HI,RAH

They take him though he be on the watch

(literally in his own sight ),
And pierce through his nose with snares
(probably ropes with harpoons attached).
This is a more natural rendering of the Hebrew though it is
doubtful if it suits the context so well. Bu. render; an emended
text,
Who will seize him by the teeth
And pierce his nose with a snarl?l

The chief question that arises in connection with this

animal (Hippopotamus umphibius) 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 Dongola, between the second and the third
cataracts, and even there they are rare ; but both the
frescoes and writings of the EgyptFans and the fossil
remains found in the Delta of the Nile show that in
former times it inhabited Lower Egypt and was harpooned 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 as ten minutes. They
are fond of frequenting the reed-covered margins of the rivers
piercing tunnekhaped paths in the closely-matted regetatiod
on the hanks. They are herbivorous. (See, further, BEHEMOTH,

$5

13.)

[There may be a safer reference to the hippopotamus in Ps.

8014(13). where the reading varied between -&!*n and iun
(i.e. from the forest and from the River ) . see Ginsh. Introd.
to ;he Mas.-crit. ed. of the He6. Bibk, >38& The latter
reading was the more popular one in Palestine in pre-Roman
times; the swine of the River would naturally be the hippopotamus. c p SWINE.]
N. M.-A. E. s.

HIRAH (n?n, noble ? cp Palm. ? V I ) , an Adul:

lamite, a friend of Judah (Gen. 38112: [ s l i p ~ c
[ADEL]).
HIRAM (by?, perhaps an abbreviation of D?*n&
A HIRAM ; cp HIEL;Phcen. i2ln ; X[E]IPAM [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 Tarshish-fleet ( I K. 6 I [ 1 5 1 8
9 2 6 8 ; see O PHIR , 5 I ), in return for which Solomon
gave him twenty cities in the land of Galilee ( I K. 9 IT 8 ;
see C ABUL ). The later tradition that the friendship
between the two was strengthened by Solomons
marriage with a daughter of Hiram (Tatian, Coni.
G r m . , 5 37) may rest upon I K. 111 Ps. 45 ia[q].
David, soon after occupying Jerusalem, is said to have
received cedar-wood and workmen from Hiram to help
him in his building operations (zS. 5 TI, cp I K. 5 I [IS]) ;
but Hiram was also a contemporary of Solomons.
Unless, therefore, we assume that the event referred to
in zS. relates to the last part of Davids reign, we
meet with a serious chronological difficulty. Hence some
conjecture that the length of Hirams reign (969-936
B. c . , based upon Jos. c. A$. 1 1 8 ) is inexact, or that it
was Hirams father, Abibaal, who really helped David
(cp Kittel, Nisi. 2 157 n.).2 More probably Hirams
kindly offices towards Solomon have been a n t i ~ i p a t e d . ~
Hirams reputed tomb (Ku6r +Sr&%
[flairin]) is still
pointed out to the E. of T y r e ; the date is unknown
(cp Bzd. (3), 296) ; see APOCRYPHA, 5 14 ; C HRONICLES,
S. A. C.
5 8, n. 3.
2. The artificer sent by Hiram, king of Tyre ( I K.
7 13 40 45 z Ch. 2 13 [ I Z ] ~ . 4 I I 16). A man of mixed
race, it would appear, though I K. IC. leaves it open

1 Reading I J ~ X~ ) a and 1 3 ~ .Another suggestion is to read

ni:3,
. . hook (cp Am. 4 z ) for IIW.

2 For other conjectures cp Ew. Hist. 3226.

3 Similarly the author of I S. 1 4 4 7 8 ascribes to Saul deeds
which really belong to David ; cp SAUL, 0 3.

67

2073

HIROM
to the reader to suppose that his father, as well as
his mother, may have been 1sraelitish.l His name is
variously given in Kings and Chronicles. In zCh.
213[12] (not ~ I I ) according
,
to the common view (see
Bertheau), the word 3 3 ~ , my father ( T ~ Y7raMci pou2
(gab
mg.AL]) and 4 16 ITIN, his ( i . e . , the kings) father
[@ [ K d ] dv.ilYyKY ; see note) is appended to Huram.
Giesebrecht ( Z A7141 qgx),
indeed, has argued ably
for the view that Huram-abi or Hiram-abi ( Hiram is
my father ) was the real name of the artificer sent from
Tyre ( 1 u in z Ch. 4 16 being supposed to he an error).
So, too, Stade (Cesch. 1330, n. z),whilst Kamphausen
(Kau. H S ) thinks that Huram-abiw3 may have been
the original form of the name, shortened in our text of
Kings and of z Ch. 411 into Hiram or Huram, and in
our text of zCh. 2 1 3 [I.] 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 ~ c r i b e , ~
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, e.g., be ( I )
A HOLIAB [ p . ~ . ] , a name which has analogies in Phcenician ( 7 y 3 h , 1mN), and S.Arabian (hh~,
in,?yN),
and is given by P to the colleague of the artificer,
Bezaleel, or ( 2 ) Huram (with a I for 9 ) ; one remembers
that Bezaleel in P is called ben Uri, ben H u ~ . ~
The more common form of the name is D?n (cp
above)
found in z S . 5 1 1 1K.518[15#:1 9 1 r f l 2 7 101122 and
Kt. in I Ch. 141 2 Ch. 9 IO, for(1); for (2) in I K. 7 13 406 45.
A variant .is O??n (EV H U R A M , cp h a and 7 N l J d used of
no. I in nCh. 2 3 [2] II [ m ] J8 2 18 9 21 and Kr. in I Ch. 14 I z Ch.
818 9 x 0 ; alsoofno. n i n zCh.4rraeand ir6[Kr,]. On nCh.
213[12]516, see above. Finally the rare form oi7-n is met
with in I K. 5 IO 18[2432] referrink to no. I, and in I K. 7 4ou for
no. 2. This form agrees with the Ass. &irumma,the e;ppopos,
t i o o of Jos. (the last form used to represent no. 2) and the
r&o,: of Herod. 798. Thus the names of the twd Hirams
present identical variations. Kittel on I Ch. 14 I suggests that
the original form may have been Hnram (nyn), which passed successively into Pil?n7 and Ohn (on this phonetic change see
Barth, NB, p. xxix); hence, from a combination of these two
Forms, arose OTy.
T. I<. C.-S. A. C.

HIRCANUS
HYRCANUS [$.V.,

(YPKANOC

[VA]) 2Macc.

311,

RV

21.

HIRE, HIRELING (l$

Gen. 31
)
8, (la@)
Job 71.
See SLAVERY.

HIROM (Phn) I K. 7 40 EVmg. ; EV H IRAM (4.v., 2).

1 I K. makes his mother of the tribe of Naphtali ; z Ch., of
.hat of Dan. T o the latter belonged Aholiab.
2 This early reading found favour with the correctors of @B
md with one corrector of @A who may possibly have been the
xiginal scribe hiniself. Swete gives Ab (A*?). The reading
ieems to be a guess, corresponding to the guess ON?! presupiosed by @ in 4 16 (see next note but one).
3 The name q c a s , which the artificer bears in Josephus,
Yyjomnesticum 63 is only a corruption of +as (=q~).
4 Two views kee;
possible. ( I ) The Chronicler may have
nisread O T n
(the fleet of Hiram ) in I K. 10 11, OlnXN,
IS if a person called Abi-Huram were the leader of Hirams
ervants and changed the relative position of Abi and Hiram
,r H u r d n t o prevent the mistranslation father of(king) Hiram ;
ee Che. Zx$. T 9 4 7 1 [July, 981). (2) For $ 3and
~ ?XN we may
ead y .~: _y ,my servant, hqy,
. _ his servant; cp readings of
But
this
seems
too
simple
an
expedient.
55 in 2 Ch. 2 13 [12].
5 Josephus names the craftsmans father Uri(os) or Uri(as);
r a ~ p b s61- O v p ~ o u ,he says (Ant.viii. 34). Does he think of
kaleels father?
6 According to Ginsb. some MSS in 4 r m and 818 have
:t.
7 Cp the form uoupwv, Eupol. up. Eus., Pr. Ev. 9 3 4 8
2074

HISTORICAL LITERATURE
CONTENTS
Beginnings ($ I).
First History : J (8 2).
Recensions ($ 3).
Second History : E ($ 4).
History of Kindgoms (g 5).
Influence of Prophets (S 6).
Deuteronomistic Schooi (6 7).

Biography of Jeremiah ($ 8).

Hebrew Origines : P ($ 9).
Combining of Documents ($ IO).
Early Post-Exilic Works ($5 11-14).
Chronicle of Jerusalem : the Chronicler ($ 15).
Stories (6 16).
Historiis-of Asmonreans (8 173).

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 our
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
1. Beginnings first given by some great achievement
exalts the self-consciousness of a
of Hebrew which
people and awakens the sense of the
historical memorable
of what it has
literature. done. The character
Persian wars in Greece,
the second Punic war in Rome, the empire of Charles
the Great among the Germans, are familiar instances.
In Israel, the national history begins with the consolidation 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 kindle
the imagination. Internal evidence makes it highly
probable that the earliest Hebrew historians wrote in
the reign of Solomon (middle of the 10th cent. B . c . ) ,
and wrote first of the great events of the preceding halfcentury.
A large part of z S. 9-20 I K. If: is derived from such a work

the author of which was exceedingly well-informed not onl;

about political affairs but also about the inner history of
David's house and court. The 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 age1 (see
S AMUEL ii.).

The beginnings having thus been made, the Israelite

writers naturally turned to the earlier history of their
people.
i. Sozrrces.-Their sources, like those of the Greek
logographers with whom it is natural to compare them,
were poems, such as the Song of
2. The first
comprehensive
P b o r a h , and briefer lyrics like those
in Nu. 21, of which collections had
historical been made (see J ASHER , BOOK O F ;
work.
YAHWE, WARS OF) ; a G ENEALOGIES
(4.u.), 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
1 That the earliest Hebrew historians wrote soon aftqr the
time of David ; and that they began with contemporary history
and gradually went back to the remoter past is the view of
Graf ('40) and of several recent scholars (Kittel, Budde, etc.).
2 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 GENESIS,
p 4 8 ;EXODUS, p 3 ;NUMBERS, $ g ; JOSHUA, $ 15 ; J UD GE S ,
B 15.

2075

Hellenistic ($ 19).
Philo ($ 20).
Justin (8 21).
Josephus ($ 22).
Seder Olam (g 23).
Literature (ti -_,
211.
~

~~~

."

our distinction of natural and supernatural. It was all

history to him; 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 hillcountry, the oldest historian found no tradition.1
About the deliverance from Egypt and the adoption of
the religion of Yahwi: at his holy mountain a mass of
legendary and mythical circumstance had gathered (cp
EXODUS i.,
I 8 ) ; 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 MIZRAIM,
26) ; the gap is filled by genealogies which really represent later clan-groupings. Beyond these centuries the
stream of narration suddenly broadens out ; 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 a (see the several articles).
ii. Limits; remains. -Whether the earliest comprehensive 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 quite 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 could
wish.
A considerable part of this oldest Hebrew history is
preserved in the stratum of the H EXATEUCH which critics
designate by the symbol J, and in the parts of Judges
and Samuel that are akin to J. It has not, indeed,
come down to us intact or in its original form; redactors, 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 : XC&v
tmr?j8euuav
ua+ij Kai K O L V ; ) ~Kai KaBap&v Kai ulivropov Kat
rois rpdypaui rpou@uij, Kal pg6eplav meuwplav t?ri+alvouuav rexviK+.
The early Hebrew historians did not affix their names
to their works ; they had, indeed, no idea of authorship.
3. Recensions, 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 property of the scribe or the possessor of the roll.
Only
a part of the great volume of tradition was included in

...

...

1 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, $ 15.
2 The same phenomenon is observed in Greek and Romau
history. see Wachsmuth E X . 571 620.
3 ' Tdey affected a didtion clear, )popular, pure, concise, suit;
able to the subject, and making no show of artful elaboration,
Dion. Halic. De Thuc.judic. 5.

2076

HISTORICAL LITERATURE

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 enrichment of the narrative directly from oral tradition
became a less considerable factor, it u-as succeeded by the
more literary process of conflation or contamination of
recensions ; scribes compared different copies, and
combined their contents according to their own judgments or interests. The transmission of the oldest
historical writings, even in its earlier stages, before the
systematic redactions of R,, and his successors, was
thus an extremely complicated pr0cess.l

1 It has its complete analogy in the transmission of the text,

which is indeed, but a part of the same process.
2 The'distinctively Judrean element in J is small.
3 See further, GEVESIS,
$ 6 end, EXODUS ii., $ 3, JOSHUA, $6,
JUDGES, $ 3, iv.
4 Direct evidence of this has frequently been sought in the
titles of two officialsof the court, the i-jln(EV RECORDER) and
the 7 ~ ; but
1 ~it is doubtful whether rightly. See GOVERNMENT, $ 21.

The succession in the priesthood (dated by the year o t

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 i n 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
continu:ition seems to underlie, e.z., the present accounts
of the reign 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 interesting 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 we know from
foreign sources that Omri was is an absolute blank i n
our Book of Kings. There is, however, one portion 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 KINGS,5 8, and E LIJAH).
The relations of the two neighbour nations of the
Same people to each other in peace and war must have
filled a large place in the histories of both, which accordingly 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 Judxan 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, e.g., the rebuff received b y
Amaziah from Joash ( 2 K. 148 8 ) 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 .work or even
to determine more exactly its age is attended with unusual difficulty.
The prophets of the eighth century interpreted YahwB's
dealing with his -people
- upon a consistent moral prin6. Influence of ciple : the evils which afflict the nation,
the Prophets. and the graver evils which are imminent,
are divine -judgments
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 Yahw&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 prag-

2077

2078

The problems thus presented to criticism are often insoluble;

in general only those elements can be certainly recognised as
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.
The
material, drawn from the common
Ephraimite und of Israelite tradition,a is in the
history'
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, e g . , the way in

which Jacob's flocks are increased in J and in E, Gen. 3 0 J ) ;
theological reflection is shown in the substitution of dreams
and audible voices for theophanies as modes of revelation;
historical reflection in the representation of the Aramieau forefathers as idolaters,' in the avoidance of the name Yahwh 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
5. The history of the most varied character and contents ; of records and monuments there
of the
are but few traces, and these for the
kingdoms. most part doubtful. With the establishment 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 documentary sources.
Records were doubtless kept in
the p a l a ~ e . ~From the references to them in the Book
of Kings, and from the similar records of Assyrian and
Egyptian monarchs we may 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 dvaypa+ai 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 Misha of Moab-commemorated
their prowes; 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.

HISTORICAL LITERATURE

HISTORICAL LITERATURE

matic 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 purely
religious.

Shilonite declares the sin and denounces the divine judgment

( I K. 11).

The favour or the displeasure of God is. the one cause of prosperity or adversity ; and hi5 favour or his displeasure depends in
the end solely on the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of the people
t o the religion of Yahwk. 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

in another way ; the pragmatism of tfie new school of
historians, like that of the Greek and Roman historians,
,especiallyunder the influence of Isocrates, is a rhetorical
element. This appears in the amplification and heightening 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 Deuter.onomy.l It flourished in the latter part of the seventh
,century and especially in the sixth; but the same
moralising treatment of the history, the same distinctive
turns of thought and phrase, recur in much later writers
-e.g., in the Chronicler 2-and the fundamental principle of the school is nowhere formulated so clearly and
concisely as by Josephus in the Introduction to his
Antiquities ( 3 , 5 14, Niese).
i. Deuteronomistic history of the two Kin&oms.-The
first product of the new school of historians was a
history of the kingdoms of Judah and
7. The
Israel from the accession of Solodeuteronomistic m ~ nwritten
, ~ before the fall of Jeruschool'
salem, which (in 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
.of above (5 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 (e.g.,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 an exception all have come short of the strict
standard of the deuteronorhic law ; but this departure has
degrees ; some-the Good kings of Judah-only tolerated the
worship of Yahwi: a t illegitimate altars (high places) ; othersJerohoam and hi? successors in the northern kingdom-worshipped idols of Yahwi: ; others still introduced foreign gods and
rites. A few suppressed gross abuses such as the k&?shirn (see
IDOLATRY, 8 6 ) ; only Hezekiah and Josiah instituted thoroughgoing reforms, which were made the more imperative by the
revival and importation of all kinds of heathenism under their
predecessors, Ahaz and Manasseh.

The history is interpreted upon deuteronomic principles, which are clearly set forth at the beginning
in the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the
temple, and are first applied to Solomon himself.
The earlier part of his reign, we are told, was prosperous ; in
his later years there were revolts ahroad and treasons at home ;
after his death the kingdom was divided ; the cause was that
Solomon i% his 02dage, under the influence of his foreign wives,
introduced the worship of other gods ; the prophet Ahijah the
1 Particularly to the secondary parts of that hook.

Cp also z Macc.
This was the natural beginning under the influence of the
prophets and the immediate impression of the deuteronomic
reforms.
2
3

2079

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 29f:
and the end of 28) ; the Exile itself is the final vindication of the prophetic theodicy.
The rhetorical character of the new historical writing especially 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 in the youngest additions to the book.
The systematic chronology also, with its calculated synchronisms, IS the work of the exilic editor.1

ii. T h e pre-motzmzhic period. -The earlier history

was now taken in hand by the new school. The invasions 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 provoked this judgment was the same, unfaithfulness to the
religion of YahwB. The stories of the judges illustrate
this moral.
I n a general introduction (Judg. 2 6 36)and in the introductions to the individual stories the author draws out the lesson :
whenever Israel fell into the worship of the gods of Canaan,
Yahw.? 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 JUDGES, $ 2). Those parts of the older book of stories
which could not be adapted to this scheme were omitted. A
chronolo,T having the same systematic basis as that of Kings,
and directly connected with the latter, was supplied (see C HRONOLOGY, $ 5).

Here also more than one stage in the deuteronomistic

redaction is probably to be recognised. The deuteronomistic book of Judges inclnded Eli and Samuel, and
was an idtroduction to the history of the kings.
I n the view of the author, the deliverers formed a continuous
succession of extraordinary rulers (sJzi$hc:tinr, 'judges '), diFTering
from the kings who followed them in that their ofice was not
hereditary, each being immediately designated by God.

The history of Saul and David ( I S. 1 3 3 ) 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 Yahwi.. The traces ofdeuteronomistic
hands in I S. 13-2S. 21 are limited to relatively inconsiderable
additions (see S AMUEL ii., $5 ZJ 5J).

iii, Prehistoric p e m X -The peculiar deuteronomistic

pragmatism was from its nature little applicable to the
patriarchal story or the primeval history. The wanderings, from Horeb to the banks of,the Jordan, are briefly
recounted from this point of view in Dt. 1-3 (cp also
97-105) ; but in 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 JOSHUA, 5s 4 11).
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 and
especially intermarriage with the inhabitants of the land ( e . ~ . ,
Ex. 34 12-16); the later deuteronomists demanded their extermination as the only sure way to prevent the infection (Dt. 72).
The generations which followed Joshua had neglected these
commands and reaped the bitter consequences (cp Judg. 2 1-5,
late) ; hut Joshua and the god-fearing generation, which in 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.
We have here a n instructive example of the way
Josh. !0-12).
in which the pragmatic dogma overrides a conflicting tradition ;
what is said to have been has to yield to what ?nust have been.
The unflinching consequence with which this unhistorical re.
presentation of the conquest is carried through reminds us of
the Chronicler (see below, 8 15), and, with other things, suggests
that the deuteronomistic redaction of Joshua is one of the ,later
1 See K INGS , $4 3 C HRONOLOGY , F, 6 s
2 How far this treatment may have been preformed in older
recensions (E2 Rp)is a mooted point ; cp JUDGES, $ 1 4 .

2080'

HISTORICAL LITERATURE

.HISTORICAL LITERATURE

products of the school,l which continued its work long after the

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 Antias 1
and is to be explained in the same way. We have anothlr
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) ;
but he doubtless had them in a more complete form,
and, it may be, in a different recension. Whether in
the primeval history he made a fresh draught upon
Babylonian tradition-in the account of creation (Gen. l),
for example, 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 CREATION, $5 3 8 11 17f: ;
D ELUGE, $5 IO&).
iv. Later additions.-P contained many laws purporting to have been given to Moses ; to these a multitude of others were added by later hands, sometimes
singly, sometimes in whole collections (Ps), 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 HEXATEUCH,L AW L ITERATURE). Late
additions to the narrative parts of P also can be recognised, especially in Ex. and Nu. (see EXODUS,
5.
N UMBERS, $5 108).
It has been observed above ( 3) that copies of the
same work, differing in text or in contents, were comlo. Histories pared and combined by subsequent trancombined. scriber-editors. A process of a similar
kind, on a much larger scale, was the
union of the parallel histories J and E in one continuous
narrative, JE.
i. Union of J and E.-This task was accomplished
with considerable skill ; the redactor (RJE)for the most
part reproduces the text of his sources with little changc,
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 reproductive character, as, e.g., in the renewal of the promises
to the patriarchs.a The author (RJE)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 by a history of the
kingdoms written on a different plan.
J E did not at once displace the separate worlcs 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 ( RJE)had not included.
The deuteronomistic redaction described above (5 6f.)
is based upon JE, though some of the deuteronomists
used E, a t least, separately.
ii. Union of / E wifh D and P.- A post-exilic redaction, finally, united P with J E and D. The method of
the redactor (Rp) is more mechanical than that of RJE;
his religious and historical point of view is that of Pespecially of the later additions to P-and C h r ~ n . ~
iii. Later priest& editors. -Rp very likely ended his
compilation where P itself ended ; but later editors not
only made additions to his work, but 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, sometimes adding matter drawn from the midrash of their
1 The fondness of Valerius for enormous numbers also is shared

restoration.

Besides the productions of the deuteronomistic school

of historians, we have one other work from the sixth
8. Biography century which possesses a peculiar interest ; the life of the prophet Jeremiah,
Of Jeremiah* which was united with the collections
of his oracles by the compiler of our book of Jeremiah.
It was written frqm the memories of the prophet's intimate disciples, apparently not long after his death. In
addition to its historical value, especially for the reign
of Zedekiah and the years following the fall of Jerusalem,
and its still greater value as a revelation of the personality 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 literature.2
In the Persian Deriod. Drobablv in the fifth centnrv.
,.
9. The Hebrew appeared a work which treated the
'Origines, : p. ancient history from a new point of
view.
.
~
.
i. The history.-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, Pz,P G ,etc.,
~ are sufficiently exhibited e l ~ e w h e r e . ~
The whole tendency of the book is to carry back the origin of
Jewish institutions to theremote past : the sabbathwas ordained
at the creation ; the prohibition of blood was given to Noah.
circunicision is the seal of the covenant with Abraham; th;
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, especially in Egypt, were moved to do. The same influence
may be suspected in the minute chronology, which in
its antediluvian parts certainly stands in some connection with that of the Babylonians (see CHRONOLOGY, 4).
ii. The Zaws. -The Mosaic laws in the ' Origines ' are
doubtless to be regarded not as a transcript of the actual
praxis of the author's own time, but 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 composed 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 PG was from the beginning a reform
programme as the original Deuteronomy was.
iii. Sources. -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 HEXATEUCH, 24), to
infer that the author had access to ancient documentary
records. This supposition is excluded both by the late
date of PGand by the character of the matter in question.
See GENESIS, zf.
1

1 Perhaps it is a secondredaction.
2 The older legends of Elijah and Elisha, and the multitudinous prophet 16gends of later times are hard!y to be compared.
3 PG,the groundwork of P, Ps, secondary extensions of Pc.
4 See HEXATEUCH
24' G E N E S IS 5 zf:. E XODUS, 55 2 5 ;
LEVITICUS, S 3 ; N U ~ B E R$SIO^;
:
~ O S H U A ;$5 5 12.

2081

by P.

2 On the character and method of this redaction see further,

H EXATEUCH, $:q;GENESIS, 6 ; EXODUS, 8 3 : NUMBERS,
6 ; J OSHUA, 9 11 ; JUDGES, 5 14.
3 See HEXATEUCH $ 29f: ; GENESIS,
2 ; EXODUS, 8 2 j
LEVITICUS ; NUMBER^, 5 21 ; J OSHUA , 5 11 ; JUDGES, 5 14.

2082

HISTORICAL LITERATURE

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. - 2 K., gradually assumed substantially its present form. In consequence of the
essentially compilatory character of the Jewish historiography, this work of the fifth or fourth century R. 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
-year- 586. when Tudza became a Babylonian province.
ll. History
During the century which followed,
o many
the Jews
after
writers occupied themselves with
history of the kingdoms and of the
the of,the the
earlier ages (see above, 7) ; but there
was little to inspire the Tews either in
empie*
Tudza or in Badvlouia to-write the history 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 in 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 improvements 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 represented bv the memoirs of Nehemiah and Ezra.3 Nehe12. Personal miah narrates in a plain and straightforward way, though not without a just
memoirs. appreciation of his own merit. what he
had done for his people by restoring in the face of great
difficurties the ruinous defences of Jerusalem, and by
remedying many abuses which he found rife in the
community.4 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 law.5
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
13. hamaic sources of the Chronicler ; an Aramaic
chronicle of narrative, incorporating documents
relative to the building of the walls of
Jerusalem. lerusalem and of the temDle. Darts of
. which, worked over and supplemented by the Chronicler,
are preserved in Ezra 4-6. The original scope of the

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
14 The by the Chronicler, and of which considerable
parts are preserved in Chronicles. l h e
of IEings. Chronicler cites this work under a varicty
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 Seer,2 and so
on). Twice the book is referred to under the significant name midrash (dvn),-The
Midrash of the
Book of Kings (2 Ch. 2427), the Midrash of the Prophet
Iddo (ib. 1.322).

1 A most instructive parallel to the Jewish literature in this

respect is afforded by the Christian chroniclers and historians of
the Middle Ages; see, for example, the Saxon Annalist, in
Monuments Germanire 6.
2 The library of the jerusalem patriarchate now contains a
collection of Arabic and Turkish edicts about, the holy places,
beginning with the Testament of Mohammed.
3 Delitzsch (ZLT3136 [TO])compares the beginning of the
memoir literature among the Greeks and Romans. See also
Wachsmuth, Bid. 204f:
4 A natural motive for the memoirs is the desire to acquaint
the Jews in the E. with what he had found and done in Jerusalem. See NEHEMIAH.
5 See E ZRA and EZRA-NEHEMIAH.
The genuineness of the
Memoirs of Ezra has recently been impeached by Torrey, EzraNehemiah (96).

2083

The 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 e g . ,
z Ch. 148 [7]-1515 20 285-15 3310.19, etc. Budde ( Z A T W
12 378)called 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
Jo?ah and Ruth are derived from the same work, extracts from
which he surmises in I S. 16 1-13 and I K. 13. 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 h;
proved.

That the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah

which the Chronicler cites was based upon the deuteronomistic 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 introduclion
of a large element of historical midrash illustrating the
moral and religious lessons which the history ought to
teach, and with such changes and omissions as the
additions or the authors pragmatism rendered necessary.
Its relation to the canonical KINGS was thus very
similar to the relation of the Book of JubzZees to Genesis.
The authors 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
15. Theoi David to the latter part of the fourth
Ghronicle
prefixing a skeleton of the
Jerusalem. century;
preceding history from the creation to
the death of Saul 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.
The narrative begins with Sauls last battle, the anointing of
David as King of all Israel, and the taking of Jerusalem (I Ch.
10f:). from this point to the destruction of Jerusalem hy
N,eh&hadrezzar it runs parallel to Sam. and Kings, hut deals
with Judah only. From the deportation of 586 the author
passes at once to the edict of Cyrus permitting the Jews to
The return and
return to Palestine (2 Ch. 3Gzzf:=Ezra 1 I$).
the rebuilding of the temple are then related, to the completion
of the building in the sixth year of Darius; then follows
immediately the commission of Ezra in the seventh year of
Artaxerxes, his return at the head of a colony, and his attempted
reforms in Jerusalem (Ezra 7 8 ); and, again without any connection, the .appointment of Nehemiah as governor in the

___

~~

~~

1 i.r Narrative
2 Se:CHRONICLES,

__--_

[of Samuel etc.].

5 6 2. I t ishot quiteclear whether this form
of citation is only a convenient way of indicating the part of 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 Uos. c. A?. 1 s).

2084

HISTORICAL LITERATURE

HISTORICAL LITERATURE

twentieth year ofArtaxerxes,the rebuilding of the walls (Neh.l-7),

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 secoud visit in the thirty-second year of
Artaxerxes ; hut the genealogies are brought down to the reign
of the last Persian king.

Taken altogether, it is as historical midrash ( L e . , 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 Ezra,l 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 (MassBra) of
the Kethiibim (see C ANON , 5 9). In the Alexandrian
Bible, where a general rearrangement was efi'ected,
the original order was restored.

The author's sources naturally varied for the different

periods.
i. For the earlier part of the work he used the Hexateuch 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.
ii. 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 ( 5 14). of which
Chronicles may then be regarded as mainly an abridgment.
iii. From the fall of Jerusalem in 586 to the time of
Alexander, the sources were the prophets Haggai and
Zechariah,l the Aramaic history already spoken of ( 5 rg),
the Memoirs of Nehemiah and Ezra (5 IZ), a list of high
priests from Jeshua to Jaddua, and probably other
priestly genealogies, etc. The narrative material all
belonged to the first quarter century of the Persian period
and 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 disposal.2
In the Chronicler's account of the first two (i. and
ii. ) of these three periods there are occasional historical
notices not otherwise transmitted to us which seem to
come from old sources.
The recension of Gen.-Kings which lay before the Chronicler
or the author of the Midrash may have been different from ours,
as the recension in the hands of the Alexandrian translators
frequently differed from that on which M T is based. The
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, 5 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 David.3 Upon the deuteronomistic
pragmatism which it found in its sources the postexilic History superimposed a pragmatism of a new
type. In it also prosperity and adversity depend upon
fidelity to the religion of Yahwe ; 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
signal 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 by the author of the
Midrash ; hut the same spirit appears in the Chronicler's own
work in Ezra and Neh.6
1 The influence of Is. 40
is also visible.
2 The derangement of g r a - N e h . is; however, partly to he
ascribed to later hands.
3 This may be connected with the belief that David composed
Psalms for the temple service.
4 The influence of Ezekiel is manifest.
6 On the character of the additions and changes, see

CHRONICLES, $ 7 8

208 j

The oldest Greek translation of the post-exilic History is

preserved to us as a torso be inning with z Ch. 35 1-27 and
ending abruptly with Neh.'s 1 2 5 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, 3 ~ 3 . 3

A sketch of Jewish historical literature would be

incomplete without some mention of the popular religious
stories so abundant in the last three or
16.
religious four centuries before our era. These
all have an historical setting, and
stories.
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 themselves 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.
i. and ii. 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 woman who, at great peril to herself, saves
her people from threatened destruction. J UDITH (4.u.)
was probably written in 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. The religious
point of view, as it appears in the speech of Achior, for example,
and in the stress laid on clean meats (cp Dan. 1) and the sacredness of tithes etc is that of correct Judaism :-it is erroneous to
say of Phariiais;.
The 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 differencesin the recensions (three Greek, Old
Latin, Syriac) show that the hook had considerable currency ;
hut it never enjoyed the same popularity as its companion,
Esther.4

A peculiar interest attaches to ESTHER (4.u.)as one

of the very few remaining pieces of the literature of the
Oriental Jews.6 The feast of P URIM (g.v.),the origin
of which is celebrated in the book,6 was certainly
adopted by the Jews in the E.
Probably too (see
ESTHER, 5 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 young Tewess Esther becomes Queen of Persia; how
1 Our Ezra and Nehemiah (cp

EZRA-NEH., 5 4).

See EZRA (T HE GREEK).

]BL 16 168Lr70 ; cp E ZRA (GREEK), 0 6 I .
4 On paralleis and reminiscences in Jewish literature see
Lipsius in Z W T 10 3 3 7 j 7 ('67). The midrashimall put the cccur.
rence in the Asmonaean times, and several of them connect it
with the Hanukka festivities as Esther is connected with Purim.
Tobit'is the onlv other of which this can confidentlv be
affirmed.
6 I n the subscription to the Greekrersion it is called &LUTOA$
TGV +ppoupat (Esth. 10 11).
2

3 See Torrey

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 Can0n.l
iii. A book of very different spirit and tendency is
J ONAH (g...),
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 Gods 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, it breathes the prophets spirita
iv. A similar motive is thought by many to actuate
the Book of R UTH ( q . ~ . ) 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
TOBIT (4.a), 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. SmaZle(er didactic stories. -Other stories celebrate
the constancy of pious Jews to their religion in spite of
all efforts to turn them from it. The Gentile worldpower, 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 Gods
faithful servants, others of the triumphant fortitude of the
martyrs under the most appallina tortures. To 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 tales.3

T o this class belong the stories of Daniel and the

three Jewish youths in Babylon, in the Book of DANIEL
(G.. ).

Here the faithful worshippers of Yahwe are miraculously

delivered from the fiery furnace and the lions den, and endued
with a supernatural wisdom which puts all the Chaldaean
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 Daniels wisdom in judgment ; Bel and the Dragon, showing how Daniel ingeniously 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 16
), 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 Jerusalem.4
The Greek-speaking Jews also had their story-books
with similar subjects. One of these is 3 Maccabees (see
1 The entire lack of a religious element in the story was made
good in the Greek translation by extensive additions.
a Cp Ezek. 35f: Mal. 1 I I ~ :
3 We should compare the Christian mavtyuia.
4 Cp E). Arid. 4 5 3 (Schmidt); E ZRA (GREEK), 5 6.

2087

HISTORICAL LITERATURE
MACCABEES

[THIRD]), which professes to narrate

events in the reign of Ptolemy Philopator after .the
defeat of Seleucus 111. 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 by Josephus (c. A). 25). Many scholars are of the
opinion that the occasion of writing the hook was the persecution
of the Alexandrian Jews under Caligula.1

Of the stories of martyr heroism, the most famous

are those of the aged Eleazar and of the mother and
her seven sons in 2 Macc. 6 3 , repeated in great detail
in 4 Macc., which took their place among the most
popular of Christian martyria.
There were doubtless many other religious stories in
circulation ; from a later period considerable remains of
a similar literature have come down to us ; e,g., the tale
of Josephs wife Aseneth (see A POCRYPHA, 5 12).
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
l,. Hist. of most important of these works is that
Asmonaans:
which we have in the First Book of
Hebrew. Maccabees (see MACCABEES [FIRST]),
written in Hebrew, probably in the reign of John
Hyrcanus. It covers the period from the accession
of Antiochus Epiphanes (175 B.c.) to the death of
Simon (135 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
Asmonzan house. Besides this tradition, he incorporated certain documents which were preserved in
public places ( 1 4 z 7 8 ) o r in the archives (cp 1137 l z ~ ) . ~
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 Asmonzans; it is deeply to be
regretted that we have not similar sources for other
epochs of Jewish history.
At the end of the work ( 1 6 2 3 J ) 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 chronicle^.^
The struggle of their brethren in Palestine had a keen
interest for the Greek-speaking Jews also. Jason of
ls. Greek. Cyrene wrote a history of it in five books,
beginning with the antecedents of the conflict under Onias III., and ending, if we are to judge
from the summary of its contents in 2 Macc. 219-23,
with the liberation of the city by Judas after the victory
over Nicanor (cp 2 Macc. 1 5 3 ~ ) . ~We know this work
only through 2 Macc., which is professedly an abridgment of it. The original must have been very proli?!,
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 historiography.s
The straining for effect is tiresomely persistent. Everything is exaggerated ; special divine interventions occur
at every turn ; and the operation of the law of retribiition is everywhere emphasised (see chap. 9). There is
1 See now, however, Biichler, Toliaden u. Oniaden, 1 7 2 8

920n the genuineness of these pieces; see MACCABEES (FIRST),

:<gainst
Bloch see Destinon, 44.
4 Schiirer considers it doubtful whether Jason made an end
here; but cp z Macc. 220, and see Willrich, jacden IC.
Griechen 66.
5 See, however, Biichler, 1 7 7 8 , Niese, H e m e s , r g w .

2088

HISTORICAL LITERATURE

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 z Macc. 11-218,
and on the other critical points, see M ACCABE ES
(SECOND).
Other writings of a legendary character are known to
us through Josephus, who, directly or indirectly, drew
upon them in his history of the Greekperiod ; among
them were the account of A1exander:s relations to the
Jews (Ant. xi. 8) and the story of the Tohiadz and
Oniadz (Joseph the tax-farmer), Ant. xii. 4, cp BY 1I.
On the latter see Biichler (op. cit. preceding col. n. I).
In the third and the second centuries B .c., most of
the Hebrew historical literature was translated into
f9. Histories of Greek. Jews in the new centres of
the Jewish people Greek culture, especially in Alexandria, became acquainted with the
by Hellbnistic 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.
i. Demetrius.-The earliest of these writings of which
we know anything is that of Demetrius, IIcpl d v 8v T$
Iou8alp pau~Xdwv.~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.

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 combinations is doubtless in the main pure invention.
Considerable fragments of a work of this sort have
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.

~~

The occasionalexplanationsof other difficulties in the Scriptures

show honesty as well as ingenuity. The close connection in
many of these points between the Hellenistic and the Palestinian
exegesis has also been remarked.

ii. Eu$oZemos.-The
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 (f.24),and
so on. In him also we first note the disposition to
vindicate for the Hebrews the priority in philosophy,
science, and the useful arts, which is so characteristic of
later Hellenistic authors.
Moses was the first sage (uo@s), and the first who gave his
r p l q written laws. H e taught theart ofwriting tothe Jews ;the
hcenicians learned it from the Jews, and the Greeks from them.

Eupolemos probably wrote under Demetrius Soter

(circa 158 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 Hellenist.5
iii. Artnpinos.-It
was natnral that Jews in Egypt
should seek to connect the story of Abrahams sojourn
in Egypt, of Josephs 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 historians.6

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

Abraham,during his twenty yearssojourn, taught the Egyptians

astrology ;2 Joseph first caused the fields to be properly surveyed
and meted out reclaimed by irrigation much uncultivated land
allotted glehes)to the priests and invented measures. His kins!
men who followed him to kgypt built the temples in Athos
andHeliopolis. It is particularl; in the story of Moses, however, that Artapanos develops all his art. Moses, who was
named by the Egyptians Hermes and is known to the Greeksas
Musaeus, was the adopted son of Merris the childless queen of
Chenephres. H e was the inventor df boats the Egyptian
weapons, engines for hoisting stones for irrigatibn and for war.
he divided the country into its thirt;-six names, a i d assigned :t
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 at the head of an army of fellahin subdued the Ethiopians:
built the city of Hermopolis, etc. The 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 :I&).
As the last example shows theauthordeals very freely
with the biblical narrative when it skits his purpose.

iv. Frugnzents.-We possess fragments of several

other works of similar tendency to those of Eupolemos
and Artapanos ; the names of Aristeas and MalchosKleodemus may be mentioned. Of peculiar interest
are some fragments of this sort which plainly come
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 instructive for the combination of the O T narrative with
Babylonian learning : for example, Ur of the Chaldees i s
Camarina ; 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 foreigner^.^
v. Pseudo-Hecut~us.-Hecataeus 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 a n a 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

1 See Torrey Z A T W 20 2 2 5 8
2 The book h a y perhaps have been used as a Hellenistic
work dealing with the ancient history of his people
Haggada for the Hanukka as Esther for Purim.
20.
philo of demands mention here-the life of Moses.
3 On the works described in this paragraph see Freudenthal
Ffellenistische Studien 75 (the fragments edited 219 8 ) Alexandria. The first book, in particular, on Moses a s
Schiirer, History ofthe )<wish People, 2, 8 33 (5 zoo&); Will:
a ruler, fairly deserves to be called the best
rich,/uden SndGriechen aooy de? makRa6uiscFzen Eoyhebusg, 95.
specimen of Hebrew history retold for Gentile readers.
4 Freudenthal fixes the date under Ptolemy IV. (222-205) ;
1 Cp Pseudo Hecatieus, Aristeas, the Jewish Sibyl, etc.; ,
Willrich tries to prove that all this literature is much younger.
5 Against both this combination and the date given in the
Freudenthal, 1 4 3 3
2 This is tepeated hy many Jewish writets.
Abraham
text, see Willrich.
f
brought the art from Babylonia (FHG 3 2 1 3 A).
6 If the account ascribed to Manetho is genuine-which has
3 This species of literature flourished rankly in the centuries
seldom been questioned-these malicious inventions began very
early in the Ptolemaic period.
before andafter our era.

2089

HISTORICAL LITERATURE

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. 32), following the Pentateuch with occasional
allegorical digressions and many edifying reflections and with
those speeches by the personages at important momenk without
which no author of this time would have thought it possible to
write history. but free from any infusion of the Hellenistic
midrash whicd we have found in Eupolemos and Artapanos.

For the agitation which preceded the war, and 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 Antiquities. The 3ewish 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.
ii. Antiquities. -Later in life Josephus wrote his
Antiquities, or, rather, ' Archeology * ( 'Iou&zL+ r i p p r o Xoyia), 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.

Philo's work differs favourably from the corresponding

parts of Josephns' 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 i the second described
the oppresiion of the Jews in the reign of Tiberius by Sejanus
at Rome and by Pontius Pilate in Judza 7 the third dealt with
the sufferings of the Alexandrian Jews at the beginning of the
reign ofCaligula; the fourth, with the evils in which the Jews were
involved by the demand of Caligula that divine honours should
be paid him, and his determination to set up an image of himself
in the temple at 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 (AdversusFlaccum, Legntio 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 Caligula. Notwithstanding their tiresome preaching tone, and obvious
reticence about the result of the mission-not to say suppression 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 the Emperor.
The revolt against Rome in the years 66-73 A . D .
found its historians in two men who had
21.
Justus themselves been actors in it, Justus of
of Tiberias.2
Tiberias and Flavius Josephus.
The work of Justus is lost-it is known to us only
through the polemic in the autobiography of Josephusand 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 Chronicon
or concise history from Moses to the death of Agrippa
11. (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 GreekJosephus testifies that he had a good Greek educationfor Greek and Roman readers.
i. BeZl. Jud. -Josephus (b. 37 A. D ., d. end of century)
first wrote the history of the war in Aramaic for the
21. Plavius Jews in the E. Afterwards, moved
(he says) by the number of misleading
Josephus.3 accounts which were in circulation, he
put his own work into Greek.4 The Greek cannot, however, 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 probably also the rt!sumt! of Jewish history from the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Herod (bk. i.)
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 Vespasian (79 A . D. ).
1 In this book the history of the LXX translation is repeated
after Aristeas.
2 Schurer GJ V M 1 4 7 8 ET 1 6 5 8
3 Schiire; G/VP) 156 &
,! ET 1 7 7 s : where the literature
will be founb. (Ft.
1o4,Q.
' l QAaviou
I o ~ j r r o u r u r o p h 'Iov8aLoG roh.!,,.ou
lrpbs
Twpaious ; De

BeZLo/ltdaico L i h i Septenz.
2091

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 o m h d 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, $ 19) 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 iiblical narrative to
foreign authors ; who are sometimes cited, not at first hand, but
from compilations or other intermediate sources.2

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 v a l ~ e . ~
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 Asmonaeans ?) with Greek
writers on the history of Syria (Polybius, 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 marvelstories, 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 sonrce 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 Gessius Florus (=BJ ii. 141),on the eve
of the war.
iii. The Lzye, which in the manuscripts immediately
follows the Antiquities, is not really an autobiography;
it is an apologia, and is chiefly occupied with a relation
1 The title and the number of books are in imitation of
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 'Pops%$ Apxaiohoyla.
2 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. 11043 Of more recent investigatinns Buchler, Die
Tohaden und die Oniaden, '99, also JQR9311 8,
REI
32 1 7 9 8 , 39698, and Unger (SMAW, ,958:)must be named.

2092

HISTORICAL LITERATURE

HITTITES

and defence of t h e authors conduct as commander in

Galilee in the earlier stage of the revolt. I t supplements t h e War; b u t is to b e used with even greater
caution.
iv. T h e short work which we commonly call t h e
Reply t o Apion (Contru Apionem), b u t of which t h e
t r u e title seems t o b e On the Antiquity of the Jews
(IIepl r?js rOu Iou8aiwv dpxai671)ros) is a defence of
t h e Jews against their assailants, of whom t h e Alexa n d r i a n grammarian a n d polyhistor Apiou is taken as
a leading representative.l T h e chief value of t h e book,
a p a r t from the light it throws o n the antisemitism of
t h e times, lies in the copious extracts from profane
writers o n Oriental history which a r e incorporated in it.
Josephus was the a u t h o r through whom t h e R o m a n
. a n d , later, for centuries, t h e Christian world g o t most
,of its knowledge of Jewish history. H i s works were
translated into L a t i n ; a Greek abridgment of t h e
voluminous Antiquities was m a d e ; t h e mediaeval
Hebrew 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 modern times Josephus h a s been translated
into all the languages of Europe. H i s authority as an
historian stood very high, his writings were appealed
to with almost as much confidence as t h e OT itself.
In recent times, o n t h e contrary, h e h a s not infrequently 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 it shares with
t h e Jewish Hellenistic historiography in general, a n d
indeed 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 hi?
readers ; an effective story carries it off over all dry investigations; 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 and his people. On the other hand the carelessness and lack of p i n s with which the latter part oftbe Anti.guities particularly is worked out may fairly he laid a t his door ;
he visibly wearies of his long task before it is completed.
W e have n o extensive historical writings in H e b r e w
or Aramaic t o s e t beside t h e productions of t h e Grecian
S o m e works on particular
23*Seder Olarn 2 d d s have perished, o r , like I Macc.
a n d Josephuss J e k s h War, Gave reached us only i n
Greek 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
.it t o t h e knowledge of foreigners- was lacking. T h e i r
own need was satisfied b y t h e Sacred Books themselves, interpreted by T a r g u m a n d Midrash. T h e only
comprehensive Hebrew work o n Jewish history of which
we know anything is t h e bald chronological e p i t o m e
known as SZdev OZdm. 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 minute determination of t h e chronology
-which is evidently t h e ruison ddtre of the work.2 T h e
s i x centuries a n d more from Nehemiah 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 obvious; t h e chronology of the Persian, t h e
Greek, t h e A4smonaean, a n d the Herodean periodspartly in consequence of corruption of the text- is far
-out of the way. T h e work, which enjoys T a l m u d i c
authority, is attributed t o R. Jose ben H a l a p h t a (circa
130-160 i\.o.), probably because h e is.often cited in it
as a n authority. I t h a s undoubtedly been more t h a n
once worked over b y later hands.3
E. Schrader, art. Geschichtskunde bei den Israeliten, BL
2 4 1 3 s ; Franz Del. Die Formenreichthum der israelitischen
Geschichtsliteratur Zeitsch.f:&the?. TheoL
24. Literature. u. Kirche, 3631~i?,70;L. Diestel Dieheb.
Geschichtsschreibung / D T 18385 8(73) ;
R. Kittel, Die Anfdnge der A d . Gcschihsschreibung im A T,
96 (Rektoratsrede); B. Duhm, Die Entsfeh. des A T s , 97;
1 Apion died ahont fifty years before Josephus wrote.
2 Cp the Alexandrian chronologist Demetrius ; and note

lthe chronology ofJu6ilees.

3 Azaria de Rossi, ZmrZ Binri, chap. 19.

2093

also

see also HEXATEUCH,

and the articles on the several books discussed above.
On various aspects of the general subject : F. Creuzer, Diz
historische Kunst der Griechen in ihrer Enfsteh. und Ebrrdildung, 45 ; H. Ulrici, Charakteristik der antiken ffistori.
o p a j h i e , 33 ; K . W. Nitzsch, Romische und deutsche Annalistik und Geschichtsschreibune in Svbels Zeitschr. 11I
(64). A. v. Gutschmid Aus Vo&sun&n iiber die Geslh.-&
griec)h. Historiographii, KZeine Schrifteen, 4279 j? (esp. the
introd. mo-mX).
~~~~~.
-,I -?-,-

J. W. Loebell Das reale und das ideale Element in der

geschichtlichen bherlieferung und Darstellung in Sybels
Zeitschr. 1 269.331 (59) : W. Wachsmuth Ueher die Quellen
der Geschichtsfalschung, Ber. d.KunnigLsarhisclien Gesellsch.
der Wiss. 8 121-1j3 (56) ; E. Zeller Wie entstehen ungeschichtlichen Ueberlieferungen,Drut.&ha Rundschau, Feb. 93
(excellent) ; Steinthal iMythos, Sage Marchen Legende
Erzahlung, Fabel, 2: far VZkeqk&oZo@
u. ijyachwiss:
17 113 8 (87).
See also Bernheim, Lehrb. d. historischen
MethodeM (94); and C. Wacbsmuth, BinL in das Studiunz
der a l h n Gesch. (95).
.G. F. M.
HITTITES (Dnn), a n a m e which occurs rather
frequently i n t h e O T , a n d is often connected with regions
1. Occurrence somewhat remote from o n e another,
The name is given to one of the groups of
Of llame
pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Southern Palestine, whose full name is Bne HCth (XW) ; so
in OT.
Gen. 23357 2746. A single member of the
noup is Hitti
Xema?os, e.g., Gen. 4929, 2 S. 1124), and
from the form the group is commonly referred to as ha-Hitti
-i.e., the Hitlite. So throughout Ex., Nu., Dt., Josh., Judg.,
Ezra and Neh and also I K . 920 (I1 z Ch. 87). The references
so fa: given r e 6 to the earlier period of Hebrew history, hefore
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 S . 2 6 6 ) , David (2 S.l13617212~12g,?
2339 XWTEL [L] and a parallel passage I Ch. 1141 X ~ T T C C [BN],
XW&C
[AL]) Sblomon (I K . 1029 XeTTlElv [B om. A] -p [L]
11I z K. 7 6 and a parallel passage 2 Ch. 1 1 7 y&aiov [A]). Thk
term Hittim occurs more rarely- only twice for the earlier
period Josh. 14 (BA om.), Judg. 126 ( p n f w [B] - ~ a r p[A] -Y
land of the Hittites ) ; and three times for tde later pe4od
1029 2 K. 76 and a parallel passage 2 Ch. 117, 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, Gen. 10,H e t h is introduced
[v. 15
as a son of C a n a a n ; b u t t h e mention of H e t h
1o ~a~ h e r e is evidently a gloss- though an
2.
old one- tacked on t o S i d o n , t h e
be
firstborn of Canaan.
The Greek translators, perceiving the incongruity of the
Ise of HEth for the nation alongside of gentilicia, like Jehfisi,
Em6ri etc. changed Hsth to Hitti ( T ~ VXema?ov). We may
ndeed a c e p t the view of Ball (SBOTad Zoc.) and others, and
:egard the introduction of all the nations mentioned in 8.16 as a
.edactorial addition suggested by the gloss HEth ; hut this will
?ot affect the question of the inference about HEth to bedrawn
ram the passage. For the entire section, Gen. 1016-19, is an
ndependent fragment (taken from some genealogical list of
3anaanites) belonging to the same stratum of tradition as that
ireserved in the song, Gen. 825-27, according to which the three
iivisions of mankind were Canaan, Shem, and Japheth. This
vide sense of Canaan (1019) accords well with certain passages
n the OT (see C ANA AN ,$3 2 ) which make Canaan ageneral term
or 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 thistsage isin contradiction to the morecommon
ipplication of the term in the Hexateuch and in passages like
ludg. 35 Ezra91 (eB.6 [B], BBOL [AI) Neh. 98-dependent u on
he Hexateuch-where the Canaanites are merely one of &e,
,ix or seven divisions into which the district defined is divided.
?Len it is furthermore considered that in this enumeration the
-anaanites are assigned not always the first place-at times the
,econd (Ex. 2328 34rr) or the third (Dt. 2017 Josh. 91 24rr), or
:wen the fourth (Ex.23q)-it is evident that no value is to he
ittached to the assignment of Heth as a son @e., subdivision)
,f Canaan. One conclusion, however, may be drawn from the
rariation 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
.s one of the three great divisions of mankind, belongs to a
nore remote age.
W e conclude, then, t h a t t h e Hittites of t h e OT, as
Ln ethnic group, d o n o t necessarily stand iri a closer
3. Hittites of relation to t h e Canaanites t h a n t o the
Palestine, Amorites, Hivites, Perizzites, or a n y
of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of
Gen. 23.1 Palestine.
,
1 [On,the Hittites of Hebron cp REHOBOTH.]

(nn

?k.

u])

s.

2094

HITTITES

HITTITES

The question confronts us here, whether in all cases

where the O T mentions Hittites, the same 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 [PI, identical with the group called ha-Hitti (nnq),
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 [PI, Abraham purchases a
buryin,g-cave at Mamre from the B n e Heth, who are
represented as a settled population with Hebron as a
kind of centre.

view is to be found in Josh. 14, where the whole district

of Israels 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. It is true that these words are a gloss, and
perhaps a late one, since they are not contained in @BAL
alone inserts). Their value is not impaired, howe m , by this circumstance ; in the opinion of the scribe
who added them, Hittite was a term covering a very
large territory.
Judg. 126 is perhaps another instance of the vague use of the phrase land of the
Hittites, though here we have to reckon with the possibility 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 z K. 7 6 , and probably
in I K. 1029.
Again, when Ezekiel tells Jerusalem,
Thy father was an Amorite and thy mother a Hittite
(Ezek. 1 6 3 4 5 [om. Q ] ) , 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 in
Central Palestine. Indeed one might be inclined t o
regard thegrouping of Hittites withcanaanites, Amorites,
etc., as a conventional enumeration without any decided
reference to actual conditions ; but such a passage as
Josh. 11 3 is against this view.
Since the older inhabitants of Palestine were not
exterminated, it is not surprising
- - to find a Hittite-the
5. .
famous Urial-among the chiefs that
Hittites
in later times. constituted the following of David
/ z S. 2310
The position
-_ I Ch. 1141).
. ,
occupied by Uriah points to a partial assimilation
between Judzans and Hittites, and similarly the
strange tale of David and Bathsheba (Uriahs wife), as
related in z S. 11, embodies a distinct recollection of a
close alliance at one time between the two groups.
The unfavourable light in which Davids act is placed is
due to an age which regarded it as a heinous crime for
any Hebrew to marry a womanwho was not a worshipper
of Yahwe; but 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 to,
Solomon, whose marriages with Hittite princesses
6. Solomon,s solemnize political alliances, just as does.
the enlargement of his harem through
Northern
..
Moabitish, Ammonitish, Edomitish, a n d
nlles
Sidonian concubines. Solomon but imitated the example set by the kings of Egypt, who had long
been in the habit of adding to their harems representatives of the various nations whom they had conquered
or with whom they had entered into political alliances.
The kings harem in ancient days in a measure took the
place of the diplomatic corps of our times. These
Hittites cannot possibly be identical with those weencounter 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. 11I ) . That
there was a Hittite empire, and that it was important, is.
implied by the statement ( I K. 1029) that Solomon
imported horses from Egypt for all the kings of theHittites (see H ORSE , 3, M IZR A IM , zh). The same.
Hittite power is referred to in 2 K. 7 6 , where the juxtaposition 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

The antiquity of the tradition is hardly open to question

though the details such as the formal deed of purchase ma;
have been supplied by the fancy of a much later age, to hhich
Abraham had already become a favourite subject for Midrashic
elaboration. That the Hebrew tradition regards the Hittites
of Hebronl as identical with those mentioned elsewhere follows
from the introduction of Heth in Gen. 1015 [J] as well as from
the qualification ha-Hittiadded to the name of Ephron(Gen.
23 IO),^ the chief of the Bne Beth.

These Hittites extended as far south as the edge of

the desert, since we find Edomitic clans, settled around
Gerar and Beersheba (Gen. 2634 [PI, x w y u l o u [E]),
entering upon matrimonial alliances with Hittites.
The opposition of Isaac and Rebecca to Esaus marriages with
Hittite women (is., 2746 [Rl) reflects the later sentiments expressed in the Hexateuchal prohibition (Dt. 73), 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 mind-( I) the settlement

of the Bne HEth in the extreme south of Palestine, and
Hittites ( 2 ) the friendly relations between them
ofCentral and the clans which constitute the anPa~~stine.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. 266), and a Hittite occupies
a prominent place in Davids army ( 2 S. 2339) (see below,
s), whi1:t Solomon enters into matrimonial alliances
with Hittite princesses ( I K. 11I ) (see below, 5 6) ; but
these are exceptional incidents. T h e Hittites, together
I with
the Canaanites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites,
Jebusites, and Girga~hites,~
hold the various parts of
Palestine proper against the Hebrew invaders, and
contest every advance. The chief passages are Ex.
3817 135 2 3 2 3 332 Dt. 71 2017 Josh. 310113 (om.,F)
128 (om. L) 2411 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 Jebusites in the mountains, and the Hivites at the foot of Mt.
Hermon in the N. (In 6Bthe positions of the Hivites
and Hittites are exchanged : but the gloss in Nu.13ag
is a support for M T ; see HIVITES, 2.) Here, then,
we find the Hittites settled in the mountainous districts
of Central Palestine contesting the encroachments of the
Hebrews. It 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 conditions 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 Canaanites, Amorites, and even Philistines. A support for this

*.

1 [Sta. (GescA.P) 143) Bu. (Urgeck. 3471% E. Mey. and

others(e.r., Che., art. H!tti;es,EB(g)) arequitesure that in this
of the name Hittites for the population of the land (cp
also 2 6 3 4 / : 2746 with 28 I), A (i.e., the Priestly narrator, P) is
deplorably wrong (Di. Gen. 297 [192], ironically).]
2 Also w. 8, according to the Samaritan version.
3 The order in which these nations are enumerated varies, and
a t times one or other-Girgashites, Perizzites, or Hivvitesis omitted, though the Greek translators usually supplied the
deficiency by inserting them.

use

2095

(aF

s.

lTllllL.

2096

HITTITES

HITTITES

the N. and the S. A more definite conclusion, however,

may be drawn from 2 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 N. 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 1000 B. C.
In a study of the Hittites of the O T we must therefore
take into consideration the varving use of the term.
We must distiiguysh ( u ) the Hittites
7* summary Of settled around Hebron (who maintain
OT data* 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 1600 B. c. an -extended -series of Asiatic
8, Egyptian campaigns which eventually brought about
the subjection of Palestine and Syria to
data.
the pharaohs of Egypt. Among the more
formidable enemies enumerated by the Egyptian rulers
is a people whose name 8 - t appears to be identical
with the term H&th 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 inscriptions of Thotmes 111. (circa1500 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. The 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 claim .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 DuSratta, -king of Mitanni-a district to the
NW. of Assyria. This alliance between Egypt and
Milanni seems to have kept the H-ta in check; but it
was not long before the H-ta of Marash, Carchemish,
Hamath, and Kedesh regained their.complete independence. 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

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
9. Cuneiform ena6le us-to say when the inhabitants
of the Euphrates valley first came into
statements. contact with the Hittites. The KaSSite
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.
The text containing an account of the western exploits of
Sargon I. [see BABYLONIA, F, 411 (whose date is provisionally
fixed a t 3800 B.c.) is of a very late date, and cannot therefore be
relied upon as confirming the general tradition of an early conquest of Syria on the part of Babylonian rulers. (The name
Hittite does not appear in the text referred to, the lands to the
W. bein5 embraced under the general designation of Amorite
country. On this point see C ANAAN, 55 7 8 )

Read PFn? p!, and see further TAHTIM-HODSHI.

This is the transliteratiop now adopted by Egyptologists.
The character of the vowel following tcannot be definitely determined, The spelling adopted here is IJ-ta (after WMM).

As the Asiatic campaigns of Egypt begin in the

eighteenth century B. c . , we must assume that the Babylonian control of Syria and Palestine belongs to an
earlier time. W e know enough of the history of the
KaSSite 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
us 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
Hittite, or Hatti, which appears to be
lo*
The gattiidentical with it, does not make its
appearance in cuneiform literature till the days of
Tiglath-pileser I., ahout 1100 B. c. Then it means a
distinctly defined kingdom lying along the Orontes (with
Carchemish as one of its important centres) and extending well into the Taurus range. Against these Yatti
the Assyrian ruler waged a fierce campaign. According
to his account it ended in a complete triumph for the
Assyrian arms. In reality, however, the conquest was
far from complete. The successors of Tiglath-pileser
were much harassed by the troublesome Batti, and it is
not until the reign of Sargon (721-704
B .c.) that they
finally disappear from the horizon of Assyrian history.
Curiously enough, we encounter in the Assyrian inscriptions the same vagueness in the use of the term
Hatti 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 including apparently Palestine (see C ANAAN , 12). 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
11, Hittite the Hittites themselves, and although the
monuments. 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 Zenjirli, there are abundant traces
of Hittite art. Quite recently (August, 99) a Hittitestelk
has been found at Babylon, transported from a Hittite

2097

2098

1
2

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, Cappadocia, 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
1200-800 B.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 NW., nearly to the
borders of the Euxine, and W. to the A3:gean.2 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 1200 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 anthropological 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 problems, is now being vigorously prose12. Rittite
After several attempts on the
inscriptions. cuted.
part of Sayce, Peiser, and Halevy, which
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 ideographs 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 inscriptions 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 plausible, 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 expecting to find an affiliation between the Hittite language

HITTITES
and the Semitic stock, if not indeed, as in Egyptian, a
Semitic substratum.
No valid conclusion can 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 in 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 Jensens decipherment 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 established, 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
13. General as the Hettites or Hittites. 2. When the
began their conquest of Syria,
result. Egyptians
Hittites formed one of their most formidable adversaries, and continued to be prominent throughout 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 N.and the A3gean 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, a n d i t 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 Hsth 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 substratum. 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.
M. J. (Jr.1..
Perrot and Chipiez, Hist. o f A r t in Sardinia, etc., vol. u.,

1 R. Koldewey, Die Hettitisclie ZnschYift gefun&n in der

Kdn&sburg von BabyZon (Leips. 1900).
a At Karabel, near Smyrna, tiere is sculptured on a rock the
picture of a Hittite warrior with a few Hittite characters.

1 The only bilingual as yet found is a small silver boss (of

Tarkondemos) containing a rather obscure Assyrian inscription
accompanied by eight Hittite characters.

2099

2100

HIVITEB

HODESH

The Hittites (90) ; Sayce The Hittites (88) Wright The

Empire
the Hittiies(Z)(84). Lantskeere
14. Literature. De la liace et de la Languides Hittite:
(91) ; Jensen, Hittiter und Armenier (98),
and articles in ZDMG, 48.

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 (xnny), 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
) Jobab
Jonadab in Jer..356 8 8 into Jehobab ( 3 2 ~and
(131.)respectively.
Thus Jehobab the father-in-law of
Moses becomes the father and legislator of the Kenites
or Kechabites.

HIVITES, RV the H IVITE (?n?--i.e., the

Hivvites ; 01 ayalol [BAL]), named in the lists of
1. Name. tribes driven out of Palestine by the bne
Israel (Ex. 3 8 17, etc., also Is. 1 7 g 1 S B O T ,
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 HORITE). Some critics
explain from the Ar. +ayy, family, as if = people who live in
nin, Bedawin encampments (see GOVERNMENT, $ 4, HAVVOTH- @ has rwpag [BAL] in Judg., opa/3 [B], wj3.p [AI, LW.
JAIRtWhilst Wellhausen (CH(2)343) suggests that the name is
[Fxl iwpap [Flmg.L] in Nu.: see readings in Swete., We.
(Hek(Z1 146) compares Hobab with Ar. hubri6, serpent : but
derived from ?$n, Eve (on the meaning of which name see A DAM
most connect the name with 3>, to love; cp Nab. )3*3n,
AND EVE, 5 36). I t is a t any rate possible that, if the reading
beloved.
T. K. C.
*ln is correct, the early interpreters in the Onomrrstica were
right in connecting it with nVl, serpent(&lpiw8ss, & m s p 8+ecs :
HOBAH (n31n ; xwBah [D] ; NO. [ L l ; Joseph.
OS 16464, etc.), and that thokivites were originally the Snake
~ B A ) ,the point to which Abraham pursued CHEDORclan (so, doubtfully, Moore, /&g. 83J).
LAOMER (4.v.) and his allies (Gen. 1415). It was on
In Gen. 1017 ( = I Ch. 115, B om., E U E L [L]) the

Hivites are reckoned among the sons of Canaan. Moore

2. Location, thinks they were a petty people of Central
Palestine (Judges, 79); but, 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 1119 the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon
om. ; cp Bennett, SBOT). As we know, GIBEON
[q.v.] remained for a long time in the possession of nonIsraelites, but whether they were Hivites, Horites (as
suggests),a or Amorites (cp 2 S. 21 2 ) is uncertain. d may, however, be right in reading Horite *
for Hivite in Gen. 34 2 (see SHECHEM b. Hamor ; cp
H ORITE ), and the same emendation is required in 362
(see ANAH,BASHEMATH, ZIBEON).
Another error occurs in Josh. 113, where the Hittites
must certainly be referred to in the geographical location, under Hermon in the land of Mizpah ; the
Hivites (om.
and Hittites, as bBshows, have accidentally exchanged places (cp Meyer, Z A T W 1126, Bu.
Ri. Sa. 81 n., Moore, hdg. 81 ; see HITTITES, 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, IC.). It is difficult to decide whether Hivites
in 2 S. 247 ( E U E L [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.
5. A. C.

the left hand ( L e . , on the N.) of Damascus. In the

Aniarna Tablets, 139 59 63 146 rev. 12, mEt U6i is
mentioned; once, to define Damascus, D . in the
land of Ubi (i6. 63). On the edge of the Syrian
desert, between Damascus and Palmyra, there is a
spring called F o 6 a which is still famous in the songs of
the Bedouin. Wetzstein (in Del. Gen. (41 5618 ) identifies this with Hobah. 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 elKEdE) to Damascus is fifteen hours journey, from
Damascus to coda more than twenty. This is not
decisive, however ; the narrator (if he knew the distance) may have wished to emphasise 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.

(eBA=

aBAFL.

aA)

HIZKI (n\n), I Ch. 817 RV, AV H EZEKI.

HIZKIAH (Vprn), Zeph. 1 I AV, RV H EZEKIAH.
HIZKIJAH (PpTp), Neh. lO17[18] AV, RV HEZEEIAH.

See ATER, I.

HQBAB (3$), son of R EUEL [g.v.], Moses fatherin-law (Nu. 1029 Judg. 411 [a gloss? see Moore], and
probably Judg. 116 [emended text: cp lwaB [A],
I ~ B A B[L], se.e,Moore]). In N u . 1 0 ~ 9he is represented as a Midiantte, in Judg.116 411 as a Kenite.
Elsewhere (except in I Ch. 255, see HEMATH),JONADAB [4.v.], or Jehonadab, is called the founder of the
Rechabites, and we may doubt (but see RECHABITES)
1 Read 'inn fsr d$? (@BNAQ oi euuboi), with Lowth,
(see
Lag. etc. (cp RVmg.), Cheyne now reads *tyinn=*gq~,i

T. K. C.

HOBAIAH (P?il),Neh. 763 RV, AV H ABAIAH.

HOD (Yh,perhaps shortened from l l V 3 R ; wA
[BA], IHOYA [L]), in a genealogy of ASHER (g.v.,5 4
ii. ), I Ch. 7 37T.
HODAVIAH (V)l\il, as if praise Yahwb ;a cp
H ODIAH and JUDAH; ~ A O Y I A[BAL]).
I.

Head of a fathers house belonging to Manasseh ( I Ch. 5 24 :

Lwsouia

[Ll).

h. Hassenuah, an ancestor of SALLU(I Ch. 9 7 ; osuta [Bl) ;

in Neh. 11 9, Judah (niin* ; c o d a [NL], -us [BA]) b. Senuah is
doubtless the same person. Cp SENAAH.
3. b. Elioenai, a descendant of Zerubbabel ( I Ch. 3 24 ; 3Z;VkI
Kt., m?i?
Kr., AV Hodaiah ; osohca [Bl, osm [Ll).
4. A Levitical family in great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii.,
$f 9 1 3 4 Ezra 2 4 0 (uosovra [B] uw8. [A]. the u is a
dittoiraph bf the preceding s ) = N e h 7 43, Hodkvah, RVmg.
Hodeiah (nllln Kt., 7113 Kr. ;Bousouta [B], OU. [NAl)=r Esd.
6 26 SUDIAS(cov8rou [BA]). T o this family the bne Jeshua
and Kadmiel apparently belonged (cp also Ezra39, where
Hodaviah gives place to Judah, as in no. 2 sllpra see
JUDAH,3). Since however, Jeshua, Kadmiel, and B a d are
mentioned togethe; in Neh. 9 4 x it is better to emend Ezra 2 40
etc. and read the bne Jeshua, Kadmiel, Bani, and Hodaviah. So already in I Esd. 5 26 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 HODIAH.
S . A. C.
2.

HODESH

( ~ * n ,born

at the feast of the new

ag

moon? 5 7 2 : aAa [BA], BAAAA [ L l ;

[Pesh.]),
a name in a genealogy of B ENJAMIN ( I Ch. 89), perhaps
a corruption of Ahishahar (see /QR 11107, 6). 6.
identifies it with B AARA of v. E.,

a Read npbs 7bv xoppuiov (in sing.). Vg. ad eos is either a

corruption from ad heums, or points to the reading on$ which
is perhaps the more probable alternative.

1 The scribe read 3 instead of 3 (the first time), and inserted

1. That letters not only fell out, but were inserted by editors,
is certain.
9 Le., n?lh.

2101

2102

GI&H~TE).

HONEY

HODIAH
HODIAH

(Pli?,

YahwB is my glory, cp HODA-

t?=*t%l$k!IE$udahite,
whose wife was a sister of
NAHAM[g.~.], I Ch. 4 19 (r$s domas [Bl, riis roY8aLas [AI, o8ra
[L]). @BA, however, has the better reading his wife Hodiah
111v. 18. 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 KEILAH [g.u.] and E SHTEMOA [ ~ u . ]and
was the wife of MERED [q.v.]-a corrupt form whlch needs
emendation. @L makes Hodiah the brother of Naham.
2. AV Hodijah, mentioned in lists of priests, teachers, and
Levites, Neh. 8 7 9 5 [4] (om. @ B N A in both passages), I Esd. 948
(AUTEAS; avraias [BA]); Neh. 1010, o8ovLa LENA1 13 1141
(o8ovp [BK] o8oua [AI oscas [Ll); 71.18 [1g] (o8ouLa [BNAI,
oScas [L]). H e is pro6ably the same as HoDAvlAH (4). T h e
name a parently recurs in I Esd. 5 16 under the corrupt form
ANNIS$0 RV) ; see ANANIAS,I.

;?s

>

HOGLAH ( 3 3n, as if partridge, 5 68 ; srha [BL],

alrha [AF], in Josh. alrhaM [A]), the third of the
five daughters of ZELOPHEHAD, L e . , Sall!ad (Nu. 2633
271 36 I I airah [F], Josh. 17 3 PT). Though a placename Hoglah is possible (see BETH-HOGLAH),
yet some
better known name is more probable for a daughter
of Salhad. Perhaps n h n is a corruption of ntnn-i. e.,
Abel-meholah. See M AHLAH.

HOHAM (Dg3),king of Hebron, defeated by

Joshua (Josh. 103 ; AIAAM [BA], ~ A A M[L]): ,According to Hommel (AH;, 223 n . ) the name is identical
with the Minzan Hauhum. See H ORAM.
HOLD. A stronghold or citadel, used especially with
reference to Davids retreat in the cave of ADULLAM
(il>lh%, m&dEh, I 224 f. [but see HARETH], cp
2422 [q] zS.517 ; il7yp, m&idEh, 1Ch. 1281q).
Both words are employed to denote the fortress of Zion ( z S.
6 7 I Ch. 11 7), and in a general sense are used of any place of

s.

refuge or safety. See FORTRESS (beg.).

@Zh, in
The legitimacy of the rendering hold for,:!p
I S. 13 6 (AV high places ) Judg. 9 46 49 (EV) is not certain.
The sirrnification rock-hewn or seDulchra1 chakber which the
word Gas in Nabataean (see Cook,-Aranz. Gloss., S.Z. Nrplx) is
suitable in I S. (cp RVmg. hole ), but appears less satisfactory
in Judg. Lc., where (unless some underground chamber, cg.,
the reputed aetnrln of,the god B AAL - BERITH [q.u.l be intended)
the rendering tower (as in Sabaean) seems preferable (cp
Moore, ad Zoc.). The text, however, may be corrupt.
See Dr. (Sam. 76), Moore Eu. ad Zoc., and for nqx cp Earth,
AJSL, 97, p. 273 (with lit. kited).

HOLM

TREE.

I.

?lI?n,tirzah, Is. 4414f (6om. ;

Aq., Theod., A r p l O B A h A N O N [in

CYPRESS.

Qg.1)

RV, AV

2. rrpZvoc (ilez, L e i ) , mentioned in Sus. 58 with the

characteristic paronomasia the angel of God waiteth with the
sword to cut thee (rrpiua~ [Theod.], lva Karanpiq v e [6871) in
two; ; see SUSANNAH.By rrpivos 187 and Theod.] (cp Theophr.
Hist. Plant. iii. 7 3 and Aq. in Gen. 14 3 8 . the adj. lrpiv~voc
Aq. in Ezek. 27 5) is intended probably theQuerclls Coccifera
L. and Q. pseudo-coccifeera (Houghton). Similarly, a Syriac
gloss (in Low, P#aez. 7a) treats it as a species of oak (~&3).

HOLOFERNES ( O ~ O ~ E P N H C[BHA];
[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
Antiochis, the daughter of Antiochus the Great, and, at
one time, the friend of Demetrius I. The latter has
been identified with Holoferues by Ewald (4621)and
independently by E. L. Hicks (7. HeZZ. Stud. 6 2 6 1 8
[Sj]).
Ball, however, prefers to identify him with
Nicanor the Syrian general overcome by Judas the
Maccabee, and Gaster with Scaurus, the general sent
by Pompey into Syria 65 B . C . According to Winckler
(AOF(2)273) Holophernes =Osnappar (ASur-bZni-pal).

HOLON

(ihor 0%).

I. A town in the hill-country of Judah, assigned to

[B].
the Levites (Josh. 1551 2115, xahoy,
X I A O ~ W N , WAWN [AI, xsihoyl IAWN [L]). ,It Is
mentioned between Goshen and Giloh. The site 1s
unknown. In 1) I Ch. 658 (43) it is HILEN (I$!
; u~hva
[B], vqXwe [A], x d w v [L]), for which there is a v.l.
Hilez (ih; so the Soncino edition of the Prophets).

According to Klo. in @ E A of I S.172 (see ELAHVALLEY

OF) awoL = auhov = Holon. Possibly, too, Holon is intended
in Judith 154 ; see COLA.
2. A town of Moah ; Jer. 4821 (xaihov [E], xehov [KA]).

HOLY (dli;),
Ex. 1 9 6 ; HOLINESS (b7)). Ex.
1511. See C LEAN , 5 I.
HOLY GHOST ( I T N ~ ~ MaAr l o N ) , Mt. 118. See
SPIRIT, and cp PARACLETE, PENTECOST, S PIRITUAL
GIFTS.
HOMAM
I Ch. 139.
See HEMAM.

(Pgh),

HONEY ( ~ 3 7dZba!6ai,
,
same order of root letters in
Aram. and Ar. ; Ass. di$u. honey, daSpu, d u f f u j u ,
a sweet drink ; M E I \ I ) . The word &baP has three
distinct senses : ( I ) the honey of the wild bee, ( 2 )the
honey of the domesticated hee, and ( 3 ) manufactured
honey, or syrup, the dids of modern Syria.
I . In the sense of wild honey the word is of
frequent occurrence.
Honey out of the rock is
1. Varieties mentioned in Dt. 32 13 and Ps. 81 1 6 ~
of Honey. [17] ; and Canaan is even described, and
similarly Goshen (Xu. 16 13), as a land
flowing with milk and honey (Ex. 3 8 17 passim; cp
Dt. 8 8 2 K. 18 32 Jer. 41 8).3 Theories attaching either
of the two other significations to the term
as
used in this phrase, have no adequate justification.
It was, further, the honey of the wild bee which Samson found in the carcase of the lion (Judg. 14 8 & ; see
B EE), and of which Jonathan partook ( I S. 1425 J?),4
by dipping his staff into the honey-comb (@~i my:;
cp Cant. 51) ; and wild honey ($A& &yprov) was the
fare of John the Baptist (Mk. 16 Mt. 3 4).
2. There is no direct reference to domestic beekeeping in the OT (see BEE).
Nevertheless, it
would be strange, in view of the antiquity of the
domestication of the bee in the East ( A m . Tab. 13812
speaks of honey and oil in Syria), if the Hebrews were
1 I n EV invariably rerdered honey, except in z Ch. 31 5,
where A V w . has dates.
a I n the latter passage Lag., Gr., We., Che. read, With
droppings (IWy? for 1WF) of honey; note the parallelism.
3 [The phrase a land flowing (n3l) with milk and honey is
more poetical than its context seems to justify. It was already
conventional in the time of JE. It is a reasonable supposition 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. If it
were Sanscrit, we should not doubt it. But the more sober
Semitic mythology does not appear to have spoken of the sun
as a cow and the moon as a bee (Goldziher He6. Mythology
28J).
Nor was it imagined by the Semiies that the Milk;
Way was specially the abode of the Sun-gad (as by the Egyptians :
Maspero, D a w of Ciu. 181). Probably the phrase alludes to
the idealised past of human history. In the time of Nepherheres, says Manetho (Muller, FY.Hist. Gv. 2 542$), the Nile
flowed with honey for fifteen days. So, in the Hebrew Golden
+ge it may have been said, with perfect sincerity, that the land
flowed with milk and honey. I t is to such a myth that an
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 dispa &wet;, honey (and)
curdled milk(Frd. Del., G. SmithsChaZd. Gee.). Cp MARAH.
T
. K. C.1
.
~~

If the termination is genuine we may compare Artaphernes

Dataphernes, Tissaphernes, and two Median princes of the tim;
of Esar-haddon, viz. Sidir-parna and E-parna(see Ball, Speakeds
Comm., ad Zoc and cp the Syr. form supva). See JUDITH,
BOOK OF, and e;p. Willrich, Jzaaica, 2 8 s (1900).

The text 6 0 t h MT and @)is here admitted to he corrupt.

According to We DI. Bu v. 25 should run and there was
honeycomb on theface bf th; field. This is )perhaps the best
that can be done (H. P. Smith). But how is e s r r b a $ pj
i p h a to be accounted for? The continuation is, Kai caah
Gpu*br 3, pehiuuGvos. Klo. omits caah Gpupos as a bad gloss
on y y , and corrects 7prtr.ra into cpyauca or e yam6 with this
result (which he too boldly adppts), Now t& whble district
was occupied with bee-keeping. [But 4piuTa may have come
in in a corrupt form from the transliterated Heb. column of a
Hexaplar text and have represented ~ 1 ~ ~ 1

2103

2104

HONEY

HOOK

acquainted only with wild honey, norecould this be

reconciled with the mention of honey as well as other
products of cultivation in z Ch. 31 5.

honeycomb ( d a b peXiuulou K ~ P ~ O I Jwas

)
doubtless a
familiar combination, although absent from the best
MSS of Lk. 2 4 4 2 (and RV). But curdled milk and
honey alone (EV butter and honey ; Is. 71522) 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. 113). In particular
it was used for all sorts of sweet cakes (Ex.16 31, Ey~pis;
see also BAKEMEATS, 3)-such cakes ( X ~ U K O F Y T E S )as
were so much relished by the Greeks as dessert. But it
is well known that honey partaken of too freely produces
nausea1 (Prov. 2527).
Honey, however, was disallowed, at least by the later legislation (Lev. 211f:), as
an ingredient of any meal-offering, because of the ease
with which it ferments (cp Pliny, H N l l r 5 ) , although
admitted freely in other cults (see Bertholet, K H C on
Ezek. 16 19). A drink resembling mead was known to
the later Jews by a name (imip) derived from the
Greek oivbpehi, and said to have been compounded of
wine, honey, and pepper ( TZSm. 11 I Shadb. 20 2 ) .
Honey was kept in jars ( I K. 1 4 3 , EV a cruse of
honey ; cp Jer. 41 8), in which probably it was largely
exported through the markets of Tyre
(Ezek.
27 17).
.
.

Apiculture is first mentioned by Philo, who says that the

Essenes were fond of it (2633, ed. Maugey). I n the Mishna
references to it abound. The hive ( n m ) was either of straw
(%$<P) or of wicker (Op>D), doubtless plastered over, as a t
the present day, to keep out the excessive heat (see description
.of modern hives under BEE). The technical term for removing
the combs when filled was 2 (lit. to scrape, see Levy NHWB
s.u., with quotation from Rashi ; see also Moores note on Judg.
1 4 9 where alone in O T the word occurs). The bees, it would
appkai, were first stupefied by the smoke of charcoal and dung
kindled in front of the hive on the qtQ (see K~ZZM,
16 7 a#.
Surenhusius, with Maimonides commentary).
When the
.combs (da.1 nib!) were removed in this way, a t least two had
to he left in the hive as food for the bees during winter (Baa.
.6athra, 5 3).

3. In later Hebrew certainly, and in the O T possibly,

.dZbabar is also used to denote certain artificial preparations made from the juice of various fruits by inspissation,
like the modern dibs. 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
(Ezek. 27 17) must be so understood. The former view
is unsatistactory ; to the latter, if Cheynes emendation
.of Ezek. 27 17 be accepted (see PANNAG),
no objection
need be offered. Stade (Gesch. 1 3 7 1 , n. z), it is true,
thinks that grape-syrup was unnecessary in the land
which flowed with milk and honey. The early inhabitants 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
,down the filtered juice (inspissation) into grape syrup.
The first unmistakable Jewish reference to it is in Josephus
(the date-syrup of Jericho; see PALM T REE); Tg. ps.-Jon.
,(see Dt. 88) also mentions it. I n the Mishna it is called dgq
D!??, and we may infer that in the Mishnic period dates were
the chief source of the manufacture. Since the spread of Islam,
which forbids wine-drinking the grapes of Syria have been
mainly diverted to the manGfacture of di6s. The pure grape
juice is drawn off into a stone vat (see description of press under
WINE), and allowed to settle, after which it is conveyed to a
large copper cauldron (hhaZ@n or khalklnb Landberg Pro~serbes,etc., 53), ahout three feetin diamerer, in the win;-press
boilingroom close a t hand (cp Blisss illustration, above). After
the juice has hoiled 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 being constantly stirred and lifted up by means of a large
erforated wooden spoon with a long handle (the mukh6@,
Eandb. op. cit. 107). T h e boiling is an 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 recoknise the moment wien the proc;ss is
completed. The inspissated syru is now hurriedly couveyed
t o a clean stone cistern within the guilding, and allowed to cool
before being put into vessels for conveyance to the owners
house. The final stage of the process is to beat the di6s 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 brown colou~
like ma le molasses, and its taste is intensely sweet like honey
,(Rev. ($eo. Mackie, Beyrout, 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 as a h p a , uiparov, sapa, defruturn.
The first three, according to Pliny, were prepared by boiling
down the must to one-third its bulk, when must is boiled down
to one-half only, we give it the name of defyruturn, 14
11).
Burckhardt also states that three hundredpeight of grapes
a r e calculated to yield a hundredweight of d6s. Wellstedt
found the Arabs using the pods of the caroh-tree (cp H USKS )
for the manufacture of d<bs (Reisen in Ara6ien, 1331J), a
practice still followed in Syria (Post, Flora, 297).

Among the principal things for the whole use of

mans life Ben Sira fitly assigns a place to honey
2. Uses ( 3 9 2 6 ) . It was eaten alone as a delicacy,
as by Samson and Jonathan (cp also z S.
Of Honey* 17 29 I K. 1 4 3 ) and as a relish with other
articles of food. A piece of broiled fish and of an
1

Bliss, A MoundofiMany Cities, 69-71, with diagram.

68

2105

cp PANNAG.

The medicinal uses of honey are discussed a t length by Pliny

(NH22 50) and were not unknown to theJewseitherof Jerusalem
(Shab6. 8 I ) or of Alexandria (see addition to Gk. text of Prov.
6 8 quoted under BEE). The body of Aristobulus, Josephus
informs us, was preserved from decomposition by being laid in
honey (& PMLTLKCK?SWAL&OS, Ant. xiv. 7 4. li 124).

As ;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 (o??% n@iPs. 1910 [I.], cp EVmg.;
also Ps. 119103). The pleasant speech of ones friends,
also, is as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health
to the bones (Pr. 1 6 2 4 , cp Cant. 411). Wisdom, even,
is comparable to honey (Pr. 24 13-f: 25 16 Ecclus. 24 zo),
and the memory of a good man is sweet as honey in
every mouth (Ecclus. 49 I , said of Josiah).
A. R . S. I<.

HOOD. T W , Is. 323 AV. See T URBAN , 5 2.

HOOK. For the words2 (nos. 1-5, below) used with
reference to fishing see FISH, 3.
I. Fill, @a&,
error for il? (@ +khrov) Job412 [46z61 (AV
thorn). See BEHEMOTH, 8 2. Used with reference to a
captive in 2 Ch. 33 TI (GY Geupois ; hut see MANASSEH).
2. m, $E&, I K. 1928 (ZYKLUT~OV)
= Is. 3729 ($ipds, ie.,
muzzle), used in the pl. Onn, Ezek.1949 (AV chains,
K V ~ & ) , 294 (rayiSes) 384 (om. BA, Xahrw69 [Q; but ascribed
to Theod.] see Co. ad Zoc.).
nz is once used of an ornament,
Ex. 35 22 : see BUCKLE, I .
3. am, &rikkah,Job411 140 251, RV. fish-hook. In Is. 198
Hah. 115 EV angle. @ throughout Z ~ K L U T ~ O V .
4. n4r.l n i m , sirath dsgdh, fish-hooks(Am. 4 2). @ A $ ~ ~ T E S ,

confusing with 10, pot.

5. n i x , sinndtlt ( A m . 4 ~ ) @
~ Brrha, cp X??, shield. The
(above), is used also of thorns (see T HORN).
word, like
6. l;, wriw, only in descriptions of the tahernacle(Ex. 2G32 37
27 17 36 36 38 [ns$ahlr] ; Ex. 27 ref: [ ~ p l ~ o pwhich
,
elsewhere
,
elsewhere
represents oyp, a tache 1 ; Ex. 38 17 19 [ b y ~ d h qused
for njK>), loops]). Not the capitals of the pillars(as@), hut
probably tenters or hooks rising from the tops of the pillars.
7. D,g?tl, sh#ltdttaiv7, Ezek. 40 43, a word which greatly
puzzles the interpreters (cp AVmg. and RVmg.); neither posts
nor gutters will do. The preferable readmg, as Cornill has
shown, is Oil?? (their edge, lit. lip); @ yeiuos; Aq.iz),
Theod. Sym., x e l h ~ .
Hodk in N T corresponds to ~ ~ K L U T P O Ywhich
,
is common in
C6 for a hook (in one case, Ezek. 32 3, used to represent D?,n,
NET

rO.TJ.i).

Cp the Rabbinic proverb quoted by Buxtorf(Lex., S.U. ~11).

n i m , EV barbed irons, Job 417 [4031],seems to be a corruptionfor nil?D, ships; cp @ ; @
,! AV thorn, i6. 412*
[4026], should certainly be l 3 U , nose-ring (Beer, Che.).
1
2

2106

HOOPOE

HQR, MOUNT

HOOPOE (nQ$3Vl,dzikiphafh; erroy ; ?rpupa,

N l l D 1.22 [Targ.], ]G\+'L
J)
[Pesh.]), Lev. 1119

Diodorus, 30 rerome, 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
BabyLonia. Hophra seems to have shown energy both
in building (traces in the chief temple of Memphis, in
the Serapeum, at Silsileh etc.), and in foreign politics.
H e even attempted to check the Babylonians. Thus,
according to Herodotus (2 161), he conquered the
Phcenicians ( ' T y r u s ' ) at s e a ; l 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 5 11). 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 areignorant ; 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 S. frontier of Egypt is referred
to elsewhere (EGYPT, 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. 2161 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 Adilcran revolted
after two defeats. Apries and the European and Asiatic
mercenaries at Momemphis were overpowered by Amasis
11. ('Ahmose), who, according to Herod. (2169), left the
unfortunate king alive for some time, but at last permitted.
W. M. M.
an infuriated mob to ' strangle ' him.3

Dt. 1 4 1 8 [16]f (u?ro?ra [B"F], vnwrra [A]). RV, however, and the older English versions, without authority,
LAPWING. It is usual to acquiesce in the traditional
rendering ' hoopoe.' The Upuppa epops 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 in the Levant at the present day. Possibly because of its
crest (Aristoph. Birds, 94), it has always inspired a superstitions
awe and the Arabs, who call it JzudJzud, 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. l), and the story is adopted in the
Qoran (sur. 27).

But it is by no means certain that dzikqhafh is really

(see Di. ) ' the cock of the rock ' (or ' of beauty '), or that
it refers to the hoopoe's fondness for rocks and mountainravines (cp Tristram, Land of ZsraeZ, 461, 467),or to
its striking crest. This odd-looking word n y 3 i 1 is
simply, apart from the final n, a corruption (by transposition of letters) of @@&id,iiDp(Che.). That late Heb.,
Aram., and Arabic usage favour the rendering hedgehog ' may be admitted ; but ' zoologically there are considerable difficulties.' This discovery (as it seems) of
k i p p d in the list of unclean birds seems to show that
Tristram, Houghton, and Cheyne (Proph. Zs. 1 9 3 2 149 ;
SBOT,Isaiah, Eng. 64)were right in preferring 'bittern'
to ' hedgehog ' as a rendering of iisg. See B ITTERN.
There is of course no connection with Sansk. kupdta, a kind
of pigeon, regarded as a bird of ill omen (Acud. Dec. 25, '86).
T.K. C.-A. E. S.-S.

HOPHNI

A. C.

('>3?; O@N[E]i

[BAL]) b. Eli ; brother

of PHINEHAS[~.V.]
; I S. 1 3 2 3 4 ( E @ N E t [A]), 4 4 1 1 f7f
(om BL). Hophni and Phinehas seem very much like
Jabal and Jubal, as Goldziher should have noticed (He&
iWyth. 347 8 [IWythos 6ei den Hebr. 232 j?])-i.e.3
Hophni has been developed out of Phinehas. Add n
to m n , and the component letters of ~ n 3 3 5are complete.
Possibly both have developed out of a third form (see
P HINEHAS ). We cannot isolate the name Hophni,
and trust in SabEan (cp, e.g., n3on) and other seeming
parallels.
T. K. C.

HOPHRA (W$ ; OYA@PH [BKSAQI; A @ ~ H[ W ;

v g . EPHREE; Aq. Theod. O@PHN [accus.] Q margin
[where u(6ppaxos): E K ~ O T O= Q K ~ w o v ] ) , ~Jer. 443of 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. 293 etc.
The name is transcribed oud+pts by Manetho ou+pqs (after
@) by Clem.Alex. 1332 b+qs 'by Herodotus 'and Diodorus.
In Egyptian his names d e Hu'a'-Zb-rZ(vulgarp-ri.')2-i.e., 'glad
is the heart of the sungod'-and Uu& (=later ue&)-?6-(fl)-r8',3
'confident is the heart of the sungod ' (the same name as Psameiik
I.).
This latter name was evidently rendered both by the
Greeks and by the Hebrews. Both have assimilated the Z6 to the
following p . The Hebrew transcription is rather exact.

This king, the fourth (or, according to another reckoning, the seventh, see EGYPT, 66) of the Sdte or twentysixth dynasty of Manstho, the son of PsameLik 11.
(Psammis of Herodotus) and grandson of Necho, came
to the throne about 589 or 588 B.c., and reigned
according to Mangtho (in Africanus) nineteen years,
according to Herodotus and Eusebius 25 years ( 2 2
1 i.e., $
'
l
?
.
(see Field). Comp. Jerome in the L i b interjr.
He6r. nom. (Lag. OS, 53 13) : Afree furor alienus sive vita
dissipata atque discissa (cp E'uruo :dissipans sive discooperuit
eum). Targ. 'the broken one,' ',?!N
Pesh. ' the lame-one,'

The preceding 'Pharaoh' is wanting in most MSS

of d (put in by codd. 22,36 etc.), being taken for a doublet of
Hoohra.

2107

HOR, MOUNT (l?? 73, ' Hor the mountain ').

I. (cop TO 6pos [BAFL]), the scene of the death
of Awon (Nu. 2022-27 2 l 4 a 3337-41 Dt. 3 2 5 o t [all PI).
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 Jebed Neb< HZrzin (4800ft. ), a conspicuous double-topped mountain on the E. edge of the
W2dy el-'Arabah, a little to the SW. of Petra. Trumbull (Kadesh-Barnea, 127- 139) refutes this view on
grounds of ' revelation and reason ' : critics, since
Knobel, have taken the same view. Trumbull himself
identifies Mt. Hor with the Jebel Madara, a conical
mountain NW. of 'Ain Kadis (cp H ALAK , M T .). Cp
G UR- BAAL, and W ANDERING, WILDERNESS OF.
2. (TO lipos TO llpos [B ; om. T O iipos 2nd in v. 7 AFL],.
in v. 8 T O G 6pous ~b lipos), a point on the ideal N.
boundary of Canaan, Nu. 3 4 7 J (a post-exilic passage).
According to Furrer ( Z D P Y 8 2 7 8 ) Hor is a term for
N. Lebanon; but Van Kasteren thinks that it means.
the mountains where the Nahr KFLsimiyeh bends upwards
(Rev. BiB., '95, p. 28f: ). The Targnms render Amanos
or Amanon (=Amana?). Unfortunately the existence of
the northern ' Mt. Hor ' is threatened by Halevy's practi1 Diod. 168 ascribes the conquest of Cyprus to him (Herodotus, less prohably to Amasis).
2 The contrary i a s been often asserted; hut merely on the
basis of a vague statement of BerCissus, 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 BagdSd.
3 See EGYPT, $, 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
(Rec. de Tmu. 22 2) removes some difficulties. It tells us that
Apries fell in battle after having held part of the delta for nearly
three years.
2108

HORAM

HORMAH

cally certain restoration of qmn, Hadrach, for MTs

impossible reading, $gp;l, in Ezek. 47 15. In Nu. 348J
we must obviously read ? p ~ pi y o$ ?i.y~?h y n;o-rn
npc Eiz~\-iy m ? p q>?ngq, from the great sea ye shall
draw a line for you as far as Hadrach; and from
Hadrach ye shall draw a line.
.

ROR HAGIDGAD,RV Hor-haggidgad

lh,.
the Hollow of Gidgad ; TO opoc rabrah [BA],
T. 0.ra. ra. [F],,T. 0. rAblrah [L], Nu. 3332f:-i),
a station in the wilderness of W ANDERING (4.v. ) ; c p
also GUDGODAH.
HORI (??n,93n). I. (XOPP[C]L [ADEL]). Son of

..

Di.s proposal to read (3)Wn?, ye shall desire (cp v. Io)-as

if suggesting that the boundary was only desirable or ideal-is
most improbable. I n v. I O we should read n p n ?
T. K. C.

HORAM (P$l), king of Gezer, who sought to help

Lachish, but was defeated and slain by Joshua, Josh.
1033 ( \ Q u J h &AAM [BAJ EAAM P I ) . The reading of @ agrees with that which it gives for HOHAM.
Ex. 336.
ROREB (I?Jl),

See SINAI.

HOREM ( P g , or perhaps rather P??, sacrosanct;

e era ha la pet^ [Bl, w p a ~[ALI), either the full
name or the epithet of a city in Naphtali (Josh. 1938).
Van de Velde identified it with guyah, a little to the
W. of YZi-tin (see I RON ). GuBrin, however, and the
PEP lists give the name as Rh. eLKzirah. For
reasons against searching modern name-lists for an
echo of Horem, see MIGDAL-EL.
T. K . C.

(@in;

@BAL,JOS. [ H I KAINH, i-e.,

to RVmg., Stade, Wellhausen, and
others, the name of a place in the wilderness of Ziph ( I S.
23 .sf: 18 5 ). Wellhausen would also read the name
Horesh in I S. 225 (but see H ARETH). The reference
in I S. 23 occurs in the account of Davids last interview with Jonathan, and in the description of Davids
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 FOREST, I ) to m e a wood or (comparing Ass.
&urfu). mountain (Del. Hed. Lung. 17). The meaning mountain . would be the, more suitable for the
narrative in I S. 23, for certainly the wilderness of Ziph
It should
was never thickly wooded (see ZIPH).
be noticed, however, that Horesh is not the name given
in I S., but H6rBshSLhth,
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
nwin3). Add to this that there is no certain evidence
elsewhere for the existence of ILi5n in Hebrew.] It is
extremely probable that Hbr&hZh(nvin) is a corruption
of nmg ; the intermediate stage is nu13 A reference to
There we have the
I S. 2324 will make this plain.
statement that David and his men were in the wilderness of Maon in the ArSLbah, S. ofthe JBshimBn. It
may reasonably be held that in w. 19 the original question of the Ziphites was, Doth not David hide himself with us in the retreats in the ArSLbah? 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
read n m y ~
not n w i n 3 . 2
HORESH

~ P ~ I according
I),

Conder has identified the supposed Horesh with the ancient

site Hureisa I m. S. of Ziph. Yet even if Horeshah were
genuiie, it c&ld hardly mean a village or hamlet belonging to
the larger town a t Tell Zit (PEFQ, 95, p. 45).
T. K . C .
1 On Is. 179 Ezek. 31 3 see Che. and Toy (SSOQ.
pwin
in 2 Ch. 274 is also corrupt : read either D?:y (cp Di. on Is.
15 7)or niqg.
2 When he made the insertion he had his eye on z). 24, where
n x i y occurs,
~
and therefore wrote south of instead of fronting.? See HACHILAH.
2109

(?$t$?

Lotan son of Seir the Horite (Gen. 36 22). Possibly a substitutefor some lost clan name.
2. (uou [ ~ I
[BAFI,
L
UOUSPL [Ll). Ancestor of the Simeonite
Shaphat (Nu. 135). See S IMEON.
3. I n Gen. 3630 AV, RV t h e HORITES.

HORITE (Gen. 3620+), Horites (fn, Wfn, usually

explained cave-dwellers, Troglodytes ; but Jensen
[ Z A , 96, p. 3321 questions this; ~opparos, xopper
[ADEL]), the name given to the primitive population of
Mt. Seir in Dt. 212 (AV Horims). It also occnrs i n
Dt.222 (AV H ORIMS), Gen. 146 ( ~ o p 8 a r o u s[E]), and
(virtually) Gen. 362 (for Hivite read Horite ) z o f .
zgf: ; and it should be restored in 362 (see @), possibly
too in 342 (65)
in preference to * ~ nif, we take *?n to b e
a contraction of
another form of i&
D..
Haigh, Stern, and Hommel ( A N T , 264, n. 2, 267)
combine Hori with the Eg. g u r u , a name frequently
applied to a part of Palestine, e.g., on the stele of
Merenptah (cp Maspero, Struggk of the Nations, 121 ;
WMM As. u. Eur. 137 148$)), 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 Seirites, or people of Mt. Seir. Cp Driver,
Deut. 38 ; EDOM,
3 3 end.
T. K . C.
HORMAH (ng?? ; B P M ~[BAFL]), according t o
one statement was so called because the Israelites in
fulfilment of a vow devoted it to the &em ( P l n ) o r
ban (Nu. 213 : aNe&Ma [BAFL],) : according to
another, it received its name when Simeon and Judah
similarly devoted it (Judg. 117, aNaeMa [BI, EZOhOe p E Y C I C [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. 19 4 I Ch. 4 30,
apapa [L]) or Judah in the remote south (Josh. 1530,
eppak [A], cp w. 21). David sent presents to its elders
from ZIKLAG-ie., Halasah (I S. 3030, L E ~ E L ~ O[HI,
U ~
pap?
[A]).
Earlier still, a king of Hormah is
mentioned among the kings of Canaan overcome
by Joshua (Josh, 12 14, DW; eppa6 [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. 1445 (nmnn,z see below ;
eppav [B]),; cp Dt.144 from Seir to Hormah (Di..
Dr. following 6).Two more references remain. According to the present text of Nu. 21 1-3 ( J ) the Canaanite
king of A RAD ( q . v . ) , who had at first defeated the
Israelites, was at last overcome by them, on which
occasion the name of the place (oipnn) was called
Hormah. From this it would appear as if Arad were
the old name of Hormah, and yet we are told in Judg.
117 (see above) that its old name was ZEPHATH ( q.n.).
How is this to be accounted for? T o suppose with
Bachmann that the city was twice destroyed and renamed, seems absurd. Nor is it easy (though Dillmann, Wellhausen, and others adopt this expedient) to
explain Nu. 21 3 as relating by anticipation the destruction by Simeon and Judah (Judg. 1 1 7 ) ~in which case
the king of Arad must also have ruled over Zephath.

$?ic=*i$!

The simplest explanation is the boldest. In Nu. 21 I , for the

king of Arad who dwelt in the Negeb read (the Canaanites)
who dwelt in the Neged of the Jerahmeelites.l The corruptions
1 E4 Vg. give Troglodytes for the Sukkiim of z Ch. 1 2 3.
2 Only ,here with art. ; hence Targ. Jon. renders unto destruction.
3 See JERAHMEBL.
DmNz should be >be; l?,
the mountains of the Amorites ; cp Dt. 120.
2110

HORN

EORONAIM

,=assumed ,are regular, and the whole passage receives a flood of

light. I t is highly probable that the writers of Judg. 117 Nu.
2 1 3 confound the names of two neighbouring places, which,
being in the far south, they had never visited.. , The true name
.of the city of Hormah is probably Rahamah ; ?t was apparently
the chief town of the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites (I S. 3 0 2 g j ) .
I t is true
occurs eight times ; but there is evidence enough
-that at a very early date passages containing some remarkable
word were systematically harmonized. For nom we should
restore in all the passages except Judg. 1 1 7 Nu. 21 3, ann?
T h e WZdy KukhamZ perpetuates the name (see JERAHMEEL).

on the analogy of undoubted corruptions elsewhere see Che.

Ps.P) : hut CD the commentaries of Del. and Baethce;.
On the

HORN

T. K. C.

(pi&KE~AC).

Nowhere perhaps is the

necessity for looking closely into seeming trifles more
apparent than here.
The usual explanation is unquestionable in such passages as the following :I S. 2 I , By Yahw.5 my hor? is exalted Ps. 89 17 [ I S] By

thy favour our horn is exalted

Ps. 75 4 [si, Lift not up your
horn. Jer. 48 25, The horn ofMoah is cut off (cp Lam. 2 3).
In s d h passages horn symbolizes power, and its exaltation
signifies victory (cp I K. 22 11) and deliverance (Lk. 169, horn
of salvation, r i as ron)piac). I t will be remembered that in
a n oracle of Ba&am the rZCnz, or wild ox, is the emblem of a n
invincible warrior (Nu. 23 22) ; cp also Dan. 17.

In other passages it will not suit.

I . When we read in Job 1 6 15 I have defiled my horn in the
d u s t (AV), or I have laid m; horn in the dust, we see that
there must be something amiss with the text ; the language is
inappropriate.1 To lift up the hornmay 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 (Di.), or to defile it in the dust,
.is a Hebrew phrase for feeling the sense of deepest humiliation.
I n Hebrew idiom, pepple roll in the dust themselues (Mic.
1IO), not their horn. The remedy is to examine the text, and
.see 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 suitable sense I have profaned my glory in
the dust.a There is a similar error in Am. 6 3; where the
horns appear through an error of interpretation of the first
magnitude. Have we not ta*
to us horns? should be,
Have we not taken Karnaim? Men can he said to Zz@ up
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 fo:
holding up the long veil worn in the Lebanon by married women.
z. The old painters, and Michael Angelo after them, represented Moses with two horns. Ultimately perhaps this may he
traced to the two horns of Am(m)on, the god of the Egyptian
Thebes, which were adopted by Alexander the Great on his
coins (cp the two-horned in the Koran, Sur.1885). The
immediate cause, however, of this mode of representation is
what we may safely regard as an error of the text in Ex. 34 zg
,(cp m.30, 39, whereVg. very naturally renders l?g iiy
?,
quod cornuta esset facies sua (so too Aq., according to Jerome).
Here the original reading must have been not p,but p??,

lightened.
It is usual, indeed, to say that ilp mems to
radiate light (@ Ss86&w.rai), and to compare
34, where
AV has, His brightness was as the light ; he had horns (coming)
out of his hand hut in mg. bright beams out of his side.
R V substitutes iays for hoik, but truthfully records Heb.
horns in the margin. No doubt O:??? should he n???,
lightnings; Hab. 3 is not an Arabic but a Hebrew poem. It
is just possible, however, that Jeromes version that the face
of Moses was horned was influenced by the symholism of
Alexanders 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 theprimitive worship of Sin recorded by the name Sinai.
3. That the term horn can be used for a horn-shaped vessel
is intelligible ( I S. 16 I 13 I K. 139). Spch a phrase as horn &
pigment for anointing the eyelashes is therefore in itself
possible. But was there ever a father in ancient legend who
gave this name to his daughter, as Job is said to have done in
M T of Job42 14 (see K EREN - HAPPUCH )?

HZ.

4. On the meaning of the expression the horns of

the altar, see A LTAR, 6.
Whether the phrase bas a right to stand in Ps.118ajb is
extremely doubtful. Some (e.g., J. P. Peters) would place the
passage in the margin as a ritual gloss, and if the text IS correct
this is the best view; n o ingenuity can avail to explain v. 276 a;
a part of the text. For a critical emendation of the text 3 based
1

But d y y can hardly mean this.

?tilzP3
3

$$n. c p PS. 89 39 [40]b,

m n ? r h n p ny
nt?!
;I+>
rip!
2111

On the horn as a musical instrument, see Music, $ 5(a). See

Elworthy, Horns of Honour (goo).
T. K. C.

HORNED SNAKE

(jb?@), Gen. 49 17

A DDER, 4. See also S ERPENT ,

RVms., AV

I O.

HORNET (atly,C+HKIA [BAL],

CRAERO).

Strictly the word hornet is applied to Ye+ cradro. but

it is ofteh used for any large species of wasp. Theri are
many species of these Hymenoptera in Palestine, but the most
conspicuous is Yespa orientalis, 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, as a rule,
very symmetrical and true.

The hornet is mentioned in the O T as the forerunner

sent by Yahwe to destroy the two kings of the Amorites
(Josh. 2412, E or Dz), and to drive out the Hivitcs,
Canaanites, and Hittites (Ex. 2328 [E], Dt. 7 2 0 ; cp
Wisd. 128, u+@, AV RVmg. wasp). The old
identification of nyir, ;zY&, withny??, leprosy, may be
passed over ; the main question is whether hornet
is employed literally or figuratively. A metaphorical
interpretation of the term (cp Lat. m i m s , panic,
properly gadfly) is not favoured by the passages
quoted (cp especially Ex. Z.C.). On the other hand, a
reference to the insect itself raises difficulties. Although
tKe absence of any mention of the appearance of
hornets (e.g., in Nu. 21 Josh. 2 3 ) is not in itself an
insuperable objection, the fact remains that the implied
extent of their devastation is unique, indeed incredible.
7 : .

Parallels have certainly been quoted as examples of the inconvenience caused by these and similar pests ; but the cases
adduced refer not to peoples but to the inhabitants of more circumscribed limits(towns e.g. Megara, &&an 918 Rhaucus,
B l i a n , 1735 [quoting A m e n d of Crete] ; cp bi., id Zoc., and
see Smiths DBP) s.71.).

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 (a?. Riehm, N W B ) expresses a doubt whether hornet can be the true meaning of nyir, and Che. (Cyit. B i b . ) proposes to.cmend
the word into 5 h y ; cp, Dt.2842, All thy trees and
fruit of thy land shall the Zocust consume. See

L OCUST.
A new line must, at any rate, be taken.
(if
correct) seems to refer to some enemy who made an
early inroad upon Canaan.
Sayce (Ear& Hist. of
Nedrezu) ingeniously finds a reference either to the
campaign of Rameses 111. (p. 286) or to the Philistines
(p. z g z f . ) , and in regard to the former it is noteworthy that the Egyptian standard-bearer wore among
other emblems two devices apparently representing flies
(see E NSIGN , 3). 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
nyir-viz., serpent (cp Ass. siru)-and see a reference to the urzeus or sacred serpent on the crown of
the pharaoh (cp Ode of Thotmcs HI., v. II ; Brugsch,
Gerch. kg. 354).1 On 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 O RA H ),
may conceivably be intended.2
A. E. S.-S.
A. c.

(iY$in, Jer. 4 8 3 , or a$in, Jer.4834,

[BKAQ], op.,[K in v. 3]), a placein Moab;
the descent of Horonaim ( P 3 m t y l n , E N oAw
RORONAIM

WPWNAIM

1 The reference to the urzeus, and the Ode of Thotmes, is due

to Prof. Cheyne who compares Is. 159, but on the whole
inclines to suspec; corruption of the text (see ahove).
2 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
Myth, Ritzlal and Re[&& Lrg9], 2 95). Fur a parallel to th;
theory of a totem-ensign suggested ahove see MLennan,
Studies, 2nd ser. 301 (on the serpent as a totem see ib. SZIJ?).
2112