JOIADA
JOIADA
‘Yah knows’; an abbreviation of
: see J
EHOIADA
).
I
.
(AV
b. Paseah in list of wall-builders (see
N
EHEMIAH
,
E
ZRA
[
I
],
[ I
(a‘)]),
Neh.
36
of
the’high priest, in pedigree of Jaddua
(E
ZRA II.,
6 9 ;
contemporarywith Nehemiah: Neh.
and
[BN],
JOIAKIM
cp J
EHOIAKIM
), ben Jcshua
high priest
Neh.
1210
(
[BKAL]).
JOIARIB
I
I
[K]).
I
.
[A])
om.)
om.
See
JEHOIARIB.
A Judahite, temp. Nehemiah (Neh.
115,
JOKDEAM
[L]),
in the hill-country of Judah, mentioned
with Juttah and Jezreel (Josh.
T h e name is
probably
a corruption of J
ORKEAM
,
a clan-name or
place-name in
I
Ch.
belonging t o the S W . of
Hebron, and to be identified with R
EKEM
.
T h e place
intended by Jorkeam and Rekem is probably the
Judahite C
ARMEL
and the common original of
all these forms is probably Jerahmeel
T h e
Jerahmeelites did not confine themselves
to the Negeb.
JOKIM
a descendant of
S
HELAH
(I
Ch.
T h e name might conceivably he mis-spelt
for J
EHOIAKIM
(so
but cp
JOKMEAM
as
if= let the [divine] Kinsman
arise
rather, perhaps,
‘ t h e Kinsman (?) takes
vengeance,’ c p
a
city in Ephraim
mentioned with
Gezer, and Beth-horon.
I n
the parallel
of Levitical cities in Josh.
2 1 ,
K
IBZAIM
is the name given
(v.
[A], om.
B,
This form, however, seems to be an old corrup-
tion
of
Jokmeam
from
Jokmeam is
also
mentioned in
I
K.
[B
precedes],
[A],
[L]), but the reading
as
far
a s beyond Jokmeam’
(so RV, and similarly the Geneva
Bible, but AV, by
a
printer’s error, substitutes
neam) is probably corrupt
substitute ‘ a s far a s the
ford of Meholah’
See J
ERAHMEEL
,
4.
T.
K.
C.
LEHEM.
See Z
ARETHAN
.
T. K. C.
JOKNEAM
rather
a s
if
the (divine) Kinsman (?) makes, or acquires’ We.
4, compares
the name of
a
king
of Tyre, Jos.
I
.
A town of Zebulun (Josh.
reckoned by
P as
Levitical (Josh.
paav
[B],
[A]).
It was also
a
royal city of the Canaanites
( 1 2 2 2 ,
[B],
[L],
[A]); Thotmes
claims to have taken it in his victorious campaign
against the ‘upper
( W M M
393).
T h e city was situated in the Carmel district
t o
the
E.
of
a
torrent-valley
W e may
probably identify it with the
of
Judith
7 3 ,
and both with the
on the
E.
side
of
the
el-Milh, a t its mouth a s it enters the plain
of
draelon, to which Eusebius and Jerome refer a s
(see
T h e position is conspicuous
and important, commanding the main pass from the
western portion of Esdraelon to the more southern
plain’ (Rob.). On
Jokneam’ in
I
K.
412,
AV, see
The Jokneam referred to above
is
called by way
of
distinc-
tion Jokneam
in
Carmel’ (Josh.
It
follows that another
Jokheam must have existed elsewhere. Probably it la in the
hill
country of Judah,
J
OKDEAM
in Josh.
being wrong in the third letter.
On the forms cp Rob.
BR,
JONADAB
JOKSHAN
BD and in
I
Ch.
in
Gen.
A (see Swete) in
3
(
[A*]);
[A in
I
and
L
in Gen.]),
son of Abraham by Keturah (Gen.
I
Ch.
Interpreted of
a
tribe
in
Yemen by Arabian genealo-
gists (see
ZDMG
Glaser
compares names like
in S. Arabia. Tuch‘s
with Joktan (Gen.
is attractive, hut the change of
into
is hard
to
explain.
F.
B.
younger
son of Eher and father
of
thirteen sons or
Sheleph
Obal
Ebal,
Ch.
Probably there were
only
the list (cp Israel, Ishmael, and
see
G
ENEALOGIES
i.,
col.
n.
Joktan
is
the assumed
the older Arabian
tribes a s distinguished from those later tribes which
were more closely related by origin and perhaps by
language to the Israelites.
T h e Arab genealogists.
identify the name with that of
a n ancient
southern Arabian tribe well known t o themselves (see
G
ENEALOGIES
But this identification has n o
historical value.
T h e name Joktan may indeed b e
simply an artificial name, devised for the younger
son
of Eber. When we look at the names of the Joktanites,
we notice that two
of them (Sheba and Havilah) occur
in the list of Cushites. This simply arises from the fact
that the names of the Cushites and the Joktanites come
from different documents
( P and
J
respectively), re-
flecting, perhaps, different political circumstances and
tribal relations. I t is difficult to explain all the Joktanite
names.
The very first (A
LMODAD
) is among the most
obscure the name seems
T h e limits of the
Joktanites (Gen.
30)
are also matter for discussion
(see M
ESHA
, S
EPHAR
).
JOKTHEEL
for attempted explanations see
Wetzstein in Del.
Olsh.
624).
I
.
city in thelowland of Judah mentioned between Mizpeh
and
Josh.
1538;
either
for
or
a
corruption
Jerahmeel from which indeed
may also
come (cp
dut
The name given by
to
a
place
in
Edom
called the Cliff’
which he had captured,
K.
it
is
the rock, or cliff of Kadesh-
‘barnea’ which
is
meant.
seeks to
it
b y
Ch.
25 14,
where
is accused of having bowed down
before the gods of Edom, and extracts from it the meaning
‘Yakt is God’
le
Dr.
No
Edomite deity as Yakt
is,
however, known.
name is corrupt. ‘Joktheel’ should probably be Jerahmeel,
for the battle was
the valley called
or rather
Jerahmeel (see S
ALT
, V
ALLEY
On the ‘ragged spur of the
north-easterly mountain -range from underneath which the
fountain of Kadesh issues, therk
have been
a
fort.
This
fort Amaziah captured
named Jerahmeel because of the
‘crowning mercy’ which he had received.‘ It
the place
is commonly (see
Kittel,
identified
Petra
.
but this must be an error, as Ki.
his commentary has shown:
See S
ELA
.
T. K.
C.
JONA
[WH],
[Ti.]),
‘John.’ See J
OHN
,
S
ON
OF
Z
EBEDEE
,
I
,
and
44 46;
abbrev. from
ismunificent,’ cp Nedabiah,.
Amminadab).
I
.
Son of Shammah and nephew of David, who
displayed his subtlety in advising his cousin Amnon
how to entrap his half-sister Tamar
S.
(in
M T gives Jehonadab’
v .
B
v.
in
[L]). See
J
ONATHAN
(4).
Son of Rechab and presumed author of the rules.
which bound the Rechabites, Jer.
in
v . 8
in
Jonadab‘
M T only
vv. 6
elsewhere
Jehonadab.’
It is usual t o
as represented by some MSS restored the normal
The former
J
EKUTHIEL
.
by leaving
out
Obal in Gen. and Jerah in Ch.
omission has some plausibility (see
JONAH
identify this Jonadab with
3.
Rechabites, however, was of older date.
T h e true 'father'
of
the
See
3.
EV
J
EHONADAB
, b. Rechab, a n abettor of Jehu
in his zeal for
2
K.
10
23.
T h e clasping of
hands in
implies partnership in the measures
which followed (see
H
A
N
D
,
though there are dif-
ficulties in the narrative.
See J
E H U
;
I
SRAEL
,
31
R
ECHABITES
.
4. T h e name of Saul's second son, according t o
I
S.
31
(see A
BINADAB
).
There is a similar confusion
in
title of
Ps.
71
[R]).
See
JONATHAN, I.
JONAH
68, dove
originally, according
to Robertson Smith
9
connected with
ism; but many such names in modern Syria, a t all events,
are certainly due t o fancy, and early corruption from
is possible
[BAL], [in the title]
I.
who prophesied the deliverance
of
Israel from the
Syrian oppression
(2
K.
T h e reference to Jonah
in
Tob.
14
4 8
(BA,
followed by
EV)
is probably due t o
a
error
reads
(Nahum) in
4.
W h e n
we compare
K.
it seems probable that Jonah
delivered his prophecy in the time of Jehoahaz, the father
of
Jeroboam
(Klost.
Jonah seems to have spoken
of
a deliverer who would bring the Israelites out of the grasp
of Aram
so
that they would
dwell in their tents a s beforetime. T h e deliverer is
not the Assyrian king
111.
(Duncker
Whitehouse in
C O T
2
Wi.
GI
1
as
a
matter of history the victory of that king over Syria
must have been a great relief t o Israel-but Jeroboam
There is no probability that the Deuteronomistic
writers
of
K.
knew anything of
nirari but it is beyond doubt that they wished t o do
honour to Jeroboam.
C p Stade
296.
Hitzig and Renan think that the prophecy of Jonah is
still extant in Is.
15
but this is most improbable.
ITES.
See also J
ONAH
[B
OOK
].
T. K.
C.
2.
16 17.
JONAH
[BOOK].
I t
is
by a strange inconsistency
that the
of Tonah ranks among the records of the
JONAH,
BOOK
Twelve Prophets,
the only oracle
of
which it Professes to
is
comprised in five words (Jon. 34, Heb.).
it
must be compared, not with the accompanying prophetic
books, but with narratives of episodes in the lives
of
prophets, such as are found in
I
K. 17-19,
K.
4-6,
and Is.
1-16,
20
36-39.
T h e narratives referred
to a r e
based
on traditional material, sometimes oral, sometimes
written.
Can we hope to find such in the Book of
Jonah? Unfortunately we cannot.
T h e leading fact
of the story-the journey of an Israelite prophet to
Nineveh-is
so surprising that
on good pre-exilic
testimony could we be excused for receiving it.
Such
testimony, however, is wanting.
No
part of the book is
pre-exilic indeed, except in glosses and
the psalm
ascribed t o Jonah there
is
no trace of more than one
hand.
Winckler AOF
has'snggested that the words 'ben
Amittai' in
K. are an interpolation from Jon.
1
I
hut the
double description is uuohjectionahle (see
I
K.
1916).
Linguistic and other arguments have convinced an American
that the original Book of Jonah, which he thinks that he
has disengaged from the additional matter, was much shorter
than the present one and that it may have been of the age of
Jeremiah (Kohler
pp.
His
however, is
and linguistically there
is
no
between the original Book and the inserted matter. W. Bdhme
also
denies the unity of authorship
He presents us with two distinct works on the
story
of Jonah
whichhave been combined by an editor
;
he further recognises
hands of a supplementer and of
a
glossator. Bohme's argument
is much more elaborate than Kohler's, but is hypercritical.
He
greatly exaggerates the critical importance of the inconsistencies
which permit us
to
speak of glosses, hut not of
authorship
(so
Kue., Einl.,
2426,
86). For an earlier attempt
I
.
It
is
certain that, though the diction
of
Jonah
is
purer
than that
of
Esther, Chronicles, and Daniel, it has some striking
Aramaisms and other late words or forms.
has endeavoured to refute this argument hut his opposition
the criticism of the
OT hooks prevents him frpm forming
a just idea of the phases of linguistic development.
The phase
of Hebrew which meets
in the hook of Jonah is not that of
the eighth century'
that of Amos and Hosea.
One need not lay any stress on
which, though more
Aramaic than Hebrew, might perhaps have been used
the
non-maritime Israelites before the Exile
but such words and
forms as
these are conclusive
as
to
the post-exilic date of the
Book ;
-
;
(3
(3 7)
' t o
6)
and
(4
8)
are designedly
The writer's conception of pre-exilic prophecy is oppcsed
to the facts of prophecy gathered from the works of Amos,
Hosea, and Isaiah.
H e imagines that revelations were,
to
prophets of the eighth century
as
objective, as external,
as
they
were to Zechariah.
it suited his purpose (which we
shall study presently)
to
represent Jonah as
to
evade
his mission hut he could not have done this had he lived in the
age of Amos and Hosea.
(The story of the disobedient
prophet in
I
K.
13
is
also
too
peculiar
to
be pre-exilic.) He
assumes
too
that Jonah would have been surprised at the
fulfilment of
a
prediction-a surprise which there
no reason
to suppose such
a
result would have awakened in Hosea though
certainly that prophet would have been very much
a t
the conversion of the arrogant Assyrians.
3.
The writer's explicitly universalistic conception of religion
and morality (cp
with
is not in harmony
with the prophecy of the eighth century.
4.
His imitativeness is
striking; cp
with
and Ex.
346;
and the
of
under the
(see below,
5) with that of Elijah
under the
in the desert
K.
194
Pusey, it is true
(4
(4
I
oel 214;
4 2
with
is
of
A
from
nur
a
to
of
a
' a n imaginative develop-
ment
of
a
thought or theme suggested
by Scripture, especially a didactic or
homiletic exposition, or a n edifying religious story.
Tobit and Susanna are universally admitted to be such
Midrashim; Jonah should be added t o the list.
As
such it is not deprived of value for historical purposes.
For, a s Kuenen long ago pointed
the Rooks of
Jonah and Ruth are records of a current of thought
among the Jews opposed to that identified with the
name of Ezra.
That great reformer, and the
of
his school, based their system on the recognition
of a
real
and permanent
between Israel and the
heathen, and even psalmists of the post-exilic period
spoke sometimes as if the 'nations' were necessarily
wicked because non-Israelites.
Against this the author
of
Jonah enters a protest.
T h e scene of the prophet
under the
is specially introduced to check Jewish
to dissect the
Book
of Jonah see Eichhorn's
9
Bertholdt
'Einl.
and cp Kleinert
who is willing)
to
admit that
a
later writer (temp. Ezekiel)
have
his account on two
distinct traditional narratives.
read
for
in Is.
2
but this is hardly
the
critical emendation.
Both words are plainly corrupt. Read for the former
[or
and for the latter
('it came to pass
at
dawn,
when the sun rose ').
Dr.
497
; cp We.
(chap.
6,
end).
2
2566
JONAH,
BOOK
JONAH, BOOK
arrogance, and the whole course
of
the previous story
leads to
a fairer view of ' t h e nations.'
Indeed, the
writer partly explains the non-fulfilment of prophecies
against the heathen (which doubtless puzzled some of
his contemporaries) by the readiness
of the heathen to
repent.
One might even infer from the story that he
placed the heathen morally and religiously above his
own people.
Jonah begins by stifling the voice of
conscience, and afterwards both expects
desires
Nineveh's destruction.
No
epilogue tells us of any
change in the prophet's feelings towards the heathen.'
T h e Phcenician mariners, on the other hand, fear the
great God of the Hebrews (Jon.
1
and the people
of
Nineveh at once repent
on hearing the prophetic
announcements (Jon.
W e are reminded
of
Lessing's
N a t h a n the Wise, and of
a
more ancient and
venerable story (the Good Samaritan).
This theory has excellent points
but it does not do
justice to the entire problem.
If
the hero
of the story
is merely a type of the too exclusive
contemporaries of the writer, why is
he called Tonah?
is he made
a
prophet? and why is he-swallowed-up hy
a fish?
These questions are
to a
large extent answered by the
symbolic theory.
I
.
The hero of the story is called Jonah, not primarily because
an early narrative mentions
a
person of this name, hut because
a custom was springing np of calling Israel, symbolically,
a
dove.
earliest trace of this is in
Ps. 68
where
the people of Israel, delivered
its God from the powerful
kings of Caanan, and enriched with their spoil, is called
a
dove
'whose
s
[God] will cover with silver and her feathers
with gold.
Elsewhere the faithful community personi-
fied wishes for itself the wings of
a
dove, not for their
but for their swiftness and for the unerring instinct which
the doves
to
their retreats
(Ps.
2.
Jonah is made a prophet, because Israel was called upon
to
prophesy.4 The Prophecy of Restoration said that all Zion's
children would he
disciples-;.e. prophets (Is. 54
;
cp
tnat
the duty
of
the prophetic Servant
was
to
make known the true religion
to
the nations (Is. 42
4
49
a),
purposehe
40
It is
true,
there was
a
historical Jonah who prophesied hnd who:
an interesting coincidence, is called
servant
K.
; cp Jon.
1
;
hut
this was not the fundamental point with the late narrator, whose
mind was
in symbolism. It is also to be observed that,
according
to
11.
Isaiah, the 'servant of Yahwb' would not 'draw
back' from his work (Is.
50
5). The psalmists,
too,
Israel's
deliverance into connection with the spread of true religion (see
Ps.
06-loo), and one of them makes the true Israelite
promise to speak
of
God's precepts (like Jonah) before kings
3.
Jonah is swallowed up by the
sea
because this was
a
common poetical phrase for the danger of destruction which
repeatedly
Israel (see
326 4 2 7
66
69
74
Lam.
3
54). And the purpose
of the whole story, according to the
theory, is, that
Israel, called to preach
to
the nations
(a
touching antedating of
Isaiah's revelation), evaded its duty, that God punished
Israel by exile, but turned the punishment
to
Israel's good, and
that Israel afterwards took up its neglected duty, but in an
spirit which grieved its patient teacher, the all-merciful
God of the whole human race.
T h e theory here described
is
a great advance upon
the
one. and much credit is due
to Klcinert
(1868)
and
S.
Bloch (1876)
for
applying the key of symbolism to the
narrative more fully than any previous
But the hesitation of critics
to adopt it indicates
that there
is
some serious defect
in
it.
Where it fails
is
The omission
of
an epilogue was every
advisable.
(
I
)
If
Jonah was symbolical, it remained
to
he
seen
whether those
who were symholised would amend their ways
or
not.
Epilogues
are apt to weaken the effect of
a
work of art (as in the
case of Job).
Symbolical designations of peoples are in the manner of this
(see Ps.
3
Point
and for
simply
(Che.
In later times Jonah or 'Dove' became a standing title for
Israel. Both
and Tg. recognise the people
or
the congregation
in
the
of
Ps. 56
I
.
Cp Talm. Bah.
etc., and
the Midrash on Cant.
2
4
I
;
also the
in the Jewish
Passover Service, based on the midrashic explanation of the
Song of Songs (especially the first, Festival
Prayers,
de Sola's
in its treatment
of
the story
of the great fish.
It is
a
mistake
to say that 'Jonah's adventure in the sea is but
a
very subordinate feature (Kalisch,
Studies,
On the contrary, it is the turning point of the whole
narrative
prepared
the great fish to be a n
instrument not only of preservation but
also of moral
discipline to the disobedient prophet.
W e must there-
fore supplement the key of symbolism by that
of
mythology.
The earlier critics
Eichhorn) were not wrong in seeking
for parallels where they could at the time most easily he found
in Greek mythology. That Andromeda was in peril
a sea-monster
on
the rocks of Joppa, gives, however, no real
help the myth may rather he regarded as an
one for
Joppa
3); and only very moderate requirements can
he satisfied with the parallel
of
the story of Hesione. F. C.
Baur went
to
the right quarter when he took a hint from
(Oannes) hut onah neither was, according to the
story nor could
have been represented as a
god, 'which is also an objection to
original use
of
and Oannes in
11
Pt.
Quite recently
Ball
(Hastings'
and
less
accredited
have supposed
a
connection between the
mention of the 'great fish' and the fact that the Assyria?
ideogram for Nineveh implies the explanation
(Sayce,
57 ;
hut cp Hommel,
logical Notes,' 42).
Apart from other objections, however,
(
I
)
there is
no
trace
of
the writer of Jonah having been
a
man
of
learning, and
criti-
cism should group not isolate, narratives, phrases, or other data
which may refer
folklore. We have many references
to
the
dragon-myth in the OT, and it is quite easy to regard the preat
fish
as
a degenerate dragon
;
whereas fish-myths are, naturally
enough, unrepresented.
even illustrates the sojourn
of
onah
'the belly of the fish' by the descent of the 'dove'
from the fish-woman'
or Derceto.
That critics should look everywhere except in the right place
for the origin of the Jonah story is one of the many proofs that
the reproaches addressed
to
us by Winckler
not wholly
unjustified.
Tylor saw much more clearly than most contemporary
critics when he pointed out that the widely-spread
nature-myth of the dragon
lies a t the root of the
apologue of
But it was left for the present
writer, in 1877. to combine the theory
of Bloch with
that of Tylor, and to show how indispensable each
was to
a dne comprehension of the narrative.
I n
details both theories admitted of improvement, by the
help partly of biblical exegesis, partly of Assyriology.
T h e writer also pointed
that the myth of the dragon
or sea-monster is preserved, not only in the story
of
Jonah, but
also in fragmentary allusions to Rahab, the
leviathan, and the
t a n n i n in the Books
of Job and the
Second Isaiah (cp
D
RAGON
).
The only error (an
error into which G.
A.
Smith seems to have fallen
in
2524) was
in not distinguishing
sufficiently between the dragon
of
the subterranean and
the dragon of the heavenly ocean.
I t is the dragon of
the subterranean ocean which (at
command
-for he has been subjugated by
swallowed up
Jonah
or,
to pass from the myth to its application, it
is the all-absorbing empire of Babylon which swallowed
np Israel- not, however,
to destroy it, but to preserve it
and to give it room for repentance.
The present writer
also indicated the link between
the story of Jonah and the original myth.
That link is
to
he found in Jer.
51
34
king
of
Babylon has eaten and discomfited me
Israel); he
has set me as an empty vessel, he has swallowed me up as the
he has filled
his
belly with my dainties
;
he has
cast me out.' 'And I will punish Bel in
and hring
forth that which he has swallowed out of his mouth.
Of course,
it is only a shrivelled-up myth that we have before
us.
Bel,
who in the Babylonian story is the opponent of the dragon has
now become identified with that monster, and
(as
the
dragon) is for
a
time successful. Bel, or the dragon, has in fact,
as we have seen already, become a symbol of the
.
Primitive
1306
; cp
Hist.
;
6
670 ;
de Guhernatis,
M
2 390.
Or
as a dragon.'
Mythical dragons (plur.) are referred
to in
Ps. 74
Joh
9
: helpers of Rahab.' The singular,
however, is more obvious.
only in Jer. 5134;
'her
belly,' in the account of the fight
and Marduk (Del.
44
a568
JONAH, BOOK
JONAH,
BOOK
empire and of its head Nehuchadrezzar who thought to bring
Israel under his own power hut whom
(276)
distinctly
calls
'servant
commissioned agent). For another
instance of
a
story
based on mythology, we may
venture to refer
to
E
S
TH
ER
It is strange that
(The Jonah Legend,
though
he refers once
to
the Babylonian
legend,
so
completely miss its significance as
to
make the stretching out
of the slain monster's skin support his theory that the story of
sprang out of
a
ceremony which was acted at
a
rite of
initiation (perhaps into
a
priesthood). Criticism and
seem here
to
he parted.
T h e story
of
the wonderful plant, which contrasts
with Elijahs perfectly natural desert plant in
I
K.
has quite a different origin, being ob-
viously the product of the fancy of a n
individual. T h e name
probably connected with
the Assyr.
(
this designates some
garden-plant, the precise nature of which is unknown
(for another such Assyr. plant-name in Hebrew see
H
A
BAKKUK
). If
the mention of the 'booth'
( 4 5 )
belongs
(as it probably does) t o the original narrative,
we can hardly help agreeing with Tristram that some
kind of gourd is meant, gourds being commonly
used for shading
If, however, the narrator
mentioned only the plant, we may not unreasonably fix
upon the
Ricinus communis,
L.
(see G
OURD
).
In
either case, the growth of the plant has been super-
naturally fostered.
We may compare the plant with the caroh-tree (see
which
no fruit for seventy yearsas
a
to
Honi Hame'agel
that he had really slept seventy years and which
so
proved
to
him the credibility of
Ps. 126
I
(see
Bah.
the other hand, folklore is certainly present in the
story of the voyage.
Jonah revealed by the lot as the guilty cause of the ship's
danger
thereupon thrown into the sea is the counterpart of
the son of
a
merchant of
who is put out
of the ship in which he has embarked as the
of its luck,
not so roughly
as
H e answers equally
to
the
merchant in the Roman folk-tale of the
Pot
of
and the
same traditional idea is a t any rate presup osed in the classical
passages
3
quoted
Kalisch
(Bib.
n.
Primitive superstition has also supplied
a
detail
to
chap.
3.
The Persians are said to have made their horses and
draught-beasts join with them in the rites of mourning for
Masistius (Herod. 24).
But
the Assyrians in Jonah go beyond
the Persians they make their animals abstain from food like
themselves to propitiate
This may imply the Jewish
idea of the depravation of animal
6
; cp
Is. 11
For this Whitley Stokes has produced
a parallel
Irish literature.3
Into the question of editorial alterations we cannot
enter a t length.
T h e attempt
of
Bohme to distinguish
four strata
the Book of Jonah has been already referred
t o (col.
n.
it carries
us
beyond the evidence.
But a few minor interpolations
or insertions may safely be
allowed, in addition to the great one in
2
That chap.4 has been
by scribes or editors is
obvious (see especially Wi.
2
It
is
'im-
possible that the detail of the booth
(v.
5)
is
Of
an addition, and that it is connected with an
the text.
alteration in the prophetic announcement of
Jonah
(so
K.
Kohler). According to the MT
Jonah 'cried
said Yet forty
and Nineveh
be overthrown.
however, gives three days instead
of forty
as
the interval allowed, and though this reading may
conceivably he an error produced
the mention of
three
days' journey' in
it is
also
possible that it may he correct.
The story is constructed for effect and
the
wonder of the re-
pentance
of
the heathen Ninevites
he still greater
if
only
three days were allowed
as
an interval than if there were
Jona c.
I
43
hy
E.
Hardy
50
In
the Buddhist story it was not
a
storm, but another unknown
power which hindered the progress of the ship. The guilt of
Mittavindaka was caused by his disobedience
to
his mother. In
almost the same words
as
those of Jon.
1 8 ,
the mariners obeyed
the law
of
self-preservation. Mittavindaka was put
out
upon
a
raft and the ship pursued its course.
Miss
57-62.
In this case the
hero of the story is not actually thrown overboard.
cited in
Acad. 15th
Aug.
'96,
p.
The componhd
name
Elohim
(4
6)
due
to
an
editor. His object was
t o
show that the
who prepared
the 'gourd' was the Elohim who prepared the worm
(47).
It
is
true, this was very unnecessary with the clear statement of
Cp Gen.
as we now have it.
Kohler,
Theol.
'79,
pp.
A later editor however, might prefer forty days and alter the
text
at
the same time introducing
booth (see
B
OOTH
)
as
a
for Jonah for the remainder of his time.
This suggestion will seem
to
most not very probable. I t was a t
any rate an editor that inserted the psalm in chap.
2,
which is
largely composed of reminiscences of the canonical psalms
(31
42
88 107
120 142).
It
is, if faithfully
not more
connected with the story of the prophet
than the psalm
of Hannah is with that of Hannah; for
describes how pious
Israel, when in danger of
struggled with its des-
pondency.
apart from the purely external one, in the phraseology of
out
of the belly of
etc.).
H e may also have known that
the Jonah of the hook was, like
JOB
a
or
(
I
)
W h y was the book
placed in the 'Twelve'
(z)
W a s it
Not
improbably the editor found a connection
Three questions now occur.
previously a n independent literary work?
and
(3)
W h a t is its d a t e ?
A
brief answer
must suffice.
(
I
)
T h e probability is that
the closing words, assigned to God himself, brought the
book into the prophetic canon.
(z)
Budde
( Z A T W
12
conjectures that the Book of Jonah was
originally
a
part of the Midrash
(RV
commentary') of
the Book of Kings,
on
which Chronicles is based
Ch.
T h e introductory And it came to pass
'
and the absence of the descriptive statement
'
who was of
Gath-hepher
I
) ,
appeared a t first sight to favour this.
But the difficulty of imagining a reference
to
Assyria
and still more t o the destruction of Nineveh, has been
well pointed out by Winckler
who would
prefer t o give the Book of Jonah
a
place in that
Midrash where the reign
of
Manasseh
was
treated.
T h e Midrashic narrative
of Jonah explained, according
t o Wi., why the prophecy of Nahum was not strictly
fulfilled. Wi.
also
thinks that the Jonah of the apologue
is not the Jonah of Gath-hepher (see J
O N A H
n.
).
( C p
Smend,
A
T
Konig,
Einl. 77, p. 379.
)
(3)
T h e book is apparently referred to in Tobit (14
8
but see
JONAH,
I
) , and earlier still its existence is
presupposed by the mention of the Twelve Prophets in
Ecclus.
49
(see the Hebrew text). T h e considerations
mentioned above justify
us
in assigning the narrative,
without the psalm, to the half-century which followed the
arrival of Ezra.
T h e psalm, however, was probably
written much later- as late perhaps a s the
prayer
in the appendix
to
Ecclesiasticus
(51
If so,
it is a n interesting fact that the symbolic interpre-
tation of the book should have held its ground
so
long.
Of later references to the book three have a special
claim to be mentioned,
two passages in the
a n d one in the
NT.
In
we are told that, in times of drought, it was
usual for one of the leaders of the
to
exoound the
8.
The
of the
doctrine of repentance naturally sent Jewish teachers in search
of illustrations to the Book of Jonah (see
Gesch.
L i t . 3 158).
The third passage is Mt.
12
again in a simpler and more probable form3 in Lk.
11
'The sign of the prophet Jonah' means the striking
fact that an Israelitish prophet proclaimed the purpose of God
in
a
heathen city, and Jesus' statement is that the men
of
Nineveh will 'rise up'
as
witnesses (cp
against his own 'generation' and prove them
guilty
looks like an inaccurate rendering of the
Aramaic equivalent of
cp Is.
54
where condemn is
an impossible rendering). What the Ninevites testify is that they
had not been repelled
the foreign garb and manners
of
Jonah
but
had believed him and turned to God. The divine Judge will
then condemn the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus
they
So
Jonah himself
too
is treated in this liturgy with
a
to
edification.
prayer
'out
of the belly of the fish' makes him
an example
of
faith
(Festival
de Sola,
5
168).
It
may he regarded
as
critically certain that Mt.
is
a
later insertion. It is the explanatory comment of an editor who
required a 'sign of Jonah' more marvellous, more overwhelming
than that which Jesus actually offered. The true 'sign
Jonah' must have been one which the Ninevites at once
cognised. Cp Sanday,
Lect. o ? ~
435
G.
A. Smith,
2
JONAN
did not repent at
a
still greater ‘sign’-the appearance among
them of
a
more exalted personage than Jonah.
It
may he safely
assumed that
the time of Jesus the symholic character of
Jonah had been
as
completely forgotten
as
that of the good
Samaritan must have been by those who first pointed out the
traditional site of the ‘inn’ of Lk. 1034.1
The post-biblical legends respecting Jonah are uninteresting
(see
De
Pro
16, and cp Kalisch
Bib.
It
was,
however,
9.
appropriate fancy
to
place the
of
Jonah on the hill called the ‘mound
of repentance,’ from which, the Moslems
believe, Jonah delivered addresses
to
people of Nineveh
to the E. of the probable site of that city. Nor must we
to notice that Jonah and
a
fantastic monster (not
a
whale) occur
several times in early Christian paintings in the catacombs
at
Rome.
For
a
full conspectus of works on Jonah
Kalisch Bib.
2,
‘The Book
of
Jonah; ’78 Chapman
Jonah,’
or
Jonah,
vol.
Pusey’s
comm.’ should he
on
the conservative
side which
is now seldom represented. Konig, Einl.,
77, is of
for
the linguistic argument, and his article, just referred
to,
comprises
a
rich collection of facts, though condensation would
greatly have improved it. G. A. Smith, on the other hand
Prophets,
gives much in
a
small compass, and
is
very judicious. On
text see
Z A T W
3
contribution to Lange’s
Jonah
’68) has
an
interesting introduction.
S. Bloch,
der
and Che.
Jonah, A Study in Jewish Folklore and Religion,’ in Th.
Rev.,
are referred to above. C. H.
H. Wright,
Studies ’86
argues very ably for the symbolic apart
from the
thbory. Nowack, Die
a
thorough exegesis hut is most unsatisfactory in his treat-
ment
of
the
the story
Winckler
AOF
2
helpful, see above). On the plant called
see
Tristram in Smith, DB,
and
cp G
OURD
.
T.
C.
JONAN,
RV
Jonam
[Ti. WH]),
a
name in
See GENEALOGIES
JONAS
(
I
)
[B])
the genealogy of Jesus Lk.
2.
[A]),
I
Esd.
See
JONATH-ELEM-RECHOKIM
among David’s thirty
in
I
Ch. 1134
In
S.
2 3 3 2
the name of Jonathan, without a patronymic, is
immediately followed by that
of Shammah the Hararite.
But as ‘Shammah the Hararite’ has already been
enumerated
S.
2311
:
see S
HAMMAH
), there can be
little doubt
(I)
that
in S.
immediately after Jonathan’s
name the word
ought (with L ) to be restored from
Ch.
that
ought (with L.
to
be read for
(Ba. for the common
[A],
Thus in both places ‘Jonathan the
of
Shammah the Hararite’ ought to be read.
Marquart
(Fund.
goes further
in
reading
in place of
Jonathan was the brother
of
Shammah in
S.
everywhere]).
Heh. MSS).
(I
Ch.
He is possibly to he identified with 4.
6.
A scribe, temp. Zedekiah
37
15
38
26,
[B
7. h. Kareah,
a
Judahite captain (Jer.
om. with
some
8. h. Jada, the father of Peleth and
(I
AV
JEHONATHAN,
h.
one of David’s overseers
IO
.
The kinsman
of David,
a
counsellor
2732).
EV
J
EHONATHAN
,
a
Levite, temp. Jehosbaphat
Ch.
17
8).
Father of Ehed
Ezra
Esd.832.
h.
one of Ezra‘s opponents (cp Kosters,
in the putting down of the foreign marriages,
Esd.
h. Joiada and father of Jaddua (see E
ZRA
6
Neh.
1211
See
Two priests, temp. Joiakim (E
ZRA
55
6
:-(15)
Head of the Family of
1214
( o m
EV
JEHONATHAN,
head of the family of
(Neh. 12
18;
om.
17.
Father
of
Zechariah,
a
priest
in the procession at the dedi.
cation of wall (see
E
ZRA
Neh. 1235
(iwavav
18.
The Maccabee, son’of
(I
Macc.
etc
[A
Macc.
11
see
i.,
5.
In
I
Macc.
is surnamed
‘dissimulator.’
Son of Ahsalom, sent
Simon the Maccahee to seize
Macc. 1311);
perhaps the hrotherof the Mattathias
11
70.
20.
The priest
whom the prayer was led when the first
sacrifice was offered
up
after the return from the Exile
Macc
123,
See N
APHTHAR
.
21.
A member
of
the
family who
sat
in judgment
on Peter and John (Acts 46). So D and other ancient authori-
ties (see
and cp Nestle,
205).
Cp Jos.
Ant.
viii. 4 3
5
3,
ii. 12
and see
Most
MSS, how-
ever, have
‘
John ’
(so
RV). See
JOHN,
6.
JONATHAS,
brother of the
Tobit‘s kinsman, whose
son
the archangel Raphael, when in disguise, claims to be
(Tob. 5
13).
UPON
;
‘
Of the congregation of Israel which is like
a
mute
dove [Tg.]
.
pan
hut see
Field] ;
[Theod.]
;
a.
[ed. quintal; ‘pro columha muta, eo quod procul
ahierit David,’ etc.
A phrase in the heading
of
Ps.
56,
still defended
by
but most probably corrupt.
Emending a s in
cases
read : ‘for the Sabbath’ ‘for the
sacrifices.
AV ‘upon Jonatb,’ is probably
a
corruption of
(‘for
the Sabbath
or
more strictly of the inter-
mediate reading
‘
upon
Neginoth’
;
cp Ps.
and
(RV
of
(‘for the
’).
(EV
‘
for the chief
also=
is
no
objection
to
this theory; in the headings,
as
else-
where, dittography comes into play. The
modern
view, however, is that
should be pointed
(so
Bochart),
phrase explained
to
the tune of The dove of distant
tradition (see
Tg.; cp
J
ONAH
3,
the dove
to
he the Jewish people.
in
EZER
8.
3
[Ti. WH]) Mt.
RV
JONAH,
[Ti.],
John.
SIMON
PETER,
JOHN
[SON
O F
See
JONATHAN
and in 7, 8,
12-15,
17
I.
Eldest
son
of Saul, with whom he fell
on
Gilboa
according to tradition, David‘s sworn brother,
I
S.
14
6
and often
S.
1
23
25
4 4
I
Ch.
8
33
9
40
K]
(in
a
genealogy of B
EN
JAMIN
ii.
see
11
There is
a
possibility that
Jonathan and Abinadab, or Jonadab (see J
ONADAB
,
a r e really the same person, Jonathan and Jonadab
being liable
to
confusion (cp Marq.
Fund.
2 5 ) .
Cp,
however, M
ALCHISHUA
.
For
the romantic story
of
Jonathan, see D
AVID
, S
AUL
and
on
S.
123
see
J
ASHER
,
R
OO
K
OF.
b. Gershom
b.
head
of
the priesthood at Dan
(Judg.
[B])
Dan was one of the places (Abel
being the other) proverbially renowned for the retention
of old customs
S.
and
that the priests of
D a n traced their descent from Moses is a fact of great
interest.
For Mosaic priestly families see G
ERSHOM
,
E
LEAZAR
, M
USHI
.
3.
b. Abiathar, mentioned
along
with Ahimaaz b.
Zadok as David’s messenger and spy during his contests
with Absalom
S.
1527
36
H e was the person
who announced to Adonijah and Joab the tidings that
Solomon had been anointed
( I
K.
M T
[A]
in
42).
4.
b. Shimei, the brother
of
David who slew Goliath
S.
21
I
Ch.
H e is apparently the same as
Jonadab
(
I
).
See
b.
Shage, the
is enumerated
‘A
place where an affair happened
never did
The MT inserts an over the name to
that Jonathan
See T.
See also
happen’ (Hasselquist Voyages a n d
was
a
descendant of the idolatrous king
on
see Moore’s note.
view
see S
AUL
.
JOPPA
JOPPA
difficult.
refers to Lev.
where ‘the name of thy God’
becomes in
a
Neuhauer, more plausibly,
thinks that
read
‘porch’: cp
Ch.158, ‘the porch of
Yahwb.’ More probably
read
‘people,’ and took it for
a n explanation of
Cp, however, Staerk,
136
T.
C.
JOPPA
or
[BAL;
Ti.
W H ; Jos.
Egypt.
[Maspero],
[WMM]
Am. Tab.
Ya-a-pu,
Ya-pu;
Ass.
The name and site of Joppa havenever changed.
T h e biblical passages are :
Josh.
19
46
Ch. 2
16
Jon.
1 3
;
Ezra
3
7
;
AV,
I
Esd.
5 5 5 ;
I
Macc.
10
V
75
and
in
1 1 6
1233 13
14
j
34
15
28
35
Macc.
AI 12
3 7
A,
V
3,
7,
‘men
of
Joppa
Acts
9
36
38
10
5
8
5
is
no
reference to Joppa in any early biblical
writing;
cp
178
that
a n Egyptian officer guarded ‘ t h e gate
of Gaza and the gate of Joppa’ for
Amen-hotep IV.
T h e place occurs
in the list of cities in Syria and Palestine conquered by
Thotmes
547, no.
and in the papyrus
Anastasi
I.,
where its gardens with their blooming
palms are specially mentioned.
T h e ruse, exactly like
that
of
Ali Baba in the Thousand and
One
Nights, by
which an Egyptian officer was said to have taken
Joppa, forms the theme of a n Egyptian
It
is
no sport of the fancy, however, when Sennacherib
tells
us
that he besieged and took Joppa, then a part of
the dominion of Ashkelon
T h e notice
is
im-
portant.
I t
the only hint we have of the political
connection of Joppa during any part of the pre-exilic
period of the history of Israel.
W e may assume that
throughout that period it was either Philistine
or
T h e circumstance that Joppa is nowhere
mentioned in the pre-exilic biblical writings where the
Philistines are referred to seems to justify
us
in suppos-
ing that during the flourishing period of the Phcenician
cities its political connection was Phcenician, not
That it. was ever in Israelitish hands,
is
not
suggested even by
P
(Josh.
it was Jonathan, or
rather Simon the
who first incorporated Joppa
into the Jewish territory.
In
the meantime, however,
had the Israelites no access to the
sea
by Joppa?
Did
not Jonah,
son
of Amittai, go down t o Joppa and find
a
ship going to Tarshish (Jon.
T h e reason why
pre-exilic Israelites did not ‘ g o
to Joppa (cp
JONAH,
B
OO
K
O F )
is that there was Philistine territory
t o be traversed before getting to Joppa.
I n post-exilic
times, however, we
do hear of timber being brought to
Jerusalem from the Lebanon by ships which discharged
their cargo a t Joppa (Ezra
and accordingly the
Chronicler
Ch.
changes the indefinite ex-
pression
(
I
K.
‘
to the place that thou shalt
appoint me,’ into ‘ t o
W h a t the place re-
ferred to indefinitely by the older writer was,
is
certain
it may have been D
OR
In
148
B.C.
Joppa was captured by Jonathan the
Maccabee
(I
Macc.
1076).
T o keep a coast-town like
this, however, was difficult, owing to the
mixed character of the population, and
Jonathan’s brother Simon had to recapture
it about six years later
I t was felt to be an
important event,
for
never before had the Jews possessed
a
harbour
on
the Great Sea.
‘And together with
all his (other)
the historian
(I
Macc.
‘ h e took Joppa for a haven, and made it a n entrance
for
the isles of the
he opened the door for
commerce, and perhaps (as
A.
Smith thinks
5
) for
Chabas, Voyage
; Brugsch, Gesch.
.
.
.
Maspero
de
ancienne,
So
Buddb
336
n.
So
RV,
Ezra and
Kau.
AV, less
correctly, renders ‘to the sea
of
Joppa.
the propagation
of
the Jewish religion.
Simon himself
took a pride in his achievement, for be caused
to
be represented
on
the family monument a t
For other references to Joppa, see Macc.
12
I
Macc.
13
after capturing Jerusalem
(63
B
.c.), refortified
Jpppa, and annexed it to the province of Syria (Jos. Ant.
44).
Sixteen years later it
was
restored
to
Hyrcanus
xiv.
106)
next, it
was
united to the kingdom of Herod the
Great
xv.
upon
whose death
it
passed to Archelaus
xvii.
11 4).
On
the deposition
of
Archelaus
(6
A
.D.)
it was
annexed, with the rest of Palestine, to the Roman province of
Syria.
Joppa is mentioned several times in the Acts
of
the
Apostles
see
see
C
ORNELIUS
).
N o better place could be imagined for
the vision assigned by the historian, rightly
or wrongly,
to
Peter, which showed that Jews and Gentiles alike
were admissible into the fold of Christ.
T h e city,
now fanatically Jewish, suffered terribly during the
Roman war.
I t was surprised by Cestius
massacred
8400 of its inhabitants
(BY
18
IO
).
Some-
what later, it was repaired by enemies of the Romans,
and became a nest of pirates.
Vespasian quickly took
action, and captured and destroyed the city.
T h e
people had fled to their ships, but a black north wind
cp W
I N D
)
arose,
and the ships were
dashed to pieces on the rocks
9
2-4).
In the fourth century it
the seat of
a
bishopric. During the Crusades it was
taken and retaken by Franks and Saracens and fell into
a
state
of ruin. According to Badeker
8)
the construction
of the stone quay dates from the end of the seventeenth century.
That may he; but Hasselquist, in
found that it had lately
been
by an Armenian from Constantinople, who
also
‘erected some stone houses and magazines on the shore.
These, he adds,
‘
give the place an appearance from the seaside,
much preferable to the miserable prospect it formerly afforded.’
In
it was taken
the French under Kleber.
It had
already been surrounded by
Fortifications were erected
by the English and afterwards extended
the Turks. Under
the name of
(Jaffa) it is now an important town, partly
from its trade, but still more from the large number
of
pilgrims
passing through every year to Jerusalem; the population is
estimated
at
over
Joppa is built
on
a rocky eminence
116
feet high,
and its name probably means
the conspicuous‘ (cp
J
APHIA
)
on
such
a
level beach the
smallest eminence is noticeable.
It is
only with qualifications that Jaffa can be
called a seaport. Josephus
93) remarks that by
nature Joppa is harbourless, for it ends in a rough
beach, straight for the most part, but the two extremities
nearly converge, and here there
are
steep crags and
rocks that jut out into the sea.’ In fact, the harbour is
formed by a ridge of low and partly sunken rocks which
run out a t a sharp angle towards the N W . from the
S.
end of the town.
Boats can enter it either by rounding
the point or by a narrow break in the ledge, and even
this by
no
means pleasurable entrance is often impos-
sible, ‘ t h e haven being (with some winds) more
dangerous than the open sea.’
So
Josephus
states, adding that
on the rocks of which he has spoken
the chains wherewith Andromeda was bound are still
shown, attesting the antiquity of that
Pliny
also states that ‘ i n front
of the city lies a rock upon
which they point out the vestiges
of the chains by
which Andromeda was bound
5
14)
the skeleton
of
some marine monster was also shown (see
J
ONAH
4).
Certainly it is probable that
the dangerous character of the haven of Joppa
was accounted for in olden times by the presence
of a dragon,
just as a tawny fountain near Joppa was
thought to derive its
from the blood of the monster
slain by
T h e sea seemed more alive near
Joppa than elsewhere (cp Jos.
BY
and the living
power
in
certain waters was frequently held to be de-
rived from serpents
or dragons.
Some may have said
Later Joppa rose
from
its
is not equally plausi
JORAH
JORDAN
mediately opposite Tell
are meant.
In adopt-
ing the expression once, and once only, the Chronicler
( I
Ch.
6
63
is conscious that it needs a paraphrase
he therefore adds on the E. of Jordan.’
Another expression which may now become plainer
EV the plain (lit. circle) of Jordan,’ Gen.
13
(see
L
OT
),
I
K.
46
(see A
DAM
, Z
ARETHAN
),
2
Ch.
417,
or
simply
EV
the plain’ (Gen.
19
17
Dt.
3 4 3
to which corresponds
the phrase
in the
LXX
and in
35
Lk.
33.
T h e Hebrew phrase means, according t o
Buhl
(Pal.
the middle and broader part of the
Jordan valley from the
S.
end of the Dead Sea to about
the
‘Ajliin (see G
ILEAD
). This view is based
on
a comparison of Dt.
343
the circle, even the Plain
of Jericho [the city of palm-trees], a s far as
with
2
I
K.
In
Dt.
343,
however, the phrase
the Circle
c p
P
LAIN
,
4)
certainly appears t o
have a narrower reference, and the words
in
S.
and
in
I
K.
are with good reason
suspected of corruption (see M
AHANAIM
,
T
EBAH
).
T h e primary meaning of the phrase ‘ t h e Circle of
Jordan was probably the district between Jericho and
Z
O
A
R
This suits not only Dt.
3 4 3
but also
Mt.
35,
where the phrase ‘ a l l the region round about
Jordan
seems t o
the
country near Jericho and the Jordan.’
3.
In Job
40
23
Jordan has been thought to be used
a s a n appellative.
Most critics
Dillmann,
son,
Duhm) render, ‘ H e is careless though a Jordan
break forth upon his mouth,’ explaining a Jordan
t o
mean
‘
aviolent outbreak of water.’ Considering that the
context points to the Nile, this is hard doctrine, and if
‘Jordan’ were used a s a n appellative, it should mean
ford.’ Hence Ley and Budde propose to omit
a s
a
gloss, and Winckler emends it into
(but
whence comes
Certainly the Nile, not the
Jordan, is to he expected, and perhaps we should read
thus,
’ h e is careless though G
IHON
the Nile,
the Euphrates) overflow
for
v.
24
see
Bib.).
4.
I n
Ps.
426
( 7 )
‘from the land
of
Jordan and the
Hermonites is commonly thought to mean the
bourhood of Dan (Tell
or
where the Jordan rises from the roots
of
Hermon’ (Kirkpatrick). This view of the text places
6 (7)
in a very pleasing light, and adds a fresh and
interesting association to the picturesque scenery of the
Upper J o r d a n ; but it
i s
of very doubtful accuracy.
See
M
IZAR
.
5.
On Jer.
‘ t h e swelling’
(AV
Ew.)
or
pride
(RV)
of Jordan,’ see
6
and cp
F
OREST
, 3
6.
Josh.
Whether the passage of the Jordan
was represented in the earlier form of the tradition
as
having occurred opposite Jericho,
or at a point farther
such a s the ford
16
m. above the ford
near Jericho), need not
again (see
4,
I).
T h e latter view fits in better with the story of
Jacob’s miqration a s it now stands (Gen.
and
with the direction given to Moses in Dt.
(see
G
ERIZIM
,
I
Still, whichever theory we adopt,
it remains true that,
if
the
passage of the
Israelites occurred
a t harvest-time,’ it must have
synchronised with the overflow of the Jordan.
T h e
circumstance that this river overflows the narrow strip
of vegetation
on each side of its channel at harvest time
at the latter end of March, cp
I
Ch.
1215,
Ecclus.
is recalled
to
the mind
of the reader that he
duly estimate the marvel which tradition has
7.
Passing over the references in the lives-of G
IDEON
,
D
AVID
(cp F
ORD
), E
LIJAH
, and
we pause a t
See Keim,
1
494
(ET 2
In
Lk.
3
however a wider reference
possible.
On
h e legendary character of
the
narrative
cp
2
that the dragon was actually slain, others that he was
merely confined below the sea (cp D
RAGON
,
4).
Jaffa is beautiful when viewed from the sea, beautiful
also in its surroundings.
T h e orange gardens are
modern
but fruit has always been grown in abundance
on this rich soil.
the Jaffa fruit has a high reputa-
tion, and, a s
and viticulture spread, other
parts of
SW.
Palestine will vie with Jaffa.
Antiquities
are wanting.
Dean Stanley’s defence
of the supposed
house
of
the Tanner
(Sinai and
is
JORAH
harvest-born,’ cp
early
autumn) r a i n ’ ; but see below;
[A],
[L]), a family in the great post-exilic list (see
E
ZRA
9,
Sc),
I
Esd. 516 (A
ZEPHURITH
,
RV
A
RSIPHURITH
).
Harvest-born (cp
autumn
’)
for Jorah and Hariph
is
certainly wrong. The forms
are
parallel
to
Haroeh and Hareph
Ch.
of which (like
R
EAIAH
and possibly
HOREPH
)
come from
In
of
I
Esd.
5
16
(see
and
probably=
Hurith
a
to Hariph. See,
Gnthe (on
Neh.)
E.
Meyer,
a t least eloquent and chivalrous.
T. K.
C.
T.
C.
JORAI
a
I
Ch.
,
other corruptions of tribal names.
JORAM
shortened from
Pinches and Hommel, however, compare Ai-rammu,
an Edomite royal name read by Schrader and Bezold
Ai
being viewed by
them a s
Y a ;
cp Del.
Par.
It is a
whether all these three names have not arisen out
of
Jerahme‘el).
See J
ORAH
.
I
.
Son of Ahab see
J
EHORAM
,
I
.
Son
of Jehoshaphat see
J
EHORAM
,
3.
A
Levite,
I
Ch.
2625
[BAL]).
4.
A
reading in
S.
8
see
5.
One of the ‘captains
of
in
[BA]
corresponding to
5), ‘chief of
the
in
Ch. 359.
T. K.
C.
JORDAN
also
-avos],
the chief river
of
Palestine.
T h e name was felt by the Hebrews to be a n appella-
tive; hence in prose it almost always has the article.
I t is most probably of Semitic origin (though
Wi. dissents), and may be connected with
Syr.
a lake,’
warada
to go down t o water‘
(of cattle),
watering-place
and hence we
may explain
a s watering-place,’ ford.
was
a
river in Crete (Hom.
Od.
See further
Ew.
1
267;
Wi.
A T
186,
422.
Of
the
two
traditional explanations, one-that
from
‘ t o descend’ (cp
169
81
203 98)-has found
much acceptance, but we should expect rather the ‘swift’ or
‘sinuous’ stream to he the title of the Jordan. The other, from
and
a s if
meant either ‘river of Dan’
or
the
river which has two sources, Jor and Dan’
Mt.
16
13;
c p
D
AN
ii.
needs no refutation, though it is perhaps
implied
by
B y
a coincidence the current Arabic
name of the Jordan
means the wateringplace,’ or
‘the
from which the Jordan is sometimes
distinguished by the addition of
great is the
see
6).
The name
also
known
ZDPV,
‘92,
p.
the Jordan of Jericho
(See maps to G
ILEAD
and
E
PHRAIM
.)
I
.
W e now understand how
P
can use the expression
(Nu.
22 26
3
34
.
Josh.
1332,
etc.), apparently with
a
reminiscence of its original use a s a n
appellative
(
ford
’).
Probably the famous fords
Since the above was written, the author bas found that this
explanation was first proposed by Seyhold,
’96,
p.
261.
AV
‘Jordan by (also, near) Jericho
RV
‘the Jordan
at
(cp
(opposite).
in
h
recognises
chat the genitive
is added to indicate
a
particular part of
the Jordan.
Dillmann paraphrases, that part
of
the Jordan
which touches the domain of Jericho.
2575
JORDAN
JORDAN
stream from it called
flows
through a narrow
glen
into the plain
falls into the main
stream about a
mile
S. of
the junction
the
and
The relative
size of
the three streams
thus estimates--‘ That
is twice as large as the
while
the
. .
.
twice
if
not
three times the
from
3395).
T h e river then flows southward through the marshy
plain for 6
and then into Lake Hiileh.
Besides the streams mentioned a considerable stream
comes
down
from the
of
Ijon W. of the
and
two
large
fountains (called
burst
forth from the base
of
the mountain-chain
of
Naphtali.
the ancient
which Josephus
to
the source
of
the
is
at
the bottom
of
a
deep basin
resembling
an
extinct crater. According
to
local tradition it
occupies the site
of
a
village which
was
submerged
to
the inhabitants
for
their inhospitality
to
travellers cp
AND
G
OMORRAH
).
With regard
to
the morass
Lake
it is enough
to refer to
J. Macgregor’s entertaining
narrative,
Roy
on
That the Lake is
not the
(Josh.
5
7)
as used
to
he supposed may he taken
as
almost certain (see
cp
M
EROM
,
W
ATERS
O
F
).
(6)
On
issuing from Lake
the river flows in
a
moderate current for about
m.
O n passing through
(‘bridge of Jacob’s
daughters,’ see
7), however, the banks
suddenly contract and become steep.
T h e
river now dashes along over
a rocky bed in sheets of foam.
Here a n d there the retreating banks have
a little green
meadow, with its fringe of oleanders
(a
characteristic
plant)
all
wet a n d glistening with spray.
Thus i t
rushes
on, in its serpentine course, till, breaking from
its rocky barriers, it enters the rich plain of
where
on
the left bank stand the ruins of Bethsaida
T h e river now expands, averaging some
yards in width.
Across its channel here a n d there
extend bars of sand, a t which it is easily forded.
At
length the turbid stream reaches the still bosom of t h e
Sea of Galilee, where, for
a
considerable distance, it
is still visible.
This gave rise to the Jewish legend
4)
that its waters a n d those of the lake d o
not intermingle.
T h e fall of the river between Jisr
a n d the lake ( a distance
of
only
7
m.)
is not less than 689 feet.
T h e total length of t h e
section between the
lakes is about
m.
as
t h e
crow flies.
T h e Jordan between the Sea of Galilee a n d t h e
Dead Sea flows through
a deep depression
(65
long)
called in Arabic the
‘bottom,
depth, cavity, valley
the
of the Hebrew Bible a n d the
of
Greek writers
Sic.
48
T h e
is
3
m. wide a t its northern end, but gradually expands
till it attains
a
width of upwards
of
m. a t Jericho.
Down this broad valley the Jordan has worked out for
itself
a
about
ft. deeper a t the northern end,
a n d
zoo
ft. towards the Dead Sea this bed varies from
a
quarter of
a
mile t o two miles in breadth, a n d is known
as
the
Along its banks is that jungle
semi-
tropical trees known in the O T
as
the
‘
Pride of Jordan.’
T h e
itself is to
a
large extent
of exuberant
fertility.
On
the
E. side, N. of the
(see
where
streams abound, the productivity is great, and the traces
of
ancient canals
of that
river show that
the
land
was
in ancient
times well cultivated. And why should
not
the
desert once
more ‘blossom as
the
rose’? A number of the affluents of
the
would lend themselves admirably
to
the purposes of
It is only
the southern end
of the
for
a
few
miles N.
of
the Dead Sea, that the soil is really sterile,
being covered with a white nitrous
like hoar frost, through
which
not a
blade of grass
possibly spring.
T h e Jordan issues from the Sea
of Galilee, close t o
the hills
on
the western side of the plain, sweeping
round the little peninsula.
T h e fall of the river is a t
first 40 ft. per
m.
but
on entering the plain
of,
it becomes only
IO
or
ft. per m. a n d farther
S.
only 4
or
5
ft.
A short distance down are the remains
The Jordan
runs in too deep a
But
cp
The
The statementis onite groundless.
See GASm.
channel
to
be easily useful
for
irrigation.
the deeply interesting scene
of the baptisms of John in
Jordan.
I t was to the reed-covered banks
of this river
that the one religious teacher of his time whom none,
as
Jesus implies (Mt.
Could compare t o
a
reed,
summoned his penitents.
To a
modern observer,
indeed, the scenery of the Jordan near Jericho seems
the most appropriate that could have been chosen for
those solemn events.
At the same time we must
not
he
too
sure that Jesus’
baptism occurred there. That John baptized
at
the great ford
near
Jericho, is likely enough. But
that
he also baptized
Beth-nimrah (the probable original of the readings Bethany
and
Bethahara’ in
128
;
see
and
‘at
near
(Jn. 3
23,
see
are
facts
by
n o
means difficult
to accept, considering that the
new
Elijah
must
have travelled
about like the old. And we may
suppose that the
scene of Jesus’
was
in some district more convenient
than that of Jericho
for
pilgrims.
Without such inquiries a s these,
a
critical geography
of Palestine
is
impossible but the historical interest
of
the Jordan (in spite of t h e want of great events in
political history connected with it) is not seriously
affected b y them.
T o
us,
as
well
as
to
the
Jordan is far more than Abana a n d Pharpar, rivers of
Damascus,’ m o r e even than the great river, the river
T h e physical interest of the Jordan is hardly inferior
to
the historical.
I t has been well said, ‘ T h e r e may
b e something
on the surface of another
planet t o match the Jordan Valley
:
there
is
this.
No
other part of
our
earth, uncovered
water, sinks to
300 ft. below the
level of the ocean.
But here we have
a
rift more than
160
m. long, a n d from
to
broad, which falls
from the sea-level t o
as
deep a s
ft. below it a t the
coast of the Dead
Sea,
while the bottom of the latter
is
feet deeper still.’
I t was supposed by Burckhardt
that the waters of the Jordan originally flowed down
the whole course
of the depression from the Lebanon
to the Gulf
of
This view, however, has been
rejected by Lartet a n d disproved by Prof. Hull (see
I
am disposed
to
think says this eminent geologist, ‘that
the fracture
of
the
valley and
the elevation
of
the
tableland of
and Moab on the
E.
were
all the
outcome
of
simultaneous operations and due
to
causes namely
the
tangential pressure
of
the earth’s crust due
to
the
being in its
turn
due
to
the secular cooling of the
crust.
the land area was gradually rising out of the sea
the close
of
the
period], the table-lands
of
and Arabia were
more
and
more
elevated, while the crust fell in
along
t h e
western
side
of
the Jordan-Arabah fault
;
and this
seems
to have been accompanied by much crumpling and
fissuring of the
From this time the
of the Dead
Sea must have been a salt lake, the level
however
must
have varied greatly
at
different times.
evidence
of
this we
find a succession
of
terraces
of
Dead Sea deposits extending
around the basin
of
the sea and far up the Jordan
The
present level
of
the waters of the Dead Sea having been reached
at
the close
of
the Miocene
or
the commencement of
the
Pliocene
period,
no
material change can have occurred in the course
of
the Jordan
historical times.
T h e
of
the
mav b e
divided
Euphrates.‘
T.
K.
C.
Cp D
EAD
S
E
A
,
into three parts:
the Upper Jordan from the
to Lake
( b ) from Lake
Hiileh to the Sea of Galilee and
(c) from
Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea.
T h e reputed sources of great rivers in antiquity
were often not the real ones.
Though supposed to take
its rise a t
(see
D
AN
)
a n d
(see
7),
the highest perennial source of the
Jordan is in the bottom
of a valley a t the
W.
base
of
Hermon.
a short distance from the
small town of
a n d
m.
N.
of
The
in
a pool at the foot of
a
the
GASm.
468.
Geology
Syria
The source
at
Dan is mentibned
( A d .
v.3
8 4 )
as
being that of the Little Jordan,
For
the source
of the Jordan at
cp Jos.
xv
21
3,
10 7 .
JORDAN
JOSABAD
'Ford of Jacob'
Will. Tyr. Hist.
1813)
is
mentioned. The bridge was probably built during the fifteenth
century, when the caravan road was constructed from Damascus
to Egypt. At
el-Hajjla, opposite the Roman Jericho,
the annual bathing of the pilgrims takes place (see
and cp Stanley,
Sin. and
There are
two fords, one above and one below the bathing-place.
1
bey
are much deeper than those higher up, and when
river is
swollen they become
On the bridges, see
T h e Jordan valley is a tropical oasis
sunk
in the
I t is possible to pass in the depth of
winter from sleet and cold winds at
Jerusalem to a delightful summer atmo-
sphere
Fahrenheit) at Jericho.
In summer the
heat is equatorial.
T h e climate of the shores of the Sea
of Galilee, though enervating, is less trying Josephus's
panegyric of the natural products of Gennesaret is well
known (see G
ALILEE
4,
end).
Josephus, however, does not mention the graceful papyrus
which flourishes, not only in
marshes of
the
but
also on
the W. shore of the
Galilee. Here
too
the
or
tree
spina
a
tropical tree, which abounds all along the lower course of the
Jordan. Below the
Sea
of Galilee indigo is grown, and
trees unknown elsewhere in Palestine crowd the river-banks.
In the five oases of the Dead Sea region many products of the
tropic zone including the
or false balm of Gilead
(Balanites
gorgeous scarlet
the
henna (see C
AMPHIRE
), and the
abound.
Balsam (see B
ALSAM
,
has long since disappeared
in
the crusading age sugar was still grown
at
Jericho. On
'rose of Jericho'
see Tristram,
477. The
plane does not grow any longer
at
Jericho, hut
is
found at
Masada.
T o boat voyagers the jungle
of
the Jordan affords a
delightful spectacle of luxuriant vegetation (see
F
OREST
,
and cp Lynch,
varied not seldom
by tokens of the presence
of wild animals.
'At one place says Lynch we saw
fresh track
of a
tiger
on the low
margin
Jordan) where he had come to
drink. At another time
a
wild boar
savage grunt
and dashed into the thicket but for some moments we traced
his pathway by
shaking cane and the crashing sound
of
breaking branches.
Evidently however, it
was a
cheetah, not
a
tiger, that the voyager observed. The jackal, fox,
boar,
leopard, and cheetah (the two latter both
called
see L
EOPARD
) may in fact easily be met with in the
Jordan Valley.
How wonderful, too, is the bird-life of the Jordan
Valley!
often notices there Indian, and still
oftener Ethiopian species.
T h e butterflies, too, which
hover over the flowers in winter are, like the flowers
themselves, many of them of
and Abyssinian
types.
W h a t a garden all this favoured land must have
been not merely in the time of Jesus but in the more
remote age when the Yahwist
(J)
wrote the eulogistic
temperate zone.
of
a Roman bridge, whose fallen arches obstruct the
stream, and make it dash through in sheets of foam.
Below this, says Molyneux, who surveyed the Jordan in
a boat in
1847,
are several weirs, constructed of rough
stones, and intended to raise the water, and turn it into
canals,
so
as
to irrigate the neighbouring plain.
Five
miles from the lake the Jordan receives its largest
tributary, the
(the
of
Pliny, the
of
the Talmud), which drains a
large section of
and Gilead. This stream is
1 3 0
ft. wide at its mouth.
Two miles farther is the
quaint structure (Saracenic, according to Porter) of the
'bridge of
Here Molyneux found the river
upwards of
ft. broad and
4
to
6
ft. deep.
As
described by Porter, the ravine now inclines east-
ward
to the centre
of the plain, and its banks contract.
Its
sides are bare and white, and the chalky strata
a r e deeply furrowed. T h e margin of the river has still
its beautiful fringe of foliage, and the little islets which
occur here and there are covered with shrubbery.
Fifteen miles
of the bridge the Wady
(see
J
ABESH
-G
ILEAD
) falls in from the
E.
A short distance
above it a barren sandy island divides the channel, and
with its bars
on
each side forms a ford on the western
bank, in a well-watered neighbourhood, the site
of
has been placed.
9
m. lower down, and about half-way between
the lakes, the J
ABBOK
the only otherconsiderable
tributary, falls into the Jordan, coming down through a
deep wild glen in the mountains
of
Gilea
After this
the jungle of cane, willow, and tamarisk along the
banks grows denser, and the plain above more dreary
and desolate.
As the river approaches the Dead Sea, the mountain
ranges
on each side rise to a greater height, and become
more rugged and desolate. T h e glen winds like a serpent
through the centre, between two tiers of banks.
T h e
bottom is smooth, and sprinkled on the outside with
stunted shrubs.
T h e river winds in endless coils along
the bottom, now touching one side and now another,
with its beautiful border of green foliage, looking all
the greener from contrast with the desert above. T h e
banks are of soft clay, in places
IO
ft. high the stream
varies from 80 t o
ft. in breadth, and from
to
in depth.
Near its month the current becomes more
sluggish and the stream expands.
Where the
falls in,
in
1848
found the river
150
ft. wide and
deep, the current four knots.'
Farther
down the banks are low and sedgy the width gradually
increases to 180 yards at its mouth: but the depth is
only
3
ft.
Lynch adds that the extraordinary fall in
the Jordan is accounted for by its tortuous course.
I n
a space of
60 m. of latitude, and
4
or
5
m. of longitude,
the Jordan traverses a t least
zoo
m.
.
.
.
W e have
plunged down twenty-seven threatening rapids, besides
a
manv of lesser
The four main affluents are the
and
Jabbok
on
the E., and on
W.
the
passing
and the
rising not far from Shechem.
supply of
these and other perennial streams, however,
and
fords.
scarcely balances t h e
loss
from evaporation
of
the river. It
is
difficult to compute the total
number
of
the fords.
According to
PEFM
2
225 385 3
there are
50
fords in the
42 m.
of stream above
and
only
5
in the
25
m. below. Some of them have been historically
important
near
(according to Conder, the
of
on
the road from Shechem to
Gilead, and
ford of
(see below). The bridge called
J i s r
may
also
b e mentioned (see
5)
it was long
the leading pass from Western Palestine to
It is
first referred to
in
but
as
early
as
the Crusades
a
'Its name is derived from the Bedawin tribe called
being the Arabic word for ford or
place,
graze their flocks in its valley and cultivate its
slopes (Schumacher,
Across
8).
Lieutenant Lynch made an adventurous boat-voyage
in
1848
to
survey the Jordan from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea.
Robinson,
;
GASm.
427
origin
of
the name is unknown (but see
Pal.
Not
far
off
is a khan now named after the pit of Joseph.
2579
.
in Gen.
13
IO
!
See
Palestine,
'
Flora and
Fauna' (Tristram
'89)
Molyneux
and
Reports
('47)
;
Lyhch,
E x edition
('49):
J., Macgregor,
Roy on
Neuhauer,
Warren in Hastings'
works of Robinson,
Porter, Tristram, G. A. Smith.
T. K. C.
JORIBAS
[BA]),
I
Esd.
816
2.
RV
has
Joribus
(so
EV
in
I
Esd.
JARIB,
3).
JORIM
[Ti. W H ] ) , a name in the genealogy
of Jesus, Lk.
329.
See G
ENEALOGIES
JORKOAM,
or rather, as in
RV,
J
ORKEAM
grandson of
one
of
the
sons
of Hebron
(I
Ch.
in
6
M T
see
3).
T h e
[L] suggest that this
the same name
as
that which M T of Josh.
(cp
gives
as
There is no satisfactory explanation of Jorkeam
(
pallor populi,' Ges.
may serve a s a warning to
etymologists) and the name is most probably a cor-
ruption
of
(see J
E R A H M E E L
, §
4).
JOSABAD.
I
.
I
Ch.
AV.
See
I
Esd. 863
3.
I
Esd.
[A]).
of
T. K. C .
BAD,
I .
See
6.
See
I
.
2580
JOSAPHAT
JOSAPHAT
Mt.
RV
J
EHOSHAPHAT
JOSAPHIAS
(
I
I
Esd. 8 36
8
IO
,
J
OSIPHIAH
.
JOSE (
Lk.
AV,
RV J
ESUS
,
8.
See G
ENEALOGIES
JOSECH
RV, thereading
to he preferred to AV.
See
JOSEPH
[TRIBE]
to abstain from making any use of the Meyer-Groff
hypothesis.
T h e next question is, T o what sections
of the com-
munity was the name Joseph applied, and when? That
it included Ephraim and Manasseh
is
P
tells
us
that the children of
Joseph were two tribes
Manasseh and Ephraim
(Josh.
and
a
gloss (see below) says the same in
1717.
That this was not merely
a late notion is shown
by its being assumed in the genealogies of J and
E.
T h e case
of
Benjamin is more ambiguous.
excludes
Benjamin formally : the children of Benjamin settled
between the children of Judah and the children
of
Joseph (Josh.
with which agrees the southern
border assigned to the ‘sons of Joseph
(16
which
is repeated (with modifications) as the northern border
of Benjamin
P).
T h a t Benjamin was some-
times, however, definitely included in Joseph there can
be no doubt (see B
EN
J
AMIN
,
I
) ; and that some
of
the ambiguous cases also may have been meant to
include it is possible.
In Josh
we should probably (Kue
read not ‘sons
of
Joseph” (MT) but, with
‘Joseph’
the hero himself.
In Josh. 17
14-18
‘house of Joseph’ (read
so
also in
v.
with Di.) is not improbably correctly interpreted
the interpolated gloss in
17
(om.
of Ephraim and
Manasseh. On the other hand. in
there can be
clear.
.
LOGIES
ii.,
3f.
JOSEDECH
Hag.
1
I
(etc.)
AV, RV
Josedec
(
I
55
( = E z r a
3
AV ; RV J
OSEDEK
.
See J
EHOZADAK
.
JOSEPH [TRIBE]
on name see next article,
one of the constituent parts of Israel in its wide sense.
If Joseph was really called
a tribe
(Nu.
P
he
consider-
ably from the rest of the tribes.
H e
ranked not only with Gad and Zebulun, but
also
with
Jacob
and the other ancestral heroes of Israel ; indeed
h e even stands apart from them.
As a
legendary hero,
mainly, he is considered in the next article.
Here
Joseph is dealt with
as
a
community.
With regard t o the name something must be said
on
the theory
of
a
connection with the place-name
no.
78
in Thotmes
list.
T h e question is, Can the interpretation
of this as
a
transcription of
first
brought prominently for-
ward by Edward Meyer in
1886
( Z A T W
; cp
841
.and by Groff
(Rev.
4
98
be
regarded
as
made out?
T h a t
may be
is
admitted
:
it is a regular and recurrent equation
no.
The difficulty,
as
Meyer
admitted, is in
no.
38
;
The Semitic name would therefore be
than
Noldeke, accordingly, has suggested ( Z A
8
45
n.
3
that the Hebrew name to be compared is rather
I
Ch.
8
16)
which occurs in
a
genealogy of
There has been a temptation
to
save the original
hypothesis by adopting some conjectural explanation
implying differences of pronunciation.6
Max Muller6 thinks it certain that the
list embodies
names which the scribe had before him in cuneiform, and
suggests that although he accommodated his transcription
to
Canaanite pronunciation where the word
or
its etymology was
known to him, elsewhere he wrote for
and
following
(probably)
a
northern (Mesopotamian) usage. The name we are
considering might,
on
this theory, have been written in the
source employed approximately
Notwithstanding the prevailing tendency in the
con-
trary direction it seems for the present more prudent
The late passage where the word tribe is applied to Joseph
is
evidently out of order. There can be little doubt that the
clue is to be found in the name Joseph in
7.
Igal, son of
Joseph’
should be ‘Iga
. .
.
Of the sons of
Joseph
. . .
cp the suggestions of Di.
perhaps represents a MS which gave the tribes in the
Zehulun, Issachar,
E
hraim and Manasseh,
; whilst
v.
represents
a
that gave them in
the order Issachar, Zehulun,
Manasseh, Ephraim.
I t
is
not unlikely therefore that tribe of Joseph ought to
sons of Joseph.’ In
27
however, Joseph and Levi are
two of twelve tribes.
Egyptian usually represents
See later.
3
See also de
Schmidt,
2
535
rejects without discussion any connection with
the patriarch Joseph.
On the view of Petrie who adheres to
see next article
I
.
Such as that a t the
of Thotmes
the name
nounced with
and that the of the Hebrew
is
to
a
later peculiarity of Ephraimite pronunciation aided perhaps
the explanation from
(see next article,
I
).
See, how.
ever, S
HIBBOLETH
.
397
Driver for example, passes over the phonetic difficulty
2
2581
little doubt that ‘house of
as it
certainly does
S.
19
;
and here perhaps would belong
the
‘
Blessing of Jacob’ if we should adopt the restoration
of
Gen.
49
proposed by Cheyne
21
242
:-
Ephraim is an ornament for Joseph,
in
26
Joseph seems to be less than
probably,
Manasseh
a
bracelet for Israel
N .
Israel.
It was natural, however, that Joseph should give its
name to the whole of the
N.
kingdom, as England often
does to Great Britain : in Amos
5
6
house
of
Joseph
is the
N.
kingdom, and
so
in
66
‘Joseph.‘ Perhaps
I
K.
11
28
is similar.
In
Josh.
1 8 5
‘house of
Joseph’
and
‘
Judah’ seem between
them to represent the whole of western Palestine. Similarly,
in Oh.
‘house of
is
parallel
‘house of Jacob,’
and in Zech.
to house of Judah
;
compare
Ps.
where
e.,
Israel. In the other passages
the Psalms the text has
Amos
515
(on
the late date of which see
Nowack,
ad
reminds one of the still later idea of a Messiah
Joseph alongside of the Messiah ben David (see
IO
,
end, and
there).
There is clearly a tendency to apply the name Joseph
to the whole
of
the northern kingdom.
Winckler goes
further.
H e holds
(GZ
2
67-77)
that Joseph is not really
a tribal name a t all, in which capacity Joseph is repre-
sented by his son Ephraim.
Joseph is a genealogical
creation,
a
personification of the northern kingdom, and
therefore older than
‘
Israel,’ the personification of
David’s kingdom of the twelve tribes’
(p.
Remnant of Joseph
This
is
probably now the attitude of Meyer himself
8 45
n.
3
cp also
W.
E.
Crum
Hastings D B
who
approval Noldeke’s remark
there
i s
further difficulty in the
fact that
would be pro-
nounced
for
WMM, however, cites against
this (in
a
private letter) the Canaanitish gloss
in the
Amarna letters. H e winds up his recent discussion of the
saying that the equation
not proved, but ‘probable.’ H e now says ‘possibl’e,’
ing as better Winckler’s identification with the old Canaanite
name
(see next art.,
I
),
which Winckler writes
with
6
(Wi.
268
n.
3).
‘Three times in
Psalms (post-exilic) we apparently find
as
a
designation of the entire people
of
Israel, side
side with Jacob
or
Israel. It is highly probable, however, that
all these passages
77
80
I
81
4
are
corrupt. Beyond the shadow of
a
doubt this is the case with
Ps.
4
where MT gives the resolved form
None
of
examples of such forms adduced by the grammarians will
hear examination (Che.
In Ps.
is preceded
a warning Pasek; most probably
the
right reading is
(Cheyne, MS note).
Like Jacob, Joseph has also amythological significance.
A s
hero of Shechem he is the Baal-berith of the northern confedera-
tion, and represents the sun-god to whom the moon and the
2582
JOSEPH [in
JOSEPH [in
OT]
ever that may be, there is certainly
a tendency t o equate
Joseph and the Ephraimite kingdom.
T h e case of
Benjamin, however, requires special study
B
EN
-
JAMIN,
Whatever may be the real facts
of the earlier history of that
it appears that in later
times it seemed unnatural to regard it
as
forming part of
the same whole as Ephraim and Manasseh.
If,
is frequently supposed, Joseph
an
old name
for all the clans that settled in
I
],
this will account for its not being mentioned in the Song
of
Deborah
:
it is represented by its constituent parts.
I t seems not improbable that Joseph and Ephraim a r e
simply two names, older and younger, tribal and geo-
graphical (see
E
PHRAIM
,
I
),
for the same thing (cp
also R
ACHEL
).
W e have suggested that Ephraim was a younger
n a m e than Joseph
but only
as the name of a people.
As
a geographical name it may have
T h e question arises
accordingly, Were there Israelites in Ephraim before
Joseph settled there? W e are hardly entitled to find
a
hint of
a
theory that this was
so in the story of the sons
of Leah dwelling by Shechem
or tend-
ing their flocks in the plain of
176,
E)
before
Joseph joined them
this may
as
easily belong to the
Joseph-tule.
There is more chance of there being
a
legendary trace of such
a theory in the story of Gen.
34
(see D
INAH
, S
IMEON
,
E
PHRAIM
,
7
cp
85).
Nor would it be safe to interpret of the tribe what we
are told in J of Joseph’s having
an Egyptian
In
this respect Joseph stands with Jacob and the other
heroes of legend, in whose case also the name of the
wife is given.
This is
so
even if we should incline
to
follow Marquart in finding traces of Egyptian names in
Josephite clans.
T h e point that the names of Joseph’s
sons are bestowed
not by his wife, as is the custom in the
patriarch stories of
J
and
E,
but by himself (Gen.
41
51
E),
may be taken direct from the source that both
E
and J used (see next article,
On
the notions about the mutual relations
as t o
dignity and status of Reuben, Joseph,
Judah
: with
read
for
with
and
I
Ch.
see R
EUBEN
.
JOSEPH [in
OT]
79, 84,
the
tribal god]
the
form
passim).
I
.
Son of Jacob and Rachel and brother of Benjamin
(Gen.
the eponym of the tribe of Joseph
Tradition
connected the name variously with the re-
moving’
of Rachel’s childlessness
(so
E
; c p
Eliasaph, Asaph), and with her longing for
the addition
‘
let him add of another
son
(so
If ‘Joseph’ contains an utterance respecting God, the
latter explanation approaches the truth.
T h e multi-
plication will refer to all the blessings poetically
described in Gen.
Names like Joseph, however,
are generally shortened from
names.
analogy of Ishmael and Jerahmeel suggests that ‘Joseph
been much older.
4).
w.
(
and Ephraim).
eleven stars how down. On Winckler’s explanation (from the
calendar) of the two
sons
and the advancement of the
see
For
a
brilliant discussion of the whole question see Winckler
GI
where it
is
argued that Saul, a Gileadite, made
ruler of Benjamin, which he transformed into a state
representing roughly what was later the Ephraimite kingdom
stretching southwards beyond Ephraim). Cp S
AUL
,
and nrticles referred to there.
The mention of the sons of
and
as heing not
with the
sons
of Leah
but with Joseph, seems to he due
to a
late hand
(Gen. 372).
The
Test.
Gad in
particular take great blame
to
himself for ill will
to
Joseph.
For Winckler’s mythological ex
see
G I 2
72.
4
Cp
and
(Baal-
the one, the name of
a
king of
in the time of
and
(KB
the other, of an
prince, in the time of
2
was
originally Josiph-el (cp Josiphiah).
There is
a
Palestinian place-name in the Karnak list of Thotmes
(16th cent.
which in Hebrew letters might
stand as
(popularly, Joseph-el), and which, if
rightly
so
read
J
OSEPH
I
),
have been first
of all
a clan-name (see
Pinches too has dis-
covered on a very ancient Babylonian contract-tablet the
personal name
(rather
which has
some resemblance to
As
to Joseph-el, a
final
decision seems far
off.
See
I
,
and note that Flinders Petrie reads Yeshephar,
a n d
identifies the place with
SE. of Ashdod (see
while Tomkins
identifies Joseph-el
Yasuf. in
a
wadv E. of Kefr
and Nehi
(see
All
most uncertain.
On
the ethnic
use
of the name which in pre-exilic
prose means the same a s ‘ E p h r a i m ’ in prophetic
language-;.e., the tribes of N.
( 2
S.
I
K.
see
JOS
EPH
In
Jos.
1 3 2
Chaeremon,
an Egyptian
Greek writer, is said to have spoken
of Joseph under
the name
and it is plausible to hold that
simply distorts the name ‘Joseph when he
speaks (Jos.
126
of the leader
of the lepers
(see
as
or
T h e name
Osarsiph is properly
a divine name
it
denotes Osiris as god
of the
I t is possible
t o interpret Peteseph he whom the god Seph has given,’
and
to
suppose another distortion of Joseph.
Still it is
very possible that
be
a
mere clerical error
for
the
form
of the name of
father-in-law.
T h e traditional story of Joseph in Genesis (we omit
the meagre post-exilic abstract of P ) presents
a very
2.
different aspect from that of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob.
T h e hero is
doubt idealised but the details of his life are such
as,
in
a more recent biography, we might accept as to some
extent
an approach
to
truth
even in such
a point
as.
the age of Joseph at his death (Gen. 5026) the biographer
does
not
overstep the bounds of possibility.
How
Joseph came to be regarded
as
the ‘son of Jacob, and
how it was that the stream of tradition flowed
so much
more abundantly for’ biographers of Joseph than for
those of the first three patriarchs, we must consider
later
4).
It
is evident, however, that, though more credible in.
its details, the story of Joseph cannot be accepted
as.
genuinely historical, since it comes t o
us
in two forms
which do not altogether agree, and neither of the two
narratives can be presumed to be
on the whole earlier
than the ninth or eighth century
It was the life
of the founder of his people that the Israelite writer
o r
writers called
E
had
to relate; how could we expect
even
a
moderate degree of what moderns are pleased t o
call historical impartiality?
I t would be hardly less
absurd to expect
a narrative of well-sifted facts from the
Judahite writer or writers known as
T h e working
of
popular prejudices, and the plastic influence of the
popular imagination, which delights to find anticipations
of later historical facts, can readily be discerned,
who that has any sympathy with antique modes
of
thought could desire it to be otherwise?
I n fitting the Joseph-traditions into the general narra-
tive, it was necessary to give some idea of the relative
ages of Joseph and his brethren.
different views were taken.
I t follows from
account of the births that Joseph was horn
not
long
after the
sons
of Leah, and at
most
only twelve years
after Reuben (Gen.
31
47). The fragments of J in Gen.
30,
however, leave it open to us to suppose that the interval between
Cp Sayce,
Pnt.
Pref. ; Hommel,
A N T
96.
Elsewhere
Hommel compares the name
with the
S.
name
(from
which he ,explains
84) as
He
(God) regards.’
Cp Staerk
etc
3
As
if
were
a
syncretistic name
Ebers,
561
Tomkins, Acad.,
Sept.
I
,
1883.
JOSEPH
[in
OT]
JOSEPH
[in
the births of Joseph
was longer than the fragments
of E would incline
us
to suppose.
At
any rate, the extracts
from the Joseph-section
of
J
represent Joseph as born
to
Jacob
in his
old
age
(37
3
The notice that he was seventeen
years old when he was sold into Egypt
(37
comes from
and
due
to
learned hut not authoritative calculation.
This difference of view helps to explain the first
chapter in Joseph’s composite biography.
T h e two
narrators agree that Joseph’s brethren conspired together
t o kill h i m ; but the reason for this step given by
E
( 8 7 2 6
is the more intelligible the older we suppose
Joseph to
he.
J simply states that the brethren of
Joseph hated himbecause of the partiality for him shown
by his father Israel, who had provided him with
a
‘long tunic with sleeves (see
T
UNIC
),
such a s befitted
one born to greatness and not to hard toil
(37
3,
J ) . Thus
the mischief is traced in J t o an act of Jacob but in
E
we find it accounted for by an act of Joseph, viz., his
communication of ominous dreams.
I n neither case is
the act blameworthy according to the writer
it con-
duces to the accomplishment of
great purpose,
which is the exaltation of Joseph for the good of his
whole family and for that of the country where the
Israelites are
to
sojourn.
T h e other differences between the two narratives in
chap.
37
need not long detain
us.
T h a t according t o
J
Joseph is
sent
from Jacob‘s abode to Shechem is
merely
a
consequence’ of the statement in Gen.
35
( J ) that Jacob had settled in the neighbourhood
of
Ephrath (or perhaps Beeroth see
E
PHRATH
)
the vale
of Hebron
37
should be the vale
(or plain)
of Beeroth.
Of
course,
account is the more
accurate; but
J
does not alter the tradition that the
brothers were a t
N. of Shechem, on
the caravan-route from Gilead to Egypt, when they got
rid of their ambitious brother.
Nor is the discrepancy
between
J
and
E
as t o the ethnic designation of the
merchants who convey Joseph to Egypt (Ishmaelites
from Gilead,
Midianites,
E)
a s important a s two
other differences :
(
I
)
that the spokesman of Joseph’s
brethren and the averter of Joseph’s death is Reuben in
E,
but Judah in J
and
that, according to E ,
Joseph was stolen (by the Midianites) out
the water-
less cistern into which he had been cast, whilst, according
t o
he was sold to the merchants (Ishmaelites) by his
brethren.
T h e difference a s to the spokesman is of
interest a s suggesting the N. Israelitish origin of the
story a s given by E
version is, in its present form,
not less distinctly of southern origin.
T h e difference
a s to how the passing caravan obtained Joseph shows
the superior skill of
E
as
a narrator.
.
I t was important,
h e considered, t o show that Joseph was not rightfully
used
as
a
slave.
Chap.
39
is mostly due to
J.
Joseph is sold as
a
slave to an
who perceives his
worth and places him over his household
;
but his master’s wife
casts her eyes upon the young man, and makes proposals from
which he can escape only
flight. Falsely accused to his
master, he is cast into prison.
however, gives him
favour with the governor, who in his turn sets Joseph over his
house.
This plain story, however, is complicated by being
interwoven with passages from
E.
According to these,
Joseph was bought by a
(see
E
UNUCH
)
named
Potiphar, the captain
of
Pharaoh’s’. bodyguard, ‘who
entrusted him with the care of all that he had.
A
subsequent passage of E refers to Joseph
as
being in
the prison, not for any real or supposed offence, but t o
attend on two high officers
the Pharaoh who had
been confined for some fault in the prison in Potiphar’s
house.
T h e chief butler
and
chief baker in their imprisonment have strange
dreams which only Joseph can interpret.
Two years
Cp C. Niehuhr Gesch.
der
I n 37
should
of
course he Judah.’
The
alteration was made
the editor.
3
The words ‘Potiphar,
a
of Pharaoh, captain of the
bodyguard’
(39
I
)
,
are
a
harmonistic insertion of
R.
Chaps.
40-42
are mainly from
E.
See
Hex.
83
later the Pharaoh himself has dreams which, by divine
favour, Joseph succeeds in explaining.
(Dreams are
frequently introduced by
E,
though
happens that
a
belief in the significance of dreams was particularly
characteristic of
Seven years of great plenty
a r e a t hand, which will be followed by seven years of
famine.
Joseph counsels that during the years of
abundance a fifth part of the grain should be exacted
from the agriculturists and laid up in storehouses.
T h e Pharaoh perceives that a divine spirit is in Joseph,
makes him high steward and grand
and, among
other honours, introduces
by marriage into a grand
sacerdotal family.
Joseph also receives a n Egyptian
name
( 4 1 4 5 ,
J ) , and we shall see later
that the
three Egyptian names in
41
45
have an important bearing
on criticism. T o the two sons of Joseph, however,
born before the famine, pure Hebrew
a r e given
(Gen.
Joseph‘s counsel has been
carried out, and the Egyptians come to the Semitic
grand vizier t o buy grain, till
money is exhansted
(41
56
47
By a clever contrivance (the narrative
is
J’s) Joseph obtains for the Pharaoh the proprietorship
of the whole land of Egypt, except that which belongs
to
the priests.
Of this, more hereafter (see
IO).
Suffice it t o remark that though the story in
47
can be fitted fairly well into the general narrative
(by
making
it
the sequel of the description in
it
shows
a
new side to Joseph’s character which is not
altogether
and contrasts with the spirit of the
fine passage, God sent me before you to preserve life ’
( 4 5 5 8 ,
E).
Now comes the true turning-point in Joseph‘s life.
His honours were not for himself alone they were to
prepare the way for the friendly reception of his entire
family in Egypt.
Driven by hunger, all Joseph’s
brethren except Benjamin come to Egypt to buy corn,
and do obeisance
to
the grand vizier
E,
but
J
end of
7).
Joseph recognizes them and remembers the dreams of his
youth.
To prove the truth
their story the must fetch their youngest brother to see him,
Simeon
as
surety with Joseph. They return
home sadly admitting the justice of their fate
and with
because the corn and the purchase-money
were both unaccountably, in their sacks.
the had
news to
father, who querulously answers, Joseph is
no
more : Simeon is no more : it
is
I (not you) who suffer from
these things’
E). Reuben, however, who has already
deserved well
his brethren
(42
E), pledges his
word that he will bring Benjamin hack in safety
37,
E).
I t is only from
a
few interwoven passages in chap.
42
that we gather that J also gave
a
version of the same
Nothing was said in this of the captivity of
Simeon, for, a t the beginning
of
the next long passage
From J
(43
1-13),
it is implied that the only fresh trouble
which Jacob is aware
is
the necessity for parting with
darling Benjamin.
From
42.38-44
all but
a
few lines from
E
referring t o
belongs to
whose dramatic presentation
of
attracted the editor.
In
a family council respecting
the famine, Judah (as before) becomes the spolcesman
the brothers.
Like Reuben a t
an
earlier point in
he pledges his word to his
for the
of
Benjamin
(438).
Jacob gives way with an
and Benjamin accompanies the others to Egypt.
bring double money,
and a
present
for
the grand vizier,
frugally
as
he lived in general (see
43
ordered them to
evil years arrive.
He affects to
them as spies.
Cp especially the
story
of
the Possessed Princess of Bakhtan
Maspero,
cp
RP
53-60;
Brugsch, Gesch.
; Erman,
’83,
pp.
54-60).
Gen.
(E)
run,
‘Thou shalt he over
ny house, and unto thee shall all my people hearken’
who
traces of both T and E. and holds that the
also
On
the analysis of the section see Holzinger,
.
-
eceived later
expended all his generosity on his brethren.
4
It
may
of
course be replied that Joseph felt as
a
Hebrew,
2586
JOSEPH
[in
be received hospitably.
So
three tables are placed one for
Joseph, one for his brethren, and one for his
guests,
who must
not
eat with Hebrews
32).
Joseph lavishes atten-
tions
on
Benjamin, his mother’s
son.
Then he deliberately
subjects his brethren
to
a fresh trial, though it is as much as he
do
to
restrain his emotion. To some extent indeed he has
prepared them for
it.
For
the mysterious return of the corn
msney
on
their former visit, which
so
much perplexed and
affrighted them, was due
to
order
of
Joseph. Once more the
astute Hebrew vizier
the money to
be
replaced in the
sacks, and in Benjamin’s sack he has his own silver divining-
cup deposited
;
by this means he seeks to awaken their con-
sciousness of guilt
(44
J). Then he sends after them, and
on their return accuses them by his steward of theft. The
riddle has now become harder than ever. Not many hours ago
they had been assured by the steward that the money restored
on
the former occasion was a gift indeed, even now
no
difficulty
arises out of the replaced money but only
out
of the
Judah
chief of the brothers,
no
attempt at justification:
God he says ‘has found
out
the guilt of thy servants’
but
he
Joseph how their father’s life is bound up with
and how certainly he will die if his child does not return, and
offers himself as
a
bondsman in place of Benjamin.
T h e recognition scene
(45
1-15),
t o which
E
is
a
large
contributor, need not be repeated here.
Jacob is invited
to come with his family and his flocks and herds to
the province of
His
sons,
Simeon and Benjamin, return to Canaan with rich
presents, and Israel ( J ) a t once resolves t o accept the
invitation.
E , however, gives
a remarkable detail
which is passed over by J.
T h e road from
S.
Palestine
to Egypt started from Beersheba,
so closely connected
with memories
of
Isaac.
There,
E
tells
us,
Jacob
offered sacrifices, not to Isaac
but to
‘
the God
of his father Isaac’
(461).
For the present
nothing more is drawn from this writer.
enough, it is J who tells that Judah was
sent
on
in advance to give Joseph notice of the approach
of his father.
T h e Hebrew text of Gen.
is not, as
it stands, quite intelligible
with the help of
we
can with some probability restore the text thus
:
And
he sent Judah before him to Joseph t o the land
of
Jarmuth.’
Jarmuth (see
is mentioned repeatedly
in the Amarna letters it was apparently
a
district
in
Lower Egypt, either in the
or more probably in
the
E.
part of the Delta, in the neighbourhood of
Goshen.
Here Judah found the grand vizier, who lost
no
time
in
preparing his chariot and going up
to
meet
Apparently
J does not conceive divination
t o
be inconsistent
with the worship of
‘to
divine,’ used again by J
(a
speech of
We are not to compare Ps.
908
The early
against
Joseph presses
on
Judah’s conscience.
In
31
53
we may perhaps trace the earlier form
of
the
tion, according
t o
which the hero Isaac was himself worshipped
(cp Holzinger, ad
In 46
I
E
adjusts the tradition
t o
later religious ideas.
.
4
M T
has
but,
as
Lagarde
Socin and Ball have seen,
point
out
be
correct.
Ball
(‘96)
would read
but the sentencedoes not tell
us
whom Judah was
t o
meet, nor does
‘to Goshen,’
naturally. Lagarde (GGN,
’go,
119)
and, independently, the
present writer (in
thought that instead
of
read
Heroopolis, as
Naville has shown, is
may perhaps
come
from
the Egyptian
7).
Lagarde accepts this as the true reading;
too
hastily.
version needs
a
more thorough inspection. It
thus in A,
What is
I t represents
in MT.
however,
is nowhere else rendered
‘Pap.
In
spite of
plausible
theory
(Goshen 17)
that
may mean a larger district than
Goshen, the
writer holds that
must have read some-
thin rather different from MT,
)+&
Here
is to be taken
a
correction of
(a
miswritten
ment), the right reading and the
being preserved,
as
often,
sidebyside.
Heroopolis’-and
to
be
for
‘to
(the land
of)
Rameses.
is
a gloss
omits
‘P.
both
and in
(or
and
at the end of
and in
are also insertions. In
47
land of Rameses should
the land of Jarmuth.’
DIVINATION
3
or the
‘ t o
Heroopolis.’
The true reading of
JOSEPH
[in
OT]
his father.
T h e meeting is described in few but appro-
priate words
such as that colourless writer
P could never have found.
If we may give way to the
spell of the narrator, and treat the events narrated a s
historical, we may suppose the meeting to have taken
near one of the Egyptian fortresses
on
the border
of the
After this, according to J, the whole
party went up to the court, and Jacob and five of his
brethren were presented
to
the Pharaoh (Gen.
47
2-4,
J).
A remarkable honour, for we have
been told
( 4 6 3 4 )
that ‘everyshepherd isanabomination to the
T h e Priestly Writer, generally
so
even gives
us
a conversation held by Jacob with the Pharaoh (Gen.
T h e patriarch speaks in the tone of Ps.
and
as
Jacob goes out, like
a
superior being,
he blesses the Egyptian king.
Both
J
and
E
described the last meeting of Joseph
and his father.
I t was specially important
record
the blessing of Joseph‘s two
sons
J E ) and the
oath exacted by Jacob from Joseph (cp
S
TAFF
)
that he
would bury him, not in Egypt, but in the grave which
he (Jacob) had digged for himself in the land of Canaan
Jacob on his side promised that Joseph should
return to Canaan and occupy the finely-situated hill of
S
HECHEM
E).
Upon Jacob’s death his son per-
formed all the requisite funeral rites
both Egyptian and Hebrew, and then returned with his
brethren, whom he continued to treat magnanimously
till he died at the ideal age of
(see
I
O
).
W e have seen that the pre-exilic story of Joseph is
made
of
of two distinct
which
have been skilfnlly
together by
a
redactor.
This is
a
fact of much im-
portance.
Since there are two records,
and these (as will appear) are equally accurate in their
Egyptian colouring, we may assume that there was
a
earlier document from which both J and
E
drew.
It may be asked, Can we fix the dates of J and
E,
looking simply a t their respective lives of Joseph ?
(By
J and
E
we mean here members of the schools of writing
denoted respectively by the letters J and E . ) W e may
presume that J (or better
lived after the fall of
Samaria (722
for otherwise, being
a Judahite
writer, he would not have felt free to treat
so
elaborately
a
northern legend aiming at the glorification of Joseph.
For the date of
E
(or
E,)
we have perhaps a clue in the
name Asenath, and a t any rate
the name Potiphera
in
4145.
Though
a name
the type Potiphera has
been shown to occnr close upon the Hyksos
the
name referred to
gift of Baal’) is only half
Egyptian, and the type first becomes frequently repre-
sented in the 26th dynasty.‘
T h e name Asenath may
also be explained as
a specimen of a late type of name.
It is generally held to be a Hebraised form of Egyptian
e . , belonging to [the Saite goddess] Neith
’-
and if
so
may indicate that the editor lived in, or shortly
before, the period
of
the 26th or Saite
T h e
name, however, is not doubly attested like that of
Potiphera (cp ‘Potiphar,’
E),
and may not be
the form which
wrote.
Let
us
not neglect to be
So
Tomkins
75.
On Gen.
47
where the text of
is clearly preferable, see
Herdsmen are caricatured on the monuments as ugly and
We.
53,
and
Bacon,
Ball,
Gen.
deformed.
A reference to Gen.
12
does
not
lighten the
inconsistency for that narrative has reached
its
present form by
a
(see
6).
Ladv
Duff
Gordon (Letters
thinks that Gen.
47
is
the hollow spkech
a
would make to-day
t o
a Pasha.
Not
necessarily M
ACHPELAH
;
47
30
seems
to
have been
The
does not at all hit the intention of
touched by R
t o
harmonise it with P
See
Gesch.
cp
; and especially Tomkins,
Acad.,
Jan.
1891
;
183.
Steindorff
cp Lag.
Mitt.
3
Brugsch,
‘go,
p.
245
41.
So
Steindorff
Names of this type occur
now
and then
earlier, and are
in the
dynasty.
2588
JOSEPH [in OT]
JOSEPH
[in
OT]
warned by the wrongly read Egyptian names,
I
K.
(Swete), and Tahpenes in M T of
I
K.
(see
If
so, we have nothing to depend upon but the name
Potiphera, and this is a very weak basis for a theory.
There were learned scribes before a s well as after the
exile, and such an one may possibly have changed the
original name given t o Joseph‘s father-in-law by
into
a
name of the type which
in his own
time was more
fashionable in Egypt
or
perhaps the text may have
become indistinct, and the scribe may have corrected
the older name
in
accordance with the fashion of the
time.
Next, assuming (as we must) that
J
and
E
drew from
a n earlier Hebrew story, can we form a n opinion a s to
i t s
probable period? This Hebrew story was certainly
no mere romance, the scene of which was laid in Egypt.
T h e Egyptian colouring is too profuse, and the details
too peculiar, to be altogether ascribed
a Hebrew
narrator.
W e can imagine that
a
romantic story of the
Egyptian
sojourn
of
a
Joseph who was merely the
eponym of the Hebrew tribe of that name would have
presented some Egyptian features.
Such a story, how-
ever, being mainly a reflection of the fortunes of a tribe,
could not have been
so
deeply infused with Egyptian
elements a s the existing Joseph-story.
I t is therefore a
reasonable conjecture that that earlier Hebrew story of
which we have spoken was based
on a still more ancient
Hebrew narrative which had no elements of tribal legend
and related entirely to a n individual, and that those
elements in our existing Joseph-story which are most
undeniably personal, and by which this story contrasts
most strongly with the unhistorical tribal legends of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were present in
a
purer
and of course a more complete form in that ancient
Hebrew narrative.
To
what extent this most ancient Hebrew tale may
have suffered alteration in the course of centuries, it is
impossible t o say.
W e may conjecture, however, that
it was really based
upon
facts which, however idealised,
were yet truly historical, that it was written not many
generations after the events t o which it referred, and
even that it was derived directly
or
indirectly from an
Egyptian source.
T h e number of Semites in the eastern
provinces of Egypt was
so
large that this Egyptian origin
is
far from being an extravagant hypothesis. T h e upper
limit of the period within which the Hebrew stories,
which seem to have preceded
J
and
E,
have to be placed,
depends on the date or dates of the events recorded
idealistically by the earliest of them.’
Let
us
first consider some of the most remarkable
phenomena in the Joseph- story (com-
pleteness cannot be aimed a t ) in con-
nection with
a.
T h e close parallelism between Gen.
and
the Egyptian tale of Two Brothers has often been
remarked., T h e Egyptian tale is extant in a copy which
belonged t o Seti
11.
(19th dynasty), and was probably
written early in the 18th dynasty.
That such
a story
could have arisen only in Egypt, it would be too much
to assert; in fact, similar stories have been found in
perfectly unrelated
Still, considering that
the scene of the tale of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife is
laid in Egypt, and that the rest of the story of Joseph
in Egypt is strongly Egyptian in colouring, it is most
plausible to hold that Gen.
is based upon a par-
allel Egyptian story, though hardly upon the tale of the
Two
Brothers, for that has to do
peasant life.
Such
a borrowing would certainly be less surprising than the
undoubted fact that in early Christian times an Egyptian
monk named Visa, in writing the life
of
his father Shniidi,
See,
Brugsch,
Gesch.
Meyer,
G A
1 2 8 5 ;
Sayce,
zog.
For translations, see Renouf,
R P
2
; Maspero,
3-32
; Flinders
Petrie,
2
.
cp Erman,
See
A. Lang, Myth,
and
2
twice imitates the story
of the Two Brothers in some one
of its forms.
b.
T h e rise of Joseph the ,Hebrew from low estate to
the second position in the kingdom has many parallels.
Semitic slaves were common at all times in the Nile
Often, for their capacity and fidelity, they
were raised to high positions, and became naturalised
Egyptians.
the armour-bearer of Thotmes
I I I . , and
his brother the priest User-Min, were the
sons
of an Amorite.
W e do not hear that they had been
slaves but there is nothing
to prohibit the idea ; and
the chief point t o notice in the rise of Joseph is not his
having been
a
slave but his Hebrew origin.
too,
under the Pharaoh Merenptah the office of first speaker
of His Majesty’ was held by a Canaanite named Ben
Mat’ana, and in the Amarna Tablets we meet with two
Egyptian officials who appear from their names Dudu
and Yanhamu
to b e of Semitic origin.
That the honours conferred upon Joseph (Gen.
41
)
are such as a newly appointed vizier might well
have received,
is
undeniable.
The royal seal-bearer
was the chief government official he was the deputy
of
the
T h e ‘garments
of
linen’ (plural), if the
story is of Egyptian origin, cannot be right ; the first
narrator may have referred t o the royal apron-garment
(the so-called
which was worn by others a s well
a s by the king under the Middle and the New
‘Garments of byssus’
see
L
INEN
,
7)
were not
exceptional enough
all Egyptians of rank had t o wear
them.
T h e ‘golden collar’ was
a
highly prized
Egyptian decoration ; Ahmes, the conqueror of Avaris,
won it seven times by special acts of
the Louvre
is a stele
which the investiture
of a
grandee with
a
golden collar is represented
to
the life. Seti
I.
presides over the ceremony
and
while he makes
a
speech two
officers put
a
magnificent
round the neck of
who lifts his arms in token of
joy
(De
49
; cp
2
105
See also Brugsch,
Gesch.
426.
Still we cannot lay too much stress’ even upon this
decoration
a t any Eastern court such an honour would
have been prized (cp Dan.
5 7 2 9
and see
N
ECKLACE
).
W h a t the meaning
of
h e
made him ride in the second chariot that
The text has been injured; we may with some probability
steeds.’
T o
both words
this phrase there may have been
corresponding Egyptian terms
;
to
the first there certainly was
hut both were originally Semitic (see C
H
A
RI
O
T
,
I
,
and cp
I
I t is more important, however, to note the titles
of
Joseph‘s office. ‘They cried before him, Abrech’ (Gen.
41
‘ H e has made me an
ab to Pharaoh, and
of all his house (45 J). Abrech, if the reading is cor-
rect,
is
possibly the
Ass.
a title
of a very high
dignitary, which like
so
many other Asiatic words may
have passed into Egypt
(see A
BRECH
).
More prob-
ably, however, the first three letters represent an ,
Egyptian title-viz., friend
in
45
8
‘
an
t o
Pharaoh should probably be
a
friend of Pharaoh.’
Brugsch, it is true, points out that the Egyptian
meant
a
person who gave orders in the name of the
A lower dignitary would be called
adon, though Brugscb
has once found the the title of an
adon over the whole
l a n d ’ (in connection with the early life of
afterwards
In any case, however, we could
not press this.
if not also
ab, is possibly a
Semitic loan-word.
is the natural Hebrew word
Ebers,
die
294
;
Erman,
Flinders Petrie,
16
Ten Years‘
6 6 ’
Ebers Smith‘s
47.
he
had (Gen.
41
43)
can be, no one has explained.
chariot
Erma;,
62,
206,
4
Renouf,
6
Petrie, Hist. 2
21-23.
Gesch. Aeg. 207, 248,
Gesch.
252.
JOSEPH
[in
OT]
for
‘ l o r d ’
so also, according to the lexicons, is
for vizier.
For
the extent of Joseph’s newly given authority we
may refer to the descriptions of the two Egyptian feudal
lords,
and
‘If
does not, like Ptah-hotep, bear the title of royal
prince, he was perhaps of even
rank since he is called
‘the double of the Pharaoh,’ animated by
spirit taking his
place in his absence, governing all Egypt like
addressed
by the same titles, and saluted like him by the courtiers. We
must not
surprised, therefore, a t the royal title given
to
the prefect of the capital was next to the king
the
in the
less remarkable is the abject servility
of the
letters addressed to
Dudu,
a high officer of Amen-hotcp
IV.,
by Aziri, prefect of the land of the
it
is
not easy t o decide which is greater, ‘ t h e king, my
lord,’
or ‘ m y lord, my father.’
Aziri even refers t o
the king and the grandees collectively as my
gods
Does not this remind
us
of Gen. 41
40,
Only
in the throne will
I
be greater than thou
With the viziership Joseph combined the office
of director of the granaries (Gen.
This was
distinct.
It
held,
by
Beka
or
dynasty), whose
sepulchral stele is now preserved a t
Kings’
sons did not disdain to hold
W e know, how-
ever, that
(see
who was a vizier,
was
superintendent of the storehouses, which from time to
time he had inspected.
This constant supervision is
insisted upon by the real
or
imaginary princely sage,
Ptah-hotep, in his famous collection of precepts.
So,
too,
a
chief overseer of the granaries, named Am-n-teh,
tells
us
that he never took rest from
his responsibilities.
Such a t least was the ideal.
T h e magazines had to be
carefully guarded and replenished, for
on
this the life
of thousands might depend.’
This duty, according
to Gen. 4148
Joseph,
as
an
ideal vizier, discharged
in person.
T h e scene of Joseph’s brethren presenting
themselves a t the granaries may be illustrated by a
wall-painting in the tomb of
already referred
tO.8
W e now come t o the seven years of famine (Gen.
41
were sometimes confined t o Egypt.
On one such occasion,
as the decree of
Canopus mentions, the reigning Ptolemy
imported grain from Syria and Phcenicia. T h e story
of
Joseph, however,. refers to one which extended to
all the neighbouring lands, natives of which came into
Egypt to Joseph to buy corn (Gen. 4157).
It used to
be thought that
a
pictorial record of this event was
still extant.
On the
N.
wall of the tomb
of prince
Chnemhotep
on
the steep height of Beni
can
still be seen depicted the meeting
of thirty-seven Asiatics
with the Egyptian. prince-governor.
It is not, how-
ever,
a famine but trade that brings them to Egypt,
and they are nomads from Arabia, headed by their
prince Abesha (see
n.
bringing stibium
or
eye-paint (see
In another
of
the
caves is the tomb
of
Ameni
one of the feudal princes of the Middle Empire. This
But this
is
extremely doubtful. In Is.
96
and
we
See
should almost certainly read
(strong one, protector).
Bib.
Am. Tab.
4
Flinders Petrie
Ten
Years’
66)
suggests
a
further comparison
‘chief of the chan-
cellors,’ or ‘royal seal-bearer,’ who stood at the head of the
bureaucracy under the Hyksos kings. We
not, however,
base an argument upon this for placing Joseph in the Hyksos
period, for the officials a t that period were not Semites but
chosen from among the native Egyptians.
Chabas
5459-465.
Dawn
286.
T
O.
See
Part
69
The tombs
n.
2,
and cp
M
USIC
,
8.
dynasty.
JOSEPH
[in
OT]
is made
to
relate the chief events of his life, and speaks thus in
the conclusion.
‘(When) there became years of famine
. . .
I
made
to
live
its inhabitants, making its provision; not became
a
hungry
man in it.
. . .
When thereafter great rises of the Nile took
place, producing wheat and
. . .
not did I exact the
arrears of the
A similar statdment is made by a governor
named Baha in his sepulchral inscriptions a t
(end of
17th dyn.) Baha speaks of ‘ a famine lasting many years,’ and
Brugsch has recorded his conviction that the inscription refers
to
the identical famine
of
the Joseph-story.
Baba at
was under the native king
while Joseph lived
and worked
as
Brugsch thinks, under one
of
the Hyksos kings.
Of
a
third
which has been
into connection with
Joseph it is enough
to
say that the
of the monument proves
it
to
he not earlier than the Ptolemies. See Wiedemann,
des
68.
W e
pass
on to the policy
of
Joseph (Gen.
47
13-26,
T h e statements in
have some
affinity to those of Herodotus
and
Diodorus
and the probability is
that all these stories are the attempts
of
later generations to account for the fact that the Egyp-
tians handed over a fixed proportion of the harvest t o
the king.
‘Whatever the details may have been, we may accept
as a
general fact that
and
exterminated the old nobility
very much
as
the Mamluks were exterminated by
Ali and as the latter obtained the greater part of all the
property in the kingdom
the confiscation of the estates of
the Mamlnks,
so
the former absorbed the roperty of the small
princedoms.
Thus
those
agrarian conditions
found in later Egypt, by which all property, with the exception
of the priests’fields, belonged
to
the Pharaoh, and was rented from
the crown by
a
payment of
per cent. In Gen. 47 these con-
ditions are declared to be due to the clever policy of
T h e narrator in Gen.
47
is certainly accurate in one
part
of
his statement.
T h e land of the priests was
exenipt from taxation
no
inspector of the palace
could enter the sacred
W e do not hear,
however, that the priests received special portions
of
provisions. from the king
this statement is not con-
firmed.
One small point alone remains- the age ascribed t o
Toseph at his death.
‘Toseph died, being
years
composite).
Erman writes thus
:-
-
-
J
oseph
’
s
old
(Gen.
J).
No
Hebrew -tale-
...
writer would have written thus.
T o
reach the age of
years was every
good Egyptian’s prayer
it was the favour desired by
the high priest Bak-en-Honsu
dynasty) when
he was 86 years of
Ptah-hotep, whose collec-
tion of maxims has been called (with
justice)
the most ancient of books, says that his virtue has
brought him to this advanced age, which few were
privileged to
and
a
strange reminiscence
of
this Egyptian belief meets
us in the life of another
Joseph (see J
OSEPH
IO).
W h a t historical elements are there
in
the Joseph
story? W e are prepared by the preceding inquiry to
find that there are some, and it will
be best to go a t once into the heart
of
the question.
Let
us
notice, then,
(
I
)
that several names possibly of Egyptian origin
occur in the families of Moses and Aaron and of Joseph.
T h e name of Moses may possibly be analogous to
messu, ‘child of
R a
(RE‘)
the son of Eleazar, corn-
monly called P
H I N E H A S
and
a son of Eli bear,
according to the prevalent opinion, the same well-known
Egyptian name, of which H
OPHNI
may be
a
corrupt variation.
Eleazar’s father,
.
and
the Korahite clan called Osir ( M T
also have been
thought to bear, the one a partly disfigured, the other
a still completely Egyptian name.
too, the
companion of Moses and Aaron, may also possibly be
added t o the list.
T h e present writer probably stands
nearly alone in looking elsewhere for the true explana-
tions of these names.
But with such a n eminent
cp
56.
3
Ancient
4
Naville,
8.
De Horrack, R P
3
34.
Cp
also
Petrie,
JOSEPH [in
OT]
authority
as
W.
Max Muller
on the other side, he will
not be
so
discourteous as to call the above explanations
impossible.
Certainly, if correct, they tend to justify
the theory that the tribe of Joseph and some part of
the tribe of Levi once sojourned in Egypt.
Whether
the story of the selling
of Joseph for a slave may be
best regarded
as
antedating of the reported subse-
quent oppression, or a s
a feature of a once extant
biography of
a
Hebrew vizier, is
open question.
I t should be noticed that from
Am.
55
it
appears that the sons a n d daughters of the Syrians
were sometimes sent t o Jarimuta t o be sold for corn.'
Not only Joseph, but in an earlier form of the story
also
Simeon and Benjamin seem t o have been represented a s
sold into slavery in Egypt, and it has been already
noted
as
perhaps significant that the name of
a
tradi-
tional grandson of Joseph means sold
(see
E
PHRAIM
Passing now to Joseph himself, we find that in
story of the expulsion of the lepers (Jos.
c.
the leader of the lepers is said
to
be
a
priest of Heliopolis named Osarsiph (see
I
) .
T h e
kernel of this story, according to
E.
Meyer
( G A
a n d Marquart
is the virtually
monotheistic reform
of
(Amen-hotep IV.
).
A
similar story is given by
(Jos.
c.
who gives the names of the leaders of the 'unclean
as
and Peteseph.
T h e latter name, in one
way
or
another, may fairly be brought into connection
with Joseph (see
I
),
and it should be added that
Chaeremon too connects the story with Amenophis
(Amen-hotep).
I t becomes natural, therefore, to look for light to the
Amarna tablets which are concerned
the period
of Amen-hotep
and Amen-hotep
and we are
not disappointed.
W e find there
a n
important Egyp-
tian functionary, whose name
is
apparently Semitic,
Yanhamu
according to Marq.
H e is
a
or 'general ( 7 ) ' who has the control of the
magazines of grain in the land of Jarimuta (see
3),
a n d superintends the affairs of the Egyptian dominion
in
Palestine.
When the Syrian chieftains and governors have a request to
make of the Egyptian
king
they
often
add that he need only
ask Yanhamu who knows the
circumstances
well. When
Addi
has
grievances
against
of Amurru
he
refers
them
to Yanhamu
(as
one
of three
and
asks the king to say
Behold,
in thy
power, and anything which happens to him touches thee'
Another
time
asks the king
to
bid
take the field at once with troops
(75
87
Notice
too that Yabitiri, commandant
of
Gaza a n d Joppa,
speaks of having been brought by
t o the
Egyptian court while still small
(214
24-26).
Yabitiri
seems t o have been
a
countryman of
; but his
name, which looks Egyptian (Ra-hotep?), may have
been given t o him in Egypt.
T h e latter circumstance is interesting because Joseph
too is said to have received
an Egyptian name in
Egypt Marquart thinks
(677) that the name intended
is
Zaphtan
and that
represents Aten, the
name of the god of the solar disk, worshipped by
This is not the present writer's view
(see Z
APHNATH
-
PAANEAH
)
but the theory from
which it springs seems to him likely to be correct.
Joseph (whose Egyptian name was perhaps
or
indicating that life
the
bearer of the name) is probably an imaginative
version of some Semitic courtier of the reforming king
Amen-hotep IV.
T h e untranslatable passage in Gen.
41
43,
should perhaps be read
friend
of
Khu-en-aten (Che.
April
cp
4),
a n d the
Josepli'swifemayperhapshavebeen
'An$-
I
however, M
ACHIR
).
are by no means all the references.
*
This is Marquart's
pertinent
observation
(678).
was
a
priestly name it was current in the family
of
the priest"-king
JOSEPH [in OT]
Marq.
677). A daughter of
who
had this name, was married to
the
next king but one after Khu-en-aten.
Potiphera,'
too, should probably be corrected into
this
was the name
of the high priest of Aten a t the king's
new capital of
(el-Amarna). W e have also
found reason to suspect the occurrence of another
ancient Egyptian name in Genesis,
Jarimuta
Gen.
see
3).
Marquart's theory that Jarimuta
was in the province now called the Fayyiim-a natural
depression in the Libyan hills, far more fertile anciently
even than it is now-seems not quite
so
natural
as
the
view which places it nearer t o Palestine, in the East
of
the Delta.
Some such conjectnres as the above seem forced upon
us
in
the light of Egyptian history. As
to
the names,
we must not
expect too
great
exactness. W. Max Miiller
Oct.
objects to
as the representative of Kh. But the confusion
of
and
is too
common in
to
surprise
us.
The
after
is
a scribe's second attempt
to
write
Aten. As
to
the
impoliteness of choosing the name
the
would have
more
force if an Egyptian story
were
in
question
T h e ordinary view that Joseph, if historical, is to
be placed in the Hyksos period, is acquiesced in by
Fliuders Petrie.
Ebers, however, who is in agreement
with Lepsius, says, ' I n the whole section there is
nothing which does not exactly fit
a
Pharaonic court
in
the best periods of the kingdom, while there
is
much which can never be reconciled with
a
Hyksos
court, however much Egyptianised.'
A
later date,
too, makes it easier t o believe in the existence of
a
true tradition as the kernel of the story.
Following
Marquart, whose brilliant research
3
has
a
flood
of light
on'
the Joseph-story, the present writer places
the great Hebrew vizier now called Joseph in the
reign of Khu-en-aten o r Amen-hotep IV.
W e may now perhaps venture on the statement that
there are five distinct elements in our present
story
:-(
I
)
the transformed tradition of
a sojourn of the
tribe of Joseph in E g y p t ;
( 2 )
the tradition, true in
essentials, of
a Hebrew vizier under Khu-en-aten
(3)
story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, etc.
(an
imaginative appendage)
(4) the narrative (not historical)
connecting the changed agrarian law of
with
Khu-en-aten's vizier
(5)
the narrative (also unhistorical)
of the sojourn of the other
'
sons of Israel in Egypt.
All these have been skilfully woven together by several
Hebrew writers.
There is something more, however,
to
be mentioned-it is the ideality of the whole narra-
tive.
None of the Old Testament biographies attracts
such universal admiration
as
the story of Joseph.
See
in
addition to the hooks cited already, F. Vigouroux,
La
et
1896,
tom.
archaeology), and the vastly superior
of Driver ,in
Hastings'
2
the archaeological exactness
of
is not
less than
its
treatment
of the Hebrew text. What
has been omitted
here
for
want
of
space
will be found
this
very
That there
is room
for considerahledifference
of opinion
on
the difficult
textual
and historical questions
volved
will
be readily imagined.
In MT. father
of
(Nu.
13
7
but
the real name
T.
IC.
C.
seems to
dropped out
:
I
n.
3.
One of
t h e
Asaph
(
I
Ch.
25 9).
4.
One
of
the b'ne Bani
in
the
list
of those with foreign
wives
(see E
ZRA
end) Ezra
Esd. 934,
A
head of the b'ne Shebaniah.
(see
E
ZRA
12
1 4
[om.
6.
h.
Zacharias, a Jewish
officer
defeated
(
I
Macc.
Maccabee
Macc.
8
10
an ancient
false
reading
for
see M
ACCABEES
i.,
8.
Ancestor of Judith
8
I
).
It depends on the reading and translation of an imperfect
of one
of the Amarna tablets
T o
so
far away as the Syrian
(Flinders
Syria
and
is
hardly desirable. The
view
that
it
in
the Nile delta'is due
to
the sagacity of C. Niehuhr
seventh supplementary volume of
3
reprinted from the
JOSEPH
[in
NT]
JOSEPH [in NT]
JOSEPH
[in
NT]
[Ti.
I
.
Joseph
T h e passages relative to this Joseph
of
should first be compared.
As to
his description. Matthew says
rich man of
belonging
to)
named Joseph, who himself
had
a disciple
of
Jesus
1.
Description.
(15
‘Joseph
of
Ari-
( b
Ap.), a
noble
councillor
who
also
himself was expecting the
kingdom of God.
Luke
(23
‘ a
man
named Joseph,
was a councillor
a
good
and
righteous man
(he bad
not given
his
their counsel and deed) of
a
city of the
who
was
expecting
the
kingdom of God. John
(19
Joseph
of
( b
’Ap.),
being
a
disciple of Jesus,
but a
secret
one for fear
of the Jews.’ The Petrine Gospel
‘Joseph
the
of
Pilate and of the Lord.’ Tradition therefore
is not
entirely unanimous
as
to
the description
of
Joseph.
some respects the simplest accounts in our Gospels
a r e those of Mt. and Jn.
Both agree that Joseph
belonged to the wider circle of Jesus’ disciples, a n d
Peter probably means the same thing by the peculiar
phrase quoted above; a n d neither Mt. nor Jn. is
aware that he belonged to any Jewish council.
Mt. indeed says that he was
a
rich
whilst
Jn.
is
silent
on
this point; but the fact that, ac-
cording to Jn., Joseph in the first instance under-
took the whole of the arrangements for burial, a n d
was
afraid of the consequences t o himself if he
avowed his ‘discipleship, proves that
too, must
have regarded Joseph
as a
rich man.
T h e account
in Jn.
however, presents one apparent dis-
crepancy from that in Mt.
Apparent we call
it, because it only rests on a n inference;
that
inference is certainly
a
very natural one.
I t appears
from Jn.
that the body of Jesus was laid in the
sepulchre adjoining the place of crucifixion only because
it was nigh a t hand
that Joseph happened to be the
owner, would he
so remarkable a coincidence that the
evangelist would surely have stated it.
I t is true,
Mk. and Lk.,
as
well
as
are silent
as t o
Joseph’s proprietorship of the t o m b ; but the
is that Joseph, who was evidently, according
to
them,
a man of social standing, and would there-
fore certainly have prepared his own ‘long home,’ is
t o be supposed t o have taken the body of Jesus to his
own new tomb, which was somewhere near Jerusalem.
Is there also
a
discrepancy between Mk. (and
Lk.) and Mt. as regards Joseph‘s discipleship? Ac-
cording t o
B.
Weiss
2
574)
there
is.
Mk.
accurately, though indirectly,
states that hitherto Joseph, who
was
a
councillor, had
kept aloof from the circle of the adherents of Jesus,
whereas Mt.
27
57
expressly affirms that he had become
a
disciple.
Weiss also thinks that
description
of Joseph as
a
rich man was due to his desire for
a
fresh
of prophecy
(Is. 539).
Here, how-
ever, there appear to be several misunderstandings.
(
I
)
Joseph was of course not
a
close ‘adherent’ of
Jesus
but he belonged to that wider circle of disciples
which Mt., though less distinctly than Mk. and
L k . , presupposes (see Keim,
Joseph was scarcely
a
‘councillor’ in the sense
supposed by Weiss.
( 3 )
Neither
Mt. nor any
other early Christian writer thought of Is.
as
a
prediction of Christ’s burial.
Let
pause here and ask
if
thus far the accounts are
historical. T h e statements that the
who arranged
for the burial of
body of Jesus
a
member of the wider circle of dis-
ciples,
a
rich man of Arimathaea (see below,
named Joseph, and that the tomb in which he placed
the body of Jesus was his own, is questioned by few
critics.
These were points which tradition was not
likely to have invented.
T h e notion
of
that
the story of the tomb was suggested by Is.
is
refuted by the circumstance that none of the Gospels,
nor any subsequent work
of the early Christian period,
refers to that passage, the obscurity
of which evidently
caused great difficulty to the ancient translators.
W e
at any rate accept as
a
historical certainty the
(
he was buried
of
I
Cor.
154.
W e now
pass
on to the statement of
Mk.
Lk.
that
was
a councillor.’
If by councillor’
both mean member of the Sanhedrin,”
,
we are involved in hopeless perplexity.
That
deficient in courage.
is
shown by his
to Pilate, for the notion-of
3
that he was
a friend of Pilate is clearly
a late fancy.
If
a member of the Sanhedrin, he must
have attended
on such
important occasion
as the trial
of Jesus, and must have spoken for him, and have trans-
mitted the knowledge of this fact and of much more
important facts to subsequent generations of Christians.
T h e inevitable inference from Mk.
however, is that
no
member of the council was absent, and certainly
one can say that the evangelical tradition of the trial of
Jesus has the appearance of exactness.
Does it not seem
t o follow from this that Mk. did not, any more than
Mt., suppose Joseph to have belonged to the Sanhedrin
-in short, that Lk. must have misunderstood the
of
N o one can say that the
epithet
‘noble’
applied to
a
member of the Sanhedrin, is at all natural.
If, how-
ever, we interpret
from
a
Greek o r
a
Roman point of view, it becomes equivalent to
‘ a
man of high social r a n k ’
( = a
noble senator), and
is
quite in place in
a
work intended mainly for Gentile
Christians.
Lk. and
however, may easily have
misunderstood
John shows special thoughtfulness
in dealing with it.
H e considered, apparently, that he
had before him
a
twofold tradition.
According to
version, Joseph
of
Arimathaea,
a rich disciple of Jesus,
paid his Master’s body the last sad honours
according
t o another, it was
a councillor named Joseph of
who did this.
H e therefore combined the
two traditions, only substituting
Nicodemus’ for
’Joseph’ as the name of the councillor, for which he
had prepared the way by the statement respecting
a
speech of Nicodemus in the council apparently suggested
by the parenthetical remark about Joseph in Lk.
See
Opinions differ (see Keim,
Jesus
as to the place intended by Arimathaea.
Most prob-
ably it is the Ramathaim mentioned
I
Macc.
1 1 3 4
Lydda.
See
OS
and
2.
From the
fact that Joseph possessed a rock-tomb near Jerusalem,
we may assume that he had taken up his abode at any
rate for
a time in the Holy City, and the fact that
nothing is heard of him afterwards justifies the supposi-
tion that he
afterwards have left Palestine possibly
he was
a
merchant.
I t is
a
weakness, however, in our
position, that we
are compelled to speculate.
As
far
as regards the
entombment itself, not much need be added
to
what
The
simplest statement is that of Mt.
it
is difficult to think that the earliest
tradition referred to Joseph‘s purchase of
see L
INEN
) for the purpose
of
enwrapping the body.
T h e mention of
a
garden in
Jn.
may also be mere amplification
the Petrine
Gospel
(24)
says that Joseph‘s ‘own tomb’ was called
Joseph’s garden’-apparently the name of
a
well-known
locality in the time
of
the writer.4 T h e story of Joseph’s
interview with Pilate
is
very simply by Mt.,
and
Jn.
Mk., in his graphic way, lays stress
on
the
As
to the deed of Joseph.
has incidentally been said already.
On the text see
SBOT,
and cp
Ad-
See
Acts 13
17
‘Of noble bearing’
is
3
So
Brandt,
79.
4
V.
Schubert, Die
62.
denda
:
cp
also
ad
surely impossible.
JOSEPH
[in
NT]
age required for Joseph’s act
and adds that
Pilate marvelled
if he were already dead, and calling
the centurion, he asked if he had been any while
dead
he knew it, he gave the body to
Joseph’ (Mk.
None of the Synoptics makes
any reference to the fact stated in Jn. 1931 that the
Jews had already asked Pilate that the
might be performed (see C
ROSS
,
4,
6), and that the
bodies of the crucified might then be removed.
Yet
this certainly makes the whole occurrence more intel-
ligible
5 ) .
It was not usual, according
t o Roman law, to grant burial for the bodies of the
crucified
hence the need of ‘courage
on
Joseph’s
part.
That Pilate first of all asked Herod for the body
3-5)
is a n
fancy
and the
elaborate tale of the imprisonment of Joseph, of his
miraculous release and of his baptism by Jesus, after
which he is taken by the Lord to
are
specimens of the inventions of the
(12
15).
For the English legends on which the abbey of
is
founded see William of Malmeshury, De Antiq.
in
and elsewhere;
and cp Nutt,
on
the Legend
the
wifh
t o
the Hypothesis
its
1888.
2. H u s b a n d
of
Mary.- The references in the Gospels’
must be carefully considered.
Seven occur in Mt.,
JOSEPH [in
NT]
judah, and apparently does not accept this particular
tradition.
H e cannot, however
(if we regard the gospel
as
a whole), have been indifferent to the earthly origin
of Jesus.
Though Jesus was
(Gods only be-
gotten one), yet he
’
abode among
us,’ and the evangelist
makes Jesus invite inquirers to come and see where he
dwelt’ (Jn.
One of these inquirers (Philip of
Bethsaida) seeks out
finds after seeking)
and says, ‘ W e have found him, of whom
Moses
in
the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of
Nazareth, the son of Joseph.’
Elsewhere
a
Galilean multitude is represented
as
murmuring at t h e
great Rabbi
(a.
25)
because he said that he had come
down from heaven, and gave life to the world
33
although he was ‘Jesus the son
of Joseph, whose father
and mother we know’
42).
Both these passages
suggest that Jesus bar Joseph was
a
common phrase
in some
of the primitive Christian tradition, and t h e
latter passage suggests the inquiry whether there
is
not
a
sense in which Jesus could have been the son of Joseph,
although the name of the husband of Mary was unknown.
T h e phrase
the sons of Jacob and Joseph’ (Ps.
does not mean the men called Reuben,
Simeon, Manasseh, Ephraim,
nor does
the son of Jabesh
( 2
K.
15
IO)
probably mean Shallum,
whose father, in the strictest sense, was called Jabesh.’
O n the analogy of such passages ‘Jesus the son
of
Joseph’ may mean ‘Jesus
a
member of the house of
Joseph’
It is true that the Jewish belief
in
a
Messiah ben-Joseph, the forerunner of the Messiah
ben-David, did not exist
as
a
developed scholastic
doctrine in the time
of
Jesus (see M
ESSIAH
), but some
of the germs of it may have appeared even then.
T h e
primitive Christians certainly seem to have traced Christ’s
origin to Galilee (see N
A Z A R E T H
) , and to have quoted
Is.
91
of his
birth (Mt. 223
Even
in
the latest of our Gospels we seem t o
find traces of
a division among the Jews in this respect,
some affirming that the holy one and
the prophet
could not proceed from Galilee (Jn.
1
46
others that Jesus
the Holy One,’ and
spoken
of
in the law and the prophets, although he was
6
(Jn. 145, and cp
According
to Mt.
1 3 5 5
Jesus, when
on
a visit to his
or fatherland (but
Cur. and Lewis, ‘ h i s
city
’),
was called
6
It is true t h a t
this was early understood to mean the son
of Joseph.’
Not only does Lk. substitute this phrase in
but
the Sinaitic Palimpsest does the same in Mt. 1355. T h e
phrase
however
simply
means
‘ a
carpenter’
and,
as
Mr. N.
has
already suggested, the phrase,
as used in the
tradition, may have meant
no
more than this (cp
S
ON
).
In this case, Jesus himself is the carpenter,
a
result
which agrees with the statement in Mk.
and is
in
accordance with what we should expect and desire.
T h e possibility must be admitted, however, that there
has been
a confusion between two Semitic roots
and
Elsewhere (see
N
AZARETH
) it h a s
been shown that
a
name for Galilee, or for a district in
Galilee, was
or
but that this was also written
or
Now the Aram.
(Heb.
c p
‘ a
saw’)
means ‘ t o saw,’
so
that ‘Jesus t h e
(Nasarene?) might be taken to’mean ‘Jesus,
the carpenter.’
Possibly, or probably, there was
a
play
upon
words.
A
mere carpenter, said the Jews
yes,
a carpenter- one of ourselves, said Christ’s poor.
The
opinion that Joseph died before
Jesus’ ministry began seems to be based
on
The accounts
the Apocryphal Gospels and similar writings
In
146,
for
read
See
the carpenter’s son.’
63 cp
and parallels.
in
for
read
G
ALILEE
, 5,
n.
but all in chaps.
a
section which
stands apart from the rest of
Gospel, and has nothing answering to it in Mk. or Jn.
The-most important is that in
because it refers to
Joseph
as
a
person well known by name to the reader
as
‘ t h e husband of Mary.’
In
Mt.
mentions the mother
of Jesus, but not his father.
Mk. nowhere, directly or indirectly, refers to Joseph.
(c) Lk. also mentions Joseph seven times, but only in
chaps.
It is true that one
of these references is
outside chaps.
1-3,
a
section which
(if we put aside
and
which are unique, and 31-22, which
corresponds to Mt. 3, and is properly speaking outside
the prelude of the fuller traditional Gospel)
is
in the
parallel to Mt.
In
the two narratives which
are here called unique, however, the father of Jesus is
twice referred to, without being named
6
and
[WH,
followed by RV]).
T h e last reference (Lk.
occurs in
a
narrative which
has evidently been expanded and
is
less accurate than
the tradition given in
Mk.
Mt. 1 3
54-58,
and may
perhaps be ascribed to the influence
of
chaps.
1-3
in
which Joseph
is
referred to by name.
Is not this the
son of
Joseph in Lk. corresponds to I s not this the
carpenter’ in
and Is not this the carpenter’s son
in Mt.
( d ) In Jn., Jesus is twice referred to
as
the
son
of Joseph
in the latter case with the addition,
whose father and mother
know.’
Thus the evidence that primitive Christian tradition
knew anything about the father of Jesus
is very slight,
and considering the high probability that the narratives
respecting the birth
of Jesus in Mt.
If.
Lk.
1
21-39
3
23-38 are partly Haggadic
or edifying tales like those
in the
(upon which, indeed,
Conrady thinks that the infancy narratives are based),
partly the offspring of the keen interest which post-exilic
displayed in real and imaginary genealogies (this
applies t o Mt.
11- 17
Lk.
3
23-38), it becomes the historical
student to confess that the name of the father of Jesus
is, to say the least, extremely imcertain.
I t would, however, be hasty to assert that there was
no
element
of
in the expression, ’Joseph the
husband of Mary,
of whom was born
Jesus, who
is
called Christ’ (Mt.
A
hint
may
perhaps be gained from the
two references in
T h e writer of this
Gospel says nothing of the birth-of Jesus a t
Cp. G
OSPELS
The
’of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, however: gives
‘Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary
the
Virgin.
Cp.
G
OSPELS
,
JQSEPHUS
JOSHUA
Perhaps Joshua is another form of
which in
I
Ch.
6 4
Ezra75 is the name
of
the son
of
Eleazar, b. Aaron.
and Joshua
are
associated in assigning the lands of the
Israelites (Josh. 19
and the burial-places of the two are
mentioned in the same narrative (Josh.
are both in
Mt.
Ephraim, and both probably contain the name Jerahmeel
(see T
IMNATH
-
HERES
; P
HINEHAS
). If
it was originally the
priestly and warlike tribe of Levi that was represented by
Joshua.
His name is
a
clan-name and should perhaps be read
Josheba or Abi-sheba (cp
where Sheba
probably an obscure divine name (see S
HEBA
). This
a
probable explanation of Joshua’s patronymic.
(N
UN
) may
he an abridged way of writing
(N
AHSHON
), which is a
Jerahmeelite name (cp Timnath-heres).
Even apart from these considerations the
character
of
Joshua as an individual is doubtful.
It was natural
to
provide Moses with attendants, and
to
give a name to the chief
of these
11
who was in training
to
become Moses’
successor. Nor
such
a
successor have a more suitable
name than
Eliezer (Ex.
Eleazar (Ex.
6
23
Josh.
24
the names of a
son
of Moses and of a son of Aaron
respectively. Naturally too he would he assigned to the tribe
which had the leadership in early times, and if Joseph was
originally (as Wi. maintains) a solar
it would not be
surprising if details
of
solar-mythical origin
themselves
to
the Joshua tradition; note in this connection the name
of
Joshua’s ‘inheritance’ (see above), if this really means ‘portion
of the sun.
At any rate, whether the name ‘Joshua’
is
a pure
invention or has its origin in a clan-name, the actions
ascribed to Joshua are purely legendary, unless indeed
the work of critics
on
the narratives which relate them
is a failure,
We.
n.
I
See I
SRAEL
,
7 ;
E
PHRAIM
.
6
; J
ERICHO
J
OSHUA
ii.
High-priest Hag.
1
I
Zech.
3
.
see
5.
A man of
(‘house
the sun,’ cp
serah’ above), in whose field the ark rested,
I
S.
Governor of Jerusalem, temp. Josiah,
K.
238
[L]).
JOSHUA (BOOK)
Name etc.
Analysis
7-10).
Redaction
Accounts of settlement
12-14).
Ultimate sources
Chronology
17).
Text
( 5
Literature
In the Hebrew Bible, Joshua is the first
of
the
four
historical books (Josh.,
S.,
K.
)
which make up the
first half
of
the canon of the Prophets,
and are hence called the
Prophets
I n Greek manuscripts, Josh., Judg., and Ruth are frequently
included with the Pentateuch
a codex (Octateuch)’ in the
Latin Church the same
books,
omission
of
are
often similarly united
In all these Josh. immedi-
ately follows the Pentateuch
;
hut in the Bible of the Syrian
Church this place is given
to
Job
(as
the work
of
Moses), and
Josh. stands next in order.
T h e book of Joshua, in narrating the conquest and
settlement
of
Canaan, records the fulfilment of the
promises to the patriarchs and the completion
of
the great movement of which the Exodus is the
beginning
it is thus the necessary continuation of the
Pentateuch, and must once have formed part
of
the
same historical work with the preceding five books.
In
recent critical investigations, therefore, the first six books
of
the
OT
(Hexateuch) are usually taken together
:
the
separation of Josh. from the Pentateuch in the Jewish
canon was due to the predominance of the legal point
of view
the books of Moses were law (Torah), while
Josh. was only history.
It need not be assumed, how-
ever, that the Hexateuch ever formed by itself a com-
plete historical work ending with the death of Joshua;
we know it only a s part of
a more comprehensive history
extending from the creation
of the world to the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem
in which Josh. is hardly
more
closely connected with the Pentateuch than with
the following books and the similarity
redactional
phenomena in Dt., Josh., and Judg. shows that this
connection is not one
of
mere sequence,
Canon.
See C
ANON
,
6.
2600
the
Death
see Forbes Robinson’s
Gospels
1896)
are
not
historical traditions at
all.
See
(for dates)
In
Sahidic
apocryphal Life of Joseph, which is strongly impregnated with
Egyptian ideas, the age of Joseph at his death is fixed a t
years. The ideal age for the close of life in Egypt was
years (see
J
OSEPH
Lk.
3 30
3
26
JOSECH
and Lk.
3
24,
names
of individuals in the genealogy of Jesus
G
ENEALOGIES
ii.,
7.
oseph
A n t .
2
43)
called
8.
foseph
(Acts
called B
ARSABAS
Joseph whose mother was Mary; br
AV
Mk.
6 3 ,
EV
Th
supported by
in Mt and by
Mk. See
$ 4 .
IO.
Acts
RV
;
see
[A]),
I
Esd.
JOSES,
RV J
OSEPH
.
(
I
)
Mt.
( I
[Ti.
6 3
[Ti.
see
4,
J
OSEPH
Acts436
see B
ARNABAS
.
31
probably
a
corruption of
JOSHIBIAH),
a Simeonite prince,’
I
JOSHAPHAT
abbrev. from
I
.
One of David‘s heroes, probably from
for
we can hardly help assuming
a
slight error in the
Mithnite,’ which should be
‘the Timnite,’
I
6.
see D
AVID
,
a.
AV
a Levite, temp. David,
I
Ch. 1524
JOSHAVIAH
probably a corruption
of
JOSHIBIAH),
a
name in David‘s army-list (D
AVID
,
favour the reading,
‘
Joshaviah his
instead
M T Jeshaviah, the
sons
of
Elnaam.’
JOSHBEKASHAH
according to the
Chronicler a son of
I
Ch.
B
AKATA
23
T. K. C.
JOSEPH,
4.
T. K.
C .
Cp
E
LNAAM
.
but see
RV.
See J
ASHOBEAM
.
a
(
I
Ch. 435 ;
AV
J
OSIBIAH
,
[BA],
[L]).
Cp
J
OSHAVIAH
.
JOSHUA
and (Nu.
Jehoshua
Dt. 3
Judg.
2
is
deliverance’;
N
AMES
,
55
27,
84,
but see below. I n
Nu.
138
16
Dt.
3244
we find
[see
but we cannot
venture to assume that
is really a traditional form, Nu.
23
proceeding from
and Dt.
32 44
being incorrectly read
[see Driver,
ad
I.
Son of N
U N
attendant
of
Moses, and one
of
his young men’ ( N u .
cp Josh.
I
),
traditional
leader of Israel in the conquest of Canaan.
H e is said
to have died a t the same age as the tribal hero Joseph
and to have been buried in his inheritance at
(Josh.
(Judg.
the hill-country of Ephraim.
In Nu.
1 3 8 1 6
he is said to have belonged to the tribe
of
Ephraim, and to have been called Hoshea (see above),
until Moses, on sending forth Hoshea among the other
spies,’ changed his name to Jehoshua.
According to
Budde, Judg.
states that Joshua accompanied the
house of Joseph’ in its invasion
of Mt. Ephraim.
Verse
however, favours
reading
out
of
which the reading J u d a h ’
etc.)
would easily arise.
At
any rate, ‘Joshua,’
if
correct,
ought in this context to be
a
clan-name.
From the time of the
Maccabees onwards the purely Greek name
JASON
was
commonly regarded by Hellenizing Jews
as
an equivalent of
Joshua.
JOSHIBIAH
God enthrones
usually
Whence the name
JESUS
JOSHUA (BOOK)
Thebooktakesits
from the name of the great
JOSHUA
(BOOK)
.
-
-
T
it
le
a
~~
leader whose achievements it relates (cp
the books of
T h e opinion that
Joshua is not only the hero but the author
of the book
3
-if not merely an inference from the title-
rests, presumably, upon a theory of Hebrew historio-
graphy like that set forth by Josephus
T h e book of Joshua begins, immediately after the death
of Moses (Dt.
with the command of God to Joshua,
who had already been appointed Moses’ successor
(Dt.
t o cross the Jordan it relates the conquest
and division of Canaan, and ends with the death
Joshua.
The book
naturally into two parts
:
the
invasion and conquest
and the allotment of the
land t o the several tribes
T h e first part closes
with a recapitulation of the Israelite conquests
E.
and
W.
of the Jordan
(12)
the second, with Joshua’s parting
charges and admonitions
.
The contents of the
book
may be summarised thus
:
crossinq
of
the Jordan; capture of Jericho
operations against
successful ruse of the
(9)
; victory over the
coalition of Canaanite kings, subjugationof the South
(10);
cam.
paign
the king
of
Hazor and his allies, subjugation
of
the North
(11)
recapitulation
(12).
of
the land
.
the
trans-Jordanic
Caleb
Judah
Ephraim’and
Manasseh
survey and allotment of the remaining
territory
to
the
tribes, Joshua’s own inheritance
;
designation of cities
of
levitical cities
(21) ;
dismissal
of the trans-Jordanic contingent
(22)
;
last exhortations of Joshua
(23);
assembly at Shechem, and covenant there; death and
burial of Joshua
(24).
Throughout the Pentateuch- from the first promise
t o
Abraham down to the vision of the dying Moses on
Mt. Nebo-the possession of the land
of
Canaan is kept steadily in view a s the goal
to
which the history is moving. T h e critical analysis
shows that this is true not only of the actual Pentateuch,
but also of all its sources, and
of every stage in the
redaction.
Thus, in
JE (J, E, and
are all represented), Gen.
263
etc.
Ex.38
also
JE
Nu.
32
and
Dt.
31
in
D
Do,
Dt. 31
cp also
in
35
484)
Ex.
Nu.
Dt.
I t is not conceivable that any of these sources broke
off
with the death
of Moses, a t the very moment when
the fulfilment
of
these promises and commands
was
about to begin
the conquest and settlement
of
Canaan
must have been more or less fully narrated in all
of
them.
On the other hand, the book of Joshua is con-
nected in the closest way, both materially and formally,
with the Pentateuch.
Cp Josh.
with Dt.
31
23
Josh. 1
12-15
with (Nu.
Dt.
3
Josh.
8
with Dt.
11
Josh.
with
Nu. 3 4 ‘
Josh.
with Nu
Dt.
osh.
with Nu.
27
Josh.
35
Since, furthermore, the book
is
obviously composite,
it is a natural inference that Josh. was compiled (in
the main) from the same sources as the five preceding
books ; and the critical analysis accordingly set itself to
distinguish these sources.
The problem has proved,
however, more difficult than might have been anticipated,
and upon some important points opinion is still much
divided.
T h e hook opens with a deuteronomic introduction
and has
a
similar close
23)
evidence of
deuteronomic redaction is found in both
partsof the book-much moreabundantly,
a s would be expected, in the narrative chapters
(1-12)
than in the statistical account of the possessions of the
On
tht origin of this form see
N
U N
.
so
Theodoret and others.
3
and ninny.
of the opinion, which has been maintained in
recent tilhes by some Roman Catholic scholars
L.
is sought in
I
K.
34 ;
cp also Josh.
24
26.
5
De
Wette
’45)
was
the first
to
extend the analysis
to
Josh.
see Hollenberg,
47462
Albers
Geddes and others had seen that Josh:
was put together in
same way as the Pentateuch.
2601
tribes
I t is clear, therefore, that the basis
of
our book is a deuteronomic history of Joshua,
that of
the following book is a deuteronomic history of the Judges
(originally including Eli and Samuel).
Indeed, the
two books are connected in such
a
a s to suggest
that, a t one stage
of the ’redaction, a t least, they were
united in a single work-a deuteronomic history
of
Israel
from the invasion of
to the establishment of
the kingdom.
Josh.
1-12
has come down to
us
substantially as it
was in the deuteronomic book
the
of the priestly
editors
is
here limited to some minor
changes in phraseology and the insertion
of
a
few verses
54- 7
7 1
some
of which may be derived from
P
(so probably
17-21),
whilst others are additions of
or later
diaskeuasts.
I n
13-24
the share of
P
is much larger
the description of the territories of the several tribes in
1 3 - 1 9
is
in great part from this source, a s are also the
cities of refuge
(20)
and the catalogue of levitical cities
is
of still later
T h e narrative in the deuteronomic book is not itself
deuteronomic.
As
in Jndg., it is taken from older
sources, the hand of the compiler or editor
appearing, aside from the introduction and
close, chiefly in
a
consistent heightening
of the colours, and in enlargements on the moral
and religious aspects of the history.4 T h e materials
incorporated by the deuteronomic historian are not
homogeneous ; in
1 3 - 1 9
there are considerable fragments
of a n
of the conquest which, like Judg.
repre-
sented it, not a s the work of Joshua a t the head of all
Israel, but as slowly and incompletely achieved by the
several tribes; and in
1 - 1 2
(particularly in
1-9)
it is
possible to distinguish a n older and simpler account of
the invasion from
a
later version of the same story in
which
a
tendency to magnify the events and exaggerate
the miraculous character of the history is conspicuous.
there is a similar relation between J and
E
in the
history of the
and since, a s we have seen above,
both J and
E
must have included the conquest
of Canaan,
the natural hypothesis is that in Josh. also the older
version
of
the story is derived from
the younger from
E.6
To
some critics, however, this presumption appears to be
refuted by other considerations
E.
and
hold-
ing that
J knew nothing of Joshua, must for this reason regard
J as excluded from the greater part of Josh.
1-12.
Kuenen,
on
the contrary, maintains that the representation of the conquest
Josh.
(E)
differs
so
radically from that in
1-12
as
to
prevent our ascribing any considerable part
of
these chapters to
that
Kuenen also thinks that the diverse materials
have been more completely fused than is common
Penta-
teuch ; in
they can in part be distinguished, but in
6-11
they
are inseparable.
T h e reasons urged for the exclusion
of
J
or
E
from
the analysis d o not outweigh the strong antecedent
probability created by the relation of Josh.
to
the Penta-
teuch, and the impression which the composition of
Josh. itself makes.
I t
is
no more improbable that the
historians
(J)
should have adopted Ephraimite
traditions about Joshua than that they should have
On
deuteronomic element
Josh.
see Hollenberg,
with whom the modern period of investigation begins
p.
Kue.
Di.,
Alhers.
On the deuteronomistic phraseology Kue.
H e x . 7,
n.
26
nn. 4
;
Holzinger,
Hex.
34
;
in Smith’s
1
See
J
UDGES
14.
On
P in
see
;
Kue.
Hex.
6,
n.
cp
n.
; Di.
4
See
3.
J
and
E
in Josh. by Schr.,
Vatke, Co.,
7
See
1136
161.
H e x . 8
n.
cp
13
Ki.,
Dr., Bennett, and others.
Cp also We.
Against this view see Bu.
Sa.
Kue.
Hex.
I
.
Albers.
See
also
Bu.
Sa.
who
in
J ,
epigoni of the Yahwistic
and
2602
JOSHUA
(BOOK)
JOSHUA
(BOOK)
t h e legends
of the Ephraimite holy places i n
the
patriarchal story.'
Even if we should admit that
the
contradiction between Josh.
and the representa-
tion in
1 - 1 2
is
as irreconcilable as
thinks,
E
is
not
such
a
homogeneous a n d consistent
that such
a
discrepancy is inconceivable in it.
The
,question can
be decided
only
by
the analysis itself.
T h e
difficulty of
the
analysis arises
not so
much from the
intimate fusion of the sources, which
are
not more closely
than in many parts
of
the Pentateuch,- the
accounts
of the exodus, for example,-but from
the
fact
that the two narratives were originally so much alike,
a n d that the younger version
of
the
story
is
here
on the older.
In chap.
1,
the deuteronomic introduction to the book, a kernel
older narrative
(E)
is contained in
The
nomistic element is not all from one
7.
Albers ascribes
7f: 176 186
to D
B
(the author
of Dt.
4
the rest
t o
D
A
(author of Dt.
The dependence of the latter
element on Dt. is to be noted
3-5a =
Dt.
11
56
6
dep.
o n Dt.
31
esp.
7f:
;
with Dt.
(not Nu.
32
2,
the story of the spies, the words of Rahab
96-11
are
a
deuteronomistic expansion, with reminiscences
439
(cp Ex.
15)
and of Dt. 2
IO,
cp also Josh. 5
I
24
is also deuterono-
mistic. The main narrative
in part,
6
8-9a 12-14 18-21)
comes
from the older source
;
with this is combined
a
second account
in part,
7
[El);
17
is editorial
32
seems to connect immediately with
(E); the
sending of the spies stood in an earlier place, perhaps before
(Albers) or before
1
In the account of the crossing of
seems
t o be later
a
connected deuteronomic narrative
is not
to
be
recognised. The conflation of two sources is apparent
:
at 317
the crossing is completed, in
4
the narrative has only reached
the same point
;
in
48
(cp
the stones are erected
at
Gilgal
whilst according to
4 9
they were piled up in the middle of
river.
The fuller narrative is here from E remains of the
briefer account of J are found in
5
Additions
to
both sources and harmonistic modifications may be recognised
4 2
seem to be displaced, the words would naturally stand
(in E) after
3 8.
869
contain an account (probably from
E)
of
the
circumcision of the Israelites
4.7
are an editorial amplifica-
tion
(later
than
designed to remove the natural impression
of the original narrative, that this was the introduction of the
rite
is from P
;
from
J (the sequel
a
plan for the
capture of Jericho, is to be sought in
6)'
introduced by
a n editor
R
D
)
from
Ex.35,
conformity with the
tendency at
a
certain stage of the redaction to
Joshua
the double
of
Moses.
In
the taking of Jericho, Wellhausen's analysis with slight
is generally adopted the shorter
simpler
narrative, rightly ascribed by most critics
to
J ,
is found in
( 2 3
The other version (E) has been heightened and
b y later hands
to
may be attributed
5 7a
(Albers) ;
R
J
E
apears in
also
or
in
176
246
R
D
in
27 ;
the
untimely
in
13
is probably still later, cp
cp also Josh.
23.
*
7
in part,
r7a
from
Judg.
7.
Traces
of
post-exilic hands are found in
7
I
186
(probably
not
from
P,
but merely late variants to
The remainder of
the chapter, which comes from J, exhibits some redundancies
in
24-26,
cp
;
but these
are
probably due
to
repeated
redaction rather than
to
the conflation of parallel narratives
t h e expansion of Joshua's prayer and the answer
is
also
t o
be ascribed to an editor.
I n
8 - 1 1
the views of critics diverge even more widely
in
the
preceding chapters
whilst Hollenberg,
Wellhausen, Meyer, a n d
Stade make
the narrative dependent o n
E,
nearly
quite
to the
exclusion
of
Kuenen
and Budde
derive it mainly from
J
(and
a n d Dillmann, Albers,
a n d
trace both sources through the chapters.
In 1-29 the analysis has very slight clues
to
work with, and
the results are
uncertain.
The chief source
seems to be
J
;
other
be recognised in
IO
(traces)
2628.6
The work of re-
dactors is seen in
I
f:
(chiefly deuteronomistic, but not
See below,
$ 1 5 .
On
the evidence of
a
double deuteronomistic redaction see at
t h e end of
I O
and
('86).
[The references
to
circumcision,
'the second time,' are probably due
t o
t o
4
Note the variations of
in this chapter, esp. in
5
Bndde ascribes this strand in a somewhat different analysis
2603
geneous),
76
27
33
The erection
of the altar on Mt. Ebal
stands in an impossible place.
introduce the'passage after
but with no
connection
;
Josephus and the Samaritan
(chap.
21)
put
this ceremony where
it is historically conceivable, after the
completed conquest. The verses are a comparatively recent
deuteronomistic addition
to
the book
;
they have been enlarged
and retouched by still later hands
(33
; the blessing
the
curse,'
9,
the ruse of the Gibeonites,
17-21
are of priestly
character ;
a
deuteronomistic hand is seen
the first
words)
27
in part. There is general agreement that the
chief
J
note the resemblance to Gen.
(ob-
serve
esp.
Josh.
9
and the relation to
I
Sam.
21 @
(J).
From
10
it appears that
also
related that the Gibeonites made
peace with Israel
;
traces of this source are, therefore, perhaps
to be recognised in
9
8
though in themselves
these verses might be editorial glosses
to
In the history of the war in the South (chap.
verses
8
25
are deuteronomistic; slight traces of the
priestly redaction are
also
discernible. Since in
the Israelite
armyreturns to Gilgal most critics ascribe
to another hand
;
Kittel and others
to E (slight contamination in
16-27
to J ; but the obvious dependence of
16-27
on
makes strongly against this partition. Wellhausen regards
as
secondary in JE, Budde
as
tertiary in J (later than
28-39 43).
It is
a
simpler hypothesis that
which should
stand after
has been misplaced
presumably in
connection with the intrusion of
Nothing then stands
in the way of attributing
to the author of
(E). The
poetical prayer of Joshua in
13a
is
from the old book
of
the setting in which the lines now stand is given
them by
R
D
,
or perhaps
whose fondness for poetical
has often been remarked
;
nothing points
to
28-39,
describing Joshua's further conquests in the South, are
obviously secondary, and are usually ascribed
to R
D
,
though
there are no decisive indications of
or
R
J
E
would be possible ; an underlying source
is
surmised by
Kittel and others
are a deuteronomistic general summary.
parallel to the war with Adonizedek and his allies is preserved
in an abridged form in Judg.
14-8
(cp also
9-15).
Chap.
11, a
counterpart in contents and form to
10,
relates the
conquest'of Northern Palestine. To the deuteronomistic author
are attributed
perhaps
also
6
and touches in
;
23
are
of
later origin. The chief
E
fragments
of
parallel
to
the war with
are combined with the
history of the struggle with Sisera in Jndg.
4.
seem
to
be a secondary addition to
(as
is to
10
1-27),
prob-
ably hy
or
R
J
E
subsequently worked over, with the rest
of
the chapter, by
Chap.
12 is a
of the conquests
E.
a n d
W.
of
the
Jordan
2-6
depend o n Dt.
14-17
c p
Josh.
the superscription of the following
catalogue of cities resembles
11
17.
Both parts of
the
chapter
are late a n d without historical value.
In
1 3 - 1 9
we
find some fragments of
J
;
1 3 1 3
1963
These are
plainly
taken from
a
context similar
to Judg.
1,
and
were
inserted in
their
present connection
by
a late redactor.
131
was the introduction in JE
to
an allotment such as
in twice redacted form we have in
Dt.
are deuteronomistic cp Dt.
3
Josh.
12
the description of the
unconquered territory in
is
also
deuteronomistic
whether by the same hand
as
or not (cp Jndg.
3 3) ;
so
ably
7
(cp
Verses
15-32
(with the title
146
are from P
and
has been worked over.
is from
P
34,
esp.
probably preceded by a general title
which now stands in
18 ;
the corresponding subscription is
19
cp
13
.
in its present form deuteronomistic,
related to
1
has perhaps
a
basis of E
defines the boundaries of the tribe of Judah,
enumerates the cities and towns
its several regions; the
list is probably based on an older (JE) list, traces of which still
appear here
'there.
In
territories of Joseph),
from
J
16
17
8
are at variance with the presumptions of
and must in substance be derived from J E
the re-
mainder is from
P, with additions by
T h e
a n d confusion of chaps.
compared
1 5
(Judah)
and
18
(Benjamin),
with the description
of
the
territories of the Northern
Tribes (note the absence of the
list of cities in Ephraim
a n d Manasseh), must
be
attributed
to
late abridgment ;
Note in this chapter also the variations of
See Hollenberg,
47
('74);
Kue.
3
Di. is an exception.
15
is repeated in
it
was originally lacking in both
5
See
A
S
HFR
[B
OO
K OF]
Kue.
I. Sack,
Hex. 7,
n.
n.
places in
it
2604
JOSHUA (BOOK)
JOSHUA (BOOK)
similar abridgment may with good reason be suspected
in the account of the conquest
where we now
find nothing about the conquest of Central
Chap.
contain a survey of the land and allot-
ments to the remaining tribes.
18
I
(P
or
secondary) conflict with
the
presumptions of P the obviously
historical character of the transaction has led somecritics toascribe
the verses
as a
whole
to
R
J
E
(Kuenen) or
(Albers); but, the
representation is not D's, more probably the passage is derived
substantially from E
Kittel etc.)
;
the original scene
of the transaction was
has been supplanted in
I
P s
Shiloh (cp
in 24
I
).
'The idea of
a
division of land by
lot
the conquest) comes from J (Judg.
1,
see below,
and
successively heightened
E
and
P ;
it may even be
conjectured that traces of
representation have been pre-
served in
in the present form of
the
verses both R
JE
and
Ru may have
had a
hand. In what follows
the
older source (E) may be recognised, especially in the
19117,
and others), further, in
and
but it
is not possible to partition the material in the lists between E
and P, probably because
is here directly dependent upon E ;
it can only be said that E's description of the territories of the
several tribes was in the form of
a
catalogue of cities
(189
is
P s
closing formula for the whole, corresponding
to
I
.
Chaps.
are composite.
The appointment of the cities of refuge in 20
is from
supplemented in
8
by
a
very late hand from Dt.
Chap. 21
1-42
cities
as.
Chaps.
signed
to
the priests and Levites, is
also
from
P
;
20 and
21 1-42
correspond to the two parts
of Nu.
35,
cp Josh.
43-45
D's
conclusion to the occupation of the land originally followkd
; 22
also
deuteronomistic and
on Dt.
perhaps not wholly by the same hand;
7f:
is of
late;
Chap.
belongs to the most recent stratum
in the Hexateuch; its resemblance to
in
and
to
Judg. 20 has often been pointed out ; cp
also
the late work-
ing over of Gen. 34 and
Ex.
16.
Chap.
23
is the close of the deuteronomic book
of
Joshua,
originally followed immediately
on
21
I t not only corresponds'in position to the
parting exhortations of Moses, Dt.
4
but
so closely
resembles them in thought and diction as t o raise the
question whether they are not by the same author ;
c p also the farewell address of
(
I
12).
Chap.
24
contains the similar conclusion to
history of Joshua.
This conclusion has reached us only in deuteronomic redac-
tion, which may most certainly
be
recognised in
(cp
232)
Dt.
and
(cp Dt.
and in slighter touches
deuteronomistic colour in several other verses ; the seven nations
are editorial
or
;
are later glosses ;
96
are perhaps
also
T h e chapter must have been omitted by
author
of
2 3 ,
and restored by a later deuteronomistic editor
(cp the case of Judg.
1 9
Its
of the
Elohistic history is of great value.
concludes
narrative;
32
from the same source, is a
natural appendix.
contains further additions
see
below,
18.
J
and
E
appear
in
Josh. 1-12 to have been united,
not
by the deuteronomistic author
himself, but,
cp Josh.
is the
of
as in the Pentateuch, by a n earlier,
redactor
it is not improbable,
however, that
like
of the introduction to
Dt., had
E
separately, and used it, to the exclusion of
in
10-12
As
in the other deuteronomistic
histories, the religious comment and pragmatism which
introduced invited expansion by similarly-minded
editors or scribes; and the presence
of a secondary
deuteronomistic element in the book is generally
nised, though it
is
not always possible to distinguish
We.
with much probability conjectnres that this
mutilation bad
in hostility to the Samaritans ;
cp
Kue.
Hex.
n.
see
cp
; Hollenberg,
22,
see Kue.
Th. T 11
('77).
See Hollenberg
('74).
Mention
made of
conjecture that the
covenant referred to in
(cp
was made
the
Book of the Covenant,'
Ex.
21-23 (in its original form); see
Hex.
2605
it with certainty.
This secondary stratum is akin
to
the younger parts of Dt. (esp.
4
A
peculiar
deuteronomistic colour belongs also to the very latest
redaction of Josh.
T h e union of the deuteronomistic
Josh. with P was the work of
nothing
in
the
method of combination militates against the supposition
it was effected by the same hand
as in
Nu.,
though
this can hardly be proved.
A
late addition of haggadic
character cognate to
Nu.
etc. is found in Josh.
cp
20.
Still more recent, probably, is the
mutilation of
T o what stage in the redaction the
restoration of
24
and the interpolation of the fragments
of J in
13-19
belong cannot be determined.
Slight
and changes in the text continued
to
be made
even after the time of the Greek translation.
T h e
fragments of P preserved in Josh.
1-12
lead
us
to suppose that in P the conqnest of Western
Palestine was narrated summarily
without detail,
as
was that of Eastern
Palestine
(P
in
Nu.
war with the Midianites
in
Nu.
is later than P ) ;
as
in the history of
the exodus,
P
supposes readers familiar with the older
narratives.
From
we see that the whole land has
been subdued.
T h e congregation
then assembles
a t Shiloh, and sets up
tabernacle
Eleazar and
Joshua, with the heads of families, divide the land by
lot to the nine tribes and a half
(14
I
) .
T h e boundaries
of the tribal territories, beginning with Judah, are
minutely defined, in dependence
on an older description
with which P is here combined.
P s
doomsday book has
not been preserved intact for Ephraim and Manasseh
little more than the skeleton remains (see above,
It is characteristic that the priest Eleazar everywhere
takes precedence of Joshua.
T h e older of the two chief sources of the deuterono-
mistic history of the conquest (in our analysis, J ) gives
substantially the following representation.
From Shittim,
E.
of the Jordan, Joshua
sends spies to Jericho.
The spies take lodging with Rahah, who
saves
their lives and
receives in return
a
pledge of protection when the city is taken.
The Israelites encamp on the hanks
the Jordan; Joshua
orders them to purify themselves for the holy war, and predicts
that
will work wonders for them. They cross the river,
the waters being miraculously stayed in their course,
so
that they
pass over on dry ground.
At Joshua's
command they take twelve stones from the midst of the river
and set them up at their first halting-place (Gilgal). Joshua
has
a
vision of the 'Captain of
s
host who reveals to
him
a
plan for the capture of Jericho. The fighting men march
round the
city
without any demonstration, and return to camp ;
this
is repeated for six days ; on the seventh, Joshua
gives the signal for
assault.
T h e Israelites storm the city, which is taken by
surprise
into their hands
they slaughter the
inhabitants- sparing only
R
A
HAB
)
and her house-
hold-and burn the city.
Spies sent
to
Ai report that it will be easy to take the place'
but the division sent against it is badly 'defeated
;
anger has been provoked by the
appropriation
of part of
the
spoils of Jericho, the contagious
has
infected the whole people the guilty man is discovered
lot
and put
to
death.
Ai is then taken by a familiar stratagem (cp Judg.
20).
T h e Gibeonites deceive the Israelites by pretending to
come from a great distance, and secure the protection
of
a
treaty.
Thus far, in this source,
as in later representations,
acts
as
one body, under the leadership of Joshua
after the destruction
of
Ai
the army returns to Gilgal,
which is the scene of chap.
9.
The remains of
J in
Judg.
1
(and parallels
in Josh.
represent the
conquest of Canaan
as
the work of the several tribes
independently- Judah and Simeon in the
Joseph in
the central highlands.
There
also, however, the tribes
set out for the subjugation
of the interior from the same
point
in the Jordan valley (Gilgal, Judg.
2
I
cp Jericho,
Precisely the same stratagem
is
said
to
have been employed
by
the
Roman general
Calvinus
at
the siege of Luna,
a
fortified town of the
;
see Frontinus,
I.
See
J
E
R
I
C
H
O
,
4.
2606
JOSHUA
(BOOK)
it is assumed that the region which each is to
subdue has previously been determined by lot (Judg.
and the order in which they shall invade their several
territories is decided by the oracle (Judg.
f.).
Judg.
1
must, therefore, have been preceded by a n
account of the crossing of the Jordan by the united
tribes and the taking of Jericho, and there
is
thus no
conflict
the oldest narrative in Josh. 1-6 and
Judg.
1.
T h e operations against
present
greater difficulty for, as that city was in the immediate
neighbourhood of Bethel, the war against it would seem
properly to belong to the particular history of the
conquests of Joseph (cp Judg.
Although,
however, the historical probability that the taking of
Ai
was accomplished
Joseph alone must be conceded,
it is
a
hazardous inference that our oldest source must
have
so
narrated i t ; in fact, both
7
and
9
show that
J
represented it a s the work of all Israel.
As
has been already noted, J in Judg.
1
supposes
that their territories had been assigned to Judah and
Joseph, a t least, before the invasion it is possible that
this source originally
a
brief description of
these territories; the enumeration in Judg.
1
(and
parallels in Josh.) of the cities which the several tribes
were unable to reduce may he thought to presume such
a description.
Fragments of
account of the war
(of
Judah and Simeon) with the king of Jerusalem and of
the war
(of
Zebulun and Naphtali?) with the king of
Hazor
preserved in Judg.
1
and
4
the conquests
and settlements
of Caleb, Simeon, and the Kenites
in the
S . ,
and the taking of Bethel by Joseph, a r e
related in Judg.
1
(cp Josh.
and it can
scarcely he doubted that this source also contained a t
least brief and summary accounts of the movements
of
the northern tribes (cp Judg.
1 3 0
T h e narrative
may have closed with a general statement of the
incompleteness of the conquest such as underlies Judg.
(see J
UDGES
,
5).
I n Joshua, a s frequently, the earliest written account
has determined all the subsequent representations.
The second chief source of the deuteronomistic
history of Joshua is manifestly dependent
on
the older narrative, whose representation it consistently
Thus, the conquests of Judah and the
kindred clans, and of the
tribes, are ascribed
t o
Israel in two great campaigns the gradual sub-
jugation of the Canaanites by the several tribes as it
appears in J becomes the complete conquest of Western
Palestine by Joshua (corresponding to that of Eastern
Palestine by Moses in the same source), and-at least
in the later strata of E- the annihilation of the whole
native population.
For the determination by lot, at
Gilgal, of the region to be invaded by the several tribes
we have a formal survey, and division of the conquered
land, a t Shechem, to the seven tribes and a
T h e
miraculous element in the history is exaggerated, and
takes
on
a more magical form, as in the crossing of the
Jordan (cp J
O R D A N
,
and especially in the account
of the taking of Jericho, where a military stratagem is
transformed into
a religious procession, and the walls of
the doomed city crumble into dust at the blast of the
sacred trumpets and the shouts of the people (see
J
ERICHO
,
3 ) .
T h e relation of the younger narrative to
the older one here is entirely similar to that
we
find in .the history of the Egyptian plagues and the
crossing of the Red Sea (see
E
XODUS
3
iv.])
and this fact strengthens the presumption that the
secondary version in Joshua also comes from
E.
Elements of independent historical value, derived from
sources other than
are not to he discovered in the
younger narrative.
T h e special Ephraimite interest
appears in the increased prominence given to Joshua.
From the point of
view of
historical criticism,
it is
therefore
It
is possible that for this last also there
was
some point of
of no
consequence
whether the
second source be E
or
connection in
J.
JOSHUA
(BOOK)
T h e redactors naturally adopt
conception
of the
history, and exaggerate its unhistorical features, the
deuteronomistic author in particular never failing to
emphasise the unsparing thoroughness with which
Joshua obeys the command to extirpate the Canaanites.
T h e disposition to make Joshua
a
double of Moses has
also been noted.
Behind the oldest account of the conquest ( J ) lies, a s
in Gen. and in Ex.-Nu., not
a
specifically
tradition, but the common Israelite
tion, the product of
a
fusion which
doubtless began in the time of the united
kingdom,
which the Ephraimite element naturally
preponderates over that which is distinctively of Southern
origin.
In Josh.
2-9
the ultimate basis is probably in
large part the local tradition of Gilgal (Stade). ( T h e
particular
interest is only occasionally to h e
discerned, as,
in
In this tradition the
Ephraimite hero Joshua is the successor of Moses
and
the leader of Israel in the first period of the invasion
all the tribes cross the Jordan a t
time and place
Judah and the allied clans enter their territory from the
NE.; the Galilean tribes were perhaps thought of a s
following in the wake of Joseph and reaching their seats
through the highlands of Ephraim.
T h e question how far this representation corresponds
to
the actual facts is one for historical criticism. I t is
not only antecedently more probable that Caleb and its
kindred clans,
as
well a s the Kenites, entered t h e
country from the
S.
traces of such a tradition seem t o
be preserved,
in
Nn.
Whether the same
is
true of Judah and Simeon (Graf, Kue., Land, Tiele,
Doorn., and others) is more doubtful.
T h e lower fords
of the Jordan, opposite Jericho, may have been the
place of some memorable passage
Israelite tribes
but it is in the highest degree improbable that they all
crossed there.
T h e invasion was not even in its first
stage
a
concerted movement
it was a series of irrup-
tions, with varying success,
as
the catastrophe which
befell Simeon and Levi in their attempt on Shechem
(Gen.
34
495-7) proves.
Thus even the oldest account of the invasion cannot
be accepted without question
as
embodying a sound
historical tradition
it shows very plainly the working
of that process
of concentration which is observed in
all legend, the tendency t o ascribe to one man, one
generation, one stroke of arms what was
in
fact t h e
result of a long
Of the age of J there are few definite indications in
Josh.
T h e curse laid by Joshua
on the site of Jericho
(626) is connected with something which
happened (see
in the reign of
Ahab
(circa
B
.C.
I
K.
1634) the treatywith
the Gibeonites is older than the time
of
S.
and may be probably referred to the period of the south-
ward expansion of Joseph (formation of Benjamin) in
the preceding century; the imposing upon
of
the supply of wood for the temple-which was, we may
surmise, the original meaning of
cp
be-
long to the time of Solomon, who imposed various
charges upon the subject Canaanites
(
I
K.
Judg.
30
35,
and see
In striking contrast to Judg. the Book of Joshua
has
no
chronological scheme.
We are
not
told
how many years
were
consumed in the
of
the
land,
nor how long Joshua lived after the end
the
wars. in both
cases we
read only that
17.
Chronology.
' a
(11
18
I
).
From
it may
be calculated
that
from
the
crossing
of
the
Jordan to
the
assignment
of
Hebron
to
Caleb (after the
conquest
was
completed) there had elapsed
seven
years
or
if,
with
Josephus,
following
in
Josh,
5 we allow
forty
full years
This,
it should
be
ohserved, was
a
necessary consequence
of
the
representation
in the
Pentateuch,
in
which
Moses leads
all
Israel
to
the
plains of
Moab.
A n
instructive parallel
to
Josh. is found in the Greek
legends
of the
Dorian invasion
of
the Peloponnesus ('return
of
the
partition
of the
land
by
lot,
etc.
2608
JOSHUA (BOOK)
JOSIAH
from the sending out
of
the spies from Kadesh-barnea to the
crossing of the Jordan five years. Other computations are based
upon
I
K.
I
from the exodus to the building of the
temple). in this way there were reckoned out for
by
the earl; Christian chronologists
27
years in
28
by Josephus,
25 ;
by Eupolemus, followed by
30.
More probably the author of
I
K.
allowed Joshua
40
years ;
but there is no trace of this system in Josh.
T h e Hebrew text of Josh. is fairly well preserved.
Certain consistent variations in its orthography
Pent.
;
Pent.
show that
the text of Josh. was edited by different
hands from the Pentateuch.
T h e Greek version of
Josh. was not made
translators of the Pentateuch
;
it is not conspicuously inferior to that of the Pentateuch
either in knowledge of Hebrew or in fidelity of render-
ing.
T h e Hebrew text from which
was made was
not very different from M T but it was free from some of
the latest glosses in M T (cp
5
4-7
6
3-5
4-6),
and some-
times had a n intact text where there is now
a
in
Hebrew
in
15
59,
where the names of eleven cities
have fallen out from Hebrew, and
[ M T between
35
and
where many Hebrew codd. and edd. also
insert the missing levitical cities in Reuben) in varia-
tions
not infrequently exhibits the
reading.
additions a t the end of chap.
24
are of some
interest, especially the last, which seems to show that
the author had
a
book of Judges which began with the
story of Ehud (the
is made in the
Samaritan Josh. chap.
T h e Samaritans possess a n uncanonical Book
of
Joshua in Arabic, professedly translated from
a
Hebrew
original.4
I t
with the consecration
of
Joshua
as
Moses'
(Dt.
after which is narrated (from Numbers) the story of
Balaam and the war upon the Midianites
which Joshua is the commander of the
Josh.
Israelite army).
Then, with
a
new title
('Here begins the Book
of
Joshua the son
of
Nun'), it relates in
its
own way the conquest and division
of
the land.
to
the death of
and continues to the death of
is
and
to
of
sect
rule.
of
I
Jo.
20.
hyp
in
See Di.
439
;
250.
See
ZWT
On the
version of
see Hollenberg,
des
Buches
ikr
(Programm), Moers,
'76
; cp
T W
. . .
cui
Ed.
'48.
'The
of
Joshua in Hebrew
'95
analysis in
colours),
The Book
of
Josh.
Pentateuch,'
('98);
G. A.
Smith, art. Joshua' in Hastings'
2
('99);
J.
E.
Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby,
G .
F.
M.
Zech.
'God supports'
[Ges.]
[for another derivation see Hommel,
A N T 83
king of Judah
before the rapid decline and
fall of the state
(2
K.
Ch.
If the
in
and
are correct, he was only
a
boy of eight when
the people of the land'
perhaps the men capable of bearing arms) placed him
on the throne in succession to his father Amon.
Of the first years of his reign we know nothing.
Probably the earlier events recorded in the annals did
JOSIAH
not, from the redactor's point of view,
deserve to be remembered. Of course
Assyria was no longer troublesome
but we should like to have been informed a s to the
nature of the
in the temple, and a s
to
the
Scythian invasion referred to by
(1
In the eighteenth year of Josiahs reign, however,
something occurred which affected the redactor very
deeply
:
it was not
so
much the attention given by the
king to the fabric of the temple (the royal sanctuary ;
cp Am.
7
a s the finding of
a book called
(
the book of direction
in the house of
See
D
E
U
T
ER
ONO
M
Y
,
2f:
The account of this 'finding' and
of
the effect it produced
on
Josiah is very disappointing. The section, K.
contains
some passages which were certainly not as they now stand in the
original narrative
it is silent
ab
to various point: about
we feel
a
legitimate curiosity.
next
which describes the details
of
the reformation, is much fuller
but by no means free from difficulty. Without an
investigation, we could not adopt from either section more than
this-that long after Josiah's accession a recast and development
of
Yahwistic laws was brought from the temple to Josiah, and
that the king adopted it and imposed it by force upon his people
having first of all obtained an endorsement
of
the
the book by a prophetess of high repute (see
I
T h e thirteen years which followed the reformation
were monotonously peaceful.
N o foreign exactions
hampered the industry of the subjects, and the king
won the highest praise a s a jnst and God-fearing ruler
This prosperity, however, arose from circumstances
which could not last, and in
608
a
storm burst upon
the little kingdom.
It
was the imminent
partition of the
empire that
was the cause.
Neco
the young and
king of Egypt, had not forgotten the
:lories of Thotmes and Rameses, and started soon
his accession to reconquer Canaan,
and
Syria.
His first object was to lay his hand on the
iorthern territories
the strong southern fortress of
he meant to leave till his return.
Josiah
however, appears to have had political plans of a
character
he was probably not such
a
as he is represented in the Old
nent.
T h e mortal sickness of Assyria may have given
hopes of restoring the old Davidic kingdom
it
is
that at the time of the reformation he exercised
sovereign rights in Bethel and the cities of Samaria
2
K.
This is not impossible, though fuller
would be desirable. W e may also presume
hat he was subject to a sad illusion relative to the
rewards
of righteousness.
H e had the courage
alone or with allies) to meet the Egyptian king, and
have two accounts of what took place.
Kittel,
( H i s t .
explains, 'the party
of
the
people ; he supposes that the
of
was
by friends
of
the reform movement, which ultimately
the original Deuteronomy.
On this subject and
on
the possible allusions to the Scythians
the
Books
of
Zephaniah, and Ezekiel, see
J E R E M I A H
i.,
and cp Che.
and
30.38
;
2610
JOSIAH
JOTHAM
The ‘father of history’ tells
us
(from
that Neco
‘made war by land on the Syrians and defeated them in
a
pitched battle at
or
after which he took
Kadytis,
a
large city of Syria’ (Herod.
2
however, have misunderstood his informants, for Magdolos
obviously the Egyptian
whither Josiah is not at
all likely to have gone to seek Neco. Apparently Herodotus
confounds Megiddo with Magdolon, just as he confounds
Cadytis-Gaza with the Syrian Cadytis-Kadesh.
I t
states that Neco was o n his way to meet the king of
Assyria’ (see Schr.
a t the Euphrates when
Josiah went to meet him and fell in battle a t Megiddo.
T h e account
is
strangely short, a n d is unfortunately
not free from corruption.’ A later writer
Ch.
35
however, gives
a
fuller narrative.
Neco, it is said,
sent
an
embassy to Josiah, explaining that he
had
no
quarrel with Josiah,
and
that h e had been directed b y
a n oracle to g o to the Euphrates t o battle;
fate, if he makes opposition, will be due to his own
folly. Josiah, however, was bent o n war, a n d though
Neco’s words were dictated
by
the true God, he hearkened
not to them.
A
battle ensued in the plain of Megiddo
(Jos.
Ant.
x.
I
,
says
T h e archers
shot a t Josiah,
and
wounded him fatally.
H e was
bronght
in
his second chariot to Jerusalem.
An inspection of this narrative of the Chronicler shows that
(down to ’from the mouth of God’) are
Herodotus must
T h e
Hebrew account is in
K.
and the analogy of similar
suggests
that they must have been inserted from
in
2
Ch.
another source. Was that source
a
trust-
worthy one? No
;
it is
too
clear that the
insertion is midrashic and imaginative.
The idea of the
embassy of deprecation is taken from
K.
; that of the
oracle is characteristic of the Chronicler and his circle that
Neco should he represented
as
in communication with God
would not be strange in
an
age which nourished itself on Jeremiah
(cp Jer.276); but more probably Neco is supposed to have
heard of
a
prophecy of
3
Esd.
1
just
as
Cyrus is
supposed to have done in Ch.
3623.
The speech ascribed
to
the
wounded king is modelled on
I
K.
2234
(see C
HRONICLES
,
W h a t were the exact circumstances which seemed to
justify Josiah in encountering the Egyptian army,
we
do
not
M.
ventures on the conjecture that
prefect of
and Palestine summoned Josiah and other
vassal
princes to unite their contingents, and meet the Pharaoh
(who had reached Philistia) N. of Carmel. But was Assyria
strong enough to
an order? I t would be safer
to
suppose that independently several Syrian and Palestinian
princes combined against Neco under the leadership of Josiah,
and that on the plain of Megiddo or Esdraelon they tried their
fortune. The bare possibility must, however, be allowed for,
that the armies clashed at
a
spot nearer to
(one
of
the
Migdals, SW. of
and Nazareth),
on
the N. of
than to
(Megiddo) on the
may have been the
place where the hapless king died. This allows
us
to suppose
that Herodotus was correctly informed as to the name of the
place of the encounter. Reinach’s view
(Rev. arch.
that
the battle of Magdolon
was
a
slightly earlier one (the
the Egyptians being neither the Jews nor the Philistines, but
the
[Assyriaps]), which transferred the western Asiatic
Empire to Egypt, and Winckler’s defence (GI
1103,
n.
of the
statement of
are on different
highly
Whether Neco went by land or by sea to’the
hood of Carmel is disputed : the latter alternative has been
generally adopted, but
Why Josiah encountered
Neco at Megiddo
also
is
doubtful. Probably it was because of
the rapidity of Neco’s movements, and because he had effected
a
junction with N. Palestinian allies.
ink
is evidently wrong.
at the end
has been written twice over.
map conjecturally restore
‘and they looked each other in the
face
by Megiddo: and they shot at Josiah’
. . .
The corrupt
is partly produced by the neighbourhood of
of course
Josephus, therefore, bad
before him
an
incorrect Hebrew text. Cp WMM Studien
z.
derasiat. Gesch.’
54, n.
in
MVG,
’98,
3.
3
A scribe has already indicated this
the substitution of
‘disguised himself’ for ‘encouraged himself‘ in Ch. 3522 (cp
So too Hommel
Gesch. des
1 5 2 .
see WMM
Gesch.
(‘98);
against the latter,
des
On one side,’ see GASm. (HG
n.
on the other, Che.
Jeremiah, 96 (‘88)
(who mentions the other alternative, however
and supports it by the historical parallel of the march
of
Thotmek
See
and
I
Esd.
2611
The scantiness
of
our information is
to
be regretted. Few
tragic events are recorded in the history of
there were circumstances (not those which Josephus
[Ant. x. 5
I
]
imagines) which it cut the ancient historian to the
heart
mention. Whether the ‘mourning of
in the valley of Megiddo’ (Zech.
12
refers to the
lamentation for the death of Josiah is disputed. At any rate
the Chronicler’s statement that lamentations were held every
year for Josiah seems to be trustworthy (cp the contrast in
Jer.
22
even if we hesitate to believe that Jeremiah
composed the first funeral dirge.
b.
Zephaniah, one of the representatives
of the
Babylonian Jewish communities who brought silver and
gold to Jerusalem, temp. Zerubbabel (Zech.
6
according to necessary emendations of those texts). O n
the whole
(Zech.
see Z
ERUBBABEL
.
See L
AMENTATIONS
,
The words,
come thou- the same day, and go into the
house of’ have grown out
of a
single corrupt or illegible word,
the
of
which was doubtless
Several
were
to read this corrupt word
were put together
by
an
editor and some apparent sense made by the insertion of
‘the same
and.’ So first Wellhausen, who in
further
emends the name
‘
Josiah into ‘Joshua.’ His
reason must be that
Zephaniah
is obviously added to
distinguish the person intended from some well-known living
personage of the same
(presumably the high priest Joshua).
JOSIAS
( I )
[B]),
I
Esd.
8 3 3
8 7 ,
J
ESHAIAH
,
4.
I
Esd.
11,
etc., Mt.
R V
T.
C.
JOSIBIAH
I
Rv
JOSIPHIAH
27
53,
Yahwk increases
the post-exilic lists
(E
ZRA
15
[I]
d ) , Ezra
the native place of Haruz, father of
lemeth
K.
21
O n the analogy of Jotapata (once
see Jastrow,
Lex.)
we may safely regard Jotbah
a s
a
popular corruption of Jiphtah ‘ ( G o d ) opens (the
womb).’
JIPHTAH
was
a place in the
JOTBATHAH
,
c p J
OTBAH
),
a
stage in the
wanderings in the wilderness (Nu.
[A]
Dt.
AV
WILDERNESS
OF.
Josh.
T. K .
C.
JOTHAM
perhaps ‘Yahwk is perfect (sincere),’
I
.
[B],
[A in
[A
in
L
T h e sole survivor of the massacre of Jerubbaal’s
(or rather Gideon’s) sons-of whom he was the youngest
-at Ophrah (see G
IDEON
,
I
) ; author of
a
fable
(Judg.
Strictly, however, the author of the
fable of the trees who sought for
a king a n d the sole
survivor of the house
of Gideon a r e different persons,
the former (of whose name
we
are ignorant) being
more historical than the latter.
T h e writer who first
collected the historical tales about Abimelech, king of
Shechem, probably knew nothing about Jotham.
A
subsequent editor, however, wishing to account for the
calamities which befel both the people
of Shechem and
their king Abimelech, represented one
of Gideon’s sons
a s having escaped, a n d
as proclaiming
a
parable in the
hearing of the Shechemites (see
who
had assembled to make Abimelech king.
T o
this editor
(escape
of Jotham),
6
(popular choice of Abimelech;
superfluous after
nv.
4
7-16a
most probably
helong.2
His
object was to impress
upon his readers
that the calamities of Abimelech and the Shechemites
were
a divine retribution, and this he makes still more
evident
by
putting into the mouth of Jotham
a
curse
Cp Che.
Jeremiah,
That
are
a
late amplification, is pointed out
by
Frankenb.
des
27)
and Bu.
(Richter,
72).
Document Outline
- Title
- Key to Signatures in Volume II
- Maps in Volume II
- Contributors to Volume II
- Eagle - Eglath-Shelishiyah
- Eglon - Egypt
- Egypt, River of - Enos
- En-Rimmon - Essau
- Eschatology
- Esdraelon - Evil-Merodach
- Exact - Ezra-Nehemiah
- Ezra, the Greek - Flint
- Flock, Tower of the - Gaius
- Galatia - Gallery
- Galley - Geography
- Geography - Gilgal
- Giloh - Goshen
- Gospels part 1
- Gospels part 2
- Gospels part 3
- Gotholias - Hamu or Hami, names with
- Hamuel - Heath
- Heathen - Hermon
- Hermonites - Hippopotamus
- Hirah - Horonaim
- Horonite - Inn
- Inscriptions - Isle, Island
- Israel
- Issachar - Javan
- Javelin - Jeremiah (book)
- Jeremiah, Epistle of - Jerusalem
- Jerusalem - Job (book)
- Jobab - John, Son of Zebedee
- Joiada - Jotham
- Jozabad - Kedesh
- Kedeshah - Kushaiah