, aleahEiM [BAT o & p i
[L]), a family of Kirjath-jearim, I Ch. 2 5 3 (see S HOBAL).
In z S. 2 3 3 8 I Ch. 11 40 Iraand Gareb are called Ithrites :
1 So Jerome (OS11833, 'Ethnanin tribu Juda') and Eusebius
( 2 . 2 5 4 57, EOvap +uArjo 1 0 ~ 8 ~ ~ ) .
2295
ITUREA
z S. (arOerpaios [B"], eoerpaios [Ba.b], &kvaios [B],
eopaios, 7eepir7S [A], reefper, [L]), Ch. (7e7PEL,
roevpe~[B], re7PeL,roeqpel[HI, [A], [€epr[I,]). In
z S. 2338 arBcrpaios [B] seems to suggest a reading * w u
(Th., Klo., Marq., H. P. Smith)--i,e., a native of
J ATTIR (g.~.),in the hill country of Judah (Josh. 1548
21 14).
ITTAH-KAZIN (I'Y? 7@'), Josh. 1913, KV ETH-
KAZIN.
ITTAI ('W, EQBEI P A ] , le1 [Ll, eelc [Jos. Ant.
vii. 921, euBaros [ia. lox]). I. A Gittite, who with 600
Philistines entered into David's service shortly before
Absalom's rebellion (zS.1518f: [ n p o c ] c&eel [B in
2). 191). So far as the text is intelligible, it would appear
that Ittai-hisnamewas probably once in v. 186,thus pro-
viding a natural introduction to w. Iga-was a ' stranger '
(-m) who had been exiled from his native place (reading
ii$??, 6 ,Vg.), and David advises him to return and
take back his brethren with him, adding a benediction
(see T RUTH ). In the fight against Absalom, he is a
commander of the third part of the army. The rapidity
with which Ittai, who when we first meet him had only
been a short time with David (2s. 1520, $t$m $in!),
springs to the high position of commander along with
Joab and Abishai ( 2 S. 182 5 12) is surprising. It is
natural to suppose that he was one of David's well-tried
warriors, perhaps one who had been with him during
his residence at Ziklag. It is hardly safe to identify
him with z (below).
2. Ittai, one of David's heroes, who, probably to distinguish him
from I (above) is styled b. Rihai from Gibeah of the children of
Benjamin,' zd. 2329 (suOaer. [B], om. A, rOOr [ Z ] ) = I C ~ .1131
]THAI en'&
arpsb [B], aleec [K], ~ O O U[A]). S. A. C .
ITUREA-;.e., the territory of the Ztureans, which
should mean especially (see I SHMAEL , 4 [7], and cp
GASm. HG 545) the southern part of the Antilibanus.
It is mentioned in AV of Lk. 31, where the appear-
ance of the new prophet, John the Baptist, is elabor-
ately dated. The passage which, according to RV, runs,
' ... and his brother Philip (being) tetrarch of the
region of Ituraea and Trachonitis,' and according to AV,
'. .. of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis,' is
in Greek (Ti. WH), ~ r X i ~ a o66 u 700 d&X+00 adro0
rerpapxofivros rijs ' I r o u p a i a s Kal TpaXwuirr6os X6pas.
Which of the renderings is correct? It is important
to notice that in Acts 16 6 the AV and the RV differ once
more. The best MSS have rtu +puylav Kai PaXarrK+y
X d p a u (so Ti. WH). This, as appears from Acts 1 8 q 2
(if the text is right), should mean, in Lk.'s style,
Phrygia and the region of Galatia.' Herod Philip,
then, on this view of Lk.'s meaning, held a tetrarchy
composed of two districts called respectively Iturzea
and Trachonitis ; but here two difficulties arise.
a. It is at any rate doubtful whether there is a single
Greek writer before Epiphanius3 (Her. 19) and
Eusebius ( O S 268 93) who uses 'Iroupaia, ' IturEa,' as
the name of a country.
Appian, in a list of countries, mentions I I a A a L o r i u T v K a i .;lv
though in Jos. Ant. xiii. 1 3 Dindorf
' I ~ o u p a i o v 4(Civ. 57), and
reads ' I r o u p a i a v , Niese's
and Naber's reading 'Ivoupaiov is
proved to be rieht bv the followine words, which refer to the
people of the It;raea<s.5 ' ~
This however is the less serious difficulty. I n Acts 1s 23 it
is Doshble to rdad with fannarentlv'l Pesh. i n v I'aharrrcbv a a i
region.
1 On the text see Dr. ad roc.
2 rhv F a h a r t & yrjpav K a i Q u y l a v [Ti. WH].
3 Ramsay, Ex&&Y, '94a, p. 5 2 .
4 Ramsay, ib. pp. 5 2 , 146.
5 wohcpfuas [ ' I r o v p a ~ o v r l K a i n o M $ u ah& fir &
-p,as $
' I o d a i p apOaKT~U&peVOS.
6 See Chase, Expositor, '936, p. 405. Blass and Chase are on
m e side, Lightfoot and Ramsay on the other, in the interpreta-
tion of Acts 16 6. .
2296
 IVAH
6. The next difficulty is geographical. It is quite
conceivable that a wild, semi-nomadic race like the
Ituraeans may, when their -home on the Antilibanus
was taken from them, have migrated into Trachonitis
(proper), and that this region was therefore sometimes
spoken of as Iturzean. G. A. Smith very aptly refers
to the migration of many Druses from the Lebanon to
the Jebel HaurZn (to the SE. of the HaurZn, on the
edge of the desert), which has therefore acquired the
second name Jebel ed-Driiz. There is, however, no
historical proof that the Ituraeans migrated in this way,
and that hence their name attached itself to this new
abode ; and in view of the extreme care with which Lk.
dcscribes the date of the Baptist’s appearance, it cannot
be thought likely that Lk.would have used this second,
popular name ( I the Ituraean region ’ ) for Trachonitis,
when there were other territorial names which had so
much better a claim to be referred to in connection with
Herod Philip.
For of what did the tetrarchy of Herod Philip consist ?
Josephus tells us. It was Ratanzea, Trachonitis,
Auranitis, and certain parts of the ‘house of Zen0 (or
Zenodorus) ’ about Paneas (An#.xvii. 114, B/ ii. 6 3 ) .
Now even if we grant (for argument’s sake) that the
latter territory,l not (according to the hypothesis just
now rejected) Trachonitis proper, may be intended by
‘the Ituraean (region)’ in Lk. 31, who can think it
likely that Lk. would mention the region of Paneas in
preference to the names of more important territories 7
Surely he would rather have selected Gaulanitis (Jos.
Ant. xvii. 8 I ) or Auranitis (xvii. 114). Is it not on the
whole probable that he actually did so ? No names are
more liable to corruption than those of places. In the
very passage which has occasioned this article (Lk.3 I )
there are traces of the existence of a false reading
’IGoupuras for ’Inxpaias ; what if ’I~ovpaiasitself is a
corruption of abpavhrGos? Omit i s , which, after L T ,
would be a natural transcriptional error, and yon have
a group of letters which might easily be confounded
with rTouparas. This is preferable, not only to the
rather improbable conjectures mentioned above, but
also to the suggestion of Holtzmann ( H C 157) that by
a n anachronism the evangelist assigns to Philip the
territory afterwards possessed by Agrippa.
See the discussion between Chase and Ramsay, and between
Ramsay and G. A. Smith in the Expositor, ‘936, ‘ 9 4 a ; and
c p Schiirer, Hist. 2, Appendix I. T. K. C.
IVAH (il!v), 2 K. 18 34, RV IVVAH. See AVVA.
IVORY (id,‘tooth,’ implying that the Hebrews
knew that ivory was not a hop-n,; MT, and consequently
EV, twice assume that P’?gJ5’ also means ‘ ivory ’).
Apart from such sources as the tusks of fossil ele-
phants and allied animals, and of the narwhal, etc.,
which may practically be neglected, ivory is derived
from the incisor teeth or tusks of the E LEPHANT ( q . v . ) .
It is the solid dentine or central substance of teeth,
1 No stress can be laid on Eus. O S 2G8 93, ’ITOUpa& + Kai
TpaXmv;nr; for, though Eusebius was a native of Palestine, he
does not escape geographical mistakes, especially when dealing
with the E. of the Jordan.
2 G . A. Smith argues that ‘if the name [of the Iturreans]
spread down the slopes of Anti-Lebanon SW. towards Galilee
[see Jos. Ani. xiii. 1131 it is quite possible that it also spread
down the same slopes Sk. upon the district of Paneas’ (Ex$ositor,
’9,4a,, p. 236). Schiirer, too, remarks (Hist. 2 TI&’) that this
district formerly belonged to the Ituriean state.
3 D’??? (1K.1022 zCh.921, A V w ‘elephants’teeth,’6SQvT~r
;AF+&VTLVOL [only A in I K.]) has been taken to mean ‘tooth of the
habbim’ (O’q?), which Schrader ( K A ;r14 187) connects with
.
Ass. ?in aZ-ab, ‘tooth of halah ’ but the authority for this sup-
posed Assyrian na;me for the ’elephant is most insecure (cp
E LEPHANT n. 2). Ivory’in Ass. is Einni-piri,.or, in the Amarna
tablets, Einkbiri (cp Zeit. f: Vdkerjsyc& 13 249), and, unless
we emend D’32 to 5 9 3 (‘elephant,’ cp Syr. u-9, etc.), it is
best either to identify with the Egypt. ad, ebs &p Lat. dsr)
‘elephant’ (with this we might combine the theory of an ultimat;
Sanskrit original [i6Jcas? cp 3&$as]), or to read ‘ivory and
ebony’ (D’?:;() IF) as proposed elsewhere (see EBONY).
74 2297
IYE-AIBARIM
which, alike on account of its mass, its fine ‘elastic
quality, and its property df taking a high polish, has
always had a high commercial value.
The Tyrians, it appears, obtained ivory from
Dedanite or Rhodian merchants (Ezek. 27 I j ; see
1. Source. DODANIM) ; the Israelites, in Solomon’s
time, through a ship or ships of their own,
from O PHI R (q.n.. I K. 1022, cp ZJ. 18). It is generally
supposed that part of this ivory came from India,’
though the African elephant has always been the main
source of the commodity (this on account of the large
size of the tusks, and because there are tusks in both
the male and the female). Assyria received a small
quantity from Egypt through Phcenicia-usually in the
form of skilfully chiselled plaques or ornaments. Gener-
ally, however, it was imported in its rough state; the
Assyrians themselves worked it up. This will account
for the different style and character of the actual finds (cp
Perrot-Chipiez, Art in ChuZd. 2 3 1 9 8 ). The Egyptians
ohtained their ivory partly from Ethiopia, which was
reputed to be very rich in it (cp Pliny, 8 I O ) , partly from
Cyprus (Brugsch, Gesch. Aeg. 317 322 ; WMM, As. u.
Ear. 336, n. 2 ; cp Ohnefalsch Richter, I?yp,ros,
~
1140 191 ; EGYPT, 5 33). On the coast of Asia Minor
there was an ivory industry of great antiquity (cp ZZ.
4 141-144).
Ivory being a hard and durable substance, many
articles, carved and veneered, have survived to our
2. Use. time both in Egypt and (especially) in As-
Syria. Cant. 5 14 has been quoted as referring
to such objects ; but ‘efeth (nge)perhaps rather suggests
a muss of ivory than an artistic product (see Siegfried,
ad Zoc. ). ‘ Vessels of ivory‘ are mentioned only in
Rev. 18 12 : but ivory w a s used by the Israelites as well as
other peoples in the decoration of palaces ( I K. 2239 ;
cp Am. 315 and, if correct, Ps. 458 [SI). The Ninevite
palaces were certainly inlaid with ivory (cp Hom. Od.
463, chambers of .Menelaus). Amos ( 6 4 ) refers in
anger to the ‘beds of ivory’ of the nobles of N.
Israel (the reference to Zion in 61 can hardly be
original).2 In Taylor’s cylinder inscription it is said
that in the tribute of Hezekiah to Sennacherib were
‘ ivory couches, splendid seats of ivory ’ (Schr. K A 7?)
193 ; cp BED, § 5). Rather strangely we read in Cant.
7 4 [ 5 ] of a ‘tower of ivory.’ Some particular tower
seems to be meant (cp a. j 44) : but where and what was
i t ? Delitzsch thinks that it was panelled with ivory
externally-a difficult supposition (see below). Among
the Phcenicians ivory was used to ornament the ship’s
deck (or rudder[?] Ezek.276), just as, at
3. Other an early age, ivory was used by the
references.
Greeks in the handles of keys or bosses
of shields, etc. It is prohable, however, that the above
list of references should be shortened.
Thus in Ps. 45 R [g] and Cant. 7 4 [5] ]e,
‘ ivory,’only appears
through a corruption of the text. I n the former passage 3 2 1 3 ] w
should probably be O?@, ‘ointments’ (Che. Ps.(Z)),and in the
latter jg? should be l’!$O (Wi.) or l’:(Che.).
? See Winckler
( A O F 1 2 g 3 A),and more fully Cheyne (JQR,Apr. ‘99), Who
takes ‘the tower of Lebanon which,looks towards Damascus to
be a variant of ‘the tower of Senir.
Some additions, however, may be made to the list.
Thus in I K. 10 22 many read ‘ ivory and ebony ’ for ‘ ivory ’ ;
in I Ch. 29 z the same reading is possibly right for ‘ onyx stone ’ ;
and in Is. 2 r6a ‘:hi 9 of Tarshish ’ should not improbably be
‘palaces of ivory. gee EBONY.
A. E. S.-S. A.C.-T. K.C.
IVVAH (a$’), AV Ivah, 2 K. 1834 19 13 Is. 3 7 1 3 f .
See AVVA.
IVY ( K I C C O C ) , 2 Macc. 67. See BACCHUS.
IYE-ABARIM (n’l?gG q),
NU. 3344 R V, AV
[JE-ABARIM.
1 J. Kenned& article ( J R A S , Apr. ’98, pp. 241-288) comes
to a different conclusion.See T RADE A N D LOMMEICE.
2 Cheyne would change i>*s,‘ Zion,’into ms (see ZARETHAN).
1
2298
 IYIM JABBOK
IYIM (n'!p), Nu. 3345 RV, AV IIM. 1 IZLIAH (nyVl!), I Ch. 8 1 8 RV, AV JEZLIAH.
IYOB (>jW), Job 1 I RVmg., EV JOB.
IZRAHIAH (ntq>Tl, ' YahwB rises,' §§ 35, 53 ; c p
IZHAR (ips',, ' it (?)shines' or ' oil,' § 54 : ~ c [ c ] ~ ~ p
ZERAHIAH) b. Uzzi. an Issncharite : I Ch. 7 3 ( z a p e i ~
[BAFL]), b. I<6hath, a Levitical family name (Nu. 319,
[BI, I ~ Z P A A[A" Yid.], I E Z P I A [A1 and AI3 iezepia
AV EZEHAR; Ex. 618, I C C A X A ~[Bl I E C C A A ~ [F]; [L]), cp Z ERAHIAH b. Uzzi ( I Ch. 66 [532] etc.). The
p ; Nu. 161, IACCAAP [F"], P ; I Ch.
i6. 2 1 , c ~ a [F] identical name appears also in the EV under the form
62 [523], 18 [63], iecchap [L]; 38 1623'1. 23 1218t). JEZRAHIAH [q.n.].
In I Ch. 6 22 [7] the name is less correctly Amminadab
(but rauaap [AL]) ; see AMMINADAB (3). See GENE- IZRAHITE, (tl2]!l7), I Ch. 278. See ZERAH.
ALOGIES i., § 7 (iii. e).
The gentilic is Izharite ('?W, I Ch. 2122, ruuapai [Bl, ruuaap~ IZRI ('??'+.e., a man of YY!. ; a Jezerite, see
[AI, vto; cuaap [L] ; 26 23, ruuaap [B], AL as 21 2 2 ; ib. 29, ruuaper J EZER ), a son of Jeduthun ( I Ch. 2511, *??!$, iacAp[elr
[Bl, r ~ a a p i[AI, rcuuaapi [L] ; AV once Izeharite, Nu. 3 27, b
U ~ ~ L @*I,
W LUU. [Babl, u a a p s ~
[AI, luu. [FLI). [BA], IEZ. [L V . 141). In I Ch. 253 his name appears
IZHAR, RV; AV JEZOAR (Y??!, kt.; Ynkl, kre), a as ZERI ('7: ; ooup[e]c [BAL]).
son of ASHHUR[q.~.]of Jndah ; I Ch. 4 7 ( c ~ a p
[BA],
~ p For lye, see ZOHAR, 3.
~ l c [L]). IZZIAH (n:!!), Ezra1025 RV, AV JEZIAH.

.
J
JAAKAN (jtq!),I Ch. RV, AV JAKAN ( q . v . ) . JAUANIAH (Vl:$!y!, 32; 'YahwB hears or
JAAROBAH (?I?$ $73;
;!, cp ASHARELAH, JESHAR- ' weighs ' ; cp AZANIAH ; ;?'By!, Jer. 35 3, Ezek. 11I ;
EIAH, a Simeonite name (I Ch.436: I ~ K A B A [B], $W!', Jer. 408 : ?:;),' Jer. 421; IBZONIAC [BRALQ]).
IAK. [AI, 1 8 ~ 8 B[L]).
b
I . Son of the Maacathite . a captain ( 2 K. 25 23 ' o<ov~as [BI ;
Jer. 408, JEZANIAH). Probably identical with ' Jezaniah h.
JAALA (RhJ' [Gi. Ba.], other readings 'pl and ?l$Pl Hoshaiah, Jer. 421 (a<apras [ B N A Q l t i n 432 called AZAKIAH
[Gi.]), Neh. 7 5 8 , or Jaalah ( ;I$-:- §s
P, 5 3 , 6 8 ) , Ezra256. [T.u. 161 (a<apras [BVAQI, a3aXapLas [N*]), which is read by
QI, [except Q w . ] in the former passage. Cp JOHANAN (9).
The b'ne Jaala, a group of children of 'Solomon's
2. b. Jeremiah a Rechabite head (Jer. 353; LaXovLau [BNA]).
servants ' (see N ETHINIM , and cp E ZRA ii., 9). 3. b. Shaphan,' head of seventy elders of Israel in a vision of
The readings are : Neh. 7 58 ( d q A [B] ~ e a q h[NA], ic8aAaa Ezekiel (Ezek. 811 ; rcxovcar [BQal).
[L])=Ezra 2 56 (ceqha [B], ~ c A a[A], ~ d i a aLLI)=x Esd. 5 33, 4. b. Azzur, a leading Jerusalemite (Ezek. 11 I ; r a x o v ~ a u
J EELI (cs[~lqA[~lr
[BAI, L E G A[Ll).
~~ [BAT]).
JAALAM, RV Jalam (biy!, I§ 54, 64; I E r h O M JAAZER (>IF:), Nu. 2132, etc. See JAZER.
[BADEL], an Edomite clan, ' son' of Esau (see EDOM,
JAAZIAH fl?l;)V, 'Yahwk strengthens,' cp J AAZIEL ;
§ 2 ) . Gen. 365 ( I E r h O Y M [E]) 14 18 ( l E r h W M [DVid.]) ;
1 Ch. 135 ( I E r h A O M [L]).
29 : oz[s]ia [BA], OZIAC [L]), one of the 'Sons' of
Merari ( I Ch. 2fiz6f. ).
JAANAI, RV Janai ('Jp!, also 'XJ! [Gi.]), a Gadite
.(clan), I Ch. 512.1. ( I A N E I N [Bl, - N A I [AI, I W A N I [LI o JAAZIEL ($S9?y!,' God strengthens,' cp J AAZIAH :
r p A M M A T E y C ; CP [41). zg), a Levite, of the second degree, a temple musician
JAAR(lY!),Ps. 1326 RVmg. SeeICIRJATH-JEARIM,$3. ( I Ch. 1518, O Z ~ I [BW,
H ~ IHOYA [AI, IEIHA [Ll).
For 'Zechariah, Ben, and Jaaziel we should, omitting 1 2 ,read
JAARE-OREGIM (ny-$k q!), 2 s. 21 19; see 'Zechariah and Jaaziel' (65'- Z. vlbc L.), cp Ki. SBOT ' Chron.,'
ad bc; With the omission of the initial * the name appears
E LHANAN , 5 2. again in n. 20 as k?!?(AXEL,05"[s]i~~A
[BNAL]). The proper
JAARESHIAH (n:@:#!), I Ch. 8 27 RV, AV vocalisation is undoubtedly 5!VY, a reading to which the
J ARESIAH (4.v.). versions point.
JAASAU, RV Jaasu, RVms, Jaasai (%'?!, Kt. JABAL (h:),
Gen. 4zof. See CAINITES, 11.
'&P:cp$@.tJ!, 31, p),one of the b'neBAN1 in list JABBOK (3$!, IABOK
[BADEFL], but I A B W K [L
of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 3 5 , end), in Josh. 122 Judg. 1 1 1 3 221 ; IABAKXOC or IOBAKOC
Ezra 1 0 3 7 (insi [Vg.], 'uthhi [Pesh.], K A I ETTOIHCAN, [Jos. Ant. i. 2021). The ' luxuriant
;.e., W&'!l [BSA], om. L), whose name may be re-
cognisedin the ELIASISof 11 I Esd. 934 ( ~ A i a c s i c[BA],
river' is the significant name of the
tortuous stream which divides the hill-country of Gilead
-
om. L, formation analogous to @$)y). (see G ILEAD , § 3 ) , and finally reaches the Jordan just
above ed-D&n+/z (see A DAM , i.), about 25 m. in a
JAASIEL (5&+&~!, 31 ; 1 EI performs,' one of straight line N. of the Dead Sea. Like the Arnon it has
David's heroes, I Ch. 1 1 4 7 , AV J ASIEL (SCCEIHAJB], a continuous stream ; the whole course, not counting the
EC. [K],~ C C I [A], H ~ IECC. [L]). He is called ?;XI?;? windings, is over 60 m. (G. A. Smith). It is now called
(6 perua~era [BX], 6 peaw,fha [A], 6 paua,'3ra [L], D E (from its clear blue colour) the Nahr ez-Zerkii. It is
AfAsoBrA [Vg.]). AV and RV (by a virtual emenda- famous in Hebrew tradition from its connection with
tion of the text) render this ' the Mes(z)obaite.' Jacob's change of name (Gen. 3222 [23]), and also as
The reading is conflate; we must read either % y ~ > , ' the the boundary between the kingdoms of Sihon and Og.
Mizpahite,' or ?I$:? ?, Mizpah.' The designation was no
'from In Dt. 316 Josh. 122 it is called 'the border of the
doubt suggested by ' Igal hen Nathan of Mizpah' in z S. 23 36 B'ne Amman ' ; the phrase applies to the upper part of
(see IGAL,2). j and 3 were easily confounded (cp the play on the Jabbok, where, circling round, it passes RABBATH-
;(??.p and " ? ~ pin Gen. 3149 52). Probably Mizpah in Benjamin A MMON , near wh"ich are its sources. Cp Nu. 2124
is meant by the Chronicler who gives the name Jaasiel to a Judg. 1113 22. On the N. of the Jabbok are the
Bee7z&nite prince, b. Abne;, in I Ch. 2721 (aumqp [B], aucqh
m ~ u [I2]
. iusiel [Vg.]). ruins of Gerasa (see G ILEAD , § 7 ) , between which place
the m k s in I Ch. 11416.47, see DAVID, $ XI (aii.). and Philadelphia, Eusebius ( O S 26378 18030) rightly
T. K. C. places the river. F. B.
2299 2300
 JABESH
At what precise part of the Jabbok the ford referred
to in Gen. 3222 [23] may be supposed to be, is uncertain.
2. The reference The story containing the reference
in Gen. 3222 [23,, is composite, and the narrators J
and E appear to be not quite con-
sistent (see GILEAD, § 3). The Zerkii is < always
fordable, except where it breaks between steep rocks ’
(GASm. H G 584). That there is any play on the word
Jabbok, as if there were ‘some sympathy between the
two tortuous courses ’ (idid. ), is scarcely probable.
We have two explanations of names in the narrative
already (Israel and Penuel), and hardly expect a third.
Besides, there is the possibility that in the original
narrative the Yarmnk (which is the boundary between
Gilead and Bashan), not the Jabbok, was the river
referred to.
The word rendered ‘wrestled’ is another difficulty. Not
improbably p3Wl has become corrupted out of 3?1 (ll~),
ty of 3 2 ~ . See Crit. Bid.
F.B.,§I; T.K.C.,§2.
JABESH (U2:or U92:,L e . , ‘ d r y ’ (e)iaB(e)ic
[BAL], IABHCOC, ialicoc, iaBic [Jos.]), or, more
-
1. References. fully, Jabesh gilead (V)$’I9,
l~?.B(€)lc [ T H C ] r a h a a h , T H C rahq-
A A I T ~ A O C ) , the scene of Saul’s first warlike exploit
(S AUL , 8 I ) , and the place where his bones were for a
time buried ( I S. 111-10 3111-13 2 S. 2112 I Ch.
1011j ) . It is mentioned in the Am. Tab. (JabiH,
23728). The importance of Jabesh was recognised by
David. By sending presents to its citizens ( 2 S. 2 6 ,
crit. emend. ; see S AUL , 5 ) , he sought to counteract
the policy of Abner, and to promote his own candidature
as king of all Israel. Very possibly, too, Jabesh was
the birthplace of Shalluni and of Elijah (see SHALLUM,
I ; ELIJAH, § I , n. I ). It is, however, only a late post-
exilic narrative (Judg. 21 8-14) which asserts that in the
time of the Judges, by a combined effort of all Israel, the
population of Jabesh-gilead was exterminated, with the
exception of four hundred virgins who were married
to the survivors of Benjamin (see B ENJAMIN ,
JUDGES, 5 13). How long did the importance of
Jabesh last? Does Josephus mean to say, in his
paraphrase of I S. 11, that Jabesh was in his day still
the ‘ metropolis ’ of the Gileadites a (Ant. vi. 5 I) ? At
any rate, in the time of Eusebius it was only a village
( K L J ~ V which
), is described by him as on the eastern
tableland, six R.m. from Pella, on the road to Gerasa
(OS 26881 ; cp 22598, and Jer. Comm. Ud/z/d.)). The
great city of Pella had risen beside it and been made
capital of the province; this probably led to the
decline of Jabesh and its final ruin.
The site is a matter of doubtful conjecture. Robinson
(BR 339) thought that Jabesh might be on the site of
ed-Deir ( ’ the convent ’), on the S. bank of the
2. wHdy, about 6 miles from FubZ or Pella ; but
this place is perched upon an eminence difficult of
access, and quite o f f from the road leading from Pella
to J e r a ~ h . ~The ruins of Meriamin, however, which
evidently belong to a large and ancient town, are not
exposed to this objection ; they are at a distance of one
hour forty minutes from Pella. No other site, according
to Merrill, conies into competition with this (see, how-
ever, Buhl, 259). About Meriamin there is plenty of
room for an army to operate. Robinson did not
actually visit ed-Deir, which cannot be the true site.
At any rate, the old name Jabesh still survives in that
of the Wiidy Yiibis, which enters the Jordan valley
1 See N AMES 8 I-. The name doubtless belonged first to
the wsdy, then io the town also (Moore, Judqes, 497).
2 H e says lapis 6’1u~iva h . but he continues in the historic
oresent ~ r i a e ~ .
. 3 Merrill, East of the Jordan, 439; so Oliphant, Land of
GilearZ, 174. On the Roman road referred to, cp Schumacher,
Across the Jordan, 2773 Van de Velde (2349-352) and Porter
(Handbook, 317) agree with Robinson ; Furrer(in Riehm, 664 a)
gives his weighty authority to Merrill’s site.
2301
JABIN
about I O m. SSE. from Beissn (Bebhshan), nearly
opposite Ibzik (Bezek). ‘r. K. c.
JABESH (t&Jc), father of SHALLUM [q.v., i. I], z K.
151013f. ( I A B E I C [BAL] ; in v. IO AB. [A]). It is prob-
able, however, that ‘son of Jabesh ’ means ‘ a man of
Jabesh-gilead ’ (so Klo., St., We. ). See GINATH.
JABEZ (yJp!s i r a B H C , r A M E C [B], iarBHc,
r A B H C ‘ [A], I A B I H C , IABHh, iaB[€]iC [L]). + c o r d -
ing to the M T (I Ch. 4 9 J ) Jabez is like Melchizedek,
‘without father or mother,’ and the place which bears
his name ( I Ch. 2 5 5 ) is of ‘unknown site’ (Hastings,
BD 25246) ; but the riddle can with some probability
be solved.
~y in y>y (I Ch. 255) is a duplication of [ . ] 3 ~ +(Kr., 03); y
is a corruption of p, the first letter of n y p ; n*i In n?p fell out
owing to the following in. A misplacement of words followed,
and 1513 in 1513-n’lp was mistaken for ’1013 (i.e,, 0’79b).
Probably the true reading is ica-n?p *xu’ ninDoni:
‘ and the families of the inhabitants of Kirjath-sepher
(called Beth-gader [?I in v. 5 1 ) . ~ The names of the
‘families’ referred to alsobecame corrupted. Tir‘athaim3
probably conceals o y : or q n ? , men of JATTXR [q.v.],‘
or of Jattirah ; Shim‘athim should be D’”~PK, men of
Eshtemoa ; and Sucathim should be a*n$t., men of
Socoh or Socah.6 All the places referred to are to the
SW. of Hebron, in the neighbourhood of Debir or
Kirjath-sepher. The Chronicler adopted the statement
which his authority gave, hut seems to have been
puzzled by the (corrupt) word ‘ Jabez.’ He probably
supposed that a person called Jabez was connected
with the early history of Kirjath-sepher, and pro-
duced a new story to account for the ‘enlargement of
the border ’ of Kirjath-sepher in connection with the
supposed derivation of Jabez (from ‘oSe6, ‘ pain ’). This
story is a substitute for that in Judg. 1 1 4 f . (Josh.
1518f.) ; there is no party feeling in it (C. Niebuhr) ;
it expresses the Chronicler’s perplexity, and also, in the
prayer of Jabez, his piety. Probably v. gf. should
5; come after v. 13 ; the ‘brethren ’ of ‘ Jabez’ should be
the sons of Kenaz.
This view of the passage precludes conjectures as to the Kenite
‘scribes’ of whom M T speaks (cp Bertholet Die SteZZunx d e r
IsrueZiten, etc., 80, n. I). No ‘scribes’ w e d referred to in the
original text. The latter part of I Ch. 255 must be taken by
itself. I t alludes to the fact that the Kenites dwelt in the S. of
Judah ; and it is probable that there is a lacuna in the text (cp
HEMATH). T. K. C.
JABIN (I9?:,
§ 53 ; ‘ He (God)perceives’; IAB[E]IN
[BKARTFL]), king of Hazor (see HAZOR,I ) , who
warred against Zebulun and Naphtali (Judg. 42 7, i a p w
[A] ; and I S. 1 2 9 [donly] ; raptv [L], [ E ] ~ U ~ E L [BA]).
S
He has really little to do with the narrative in
Judg. 4, which in its present form has been shown
to consist of a combination of the story of Jabin with
that of S ISERA (q.v.) against Israel. By making
Sisera Jabin’s general, the two accounts have been
made to harmonise roughly, and it is difficult to
say how much of the original history of Jabin has
been omitted in favour of that of Sisera. It may be
conjectured that at the tents of Heber, Jabin met a fate
similar to Sisera’s at the hands of Jael.
In the less original account in Josh. 111-9 ( r a p e ~ s
[BA]), due to E, and worked over by D,, the war of
the two tribes against Jabin is characteristically magni-
1 @BA alsogives&yapvsin4m(MT l%&; QLdv8taa~&ust).
2 Cp GEDER.
3 DTnyin, apya0irip [BAI, B a p d s L [Ll.
4 O’n,Yp~,uapa8iarp [BA], -0eiv [L]. But z). 53, ’Et,
quapdap [Bl, -v [AI, b m p a & [Ll.
5 O‘n!?W, U W K a @ L s L p [BA], u o v ~ a O e i p[L].
6 A late editor may have supposed a connection of the
:corrupt) names with terms connected with the religious system
3f his day (?I$$ , $ t ” ?I??); cp Vg. cunentes et resonantes e t
in tadernacrlis commovanfes. See We. De gent. 30 ; and c p
Be. ad lac.
2302
 JABNEEL
fied into the conquest of all N. Canaan by Joshua and
all Israel. A preliminary trace of such a scheme is seen
in Judg. 42, where Jabiu is already called 'king of
Canaan who reigned in Hazor.' See Moore, J u d p s
1 0 8 8 ; and J UDGES, 7.
JABNEEL ($K;l??, 'God builds' ; I A B N H A [AL]).
I . Shortened into Jabneh (7&L!, ' he [God] builds' ;
2 Ch. 266 ( a p ~ v v ~[B],
p rapeis [A], i a p v ~[L]); the
JAMNIA and J EMNAAN of a later day. A Philistian
city between Ekron and the sea (Josh. 1511 ; k p v a
[B]) ; cp Jabni-ilu, the name of a prince of Lachish in
the Aniarna tablets (Wi., 2184). According to Petrie,
Thotmes 111. mentions two places called Yehema, one
of which is our Jabneel, and the other is the mod.
Yemma, near Megiddo (Hist. o f E . 2 327 ; cp W M M ,
As. u. EZY. 160). The Priestly Writer includes
Jabneel within the limits of Judah (Josh. 15 11) ; but the
earliest evidence of Jewish occupation is in z Ch. 266,
where Uzziah is said to have taken the city and de-
molished its fortifications. It is next mentioned in the
time of Judas the Maccabee. Two accounts have come
down to us-one historical, vk., that the two generals
Joseph and Azarias made an unsuccessful attempt upon
Jamnia ( I Macc. 555-62) ; and the other most probably
a fals.ification of history, viz., that Judas made a night
attack upon 'the Jamnites,' setting fire to the haven
(for there was a port also called Jamnia) together with
the fleet, 'so that the glare of the light was seen at
Jerusalem, two hundred and forty furlongs [stadia]
distant' ( 2 Macc. 12SJ).
According to Jos. (Ant. xiii. G7 ; B/ i. 22) Jamnia was taken
a t last by Simon the Maccabee. But it can hardly have become
part of the dominions of the Hasmonzans (see I Macc. 1069
1540) until the time of Alexander Jannaus who subdued ali
the cities of the coast from the Egyptian horher to Carmel with
the exception of Ashkelon (Jos. Aprt. xiii. 154). I t became
Roman under Pompey (Jos. Ant. xiv. 4 4 ; B1.i. 77) and
having apparently become greatly depopulated, was ,,',tored
and repeopled by Gabinius (231 i. 84). I t was given hy Herod
to his sister Salome ( A n t . xvii. S I ), who in turn gave it to the
empressLivia(dnt.xviii. 2 2 ; BJii. 91). Straho(xvi.228)speaks
of it as a village which, along with the district pertaining to it,
had once been able to send 40,000 men into the field. In
Caligula's time its population was principally Jewish (Philo, D e
LeE. ad Caiwm), and when the heathen section of the inhabitants
erected an altar to the emperor it was immediately destroyed by
the Jews. This, being reported to the emperor by the procurator
Herennius Capito, was the occasion of the imperial order that
the image of Caligula should be set up in the temple at Jerusalem
(see ISRAEL, 5 96). In the Jewish war Jamnia was taken by
Vespasian. I t was to this place that Johanan b. Zakkai retired
after having been, by a singular stratagem, conveyed out of thd
doomed capital to t& Roman camp.% There he formed a
Sanhedrin, and so Jamnia became the religious centre of the
Jewish people down to the collapse of the revolt of Bar Cochba
(135 A.D.). In the fourth century it was but a rroA\ixq (Onom.
2063j); hut its bishop took part in the Council of Nicaea.3 I n
the time of the Crusaders a castle called Ibelin stood on the site
of the ruined city, which was supposed to have been not Jabneel,
but Gath.
The statements of ancient writers respecting the
position of Jamnia arevery precise (see, e.f., zMacc. 129,
quoted above). It is represented by the modern Yebna,
a considerable village, IZ m. S . from Joppa, and 4 m.
in a direct line from the sea. There are ruins of the
ancient port at the mouth of the Nahr Riibin (see
BAALAH,3) to the NW. The district is fertile, and
traces can still be seen of the plantations which once
adorned the neighbourhood of the haven.
2. An unidentified site in the territory of Naphtali
(Josh. 1933 csq58apuc [B]), doubtless the 'Idpveca or
:IapvecO of Jos. (Blii. 206 ; Vit. 37), in upper Galilee,
which from about 23 B.C. formed part of the tetrarchy
of Zenodorus, and afterwards of that of Herod Philip
(Jos. BJii. 63; Ant. xv. l o 3 ; xvii. I l 4 ; B 1 i . 204).
It must therefore be sought somewhere about Lake
Hiileh or in the neighbourhood of BZniZs. The com-
1 For other references to the seaport see Jos. Ant. xiii. 154;
Pliny, H N v. 1368 ; Ptol. v. 16 2 6.
a Gratz, Hist. of t k e / e w s , 2326f:
3 At Mahoza (Portus) Tamniae there was still a convent of St.
Stephen in the sixth cenhry.
2303
JACHIN AND BOAZ
bination of this Jnbneel with Kefar Yania (now the
ruins called Yemma, 7 m. S. of Tiberias), adopted from
the Talmud by Conder (PEFM 136j ; cp Neubauer,,
Gdogr. ms), seems difficult to reconcile with the true
border of Naphtali (see BEZAANANNIM). T. K. c.
JACHAN, RV Jacan (\3y!s§ 54 ; XIMA [Bl, I A X ~
[A], I W A X A [LI), a Gadite (1 Ch. 5 d ) .
JACHIN AND BOAZ. Jachin (1'2: ; IAXOYM [BL],
- N [A], ~ A X E ~[Jos.
N Ant. viii. 341) was the name of the
right-hand ( L e . , southern) pillar ' at (Klo., ' before ') the
porch of the temple,' and Boaz (?&'a ; BAAZ [L], Booc
[A], BAAAZ [B], [a]B&lz [Jos.]) that of the left-hand
(it., northern) pillar ( I K. 7 2 1 = 2 Ch. 317) ; see
P ILLAR , and cp the ' pillars by the posts ' in Ezek. 40 49
(see Toy's note SBOT [Eng.] Ezek., ad Zoc.).
The names are enigmati'cal; we cannot evade an
effort to explain them. So much is clear at the outset
that, like the names of the walls of Babylon (see
BABYLON, 5 7 ) , they must have a religious significance.
The walls, and the pillars in question as well, have
names because they are sacred objects. W e can
advance a step further by considering what these
enormous pillars were. They seem originally to have
been symbols of the 'vast mountain of the gods' (see
* CONGREGATION, MOUNT O F ) in the far N., the
brilliance of which, faintly suggested by the burnished
bronze of the pillars, is described by Ezekiel (2816 ; cp
Herod. 244, and see C HERUB , col. 742, n. 4). That
mountain had two special features-its firm strength and
the abode of the El6him on its summit. W e may expect
therefore to find these two points expressed in the
names. Jachin will therefore express the immovable-
ness of the symbolic pillar ; cp Ps. 656[7], OTI p 2 ,
'who establishes the mountains.'
This explanation at any rate appears certain, whether or nct
we bring Jachin into relation to the name Akna-zapn whic:~
Erman reads on the so-called ' Stone of Joh ' (rather, &one of
Rameses 11.) in Haurin (see EGYPT, 5 58, n. I).
Boaz ought to refer to the mountain dwelling-
place of the divine beings. It is difficult, however, to
verify this assumption. iyz looks like a mutilation of
a longer word. The initial 2 is a hindrance to our
takmg y from the root ny, ' to be strong.' iyx ma, ' by
the strength of Baal,' is hardly the right form ; we
expect a statement such as [iy]2ry, 'strong is Baal.'
This, however, would not give us the variety which we
look for ; such a name would be too nearly synonymous
with Jachin, and the initial x cannot be ignored. We
may'conclude, therefore, that the last letter 1 is a frag-
ment of a word; the preceding letters yx are surely a
mutilation of $yz (cp PEE{C/~OUXin'ECB's text of the
Gospels; e.g. in Mt. 1 0 2 4 ) . l Looking next at the Psalm
which Solomon is said to have sung on the completion of
the temple, we notice that two of the striking phrases in it
are T V , ~ , for the ' establishment ' of the sun in his glorious
mansion in the sky, and h; n*>,for the I high house '
or temple in which Yahwh was to dwell for ever (Che.
OPs. 212). The word h!in the latter phrase is pre-
cisely what we want. Not impossibly, therefore, the
full name of the pillar on the left hand is Baal-zebu1
( ' Lord of the high house ').a The idea which it ex-
pressed was familiar to the Phcenicians ; a synonymous
title was Baal - zaphon (see BAAL-ZEPHON). It was
also not unknown to the Israelites (see BAAL-ZERUL).
In later times, probably, the name of the second pillar
was deliberately mutilated, because of the new and
inauspicious associations which had gathered round it.
It was after all a Phcenician (Hiram) who had given
1 Westcott Hort's unwillingness to suppose an accidental
~
(Zsfmd. 159) error is surprising. If Beel-zehul is unknown
except from the N T , Baal-h&th (Zenjirli inscr. of Panammu,
1. 22) and Baal-meon are not. hl is the h x ! of I K. 8 13,
Ass. bPf zaha((see K A T(4ad loc.).
a See ZDf'6'1431 155; Sayce, HCMzgg, n. I .
230 t
 JACHIN
the name ; a later age did not approve 6f Solomon’s
close connections with heathen peoples.
Subsequently to this pious alteration of the name,
one of the supposed ancestors of David (see D AVID ,
5 I , n. I ) was furnished with the name Boaz (only found
late), to indicate that he was a pillar of the Davidic
family (cp Tg. on z Ch. 3 1 7 ) .
A few other conjectures may, in conclusion, be mentioned.
6 in Chron. renders Jachin K ~ T ~ P ~ O C Tand L F Boaz LqXJs.
Ephrem, who is followed among moderns by Thenius, combines
the two words (pointing 1); into a prayer for the firm establish-
ment of the temple. EVlng. explains Jachin ‘ H e shall estah-
.
lish,’ and Boaz, ‘ I n it is strength’ mor: plausibly WRS,
( X S I 2 ) 208) interprefs the former ‘ Th; stahlisher ’ ; the latter,
In him is strength. Klostermann deals more boldly with UIT ;
h e adopts ‘ I t shall stand (well),’ from 6 ;and emends
1 ~ 2into fy!p, ‘Lord of strength’=‘the strong’ (cp B’s
6
paha{). I n view of the close bond which united Tyre and
: . 111 the time of Solomon, and the fact that it was a
erusalem
hmnician who named the pillars, Mr. S. A. Cook suggests
that may be a corruption of h1, ‘Baal,’ and that j3;
might have been understood to be the Phcen. equivalent of
n?n’(Ph. p, ‘to be’=Heb. n n , n?n).l T. K. C.
JACHIN (\QJ ‘ h e [God] establishes ’ ; cp Jehoi-
achin; IAXEIN [BKADL]; in Gen. I A X E I M [A],
AX[€]IN [A*Yid.L]; In I Ch. 910 I w A X E l M [L];
1 Ch. 24 17 AXEIM PI).
I. A son of Simeon, Gen. 46 IO Ex. 6 15 (Lax“& [A]), Nu. 26 12.
I n the parallel text, I Ch. 424, the name is JARIB(I). Jachinite
(’I.’?;, LaxLva SUI, - e m [AL]) occurs in Nu. 2612.
2. Head of a priestly family ; I Ch. 9 IO 2417 Neh. 11IO.
JACINTH is given by RVfor @$ (hlrYplON:
Zigurius) in Ex. 28 19 39 12, where AV has LIGIJRE; also in E V
of Rev. Zlzo(6a‘~ruOas;RVmg. ‘sapphire’), and inAVofRev.917
(6aKiv8wos=‘of jacinth ’ RV ‘of hyacinth’). I n Ex.2819,
R V w . gives ‘amber’ ; dp Enoch 712, where the streams of fire
(Dan. 7 IO) are likened to ‘hyacinth’ (Di. and Charles).
The hyucinthw of the ancients (mentioned in Rev. )
was probably our sapphire (see S APPHIRE ). It is now
commonly held (see, e&, Riehm, LYIVB(~)) that the
Heb. ZPiem ( X t y t p t o v ) is the jacinth, for a description of
which see below. This, however, appears to be a
mistake. It is probable that ops is simplya miswritten
s b l g haSmala (see A MBER ), or perhaps rather, d n \ ~
&ZmiS (see T ARSHISH, STONE OF). This may enable
us to account for the superfluous Kal dpytptov ~ axpuuiou l The name is explained in Gen. 25 26a (J) ‘ the snpplanter,’-
which comes between h m v and Xiytptov in @ of
Ezek. 2 8 1 3 (where, apart from this, the fuller catalogue
in @ is to be adopted). snwn is in fact understood by
many to mean an alloy of ZoZd and siZnever; kpydpiov Kal
xpuuiou seems to be a gloss on the word ’xwn or po’m
(which must have stood in the true text of Ezekiel),
intended to correct the rendering hiytprov. We are of
conrse not bound to agree with this gloss, but the word
$Dun or p&n ( ‘ white sapphire ’ ? but see A MBER ) may
with some confidence be substituted for orb. Elsewhere
(see T A R S ~ I STONE H , O F ) it has been shown that the
word also appears disguised as rvwin, tarSiS. It is no
,objection to this theory that tarSZ and Zkshem both
.occur in the list of precious stones in Ex. 2817-20, for
this list comes from P, who makes up such lists as he
best can, and does not mind including variants.
The true jacinth is a red-coloured variety of silicate of
zirconium those varieties which are yellow-brown or green
%being disknguished, if transparent, by the name of jargoon,
while the dull-colonred varieties, more or less opaque, are
termed rightly zircon. The true jacinth, when polished, is
peculiarly brilliant. It is extremely rare. Probably many of the
antique camei or intagli reputed to he jacinth are merely
hyac,inthine garnets ; garnets, however, have a lower specific
gravity. T. K. C.
JACKAL. (I) 19* tun (perhaps = ‘ howler ’) is
1 Such an interpretation agrees with E’s explanation of the
divine name in Ex. 314 (see N AMES D III,%).
a The suggestion of Bondi that ’leshem may be the Egypt.
rcshenz is of course possible : it is adopted by Hommel ( A H T
s83); but it does not meet all the circumstances of the case.
2305
JACOB
found only in the pl. D’:nl (the fem. form n!@,
Mal. 1 3 , is probably due to corruption; Stade reads nWJ,
‘ pastures ’ [cp @ 6 6 p a ~ a[BIYAQ], perhaps for ~ ~ J ~ c z T , ,
bnt d may have connected the word with in.’; l‘csh.
‘ dwellings ’I) : AV renders DRAGONS (but ‘ sea-
monsters’ in Lam. 4 3 ) ; RV J A C K A L S . ~Throughout
Palestine the common jackal is by far the most common
of all the beasts of prey.
It is the same jackal which is so well known elsewhere and
has spread through SE. Europe and SW. Asia as 6 r as
Burmah as well as through N. Africa. As its name (Canis
aurens)’implies, it is of a reddishpld colour, darker in the
upper parts.
Jackals usually hunt in packs, but at times are seen
in pairs or even alone. They are comparatively harm-
less to man, and, as a rule, feed on carrion ; hut they
also attack and kill fowls, lambs, kids, etc., and even
weakly sheep and goats. They do not, however, refuse
fruit, and are especially fond of sugar-cane. The cry
of the jackal may he heard every night by the traveller
in Palestine (cp Mic. 1 8 ) . As a rule they are nocturnal,
but not exclusively s o ; they hide during the day in
disused stone-quarries, caves, and especially in deserted
ruins (Is. 13 22 34 13 35 7). Jeremiah’s hearers, therefore,
knew what he meant when he spoke of Jerusalem’s be-
coming a ‘ place of jackals ’ (Jer. 9 IT [IO] 1022 ; cp 51 37
4933).
(2) In Judg.154 Ps.631o[rr] Lam.518, RVmsgives ‘jackal’
as an alternative rendering for E V ‘fox’ (Sgld). See Fox and
Cp HAZAR-SHUAL, SHAALBIW.
(3) Whether the word rendered ‘doleful creatures’ (D’nk,
‘Zktnr) in Is.1321 always meant the jackal we cannot tell.
Hbughton (TSBA 5328) well compared Ass. A&; but whether
this word really means the jackal (so Del.) is not quite certain.
Jenscn pronounces for the leopard ; Houghton, improbably,
thought of the hyena. Cp Del. Heb. Lung. 34.
(4) Finally the iyyim, ,!:’O of Is. 1322 54 14 Jer. 5039, AV‘wild
beasts of the island,’ from a supposed connection with ’N, ‘an
island’ (cp 0’3;and see ISLE), RV WOLVES, mg. HOWI.ING
CREATURES, may be compared with the Ar. bandtu dum,
‘jackals.’ The eqniv. Syr. 6En6ih away is used by Bar Hebr.
in his commentary on Job 3029. A. E. S.- S. A. C.
JACOB (3bY1, but five times 3$3!; I A K ~ B ) .
Son of Isaac and Rebekah, and father of the twelve
reputed ancestors of the tribes of Israel ; himself also
called Israel.
‘after that, his brother came out and his hand took bold of
Esau’s heel ; so his &me was called Jacob,’ as if
1. Name. ‘one who takes hold by the heel,’ from 2,$p ‘a
heel.’ I n Gen. f 7 3G(J), however, ‘Jacoh’receives
a fresh explanation-viz., deceiver (one who slinks after
another) ; so too Hos. 12 3a [4a] where render ‘ he deceived his
brother’ (see Now.). These hgwever are only popular etymo-
logies. I t is the prevalent &tical opikon that Ya‘iikob (Jacob)
is really a shortened form of Ya‘Pkob-el (Jacob-el) a name
analogous to Israel Ishmael Jeralimeel, and admittiig several
explanations, such i s ‘God fdllows ’ or ‘ God rewards’ (both from
the Arabic ; cp Lag. Ubers. 127). This is thought to be con-
firmed by the place-name Y-‘-k.b-’S-ra, found in the Palestinian
name-list of Thotmes III., which ;robably corresponds to a
Palestinian Ya‘Zkob-el. see J OSEPH i. and ii., and cp Gray,
HPN 214J Pinches, ‘too, has found on contract-tablets of the
age of &unmurabi (circa 2285 B.C. ; see BABYLONIA, 5 54) the
personal name Ya‘knb-iln, and Hommel (AHT, GI, 96, 112)
says that Yakubu (cp Jacob) occurs also. This, if the tablets
are genuine, ‘appears to prove the antiquity of the name. I t
must not, however, prevent us from seeking an underlying
earlier form.
Ya‘iikob is the name, not of an individual, but of, the imagin-
ary ancestor of a tribe ; neither ‘God follows nor ‘God
rewards’ is the sort of name that we expect as the condensed
expression of the religious faith of the tribe. In the month
of the people the original name would very likely soon be
contracted or distorted. We may plausibly conjecture that
Ya‘iikob is at once a contraction and a distortion of Abi-cabod
@e., ‘the [divine] father is glory’), the name which was also
distorted into ICHABOD and JOCHEBED. I f the god of the tribes
of Israel was YahwL., whose ‘glory’ (originally in the storm) so
1 The plural (once p, Lam. 4 3 kt.) is to be distinguished
from the sing. I!?? (twice in M T PI?), of whhh the pl. is
pqqn see D RAGON (beg.).
a [Aq. has uecp<vas, Symm., Theod. +wri@aTain Mal.]
2306
 JACOB
greatly impressed his worshippers, and who is called in an
archaistic psalm 'the God of glory' (Ps. 293), we can well
understand that the reputed ancestor of the tribes might have
s
as his second name (hut cp 6) Abicahod. I t is quite true that
Ya'skoh looks very much like a shortened theophorous name.
We i r e naturally inclined to regard it as analogous to Yiphtah
(Jephthah)for Yiphtah-el (Jiphthah-el); but popular imagination
was quite capable of reconstructlng names on a new model, and
we have perhaps other instances of this close at hand in I SAAC
and JEKABZEEL, hoth of whlch, as they stand, are formed
analogously to Ishmael hut are more prohahly popular corrup-
tions. I t may be Ldded that the occurrence of the names
referred to above does not prove the disappearance of the form
Ahi-cahod. This name(a name which may have had different
independent personal and local references, and have been by no
means confined to the reputed ancestor of the Israelites) may
have been in use among the Israelites subsequently to the times
of Hammurabi and Thotmes III., as indeed the occurrence of
Ich&od in the story of Eli proves that it was.
The story of Jacob is intertwined at the beginning
with that of Isaac and of Esau, and at the close with
2. underlying that of Joseph. T o the special articles
traditions (a).I SAAC, ESAU,and JOSEPH we must,
therefore. refer the reader to avoid
repetition. The interesting reference of Hosea (if it be
Hosea who writes) to the story of the infant Jacob's
strife with his infant brother in the womb, which receives
from him an unfavourable interpretation (Hos. 123 [4]),
is referred to under J ACOB , 5 I. It is. to this story and
to the narrative of Jacob's deceit towards his father and
his brother that the Second Isaiah is supposed to refer
in Is. 4327. The difficulties of the passage, however,
are not slight, and no stress can safely be laid upon it.'
The traditions are given with great vividness in Gen.
2529-34 (J) and 27 (JE), and deserve anattentive study.
Here, however, we neea only consider the composite
narrative in 2742-289. which forms the introduction to
the story of Jacob's journey in search of a wife. In 27
42-45 Rebekah is represented as urging Jacob to flee
from his incensed brother for a few days to her brother
Laban in Haran. This is, undoubtedly, the work of
JE. In 27 46 2 8 1 3 , however, the visit to Laban is
put forward as a command of Isaac, who, stirred up by
his wife, desired to prevent Jacob from following the
example of Esau in marrying a Canaanitish-or, more
strictly, a Hittite-maiden. There can be no doubt
that P (who is the writer of 2746-289) gave quite a
different representation of the early life of Jacob from
that given by JE, and though it is usual to disparage
P, yet here, as in other cases, he preserves valuable
material. The danger of a ' Hittite ' wife at Beersheba
was, it is true, small enough ; but it has been maintained
elsewhere that the names of the non-Israelitish tribes
inhabiting Canaan have suffered much from the errors
inseparable from transcription of texts, and that ' Hittite'
(inn) in this and other passages is an error for wm'l
'Rehobothite.' It has been argued that 'Rehoboth'
attached its name to a larger district than the WSdy
Ruhaibeh, so that when Isaac, according to popular
tradition, left Rehoboth for Beersheba, he may perhaps
still have been in Rehobothite territory. It is more
probable, however, that Beersheba was introduced out
of regard for the increased veneration of Israelites for
the sanctuary of Beersheba, and that the original tradition
(preserved by P) represented Isaac as passing the close
of his life either at Rehoboth or at any rate at a spot
almost certainlywithin Rehobothite limits-viz. Khalagah
(better known to us as ZIKLAG). This view is con-
firmed by the consideration that in 35 27-29 Jacob is said
to have come to his father to Mamre, to Kirjath-arba,
that is, Hebron,' where his father Isaac died, and where
Esau and Jacob buried him. It seems plausible to
1 < T h yfirst father' is usually explained of Jacob, but was not
so understood by @, and is very peculiar The parallel phrase
'their interpreters,' if correct, does not favour thls view. Prob-
ably, however, we should read,
hip)q$ q*?t'l q2y 'Thy magnates were inclined to sin,
%?Iy@ ?&n? And thy rulers rebelled against me.'
The next line (see SBOT ad roc.) probably contains a reference'
t o 'thy princes ' (
.
7'2).
2307
3ACOB
hold that ' Hebron ' here is miswritten for REHOBOTH
(6ZJ. ).
The view, which was most probably that of P (or at
any rate of P s authority), that Isaac lived at or near
Rehoboth, and that Jacob started on
his quest of a wife from the district of
traditions (')* Rehoboth, is not less probably the
ancient one. W e have now to see where Jacob went.
J and E say that it was to Haran; P that it was to
Paddan-aram (Gen. 282 5). So at least the present
text represents ; but there is strong reason to distrust its
readings, and to change ' Haran ' into ' HanrFin,' and
' Paddan-&ram' into 'the uplands of HaurHn ' (]?ID nlp ;
cp Hos. 1 2 12 1131, below). In Gen. 29 I . however. we
learn from E that on leaving Bethel Jacob 'went to the
land of the Bne Fedem.' Probably E really wrote this,
and interpreted Bne Kedem to mean easterns' ; the
phrase ' the land of the easterns' might no doubt be
applied to the HaurHn, where, according to the earlier
tradition, Laban dwelt. It is not very probable, how-
ever, that l sons of the east ' (=easterns) was really a n
ethnographical term ; where the phrase appears to b e
so used, it would seem that Kedem (east) has arisen by
an easy corruption out of Rekem, which in turn may he a
very old popular corruption of JeraCrneeZ (see R EKEM , 4).
The most natural inference is that E (or rather perhaps
E's authority) has preserved a phrase from a very early
tradition, according to which Jacob (or Abi-cabod?), on
leaving his temporary resting-place, directed his steps to
the 'land of the Bni5 Jerahmeel.' If so, it is. probable
that his destination was not the HaurHn but Hebron.
Both Haran and Hebron are mentioned in T CP. (2 42 46) as
descendants of 'Caleh the brother of Jerahmeel. Hebron is
probably the name of which we are in search ; among the de-
scendants of Hebron appear three names which may be different
corruptions of the name Jerahmeel (see JERAHMEEL, 8 4).
At Hebron (the well-known Hebron) Jacob was,
according to the tradition, in the land of 'the Bile
Jerahmeel.' The name ' Jerahmeel' has, it is true, a
fluctuating reference. All that concerns us here is the
fact that Hebron could he regarded by the early narrator
(whom we have no occasion to place before the time of
David) as Jerahmeelite. On his way thither the traveller
would naturally halt at the site now called ed-DFihariyeh,
but in ancient times probably known as KIRJATH-
SEPHER [p.".]. This may very possibly have been
mentioned as Jacob's resting-place in the earlier form
of the story. A glance a t the map will show that
from Rehoboth to Hebron the journey is as straight
as possible, and that Khal@a, Bir-es-Seba' (Beer-
sheba), and ed-DFihariyeh are convenient resting-places
on the road. The early narrative must have further
stated that while at Hebron Jacob married wives
called respectively Leah and Rachel. Rachel (not
less than Mahalath,l Gen. 2 8 9 ) we must take to be a
popular corruption of JERAHMEEL (g."., 5 4). Leah (as
We. and Stade have seen) is the name whqse ethnic
is ' Levi' ; the manifold connections of the Levites
with the far S. have been shown elsewhere (see LEVI).
The meaning of this early story is that the tribe called
Abi-cabod effected a union with the Jerahmeelite tribe
of Levi. Probably Winckler is right in thinking that
the priestly character of the tribe of Levi is earlier than
its entrance into Canaan, and it is not out of place to.
remark anew (cp ESAU) that in Gen. 2715 Jacob seems
to be represented as in priestly attire.
As the text stands, however, it is to Haran, or rather
to Hauran, that Jacob's steps are bent, and on the way
4. Visit to he natmally halts at the famous sanctuary
of Bethel. The narrator indued repre-
Haran Or sents him as having consecrated the well-
wursn' known magZ6ah which stood there ; but if
Winckler's explanation of Luz [ g . ~ . ] be correct
( ' sanctuary'), the narrator unintentionally refutes his
own statement. The rocky boulders on the site of
1 Thus both Jacob and Esau took Jerahmeelite wives.
230%
 ’JACOB
Bethel must indeed inevitably have suggested the
erection of a sacred pillar (see B ETHEL , 5 z ) , or indeed
of stone circles, in primeval times. Both J and E
express their own genuine piety in the description of
Jacob’s sacred experiences. Whether we should have
been equally pleased with the original story may be
doubted ; the description of 28 I I suggests the idea that
the stone which Jacob took for his ‘ pillow ’ was a sacred
stone, so that orpn (as perhaps in Gen. 2 2 3 ) will have
the sense of ‘ sanctuary.’ If this view is correct, it is E
who gives a harmless turn to the old story by converting
the primeval sacred stone into a magZbah (cp I DOLATRY ,
§ 4).
In Gen. 292-30 J and E describe Jacob’s arrival at
Haran (or rather HaurZn), his meeting with Rachel and
then with Laban, and his service of fourteen years for
his two wives. Whether there was any Laban in the
earlier form of the story we cannot tell. The Laban to
whom we are introduced by J and E is certainly a
worthy kinsman of Jacob. The narrators’ object, how-
ever, is not to show that trickiness was a family
characteristic, but to throw into relief the divine
protection which Jacob constantly enjoyed, so that
the only result of Laban’s craft was Jacob’s ever-increas-
ing prosperity ; indeed, as Jacob states, the advantages
granted by Yahw& to Jacob were shared by Laban, so
that Laban had absolutely no excuse for his attempts to
overreach his nephew. This is described in Gen.
3025-43, 317-12. I t will be observed that the account
in ch. 31, which is E’s. differs from the former, which is
almost entirely that of J. See LABAN.
W e have an external but not independent refer-
ence to the same tradition in Hos. 1212[13], where a
later writer (see Nowack, Wellhausen) mentions a
detail in the completed story of Jacob to show the trials
which the ancestor of Israel had undergone of old, and
the faithful guardianship of his God.
And Jacob fled to the uplands of Aram (D?$ ”1.v ; see $ 3 on
‘Paddy-Aram’) and Israel served for a woman and kept
sheep. (MT gi&es ‘and for a woman he kept,’ wkich is un-
intelligible, and in conjunction with v. 13 [14] has suggested to
Wellhausen the strange idea of a conflict between a good prin-
- represented
ciple - bv. a prophet _ _ _
_ . and an evil principle represented
by a woman. Read perhaps 1FtD’@? [or D’?!??]; cp ’J,
Gen. 30 3 2 8 )
This is a specimen of the way in which Jewish piety
nourished itself on the legends of the past. It has an
interest as such ; but it supplies no confirmation of the
supposed facts of the story. It is with pure legend
that we have to deal, and it is pure legend which
asserts thgt Jacob had eleven sons (besides daughters)
born to him in Haran (HaurHn), who became the an-
cestors of as many Israelitish tribes. All this part of
the legend is late; it can have arisen only when the
union of the tribes had, under David, become an accom-
plished fact, and when Aramean influence upon Israel
was so strong that the Israelites themselves were am-
bitious of being thought to be related to the Aramaean
race (cp Dt. 265, ‘ a lost Aramean was my father’).
One of the most interesting points in the narrative is
that four of the sons-Dan and Naphtali, Gad and
Asher--are, said to have been the children of hand-
maids, the two former of Rachel’s handmaid Bilhah,
the two latter of Leah’s handmaid Zilpah. The origin
of the latter name at any rate is transparent ; Zilpah
=ZELOPHEHAD = Salhad. When the Israelites con-
quered Salhad, they must have become fused with the
Aramean population.
There are, indeed, several clear indications that even
such early writers as J and E were not unconscious of
Jacob’s repr-sentative character. The clearest are in
31 22-54 (note especially ‘ brethren ’=fellow-clansmen,
312354). It is not unworthy of notice, however, that
in E’s account of Jacob’s second name (3228[~9]) it is
said, ‘for thou hast contended with a god and with
men, and hast prevailed,’ where it is impossible to put
2309
JACOB
the struggle of wits in which Laban and Jacob were
engaged on a par with the physical struggla related in
3223[24] 8 No complete justification of the phrase
can be given but on the hypothesis that tradition knew
of a struggle between the Laban-clan and the Jacob-
clan in which the latter represented itself as having
been successful.
Here we see the influence of later historical circum-
stances, and still more in the remarkable narrative,
31 18 [19]-32z (JE, but chiefly E), to understand which
aright keen textual criticism has to be. resorted to.
The results are given under G ILEAD , nor have \?e
space to repeat them here, except so far as to remind
the reader that it is there maintained that a later editor,
through unfamiliarity with the early importance of
Salhad, has converted it into Sahadutha, Galeed, and
Gilead, and has also seriously iuterfered with the geo-
graphy of the next section (323-31[4-32]). On the
peculiar type of marriage (the so-called ’ beena’) repre-
sented in this part of the legend, we must also refer
elsewhere (K INSHIP , § 8) ; on the wrestling with Elohim
see JABBOK.
Another clan-that of ESAU[p.o.]-now becomes
dangerous to the Tacobeans. ‘Behold, Esau came
(from- Seir), and with him four hundred
from Esau. men’ (Gen. 33 I ; cp 326 [7] ; ‘ I fear him,
lest he come and smite me. the mother
with the children ’ ( 3 2 II [I.]). It is at present superior
in strength to the Jacob-clan,-‘ thus shall ye speak to
my bra! Esau’ ( 3 2 3 [4]). Whether this narrative fits in
perfectly with the preceding one may bB doubted, even
if we assume that J made Jacob cross not the Jabbok
but the Jordan (see GILEAD). If, however, we may
assume that according to the earlier tradition Jacob‘s
sojourn was not in Hauran but at Hebron, we can
understand the danger to which he was exposed from
the Ed0mites.l It may be added that ‘Succoth’ is
elsewhere (see SALECAH, SUCCOTH, P ENUEL) identified
with Salhad. Evidently there is some great con-
fusion in this part of the record of tradition, and if the
same confusion begins to be visible even earlier, we
need not feel any surprise.
Here is another proof of the tribal reference of the
name Jacob. Were he an individual, he would naturally
6. Shechem return at once to his father, at Beersheba
and Bethel. or Rehoboth (contrast 28 21). Instead
of this he goes to Shechem and purchases
a piece of land from the clan called bne Hamar ( 3 3 18
[19], E ; on 4822 see SHECHEM). It is worth noticing
that the words ‘Shechem’s father, for a hundred &t?TEifeks’
are corrupt (see KESITAH). Still more clearly marked is
the tribal character of Jacob in the strange narrative of
Shechem’s endeavour to obtain Dinah (Jacobs daughter)
as his wife,2 of the amalgamation of the Shechemite
and the Jacobean communities proposed by Hamor,
and of the vengeance taken by Simeon and Levi on
the whole city for an act of shameless impropriety ( f i s ~ ;j
see F OOL ) committed by Shechem. Why does Jacob
acquire rights of property in Shechem? and why are
the bnE YagkkBb so strict in their requirement of purity
of blood in the civic community? Because Shechem
became the centre of the confederation of the northern
Israelitish tribes.
It is remarkable, however, that the clan does not
yet receive the name bne Israel. According to E (see
Dillmann) Jacob‘s name was changed to Israel 3 when
he crossed the Jabbok (3227 [z8] f:). It is probable
that J, as well as P, represented the change as taking
place at Bethel, whither Jacob repaired after leaving
1 It is very difficult to suppose with Winckler (Gescli. 255,
n. I ) that E represented Esau as coming upon Jacob from a
place in the N., somewhere near Dan, where Abraham and
saac dwelt, and whence Jacob fled to Laban in Haran.
2 I t is strange that Dinah should be of marriageable age;
but, of course, the story once circulated as an independent tra-
dition.
3 The assignment to E is not undisputed.
2310
 JACOB
Shechem, because from this point in his narrative he,
like R, uses the name Israel instead of Jacob (see 3 5 2 1 4
373134368;r,etc.). How J explained the name ‘Israel
we are not told. There is nothing to prevent us from
supposing that he adopted some different explanation
which did not please the redactor as well as E’s. It
is possible that, like the marriage of Abraham and
SARAH [p,v,], the supposed change of Jacob’s name
really symbolises a fusion of two tribes, the tribes in
this case being an Israel tribe from the N. and a Jacob
(Abicabod) tribe from the S.
The origin of the ethnic name ‘ Israel’ has been much dis.
cussed. $ ~ i uoccurs
, several times on the Moabite Stone, and
the ethnic sir-’la-ai on the monolith of Shalmaneser 11. (KB
1172). Sayce (PSBA 2123 [I~oo]) cites the name Isarlim
(=Israel) as king of Khana (E. frontier of Babylonia) in the
time of Qammurabi. At least as old as Jerome is the inter-
pretation rectus domini (as if from it:, cp JASHER, $ 4;
Jerome also gives vir widens deum (as if from
”52 W‘? ; cp Gen. 33 IO). More attractive philologically, of the biography; it is, apart from later elements, a
and yet not plausible on other grounds, is a connection with
Ass. afm, ‘place,’ as if=‘place of El.’ The favourite modern
explanation is ‘El rules’ (from 8%’ ; cp n?’IJ, Is. 05,f); utmost importance. Even though the text has suffered
but to convey this idea we should rather have expected
‘Malchiel ;’ nor is the root 8 i v as well established as one could
wish. Gen. 3228 (cp Hos. 125 [4]) suggests ‘El strives ’ or as
Driver (in Hastings’ D B B ~ ~ o uon ) , grounds of +abii usige,
prefers ‘ E l persists or perseveres (in contending). This view
must be admitted to be ancient ; but the sense is hardly satis-
factory. Let us make a fresh start. It is perhaps unsafe to
start from the traditional form $~,py there being no early
personal or local names in the genealoGies or elsewhere which
confirm it, with the single exception of n i t , which has presum-
ably the same origin (cp SARAH), and must therefore be pro-
visionally set on one side. There are, however, names some-
what resembling ‘Isra’el ’ which may help us viz. ( I ) $ ~ y i l > ,
Jizreyel (JEZKEEL), whicd is both a personal ahd a local name,
and is found both in the centre and in the S. of Palestine ; ( 2 )
$Nlp~,ASAR’EL,the name of a son of Jehallelel probably= Winckler, ib. 8 2 ; and cp Stucken. AstraZmythen
Jetahmeel; (3) n?l, ZERAH, which is given as a Judahite, a
Simeonite and an Edomite name. Ofthese names (3) is the most
helpful. jizrah-el (‘ God shines forth ’) is a highly probable clan-
name, and might at an earlydate be corrupted popularly both into
$ ~ y i l * Jizre‘el,
, and into $mip, JiirS’El. Turning now to the
story of the change of Jacob’s name to Israel (which has prob-
ably been altered), we notice the statement (Gen. 32 32 [31]),
which in such a context cannot be merely picturesque, that ‘as
he (Jacob) passed Ly Penuel, the sun shone forth upon him
(vnw, 75 nil-?). A reference to our explanation of the story of
the dovenant between Jacob and Laban (GALEED, I ) will
show that the place from which Jacob came was called,
not Galeed (Gilead), but Salhad or S ALECAH (F
prominence of this strong fortress in Israelitish legend and
history has been too long overlooked. To the other illustrations
of this fact we may now add that Salhad (Salhar) not improb-
ably derived its name from the clan, or confederation of clans
which after leaving the Haurln, found its way to the ‘land d Jaddai. See IDDO,ii. 2.
the b& Jerahme’el’ (Gen. 29 I, a case of the confusion of
legends, see above, $ 3) in the far S. of Palestine. If the
transformations of names that have elsewhere been assumed be
held to be probable it will not he thought improbable that ,n$s
(Salehad) or n,$o (Salecah) has arisen, partly by transposition,
and partly by corruption of letters, from $[~lnir[4, Jizrah-el.
C p the parallel corruption *$~izg* for TI-, 2 S. 17 25 (see
I THRA). I t need hardly be said that there were in early times
both northern (north-eastern) and southern Israelites. The
.southern Israelites appear to have joined the. Jerahmeelites
a t Hehron (or rather Rehoboth). The above view IS no more
than a hypothesis ; hut it seems to be more in accordance with
analogies than the rival theories, and what appears to be an
ub7,ious explanation of a primitive tribal name noun is very . likely
.
t o be wrong.
Several details in chap. 35 deserve attention. Thus in m.
2-4 Jacob’s household give up all their heathenish objects (cp
31 18 [ ~ g 52 ] [531 Josh. 242 14). I n v. 8 Rachel’s nurse Deborah
receives the highest funeral honours ; in reality, however, it is
‘Dinah, Jacob’s eldest daughter,‘ who dies ; the text needs
criticism (see above, col. 1102, n. r). This means perhaps that
the Dinah-tribe had perished ; hence the mourning of the parent-
stem. In vu. 16-19 Rachel dies on the way to Ephrath (but
see below). Her child has two names-BENoNI and BENJAMIN.
The extracts from J and E give us no very clear
idea where Jacob or Israel settled after the death of
Rachel ; J tells us indeed (3521) that Jacob encamped
beyond Migdal Eder : but where was Migdal Eder?
Probably it was not far from Beeroth, which name
should probably be substituted for Ephrath in vv. 16 19
and for Hebron ’ in 37 14 (see E PHRATH). P, however,
2311
JAEL
states (v. 27) that Jacob came to his father Isaac at
Kirjath-arba (see REHOBOTH, SODOM).
The remainder of Jacob’s life is inseparable from the
story of Joseph ; its events need not be recapitulated
(See JOSEPH ; A BEL - MIZRAIM ;
7. close of E L P E L A H . ) It is natural for modern
life# readers, approaching the narrative from
the point of view of psychological development, to
find traces of a mellowing in Jacob‘s character. If
there be anything in this supposition it must be due to
the fact that the narrators have put more of themselves
into the latter part of Jacob’s life, where its threads
intertwined with those of Joseph‘s, than they could
venture to do in the former. It is, however, to the
popular traditions that we must turn for the truest
symbols of Israelitish character as it was in the days of
the two great narrators J and E. The elaborate
Blessing ascribed to Jacob cannot be treated as a part
splendid monument of early Hebrew literature (see
POETICAL L ITERATURE), and historically too is of the
much corruption, in the special articles on the tribes
frequent occasion has heen found to utilize its details.
See also ISRAEL.
Winckler’s mythological explanation of Jacob as
(originally)
. - . . the moon in its relation to the year, corre-
8. Mythology. sponding to Abraham the moon in its
relation to the month, is ingeniously
and plausibly worked out ( Gesch. 2 57 8 ). That there
are somewhat pale mythological elements in some of
the biblical narratives may be admitted ; but to many
minds Winckler’s proof of his hypothesis will seem
almost too laboured to be convincing. Cp also
(‘ Jakob ’), whose treatment of parallel mythic details is
extraordinarily clever.
See further Staerk, Studien zur ReZig’ons- und S#rach-
geschiclrte des A T 177.83 2 1-13. T. K. C.
JACOB’S WELL. See SYCHAR.
JACUBUS ( I ~ K O Y B O C [A]), I Esd. 948=Neh. 8 7 ,
AKKU: (p.v.. 3).
JADA ( U T ; lahas [BA]), a name in the Jerah-
meelite genealogy ; his mother was Atarah and one of
his sons was Jether; I Ch.22832 (v. 32, thoyha [B],
~ s h h a s[A]. v. 28 om., v. 32 laha [L]).
JADAU (171, Kr. ’y!), EzralOqg, RV ‘Iddo,’ RVmG
JADDUA (&’VI!, § 56 ; or according to Lag. Uebers.
113, &Vi:).
I. Signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA i. 0 7) ; Neh. 1021
[221 (rsS8oua [N- Ll, rr8Sour [AI om. BN*).
2. b. Jonathan, three generakons below Eliashib, was the
last of the high priests mentioned in the O T (Neh.12rrzz;
ia8ou [BRA], r&ou[L]; a80ua[NYVid.] and r8aua [N?] in v. 22).
According to Jos. ( A n t . xi. 84f: ; ca8Sauq)), who adds much that
is doubtful, he was in office a t the time of Alexander’s invasion
of Judza 1332 B.C.]. See N EHEMIAH , 8 I.
3. See BARZILLAI, 3.
JADDUS, AV Addus (tahhoyc [B] etc.), I Esd.
538f=Ezra 261a, B ARZILLAI , 3.
JADON (fill,
abbreviated form, cp N AMES , § 53 ;
BKA om. ; lapel [L]), the Meronothite, in the list of
wall-builders (see N EHEMIAH , 5 I J , E ZRA ii. 5s 16
[I], rgd), Neh. 37.
JAEL (SU;, 68 : ‘mountain-goat’ ; I ~ H A[BAL] :
JOS. I ~ A H ; YAMEL). A Bedouin woman, of whom
Sisera, when flying defeated from the field of battle,
asked water, and by whom, as he stood drinking the
refreshing soured milk (Ar. Zedan), he was beaten lifeless
to the ground. Upon this deed a high encomium is
prononnced by a contemporary Israelitish poet, Judg.
524-27 ( q [ A ] ) . And rightly, from his point of view,
2312
 JAGUR
if Jael was a Kenite (see below), for by this bold deed
she recognised the sacred bond of friendship between
the Israelites and the Kenites (cp Judg. 1 1 6 411).
Sisera was out of the pale of charity for an Israelite ;
therefore also for a Kenite. ' T h e act by which Jael
gained such renown was not the murder of a sleeping
man, but the use of a daring stratagem which gave her
a momentary chance to deliver a courageous blow'
(WRS 132). A later writer, however,
whose version of the story of Sisera appears on the
whole to be independent of that in Deborah's Song,
employed all the arts of a graceful style to represent
Jael as having killed Sisera in his sleep (Judg. 418-21).
Jael invites the tired fugitive into her tent, covers him
up with the tent-rug, and then, when he is sleeping
soundly, takes one of the tent-pegs, and strikes it with
a hammer into his forehead. She thus violates the
double sanctity attaching to Sisera as a guest and (see
D AVID , § I , col. 1023,n. I ) as a sleeper, and seems
deserving of a curse (Doughty, Arabia Deserta, 1 5 6 )
rather than a blessing. The narrator, it is true, does
not in express terms commend her ; but a hardly re-
pressed enthusiasm is visible in his description (vv. Z I J ).
Which tradition has the better claim to be regarded as his-
torical? Obviously not the second. The refined treachery
which this account assumes is inconceivable in a Bedawi and
the absurdity of transfixing a man's skull with a tent-peiis so
great that one is compelled to conjecture that the passage of the
song relative to Jael's deed (Judg. 5 26) lay before the narrator
in a corrupt form. Moore and Budde have set forth the present
position of textual criticism, and it is one of baffled per lexity.
Yet the remedy is perhaps near at hand (see Crit. B3.f The
true text should most probably run thus :-
Her hand to the coffer she reacheq,
Her right hand to a flint of the rock;
With the flint she strikes his head,
She smashes-she cleaves his temple.
T h e bowl in which Jael presented the soured milk was not ' a
bowl of the mighty' ( 0 , y y ~5 5 ~ but) 'a bowl of bronze,' Ass.
z r u d d ; cp COPPER, g. 2. The 'nail,' or rather ' tent-peg' (in,),
should be the coffer ' which, as Doughty says, every Bedawi
housewife has, and which contained among other things flints
for striking fire (Dip!: or nrp!:). The workmen's hammer'
(&y n>DS?)-an impossible rendering-should be a 'flint of
the rock' (YbD dVJh). I t only I-emains to remark, 'after
Moore, that the words 'in the days of Jael' (Judg. 5 6 ) , and
' the wife of Heber the Kenite' (5 24) are glosses which overload
the stichi in which they occur. See D EBORAH , I ; HEBER,I ;
JUDGES, S 7 ;SISERA. s r . K . c.
JAGUR (181;; A C C U ~[B], iaroyp [AL]), a Judahite Jehqshaphat (2 Ch. 2014 o < [ e ] q h [BA]). Cp HAZIEI. a Ger-
city on the border of Edom (Josh. 1521f'). Cp KABZEEL. GENEALOGIES
JAHATH (nn!, cP M AHATH , N AHATH , TAHATH
[BA], 1 ~ [,L]), ~ 0a well-known Levitical name
which has associations with Judah (see I, below) and
Edom ; see G ENEALOGIES , 7 [v.].
1. b. Reaiah b. Sbobal, a Judabite, I Ch.42 (om. A*, r a d
[L]). A comparison with I Ch. 2 52 suggests a possible connec-
tion with Manahath (MT ninln). I n view of the vicissitudes
.. this
of ..... name
....... (see below) it is t d b e ohnerved that Shohal is mob-
~ ~~~
JAHLEEL
JAHAZ, JAHAZAH, JAHZAH (yq!, Is. 1 5 4 Jer.
4 8 3 4 [Mesha's inscr. ZZ. I S / ] ; ??ill or 3>?!, Xu.
2123 Dt. 232 Josh. 1318 2 1 3 6 Judg. 1 1 2 0 Jer. 4821
I Ch. 663 [78]).
@ has iauua [BK*AFQL], but emus in Nu. [B'], pauau in
Josh. 13 [Bl, ia<qp [?] in Josh. 21 36 [BAL ; cp v. 391, baua [gl,
q A [AI in Judg.11~0, tau- [Qmg.l in Is.154, p e Q a [BA],
p4.e [H*], pauar [Nc.a] in Jer. 4821 ; for v. 34 see Swete).
Jahaz was the scene of the decisive battle between
the Israelites and Sihon, king of the Amorites ( N u . 2 1 2 3
Dt. 2 3 2 Judg. 1120). It was assigned to Reuben (Josh.
1318 P ) and to the Levites (Josh. 21 36 P). Mesha, king
of Moab, refers to it as taken byhimself from the Israelites.
The site is uncertain. It was near Kedemoth (Josh.
1318 21 36) and 'the wildefness of Kedemoth' ( u t . 226,
cp Nu. 21 23), and it was N. of the Arnon. This points
to the extreme SE. of Sihon's territory; Oliphant's
suggested identification with Ysjiiz is therefore out
of the question. Eusebius ( O S 2 6 4 9 4 ) informs lis
that Jahaz (reuua) still existed in his time, and that
it was situated between Medeba and Dibon ( 8 q 3 o u s ) .
There seems to be some mistake here ; the position thus
assigned to Jahaz appears too central. Possibly MqGapa
is corrupt. At any rate we may plausibly hold that the
important ruins of Umm er-ReS82 (cp @Nc.a Jer. 4821)
are on the site either of Jahaz or of Kedemoth. This
spot is two hours and a half NE. of Dibon, towards
the desert (see KEDEMOTH). T. K. C.
JAHAZIAH, RV J A HZEIAH (?l\Q!, 32 ; ' Yahwh
sees'), b. Tikvah, one of Ezra's opponents (Kosters,
Herstel, 1 1 9 J ) in dealing with the mixed marriages,
Ezra1015 (hazel&[BK"], -c [Hal, IAZI. [AI AZ. [LI)=
I Esd. 914, EZECHIAS (RV Ezekias, ~ Z E I A C[B], EZEKI.
[A], IAZIAC [L]). See AHASAI.
JAHAZIEL (5v?tJ!, 5 32 ; ' God sees,' cp ?>Til! and
T?!:i, I E Z I H A [AL] ; Pesh. nearly always \;lid).1
I. One of David's warriors ( I Cb. 124, rr<qA [SKI).
2. A priest, temp. David (I Ch. 166, om. fix, o<[sIyh
[ B k a wA].
3. b. Hebron a Kehathite Levite I Ch. 23 19(o<iqh [Bl, ra<qh
(rad
[AL]), 2423 [B], La<'@ [ALli for whose name we should
possibly read UZZIEI. (9.u. I).
4. An AEaphite Levite, b. Zechariah, introduced in the story
oithe Ammonite invasion; son of Zechariah, who rose up temp.
shonite name, and on the relation of Asaph to Gerdhon see
i 5 7 (66).
; 5. The fathei'of Shechaniah of the b'ne ZATTU(9.a.)(Ezra
8 5 om. B a<qh [AL]) so also Pesh. and I Esd. 832 (JEZELUR ;
rs6qhou [$I ts<~hou[i ] [L]) in place,of MT's 'of the
a<qh
sons of Shehhaniah, the Lon of Jahakel... .
JAHDAI($77: 'zg:
[sa.] or [Gi.], from Jnln 'to
lead,' cp Sab. [ t ) ] T I ? IHCOY [B], IAAAI [A], -?I [LI'.
the head of a family of six abruptly introduced into the
genealogy of Caleb ( I Ch. 247). The context suggests

ably the parent of the iirms Shebuei a n d - S H u B A E L [p.u.]; and that a ' concubine ' of Caleb is intended. Perhaps we
that a variant may plausibly he found (see Jastrow, JBL 19 102 should read n;??;, ' Jehudijah' (cp I Ch. 418), the six
[~goo])in the familiar Shimii'CI (Samuel). I sons ' mentioned would then be half-Jiidahite.
2. A Levitical name, I Ch. Gzo [ 5 l ( r e d [BI), 43 [ A I (qxa [Bl,
race [AD. 2310 ( ~ c l n hIL1). 2422 (wa0 IBA1). zCh.3412 ( L E IB1. T. K. c.
rase [Lj):t I n tra&g back the 'Leu& Samuel to Korih (the JAHDIEL($v9Inr, ' El is glad ' or ' gladdens,' 35.
Kehathite), the Chronicler introduces the analogous names
Mahath, Nahath, and Tahath ( I Ch. B 23 26 [cp v. 341, 35 37); cp J EHDEIAH ; IBAEIHA [B ; A and A confused], I E A I .
cp with these, the Kehathite Jahath (b. Shelomoth b. 1ny)l in [AL]), one of the chiefs of Manasseh-beyond-Jordan
1 Ch. 2422. But Shelomoth (h. Shimei) is Gershonite in 239 (as ( I Ch. 524t):
also is Shebuel [cp I, above], il. w. 16) and in agreement with
!his we find an important Gershonite diAsion, Jahath b. Shimei,z JAHDO (lsfl!;cp JRHDIEL;IOYPEI [B], I ~ A A A I
in v. IO. Further, Jahath the father of Shimei, and Jahath b. [A], leAAw [L]), a Gadite (1 Ch. 5 14").
Libni reappear in the genealogies of the Gershonites Ethan
Ethni, and Asaph ( I Ch. 6 43 [28]), and Jeatherai (=Ethni? id JAHLEEL (5&n:. probably corrupt), a son, that is,
w. 20 [ 5 ] ) respectively. Finally, not only Jahath ( z Ch. 34 IZ), family or clan, of Zebulun ; Gen. 46 14, P (AAOHA [A],
but also Libni and Shimei (I Ch. 6 2 ), are used as Merarite names,
to which division even Ethan (see
ascribed.
ETHAN, z, 3) himself IS finally [D], AIHA [L]); Nu. 3626, P (+HA [BAL];
S. A. C.
ethnic Jahleelites, +!&?:?, bhAHA[e]i [RAF'id.LI!.
Perhaps, like JAHZEEL, a corruption of !+!, 'God delivers.'
1 W e may perhaps associate m y * with the name n y w (Zorxh)
which is brought into connection with Jahath, I, In I Ch. 2 5 2 3 T. K. C.
4 2 (for another view see GENEALOGIES, 5 7 [?I, cql. 1666).
-
2 Considering the way in which genealoglcal hsts are built 1 In Syr. 3 is the preformative of the impf. Another similar
up, it is possible that 1 '2 nn'is the same as t w y '3 nnn formation i s seen in wg&for ' Jephthah.'
(I Ch. G35[20] 2 Ch 2212).
2313 2314
i
JAHMAI
JAEmAI (’nn!; E I I K A N P I , EMOY [AI, I ~ M I N
[L], n?>wlfI),l an Issacharite clan-name ( I Ch. 7 2).
Analogy suggests that ’nn, is an abbreviated theophorous
name (cp WR? in COT Z~OI),perhaps for Irln.on’, cp Sab.
srtnn* ( 5 and
~ ?an?),aLe., God protects,’ or (since the dnan in the manner of Jesus, and ( 2 )by the interweaving of
does not appear to be used in Heb.) for [rlnt5an*, which has
actually been found upon a Heb. seal. S. A. C.
JAHZAH (ny?:), Jer. 4821 RV. See J AHAZ .
JAHZEEL (5&7?!, ‘God halves’? J 38 ; aC[€]iHh
[ADFL]) a son of Naphtali. Gen. 4624 (rau,5?qh [L])‘ Nu. 2648
(uaqh [B:],,auqh [Ba.bl). I kh.713 has Jahziel [EVI) or rather
JAHAZIEL (+&,:c: ; reruiqA[Bl,L U U L ~[AI,
A ~auu~qh[L]). Nu. 2648
i..
has the patronymic Jahzeelites (’ K H: :n.’ a.; u a q h [B*], U ~ A C L
[Ba.b], a u q h [AFL]). Rather a corruption of 5rt~)n:; . . cp
JAHLEEL. T. K. C.
JAHZEIAH (n:!R!), Ezra 1 0 15 RV, AV J AHAZIAH .
JAHZERAH (Tl?!!), I Ch. 9 1.1. See AHASAI.
JAIR (l’y!, ‘He [God] enlightens,’ 5 53 ; laelp (6uxd~wsf x c t ) . For this evangelist represents the feeling
[BAFL]). I. After the main body of the Israelites had
settled down W. of Jordan v,uious Manassite clans
migrated to the E., .and, having dispossessed the
Amorites, founded settlements in Bashan and N.
Gilead. Among them was (the d u n of) Jair: Nu.
3241 (ravp [A], Dt. 314 I K. 413 [om. BL] tuperp [A]).
In the above-mentioned passages Jair is called the son of
Manasseh; but in I Ch. 221-23 (v. 22, aecp [A]; v. 23,
uasrp [B* ; u a dittograph], tupcrp [A]) he is made
to be of mixed descent, namely from Hezron, a
Judahite, on his father’s side, and from Machir
on his mother’s side.3 In Judg. 103-5, mention is
made of Jair, a Gileadite (aerp [A in ZI. 5]), and it is
very probable that Jair may have been placed by one
’ but not in the story of the ruler, according to which
tradition in the age of Moses and by another in the age
of the Judges. He is said to have had thirty sons,
who rode on thirty asses and had thirty cities called
H AVVOTH - J AIR (q.n.). The notice of the thirty colts
may be a gloss based on 1214 and facilitated by the
similarity of the words for cities and colts (the parono-
masia in n*iy [cities] and o .~.: ~ [colts]
y is retained also in
...
.T
6 ~6herr and ~ d h o u r ) . The expression in Judg.
105 ‘and Jair died, and was buried in CAMON’ (4.v.)
leads one to suppose that the seat of the clan was at
that place. See J EPHTHAH , 5 zf:
2. The father of Mordecai, Esth. 2 5 (6 TOG raeipou [BKL] .. .
rdrpou [AI). In the Apocrypha (Esth. 112) his name appears
as JAIRUS.
JAIR-(l’V:, ‘ He (God) awakens,’ so Kr. and Pesh. ; fore as one who might on special occasions raise the
Kt., however, W ’ ,Jer. ‘ filius sult%s,’--i.e., ’lV, with 9
defect.), the clan-name or the name of an ancestor of
ELHANAN [q.v.I, 1 Ch. 205 (iaeip [BL], aheip [A]).
I n the parallel passage (z S. 2119) we find the form
JAARE-(OREGIM). See E LHANAN , 2.
JAIRITE (’?I:?), z S. 2026. See I R A , 3.
JAIRUS (laeipoc [Ti. W H ] ; probably not=the
Jair of OT), a ruler of the synagogue, whose daughter
Jesns restored to life just after her death (Mk. 5 2 2 8
Lk. 841 , g ) . The narrative is specially important,
because the restoration to life to which it refers is the
best attested of the three marvels of this class related
in the Gospels, being given in M.t. (918 z), Mk., and
Lk.,not, however, without differences.
Of these differences, which are outweighed by the points b!
agreement, one is the non-mention of the name of.the ‘ruler
(not ‘ruler of the synagogue’) in Mt.’s account. Indeed the
Codex Bezz (D) is without the name in Mk., and (origiially)
in Lk.also.
1 Pesh. is hardly a safe support in favour of the
reading vq&, on which see E LHANAN , 2.
a Cited in Ges. Lex.P).
3 This post-exilic representation probably means that there
was a clan made up partly of the tribe of Judah and partly of
thatofManasseh, which occupied the region where the ‘Havvoth.
jair’ were situated (cp Be. Chon., ad loc.).
2315
JAIRUS
That the narrative in some form belongs to the earliest
stratum of the Gospel tradition is further supported ( I )
by the profound saying ‘ T h e damsel is not dead, but
sleepeth,’ which occupies a central position and is quite
another narrative which expresses one of the popular
superstitions so forcibly that it must be as old as any
in the Gospels.
The earliest form of the story of the ruler is that
given in Mt. 9 1 8 3 23-26. As Weiss has pointed out,
the earliest traditional narratives were not much con-
cerned about details, but aimed at connecting the
remembered sayings of Jesus with the facts which
formed (or, it was thought, must have formed) their
true setting. Whether Weiss is right in ascribing all
the picturesque details in Mk. to a Petrine tradition, is
at best doubtful ; he is at any rate most probably quite
wrong in adopting Mk. ’s report of the ruler’s appeal to
Jesus-viz., ‘ My little daughter is at the point of death’
of a later time that it was too much to believe that the
ruler could at once have risen to the height of faith
implied in Mt. 918; he assumes that the ruler must
at first have been afraid of such a bold request as that
Jesus would raise the dead. Mt.’s account, however,
rightly understood, makes this assumption unnecessary.
The ruler’s faith, though great, is not heroic. He has
the superstitious idea that the soul is still hovering about
its former receptacle, and craves of Jesus that by a
magic touch of his hand the scarcely parted soul and
body may be organically reunited. Another point in
which Mlc.’s account is certainly inferior to Mt.’s is the
injunction to secrecy (Mk. 543). This is in place in the
story of the blind men which follows in Mt. (927-32),
‘ much people ’ had heard the unhappy father’s appeal
to the Master. Whether even the words T A L I T H A
C U MI [g.v.] may be accepted from Mk. is doubtful.
Certainly the name Jairus is the spontaneous invention
of a pious and poetic imagination. Tradition (except
in Mk.) does not record the names of persons in the
crowd who were cured by Jesus,’ and the origin of the
name is manifest, viz. not ;:31 ‘ h e enlightens,’ but
(Nestle, Chajes) iqf; ‘ h e will awaken’ (from the sleep
of death).
Whether the raising of the dead maiden is historical
is another question. That Yahwb was regarded even in
the older period as the lord of life and death, and there-
dead, is undeniable. But how could any special occasion
arise, now that the belief in the resurrection had become
so general? For by this belief the conception of death
was transformed ; men could not ‘ sorrow as those who
had no hope.’ Nor did Jesus himself consider it to be
within his ordinary province to raise the dead. It has
indeed been said (e.g.,by Weiss) that Mt. 11 5 (Lk. 7 2 2 )
proves that more instances of the raising of the dead
occurred than are reported in the Gospels. But this
implies a misinterpretation of the message to John the
Baptist, which is certainly allegorical ; the words, ‘ the
dead are raised up,’ are explained by the next clause,
‘and the poor have the glad tidings brought to them.’a
That Lk. misunderstood the words (Lk. 7 21 ; cp N AIN )
renders it not improbable that Mk. did so too, and that
all three evangelists (whose idea of Jesus was marred by
recollections of Elijah and Elisha) misunderstood that
deep saying of Jesus, ‘She is not dead, but sleepeth.’
1 Even Mk.’s Bartimaeus is perhaps not really a personal
name; Tirnreus may yery possibly be a Greek substitute for the
Aram. samyd, ‘blind. ‘ Son of the blind’ would mean one of the
company of the blind-a numerous company in Palestine. Cp
RARTIMXUS. Mary Magdalene is of course altogether excep-
tional.
a See the forcible argument in BARTIMBLIS, 0 I (small type
paragraph).
Just as the idea of St: Francis soon became blurred in,the
minds of his biographers.
231.6
 JAKAN
They have at any rate preserved the saying for us, even if
the setting which they have produced is not the right one.
See Keim, Jesu von Nazara, 2471-475; Weiss, Das Leben
J e w , 1552-565; RPviIle, Jisus de-Nazareth, 2 6 8 J ; Plummer
St. Luke (International Comm.), 2 3 3 8 None of these writer:
gives complete satisfaction ; even Dr. Plummer thinks that ‘we
may he content, with Hase, to admit that certainty is nnattain-
able as to whether the maiden was dead or in a trance.’ On
the originality of Mt.’s narrative Badham, St. Mark’s Indebted-
nem to St. Matthew (‘97), 47-50,’is excellent : bu: it is a mistake
to admit that ‘the name Jairus looks original. See, further,
GOSPELS. T. K. C.
JAKAN (I?!?,5 4 ; RV JAAKAN), a name in the
Horite genealogy ( I Ch. 142f).
I n the II list in Gen. 3627 it appears as ‘and A KAN ’ (]?vi for
]iJy+),of which @E’S reading ( K a t w v a v ) in I Ch. is a corruption.
@L combines the readings (Gen. K a L L O U K ~ ~T ,Ch. KaL Lama”),
the latter being perhaps the original form in both cases; see
BEEROTH ii.). @A’S text is conflate (Gen. L o u K a p [ D has CWU-
K a p I xab o m a v [AE] ; I Ch. L w a K a v KaL o w a p [AI).
JAKEH (?lR’, some MSS M R , according to Delitzsch
‘ scrupulously pious ’-i.
e . , ~6hapljs,cp Ar. wukd, viii. )
father of AGUR(4.v.); Prov. 30 I .
The Midrash (ad loc. and elsewhere) does not, as we might
have supposed identify Jakeh with David but takes hen-Jakeh
to he a descripAon of the poet called Agur(he., Solomon), as ‘one
who is free from all sin and iniquity.’ T. K. C.
JAKIM (Pi?:, 86, 5 3 ; ‘ h e [El] raises’; cp
E LIAKIM, ALCIMUS; IAKEIM [BAL]).
I . The name of one of the twenty-four post-exilic priestly
courses : I Ch. 2412 ( s h t a K e L p [A]).
2. b. Shimei (u. 13 Shema) in a genealogy of BENJAMIN
( p a . , 5 g, ii. 6); I C h . i ~ g . See/QR l l r o 3 , 5 I .
3. I n AVmg. of Mt. 1II Jakim represents the L O L V ( E L ~ inter-
polated by some late Gk. and Syr. MSS (apparently also by
Irenzus and Epiphanius; see WH) between the names of
Josiah +d Jechoniah in the genealogy of Jesus. See GENEA-
LOGIE S II., 8 n and cp JEHOIACHIN.
’ JALAM (nb!:), Gen. 36 j RV ; AV JAALAM.
JALON ( V j ’ , AMWN [B], I A ~ [AL]), N b. Ezrah
(cp EZBR ii., I ), one of the b‘ne H UR ; I Ch. 4 7 . dBAL
suggests s]i;!, AIJALON(q.”., I , and note readings
there cited). This, however, seems too far N., and
considering the positions of the other places mentioned,
we should possibly read p$, Gilon=Giloh (on the form
cp Driver, TBS 241).
JAMBRES (IAMBPHC [Ti. WH]), z Tim. 38. See able to drink was early prepared for him. At the
J ANNES .
JAMBRI (rather JAMRI), THE CHILDREN OF. acting, perhaps, in the interest of Pharisaic zcalots,
An Arab clan or tribe, residing in MEDEBA ( q . ~ . ) , undertook a persecution of the Christians. In the
which attacked John the brother of Jonathan (the
Maccabee) as he was on his way to the NABATBANS, put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church. And
and carried him o f fwith all that he had ( I Macc. 9 3 5 J : he killed James the brother of John with the sword.’
ol d o l ~a,u&erv [A], ...apLppe~[ K ] , tapppa [VI ; D. 37
viol ra,u&w [A], iap@pc [K*V]. apppr c.b (vid. 1). perhaps indicated by his selection for this baptism of
From vv. 38 42 it appears that John was slain ; what
happened to the women and children of the Jews is
not stated. T o avenge his brother’s death, Jonathan
and his brother Simon crossed the Jordan, and sur-
prised and discomfited the b’ne Jamri (Amri) as they
were escorting a bride with a great train from NADA- t o Jerusalem, he was slain by Herod, and his body carried
BATH ( q . ~ . ib. ) , D. 37. Josephus (Ant. xiii. 1 2 4 ) tells
the same story ; he calls the hostile tribe ol ’Apupaiou
~ a i 8 e s . ’Apapalos, like ’Apapivos, in Jos. Ant. viii. 12 j ,
seems to represent ?>?y,Omri (for the d readings of
which name see O MRI ). Since, however, the name
yny’ has been found in an Aramaic inscription at
U?nm ei--Resli$, about IZ ni. SSE. from Medeba (see
CZS2 no. 195 I 3), it seems best to retain the form
Jamri. T. K. C.
JAMES (IAKWBOC, Jncobus), the name of three
persons prominently mentioned in the NT-James the
1, Son of son of Zebedee, James the son of Alphzus,
Zebedee. and James the brother of Jesus. The first
two of these are inclnded in the lists of the
apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Mt.
2317
JAMES
10zJ Mk. 317f. Lk. 614f: Acts 1 1 3 ) . The former of
this pair was a brother of John ; their father-a Galilean
fisherman, probably a resident of Capernaum-is re-
presented in the first two Gospels (Mt. 4 21 Mk. 120) as
having been present when his two sons were called by
Jesus to be his disciples, although in the legendary
account of this event in the third gospel the presence
of Zebedee is not implied, their call being made inci-
dental to that of Peter, who is said to have been a partner
of theirs. It is a usual inference from Mt. 2756 and
Mlr. 1.540 that Salome was their mother, although this
cannot be proved. The call of James to be a,disciple
was followed some months afterwards by his appointment
as one of the twelve apostles. His prominence in this
band is indicated by the fact that, in all the four lists
referred to above, his name is mentioned among the
first, along with Peter, Andrew, and John, who are
distinguished, together with him, not only by the
position which is accorded to them in the lists (cp
APOSTLE, 3 I, table), but also in the record of several
important events (Mk. 5 3 7 1 3 3 Mt. I T 1 2637, and
parallels).
Mk. [very enigmatically] relates that the brothers,
James and John, were designated by Jesus, Boav~pyes,
which is explained ‘ sons of thunder.’ 1
That this name was bestowed upon them by Jesus prior to
a manifestation of certain qualities of character is as improbable
as that it was given without a reason. Besides the part which
tradition may have had in attributing to them h e name and to
Jesus the bestowal of it is indeterminable. We may conjecture
that they earned the name, either from Jesus or from some
other source on account of a certain impetuosity manifested
perhaps, in <he incidentreferred to as mentioned i; Lk., and i;
their rash answer to Jesus’ question: ‘Are ye able t o drink the
cup that I drin: or to be baptized with the baptism that I am
baptized with? The request which called forth this solemn
question may also be regarded as indicating qualities of char-
acter which might have given rise to the designation in question.
[Further than this on the track marked out by the older criticism
we cannot go. I t is time, perhaps, to strike out a new path,
calling in the aid of philological and textual criticism. Can
Boavqpyrs be right?]
The last appearance of James the son of Zebedae in
the gospel-history is in Gethsemane at the agony of
Jesus (Mt. 2 6 3 7 Mk. 1 4 3 3 ) . He is mentioned in Acts
(113f.) among the apostles who, after the resurrection,
remained in Jerusalem continuing steadfastly in prayer.’
The cup which he had so impetuously professed himself
passover of the year 44 he was distinguished as the first
martyr among the apostles by Herod Agi-ippa I. who,
language of the writer of Acts ( 1 2 1 $ ) , ’ Herod the king
The prominent position of James in the church is
blood.
The legend that be went as a missionary to Spain, where in
829 his wonder-working bones were found and where his
apparition in luminous armour struck with ;error the infidel
hosts in the war with the Saracens, was reconciled with the
history in Acts by the supposition that, returning from Spain
hack and buried by his Spanish travelling-companions.
Of James the son of Alpheus, called in M.k. 1540
James the less ( 6 prKpbs, minor, younger) little is re-
2a. Son of corded in the NT. According to the same
Alphaeus. passage, his mother was a certain Mary who
is there mentioned as a witness of the cruci-
fixion. The translation of ‘Judas of James’ (’1066~s
’ ~ U K ~ B;O Lk.
L J 616 Acts 113) as ‘Judas the brother of
James’ is of doubtful propriety. The auostle Tudas
-2b. Distinct was probably t h e son of a fames
from brother otherwise unknown (see JUDE, 7). The
of Jesus. question whether James the son of
Alphaeus was identical with James the
1 [The name is evidently a compound and as it stands can-
not be explained with certainty (see BO~NERGES). For a con.
jecture see GIRSHITE.]
2318
 JAMES
brother of Jesus must be discussed before proceeding to
the consideration of the latter.
Doubtless in early times, and perhaps latterly, a pre-
possession in favour of the perpetual virginity of Mary
the mother of Jesus has had an inlluence in determining
some scholars to maintain the affirmative of this
question.
It is argued that from Mt. 2756 Mk. 1540 and n. 1925 the
inference may he drawn that Mary the mother of 3esus had a
sister Mary who was the wife of Clopas, and that she was the
mother of two sons, James the little (6 p ~ ~ p - and
5 ~ ) Joses. More-
over, since James, Joses(or Joseph), Judas, and Simon are men-
tioned in Rlt. 13 55 and Mk. 6 3 as brothers of Jesus, and since in
Lk. 6 16 and Acts 113 a James and a Jude are included among
the anostles. it has been areued that these latter were identical
with ‘the Jakes and Judas mentioned among the brothers of
Jesus, yet tbat they were not his brothers, but his cousins. In
support of this hypothesis it is maintained that the James called
the brother of Jesus, mentioned explicitly by Paul in Gal. 119
as such and frequently elsewhere as simply ‘James,’ and always
indicatdd as holding a prominent place in the church at
Jerusalem was no other than James the son of Alphreus who
IS identidd by the hypothesis with the Clopas of Jn. 1925.
Thus he would be shown to have been a cousin of Jesus, being
the son of a sister of Mary, Jesus’s mother, and one of the
original apostles.
This argumentation is, however, beset with insuper-
able di3iculties. If the apostle Ixbbzeus (Mt. 103 ;
but R V and WH Thaddzus) who is called Thaddzus
in Mk. 3x8, and who by the hypothesis was identical
with the ‘Judas of James’ of Lk. and Acts, was by
the first evangelist known to have been a brother
of James the son of Alphreus, it is improbable that
this writer would not have’ indicated this fact after
the analogy of ‘Simon and Andrew his brother’
and ‘James and John his brother.’ It is no less im-
probable that, if Judas and Simon were sons of Alphzeus
and the Mary in question, they would not have been
mentioned along with Joses in Mt. 2 7 5 6 and Mk. 1540.
I t is also evident from the attitude of Jesus’s brothers toward
him according to Mk. 321 31, that they could not have belonged
to the friendly apostolic group. For they are here represented
as ‘ standing without,’ and were probably of the ‘ his friends
(ai rap’ a h ; ) who ‘went out to lay hold on him’ because he
was, they thought, beside himself. (Cp Jn. 75.) In this con-
nection the fact is important that wherever they are mentioned
in the N T they are distinguished from the apostles (Mt. 12 46
Llc. 819Jn. 7 3 Acts 114 cor. 95 : ‘the other apostles [besides
Paul] and the brothers of the Lord’). Besides, there is nowhere
an intimation that any one of the apostles was either a brother
or a cousin of Jesus. The attempt to show from Jn. 192- that
Mary, the so-called ‘wife’ of Clopas (identified by the hypshesis
with Alphreus), was the sister of the mother of Jesus and that
hence James the son of Alphaeus was his cousin is hazardous.
For it is doubtYul whether Clopas and Alphaeus are the Aramaic
and Greek forms of the same name, since the Syriac version
uniformly transliterates them differently (Cleopha and Halpai)
and whether ‘ Mary of Clopas’ (Ma la i 706 KAwrS) is reall;
in apposition with ‘the sister of (is mother’ ($ &A++ 6 s
pq‘lrpbr a h ; ) . The opinion that four women instead of three
are mentioned here has the support of the Syriac version and
of many of the highest authorities (see Meyer on the passage,
and Wieseler in St. Kr. ’40, p. 650). Besides, the position is
quite tenable that according to the prevailing usus l04uendi,
‘Mary of Clopas’ (Mupia 5 TOG KAwrS) means Mary the
daughter of Clopas, in which case Clopas would be known only
as the father of the Mary mentioned in In. 1925 (see CLOPAS).
Thus in any case the improbable supposition that in the same
family there were two sisters of the same name is obviated.
Still, even if it could be shown that James the son of Alpheus
was a cousin of Jesus it would not follow that another James
was not his brother, since better reasons than those given by
Lange and Meyrick are required to justify the abandonment of
the natural meaning of dScA5b6~. Nor is it necessary to resort
to the supposition of step-brothers; for, according to the obvious
sense of first-born’ ( a p o r 6 r o ~ o r ; Lk. 2 7 Mt. 125, Sin. Syr.),
Mary was the mother of other sons than Jesus.
It is questioned whether in Gal. 119, ‘ other of the
apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother’
(&TEpJV 66 7 2 V dTOU76hlOV O d K E&lV El /&l
’IdkWpOV TbV
d6cX@bv TOO K U ~ ~ O U )James
, is included among the
apostles. The afirmation is thought to carry with it
the identification of the apostle James the son of Alphreus
with the brother of Jesus. The passage, however, may
be correctly rendered, ‘Another of the apostles [save
Peter] I did not see, but only James the brother of the
Lord. ‘
e1 p< save ’) finding it: exception in the negative o h &3ov
(‘saw not ’) and k p o v T. a. (‘other of the apostles’) referring to
23’9
JAMES
Peter (u.18). For a similar construction see Rom. 14 14 I Cor. 84
Gal. 2 16 Mt.124 2436 Lk.426f: So interpret Fritzsche, Credner,
Bleek, Wilier, Holtzmann, and others.
It is not necessary to suppose with Meyer and Lipsius
(who object to such an exception to Paul’s use of EL p+j
elsewhere) that James is here includedamong the apostles
I in the wider sense. ’ The conclusion is legitimate that
whenever Paul refers to James he has in mind the one
mentioned in this passage, not the son of Alphzeus.
A James who is not called the brother of Jesus, and is
not specifically designated, is conspicuous in Acts ; but
his identification must be controlled by the prominence
given by Paul to the ‘ brother of the Lord ’ (d6eh@bs
T O O K U ~ ~ O; UGal. 119, cp 2912). For want of space, dis-
cussion of the patristic and other early testimony on
this point must be omitted. Suffice it to say that the
view that there were three Jameses is supported by
Hegesippus, the pseudo- Clementine literature (Horn.
1135, Recop. 4 3 5 ) and the Apostolic Constitutions
( 2 5 5 612 746 835), whilst Chrysostom, Jerome, and
Theodoret are quoted for the opposite opinion.
James, surnamed the Just, although sharing with the
brothers, of whom he was probably the oldest, in their
5. The brother opposition-to Jesus during his public
ministry, appears to have been con-
ofJesus. verted to his cause soon after the
resurrection. According to I Cor. 157 he was a witness
to one of the manifestations of the risen Christ.
indeed, to two, if he may be included in the ‘all the
apostles ’ (70%drrou~hhors~ i t u r v ) .
An Ebionite ideal picture of ‘James the brother of the
Lord’ is given by Hegesippus (Eus. H E 223) who after
saying that he received the, government of the church dith the
apostles, continues thus : This apostle was consecrated from
his mother’s womb. H e drank neither wine nor strong drink
and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon hi:
head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. . . .
H e was in the habit of entering the tern le alone, and was often
.
found upon his hended knees, . . so t i a t his knees became as
a camel‘s in consequence of his habitual supplication.’ The
position assigned to him in the church by Hegesippus accords
with the statement in the pseudo-Clementine writings that he
was the bishop of the holy church, the bishop of Jerusalem,
episcoporr’m princeps, and archiepiscopus.
According to Gal. 1 1 8 2 9 , Paul finds James (see
CHRONOLOGY, $j73f:) holding a prominent place in the
Christian community in Jerusalem along with Peter and
John, and with these three, ‘reputed to be pillars,’ he
came to an arrangement respecting his mission to the
Gentiles. So great was the influence or the authority
of James that Peter was controlled by him at Antioch
in the matter of eating with the Gentiles. For when
‘ certain from James came, he drew back and separated
himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision ’
(Gal. 212). From this fact and from Paul’s statement
that, yielding to the emissaries from James, ‘ the rest of
the Jews dissembled,’ and ‘ even Barnabas was carried
away with their dissimulation,’ the inference is obvious
that this brother of Jesus was the acknowledged head
of the Jewish-Christian party in the church of Jerusalem
and a zealot for the strict observance of the Jewish law.
Paul’s vehement argument with Peter at Antioch reveals
no less clearly the attitude of James and his faction, than
the position of Paul himself. The question was that
of the validity of the Jewish law for Christiaris, and Paul
exposes the kernel of the matter when he says : ‘ I do
not make void the grace of God : for if righteousness is
through the law, then Christ died for nought’ (Gal. 221).
This is the historical account of the affair. The writer
of Acts, however, whose aim it was to present the
original apostles and James in a favourable light with
reference to Paulinism, records events which would
render the occurrences at Antioch improbable (I 11-12
21 17-25 ; see, however, ACTS, 3 3).
The testimony of antiquity leaves no doubt that James
died a violent death at the hands of Jewish zealots about
the year 63. For the dramatic account of his martyr-
dom given by Hegesippus see Eus. H E 223. Josephus
relates that, during the interregnum between Festus
2320
 JAMES (EPISTLE)
and Albinus, Ananias the high priest (see ANNAS[end])
called the Sanhedrin together, and having summoned
James, secured his condemnation to death by stoning-
an act for which he suffered the censure of the influential
Jews, and was deprived of his office by Albinus.
Important discussions of this subject may be found in Mayor
The EgistZe of St. James; Alford Greeh ,Testament, 4 1
Davidson, Zntr. ; Arnaud, Reckercds, etc., 51 ; Lightfoot,
Essay on tke Brethren of th; Lord; Lumby, art. ‘ James ’ in
EBP) ; Hilgenfeld, Einl. 7 5 . Meyer’s Commentary, 15 ;
Holtzmann, ZWT, ’87aAd BL 3 ; Wieseler St. Kr. ’42 .
Keim in BL ?,,art. Briider Jesu,’ ’69; La&e in PkEP);
art. ‘Jakohus 56; Immer in NT Theol. 282 ; and Credner,
Einl 57if: (‘i6). 0. c.
JAMES (EPISTLE). The object of this writing,
which is with doubtful propriety called an epistle (see,
’‘Contents’ E PISTOLARY
to emphasize the importance
L ITERATURE ,
of practical Christianity and to encourage and
strengthen its readers in their trials.
The writer exhorts his readers to receive trials with joy,
letting patience have its perfect work, and asking in faith for
wisdom of God who giveth liberally (1 2.8). External conditions
are without real significance. The man is blessed who endures
temptation ; hut temptations are from within, and God tempts
no man (19.18). Every man should be swift to hear and slow
to sueak : but the doina of the word is of Daramount imnortance
should be kept, and men should speak and act as they who are
ro ‘be judged by a law of li+ty ’(2 1-13). Faith without works
is ‘dead’ and can ‘save no one, and by the examples of
Abraham and Rahah those are shown to be in error who argue
to the contrary (2 14-26). Inquisitive conceit of wisdom, The
unbridled tongue, jealousy and faction are severely rebuked,
and ‘the wisdom that is from above’ ig commended (3). The
‘pleasures that war in the members’ are condemned as the
source of contention in the churches, together with adultery,
worldliness, and envy (4 1-10). Calumny and censoriousness
are rebuked, and the eager pursuit of gain is shown to be folly
in view of the brevity and uncertainty of life, which should he
lived in a constant sense of dependence upon God (411-17).
The rich are threatened who have heaped up corrupted’ riches,
while the cry of the poor whom they have oppressed ‘has
entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth’ (51-6). T h e
brethren are exhorted to patience in view of the ‘coming of the
Lord ’ ( r a o u d a 706 KUPL‘OU) which is ‘at hand ’ (5 7-11). Swear-
ing is forlidden and prayer is recommended which if offered
‘in faith,’ will sive the sick (5 12-18). ’ Finall;, he is’felicitated
who ‘ converts a sinner from the error of his way’ (5 19J).
The different parts of the writing are without logical
connection, and it has been well characterised as ‘for
the most part a loose joining of sayings which are not
thought in this connection, but brought into it ready
made’ (Wcizsacker).
T h e address, ‘ t o the twelve tribes who are of the
disuersion ’ ( C D I Pet. 1I \ mav be at least regarded as in
\ L , _ I 0
2. Address. accord with the general Jewish-Christian
character of the epistle, although its
meaning and purpose are indeterminable. ‘ The
twelve tribes’ qualified by ‘of the dispersion’ (& 72
Graump@)can literally mean only the Jews living out-
side Palestine ; but that the writer had Christians, not
Jews, in mind is evident ( 2 I 5 7). Some expositors
have sought to resolve this incongruity between the
address and the contents of the epistle by assnming
that the persons addressed were Jewish Christians, since
Jewish Christians are called Jews in Gal. 213 and
Hebrews in the superscription of the Epistle to the
Hebrews and in patristic literature, just as Paul (Rom.
1113) designates the Gentile Christians as Q B q . Whilst,
however, the Jewish-Christian tendency of the epistle is
unmistakable, it is difficult to find in it dccisive evidence
that it was addressed esueciallv ., to .Tewish Christians.
TIicrc is no pro’unl,ility tliiit there wcre churches composed
.
wliol!). of Jewish cunvrrf, IO Cliri.tinnity in the disper>ion,
itn I 1 1 rtlijiig in the upi,tlc inclicaies i I n t i t \\.a? ;iddressed to n
faction of the believers in general. The citation of example:
from the O T and the fhention of Abraham as ‘our father
(2 zr-z~)provesnothing in view of Paul‘s usage (Rom. 4 I 1216
Gal. 3 16 29 ; see also Clem. Rom. 31 4). The use of m v a y w y r j
for a Christian assembly (22) was not confined to the Jewish
Christians who according to Epiphanius(Haer. 30 m), employed
it instead’of h q o r ‘ a . Here it may mean no more than
d w i u u v a y w y i in Heh. 1025 (see Harnack, Z W T , ‘76, p. 104J).
2321
JAMES (EPISTLE)
It is very improbable, moreover, that a writer
addressing Jewish Christians should not only ignore the
Mosaic Law and ritual, but also give prominence t o
’ the perfect law of liberty,’ evidently contrasting it with
the former, and to the ‘ implanted word ’ (121 2 s 2 I , ) ,
without any attempt to show the relation of these new
conceptions to the ancient economy (see von Soden.
HC iii. 2 161),
Another incongruity between the address and the
contents appears in the fact that whilst the former is
general, there is in the latter constant reference to local
and special conditions, as if the writer really had in
mind a particular Christian ‘ assembly ’ ( u u v a y w y ~ )
with whose errors and needs he was personally ac-
quainted.
The circumstances which he deDicts in detail cannot b e
supposed to have existed throu-l-outan extended territory, such
as is indicated in the addresg (12 8 1 3 8 2 18 3r 8 138
4 18 13ff. 5 18 14).
If, on account of these incongruities the address b e
not judged to be fictitious and without significance in
relation to the contents, it must be regarded as including
Christians in general as the ‘true Israel,‘ as ‘the new,
greater people of God, who have taken the place of the
old’ (Gal. 6 1 6 ; cp Barn. 46 1 3 1 3 2 Clem. 22). T h e
words ‘ of the dispersion’ may be, as Pfleiderer con-
jectures, an imitation of I Pet. 1 1 with the omission of
the local limitation.
The relation of the epistle to the other N T writings
and to early patristic literature is instructive with
3. Relation reference to the question of its date and
to other authorship.
a. The epistle contains many remini-
writings’ scences of the sayings of Testis, princi-
pally of those collected in the First Gbspel, in the
L Sermon on the Mount.‘
( 1 1 7 M t . S 1 1 ; l z o M t . 5 ~ lzzflAMt.7zrf:;
~~ 28Mk.1231;
Z 1 3 M t . 5 7 ; 4rziV.It.1028; 5)mMt.534).
The uoints of contact with the Svnontic
, I Gosuels do
not indicate a literary dependence upon them or an
accurate knowledge of the words of Jesus.
If the author was acquainted with our written Gospels, h e
cannot he said to have quoted from them, and he never refers to
them or to Jesus as the source of the moral apophthegms in which
his writing abounds. I t is certainly a very vague and limited
knowledge of ‘the evangelic tradition’ that can be affirmed
(with Holtzmann) on the ground of 1 6 compared with Mk.
1122-24, and 5 14 compared with Mk. G 13. The most that can
be said in this relation is that the moral teachings contained in
this tradition bad made an indistinct impression upon the mind
of the writer.
6. That the writer of James was acquainted with
Rorn., I Cor., and Gal., there is little reason to doubt,
though he makes no mentioii of these writings, and
does not directly quote from them.
Acquaintance with them is shown in faint reminiscences of
their terminology and forms of expression and in declarations
which are in apparently intentional opposition to teachings
contained in them (1zf: Rom. 5 3f: ; 1 13 I Cor. 10 13 ;121 Rom.
13 12; 122 Rom. 2 13; 2 IO Gal. 5 3 ; 2 19 I Cor. 8 4 ; 2 2 1 Gal. 36
Rom. 4 3 ; 2 24 Rom. 328Gal. 216; 41 Rom. 613723; 4 4 Rom. 8 7 ’
4 5 Gal. 5 17 ; 4 1.f: Rom. 2 T 144). The writer shows no o m :
prehension of the leading doctrines of Paul, and it is probable
that the subtleties of the apostle were so foreign to his thought,
that he could not understand them. Of the Pauline conception
of the Messiahship of Jesus, his atoning sacrifice, and his resur-
rection (in which was the hope of the resurrection of believers
at the Parousia), and of the profound Pauline mysticism, there
is no trace of even a reminiscence in the epistle. There is
only a reference to the Parousia which shows a merely external
apprehension of it (5 7 3 ) .
c. Acquaintance with the Epistle to the Hebrews i s
not improbable.
This may he argued on the ground of 2 17 20 16 compared
with Heb. 6 I 9 14 (vmpci ‘dead’ applied in the one case to
faith and in the other to works), of 3 18, compared with Heb.
s & p < q ‘the fruit of righteousness
12 II (Kapvbs 6 ~ ~ a r o o $ v q lIv
... .
fruit
in peace’ and aaprrbs e;pqvcxb; 6 r ~ a r o o S v q‘the
~
~ peaceable
. of righteousness’), and of 2 25, the example of Rahah,
compared with Heb. 1131. Other points of contact with Heb.
are found in 117 (cp Heh. 12 g), 3 I (cp Heh. 5 IZ), 4 15 (cp
Heb. 6 3), 5 10 (cp Heb. 13 7).
d. The relation of James to I Pet. necessitates the
hypothesis of a literary dependence, and it is a disputed
question to which the priority should be accorded.
2322
 JAMES (EPISTLE)
Cp 1 I with I Pet. 1 I, 1zf: with I Pet. 16$, 1 IO with I Pet.
124, 1 1 8 with I Pet. 123, 1 ZI with I Pet. 2 I $, 2 7 with
I Pet. 4 14-16, 46-10 with I Pet. 5 5-9 5 8 3 with I Pet. 4 7 , 5 20
with I Pet. 4.)x Expositors have 'generally maintained the
dependence of I Pet. upon James ; but W. Briickner has shown
with probability the priority of the former, by a careful study of
the parallel pa9sages (ZWT,'74, p. 533 $), and has been
followed by Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, and von Soden. (See also
Grimm, St. ICY., '72, p. 6 9 2 3 )
e. Dependence on the Apocalypse is at least probable.
Cp 2 5 with Rev. 2 9, 1 IZ with Rev. 2 IO, 5 9 with Rev. 3 20.
Pfleiderer decidesfor the priorityof the portion of the Apocalypse
(dating from the time of Hadrian) which contains these passages
and thinks that the writer of James in appealing to the divind
promise (112) must have had Rev. 2 IO in mind (Das Urchrist.
857). Yolter, however, reverses the relation (Die Enfsfeh. d.
Apok. 183).
f: The contacts with I Clem. do not show 'incon-
testably' the use of James by the author of that epistle.
The two most important passages are found in I Pet. which
may have been a common source for the writers of James and
I Clem. (cp Clem. 30 2 with I Pet. 5 5 Jas. 4 6, Clem. 49 5 with
I Pet. 4 8 Jas. 5 2 0 ) ; I Clem. 1020 (cp Jas. 2 z3) is explicable
from Rom. 4 3 ; and 38 6 and 17 I$ do not necessarily presuppose
an acquaintance of the writer with Jas. 223 and 5 IO. If,
however, the use of James in this case be conceded, the
indeterminable date of I Clem. (probably 93.125) excludes any
conclusion for the early composition of the former.
g. The points of agreement between the Shepherd of
Hermas and James necessitate the conclusion that one
of them is dependent upon the other ; but it is not
clear to which the priority should be assigned.
Pfleiderer is perhaps too positive that it probably helongs to
Herm. (cp 4 7 with Herm. Mand. 12 5 ; 4 12 with Herm. illand.
12 6 Sim. 9 23).
h. The author of James was acquainted with the LXX, hut
not with the Heh. text of the OT. Theile has shown him
to have been familiar with Ecclns. and Wisdom, and probable
points of contact with Philo have been pointed out.
The acquaintance of the author with some of the
Pauline eoistles. the Darticulars of which have alreadv
I . I
4. Doctrine of b&n given, must be regarded as in-
Justitication, contestably established by the criticism
of this writing. in regard
_I " to which so
many disputed questions still remain unsettled. The
most indisputable point of contact with Pauliuism
occurs in the short section in which the writer discusses
the doctrine of justification (2 14-26). The twofold
prepossession against admitting that the canon of the
N T contains pseudonymous writings and contradictory
teachings has led to the confusion of a problem which
would otherwise have found an easy solution. For if
the same critical method shonld be applied here that is
employed in similar cases from the consideration of
which such prepossessions are absent, there can be no
doubt that a general agreement among scholars would
result. The case in question is not a vague allusion to
faith and works in general, which might be accounted
for on the ground of Jewish ideas and terms known by
the writer of the epistle without dependence upon Paul,
but a pointed reference to a distinctly Pauline doctrine
and the employment of the apostle's terminology and
very words. Paul declares explicitly : ' W e reckon
therefore that a man is justified (6tKaroDuOar) by faith
apart from the works of the law' (Rom. 328) and ' a
man is not justified by the works of the law ... even
we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified
by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the
law' (Gal. 2r6). He cites the case of Abraham, and
affirms that this patriarch was justified not by works,
but by faith (Rom. 4 1 Gal. 3 6 ) . On the contrary, the
writer of James declares that ' a man is justified
( 6 t K a r o D r m ) by works, and not by faith only' (224), and
as if to reply to the advocates of Paulinism by employing
the very example adduced by their master he affirms
that Abraham was justified by works (221-23). H e
also turns to his purpose the case of Rahab employed
in an opposite sense by the Pauline writer of Heb.
In the declaration that a man is not justified by faith
only (pu6vov) is implied the doctrine of the co-operation
of faith and works in justification, which is expressed in
the words regarding Abraham ; ' Faith wrought with
2323
JAMES (EPISTLE)
his works, and by works was faith made perfect ' (222).
This is essentially a justification 8.$ clpywv in opposition
to the Pauline xwpls @ywv, according to the declaration
concluding this section ; ' For as the body apart from
the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works
(xwpis clpywu, the Pauline terminology) is dead.' To
Paul, however, the Gospel was 'the power of God
unto salvation to every one that believeth,' i.e., faith in
itself or xwpis clpywv had a saving efficacy (Rom. 116)-
an affirmation which is pointedly denied in James
+I( 6dvarat $ d u n s uL;)uu~adibv, 214). Paul could
never, like our author, as Kern has pointed out, have
made salvation depend upon faith and works, because
faith in his sense included works-ie., a new life.
The difference of the two points of view has been well stated
by Schwegler : With Paul faith because it justifies is the
source of good works ; with James faith because it is the source
of good works and shows itself alive in them has a justifying
efficacy. With Paul justification is conditional upon faith or
better, justification and faith are present a t the same time wiihin
the man, and works proceed out of the justification in faith.
with James justification proceeds from the works in which fait6
shows itself to be alive. With Pan1 justification comes between
faith and works ; with James works come between faith and
justification' (Nachaj. Zeit. 1429).
Nothing could have been further from Paul's thought
than to depreciate good works; but he did not think
that the justifying judgment of God was determined by
them, for as Luther, rightly apprehending the Pauline
thought, says, 'faith lies at the bottom of the heart,
and God looks to the bottom of the heart.' (Cp
W. Grimm, 2 WT, '70, p. 379.) However, the different
views of faith and justification entertained by the two
men are not of special importance for our purpose.
(An admirable statement of them has been made by
von Soden in JPT, '84.) Whether the author of
James wrote for readers who, as he supposes, misunder-
stood Paul's teachings, or whether, as is more probable,
he did not himself correctly apprehend them, the
important fact is that he betrays unmistakably a
dependence upon Rom. and Gal. Holtzmann is not
too positive in saying that ' there is no more direct sort
of polemics than the verbal citation of a formula
(6tKatoDuOac CK T~CTTEWS Iu6yov, 224), supplied with a
definite negation ' (EinL('4 509). If the expedient of
Weiss, adopted from Neander, be allowed, that the
writer of James was in this section combating a Jewish-
Christian prejudice rather than a Pauline doctrine (the
epistle being assumed to have been written before the
time of Paul), the conflict of teaching would still remain.
There is, however, scarcely a probability in favour of
this supposition in view of the employment in James of
the unique Pauline terminology.
The composition of the epistle in the apostolic age,
md, as is generally . supposed
-- by those who assign it to
5. i this period, by- James, the hrGher of
Date a d Jesus, is rendered very improbable by
authorship.
several internal features, which have been
Fepeatedly pointed out. The legalistic point of view of
lames, one of the ' pillars ' of the church in Jerusalem,
s not indicated. The question of the relation of Jews
and Gentiles, which agitated the early church, is not re-
:erred to. ' The Judaistic controversy seems accordingly
:o have died out and the vbpos r&A~ios 6 res &hev6%ppias
1' perfect law of freedom '1 (125) to have been actoally
dentical with the new and transformed law of a
Jhristianity already becoming Catholic. ' The lament-
lble condition of the churches which is depicted-too
nuch teaching, the unbridled tongue, worldliness,
leference to the rich and scorn 'of the poor, an eager-
less for trade and gain, ' jealousy and faction,' ' wars
ind fightings,' and the absence of the wisdom that is
rom above-is not by any means that of primitive
Zhristianity.
An indication of a late date is found in 5 13-15, where
;upernatural healing of the sick is effected through ' the
klders,' that is, the official body of presbyters ( I Tim.
L 74).
2324
 JAMES (EPISTLE)
In the earlier church the power to effect 'healings' and 'the
working of miracles ' pertained to believers indiscriminately
<I Cor. 129,K). The embodiment of the function in an official
class indicates a considerable development of ecclesiastical
organisation. Cp S PIRITUAL GIFTS.
The writer was not, moreover, familiar with primitive
Christianity on its doctrinal side. He mentions, indeed,
as before remarked, the Parousia, and calls Christ ' the
Lord of Glory' (21). The Christological question, how-
ever, included much more than this in the early Church
-the life, the atoning death, the resurrection of Jesus,
a n d the testimony of the OT to his Messiahship. That
the 'brother of Jesus,' living at the time when these
,doctrines were taking form, should not have referred to
them even in a hortatory epistle is scarcely~probable.
Moreover, the good Greek style of the epistle, despite
Schleiermacher's strictures upon it, is hardly such as
could be expected of the son of Joseph and Mary.
Spitta has recently undertaken to show that the epistle is not
a Christian, but a Jewish, work (Der Brief des Juko6us, '96);
The ' only specifically Christian ' passages, Kai ~ u p i o u'Iyuou
X~LUTOO ('and of the Lord Jesus Christ ' 1I ) and ypiru 'IyvoO
XPLUTOOour [Lord] Jesus Christ,' 2 I), :re regarded as inter-
,p?lations, and the interpretation of the entire book is conducted
with reference to parallels drawn from the Jewish literature.
'The hypothesis of interpolations, however, is somewhat arbitrary.
the section on faith and works (214-26) presupposes the Paulini
doctrine and an acquaintance with Paul's writings, as has been
shown in the course of this article; and the relation of the
epistle to the N T literature is adverse to the early date assigned
to it by Spitta. Moreover the terminology in+reference,to
,eschatology is unmistakably )Christian. See ews n l s liapouuias
706 xupiou ('until the coming of the Lord,' 57) and 6 liapouula
70; K U P ~ O U ~ W L K W (I the coming of the Lord \s at hand,' 58).
The parallels referred to in Enoch do not contain this terminology.
Spitta's hypothesis, though defended with great learning and
acumen can hardly be regarded as established.
Von Soden (in HC, 'g8), rejecting Spitta's hypothesis, pre-
sents a new one of his own. The two sections, complete in them-
selves, 31-18 and 411-56,show no sort of accord with Christian
writings or ideas. The former might he regarded as an essay of
.an Alexandrian scribe and the latter as'a fragment from a
Jewish apocalypse. Although they may have come from the
same pen, they betray a different mind in tone, language, and
manner of apprehending things. Other parts of the epistle give
the impressiou that sayings elsewhere formulated are grouped
on the ground of a general relationship of their contents or of
their reference to that with which the author was occupied.
Whilst Christian tones are wanting in the sections referred to,
in the others notes of accord with Paul and I Pet. are frequent
(cp 12-4 12 1821 21 5 8 14-26 41-6IO). Of the forty words
in James foreign to the N T there are outside 81-18 411-56
.only six : puliapla and &$UTOS in 1 2 1 ; XpuuO8aK~v'hros, lipouo-
lioh&urqs dvehsos, + j p e p o s in chap. 2. It is probable there-
fore, that in combating the impro rieties in Christian'circles
known to him the writer called to !is aid reminiscences out of
his Jewish pekod, while he contributed of his own only some
thoughts chiefly found in chaps. 1 and 2, showing here, how-
ever, the influence of his Jewish materials in choice of words,
tone, and style. Parallels to this procedure are found in the
Didache the epistle of Barnahas, the reception of apocalyptic
fragmenls in Rev., and the Pauline anthologies from the OT.
From this point of view it is believed that justice will more easily
he done to the epistle, the loose connection and the defective
arrangement will be less censured, and the absence of specifically
Christian expressions, as well as the retirement of the book a s
soon as Greek influence prevailed in Christendom, will be better
understood.
The epistle is poor in doctrinal expressions. The
author, indeed, does not conceal his repugnance to
doctrinal disputations, and the judgment is well grounded
which finds that the episode regarding faith and works
was written not so much with a doctrinal purpose, as
to enforce the fundamental practical object of the writing
-to recommend the wisdom that is from above as more
desirable than riches and earthly knowledge. If the
Christianity which the author defends has, as Hilgenfeld
maintains, an Essene colouring in such teachings as
those regarding mercy (213), the oath (512), riches
(1IO$ 25), trade (4131, and governing the tongue (119
3 3 3 ) , an Ebionite tendency is more certainly shown
in his predilection for the poor and his opposition to the
rich, and in his disinclination to teaching, worldly
wisdom, and theories of faith. (See the Ebionite points
of agreement with the Clem. Hom. in Immer, A'T
Theol. 428). Whether his points of contact with the
Shepherd of Hermas prove his use of that writing or
not, the similarities of the two works, which Pfleiderer
2325
JAMLECH
has pointed out, give great weight to this scholar's
opinion that 'certain it is that both writings presuppose
like historical circumstances, and, from a similar point
of view, direct their admonitions to their contemporaries,
among whom a lax worldly-mindedness and unfruitful
theological wrangling threatened to destroy the religious
life ' (Das Urchrist. 868). Holtzmann characterises this
as I the right visual angle ' for the judgment of the
epistle ( 2W T , '92,p. 66). The latter scholar concludes
that in his formulation both of the conception of the
law and of that of Christology the writer's thought
reaches in its objective points into Catholic Christianity.
It may be regarded as far more probable that the
epistle is a product of the second century, perhaps later
than I Peter, than that it was written in the apostolic
age by the brother of Jesus. Perhaps in his polemic
against faith the writer had in mind an 'ultra-Pauline
Gnosis ' which he may or may not have discriminated
from genuine Paulinism.
The place from which the epistle was written is
indeterminable ; but the opinion that it originated in
Rome has great probability in its favour on account of
the contacts with Heb., Clem. Rom., and Herm.
The epistle did not fare well as to recognition in the
early Church. The Canon of Muratori omits it. The
6. CanonicitF earliest trace of an acquaintance with
it is found in Irenaeus, who refers to
Abraham as ' the friend of God ' (Jas. 2 23) ; but he does
not mention the epistle. From Tertullian's silence
regarding the epistle it must be concluded that he either
was unacquainted with it, or knowing it, regarded it as
spurious. Eusebius, in writing of it as an historian,
classifies it among the controverted books, and says
that it is reckoned spurious, and that not many of the
ancients have mentioned it. Yet in his commentary on
the Psalms he quotes it as ' the holy apostle's.' Doubt-
ful traces of its use by Clem.Alex. are found in his
writings, although he is said by Eusebius to have
written commentaries on all the Catholic epistles.
Good reasons, however, for doubting his acquaintance
with it are given by Salmon (Zntrod. L?J N T 449).
Origen knew and quoted an epistle of which he spoke
doubtfully as said to be James's (+epopLtvq S 'ICLK.
P?rruToh?j). Jerome, while acknowledging its genuine-
ness, remarks that it was said to have been published
by another in the name of James, though it gradually
acquired authority. It is contained in the Pesh., and
Ephrem accepted it as the work of James, the brother
of Jesus.
The most important commentaries on the epistle are those of
Schneckenburger (132) Theile ('33) Kern ('38) Ewald ('70),
(Erhnann ('81) b. Soden ('g6), and Mayor
7. Literature. ('92). Special investigations are contained
in the B i d . of Credner, De Wette, Holtz-
mann, Hilgenfeld, Zahn, and in the Zntroductions of Salmon
and Davidson. Notewortby articles on the epistle are those of
Kern ( T C h 2.f: TheoZ., 35 also rinted separately), Grimm
(ZIVT, '70), Hilgenfeld (i6., '73) 2
Briickner (3 '74) Holtz-
mann (i&, '82, 'gz), KISpper (i6:, '85) von Soden)(JPk, '84),
Haupt (St. Kr., '83), Usteri (ih,'89): Schwartz (i6 'gr), and
W. C. van Manen, Th.T 28 478-496 ('94), on the &e of tho
epistle. 0. c.
JAMIN (I'P: ; on name cp BENJAMIN ; only in P
! [BADFL]).
and post-exilic writings ; I & M [ ~ ]N
I. b. Ram, a Jerahmeelite (I Ch. 227, r a p s w [AI). See JERAH.
AIEEL, 5 2.
2. h. SIMEON(Gen. 46 I O Ex. G 15, capsip [Ll, Nu. 26 12
I Ch. 424); Jaminites, Nu. 2612, *;PI; b ~ a p [ r l ~ t [BAL]).
el~
3. A Levhe(?) present a t the reading of the law under Ezra,
Neh. 8 7 (om. BNA)=I Esd,948, ADINUStg.v.1 (ra8[elrvos[BAl,
Lapv
JAMLECH (q$p!, '[God] gives dominion,' 53, but
cp JERAHMEEL, 5 4 j ) , a Simeonite chieftain, temp.
1 @BAL finds a place-name 'Jamin' in Josh. 177 (rap[ps]iv)
where M T has jV?V(-h), and inserts it as a proper-name be-
tween Abner and Ahiel in I S. 1451 (&F [sliap~iv,cp the
question arising out of Saul's genealogy in I S. 9 I). Cp also 6 ' s
reading for on,:? in Gen. 3624 (see ANAH,3).
2326
 JAMNIA
Hezekiah (I Ch. 4 3 4 : IEMOAOX [Bl, AMAAHK [AI,
EBACIAEYCEN [LI).
JAMNIA(IAMN[E]IA[AKVI; IMacc. 415, I A N N E I A C
[AI, I A M I N E I A C[K"]; 5 5 8 ( A M N E I A N [K" I precedes];
1 0 6 9 1540 2i%cc. 1 2 8 4 0 ; Judith 228, I E M N A A [KC,a],
-N [B] [see JLMNAAN]; I A M N E I A .Jos.; cp Jamnites,
I A M N I T A I [AV], 2 Macc. 128 $),l the Greek name of
Jabneh, is derived from the form ;13)3', found in the
Jerusalem Talm. (Frankel, Yomtudien zzi der Sept. 104,
108). See JABNEEL,I.
JANAI ('>Y), I Ch. 512 RV, AV JAANAI.
JANIM (P'J:), Josh. 1553 RV; AV, following Kt.,
JANUM.
JANNA, RV JANNAI ( I A N N A I [Ti. WH]), an
ancestor of Joseph, Mary's husband (Lk. 324). See
GENEALOGIES ii. § 3.
JANNXUS, ALEXANDER ('KY ; also 'KY +n,
and on bilingual coins $Xt;1 \nXV, showing that 'K3'
' Jannai ' is a contraction of jn31' ' Jonathan ' ) . 2 The
first Asmonzan king of Judaea recognised on the coins,
third son of John Hyrcanus, and successor of Aristobulus
I. (104-78 B.C.), Jos. Ant. xiii. 12-15, BY 14. H e has
been supposed by some to be referred to in Pss. 2 and
110 ; but the general impression produced on theancients
by his character cannot surely have been very different
from that which modern students receive from it. He
was not a sovereign like Simon the Maccabee or John
Hyrcnnus, either of whom might conceivably have
received a religious poet's encominm. H e ' was during
his reign of twenty-six or twenty-seven years almost
constantly involved in foreign or in civil wars, which for
the most part were provoked by his own wilfulness,
and resulted by no means invariably in his favour.'3
' It could only be with deep-seated resentment that pions
Jews could look on and see a wild warrior like Alexander
Jannzens discharging the duties of high priest in the holy
place, certainly not with the conscientious and pains-
taking observance of the ordinances regarded by the
Pharisees as divine. '
The bitter spirit of Is. 25 .of: may seem to belong to
an adherent of Alexander Jannzeus; but here again
Duhm's tendency t o throw everything that he can into
a very late period may lead him astray (cp Smend,
Z A T W ,'84, pp. 209, 212). Much more plausible is the
view that there are veiled references to Jannaeus in parts
of the book of Ecclesiastes (see ECCLESIASTES, I T ) .
The king spoken of was at any rate not unlike Jannaeus
(who was called Thmcidus 'for his extreme cruelty,'
Jos. Ant. xiii. 142), and the difficulty of placing Ecclesi-
astes in the Persian period is becoming more generally
felt.
JA-NNES AND JAMBRES ( I A N N H C KAI IAMB~HC
[Ti. W H ; var. MAMBPHC]) In zTini. 38 two
1. Origin of Egyptian magicians, who ' withstood
the names. Moses' (Ex. 78f:) are named, though
elsewhere the opponents of Moses are
anonymous. The author of 2 Tim. may, as Theodoret
held, have derived the names from oral tradition ; but it
is not improbable that there existed a small apocryphal
narrative with a title corresponding to the ' Jannes et
Mambres liber' mentioned by Origen (Mt. 279) and
the ' Liber, qni appellatur Pcenitentia Jamnis et
Mambre, apocryphus' cited in the Decree of Gelasius
(cp Schiirer, GYV 3P) 292 f. ; Fabricius, Cod. Pseud-
V T 1813-825 2 105-111).
I t will be noted that the names given in these Latin titles
differ from the accepted reading in 2 Tim. The Codices, how-
ever, sometimes offer the reading Ma@,+ for the second name.
Most modern authorities accept this reading and regard the
name as equivalent to the Hebrew K-,nn (see M AMRE ) ; the p
1 b N has LapLav for 'Persia' in Judith 1 7.
2 Cp R&i wze;z'ri, 85 6; Mi&. Y . on Eccles. 9 IO.
3 Schiir. Hisf.129jf:
4 Z6id. 300.
2327
JANNES AND JAMBRES
aids pronunciation as in the case of ApSppp (see AMRAM).Se
Buxtorff Lex. ChZd. e t TaZw. col. 945. Iavvrjs can be readily
explaineh as Hebrew, for 'Iavvrjs or 'Iwduvqs would correspond
with Johanan ( ~ ~ n > , ) .Iln the Hebrew sources, however, the
names are not always so spelt. I n Bab. Talm. Minrichbfh, 85a, we
find the forms NiCni * ~ n ;i ?but in the Jer. Targ. the names a r e
more similar to those in Timothy. There are several spellings
even within the Targum itself. Ex. 11s D>>D'~ ~ * j E?. * ; 7 IT,
Dq>n*i D y ; Nu. 22 22, pin*)D * J ~ (These spellings are cited
from the editio prince s Venice 1695 and they are all confirmed
by the valuable M i 'Brit. dnsenh, Add. 27031.) In other
Jewish works the spehng of the names is even less uniform,
so that we even find Joannes and Ambrosius (Shalsheleth
Hakkabbala), and also three names instead of two Jonos
Juchne, and Mamhre (see SchSttgen, NOYE Ue6r. on z ?im. 3 8):
There .is another tenable theory as to the origin of
the names. Lauth (Moses der Edraev, 7 7 ) held that
they are Egyptian, Jannes meaning 'Scribe' and
Mambres 'Gift of the Sun God (Heliodorus).' J.
Freudenthal (Alezunder Po&histor, 173) also regards
the names as Graecised-Egyptian. Freudenthal indeed
traces the whole story to a Hellenistic Egyptian source,
though one of the names occurs (perhaps) in Pliny ( H N
, ~ in Apuleius (Apol. c. 90, ed. Hilde-
xxx. ~ I I ) and
brand).3 The fullest citation in a pagan source is from
Numenius (Eus. Prap. Ev. 9 8). Freudenthal considers.
it probable that Numenius derived his statement from
Artapanos, a Hellenist who wrote in Alexandria in the
second century B . C . (Schiirer, however, contests this,
but on inconclusive grounds). Ewald ( G V I PP)rr28,
E T 2 8 9 , n. I ) also treats the names as ancient, and
well compares the Hebrew p'nuin (see M AGIC , Q 2 )
with Numenius's i ~ p p o y p ~ p p ~ dEwald
~. would thus.
agree with Lauth in holding that the names are the
Egyptian equivalents for ' Scribes ' in general.
'The explanation of the names, apart from their
etymology, has given rise to many conjectures, some of
2. Explanation. them quite worthless. Iselin, who
agrees with Freudenthal as to t h e
origination of the story with Artapanos, thinks that the
names were due to a mistaken reading ( w m R i m ) in
Gen. 1413 (see M AMRE ). H e cites also I Macc. 936,
oi vi02 'Ia,@peiv (Iupppr [K"], 'ApLppi [ W a s c.b 1'id,)])8
h~ M$upd, Medeba being situate in the old land of
the Amorites ( Z W T , '94, p. 325). See J AMBRI .
(Iselin gives a useful collection of the Syriac occur-
rences of the names.) Geiger (Urschr. 474). using
the same passage in I Macc., regards the names
as Maccabaean, ' Jambres ' alluding to the ' sons of
Jambri ' (but the reading thus assumed is very doubtful),
and Jannes the inhabitants of Jamnia. These nationaL
enemies gave the names to the opponents of Moses.
Levy (Chuld. CVB., s. ZI. IJ'J-) suggests that John the
Baptist and Jesus were meant. Kohut (Aruch Corn-
pletum, s . ~ ~. 9 3 and
9 ~ ~ n compares
i ' ) the Persian demons,
Janaya and Vyambura. Jastrow suggests Januarius
and Janus. Such suggestions are mere guesses. Levy's
theory that Mainre was chosen because of its meaning
' Apostate,' has, however, found considerable accept-
ance. So too, it is easy to connect DY with the Rab-
binical >I*, ' to vex or mislead.'
Of the Jewish statements about Jannes and Jambres,
the onlv features that seem ancient are the bare names.
In the Talmud (MZndch. 8 5 n ) Johanan
8. Jewish
and Mamre, thinking that Moses is a
magician like themselves (so Koran ZS),
retort, ' Dost thou bring corn or straw to Afraim?'4
(evidently a city where corn abounded ; perhaps a town
in Samaria; Neub. Gdogr. 155). The Jer. Targ.
makes Jannes and Jamhres sons of Balaam, who advised
the prevention of the birth of Moses (Ex. 1I S ) , opposed
1 On the other hand JANNAZUS (T.v.), 3 ~ 1 > ,is a contraction of
Jonathan.
2 [est et alia magices factio a Mose et Janne et Lotape ac
Judieis pendens.]
Apollonius vel ipse Dardanus, vel quicumque alius
magos celebratus est.]
.. .
3 [Carinondas vel Damigeron, vel is Moses, vel Jannesi vel
inter
4 [For a similar proverb cp FISH, 5 7.1
2328
 JANOAH
him in Egypt ( ~ I I ) and
, accampanied Balaam on his
journey to Balak (Nu. 2222). These statements are
not real traditions; they are built up from words in
the text, after the manner of Midrash. According to
some Midrashim, Jannes and Jambres perished in the
Red Sea (Mid. Vuyyusha'),according to others they
joined the Israelites among the ' inixed multitude '
( TunchQma to Ex. 321), and died in the tumult after
the incident of the golden calf ( YuZkQf Rl'btnZi). The
Zohar (13th cent.) has several references to Jannes and
Jambres, but they are of no antiquity. The fullest
consecutive narrative is to be found in the Sepher
HayySsh2r (11th or 12th cent.).
See I. Abrahams? ' The Rod of Moses,' in 'Papers of Jews'
College Lit. SOC., 1887. For further Christian references,
which, like the Jewish, add nothing authentic to Timothy, cp
Schiirer, loc. cit. 1. A.
JANOAH (nil:, ' resting-place' ?-but see below).
I..AV Janohah. A point on the eastern border of
Ephraim (Josh. 166f: ; L U Y W K U , paxw ,(?)-in Josh. 167
nnri?-[B], t a r w [A], - X U [L]). According to the Ononza-
sticun (26759 13320) it lay 12 R.m. E. of Neapolis,
in AKRABATTINE ; the definition is almost exact (E.
should be SE.). It is mod. Z<h. Yiinzin (see GuCrin,
Sum. 26 $ ; Rob. BR 4297). On a rocky hill to the
NE. is the praying-place of Neby Nzin. It was not
uncommon to give the ancient names of ruined towns
to supposed Moslem saints; in the present instance,
however, YEnzin has become the prophet Nan. Here,
no doubt, was the chief high place of Janoah.
2. A town in N. Israel, depopulated by Tiglath-
pileser ( 2 K. 1529, avtwx [B], cavwx [AL]). It is men-
tioned between Abel-beth-maacah and Kedesh, and has
been identified by GuBrin (Gal. 2371 f.) with Hunin
(famous for its old fortress and for its view), and with
more plausibility by Conder with Yiinzih, a village 6 m.
E. of Tyre (PEFM 15196). Apparently Janoah was a
frontier city towards the Tyrian territory. The present
writer has conjectured (Acad., July 6, '96) that it is
the city of Yenu'amn, which is mentioned in the Israel-
inscription of MernGptah and elsewhere in the Egyptian
records, and appears in one of the Amarna letters
as Yinuamma (Wi. 1428). In the letter referred to
some one reports to the king of Egypt that this city ' has
fallen away and barred the gate behind him.' Yenu-
'amp must have been a rich town, for Thotmes 111.
endowed the temple of Amun at Thehes with an annual
sum to be paid by this and two other cities (Brugsch,
G A 329). There is an Egyptian picture given, by
Rosellmi and W. M. Muller which shows its position.
I t lay by a small lake, and was surrounded by forests
in which the conquered enemies took refuge. It is
difficult to think that such an important place-name as
Yenu'amu or Yinuamma has not (like other equally
ancient n"aes) survived.
According to the theory here adopted, YenuHmv is not a
compound of oyj (oy) ", Hommel; cp Yinnamma), hut is
equivalent to ~yn1y. In Kings this name was shortened into
nii- (Janoah), just as nna' (Jepthah) is shortened from 5~ nnp.
That n before y is not reproduced in the Egyptian form Yenu-
'amu need not surely surprise us; it would have been very
troublesome to an Egyptian to pronounce the name accurately.
T h e alternative explanation y n1y (E. Meyer, Z P T W 6 7 ) . is
philologically less probable.1 lermont-Ganneau's identification
of Yeuu'amy with the southern town of Naamah of Josh. 15 41
(Rm.Arch. 29 127) is also linguistically improbable. Naville
(Eec. de travaux 20 ['981) seeks for the site near Gezer and
would even identify it with Jahneel ; but this, too, seem's un-
likely. T. K. C .
JANUM, RV J a n i m (PI' Kt., D$l! Kr. : Josh.
1553 ; IEMAEIN [B], IANOYM [AL]), an unidentified
locality in the hill-country of Judah, in the neighbour-
hood of BETH-TAPPUAH. Read perhaps ]W, ' Jamin.'
JAPHETH (ng;; l&+Ee [BADEL]), son of Noah
1 313, 'to dwell,' is doubtful. Hab. 2 5 and Ps.68 13 [x4]are
corrupt.
75 2329
JAPHIA
(Gen. 5 3 2 , etc. ; see H AM ), and ancestor of the peoples
1. References. N. and W. of Palestine (Gen. 102.5, P).
That he was generally regarded as
Noah's youngest son is shown by the constant order
of the three brothers, and is in harmony with 1021,
where @ is not to be followed (see SBOT, and cp Bu.
Urgesch. 3 0 4 8 ) . It is true that in 924 ' his youngest
son' means Ham, or rather Canaan (see H A M i.),
and that the narrative 920-27 belongs no doubt to an
earlier stratum of narrative than the other passages;
but the narrow sense in which Shem. Japheth, and
Ham are used here was' abandoned by later writers,
who made Japheth the youngest son, and the ancestor
of remote northern peoples. In the early narrative
Japheth (if we suppose that he was really mentioned in it)
may represent the Phcenicians (so Bu.), who are to
be distinguished from the Canaanites, though they
dwelt in the land of Canaan. Wellhausen ( C H 15)
less plausibly suggests the Philistines. It is very prob-
able, however, that the mention of Japheth (u. 23) and
the accompanying blessing (u. 27) are later insertions.
The words ' he shall dnell in the tents of Shem' may
conceivably allude to the conquests of the Greeks,
' Shem' being taken in the later enlarged sense (Duhm's
suggestion, adopted by Bertholet, Die Stellung der
Ismeliten, 76 f:, 198). The narrative gains consider-
ably by the omission of Japheth. The division of the
world into three parts caused the troublesome insertion.
In explaining the name it is well to follow the analogy
of Shem, which was doubtless a personal, not an ethnic,
name. Japhetg (n!;, yepheth) is usually
2* meaning Of explained in accordance with Gen. 927,
the name. 'Let God enlarge (nn, yu$ht) Japheth.'
It seems unlikely, however, that a'stem so unusual in
this sense as an9 (piithiih) would have been chosen.
Since the names Shem, Canaan, Japheth, are doubt-
less older than the poetic oracles, and there are other
cases in which we may hold that old names have become
mutilated (cp S HEM , H A M , N O A H ), it is not too bold to
suppose that n p is a fragmentary form of 5~ nm:
(yz$htu&'d), 'God opens' (cp the old name Japhti'-Addi
in Am. Tub.). nna (piitha&)is a word well adapted for
legendary heroes (see J EPHTHAH ), and 'enlargement' is a
blessing equallyfit for the Phcenicians and for the father of
so many races as Japheth, one of which was the conquer-
ing Javan. Fiirst's and Budde's explanation, ' beauty,'
from 359 (yiijhiih), accepted by D. S. Margoliouth
(Hastings' DB 254gb), is not in accordance with analogy,
and is rightly rejected by Dillmann.
Of quite another order is the theory of E. Meyer, who
connects Japheth with the name Icaft, in hieroglyphic
texts=Cilicia. ' I h a e ~ o sis a Cilician deity; see PHm-
NICIA, and cp C APHTOR , §§ 3, 4.
Kaft andtlsi-ia. Cilicia andCyprus-represented the western
quarter of the world to the Egyptians. But the mutilation of
Kaft into Yaft is improbable and we expect a purely personal
name. Sanskrit comparisons )(Lenormant, On3nes, ii. 1 191f;)
are nowadays discredited. T. K. C .
JAPHIA (P'Y), a border city of Zebulun, mentioned
between Daberath (Daazirzph) and Gath-hepher (e&
Meshhed) ; Josh. 19x2.
Pi's readings are +ayyaL [Bl bu+uyaL [AI ia++ie [Ll ; Eus.
(Onom.) gives ra+s0 with an ippended 0 a6 in ~ A r o a p e 0 ;Jer.
Iafthie (Vg. Zujhie).
The pretty village of Yiifii,14 m. SW. of Nazareth,
is its representative ; the phrase 'goeth up to Japhia'
is sufficiently explained by the position of Y
iifiion two
connected ridges, to which a ravine leads up. The
one historical association to which this city can lay
claim is its siege and capture by the Romans. The
name which Josephus gives it is Japha (ta$m) ; he calls
it ' a very great village, well secured with walls and
full of people ' ( Vif.45). He also says that he fortified
it with a double wall, and for some time made it his
headquarters.
That in one passage Josephus diminishes the distance between
2330
 JAPHIA
Japha, (Japhia) and Jotapatal is as much or as little of an
ObjectLon to Robinson's identification as his patent exaTgeration
of the number of the inhabitants of Japha (BJ iii. 7 317. Euse-
bius (OS26769; cp 13332) appears to hesitate herween the
claims of an 'ascent (still) called Joppa'and those of Sycaminon
($+a=(fuzya).~ Perhaps the village of Y a f i had almost dis-
appeared in his day. It was in Robinson's time but a small
village of about thirty houses (BR 3 zoo). T. K. C.
JAPHIA (W:, § 64, ' tall of stature ' ? ; la+ls [A]).
I. King of Lachish, defeated by Joshua ; Josh. 10 3 ('+?a [B]
ca+abf [L]). C p the name of Japahi, prince of Gezer, A m . Zbh.
204, 206 ; also that of Japhti'-Add; (see JAPHETH, 5 z), also in
A m . Tad.
2. A son of David : 2 S. 515 I Ch. 3 7 146 (+IF, 'avow
-ouou [BN], aQie [A in z S.] ; L, ravae, v4d (IS.), b x L K a p .
(1 I Ch. 37), VW$€K, ka$€y(i6. 146). See DAVID, 5 II (4.
JAPHLET (&P, § 5 3 ; '[God] delivers' ; cp
Pelatiah ; I ~ A M H A , A + A ~ H X , IAC$AAHA [Bl, IA+AAHT
[A], -+AET [L]). A clan in a genealogy of ASHER
(g.v., 5 4, ii. ), I Ch. 7 3 2 3 ; cp JAPHLETI.
JAPHLETI, RV The Japhletites (+&?!? ; ~ I T T A - would he plausible to read NfllI or 'nT (the latter a Palmyrenr:
AsiM P I , is+aA0i [AIj I B + ~ H T I [L]),a clan whose
district was on the S. border of Ephraim (Josh. 1 6 3 ) .
There is thus no geographical objection to connecting
the name with that of PALTI b. Raphu, the Benjamite.
The Asherite clan called Japhlet was, of course, distinct.
JAPHO (iB:), 2 Ch. 216 [IS] EVmg., EV JOPPA.
JAR ($?>),Jer. 13 12 48 12, RVmg.. See BOTTLE, 2.
JARAH (?l;P), I Ch. 942. See JEHOADAH.
JAREB (37:; IAPEIM [BAQ*I, - p e i B [ P I ; UL-
TOREM, -RI),the name of a n Assyrian (7) king men-
tioned twice in Hosea (5 13 106) as receiving tribute from
Israel. Unfortunately there is no Assyrian king con-
temporary with Hosea whose name bears even a distant
resemblance to Jareb. Hence most critics take Jareb to
be a nickname = ' the contentious ' (cp Aq. 6imu6pevovI
5 13, Aq., Theod., 6 1 K d f O V T 1 , Symm. hreppu)loi%rr, 106).
This would be plausible only if Jareb resembled some
Assyrian name, so that its reference might at once be
caught. Hence the present writer proposed3 to change
219 7 5 into ~ 32 &, the Great King ' (cp Ps. 482 [3]), or
02 qip, 'the High King' (cp eBAQ* But
). since it
has been shown by Winckler that references to the N.
Arabian land of MuSri (see M IZRAIM , 26) underlie the
traditional text of many passages in OT, and that i ~ w ShephElahofJudah ~
has probably sometimes (by corruption) taken the place
of i i p ~ we , cannot rest satisfied with this theory. Prob-
ably we should read in Hos. 5 1 3 and 106 respectively-
When Ephraim saw his sickness I and Israel his wound
Then went Ephraim to Mugur I and [Israel] sent to the'Arabian
king.
That too shall men bring to Musur I as a present to the Arabian
king.
The substitution of 'Israel' for ' Jndah ' need not he just;-
fied here (cp HOSEA, $ 4). 379 i$n should probably be
'3iy:
.T-
Xk?; 3;y in Palestine, like m a t Ari6u in Assyria, was It is remarkable that the closing letter of the modern
coming into use as a term for N. Arabia (cy Schr. KA TP),414
=COT 2107). The treatment of ' Jareb in KAT(? 439 (=
COT 2 136 f:)may also be consulted though it is necessarily
incomplete. For quite recent views see note 3 below.
T. K. C.
JARED, or, as AV I Ch., J ERED (t?!,), Gen. 515-20
I Ch. 1 2 Lk. 337. See C AINITES , 7 ; SETHITES.
On the meaning of the name see Bu. Urgescir. 1 1 0 . T h e
readings are : Laps6 [BAD], -87 [ken. 5 i;f: E, 18 A E ; Lk. 337 called Jarmuth stood there enables us to attain a better
Ti. W H ] ; Jared, cod. Am. -dh.
1 His words in BJ iii. 7 13 are 7Wa T;V Gs 'Iwmlrdws
d m v y s r ~ d v w vndhrv, 'Ia+a Kahs;.raL. The order of the places
in Vit. 37, BJ 206, is in closer accordance with geographical
facts.
2 So Reland, P5Z. 826 followed by Ges. Thes. S.V.
a Che. Expos. 976, b. 364, and, virtually, M'Curdy, Hist.
Proph. and Md,. 1415 ('94). Independently W. M. Muller
gives the same view ; h- prefers, however, 27 * > 5 ~the , phrase notices accord with this. There were possibly several
being treated as a proper name ( Z A T W 3 3 4 3 ['971). Wi.
(Muyi, etc., 32 ['98]), with great ingenuity, proposes to read
-~i[nl*f & ~ , 'to the King of Jathrih '-i.e., mod. Medina, which
seems to have been on the southern border of Musri (cp Hofnmel,
AHT 2 4 ). An alternative is to read limj, 'Nimrod ; see correct
SBOT 'ha.' (Heb.) 195,
2331
JARMUTH
JARESIAH, RV Jaareshiah (fi@'yq?, $5 39 ; meaning
obscure; iacapaia K A I capaia [Bl, IAPACIA K.
caapia [A], IEPCIA [L]), b. Jeroham in a genealogy of
B EN J AMIN (g.. ., 5 g, ii. p), I Ch. 827f.
JARHA (U?l!, IUXHA [BAI, iapea [LI, ispaa
[ A H , and 8 MSS. i n H-PI, c\n77* [Pesh.], ZERAA
[Vg. I), the servant of SHESHAN [u.v.], a Jerahmeelite.
who afterwards became his master's son-in-law and the
head of a long genealogical line ( I Ch. 2 3 4 f.) ; see
J ERAHMEEL , 3. He is generally regarded as an
Egyptian (EV) '-the Rabbins, indeed, represent him
as a proselyte. This view is of course legitimate, but
considering the probable early sent of the clan Jerah-
meel. it is perhaps more natural to treat '?tnas meaning
rather an inhabitant of the N. Arabian M q r i or MuSur
(see M IZRAIM , 5 ~ b ) . ~
We cannot retain the present spelling of the name yni' I t
name), or, better still, $ ~ m(after* QBA'S hnl'). A connectim
with moon-worship need not he insisted upon: perhaps t!ie
name was considered to be identical with Jerahmeel (as an
abbreviated form). This would account for the presence of the
ancestral list, I Ch. 2 34-41, in the genealogy of Jerahmeel, since
it is probable that Sheshan himself was not originally Jerah-
meelite. His inclusion in v. 31 (the details of which do not
agree with v. 34a) may be later. The union of the Mugrite
Jarha (Jerahmeel?) and Sheshan (cp the Hebronite Sheshai?) iq
suggestive. See HEBRON, $ ~ f :J;ERAHMEEL, 5 zf: ; SHESHAN.
S. A. C.
JARIB (2971, 5 53 ; ' he [God] contends' ; cp
Jehoiarib, Joiarib ; lap[e]iB [AL]).
I . A son of Simeon, elsewhere called JACHIN (q.v.); I Ch. 424
(rapaw [Bl, m p y &I).
2. Headoffamdytemp E z r a ( s e e E 2 R ~ i .p n ; i i . , % 15 [ I ] & ;
Ezra816 (ape8 [B])=I Esh. 844 JORIBUS (r:p~pov [BA om. Ll).
Perhaps=no. 3.
3. A priest in list of those with foreign wives (see E ZRA i., 5 5
end); EzralOr8 ( q a p [B], rcupeip [N])=I Esd. Qrg JORIBUS
(iwprj3os [BAD.
4. (Loap[s]rj3 [ANV]),I Macc. 1429. RV JOARIB. see JEIIOIA-
RIB.
JARIMOTH ( i a p r e l i ~ w 0[BAL]), I Esd. 9 z 8 =
Ezra 1027, JEREMOTH, 11.
JARMUTH ( n q ; CP JEREMOTH, l€plMOy0
[AFL], i e p [ e ~ ] ~ o y[B]).e I. ACanaanite city, in the
(Josh. 1211rqxpou[A]1535; cp Neh.
11 29, where BNA om., ipL,uouB [Nc.amg.inf.]), whose king
joined the coalition under A DONI - ZEDEK , and was de-
feated by Joshua (Josh. l o 3 5 23 1211). It is represented
by the modern Khir6et e2- YnrmzZk, which is 16 m. W.
by S. of Jerusalem, and about 8 m. N. of Beit-Jibrin.
The distance from Eleutheropolis, which the Onomasticon
(OS2)1 3 2 3 1 2 6 6 3 8 ) assigns to rsppoxws or Jermucha
( I O R.m. NE.), being so nearly that of YarmCk from
Beit-Jibrin, we are justified in identifying the places.
name should agree with that of the name in the
Onomasfican. Such a form, however, a s Jarmuk cannot
well be ancient ; Micah already (it may be) attests
the final -uth (see MAROTH). The same prophet, too,
in Mi. 1 1 2 , if we may read nim' for n i m (see MAROTH),
indicates that Jarmuth was in the neighbourhood of
Mareshah, or, at any rate, the assumption that a city
text for the passage than we can secure in any other
way. We have certainly no reason to suppose that
the Jarmuth of the OT narratives was the Yarimuta of
the Antarna Tablets (5516, and often), the position Of
which is disputed (see Niebuhr, M V G 4 3 2 8 ['96] :
Flinders Petrie, Syria and Egypt, 169f.). In Josh.
1 5 3 5 Jarmuth is mentioned with Adullam, and the other
Jarmuths. Can we thus account for the discrepant notice
1 WMM (OLZ, Feb. 1900, col. 51 n. 4) takes the name to be
Egyptian ; y r = w e r 'great.'
a The same view has bee; proposed also by Wi. M V G 4 6 ['98].
2332
 JAROAH
of Iapas (?) =Jarmuth in OS 266 I 132 16) Cp BITHIAH,
MERED, PIRAM.
2. See RAMOTH iii.
JAROAH (nil:, § 53=ll173 ‘Heenlarges’(?) : ihai
[B], ah., [AI, apoye [L]),. in a genealogy of G AD
(Gilebd) \ I Ch. 5 14).
JASAEL RV Jasaelus ( A C ~ H A O C [BA]), I Esd. 9 3 0
=Ezra 10 29, SHEAL.
JASHEN (tb?). In 2 S. 2332, in the list of David’s
thirty heroes we read (RV), ‘ Eliahba the Shaalbonite,
the sons of Jashen, Jonathan ’ (auae [BA], rcuuai 6 youvr
[L], pauar 6 ywuvr [243, in Field]) ; in the parallel
text ( I Ch. 1133f:), ‘ ... the sons of Hashem the
Gizonite’ (*gn?; @ A uuup 6 ywusr [cp 6Lof 2 S.]. bL
ecpauar 6 youvr). 732 ( M T ‘sons of ’) is obviously
wrong. I t is simply dittographed from the preceding
word (so Driver and most), or should iw*-93 be viewed
as a corruption of a proper name (so H. P. Smith)?
I n the former case we might read, ‘ ...Jashen (or
Hashem) the GUNITE’ (see G UNI ) ; in the latter $ t & ~
would he a plausible restoration. Jonathan is generally
taken as a separate hero, and connected with Shammah
( w . 33) by p (inserted from Ch.) ; but, as H. P. Smith
points out, imiv may be the corruption of a gentilic.
C p HASHEM. T. K. C.
JASHER RV Jashar, Book of (l&! l @ D , book of
the upright ’ ; c p EVmS), the title of a n ancient song-
book twice quoted in the O T (Josh. 1 0 1 3 : om.,
BIBAION TOY eyeoyc [L], Liber Justorurn [Vg.];
1-;
]h;;a~.l? [Pesh.]; sifr eLmusta&im [Ar.]; 2 S.
118: BIBAION TOY Eyeoyc [BA], ... eyeewc
[L] ; ;-/ a [Pesh., similarly Ar. afir], Vg. id.).
In the account of the battle of Gibeon and its sequel
there occurs a memorable passage (Josh. 1012-14) with
’‘ a fragment of song quoted (most prob-
Josh’ lo’ ably by E) from the Book of Jashar.1
T h e speaker is said to be Joshua, and by a late scribe’s
interpblation the song is invested with the character of
a prayer. I n reality, the address to the sun and moon
(see below) is rather a command, or perhaps a spell,
than a prayer. The writer of the song no doubt
thought of the sun and moon as t P i n g Joshua’s side
against his (and YahwB‘s) foes., But the interpolator
had a good intention,’and expressed the devout feeling
of the later Jews3 T h e passage containing the song
was evidently inserted by D,, who at the same time
introduced the explanatory words, ‘ I n the day when
... in the sight of Israel’ (w. I,), and the statement,
‘So the sun rested .. . for Yahwe fought for Israel’
m.1 3 6 ) . In the circles to which D, belonged the
primitive feeling for nature had died
1: its original form, therefore, the passage ran thus :-
Then spoke Joshua,
0 sun 1 rest over Gibeon ;
0 moon ! stand still over Aijalon.
1 See Ki. Hist. 1302 ; We. C N 128; Sta. Gesch. 150 ; Bu.
Z A TW 7146.
2 See Judg.520’ and cp Hom.2Z.Zlqqf 1 8 q g f ’ Od.
23241fl With a ;ouch of primitive feeling ”Syrian p&ants
still cry in song to the sun to hasten his going down that they
may rest.
3 Cp this passage from LastJourmL’s of Bishop Hannington,
184f: (‘88). ‘As soon as the sun showed a fresh and powerful
hand of warriors came at once and demaAded hofigo. ... How
often I looked at the sun! i t stood still in the heavens, nor
would go down. I tgonised in prayer, and each time trouble
seemed to be averted.
4 This is partly admitted by Kittel (Hist.1304) who neverthe-
less thinks that ‘the fact of a striking continuance of daylight
remains though we may not know the natural law through
which {t was brought about,’ and that ‘the soFg itself. ..
proves Israel’s belief that a miracle was wrought. The former
view may be defended by Hab. 311, Ecclns. 464, Jos. Ant.
v. 117, hut seems hardly critical : the latter asumes (with
Kau., hut not with Di.) that ‘so the sun rested,‘etc., forms part
of the songfragment, which can scarcely be admitted.
2333
JASHER
So the sun rested, and the moon stood still
Until Yahwe had taken vengeance on his dnemies.1
Behold it is written in the Book of Jashar.’
The third line. however. is Drobablv the insertion of the earlv
narrator from khom th; passage was taken by Dz so that th;
fragmeni quoted from the old song in the Book o r Jashar con-
siyted of the first second, and fourth of the above lines, and for
‘had taken venieance on,‘ we should substitute ‘takes venge-
ance.’
The second quotation is the lamentation for Saul
and Jonathan, ascribed to David ( z S. 117-27), and prob-
ably early, though, it is to be feared, not
2. s. 1. Davidic (see, however, DAVID, 13).~
According to a revised text,3 the passage runs thus :-
‘Of David. For the sons of Jeduthun. For the Ezrahite.
* * * * *
0 Saul ! hy thy death have I been slain;
Alas that the heroes have fallen !
Report it not in Rehoboth !
Declare it not in Hahisah I
Lest the daughters of the Zarepbathitesrejoice,
Lest the daughters of the Jerahmeelites triumph.
Be thou parched, 0 Jeralnneel ! descend not
Dew or rain upon thee !
Become desolate, ye lofty mountains !
Let the bushes fade, deprived of fatness !
The shield of Saul has been defiled
With the blood of those slain by the sword :
Broken is the bow of bronze,
Shivered is the well-sharpened sword.
The beloved the longed-for in life-
In death thly were (still) unparted;
They (who were swifter than eagles,
They (who] were stronger than lions.
Women of Israel, shed tears
For Saul ...
Who gave you linen garments
Who decked your raiment with gold.
Alas that the heroes have fallen,
And the strong of heart lie stiff!
Jonathan ! by thy death have I been slain ;
For thee, 0 my brother, I am smitten to death !
Thou wast very pleasant to me, my comrade !
More was thy love to me than women’s love.
Alas that the heroes have fallen
And the strong of heart lie stiff!
The four-lined stanzasare well marked (as in the Book of Job).
A third quotation is to be found in a passage ascribed
to Solomon, and a t any rate pre-exilic. T h e poetical
3.
=; 812f: words assigned to Solomon ( I K. 8 I.$)
immediately before a speech in more
prosaic style, are given in another place with some
variations, and in fuller form by @BAL ( w . 53 ; GAgives
another version before w. 14), which expressly state that
the words are written 6s PipXly (pLpXy),or P?rl /3cphLou
T ? ~$?js-i.e.,
S i$P?imp. If this title ( ‘ Book of Song,’
or of ‘ Songs ’) were correct, it would suggest that the
source of the quotation was a Psalter ; but the words
are almost certainly a slip for l@ ’i2D (note
> that
? Pesh.
makes a similar mistakein Josh. 10). For this fragment
as emended, see CREATION, ~ 6 . ~
The Book of Jashar was, so far as we know, a product
of the post-Solomonic age (cp St. GVZ 150). I t was
4. Origin, a national song-book- the ‘ book of the
righteous (or, possibly, brave) one,’-i.e.,
Israel5 (as if =$K if;, cp Nu.2310). Its contents
were partly secular (in 2 S. 1 1 9 there is a total
1 In I. z read >’lb$(as suggested by Bu. Z A T W 7 1 4 6 ; Cp
the first correction of Z. I in @Ls which also has the simple intro-
duction K ~ elnrv
L ’Iqmk. .
2 Heie again the quotation is probably due to E (or KJE), cp
Cook ‘Notes on the Analysis of 2 Sam ’ A j S L 16 147 [I~ooI.
3 $or details of the restoration see &;I. $ 6 ’ Che. Crz’t. Ri6.
Cp We. Dr. HPSm., Bu and GASm. g G 4 d 4 j The title is
of courie ve& late ; hut tiis does not involve the lateness of the
poem.
4 For text cp Klo., adloc. ; WRS, OTJCP) 434J ; We. CHP)
269 ; Ch. OPs. 193 212 ; Dr. Zntr. 182.
6 lg: (7) a shorter form for $NW ; cp JESHURUN. Other
theories, for instance, that le? 190 was a law-book (Targ.,
Kim., etc.) or that l$ was the name of the author, or the
opening word (l@ ‘and ... , sang’), may be mentioned.
2334
 JASHOBEAM
lack of religious feeling), partly religious ( I K. 8
~ z f ): ; it refers, e.g., to the battle at Gibeon and
the prowess of Saul and Jonathan, but also to the
temple. Indeed, we may presume that the third of the
extant passages belonged to a hymn to YahwB. Nor
could we venture to say that the Rook of Jashar contained
no pre-Davidic songs. Not impossibly it was sipiilar
in the width of its range to the Arabian collections of
EZ Zsfafzciny or the ffnnziisn. Probably the songs of
which it was composed had short historical introductions,
so that altogether it may have almost served as an
Iliad of the Israelites. Can we form a reasonable
conjecture as to its other contents? Surely such a
collection must have contained David’s (?) lament over
Abner (2s.3 3 3 J ) , and among earlier passages, the Song
,of Deborah (Judg. 5 ) , thesong of the Well (Nu. 21 1 7 3 ,
see B EER ), and the Song of Triumph over Sihon (ib.
ZZ. 2 7 f l : but see WARS O F THE L ORD , BOOK OF).
One might even perhaps add the songs of the primitive
history, such as we find in Gen. 4 2 3 J 925 2727.29 39J’
etc.). Franke (who ascribes the book to the time of
Hezekiah l ) includes also Ex. 15 1-18 and Hab. 3 ; -but
see EXODUS ii., 5 6 ; MOSES, H ABAKKUK , 5 8 3
In later Christian times ‘the Book of Jashar is the title of a
ritualistic treatise by Jacob b. Meir (died I I ~ I )and, of one or two
forgeries which are only remarkable for the undeserved success
they obtained; for a more detailed account of them see Kitto,
Bib. Cyd., s.71. See HlSToRlCAL LITERATURE, 5 z ; and
POETICAL LITERATURE, $ 2 (i.).
S.A.C., §$ I, 3, 4 ; T.K. C., $ 2 .
JASHOBEAM ( @ q j : ) . I. The name, not indeed
in itself impossible but certainly corrupt, borne by one
of David‘s chief warriors in I Ch. 1111(where he is
called ‘ ben Hachmoni ’ ; see H ACHMONITE ) and 272J
(where he is styled ‘ ben Zabdiel’). The former pas-
sage occurs again with variations in 2 S. 238, where the
name of the warrior is represented in the Hebrew text by
the letters $m$si.--i.e., I ~ B ; Bthe~ appended letters n3
probably represent n*g, which should be connected
with the following word q ~ 3 n n (corrupt
. - ; RV ‘ a to conceal it (I Macc. 115, cp Schiir. G VZ 1151, n. 24,
Tahchemonite ’).
For the JOSHEB-BASSHEBETH of RV (=AV ‘that sat in the
seat’), derived from the pointed text, nothing can he said,
except that it justifies the warning in RVmg. that ‘ t h e verse is
probably corrupt.’
~ I ~ B B seems
S to be incompletely written for IHBBST: occasion of the festival to H ERCULES [q.v.]. This,
originally there may have been a mark of abbreviation
after the s. This may be read either Jashibbosheth
(‘ Bosheth brings back ’), or, better, if the second B be
regarded as an error, Ishbosheth (‘ man of Bosheth ’),
where Bosheth ( ‘ shame ’ ) is the well-known substitute
for Baal. The final n in ny>w* is either a corruption
from 5 (which is palzographically possible), or, as
Marqnart (Fund. 15, n. I ) supposes, an intentional
alteration due to religious scruple (he compares nyxi-.
altered perhaps from 5 y 2 i t ; see JEROBOAM).
I SHBAAL , 2 , and cp Gray, NPN 46,note I.
@‘s readings are : in z S. 238 LFBOUBB[Bl,-fJa~ [AI, reuppaah [Ll:
in I Ch. 11IT ieuapaSa [B] Ieuoai. [ K ] , Lapuap [A], icauq3aaA
’ in I Ch. 27 z uopuh [e!, Lufioap [A], kup. [L].
Another of David’s warriors, a Korhite ( I Ch. 126), see
ISHBAAL, 3, and DAVID, 5 11a (iii.). T. IC. C.
JASHUB (lag:, ‘ h e returns,’ § 5 4 ; cp SHEAR- vindictiveness, was forced to flee before Antiochus.
JASHUB ; iauoup [BAF’L]).
I. One of the sons of Issachar (Nu. 2624 paaouj3 [F*];but
I Ch. 7 I x,w* Kt., i a a a o u p [Bl),called in Gen. 46 13 (by omission
of a letter) J OB , R V 108 (>j+; Larow$ [A], -oup [DL]); see
NAMES, 5 4. Gentilic Jashubites ; Nu. 26 24 (‘pd; ; ~ a u o u p [ e ] ~ ( 59f: ) closes-his story.
[BAFL]).
2. One of the b’ne Bani in the list of those with f0rei.m wives
1E ZRA I, $ 5 end) Ezra 10 zg(raaou8 [B], auoua [N])= I Esd. 9 50
ASUBUS; Laaoupos [EA]).
JASHUBI-LEHEM (DP?T ,)J; a name of anomal-
ous formation which appears in I Ch. 422 among the
descendants of the Judahite SHELAH [p.~.].
1 Ue6er Bedeufung, Inhalt, u. Alter des Seplrer HtZijaschar,
Halle, ’87.
2335
JASON
Bertheau, Kautzsch (doubtfully); Kittel read an5 n*x ixeq,
.‘and they returned to Bethlehem’; but the whole passage isas
obscure as the ‘records’ themselves are said to be ‘ancient.’
Provisionally we might read at the beginning of the verse
>$io) h y YWN ... N ~ T ’WIN
J (for n’pi.1) mrp’i. 48 has K a i
d n h p a $ s v a h & [BAI, mi &&rpe$av ~ U U T O ~Aeep
S [Ll ; and
Jerpme translates ‘et qui reversi sunt in Lahem [Bethlehem],’
taking the words as applying to those named in the preceding
clause. S. A. C.
JASIEL ($&9&t!), I Ch. 1147, RV J AASIEL .
JASON ( [ ~ I r a u w v[AKV], ?ASON, a name of Grecian
origin in frequent use among the Jews, by whom it was
regarded as equivalent to Joshua, Jeshua, Jesus; cp
the parallel Alcimus from Eliakim, Menelaus from
Menahem. Simon from Simeon, and see N AMES , $ 86).
I. Of Cyrene, a Hellenistic Jew, author of a history
of the times of the Maccabees down to the victory over
Nicanor (175-161). Our so-called second book of
Maccabees is xu ~ ? T L T O ~ $of this larger work, which is
said to have consisted of five books ( 2 Macc. 223, cp 26).
The writer probablylived in the second half of the second
century B.C. See further M ACCABEES , SECOND, €$2, 6 ;
and cp H ISTORICAL L ITERATURE , 5 18.
2. Second son of Simon II., and brother of Onias
III., the high priest, whose original name was, as
Josephus (Ant.xii. 5 I ) relates, Jesus. He represented
the Hellenizing section, and was opposed to the
policy of an alliance with Rome. By means of a bribe
(helped also doubtless by the sons of Tobias) he
managed in 175 B.C. to obtain the high-priesthood in
place of his brother from Antiochus Epiphanes (see
ANTIOCHUS, 2 ) ; and proceeded to introduce various
practices which were an ‘abomination’ to the Pharisaism
of the time.2 Another bribe procured him permission
to set up a gymnasium and e$fzebeum below the
Acropolis and hard by Mt. Zion, the- consequence of
which was the adoption of Greek games (see D ISCUS ),
Greek caps (see C AP ), etc. The priests themselves
betook themselves eagerly to the pnZmtm, and being
ashamed of their Jewish singularity did all they could
and see CIRCUMCISION, $ 8). At the same time, Jason
obtained permission to register (dvaypd$ai) the in-
habitants of Jerusalem among the citizens of Antioch
( 2 Macc. 4 9 ) , and sent a contribution to Tyre on the
however, was so repugnant to the bearers that they
used the money for the equipment of the triremes ( 2 Macc.
418-20). An obscure account of a visit of Antiochus to
Jerusalem (ib. Z I J ) is all that is told us for the next
three years, at the expiration of which time Jason was
suddenly supplanted in the priesthood by MENELAUS
[ p . ~ . ]and forced to flee. Menelaus, however, failed to
win popularity, and the appearance of certain dread
portents as well as a baseless rnmonr of the death of
See Antiochns encouraged Jason to emerge from his asylum
in Ammanitis (cp 426). Helped by the populace, he
captured the city (ca. 1 7 0 B.C.). Menelaus was com-
pelled to take refuge in the citadel. But his success was
of short duration ; he missed his great object-the priest-
hood-and, having alienated his supporters by his
From the Ammonites, he passed to Aretas, and then to
Egypt ; finally he crossed over to the Lacedzmoniaiis,
relying, we are told, on the kinship betweeti them and
the Jews (see S PARTA). An effective rhetorical period
3. Son of Eleazar (cp ‘Jesus son of Sirach EZeazar,’ Ecclus.
50 27). sent by Judas to R o m i ( I Macc. S 17). He is probably
1 According to Jos. (il nt. xii. 5 I) he was the natural successor,
Onias having died, and left only an infant son.
2 He is probably referred to in Dan. 9 26 11 2 2 , where see
Bevan ad Zoc. and cp We. IJGla) 245. n. I.
3 Cp the similar case of Ptolemais (Akko), and see Schiir. 0).
cit. 281. Other explanations of this verse have been offered ;
see Bertholet StelZung-d. Isr. U . j u d . 208.
4 Warlike &oops were seen in the sky ( 2 Macc. 5 2) ; cp z K.
6 17, Jos. BJ vi. 5 2 and Tac. Hist. 5 13.
2336
 JASPER
the Jason who is mentioned as the father of ANTIPATER [g.v.]
( I Macc. 1% 16 14 22).
4. Jason of Thessalonica, who for his hospitality t o Paul and
Silas, was attacked by the Jehish mob, brought before the
magistrates, and bound over to he loyal (Acts 17 1.9). For i)
less probable view of the object of the demand of the ‘security
( ~ kba v i v ) see Kamsay, St.Paul the TaoeZZeer, 231. H e may
ossibly he identified with the Jason of Rom. 18 21, one of Paul’s
‘kinsmen ‘(uuyysueisfii.e., a fellow-Jew ; cp R OMANS, g$4, IO.
The tradition in pseudo-Uorotheus makes Jason bishop of
Tarsus. S . A. C.
JASPER ( I A C ~ I Cborrcwed
, from Ass. u$4,yu$d=
or X$:). In Rev. 21 I I (cp 18J) the New
Jerusalem is said to be irradiated by a luminary ‘like
a stone most precious, as if a jasper-stone, clear as
crystal ’ (AI@ IdudiL KpUUTUhhf{WTl).
The description is suggested by ‘26’srendering of Is. 54 12 (see
below), ‘I will make thy battlements jasper ( L a m w ) , and thy
gates stones of crystal (AiSovs K v u ~ d M o v ) ,and thy rampart
choice stones’ (Ai0. &&KTo~s), wfere the writer of Rev. seems
to have supposed that both the phrases ‘stones of crystal’ and
‘choice stones’ were synonymous with and explanatory of
‘jasper’ (see, however, TOPAZ).
In Ex. 2820 39 13, n ~ w ,yE.fyh& (=l‘ua?rtr) .is
a$parerzi& rendered in @ by dudxcov (but see below) ;
hut the onyx, not being a clear stone, cannot be meant
in Rev. 21 IT. Nor can our jasper be intended, as it is
not sparkling nor translucent, but ‘ a n opaque, close-
grained variety of quartz, variously tinted, but generally
either red or brown.’ It is probable, however, that the
jasper of the ancients included the opal, which, by its
brilliance and play of colour, has always been one of
the most attractive of precious stones, and in its choicest
variety (see Plin. HN 3721 J ) deserves in the highest
degree the description in Rev. 21 11.
This is the view of 0. Fraas, who states that the modern
condeption of the jasper first became general in the seventeenth
‘century, and that in the NibeQngenZied the jasper is represented
as clear, and as greener than grass.
The choice opal is said to occur frequently in ancient
Egyptian tombs ; in particular, a splendid statuette of
Isis, made of opal, is referred t0.l This view is also
favoured by the description of the divine king on his
throne in Rev. 43 as ‘like a jasper stone and a sardius,’
and by the combination of ‘jasper’ with ‘ pure gold ’
and ‘ clear glass ’ in Rev. 2 1 18. (With the reference to
‘jasper’ as garnishing the foundation in 2). 19, cp
Sargon’s description [Khors. 1591 of the foundation of
his palace on gold, silver, and a@zi stones, etc.) See
PRECIOUS STONES.
The Heb. no@ (=Zqwms) occurs in Ex.2820 3913, Ezek.
2813t. It is not impossible that the order ofthe precious stones
in @‘s text was different, and that bv6,yrov was intended as the
equivalent of 0,523, yahdZJm, and Z a m r s of natj?. Thus @’s
rendering will become consistent. I n Is. 54 12 ‘26’s l a u m s
(Symm. Kapxp86viov) seems to he a version of %m,KudhkJdh,
(so Aq., Ezek. 27 16),2 but it may be merely a guess; for elsewhere
(Ezek. 27 16) @ does not recognise this word (see C HALCEDONY,
I , end). T. K. C.
JASUBUS (iacoyBoc [BA]), I Esd.93o=EzralO
19, JASHUB,
2.
JATAL (&TAP [A]), I Esd. 528 AV=Ezra 2 42,
A TER , 2.
JATHAN ( laeAN [BA])Tob. 5 13 RV. SeeJONATHAS.
JATHNIEL (589Jl! ; cp N ATHANAEL ; I ~ N O Y H A
[BA], NAeaNaHA [L]), a Korahite doorkeeper ( I Ch.
262t).
JATTIR (l[’]n!;
[e]~&€p [BAL]), a townin the’hill-
country of Judah, assigned in P and Ch. to the Levites
(Josh. 1 5 4 8 iOep [L], 21 14 arXwp [B], I Ch. 6 4 2
[57 in d v. 581 teOOap [B], ie6’ep [A], om. L ? ) , and
historically connected in I S. 3027 with the period of
David’s outlawry (ycBOop3 [B]) ; cp I RA , 3 ; ITHRITES,
JABEZ.,
1 See Riehm HWBP) 3356; Calwer Bh-Zex. 158 a.
2 But see Fiild, adloc.
8 The ye0 in I S. 3029 [B] appears t o be a duplicate of this
corruption (cp HUMTAH, S IPHMOTH).
2337
JAVAN
It is plain that Jattir must be the modern at ti^ (Rob.
B K 2194), which is situated on two knolls ‘ in an
amphitheatre of brown rocky hills, studded with
natural caves ’ (Tristram, Land of ZsrueZ, 388), and is
13 m. S. by W . from Hebron. The change of * into y
in the name is not incapable of explanation ; 7 may first
have passed into N , and then N into y (Kampffmeyer,
Z D P l r 1 6 4 5 ) . No doubt this is the place intended
( O S 11927 133 3 1 3 4 24 255 78 26642 268 87) by the
‘very large village Jethira, 20 R. m. SE. of Eleuthero-
polis, in the interior of the Daroma hard by Malatha ’
(see M OLADAH ). In two passages (OS 119 27 2 5 5 7 8 )
it is assigned to Simeon, perhaps by a confusion with
ETHER (p....).
JAVAN (IlJ-Le., the Ionians, or the Greeks.
(u) In the Table of Peoples Javan appears as one of the sons
of Japheth, and father of Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and
Dodanim or Rodanim, Gen. 10 Z = I Ch. 1 5 7 (Lwvav [BADE],
twvvav Gen. w a v a v Ch. [L]). This statement comes from P .
it is therefore not pre-exilic. There is in fact no pre-exilic refer!
ence to the Greeks, though see on the other side M‘Curdy (Hist.
Projh. Mon. 1416) who refers t o Zech.913, Joe13[4]4-6 and
even, for a ‘not odscure allusion ’ t o Hos.ll1o. The t;xt of
Hos. Z.C., however, is not quite in Arder ; instead of the obscure
a:?, ‘from the sea,’ we should probably read n$ !, ‘from
Aram ’ (cp c).
(6) I n Joel 3 [4] 6 ‘the sons of the Javanites ’ (EV Grecians,
rois v h i s &v ‘Ehhrjuwv [BNAQ]) are spoken of as purchasing
E ’
ewish captives from the Phcenicians and Philistines, but the
ersian date of J OEL [q.u.l is not often disputed.
(c) In Zech. 9 13 Judah and Ephraim are represented as thq
instrument of Yahwe‘s vengeance against the ‘sons of Javan
(dT h u a ~ i b , ‘ E h h r [BNAQrl),
j~~~ who are contrasted with ‘ thy
sons, 0 Zion.
It is hard, however, to believe that the author of
the prophetic composition to which Zech. 9 13 belongs
(which, apart from its references to Hadrach, Hamath,
etc., would at once appear to be post-exilic) would have
mentioned the Greeks ; this view seems hardly cou-
sistent with the archaising references. Clearly the
writer wishes to produce the illusion of antiquity, and
the name ‘ Javan ’ would at any rate not be conducive
to this. The textual phenomena suggest that 11’ is either
a corrupt or a mutilated name, or both ; the author can
scarcely have written ii*s -pand then, jnst after, 1 1 3 1+33.
The scribe who wrote the latter group of letters must
have made a slip of the pen, and the true reading
probably is 025 vg, ‘ the sons of Aram ’ (cp 2). I , and
see H ADRACH ).
( d ) .In Ezek.2713 (‘EXXde [BAQ]; Symm. ’Iwvia)
Javan IS described (as in Toel) as engaged in slave-traffic
in the market of Tyre; the name stands between
Tarshish and Tubal, the latter in Gen. 102 Javan’s next
brother, the former in Gen. 10 4 his second son.
( e ) In Is. 66 f 9 ‘ Javan’ (‘EhXds [BKAQ]) occurs in a
gloss enumerating the ‘ far-off countries ’ which will
hear of YahwB‘s future glorious manifestation.
(f)In Dan. 8 21 1020 112 we hear of the ‘king,’
the ‘ prince,’ and the e kingdom ’ of Javan ( “ E X h ~ u e s
[Theod. 871); the reference is to the Graeco-Macedonian
empire-an expansion of the original conception, which
identified Javan with the important Ionian colonies in
Asia Minor.
(g)The only remaining reference (not counting the
imaginary one in Ps. 1234) is in Ezek. 2718 ( K U ~O ~ U O I I
[BAQ ; Q also has LauvX, whilst Aq. has LEUUU]), where
Javan, with Dan [AV] or Vedan [RV], appears a second
time among Tyre’s traffickers. ‘ Dan’ and ‘ Javan,’
however, are both corrupt. For i i q 111 Cornill
ingeniously reads 1211~1,and the passage becomes,
‘wine of HELEON[g.n.], and Simin, and Arnaban they
furnished for thy traffic.’ But more probably we should
read, not ‘ and Simin and Arnaban,’ but ‘ and wool of
Hauran ’ (see W OOL ).
The scantiness of the extant pre-exilic literature does
not permit us to deny that the Israelites may have
heard of t h e Ionians from the Phcenicians or the
Syrians in pre-exilic times. We may even admit this
2338