HERMONITES

HEROD, FAMILY O F

during

a summer night will find their tent as com-

pletely saturated as if heavy rain had fallen (cp

D

E

W

,

HERMONITES

dwellers on Mt.

Hermon

(so

Ainsworth, etc.), Ps.

4 2 6

A V ;

RV 'the

the three summits of H

ERMON

See M

IZAR

.

HEROD

(FAMILY OF).

T h e ancestor of the

Herodian family was Antipater, whom Alexander

B.

c. )

had made governor

of Idumaea
Jos.

Ant. xiv.

The accounts of his

origin are contradictory.

of Damascus represented him as belonging to the

Jews

who returnedfrom Baby-

lon

(Jos.

because Nicolas was Herod's minister and

apologist Josephus rejects his testimony. His own belief

is that

Antipater was a n

of honourable family

6

;

cp

xiv. 8

I

)

.

The

had been subjugated by John Hyrcanus

in

and compelled to embrace Judaism.

In

course of time they came to regard themselves

as

ews

(Jos.

Ant. xiii. 9 ; though they were sometimes

they were only 'half-Jews'

xiv.

. . .

r e

On

'the other

when it was

Herod was

a s a Jew;

Ant.

xx. 8 7 ,

The stories

of the servile and Philistine origin of the

family, spread abroad by Jewish, and perhaps also

Christian, foes, are to be rejected

Just. Mart.

5 2 ,

Jul. Afr. in

Eus.

HE

i.

see Schiir.

Hist.

T h e occurrence of

an Antipater of Ascalon on a tombstone in Athens

and of a Herod of Ascalon on one

at

is interpreted in favour of origin

from that town by Stark

Antipater

history

of the family

with

son, himself also called Anti-

§

T.

K.

C.

-

pater, or Antipas-a diminutive form,

perhaps used to avoid ambiguity during
his father's lifetime

(so Wilcken, in

Antipatros,' no. 17).

pater the younger, who may perhaps have succeeded to
his father's governorship,' threw himself devotedly into
the cause of Hyrcanus

in his struggle against the

usurpation of the crown and high-priesthood by his
brother Aristobfilus

in 69

B.C.

This

in

which Antipater enlisted the arms of the

king

ultimately cost the

Jews their independence. T h e bold and vigorous character of
Aristobiilus augured,

in

fact a resumption of the national policy

of the Hasmonzean house,

which the

were in sympathy. T h e accession of Queen Alexandra

had marked the abandonment of this policy, and the

adoption of the

abnegation of political development.

(On this

of ideals between the two sects, see I

SR

A

E

L

Momms.

Hist.

Rome, ET 4

132

Id.

2

161.)

T h e Pharisees attempted to attain their ohjects

under the merely nominal rule of the weak Hyrcanus, and it

was among them, as well

as

among the legitimist Sadducees,

that Antipater found support (Jos.

Ant. xiv. 13).

It is unnecessary to tell at length the story

of the over-

throw of the Maccabee state, effected by Pompeius as a
part

of his policy for

organization of Syria.

The gates of Jerusalem were opened to the legions of Pompeius

b y the party of Hyrcanus; hut the national party seized the
temple-rock and bravely defended it for three months

( A n t .

xiv.

T h e final result

of the struggle was the curtailment of Jewish territory. I n con-
formity with the general policy of Rome in the

of basing

rule upon the

urban communities, Pompeius 'liberated

Jos.

A n t .

xiv.

1 3

however calls him merely

Hence

R.

2

n., wrpngly

says,

Antipater

his career a s governor of

:

un-

less we suppose the 'governorship to have been merely a vague
commission of superintendence attached to the hereditary

This was

in

the autumn of 63

R

.C.

chieftainship.

A n t . xiii. 16

For

of

'Greek' in this connection,

as

contrasted

with 'Jewish, see

Die

des

I t signifies not nationality

so

much a s

mode of organization.

2023

from the Jewish rule

all

the coast towns from Raphia to

Dora,

and

all

the non-Jewish towns of the Peraea together with

Scythopolis and Samaria. T o

all

these communal freedom was

restored, whilst in other respects they were under the rule of the
governor-of the newly-constituted province of Syria.

T h e purely Jewish portion of the Hasmonrean king-

dom was left under Hyrcanus, who was recognised as
high priest, but had neither the title nor the powers of
a king (Jos.

Ant. xx.

T h e whole country was

made tributary, paying its taxes through the governor
of Syria (id.

Ant. xiv.

4 4

i.

76).

It is clear that as a civil governor Hyrcanus was a

complete failure, succumbing,

as he did, before the first

attack

of

Alexander, son of Aristobdus.

Gabinius

therefore deprived him of all his secular powers, and
divided the whole country

Samaria, Galilee,

and Perzea) into five independent districts.

These districts

were administered by

governing colleges with an aristocratic organisation (Jos.

I

.

85,

This

in

57

The two

following years

also

marked by abortive attempts on the

part of Aristobiilus or his

son

to

recover the lost crown (see on

the position of parties

at

this time,

ET,

T h e position

of Antipater at this period is described

by Josephus

(Ant. xiv.

Josephus calls Anti ater 'governor

of

the Jews'

;

so

also

quoted by Josephus

3).

This

office was probably

in

the main concerned with finance, for the

five districts above mentioned must have been connected, not
with the administration of law merely, but also with the arrange-
ments for collecting the taxes. In any case Antipater was an
officer, not of Hyrcanus, whose power was

at

this time purely

ecclesiastical, but of

Roman governor of Syria. T h e degree

to which this was evident

in practice depended entirely upon

the attitude of Antipater towards Hyrcanus, and it was easy
for him to act as though he were merely his first minister.
Probably he owed this position to Gabinius, who

'settled the affairs

of

Jerusalem according to the wishes o f

Antipater' (Jos.

Ant. xiv. 64).

It is, therefore, an inversion of the facts when Josephus

assigns to the initiative of Hyrcanus the services of
Antipater to

Egypt in 48-7

( A n t .

There was, 'in fact,

no

alterna-

tive open, once Pompeius had fallen. An additional
reason for this policy was that in

49

had

attempted to use the defeated rival

of

Hyrcanus against

the Pompeian party in Syria. The plan was frustrated
by the poisoning of Aristobfilus even before he left
Rome, and by the execution of his son Alexander at

Antioch by the proconsul of Syria,
the father-in-law of Pompeius. Antigonus, the second
son of

still lived and had strong claims on

Caesar's gratitude.

T h e personal services

of

Antipater,

however, carried the day he fought bravely and success-
fully for Caesar at Pelusium and in the Delta.

Hyrcanus

was consequently confirmed in his high-priestly office
and appointed hereditary ethnarch of the

e . ,

he was reinstated in the political authority of which he
had been deprived by Gabinius. Antipater was made
procurator

:

not the procuratorship

of

the

imperial period, but an office delegated, in theory, by

Hyrcanus; cp Momms.

Emp.

I n addition, he was granted Roman citizenship, and

freedom from taxation

Jos.

Ant.

8

3

i. 95).

The real control of the country was in the hands of Anti-

pater (Jos.

Ant. xiv.

;

), who strengthened

his position by appointing Phasael and

Herod

(two of

his sons by Cypros, an Arabian

xiv.

7 3 )

governors

former in Jerusalem and the south, the

latter in Galilee

( A n t . xiv.

This is the first occasion

on which we hear of Herod.

He was at this time,

according to Josephus

cp

only fifteen years old.

Probably we should read

twenty-five,' for Herod was about seventy at the time

of his death

331

see Schur.

Hist.

1383

Once again before his

Antipater had an oppor-

tunity of displaying that sagacity in choosing sides, to
which he owed his success.

2024

HEROD,

FAMILY O F

and made himself master of

H e was besieged in Apameia

the Caesarians under C. Antistius

who was assisted by

troops sent by Antipater (Jos.

Ant.

I

.

Dio Cass. 47 27).

The new governor

L.

obtaihed no advantage

over

and

siege continued

result when the

assassination of Caesar, and the arrival in Syria of

Cassius

one of his. murderers changed the aspect of affairs.

Both besiegers and besieged

over

and the

republican party was for a time a t least, dominant

East.

rulers

Palestine Antipater and Herod, displayed

their zeal for the party in

the 700 talents demanded a s

the Jewish contribution to the republican war-chest

(44 B

.c.).

In the following year, after the withdrawal of Cassius,

Antipater fell

a victim to poison administered at the

instigation of a certain Malichos.

Was Malichos a

leader of the Pharisaic section anxious for a reinstatement of the
old theocratic government under Hyrcanus (so Matthews,

N T

in Palestine 106 cp Jos.

Ant.

xiv. 11

or

was he prompted merely by

(so

cp

Jos.

11 3,

and ihid. 7) ? Or, thirdly, was he a patriot who

saw in the civil war

opportunity of getting rid of Roman

dominion altogether ;

including both Antipater and [if necessary)

Hyrcanus, who were its representatives (cp Jos.

11

8,

end)?

Lastly, was Hyrcanus himself possibly privy to the murder of
Antipater ?

the

services rendered by

Herod to the cause of Cassius were rewarded

by

his

The object of the conspiracy is not clear.

appointment as

of Coele-Syria

(Jos.

11

4 )

it was typical of the man

that he should have held this

originally under the

governor,

(id.

Ant.

xiv.

Already in Galilee he had given

proof of his energy and ability, and at the same time

of

his thorough enmity to anti-Roman sentiments, by

his

capture and execution of Ezekias,

a noted brigand chief

or

patriot, who

for

long had harassed the Syrian border

(Jos.

It was not long, however,

(41

the year in which Antigonus. son of

II., was defeated by Herod) Herod performed another

the defeat

of

and Cassius at Philippi

having thrown all the East into the power of Antonius.

Partly

reason of the friendship which there had been be-

tween Antonius and Antipater in the days of Gabinius, partly
also no doubt by reason of the remarkable similarity in character
between the Roman and the

Herod had no difficulty

in securing the thorough support of Antonius. Deputation after
deputation from

Sadducaean party

Ant.

xiv.

appeared before Antonius with accusations against Phasael and

Herod ; but in vain. Hyrcanus himself was fain

t o

admit the

ability of the accused.

Antonius was only consulting the interests

of

peace

and good government in declaring both Phasael and

Herod tetrarchs (Ant.

xiv.

I n the following year (40

)

Herod experienced the

strangest vicissitudes

of

fortune. T h e Parthians were

induced by Antigonus to espouse his cause.

passed from Syria into Judaea, where the legitimists

the aristocrats, in the main Sadducees) rallied round Antigonus,
who, seeing that Hyrcanus was hound hand and foot to the
hated

was now the real representative of the

line. Hyrcanus and Phasael incautiously put them-

selves in the power of their enemies. The ears of Hyrcanus
were cut off in order to make it impossible for him ever again

to

hold the high-priesthood (Jos.

Ant.

happy in his knowledge that he had an avenger in his
who was free, dashed out his own brains.

Herod himself, too crafty to he deceived

by the

Parthians, had made his escape eastwards with his

mother Cypros, his sister Salome, and Mariamme, to
whom he was betrothed

Mariamme was also accom-

panied by her mother, Alexandra. These Herod de-
posited for safety in the strong castle of Masada by the
Dead Sea (Ant.

xiv.

1 3 9 ) .

H e himself made his way

with

difficulty to Alexandria, and at length arrived at

Rome, where he was welcomed both by Antonius and

by Octavian. Within a week he was declared king of

by the Senate his restoration indeed was to the

interest of the Romans, seeing that Antigonus had
allied himself with the Parthian enemy.

P. Ventidius, the legate

of

Antonius in Syria, succeeded

in expelling the Parthians from Syria and Palestine

(Dio

For a n earlier notice see above,

end.

Phasael

HEROD, FAMILY O F

Cass.

;

but neither he nor his subordinate Silo

gave Herod real help in regaining Jerusalem.

Herod was in fact compelled to rest content for this year (39

with the seizure

Joppa, the raising of the blockade of

Masada and the extermination of the robbers

patriots) of

Galilee

their almost inaccessible caverns of

in

the

see

I

).

Next year he joined

Antonius,

king of Commagene, in

Samosata, probably with the object of securing more effectual
assistance. At Daphne (Antioch), on his homeward journey, he
received

of the defection of Galilee, and the complete de-

feat and death of his brother Joseph a t the hands of Antigonus

It was not until the following year that the fall

of

Samosata enabled Antonius to reinforce Herod before
Jerusalem with the bulk of his army under C.
the new governor of Syria

(37

B

.c.).

Herod chose

this moment for the celebration of his marriage with
Mariamme, to whom he had been betrothed for the
past five years

( A n t .

xiv.

1514).

The ceremony toolc

place at

This central district of Palestine

remained loyal

to

Herod throughout these troublous

years, and a large part of his forces was recruited there-
from.

After a three months' siege Antigonus surrendered,

and was carried in chains to Antioch, where, by Herod's

Antonius had him beheaded

first king, we

are told,

to

he

so dealt with by the Romans (Jos. Ant.

xv.

Ant.

36).

This was the end of the

dynasty, and from this year dates Herod's

reign

(37

B

.

C

.

).

Herod's reign is generally divided into three

(

I

)

37-25

in which his power was consolidated

;

B.C.,

the period of prosperity

( 3 )

B

.c.,

the period of domestic

.

i.

The

During the early years of his reign Herod had to con-
tend with several enemies.

I t is true that the immediate execution of forty-five of the

most

wealthy and prominent of the Sanhedrin-;.e.,

of the

Sadducaean aristocracy, which favoured Antigonus (Jos. A n t .

9 4 ,

cp id.

xv.

the active

resistance of the rival house, whilst

confiscation of their

property filled the new king's coffers.

With the Pharisaic party resistance was of a more

passive nature; but the leaders

of

even the more

moderate section,

and

in advising the

surrender of Jerusalem, could only speak of

dominion

as a judgment of God, to which the people must submit.
Opposition on the part of the surviving members

of the

Hasmonrean house never ceased its mainspring

Alexandra, Herod's mother-in-law, who found an ally

in Cleopatra

of

Egypt.

The enmity of Cleopatra was

possibly due simply to pique

end). Hyrcanus,

who had been set at liberty, and was held in great
honour by the Babylonian Jews, was invited by Herod
to return to Jerusalem, and, on his arrival, was treated
with all respect by the

As Hyrcanus could no longer hold the high-priesthood (Lev.

21

a n obscure Babylonian Jew of priestly family

was selected for the post, which he occupied for a time ; but thk

machinations of Alexandra soon compelled Herod to depose
him in favour of

son of Alexandra (35

B

.c.).

T h e acclamations of the populace, when the young Hasmonrean
prince (he was

seventeen years of age) officiated a t the

Feast of Tabernacles, warned Herod that he had escaped one

danger only to incur a greater.

Shortlyafterwards Aristobfilus was drowned by Herod's

orders in the bath at Jericho.

Cleopatra constituted a real danger for Herod during

the first six years

of his reign, owing to her boundless

rapacity and her strange influence over Antonius.

In

34

B

.

C

.

she induced Antonius

to

bestow upon her the

whole of

(with the exception

of

Tyre and

Mariamme was Herod's second wife. H i s first wife

was

Doris

Ant.

xiv. 12

I

12

22

I

). By

her he had one

2026

HEROD,

FAMILY O F

Sidon), part of the Arabian territory (for the revenue of
which Herod was held responsible), and the valuable
district of Jericho (which Herod was compelled to take
in lease from the queen, for

talents yearly;

185). Loyalty, combined with prudence, enabled the

harassed king to resist the fascinations of the Egyptian
enchantress when she passed through

(Ant. xv.

When the Roman Senate declared war against

Antonius and Cleopatra, it was Herod's good fortune
not to be compelled to champion the failing cause.

In

obedience to the wishes of Cleopatra herself, he was
engaged in

a war with the Arabian king Malchus for no

nobler cause than the queen's arrears of tribute.

On

the news of Octavian's victory a t Actium (and Sept.

31

B.

C.

he passed over a t once to the victorious side (Jos.

Ant. xv.

6

7

Dio Cass.

51

7).

H e did not venture to

appear before Octavian until he had removed the aged
Hyrcanus on

a feeble charge of conspiracy with Malchus

the Arabian

(Ant.

63).

T h e interview upon which

his fate depended took place a t Rhodes.

Herod accurately gauged the character of Octavian and

frankly confessing his past loyalty

to

Antonius,

left

'it

to

Octavian

to

say

whether he should serve him

as

faithfully. It

should not be forgotten that Herod and Octavian

were

no

strangers

to

each other, and

that

no one was better able

to

estimate

the necessities of Herod's position during the past few

years than Octavian

;

probably Herod was in less danger than

i s

sometimes imagined.

T h e result was that Octavian confirmed Herods royal

title

;

and, after the suicide of Antonius and Cleopatra,

restored to him all the territory

of

which the queen had

deprived him, together with the cities of

Hippos,

Samaria,

Anthedon, Joppa, and Strata's Tower.

T h e 400 Celts who had formed Cleopatra's guard were
also given to him

i. 20

These external successes

were counterbalanced by domestic troubles.

These troubleshad their origin

in

the eternal breach between

Mariamme and her mother

on

the

one

side, and Herod's

own

mother and sister on the other. The contempt

of

was

returned with hatred by the

Salome. The

machinations

of

the

latter

bore fruit

when

in

a

paroxysm

of

anger and jealousy Herod ordered

Mariamme to

execution.

Renewed conspiracy soon brought her vile mother also

to

her

doom

B

.c.).

The extermination of the Hasmonaean family was

completed by the execution of Costobar, Salome's
second husband.

Salome's

first

husband Joseph had been put

to

death

in 34

B.C.

Costobar,

as

governor of Idumaea, had

given

asylum

to

the sons

of

Baba, a

scion of

the

rival house

;

these

also were

executed

and thus the

last

male

representatives of the

were swept from Herod's path

(25

B

.c.).

The

period

25-13

Secure a t last from external and internal foes, Herod
was free for the next twelve years to carry out his
programme of development.

H e was governing for

the Romans

a

part of the empire, and he was bound t o

spread western customs and language and civilisation
among his subjects, and fit them for their position in
the Roman world.

Above all, the prime requirement

was that he must maintain peace and order

;

the

Romans knew well that no civilising process could go

so long as disorder and disturbance and insecurity

remained in the country.

Herod's duty was to keep the

peace and naturalise the Graeco-Roman civilisation in

Palestine (Rams.

Christ

ut Bethlehem

T h e great buildings were the most obvious fruit of

period.

Tower was entirely rebuilt

21

and furnished

a

splendid harbour (see

I

)

.

Samaria

also was

rebuilt and renamed Sebastb (Strabo

760).

Both these

a

temple

of

Augustus,

showed his zeal

for

empire by similar foundations in other cities, outside the limits

of

(Jos.

xv.95).

Connected with this

was

the

.establishment of games, celebrated every fourth year,

in

of the Emperor

16 5

I

..

.

.

at Caesarea;

id.

xv.

8

I

also

at

Jerusalem,

With this went, of course, the erection of the necessary

buildings (theatre, amphitheatre, and hippodrome at Jerusalem,

thesameat Jericho, Anf.xvii.635;

Cp Suet.

59

on the games and the

urbes'

by the 'reges amici atque socii.'

HEROD,

FAMILY O F

i.338; at

xv.

The games were necessarily

after

the Greek model. Even in

the

time

of the

Hellenism

in

this form had infected

Macc.

114) :

see

H

ELLENISM

.

The defensive system of the country was highly

developed, by the erection of new fortresses, or the re-
building of dismantled Hasmonaean strongholds. Some

of

these fortresses were destined to give the Romans much

trouble in the great war

64,

vii.

They

were designed by Herod for the suppression of brigandage

(a

standing evil) and the defence of the frontier against

the roving tribes of the desert

(Ant. xvi.

So success-

ful was he in fulfilling this primary requirement, that in

23

B.C.

Augustus put under his administration the

districts of Trachonitis, Auranitis, and

in-

habited by nomad robber-tribes, which the neighbouring
tetrarch Zenodorus had failed to keep in order

204

Strabo 756,

In

on the death of Zenodorus,

Herod was given his tetrarchy, the regions of

and Panias ( A n t . xv.

cp Dio Cass.

549) and he

obtained permission to appoint his brother
tetrarch of

On Herod's work cp Momms.

Prov.

of

Emp.

Much might be said

of

Herod's munificence both to

his own subjects and far beyond the limits of his

The Syrian Antioch

Ant.

53)

the cities

of

Chios

and Rhodes,

the new

foundation

of

in

Epirus, and

many

others, experienced Herod's

liberality.

The

Athenians and

counted

him

among their bene-

factors

21

I

T

;

cp

The

ancient

festival at

Olympia recovered something

of

its

old glory through

his

munificence

( A n t . xvi. 53). At

home,

in

B.c.,

he

remitted

one-third of the taxes

xv.

and

in

B

.C.

one-fourth

( A n t .

In

25

B

.C.

he had converted into coin

even

his

own

plate

in

order

to

relieve

the sufferers from famine

im-

porting

corn

from

Egypt

(Ant.

xv.

T h e greatest benefit of

all, however, in the eyes

of

Jews must have been his restoration of the Temple,

a

work which was carried

out

with the nicest regard for

the religious scruples of the nation

(Ant. xv.

116).

Begun in

B.

it was not entirely finished until the

time of the Procurator

(62-64

A.

D

.),

a

few

years before its total destruction (cp

Jn.

Its

beauty and magnificence were proverbial (cp Mt. 241
Mk.

Lk.

iii.

Period

of

domestic troubles,

last

nine years of Herod's life were marked in

a special

degree by domestic miseries. Of his ten wives (enumer-
ated

Jos.

Ant. xvii.

1 3

the first, Doris (col.

2026

n.

I

),

had been repudiated, along with her

son

Antipater

By his marriage with

Herod had hoped to give his position

a certain legitimacy.

Mariamme's mother, Alexandra, was thedaughter of Hyrcanus

II.,

whilst

her father, Alexander, was a

son of

(brother of Hyrcanus)

: consequently

Mariamme represented

the direct line of the

family.

The political intrigues of Mariamme's mother, and

the mutual enmity of Mariamme and Herods mother
(Cypros) and sister (Salome), effeetually frustrated these
hopes.

Of the three sons borne to Herod by

the youngest died in Rome

but

Alexander and

were fated to

on the

gibbet a t that very

which, thirty years before,

had seen Herods marriage with their mother.

Salome had

in

the second

also

a

large share,

standing the fact that Berenice, the wife of

was

her

own

Costobar, see above, end). The recall

of

the banished-Antipater, son

of

Doris, brought

a

more deadly

in-

triguer upon

the scene

(14

;

i.

23

I

). Under the combined

attack of Antipater and Salome, the two sons of Mariamme

incurred

the

of

the

The

reconciliation effected

by

Augustus

( A n t .

xvi.

in

B

.c.) at

and

two

years later

Archelaus, the Cappadocian king

(Ant.

xvi.

had

no

long continuance. The elements of discord and

intrigue were reinforced by

the arrival at

Herod's

court

of

the

Lacedmmonian adventurer Eurykles

26

The brothers

were

again accused of treason,

and

Augustus gave leave

to

Herod

The

wife

of Alexander

was

Glaphyra, daughter of Archelaus,

Glaphyra and Berenice were

also

on

king

of

Cappadocia.

terms of bitterest enmity

2028

HEROD,

FAMILY O F

t o

deal with them as he saw fit. They were tried at Berytus

before

C.

Saturninus, the governor of Syria

i. 27

and condemned to death. T h e execution took place a t

Antipater, whose life, says Josephus, was a mystery

iniquity'

next plotted with

to

remove the king by poison. Herods days, indeed,
were already numbered,

as he was afflicted with a

painful and loathsome disease

335).

He lived

long enough, however, to summon the arch-plotter
from Italy, and to bring him to trial before Quinctilius
Varus, then governor

of Syria, and finally to re-

ceive the emperor's permission

his execution

i.

Herod is said to have contemplated the wholesale massacre of

the chief men of Judaea, in the hippodrome of Jericho, in order

his funeral might be accompanied by the genuine lamenta-

tions of the people but Salome released them during his last
days

xvii.

We may reasonably doubt whether Jewish

tradition has not intensified the colours in which the closing

scenes of the hated king's life are painted

(Ant.

xvii. 8

I

).

Herod died in

4

five days after the execution

of

Antipater.

There is probably no royal

of any

age in which bloody feuds raged in an equal degree
between parents and children, between husbands and
wives, and between brothers and sisters' (Momms.

Prov.

Rom.

We cannot here discuss the question whether Herod

is rightly called the Great.

Certainly it is

not

easy

to

be strictly fair towards him but so much must be clear,
that, judged. by the standard of material benefits con-
ferred, few princes have less reason

to

shrink from the

test.

I n addition to the benefits of

his

rule at home,

-there were gains for the Jews of the Dispersion in Asia

Minor. By his personal influence with Agrippa, he

.obtained safety for their Temple contributions, exemption

from military service, and other privileges (Jos.

Ant.

xvi.

In estimating these services, Herod's posi-

tion in the imperial system must

Herod was only one of a large number of allied kings

socii),

whose use even of the royal title was dependent upon the

goodwill of the emperor and their exercise of royal authority no
less

In the most

case, their sovereign rights

were strictly limited within the boundaries of their own land
so

that a foreign policy was impossible. The right of

money was limited and as, of the Herodian line, only copper

coins are known, we must correct the impression of Herod's im-

portance derived from many of the statements of Josephus.
T h e fact that no tribute was imposed, at least upon
made

all

the more imperative Herod's obligations in respect of

.frontier defence and internal good government.

The-connection

of Herod the Great with the

N T is

Both Mt.

1211 and Lk.

that the

birth of Jesus took place during his reign
but the additional information given by

Lk.

as

to the date has caused serious

difficulties (see C

HRONOLOGY

,

On the narra-

tive

of the Massacre of the Innocents, see N

ATIVITY

.

As

a rex socius, indeed,

be could not bequeath his kingdom without the consent

Herod made several wills.

of

Rome.

It- had been, therefore,

a

distinct

of favour that, on his visit

to

Rome to accuse Alexander and

he had been given leave by Augustus to dispose

Antipater's wife was the daughter of Antigonus, the last

of

the Hasmonaean kings

(Ant.

xvii. 52).

Josephus, in fact uses the title only once

(Ant.

xviii. 5

4,

I

S

. . .

Further

oh

we

Com-

parison with the expression

in

Ant.

xviii.

4

has

suggested that Jos. meant by the title

merely 'elder,'

marking himashead of the dynasty. Similarly it is in this
that it is applied to Agrippa

I . (Ant.

xvii.

. . .

but Agrippa claimed the

title in the other sense

his coins with the legend

as

I t

therefore not impossible that Jos.

abstained from giving the title, even though it was

popularly in use with reference to the first Herod. The verdict
that he was still only a common man' (Hitzig, quoted by Schiir.

Hist.

1467)

scarcely does justice to one who for thirty-four years

combated the combined hatred of

and Pharisees

and extended his frontier to the widest limit ever dreamed
hy Solomon.

Cp Jos.

Ant.

xv.

where Herod recognises that he

has

his kingdom

2029

HEROD,

FAMILY

O F

of his kingdom as he saw fit

(Ant.

xvi.

4 5 ) :

apparently

it was only on the express command of the emperor
that he refrained then from abdication.

On

his return to Jerusalem he announced to the people

assembled

the temple that his sons should succeed him-firs;

Antipater, and then Alexander and

The first

formal testament did in fact' designate Antipater

heir. but

as

the sons of

then dead, Herod, the son

high priest's daughter, was to succeed in the event of Antipater's
dying before the king

xvii. 32). After Antipater's disgrace

a

second will was made, bequeathing the kingdom to his youngest

son Antipas

(Ant.

xvii. 6

I

)

.

This was in its turn revoked by a

will drawn up in his last hours, by which he divided his realm
among three of his sons

:

Archelaus, to whom he left Judaea

with the title of king; Antipas, to whom he gave

Peraea, with the title of tetrarch and Philip, to whom he

gave the

N E

districts, also with the title of

(Ant.

xvii.

8

I ) .

Herod

[WH])

6

T

U

-

[Ti.

Mt. 141 Lk. 3 1

9 7

Acts 131

:

in.

correctly called 'king' in Mk. 6

14

7.

Antipas.

[Ti. WH]

14 o

cp Mk. 6

Sometimes

called simply Herod (Acts 4

27)

.

as

often by Josephus who also

calls

him Antipas

abbreviated form'of

Son of Herod the Great by the Samaritan

consequently full brother of Archelaus (Jos.

Ant. xvii.

By Herod's last will he received the prosperous

regions of Galilee and

with the title of tetrarch.

The confederation

of independent Graeco-Roman com-

munities called the Decapolis lay between the two parts
of his territory which brought in an annual revenue

of

two hundred talents (Ant.

xvii.

He had the char-

acteristically Herodian passion for building.

I n Galilee

he rebuilt Sepphoris (Ant.

xviii.

and in

aramptha

(see B

ETH

-

HARAN

)

;

and after

26

A.

D

.

he

created the splendid capital named by him
[g.

Little is told

us of the course of his long reign

(4

A . D . ) .

W e may believe that he was a

successful ruler and administrator

;

but the diplomacy

which distinguished Herod the Great became something
far less admirable in Antipas,

as

we may

see

from the

contemptuous expression

of the tetrarch

by Jesus

in Lk.

' G o ye, and tell that fox.'

Perhaps, however, this utterance should be restricted to the

particular occasion that called it forth and should not be
regarded as an epitome of the

character nevertheless

we have an illustration of this trait in the story

by Josephus

(Ant.

xviii. 45) of his

in forwarding

the report of the treaty with the Parthian king Artabanus to
Tiberius. Antipas certainly did not inherit his father's qualities

as

a

leader in war.

Perhaps it was consciousness

of his weakness in this

respect that prompted Antipas to seek the hand of the
daughter of the Arabian king Aretas

;

or he may have

been urged to the alliance by Augustus,

in

obedience to

the principle enunciated with reference to the inter-
marriage of reges socii by Suetonius (Aug.

48).

T h e connection with Herodias, wife of his half-brother

Herod

(son

of

the second Mariamme), gained Antipas

his notoriety

in evangelic tradition.

The flight of the

daughter of Aretas to her father involved him ultimately
in hostilities with the Arabians, in which the
was severely defeated-a divine punishment in the eyes
of .many, for his murder of John the Baptist (Ant.
xviii.

5

There was apparently

no

need for Antipas

to divorce his first wife in order to marry Herodias
but Herodias perhaps refused to tolerate

a possible

rival (Ant. xviii.

5

cp Ant. xvii.

The story of the connection of J

OHN

THE

B

APTIST

with the court of Antipas need not be repeated

here.

Later, the Pharisees warn Jesus that the tetrarch

seeks his life

( L k .

13

On the phrase the leaven

of Herod

(Mk.

8

15)

see H

ERODIANS

.

Again in the

Herod Antipas is the only Herod who bore the title

of tetrarch, we must refer to him an inscription on the island of

Cos

(CZG

and another on the island of

3

365

but nothing is known about his

connection with those places.

According to the Mishna

eighteen wives were

allowed to the king (see

quoteh by Schiir.

Hist.

1455

2030

HEROD,

F A M I L Y O F

closing scene in the life

of Jesus we meet with Antipas.

we are told by Lk.

sent

Jesus

to the

tetrarch ‘as soon as he knew that he belonged unto
Herod‘s jurisdiction.

The death of his firm friend Tiberius, and the

accession of Gaius (Caligula), in

37

A.

led to the fall

of Antipas.

T h e advancement of Agrippa

I.

to the position of king over

Philip’s old tetrarchy by the new emperor was galling to his
sister Herodias ; and against his better judgment Antipas was
prevailed upon by her to g o to Rome to sue for the royal title.
T h e interview with Gaius took place a t

Agrippa

meanwhile had sent on his freedman Fortunatus with a document
accusing Antipas of having been in treasonable correspondence
not

only with Seianus (who had been executed in

31

A

.D.),

also

with the Parthian kine Artabanus.

could not. in

fact, deny that his magazines contained a great accumulation of
arms (probably in view of his war with the Arabians).

T h e deposition and banishment of Antipas, how-

ever, were

in all probability due as much to the

caprice of the mad emperor

as to real suspicions of

disloyalty.

His place of banishment was Lugdunum

(Lyons)

in Gaul

(Jos.

A n t . xviii.

according to

96,

he died in

and it has been suggested that his place of exile was actually
Lugdunum Convenarum, a t the northern foot of the Pyrenees,
near the sources of the Garonne; but this will not save the
statement of Josephus.

A confused remark of Dio Cassius (59

seems to imply that he was put to death by Caligula.

Mt.

Herod the Great by

and

elder brother of Antipas

33

7).

Antipas

a claim for

3.

Herod

[Ti. W H ] :

crown against him before Augustus,

on the ground

that he had been himself named sole heir in the will
drawn up when Herod was under the influence of the
accusations made by Antipater against Archelaus and

Philip (see

6).

The majority of the people, under

the influence of the orthodox (the Pharisees), seized the
opportunity afforded by Herod‘s death to attempt to
re-establish the sacerdotal government under the Roman
protectorate.

Herod was scarcely buried before the

masses in Jerusalem gathered with the demand for the
deposition of the‘high-priest nominated by him, and for
the ejection of foreigners from the city, where the
Passover was just about to be celebrated. Archelaus
was under the necessity of sending his troops among
the rioters.

A deputation of fifty persons was sent to

Rome requesting the abolition of the monarchy.

To

Rome also went Archelaus claiming the kingdom-a

journey which probably suggested the framework of the

parable in

Lk. 19

Augustus practically confirmed

Herod’s last will, and assigned to Archelaus
proper, with Samaria and Idumaea, including the cities
of

Samaria, Joppa, and Jerusalem; but the

royal title was withheld, at least until he should have
shown that he deserved it (Jos.

Ant. xvii.

11

4 ,

6

3).

T h e city

of

Gaza was excepted from this arrangement,

and attached to the province of Syria.

Mt. 2

uses

the inaccurate expression

(and so Jos.

A n t . xviii.

4 3

T h e

troops indeed had saluted him as king on Herod’s death (Ant.
xvii.

but he refused

to

accept the title

it should be

confirmeh by Augustus

1

I

).

Probably in popular speech

i t

was given a s

a

matter of courtesy.

The coins with HPDAOY

must be his, for

no

other member of the family

bore the title; and, like Antipas, he used the family name of

Herod (so Dio

27

calls him

b

Josephus never calls him Herod.)

.Of the details of the administration of Archelaus we

know nothing, nor apparently did Josephus.

H e

indeed says that his rule

was violent and tyrannical

(cp

7 3 ,

and

Ant. xvii.

where he is charged

with

and

The description in the

parable is apt- Lk.

and

hence we can the better

the statement

in Mt.

222

respecting Joseph’s fear to

go to

Apparently Archelaus ‘did not take the pains to handle
gently the religious prejudices of his

Niese, however, rejects the reading

or

in

this passage, and restores

from

A n t . xviii.

7

2.

The proper title of Archelaus was ethnarch.

2031

HEROD,

F A M I L Y O F

Not only did he depose and set up high-priests a t

but he also took to wife Glaphyra, the daughter of the
Cappadocian king Archelaus (probably between

I

and

4

Glaphyra had been wife of Alexander, half-brother of

Archelaus, who was executed in 7

B.C.

(see

4,

iii.).

Her second

husband was Juba, king of

who

was indeed still

living when she married Archelaus.

Moreover, she had had

children by Alexander, and for this reason marriage with her was

After nine years of rule the chief men of

and

Samaria invoked the interference of the emperor, and
Archelaus

was banished to

in

G a u l

( A n t . xvii.

cp Dio

Cass.

55

It is to Archelaus that Strabo (765) refers when he says

that a

son of Herod was living, a t the time of his writing,

among the

for Vienna was their capital town. If

the statement of Jerome

that Archelaus’ grave was

near Bethlehem is trustworthy (cp

R

ACHEL

),

he must have re-

turned to Palestine to die.

The territory of Archelaus was taken

under the im-

mediate rule

of

Rome, and received

a governor of its

own of the equestrian order

see

I

SRAEL

,

90)

but it was under the general supervision

of the imperial legate of Syria (on the status of Judaea
at this time, see Momms.

R.

2

Forthwith, of course, the obligation to Roman tribute
fell upon the territory thus erected into a province

(hence, in

Jesus was brought face to face with

the whole question

of

the compatibility or otherwise of

Judaism with the imperial claims: cp Mt.

Mk.

Lk.

4 .

Herod

Jos.

Mk.

6

see below.] Son of Herod the Great by Mariamme,

daughter of Simon (son of

whom

Herod made high priest (about 24
In spite of Mk.

617

(see below), we cannot

hold that he ever really bore the name Philip; the
confusion, which is doubtless primitive, arose from the
fact that the son-in-law

of Herodias was called Philip

(see

2).

Herod’s first will arranged that

Philip should succeed in the event of Antipater’s dying
before coming to the throne (see

6) ;

but Philip was

disinherited owing to his mother’s share in Antipater’s
intrigues

(Ant. xvii.

4

30

7).

Philip lived and

died, therefore, in

a

private station, apparently in Rome

( A n t . xviii.

for it seems to have been in

that his half-brother Antipas saw Herodias.

It is

indeed only in connection with his wife Herodias, sister
of Agrippa

I.,

that the name of this Herod occurs in

the NT.

In Mk.

0

17

all MSS read

‘his

brother Philip’s wife

which it

appear that this Herod also bore the name Philip. When,
however, we find that Josephus knows only the name Herod
for him (cp

Ant. xvii. 13,

and

another

son of Herod the

also

bore the name Philip (see

suspicion is

aroused and this is confirmed when we find that of Philip’

is

omitted’ in Mt. 1 4 3 by D and some Lat. MSS (followed b y
Zahn

whilst

in

it

is omitted

NBD.

That’ Lk.

give the name is highly significant. An

appeal to the fact that several sons of Herod the Great bore the
name Herod cannot save the credit of

Mt.

and Mk. in this

particular ; for Herod

was a family and a dynastic

T h e coexistence in

family of the names Antipas and

Antipater

also no argument, for they are in fact different

names.

5 .

[Ti.],

[WH]

:

Mt.

H e deposed Joazar because of his share in the political

disturbances, and appointed his brother Eleazar. Soon Jesus
took the place of Eleazar. Finally Joazar

reinstated

(Ant.

xviii. 2

I

).

3

Sed

e t

propter

4

So Jos. Ant.

9

3.

I n

other places Boethos is the name

of her father.

The name

was

borne not only

Archelaus (see his coins,

8)

and Antipas (see

7),

after their rise to semi-royal

dignity hut also by two sons of Herod the Great who never
attained thereto-viz., the subject of this section, the son of the
second Mariamme, and also one of the sons of Cleopatra of
Jerusalem (Jos.

xvii.

13,

284).

T h e family belonged originally to Alexandria.

2032

HEROD, FAMILY

O F

Mk.

Daughter of Aristobdus

(Herods second son by Mariamme,
granddaughter of Hyrcanus).

Her

mother was Bernice (Berenice), daughter of' Salome,
Herod's sister. Herod of Chalcis (see

Agrippa

I.,

and the younger Aristobiilus, were therefore full brothers

of

Herodias.

According to Josephus

(Ant. xviii.

5

4 )

she

was wife first of her half-uncle Herod (see preceding
section), who is erroneously supposed to have been
also called Philip. The issue of this marriage was
the famous Salome who danced before Herod Antipas,
and thus became the instrument of her mother's venge-
ance upon the Baptist.

Herodias deserted her first

husband in order to marry his half-brother Antipas,
thus transgressing the law (cp Lev.

1816

Dt. 255).

I n

Mk.

6

the reading 'his daughter Herodias '

that of KBDLA. This would make

the girl

of Antipas and Herodias, bearing her mother's

name. Certainly the expression applied

to

her in the same

verse

is in

favour

of this

:

conversely if the ordinary

reading which designates the dancer

as

accepted

we

must admit

a

great disparity in

age

her and her

husband Philip the tetrarch if she is rightly called

28

A.D.

;

for

Philip died in

34

A.D.

at

the

age

of sixty

or

thereabouts. As the protest

of

in

to

the marriage by no means compels us to assume that the union

was recent, it is scarcely possible to maintain that a daughter

hy it must have been too

to dance at

a

banquet. In

our

ignorance of the chronology of the reign of Antipas

a

solution is

not

to

he had; though it is always possible by means

of

assumptions

to

create

a

scheme

that fits in with the received

reading (cp Schiir.

Hist. 2

28

n.,

and authorities there quoted).

It would scarcely be just to ascribe the action of

Herodias solely t o ambition; it was rather

a

case

of

real and intense affection.

I t is true that it was

Herodias who goaded her husband, in spite of his
desire for quiet and in spite of his misgivings

(Ant.

xviii.

7

to undertake the fatal journey to Rome but

she made what amends she could by refusing to accept
exemption from the sentence of exile pronounced upon
her husband by the emperor.

See above,

7.

6 .

Lk.

. . .

[Ti. WH].)

Son of Herod the Great by

Cleopatra,

a woman of Jerusalem (Jos.

Ant. xvii.

H e was

left in charge of Jerusalem and Judaea when Archelaus
hastened to Rome to secure his inheritance, but sub-
sequently appeared in Rome in support of his brother's
claims

61).

By the decision of Augustus in

accordance with the terms of Herod's last will (see 6 ) .
Philip succeeded to

a

tetrarchy consisting of Batanaea,

Auranitis, Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, and the district of

Panias (which last is, apparently, what Lk.

31

calls

'the

region,' though not indeed the whole.

of

it).

Cp

This list is obtained by combining

the different statements in Josephus

(Ant. xvii.

81

11

4

xviii.

46,

63).

Thus Philip's territory embraced the

poorest parts of his father's kingdom-those lying

E.

and

NE.

of the sea of Galilee as far as Mt. Hermon

:

the annual revenue from it was estimated a t one
hundred

The population was mixed, but was

mostly Syrian and Greek-;.e., it was predominantly
pagan.

Hence Philip's coins bear the image

of

Augustus or Tiberius

contrasting in this respect with those of Herod the Great (whicd

have neither name nor image of the emperor) and those of

Antipas (some of which bear the emperor's name, without his

image).

I n

addition, all the coins of Philip bear the image of a

temple (the splendid

temple

of Augustus

by Herod the

Great near the Grotto of

the source of the

Jordan

:

cp Jos.

'Ant.

xv.

10 3,

21 3).

Having been brought up, like all Herod's sons,

at Rome, Philip's sympathies were entirely Roman.
Owing to the non-Jewish character of his territory his
Hellenistic and Roman policy was more successful than

was the case

his brothers.

Of the events of his

Jos. Ant.

xvii.

8

I

inaccurately describes Philip

as

full

The Greek cities of

the

Decapolis

of course, outside

brother of

Philip's jurisdiction.

HEROD, FAMILY O F

thirty-seven years of rule

( 4

A.D.)

we know

indeed nothing beyond the summary given by Josephus.

His

rule

was

marked by moderation and quiet and his whole

life

was

spent in his

own

territory.

His

were

attended by

a

few chosen friends, and

the seat on

which he

sat

to

give judgment always followed him

;

so

that when

any

one, who wanted his assistance, met him

he made

no delay, hut

down the tribunal wherever he

be, and heard the

case'

(Ant.

xviii.

46).

seems to

have had scientific

from

t h e

story

of

his supposed discovery and

of the Jordan

were

really connected

a

subterranean passage

with

the

circular lake called

stades from Caesarea

10

7).

Apart from his evident administrative ability, Philip

retained only one quality of his race-the passion
for building.

Early in his rule h e rebuilt Panias

at the head-waters

of the Jordan,

and named it Caesarea; he also created the city
of Julias, formerly the village

of

Bethsaida.

S e e

B

ETHSAIDA

,

I

.

H e was only

once married-to Salome, the daughter

of Herodias-

and died without issue. After his death his territory was
attached to the province

of

Syria, retaining, however,

the right of separate administration of its finances

(Ant.

xviii.

46).

Gaius

on

his accession (37

A.D.)

gave i t

to Agrippa

I. with the title of king.

7.

Herod

[Ti.],

[WH],

Acts

Josephns and Coins).

Son of

(Herod the Great's son

by

Mariamme

I . ) and Bernice (daughter

of

Salome,

Herod the Great's sister: Jos.

Ant.

H e was called after his grand-

Shortly before the death

of

Herod the Great, Agrippa and

his mother

were

sent

to

Rome, where they

were

befriended by

Antonia, widow of the elder Drusus (brother of the emperor

Tiberius). Agrippa and

the younger

Drusus (the emperor's

son) became fast friends'

when Drusus died, in

2 3

A

.D.

Agrippa found himself

to

leave Rome with nothing

the memory of his debts and extravagances. He retired to

a

stronghold in Idumaea, and meditated suicide but

his wife

appealed

to

his sister Herodias, with the

result that Antipas

gave

him

a

pension and the office

of

(controller of the market)

at

Tiberias. Before

very

long there was

a

quarrel, and Agrippa resumed his career

as adventurer. For

a

time he was with the Roman governor

Flaccus in Antioch; but ultimately he arrived again in Italy

after running the gauntlet of his creditors

xviii.

6

He attached himself

to

Gaius the grandson

of

Antonia. An incautiously uttered wish for the speedy ac-

cession of Gaius (Caligula) was overheard and reported to the

old emperor, and Agrippa lay in prison during the last six

months of Tiherius.

Caligula, on his accession (37

A.D.)

a t

set

Agrippa free, and bestowed upon him what had been
the tetrarchy of his half-uncle Philip, together with that

of

Lysanias

A

BILENE

Lk.

31

c p Dio Cass.

with the title of king (cp Acts 121) and the right

to wear the diadem; h e also presented him with a
golden chain equal in weight to his iron fetters

(Ant.

xviii.

6

IO).

The Senate conferred upon him the honorary

rank

of

praetor (Philo, in

6 ) . Three years

later h e obtained the forfeited tetrarchy of Herod
Antipas

(Ant. xviii.

H e adroitly used his influence

with the emperor to induce him to abandon his mad
design of erecting

a statute of himself in the temple

at

Jerusalem

(Ant. xviii.

8

Agrippa

Rome when

Gaius fell by the dagger

of Chaerea (Jan. 41

A .

D . ) ,

and by his coolness a t

a critical moment contributed

largely to securing the empire for Claudius

(Ant.

xix.

4

).

In return for this service he received Judaea

and Samaria, being also

in his previous

possessions

'he also obtained consular rank

(Ant.

Cypros was daughter of Phasael, whose wife was his cousin

Salampsio, Herod the Great's daughter by the

Mariamme.

Apparently this abandonment was only temporary

:

a

peremptory decree

was

finally sent, and the crisis

was

averted

only by

the

emperor's assassination. The account given by

Josephus of the manner of Agrippa's intervention differs

from

that given by Philo

Leg.

and seems worked

up on conventional'lines-this romantic apocryphal element is

very conspicuous in the whole account

of

Agrippa's life.

xviii.

5

4).

'*

father's friend Agrippa (see

4).

HEROD,

FAMILY OF

Dio Cass.

6 0 8 ,

These grants were confirmed by solemnities

in the

(cp Suet.

Claud.

25).

For his brother

Herod he obtained the grant of the kingdom of Chalcis

in Lebanon.

In part also at least his influence must be

seen

in

the edicts published by

in favour of

the Jews throughout the empire, freeing them from
those public obligations which were incompatible with

their religious convictions. In pntting under Agrippa

the whole extent of territory ruled by his grandfather,

it was certainly the design of Claudius to resume the

system followed

at

the time

of

Herod the Great and to

obviate the dangers

of

the immediate contact

the Romans and the Jews (Mommsen,

Prow.

of

Now began the second period in Agrippa's life, in

which the spendthrift adventurer appears as

a

model

of Pharisaic piety.

He began his three years of actual

rule with significant acts-the dedication in the temple

of the golden

received from Gaius, the offering of

sacrifices in all their details, and the payment

of

the

charges of a great number

of

Nazirites (cp Acts

21

24).

He loved to live continually in Jerusalem, and strictly

observed the laws of his country, keeping himself in
perfect purity, and not allowing a single day to pass

over his head without its sacrifice' (Jos.

xix.

:

so in the Talmud, if the references are not in part to the
younger Agrippa).

His appeal to Petronius, governor

of Syria, in the matter of an outrage against Judaism
in the Phoenician town of Dora was based on general
grounds of policy and national self-respect, and need
not be traced specially to his correct attitude with

regard to Pharisaism.

It was undoubtedly

a

conse-

quence of this attitude that, though of

a

disposi-

tion

he began

a persecution of the

Christians (Acts

121). James the great was sacrificed,

and Peter escaped only by a miracle.

Agrippa's action against the Christians is supposed by some

to have been due to the famine over

'

all the world (Acts 11

a

generalisation which cannot be entirely defended by the

that marked the reign of Claudius (Suet.

Claud.

or the enumeration of the occasions mentioned hy

authors (in Rome, a t the beginning of his reign, Dio

Cass. GO

.

in Greece in his eighth

or ninth year, Eus.

2

in

in

eleventh year,

Ann. 12 43.

Cp

Zahn,'

2

Just a s little can we defend the words

. .

of the inscr. of

in

referring to famine

Minor in 57

A.D.

Rams. Stud.

IV.,

96,

p.

The ex-

aggeration

I

S

natural.

I t is indeed true that often subsequently

public calamities were the signal for persecution (cp Blass, Act.

the famine referred to in the prophecy of

Agabus occurred in 45-46

A

.D.

Rams.

pp. 49,

after the death of Agrippa. Nevertheless the latest

date that will fit the prophecy is

if not earlier. Such

a

prophecy might well be regarded outside the Christian circle

as

a threat.

The outspoken Jewish sympathies

of the king cost

him the affection of the towns that adhered to the

Romans, and of the troops organised in Roman

fashion

:

at any rate the report of his death was re-

ceived with outrageous jubilation on the part of the

troops in

on the coast

Jos.

Ant. xix. 9

I

xx.

8

7).

T h e striking incident recorded in the Mishna

is

to

b e referred to this Agrippa rather than to Agrippa

When

at

the Feast of Tabernacles (consequently

41

A

.D.)

he read,

to

custom. the Book of Deuteronomv. he burst into

cried

The question as

to how far Agrippa was sincere in

all this is difficult.

I t must be remembered that Agrippa was not only a vassal

king (see

4),

but a Roman citizen, belonging by ado

to

the Gens

(cp the inscr. quoted under B

ERE

N

I

CE

,

2 162

n.), so that he owed concessions to the imperial

system that were not in strictness compatible with his position
a s a Jewish monarch. This fact must have been recoguised by
the strictest Jew (always excepting the fanatical Zealots), who
must perforce have tacitly consented to the king's playing

behalf of the nation two contradictory parts. I t is true, the

Strictly justified by

HEROD,

FAMILY

O F

difficulty with which he had to grapple was only

standing

problem of his house. As compared with his grandfather, how.
ever, he had this advantage-that rival claims were silenced.
or rather in his own person he combined those of both

and Herodians. At the same time, his long residence

Rome, where he had been in closest contact with the main.

spring of the imperial machinery, had given him an insight into
the possibilities of his rule far superior to that possessed by any
other member of the

Two episodes of his reign show

clearly that he grasped these possibilities.

On the

of

Jerusalem he began the building of a wall which, if completed,
would have rendered the city im regnable to direct assault.

I t

was

stopped by the emperor

report of C. Vibius

who, as governor of Syria, had the duty of watching the
interests in the protected states in his neighhourhood (Jos.

Ant.

xix.

; cp

5

Of still greater significance

was the conference of vassal princes of Rome assembled by
Agrippa a t Tiberias,

Antiochus of Commagene,

ceramus of Emesa Cotys of Armenia Minor, Polemon of
Pontus, and Herod

Chalcis. This was rudely broken up by

Marsus himself (Ant.

8

I

)

.

The

skill with which Agrippa brought into alliance

with

the Pharisaic element, which, alike

in

its

moderate and in its extreme

constituted the

backbone of the nation,

the intention of finding

therein a basis for a really national policy, proves him
to have possessed statesmanlike qualities even superior
to those of Herod the Great.

His premature death

prevented the realisation of his schemes; but

it

is at

least doubtful whether we shall not be right in holding
that the glory of the Herodian rule reached its real
culmination in Agrippa's reign.

Of Agrippa's death we have two accounts.

According to Josephus he went to Caesarea in order to

celebrate games in

of the emperor (Ant. xix. 8

can only refer to the safe return

of Claudius from his victorious British expedition spring of
44

A

.D.

: cp Dio Cass. GO 23

;

Suet.

T h e leading

men of the kingdom were there gathered (Acts1220 mentions
particularly a deputation from

T

re and Sidon, introduced by

Blastns, the. king's chamberlain

the second day of the

festival, as

entered the theatre clad

a robe of silver tissue

gleaming in the sun, Agrippa was saluted by his courtiers as
more

The shouts of

and

as

if

to

a divine being, remind us of Acts 12

god's voice and not

man's'

Shortly afterwards

looking upwards, the king spied an owl sitting over his head

of the ropes, and recognised it as the messenger of doom

(alluding to the omen which,

his early imprisonment

portended his good

A n t .

xviii. 6

7).

He

was seized

that instant with severe pains, and

in five days he was dead.

Though more detailed, this account agrees substantially with
that in the NT.

It has been suggested, however, that the two narra-

tives are actually connected with each other, and that
the intermediate stage is marked by the rendering

of

the story in Eusebius

in which the owl

of

Josephus appears as an angel. T h e narrative of Acts
is not without its apocryphal features.

Note especially the expression 'he was eaten of worms'

23,

For this there is no warrant

Josephus, who describes perhaps an attack of peritonitis

8'

To

be eaten

of worms was the conventional ending of tyrants and monu-
mental criminals

queen of Cyrene, Herod.

4

Sulla the Dictator, Plut., who gives other instances.

Antiochns Epiphanes,

Macc. 9

not in

I

Macc. G

8

;

end of Herod the Great is evidently regarded as very similar).
I n this

tradition, Christian and pagan, took its revenge.

8.

Herod

-

[Ti. WH], Acts

;

6

simply, or

in Jos.

and after his accession

His full

name, Marcus Julius Agrippa, is found

coins and inscriptions, see

Hist.

2

n.

).

He was only seven-

teen years old at the time of his father's death, and

though personally inclined to the contrary,

was advised not to allow him to succeed to his father's
kingdom

( A n t . xix.

9

I

) .

Son of Agrippa

I.

and Cypros.

HEROD,

FAMILY O F

The

government had here, as elsewhere

lighted

on the right course,

had not the energy to carry

out

irrespective of accessory considerations (Momms. Prow.

2

The death of the elder Agrippa, in

had as its consequence the final absorption of all Palestine
west of the Jordan (with the exception of certain parts of
Galilee subsequently given to his son) within the circle of

directly-governed territory

5 9).

Agrippa

resided in Rome, where he was able to

use his influence with some effect

on

behalf of the Jews

1 2 6 3 ) .

His uncle, Herod of Chalcis, had

been invested by Claudius with the superintendence of
the temple and the sacred treasury, together with the
right of nominating the high priest (Ant. xx.

1 3 )

on

his death in 48

these privileges were transferred to

Agrippa

Agrippa also received his uncle's kingdom

of Chalcis

(50

A

.

D

. :

Four years later he

surrendered this, and received in return what had been
the tetrarchy of Philip

Gaulonitis, and

Tracbonitis), with Abila, which had been the tetrarchy

of

This was in

53

A.D.

This

realm was further enlarged by Nero, who conferred
upon

the cities and territories of Tiberias

Taricheae

on the sea of Galilee, and the city of Julias

with fourteen surrounding villages

Ant.

xx. 84). This accession of territory was made prob-
ably in

56

A.

D.

(see Schur.

Hist. 2

n.

).

Agrippa gratified his hereditary passion for building

by the improvement of his capital Caesarea (Philippi),
which he named Neronias (see his coins), and by adding
to the magnificence of the Roman colony of Berytus

(Ant.xx.94).

In all other directions his hands were

tied, and the history of the previous few years must have
convinced him that it was no longer possible for

a Jewish

king to play any independent part.

It is probable that

his general policy should be ascribed to astuteness rather
than to indolence and general feebleness (Schur. Hist.

2196). By training he was far more a Roman than

a

Occasionally, indeed, he yielded to the claims of

his Jewish descent (see, however, col. 754, top) but as
a rule he was utterly indifferent to the religious interests
of his time and country, and the subtleties of the scribes
can only have amused him.

(See

'

Agrippa

und der

Judaa's nach

Untergang Jerusalems,'

I n Acts 25 13-26

32

we have a n interesting account of

a n appearance of Paul before the Jewish king and the
Roman governor Festus a t Caesarea. T h e utterance of
Agrippa in 2628 has been well explained by B. Weiss

in 'Texte

Untersuch.

Gesch. der

Christ. Lit.'

3 4). Inaccordance with what we know

of Agrippa's character, it must be viewed as

a virtual

repudiation of that belief

the prophets which was

attributed to him by Paul.

King Agrippa ! believest

thou the prophets,' Paul, had said

I know that thou

believest

27).

T h e gently ironical rejoinder amounts

t o this .:

on slight grounds you would make me a believer

in your assertion that the Messiah has come.'

(For

another view see

CHRISTIAN,

N

AME

OF,

754,

n.

I

) .

Agrippa did

all in his power to restrain his country-

men from going to war with Rome and rushing

on

destruction

and he steadfastly maintained

his own loyalty

to Rome, even after his

cities

joined the revolutionary party.

There was

no other

course to pursue. T h e catastrophe was inevitable the
last

of the Herods could not help witnessing, and to

some extent aiding it.

For a time he was at Rome

but on his return to Palestine he went to the camp of
Titus, where he remained until the end of the war.

Probably he was present at the magnificent games with
which Titus celebrated at Caesarea (Philippi) his con-
quest of Jerusalem

21). On the conclusion of

the war Agrippa's dominions were extended in

a northerly

There is indeed no mention of the conferring of the right

of

appointing the high priest but Agrippa is found exercising

it

His coins, almost without exception, bear the name and

image of the reigning emperor-Nero, Vespasian, Titus, and
Domitian.

HEROD,

FAMILY

O F

direction.

In 75

he went to Rome, and was raised

to the

of praetor (Dio Cass.

66

15).

W e know that

he corresponded with Josephus about the latter's

History

the

Jewish

which he praised for its accuracy

(Jos.

65

1 9 ) .

He appears

to

have died in

third year

He left

no

descendants

perhaps, indeed, he was never married.

His

were incorporated in the province of Syria.

9. Berenice.

-

[Ti.

W H ]

:

the

form of

The oldest of the three

daughters

of

Agrippa I. (Jos. Ant. xix.

She was betrothed to Marcus, son

of Alexander the Alabarch but he died

before the marriage took place

( A n t .

5

I

).

About

41

being then about thirteen years old, Berenice

became the second wife

of

her uncle Herod of Chalcis,'

by whom she had two

sons,

Bernicianus and Hyrcanus

116).

When Herod died

in

48

A.D.

Berenice

joined her brother

Rome, and black stories were

circulated as to their

With the object of

giving these

the lie, Berenice at

by

means of her wealth, induced Polemon II., king of
Cilicia, to be circumcised and to marry her but she
soon deserted him

Jos. xx.

7 3 )

and returned to Agrippa.

She accompanied him

on his

visit to Festus, as above related (see

13.

with great

refers

especially to her,

as is clear from the order

of

the words).

She is next heard of in Jerusalem, fulfilling

a vow

of

a

(cp Nu.

That she inherited the

personal courage which distinguished her family was
shown by her brave attempt, at the risk of her

to

stay the massacre ordered by Florus, the last and worst
of the procurators of

151). Her sympathy

was not allowed to blind her to the prudent course but,
like her brother, she was an ardent supporter of the

Roman cause, and of the

dynasty in particular

Hist.

281).

She was, in fact,

a Jewish Cleopatra

(

a small scale,' Momms.

and Titus, as early apparently as 67

had fallen

a

victim to her charms his return to

from Corinth

in order

concert measures with his father

on the

downfall of Galba was ascribed by gossip to his
passion

22, 'accensum

Berenices

T h e intimacy was renewed in Rome in

75

A.D.

Berenice lived

on the Palatine with him as his

wife (Dio Cass.

6615,

and it was said that Titus bad promised to make

her his consort (Suet.

Tit. 7). He was, however, too

shrewd to endanger his popularity by opposition to the
public feeling, and insisted upon her departure from
the capital. After Vespasian's death she returned but
Titus took

no notice at all of her-she had played for

an empire, and

T o

these notices of her life we can only add the inscription

found in Athens

31,

no. 5 5 6 ) :

I

O

.

Drusilla

[Ti.

WH],

A

diminutive form, from Drusus like Priscilla, Acts

T h e youngest of the three daughters

of

Agrippa

born about

38

A.D.

(Jos.

His first wife was Mariamme, a granddaughter

of Herod the

Great ; by her he had one son Aristobiilus

(Ant. xviii. 5

4).

The scandal was

current

in Roman fashionable

circles

(Ant.

xx.

7

3,

cp

Sat. 6

'. .

.

et

I n

factus pretiosior : hunc dedit

dedit hunc Agrippa sorori

Observant ubi festa

pede sabhata

Et

indulget senihus clementia porcis ').

4

Dio Cass.

I

S

;

statim a b

Dio

alone

The second daughter, Mariamme,

is

not mentioned in the

For

career, curiously parallel to that of her sisters, see

:

Jos.

A n t . xx.

7

3.

;

Aur.

IO.

distinguishes the two occasions.

NT.

2038

HEROD, FAMILY O F

Ant. xix.

She was betrothed by her father to

Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, king

of

Commagene but

he refused to be circumcised, and the marriage did not
take place. After Agrippa

received his kingdom from

Claudius, he gave his sister in marriage to

king

of Emesa, on condition of his accepting circumcision.
Antonius Felix, brother of the emperor’s powerful freed-
man Pallas, was captivated by her

and em-

ployed as his agent in seducing her affections one

a

Cypriote, who had the reputation of being

a

magician

(some would identify him with Simon Magus of Acts

89).

Partly in order to escape the persecutions of her

sister Rerenice, who was jealous

of

her beauty, Drusilla

deserted her husband and became the third wife of Felix,
who was then procurator of

(for his character,

see

Hist.

59

Ann.

Suet.

Claud. 28,

trium

reginarum maritus’). This was in

53

A

.D.

I t is not

always realised that Drusilla can only have been about
sixteen years old

at

the time.

In

24

24 we read how Felix ‘with his wife Drusilla which

was Jewess’ (so AV

W H ; RV,

his

wife

own wife

:

is omitted

bv

all uncial

MSS.

except

heard Paul ‘concerning the

in Christ’

58

Drusilla would naturally he interested (like her

brother Agrippa later, Acts 25

to hear some account of what

professed to he the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. According to

someauthorities for the western text, indeed, the interview took
place a t her special request (so restored in

24 by Blass,

Act.

ed.

1895,

i r a v b v

and in

Ant.

xx.

But Niese here

7 3

Agrippa,

Agrippa I.,
Agrippa

67

Alexander,

24

Alexander,

41

Alexander, 52
Alexander, 6 3
Alexandra, 42
Alexas,
Alexas, 61
Antigonus, d.

of,

44

Antipas,

29

Antipater,

I

Antipater,
Antipater, 23
Antipater, 37
Antipater, 39
Archelaus,

30

Archelaus, 7 6
Aretas, d. of, 47
Aristobulus, 25

55

Aristobulus

6 2

Aristobulus: 74

78

Bernice,

38

Bernice,
Bernice

64

Cleopatra,
Costobar,

Cypros, 27

4

43

Demetrius, 77
Doris,
Drusilla, 70

15

Drusus, 68

,

HEROD, FAMILY O F

v. 27

the western text

has

must

suppose Drusilla to have been actuated

by a spirit of revenge, like Herodias in the very similar case of
John the Baptist).

Drusilla

to Felix

a

son, called Agrippa, who

perished in the great eruption of Vesuvius

(in the reign

of Titus), by which

and Herculaneum were

destroyed

(Jos.

Ant. xx.

.

. .

some take this to mean along

with Drusilla,’ but more probably it signifies his own
wife).

The authority for the history of the whole Herodian family is

Josephus isolated references only are found in other writers.

Of

modern books dealing with the history we

16.

Authorities.

need only mention

great work,

des

the second edition of which is accessible in a n

English translation

vols.).

Two vols. of a new edition

in

German have appeared

’98).

is a popular

account written without sympathy or historical insight. The
various Histories of N T

English and foreign, deal

with the family, deriving their facts from

The evidence

of the coins will be found in Madden’s

Coins

Appended is

a genealogy of the Herodian family.

Names printed in heavy type are those of members

of

the family mentioned in the

NT. All

the names in any one upright column
are names either

( a ) of sons (or

daughters) or

of husbands (or wives)

or

(c)

of fathers

(or mothers) of the persons named in the adjacent
columns

to

right or to left respectively. The numbers

attached to the

are the same

as those attached

to them in the annexed index.

J. W.

INDEX

Herod, 6
Herod, 32
Herod, 40

Herod, 54
Herod, 72
Herod (Philip?),

28

Herodias, 46
Hyrcanus,

65

Iotape 60

66

Mariamme
Mariamme: 13
Mariamme, 48

Mariamme, 57
Mariamme, 69

Olympias,

31

Pallas, 16

Phaedra

Phasael
Phasael:

14

Philip thk

33

Polemon, 7 5

Roxana, 35

Salampsio,

Salome,

Salome, 36
Salome, 49

Tigranes, 53

58

of

T

H

E

HE

R

O

DIAN F

AM

ILY

N

Cypros

poisoned,
43

B.C.

executed,

34

B

.C.

= Salome

t 4 0

:he Great.

B.C.

Phasael

11

executed, 4

B

.C.

executed,

7

Mariamme

the
executed,

B

.C.

Alexander

of

C

C

Tigranes

V

= Salampsio

=Daughter of

(the last of the

k. of Armenia.

d.

o f

Antiochus,

k.

of

Commagene.

74

Bernicianus

Herod

54

k.

Chalcis,

{

-

executed, 7

B

.C.

=

d.

of

mus, k. of Emesa.

Agrippa

A son who died young

in
i. 22

Drusus

(died young).

Herod (Philip

d. of Simon the
high-priest.

39

A.D.

-

-

=Daughter of

k.

of

Arabia.

Mariamme

{

-

Glaphyra

Olympias

=Joseph

=two unknown.

fell in battle, 38

Herod

Philip,

the

=

k.

of Chalcis.

B

.C.

= Cypros

A.D.

executed,

34

executed,

B

.C.

=

executed, 7

B

.C.

k.

of Emesa.

procurator

t79

A

.

D.

of Judaea.

W. W.

HERODIANS

T h e Herodians were the adherents of the dynasty of
Herod, who made common cause with the Pharisees
against Jesus, as they had previously done against John
the Baptist (Lk.

Jesus, on his side, did not spare

denunciation of his opponents, in whom he recognised
in different forms the same corrupting power, the same

'leaven' of wickedness. 'Beware,' he said (Mk.
'of the leaven of the

and of the leaven of

Herod (we may disregard the slightly supported read-
ing

In

Mt.

leaven is explained to mean 'teaching'

The early evangelic tradition however, seems not to have been

unanimous as to the

of 'leaven'' in

the

leaven of the Pharisees is interpreted as

'

W e may

venture then to give the phrase

leaven of Herod' its natural

explanation

;

it means the vital spirit of the kingdom of Herod,

as the leaven of the parable in

13

33

Lk. 13

means

the vital spirit of the kingdomof heaven. C p G

OSP

ELS

,

At the time when the question respecting the tribute

money was put to Jesus (Mt. 2217

Mk.

question

in putting which the

Herodians' as well as the

Pharisees were

was not under any

member of the

family,

under a Roman

procurator.

Still, the Herodian spirit lived on.

It

was not true, as the Herodians pretended, that they
scrupled about paying tribute to Caesar

what they

longed for was the re-establishment of the Herodian
kingdom in spite of its subjection to Rome, as repre-
senting that union of Hellenism and Judaism which
seemed to enable Jews to 'make the best of both
worlds.' Such

a re-establishment,

was hindered

by the preachers of Messianism, and the friends of

Herodianism recognised Jesus as one of these.

S

O

these spies,' as they are called (Lk.

put the in-

sidious question to

' Is it lawful to give tribute

unto Caesar, or not,' simply that they might catch him
in talk,' and accuse him to the governor.

The Herodians are referred to again in Mk.

36.

Early in the

ministry of Jesus they are said

t o have joined the Pharisees in plotting his destruction.
This, however,

is evidently a mistake. In the country

of the tetrarch Antipas there could not be a party called

Herodians.'

If Greek-speaking Jews in Galilee ever

used the

they could only mean by it

of the household of Herod,' a meaning which,

to be sure, is not unsupported in modern times, but is
unsuitable in Mk.

and

is

not favoured by the

phraseology of

It

is remarkable that in Mt. 1 6 6 the place of the

Herodians' is taken by the Sadducees.

No stress,

however, can be laid upon this; there

is no evidence

that there was a faction of the Sadducees which was
devoted to the interests

of the Herodian family. It was

more natural to the evangelist to speak

of the Pharisees

and the Sadducees; he had no thought of suggesting
that the Sadducees and the Herodians had any points
in common.

Still less can the Pharisees and the

Herodians have had any real sympathy. There

in

Ant. xvii. 34 a story that the Pharisees predicted

the fall of Herod and his house and the accession of his
brother Pheroras to the throne of Israel this is rightly

rejected by Wellhausen

337

n.).

Just as little

could they have attached their hopes for the future
t o Herod or to any Herodian prince. Yet as early a
writer as Tertullian

(De

Append.

)

speaks of those who Christum

esse

and as modem a writer as Renan

(

Vie

226)

supposes the Boethosian section of the Sadducees to
be intended by the Herodians of the evangelists. Hitzig
too

559)

apparently agrees with Tertullian.

These views and a similar theory of Ewald
547) no longer find any support.

On the name

c p the remarks on the form

C

HRISTIAN

,

OF,

4.

See also Keim, Herodianer,

in

of

Herod's party, in antithesis

Lex.

T. K. C.

to

HESHMON

HERODIAS

146, etc.

See

I

O

.

WH]) is saluted in

Rom.

as 'my kinsman, an expression which

suggests that he was of Jewish origin (cp R

OMANS

,

4,

I

O

).

The name would indicate the freedman of some

prince of the dynasty of Herod.

Weizsacker

(Apost.

Age,

399)

suggests that he may have worked for

Christ within the household of Narcissus mentioned just
afterwards (cp A

PELLES

).

I n

the

of t h e Pseudo-Dorotheus,

figures a s

bishop of Patras. According to the

of

Paul

by the Pseudo-Symeon Metaphrastes he was so consecrated by
Peter and he and Olympas were bothbeheaded a t Rome at the
time

Peter was crucified there. H e is commemorated in

in the Greek

on 8th April.

HERON

an unclean bird (Lev.

Dt.

[BAFL]), for which

suggests

ibis as an alternative rendering

Accord-

ing to the Lexicons

is of quite uncertain mean-

Lidd. and Scott translate

the

stone- curlew

or thick

-

kneed bustard,

but even

if this be correct one hesitates to

identify this bird with the

Unless the word

is misplaced, we may with some confidence

infer from the proximity of

' stork,' that it means

the

of herons (note 'after its kind'). At least

seven species of heron are common in Palestine.

Both the Common and the Purple Herons

cinerea

and A .

the Egrets ( A . alba and

A .

and

the Squacco

( A .

as well as the

may often

seen fishing by the Sea of Galilee and of the

Buff-hacked Heron (A.

called the'

Ibis,

'immense flocks live and

in the impenetrable swamps of

the Huleh (Tristram

It is this class of birds which is presumably meant by t h e

Ass.

with which the Lexicons (after Friedr. Del.)

naturally compare

The Ibis,

white and

is common in the swamps of the Egyptian Delta, and may
in the winter be seen anywhere in the

of the Upper

Nile.

The Egyptians held it sacred to Thoth.

Ibis.

however, is too definite a rendering.

T. K.

E. S.

I

a

town of Moah, often mentioned in the Hexateuch ( J E ,

D,

and P ) in Is.

Jer. 482

34

45

4 9 3 ;

Cant.

(MT,

but see B

ATH

-

RABBIM

)

and in

Judith 5

[e]

[B],

[HA]). Heshbon

and the

Hesebonitis

)

are named repeatedly also in Josephus

(Ant.

xiii.

xv.

3 3 ) and

or

is defined in

as being

the contemporary

or

' a notable city of

Arabia in the mountains facing Jericho,

2 0

R.

m. from

the Jordan.'

It is the modern

which is finely

situated

the edge of the

W.

at a height of

600

feet above the

and close to the water-

shed from which the

W.

drains southwards into

the

Ma'in. The ruins, chiefly Roman, are mainly

on two hills,

and

feet above sea level Mt.

Nebo, 5 miles to the

SW. is considerably lower (2643

ft.). There are remains of a castle and of a temple,
and on the east, at the base of the castle hill,

a great

reservoir, now ruinous and dry.

It

is

a difficult thing,'

remarks Post

'88,

for the imagination

to restore to the reservoir the

which made the

fishpond of Heshbon, a suitable simile for the eyes

of

Solomon's bride (Cant.

7

4

There are, of course,

plenty of pools near the

(see Tristram,

Land

340). The text, however, is open to

suspicion see B

ATH

-

RABBIM

.

the modern topography see Tristram as above; and

of

E.

1

esp.

and map.

RV B

EN

-

HESED

.

For the ancient history of Heshbon see M

OAB

,

HESHMON

BA om.).

unidentified

on the Edomite border of Judah

HETH

(Josh.

mentioned

and Beersheba.

Hence perhaps came the

See

H

I

T

TITE

S

.

. -

HETH

Gen.

etc.

HETHLON

THC

TOY

of

do not recognise the word

as

a

proper name Syr.

The way of Hethlon'

is one of

a series of landmarks by which Ezekiel

(47

48

I

)

defines the ideal north boundary of Canaan.

In

Nu.

(post-exilic), where the boundary is on

the whole the same, Hethlon does not appear.

In

Ezekiel it seems to lie between the point where the

border leaves the Mediterranean and that at which it
strikes the Hamathite frontier.

If, as seems possible,

Ezekiel (like Josh.

contemplates the inclusion

in

Canaan of Phcenicia

as far N. as Gebal and of all

Lebaqon, the 'way

of Hethlon' may be identical

name Pentateuch, found already in Tertullian

several books were named by the Jews from their initial

,

H E

6

and Duplicate of the Torah

The Pentateuch, together with Joshua, Judges, and

The date of the division of the Torah into five books

;

'

s

Septuagint translation.

See C

ANON

,

A . EARLIEST CRITICISM.

the seventeenth century that these

suppressed.

It was observed that Moses does not speak of himself in the

third,-a writer, too,

lived long after.

n

e

Gen.

'the Canaanite was then in the land is spoken

to

had long forgotten that

a

nation from

had once occupied the Holy Land the

Gen. 3B 31

these are the kings that reigned in the land

of

Edom,

before therd

[The general articles on the several books of the Hexateuch

person,

Hobhes,

33 Peyrerius,

ex

4

7

Simon,

Crit.

15-7 Le Clerc,

lett.

6.

HEXATEUCH

Of legendary history

Objections

to

hypothesis

reigned any king over the children of Israel have no prophetic

they point

t o

an author who

under the Hebrew

cannot possibly

cited by Moses himself a s it contains a

record of his own deeds. and when Dt. 34

(cp

Nu. 12) s a y s

that 'there arose not

a

in Israel like unto Moses,'

the writer is necessarily one who looked back to Moses through

contradictions, inequalities,

and repeti-

tions of events in the Pentateuch, such a s excluded the

gruity of Gen.

1 and 2, which he pressed very strongly,

per

-

suasion that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch,
whilst at the same time they directed criticism to a less
negative

the analysis of the Pentateuch.

For this, indeed, the seventeenth century did not
anything considerable

but at least two conclusions

came out with

clearness. The first of these

was the self-contained character

of Deuteronomy, which

in those days there was

a disposition to regard as the

oldest book of the Pentateuch, and that with the best

history were sharply

distinguished

the chief difficulties were felt to lie in

bold conjecture that in their present form

books of the O T were composed

Ezra

ran far ahead of the laborious investigation

,

merit of opening the true path of this investigation.
He recognised in Genesis two main sources, between
which he divided the whole materials of the book, with
some few exceptions, and these sources he distinguished

the observation of other linguistic differences which
regularly accompanied the variation in the names of

Conjectures

dont

pour

Oct.

pp.

with the route from the coast

up the Eleutheros

round the northern slopes of Lebanon

to Emesa (Him:) and Riblah.

In that case we may

consider

proposal

(ZDPV

8 2 7 )

to identify

Hethlon with the village of

N. of Tripoli,

between Nahr el-Kebir and Nahr

(Robinson,

4

576).

The scholar who warned

us

so

pointedly against

dwelling too much on

casual resemblances

of

names would not have been sorry for an excuse to
abandon this hazardous conjecture (for another, see
van Kasteren,

Rev.

24

cp Hommel, in

Hastings'

As

A s . , Jan.-

Feb.

'99)

has seen,

and

the words preceding

in Ezek. 4715 and

481

respectively, should be

(see H

ADRACH

).

It follows that

Hethlon

is a corruption of

a

verb is almost, if not quite,

necessary. For the reason

of the choice of this verb.

see

M

OUNT

,

2.

W.

C.

HEXATEUCH

HEXATEUCH

God, was introduced into Germany by Eichhorn

i n

A T ) , and proved there the fruitful and just point

of departure for all further inquiry. At first, indeed,

it was with but uncertain steps that critics advanced
from the analysis of Genesis to that of the other hooks,
where the simple criterion of the

of the

divine names was no longer available.
I n the hands of the Scotsman Geddes
and the German Vater the Pentateuch

resolved itself into an agglomeration of longer and
shorter fragments, between which no threads of con-

tinuous connection could be traced

( '

hypothesis

').

T h e Fragment

-

hypothesis was mainly

supported by arguments drawn from the middle books
of the Pentateuch,

as limited to these it long found

wide support.

De

from it in his

investigations but this was really an inconsistency, for
his fundamental idea was to show throughout all parts
of the Pentateuch traces of certain common tendencies,

a n d even of one deliberate plan nor was he far from
recognizing the close relation between the Elohist of
Genesis and the legislation of the middle books.

De Wette's chief concern, however, was not with the

literary but with the historical criticism of the Penta-

teuch, and in the latter he made a n epoch.

In his

of 1805

he

placed the composition of Deuteronomy in

Historical

the time of King

from a

criticism

parison of

K.

with Dt.

and pro-

nounced it to he the most recent stratum of

the Pentateuch, not, as had previously been

supposed the oldest.

In his

die

der

der

Chronik (1806) he showed that the laws of Moses

are unknown to the post-Mosaic history; this he did by in-

stituting a close comparison of Samuel and Kings with

Chronicles, from which it appeared that the variations of the
latter are to be explained not by the

of other sources, but

solely

the desire of the Jewish scribes to shape the history

in conformity with the law and to give the law that place in

history which, to their

had not been conceded to it

the older historical books.

Finally, in his

der

Wette attacked the method then prevalent in Germany of
eliminating all miracles and prophecies from the

ex-

plaining them away, and then rationalizing what remained into
a

dry prosaic pragmatism. De Wette refuses to find any history

in the Pentateuch; all is legend and poetry. The Pentateuch
is an authority not for the history of the time it deals with, but
only for the time in which it was written; it is he says the
conditions of this milch later time which the
and throws back into the past, whether in the form of narrative
o r of law.

De Wette's brilliant

which made his reputation

for the rest of his

exercised

a powerful influence on

his contemporaries. For several

decennia

all who were

open to critical ideas at all stood under his

Gramberg, Leo, and Von Bohlen wrote under this influence.

Gesenius in

the greatest Hebraist then living,

under it

:

nay, Vatke and George were guided by D e Wette's

ideas and started from the ground that he had conquered

although they advanced

him to a much more

and better established position, and were also diametrically
opposed to him in one most important point, of which we shall
have more to say presently.3

Meantime a reaction was rising which sought to

direct criticism towards positive rather than negative

The chief representatives of

positive criticism, which now took

up a distinct attitude of opposition to the

negative criticism of De Wette, were Bleek, Ewald,

Movers,

Hitzig.

By giving up certain parts of the

Pentateuch, especially Deuteronomy, they thought them-

selves able to vindicate certain other parts

as

beyond

results.

Alex. Geddes,

on

the

J.

S.

Vater,

den

Wette scarcely maintained the high position as a critic

which he conquered by his early writings. What the causes of

this were, and what were De Wette's services to the general
critical and theological movement, have been described

Che.

Founders,

H.

die Geschichte

des

2 8 ;

C.

P.

W. Gramberg.

Geschichfe der

des

A T

;

P.

v. Bohlen,

Die

Genesis,

35

; W. Vatke,

'35

F.

L.

George,

Die

'35.

doubt genuinely Mosaic, just in the same way

as they

threw over the

authorship of certain psalms in

order to

the claim of others to bear his

name.

T h e procedure by which particular ancient

hymns or laws were sifted out from the Psalter or the

Pentateuch was arbitrary; but up to

a certain point

the reaction was in the right.

De Wette and his followers had really gone too far in apply.

the

measure to all arts of the Pentateuch, and had

been satisfied with a very

insight into its composition

and the relation of its parts. Historical criticism had hurried
on too fast, and literary criticism had now to overtake it. De
Wette himself felt the necessity for this, and from the year 1817
onwards-the year of the first edition of his
took an active and useful part in the

solution of the problems of

Pentateuchal analysis.

T h e Fragment-hypothesis was now superseded the

connection of the Elohist of Genesis with the legislation

of the middle books was clearly
recognized, and the book of Joshua
was included

as the conclusion of the

Pentateuch.

T h e closely-knit connection and regular

structure of the narrative of the Elohist impressed the
critics

it seemed to supply the skeleton which had

been clothed with flesh and blood hy the Yahwist, in
whose contributions there was no such obvious
formity to

a plan.

From all this it was naturally con-

cluded that the Elohist had written the

or

primary narrative, which lay before the Yahwist and
was supplemented by

( Supplement-hypothesis

This view remained dominant till Hupfeld

in 1853

published his

Die

der

Genesis u n d die A r t

Hupfeld denied

that the Yahwist followed the context of

the Elohistic narrative, merely supplementing it by
additions of his

He pointed out that such

Elohistic passages in Genesis

as clearly have undergone

a Yahwistic redaction

chaps.

20-22) belong to an

Elohist different from the author of Gen.

1. Thus he

distinguished three independent sources in Genesis
and he assumed further, somewhat rashly, that

no

one

of them had anything to do with the others till

a fourth

and later writer wove them all together into

a

single

whole.

This assumption was corrected by Noldeke,

who showed that the second Elohist is
preserved only in extracts embodied in

the Yahwistic book, that the Yahwist and 'second'

Elohist form one whole and the

another,

and that thus, in spite of Hupfeld's discovery, the

Pentateuch (Deuteronomy being excluded) was still to
be regarded as made up of two great layers.

has also the honour of having been the first to trace in
detail how the Elohistic

runs through the

whole Hexateuch, and of having described with masterly
hand the peculiar and inflexible type of its ideas and
language.

In this task he was aided by the valuable

material collected in

The work of synthesis, however, did not hold even

pace with the critical analysis indeed, the true scope

Noldeke

of the problem was not as yet realized.
As regards the narrative matter it was

forgotten that, after the Yahwistic

the

Deuteronomic, and the priestly versions of the history
had been happily disentangled from one another, it was
necessary to examine the

relations of the three,

to consider them

as marking so many stages of

a

his-

torical tradition, which had passed through its suc-
cessive phases under the action of living causes,
the growth of which could and must be traced and
historically explained. Still greater faults of omission
characterized the critical treatment of the legal parts of
the Pentateuch.

the oracle in all such matters

in

1822,

and in

Ewald,

Tuch,

Genesis, 1838 ; especially

De

in the various editions of his

'61.

des

A

'69.

3

57

Josh

4

For critical sketches of

Ewald.

see

Rounders.

2048

HEXATEUGH

of

the German school of Vermittelungstheologen (the

.theologians who tried to mediate between orthodoxy

and criticism alike in doctrine and in history), never
looked beyond the historical framework of the priestly

laws, altogether shutting his eyes to their substance.

H e never thought of instituting an exact comparison
between them and the Deuteronomic law, still less of

examining their relation to the historical and prophetical
books, with which, in truth,

as

appears from his

he had only a very superficial acquaintance.

Ewald,

on

the other hand, whose views as to the

Priestly Code were cognate to those of Bleek, un-

doubtedly had

an

intimate acquaintance with Hebrew

antiquity, and understood the prophets as

no one else

did.

But he too neglected the task of

a

careful com-

parison between the different strata

of the Pentateuchal

legislation, and the equally necessary task of deter-
mining how the several laws agreed with or

from such definite data for the history of religion as

could be collected from the historical and prophetical
books. He had therefore no fixed measure to apply

t o the criticism of the laws, though his conception of
the history suffered little, and his conception of prophecy

still less, from the fact that in shaping them he left the

law practically out of sight, or only called it in from

to time in an irregular and rather unnatural way.

Meanwhile, two Hegelian writers, starting from the

original position of De Wette, and moving on lines

apart from the beaten track of criticism,

actually effected the solution of the most

important problem in the whole sphere of

study. Vatke

(on whom see Cheyne's book already

mentioned) and George have the honour of being the
first by whom the question of the historical sequence of
the several stages of the law was attacked on a sound

method, with full mastery over the available evidence,

and with a clear insight into the far-reaching scope of
the problem.

Their works made no permanent

however, and were neglected even by Reuss,

although this scholar had fallen at the same time upon
quite similar ideas, which he did not venture to publish.

T h e following propositions were formulated by Reuss in 1833

as

he elsewhere gives the date, in

though they were

not published till 1879.

I

.

historique du

11.

Reuss.

Pentateuquepeut et

examine part et n e

pas

confondu

2.

L'un e t

ont pu exister sans redaction

L a mention chez

dauciens

de

traditions

ou

mosaiques, ne prouve pas l'existence du Pentateuque, e t une
nation peut avoir un droit coutumier sans code

3.

Les

traditions nationales des Israelites rernonteut plus haut que
les lois du Pentateuque et la redaction des premieres est

celle des secondes.

4.

principal de

l'historien

porter sur la date des lois,

que sur

ce terrain

a plus de chance d'arriver des

certains.

faut en consequence

l'interrogatoire des

5.

L'histoire

dans

livres des Juges et de Samuel,

e t

en partie celle comprise dans

livres des Rois, est en

contradiction avec des lois dites mosaiques ;

inconnnes

de

la

redaction de ces livres,

plus forte

raison

n'ont pas

dans

temps qui y

Lqs

du

et du

ne

du code

mosaique.

7.

est le premier

qui connaisse

une loi

et ses citations rapportent a u

8.

Le

(4

68)

est le livre que

tendaient avoir

dans le temple,

temps du

Josias.

Ce code est la partie la plus

de la legislation

-comprise dans le Pentateuque.

L'histoire des Israelites, en

tant

du

national determine par des

se divisera en deux

avant

et

Josias.

est

la redaction du code

et des

lois qui out

la

Le

de

pas, tant

faut, la partie la plus

de

l'ouvrage

12.

L e

du Pentateuque se distingue

de

prophbte Moyse.

et

The new ideas lay dormant for thirty years when

-they were revived through

a pupil of Reuss, K. H.

H e too was deemed at first to

easy victory to the weapons

of

critical analysis,' which found many

vulnerable points in the original statement of his views.

For, while Graf placed the legislation of the middle

books very late, holding it to have been framed after

the great captivity, he at first still held fast

to

the doctrine

of the great antiquity of the so-called Elohist

of

Genesis

(in

the sense which that term bore before Hupfeld's

discovery), thus violently rending the Priestly Code in
twain, and separating its members by an interval of
half

a millennium. This he was compelled to do,

because, for Genesis at least, he still adhered to the
supplement hypothesis, according to which the Yahwist
worked on the basis laid by the (priestly) Elohist.
Here, however, he was

tying himself by bonds which

had been already loosed by Hupfeld and, as literary
criticism actually stood, it could show no reason for
holding that the Yahwist was

later than the

Elohist.

In the end, therefore, literary criticism offered

itself as

auxiliary. Following a hint of Kuenen's,

he embraced the proffered alliance, gave

up the violent

attempt to divide the Priestly Code, and proceeded
without further obstacle to extend to the historical part
of that code as found in Genesis those conclusions
which he had already established for its main or legis-
lative part. Graf himself did not live to see the victory
of his cause.

The task of developing and enforcing

his hypothesis was left to others, primarily to the great
Leyden critic, A.

B. GRAF-WELLHAUSEN HYPOTHESIS.

T h e characteristic feature in the hypothesis of Graf is

that the Priestly Code is placed later than Deuteronomy,

so that the order

is no longer Priestly

Code, Yahwist (JE), Deuteronomy, but
Jehovist

(JE), Deuteronomy, Priestly

Code. T h e method of inquiry has been already indi-

cated the three strata of the Pentateuch are compared
with one another, and at the same time the investigator
seeks to place them in their proper relation to the
successive phases of Hebrew history as these are known
to

us

from other and undisputed evidence.

The

process may be shortened if it be taken

as

agreed that

the date of Deuteronomy

is known from

K. 22 (see

D

E

U

TERO

N

OMY

,

for this gives

us

at starting

a

fixed point, to which the less certain points can be re-
ferred:

T h e method can be applied alike to the historical and

to

the

legal parts of the three strata of the Hexateuch.

For

J E

gives

legislative matter in

Ex.

20-23

34,

and Deuteronomy and the

Priestly Code embrace

matters

;

moreover, we always

find that the legal standpoint of each author influences his
presentation of the history, and

versa.

T h e most important

point, however, is the comparison of the laws, especially of the

aws about worship, with the statements in the historical and

prophetical books.

I

.

the principallaw-book embodiedin

JE,

the so-called

Book of the Covenant, takes it for granted in Ex.

20

24-26

that altars are many, not one. Here
there

is no idea of attaching value to the

retention of

a

single place for the altar;

earth and

stones are to be found

everywhere, a n d

an altar of these

falls into

ruins as easily as it is built.

Again

a

choice of

materials is given, presumably for the construction

of

different altars, and

proposes to come to his

worshippers and bless them, not in

the

place where he

causes his name to be celebrated, but at every such
place. The law adopted

in

JE therefore agrees with

the customary usage of the earlier period of Hebrew
history

and

so

too does the narrative, according to

which the patriarchs wherever they reside erect altars,
set up cippi

plant trees, and dig wells.

The places of which these acts of the patriarchs are related

are not fortuitous they are the same places as were afterwards
famous shrines.

is why the narrator speaks of them his

interest

in the sites is not antiquarian ; it is due to the practical

importance they held in the worship of his own day. The
altar

Abraham built a t Shechem is

the

same on which

K. H .

Graf

A T '66' essays

by Graf, in

1225

466

in

v a n Israel,

vols.

( E T '74-'75). and

his essays in

'77-'84.

See

[especially]

Well.

2050

HEXATEUCH

HEXATEUCH

sacrifices

still

continued to he offered Jacob's anointed stone

a t Bethel was still anointed, and tithes'were still offered at it in
fulfilment of vows, in the writer's own generation.

T h e things which a later generation deemed offensive

and heathenish-high places,

sacred trees,

and wells-all appear here

as consecrated by patriarchal

precedent, and the narrative can be understood only as
a picture of what occurred daily in the first century

(or

thereabout) after the division of the kingdoms, thrown
back into the past and clothed with ancient authority.

T h e Deuteronomic legislation begins (Deut.

just like the Book of the Covenant, with

a law for the

place of worship. Now, however, there

a complete change;

is to be

worshipped only in Jerusalem.

T h e new

law-bdok is never weary of repeating this command and
developing its consequences in every direction. All
this is directed against current usage, against what we
are accustomed to do at this day

the law is polemical

and aims at reformation. This law therefore belongs
to the second period of the history, the time when the
party

of reform in Jerusalem was attacking the high

places.

When we read then that King Josiah was moved to destroy

the local sanctuaries

the discovery of a law-book, this book,

if we assume it to he preserved in the Pentateuch can h e none
other than the legislative part of Deuteronomy in shorter form
(see further,

3. In the Priestly Code all worship depends

on the

tabernacle, and would fall to nothing apart from it.

- -

Third

T h e tabernacle is simply

a means of put-

ting the law of unity of worship in

a

historical form it is the only legitimate

sanctuary there is

no

other spot where

God dwells and

shows himself,

no other where man can approach God

and seek his face with sacrifice and gifts.

But, while

Deuteronomy demands, the Priestly Code presupposes,
the limitation of worship to one sanctuary.

This

principle is tacitly assumed

as

the basis of everything

else, but is never asserted in so many words

the

principle, it appears, is now no novelty; it can be
taken for granted. Hence we conclude that the Priestly
Code builds on the realization of the object aimed at in

Deuteronomy, and therefore belongs to the post-exilic
ueriod, when this obiect had been fully secured.

An institution which

its origin must necessarily have had

a negative significance as an instrument in the hands of polemical
reformers

taken to have been from the first the only

intelligible and legitimate form of worship.

It is so taken

because established customs always appear to be natural and to
need no reason for their existence.

T h e abolition of the local shrines in favour of

necessarily involved the

of the

provincial priesthood in favour of the

sons

of Zadok in the temple of Solomon.

The law of Deuteronomv tries

to

avoid

this consequence by conceding the privilege of offering
sacrifices a t Jerusalem to the Levites from other places
Levites in Deuteronomy is the general name for priests
whose right to officiate is hereditary.

This privilege,

however, was never realized,

no

doubt because the sons

of Zadok opposed it. T h e latter, therefore, were now the
only real priests, and the priests of the high places lost
their office with the destruction of their altars for the
loss of their sacrificial dues they received a sort of elee-
mosynary compensation from their aristocratic brethren

K.

The displacing

of the provincial priests,

though practically almost inevitable, went against the
law of Deuteronomy but

an argument to justify it

was

supplied by Ezekiel (Ezek.

44).

T h e

other Levites, he says, forfeited their

priesthood by abusing it in the service of the high
places and for this they shall be degraded to be mere
servants

of

the Levites of Jerusalem, who have not been

guilty of the offence of doing sacrifice in provincial
shrines, and

alone deserve to remain priests.

If

we start from Denteronomy, where all Levites have
equal priestly rights, this argument and ordinance are
plain enough but it is utterly impossible to understand

2051

them if the Priestly Code is taken as already existing.
Ezekiel views the priesthood as originally the right of
all Levites, whilst by the Priestly Code a

who

claims this right is guilty of baseless and wicked pre-
sumption, such

as once cost the lives of all the company

of Korah.

On the other hand, the position of the

Levites, which Ezekiel qualifies as a punishment and

a

degradation, appears to the Code

as

the natural posi-

tion, which their ancestors from father to

son had held

from the first.

The distinction between priest and

Levite, which Ezekiel introduces expressly as

an innova-

tion, and which elsewhere in the O T is known only to

author of Chronicles, is, according to the Code, a

Mosaic institution fixed and settled from the beginning.
Ezekiel's ideas and aims are entirely in the same
direction as the Priestly Code, and yet he plainly does
not know the Code itself. This can only mean that
in his day there was no such Code, and that his ordi-
nances formed one of the steps that prepared the way

for it.

T h e Priestly Code gives us a hierocracy fully

developed, such

as

find after the exile.

Aaron

stands above his sons as the

sons of Aaron

stand above the Levites.

H e has not only the highest place, hut a place quite unique

like

that of the Roman pontiff; his sons minister under

superintendence

he himself is the only priest with

full rights ;

a s such he wears the Urim and Thummim and the

golden ephod and none but he

can enter the holy of

and

offer incense there.

Before the Exile there were, of course, differences of

rank among the priests

the chief priest was only

even Ezekiel knows no high priest

in the sense of the Priestly Code.

T h e Urim and

were the insignia of the Levites

general (Deut.

and the linen ephod was worn by them

all,

whilst the golden ephod was not a garment, but a metal-plated
image, such as the greater sanctuaries used to

827

Moreover, down to the Exile the temple a t

was the king's chapel and the priests were his servants. even
Ezekiel who in most 'points aims a t securing the
of the

gives the prince a weighty art in

of

worship, for

is he who receives the dues

people, and in

return defrays the sacrificial service.

In the Priestly Code, on

the other hand, the dues are paid direct to the sanctuary, the
ritual service has full autonomy, and it

has

its own head, who

holds his place

divine right.

Nay, the high priest represents more than the

church's independence

of

the state; he exercises

sovereignty over Israel.

Though sceptre and sword are lacking to the high priest,

his spiritual dignity makes him the head of the theocracy.
H e alone is the responsible representative of the commonwealth;
the names of the twelve tribes are

on his shoulders

and his breast. An offence on his part inculpates the whole
people and demands the same expiation as a national sin, whilst
the sin-offerings prescribed for the rinces mark them out

as

mere private persons compared with

His death makes an

epoch. the fugitive manslayer is amnestied, not on the death of
the

but on the death of the high priest. On investiture

the high

receives a kingly unction (whence

name, the

anointed priest') he wears the diadem and tiara of a monarch,
and is clad in royal purple, the most

dress possible.

When now we find that the head of the national worship is a s
such, and merely as such-for no political powers accompany
the high-priesthood-also the head of the nation this can only
mean that the nation is one which has been

of its civil

autonomy, that it no longer enjoys political existence, but
survives merely as a church.

I n truth the Priestly Code never contemplates Israel

as a nation, but only as a religious community, the
whole life of which is summed up in the service of the
sanctuary.

The community is that of the second

temple, the Jewish hierocracy under that foreign
dominion which alone made such an hierocracy possible.

The pattern of the so-called Mosaic theocracy, which does

not suit the conditions of any earlier age, and of which
prophecy knows nothing even in its ideal descriptions of the

Judaism

commonwealth of Israel a's it ought to he,
to a

nicety and was never a n actual thing till then. After the

Exile the

were deprived

their foreign rulers of all the

functions

of

public political life; they were thus able, indeed

compelled, to devote their whole energies to sacred things, in
which full freedom was left them.

The temple became the

centre of national life, and the prince of the temple head of

the spiritual commonwealth, while, a t the same time, t h e

HEXATEUCH

HEXATEUCH

the gradual developmerit of the Hebrew historical
tradition.

In the present article, however, we cannot

say anything of the way in which the
views the Hebrew history (see H

ISTORICAL

L

IT

.,

7),

nor shall we attempt to characterize the differences
between J and

E (see G

ENESIS

,

but limit our-

selves to

a general comparison between the narrative of

J E and that of the Priestly Code.

Bleek and his school viewed it as

a

great merit of the

latter narrative that it strictly observes the difference

between various ages, mixes nothing

with the patriarchal period, and

the Mosaic history never forgets that

the

lies in the wilderness of

ing. They also took it

as

a mark of fidelity to authentic

sources that the Code contains

so many dry lists, such

a mass

of

unimportant numbers and names, such exact

technical descriptions of details which could have

no

interest for posterity.

Against this view Colenso

proved that just those parts of the Hexateuch which
contain the most precise details, and

so

have the air of

authentic documents, are least consistent with the laws
of possibility.

Colenso, when h e wrote, had no thought of the several sources

of the Hexateuch but this only makes it the more remarkable
that his criticisms mainly affect the Priestly Code. Noldeke
followed Colenso with

insight, and determined the

character and value of the priestly narrative by tracing all
through it an artificial construction and a fictitious character.

T h e supposed marks of historical accuracy and de-

pendence

on authentic records are quite out of place

in such

a

narrative

as

that of the Fentateuch, the

substance of which is nof historical but legendary.
This legendary character is always manifest both in the
form and in the substance of the narrative

of

the

Yahwist ( J E ) ; his stories of the patriarchs and

of

Moses are just

as might have been gathered from

popular tradition.

In

JE

the general plan of the history is still quite loose; the

individual stories are the important thing and they have a truly
living individuality. They have always local connection and
we can still often see what motives lie at the root of them.' But
even

we do not understand these legends they lose none of

their charm for they breathe a sweet poetic fragrance, and in
them heaven and earth axe magically blended into one.

The Priestly Code, on the other hand, dwells

as

little

as possible on the details of the several stories; the
pearls are stripped off in order that the thread

on which

they were strung may be properly seen.

Love and hate and all the passions, angels, miracles, and

theophanies local and historical allusions, disappear the old
narrative

into a sort of genealogical scheme,-a hare

scaffolding to support a pragmatic construction of the connection
and progress of the sacred history. In legendary narrative, on
the other hand, connection is a very secondary matter

;

indeed

it is only brought in when the several legends are collected and
written down. When therefore the Priestly Code makes the
connection the chief

it is

that it has lost

all

touch of

the original sources and starting-points of the legends. I t draws
therefore, not from oral tradition, but from hooks; its dry

can have no other source than a tradition already fixed

in

In point of fact it simply draws on the Yahwistic

narrative.

T h e order in which that narrative disposed the

popular legends is here made the essential thing; the arrange-
ment, which in the Yahwist

(JE)

was still quite subordinate to

the details, is here brought into the foreground the old order
of events is strictly adhered to, but is so emphasized as to become
the one important thing in the history.

Obviously it was the

intention of the priestly narrator to give by this treatment the
historical quintessence of his materials freed of all superfluous
additions. At the same time, he has used

all

means to dress

up

old

traditions into a learned history.

Sorely

against its real character, he forces it

a chronological

system, which he carries through without a break from Adam
to Joshua.

Whenever he can he patches the story with things

that

the air of authoritative documents.

Finally he

rationalises the history after the standard of his own
ideas and general culture; above all, he shapes it so that it
forms a framework, and a t the same time a gradual preparation
for the

Mosaic law. With the spirit of the legend

which

the Yahwist

(JE)

still lives, he bas nothing

in

and

so he forces it into conformity with a point of view entirely

different from its own.

T h e middle position which the legal part of

The

and

Book

Examined,

For a sketch

of

Colenso see Che.

pt.

I

administration of the few political affairs which were still left to
the Jews themselves, fell into his hands a s a matter of course,
because the nation had no other chief.

was supplied by the sacred dues.

The material basis of the hierarchy

In the Priestlv Code the nriests receive

sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, t h e greater

of the cereal

accompaniments of sacrifices, the skin of the burnt-offering the

breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Further, they
the male firstlings and the tithe of cattle, a s also the firstfruits
and tithes of the fruits of the land. Yet with

all

this they are

not

even obliged to support a t their own cost the stated services

and offerings of the temple which are provided for by a poll-tax.

The poll-tax is not

in the main body of the Code hut

such a tax of the amount of one-third of a shekel began to be
paid in

time of Nehemiah (Neh.

a

novel of

the law

(Ex.

it is demanded a t the higher rate of half a

shekel per head.

That these exorbitant taxes were paid to

or claimed by the priests in the wilderness, or during the

anarchy of the period of the judges is inconceivable. Nor in

the period of the kingship is it

that the priests laid

claim to contributions much in excess of what the king himself
received from his subjects certainly no such claim would have
been supported by the royal authority. In

I

S.

8

the tithes

appear a s paid to the king, and are viewed a s an oppressive
exaction,

they form but a single element in the multiplicity

of dues which the priests claim under the Priestly Code.

all,

the fundamental principles of the system of priestly dues

the Code are absolutely irreconcilable with the fact that, as
long as Solomon's temple stood, the king had the power to
dispose of its revenues as he pleased.

T h e sacred taxes are the financial expression

of

the

hierocratic system; they accord with the condition of
the Jews after the exile, and under the second temple
they were actually paid according to the Code,

or with

only minor departures from its provisions,

In pre-exilic times the sacred gifts were paid not to

the priests but to

they had

no resemblance to

taxes, and their religious meaning, which
in the later system is hardly recognizable,

was

quite plainly marked.

They were in

fact identical with the great public festal offerings'which
the offerers consumed in solemn sacrificial meals before

that is, at the sanctuary.

The change of these

offerings into

a

kind of tax was connected with an

entire transformation of the old character of Israel's
worship, which resulted from its centralization at
Jerusalem.

In the old days the public worship

of

the

nation consisted

in the celebration

the

yearly feasts that this was

so

can be

plainly seen from the prophets-from
Amos. but

from Hosea.

Accordingly the laws

of

a r e , confined to this

one point in J E , and even in Deuteronomy. After
the Exile the festal observances became much less
important than the

the regular daily and weekly

offerings and services and

so we find it in the Priestly

Code.

Apart from this, the feasts (especially the

paschal feast) underwent

a

change, which

claims special attention (see F

EASTS

,

The conclusions reached by comparing the successive

strata of the laws are confirmed by

a

comparison of the

several stages of the historical tradition
embodied in the Pentateuch.

T h e

several threads of narrative which run

side by side in the Pentateuch are

so

distinct in point

of

form that critics were long disposed to assume that

in point of substance also they are independent narra-
tives, without mutual relation. This, however, is highly
improbable on general considerations, and is seen to be
quite impossible when regard is paid

to

the close cor-

respondence of the several sources in regard to the

arrangement

of the historical matter they contain.

It

is because the arrangement is

so

similar in all the

narratives that it was possible to weave them together
into one book and besides this we find

a close agree-

ment in many notable points

of detail.

Here, too,

analysis does not exhaust the task

of

the critic;

a

subsequent synthesis is required.

When he

has sepa-

rated out the individual documents the critic has still
to examine their mutual relations, to comprehend them
as phases in

a

living process, and in this way to trace

9

HEXATEUCH

holds between J E and' the Priestly Code is also

characteristic of the Deuteronomic nar-
rative,' which is founded throughout

J E , but from time to time shows

a

certain leaning to the points of view characteristic of the
priestly narrator.

T h e order

of

the several parts of the

Hexateuch to which we have been led by all these argu-

ments is confirmed by an examination of the other
historical books and the books of Chronicles.

The

original sources of the books of Judges,

and

Kings stand

on the same platform with J E the editing

they received in the Exile presupposes Deuteronomy
and the latest construction of the history as contained
in Chronicles rests on the Priestly Code.

This is ad-

mitted (see H

ISTORICAL

L

I

T

.,

$ 7)

;

the conclusion to

be drawn is obvious.

W e have now indicated the chief lines

on which

criticism must uroceed

in

the order of the

sources

of

the Hexateuch, and the age

of the Priestly Code in
though, of course, it has not been
possible a t all to exhaust the argu-

ment.

The objections that have been taken to Graf's

hypothesis partly rest on misunderstanding. I t is asked,
for example, what is left for Moses if he were not the
author of the Torah.

Moses may have been the founder of the Torah, though the

Pentateuchal legislation was codified almost a thousand years

later for the Torah was originally not a

Antiquity

written law, hut the oral decisions of the
priests a t the sanctuary-case-law, in short
by which they decided all manner of question;

and controversies that were brought before their tribunal (cp

A

ND

J

USTICE

4 ) ;

their Torah was the instruction to

others that came

their lips, not a t all a written document in

their hands guaranteeing their own

instructing them-

selves how to proceed in the sacrificial ritual. Questions of clean
and

belonged to the Torah because these were matters

on

which the laity required to he birected but, generally the

so

far as it consisted in ceremonies performed

the

priests themselves, was no part

of

the Torah. Whilst, however,

it

was only a t

a

late date that the ritual appeared as Torah as it

does in the Priestly Code its usages and traditions are exceed-
ingly ancient, going

fact, to pre-Mosaic and heathenish

I t is absurd to

as if Graf's hypothesis meant

that the whole ritual is the invention of the Priestly
Code, first put into practice after the exile.

All that is affirmed by the advocates

of

that hypothesis

is

that

earlier times the ritual was not the substructure of a

cracy, that there was in fact no hierocracy before the exile
that

sovereignty was a n ideal thing, not visibly

bodied in an organization of the commonwealth under

forms

of a specifically spiritual power.

theocracy was the state

the old Israelites regarded their civil constitution as a divine
miracle. T h e later Jews assumed the existence of

state a s

a

natural thing that required

no explanation, and

the

theocracy over it a s a special

institution.

There are, however, some more serious objections

taken to the Grafian hypothesis.

I t is, indeed, simply

a

of

misstatement of facts to say that
language of the Priestly Code forbids

to date it so late as post-exilic

times.

On the other hand,

a real

lies in

the fact that, whilst the priestly redaction extends to

Deuteronomy (Dt.

it is also true that the

nomic redaction extends to the Priestly Code (Josh.

20).

The way out of this dilemma is to be found by recognizing

that the so-called Deuteronomic redaction was

a single and

final act, that the characteristic phrases of Deuteronomy became
household words to subsequent generations and were still
current and found application centuries after the time of Josiah.
(See further

H

ISTORICAL

L

IT

.

7).

Thus, for example, the

traces of

i n

Josh. 20 are still lacking in

the Septuagint; the text, we see, was retouched a t

late

date indeed (cp

JOSHUA,

18 ;

Bennett

Of the other objections taken to the Grafian hypothesis

only one need be mentioned

that the Persians

are not named in the list

of

nations in Gen.

10.

This is certainly hard to understand if the passage was written

in

the Persian period

but the difficulty is not insuperable.

T h e Persians, for example, may have been held to be included in
the mention of the

and this also would give the list

the archaic air which the priestly writer affects.

At any rate,

a residue of minute difficulties not yet

thoroughly explained cannot outweigh the decisive
arguments that support the view that the Priestly Code
originated in and after the Exile. Kuenen observes

justice that it is absolutely necessary to start with the

plain and unambiguous facts, and to allow them to
guide our judgment on questionable points.

The study

of details is not superfluous in laying down the main
lines of the critical construction;

as

soon as our

studies have supplied

us with some really fixed points,

further progress must proceed from them, and we must
first gain

a general view of the whole field instead of

always working away a t details, and then coming out
with

a

rounded theory which lacks nothing but

a

foundation.'

Finally, it is

a pure petitio principii, nothing more,

to

that the post-exilic age was not equal to the task

of

producing

a work like the Priestly Code.

The position of the Jews after the Exile made it

imperative on' them to reorganize themselves in con-

formity with the entire change in their
situation.

Now the Priestly Code is all

that we should expect to find in

a con-

stitution for the Jews after the Exile.

It meets the new

requirements as completely as it fails to satisfy the con-
ditions which

a

law-book older than the Exile would have

had to satisfy. After the final destruction of the kingdom
by Nebnchadrezzar, they

in the ritual

of the temple a t Jerusalem the elements out of which

a

new commonwealth

be built, in conformity with the

circumstances and needs of the time. T h e community of
Judaea raised

the dust byholdingontoitsruined

sanctuary. The old usages and ordinances were reshaped
in detail but as

a

whole they were not replaced by new

creations the novelty lay in their being worked into

a

system and applied

as a

to organize the remnant

of Israel. This was the origin of the sacred constitution
of Judaism.

Religion

in

old Israel had been

a

faith which

gave its support to the natural ordinances of human
society; it was now set forth in external and visible form

as a

special institution, within a n artificial sphere peculiar

t o itself, which rose far above the level of common life.

T h e necessary presupposition of this
kind of theocracy is service to

a

foreign empire, and

so

the theocracy

essentially the same thing as hierocracy.

Its finished

picture is drawn in the Priestly Code, the product of
the labours of learned priests during the Exile. When
the temple was destroyed and the ritual interrupted, the
old practices were written down that they might not he
lost. Thus in the Exile the ritual became matter

of

teaching, of Torah the first who took this step,

a step

prescribed by the circumstances of the time, was the
priest and prophet Ezekiel (see

E

ZEKIEL

4,

I n the last part of his book Ezekiel began the

literary record of the customary ritual

of

the temple

other priests

in his footsteps (Lev.

17-26) and

so there arose during the captivity a school of men
who wrote down and systematized what they had
formerly practised.

When the temple was restored this

theocratic zeal still went

on

and produced further ritual

developments, in action and reaction with the actual
practice

of

the new temple; the final result of the

long-continued process was the Priestly Code.

[The student who has read and assimilated the fore-

going sketch will be

to estimate the progress

which has been made since the lonely Jewish thinker
of Amsterdam (Baruch Spinoza) propounded his doubts
on Genesis, and since Jean Astruc, professor of medicine
but also student of the Pentateuch, opened the 'true
path' of critical investigation. Now, however, we are in

a

different position from that a t which Kuenen had arrived
when he rewrote his

and Wellhausen when

he wrote his illuminative

T h e criticism

of

the Hexateuch is approaching

a

fresh turning-point, and

the students of to-day need to be warned that new
methods will be necessary to carry the discussion

of

20

56

HEXATEUCH

HEZEKIAH

problems nearer to definite solutions.

A

,literary criticism has had its day, and biblical

and the comparative study of social customs have forced
us to undertake a more searching examination of the
contents of the Hexateuch, which is leading to

a

com-

plication of critical problems not before dreamed of.
With the problems we hope that we are catching

a

glimpse of the new methods to be applied in their
solutions. These new methods will best be learned by
observing the practice

of the critical workers. Bndde's

Die

(Gen.

is

not a recent book (it appeared in

1883)

but

a

student of

method may learn much from it. With more complete
satisfaction, however, we may mention Stade's admirable
essays on ' Cain's Sign,' on the Tower of Babel,' and
on the Torah of the Sacrifice of Jealousy,' now reprinted
in his

und

(1899).

The introduction to the Hexateuch by Steucrnagel will,
it may be hoped, furnish many fruitful hints but the
present writer looks forward with higher hopes to

expected commentary on Genesis.

From

many articles of the present work the student will be
able to gather how the present writer views'the task
that lies before

us

in Genesis, and by what means we

should attempt to accomplish it.

will doubtless

do much more, and for Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers
the student will be in safe hands if he begins under the
tuition of Baentsch.

T o Deuteronomy and Joshua

reference is made below.

T o say more just now about the road which the students

of to-day will have to traverse would be unwise. I t
would be tantamount to doing the work superficially
which in a longer

or shorter time the investigators of

to-day-both those who have worked their way out

of

purely .literary criticism and those who, have the
advantage of beginning their journey at the point now
reached by critics-may modestly but confidently hope

'to accomplish. Let our last word be this

:

Hexatcuch

'criticism is passing into

a

new phase.

This phase is

largely due to

and the comparative study

of

social customs, but in part

also

to the further develop-

ments of Hebrew philology and textual criticism. Let
the student therefore devote the utmost pains

to

the

critical study of Biblical archaeology,

of the Hebrew

texts, for without a better knowledge of what the texts
really contain and of the circumstances in which these
texts arose n o secure step in advance can be taken by
Hexateuch criticism.

A word, too, may be said on the present position

of

the study

of that part of the Hexateuch which relates

to the laws. The immense labour bestowed on the

adaptation of the old Hebrew laws is becoining more
and more manifest. T h e Oxford

indicates

the nature of some

of

the newer problems which are at

present engaging the attention of workers, especially in
the department of the legal literature.

Together with

Holzinger's (German) Introduction to the Hexateuch
it can be confidently recommended to all thorough
students.

It is gratifying to know that defenders of

religious truth (even in the Roman

are finding

out that criticism of the Books of

no enemy

to' religion.

I n fact, the wonderful ways by which

God led the people

of Israel towards the light of life

-may be studied in that strangely composite work, the

Hexateuch, with

as much benefit to edification as in the

Psalms or the prophecies, and recent works on the
religion

of Israel

vol.

of Duffs

do not neglect to use the main results in

The Hexateuch

the RV arranged

its

con.

by

Society

Theology,

E.

Carpenter and

G.

(London 1900).

Lagrange,

sources du Pentateuque,'

Revue

7

Prof.

view of Deuteronomy, however differs from

that which is still most prevalent among critic:.

Cp Steuer-

nagel's commentary, and the. Oxford

These three

pictures both of the popular and of the higher religion
of Israel.

The bibliographies to be found at the end of

the articles on the books of the Hexateuch are

so care-

fully selected that not much more need be said.-

A

really satisfactory history of the religion of Israel still
has to be written, and when we have reached the fresh
starting-point for which we are looking, this much
desired book will be written.

T.

K. C.]

[L]), b.

in

a genealogy of B

ENJAMIN

I

Ch.

cp

11

I

.

HEZEKIAH

[usually],

[in

K.

which comes from

a separate record], also

[no.

I

in Hos.

and

[no.

I

in

Is.

1

I

and constantly in Ch.] see

also

J

EHIZKIAH

the vocalization of the two latter forms is anomalous';

[BAL]).

T h e name

is written

in

Assyrian;

cp also

on

a

seal [see

1883,

p.

(no.

It

means

has strengthened,'

or is strength

cp

and the plays upon the name in Ecclus.

48

[Heb. text].

I

.

King of Judah

cp C

HRONOLOGY

,

36).

Of the reign of this king little is known with

certainty.

H e certainly ascended the

throne at

a youthful age.

makes him only fifteen at

accession he was, by

general admission, certainly under twenty-five (the age
given by the Redactor in

K.

[cp K

INGS

,

we

may even confidently say, under twenty.

Elsewhere

(see I

SAIAH

6)

reason has been given for supposing

that Hezekiah may have been early influenced by the
preaching of Isaiah, and unlike his father have responded
to the prophet's demand for 'faith.' T h e kings' of
Judah, however, did not possess absolute power, and

Hezekiahs action was in the main dictated by the
political party which happened to be predominant
among the nobles.

His personal relation

to

Isaiah was

therefore of comparatively slight significance, and it
but

a conjecture that the (probable) dismissal of

and the alarm produced by the Assyrian invasion

led t o something in the nature of

a reform which con-

sisted partly in the requirement of

a higher standard of

morality from the judges (Is.

1 1 7 23 315)

and partly

the abolition of certain idolatrous objects at Jerusalem,
such

as the brazen serpent

K.

A much larger

measure

of iconoclasm is ascribed to Hezekiah in

K.

184-7,

where the compiler of Kings (to whom the

passage in its present form is due) assigns the re-
formation to one of the first years

of Hezekiah's reign

(cp v. and Ch.

293).

The language however which the compiler uses is so strongly

suggestive of

of Deuteronomy (reign of Josiah)

that we

cannot

venture to take it

as

strictly historical. There

is no sound evidence that Isaiah attacked either the
or

the

much less the

or high

T h e

destruction of these ohjects seems a detail transferred to
Hezekiah's times from those

of

Josiah, to which it properly

belongs.

hooks show that the origin of Deuteronomy is one of the problems
which need a

thorough investigation.

Steuernagel's

may also he recommended.

This implies dating Hezekiah's

accession in

or

Similarly Wi. and C. Niebnhr (720)

assume that

embassy

K. 20

39)

was seat on Hezekiah's accession, which took place

not long after

own (cp

Schr. C O T 2

assumptions are

and need testing.

Most scholars,

with We., prefer

The question is not settled. On the

doubtful statement

the fourteenth year'

K.

36

I

)

see Di.

Duhm

Kau. in Kamph.

94 Che.

Is.

cp

is an interpolation.

See Stade,

T W 3

is scarcely answered
nagel's answer to

We.,

and Smend is not

enough

des

Hezekiah's supposed .edict

for a reformation

as

as

before and

not be mixed u p with

a

discussion of the 'original

Hist.

2

250.

and Dr.

2058

HEZEKIAH

HEZRON

The removal and destruction of the brazen serpent is

not to be explained away.'

That Hezekiah did away

with this much misunderstood object (see N

EHUSHTAN

)

is credible, and this may even be the whole historical
kernel of the story of the reform of the cultus, which
the Chronicler (after his fashion) has still further
elaborated

Ch.

29-31).

(a) Philistine campaign.

is less doubtful to what

period Hezekiah's successful campaign against the

Philistines is to be referred

K.

188).

According to Stade

(

1624)

and

Kittel (Hist.

the account is to be taken in connec-

tion with Sennacheribs statement that he deprived Heze-
kiah of certain cities,

as a punishment for his rebellion,

and attached them to the territories of three Philistine
kings

Hezekiah, it is suggested by these

critics, may not have submitted tamely to this, and may
even have enlarged his own territory at the expense of
the Philistines after Sennacherib's departure.

This is too

arbitrary

a

view.

T h e cities which Sennacherib wrested

from Hezekiah are probably cities which Hezekiah had
previously taken from the Philistines.

(6) Assyrian

other events

of Heze-

kiah's reign, so far

as we know them, are treated else-

where (see I

SAIAH

§

;

M

ERODACH

-B

ALADAN

;

E

GYPT

,

6 6 ;

I

SRAEL

,

34).

T o

supplement these notices, it is only necessary to point
out here:

(I)

that a thorough criticism of

K.

( = I s .

in connection with the Assyrian annals

raises the character of Hezekiah considerably he was

a

true hero, who, unlike the cowardly Luli of Sidon,

stuck to the post of duty, and only gave way when all
hope had fled, and Jerusalem was 'like

a booth in a

vineyard or a lodge in a cucumber-field (Is.

18)

and

that great caution must be used in reconstructing

the history

of Jewish religion on the basis of the

im-

perfectly-known facts of the close of the Assyrian
invasion.

Much that has been assigned to Isaiah's

belongs to a later

age, and presupposes a glorification of Isaiah which that great
prophet and lover of truth would certainly have deprecated.
T h e circumstances under which Jerusalem was liberated from
the blockading Assyrian force were not such as to promote a
spiritual religion such as Isaiah would have approved.

It

is by

no

means certain that Sennacherib retired in consequence of a

pestilence in his army; the evidence is

as

unsatisfactory as

possible, and the story may have been developed out of the
words of Isaiah in

17

eventide behold terror

!

before

morning he is no more

!

is the portion of those that spoil

us

and the lot of those who

us.'

If Sennacherib's army had been almost destroyed,

is

it likely that Hezekiah would have sent a special envoy
with tribute to Nineveh

It is much more

probable that the inability of Sennacherib to meet
Taharka was due to the receipt of bad news from
Babylon.

I n the failure of historical information,

nothing was more natural, especially in the light

of

prophecies (supposed to have been literally

fulfilled), than to postulate a plague

as

the cause of his

retreat. See

T o quote on the other side the story of the priest-king

(Herod. 2

is extremely unsafe, considering Herodotus's

fortune in the matter of popular Egyptian stories, and the
mythological connections of the detail of the field-mice gnawing
the quivers of the

The only doubt is whether there may not have been

a second invasion of Sennacherib, which may perhaps
have been abruptly terminated by a pestilence.

On one point, however, it is safe to adhere still to the

older critical view.

The fact that Jerusalem escaped

See Stade

('83).

statement

des

142

' A plague (or, as Herodotus symbolically expresses

self,

;

'swarm of field-mice

')

fell upon the Assyrian host so

Sennacherib had to return (with no results to show) to Nineveh,
and

in

Hist.

2

seem to

need modification. I t has not been proved that mice were a
symbol of plague-boils.

I n

I

S.

the plague and the mice

are two distinct

On

the mythological affinities

of the field-mice of

see A. Lang,

Custom

and

See

M

OUSE

.

being taken when

all the other fortified cities fell before

the Assyrians, and, as Sennacherib states,

zoo,

Judaeans were led into captivity, must have enhanced
the

of the temple (cp I

SRAEL

,

34

13).

The religious reaction under Manasseh

would rather promote than hinder this. T h e misin-
terpretation of Is.

28

16

may have begun very early.

That Hezekiah composed

a song in the style of the

Psalms, is

a

priori most improbable. The song in Is.

38

is, both

general and on linguistic

and phraseological grounds, of post-
exilic

(see

ii.,

Nor

can we venture to

the statement

25

I

that Hezekiah's men' collected the proverbs contained
in Prov. 25-29 (cp P

ROVERBS

).

Hezekiah has hardly

earned the title of the

of Judah.'

On

the reign of Hezekiah see especially Stade, G

624

and cp I

SRAEL

,

RV

the son

of

of

the seed

of

David

(I

Ch. 3

23

3.

Ater-Hezekiah (Neh.

7 2 1

I

Esd. 5

Neh.

10

see A

TER (I).

4.

An ancestor of Zephaniah the prophet (Zeph.

1

I

AV

Since the genealogy is traced hack

so far

been supposed that he must

some

person, perhaps the king.

It

is probably accidental

that no other prophet's genealogy is carried above the grand-

father. N o reference is made in Kings to a brother of Manasneh
named Amariah

but the chronology is not opposed to the

hypothesis which regarded as probable

78,

n.

I

,

cp also

Hi.,

Ibn Ezra also accepts; but

rejects'it.

Aramaean king, father of Tab-rimmon, and grandfather
of Benhadad

I.

( I

K.

1518).

T h e name, however, is

plainly corrupt.

Winckler

( A

restores

Hazael, in accord-

ance with

'SAL.

Others

Ew.,

Hist.

5,

The. and

Klo.)

prefer

Hezron, of which they take

1\71,

in

11

23

to be anotherform,

this view upon

I

K. 11 23

om. A); but

points rather either to

or to

(cp

T.

K.

C .

See Gray,

July

pp.

HEZION

Probably

is right.

T.

K . C.

REZIR

'boar,' the pointing

may be in-

tentional, to avoid a connection with

[NO.,

40 162

Neub. compares Talm. Targ.

'pomegranate,'

'apple'

p.

cp

R

IMMON

.

The

are mentioned upon a Hehrew inscription dating shortly before
the Christian era [Chwolson

no. 6

cp

Cpperhaps

Am. Tab.

and

Bab.

n.

I

.

to whom, according to the Chronicler, the seven-

teenth of the twenty-four lots fell in

David's

time,

I

Ch.

2.

Signatory the covenant (see

E

ZRA

7),

Neh.

S.

A.

C.

HEZRO

I

Ch.

and

S.

or

Rezrai

S.

Kr.) or, more probably,

Hezron (Klo., Marq. one of David's thirty, a native

of

Carmel, in Judah.

has :

in Ch.

[B],

[A],

; in

[L]),

one of the points which mark the S. border

of Judah in Josh. 153, mentioned between
barnea and Addar

in the

passage, Nu.

344,

Kadesh-barnea is followed by

[BAFL]).

There may have been two

places, Hazar or Hezron, and Addar, close to one
another.

The site is uncertain Saadia in his transla-

tion takes to be Raphia. See, however,

REZRON

'enclosure,'

court-yard, village, and see above).

The laying of the foundation-stone is future (read

and

the promised benefits are only for those who have what Isaiah
would recognise

as

faith. Cp

Is.

2060

HIDDAI

similar Old Persian word

(the Zend

for

may perhaps help the change.

It

must be borne

in

mind however, that the other ancient

writing of the name was

the

signs of

which are very suggestive-of

'arrows

following one

another. and yet, on the other hand

represent a n old

of

'running

At the same time, the

Babylonians translated these signs by

' t o flow,' when

used otherwise than as the name of the river. Another old
name for this river

or some part of it was the

At

bottom we may

the old writing

to

have been also phonetic and either directly, "or by way of
suggestion, the parent

of

Diglat, and Tigris.

if the letter

is correct, perhaps for

lives,'

35;

unless on account of

and Pesh.,

be

to be for

cp Bathg.

156, and

for

on an inscription from

[see

the Bethelite

who in the days of Ahab built'

fortified?) Jericho, and who 'laid the foundation

thereof at the cost of (the life of) Abiram

his

firstborn, and set up the gates thereof at the cost of (the
life of) Segub

his

youngest, according to the

word of

which he spoke by Joshua the son

of

Nun

( I

K.

1634). Several interesting questions arise

out of this passage

:

( I )

to the name and period

of

the builder of Jericho

as to the manner in

which he lost his two sons

3)

and ( 3 ) as to the

relation of the passage to Josh.

626

(Joshua's curse on

the ' builder' of Jericho)

I

). Let us take the last of

these first.

Comparing the

two passages, we find that the

phraseological evidence favours the view that the

passage in Josh. is the later (see Kit.
Hist.

n.

I

) .

It is also probable

that

I

K.

1634

(which

is

not found in

was introduced from some other

context the closing words would naturally be inserted
later, to provide a point of contact with Josh.

626.

In

the fulfilment

is

narrated in Josh.

6

[AL]).

T h e notice is very

obscure what has a Bethelite to do with the building

C.

H.

W.

Next, as to the person intended.

b. Perez b. Judah (Gen.

[A],

[D]

Nu.

[BFL],

[A];

[B. and A in

[L]

I

Ch.

[B],

[L]; Mt.

Lk.

3 3 3 ,

AV

Nu.

[BAFL]).

This relationship is late

and

is a modification of the older scheme which

appears in

I

Ch.

Here Hezron

is the

of the two clans

and

Chelubai

and in this connection his name is

probably as symbolical as those of

wives (see

I

) ,

since

Hezronites' seems to mean

the inhabitants of

encampments

WRS

(see H

AZOR

). Caleb and Jerahmeel

in David's time inhabited the

of Judah (cp,

I

S.

and it was not until later times that they

migrated northwards.

Hence it is natural that upon

their subsequent adoption into the tribe of Judah, they
should be genealogically represented as the offspring

of

the tribal eponym by making their father a son of

P

EREZ

T h e genealogical fragment

I

Ch.

which

connects Hezron with Gilead, etc., may represent
exilic relations, or perhaps simply implies that Gilead
had a nomadic origin

(vv.

[A],

and A in v.

cp

I

Ch.

See also

A son of Reuben (Gen.

[ADL],

Nu.

266

[A], Ex.

6

I

Ch. 5 3

[B],

[A];

Hezronite,

Nu.

266,

[BAFL]).

HIDDAI

[A],

[L]), one

of

David's thirty

:

I

Ch.

H

URAI

HIDDEKEL

[AEL in Gen.],

Dan.],

in

Dan.]; but

A with

written above it]

Ass.

Bab.

the river

of

Eden 'which goeth eastward to

Assyria' of Gen.

the great river of Dan.

10

4,

is

undoubtedly the

T

IGRIS

.

The name

of

this river,

in the pre-Semitic writing of Babylonia, was

TIG-GAR,

a

group

of signs, which in this connection

denoted an idea whose audible expression was Idigna
or

As applied to the river, it

was regarded

by the Babylonian scribes as denoting the river they
called Diglat.

This form of the name is clearly pre-

served in the Greek of

6127,

Aramaic

Arabic

and

(Jos.

i.

1 3 ) .

T h e suggestion has been made that Diglat is formed from

Idigna, by dropping the initial vowel (for which many parallels
can he produced), and adding the Semitic feminine (F.

The Hebrew and modern Arabic have not this t.

T h e former substitutes for the

the closely related

a change

which may also he indicated

Assyrian, if that really was

The presence of the initial Hi,

the Hebrew, has

been accounted for by the prefixing of the Hebrew article to a
form beginning with

I.

This scarcely accounts for the

h,

without further explanation.

The Samaritan, however, has

The modern Arabic follows the local form

That the sign

had among its phonetic values

H i

is

a legitimate suggestion, but has

no

support. I t

among other ideas, the hank of a river,' and as such was read

Thus

or with a change of

to

1,

for which

many parallels could he found,

is a natural

progression.

The same group of signs however not only denoted the

river Tigris, but, with the

was translated by

the Babylonian scribes a s

' a district

or

wady,' and finally was

an

the verb

to

flow which furnished the names of the two Zabs, tributaries

of

this

Thus, if Tiggar was the early pronunciation of this

of

it mav have been a me-Semitic name that

to

reaches of the stream where the'

Persian invaders first became acquainted

the river. At

any rate, it seems more than coincidence that the Old Persian
name should be

a feminine form. T h e existence of a

The introduction of Ram (a mere fragment

of

Jerahmeel,'

Che.) is erroneoiis.

2061

or refortification of Jericho

According

to Ewald

Hiel was

a rich

man of an enterprising turn of mind.'

T h e building of a city, however,

an unusual enterprise

for

a

private person, and such a distinguished man

ought to have had a genealogy.

Next,

we

notice that

the second part of the Hebrew for the Bethelite
contains nearly the same letters as Hiel

This

suggests that Hiel may have been a variant of Hiel, and
have been transformed into

when the two

readings had come to stand side by side. But who is
Hiel? Not a Bethelite, but some one important enough
to do without a patronymic.

It is a probable conjecture

that

(possibly from

is disguised as Hiel,

and that the notice of his rebuilding Jericho originally
stood after

K.

J

EHU

[

I

] built or refortified

Jericho because he had been deprived of so
territory by Hazael, and had to protect

was left.

The change of ' J e h u '

into

Hiel' and the

transference of the notice to the story of Ahab arise out

of

the embarrassing fact that the story

of

Elijah repre-

sented that prophet as having been sent to Jericho

K.

Lastly, as to the fate of

or

Jehu's two sons.

As asserted by Strabo xi.

148,

and others (Curtius, 49).

Ar.

all in agreement with the Rabbinical tradition (Rashi, etc.)
which connects

with

( ' a curse'), Jericho being

the 'house of a curse.

This view.

is

due to C. Niehuhr

except

that he cannot see that the sons mentioned have
to do with Jehu

nor is he quite full enough

on

the disguising

name

Hiel.

2062

HIERAPOLIS

T h e writer

of the notice makes Hiel (Jehu) responsible

for their deaths, and the inserter of the
gloss, according to the word of
which he spoke by Joshua,’ supposed
the deaths to have been judgments upon

Hiel (Jehu) for his impiety

breaking the taboo laid

upon the site of Jericho by Joshua.

Of this taboo,

however, we have no early record, and the explanation
is certainly not natural. The key to the passage is
supplied by the comparative study

of primitive customs.

It is not the ordinary sacrifices of children that we
have

us

(so

Kue.

but

a special kind of sacrifice to the local supernatural
powers such as has been practised in many countries.

This can hardly fail to have suggested itself to many readers

of Tylor’s

Primitive

(1

and has for many years

been held by the present writer.

Tylor’s instances it is

enough to quote the Japanese belief (17th cent.) that ‘a wall
laid on the body o f a willing human victim would be secure from
accident accordingly when a great wall was to be built, some
wretched slave would offer himself as foundation, lying down
the trench to be crushed by the heavy stones lowered upon
Similarly a t Algiers ‘when the walls were built of blocks of
concrete in the sixteenth century, a Christian captive named
Geronimo was placed in one of the blocks and the rampart built
over and about

At Shanghai, when the bridge leading

to

John’s College was being built an official present threw

into the stream first his shoes, then

garments, and finally

himself, ‘and as

life went out,

workmen were enabled to

go on with their building.’

In India, to this day, engineers and

architects have to reassure the natives a t the commencement of
any great undertaking, to prevent

from anticipating a

sacrifice of human victims (Sewell).

It is still more important

to notice that the American explorer,

J. H.

Haynes, in ex-

cavating the zikkurrat of the temple of Eel a t Nippur (the oldest
yet found) discovered many skulls built in with the

It is probable that in primitive times these

sacrifices were customary

in Palestine

as

well as in

Babylonia, and that they even lingered on

in

northern

Israel.

Even if we believe that Hiel (Jehu) sacrificed

his two

sons in the usual way

not adopting the

precise practice referred to by Tylor), we must at any
rate suppose that he sprinkled the foundation-stones and
the side-posts

of the gates (cp Ex.

1 2 7

with his

children’s blood, just as Arabian husbandmen, when
they build, are still wont to sprinkle the blood of a
peace-offering upon the stones.

That he. selected his firstborn and his youngest sons

as the sacrificial victims, is in accordance with the
principle implied in

K.

Mic.

The only

biblical critic who has explained the passage by folklore
is Winckler (Gesch.

1163,

n. 3) but the present article

is independent

of

his work.

[Cp Ki.

T. K.

C.

a city in Phrygia, mentioned incidentally in Col.

4

13

along with the neighbouring Laodicea. It occupied

a

shelf,

above

springing from the mountains

bounding the Lykos valley on the NE.

The modern

village

cotton castle,’ from the lime

of the springs) lies close to the site. The hot calcareous
springs, and the chasms filled with carbonic acid gas,
were and are still remarkable

T h e water of

the springs falls over the cliffs,

ft. or more in height,

above which the city stood, and the snowy white
stalactites present the appearance of

a frozen cascade.

T h e

a hole from which mephitic vapour

issued, was filled up by the Christians between 19

A.D.

(Strabo’s visit) and

380

A.

:

this appears in legend as

the subjugation of Echidna

by the

Apostles Philip and John.

Magazine Feb. 1887 (quoted by Trumbull).

Peters,

16

11

; Trumbull,

The

nant,

48

On p. 46 the author vaguely remarks that there

is a ‘suggestion’ of the idea of the foundation sacrifice in the
curse pronounced by Joshua.

(See also Frazer,

14

Doughty

Des.

1136.

4

Cp

464.

Strabo

H e calls the chasms

579

cp Vitr. viii. 3

IO.

HIGH PLACE

As contrastedwith the Seleucid foundation of Laodicea.

6 m. to

Hierapolis was the focus of Phrygian

feeling and religious ideas. As Ramsay points

out, it exemplifies a phenomenon common in Asia
Minor. T h e sacred cities of the early period generally
grew up in

a

locality where the divine power was most

manifested in natural phenomena.

A sacred

village

arose near the sanctuary (cp Ephesus),

and this developed into a city of the native character,
with the name Hieropolis.

Wherever native feeling is strong, the form of this name is

Hieropolis, ‘City of the Sanctuary’’ but where Hellenic feeling
and education spreads, the Greek’ form Hierapolis, Sacred
City,’ is introduced. The difference in form corresponds to a

difference in spirit. According to the former the sanctuary,
according to the latter the city, is the leading idea.

The great goddess of Hierapolis was the Mother

(Str. 469

see P

HRYGIA

).

Hence the warnings

issued in Col.

35

16

Eph.

5

3J

T h e churches

in the Lykos valley were not founded by Paul personally
(see C

OLOSSE

,

That of Hierapolis may have been

the creation of Epaphras (Col.

.Justinian made

it the metropolis of a group

of

bishoprics.

See Ramsay,

Hist.

Asia

Minor, 84; Cities and

RIEREEL

[BA]),

I

Esd.

HIEREMOTH.

I

.

I

1026,

JEREMOTH I

O

.

I

Esd.

HIERIELUS

I

Esd.

J

EHIEL

,

HIERMAS

[B],

[A]),

I

Esd.

R

AMIAH

.

HIERONYMUS

[VA]), one

of

the

commandants

of a district in Palestine in

the time of Judas the Maccabee

Macc.

122).

HIGGAION

coupled with Selah, Ps.

[BKART]). A derivation from

‘ t o moan,

muse (cp

meditation ’), is as unsatisfactory as

the EV rendering

solemn sound

of the same word

in Ps.

for which Wellh.

Psalms,’

substitutes with resounding chords.’ Cheyne

emends the text in both passages.

Ps.

with

he reads

‘to the

sweetly-sounding notes of the lyre.

In

Ps. 9

(for

h e reads

‘the meditation of their heart,’ and

regards it as a marginal correction of the partly corrupt
of M T in

which intruded into the text

of

another

column of the archetype (cp a similar suggestion in

Cp

S

ELAH

.

HIGH

PLACE,

as a translation

of Heb.

pl.

In the literal sense ‘heights,’ only in the

Bishoprics

I.

chap. 3.

W.

J.

W.

J

EHIEL

,

I

O

.

plural and only poetical

S.

1

CD

Ezek. 362. where however the text

is questioned).

The literal sense is found chiefly in certain phrases : to ride

or stalk over the ‘heights of the earth (Dt. 32 13 Is. 58

Am.

cp Hab. 3 19) or stand upon them

S.

22

‘heights of

sea’ (mountainous waves, Job 98);

cloud heights’ (Is. 14

cp Assyrian

tain heights’ (Del.

I n prose (sing. and pl.

)

is always a place

of

worship.

I n this use

frequently transliterates

(cp,

So

far as the reading

and Hal. have a claim to priority.
does injustice to the parallelism.

are not

in the snecific sense of

in

Ps.

10

is concerned, Gr.

(Hi., We.,

Du.)

The other words occasionally rendered in

‘high place’

.

Other etymologies such as that

is an Indo-European

loan-word

;

J.

D. Michaelis), or that it originally meant

not ‘height’ but ‘enclosure’ (Thenius,

need not be

discussed.

Jer. 48 35 Ezek. 20

On the origin of the word see below

7.

Sing.

I

S.

I

K.

3 4

(Gibeon),

K.

23

(bethel), Is. 16

2063

2064

HIGH

PLACE

HIGH

PLACE

I

S.

9

in

Pent,

in the Prophets generally

in the Hist. ’Books

Aq. and

2.

As

a place

Sym.

.

Vg.

consistently

Pesh.

places,’ some-

times

idol shrines.‘

The connection

of the notion place of worship with

the primitive meaning high place

is well illustrated by

I

S.

the town (Ramah) lay on the side of the

hill, with its spring of water a t the foot of the hill below

it, and the place of sacrifice (the high place’) above it
on the

That mountain and hill tops were the

common places of sacrifice we have abundant evidence
in the

OT.

See Hos.

4

9

(cp

S.

24

Jer.

17 2

36 Ezek.

In the older prophets ’high place’

is synonymous

with ’holy place, sanctuary’

see Am.

7

Is.

16

also Lev.

Such places were very numerous

we know

of

many from the historical books, and may

with all confidence assume that every city, town, and
village had its own (cp

K.

11

2 3 8 ) .

Some of these

sanctuaries, like those at Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba,
had

a

wider fame, and were frequented at festival seasons

by worshippers from near and far.

As a place of sacrifice,* the

had its altar

(Hos.

811

etc.)

further, according

6 13 20

I

K.

14 23

K.

16 4 17

to

a Canaanite custom adopted by the

Israelites,

a

stone stelb

and

a

wooden post or pole

see

Hos.

3 4

101 Dt.

Ezek.

6 3 - 6

Lev.

cp Philo

Byblius, frag.

1 7

Often there was also

a

sacred tree, as a t

where Saul sat in council

(see

S

AUL

) under the tamarisk tree in the

( I

S.

2 2 6 )

see also Hos.

Dt.

122 Jer. 220 Ezek.

6 1 3

At Ramah there was

a

hall

cp

in which

the sacrificial feast was held

(

I

and doubtless

such an adjunct was common the greater sanctuaries
may have had, like that in Jernsalem, several such
rooms.

I n some places there was also an idol or

idols

(Hos.

Mic.

Is.

2 8 18

Ezek.

63- 6

Lev.

such as the

images of

at

Bethel and Dan

( I

K.

and

the serpent idol a t Jerusalem.

K.

where this

was the case therewould necessarily be

a sacellum or

small shrine to protect the idol, which was often made
wholly or in

of precious metals (Judg.

cp

I

S.

3 1 9 )

there was such

a structure at Shiloh,

in which the ark of Yahwb was kept, with

a

servant of

the priest as

(

I

S .

and probably a t N o b

I t is possible that the’ more primitive agalmata, the

stone

obelisks, or cones, were sometimes sheltered

by

a

cella with open front, as we occasionally see it upon

Phoenician coins but of this there is

no direct

Small tents or tabernacles may have been used for

a

similar purpose David provided such

a

shelter for the

ark

I

K.

cp Ex.

and

With this translation cp the inscription on

the

of Mesha

of

Such has been in

all

ages the

situation

of

towns in

Palestine

;

Benz.

H A

373 ;

cp WRS

1 7 2

holy mountains among the Semites, and

in

particular

among the Hebrews, see Baudissin

2

and

‘Hohendienst in

6

On the

of

und

Beer

und

See

also

4.

4

Note the verbs

and

‘slaughter’ and ‘burn

fat,‘

as

the

standing

description of

worship,

I

K.

3

and

.

( I

21).

.

K.

123

1 4 4

1 5 4

35 1 6 4

235 etc.

Read

‘

MT

In

some

of

these passages domestic idols may be meant

;

so

See I

DOL

,

4

and on the ephod

of

Gideon and Micah, and

probably

in

Is.

Nob,

see

4.

cp Philo

fg.

1 7 ,

3

See Per.-Chi

in

and fig.

shows that at

a comparatively late time there were

hose who thought that

a tent was a more suitable

for

than

a

house.

Ezek.

1 6 1 6

speaks

made of clothing stuffs,

a patch-

work

of divers colours, by which tents or canopies are

perhaps to

be understood (Targ.,

see

also

Hos.

9 6

The later Jewish distinction

of

public and private

and descriptions

of

them

Meg. 1

1 4

IO

13

are

of

no

authority

for

the

with which we are concerned.

All the worship

of

old Israel was worship at the high

places to them the tithes were brought

Am.

4 4 )

a t them all sacrifices, stated

and occasional. bv the individual. the

family or clan, or the larger sacral community, were
offered

(

I

S.

and in general Dt.

13

whose prohibitions are testimony to the former practice)
there transactions requiring

a

solemn sanction were

ratified before God (Ex.

21

6 2 2 8

28

etc. and there

councils were held

( I

S.

2 2 6

T o the high places

the troops of dervish-like

resorted to work

the prophetic ecstasy by music and whirling dances

( I

S.

At the great high place a t Gibeon Solomon

offered his hecatombs and practised incubation

(

I

K.

the worship at the high places of Israel in

the eighth-century Hosea paints for

us a vivid picture

the joyous gatherings on festival days-new moons,
sabbaths, annual feasts-when the people appeared in
gala dress

( 2 1 3

the sacrifices and libations

( 9

4 ) ,

and offerings of corn and wine and oil, of flax and

wool,

of figs and raisin-cakes, in gratitude for the fruits

of the year

( 2

in times of

scarcity the cuttings

the flesh to move the obdmate

god

cp

I

K.

the licentious intercourse

of men and women, in which the priests and the conse-
crated women

religious prostitutes see

C

LEAN

,

I

,

col. 837,

6,

S

ACRIFICE

) set

example-a rite hallowed by sacrifice

cp

and see what is narrated by

a

late writer

of Eli’s

sons,

I

S.

222)

the divination (rhabdomancy?

4 1 2 ) .

In similar

Jeremiah and Ezekiel describe the

worship of their time.

In writers of

seventh and the sixth centuries the

word

(always plural, even when

a single holy

place

is

is used with the pre-

dominating connotation sanctuaries

of

a

heathenish or idolatrous cult’ thus Jer.

(Melek), cp

om.)

Ezek.

6

3-6

13

Lev.

The deuteronomic author

and the subsequent editor of Kings apply the name to
the sanctuaries of Judah outside

of

Jerusalem, which they

unhistorically represent, not

holy places older than

the temple of Solomon, but as originating in the apostasy

Rehoboam’s time

( I

K.

1422-24

K.

2 3 5 ,

cp

and as having been, after their destruction by Hezekiah,
rebuilt by Manasseh

K.

21

3)

also to the shrines of

gods in Jerusalem

K.

2 3 8 )

or its vicinity

( I

K.

11

7

K.

23

on the Mt.

of

Olives) and particularly

to the holy places of the northern kingdom (on which
more fully below,

4).

I n the same way

high-place priests,’ is an opprobrious title for the priests

the cities of Judah (in distinction from the priesthood

Jerusalem

K.

cp

Dt.

who

also called

pagan priests’

K.

see

and for the priests of Israel, whose

Note

also

the names Oholah and Oholibah, Ezek.

23

and

Gen.

36

Tents

were

used

not only as

anctuaries

i n

camps

by the Carthaginians, Diod. Sic.

hut also,

in

even

in

temples

of

i t

En-Nedim

in

Chwolsohn

2

and

in

some

de

3

494)

cp

also

the

Philo Bybl.

3 567

A.

See further S

ACRIFICE

, and T

ITHE

.

3

See P

ROPHET

.

4

See C

UTTINGS

I

N

THE

F

LESH

I

.

Exceptions

K.

23

15

Ezek.

29.

It is noteworthy that the word does not occur in Dt.

HIGH PLACE

macy

is

emphasized

( I

12

33

K.

as

well as for the priests of the heathen colonists of Samaria

I n this period the stigma of heathenism thus

everywhere attaches to the word.

I n several places (none earlier than

end

of

the

7th cent.) we read of

a

(sing.,' plur.

HIGH PLACE

the land, the cultus was addressed to

bnt

as its character was not changed, the consequence was
that Yahwb was worshipped as a baal.

It is thus easy

to understand how, to

a

prophet like Hosea, the religion

of his countrymen should seem to be unmixed Canaanite
heathenism

( 2 5

[7]

cp

8

[IO]

13

I

etc. and how, from the same point of view, the religious
reformers of the seventh century should

the

abolition of the high places as the first step to restoring
the true religion of

From the standpoint of Dt. and the deuteronomistic

historians, the high places were legitimate places of
sacrifice until the building of the temple at Jerusalem

(

I

3

after that they were

The history,

however, shows that they continued to be not only the
actual, but also the acknowledged sanctuaries of Judah
as well as Israel down to the seventh century.

The

building of the temple in Jerusalem had neither the
purpose nor the effect of supplanting them. The author
of

K

INGS

(who reckons it

a

fault) records of all

the kings of Judah from Solomon to Hezekiah that they
did not do away with the high places.

The oldest collec-

tions of laws, in Ex.

3424-26,

assume the existence of these

local sanctuaries Ex.

20

24-26

formally legitimates their

altars.

The prophets of the ninth century contend

(against the foreign religion introduced by Ahab) for the

worship

of Yahwb alone in Israel to Elijah the destruc-

tion of the altars of Yahwb (high places) is a token
of complete apostasy

(

I

K.

19

he himself repairs

the fallen altars

on

the sacred mountain Carmel

( 1 8 3 0 ) .

Amos and Hosea assail the cultus at the high places a s
corrupt and heathenish, like the whole religion

of

their

contemporaries but it is the character of the worship
and the worshippers, not the place, that they condemn
the worship in Jerusalem pleases the prophets no better

(Is.

which is at least applied to

Hezekiah is said to have removed the high places (2

K.

1 8 4 2 2

21

3 )

but it is hardly probable (see H

EZEKIAH

.

I

)

that the king's reforms went beyond an attempt to

suppress the idolatry against which Isaiah

so

incessantly

inveighed

the mention of the high places is from the

hand of the deuteronomic author, who thus conforms
the account of Hezekiahs good work

to

that of Josiah

K. 23) and to the deuteronomic law.

Certainly

the high places were in their

glory in the reigns of

Hezekiahs successors Manasseh and

One of the chief aims of Deuteronomy is to restrict the

worship of Yahwb to the temple in Jerusalem. All other

e . ,

a temple of an idolatrous cult

thus,

K.

32,

the old temples of

the Samaritans, in which the alien

colonists set

up their images and worshipped Yahwb

after their fashion;

I

K.

the temples which

I. built in rivalry to the temple of Yahwb a t

Jerusalem

further,

I

K.

23

I n other cases

alone (always plur.) seems to he used in

the same sense

;

note the verbs

'build'

(

I

K.

14 23

K.

17

21 3 Jer.

7

31 19

5

32

and

'pull down, demolish

K.

238

cp Ezek. 16

though

themselves these verbs d o

not

necessarily imply an edifice, being used,

of

an

altar.

I n the passages just cited the word

has lost the

physical meaning high place altogether

the

spoken of were in the cities

of Israel and Judah

K.

in

of the gates

of

Jerusalem

K.

in its streets or open places (Ezek.

16

31 39,

where

is equivalent to

if indeed the text should

not be so emended)

the

of the Melek cult

were in the valley

of

Hinnom (Jer.

7 3 1

etc.

)

see

M

OLECH

.

W e often read of

on

hills

Ezek.

6 3

I

K.

and under green trees

I

K.

observe also that the sacrifices are always said to be
offered

or

at the

never

(on),

and

contrast

Is.

I t has been thought that the

in valleys, cities, etc., were artificial mounds, taking the
place of the natural high places,' the summits of hills
and mountains, such as are found among various

This is in itself possible enough but evidence

of it is lacking in the

OT even in Ezek.

16

39

it is doubtful whether this is the prophet's meaning.

T h e history of the high places is the history

of

the

old religion of Israel.

Here we have

only

to do with

the attitude to them

by

the religious leaders and
Most of the high places were doubtless

old Canaanite holy places which the Israelites, as they
gradually got possession

of

the land, made their own

(see Dt.

K.

17

11

etc.

)

the legends in Genesis

which tell of the founding of the altars

of the more

famous sanctuaries by the forefathers, Jacob-Israel and
Abraham, often in connection with a theophany or other
manifestation

of

presence at the spot, are a t

once arecognition that these holy places were older than
the Israelite invasion of Palestine and a legitimation of
them as altars

of Yahwb the name

itself was

probably borrowed from the Canaanites.

There can be

little doubt that the cultus at the high places was in the
main learned by the Israelites from the older occupants
together with the agriculture with which it was

so closely

interwoven (cp I

SRAEL

,

Not only were the

rites the same as those with which the Canaanites
worshipped their baals, but it is probable that at
the beginning the worship was actually addressed to
the baals, the givers of the fruits of the soil (cp B

AAL

,

Later, when Canaan had become completely the land

of

Israel, and thus Yahwb, Israel's God, whose old

seats were in the distant south, became the God

of

Never

cp

Mesha

(Is.

b c .

Oftener the more general words

In K. 23

15

the text is

in disorder

not origin-

ally refer

t o

the

24 31 39t

EV, 'eminent place,' the mound upon

which stands the altar (Bertholet etc ) or a

or 'vaulted

chamber'

for heathen

(Davidson).

rendering after Vg. and

etc., is needless.]

4

[See Gesenius, Preface to

des

A T

1

5

See also

.

2067

places of sacrifice-which are
cantly described as the places where
the Canaanites worshipped their gods
-are to be razed no similar cult is

to be offered

to Yahwb

and many other

the limits of his little kingdom Josiah

( 6 2 1 )

carried out the prescriptions of the new law-book.

We are told that he also destroyed the high places at Bethel

and in the other cities of Samaria

K.

23

In the weak-

ness of the moribund Assyrian empire such a n action
conceivable (cp

but

the author of

K.

23

is

hardly

a

competent witness.

That the people of the

cities and villages saw

unmoved the altars at which their forefathers had
worshipped Yahwb for centuries torn down, the

that the high places were ancestral

and

the cult which was supplanted

that of the national god

was that of

is perhapstrue

of some of them

;

there is no reason to believe

this was the

universal development.

For the Jewish attempts t o reconcile this theory and the

practice of the times

of

the Judges, Samuel, and David, with the

existence of the tabernacle of

see

13

further, the numerous passages from

Talmuds and Jewish commentators collected by

Ugolino

his

10

According to Chron -in

conflict

with its sources -other

good kings had done

before(:! Ch.14 3

Asa,

15

176

Jehoshaphat).

the notice

in

and

cp

I

DOL

ATR

Y

,

See

D

EUTERONOMY

,

$ 1 3 .

2068

HIGH

PLAGE

symbols

of the deity destroyed, the holy places profaned,

the priests forcibly removed to Jerusalem-their whole
religion plucked up by the roots-is not to be imagined ;
their temper may be guessed from the reception which
one preacher of the new model met in his native town
of Anathoth (Jer.

11). When, in

608,

Josiah fell in

battle against Pharaoh Necho,

a swift and sweeping

reaction set in. Jeremiah,

and Zephaniah, as

well as the author of Kings, give abundant evidence
that the old cults flourished

full

down to the

destruction of Jerusalem in

586

(cp I

SRAEL

,

It is commonly believed that the Exile accomplished

what the covenant and the reforms of Josiah had failed
permanently to achieve.

The population of Judah, it is assumed, was carried away to

Babylonia; and when after fifty years a new generation

returned to Palestine, they had no motive

9.

The Exile

for restoring the old local cults whose

and the

tinuity had thus been so lone interruoted.

Restoration.

Moreover, those who came

were‘ men

of a

new mind :

the

to

of

arc

(cp

arc

of

either

or

in

were

see

the

so

to

of

of

after the

of

and

is

a

time,

tlie

the

put

of

Is.

in

So

to

being

after

that

in

century

a

of that

[so

as the

concerned]

was

a t

with

a

build

I

,

of

in

arc at

the

in

one

of

or

of

old

of

Exile.

and

them.

is

passages should be restricted to the

See Schiir.

2

456

;

Willrich,

126

;

Biichler,

und

Oniaden,

Even in the Mishna the

cp Is. 19

validity of the sacrifices

in

the temple of

is

somewhat grudgingly acknowledged

13

I

O

).

2069

HINNOM,

VALLEY O F

and

is hidden from

the obscurity which hangs

over the centuries of the Persian and Greek

Spencer

De

I

his

Thesaurus

(De

cases

of

apparent

of the deuteronomic law

10.

Literature.

of the single altar with

comment

on the same)

6

(literature,

;

We.

Stade

Piepenbring,

des

de

et

sacerdoce

Israel,’ Krv.

des

24 1-60,

nacker,

L e

dans la

des

;

Nowack,

H A

2

v.

Gall,

See also,

on the

questions, the literature under the

articles

on the hooks of the Hexateuch.

Hohendienst,

G.

F.

M.

HIGH PRIEST

Lev.

etc.

See

HILEN

I

Ch.

658

See

H

OLON

.

I

.

P

RIEST

.

HILKIAH

[so in nos. 4-71,

is my portion’ cp H

ELKAI

[BAL]).

C

HELCIAS

, Sus.

63

Bar.

1

I

7.

I.

T h e chief priest under Josiah, mentioned in con-

nection with the repairs of the temple and with the
event which made the king

a definite adherent of

purified Yahwism

( 2

K.

That Hilkiah forged’

the book which he stated

(v.

8)

that he had found’

is an impossible theory (WRS

363).

What

led Hilkiah to say that he had ‘found the book

of

direction’ (EV the book of the law is not recorded.
H e may merely have meant ‘Here is the best and
fullest law-book, about which thou

been asking.

need not mean

I

have found

for

the first time.’

It is possible that the seeming connection of the

‘

find-

ing’ of the law-book with the arrangement about the
temple-money may be simply due to the combination
of two separate reports. At any rate, Shaphan, not
Hilkiah,

have begun the conversation on the

law-book.

I n the house of

probably means

‘in the temple library.‘ See J

OSIAH

,

I

.

Father of

E

LI

A

KIM

in this verse],

36

3.

Father

of the prophet Jeremiah

1

I

).

4. I n

the Levitical genealogy of

E

T

H

AN

(

I

Ch.

45

om.

B).

b.

a Merarite Levite

;

om.

See

G

E N E A L O G I E S

i.,

7

(ii.

6. Father of

(Jer. 29

3

)

.

7.

A

priest, temp. Ezra

;

Neh.

8 4

12 7

om.

(om.

in

I

Esd. 943,

I

[q

( z

K.

18

18

:

[A;

om.

L

T.

K.

C.

HILL, HILL-COUNTRY.

See M

OUNT

; cp

a well-known Jewish name in Rab-

binical times), father

of

A

RDON

I

)

the judge,

a

native of

I

) ,

Judg.

[B],

[A,

c

precedes],

(cp

See

W

EIGHTS AND

M

EASURES

.

if correct, point to some form like

I

Ch.

HIN

on etym. cp

Ex.

HIND

Gen.

etc.

HINNOM, VALLEY

OF

or

Valley of the

son

(also,

children)

of Hinnom

also

called

The Valley

See

H

ART

.

3 1 4 0

[

S

O

too

Ass.

Ch.

Neh.

the valley gate ’), one of the

valleys round about Jerusalem.

(a)

Vss.

The shorter designation

is found

in Josh.

18

Neh.

11 30 (om.

in Josh.

the longer

usual form is used.

reads

but

in 15

in 18

(6)

is transliter-

ated in Ch. 28

[B],

[A],

Ch.

336

and

rendering

to

‘Valley of the

of

Hinnom,’

which

is

found

2070

HINNOM, VALLEY

OF

in the

MT,

K.23

The

and Vss.

read

Cp

Josh.

For

occurs in Josh.

18

16u

(BAL),

and also

[L],

and the transliterated

166

I n Jer. 196

is repre-

sented by

Bottcher, Graf, and

derive

from Ar.

' t o sigh, whimper'

but the word is much

more probably an unmeaning fragment of a

The true name

was hardly that of

a

person

(so Stanley, Sin.

and

for in Jer.

7 3 2

196

the name is altered to ' valley

of

slaughter

originally therefore it had some agreeable sense. Con-
sidering the use made of the valley we may further
assume that the true name had a religious reference, and
may with some probability emend

into

pleasant

son (Che. and suppose that

a syncretistic

worship of

and Melech (see M

OLECH

) was

practised in the valley. This helps us to understand
the horror felt by Ezekiel (if the view

of

G

OG

and

M

AGOG

is correct) at the worship of Tamniuz-Lord.'

The first occurence

(?) is probably in Is.

225

(cp

I

), where

no

less

a

writer than Isaiah has

name.

.

been thought to mention it.

T h e

occurence, it is true, is gained by

emending the text but

a parallel

is called

for

14

(see V

ISION

, V

ALLEY O

F

).

The most

notable reference, however, is in

K.

where we

read that Josiah 'defiled the Topheth which is in the
valley of the sons of Hinnom' (see

that

no man might make his

son or his daughter to pass

through the fire to Molech'

so

that,

if

Ben Naaman

was the name of the divinity originally worshipped in
the valley,' the awful Molech

(or rather Melech) had

acquired a precedence over Ben

Probably

too, as Geiger suggested,' the phrase the graves of the
common people

6)

should rather be the graves of

ben-hinnom

9).

The text, thus cor-

rected, shows that the burying-place of

was

at any rate near the gorge of

.

).

It was

in this valley, according to the Chronicler, that Ahaz
and Manasseh sacrificed their sons

Ch.

336).

Jeremiah

(731)

speaks of the 'high places of the

Topheth, which is in the valley of

(?)

in the passage

he calls them the high places

of Baal.'

The abominations there practised were the

cause of the change

of name announced by the prophet

(Jer.

196). See further E

SCHATOLOGY

,

63

81 ( 3 ,

T

OPHET

.

The

question is complicated, and it is not easy to decide

'Whatever view is

taken of the position of the valley of
Hinnom, all writers concur in its extend-

ing to the junction of the three valleys of Jerusalem
below

there must be one spot below

which all agree in making a portion of the

valley of Hinnom' (Warren).

T h e point on which

geographers are divided is whether the valley is the

(the west and

valley), the

Tyropceon (the centre valley),

or the Kidron (east

valley).

The first view is

by Robinson,

Stanley,

Baed.

and Buhl the second by

Robertson Smith

Brit.

Jerusaleni

'83,

and Birch

'78,

p.

the third by Sir

C. Warren

Hasting's

2387).

Cp J

ERUSALEM

,

I

.

According

to

P

the Valley entered into the boundary of

and

Benjamin (see Josh.

and

so much at least is

differ as to the site of this valley.

it with confidence.

Let

us collect some of the data.

2

259 there

traces of the reading in

Tg.

For the inappropriate

the Chronicler

Ch. 344)

3

Eus.

OS 300

identifies the

with the Valley

substitutes

of

Jehoshaphat cp Jer.,

O S 128 io.

HIPPOPOTAMUS

clear, that the border-line runs through N

EPHTOAH

, the

Mount

the Valley of Hinnom, En-Rogel, and

En-shemesh.

I n

describing the border of Judah from

E.

to

W.

(Josh, 158)

the Mount is spoken of as before

the valley of Hinnom

and 'at the end of the plain of

north-

ward. Similarly 18

which proceeds

the reverse direction,

the

Mount' is still 'before' the valley but is mentioned first.

It would seem that either

does

not (exceptionally see

C

HPRITH

, col.

n.

3)

mean the east or

(6) the words defihing

the position of 'the Mount' are an

gloss.

In Jer.

is said to be ' b y

the entry of the gate

(Harsuth?). Wherever

this gate was, its name does not mean 'east.'

If it is

the same as the

Dung-gate'

may even be

a

corruption of

see Neh.

3

it was at the end of

the Tyropceon valley.

3. W e have also to note what is said of the position

of the 'Valley Gate' (rebuilt by

:

Ch.

269

[L]). It faced the Dragon Well' (Neh.

perhaps

see also D

RAGON

,

4

[g]),

and was

distant a thousand cubits from the Dung-gate ' (Neh.

[L]), beyond which

came the Fountain Gate,' and the King's Pool.'

Of discussions on the site of the Valley of Hinnom we may

mention Sir C.

W.

Wilson's

in

Smith's

('93) and Sir

Warren's in Hastings'

At present the majority of

scholars adhere to the view expressed by the former, that the

true

of Hinnom is the

but cp

SALEM,

T. K.

A.

C.

[Aq., Theod.]

see B

EHEMOTH

,

I

) ,

Job

40

Ten verses

15-24)

or distichs are devoted in Job

40

to a description

of

an

which is most probably

the hippopotamus

though there are

elements in the description which appear to some to
require a mythological explanation (see B

EHEMOTH

,

3).

it is true, the only old interpreter

who ventures

on an identification, renders Behemoth

by the Arabic word for rhinoceros, and Schultens,
unmoved by the arguments

Bochart, identifies

it with the elephant.

Most commentators, how

ever, since Gesenius, have taken the side of Bochart,
who has, as they believe, clearly shown

(

I

)

that the

animal is described as amphibious,

that the juxta-

position of Behemoth and leviathan here accords with
the close association of the hippopotamus with the
crocodile in ancient writers

Herod.

2

69-71,

Diod.

Plin.

288)

as chief among the tenants of

the Nile, and (3)

that the description, apart from one

or two difficult clauses, exactly suits the hippopotamus.
Some commentators

Del.) would also find the

Behemoth

or hippopotamus in Is.

306

but this is not

a

probable view (see B

EHEMOTH

,

I

).

Verses

and

' H e

grass like the ox'

.

. .

Surely the mountains

him forth

We now turn to the details of the description.

Where

all

the beasts of the field do play,

refer to the fact that the hippopotamus is graminivorous, and
inoffensive towards other animals. I n

16-18

we have a

powerful picture of his muscular strength, on the ground of
which he

is

to he regarded as among the most wonderful of

God's creatures

Verse

is difficult, but (unless

we emend the text [see

vol.

col.

must allude to the animal's tusks,

which he shears his

vegetable food :

'(God) who made him so that he should apply his sword'

(so

Verses

describe his favourite

and

23

refers to

the most wonderful fact of all-that the animal

is

equally a t

home on land or water. it is puzzling, however, to find the

Jordan

24 is generally taken

hut Di., referring to the fact that the

of the present

day openly attack the hippopotamus with harpoons, understands
an actual

[Verse

should probably run, H e cleaves marsh plants

as

with a chisel

; the sinews of

his

neck

are knit

K

.

appellative.

Di. and Du. think that 'Jordan' may he used as a kind of

[For a critical emendation of the

text

see

JORDAN,

2072