HIROM
to
the reader to suppose that his father, as well as
his mother,
have been
His name is
variously given in Kings and Chronicles.
In
(not
according to the common view (see
Bertheau), the word
‘my father’
and
4
16
his
the king’s) father
see
is appended to Huram.
Giesebrecht
indeed, has argued ably
for the view that
or Hiram-abi
Hiram is
my father
was the real name of the artificer sent from
Tyre
in
Ch.
4
16
being supposed to he an error).
So,
too, Stade
n.
whilst Kamphausen
(Kau.
thinks that
may have been
the original form of the name, shortened in our text of
Kings and of
Ch.
411
into Hiram or Huram, and in
our text of
2 1 3
into Huram-abi.
These
scholars, however, seem too ready to trust the Chronicler
in this point
neither form of the solution proposed
seems plausible.
W e are bound to consider in the first instance whether
some error, either of the Chronicler or of the
may not be at the root of the strange name or reading
Huram-abi.
It appears certain that either the name
of the artificer was precisely that of the Tyrian king
(for which ancient parallels might be adduced), or that
it was near enough to Hiram to be assimilated to this
name through corruption.
It might,
be
( I )
A
HOLIAB
a name which has analogies in
and
Arabian
and is given by
P
to the colleague of the artificer,
Bezaleel, or
Huram (with a
I
for
one remembers
that Bezaleel in P is called ben Uri, ben
T h e more common form of the name is
(cp
above)
found
and
Kt. in
I
Ch.
Ch. 9
I
O,
for
in
I
K.
7
13
45.
A variant .is
(EV
H
U
R
A
M
,
cp
and
used of
no.
I
2 3
8
and Kr. in
I
Ch.
14
I
Ch.
alsoofno.
On
see above. Finally the rare form
is met
with
I
K.
5
to no.
I
,
and in
I
K.
for
no.
This form agrees with the Ass.
the
of Jos. (the last form used to represent no.
and the
of Herod.
Thus the names of the
present identical variations. Kittel on
I
Ch. 14
I
suggests that
the original form may have been Hnram
which passed suc-
cessively into
and
(on
this phonetic change see
Barth, NB,
xxix); hence, from
a
combination of these two
arose
T.
C.-S. A. C.
HIRCANUS
[VA])
RV
HIRE, HIRELING
Gen.
31
8,
Job
71.
HIROM
I
K.
7
EV
H
IRAM
S
LAVERY
.
I
K. makes his
of the tribe of Naphtali
;
Ch.,
of
.hat of Dan.
This early reading found favour with the correctors of
with one corrector of
who may possibly have been the
scribe
Swete gives
(A*?). The reading
to
be a guess, corresponding to the guess
by
in 4
(see next note
but one).
3
T h e name
which the artificer bears in Josephus,
63
is only a corruption of
4
Two views
possible. (
I
)
The Chronicler may have
nisread
(‘the fleet of Hiram in
I
K.
10
if a person called Abi-Huram were the leader of Hiram’s
and changed the relative position of
and Hiram
prevent the mistranslation ‘father
Hiram
;
ee Che.
[July,
For
and
we may
ead
‘my servant,’
‘his servant’; cp readings of
in Ch.
2
13
5
Josephus names the craftsman’s father
or
he says (Ant.
viii. 34). Does he think of
father?
According to Ginsb. some
MSS
and
818
have
7
Cp the form
Eupol.
Eus.,
9
T o the latter belonged Aholiab.
But this seems too simple a n expedient.
‘They take him though he be on the watch
And
pierce through his nose with snares’
(literally ‘in his own sight ’),
(probably ropes with harpoons attached).
doubtful if
suits the context so well.
text,
This is a more natural rendering of the Hebrew though it is
Bu. render; a n emended
Who will seize him by the teeth
And pierce his nose with a
The chief question that arises in connection with this
animal
(Hippopotamus
is whether it ever
lived in Palestine, or whether its fame had spread to the
poet from Egypt. At the present time the river-swine
(as the ancient Egyptians called them) do not extend
north of
between the second and the third
cataracts, and even there they are rare but both the
frescoes and writings of the
and the fossil
remains found in the Delta of the Nile show that
former times it inhabited Lower Egypt and was har-
pooned by the inhabitants.
During the Pleistocene and
Pliocene epochs an animal specifically indistinguishable
from the hippopotamus was widely spread over southern
and middle Europe, extending even into England, so that
although at present there is no distinct evidence of its
existing in the Jordan it is possible that it may formerly
have done
so.
The animals are exclusively fluviatile, and can remain under
water for considerable periods-as much a s
minutes. They
are fond of frequenting the reed-covered margins of the rivers
piercing
paths in the closely-matted
on the hanks. They are herbivorous. (See, further,
B
E
H
E
-
M O T H ,
[There may
be a safer reference to the hippopotamus
in
Ps.
where the reading varied between
and
from the forest and ‘from the River
.
see Ginsh.
to
the
The latter
reading was the more popular one in Palestine in pre-Roman
times; the swine of the River would naturally be the
SWINE.]
N.
M.-A. E.
s.
HIRAH
noble
cp Palm.
an
a
friend
of
Judah (Gen.
38112:
[ADEL]).
HIRAM
perhaps an abbreviation
of
A
HIRAM
cp
[RKAL]).
I.
Hiram
I.,
king of Tyre, famous for the help he
rendered Solomon in the building of the temple, and
in the manning of his
(
I
K.
6
I
[
see
O
PHIR
,
I
),
in return for which Solomon
gave him twenty cities in the land of Galilee
( I
K.
9
see
C
ABUL
).
The later tradition that the friendship
between the two was strengthened by Solomon’s
marriage with
a
daughter of Hiram (Tatian,
Coni.
37)
may rest upon
I
K.
Ps.
45
David, soon after occupying Jerusalem, is said to have
received cedar-wood and workmen from Hiram to help
him in his building operations
S. 5
cp
I
K.
5
I
Hiram was also a contemporary of Solomon’s.
Unless, therefore, we assume that the event referred to
in
relates to the last part of David‘s reign, we
meet with a serious chronological difficulty.
some
conjecture that the length of Hiram’s reign
B.
based upon
1 1 8 )
is inexact, or that it
was Hiram’s father,
who really helped David
(cp Kittel,
2
More probably Hiram’s
kindly offices towards Solomon have been
Hiram‘s reputed tomb
is still
pointed out to the
E.
of T y r e ; the date is unknown
(cp
296)
see
APOCRYPHA,
14
C
HRONICLES
,
The artificer sent by Hiram, king
of
Tyre
( I
K.
40
45
Ch.
13
4
16).
A man
of
mixed
race, it would appear, though
I
K.
leaves it open
and
Another suggestion is to read
3.
S.
A. C.
Reading
‘hook’ (cp Am. 4
for
For other conjectures cp
Ew.
Hist.
3226.
3
Similarly the author of
I
S.
1 4
ascribes
to Saul deeds
which really belong to David
;
cp
S
A
U
L
,
3.
67
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
CONTENTS
Beginnings
I
).
First History :
J
Recensions
Second History :
E
4).
History of Kindgoms
Influence of Prophets
6).
Biography of Jeremiah
8).
Hebrew
:
P
Combining of Documents
IO
).
Early Post-Exilic Works
11-14).
Chronicle of Jerusalem : the Chronicler
Stories
Hellenistic
Philo
Justin
Josephus
Seder Olam
23).
Literature
Deuteronomistic Schooi
The aim
of
the present article is
to
sketch the
development of Israelitish and Jewish historiography
from its beginnings down to the second century of
era.
For fuller information about particular books the
reader is referred to the pertinent articles.
The making of history precedes the writing of history,
and it is often found that the impulse to write history is
first given by some great achievement
which exalts the self-consciousness of
a
people and awakens the sense of the
memorable character of what it has
done. The Persian wars in Greece,
the second Punic war in Rome, the empire of Charles
Great among the Germans, are familiar instances.
In Israel, the national history begins with the consolida-
tion of the tribes in
a
kingdom and the throwing
off
of
the Philistine yoke.
The circumstances in which this
was accomplished, and the personality of the men who
freed and united Israel and raised it at once to
a
leading place among the kingdoms of Syria, were such
as
powerfully to stimulate the national spirit and
the imagination.
Internal evidence makes it highly
probable that the earliest Hebrew historians wrote in
the reign of Solomon (middle of the
cent.
B
. c . ) ,
and wrote first of the great events of the preceding
century.
A
large part of
S.
9-20
I
K.
is derived from such a work
the author of which
was
exceedingly well-informed
about political affairs
also about the inner history of
David's house and court. T h e story of David's youth, his
relations to Saul, his romantic friendship with Jonathan, his
adventurous life as
a
freebooter in the south, forms the natural
introduction to the history of his reign. The older form of the
history of Saul is probably of approximately the same
(see
S
AMUEL
ii.).
The beginnings having
been made, the Israelite
writers naturally turned to the earlier history of their
people.
sources,
those of the Greek
logographers with whom it is natural to compare them,
were poems, such
as
the Song
of
and briefer lyrics like those
in Nu.
21,
of which collections had
been made (see J
ASHER
, B
OOK O
F ;
WARS
OF)
G
ENEALOGIES
often representing clan-groupings
tribal and
local traditions of diverse kinds, such as furnish the
material for most of the book of Judges the historical
traditions of sanctuaries; the sacred legends of holy
places, relating theophanies and other revelations, the
erection of the altar or sacred stone, the origin of
peculiar usages-for example, Bethel (Gen.
28)
laws
myths of native and foreign origin
folk-lore and
fable-in short, everything which seemed to testify of
the past.3
T o
us
the greater part
of
this material is not in any
proper sense historical at all but for the early Israelite
as for the early Greek historian it was otherwise our
distinctions between authentic history, legendary history,
pure legend, and myth, he made as little as he recognised
That the earliest Hebrew historians wrote
soon
the
time of David ; and that they began with contemporary history
and gradually went back t o the remoter past is the view of
Graf
and of several recent scholars (Kittel, Budde,
The theory that poems form the nucleus of the earliest
prose narratives, the chief source
of
the first historians, has been
much exaggerated.
3
For a more particular account
of
these sources see
G
E
N
E
S
I
S
,
E
XODUS
,
3
N
UMBERS
,
JO
SHU
A,
J
UDGES,
our distinction of natural and supernatural.
It was
all
history to
and if one part of it had
a
better
attestation than another, it was certainly the sacred
history
as
it was told at the ancient sanctuaries of the
land.
The sources were not equally copious for all periods.
The stories of the heroes who delivered their countrymen
from invaders and oppressors gave a vivid picture of
the times before the kingdom.
Of the crossing of the
Jordan and the taking of Jericho the local traditions of
Gilgal furnished a pretty full account. Of the further
progress of the invasion, the struggles by which the
Israelite tribes established themselves in the
country, the oldest historian found no
the deliverance from Egypt and the adoption of
the religion of
at his holy mountain a mass of
legendary and mythical circumstance had gathered (cp
E
XODUS
I
)
but of the wandering in the deserts
S.
of Palestine only the most fragmentary memories
were preserved (cp
W
ANDERINGS
).
Of
the sojourn
in Egypt, again, there was no tradition (cp
the gap is filled by genealogies which really repre-
sent later clan-groupings.
Beyond these centuries the
stream of narration suddenly broadens
the stories
of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Israel and his
sons,
are told with
a
wealth of Circumstance and a vividness
of colour which show that we have entered the realm of
pure legend (see the several articles).
Limits; remains. -Whether the earliest compre-
hensive history of Israel began with the migration of the
Terahites, or with the primeval history-the first man,
the great flood-is uncertain.
The literary analysis
cannot decide the question, and the examination of the
foreign elements in Gen.
1-11
has as yet led to no
positive results.
Nor is it
certain where the
history ended.
The presumption is that the author
brought it down to his own times; but the evidence
in our historical books
is
not
as
clear as we
wish.
A considerable part of this oldest Hebrew history is
preserved in the stratum of the H
EXATEUCH
which critics
designate by the
and in the parts of Judges
and
that are akin to
It has not, indeed,
come down to us intact or in its original form; re-
dactors, in combining it with other sources, haveomitted
parts, and additions to it of diverse character and age
have been made.
What remains, however, gives us
a
most favourable impression of the authors' abilities.
T o this writing we may apply what a Greek critic says
of the early Greek historians :
. .
.
. .
.
The early Hebrew historians did not affix their names
to their works
they had, indeed, no idea of authorship.
The traditions and legends which they
collected were common property, and
did not cease to be so when they were committed to
writing the written hook was in every sense the pro-
perty of the scribe or the possessor of the roll.
Only
a
part of the great volume of tradition was included in
Judg.
1
is
in
the main an attempt to
fill
this gap by infer.
ences from known facts of a much later time: see
JOSHUA,
The same phenomenon is observed in Greek and
history. see Wachsmuth
620.
3
Tdey affected a
clear,
pure, concise, suit;
to
the subject, and making no show
of
elaboration,
Dion.
De
5.
2076
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
the first books.
Transcribers freely added new matter
from the same sources on which the original authors
had drawn, the traditions of their own locality or
sanctuary, variants of historical tradition or legend.
Every new copy was thus in some measure
a
fresh
recension.
When in the course of time the enrich-
ment of the narrative directly from oral tradition
became
a
less considerable factor, it
succeeded by the
more literary process of conflation or contamination of
recensions
scribes compared different copies, and
combined their contents according to their own judg-
ments or interests.
The transmission of the oldest
historical writings, even in its earlier stages, before the
systematic redactions of
and his successors, was
thus an extremely complicated
The problems thus presented to criticism are often insoluble;
in general only those elements can be certainly recognised a s
secondary'which by underscoring the moral of the history or
enlarging on its religious aspects in a prophetic spirit betray
a
different religious point of view from that of the older narrators,
and even in these cases the age of the addition
is
often in doubt.
The oldest Hebrew history ( J ) was written in the
southern kingdom.
At a somewhat later time
a
similar work ( E ) was produced in Israel.
material, drawn from the
of Israelite
is
in the
main the same but the local interest
in
E
is that
of
the northern kingdom, and the moral
and religious point of view is more advanced.
Thus, in
the
patriarchal legend traits offensive to a more
refined age are frequently tacitly removed (cp,
the way in
which Jacob's flocks are increased in
J
and in E , Gen.
theological reflection is shown in the substitution of
and audible voices for theophanies a s modes of revelation;
historical reflection in the representation of the
fore-
fathers as idolaters,' in the avoidance of the name
before
Moses,
and so forth.
In later recensions of the work
(E,)
the conduct and
fortunes of Israel are judged and interpreted from a
point of view resembling that of Hosea.
If those critics
who ascribe to secondary strata in
E
such chapters
as
I
S.
7
12 15
are right, some of these editors approximated
very closely to the deuteronomic pragmatism.
For the period down to the time of Solomon the sources
of the historians were almost exclusively oral tradition
of the most varied character and con-
tents
;
of records and monuments there
are but few traces, and these for the
most part doubtful. With the establish-
ment of the monarchy this
is
changed in some degree.
The stream of popular tradition flows on and continues
to be drawn upon largely by writers
of
history but by
its side appears matter evidently derived from
mentary sources.
Records were doubtless kept in
the
From the references to them in the
Book
of
Kings, and from the similar records of Assyrian and
Egyptian monarchs we
infer the nature of their
contents : the succession to the throne, the chief events
of the reign (probably year by year), wars, treaties and
alliances, important edicts, the founding or fortifying of
cities, the building or restoring of temples, and the
like.
Everything
goes
to show that these
were brief;
there is no reason to imagine that the records of a reign were
wrought into narrative memoirs. I t is antecedently probable
that the kings of Israel and Judah like other Oriental monarchs
-for example their neighbonr
of Moab-commemorated
their
or their piety 'in inscriptions; but there is no
evidence of this in the
OT,
nor has any such monument
hitherto been recovered.
The temples also doubtless had their records,
running in great part parallel to those of the kingdom.
It has its complete analogy in the transmission of the text,
which is indeed, but a part of the same process.
The'distinctively
element in
J
is small.
See further,
$ 6
end,
E
XODUS
3,
$6,
J
UDGES
,
3,
Direct evidence
of
this has frequently been sought in the
titles of two officials of the court, the
R
ECORDER
)
and
the
but
is
doubtful whether rightly.
See
G
OVERN
-
MENT,
$
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
The succession in the priesthood (dated by the year
the reigning king); repairs of the temple-as under
Joash and Josiah-or changes, such as the new altar of
Ahaz; the intervention of the priests in the affairs of
state, as in the revolution which overthrew Athaliah
and brought Joash to the throne, would naturally be set
down in the archives of the temple.
The priestly
annals may,
as
in other countries, have taken a wider
range, and included political events and remarkable
occurrences, such as earthquake, famine, pestilence.
There may have been also local records of cities
and
towns.
It is
accordance with frequent observation in other
literatures to suppose that the history of the early
kingdom of which we have spoken above was carried
on from age to age by successive continuators.
Such a
seems to underlie,
the present accounts
of the
of Solomon and the division of the kingdom,
and traces of others may perhaps be recognised in the
subsequent narrative.
The continuators were doubtless
at the same time redactors, who supplemented the work
of their predecessors from oral or written sources-as,
for example, the history of Solomon
is
amplified and
embellished from the luxuriant Solomonic legend-or
abridged those parts which seemed to them less inter-
esting or less important.
The kingdom of Israel also had its own historians,
but little of their writing has come down to us even
the reign of a monarch as great
as
know from
foreign sources that Omri was is an absolute
i n
our Book of Kings.
There is, however, one por-
tion of the Israelite historical literature that strongly
appealed to later Judaean writers, and has consequently
been largely preserved-viz., the lives of the great
Israelite prophets of the ninth century, Elijah and
Elisha.
These stories are not all of the same age or
origin whether they were taken from an earlier written
collection is not certain, though, on the whole, probable.
They are of the highest value for the light which they
throw on the political as well as on the religious history
of the northern kingdom (see
8,
and
E
LI
J
A
H
).
The relations of the two neighbour nations of the
Same people to each other in peace and war must have
filled
a
large place
the histories of both, which ac-
cordingly had much in common but it is not probable
that the attempt to unite them in
a
parallel history of the
two kingdoms was made till some time after the fall of
Samaria. In this combined history Judaean sources and
the
point of view naturally preponderated but
it does not appear that any effort was made to exalt
Judah at the expense of Israel.
The impartiality with
which the author records,
the rebuff received b y
Amaziah from Joash
( 2
K.
is noteworthy.
This history is the basis of our
Books
of Kings but
the deuteronomic redaction has here been
so
thorough
that the attempt to reconstruct the earlier
or even
to
determine more exactly its age
is
attended with un-
usual difficulty.
The prophets of the eighth century interpreted
dealing with his people upon a consistent moral
ciple : the evils which afflict the nation,
and the graver evils which are imminent,
are divine
upon it for its
- -
sins-the injustice and oppression that are rife, the
political fatuity of its statesmen, the religious corrnption
of priests and people, who desert
for other gods,
or offer him the polluted worship of the baals, or affront
his holiness with the sacrifices and prayers of unrighteous
men.
Nor was it the present generation only that had
sinned
:
Hosea, in particular, traces the worship of the
baals back to the first settlement of the Israelites in
Canaan and in every age sin must bring judgment in
its train.
The application
of
this principle by the writers of the
seventh and sixth centuries makes an era in Hebrew
historiography narrative history is succeeded by
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
history; not the mere succession of events, but
.also their interdependence and causation engages the
author's interest.
This step has been taken at some
period in most historical literatures
what is peculiar in
the Hebrew historians is that their pragmatism is
religious.
T h e
or the displeasure of God is. the one cause of pros-
perity or
; and hi5 favour or his displeasure depends in
the end solely
the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of the people
t o the religion of
The standard was at first that which
the prophets of the eighth century had set up later, it was the
deuteronomic law. Under the impression of the deuteronomic
movement, of the prophecy of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and of the
events of the last half-century of the kingdom of Judah, the
interest of the writers was increasingly absorbed in the lesson of
the history; history was indeed for them prophecy teaching by
example.
The influence of the prophets (orators) is manifested
another
the pragmatism of
new school of
historians, like that of the Greek and Roman historians,
,especially
the influence of Isocrates, is a rhetorical
This appears in the amplification and height-
ening of the congenial portions of the older narratives,
and especially in the introduction at critical points in
the history of speeches by prophets-often anonymous
-in which the author's own comment
or
reflection is
effectively put into the mouth of an actor or a spectator
of the action.
This pragmatic historiography is frequently called
deuteronomistic
on account of its affinity to
It flourished in the latter part of the seventh
and especially in the sixth; but the same
moralising treatment of the history, the same distinctive
turns of thought and phrase,
in
much later writers
in the Chronicler
the fundamental prin-
ciple of the school is nowhere formulated so clearly and
concisely as by Josephus in the Introduction
to
his
Antiquities
( 3 ,
Niese).
Deuteronomistic history of the
two
first
product
of
the new school of historians was
a
history of the kingdoms of Judah and
Israel from the accession of
Solo-
written before the fall of Jeru-
salem, which
a
second redaction
dating from after the middle of the 6th century) we
have in the Books of Kings.
The author took his
material from older histories such as have been spoken
above
5).
The purpose
to
enforce the moral
of
the history appears in the selection of material
as
well
as
in the treatment
of
it.
It is presumably to this
author that we are to ascribe the omission of all details
concerning whole reigns
Omri), where the recorded
facts did not conform to the historical theory.
The
sovereign is responsible for the purity of the national
religion upon every king a summary judgment is passed
from
this point of view.
With hardly a n exception all have come short of the strict
standard of the
law
;
but this departure has
degrees some-the
kings of Judah-only tolerated the
worship of Yahwi: a t illegitimate altars (high places)
Jerohoam and
successors in the northern
shipped idols of Yahwi: others still introduced foreign gods and
rites.
A
few suppressed gross abuses such as the
(see
I
DOLATRY
,
6 )
only Hezekiah and Josiah instituted thorough-
going reforms, which were made the more imperative by the
revival and importation of all
of heathenism under their
predecessors, Ahaz and Manasseh.
The history is interpreted
upon
deuteronomic prin-
ciples, which are clearly set forth at the beginning
the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the
temple, and are first applied to Solomon himself.
T h e earlier part of his reign, we are told, was prosperous in
his later years there were revolts
and treasons a t home
after his death the kingdom was divided the cause was that
Solomon
his
age,
under the influence of his foreign wives,
introduced the worship of other gods the prophet Ahijah the
Particularly to the secondary parts of that hook.
Cp also Macc.
This was the natural beginning under the influence of the
prophets and the immediate impression of the deuteronomic
reforms.
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
declares the sin and denounces the divine judgment
(I
K. 11).
The editor, who after the fall of Judah revised the
work of his predecessor and gave the Book of Kings
substantially its present form, sharpened the pragmatism
throughout in the spirit of Jeremiah and Ezekiel and of
the contemporary additions to Deuteronomy (esp.
4
and the end of
28)
the Exile itself is the final vindi-
cation of the prophetic theodicy.
The rhetorical character of the new historical writing especi-
ally invited amplification; if the older authors seemed not
sufficiently to have emphasised the lesson, the later ones supplied
the deficiency. Such chapters as
I
K. 13 exemplify the growth
of moralising legend
the youngest additions
to
the book.
T h e systematic chronology also, with its calculated synchron-
isms,
the work of the exilic
T h e
period. -The earlier history
was now taken in hand by the new school. The in-
vasions and forays of the neighbouring peoples in the
period before the kingdom were divine visitations, just
like the invasions of Egyptians, Syrians, Assyrians,
Babylonians in later
The sin, also, which pro-
voked this judgment was the same, unfaithfulness to the
religion of
The stories of the judges illustrate
this moral.
I n a general introduction (Judg.
2 6
in the introduc-
tions to the individual stories the author draws out the lesson
:
whenever Israel fell into the worship of the gods of Canaan,
gave it over into the power of its foes when in distress
it turned to him again, he raised up a champion and delivered
it (see
J
UDGES
,
Those parts of the older book of stories
which could not be adapted to this scheme were omitted. A
having the same systematic basis a s that of Kings,
and directly connected with the latter, was supplied (see C
HRON
-
OLOGY,
5).
Here also more than one stage
in
the deuteronomistic
redaction is probably to be recognised. The deutero-
nomistic book of Judges
Eli and Samuel, and
was an
to the history of the kings.
I n the view of the author, the deliverers formed a continuous
succession of extraordinary rulers
'judges '),
from the kings who followed them in that their
was not
hereditary, each being immediately designated by God.
The history of Saul and David
(
I
S.
was not
snbjected to so thorough
a
deuteronomistic redaction.
The rejection of Saul was already sufficiently motived in the
prophetic source-he disobeyed the commandment of God hy
his prophet (
I
S.
15)
: the glorious reign of David
was,
from the
point of view of the pragmatic school, evidence enough of his
fidelity to the religion of
T h e traces ofdeuteronomistic
hands
I
S.
21
are limited to relatively inconsiderable
additions (see S
AMUEL
iii,
Prehistoric
-The peculiar deuteronomistic
pragmatism was from its nature little applicable to the
patriarchal story or the primeval history. The wander-
ings, from Horeb to the banks
the Jordan, are briefly
recounted from this point of view in Dt.
1-3
(cp also
but
the parallel portions of Ex. and
Nu.
there is no evidence
of
a
deuteronomistic recension.
The history
of
the conquest of Canaan as we have it in
Joshua is, on the other hand, largely the work of an
author of this school (see
The corruption of the religion of Israel was,
as
Hosea had
taught, the consequence of contamination with the religion of
Canaan the prophetic legislation strictly forbids alliance
especially intermarriage with the inhabitants of the land
Ex. 34
12-16)
the later deuteronomists demanded their extermin-
ation a s the only sure way to prevent the infection (Dt.
The generations which followed Joshua had neglected these
commands and reaped the bitter consequences (cp Judg. 2
late) hut Joshua and the god-fearing generation, which
the
might of Yahwi: conquered Canaan, did God's bidding faithfully
in this as in all other things. They must, therefore, have
destroyed the Canaanites, root and branch if the older histories
did not so represent it, they must he corrected. This is the chief
motive of the deuteronomistic account of the conquest (see esp.
Josh.
We have here a n instructive example of the way
which the pragmatic dogma overrides a conflicting tradition
what is said to have been has to yield to what
have been.
The unflinching consequence with which this
re.
presentation of the conquest is carried through reminds us of
the Chronicler (see below,
and, with other things, suggests
that the deuteronomistic redaction of Joshua is one of the
See K
INGS
,
3
C
HRONOLOGY
,
How far this treatment may have been preformed in
older
2080'
recensions
is
a
mooted point cp
$ 1 4 .
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
products
of
the
which continued its work long after the
restoration.
Besides the productions of the deuteronomistic school
of historians, we have one other work from the sixth
century which possesses a peculiar in-
terest ; the life of the prophet Jeremiah,
which was united with the collections
of his oracles by the compiler of our book of Jeremiah.
It was written
the memories of the prophet's inti-
mate disciples, apparently not long after his death.
In
addition to its historical
especially for the reign
of Zedekiah and the years following the fall of Jerusalem,
and its still greater value
as
a revelation of the person-
ality of one of the greatest of the prophets, it is, as far
as
we know, the first essay in biography, and stands
nearly, or quite, alone in the extant
In the Persian
the fifth centnrv.
appeared a work which treated the
ancient history from
a
new point
of
view.
The
author's purpose
was
to set
forth the origin of the sacred institutions and laws of
the Jews, thus showing their antiquity and authority.
Beginning with the creation of the world, he closed with
a
minute description of the territories of the several
tribes in Canaan. The contents and character
of
this
work, now generally designated by critics by the symbol
P,
are sufficiently exhibited
The whole tendency
of
the book is to
carry
back the origin
of
Jewish
institutions
to
theremote past the sabbath
was
ordained
at the
creation
the prohibition of
was given to Noah.
is
the seal
of
the
covenant
with Abraham;
developed temple ritual
of
the kingdom and even the temple
itself with all
its
paraphernalia-in portable form-are Mosaic
the post-exilic high priest has his prototype in
Aaron.
This is, no doubt,
to
some extent to be ascribed to
the working of
a
natural and familiar process which
may be observed in the older literature as well as in the
later (Chronicles) ; it may
also
be surmised that there
was
a
desire
to
give the laws, in the eyes
of
the Jews
themselves, the authority of immemorial prescription or
the sanctity of most solemn promulgation.
Resides
this, however, the question may properly be asked,
whether contact with the ancient civilisation and religion
of Babylonia may not have prompted the author to
attempt to vindicate the antiquity of the Jewish religion,
just as, somewhat later, the Hellenistic historians, especi-
ally in Egypt, were
to do. The same influence
may be suspected in the minute chronology, which in
its antediluvian parts certainly stands in some connec-
tion with that of the Babylonians (see C
HRONOLOGY
, 4).
ii.
The
-The Mosaic laws in the
are
doubtless to be regarded not
as
a transcript of the actual
praxis
of
the author's own time,
as
an ideal of the
religions community and its worship, projected into the
golden age of the past
as
Ezekiel's is projected into the
golden age of the future. Whether the book
was
com-
posed with the more definite aim of serving as the basis
of
a
reform in the Jerusalem use, is not
so
clear ; the
whole character of the work seems unfavourable to the
hypothesis that
was from the beginning
a
reform
programme as the original Deuteronomy was.
iii.
-The narrative portions of the work
present an appearance of statistical exactness in matters
of chronology, genealogy, census-lists, and the like,
which led earlier scholars, who regarded
P
as the oldest
stratum in the Pentateuch (cp H
EXATEUCH
,
to
infer that the author had access to ancient documentary
records. This supposition is excluded both by the late
date of
and by the character of the matter in question.
See G
ENESIS
,
Perhaps it is a
The
older
legends
of
Elijah and Elisha,
and
the multi-
tudinous prophet
of
later times
are
to
be com-
pared.
the groundwork of P,
secondary extensions
of
4
See
G
E
N
E
S
I
S
E
XODUS
,
;
L
EVITICUS
,
3 ;
2081
.HISTORICAL LITERATURE
The'semblance
of more
definite statistical knowledge in P, as
compared
with the older
historians,
has an
instructive
parallel
in
the younger Roman
annalists,
for
example,
Valerius
and
is to
be explained
in
the same
way.
We
have
illustration
of the
same phenomenon in Chronicles.
In the patriarchal story and the narrative of the exodus
it is not demonstrable that the author used any other
sources than the older historical works which, combined
with his own, have been transmitted to us (J and E)
he doubtless had them in a more complete form,
and, it may
in a different recension. Whether in
the primeval history he made a fresh draught upon
Babylonian tradition-in the account of creation (Gen.
for
or in the variant form of the flood legend
-or whether here also he had Hebrew precursors, is
a
question which seems at present not
to
admit of a
confident answer (see
C
REATION
,
D
ELUGE
,
iv.
additions.-P
contained many laws pur-
porting to have been given to Moses ; to these
a
multi-
tude of others were added by later hands, sometimes
singly, sometimes in whole collections
until the
symmetry and consistency of the original work was
completely destroyed ; the result was the heterogeneous
conglomerate which it is customary to call the Priests'
Code (see
L
AW
L
ITERATURE
).
Late
additions to the narrative parts of P also can be
nised, especially in Ex. and Nu. (see
E
XODUS
,
N
UMBERS
,
It has been observed above
3)
that copies
of
the
same work, differing in text or in contents, were com-
pared and combined by subsequent tran-
scriber-editors.
A
process of a similar
kind, on a much larger scale, was the
of the parallel histories J and
E
in one
narrative, JE.
i.
Union
and
E.-This task was accomplished
with considerable skill the redactor
for the most
part reproduces the text of his sources with little
combining them in different ways as the nature of the
case indicated.
The additions of his own which he
makes are akin to the later strata of the separate books,
J
and
E
they are chiefly enlargements upon prophetic
motives in the history, and have frequently a repro-
ductive character,
as,
in the renewal of the promises
to the
The author
probably lived
in
the second half
of
the seventh century. This composite
work can be followed in our historical books from the
creation to the reign of David if it went farther than
this, the latter part was supplanted
a history of the
kingdoms written on a different plan.
J E did not at once displace the separate
J
and
E
they continued to circulate till a considerably later
time, and later transcribers of J E may have enriched
their copies by the introduction from the older books
of
matter which the first redactor
(
had not included.
The deuteronomistic redaction described above
)
is
based upon JE, though some of the deuteronomists
used E, a t least, separately.
Union
D
and P.- A
post-exilic redac-
tion, finally, united P with J E and
D.
The method of
the redactor
is more mechanical than that of
his religious and historical point of view is that of
P-
especially of the later additions to P-and
Later
editors.
very likely ended his
compilation where P itself ended but later editors not
only made additions to his
work,
also extended a
priestly redaction over the books of Judges, Samuel,
and Kings, sometimes restoring (from J E ) passages
which the deuteronomistic redaction had omitted, some-
times adding matter drawn from the midrash of their
The fondness of Valerius for enormous numbers also is shared
by P.
On the character
and
method
of
this redaction see further,
H
EXATEUCH
,
G
E
N
E
SIS
,
6 ;
E
XODUS
,
3 :
N
UMBERS
,
6 ;
J
OSHUA
,
J
UDGES
,
14.
L
EVITICUS
JOSHUA,
J
UDGES
,
G
ENESIS
,
2
EXODUS,
2
2082
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
time, sometimes combining the old version
of
a story
with the midrash upon it.
In this way the great
Hebrew history, from the creation to the fall of Judah,
which we possess in Gen.
gradually assumed sub-
stantially its present form.
consequence of the
essentially compilatory character of the Jewish historio-
graphy, this work of the fifth or fourth century
c.
has
fortunately preserved, without material change, large
parts of the pre-exilic historical literature, from the
tenth century to the sixth.’
The national history of Judah came to an end in the
when
became a Babylonian province.
- -
History o
f
During the century which followed,
many writers occupied themselves with
the history of the kingdoms
of the
earlier ages (see above, 7) but there
was little to inspire the
Tews
either in
or
in
the his-
tory
of
their own times. It is plain that when long
afterwards the attempt was made to relate the events
of this period, the author had hardly any material a t
his command except the references to the completion of
the temple
the prophets Haggai and Zechariah.
It
is
scarcely to be doubted that in the archives of the
temple the succession of the priests, repairs and improve-
ments of the edifice, and other matters, were recorded,
and official documents relating to the temple and its
privileges
or
to the city were preserved
perhaps also
lists of families (with their domiciles), on the basis of
which the capitation tax was collected
some such
material is preserved by the Chronicler. There is much
less, however, than might have been expected: it is
possible that the archives were partially or completely
destroyed when the city was taken by the armies of
Ochus, as they were almost certainly destroyed in the
days of Antiochus Epiphanes.
A new type of Jewish historical literature
is
repre-
sented bv the memoirs of Nehemiah and
Nehe-
miah narrates in a plain and straight-
forward way, though not without a just
of his own merit. what he
had done for
people by restoring in the face of great
the ruinous defences
of
Jerusalem, and by
remedying many abuses which he found rife in the
Ezra tells how he conducted a colony
from Babylonia to Jerusalem, and describes the sad
state of things he found among priests and people, his
efforts to purge the community from the contamination
of mixed marriages, and finally the introduction and
solemn ratification of the book of the
The memoirs
of
Nehemiah and Ezra were used by
the Chronicler as sources for the reign of Artaxerxes,
and through him considerable portions of them have
been transmitted to
us,
though curtailed, deranged,
and in parts wrought over.
To the latter part
of
the Persian or the beginning of
the Greek period must be ascribed another of the
sources
of
the Chronicler an Aramaic
narrative,
incorporating
documents
relative to the building
of
the walls of
and of the
Darts of
. -
which, worked over and supplemented by the Chronicler,
are preserved in Ezra
4-6.
The original scope
of
the
A
most instructive parallel to the Jewish literature in this
respect is afforded
the Christian chroniclers and historians of
the Middle Ages; see, for example, the Saxon Annalist, in
6.
The library of the
patriarchate now contains a
collection of Arabic and Turkish edicts about, the holy places,
beginning with the ‘Testament of Mohammed.
3
Delitzsch
compares the beginning of the
memoir literature among the Greeks and Romans. See also
Wachsmuth,
natural motive for the memoirs is the desire to acquaint
the Jews
the
E.
with what he had found and done in Jeru-
salem. See N
EHEMIAH
.
See
E
ZRA
and
E
ZRA
-N
EHEMIAH
.
T h e genuineness of the
Memoirs of Ezra has recently been impeached by Torrey, Ezra-
Nehemiah
(‘96).
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
work can only be uncertainly guessed from the extant
fragments.
The conjecture that other parts of Ezra
were translated into Hebrew from the same source (van
Hoonacker, Howorth) is not well founded.
Some
interest attaches to these fragments as the
first
trace of
historical writing in the vernacular.
The experiment
seems to have found little favour
Hebrew was too
firmly established as the literary language.
To
the same age is to be assigned a lost work
on
the
history of the kingdom which is frequently referred to
by the Chronicler, and of which considerable
parts are preserved
Chronicles.
Chronicler cites this work under a
of names (Book of the Kings of Israel and
Judah,
or,
of Judah and Israel, etc.), and particular
sections of it under special titles (Words’ of Samuel
the Seer, Nathan the Prophet, Gad the
and so
on). Twice the book is referred to under the signifi-
cant name ‘midrash’
Midrash
of
the
Book of
Kings
Ch.
the Midrash of the Prophet
(ib.
T h e name denotes a homiletic exposition, particularly a story
teaching some edifying religious or moral lesson, and usually
attaching itself more or less loosely to the words of an older text.
This is the character of both the passages in connection with
which the term occurs, and of many others in Chronicles
Ch. 148
20
etc.
Budde
12
attention to the fact that edifying stories of a kind
similar to those which in Chronicles are supposed to come from
the lost Midrash of Kings are found in other parts of the
OT,
and conjectured that the Prayer of Manasseh and the Books of
and Ruth are derived from the same work, extracts from
which he surmises in
I
S.
1-13
and
I
K.
The ohvious
resemblance is, however, sufficiently explained by the supposition
that these writings, together with other pieces of the same kind
in Num. and Judg., are the product of the same age and school
that they were all taken from the same book is hardly t o
proved.
That the
Book
of the Kings
of
Israel and Judah
which the Chronicler cites was based upon the deutero-
nomistic history of the kingdoms (Sam.-Kings) is
beyond question. The most probable theory is that it
was an edition of that work enriched by the
of a large element of historical midrash illustrating the
moral and religious lessons which the history ought
to
teach, and with such changes
omissions as the
additions
or
the author’s pragmatism rendered necessary.
Its relation to the canonical
was thus very
similar to the relation of the
Book
of
to Genesis.
The author’s religious point of view, ruling interests,
and literary manner
so
closely resemble those of the
Chronicler that what is to be said under this head will
best be reserved for the next paragraph.
In the early part of the Greek period, probably after
300
B.
c.,
an author connected with the temple composed
a
history of Jerusalem from the time of
David to the latter part
of
the fourth
prefixing
a
skeleton of the
preceding history from the creation to
century;
the death
of
in the form of genealogies, in which
are manifested interests the same as those which
dominate the body of the book.
This history we
possess in
our Books
of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah,
which originally formed a single continuous work.
T h e narrative begins with Saul’s last
the anointing
of
David as King of all Israel, and the taking of Jerusalem
(
I
Ch.
from this point to the destruction of Jerusalem hy
it runs parallel to Sam. and Kings, hut deals
with Judah only.
From the deportation of 586 the author
passes a t once to the edict of Cyrus permitting the Jews to
return to Palestine
Ch.
1
The return and
the rebuilding of the temple are then related, to the completion
of the
in the sixth year of Darius; then follows
immediately the commission of
Ezra
the seventh year of
Artaxerxes, his return a t the head of a
colony,
and his attempted
reforms in Jerusalem (Ezra
7
; and, again without any con-
nection, the .appointment of Nehemiah a s governor in the
‘Narrative [of Samuel’
6
I t
whether this form
of citation is only a convenient way of indicating the part
the
extensive work in which the prophet named figured or whether
it implies a theory that each prophet wrote the events of his
own time
c.
1
s).
2084
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
twentieth year
rebuilding of the walls
a n d
the ratification of the law (Neh. 8-10). The narrative ends
with the measures of reform which Nehemiah found necessary
on
the occasion of a
visit in the thirty-second year of
Artaxerxes ; hut the genealogies are brought down to the reign
of the last Persian king.
The author's sources naturally varied for the different
periods.
i. For the earlier part
of
the work he used the
teuch and the older historical books, the genealogical
material in which he excerpted, condensed, and combined
in his own way, supplementing it with constructions of
his own which plainly reflect post-exilic conditions.
For the history of the kingdom the ulterior source
was the deuteronomistic work (Sam.-Kings) it seems
probable, however, that the Chronicler used this work,
not in the form in which it lies before us, but as it was
embodied in the Midrash of Kings
of
Chronicles may then be regarded as mainly an abridg-
ment.
From the fall of Jerusalem in
to
the time
of
Alexander, the sources were the prophets Haggai and
the Aramaic history already spoken of
the Memoirs of Nehemiah and Ezra
a list of high
priests from Jeshua to Jaddua, and probably other
priestly genealogies, etc.
The
material all
belonged to the first quarter century of the Persian period
a few years in the reign of Artaxerxes there was
evidently
no
continuous historical tradition, written or
oral, when the Chronicler wrote indeed, his knowledge
was not sufficient to enable him rightly
to
arrange the
fragmentary remains at his
In the Chronicler's account of the first two
and
)
of
these three periods there are occasional historical
notices not otherwise transmitted to
us
which seem to
come from old sources.
T h e recension of
which lay before the Chronicler
or the author of the Midrash may have been different from ours,
as the recension
the hands of the Alexandrian translators
frequently differed from that on which M T is based.
T h e
restoration, by the last redactor of Judges, of considerable
material from
JE
which the deuteronomistic redactor had
omitted, proves that the final loss
of the old Hehrew history books
occurred a t a comparatively late time, as so
much
of the classic
literature perished late in the Byzantine period.
The Chronicler's work is an ecclesiastical history the
Jewish Church in Jerusalem is its subject. The whole
history of the Northern Kingdom, which was included
not only in the deuteronomistic Book of Kings but also
in the Chronicler's immediate source, the Book
of
the
Kings of Israel and Judah, is therefore omitted.
T h e
temple, the ministry, the ritual, have central importance
and special interest is shown in the prominence of the
Levites on festal occasions (see C
HRONICLES
, 7). The
clergy are also the custodians of the law
they give
instruction in it and decisions under it.
The liturgy
of
the temple and the minute organisation of the ministry
with its guilds of musicians, singers, door-keepers, etc.,
are attributed to
Upon the deuteronomistic
pragmatism which it found in its sources the
exilic History superimposed a pragmatism
of a
new
type.
In it also prosperity and adversity depend upon
fidelity to the religion of
but the conception of
religion is clerical rather than prophetic.
The ideas of
theodicy and retribution are more mechanical
the
vindication of
God's
law is not only sure, it is also
and swift.
The exhibition of this principle in history is the motive of the
most radical changes made in the representation of the older
hooks as well as in the long haggadic additions.
I n
both, it is
probahle that the Chronicler was preceded
the author of the
Midrash ; hut the same spirit appears in the Chronicler's own
work in Ezra and
The influence of Is. 40
T h e derangement of
however, partly
to
he
3
This may be connected with the
that David composed
The influence of Ezekiel is manifest.
On
the character
of the
additions and changes, see
is also
ascribed to later hands.
Psalms for the temple service.
C
HRONICLES
,
208
j
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
Taken altogether, it is as historical midrash
as
edifying fiction with an historical background), not as
history, that Chronicles, like its lost precursor, must be
regarded and judged. This type of literature enjoyed,
as we shall see, an immense popularity in the Greek
period among both Hebrew and Hellenistic Jews.
The first part of the Chronicle of Jerusalem, from
the creation to the exile, ran parallel to the great
historical work Gen. -Kings
the second, beginning
with the edict of Cyrus, had no competitor.
The
latter was accordingly detached to serve, under the
title Book of
as a continuation of the older
history through the Persian period. When at a later
time the first part (Chronicles) was given a place in the
canon, it was not reunited with Ezra, but was counted
either as the last (Talmud) or as the first
of
the Kethiibim (see C
ANON
,
In the Alexandrian
Bible, where a general rearrangement was
the original order was restored.
T h e oldest Greek translation of the post-exilic History is
preserved to us as a torso be inning with
Ch. 35 1-27 and
ending abruptly with
I t presents the material
in a
different-and to some extent more original-order than M T
and the later Greek version
;
and contains one long passage not
found in either (Pages of Darius,
A sketch of Jewish historical literature would be
incomplete without some mention of the popular religious
stories
so
abundant in the last three or
four centuries before our era.
These
all have an historical setting, and
doubtless passed from the beginning,
as they still do with many, for veracious history.
In
character they do not essentially differ from the haggadic
additions in Chronicles but instead of attaching them-
selves to a given situation in the older history, they
create their own situation.
With this freedom is
naturally connected a greater variety in the motive and
moral of the story.
and
Two of the longer tales
of
this class, to
which we might perhaps give the name historical
romances, are the books of Judith and Esther.
They
have in common the patriotic motive, and also that in
each it is a
who, at great peril to herself, saves
her people from threatened destruction.
J
UDITH
)
was probably written
Palestine, in Hebrew. The
setting
of
the action is purely fictitious; the author's
notions of history and
of
geography, beyond his own
region, are of the most confused kind.
If any historical incident furnished the nucleus
of the story,
the circumstances had been thoroughly forgotten. T h e religious
point of view, a s
it
appears in the speech of
for example,
and in the stress laid on clean meats
(cp
Dan. 1) and the sacred-
ness of tithes etc is that of correct Judaism
is erroneous to
say of
T h e lesson of faith in God and fidelity to
his law is obvious; but it is not necessary to assume that the
hook was written to inculcate this lesson and to encourage its
readers in a particular crisis.
The considerable differences in the recensions (three Greek, Old
Latin, Syriac) show that the hook had considerable currency ;
hut it never enjoyed the same popularity a s its companion,
A peculiar interest attaches to E
STHER
as one
of the very few remaining pieces of the literature of the
Oriental
The feast of
P
URIM
the origin
of which is celebrated in the
was certainly
adopted by the Jews in the
E.
Probably too (see
E
STHER
,
7)
the legend was borrowed or imitated
but this does not alter the fact that the story constructed
upon it is one of the most characteristic works of Jewish
fiction.
How the
Esther becomes Queen
of Persia; how
Our Ezra and Nehemiah (cp
E
ZRA
-N
EH
.,
4).
See
E
ZRA
(T
HE
G
REEK
).
See Torrey
16
;
cp
E
ZRA
(G
REEK
),
I
.
4
On
and reminiscences in Jewish literature see
in
10
('67).
put the
in the
times, and several of them connect it
with the Hanukka festivities a s Esther is connected with
the
onlv
other
of
which this
can
confidentlv be
affirmed.
(Esth. 10
I n
the subscription
to
the Greekrersion it
is
called
2086
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
the proud vizier Haman is compelled to do the almost royal
honour he had conceived for himself to the Jew Mordecai whom
he hates most of all men and how Esther by her address saves
her people from the general massacre which Haman had planned
gets the minister hanged .on his own gallows and Mordecai
appointed in his place, and procures a counter-edict by authority
of which the Jews in Susa and the provinces slaughter their
fellow-snhjects without resistance,-that was something to delight
the heart of a race whose peculiarities and contempt for the state
religion involved it in such hitter sufferings.
When the temple was destroyed and the other feasts
ceased, Purim only gained in importance, and the book
connected with Purim
so
well expressed the feelings of
the oppressed Jews that Esther became, next to the
Torah, the best known and most highly-prized book in
the
A
book of very different spirit and tendency is
J
ONAH
which tells how the prophet, who was
unwilling to preach to the heathen, was miraculously
constrained to go, and how at his message Ninevah
repented and its doom was averted, and pointedly
rebukes the spirit which would have God show no
mercy upon the nations.
The protest against the
persuasion that
God‘s
word and his compassion are for
the Jews only is noteworthy. The book is not only a
story about a prophet
more than any other product
of
its age,
breathes the prophet’s
iv.
A
similar motive
is
thought by many to actuate
the Book of R
U
TH
the author would answer
those who, like Ezra and Nehemiah, were
so
hot
against mixed marriages, by showing how the blood of
a
Moabite ancestress flowed in the veins of David himself.
v.
One of the most pleasing of these writings is
T
OBIT
with its attractive pictures of Jewish piety
and its instruciive glimpses of current superstitions, for
the history of both of which it is an important source.
It is a moral tale simply, without any ulterior motive
other than the edification of its readers. The numerous
varying recensions show that it had
a
wide popularity
among Jews as it had afterwards among Christians. See
A
CHIACHARUS
.
vi.
stories.
stories celebrate
the constancy of pious Jews to their religion in spite of
all efforts to turn them from it.
The Gentile
power, whether represented by Babylonian, Persian,
Seleucid,
or
Ptolemy, appears not only as the oppressor
but also
as
the persecutor of the Jews, prohibiting the
exercise of their religion and trying to force them to
worship idols and practise abominable rites.
Some of the stories tell of the miraculous deliverance of God’s
faithful servants, others
of the triumphant fortitude of the
martyrs under the most
tortures.
T o
inspire a like
faith and devotion in the reader; leading them to prize more
highly a religion which has produced such fruits, and making
them also ready, if need he, to die for their holy law, is the
obvious motive of the
T o this class belong the stories of Daniel and the
three Jewish youths in Babylon, in the Book
of
D
ANIEL
Here the faithful worshippers of
are miraculously
delivered from the fiery furnace and the lions’ den, and endued
with a supernatural wisdom which puts all the
astrologers and magicians to shame, so that the heathen kings
are constrained toconfess the god of the Jews the supreme God,
In
the Greek version other stories are added Susanna
and the Elders, illustrating Daniel’s wisdom in judg-
ment Bel and the Dragon, showing how Daniel ingeni-
ously proved to Cyrus that the gods of the Babylonians
were
no
gods. The display of Jewish wisdom before
heathen kings
is
the motive also of the story of the
Three Pages of Darius
(I
Esd.
3
where a contest
of wits in answer to the question, What is the mightiest
thing on earth? wins for Zerubbabel permission
to
return and restore the temple at
The Greek-speaking Jews also had their story-books
with similar subjects. One of these is
3
Maccabees (see
T h e entire lack
of
a religious element in the story was made
Cp
Ezek.
Mal.
1
3
We should compare the Christian
4
Cp
(Schmidt);
E
ZRA
(G
REEK
),
6.
good in the Greek translation by extensive additions.
2087
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
M
ACCABEES
[THIRD]),
which professes to narrate
events in the reign of Ptolemy Philopator after
defeat of Seleucus
at
Raphia in
217
B.C.
It
may be
regarded as in some sense a Hellenistic counterpart to
Esther, and is one of the worst specimens of this kind
of fiction.
I t seems to be an elaborated variation of an older legend
preserved
Josephus
Many scholars are of the
opinion that the occasion of writing the hook was the persecution
of the Alexandrian Jews under
Of the stories of martyr heroism, the most famous
are those of the aged
and of the mother and
her seven sons in
Macc.
repeated in great detail
in
4
Macc., which took their place among the most
popular of Christian
There were doubtless many other religious stories in
circulation from a later period considerable remains
of
a similar literature have come down to us
the tale
of Joseph’s wife Aseneth (see A
POCRYPHA
,
The glorious events of the Asmonzan age inspired
more than one author to write the history of Mattathias
and his sons. The oldest and by far the
most important of these works is that
which we have in the First Book of
Maccabees (see M
ACCABEES
[F
IRST
]),
written
in
Hebrew, probably in the reign of John
Hyrcanus.
It covers the period from the accession
of Antiochus Epiphanes
B
.c.)
to the death of
Simon
B
.c.); but it deals chiefly with the struggle
with the Syrians; of the fierce and treacherous strife
of Jewish parties we catch only passing glimpses.
The author had probably no older written account
of
the events, but drew upon a tradition close to the
house.
Besides this tradition, he incor-
porated certain documents which were preserved in
public places
in the archives (cp
The writer is sincerely religious, as are the heroes of
his story. As to his method of conceiving history, we
need only point out here that the action moves wholly
on
the earthly stage, without miracle, or prophecy.
I
Macc. is an historical source of the first value for the
times of the early
it is deeply to be
regretted that we have not similar sources for other
epochs of Jewish history.
At the end of the work
the reader is referred
for information about the following period to the
Chronicles of the high-priesthood of John Hyrcanus.
Of these Chronicles nothing has survived; it cannot
even be shown that the history of Hyrcanus’ rule in
Josephus ultimately goes back-in whole or in part-to
these
The struggle of their brethren in Palestine had
a
keen
interest for the Greek-speaking Jews also. Jason of
Cyrene wrote
a
history of it in five books,
beginning with the antecedents of the con-
flict under
Onias
III.,
and ending,
if
we are to judge
from the summary of its contents in
Macc.
with the liberation of the city by Judas after the victory
over Nicanor (cp Macc.
We know this work
only through
Macc., which is professedly an abridg-
ment of it.
The original must have been very
which is perhaps one reason why it was not more
generally known.
The character of the work is in
striking contrast
to
I
Macc. it imitates and outdoes
the worst types of Greek rhetorical
The straining for effect is tiresomely persistent. Every-
thing is exaggerated ; special
interventions occur
at every turn and the operation
of
the law of
is everywhere emphasised (see chap.
9).
There is
See
now,
however, Biichler,
the genuineness of these pieces; see
M
ACCABEES
(F
IRST
),
see Destinon,
44.
4
Schiirer considers it doubtful whether Jason made an end
here; but cp
Macc.
and see Willrich,
IC
.
66.
See, however, Biichler,
Niese,
2088
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
no evidence that Jason had any written sources the
whole character of the book suggests rather that he
derived his information from the reports-confused and
mingled with legend-which came by various channels
from Palestine.
On
the two epistles in Macc.
and
on
the other critical points, see
M
ACCA
BEE
S
(S
E
C
O
N
D
).
Other writings of a legendary character are known to
us through Josephus, who, directly or’ indirectly, drew
upon them in
his
history of the Greek’period among
them were the account of
relations to the
Jews (Ant. xi.
8)
and the story of the
and
(Joseph the tax-farmer),
Ant.
4,
cp
1
On the latter see Biichler
preceding col. n.
I).’
In the third and the second centuries
B
.c.,
most of
the Hebrew historical literature
was
translated into
Greek. Jews in the new centres of
Greek culture, especially in
andria, became acquainted with the
writings of Greek historians, and
with works like those of Manetho
and Berossus, written in Greek, through which the
ancient history of Egypt and Babylonia from authentic
sources was brought to the knowledge of the educated
world.
It would be strange, indeed, if they had not
felt stirred to perform
a
like service for the history of
their own nation.
earliest of these writings of which
we know anything
is
that of Demetrius,
It is
a
chronological epitome
rather than
a
narrative history, and was doubtless
composed for Jewish readers.
The author brings to
the solution of the difficult problems of chronology
thorough knowledge of the O T and great acumen.
T h e occasionalexplanationsof other difficulties in the Scriptures
show honesty a s well a s ingenuity.
The close connection in
many of these points between the Hellenistic and the Palestinian
exegesis has also been remarked.
work of Eupolemos under a
similar title was of a different nature.
He narrated the
history more at large, and with embellishments in the
taste of his times, such
as
the correspondence of Solomon
with the pharaoh, the legend
of
Jeremiah
and
so
on.
In him also we first note the disposition to
vindicate for the Hebrews the priority
philosophy,
science, and the useful arts, which is
so
characteristic of
later Hellenistic authors.
Moses was the first sage
and the first who gave his
written laws. H e taught
ofwriting
Jews ;
the
learned it from the Jews, and the Greeks from them.
Eupolemos probably wrote under Demetrius Soter
(circa
B
. c . ) ,
and it has been surmised that he may
be the same who is mentioned in
I
Macc.
8
17
in which
case his book would have additional interest as the work
of a Palestinian
iii.
was
that Jews in Egypt
should seek to connect the story of Abraham’s sojourn
in Egypt, of Joseph’s elevation, and above all, of Moses
and the exodus, with Egyptian history.
They had an additional reason for giving their version of these
events in the fact that native writers had set afloat injurious
accounts of the expulsion of
the leprous hordes, which found
only too willing credence not merely among the populace but
with serious
The Jewish writers had no access to authentic sources
of information
in the most favourable case they
could give only uncritical combinations of names and
See Torrey
T W
20
The book
perhaps have been used as
a
Hellenistic
Haggada for the Hanukka as Esther for Purim.
On the works described in this paragraph see Freudenthal
75
(the fragments edited 219
Schiirer, History
People,
33 (5
Will:
‘95.
4
Freudenthal fixes the date under Ptolemy
IV.
Willrich tries to prove that all this literature is much younger.
Against both this combination and the date given in the
text, see Willrich.
If the account ascribed to Manetho is genuine-which has
seldom been questioned-these malicious inventions began very
early in the Ptolemaic period.
2089
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
events taken from Egyptian history or legend (known
to” them through a Greek medium) with the narratives
of the Pentateuch.
The spinning out of these com-
binations is doubtless in the main pure invention.
Considerable fragments of a work of this sort
been transmitted to
us
under the name of Artapanos.
This Persian name is with reason suspected of being
a
pseudonym, the glorification of the Jews being for
greater effect attributed to an unprejudiced foreigner
who collected his information from the best Egyptian
authorities.
However that may be, the author shows
considerable knowledge of things Egyptian and a very
respectable degree of Hellenistic culture.
The design
of the book is plainly to magnify the forefathers of the
Jews by showing that they are the real authors of the
Egyptian civilisation.
his twenty years’sojourn, taught the Egyptians
astrology ; Joseph first caused the fields to be properly surveyed
and meted out reclaimed by irrigation much uncultivated land
allotted
the priests and invented measures. His
men who followed him to
built the temples in Athos
It
is
in the story of Moses, how-
ever, that Artapanos develops all his art.
Moses, who was
named by the Egyptians Hermes and is known to the Greeksas
was the adopted son of Merris the childless queen of
Chenephres.
H e was the inventor
the Egyptian
weapons, engines for hoisting stones for
and for
he divided the country into its
names,
assigned
each the god which was to be worshipped in it he was the
founder of philosophy and the author of the hieroglyphic writing
used by the priests.
Resides all this he was a great general
who a t the head of an army of
the Ethiopians:
built the city of Hermopolis, etc. T h e jealousy of Chenephres
finally compelled him to flee the country; on the way he slew
an Egyptian officer who lay in wait for him to kill him (cp
Ex.
2
As the last example shows theauthordeals very freely
with the biblical narrative when it
his purpose.
iv.
-We possess fragments of several
other works of similar tendency to those of Eupolemos
and Artapanos
the names of Aristeas and
Kleodemus may be mentioned.
Of peculiar interest
are some fragments of this sort which plainly
from the hand of Samaritan Hellenists. One of these
(erroneously ascribed in Eusebius to Eupolemos) makes
Mt. Gerizim the site of the city of Melchizedek and the
temple of the most high God and is otherwise instruc-
tive for the combination of the
O T
narrative with
Babylonian learning : for example, Ur
of
the Chaldees
i s
Abraham brought the Babylonian astrology
to Egypt, but the real father of the science was Enoch,
etc.
T h e same aim, to exalt the Jewish people in the eyes
of
other races, appears in a different way in various
pseudepigraphic works purporting to be written about
the Jews by
v.
of Abdera (under
Ptolemy
I.
)
had given in his
History of
Egypt
a
brief and
unprejudiced account of the Jews which gave occasion
for forging in his name
a
whole book, the partiality of
which for all things Jewish aroused the suspicion of
ancient critics.
vi. Aridem.-The letter
of
Aristeas, pretending to be
written by
a
Gentile to a Gentile, giving the history of
the translation of the Hebrew law into Greek, also is
palpably spurious.
In
it
we have a glorification of the Torah and of the
LXX
translation of the profound and practical wisdom of Jewish
sages, ofrhk temple and the cultus-a fabrication
grandscale,
fortified with edicts, correspondence, and all the apparatus with
which fictitioushistory had learned to give itself the semblance
of
authenticity.
Among the voluminous writings of Philo at least one
work dealing with the ancient history of his people
mention here-the life of Moses.
The first book,
particular, on Moses a s
a
fairly deserves to be called the best
specimen
of
Hebrew history retold for Gentile readers.
Cp Pseudo
Aristeas, the Jewish Sibyl, etc.;
,
This is
hy many Jewish
Abraham
3
This species of literature flourished rankly in the centuries
Freudenthal, 1 4 3 3
brought the art from Babylonia (FHG 3
2 1 3
A).
before
our era.
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
I t narrates the life of Moses from his birth to the permission
t o
the
two
tribes
to
occupy the conquered territory
E.
of
the
Jordan
(Nu.
following the Pentateuch with occasional
allegorical digressions and many edifying reflections and with
those speeches by the personages at important
without
which no author of this time would have thought
it possible to
write history. but free from any infusion of the Hellenistic
midrash
we have found in Eupolemos and Artapanos.
work differs favourably from the corresponding
parts of
Antiquities
in the point just mentioned,
and also in the fact that Philo does not, like Josephus,
suppress unpleasant passages, such as the worship of
the golden calf which Aaron made.
The second book
is
on
Moses
as
a lawgiver
the third, on Moses as a
priest (the tabernacle and its furniture, priests' vestments,
and so on).
Philo wrote also a history of the persecutions of the
Jews in his own time, apparently in five books.
The first it is inferred, was introductory the second described
the
of the Jews in the reign of
by Sejanus
a t Rome and by
in
the third dealt with
the sufferings of the Alexandrian Jews a t the beginning of the
reign
the fourth, with the evils in which the Jews were
involved by the demand of
that divine honours should
be paid him, and his determination to set up an image of himself
in the temple a t Jerusalem whilst the last described the change
in the fortunes of the Jews brought about by Claudius's edict of
toleration.
Of
these books only the third and the fourth have
survived
(Adversus
ad Caium).
Philo
was a witness of the tribulations of the Jews in Alexandria
in the last year of Flaccus's administration, and was the
leading member of the deputation to
Notwith-
standing their tiresome preaching tone, and obvious
reticence about the result of the mission-not to say sup-
pression of its failure-the books are historical sources
of high value, not only for the troubles of the Jews but
also for the character of
Emperor.
The revolt against Rome in the years
66-73
found its historians in two
who had
themselves been actors in it, Justus of
Tiberias and Flavius Josephus.
The work
of
Justus is lost-it is known to
us
only
through the polemic
in
the autobiography of Josephus-
and the loss is the more to be regretted because Justus
would have enabled
us
to control Josephns's account of
the events in Galilee, where we have only too good
reason to distrust him.
Justus wrote also a
or
concise history from Moses to the death of Agrippa
(in the third year of Trajan), which was used by
Julius Africanus, through whom some material derived
from it has been transmitted to
us.
Both works
of
Justus, like those
of
Josephus, were written in Greek-
Josephus testifies that he had
a good
Greek
for Greek and Roman readers.
(b.
37
A.
D.,
d. end of century)
first wrote the history of the war in Aramaic for the
Jews in the
E.
Afterwards, moved
(he says) by the number of misleading
accounts which were in circulation, he
put his own work into Greek.4 The Greek cannot, how-
ever, be
a
mere translation of the earlier work; for
Greek and Roman readers it would need to be materially
recast, and we can hardly doubt that his own part in
the action was put in a quite different light. Very prob-
ably also the
of Jewish history from the time
of
Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Herod (bk.
was first prefixed in the Greek the greater part of the
seventh book was doubtless added at the same time.
The history ends with the taking of Masada (the last
stronghold of the insurgents) and the closing of the
temple of Onias in Egypt, with a final chapter on the
outbreak in Cyrene. The work was completed before
the death of
(79
A .
).
In this book the history
of
the
LXX
translation is repeated
after Aristeas.
Schurer
ET
3
156
ET
where the literature
will
be
De
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
For
the agitation which preceded the war,
for the
war itself, Josephus was both at the time and afterwards
in
a position to be exceptionally well informed but it
must be remembered that, writing for the eyes of the
emperor and his officers, he was under strong temptation
to put things in the way which would be most pleasing
to
his imperial patrons
and that he had the difficult
task of giving an honourable colour to his own conduct.
We know that Justus charged him with falsifying the
history of the events
i n
Galilee, and the acrimony of
Josephus's reply shows that the shaft had found a
vulnerable spot.
For the earlier part of the work, from Antiochus
Epiphanes to the death of Nero, he used substantially
the same sources as in the parallel books of his Antiqui-
ties.
The
W a r
is composed with considerable
art Josephus had a remarkably dramatic subject, and
he puts his facts together in a highly effective way the
Greek style, in revising which he had expert assistance,
is
praised by Photius for purity and propriety.
Antiquities.
-Later in life Josephus wrote his
Antiquities,
or, rather,
Archeology
(
the Ancient History of the Jews, in twenty
books.'
The first ten books extend from the creation of the
world to the end of the Babylonian exile (closing with
Daniel). His sources here were the books of the OT,
chiefly in the
LXX
version
but when he affirms
( I
Proem.
3,
x.
106)
that he reproduces exactly the contents
of the sacred books, without addition or omission, he
claims too much-or too little.
The Antiquities was written for Gentile readers, and was
intended not merely to acquaint them with the history of the
Jews, but also to counteract the current prejudice against the
people and its institutions and to exhibit both in a favourable
light. T o this end he
things which might give ground
for censure or ridicule, and embellished the narrative from legend
and midrash. That he used the writings of Hellenistic Jews
who before him had treated the history in the same way (see
above,
is certain the extent to which he was dependent
upon them cannot now be determined.
osephus also often
refers for confirmation or illustration of the
narrative to
foreign authors ;
who are sometimes cited, not a t first hand,
from compilations or other intermediate
For the following period, from Artaxerxes
I . ,
under
whom he puts Esther (the latest book in the OT), the
sources used were of diverse character and
From the middle of the fifth century to the beginning
of
the second there was no authentic historical tradition
a few stray facts and a mass of legends have to stop the
gap.
From Antiochus Epiphanes to the accession of
Herod, Josephus's chief authority was an unknown
Jewish writer who had combined his Jewish sources
(
I
Macc., a history of the later
with Greek
writers
on
the history of Syria
Posidonius,
Strabo). This work probably began with Alexander,
and came down at least to the death
of
Germanicus ( r g
A
. D . ) .
T o this Josephus added the fruit of his own
reading in the Greek historians, some Jewish
stories, and
a
collection of documents authenticating
privileges of the Jews.
For
the life of Herod he drew
directly
on
Nicolaus of Damascus, with additions from
a Jewish
unfavourable to Herod.
In
the later
part of the work the narrative becomes fuller and the
sources more numerous
among them information
derived from King Agrippa, and a Roman author
(? Cluvius Rufus) may be recognised.
The history
closes with
Florus
on the eve
of
the war.
The
which in the manuscripts immediately
follows the
Antiquities, is
not really an autobiography;
it is an apologia, and is chiefly occupied with a relation
The title and the number
of books are
in
imitation
of
Dionysius of
The ancients understood as well as the moderns this trick
of
seeming to he familiar with books they had never seen.
3
For titles of works on the sources of Josephus, see Schiirer,
Hist.
Of more recent
Die
die
'99, also
32
and Unger
must be named.
HISTORICAL LITERATURE
and
defence of t h e author’s c o n d u c t
as
c o m m a n d e r in
Galilee in the earlier stage of the revolt.
I t supple-
m e n t s t h e
b u t is to b e used with even greater
caution.
T h e short work which we c o m m o n l y
call
t h e
Reply t o Apion
b u t of which t h e
t r u e title s e e m s t o b e
On the
Antiquity of
the
Jews’
is
a
defence
of
t h e Jews against their assailants, of whom t h e Alex-
a n d r i a n g r a m m a r i a n a n d polyhistor
is taken
as
a
leading
T h e chief value of t h e b o o k ,
a p a r t f r o m the light it throws o n the antisemitism of
t h e times, lies in the copious extracts f r o m p r o f a n e
writers o n Oriental history which a r e incorporated in it.
Josephus
the a u t h o r t h r o u g h whom t h e R o m a n
. a n d , later, for centuries, t h e Christian world g o t m o s t
its knowledge of Jewish history.
H i s works w e r e
translated into L a t i n
a
Greek a b r i d g m e n t of t h e
v o l u m i n o u s
Antiquities
w a s m a d e
t h e mediaeval
H e b r e w
J o s i p p o n ’ professes to b e the work of
Josephus, from whose writings t h e material is largely
d r a w n ; in m o d e r n times Josephus h a s been translated
into all the l a n g u a g e s
of
E u r o p e .
H i s authority
as
an
historian stood very high, his writings were a p p e a l e d
to
with a l m o s t
as
m u c h confidence
as
t h e
OT
itself.
In
recent times, o n t h e contrary, h e h a s not infre-
q u e n t l y been j u d g e d with unjust severity.
T h e gravest
faults of t h e
Antiquities
a r e those which i t shares with
t h e Jewish Hellenistic historiography in general, a n d
i n d e e d with n o small p a r t of t h e profane history
of
t h e
Alexandrian a g e , not t h e individual sins of Josephus.
To expect critical history of these writers is to look for
fiqs
a n thistles.
The business of the historian is to interest
readers
;
an effective story carries it off over all dry investiga-
tions; and legends which redounded to the glory of the race
were accepted without impertinent question.
It
is not to he
charged as a crime to Josephus that in these respects he is an
author of his time
his people. On the other hand the care-
lessness and lack of
with which the latter part of’tbe
particularly is worked out
fairly he laid a t his door
;
he
wearies of his long task before it is completed.
W e h a v e n o extensive historical
in H e b r e w
or
A r a m a i c t o s e t beside t h e productions of t h e G r e c i a n
S o m e works
on
particular
have perished, o r , like I Macc.
a n d Josephus’s
reached
us
o n l y i n
G r e e k
garb.
T h e chief motive of the Hellenistic a u t h o r s
for retelling t h e ancient history
of
their people- to b r i n g
t o t h e knowledge of foreigners- was lacking.
T h e i r
o w n need
was
satisfied b y t h e S a c r e d Books them-
selves, interpreted
by
a n d Midrash.
T h e o n l y
comprehensive H e b r e w work o n Jewish history
of
which
we k n o w a n y t h i n g is t h e b a l d chronological e p i t o m e
k n o w n
as
D o w n t o t h e Persian period
it follows t h e O T with occasional midrashic episodes,
a n d with
a
m i n u t e determination of t h e chronology
-which is evidently t h e
of the
T h e
s i x centuries a n d m o r e f r o m N e h e m i a h t o t h e
war
u n d e r
H a d r i a n a r e comprised in t h e second half of chap.
30.
T h e lack of a n y continuous historical tradition is here
.again o b v i o u s ; t h e chronology of the Persian, t h e
G r e e k , t h e
a n d the
partly in consequence of corruption of the text- is far
-out of the way.
T h e w o r k , which enjoys T a l m u d i c
authority, is attributed t o
R.
Jose b e n H a l a p h t a
(circa
p r o b a b l y because h e
cited in i t
as
a n authority.
I t h a s u n d o u b t e d l y been more t h a n
o n c e worked over b y later
E. Schrader, art. Geschichtskunde
den
2
Del. ‘Die Formenreichthum der israelitischen
Geschichtsliteratur
24.
L.
Geschichtsschreibung
(‘73)
R.
Kittel, Die
der
A
‘96 (Rektoratsrede); B. Duhm,
Die
des
‘97;
Apion died ahont fifty years before Josephus wrote.
Cp the Alexandrian chronologist Demetrius
;
and note
also
3
Azaria de Rossi,
chap.
19.
chronology
HITTITES
see also
and the articles on the several books dis-
cussed above.
On various aspects of the general subject
: F.
Creuzer,
der
in
‘45
H.
Ulrici,
der
‘33
K .
W. Nitzsch, Romische und deutsche
nalistik und Geschichtsschreibune’ in
11
A. v. Gutschmid ‘Aus
iiber die
(esp. the
J.
W. Loebell
und das
Element
der
geschichtlichen
und Darstellung
in
W.
Wachsmuth
die
der Geschichtsfalschung,’
d.
der
8
(‘56)
E. Zeller
‘
entstehen
schichtlichen Ueberlieferungen,’
Feb. ’93
(excellent)
Steinthal
Sage
Legende
Fabel,’
17
See also
d.
(94); and C. Wacbsmuth,
in
der
HITTITES
a
n a m e which occurs rather
frequently i n t h e O T , a n d
is
often connected with regions
.G.
F.
s o m e w h a t
f r o m o n e another,
The name is given to one of the groups of
inhabitants of Southern Pales-
tine, whose
full
name is B’ne
;
so
2746.
A
single member of the
is
Gen.
2
and
Of
from the form the group is commonly referred to as ha-Hitti
the
So
throughout Ex.,
Nu.,
Dt., Josh., Judg.,
Ezra and Neh and also
I
K .
Ch. 87). The references
given
to the earlier period of Hebrew history,
definite steps had been taken leading to the formation of the
kingdom ; but Hittites are mentioned also in the later period
in the days of Saul
(I
David
and a parallel passage
I
Ch.
Sblomon
(I
om. A]
[L]
11
K.
7 6
a
parallel passage Ch.
Thk
term
occurs more rarely- only twice for the earlier
period’ Josh.
(BA om.), Judg.
[A]
‘
of the Hittites
and three times for
later
2
K .
a parallel passage
Ch.
‘kings of
Hittites’). The persistent occurrence of Hettites in the Greek
transliteration in place of Hittites should not be overlooked.
In
t h e genealogical table, G e n .
is introduced
as
a son
of C a n a a n ; b u t t h e mention of H e t h
h e r e
is
evidently
a
gloss- though
an
old
one- tacked
on
t o ‘ S i d o n , t h e
firstborn of C a n a a n . ’
T h e Greek translators, perceiving the incongruity of the
of
for the nation alongside of
like
etc. changed
to
We may
the view of Ball
and others, and
the introduction of all the nations mentioned in
as a
addition suggested by the gloss
;
hut this will
affect the question of the inference about HEth to
the passage. For the entire section, Gen.
is an
ndependent fragment (taken from some genealogical list of
belonging to the same stratum of tradition as that
in the song, Gen.
according to which the three
iivisions of mankind were Canaan, Shem, and Japheth. This
sense of Canaan
accords well with certain passages
n the
OT
(see
C
ANA
AN
,
which make Canaan
term
the whole district between the Jordan, the Mediterranean, the
wilderness in the
S.
and the Lehanonrange in the
N.
; but it is
o
be poted that
contradiction to the morecommon
of the term in the Hexateuch and in passages like
35 Ezra91
Neh. 98-dependent
on
Hexateuch-where the Canaanites are merely one of
or seven divisions into which the district defined is divided.
it is furthermore considered that in this enumeration the
are assigned not always the first place-at times the
(Ex. 2328
or
the third (Dt.
Josh.
or
the fourth
(Ex.
is evident that no value is to he
to
the assignment of Heth as a ‘son’
Canaan. One conclusion, however, may be drawn from the
in nomenclature
:
a t one time the Canaanites were
pread over a much larger area than was the case when the
sraelites entered the country. To Israel the Canaanites still
oomed up large enough; hut the tradition which made them
he ancestors of all the other groups occupying the highlands
.nd valleys to the west of the Jordan, and which regarded them
one of the three great divisions of mankind, belongs to a
remote age.
W e conclude, then, t h a t t h e Hittites of t h e
OT, as
ethnic
group,
d o n o t necessarily stand
a
closer
relation to t h e C a n a a n i t e s t h a n t o the
Amorites, Hivites, Perizzites, or a n y
of the pre- Israelitish inhabitants
of
Palestine.
,
-
Hittites’
of
Hebron
HITTITES
HITTITES
view is to be found in Josh.
14,
where the whole district
of Israel‘s prospective possessions, from the wilderness
in the
S.
to the Lebanon in the
N.,
and eastward to the
Euphrates, is designated
as
‘the whole land of the
Hittites.’
is true that these words are
a
gloss, and
perhaps
a
late one, since they are not contained in
alone inserts). Their value is not impaired, how-
by this circumstance ; in the opinion
of
the scribe
who added them, Hittite was
a
term covering
a
very
large territory.
Judg.
1 2 6
is perhaps another in-
stance of the vague use of the phrase ‘land of the
Hittites,’ though here we have to reckon with the possi-
bility of a redactional insertion referring to
a
Hittite
empire established in
NE.
Syria, of which we hear much
in the inscriptions of Assyrian monarchs (see below,
6 ) ,
just
as
this empire is referred to in
K.
7 6 ,
and probably
in
I
K.
Again, when Ezekiel tells Jerusalem,
Thy father was an Amorite and thy mother
a
Hittite’
(Ezek.
1 6 3 4 5
[om.
he is using both terms in a
vague and comprehensive sense for the pre-Israelitish
inhabitants of Palestine.
From such usage it follows that there is
no
necessary
connection beyond the name between the southern
Hittites and those whom the Israelites encounter
Central Palestine. Indeed one might be inclined t o
regard thegrouping
of
Hittites
Amorites,
etc., as a conventional enumeration without any decided
reference to actual conditions ; but such
a
passage as
Josh.
3
is against this view.
Since the older inhabitants of Palestine were not
exterminated, it is not surprising to find a Hittite-the
The question confronts
us
here, whether in all cases
where the O T mentions Hittites, the
people is
meant? T o put it more precisely, are the B n e Heth,
of whom an interesting incident
is
recorded in Gen.
23
identical with the group called ha-Hitti
and enumerated among the pre- Israelitish inhabitants
of Palestine, and are these Hittites the same
as
those
found in the days of Saul, David, and Solomon?
According to Gen.
23
Abraham purchases
a
at Mamre from the B n e
who are
represented
as
a
settled population with Hebron as a
of centre.
The antiquity of the tradition is hardly open to question
though the details such
as
the formal deed of purchase
have been supplied by the fancy
of
a much later age, to
Abraham had already become
a
favourite subject for Midrashic
elaboration. That the Hebrew tradition regards the Hittites
of
as
identical with those mentioned elsewhere follows
from the introduction of Heth in Gen.
as well as from
the qualification ha-Hitti’added to the name ’of
23
the chief of the B’ne
These Hittites extended as far south
as
the edge of
the desert, since we find Edomitic clans, settled around
Gerar and Beersheba (Gen.
2634
[E]),
entering upon matrimonial alliances with Hittites.
The opposition of Isaac and Rebecca to
marriages with
Hittite women
reflects the later sentiments ex-
pressed in the Hexateuchal prohibition (Dt.
whereas the
tradition itself clearly points to there being a t an early period
friendly relationships between Hebrew and Edomitic clans
on
the one side and Hittites on the other.
Bearing these two features in
I
)
the settlement
of the
B’ne
in the extreme south of Palestine, and
the friendly relations between them
and the clans which constitute the
an-
cestors of at least a section of the later
Israelitish confederacy--it is certainly not
without significance that the Hittites mentioned in the
O T outside of the book of Genesis dwell in the centre
or extreme north of Palestine, and that they are viewed
as
the bitter enemies of the Israelites. True, in the
days
of
Saul and David, we find Hittites joining their
fortunes with David
( I
S.
and a Hittite occupies
a
prominent place in David‘s army
( 2
S.
2339)
(see
below,
Solomon enters into matrimonial alliances
with Hittite princesses
( I
K. 11
I
)
(see below,
6)
but
these are exceptional incidents. T h e Hittites, together
with the Canaanites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites,
Jebusites, and
hold the various parts of
Palestine proper against the Hebrew invaders, and
contest every advance.
The chief passages are
Ex.
Dt.
Josh.
128
(om.
L)
Judg.
35.
An
important indication
of the distribution of the various groups is furnished by
Josh.
1 1 3 .
The Canaanites are settled both in the
E.
and in the
W.
Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, and
sites in the mountains, and the Hivites at the foot of Mt.
Hermon in the
N.
the positions of the Hivites
and Hittites are exchanged but the gloss in
is
a
support for
M T
see H
IVITES
,
)
Here, then,
we find the Hittites settled in the mountainous districts
of Central Palestine contesting the encroachments of the
Hebrews.
is,
of course, not impossible that the
southern Hittites were gradually forced northward
through circumstances of which we are ignorant but
a
solution of the problem more in keeping with the con-
ditions of O T nomenclature is to suppose an inexactness
and vagueness in the use of the term Hittites, similar to
that which characterises the use of such terms
as
Canaan-
ites, Amorites, and even Philistines. A support for this
Bu.
E.
Mey. and
Che., art.
‘arequitesure that in this
of the name “Hittites for the population of the land (cp
also
2746
with 28
I
),
A
the Priestly narrator,
P)
is
deplorably wrong (Di.
ironically).]
Also
8,
according to the Samaritan version.
The order in which these nations are enumerated varies, and
a t times one or other-Girgashites, Perizzites, or Hivvites-
is omitted, though the Greek translators usually supplied the
deficiency by inserting them.
- -
.
Hittites
famous Urial-among the chiefs that
constituted the following of David
S.
I
Ch.
The position
occupied by Uriah points to
a
partial assimilation
between
and Hittites, and similarly the
strange tale of David and Bathsheba (Uriah’s wife),
as
related in
S.
11,
embodies a distinct recollection of
a
close alliance at one time between the two groups.
The unfavourable light
in
which David‘s act is placed is
due to an age which regarded it
as
a
heinous crime for
any Hebrew to marry
a
was not a worshipper
of
the age of David is still far removed from
the spirit which animates Deuteronomy and the Priestly
Code on this point.
There is no objection against
regarding these Hittites as the descendants of those
whom we encounter in the days of Abraham.
The case is different, however, when we come
Solomon, whose marriages with Hittite princesses
solemnize political alliances, just as does.
the enlargement of his harem through
Ammonitish, Edomitish, a n d
Sidonian concubines. Solomon but imi-
tated the example set by the kings of Egypt, who had long
been in the habit of adding to their harems representa-
tives of the various nations whom they had conquered
or with whom they had entered into political alliances.
The king’s harem in ancient days in a measure took the
place of the diplomatic corps of
times. These
Hittites cannot possibly be identical with those we-
encounter in the days of David ; there
is
no room in t h e
days of Solomon for a Hittite empire or principality
in
Southern Palestine,
The Hittite district must have.
been
as
clearly defined, however, as that of the Moabites,
Ammonites, Edomites, and Sidonians
( I
K.
11
I
) .
That
there was a Hittite empire, and that it was important, is.
implied by the statement
( I
K.
that Solomon
imported horses from Egypt for ‘all the kings of
Hittites
’
(see H
ORSE
, §
3,
M
IZRAIM
,
§
The same.
Hittite power is referred to in
2
K.
7 6 ,
where the juxta-
position
of
‘
kings
of
the Hittites
’
with
<
kings
of
Egypt
’
may be taken
as
a
measure. of the importance of this.
power. This reference alone might be sufficient warrant
for concluding that the Hittite district is to be sought
in the
N .
of Palestine, the purport
of
the passage being
to imply that Aram was attacked simultaneously from
2096
HITTITES
the
N.
and the
S.
A
more definite conclusion, however,
may be drawn from
S.
246.
Despite the corruptness
of the passage, one may be certain that it contains a
reference to the land of the Hittites.’
The reference
is to a land lying
of Gilead, and we are thus brought
to the region where, as we know from other sources to
be mentioned presently, an extensive Hittite empire
flourished as early at least as
C.
In a study of the Hittites of the
we must therefore
take into consideration the
use of the term.
HITTITES
number of principalities, and
it
does not follow that the
rulers and inhabitants of these principalities were even
of one and the same linguistic or ethnic stock.
Our knowledge of the early history of Babylonia and
of the rise of the Assyrian power is still too uncertain to
We must
the Hittites
settled around Hebron (who maintain
their identitvdown to the davs of David)
from
(6)
the
conventional’ Hittites whom tradition
enumerated with other groups a s opponents whom the
Hebrew invaders in
a
severe and protracted struggle
dispossessed of their land; and both these divisions
must be kept separate again from (c) an extensive
Hittite power (divided up into principalities) situated
in the north-eastern part
of
Syria, beyond the confines
of Palestine proper and, lastly, there is the vague and
indefinite use of the term which makes Hittite almost
synonymous with
( d )
all Palestine and Syria, and thus
adds another complicating element.
So
far as the evidence goes, there is nothing to warrant
any connection (beyond the name) between the Hittites
(6)
who form part of the pre-Israelitish population of
southern Palestine, and the Hittites (c) whose alliance
is sought by Solomon. I t is the latter Hittites who
play much the more prominent part in the ancient
history of the East.
Thotmes
I.,
the third king of the eighteenth dynasty,
began about
B.
c.
an -extended
of
Asiatic
campaigns which eventually brought about
the subjection of Palestine and Syria to
the pharaohs of Egypt. Among the more
formidable enemies enumerated by the Egyptian rulers
is a people whose name
appears
to
be identical
with the term
or
Hetti of the OT.
This people
occupied the mountainous districts of northern Syria,
and extended to the E. as far as the Orontes, indeed
at times beyond it to the Euphrates.
A
stronghold of
the H-ta which is prominently mentioned in the inscrip-
tions of Thotmes
1500
B
.c.)
is Kedesh. The
Ht-a did not confine themselves, however,
to
their
mountain recesses.
Joining. arms with the various
nationalities of northern Palestine and the
W.
district,
they advanced as far as Megiddo to meet the Egyptian
armies.
pharaohs found their task difficult,
and, even after many campaigns had been waged, the
subjection of the H-ta was not definitely accomplished.
The kings of Egypt advanced
to
Carchemish, Tunep,
Hamath, and
.to have laid siege to these places
but again and again armies had to be sent into northern
Syria and the Taurus region.
Marash, at the extreme
E.
of Cilicia, appears to have resisted all attempts at
conquest. The Egyptians at one time found a valuable
ally in
-king of Mitanni-a district to the
NW.
of Assyria.
This alliance between Egypt and
seems to have kept the H-ta in check; but it
was not long before the H-ta of Marash, Carchemish,
Hamath, and
regained
independ-
ence.
In the fourteenth century the hold of Egypt
upon her Asiatic possessions was loosened, and about
a
century later her control practically comes to an end.
It is clear from the way in which the H-ta are spoken
of in the Egyptian records that the prevailing notions
about them were vague.
To
assume that there was at
this time an extensive Hittite empire is a theory that
meets with serious difficulties. The district embraced
by the Egyptian rulers under the designation H - t a
appears to have been divided up among a varying
Read
and see further
This is the
now adopted by Egyptologists.
The character of the vowel following tcannot be definitely deter-
mined, T h e spelling adopted here
is
(after WMM).
say when the inhabitants
of the Euphrates valley first came into
contact with the Hittites.
The
dynasty, which maintained its sway over Babylonia for
upwards of
500
years, was of an aggressive character,
and in the fifteenth century we find Babylonia joined
with Egypt in a close alliance.
The use of the
Babylonian script and language at this time as the
medium
of
diplomatic interchange between the court
of Egypt and officials stationed in Palestine and Syria
under Egyptian control points to a predominating
Babylonian influence and an earlier
,
Babylonian
supremacy, during which the Babylonian language
was introduced into the district in question.
T h e text containing an account of the western exploits
of
Sargon
I.
[see B
ABYLONIA
,
(whose date is provisionally
fixed a t
B
.c.)
is of a very late date, and cannot therefore be
relied upon as confirming the general tradition of a n early con-
quest of Syria on the part of Babylonian rulers. (The name
Hittite does not appear
in
the text referred to, the lands to t h e
W.
embraced under the general designation of ‘Amorite
country.
As the Asiatic campaigns of Egypt begin in the
eighteenth century
B
.
we must assume that the Baby-
lonian control of Syria and Palestine belongs to an
earlier time. W e know enough of the history of the
dynasty in Babylonia to say that it was probably
during the period of its ascendency that the control of
Babylonia over the western districts was most effective,
and the testimony of the Egyptian inscriptions warrants
in assuming that the Hittites were then the most
powerful federation against whom the Babylonians had
to contend.
It is to be noted, however, that the term
On this point see C
ANAAN
,
Hittite,
or
Hatti, which appears to be
identical with it, does not make its
appearance in cuneiform literature till the days
of
Tiglath-pileser
I.,
ahout
c.
Then it means a
distinctly defined kingdom lying along the Orontes (with
Carchemish as one of its important centres) and extend-
ing well into the Taurus range. Against these
the Assyrian ruler waged
a
fierce campaign.
According
to his account it ended
a complete triumph for the
Assyrian arms.
reality, however, the conquest was
far from complete. The successors of
were much harassed by the troublesome
and it
is
not until the reign of Sargon
B
.c.)
that they
finally disappear from the horizon of Assyrian history.
Curiously enough, we encounter in the Assyrian in-
scriptions the same vagueness in the use of the term
that is characteristic of O T usage Sennacherib
and other Assyrian rulers, when they speak of the land
of Hatti,’ have in mind the entire region to the
W.
of
the Euphrates, embracing the Phcenician coast and in-
cluding apparently Palestine (see C
ANAAN
, §
Still,
there can be no doubt that the Assyrians distinguished
the Hatti proper from the other principalities of Syria
and Palestine and if the testimony of the comparatively
late Assyrian inscriptions could only be used for the
earlier periods, the ethnic and geographical problems
involved would be considerably simplified.
Fortunately, as an aid to the solution
of
these problems,
we have
a
considerable number of monuments left
us
by
the Hittites themselves, and although the
date of these monuments does not carry
us
back to a5 early a period as the Egyptian
campaigns in Western Asia, they help
us
to a clearer
understanding of the earlier history of the Hittites.
At
Carcheniish and Hamath have been found remains of
sculptures accompanied by inscriptions, and elsewhere
in this region; as at
there are abundant traces
of Hittite art. Quite recently (August,
a
has been found at Babylon, transported from
a
Hittite
HITTITES
HITTITES
centre by an Assyrian monarch.
This art
is so
distinctly
based upon Assyrian and Babylonian models
as to
decide definitely the influences at work in producing the
civilisation in this region.
In addition to this,
Paphlagonia, Lycaonia, and Phrygia abound in
remains of edifices and of works of art showing the same
types and the same general traits as those of Carchemish
and Hamath, whilst the inscriptions found with the
edifices belong likewise to the same class.
Thanks to the researches of Jensen it may now be
regarded as certain that the inscriptions cover the period
c.
and it has also been made probable that
the spread of the Hittites was gradual from the region
of Cilicia to the
N.,
NE., and
nearly to the
borders of the Euxine, and W. to the
It
is
fair
to
presume that the language of all the so-called
Hittite inscriptions is the same, although it may be
added that several styles of Hittite characters may be
distinguished, some being pictorial, others branching
off
into conventional forms with a strong tendency
towards becoming linear.
These varieties, which are
quite paralleled by the styles of writing in the Egyptian
and Babylonian-Assyrian inscriptions, do not affect the
question of the language; and, this being the case, we
can understand the vagueness in the geographical use
of the term Hittites among the ancients. At what
period the extension of Hittite settlements began it is as
yet impossible to say but the indications are that we
must go back several centuries beyond
B.C.
for
the date.
On the other hand, whilst in general the
Hittite traits are clearly defined on the monuments,
there are good reasons for assuming several ethnic types
among those grouped under the term.
From an anthro-
pological point of view, the Mongolian, or to speak
more definitely the Turanian, type seems to prevail;
but, whatever the ground-stock of the Hittites of Asia
Minor may have been, there is a clear indication of
Semitic admixture.
The decipherment of the Hittite inscriptions which
would throw
so
much needed light on the ethnic prob-
lems, is now being vigorously
After several attempts on the
part of Sayce, Peiser, and
which
cuted.
constituted an opening wedge, Jensen has recently struck
out on a new path which gives promise of leading, ere
long, to a satisfactory solution of the mystery.
With
great ingenuity he has determined much of the general
character of the inscriptions.
He has identified ideo-
graphs and sign-groups for the names of countries and
gods, some of which appear to be established beyond
reasonable doubt.
Passing beyond those limits,
Jensen is fully convinced that the language of the in-
scriptions belongs to the Aryan stock-is in fact the
prototype of the modern Armenian. This rather startling
result, although it has received the adherence of some
eminent scholars, cannot he said to be definitely assured,
and for the present remains in the category of
a
theory
to
be further tested. The proof furnished by Jensen
for the Aryan character of the Hittite language is not
sufficiently strong to overcome the objection that many
of the Hittite proper names occurring both in the
Egyptian and in the Assyrian inscriptions are either
decidedly Semitic
or
can be accounted
for on
the
assumption of their being Semitic, whilst the evidence
which can be brought to bear upon the question from O T
references points in the same direction.
Again,
if,
a s Jensen believes, and as seems
the Hittite
characters are to be regarded as showing a decided
resemblance to Egyptian hieroglyphs-so much so,
indeed, as to suggest a connection between the two
systems-there would be another presumption for ex-
pecting to find an affiliation between the Hittite language
R.
Koldewey,
Die
in
(Leips.
At
near Smyrna,
is sculptured on a rock the
picture
of
a Hittite warrior with
a few Hittite characters.
and the Semitic stock, if not indeed,
as
in Egyptian, a
Semitic substratum.
No
valid conclusion
be
drawn from the unquestionable relationship of the
Cypriote characters to the Hittite signs, since the
Cypriote syllabary is clearly the more simplified of the
two, and is presumably, therefore, a derivative of the
former. What we know of early Semitic influences in
the proto-Grecian culture and religion of Asia Minor,
speaks against an Aryan civilisation flourishing
the
region covered by the Hittite monuments.
These suggestions are thrown out with all due reserve,
for the problem is too complicated to warrant at present
anything like a decided tone. So far as Jensen’s de-
cipherment has gone, the inscriptions-some thirty in
all-contain little beyond the names and titles of rulers,
lands and gods, with brief indications of conquests.
Valuable as such indications would be if definitely estab-
lished, it does not seem likely that our knowledge of
Hittite history would be much advanced by the complete
decipherment of the meagre material at our command.
On the other hand, there is every reason to believe that
excavations in Hittite centres will increase the material,
and we may also look forward to finding a bilingual
inscription of sufficient length to settle definitely the still
uncertain elements in the decipherment,’ and clear the
field of the many hypotheses that have been put forward.
Meanwhile, bearing in mind the necessarily tentative
character of all conclusions until excavations on a large
scale shall have been carried on in centres of Hittite
settlements, we may sum up
our
present knowledge as
follows :
I
.
Among the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine
there was a
group
settled in southern Palestine, known
the
Egyptians began their conquest of Syria,
Hittites formed one of their most formid-
able adversaries, and continued to be prominent through-
out the several centuries of Egyptian supremacy in Syria
and Palestine. The chief seat of these Hittites was in
the extreme
N.
of Palestine and extended well into Syria.
The further extension of Hittite settlements brings under
control not merely the district to the W. of the Taurus
range, but a considerable portion of western Asia Minor
(including Cilicia and Cappadocia) extending to the
Euxine Sea on the
and the
to
the
W.
The
north-eastern boundary is uncertain but it may have
reached to Lake Van. After the withdrawal of the
Egyptians from Asia Minor the Assyrians engage in
frequent conflicts with the Hittite kingdom in the region
of the Orontes,
is not until the eighth century that
they are finally reduced to a condition where they could
no longer offer any resistance.
The vagueness in the use of the term Hittite, in the
O T as well as in the Egyptian and Assyrian records,
makes it difficult to decide whether all Hittites are to be
placed in one group.
The evidence seems to show that
the sons
of
settled around Hebron at an earlyperiod,
have nothing in common (beyond the name) with the
Hittites of central and northern Palestine, and have
nothing
to
do, therefore, with the Hittites of Syria and
of regions still farther
N.
The Hittites of Hebron were
Semites and spoke a Semitic tongue; the Hittites of
northern Palestine and Syria were probably not Semitic
but became mixed with Semites at
a
comparatively early
period. Their language, likewise, appears to contain
Semitic elements, and may indeed have
a
Semitic sub-
stratum. The Hittite script appears to have been taken
over from the Egyptian hieroglyphics, and in any case
has strong affinities with it, though it seems also certain
that it contains elements which are either original
or
derived from some source that
is
still unknown.
as
the Hettites or Hittites.
and Chipiez,
Hist.
in
Sardinia, etc., vol.
The only bilingual as yet
found
is
a small silver
boss
(of
containing a rather obscure Assyrian inscription
accompanied
by eight Hittite characters.
2100
HIVITEB
HODESH
whether the simple mode ‘of life of the Rechabites
really dates back only to the age of Jehu, and whether
the Rechabites at that time really adopted a new
father or founder different from the reputed father’
of the Kenites.
If
so,
we may suppose Hobab
to
be
a corruption either of Jehonadab (or Nadab) or else
of Jehobab
which is probably the fuller form of
J
OBAB
[g.
v.].
The latter alternative is the easier
accepting it, we shall proceed to emend Jehonadab and
Jonadab in
into Jehobab
and Jobab
respectively.
Thus Jehobab the father-in-law of
Moses becomes the father and legislator of the Kenites
or Kechabites.
has
in Judg.,
in Nu.:
readings in Swete., We.
compares Hobab with Ar.
‘
serpent
but
most connect the name with
‘to love’; cp Nab.
‘beloved.’
T. K.
C.
the point to which Abraham pursued
and his allies
was on
the left hand
on the
N.)
of Damascus.
In the
Tablets,
139
59
63
146
rev.
is
mentioned; once, to define Damascus, ‘ D . in the
land of Ubi’
63). On the edge of the Syrian
desert, between Damascus and Palmyra, there is
a
spring called
which is still famous in the songs of
the Bedouin. Wetzstein (in Del.
561 )
identi-
fies this with
The objection is the distance
from Dan, where Abraham is said to have set upon
the kings and defeated them.
From Dan
( T e l l
to Damascus is fifteen hours’ journey, from
Damascus to
more than twenty. This is not
decisive, however
the narrator (if he knew the dis-
tance) may have wished
to
the unwearied
energy of Abraham.
It is likely that in ancient times
so
excellent a spring was even more frequented than
now; for then, like other important springs on the
verge of the desert, it probably had
a
village beside it.
HOBAIAH
Neh. 763 RV, AV H
ABAIAH
.
HOD
perhaps shortened from
[BA],
[L]), in a genealogy of
4
I
Ch.
7
HODAVIAH
as
if
praise
cp
H
ODIAH
and
[BAL]).
I
.
Head of a father’s house belonging to Manasseh
(
I
Ch. 5
24
:
h. Hassenuah, an ancestor of
(
I
Ch. 9 7
in Neh. 11 9, Judah
;
b. Senuah is
doubtless the same person.
3.
b.
a descendant of Zerubbabel
(
I
Ch.
3 24
Kt.,
Kr., AV
;
A
Levitical family in great post-exilic list (see
E
ZR
A
9
2 4 0
the
is a
the preceding
7
43,
Hodeiah
Kt.,
Kr. ;
O
U
.
Esd.
26
T o this family the b‘ne Jeshua
and’ Kadmiel apparently belonged (cp also
where
Hodaviah gives place to Judah, as in no.
see
3).
Since however, Jeshua, Kadmiel, and
are
mentioned
in Neh.
it is better to emend Ezra 2 40
etc. and read ‘the b’ne Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, and
viah.’
So
already in
I
Esd. 5
Kadmiel and Bannas, and
Sudias. From a comparison of the lists i d Neh. it is probable
that Hodaviah is the same as Hodiah in Neh.
8
7
etc. and Judah
in Neh. 12
8.
See
H
ODIAH
.
S .
A.
C.
‘born at the feast of the new
a
name in a genealogy of B
ENJAMIN
(
I
Ch.
perhaps
a corruption of Ahishahar (see
6).
identifies it with B
AARA
of
scribe read
instead
of
(the first time), and inserted
That letters not
only
fell
out,
but were inserted by editors,
is certain.
Le.,
T.
K.
C.
Cp
S
ENAAH
.
2102
‘The Hittites’
; Sayce The
Hittites
(‘88)
Wright
The
the
14.
Literature.
De
et
de
Jensen,
and articles in
48.
HIVITES,
RV ‘the H
IVITE
’
‘the
Hivvites’
[BAL]), named in the lists of
tribes driven out of Palestine by the b’ne
Israel (Ex. 3 8
also Is.
where, however, Cheyne now holds the reading to be
impossible).
The origin of the name and even its existence (see below) in
the true text have been disputed (see
H
O
RITE
).
Some critics
explain from the Ar.
‘family,’ as if
people who live
in
Bedawin encampments (see
G
OVERNMENT
,
4,
Wellhausen
343)
suggests that the name is
derived from
Eve (on the meaning of which name see A
DAM
A
ND
E
VE
,
36). I t is a t any rate possible that, if the reading
is correct, the early interpreters in the
were
right in connecting it with
:
OS
16464,
etc.), and that
were originally the Snake’
clan
(so, doubtfully, Moore,
In Gen.
Ch.
B om.,
[L])
the
Hivites are reckoned among the sons of Canaan. Moore
thinks they were a petty people of Central
Palestine
(Judges,
79);
if
so,
the
textual and critical difficulties in passages which would
otherwise he
of
value, render it impossible to fix
upon
their locality.
In Josh.
9
7
the Gibeonites are spoken of as Hivites
cp
11
19
‘
the Hivites the inhabitants of
om.
cp Bennett,
As we know,
remained for
a
long time in the possession of
Israelites, but whether they were Hivites, Horites (as
or Amorites (cp
S.
21
is un-
certain.
may, however, be right in reading Horite
for Hivite in Gen. 34 (see S
HECHEM
b.
cp
H
ORITE
), and the same emendation is required in
362
(see
B
ASHEMATH
, Z
IBEON
).
Another error occurs in Josh.
113,
where the Hittites
must certainly be referred to in the geographical loca-
tion, ‘under Hermon in the land of Mizpah’
the
Hivites (om.
and Hittites,
as
shows, have acci-
dentally exchanged places (cp Meyer,
1126,
Bu.
Ri.
81
n., Moore,
81
see H
ITTITES
,
4).
So
again in Judg.
33,
for the Hivites who dwell in
Mt. Lebanon, etc., and who are named after the
Zidonians, we should most probably read Hittites (cp
Moore,
).
It is difficult to decide whether Hivites
in
2
S.
[L])
is correct. The ‘cities of the
Hivites and the Canaanites are enumerated after Zidon
and Tyre, and by adopting the reading Hittites
(so
Pesh.
)
the geographical details will agree substantially
with the above-quoted passages. On the other hand,
the words in question may be a gloss based on the lists
in
Ex.
3
8
etc., and it is noteworthy that the Pesh. goes
a
step further and adds Jebusites.’
A.
C.
HIZKI
I
Ch. 817 RV, AV H
EZEKI
.
HIZKIAH
Zeph.
1
I
AV, RV H
EZEKIAH
.
HIZKIJAH
Neh.
AV, RV
See A
TER
,
I
.
HQBAB
son of R
EUEL
Moses’ father-
in-law
(Nu.
1029 Judg. 411 [a gloss? see Moore], and
probably Judg.
[emended text: cp
[A],
In
he is repre-
sented as
a
in
411 as a Kenite.
Elsewhere (except in
I
Ch.
see
DAB
or Jehonadab, is called the founder
of
the
Rechabites, and we may doubt (but see R
ECHABITES
)
Read
with Lowth,
Lag. etc. (cp
Cheyne now reads
(see
(in sing.). Vg.
ad
is
either
a
corruption from ad
or points to the reading
which
is
perhaps the more probable alternative.
2101
HODIAH
HODIAH
is
my glory,’ cp
wife was a sister of
I
Ch.
4
however, has the better reading ‘his wife Hodiah’
v.
Thus we see that Hodiah and Ha-Jehudijah are really
the same genealogical person, who is called in v. 19 mother
of
the father of K
EILAH
and E
SHTEMOA
’
and
was the wife of
corrupt form
emendation.
AV
mentioned in lists of priests, teachers, and
Levites, Neh. 8 7 9 5
(om.
in both passages),
I
Esd.
(A
UTEAS
;
Neh.
13
[L]). ’ H e is
the same as
(4).
T h e
name a parently recurs in
I
Esd. 5
under the corrupt form
RV) ;
see
I
.
HOGLAH (
as
if
‘
partridge,’ 68
[BL],
[AF],
in Josh.
[A]), the third of the
five daughters of Z
ELOPHEHAD
,
(Nu.
2633
36
Josh.
17
3
Though
a
place-
name Hoglah is possible (see
yet some
better known name is more probable for a daughter
of
Perhaps
is a corruption of
e . ,
Abel-meholah.
See
M
A
HL
A
H
.
makes Hodiah the brother of Naham.
HOHAM
king
of
Hebron, defeated by
Joshua (Josh.
ing to Hommel
223
the
is identical
with the
Hauhum.
See H
ORAM
.
HOLD.
A stronghold
or
citadel, used especially with
reference to David‘s retreat in the cave
of
I
[but see
cp
;
Both words are employed to denote the fortress of Zion
S.
6
7
I
Ch. 11 7), and in a general sense are used of any place
of
refuge
or safety. See
F
ORTRESS
(beg.).
T h e legitimacy of the rendering ‘hold for
in
I
13
6
(AV ‘high places
Judg. 9 46 49 (EV) is not certain.
T h e
rock-hewn or
which the
word
in Nabataean (see
Gloss.,
suitable in
I
S.
(cp
‘hole ’), but appears less satisfactory
in Judg.
where (unless some underground chamber,
the reputed
god B
AAL
-
BERITH
be intended)
the rendering ‘tower (as in Sabaean) seems preferable (cp
Moore, ad
See Dr. (Sam.
Moore Eu. ad
and for
cp Earth,
’97, p.
(with lit. kited).
HOLM
TREE.
I
.
Is.
om.
;
Theod.,
[in
C
YPRESS
.
mentioned in
58
with the
characteristic paronomasia ‘the
of
God waiteth with the
sword to cut thee
[Theod.],
in
see
and Theod.] (cp Theophr.
Hist.
iii.
7
and Aq. in Gen. 14
3
8
.
the adj.
Aq. in Ezek.
27 5) is intended probably
L.
and
(Houghton). Similarly, a Syriac
gloss
Low,
treats it as a species
of oak
T h e
however, may be corrupt.
HOLOFERNES
[Syr.]), the name given to the Assyrian general in the
legendary book of Judith.
The name, also pronounced
Orofernes, was borne by two Cappadocian princes, the
one,
a
young
son
of Ariamnes, and the other a son of
the daughter of Antiochus the Great, and, at
one time, the friend of Demetrius
I.
The latter has
been identified with Holoferues by Ewald
and
independently by
E.
L.
Hicks
Ball, however, prefers to identify him with
Nicanor the Syrian general overcome by Judas the
Maccabee, and Gaster with Scaurus, the general
by Pompey into Syria
65
B
.
C.
According to Winckler
I f the termination is genuine we may compare Artaphernes
Dataphernes, Tissaphernes, and
two
Median princes of the
of Esar-haddon, viz.
and
Ball,
ad Zoc
and cp the Syr. form
See
B
OOK OF,
and
Willrich,
HONEY
HOLON
or
I
.
A
town in the hill-country
of
Judah, assigned to
the Levites (Josh.
[B].
[L]).
,It
mentioned between
and Giloh. The site
unknown.
In
I
658
(43)
it
is
H
ILEN
[B],
[A],
[L]),
for which there is a
Hilez
so
the Soncino edition of the Prophets).
According to Klo. in
of
I
(see
V
ALLEY
Possibly, too,
intended
O
F
)
=
= Holon.
in Judith 154
;
see C
OLA
.
A
town of Moah Jer.
HOLY
Ex.
1 9 6 ;
HOLINESS
Ex.
See C
LEAN
,
I
.
HOLY
GHOST
Mt.
See
S
PIRIT
, and cp P
ARACLETE
,
P
ENTECOST
,
S
PIRITUAL
G
IFTS
.
HOMAM
I
Ch.
139.
HONEY
same order of root letters in
Aram. and
Ar.
Ass.
honey,’
‘ a sweet drink’
The word
has three
distinct senses :
(
I
)
the honey of the wild bee,
the
honey
of
the domesticated hee, and ( 3 ) manufactured
honey,
or
syrup, the
of modern Syria.
I
.
In the sense of ‘wild honey’ the word is
of
frequent occurrence.
Honey out of the rock’ is
mentioned in Dt.
32
13
and Ps.
81
and Canaan
is
even described, and
similarly Goshen
16
as a land
flowing with milk and honey’
(Ex. 3 8
17
passim;
cp
Dt.
8
8
K.
18
32
Jer.
41
Theories attaching either
of the two other significations to the term
as
used in this phrase, have no adequate justification.
It was, further, the honey of the wild bee which Sam-
son
found in the carcase of the lion (Judg.
14
8
&
;
see
B
EE
), and of which Jonathan partook
(
I
S.
by dipping his staff into the honey-comb
cp Cant.
51)
and wild honey
was the
fare of John the Baptist
(Mk.
1
6
Mt.
3
4).
There is no direct reference to domestic bee-
keeping in the
OT
(see
B
EE
).
Nevertheless, it
would be strange, in view of the antiquity of the
domestication of the bee in the East
( A m . Tab.
speaks of honey and oil in Syria), if the Hebrews were
I n E V invariably
‘honey,’ except in
Ch.
31
5,
where
has dates.
I n the latter passage Lag.,
Gr.,
We., Che. read, ‘With
droppings
for
of
honey’; note the parallelism.
3
[The phrase ‘ a land flowing
with milk and honey’ is
more poetical than its context seems to justify.
It was already
conventional
the time of J E .
It
is a reasonable supposi-
tion that it comes from ancient poetry; and, since ancient
poetry is always tinged with mythology, it is not improbable
that the phrase in question had a mythological origin. I f it
were
we should not doubt it. But the more sober
Semitic mythology does not appear to have spoken of the sun
a s a cow and the moon as a bee (Goldziher
Mythology
Nor was it imagined
the
that the Milk;
Way was specially the abode of the Sun-gad (as
the Egyptians
:
Maspero,
Probably the phrase alludes to
the idealised past of human history. In the time of
Manetho (Muller,
Hist. Gv. 2
the Nile
flowed with honey for fifteen days.
So,
in
Hebrew Golden
it may have been said, with perfect sincerity, that the land
I t is to such a myth that a n
Assyrian poet may allude, when he wishes for his king, besides
the protection of the Sun-god and the Moon-god that God may
cause to flow into his channels
‘honey (and)
curdled
Del., G.
Gee.).
Cp
See
flowed with milk and honey.
T. K.
.
4
The text
MT
and
here admitted to he corrupt.
According to We
Bu
v.
should
run ‘and there was
honeycomb on
field.’ ‘This is
best
that can be done’ (H. P. Smith). But how is
to
be accounted for? The continuation is,
caah
omits caah
as a bad gloss
on
and corrects
into
or
with this
result (which he too boldly adppts), ‘Now
district
was occupied with bee-keeping.
[But
may have come
in in a corrupt
from the transliterated Heb. column of a
Hexaplar text and have represented
HONEY
HOOK
acquainted only with wild honey,
this be
reconciled with the mention
of
honey as well as other
products of cultivation in
Ch.
31
5.
Apiculture is first mentioned by Philo, who says that the
Essenes were fond of it
ed. Maugey). I n the Mishna
references to it abound. T h e hive
was either of straw
or of wicker
doubtless plastered over, as a t
the present day, to keep out the excessive heat (see description
.of modern hives under B
EE
). T h e technical term for removing
the combs when filled was
(lit. to scrape, see Levy
with quotation from Rashi see also Moore’s note
on Judg.
1 4 9
where alone in O T the word occurs). The
it would
were first stupefied by the smoke of charcoal and dung
kindled in front of the hive on the
(see
16
Surenhusius, with Maimonides’ commentary).
When the
were removed in this way, a t least two had
to
he left in the hive a s food for the bees during winter
5 3).
3. In later Hebrew certainly, and in the O T possibly,
is also used to denote certain artificial prepara-
tions made from the juice of various
by inspissation,
like the modern
Reference has already been
-made to the theory that the honey’ with which the
land of Canaan was said
to
flow
’
was this inspissated
:syrup; it has also been held that at least the honey
intended for transport (Gen.
43
11
I
K.
14
3)
and export
27
17)
must be
so
understood.
The former view
is
to the latter, if Cheyne’s emendation
.of
Ezek.
27
17
be accepted (see
no objection
need be offered. Stade
(Gesch.
n.
it
is
true,
thinks that grape-syrup was unnecessary in the land
which flowed with milk and honey.’ The early inhabit-
ants of Canaan, however, as Bliss appears to have shown,
were certainly acquainted with this manufacture.
His
excavations at Tell el-Hesy (Lachish) revealed t w o
wine-presses, with apparatus (as he judged) for boiling
the filtered juice (inspissation) into grape syrup.’
The first unmistakable Jewish reference to it is in Josephus
(the date-syrup of Jericho; see
P
ALM
T
REE
);
Tg.
Dt.
88)
also mentions it. I n the Mishna it is called
and we may infer that in the Mishnic period dates were
the chief source of the manufacture. Since the spread of Islam,
which forbids
the grapes of Syria have been
mainly diverted to the
of
The pure grape
juice is drawn off into a stone
vat
(see description of press under
W
INE
), and allowed to settle, after which
it
is conveyed to a
large copper cauldron
or
Pro-
etc.,
three
’in the win;-press
close a t hand (cp Bliss’s illustration, above). After
the juice has
for a short time it is returned to the vat
which in the interval has been thoroughly cleaned and allowed
t o
cool. The process of boiling and cooling is repeated, after
which the juice is boiled for the third and last time, the yellow
syrup
constantly stirred and lifted u p by means of a large
erforated wooden spoon with a long handle (the
T h e boiling is a n affair of much skill, and
every village with large vineyards has several experts, who
.superintend the process and from the colour consistency and
manner of boiling
moment
the
is
completed. T h e inspissated syru is now hurriedly
t o a
clean stone cistern within the
and allowed to cool
before being put into vessels for conveyance to the owner’s
house.
‘ T h e final stage of the process is to beat
with
a
stick and draw it out to make it of a firmer consistency, and
somewhat lighter in colour. I t is of a dark golden
like ma le molasses, and its taste is intensely sweet like honey
Mackie,
to whom the writer is indebted
for most of the above details). Both Greeks and Romans were
alike familiar with this process of inspissation, the products
being variously known a s
The first three, according to Pliny, were prepared
boiling
down the must to one-third its bulk, ‘when must is boiled down
to one-half only, we give it the name of
Burckhardt also states that three
of grapes
a r e
calculated to yield a hundredweight of
Wellstedt
found the
using the pods of the caroh-tree (cp H
USKS
)
for the manufacture of
in
a
practice still followed in Syria (Post,
Flora,
Among ‘the principal things for the whole use of
man’s life’ Ben
fitly assigns
a
place to honey
It was ‘eaten alone
as
a delicacy,
as
by Samson and Jonathan (cp
also
S.
17
I
K.
and
as a
relish with other
‘ A
piece of broiled fish and of an
articles of food.
Bliss,
A
Cities, 69-71,
with diagram.
68
honeycomb ( d a b
was
doubtless
a
familiar combination, although absent from the best
MSS
of Lk.
(and RV). But curdled milk and
honey alone
(EV
‘butter and honey’ Is.
7 1 5 2 2 )
was
very poor diet (see M
ILK
). It was as a sweetener of
food that, before the introduction of sugar, honey was
everywhere in demand
the bee is little, but her fruit
is the chief of sweet things (Ecclus.
11
3).
In particular
it was used for all sorts of sweet cakes
(Ex.
16
see also B
AKEMEATS
,
cakes
as
were so much relished by the Greeks as dessert. But it
is
well known that honey partaken of too freely produces
(Prov.
2527).
Honey, however, was
allowed, at least by the later legislation (Lev.
as
an ingredient of any meal-offering, because of the ease
with which it ferments (cp Pliny,
although
admitted freely in other cults (see Bertholet,
K H C
on
Ezek.
16
A
drink resembling mead was
to
the later Jews by
a
name
derived from the
Greek
and said to have been compounded of
wine, honey, and pepper
(
11
I
20
Honey was kept in jars
( I
K.
EV ‘ a
cruse of
honey’ cp Jer.
41
in which probably it was largely
exported through the markets of Tyre (Ezek.
27
17).
T h e medicinal uses
of
honey are discussed a t
length by Pliny
50)
and were not unknown to
Jerusalem
8
I
)
or of Alexandria (see addition to Gk. text of Prov.
6 8
quoted under B
EE
). T h e
of
informs us, was preserved from decomposition
being laid in
honey
Ant.
xiv.
7
the chief
of
sweet things,’ honey-is much used in
similes and metaphors by Hebrew writers. The word
of Yahwe to the Hebrew poet is ‘sweeter than honey
and the honeycomb’
Ps.
cp
also
Ps.
The pleasant speech of one’s friends,
also, is as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health
to the bones‘
(Pr.
cp Cant.
Wisdom, even,
is
comparable to honey (Pr.
24
25
Ecclus.
24
and the memory of
a
good man is ‘sweet as honey in
every mouth (Ecclus.
49
I
,
said of Josiah).
A.
R .
S.
HOOD.
Is.
AV.
See
T
URBAN
,
HOOK.
For the
(nos.
below) used with
I
.
error for
(AV
‘thorn’). See B
EHEMOTH
,
Used with reference to a
captive in Ch. 33
;
see
K.
=
Is.
3729
‘muzzle’), used
in
the pl.
(AV
‘chains,’
3 8 4
(om. BA,
but ascribed
to Theod.] see
Co.
ad
once used of a n ornament,
Ex. 35
: see B
UCKLE
,
I
.
RV.
‘fish-hook.’ In Is. 198
Hah. 1 15 E V
fish-hooks’ (Am. 4
confusing with
‘pot.’
5.
n i x ,
cp
‘shield.’ T h e
word, like
6.
only in descriptions of the
37
36
36
38
Ex.
which elsewhere
represents
a
tache
Ex. 38
used elsewhere
for
‘loops’]). Not the capitals of the
hut
probably tenters or hooks rising from the tops of the pillars.
7.
Ezek. 40 43, a word which greatly
puzzles the interpreters (cp
and
neither ‘posts’
nor ‘gutters’ will do. The preferable
as
shown, is
(‘their edge,’ lit. ‘lip’);
Theod. Sym.,
in N T corresponds to
which is common in
for a hook’ (in one case, Ezek. 32 3, used to represent’
reference to fishing see F
ISH
,
3.
throughout
(above), is used also of thorns’ (see T
HORN
).
NET
Cp the Rabbinic proverb quoted by
E V ‘barbed irons,’ Job
417
seems to be a cor-
‘ships’; cp @ ;
@!,
AV ‘thorn,’
should certainly be
‘nose-ring’ (Beer,
HOOPOE
HQR, MOUNT
HOOPOE
[Targ.],
[Pesh.]), Lev.
Dt.
[A]).
RV, how-
ever, and the older English versions, without authority,
L
APWING
.
It
is
usual to acquiesce in the traditional
rendering hoopoe.'
The
is in fact, not
less than the lapwing,
a
Palestinian bird.
It winters
in and near Egypt, and returns to Palestine in March.
It seeks its food in dunghills, and, it is supposed, was on this
account included among the unclean birds
it
is, however, freely
eaten
the Levant at the present day. Possibly because of its
crest (Aristoph. Birds,
it has always inspired a superstitions
awe and the Arabs, who call it
from its cheery cry,
ascribe to it the power of discovering water and of revealing
secrets.
I n the late Jewish legends respecting Solomon the
hoopoe plays a great part in connection with the queen of Sheba
(see second Targ. on Esth.
and the story is adopted
in the
Qoran (sur. 27).
But it is by
no
means certain that
is really
(see Di.
)
the cock of the rock (or of beauty
'),
or that
it refers to the hoopoe's fondness for rocks and
ravines (cp Tristram,
Land
of
461,
or to
its striking crest.
This odd-looking word
is
simply, apart from the final
a
corruption (by trans-
position of letters) of
That late Heb.,
Aram., and Arabic usage favour the rendering hedge-
hog
'
may be admitted ; but
'
zoologically there are con-
siderable difficulties.' This discovery (as it seems) of
in the list of unclean
seems to show that
Tristram, Houghton, and Cheyne
2
Isaiah,
Eng.
64)
were right in preferring 'bittern'
to
hedgehog
as
a
rendering of
See B
ITTERN
.
There is of course no connection with Sansk.
a
kind
of pigeon, regarded as a bird of ill
25,
'86).
T.K. C.-A. E.
A.
C.
HOPHNI
[BAL]) b. Eli
brother
of
I
S.
[A]),
4 4 1 1
(om BL). Hophni and Phinehas seem very much like
Jabal and Jubal,
as
Goldziher should have noticed
347
den
232
Hophni has been developed out of Phinehas. Add
to
and the component letters of
are complete.
Possibly both have developed out of
a
third form (see
P
HINEHAS
).
We cannot isolate the name Hophni,
and trust in
(cp,
and other seeming
Theod.
margin
[where
:
Jer.
is
mentioned
as
'the king
of
Egypt after the destruction
of
Jerusalem.
H e is identical with the king called
merely Pharaoh in Jer.
3 7 5 7
11
Ezek.
etc.
T h e name is transcribed
by Manetho
(after
by
Herodotus 'and Diodorus.
In Egyptian his names
'glad
is
the heart of the sungod'-and
(=later
'confident is
heart of the
(the same name a s
I.).
This latter name was evidently rendered
by the
Greeks and by the Hebrews. Both have assimilated the
to the
following
This
the fourth (or, according to another reckon-
ing, the seventh, see
E
GYPT
,
§ 66) of the
or
sixth dynasty of
the son of
11.
(Psammis of Herodotus) and grandson of Necho, came
to the throne about
589
or
588
B
.c.,
and reigned
according to
(in Africanus) nineteen years,
according to Herodotus and Eusebius
years
(see Field). Comp. Jerome
in
the
nom.
(Lag. OS, 53
:
furor alienus sive vita
dissipata atque discissa (cp
:
sive discooperuit
Targ.
'the broken one,'
Pesh.
the lame-one,'
T h e preceding 'Pharaoh' is wanting
in most
MSS
of
(put in by codd.
being taken for a doublet of
Hoohra.
parallels.
T. K.
C.
The Hebrew transcription is rather exact.
Diodorus,
30
34
Syncellus). The monuments
confirm the first number.
He ruled, therefore, about
588-569
B.C.
His reign fell in
a
very critical period,
when Egypt was exposed to constant danger from
Hophra seems to have shown energy both
in building (traces in the chief temple of Memphis, in
the
at Silsileh etc.), and in foreign politics.
H e even attempted to check the Babylonians. Thus,
according to Herodotus
(2
he conquered the
( ' T y r u s ' ) at
but most likely
Herodotus only means that he sent assistance to the
Tyrians in their long resistance to Nebuchadrezzar.
The (distorted ?) statement of Herodotus, he led an
army against Sidon,' refers evidently to the expedition
planned with
a
view to sncconr besieged Jerusalem (Jer.
37
Hophra did indeed interrupt the siege for a short
time; but, if Herodotus was not mistaken, we may
assume Hophra's final defeat in the N. of Palestine.
It does not seem that he took the offensive again after
his repulse but he gave an asylum to the many fugitives
from Palestine in Egypt.
Of the Babylonian attacks
upon Egypt which we should naturally expect, we
ignorant
;
but
so
much is now certain-that Jeremiah's
and Ezekiel's predictions of
a
conquest
of
Egypt by
Nebuchadrezzar were not fulfilled.
A suppressed
military revolution at the
frontier
of
Egypt is referred
to elsewhere (E
GYPT
,
69).
From this we can imagine
in what difficulties this unmilitary country was involved
through having to sustain large battalions of foreign
mercenaries. These difficulties led to Hophra's ruin.
The account in Herod.
may be full of doubtful
anecdotes, but is probably trustworthy in a general sense.
The Egyptian (or rather Libyan) mercenaries sent against
Battus of Cyrene to aid the Libyan chief
revolted
after two defeats. Apries and the European and Asiatic
mercenaries at Momemphis were overpowered by Amasis
('Ahmose), who, according to Herod.
left the
unfortunate king alive for some time, but at last permitted.
an infuriated mob to strangle
W.
M. M.
HOR,
MOUNT
Hor the mountain
').
I
.
[BAFL]), the scene
of
the death
of Awon
(Nu.
Dt.
[all
I n Nu.
3 3 3 7
the situation is defined as
'
in the edge of
the land of Edom,' and tradition, since Josephus,
identifies it with the
(4800
ft. a con-
spicuous double-topped mountain on the E. edge of the
a
little to the SW. of Petra.
bull
127-
refutes this view
on
grounds of
revelation and reason
critics, since
have taken the same view. Trumbull himself
identifies Mt. Hor with the Jebel
a
conical
mountain NW. of 'Ain Kadis (cp H
ALAK
, M
T
.).
C p
G
UR
-
BAAL
, and W
ANDERING
, W
ILDERNESS
OF.
[B om.
in
7
in
v.
8
T
O
G
a
point on the ideal
N.
boundary of Canaan, Nu.
(a
post-exilic passage).
According to Furrer
Hor is
a
term for
N. Lebanon; but Van Kasteren thinks that it means.
the mountains where the Nahr
bends upwards
(Rev.
'95,
p.
The
render Amanos
or
Unfortunately the existence of
the northern
'
Mt. Hor is threatened by
1 6 8
ascribes the conquest
of Cyprus to him
less prohably to Amasis).
T h e contrary
been often asserted; hut merely on the
basis of a vague statement of
on
a misinterpretation of
the report o n the rebellion of foreign mercenaries referred to
above, and on two forged inscriptions relating to Nebuchadrezzar
which had been brought to Egypt from
See
E
G
YP
T
,
69,
on
the question whether Amasis-who
married
a
daughter of Hophra-Apries-was first co-regent with
his predecessor. The object of this theory was to reconcile the
different durations assigned to the reign of the latter (rg and 25
years) but it is not probable. A recently discovered inscription
de
22
removes some difficulties.
It tells us that
Apries fell in battle after having held part of the delta for nearly
three years.
HORAM
certain
restoration
of
Hadrach,’ for
impossible reading,
in Ezek.
47
15.
In
Nu.
we must obviously read
‘from the great
ye
draw a line for you as far as Hadrach; and from
Hadrach ye shall draw a line.
.
.
proposal to read
shall desire’ (cp v.
if suggesting that the boundary
was
only desirable or ideal-is
most
improbable. I n v.
I
O
we
should
read
T.
K.
C.
HORAM
king of Gezer, who sought to help
read-
Lachish, but was defeated and slain by Joshua, Josh.
ing of
@
agrees with that which it gives for H
OHAM
.
ROREB
Ex. 336.
HOREM
or perhaps rather
‘sacrosanct’;
name
or
the epithet of a city in Naphtali (Josh. 1938).
Van de Velde identified it with
a little to the
W.
of
(see
I
RON
).
however,
and the
lists give the name as
For
reasons against searching modern name-lists for an
See
S
INAI
.
echo of Horem, see M
IGDAL
-
EL
.
T. K .
C.
J
OS
.
according to
Stade, Wellhausen, and
others, the name of a place in the wilderness of Ziph
(
I
23
18
).
Wellhausen would also read the name
Horesh in
I
S.
(but see H
ARETH
). The reference
in
I
23 occurs in the account of David‘s last inter-
view with Jonathan, and in the description of David‘s
retreats among the Ziphites, and in the latter passage
Horesh
(?)
is co-ordinated, singularly enough, with the
hill of Hachilah
This co-ordination is sometimes
ascribed to
an
editor (see H
ACHILAH
) but
no
one has
doubted that both Horesh
(?)
and Hachilah
were
in the neighbourhood of Ziph.
Horesh is supposed
(see
F
OREST
,
I)
to
‘wood’ or (comparing Ass.
mountain (Del.
17).
The mean-
ing
‘
mountain ’. would be the, more suitable for the
narrative in
I
23, for certainly the wilderness of Ziph
was never thickly wooded (see Z
IPH
).
It should
be noticed, however, that Horesh is
not
the name given
in
I
S.,
but
and that experience warns us to
look closely at the text when the locative
is affixed to
a
proper name without any apparent reason (it is always
Add to this that there is no certain evidence
elsewhere for the existence of
in Hebrew.]
It is
extremely probable that
is a corruption
of
the intermediate stage is
A reference to
I
2324 will make this plain.
There we have the
statement that David and his men were in the wilder-
ness of
in the
S.
ofthe
‘It
may reasonably be held that in
the original ques-
tion of the Ziphites was, Doth not David hide him-
self with
us
in the retreats in the
The
rest of the question in M T is, of course, an editorial
insertion.
The Ziphites were too clever to tell Saul
precisely where David was hidden.
The insertion is
of interest to
us
just now as proving that the editor
HORMAH
ROR
HAGIDGAD,
RV
‘the Hollow of Gidgad’
TO
opoc
T
.
T
.
0.
a
station in the wilderness of W
ANDERING
)
c p
also G
UDGODAH
.
I.
Son
of
son of Seir the Horite (Gen. 36
some lost
name.
Shaphat
5).
See
S
IMEON
.
3.
I n Gen. 3630
AV,
RV
‘ t h e
Possibly a
Ancestor of the
HORITE (Gen.
Horites
usually
explained cave-dwellers,’ Troglodytes
but Jensen
‘96,
p.
questions this;
[ADEL]), the name given to the primitive population
of
Mt. Seir in Dt.
(AV
It also
i n
(AV H
ORIMS
), Gen. 146
[E]), and
(virtually) Gen.
362
(for
‘
Hivite read
Horite
and it should
restored in 362 (see
possibly
too in
in preference to
if we take
to b e
a contraction of
another form of
D.
Haigh, Stern, and Hommel
( A N T ,
264,
n.
267)
combine Hori with the Eg.
a name frequently
applied to
a
part of Palestine,
on
the
of
Merenptah (cp Maspero,
the
Nations,
WMM
Eur.
and Hommel identifies
both with the land of
Gar
mentioned on the Amarna
Tablets (but cp G
UR
-
BAAL
). WMM seems to be right
in rejecting this view.
Cave-dwellers’ can only b e
justified if we interpret this (with WMM) as merely
an
epithet of the
or people of Mt. Seir. Cp Driver,
HORMAH
[BAFL]), according t o
one statement was
so
called because the Israelites in
fulfilment of
a vow
devoted it to the
o r
ban
213
[BAFL],)
according to
another, it received its name when Simeon and Judah
similarly devoted it (Judg.
[AL]). This, however, is merely a literary
etymology, and falls to the ground together with t h e
misread name Hormah,
which, as we shall see, appears
to he a very old corruption.
Hormah was
a
city of Simeon (Josh.
1 9
4
I
Ch.
4
[L]) or Judah in the remote south (Josh. 1530,
[A], cp
David sent presents to its elders
from
Halasah
(I
[A]).
Earlier still,
a
king of Hormah is
mentioned among the kings of Canaan overcome
by Joshua (Josh, 12
[B]); we also
hear of defeats inflicted on the Israelites by the
Amalekites and Canaanites, which extended locally a s
far as (the) Hormah,’
Nu.
see below
cp
‘from Seir
to
Hormah’
Dr.
following
Two more references remain. Ac-
cording to the present text of
Nu.
21
1-3
( J ) the Canaanite
king of A
RAD
who had at first defeated the
Israelites, was at last overcome by them,
on
which
occasion ‘the name
of
the place
was called
Hormah.’
From this it would appear as if Arad were
the old name
of
Hormah, and yet we are told in Judg.
(see above) that its old name was Z
EPHATH
How is this to be accounted for? T o suppose with
Bachmann that the city was twice destroyed and re-
named, seems absurd. Nor
is
it easy (though
mann, Wellhausen, and others adopt this expedient) to
explain
Nu.
21
3
as relating by anticipation the destruc-
tion
Simeon and Judah (Judg.
in which case
the king of Arad must also have ruled over Zephath.
In Nu. 21
I
,
for the
king
of
Arad who dwelt in the Negeb’ read ‘(the Canaanites)
who dwelt in the
of the
The corruptions
give ‘Troglodytes’ for the Sukkiim of Ch. 1 2 3.
Only ,here with art. hence Targ.
Jon. renders ‘unto de-
3
See
JERAHMEBL.
should be
‘the moun-
38
3
end.
T .
K .
C .
The simplest explanation is the boldest.
struction.
tains
of
the Amorites
cp Dt.
2110
read
not
Conder has identified the supposed Horesh with the ancient
site Hureisa
I
m.
S.
of Ziph. Yet even if Horeshah were
it
hardly mean ‘ a village or hamlet belonging to
the larger town a t Tell
(PEFQ,
’95,
p.
T.
K . C .
On Is.
Ezek. 31 3 see
and Toy
in Ch. 274 is also corrupt read either
(cp Di. on Is.
When he made the insertion he had his eye on
occurs, and therefore wrote ‘south
of‘
instead of ‘front-
ing.? See
H
ACHILAH
.
15
HORN
EORONAIM
regular, and the whole passage receives a flood
of
light.
I t is highly probable that the writers of Judg.
Nu.
confound the names of two neighbouring places, which,
being in the far south, they had never visited..
,
The true name
the city of Hormah is probably Rahamah
was apparently
the chief town of the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites
I t is true
occurs eight times ; but there is evidence enough
-that a t a very early date passages containing some remarkable
word were systematically harmonized.
For
we should
restore in all the passages except Judg. 1 1 7 Nu. 21
3,
T h e
perpetuates the name (see J
ERAHMEEL
).
T. K. C.
HORN
necessity for looking closely into seeming trifles more
apparent than here.
The usual explanation is un-
questionable in such passages as the following :-
I
S.
2
I
,
By
my
is exalted’
Ps. 89
[
I
S]
By
favour our horn is exalted
.
Ps.
75
4
‘Lift not up’ your
horn’. Jer.
48
horn
is
cut
off’
(cp Lam. 2 3).
I n
passages ‘horn’ symbolizes power, and its exaltation
signifies victory (cp
I
K.
22
and deliverance (Lk. 169, ‘horn
of salvation,’
I t will be remembered that in
a n oracle of
the
or wild ox, is the
of a n
invincible warrior (Nu. 23
; cp also Dan.
I
have defiled my horn in the
d u s t ’ (AV), or
‘ I
have laid
horn in the dust,’ we see that
there
be something amiss with the text
the language is
lift up the horn’may be to increase in
power, or to show a proud sense of greatness
;
but it is hardly
safe to maintain, on the ground of a single doubtful passage,
that to ‘thrust it into the dust’
or to defile
in the dust,
.is a Hebrew phrase for feeling the sense of deepest humiliation.
I n Hebrew idiom, pepple ‘roll in the dust’
(Mic.
1
I
O
),
not their horn.
T h e remedy is to examine the text, and
what errors the scribe was most likely to have committed.
There are in fact two very likely errors, by emending which we
ohtain the very
sense
‘ I
have profaned my glory in
There is a similar error in Am. 6
where the
horns’ appear through a n error of interpretation of the first
magnitude.
‘Have we not
to
us horns?’ should be,
Have we not taken Karnaim?
Men can he said to
horns,’ not to take them. Travellers have sometimes illustrated
the former phrase by the silver horn which was formerly worn
o n the head by Druse women in the Lebanon. This, however
is a mistake.
The silver horn was simply an instrument
holding up the long veil worn in the
by married women.
z.
The old painters, and Michael Angelo after them, repre-
sented Moses with two horns. Ultimately perhaps this may he
traced to the two horns of
god of the Egyptian
Thebes, which were adopted by Alexander the Great on his
coins (cp ‘ t h e two-horned’ in the Koran,
T h e
immediate cause, however, of this mode of representation is
what we may safely regard a s a n error of the text
Ex. 34
30,
very naturally renders
iiy
quod cornuta esset facies sua (so too Aq., according to Jerome).
H e r e the original reading must have been not
but
‘lightened.’
It
is usual, indeed, to say that
‘ t o
radiate light’
and to compare
3 4 ,
where
AV
has, His brightness was a s the light ; he had horns (coming)
of his hand hut in mg. ‘bright beams out of his side.’
R V substitutes
for
but truthfully records
‘
Heb.
horns‘ in the margin.
doubt
should he
‘lightnings’; Hab. 3 is not a n Arabic but a Hebrew poem.
It
just possible, however, that Jerome’s version
the face
of Moses was horned’ was influenced by the symholism of
Alexander’s coins.
It
would he going rather too far off to
compare the horns of the moon-god Sin, whose emblem was a
crown or mitre adorned with horns, though
G. Margoliouth has
lately defended the very improbable reading just referred to by
making this comparison, which seems to him to fit in admirably
with
worship of Sin recorded by the name Sinai.
3.
That the term ‘horn’ can be used for a horn-shaped vessel
intelligible
(I
S.
16
I
13
I
K.
139).
a phrase a s ‘horn
pigment for anointing the eyelashes
is therefore in itself
possible.
was there ever a father in ancient legend who
gave this name to his daughter, a s Job is said to have done in
M T of
14
(see K
EREN
-
HAPPUCH
)?
4.
On
the meaning of the expression ‘the
horns of
the altar,’ see A
LTAR
,
6.
Whether the phrase bas a
to stand in
is
extremely doubtful. Some
J. P.
Peters) would place the
passage
the margin as a ritual gloss, and if the text
correct
this is the best view; n o ingenuity can avail to explain
v.
276
a
part of the text. For a critical emendation of the text
3
based
In other passages it will not suit.
I
.
When we read in
1 6
But
can hardly mean this.
39
on the
of undoubted corruptions elsewhere see Che.
hut
CD
the commentaries of Del. and
On the
On the horn as a musical instrument, see Music,
Elworthy,
of
Honour
See
T.
K. C.
HORNED
SNAKE
,
Gen.
49
17
AV
A
DDER
,
4.
See also
S
ERPENT
,
IO.
HORNET
[BAL],
Strictly the word hornet is applied to
but
it is ofteh used for any large species of wasp.
are
many species of these Hymenoptera in Palestine,
the most
conspicuous is
which spreads from
S. Europe
through Egypt and Arabia to India. I t is frequently very
abundant. I t builds its cells of clay, and they are, a s a rule,
very symmetrical and true.
The hornet
mentioned
the O T as the forerunner
sent by
to destroy the two kings of the Amorites
(Josh.
E
or
and to drive out the Hivitcs,
Canaanites, and Hittites
(Ex.
[E],
Dt.
cp
Wisd.
AV
‘wasp’).
The old
identification of
‘leprosy,’ may be
passed over
the main question is whether hornet’
is employed literally or figuratively.
A
metaphorical
interpretation of the term (cp Lat.
‘panic,’
properly ‘gadfly’) is not favoured by the passages
quoted (cp especially
Ex.
On the other hand, a
reference to the insect itself raises difficulties. Although
absence of any mention of the appearance of
hornets
in Nu.
21
Josh.
is not in itself an
insuperable objection, the fact remains that the implied
extent of their devastation is unique, indeed incredible.
Parallels have certainly been quoted a s examples of the in-
convenience caused
these and similar pests ; but the cases
adduced refer not to peoples but to the inhabitants of more cir-
cumscribed
Megara,
[quoting
of Crete]
;
cp
Zoc., and
see Smith‘s
Further, hornets, though their attacks are furious
when their nests are disturbed, and are continued when
the foe retreats, are not wont to attack unprovoked.
Hence, for example, Furrer
Riehm,
ex-
presses a doubt whether
‘
hornet ’ can be the true mean-
ing of
and Che.
B i b . )
proposes
the word into
;
‘All thy trees and
fruit of thy land shall the
consume.’
See
L
OCUST
.
(if
correct) seems to refer to some enemy who made an
early inroad upon Canaan.
Sayce
of
ingeniously finds a reference either to the
campaign
of
Rameses
(p. 286) or to the Philistines
(p.
and in regard to the former it is note-
worthy that the Egyptian standard-bearer wore among
other emblems two devices apparently representing flies
(see
E
NSIGN
,
But if we may lay stress upon the
fact that the hornet does not attack unprovoked (see
above), it is plausible to suggest a new rendering for
‘serpent’ (cp Ass.
see a refer-
ence to the
or
sacred serpent
on
the crown of
the pharaoh (cp Ode of Thotmcs
Brugsch,
the other hand, however, the
reference may be to some local invasion which has been
amplified by
E
or his informant.
In
this case a tribe,
whose totem was some kind of serpent (cp
Z
ORAH
),
may conceivably be
A.
E.
A.
c.
RORONAIM
Jer.
4 8 3 ,
or
the ‘descent of
The reference to
and the Ode of Thotmes,
due
to
Prof. Cheyne
who compares Is. 159, but on the whole
inclines to
corruption of the text (see ahove).
One recalls the classical legends of races that were led to
their seats by a bird or animal. That such creatures were
originally totems is in the highest degree probable (see Lang
and
2 95).
Fur a parallel to
theory of a totem-ensign suggested
see
ser.
301
(on
the serpent
as
a totem see
2112
A
new line must, at any rate, be taken.
3).
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