KEDESHAH
{see KR 5 4 ~ *[Index] ; and cp Pap. Anast. i. 191 ; RP
l r a g ; As. u. EW. 213 n.).
I t is usually called simply ‘ Kedesh ’ (Josh. 1222 ‘ the king of
Kedesh,’ 1937 K a S s c [B], Judg. 49 K E L S ~[AI,
S KaSqc [Ll, 410 K d f s road to Hebron, which is no doubt the modern Beit
[A] 411 K&s[B], ~ K . ~ ~ ~ ~ K w E < [I BMacc.1163KqSfS
AL],
73),’ but occasionally also Kedesh-Naphtali (Judg. 46 ~ a S q 5
[L] Tob. 12 K U ~ L W S[BK] KUSLWV[A]), or Kedesh in Galilee
(Jokh. 21 32 Ka&S [B], I dh. 6!1[76] K d € S [B] K a h S [L], and once
Kadesh in Galilee, in the hill-country of Naphtali’uosh. 207).
On the geographical definition in Judg. 411,see BEZAANANNIM.of Jos. Ant. vi. 13r), 7 m. E. of Beit Jibrin and
It was the home of Barak (see D EBORAH , J z ) , and
apparently the rallying-place from which the war of
‘liberation was fought. Lying as it did on the northern
frontier of Palestine (cp T AHTIM-HODSHI), it had to bear
the brunt of the first incursion of the Assyrians, and
with other neighbouring places (seeABEL-BETH-MAACAH,
etc.) it was in 734 B.C. captured by Tiglath-pileser, its
inhabitants being carried away to Assyria ( z K. 1529).
It is twice mentioned ( I Macc. 1163 73) in connection with
the defeat of Jonathan the Maccabee near Hazor, and
Josephus, who calls it Kasaua, Kdaua. K&ua, Kusaua,
Kusiua, describes it as ‘between the land of the
Tyrians and Galilee’ (Atzt. xiii. 5 6 ) , as ‘ belonging to
the Tyrians’ ( B l i i . SI), or as ‘ a populous and well-
fortified inland village of the Tyrians ’ (Bliv. 23) which
was the scene of various warlike incidents in his own time.
Eus. ( O S 2 7 1 55) describes K U ~ L U U O S as situated 20 in.
from Tyre, near Paneas. In the twelfth century Benjamin
of Tudela visited Kedesh, and found there the tomb of
Barak and several Jewish saints (Ear@ TraveZs in
P a l 89).
Kedesh still retains its ancient name (Kaa’es). J. L.
Porter (Kitto, Bib. Cycl s.z.) well describes it : ‘ High
2. Situ~tion.up among the mountains of Naphtali is a
little green plain, embosomed in wooded
hill-tops, On its western side is a rounded teZZ, on which
the modern village stands. From the tell a low, narrow
ridge projects into the plain, with flat top and steep sides,
covered with rank vegetation. Both ridge and tell are
strewn with ruins. In the plain, at the northern base.of
the ridge, round a little fountain, lie the most interesting
remains of Kedesh. A number of sarcophagi serve the
purpose of water-troughs. Near these are the ruins of
two beautiful buildings, but whethermausoleums, temples,
or synagogues, it is difficult to determine. Between them
is a very remarkable group of sarcophagi standing on a
massive platform of solid masonry. These are doubtless
the tombs of which Benjamin of Tudela and Brocardus
speak (chap. 7 173) : and they show that down to a com-
paratively late period the Jews still regarded Kedesh
a s a sanctuary. The plain beside Kedes and the
surrounding hills is thicklycovered with terebinth and oak
forests, among which the writer saw at several places the
black tents of a nomad tribe which frequents this region.’
See Rob. B R 3 367-369. Stanley S and P 332 2 8 2 : L e c f w e s
on]swish C ~ X Y C317 , ~ :, baed. P;Z.(S 298 ; Buhi, Pal. 2 3 5 3
EEDESHAH (n’@lR), RVn’g, Gen. 38 z z Dt. 23 17 : Levite signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA i., R 7), Neh.
also K ADESH (hi))
RVmg. Dt. 2317. See C LEAN,
§ I , col. 837, DOG, 8 3 (end), H IGH PLACES, 4,
IDOLATRY, 6, and cp ASHTORETH, R ITUAL, SACRI-
FICE.
KEHELATHAR (”$?? ; MAKshhAe [B], - € h e
[.4F], - & A [L] ; Nu. 3322 j ) . See WANDERINGS,
WILDERNESS OF.
KEILAH (3>??? ; KEEIAA [BHA], KEIAA [Ll: but
K E E I A A . ~in Josh. [B], K A I ~ I A Ain Neh. 317 [HI), one
of the towns ‘ i n the Shgphelah’ of Judah (Josh. 1 5 4 4 ) .
It was an important place in the fifteenth century B. C.,
being several times mentioned as Kilti in the Amarna
tablets. David found a temporary shelter within its
‘gates and bars’ ( I S. 231 8). After the Exile it
gave its name to an administrative district mentioned
after Beth-zur (Neh. 317J). The Chronicler, after his
fashion, introduces the ‘father of Keilah’ (whom he
connects with the clan called the GARMITE)into a
genealogy in conjunction with Eshtemoa ( I Ch. 4 19).
2655 t 2656
KEMUEL
Eusebius and ‘Jerome ( O S 2 7 0 3 3 10919) identify
Keilah with the village of Kela, situated 8 (the Greek
text by an error has 17)m. from Eleutheropolis, on the
[AN] Krihil, about 4 m. NNE. of Hnlhkl. This place,
however, is situated on a steep mountain, where there
is no arable land, and so cannot be the Keilah of I S. 24.
There is also a ruined village called &Zri (cp the ~ i h h
about 7 m. NE. of Halhkl, which is not quite so decp
in the mountains as Beit KHhil and is identified witli
Keilah by Guerin (Judk,3351). The only objection to
it is drawn from Josh. 1 5 4 4 , where Keilah standsalmnst
at the end of a long list of ‘ cities’ in the ShBphElah.
Dillmann and Muhlau consider this so serious that they
are led to reject this identification. It is to be noted,
however, that not far from KiZi we find Beit Nasib,
which must be the ancient Nezib, and Mareshah
(Mer‘asll) is already pretty far to the E. Evidently the
Shephelah is to be distinguished from the maritime
plain which it adjoined (GASm. HG 202). This is one of,
the cases in which travel appears to throw great light
on the old Hebrew narratives. The terraced sides of
the hill of K i h are even to-day covered with corn, and
their luxuriance must have been greater still when the
terraces were cared for. No wonder that the Philistine
raiders (or, as we should perhaps read, ‘ the Pelethites’
-Le., the Zarephathites ; see ZAREPHATH) swarmed
up the WHdy es-Siir to rob the threshing-floors. The
citizens of Keilah were powerless to drive them away,
and were even poor-spirited enough to plan the sur-
render of David, their deliverer, to Saul. Ahithophel
(Ahipelet ?) may perhaps have been the man who facili-
tated David‘s escape. See GILOH, D AVID , 4, J UDAH .
I t is doubtful whether the ‘springs of water,‘ etc., of Josh.
15 19 Jndg. 1r j are really proper names (see GOLATH-MAIM).
Since the names cannot properly be translated as Hebrew, they
are supposed to be pre-Israelitish. More probably the text is
corrupt. The passage contains a statement that the l a d
of the.Achsah clan being barren (l&), Caleh granted it
flElp-n’p i ‘Keilah and Beth-Tappuah.’ D EBIR
,
!
l
probably lay hetwedn these two places, which were suliject to it.
Se; Che. Crit. Bi6.
Golath’ (sing.) is attested by, Pesh.,. by oha8pa of Eus.
(OS(? 245 34), GoZafkamaim of Jer. (3.127 277, and @ in Josh.
...
yyha8pacp yoha8 T ~ ~U 6 [AI,
~ ywAa8parp
0 . .. .. .
ywha8parp
.. .rqu dum K . .;lv ywha8parp T.K. [Ll ; .;lv PoO8auw
yovaLBAaur.~. [Bl).1
yova8hau
T. IC. C.
KELAIAH (3’7p, 33, cp K OLAIAH [ereadings]) is
mentioned, with the note ‘the same is Kelita’ among the
Levites in list of those with foreign wives (see E Z ~i.,A§ 5 end),
Ezra1023 (Kohfra a6Tbs KWAW [3K*], Kwhaa a&& Kohcras
[A], Kwhera ahbp Kwhrrav [pvid.], KwhLas & a& KwXcLra [I,])=
1Esd.923, ‘COLIWSwho was called CALITAS’(KOYOS 0670s
K d a T a l S [B], K ~ ~ L ob.
O S &TLU KahLraS [A], xwhLas obror KOA-
hmas [Ll). See KELITA.
RELITA (HPhQ, ‘ dwarf’ ? ; KAAAITAC [L]), a
10 IO[II] (KaUTa [B], ~ a v 8 a [N*],
v KahLTa [KC.=], -Y [A]), mentioyd
also in M T amone the exDounders of the law (see E ZRA 11..
I
B 13 [AI; cp i. 5 8, ii. $3 16 [ 5 ] , 5 1 5 [I] c) Neh. 87; BNA om.=
I Esd. 948 CALITAS(rderras [BA]). In Ezra 10 23 Kelita
(=Calitas,’ I Esd. 923) is identified with KELAIAH.
KEMUEL ($&? ; KAMOYHA [BAFL]).
I. Son of Nahor by Milcab and father of Aram (Gen.2221
a statement a t variance with that in 10mJ (P), and in itselk
%st improbable. Di. is content with pointing out that Aram
seems to have a narrower reference here. Gen. 22 21, however,
is corrupt and should r y , ‘Uz his firstborn and Ahibuz, and
Jerahmeel and Abiram. See JERAHMEEL, i?4, and note that
Ahibuz (s,k AHI, i.) and Michael (a corruption of ‘Jerahmeel ’(
are brought into connection with Salecah (miswritten ‘ Milcah
in Gen. 22 zo), and with ‘Gilead in Bashan’ (=Salhad ; see
MILCAH SALECAH) in I Ch. 5 II 16. Observe, too, that Abiram
is a Reubenite name (Nu. 16 I), and that Reuben was a trans-
Jordanic tribe.
2. ‘ Prince’ of the tribe of Ephraim, temp. Moses : Nu. 3424
[PI.
1 @A of Josh. omits the first name. In Judg. @BAL has A h -
p w u ~ v88aros (thus associating ii$ with ?h)
followed by A h -
p w u ~ vperehpwv K a t A. (+ h. [A]) Tan€Lv&J.
 KENAN
3. Father of Hashabiah who was over the tribe of Levi, temp.
David; I Ch. 27 7 7 ( u a p o q h [B], K E F : [ L I , \ { a S [Pesh.]).
See KADMIEL (end). T. K . C.
KENAN (I;’?), I Ch. l z ; also Gen. 5 9 , R V ; AV
CAINAN.
KENATH (n!?, K A A N A e [AI; in Ch., K A N A A ~ PI,
K A N A 0 [AL]; in A
Nu. K A A 0 [BI, K A N A A e [L]).
place on the other side of the Jordan, also called
N OBAH (q...) after the clan so named (Nu. 3242).
In I Ch. 2 2 3 t it is stated that ‘ Geshur and Aram took
the Havvoth-Jair with Kenath and its dependencies’
from the Israelites. Eusebius and Jerome ( O S 26915
1.091) identify Kenath with Canatha ( K U V U ~ U ) which
, is
described by them as a still existing ‘ village ’ of Arabia
in Trachonitis, not far from Bostra, and probably this
place is meant when the Talmud includes Kenath among
the frontier cities of Palestine.2
I n Jos. B j i . 192 Kenath is reckoned to Coelesyria, while Ptol. the bne Judah and with the Jerahmeelites (see N EGEB).
(v. 1523) and Plin. ( H N v.1874) reckon it to the DECAPOLIS
(fa.,§ 2). For its history, see Schiirer (GJVZ95-97). It is strange, therefore, to find them, in Judg. 411, in
Canatha is the modern KnnawEt, on the W. slope of
the Jebel HaurBn, 4068 ft. above the sea-level, and 16
or 17 m. NNE. from Bostra on the Roman road to
Damascus. ‘The ruins are among the most important
in Eastern Palestine (see plan in Baed. p~Z.1~) 194).
From the point of view adopted in JAIR,J EPHTHAH,
NOBAH, there is no hindrance to identifying this inter-
esting spot with the biblical K e ~ ~ a t hSee,
. ~ however,
G. F. Moore on Judg. 8 11. T. K. C.
KENAZ (T!?; KENEZ [BADEL], the original pro-
nunciation being probably Kink) figures in the genealogy
of the Edomites as a elan belonging to them-Gen. 3 6 II
(BNEZ [D1)=1 Ch. 1 3 6 (KEZEZ [AI) 15 42 (KENEC [LI)
= I Ch. 153. On the other hand the Jndzean hero
Caleb, who is said to have obtained possession of
Hebron the capital of Judah but in reality is the per-
sonification of a family originally distinct from the
Judzeans (see I S. 3 0 1 4 Josh. 1513, and cp I S. 2 5 3 ) ,
appears as a Kenizzite (RV, AV Kenezite; w?:, 6
KEYE@?OE [BAL]; Nu. 3212 6 ~ r u K € X w p r u p ~ v o[BAL],
s should not rather read ‘ Heberites ‘).z It is at any
Josh. 1 4 6 14). Moreover, Caleb’s mythical son-in-law
O THNIEL (4.v.) is a son of Kenaz: Josh. 1517 ( =
Judg. 113 K E W X [A]) Judg. 3 9 I I I Ch. 413. Again,
in I Ch. 4 15 Kenaz IS apparently a grandson of Caleb.
From all this we may conclude either that Kenaz
was originally an independent tribe, of which one
portion became incorporated with the Edomites and
another portion with the neighbouring Judzeans, or else
that a part of the.old Edomite tribe Kenaz settled among
the Judzeans at a very early period. In any case it is
tolerably clear that Kenaz and Caleb were at first
strangers in Judah, afterwards became close allies, and
finally were absorbed in the surrounding population.
Such changes have been by no means rare (see EDOM,
§ 3).
In Gen. 15 19-21 an attempt is made to enumerate the
various peoples who inhabited Palestine before the
Israelite invasion ; that the Kenizzites are included in
the list serves to show that their foreign origin had not
yet been forgotten. Cp CALEB, 2. T
‘ . N.
KENITES (’J’??, 01 K[EIINAlOl or o -OC [BAL]);
Geu. 15 19 (0; Kevaioi [D], x a w . [Ll), Nu. 2 4 2 1 (h xwaios [B],
o K ~ L Y B O S[AI, -aios [Ll), I S. 156a (b?); but ’q?in I S . 2710 (6
K ~ W [AI) should perhaps be V??? (h K ~ Y E < [ F ] L [BL]); ’1.?3
’ye, Judg. 116, should he ’p? >?in! followed b y (see
JETHRO); pl. D’p?, I Ch.255 (oE KLvaPoL). Also jy, Nu. 2422,
and perhaps I S. 1566 [We., crit. emend.].
A nomadic tribe, allied to the Kenizzites (Gen. 1 5 1 9 )
1 The treatment of this passage by Bertheau, Clzron.1’4 (‘73),
is very unsatisfactory.
2 Neubauer G d o g ~ .20.
3 So Dietriib, Di., Strack, Stade (Gescll. 1149J), Smend in
Riehm ( H W B N ) GASm. (HG 560 n. 3 ; 579, n. 3). On the
other side see S & u n e , Reu. ZibZ., ’d8, p. 6 0 4 3
2657
KENITES
and to Amalek-ie., J ERAHMEEL ( I S. 166), and per-
sonified as Kain (cp CAIN, § 5). They entered Canaan
(more strictly, the Negeb) with the men of Judah (see
JERICHO, 2). In all probability they have left a trace
of their name in KINAH ( q . ~ . ) .
See Judg. 116, where M T wrongly states that the Kenites
‘went and dwelt among the people,’ as if the Israelitish people
were meant-an impossible view doubtless. An important group
of the MSS of C 3 (Moore’s N), with the Sahidic yernion, adds
aFahqx; probably, therefore, we should read among the
Amalekites.’l See also Nu. 24zr,f, where the Kenites appear
in close proximity to the Amalekites (Jerahmeelites).
Against the supposed connection of the Kenites and the
Midianites, see Moore, Jua‘ges, 34, note. I t may be noted,
however, that in the opinion of the present writer ipyn (Midian),
in Ex.2 15f: 3 I 18 I, should most probably be yiyn=yrxn,
and +yyn in Nu.1029 should probably be qxn’ in other
words Hobah was a t once a Kenite and a Mugriie (cp MIZ-
RAIM,’§ 26).
Residing between the Jndahite and the Jerahmeelite
portionsof the Negeb, theKenitesare equallyintouchwith
the N. of Canaan ; cp, however, Judg. 12 15 (?), and
observe that Musur (the region of Kadesh?) is cursed in
Judg. 5 23 (read, not inn, but i l x n ; see M EROZ ) for
not helping the Israelites. W. M. Muller’s explanation
of ‘ Heber the Kenite’ (6 mrvaios, L om. ) is plausible,
but no more. W e must at any rate admit that the
narrative as it stands assumes that Heher was not a
town-dweller, but a nomad (see H EBER, I).
Another explanation is that of Sayce-that the Kenites were
a tribe of wanderin- smiths who were chiefly in the S. of
Palestine, but might%e led d y their art into northern regions
(against this view, repeated in Hastings’ DB28346, see AMALEK,
§ 7).
Saul’s relation to the Kenites is interesting. H e
recognises the old bond between them and Israel, and
therefore is not offended at their relation to the Jerah-
meelites ; but he wishes them to remove from that section
of the Jerahmeelites which was hostile to Israel (see
SAUL). From I Ch. 255 (see HEMATH)it appears that
either a section of the Kenites or the Kenite tribe as a
whole also bore the name of RECHABITES (g.~.;if we
rate possible that ‘ Jonadah ’ should he read instead of
‘ H O B A B[’q . ~ . ] as the name of the ancestor of the
Kenites whose connection with Moses is asserted by a
trustworthy tradition (Judg. 116, ep Nu. 1029). In Nu.
2421 a Hebrew poet plays on the name of ‘Kenite’
(Isain) which he connects with le, ‘ nest.’
Apparently he anticipates their destruction by the Assyrians,
for in v. 22 (RV) he continues,
Nevertheless, Kain shall be wasted,
Until Asshnr shall carry thee away captive.
The marg. of RV however warns us that the text is grammati-
cally obscure. Bkides, Aisyria had nobler prey to clutch than
the Kenites. Hence the couplet needs some emendation.3
It was pointed out above that in the Song of Deborah
the Musrites, with whom the Kenites were closely
linked, are ‘cursed’ for not coming to the help of
YahwB’s worshippers the Israelites (Judg. 5 2 3 ) . This
confirms a view which has long been considered criti-
cally probable that the Kenites and the Israelites were
conscious of the identity of their early religion, and that
the Kenites were indirectly at least the teachers of the
Israelites. So, before Stade, Tiele maintained ( VerpZ.
Geschied. 559 [)72]; ep Che. EB(9 790 [‘76]).4 The ,
progress of critical study of the documents since 1872
has in fact added considerably to the probability of this
1 *p>?&l.n? (Budde, Moore, Driver [TBS 931); *jh fell out
owing to 15.q which follows.
2 According to Meyer (Ent. 117) we have in I Ch. 2556 the
remains of a genealogy of Yain (the Kenites) similar to the
preceding genealogy of Caleb. On a connection between
‘Salma’ and the Kenites see SALMAH 2.
3 Che. Ex). T 10 399 (June, ‘99) ; Hommel ( A H T 245).
4 Robertson (Ear& Rel. o f r s r . 274) represents Ghillany as
the authorityfor this opinion. but the view ascribed hy Robertson
to Ghillany is decidedly lesi sober than that of Tiele and his
followers..
2658
 KERAS KIBZAIM
view, which has been lately reasserted by Budde (ReZ. mina of 'gold.' Duhm trulyremarks that a little piece of
of Zsr. t o the ExiZe, 21). See I SRAEL, § 3f:, AMALEK, money and a nose-ring or ear-ring from each of Job's
5 6. T. K. C. friends would not do much to restore his fortune, Yet
KERAS ( ~ ~ p [BA]), h c I Esd. 529 RV=Neh. 7 4 7 ~ the context (see v. 12) is most intelligible' if we suppose
Ezra 2 44, KEROS. that they did each make a considerable present ; the
ring (on) can well be spared !
KERCHIEFS (n\n&p, Ezek. 1318 IT EV) ; see Note that 2 Ch. 916 gives niNp (read n\m) where I K.10
DRESS, 5 8, col. 1141. 17 has D~JD. This supplies an analogy for the emendation of
KEREN-HAPPUCH (qlB3;1 1-12). the name of one niNn in Gen.3319 into nil?. We are thus relieved from the
of Job's daughters (Job 4214 ; a ~ a h e [ e ] i h c ~ e p a c necessity of connecting @? with Ar. &%$, ' a balance,'
[BXzvid.C], adnot. eyeyMwN y r i a [B"V'd.ms.], AM&- which is unknown in N. Semiti$ and forcing a sense out of
@lacK. [N*], M h ? e € h C K. [AI, CORNusTIBII[Vg.]). 1n& 12).
Can one of Job's ideal daughters really be named 'Box of On the commercial importance of the maneh of Car-
e y e -p a i n t ' ? Or can we attach the least importance to chemish, see CARCHEMISH, $ 2, and cp S HEKEL.
B ? Cant.7 8[9] 2 5 suggests an emendation. Read pro.
T. K . C .
bably O'nWn F'l, Re+-tappi+im, 'scent of apples.' B may
have read p l ? 172. Cp JEMIMA, and see Crif. Bi6. KETAB ( KHTAB [BA]), I Esd. 530 RV, AV CETAB
T. K. C. (4.v.1.
KERIOTH. I. A
Moabite city (ni9l8,
Jer. 4824 KETTLE (TIT), IS. 214; elsewhere 'basket,'
' caldron,' ' pot. See COOKING UTENSILS, 8 5 (i. ).
Kapiwe [BPCAQ]; 'p?, Jer. 4841 A K K A ~ ~ [BK], N
-piwe [AI, Kapiwe [QI; Am. 22 A v KIRIOTH,TUN KETURAH (n?lU?, as if ' incense ' ; XETTOYPA
I T O A E ~ N AYTHC [BAQI,, THC Kapiwe [Qmg.1), also [BADEL]), Abraham's second wife (Gen. 251 4 I Ch.
mentioned in Mesha's inscription, line 13 (n.ip), 132f.l.'
as a sanctuary of Chemosh. Identified by Seetzen with She is, in J the ancestress of no fewer than sixteen (Arabian)
tribes (six d i r h y and ten a t one or two removes) on which see
KuraiyBt, at the W. end of Mt. Ataroth ('Attiirtms). the special articles. A tribe called Kat&& w h h dwelt near
Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. 26910 10827) call this Mecca, with the tribe Jurhum, is meniioned by Ibu Koteiba
place KaptaOa, Coraitha, and place it IO R. m. from (see Ritter Erdkunde 12 19 8).Glaser (Skizze, 2 450)
maintains 6 a t the KetGrah-tribes are the remains of the old
Medeba, but identify it wrongly with K IR J ATHAIM Minaean people (see iMEUNIk1, and cp SayCe, &it. Mon. 42).
[p.~., I]. See Noldeke (Znschr. Mesa, 25). Others F. 8 .
(cp Driver on Am. 2 2 ) think that A R-M OAB and Kerioth KEY (nnpp), Is. 2222 Judg. 325. See DOOR.
were two names for the same city. More plausibly
Buhl (Pd.270) identifies Kerioth with Kir of Moab KEZIA, RV Keziah (?lpYR,$ 71 'cassia' ;
( L e . , Kerab) ; indeed, if Kir-heres (undeniably= Kir of K ~ C I [BHC],
~ N K ~ C C [A]),
. the name of one of J o b s
Moab) was really named Kiriath-hadashath (see KIR- daughters (Job 42 14t).
HERES) this appears a still more probable view. Cp See CASSIA 2 and cp KEREN-HAPPUCH (the emended form of
the name is s;richy parallel to Keziah).
KIRJATH-HUZOTH.
2. A city of Judah (Josh. 1525, RV Kerioth-hezron, niBlp KEZIZ, VALLEY OF ()"?a ?@'), Josh. 1821 AV,
fii~g), often,
but wrongly, supposed to be the birthplace o f RV E MEK- KEZIZ (4.v.). .

JUDAS
ISCARIOT.
See HAZOR, 4. T. K. C.
KEROS (Dice, D i p ; Kopec [L]), a family of
NETHINIM in the great post-exilic list (see EZRA ii., $ g), Ezra.
244 (K~SVS[Bl, q p a o s IAl)=Neh. 747 ( K e c p a [SI, -s INAD=
I Esd. 529, CERAS, RV KERA5 ( K g p a p [BA]).
KESITAH (n@+"), a word recorded in RV*g., of
Gen. 33 19 [Josh. 24 321, Job42 I T ; EV ' piece of money.'
d Onk. Vg. render 'lambs,' ' a lamb' (Tg. Jon.
' pearls '). It has been suggested that ~ K U T ~kpvOv
V in
6 of Gen. 33 19 was originally $K. yvOv ( IOO minae).
But since 6 3 gives kpvd6wv in Josh. 24 32, and kpvd6a
in Job4211, Schleusner (Lex. in Vet. .Text. 1191) feels
obliged to reject the hypothesis. Nevertheless it
appears that @ is nearer the truth than the critics who
adhere to MT. In Gen. 31 41 6 ' s 6hKa d p d u t v corre-
sponds to o 7 i n l & ; surely d read p*!p 'minre.'
Possibly, too, in Gen. 33 19 pvOv stood in the original
d as the equivalent of p ~ n . Looking closely at 3319
we can divine that the text originally ran, l i i g ?,$: p p
2, npq, ' a t the hand of the sons of Hamor for a
mina of Carchemish,' and so too in 23 15, where
Abraham's purchase of Machpelah is described, we
.should read w q ~ p l p nilgl y ? ? ~ , 'four Carchemish
minre,' and in v. 16 the same once more with the ad-
dition of yqip ' (in) gold.'
In 33 19 o w ' I N and a@? are both misreadings of V'D212
and in 23 16 739 qD3 $pw are, all of them, attempts to make
sense of dislocated fragments of V'n3y3 ; in& comes from
The same emendation is to be made in Josh. 243
(harmonised in the received text with Gen. 3319).
Probably also in Job 4211 i n K zni 011 W'KI nnN nwep has
taken the place of tjvqs n ~ n ,'one Carchemish
1 Comparing 2 Ch. 9 16 (on text, see top of next col.).
2659
KIBROTR-HATTAAVAH (n15ng n i p ? ; Evw
' t h e graves Of lust'; M N H M h T b [THC] f l l l e Y M l b C
[BAL], SEPULCHRA coivcupzscmwx), a stage in the
wilderness wanderings, for the name of which an
Etiological legend was provided (see Q U A I L ), Nu. 11 34f.
3316f. Dt.922. It has already been noticed that
Taberah (Nu. 11 1-3) does not occur in the list of stations
in Nu. 33, and Dillmann rightly holds that the account
of Taberah in E's narrative corresponded to the account
of Kibroth-hattaavah in J's. We must, however, go
further. Taberah (niym) and Hattaavah (niNnn) pre-
sumably represent the same word in the original story,
and the real name of the locality referred to was probably
Kibroth-tab'erah-i. e., Graves of Taberah. Taberah
(of which Hattaavah will be a corruption) is probably
the name of a hill or mountain, and the graves are pre-
Israelitish cairns or stone circles, which either had, or
were supposed to have, a sepulchral purpose. In
the Desert of the Tih such primitive stone monuinents
abound on the hill-sides.
They are sometimes called nazurirnis, and the current story is
that they were built by the Israelites as a protection against a
plague of mosquitoes (E. H. Palmer). See N E ~ ~ E$B6,:
WANDERINGS. T. K. C.
KIBZAIM (D!np; cp, if the reading is correct,
JEKABZEEL, K ABZEEL , and on the form see N AMES ,
5 I07 ; K ~ B C M I M [A], -CEM [L], B om.), a levitical
city in the territory of Ephraim, Josh. 21 zzf= I Ch.
668 [53], JOKMEAM.
yrin.
1 Such a connection would suggest "i?'@iJ, AZ&&, which
Ball actually snbstitutes for n ~ ' @ p .
2 [In the Midr. Bey. raZ6a (61) Keturah is identified with
Hagar ; so too the Targums (Jon. and Jer.), which explain the
name 'bound one' (Gram. 'lEp=l@z). Cp Jer. Quresf. in Gen.
%I).]
2660
 KID
KID ($14,
etc.), Gen. 38 17 etc. See GOAT, I.
KIDNEYS (nib). See REINS. On 'kidney fat
of wheat,' Dt. 32 14, or 'fat of wheat,' Ps. 81 16 [IT], 147 14,
see FOOD, 8 T 6.
KIDRON, THE BROOK, once in AV C EDRON [Jn.
15 I] ; RVmg. 'of the Cedars' (jillg iFJ ; [b] Xeipippous [r&:
KC~POU [BAL] ; in Jer. 31 40 u a x d K . [BN], x. KfspwU [AQ]
Vg. forrens Cedron (hut convaZZis in z K. 186).
N T , Jn. 18 It d p p i . TOY ~ W p w w(NC BCLY, Treg., WH),
TOO ~ .
d (AAp Vg.~TOO ~ i ' 8 p o u[D Tisch.1. Cedri a.6. ; Theb.
Memph. ; Lacdm. Lightf., Weiss). Probably TOc.K68pwU is th;
correct reading ; ieing misunderstood, it would easily he cor.
rected into TOG xL8pou or ~ i KC8pwv.
v greatest boon that a dying Jew can ask to be buried in
Gesenius derives from l i p , ' black, turbid,' cp Job 6 16.
But \"3 and p i p are certainly in apposition ;it is the ravine
which is called Kin'von. 'Black ravine
1. Etymology. would not be a probable explanation ; hence
Hort ('Notes on Select Readings,' N T 2 90;
suggests 'ravine of the dark [trees],' taking i m p to be ' an
archaic (? Canaanite) plural of lip' H e even suggests that
d p o c may he of Phcenician orlgin-comparing ~ 1 1 1 3in
Buxtorf, 1g76-and adds (cp Plummer St. Jehu, 318) 'that
' patches of cedar-forest may have s u h e d from prehistoric
times in sheltered spots.' This is most improbable. Even
in a ravine which is quite dry iu summer we do not ex.
pect to hear of cedars; the cedars on the Mount of Olives
(Ta'rinith, 44) give no support t o the theory. The form
too is perfectly good Hebrew; it describes that which
belongs to or is connected with yip (whatever yip may be).
More probably ]l?lp is a phonetic variation of ]ill?, ' a spot
with enclosures for cattle'; cp G EDERAH, I, where it is sug.
gested that ~ s 8 p w vin T Macc. corresponds to the "27,; of Josh.
15 36 and to the modern Kayra. It will be noticed that there is
at one point of the Kidron valley (where it joins the valley of
Hinnom) a level tract now devoted to the cultivation of fruit
and vegetables. Here we can imagine that in remote times
there were enclosures for cattle. May not Kedar (122, Ass.
6idrzJhave a similar origin ?
The remarkable depression on the E. of Jerusalem (see
J ERUSALEM, 3) is referred to in z S. 1523 I K. 2 3 7 1 5 1 3
z K. 2 3 4 6 12 Jer. 3 1 4 0 z Ch. 1 5 1 6 2916
2. 3014, and twice in the short title 5nsn,
references. , t h e ravine,, z Cb. 3 3 1 4 Neh. 2-.. 15.
Josephus twice calls it + +dpayf K E B ~ W Y (Ant. ix. 7 3
BJ v. 6 I ) ; in BY v. 2 3 he refers to its great depth.
In z K . 2 3 4 Jer. 3140 (Kr.) we hear, according to the
ordinary yiew of the 'fields' (nre,d; .@B uahqpwfJ, 6.4
ua8qpo8, in JLr. @ follows Kth) of Kidron, which might
refer to the fertile tract in the S. of the valley(see helow) where
of old was the 'King's garden' (Neh. 3 IS). But th; word
nlmd being most probably corrupt elsewhere (see GRAPE, 3), it
seems better to read nigi& (@I.& 76 ; p m p r u p 6 r o c Xerpippou
Ke8pwv)-ii.e., furnaces for rnakin'g lime 0; for smelting
(Klo.). ' The fields of Kidron,' is, in fact, dardly a sufficiently
clear phrase to have been used, especially in this context.
It is in the touching account of David's flight that
we are first introduced to the ' Brook Kidron ' ; and we
hear of it for the last time in a still more pathetic N T
narrative. King David 'stood (read i n y with We.,
H. P. Smith, and most critics) by the ravine Kidron,
while all the people passed over before him ' ( 2 S. 1523) ;
and Jesus ' went forth with his disciples over the ravine
(RV'"g.) Kidron, where was a garden' (Jn. 18 I ; but
see § 3). The other references to Kidron (except those
in the topographical passages, 2 Ch. 33 14 Neh. 2 IS)
occur in accounts of the destruction of idolatrous objects
at the mouth of Hinnom (see history of Asa, Hezekiah,
Josiah), and I K. 2 3 7 , where Shimei, that violent partisan
of Saul's house, is forbidden by Solomon (as the text,
now stands) to cross Kidron. This is one of the many
cases where commentators have been satisfied with a
plausible but not quite satisfactory explanation, instead
of questioning the correctness of the text. It is said,
e.g., by Benzinger, that Kidron is mentioned because
Solomon thinks it most probable that Shimei would
seek to cross the eastern boundary of the city on a visit
to his home at Bahurim. But something more would
certainly have been added to make this clear, and, just
before, the phrase used is perfectly vague, nra; n;?,
2661
KIDRON, THE BROOK
' any whither.' The true reading is surely ' by
any road.'l
The designation ' Valley of Jehoshaphat ' dates back
to the fourth century A.D. It also appears in O S
2 7 3 8 9 1 1 1 1 3 . It is based on Joel3 [4]2rz, but the
expression ppy (which means a deep but broad valley,
like those of Rephaim and Elah, see V ALE, I ) , is
sufficient proof that the interpretation of that difficult
passage (see JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF) is erroneous.
The constant term for the Kidron valley in the OT
is h , a w3dy or ravine. Popular tradition, however,
takes no account of such minor matters. It is the
the Valley of Jehoshaphat-Le., of Kidron, because he
believes that this ravine will be the scene of the great
judgment. The whole of the left bank of the Kidron
opposite the Haram, far up the W. side of the Mount
of Olives, is covered with the white tombstones of the
Jews; the burial-place of the Moslems is on the E.
side of the mount.' At the resurrection, the valley is
expected to receive an expansion by the moving farther
apart of the opposite sides.
The Valley of Kidron is now called Wady Sitti
Maryam, or Wady of the Lady Mary. It contains the
3. T&ography. bed of a stieamlet; but during the
whole summer and most of the
whter, it is perfectly dry ; in fact, no water runs in it
except when heavy rains are falling on the mountains
round Jerusalem.
On the broad summit of the mountain ridge of Judaea,
a mile and a quarter NW. of Jerusalem, is a slight
depression; this is the head of the wkdy, which runs
on for about halfma mile towards the city. It thcn
bends eastward, and in another half-mile is crossed t y
the great northern road coming down from the hill
Scopus. On the E. side of the road, and the S. bank of
the wgdy, are the celebrated ' Tombs of the Kings.' The
channel is here aDout half a mile due N. of the city
gate. It continues in the same course about a quartcr
of a mile farther, and then, turning S., opens into a
wide basin containing cultivated fields and olives.
Here it is crossed diagonally by the road from Jerusalem
to Anathoth. As it advances southward, the right
bank, forming the side of the hill Bezetha, becomes
higher and steeper, with occasional precipices of rock,
on which may be seen a few fragments of the ancient
city wall; while, on the left, the base of Olivet projects,
greatly narrowing the valley. Opposite St. Stephen's
gate the depth is fully 100 feet, and the breadth not
more than 400 feet. The olive trees in the bottom are
so thickly clustered as to form a shady grove; and
their massive trunks and gnarled boughs give evidence
of great age. This spot is shut out from the city, from
the view of public roads, and from the notice and
interruptions of wayfarers. If Gethsemane was really
in the wkdy, it would be better to place it here than on
the more public traditional site some distance farther
down. From Mk.1432, however, compared with v.
26, we should rather suppose that it was somewhere on
the W. slope of the Mount of Olives. (See Keim, Jesu
von Nuz. 3299, but cp Weiss, note on John 18 I , and see
GETHSEMANE, 2. ) But we must not linger on this dis-
puted point. A zigzag path descends the steep bank
from St. Stephen's gate, crosses the bed of the valley
by an old bridge, and then divides. One branch leads
direct over the top of Olivet (cp z S. 15 23). See
OLIVES, M OUNT OF. Another branch runs round
the southern shoulder of the hill to Bethany, and has
3. deep and sacred interest, for it is the road of Jesus
Christ's last entry (Mt. 21 13Lk. 19 37). Below
the bridge the wkdy becomes still narrower, a n i
was first 3f
1 PzsCk after n'nl indicates a doubtful text. -,>i
dl corrupted into '~17;then $32 easily became Snj h 1 . The
,est part of the edendation belongs to Klo., who sugqsts
y > i i 532 nnN, 'anyone ofall the roads'-aneedlessly elaborate
?hrase.
2662
 KIDRON
here traces of a torrent bed first begin to appear.
Three hundred yards farther down, the hills on
each side rise precipitously from the torrent bed, which
is spanned by a single arch. On the left bank is
a singular group of tombs, comprising those of
Absslom, Jehoshaphat, and St. James (now so called) ;
whilst on the right, 150 feet overhead, towers the south-
eastern angle of the temple wall. The ravine runs on,
narrow and rocky, for 500 yards more ; there, on its *
right bank, in a cave, is the fountain of the Virgin;
and higher up on the left, perched on the side of the
naked cliffs, the ancient village of Siloam. A short
distance farther down, the valley of the Tyropeon falls
in from the right, descending in terraced slopes, fresh
and green, from the waters of the Pool of Siloam.
The ravine of Kidron here expands, affording a level
tract for cultivation (see above), which extends down to
the mouth of Hinnom, and is about zoo yards wide.
A short distance below the junction of Hinnom and the
Kidron is the fountain of Bir Eyyiib, ‘the Well of
Job ’ (see EN-ROGEL). The length of the valley from
its head to En-rogel is zg m., and here the historic
@Kidronmay he said to terminate.
The Kidron Valley was first described accurately by
Robinson ; hut in recent years fresh points of interest
have come to light. Such, for instance, are the true
bed of the Kidron (386 ft. below the present channel),
and the great rock-cut aqueduct in the Kidron-valley,
south of Bir Eyyiihb,both found in ’68-’69 by Sir C.
Warren (Recovery of /erusnkm, 1 3 5 3 2 5 6 3 ) .
See J ERU S A LEM, BO 3 s 37 and cp Porter’s art. in Kitto’s
BiU. Cyd. from which some descriptive passages of the above
have been adapted. T. K. C
KIDRON (KEAPWN [ANY) I Macc. 1539 41, RV.
See GEDEROTH.
KILAN (K[E]lhhN [BA]), I Esd. 515, RV, AV
CEILAN.
KINAH (n?’?; l K h M [Bl, K[EIINdr CALI), a
Judahite city on the border of Edom (Josh. 15 &).
The name appears in I Ch. 412 in the corrupt form
T EHINNAH . See KENITES, NEGER,5 z (6) n.
KING (&$, B&clAeyc). The term mdlek ‘king’
has a somewhat wide range of meaning. W e find it in
the description of the old condition of things in Canaan,
when many of the cities were in the enjoyment of
relative independence under ‘ kings ’ or princes of their
own (see, e.g., Gen. 142202 Josh. 101 111 Judg. 519).
Winckler has pointed out that in Tiglath-pileser’s time
the Syrian ‘kingdoms’ were more like German Gmf-
schafteen (AOF 119); we might also compare the petty
Syrian kings with the Indian rfijas or the Italian dukes
of the Middle Ages. This remark may illustrate Is. 10 8,
where the king of Assyria ironically asks, ‘ Are not my
generals (-it) altogether kings ( D-?~P),’perhaps alluding
partly to the fact that many petty vassal kings served
under his orders at the head of their respective con-
tingents. As late as the Book of Job we find & used
in the limited sense of ‘ chieftain ’ (Job 1925, hut hardly
1524 [du ~ p a n ~ y 6 swhich
1 seems to be corrupt). From
the etymology of the term (Ass. and Aram., ‘ to counsel,
decree ’) we may infer that the king was originally the
most gifted and powerful member of a council of chiefs
or elders (cp Mic. 49 king ’ I/ ‘ counsellor ’). The term
preferred by the Babylonians and Assyrians was Farm
( = Heb. le), which is used both for the divine ‘ king of
the gods,’ and for the ‘great king’ of Assyria (or
Babylon) ; see P RINCE, 3. Possibly this term ( J S ~ Y Z Y U
‘ to he radiant,’ like a star) was chosen in preference to
m a h h or m d k u ( = Heb. q > p Ar. nzaZiku”) to indicate
pre-eminence among kings, though mnZihiku is explained
in the syllabaries by Snrru. It is worth noticing that
‘princes ($-I&) of Midian’ in Judg. 72s and 8 3 , cor-
responds to ‘kings (&) of Midian ’ in Judg. 8 5 (cp
G IDEON). On the history of Hebrew royalty see
at63
KINGS (BOOK)
ARIMELECH ; G OVERNMENT, 16-22; ISRAEL,§§13-44;
TAXATION ; and on the religious use of 7 ) see ~ MOLECH,
MESSIAH.
It is unfortunately doubtful whether the poetical phrase
ilihSg ?!Q, EV ‘king of terrors,’ in Job 18 14 is correct. The
supposed biblical parallels will hardly bear pressing, the text
being very uncertain. On Ps. 4917see Che. Ps.N ; on Rev. 911
see LOCUSTS, $ 3. T. K. C.
KINGDOM OF GOD, See ESCHATOLOGY, Index
(col. 1389), s.v. ‘kingdom’ ; MESSIAH.
KINGS (BOOK)
General structure (§ I). Divisions ($ 6 J ) .
Redactions etc. (8 zJ). Prophetic narrative (§ 8).
Chronolog; (8 4). Judzan narrative ($9).
Religious principle (B 5 a). Literature ($ 11).
Later insertions (I 5 6).
The hooks of Kings, which form the last part of the
1. General series of OT histories known as the Earlier
Prophets, were originally reckoned as a
structure’ single hook (cp CANON, 5 13).
Modern Hebrew Bibles follow the bipartition which we have
derived from @, where they are called the third and the fourth
hooks of kingdoms (pauLhsGv), the first and the second being
our hooks of Samuel.
The division into two hooks is not felicitous. Even
the old Hebrew separation between Kings and Samuel
must not he taken to mean that the history from the
birth of Samuel to the Exile was treated by two distinct
authors in independent volumes. We cannot speak of
the author of Kings or of Samuel, hut only of an editor
or successive editors whose main work was to arrange in
a continuous form extracts or abstracts from earlier
hooks. The introduction of a chronologicd scheme
and a series of editorial coniments and additions, chiefly
designed to enforce the religious meaning of the history,
gives to the hook of Kings as we now read it a kind of
unity ; but beneath this we can still distinguish a variety
of documents, which, though sometimes mutilated in
the process of piecing them together, retain sufficient
individuality of style and colour to prove their original
independence. Of these documents one of the best
defined is the vivid and exact picture of David’s court
a t Jerusalem ( z S. 9-20), of which the first two chapters
of I K. are manifestly an integral part.‘ As it would
be unreasonable to suppose that the editor of the history
of David closed his work abruptly before the death of
the king, breaking off in the middle of a valuable
memoir which lay before him, this observation leads us
t o conclude that the books of Samuel and of Kings are
not independent histories. They have at least one
source in common, and a single editorial hand was at
work on both. The division, however, which makes
the commencement of Solomon’s reign the beginning of
a new hook is certainly ancient ; it must be older than
the insertion of the appendix z S. 21-24, which now
breaks the continuity of the original history of David‘s
court.
From a historical point of view the division is very
convenient. The subject of the hook of Samuel is the
creation of a united Israel by Samuel, Saul, and David.
Under Solomon the creative impulse has already died
away ; the kingship is divorced from the sympathies of
the nation ; and the way is prepared for the formation
of the two kingdoms of Ephraim and Judah, the fortunes
of which, down to their extinction by the great empires
of the East, form the main subject of the book of Kings.
It is probable, however, that the editor who made
the division had another reason for disconnecting
Solomon from David and treating his
’. Successive reign as a new departure. The most
redactions’ notable feature in the extant redaction
of the hook is the strong interest shown in the deutero-
1 See the arguments in detail, We. CHI? 260. The verses
I K. 2 1-12 27 have no connection with the rest of the chapter,
and are due to a later hand. [But cp Bu. Ri. Sa. 263; Ki
K#n. 13J]
2664
 KINGS (BOOK)
nomic ' Law of Moses,' and especially in the centrali-
zation of worship in the temple on Zion as prescribed in
Deuteronomy and enforced by Josiah. This interest
was unknown to ancient Israel, and is quite foreign to
the older memoirs incorporated in the book ; amidst the
great variety in style and manner which marks the
several parts of the history" the interest in question is
expressed always in the same stereotyped phrases and
unvarying style ; in brief, it belongs to the editorial com-
ments, not to the original sources of the history. T o
the deuteronomistic editor, then, the foundation of the
temple, which is treated as the central event of Solomon's
reign, is a religious epoch of prime importance (see
especially his remarks in I K. 3 z f . ) , and on this ground
alone he would naturally make Solomon's reign com-
mence a new book-the history of Israel under the one
true sanctuary.' [Burney (Hastings' D B 2 8 5 9 8 ) gives
a careful list of deuteronomic phrases and expressions
wholly or nearly peculiar to the editor of Kings.]
When we say in general that the book of Kings was
thrown into its present form by a deuteronomistic
redactor we do not affirm that he was the first who
digested the'sources of the history into a continuous
work. Indeed the selection of materials, especially in
the earlier parts of the narrative, has been thought to
point to an opposite conclusion. Nor, on the other
hand, must we ascribe absolute finality to his work.
He gave the book a definite shape and character ; but
the recognized methods of Hebrew literature left it open
to additions and modifications by' later hands. Even
the redaction in the spirit of Deuteronomy seems itself
to have had more than one stage, as Ewald and other
critics recognize. The book was not closed till far on in
the Exile, after the death of Nebuchadrezzar and Jehoia-
chin ( z K. 2 5 2 7 s ) . The fact that it closes with
the pardon, not with the death, of Jehoiachin is very
well explained by Meyer (Entst. 78) as being diie
to the narrator's looking upon the king's elevation
as the first step towards the realization of the Messianic
hopes ; and the fall of the kingdom of Judah is presup-
posed in such passages as I K. 8 4 4 51 9 1 - 9 z K. 17 IS$
[217-15 2215-20l2 23z6$ These passages, however, are
mere interjected remarks, which seem to be added to
adapt the context to the situation of the Jews in captivity.
The main redaction, though subsequent to the reform-
ation of Josiah, which supplied the standard applied to
all previous kings ( ' the high places were not removed '),
does not point to the time of the captivity. Thus, for
example, the words unto this day ' in 2 K. 8 22 14 7
166 are part of the ' epitome ' composed by the main
redactor (see below, § 7), and imply that he wrote
before the destruction of the Judzan state.
Even the second redaction (see fi- 2 ,) did not absolutelv
I
3. Different fix a single authoritative recension of the
book, as appears in detail from a com-
uarison of d with the Hebrew text.
The LXXLi. e., dBL ( dAfollows M T closely, and is
perhaps based upon Origen's recension [so Silberstein,
ZATW 131$ 141 $])-of Kings is not a corrupt
reproduction of the Hebrew receptus; it represents
another recension. Neither recension can claim absolute
superiority. The defects of d lie on the surface, and
are greatly aggravated by the condition of the Greek
text, which has suffered much in transmission, and
particularly has in many places been corrected after the
later Greek versions that express the Hebrew recepus of
the second century of o w era. Still d not only preserves
many good readings in detail, but also throws much
1 With this it agrees that the later appendix 2 S. 21-24 does
not seem to have passed under the hand of the deuteronomic
redaction. See We. C H P ) 302.
2' [The following passages also may safely be assigned to the
second-i.6. to the exilic or post-exilic-deuteronomist (= Dg) :
I K. 3 3 1 5 54[18]f: 6 1 1196 I O 16 12.f 2 K. 1 7 7 - 1 7 q - 3 4 a
24 2-12 15-25 ; pwhaps too all those chronological notice? which
aim at estahli3hing a synchronisin between the kings of Judah
and those of Israel.]
2665
KINGS (BOOK)
light on the long-continued process of redaction (at the
hand of successive editors or copyists) of which. the
extant Hebrew of Kings is the outcome. Even the false
readings of the Greek are instructive, for both recensions
were exposed to corrupting influences of precisely the
same kind. The following examples will serve to
illustrate the treatment through which the book has
passed.
I . Minor detached notices such as we should put in
foot-notes or appendices are inserted soas to disturb the
natural context.
Thus I K. 427 [5 71 must be taken continuously with 410, and
so @ B L (inserting between them v. 17) actually reads. In like
manner @EL omits I K. 611-14 which breaks the context of the
description of the temple. A&n, in @RL, I K. 9 26 follows on
v . 14, so that Solomon's dealings with Hiram are recorded con-
tinuously. The notices intervening in m. 15-25 (in a very
unnatural order) belong to a class of floating notes about
Solomon and his kingdom which seem to have got stranded
almost by chance a t different points in the two recensions.
2. There are direct or indirect indications of trans-
positions and insertions on a larger scale.
Thus in @BL the history of Naboth ( I K. 21) precedes chap.
20 and in fact chaps. 20 and 22 are parts of one narrative
odviously quite distinct from the history of Elijah. Again, th;
story of Abijah's sickness and Ahijah's prophecy is not found in
@BI. a t I K. 141-201;a t 1224 appears another version of the
same narrative, in which there is no reference to a previous
promise to Jeroboam through Ahijah, and the prophet IS intro-
duced as a new character. This version (12 24), which places the
prophecy of the destruction of Jerohoam's house between his
return from Egypt and his elevation to the throne, is no doubt
a mere legend; hut it goes to prove that there was once a
version of the history of Jeroboam in which 11 29-3 had no placr.
I n truth after 1126-28 there must once have stoo2some account
of a rebkllion in. which Jeroboam ' lifted up his hand' against
king Solomon. T o such an account (not to the incident of
Ahijah and the cloak related in vu. 29-39), v. 4 0 is the natural
sequel. Thus all that is related of Ahijah falls under suspicion
of being foreign to the original history. Compare JEROBOAM I .
I t is noteworthy that in a passage peculiar to @EL [in the ed. of
Swete I K. 1224 a-z] the incident of the tearing of the cloak is
related of Shemaiah and placed at the convention at Shechem,
showing how much fluctuation there was in the tradition. I n
2 K. 1322 &5L has an addition which affects both history and
geography (see APHEK,8 3 a, HAZAEL) on the conquests of
Hazael. According to Kittel. (KJn. p. vi) such passages have
heen inserted by later editors from older sources which were still
accessible to them in their completeness.
These instances show that there was a certain want of
definiteness about the redaction. ,The mass of disjointed
materials, not always free from inconsistencies, which lay
before the editor in sCparate documents or in excerpts
already partially arranged by an earlier hand, could not
have been reduced to real unity without critical sifting,
and an entire recasting of the narrative, in a way foreign
to the ideas and literary habits of the Hebrews. The
unity which the editor aimed at was limited to chrono-
logical continuity in the events recorded, and a certain
uniformity in the treatment of the religious meaning of
the narrative. Even this could not be perfectly attained
in the circumstances, and the links of the history
were not firmly enough riveted to prevent disarrange-
ment or rearrangement of details by later scribes.
The continued efforts of successive redactors can be
traced in the chronology of the book. The chronological
method of the narrative appears most
** Chronologi- clearly in the history after Solomon,
methods' where the events of each king's reign
are thrown into n kind of stereotyped framework of &is
type :-
' I n the twentieth year of Jeroboam, king of Israel Asa bega?
to reign over Judah and reigned in Jerusalem forti-one years.
.. ' In the third $ear of Asa, king of Judah, Baasha began to
reign over Israel, and he reigned in Tirzah twenty-four years.'
The history moves between Judah and Israel accord-
ing to the date of each accession ; as soon as a new
king has been introduced everything that happened in
lis reign is discussed, and wound up by another stereo-
.yped formula as to the death and burial of the sovereign ;
tnd to this mechanical arrangement the natural con-
iection of-events is often sacrificed. In this scheme the
:laborate synchronisms between contemporary monarchs
1 I n @ A etc., it is added from the version of Aquila.
2666
 KINGS (BOOK)
of the N. and S. give a n aspect of great precision to
the chronology.
In reality, however, the data for Judahand Israel do not agree
[260 years of the kings of Judah correspond to 241 years, 7
months, 7 days, of the kings of Israel], and Wellhausen follow-
ing Ewald, has shown that the synchronisms were no; in the
sources, but were calculated from the list of the years of each
reign ( j D T 6 0 5 f : ['751). Cp CHRONOLOGY,,$ 6f: It appears
further that these years of reign are not all derived from historical
tradition, but are in part due to conjectural subdivision of a
cycle 480 (twelve generations of forty years) assigned in I K.
6 I to the period from the 'exodus to the foundation of the
temple, and (according to the Judaean list of kings) to the period
fro n the foundation of the temple to the end of the captivity
(j36 B.c.).~In the early part of the Judzan history the first
dates not accessions are connected with the temple, and appar-
ently derived from temple records. Of these themost important
is the twenty-third year of Joash, which the chronological scheme
makes the one hundred and sixty-first year of the temple,
trisecting the four hundred and eighty years cycle. Other one
hundred and sixty years bring us to the death of Hezekiah, and
the last third of the cycle begins with the accession of Manasseh,
whose sins are treated as the decisive cause of the Exile. Within
these limits a few dates were given by the sources ; the rest, as
can easily be shown, were filled in with reference to a unit of
forty years2 Again, the duration of the kingdom of Israel,
according to the northern lists, was two hundred and forty com-
pleted years-&., eighty years before the first expedition of
Benhadad, eighty years of Syrian wars, forty of prosperity under
the victorious Jeroboam II., whose first year bel?ngs,to the
period of war, and forty years of decline. The trisections in
each case and the round numbers of 480 and 240 point strongly
to a systematization of the chronology on the basis of a small
number of given dates, and the proof that it is so is completed
when we learn from the exactly kept lists of Assyrian chronology
that the siege of Samaria fell in 722, whereas the system dates
the captivity from 737 (535+480- 37-241). Cp CHRONOLOGY,
0 TI.
The key to the chronology is I K. 6 I which, as Well-
hausen has shown, was not found in the original 6, and
contains internal evidence of post-Babylonian date. In
fact the system as a whole is necessarily later than 535
B.c., the fixed point from w%ich it counts back.
Another aspect in the redaction may be called
theological. Its characteristic is the application to
I __
Religious the old history of a standard belonging
later developments of the OT religion.
principle. to Thus. as we have alreadv seen, the re-
dactor in I K. 3 regards worship in high places as sinful
after the building of the temple, though he knows that
the best kings' before Hezekiah made no attempt to
suppress these shrines. So, too, his unfavourable
judgment on the whole religion of the northern kingdom
was manifestly not shared by Elijah and Elisha, nor by
the original narrator of the history of those prophets.
This feature in the redaction displays itself, not only in
occasional comments or homiletical excursuses, but
also in that part of the narrative in which all ancient
historians allowed themselves free scope for the develop-
ment of their reflexions-the speeches placed in the
mouths of actors in the history. Here also there is
textual evidence that the theological element is somewhat
loosely attached to the earlier narrative, and underwent
successive additions.
We have seen that @BL omits I K. 611-14,and that both
prophecies of Ahijah belong to the least certain part of the textual.
tradition. So, too, an indication that the long prayer of
Solomon ( I K.814-53), the deuteronomistic colour of which is
recognized by all critics, did not stand in the oldest account of
the dedication of the temple is preserved in the fact that the
ancient fragment, 71. rzJ, which in the Hebrew text is imperfect,
appears in @BAL after 71. 53 in completer form and with a refer-
1 Compare Krey's investigations in ZWT,'77, p. 4 0 4 s
a See the details in an article by WRS;f. Phil vol. x. DO. 20
[cpalso Stade,GVZlmS; Kamphausen(ZA W3':938[%3] an:
Clzron. der he6r. Konige, '83) ; and Konig (' Beitr. Z . bibl. ChLon.
in ZKW, '83 Heft 6, 8, 9, 12) are more conservative. Riihl
(' Chron. der Konige von Israel u. Jnda' in Deutsche Zeitschr.
f: Geschichtswissensch. xii. 14jf: ['g4]) adduces weighty reasons
for the view that we have here not the so-called Babylonian
method (so We. : cp CHRONOLOGY, $ 9), but the reckoning
according to which the last year of each king was counted also
as the first of his successor ; in this way the above-mentioned
inconsistencies are to an important extent diminished.] Cp
further T. Lehmann ' Quelques dates importantes de chrono-
log2 du ze temple' tin RE] 1898 July-Sept. p. 18. Gold-
schmied, ' znr Chronologie dkr Kinigsbiicher ' (ZDMd, xyoo,
p. 17fi).
2667
KINGS (BOOK)
encetothe bookof Jasharasitssonrce(B~8Aiovnis$&jr=iwn 1 9 1 ~
=iw77 ~ B :D cp JASHAR, B o o s OF, $3). The redactional inser-
tion displaced it in one recension and led to its mutilation in the
other. The older parts of this chapter have also been retouched in
conformitywithlater(even post-exi1ic)ritual andlaw. TheLevites
who appear at 71.4 in contrast to the priests, in a way unknown to
the pre-exile history, are not named in @nL, and the post-exilic
' congregation ' ('Zdah) a t u. j is also wanting. The processes
illustrated by these examples were doubtless at work in many
places where external evidence fails us, and may oiten be
detected by a careful use of internal evidence alone. See
especially Wellhausen's detailed analysis (CH 2698).
The insertions due to later editors and copyists are
many and not all of the same kind.
For insertions made subsequently to the deuteronomistic
redaction see I K. 446 13 (from nig to is), 65 (the words 2 ' 2 D
n m 'p-nd, 616 (the 1 s t two words), 724 ( I D ownK o*@,
4zc (from n l D h onwards), 47-50 81 (from n!!
"' to Xh'), 2 1 (as far as \H!py), 4 (beginning
insertions. ny!), SJ Cpn'p-h), also probably w.7f: 65
a(
(from '9 nyxwr onwards). Add to these 9 22 1124 (OnK '1 1172),
123a 12 (1 OD?:), 17 21-24 27c (from 1 1 ~ 1 onwards), 32-13 33a
1431 (from ow1 to 'nylyn, cp ZI), 1556 (from 33 onwards), 6 (c
1430) 161-4 (?), II ('2 'n 15 i * ~ w n - ~cp $ ,14rb), 176 (read :,$
21J2 l W 2 1 lp23), 1819 (113 YZlK 'K;I 'K'211. CP 22 40)~31-3za
19gb-IIa(to', 3 1 9 5 ) ~ 2123 z s f : 22zJ(cpMi. 2r),31('~1 o*w$w,
cp 20 I 24), 35 (from pfl! onwards), 38 z K. 19-17 7 178-20 1066
(?) 1 1 x 0 1217 (?), 17346.40 213-6 2246-52 6f: g (beginning at
l m n ~ l ) ,234 (beginning a t K*+%7)), 5 7b 14 16-18 2413f:
T h e latest glosses in 2 K. are : 1 1 6 (from *$mn to )y1,2, cp
6) 215 (11TlWK), 319 (IO l9y-$3l), 5 2 2 f: (113 'h ' Wl) 8 1
(ta-nii), 9q(Kmn iyin), 1019 ( v i w \ I , cp 2 1 1 1 6 f : ( $ m - h r
116 13 ( o w n ) , 15 (1nn 'iw-nu and 'a$ n m - k d 19 (ay-!n ~ K I
~ n ) 1312f:(cp1415~3
, 1817(1 ' D - > i - m l ]n?n-nr,cp I s . 3 6 ~ ) ~
19 ~ o (to a nirnO, 2011( n i v 'K n r h n CP Is. 388), 18( i h n 'K),
224 8 and 234 del. h n (cp 2210 IZ), 2333 (IT2 +m, cp 2 Ch.
36& onite another sort and sometimes of great historic value
are a series of notices and parallel accounts, derived from other
sources and worked into the principal narrative to the best of
the edi;or's ability. To this class belong--r K. 923 2 K. 1113-18a
1814-16 1910-35 (a parallel to 1813 1p19gn which, as Stade has
recognized, is artificially united to the preceding narrative by
1Qy6).
T o gain an exacter idea of the main redaction of
Kings and of the nature of the original sources, we may
6. Divisions : divide the history into three sections :-
=, ( I ) the conclusion of the 'court history,'
3-11. I K. 13,the further consideration of
r h i c h belongs to the criticism of S AMUEL (q.v.,ii. 5 6) :
(2)Solomon, I K. 3-11 ; (3) the kingdoms of Ephraim
and Judah.
( 2 )The main source of this section, as we learn from
I K. 1141, was a book called Acts of Sohornon. This work
can hardly have been a regular chronicle, for the history
founded on it contains no continuous narrative. All
that is related of Solomon's reign is grouped round the
description of the royal buildings, particularly of the
temple, and the account of the dedication of the house
(chaps. 6-99) ; and the greater part of the latter account
is either due to the redactor or largely rewritten. The
whole section is descriptive rather than narrative, and the
accurate details might have been arrived at by actual
observation of the temple at a date long subsequent to
Solomon. In fact, they are not all due to a single hand.
Thus we can still reconstruct a shorter text of 617-21,
which says only that the house before the oracle was
forty cubits long, and the oracle in the midst of the
house within where the ark of Yahwb's covenant was to
be placed was twenty cubits in length, in breadth, and
in height ; and he overlaid it with gold and made an
altar of cedar [the table of shewbread] before the oracle
and overlaid it with gold.' The original author used the
BOOK OF JASHAR (4. v. 3) for the account of the dedi-
cation, and had access to some exact particulars as to
dates, the artist Hiram, and so forth, which may have
been contained in the temple records. The immediate
environment of this section, if w e set aside the floating
elements in chap. 9 already referred to, is occupied with
Solomon's dealings with King Hiram, who aided him
2668
 KINGS (BOOK)
in his architectural schemes and in the commercial
enterprises which procured the funds for such costly
works (chap. 5 [515-32] and chap. 91oJ). On each '
side of this context lies a complex of various narratives
and notices illustrating Solomon's wisdom and greatness,
but also, in chap. 11, his weakness and the incipient
decay of his kingdom. It is evident that the rise of.the
adversaries who, according to 1115, troubled Solomon
through all his reign cannot originally have been related
a s the punishment of the sins of his old age. The
pragmatism as usual belongs to the redactor (114).
W e have seen that there was once another version of
the history of Jeroboam. On I K. 111.8, cp further
SOLOMON, 8, and see the commentaries of Benzinger
and Kittel.
( 3 ) For the history of the divided kingdom the
redactor, as we have seen, follows a fixed scheme
., I K. 12-z K. determined by the order of accessions,
the epitome.. and gives a short epitome of the chief
facts about each king, with an estimate
of his religious character, which for the schismatic north
is always unfavourable. The epitome, as the religious
standpoint shows, belongs to the same hand through-
out-ie., to D ; but so much of it as relates to Judah
is plainly based on good written sources, which from
the nature of the particulars recorded may be identified
with the book of Royal Chronicles referred to under
each reign, which seems to have been a digest of official
notices. [A reference to the 'Book of the History of
the Kings of Judah ' (or, Israel) is wanting only in the
cases of Ahaziah, of Jehoahaz, of Jehoiacbin, and of
Zedekiah among the kings of Judah, and in that of Joram
and Hoshea among those of Israel. Both the Judahite
and the Israelite work (unless with Reuss we are to
suppose a single work, cited by different titles) were
evidently compilations of private origin, prepared shortly
before the exile on the basis of,older chronicles and
special treatises.]
If the chronicle named for the kings of Israel actually
lay before the editor he at least did not make such ex-
cerpts from it as we find in the Judzean history, for the
epitome for Ephraim is very bare of concrete details.
Besides the epitome and the short excerpts from the
Judzean chronicles which go with it. the history includes
8. Prophetic a variety of longer narratives, which alike
narrative. in their subject-matter and in their treat-
ment are plainly distinct from the some-
what dry bones of the properly historical records. The
northern narratives are all distinguished in a greater or
less degree by the prominence assigned to prophets.
In the southern kingdom we hear less of the prophets,
with the great exception of Isaiah; but the temple
,occupies a very prominent place.
The narrative of the man of God from Judah ( I K. 13)
is indubitably of Judzan origin. Its attitude to the
altar at Bethel-the golden calf does not appear as the
ground of offence-is diverse not only from that of
Elijah and Elisha, but even from that of H0sea.I The
other narratives that deal with the history of Ephraim
are all by northern authors (see, for example, I K. 193
z K . 96), and have their centre in the events of the
Syrian wars and in the persons of Elijah and Elisha.
They are not all, however, of one origin, as appears
most clearly by comparing the account of the death
of Naboth in the history of Elijah, I I(. 21, and in the
history of Elisha and Jehu, 2 K. 9. In the latter narra-
tive Naboth's ' field' lies a little way from Jezreel, in
the former it is close to Ahab's palace (? in Samaria,
see v. 18 and variants of d in v. I ) , and is described as
The expression 'cities of Samaria' (v. 32) appears elsewhere
1 2 Some expressions that point to a later date are certainly
only after the deportation of Ephraim (2 K. 17 z6), and seems to
have come in here from 2 K. 23 19. Even in this passage the
last clause of ZI18, . which alone refers to details of the history
of I K. 13, is clearly erroneous; the old prophet did not come
from Samaria. [The passage must he of late origin (see Kuenen
O d . ( > ) 2 5 25, n. 4 ) ; it seems not unconnected with the h i s t o 4
a f Amos ; see AMOS,5 3.1
2669
KINGS (BOOK)
a vineyard. The 'burden' quoted by Jehu is not in
the words of I K. 21, and mentions the additional fact
that Naboth's sons were ki1led.l In other words, the
history cf Jehu presupposes events recorded in the extant
accounts of Elijah, but not these accounts themselves.
Moreover, the narrative in z K. seems to ,be the more
accurate; it contains precise details lacking in the
other.
Now it is plain that I K. 21 belongs to the same
history of Elijah with chaps. 17-19. The figure of the
prophet is displayed in the same weird grandeur, and
his words (with the omission of the addition already
noted in VZI. 206 21) have the same original and impres-
sive force. This history, a work of the highest literary
art, has come down to us as a fragment. For in I K.
1915 Elijah is commanded to take the desert route to
Damascus-Le., the route E. of the Jordan. H e .could
not, therefore, reach Abel- meholah in the Jordan
valley, near Bethshean, when he ' departed thence '
( v . ~g),if ' thence ' means from Horeb. The journey
to Damascus, the anointing of Hazael and Jehu, must
once have intervened : but they have been omitted be-
cause another account ascribed these acts to Elisha ( z K.
87J 9). Cp SHAPHAT. Now there is no question that
we possess an accurate historical account of the anoint-
ing of Jehu. Elisha, long in opposition to the reigning
dynasty ( z K. 3 1 3 ) ~and always keeping alive the remem-
brance of the murder of Naboth and his sons (632),
waited his moment to effect a revolution. It is true that
the prime impulse in this revolution came from Elijah ;
but, when the history in I K. represents Elijah as
personally commissioned to inaugurate it by anointing
Jehu and Hazael as well as Elisha, we see that the
author's design is to gather up the whole contest between
Yahwt! and Baal in an ideal picture of Elijah and his work.
No doubt this record is of younger date than the more
photographic picture of the accession of Jehu, though
prior to the rise of the new prophecy under Amos and
Hoseaz [For the later criticism of the Elijah-narratives,
see ELIJAH, 0 4, also Ki. Kiin. 159-162, appendix
on chaps. 17-19 21.1
The episode of Elijah and Ahaziah, 2 K. 1,is certainly
by a different hand, as is seen even from the new feature
of revelation through an angel; and the ascension of
Elijah, z K. 2, is related as the introduction to the
prophetic work of Elisha.
The narratives about Elisha are not all by one hand ;
for example, 41-7 is separated from the immediately
subsequent history by a sharply marked grammatical
peculiarity (the suffix 3 3 ) ; moreover, the order is not
chronological, for 624 cannot be the sequel to 623 ; and
in general those narratives in which the prophet appears
as on friendly terms with the king, and possessed of
influenceat court (e.g.,413 6 9 621comparedwith 13r4),
plainly belong to the time of Jehu's dynasty, though
they are related before the fall of the house of Omri.
I n this disorder we can distinguish portions of an
historical narrative which speaks of Elisha in connection
with events of public interest, without making him the
central figure, and a series of anecdotes of properly
biographical character. The historical narrative em-
braced zK.3624-72091-1028-infact, thewholeaccount
of the reign of Joram and the revolution under Jehu ;
and, as z K. 3 has much affinity to the history of Ahab
and Jehoshaphat in I K. 22, we may add the earlier
history of the Syrian wars ( I K. 20 22) to the series.
T h e evidence of style is hardly sufficient to assign all
1 The standing phrases common to I K. 21 zod 21 2 K. 9 710a
belong to the redaction, as is plain in the latter case from 93.
added by another hand-e.g., the last part of 1818. In old
Israel, up to the time of Hosea, the Baalim (pl.) are the golden
calves which have no place in this context. A late insertion
also ik the definition of time by the stated oblation in the
temple at Jerusalem, 18 29 36. At v. 36 this is lacking in 0 :
at ZI.29 the insertion of @ reveals the motive for the interpola-
tion-viz., to assimilate Elijah's sacrifice to the legal service.
2670
 KINGS (BOOK)
these chapters to a single hand (for example, 331 is a
single chariot in the history of Jehu, but in I K. 20 a
collective, the single chariot being n x m ) ; but they are
all full of fresh detail and vivid description, and their
sympathy with the prophets of the opposition, Micaiah
and Elisha, and with the king of Judah, who takes the
prophets’ part, does not exclude a genuine interest in
.Ahab and Joram, who are painted in very human
colours, and excite our pity and respect. T o the
historian these chapters are the most valuable part of
the northern history.
In the more biographical narratives about Elisha we
may distinguish one circle connected with Gilgal,
Jericho, and the Jordan valley to which Abel-meholah
belongs ( 4 I - 7 ? 38-44 ; chap. 5 ? 6 I - 7). Here Elisha
appears as the head of the prophetic guilds, having his
fixed residence at Gilgal. Another circle, which pre-
supposes the accession of the house of Jehu, places him
at Dothan or Carmel, and represents him as a personage
of almost superhuman dignity. Here there is an obvious
parallelism with the history of Elijah, especially with
his ascension (compare z K. 6 17 with 2 11,1314 with 2 12) ;
and it is to this group of narratives that the ascension of
Elijah forms the introduction.
Of the Judzean narratives there is none to rival the
northern histories in picturesque and popular power.
9. Judajan The history of Joash, z K. 11 f., of
Ahaz’s innovations, 16rof.. and of
narrative’ Josiah’s reformation, 22 3-23 25, have their
common centre in the temple on Zion, and may with
great probability be referred to a single source. The
details suggest that this source was based on official
docnments. Besides these we have a full history of
Hezekiah and Sennacherib and of Hezekiah’s sickness,
, 1 8 1 3 - 2 0 1 9 , repeated in a somewhat varying text in Is.
36-39 (cp ISAIAH i. 5 6, ii. 5 IS). The history of
Amaziah and Joash in 2 K. 14 8-14 with the characteristic
pzrabte from vegetable life, may possibly be of northern
origin. 1
When we survey these narratives as a whole we
receive an increased imDression of the merelv mechanical
Advantage character of the iedaction by which
of mechanical they are united. Though editors have
added something of their own in almost
redaction. everv
.
,chaDter.. cenerallv
- from the stand-
point of religious pragmatism, there is not the least
attempt to work the materials into a history in our sense
of the word; and in particular the northern and southern
histories are practically independent, being mer.ely
pieced together in a sort of mosaic in consonance with
the chronological system, which we have seen to be
really later than the main redaction. It is very possible
that the order of the pieces was considerably readjusted
by the author of the chronology ; of this indeed @ still
shows traces. With all its imperfections, however, as
judged from a modern standpoint, the redaction has
the great merit of preserving the older narratives in
their original colour, and bringing us much nearer to
the actual life of the old kingdom than any history
written throughout from the standpoint of the exile
could possibly have done.
Since Ewald’s History, vols. 1 and 3, and Kuenen’s 0nd.R
1 33z.,E, the most thorough and original investigation of the
structure of the book is that in Wellhausen’s fourth (not in the
fifthand sixth) edition of Bleek‘s E‘inl. (‘78)
11. Literature. (reprinted in CHi? 266-302)~with which the
corresponding section of his Pr0Z.W (z75$)
should be compared. Stade (SBOT,: cp Gcsch. 1 7 3 3 ) must,
however be compared. Cp also Kittel Hist. 2 4 9 8 2 0 7 5 ;
.
Driver, jntr0d.P) 185.203 K6nig Einl. 2163 $ (‘93). Holzhey,
Das Bzch der Kdiniee (‘99). On ;he text-criticisni c i especially
Stade, Z A T W , $8; p. 1 2 3 3 (on I K. 5 3 ) , ’85, p. z75f: (on
2 K. 10-14) and ’86, p. 160f: (on z K. 15-21) * Klostermann
2
Sam. u. 28. (‘87) ; F. C. Burkitt, Fragwzenfs the Books &
Kings accordikg to the translation of Apuila f r o m a Cairo
MS (‘97) ; and C k t . Bi6. Among commentaries see those of
Thenius (‘49; (‘4, ’73), C. F. Keil (‘64;Q, $6; ET, ’72);
1 Note in u. T I ‘in Beth-shemesh which (belongs) to Judah.’
Cp the s i h a r phikc in I K. 19 3.
2671
KINSHIP
Bahr in Lange’s BiJeZzuerk (‘68; ET, ’77); Rawlinson in
the Sjeaker’s Comm., Reuss in L a Bible vol. 1 ’ 1.amby
(‘86-’87) ; Farrar (Expositor’s Ei6k, ’93-’94) Benzinier, KHC
(‘99); Kittel in Nowack‘s HK (‘goo). See also C. F. Burney,
art.Kings’ in Hastings’ D B 2. w. n. %-E. K.
KING’S GARDEN (q>m? 1% o KHTTOC TOY
BACIAWC), 2 K. 25 4 Jer. 394 (@ om.) 52 7 Neh. 315
TH KOYPA T. B.). A plantation between the two
walls of Jerusalem, close to the pool of Shiloah; see
KING’S POOL.
KING’S POOL (q$Q 3 n311, ~ ..; [ H ] K O h y M B H B p A T O Y
B A C I A ~ ~ C ) Neh.
: 2 1 4 , possibly the same as the pool
of Siloam ; it may have been so called on account of its
proximity to the K ING ’ S GARDEN. Cp POOL.
KING’S VALE (RV), or King’s Dale (AV), @Ji‘(
S>O?), Gen. 1 4 1 7 ([TO] TTEAION B A C I ~ ~ U C[ADLI)
2s. 1818 ( TH KOIAAAI TOY B A C I ~ G U C [BAL]); CP.
Jos. Ant. vii. 10 3. See SHAVEH [VALE OF] ; MEL-
CHIZEDEK, 5 3 ; ABSALOM, col. 31.
KINSHIP. The bond by which the social and
political units of the Hebrews-their clans and their
1. Feeling of tribes-were held together in the older
historical period was neither more nor
kinship. less than a genuine and operative feeling
ofkinship (see GOVERNMENT, 5 2 8 ) . Hebrew theorists,
like Arab genealogists, understood this kinship in the
same sense as we understand it,-as due to derivation
from a common ancestor ; a tribe consisted entirely of
blood relations (see GENEALOGIES i., 2).
At the very outset this theory requires at least some
modification ; for even in historical times physical
descent was not the only way in which blood relation-
ship could be constituted. Adoption was equally
effective. So also was the method of blood covenant.
Not individuals only, but whole clans could in this way
enter into a lasting union and become fused into a
single community. The various ceremonies observed
in making such a covenant (cp COVENANT, 5 3, and
Robertson Smith‘s excellent exposition in Kin. 47 8
261 f., ReZ. Sem.P) 3 1 4 3 ) have all one meaning;
they were originally intended to create a physical and
literal community of blood, or, in accordance with later
ideas, they were intended, at least symbolically, to
represent the creation of such a bond. This shows
itself with ‘unmistakable clearness when, for example,
two men actually open their veins and mix their blood,
or when the protected smears with his blood the tent-
pole of his protector ; but it is still discernible, though
in a more disguised form, in the rule of hospitality by
which even now the person of the guest who has eaten
with a ,host remains inviolable for at least a certain
time-the time, to wit, during which the meal of which
they have together partaken is supposed to be still
sustaining them. In the Hebrew domain compare the
covenant described in Ex. 2 4 , where the people and the
altar of Yahwb are sprinkled with the same blood.
There is another point in which the old Semitic
conceptions of blood relationship differ from those of
modern times : there was no gradation
2. Idea of
relationship. of relationship. W e take account of the
degrees by which relations are removed
from the common ancestor ; in the Semitic field relation-
ship is absolute : a man either belongs to a given family
circle, or he does not. Relationship is participation in
the common blood which flows with equal fulness in
the veins of every member of that circle ; on this idea
rest all the rights and obligations between the individual
and his clansmen. There can therefore be no such
thing as aristocracy of birth in our sense of the expres-
sion. Within the gens none are high-born, none are
low-born ; there is no blue blood. This is clearly shown
in the law of blood revenge (WRS Kin. zzf., and
elsewhere). The duty falls on every member of the
clan to which the inurdered person bclonged, and their
2672,
 KINSHIP
* vengeance seeks every member alike of the murderer’s
clan.
This said, it must not be denied that a feeling of
relationship in our closer sense of the word also began to
show itself from a comparatively early period. Indeed,
the Hebrews from the earliest times to which our
historical records carry us may be said to have been
distinguished by the energy of their ’ family ’ feeling.
As the limits of society extended, the primitive concep-
tion of blood-kinship described above would naturally
grow weaker ; that of near kinship in our sense of the
word can retain its vigour and efficiency only within the
narrower circle. Within the larger federation of tribes
(the people or nation of Israel) the feeling was never
very strong ; bloody wars between individual tribes
were not unknown, and it was long before the sense of
oneness had thoroughly pervaded all portions of the
body politic. In the end it was not by the conception
of blood kinship but by the political organisation of the
monarchy that this sense was called into being and
maintained.
The question as to what constituted national kinship
was answered by the genealogists. Each individual
3. National tribe was held to be derived from an
ancestor whose descendants bore his
kinship. name as their tribal name; the mutual
relations of the tribe and the varions clans comprising
it were determined by the relationship of the ancestor
of each clan to the patriarch from whom all alike
claimed descent. In other words, the formation and
development of tribes were held to have taken place
under the dominion of the patriarchal system (G ENE-
ALOGIES i., § 2). Moreover, it is an actual fact that
so far as our knowledge goes the patriarchal system
was prevalent among the Hebrews from the earliest
historical times. The head of the family is the man ;
the woman passes over to the clan and tribe of her
husband, who is master both of herself and of her
children (F AMILY , 3 3 ; M ARRIAGE, 5 43). Kinship,
tribe-connection, inheritance, are determined by the
man.
Robertson Smith (Kinship, puassiw),however, has in-
controvertibly shown that among the Semites as well as
*. Matriarchy. many other widely separated peoples
matriarchy must a t one’ time have
prevailed. By this expression, as distinguished from
patriarchy, is meant not the dominion of the woman in
the household, but rather that arrangement of family-
and clan-relations in accordance with which the relation
of the children to the mother was regarded as by far
the more important, that to the father being of quite
subordinate moment. It is the mother who determines
the kinship. The children belong to the mother’s clan,
not to the father’s. The wife is not under the power
of the husband, but under the guardianship of her male
relations. The head of the famiry is not the father but
the maternal uncle, who has supreme authority over the
mother and her children. Inheritance is not from
father to son, but from brother to brother, from
(maternal) uncle to nephew.
The existence of this matriarchy among the Semites is shown
(among other proofs) by the existence of ancient words, common
to various branches of the Semitic family, denoting relationship
derived from the mother. In like manner there are feminine
tribal names, and tribal heroines pointing to the same inference.
With the Arabs downkvcn to the days of Mohammed a kind of
marriage (see below) was still kept up which entirely belonged
to the matriarchal system.
For details as to matriarchy among the Semites in
general the discussionsof Robertson Smith, Wellhausen,2
and Wilken must be referred to. What specially in-
terests us here is the fact that in the O T also traces of
the existence of this institution among the Hebrews can
still be found. Even if these were not absolutely
1 Utsupra.
a ‘ Die Ehe bei den Arabern’ in Giitt. ge2. Nachl;. 4 3 x 8 (193).
3 ‘ H e t Matriarchaat bij de oude Arahieren in Oester.
Monatsschrlflf: d. Orient, 1884.
2673
KINSHIP
convincing in themselves, they would’ become so after
the demonstration of the existence of the institution
among the Arabs and other Semitic peoples. Alongside
of the masculine tribal names we have a scries of
feminine ones :-Hagar, Keturah, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah,
Zilpah. Stade conjectures that at one time there was a
genealogical system according to which the tribes were
all of them wives of Jacob (GZ1146). Such feminine
names at all events cannot be regarded as mere poetical
adornments of the legends to which they belong ; they
must originally have been integral parts of the genea-
logical system.
Marriages of brother and sister, that is to say between
-
children of different mothers. had nothing offensive to
5. Marriage the moral sense of the older period (see
M ARRIAGE, 5 2) ; it is a relic of the
$
=
:.; times when relationship was determined
not bv the blood of the father but bv that
of the mother, and when accordingly community of
descent on the mother’s side was the only bar to
marriage. This explains also the possibility of the
custom according to which the son could marry the
stepmother, the father the daughter-in-law (see MAR-
RIAGE, § 2). Notwithstanding the express prohibition of
such unions they seem to have been not unknown down
to a time as late as that of Ezekiel, although, on the
other hand, marriages between maternal relations,
between father and stepdaughter, father and daughter,
mother and son were from the first regarded with horror
(cp Gen. 1 9 3 0 8 ) ; in D express prohibition is not
deemed necessary.
How deeply rooted was the view that relationship
-
was constituted through the mother is shown bv Dassages
I
6. Meaning of such as Gen. 42 38 43 29 44 20 27 8
. -
8 19 9 3, where the designation
Lbrother., Judg.
of brother in the full sense of the
word is reserved for sons of the same mother; a s
also by such narratives as that of Judg. 9 zf:, where
Abimelech is regarded by his mother’s relations, the
Shechemites, a s one of themselves, and his maternal
uncles are his natural allies. The prevalence of the
same view is seen also in the practice of adoption by
the mother (not the father) (Gen. 30 3), in the right of
inheritance through the mother, as implied in Gen. 21 IO
(‘ the son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my
son’), in the right of the mother to give the name as
shown in the older sources of the Pentateuch, though
in P it is always the father who does so. In Eliezer’s
negotiations for Rebekah it is not her father Bethuel
(‘ and Bethuel,’ Gen. 24 50, is a late redactional insertion)
but her brother who is her guardian and carries on the
transaction.
Another characteristic feature of matriarchal marriage
is that it is not the woman who enters the man’s tribe
7. Tribal but the man who enters the woman’s ; she
relations. continues to belong to her own tribe. This
also can be shown to have been the case in
the Hebrew domain. Too much stress indeed must
not be laid on the expression n$~(.s! Mi>, ‘ to go in unto,’
the usual phrase in Hebrew and Arabic for the con-
summation of a marriage; but it is certain that
among the Hebrews, as with the Arabs, the woman
always figures in particularly close connection with the
tent, and frequently as its mistress. In such cases as
Gen. 2467, indeed, we may be in the presence only of
I custom which, in the case of wealthy people, allowed
sach wife (as with a rich sheikh at present) to have a
separate tent. The narrative of Judg. 4 1 7 8 (cp 5 2 4 8 ) ,
however, is clear enough ; it is Jael who owns the tent,
who receives the fugitive into it, and who accords to
him its protection. This is in exact accord with the
present rights of Arab women as regards fugitives
seeking protection. The story of Eliezer’s wooing of
Rebekah also assumes the possibility that the girl may
not consent to leave her home, but may insist that her
future husband should marry into her own tribe and
2674
 KINSHIP
clan (Gen. 245).' Similarly Jacob fears lest Laban
should refuse to let his daughters go, but should insist-
in accordance with his undoubted right-on their staying
at home; hence his secret flight (Gen. 31 31). The
phrase, ' shall leave his father and mother and cleave to
his wife,' in Gen. 2 2 4 may be an old saying dating from
remote times when the husband went to the house (tent)
of the wife, and joined her clan. Still the passage may
be merely the narrator's remark, and even if it be an
old proverb, we cannot be sure that it really carries us
so far back in antiquity.
Another instance of a matriarchal marriage requires
notice: that of Samson (Judg. 14). The case is
8. 'Beena ,- thoroughly exceptional ; it is exogamy,
marriage. but reversing the relations. The husband
is the alien, and visits his wife, who
remains in her own home, and it is in the house of
her relations that the marriage feast is held. Samson
himself indeed does not become a Philistine; but
neither does his wife become Israelite ; the intention is
that they shall meet only from time to time. Parallels
are not wanting in pre-Islamic Arab history ; as already
said, such marriages were nothing ont of the common
u p to the period immediately preceding that of
Mohammed. The important point lies here :-the wife
continues to belong to her own tribe, and the children,
naturally, so belong also. It is thus the mother's
blood that is the determining factor. This kind of
marriage, it is plain, could originally have arisen only
under the influence of matriarchal institutions.
From the facts adduced Robertson Smith draws
the conclusion that this kind of marriage-which (after
J. F. M'Lennan) he proposes to call beena-marriage
(from the Singhalese)-had been the form universally
prevalent among the Semites in the period before the
separation ;of the tribes. After the separation, the
Hebrews from the same starting-.point arrived at
monandrous baal-marriage (cp MARRIAGE, 8 2 ) long
before the Arabs did.
Such an inference, however, would be too sweeping.
Robertson Smith himself regarded it as not improbable
9. 'Baal,- that patriarchy can be carried back to
primitive Semitic times (Kin. 178) ; and
marriage. ellhausen (09.cii. 479) has proved it.
T h e existence of such old Semitic words as @ u p for
wife's father-in-law (see HAMU, NAMES WITH) and
huZZu for the daughter-in-law is, with other cases that
might be adduced, conclusive. Wellhausen calls special
attention to the fact that in the word 'amm, Arab.,
Heb., Syr., and Sab., unite the senses of ' people ' and
'relations on the father's side ' (see AMMI,NAMES WITH).
'Whatever the time and place of origin of this mode of
speech, the father's relations must also have been the
political ones when it arose.'
Robertson Smith's concession, it is true, is limited to
polyandrous baa1- marriage -a form of patriarchal
marriage which is well attested for the old Arabians
(Strab. xvi. 4 2 5 ; cp WRS Kin. 1 3 3 3 , We. 09. cit.
460 3).In this description of marriage a group of
brothers or nearly related men had the wife in common ;
the children belonged to the tribe of the fathers. Smith
Levirate. finds a trace of this form of polyandry
still surviving in the levirate marriage of
the Hebrews (see MARRIAGE, 5 7 f:). The duty of
inheriting the wife is originally a right, which, as
Smith thinks, must have had its origin in an original
community of possession. Wellhausen (op. cit. 461)
remarks further that the beginning of the law on the
subject in D (Dt. 255 'if brethren dwell together') finds
no explanation in the present context, but would fit in
well with the explanation suggested by Smith. Hebrew
levirate marriage, however, admits of sufficient explana-
tion from the simple fact that in Hebrew baal-marriage
wives in general are property that can be inherited.
The right of inheriting became a duty in this one
special case as soon as the first son of such a marriage
2675
KIR-HERES
came to be regarded as son of the deceased husband,
and this last finds its explanation in the Hebrew view
of the evils of childlessness (cp M ARRIAGE, 5 5 3 ) .
Obviously the form of marriage just described must
be older than nionandrous baal-marriage ; indeed there
ll. Earliest is not in the nature of things any reason
practice. for regarding it as more recent than even
the earliest form of matriarchal marriage.
Baal-polyandry was originally in any case marriage by
capture. As such it is hardly likely to have been a
development of a form of marriage in which the husband
maried as an alien into the tribe of the wife. It may
therefore be best to abandon all attempt to make out a
genetic connection or evolutionary relation between the
various kinds of marriage, and to concede that marriage
by capture as well as matriarchal polyandry (which,
strictly speaking, cannot be distinguished from absolute
promiscuity) may date from the most remote times.
One tribe might count kin from the mother, being
endogamous, or else marrying its young women to men
of alien tribe only when the men consented to join the
tribe of the wife and the children remained with the
mother. Another tribe counted kin from the father
and therefore sought for its wives, so far as these could
not be found within the tribe, by capture of such
welcome additions from other tribes.
For literature, see FAMILY,0 15. I. B.
RIR (Y?; KYPHNH etc., see below; C YR E N E ;
is mentioned in Am. 9 7 ( € K Boepoy [BAQ]) as the
primitive home of the Aramtzans, and warriors from
Kir are introduced in the description of an Assyriaii
army threatening Jerusalem in Is. 2 2 6 (om. BKAQI';
purietem I. \ 5 a&).
The name also appears in Am. 1 5 ( X K A V T O C [BAQl'l, ;.e., n p
= N?? ; r#f,$qv [Aq.]; 2 K. 169 (om. B ; K U P ~ ~ V S[A C a:id
Aq.], dp lroh~u[L]) where it may possibly have been intro-
duced from Am. 15 'which contains a prophecy of the deport=-
tions of the Aramzdns to Kir.
Winckler ( A F 2 z 5 4 3 ) has given reason to think that
' I(ir' should rather be ' Kor ' (iir), and identified with
the Karians mentioned by Arrian (iii. 85) with the
Sittakenians ; see also SBOT, ' Isa.' (Heb.), 197, and
cp KOA. This people seems to have dwelt in the land
of Jatbur, the plain between the Tigris and the
mountains towards Elam (cp Sargon's Khorsabad
inscr., B. 153, 5 ) . For other views see Furrer, BL
3 534, who thinks of Cyrrhestica, between the Orontes
and the Euphrates (refuted by Schr. NC.VB12)845), and
Halevy, RE/ll60$, who prefers S. Babylonia.
KIRAMA (KEI~AMAC [Bl, K I ~ A M A [AI), I E d . 520
RV=Ezra 2 2 6 , RAMAH.
KIR-HERES (by! Y?, Is. 16 11, AV Kir-haresh;
'UM'p Jer. 48 36), Kir-hareseth ( n 9 J 'p, see col.
31
2677, n. K. 325, AV Kir-haraseth ;
2) 2
OT n@l,?'3 [var. nEhn '31 Is. 16 7) or Kir
References' of Moab ( 2 @ D - l p ; Is. 151j.). The
name is generally supposed to mean ' city of the sun '
(b for D); see N AMES , 5 95. When, however, we
consider ( I ) that this explanation is unknown to the
ancients ; (2)'that Kir is nowhere supposed to mean
' city' except in the compound names Kii-heres, Kir-
hareseth, and Kir-Moab ; (3) that Din, ' sun,' nowhere
bas a fem. ending ; and ( 4 ) that in Is. 1 6 7 d and Aq.
indicated, not r, in the second part of the name, the
question arises whether we should not emend the text
and read n@!c n;lq, 'new city' (cp H ADASHAH).
Vg. gives mums$c'rtiZis (Jer.), mums cocfi lateris (Is. la),
and m?wzis A+'oab (Is. 15) ; @, r b re;xos es Mdwa~[~Iiri8os in Is.
1 5 ; BE~EB1(?8EuE[NC.a.!)[BNAQl'] i n I s . 1 6 7 ; Tf?XOEb[om. B.]
&rralvruas [BNAQl'] i6. v. II ; K E L ~ & S [Kl8apas, K d a p e r s ,
1 Aq., rolxr ~ U T ~ C ~ K O Syrn.,
V ' r e l x e ~ T+ ~ U T ~ U K L ' Vsee
~;
Field, Swete. Deseth, quod Aquila transtulit parietem, Sym-
rnachus murum (OS 116 18 251 79). Apparently the only refer-
ence to Kir in Onom.
2676
 XIR-HERES
etc.1 aAxpoir in Jer. I n 2 K. @ does not recognize any place-
name (see note 2). Tg., Is. 15 I , renders Kir-Moab, > ~ ) f ? , ~ 3 1 3 ,
KZrakkZ of Moab, and Kir-hareseth, pnapn 111, ‘their strong
c i t y ’ ; Ptolemy (v. 175) has XapdKwpa; Steph. Byzant.
KaparcpBpa.
That the three names given above (to which we may
perhaps add KERIOTH, KIRJATH-HUZOTH) represent the
same place, is undeniable. When Jehoram of Israel
invaded Moab, Kir-haresheth (so MT) was the only
city which held out against the Israelites ( z K. 325-27) ;
obviously it was the capital, Le., Kir Moab.’ It was
famous for its vines. In Is. 1 6 7 mourning is anticipated
‘ for the grape-clusfeersof Kir-hareseth ’ (see FLAGON,
5 3);. and in 2 K. 3 2 5 , after the description of the
stopping up of the fountains and the felling of the fruit
trees, we should probably read, ‘ until there remained
not a cluster of its grapes in Kir-hareseth ’ (see Crit.
Bib. \. or. if the above reading of the name is correct.
I . I
‘in Kiriath HGdHshath.’ It stood near
2* situation’ the S. frontier of Moab ; the Arabic
geographers knew it under the name Kerak. Com-
manding as it did the caravan route from Syria to
Egypt and Arabia, its possession was hotly disputed by
the Franks and the Saracens. The former held it
from 1167 to 1188, when Saladin became master of
both Kerak and Shabek (6) hrs. from Petra). They
mistook Kerak for Petra, and established a bishop’s see
there under the title of Petra deserti.’ At an earlier
time Kerak had been the seat of a bishopric in the
province of PaZstina Tertiu (Reland, 705).
El-Kerak (see fig. in SBOT ‘Isa.,’ 169) is placed
on an extremely steep rocky hill, surrounded on all
sides by deep ravines. It is about ten miles from the
south-east corner of the Dead Sea, and some 3370
feet above sea-level. T o the N. and S. it is protected
by the mountains, which are passable only on the N.
by descending the Mejib (the great gorge of the
Arnon), which runs E. and W., and on the S. by the
wild gorge called the WBdy Kerak. T o the W. there is
the Dead Sea, since 1897 navigated by a mail steamer
which plies from the N. bank to el-Lisiin (see DEAD
S EA, § 5 ) , whmce a carriage road is to be constructed
(1897)to Kerak The city is still partly enclosed by a
wall with five towers. Originally there were but two
entrances, both consisting of tunnels in the rock. On
the southern side stands the citadel, a strong building
separated from the adjoining hill by a deep moat hewn
in the rock. It is a fine specimen of a Crusader’s
castle. Beneath it is a chapel, with traces of rude
frescoes. The present population of Kerak numbers
from 20,000 to 22,000,of whom about one-fourth are
Greek Christians. Their strong position, numbers,
and daring character made them till a few years ago
practically independent of the Turkish government.
Here Burckhardt was plundered, De Saulcy held to
ransom, and Tristram greatly harassed; Gray Hill’s
account of his own detention is vivid. ’
See Bnrckhardt, Syria, 387 : D e Saulcy, Journey round the
Dead Sea, 1 3 6 9 8 ; Lynch, E.rpedition, 2633, English ed. ;
Tristram Land of Moab, 7 0 8 . Gray Hill With the Beduins,
193-231 ;’Porter, Handbook, 1 ; Baed.’Pal.P) 178s
.. .
T. -.
K. C.
1 The statement of E. H. Palmer (quoted in Che. Pro#,%. Is.
1102) that the eminences on which the old Moabite towns stand
are ‘ invariably called HEritho by $he Arabs ’ does not help us.
Even if we substitute d for &, some distinctive name is re-
quired for the capital city.
2 Read n w y lp hw? ’It+$;! El5 111 (d?l y with
@Land Tg. Jon.). Klo. suggests ‘ p ‘@I3 9,a weak read-
ing, nor could MT’s ‘n ’?> I.I’J>N easily have arisen out of it.
M T gives n h g l’?a a’??: l % W ~ l ~ - z ‘ . e . , ‘until one left its
stones in the wall as potsherds’ (Gi. has ndin : but what could
this mean?). @B &os TOG ra7dLne;v TO%S hib’ous~o8coL,you
rCab‘qpp&ous [@A reads Kardansiv, ~ a b ’ q p i u o ~ s@l ;L 2ws T . ph
Ka/ahin&v hib’ov ;v i o i p p TCKTOYLK<C. vg., ita u t muri fantun2
ctzles remanerent-i.e., nb1.n.
3’ T h a t there is no connection between Kir Hareseth and the
>nip of Mesha’s inscription (Zl. 3 21 24) was pointed out
long ago by Noldeke (Inschr. des Kbin. h e m [‘70], SA).
2677 ‘ 2678
EIRJATH-JEARIM
KIRIATH (n!??), Josh. 1 8 2 8 RV. See KIRJATH,
KIRJATH-JEARIM. I (a).
KIRIATHAIM (PtnlTp), NU. 3 2 3 7 , RV, AV KIR-
JATIIAIM.
KIRIATH-ARIM (n’?? n!??),
E z r a 2 2 5 RV (AV
KIRJATH-ARIM)=Neh. ’I29 K IRJATH- JEARIM (AV).
KIRIATH-BAAL (5gs-n-’l?) RV, AV KIRJATH-
BAAL, Josh. 1560 1814. See K IRJATH- JEARIM, I.
KIRIATH-HUZOTH ( n i y n!??), N ~2239,.
. AV
K IR JATH-HUZOTH.
( I Esd. 5
KIRIATHIARIUS, RV KARIATHIARIUS
1 9 t : KApTA&lAp€lOC [B], K b p l A e l A p l O C
[AI, -p€IM
[L])= Neh. 7 2 9 KIRJATH-JEARIM.
KIRIATH - JEARIM. (P’?g’ni??), Neh. 7 29 RV,
AV KIRJATH-JEARIM.
KIRIOTH (ni,??), Am. 2 2 , RV KERIOTH (q.v.).
KIRJATH, RV K IRIATH (nil?),an imperfect place-
name in Josh. 1828. Di. reads p i y q y p , Kirjath-jearim ( L a p a p
[B], KaL TOALP rap[eIrp [AL]); but see KIRJATH-JEARIM, 5 I (a).
KIRJATHAIM,’ RV KIRIATHAIM(Ptn:?p), ‘ two
cities,’ or ‘place of a city’ ; on form of name see
NAMES 3 107 ; K A p l A e A l M [BAWL]).
I. A town on the Moabite plateau mentioned in
Nu. 32 37 (Kapiaieap [B], - L U ~ ’ E [L]) ~ and Josh.
1 3 1 9 , as having lain within the former dominions of
Sihon, and as having been assigned by Moses to
Reuben. Mesha, in his inscription (1. IO), calls it p i p .
and says that he ‘ built ’ or fortified it ; it is represented
as Moabite also in Jer. 48 (Jer. 481 Kapaeaip [N”],
KapiaOaiy [kPa. (?)I,23 K U ~ L U O W [N]) andby Ezekiel (Ezelc.
25 9, a6hews mpa6ahauufas [BAQ]). In OS (108 27,
269 I O ) it is described as a Christian village called
Coraitha or Kapraea IO R. m. W. of MHdebH. This
is no doubt the modern KuraiyHt, but whether Coraitha
is not rather KERIOTH (4.v.) is disputed. Kiriathaini
gave its name to Shaveh-kirjathaim or the ‘plain of
Kiriathaini’ (Gen. 145). See MOAB.
2. See KARTAN.
KIRJATH-ARBA ( q m~ y ) , RV KIRIATH-
ARBA , Josh. 1415 etc., anearlier nameof H EBRON (q.v..
I 1).
According to Winckler (Gfii. 39) Kirjath-arba means ‘city
of the god Arba“; some god IS intended whose name was
written with the cuneiform sign for ‘four’ (analogously Beer-
sheba = ‘well of the god Shebd ’). Long before him, Tomkins
had proposed the same view (Lzye of A6raham). Winckler
bringsthese names into connection with a lunar myth of Abraham
and Jacob (GI 2 48 57). The original Kirjath-arha, according
to him, was not Hebron, but a t or near Dan-i.e., in the far
north (41, 49). If, however, p n in Gen. 87 14 is an error for
niiN2, p n in Gen. 23 2 may he an error (of P?) for ni2irl. It
was probably Rehoboth that was the ‘city of four’ (see REHO-
BOTH), at least if y>iu, ‘four,’ is correct and is not really a
corruption of njxni, ‘ REHOBOTH.’ T. K. C.
KIRJATH-HUZOTH, RV KIRIATH-HUZOTH (n’?p
nix? ; rrohs~c ~ U A Y A E U N [BAFLI-ie., Kerioth
Hazeroth, ‘cities of villages’), the place to which
Balak took Balaam first of all on his arrival in Moab,
according to the Yahwist (J), and where this writer
probably made him deliver his first prophecy, Nu. 2Z39
(with which v. 40 [E] plainly conflicts).
The name (‘city of streets’ or of ‘bazaars’), if correctly read
in MT, indicates a place of importance. Very possibly the
Yahwist means the city called in Am. 2 2 Jer.4824 41 Kerioth.
Note that Amos speaks of the ‘palaces’ of Kerioth. The Elohist
has instead ‘the city of Moab, a t the farthest border’ (u. 36).
KIRJATR- JEARIM (P’R’n!??, ‘ city of dense
copse’ ? - K b p l b e l b p [ € ] l M [BAL]), a ci,ty O f . Judah,
in the Gibeonite group (Josh. 9 17).
1 In the list of towns in Palestine against which SoEenk
(Shishak) warred, occurs the name ffan’tnz. Muller (As. u.
Bur. 166 n. 3) would emend this to Karfm (1 and 1 beng as
easily interchanged in Eg. as in Heb.), and identify with the
Moabite Kirjathaim.
 KIR JATH-JEARIM
The earliest record of the name (if we suppose it to have been
correctlv , .
’ transmitted) is Drohablv -
_ lude.
” 18 12. See also Ter.
26 zo (rca IpLaBcLapeip [HI), Josh. 9 17 (rrohsrs L a i c ‘ ,
1. Names. [B], r.-p [AFL] 1814 f: (v. 14 K a p l a h a p f r v [B]),
52 f:
I Ch. 2 -50 . _ (a. 53 aohers raoip [Bl, KapraBiaeLp
..
~~
[A] om. L) 135 (rrahcs ~ a p a ~[BNAL]), p 2 Ch. 1 4 Ezra225.
( ~ R J A T H - A R I M [RV KIRIATH-ARIM, raprw0rapOp (B)] should
he ‘Kirjath-jearirn’); Neh. i z 9 (xapL8Lapeip [Bl). Kir;ath-
Baal (sp-n:l?; KapLaBpaaA [BAL]), and Baalah, with the cx-
planation, “that is, Kirjath-jearim,’ occur in Josh. 18 14 ; Josh.
15960; I Ch. 136 (& a d h ~ u S a u r ~BNA). S, Baalahalone in Josh.
1510 (herq and in v. 9 , @ has ‘Baal’ except in v. TO O B
~ c p a a h ) . Baale- Judah,’ without explanation, occurs in z S. 6 2
(on @,see below); hut Dozy, Kuenen, We., Dr., Ki. read
‘Baal- ; Klo., Bu. ‘ Baalath-’.
Evidently the earliest name of the place included the
divine name Baal ; but how came the same place to be
afterwards called Kirjath-jearim? It is not a super-
fluous inquiry. The most obvious explanation-viz, ,
that, in the course of religious progress, ‘ Baal ’ came
to be discredited as a divine name-is insufficient. W e
should have expected some better divine name to be
substituted for ’ Baal,’ not the reconstruction of the
place-name on an entirely different plan. Moreover,
we do not find that Baal was entirely removed from
the southern place-names (Baalah, Josh. 1529 ; Bealoth,
Josh. 1524, both in P). The first step towards a
solution of the problem is to show ( u ) that the original
name of the place was Baal- or Baalath- (hag) gibeah-
i . e . , ‘ Baal of the hill,’-and (a) that the full name under
which the Deity was worshipped in this Gibeah ( ‘ hill ’)
may have been Baal-yarib ( ‘ Baal contends ’).
(u) I n I S. ? I (EV) the ark is said to have been brought into
‘the house of Abinadab in the hill’ (WJ:?)
: cp the same phrase
in 2 S . 6 3 RV (AV RVmg. have ‘in’ Gibeah’). I t looks as if,
in the original writing, ” p i , ‘Giheah,’ was the name of thq
town where Abinadah lived ; that the description ‘ on the hill
refers to ‘the hill on which the town was built’ (H. P. Smith)
is surely improbable. Near the latter of these passages (z S. Bzj
@ has the strange rendering diib T&Y d p x 6 v ~ w uI o d a ;u [ ~
dvapLu6L [TOO povu091; two readings are coinbiaed, viz.,
”J?”: ?:’! and ”?,’.?I [nln’ly>, the latter of which is mis-
rendered and really means ‘to Baalath of the hill.’ Probably
the la& reading is the original one (see Klo. on 2 S. tiz);
observe the Pasek after q y r , which warns us that the text is
doubtful. Nor must we overlook the close of the list of the
cities of Judah in Josh.1828, which runs thus in AV ‘and
Jehusi, which is Jerusalem,, Giheath, (an?) Kirjath) [RV
KIRIATHI. The current opinion is that Giheath means
‘Gibeap of Saul ’and that ‘Kirjath’ is an error for ‘Kirjath-
jeanm. But i; is more in accordance with the analogy of
textual errors elsewhere to suppose that ‘ Kirjath ’ is an editor’s
correction ofGiheath, and that the original readingwas ‘ Gibeath-
jearim,’ though ‘-jearini’ itself may turn out to be incorrect.
(6) We have reached the conclusion that an early name for
t h e ,place afterwards called (at any rate by scribes) Kirjath-
jearim was ‘Baal of the hill.’ Ando,gy entitles ns to assume
that the local Baal had a fuller title describing his chief
attribute: cp Baal-hanan, El-iashib, etc. The second part of
this title ought to underlie the second part of the name Kirjath-
jearim, for of course such a name as Baal-jearirn (Baal of the
woods) would be contrary to analogy. We can hardly doubt
what that second part was ; i t was either jarim ( p i r i m ) or
(more probably) jarib ( y E ~ i d ) . d and nr are interchangeable ;
c p tapecp (PBB Hos. 5 13 106) for the Heb. >l;, ydr& ‘Baal
contends’ was the name; cp 2’??7:, Jehojarih, and h 21;
‘Let the Baal contend with him,’ Judg. 632. Our further
conclusion is that Kirjath-jearim is a late distortion of an older
name, Gibeath-baal-yarib, which was current side by side with
Baal hag-gibeah. It is hardly necessary to suppose that Har-
;s of co<rse a possible view.
- :. hut this
iearim (Tosh. 15 IO) is a distortion of Har-haal-iarib
According to Wiiickler (GZ 2 m4), ‘ Kirjath-jearim,’ or ‘city
of forests,’ is ‘nothing but a half-suggesting, half-concealing re-
production’ of the name Baal-Tamar (Judg. 2033) which name
(of mythological origin) was, he thinks, converted’into Baal(e)-
judah ( z S. 6 2) in the time of David, when this locality ceased
to he Benjamitish, and became Judahite. See, however, JWDAH,
$3, T AMAR.
In identifying the place which we may conventionally
call Kirjath-jearim, we must be careful not to lay equal
, 2. Identifica- stress on all the biblical data. We
must not, for instance, be too confident
tions. that Kirjath-jearim and Beth-shemesh
1 nyzin was corrupted into ”>in, the y having dropped out ;
this became indistinct, and was misread ;nln, to which * was
preilxed by conjecture.
2679
R I R JATH-JEARIM
were near one another. The description of Jos. (Ant.
vi. 1 4 , Niese), yelroua ~ b h wr?jsBSBVs K&VS (Naber,
TOTS BVBuaphrs), appears to be suggested by the
narrative in I S . Sf., as it now stands, and cannot
be treated as authoritative; Josephus was not writ-
ing a handbook of geography. Nor is it at all
necessary that the site of Kirjath-jearim should be
in a wooded or bushy neighbourhood, jem-im being
probably only an artificial distortion of ‘ jtirib.’ The
clearest and most certain of all the data is the statement
in Josh. 9 17, that the dependent cities of the Gibeonites
were Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim. Now
GIBEON, C HEPHIRAH, and BEEROTH (q4.v.) are
securely identified, and Kirjath-jearini must not be
placed too far o f ffrom the other members of the group.
If in addition to this we require a city on the border of
Jqdah and Benjamin, there is, it would seem, only one
site which is available, and that is eZ-Kurya or hZuryet
el-‘Ennd1 (city of grapes). Eusebius places KapraO-
m p p at the ninth milestone from Jerusalem towards
Diospolis or Lydda. This suits the position of Karyet
el-‘Enab, which is about three hours from Lydda. The
high authority of Robinson supports this view. The
nearness of the mountain Neby Samwil (see M IZPEH),
which Eusebius expressly states ( OSz) 278 96 ; cp
13813) to be near Kijath-jearim, is no slight con-
firmation. The village of el-Karya is but a poor one ;
there is a Latin church of great interest dedicated
originally to St. Jeremiah, owing to a mistaken identi-
fication of the place with Anathoth. Prof. G. A. Smith
( H G 225 $ ) speaks with somewhat more hesitation
than the present writer thinks necessary. For the
rival site (Kh. ‘Emnzd) near BEt ‘Aciib, the principal
argument is its greater nearness to Beth-shemesh
(‘Erma is about 4 miles E. of ‘Ain Shems). This,
however, is hardly a n argument for critics to use (see
j
A RK , § 5 ) , and, on the other hand, Kh. ‘ErmSL is too
near Zorah and Eshtaol to suit the narrative in Judg.
18 1.f. ,z and also in the wrong direction (S. of Keslii).
Moreover, for el-Karya it may be urged (but with-
out laying much stress upon it) that this village
marks the point of departure of the rough bushy
country3 (yy:, see FOREST, 3 ) ; hence the later name,
‘city of dense copse,’ was not an inappropriate one.
That it fits the position of Kirjath-jearini on the N.
border of Judah and Benjamin, is also beyond refuta-
tion, though different views as to the line of deniarca-
tion are no doubt tenable.
The following is Conder’s description of the new site a t
Kh. ‘Ernrd.
‘ The surrounding hills are more thickly clothed, even at the
present day, with dense copse, than is any part of the district in
which the town can be sought. The ruin is situate on the southern
brink of the great valley which broadens Into the valley of
Sorek, and it is about four miles E. of the site pf Beth-shemesh
thus agreeing with the words of Josephus. According t;
Conder the boundary line W. of ‘ErmB can be drawn in a
satisfactory manner (see PEFQ, ’79, p. gS$, and cp Henderson,
‘78, P. 1 9 6 8 3
Cp H. A. Poels Le sancfuaire de Kiriathgkarirn (Louvain,
‘94). Kirjath-jeaAm and Gibeon are here thought to have been
on opposite sides of the same hill; their common sanctuary
being on the summit of the hill.
When Kirjath-jearim became an Israelitish city is
uncertain. It must, however, have been at least partly
3. Biblical inhabited by Judahites in the time of
David ( 2 S.6 2 8 ; C ~ A R K5).
, In later
references* times it produced a prophet in the style
a
of Jeremiah, who fell victim to jehoiakim’s tyranny
1 The latter name is said to occur first in the fifteenth century.
A still more modern name is Abii &ish (from a sheikh so called,
who lived at the beqinning of this century, and left a name of
fear). In support 6f this identification cp Clermont-Ganneau,
ArclrreoIogicaC Researches, ii. (‘99).
2 Cp MAHANEH-DAN.
3 ‘There are wanrs on every side almost and somevery
impracticable pnes N. and SW. of it’ (Thdmson, LB, ed.
’94, p. 666). Aujourd‘hui encore on est frappe de l’aspect
different des deux versants : i3 ce point precis de maigres taillis
commencent, qui ne demanderaient qu’i grandir’ (Lagrange,
Revue didhqre, ‘94, p. 140).
2680
 KIRJATH-SANNAH
(Jer. 2620-24; see URIJAH). One can imagine that the
name of the city (was it Kirjath-Jarib, ‘city of the
[divine] adversary ’ ?) was not without its influence on
Urijah‘s sensitive mind. Another apparent reference is
a purely imaginary one. Though Wellhausen and
Duhm render, in Ps. 1326-
We have heard that it is in Ephrathah,
I n the Field of Jaar we found it,-
and explain the ‘ Field of Jaar ’ as ‘ the country district
nearKirjath-jearim’ (We.),or as a synonymforthatplace-
name (Du.), a close examination of the text shows that
this interpretation is improbable (see Che. F3.r’)). It is
true, however, that a recollection of the story of the
fortunes of the ark, and of a passage in Chronicles
( I Ch. 250), according to which that town was founded
by descendants of Ephrathah, the wife of Caleb, enabled
a late editor to draw a semblance of meaning from an
indistinctly written and corrupt passage. On the
obscure notice of Kirjath-jearim in I Ch. 2505zf., see
SHOBAL. T. K. C.
KIRJATR-SANNAH(;l;e-n!?p ; r r o ~ l crpaM-
MATON [BAL] ; jSudsAQa ; CARCATHSZNNA),
called also Debir (Josh. 1549), is a most problematical
name.
There is no saiisfactory explanation of the name ~ J D ,and
no apparent reason why an old Canaanite name distinct from
Kirjath-sepher should be mentioned in the list. Since
precedes it is natural to suppose that njo is a scribal error for
130,and that we should restore KIRJATH-SEPHER (cp Q5 Pesh.).
Sayce explains ‘ city of instruction,’ and identifies
with Bit’sZni, said to he mentioned on the Amarna
tablets (Sayce, K P ( 2 )5 73, Crit. Mon. 54 n.), and situ-
ated W. of Gath. Wi., however, givzs bit(?)-sa-a-ni, and
leaves it untranslated. See E PHRAIM, Q 7, n. 4.
T. K. C.
KIRJATH-SEPHER (lFD’n,Jp, as if ‘ house of
books’; nohis [rwv] ypapparov [BAL] Josh.15 1 5 8 . tapbar-
uw$ap, noh~sypappa~ov[Bl, noh. yp. [AL], Judg. 1 x 1 ;also called
KIRJATH-SANNAH (Xpn:??, TOALE ypappa~wv[BAL]), Josh.
154gtrand D E B I R ( T ? ~
[Judg. I Ch.], l>T, Gapeip [BAL]), Josh.
151549.
A place in the hill-country of Judah, mentioned
between Dannah and Anab (Josh. 154g), formerly in-
habited by Anakim (Josh. l l n r ) , and the seat of a king
(Josh. 1039 1213). In Josh. 1517 and Judg. 113 its
conquest is ascribed to O THNIEL [q.v.], in Josh. 103Sf.
to Joshua. P includes it among the cities of refuge
(Josh. 2115 I Ch. 658).
I t has often been assumed (e.g by Quatremsre, 1842) that the
name implies the presence of a d r a r y of some kind in the place
(cp the Babylonian city Si para1 [?I)., According to Sayce, if
was ‘the literary centre of t i e Canaanites in the S. of Palestine,
whilst Debir --i e. ‘the sanctuary,’ was ‘the temple wherein its
library was e)staLkihed’ (Pat. Par. Z Z O J ) . As Sayce himself,
however, following Max Muller (As. u. Eur. 174) records, the
form attested by the Papyrus Anastasi I. is k&t+pa*?,
perhaps=lrJbn;l?, i e . , ‘House of the scribe.’ That the
Canaanitish archives were centralized at Debir is most im-
probable. If this were the case, Debir must have been the
religious capital of Canaan ; hut of this we have no evidence
whatever. Its name may be wrongly vocalized ; 2 ‘sanctuary’ is
not a probable name for a city. Kirjath-sepher may be an
alteration of some half-Hebrew name, such as Khyath sejhdr,
‘enclosed city’$ (cp ERECH).
Various identifications have been proposed, but only
one has much plausibility. First proposed by Knobel
(note on Josh. 15154g), it has been warmly advocated
by Conder (PBFQ, ’75,p. 53),who says that the modern
e$-Doheriyeh (or rather ed-DEhaxiyeh), a village four
or five hours SW. of Hebron, is the only site which
fulfils all the biblical requirements. The objections
are three in number. ( I ) Petrie (according to Sayce,
1 According to a popular etymology, see Sayce, H%. Led.
168 n. : Del. Par. 210.
2 Moore (Proc. Am. Or. Soc., Oct. ’go, p. Ixx) proposed
l?p71”1,7, ‘frontier- town,’ but he has now withdrawn this
(ly”.27). Geographically, such a name would have been very
suitable.
3 Ass. su$drrc=‘an enclosure with walls.’
E6 2681
KISH
in Hastings’ DB 1 5 7 8 ~ found
) no traces at ed-Dzhariyeh
of anything older than the Roman period. ( 2 ) The
equivalence of the names Dghariyeh and Dehir (as if
‘ the back side’) supposed by Knobel and Conder is
fanciful in the extreme. ( 3 ) The passage (Judg. 1I X - ~ ~
Josh. 15 15-19)on which most reliance is placed, because
it may seem to point to the beautiful springs about
7 miles N. of ed-QHhariyeh (see ACHSAH), is partly
corrupt. See K EILAH.
The question now presents itself whether not only
Kirjath-sepher but also Debir may not be incorrect.
Place-names are liable to snffer both by corruption and
by abbreviation. May not ~ 2 1 Debir,
, be a corruption
of i n n ‘ Tabor,’ and this, like the same word in Judg.
818 (cp also THEBEZ in Judg. 950), be a corruption of
Beth-Sur? That such an important city as ‘Debir,
that is, Kirjath-sepher,’ must have been, should be no-
where referred to in subsequent history, is scarcely
credible. W e know that it was situated in a dry spot,
and that it was not far from Hebron. This description
applies to the famous city of BETH-ZUR [p.v.] which
occupies an impregnable position on a Tell 4& m. N.
from Hebron. It is also in favour of Beth-zur that it
stands between Keilah and Beth-tappuah, the two
places which (if the suggestion made under KEILAH
is correct) Caleb presented to his daughter-in-law
Achsah. That Kirjath-sepher is the true name of
the city so-called is difficult to believe. It is possi6Ze.
however, that Debir, or perhaps rather Beth-zur, had
an additional descriptive title, Kirjath-sephiir, ‘ inclosed
city.’ It is no objection to this theory that the names
Debir and Beth-zur both occur in the list in Josh. 15 ;
such double mentions occur elsewherein P s geographical
lists. See also JABEZ.
The Anab of Josh. 1549 now becomes more uncertain.
W. M. Miiller’s suggestion of ‘Anngbeh, SW. of Lydda, the
Betoannahe yf the Onom., deserves consideration. T. K . c.
KISH ( V P , ‘ lord, husband ’ ? cp KISHON,KUSHA-
IAH ; K(E)IC [BAL]):
I. h. Abiel, a Benjamite of the clan of Becher ( I S.
1021,crit. emend., see BECHER, MATRI, and cp BEN-
J A M I N , § 9, ii. [B]), the father of Saul ( I S. 91, etc.,
in I Ch. 936 K reads K L P ; Acts 1321, AV CIS). In
M T of 2 S. 2114 his home is placed at Z ELA, but the
text is plainly corrupt. The clan of Becher (the Bicrites)
appear to have lived at Gibeah of Benjamin (see
GIBEAHi., 3). Kishs brother, Ner, the father of Abner
( I S. 14 50 f., but see N ER ) is strangely represented in
I Ch. 8 33 ( = 9 39) as his father, but the text is in dis-
order ; ‘ Ner ’ should probably he ‘ Nadab ‘ =Abinadab,
which appears to be a second name of the father of
Kish, a rival of ‘Abiel’ or ‘Abibaal’$ (see N ER).
The names may have been already mutilated and cor-
rupt in the (late) document upon which the Chronicler
is dependent. W e meet with Saul’s father again in
the fictitious genealogy of the Benjamite Mordecai,
Esth. 2 5 ( K [ E ] L U U L O U [BKA]) 1 1 2 (CISAI,RV KISEUS;
id. BKALaB). See GENEALOGIES i., 6 ; MORDECAI ;
and cp ESTHER, § I , end.
P. The occurrence of the name in Levitical genealogies is of
no historical interest. Kish b. Mahli represents an important
onof theMerarite Levites(1 Ch. 23 Z I J 2429); Kishi b.
Abdi is the father of the famous Merarite E THAN (I Ch. 644
[=9]; see also KUSHAIAH), and the same designation attaches to
1 The phonetic interchange of 1and n is not unexampled ; c p
the variant readings i y and ny in Ezek. 224, 7n.q and nn.q in
Is. 66 17.
2 [The interpretation susgested follows RSPI 170,n. 4, and
Wi. AN21 62, n. I. The name is probably the same as the old
Ar. divine name Kais (Nab. . q q , nu>$, which is found in
Ar. proper names,’ either alone (cp We. Heid.(? 67, also Sin.
p>>) or in compounds (e.g., the well-known Imrau’lkais). I t
is hlausible to connect the name with the first element of the
Ass. compound Ku-u-xu-ia-da’on a contract tablet (Peiser,
Z A TW17 3438 [‘g7]), p,erhaps also with the Edomite Kaaus, o0)p
(see EDOM, 5 12). Peiser (Z.C.) identifies v’p ( ~ p with
) the
second element in Elkosh (see ELKOSHITE). s. A. c.]
3 That Abiel (T S. 0 I) is an alteration of Abibaal is pointed
:ut by Marq. (Fund.IS), who refers to the fragmentary name
Baal’ in I Ch. 830 (936). c p BEELfADA, E LIADA.
2682
 KISHI
a prominent Merarite of the time of Hezekiah Ch. 29 12).
(2
Evidently the names Kish and Abdi are derived from names
in I Ch. 8 30 (9 36). We need not correct Abdi into Ahinadah ;
the Chronicler may already have found the corrupt form Abdon,
whence Ahdi, in his document (see above). T. K. C.
KISHI (r*ce), I Ch. 6 4 4 [ z g ] , see KISH, 2 ; KUSH-
AIAH.
KISHION (fi@?,cp ]\Wy?, and see ~KISHON,
end ;
KEICWN PI, K B C I W N , KICIWN [AI, KBCIWN [Ll),
a Levitical city in the territory of Issachar (Josh. 1920
2128 [where AV Kishon 'I). The parallel passage
I Ch. 657 [p] has KEDESH ( 1 L i l ~ ) , which most critics
( e ; @ , Kittel) treat as a corruption of Kishion.
1 he true reading, however, in Josh. and Ch. must surely be
]?dip. Whether this Kidgun is an echo of Gadaguna, which is
the name of a principality mentioned in Am. Tab. 267 and
therefore'of the Kitsuna of the Palestinian name-list of ThAtmes
III.,1 may be left open.
Miihlau identifies Kishion (Kidgun) with Tell KeisZn,
6 m. SE. of Acre. Kishion being in Issachar, we
shall do better to adopt Conder's identification of Kedesh
(Kidgun) with Tell Abii KudCs (see K EDESH, 2).
T.K. C.
KIsHON (fid'?; KB[I]CWN [BKARTL]), a torrent
famous as the scene of the overthrow of the Canaanite
coalition under Sisera (Judg. 47 521 ; cp PS. 839 [..I,
AV Kison; ~ l c c i [A]),
j and also of the destruction
of the prophets of Baal by Elijah ( I K. 1840). It is
also called the ' waters of Megiddo ' (Judg. 5 19).
The Kishon (mod. eZ-Muka&z', ' cut ') flows through
the plain of Jezreel, nearly due NW. between Samaria
and Galilee, and enters the Mediterranean in the lower
extremity of the bay of 'AkkZ, on the E. of H a i k It
is fed by the waters coming from Carmel, Gilboa,
Hermou, and Tabor. Its exact source is uncertain;
according to some it rises on the W. side of Mt. Tabor
(cp Jer. O S 2 ) 11022, who speaks of its being near
Tabor), whilst others prefer to place it near Jenin (see
E NGANNIM ).
T h e battle in which Sisera was defeated must have
taken place in the winter. In summer the Kishon is
a diminutive and insignificant stream, but in winter it
overflows, and floods the surrounding country, turning
it into a morass. The fate of Sisera's army finds a
parallel in the battle between the French and Turks
near Tabor on April 16th, 1799, when many of the
latter were drowned while attempting to pass the
morass in their flight (cp Burck. Syr. 339).
T h e district of the Kishon in olden times enjoyed an
especial reputation for sanctity. North of it flowed the
rivers Adonis (Nahr IbrZhim) and Belus (Nahr NdmBn),
both famous for their sacred character ; and Mt. Carmel
itself was a sacred mountain. Hence, just as the above-
mentioned rivers are named after gods, it is very probably
that the Kishon may derive its name, not from its
1 These two names are identified by W. M. Muller, Sayce,
an$ Flinders Petrie (Hist. of Eg. 2323).
2 In Judg. 5 21 the phrase 'the torrent Kishon ' is followed
immediately by the difficult words n'ql,? s!lJ.According to
an improbable, but well-supported, ancient view, it was the
name of a torrent distinct from the Kishon &e~pC,@our ~ a S q u [ e ] ~ p There is a strange reference to Kittim in Nu. 24 24 (not very
[A Theod., perhaps thinking of Kedesh in Issachar, cp 'waters
of Megiddo,' ZI. 19 ; so Klo. Gesch. 123, adopts Vel?,it., the
planet-gods viewed as givers of rain] ; mz8vpcLp [L] ; fowem
Cadumim [Vg.] cp fesh. and Ar.; Kauuovwu [Aq. see Field
fd Zoc.]). AmoAg modern explanation5 may he m h o n e d
Stream of antiquity' (EV Bachmann cp @E x' l p x a i w v and
the paraphrase of Targ.): ?z) ' Onwarh-rushing stream'(& A.
Cooke, Hist. andsongof DeJoovah, 48 I Ew., stream of boldness
in attack'-a primitive personification) ; (3) 'stream of en-
counters ' (Briggs, Kohler, after Ahulw.) ; (4) ' stream of the
holy (Le., divine ones)' (Klost. Marq cp. Symm. ciy~wv +$papa in Ex. [for 8 3 [7 281 see Field], iyuaTCh(e)rppa [BAF],
+pay). For a fifth view for wh&h @A h q m i p may also he
referred to see KADESH'2. Of these ( I ) (3) and (5) may he'
classed as historical the' plain of the Kihon' having been a
great battlefield, froh the time of Thotmes 111. onwards whilst
( 2 ) and ( 5 ) have such appropriateness as is involved in refer-
ence to the circumstances of Uis battle, in the one case to the
swollen condition of the torrent, in the other to the bloodshed
which dyed the waters.
2683
KNIFE
' bending ' course (Ar. &&a), but from the old god w*p
(Kish?)=Ar. Kais. So W R S ReL Sem.PI 170, n. 4 ;
see K ISH , n.
2. (Josh. 21 z8), RV KISHION@.u.). S. A. C.
KISS (Pd3 ;
See SALUTATIONS.
@iAso, K A T A @ I A ~ W , @IAHMA).
KITE. I . (TI:&, ' q y a h ; perhaps onomatopoetic,
cp Di. Lev. ad 6'oc.; ~ K T L Y , y6+) Lev. 11 146 Dt. 1413' and
Job 287t, where AV renders by V;LTURE, RV always F&ON
(q.v.).
2. ("7, d8'8h; i.e., n;?; 9 9 ;Lev. I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ) , A V V U L T U R E .
The Red Kite, Milvus iclinus, is common in Palestine in winter
but during the summer mainlygives place to the Black Kit;
M. migrans (M. ate?), which returns from the S. ; this species
is less harmful to poultry, etc., lives more on garhageand fish
and is a welcome guest. M. rPgyjtius the Egyptian kite, alsh
occurs but less abundantly' as doe; Zlanas cueruleus the
b l a c k - h g e d kite, a singulariy beautiful bird which strays'from
Africa.
3. (a;?, dayy8h; n h , dayycith: Dt. 1413 Is. 3415t), AV
V ULTURE, VULTURES. See above (2). A. E. S
KITHLISH, RV CHITHLISR (t&na ; MAAXWC
[BA], KaeaAslc [L]), apparently a place in the low-
land of Judah (Josh. 15 40).
Prohably the name is a corruption of Do&, L AHMAS ( g . ~ . ) ,
which precedes. The geographical lists of P are sometimes
expanded by the insertion of variants or corruptions.
T. K. C.
KITRON (filpp; KEAPWN [BI,]. xeB. [AI), a n
unidentified place in the nominal territory of Zebulun,
tributaryto Israel (Judg. 1 3 0 ) . From a comparison with
Josh. 1 9 15, it appears that K ATTATH (rather perhaps
Katrath) was the same place as Kitron. See K ARTAH.
A Talmudic doctor (Me6 6 a) identifies Kitron with Zippori
ie., Sepphoris (the modern Saffuriyeh ?), and the etymologicd
Midrash attached t o the latter name gives no adequate reason
for rejecting this view which may be correct. At any rate
there is no finer site'than Sepphoris in the neighhourhood
marked out by the context (see Rob. BR 3 201 ; Baed.W 275).
KITTIM, AV except in Gen. and Chron. ; less
correctly CHITTIM (O'??, so usually, but n';!? in Jer. 2 IO in
Bab. hlSS and Kt. Palest. of Is.2312, and in Bab. MSS of
Ezek. 276, &which last the Palestinian reading is Q?; @
reads X C ~ T E L V ,Ezek. 276 [,el; hut X e r r i c p , W [AQ], cp Jer. 2 IO
[BAQ], I Ch 1 7 [L], I Macc. 1 I [ANV] ; -v, Jer. Z.C. [N] : ~q7ror,
Gen. l o 4 [ A i ' I Ch. J 7 tA"vid.1; K m o i , Gen. IC. [DELI, I Ch.
2.c. [BA.]. cp [for X ~ T - K L T - , with various terminations] Is.
23 I 12 [ K ~ T L ~ AI L ~ Dan. 1130 [Theod. BAQ 1 Q" prefixes X ~ T -
7 w p , for 87 s;e delow], Num. 24 24 I Macc. '8 5. The Phcen.
form is n 1 or yq3).
One of the sons of Javan (Gen. 104 I Ch. 17). Also
in six other passages-none of them very early (on
Is. 231 12 see G EOGRAPHY, § 14). In Ezek. 276 we find
o'*na
... y - i . e . , Cyprus and other islands of the Mediter-
ranean, among the traders of Tyre. The identification
with Cyprus in all these is satisfactory (see CYPRUS).
The name Kittim is usually derived from the Phrznician
city Kition (Larngka), on the SE. shore of the island.
According to Max Muller, however (As. 11. Bur. 345),
it isa loan-word, originally= Ghattites, Khuttites= gitt2,
Hittites. From this the city Kit(t)ion is supposed to
have derived its name ; this implies that Kit(t)ion was
not a Phcenician city.
early ; see BALAAM,$ 6). In Jer. 2 I O P';?? is used for the
western regions in general (opposed to Kedar the East), and
P'?? in Dan. 1130 (see Bevan) has a speciiio reference to the
(3
Romans (@ K a i < ~ O U U L 'wpayoi [87]) as in I Macc. 1 I (AV
CHETTIIM, RV CHITTIM~S 5 (AV CIT~MS) it is explicitly used
of the Macedonians. F. B.
KNEADING-TROUGH (n
n y ~ , ' p a n ' ? ; Ex.83[T~8]1234,alsoDt.28517tRV; BEFL
KaTCX. [L] in Dt.). See BREAD, B I ; C OOKING UTENSILS, $2.
KNEELING (y??
: ronyrreTcw). See SALUTA-
TIONS.
KNIFE. Five words are rendered knife in EV :
I . nS3~.,nra'~~~Z~U0*Cxacpa[ADL], pop$aIa [Bl,but in Prov.
2684
 KNOP
~ o p k[BC] u ~ o p i WAD,
s Gen. 22 6 I O Judg. 19 29 Prov. 30 141,
in Gen. add Judg. in the special sense of a sacrificial knife.
The root $ 3 means~ not only ‘to eat,’ but ‘ t o tear in pieces’.l
cp Ass. akaZu, whence makaltu, ‘an instrument chiefly used dy
Mag-ians’ (Del. Ass. H W B 56 a).
2. llfl,@re4 so in Josh. 5 2 I K. lSz8, where implements
of cutting are meant. SWORDrq.u.1 or ‘dagger’ is the usual
rendering. Cp WEAPONS.
3. ’I?!,Mar Uer. 3623). The Za‘ar ($up6u) of the scribe
here spoken of is elsewhere rendered ‘razor ’ (see BEARD).
4. I-?@,, Sakkilt (an Aramaic word), Prov. 23 za,hut the text
is corrupt. Read probably ;i>BJg )Jg! [3pl-’?,‘for thou wilt
endanger thyself by thy folly ’ (Che.).
5. &p:, ma&ZZZ#him (Ezra 1gt). The traditional Jewish
interpretation is ‘knives’ (so Middath, 4 7 ;‘Rashi . Saadia so
Vg.). This is suggested by Syr. +iZZ#hLi knife,’ but is ’un-
known to @ (nap~XhaypQua [AI, -pduaL [Ll,’aapgypba [B]) and
to I Esd. 2 13 (edurar=ninnQ; EV ‘censers’), and is against
the context. The true reading must be nin):, ‘dishes’(Che.;
cp 2 Ch. 35 13) ; the corruption was produced by assimilation
to the preceding ~ S N ,cp Syr. of I Esd.
Thus, of the above words, two are corruptions, one
(3) refers to the sharp cutting instrument of the barber
or the writer, and one ( 2 ) is confined to ritual (and to
warlike) uses. The remaining word ( I ) may be used
either generally or in a special sense. The ritual knives
spoken of in Josh. 5 2 were ‘knives of flint ’ ( p y ni2y,
see AVmS and RV, and cp 79, ‘ the flint,’ Ex. 425). and
knowing how conservative of old forms ritual is, we
may safely assume that the flint or other hard mineral
(obsidian perhaps 2) used for ritual purposes was in
more remote ages in general use for cutting. T o have
used metal knives, in sacred functions, would have
seemed irreverent (cp H ANDICRAFTS, 2). It is note-
worthy, however, that, from motives of ceremony,
flint knives continued to be used in daily life in Egypt
l o n g after 2000 B.C. (see EGYPT, 5 36).
Some idea of the various forms of knives used by
the Hebrews may be gathered from Bliss’s sketches
of the flint implements found at Tell el-Hesy (Mo2md
of Many Cities,. 37, r24) and from the specimens of
cutting instruments. of the ancients which are still pre-
served, or are fi@red on the monuments. See the
Romanand Egyptian instruments in Kitto (s.v. ‘ Knife,’
nos. I and z),and Rich, Dict., r.v. ‘ culter,’ ‘ cultellus,’
and cp S ICKLE, P RUNING HOOK.
That knives were used by the Hebrews during a
meal has been inferred from Prov. 23 2 (cp MEALS, § I O ) ;
but this passage, being very probably corrupt (see
above, 4), cannot safely be appealed to. The food
perhaps was brought to table already cut up ; the flat
cakes of bread were not cut but broken (Is. 58 7, etc.).
Herod, however, we are told, was wont to use a knife
tu pare an apple (Jos. B/ i. 337 ; Ant. xvii. 7 I).
KNOP. For kaphtir (llnb>),Ex. 25 31, etc., see
C ANDLESTICK, 2 ; for the pc&i’im (P’Ypb) of I K.
6 18 7 24,f see GOURD (end), TEMPLE, SEA (B RAZEN ).
KOA @\?; y x o y ~[B, Symm., Theod. ; ! precedes],
hoyh [A], KOYE [QI; ; Vg. Princ@cs [CP Aq.
~ o p v @ a r o r ] ) a, people mentioned with Pekod and
Shoa as contributing warriors to the Babylonian army
(Ezek. 2323). Identified by Delitzsch (Par. 236) with
the Kutu (or Ku, whence the Hebrew form), a nomadic
people E. of the Tigris but N. of Elam. Very early men-
tion occurs of a ‘ mighty king of Guti ’ (see T IDAL), and
somescholars think that Guti or Gutium (whichrepresents
the same name) has found its way in a mutilated form
into Gen. 141 (see GOIIM, but cp SODOM). T. K . C.
KORATH (llgP-i.e., Kehath ; meaning unknown ;
cp, perhaps, Ar. wakihe ‘ to obey,’ Ass. akzi? K a A e
[BKADFL] but KAAA NU. 317 [A], Kcto NU.4z), the
largest and most important of the triple division of
1 Hence in 2 S. 226 Dt. 3242 EV’s ‘devour’ ($3~)should
rather be ‘tear in pieces ’ which suits the sword better.
2 See knives of obsidiAn figured in Schliemann, Tiigns, 174,
2685
RORAH
Levites (Gen. 4611 Ex. 619 etc. ; only in P and Ch.) ;
see GERSHON, MERARI. T o the KOHATHITES (,g;?c,
6 ~ a a O [ e ] c[BAFL] Nu. 2657) belonged Aaron, and hence
the Kohathites are sometimes subdivided into ‘ the
children of Aaron the priest,’ and ‘therest of the children
of Kohath’ (cp Josh. 214J). They were intrusted
urith the care of the sanctuary during the wanderings
in the wilderness (Nu. 4 1 5 7 g ) , and their cities are placed
in Ephraim, Dan, and half Manasseh (Josh. Z.C. 20.26).
The Korahites (see K ORAH , i. 3) were also reckoned in
this division. See GENEALOGIES i., 1 7 (iii. 6).
KOHELETR, the Hebrew title of Ecclesiastes, and
according to MT the name of the supposed speaker of
the monologues in that book. Elsewhere (see ECCLESI-
ASTES, $ I) the word is treated on the assumption that
M T is correct. The word, however, is admittedly so
difficult, and so very unlikely as a designation of a
king of Israel, and the textual errors in Ecclesiastes are
so serious, that the time seems to have come for raising
the question whether the reading is correct. Must it
not be due to an early editor’s attempt to extract some
meaning out of a corrupt text?
n$npn (ha&&kdZeth)-for this (see 7 27 [crit. emend.] l28),
not KbhdZeth, is the earlier form of the wrong reading of MT--
may’he the result of a series of changes ; it is plausible to hold
that ultimatel it springs from the faulty repetition of four words
in 12. The zook originally began thus,-‘Vanity of vanities,
all is vanity ($28 $I? p$jn $ 2 ~ ) the
; two last Hebrew words
$I> Sjn were miswritten by the next scribe in such a way as to
suggest n$;rpX. T o this the editor prefixed l@, ‘saith.’ In-
ter olation propagated the error (1 12 7 27 128 but in 1IZ n felt
offp; then the writer of 12gJ in the EpiloGe, and the scribe
who prefixed the title, adopted it (without initial a). I t is an
extremely plausible view that ha&&ih&th was also adopted by
the editor who prefixed the title to the strange little poem in
Prov. 30 16-1.which title mnst orieinallv have run thus-or very
nearly thus,:
L -
‘ The words of the guilty man Ha&-@h/Zeth1 to those
that believe in God.
That the poem which follows is controverted in m.~ f is : an old
and reasonable opinion.
Thus the mysterious ‘Agur, son of Jakeh,’ and ‘Ithiel and
Ucal disappear, nor can we lift up a lamentation for them. See
Crztica Bi6lica. T. K. C.
KOLAIAH (&A. . $ 33 ; cp KELAIAH).
I. Fatherofthe prophet A HAB ;Jer. 2921 (BKAQom.; KOUA~OV
[Qmg., hut attributed to Aq., Theod.]).
I. I n list of Benjarnite inhahitants of Jerusalem (see EZRA ii..
5 56, $j15 [I] a), Neh. 11 7 (Koala [Bl, rokfia [NL], K’W. [AI).
KONX (KWNA [Bl, -e [8‘.‘AIv KW>A W*l).
substituted by RV for AVs ‘ the villages ( KWMAC
[243, 248, 249 ; Compl. A1d.l; TAC KWMAC [ s ~ I ,in
cnstelhz et vicos [Vet. Lat.]), in the description of the
defensive measures of the Jews against Holofernes
(Judith 44).
I<ouaq and ropas must be corrupt. two MSS (19 108) read
K d a ,which is but a poor conjectire. Almost certainly the
-
correct reading is roua [Bl, =Kwwa=ruapZva. Cyamon occurs
again in 73, together with Bel-men=Belmaim. (Syr. reads
‘and to the towns of Bethhoron,’ omitting the second ‘and
against almost all the Greek MSS.) T. IC. C.
KORAR (mb, hardly ‘ ice ’ ; cp rather K AREAH
and Sin. nnip, ? n i p ; KOPE [BAL]).
I. An Edomite clan (so in Gen. 36 5 14 18, which belong to
one of the latest sections of the Pentateuch); in I Ch. 1 3 5
their ancestor is said to have been a son of Esau, or, in Gen. 36 16,
a son of Eliphaz, son of Esau, though this last passage is wanting
in the Samaritan text.
2. The ‘ son ’ of Hebron, I Ch. 243 (Kopfc [Bl, Kap76 IL]). The
clan claimed descent from Caleb, who in turn belonged to the
Edomite clan Kenaz (Judg. 1 13 etc.), and is incorporated with
Judah.
3. The legendary progenitor of a levitical guild, the KORAH-
ITES (W7??3, I Ch. 919 31 12 6 [AV KORHITES]; 02 KOp[F]LTLIL
[BNAI, 07 Kopvuol [Ll), employed as door-keepers or porters in
the temple (Ex. 6 ZI 24 I Ch. 6 2 2 [7] 9 19). Probably the b’nt
Korah, a guild of singers or musicians mentioned in the titles of
Pss. 42 44-49 R4f: Wf:, were a subdivision of this guild. See
WRS OTJC zqf: ; Meyer, Entst. 162 181.
There is no reason for separating the above three names. Not
1 .nin$n ot& q:,
2686
 KORAH, REVOLT OF
only do we find that the evidence of the levitical names points
to a S. Pslestinian origin, and that a close relationship subsisted
betweeu Edom Judah, and other tribes and clans of the S.,
hut it is impdrtant to note that the levitinngof the clan of
Korah, and its enrolment in the great levitical division of Kehath,
represent later stages in the historyof the clan (see GENEALOGIES
i., $5 5 [cp n.], 7 [ii. v]).l See art. below.
KORAH, REVOLT OF. In the precedingarticle it has
been seen that the Korahites, as known in the history of
Israel, were either Edomites incorporated with Judah or a
division of the Levites. This double use of the name
has an important bearing on the story of Korah's
rebellion as told in Nu. 16 f., which is the subject of
the present article.
This story comes, at least in the main, from the
school of the priestly writer (P), though, as has been
1. Present text. shown in a previous article (see
D ATHAN AND A BIRAM ), the acconnt
of Korah's rebellion against the priestly prerogative of
the Levites has been mixed up with .an older and quite
independent account of the resistance made by Dathan
and Ahiram to the civil authority of Moses. Here,
however, an important question arises. P is not an
inventive or original writer so far as historical incidents
are concerned. Legislation is the sphere in which he
finds himself at home, and with regard to narrative he
is usnally content to borrow and modify the material
supplied by his predecessors. It is not therefore
unreasonable to ask whether P did not adapt the story
of Korah's revolt from some older source, and whether
any fragments of the story in this primitive form remain
in Nu. 16. Bacon ( T r i p b Tradition of Exahus, 190).
developing a hint of Dillmann's, has contended with no
small ingenuity but hardly with success that we have
before us the fragments of such a narrative by theYahwist.
H e attributes to him a few words in 16 1-3,the whole of 13-15
276.31 33a, so producing the simple story that when Korah the
Edomite and On the Philistine would fain intrude into the
sanctuary, Moses withstood them, and the earth swallowed them
up. Apart from other equally decisive arguments, it cannot he
regarded as certain or even probable that PELETH (g.u.) has
any connection with the Philistines.
We may now give the substance of the priestly nar-
rative in its original form. It is contained in 161azb-
- keeper, or guild of doorkeepers, of the b'ne Asaph,
7a 18-24 27a 326 35 41-50 [I7 6-15] 17
2. pS
form. and runs thus. Korah at the head of
2qo princes of the congregation pro-
tested against the excinsive rights of the-L&itical tribe
as represented by Moses and Aaron, and declared that
the whole congregation was holy. It is quite possible
that Korah, in the intention of the priestly writer,
belonged to the tribe of Judah, and it is certain that his
confederates were by no means exclusively Levites.
They were princes of the congregation ' as a whole, '
and in 27 3 (P)it is clearly implied that, e.g., Manassites
might be found in his company. Moses invites them
to establish their claim by taking their censers and
offering incense at the sanctuary. This they do : the
people are warned to withdraw from the tabernacle,a
and the rebels are consumed by fire from YahwB.
Next day the people murmur because the 'people of
YahwB ' (not, observe, 'our brethren the Levites') have
been destroyed. But for the intercession of Moses,
and the fact that Aaron stands with his censer 'between
the living and the dead,' Israel would have been swept
away by the divine wrath. Even as it is, 14,700 perish
by the plague. Afterwards rods inscribed with the
names of princes representing each tribe are laid in
the sanctuary. The rod inscribed with the name of
Aaron, and that alone, buds and bears ripe almonds.
1 By the Korahites of I Ch. 12 6 it is uncertain whether the
Chronicler is referring to Levites or to Edomites who had he-
come incorporated in the tribe of Judah : cp DAVID, $ I T [aii.1.
2 The word pun is never used in prose of a human habitation,
and, in vn. 24 27 the original reading seems to have been-' the
tabernacle of P&w&.' See Dr. Introd. 61.
2687
KUSHAIAH
The account which we have examined hitherto, comes
from the priestly legislator, as is plain from its literary
style. True, it does not confirm the fav-
3*Later . ourite and characteristic point of the priestly
account' legislation,-viz., the essential difference
between the priests, the sons of Aaron, and mere
Levites. But of course the priestly code also emphasises
the general distinctjon between the clergy of whatever
rank on the one hand and the laity on the other. Here
the priestly legislator is content to advocate the claims
of the levitical tribe as a whole. However, a later
writer of the same school was not satisfied to stop here.
Moved, perhaps, by the remembrance that there was a
levitical guild known as 'sons of Korah,' he made
various alterations in the text and added 76-11 16f: 36-40
[17 1-51, In this second stratum Korah is unmistakeably
a Levite, and not only so, his whole company are
Levites, and their,sin consists in a sacrilegious claim to
act as priests. The censers of these 'sinners against
their own lives' are by divine command beaten into
plates and used as a covering for the altar. They are
to be a perpetual memorial that no one who Is not of
Aaron's seed may dare to offer incense. In ,269-11,a
very late passage-for it must have been added by some
one who had read 16 and 17 as they stand in our present
Hebrew text-we are told that the ' sons of Korah ' did
not perish with their father and his band. The author
felt that he had to explain the continued existence of
the Kohathite guild in the temple.
The N T mentions Korah only once, viz. in Jude II
where Korah is the type of Gnostic heretics who' ' set at
nought dominion, and rail at dignities.' 'The author of
2 Tim. 2 16f: had Korah in view; at least v. 19 is
derived from Num. 16 5 26 in 6.
The division of documents advocated in this article is that of
Kue. Th.T 12 139, and Hex. $8 6 n. 37 16 n. 12 to which Well-
hausen now adheres. I t is also adopteh by Kitiel (with a little
hesitation) by Baudissin (Priesterthum) and by Dr. Introd.6')
65. Nor hoes the view of Dillmann 'differ m a t e h l y here,
except with regard to the point mentioned a t the end of the
article DATHAN AND ABIRAM. W. E. A.
KORE ( K l p : KWPH [BA], KOPE [L]). A door-
assigned to the Korahites (see GENEALOGIES i., 3 7, ii. ).
The name is given to the father of Shallum ( I Ch. 9 19,KCOPTS
[B], p p q [A]), or Meshelemiah ( I Ch. 26 I, Kmpve [AI). In,
2 Ch. 31 74 Kore (rap$ [Ll) appears as the son of Imnah (my),
hut the latter may be nothing more than a slip for Heman
(i??;cp QIB),who was actually associated with Korahites
and doorkeepers ; see GENEALOGIES i., $ 7, iii. c.
S. A. C.
KORE, THE SONS OF ('nl@ '27 ; oi yioi K O ~ E
[AL], ...
KA& [B]), I Ch. 2619, R V THE S O N S OF
THE KORAHITES. See K ORAH i.
KO2 (vpg), Ezra261 Neh. 3421 763 AV, R V
HAKKOZ.
KULON ( K O Y ~ O N [BA], -AM [L]), a city in the
hill country of Judah mentioned by @ only (Josh. 15 59).
An identification with Kulhiyeh, NW. of Jerusalem (see
EMMAUS, z), is inadmissible, since this name is derived
from ' colonia ' (cp Buhl, Pal. 166).
KUSHAIAH (97I:@qp, 27 : hardly 'YahwB's bow' ;
Peiser [ Z ATW 17 ~48f:((97)] explains ' KuS is Yahwe ' ; cp
Edomite divine name K a d akd Gottheil, 3BL 17 19 202 ('58).
hut is there a parallel for s&h a name in the OT?)J-father of
Ethan, a Merarite; I Ch. 15 17 ( ~ [ f l ~ u a ~ [BKAL].
ou The
readings of C 3 presuppose 13'W'p (?;?$'iJ? Ki. SBUT), with
which agrees the other fqrm of the name, viz. KISHI (' W.'' Y1, I Ch.
644 [29], KCLUQL [E], -uau [A], KOUUEL [L], i.e., perhaps 'e'?).
The furm Kishi, which Gray (HPN 297) prefers, is, according
to Gottheil, anahhreviated form ("~p i.e. l n ' ~ * p ) . See KISH.
__-______
1 For another suggested etymology, see NAMES, $ 27 n.
2688