ga’-al (ga‘al, "rejection," or "loathing"; according to Wellhausen, "beetle," HPN, 110): A man of whose antecedents nothing is known, except that his father’s name was Ebed. He undertook to foment and lead a rebellion on the part of the inhabitants of Shechem against Abimelech, son of Gideon, and his rebellion failed (Jud 9:26-45).

See also ABIMELECH.

ga’-ash (ga‘-ash): First mentioned in connection with the burial place of Joshua "in the border of his inheritance in Timnath-serah, which is in the hill-country of Ephraim, on the north (side) of the mountain of Gaash" (Jos 24:30; compare Jud 2:9); see TIMNATH-HERES. The "brooks," or rather the wadies or "watercourses" of Gaash are mentioned as the native place of Hiddai (2Sa 23:30), or Hurai (1Ch 11:32), one of David’s heroes. No likely identification has been suggested.

See EPHRAIM, MOUNT.

ga’-ba (gabha’ (in pause)).

See GEBA.

gab’-a-el (Gabael; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) "Gabelus"):

(1) An ancestor of Tobit (APC Tobit 1:1).

(2) A poor Jew of Rages, a city of Media, to whom Tobit lent ten talents of silver (APC TOBIT 1:14). The money was restored to Tobit in the time of his distress through his son Tobias, whom the angel Raphael led to Gabael at Rages (APC TOBIT 1:14; 4:1,20; 5:6; 6:9; 10:2).

gab’-a-tha (Gabatha): A eunuch of Mardocheus (Additions to Esther 10:1).

gab’-a-i (gabbay, "collector"): One of the chiefs of the Benjamites in Jerusalem after the return from the Babylonian captivity (Ne 11:8).

gab’-a-tha: Given (Joh 19:13) as the name of a special pavement (to lithostroton), and is probably a transcription in Greek of the Aramaic gabhetha’, meaning "height" or "ridge."

Tradition which now locates the Pretorium at the Antonia and associates the triple Roman arch near there with the "Ecce Homo" scene, naturally identifies an extensive area of massive Roman pavement, with blocks 4 ft. x 3 1/2 ft. and 2 ft. thick, near the "Ecce Homo Arch," as the Gabbatha.

This paved area is in places roughened for a roadway, and in other places is marked with incised designs for Roman games of chance. The site is a lofty one, the ground falling away rapidly to the East and West, and it must have been close to, or perhaps included in, the Antonia. But apart from the fact that it is quite improbable that the Pretorium was here (see PRAETORIUM), it is almost certain that the lithostroton was a mosaic pavement (compare Es 1:6), such as was very common in those days, and the site is irretrievably lost.

E. W. G. Masterman

gab’-e (Gabbe; the King James Version Gabdes (APC 1Esdras 5:20)):

Called Geba in Ezr 2:26.

ga’-bri-as (Gabrias): Brother of GABAEL (which see).

In APC Tobit 4:20 he is described as his father. The readings are uncertain.

ga’-bri-el (gabhri’-el, "Man of God"; Gabriel):

The name of the angel commissioned to explain to Daniel the vision of the ram and the he-goat, and to give the prediction of the 70 weeks (Da 8:16; 9:21).

In the New Testament he is the angel of the annunciation to Zacharias of the birth of John the Baptist, and to Mary of the birth of Jesus (Lu 1:19,26).

Though commonly spoken of as an archangel, he is not so called in Scripture. He appears in the Book of Enoch (chapters 9, 20, 40) as one of 4 (or 6) chief angels. He is "set over all powers," presents, with the others, the cry of departed souls for vengeance, is "set over the serpents, and over Paradise, and over the cherubim." He is prominent in the Jewish Targums, etc.

See ANGEL.

James Orr

(gadh, "fortune"; Gad):

1. The Name:

2. The Tribe:

Of the patriarch Gad almost nothing is recorded. Seven sons went down with him into Egypt, when Jacob accepted Joseph s invitation (Ge 46:16). At the beginning of the desert march Gad numbered 45,650 "from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war" (Nu 1:24). In the plains of Moab the number had fallen to 40,500 (Nu 26:18). The place of Gad was with the standard of the camp of Reuben on the South side of the tabernacle (Nu 2:14). The prince of the tribe was Eliasaph, son of Deuel (Nu 1:14), or Reuel (Nu 2:14). Among the spies Gad was represented by Geuel son of Machi (Nu 13:15).

See NUMBERS.

3. The Tribal Territory:

From time immemorial the dwellers East of the Jordan have followed the pastoral life. When Moses had completed the conquest of these lands, the spacious uplands, with their wide pastures, attracted the great flock-masters of Reuben and Gad. In response to their appeal Moses assigned them their tribal portions here: only on condition, however, that their men of war should go over with their brethren, and take their share alike in the hardship and in the glory of the conquest of Western Palestine (Nu 32). When the victorious campaigns of Joshua were completed, the warriors of Reuben and Gad returned to their possessions in the East. They halted, however, in the Jordan valley to build the mighty altar of Ed. They feared lest the gorge of the Jordan should in time become all too effective a barrier between them and their brethren on the West. This altar should be for all time a "witness" to their unity in race and faith (Jos 22). The building of the altar was at first misunderstood by the western tribes, but the explanation given entirely satisfied them.

4. Boundaries:

It is impossible to indicate with any certainty the boundaries of the territory of Gad. Reuben lay on the South, and the half-tribe of Manasseh on the North. These three occupied the whole of Eastern Palestine. The South border of Gad is given as the Arnon in Nu 32:34; but six cities to the North of the Arnon are assigned in 32:16 ff to Reuben. Again, Jos 13:26 makes Wady Chesban the southern boundary of Gad. Mesha, however (MS), says that the men of Gad dwelt in Ataroth from old time. This is far South of Wady Chesban. The writer of Nu 32 may have regarded the Jabbok as the northern frontier of Gad; but Jos 13:27 extends it to the Sea of Chinnereth, making the Jordan the western boundary. It included Rabbath-ammon in the East. We have not now the information necessary to explain this apparent confusion. There can be no doubt that, as a consequence of strifes with neighboring peoples, the boundaries were often changed (1Ch 5:18 f). For the Biblical writers the center of interest was in Western Palestine, and the details given regarding the eastern tribes are very meager. We may take it, however, that, roughly, the land of Gilead fell to the tribe of Gad. In Jud 5:17 Gilead appears where we should naturally expect Gad, for which it seems to stand. The city of refuge, Ramoth in Gilead, was in the territory of Gad (Jos 20:8). For description of the country see GILEAD.

5. History:

Reuben and Gad were absent from the muster against Sisera (Jud 5:15 ); but they united with their brethren in taking vengeance on Benjamin, Jabesh-gilead, from which no contingent was sent, being destroyed (20 f). Jephthah is probably to be reckoned to this tribe, his house, Mizpah (Jud 11:34), being apparently within its territory (Jos 13:26). Gad furnished a refuge for some of the Hebrews during the Philistine oppression (1Sa 13:7). To David, while he avoided Saul at Ziklag, certain Gadites attached themselves (1Ch 12:8 ). A company of them also joined in making him king at Hebron (1Ch 12:38). In Gad the adherents of the house of Saul gathered round Ish-bosheth (2Sa 2:8 ). Hither David came in his flight from Absalom (2Sa 17:24). Gad fell to Jeroboam at the disruption of the kingdom, and Penuel, apparently within its borders, Jeroboam fortified at first (1Ki 12:25). It appears from the Moabite Stone that part of the territory afterward passed into the hands of Moab. Under Omri this was recovered; but Moab again asserted its supremacy. Elijah probably belonged to this district; and the brook Cherith must be sought in one of its wild secluded glens.

Gad formed the main theater of the long struggle between Israel and the Syrians. At Ramoth-gilead Ahab received his death wound (1Ki 22). Under Jeroboam II, this country was once more an integral part of the land of Israel. In 734 BC, however, Tiglath-pileser appeared, and conquered all Eastern Palestine, carrying its inhabitants captive (2Ki 15:29; 1Ch 5:26). This seems to have furnished occasion for the children of Ammon to occupy the country (Jer 49:1). In Ezekiel’s ideal picture (Eze 48:27,34), a place is found for the tribe of Gad. Obadiah seems to have forgotten the tribe, and their territory is assigned to Benjamin (1:19). Gad, however, has his place among the tribes of Israel in Re 7.

W. Ewing

(gadh, "fortunate"): David’s seer (chozeh, 1Ch 21:9; 29:29; 2Ch 29:25), or prophet (nabhi’; compare 1Sa 22:5; 2Sa 24:11). He appears

(1) to advise David while an outlaw fleeing before Saul to return to the land of Judah (1Sa 22:5);

(2) to rebuke David and give him his choice of punishments when, in spite of the advice of Joab and the traditional objections (compare Ex 30:11 ff), he had counted the children of Israel (2Sa 24:11; 1Ch 21:9 );

(3) to instruct David to erect an altar on the threshing-floor of Araunah when the plague that had descended on Israel ceased (2Sa 24:18; 1Ch 21:18); and

(4) to assist in the arrangement of Levitical music with cymbals, psalteries and harps (compare 2Ch 29:25).

Of his writings none are known, though he is said to have written a history of a part of David’s reign (1Ch 29:29).

Ella Davis Isaacs

(gadh, "fortune"): A god of Good Luck, possibly the Hyades. The writer in Isa 65:11 (margin) pronounces a curse against such as are lured away to idolatry. The warning here, according to Cheyne, is specifically against the Samaritans, whom with their religion the Jews held in especial abhorrence. The charge would, however, apply just as well to superstitious and semi-pagan Jews. "But ye that forsake Yahweh, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for Fortune, and that fill up mingled wine unto Destiny; I will destine you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter." There is a play upon words here: "Fill up mingled wine unto Destiny" (meni) and "I will destine manithi, i.e. portion out) you for the sword" (Isa 65:11,12). Gad and Meni mentioned here are two Syrian-deities (Cheyne, Book of the Prophet Isaiah, 198). Schurer (Gesch. d. jud. Volkes, II, 34 note, and bibliography) disputes the reference of the Greek (Tuche) cult to the Semitic Gad, tracing it rather to the Syrian "Astarte" worship. The custom was quite common among heathen peoples of spreading before the gods tables laden with food (compare Herod. i. 181, 183; Smith, Rel. of Semites, Lect X).

Nothing is known of a Babylonian deity named Gad, but there are Aramean and Arabic equivalents. The origin may have been a personification of fortune and destiny, i.e. equivalent to the Fates. The Nabatean inscriptions give, in plural, form, the name of Meni. Achimenidean coins (Persian) are thought by some to bear the name of Meni. How widely spread these Syrian cults became, may be seen in a number of ways, e.g. an altar from Vaison in Southern France bearing an inscription:

"Belus Fortunae rector, Menisque Magister."

Belus, signifying the Syrian Bel of Apamaea (Driver). Canaanitish place-names also attest the prevalence of the cult, as Baal-gad, at the foot of Hermen (Jos 11:17; 12:7; 13:5); Migdal-gad, possibly Mejdel near Askalon (Jos 15:37); Gaddi and Gaddiel (Nu 13:10 f). In Talmudic literature the name of Gad is frequently invoked (compare McCurdy in Jewish Encyclopedia, V, 544). Indeed the words of Leah in Ge 30:11 may refer not to good fortune or luck but to the deity who was especially regarded as the patron god of Good Fortune (compare Kent, Student’s Old Testament, I, 111). Similar beliefs were held among the Greeks and Romans, e.g. Hor. Sat. ii.8, 61:

".... Fortuna, quis est crudelior in nos te deus?"

Cic. N.D. iii.24, 61:

"Quo in genere vel maxime est Fortuna numeranda."

The question has also an astronomical interest. Arabic tradition styled the planet Jupiter the greater fortune, and Venus the lesser fortune. Jewish tradition identified Gad with the planet Jupiter, and it has been conjectured that Meni is to be identified with the planet Venus.

See, however, ASTROLOGY, 10.

W. N. Stearns

(’azal, "to go about"): Used once in Jer 2:36, "Why gaddest thou about so much to change thy way?" of going after Egypt and Assyria.

(nachal ha-gadh; the King James Version River of Gad):

In 2Sa 24:5 we read that Joab and the captains of the host passed over Jordan and pitched in Aroer, on the right side of the city that is in the midst of the valley of Gad.

If we refer to Jos 13:25 f, this might seem to indicate a valley near Rabbath-ammon. According to a generally accepted emendation suggested by Wellhausen, however, we should read, "They began from Aroer, and from the city that is in the middle of the torrent valley, toward Gad."

See AR. The valley is evidently the Arnon. W. Ewing

gad’-a-ra (Gadara):

1. Country of the Gadarenes:

This city is not named in Scripture, but the territory belonging to it is spoken of as chora ton Gadarenon, "country of the Gadarenes" (Mt 8:28). In the parallel passages (Mr 5:1; Lu 8:26,37) we read: chora ton Gerasenon "country of the Gerasenes." There is no good reason, however, to question the accuracy of the text in either case. The city of Gadara is represented today by the ruins of Umm Qeis on the heights south of el-Chummeh—the hot springs in the Yarmuk valley—about 6 miles Southeast of the Sea of Galilee. It maybe taken as certain that the jurisdiction of Gadara, as the chief city in these regions, extended over the country East of the Sea, including the lands of the subordinate town, GERASA (which see). The figure of a ship frequently appears on its coins: conclusive. proof that its territory reached the sea. The place might therefore be called with propriety, either "land of the Gerasenes," with reference to the local center, or "land of the Gadarenes," with reference to the superior city.

(NOTE.—The Textus Receptus of the New Testament reading. ton Gergesenon, "of the Gergesenes," must be rejected (Westcott-Hort, II. App., 11).)

2. History:

The name Gadara appears to be Semitic It is still heard in Jedur, which attaches to the ancient rock tombs, with sarcophagi, to the East of the present ruins. They are closed by carved stone doors, and are used as storehouses for grain, and also as dwellings by the inhabitants. The place is not mentioned till later times. It was taken by Antiochus the Great when in 218 BC he first invaded Palestine (Polyb. v.71). Alexander Janneus invested the place, and reduced it after a ten months’ siege (Ant., XIII, iii, 3; BJ, I, iv, 2). Pompey is said to have restored it, 63 BC (Ant., XIV, iv, 4; BJ, I, vii, 7); from which it would appear to have declined in Jewish hands. He gave it a free constitution. From this date the era of the city was reckoned. It was the seat of one of the councils instituted by Gabinius for the government of the Jews (Ant., XIV, v, 4; BJ, I, viii, 5). It was given by Augustus to Herod the Great in 30 BC (Ant., XV, vii, 3; BJ, I, xx, 3). The emperor would not listen to the accusations of the inhabitants against Herod for oppressive conduct (Ant., XV, x, 2 f). After Herod’s death it was joined to the province of Syria, 4 BC (Ant., XVII, xi, 4; BJ, II, vi, 3). At the beginning of the Jewish revolt the country around Gadara was laid waste (BJ, II, xviii, 1). The Gadarenes captured some of the boldest of the Jews, of whom several were put to death, and others imprisoned (ibid., 5). A party in the city surrendered it to Vespasian, who placed a garrison there (BJ, IV, vii, 3). It continued to be a great and important city, and was long the seat of a bishop (Reland, Palestine, 776). With the conquest of the Moslems it passed under eclipse, and is now an utter ruin.

3. Identification and Description:

Umm Cheis answers the description given of Gadara by ancient writers. It was a strong fortress (Ant., XIII, iii, 3), near the Hieromax—i.e. Yarmuk (Pliny N H, xvi)—East of Tiberias and Scythopolis, on the top of a hill, 3 Roman miles from hot springs and baths called Amatha, on the bank of the Hieromax (Onomasticon, under the word). The narrow ridge on which the ruins lie runs out toward the Jordan from the uplands of Gilead, with the deep gorge of Wady Yarmuk—Hieromax—on the North, and Wady el ‘Arab on the South. The hot springs, as noted above, are in the bottom of the valley to the North. The ridge sinks gradually to the East, and falls steeply on the other three sides, so that the position was one of great strength. The ancient walls may be traced in almost their entire circuit of 2 miles. One of the great Roman roads ran eastward to Der‘ah; and an aqueduct has been traced to the pool of el Khab, about 20 miles to the North of Der‘ah. The ruins include those of two theaters, a basilica, a temple, and many important buildings, telling of a once great and splendid city. A paved street, with double colonnade, ran from East to West. The ruts worn in the pavement by the chariot wheels are still to be seen.

That there was a second Gadara seems certain, and it may be intended in some of the passages referred to above. It is probably represented by the modern Jedur, not far from es-Salt (Buhl, Buhl, Geographic des alten Palastina, 255; Guthe). Josephus gives Pella as the northern boundary of Peraea (BJ, III, iii, 3). This would exclude Gadara on the Hieromax. The southern city, therefore, should be understood as "the capital of Peraea" in BJ, IV; vii, 3.

Gadara was a member of the DECAPOLIS (which see).

W. Ewing

gad-a-renz’. See preceding article.

gad’-i (gaddi, "my fortune"):

One of the twelve spies, son of Susi, and a chief of Manasseh (Nu 13:11).

gad’-i-el (gaddi’el, "blest of God"):

One of the twelve men sent by Moses from the wilderness of Paran to spy out the land of Canaan. He represented the tribe of Zebulun (Nu 13:10).

gad’-is (A Gaddis; Kaddis; the King James Version Caddis):

Surname of John, the eldest brother of Judas Maccabeus (APC 1Macc 2:2).

ga’-di (gadhi, "fortunate"):

The father of Menahem, one of the kings of Israel who reached the throne through blood (2Ki 15:14,17).

gad’-its:

Members of the tribe of Gad (De 3:12, etc.).

ga’-ham (gacham):

A son of Nahor, brother of Abraham, by his concubine Reumah (Ge 22:24).

ga’-har (gachar):

A family name of the Nethinim who came up with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem (Ezr 2:47; Ne 7:49); in APC 1Esdras 5:30 called Geddur.

ga’-i (gay’):

In the Revised Version (British and American) of 1Sa 17:52 for the King James Version "valleys." the Revised Version, margin notes: "The Syriac and some editions of the Septuagint have Gath" (thus also Wellhausen, Budde, Driver, etc.).

gan: In the Old Testament the translation of three Hebrew substantives, betsa‘, "unjust gain," "any gain" (Jud 5:19; Job 22:3; Pr 1:19; 15:27; Isa 33:15; 56:11; Eze 22:13,17; Mic 4:13); mechir, "price" for which a thing is sold (Da 11:39, the only place where the Hebrew word is translated "gain" in the King James Version, though it occurs in other places translated "price"); tebhu’ah, "produce," "profits," "fruit" (Pr 3:14). It is the translation of one Hebrew verb, batsa‘, "to gain dishonestly" (Job 27:8); of one Aramaic verb, zebhan, "to buy," "procure for oneself" (Da 2:8, here used of buying time, i.e. "seeking delay" (Gesenius)).

In the New Testament, the translation of three Greek substantives, ergasia, "gain gotten by work," "profit" (Ac 16:16,19; 19:24 (the King James Version)); kerdos, "gain," "advantage" (Php 2:1; 3:7, in the former, Paul asserting that to him to die was a personal advantage, because then he would "be with Christ"; in the latter, he counts as "loss" his personal privileges in the flesh, when compared with "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ"); porismos, "gain," "a source of gain" (1Ti 6:5,6, where the apostle asserts, not "gain" (earthly) is godliness, but godliness is "gain" (real, abiding)).

It is the translation of three Greek vbs., kerdaino, "to gain," "acquire," in Mt 16:26, where Jesus teaches that the soul, or life in its highest sense ("his own self," Lu 9:25), is worth more than the "gaining" of the whole (material) world; Mt 18:15, concerning the winning of a sinning brother by private interview; Mt 25:17,22, the parable of the Talents; Ac 27:21 the King James Version, injury "gained," sustained, by sailing from Crete; 1Co 9:19,20 bis, 21,22, all referring to Paul’s life-principle of accommodation to others to "gain," win, them to Christ; in Jas 4:13 used in a commercial sense; poieo, "to make," "make gain" (Lu 19:18 the King James Version, the parable of the Pounds); prosergazomai, "to gain by trading" (Lu 19:16, commercial use, in the same parallel).

Charles B. Williams

Gainsayer, antilego (Tit 1:9, "exhort and convince (the Revised Version (British and American) "convict") the gainsayers").

Gainsaying, antilogia (Jude 1:11, "the gain-saying of Korah"); antilogia is Septuagint for meribhah (Nu 20:13); anantirrhetos, "without contradiction" (Ac 10:29, "without gainsaying").

The Revised Version (British and American) has "gainsaid" for "spoken against" (Ac 19:36); "not gainsaying" for "not answering again" (Tit 2:9); "gainsaying" for "contradiction" Heb 12:3).

W. L. Walker

ga’-yus (Gaios; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Gaios):

(1) The Gaius to whom 3 Joh is addressed. He is spoken of as "the beloved" (3 Joh 1:1,2,5,11), "walking in the truth" (3 Joh 1:3,4), and doing "a faithful work" "toward them that are brethren and strangers withal" (3 Joh 1:5,6). He has been identified by some with the Gaius mentioned in the Apostolical Constitutions (VII, 46), as having been appointed bishop of Pergamum by John.

(2) Gaius of Macedonia, a "companion in travel" of Paul (Ac 19:29). He was one of those who were seized by Demetrius and the other silversmiths in the riot at Ephesus, during Paul’s third missionary journey.

(3) Gaius of Derbe, who was among those who accompanied Paul from Greece "as far as Asia," during his third missionary journey (Ac 20:4). In the corresponding list given in the "Contendings of Paul" (compare Budge, Contendings of the Twelve Apostles, II, 592), the name of this Gaius is given as "Gallius."

(4) Gaius, the host of Paul when he wrote the Epistle to the Roman, and who joined in sending his salutations (Ro 16:23). As Paul wrote this epistle from Corinth, it is probable that this Gaius is identical with (5).

(5) Gaius, whom Paul baptized at Corinth (1Co 1:14).

C. M. Kerr

gal’-a-ad (Galaad, Greek form of Gilead (APC 1Macc 5:9,55; Judith 1:8)).

ga’-lal (galal):

The name of two Levites, one mentioned in 1Ch 9:15, the other in 1Ch 9:16 and Ne 11:17.

ga-la’-shi-a, ga-la’-sha (Galatia):

I. INTRODUCTORY

1. Two Senses of Name

(1) Geographical

(2) Political

2. Questions to Be Answered

II. ORIGIN OF NAME

1. The Gaulish Kingdom

2. Transference to Rome

3. The Roman Province

III. THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE

1. Stages of Evangelization of Province

2. The Churches Mentioned

IV. PAUL’S USE OF "GALATIANS"

I. Introductory.

1. Two Senses of Name:

"Galatia" was a name used in two different senses during the 1st century after Christ:

(1) Geographical

To designate a country in the north part of the central plateau of Asia Minor, touching Paphlagonia and Bithynia North, Phrygia West and South, Cappadocia and Pontus Southeast and East, about the headwaters of the Sangarios and the middle course of the Halys;

(2) Political

To designate a large province of the Roman empire, including not merely the country Galatia, but also Paphlagonia and parts of Pontus, Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia and Isauria. The name occurs in 1Co 16:1; Ga 1:2; 1Pe 1:1, and perhaps 2Ti 4:10. Some writers assume that Galatia is also mentioned in Ac 16:6; 18:23; but the Greek there has the phrase "Galatic region" or "territory," though the English Versions of the Bible has "Galatia"; and it must not be assumed without proof that "Galatic region" is synonymous with "Galatia." If e.g. a modern narrative mentioned that a traveler crossed British territory, we know that this means something quite different from crossing Britain. "Galatic region" has a different connotation from "Galatia"; and, even if we should find that geographically it was equivalent, the writer had some reason for using that special form.

2. Questions to Be Answered:

The questions that have to be answered are: (a) In which of the two senses is "Galatia" used by Paul and Peter? (b) What did Luke mean by Galatic region or territory? These questions have not merely geographical import; they bear most closely, and exercise determining influence, on many points in the biography, chronology, missionary work and methods of Paul.

II. Origin of the Name "Galatia."

1. The Gaulish Kingdom:

The name was introduced into Asia after 278-277 BC, when a large body of migrating Gauls (Galatai in Greek) crossed over from Europe at the invitation of Nikomedes, king of Bithynia; after ravaging a great part of Western Asia Minor they were gradually confined to a district, and boundaries were fixed for them after 232 BC. Thus, originated the independent state of Galatia, inhabited by three Gaulish tribes, Tolistobogioi, Tektosages and Trokmoi, with three city-centers, Pessinus, Ankyra and Tavia (Tavion in Strabo), who had brought their wives and families with them, and therefore continued to be a distinct Gaulish race and stock (which would have been impossible if they had come as simple warriors who took wives from the conquered inhabitants). The Gaulish language was apparently imposed on all the old inhabitants, who remained in the country as an inferior caste. The Galatai soon adopted the country religion, alongside of their own; the latter they retained at least as late as the 2nd century after Christ, but it was politically important for them to maintain and exercise the powers of the old priesthood, as at Pessinus, where the Galatai shared the office with the old priestly families.

2. Transference to Rome:

The Galatian state of the Three Tribes lasted till 25 BC, governed first by a council and by tetrarchs, or chiefs of the twelve divisions (four to each tribe) of the people, then, after 63 BC, by three kings. Of these, Deiotaros succeeded in establishing himself as sole king, by murdering the two other tribal kings; and after his death in 40 BC his power passed to Castor and then to Amyntas, 36-25 BC. Amyntas bequeathed his kingdom to Rome; and it was made a Roman province (Dion Cass. 48, 33, 5; Strabo, 567, omits Castor). Amyntas had ruled also parts of Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia and Isauria. The new province included these parts, and to it were added Paphlagonia 6 BC, part of Pontus 2 BC (called Pontus Galaticus in distinction from Eastern Pontus, which was governed by King Polemon and styled Polemoniacus), and in 64 also Pontus Polemoniacus. Part of Lycaonia was non-Roman and was governed by King Antiochus; from 41 to 72 AD Laranda belonged to this district, which was distinguished as Antiochiana regio from the Roman region Lycaonia called Galatica.

3. The Roman Province:

This large province was divided into regiones for administrative purposes; and the regiones coincided roughly with the old national divisions Pisidia, Phrygia (including Antioch, Iconium, Apollonia), Lycaonia (including Derbe, Lystra and a district organized on the village-system), etc. See Calder in Journal of Roman Studies, 1912. This province was called by the Romans Galatia, as being the kingdom of Amyntas (just like the province Asia, which also consisted of a number of different countries as diverse and alien as those of province Galatia, and was so called because the Romans popularly and loosely spoke of the kings of that congeries of countries as kings of Asia). The extent of both names, Asia and Galatia, in Roman language, varied with the varying bounds of each province. The name "Galatia" is used to indicate the province, as it was at the moment, by Ptolemy, Pliny v.146, Tacitus Hist. ii.9; Ann. xiii. 35; later chroniclers, Syncellus, Eutropius, and Hist. Aug. Max. et Balb. 7 (who derived it from earlier authorities, and used it in the old sense, not the sense customary in their own time); and in inscriptions CIL, III, 254, 272 (Eph. Ep. v.51); VI, 1408, 1409, 332; VIII, 11028 (Mommsen rightly, not Schmidt), 18270, etc. It will be observed that these are almost all Roman sources, and (as we shall see) express a purely Roman view. If Paul used the name "Galatia" to indicate the province, this would show that he consistently and naturally took a Roman view, used names in a Roman connotation, and grouped his churches according to Roman provincial divisions; but that is characteristic of the apostle, who looked forward from Asia to Rome (Ac 19:21), aimed at imperial conquest and marched across the Empire from province to province (Macedonia, Achaia, Asia are always provinces to Paul). On the other hand, in the East and the Greco-Asiatic world, the tendency was to speak of the province either as the Galatic Eparchia (as at Iconium in 54 AD, CIG, 3991), or by enumeration of its regiones (or a selection of the regiones). The latter method is followed in a number of inscriptions found in the province (CIL, III, passim). Now let us apply these contemporary facts to the interpretation of the narrative of Luke.

III. The Narrative of Luke.

1. Stages of Evangelization of Province:

The evangelization of the province began in Ac 13:14. The stages are:

(1) the audience in the synagogue, Ac 13:42 f;

(2) almost the whole city, 13:44;

(3) the whole region, i.e. a large district which was affected from the capital (as the whole of Asia was affected from Ephesus 19:10);

(4) Iconium another city of this region: in 13:51 no boundary is mentioned;

(5) a new region Lycaonia with two cities and surrounding district (14:6);

(6) return journey to organize the churches in (a) Lystra, (b) Iconium and Antioch (the secondary reading of Westcott and Hort, (kai eis Ikonion kai Antiocheleian), is right, distinguishing the two regions (a) Lycaonia, (b) that of Iconium and Antioch);

(7) progress across the region Pisidia, where no churches were founded (Pisidian Antioch is not in this region, which lies between Antioch and Pamphylia).

Again (in Ac 16:1-6) Paul revisited the two regiones:

(1) Derbe and Lystra, i.e. regio Lycaonia Galatica,

(2) the Phrygian and Galatic region, i.e. the region which was racially Phrygian and politically Galatic. Paul traversed both regions, making no new churches but only strengthening the existing disciples and churches. In Ac 18:23 he again revisited the two regiones, and they are briefly enumerated:

(1) the Galatic region (so called briefly by a traveler, who had just traversed Antiochiana and distinguished Galatica from it);

(2) Phrygia. On this occasion he specially appealed, not to churches as in 16:6, but to disciples; it was a final visit and intended to reach personally every individual, before Paul went away to Rome and the West. On this occasion the contribution to the poor of Jerusalem was instituted, and the proceeds later were carried by Timothy and Gaius of Derbe (Ac 20:4; 24:17; 1Co 16:1); this was a device to bind the new churches to the original center of the faith.

2. The Churches Mentioned:

These four churches are mentioned by Luke always as belonging to two regiones, Phrygia and Lycaoma; and each region is in one case described as Galatic, i.e. part of the province Galatia. Luke did not follow the Roman custom, as Paul did; he kept the custom of the Greeks and Asiatic peoples, and styled the province by enumerating its regiones, using the expression Galatic (as in Pontus Galaticus and at Iconium, CIG, 3991) to indicate the supreme unity of the province. By using this adjective about both regiones he marked his point of view that all four churches are included in the provincial unity.

From Paul’s references we gather that he regarded the churches of Galatia as one group, converted together (Ga 4:13), exposed to the same influences and changing together (Ga 1:6,8; 3:1; 4:9), naturally visited at one time by a traveler (Ga 1:8; 4:14). He never thinks of churches of Phrygia or of Lycaonia; only of province Galatia (as of provinces Asia, Macedonia, Achaia). Paul did not include in one class all the churches of one journey: he went direct from Macedonia to Athens and Corinth, but classes the churches of Macedonia separate from those of Achaia. Troas and Laodicea and Colosse he classed with Asia (as Luke did Troas Ac 20:4), Philippi with Macedonia, Corinth with Achaia. These classifications are true only of the Roman usage, not of early Greek usage. The custom of classifying according to provinces, universal in the fully formed church of the Christian age, was derived from the usage of the apostles (as Theodore Mopsuestia expressly asserts in his Commentary on First Timothy (Swete, II, 121); Harnack accepts this part of the statement (Verbreitung, 2nd edition, I, 387; Expansion, II, 96)). His churches then belonged to the four provinces, Asia, Galatia, Achaia, Macedonia. There were no other Pauline churches; all united in the gift of money which was carried to Jerusalem (Ac 20:4; 24:17).

IV. Paul’s Use of "Galatians."

The people of the province of Galatia, consisting of many diverse races, when summed up together, were called Galatai, by Tacitus, Ann. xv.6; Syncellus, when he says (Augoustos Galatais phorous etheto), follows an older historian describing the imposing of taxes on the province; and an inscription of Apollonia Phrygiae calls the people of the city Galatae (Lebas-Waddington, 1192). If Paul spoke to Philippi or Corinth or Antioch singly, he addressed them as Philippians, Corinthians, Antiochians (Php 4:15; 2Co 6:11), not as Macedonians or Achaians; but when he had to address a group of several churches (as Antioch, Iconium, Derbe and Lystra) he could use only the provincial unity, Galatae.

All attempts to find in Paul’s letter to the Galatians any allusions that specially suit the character of the Gauls or Galatae have failed. The Gauls were an aristocracy in a land which they had conquered. They clung stubbornly to their own Celtic religion long after the time of Paul, even though they also acknowledged the power of the old goddess of the country. They spoke their own Celtic tongue. They were proud, even boastful, and independent. They kept their native law under the Empire. The "Galatians" to whom Paul wrote had Changed very quickly to a new form of religion, not from fickleness, but from a certain proneness to a more oriental form of religion which exacted of them more sacrifice of a ritual type. They needed to be called to freedom; they were submissive rather than arrogant. They spoke Greek. They were accustomed to the Greco-Asiatic law: the law of adoption and inheritance which Paul mentions in his letter is not Roman, but Greco-Asiatic, which in these departments was similar, with some differences; on this see the writer’s Historical Commentary on Galatians.

W. M. Ramsay

ga-la’-shanz. See preceding article.

I. THE AUTHORSHIP

1. Position of the Dutch School

2. Early Testimony

II. THE MATTER OF THE EPISTLE

A) Summary of Contents

1. Outline

2. Personal History (Galatians 1:11-2:21; 4:12-20; 6:17)

Paul’s Independent Apostleship

3. The Doctrinal Polemic (Galatians 3:1-5:12)

(1) Thesis

(2) Main Argument

(3) Appeal and Warning

4. The Ethical Application (Galatians 5:12-6:10)

Law of the Spirit of Life

5. The Epilogue (Galatians 6:11-18)

B) Salient Points

1. The Principles at Stake

2. Present Stage of the Controversy

3. Paul’s Depreciation of the Law

4. The Personal Question

C) Characteristics

1. Idiosyncrasy of the Epistle

2. Jewish Coloring

III. RELATIONS TO OTHER EPISTLES

1. Galatians and Romans

2. Links with 1 and 2 Corinthians

3. With the Corinthians-Romans Group

4. With Other Groups of Epistles

5. General Comparison

IV. THE DESTINATION AND DATE

1. Place and Time Interdependent

2. Internal Evidence

3. External Data

(1) Galatia and the Galatians

(2) Prima facie Sense of Ac 16:6

(3) The Grammar of Ac 16:6

(4) Notes of Time in the Epistle

(5) Paul’s Renewed Struggle with Legalism (6) Ephesus or Corinth?

(7) Paul’s First Coming to Galatia

(8) Barnabas and the Galatians

(9) The Two Antiochs

(10) Wider Bearings of the Problem

LITERATURE

When and to whom, precisely, this letter was written, it is difficult to say; its authorship and purpose are unmistakable. One might conceive it addressed by the apostle Paul, in its main tenor, to almost any church of his Gentilemission attracted to Judaism, at any point within the years circa 45-60 AD. Some plausibly argue that it was the earliest, others place it among the later, of the Pauline Epistles. This consideration dictates the order of our inquiry, which proceeds from the plainer to the more involved and disputable parts of the subject.

I. The Authorship.

1. Position of the Dutch School:

The Tubingen criticism of the last century recognized the four major epistles of Paul as fully authentic, and made them the corner-stone of its construction of New Testament history. Only Bruno Bauer (Kritik. d. paulin. Briefe, 1850-52) attacked them in this sense, while several other critics accused them of serious interpolations; but these attempts made little impression. Subsequently, a group of Dutch scholars, beginning with Loman in his Quaestiones Paulinae (1882) and represented by Van Manen in the Encyclopedia Biblica (art. "Paul"), have denied all the canonical epistles to the genuine Paul. They postulate a gradual development in New Testament ideas covering the first century and a half after Christ, and treat the existing letters as "catholic adaptations" of fragmentary pieces from the apostle’s hand, produced by a school of "Paulinists" who carried their master’s principles far beyond his own intentions. On this theory, Galatians, with its advanced polemic against the law, approaching the position of Marcion (140 AD), was work of the early 2nd century. Edwin Johnson in England (Antiqua Mater, 1887), and Steck in Germany (Galaterbrief, 1888), are the only considerable scholars outside of Holland who have adopted this hypothesis; it is rejected by critics so radical as Scholten and Schmiedel (see the article of the latter on "Galatians" in EB). Knowling has searchingly examined the position of the Dutch school in his Witness of the Epistles (1892)—it is altogether too arbitrary and uncontrolled by historical fact to be entertained; see Julicher’s or Zahn’s Introduction to New Testament (English translation), to the same effect. Attempts to dismember this writing, and to appropriate it for other hands and later times than those of the apostle Paul, are idle in view of its vital coherence and the passionate force with which the author’s personality has stamped itself upon his work; the Paulinum pectus speaks in every line. The two contentions on which the letter turns—concerning Paul’s apostleship, and the circumcision of GentileChristians—belonged to the apostle’s lifetime: in the fifth and sixth decades these were burning questions; by the 2nd century the church had left them far behind.

2. Early Testimony:

Early Christianity gives clear and ample testimony to this document. Marcion placed it at the head of his Apostolikon (140 AD); Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Melito, quoted it about the same time. It is echoed by Ignatius (Philad., i) and Polycarp (Philip., iii and v) a generation earlier, and seems to have been used by contemporary Gnostic teachers. It stands in line with the other epistles of Paul in the oldest Latin, Syriac and Egyptian translations, and in the Muratorian (Roman) Canon of the 2nd century. It comes full into view as an integral part of the new Scripture in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian at the close of this period. No breath of suspicion as to the authorship, integrity or apostolic authority of the Ep. to the Ga has reached us from ancient times.

II. Matter of the Epistle.

A) Summary of Contents:

1. Outline:

A double note of war sounds in the address and greeting (Ga 1:1,4). Astonishment replaces the customary thanksgiving (Ga 1:6-10): The Galatians are listening to preachers of "another gospel" (1:6,7) and traducers of the apostle (1:8,10), whom he declares "anathema." Paul has therefore two objects in writing—to vindicate himself, and to clear and reinforce his doctrine. The first he pursues from 1:11 to 2:21; the second from 3:1 to 5:12. Appropriate: moral exhortations follow in 5:13-6:10. The closing paragraph (6:11-17) resumes incisively the purport of the letter. Personal, argumentative, and hortatory matter interchange with the freedom natural in a letter to old friends.

2. Personal History (Galatians 1:11-2:21 (4:12-20; 6:17)):

Paul’s Independent Apostleship.

(1) A thorough-paced Judaist and persecutor (Ga 1:13,14), Paul was supernaturally converted to Christ (Ga 1:15), and received at conversion his charge for the Gentiles, about which he consulted no one (Ga 1:16,17).

(2) Three years later he "made acquaintance with Cephas" in Jerusalem and saw James besides, but no "other of the apostles" (Ga 1:18,19). For long he was known only by report to "the churches of Judea" (Ga 1:21-24).

(3) At the end of "fourteen years" he "went up to Jerusalem," with Barnabas, to confer about the "liberty" of Gentilebelievers, which was endangered by "false brethren" (Ga 2:1-5). Instead of supporting the demand for the circumcision of the "Greek" Titus (Ga 2:3), the "pillars" there recognized the sufficiency and completeness of Paul’s "gospel of the uncircumcision" and the validity of his apostleship (Ga 2:6-8). They gave "right hands of fellowship" to himself and Barnabas on this understanding (Ga 2:9,10). The freedom of GentileChristianity was secured, and Paul had not "run in vain."

(4) At Antioch, however, Paul and Cephas differed (Ga 2:11). Cephas was induced to withdraw from the common church-table, and carried "the rest of the Jews," including Barnabas, with him (Ga 2:12,13). "The truth of the gospel," with Cephas’ own sincerity, was compromised by this "separation," which in effect "compelled the Gentiles to Judaize" (Ga 2:13,14). Paul therefore reproved Cephas publicly in the speech reproduced by Ga 2:14-21, the report of which clearly states the evangelical position and the ruinous consequences (2:18,21) of reestablishing "the law."

3. Doctrinal Polemic (Galatians 3:1-5:12):

(1) Thesis.

The doctrinal polemic was rehearsed in the autobiography (Ga 2:3-5,11-12). In Ga 2:16 is laid down thesis of the epistle: "A man is not justified by the works of law but through faith in Jesus Christ." This proposition is (a) demonstrated from experience and history in 3:1-4:7; then (b) enforced by 4:8-5:12.

(2) Main Argument.

(a1) From his own experience (Ga 2:19-21) Paul passes to that of the readers, who are "bewitched" to forget "Christ crucified" (Ga 3:1)! Had their life in "the Spirit" come through "works of the law" or the "hearing of faith"? Will the flesh consummate what the Spirit began (Ga 3:2-5)?

(a2) Abraham, they are told, is the father of God’s people; but ‘the men of faith’ are Abraham’s true heirs (Ga 3:6-9). "The law" curses every transgressor; Scripture promised righteousness through faith for the very reason that justification by legal "doing" is impossible (Ga 3:10,12). "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" in dying the death it declared "accursed" (Ga 3:13). Thus He conveyed to the nations "the promise of the Spirit," pledged to them through believing Abraham (Ga 3:7,14).

(a3) The "testament" God gave to "Abraham and his seed" (a single "seed," observe) is unalterable. The Mosaic law, enacted 430 years later, could not nullify this instrument (Ga 3:15-17 the King James Version). Nullified it wound have been, had its fulfillment turned on legal performance instead of Divine "grace" (Ga 3:18).

(a4) "Why then the law?" Sin required it, pending the accomplishment of "the promise." Its promulgation through intermediaries marks its inferiority (Ga 3:19,20). With no power ‘to give life,’ it served the part of a jailer guarding us till "faith came," of "the paedagogus" training us ‘for Christ’ (Ga 3:21-25).

(a5) But now "in Christ," Jew and Greek alike, "ye are all sons of God through faith"; being such, "you are Abraham’s seed" and ‘heirs in terms of the promise’ (Ga 3:26-29). The ‘infant’ heirs, in tutelage, were ‘subject to the elements of the world,’ until "God sent forth his Son," placed in the like condition, to "redeem" them (Ga 4:1-5). Today the "cry" of "the Spirit of his Son" in your "hearts" proves this redemption accomplished (Ga 4:6,7).

The demonstration is complete; Ga 3:1-4:7 forms the core of the epistle. The growth of the Christian consciousness has been traced from its germ in Abraham to its flower in the church of all nations. The Mosaic law formed a disciplinary interlude in the process, which has been all along a life of faith. Paul concludes where he began (3:2), by claiming the Spirit as witness to the full salvation of the Gentiles; compare Ro 8:1-27; 2Co 3:4-18; Eph 1:13,14. From Ga 4:8 onward to 5:12, the argument is pressed home by appeal, illustration and warning.

(3) Appeal and Warning.

(b1) After "knowing God," would the Galatians return to the bondage in which ignorantly they served as gods "the elements" of Nature? (4:8,9). Their adoption of Jewish "seasons" points to this backsliding (4:10,11).

(b2) Paul’s anxiety prompts the entreaty of 4:12-20, in which he recalls his fervent reception by his readers, deplores their present alienation, and confesses his perplexity.

(b3) Observe that Abraham had two sons—"after the flesh" and "through promise" (4:21-23); those who want to be under law are choosing the part of Ishmael: "Hagar" stands for ‘the present Jerusalem’ in her bondage; ‘the Jerusalem above is free—she is our mother!’ (4:24-28,31). The fate of Hagar and Ishmael pictures the issue of legal subjection (4:29,30): "Stand fast therefore" (5:1). (b4) The crucial moment comes at 5:2: the Galatians are half-persuaded (5:7,8); they will fatally commit themselves, if they consent to ‘be circumcised.’ This will sever them from Christ, and bind them to complete observance of Moses’ law: law or grace—by one or the other they must stand (5:3-5). "Circumcision, uncircumcision"—these "count for nothing in Christ Jesus" (5:6). Paul will not believe in the defection of those who ‘ran’ so "well"; "judgment" will fall on their ‘disturber’ (5:7-10,12). Persecution marks himself as no circumcisionist (5:11)!

4. The Ethical Application (Galatians 5:13-6:10):

Law of the Spirit of Life

The ethical application is contained in the phrase of Ro 8:2, "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus."

(1) Love guards Christian liberty from license; it ‘fulfills the whole law in a single word’ (Ga 5:13-15).

(2) The Spirit, who imparts freedom, guides the free man’s "walk." Flesh and spirit are, opposing principles: deliverance from "the flesh" and its "works" is found in possession by "the Spirit," who bears in those He rules His proper "fruit." ‘Crucified with Christ’ and ‘living in the Spirit,’ the Christian man keeps God’s law without bondage under it (Ga 5:16-26).

(3) In cases of unwary fall, ‘men of the Spirit’ will know how to "restore" the lapsed, ‘fulfilling Christ’s law’ and mindful of their own weakness (Ga 6:1-5).

(4) Teachers have a peculiar claim on the taught; to ignore this is to ‘mock God.’ Men will "reap corruption" or "eternal life," as in such matters they ‘sow to the flesh’ or ‘to the Spirit.’ Be patient till the harvest! (Ga 6:6-10).

5. The Epilogue (Galatians 6:11-18):

The autograph conclusion (Ga 6:11) exposes the sinister motive of the circumcisionists, who are ashamed of the cross, the Christian’s only boast (Ga 6:12-15). Such men are none of "the Israel of God!" (Ga 6:16). "The brand of Jesus" is now on Paul’s body; at their peril "henceforth" will men trouble him! (Ga 6:17). The benediction follows (Ga 6:18).

B) Salient Points:

1. The Principles at Stake:

The postscript reveals the inwardness of the legalists’ agitation. They advocated circumcision from policy more than from conviction, hoping to conciliate Judaism and atone for accepting the Nazarene—to hide the shame of the cross—by capturing for the Law the Gentilechurches. They attack Paul because he stands in the way of this attempt. Their policy is treason; it surrenders to the world that cross of Christ, to which the world for its salvation must unconditionally submit. The grace of God the one source of salvation Ga (1:3; 2:21; 5:4), the cross of Christ its sole ground (1:4; 2:19-21; 3:13; 6:14), faith in the Good News its all-sufficient means (2:16,20; 3:2,5-9,23-26; 5:5), the Spirit its effectuating power (3:2-5; 4:6,7; 5:5,16-25; 6:8)—hence, emancipation from the Jewish law, and the full status of sons of God open to the Gentiles (2:4,5,15-19; 3:10-14; 3:28-4:9,26-31; 5:18; 6:15): these connected principles are at stake in the contention; they make up the doctrine of the epistle.

2. Present Stage of the Controversy:

Circumcision is now proposed by the Judaists as a supplement to faith in Christ, as the qualification for sonship to Abraham and communion with the apostolic church (Ga 3:7,29). After the Council at Jerusalem, they no longer say outright, "Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Ac 15:1). Paul’s Galatian converts, they admit, "have begun in the Spirit"; they bid them "be perfected" and attain the full Christian status by conforming to Moses—"Christ will profit" them much more, if they add to their faith circumcision (Ga 3:3; 5:2; compare Ro 3:1). This insidious proposal might seem to be in keeping with the findings of the Council; Peter’s action at Antioch lent color to it. Such a grading of the Circumcision and Uncircumcision within the church offered a tempting solution of the legalist controversy; for it appeared to reconcile the universal destination of the gospel with the inalienable prerogatives of the sons of Abraham. Paul’s reply is, that believing Gentiles are already Abraham’s "seed"—nay, sons and heirs of God; instead of adding anything, circumcision would rob them of everything they have won in Christ; instead of going on to perfection by its aid, they would draw back unto perdition.

3. Paul’s Depreciation of the Law:

Paul carries the war into the enemies’ camp, when he argues,

(a) that the law of Moses brought condemnation, not blessing, on its subjects (Ga 3:10-24); and

(b) that instead of completing the work of faith, its part in the Divine economy was subordinate (Ga 3:19-25).

It was a temporary provision, due to man’s sinful unripeness for the original covenant (Ga 3:19,24; 4:4). The Spirit of sonship, now manifested in the Gentiles, is the infallible sign that the promise made to mankind in Abraham has been fulfilled. The whole position of the legalists is undermined by the use the apostle makes of the Abrahamic covenant.

4. The Personal Question:

The religious and the personal questions of the epistle are bound up together; this Ga 5:2 clearly indicates. The latter naturally emerges first (1:1,11 ff). Paul’s authority must be overthrown, if his disciples are to be Judaized. Hence, the campaign of detraction against him (compare 2Co 10-12). The line of defense indicates the nature of the attack. Paul was said to be a second-hand, second-rate apostle, whose knowledge of Christ and title to preach Him came from Cephas and the mother church. In proof of this, an account was given of his career, which he corrects in Ga 1:13-2:21. "Cephas" was held up (compare 1Co 1:12) as the chief of the apostles, whose primacy Paul had repeatedly acknowledged; and "the pillars" at Jerusalem were quoted as maintainers of Mosaic rule and authorities for the additions to be made to Paul’s imperfect gospel. Paul himself, it was insinuated, "preaches circumcision" where it suits him; he is a plausible time-server (Ga 1:10; 5:11; compare Ac 16:3; 1Co 9:19-21). The apostle’s object in his self-defense is not to sketch his own life, nor in particular to recount his visits to Jerusalem, but to prove his independent apostleship and his consistent maintenance of Gentilerights. He states, therefore, what really happened on the critical occasions of his contact with Peter and the Jerusalem church. To begin with, he received his gospel and apostolic office from Jesus Christ directly, and apart from Peter (Ga 1:13-20); he was subsequently recognized by "the pillars" as apostle, on equality with Peter (Ga 2:6-9); he had finally vindicated his doctrine when it was assailed, in spite of Peter (Ga 2:11-12). The adjustment of Paul’s recollections with Luke’s narrative is a matter of dispute, in regard both to the conference of Ga 2:1-10 and the encounter of 2:11-21; to these points we shall return, iv.3 (4), (5).

C) Characteristics:

1. Idiosyncrasy of the Epistle:

This is a letter of expostulation. Passion and argument are blended in it. Hot indignation and righteous scorn (Ga 1:7-9; 4:17; 5:10,12; 6:12,13), tender, wounded affection (Ga 4:11-20), deep sincerity and manly integrity united with the loftiest consciousness of spiritual authority (Ga 1:10-12,20; 2:4-6,14; 5:2; 6:17), above all a consuming devotion to the person and cross of the Redeemer, fill these few pages with an incomparable wealth and glow of Christian emotion. The power of mind the epistle exhibits matches its largeness of heart. Roman indeed carries out the argument with greater breadth and theoretic completeness; but Ga excels in pungency, incisiveness, and debating force. The style is that of Paul at the summit of his powers. Its spiritual elevation, its vigor and resource, its subtlety and irony, poignancy and pathos, the vis vivida that animates the whole, have made this letter a classic of religious controversy. The blemishes of Paul’s composition, which contribute to his mastery of effect, are conspicuous here—his abrupt turns and apostrophes, and sometimes difficult ellipses (Ga 2:4-10,20; 4:16-20; 5:13), awkward parentheses and entangled periods (Ga 2:1-10,18; 3:16,20; 4:25), and outburst of excessive vehemence (Ga 1:8,9; 5:12).

2. Jewish Coloring:

The anti-legalist polemic gives a special Old Testament coloring to the epistle; the apostle meets his adversaries on their own ground. In Ga 3:16,19-20; 4:21-31, we have examples of the rabbinical exegesis Paul had learned from his Jewish masters. These texts should be read in part as argumenta ad hominem; however peculiar in form such Pauline passages may be, they always contain sound reasoning.

III. Relations to Other Epistles.

1. Galatians and Romans:

Besides the correspondence of purport, there is a verbal resemblance to Romans pervading the tissue of Galatians, and traceable in its mannerisms and incidental expressions. Outside of the identical quotations, we find more than 40 Greek locutions, some of them rare in the language, common to these two and occurring in these only of Paul’s epistles—including the words rendered "bear" (Ro 11:18 and Ga 5:10, etc.); "blessing" or "gratulation" (makarismos), "divisions" (Ro 16:17; Ga 5:20); "fail" or "fall from" (ekpipto); "labor on" or "upon" (of persons), "passions" (pathemata, in this sense); "set free" or "deliver" (eleutheroo); "shut up" or "conclude," and "shut out" or "exclude"; "travail (together)," and such phrases as "die to" (with dative), "hearing of faith," "if possible," "put on (the Lord Jesus) Christ," "those who do such things," "what saith the Scripture?" "where then?" (rhetorical), "why any longer?" The list would be greatly extended by adding expressions distinctive of this pair of letters that occur sporadically elsewhere in Paul. The kinship of Galatians-Romans in vocabulary and vein of expression resembles that existing between Colossians-Ephesians or 1 and 2 Thessalonians; it is twice as strong proportionately as that of 1 and 2 Corinthians. Not only the same current of thought, but with it, much the same stream of language was running through Paul’s mind in writing these two epistles.

The association of Galatians with the two Corinthian letters, though less intimate than that of Galatians-Romans, is unmistakable.

2. Links with 1 and 2 Corinthians:

These identical or closely congruous trains of thought and turns of phrase, varied and dominant as they are, speak for some near connection between the two writings. By its list of vices in Ga 5:19,20 Galatians curiously, and somewhat intricately, links itself at once with 2 Corinthians and Roman (see 2Co 12:20; Ro 13:13; 16:17). Galatians is allied by argument and doctrine with Romans, and by temper and sentiment with 2 Corinthians. The storm of feeling agitating our epistle blows from the same quarter, reaches the same height, and engages the same emotions with those which animate 2 Corinthians 10-13.

3. With the Corinthians-Romans Group:

If we add to the 43 locutions confined in the Pauline Epistles to Galatians-Romans the 23 such of Galatians-2 Corinthians, the 20 of Galatians-1 Corinthians, the 14 that range over Galatians- Romans-2 Corinthians, the 15 of Galatians-Romans-1 Corinthians, the 7 of Galatians-1-2 Corinthians, and the 11 running through all four, we get a total of 133 words or phrases (apart from Old Testament quotations) specific to Galatians in common with one or more of the Corinthians-Romans group—an average, that is, of close upon 3 for each chapter of those other epistles.

With the other groups of Pauline letters Galatians is associated by ties less numerous and strong, yet marked enough to suggest, in conjunction with the general style, a common authorship.

4. With Other Groups of Epistles:

The proportion of locutions peculiar to Ga and the 3rd group (Colossians-Philemon-Ephesians- Philippians) is 1 to each of their 15 chapters. The more noticeable of these are in Galatians- Colossians: "elements of the world," and the maxim, "There is no Jew nor Greek," etc., associated with the "putting on of Christ" ("the new man"); "fullness of the time" (or "seasons") and "householders of faith (of God)," also "Christ loved me (the church) and gave up himself for me (her)," in Galatians-Ephesians; "he that supplieth (your supplying of, epichoregia) the Spirit," and "vain-glory" (kenodoxia), in Galatians-Philippians; "redeem" (exagorazo) and "inheritance" are peculiar to Ga with Colossians-Ephesians together; the association of the believer’s "inheritance" with "the Spirit" in Galatians-Ephesians is a significant point of doctrinal identity.

The Thessalonians and Timothy-Titus (1st and 4th) groups are outliers in relation to Galatians, judged by vocabulary. There is little to associate our epistle with either of these combinations, apart from pervasive Corinthians-Romans phrases and the Pauline complexion. There are 5 such expressions registered for the 8 chapters of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 7 for the 13 of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus—just over one to two chapters for each group. While the verbal coincidences in these two cases are, proportionately, but one-half so many as those connecting Galatians with the 3rd group of epistles and one-fifth or one-sixth of those linking it to the 2nd group, they are also less characteristic; the most striking is the contrast of "well-doing" (kalopoieo) with "fainting" or "wearying" (egkakeo) in Ga 6:9 and 2Th 3:13.

5. General Comparison:

No other writing of Paul reflects the whole man so fully as this—his spiritual, emotional, intellectual, practical, and even physical, idiosyncrasy. We see less of the apostle’s tenderness, but more of his strength than in Philippians; less of his inner, mystic experiences, more of the critical turns of his career; less of his "fears," more of his "fightings," than in 2 Corinthians. While the 2nd letter to Timothy lifts the curtain from the closing stage of the apostle’s ministry, Ga throws a powerful light upon its beginning. The Pauline theology opens to us its heart in this document. The apostle’s message of deliverance from sin through faith in the crucified Redeemer, and of the new life in the Spirit growing from this root, lives and speaks; we see it in Galatians as a working and fighting theology, while in Romans it peacefully expands into an ordered system. The immediately saving truth of Christianity, the gospel of the Gospel, finds its most trenchant utterance in this epistle; here we learn "the word of the cross" as Paul received it from the living Saviour, and defended it at the crisis of his work.

IV. The Destination and Date.

1. Place and Time Interdependent:

The question of the people to whom, is bound up with that of the time at which, the Epistle to the Galatians was written. Each goes to determine the other. The expression "the first time" (to proteron) of Ga 4:13 presumes Paul to have been twice with the readers previously—for the first occasion, see 4:13-15; for the second, 1:9; 5:3. The explanation of Round (Date of the Epistle to Galatians, 1906), that the apostle intended to distinguish his first arrival at the several (South) Galatian cities from his return in the course of the same journey (Ac 14:21-23), cannot be accepted: Derbe, the limit of the expedition, received Paul and Barnabas but once on that round, and in retracing their steps the missionaries were completing an interrupted work, whereas Ga 4:13 implies a second, distinct visitation of the churches concerned as a whole; in Ac 15:36 Paul looks back to the journey of Ac 13:14-14:26 as one event.

Now the apostle revisited the South Galatian churches in starting on the 2nd missionary tour (Ac 16:1-5). Consequently, if his "Galatians" were Christians of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe (the South Galatian hypothesis), the letter was written in the further course of the 2nd tour—from Macedonia or Corinth about the time of 1 and 2Th (so Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, I, English translation), or from Antioch in the interval between the 2nd and 3rd journeys (so Ramsay); for on this latter journey (Ac 18:23) Paul (ex hyp.) traversed ‘the (South) Galatian country’ a third time. On the other hand, if they were people of Galatia proper, i.e. of North (Old) Galatia, the epistle cannot be earlier than the occasion of Ac 18:23, when Paul touched a second time "the Galatian country," which, on this supposition, he had evangelized in traveling from South Galatia to Troas during the previous tour (Ac 16:6-8). On the North Galatian hypothesis, the letter was dispatched from Ephesus during Paul’s long residence there (Ac 19; so most interpreters, ancient and modern), in which case it heads the 2nd group of the epistles; or later, from Macedonia or Corinth, and shortly before the writing of the Epistle to the Romans (thus Lightfoot, Salmon, A. L. Williams and others).

Per contra, the earlier date, if proved independently, carries with it the South Galatian, the later date the North Galatian theory. The subscription of the Textus Receptus of the New Testament "written from Rome," rests on inferior manuscript authority and late Patristic tradition. Clemen, with no suggestion as to place of origin, assigns to the writing a date subsequent to the termination of the 3rd missionary tour (55 or 57 AD), inasmuch as the epistle reflects the controversy about the Law, which in Romans is comparatively mild, at an acute, and, therefore (he supposes), an advanced stage.

2. Internal Evidence:

Lightfoot (chapter iii of Introduction to Commentary) placed Galatians in the 2nd group of the epistles between 2 Corinthians and Romans, upon considerations drawn from "the style and character" of the epistle. His argument might be strengthened by a detailed linguistic analysis (see III, 1-3, above). The more minutely one compares Galatians with Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians, the more these four are seen to form a continuous web, the product of the same experience in the writer’s mind and the same situation in the church. This presumption, based on internal evidence, must be tested by examination of the topographical and chronological data.

3. External Data:

(1) Galatia and the Galatians.

The double sense of these terms obtaining in current use has been shown in the article on GALATIA; Steinmann sets out the evidence at large in his essay on Der Leserkreis des Galaterbriefes, 61-76 (1908); see also A. L. Williams’ Introduction to Galatians in Cambr. Greek Test. (1910). Roman authors of the period in using these expressions commonly thought of provincial Galatia (NOTE: Schurer seems to be right, however, in maintaining that "Galatia" was only the abbreviated designation for the province, named a parte potiori, and that in more formal description it was styled "Galatia, Pisidia, Phrygia," etc.) which then embraced in addition to Galatia proper a large tract of Southern Phrygia and Lycaonia, reaching from Pisidian Antioch in the west to Derbe in the east; but writers of Asia Minor leaned to the older local and national usage, according to which "Galatia" signified the north-central highlands of the peninsula, on both sides of the river Halys, in which the invading Galatae had settled long before this time. (On their history see the previous article) It is asserted that Paul strictly followed the official, as against the popular, usus loquendi in these matters—a questionable dictum (see A. L. Williams, op. cit., xix, xx, or Steinmann’s Leserkreis, 78-104), in view of Ga 1:21,22 (note the Greek double article), to go no farther. There was nothing in Paul’s Roman citizenship to make him a precisian in a point like this. Ramsay has proved that all four cities of Ac 13:14-14:23 were by this time included in provincial Galatia. Their inhabitants might therefore, officially, be styled "Galatians" (Galatae); it does not follow that this was a fit or likely compilation for Paul to use. Julicher says this would have been a piece of "bad taste" on his part. The attachment of the southern districts (Phrygian, Pisidian, Lycaonian) to Galatia was recent—Derbe had been annexed so late as the year 41—and artificial. Supposing that their Roman "colonial" rank made the designation "Galatians" agreeable to citizens of Antioch or Lystra, there was little in it to appeal to Iconians or Derbeans (compare Schmiedel, in EB, col. 1604).

(2) Prima Facie Sense of Ac 16:6.

The "Galatian country" (Galatike chora) is mentioned by Luke, with careful repetition, in Ac 16:6 and 18:23. Luke at any rate was not tied to imperial usage; he distinguishes "Phrygia" from "Asia" in Ac 2:9,10, although Phrygia was administratively parceled out between Asia and Galatia. When therefore "Asia" is opposed in 16:6 to "the Phrygian and Galatian country" (or "Phrygia and Galatian country," Zahn), we presume that the three terms of locality bear alike a non-official sense, so that the "Galatian country" means Old Galatia (or some part of it) lying to the Northeast, as "Asia" means the narrower Asia west of "Phrygia." On this presumption we understand that Paul and Silas, after completing their visitation of "the cities" of the former tour (Ac 16:4,5; compare Ac 15:36, in conjunction with Ac 13:14-14:23), since they were forbidden to proceed westward and "speak the word in Asia," turned their faces to the region—first Phrygian, then Galatian—that stretched northward into new territory, through which they traveled toward "Mysia" and "Bithynia" (Ac 16:7). Thus Ac 16:6 fills in the space between the South Galatia covered by 16:4 and 5, and the Mysian-Bithynian border where we find the travelers in 16:7. Upon this, the ordinary construction of Luke’s somewhat involved sentence, North Galatia was entered by Paul on his 2nd tour; he retraversed, more completely, "the Galatian region" at the commencement of the 3rd tour, when he found "disciples" there (Ac 18:23) whom he had gathered on the previous visit.

(3) The Grammar of Ac 16:6.

In the interpretation of the Lukan passages proposed by Ramsay, Ac 16:16 a, detached from 16b, is read as the completion of 16:1-5 (‘And they went through the Phrygian .... region. They were forbidden by the Holy Ghost .... in Asia, and came over against Mysia,’ etc.); and "the Phrygian and Galatian region" means the southwestern division of Provincia Galatia, a district at once Phrygian (ethnically) and Galatian (politically). The combination of two local adjectives., under a common article, to denote the same country in different respects, if exceptional in Greek idiom (15:41 and 27:5 illustrate the usual force of this collocation), is clearly possible—the one strictly parallel geographical expression, "the Iturean and Trachonite country" in Lu 3:1, unfortunately, is also ambiguous. But the other difficulty of grammar involved in the new rendering of Ac 16:6 is insuperable: the severance of the participle, "having been forbidden" (koluthentes), from the introductory verb, "they went through" (diel-thon), wrenches the sentence to dislocation; the aorist participle in such connection "must contain, if not something antecedent to ‘they went,’ at least something synchronous with it, in no case a thing subsequent to it, if all the rules of grammar and all sure understanding of language are not to be given up" (Schmiedel, EB, col. 1599; endorsed in Moulton’s Prolegomena to the Grammar of New Testament Greek, 134; see also Chase in The Expositor, IV, viii, 404-11, and ix, 339-42). Ac 10:29 ("I came .... when I was sent for") affords a grammatical parallel to 16:6 (‘They went through .... since they were hindered’).

Zahn’s position is peculiar (Intro to New Testament, I, 164-202). Rejecting Ramsay’s explanation of Ac 16:6, and of 18:23 (where Ramsay sees Paul a third time crossing South Galatia), and maintaining that Luke credits the apostle with successful work in North Galatia, he holds, notwithstanding, the South Galatian view of the epistle. This involves the paradox that Paul in writing to "the churches of Galatia" ignored those of North Galatia to whom the title properly belonged—an incongruence which Ramsay escapes by denying that Paul had set foot in Old Galatia. In the 1st edition of the Einleitung Zahn had supposed North and South Galatia together included in the address; this supposition is contrary to the fact that the readers form a homogeneous body, the fruit of a single mission (4:13), and are affected simultaneously by the same disturbance (1:6; 5:7-9). Associating the letter in 2nd edition with South Galatians alone, Zahn suggests that while Paul had labored in North Galatia and found "disciples" there on his return, these were too few and scattered to form "churches"—an estimate scarcely in keeping with Luke’s phrase Ac 5:7-9 "all the disciples" (18:23), and raising a distinction between "disciples" and "churches" foreign to the historian’s usage (see Ac 6:2; 9:19; 14:20). We must choose between North and South Galatia; and if churches existed among the people of the north at the time of writing, then the northerners claim this title by right of use and wont—and the epistle with it. The reversal of "Galatian and Phrygia(n)" in Ac 18:23, as compared with 16:6, implies that the apostle on the 3rd tour struck "the Galatian country" first, traveling this time directly North from Syrian Antioch, and turned westward toward Phrygia when he had reached Old Galatia; whereas his previous route had brought him westward along the highroad traversing South Galatia, until he turned northward at a point not far distant from Pisidian Antioch, to reach North Galatia through Phrygia from the southwest. See the Map of Asia Minor.

(4) Notes of Time in the Epistle.

The "3 years" of Ga 1:18 and the "14 years" of 2:1 are both seemingly counted from Paul’s conversion.

(a) The synchronism of the conversion with the murder of Stephen and the free action of the high priest against the Nazarenes (Ac 9:2, etc.), and of Saul’s visit to Jerusalem in the 3rd year thereafter with Aretas’ rule in Damascus (2Co 11:32,33), forbid our placing these two events further back than 36 and 38—at furthest, 35 and 37 AD (see Turner on "Chronology of the NT" in HDB, as against the earlier dating).

(b) This calculation brings us to 48-49 as the year of the conference of Ga 2:1-10—a date precluding the association of that meeting with the errand to Jerusalem related in Ac 11:30 and 12:25, while it suits the identification of the former with the council of Ac 15. Other indications converge on this as the critical epoch of Paul’s apostleship. The expedition to Cyprus and South Galatia (Ac 13; 14) had revealed in Paul ‘signs of the apostle’ which the chiefs of the Judean church now recognized (Ga 2:7-9; compare Ac 15:12), and gave him the ascendancy which he exercised at this crisis; up to the time of Ac 13:1 "Saul" was known but as an old persecutor turned preacher (Ga 1:23), one of the band of "prophets and teachers" gathered round Barnabas at Antioch. The previous visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem (Ac 11; 12) had no ostensible object beyond that of famine-relief. From Ac 12 we learn that the mother church just then was suffering deadly persecution; Peter certainly was out of the way. There was no opportunity for the negotiation described in Ga 2:1-10, and it would have been premature for Paul to raise the question of his apostleship at this stage. In all likelihood, he saw few Judean Christians then beyond "the elders," who received the Antiochene charity (Ac 11:30). Nothing transpired in connection with this remittance, important as it was from Luke’s standpoint, to affect the question of Ga 1; 2; it would have been idle for Paul to refer to it. On the other hand, no real contradiction exists between Ac 15 and Ga 2 "The two accounts admirably complete each other" (Pfleiderer; compare Cambr. Greek Test., 145, 146; Steinmann, Die Abfassungszeit d. Gal.-Briefes, section 7); in matters of complicated dispute involving personal considerations, attempts at a private understanding naturally precede the public settlement. It would be strange indeed if the same question of the circumcision of Gentilebelievers had twice within a few years been raised at Antioch, to be twice carried to Jerusalem and twice over decided there by the same parties—Barnabas and Paul, Peter and James—and with no reference made in the second discussion (that of Acts, ex hyp.) to the previous compact (Ga 2). Granting the epistle written after the council, as both Ramsay and Zahn suppose, we infer that Paul has given his more intimate account of the crisis, about which the readers were already informed in the sense of Ac 15, with a view to bring out its essential bearing on the situation.

(c) The encounter of Paul and Cephas at Antioch (Ga 2:11-21) is undated. The time of its occurrence bears on the date of the epistle. As hitherto, the order of narration presumably follows the order of events, the "but" of Ga 2:11 appears to contrast Cephas’ present attitude with his action in Jerusalem just described. Two possible opportunities present themselves for a meeting of Paul and Cephas in Antioch subsequently to the council—the time of Paul’s and Barnabas’ sojourn there on their return from Jerusalem (Ac 15:35,36), or the occasion of Paul’s later visit, occupying "some time," between the 2nd and 3rd tours (Ac 18:22,23), when for aught we know Barnabas and Peter may both have been in the Syrian capital.

(5) Paul’s Renewed Struggle with Legalism.

The new situation arose through the vacillation of Peter; and the "certain from James" who made mischief at Antioch, were the forerunners of "troublers" who agitated the churches far and wide, appearing simultaneously in Corinth and North Galatia. The attempt to set up a separate church- table for the circumcised at Antioch was the first movement in a crafty and persistent campaign against Gentileliberties engineered from Jerusalem. The Epistle to the Romans signalized Paul’s conclusive victory in this struggle, which covered the period of the 3rd missionary tour. On his revisitation of the Galatians (1:9; 5:3 parallel Ac 18:23), fresh from the contention with Cephas and aware of the wide conspiracy on foot, Paul gave warning of the coming of "another gospel"; it had arrived, fulfilling his worst fears. Upon this view of the course of affairs (see Neander, Planting and Training of the Christian Church, III, vii; Godet’s Introduction to the New Testament, Epistles of Paul, 200-201; Sabatier, as above), the mistake of Peter at Antioch was the proximate antecedent of the trouble in Galatia; hence, Ga 2:11-24 leads up to 3:1 and the main argument. Now, if the Antiochene collision befell so late as this, then the epistle is subsequent to the date of Ac 18:22,23; from which it follows, once more, that Ga belongs to the 3rd missionary tour and the Corinthians-Romans group of letters.

(6) Ephesus or Corinth?

Chiefly because of the words, "you are removing so quickly," in Ga 1:6, the epistle is by many referred to the earlier part of the above period, the time of Paul’s protracted sojourn in Ephesus (Ac 19:8,10 54-56 AD); "so quickly," however, signifies not "so soon after my leaving you," but "so suddenly" and "with such slight persuasion" (Ga 5:7,8). From Ephesus, had the apostle been there when the trouble arose, he might as easily have visited Galatia as he did Corinth under like circumstances (so much is implied in 2Co 13:1): he is longing to go to Galatia, but cannot (Ga 4:19,20). A more distant situation, such as Macedonia or Corinth (Ac 20:1-3), where Paul found himself in the last months of this tour (56-57 AD), and where, in churches of some standing, he was surrounded by a body of sympathetic "brethren" (Ga 1:1) whose support gave weight to his remonstrance with the Galatians, suits the epistle better on every account.

(7) Paul’s First Coming to Galatia.

In Ga 4:13-15 the apostle recalls, in words surcharged with emotion, his introduction to the readers. His "preaching the good news" to them was due to "weakness of the flesh"—to some sickness, it seems, which arrested his steps and led him to minister in a locality that otherwise he would have "passed over," as he did Mysia a little later (Ac 16:8). So we understand the obscure language of Ga 4:13. The South Galatian theorists, in default of any reference to illness as affecting the apostle’s movements in Ac 13:13,14, favor Ramsay’s conjecture that Paul fell a victim to malaria on the Pamphylian coast, and that he and Barnabas made for Pisidian Antioch by way of seeking the cooler uplands. The former explanation lies nearer to the apostle’s language: he says "I preached to you," not "I came to you, because of illness." The journey of a hundred miles from Perga to Antioch was one of the least likely to be undertaken by a fever- stricken patient (see the description in Conybeare and Howson’s Life of Paul, or in Ramsay’s Paul the Traveler). Besides, if this motive had brought Paul to Antioch, quite different reasons are stated by Luke for his proceeding to the other South Galatian towns (see Ac 13:50,51; 14:6,19,20). Reading Ga 4:13-15, one imagines the missionary hastening forward to some further goal (perhaps the important cities of Bithynia, Ac 16:7), when he is prostrated by a malady the physical effects of which were such as to excite extreme aversion. As strength returns, he begins to offer his gospel in the neighborhood where the unwilling halt has been made. There was much to prejudice the hearers against a preacher addressing them under these conditions; but the Galatians welcomed him as a heaven-sent messenger. Their faith was prompt and eager, their gratitude boundless.

The deification of Barnabas and Paul by the Lycaonians (Ac 14:11-18) is the one incident of Luke’s narrative of which the apostle’s description reminds us. To this the latter is thought to be alluding when he writes, "You received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus!" But could he speak thus of his reception—hateful at the time—in the character of a heathen god, and of a reception that ended in his stoning? The "welcome" of the messenger implies faith in his message (compare Ga 4:14; 2Co 6:1; 1Th 1:6; Mt 10:40,41, where the same Greek verb is used).

Paul’s mishandling at Lystra (Ac 14:19,20) has suggested a correspondence in the opposite sense between the epistle and the story of the South Galatian mission. The Lystran stones left their print on Paul’s body; in these disfiguring scars one might see "the marks of Jesus" to which he points in Ga 6:17, were it not for the note of time, "from henceforth," which distinguishes these stigmata as a fresh infliction, identifying the servant now more than ever with his Master. The true parallel to Ga 6:17 is 2Co 4:10 (see the context in 4:7-5:4, also 18), which we quoted above (III, 2). When he wrote 2 Cor, the apostle was emerging from an experience of crucial anguish, which gave him an aspect imaging the dying Saviour whom he preached; to this new consecration the appeal of our epistle seems to refer.

(8) Barnabas and the Galatians.

The references to Barnabas in Ga 2:1,9,13, at first sight suggest the South Galatian destination of the letter. For Barnabas and Paul were companions on the first only of the three tours, and Barnabas is named thrice here and but twice in the rest of the epistles. Yet these very references awaken misgiving. Barnabas was Paul’s full partner in the South Galatian mission; he was senior in service, and had introduced Saul to the apostles at Jerusalem; he was the leader at the outset of this journey (Ac 9:27; 11:22-26; 13:1-3; 15:25)—Barnabas was taken for "Zeus" by the heathen of Lystra, while the eloquent Paul was identified with "Hermes" (Ac 14:12). The churches of South Galatia had two founders, and owed allegiance to Barnabas along with Paul. Yet Paul deals with the readers as though he alone were their father in Christ. Referring to Barnabas conspicuously in the letter and as differing from himself on a point affecting the question at issue (Ga 2:13), Paul was the more bound to give his old comrade his due and to justify his assumption of sole authority, if he were in truth addressing communities which owed their Christianity to the two men in conjunction. On the South Galatian hypothesis, the apostle appears ungenerously to have elbowed his colleague out of the partnership. The apostle Paul, it is to be noted, was particularly sensitive on matters of this kind (see 1Co 4:15; 2Co 10:13-16). The name of Barnabas was known through the whole church (see 1Co 9:6; Col 4:10); there is no more difficulty in supposing the North Galatians to be familiar with it than with the names of James and John (Ga 2:9). Possibly Paul, as his responsibilities extended, had left the care of South Galatia to Barnabas, who could readily superintend this district from Antioch in Syria; Paul refers to him in 1Co 9:6, long after the separation of Ac 15:39, as a fellow- worker. This would account for his making direct for North Galatia on the 3rd tour; see IV, 3 (3).

(9) The Two Antiochs.

In Ga 2:11 Paul refers to "Antioch,". the famous city on the Orontes. To South Galatians "Antioch" meant, as in 2Ti 3:11, the Pisidian city of that name. Had Paul been addressing South Galatians, and Antiochenes imprimis, he could not without singular inadvertence have failed to make the distinction. The gaucherie would have been as marked as if, in writing to a circle of West-of-England towns including Bradford-on-Avon, one should mention "Bradford" without qualification, meaning the Yorkshire Bradford.

The arguments drawn from local difference in legal usage—in the matters of adoption, testament, etc.—in favor of the South Galatian destination (see Schmiedel’s examination of Ramsay’s views in EB, coll. 1608-9), and from the temperament of Paul’s "Galatians" in favor of North Galatia (Lightfoot), are too precarious to build upon.

(10) Wider Bearings of the Problem.

On a broad view of the scope of Paul’s missionary work and of the relation of his letters to Acts, there is much to commend the South Galatian theory. It simplifies the situation by connecting this cardinal writing of Paul with churches of cardinal importance in Luke’s narrative. The South Galatian cities lay along the main route of the apostle’s travels, and in the mid-stream of the church’s life. The epistle, when associated with the Christian communities of this region, gains a definite setting and a firm point of attachment in New Testament history; whereas the founding of North Galatian Christianity is indicated by Luke, if at all, in the most cursory fashion, and it held an obscure place in the early church. How, it is asked, could Paul’s intimate friend have been (on the North Galatian theory) so uninterested in churches by which Paul himself set such store? And how can Paul have ignored, apart from the allusion of 2Ti 3:11, the South Galatians who formed the first-fruits of his wider labors and supplied a vital link in his chain of churches? In reply, we must point out: (1) that for anything we know Paul wrote many letters to South Galatia; we possess but a selection from his correspondence; the choice of the canonical epistles was not governed by the importance of the parties addressed in them—witness Colossians and Philemon; nor were Paul’s concern for his churches, and the empressement with which he wrote, determined by their magnitude and position, but by their needs and their hold on his affections (see Ga 1:6, etc.; 4:12-20). (2) The North Galatian mission lay off the central line of Paul’s journeyings and of the advance of GentileChristianity; this is probably the reason why Luke, who was compelled to a strict economy of space, just ignores this field, though he shows himself aware of its existence. The apostle’s confession that he preached to the readers, in the first instance, not from choice but necessity (Ga 4:13), accords with the neglect of North Galatia in Acts; the evangelizing of the North Galatians was an aside in Paul’s work—an incident beyond the scope of his plans, from which at this period he was compelled again and again to deviate (Ac 16:6-10).

After all, though less important during the 1st century than South Galatia North Galatia was not an unimportant or inaccessible region. It was traversed by the ancient "Royal Road" from the East to the Hellespont, which the apostle probably followed as far as Phrygia in the journey of Ac 18:22,23. Planted by Paul in Old Galatia, the gospel would spread to Bithynia and Pontus farther north, as it certainly had done by the time Peter wrote to the churches of Asia Minor (1Pe 1:1). It is observable that "Galatia" stands between "Pontus and Cappadocia" in Peter’s enumeration of the provinces—an order indicating that Christians of North Galatia were particularly in the writer’s mind. Had Paul never set foot in North Galatia, had he not worked along the Royal Road and put his message in the Way of reaching the northern provinces of Asia Minor, the claim of Ro 15:19 is difficult to sustain, that "from Jerusalem, and in a circle as far as Illyricum, he had fulfilled the gospel of Christ." On the whole, we find the external evidence in accord with the testimony given by the internal character and affinities of the epistle: we judge that this epistle was written circa the autumn or winter of 56-57 AD, from Macedonia or Corinth, toward the end of Paul’s third missionary tour; that it was addressed to a circle of churches situated in Galatia proper or North Galatia, probably in the western part of this country contiguous to (or overlapping) Phrygia (Ac 16:6); and that its place lies between the two Corinthian and the Roman letters among the epistles of the second group.

LITERATURE.

The South Galatian destination was proposed by the Danish Mynster (Einltg. in d. Brief an d. Gal, 1825; M. however included North Galatia), and adopted by the French Perrot (De Galatia Provincia Romana, 1867) and Renan (S. Paul); by the German Clemen (Chronologie d. paulin. Briefe, 1893; Die Adressaten d. Gal.-Briefes; Paulus: sein Leben u. Wirken, 1904), Hausrath (NT Zeitgeschichte, 1873, English Translation), Pfleiderer (Paulinismus, 1873, English translation; Paulinismus2, much altered; Urchristenthum, 1902), Steck (as above), Weizsacker (Das apost. Zeitalter3, 1902, English Translation); after Ramsay (see under GALATIA), by Belser (Beitrage z. Erklarung d. AG, etc.), O. Holtzmann (Zeitschrift f. KG, 1894), von Soden (Hist of Early Christian Lit., ET; he includes South with North Galatia), Weber (Die Adressaten d. Gal.-Briefes), J. Weiss (RE3, article "Kleinasien"), in Germany; by Askwith (Ep. to Gal: An Essay on Its Destination and Date), Bacon (Expos, V, vii, 123-36; x, 351-67), Bartlet (Expos, V, x, 263-80), Gifford (Expos, IV, x, 1-20), Maclean (1-vol HDB), Rendall (Expos, IV, ix, 254-64; EGT, Introduction to "Galatians"), Round (as above), Sanday (with hesitation, The Expositor, IV, vii, 491-95), Woodhouse (EB, article "Galatia"). The N. Galatian destination, held by earlier scholars up to Lightfoot and Salmon (DB2, an illuminating discussion), is reasserted, in view of Ramsay’s findings, by Chase (Expos, IV, viii, 401-19; ix, 331-42), Cheetham (Class. Review, 1894), Dods (HDB, article "Galatians"), Williams (Cambr. Greek Testament., 1910), in this country; by Sabatier (L’Apotre Paul2, English translation, 1891); by Gheorghiu (Adressatii epistle c. Galateni, Cernauti, 1904, praised by Steinmann); and by the German critics Blass (Acta Apost.), yon Dobschutz (Die urchr. Gemeinden, 1902, and Probleme d. apost. Zeitalters), Harnack (Apostelgeschichte, 1908, 87-90), H. Holtzmann (Handcomm. z. New Testament, "AG"), Julicher (NT Intro, English Translation), Lipsius (Handcomm. z. New Testament, "Galater") Lietzmann (doubtfully, Handbuch z. N T, III, i, "Galaterbrief"), Mommsen (ZNTW, 1901, 81-96), Schmiedel (Encyclopedia Biblica), Schurer (Jahrbuch f. prot. Theologie, XVIII, 460- 74), Sieffert (Meyer’s Kommentar), Steinmann (as above), Zockler (a full and masterly discussion: Studien u. Kritiken, 1895, 51-102). Mommsen’s verdict is thus expressed: "To apprehend ‘the Galatians’ of Paul otherwise than in the strict and narrower sense of the term, is unallowable. The Provinces associated with Galatia under the rule of a single legate, as e.g. Lycaonia certainly was as early as the time of Claudius, were in no way incorporated in that region; the official inscriptions simply set Galatia at the head of the combined regions. Still less could the inhabitants of Iconium and Lystra be named ‘Galatians’ in common speech."

Apart from the aforesaid controversy, besides the standard Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, Luther’s Ad Galatas is of unique historical interest; the interpretations of Usteri (1833), Hilgenfeld (1852), Winer (18594), Holsten (Das Evangel. d. Paulus, 1880), Philippi (1884), in German; Baljon (1889), in Dutch; and of B. Jowett, Ellicott, Beet, are specially serviceable, from different points of view; see also CGT and EB.

George G. Findlay

gal’-ba-num (chelbenah; chalbdne):

A gum-resin which occurs in small, round, semitranslucent tears or in brownish yellow masses; has a pleasant aromatic odor and a bitter taste; and is today, at any rate, imported from Persia.

It is derived from certain umbelliferous plants, Ferula galbaniflua and F. rubricaulis. It is mentioned in Ex 30:34 as an ingredient of the holy incense, and also in APC Sirach 24:15: "a pleasant odor .... as galbanum."

gal’-e-ed (gal‘edh): Derived from the Hebrew gal, "a heap of stones," and ‘edh, "witness." The meaning therefore is "cairn" or "heap of witness," corresponding to yeghar-sahddhutha’ in Aramaic (Ge 31:47). It is applied to the cairn raised by Jacob and Laban, beside which they sealed their covenant in a common meal, the memory of which they appealed to the silent cairn to preserve. The ancient custom of associating events with inanimate objects as witnesses is often illustrated in Hebrew history (Jos 4:4 ff, etc.). There may be in this narrative a suggestion of how the name "Gilead" came to be applied to that country.

W. Ewing

gal’-gal-a (Gallgala):

Greek equivalent for Gilgal. The word occurs in APC 1Macc 9:2 in connection with Arbela, in Galilee—"The way to Galgala"—but it is doubtful which Gilgal is meant. Compare Josephus, Ant, XII, xi, 1

see GILGAL.

gal-i-le’-an.

See GALILEE.

gal’-i-le (ha-galil, hagelilah, literally, "the circuit" or "district"; he Galilaia):

1. Galilee of the Nations:

Kedesh, the city of refuge, is described as lying in Galilee, in Mt. Naphtali (Jos 20:7; compare Jos 21:32). The name seems originally to have referred to the territory of Naphtali. Joshua’s victorious campaign in the north (Jos 11), and, subsequently, the triumph of the northern tribes under Deborah and Barak (Jud 4 f) gave Israel supremacy; yet the tribe of Naphtali was not able to drive out all the former inhabitants of the land (Jud 1:33). In the time of Solomon the name applied to a much wider region, including the territory of Asher. In this land lay the cities given by Solomon to Hiram (1Ki 9:11). Cabul here named must be identical with that of Jos 19:27. The Asherites also failed to possess certain cities in their allotted portion, so that the heathen continued to dwell among them. To this state of things, probably, is due the name given in Isa 9:1 to this region, "Galilee of the nations," i.e. a district occupied by a mixed population of Jews and heathen. It may also be referred to in Jos 12:23, where possibly we should read "king of the nations of Galilee" (legalil), instead of "Gilgal" (begilgal). Yet it was within this territory that, according to 2Sa 20:18 (Septuagint) lay the two cities noted for their preservation of ancient Israelite religious customs in their purity—Abel-bethmaacah and Dan.

2. Ancient Boundaries:

There is nothing to guide us as to the northern boundary of Galilee in the earliest times. On the East it was bounded by the upper Jordan and the Sea of Galilee, and on the South by the plain of el-BaTTauf. That all within these limits belonged to Galilee we may be sure. Possibly, however, it included Zebulun, which seems to be reckoned to it in Isa 9:1. In this territory also there were unconquered Canaanite cities (Jud 1,30).

3. Before the Exile:

At the instigation of Asa, king of Judah, Benhadad, son of Tabrimmon of Damascus, moved against Israel, and the cities which he smote all lay within the circle of Galilee (1Ki 15:20). Galilee must have been the arena of conflict between Jehoahaz and Hazael, king of Syria. The cities which the latter captured were recovered from his son Benhadad by Joash, who defeated him three times (2Ki 10:32; 13:22 ). The affliction of Israel nevertheless continued "very bitter," and God saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Joash, the great warrior monarch of the Northern Kingdom, under whom Galilee passed completely into the hands of Israel (2Ki 14:25 ff). But the days of Israel’s supremacy in Northern Palestine were nearly over. The beginning of the end came with the invasion of Tiglath-pileser III, who took the chief cities in Galilee, and sent their inhabitants captive to Assyria (2Ki 14:29). Probably, as in the case of the Southern Kingdom, the poorest of the land were left as husbandmen. At any rate there still remained Israelites in the district (2Ch 30:10 f); but the measures taken by the conqueror must have made for the rapid increase of the heathen element.

4. After the Exile:

In post-exilie times Galilee is the name given to the most northerly of the three divisions of Western Palestine. The boundaries are indicated by Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 1). It was divided into Lower and Upper Galilee, and was encompassed by Phoenicia and Syria. It marched with Ptolemais and Mt. Carmel on the West. The mountain, formerly Galliean, now belonged to the Syrians. On the South it adjoined Samaria and Scythopolis (Beisan) as far as the river Jordan. It was bounded on the East by Hippene, Gadara, Gaulonitis and the borders of the kingdom of Agrippa, while the northern frontier was marked by Tyre and the country of the Tyrians. The northern limit of Samaria was Ginea, the modern Jenin, on the south border of Esdraelon. Lower Galilee, therefore, included the great plain, and stretched northward to the plain of er-Rameh—Ramah of Jos 19:36. Josephus mentions Bersabe, the modern Abu-Sheba, and the Talmud, Kephar Chananyah, the modern Kefr ‘Anan, as the northern border; the former being about a mile North of the latter. The plain reaches to the foot of the mountain chain, which, running East and West, forms a natural line of division. Upper Galilee may have included the land as far as the gorge of the LiTany, which, again, would have formed a natural boundary to the N. Josephus, however, speaks of Kedesh as belonging to the Syrians (BJ, II, xviii, 1), situated "between the land of the Tyrians and Galilee" (Ant., XIII, v, 6). This gives a point on the northern frontier in his time; but the rest is left indefinite. Guthe, Sunday and others, followed by Cheyne (EB, under the word), on quite inadequate grounds conclude that certain localities on the East of the Sea of Galilee were reckoned as Galilean.

5. Character of the Galileans:

In the mixed population after the exile the purely Jewish element must have been relatively small. In 165 BC Simon Maccabeus was able to rescue them from their threatening neighbors by carrying the whole community away to Judea (1 Macc 5:14 ff). Josephus tells of the conquest by Aristobulus I of Ituraea (Ant., XIII, xi, 3). He compelled many of them to adopt Jewish religious customs, and to obey the Jewish law. There can be little doubt that Galilee and its people were treated in the same way. While Jewish in their religion, and in their patriotism too, as subsequent history showed, the population of Galilee was composed of strangely mingled elements—Aramaean, Iturean, Phoenician and Greek In the circumstances they could not be expected to prove such sticklers for high orthodoxy as the Judeans. Their mixed origin explains the differences in speech which distinguished them from their brethren in the South, who regarded Galilee and the Galileans with a certain proud contempt (Joh 1:46; 7:52). But a fine type of manhood was developed among the peasant farmers of the two Galilees which, according to Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 2), were "always able to make a strong resistance on all occasions of war; for the Galileans are inured to war from their infancy .... nor hath the country ever been destitute of men of courage." Josephus, himself a Galilean, knew his countrymen well, and on them he mainly relied in the war with Rome. In Galilee also the Messianic hope was cherished with the deepest intensity. When the Messiah appeared, with His own Galilean upbringing, it was from the north-countrymen that He received the warmest welcome, and among them His appeal elicited the most gratifying response.

6. Later History:

In 47 BC, Herod the Great, then a youth of 25, was made military commander of Galilee, and won great applause by the fashion in which he suppressed a band of robbers who had long vexed the country (Ant., XIV, ix, 2). When Herod came to the throne, 37 BC, a period of peace and prosperity for Galilee began, which lasted till the banishment of his son Antipas in 40 AD. The tetrarchy of Galilee was given to the latter at his father’s death, 4 BC. His reign, therefore, covered the whole life of Jesus, with the exception of His infancy. After the banishment of Antipas, Galilee was added to the dominions of Agrippa I, who ruled it till his death in 44 AD. Then followed a period of Roman administration, after which it was given to Agrippa II, who sided with the Romans in the subsequent wars, and held his position till 100 AD. The patriotic people, however, by no means submitted to his guidance. In their heroic struggle for independence, the command of the two Galilees, with Gamala, was entrusted to Josephus, who has left a vivid narrative, well illustrating the splendid courage of his freedom-loving countrymen. But against such an adversary as Rome even their wild bravery could not prevail; and the country soon lay at the feet of the victorious Vespasian, 67 AD. There is no certain knowledge of the part played by Galilee in the rebellion under Hadrian, 132-35 AD.

At the beginning of the Roman period Sepphoris (Cafuriyeh), about 3 miles North of Nazareth, took the leading place. Herod Antipas, however, built a new city on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, which, in honor of the reigning emperor, he called Tiberias. Here he reared his "golden house," and made the city the capital of his tetrarchy. See TIBERIAS. After the fall of Jerusalem, Galilee, which had formerly been held in contempt, became the home of Jewish learning, and its chief seat was found in Tiberias where the Mishna was committed to writing, and the Jerusalem Talmud was composed. Thus a city into which at first no pious Jew would enter, in a province which had long been despised by the leaders of the nation, became the main center of their national and religious life.

7. Cities of Galilee:

Among the more notable cities in Galilee were Kedesh Naphtali, the city of refuge, the ruins of which lie on the heights West of el-Chuleh; Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, North of the Sea of Galilee; Nazareth, the city of the Savior’s youth and young manhood; Jotapata, the scene of Josephus’ heroic defense against the Romans, which stood at Tell Jefat, North of the plain of Asochis (BJ, III, vii, viii); Cana of Galilee; and Nain, on the northern slope of the mountain now called Little Hermon.

8. General Description:

In physical features Galilee is the most richly diversified and picturesque district in Western Palestine; while in beauty and fertility it is strongly contrasted with the barren uplands of Judah. Cut off from Mt. Lebanon in the North by the tremendous gorge of the Litany, it forms a broad and high plateau, sinking gradually southward until it approaches Cafed, when again it rises, culminating in Jebel Jermuk, the highest summit on the West of the Jordan. From Cafed there is a rapid descent by stony slope and rocky precipice to the shore of the Sea of Galilee. The mountains of which Jebel Jermuk is the Northeast outrunner stretch westward across the country, and drop upon the plain of er-Rameh to the South. Irregular hills and valleys, with breadths of shady woodlands, lie between this plain and that of Asochis (el-Battauf]). The latter is split from the East by the range of Jebel Tor‘an. South of Asochis rise lower hills, in a cup-like hollow among which lies the town of Nazareth. South of the town they sink steeply into the plain of Esdraelon. The isolated form of Tabor stands out on the East, while Carmel bounds the view on the West. The high plateau in the North terminates abruptly at the lip of the upper Jordan valley. As the Jordan runs close to the base of the eastern hills, practically all this valley, with its fine rolling downs, is included in Galilee. The plain of Gennesaret runs along the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee. From the uplands to the West, stretching from Qurun Chattin (the traditional Mount of Beatitudes) to the neighborhood of Tabor, the land lets itself down in a series of broad and fertile terraces, falling at last almost precipitously on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. The descent toward the Mediterranean is much more gradual; and the soil gathered in the longer valleys is deep and rich.

The district may be described as comparatively well watered. The Jordan with its mighty springs is, of course, too low for purposes of irrigation. But there are many perennial streams fed by fountains among the hills. The springs at Jenin are the main sources of the river Kishon, but for the greater part of its course through the plain the bed of that river is far below the surface of the adjoining land. The dews that descend from Lebanon and Hermon are also a perpetual source of moisture and refreshment.

9. Products:

Galilee was famous in ancient times for its rich and fruitful soil, "full of the plantations of trees of all sorts, insomuch that it invites the most slothful to pains in its cultivation by its fruitfulness; accordingly it is all cultivated by its inhabitants, and no part of it lies idle" (BJ, III, iii, 2). See also GENNESARET, LAND OF. The grapes grown in Naphtali were in high repute, as were the pomegranates of Shikmona—the Sykaminos of Josephus—which stood on the shore near Mt. Carmel. The silver sheen of the olive meets the eye in almost every valley; and the olive oil produced in Galilee has always been esteemed of the highest excellence. Its wheat fields also yielded an abundant supply, the wheat of Chorazin being proverbial. The great plain of Esdraelon must also have furnished rich provision. It cannot be doubted that Galilee was largely drawn upon for the gifts in kind which Solomon bestowed upon the king of Tyre (2Ch 2:10). At a much later day the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon depended upon the produce of Galilee (Ac 12:20).

Galilee was in easy touch with the outside world by means of the roads that traversed her valleys, crossed her ridges and ran out eastward, westward and southward. Thus she was connected with the harbors on the Phoenician seaboard, with Egypt on the South, with Damascus on the Northeast, and with the markets of the East by the great caravan routes (see "Roads" under PALESTINE).

10. Contact with the Outside World:

In the days of Christ the coming and going of the merchantmen, the passing of armies and the movements of the representatives of the Empire, must have made these highways a scene of perpetual activity, touching the dwellers in Galilee with the widening influences of the great world’s life.

11. Population:

The peasant farmers of Galilee, we have seen, were a bold and enterprising race. Encouraged by the fruitfulness of their country, they were industrious cultivators of the soil. Josephus estimates the population at 3,000,000. This may be an exaggeration; but here we have all the conditions necessary for the support of a numerous and prosperous people. This helps us to understand the crowds that gathered round and followed Jesus in this district, where the greater part of His public life was spent. The cities, towns and villages in Galilee are frequently referred to in the Gospels. That the Jewish population in the centuries immediately after Christ was numerous and wealthy is sufficiently proved by the remains from those times, especially the ruins of synagogues, e.g. those at Tell Chum, Kerazeh, Irbid, el-Jish, Kefr Bir‘im, Meiron, etc. Near the last named is shown the tomb of the great Jewish teacher Hillel.

Galilee was not without her own heroic memories. The great battlefields of Megiddo, Gilboa, and the waters of Merom lay within her borders; and among the famous men of the past she could claim Barak, Ibzan, Elon and Tola of the judges; of the prophets, Jonah and Elisha at least; possibly also Hosea who, according to a Jewish tradition, died in Babylon, but was brought to Galilee and buried in Cafed (Neubauer, Geog. der Talmud, 227). When the chief priests and Pharisees said, "Search, and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet," it argued strange and inexcusable ignorance on their part (Joh 7:52). Perhaps, however, in this place we should read ho prophetes, "the prophet," i.e. the Messiah. It is significant that 11 out of the 12 apostles were Galileans.

For detailed description of the country, see ISSACHAR; ASHER; ZEBULUN; NAPHTALI; see also GALILEE, SEA OF.

W. Ewing

After the resurrection the disciples "went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them" (Mt 28:16). Here Jesus came to them, declared that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him, commanded them to go and make disciples of all nations, concluding with the memorable promise: "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Probably it was some well-known height not far from the scenes most frequented during the Galilean ministry. Looking from the western shore at the uplands North of the lake, it is not easy to imagine a more appropriate spot for this never-to-be-forgotten interview than Jebel Qan‘-an, a bold headland not far to the East of Cafed, overlooking the land of Gennesaret and the sea, and commanding from its lofty summit a view of about 80 miles in every direction. Of course, there is no certainty.

W. Ewing

(he thalassa tes Galilaias):

1. The Name:

This is the name 5 times given in the New Testament (Mt 4:18; 15:29; Mr 1:16; 7:31; Joh 6:1) to the sheet of water which is elsewhere called "the sea of Tiberias" (Joh 21:1; compare Joh 6:1); "the lake of Gennesaret" (Lu 5:1); "the sea" (Joh 6:16, etc.), and "the lake" (Lu 5:1, etc.). The Old Testament names were "sea of Chinnereth" (yam-kinnereth: Nu 34:11; De 3:17; Jos 13:27; 19:35), and "sea of Chinneroth" (yam-kineroth: Jos 12:3; compare 11:2; 1Ki 15:20). In 1 Macc 11:67 the sea is called "the water of Gennesar" (the Revised Version (British and American) "Gennesareth"). It had begun to be named from the city so recently built on its western shore even in New Testament times (Joh 21:1; 6:1); and by this name, slightly modified, it is known to this day—Bachr Tabariyeh.

2. General Description:

The sea lies in the deep trough of the Jordan valley, almost due East of the Bay of Acre. The surface is 680 ft. below the level of the Mediterranean. It varies in depth from 130 ft. to 148 ft., being deepest along the course of the Jordan (Barrois, PEFS, 1894, 211-20). From the point where the Jordan enters in the North to its exit in the South is about 13 miles. The greatest breadth is in the North, from el-Mejdel to the mouth of Wady Semak being rather over 7 miles. It gradually narrows toward the South, taking the shape of a gigantic pear, with a decided bulge to the West. The water of the lake is clear and sweet. The natives use it for all purposes, esteeming it light and pleasant. They refuse to drink from the Jordan, alleging that "who drinks Jordan drinks fever." Seen from the mountains the broad sheet appears a beautiful blue; so that, in the season of greenery, it is no exaggeration to describe it as a sapphire in a setting of emerald. It lights up the landscape as the eye does the human face; and it is often spoken of as "the eye of Galilee." To one descending from Mt. Tabor and approaching the edge of the great hollow, on a bright spring day, when the land has already assumed its fairest garments, the view of the sea, as it breaks upon the vision in almost its whole extent, is one never to be forgotten. The mountains on the East and on the West rise to about 2,000 ft. The heights of Naphtali, piled up in the North, seem to culminate only in the snowy summit of Great Hermon. If the waters are still, the shining splendors of the mountain may be seen mirrored in the blue depths. Round the greater part of the lake there is a broad pebbly beach, with a sprinkling of small shells. On the sands along the shore from el-Mejdel to ‘Ain et-Tineh these shells are so numerous as to cause a white glister in the sunlight.

The main formation of the surrounding district is limestone. It is overlaid with lava; and here and there around the lake there are outcrops of basalt through the limestone. At eT-Tabgha in the North, at ‘Ain el Fuliyeh, South of el-Mejdel, and on the shore, about 2 miles South of modern Tiberias, there are strong hot springs. These things, together with the frequent, and sometimes terribly destructive, earthquakes, sufficiently attest the volcanic character of the region. The soil on the level parts around the sea is exceedingly fertile. See GENNESARET, LAND OF. Naturally the temperature in the valley is higher than that of the uplands; and here wheat and barley are harvested about a month earlier. Frost is not quite unknown; but no one now alive remembers it to have done more than lay the most delicate fringe of ice around some of the stones on the shore. The fig and the vine are still cultivated with success. Where vegetable gardens are planted they yield plentifully. A few palms are still to be seen. The indigo plant is grown in the plain of Gennesaret. In their season the wild flowers lavish a wealth of lovely colors upon the surrounding slopes; while bright-blossoming oleanders fringe the shore.

Coming westward from the point where the Jordan enters the lake, the mountains approach within a short distance of the sea. On the shore, fully 2 miles from the Jordan, are the ruins of Tell Chum. See CAPERNAUM. About 2 miles farther West are the hot springs of eT-Tabgha. Here a shallow vale breaks northward, bounded on the West by Tell ‘Areimeh. This tell is crowned by an ancient Canaanite settlement. It throws out a rocky promontory into the sea, and beyond this are the ruins of Khan Minyeh, with ‘Ain et-Tineh close under the cliff. Important Roman remains have recently been discovered here. From this point the plain of Gennesaret (el-Ghuweir) sweeps round to el-Mejdel, a distance of about 4 miles. West of this village opens the tremendous gorge, Wady el Chamam, with the famous robbers’ fastnesses in its precipitous sides, and the ruins of Arbela on its southern lip. From the northern parts of the lake the Horns of ChaTTin, the traditional Mount of Beatitudes, may be seen through the rocky jaws of the gorge. South of el-Mejdel the mountains advance to the shore, and the path is cut in the face of the slope, bringing us to the hot spring, ‘Ain el-Fuliyeh, where is a little valley, with gardens and orange grove. The road then crosses a second promontory, and proceeds along the base of the mountain to Tiberias. Here the mountains recede from the shore, leaving a crescent-shaped plain, largely covered with the ruins of the ancient city. The modern town stands at the northern corner of the plain; while at the southern end are the famous hot baths, the ancient Hammath. A narrow ribbon of plain between the mountain and the shore runs to the South end of the lake. There the Jordan, issuing from the sea, almost surrounds the mound on which are the ruins of Kerak, the Tarichea of Josephus Crossing the floor of the valley, past Semakh, which is now a station on the Haifa-Damascus railway, we find a similar strip of plain along the eastern shore. Nearly opposite Tiberias is the stronghold of Chal‘-at el Chocn, possibly the ancient Hippos, with the village of Fik, the ancient Aphek, on the height to the East. To the North of this the waters of the sea almost touch the foot of the steep slope. A herd of swine running headlong down the mountain would here inevitably perish in the lake (Mt 8:32, etc.). Next, we reach the mouth of Wady Semak, in which lie the ruins of Kurseh, probably representing the ancient Gerasa. Northward the plain widens into the marshy breadths of el-BaTeichah, and once more we reach the Jordan, flowing smoothly through the fiat lands to the sea.

3. Storms:

The position of the lake makes it liable to sudden storms, the cool air from the uplands rushing down the gorges with great violence and tossing the waters in tumultuous billows. Such storms are fairly frequent, and as they are attended with danger to small craft, the boatmen are constantly on the alert. Save in very settled conditions they will not venture far from the shore. Occasionally, however, tempests break over the lake, in which a boat could hardly live. Only twice in over 5 years the present writer witnessed such a hurricane. Once it burst from the South. In a few moments the air was thick with mist, through which one could hear the roar of the tortured waters. In about ten minutes the wind fell as suddenly as it had risen. The air cleared, and the wide welter of foam-crested waves attested the fury of the blast. On the second occasion the wind blew from the East, and the phenomena described above were practically repeated.

4. Fish:

The sea contains many varieties of fish in great numbers. The fishing industry was evidently pursued to profit in the days of Christ. Zebedee was able to hire men to assist him (Mr 1:20). In recent years there has been a considerable revival of this industry. See FISHING. Four of the apostles, and these the chief, had been brought up as fishermen on the Sea of Galilee. Peter and Andrew, James and John.

The towns around the lake named in Scripture are treated in separate articles. Some of these it is impossible to identify. Many are the ruins of great and splendid cities on slope and height of which almost nothing is known today. But from their mute testimony we gather that the lake in the valley which is now so quiet was once the center of a busy and prosperous population. We may assume that the cities named in the Gospels were mainly Jewish. Jesus would naturally avoid those in which Greek influences were strong. In most cases they have gone, leaving not even their names with any certainty behind; but His memory abides forever. The lake and mountains are, in main outline, such as His eyes beheld. This it is that lends its highest charm to "the eye of Galilee."

The advent of the railway has stirred afresh the pulses of life in the valley. A steamer plies on the sea between the station at Semakh and Tiberias. Superior buildings are rising outside the ancient walls. Gardens and orchards are being planted. Modern methods of agriculture are being employed in the Jewish colonies, which are rapidly increasing in number. Slowly, perhaps, but surely, the old order is giving place to the new. If freedom and security be enjoyed in reasonable measure, the region will again display its long-hidden treasures of fertility and beauty.

W. Ewing

gol:

(1) ro’sh, or rosh (De 32:32 only, "grapes of gall"): Some very bitter plant, the bitterness as in (2) being associated with the idea of poison. De 29:18 margin "rosh, a poisonpus herb"; La 3:5,19; Jer 8:14; 9:15; 23:15, "water of gall," margin "poison"; Ho 10:4, translated "hemlock"; Am 6:12, "Ye have turned justice into gall"; Job 20:16, the "poison of asps": here rosh clearly refers to a different substance from the other references, the points in common being bitterness and poisonous properties. Hemlock (Conium maculatum), colocynth (Citrullus colocynthus) and the poppy (Papaver somniferum) have all been suggested as the original rosh, the last having most support, but in most references the word may represent any bitter poisonous substance. Rosh is associated with la‘anah, "wormwood" (De 29:18; La 3:19; Am 6:12).

(3) chole (Mt 27:34), "They gave him wine to drink mingled with gall"; this is clearly a reference to the Septuagint version of Ps 69:21: "They gave me also gall (chole, Hebrew rosh) for my food; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." In Mr 15:23, it says, "wine mingled with myrrh." It is well known that the Romans gave wine with frankincense to criminals before their execution to alleviate their sufferings; here the chole or bitter substance used was myrrh (Pliny Ep. xx.18; Sen. Ep. 83).

E. W. G. Masterman

gal’-ant: The translation of ‘addir, "bright," "splendid," "mighty" (Isa 33:21, "Neither shall gallant (’addir) ship pass thereby"); the word is translated "mighty" in Ex 15:10; 1Sa 4:8; Isa 10:34; Zec 11:2 the King James Version. In Isa 33:21, above, it is applied to Yahweh. "glorious (’addir) Lord" the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "Yahweh .... in .... majesty"; compare also Ps 16:3, "the excellent." As a noun it is used in the margin of Na 2:5 as alternative for "worthies," the Revised Version (British and American) "nobles" in Zec 11:2, for "the might "Revised Version" "goodly ones" margin, "glorious"; it is translated "nobles" in Jud 5:13; 2Ch 23:20, etc.

See also SHIPS AND BOATS.

gal’-er-i:

(1) (’attuq, Kethibh; ‘attik, used only in Eze 41:16; 42:3,1; etymology and meaning uncertain; among the more probable suggestions are "pillar," "column," "walk with pillars," "colonnades," "passageway," "porches," "galleries" of "terraces." Cornhill suggests the substitution of kiroth, "walls," to suit the context; others, e.g. Rothstein, would omit it as a dittography or other corruption): A long narrow balcony formed either by pillars or by the receding upper stories of a building. Both kinds are described in Ezekiel’s vision of the Temple restored. They surround the three stories of side chambers around the Temple proper, and also the "building before the separate place which was at the back thereof," and the three-story structure containing rows of chambers in the outer court opposite the side-chambers of the Temple. Those around the Temple proper were apparently supported by pillars, and hence, they did not take away from the width of the 2nd-story and 3rd-story rooms (compare 41:7). On the other hand, the galleries of the outer buildings which were not supported by pillars and therefore not on top of each other, but in terraces, did take away from the upper stories more than from the lowest and middlemost: the upper chambers were shortened or "straitened more than the lowest and the middlemost from the ground."

The lower porches of the outer court were cut off from the view of those of the inner court by a low wall, but in the 3rd story, gallery looked out to gallery across the twenty cubits which belonged to the inner court and the pavement which belonged to the outer court." These "galleries," or ‘attiqim, are one of the few features that distinguish the temple of Ezekiel’s vision from Solomon’s temple. The idea and perhaps the word seem to have been borrowed from the more elaborate architecture of the countries of the Exile, which must have impressed the Jews of Ezekiel’s time very strongly. The building Ezekiel would place in the outer court with its terraces is a perfect Babylonian ziggurat or stage-tower temple (compare Encyclopedia Brit, 11th edition, II, 374, c-d).

(2) (rahaT, probably "lock of hair," So 7:5; rahiT Qere, rachiT, Kethibh, probably "rafters," So 7:11; both words and also the similar word (rehaTim, Ge 30:38; Ex 2:16), translated "troughs," are probably connected with the Aramaic rehaT "to flow," "to run"): Although the King James Version uses "galleries" in So 7:5 and 1:17 margin, the context in each place clearly points to another meaning. In the former of these passages, "the king is held captive in the tresses thereof," there follows a description of the head. In the latter passage the word in question is in parallelism with qoroth batenu, "the beams of our house," and "rafters" the King James Version, or possibly "boards," is suggested.

Nathan Isaacs

gal’-i.

See SHIPS AND BOATS, II, 2, (2).

gal’-im (gallim), "heaps"): Probably two distinct places:

(1) A town mentioned among the 11 additional cities of Judah which are in the Septuagint appended to Jos 15:59, and have altogether disappeared from the Hebrew text. It occurs between Karem (‘Ain Kairem) and Baither (Bettir); it is probably the large and flourishing village of Beit Jala, near Bethlehem.

(2) Gallim is mentioned in Isa 10:30; not far from Laishah and Anathoth and certainly North of Jerusalem. It was the home of Palti the son of Laish (1Sa 25:44), and it is by many authorities identified with the Gilgal on the North border of Judah (Jos 15:7), the Geliloth of the parallel passage (Jos 18:17), and the Beth-gilgal of Ne 12:29.

E. W. G. Masterman

gal’-i-o (Gallion): The Roman deputy or proconsul of Achaia, before whom Paul was haled by his Jewish accusers on the apostle’s first visit to Corinth, during his second missionary journey (Ac 18:12-17). The trial was not of long duration. Although Gallio extended his protection to the Jewish religion as one of the religions recognized by the state, he contemptuously rejected the claim of the Jews that their law was binding upon all. In the eyes of the proconsul, the only law universally applicable was that of the Roman code and social morality: under neither was the prisoner chargeable; therefore, without even waiting to hear Paul’s speech in his own defense, he summarily ordered his lictors to clear the court. Even the subsequent treatment meted out to Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, was to him a matter of indifference. The beating of Sosthenes is ascribed by different readings to "Jews" and to "Greeks," but the incident is referred to by the writer of Ac to show that the sympathies of the populace lay with Paul, and that Gallio made no attempt to suppress them. Gallio has often been instanced as typical of one who is careless or indifferent to religion, yet in the account given of him in Acts, he merely displayed an attitude characteristic of the manner in which Roman governors regarded the religious disputes of the time (compare also LYSIAS; FELIX; FESTUS). Trained by his administrative duties to practical thinking and precision of language, he refused to adjudicate the squabbles of what he regarded as an obscure religious sect, whose law was to him a subtle quibbling with "words and names."

According to extra-canonical references, the original name of Gallio was Marcus Annaeus Novatus, but this was changed on his being adopted by the rhetorician, Lucius Junius Gallio. He was born at Cordova, but came to Rome in the reign of Tiberius. He was the brother of the philosopher Seneca, by whom, as also by Statius, reference is made to the affable nature of his character. As Achaia was reconstituted a proconsular province by Claudius in 44 AD, the accession of Gallio to office must have been subsequent to that date, and has been variously placed at 51-53 AD (compare also Knowling in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, II, 389-92).

C. M. Kerr

gal’-oz.

See HANGING; PUNISHMENTS.

gam’-a-el (Gamael):

Chief of the family of Ithamar who went up from Babylon with Ezra (APC 1Esdras 8:29);

called Daniel in Ezr 8:2.

ga-ma’-li-el (gamli’el, "reward or recompense of God"; Gamaliel):

(1) The son of Pedahzur, and "prince of the children of Manasseh," chosen to aid in taking the census in the Wilderness (Nu 1:10; 2:20; 7:54,59; 10:23).

(2) A Pharisee who at the meeting of the "council" succeeded in persuading its members to adopt a more reasonable course when they were incensed at the doctrine of Peter and the rest of the apostles and sought to slay them (Ac 5:33-40). That he was well qualified for this task is attested by the fact that he was himself a member of the Sanhedrin, a teacher of the law, and held in high honor among all the people. In his speech he pointed out to his fellow-councilors the dire consequences that might ensue upon any precipitous action on their part. While quoting instances, familiar to his hearers, of past insurrections or seditions that had failed, he reminded them at the same time that if this last under Peter "is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God." As a result of his arguments, the apostles, after being beaten and admonished to speak no longer in the name of Jesus, were released. In the speech which he was permitted by Lysias to deliver from the stairs of the palace after the riot in Jerusalem, Paul referred to Gamaliel as the teacher of his youth, who instructed him rigidly in the Mosaic law (Ac 22:3).

The toleration and liberality displayed by Gamaliel upon the occasion of his speech before the Sanhedrin were all the more remarkable because of their rarity among the Pharisees of the period. Although the strict observance by the Christians of temple worship, and their belief in immortality, a point in dispute between Pharisees and Sadducees, may have had influence over him (Knowling), no credence is to be attached to the view that he definitely favored the apostles or to the tradition that he afterward became a Christian. The high place accorded him in Jewish tradition, and the fact that the title of Rabban, higher even than Rabbi or Master, was first bestowed upon him, testify that he remained a Pharisee to the end. His speech is rather indicative of one who knew the deeper truth in the Old Testament of the universal fatherhood of God, and who recognized that the presence of His power was the. deciding factor in all human enterprise. His social enactments were permeated by the same broad-minded spirit. Thus his legislation on behalf of the poor was formulated so as to include Gentiles as well as Jews. The authenticity of his speech has been questioned by Wendt and others, chiefly on account of the alleged anachronism in regard to Theudas (see THEUDAS); but the internal evidence is against this view (compare Knowling in The Expositor Greek Test., II, 161). It has also been objected by Baur and the Tubingen school that the liberal, peace-loving Gamaliel could not have been the teacher of the fanatical Saul. To this, reply has been made, firstly, that the charges against Stephen of destroying the temple and subverting the laws of Moses were not brought against Peter and the other apostles, and, secondly, that the doctrines of any teacher, however moderate he himself may be, are liable to be carried to extremes by an over-zealous pupil.

LITERATURE.

Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of Paul, chapter ii; Kitto, Cyclopaedia of Biblical Lit., 1866, article "Gamaliel" (Ginsberg).

C. M. Kerr

gamz:

I. ISRAELITISH GAMES

1. Children’s Games

Mimicry

2. Sports

3. Games of Chance and Skill

4. Story-Telling

5. Dancing

6. Proverbs

7. Riddles

II. THE GAMES OF GREECE AND ROME

1. Historical Introduction

2. General References

3. Specific References to Greek Athletics

4. References to the Theater and the Drama

LITERATURE

About the amusements of the ancient Israelites we know but little, partly on account of the nature of our literary sources, which are almost exclusively religious, partly because the antiquities thus far discovered yield very little information on this topic as compared with those of some other countries, and partly because of the relatively serious character of the people. Games evidently took a less prominent place in Hebrew life than in that of the Greeks, the Romans and the Egyptians. Still the need for recreation was felt and to a certain extent supplied in ways according with the national temperament. Mere athletics (apart from Greek and Roman influence) were but little cultivated. Simple and natural amusements and exercises, and trials of wit and wisdom, were more to the Hebrew taste. What is known or probably conjectured may be summed up under the following heads: Games of Children; Sports; Games of Chance and Skill; Story-telling; Dancing; Proverbs; Riddles. The amusements of Greece and Rome, which to some extent influenced later Jewish society and especially those which are directly or indirectly referred to in the New Testament, will be theme of the latter part of the article.

I. Israelite Games

1. Children’s Games:

There are two general references to the playing of children: Zec 8:5: "And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof"; and Ge 21:9 margin, where we read of Ishmael "playing" (metscheq). The rendering of our Bibles, "mocking," is open to question. Of specific games and pets there is hardly a mention in the Old Testament. Playing with ball is alluded to in Isa 22:18: "He will .... toss thee like a ball into a large country," but children need not be thought of as the only players. If the balls used in Palestine were like those used by the Egyptians, they were sometimes made of leather or skin stuffed with bran or husks of corn, or of string and rushes covered with leather (compare Wilkinson, Popular Account, I, 198-201; British Museum Guide to the Egyptian Collections, 78). The question of Yahweh to Job (41:5): "Wilt thou play with him (the crocodile) as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?" suggests that tame birds were petted by Hebrew children, especially by girls. The New Testament has one reference to children’s play, namely, the half-parable about the children in the market-place who would neither dance to the flute as if at a marriage feast nor wail as if at a funeral (Mt 11:16 f parallel Lu 7:32).

Mimicry

There are interesting accounts in Les enfants de Nazareth, by the Abbe Le Camus (60-66; 101-10), of the way in which the children of the modern Nazareth mimic scenes connected with weddings and funerals. That Israelite children had toys (dolls, models of animals, etc.) cannot be doubted in view of the finds in Egypt and elsewhere, but no positive evidence seems to be as yet forthcoming.

2. Sports:

Running was no doubt often practiced, especially in the time of the early monarchy. Saul and Jonathan (2Sa 1:23), Asahel (2Sa 2:18), Ahimaaz (18:23,27) and some of the Gadites in David’s service (1Ch 12:8) were renowned for their speed, which can only have been the result of training and exercise. The same may be said of the feats of those who ran before a king or a prince (1Sa 8:11; 2Sa 15:1; 1Ki 1:5; 18:46). The Psalmist must have watched great runners before he pictured the sun as rejoicing like a strong man to run his course (Ps 19:5; compare also Ec 9:11; Jer 8:6; 23:10). For running in the Greek games, see the latter part of this article.

Archery practice is implied in the story of Jonathan’s touching interview with David (1Sa 20:20,35-38) and in Job’s complaint: "He hath also set me up for his mark. His archers compass me round about" (Job 16:12 f). Only by long practice could the 700 left-handed Benjamite slingers, every one of whom could sling stones at a hair-breadth and not miss (Jud 20:16), and the young David (1Sa 17:49), have attained to the precision of aim for which they are famous.

In Zec 12:3, "I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone," literally, "a stone of burden," Jerome found an allusion to a custom which prevailed widely in Palestine in his day, and has been noticed by a recent traveler, of stone-lifting, i.e. of testing the strength of young men by means of heavy round stones. Some, he says, could raise one of these stones to the knees, others to the waist, others to the shoulders and the head, and a few could lift it above the head. This interpretation is not quite certain (Wright, Comm., 364), but the form of sport described was probably in vogue in Palestine in Biblical times.

High leaping or jumping was probably also practiced (Ps 18:29). The "play" referred to in 2Sa 2:14 ff of 12 Benjamites and 12 servants of David was not a sport but a combat like that of the Horatii and the Curiatii.

3. Games of Chance and Skill:

Dice were known to the ancient Egyptians, and Assyrian dice have been found, made of bronze with points of gold, but there is no trace of them in the Old Testament. Recent research at Ta‘-annek has brought to light many bones which seem to have been used in somewhat the same way as in a game played by the modern Arabs, who call it ka‘ab, the very word they apply to dice. These bones were "the oldest and most primitive form of dice" (Konig after Sellin, RE3, XVIII, 634). The use of dice among the later Jews is attested by the condemnation of dice-players in the Mishna (Sanh., iii. 3). The Syrian soldiers who cast lots for the raiment of Jesus at the cross (Mt 27:35 parallel Mr 15:24; Lu 23:34; Joh 19:24) may have used dice, but that can neither be proved nor disproved.

It has been suggested that the mockery of Jesus before the Sanhedrin described in Mt 26:67 f parallel Mr 14:65; Lu 22:63 f may have been connected with a Greek game in which one of the players held the eyes of another while a third gave him a box on the ear. The last was then asked with what hand he had been struck. A somewhat similar game is represented in an Egyptian tomb picture (Wilkinson, Popular Account, I, 192). This reference, however, though not quite inadmissible, is scarcely probable. Games with boards and men bearing some resemblance to our draughts were in great favor in Egypt (ibid., 190-95), but cannot be proved for the Jews even in New Testament times.

4. Story-Telling:

Listening to stories or recitations has long been a favorite amusement of Orientals (compare Lane, Modern Egyptians, 359-91: "The Thousand and One Nights"), but there seems to be no reference to it in the Bible. There can be no reasonable doubt, however, that the Hebrews, like their neighbors, had story-tellers or reciters, axed heard them with delight. Egyptian tales of great antiquity are well known from the two volumes edited by Professor Petrie in 1895; and there are several non- canonical Jewish tales which combine romance and moral teaching: the Books of Tobit and Judith and perhaps the Story of Ahikar, the last of which, with the help of the Aramaic papyri discovered at Elephantine, can be traced back (in some form) to about 400 BC (Schurer, GJ V4, III, 255). There are also many short stories in the Haggadic portions of the Talmud and the Midrash.

5. Dancing:

Dancing, that is, the expression of joy by rhythmical movements of the limbs to musical accompaniment, is scarcely ever mentioned in the Bible as a social amusement, except in a general way (Jud 16:25,27(?); Job 21:11; Ps 30:11; Ec 3:4; Jer 31:4,13; La 5:15; Mt 11:17; Lu 15:25). There is one exception, the dancing of Salome, the daughter of Herodias, before Herod Antipas and his court (Mt 14:6 parallel Mr 6:22), which was a solo dance, probably of a pantomimic character affected by Roman influence. The other Biblical references to dancing can be grouped under two heads: the dance of public rejoicing, and the dance which was more or less an act of worship. Of the former we have two striking examples in the Old Testament: the dance accompanied by the tambourine with which the maidens of Israel, led by Jephthah’s daughter, met that leader after his victory (Jud 11:34), and the dances of the Israelite women in honor of Saul and David to celebrate the triumph over the Philistines (1Sa 18:6; 21:11; 29:5).

It was probably usual to welcome a king or general with music and dancing. There is a good illustration in a fine Assyrian sculpture in the British Museum which represents a band of 11 instrumentalists taking part in doing homage to a new ruler. Three men at the head of the procession are distinctly dancing (SBOT, "Psalms," English, 226).

The distinctly religious dance is more frequently mentioned. The clear instances of it in the Bible are the dance of the women of Israel at the Red Sea, headed by Miriam with her tambourine (Ex 15:20); the dance of the Israelites round the golden calf (Ex 32:19); the dance of the maidens of Shiloh at an annual feast (Jud 21:19 ); the leaping or limping of the prophets of Baal round their altar on Carmel (1Ki 18:26), and the dancing of David in front of the ark (2Sa 6:14,16 parallel 1Ch 15:29). There are general references in Ps 149:3: "Let them praise his name in the dance"; 150:4: "Praise him with timbrel and dance"; and perhaps in 68:25. The allusions in So 6:13, "the dance of Mahanaim," and in the proper name Abel- meholah, "the meadow of the dance" (1Ki 19:16, etc.), are too uncertain to be utilized. The ritual dance was probably widespread in the ancient East. David’s performance has Egyptian parallels. Seti I, the father of Rameses II, and three other Pharaohs are said to have danced before a deity (Budge, The Book of the Dead, I, xxxv), and Asiatic monuments attest the custom elsewhere. About the methods of dancing practiced by the ancient Hebrews but little is known. Probably the dancers in some cases joined hands and formed a ring, or part of a ring, as in some heathen representations. The description of David’s dance: he "danced before Yahweh with all his might .... leaping and dancing before Yahweh" (2Sa 6:14-16) suggests three features of that particular display and the mode of dancing which it represented: violent exertion, leaping (mephazzez), and whirling round (mekharker). Perhaps the whirling dance of Islam is a modern parallel to the last. Women seem generally to have danced by themselves, one often leading the rest, both in dancing and antiphonal song; so Miriam and the women of Israel, Jephthah’s daughter and her comrades, the women who greeted Saul and David, and, in the Apocrypha, Judith and her sisters after the death of Holofernes (Judith 15:12 f). Once the separation of the sexes is perhaps distinctly referred to (Jer 31:13). In public religious dances they may have occasionally united, as was the case sometimes in the heathen world, but there is no clear evidence to that effect (compare, however, 2Sa 6:20 and Ps 68:25). Of the social dancing of couples in the modern fashion there is no trace. There seems to be some proof that the religious dance lingered among the Jews until the time of Christ and later.

If the Mishna can be trusted (Cukkah, v.4), there was a torch-light dance in the temple in the illuminated court of the women at the Feast of Tabernacles in which men of advanced years and high standing took part. The Gemara to the Jerusalem Talmud adds that a famous dancer on these occasions was Rabbi Simeon or Simon, the son of Gamaliel, who lived in the apostolic age (Josephus, BJ, IV, iii, 9). According to another passage (Ta‘anith 4 8) the daughters of Jerusalem used to dance dressed in white in the vineyards on Tishri the 10th and Abib the 15th. Religious dancing in the modern East is illustrated not only by the dances of the dervishes mentioned above, but also by occasional dances led by the sheikh in honor of a saint (Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion Today, 169). Among the later Jews dancing was not unusual at wedding feasts. More than one eminent rabbi is said to have danced before the bride (Kethubboth 17a). Singing and dancing, with lighted torches, are said to be wedding customs of the modern Arabs.

LITERATURE.

Arts. "Dance" in Smith DB2, HDB, DCG, EB, Jew Encyclopedia (also "Games"); "Tanz" in RE3 and the German Dictionaries of Winer, Riehm, and Guthe (Reigen); Nowack, HA, I, 278 f.

6. Proverbs:

Proverbs (mashal; paroimia) :Proverbs and proverbial expressions seem to have been, to some extent, a means of amusement as well as instruction for the ancient Oriental who delighted in the short, pointed statement of a moral or religious truth, or a prudential maxim, whether of literary or popular origin. Most of these sayings in the Bible belong to the former class, and are couched in poetic form (see PROVERBS; ECCLESIASTES; ECCLESIASTICUS). The others which are shorter and simpler, together with a number of picturesque proverbial phrases, must have recurred continually in daily speech and have added greatly to its vivacity.

The Old Testament supplies the following 10 examples of the popular proverb:

(1) "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Yahweh" (Ge 10:9);

(2) "As the man is, so is his strength" (Jud 8:21), only two words in the Hebrew;

(3) "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1Sa 10:11 f; 19:24);

(4) "Out of the wicked (wicked men) cometh forth wickedness" (1Sa 24:13);

(5) "There are the blind and the lame; he cannot come into the house" (2Sa 5:8);

(6) "Let not him that girdeth on his armor boast himself as he that putteth it off" (1Ki 20:11);

(7) "Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life" (Job 2:4);

(8) "The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth" (Eze 12:22), a scoffing jest rather than a proverb;

(9) "As is the mother, so is her daughter" (Eze 16:44), two words in the Hebrew;

(10) "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge" (Jer 31:29; Eze 18:2).

In the New Testament we find 10 others:

(1) "Physician, heal thyself" (Lu 4:23); in the Midrash Rabbah on Gen: "Physician heal thine own wound";

(2) "Can the blind guide the blind? shall they not both fall into a pit?" (Lu 6:39);

(3) "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you" (Mt 7:2 parallel Mr 4:24; Lu 6:38), almost identical with a Jewish proverb, "measure for measure" cited several times in the ancient Midrash, the Mekhilta’;

(4) "One soweth, and another reapeth" (Joh 4:37);

(5) "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country" (Mt 13:57; Lu 4:24; Joh 4:44; Logion of Oxyrhynchus);

(6) "There are yet four months, and then cometh the harvest" (Joh 4:35), possibly a kind of proverb;

(7) "Wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles (m "vultures") be gathered together" (Mt 24:28 parallel Lu 17:37); perhaps a proverb of which there is a trace also in the reference to the vulture: "Where the slain are, there is she" (Job 39:30);

(8) "It is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (Ac 26:14), a Greek proverb: for proof compare Wetstein’s note;

(9) "The dog turning to his own vomit again, and the sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire" (2Pe 2:22); Wetstein gives rabbinic parallels for the former half, and Greek for the latter;

(10) "Ye .... strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel" (Mt 23:24).

There are also many proverbial phrases which added piquancy to conversation. Exceeding smallness was likened to the eye of a needle (Mt 19:24 parallel Mr 10:25; Lu 18:25), or to a grain of mustard (Mt 13:31 parallel Mr 4:31; Mt 17:20 parallel Lu 17:6), comparisons both found also in the Talmud, the Koran, and modern Arabic sayings. Relative greatness was likened to a camel (Mt 19:24, etc.), in the Talmud to a camel or an elephant. Great number was illustrated by reference to "the sand which is upon the sea-shore" (Ge 22:17 and many other passages); "the dust of the earth" (Ge 13:16, etc.; also an Arabian figure); "the grass of the earth" (Job 5:25; Ps 72:16; compare Ps 92:7), an early Babylonian figure; a swarm of locusts (Na 3:15 and Na 4 other passages), a similitude used also by Sennacherib (RP, n.s. VI, 97), and the stars of heaven (Ge 15:5 and 10 other passages). When complete security was promised or described it was said that not a hair of the head was or should be injured or perish (1Sa 14:45; 2Sa 14:11; 1Ki 1:52; Da 3:27; Lu 21:18; Ac 27:34). Overcoming of difficulties was referred to as the removal of mountains (Mt 17:20; 21:21 parallel Mr 11:23; 1Co 13:2), an expression which has rabbinic parallels. Other proverbial phrases may perhaps be found in the saying about the mote and the beam (Mt 7:3-5), jot or tittle (Mt 5:18 parallel Lu 16:17), and the foolish words of Rehoboam and his young advisers (1Ki 12:10 f). Many old proverbs have no doubt perished. Dukes in his Rabbinische Blumenlese gives 665 proverbs and proverbial expressions from the Talmud and related literature, and modern collections show that proverbial lore is still in great favor in the Biblical Orient.

See also PROVERBS.

LITERATURE.

In addition to works already mentioned Konig, Stilistik, etc., DCG ("Jesus’ Use of Proverbs"); Murray, DB, article "Proverbs"; Cohen, Ancient Jewish Proverbs, 1911.

7. Riddles:

Riddles (chidhah; ainigma): Riddle-making and riddle-guessing were in favor in the ancient East, both in educated circles and in comparatively common life. There is a tablet in the British Museum (K 4347: Guide to Assyrian and Babylonian Antiquities2, 53) from the library of Ashur-bani-pal which attests the use of riddles not only by the Assyrians of the 7th century BC, but also in a far earlier age, for it contains a Sumer as well as a Semitic text. So it is not surprising that we find a remarkable example in early Israelite history in Samson’s famous riddle: "Out of the eater came forth food, and out of the strong came forth sweetness" (Jud 14:14). The riddle is couched in poetic form, as is also the solution: "What is sweeter than honey? and what is stronger than a lion?" (Jud 14:18), and the comment: "If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle" (same place) . The stipulation of a prize or penalty according to the success or failure of the persons challenged to solve the riddle was a custom met with also among the ancient Greeks and in a later age among the Arabs. In 1Ki 10:1 parallel 2Ch 9:1 the word used of Samson’s riddle (chidhah) is employed of the "hard questions" put to Solomon by the queen of Sheba. The Septuagint seems to have understood the word as "riddle" here also, for it renders "enigmas," and some of the later Jews not only adopted this interpretation, but actually gave riddles said to have been propounded. Of these riddles which, of course, have no direct historic value, but are interesting specimens of riddle lore, one of the best is the following: "Without movement while living, it moves when its head is cut off"; the answer to which is: "a tree" (Jewish Encyclopedia, article "Riddle"; see also for these riddles Wunsche, Die Rathselweisheit bei den Hebraern, 15-23). If Josephus can be trusted, historians of Phoenicia recorded a riddle- contest between Solomon and the Phoenician Hiram in which the latter finally won with the help of a Tyrian named Abdemon (Ant., VIII, v, 3; CAp, 1, 18). In this case, too, defeat involved penalty. The testing of ability by riddles has a striking parallel in the Persian epic, the Shah Nameh, in the trial of the hero Sal by the mobeds or wise men (Wunsche, op. cit., 43-47). Solomon’s fame as an author of riddles and riddle-like sayings is referred to in Sirach 47:15,17 (Hebrew): "With song, and proverbs, dark sayings (chidhah) and figures, thou didst greatly move the nations." Chidhah occurs only once in Pr (1:6): "the words of the wise, and their dark sayings," but the collection contains several examples of what Konig calls "the numerical riddle": Pr 6:16-19; 30:7 ff, 15 f, 18 f, 21 ff, 24-28,29 ff. In each case the riddle is stated first and then the solution. The saying in Pr 26:10: "As an archer that woundeth all, so is he that hireth the fool and he that hireth them that pass by," has been cited as a riddle, and it is certainly obscure enough, but the obscurity may be due to textual corruption. There are several passages in the Old Testament in which the word chidhah seems to be used in the general sense of "mysterious utterance": Nu 12:8; Ps 49:4; 78:2; Da 5:12 (the Aramaic equivalent of chidhah); Da 8:23; Hab 2:6. In Eze 17:1 it describes the parable or allegory of the Two Eagles and the Cedar and the Vine. Sirach has several numerical riddles: 23:16; 25:1 f, 7 f; 26:5 f; 50:25 f; and there are similar sayings in Ab 5 1-11,16-21 (Taylor’s edition). In the Book of Jeremiah (25:26; 51:41; 51:1) are two examples of a cryptic or cipher mode of writing which comes very near the riddle. SHe SHaKH, in the first two passages, represented by the three letters shin, shin, kaph, answering to our sh, sh, k, is meant to be read with the substitution for each letter of the letter as near the beginning of the alphabet as it is near the end, the result being sh = b, sh = b, k = l, that is, B-b-l or Babel/Babylon. In the same way in the last passage the consonants composing the word Lebkamai l, b, k, margin, y, suggest k, s, d, y, margin, that is, Kasdim or Chaldees. This cipher or riddle-writing was called by the Jews ‘At-bash (compare Buxtorf, Lexicon Chaldaicum, etc., I, 131, 137 f, edited by Fischer; and modern commentaries on Jer). The New Testament contains no riddle except the numerical puzzle, Re 13:18 (compare NUMBER; GEMATRIA), and has the Greek equivalent of chidhah only in 1Co 13:12, "for now we see .... darkly," the Revised Version, margin "in a riddle" (Greek en ainigmati). There can be little doubt that riddles enlivened marriage festivals, such as that of Cana. Wunsche (op. cit.) gives some interesting specimens of later Jewish riddles, subsequent indeed to our Lord’s time, but such as might have been in circulation then.

LITERATURE.

The most important authority is the above-cited monograph of Wunsche. Konig has an interesting paragraph in his Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik, etc., 12 f. Compare also Hamburger, RE, II, 966 ff; articles on "Riddle" in Jew Encyclopedia, Smith’s DB, HDB, larger and smaller; Murray’s DB; German Bible Dictionaries of Winer, Riehm2, and Guthe; Rosenmuller, Das alte und neue Morgenland, III. 48 f.

II. The Games of Greece and Rome.

1. Historical Introduction:

This is not the place to give a detailed account of the Greek gymnasia and the elaborate contests for which candidates were prepared in them, or to describe the special forms of sport introduced by the Romans, but these exercises and amusements were so well known in Palestine and throughout the Roman Empire in the time of Christ and the apostles that they cannot be passed over in silence. Some acquaintance with them is absolutely necessary for the interpretation of many passages in the New Testament, especially in the Epistles. Hellenic athletics found their way into Jewish society through the influence of the Greek kingdom ruled over by the Seleucids. Early in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (circa 176 BC) a gymnasium, "place of exercise," was built in Jerusalem (1 Macc 1:14; 2 Macc 4:9,12) and frequented by priests (1 Macc 1:14 f), who are spoken of as "making of no account the honors of their fathers, and thinking the glories of the Greeks best of all." After the success of the Maccabean rising Greek games fell into disrepute among the Jewish population of Palestine, and were thenceforth regarded with suspicion by all strict religionists, even the worldly Josephus sharing the general feeling (Ant., XV, viii, 1). Nevertheless Gentilegames must have been familiar to most in Jerusalem and elsewhere during the Herodian rule and the Roman occupation. Herod the Great built a theater and amphitheater in the neighborhood of the city (Josephus, ibid.; for probable sites, see G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 493), and instituted in the name of Caesar games which included Roman as well as Hellenic sports, celebrated every 5 years. There was also a hippodrome or race-course for horses and chariots, bearing considerable resemblance to the Roman circus (Josephus, Ant, XVII, x, 2; BJ, II, iii, 1). Jericho, too, was provided with a theater, an amphitheater and a hippodrome. There was a hippodrome also at Tarichea. In addition there were scattered over Syria many Hellenic and partially Hellenic cities—Schurer (GJV4, II, 108-221) gives the history of 33—Caesarea Stratonis, Caesarea Philippi, the cities of the Decapolis, Tiberias, etc., which would all have had gymnasia and games. In Tarsus, which must have had a large Greek element in its population, Paul must have heard, and perhaps seen, in his childhood, much of the athletic exercises which were constantly in progress, and in later life he must often have been reminded of them, especially at Corinth, near which were celebrated biennially the Isthmia or Isthmian Games which drew visitors from all parts of the Empire, at Caesarea which possessed a theater, an amphitheater and a stadium, and at Ephesus. The custom, indeed, seems to have been almost universal. No provincial city of any importance was without it (Schurer, op. cit., 48), especially after the introduction of games in honor of the Caesars. The early Christians, therefore, whether of Jewish or Gentileorigin, were able to understand, and the latter at any rate to appreciate, references either to the games in general, or to details of their celebration.

2. General References:

The word which described the assembly gathered together at one of the great Grecian games (agon) was also applied to the contests themselves, and then came to be used of any intense effort or conflict. The corresponding verb (agonizomai) had a similar history. Both these words are used figuratively in the Pauline Epistles: the noun in Php 1:30; Col 2:1; 1Th 2:2; 1Ti 6:12; 2Ti 4:7, rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) (except in the second passage), "conflict" or "fight"; the verb in Col 1:29; 4:12; 1Ti 4:10; 6:12; 2Ti 4:7, translated "strive," "fight." In 1Co 9:25; 2Ti 2:5 (where another word is used) there are literal references. The former passage English Revised Version: "Every man that striveth in the games (agonizomenos) is temperate in all things," also alludes to the rigid self-control enforced by long training which the athlete must practice. The training itself is glanced at in the exhortation: "Exercise thyself (gumnaze) unto godliness" (1Ti 4:7), and in the remark which follows: "Bodily exercise (gumnasia) is profitable for a little." It is remarkable that the word gymnasium, or "place of training," which occurs in the Apocrypha (2 Macc 4:9,12) is not met with in the New Testament. The necessity for the observance of rules and regulations is referred to in the words: "And if also a man contend in the games, he is not crowned, except he have contended lawfully" (2Ti 2:5). In all these passages the games will have been more or less in the apostle’s thought (for other possible New Testament references compare Heb 5:14; 10:32; 12:1; 2Pe 2:14).

3. Specific References to Greek Athletics:

In addition to these general references there are many allusions to details, again found mainly in the Pauline Epistles. These may most conveniently be grouped in alphabetical order.

(a) Beast-fight.

(b) Boxing.

This form of sport is directly referred to in 1Co 9:26: "So box I (Revised Version margin, Greek pukteuo), as not beating the air." The allusion is probably continued in 9:27a: "but I buffet (the Revised Version, margin "bruise," Greek hupopiazo) my body."

(c) The Course.

Foot-races and other contests took place in an enclosure 606 feet 9 inches in length, called a stadium. This is once referred to in a passage in the context of that just mentioned, which almost seems based on observation: "They that run in a race-course (RVm, Greek stadion) run all" (1Co 9:24).

(d) Discus Throwing.

The throwing of the discus, a round plate of stone or metal 10 or 12 inches in diameter, which was a prominent feature of Greek athletics and is the subject of a famous statue, a copy of which is in the British Museum, is not mentioned in the New Testament, but is alluded to in 2 Macc 4:14 as one of the amusements indulged in by Hellenizing priests in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.

(e) The Foot-race.

The words for "run" and "race" (Greek trecho and dromos) sometimes clearly, and in other cases probably, allude to foot-races at the games. For obvious references compare 1Co 9:24; Heb 12:1; 2Ti 4:7; for possible references see Ac 13:25; 20:24; Ro 9:16; Ga 2:2; 5:7; Php 2:16; 2Th 3:1. The second of these passages (Heb 12:1) alludes to the necessity for the greatest possible reduction of weight, and for steady concentration of effort. All the passages would remind the first readers of the single-course and double-course foot-races of the games.

(f) The Goal.

The goal of the foot-race, a square pillar at the end of the stadium opposite the entrance, which the athlete as far as possible kept in view and the sight of which encouraged him to redouble his exertions, is alluded to once: "I press on toward the goal" (Php 3:14, Greek skopos).

(g) The Herald.

The name and country of each competitor were announced by a herald and also the name, country and father of a victor. There may be an allusion to this custom in 1Co 9:27: "after that I have been a herald (Revised Version margins, Greek kerusso) to others"; compare also 1Ti 2:7; 2Ti 1:11, where the Greek for "preacher" is kerux, "herald."

(h) The Prize.

Successful athletes were rewarded at the great games by a wreath consisting in the apostolic age of wild olive (Olympian), parsley (Nemean), laurel (Pythian), or pine (Isthmian). This is referred to in a general way in Php 3:14, and in 1Co 9:24: "One receiveth the prize" (Greek in both cases brabeion; compare also Col 3:15: "Let the peace of Christ arbitrate (Revised Version margin) in your hearts," where the verb is brabeuo). The wreath (stephanos) is directly alluded to in 1Co 9:25: "They (the athletes) do it to receive a corruptible crown"; 2Ti 2:5: "A man .... is not crowned, except he have contended lawfully"; and 1Pe 5:4: "Ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away." There may be allusions also in Php 4:1; 1Th 2:19; Heb 2:7,9; Jas 1:12; Re 2:10; 3:11. In the palm-bearing multitude of the Apocalypse (Re 7:9) there is possibly a reference to the carrying of palm-branches by victors at the games. The judges who sat near the goal and who, at Olympia at any rate, had been carefully prepared for their task, may be glanced at in 2Ti 4:8: "The crown .... which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day."

(i) Wrestling.

This form of sport, which was in great favor in Greek society from the age of Homer onward, is alluded to once in the New Testament: "Our wrestling (Greek pale) is not against flesh and blood," etc. (Eph 6:12). The exercise made great demands on strength, perseverance and dexterity. There is an indirect allusion in the term palaestra, which first meant "place for wrestling," and then "place for athletic exercises in general" (2 Macc 4:14).

4. References to the Theater and the Drama:

Although there is no direct reference in the New Testament to the intellectual contests in which the Greeks delighted as much as in athletics, the former cannot be entirely ignored. The word "theater" (Greek theatron) occurs 3 times: twice in the sense of "public hall" (Ac 19:29,31); and once with a clear reference to its use as a place of amusement: "We are made a spectacle" (1Co 4:9). "The drama was strongly discountenanced by the strict Jews of Palestine, but was probably encouraged to some extent by some of the Jews of the Diaspora, especially in Asia Minor and Alexandria. Philo is known to have witnessed the representation of a play of Euripides, and the Jewish colony to which he belonged produced a dramatic poet named Ezekiel, who wrote inter alia a play on the Exodus, some fragments of which have been preserved (Schurer, GJV4, II, 60; III, 500 ff). An inscription found not long ago at Miletus shows that part of theater of that city was reserved for Jews (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 446 ff). The readers of the Pauline Epistles, Jews as well as Gentiles, would be generally more or less familiar with theater and the drama. It has been suggested that there is a glimpse of a degraded form of the drama, the mime or mimic play, which was exceedingly popular in the 1st century and afterward, in the mockery of Jesus by the soldiers (Mt 27:27-30 parallel Mr 15:16-19). The "king" seems to have been a favorite character with the comic mime. The mockery of the Jewish king, Agrippa I, by the populace of Alexandria, a few years later, which furnishes a very striking parallel to the incident recorded in the Gospels (Schurer, GJV4, I, 497), is directly connected by Philo with the mimes. The subject is very ably discussed by a German scholar, Hermann Reich, in a learned monograph, Der Konig mit der Dornenkrone (1905). Certainty is, of course, unattainable, but it seems at least fairly probable that the rude Syrian soldiers, who were no doubt in the habit of attending theater, may have been echoing some mimic play in their mock homage to "the king of the Jews."

LITERATURE.

In addition to works already mentioned see for the whole subject: articles "Games" in Smith, DB2; HDB, large and small; EB; Jewish Encyclopedia; arts. "Spiele" in Winer, RWB, and Riehm2, and especially Konig, "Spiele bei den Hebraern," RE3. On the games of Greece and Rome See articles in Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities, "Amphitheatrum," "Circus," "Olympia," "Stadium," etc.

William Taylor Smith

gam’-a-dim (gammadhim):

The word occurs only in Eze 27:11, in the King James Version in form "Gammadims," in the English Revised Version "Gammadim." In the American Standard Revised Version, as also in the English Revised Version, margin, it is rendered "valorous men." Some think a proper name is required, but identification is not possible, and the meaning remains doubtful.

ga’-mul (gamul, "weaned"):

The head of the 22nd of the 24 courses of priests inaugurated by David (1Ch 24:17).

gan’-gren (gaggraina, pronounced gan-graina; the King James Version canker):

The name was used by the old Greek physicians for an eating ulcer which corrodes the soft parts and, according to Galen, often ends in mortification. Paul compares the corrupting influence of profane babbling or levity, in connection with subjects which ought to be treated with reverence to this disease (2Ti 2:17). The old English word "canker" is used by 16th-and 17th-century authors as the name of a caterpillar which eats into a bud. In this sense it occurs 18 times in Shakespeare (e.g. Midsummer Night’s Dream, II, ii, 3). The canker-worm mentioned 6 times by Joe and Nahum is probably the young stage of Acridium peregrinum, a species of locust. Cankered in Jas 5:3 the King James Version means "rusted" (Greek katiotai), and is so rendered in the Revised Version (British and American). In Susanna verse 52 Coverdale uses the phrase, "O thou old cankered carle," in Daniel’s address to the elder, where English Versions of the Bible has "waxen old in wickedness." The word is still used in the Scottish dialect and applied to persons who are cross-grained and disagreeable.

Alexander Macalister

The translation of perets, "a breach" (Eze 13:5, "Ye have not gone up into the gaps," the Revised Version, margin "breaches"; Eze 22:30, "I sought for a man among them, that should build up the wall, and stand in the gap before me for the land"). Said of prophets who failed to stand up for the right and to strengthen and preserve the people.

gar: the King James Version for GAS (which see).

gar’-d’-n (gan, gannah, ginnah; kepos): The Arabic jannah (diminutive, jannainah), like the Hebrew gannah, literally, "a covered or hidden place," denotes in the mind of the dweller in the East something more than the ordinary garden. Gardens in Biblical times, such as are frequently referred to in Semitic literature, were usually walled enclosures, as the name indicates (La 2:6 the American Revised Version, margin), in which there were paths winding in and out among shade and fruit trees, canals of running water, fountains, sweet-smelling herbs, aromatic blossoms and convenient arbors in which to sit and enjoy the effect. These gardens are mentioned in Ge 2 and Ge 3; 13:10; So 4:12-16; Ec 2:5,6; Eze 28:13; 31:8,9; 36:35; Joe 2:3. Ancient Babylonian, Assyrian and Egyptian records show the fondness of the rulers of these countries for gardens laid out on a grand scale and planted with the rarest trees and plants. The drawings made by the ancients of their gardens leave no doubt about their general features and their correspondence with Biblical gardens. The Persian word pardec (paradeisos) appears in the later Hebrew writings to denote more extensive gardens or parks. It is translated "orchards" in Ec 2:5 the King James Version; So 4:13.

See PARADISE.

Such gardens are still common throughout the Levant. They are usually situated on the outskirts of a city (compare Joh 18:1,26; 19:41), except in the case of the more pretentious estates of rich pashas or of the government seats (compare 2Ki 21:18; Es 1:5; 7:7,8; Ne 3:15; 2Ki 25:4; Jer 39:4; 52:7). They are enclosed with walls of mud blocks, as in Damascus, or stone walls capped with thorns, or with hedges of thorny bushes (compare La 2:6 the American Revised Version, margin), or prickly pear. In nearly treeless countries, where there is no rain during 4 or 5 months, at least, of the year, the gardens are often the only spots where trees and other vegetation can flourish, and here the existence of vegetation depends upon the water supply, brought in canals from streams, or raised from wells by more or less crude lifting machines (compare Nu 24:7). Such references as Ge 2:10; Nu 24:6; De 11:10; Isa 1:30; 58:11; So 4:15 indicate that in ancient times they were as dependent upon irrigation in Biblical lands as at present. The planning of their gardens so as to utilize the water supplies has become instinctive with the inhabitants of Palestine and Syria. The writer has seen a group of young Arab boys modeling a garden out of mud and conducting water to irrigate it by channels from a nearby canal, in a manner that a modern engineer would admire. Gardens are cultivated, not only for their fruits and herbs (compare So 6:11; Isa 1:8; 1Ki 21:2) and shade (compare So 6:11; Lu 13:19), but they are planned to serve as dwelling-places during the summer time when the houses are hot and stuffy. That this was an ancient practice is indicated by So 5:2; 6:2; 8:13. A shaded garden, the air laden with the ethereal perfumes of fruits and flowers, accompanied by the music of running water, a couch on which to sit or recline, suggest a condition of bliss dear to the Oriental. Only one who has traveled for days in a dry, glaring desert country and has come upon a spot like the gardens of such a city as Damascus, can realize how near like paradise these gardens can appear. Mohammed pictured such a place as the future abode of his followers

No doubt the remembrances of his visit to Damascus were fresh in his mind when he wrote. El-Jannah is used by the Moslems to signify the "paradise of the faithful."

Gardens were used as places of sacrifice, especially in heathen worship (Isa 1:29; 65:3; 66:17). They sometimes contained burial places (2Ki 21:18,26; Joh 19:41).

Figurative: The destruction of gardens typified desolation (Am 4:9); on the other hand, fruitful gardens figured prosperity (Nu 24:6; Job 8:16; Isa 51:3; 58:11; 61:11; Jer 29:5,28; 31:12; Am 9:14).

James A. Patch

Mention is made of "the king’s garden" in 2Ki 25:4; Jer 39:4; 52:7 (fundamentally the same passage), in connection with the flight of Zedekiah from Jerusalem; and again in Ne 3:15. The last passage shows that the "garden" was at the pool of Siloah (the Revised Version (British and American) "Shelah"), at the mouth of Tyropeon, near the "fountain gate." This would seem to be "the gate between the two walls which was by the king’s garden" of the passages in 2Ki and Jer (compare 2Ch 32:5). On the topography, see JERUSALEM; also Robinson, Palestine, II, 142. Arnold (in Herzog) thinks the garden is probably identical with "the garden of Uzza" of 2Ki 21:18,26.

James Orr

(beth ha-gan):

gar’-d’-n-er (kepouros):

"Gardener" occurs once in the English Versions of the Bible (Joh 20:15), the translation of kepos and ouros, "warden" or "keeper." It is likely that the man referred to was the watchman or keeper (Arabic natur; Hebrew notser), corresponding to those mentioned in 2Ki 17:9; 18:8; Job 27:18, etc., and not one who did the manual labor. It is the common practice in Palestine today to set a watchman over a garden during its productive season.

See WATCHMAN.

ga’-reb (garebh):

One of David’s "mighty men of the armies" (2Sa 23:38; 1Ch 11:40), an "Ithrite," i.e. a member of one of the families of Kiriath-jearim (1Ch 2:53). Some, however, read ha-yattiri for ha- yithri, thus making him a native of Jattir.

See IRA.

ga’-reb, (garebh):

A hill in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, which was one of the landmarks to which the prophet Jeremiah (31:39) foresaw that the city should extend. The site is unknown. Cheyne (Encyclopedia Biblica) would connect this with the "mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward" (Jos 15:8), but this is too far South; it is inconceivable that the prophet could have imagined the city extending so far in this direction; most probably the hill was to the North—the one natural direction for the city’s extension—and is now incorporated in the modern suburbs.

E. W. G. Masterman

gar’-i-zim.

See GERIZIM.

gar’-land (stemma, "wreath"):

Mentioned only in Ac 14:13, where it is said that the priest of Jupiter brought oxen and garlands unto the gates with which to offer sacrifices unto Barnabas and Paul. The rendering "oxen and garlands," instead of "oxen garlanded," seems to imply that the garlands were for the priests and altar and worshippers themselves, as well as for the victims sacrificed. Only occasionally did the Hebrews use such ornaments for themselves, and that almost altogether in their later history.

See CROWN.

gar’-lik (shum, used only in plural shumim; compare Arabic thum):

One of the delights of Egypt for which the Israelites in the Wilderness longed (Nu 11:5); we know from other sources that, though originally a product of Central Asia, garlic was known to the ancient Egyptians. It is the bulb of Allium sativum, Natural Order Liliaceae, and is cultivated all over the Orient. It is eaten cooked in stews; its disagreeable penetrating odor is in evidence in the houses and on the breath of most Orientals. A bulb of garlic, hung over a bed or over the door of a house, is a powerful charm against the evil eye and other malign influences.

E. W. G. Masterman

gar’-ment.

See DRESS.

gar’-mit (garmi):

A gentilic name applied to Keilah in 1Ch 4:19.

The reason for this is not known.

gar’-ner (mazu; apotheke):

"Garners," derived from zawah, "to gather," occurs in Ps 144:13; ‘otsar is similarly translated in Joe 1:17. In the New Testament apotheke is twice translated "garner" (Mt 3:12; Lu 3:17).

The same word is translated "barns" in Mt 6:26; 13:30; Lu 12:18,24.

gar’-nish (tsippah, shiphrah; kosmeo):

The word is used twice in the Old Testament. In 2Ch 3:6, tsippah means "to overlay," or "to plate." Thus, he "garnished" the house or "overlaid" it, "studded" it, with precious stones, and thus adorned and beautified it. In Job 26:13, shiphrah is a feminine noun meaning "fairness," "beauty," "brilliancy." "By his Spirit the heavens are garnished," i.e. the clouds are driven off by the wind or breath of Yahweh, and the sky made bright and clear.

In the New Testament (Mt 12:44; 23:29) the word kosmeo means "set in order," "make ready," "adorn," etc. In Mt 25:7 it is translated "trimmed," and in Re 21:19 "adorned."

J. J. Reeve

gar’-i-s’-n.

See WAR.

gas (Gas):

Named among the "sons of the servants of Solomon" (APC 1Esdras 5:34); not mentioned in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah.

gash’-mu, gash’-moo (gashmu):

A form of the name GESHEM (which see), found in Ne 6:6 (compare Ne 6:1), "And Gashmu saith it." According to BDB the same termination -u is found in Nabatean proper names.

ga’-tam (ga‘tam):

An Edomite chief, grandson of Esau (Ge 36:11,16; 1Ch 1:36).

gat (Hebrew normally (over 300 times) sha‘ar; occasionally deleth, properly, "gateway" (but compare De 3:5); elsewhere the gateway is pethach (compare especially Ge 19:6); Aramaic tera‘; Greek pulon, pule; the English Revised Version and the King James Version add caph, "threshold," in 1Ch 9:19,22; and the King James Version adds delathayim, "double-door," in Isa 45:1; thura, "door," Ac 3:2):

(1) The usual gateway was provided with double doors, swung on projections that fitted into sockets in the sill and lintel. Ordinarily the material was wood (Ne 2:3,17), but greater strength and protection against fire was given by plating with metal (Ps 107:16; Isa 45:2). Josephus (BJ, V, v, 3) speaks of the solid metal doors of the Beautiful Gate (Ac 3:2) as a very exceptional thing. Some doors were solid slabs of stone, from which the imagery of single jewels (Isa 54:12; Re 21:21) was derived. When closed, the doors were secured with a bar (usually of wood, Na 3:13, but sometimes of metal, 1Ki 4:13; Ps 107:16; Isa 45:2), which fitted into clamps on the doors and sockets in the post, uniting the whole firmly (Jud 16:3). Sometimes, perhaps, a portcullis was used, but Ps 24:7 refers to the enlargement or enrichment of the gates. As the gate was especially subject to attack (Eze 21:15,22), and as to "possess the gate" was to possess the city (Ge 22:17; 24:60), it was protected by a tower (2Sa 18:24,33; 2Ch 14:7; 26:9), often, doubtless, overhanging and with flanking projections. Sometimes an inner gate was added (2Sa 18:24). Unfortunately, Palestine gives us little monumental detail.

(2) As even farm laborers slept in the cities, most of the men passed through the gate every day, and the gate was the place for meeting others (Ru 4:1; 2Sa 15:2) and for assemblages. For the latter purpose "broad" or open places (distinguished from the "streets" in Pr 7:12) were provided (1Ki 22:10; Ne 8:1), and these were the centers of the public life. Here the markets were held (2Ki 7:1), and the special commodities in these gave names to the gates (Ne 3:1,3,18). In particular, the "gate" was the place of the legal tribunals (De 16:18; 21:19; 25:7, etc.), so that a seat "among the elders in the gates" (Pr 31:23) was a high honor, while "oppression in the gates" was a synonym for judicial corruption (Job 31:21; Pr 22:22; Isa 29:21; Am 5:10). The king, in especial, held public audiences in the gate (2Sa 19:8; 1Ki 22:10; Jer 38:7; compare Jer 39:3), and even yet "Sublime Porte" (the French translation of the Turkish for "high gate") is the title of the Court of Constantinople. To the gates, as the place of throngs, prophets and teachers went with their message (1Ki 22:10; Jer 17:19; Pr 1:21; 8:3; 31:31), while on the other hand the gates were the resort of the town good-for-nothings (Ps 69:12).

(3) "Gates" can be used figuratively for the glory of a city (Isa 3:26; 14:31; Jer 14:2; La 1:4; contrast Ps 87:2), but whether the military force, the rulers or the people is in mind cannot be determined. In Mt 16:18 "gates of Hades" (not "hell") may refer to the hosts (or princes) of Satan, but a more likely translation is ‘the gates of the grave (which keep the dead from returning) shall not be stronger than it.’ The meaning in Jud 5:8,11 is very uncertain, and the text may be corrupt.

See CITY; JERUSALEM; TABERNACLE; TEMPLE.

Burton Scott Easton

See JERUSALEM.

The expressions are found in Ezekiel: "Even the gate that looketh toward the east" (43:1); "The gate whose prospect is toward the east" (43:4); but the idea of a gate on the eastern side as the principal entrance to the court of the sanctuary goes back to the days of the tabernacle (Ex 27:13-16). In addition to its use as admitting to the sanctuary enclosure, it may be presumed, in analogy with the general mode of the administration of justice, to have been the place where in earlier times cases were tried which were referred to the jurisdiction of the sanctuary (compare Ex 18:19-22; De 17:8; 19:16,18; Nu 27:2,3, etc.).

1. The Tabernacle:

In Ex 27:13-16 the "gate" by which the congregation entered the tabernacle is carefully described. An embroidered screen of the three sacred colors (blue, purple and scarlet), 20 cubits in width, hung from 4 pillars (really 5 pillars, 5 cubits apart; on the reckoning see TABERNACLE), in the center of the East side of the tabernacle court. This is further alluded to in Nu 4:26, "the screen for the door of the gate of the court."

2. Solomon’s Temple:

3. Ezekiel’s Temple:

In Ezekiel’s ideal temple, "the gate whose prospect was toward the east" was that by which the glory of Yahweh went up from the city (Eze 11:23), and by which the prophet in vision saw it return (Eze 43:4).

4. Second Temple:

Nothing is told of an East gate in the temple of Zerubbabel, but it may be assumed that there was one as in the other cases.

5. Herod’s Temple:

The great East gate of the Herodian temple, which followed those above mentioned, was that "Beautiful Gate of the temple" where the miracle of the healing of the lame man was performed (Ac 3:1-10).

See GATE, THE BEAUTIFUL; HARSITH; SHECANIAH.

W. Shaw Caldecott

bu’-ti-fool (he horaia pule tou hierou):

This gate of Herod’s temple is mentioned in the narrative of the healing of the lame man by Peter and John in Ac 3:2,10. Little dispute exists as to the identification of the Beautiful Gate with the splendid "gate of Nicanor" of the Mishna (Mid., i.4), and "Corinthian Gate" of Josephus (BJ, V, v, 3), but authorities are divided as to whether this gate was situated at the entrance to the women’s court on the East, or was the gate reached by 15 steps, dividing that court from the court of the men. The balance of recent opinion inclines strongly to the former view (compare Kennedy, "Problems of Herod’s Temple," The Expositor Times, XX, 170); others take the opposite view (Waterhouse, in Sacred Sites of the Gospels, 110), or leave the question open (thus G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 212). See TEMPLE, HEROD’S.

The gate itself was of unusual size and splendor. It received the name "Nicanor" from its being the work, or having been constructed at the expense, of an Alexandrian Jew of this name. Lately an ossuary was discovered on Mt. Olivet bearing the Greek inscription: "The bones of Nicanor the Alexandrian, who made the doors."

Its other name, "Corinthian," refers to the costly material of which it was constructed—Corinthian bronze. Josephus gives many interesting particulars about this gate, which, he tells us, greatly excelled in workmanship and value all the others (BJ, V, v, 3). These were plated with gold and silver, but this still more richly and thickly. It was larger than the other gates; was 50 cubits in height (the others 40); its weight was so great that it took 20 men to move it (BJ, VI, vi, 3). Its massiveness and magnificence, therefore, well earned for it the name "Beautiful."

W. Shaw Caldecott

In Ne 2:13 the King James Version, "gate of the valley."

See JERUSALEM.

gath (gath; Septuagint Geth, "winepress"):

One of the five chief cities of the Philistines (Jos 13:3; 1Sa 6:17). It was a walled town (2Ch 26:6) and was not taken by Joshua, and, although many conflicts took place between the Israelites and its people, it does not seem to have been captured until the time of David (1Ch 18:1). It was rendered famous as the abode of the giant Goliath whom David slew (1Sa 17:4), and other giants of the same race (2Sa 21:18-22). It was to Gath that the Ashdodites conveyed the ark when smitten with the plague, and Gath was also smitten (1Sa 5:8,9).

It was Gath where David took refuge twice when persecuted by Saul (21:10; 27:2-4). It seems to have been destroyed after being taken by David, for we find Rehoboam restoring it (2Ch 11:8). It was after this reoccupied by the Philistines, for we read that Uzziah took it and razed its walls (2Ch 26:6), but it must have been restored again, for we find Hazael of Damascus capturing it (2Ki 12:17). It seems to have been destroyed before the time of Amos (Am 6:2), and is not further mentioned in the Old Testament or Macc, except in Mic 1:10, where it is referred to in the proverb, "Tell it not in Gath" (compare 2Sa 1:20). Since its destruction occurred, probably, in the middle of the 8th century BC, it is easy to understand why the site has been lost so that it can be fixed only conjecturally. Several sites have been suggested by different explorers and writers, such as: Tell es Safi, Beit Jibrin, Khurbet Jeladiyeh, Khurbet Abu Geith, Jennata and Yebna (see PEFS, 1871, 91; 1875, 42, 144, 194; 1880, 170-71, 211-23; 1886, 200-202).

Tradition in the early centuries AD fixed it at 5 Roman miles North of Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin, toward Lydda, which would indicate Tell es Safi as the site, but the Crusaders thought it was at Jamnia (Yebna), where they erected the castle of Ibelin, but the consensus of opinion in modern times fixes upon Tell es Safi as the site, as is to be gathered from the references cited in PEFS above. The Biblical notices of Gath would indicate a place in the Philistine plain or the Shephelah, which was fortified, presumably in a strong position on the border of the Philistine country toward the territory of Judah or Dan. Tell es Safi fits into these conditions fairly well, but without other proof this is not decisive. It is described in SWP, II, 240, as a position of strength on a narrow ridge, with precipitous cliffs on the North and West, connected with the hills by a narrow neck, so that it is thrust out like a bastion, a position easily fortified.

In 1144 Fulke of Anjou erected here a castle called Blanchegarde (Alba Specula). The writer on "Gath and Its Worthies" in PEFS, 1886, 200-204, connects the name Safi with that of the giant Saph (2Sa 21:18), regarding him as a native of Gath, but the most direct evidence from early tradition connecting Tell es Safi with Gath is found in a manuscript said to be in the library of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which informs us that Catherocastrum was situated on a mountain called Telesaphion or Telesaphy, which is clearly Tell es Safi. Catherocastrum must be the Latin for "camp of Gath" (PEFS, 1906, 305).

H. Porter

gath-he’-fer (gath ha-chepher, "winepress of the pit"):

A town on the boundary of Zebulun (Jos 19:13; the King James Version in error, "Gittah- hapher"), the birthplace of the prophet Jonah (2Ki 14:25). Jerome (Commentary on Jonah) speaks of Geth as an inconsiderable village, about 2 miles from Sepphoris on the Tiberias road, where the tomb of Jonah was shown. Benjamin of Tudela says that Jonah the son of Amittai the prophet was buried "in the mountain" near Sepphoris (Bohn, Early Travels in Palestine, 88). These indications agree with the local tradition which identifies Gath-hepher with el-Meshhed, a village with ancient ruins on a height North of the road as one goes to Tiberias, about 2 miles from Nazareth, and half a mile from Kefr Kennah.

W. Ewing

(1) A city in the territory of Da named with Bene-berak and Me-jarkon, in the plain not far from Joppa (Jos 19:45), assigned to the Kohathite Levites (Jos 21:24), reckoned to Ephraim in 1Ch 6:69. Eusebius, Onomasticon locates it 12 miles from Eleutheropolis on the way to Diospolis. This, however, is too far to the South. More probably it is identical with the "Gath" which Eusebius, Onomasticon places between Antipatris and Jamnia. It is not identified.

(2) A town in the territory of Manasseh, West of Jordan, given to the Levites (Jos 21:25). There is nothing to indicate the position of the place, and there is much confusion in the writing of the name: Septuagint Codex Alexandrinus, "Baithsa"; Codex Vaticanus, "Jebatha." In 1Ch 6:70 it is replaced by "Bileam," i.e. IBLEAM (which see).

W. Ewing

gath’-er (’acaph, qabhats; sullego, sunago):

"Gather," transitive "to bring together," "collect," etc., and intransitive "to come together," "assemble," etc., occurs frequently and represents many Hebrew and Greek words. It is the translation of ‘acaph, "to bring together," in Jos 6:9, the King James Version margin "gathering host"; Ps 27:10, the King James Version margin "The Lord will gather me"; compare Nu 12:14,15; Isa 52:12 King James Version margin. The phrases "gather thee unto thy fathers," "gathered unto his fathers," "gathered into the grave," etc., are frequently used for "to die" and "death" (Ge 25:8,17; 49:29,33; De 32:50; 2Ki 22:20; 2Ch 34:28; Job 27:19; compare Jer 8:2), etc.; qabhats, "to take or grasp with the hand," is frequently used of the Divine "gathering" or restoration of Israel (De 30:3,1; Ne 1:9; Ps 106:47; Isa 43:5, etc.; Eze 20:34, etc.; Ho 8:10; Mic 2:12; Ze 3:19,20; Zec 10:8,10); figuratively, Isa 40:11, "He shall gather the lambs with (the Revised Version (British and American) "in") his arm" (compare Ps 27:10 King James Version margin); sometimes it denotes bringing together for punishment or destruction (Mic 4:12), "He hath gathered them as the sheaves to the threshing-floor."

In the New Testament we have sullego, "to lay together," "to collect" (Mt 13:28,29,30,40,41,48); sunago "to lead or bring together," "to gather," "to collect" (Mt 25:26, "seek returns"; Joh 4:36, "fruit unto life eternal"); episunago, "to lead or bring together" (Mt 23:37, "even as a hen gathereth her chickens"); anakephalaioomai, "to sum up under one head," "to recapitulate" (Eph 1:10, "that he might gather together in one all things in Christ," the Revised Version (British and American) "to sum up all things in Christ"; compare Eph 2:14; in Ro 13:9 the passive is translated "be briefly comprehended," the Revised Version (British and American) "summed up").

"To gather," in the sense of "to infer," occurs in Ac 16:10 as the translation of sumbibazo, "to bring together" (here, in mind), "assuredly gathering," the Revised Version (British and American) "concluding" (compare 9:22, "proving").

Gatherer occurs in Am 7:14 as the translation of bolec, from balac, to cultivate figs or sycamores, "a gatherer of sycamore fruit," the Revised Version (British and American) "a dresser of sycomore-trees" ("a nipper of sycomore figs, i.e. helping to cultivate a sort of figs or mulberries produced by the real sycamore tree" (used only by the poorest), which requires nipping in the cultivation, perhaps an occupation of shepherds; Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) vellicans sycamnia).

Gathering is the translation of episunagoge, "leading together unto" (2Th 2:1), "our gathering together unto him"; in 1Co 16:2 we have "gathering" (logia from lego) in the sense of a collection of many, the Revised Version (British and American) "collection," as the King James Version in 1Co 16:1.

"Gather," etc., occurs frequently in Apocrypha, e.g. "will gather us out of all the nations," sunago (Tobit 13:5); "gather them together" (1 Macc 9:7; 10:8); "Gather together our dispersion," episunagage ten diasporan hemon (2 Macc 1:27); "gathered to his fathers" prosetethe pros ton laon autou, the Revised Version (British and American) "people" (Judith 16:22; Bel and the Dragon verse 1, tous pateras; 1 Macc 2:69); "gathering up briefly," the Revised Version (British and American) "gather," suntemno (2 Macc 10:10); "gathering" in the sense of a collection of money (2 Macc 12:43), the Revised Version (British and American) "collection."

Among the changes in the Revised Version (British and American) we have "hold firm" for "gather" (Jer 51:11); "Gather thee together" for "Go one way or other" (Eze 21:16 margin, "Make thyself one"); for "gather blackness" (Na 2:10), "are waxed pale "; for "or gather together" (Job 11:10), "and call unto judgment," margin Hebrew "call an assembly"; for "even as a hen doth gather her brood" (Lu 13:34) "gathereth her own brood"; for "as the partridge sitteth on eggs and hatcheth them not," the American Standard Revised Version has "that sitteth on eggs which she hath not laid," margin "gathereth young which she hath not brought forth," text of the English Revised Version and the King James Version margin (Jer 17:11).

W. L. Walker

gol-on-i’-tis.

See GOLAN.

golz (Galatai):

Galatia in Asia Minor is literally the Gallia of the East; its inhabitants are called Galli by Roman writers, just as the inhabitants of ancient France are called Galatai by Greek writers. In some manuscripts in 2Ti 4:10, eis Gallian is read for eis Galatian.

The emigration of the Gauls from Europe and their settlement in the central region of the peninsula of Asia Minor are somewhat obscure subjects, but the ancient authorities leave no doubt of the main facts. In 1 Macc 8:2 it is difficult to say whether Judas Maccabeus is referring to the Gauls of Europe or the Gauls of Asia Minor. Both became finally subject to the Romans, and about the same time.

It was in 191 BC that Gallia Cisalpina was reduced to the form of a Roman province, and in 189 BC occurred the defeat of Antiochus, king of Asia. Mommsen argues that the reference is to the Gauls in the North of Italy, from the circumstance that they are mentioned as being under tribute to the Romans, and also from their mention in connection with Spain. Not much, however, can be argued from this, as the notice of them is in a manner rhetorical, and the defeat of Antiochus is mentioned practically in the same connection. In APC 2Macc 8:20 the reference is without doubt to the Asiatic Gauls or Galatians, as they are more commonly called. In the Maccabean period they were restless and fond of war, and often hired themselves out as auxiliaries to the Asiatic kings.

J. Hutchison

ga’-za (‘azzah, "strong"; Septuagint Gaza; Arabic Ghazzeh):

One of the five chief towns of Philistia and probably the oldest, situated near the coast in lat. 31 degrees 30’ and about 40 miles South of Jaffa. It is on a hill rising 60 to 200 ft. above the plain, with sand dunes between it and the sea, which is about 2 1/2 miles distant. The plain around is fertile and wells abound, and, being on the border of the desert between Syria and Egypt and lying in the track of caravans and armies passing from one to the other, it was in ancient times a place of importance. The earliest notices of it are found in the records of Egypt.

Thothmes III refers to it in the account of his expedition to Syria in 1479 BC, and it occurs again in the records of the expedition of Seti I in 1313 BC (Breasted, History of Egypt, 285, 409).

It occurs also in the early catalogue of cities and tribes inhabiting Canaan in the earliest times (Ge 10:19). Joshua reached it in his conquests but did not take it (Jos 10:41; 11:22).

Judah captured it (Jud 1:18) but did not hold it long, for we find it in the hands of the Philistines in the days of Samson, whose exploits have rendered it noteworthy (16:1-3,11,30). The hill to which he carried off the gate of the city was probably the one now called el-Muntar ("watch-tower"), which lies Southeast of the city and may be referred to in 2Ki 18:8, "from the tower of the watchmen to the fortified city," Gaza, with the other chief towns, sent a trespass offering to Yahweh when the ark was returned (1Sa 6:17).

Hezekiah defeated and pursued the Philistines to Gaza, but does not seem to have captured it. It was taken by Sargon in 720 BC, in his war with Egypt, since Khanun, the king of Gaza, joined the Egyptians and was captured at the battle of Raphia (Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies, II, 142). It was probably destroyed (see Am 1:7). It was certainly dismantled by Alexander the Great in 332, when it dared to resist him. It was then exceedingly strong, verifying its name, and was most bravely defended, so that it took Alexander two months to reduce it. He put to death all the men and sold the women and children as slaves (Grote, History of Greece, XI, 467 ff). It was restored, however, and we learn that Jonathan forced it to submit to him (Josephus, Ant, XIII, v, 5; 1 Macc 11:62), and Alexander Janneus took it and massacred the inhabitants who escaped the horrors of the siege (Josephus, Ant, XIII, xiii, 3). Pompey restored the freedom of Gaza (ibid., XIV, iv, 4), and Gabinius rebuilt it in 57 BC (ibid., XIV, v, 3).

Gaza is mentioned only once in the New Testament (Ac 8:26), in the account of Philip and the eunuch. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, it became a center of Greek commerce and culture, and pagan influence was strong, while the church rounded there was struggling for existence. Many martyrs there testified to the faith, until finally, under Theodosius, Christianity gained the supremacy (HGHL, 12th edition, 188). It fell into the hands of the Arabs in 634 AD, and became and has remained a Moslem city since the days of Saladin, who recovered it from the Crusaders in 1187, after the battle of Hattin. It is now a city of some 20,000 inhabitants, among whom are a few hundred Christians.

See also AZZAH.

H. Porter

ga-za’-ra (Gazara, Gazera):

A fortress of great strength in Judea, which figures often in the Maccabean wars. To this place Judas pursued Gorgias (APC 1Macc 4:15). It was fortified by the Greek general Bacchides (APC 1Macc 9:52; Ant, XIII, i, 3). It was captured by Simon Maccabeus, who turned out the inhabitants and purified the city. He built here a palace for himself, and appointed his son John commander of his army (APC 1Macc 13:43 ff). A different account of this occurrence is given in APC 2Macc 10:32 ff, where the capture is attributed to Judas. The narrative here, however, is inspired by antagonism to Simon because he had assumed the high-priesthood.

The fortress is identical with Tell Jezer, the ancient GEZER (which see). It is interesting to note that recent excavations have uncovered the ruins of Simon’s palace (PEFS, 1905, 26).

W. Ewing

ga’-zath-its (‘azzathim):

The inhabitants of GAZA (which see) (Jos 13:3 the King James Version), rendered "Gazites" (Jud 16:2).

ga-zel’ (tsebhi, and feminine tsebhiyah; compare Tabeitha (Ac 9:36), and Arabic zabi; also Arabic ghazal; Dorkas (Ac 9:36); modern Greek zarkadi):

The word "gazelle" does not occur in the King James Version, where tsebhi and tsebhiyah, in the 16 passages where they occur, are uniformly translated "roe" or "roebuck." In the Revised Version (British and American) the treatment is not uniform. We find "gazelle" without comment in De 12:15,22; 14:5; 15:22; 1Ki 4:23. We find "roe," with marginal note "or gazelle," in Pr 6:5; So 2:7,9,17; 4:5; 8:14; Isa 13:14. We find "roe" without comment in 2Sa 2:18; 1Ch 12:8; So 3:5; 7:3. In the last passage cited, So 7:3, while the American Standard Revised Version has no note, the English Revised Version refers to So 4:5, where "gazelle" is graven in the margin. In the opinion of the writer, the rendering should be "gazelle" in all of these passages. It must be acknowledged, however, that the gazelle and the roe-deer are of about the same size, and are sometimes confused with each other. The Greek dorkas may refer to either, and in Syria the roe-deer is sometimes called ghazal or even wa‘l, which is the proper name of the Persian wild goat.

The gazelle is an antelope belonging to the bovine family of the even-toed ruminants. There are more than twenty species of gazelle, all belonging to Asia and Africa. The species found in Syria and Palestine is the Dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas). It is 2 ft. high at the shoulders. Both sexes have unbranched, lyrate, ringed horns, which may be a foot long. The general coloration is tawny, but it is creamy white below and on the rump, and has a narrow white line from above the eye to the nostril. Several varieties have been distinguished, but they will not bear elevation to the rank of species, except perhaps Gazelle merilli a form of which a few specimens have been obtained from the Judean hills, having distinctly different horns from those of the common gazelle. The gazelle is found singly or in small groups on the interior plains and the uplands, but not in the high mountains. It is a marvel of lightness and grace, and a herd, when alarmed, makes off with great rapidity over the roughest country (2Sa 2:18; 1Ch 12:8; Pr 6:5; So 8:14). The beauty of the eyes is proverbial. The skin is used for floor coverings, pouches or shoes, and the flesh is eaten, though not highly esteemed.

See DEER; GOAT; ZOOLOGY.

Alfred Ely Day

ga’-zer (gazer (in pause)).

See GEZER.

ga-ze’-ra (Gazera):

(1) A fortress of Judea (APC 1Macc 4:15; 7:45); in the Revised Version (British and American) always GAZARA (which see).

(2) Head of a family of temple-servants who returned with Zerubbabel (APC 1Esdras 5:31) =" Gazzam" in Ezr 2:48 and Ne 7:51.

ga’-zez (gazez, "shearer"):

(1) A son of Ephah, Caleb’s concubine (1Ch 2:46).

(2) A second Gazez is mentioned in the same verse as a son of Haran, another son of Ephah.

gaz’-ing-stok: This obsolete word occurs twice:

(1) in Na 3:6, as the translation of ro’i, "a sight" or "spectacle" (from ra’ah, "to look," "see," also "to look down upon," "despise,"); "I will .... make thee vile, and will set thee as a gazing-stock," as one set up to be gazed at, mocked and despised—a form of punishment in olden times; compare "mocking stock" (2 Macc 7:7), and "laughing-stock" still in use. The Hebrew word occurs only here and in Ge 16:13; 1Sa 16:12; Job 7:8; 33:21, in which places it does not have the same bad meaning; for a similar threatening compare Isa 14:16; Jer 51:37.

(2) In Heb 10:33, it is the translation of theatrizo, "to bring upon the theater," "to be made a spectacle of," "made a gazing stock both by reproaches and afflictions"; compare 1Co 4:9, theatron ginomai, where Paul says the apostles were "made a spectacle unto the world," the King James Version margin "(Greek) theater." The reference in both instances is to the custom of exhibiting criminals, and especially gladiators, men doomed to death, in theaters. "In the morning men are exposed to lions and bears; at mid-day to their spectators; those that kill are exposed to one another; the victor is detained for another slaughter; the conclusion of the fight is death" (Seneca, Ep. vii, quoted by Dr. A. Clarke on 1Co 4:9). We are apt to forget what the first preachers and professors of Christianity had to endure.

W. L. Walker

gaz’-its:

Inhabitants of Gaza, who were Philistines when the Israelites came into contact with them (Jos 13:3; Jud 16:2), but there was an older stratum of population which occupied the place before the invasion of the Philistines, probably of Amorite stock.

gaz’-am (gazzam, "devouring"):

Head of a family of Nethinim who returned from exile (Ezr 2:48; Ne 7:51; APC 1Esdras 5:31, "Gazera").

ge-ha-ra’-shim (ge’charashim): In 1Ch 4:14, the King James Version renders "valley of Charashim." In Ne 11:35, English Versions of the Bible renders "valley of craftsmen"; here it is named with Lod and Ono. Something of the name perhaps survives in Khirbet Hirsa, East of Lydda.

ge’-ba (gebha‘, "hill"):

(1) A town on the Northeast boundary of the territory of Benjamin (Jos 18:24), given to the Levites (Jos 21:17; 1Ch 6:60). It stood on the northern frontier of the kingdom of Judah, Geba and Beersheba marking respectively the northern and southern limits (2Ki 23:8). In 2Sa 5:25 "Geba" should be altered to "Gibeon," which stands in the corresponding passage, 1Ch 14:16. In Jud 20:10,33; 1Sa 13:3,16, the Hebrew reads "Geba," the translation "Gibeah" being due to confusion of the two names. From 1Sa 14:5 we gather that Geba stood to the South of the great gorge, Wady Suweinit, commanding the pass at Michmash. This was the scene of Jonathan’s daring enterprise against the Philistines, when, accompanied by his armor-bearer, he accomplished an apparently impossible feat, climbing the rocky steeps of the gorge to the North and putting the enemy to flight. There can be no doubt that the modern village of Jeba‘ occupies the ancient site. It stands to the South of Wady Suweinit, looking toward Michmash—modern Mukhmas—with Seneh, the crag on the southern lip of the gorge, in front of it. The distance from Jerusalem is about 6 miles. It was fortified by Asa with materials that his enemy Baasha had used to fortify Ramah against him (1Ki 15:22). It is named by Isaiah in his description of the terrifying march of the Assyrians upon Jerusalem from the North (10:28 ff). It appears among the cities which were reoccupied by Israel after the Exile (Ezr 2:26; Ne 11:31).

(2) (Gaibai): Between a fortress so named and Scythopolis (Beisan), Holofernes pitched his camp (Judith 3:10). On the high road that runs through Jenin, and down the Vale of Jezreel to Beisan, about 2 miles to the South of Sanur, stands the village of Jeba‘, with which this fortress may be identified.

W. Ewing

ge’-bal (gebhal, "border"; Bublos, and Biblos; Byblus, modern Jebeil):

(1) An ancient Phoenician city, situated on a bluff of the foothills of Lebanon, overlooking the Mediterranean. It was one of the principal seaports of Phoenicia, and had a small but good harbor for small ships. It lies in lat. 34 degrees 8’, nearly, and about 4 miles North of the river Adonis (Nahr Ibrahim). It was regarded as a holy city by the ancients. Philo mentions the tradition that it was founded by Kronos, and was sacred to the worship of Beltis and, later, of Adonis, whose rites were celebrated yearly at the river of the same name and at its source in the mountain, at Apheca (see TAMMUZ). Gebal was the center of quite an extensive district, extending from the Eleutherus on the North to the Tamyras on the South, a distance of 60 or 70 miles along the coast. It is mentioned by Jos (13:5) as the land of the Gebalites (which see) (the King James Version "Giblites"), and the Gebalites are also mentioned in 1Ki 5:18 (Hebrew 32) as aiding in the construction of Solomon’s temple. The "elders" and the "wise men" of Gebal are among the workmen employed on Tyrian ships (Eze 27:9 the American Revised Version, margin). The earliest mention of Gebal found in history is in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, which were composed in the first half of the 14th century BC. It had become, in connection with all Phoenicia, a dependency of Egypt in the days of Thothmes III and was under Egyptian governors, but, in the reign of Amenhotep IV (Ikhnaton), the Hittites and Amorites from the North and Khabiri from the South attacked the territory of Gebal, and its governor wrote letters to Amenhotep, calling for help. There are over 60 of these, describing the desperate condition of the city and of its governor, Ribaddi, who was expelled and took refuge in Beirut, but afterward regained his capital only to be besieged and lose all his dependencies, and finally to fall into the hands of the enemy. Gebal afterward became independent, as is shown by the records of Ramses IX (1442-1423 BC) and of Ramses XII, for its king retained the emissaries of the former 17 years in captivity, and treated a trusted agent of the latter with scant civility. Its king at this time was Zakkar-Baal, and kings of Gebal are mentioned in the Assyrian records, one paying tribute to Ashurnazir-pal (circa 887 BC) and another to Sennacherib (705-680). The latter king was Uru-melek, and kings of Gebal are mentioned in connection with other Phoenician cities under Persian rule. The city submitted to Alexander the Great without opposition, and furnished a fleet to aid him in the siege of Tyre (332). Strabo refers to it as a town of note in the days of Pompey (xvi.2,17), and it is frequently mentioned in Phoenician (CIS, 1) and Assyrian inscriptions in the forms Gubal and Gubli (COT, I, 174).

(2) (gebhal; Gobolitis): A district Southeast of the Dead Sea, which is referred to in Ps 83:7 (Hebrew 8) in connection with Moab, Ammon, Amalek and others, as making a covenant together against Israel (compare 1 Macc 5). Robinson (BR, II, 154) found the name Jebal still applied to this region, and Josephus (Ant., II, i, 2) speaks of a Gebalitis as forming part of Idumaea. It is a hilly region, as the modern name signifies, and includes the towns of Shobek and Tolfieh.

H. Porter

ge’-bal-its (ha-gibhlim): Inhabitants of GEBAL (which see). According to the present text of Jos 13:5, "the land of the Gebalites" was given to Israel as part of its future territory. But it was never occupied by the Israelites. Septuagint, however, has a very different reading, indicating an early corruption of the text. Perhaps with many modern scholars it is better to read "to the borders of the Gebalites."

In 1Ki 5:18 the King James Version translates this word "stone-squarers," the King James Version margin gives "Giblites," and the Revised Version (British and American) "Gebalites," as workmen who, with the men of Solomon and of Hiram, fashioned the stones for the temple. Here also the text is doubtful, and some by a slight change would read: "and made a border for them" (i.e. for the stones). In Eze 27:9 the men of Gebal are described as the "calkers" of the ships of Tyre and Sidon.

George Rice Hovey

ge’-ber (gebher, "man," "strong one"):

(1) According to 1Ki 4:13 the King James Version the father of one of the 12 officers who provided food for Solomon and his household (but here the Revised Version (British and American) "Ben-geber"). His district lay to the Northeast of Jordan.

(2) Another, and the last in the list of Solomon’s commissariat officers (1Ki 4:19). His district was also East of the Jordan, but probably to the South of that named in connection with the official of 4:13 (the Revised Version (British and American) "Ben-geber"). According to the rendering of English Versions of the Bible, he is said to have been "the only officer that was in the land." Unless the text, which presents some difficulties, is corrupt, as some suppose, it probably means that this large region was assigned to one official because less able than the others to furnish the required supplies.

Benjamin Reno Downer

ge’-bim (gebhim, "trenches"): A place named only in Isa 10:31. Some would place it at Jebia, identifying it with the Geba of Eusebius, 5 Roman miles from Gophna (modern Jifneh), on the way to Shechem. Its place, however, in the order of names, after Anathoth, seems to point to some position South of that village, to the Northeast of Jerusalem.

gek’-o (the Revised Version (British and American) for ‘anaqah, only in Le 11:30; Septuagint mugale, "shrew mouse" or "field mouse"; the King James Version ferret): Probably a shrew or a field mouse.

See FERRET; LIZARD; SPIDER.

ged-a-li’-a (gedhalyah; except in 1Ch 25:3,9 and Jer 38:1, where it is gedhalyahu, "Yah(u) is great"):

(1) Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam (the friend and protector of Jeremiah) and grandson of Shaphan (the scribe in the reign of Josiah) (2Ki 25:22-25; Jer 39:14; 40:5-16; 41:1-18).

1. His Appointment as Governor in Judah:

After the destruction of Jerusalem and the carrying away captive of the Jews to Babylon (586 BC), Gedaliah was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar governor over the poor Jews who had been left in the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen (2Ki 25:12,22). To his charge were committed also some royal princesses (Jer 43:6) and courtiers (Jer 41:16) who had been allowed to remain as unlikely to cause any trouble. Gedaliah fixed his residence at Mizpah, a few miles Northwest of Jerusalem. Here he was joined by Jeremiah (40:6).

2. His Conciliatory Spirit and Wise Rule:

The Jewish soldiers who had escaped capture, having heard that the Chaldeans had departed, and that Gedaliah, one of their own nation, had been appointed governor in Judah, came with Ishmael, Johanan and other officers at their head, to Gedaliah at Mizpah (2Ki 25:23,14; Jer 40:7-10). The governor assured them that they need have no fear of vengeance from their conquerors, and promised them on oath protection and security, if they would remain and cultivate the land and become the peaceful subjects of the king of Babylon. This assurance led to a general gathering around Gedaliah of refugees from all the neighboring countries (Jer 40:11,12). For two months (some think longer) Gedaliah’s beneficent and wise rule did much to consolidate affairs in Judah and to inspire the feeble remnant of his countrymen with heart and hope.

3. His Treacherous Assassination:

But evil spirits were at work against him. Baalis, king of Ammon, had determined upon his life (Jer 40:13-16). The peaceful and popular rule which was being established by the good governor stood in the way of the accomplishment of any plan of conquest he entertained. Baalis found a ready instrument for his murderous design in Ishmael who, as one of royal birth and in the counsels of the king (Jer 41:1), was doubtless jealous of the man who had been chosen governor in preference to himself. Gedaliah was informed by Johanan and the other captains of the plot to assassinate him, and Johanan at a private interview expressed to him a strong desire to go himself and slay Ishmael secretly, declaring that the safety of the Jews depended upon the life of the governor. But Gedaliah refused to allow Johanan to anticipate his enemy, believing, in the generosity of his heart, that Ishmael was not capable of such an act of treachery. He soon found, however, that his confidence had been sadly misplaced. Ishmael, with ten of his companions, came on a visit to him to Mizpah, and after they had been hospitably entertained they fell upon their good host and murdered him, along with all the Jewish and the Chaldean soldiers whom he had with him for order and protection (2Ki 25:25; Jer 41:1-3). They then cast the bodies of their victims into the cistern which Asa had made (Jer 41:9). Ishmael was pursued and overtaken by Johanan, but he succeeded in effecting his escape to the Ammonites (Jer 41:11-15). Then Johanan and the other captains, afraid lest the Chaldeans should avenge upon them the murder of the governor (Jer 41:16-18), and against the earnest entreaties of Jeremiah (chapter 42), fled to Egypt, taking the prophet and the Jewish remnant with them (43:5-7). In memory of the date of Gedaliah’s assassination the Jews kept a fast (which is still retained in the Jewish calendar) on the 3rd day of the 7th month, Tishri (Zec 7:5; 8:19).

4. His Noble Character:

The narratives reveal Gedaliah in a very attractive light, as one who possessed the confidence alike of his own people and their conquerors; a man of rare wisdom and tact, and of upright, transparent character, whose kindly nature and generous disposition would not allow him to think evil of a brother; a man altogether worthy of the esteem in which he was held by succeeding generations of his fellow-countrymen.

(2) (gedhalyahu): Son of Jeduthun, and instrumental leader of the 2nd of the 24 choirs in the Levitical orchestra (1Ch 25:3,1).

(3) A priest of the "sons of Jeshua," in the time of Ezra, who had married a foreign woman (Ezr 10:18).

(4) (gedhalyahu): Son of Pashhur (who beat Jeremiah and put him in the stocks, Jer 20:1-6), and one of the chiefs of Jerusalem who, with the sanction of the king, Zedekiah, took Jeremiah and let him down with cords into a cistern where he sank in the mud (38:1,4-6).

(5) Grandfather of Zephaniah the prophet, and grandson of Hezekiah, probably the king (Ze 1:1).

James Crichton

ged’-ur (Geddour): Head of a family of temple-servants (1 Esdras 5:30), corresponding to Gahar of Ezr 2:47 and Ne 7:49.

ged’-e-on (Heb 11:32 the King James Version).

See GIDEON.

ge’-der (gedher): A royal city of the Canaanites taken by Joshua along with Lachish, Eglon, Gezer, Debir and Hormah (Jos 12:13 f). It may be the city called "Beth-gader" in 1Ch 2:51, and the birthplace of Baal-hanan, who had charge of David’s olives and sycamores (27:28); unidentified.

ge-de’-ra, ge-de’-ra-thit (ha-gedherah, "the enclosed place"): A town in the Shephelah of Judah, named with Socoh, Azekah, Shaaraim and Adithaim (Jos 15:36). In 1Ch 4:23 the Revised Version (British and American) reads, "the inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah," for the King James Version, "those that dwelt among plants and hedges." It is probably represented by Khirbet Jadireh, about 3 miles Southwest of Gezer. "Gederathite," applied to Jozabad (1Ch 12:4), probably meant an inhabitant of this place.

ge’-der-it, ge-de’-rit (gedheri): Inhabitant of GEDER, which see (1Ch 27:28).

ged’-e-roth, ge-de’-roth (gedheroth): A town in the Shephelah of Judah, named with Kithlish, Beth-dagon, Naamah and Makkedah (Jos 15:41). It is mentioned along with Bethshemesh and Aijalon as taken by the Philistines in the reign of Ahaz (2Ch 28:18). It possibly corresponds with the "Kidron" of 1 Macc 15:39,41; 16:9. Eusebius, Onomasticon places a very large village named Gedrom 10 Roman miles from Lydda on the road to Eleutheropolis. This points to Katrah, Southeast of Yebnah.

ged-e-ro-tha’-im (gedherathayim, "place of enclosures"): Stands as the 15th in a list which professes to give only the names of 14 cities in the Judean Shephelah (Jos 15:36). the King James Version margin suggests that we might read "or" for "and" after Gederah, but this is impossible. Septuagint reads, "and its cattle shelters." Probably, however, the name has arisen by dittography from the preceding GEDERAH (which see).

ge’-dor (gedhor; Codex Vaticanus, Geddor, Codex Alexandrinus, Gedor):

(1) A town in the mountains of Judah, named with Halhul and Beth-zur (Jos 15:58). It seems to be referred to by Eusebius as Gadeira (Onomasticon, under the word), which he identifies with Gaidora (Jerome calls it Gadora), a village in the borders of Jerusalem, near the terebinth. It is probably represented today by Khirbet Jedur, about 7 miles North of Hebron (PEF, III, 313, Sh XXI).

(2) Among the Benjamites who joined David at Ziklag were the sons of Jeroham of Gedor (1Ch 12:7). No trace of this name is found in the territory of Benjamin. It may be identical with (1).

(3) The Simeonites are said to have gone to the entering in of Gedor in search of pasture for their flocks. They smote and expelled the Meunim, "and dwelt in their stead" (1Ch 4:39 ). Here the Septuagint reads Gerar, and this is probably correct.

(4) A family in Judah (1Ch 4:4).

(5) An ancestor of Saul (1Ch 8:31).

W. Ewing

ge-ha’-zi (gechazi, except in 2Ki 4:31; 5:25; 8:4,5, where it is gechazi, perhaps "valley of vision"): The confidential servant of Elisha. Various words are used to denote his relation to his master. He is generally called Elisha’s "boy" (na‘ar), servant or personal attendant; he calls himself (5:25) his master’s servant or slave (‘ebhedh), and if the reference be to him in 4:43 the Revised Version, margin, he receives the designation "minister" (meshareth), or chief servant of Elisha.

1. His Ready Service:

Mention is made of him on three different occasions. He is first brought under notice in the story of the wealthy Shunammite (2Ki 4:8-37) who provided in her house special accommodation for Elisha, which suited his simple tastes, and of which he availed himself as often as he passed that way. By command of his master, Gehazi called the Shunammite, that she might be rewarded by the prophet for her liberal hospitality. Failing to elicit from the lady a desire for any particular favor, and being himself at a loss to know how to repay her kindness, Elisha consulted with his servant, whose quick perception enabled him to indicate to his master the gift that would satisfy the great woman’s heart. When on the death of her child the Shunammite sought out the man of God at Carmel, and in the intensity of her grief laid hold of the prophet’s feet, "Gehazi came near to thrust her away" (2Ki 4:27)—perhaps not so much from want of sympathy with the woman as from a desire to protect his master from what he considered a rude importunity. Then Elisha, who had discovered of himself (2Ki 4:27), from what the woman had said (2Ki 4:28), the cause of her sorrow, directed Gehazi, as a preliminary measure, to go at once to Shunem and lay his staff upon the face of the dead child. Gehazi did so, but the child was "not awaked."

In this narrative Gehazi appears in a favorable light, as a willing, efficient servant, jealous of his master’s honor; a man of quick observation, whose advice was worth asking in practical affairs.

2. His Grievous Sin:

Gehazi, however, reveals himself in a different character in connection with the healing of Naaman (2Ki 5:20-27). As soon as the Syrian general had taken his departure with his retinue from the house of Elisha, the covetous spirit of Gehazi, which had been awakened by the sight of the costly presents the prophet had refused, was no longer able to restrain itself. Running after Naaman, Gehazi begged in the prophet’s name a talent of silver (400 pounds =$ 2,000) and two changes of raiment, alleging, as a specious reason for Elisha’s change of mind, the arrival at his master’s house of two poor scholars of the prophet, who would require help and maintenance. Naaman, glad to have the opportunity he desired of showing his gratitude to Elisha, urged Gehazi to take two talents and sent two servants with him to carry the money and the garments. When they came to the hill in the neighborhood of the prophet’s house, Gehazi dismissed the men and concealed the treasure. Thereafter, with a bold front, as if he had been attending to his ordinary duties, he appeared before his master who at once inquired, "Whence, Gehazi?" (Hebrew). On receiving the ready answer that he had not been anywhere, Elisha, who felt sure that the suspicion he entertained regarding his beloved servant, his very "heart" (2Ki 5:26), was well grounded, sternly rebuked him for the dishonor he had brought upon God’s cause, and called down upon him and his family forever the loathsome disease of the man whose treasures he had obtained by his shameful lie. "And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow."

By this narrative confidence in Gehazi is somewhat unexpectedly and rudely shaken. The active, zealous servant stands confessed a liar and a thief. Gehazi’s sin branched out in different directions. By his falsehood he deceived Naaman and misrepresented Elisha; he not only told a lie, but told a lie about another man, and that man his master and friend. Further, he brought true religion into disrepute; for it was not a time (2Ki 5:26) for a servant of God to allow any commercial idea to be associated with the prophet’s work in the mind of the Syrian general to whom God’s power had been so strikingly manifested and when many for worldly gain pretended to be prophets. But while Gehazi’s sin had ats various ramifications, its one root was covetousness, "the love of money (which) is a root of all kinds of evil" (1Ti 6:10).

3. His Probable Repentance:

Once more Gehazi is mentioned (2Ki 8:1-6) as having been summoned, leper though he was, by King Jehoram to give him an account of all the great things Elisha had done. And when he came to the story of the restoration of the Shunammite’s child to life, the woman herself appeared before the king along with her son, craving to be reinstated in her house and land of which she had been dispossessed during her seven years’ absence from her native country in a time of famine. Gehazi testified to the identity of both mother and son, with the result that the king at once ordered the restoration not only of all her former possessions, but also of all the profits her land had yielded during her sojourn in Philistia.

James Crichton

ga-hen’-a (geenna (see Grimm-Thayer, under the word)): Gehenna is a transliteration from the Aramaic form of the Hebrew ge-hinnom, "valley of Hinnom." This latter form, however, is rare in the Old Testament, the prevailing name being "the valley of the son of Hinnom." Septuagint usually translates; where it transliterates the form is different from Gehenna and varies. In the New Testament the correct form is Gee’nna with the accent on the penult, not Ge’enna. There is no reason to assume that Hinnom is other than a plain patronymic, although it has been proposed to find in it the corruption of the name of an idol (EB, II, 2071). In the New Testament (King James Version margin) Gehenna occurs in Mt 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mr 9:43,15,47; Lu 12:5; Jas 3:6. In all of these it designates the place of eternal punishment of the wicked, generally in connection with the final judgment. It is associated with fire as the source of torment. Both body and soul are cast into it. This is not to be explained on the principle that the New Testament speaks metaphorically of the state after death in terms of the body; it presupposes the resurrection. In the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) Gehenna is rendered by "hell" (see ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT). That "the valley of Hinnom" became the technical designation for the place of final punishment was due to two causes. In the first place the valley had been the seat of the idolatrous worship of Molech, to whom children were immolated by fire (2Ch 28:3; 33:6). Secondly, on account of these practices the place was defiled by King Josiah (2Ki 23:10), and became in consequence associated in prophecy with the judgment to be visited upon the people (Jer 7:32). The fact, also, that the city’s offal was collected there may have helped to render the name synonymous with extreme defilement. Topographically the identification of the valley of Hinnom is still uncertain. It has been in turn identified with the depression on the western and southern side of Jerusalem, with the middle valley, and with the valley to the E. Compare EB, II, 2071; DCG, I, 636; RE3, VI.

Geerhardus Vos

ge-li’-loth (geliloth): This word is used for "districts" or "circuits" perhaps indicating the different parts subject to the several lords of the Philistines (Jos 13:2, the King James Version "borders," the Revised Version (British and American) "regions"); for the quarter of the Jordan valley where the eastern tribes built the altar of Ed (Jos 22:10 f; the King James Version "border of," the Revised Version (British and American) "region about," Jordan); and apparently, for the whole of Philistia (Joe 3:4, the King James Version "coasts of Palestine," the Revised Version (British and American) "regions of Philistia"). But in Jos 18:17, it is clearly used as a place-name. Geliloth lay on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin which passed En-shemesh (probably ‘Ain el-Chod, about 2 miles East of Jerusalem), "and went out to Geliloth, which is over against the ascent of Adummim." From this point it "went down" toward the plain. The place cannot therefore be identified with Gilgal in the Jordan valley. Some point on the road leading from Jericho to Tal‘at ed-Dumm, about 6 miles from Jerusalem, was probably intended, but no identification is possible.

W. Ewing

jem (Pr 26:8, the English Revised Version "a bag of gems,").

See STONES, PRECIOUS.

ge-mal’-i (gemalli, "camel owner"): Father of the spy Ammiel from the tribe of Da (Nu 13:12), who was one of those sent by Moses to spy out the land of Canaan.

ge-ma’-ra.

See TALMUD.

gem-a-ri’-a (gemaryahu, gemaryah, "Yahweh hath accomplished"):

(1) Son of Shaphan the scribe, one of the princes, from whose chamber Baruch read Jeremiah’s prophecies to the people. He, with others, sought to stay Jehoiakim from burning the roll (Jer 36:10,11,12,25).

(2) Son of Hilkiah, one of Zedekiah’s ambassadors to Babylon, by whom Jeremiah sent his letter to the captives (Jer 29:3).

ge-ma’-tri-a.

See NUMBERS; GAMES.

jen’-der (yaladh, ‘abhar; gennao): "Gender" is an abbreviation of "engender." In Job 38:29 yaladh (common for "to bear," "to bring forth") is translated "gender" (after Wycliff), the Revised Version (British and American) "The hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?" margin "given it birth." In 21:10 we have ‘abhar (either the Piel of ‘abhar, "to pass over," etc., or of a separate word meaning "to bear," "to be fruitful"), translated "gendereth," "Their bull gendereth, and faileth not"; in Le 19:19, rabha’," to lie down with," is used of cattle gendering. In Ga 4:24 the King James Version we have "Mount Sinai, which gendereth (gennoa, "to beget") to bondage," the Revised Version (British and American) "bearing children unto bondage" (like Hagar, Abraham’s bondwoman), and in 2Ti 2:23, which "gender strifes," i.e. beget them.

W. L. Walker

1. The Problems Involved

2. Nature and Importance of the Issue

II. THE GENEALOGIES SEPARATELY

1. Peculiarities of Matthew’s Genealogy

2. Explanation of the Foregoing

3. Peculiarities of Luke’s Genealogy

4. Explanation of the Foregoing

III. THE GENEALOGIES COMPARED

1. Divergences

2. Correspondence

IV. THE GENEALOGIES AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH

1. Text of Matthew 1:16

2. General Conclusions

LITERATURE

I. Introduction.

1. The Problems Involved:

The genealogy of Jesus as contained in the First and Third Gospels presents three special problems which lie somewhat part from general questions of New Testament criticism:

(1) the construction and purpose of each list taken separately;

(2) the relation of the two lists, in their coincidences and variations, to each other;

(3) the relationship of both lists to the statement concerning the virgin birth of our Lord with which they are directly connected. These questions necessarily involve the conclusion to be arrived at concerning the trustworthiness of the list of names as forming an actual historical connection between Jesus and His ancestors according to the flesh.

2. Nature and Importance of the Issue:

Before these problems are dealt with, it would be well to consider the kind and degree of importance to be attached to the question at issue. As we see it, the only vital point at stake is the balance, sanity and good judgment of the evangelists.

(1) That Jesus had a line of ancestors by His human birth may be taken for granted. The tradition, universal from the earliest times among believers and granted even by the bitterest opponents, that He was connected with the line of David, may also readily be accepted. The exact line through which that connection is traced is, on general principles, of secondary importance. The fact is that, while natural sonship to David on the part of the Messiah was of vital importance to many Jewish inquirers, it failed of any very enthusiastic endorsement on the part of Jesus Himself (see the truly remarkable interview recorded in Mr 12:35-37). The expressions of Paul in this connection will be referred to later; at this point it is sufficient to say that physical kinship to David cannot be insisted upon as the only justification for his words.

(2) If, then, the purpose of the evangelists in having recourse to these lists is worth while, the question of their correctness need not even be raised. Unless some vital issue is involved, the supposition of a special inspiration to go behind lists currently accepted is gratuitous. No such issue seems to be presented here. The Davidic kinship of Jesus, in any sense essential to His Messiahship, is independent of the lists which are used to justify it. This is preliminary to the actual discussion and need not prevent us from giving all due credit to lists which could not have been carelessly compiled nor lightly used.

II. The Genealogies Separately.

1. Peculiarities of Matthew’s Genealogy:

(1) The construction and incorporation of Joseph’s genealogical tree is, in the light of all the facts, the primary consideration.

(2) The artificial division into three groups of fourteen generations each. The apparent defect in this arrangement as it actually stands (the third group lacks one member) is probably traceable to a defect of the Septuagint version of 1Ch 3:11, which is reproduced in the Greek gospel (see Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, English translation, 564, note 4). This arrangement into groups is the more striking because it makes 14 generations from the captivity to Joseph, where Luke makes 20 or 21, and because the first group of 14 is formed by the omission of three names. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that this artificial grouping is essential to the purpose of the evangelist.

(3) The insertion of the names of brothers, thus following the historical lists and broadening the genealogy by including collateral lines.

(4) The insertion of the names of women—a practice not only foreign but abhorrent to ordinary usage. This peculiarity is the more marked when we notice that these names introduce what would be considered serious blots in the family history of the Davidic house (see Mt 1:5,7).

(5) The principle upon which the division into periods is constructed:

(a) from Abraham to David,

(b) from David to the Captivity,

(c) from the Captivity to Jesus. Attention has repeatedly been called to the fact that this gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy. It involves the origin, the rise to power, the decay and downfall of the house of David (see Allen, ICC, "Matthew," 2; compare Zahn, N T, English translation, I, 535).

2. Explanation of the Foregoing:

Of the many theories which have been constructed to explain the foregoing six peculiarities of the genealogy of Matthew, altogether the most satisfactory is that of Professor Zahn. His contention is that the list was framed not to prove the natural connection of Jesus with the house of David—a fact which no one doubted—but to defend the one vital point where attack had been made, namely, the legitimacy of Jesus’ connection with David. No one seems to have questioned that Jesus was born of Mary and was closely connected with the royal house. The question was whether He was of legitimate birth. It was charged—and the slander which was very early in origin and circumstantial in character obtained an extraordinary hold upon the hostile Jewish mind—that Jesus was the illegitimate offspring of Mary. The Gospel of Mt meets that slander by giving a bird’s-eye view of the movement of the history from Abraham to the Messiah in the form of a genealogy of Joseph, who in the light of all the facts concerning the origin of Jesus marries Mary and gives her the protection of his stainless name and royal lineage. The extraordinary boldness and brilliancy of this apologetic method ought not to be overlooked. The formal charge that Jesus is son of Mary, not of Joseph, is admitted—the slander involved is refuted by bringing Joseph forward as a witness for Mary. Nothing could have been more natural for a man fearless in the confidence of truth; nothing could have been more impossible for one insecure in his hold upon the facts. So far as the genealogy is concerned, just the moment we realize that the purpose is not to prove the natural sonship of Jesus to David, but to epitomize the history, all hesitancy and apprehension concerning the historicity of the successive names disappear. The continuity of blood relationship through these successive generations becomes of no essential importance. Zahn’s explanation (the argument in full should be read by every student), simple in itself, explains all the facts, as a key fits a complicated lock. It explains the choice of a genealogy as a method of epitomizing history and that genealogy Joseph’s, the artificial grouping at the expense of changing the traditional lists, the inclusion of the names of brothers and of women.

3. Peculiarities of Luke’s Genealogy:

(1) The choice of Joseph’s genealogical tree on the part of one who is so deeply interested in Mary.

(2) The reversal of order in going back from Joseph to his ancestors. Godet emphasizes the fact that, in the nature of the case, a genealogy follows the order of succession, each new individual being added to the roll of his family. Luke’s method indicates that his genealogy has been constructed for a special purpose.

(3) The carrying of the line back of the history of the covenant, which begins with Abraham, to Adam, who represents the race in general. This fact, together with another, that the line of Joseph is traced to David through Nathan who was not David’s heir, proves that Luke was not concerned with establishing the Davidic standing of Jesus.

(4) The placing of the genealogy, not at the beginning of the Gospel, but at the beginning of the ministry, between the baptism and the temptation.

(5) The omission of the article before the name of Joseph.

4. Explanation of the Foregoing:

(1) In his comment upon the fourth peculiarity enumerated above, namely, the placing of the genealogy at the beginning of the ministry, Godet (Gospel of Luke, American edition, 126) has this to say: "In crossing the threshold of this new era, the sacred historian casts a general glance over the period which thus reaches its close, and sums it up in this document, which might be called the mortuary register of the earlier humanity." In other words, in connecting the genealogy directly with the ministry, Luke exhibits the fact that his interest in it is historical rather than antiquarian or, so to say, genealogical. As Matthew summarizes the history of the covenant people from the days of Abraham by means of the genealogical register, modified so as to make it graphic by its uniformity, so Luke has written the story of the humanity Jesus, as the Second Adam, came to save, by the register of names summarizing its entire course in the world.

It has recently been commented upon that genealogical lists such as those of Genesis and the New Testament are not infrequently used to convey ideas not strictly germane to the matter of descent or the cognate notion of chronology. For example, the statements as to the longevity of the patriarchs are of historical interest only—they are not and could never have been of value for chronological purposes (see Warfield, "Antiquity and Unity of Human Race," Princeton Review, February, 1911).

(2) In commenting upon the order which Luke adopts, Godet (who has thrown more light upon this portion of the Gospel than anyone else) says: "The ascending form of genealogy can only be that of a private instrument, drawn up from the public document with a view to the particular individual whose name serves as the starting-point of the whole list" (127).

(3) From the fact that the name of Joseph is introduced without an article Godet draws three conclusions:

(a) that this name belongs rather to the sentence introduced by Luke;

(b) that the genealogical document which he consulted began with the name of Heli;

(c) and consequently, that this piece was not originally the genealogy of Jesus or of Joseph, but of Heli (ibid., 128).

(4)

(a) The importance of these considerations is twofold. In the first place it indicates that Luke is bringing together two separate documents, one of which contained a statement of the foster-fatherhood of Joseph, while the other contained the genealogy of Heli, between whom and Joseph there existed a relationship which made Luke desirous of connecting them.

(b) In addition, the absence of the article serves to call attention to something exceptional in the relationship of Joseph to the rest of this ancestral line which is brought into connection with his name. To this point we shall recur later. We have an explanation for all the suggested problems except one, and that one, in a sense, the most difficult of all, namely, the choice of Joseph’s genealogy.

III. The Genealogies Compared.

1. Divergences:

In order, however, to discuss this question intelligently, we must enter upon the second stage of our inquiry—as to the relationship between the two lists.

(1) The most notable fact here is of course the wideness of the divergence together with the contrasted and unintelligible fact of minute correspondence. Between Abraham and David the two lists agree. Between David and Joseph there is evident correspondence in two (see Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27), and possible correspondence in four names (that is, if Abiud (Mt 1:13)) and Judah (Lu 3:30) are the same). This initial and greatest difficulty is of material assistance to us because it makes one conclusion certain beyond peradventure. The two lists are not divergent attempts to perform the same task. Whatever difficulties may remain, this difficulty is eliminated at the outset. It is impossible that among a people given to genealogies two lists purporting to give the ancestry of a man in the same line could diverge so widely. There is, therefore, a difference between these lists which includes the purpose for which they were compiled and the meaning which they were intended to convey.

2. Correspondence:

(2) Two of the most striking points in the lists as they stand may be brought into connection and made to explain each other. The two lists coincide in the names of Zerubbabel and Shealtiel—they differ as to the name of Joseph’s father, who is Jacob according to Matthew and Heli according to Luke. As to the second of these two important items this much is clear. Either these two lists are in violent contradiction, or else Joseph was in some sense son of both Jacob and Heli. Now, in connection with this seeming impossibility, turn to the other item. The names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel belong to the captivity. Their being common to both lists is easily explained by the fact that during that troubled period a number of collateral family branches might be narrowed down to one or two common representatives (see Zahn, op. cit., 535). In the New Testament genealogies Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel—according to 1Ch 3:19 he is the nephew of Shealtiel and the son of Pedaiah. He is, therefore, at one and the same time heir and, legally, son of two men and would appear as such on two collateral lists.

Shealtiel himself appears in Mt (1:12) as the son of Jechoniah and in Lu (3:27) as the son of Neri. In 1Ch 3:17 he appears as son of Jechoniah. The name of Neri is peculiar to Lk, so that we cannot check his use of it and discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. His appearance in two lists with a double reference of parentage is not surprising in view of what we have already seen. Besides this, a reasonable explanation at once appears. In Jer 36:30 it is asserted that Jehoiakim should have "none to sit upon the throne of David," and of his son (Jehoiachin, Jechoniah, Coniah) it is said (Jer 22:30), "Write ye this man childless," etc. It has been rightly pointed out (see HDB, II 557) that this means simply legal proscription, not actual childlessness. It suggests, however, that it might be thought necessary to provide in the genealogy an heir not of their blood for the two disgraced and proscribed members of the royal house, In view of these facts the contradictory references as to Joseph’s parentage present no difficulty.

Joseph may easily have been and undoubtedly was, legally, son and heir of both Jacob and Heli. Godet’s objection to this is based upon the supposition that Heli and Jacob were brothers, which leaves the divergence beyond these two names unexplained. It is evident, however, that the kinship between Jacob and Heli might have been more distant than this supposition calls for.

(3) When we come to explain how it happened that Joseph was connected with both these lines and that Matthew chose one list and Luke the other we are necessarily shut up to conjecture. There is one supposition, however, which is worthy of very careful consideration because it solves so many and such difficult problems. The authorities have been divided as to whether Luke’s genealogy is Joseph’s, as appears, or Mary’s. Godet makes a strong showing for the latter, and, after all has been said per contra, some of his representations remain unshaken (compare Godet and Plummer sub loc.). Most of the difficulties are removed at one stroke, and the known facts harmonized, by the simple supposition that Luke has given us the meeting-point of the lineage both of Joseph and Mary who are akin. This explains the apparent choice of Joseph’s list; the peculiar position of his name in that list; the reversal of the order; the coincidences and discrepancies with reference to Matthew’s; the early tradition of Mary’s Davidic origin; the strange reference in the Talmud (Chaghigha’ 77 4) to Mary as the daughter of Heli; the visit of Mary with Joseph to Bethlehem at the time of the registration; the traditional discrepancy of ages between Joseph and Mary, such that (apparently) Joseph disappears from the scene before Jesus reaches maturity. Against this nothing of real weight can be urged (the kinship with Elisabeth is not such: see Edersheim, LTJM, I, 149) except that it is too simple and too felicitous. Its simplicity and felicitous adjustment to the whole complex situation is precisely its recommendation. And there we may let the matter rest.

IV. The Genealogies and the Virgin Birth.

We have now to deal with the relationship of the genealogies to the virgin-birth statement which forms the vital center of the infancy narratives and to the general question of the Davidic origin of Jesus.

See VIRGIN BIRTH.

1. Text of Matthew 1:16:

The first part of this question may be most directly approached by a brief consideration of the text of Mt 1:16. The text upon which the Revised Version (British and American) is based reads: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Beside this there are two readings, one contained in the so-called Ferrar group of manuscripts, and the other in the Sinaitic which, differing among themselves, unite in ascribing the parentage of Jesus to Joseph. This has been seized upon by negative critics (see for list and discussion Machen, Princeton Review, January, 1906, 63; compare Bacon, HDB, article "Genealogy of Jesus Christ," Am. Jour. Theol., January, 1911, who long ago gave in his advocacy to the supposition that the evangelists could easily reconcile the supernatural birth with the actual paternity of Joseph) to support the idea of a primitive Christian tradition that Joseph was the father of Jesus. Of this contention Zahn leaves nothing, and concludes his argument with this statement: "The hope of finding indications in old manuscripts and versions that the authors of lost Gospels or brief writings which may have been worked over in our Mt and Lu regarded Joseph as the physical father of Jesus, should at last be dismissed. An author who knew how to make even the dry material of a genealogy to its least detail contribute to the purpose of his thought concerning the slandered miracle of the Messiah’s birth, cannot at the same time have taken over statements from a genealogy of Joseph or Jesus used by him which directly contradicted his conception of this fact. Any text of Mt which contained such statements would be condemned in advance as one altered against the author’s interest" (op. cit., 567). It is interesting to note that Allen (ICC, "Matthew," 8), starting from the extreme position that the Sinaitic form of statement, of all extant texts, most nearly represents the original, reaches the same conclusion as Zahn, that Matthew’s Gospel from the beginning taught the virgin birth.

2. General Conclusions:

(1) It is clear, therefore, from the general trend as well as from specific statements of both Gospels, that the genealogies and the birth-narratives were not floating traditions which accidentally touched and coalesced in mid-stream, but that they were intended to weld inseparably the two beliefs that Jesus was miraculously conceived and that He was the heir of David. This could be done only on the basis of Joseph’s genealogy, for whatever the lineage of Mary, Joseph was the head of the family, and the Davidic connection of Jesus could only be established by acknowledgment of Him as legal son by Joseph. Upon this basis rests the common belief of the apostolic age (see Zahn, ibid., 567, note references), and in accordance with it all statements (such as those of Paul, Ro 1:3; 2Ti 2:8) must be interpreted.

(2) For it must be remembered that, back of the problem of reconciling the virgin birth and the Davidic origin of Jesus, lay the far deeper problem—to harmonize the incarnation and the Davidic origin. This problem had been presented in shadow and intimation by Jesus Himself in the question: "David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his Son?" It is further to be noticed that in the annunciation (Lu 1:32) the promised One is called at once Son of God and Son of David, and that He is the Son of God by virtue of His conception by the Spirit—leaving it evident that He is Son of David by virtue of His birth of Mary. With this should be compared the statement of Paul (Ro 1:3,1): He who was God’s Son was "born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." This is at least most suggestive (see Orr, Virgin Birth of Christ, 119, with note, p. 121), for it indicates that as Paul and Luke were in very close sympathy as to the person of our Lord, so they are in equally close sympathy as to the mystery of His origin. The unanimity of conviction on the part of the early church as to the Davidic origin of Jesus is closely paralleled by its equally firm conviction as to His supernatural derivation. The meeting-point of these two beliefs and the resolution of the mystery of their relationship is in the genealogies in which two widely diverging lines of human ancestry, representing the whole process of history, converge at the point where the new creation from heaven is introduced.

LITERATURE.

The literature on this subject is very copious. The works referred to in the text will serve to introduce the reader to more extensive investigations. The whole situation is well summarized by Plummer (ICC, "Luke," sub loc.).

Louis Matthews Sweet

je-na-al’-o-ji, jen-a-al’-o-ji:

1. Definition

2. Biblical References

3. Importance of Genealogies

4. Their Historical Value

5. Principles of Interpretation

6. Principles of Compilation

7. Sources

8. Principal Genealogies and Lists

LITERATURE

1. Definition:

The Old Testament translates (once, Ne 7:5) the noun yachas; cepher ha-yachas, "book of the genealogy"; also translates a denominate verb in Hithpael, yachas, "sprout" "grow" (compare family "tree"); hithyaches, "genealogy"; the idea is conveyed in other phrases, as cepher toledhoth, "book of the generations," or simply toledhoth, "generations." In the New Testament it transliterates genealogia, "account of descent," 1Ti 1:4; Tit 3:9. In Mt 1:1, biblos geneseos, "book of the generation" of Jesus Christ, is rendered in the American Revised Version, margin "the genealogy of Jesus Christ"; a family register, or register of families, as 1Ch 4:33, etc.; the tracing backward or forward of the line of ancestry of individual, family, tribe, or nation; pedigree. In Timothy and Titus refers probably to the Gnostic (or similar) lists of successive emanations from Deity in the development of created existence.

2. Biblical References:

According to the Old Testament, the genealogical interest dates back to the beginnings of sacred history. It appears in the early genealogical tables of Ge 5; 10; 46, etc.; in Ex 6:14-27, where the sons of Reuben, Simeon and especially Levi, are given; in Nu 1:2; 26:2-51, where the poll of fighting men is made on genealogical principles; in Nu 2:2, where the positions on the march and in camp are determined by tribes and families; in David’s division of priests and Levites into courses and companies (1Ch 6-9); is referred to in the account of Jeroboam’s reign (2Ch 12:15 margin, "the words of Iddo, after the manner of genealogies"); is made prominent in Hezekiah’s reforms when he reckoned the whole nation by genealogies (1Ch 4:41; 2Ch 31:16-19); is seen in Jotham’s reign when the Reubenites and Gadites are reckoned genealogically (1Ch 5:17). Zerubbabel took a census, and settled the returning exiles according to their genealogies (1Ch 3:19-24; 1Ch 9; Ezr 2; Ne 7; 11; 12). With the rigid exclusion of all foreign intermixtures by the leaders of the Restoration (Ezr 10; Ne 10:30; 13:23-31), the genealogical interest naturally deepened until it reached its climax, perhaps in the time of Christ and up to the destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus, in the opening of his Life, states that his own pedigree was registered in the public records. Many families in Christ’s time clearly possessed such lists (Lu 1:5, etc.). The affirmed, reiterated and unquestioned Davidic descent of Christ in the New Testament, with His explicit genealogies (Mt 1:1-17; Lu 3:23-38); Paul’s statement of his own descent; Barnabas’ Levitical descent, are cases in point. Davididae, descendants of David, are found as late as the Roman period. There is a tradition that Herod I destroyed the genealogical lists at Jerusalem to strengthen his own seat, but more probably they persisted until the destruction of Jerusalem.

3. Importance of Genealogies:

Genealogical accuracy, always of interest both to primitive and more highly civilized peoples, was made especially important by the facts that the land was promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, that the priesthood was exclusively hereditary, that the royal succession of Judah lay in the Davidic house, that the division and occupation of the land was according to tribes, families and fathers’ houses; and for the Davididae, at least, that the Messiah was to be of the house of David. The exile and return, which fixed indelibly in the Jewish mind the ideas of monotheism, and of the selection and sacred mission of Israel, also fixed and deepened the genealogical idea, prominently so in the various assignments by families, and in the rejection in various ways of those who could not prove their genealogies. But it seems extreme to date, as with many modern critics, its real cultivation from this time. In the importance attached to genealogies the Hebrew resembles many other ancient literatures, notably the Egyptian Greek, and Arabic, but also including Romans, Kelts, Saxons, the earliest history naturally being drawn upon genealogical as well as on annalie lines. A modern tendency to overestimate the likeness and underestimate the unlikeness of the Scripture to its undoubtedly cognate literatures finds in the voluminous artificial genealogical material, which grew up in Arabia after the time of the caliph Omar, an almost exact analogue to the genealogical interest at the time of the return. This, however, is on the assumption of the late date of most of the genealogical material in the older New Testament books, and rests in turn on the assumption that the progress of religious thought and life in Israel was essentially the same as in all other countries; an evolutionary development, practically, if not theoretically, purely naturalistic in its genesis and progress.

4. Their Historical Value:

The direct historical value of the Scripture genealogies is variously estimated. The critically reconstructive school finds them chiefly in the late (priestly) strata of the early books, and dates Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (our fullest sources) about 300 BC, holding it to be a priestly reconstruction of the national history wrought with great freedom by the "Chronicler." Upon this hypothesis the chief value of the genealogies is as a mirror of the mind and ideas of their authors or recorders, a treasury of reflections on the geographical, ethnological and genealogical status as believed in at their time, and a study of the effect of naive and exaggerated patriotism dealing with the supposed facts of national life, or else, in the extreme instance, a highly interesting example of bold and inventive juggling with facts by men with a theory, in this particular case a priestly one, as with the "Chronicler." To more conservative scholars who accept the Old Testament at its face value, the genealogies are a rich mine of historical, personal and ethnographic, as well as religious, information, whose working, however, is much hindered by the inevitable corruption of the text, and by our lack of correlative explanatory information. Much interesting illustrative matter may be looked for from such archaeological explorations as those at Gezer and elsewhere under the Palestine Exploration Society, the names on the pottery throwing light on the name- lists in Chronicles, and the similar discoveries on the supposed site of Ahab’s palace in Samaria, which also illustrate the conflict between Baal and Yahweh worship by the proportion of the proper names compounded by "Baal" or "Jah" (see Macalister, Bible Sidelights from Gezer, 150 ff; PEF, 1905, 243, 328; Harvard Theological Review, 1911). In spite of all such illustrative data, however, the genealogies must necessarily continue to present many insoluble problems. A great desideratum is a careful and systematic study of the whole question by some modern conservative scholar endowed with the patience and insight of the late Lord A.C. Hervey, and equipped with the fruits of the latest discoveries. While much curious and suggestive information may be derived from an intensive study of the names and relationships in the genealogies (although here the student needs to watch his theories), their greatest present value lies in the picture they present of the large-hearted cosmopolitanism, or international brotherliness, in the older ones, notably Ge 10, recognizing so clearly that God hath made of one all nations to dwell on the earth; and, as they progress, in the successive selection and narrowing as their lines converge upon the Messiah.

5. Principles of Interpretation:

In the evaluation and interpretation of the genealogies, certain facts and principles must be held in mind.

(1) Lists of names necessarily suffer more in transmission than other literature, since there is almost no connectional suggestion as to their real form. Divergences in different versions, or in different stages, of the same genealogy are therefore to be looked for, with many tangles hard to unravel, and it is precisely at this point that analytic and constructive criticism needs to proceed most modestly and restrain any possible tendency unduly to theorize.

(2) Frequently in the Scriptural lists names of nations, countries, cities, districts or clans are found mingled with the names of individuals. This is natural, either as the personification of the clan or nation under the name of its chief, or chief progenitor, or as the designation of the individual clan, family or nation, from its location, so common among many nations. Many of the cases where this occurs are so obvious that the rule may not be unsafe to consider all names as probably standing for individuals where the larger geographical or other reference is not unmistakably clear. This is undoubtedly the intent and understanding of those who transmitted and received them.

(3) It is not necessary to assume that the ancestors of various tribes or families are eponymous, even though otherwise unknown. The Scriptural explanation of the formation of tribes by the expansion and division of families is not improbable, and is entitled to a certain presumption of correctness. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to establish a stopping-point for the application of the eponymous theory; under its spell the sons of Jacob disappear, and Jacob, Isaac and even Abraham become questionable.

(4) The present quite popular similar assumption that personal details in the genealogy stand for details of tribal history, as, for instance, the taking of a concubine means rather an alliance with, or absorption of, an inferior tribe or clan, is a fascinating and far-reaching generalization, but it lacks confirmation, and would make of the Scripture an allegorical enigma in which historical personages and events, personified peoples or countries, and imaginary ancestors are mingled in inextricable confusion.

(5) Scriptural genealogies are often given a regular number of generations by omitting various intermediate steps. The genealogies of Jesus, for instance, cover 42 generations, in 3 subdivisions of 14 each. Other instances are found in the Old Testament, where the regularity or symmetry is clearly intentional. Instance Jacob’s 70 descendants, and the 70 nations of Ge 10. This has in modern eyes an artificial look, but by no means necessarily involves violence done to the facts under the genealogist’s purview, and is readily and creditably accounted for by his conceptions and purposes. The theory that in some cases the requisite number has been built up by the insertion of imaginary names(see Curtis, ICC, "Chronicles," 135) has another aspect, and does not seem necessary to account for the facts, or to have sufficient facts to sustain it. See 21:5, (6) below. It involves a view of the mental and moral equipment and point of view of the Chronicler in particular, which would not seem to leave him many shreds of either historical, or "religious" value, and which a sounder criticism will surely very materially modify.

(6) Much perplexity and confusion is avoided by remembering that other modes of entrance into the family, clan, tribe or nation obtained than that by birth: capture, adoption, the substitution of one clan for another just become extinct, marriage. Hence, "son of," "father of," "begat," have broader technical meanings, indicating adoptive or official connection or "descent," as well as actual consanguinity, nearer or remote, "son" also meaning "grandson," "great-grandson," etc. Instance Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, of the tribe of Judah, styled (1Ch 2:18) a descendant of Hezron and son of Hur, but also, in token of his original descent, called the Kenizzite or "son of Kenaz" (Jos 15:17), etc. Similarly, where in an earlier genealogy a clan or individual is assigned to a certain tribe, and in a later to another, it has been "grafted in." But while these methods of accretion clearly obtained, the nations freely absorbing neighboring or surrounding peoples, families, or persons, families likewise absorbing individuals, as in American Indian, and many other tribes; yet, as in them, the descent and connection by birth constituted the main line, and in any given case has the presumption unless clear facts to the contrary exist.

(7) The repetition of the same name in the same genealogy, as in that of the high priests (1Ch 6:1-15), rouses "suspicion" in some minds, but unnecessarily. It is very natural, and not uncommon, to find grandfathers and grandsons, especially among the Hebrews, receiving the same name (Lu 1:59). This would be especially to be expected in a hereditary caste or office like the priesthood.

(8) The existence of the same name in different genealogies is not uncommon, and neither implies nor should cause confusion.

(9) The omission of one or many links in the succession, often clearly caused by the desire for symmetry, is frequent where the cause is unknown, the writers being careful only to indicate the connection more or less generally, without feeling bound to follow every step. Tribes were divided into families, and families into fathers’ houses; tribe, family and fathers’ house regularly constituting links in a formal genealogy, while between them and the person to be identified any or all links may be omitted. In similar fashion, there is an absence of any care to keep the successive generations absolutely distinct in a formal fashion, son and grandson being designated as alike "son" of the same ancestor. Ge 46:21, for instance, contains grandsons as well as sons of Benjamin, Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Nanman, Ehi, etc. This would be especially true where the son as well as the father became founder of a house. Some confusion is occasionally caused by the lack of rigid attention to precise terminology, a characteristic of the Hebrew mind. Strictly the tribe, shebheT (in the Priestly Code (P), maTTeh), is the larger subdivision, then the clan, mishpachah, "family," and then the "house" or "fathers’ house," bayith, or beth ‘abh, beth ‘abhoth; but sometimes a "fathers’ house" is a tribe (Nu 17:6), or a clan (1Ch 24:6). In this connection it is to be remembered again that sequence of generations often has to do with families rather than with individuals, and represents the succession to the inheritance or headship, rather than the actual relationship of father and son.

(10) Genealogies are of two forms, the descending, as Ge 10: "The sons of Japheth: Gomer," etc.; "The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz," etc.; and the ascending, Ezr 7:1 ff: "Ezra, the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah," etc. The descending are the usual.

(11) Feminine names are occasionally found, where there is anything remarkable about them, as Sarai and Milcah (Ge 11:29), Rebekah (Ge 22:23), etc.; or where any right or property is transmitted through them, as the daughters of Zelophehad, who claimed and were accorded "a possession among the brethren of (their) father" (Nu 26:33; 27:1-11), etc. In such cases as Azubah and Ephrath, successive wives of Caleb (1Ch 2:18-20), many modern critics find tribal history enshrined in this case, "Caleb" or "dog" tribe having removed from Azubah, "deserted" to Ephrathah, Bethlehem, in Northern Judah. But the principle is not, and cannot be, carried Out consistently.

(12) The state of the text is such, especially in Chronicles, that it is not easy, or rather not possible, to construct a complete genealogical table after the modern form. Names and words have dropped out, and other names have been changed, so that the connection is often difficult and sometimes impossible to trace. The different genealogies also represent different stages in the history and, at many places, cannot with any knowledge now at our command be completely adjusted to each other, just as geographical notices at different periods must necessarily be inconsistent.

(13) In the present state of our knowledge, and of the text, and also considering the large and vague chronological methods of the Hebrews, the genealogies can give us comparatively little chronological assistance. The uncertainty as to the actual length of a generation, and the custom of frequently omitting links in the descent, increases the difficulty; so that unless they possess special marks of completeness, or have outstanding historical relationships which determine or corroborate them, or several parallel genealogies confirm each other, they must be used with great caution. Their interest is historical, biographical, successional or hereditary, rather than chronological.

6. Principles of Compilation:

The principal genealogical material of the Old Testament is found in Ge 5; 10; 11; 22; 25; 29; 30; 35; 36; 46; Ex 6; Nu 1; 2; 7; 10; 13; 26; 34; scattered notices in Josh, Ruth, 1 Sam; 2Sa 3; 5; 23; 1Ki 4; 1Ch 1-9; 11; 12; 15; 23-27; 2Ch 23; 29; Ezr 2; 7; 10; Ne 3; 7; 10; 11; 12. The genealogies of our Lord (Mt 1:1-17; Lu 3:23-38) are the only New Testament material. The Old Testament and New Testament genealogies bring the record down from the creation to the birth of Christ. After tracing the descent from Adam to Jacob, incidentally (Ge 10) giving the pedigree of the various nations within their purview, the Hebrew genealogists give the pedigree of the twelve tribes. As was to be expected, those tribes, which in the developing history assumed greater prominence, received the chief attention. Da is carried down but 1 generation, and credited with but 1 descendant; Zebulun 1 generation, 3 sons; Naphtali 1 generation, 4 sons; Issachar 4 generations, 15 descendants; Manasseh 4 generations, 39 descendants; Asher 7 generations, 40 descendants; Reuben 8 (?) generations, 22 descendants; Gad 10 generations, 28 descendants; Ephraim 14 (?) generations, 25 descendants. Levi, perhaps first as the priestly tribe, Judah next as the royal, Benjamin as most closely associated with the others, and all three as the survivors of the exile (although representatives of other tribes shared in the return) are treated with the greatest fullness.

7. Sources:

Chronicles furnishes us the largest amount of genealogical information, where coincident with the older genealogies, clearly deriving its data from them. Its extra-canonical sources are a matter of considerable difference among critics, many holding that the books cited by the Chronicler as his sources ("The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah," "The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel," "The History of Samuel the Seer," "The History of Nathan the Prophet," etc., to the number of perhaps 16) are our canonical books, with the addition of a "Midrashic History of Israel," from which he quotes the most freely. But the citations are made with such fullness, vividness, and particularity of reference, that it is hard to believe that he did not have before him extensive extra-canonical documents. This is the impression he clearly seeks to convey. Torrey (AJSL, XXV, 195) considers that he cit, es this array of authority purely "out of his head," for impressiveness’ sake, a theory which leaves the Chronicler no historical value whatever. It is extremely likely that he had before him also oral and written sources that he has not cited, records, private or public lists, pedigrees, etc., freely using them for his later lists and descents. For the post-exilic names and lists, Ezra-Nehemiah also furnish us much material. In this article no attempt is made at an exhaustive treatment, the aim being rather by a number of characteristic examples to give an idea of the quality, methods and problems of the Bible genealogies.

8. Principal Genealogies and Lists:

In the early genealogies the particular strata to which each has been assigned by reconstructive critics is here indicated by J, the Priestly Code (P), etc. The signs "=" or ":" following individual names indicate sonship.

(1) Genesis 4:16-24.—The Cainites (Assigned to P).

Seven generations to Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-cain, explaining the hereditary origin of certain occupations (supposed by many to be a shorter version of chapter 5).

(2) Genesis 4:25,26.—The Sethites (Assigned to J).

(3) Genesis 5:1-32.—The Book of the Generations of Adam (Assigned to the Priestly Code (P), Except 5:29 J).

Brings the genealogy down to Noah, and gives the chronology to the Flood. The numbers in the Hebrew Massoretic Text, the Samaritan Hebrew, and the Septuagint differ, Massoretic Text aggregating 1,656 years, Samaritan 1,307 years, and Septuagint 2,242 years. Some scholars hold this list to be framed upon that of the ten Babylonian kings given in Berosus, ending with Xisuthrus, the Babylonian Noah. An original primitive tradition, from which both lists are derived, the Hebrew being the nearer, is not impossible. Both the "Cainite" list in Ge 4 and this "Sethite" list end with three brothers.

(4) Genesis 10:1-32.—The Generations of the Sons of Noah.

"The Table of Nations" (assigned to the Priestly Code (P), 10:1-7; J, 10:8-19; the Priestly Code (P), 10:20; J, 10:21; the Priestly Code (P), 10:22; J, 10:24-30; the Priestly Code (P), 10:31,32). Found in abridged form in 1Ch 1:5-24.

I. Japheth = Gomer, Magog, Badai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, Tiras.

1. Gomer = Ashkenaz, Riphath (1Ch 1:6, Diphath), Togarmah.

2. Javan = Elisha, Tarshish, Kittim, Dodanim (Rodanim, 1Ch 17, is probably correct, a "d", having been substituted by a copyist for "r").

II. Ham = Cush, Mizraim, Put, Canaan.

1. Cush = Seba, Havilah, Sibtah, Raamah, Sabteca (Nimrod).

2. Mizraim = Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim (whence the Philis), Caphtorim.

3. Canaan = Zidon (Chronicles, Sidon), Heth; the Jebusite, Amorite, Girgashite, Hivite, Arkite, Sinite, Arvadite, Zemarite, Hittite.

4. Raamah (son of Cush) = Sheba, Dedan.

III. Elam = Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, Aramaic

1. Aram = Uz, Hul, Gether, Mash (Chronicles, Meshech).

2. Arpachshad = Shelah = Eber = Peleg, Joktan.

3. Joktan (son of Eber) = Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, Jobab.

4. Peleg (son of Eber) = Reu = Serug = Nahor = Terah = Abraham.

Nearly all these names are of peoples, cities or districts. That Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Nimrod, and probably Peleg, Reu, Serug, represent actual persons the general tenor of the narrative and the general teaching of Scripture clearly indicate, although many critics consider these also as purely eponymous. The others can mostly be more or less clearly identified ethnographically or geographically. This table represents the nations known to the writer, and in general, although not in all particulars, expresses the ethnographical relationships as far as they are now known to modern research. It follows a partly ethnological, partly geographical scheme, the descendants of Japheth in general representing the Aryan stock settled in Asia Minor, Media, Armenia, Greece, and the islands of the Mediterranean; those of Ham representing the Hamitic races in Ethiopia, Egypt, in Southwest Arabia, and Southern Babylonia. Many modern writers hold that in making "Nimrod" the son of "Cush," the Scripture writer has confused "Cush," the son of Ham, with another "Gush," the Cassei, living near Elam, since the later Babylonians and Assyrians were clearly Semitic in language and racial characteristics. Nevertheless the Scripture statement is accordant with early traditions of a Hamitic settlement of the country (Oannes the fish-god coming out of the Red Sea, etc.), and perhaps also with the fact that the earliest language of Babylonia was non-Sem. The sons of Canaan represent the nations and peoples found by the Hebrews in Palestine, the Phoenicians and the Canaanites. Heth is the great Hittite nation, by language and racial type strikingly non-Sem. Among the sons of Shem, Eber is by many considered eponymous or imaginary, but the hypothesis is not necessary. Most Assyriologists deny the connection of Elam with Shem, the later Elamites being non-Sem; the inscriptions, however, show that the earlier inhabitants up to 2300 BC were Semitic Lud must be the Lydians of Asia Minor, whose manners and older names resemble the Semitic Asia Minor presents a mixture of races as manifold as does Palestine. The sons of Joktan are tribes in Western and Southern Arabia. Havilah is given both as a son of Cush, Hamite, and of Joktan, Semite, perhaps because the district was occupied by a mixed race. It would seem, however, that "begat" or "son of" often represents geographical as well as ethnological relations. And where the classification of the Scripture writer does not accord with the present deliverances of archaeology, it must be remembered that at this distance conclusions drawn from ethnology, philology and archaeology, considering the present incomplete state of these sciences, the kaleidoscopic shifting of races, dynasties and tongues through long periods, and our scanty information, are liable to so many sources of error that dogmatism is precarious. The ancient world possessed a much larger amount of international knowledge than was, until recently, supposed. A writer of 300 BC had a closer range and could have had sources of information much more complete than we possess. On the assumption of the Mosaic authorship, that broad, statesmanlike mind, learned in all the knowledge of the Egyptians, and, clearly, profoundly influenced by Babylonian law and literature, may be credited with considerable breadth of vision and many sources of information. Aside from the question of inspiration, this Table of Nations; for breadth of scope, for inclusiveness (though not touching peoples outside of the life of its writer), for genial broadmindedness, is one of the most remarkable documents in any literature.

(5) Genesis 11:10-27.—The Generations of Shem (assigned to P).

From Shem to Abraham. The list is also chronological, but the versions differ, Massoretic Text making 290 years, from Shem to Abraham, Samaritan Hebrew, 940, and Septuagint 1,070. Septuagint inserts Cainan, 130 years, otherwise agreeing with the Samaritan to the birth of Abraham. Arpachshad may be rendered "the territory of Chesed," i.e. of the Chasdim, Chaldeans. Eber therefore is descended from Arpachshad, Abraham, his descendant, coming from Ur-Chasdim.

(6) Genesis 11:23-26; 22:20-24.—The Children of Nahor (11:23-26 P; 22:20-24 J).

Uz, Buz, Kemuel, etc. These descendants of Abraham’s brother probably represent Aramean tribes chiefly East or Northeast of Canaan. Aram may be the ancestor of the Syrians of Damascus. Uz and Buz probably belong to Arabia Petrea, mentioned in Jer 25:23 with the Arabian tribes Dedan and Thema. Chesed in this list probably stands, not for the Chaldeans of Babylonia, but for a related tribe of Northern Syria. In Ge 10:23 (assigned to P) Uz is the son of Aram, and in 10:22 Aram is a son of Shem. On the purely tribal hypothesis, this is either a contradiction, or the later statements represent other tribal relationships or subdivisions. Probably other individuals or tribes are indicated. Chronicles does not have this list, it being a side stream.

(7) Genesis 16:15; 21:1-3; 25 (also 1Ch 1:28-33).—The Sons of Abraham by Sarah, Hagar, Keturah (Ge 16:15 assigned to P; 21:1-3 to J, the Priestly Code (P), J, P; Ge 25:1-6 J; 25:7-11 P; 25:11b J; 25:12-17 P; 25:18 J; 25:19,20 P; 25:21-26a J; 25:26b P; 25:27-34 J).

The descendants of Abraham through Hagar and Ishmael represent the Ishmaelite tribes of Arabia living North and Northwest of the Joktanidae, who chiefly peopled Arabia. Twelve princes are named, possibly all sons of Ishmael, perhaps some of them grandsons. The number has seemed "suspicious" as balancing too exactly the twelve tribes of Israel. But twelve is an approved Semitic number, determining not necessarily the sons born, but the "sons" mentioned. The Arabians generally were frequently given the name Ishmaelites, perhaps because of the greater prominence and closer contact of these northern tribes with the Hebrews. The sons of Keturah seem to have been chiefly Arabian tribes, whose locations are unknown. Midian, of the sons of Keturah, is the well-known and powerful tribe in the Arabian desert near the Aelanitic Gulf, bordered by Edom on the Northwest Sheba and Dedan are also mentioned as Cushites (Ge 10:7). Very likely the tribes extensively intermarried, and could claim descent from both; or were adopted into one or the other family. Sheba was in Southwestern Arabia. Dedan lived near Edom, where the caravan routes to various parts of Arabia converged. Asshurim are of course not Assyrians, but an Arabian tribe, mentioned by the side of Egypt in Minaean inscriptions. While the two sons of Isaac are to be accepted as real persons, their typical character is also unmistakable, the history of the two nations, Israel and Edom, being prefigured in their relations.

(8) Genesis 29:31-30:24; 35:16-26. The Children of Jacob (29:31-35 Assigned to P; 30:1-3a JE; 30:4a P; 30:4b-24 JE; 35:16-22 JE; 35:23-26 P).

The account of the parentage, birth and naming of the founders of the twelve tribes; by Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun (daughter Dinah); by Bilhah: Dan, Naphtali; by Zilpah: Gad, Asher; by Rachel: Joseph, Benjamin. Much modern criticism agrees that these names are purely those of tribes, some of them perhaps derived from persons or places impossible now to trace, but mostly eponymous. Accordingly, these chapters are to be translated as follows. An Arab tribe, Jacob, wanders in Canaan, quarrels with Edom, migrates to Haran, forms alliances with the Aramean clans Rachel, Bilhah, Leah, Zilpah. Rachel and Jacob constitute a new tribe, Joseph. The federation takes the name Jacob. The other allied clans divide into sub-clans, or new clans join them, until Leah has six "sons," Reuben, Simeon, etc.; Zilpah, two; Bilhah, two. Zilpah and Bilhah are "concubines" because inferior members of the federation, or else have a left-handed connection with it. The formation of the new tribe Benjamin broke up the old tribe Rachel, which (who) accordingly "died." Although such are the original facts imbedded in the documents, they are now set in a framework of personal narrative, and were understood as narrative by the first hearers and readers. The history thus constituted is necessarily "an enigma which it is very hard to solve" (Bennett, Genesis, 284), and with almost as many answers as students. For critical purposes it presents a rich field for exploration, analysis and conjecture, but its edificatory value is chiefly found in reading the narratives as personal: a serious and reverent religious romance rounded on facts or legends, whose real value lies in the sidelights it throws on national character and ethical principles, expressed in a naive, vivid, lifelike story, full of suggestion and teaching. This present article, however, proceeds on the Scripture representation of these details and incidents as personal.

The explanations of the names illustrate the Hebrew fondness for assonances, paronomasia, coming from a time when much importance was attached to words and sounds, but need not be considered mere popular etymologies, the Hebrew individual mother being fully capable of them. Neither do they necessarily represent the original etymology, or reason for the name, but may give the pregnant suggestion occurring to the maternal or other imagination.

Leah, "wild cow," is supposed by many to be so called from the "totem" of the "Leah" tribe. Reuben (re’ubhen), original meaning unknown, unless Leah’s emotional explanation explains the name, rather than is explained by it: ra’ah be‘onyi, "hath looked upon my affliction." Superficially it might be re’u ben, "See, a son," as in the American Revised Version, margin. Others see in the second statement: "My husband will love me," still another etymology, ye’ehdbhani, "will love me." The lover of assonances can find more than one. The tribe is not prominent after Deborah’s time. Simeon, considered by some an animal (totem) name, the Arabic sim‘u, cross between hyena and wolf, suggests to the mother (or is suggested by that) its likeness to shama‘, "hear": "Yahweh hath heard." It is not much known after the Conquest. Levi, "adhesion, associate": thought by many a gentilic adjective from Leah, the Leah tribe paragraph excellence; the name is adjectival in form. Leah connects it with yillaweh, "He will join," ‘Now will my husband be joined unto me.’ A similar allusion is found in Nu 18:2,4, there applied to the "joining" of the tribe to Aaron. Judah is associated with the verb hadhah, "praise": "Now will I praise Yahweh." Jacob makes the same suggestion in Ge 49:8; no other plausible suggestion of the origin of the name can be made. The etymology and origin of Bilhah are unknown. Da is associated with danah, "judge": "God hath judged"; no other etymology can be found. Naphtali is derived from niphtal, "wrestle": "I have wrestled," the only discoverable etymology. Zilpah, zilpah, perhaps is "dropping," "drop." Gad, gadh, "fortunate," according to Leah. Gad was the well-known Syrian god of "fortune"; but there is no necessary connection here. Asher, from ‘ashar, "happy," ‘ashsher, "call happy"; so Leah; no connection with Asshur, Assyrian god. Issachar, from sakhar, "hire," "man of hire": "God hath given me mine hire," also because Leah had "hired" Jacob with her son’s mandrakes; a similar allusion in Ge 49, "a servant under taskwork." Wellhausen would read ‘ish-sakhar, "man of (some deity, unknown)." Zebulun, from zebhul, "habitation, dwelling": Leah gives two explanations, the first assigned by critics to Elohist (E) (probably), connecting the name with a root found in Zebediah, Zabdi, etc., "endow": "God hath endowed me with a good dowry"; the second with zabhal, "dwell": "Now will my husband dwell with me." Dinah, like Dan, is from dan, "judge." Supposed by some to be an old tribe of Israel, in some way associated with Dan, possibly a twin division. Rachel is "ewe," hence identified with a "ewe" tribe. Joseph has a twofold suggestion: the first (assigned to E) from acaph, "take away": "God hath taken away my reproach"; the second (assigned to J) from yacaph, "add": "Yahweh will add to me another son." None of these three cases of double explanation would so far exhaust Hebrew maternal imagination as to require the hypothesis of two documents, even though in the last "God" is used in the first suggestion and "Yahweh" in the second. Benjamin is called by Rachel Benoni, "the son of my sorrow," which is supposed to be an old tribal name, perhaps related to Onan, a clan of Judah, or the Benjamite city, Ono, and possibly to the Egyptian On. Benjamin, Jacob’s name for him, "son of the right hand," i.e. of happiness, is understood as "son of the south," because originally the southern section of the Joseph tribe. The attempts to trace these names to tribal origins, local allusions, cognate languages, customs and religions have engaged much research and ingenuity, with results exceedingly diverse.

(9) Genesis 36. The Generations of Esau (P).

I. The Descent of the Edomite Chiefs and Clans from Esau through His Three Wives, the Hittite or Canaanite Adah, the Ishmaelite Basemath, and the Horite Oholibamah (Genesis 36:1-19).

The wives’ names here differ from the other statements: In Ge 26:34 and 28:9:

1. Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite.

2. Bashemath, daughter of Elan, the Hittite.

3. Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebaioth.

In Ge 36:

1. Oholibamah, daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon, the Hivite.

2. Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite.

3. Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebaioth.

It is not necessary to resort to the hypothesis of different traditions. Bashemath and Adah are clearly identical, Esau perhaps having changed the name; as are Mahalath and the Ishmaelite Basemath, a transcriber’s error being probably responsible for the change. As to Judith and Oholibamah, Anah is probably a man, identical with Beeri (Ge 36:24), the son of Zibeon. Both "Hivite" and "Hittite" are apparently errors for "Horite," the difference being in only one consonant. Or "Hittite" may be used as the larger term embracing "Horite." "Edom" (Ge 36:1,8,19) is a personal name; in Ge 36:9,43 (Hebrew the American Revised Version, margin) it is national, indicating that to the writer Esau was a person, not an eponym. Nowhere are personal characteristics more vividly and unmistakably portrayed than in the accounts of Jacob and Esau. In these Esauite names are but two compounds of "El" (’el), none of "Jah" (yah).

II. The Aboriginal Leaders or Clans in Edom, Partly Subdued by, Partly Allied with, the Esauites (Genesis 36:20-30).

These are descendants of "Seir the Horite" in seven branches, and in sub-clans. "Seir" looks like an eponym or a personification of the country, as no personal details have been preserved. Among these names are no "El" (’el) or "Jah" (yah) compounds, although they are clearly cognate with the Hebrew. Several close similarities to names in Judah are found, especially the Hezronite. Many animal names, "Aiah," "bird of prey," "Aran," "wild goat," etc.

III. Eight Edomite "Kings" before the Hebrew Monarchy (Genesis 36:31-39).

One ‘el compound, "Mehitabel," one ba’al compound. It is to be noted that the "crown" was not hereditary and that the "capital" shifted; the office was elective, or fell into the hands of the local chief who could win it.

IV. A List of Esauite Clan Chiefs; "Dukes" (English Revised), "Chiefs" (American Standard Revised Version); "Sheiks" (Genesis 36:40-43).

Apparently arranged territorially rather than tribally. The names seem used here as either clans or places and should perhaps be read: "the chief of Teman," etc. The original ancestor may have given his name to the clan or district, or obtained it from the district or town.

In general this genealogy of Esau shows the same symmetry and balance which rouses suspicion in some minds: excluding Amalek, the son of the concubine, the tribes number twelve. Amalek and his descendants clearly separated from the other Edomites early and are found historically about Kadesh-barnea, and later roaming from the border of Egypt to North Central Arabia.

(10) Genesis 46:8-27.

(In different form, Nu 26:1-51, and much expanded in parts of 1Ch 2-8; compare Ex 6:14-16). Jacob’s posterity at the descent into Egypt (considered a late addition to P).

A Characteristic Genealogy.

It includes the ideal number of 70 persons, obtained by adding to the 66 mentioned in Ge 46:26, Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, the two latter born in Egypt. Septuagint, followed by Stephen (Ac 7:14), reckons 75, adding to Ge 46:20 the names of three grandsons and two great-grandsons of Joseph, obtained from Nu 26:29,35 ff. Some may have been omitted to secure the ideal number so fascinating to the Hebrew mind. It is to be noted that Leah’s male descendants are double those of Zilpah, and Rachel’s double those of Bilhah, showing the ideal (but not the fictitious) character of the list. The design, also, seems to be to include those descendants of Jacob from whom permanent divisions sprang, even though, like Manasseh and Ephraim and probably Hezron and Hamul, born after the migration, but before Jacob’s death. A comparison with the partial parallels also illustrates the corruption of the text, and the difficulty of uniformity in lists of names. The full list follows:

1. Jacob.

2. Leah’s descendants.

A. Reuben = Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, Carmi.

B. Simeon = Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, Shaul.

C. Leui = Gershon, Kohath, Merari.

D. Judah = Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, Zerah; Perez, Hezron, Hamul.

E. Issachar = Tolah, Puvah, Iob, Shimron.

F. Zebulun = Sered, Elon, Jahleel.

G. Dinah, daughter.

3. Zilpah’s descendants, 16.

A. Gad = Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, Areli.

B. Asher = Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, Beriah, Serah (daughter); Beriah = Heber, Malchiel.

4. Rachel’s descendants, 14.

A. Joseph = Manasseh, Ephraim.

B. Benjamin = Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rash, Muppim, Huppin, Ard.

5. Bilhah’ s descendants, 7.

A. Da = Hushim.

B. Naphtali = Jahzeel, Guni, Jezer, Shillem.

The list differs in many respects from those in Numbers and Chronicles, and presents some chronological and other problems. Without entering upon an exhaustive study, a number of names may be touched on.

Carmi, (2A), like the other names in i, might be a gentilic, "the Carmite," like "the Amorite," etc., especially if these names are those of clans, as they are in Numbers, instead of persons, as the Genesis narrative states. A town, "Bethhaccherem," is mentioned in Jer 6:1. But "the vine-dresser" is also a good rendering.

Hezron (2A). Another Hezron is given as a descendant of Judah. This duplication of names is possible in clans; see instances below, but more likely in persons.

Jemuel (2B). Nemuel in Nu 26:12; 1Ch 4:24, an easy error in transcription, yodh, and nun, being easily confused. In Numbers, Nemuel is also a Reubenite name.

Jamin (or Jachin) (2B) is Jarib in Chronicles.

Ohad (2B). Not in Numbers or Chronicles.

Zohar (2B) is Zerah in Numbers and Chronicles.

Gershon (2C). In 1Ch 6:16 Gershom; identified by some with Gershom, son of Moses, on theory that the priestly family of Gershom originally traced its descent to Moses, but its later members were reckoned, not as priests, but as Levites, thus becoming identified with Levi; precarious; its principal foundation being similarity of name and tribe.

Hezron and Hamul (2D) rouse chronological or exegetical difficulties. Pharez (Ge 33) could not have been old enough at the migration to have two sons; but very possibly Ge 38 is introduced episodically, not chronologically, and therefore its events may have occurred before those of Ge 37. Jacob was 130 years old at the descent, making Judah not 42 but 62, and Pharez old enough for sons. And, as suggested above, the writer may have done with Hezron and Hamul as with Ephraim and Manasseh—included them constructively, they having been born in Egypt, but before Jacob’s death, belonging therefore to the generation of the migration and so reckoned, especially as they rounded permanent tribal divisions.

Puvah (2E). Puah in 1Ch 7:1. In Jud 10:1, centuries later, Puah is father of Tola, an illustration of the descent of fathers’ names.

Iob (2E) is Jashub (Numbers, Chronicles), the latter probably correct. Septuagint has it here. A copyist, no doubt, omitted the "shin," "sh."

Dinah (2G) is thought by some to be a later insertion, on account of the "awkward Hebrew," "with Dinah." Dinah and Serah as unmarried, and no doubt because of other distinguishing facts, now unknown, are the only women descendants mentioned; married women would not be. On the clan theory of the names, the "Dinah" clan must have disappeared in Egypt, not being found in Number.

Ziphion (3A). Zephon in Numbers, perhaps giving its name to the Gadite city of Zaphon (Jos 13:27).

Ezbon (3A). Ozni (Nu 26:16). Possibly Ozni, on Ezbon’s death, took his place, rounding a tribal family, like Hezron and Hamul in Judah. Copyist’s error unlikely.

Arodi (3A). In Nu 26:17 Arod.

Ishvah (3B). Omitted in Numbers; perhaps died childless, or his descendants did not constitute a tribal family.

Beriah (3B). Also an Ephraimite (1Ch 7:23); a Benjaminite (8:13,16); a Levite (23:10,11). The repetition of the name indicates individuals rather than clans; but both the Asherite and Benjamite were heads of families.

Serah (3B), serach, "abundance," not the same name as that of Abraham’s wife, sarah, "princess."

Heber (3B), chebher; in 1Ch 4:18, a clan of Judah; 8:17, of Benjamin. Not the same name as Eber, ‘ebher (5:13; 8:22; and Ge 10:21).

The Sons of Benjamin.

The three lists, Genesis, Numbers, Chronicles, represent marked divergences, illustrating the corruption of perhaps all three texts. This list illustrates the genealogical method of counting all descendants as sons, though of different generations. It gives Benjamin ten "sons." Nu 26:38-40 gives five sons, Naaman and Ard being sons of Bela. The Septuagint of our passage gives only three sons, Bela, Becher, Ashbel. 1Ch 7:6 gives three sons, Bela, Becher, Jediael (Ashbel), and Shuppim and Huppim are Bela’s grandsons. Becher is omitted in 8:1, probably through a copyist’s error, who took bekher we-’ashbel, for "Becher and Ashbel," bekhoro ‘ashbel, "his first-born, Ashbel." Jediael, both by older and newer scholars, is usually, but not with absolute certainty, identified with Ashbel. He may be a later chief. Another explanation is that 7:6 is part of a Zebulunite genealogy which has been transformed into a Benjamite list, Jediael being a remaining Zebulunite "pebble."

Naaman (4B) perhaps appears, by a transcriber’s error in 1Ch 8:2, as Nochach, Nochach for Na‘aman. If Nohah is not Naaman, and not (Keil) Shephupham, or a chief who succeeded him, he may have been one who was born after the migration and not needed to make up the seventy.

Gera (4B) in similar fashion may appear in 1Ch 8:2 as Rapha. If not, Rapha also may be one born after the migration, and did not found a family.

Ehi (4B) is Ahiram (Nu 26:38); Aharah (1Ch 8:1). Ehi probably arises from some copyist omitting the "ram."

Rosh (4B) is not in Numbers or Chronicles. He rounded no family.

Muppim (4B) troubled the scribes greatly. In Nu 26:39 he is Shephupham, though as compounded in his family name it is Shupham. In 1Ch 7:12 he is Shuppim, and it is not made clear whether he is a son, or other descendant, of Benjamin. He is apparently called, with Huppim, a son of Ir (Iri), son of Bela. In 8:8 he is catalogued as a son of Bela, as Shephuphan. In old Hebrew mem ("m") and shin ("sh") closely resemble each other. As the "sh" also appears in the gentilic names, it is probably the correct form. The corrupt state of the Chronicler’s text especially is apparent, and also the fact that "son" may refer to any male descendant.

Huppim (4B) in Nu 26:39 is Hupham; in 1Ch 8:5 is Huram.

Ard (4B) in 1Ch 8:3 is a son of Bela, Addar, the copyist having transposed "d", and "r", or mistaken one for the other. In Septuagint at Ge 46:21 Ard is son of Gera, son of Bela.

Hushim (5A), the same in 1Ch 7:12, is Shuham (Nu 26:42), by transposition of consonants. Another Hushim is a Benjaminite, son of Aher, but Aher may possibly be a corruption of the numeral "one," it being the Chronicler’s frequent habit to add numerals. But see under Da 21:6, (3), p. 1194.

Jahzeel (5B) is Jahziel in 1Ch 7:13.

Guni (5B) in 1Ch 5:15 is also a Gadite name.

Shillem (5B), in 1Ch 7:13, Shallum, the commoner form.

(11) Exodus 6:14-25 (Assigned to P).—Partial List of Heads of Fathers’ Houses of Reuben, Simeon and Levi.

Reuben and Simeon are as in Genesis. Levi follows:

1. Gershon = Libni, Shimei.

2. Kohath.

A. Amram married Jochebed = Aaron, Moses; Aaron married Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nahshon = Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, Ithamar; Eleazar married daughter of Putiel = Phinehas.

B. Izhar = Korah, Nepheg, Zichri; Korah, Assir, Elkanah, Abiasaph.

C. Hebron.

D. Uzziel = Mishael, Elzaphan, Sithri.

3. Merari = Mahli, Mushi.

The interest of the list is partly chronological, but chiefly to illustrate the genealogical place of Aaron and Moses. It probably exhibits the genealogical practice of omitting links, Amaram the father of Moses apparently being several links from Amram the son of Kohath. By Moses’ time the Amramites numbered some 2,000 males (Nu 3:27, etc.). Jochebed (2A) is an instance of Yah in compounds before the Exodus. Putiel (2A) has been considered a partly Egyptian name, Puti or Poti, "devoted to" -El (’el); but probably Hebrew, "afflicted by God." Hebron is often identified with the city. It is also found in 1Ch 2:42,43, as Judahite.

(12) Numbers 1:5-54; 2:3-29; 7:12 ff; 10:4 ff.—The Heads of Houses Representing and Leading the Tribes (Assigned to P).

I. Reuben: Elizur, Son of Shedeur.

II. Simeon: Shelumiel, Son of Zurishaddai.

Shelumiel found in Judith.

III. Judah: Nahshon, Son of Amminadab.

Both found also in Ex 6:23; Ru 4:9-22; 1Ch 2:10-12: Mt 1:4; Lu 3:32 (genealogies of Christ).

IV. Issachar: Nethanel, Son of Zuar.

Nethanel, name of nine persons in Chronicles, Nehemiah, Ezra, same as Nathaniel.

V. Zebulun: Eliab, Son of Helon.

Other Eliabs, Nu 16:1 (Reubenite); 1Sa 16:6 (Jesse’s son, Judah).

VI. Joseph: Ephraim: Elishama, Son of Ammihud.

Other Elishamas: 2Sa 5:16 (son of David); Jer 36:12; 2Ch 17:8. Ammihuds: 2Sa 13:37 m; Nu 34:20,28; 1Ch 9:4 (Judahite).

VII. Joseph: Manasseh: Gamaliel, Son of Pedahzur. New Testament Gamaliel.

VIII. Benjamin: Abidan, Son of Gideoni.

IX. Dan: Ahiezer, Son of Ammishaddai.

Another, 1Ch 12:3 (Benjamite).

X. Asher: Pagiel, Son of Ochran.

XI. Gad: Eliasaph, Son of Deuel.

Another, Nu 3:24 (Levite).

XII. Naphtali: Ahira, Son of Enan.

Seven of these names, Amminadab, Ammihud, Abidan, Ahirah, Ahiezer, Eliab, Elishama, are concededly early. The 5 compounded in Shaddai or Zur are said to be of a type found only in P; 9 of the 24 are compounded in ‘el, said to be a characteristic of late names. The ‘El is postfixed more times, 5, than it is prefixed, 4; also a characteristic of late names. The proportion of compound names is also greater than in the older names; for these and similar reasons (Gray, ICC, "Nu," 6; HPN, 191-211; The Expositor T, September, 1897, 173-90) it is concluded that though several of the names are, and more may be, early, the list is late. But see Ancient Hebrew Tradition, 74, 83 ff, 85 ff, 320. The contention rests largely on the late date of the Priestly Code (P) and of Chronicles. But while fashions in names changed in Hebrew life as elsewhere, in view of the persistence of things oriental, the dating of any particular names is somewhat precarious. They may be anticipations or late survivals of classes of names principally prevalent at the later or earlier date. Two of the names, otherwise unknown, have come to us through Ruth, and indicate a source now unknown to us, from which all the names could have been drawn. The fondness for names in ‘el very likely indicates not a late date but an early one. ‘El is the Divine name appearing in personal names previous to Moses, succeeded by Jab from Moses and Joshua on. The recurrence of ‘el in the time of Ezra and later probably indicates the renewed interest in antiquity as well as the at once wider and narrower outlook brought about by the exile and return. Numerous South Arabian compounds both with the "ilu," "ili" (’el), affixed and prefixed, occur in monuments about 1000 BC (AHT, 81 ff).

(13) Numbers 3:1-37.—The Family of Aaron, with the "Princes" of Levi.

Adds nothing to list in Ex 16:16-25 except the Levite "princes."

I. Gershonites: Eliasaph, Son of Lael.

Also a Benjaminite Eliasaph (Nu 1:14).

II. Kohathites: Elizaphan, Son of Uzziel.

A Zebulunite Elizaphan (Nu 34:25). Five other Uzziels, Benjamite, Levite, Simeonite.

III. Merarites: Zuriel, Son of Abihail.

A Gadire Abihail (1Ch 5:14); also father of Queen Esther; also two women: wife of Abishur (1Ch 2:29); wife of Rehoboam (2Ch 11:18). Four ‘el suffixes, two prefixes.

(14) Numbers 13:4-16.—The Twelve Spies (P).

I. Reuben: Shammua, Son of Jaccur.

Other Shammuas (2Sa 5:14; 1Ch 14:4 (David’s son); Ne 11:17, Levite 12:18, priest). Seven other Zaccurs, Simeonites and Levites.

II. Simeon: Shaphat, Son of Hori.

Four other Shaphats, one Gadite, one Judahite; Elisha’s father. Hori looks like the national name of the Horites; perhaps Hori or an ancestor had been adopted, through marriage or otherwise.

III. Judah: Caleb, Son of Jephunneh, the Kenizzite (Numbers 32:12; Joshua 14:6,14).

Another Caleb, Chelubai, son of Hezron, brother of Jerahmeel (1Ch 2:9). Either as an individual, or as a clan, Caleb seems to be originally of the pre-Israelitish stock in Canaan, absorbed into the tribe of Judah. Perhaps Jephunneh the Kenizzite married a woman of Caleb’s (brother of Jerahmeel) household, and to their firstborn was given the name of Caleb, he becoming head of the house and prince of Judah. Another Jephunneh, an Asherite (1Ch 7:38).

IV. Issachar: Igal, Son of Joseph.

Other Igals: 2Sa 23:36 (one of David’s heroes); 1Ch 3:22. Note the name of another tribe given to a man of Issachar—Joseph (Nu 13:7).

V. Ephraim: Hoshea, Son of Nun;

Hoshea, Joshua’s early name. Others: 1Ch 27:20; King Hoshea, 2Ki 15:30; Ne 10:23; Hebrew name of prophet Hosea.

VI. Benjamin: Palti, Son of Raphu. See 16 IV.

VII. Zebulun: Gaddiel, Son of Sodi.

VIII. Joseph-Manasseh: Gaddi, Son of Susi.

A Gaddi is in 1 Macc 2:2.

IX. Dan: Ammiel, Son of Gemali.

Another Ammiel (2Sa 9:4).

X. Asher: Sethur, Son of Michael.

Nine other Michaels, Gadite, Levite, Issacharite, Benjamite, Manassite, Judahite.

XI. Naphtali: Nahbi, Son of Vophsi.

XII. Gad: Geuel, Son of Machi.

Four names in ‘el. Nine ending with i; unusual number. The antiquity of the list cannot be readily questioned.

(15) Numbers 26:5-62 (P).—The Heads of Houses at the Second Census.

Related to Nu 1 and 2, and closely follows Ge 46. The divergences in individual names have been noted under (10). This list adds to

I. Reuben:

1. Eliab, son of Pallu (also Nu 16:1,12).

2. Dathan, Abiram, Nemuel, sons of Eliab.

II. Manasseh:

1. Machir; also Ge 50:23.

2. Gilead, son of Machir.

3. Iezer (abbreviation for Abiezer), Helek (not in Chronicles), Asriel, Shechem, Shemida, sons of Gilead.

4. Zelophehad, son of Hepher.

5. Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, Tirzah, daughters of Zelophehad.

III. Ephraim:

1. Shuthelah; also 1Ch 7:21.

2. Becher.

3. Tahan (Tahath, 1Ch 7:20).

4. Eran (Elead, 1Ch 7:21).

The names of Manasseh’s grandsons and great-grandsons are puzzling. Gilead is the district except in Jud 11:1,2, where it is the father of Jephthah. Shechem sounds like the Ephraimite town. Hepher reminds of Gath-Hepher. In Jos 17:1,2 the six sons of Gilead are described as sons of Manasseh; loosely, it is probable; they are to be understood as descendants. Perhaps the references may be summarized: The family of Machir, the son of Manasseh, conquered Gilead, and took its name therefrom, either as a family or in the person of a son, Gilead, whose six sons founded clans named from or giving names to certain towns or districts.

The daughters of Zelophehad are noted for the interesting case at law they presented, claiming and receiving the inheritance of their father, which by Gray, ICC, "Nu," is considered not historical but a fictitious instance, for the purpose of raising the question, these daughters being clans, and not persons.

Among the sons of Ephraim, Becher has perhaps been misplaced from verse 38, and possibly displaces Bered (1Ch 7:20) between Shuthelah and Tahath. It is not found here in the Septuagint. It is possible that an alliance between the Becherites and the Ephraimites caused one portion of the former to be counted with Ephraim and another with Benjamin; or that at different times the clan was allied with the two different tribes. An error in transcription is more probable. Another Shuthelah is found later in the line (1Ch 7:21).

(16) Numbers 34:16-28.—Tribal Representatives in the Allotment.

Reuben, Gad, half-Manasseh, omitted because their allotments had already been assigned East of Jordan; Levi, because receiving none. Changing to the order in (10):

I. Reuben: None.

II. Simeon: Shemuel, Son of Ammihud.

Shemuel is Hebrew of Samuel. Another Shemuel is of Issachar, 1Ch 7:2. Samuel the prophet, a Levite.

III. Judah: Caleb, Son of Jephunneh.

IV. Issachar: Paltiel, Son of Azzan.

Another Paltiel, otherwise Palti, David’s wife Michal’s temporary husband (2Sa 3:15). Another Benjamite spy (Nu 13:9).

V. Zebulun: Elizaphan, Son of Parnach.

Another Elizaphan, Kohathite Levite (Ex 6:18,22).

VI. Gad: None.

VII. Asher: Ahihud, Son of Shelomi.

Another Ahihud, Benjamite (1Ch 8:7).

VIII. Joseph-Ephraim: Kemuel, Son of Shiftan.

Another Kemuel, son of Nahor, an Aramean chief (Ge 22:21); also Levite of David’s time (1Ch 27:17).

IX. Joseph-Manasseh: Hanniel, Son of Ephod.

Hanniel, also an Asherite (1Ch 7:39).

X. Benjamin: Elidad, Son of Chislon.

XI. Dan: Bukki, Son of Jogli.

Bukki, abbreviation of Bukkiah; another, in high-priestly line of Phinehas (1Ch 6:5,51).

XII. Naphtali: Pedahel, Son of Ammihud.

A Simeonite Ammihud above.

Seven "El" names, only one "Jah."

(17) Ru 4:20.—The Ancestry of David (Perez: Hezron: Ram: Amminadab: Nahshon: Salmon (Salmah): Boaz: Obed: Jesse: David).

Contained unchanged in 1Ch 2:9-15; also Mt 1:1-6; also Lu 3:32. Some links have been omitted between Obed and Jesse. Salmon might be traced to the ancestor of the Bethlehemite (1Ch 2:51,54), who is, however, of Caleb’s line, not Ram’s; but the lines may mingle.

(18) 2Sa 3:2-5; 5:14,15. David’s children (also in 1Ch 3:1-9; 14:4-7).

I. Born in Hebron: Amnon, Chileab, Absalom, Adonijah, Shephatiah, Ithream.

II. Born in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada, Eliphelet.

Four names in ‘el, all prefixed. Two in "Jah." Chileab is Daniel in 1Ch 3:1; uncertain which is right, but probably Daniel is a corruption. Chronicles adds Nogah to the Jerusalem sons, probably developed in transcription. 1Ch 3:6-8 has two Eliphelets; 14:6 has Elpalet in place of the first; more probable. This gives David 6 sons in Hebron, and, if both Nogah and Elpalet be correct, 12 in Jerusalem. Eliada is Beeliada in 14:7, perhaps the original form, a relic of the time before the Hebrews turned against the use of Baal, "lord," as applied to Yahweh; in which case Baaliada, "Lord knows," was changed to Eliada, "God knows." 3:6 reads Elishama for Elishua. Japhia is also the name of a king of Lachish in Joshua’s time (Jos 10:3-7).

(19) 2 Samuel 23 (also 1 Chronicals 11:11-41).—David’s Knights.

1. Josheb-bashebeth, the Tahchemonite.

In Chronicles it is Jashobeam, and should read Ishbaal, the writer’s religious horror of Baal leading him to substitute the consonants of bosheth, "shame," as in Mephibosheth, Ishbosheth. Septuagint has Iesebada (Codex Vaticanus), Iessebadal, Isbaam (Codex Alexandrinus), in Chronicles, and Iebosthe (Codex Vaticanus), Iebosthai (Codex Alexandrinus) here. In Chronicles he is a Hachmonite, probably correct. "Adino the Heznite" is probably a corruption for "He wielded his spear" (Chronicles).

2. Eleazar, Son of Dodai, the Ahohite.

Dodo in Chronicles; 8 other Eleazars in the Old Testament. Another Dodo is father of Elhanan.

3. Shammah, Son of Agee, a Hararite.

Omitted by Chronicles. Three other Shammahs, one of them a knight of David. "Harari" may be "mountaineer," or "inhabitant of the village Harar."

4. Abishai, Son of Zeruiah, Brother of Joab.

Abshai (1Ch 18:12 margin). Zeruiah perhaps David’s half-sister (2Sa 17:25). Father never mentioned.

5. Benaiah, Son of Jehoaida of Kabzeel.

6. Asahel, Brother of Joab.

Three other Asahels.

7. Elhanan, Son of Dodo of Bethlehem.

Another Elhanan, slayer of the brother of Goliath (2Sa 21:19; 1Ch 20:5). Perhaps the same.

8. Shammah the Harodite.

Chronicals, Shammoth. From Harod, near Gideon’s well (Jud 7:1).

9. Elika the Harodite.

10. Helez the Paltite.

Paltite perhaps local or family name from Pelet, or Palti.

11. Ira, Son of Ikkesh the Tekoite.

Two others, one a knight. Tekoah, Judaite town, home of Amos, etc.

12. Abiezer the Anathothite.

One other, a Manassite (Jos 17:2). Anathoth an hour Northeast of Jerusalem, Jeremiah’s town.

13. Mebunnai the Hushathite.

Should read, with Chronicles, Sibbecai.

14. Zalmon the Ahohite.

Zalmon, also name of mountain (Jud 9:48). Descendant of Ahoah, Benjamite of Bela’s line. See 1Ch 8:14.

15. Maharai the Netophathite.

From Netophah, town.

16. Heleb, Son of Baanah.

1Ch 11:30, Heled. Three other Bannabs.

17. Ittai, Son of Ribai of Gibeah of the Children of Benjamin.

1Ch 11:31, Ithai. An Ittai of Gath also followed David.

18. Benaiah a Pirathonite.

Pirathon, Amalekite town in Ephraimite territory.

19. Hiddai of the Brooks of Gnash.

Chronicles, Hurai ("d" for "r"). Ga’ash, a Wady in Ephraim.

20. Abi-albon the Arbathite.

Chronicles, Abiel, perhaps corrupted from Abi-Baal; from Beth-arabah, Judah or Benjamin.

21. Azmaveth the Barhumite.

Three others, and a Judaite town, of the same name. Baharumite; Chronicles, Barhumite, a Benjamite town.

22. Eliahba the Shaalbonite.

Shaalbon, a Danite town.

23. The Sons of Jashen (better, Hashem).

Chronicles, "the sons of Hashem the Gizonite." "Sons of" looks like a scribal error, or interpolation, perhaps a repetition of "bni" in "Shaalboni" above.

24. Jonathan, Son of Shammah the Hararite.

Chronicles adds, "the son of Shagee the Hararite." Shagee should perhaps be Agee (2Sa 23:11); but Septuagint indicates Shammah here; both Samuel and Chronicles should read "J., son of Shammah the Ararite."

25. Ahiam, Son of Sharar the Ararite.

Chronicles, Sacar the Hararite. Sacar is supported by Septuagint.

26. Eliphelet, Son of Ahasvai, the Son of the Maacathite.

Chronicles has "Eliphal, son of Ur," and adds "Hepher the Mecherathite." Both texts are corrupt. Chronicles should perhaps read, "Eliphelet the son of ...., the Maacathite, Eliam," etc.

27. Eliham, Son of Ahithophel the Gilonite.

Eliham, possibly father of Bathsheba. Ahithophel, David’s counselor. Gilonite, native of Giloh.

27a. Ahijah the Pelonite (in Chronicals but Not Samuel).

Seven other Ahijahs. Pelonite uncertain, probably a corruption; perhaps inserted by a scribe who could not decipher his "copy," and means "such and such a one," as in 1Sa 21:2.

28. Hezro (Hezrai) the Carmelite.

A scribe confused the Hebrew letters, waw ("w") and yod ("y"). Carmel, near Hebron.

29. Paarai the Arbite.

Chronicles, "Naarai, son of Esbai." Uncertain. Arb, a town of Judah.

30. Igal, Son of Nathan of Zobah.

Chronicles, Joel, brother of Nathan. Igal less common than Joel, hence, more likely to be corrupted; 2 other Igals; 12 other Joels; 5 other Nathans.

30a. Mibhar, Son of Hagri (Chronicles, not Samuel).

Text uncertain as between this and 31.

31. Bani the Gadite (Omitted in Chronicles).

Possibly the Gerarite.

32. Zelek the Ammonite.

Ammon East of Jordan and upper Jabbok.

33. Naharai the Beerothite, Armor-bearer to Joab, Son of Zeruiah.

Beeroth, Benjamite town.

34. Ira the Ithrite.

Ithrites, a family of Kiriath-jearim, Judah.

35. Gareb the Ithrite.

Gareb also a hill West of Jerusalem.

36. Uriah the Hittite.

Bathsheba’s husband; 3 others. From some Hittite town surrounded by Israel at the Conquest.

37. Zabad, Son of Ahlai (Perhaps Dropped out of Samuel), Chronicles.

Chronicles adds 13 others. The filling of vacancies makes the number 37 instead of 30. Two names, perhaps, in ba’al, 5 in yah, 7 in ‘el. As far as guessable, 5 from Judah, 3 from Benjamin, 2 from Ephraim, 1 from Dan, 1 from Issachar, 1 Ammonite, 1 Hittite, 2 (or 4) Hararites, 2 Harodites, 2 Ithrites.

(20) 1 Kings 4:1-19.—Solomon’s "Princes" and Commissaries.

Eleven princes, 12 officers. No mention of their tribal connections; assigned only partly by tribal bounds. 7 yah names, 1 ‘el; 5 of the officers are prefixed ben as if their own names had dropped out.

(21) 1 Chronicals 1-9.—Genealogies, with Geographical and Historical Notices.

By far the largest body of genealogical material, illustrating most fully the problems and difficulties. The estimate of its value depends on the estimate of the Chronicler’s date, purpose, equipment, ethical and mental qualities. He uses freely all previous Old Testament matter, and must have had in hand family or tribal songs, traditions; genealogical registers, as mentioned in Ezr 2:61-69; Ne 7:63-65; local traditions; official genealogies, such as "the genealogies reckoned in the days of Jotham king of Judah, and .... Jeroboam king of Israel" (1Ch 5:17); prophetic, historical and other matter now lost, "the words of Shemaiah .... after the manner of genealogies" (2Ch 12:15), and elsewhere. The results of David’s census seem to have been in his hands (1Ch 27:24). Curtis (ICC, "Chronicles," 528) suggests that his purpose was partly to provide genealogies for contemporary families, implying an accommodating insertion of names "after the manner of genealogies" today. Two main purposes, however, seem clear: the first historical, to give the historical and personal basis and setting to elucidate the Chronicler’s main thesis, that national prosperity depended upon, and national character was measured by, fidelity to the law of God, especially as it centered upon the worship and services of Yahweh’s house. To do this it was necessary to trace the descent of the prominent characters, families, tribes. Hence, the space given to Judah, Levi, Benjamin, the main line of fidelity, the survival of the fittest. The other purpose was to conserve purity of blood in the restored nation, to include all who were entitled and to exclude all who were not. We may also credit him with such regard for his material that he preserved it all (with certain comprehensible exceptions), even though extremely fragmentary here and there. His materials are of many degrees of age. It is thought by some that the antiquity is indicated by the last stage in the descent, the genealogy of Sheshun, e.g. ending with Hezekiah’s time; Heman’s and Asaph’s (1Ch 6,33) in David’s. Name-study and historico-literary criticism seeks still other marks of relative age. The text has suffered much, as lists of names will, from scribal errors. Details of his method will be pointed out in the following analysis. As in this whole article, space forbids exhaustive treatment of the endless textual, critical, historical questions arising. A few illustrative cases only are given.

I. Primeval Genealogies (1 Chronicals 1:1-54).

To show Israel’s place among the nations; follows Genesis closely, omitting only the Cainites; boldly, skillfully compressed, as if the omitted facts were well known.

(1) The ten antediluvian Patriarchs, and Noah’s three sons (1Ch 1:1-4).

Follows Ge 4:5, giving only the names.

(2) Japheth’s descendants (1Ch 1:5-7) (Ge 10:2-4 unchanged).

(3) The Hamites (1Ch 1:8-16) (Ge 10:6-8,13-18 a unchanged).

(4) The Semites (1Ch 1:17-23) (Ge 10:22-29; only scribal changes).

(5) Abram’s descent (1Ch 1:24-27) (Ge 11:10-26 abridged, giving only the Patriarchs).

(6) The sons of Abraham, Keturah, Isaac (1Ch 1:28-34).

Ge 25:1-4,13-16,25,26; 32:28. Reverses the order of Ishmael’s and Keturah’s descendants.

(7) Sons of Esau (1Ch 1:35-52) (Ge 36:4-10).

(8) Kings and sheikhs of Edom (1Ch 1:43,14) (Ge 36:31-43). Scribal changes.

II. Descendants of Jacob (1 Chronicals 2-9).

The tribes arranged chiefly geographically. Judah, as the royal line, is given 100 verses, Levi, as the priestly, 81 verses, Benjamin 50, the other ten 56, Da and Zebulun neglected. His purpose practically confines him to the first three; and these were also the best preserved.

(1) Sons of Israel.

Follows substantially the order in Ge 35. Da is placed before Rachel’s sons. 17 different orders of the tribes in Bible lists.

(2) Genealogies of Judah (1Ch 2:3-4:23).

(a) Descent of Jesse’s sons from Judah (1Ch 2:3-17).

Largely gleaned from the historical books. The sons of Zerah (1Ch 2:6-8) are not found elsewhere. Chelubai is Caleb. Only 7 sons of Jesse are mentioned. Abishai, Joab, Asahel are always designated by their mother’s name, Zeruiah.

(b) Genealogy of Bezalel (1Ch 2:18-20).

The artificer of the tabernacle, hence, greatly interests the Chronicler.

(c) Other descendants of Hezron (1Ch 2:21-24).

(d) The Jerahmeelites (1Ch 2:25-41).

Concededly a very old list of this important clan not found elsewhere. Sheshan (1Ch 2:35), who married his daughter to Jarha, an Egyptian servant, illustrates the introduction of a foreigner into the nation and tribe.

(e) The Calebites (1Ch 2:41-55).

Not elsewhere. The names are largely geographical. A subdivision of the Hezronites. Not Caleb the son of Jephunneh.

(f) David’s descendants (1Ch 3:1-24).

Gives first the sons and their birthplaces, then the kings to Jeconiah and Zedekiah, then the Davidic line from Jeconiah to Zerubbabel, then the grandsons of Zerubbabel and the descendants of Shecaniah. Two other lists of David’s sons (2Sa 5:14-16; 1Ch 14:4-17). Eliphelet and Nogah here are thought to have developed in transcription, with some other changes. Johanan’s name (s. of Josiaih) is given among the kings, though he never reigned. Zedekiah is called son (instead of brother) of Jehoiachin, perhaps a scribal error. "Jah" names extremely numerous. Names of Zerubbabel’s sons are highly symbolic: Meshullam, "Recompensed"; Hananiah, "Jah is gracious"; Shelomith, "Peace"; Hashubah, "Consideration"; Ohel, "Tent," i.e. "Dwelling of Yahweh"; Berechiah, "Jah blesses"; Hasadiah, "Jah is kind"; Jushab-hesed, "Loving-kindness returns"; characteristic of the Exile.

1 Chronicles 3:19-24, beginning with Zerubbabel’s descendants, are obscure, and a battleground of criticism on account of their bearing on the date of Chronicles. There are three possible interpretations:

(1) Following the Hebrew, Zerubbabel’s descendants stop with Pelatiah and Jeshaiah, his grandsons. Then follow three unclassified sets of "sons." No connection is shown between Jeshaiah and these. Then follows Shecaniah’s line with four generations. There are several other instances of unrelated names thus being thrown in. This gives two generations after Zerubbabel.

(2) Still following the Hebrew, assume that Shecaniah after Obadiah is in Zerubbabel’s line. This gives six generations after Zerubbabel.

(3) Following Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) (but the two latter are of very small critical weight), read in verse 21, "Rephaiah his son, Arnan his son," etc.—a very possible change: eleven generations after Zerubbabel.

According to (3), Ch was written at least 253 years (allowing 23 years to a generation; more probable than 30 or 40) after Zerubbabel (515), hence, after 262 BC; (2) makes it after 373; (1) makes it 459, during Ezra’s life. The book’s last recorded event is Cyrus’ decree (538), which indicates the earliest date. The New Testament casts no light here, none of these names appearing in the genealogies in Matthew or Luke. If Septuagint is correct, Keil suggests that it is a later insertion, a critical device too frequently used to nullify inconvenient facts. The passage itself justifies the statement that "there is no shadow of proof that the families enumerated in 1Ch 3:21, latter part, were descendants of Hananiah the son of Zerubbabel." Against this, and the other indications, the admittedly faulty Septuagint furnishes an insufficient basis for so far-reaching a conclusion.

(g) Fragmentary genealogies of families of Judah (1Ch 4:1-23).

Contains

(1) "sons" of Judah, four or five successive generations;

(2) sons of Shobal and Hur;

(3) sons of Chelub;

(4) sons of Caleb, son of Jephunneh;

(5) sons of Jehaleel;

(6) sons of Ezra (of course, not the priest-scribe of the return);

(7) sons of "Bethiah the daughter of Pharaoh whom Mered took";

(8) sons of Shimon;

(9) sons of Ishi;

(10) sons of Shelah.

It is hard to trace the law of association here; which fact has its bearing on the discussion under (f) above. Chelub may be another Caleb. 1Ch 4:9-11 give an interesting name-study, where Jabez by prayer transforms into prosperity the omen of his sorrowful name: "Because I bare him with sorrow," a characteristic note. 1Ch 4:21-23 speak of the linenworkers and potters. Similar, even identical, names have been found on pot-handles-in Southern Palestine. (3) Genealogy of Simeon (4:24-43).

(a) Simeon’s sons. Genealogy of Shimei. After Ge 46:10; Ex 6:15; Nu 26:12-14.

(b) Dwelling-places of Simeon. After Jos 19:2-8.

(c) Princes and conquests (1Ch 4:34-43).

Source unknown, but considered old. Gray, however, thinks the names of late formation. Meshobab, Jamlech, Joshah, Amaziah, Joel, Jehu, Josibiah, Seraiah, Asiel, Elioenai, Jaakobah, Jeshohaiah, Asaiah, Adiel, Jesimiel, Benaiah, Ziza, Shiphi, Allon, Jedaiah, Shimri, Shemaiah, Ishi, Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah, Uzziel; many undoubtedly old ones; 11 in yah, 5 in ‘el. Eliothal sounds post-exilic. The section mentions several exploits of Simeon.

(4) East-Jordanic tribes (1Ch 5:1-24).

As in Simeon above, the usual order, deviated from in instances, is

(1) Introductory: Sons and immediate descendants;

(2) Territory;

(3) Princes or Chiefs;

(4) Incidents.

(a) Reuben (1Ch 5:1-10).

Partly follows Gen, Nu; but only as to first generation. Very fragmentary and connections obscure.

(b) Gad (1Ch 5:11-17).

First generation omitted. Chronicler draws from genealogies "in the days of" Jotham and Jeroboam.

(c) Half-Manasseh (1Ch 5:23,14).

The whole tribe is treated of (1Ch 7:14 ). Here only the seats and heads of houses.

(5) Levi (1Ch 6:1-81).

Illustrates more fully the Chronicler’s attitude and methods.

(a) High priests from Levi to Jehozadak (the Exile) (1Ch 6:1-15).

(i) Levi’s sons: Gershon, Kohath, Merari (Ge 46:11; Ex 6:16).

(ii) Kohath’s sons: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, Uzziel (Ex 6:18).

(iii) Amram’s "sons": Aaron, Moses, Miriam (Ex 6:20,23 (except Miriam); Nu 26:59 f).

(iv) High priests from Eleazar. Also (partly) Ezra (7:1-5):

1. Eleazar

2. Phinehas

3. Abishua

4. Bukki

5. Uzzi

6. Zerahiah

7. Meraioth

8. Amariah

9. Ahitub

10. Zadok

11. Ahimaaz

12. Azariah

13. Johnnan

14. Azariah

15. Amariah

16. Ahitub

17. Zadok

18. Shallum

19. Hilkiah

20. Azariah

21. Seraiah

22. Jehozadak

Noteworthy omissions: Eli’s house, Eli, Phinehas, Ahitub, Ahimelech, Abiathar, because set aside for Zadok’s in Solomon’s time; Bukki to Zadok being their contemporaries; but the list also omits Amariah in the reign of Jehoshaphat (perhaps), Jehoiada, Joash’s "power behind the throne," Urijah in Ahaz’ day, Azariah in Hezekiah’s. It has been thought that this was done in the interests of a chronological scheme of the Chronicler, making 23 generations of 40 years from the Exodus to the Captivity, or 920 years. The Hebrew generation, however, was as likely to be 30 as 40 years, and as a matter of fact was nearer 20. The apparent number of generations from Aaron to the Captivity, adding the data from the historical books, is 29, making a generation about 24 years. The reasons for the omission here, as for many others, are not apparent. Outside of Chronicles and Ezra we know nothing of Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, the first Amaziah, Johanan, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok 2, Shallum, Azariah 3. The list touches historical notices in Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, Zadok, Ahimaaz, Azariah 2, contemporary of Solomon, perhaps Amariah, contemporary of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, contemporary of Uzziah, Hilkiah, contemporary of Joshua, Seraiah slain by the Chaldeans, and Jehozadak. The recurrence of similar names in close succession is characteristically Jewish (but compare names of popes and kings). It is seen in the list beginning with Jehozadak: Joshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Jonathan, Jaddua, Onias, Simon, Eleazar, Manasseh, Onias, Simon, Onias, Joshua. Also about Christ’s time: Eleazar, Jesus, Annas, Ismael, Eleazar, Simon, Joseph, Jonathan, Theophilus, Simon, although these latter do not succeed in a genealogical line.

(b) The three Levitical clans (1Ch 6:16-19). After Ex 6:17-19; Nu 3:17-20.

(c) Lineal descendants of Gershom: seven, 1Ch 6:20,21; thirteen, 1Ch 6:39-43. See also 1Ch 23:7.

The two lists (1Ch 6:20,21 and 6:39-43) are clearly the same:

Gershom Gershom

Libni Jahath

Zimmah Zimmah

Joah Ethan

Iddo Adaiah

Zerah Zerah

Jeatherai Ethni

Malchiah

Baaseiah

Michael

Shimea

Berachiah

Asaph

Jahath, Zimmah, Zerah are in both. By slight changes Joah, yow’ah, is Ethan, ‘ethan; Iddo, ‘idow, is ‘idaiah, Adaiah; Jeatherai, yª’thriy, is Ethni, ‘ethniy. Shimei may have dropped from one and Libni from the other. Jahath and Shimei have been transposed. In 1Ch 23:7 Libni is Ladan.

(d) Pedigrees of Samuel (1Ch 6:27,28; 33-35). See also 1Sa 1:1; 8:2.

We have three pedigrees of Samuel, all suffering in transcription:

(1) 1Ch 6:22-24,28

(2) 1Ch 6:33-38

(3) 1Sa 1:1; 8:2

Kohath Kohath

Amminadab Izhar

Korah Korah

Assir, Elkanah,

Ebiasaph Ebiasaph

Assir Assir

Tahath Tahath

Uriel Zephaniah

Uzziah Azariah

Shaul Joel

Elkanah Elkanah

Amasai Amasai

Ahimoth Mahath Elkanah Elkanah

Zophai Zuph Zuph

Nahath Thoah Thohu

Eliab Eliel Elihu

Jeroham Jeroham Jeroham

Elkanah Elkanah Elkanah

Samuel Samuel Samuel

Joe (Vashni) and Joe Joel

Abijah

Heman

The text is obscure. Septuagint reads (1Ch 6:26), "Elkanah his (Ahimoth’s) son, Zophai his son." It has Izhar in (1) for Amminadab, as has Hebrew in Ex 6:18,21. Uriel for Zephaniah is unexplainable. Uzziah and Azariah are exchangeable. The other variations are transcriptional. Joe has dropped out of the first list, and the following words, now in 1Sa 8:2, and the Syriac here: "and the second," v-sh-n, have been read "Vashni." 1Sa 1:1 calls Zuph an Ephraimite. The Chronicler’s claiming him (and Samuel) seems to some another instance of Levitical bias and acquisitiveness. The genealogy is also found "clearly artificial," Zuph being a territory, and Toah, Tohu, Nahath, a family. But "Ephraimite" is either merely local, the family having been assigned residence there (Jos 21:5; 1Ch 6:66), or (Hengstenberg, Ewald) because, being thus assigned, it has been incorporated into the tribe. Hannah’s vow to devote him to Yahweh is said (Curtis, Moore, ICC in the place cited.) to show that he was no Levite, in which case no vow was necessary. But Elkanah’s Ephraimite citizenship may have obscured in Hannah’s mind the Levitical descent. In the disorganized times of the Judges an Ephraimite woman may well have been ignorant of, or indifferent to, the Levitical regulation, She, or the author of 1Sa 1:1, must also have forgotten that every male that openeth the womb from any tribe is equally God’s property A mother’s vow to devote her firstborn son to Yahweh, beyond recall or redemption, and to seal his consecration by the significant symbol of the unshaved head, is not hard to imagine in either a Levite or an Ephramite, and equally "unnecessary" in either case. Heman, ending the pedigree (2), was David’s contemporary.

(e) Pedigree of Asaiah the Merarite (1Ch 6:29,30).

Merari: Mahli: Libni; Shimei: Uzzah: Shimea: Haggiah: Asaiah. Hard to adjust or place. Libni and Shimei are elsewhere Gershonites, but the same name is frequently found in different tribes or clans. Information below Mahli is entirely wanting.

(f) Descent of David’s three singers, Heman, Asaph, Ethan (1Ch 6:33-47).

(i) Heman has been given under (d) ; 20 links.

(ii) Asaph: Getshorn: Jahath: Shimei: Zimmah: Ethan: Adaiah: Zerah: Ethni (Jeatherai): Malchijah: Baaseiah: Michael: Shimea: Berechiah: Asaph; 15 links.

(iii) Ethan: Merari: Mushi: Mahli: Shemet: Bani: Amzi: Hilkiah: Amaziah: Hashabiah: Malluch: Abdi: Kishi: Ethan; 12 links.

Hardly anywhere is the Chronicler’s good faith more questioned than in these lists. Finding in his day the three guilds of singers claiming descent from David’s three, and through these from Levi, he fits them out with pedigrees, borrowing names from 1Ch 6:16-20, and filling out with his favorite names, or those of his own invention, or from current lists. To make Asaph contemporary with David, he adds Malchijah, Maaseiah, Michael, Shimei, Berechiah. He helps out Ethan with Bani, Amzi, Hilkiah, Amaziah, Hashabiah, Malluch, Abdi, Kishi. The names added are very frequent in Chronicles and Ezra, not frequent in older writings. Aside from the general objection to this thoroughgoing discredit of Chronicles, and theory of religious development in Israel on which it is based, it may be said:

(1) The Chronicler’s failure to give his three families nearly the same number of links is suspicious, but if he took an old list, as it came to him, it is natural.

(2) The fact that these added names occur many more times in Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah indicates simply that Levitical names occur frequently in a writer and among a people whose interests are Levitical. No one would look among the Roundheads for either classical or aristocratic names.

(3) In no tribe would such names be more likely to recur, naturally or purposely, than in the Levitical.

(4) The Chronicler has inserted among his new names 6 in yah and only 1 in ‘el, and that far down the list.

(5) Of the "added" names Malchijah occurs in Jer 21:1; Masseiah, in 29:21,25; 35:4, in every case priestly or Levitical. Michael occurs in Nu 13:13. Berechiah is the name of the prophet Zechariah’s father. Hilkiah is the name of Joshua’s high priest. Amaziah reigned 800 BC. Bani is mentioned in 2Sa 23:36 (though this is thought to be copied from Chronicles). Shimea is concededly early. Of the 13 "added names" 8 are found elsewhere. Of the others, Amzi, Abdi, Kishi (Kish, Kushaiah) have an early look. Malluch might be late. If Hashabiah is late the author has scattered it well through the history, 1 several generations before David, 3 in David’s time, 1 in Josiah’s, 1 in Ezra’s, 3 in Nehemiah’s, in every case a Levite.

(7) While these "added" names occur more times in Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, than elsewhere, and 5 of the 13 occur nowhere else, it is also true that more than 500 other names also occur only in these three books, and that the total names in these, to say nothing of the "P" portions elsewhere, outnumber the names in the other books about three to one. Other things being equal, three mentions of any common name ought to be found in these books to one in the others. Of all names applied to more than four persons the usual proportion in these books by count is four, to one elsewhere.

(g) Pedigree of Ahimaaz (1Ch 6:50-53). Parallel with 1Ch 6:4-8.

(h) Dwelling-places of Levi.

(6) The six remaining tribes.

(a) Issachar (1Ch 7:1-5).

1 Chronicles 7:1 derived from Ge 46:13; Nu 26:23,14. The rest peculiar to Chronicles. Closes with a record of fighting men, instead of the usual statement of dwelling-places.

(b) Benjamin (1Ch 7:6-13).

A very difficult section. It is considered a Zebulunite genealogy which has been Benjaminized, because

(1) there is a Benjamite list elsewhere;

(2) Benjamin is out of place here, while in 13 out of 17 tribal lists Zebulun comes at this point, and in this list has no other place; (3) the numbers of Benjamin’s sons differ from other Benjamite genealogies;

(4) the names of Bela’s and Becher’s sons are different here;

(5) many names are not Benjamite;

(6) Tarshish, in this list, is a sea-coast name appropriate to Zebulun, but not Benjamin. But (1) it is called Benjamite; (2) doublets are not unknown in Chronicles; (3) Da is also neglected; (4) many Benjamite names are found; (5) both the Zebulunite material and the Benjamite material elsewhere is too scanty for safe conclusions.

(c) Dan, 1Ch 7:12, from Ge 46:23.

Aher (" another") is a copyist’s error or substitute for Dan.

(d) Naphtali, 1Ch 7:13, from Ge 46:24 (transcriptional changes).

(e) Manasseh, East and West (1Ch 7:14-19).

The text of 1Ch 7:14,15 very corrupt. No other notice is found of the sons in 1Ch 7:16,17: Peresh, Sheresh, Ulam, Rakere, Bedan.

(f) Ephraim to Joshua (1Ch 7:20-29).

Contains an interesting personal note in the mourning of Ephraim over his sons Ezer and Elead, and the subsequent birth of Beriah. Interpreted to mean that the clans Ezer and Elead met with disaster, on which the clan Beriah became prominent.

(g) The seats of Joseph’s sons (1Ch 7:28,29).

Hard to say why this has been placed here.

(h) Asher (1Ch 7:30-40).

The earliest names derived from Ge 46:17. Gray considers the others ancient.

(i) Benjamin (1Ch 8:1-40).

(i) Sons of Benjamin. After Ge 46:21, with variations. See (6) (b).

(ii) Descendants of Ehud (1Ch 8:6-28). Text very corrupt, obscure.

(iii) The house of Saul (1Ch 8:29-38); repeated (1Ch 9:35-44).

In this passage two exceptions to the usual treatment of Baal compounds. Ishbaal and Meribbaal here are Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth in S.

(7) The inhabitants of Jerusalem (1Ch 9:1-34).

With variations in Ne 11:1-13. This passage has been thought an interpolation, but it is the Chronicler’s custom to give dwelling-places. Perhaps this and Ne are two independent abridgments of the same document. This probably describes post-exilic conditions. 1Ch 9:1 and 2 here, and Ne 11 seem conclusive on this point. Four classes of returning exiles:

(a) The children of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh.

Constituting "the laity," "Israel."

(b) The priests.

Agreeing with Nehemiah, but abridged.

(c) The Levites. Paralleling Nehemiah, but not exactly.

(d) Nethinim or porters. Fuller than Nehemiah, and different.

(8) The house of Saul (1Ch 9:35-44, repeating 9:29-38).

(22) David’s Knights (1 Chronicals 11:10-47).

Discussed under (19). Adds to the list, Adina, son of Shiza, Reubenite; Hanan, son of Maacah, Joshaphat the Mithnite, Uzziah the Ashterathite, Shama and Jeiel the sons of Hotham the Aroerite, Jediael the son of Shimri, and Joah his brother, the Tizite, Eliel the Mahavite, and Jeribai and Joshaviah, the sons of Elnaam, and Ithmah the Moabite, Eliel, and Obed, and Jaasieh the Mezobaite.

(23) David’s Recruits at Ziklag (1 Chronicals 12-22).

Found only here. Contains 23 names from Benjamin (some may be Judahite); 11 from Gad; 8 from Manasseh; nothing to show that the names are not old.

(24) David’s Musicians and Porters at the Bringing of the Ark (1 Chronicals 15:16-24).

Also 1Ch 16:5,6,37-43. Each division of the Levites represented by a chief musician.

(25) David’s Organization of the Kingdom (1 Chronicals 23-27).

I. The Levites (1 Chronicals 23).

(1) The family of Gershon (1Ch 23:7-11); 9 houses.

(2) The family of Kohath (1Ch 23:12-20); 11 houses.

(3) The family of Merari (1Ch 23:21-23); 4 houses.

II. The Priests (1 Chronicals 24).

24 divisions; 16 divided among descendants of Eleazar, headed by Zadok; 8 among those of Ithamar, headed by Ahimelech (perhaps an error for Abiathar); but perhaps Ahimelech’s. Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, was acting for his father.

(1) Eleazar’s courses: Jehoiarib, Harim, Malchijah, Hakkoz, Joshua, Eliashib, Huppah, Bilgah, Hezer, Aphses, Pethahiah, Jehezekel, Jachin, Gamul, Delaiah, Maaziah.

(2) Ithamar: Jedaiah, Seorim, Mijamin, Abijah, Shecaniah, Jachim, Joshebeab, Immer.

Josephus gives the same names of courses (Ant., VII, xiv, 7; Vita, 1). Several are mentioned in Apocrypha, Talmud, and the New Testament. Jehoiarib, Jedaiah, Harim, Malchijah, Mijarain, Abijah, Shecaniah, Bilgah, Maaziah, are found in one or both of Nehemiah’s lists.

(3) Supplementary list of Levites (1Ch 20-31).

Repeats the Levitical families in 1Ch 23:6-23, omitting the Gershonites, adding to the Kohathites and Merarites.

III. The Singers (1 Chronicals 25).

(1) Their families, classified under the three great groups, descendants of Asaph, Jeduthun (Ethan), Heman.

A curious problem is suggested by the fact that the names in verse 4, beginning with Hanani, with a few very slight changes, read: "Hanan (‘Have mercy’)- iah (‘O Yahweh’); Hanani (~‘Have mercy’); Eli-athah (’Thou art my God’); Giddalti (‘I have magnified’)( and) Romamti (‘exalted’)( thy) Ezer (‘help’); Josh-bekashah (‘In the seat of hardness’); Mallothi (‘I spake of it’); Hothir (‘Gave still’); Mahazioth (‘Visions’)." How, or why, this came among these names, cannot be said.

(2) The 24 courses of 12 singers each, of which courses numbers 1, 3, 5, 7 fell to Asaph; numbers 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14 fell to Jeduthun; numbers 6, 9, 11, 13, 15-24 fell to Heman.

IV. Gatekeepers and Other Officers (1 Chronicals 26).

(1) Genealogies and stations of the gatekeepers (1Ch 26:1-19).

(2) Those in charge of the temple treasury (1Ch 26:20-28).

(3) Those in charge of the "outward business."

Subordinate magistrates, tax-collectors, etc.

V. The Army, and David’s Officers (1 Chronicals 27).

(1) The army (1Ch 27:1-15).

12 officers, each commanding 24,000 men, and in charge for one month; chosen from David’s knights.

(2) The tribal princes (1Ch 27:16-24).

After the fashion of Nu 12-15. Gad and Asher are omitted. The 12 are made up by including the Levites and the Aaronites.

(3) The king’s twelve stewards (1Ch 27:25-31).

(4) The king’s court officers (1Ch 27:32-34).

Counselor and scribe: Jonathan, the king’s uncle, otherwise unknown; tutor: Jehiel; counselor: Ahithophel; "the king’s friend" (closest confidant?): Hushai. Possibly two priests are next included: Jehoiada the son of Benaiah, and Abiathar, high priest of the Ithamar branch. But perhaps it should read, "Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada." If two priests are intended, it seems strange that Zadok is not one. The list ends with the commander-in-chief, Joab.

This elaborate organization in every part and branch of the kingdom is looked upon as the Chronicler’s glowing Utopian dream of what must have been, underrating the organizing power of the great soldier and statesman.

(26) Ezra 2:1-63.—The Exiles Who Returned with Zerubbabel.

Paralleled in Ne 7:6-73. 9 "Jah," 4 "El" names in 107.

(1) The Leaders (Ezra 2:2).

(2) Numbers, according to Families (Ezra 2:3-19).

18 of Ezra’s numbers differ from Nehemiah’s.

(3) Numbers according to Localities (Ezra 2:20-35).

10 towns probably Judahite, 7 Benjamite.

(4) The Priests (Ezra 2:39,42).

Only 4 families, representing 3 Davidic courses.

(5) The Levites (Ezra 2:43,14).

Among the singers, only Asaphites.

(6) The Porters (Ezra 2:45).

3 old names, 3 new ones.

(7) The "Nethinim" (Temple-Slaves) (Ezra 2:46-56).

(8) The Children of Solomon’s Servants (Slaves) (Ezra 2:57-59).

(9) Those Who Could Not Prove Their Descent.

(a) General population.

Three families, children of Delaiah, Tobiah, Nekoda.

(b) Priestly families.

Hobaiah, Hakkoz, Barzillai. Hakkoz, the seventh of the Davidic courses, perhaps succeeded later in establishing their right (Ne 3:21).

(27) Ezra 6:1-5.—Ezra’s Genealogy.

An ascending genealogy: Ezra, son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah, son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahitub, son of Amaraiah, son of Azariah, son of Meraioth, son of Zerahiah, son of Uzzi, son of Bukki, son of Abishua, son of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron; 16 links. Follows 1Ch 6:7-10 down to Zadok, then omits 7 to Shallum, besides the 7 omitted in Chronicles.

(28) Ezra 8:1-20.—Numbers and Leaders of Those Who Returned with Zerubbabel.

Numbers much smaller than in Zerubbabel’s list (Ezr 2:1-14). Perhaps 3 new families, Shecaniah, Shelomith, Joah; 7 more leaders. A much smaller proportion of Levites; among them a "man of discretion," perhaps a name, "Ishsecel," of the sons of Mahli, therefore a Merarite, with other Merarites, 39 in all.

(29) Ezra 10:18-44.—Jews Who Had Married Foreign Women.

(1) The Priests (Ezra 10:18-22).

Seventeen in all; members of the high priest’s family, and of the Davidic courses of Immer and Harim, besides the family of Pashhur.

(2) The Levites (Ezra 10:23); 6 in All.

(3) Singers and Porters (Ezra 10:24); 4 in All.

(4) "Israel," "the Laity" (Ezra 10:25-43).

Sixteen families represented; 86 persons. Out of a total of 163 names, 39 yah compounds, 19 ‘el compounds, 8 prefixed.

(30) Nehemiah 3:1-12.—The Leaders in the Repair of the Wall.

Thirty-eight leaders; in 30 instances the father’s name also given. As far as mentioned, all from Judah and Jerusalem.

(31) Nehemiah 7:7-63.—Those Who Returned with Zerubbabel.

Follows Ezr 2:1-63, with transcriptional variations in names and numbers.

(32) Nehemiah 8:4-7.—Levites and Others Who Assisted Ezra in Proclaiming the Law.

(33) Nehemiah 10:1-27.—The Sealers of the Covenant.

Twenty-two priests, 17 Levites, 20 heads of families already mentioned, 24 individuals.

(34) Nehemiah 11:3-36.—Chief Dwellers in Jerusalem and Vicinity.

Parallels in 1Ch 9:9-22. Some omissions and variations; 5 priestly courses given, Joiarib, course number 1; Jedaiah, number 2; Jachin, number 23; Malchijah, number 5; Immer, number 6. 24 "Jah," 6 "El" names out of 82.

(35) Nehemiah 12:1-8.—Priests and Levites Who Went Up with Zerubbabel.

Compare with priests’ lists in Ne 10:2-8 (33), and with priests under Joiakim (Ne 12:12-21 (36)). They are names of families. See Ne 12:12.

(36) Nehemiah 12:10,11.—High Priests from Jeshua to Jaddua.

(1) Jeshua, 538 to 520 BC.

(2) Joiakim.

(3) Eliashib, 446 till after 433.

(4) Joiada, about 420.

(5) Jonathan, Johanan, 405 to 362.

(6) Jaddua, to 323.

This list bears upon the date of Ezra-Nehemiah. Jaddua was high priest when Alexander visited Jerusalem, 335 BC. If the Darius of verse 22 is Darius Nothus (425 to 405 BC), and Jaddua, a young boy, is mentioned as the heir to the high-priesthood, this passage was written before 400. If Jaddua’s actual high-priesthood is meant, and Darius Codomannus (336 to 330 BC) is the Darius here, the date may be about 330. The enumeration of families here is assigned to the time of Joiakim, before 405, and the latest recorded events to the time of the high priest before Jaddua (Ne 12:23; 13:28), hence, before 362. The hypothesis of an addition by some scribe after 350 is possible, but not necessary.

(37) Nehemiah 12:12-21.—Heads of Priestly Families.

(38) Nehemiah 12:22-26.—Levites and Porters under High Priest Johanan.

(39) Nehemiah 12:31-42.—Princes and Priests at Dedication of the Wall.

(40) Matthew 1:1-17.—The Genealogy of Jesus Christ.

(See separate article).

(41) Luke 3:23-38.—The Genealogy of Jesus.

(See separate article).

LITERATURE.

Commentaries in the place cited., especially on Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, especially C. F. Keil, Bible Comm., 1872; E. Bertheau, in Kurzgef. exeget. Handb. zum Altes Testament, 1873; Bible ("Speaker’s") Commentary (Browne, Gen; Clark, Ex; Espin, Nu; Rawlinson, Chronicles, etc.); W. B. Barnes, Cambridge Bible, Chronicles; R. Kittel, Die Bucher der Chronicles; Driver, Westminster Comm., Gen; ICC (Gray, Nu; Moore, Jgs; Curtis, Chronicles, etc.); Pulpit Comm.; W. R. Harvey-Jellie, Ch in Century Bible; S. Oettli, Kgf. Kom., 1889; O. Zoeckler, Lange’s Comm., etc.

Encyclopedia arts., especially HDB, E. L. Curtis, "Genealogies"; SBD, A. C. Hervey, "Genealogies"; EB, S. A. Cook, "Genealogies"; EB, 11th edition, S. A. Cook, "Genealogies"; other encyclopedia arts., under specific books, tribes, names, genealogies.

General works: Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names; Hommel, The Ancient Hebrew Tradition; A.C. Hervey, The Genealogies of our Lord; Sprenger, Das Leben u. d. Lehre d. Mohammad; W.R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia; J. Wellhausen, De Gentibus et Familiis Judaeis; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 1883 (ET), 177-277; McLennan, Studies in Ancient History.

Magazine articles: H.W. Hogg, "Genealogy of Benjamin," JQR, XI, 1899, 96-133, 329-44; M. Berlin, "Notes on Genealogies of Levi, 1Ch 23-26," Jewish Quarterly Review, XII, 1900, 291-98; M. Berlin, "Gershonite and Merarite Genealogies," JQR, XII, 1901, 291 ff; H. W. Hogg, "Ephraimite Genealogy," JQR, XIII, 1900-1901, 147-54; J. Marquart, "Genealogies of Benjamin," JQR, XIV, 1902, 343-51; J. W. Rothstein, Die Genealogie das Konigs Jojachin und seiner Nachkommen in geschichtlicher Beleuchtung, Berlin: Reuther u. Reichold, 1902; R.S. Macalister, "The Royal Potters, 1Ch 4:23," The Expositor Times, XVI, 1905, 379 ff; R. S. Macalister, "The Craftsmen Guild of the Tribe of Judah," PEFS, 1905, 243-53, 328-42; C. C. Torrey, "The Greek versions of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah," Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, XXV. 1903, 139 ff, and many others.

Philip Wendell Crannell

jen’-er-al, jen’-er-al-i (kullah; paneguris):

(1) General is the translation of sar, "master," "head," "chief"; used once in the King James Version in the sense of commander-in-chief, "the general of the king’s army" (1Ch 27:34), usually in this connection translated "captain," the Revised Version (British and American) "the captain of the king’s host."

(2) As an adjective "general assembly" is the translation of paneguris (whence we have panegyric), "an assembly or convocation of the whole people to celebrate any public festival or solemnity, as the public games or sacrifices, hence, a high festival, public convocation, joyful assembly" (Robinson); the word occurs in the New Testament only in Heb 12:23, "to the general assembly and church of the firstborn; paneguris is Septuagint for mo‘edh (Eze 46:11; Ho 2:11), "solemn assembly" and for ‘atsarah (Am 5:21), with the same meaning. The Greek words translated "and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn" (the King James Version) have been variously arranged and translated; Robinson gives "and to countless throngs (even) the joyful assembly of angels, i.e. as hymning the praises of God around His throne"; compare Re 5:11 f; Ps 148:2; Da 7:10). From both Hebrew and Greek analogies, this is probably correct; similarly, Alford, Delitzsch and others have "festival assembly"; Weymouth translated "to countless hosts of angels, to the great festal gathering and church of the first-born."

(3) Generally, adverb, occurs in Jer 48:38 the King James Version as the translation of kullah (Pual of kalah), "the whole of it," "There shall be lamentation generally (universally) upon all the housetops of Moab," the Revised Version (British and American) "everywhere"; in 2Sa 17:11, ‘acaph, "to be gathered," is translated "to be generally gathered," the Revised Version (British and American) "gathered together."

In Apocrypha we have "general" in the sense of "common," "universal" (Additions to Esther 15:10 margin, koinos; 2 Macc 3:18, pandemon); "in general" (2 Esdras 8:15, "man in general"; Ecclesiasticus 18:1, "all things in general," koinos, the Revised Version (British and American) "in common").

W. L. Walker

jen-er-a’-shun (Latin generatio, from genero, "beget"):

(1) The translation

(a) of dor, "circle," "generation," hence, "age," "period," "cycle": "many generations" (De 32:7);

(b) the people of any particular period or those born about the same time: "Righteous before me in this generation" (Ge 7:1); "four generations" (Job 42:16);

(c) the people of a particular class or sort, with some implied reference to hereditary quality; the wicked (De 32:5; Pr 30:11); the righteous (Ps 14:5; 112:2).

(2) toledhoth, "births," hence

(a) an account of a man and his descendants: "The book of the generations of Adam" (Ge 5:1);

(b) successive families: "The families of the sons of Noah, after their generations" (Ge 10:32);

(c) genealogical divisions: "The children of Reuben .... their generations, by their families" (Nu 1:20); (d) figurative, of the origin and early history of created things: "The generations of the heavens and of the earth" (Ge 2:4).

(3) genea, "a begetting," "birth," "nativity," therefore

(a) the successive members of a genealogy: "All the generations from Abraham unto David" (Mt 1:17);

(b) a race, or class, distinguished by common characteristics, always (in the New Testament) bad: "Faithless and perverse generation" (Mt 17:17);

(c) the people of a period: "This generation shall not pass away" (Lu 21:32);

(d) an age (the average lifetime, 33 years): "Hid for (Greek "from the") ages and (from the) generations" (Col 1:26). The term is also by a figurative transference of thought applied to duration in eternity: "Unto all generations for ever and ever" (Eph 3:21) (Greek "all the generations of the age of the ages").

(4) genesis, "source," "origin": "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" (Mt 1:1; the American Revised Version, margin "The genealogy of Jesus Christ").

(5) gennema, "offspring," "progeny"; figurative: "O generation of vipers" (Lu 3:7 the King James Version).

(6) genos, "stock," "race," in this case spiritual: "But ye are a chosen generation" (1Pe 2:9; the American Standard Revised Version "an elect race").

Philip Wendell Crannell

jen’-e-sis:

I. GENERAL DATA

1. The Name

2. Survey of Contents

3. Connection with Succeeding Books

II. COMPOSITION OF GENESIS IN GENERAL

1. Unity of the Biblical Text

(1) The Toledhoth

(2) Further Indication of Unity

2. Rejection of the Documentary Theory

(1) In General

(a) Statement of Theory

(b) Reasons Assigned for Divisions

(c) Examination of the Documentary Theory

(i) Style and Peculiarities of Language

(ii) Alleged Connection of Matter

(iii) The Biblico-Theological Data

(iv) Duplicates

(v) Manner in Which the Sources Are Worked Together

(vi) Criticism Carried to Extremes

(2) In View of the Names for God

(a) Error of Hypothesis in Principle

(b) False Basis of Hypothesis

(c) Improbability That Distinction of Divine

Names Is without Significance

(d) Real Purpose in Use of Names for God

(i) Decreasing Use of Yahweh

(ii) Reference to Approach of Man to God, and Departure from Him

(iii) Other Reasons

(iv) Systematic Use in History of Abraham (e) Scantiness of the Materials for Proof

(f) Self-Disintegration of the Critical Position

(g) Different Uses in the Septuagint

III. STRUCTURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PERICOPES

1. The Structure of the Prooemium (Genesis 1-2:3)

2. Structure of the 10 Toledhoth

IV. THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER

1. History of the Patriarchs (Genesis 12-50)

(1) Unfounded Attacks on the History

(a) From General Dogmatic Principles

(b) From Distance of Time

(c) From Biblical Data

(d) From Comparison with Religion of Arabia

(2) Unsatisfactory Attempts at Explaining the Patriarchal Age

(a) Explanation Based on High Places

(b) The Dating Back of Later Events to Earlier Times

(c) The Patriarchs as heroes eponymi

(d) Different Explanations Combined

(3) Positive Reasons for the Historical Character of Genesis

Individuality of Patriarchs, etc.

2. The Primitive History of Genesis 1-11

(1) Prominence of the Religious Element

(2) Carefulness as Regards Divergent Results of Scientific Research

(3) Frequent Confirmation of the Bible by Science

(4) Superiority of the Bible over Pagan Mythologies Babylonian and Biblical Stories

V. ORIGIN AND AUTHORSHIP OF GENESIS

1. Connection with Mosaic Times

2. Examination of Counter-Arguments

(1) Possibility of Later Additions

(2) "Prophecy after the Event" Idea

(3) Special Passages Alleged to Indicate Later Date

Examination of These

VI. SIGNIFICANCE

1. Lays Foundation for the Whole of Revelation—Creation, Fall, Man in Image of God, Sin, etc.

2. Preparation for Redemption—Promises and Covenants

LITERATURE

I. General Data.

1. The Name:

The first book of Moses is named by the Jews from the first word, namely, bere’shith, i.e. "in the beginning" (compare the Bresith of Origen]). In the Septuagint it is called Genesis, because it recounts the beginnings of the world and of mankind. This name has passed over into the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) (Liber Genesis). As a matter of fact the name is based only on the beginning of the book.

2. Survey of Contents:

The book reports to us the story of the creation of the world and of the first human beings (Ge 1); of paradise and the fall (Ge 2 f); of mankind down to the Deluge (Ge 4 f; compare Ge 4, Cain and Abel); of the Deluge itself (Ge 6-9); of mankind down to the age of the Patriarchs (Ge 10:1-11:26; compare 11:1 ff, the building of the tower of Babel); of Abraham and his house (Ge 11:27-25:18); of Isaac and his house (Ge 25:19-37:2); of Jacob and of Joseph (Ge 37:2-50:26). In other words, the Book of Genesis treats of the history of the kingdom of God on earth from the time of the creation of the world down to the beginning of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt and to the death of Joseph; and it treats of these subjects in such a way that it narrates in the 1st part (Ge 1:1-11:26) the history of mankind; and in the 2nd part (Ge 11:27-50:26) the history of families; and this latter part is at the same time the beginning of the history of the chosen people, which history itself begins with Ex 1. Though the introduction, Ge 1-11, with its universal character, includes all mankind in the promise given at the beginning of the history of Abraham (12:1-3), it is from the outset distinctly declared that God, even if He did originally set apart one man and his family (Ge 12-50), and after that a single nation (Ex 1 ), nevertheless intends that this particularistic development of the plan of salvation is eventually to include all mankind. The manner in which salvation is developed historically is particularistic, but its purposes are universal.

3. Connection with Succeeding Books:

By the statements just made it has already been indicated in what close connection Genesis stands with the subsequent books of the sacred Scriptures. The history of the chosen people, which begins with Ex 1 ff, at the very outset and with a clear purpose, refers back to the history as found in Genesis (compare Ex 1:1-6,8 with Ge 46:27; 50:24 ff; and see EXODUS, I, 3), although hundreds of years had clasped between these events; which years are ignored, because they were in their details of no importance for the religious history of the people of God. But to Abraham in Ge 12:1-3 the promise had been given, not only that he was to be the father of a mighty nation that would recognize him as their founder, and the earliest history of which is reported in Exodus and the following books of the Pentateuch, but also that the Holy Land had been promised him. In this respect, the Book of Joshua, which gives the story of the capture of this land, is also a continuation of the historical development begun in Genesis. The blessing of God pronounced over Abraham, however, continued to be efficacious also in the later times among the people who had descended from him. In this way Genesis is an introduction to all of the books of the Old Testament that follow it, which in any way have to do with the fate of this people, and originated in its midst as the result of the special relation between God and this people. But in so far as this blessing of God was to extend to all the nations of the earth (Ge 12:3), the promises given can be entirely fulfilled only in Christ, and can expand only in the work and success of Christian missions and in the blessings that are found within Christianity. Accordingly, this book treats first of beginnings and origins, in which, as in a kernel, the entire development of the kingdom of God down to its consummation is contained (compare VI below).

II. Composition of Genesis in General.

1. Unity of the Biblical Text:

(1) The Toledhoth.

The fact that Genesis is characterized by a far-reaching and uniform scheme has, at least in outline, been already indicated (see I, 2 and 3). This impression is confirmed when we examine matters a little more closely and study the plan and structure of the book. After the grand introitus, which reports the creation of the world (1:1-2:3) there follows in the form of 10 pericopes the historical unfolding of that which God has created, which pericopes properly in each case bear the name toledhoth, or "generations." For this word never signifies creation or generation as an act, but always the history of what has already been created or begotten, the history of generations; so that for this reason, 2:4a, where mention is made of the toledhoth of heaven and of earth, cannot possibly be a superscription that has found its way here from 1:1. It is here, as it is in all cases, the superscription to what follows, and it admirably leads over from the history of creation of the heavens and the earth in Ge 1 to the continuation of this subject in the next chapter. The claim of the critics, that the redactor had at this place taken only the superscription from his source P (the priestly narrator, to whom 1-2:3 is ascribed), but that the section of P to which this superscription originally belonged had been suppressed, is all the more monstrous a supposition as 2:4a throughout suits what follows.

Only on the ground of this correct explanation of the term toledhoth can the fact be finally and fully explained, that the toledhoth of Terah contain also the history of Abraham and of Lot; the toledhoth of Isaac contain the history of Jacob and Esau; the toledhoth of Jacob contain the history of Joseph and his brethren. The ten toledhoth are the following: I, Ge 2:4-4:26, the toledhoth of the heavens and the earth; II, 5:1-6:8, the toledhoth of Adam; III, 6:9-9:29, the toledhoth of Noah; IV, 10:1-11:9, the toledhoth of the sons of Noah; V, 11:10-26, the toledhoth of the sons of Shem; VI, 11:27-25:11, the toledhoth of Terah; VII, 25:12-18, the toledhoth of Ishmael; VIII, 25:19-35:29, the toledhoth of Isaac; IX, 36:1-37:1, the toledhoth of Esau (the fact that 36:9, in addition to the instance in verse 1, contains the word toledhoth a second time, is of no importance whatever for our discussion at this stage, as the entire chapter under any circumstances treats in some way of the history of the generations of Esau; see III, 2:9); X, 37:2-50:26, the toledhoth of Jacob. In each instance this superscription covers everything that follows down to the next superscription.

The number 10 is here evidently not an accidental matter. In the articles EXODUS, LEVITICUS, DAY OF ATONEMENT, also in EZEKIEL, it has been shown what role the typical numbers 4, 7, 10 and 12 play in the structure of the whole books and of the individual pericopes. (In the New Testament we meet with the same phenomenon, particularly in the Apocalypse of John; but compare also in Matthew’s Gospel the 3 X 14 generations in Mt 1:1 ff, the 7 parables in 13:1 ff, the 7 woes in 23:13 ff.) In the same way the entire Book of Le naturally falls into 10 pericopes (compare LEVITICUS, II, 2, 1), and Le 19 contains 10 groups, each of 4 (possibly also of 5) commandments; compare possibly also 18:6-18; 20:9-18; see LEVITICUS, II, 2, 21, VI. Further, the number 10, with a greater or less degree of certainty, can be regarded as the basis for the construction of the pericopes: Ex 1:8-7:7; 7:8-13:16 (10 plagues); 13:17-18:27 (see EXODUS, II, 2:1-3); the Decalogue (20:1 ff); the first Book of the Covenant (21:1-23:13; 23:14-19), and the whole pericope 19:1-24:18a, as also 32:1-35:3 (see EXODUS, II, 2, 4, 6). In the Book of Genesis itself compare further the 10 members from Shem to Abraham (11:11-26), as also the pericopes 25:19-35:29; 37:2-50:26 (see III, 2, 8, 10 below), and the 10 nations in Ge 15:19 ff. And just as in the cases cited, in almost every instance, there is to be found a further division into 5 X 2 or 2 X 5 (compare, e.g. the two tables of the Decalogue); thus, too, in the Book of Genesis in each case, 5 of the 10 pericopes are more closely combined, since I-V (toledhoth of Shem inclusive) stand in a more distant, and VI-X (treating of the toledhoth of Terah, or the history of Abraham) in a closer connection with the kingdom of God; and in so far, too, as the first series of toledhoth bring into the foreground more facts and events, but the second series more individuals and persons. Possibly in this case, we can further unite 2 toledhoth; at any rate I and II (the primitive age), III and IV (Noah and his sons), VII and VIII (Ishmael and Isaac), IX and X (Esau and Jacob) can be thus grouped.

(2) Further Indication of Unity.

In addition to the systematic scheme so transparent in the entire Biblical text of the Book of Genesis, irrespective of any division into literary sources, it is to be noticed further, that in exactly the same way the history of those generations that were rejected from any connection with the kingdom of God is narrated before the history of those that remained in the kingdom of God and continued its development. Cain’s history (4:17 ff) in Jahwist (Jahwist) stands before the history of Seth (4:25 f J; 5:3 ff P); Japheth’s and Ham’s genealogy (10:1 ff P; 10:8 ff P and J) before that of Shem (10:21 ff J and P), although Ham was the youngest of the three sons of Noah (9:24); the further history of Lot (19:29 ff P and J) and of Ishmael’s genealogy (25:12 ff P and J) before that of Isaac (25:19 ff P and J and E); Esau’s descendants (36:1 ff R and P) before the toledhoth of Jacob (37:2 ff P and J and E).

In favor of the unity of the Biblical text we can also mention the fact that the Book of Genesis as a whole, irrespective of all sources, and in view of the history that begins with Ex 1 ff, has a unique character, so that e.g. the intimate communion with God, of the kind which is reported in the beginning of this Book of Genesis (compare, e.g. 3:8; 7:16; 11:5 J; 17:1,22; 35:9,13 P; 18:1 ff; 32:31 J), afterward ceases; and that in Ex, on the other hand, many more miracles are reported than in the Book of Genesis (see EXODUS, III, 2); that Genesis contains rather the history of mankind and of families, while Exodus contains that of the nation (see I, 2 above); that it is only in Exodus that the law is given, while in the history of the period of the patriarchs we find only promises of the Divine grace; that all the different sources ignore the time that elapses between the close of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus; and further, that nowhere else is found anything like the number of references to the names of persons or things as are contained in Genesis (compare, e.g. 2:23; 3:20; 4:1,25, etc., in J; 17:5,15,17-20, etc., in P; 21:9,17,31, etc., in E; 21:6; 27:36, etc., in J and E; 28:19, etc., in R; 49:8,16,19, etc., in the blessing of Jacob); that the changing of the names of Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah from Ge 17:5,15 goes on through all the sources, while before this it is not found in any source. Finally, we would draw attention to the psychologically finely drawn portraits of Biblical persons in Genesis. The fact that the personal pronoun hu’ and the noun na‘ar are used of both masculine and feminine genders is characteristic of Genesis in common with all the books of the Pentateuch, without any difference in this regard being found in the different documents, which fact, as all those cited by us in number 1 above, militates against the division of this book into different sources. Let us now examine more closely the reason assigned for the division into different sources.

2. Rejection of the Documentary Theory:

(1) In General.

(a) Statement of Theory:

Old Testament scholars of the most divergent tendencies are almost unanimous in dividing the Biblical text of Genesis into the sources the Priestly Code (P), Jahwist and Elohist, namely Priestly Codex, Jahwist, and Elohist. To P are attributed the following greater and connected parts: 1:1-2:4a; 5; a part of the story of the Deluge in chapters 6-9; 11:10 ff; 17; 23; 25:12 ff; 35:22b ff; the most of 36. As examples of the parts assigned to J we mention 2:4b-4:26; the rest of the story of the Deluge in chapters 6-9; 11:1 ff; 12 f; 16; 18 f, with the exception of a few verses, which are ascribed to P; chapter 24 and others. Connected parts belonging to the Elohist (E) are claimed to begin with chapters 20 and 21 (with the exception of a number of verses which are attributed to P or J or R), and it is thought that, beginning with chapter 22, E is frequently found in the history of Jacob and of Joseph (25:19-50:26), in part, however, interwoven with J (details will be found under III, in each case under 2). This documentary theory has hitherto been antagonized only by a few individuals, such as Klostermann, Lepsius, Eerdmans, Orr, Wiener, and the author of the present article.

(b) Reasons Assigned for Divisions:

As is well known, theory of separation of certain books of the Old Testament into different sources began originally with the Book of Genesis. The use made of the two names of God, namely Yahweh (Yahweh) and Elohim, caused Astruc to conclude that two principal sources had been used in the composition of the book, although other data were also used in vindication of theory; and since the days of Ilgen the conviction gained ground that there was a second Elohist (now called E), in contradistinction to the first (now called the Priestly Code (P), to whom, e.g., Ge 1 is ascribed). This second Elohist, it was claimed, also made use of the name Elohim, as did the first, but in other respects he shows greater similarity to the Jahwist. These sources were eventually traced through the entire Pentateuch and into later books, and for this reason are discussed in detail in the article PENTATEUCH. In this article we must confine ourselves to the Book of Genesis, and limit the discussion to some leading points. In addition to the names for God (see under 2), it is claimed that certain contradictions and duplicate accounts of the same matters compel us to accept different sources. Among these duplicates are found, e.g., Ge 1:1-2:4 a the Priestly Code (P), and 2:4b ff J, containing two stories of creation; Ge 12:9 ff J; 20:1 ff E; 26:1 ff J; with the narrative of how Sarah and Rebekah, the wives of the two patriarchs, were endangered; chapters 15 J and 17 the Priestly Code (P), with a double account of how God concluded His covenant with Abraham; 21:22 ff E and 26:12 ff J, the stories of Abimelech; chapters 16 J and 21 E, the Hagar episodes; 28:10 ff J and E and 35:1 ff E and the Priestly Code (P), the narratives concerning Bethel, and in the history of Joseph the mention made of the Midianites E, and of the Ishmaelites J, who took Joseph to Egypt (37:25 ff; 39:1); the intervention of Reuben E, or Judah J, for Joseph, etc. In addition a peculiar style, as also distinct theological views, is claimed for each of these sources. Thus there found in P a great deal of statistical and systematic material, as in 5:1 ff; 11:10 ff; 25:12 ff; 36:6 ff (the genealogies of Adam, Shem, Ishmael, Esau); P is said to show a certain preference for fixed schemes and for repetitions in his narratives. He rejects all sacrifices earlier than the Mosaic period, because according to this source the Lord did not reveal himself as Yahweh previous to Ex 6:1 ff. Again, it is claimed that the Elohist (E) describes God as speaking to men from heaven, or through a dream, and through an angel, while according to J Yahweh is said to have conversed with mankind personally. In regard to the peculiarities of language used by the different sources, it is impossible in this place to enumerate the different expressions, and we must refer for this subject to the different Introductions to the Old Testament, and to the commentaries and other literature. A few examples are to be found under (c) below, in connection with the discussion of the critical hypothesis. Finally, as another reason for the division of Genesis into different sources, it is claimed that the different parts of the sources, when taken together, can be united into a smooth and connected story. The documents, it is said, have in many cases been taken over word for word and have been united and interwoven in an entirely external manner, so that it is still possible to separate them and often to do this even down to parts of a sentence or to the very words.

(c) Examination of the Documentary Theory:

(i) Style and Peculiarities of Language:

It is self-evident that certain expressions will be repeated in historical, in legal, and in other sections similar in content; but this is not enough to prove that there have been different sources. Whenever J brings genealogies or accounts that are no less systematic than those of P (compare Ge 4:17 ff; 10:8 ff; 22:20-24); or accounts and repetitions occur in the story of the Deluge (Ge 7:2,7; 7:4,12,17; 8:6; 7:4; 8:8,10,12), this is not enough to make the division into sources plausible. In reference to the linguistic peculiarities, it must be noted that the data cited to prove this point seldom agree. Thus, e.g. the verb bara’," create," in Ge 1:1 is used to prove that this was written by the Priestly Code (P), but the word is found also in 6:7 in J. The same is the case with the word rekhush, "possession," which in 12:5; 13:6; 36:7 is regarded as characteristic of the Priestly Code (P), but in 14:11 f, 16,21 is found in an unknown source, and in 15:14 in J. In 12:5; 13:12a; 16:3; 17:8 it is said that ‘erets kena‘an, "land of Canaan," is a proof that this was written by P; but in chapters 42; 44 f; 47; 50 we find this expression in Jahwist and Elohist, in Nu 32:32 in J (R) ; compare also Nu 33:40 (PR) where Nu 21:1-3 (JE) is quoted; shiphchah, "maid servant," is claimed as a characteristic word of J in contrast to E (compare 16:1 ff); but in 16:3; 29:24,29 we find this word not only in P but in 20:14; 30:4,7,18; in E Min, "kind," is counted among the marks of P (compare e.g. 1:11 ff), but in De 14:13,14,18 we find it in Deuteronomy; rather remarkably, too, in the latest find on the Deluge made by Hilprecht and by him ascribed to 2100 BC. Compare on this subject my book, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung, and Orr, POT, chapter vii, section vi, and chapter x, section i; perhaps, too, the Concordance of Mandelkern under the different words. Even in the cases when the characteristic peculiarities claimed for the sources are correct, if the problem before us consisted only in the discovery of special words and expressions in the different sources, then by an analogous process, we could dissect and sever almost any modern work of literature. Particularly as far as the pieces are concerned, which are assigned to the Priestly Code (P), it must be stated that Ge 1 and 23 are, as far as style and language are concerned, different throughout. Ge 1 is entirely unique in the entire Old Testament. Ge 23 has been copied directly from life, which is pictured with exceptional fidelity, and for this reason cannot be claimed for any special source. The fact that the story of the introduction of circumcision in Ge 17 in many particulars shows similarities to the terminology of the law is entirely natural: The same is true when the chronological accounts refer one date to another and when they show a certain typical character, as is, e.g., the case also in the chronological parts of any modern history of Israel. On the other hand, the method of P in its narratives, both in matter and in form, becomes similar to that of Jahwist and Elohist, just as soon as we have to deal with larger sections; compare Ge 28:1 ff; 35:9 ff; 47:5 ff, and all the more in Exodus and Numbers.

Against the claim that P had an independent existence, we must mention the fact of the unevenness of the narratives, which, by the side of the fuller accounts in Ge 1; 17 and 23, of the genealogies and the story of the Deluge, would, according to the critics, have reported only a few disrupted notices about the patriarchs; compare for this in the story of Abraham, 11:27,31 f; 12:4b f; 13:6a 11b, 12a; 16:1a, 3,15 f; 19:29; 21:1b, 2b-5; 25:7-11a; and in its later parts P would become still more incomprehensible on the assumption of the critics (see III below). No author could have written thus; at any rate he would not have been used by anybody, nor would there have been such care evinced in preserving his writings.

(i) Alleged Connection of Matter:

The claim that the different sources, as they have been separated by critics, constitute a compact and connected whole is absolutely the work of imagination, and is in conflict with the facts in almost every instance. This hypothesis cannot be consistently applied, even in the case of the characteristic examples cited to prove the correctness of the documentary theory, such as the story of the Deluge (see III, 2, in each case under (2)).

(ii) The Biblico-Theological Data:

The different Biblical and theological data, which are said to be characteristic in proof of the separation into sources, are also misleading. Thus God in J communes with mankind only in the beginning (Ge 2 f; 16 ff; 11:5; 18 f), but not afterward. In the beginning He does this also, according to the Priestly Code (P), whose conception of God, it is generally claimed, was entirely transcendental (compare Ge 17:1,22; 35:9,13). The mediatorship of the Angel of Yahweh is found not only in E, (Ge 21:17, ‘Elohim), but also in J (Ge 16:7,9-11). In 22:11 in E, the angel of Yahweh (not of the ‘Elohim) calls from heaven; theophanies in the night or during sleep are found also in J (compare Ge 15:12 ff; 26:24; 28:13-16; 32:27). In the case of the Priestly Code (P), the cult theory, according to which it is claimed that this source does not mention any sacrifices before Ex 6:1 ff, is untenable. If it is a fact that theocracy, as it were, really began only in Ex 6, then it would be impossible that P would contain anything of the cults before Ex 6; but we have in P the introduction of the circumcision in Ge 17; of the Sabbath in 2:1 ff; and the prohibition against eating blood in 9:1 ff; and in addition the drink offerings mentioned in 35:14, which verse stands between 35:13 and 15, and, ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), is only in the interests of this theory attributed to the redactor. If then theory here outlined is not tenable as far as P is concerned, it would, on the other hand, be all the more remarkable that in the story of the Deluge the distinction between the clean and the unclean (7:2 ff.8) is found in J, as also the savor of the sacrifice, with the term reach ha-nichoach, which occurs so often in P (compare Ge 8:21 with Nu 15:3,7,10,13 f, 24; 18:17); that the sacrifices are mentioned in Ge 8:20 ff, and the number 7 in connection with the animals and days in 7:4; 8:8,10,12 (compare in the Priestly Code (P), e.g. Le 8:33; 13:5 f, 21,26 f, 31,33,10,54; 14:8 f, 38 f; 14:7,51; 16:14 f; Nu 28:11; 29:8, etc.); further, that the emphasis is laid on the 40 days in Ge 7:4,12,17; 8:6 (compare in the Priestly Code (P), Ex 24:1-8; Le 12:2-4; Nu 13:25; 14:34), all of which are ascribed, not as we should expect, to the Levitical the Priestly Code (P), but to the prophetical J. The document the Priestly Code (P), which, according to a large number of critics, was written during the Exile (see e.g. LEVITICUS, III, 1, or EZEKIEL, sec. II, 2) in a most surprising manner, instead of giving prominence to the person of the high priest, would then have declared that kings were to be the greatest blessings to come to the seed of Abraham (Ge 17:6,16); and while, on the critical assumption, we should have the right to expect the author to favor particularistic tendencies, he, by bringing in the history of all mankind in Ge 1-11, and in the extension of circumcision to strangers (17:12,23), would have displayed a phenomenal universality. The strongest counter-argument against all such minor and incorrect data of a Biblical and a theological character will always be found in the uniform religious and ethical spirit and world of thought that pervade all these sources, as also in the unity in the accounts of the different patriarchs, who are pictured in such a masterly, psychological and consistent manner, and who could never be the result of an accidental working together and interweaving of different and independent sources (see III below).

(iii) Duplicates:

In regard to what is to be thought of the different duplicates and contradictions, see below under III, 2, in each case under (2).

(iv) Manner in Which the Sources Are Worked Together:

(v) Criticism Carried to Extremes:

All the difficulties that have been mentioned grow into enormous proportions when we take into consideration the following facts: To operate with the three sources J, E and P seems to be rather an easy process; but if we accept the principles that underlie this separation into sources, it is an impossibility to limit ourselves to these three sources, as a goodly number of Old Testament scholars would like to do, as Strack, Kittel, Oettli, Dillmann, Driver. The stories of the danger that attended the wives of the Patriarchs, as these are found in Ge 12:9 ff and in 26:1 ff, are ascribed to J, and the story as found in Ge 20:1 ff to E. But evidently two sources are not enough in these cases, seeing that similar stories are always regarded as a proof that there have been different authors. Accordingly, we must claim three authors, unless it should turn out that these three stories have an altogether different signification, in which case they report three actual occurrences and may have been reported by one and the same author. The same use is made of the laughter in connection with the name Isaac in Ge 17:17; 18:12; 21:6, namely, to substantiate the claim for three sources, P and J and E. But since 21:9 E; 26:8 J also contain references to this, and as in 21:6 JE, in addition to the passage cited above, there is also a second reference of this kind, then, in consistency, the critics would be compelled to accept six sources instead of three (Sievers accepts at least 5, Gunkel 4); or all of these references point to one and the same author who took pleasure in repeating such references. As a consequence, in some critical circles scholars have reached the conclusion that there are also such further sources as J1 and Later additions to J, as also E1 and Later additions to E (compare Budde, Baudissin, Cornill, Holzinger, Kautzsch, Kuenen, Sellin). But Sievers has already discovered five subordinate sources of J, six of the Priestly Code (P), and three of E, making a total of fourteen independent sources that he thinks can yet be separated accurately (not taking into consideration some remnants of J, E and P that can no longer be distinguished from others). Gunkel believes that the narratives in Genesis were originally independent and separate stories, which can to a great extent yet be distinguished in their original form. But if J and E and P from this standpoint are no longer authors but are themselves, in fact, reduced to the rank of collectors and editors, then it is absurd to speak any more of distinct linguistic peculiarities, or of certain theological ideas, or of intentional uses made of certain names of God in J and E and the Priestly Code (P), not to say anything of the connection between these sources, except perhaps in rare cases. Here the foundations of the documentary theory have been undermined by the critics themselves, without Sievers or Gunkel or the other less radical scholars intending to do such a thing. The manner in which these sources are said to have been worked together naturally becomes meaningless in view of such hypotheses. The modern methods of dividing between the sources, if consistently applied, will end in splitting the Biblical text into atoms; and this result, toward which the development of Old Testament criticism is inevitably leading, will some day cause a sane reaction; for through these methods scholars have deprived themselves of the possibility of explaining the blessed influence which these Scriptures, so accidentally compiled according to their view, have achieved through thousands of years. The success of the Bible text, regarded merely from a historical point of view, becomes for the critic a riddle that defies all solutions, even if all dogmatical considerations are ignored.

(2) In View of the Names for God.

(a) Error of Hypothesis in Principle:

The names of God, Yahweh and Elohim, constituted for Astruc the starting-point for the division of Genesis into different sources (see (1) above). Two chief sources, based on the two names for God, could perhaps as a theory and in themselves be regarded as acceptable. If we add that in Ex 6:1 ff, in the Priestly Code (P), we are told that God had not revealed Himself before the days of Moses by the name of Yahweh, but only as "God Almighty," it seems to be the correct thing to separate the text, which reports concerning the times before Moses and which in parts contains the name Yahweh, into two sources, one with Yahweh and the other with Elohim. But just as soon as we conclude that the use made of the two names of God proves that there were three and not two sources, as is done from Ge 20 on, the conclusive ground for the division falls away. The second Elohist (E), whom Ilgen was the first to propose (see (1) above), in principle and a priori discredits the whole hypothesis. This new source from the very outset covers all the passages that cannot be ascribed to the Yahweh or the Elohist portions; whatever portions contain the name Elohim, as P does, and which nevertheless are prophetical in character after the manner of J, and accordingly cannot be made to fit in either the Jahwistic or the Elohistic source, seek a refuge in this third source. Even before we have done as much as look at the text, we can say that according to this method everything can be proved. And when critics go so far as to divide J and E and P into many subparts, it becomes all the more impossible to make the names for God a basis for this division into sources. Consistently we could perhaps in this case separate a Yahweh source, an Elohim source, a ha-’Elohim source, an ‘El Shadday source, an ‘Adhonay source, a Mal’akh Yahweh source, a Mal’akh ‘Elohim source, etc., but unfortunately these characteristics of the sources come into conflict in a thousand cases with the others that are claimed to prove that there are different sources in the Book of Genesis.

(b) False Basis of Hypothesis:

But the basis of the whole hypothesis itself, namely, Ex 6:1 ff P; is falsely regarded as such. If Yahweh had really been unknown before the days of Moses, as Ex 6:1 ff P is claimed to prove, how could J then, in so important and decisive a point in the history of the religious development of Israel, have told such an entirely different story? Or if, on the other hand, Yahweh was already known before the time of Moses, as we must conclude according to J, how was it possible for P all at once to invent a new view? This is all the more incredible since it is this author and none other who already makes use of the word Yahweh in the composition of the name of the mother of Moses, namely Jochebed (compare Ex 6:20 and Nu 26:59). In addition, we do not find at all in Ex 6:1 ff that God had before this revealed Himself as ‘Elohim, but as ‘El Shadday, so that this would be a reason for claiming not an ‘Elohim but an ‘El Shadday source for P on the basis of this passage (compare 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 48:3 P—43:14 E! compare also 49:25 in the blessing of Jacob). Finally, it is not at all possible to separate Ex 6:1 ff P from that which immediately precedes, which is taken from JE and employs the name Yahweh; for according to the text of P we do not know who Moses and who Aaron really were, and yet these two are in Ex 6:1 ff regarded as well-known persons. The new revelation of God in Ex 6:1 ff (P) by the side of 3:1 ff (JE and E) is also entirely defensible and rests on a good foundation; for Moses after the failure of Ex 5 needed such a renewed encouragement (see EXODUS, sec. II, 2, 1). If this is the case, then the revelation of the name of Yahweh in Ex 6:1 ff cannot mean that that name had before this not been known at all, but means that it had only been relatively unknown, i.e. that in the fullest and most perfect sense God became known only as Yahweh, while before this He had revealed His character only from certain sides, but especially as to His Almighty Power.

(c) Improbability That Distinction of Divine Names Is without Significance:

(d) Real Purpose in Use of Names for God:

But now it is further possible to show clearly, in connection with a number of passages, that the different names for God are in Genesis selected with a perfect consciousness of the difference in their meanings, and that accordingly the choice of these names does not justify the division of the book into various sources.

(i) Decreasing Use of Yahweh:

The fact that the toledhoth of Terah, of Isaac, and of Jacob begin with the name Yahweh but end without this name. In the history of Abraham are to be noted the following passages: Ge 12:1,4,7,8,17; 13:4,10,13,14,18; 14:22; 15:1,2,8; 16:2,5-7,9,10,11,13; 17:1; in the history of Isaac: 25:21,22,23; 26:2,12,22,24,25,28,29; and in the toledhoth of Jacob 38:7,10; 39:2,3,1. In these passages the beginnings are regularly made with the name Yahweh, although with decreasing frequency before the name Elohim is used, and notwithstanding that in all these sections certain selections from P and E must also be considered in addition to J. Beginning with Ge 12, in which the story of the selection of Abraham is narrated, we accordingly find emphasized, at the commencement of the history of each patriarch, this fact that it is Yahweh, the God of the Covenant, who is determining these things. Beginning with Ge 40 and down to about Ex 2 we find the opposite to be the case, although J is strongly represented in this section, and we no longer find the name Yahweh (except in one passage in the blessing of Jacob, which passage has been taken from another source, and hence is of no value for the distinction of the sources J, E and P; this is the remarkable passage Ge 49:18). In the same way the story of Abraham (Ge 25:1-11) closes without mention being made of the name of Yahweh, which name is otherwise found in all of these histories, except in Ge 23 (see below). The toledhoth of Isaac, too, use the name Yahweh for the last time in 32:10;

and from this passage down to Ge 37:2 the name is not found. It is accordingly clear that in the history of the patriarchs there is a gradual decrease in the number of times in which the name Yahweh occurs, and in each case the decrease is more marked; and this is most noticeable and clearest in the history of Joseph, manifestly in order to make all the more prominent the fact that the revelation of God, beginning with Ex 3:1 ff, is that of Yahweh. These facts alone make the division of this text into three sources J, E and P impossible.

(ii) Reference to Approach of Man to God, and Departure from Him:

The fact, further, that the approach of an individual to God or his departure from God could find its expression in the different uses made of the names of God is seen in the following. In connection with Ishmael and Lot the name Yahweh can be used only so long as these men stood in connection with the kingdom of God through their relation to Abraham (compare Ge 16:7,9,10,11,13 and 13:10; 19:13 f, 16), but only the name Elohim can be used as soon as they sever this connection (compare Ge 21:12,17,19,20 and 19:29). On the other hand, [’Elohim] is used in the beginning of the history of the Gentile Abimelech (Ge 20:3,6,11,13,17; 21:22 f); while afterward, when he has come into closer relations to the patriarchs, the name Yahweh is substituted (Ge 26:28,29). A similar progress is found in separate narratives of the patriarchs themselves, since in Ge 22:1 ff and chapter 28 the knowledge of Elohim is changed into that of Yahweh (compare 22:1,3,1 with 22:11,14,15,16, and 28:12 with 28:13,16).

(iii) Other Reasons:

[’Elohim] can, further, in many cases be explained on the basis of an implied or expressed contrast, generally over against men (compare Ge 22:8,12; in the second of these two passages the fear of God is placed in contrast to godlessness); Ge 30:2; 31:50; 32:2 f; compare with 32:4 and 8; 32:29; 35:5; or on the basis of an accommodation to the standpoint of the person addressed, as in 3:1-5 (serpent); 20:3,6,11,13,17; 23:6; 39:9 (Gentiles); or on the basis of grammar, as in 23:6; 32:3; 28:17,22; because the composition with the proper name Yahweh could never express the indefinite article (a prince of God, a camp of God, a Bethel or house of prayer); or finally in consequence of the connection with earlier passages (compare 5:1 ff with chapter 1; 21:2,4; 28:3 ff; 35:9 ff with chapter 17). A comparison of these passages shows that, of course, different reasons may have induced the author to select the name Elohim, e.g. 23:6; 28:12; 32:12.

(iv) Systematic Use in History of Abraham:

That the names for God are systematically used is finally attested by the fact that in the history of Abraham, after the extensive use of the name Yahweh in its beginning (see above), this name is afterward found combined with a large number of other and different names; so that in each case it is Yahweh of whom all further accounts speak, and yet the name of Yahweh is explained, supplemented and made clear for the consciousness of believers by the new appellations, while the full revelation of His being indeed begins only in Ex 3 and 6:1 ff, at which place the different rays of His character that appeared in earlier times are combined in one brilliant light. The facts in the case are the following. In the story of Abraham, with which an epoch of fundamental importance in the history of revelation begins, we find Yahweh alone in Ge 12 f. With the exception of chapter 23, where a characteristic appellation of God is not found, and 25:1-11, where we can claim a decadence in the conception of the Divinity (concerning 23:6; 25:11; see above, the name of Yahweh is retained in all of these stories, as these have been marked out (III, 2, 6); but beginning with chapter 14 they do not at all use any longer only one name for God. We here cite only those passages where, in each ease, for the first time a new name for God is added, namely, 14:18, ‘El ‘Elyon; 14:19, Creator of heaven and of earth; 15:2, ‘Adhonay; 16:7, the Angel of Yahweh; 16:13, the God that seeth; 17:1, ‘El Shadday; 17:3, ‘Elohim; 17:18, ha-’Elohim; chapters 18 f, special relation to the three men (compare 18:2 and 19:1); 18:25, the Judge of the whole earth; 20:13, ‘Elohim constructed as a plural; 21:17, the Angel of God; 24:3, the God of heaven and the God of the earth; 24:12, the God of Abraham.

(e) Scantiness of the Materials for Proof:

If we add, finally, that to prove the hypothesis we are limited to the meager materials found in Ge 1:1 through Ex 6:1 if; that in this comparatively small number of chapters Ge 40 to Ex 2 cannot be utilized in this discussion (see above under (d); that all those passages, in which J and E are inseparably united must be ignored in this discussion; that all other passages in which J and E are often and rapidly interchanged from the very outset are suspiciously akin to begging the question; that Ge 20:18, which with its "Yahweh" is ascribed to R, is absolutely needed as the conclusion of the preceding Elohim story; that in 21:33 with its "Yahweh" (Yahweh) in the Jahwist (Jahwist), on the other hand, the opening Elohim story from E, which is necessary for an explanation of the dwelling of Abraham in the south country, precedes; that the angel of Yahweh (22:11) is found in E; that 2:4-3:24 from J has besides Yahweh the name Elohim, and in 3:1b-5 only Elohim (see above); that in 17:1; 21:1 P Yahweh is found; that 5:29, which is ascribed to J, is surrounded by portions of the Priestly Code (P), and contains the name Yahweh, and would be a torso, but in connection with chapter 5 the Priestly Code (P), in reality is in its proper place, as is the intervening remark (5:24 P); that, on the other hand, in 4:25; 6:2,4; 7:9; 9:27; 39:9 Elohim is found—in view of all these facts it is impossible to see how a greater confusion than this could result from the hypothesis of a division of the sources on the basis of the use made of the names of God. And then, too, it is from the very outset an impossibility, that in the Book of Genesis alone such an arbitrary selection of the names for God should have been made and nowhere else.

(f) Self-Disintegration of the Critical Position:

The modern critics, leaving out of consideration entirely their further dissection of the text, themselves destroy the foundation upon which this hypothesis was originally constructed, when Sievers demands for Ge 1 (from P) an original Yahweh Elohim in the place of the Elohim now found there; and when others in Ge 18 f J claim an original Elohim; and when in 17:1-21:1 the name Yahweh is said to have been intentionally selected by P.

(g) Different Uses in the Septuagint:

Naturally it is not possible to discuss all the pertinent passages at this place. Even if, in many cases, it is doubtful what the reasons were for the selection of the names for God, and even if these reasons cannot be determined with our present helps, we must probably, nevertheless, not forget that the Septuagint in its translation of Genesis in 49 passages, according to Eerdman’s reckoning, and still more according to Wiener’s, departs from the use of the names for God from the Hebrew original. Accordingly, then, a division of Genesis into different sources on the basis of the different names for God cannot be carried out, and the argument from this use, instead of proving the documentary theory, has been utilized against it.

III. The Structure of the Individual Pericopes.

In this division of the article, there is always to be found (under 1) a consideration of the unity of the Biblical text and (under 2) the rejection of the customary division into different sources.

The conviction of the unity of the text of Genesis and of the impossibility of dividing it according to different sources is strongly confirmed and strengthened by the examination of the different pericopes. Here, too, we find the division on the basis of the typical numbers 4,7,10,12. It is true that in certain cases we should be able to divide in a different way; but at times the intention of the author to divide according to these numbers practically compels acceptance on our part, so that it would be almost impossible to ignore this matter without detriment, especially since we were compelled to accept the same fact in connection with the articles EXODUS (II); LEVITICUS (II, 2); DAY OF ATONEMENT (I, 2, 1), and aIso EZEKIEL (I, 2, 2). But more important than these numbers, concerning the importance or unimportance of which there could possibly be some controversy, are the fundamental religious and ethical ideas which run through and control the larger pericopes of the [toledhoth] of Terah, Isaac and Jacob in such a way that it is impossible to regard this as merely the work of a redactor, and we are compelled to consider the book as the product of a single writer.

1. The Structure of the Prooemium (Genesis 1-2:3):

The structure of the proemium (Ge 1:1-2:3) is generally ascribed to P. Following the introduction (Ge 1:1,2; creation of chaos), we have the creation of the seven days with the Sabbath as a conclusion. The first and the second three days correspond to each other (1st day, the light; 4th day, the lights; 2nd day, the air and water by the separation of the waters above and the waters below; 5th day, the animals of the air and of the water; 3rd day, the dry land and the vegetation; 6th day, the land animals and man; compare also in this connection that there are two works on each day). We find Exodus also divided according to the number seven (see EXODUS, II, 1; compare also Ex 24:18 b through 31:18; see EXODUS, II, 2, 5, where we have also the sevenfold reference to the Sabbath idea in Ex, and that, too, repeatedly at the close of different sections, just as we find this here in Genesis); and in Le compare chapters 23; 25; 27; see LEVITICUS, II, 2, 2; the VIII, IX, and appendix; and in Ge 4:17 ff J; 5:1-24 P; 6:9-9:29; 36:1-37 I (see under 2, 1,2,3,1).

2. Structure of the Ten Toledhoth:

The ten toledhoth are found in Ge 2:4-50:26.

1. The Toledhoth of the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 2:4-4:26):

(1) The Biblical Text.

(a) Ge 2:4-25, Paradise and the first human beings;

(b) 3:1-24, the Fall;

(c) 4:1-16, Cain and Abel;

(d) 4:17-26, the Cainites, in seven members (see under 1 above) and Seth. The number 4 appears also in 5:1-6:8 (see under 2); 10:1-11:9 (see under 4); and especially 11:27-25:11 (under 6). Evidently (a) and (b), (c) and (d) are still more closely connected.

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (Ge 1:1-2:4 a P and 2:4b through 4:26 J).

Ch 2 does not contain a new account of creation with a different order in the works of creation. This section speaks of animals and plants, not for their own sakes, but only on account of their connection with man. The creation of the woman is only a further development of Ge 1. While formerly the critics divided this section into 2:4-4:26 J, they now cut it up into J1 and j2 (see under II, 2, 1 (c) (because, they say, the tree of life is mentioned only in 2:9 and 3:23, while in 2:17 and 3:3 ff the Divine command is restricted to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But it is impossible to see why there should be a contradiction here, and just as little can we see why the two trees standing in the midst of the garden should no~t both have had their significance (compare 2:9; 3:3). It is further asserted that a division of J is demanded by the fact that the one part of J knows of the Fall (6:9 ff), and the other does not know of such a break in the development of mankind (4:17 ff). But the civilization attained by the Cainites could certainly have passed over also to the Sethites (see also 6:2); and through Noah and his sons have been continued after the Deluge. Then, too, the fact that Cain built a city (4:17), and the fact that he became a fugitive and a wanderer (4:12), are not mutually exclusive; just as the beginnings made with agriculture (4:12) are perfectly consistent with the second fact.

2. The Toledhoth of Adam (Ge 5:1-6:8):

(1) The Biblical Text.

(a) Ge 5:1-24, seven generations from Adam to Lamech (see under 1, and Jude 1:14);

(b) Ge 5:25-32, four generations from the oldest of men, Methuselah, down to the sons of Noah;

(c) 6:1-4, intermingling of the sons of God and the sons of men; (d) 6:5-8, corruption of all mankind. Evidently at this place (a) and (b), (c) and (d) correspond with each other.

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (Genesis 5 P with the Exception of 5:29 (see II, 2, 2 (e)); 5:29; 6:1-8 J).

Genesis 6:7 J presupposes chapter 1 P; as, on the other hand, the fact that the generations that, according to chapter 5 the Priestly Code (P), had in the meanwhile been born, die, presupposes the advent of sin, concerning which only J had reported in chapter 3. In the case of the Priestly Code (P), however, in 1:31 it is said that everything was very good.

3. The Toledhoth of Noah (Genesis 6:9-9:29):

(1) The Biblical Text.

Seven sections (see 1 above) viz:

(a) Ge 6:9-22, the building of the ark;

(b) 7:1-9, entering the ark;

(c) 7:10-24, the increase of the Flood;

(d) 8:1-14, the decrease of the Flood;

(e) 8:15-19, leaving the ark;

(f) 8:22-9:17, declaration of a covenant relation between God and Noah;

(g) 9:18-29, transfer of the Divine blessing upon Shem.

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (Genesis 7:1-5,7-10,12,16b, 17,22 f; 8:2b, 3a, 6-12,13b, 20-22; 9:20-27 J, the Rest from P).

In all the sources are found the ideas that the Deluge was the punishment of God for sin; further, the deliverance of the righteous Noah and his wife and three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives; the deliverance of the different kinds of animals; the announcement of the covenant relations between God and mankind after the Deluge; the designation of the Deluge with the term mabbul and of the ark with tebhah. In the Babylonian account, which without a doubt stands in some connection with the Biblical, are found certain measurements of the ark, which in the Bible are only in the Priestly Code (P), as also the story of the sending out of the birds when the flood was decreasing, and of the sacrifices of those who had been delivered, which in the Bible are said to be found only in J; and these facts are a very powerful argument against the division into sources. Further, the Priestly Code (P), in case the critics were right, would have contained nothing of the thanks of Noah for his deliverance, although he was a pious man; and in the case of J we should not be informed what kind of an ark it was into which Noah was directed to go (Ge 7:1 ); nor how he can already in Ge 8:20 build an altar, as he has not yet gone out of the ark; and, further, how the determination of Yahweh, that He would not again curse the earth but would bless it, can be a comfort to him, since only P has reported concerning the blessing (9:1 ff). Even if the distinction is not always clearly made between clean and unclean animals, and different numbers are found in the case of each (6:19 f; 7:14-16 the Priestly Code (P), over against 7:2 f in J), yet this is to be regarded merely as a lack of exactness or, perhaps better, rather as a summary method of procedure. The difficulties are not even made any easier through the separation into sources, since in 7:8 f in J both numbers and the distinction between the two kinds of animals are used indiscriminately. Here, too, in J we find the name Elohim used. The next contradiction that is claimed, namely that the Deluge according to J lasted only 61 days, and is arranged in 40 days (7:4,12,17; 8:6) plus 3 X 7 = 21 days (8:8,10,12), while in P it continues for 1 year and 11 days (7:11,24; 8:3-5,14), is really a self-inflicted agony of the critics. The report of the Bible on the subject is perfectly clear. The rain descends for 40 days (7:12 J); but as in addition also the fountains of the deep are broken up (7:11 P), we find in this fact a reason for believing that they increased still more (7:24 P and 7:17 J). The 40 days in 8:6 J cannot at all be identified with those mentioned in 7:17; for if this were the case the raven would have been sent out at a time when the waters had reached their highest stage, and even according to J the Deluge covered the entire world. In general see above, II, 2, 1 (c).

4. The Toledhoth of the Sons of Noah (Genesis 10:1-11:9):

(1) The Biblical Text.

(a) Ge 10:2-5, the Japhethites;

(b) 10:6-20, the Hamites;

(c) 10:21-32, the Shemites;

(d) 11:1-9, the Babylonian confusion of tongues. Evidently (a) to (c) is to be regarded as in contrast to (d) (compare also 11:1,9 J in addition to 10:32 P).

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (Genesis 10:1-7,20,22 f, 31 f the Priestly Code (P), the Rest Belonging to J).

The distribution of Genesis 10 between P and J is actually ridiculous, since in this case J does not speak of Japheth at all, and the genealogy of the Hamites would connect directly with the Priestly Code (P), a phenomenon which must have been repeated in 10:24 ff. The Jewish Midrash, in addition, and possibly correctly, counts 70 peoples (compare 46:27; Ex 1:5; Nu 11:16,25; Lu 10:1).

5. The Toledhoth of Shem (Genesis 11:10-26):

10 generations (see under II, 1).

6. The Toledhoth of Terah (Ge 11:27-25:11):

(1) The Biblical Text.

After the introduction (Ge 11:27-32), theme of the history of Abraham is given in Ge 12:1-4 a (12:1, the promise of the holy land; 12:2, promise of many descendants; 12:3, announcement of the double influence of Abraham on the world; 12:4a, the obedience of Abraham’s faith in his trust upon the Divine promise). In contrast to the first three thoughts which characterize God’s relation to Abraham, the fourth is placed, which emphasizes. Abraham’s relation to God (see under (d)). But both thoughts give complete expression to the intimate communion between God and Abraham. On the basis of these representations, which run through the entire story and thus contribute materially to its unification, this section can also be divided, as one of these after the other comes into the foreground. These four parts (12:4b through 14:24; 15:1-18:15; 18:16-21:34; 22:1-25:11) can each be divided again into four subdivisions, a scheme of division that is found also in Ex 35:4-40:38; Le 11-15; 16 (compare EXODUS, II, 2, 7; LEVITICUS, II, 2, 2, III and IV; DAY OF ATONEMENT, I, 2, 1), and is suggested by De 12-26 (compare also my book, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung, the results of the investigation of which work are there reproduced without entering upon the details of the argument).

(a) Ge 12:4 through 14:24, in which the reference to the promised land is placed in the foreground; see 12:1, and the passages and statements in parentheses in the following: (i) 12:4b-8, Abraham’s journey to Canaan (12:5 the Priestly Code (P), 6,7,8 J); (ii) 12:9-13:4, descent to Egypt from Canaan, and return (12:9,10; 13:1-4J); 13:5-18, separation from Lot (13:6 the Priestly Code (P), 7,9 J, 12a the Priestly Code (P), 14 f, 17,18 J); chapter 14, expedition against Chedorlaomer, etc. (Abraham is blessed by the priest-king of the country, and receives as homage from the products of the country bread and wine (14:18 f), while he in return gives tithes (14:20)). The division of this section (12:4b through 14:24) is to be based on the similarity of the closing verses (12:8; 13:4; 13:18).

(b) Ge 15:1-18:15, unfolding of the promise of descendants for Abraham by this announcement that he is to have a son of his own; compare 12:2 and what is placed in parentheses in the following: chapter 15, Yahweh’s covenant with Abraham (15:2,3 JE, 4 J, 5 E, 13,14,16,18 J). The promise is not fulfilled through Eliezer, but only through an actual son (15:3,1); 16:1-16, Hagar gives birth to Ishmael as the son of Abraham. Hagar’s son, too, namely Ishmael, is not the genuine heir, notwithstanding the connection between 16:10 and 12:2 (compare 17:18-20 P); chapter 17 the Priestly Code (P), promise of the birth of Isaac given to Abraham (17:2-17,19,21); 18:1-15, Sarah also hears that Isaac is promised (18:10,12-15).

(c) Ge 18:16-21:34, the double influence of Abraham on the world; compare 12:3 and what is in parentheses in the following: 18:16-19:38, the pericope dealing with Sodom; (i) 18:16-33, Abraham’s petition for the deliverance of Sodom; (ii) 19:1-11, the sin of the Sodomites, while Lot shows some of the characteristics of Abraham; (iii) 19:12-28, story of the destruction, in connection with which Lot receives the benefit of his relation to Abraham (19:16,19,21,22); (iv) Lot ceases to be a part of this history after this destruction; 20:1-18, Abraham with Abimelech (20:6,9 E, 18 R, punishment; 20:7,17, intercession); 21:1-21, Ishmael ceases to be part of this history (21:13,18,20 E); 21:22-34, Abraham’s agreement with Abimelech (the latter seeks Abraham’s friendship and fears his enmity, 21:27,23 E).

(d) Ge 22:1-25:11 ff, Abraham’s faith at its culminating point; compare 12:4a and what is in parentheses in the following: (i) 22:1-19, the sacrifice of Isaac (22:2,12 E, 16,18 R); (ii) chapter 23, purchase of the place to bury the dead, which act was the result of his faith in the promised land; (iii) chapter 24 is introduced by 22:20-24, which has no independent character. With the twelve descendants of Nahor compare the twelve sons of Jacob, the twelve of Ishmael (25:12 ff; 17:20), and on the number 12 see Ex 24:18-30:10, under EXODUS, II, 2, 5; Le 1-7 under LEVITICUS, II, 2, 2, i, and under EZEKIEL, I, 2, 2. Ch 24 itself contains the story of how a wife was secured for Isaac from among his relatives (the faith in the success of this plan is transmitted from Abraham to his servant); (iv) 25:1-11, the sons of the concubine of Abraham (J and R) cease to be a part of this history; transfer of the entire inheritance to the son of promise (Jahwist); burial in the ground bought for this purpose (P) (all of these concluding acts stand in close connection with Abraham’s faith). In reference to the force of the names of God in connecting Ge 11:27-25:11, see above under II, 2, 2 (d).

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (Genesis 11:27,31 f; 12:4b, 5; 13:6a, 11b, 12a; 16:1a, 3,15 f; 17; 19:29; 21:1b, 2b-5; 23; 25:7-11a P; 14 from an unknown source; 15:6; 20:1-17; 21:8-32; 22:1-13,19 E; 15:1-3; 21:6 JE; 20:18; 22:14-18; 25:6 R; all else belongs to J).

Through the passages ascribed to P breaks are caused in the text of J in Ge 11:28 f; 12:4a (Lot); in chapter 16, where the conclusion is lacking; in 18:1 (the reference of the pronoun); in 24:67 (Sarah’s death); in 25:1 ff (no mention of Abraham’s death). On the other hand P presupposes the text of J in 11:31 f; 12:4b; 16:1b; 19:29. In the case of E we need mention only the abrupt break in 20:1; and, finally, the text of the Priestly Code (P), leaving out of consideration the larger sections (chapters 17 and 23), is entirely too meager to constitute an independent document.

We will here discuss also the so-called duplicates (see under II, 2, 1, a and c). The different stories concerning the danger in which the wives of Abraham and Isaac were involved in Ge 12:9 ff J; 20:1 ff E; 26:1 ff J directly presuppose each other. Thus, in 20:13, the Elohist (E), Abraham regards it as a fact that such situations are often to be met with, and consequently the possibility of an occurrence of such an event could not have appeared so remarkable to an Oriental as it does to a modern critic; chapter 26:1 suggests the story in 12:9 ff. The words used here also show that the three stories in question did not originate independently of each other (compare 26:7; 20:5; 12:19-26:7; 20:11; 12:12-26:10; 20:9; 12:18-26:3; 20:1; 12:10 (gur); see under II, 2, 1, c). The two Ishmael pericopes (chapters 16 J and P and 21 E) differ from each other throughout, and, accordingly, are surely not duplicates. The two stories of the conclusion of a covenant in chapters 15 J and 17 P are both justified, especially since in 17:7 the author speaks of an "establishment" of the covenant which already existed since chapter 15. Ge 17 P and 18:1 ff J are certainly intended to be pendants, so that it is impossible to ascribe them to different authors; compare the analogous beginning of theophanies of Yahweh in 17:1 and 18:1 (even the pronoun referring to Abraham in 18:1 J, unless taken in connection with chapter 17 the Priestly Code (P), is without any context), also the laughing of Abraham and of Sarah (17:17; 18:12 f; see under II, 2, 1 (c)), the prominence given to their age (17:17; 18:11 f), and the designation of the time in 17:11; 18:10,14.

Nor can we quote in favor of a division into sources the passage Ge 21:14 f E, on the ground that Ishmael is described here as being so small that he could be laid upon the shoulder of his mother and then be thrown by her under a shrub, while according to the Biblical text he must have been 15 years of age (16:16; 21:5 P). For the original does not say that he was carried on her shoulders; and in Mt 15:30 it is even said of adults that they were thrown down. On the other hand, also according to E, Ishmael could not have been so small a child, for in Ge 21:18 b he is led by the hand, and according to 21:9 he already mocks Isaac, evidently because the latter was the heir of the promise.

Sarah’s age, too, according to Ge 20 E, does not speak in favor of a division into sources. That she was still a beautiful woman is not claimed here. Evidently Abimelech was anxious only for a closer connection with the powerful Abraham (compare 21:23,17). Then, too, all the sources ascribe an advanced age to Sarah (compare 21:6 J and E; 18:12 f J; 17:17 P).

7. The Toledhoth of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12-18):

Twelve princes descended from Ishmael (see under 6 (d)).

8. The Toledhoth of Isaac (Genesis 25:19-35:29):

The correct conception of the fundamental thought can be gained at once in the beginning of this section (Ge 25:22 f): Yahweh’s oracle to Rebekah, that the older of the twins, with whom she was pregnant, should serve the younger; also in Ro 9:10 ff with reference to Mal 1:2 f; and finally, the constant reference made to Esau in addition to Jacob until the former ceases to be a factor in this history in Ge 36. Accordingly in the end everything is made dependent on the one hand on Jacob’s election, notwithstanding his wrongdoings, on the other hand, on Esau’s rejection notwithstanding his being the firstborn, or in other words, upon the perfectly free grace of God; and all the different sources alike share in this fundamental thought. But in dividing between the different parts of this section, we must particularly draw attention to this, that in all of these parts both thoughts in some way or other find their expression.

(1) The Biblical Text.

Containing 10 parts (see under II, 1), namely

(a) Ge 25:19-26, the birth of Esau and Jacob;

(b) 25:27-34, Esau despises and loses his birthright;

(c) 26:1-35, Isaac receives the blessing of Abraham, which afterward is transmitted to Jacob, while Esau, through his marriage with heathen women, prepares the way for his rejection (26:34 f);

(d) 27:1-40, Jacob steals the blessing of the firstborn;

(e) 27:41-45, Jacob’s flight out of fear of Esau’s vengeance;

(f) 27:46-28:9, Jacob is sent abroad out of fear of his brother’s bad example;

(g) 28:10-32:33, Jacob in a strange land and his fear of Esau, which is overcome in his contest of prayer in Peniel on his return: 28:10-22, the ladder reaching to heaven in Bethel when he went abroad; 29:1-30:43, twenty years with Laban (see 31:38); 31:1-54, Jacob’s departure from Mesopotamia; 32:1-33, his return home;

(h) chapter 33, reconciliation with Esau, who returns to Seir (verse 16; compare 32:4), while Jacob becomes the owner of property in the Holy Land (33:19 f);

(i) 34:1-35:22, Jacob remains in this land, notwithstanding the slaughter made by his sons Simeon and Levi (compare 34:30; 35:5); the new appearance of God in Bethel, with a repetition of the story of the changing of Jacob’s name, with which the story of Jacob’s youth is closed, and which presupposes the episode at Bethel (compare 35:1,6b, 9-15 with 28:10 ff), and which is not in contradiction with the first change in the name of Jacob in chapter 32 (compare the twofold naming of Peter in Joh 1:43 and Mt 16:18). Esau is yet mentioned in Ge 35:1,7, where there is a reference made to Jacob’s flight before him;

(j) 35:23-29, Jacob’s 12 sons as the bearers of the promise; while Esau is mentioned only as participating in Isaac’s burial, but inwardly he has no longer any part in the history of the kingdom of God, as is seen from chapter 36, and in 32:4; 33:16 is already hinted at. In this section, too, evidently there are groups, each of two parts belonging together, namely (a) and (b) describing the earliest youth; (c) and (d) in which Isaac plays a prominent part; (e) and (f) both of which do not exclude but supplement each other in assigning the motives for Jacob’s flight; (g) and (h) Jacob’s flight and reconciliation; (i) and (j) Jacob both according to family and dwelling-place as the recognized heir of the promise.

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources.

As Ge 25:29 f, 26b; 26:34 f; 27:46-28:9; 29:24,29; 31:18; 35:6a, 9-12,15; 35:22b-29; 36:6-30,40-43 are ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), it is clear that these are in part such ridiculously small extracts, that we should be justified in attributing them to a sensible author. The whole sojourn in Mesopotamia is ignored in the Priestly Code (P), according to the critics, except the brief notices in 29:24,29; 33:18. Further, the parts of the rest of the text cannot in many cases be dispensed with; as, e.g. we do not know in 25:26b who was born; nor in 26:34 f who Esau was; nor in 27:46 who Jacob was; nor in 29:24 who Laban was; nor in 29:24,29 in what connection and for what purposes Leah and Rachel are mentioned. P makes no mention of any promise given to Isaac, which is, however, presupposed in 35:12 and later in Ex 2:24. In Ge 28:1 ff P is most closely connected with J (compare 12:1-3, the blessing of Abraham, and chapter 24). It is, further, impossible to separate the sources E and J in chapter 28 (ladder reaching to heaven); compare 28:10-12,17 f, 20-22 E; 28:13-16 J; 28:19, and the name of God in 28:21 R, and this proposed division actually becomes absurd in chapters 29 f in the story of the birth of Jacob’s children, which are said to be divided between the sources J and E.

9. The Toledhoth of Esau (Genesis 36:1-37:1):

In 7 divisions (see under 1), namely

(a) Ge 36:1-5 R, Esau’s family; the different names for Esau’s wives, as compared with 26:34 f; 28:7-9 the Priestly Code (P), are doubtless based on the fact that oriental women are apt to change their names when they marry; and the fact that these names are without further remark mentioned by the side of the others is rather an argument against the division into sources than for it;

(b) 36:6-8, Esau’s change of abode to Seir, which, according to 32:4; 33:14,16, already took place before Jacob’s return. Only in case that Esau (35:29) would have afterward remained for a longer period in Canaan, could we think of a new separation in this connection. It is more probable that at this place all those data which were of importance in connection with this separation are once more given without any reference to their difference in point of time;

(c) 36:9-14, Esau as the founder of the Edomites (in 36:9 the word [toledhoth] is repeated from verse 1, while the narrative of the descendants of Esau begins only at this later passage in so far as these were from Seir; compare 36:9 with 36:5, and above, under II, 1);

(d) 36:15-19, the leading line of the sons of Esau;

(e) 36:20-30, genealogy of the original inhabitants of the country, mentioned because of their connection with Esau (compare 36:25 with 36:2);

(f) 36:31-39, the elective kingdoms of Edom;

(g) 36:40-43, the Edomites’ chief line of descent, arranged according to localities. We have here accordingly geographical accounts, and not historical or genealogical, as in 36:15 ff, 20 ff (30); compare also 36:40,43, for which reason we find also names of women.

10. The Toledhoth of Jacob (Genesis 37:2-50:26):

(1) The Biblical Text.

The key to the history of Joseph is found in its conclusion, namely, in Ge 50:14-21, in the confession of Joseph, in the light of his past, namely, that God has ended all things well; and in 50:22 ff, in his confidence in the fulfillment of the Divine promise in the lives of those God has chosen; compare also Ps 105:16 ff. According to the two viewpoints in Ge 50:14-26, and without any reference to the sources, this whole pericope (37:2-50:15) is divided into two halves, each of five subdivisions, or a total of ten (see under II, 1). In the exact demonstration of this, not only the contents themselves, but also regard for the different names for God will often render good service, which names, with good effect, are found at the close and in harmony with the fundamental thought of the entire section, namely,

(a) 37:2-39:6a, Joseph enters Potiphar’s house (4 pieces, see under 6, 1, namely 37:2-11, the hatred of the brethren, 37:12-36, selling Joseph, 38:1 ff, the Yahweh-displeasing conduct in the house of Judah, compare 38:7,10, 39:1-6, Yahweh’s pleasure in Joseph, in contrast to;

(b) 39:6b-23, Joseph is cast into prison, but Yahweh was with him (39:21,23);

(c) 40:1-41:52, the exaltation of Joseph, which at the end especially is shown by the naming of Ephraim and Manasseh as caused by God, but which for the present passes by the history of his family (4 pieces, namely, 40:1, interpretation of the dreams of the royal officials, 41:1-36, interpretation of the two dreams of Pharaoh, 41:37-46a, the exaltation of Joseph, 41:46b-52, Joseph’s activity for the good of the country);

(d) 41:55-46:7, Joseph becomes a blessing to his family; compare the promise of God to Jacob in Beersheba to be with him in Egypt in 46:2 ff with 45:6-9 (in four pieces, namely, 41:53-57, the general famine, 42:1-38, the first journey of the brothers of Joseph, 43:14-4:34, the second journey (in four subdivisions,

(i) 43:1-14, the departure,

(ii) 43:14-34, the reception by Joseph,

(iii) 44:1-7, final trial of the brethren,

(iv) 44:18-34, the intercession of Judah); 45:1-46:7, Joseph makes himself known and persuades Jacob to come to Egypt);

(e) 46:8-47:26, Joseph continues to be a blessing to his family and to Egypt (in 4 subdivisions, of which the 4th is placed in contrast to the first 3 exactly as this is done in 10:1-11:9 and 11:27-25:11, namely, (46:8-27, list of the descendants of Jacob, 46:28-34, meeting with Joseph, 47:1-12, Jacob in the presence of Pharaoh, 47:13-26, the Egyptians who have sold themselves and their possessions to Pharaoh laud Joseph as the preserver of their lives). From this point on the attention is now drawn to the future:

(f) 47:27-31, Jacob causes Joseph to take an oath that he will have him buried in Canaan (compare 47:30 J with chapter 23 P) ; in (e) and (f) there is also lacking a designation for God;

(g) chapter 48, Jacob adopts and blesses Ephraim and Manasseh (compare also the emphasis placed on the providential guidance of God in 48:8 f, 11,15 f, especially 48:16 and 20 ff);

(h) 49:1-27, Jacob blesses his 12 sons and prophesies their future fate (here, 49:18, appears the name of Yahweh, which had disappeared since chapter 40; see under II, 2, 2 (d), and other designations for God, 49:24 f);

(i) 49:28-33, Jacob’s death after he had again expressed the wish, in the presence of all his sons, that he should be buried in Canaan;

(j) 50:1-13, the body of Jacob is taken to Canaan. In these 10 pericopes again we can easily find groups of two each, namely, (a) and (b), Joseph’s humiliation (sold, prison); (c) and (d), Joseph becomes a blessing to Egypt and to his family; (g) and (h), blessing of the, grandchildren and the sons of Jacob;

(i) and (j), Jacob s death and burial; here too the name of God is lacking as in (e) and (f).

(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources.

Here, too, the separation of P from the rest of the text as a distinct source is untenable, since in the section from Ge 37:2-46:34, after 37:2, only the following fragments are attributed to this source, namely, 41:46a; 46:6 f (according to some also to 46:27). In the same way P abruptly sets in at 47:5,27b; 49:28b. Further, 48:3 ff knows nothing of Ephraim or Manasseh, of whom P reports nothing, so that 50:13 f are the only verses that could naturally connect with the preceding statements of P. In 47:5 ff P reports entirely in the manner of ordinary narratives, and there is no sign of any systematic arrangement. But the separation between J and E cannot be carried out either. In the first place, when these two sources are actually separated by the critics, innumerable omissions in the story arise, which we cannot at this place catalogue. The contradictions which are claimed to exist here are the products of the critics’ imagination. It is claimed that according to J it is Judah who plays a prominent role, while according to E it is Reuben; but in 37:21 Reuben is mentioned by J, and the role played by Judah in chapter 38 J is anything but creditable. Why cannot both of these brethren have played a prominent role, as this was also the case with Simeon (42:24,36; 43:14) and Benjamin (42:13,10,32 ff, 36,38; 43:3 ff; 44; 45:14)? Just as little are the Midianites in 37:28,36 E and the Ishmaelites of 37:25,27,28; 39:1 J mutually exclusive or contradictory, since the Midianites in the Gideon story, too, in Jud 7 f; 8:24 are called Ishmaelites (compare in the German the name Prager for traveling musicians, whether they are from Prague or not). In J it is further claimed that Joseph’s master was a private gentleman (Ge 39:1 ), while in E he was the captain of the bodyguard (Ge 40:3 f). But in this instance the documentary theory can operate only when it calls in the assistance of R in Ge 39:1. The fact that in chapter 39:1 the name of the nationality is added to that of the office, is explained on the ground of the contrast to the Ishmaelites who sold Joseph. Finally, it is claimed to have been caused by the combination of the different sources in such a way that Benjamin in 43:8,29; 44:30,31,33 J is described as a boy, but in 46:21, R or the Priestly Code (P), as the father of ten children. But evidently the author of chapter 46 has in view the number 70 (compare verse 27; see Ex 1:5; Nu 11:16,25; Lu 10:1; Ex 15:27; Jud 12:13; and in Ge 10 above, under 4,2); and for this reason, e.g. in Ge 46:17, he mentions only one grand-daughter of Jacob; and for this he mentions all of the descendants of Jacob, even those who were born later in Egypt, but who already, as it were, had come to Egypt in the loins of their fathers, according to the view of the author. It certainly would be remarkable if no more grandchildren had been born to Jacob in Egypt, since Nu 26 does not mention a single son of any of the sons of Jacob later than those reported in Ge 46. In 46:27 Joseph’s sons, too, who were born in Egypt, are included in the list, entirely in harmony with De 10:22. For such an arrangement and adjustment of a genealogy compare the 3 X 14 generations in Mt 1. From this point of view no conclusions, as far as the documentary theory is concerned, can be drawn from the ten sons of Benjamin.

IV. The Historical Character.

1. History of the Patriarchs: (Genesis 12-50):

(1) Unfounded Attacks upon the History.

(a) From General Dogmatic Principles:

In order to disprove the historical character of the patriarchs, the critics are accustomed to operate largely with general dogmatic principles, such as this, that no nation knows who its original founder was. In answer to this it can be said that the history of Israel is and was from the beginning to the end unique, and cannot be judged by the average principles of historiography. But it is then claimed that Abraham’s entire life appears to be only one continuous trial of faith, which was centered on the one promise of the true heir, but that this is in reality a psychological impossibility. Over against this claim we can in reply cite contrary facts from the history of several thousands of years; and that, too, in the experience of those very men who were most prominent in religious development, such as Paul and Luther.

(b) From Distance of Time:

Secondly, critics emphasize the long period of time that elapsed between these events themselves and their first records, especially if these records can be accredited to so late a period as the 9th or the 8th century BC. In consequence of this, it is claimed that much of the contents of Genesis is myth or fable; and Gunkel even resolves the whole book into a set of unconnected little myths and fables. Over against this claim we can again appeal to the universal feeling in this matter. I do not think that it can be made plausible, that in any race fables and myths came in the course of time more and more to be accepted as actual facts, so that perchance we should now be willing to accept as historical truths the stories of the Nibelungenlied or Red Riding Hood. But this, according to the critics, must have been the case in Israel. Prophets accepted the story of the destruction of the two cities in the Jordan valley, as recorded in Ge 19, as correct (compare Am 4:11; Isa 1:9; 3:9; Ho 11:8); also Abraham as a historical person (Isa 29:22; 41:8; 51:1; Mic 7:20; Jer 33:26; Eze 33:24; and possibly Mal 2:15); then Isaac (Am 7:9,16; Jer 33:26); also Jacob (Ho 12:3 ff; Am 9:8; Jer 33:26); also Joseph (Am 5:6,15); and these prophets evidently thought that these events and persons were regarded as historical by the people in general. In the New Testament we can cite, for Abraham, Mt 3:9; Ga 3; 4:21 ff; Ro 4:9 ff; 9:7 ff; Heb 7:1 ff; 11:8 ff; Jas 2:21 ff, and especially the words of Jesus in Mt 8:11; Lu 16:22 ff; Joh 8:52 ff; finally in Mt 22:31 f, the whole argument for the resurrection of the dead is without a foundation if the patriarchs are not historical personages. Over against this, there was no period in the history of Israel in which it can be shown that these stories of Genesis Were regarded only as myths. If these events were actual occurrences, then those things which the patriarchs experienced were so unique that these experiences were not forgotten for a long time. Then, too, we can also refer to the strength of the memory of those nations that were not accustomed to have written records of their history.

(c) From Biblical Data:

Finally, the attempt has been made to discover in the Bible itself a pre-Mosaic stage in its ideas of man concerning God, which is claimed to contradict the higher development of Divine ideas in the patriarchs, for which purpose the critics appeal to Eze 23:3,1; 20:7 ff; Jos 24:14 ff. But at these places it is evident that the idolatry of the people is pictured as apostasy. And when in Ex 6:2 ff the name of Yahweh is as a matter of fact represented as something new, it is nevertheless a fact that in these very passages the revelation given is connected with the history of the patriarchs. The same is true of Ex 3:1 ff. The whole hypothesis that the religion before the days of Moses was polytheistic has not been derived from the Bible, but is interpreted into it, and ends in doing violence to the facts there recorded (compare my book, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit).

(d) From Comparison with Religion of Arabia:

The critics further compare the pre-Mosaic religion of Israel with the low grade of religion in Arabia in the 5th century after Christ; but in order to do this, they must isolate Israel entirely, since all the surrounding nations at the time of the Tell el-Amarna Lettershad attained to an altogether different and higher stage of religious development and civilization.

(2) Unsatisfactory Attempts at Explaining the Patriarchal Age.

(a) Explanation Based on High Places:

In denying the historical character of the account of the patriarchs in Genesis, the critics are forced to contrive some scheme in explanation of the existence of these stories, but in doing this they make some bad breaks. Thus, e.g., they say that the Israelites when they entered Canaan found there the high places of the heathen peoples; and since if they wanted to make use of these in the service of Yahweh they must first declare them legitimate places of worship, this was done by inventing the history of the patriarchs, who long before this are said to have already consecrated all these places to the Yahweh worship. But how is it possible on this supposition to explain the story of Joseph, which transpired in Egypt? Then, too, the reasons for the origin of the other stories of the patriarchs would be enshrouded in a remarkable mystery and would be of very inferior character. Again, it is nowhere declared in the passages of Genesis that here come into consideration that they are reporting the beginnings of a permanent cult when they give an account of how God appeared to the patriarchs or when they erected altars in His honor. And, finally, while it is indeed true that the cult localities of the patriarchs are in part identical with those of later times (compare Bethel, Beersheba)—and this is from the outset probable, because certain places, such as hills, trees, water, etc., as it were, of themselves were suitable for purposes of the cult—yet such an identification of earlier and later localities does not cover all cases. And can we imagine that a prophetical method of writing history would have had any occasion in this manner to declare the worship of calves in Bethel a legitimate service?

(b) The Dating Back of Later Events to Earlier Times:

But we are further told that the pre-prophetic condition of affairs in Israel was in general dated back into the primitive period, and this was done in such a way that the character of Abraham was regarded as reproducing ideal Israel, and the character of Jacob the empirical Israel in the past; something that certainly is from the outset an odd speculation of too much learning! If this explanation is correct, what shall we then do with Isaac and Joseph? And why is the whole story of the condition of civilization pictured in Genesis so entirely different from that of later times? And is Abraham really a perfect ideal? Is he not rather, notwithstanding his mighty faith, a human being of flesh and blood, who can even doubt (Ge 15:2 f; 17:17); who can make use of sinful means to realize the promise (Ge 16, Hagar); who tells a falsehood, although for the best of purposes, namely, to protect his wife (Ge 12:9 ), and for this reason must accept the rebuke of the heathen Abimelech (Ge 20:9 f)? In addition, Abraham is married to his half-sister (Ge 20:12), which, according to De 27:22; Le 18:9,11; 20:17, is forbidden with the penalty of death for the transgressor. In the same way Jacob, according to Ge 29 f, has two sisters as wives, which is also declared by Le 18:18 to be a crime.

(c) The Patriarchs as heroes eponymi:

In the third place, it is said that the people have in the persons of the patriarchs made for themselves eponymous heroes. But why did they make so many at one time? In addition, Abraham cannot possibly be regarded as such a hero as Jacob or Israel is, and in exceptional cases also Isaac and Joseph (Am 7:9,16; 5:6,15). It is not correct to place genealogies like those in Ge 10:1 ff; 25:1 ff, 13 ff on a level with the stories concerning the patriarchs. In the latter case we are dealing with individualities of pronounced character, who in the experiences of their lives represent great fundamental principles and laws in the kingdom of God—Abraham, the principle of the grace of God, to which faith on the part of man is the counterpart; Jacob, the principle of Divine election; Joseph, that of the providential guidance of life; while Isaac, it is true, when he becomes prominent in the history, evinces no independent character, but merely follows in the footsteps of Abraham (compare 26:1 ff, 3 ff, 15,18,24 ff), but is in this very imitative life pictured in an excellent way.

(d) Different Explanations Combined:

If we combine two or more of these different and unsatisfactory attempts at an explanation of the history of the patriarchs, we must become all the more distrustful, because the outcome of this combination is such an inharmonious scheme.

(3) Positive Reasons for the Historical Character of Genesis.

The individuality of the patriarchs as well as their significance in the entire development of the history of the kingdom of God, and their different missions individually; further, the truthful portraiture of their method of living, which had not yet reached the stage of permanent settlement; and, finally, the fact that the prophets, the New Testament and above all Jesus Himself regard their historical character as something self-evident (see (1b) above), make the conviction a certainty, that we must insist upon their being historical personages; especially, too, because the attacks on this view (see (1) above), as also the efforts to explain these narratives on other grounds (see (2) above), must be pronounced to be failures. To this we must add the following: If Moses were the founder of the religion of Israel, it would scarcely have been possible that a theory would have been invented and have found acceptance that robs Moses of this honor by the invention of the story of the patriarchs. Rather the opposite would be the case. Besides, this older revelation of God is absolutely necessary in order to make Moses’ work and success intelligible and possible. For he himself expressly declares that his work is based on the promises of God given to the fathers. Through this connection with the older revelation it was possible for Moses to win the attention and the confidence of the people (compare Ex 2:24; 3:6,13 ff; 4:5; 6:3,1; 15:2; 32:13 f; 33:1; compare also my book, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit, 117 ff; and Strack, Genesis, 93 ff).

Individuality of Patriarchs:

In so far as the history of the patriarchs contains miracles, they are in perfect harmony with the entire character of sacred history (compare EXODUS, III, 2); and as far as the number of miracles is concerned, there are in fact fewer reported in the days of the patriarchs than in the times of Moses.. On the view that the history of the patriarchs, which is earlier than the period of Moses, was an invention and not history, the opposite condition of affairs could be expected. Leaving out of consideration the unsatisfactory instances cited under V, 2, below, there is to be found also in the Book of Genesis absolutely no reference to indicate events of a later period, which would throw a doubt on the historical character of what is here reported. In every direction (e.g. in connection with theophanies and the cult worship), there is a noticeable progress to be seen in going from Genesis to Exodus, a fact which again is an important argument for the historical reliability of the contents of both books. Finally, we add the following. Ch 14 (the Chedorlaomer and the Melchizedek episodes) has through recent archaeological researches been brilliantly confirmed as far as the names are concerned, as also in reference to the political conditions of the times, the general historical situation and the chronology. In the same way the religious conditions of Egypt, as described in Ge 12, and in the entire history of Joseph, are so faithfully pictured that it is absolutely impossible to regard these accounts as the work of imagination. These accounts must be the outcome, on the part of the author, of a personal knowledge of these things and conditions, as they are absolutely correct, even to the details of the coloring.

2. The Primitive History of Genesis 1-11:

(1) Prominence of the Religious Element.

In the primitive history as recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis we must yet emphasize, more than is done elsewhere, that the chief interest for the Christian is found in the religious and moral teachings of this account; and that these teachings remain unshaken, even when chronological, historical, archaeological, physical, geographical or philological sciences would tempt us to reach negative conclusions. It is a wise thing, from the outset, not to be too timid in this direction, and to concede considerable liberty in this matter, when we remember that it is not the purpose of the Bible to give us scientific knowledge in scientific forms, but to furnish us with religious and ethical thoughts in a language which a childlike mind, that is open to Divine things, can understand.

(2) Carefulness as Regards Divergent Results of Scientific Research.

On the other hand, it is right over against the so-called "results" of these different sciences to be very critical and skeptical, since in very many cases science retracts today what with a flourish of trumpets it declared yesterday to be a "sure" result of investigations; e.g. as far as the chronology is concerned, the natural and the historical sciences often base their computations on purely arbitrary figures, or on those which are constructed entirely upon conclusions of analogy, and are far from conclusive, if perchance the history of the earth or of mankind has not at all times developed at the same pace, i.e. has moved upward and downward, as e.g. a child in its earlier years will always learn more rapidly than at any later period of its life.

(3) Frequent Confirmation of the Bible by Science.

But finally the Holy Scriptures, the statements of which at this period are often regarded slightingly by theologians, are regarded much more highly by men of science. This is done, e.g., by such scientists as Reinke and K.E. von Baer, who declare that Moses, because of his story of the creation, was a man of unsurpassed and unsurpassable scientific thought; or when many geological facts point to such an event as the Deluge in the history of the earth. The history of languages, as a whole and in its details, also furnishes many proofs for the correctness of Ge 10, and that chapter has further been confirmed in a most surprising manner by many other discoveries (compare the existence of Babel at a period earlier than Nineveh, and the colonizing of Assur by Babel). Then facts like the following can be explained only on the presupposition that the reports in Genesis are correct, as when a Dutchman in the 17th century built an ark after the measurements given in Genesis and found the vessel in every particular adapted to its purposes; and when today we again hear specialists who declare that the modern ocean sailing vessel is being more and more constructed according to the relative proportions of the ark.

(4) Superiority of the Bible over Heathen Mythologies.

Finally, the similarity of the Biblical and the Babylonian accounts of the creation and the Deluge, as these have been discovered by learned research (and we confine ourselves to these two most important reports)—although this similarity has been misinterpreted and declared to be hostile to the historical reliability and the originality of Ge 1 and Ge 6-9—does not prove what critics claim that it does. Even if we acknowledge that the contents of these stories were extant in Babylon long before the days of Moses, and that these facts have been drawn from this source by Israel, there yet can be no question that the value of these accounts, the fact that they are saturated with a monotheistic and ethical spirit, is found only in Israel and has been breathed into them only by Israel. For the inner value of a story does not depend upon its antiquity, but upon its spirit. But even this conception of the matter, which is shared by most theologians, cannot satisfy us. When we remember how Babylonian mythology is honeycombed by the grossest superstition and heathenism, and that our ethical feelings are often offended by it in the most terrible manner, it is really not possible to see how such a system could have had any attraction for Israel after the Spirit, and how a man who thought as a prophet could have taken over such stories. If Israel has been a pathfinder in the sphere of religion, as is acknowledged on all hands, why do the critics always talk of their borrowing from others? And then, since similar stories are found also among other nations, and as the natural sciences are anything but a unit in hostility to the Biblical narratives, all these factors can find a satisfactory explanation only on the supposition that there existed an original or primitive revelation, and that in Israel this revelation was transmitted in its greater purity, while among the other nations it was emptied of its contents or was perverted. In this way the universality of these stories can be explained, as also the inferiority in character of similar stories among the other nations.

Babylonian and Biblical Stories

The particularly close connection that exists between the Babylonian and the Biblical versions of these stories is in perfect harmony with the fact that it was from Babylon that the dispersion of mankind set in. The purity of the Biblical tradition is further attested by the fact that it reports the actual history of all mankind (see under I, 2), while the mythologies of other nations are restricted nationally and locally, i.e. the beginnings of the history of the individual nations and the beginnings of the history of mankind are identical, and the earliest history is always reported as taking place in the native land of the people reporting it. The fact that in earlier times there prevailed in Babylon too a purer knowledge of God, which, however, steadily degenerated, is proved by many data, and especially by the recently discovered fragment of a Deluge story, according to which the God who destroyed the world by the Flood and the God who delivered the one family is the same God, which is in perfect agreement with the Bible, but is in contradiction to the later Babylonian story. That in earlier times a purer conception of God prevailed, seems to be confirmed also by the experiences of the missionaries. Evolutionism, i.e. the development of a higher conception of God out of a lower, is nothing but an unproved theory, which at every step is contrary to actual facts. Compare also my book, Die Entwicklung der Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit, 129 ff, and Schmidt, Die babylonische Religion: Gedanken uber ihre Entwicklung, a dissertation in which the fact that religion naturally degenerates is proved also as far as the Greeks, the Egyptians, the East Indians and the Chinese are concerned.

V: Origin and Authorship of Genesis.

1. Connection with Mosaic Times:

That the Book of Genesis stands in some kind of literary connection with the succeeding books of the Pentateuch is generally acknowledged. But if this is the case, then the question as to the origin and the time of the composition of this whole body of books can be decided only if we take them all into consideration. In this article we have only to consider those facts which are found in Genesis for the solution of this problem. It is self-evident that the conclusion we have reached with reference to the literary unity of the book is of great importance for this question (see under II and III above). The historical character of the book, as demonstrated under IV above, also speaks emphatically for this claim that the literary composition of the book must have taken place when the memory of these events was still trustworthy, and the impression and experiences were still fresh and had not yet faded. Such individualistic and vivid pictures of historical personages as are reported by Genesis, such a faithful adherence to the accounts of the civilization in the different countries and districts and at different times, such detailed accounts of foreign customs, conditions and historical events, could scarcely. have been possible, if the Mosaic age with its powerful new impressions, the period of the Judges, with its characteristic apostasy, or even the division of Israel into two kingdoms, with its dire effects on the external union of the people, had all passed by before these accounts were actually written down. On the other hand, the highly developed prophetic conception of these events, and the skillful plan of the book demand that the author must have been a religious and ethical personality of the first rank. And as, finally, it is scarcely credible that Moses would have failed to provide for a systematic report of the great past of the people, for which account, before this and as long as only family histories were involved, there was no need felt, and as the subsequent books of the Pentateuch, which are acknowledged in a literary way to be connected with Genesis, in many of their parts expressly declare that Moses was their author (compare EXODUS, IV), the Mosaic authorship of this book is as good as proved. This is not to deny that older sources and documents were used in the composition of the book, such as perhaps the genealogical tables or the events recorded in Ge 14, possibly, too, some referring to the history of the times before the Deluge and before Abraham. This is probable; but as all the parts of the book have been worked together into a literary unity (see under II and III above), and as such sources are not expressly mentioned, it is a hopeless task to try to describe these different sources in detail or even to separate them as independent documents, after the manner refuted under II and III above, as a theory and in its particulars. And for the age of Genesis, we can refer to the fact that the personal pronoun here is still used for both genders, masculine and feminine, which is true also of the word na‘ar ("youth"), a peculiarity which is shared also by the other books of the Pentateuch almost throughout.

2. Examination of Counter-Arguments:

(1) Possibility of Later Additions.

In itself it would be possible that from time to time some explanatory and interpreting additions could have been made to the original text, in case we find indications of a later period in some statements of the book. But that in this case these additions could not have been made by any unauthorized persons, but only officially, should, in the case of a book like Genesis, be regarded as self-evident. But in our times this fact must be emphasized all the more, as in our days the most radical ideas obtain in reference to the way in which sacred books were used in former times. And then it must be said that we cannot prove as an absolute certainty that there is a single passage in Genesis that originated in the post-Mosaic period.

(2) "Prophecy after the Event" Idea.

It is self-evident also that the fulfillment of a prophecy is not an evidence of a "prophecy after the event" (vaticinium post evenrum), altogether independently of the fact that in this case Ge 12:1-3, which is still in process of fulfillment, could not have been written down even today (compare on this matter, perhaps, Noah’s prophecy (9:25 ff); or the prediction of the career of Esau (25:23; 27:40); or of Ishmael (16:10 ff; 21:18); or Jacob’s blessing (Ge 49)). The last-mentioned case cannot in any way be interpreted as the product of a later time; compare the curse of Levi in 49:5-8 as compared with the honor bestowed on this tribe already in the Mosaic period (Ex 32:26-29; De 33:8-11), and in the time of the Judges (Jud 17:7-13; 1Sa 2:27 f). Zebulun, too, according to Ge 49:13 is regarded as being settled on the coast, which is not in agreement with historical reality (compare Jos 19:10-16,27). In the same way the curse on Simeon in Ge 49:5-7, which declared that his tribe should be distributed among Israel, was not fulfilled in the time when the people entered Canaan (compare Jos 19:1 and 2Ch 34:6). In Ge 49:10 "Shiloh" cannot refer to the coming of the tabernacle to Shiloh (compare Jos 18:1); for Shiloh is, on the other hand, to be interpreted personally and Messianically. As long as Shiloh was of any importance (compare 1Sa 1 ff), Judah was not in the possession of the scepter; but when this scepter did come into the control of Judah, Shiloh had long since ceased to be of any significance (compare my book, Die messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten, 360 f).

(3) Special Passages Alleged to Indicate Later Date (Ge 12:6; 13:7; 22:2; 36:31 ff; 13:18; 23:2; 14:14).

In Ge 12:6; 13:7, it is claimed that it is presupposed that at the time of the author there were no longer any Canaanites in the country, so that these verses belong to a much later period than that of Moses. But on this supposition these verses would be altogether superfluous and therefore unintelligible additions. For that in the time of Abraham the Canaanites had not yet been expelled by Israel, was a self-evident matter for every Israelite. As a matter of fact, the statements in both verses can easily be interpreted. Abraham leaves his native country to go into a strange land. When he comes to Canaan, he finds it inhabited by the Canaanites (compare 10:6,15; 9:25 ff). This could have made his faith to fail him. God, accordingly, repeats His promise at this very moment and does so with greater exactness (compare 13:7 with 13:1), and Abraham shows that God can trust his faith (13:7 f). The question whether the Canaanites no longer existed at the time the book was written, has nothing at all to do with the meaning of these verses. The same is true of 13:7, on account of the presence of the Canaanites and of the Perizzites, which latter tribe had probably come in the meanwhile and is not yet mentioned in Ge 10, but is mentioned in 15:20, and which makes the separation of Abraham and Lot only all the more necessary.

That in Ge 22:2 the land of Moriah is mentioned is claimed by the critics to be a proof that this passage was written after the times of David and even of Solomon, because according to 2Ch 3:1 the temple stood on Mt. Moriah. But as in this latter passage one particular mountain is called Moriah, but in Abraham’s time a whole country was so called, it is scarcely possible that Ge 22:2 could have been written at so late a period.

Usually, too, the list of 8 Edomite kings, who ruled before there was a king of Israel, according to Ge 36:31 ff, is cited as a proof that this part was written only after the establishment of the kingdom in Israel, although the time down to the age of Saul would be entirely too long for only eight kings, as already in the Mosaic period there were kings in Edom (Nu 20:14). Then, too, we find in the days of Solomon a hereditary kingdom in Edom (1Ki 11:14), while in Ge 36:31 ff we have to deal with an elective kingdom. Also it would be impossible to understand why this list of kings is carried down only so far and no farther, namely down to the time when there were kings in Israel. This statement can properly be interpreted only in the light of 17:6,16, where the promise is given to Abraham that kings should be found among his descendants (compare also 17:20 with 25:16); and in the light of chapter 14, where Abraham is explicitly brought into connection with kings in a number of ways (with the four kings of the East, whom he conquers; with the five kings of the Jordan valley, whom he assists; with the King’s Vale (14:17), which prepared the way for the Melchizedek episode; and with this Priest-King himself, who blesses him and to whom he gives tithes (14:18 ff); with the king of Sodom, whom he rebukes (14:21 ff)). Accordingly, the statement in 36:31 is not merely a dry historical notice, but is a reference to the blessing of God, which is realized in Israel at a much later time than in the kindred tribe of Esau, and which puts the faith of Israel to a new test. As the death of the last Edomite king is not mentioned (compare 36:39 in contrast to the preceding passage and to 1Ch 1:50 f), but as detailed family data are given, we are doubtless dealing here with living contemporaries of Moses, in whose time already the Edomites possessed a kingdom (Nu 20:14; Jud 11:17), just as this was the case with Amalek (Nu 24:7), with Moab (Nu 21:26; 22:4) and Midian (Nu 31:8). And why would a later writer have mentioned neither Selah (Petra), so important in later times (compare Isa 16:1; Jud 1:36; 2Ki 14:7), nor Ezion-Geber (1Ki 9:26; 2Ch 8:17 f), among the places given in Ge 36:40 ff? In Moses’ time, however, the last-mentioned place was only prairie (Nu 33:35 f).

Just as little is it an argument against the Mosaic times that Hebron is mentioned in Ge 13:18; 23:2, which city, according to Jos 14:15; 15:13, is called Kiriath-arba, a name which Genesis also is acquainted with (compare 23:2), and which in its signification of "city of Arba" points to an originally proper name. Hebron is the older name, which was resumed at a later period, after it had in the meanwhile been supplanted by the Canaanitic name, just as the name of Salem, which occurs already in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, for a period of time gave way to the name of Jebus, but was afterward resumed. That Hebron was an old city and that it existed at a period earlier than the Arba mentioned in Jos 14:15; 15:13, and from whom its later name was derived, can be concluded from Nu 13:22.

Further, the mention of Da in 14:14 does not necessarily favor the view that this chapter did not originate until after Jos 19:47. Jud 18:29, where Leshem or Laish is changed into Da (2Sa 24:6; compare 24:2 and 24:15), does make the existence of another Da probable. Since in Ge 14:2,3,7,17 so many ancient names are mentioned, and as the author is most fully informed as to the conditions of the political complexion of the old nations of that time (14:5-7), it would be incomprehensible if he should not have made use of the ancient names Laish and Leshem. However, if this Da was really meant, we should at most have to deal with a revision, such as that pointed out above. Some other less important arguments against the origin of Genesis from the Mosaic times we can here ignore. The most important argument for the Mosaic origin of the book, in addition to those mentioned under 1, will now be discussed.

VI. Significance.

1. Lays Foundation for the Whole of Revelation:

In the history of the creation the most important feature for us is the fact that the world was created out of nothing (compare Ge 1:1 and the word bara’), which guarantees the absoluteness of God and His perfect control of the entire material world; further, the creation of man, as the crown of all creation, for which all things previously created prepare, and who is to rule over them, but who—most important of all—is created after the image of God in Ge (1:26 f), and whose body has been created by the hand of God and his soul breathed into him by God (2:7). On this fact, too, in the end, is founded the possibility of man’s redemption even after the Fall (5:1,3; compare Col 3:9; Eph 4:24), as also the possibility of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who also is the image of God (Col 1:15; 2Co 4:4). Then, too, another all-important factor for us is the unity of the human race, for thereby is made possible and can be understood the fact that all men have become subject to sin and all can be the recipients of grace (Ro 5:12 ff; 1Co 15:22 f, 45 f). Also the need of redemption is brought out strongly in the Book of Genesis. Compare in connection with the Fall, the pains that shall attend the birth of a child, the cursing of the land, death (3:15 ff), which finds its first victim in Abel, and the monotonous and emphatic repetition of the formula, "and he died," in Ge 5, as characterizing the dismal fate of mankind, and which finds its expression in the rapid decrease of the length of life in the genealogies and in the ages of the patriarchs (5:1 ff; 11:10 ff; 25:7; 35:28; 47:28; 50:26; Ps 90:10), and in the irresistible and increasing power of death. By the side of this, sin at once assumes its most horrible form (Ge 3, doubt, pride, fear, boldness of Eve and Adam), and is propagated and increases; compare the murder and the despair of Cain (Ge 4:1 ), which is still surpassed by the defiant blasphemy of Lamech (4:23 f); and in the same way, death, which is coming more and more rapidly (see above), is a proof for this, that sin is being more and more intimately interwoven with the human race. Compare further, the corruption of the whole earth, which brings with it as a consequence the judgment of the Deluge (6:5 ff), after the period of grace extending over 120 years had fruitlessly passed by; the lack of reverence on the part of Ham (9:22); the arrogance in connection with the building of the tower of Babel (11:1 ff); the Sodomitic sin in 18:16-19:15; the daughters of Lot (19:30 ff). Still worse is it, that the elect also are not without blame. On Abraham, see IV, 1, 2b; then concerning Noah (9:21) and Lot’s fearful drunkenness (19:32 ff); Isaac’s and Rebekah’s preference for Esau or Jacob (25:28); Jacob’s deceptions of various kinds, his preference for Joseph (37:3); the horrible deeds of Simeon and Levi (34:25 ff; 49:5 ff); Reuben’s incest (35:22; 49:3 f); the cruelty of the brethren of Joseph toward him and his father (chapter 37); finally, Joseph’s pride and his reporting his brethren (37:2,5 ff). In short, wherever we look, we see in Genesis already a proof for the truth of Ro 3:23, "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God."

2. Preparation for Redemption:

By the side of this need of salvation there is to be found also the longing for salvation; compare the name of Noah (Ge 5:29), and the word of blessing from the lips of Jacob (Ge 49:18); and, further, the fact that Abraham reaches out after the promised heir in Ge 15-18, and his desire for the possession of the land (12-14; 23; 28:20 ff; 33:19 f); and especially from 47:27 on. And in harmony with this need and this longing for redemption we find above all other things the saving and the promising grace of God. He does not cause the bodily death to follow immediately upon the Fall in Ge 3 (although the beginning of the spiritual death sets in at once with the separation from God); He provides for mankind by Himself making garments for them out of skins (3:21); even the expulsion from Paradise is not merely a punishment; God fears that man might live forever if he should eat from the tree of life (3:22 ff). He sets enmity between the human race and the seed of the serpent, so that at least the possibility of a moral contest yet exists; He strengthens the good in Cain (4:7); He removes the pious Enoch (5:24); He saves Noah and his family and makes a covenant with him (8:21 ff); He gives His promise to Abraham (12:1-3) and makes a covenant with him (chapters 15; 17); He delivers Lot (19:13 ff); He is willing even to preserve Sodom at Abraham’s prayer, if there are as many as 10 just men in the city (18:32); He bestows a blessing on Ishmael also (16:10 ff; 17:20; 21:13 ff), and permits Isaac to bless Esau (27:39 ff); but above all He is with Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. It is indeed true that the thought runs through Genesis that not all men are capable of receiving His grace, and that not all are drawn to the Father. Cain’s sacrifice is not acceptable before God, as was Abel’s; the Cainites with their advance in civilization (4:17 ff), to whom Lamech also belonged, are different from Seth (4:26; 5:1 ff), who continues the line of the elect. Finally, the godly, too, permit themselves to be deceived (6:1 ff), and Noah stands alone in his piety. After that Ham is cursed in his youngest son, Canaan (9:22; compare 10:6); but Shem is blessed to such a degree that his blessing is to extend to Japheth also; cf, further, the elimination from sacred history of Lot (19:29 ff); of Ishmael (25:12 ff), and of Esau (36:1 ff); of Sodom and Gomorrah (chapter 19); then the choice of Jacob in preference to Esau (25:19-37:1); the preference of Ephraim over Manasseh (48:17 ff); the transmission of the Messianic promises to Judah (49:10; compare my book, Messianische Erwartung, 360 f), so that at the close of Genesis we find already the hope of a personal Messiah expressed, in whom also the word (3:15) that was originally spoken to all mankind is to be entirely fulfilled, and in whom also the blessing given to Abraham shall find its significance and realization for the benefit of all mankind (12:3, and see above, 1, 2 and 3). But in the history of Abraham this fact also becomes clear, that in the end this was all grace on the part of God, and faith on the part of man; and because both grace and faith are in Genesis placed and emphasized at the very beginning of the history of mankind, and before the giving of the law (Ex 19 ); then this grace and faith cannot be abrogated through the latter or made ineffective. Not by works but by faith is man saved (compare Ga 3:2; Ro 4; Heb 11:8 ff; Jas 2:21 ff). But the guidance of individuals and of His people by God, the ways which He took with His elect, become clear and intelligible ultimately in the history of Joseph; and all and everything must in the end serve the good of those who are His.

LITERATURE.

Against the separation into documents we mention, of older works: Havernick, Specielle Einleitung in den Pent; Hengstenberg, Beitrage zur Einleitung, II, III; Keil, Einleitung in das Altes Testament, and his Commentary on Gen; Ewald, Die Komposition der Genesis. Of later works: Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Eerdmans, Die Komposition der Genesis; Moller, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung. Against the evolutionary theory: Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Wiener, Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism and Wiener, Origin of the Pentateuch; Green, Unity of Book of Genesis; Moller, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit (here also further lit.). On modern archaeological researches: Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Jeremias, Das Altes Testament im Lichte des alten Orients; Urquhart, Die neueren Entdeckungen und die Bibel (to be used with caution; the work is reliable in the facts but not careful in its conclusions and in its account of Old Testament criticism). Further, compare the histories of Israel by Kohler, Konig, Kittel, Oettli, Klostermann, Stade, Wellhausen: the Commentaries on Genesis by Keil, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Lange, Strack, Gunkel, Holzinger; the Introductions to the Old Testament by Kuenen, Strack, Baudissin, Konig, Cornill, Driver; the Biblical Theologies by Marti, Smend, Budde, Schulz, Oehler. Finally compare Sievers, Metrische Studien, II: "Die hebraische Genesis."

Wilhelm Moller

ge-ne’-us, ge-ne’-us (Gennaios): Father of Apollonius, one of the Syrian generals who troubled the Jews while Lysias was governor for Antiochus Eupator (2 Macc 12:2). The description is added to distinguish the Apollonius here mentioned from several others of the same name. See APOLLONIUS. There is no need with Luther to take the name simply as an adjective "des edlen Apollonius." The name occurs elsewhere as a proper name.

ge-nes’-a-ret

See GALILEE, SEA OF.

ge-nes’-a-ret he ge Gennesaret):

1. The Name:

The first syllable of the name Gennesaret is evidently the Hebrew gan, "garden"; while the second may be a proper name. Possibly, however, the name may represent the Hebrew ganne sarim, "princely gardens." It is applied to a district on the Northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee (Mt 14:34; Mr 6:53), now known as el-Ghuweir, "little Ghor." It curves round from el-Mejdel in the South, to ‘Ain et-Tineh, or Khan Minyeh, in the North, a distance of over 3 miles, with an average breadth from the sea to the foot of the mountains of about a mile. The soil is deep, rich loam, of amazing fertility. In the South it is watered by the stream from Wady el-Chamam, the gorge that opens to the West of el-Mejdel.

2. Water:

The middle portion is supplied from ‘Ain el-Madawwerah, a copious fountain near the western edge of the plain, round which a wall has been built, to raise the level of the water; and from the perennial stream, Wady er-Rubadiyeh, which drives a mill before starting on its work of irrigation. Farther North, Wady el-‘Amud brings down much water in the rainy season. The water from ‘Ain et-Tabgha was brought round the promontory at ‘Ain et-Tineh by a conduit cut in the rock. It was used to drive certain mills, and also to refresh the neighboring land. This seems to be the fountain called "Capharnaum" by Josephus (BJ, III, x, 8). This writer extols the productiveness of the plain. He says the "soil is so fruitful that all sorts of trees can grow upon it."

3. Fertility:

The walnut, the palm, the olive and the fig, which usually require diverse conditions, flourish together here. "One may call this place the ambition of nature; .... it is a happy contention of the seasons, as if each of them claimed this country; for it not only nourishes different sorts of autumnal fruit beyond men’s expectation, but preserves them a great while." He says that it supplies grapes and figs through ten months of the year, and other fruits as they ripen together throughout the year (same place) . The fruits of Gennesaret had such high repute among the rabbis that they were not allowed in Jerusalem at the time of the feasts, lest any might be tempted to come merely for their enjoyment (Neubauer, Geog. du Talmud, 45 f).

Centuries of neglect made a sad change in the plain. It was largely overgrown with thorn-bushes, and it yielded one of the finest crops of thistles in the country. Cultivation was confined to the Southwest part; and the rest furnished grazing ground for a tribe of nomads. Recently the German Catholics made extensive purchases, including the village of el-Mejdel. Considerable portions have also passed into the hands of Jews. The land is almost entirely cleared, and it rewards the toil of the husbandman with all its ancient generosity.

W. Ewing

jen’-tilz (goy, plural goyim; ethnos, "people," "nation"): Goy (or Goi) is rendered "Gentiles" in the King James Version in some 30 passages, but much more frequently "heathen," and oftener still, "nation," which latter is the usual rendering in the Revised Version (British and American), but it, is commonly used for a non-Israelitish people, and thus corresponds to the meaning of Gentiles." It occurs, however, in passages referring to the Israelites, as in Ge 12:2; De 32:28; Jos 3:17; 4:1; 10:13; 2Sa 7:23; Isa 1:4; Ze 2:9, but the word (‘am) is the term commonly used for the people of God. In the New Testament ethnos is the word corresponding to goy in the Old Testament and is rendered "Gentiles" by both VSS, while (laos) is the word which corresponds to ‘am. The King James Version also renders Hellenes, "Gentiles" in six passages (Joh 7:35; Ro 2:9,10; 3:9; 1Co 10:32; 12:13), but the Revised Version (British and American) renders "Greeks."

The Gentiles were far less sharply differentiated from the Israelites in Old Testament than in New Testament times. Under Old Testament regulations they were simply non-Israelites, not from the stock of Abraham, but they were not hated or despised for that reason, and were to be treated almost on a plane of equality, except certain tribes in Canaan with regard to whom there were special regulations of non-intercourse. The Gentile stranger enjoyed the hospitality of the Israelite who was commanded to love him (De 10:19), to sympathize with him, "For ye know the heart of the stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Ex 23:9 the King James Version). The Kenites were treated almost as brethren, especially the children of Rechab (Jud 1:16; 5:24; Jer 35). Uriah the Hittite was a trusted warrior of David (2Sa 11); Ittai the Gittite was captain of David’s guard (2Sa 18:2); Araunah the Jebusite was a respected resident of Jerusalem. The Gentiles had the right of asylum in the cities of refuge, the same as the Israelites (Nu 35:15). They might even possess Israelite slaves (Le 25:47), and a Gentileservant must not be defrauded of his wage (De 24:15). They could inherit in Israel even as late as the exile (Eze 47:22,23). They were allowed to offer sacrifices in the temple at Jerusalem, as is distinctly affirmed by Josephus (BJ, II, xvii, 2- 4; Ant, XI, viii, 5; XIII, viii, 2; XVI, ii, 1; XVIII, v, 3; CAp, II, 5), and it is implied in the Levitical law (Le 22:25). Prayers and sacrifices were to be offered for Gentilerulers (Jer 29:7; Baruch 1:10,11; Ezr 6:10; 1 Macc 7:33; Josephus, BJ, II, x, 4). Gifts might be received from them (2 Macc 5:16; Josephus, Ant, XIII, iii, 4; XVI, vi, 4; BJ, V, xiii, 6; CAp, II, 5). But as we approach the Christian era the attitude of the Jews toward the Gentiles changes, until we find, in New Testament times, the most extreme aversion, scorn and hatred. They were regarded as unclean, with whom it was unlawful to have any friendly intercourse. They were the enemies of God and His people, to whom the knowledge of God was denied unless they became proselytes, and even then they could not, as in ancient times, be admitted to full fellowship. Jews were forbidden to counsel them, and if they asked about Divine things they were to be cursed. All children born of mixed marriages were bastards. That is what caused the Jews to be so hated by Greeks and Romans, as we have abundant evidence in the writings of Cicero, Seneca and Tacitus. Something of this is reflected in the New Testament (Joh 18:28; Ac 10:28; 11:3).

If we inquire what the reason of this change was we shall find it in the conditions of the exiled Jews, who suffered the bitterest treatment at the hands of their Gentile captors and who, after their return and establishment in Judea, were in constant conflict with neighboring tribes and especially with the Greek rulers of Syria. The fierce persecution of Antiochus IV, who attempted to blot out their religion and Hellenize the Jews, and the desperate struggle for independence, created in them a burning patriotism and zeal for their faith which culminated in the rigid exclusiveness we see in later times.

H. Porter

See TEMPLE.

See ISLES OF THE GENTILES.

jen’-t’-l-nes (‘anah; epieikeia, chrestotes): In 2Sa 22:36 ‘anah, "to bend low," "to condescend," is translated "gentleness," "Thy gentleness hath made me great," the Revised Version, margin "or condescension"; so also Ps 18:35, where the word is ‘anwah "humility," "gentleness," or "condescension." In the New Testament epieikeia ("fairness," "moderation," in Ac 24:4 translated "clemency") is in 2Co 10:1 translated "gentleness," "the meekness and gentleness of Christ" (2 Macc 2:22 "favour," the Revised Version (British and American) "forbearance"); chrestotes, "kindness," "usefulness," is translated "gentleness" in Ga 5:22 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "kindness"; chrestos is the word translated "kind" (to the unthankful and evil, Lu 6:35), and chrestotes seems to carry in it a similar idea of active kindness.

Gentle occurs in the Old Testament only in the Revised Version (British and American) of Jer 11:19, "I was like a gentle lamb" (kebhes). In the New Testament it is the translation of epios, "mild," "gentle" (1Th 2:7; 2Ti 2:24), and of epieikes, "fitting" "proper," etc. (1Ti 3:3 the Revised Version (British and American); Tit 3:2; Jas 3:17; 1Pe 2:18); also, with article, Php 4:5 (the King James Version "moderation," the Revised Version (British and American) "forbearance"). In 2 Macc 15:12 Onias is said (the King James Version) to be "gentle (praos) in condition," the Revised Version (British and American) "in manner."

W. L. Walker

ge-nu’-bath (genubhath, "theft"): Son of Hadad, the fugitive Edomite prince, born and brought up at the court of Egypt, whither Hadad had fled when David conquered Edom (1Ki 11:20). His mother was a sister of Tahpenes, queen of the Pharaoh who ruled Egypt at that time, and who belonged to the notoriously weak and uninfluential 21st dynasty.

je-og’-ra-fi.

See PALESTINE; TABLE OF NATIONS; WORLD.

je-ol’-o-ji, The geology of Palestine cannot be discussed intelligently without taking into consideration the surrounding regions. The accompanying map shows, with considerable freedom, the distribution of the superficial strata of Syria, Palestine and Sinai, with parts of Asia Minor, Arabia and Egypt. (Data for this map were obtained from the "Geological Map of Egypt" (1:1,000,000) and from the "Carte geologique internationale de l’Europe" (1:1,500,000).) It will be noted that Crystalline, or Archean, rocks (A) occupy extensive areas in Asia Minor, and that they are found in the South in Sinai, Western Arabia, and Eastern and Southern Egypt. Relatively small areas of Paleozoic rocks (P) adjoin the Crystalline rocks in Sinai and Arabia and East of Caesarea in Asia Minor. A notable area of Paleozoic occurs Southeast of the Dead Sea. This is also adjacent to Crystalline rocks, which could not be indicated on the map on account of their slight superficial extent. Bordering either the Crystalline or the Paleozoic rocks in Egypt, Sinai and Arabia are large areas of Nubian Sandstone (N). The Nubian Sandstone in turn is generally bounded by Upper Cretaceous limestone (C), and the last by Tertiary deposits (T). The Quaternary, or Recent, deposits (R) and also the Eruptive rocks (E) sustain no constant relations to any particular ones of the other formations. The Quaternary follows the great rivers and the seacoasts. The Eruptive rocks usually overlie the others. They occupy extensive areas in Asia Minor, Syria and Arabia.

If we concentrate our attention upon the Crystalline, Cretaceous, and Tertiary, which are the most extensive formations, we find that the Crystalline rocks are abundant in the South and in the North, that the Cretaceous are most widely spread in Palestine and Southern Syria, and the Tertiary in Northern Syria and Egypt. We may believe that the Crystalline areas of the North and South have been land since the end of the Archean age, and that what are now Syria, Palestine and most of Egypt remained sea for a long time afterward. The Paleozoic areas were lifted above the sea and added to the northern and southern land areas during or at the end of the Paleozoic era. The regions in which we find Nubian Sandstone or Upper Cretaceous limestone became land by the end of the Mesozoic era. Finally the Tertiary areas were lifted out of the sea. During the Quaternary period the Nile and the rivers of Mesopotamia have added large areas to the land surface.

1. Crystalline Rocks (A):

The Crystalline rocks consist mainly of granite and crystalline schists, frequently interrupted with dikes of porphyry, diorite and other eruptives. It will be seen by the map that the Crystalline rocks are nowhere adjacent to the Mediterranean, but that they touch the Nile at Acwan, where the river in pouring over these rocks makes the First Cataract, or rather did before the construction of the great dam. Granite quarried at Acwan could be loaded on boats and conveyed to any city on the shores of the Mediterranean, and it is the granite of Acwan of which are composed not only many of the monuments of Egypt, but also the pillars which adorned many temples in Syria and Palestine.

2. Paleozoic Rocks (P):

The Paleozoic rocks of Sinai and Arabia are of Carboniferous age, but do not include any beds of coal. Those East of Caesarea are Devonian. Those Southeast of the Dead Sea are the oldest of all, being of Cambrian age.

3. Triassic and Jurassic Rocks (Jahwist):

Several formations which are well developed in the British Islands, are not found in Palestine, but a small Triassic area is found near the Gulf of Alexandretta, while Jurassic strata are found in the region of Hermon and in Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. The small scale of the accompanying map makes it impossible to represent accurately the extent of these rocks.

4. Nubian Sandstone (N):

This name was given by Russegger, who in the middle of the 19th century followed and studied this formation from the Sudan to Syria. Wherever the Nubian Sandstone is found in contact with the Upper Cretaceous limestone it underlies the latter conformably. In Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon and Hermon (but not farther South) it is conformably underlaid by Jurassic limestone. It follows, therefore, that its upper strata (the only ones found in the North) must be of Lower or Middle Cretaceous age. In the South, however, the Jurassic limestone is entirely absent. In Western Sinai the Nubian Sandstone rests conformably on Carboniferous limestone, and by the Dead Sea on Cambrian limestone, while at Petra and at many other places it rests unconformably on Crystalline rocks. While the consideration of the age of the Nubian Sandstone presents no difficulty in Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon and Hermon, it is a very different matter in Western Sinai, and by the Dead Sea. Sandstone is generally supposed to be formed more rapidly than most other rocks. It is, therefore, rather staggering to try to conceive of even the 2,000 ft. of sandstone at the Southeast end of the Dead Sea as having been in process of formation from the Cambrian to the Cretaceous. The Nubian Sandstone is commonly brown or reddish, but in places shows great variety of color. The temples and tombs of Petra were all carved in this rock. It is in places very friable, and in others compact and hard. The sands of the Arabian deserts have been in the main derived from it, being carried by the prevailing west winds. Where it is covered by a sheet of eruptive rock (charrah), it is protected from erosion, with the result that the land to the East is not converted into a sandy desert (Hogarth, Penetration of Arabia). It frequently includes strata of clay and shale and thin seams of coal or lignite, and must have been deposited in seas which were at the time relatively shallow.

5. Upper Cretaceous Limestone (C):

This is the principal rock of Palestine, Lebanon, and Anti-Lebanon. Many of its strata are very fossiliferous, and no doubt exists as to its age. It furnishes the best of building stone and is a source of lime. The soils formed from it are fertile, and the mountain sides have been terraced by the patient labor of centuries.

6. Tertiary Rocks (T):

A notable Tertiary fossil is the Nummulite, which occurs in abundance in the rock of the pyramids of Gizeh and in other places. Relatively small masses of Tertiary strata (not shown on the map) are found on the coast at the mouths of the principal streams of Lebanon, showing that while the mass of Lebanon had risen from the sea by the beginning of the Tertiary, the elevation was not complete. The principal river courses had, however, already been formed, and the streams were already carrying into the sea the scourings of the rocks of early Lebanon, which were being laid down to form these Tertiary strata.

7. Quaternary and Recent Strata (R):

These consist mainly of the superficial deposits of the Nile, the Euphrates and other large streams. At various points along the coast of Syria and Palestine are extensive sand dunes. Frequently under the loose sand, or exposed, is found a sandstone which instead of being entirely siliceous, like most sandstones, is partly calcareous, containing from 15 to 25 per cent of calcium-carbonate. This is probably an aeolian formation, i.e. consolidated under the influence of the atmosphere, and not formed under the sea, like most stratified rocks. It is easily worked and is much used for building.

8. Palestine:

It may be gathered from the foregoing statements that the rocks of Palestine are mainly Cretaceous. The Jurassic limestone, which in Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon underlies the Nubian Sandstone, is absent in Palestine, but, at least in Eastern Palestine, as in Lebanon, we find the Upper Cretaceous limestone to be underlaid by the Nubian Sandstone. A striking feature of the geology of Palestine is the Jordan valley fault. At some time, probably at the beginning of the Tertiary period, when Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon, and the Judean hills were being lifted out of the sea, the earth’s crust was rent for at least several hundred miles along a line nearly North and South, or more exactly from a little West of South to a little East of North. This line runs through the Gulf of ‘Aqabah, the Wadi-‘Arabah, the Dead Sea, the Jordan valley, the Sea of Tiberias, the Chuleh, and the valley between Hermon and Anti-Lebanon on the one hand and Lebanon on the other. The resulting disturbance of the strata is most evident in the region of the Dead Sea. There is no evidence that the two walls of the fissure separated from one another, but the East wall slipped up and the West wall down for perhaps 2,000 ft, so that on the East shore of the Dead Sea and in the valleys entering the Jordan, Dead Sea, and ‘Arabah from the East, the Nubian Sandstone is exposed, underlying the Upper Cretaceous limestone, while on the West side, even down to the level of the Dead Sea, 1,290 ft. below the Mediterranean, the Nubian Sandstone is nowhere visible, although it may be presumed to exist there also below the upper limestone. (See the accompanying ideal section, after Lartet, through Judea, the Dead Sea and Moab.) The great fault and the subsidiary faults which accompany it occasioned the outpourings of igneous rock which are abundant along the line of the fault. The numerous hot springs (e.g. Tiberins, Wadi-Yarmuk, Wadi-Zarqa-Ma‘in (Callirrhoe), Wadi-ul-Chisa) may be due to subterranean streams of water coming in contact with deeply buried and still heated masses of igneous rock.

Alfred Ely Day

ge’-on.

See GIHON (Apocrypha).

ge-fi’-run (Gephuroun): In 2 Macc 12:13, referring to the capture by Judas of a stronghold East of Jordan, the Revised Version (British and American) reads, "And he also fell upon a certain city Gephyrun, .... it was named Gaspin." There appears to be some confusion in the text. There is nothing to indicate the relation between the two names. the King James Version renders, "He went also about to make a bridge." The name of the city in Josephus (Ant., XII, viii, 5) is EPHRON (which see).

ge’-ra (gera’," grain"): A family name of the tribe of Benjamin, hence, not necessarily a separate individual in (3) and (4) below: <