KEDESHAH

{see

[Index] and cp Pap. Anast.

191

As.

213

n.).

I t is usually called simply Kedesh (Josh.

the king of

Kedesh,’

Judg. 49

410

[A]

I

but occasionally also

Kedesh-Naphtali

(Judg.

46

[L] Tob. 1

[BK]

[A]), or

in Galilee

21 32

[B],

I

and once

Kadesh

Galilee, in the hill-country of

207).

On

the geographical definition

Judg.

see

It was the home of Barak (see D

EBORAH

,

and

apparently the rallying-place from which the war of

‘liberation was fought.

Lying as it did

on

the northern

frontier of Palestine (cp

T

AHTIM

-

HODSHI

), it had to bear

the brunt of the first incursion of the Assyrians, and
with other neighbouring places (see A

BEL

-

BETH

-

MAACAH

,

etc.) it was in

734

B.C.

captured by Tiglath-pileser, its

inhabitants being carried away to Assyria

K.

It

is twice mentioned

( I

Macc.

11

63 73)

in connection with

the defeat of Jonathan the

near Hazor, and

Josephus, who calls it

describes it as ‘between the land of the

Tyrians and Galilee’

as belonging to

the Tyrians’

or as

populous and well-

fortified inland village of the Tyrians

’

23) which

was the scene of various warlike incidents in his own time.

Eus. ( O S

2 7 1 55)

describes

as situated

from Tyre, near

In the twelfth century Benjamin

of Tudela visited

and found there the tomb of

Barak and several Jewish saints

in

89).

Kedesh still retains its ancient name

J.

L.

Porter (Kitto,

well describes it

:

High

KEMUEL

up among the mountains of Naphtali is

a

little green plain, embosomed in wooded

hill-tops, On its western side is a rounded

on which

the modern village stands. From the tell

a

low, narrow

ridge projects into the plain, with flat top and steep sides,
covered with rank vegetation.

Both ridge and tell are

strewn with ruins.

In the plain, at the northern

the ridge, round a little fountain, lie the most interesting
remains of Kedesh. A

of sarcophagi serve the

purpose of water-troughs.

Near these are the ruins

of

two beautiful buildings, but whethermausoleums, temples,

or synagogues, it is difficult to determine. Between them
is a very remarkable group

of

sarcophagi standing on a

massive platform of solid masonry. These are doubtless
the tombs of which Benjamin of Tudela and Brocardus
speak (chap.

7

and they show that down to a com-

paratively late period the Jews still regarded Kedesh

a s

a sanctuary.

The plain beside Kedes and the

surrounding hills is thicklycovered with terebinth and oak
forests, among which the writer saw at several places the
black tents of a nomad tribe which frequents this region.’

See Rob.

B R

3

Stanley

P 332

2 8 2

317 : baed.

298

Pal.

EEDESHAH

Gen.

38

Dt.

23

See C

LEAN

,

6,

and cp A

SHTORETH

, R

ITUAL

,

SACRI-

[L]

Nu.

See W

ANDERINGS

,

W

ILDERNESS O

F.

in Josh.

in Neh.

one

of the towns ‘ i n the

of

Judah (Josh.

1 5 4 4 ) .

It was an important

the fifteenth century

B.

being several times mentioned as

in the Amarna

tablets.

David found

a temporary shelter within its

‘gates and bars’

(

I

S.

231

After the Exile it

gave its name to

an administrative district mentioned

after Beth-zur (Neh.

The Chronicler, after his

fashion, introduces the ‘father of Keilah’ (whom he
connects with the clan called the

into a

genealogy in conjunction with Eshtemoa

(

I

Ch.

4

also K

ADESH

Dt.

I

,

col.

837,

D

OG

,

3

(end), H

IGH

P

LACES

,

I

DOLATRY

,

FICE.

Eusebius and ‘Jerome

identify

Keilah with the village of Kela, situated 8 (the Greek

text by

error has

17)

m. from Eleutheropolis, on the

road to Hebron, which is no doubt the modern

about 4 m.

of

This place,

however, is situated on

a

steep mountain, where there

is

no

arable land, and so cannot be the Keilah of

I

S. 24.

There is also a ruined village called

(cp the

of Jos. Ant. vi.

7

m.

E. of Beit Jibrin

about

7

m.

NE. of

which is not quite

so

in the mountains as Beit

and is identified

Keilah by

3351).

The only objection to

it is drawn from Josh.

where Keilah standsalmnst

at the end of a long list of cities’ in the
Dillmann and Muhlau consider this

so serious that they

are led to reject this identification. It is to be noted,
however, that not far from

we find Beit

which must be the ancient Nezib, and

is already pretty far to the

E. Evidently the

is to be distinguished from the maritime

plain which it adjoined (GASm.

202).

This

is

one

of,

the cases in which travel appears to throw great light
on

old

narratives. The terraced sides of

the hill of

are even to-day covered with corn, and

their luxuriance must have been greater still when the
terraces were cared for.

No wonder that the Philistine

raiders (or, as we should perhaps read, the Pelethites’

the Zarephathites

see Z

AREPHATH

) swarmed

the

to rob the threshing-floors. The

citizens of Keilah were powerless to drive them away,
and were even poor-spirited enough to plan the sur-
render of David, their deliverer, to Saul. Ahithophel

(Ahipelet

may perhaps have been the man who facili-

tated David‘s escape. See G

ILOH

, D

AVID

,

4,

J

UDAH

.

I t is doubtful whether the ‘springs of water,‘ etc., of Josh.

Jndg. 1

are really proper names (see

Since the names cannot properly be translated as Hebrew, they

are supposed to be pre-Israelitish.

More probably the text is

corrupt.

The passage contains a statement that

of

clan being barren

Caleh granted it

‘Keilah and Beth-Tappuah.’

D

EBIR

probably lay hetwedn these two places, which were

to it.

Che.

of Eus.

245

of Jer.

and

in Josh.

. . .

. .

.

K .

;

. . .

.

. .

33,

cp K

OLAIAH

is

mentioned, with the note ‘the same is Kelita’ among the
Levites

in

list of those with foreign wives (see

5 end),

[A],

who was called

ob.

[A],

See

K

ELITA

.

(sing.)

is attested by, Pesh.,. by

T. IC. C.

KELAIAH

RELITA

dwarf’

?

a

signatory to the covenant (see

E

ZRA

i.,

7), Neh.

[B],

[A]),

also in

the

of the law (see

E

ZRA

cp

8,

1 5

c) Neh. 87; BNA om.=

I

Esd.

[BA]).

I n Ezra 10

23

Kelita

I

Esd.

is identified with

KEMUEL

Son

of Nahor by

and father of Aram

a statement a t variance with that in

(P), and in

improbable.

is content with pointing out that Aram

seems to have a narrower reference here. Gen. 22

however,

is corrupt and should

his firstborn and Ahibuz, and

Jerahmeel and

See

JERAHMEEL,

4,

and note that

Ahibuz

i.) and Michael (a corruption of Jerahmeel

are brought into connection with Salecah (miswritten

in Gen. 22

and with ‘Gilead in

see

in

I

5

Observe, too, that Abiram

is a

name (Nu. 16

I

), and that

was a

Jordanic tribe.

‘

Prince’ of the tribe of Ephraim, temp. Moses

Nu.

3424

In

Judg.

has

(thus associating

with

followed by

(+

[A])

2656

of Josh. omits the first name.

KENAN

KENITES

and to

J

ERAHMEEL (

I

and per-

sonified as Kain (cp CAIN,

§

5 ) . They entered Canaan

(more strictly, the Negeb) with the men of Judah (see
JERICHO,

In all probability they have left a trace

of

their name in

See Judg.

where M T wrongly states that the Kenites

and dwelt among the people,’ as if the Israelitish people

were meant-an impossible view doubtless. An important group

of the MSS of

(Moore’s

N),

with the Sahidic

adds

probably, therefore, we should read

among the

See also

Nu.

where the Kenites appear

close proximity to the Amalekites (Jerahmeelites).

Against the supposed connection of the Kenites and the

Midianites, see Moore,

34,

I t may be noted,

however, that in the opinion of the present writer

(Midian),

in

3

I

18

I

,

should most probably be

and

in

should probably be

in other

words

was a t once a Kenite and a

(cp

Residing between the Jndahite and the Jerahmeelite

portionsof the Negeb,

equallyintouchwith

the bne Judah and with the Jerahmeelites (see N

EGEB

).

It is strange, therefore, to find them, in Judg.

in

the N. of Canaan

however, Judg.

12

and

observe that

(the region of Kadesh?) is cursed in

Judg.

5

23

(read, not

;

see M

EROZ

) for

not helping the Israelites.

W. M. Muller’s explanation

of Heber the Kenite’

(6

L om.

)

is plausible,

but no more.

W e must at any rate admit that the

narrative as it stands assumes that

was not

a

town-dweller, but a nomad (see H

EBER

,

I

).

Another explanation is that of

the Kenites were

a

tribe of

smiths who were chiefly in the

S.

of

Palestine, but

led

art into northern regions

(against this view, repeated in Hastings’

see

A

MALEK

,

H e

recognises the old bond between them and Israel, and

therefore is not offended at their relation to the

but he wishes them to remove from that section

of the Jerahmeelites which was hostile to Israel (see
S

A

U

L

). From

I

Ch.

255

(see

it appears that

either

a section

of

the Kenites or the Kenite tribe as

a

whole also bore the name of

if we

should not rather read

Heberites

It is at any

rate possible that Jonadah

’

should he read instead of

as the name of the ancestor of the

Kenites whose connection with Moses is asserted by

a

trustworthy tradition (Judg.

1 1 6 ,

ep Nu.

In Nu.

a Hebrew poet plays on the name

of ‘Kenite’

which he connects with

nest.’

Apparently he anticipates their destruction by the Assyrians,

for in

v.

22

(RV)

he continues,

Nevertheless, Kain

be wasted,

Until Asshnr shall carry

away captive.

The marg. of

however warns us that the text is grammati-

cally obscure.

had nobler prey to

than

Kenites.

It was pointed out above that in the Song of Deborah

the

with whom the Kenites were closely

linked, are ‘cursed’ for not coming to the help

of

worshippers the Israelites (Judg.

This

confirms a view which has long been considered criti-
cally probable that the Kenites and the Israelites were
conscious

of the identity of their early religion, and that

the Kenites were indirectly at least the teachers

of

the

Israelites.

So, before Stade, Tiele maintained (

559

ep Che.

progress

of critical study of the documents since

1872

has in

added considerably to the probability

of this

(Budde, Moore, Driver

fell out

owing to

which follows.

According to Meyer

(Ent.

we have in

Ch. 2556 the

remains of a genealogy of

(the Kenites) similar to the

preceding genealogy of Caleb.

On a connection between

and the Kenites see

S

ALMAH

2.

3

Che.

10 399

‘99)

Hommel

( A H T

4

Robertson

represents

as

the authorityfor this opinion. but

view ascribed

Robertson

to Ghillany

is

decidedly

sober

than that of Tiele and his

followers..

26).

Saul’s relation

to the Kenites is interesting.

Hence the couplet needs some

The

,

2658

3.

Father

of

who was over the tribe of

temp.

David;

I

Ch.

See

K

ADMIEL

(end).

KENAN

I

Ch.

also Gen.

5 9 ,

R V ; AV

place on the other side of the Jordan, also called
N

OBAH

after the clan

so named (Nu.

In

I

Ch.

it is stated that Geshur and Aram took

the Havvoth-Jair with Kenath and its dependencies’
from the Israelites. Eusebius and Jerome

( O S

identify Kenath with Canatha

which is

described by them as

a still existing village of Arabia

in Trachonitis, not far from Bostra, and probably this
place is meant when the Talmud includes Kenath among
the frontier cities of

I n Jos.

Kenath is reckoned to

while

(v.

and

reckon it to the

For its history, see Schiirer

Canatha is the modern

on the

W. slope of

the Jebel

4068

ft. above the sea-level, and 16

or 17 m. NNE. from Bostra on the Roman road to

‘The ruins are among the most important

in Eastern Palestine (see plan in Baed.
From the point of view adopted in

J

EPHTHAH

,

N

OBAH

, there is no hindrance to identifying this inter-

esting spot with the biblical

See, however,

KENAZ

[BADEL], the original pro-

nunciation being probably

figures in the genealogy

of the Edomites as a elan belonging to them-Gen.

3 6

Ch.

153.

On the other hand the

hero

Caleb, who is said to have obtained possession of
Hebron the capital of Judah but in reality is the per-
sonification of a family originally distinct from the

Judzeans (see

I

S.

Josh.

and cp

I

S .

appears as a

(RV,

AV

Kenezite;

[BAL]; Nu.

6

[BAL],

Josh.

1 4 6

Moreover,

mythical son-in-law

O

THNIEL

is

a

son of Kenaz: Josh.

1517

Judg.

[A])

Judg.

3 9

I

Ch.

Again,

in

I

Ch. 4

15

Kenaz

apparently a grandson of Caleb.

From all this we may conclude either that Kenaz
was originally an independent tribe, of which one
portion became incorporated with the Edomites and
another portion with the neighbouring Judzeans, or else
that a part of

Edomite tribe Kenaz settled among

the Judzeans at a very early period.

In any case it is

tolerably clear that Kenaz and Caleb were at first
strangers in Judah, afterwards became

allies, and

finally were absorbed in the surrounding population.
Such changes have been by no means rare (see

In Gen.

15

19-21

an attempt is made to enumerate the

various peoples who inhabited Palestine before the
Israelite invasion that the Kenizzites are included in
the list serves to show that their foreign origin had not

KENITES

o

Geu. 1 5 19

Nu.

o

I

S.

in

I

S .

should perhaps be

Judg. 116, should he

followed

(see

I

Also

Nu.

and perhaps

I

S.

1566 [We., crit. emend.].

A nomadic tribe, allied to the Kenizzites (Gen.

1 5 1 9 )

The treatment of this passage by Bertheau,

Neubauer

3

So

Stade

Smend in

On the

T. K .

C.

G.

F.

Moore on Judg.

8

T. K. C.

§

yet been forgotten. Cp C

ALEB

,

N.

is very unsatisfactory.

Riehm

GASm.

(HG

n. 3 ; 579, n. 3).

other side see

p.

KERAS

view, which has been lately reasserted by Budde

t o

the

21).

See I

SRAEL

,

KERAS

[BA]),

I

Esd.

T.

K. C.

Ezra

2

44,

K

EROS

.

KERCHIEFS

Ezek.

1318

EV)

see

D

RESS

,

8, col. 1141.

KEREN-HAPPUCH

the name of one

of

daughters (Job

Can one of Job's ideal daughters really

be named 'Box of

e y e - p a i n t ' ? Or can we attach the least importance to

2 5

suggests an emendation.

Read pro.

bably

'scent of apples.'

may

have read

Cp

JEMIMA,

and see

T.

K.

C.

KERIOTH.

I

.

A

Moabite city

Jer.

mentioned in Mesha's inscription, line

13

as

a sanctuary of Chemosh.

Identified by Seetzen with

at the

W.

end of Mt. Ataroth

Eusebius and Jerome

(Onom.

26910

call this

place

Coraitha, and place it

I

O

R. m. from

Medeba, but identify it wrongly with K

IRJATHAIM

I

].

See Noldeke

25).

Others

(cp Driver on Am.

2 think that A

R

-M

OAB

and Kerioth

were two names for the same city.

More plausibly

Buhl

270)

identifies Kerioth with Kir of Moab

indeed,

if

Kir-heres (undeniably= Kir of

Moab) was really named

(see

HERES)

this appears

a

still more probable view.

C p

K

IR

J

ATH

-

HUZOTH

.

A

city

of

(Josh.

RV

often, but wrongly, supposed to be the birthplace

o f

See

4.

T.

K.

C.

KEROS

a family

in the great post-exilic list (see

E

ZRA

Ezra.

747

C

ERAS

,

[BA]).

KESITAH

a word recorded in

of

Gen.

33

[Josh.

24

Job42

I

T

EV piece of money.'

Onk. Vg. render 'lambs,' ' a lamb'

Jon.

pearls

').

It has been suggested that

in

of

was originally

(

But since

gives

Josh.

2 4

and

in

Schleusner (Lex.

in Vet.

feels

obliged to reject the hypothesis.

Nevertheless it

appears that

nearer the truth than the critics who

adhere to MT.

In Gen.

31

corre-

sponds to

surely

read

Possibly, too, in Gen.

33

stood

the original

as the equivalent of

Looking closely at

we

can divine that the text originally ran,

' a t the hand of the sons of

for

a

mina of Carchemish,' and

so too

23

where

Abraham's purchase of Machpelah is described, we

read

'four Carchemish

and in

v. 16

the same once more with the ad-

dition of

'

(in) gold.'

In 33

and

are both misreadings

of

and in 23

16

are, all

of

them, attempts to make

sense of dislocated fragments of

;

comes from

The same emendation

to be made in Josh. 243

(harmonised in the received text with Gen.
Probably also in Job

has

taken the place of

'one

Comparing Ch. 9

16

(on text, see

top

of next

KIBZAIM

mina of 'gold.' Duhm trulyremarks that a little piece

of

money and a nose-ring or ear-ring from each of
friends would not do much to restore his fortune, Yet
the context (see

is most intelligible'

we suppose

that they did each make a considerable present the
ring

can well be spared

!

Note that

Ch.

gives

(read

where

I

17

has

This supplies an analogy for the emendation of

into

We are

relieved from the

necessity of connecting

with Ar.

' a balance,'

which is unknown in

N.

and forcing a sense

out of

On the commercial importance of the

of Car-

chemish, see

$

and cp S

HEKEL

.

T. K .

C .

KETAB (

[BA]),

I

Esd.

RV, AV C

ETAB

KETTLE

I

S.

elsewhere 'basket,'

caldron,' pot.

KETURAH

as if

incense

[BADEL]), Abraham's second wife (Gen.

251

4

I

Ch.

She is, in

J

the ancestress of no fewer than sixteen (Arabian)

tribes (six

and ten a t one or two removes) on which see

the special articles. A tribe called

dwelt near

Mecca, with the tribe Jurhum, is

by

Koteiba

(see Ritter

12

Glaser

2

maintains

the

are the remains of the old

people (see

and cp

42).

F.

See C

OOKING

U

TENSILS

,

KEY

Is.

Judg.

KEZIA,

RV

Keziah

'cassia'

[BHC],

[A]), the name of one of J o b s

daughters (Job

42

the name

parallel to Keziah).

See D

OOR

.

See

C

ASSIA

and cp

(the emended form of

KEZIZ, VALLEY

OF

Josh.

AV,

RV

E

MEK

-

KEZIZ

.

KIBROTR

-HATTAAVAH

' t h e graves

Of

[BAL],

a stage in the

wilderness wanderings, for the name of which an
Etiological legend was provided (see

Q

U

A

I

L),

Nu.

11

It has already been noticed that

Taberah (Nu.

11

does not occur in the list of stations

in Nu.

33,

and Dillmann rightly holds that the account

of Taberah in

narrative corresponded to the account

of Kibroth-hattaavah in

We must, however, go

further. Taberah

and Hattaavah

pre-

sumably represent the same word in the original story,
and the real name of the locality referred to was probably

e . , Graves of Taberah. Taberah

(of which Hattaavah will be a corruption) is probably
the name

of

a hill or mountain, and the graves are

Israelitish cairns

or

stone circles, which either had, or

were supposed to have,

a sepulchral purpose.

In

the Desert of the

such primitive stone

abound

on the hill-sides.

They are sometimes called

and the current story

that they were built by the Israelites as a protection against a
plague of mosquitoes

(E. H.

Palmer).

See

6

:

W

ANDERINGS

.

KIBZAIM

if the reading

correct,

JEKABZEEL,

K

ABZEEL

, and on the form see N

AMES

,

[A],

om.), a levitical

city in the territory of Ephraim, Josh.

21

I

Ch.

668

T. K.

C.

Such a connection would suggest

which

actually

for

[In the Midr.

Keturah

identified with

so

too

the

(Jon. and

which explain the

name 'bound one'

Cp

Gen.

2660

KID

KIDRON,

THE BROOK

any whither.'

The true reading is surely

by

any

The designation Valley of Jehoshaphat dates back

to the fourth century

A.D.

It

also

appears in O S

It is based on Joel3

but the

expression

(which means

a deep but broad valley,

like those of Rephaim and

see V

ALE

,

I

) ,

is

sufficient proof that the interpretation of that difficult
passage (see

JEHOSHAPHAT,

V

ALLEY OF)

is erroneous.

The constant term for the Kidron valley in the

O T

is

a

or ravine.

Popular tradition, however,

takes no account of such minor matters.

It is the

greatest boon that

a dying Jew can ask to be buried in

the Valley of

of Kidron, because he

believes that this

will be the scene of the great

judgment.

The whole of the left bank of the Kidron

opposite the

far up the W. side of the Mount

of Olives, is covered with the white tombstones of the
Jews; the burial-place of the Moslems is on the E.
side of the mount.' At the resurrection, the valley is
expected to receive an expansion by the moving farther
apart of the opposite sides.

The Valley of Kidron is now called

or Wady of the Lady Mary.

It contains the

KID

etc.), Gen.

38

etc. See G

OAT

,

I

.

KIDNEYS

See R

EINS

.

On 'kidney

of wheat,' Dt. 32

or 'fat of wheat,'

Ps.

16

147

see

F

OO

D

,

6.

KIDRON, THE BROOK,

once in AV C

EDRON

[Jn.

15

'of the Cedars'

;

[BAL] in Jer. 31

[AQ]

(hut

in K. 186).

N T , Jn. 18

BCLY, Treg.,

WH),

(AA

.

Vg.

Cedri

;

Theb.

Memph.

Lightf.,

Probably

is

correct reading

misunderstood, it would easily he cor.

into

or

Gesenius derives from

black, turbid,' cp Job

6

But

and

are certainly in apposition

is

the ravine

which is called

ravine

Etymology.

would not be a probable explanation hence

Hort ('Notes on Select Readings,' N T 2

suggests 'ravine of the dark [trees],' taking

to be an

archaic

Canaanite) plural of

H e even suggests

may he of

in

Buxtorf,

adds (cp

318)

'that

patches of cedar-forest may have

from prehistoric

times in sheltered spots.'

This is most improbable.

Even

in a ravine which is quite dry

summer we do not ex.

pect t o hear of cedars; the cedars on the Mount of Olives

44)

give no support

t o

the theory.

The form

too

is perfectly good Hebrew; it describes that which

belongs to or is connected with

(whatever

may be).

More probably

is a phonetic variation of

' a

spot

with enclosures for cattle'; cp

G

EDER

AH

,

I

,

where it is

gested that

in Macc. corresponds to the

of Josh.

15

36

and to the modern

It will be noticed that there is

a t one point of the Kidron valley (where it joins the valley of
Hinnom) a level tract now devoted to the cultivation of fruit
and vegetables. Here we can imagine that in remote times
there were enclosures for cattle.

May not Kedar

Ass.

have a similar origin ?

The remarkable depression on the

E. of Jerusalem (see

J

ERUSALEM

,

3)

referred to in

I

K.

K.

Jer.

Ch.

and twice in the short title

Cb.

Neh.

2

Josephus twice calls it

(Ant. ix.

7 3

v.

6

I

) in

v.

he refers to its great depth.

In

2 3 4

3140

(Kr.) we hear, according to the

ordinary

of

the 'fields'

in

follows Kth) of Kidron, which might

refer to the fertile tract in the

S.

of the

where

of old

was

the 'King's garden' (Neh. 3

I

S

).

But

word

being most probably corrupt elsewhere (see

G

RAPE

,

it

seems better to read

furnaces for

lime

for smelting

(Klo.).

T h e fields of Kidron,' is, in fact,

a sufficiently

clear phrase to

have

been used, especially in this context.

It is in the touching account

of David's flight that

we are first introduced to the Brook Kidron

;

we

hear

of

it for the last time in

a still more pathetic N T

narrative.

King David 'stood (read

with We.,

H.

P. Smith, and most critics) by the ravine Kidron,

while

all

the people passed over before him

S.

15

and Jesus went forth with his disciples over the ravine

Kidron, where was a garden' (Jn.

18

I

but

see 3). The other references to Kidron (except those

in

the topographical passages,

Ch.

33

Neh.

2

occur in accounts

of the destruction

of

idolatrous objects

at the mouth of Hinnom (see history of Asa, Hezekiah,
Josiah), and

I

K.

2 3 7 ,

where Shimei, that violent partisan

of Saul's house, is forbidden by Solomon

the text,

now stands) to cross Kidron. This is one of the many
cases where commentators have been satisfied with

a

plausible but not quite satisfactory explanation, instead
of questioning the correctness of the text.

It is said,

by Benzinger, that Kidron is mentioned because

Solomon thinks it most probable that Shimei would
seek to cross the eastern boundary

of

the city

on a visit

to his home at

But something more would

certainly have been added to make this clear, and, just
before, the phrase used is perfectly vague,

2661

references.

bed of a

but during the

whole summer and most of the

it is perfectly dry in fact, no water runs in it

except when heavy rains are falling on the mountains
round Jerusalem.

On the broad summit of the mountain ridge of

a mile and

a quarter NW. of Jerusalem, is a slight

depression; this is the head of the wkdy, which runs
on for

mile towards the city.

It

bends eastward, and in another half-mile is crossed
the great northern road coming down from the hill

On the

E. side of the road, and the

bank of

the

are the celebrated Tombs of the Kings.' The

channel is here

half a mile due N. of the city

gate.

It continues in the same course about a

of a mile farther, and then, turning

opens into a

wide basin containing cultivated fields and olives.
Here it is crossed diagonally by the road from Jerusalem
to Anathoth.

As it advances southward, the right

bank, forming the side of the hill Bezetha, becomes
higher

steeper, with occasional precipices of rock,

on which may be seen

a few fragments of the ancient

city wall; while, on the left, the base of Olivet projects,
greatly narrowing the valley.

Opposite

Stephen's

gate the depth is fully

feet, and the breadth not

more than

400

feet.

The olive trees in the bottom are

so thickly clustered as to form

a shady grove; and

their massive trunks and gnarled boughs give evidence
of great age.

This spot is shut out from the city, from

the view of public roads, and from the notice and

interruptions

of wayfarers. If Gethsemane was really

in the wkdy, it would be better to place it here than on
the more public traditional site some distance farther
down. From

however, compared with

26,

we should rather suppose that it was somewhere on

the W. slope of the Mount of

Olives.

(See Keim,

3299,

but cp Weiss, note on John

I

,

and see

G

ETHSEMANE

,

)

we must not linger on this dis-

puted point.

A zigzag path descends the steep bank

from

Stephen's gate, crosses the bed of the valley

by an old bridge, and then divides.

One branch leads

direct over the top of Olivet (cp

S.

15

23).

See

O

LIVES

,

M

O

U

N

T

OF.

Another branch runs round

the southern shoulder of the hill to Bethany, and has

deep and sacred interest, for it is the road of Jesus

Christ's last entry (Mt.

21

Lk.

19

37).

Below

the bridge the wkdy becomes still narrower,

was first

corrupted into

then

easily became

The

part of the

belongs to

Klo., who

'anyone

the roads'-aneedlessly elaborate

after

indicates a doubtful text.

2662

KIDRON

KINGS

(BOOK)

G

OVERNMENT

,

16-22;

13-44;

T

AXATION

and on the religious use of

see M

OLECH

,

M

ESSIAH

.

It is unfortunately doubtful whether

the

poetical phrase

‘king of

terrors,’

in

Job

18

is correct. The

supposed biblical

parallels

will

hardly bear pressing,

the text

being

very

uncertain.

On

Ps.

see

Che.

on Rev.

L

OCUSTS

,

3.

See

E

SCHATOL

O

GY

,

Index

T. K.

C.

KINGDOM

OF GOD,

(col.

‘kingdom’ M

ESSIAH

.

KINGS (BOOK)

General structure

I

)

.

Redactions etc.

4).

Religious principle

5 a).

Later insertions

5

The hooks of Kings, which form the last part of the

series of

OT histories known

as

the Earlier

Prophets, were originally reckoned as

a

single hook

C

ANON

,

13).

Divisions

Prophetic narrative

8).

narrative

($9).

Literature

Modern Hebrew Bibles follow the bipartition which

we

have

derived from

they

are

called the third and the

fourth

hooks

of

kingdoms

the first and the second being

our

hooks

of

Samuel.

Even

the old Hebrew separation between Kings and Samuel
must not he taken to mean that the history from the
birth of Samuel to the Exile was treated by two distinct
authors

independent volumes. We cannot speak of

the author of Kings

or of Samuel, hut only of an editor

or successive editors whose main work was to arrange in

a

continuous form extracts or abstracts from earlier

hooks.

The introduction of

a

scheme

and a series of editorial

and additions, chiefly

designed to enforce the religious meaning of the history,
gives to the hook of Kings as we now read it

a

kind of

unity but beneath this we can still distinguish

a

variety

of documents, which, though sometimes mutilated in
the process

of

piecing them together, retain sufficient

individuality

of

style and colour to prove their original

independence.

Of these documents one of the best

defined is the vivid and exact picture of David’s court
a t Jerusalem

S.

9-20), of which the first two chapters

of

I

K. are manifestly an integral part.‘

As it would

be unreasonable to suppose that the editor of the history
of David closed his work abruptly before the death

of

the king, breaking off in the middle

of

a

valuable

memoir which lay before him, this observation leads us
t o conclude that the books

of Samuel and of Kings are

not independent histories.

They have a t least one

source in common, and

a single editorial hand was at

work

on

both.

The division, however, which makes

the commencement

of

Solomon’s reign the beginning of

a

new hook is certainly ancient it must be older than

the insertion

of

the appendix

21-24,

which now

breaks the continuity of the original history of David‘s
court.

From

a historical point

of

view the division is very

convenient.

The subject of the hook of Samuel is the

creation of a united Israel by Samuel, Saul, and David.

Under Solomon the creative impulse has already died

away the kingship is divorced from the sympathies of
the nation and the way

is

prepared for the formation

of the two kingdoms of Ephraim and Judah, the fortunes
of which, down to their extinction by the great empires
of the East, form the main subject of the book of Kings.

It is probable, however, that the editor who made

the division had another reason for disconnecting

The division into two hooks

is not felicitous.

here traces

of a torrent bed first begin to appear.

Three hundred yards farther down, the hills on
each side rise precipitously from the torrent bed, which
is spanned by

a

single arch.

On the left bank is

a singular group of tombs, comprising those of

Jehoshaphat, and

James (now so called)

;

whilst

on

the right,

feet overhead, towers the south-

eastern angle of the temple wall. The ravine runs

on,

narrow and rocky, for

yards more there,

on its

right bank, in

a cave, is the fountain

of

the Virgin;

and higher up

on

left, perched

on the side of the

naked cliffs, the ancient village of Siloam. A short
distance farther down, the valley

of

the

falls

in from the right, descending

in terraced slopes, fresh

and green, from the waters of the Pool

of Siloam.

The ravine of Kidron here expands, affording

a

level

tract for cultivation (see above), which extends down to
the mouth of Hinnom, and is about

zoo

yards wide.

A short distance below the junction of Hinnom and the

Kidron is the fountain of Bir Eyyiib, ‘ t h e Well of

Job

(see

E

N

-

ROGEL

). The length of the valley from

its head to En-rogel is

m., and here the historic

may he said to terminate.

The Kidron Valley was first described accurately by

Robinson hut

in recent years fresh points of interest

have come to light.

Such, for instance, are the true

bed of the Kidron

ft. below the present channel),

and the great rock-cut aqueduct in the Kidron-valley,
south

of Bir

both found in

’68-’69

by Sir

C.

Warren

(Recovery

of

See

JER

U

S

A

LEM

,

37

and

cp

Porter’s

art.

in

from which some descriptive passages

of

the

above

have been adapted.

KIDRON

I

Macc.

1 5 3 9

RV.

See G

EDEROTH

.

[BA]),

I

RV, AV

C

EILAN

.

Judahite city

on

the border of Edom (Josh.

15

The name appears in

I

Ch.

412

in the corrupt form

T

EHINNAH

.

The term

‘king’

has

a somewhat wide range of meaning. W e find it in

the description

of

the old condition of things in Canaan,

when many of the cities were in the enjoyment

of

relative independence under

or

princes of their

own (see,

Gen.

Josh.

Judg.

Winckler has pointed out that in Tiglath-pileser’s time
the Syrian ‘kingdoms’ were more like German

we might also compare the petty

Syrian kings with the Indian

or the Italian dukes

of the Middle Ages. This remark may illustrate Is.

10

8,

where the king of Assyria ironically asks, Are not my
generals

altogether kings

(

perhaps alluding

partly to the fact that many petty vassal kings served
under his orders at the head of their respective con-
tingents.

As late as the Book of Job we find

&

used

in the limited sense

of

chieftain (Job

hut hardly

which seems to be corrupt).

From

the etymology

of

the term

(Ass. and Aram., to counsel,

decree we may infer that the king was originally the
most gifted and powerful member

of

a council of chiefs

or elders (cp Mic.

king

counsellor

’). The term

preferred by the Babylonians and Assyrians was

Heb.

which is used both for the divine king of

the gods,’ and

for

the ‘great king’ of Assyria (or

Babylon)

P

RINCE

,

3.

Possibly this term

(

to he radiant,’ like

a

star) was chosen in preference to

or

( Heb.

Ar.

to indicate

pre-eminence among kings, though

is explained

the syllabaries by

It is worth noticing that

‘princes

of Midian’

in Judg.

and

cor-

responds to ‘kings

(&)

of Midian

’

in Judg.

8 5

(cp

G

IDEON

).

On the history of Hebrew royalty see

T.

K.

C

See K

ENITES

,

(6)

n.

KING

Solomon from David and treating his

The most

notable feature in the extant redaction

reign as

a

new departure.

of the hook is the strong interest shown in the

The verses

I

K.

2

27

have no connection with

the

rest

of

the chapter,

and are due to a

later

hand. [But cp Bu.

Sa.

263;

See the arguments

in

detail, We.

260.

2664

KINGS

(BOOK)

KINGS

(BOOK)

nomic Law of Moses,' and especially in the centrali-
zation of worship in the temple on Zion as prescribed in
Deuteronomy and enforced by Josiah. This interest
was unknown to ancient Israel, and

is

quite foreign to

the older memoirs incorporated in the book amidst the
great variety in style and manner which marks the
several parts of the history" the interest

question is

expressed always in the same stereotyped phrases and
unvarying style in brief, it belongs to the editorial com-
ments, not to the original sources of the history.
the deuteronomistic editor, then, the foundation of the
temple, which is treated as the central event of Solomon's
reign, is a religious epoch of prime importance (see
especially his remarks in

I

K.

and on this ground

alone he would naturally make Solomon's reign com-
mence a new book-the history of Israel under the one
true sanctuary.'

[Burney (Hastings'

) gives

a careful list of deuteronomic phrases and expressions
wholly or nearly peculiar to the editor of

Kings.]

When we say in general that the book of Kings was

thrown into its present form by a deuteronomistic
redactor we do not affirm that he was the first who
digested the'sources of the history into a continuous
work.

Indeed the selection of materials, especially in

the earlier parts of the narrative, has been thought to
point to an opposite conclusion.

Nor,

on

the other

hand, must we ascribe absolute finality to his work.

He gave the book a definite shape and character but
the recognized methods of Hebrew literature left it open
to additions and modifications by' later hands.

Even

the redaction in the spirit of Deuteronomy seems itself
to have had more than one stage, as Ewald and other
critics recognize. The book was not closed till far on in
the Exile, after the death of Nebuchadrezzar and
chin

K.

The fact that it closes with

the pardon, not with the death, of Jehoiachin is very
well explained by Meyer

78)

as being

to the narrator's looking upon the king's elevation
as the first step towards the realization of the Messianic
hopes and the fall of the kingdom of Judah is presup-
posed in such passages as

I

K.

8 4 4

K.

These passages, however, are

mere interjected remarks, which seem to be added to
adapt the context to the situation of the Jews in captivity.
The main redaction, though subsequent to the reform-
ation of Josiah, which supplied the standard applied to

all previous kings

the high places were not removed

'),

does not point to the time of the captivity. Thus, for
example, the words unto this day ' in

2

K.

8

14

7

166 are part of the epitome composed by the main
redactor (see below,

7),

and imply that he wrote

before the destruction of the

state.

Even the second redaction (see

did not absolutelv

fix a single authoritative recension of the
book, as appears in detail from a

of

with the Hebrew text.

The

e.,

(

follows M T closely, and is

perhaps based upon Origen's recension

[so

Silberstein,

$])-of

Kings is not

a

corrupt

reproduction of the Hebrew

it represents

another recension. Neither recension can claim absolute
superiority. The defects of

lie on the surface, and

are greatly aggravated by the condition of the Greek
text, which has suffered much

in transmission, and

particularly has in many places been corrected after the
later Greek versions that express the Hebrew

of

the second century of

era. Still

not only preserves

many good readings in detail, but also throws much

With this it agrees that the later appendix

2

21-24

does

not seem to have passed under the hand of the deuteronomic
redaction.

See We.

302.

[The following passages also may safely be assigned to the

to the exilic or post-exilic-deuteronomist

:

I

K.

6 1

1196

I O

16

K.

24

15-25

too all those chronological notice? which

aim a t

a

between the kings of Judah

and

those of Israel.]

2665

light on the long-continued process of redaction (at the
hand of successive editors or copyists) of which. the
extant Hebrew of Kings is the outcome. Even the false
readings of the Greek are instructive, for both recensions
were exposed to corrupting influences of precisely the
same kind.

The following examples will serve to

illustrate the treatment through which the book has
passed.

I

.

Minor detached notices such as we should put

in

foot-notes or appendices are inserted

to disturb the

natural context.

Thus

I

K.

427

must be taken continuously with

and

so

(inserting between them

v.

17)

actually reads. In like

manner

I

K.

which breaks the context of the

description of the temple.

in

I

9

follows on

so that Solomon's dealings with Hiram are recorded con-

tinuously.

The notices intervening in

(in a very

unnatural order)

to a class of floating notes about

Solomon and his kingdom which seem to have got stranded

almost

by chance a t different points in the two recensions.

There are direct or indirect indications of trans-

positions and insertions on a larger scale.

Thus

in

the history of Naboth

(

I

K.

21)

precedes chap.

20

and in fact chaps. 20 and 22 are parts of one narrative

quite distinct from the history of Elijah. Again,

story of Abijah's sickness and

prophecy is not found in

a t

I

a t

appears another version of the

same narrative, in which there is no reference to a previous
promise to Jeroboam through Ahijah, and the prophet

intro-

duced as a new character. This version (12

which places the

prophecy of the destruction of Jerohoam's house between his
return from Egypt and his elevation to the throne, is no doubt
a

mere legend; hut it goes to prove that there

was

once a

version of

history of Jeroboam in which 11

had no

I n truth after 11

26-28

there must once have

account

of a

in. which Jeroboam lifted up his hand' against

king Solomon.

T o such a n account (not to the incident of

Ahijah and the cloak related in

29-39), v. 4 0

the natural

sequel. Thus

all

that is related of Ahijah falls under suspicion

of being foreign to the original history. Compare

JEROBOAM

I

.

I t is noteworthy that in a passage peculiar to

the ed. of

Swete

I

K.

1224

the incident of the tearing of the cloak is

related of Shemaiah

and

placed at the convention a t Shechem,

showing how much fluctuation there was in the tradition. I n

K.

has an addition which affects both history

geography (see

3 a,

on the conquests of

Hazael. According to

p. vi) such passages have

inserted by later editors from older sources which were still

accessible to them

in their completeness.

These instances show that there was a certain want of

definiteness about the redaction.

mass of disjointed

materials, not always free from inconsistencies, which lay
before the editor in

documents or

excerpts

already partially arranged by an earlier hand, could not
have been reduced to real

without critical sifting,

and an entire recasting of the narrative, in a way foreign
to the ideas and literary habits of the Hebrews. The
unity which the editor aimed at was limited to chrono-
logical continuity in the events recorded, and a certain
uniformity in the treatment of the religious meaning of
the narrative.

Even this could not be perfectly attained

in the circumstances, and the links of the history
were not firmly enough riveted to prevent disarrange-
ment or rearrangement of details by later scribes.

The continued efforts of successive redactors can be

traced in the chronology of the book. The chronological

method of the narrative appears most

clearly in the history after Solomon,

where the events

of each king's reign

are thrown into

kind of stereotyped framework of

type

:-

' I n the twentieth year of Jeroboam, king of Israel Asa

to reign over Judah and reigned

Jerusalem

years.

. .

'

In the third

of

Asa, king of Judah,

to

reign over Israel, and he reigned in

twenty-four years.'

The history moves between Judah and Israel accord-

ing to the date

of

each accession

; as

soon as a new

king has been introduced everything that happened in

reign is discussed, and wound up by another

formula as to the death and burial of the sovereign

;

to this mechanical arrangement the natural

is often sacrificed. In this scheme the

synchronisms between contemporary monarchs

I n

etc., it is added from the version of Aquila.

2666

KINGS (BOOK)

KINGS (BOOK)

of the

N. and S. give a n aspect of great precision to

the chronology.

In reality, however, the data for Judahand Israel do not agree

years of the kings of Judah correspond to 241 years, 7

months, 7 days, of the kings of Israel], and Wellhausen follow-
ing Ewald, has shown that the synchronisms were

the

sources, but were calculated from the list of the years of each
reign

C

HRONOLOGY

,,$ 6f:

It

appears

further that these years of reign are not all derived from historical
tradition, but are in part due to conjectural subdivision of a
cycle 480 (twelve generations of forty years) assigned in

I

K.

6

to the period from the 'exodus to the foundation of the

temple, and (according to the

list of kings) to the period

fro

the foundation of the temple to the end of the captivity

(j36

In the early part of the

history the first

dates not accessions are connected with the temple, and appar-
ently derived from temple records. Of these

important

is the twenty-third year of Joash, which the chronological scheme
makes the one hundred and

year of the temple,

trisecting the four hundred and eighty years cycle. Other one
hundred and sixty years

us

to the death of Hezekiah, and

the last third of the cycle begins with the accession of Manasseh,
whose sins are treated as the decisive cause of the Exile. Within
these limits a few dates were given by the sources the rest,

as

can

easily be shown, were filled in with reference to a unit of

forty

Again, the duration of the kingdom of Israel,

according to the northern lists, was two hundred and forty com-
pleted

eighty years

the first expedition of

eighty years of Syrian wars, forty of prosperity under

the victorious Jeroboam

II.,

whose first year

the

period of

war, and forty years of decline. T h e trisections

each case and the round numbers of 480 and 240 point strongly
to a systematization of the chronology on the basis of a small

number of given dates, and the proof that it

so

is completed

when we learn from the exactly kept lists of Assyrian chronology
that the siege of Samaria fell in 722, whereas the system dates
the captivity from 737

Cp C

HRONOLOGY

,

The key to the chronology is

I

K.

6

I

which, as

hausen has shown,

was not found in the original

and

contains internal evidence of post-Babylonian date.

In

fact the system as a whole is necessarily later than

535

B

.

the fixed point from

it counts back.

Another aspect in the redaction may be called

theological.

Its characteristic is the application to

the old history

of a standard belonging

to later developments of the

OT religion.

Thus. as we have alreadv seen, the re-

dactor in

I

K.

3 regards worship in high places as sinful

after the building

of

the temple, though he knows that

the best kings' before Hezekiah made

no

attempt to

suppress these shrines.

So, too, his unfavourable

judgment

on the whole religion of the northern kingdom

was manifestly not shared by Elijah and Elisha, nor by
the original narrator of the history of those prophets.
This feature in the redaction displays itself, not only in
occasional comments or homiletical excursuses, but
also in that part of the narrative in which all ancient
historians allowed themselves free scope for the develop-

ment of their reflexions-the speeches placed in the
mouths

of

actors in the history. Here also there is

textual evidence that the theological element is somewhat
loosely attached to the earlier narrative, and underwent
successive additions.

We have seen that

omits

I

K.

and that both

prophecies of Ahijah belong to the least certain part of the textual.
tradition.

So,

too, a n indication that the long prayer of

Solomon

(

I

the deuteronomistic colour of which is

recognized by all critics, did not stand in the oldest account of
the dedication of the temple is preserved in the fact that the
ancient fragment,

71.

in the Hebrew text is imperfect,

appears in

after

53 in completer form and with a

Compare Krey's investigations

in

ZWT,

p.

See the details in an article

Phil

x.

DO.

'83) and Konig (' Beitr. bibl.

in

'83 Heft 6, 8, 9,

are more conservative.

Chron. der Konige

Israel

in

1

adduces weighty reasons

for the view that we have here not the so-called Babylonian
method (so We.

cp C

HRONOLOGY

,

but the reckoning

according to which the last year of each king was counted also

as

the first of his successor in this way the above-mentioned

inconsistencies are to a n important extent diminished.] Cp

further T. Lehmann

Quelques dates importantes de

temple'

RE]

1898 July-Sept. p.

Gold-

schmied,

'

Chronologie

'

2667

encetothe

:

cp

B o o s

OF,

$3). The redactional inser-

tion displaced it in one recension and led to its mutilation in the
other. The older parts of this chapter have also been retouched in

who appear a t 71.4 in contrast to the priests, in a way unknown to

the pre-exile history, are not named in

and the post-exilic

congregation

a t

j

is

also wanting. The processes

illustrated by these examples were doubtless a t work in many
places where external evidence fails

and may oiten be

detected by a careful use of internal evidence alone.

See

especially Wellhausen's detailed analysis

The insertions due to later editors and copyists are

many and not all of the same kind.

For insertions made subsequently to the deuteronomistic

redaction see

I

K.

446

(from

to

65

(the words

words),

( I

D

(from

onwards),

(from

to

(as

far a s

4

(beginning

also probably

65

(from

onwards). Add to these 9

11

24

21-24

(from

onwards), 32-13

(from

to

cp

15

(from

onwards), 6 (c

cp

176 (read :

(113

cp 20

I

35 (from

onwards), 38

K.

19-17

7

1066

(?)

1217

(beginning a t

(beginning a t

7b

16-18

T h e latest glosses in K. are :

1 1 6

(from

to

cp

(113

insertions.

19

(to

'K

Is.

8

and

del.

(cp

cp Ch.

another sort and sometimes of great historic value

are a

of notices and parallel accounts, derived from other

sources and worked into the principal narrative to the best of
the

ability. To this class

K.

K.

11

(a

parallel to 1813

which, as Stade has

recognized, is artificially united to the preceding narrative by

T o gain an exacter idea of the main redaction of

and of the nature of the original sources, we may

divide the history into three sections

(I)

the conclusion of the 'court history,'

I

K.

the further consideration

of

belongs to the criticism of S

A

M

U

E

L

6)

Solomon,

I

K.

3-11

(3) the kingdoms of Ephraim

and Judah.

The main source of this section, as we learn from

I

K.

11

was a book called

Acts

This work

can hardly have been a regular chronicle, for the history
founded

on it contains no continuous narrative. All

that is related of Solomon's reign is grouped round the
description of the royal buildings, particularly of the

temple, and the account of the dedication of the house
(chaps. 6-99) and the greater part of the latter account
is either due to the redactor or largely rewritten. The
whole section is descriptive rather than narrative, and the

accurate details might have been arrived at by actual

observation of the temple at

a

date long subsequent to

Solomon.

In fact, they are not all due to a single hand.

Thus we can still reconstruct a shorter text of
which says only that the house before the oracle was
forty cubits long, and the oracle in the midst of the
house within where the ark

of

covenant was to

be placed was twenty cubits in length, in breadth, and
in height and he overlaid it with gold and

an

altar of cedar [the table of shewbread] before the oracle
and overlaid it with gold.'

The original author used the

B

OO

K OF

v.

3)

for the account of the dedi-

cation, and had access to some exact particulars as to
dates, the artist Hiram, and

so forth, which may have

been contained in the temple records. The immediate
environment of this section, if

w e set aside the floating

elements in chap.

9 already referred to, is occupied with

Solomon's dealings with King Hiram, who aided him

2668

KINGS

(BOOK)

KINGS

(BOOK)

in his architectural schemes and in the commercial
enterprises which procured the funds for such costly
works (chap.

5

and chap.

On each

side of this context lies a complex of

various

narratives

and notices illustrating Solomon's wisdom and greatness,
but also, in chap.

11,

his weakness and the incipient

decay of his kingdom.

It is evident that the rise

adversaries who, according to

11

troubled Solomon

through all

his reign cannot originally have been related

a s the punishment of the sins of his old age.

The

pragmatism as usual belongs to the redactor

(114).

W e have seen that there was once another version of
the history of Jeroboam.

I

K.

cp further

S

O

LOMON

,

8,

and see the commentaries of Benzinger

and Kittel.

( 3 ) For the history of the divided kingdom the

redactor,

as we have seen, follows a fixed scheme

determined by the order of accessions,

and gives

a short epitome of the chief

facts about each king, with an estimate

of his religious character, which for the schismatic north

is always unfavourable. The epitome, as the religious
standpoint shows, belongs to the same hand through-

to

D ;

but

so much of it as relates to Judah

plainly based on good written sources, which from

the nature of the particulars recorded may be identified

with the book of Royal Chronicles referred to under
each reign, which seems to have been a digest of official

notices.

[A

reference to the 'Book of the History of

the Kings of Judah

(or,

Israel) is wanting only in the

cases of Ahaziah, of Jehoahaz, of Jehoiacbin, and of

among the kings of Judah, and

that of Joram

and Hoshea among those

of

Israel. Both the Judahite

and the Israelite work (unless with Reuss we are to

suppose a single work, cited by different titles) were

evidently compilations of private origin, prepared shortly

before the exile on the basis

chronicles and

special treatises.]

If the chronicle named for the kings of Israel actually

lay before the editor he

at

least did not make such ex-

cerpts from it as we find in the

history, for the

epitome for Ephraim is very bare of concrete details.

Besides the epitome and the short excerpts from the

chronicles which go with it. the history includes

a

variety of longer narratives, which alike

in their subject-matter and in their treat-
ment are plainly distinct from the some-

what dry bones of the properly historical records.

The

northern narratives are all distinguished in a greater

or

less degree by the prominence assigned to prophets.

In the southern kingdom we hear less of the prophets,

with the great exception of Isaiah; but the temple
,occupies a very prominent place.

The narrative of the man of God from Judah

( I

K.

13)

is indubitably of

origin.

Its attitude to the

altar at Bethel-the golden calf does not appear as the
ground of offence-is diverse not only from that of
Elijah and Elisha, but even from that of

The

other narratives that deal with the history of Ephraim

are all by northern authors (see, for example,

I

K. 193

and have their centre in the events of the

Syrian wars and in the persons of Elijah and Elisha.
They are not all, however, of one origin, as appears
most clearly by comparing the account of the death
of Naboth

the history of Elijah,

I

21, and in the

history of Elisha and Jehu,

2

K. 9.

the latter narra-

tive Naboth's field' lies a little way from Jezreel, in
the former it is close to Ahab's palace (? in Samaria,
see

v.

and variants of

in

v.

I

) ,

and is described as

The expression 'cities of Samaria'

32)

appears elsewhere

only after the deportation of Ephraim

and seems to

have come in here from

K.

23

Even in this passage the

last clause of

which alone refers to details of the history

of

I

K.

13,

is clearly erroneous; the old prophet did not come

from Samaria. [The passage must he of late origin (see Kuenen

2

n.

it seems not unconnected with the

;

see

2669

a vineyard. The 'burden' quoted by

is not in

the words of

I

K. 21, and mentions the additional fact

that Naboth's sons were

In other words, the

history

Jehu presupposes events recorded in the extant

accounts of Elijah, but not these accounts themselves.
Moreover, the narrative in

K. seems to ,be the more

accurate; it contains precise details lacking in the
other.

Now it is plain that

I

K.

21 belongs to the same

history of Elijah with chaps.

17-19. The figure of the

prophet is displayed

the same weird grandeur,

his words (with

omission of the addition already

noted in

206

have the same original and impres-

sive force. This history, a work of the highest literary
art, has come down to us

as

a fragment.

For in

I

K.

Elijah is commanded to take the desert route to

Damascus-Le., the route E. of the Jordan.

H e .could

not, therefore, reach Abel- meholah in the Jordan
valley, near Bethshean, when he departed thence

( v .

if

thence means from Horeb.

The journey

to Damascus, the anointing of Hazael and Jehu, must
once have intervened but they have been omitted be-

cause another account ascribed these acts to Elisha

K.

9). Cp S

HAPHAT

. Now there is no question that

we possess an accurate historical account of the anoint-
ing of Jehu.

Elisha, long in opposition to the reigning

dynasty

K.

and always keeping alive the remem-

brance of the murder of Naboth and his sons
waited his moment to effect a revolution. It is true that
the prime impulse in this revolution came from Elijah

when the history in

I

K. represents Elijah as

personally commissioned to inaugurate it by anointing
Jehu and Hazael

as well as Elisha, we see that the

author's design is to gather up the whole contest between

and Baal an ideal picture of Elijah and his work.

No doubt this record is of younger date than the more
photographic picture

of the accession of Jehu, though

prior to the rise of the new prophecy under Amos and

[For the later criticism of the Elijah-narratives,

see

E

LI

J

AH

,

4, also Ki.

appendix

on chaps. 17-19

The episode of Elijah and Ahaziah,

2

K.

is certainly

by

a

different hand, as is seen even from the new feature

of revelation through an angel; and the ascension of
Elijah,

K.

2, is related as the introduction to the

prophetic work of Elisha.

The narratives about Elisha are not all by one hand

for example,

is separated from the immediately

subsequent history by

a

sharply marked grammatical

peculiarity (the

suffix

moreover, the order is not

chronological, for

6

24

cannot be the sequel to

6

23

;

and

in general those narratives in which the prophet appears
as on friendly terms with the king, and possessed of
influenceat court

413

621

plainly belong to the time

of

Jehu's dynasty, though

they are related before the fall of the house of Omri.
I n this disorder we can distinguish portions of an
historical narrative which speaks of Elisha in connection
with events of public interest, without making him the
central figure, and a series of anecdotes of properly
biographical character.

The historical narrative em-

braced

thewholeaccount

of the reign of Joram and the revolution under Jehu
and, as

K. 3 has much affinity to the history of Ahab

and Jehoshaphat in

I

K. 22, we may add the earlier

history of the Syrian wars

(

I

K. 20 22) to the series.

T h e evidence

of

style is hardly sufficient to assign all

The standing phrases common to

I

K. 21

K.

9

belong to the redaction, as is plain in the latter case from 93.

Some expressions that point to a later date are certainly

added by another

the last part of

In old

Israel,

to

the time of Hosea, the Baalim (pl.) are the golden

calves which have no place in this context.

A

late insertion

also

the definition of time by the stated oblation in the

temple a t Jerusalem, 18

36.

At v. 36 this

is

lacking in

0

at

29

the insertion of

reveals the motive for the interpola-

tion-viz., to assimilate Elijah's sacrifice to the legal service.

2670

KINGS

(BOOK)

these chapters to a single hand (for example,

is

a

single chariot in the history of Jehu, but in

I

K. 20 a

collective, the single chariot being

but they are

all full of fresh detail and vivid description, and their
sympathy with the prophets of the opposition, Micaiah
and Elisha, and with the king of Judah, who takes the
prophets’ part, does not exclude

a genuine interest in

and Joram, who are painted in very

colours, and excite our pity and respect.

T o the

historian these chapters are the most valuable part of
the northern history.

In the more biographical narratives about Elisha we

may distinguish one circle connected with Gilgal,
Jericho, and the Jordan valley to which Abel-meholah
belongs

( 4

I

- 7 38-44

chap.

5

?

6

I

-

7).

Here Elisha

appears as the head

of

the prophetic guilds, having his

fixed residence at Gilgal. Another circle, which pre-
supposes the accession of the house of Jehu, places him
at

or Carmel, and represents him as a personage

of almost superhuman dignity. Here there is an obvious
parallelism with the history of Elijah, especially with
his ascension (compare

K. 6

17

with

2

14

with

2

and it is to this group of narratives that the ascension of
Elijah forms the introduction.

Of the

narratives there is none to rival the

northern histories in picturesque and popular power.

KINSHIP

The history of Joash,

K.

11

of

Ahaz’s innovations,

and of

Josiah’s reformation,

22

3- 23 25,

have their

common centre in the temple on Zion, and may with
great probability

referred to a single source. The

details suggest that this source was based on official
docnments. Besides these we have

a full history of

Hezekiah and Sennacherib and of

sickness,

repeated in a somewhat varying text in Is.

36-39

(cp

I

SAIAH

6,

The history

of

Amaziah and Joash in

K.

14

8-14

with the characteristic

from vegetable life, may possibly be of northern

origin.

we survey these narratives as a whole we

receive an increased

of the merelv mechanical

character

of

the

by which

Though editors have

added something of their own in almost
everv

from the stand-

they are united.

,

.

. -

point

of religious pragmatism, there is not the least

attempt to work the materials into a history in our sense
of the word; and in particular the northern and southern
histories are practically independent, being
pieced together in a sort of mosaic in consonance with
the chronological system, which we have seen

to be

really later than the main redaction. It is very possible
that the order

of

the pieces was considerably readjusted

by the author of the chronology of this indeed

still

shows traces. With all its imperfections, however, as

judged from a modern standpoint, the redaction has

the great merit

of preserving the older narratives in

their original colour, and bringing

us much nearer to

the actual life of the old kingdom than any history
written throughout from the standpoint of the exile
could possibly have done.

Since Ewald’s

History,

1

and

3,

and Kuenen’s

the

most thorough and original investigation

of the

structure

of

the

book

is that in Wellhausen’s fourth (not in the

fifth

and

sixth) edition

of

Bleek‘s

(‘78)

11.

Literature.

(reprinted in

with which

the

corresponding section

of

his

should be compared. Stade

(SBOT,:

cp

Gcsch.

must,

however be

compared.

Cp

also

Kittel

Driver,

.

Holzhey,

Das

der

On

especially

Stade,

p.

(on

I

K.

’85,

p.

(on

K.

and

’86, p.

(on

K.

15 -21)

Klostermann

(‘87)

F.

C.

the

Books

Kings

to

the translation

f r o m a Cairo

(‘97)

;

and

commentaries see

those of

Thenius

(‘49;

C. F.

Keil

ET,

Note

in

T

I

‘in

Beth-shemesh which (belongs)

to

Judah.’

Cp the

in

I

K.

19

in Lange’s

(‘68;

ET,

Rawlinson in

the

Reuss

in L a Bible vol.

(‘86-’87)

;

Farrar

(Expositor’s

’93-’94)

Kittel

in

See

also

C .

F.

Burney,

art.

Kings’ in Hastings’

2.

KING’S GARDEN

o

KHTTOC

TOY

K.

25

4

Jer.

394

om.)

52

7

Neh.

A plantation between the two

walls of Jerusalem, close to the pool of Shiloah; see

K

ING

’

S

P

OO

L

.

KING’S

POOL

..

T O Y

Neh.

possibly the same as the pool

of Siloam it may have been so called

on

account of its

proximity to the

K

ING

’

S

G

ARDEN

.

KING’S VALE

(RV), or

King’s

Dale

(AV),

([

T

O

]

(

TH

TOY

Jos.

Ant. vii.

10

See

S

HAVEH

[VA

LE

OF]

;

CHIZEDEK,

3

A

BSALOM

,

col. 31.

KINSHIP.

The bond by which the social and

political units of the Hebrews-their clans and their

tribes-were held together in the older
historical period was neither more nor
less than a genuine and operative feeling

ofkinship (see

G

OVERNMENT

,

Hebrew theorists,

like Arab genealogists, understood this kinship in the
same sense

as

we understand it,-as

to derivation

from a common ancestor

a tribe consisted entirely of

blood relations (see

G

ENEALOGIES

At the very outset this theory requires at least some

modification

for even in historical times physical

descent was not the only way in which blood relation-
ship could be constituted.

Adoption was equally

effective.

So also was the method of blood covenant.

Not individuals only, but whole clans could in this way
enter into

a lasting union and become fused into

a

single community. The various ceremonies observed
in making such

a covenant (cp

C

OVENANT

,

3, and

Robertson Smith‘s excellent exposition in

Kin. 47

261

have all one meaning;

they were originally intended to create a physical and
literal community

of blood, or, in accordance with later

ideas, they were intended, at least symbolically, to
represent the creation

of

such

a bond. This shows

itself with ‘unmistakable clearness when, for example,
two men actually open their veins and mix their blood,

or when the protected smears with his blood the tent-
pole of his protector

;

but it is still discernible, though

in a more disguised form, in the rule of hospitality by
which even now the person of the guest who has eaten
with

a ,

host remains inviolable for at least a certain

time-the time, to wit, during which the meal

of

which

they have together partaken is supposed to be still
sustaining them.

In the Hebrew domain compare the

covenant described in Ex.

2 4 ,

where the people and the

altar

of

are sprinkled with the same blood.

There is another point in which the

old

Semitic

conceptions of blood relationship differ from those

of

modern times : there was no gradation
of relationship. W e take account of the
degrees by which relations are removed

from the common ancestor in the Semitic field relation-
ship is absolute

:

a

either belongs to a given family

circle, or he does not.

Relationship is participation in

the common blood which flows with

in

the veins of every member of that circle

on

this idea

rest all the rights and obligations between the individual
and his clansmen. There can therefore be no such
thing as aristocracy of birth in our sense of the expres-

sion. Within the gens none are high-born, none are
low-born there is no blue blood.

This is clearly shown

in the law of blood revenge (WRS

Kin.

and

elsewhere). The duty falls on every member

of the

clan to which the inurdered person

and their

T

.

Cp

P

OOL

.

KINSHIP

vengeance seeks every member alike of the murderer’s
clan.

This said, it must not be denied that

a feeling of

relationship in our closer sense of the word also began to
show itself from a comparatively early period.

Indeed,

the Hebrews from the earliest times to which our
historical records carry

us may be said to have been

distinguished by the energy of their family feeling.
As the limits

of society extended, the primitive concep-

tion of blood-kinship described above would naturally
grow weaker

that

of near

kinship in

our sense of the

word can retain its vigour and efficiency only within the
narrower circle. Within the larger federation of tribes
(the people or nation of Israel) the feeling was never
very strong

bloody wars between individual tribes

were not unknown, and it was long before the sense of
oneness had thoroughly pervaded all portions of the
body politic.

In the end it was not by the conception

of

blood kinship but by the political organisation of the

monarchy that this sense was called into being and
maintained.

The question as to what constituted national kinship

was

answered by the genealogists.

Each individual

tribe was held to be derived from an
ancestor whose descendants bore his
name

as their tribal name; the mutual

relations of the tribe and the varions clans comprising
it were determined by the relationship of the ancestor
of each clan

to the patriarch from whom all alike

claimed descent. In other words, the formation and
development

of

tribes were held to have taken place

under the dominion of the patriarchal system (G

ENE

-

ALOGIES

i.,

§

2).

Moreover, it is an actual fact that

so far as our knowledge goes the patriarchal system
was prevalent among the Hebrews from the earliest
historical times. The head of the family is the man
the woman passes over to the clan and tribe of her
husband, who is master both of herself and of her
children (F

AMILY

,

M

ARRIAGE

,

Kinship,

tribe-connection, inheritance, are determined by the
man.

Robertson Smith

(Kinship,

however,

has in-

controvertibly shown that among the Semites

as well

as

many other widely separated peoples

matriarchy must a t one’

have

prevailed. By this expression, as distinguished from
patriarchy, is meant not the dominion of the woman in

household, but rather that arrangement of

and clan-relations in accordance with which the relation
of the children to the mother was regarded as by far
the more important, that to the father being of quite
subordinate moment.

It is the mother who determines

the kinship. The children belong to the mother’s clan,
not to the father’s. The wife is not under the power
of the husband, but under the guardianship of her male
relations. The head of the

is not the father

the maternal uncle, who has supreme authority over the
mother and her children.

Inheritance is not from

father to

son,

but from brother to brother, from

(maternal) uncle to nephew.

T h e existence of this matriarchy among the Semites

is shown

(among other proofs)

the existence of ancient words, common

to various branches of the Semitic family, denoting relationship
derived from the mother. In like manner there are feminine
tribal names, and tribal heroines pointing to the same inference.
With the Arabs

to the days of Mohammed a kind of

marriage (see below) was still kept up which entirely belonged
to the matriarchal system.

For details

as to matriarchy among the Semites in

general the discussions

of Robertson Smith,

and Wilken must be referred to. What specially in-
terests

us here is the fact that in the O T also traces of

the existence of this institution among the Hebrews can
still be found. Even if these were not absolutely

Die Ehe bei den

in

‘ H e t

bij de oude Arahieren

in

Orient,

KINSHIP

convincing in themselves, they would’ become

so

after

the demonstration of

the existence of the institution

among the Arabs and other Semitic peoples. Alongside
of the masculine tribal names we have a

of

feminine ones

Keturah, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah,

Zilpah. Stade conjectures that at one time there was
genealogical system according to which the tribes were
all of them wives

of

Jacob

Such feminine

names at all events cannot be regarded as mere poetical
adornments of the legends

to

which they belong they

must originally have been integral parts of the genea-
logical system.

Marriages of brother and sister, that is to say between

children of different mothers. had

offensive to

the moral sense of the older period (see
M

ARRIAGE

,

2 )

it is a relic of the

times when relationship was determined
not bv the blood of the father but bv that

of the mother, and when accordingly community

of

descent on the mother’s side was the only bar to
marriage.

This explains also the possibility of the

custom according to which the son

marry the

stepmother, the father the daughter-in-law (see M

AR

-

RIAGE,

§

2).

Notwithstanding the express prohibition

of

such unions they seem to have been not unknown down
to

a time as late as that of Ezekiel, although, on the

other hand, marriages between maternal relations,
between father and stepdaughter, father and daughter,
mother and son were from the first regarded with horror
(cp Gen.

in

D express prohibition is not

deemed necessary.

How deeply rooted was the view that relationship

was constituted through the mother is shown bv

such

as Gen. 42

38

43

44

Judg.

8

9

3,

where the designation

of brother in the full sense of the

word is reserved for

sons of the same mother; a s

also by such narratives

as

that

of Judg.

9

where

Abimelech

is regarded by his mother’s relations,

Shechemites, a s one of themselves, and his maternal
uncles are his natural allies. The prevalence of the
same view is seen also

the practice of adoption by

the mother (not the father) (Gen.

30

3),

in the right

of

inheritance through the mother, as implied in Gen.

21

the son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my

son’), in the right of the mother to give the name

as

shown in the older sources of the Pentateuch, though
in

P it is always the father who does so. In Eliezer’s

negotiations for Rebekah it

is not her father Bethuel

and Bethuel,’ Gen.

24

is a late redactional insertion)

but her brother who is her guardian and carries

on

transaction.

Another characteristic feature of matriarchal marriage

is that it is not the woman who enters the man’s tribe

but the man who enters the woman’s she
continues to belong to her own tribe. This
also can be shown to have been the case in

the Hebrew domain. Too much stress indeed must
not be laid on the expression

to go in unto,’

the usual phrase in Hebrew and Arabic for the con-
summation of

a marriage; but it is certain that

among the Hebrews,

as

with the Arabs, the woman

always figures in particularly close connection with the
tent, and frequently

as its mistress. In such cases as

Gen.

indeed, we may be in the presence only of

custom which, in the case of wealthy people, allowed

sach wife (as with a rich sheikh at present) to have a
separate tent. The narrative of Judg.

(cp

5

however, is clear enough it is Jael who owns the tent,
who receives the fugitive into it, and who accords to
him its protection. This is in exact accord with the
present rights of Arab women as regards fugitives

protection. The story

of Eliezer’s wooing of

Rebekah also assumes the possibility that the girl may
not consent

to

leave her home, but may insist that her

future husband should marry into her own tribe and

KINSHIP

KIR-HERES

came to be regarded

as son of the deceased husband,

and this last finds its explanation in the Hebrew view

of

the evils of childlessness (cp M

ARRIAGE

,

Obviously the form of marriage just described must

be older than

baal-marriage indeed there

is not in the nature of things any reason
for regarding it as more recent than even
the earliest form of matriarchal marriage.

Baal-polyandry was originally in any case marriage by
capture.

As such it is hardly likely to have been

a

development of a form of marriage in which the husband

as an alien into the tribe of the wife.

It may

therefore be best to abandon all attempt to make out

a

genetic connection

or

evolutionary relation between the

various kinds of marriage, and to concede that marriage
by capture as well as matriarchal polyandry (which,
strictly speaking, cannot be distinguished from absolute
promiscuity) may date from the most remote times.
One tribe might count kin from the mother, being
endogamous, or else marrying its young women to men
of alien tribe only when the men consented to join the
tribe of the wife and the children remained with the
mother. Another tribe counted kin from the father

and therefore sought for its wives,

so far as these could

not be found within the tribe, by capture of such
welcome additions from other tribes.

For

literature, see

F

AMI

L

Y

,

15.

I. B.

RIR

etc., see below;

C

YRENE;

mentioned in Am.

9 7

[BAQ])

as

the

primitive home of the

and warriors from

Kir are introduced in the description of an

army threatening Jerusalem in

Is.

2 2 6

(om.

The name also appears in Am.

1

2

K. 169 (om.

[A

Aq.],

[L]) where it may possibly have been

intro-

duced

from Am.

'which contains a prophecy

of the

of

the

to

Kir.

Winckler

has given reason to think that

should rather be Kor

and identified with

the Karians mentioned by Arrian

with the

Sittakenians see also SBOT,

(Heb.),

and

cp K

OA

.

This people seems to have dwelt in the land

of

the plain between the Tigris and the

mountains towards Elam (cp Sargon's Khorsabad
inscr.,

B.

For other views see

3

534,

who thinks of

between the Orontes

and the Euphrates (refuted by Schr.

who prefers

S. Babylonia.

KIR-HERES

Is.

16

AV

Kir-haresh;

48

Kir-hareseth

see col.

2677,

n.

K.

AV

Kir-haraseth

[var.

Is. 16

7)

or

The

name

is generally supposed to mean city of the

sun

for

see N

AMES

,

When, however, we

consider

(

I

)

that this explanation is unknown to the

ancients

Kir is nowhere supposed to mean

city' except in the compound names

hareseth, and Kir-Moab

(3)

that

sun,'

nowhere

bas a fem. ending and

( 4 )

that in

Is. 1 6 7

and

indicated, not

in the second part of the name, the

question arises whether we should not emend the text
and read

'new city' (cp H

ADASHAH

).

gives

(Jer.),

(Is.

and

(Is. 15) ;

in

1 5 ;

i n I s . 1 6 7 ;

v.

of Moab

Is.

clan (Gen.

Similarly Jacob fears lest

should refuse to let his daughters go, but should
in accordance with his undoubted right-on their staying
at home; hence

secret flight (Gen.

31

The

phrase, shall leave his father and mother and cleave to

his wife,' in Gen.

may be an old saying dating from

remote

when the husband went to the house (tent)

of the wife, and joined her clan.

Still the passage may

be merely the narrator's remark, and even if it be an
old proverb, we cannot be sure that it really carries

us

so

far back in antiquity.

Another instance of

a

matriarchal marriage requires

notice: that of Samson (Judg.

14).

The case is

thoroughly exceptional

it is exogamy,

The husband

is the alien, and visits his wife, who

remains in her own home, and it

is in the house of

her relations that the marriage feast is held. Samson
himself indeed does not become a Philistine; but

neither does his wife become Israelite

the intention is

that they shall meet only from time to time.

Parallels

are not wanting in pre-Islamic Arab history as already
said, such marriages were nothing ont of the common
u p to the period immediately preceding that of

Mohammed.

The important point lies here :-the wife

continues to belong to her own tribe, and the children,
naturally,

so belong also.

It

is thus the mother's

blood that is the determining factor. This kind of
marriage, it is plain, could originally have arisen only
under the influence of matriarchal institutions.

From the facts adduced Robertson Smith draws

the conclusion that this kind of marriage-which (after

F.

he proposes

to

call beena-marriage

(from the Singhalese)-had been the form universally

prevalent among the Semites in the period before the
separation

the tribes.

After the separation, the

Hebrews from the same starting-.point arrived at

monandrous baal-marriage (cp M

ARRIAGE

,

2 )

long

before the Arabs did.

Such an inference, however, would be too sweeping.

Robertson Smith himself regarded it as not improbable

that patriarchy can be carried back to
primitive Semitic times

178)

and

ellhausen

479)

has proved it.

marriage.

T h e existence of such old Semitic words

as

for

wife's father-in-law (see

NAMES

WITH)

and

for the daughter-in-law is, with other cases that

might be adduced, conclusive. Wellhausen calls special
attention to the fact that in the word

Arab.,

and

unite the senses of people and

'relations

on the father's side (see

NAMES WITH).

'Whatever the time and place of origin of this mode of

speech, the father's relations must also have been the
political ones when it arose.'

Robertson Smith's concession, it is true, is limited to

polyandrous

-

marriage

-

a form of patriarchal

marriage which is well attested for the old Arabians
(Strab.

4

cp WRS

Kin.

We.

460

In this description of marriage

a

of

brothers or nearly related men had the wife in common
the children belonged to the tribe of the fathers. Smith

finds

a trace of this form of polyandry

still surviving in the levirate marriage of

the Hebrews (see M

ARRIAGE

,

). The duty

of

inheriting the wife is originally a right, which, as
Smith thinks, must have had its origin in an original
community of possession.

Wellhausen

461)

remarks further that the beginning of the law

on

the

subject in

D (Dt.

255 'if brethren dwell together') finds

no explanation in the present context, but would fit in
well with the explanation suggested

Smith.

Hebrew

levirate marriage, however, admits of sufficient explana-
tion from the simple fact that in Hebrew baal-marriage
wives in general are property that can be inherited.
The right of inheriting became

a duty in this one

special case as soon as the first son of such a marriage

but reversing the relations.

Aq.,

Syrn.,

see

Deseth,

Aquila

parietem,

Apparently the only refer-

Field, Swete.
rnachus

(OS 116

251

79).

ence to Kir in

Onom.

2676

in

I n

K.

does not recognize any place-

name (see note

Tg.,

Is. 15 renders Kir-Moab,

and Kir-hareseth,

‘their strong

c i t y ’ ; Ptolemy (v.

has

Steph. Byzant.

That the three names given above (to which we may

perhaps add

represent the

same place, is undeniable. When Jehoram

of

Israel

invaded Moab, Kir-haresheth (so MT) was the only
city which held out against the Israelites

K.

obviously it was the capital,

Moab.’

It was

famous for its vines.

In Is.

1 6 7

mourning is anticipated

for the

of Kir-hareseth (see F

LAGON

,

and in

2

K.

after the description of the

stopping up of the fountains and the felling of the fruit
trees, we should probably read, until there remained
not a cluster of its grapes in Kir-hareseth

(see

Bib.

or. if the above reading

of

the name

is

correct.

KIRIATH

Josh.

RV. See K

IR

J

ATH

,

K

IR

J

ATH

-

J

EARIM

.

I

(a).

KIRIATHAIM

N

U

.

RV, AV

KIRIATH-ARIM

RV (AV

K

IRJATH

-

J

EARIM

(AV).

KIRIATH-BAAL

RV, AV

KIRIATH

-HUZOTH

AV

BAAL,

Josh.

1560 1814.

See K

IR

JATH

-

J

EARIM

,

I.

K

IR

KIRIATHIARIUS,

RV

( I

Esd.

5

Neh.

7 2 9

K

IR

J

ATH

-

JEARIM

.

KIRIATH

-

JEARIM.

7

RV,

AV

K

IR

J

ATH

-

J

EARIM

.

KIRIOTH

Am.

RV K

ERIOTH

KIRJATH,

RV K

IRIATH

an imperfect place-

name in Josh.

Di. reads

but see

I

(a).

RV

two

cities,’

or

‘place of a city’

on form of name see

I.

A

town on the Moabite plateau mentioned in

Nu. 32

37

[B],

and Josh.

as having lain within the former dominions of

Sihon, and as having been assigned by Moses to

Reuben. Mesha, in his inscription

(1.

IO),

calls it

and says that he built or fortified it

;

it is represented

as Moabite also in Jer.

48 (Jer.

481

23

[N])

Ezekiel

25

[BAQ]). In OS

(108

27,

269

IO)

it is described as a Christian village called

Coraitha or

IO

R. m.

W.

of

This

is no doubt the modern

but whether Coraitha

is not rather K

ERIOTH

is disputed.

Kiriathaini

gave its name to Shaveh-kirjathaim or the ‘plain of
Kiriathaini’ (Gen.

See M

OAB

.

See K

ARTAN

.

KIRJATH-ARBA

ARBA

,

Josh.

anearlier

H

EBRON

According to Winckler

ii.

Kirjath-arba means ‘city

of the god Arba“; some god

intended whose name

was

written with the cuneiform sign for ‘four’ (analogously
sheba =

‘

well of the god Shebd ’). Long before him, Tomkins

had proposed the same view

Winckler

bringsthese names into connection with a lunar myth of Abraham
and

2

57).

The original Kirjath-arha, according

to him, was not Hebron,

a t or near

in the far

north (41, 49). If, however,

in Gen. 87

is an error for

in Gen. 23 may he an error

(of P?) for

It

was probably Rehoboth that was the ‘city of four’ (see

BOTH

), at least if

‘four,’ is correct and is not really a

corruption of

R

EHOBOTH

.’

T. K.

C.

KIRJATH-HUZOTH,

RV K

IRIATH

-

HUZOTH

Kerioth

Hazeroth, ‘cities of villages’), the place to which
Balak took Balaam first of all on his arrival in Moab,
according to the Yahwist (J), and where this writer
probably made him deliver his first prophecy, Nu.
(with which

40

[E] plainly conflicts).

The name (‘city of streets’ or of ‘bazaars’), if correctly read

indicates a place of importance.

Very possibly the

Yahwist means the city called in Am.

Jer.4824 41 Kerioth.

Note that Amos speaks of the ‘palaces’ of Kerioth. The

has instead ‘the city of Moab, a t the farthest border’

36).

KIRJATR- JEARIM

city of dense

[BAL]), a

Judah,

in the Gibeonite group (Josh. 9

17).

In the list of towns in Palestine against which

(Shishak) warred, occurs the name

Muller (As.

n. 3) would emend this to

and

beng as

easily interchanged in Eg. as in Heb.), and identify with the
Moabite

2678

‘in

It stood

the Arabic

the

frontier of Moab

geographers knew it under the name Kerak.

Com-

manding as it did the caravan route from Syria to
Egypt and Arabia, its possession was hotly disputed by
the Franks and the Saracens. The former held it
from 1167 to

1188,

when

became master of

both Kerak and

(6)

hrs. from Petra). They

mistook Kerak for Petra, and established

a bishop’s see

there under the title of

Petra deserti.’ At an earlier

time Kerak had been the seat of

a

bishopric in the

province of

(see fig. in

SBOT

169)

is placed

on an extremely steep rocky hill, surrounded on all
sides by deep ravines. It is about ten miles from the
south-east corner of the Dead Sea, and some
feet above sea-level. T o the

N. and

it

is protected

by the mountains, which are passable only

on the N.

by descending the

(the great gorge of the

which runs

E. and

W., and on the S. by the

wild gorge called

Kerak. T o the

W. there is

the Dead Sea, since

1897

navigated by a mail steamer

which plies from the

N. bank to

(see D

EAD

S

EA

,

a

carriage road is to be constructed

(1897)

to Kerak

The city is still partly enclosed by a

wall with five towers. Originally there were but two
entrances, both consisting

of tunnels in the rock. On

the southern side stands the citadel,

a strong building

separated from the adjoining hill by

a

deep moat hewn

in the rock.

It is a fine specimen of

a Crusader’s

castle. Beneath it is

a

chapel, with traces of rude

frescoes. The present population

of Kerak numbers

from

20,000

to

22,000,

of whom about one-fourth are

Greek Christians. Their strong position, numbers,
and daring character made them till a few years ago
practically independent

of the Turkish government.

Here Burckhardt was plundered, De Saulcy held to

ransom,

Tristram greatly harassed; Gray Hill’s

account of his own detention is vivid.

See Bnrckhardt, Syria, 387 D e Saulcy,

round

Dead

Sea,

;

Lynch,

English ed.

;

Tristram

Land

Gray Hill With

the Beduins,

;’Porter, Handbook, 1

T.

K.

.

.

...

The statement of

E. H.

Palmer (quoted in Che.

that the eminences on which the old Moabite towns stand

are invariably called

by

Arabs does not help us.

Even if we substitute

for

some

distinctive name is re-

quired for the capital city.

Read

with

Tg. Jon.).

Klo. suggests

a weak read-

ing, nor could

’?>

easily have arisen out of it.

M T gives

one left its

stones in the wall as potsherds’ (Gi. has

but what could

this mean?).

reads

hib’ov

ita

u t

T h a t there is no connection between Kir Hareseth and the

of

Mesha’s inscription

3

long ago by Noldeke

des

24)

was pointed out

KIR JATH-JEARIM

R I R

JATH-JEARIM

T h e earliest record of the name (if we suppose it to have been

correctlv transmitted) is

18

See also

26

Josh.

9

17

Names.

[B],

1814

I

Ch. 2

53

om.

L)

Ch. 1 4

. .

should

he

Neh.

[Bl).

Baal

[BAL]), and Baalah, with the

planation, “that is,

occur in Josh. 18 14 Josh.

15960;

I

Ch. 136

BNA). Baalahalone in Josh.

(herq and in

v.

9 ,

has ‘Baal’ except in

Judah,’ without explanation, occurs in

S.

(on

below); hut Dozy, Kuenen, We., Dr., Ki. read

‘Baal-

Klo., Bu. Baalath-’.

Evidently the earliest name of the place included the

divine name Baal but how came the same place to be
afterwards called

It is not

a super-

fluous inquiry. The most obvious explanation-viz,

,

that, in the course of religious progress, Baal came

to

be discredited as a divine name-is insufficient. W e

should have expected some better divine name to be
substituted for

Baal,’ not the reconstruction of the

place-name

on an entirely different plan.

Moreover,

we do not find that Baal was entirely removed

from

the

place-names (Baalah, Josh.

Bealoth,

Josh.

both in

P).

The first step towards a

solution of the problem is to show

( u )

that the original

name of the place was Baal- or Baalath- (hag)

‘

Baal of the hill,’-and

that the full name under

which the Deity was worshipped in this Gibeah

(

hill

may have been Baal-yarib

Baal contends

’).

I n

I

S.

the ark is said to have been brought into

the house of Abinadab

the hill’

cp the same phrase

in

S . 6 3

R V (AV

have

Gibeah’). I t

looks

a s if,

in the original writing,

‘Giheah,’ was the name of

town where Abinadah lived that the description on the hill
refers to

hill on which the town was built’

(H.

P. Smith)

is surely improbable. Near the latter of these passages

S.

has the strange rendering

two readings are

and

the latter

of

which is

rendered and really means ‘ t o Baalath of the hill.’ Probably
the

reading is the original one (see Klo. on

S.

observe the

after

which warns us that the text is

doubtful.

Nor must we overlook the close of the list of the

cities of Judah in

which runs thus in

‘and

Jehusi,

is Jerusalem,, Giheath, (an?)

[RV

T h e current opinion is that

Giheath means

of Saul ’and that ‘Kirjath’ is a n error for ‘Kirjath-

But

is more in accordance with the analogy of

textual errors elsewhere to suppose that Kirjath

an editor’s

correction

and that the original readingwas Gibeath-

jearim,’ though

itself may turn out to be incorrect.

(6) We have reached the conclusion that a n early name for

t h e ,place afterwards called (at any rate by scribes) Kirjath-
jearim was ‘Baal of the hill.’

entitles ns to assume

that the local Baal had a

title describing his chief

attribute: cp Baal-hanan, El-iashib, etc. The second part of
this title ought to underlie the second part of the name Kirjath-

jearim, for of course such a name a s Baal-jearirn (Baal of the

woods) would be contrary to analogy. We can hardly doubt
what that second part was

i t was either

or

(more probably) jarib

and

are interchangeable

;

c p

Hos.

5

for the Heb.

‘Baal

contends’ was the name; cp

Jehojarih,

and

‘Let the

Baal

contend with him,’ Judg. 632. Our further

conclusion

that

a late distortion of an older

name,

which was current side

side with

Baal hag-gibeah.

It is hardly necessary to suppose that

15

is a distortion

of

:

hut this

of

a

possible view.

According to

(GZ 2

or ‘city

of

forests,’ is ‘nothing but a half-suggesting, half-concealing re-

production’ of the name Baal-Tamar (Judg. 2033) which name
(of mythological origin) was, he thinks, converted’into

judah

S. 6

in the time of David, when this locality ceased

to he

became Judahite.

See, however,

T

AMAR

.

In identifying the place which we may conventionally

call Kirjath-jearim, we must be careful not to lay equal

,

stress

on all the biblical data.

We

must not, for instance, be too confident
that Kirjath-jearim and Beth-shemesh

was corrupted into

having dropped out

;

this became indistinct, and was misread

to which

was

by conjecture.

were near one another.

The description of Jos.

(Ant.

vi.

1 4 ,

Niese),

(Naber,

appears to be suggested by the

narrative in

I

as it now stands, and cannot

be treated as authoritative; Josephus was not writ-
ing

a handbook of geography.

Nor is

it

at

all

necessary that the site of

should be

in a wooded

or bushy neighbourhood,

being

probably only an artificial distortion of

The

clearest and most certain of all the data is the statement
in Josh.

9

17,

that the dependent cities of the

were

Beeroth, and

Now

C

HEPHIRAH

, and B

EEROTH

are

securely identified, and

must not

placed too far

o f f

from the other members

of

the group.

If in addition to this we require

a city on the border

of

and Benjamin, there is, it would seem, only one

site which is available, and that is

or

(city of grapes).

Eusebius places

at the ninth milestone from Jerusalem towards

Diospolis

or

Lydda. This suits the position

of

Karyet

el-‘Enab, which is about three hours from Lydda.

The

high authority of Robinson supports this view.

The

nearness of the mountain Neby Samwil (see M

IZPEH

),

which Eusebius expressly states

(

278

96

cp

to be near

is

no slight con-

firmation. The village

of

el-Karya is but

a

poor one

;

there is

a Latin church of great interest dedicated

originally to

Jeremiah, owing to

a

mistaken identi-

fication of the place with Anathoth.

Prof. G.

A.

Smith

225

speaks with

more hesitation

than the present writer thinks necessary.

For the

rival site

near

the principal

argument is its greater nearness to Beth-shemesh
(‘Erma

is about

4

miles

E.

of

Shems).

This,

however, is hardly

a n

argument for critics

to

use (see

A

RK

,

and,

on

the other hand, Kh.

is too

near Zorah and Eshtaol to suit the narrative in Judg.

18

and also in the wrong direction (S. of

Moreover, for el-Karya it may be urged (but with-

out

laying much stress upon it) that this village

marks the point of departure of the

bushy

country3

see

F

O

REST

,

3 )

hence the later name,

‘city of dense copse,’ was not

an

inappropriate one.

That it fits the position of

on the N.

border of Judah and Benjamin, is

also

beyond refuta-

tion, though different views

to the line of

are

no doubt tenable.

T h e following

is

Conder’s description of the new site a t

K h .

The surrounding hills are more thickly clothed, even a t the

present day, with dense copse, than is any part of the district in
which the town can be sought. The ruin is

on the southern

brink of the great valley which

the valley of

Sorek, and it is about four miles

E.

of the site

Beth-shemesh

thus agreeing with the words of Josephus.

According

Conder

boundary line W. of

can be drawn in a

satisfactory manner (see PEFQ,

’79,

p.

and cp Henderson,

Cp

H.

A.

de

and

are here thought to have been

on opposite sides of the same hill; their common sanctuary
being on the summit of the hill.

When

became

Israelitish city is

uncertain.

It must, however, have been at least partly

inhabited by Judahites in the time of
David

S.

5). In later

times it produced

a

prophet

the style

of Jeremiah, who fell

victim to

tyranny

The latter name

is said to occur first in the fifteenth century.

A

still more modern name is Abii

(from a sheikh so called,

who lived a t the

of this century, and left a name of

fear).

I n

support

this identification cp Clermont-Ganneau,

Researches,

Cp
‘There are

on

every side almost and

impracticable pnes N. and SW. of i t ’ (Thdmson,

ed.

’94,

p. 666).

Aujourd‘hui encore on est frappe de l’aspect

different des deux versants

ce point precis de maigres

commencent, qui ne demanderaient

grandir’ (Lagrange,

Revue

‘94,

p.

140).

2680

KIR

JATH-SANNAH

see U

RI

JAH

).

One can imagine that the

name of the city (was it

‘city of the

[divine] adversary

was not without its influence

on

sensitive mind. Another apparent reference is

a purely imaginary one.

Though Wellhausen and

Duhm render, in

Ps.

We have heard that it

is

in Ephrathah,

I n the Field of Jaar we found it,-

and explain the

‘

Field of Jaar

’

as

‘

the country district

(We.),

or as a

name (Du.),

a close examination

of

the text shows that

this interpretation is improbable (see Che.

It is

true, however, that a recollection of the story of the
fortunes of the ark, and of a passage

in Chronicles

(

I

Ch.

according to which that town was founded

by descendants of Ephrathah, the wife of Caleb, enabled
a late editor to draw a semblance of meaning from an
indistinctly written and corrupt passage.

On the

obscure notice of

in

I

Ch.

see

S

HOBAL

.

T.

K.

C.

[BAL]

called also Debir (Josh.

is

a

most problematical

name.

There is no

explanation of the name

and

no

apparent reason why an old Canaanite name distinct from

Kirjath-sepher should be mentioned

in

the list.

precedes it is

to suppose that

is a scribal error

for

and that we should restore

(cp

Pesh.).

Sayce explains city

of

instruction,’ and identifies

with

said to he mentioned

on the Amarna

tablets (Sayce,

5

73,

54

and situ-

ated

W. of Gath.

however,

bit(?)-sa-a-ni, and

leaves it

See E

PHRAIM

,

7,

n.

4.

Since

T. K. C.

KIRJATH-SEPHER

as if

house

of

books’;

[BAL]

noh.

Judg.

called

[BAL]), Josh.

and

[Judg.

I

[BAL]), Josh.

A place in the hill-country of Judah, mentioned

between Dannah and Anab (Josh.

formerly in-

habited by Anakim (Josh.

and the seat of a king

(Josh.

In Josh.

1517

and Judg.

its

conquest

is ascribed to O

THNIEL

in Josh.

to Joshua.

P

includes it among the cities of refuge

(Josh.

I

Ch.

658).

I t has often been assumed

by

1842)

that the

name implies the presence of a

of

some kind in the place

(cp the Babylonian city Si

According to Sayce, if

was ‘the literary centre of

Canaanites in the

S.

of Palestine,

whilst Debir --i

e.

‘the sanctuary,’ was ‘the temple wherein its

library was

(Pat.

As Sayce himself,

however, following Max Muller

(As.

records, the

form attested by the Papyrus

I.

‘House of the scribe.’

That the

archives were centralized at Debir

most im-

probable.

If

this were the case, Debir must have been the

religious capital of Canaan ; hut of this we have no evidence
whatever.

Its name may be wrongly vocalized

‘sanctuary’ is

not

a

probable name for a city.

may be

a n

alteration of some half-Hebrew name, such as

‘enclosed

(cp

E

RECH

).

Various identifications have been proposed, but only

one has much plausibility. First proposed by Knobel

(note

on Josh.

it has been warmly advocated

by Conder

’75,

p.

who says that the modern

(or rather

a

village four

or five hours SW. of Hebron, is the only site which
fulfils all the biblical requirements.

The objections

are three

in number.

(

I

) Petrie (according to Sayce,

According to a popular etymology, see Sayce,

168

n. Del.

Par.

Moore

Oct. ’go,

Ixx) proposed

‘frontier- town,’

he has

now

this

27).

Geographically, such a name would have been very

suitable.

3

Ass.

enclosure with walls.’

KISH

Hastings’

found

no traces at

of

anything older than the Roman period.

The

equivalence

of

the names

and Dehir (as

if

‘

the back side’) supposed by Knobel and Conder is

fanciful in the extreme.

( 3 )

passage (Judg.

1

Josh.

15

on which most reliance is placed, because

it may seem to point to the beautiful springs about

7

miles

N. of

(see A

CHSAH

), is partly

corrupt.

See K

EILAH

.

The question now presents itself whether not only

Kirjath-sepher but also Debir may not be incorrect.
Place-names are liable to

both by corruption and

by abbreviation. May not

Debir, be

a corruption

of

Tabor,’ and this, like the same word in Judg.

(cp also

T

HEBEZ

in Judg.

be

a

corruption of

Beth-Sur? That such an important city as ‘Debir,
that is, Kirjath-sepher,’ must have been, should be

no-

where referred to

in

subsequent history, is scarcely

credible. W e know that it was situated in a dry spot,
and that it was not far from Hebron.

This description

applies to the famous city of B

ETH

-

ZUR

which

occupies an impregnable position on a Tell

m. N.

from Hebron.

It is also in favour

of

Beth-zur that it

stands between Keilah and Beth-tappuah, the two
places which (if the suggestion made under
is correct) Caleb presented to his daughter-in-law
Achsah.

That Kirjath-sepher is the true name of

the city so-called

is

difficult to believe. It is

however, that Debir, or perhaps rather Beth-zur, had
an additional descriptive title, Kirjath-sephiir, inclosed
city.’ It is

no objection to this theory that the names

Debir and Beth-zur both occur

in

the list in Josh.

15

such double mentions occur elsewhere

in

P s geographical

lists. See also J

ABEZ

.

The Anab of Josh.

now becomes more uncertain.

W. M.

suggestion of

SW. of Lydda, the

the Onom., deserves consideration.

KISH

‘

lord, husband

cp

I

.

h. Abiel, a

of the clan of Becher

(

I

S.

crit. emend., see B

ECHER

, M

ATRI

, and cp B

EN

-

J

A

MIN,

§

9,

the father

of

Saul

( I

S.

91, etc.,

in

I

Ch. 936

reads

Acts

AV C

IS

).

In

M T of

S.

2114

his home is placed at Z

ELA

, but the

text

is plainly corrupt. The clan

of

Becher (the Bicrites)

appear to have lived at Gibeah of Benjamin (see

Kishs brother, Ner, the father of Abner

( I

14

50

but see N

ER

) is strangely represented in

I

Ch.

8

(

9

39)

as his father,

the text is in dis-

order

should probably he

‘

Nadab

Abinadab,

which appears to be

a second name of the father of

Kish, a rival of ‘Abiel’

or

(see N

ER

).

The names may

been already mutilated and cor-

rupt in the (late) document upon which the Chronicler
is dependent.

W e meet with Saul’s father again in

the fictitious genealogy of the Benjamite Mordecai,
Esth.

[BKA])

id.

See G

ENEALOGIES

6 M

ORDECAI

and cp E

STHER

,

I

,

end.

T h e occurrence of the name in Levitical genealogies

of

no historical interest.

Kish b.

represents a n important

Ch. 23

Kishi b.

Abdi

is

the father of the famous Merarite

E

THAN

Ch. 644

; see also

and the same designation attaches to

The phonetic interchange of

and

is not unexampled

the variant readings

and

in Ezek.

and

in

Is.

66

[The interpretation

follows

170,

n. 4, and

Wi.

62,

n.

I

.

T h e name is probably

same as the old

divine name Kais (Nab.

which is found in

Ar. proper names,’ either alone

We.

67,

also

Sin.

or

in compounds

the well-known

I t

is

to connect the name with the first element of the

Ass. compound

on a contract tablet (Peiser,

also

with the Edomite

(see

Peiser

identifies

with the

second element

(see

3

That Abiel

I

)

is an

of

is

pointed

by Marq.

(Fund.

who refers

to

the fragmentary name

2682

T

. K.

c.

s.

A.

c.]

Baal’

I

Ch. 830

E

LIADA

.

KISHI

KNIFE

bending course

but from the old god

Kais.

So

n. 4

see K

ISH

, n.

(Josh. 21

S. A. C.

KISS

See S

ALUTATIONS

.

KITE.

I

.

perhaps onomatopoetic,

cp Di. Lev. ad

Lev. 11

Dt. 1413' and

where AV renders

R V always

Lev.

T h e Red Kite,

is common in

in

winter

but

during the summer mainlygives place

to

the Black Kit;

which returns from the

;

this species

is less harmful

to

poultry, etc., lives more on garhageand fish

and is a welcome guest. M.

the Egyptian kite,

occurs but less abundantly' as

the

kite, a

beautiful

which

Africa.

3.

Dt. 1413

Is.

AV

V

ULTURE

, V

ULTURES

. See above

A.

E.

[BA],

apparently

a

place

the low-

land of Judah (Josh.

15

40).

Prohably the name is a corruption of

L

AHMAS

which precedes.

The geographical lists of

P

are sometimes

expanded by the insertion of variants or corruptions.

T.

K.

C.

unidentified place in the nominal territory of
tributaryto Israel (Judg.

1 3 0 ) .

From a comparison with

Josh. 1 9

it appears that K

ATTATH

(rather perhaps

Katrath) was the same place as Kitron. See K

ARTAH

.

A Talmudic doctor

6 a)

identifies Kitron with

Sepphoris (the modern

?), and the

attached

t o

the latter name gives no adequate reason

for

rejecting this view which may be correct.

At any rate

there is no

Sepphoris in the neighhourhood

marked out by the context (see

BR

3

KITTIM,

AV except in Gen. and Chron.

less

correctly C

HITTIM

so

usually, but

in Jer. 2

IO

in

Bab.

and Kt. Palest. of

and in Bab.

MSS

of

Ezek. 276,

last the Palestinian reading is

reads

Ezek.

cp

2

I

O

Ch 1 7

I

Macc. 1

I

;

Gen.

Ch.

7

Gen.

[DELI,

I

Ch.

cp [for

with various terminations]

23

I

Dan. 11

30

[Theod.

BAQ

prefixes

for 87

Num. 24 24

I

Macc.

'8 5. The

form is

or

Also

in six other passages-none of them very early (on
Is. 231

see G

EOGRAPHY

,

14).

In

Ezek.

276 we find

Cyprus and other islands of the

ranean, among the traders

of

Tyre.

The identification

with Cyprus in

all these is satisfactory (see C

YP

RUS).

The name Kittim is usually derived from the
city

on the SE. shore of the island.

According to Max Muller, however

( A s .

it

loan-word, originally=

Hittites. From this the city

is supposed to

have derived its name

;

this implies that

was

not a Phcenician city.

There is a strange reference

to

Kittim in

Nu. 24

24

(not very

early see

6).

is

used for the

western regions in general (opposed to Kedar the East), and

in Dan.

11

30

(see

has

a

speciiio reference to the

Romans

as in

I

Macc.

I

C

HETTIIM

, R V

5 (AV

it is explicitly used

of the Macedonians.

F.

B.

One of the

sons of Javan (Gen.

I

Ch.

17).

...

In Jer. 2

IO

KNEADING-TROUGH

in

Ex.

[for 8 3

see Field],

in Dt.).

KNEELING

See

S

A

L

U

TA

-

KNIFE.

Five words are rendered knife

in

EV

:

I

.

in Prov.

2684

See B

READ

,

C

OOKING

$ 2 .

TIONS.

a

prominent Merarite of the time

of

Hezekiah

Ch.

29

Evidently the names Kish and Abdi are derived from names
in

I

Ch. 8 30 (9 36).

We need not correct Abdi into

;

the Chronicler may already

found the corrupt form Abdon,

whence Ahdi, in his document (see above).

T. K. C.

KISHI

I

6 4 4

see K

ISH

,

2

;

KISHION

cp

see

end

KBCIWN

a

Levitical city in the territory

of

Issachar (Josh.

2128 [where AV Kishon

The parallel passage

I

Ch.

657

has K

EDESH

which most critics

Kittel) treat as a corruption of Kishion.

true reading, however, in Josh. and Ch. must surely be

Whether this

is a n echo of

which is

the name of a principality mentioned in Am.

267

and

therefore'of the

of the Palestinian name-list of

may be left open.

Miihlau identifies Kishion

with Tell

6 m.

SE. of Acre.

Kishion being in Issachar, we

shall do better to adopt Conder's identification of Kedesh

with Tell Abii

(see K

EDESH

,

;

[BKARTL]),

a torrent

famous

as the scene of the overthrow of the Canaanite

coalition under

(Judg.

47

cp

AV

[A]), and also of the destruction

of the prophets of Baal by Elijah

(

I

K.

It is

also called the waters of Megiddo (Judg.

5

The Kishon (mod.

cut

flows through

the plain

of

Jezreel, nearly due

NW. between Samaria

and Galilee, and enters the Mediterranean in the lower
extremity of the bay of

on the

E. of

It

is fed by the waters coming from Carmel, Gilboa,

and Tabor.

Its exact source is uncertain;

according to some it rises on the

W. side of Mt. Tabor

(cp Jer.

who speaks of its being near

Tabor), whilst others prefer to place it near Jenin (see
E

NGANNIM

).

T h e battle in which Sisera was defeated must have

taken place in the winter. In

the Kishon is

a

diminutive and insignificant stream, but in winter it

overflows, and floods the surrounding country, turning
it into a morass. The fate of

army finds a

parallel in the battle between the French and Turks
near Tabor

on April

when many of the

latter were drowned while attempting to pass the
morass in their flight (cp Burck.

339).

T h e district of the Kishon in olden times enjoyed an

especial reputation for sanctity.

North of it flowed the

rivers Adonis (Nahr

and

(Nahr

famous for their sacred character and Mt. Carmel

itself was a sacred mountain. Hence,

as the above-

mentioned rivers are named after gods, it is very probably
that

the Kishon may derive its name, not from its

AIAH.

T.

K. C.

These two names are identified by

W.

M. Muller, Sayce,

In

Judg. 5

the phrase 'the torrent Kishon is followed

Petrie (Hist.

2323).

immediately

the difficult words

According to

a n improbable, but well-supported, ancient view, it was the
name of a torrent distinct from the Kishon
[A Theod., perhaps thinking

of

Kedesh in Issachar, cp 'waters

of

Megiddo,'

so

Klo.

123,

adopts

the

planet-gods viewed a s givers

of

rain]

[L]

;

cp

and Ar.;

[Aq.

see

Field

modern

may he

Stream of antiquity' (EV Bachmann cp

and

the paraphrase of Targ.):

'

A.

Cooke, Hist.

48

Ew., stream of boldness

in attack'-a primitive personification)

(3)

'stream of en-

counters

'

Kohler, after Ahulw.)

;

(4)

'

stream of the

holy

(Le.,

divine ones)'

(Klost.

Marq

cp. Symm.

For a fifth view for

may also he

referred to see

Of these (

I

)

and (5) may he'

classed as historical the' plain of the

having been a

great battlefield,

the time of Thotmes

onwards whilst

and ( 5 ) have such appropriateness a s is involved in

refer-

ence to the circumstances of

battle, in the one case to the

swollen condition of the torrent, in the other to the bloodshed
which dyed the waters.

2683

KNOP

RORAH

Levites (Gen.

4611

Ex.

etc. only in

P and Ch.)

see G

ERSHON

, M

ERARI

.

T o

the

[BAFL]

Nu.

2657)

belonged Aaron, and hence

the Kohathites are sometimes subdivided into

the

children

of Aaron the priest,’ and ‘the rest of the children

of

Kohath’ (cp Josh.

They were intrusted

the care of the sanctuary during the wanderings

in the wilderness (Nu.

4 1 5

and their cities are placed

in Ephraim, Dan, and half Manasseh (Josh.
The Korahites (see K

ORAH

, i. 3) were also reckoned in

this division.

KOHELETR,

the Hebrew title of Ecclesiastes,

and

according to MT the name of the supposed speaker of
the monologues in that book. Elsewhere (see E

CCLESI

-

ASTES,

I

)

the

word

is treated

on the assumption that

M T is correct. The word, however, is admittedly

so

difficult, and so very unlikely as a designation of

a

king

of Israel, and the textual errors in Ecclesiastes are

so

serious, that the time seems to have come for raising

the question whether the reading is correct. Must it
not be due to an early editor’s attempt to extract some

out of

a corrupt text?

this (see

7

27

[crit. emend.]

not

is the earlier form of the wrong reading of MT--

the result of a series of changes

it is plausible to hold

that

it springs from the faulty repetition of four words

in

The

originally began thus,-‘Vanity of vanities,

all is vanity

the two last Hebrew words

were miswritten

the next scribe in such a way as

to

suggest

T o this the editor prefixed

‘saith.’ In-

ter olation propagated the error (1

7

27 128

but in 1

n

felt

then the writer of

in

the

and the scribe

who prefixed the title, adopted it (without initial

I t is

an

extremely plausible view that

was also adopted

the editor who prefixed the title to the strange little poem in
Prov. 30

which title

have run thus-or

See G

ENEALOGIES

7 (iii.

Gen. 22

6

IO

Judg.

19

29

Prov. 30

in Gen. add Judg.

the special sense of a sacrificial knife.

root

means not only ‘to eat,’ but ‘ t o tear in

cp Ass.

whence

‘an instrument chiefly used

Mag-ians’ (Del.

Ass.

5 6

a).

so

in Josh.

5 2

I

K.

where implements

of cutting are meant.

or ‘dagger’ is the usual

rendering. Cp

W

EAPONS

.

3.

3623).

The

of the scribe

here spoken of

elsewhere rendered ‘razor (see BEARD).

(an

Aramaic word), Prov. 23 za,

hut the text

is corrupt. Read probably

thou wilt

endanger thyself by thy folly

The traditional Jewish

interpretation is ‘knives’ (so

4

.

so

Vg.).

knife,’ but is

’un-

known to

and

to

I

Esd.

2

EV

‘censers’), and is against

the context. The true reading must be
cp

Ch. 35 13) the corruption was produced by assimilation

t o the preceding

cp Syr. of

I

Esd.

Thus, of the above words, two are corruptions, one

refers to the sharp cutting instrument of the barber

or the writer, and one

is confined

to ritual (and to

warlike) uses.

The remaining word

(

I

) may be used

either generally or in a special sense. The ritual knives
spoken of in Josh.

5 2

were ‘knives of flint

see

and RV, and cp

the flint,’

Ex.

and

knowing how conservative of old forms ritual is, we
may safely assume that the flint or other hard mineral

(obsidian perhaps

2

) used for ritual purposes was in

remote ages in general use for cutting.

T o have

used metal knives, in sacred functions, would have
seemed irreverent (cp H

ANDICRAFTS

,

It

is note-

worthy, however, that, from motives of ceremony,
flint knives continued to be used in daily life in Egypt

l o n g

after

(see

E

GYPT

, 36).

Some idea

of

the various forms of knives used

by

the Hebrews may be gathered from Bliss’s sketches
of the flint implements found at Tell el-Hesy

Cities,.

37,

and from the specimens of

cutting instruments. of the ancients which are still pre-
served, or are

on the monuments.

See the

Egyptian instruments in Kitto

Knife,’

nos.

I

and

and Rich,

culter,’ cultellus,’

and cp S

ICKLE

,

P

RUNING

H

OOK

.

That knives were used by the Hebrews during a

meal has been inferred from Prov.

23

(cp M

EALS

,

I O)

but this passage, being very probably corrupt (see
above,

4),

cannot safely be appealed to.

The

food

perhaps was brought to table already cut up the flat
cakes of bread were not cut but broken

(Is.

58

7,

etc.).

however, we are told, was wont to use

a knife

pare

an apple

i.

337

Ant. xvii.

7

I

).

For

Ex.

25

etc., see

C

ANDLESTICK

,

for the

of

I

K.

18

see

GOURD

(end),

T

EMPLE

,

S

EA

(B

RAZEN

).

KOA

[B,

Symm., Theod.

precedes],

a people mentioned with Pekod and

Shoa as contributing warriors to the Babylonian army
(Ezek.

Identified by Delitzsch

(Par. 236) with

the Kutu (or

Ku, whence the Hebrew form), a nomadic

people

E. of the Tigris but

N. of Elam. Very early men-

tion occurs of a

‘

mighty king of Guti

’

(see

T

IDAL

), and

somescholars think that Guti or

(whichrepresents

the same name) has found its way in a mutilated form
into Gen.

(see

but cp

KORATH

Kehath meaning unknown

perhaps, Ar.

to

Ass.

[BKADFL] but

N

U

.

[A],

N

U

.

the

largest and most important of the triple division of

(Ezra

1

This is suggested by

Syr.

KNOP.

T.

K . C.

Hence in

Dt. 3242

‘devour’

should

See knives

of

figured in Schliemann,

rather

‘tear in pieces which suits the sword better.

2685

nearly thus,:

The words of the guilty man

to those

That

poem which follows is controverted in

is

an

old

that believe in God.

and reasonable opinion.

Ucal disappear, nor can we lift up a lamentation for them.

T. K. C.

Thus the mysterious ‘Agur, son

of Jakeh,’ and

and

See

KOLAIAH

33 cp K

ELAIAH

).

Fatherofthe prophet A

HAB

;

Jer.

I n list

of

inhahitants of Jerusalem (see

E

ZR

A

hut attributed to Aq., Theod.]).

56,

[I]

a),

Neh.

11

7

substituted by RV for

‘

the villages

(

KWMAC

et

[Vet.

in the description of the

defensive measures of the Jews against Holofernes
(Judith

44).

and

must

be corrupt. two

MSS

read

which is but a poor

Almost certainly the

correct reading is

Cyamon occurs

again in 73, together with

(Syr. reads

‘and to the towns of Bethhoron,’ omitting the second ‘and

against almost all the Greek

MSS.)

T.

IC.

C.

KORAR

hardly

ice

cp rather K

AREAH

[BAL]).

I

.

An Edomite clan (so in Gen.

14

which belong

to

one of the latest sections of the Pentateuch); in

I

Ch. 1 3 5

their ancestor is said to have been a son of Esau, or, in Gen. 36
a son of

son of

though this last passage is wanting

in the Samaritan text.

The

clan claimed descent from Caleb, who in turn belonged to the
Edomite clan Kenaz

etc.), and is incorporated with

Judah.

3.

The legendary progenitor of a levitical guild, the

ITES

I

Ch.

12

6

employed as door-keepers or porters in

the temple (Ex.

24

I

Ch. 6

Probably the

Korah, a guild of singers or musicians mentioned in the titles of
Pss. 42

44-49

were a subdivision of this guild. See

There is no reason for separating the above three names.

Not

The son of Hebron,

I

Ch.

Meyer, Entst.

162

2686

KORAH, REVOLT

OF

only do we find that the evidence of the levitical names points

to

a

S.

origin,

that a close relationship subsisted

Edom Judah, and other tribes and clans of the

S.,

hut it is

to note that the

the clan of

Korah, and its enrolment in the great levitical division of Kehath,
represent later stages in the historyof the clan (see

G

ENEALOGIES

i.,

5

[cp n.], 7 [ii.

See art. below.

KORAH, REVOLT

OF.

In

the precedingarticle it has

been seen that the Korahites, as known in the history of

Israel, were either Edomites incorporated with Judah or

a

division of the Levites.

This double use of the name

has an important bearing on the story of Korah's
rebellion as told in Nu.

16

which is the subject of

the present article.

This story comes, at least

in the main, from the

school of the priestly writer

(P), though, as has been

shown in

a

previous article (see

D

ATHAN

AND

A

BIRAM

), the

of Korah's rebellion against the priestly prerogative of
the Levites has been mixed up

.an older and quite

independent account of the resistance made by Dathan
and Ahiram to the civil authority of Moses.

Here,

however,

an important question arises.

P

is not an

inventive

or original writer so far

as historical incidents

are concerned. Legislation is the sphere in which he
finds himself at home, and with regard to narrative he

is

content to

and modify the material

supplied by his predecessors.

It is not therefore

unreasonable to ask whether

P did not adapt the story

of

Korah's revolt from some older source, and whether

any fragments of the story in this primitive form remain

in Nu.

16.

Bacon

Tradition

developing

a

hint of

has contended with no

small ingenuity but hardly with success that we have
before

us the fragments of

a narrative by

H e attributes to him a few words in

the whole of

so

producing the simple story that when Korah the

Edomite and On the Philistine would fain intrude into the

sanctuary, Moses withstood them, and the earth swallowed them
up.

Apart from other equally decisive arguments, it cannot he

regarded as certain or even probable that

has

any connection with the Philistines.

We may now give the substance of the priestly nar-

rative in its original form.

It is contained in

KUSHAIAH

The account which we have examined hitherto, comes

from the priestly legislator, as is plain from its literary

True, it does not confirm the

.

and characteristic point

of

the priestly

the essential difference

between the priests, the sons of Aaron, and mere

Levites. But of course the priestly code also emphasises
the general

between the clergy of whatever

on the one hand and the laity on the other.

Here

the priestly legislator is content to advocate the claims
of the levitical tribe

as a

whole.

However,

a later

writer of the same school was not satisfied to stop here.
Moved, perhaps, by the remembrance that there was

a

levitical guild known

as 'sons of Korah,' he made

various alterations in the text and added

In

this second stratum Korah is unmistakeably

a

Levite, and not only

so, his whole company are

Levites, and

consists in a sacrilegious claim to

act as priests. The censers of these 'sinners against
their own lives' are

divine command beaten into

plates and used

as

a covering for the altar. They are

to be

a

perpetual memorial that

no one who Is not

of

Aaron's seed may dare to offer incense. In

a

very late passage-for it must have been added by some
one who had read

16 and

17

as they stand in

our present

Hebrew text-we are told that the sons of Korah did

not perish with their father and his band.

The author

felt that he had to explain the continued existence of
the Kohathite guild in the temple.

The N T mentions Korah only once, viz.

Jude

where Korah is the type of Gnostic heretics who' ' set at
nought dominion, and rail at dignities.'

of

Tim.

2

had Korah in view; at least

is

derived from Num.

16

5

26

The division of documents advocated in this article is that of

Kue.

12

and

Hex.

6

n. 37

n.

to

which Well-

hausen now adheres. I t is also adopteh

(with a little

hesitation)

by

Baudissin

and

by

Dr.

65.

Nor hoes the view of Dillmann 'differ

here,

except with regard

to

the point mentioned a t the end of the

article

D

ATHAN

AND

A

BIRAM

.

style.

W.

E. A.

KORE

[BA],

A door-

keeper, or guild of doorkeepers, of the b'ne Asaph,
assigned to the Korahites (see G

ENEALOGIES

7 ,

).

The name is given to the father of

(

I

Ch. 9

[B],

[A]), or Meshelemiah (

I

Ch. 26

I

,

Ch. 31

Kore

appears as the son of Imnah

hut the latter may be nothing more than a slip for

cp

who was

actually

associated with Korahites

and doorkeepers

;

see

G

ENEALOGIES

c.

A.

C.

KORE, THE

SONS

OF

yioi

[AL],

. . .

[B]),

I

Ch.

T

HE S O N S OF

THE

K

ORAHITES

.

See K

ORAH

Ezra261

Neh.

AV,

R V

KULON

[BA],

a

city in the

hill country

of

Judah mentioned by

only (Josh.

59).

An identification with

NW. of Jerusalem (see

is inadmissible, since this name is derived

from colonia (cp Buhl, Pal.

166).

KUSHAIAH

27 hardly

bow'

Peiser

explains

is

cp

Edomite divine name

Gottheil,

3BL

19

hut

is

there a parallel for

a name in the

of

Ethan, a Merarite;

I

Ch.

15

17

The

readings of

presuppose

with

which agrees the other

of the name,

(

I

Ch.

644

[A],

perhaps

The

Kishi, which Gray

prefers, is, according

to Gottheil, anahhreviated form

See

For

another suggested etymology, see

NA

MES

,

27

n.

2688

41-50

and runs thus.

Korah at the head of

princes of the congregation pro-

tested against the

rights of

as

represented by Moses and

and declared that

the whole congregation was holy.

It is quite possible

that Korah, in the intention of the priestly writer,
belonged to the tribe of Judah, and it is certain that his
confederates were by no means exclusively Levites.
They were princes of the congregation

as a

whole,

and in

27

3

(P) it is clearly implied that,

Manassites

might be found in his company.

Moses invites them

to establish their claim by taking their censers and
offering incense at the sanctuary.

This they do

:

the

people are warned to withdraw from the
and the rebels are consumed by fire from
Next day the people murmur because the 'people of

(not, observe, 'our brethren the Levites') have

been destroyed. But for the intercession of Moses,
and the fact that Aaron stands with his censer 'between
the living and the dead,' Israel would have been swept
away by the divine wrath.

Even as it is,

perish

by the plague.

Afterwards rods inscribed with the

names of princes representing each tribe are laid in
the sanctuary.

The rod inscribed with the name

of

Aaron, and that alone, buds and bears ripe almonds.

By

the Korahites of

I

Ch. 1 2

6

it

is

uncertain whether the

Chronicler is referring to Levites or to Edomites who had he-

come incorporated in the tribe of Judah

:

cp

D

AVID

,

$

[a

The word

is never used in prose of a human habitation,

and, in

24

27

the original reading seems

to

have been-' the

tabernacle of

See Dr.

61.

2687