JOZABAD

upon both the guilty parties

(v.

This done, he

gets rid of Jotham by making him flee to Beer
unknown locality)

for fear of his (half-)brother

Abimelech’

It is the fable which interests

us

Jotham is a mere

shadow.

Some scholars

Moore) think that it was

written by the author of

7-21,

with reference to the

circumstances of Abimelech.

The fable, however, is

applicable t o Abimelech only in

so

far a s such a bad

man was sure to bring misery on himself and on his
snbjects. T o do it justice we must regard it

as

a n

independent production,

disengage it from its

setting.

I t is no objection t o

this that

v.

forms a

somewhat abrupt conclusion (Moore). W e must not
expect too much harmony in

a

Hebrew apologue;

besides, the true closing words may have been omitted.
T h e proof, however, that the fable is not by the author

of

its setting is in the imperfect parallelism between

v.

and the application in

vv.

‘ I f in

good faith you anoint me

to

be king over you, come

and enjoy my protection; but if not, beware of the
ruin which

I

shall cause you’

this is the (present)

close of the fable.

‘If

you have acted in good faith

and integrity, making Abimelech your king, much joy
may you have from your compact; but if not, then
beware

of the

ruin which Abimelech will cause you, and

let him beware of the ruin which you will cause him.’
T h e bramble-king is self-deceived; h e thinks that he
can protect others, and threatens traitors with punish-

ment.

Jotham, however, speaks a t first ironically.

H e

affects to believe that the Shechemites really trust
Abimelech, and wishes them joy of their bargain.
he changes his tone.

H e foresees that they will soon

become disloyal, and threatens them with punishment,
not, however, for their disloyalty, but because they con-
spired with Abimelech to commit murder.

T h a t the

fable, moreover, is inconsistent both with

8 2 3

is

also manifest. T h e idea of

8 2 3

is that

king-

ship makes any human sovereign superfluous ; that of

9

that the practical alternatives are oligarchy and

monarchy, and that monarchy is better.

On the other

hand, the idea of the fable is that kingship is

a

burden

which no noble-minded man will accept, because it
destroys individuality.

Each noble-minded man is

either

a

cedar,

or

a fig-tree, or a vine.

By developing

his natural powers in his allotted sphere he pleases

‘gods and men

it is alien t o him t o interfere with

others.’

Compare this fable with that of King Jehoash

in

2

K.

b.

first

(see U

ZZIAH

) and then

king of Judah

K.

[A and

32-38

[B

and

v.

[A

v.

Ch.

23

[A],

27).

T h e only facts derived from the

annals are that he built the upper gate of the

perhaps, the upper gate of Benjamin (cp Jer.

Ezek.

that in his time

began to

despatch against Judah Rezin king of Aram and Pekah
son of Remaliah’ (cp

I

SAIAH

,

3).

T h e Chronicler states that Jotham fortified cities and

castles (see

F

OREST

),

and,

as

a

reward for his

piety, makes him fight with success against the Ammon-
ites ( c p A

MMON

,

In

I

Ch.

[A],

[L].

On the chronology of

reign, see C

HRONOLOGY

,

35.

3.

One of the b’ne Jahdai, belonging

to

Caleb

(I

Ch.

See A

BIMELECH

,

T.

K. C.

JOZABAD

[BKAL]).

The name of a Gederathite (see G

EDERAH

) and two

Manassites, warriors of David;

I

Ch. 124

v.

and

see

D

A

V

ID

,

11

[a

4. An overseer in the temple:

Ch.3113

perhaps the same as

JUBILEE

See Smend,

A T

64.

2613

A

chief of the Levites

:

Ch. 35

in

I

Esd.

J

ORAM

6.

b.

Jeshua,

a

Levite, temp. Ezra (see E

Z R A

I

]

Ezra

8

33

Esd.

8

63

RV J

OSABDUS

62

One of the b’ne Pashhur,

a priest in the list of those with

wives (see E

Z R A

i.,

5

end), Ezra

Esd. 9

8.

A Levite in the list of those with foreign wives (see E

ZRA

5 end),

Esd. 9 23 (J

OZABDUS

,

[BA])

identical with

(6)

and the two following.

Expounder of law (see

ii.,

13

cp

8,

16

[

I

]

Neh.87

[L], om.

Neh. 11

the list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (E

ZRA

ii.,

5 [b],

[I]

a)

JOZABDUS

[BA]

see above).

I

I

Esd

8.

I

9

[B],

[A]),

3.

I

Esd.

948

J

OZABAD

,

RV

re-

nembers

’

; cp Zechariah ;

Jozabar [Ginsb.

Ezra

I

.

Following some

MSS

and e d d . ] ;

[B];

[AL]) b. Shimeath, one of the murderers of

( 2

K.

I n

Ch.

(Z

ABAD

perhaps for Z

ACHAR

,

cp

’B,

makes Jozachar himself, not his mother, a n Ammonite
[see S

HIMEATH

).

See

JOZADAK

Ezra

8

etc. See J

EHOZADAK

.

JUBAL

Gen.

See C

AINITES

,

JUBILEE,

or JUBILE,

THE

YEAR

OF.

Accord-

ing t o Lev.

a t the completion of seven sabbaths

of years,

.trumpet of the jubilee

is to be sounded

‘throughout the land,’ on the tenth

and procedure.

day of the seventh

on the great day of

atonement.

T h e fiftieth year

announced is to be

‘hallowed,’- Le., liberty

is to be proclaimed every-

where to every one, and the people are to return

‘

every

man unto his possession and unto his family.’

T h e

year in other respects is to resemble the sabbatical
year there is to be no sowing, nor reaping that which
grows of itself, nor gathering of grapes (Lev.
T o

to fuller detail,- as regards real property

(Lev.

the law is that if any Hebrew under

pressure of necessity shall alienate his property he is t o
get for it

a sum of money reckoned according to the

number of harvests to be reaped between the date

of

alienation and the first jubilee year should he or any
relation desire to redeem the property before the jubilee,
this can always be done by repaying the value of the
harvests between the redemption and the jubilee.

T h e

fundamental principle

is

that the land shall not be sold

so as

to be quite cut off, for it is mine, and ye are

strangers and sojourners with me.‘

T h e same rule

applies to dwelling-houses of unwalled villages.

T h e

case is different, however, as regards dwelling-houses
in walled cities.

These may be redeemed within

a year

after transfer but if not redeemed within that period
they continue permanently in possession of the purchaser.
An exception to this last rule is made for the houses of
the Levites in the Levitical cities.

As regards property

in slaves (Lev.

the Hebrew whom necessity

has compelled to sell himself into the service of his
brother Hebrew is to be treated a s a hired servant and

a

sojourner, and to be released absolutely a t the jubilee

(vv.

39-43)

bondmen on the other hand

are to be bondmen for ever

44-46).

T h e Hebrew,

however, who has sold himself to astranger or sojourner
is entitled to freedom at the year of jubilee, and further

is

at any time redeemable by any of his kindred,- the

redemption price being regulated by the number of
years to

between the redemption and the jubilee,

according to the ordinary wage of hired servants

(vv.

2614

JUBILEE

47-55).

I n addition to these enactments Lev.

gives a supplementary

law

regulating the price of

a

piece of land that has been dedicated to God according
to the distance in time between the date of the dedica-
tion and the jubilee year, and also defining the
stances in which such a piece of land in the jubilee

year either reverts t o the original owner or permanently
belongs to

One further reference t o the year

of jubilee occurs in

Nu.

3 6 4

in the law a s to inherit-

ance by daughters,

As to origin, the law is plainly a growth out of the

law of the Sabbath.

T h e foundations of Lev.

25

are

laid in the ancient provisions of the Book

of the Covenant (Ex.

21

23

and in

T h e Book of the Covenant

enjoined that the land should lie fallow and Hebrew
slaves be liberated in the seventh year

Dt. required in

addition the remission of debts (see

S

ABBATICAL

Y

EAR

).

These regulations are in Lev.

25

carried over t o the

fiftieth year and amplified. T h e choice

of

the fiftieth

to

be the sacred year is evidently in parallelism with

the feast of Pentecost which is the closing day after the
seven weeks

of harvest.

A s

to the date

of

the law, this much a t least has t o

be observed, that no evidence of its existence has
reached

us

from

pre-exilic times.

Certainly in

Jeremiah's time the law acknowledged by the prophets

that described in Deut.

15,

according

to which the

rights of Hebrew slave-holders over their compatriots
were invariably to cease seven years after they had
been acquired.

This appears to follow from Jer.

where note that Jeremiah uses the term

17,

cp

v.

8).

Another

passage

is

Ezek.

46

where there is indication

of

a

law according to which

the prince' is a t liberty to alienate in perpetuity any

portion of his inheritance to his

sons

but if he give a

gift of his inheritance t o any other of his subjects, then
the change of ownership holds good only till the year
of liberty

after which the alienated property

returns to its original possessor, the prince.

Now since

Jeremiah

use of the same expression

with

reference to the liberation

of the slaves in the seventh year

it

is

exceedingly probable that Ezekiel also by

means the seventh year.

This view of the case gives additional probability to the

conjecture of

6,

n.

28

d )

and

sen that originally Lev.

25

also had reference to the

seventh year. For the law in its present form proves ( c p
Kue.

on

careful examination to be

a revision of a n

older form which probably belonged to

H.

Thus this

last, besides the injunction about the year of fallow
(Lev,

25

contained also a precept about the year of

liberation

Lev.

by which it under-

stood the seventh year

as

Jeremiah had done.

T h a t in

the year

of jubilee in its present form we are dealing

with a purely theoretical development of the sabbath
idea which was incapable of being reduced to practice

becomes evident from the simple reflection that in the
event

of such a year being observed there would occur

two consecutive years (the 49th and the

in which

absolutely nothing could be reaped, and a third (the

in which only some summer fruits could be ob-

tained, sowing being prohibited in the fiftieth. This
difficulty, which was perceived even by the author of
Leviticus

25

himself (cp

v.

has led many scholars

to make the impossible assumption that the forty-ninth
year is the year of jubilee (so,

Ew.

Ant.

375,

and Saalschiitz,

Arch.

following older writers such

as Scaliger, Petavius, and others).

In

order to

the difficulty Riehm

regards the com-

mand about the land lying fallow a s one that was
originally foreign to the law

of the year of Jubilee and

one that was never in force. This last character, how-
ever, belongs to the whole institution, not merely to
this particular part of it.

For the post-exilic period

2615

Deuteronomy.

.

also

have evidence of the non-observance

of

the

law.

T h e Talmudists and Rabbins are unanimous that

although the jubilee-years were reckoned they were not
observed.

As

regards the meaning

of

the name

or

simply

or

or

authorities are not agreed. According to Josephus

( A n t .

it

means

but the use

of

the

word

Ex.

19

Josh.

6

5,

makes it probable that the name

is de-

rived from the trumpet sound

with

which the jubilee

was to

be

proclaimed ; and it is not impossible that

the

old Jewish

tradi-

tional view

is

right when it says

that

means a

ram-for which

there

is a

probable confirmation in

then,

abbreviation for

a trumpet

of

ram's

horn.

See Dillmann

on

Ex.

would

thus mean the year that is

ushered

in

by the blowing

of

the ram's horn (Lev.

25

For

the earlier literature

see

Ex.

Winer,

art.

and

PRE

art. 'Sabbatjahr.

Recent

are Saalschiitz

2

Ew.,

A n i .

Wette

('64)

Keil

art:

'

Sabbatjahr,' in

; Riehm,

art.

Benzinger H A

474

Nowack, H A

2

W.

R.

B.

JUCAL

JEHUCAL.

JUDA,

RV

Judah,

City

of

(Lk. 139).

See

JUTTAH

JUDA

[Ti.

WH]),

I

.

Mk.

63,

RV

J

UDAS

3.

Lk.

3

30

RV

J

UDAS

4.

Lk.

RV

etc., cod.

87

V ;

Ti.

in

in Ezra and

in

Dan.

and Dan. [Theod.]

in

Macc.

as

well a s

in

we find both

and

T h e

name of the region occupied by the reorganized Jewish
community

in

the Persian, Greek, and Roman periods,

hut extended by Lk. to the whole of W . Palestine (Lk.

4

44

23

Acts

2

10

37

etc.

).

T h e limits of

as

a province varied a t different

periods.

I n the time of Jonathan the Maccabee

)

three tetrarchies of Samaria

[see

E

PHRAIM

,

L

YDDA

,

and R

AMATHAIM

) were added to

Judzea

(I

Macc.

10

30

11

34)

Judas himself had

already expelled the

from Hebron

(I

Macc.

5

65).

According t o Josephus

3

ex-

tended from

now

Berkit

p. 48) in the

N.

to a village called

Jordas

near Arabia on the

and from

Joppa on the W . to the Jordan on the

E.

T h e sea-coast,

a s far

as

Ptolemais

with the exception of Jamnia

and Joppa, belonged to

and according to Ptolemy

(v.

some districts beyond Jordan.

T h e latter

statement, however, is not to be adduced in illustration
of Mt.

19

I

the borders of

beyond Jordan

because here Mk.

10

I

(Ti.

W H ) contains the obviously

correct reading,

' t h a t is,

[first of all] the region beyond Jordan (cp Mk.

11

I,

' u n t o Jerusalem and unto Bethany').

I t should be

noticed, too, that Josephus mentions no trans-Jordanic
toparchy.

On

the death of Herod, Judaea, with

Samaria and

fell to the lot of

as

ethnarch

but on Archelaus' deposition his territory was

annexed to the Roman Province of Syria (see I

SRAEL

,,

89). In the fifth century

became part of the

division called

Four

of

the eleven

toparchies mentioned

Josephus

Eusehius are referred

to

in the

Talmud

and

Daroma,

corresponds

to

the

(see

Onk, Dt,

had

for its centre

Lod or

Lydda, so that the name

Daroma

is often used

in

the

Talmud

nstead

of

Lod. The

limited

the

application

to

a

place

Daroma

of

the Crusaders. The meaning

the

other names

is

clear.

T h e

table-land is otherwise known a s the

hill-country of Judah

but

is not confined ta

Z

ACHARIAS

,

I

O

.

[Ti. WH]) Lk.

3

RV

JODA.

As in

Hastings'

DB 2 792 a.

JUDAH

JUDAH

this high region

there are districts outside of it which

can boast of more varied scenery and of hardly less

historical interest.’

There is first that wonderful de-

pression which bounds

on the E.- the lower

Jordan valley and the Dead Sea, beyond which rises

the precipitous wall of the mountains of Moab.

T h e

three. roads into Judaea on this side start from the three

oases, Jericho, ‘Ain

and ‘Ain Jidi.

Next, the

border must be studied, not,

.however, here, but in dealing with that extensive and

but lately explored region-the N

ECEB

Then,

for the

boundary we have-ideally the

ranean- but really, except at intervals, the edge of the
great plateau itself. The low hills of the

[low-

land] are separated from the compact range to the

E.

by a

long series of valleys running

S.

from Aijalon. This is

western barrier of the hill-country.

I t is penetrated

by

a

number of defiles, which provide excellent cover

for defenders, and opportunity for ambushes and sur-

prises.

T h e importance

of

Beth-zur (cp B

ETH

-

ZUR

,

K

IRJATH

-

SEPHER

) arises from the fact that it is the one

fortress on the,

W.

flank of

S.

of Aijalon,

which the physical conditions make possible.

I n

conclusion, the last ten

of the

plateau

on

t h e

north

form

a

frontier which was the most accessible

s i d e of the

territory, but was well protected by

the fortresses of Benjamin.

See further, J

U D A H

;

N

EGEB

, S

HEPHELAH

,

P

ALESTINE

.

JUDAH

Ass.

I

.

Judah

the eponym of the tribe of

Judah, is represented a s the fourth son of Jacob by

J ex-

‘*

plains the meaning thus, ‘And she said,

Now will

I

praise Yahwk

therefore she called his

n a m e Judah (Yehudah)’ the saying in Gen.

498

starts

from the same

W e

presume, however, that the name (like Isaac, Jacob,

and Israel) is a popular adaptation of some fuller

perhaps Abihud

or

Ahihud (whence Ehud).

I t does

n o t ,

so

far a s we know, occur in the Amarna tablets.

indeed, thought we might read it in

a letter

of

Rib-addi of

( A m . Ta6.

no. 8642) but Winckler

reads here Jada.

One of the most striking characteristics of J is the

interest which this writer,

or

school

of writers, takes in

Judah.

That in J Judah takes the place

assigned to his brother Reuben (closely
connected with Judah, see

3)

in

E

in

t h e Joseph-story, has been noticed elsewhere (see

J

OSEPH

3).

According to Gen.

38,

Judah went t o

Adullam

(?)

and married the daughter of a Canaanite (?)

n a m e d Shua

his three sons were called, Er,

Onan, and Shelah. T h e first-born was married by Judah

Tamar

but E r and

were wicked, and were

by Yahwk.

As Tamar was not given to the third

son Shelah, she found a n expedient to become the

mother of two sons, Peres (?) and Zerah, by Judah.

T h e other legends relative to Judah (Judges, Samuel)

will b e most conveniently referred to in

3.

T h e

genealogies of Judah in

I

Ch.

41-23

will not be con-

here.

There is indeed much to reward

a

critical

examination of the puzzles which they contain but t o

condense the results of the special articles in a really

fruitful way would occupy too much space. See as

specimens,

C

HARASHIM

,

J

ASHUBI

-

LEHEM

,

S

HOBAL

.

I t is usually thought that by

a

special piece

of

good

fortune we have in the legend

of

Gen.

38,

just now described, a tradition respecting

the

development of the tribe of

Judah.

Reading the passage ethnologically we learn

H

I L L

COUNTRY

OF

B

ENJAMIN

, J

O R D A N

,

For

the gentilic see J

EW

.

Leah, born at

(Gen.

29

35).

See

GASm.

chap.

13.

Wildeboer,

that Judah had established itself on the

W.

side

of

the

Hill Country of Judah

in the district of Timnah and

Adullam, that the tribe allied itself to the Canaanites, but
did not flourish till it united with the tribe

of Tamar, which

dwelt more to the

to

however, the story records in legendary form the con-
quest of Baal-tamar, where was the sanctuary of the
original tribe of

Benjamin,

b y David, the leader of the

Baal-tamar, he thinks, was the place

afterwards called, by a strange distortion of the name,

This brings

us

face to face with more

than one deep and difficult problem which this scholar
has treated in a strikingly original manner (see

J

EARIM

,

S

AUL

, T

AMAR

).

W e shall return to Gen.

later

4,

end) it is enough here to repeat that Tamar

a word which in some other passages too has arisen

through textual corruption) a s

a woman‘s name is most

probably a corruption of some popular shortened form
of

just

as

‘Ir

( E V ‘ t h e city

of

palm-trees

in Judg.

is probably a corruption

of

‘Ir jerahme’el (see J

ERICHO

,

I t was union with

the Jerhameelites ( a tribe of Edomitish affinities) that
gave

to the clan or tribe of Judah

a

similar

cause seems to be assigned for the expansion of the
Jacob-tribe (see J

ACOB

,

3),

and also for the growth

of the Isaac-tribe, Abraham representing the

of

Rehoboth, Sarah the Israelites

or

perhaps

Jizrahelites (see

JACOB,

6).

In the earliest times

indeed Judah, Jerahmeel, Caleb, Kain (Kenites), and

must have closely resembled each other, and

probably we should add to the list Reuben, which (cp
Gen.

I

Ch. 4

I

53)

had clans closely connected

with those of Judah.

It was not therefore altogether

unnatural for the editor of Judg.

to ascribe to

Judah the conquest of Hebron

or

rather

and of Debir’ or rather Beth-zur

(see

S E P H E R

) ; in reality these were the achievements of

C

A L E B

which did not become one with Judah

till the time of David.

(On Judg.

see K

ENITES

.)

All the tribes mentioned, including Judah, seem to have
adhered for a long time to a nomadic or semi-nomadic
mode of life a large part of the Jerahmeelites remained

late (see

A

MALEK

, H

A M

J

ERAHMEEL

,

S

AUL

). I t may be remarked here that Reuben

see R

EUBEN

) very possibly derives its name from

Jerahme’el.

T h e leader who brought about, a t least t o a consider-

able extent, the union of these different clans

(so far a s

they were in his neighbourhood a t the time
of his operations) all of which were outside

the Israelitish territory, was David.

T h e steps by

which he reached his proud position a t the head of a
great inland

kingdom require renewed in-

vestigation.

H e was himself probably a Calebite of

Bethuel or

Debir

or

SEPHER

His sister Abigail bears the same

name as the former wife of Nabal, which probably is
really a tribal n a m e ; this might suggest that David’s
family was aware of a connection with another family
called Abigail (or Abihail) settled near Carmel
Jerahmeel) and Jezreel (cp D

AVID

,

I

,

n.

S

AUL

,

4,

and see below), though it is true that Abigail and

Abihail are ultimately traceable to Jerahmeel.

If

so,

like his sister, David strengthened the connection with
Jezreel by marriage (see N

ABAL

).

In spite

of

all this

neither Caleb nor Jerahmeel supplied the name of the
great tribe produced by a combination of smaller tribes
-but Judah.

N o doubt Judah had already been

extending its influence (cp Gen.

so that David only

recognised and acted upon accomplished facts.
was at first only

a

small Jndah that accepted David

as

its leader and prince (cp

I

where note that

the conquest of ‘ H e b r o n ’

or

rather

is

presupposed), nor can we say with documentary

Cp

Wildeboer,

JUDAH

JUDAH

how David became possessed of the territory

between the original southern border of Benjamin and
the northern limit of the Negeb (see N

EGEB

).

W e

need not therefore hesitate to accept Winckler's very
plausible view that the present narrative of David's
adventures during his outlaw period

is based upon

earlier traditions of a struggle on David's part for the
possession of the later Judahite territory.

Winckler's

interpretation of the details will of course be liable t o
criticism, partly from the

difficulty of the

historical problems, but chiefly from the fact that his
textual criticism is not as thorough and methodical a s
could be wished.

According

to

Winckler the Cherethites'and 'Pelethites' are

those semi-nomad

gentes of

the Negeb

to

which David by his

origin belonged their chief town was Ziklag from which as a

centre they went

about

making raids under

leadership.

This can hardly be accepted. Though temporarily

on

friendly

terms with the Cherethites and Pelethites David

(a

searching

sm suggests) wasafterwards

at

war with these tribes

confederations of clans) a t

a

later time again he made

with them (see

Nor does the text

favour the view that Ziklag' was the

chief

town either

of

the

'Cherethites' or

of

the 'Pelethites.'

Winckler is

also

of

that in the present narrative of David's earlier career (which is

admittedly ofcomposite origin) there have been brought together

two widely different legends, one of which gave Adullam (a place

,in the later Judahite territory)

as

David's original base of

operations, and the other 'Ziklag' in the land of

(see

to

which region Achish (who is represented

as

having been for

a

time David's liege lord) must

also

have

belonged. Of these two traditions the latter, Winckler thinks,

is the original and sole authentic one.

Independently the

present writer has arrived a t similar but much mnre

conclusions on certain points, and the same method which has

him to reach greater definiteness on these points has

led him

to

conclusions

on

oints of detail which seem adverse

to

other parts of Winckler's

As we have said, David was probablynot ( a s Winckler

represents) a

but a Calebite

not

Ziklag'

but Debir (see above) was his home.

W e

cannot put

on one side the Bethlehem-tradition quite a s

readily a s Winckler does.

Beth-lehem must spring

from some more possible name

that name

is

found-

it

is

Bethuel.

I t may be left

an

open question, however, whether both Beth-

lehem and

(or Bethel) are not broken down forms of $

primitive

This would account for Ephrathite

I

S.

17

on which name

Jerahmeelite) see

Similarly, though Adullam is certainly not David's

true starting-point, the name did not spring from the
brain of

a tradition-monger

Adullam,' may

be a corruption of

Carmel.

Carmel was

a

region friendly to David's family it is surely a plausible
view, that David, if he was a native of Debir
sepher), and closely allied with the clans of Jezreel and

Carmel, took Carmel as his earliest base of operations.

Nor

is there any inconsistency between this tradition

and the Ziklag tradition. Until David gave practical
effect to his aspiration after the imperial throne of an
expanded Israel there was no reason why he should not
be on the most friendly terms with the chieftains of

tribes like the

'

Cherethites and

Pelethites.'

There is a striking little narrative in

I

S.

which

throws some light on this (and

so

indeed, rightly under-

stood, does the story in Gen.

38).

From the fort (not

cave) of Carmel (not Adnllam) David, we are told, took
his father and mother to Mizpeh of Moab (rather to
Migrephath of

see

and confided

them to the care of the king or, as we might say,
chieftain (see K

ING

).

There his parents found a safe

asylum, all the time that he was in the fort

of Carmel.

I t should be noticed that Carmel is already

a

Judahite

place.

'Abide not in

(read, not

but

depart, and get thee into the land

of

Jndah, says Gad the ' p r o p h e t ' (see G

A D

So

David leaves Musur, and proceeds to the fort of Carmel

(

Adullam

see H

ARETH

.

W e must now return to Gen.

38,

assuming here the

corruptions of the text mentioned under

A

ZOPHIM.

Judahite family settles at

(not Adullam).

A

fusion with the Maonites was attempted, but had less
prosperous results than a Jerahmeelite alliance.

T h e

two clans which arose in consequence were called
respectively

and Zerah.

This seems to be a

record of the friendly intercourse between David when
a t Carmel and the

of Sarephath.

W e conclude then that David made Carmel his base

of operations for the conquest of territory for an

H e established

himself for

a

time in

but found it

necessary to retire, first to the wilderness of

Ziph, and then to that of En-kadesh (not En-gedi

see

K

ADESH

), where he was certainly in the land of

From Kadesh we may presume that he made his way
to

by favour of whose chieftain

Achish, or perhaps rather Nahash

(who, be it noted,

worships

I

S.

he found new headquarters

at

(see

I t was from this place that

he obtained his great warrior Benaiah (see J

EKABZEEL

)

and raided those parts of the Negeb which did not
belong

to

the Rehobothites and Zarephathites.

Mean-

time the Zarephathites were doing great mischief t o

kingdom by their incursions (cp especially

I

S.

and, if our treatment of the text is sound,

Saul met his death bravely struggling with them on the
ridge of hills near Carmel or Jerahmeel (see S

AUL

,

4).

I t is possibly to the following period that David's acquisi-
tion of a chieftainship in the Carmelite district is to be
assigned; this helps to account for his elevation to a
greater position a t Hebron

(the reading

Hebron

may be safely accepted).

This, however, was not

agreeable to the Zarephathites, and

a

fierce conflict

broke out between them and the new-made king.

David, however, became the

Gob and Gath

in

21

15-22

being corrupt fragments of Rehoboth,'

and

'

Rephaim

and

Baalperagim in

S.

5

of

and

respectively

see also Judg.

After this, the Rehobothites and

the Sarephathites became David's faithful servants

in

this character their names have come down to

us

a s

'

Cherethites

and

Pelethites.'

See P

ELETHITES

,

R

EHOBOTH

, Z

AREPHATH

.

It required doubtless a harder struggle t o overcome

the resistance of Abner, the general of Ishbosheth (or
rather perhaps Mahriel; see M

EPHIBOSHETH

,

I

),

whom Winckler, perhaps rightly, regards a s having
been in the first instance king of

all Israel

S.

2

T h e conquest

of J

ERUSALEM

was the neces-

sary preliminary of this.

Being taken by David himself

from the Jebusites, it formed originally no part of the tribe
of Judah but its possession secured the

of

the family of David on the throne of Judah, and in
Josh.

it is represented a s half-Judahite,

half-Jebusite.

On Solomon's supposed exclusion of

Judah from the departmental division of his kingdom
see

S

O

LOMON

,

T

AXATION

,

and

cp

Kittel on

I

K.

T h e tribe of Judah is referred to twice in the N T

(Heb.

Rev.

7 5 )

but the references require no

comment.

T h e isolation of Judah is its most notable geographical

Note that Timnah

is mentioned in Josh.

55-57

in

the same group with Maon, Carmel, and Ziph (which name

underlies Chezib in Gen.

38 5).

He was probably 'prince of

(

I

253,

crit. emend.).

See

3

The supposed reference

to

David

as

'head

of

Caleb' after

he had removed to Hebron can hardly be

(see

N

ABAL

).

Tradition rightly describes him as a

('king,'

chieftain

').

4

This may he implied too in the story

of

and

the

(Rehohothite) in

6 .

Perhaps

too

of

S.

should rather

(cp

R

EHOBOTH

,

and see Crit.

In this connection it may be noted that in the earlier and

much briefer story on which

I

S. 17 is probably based, Goliath

of

Gath' was probably 'Goliath of Rehoboth,' 'the valley

of

was 'the

of Jerahmeel,' and

was

'

enlarged tribe of Judah.

2620

MAP OF JUDAH AND JUDEA

I N D E X T O NAMES

Parentheses indicating

that

to the place-names are in certain cases added

to

names having no biblical

T h e

arrangement

:

spring’),

beit

( ‘

house

’),

monastery ’),

ed-,

el-

the

’),

inn

’),

(

ruin

’),

viis

( ‘

summit

’),

mound’),

(‘

mother’),

D z

Achzib, Cz .
Adora or

D z

ascent of

E

I

el-+mar,

E r

(A

DUMMIM

)

Kh. beit

D z

Kh.

(E

TAM

,

Kh.

Bz

Kh. wady

Cz

E r

Anathoth,

E

I

Anim,
Arad,
tell

D

I

(E

TAM

,

Aroer 3,

Dz

D z

(E

TAM

,

I

)

C

I

Aruboth, D z
Ashdod,
Ashkelon,

Bz

Bz

Dz

(E

TAM

,

I

)

Kh. ‘Attir,

Azeka ? C z

el-Balah, A3

el-Bassah, E z

(B

ETH

-

BASI

)

Beersheba,
Berachah (Valley), Dz
Kh.

wady

D z

Beth-anoth, D z

D z

Beth-haccerem, D

I

Bethlehem

I

,

D2

Beth-shemesh, C

I

,

2

Beth-tappuah, Dz
Bethzacharias,
Beth-zur, D z

D z

(C

ONDUITS

)

Bittir, Dz

Cabbon, Cz
Chesalon, D

I

Dz

Dannah,
Dead Sea, E

I

,

3 , 4

Debir,
Kh. ed-Dilbeh, Cz

Dz

Eglon, BC2

(Valley),

Eleutheropolis,

D

I

En-gannim,
En-gedi, E 3
Kh. ‘Erma, D

I

B

I

Eshtaol,
Eshtemoa,

D

I

Etam? Dz

D z

beit Faged,

(E

PHES

-

DAMMIM

)

el-Feshkha, Ez

Ez

(D

EAD

S

EA

, 3)

J.

D z

(B

ETH

-

HACCEREM

)

Gath, Cz
Gaza, Az
Gederoth, D r
Ghazza, A2

Ghazza, A3

(G

ERAR

)

Ghuweir,

E2

el-Ghuweir, E z

Giloh, D z

el-Habs, D

I

Hachilah,

Halhul,

el-Kuds, D

I

wady

E z

tell el-Hasi,

el-Hasi, Bz

Hazor 3,

el-Kurmul, D 3

Kh.

D2

(A

CHZIB

)

Lachish, Bz

Lahm, D z

Kh. el-Lahm, Cz

Hazor 4, D3
Hebron, Dz

E

I

(E

N

-

SHEMESH

)

Laishah, D

I

D

I

2,

3,

4

Kh.

(A

DULLAM

)

C2.

el

D

I

(see

D

I

D

I

(M

ANAHATH

)

Maon,
Mareshah, Cz
el-Mejdel,

Cz

E z

beit

Kh.

Dz

Cz

Dz

Kh. Jedireh, C

I

Kh.

Cz

Kh. umm

A3

Jerusalem, D

I

beit Jibrin,

(E

LEUTHEROPOLIS

)

Jidi, E 3

Juttah,

beit

Dz

D

I

Karyat

D

I

Kh.
Kerioth-Hezron,

D

I

ain el-Kezheh, Cz

el-Khalil, Dz

Dz

(H

ARETH

)

Kh.

Dz

Kidron,

Ez

Kh.
Kirjath-Jearim, D

I

el-Kubeibeh,

Migdal-gad, Bz
Kh. el-Milh,

(A

RAD

)

el-Mineh, A2
Kh. Mird, Ez

Kh. beit Mizza, D

I

Mozah, D

I

W.

Mukelik, E

I

J.

el-Munfar, A3

deir

Cz

(I

R

-

NAHASH

)

E z

beit

(K

EILAH

)

tell en-Nejileh,
Nephtoah, D r
beit

Cz

D z

Phagor,

D z

W.

E

I

(B

AHURIM

)

tell

Cz

W.

Cz

W.

C

I

(B

ETH

-

SHEMESH

)

tell
Kh. bir

es-Sebbeh, E 3

(T

HE

D

EAD

S

EA

)

(T

HE

D

EAD

S

EA

)

Shamir,
Shaphir, Bz

Shems,

2

esh-Sheri‘a, AB3

Kh. esh-Shuweikeh,
Socoh,

nahr Sukereir, B

I

W.

D E

I

(A

NATHOTH

)

beit

D z

wady

D2

(K

EILAH

)

D z

ed-Dam,

E

I

Tekoa, Dz

Kh. T e k b ,
Thogret ed-Debr,

E

I

(D

EBIR

)

D z

Tibneh,

jebel

D

I

Kh. Umm
Kh. Umm

C2

Umm

Kh.

bir

Cz

Zahret

Kh. beit

Dz

tell
tell ez-Zif,
Ziph, D 3
Zorah, C

I

JUDAH

JUDAH, HILL-COUNTRY

O F

course,

consult

the histories

of

Israel,

not

forgetting

the most

recent-that of

Winckler,

to

some of

whose

conclusions the

above

article

gives a n

independent

support.

b. Senuah, Neh.

11

doubtless

same

as

3.

A

Levitical family, according

to

the

of

I

[A]).

Here,

some would read

no.

the

original

name was

H

ARODITE

).

See

G

ENEALOGIES

i.,

7

4. A

Levite (the

above

clan

I

Esd.

9

(JU

D

AS

,

5.

A

priest's

son,

Neh.

12 36

(om.

BNA).

JUDAH,

HILL-COUNTRY O F

T. K.

c .

RV Josh.

11 20

7

21

Ch.

27

4,

and virtu-

ally Josh.

15

48

18

Judg.

1

Jer. 32

44

33

13,

or,

OF

(Lk.

1 6 5 ,

is the

special term for

a well-defined region to the north of

what was called the

some

25

miles long by

12

t o

17

broad, and from

2000

to 3000 feet above the

sea.

Under the title of

it forms the ninth

of

toparchies.'

It has for its centre the

ancient city

of

H

E B R O N

, between which and the Negeb

there is

a fertile plateau,

9

miles by

3,

which forms

a strong and agreeable contrast to the

table-

land in the north.

It is of this table-land that

travellers think when they speak

of

as

a stony

desolate region.

Apart from some breaks in the

plateau, which enjoy

a rich vegetation, such

as

Bethany,

the Valley of Hinnom, 'Ain

the W a d y

(see C

ONDUITS

,

3),

the valleys near Bethlehem, and

especially Hebron, the thinly covered limestone pro-
duces

a

very dreary effect ; one cannot help pitying the

few dwarf trees which wage

a doubtful struggle for exist-

ence with the boulders around them.

Nevertheless the austerity

of

this region

was

not

always

nearly

so

unmitigated

;

it did but

call out the

art

and

energy

of

man to counteract

it.

By

a

trained

historic imagination

we

can

recall

some of

the

vanished

glory the

traces

of

which,

indeed,

are

multitudinous. One

may

for

miles

in

perfect

solitude in

a

country of sheep and goats.

But the hills

are

crowned with ruins, and the sides of

the

hills are terraced,

and

by the

fountains

are

fragments of

walls

and heaps

of

stones which

indicate

the ancient

homes of

men.

T h e greatest elevation in the hill-country of Judah is

attained by the.

ft.), which ter-

minates

a mountain-ridge between Halhiil and Hebron.

T h e chief valleys are the WBdy Halil, which is joined
by the valley

Hebron, and beginning

NE.

of

Hebron,

first southward, then south-westward, and

finally unites with the WBdy el-Milh (coming from the
east), forming the

W N W . from

Hebron begins the

el-Afranj, which runs N W .

to join the

a t Ashdod.

This is probably

the 'valley

northward from Mareshah'

Ch.

1410

see Z

EPHATHAH

) where Asa

is said to have

defeated the Cushite invaders.

Farther south

the

broad and fruitful

which first of all runs

north, then turns westward, and

the name of the

WBdy

(see

V

ALLEY OF)

cuts through

the

At

(Socoh) is the point of

junction

of the WBdy

and the WBdy en-Najil.

This and other wadies

in

a

remarkable basin about

30 miles

long,

which divides the mountains

of

Judah

from the lower hills of the

Towards the

NW.

this basin is drained by the broad and fertile

which near the coast assumes the name

Nahr

(see

JABNEEL).

Not far from Tekoa is

the great WBdy

where is the ruin called

in the name of which some find an echo of

the Berachah of

I

Ch. 20

26

(see B

ERACHAH

, V

ALLEY

OF).

The Hebrew text

of

Josh. 15

48-60

reckons

as

belonging

to

this region

cities, some of which

can

be identified

with obvious certainty, such

as

Eshtemoli, Beth Tappuah,

Hebron, Maon, Carmel, Ziph,

Juttah,

characteristic.

Its boundaries are given in Josh.

( P )

; but these of course have no

relation to the

period.

T h e N. boundary coincides with

S.

boundary of Benjamin; only it

is

given with

greater fulness.

On the E. the boundary is the Dead

S e a ; on the

W.

the Mediterranean; on the

S.

a line

drawn from the southern tongue of the Dead Sea to the

(rather

see E

GYPT

, B

ROOK

O

F

) ,

and passing by the ascent of Akrabbim,

and other places (consult

ADDAR,

H

EZRON

, K

A R K A A

) .

T h e idealizing tendency

of

P

comes out in his inclusion of

within Judahite

territory.

There

is a n inconsistency with regard to

which Judg.

and Josh.

make

Judahite, whilst Josh

18

apparently assigns it to

Benjamin (cp

also with regard

to

J

ERUSALEM

It should be noticed that in

the earlier narratives we hear

of

(Judg.

and

A

DULLAM

(

I

see above), or rather Carmel,

as

belonging t o Judah we also read of

a Negeb of Judah

( I

27

IO

see N

EGEB

).

T h e natural divisions of the

territory are-the N

EGEB

, the

S

HEPHELAH

,

and the

Wilderness of Judah (see D

ESERT

,

a n d

3

I t

is urgently necessary to get

a

clear idea of each of these

without which the

significance of many

passages

will he

As to the names in Josh.

15

reference

must also be made to special articles.

Some progress

has doubtless been made in settling the readings (which
in

M T

a r e often incorrect), and consequently many

current identifications have not improbably been
in the present work with effect but much uncertainty
still attaches to many

of

the details (see

the names

of places

on the

S.

boundary).

Judah is not to be blamed for indifference to the

great struggle celebrated in Judg.

5

a

tribe of Judah

I n Dt. 337 (in

the Blessing

of

Moses

'),

however, we meet

with

a

prayer that

would bring Judah ' t o his

that the great schism might be healed,

and Judah

into the people

of Israel

it

is the saying of

a

N. Israelite.

T h e Blessing of Jacob

499

11

celebrates the fierceness and victorious

might of Judah and a t the same time its appreciation

of

the natural advantages of its land (Judah was

a

vine-country c p Joel

1

7

3

[4]

18

Ch. 26

IO,

a n d

H

EBRON

,

3).

Later history exhibits this tribe

as

tenacious, conservative, and even

perhaps not wholly unconnected with its Edomitish

a n d N. Arabian affinities.

T h e two Blessings' just referred to

are

the only

pre-exilic poetical passages in which the name

even in the exilic a n d post-

exilic poetry it is very rare.

Among the

prophets it is Jeremiah who uses the term

most frequently, though

abundance

of interpolations

in his book makes it difficult to estimate the exact
numbers.

The examination of the historical books

leads t o some interesting results.

T h e phrase

occurs in Judg.

16

S.

212

I

Ch.

316

Dan.

1 6 ; also

Ob.

12.

But some of these occurrences are of small

account, being due

to

glosses, and

S.

is strongly

corrupt (see J

ASHER

, B

OOK O

F,

T h e phrase

is not much commoner.

is, of

course, frequent.

According to

it may be

inferred from the use of Israel and Judah in passages
like

2

S.

3

IO

11

1

1

and

I

K.

that there was

a

sense of

the inner opposition between north and south before the
separation of the kingdoms.

The above article

on

a subject of great difficulty sums

up

some of the chief results of special

articles.

The reader will, of

did not at that time exist.

On

IO,

which seems to interrupt the connection, see

des

Test.

in

the list

of

Jos.

(B3

En-gaddi

is the

corresponding

name.

Schick

83

ventures

to

suppose

a

confusion between En-gedi and

2622

2621

JUDAH,

KINGDOM

O F

JUDAS

There are

also,

however, places which are omitted in

MT, but have an undeniable claim

to

be included in the list

;

and

after Josh.

15 59,

actually gives eleven names which (see

Di.) must have belonged to the original list. All the cities

mentioned here by

lay no doubt, immediately south

of

Jerusalem; among them

the well-known places Tekoa,

Bethlehem,

(see B

ETH

-

HACCEREM

) and Bittir (see

JUDAR, KINGDOM

OF.

JUDAR,

PROVINCE

OF

Ezra

5 8

RV,

AV

. .

,

See

JUDAH UPON

AT] JORDAN

t h e eastern limit of the territory of Naphtali (Josh.

19

34

o

o

that

a

district in the N. by the Jordan belonged t o

Judah.

Evidently the text is corrupt. Read

and

(reaches) to the Jordan (Gra.

).

This was written twice,

a n d one of the 'Jordans' was wrongly emended into

Jndah.'

For

a

similar case in the Gk.

of

Jn. 325 see

J

O H N

THE

B

APTIST

,

6.

Ewald

(Hist.

would read

'(reaches) to

Chinneroth of Jordan and interpret

this

phrase on the analogy

of the phrase all

in

I

K.

15

as meaning the W.

shore of the Sea of Galilee (see

Another sug-

gestion is to emend

into

'(to) the side

(of)';

cp

Neub.

224.

is satisfactory.

T.

K.

C.

JUDAS

the

Gk.

form

of the Heb.

See I

SRAEL

,

28-45.

TUDAH

I

. I

9

see

4.

2

4),

see M

ACCABEES

i.,

4

; called

[A in

I

Macc.

4

The third son of

called

( I

Macc.

of Chalphi, called

in

I

Macc. 1381,

a

Jewish

general under Jonathan

(

I

Macc.

1170).

4.

Son of Simon

( I

Macc.

16

One evidently holding

a

high position in Jerusalem, who

took

in sending a letter

to

Macc.

1

I

O

).

Though identified with the Essene (cp

Jos.

i.

3 5 )

he

is

more probably the same as no.

6.

Lk.

Mt.

1

Judah] ;

see

I

.

7.

Judas

of James

[Ti.

WH],

one

of

the twelve apostles according to Lk.

6

and Acts

though not according to the lists in Mt. and

where

his place is taken by Thaddaeus.

H e is, without doubt,

the Judas not Iscariot

of

the Fourth Gospel (Jn.

who asked Jesus the question : Lord, what is come to

pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto

us,

and not

unto the world?'

T h e expression ' J u d a s of James' is

most naturally and usually understood as meaning son

of

James'

but it can be interpreted as meaning

'

brother

of

James,' and this is the sense in which it has been

taken by the author of the epistle of J

U D E

Ecclesiastical tradition very early began its attempts to

harmonise the

four

lists of the twelve apostles, and one of the

results (since Origen)

was

the identification of Judas of James'

with Thaddaus; in late Syriac legend he appears

as

Judas

Thaddaeus and is the apostle of Syria and

ulti-

mately suffering martyrdom by stoning

at

Berytus

or

Aradus.

The similar Armenian legend claims him also for Armenia. In

the Roman Breviary (Oct.

qui et Judas

appellatur in

ex Catholicis

is said to have evangelized Mesopotamia and afterwards to have

accompanied Simon the Cananaan into Persia where they

crowned

a

successful ministry by suffering

a

glorious martyrdom

together.

It is worthy of particular notice, however, that the

oldest Syrian (Edessene) legend, which goes back to the

second

(?)

century, identifies Judas Jacobi with Thomas (see

Eus.

113

Jesus was

Judas

sent

to him

Thaddaus the apostle, one of the Seventy').

See M

ACCABEES

8.

Judas, Mk.

63,

see

9.

Judas

o

26

2231,

[Mk.

hk.

6

71

13

not

as TR],

cp

In Jn.

gives

so

in Jn. 124

but in

In

Mk.

D

gives

in Lk. 223

in

Jn.

6

7

Thrice in the Fourth

6 7 1

Tudas is

called the son

which

well be

a genuine tradition.

Also

I

Macc.

8

[A],

and

I

Macc. 4

13

the

2623

latter

a

corruption in the Gk.

As

for

the name

(twice applied to the father

of

Judas, Jn.

6

71

13

there is

a

well-supported reading in Jn.

which, according to Zahn and

confirm;

the view that

and

proceed from the Hebrew

designation

'a

man of Kerioth'; cp

Jos.

Ant.

vii.

1068

We should,

however have expected

suggests that

phrase

D

is derived from

Not understanding

the scribe thought of

'a

palm tree

which bears dates

a

Apart from this, it

is

a

plausible view that

is derived from Ish-kerioth, ' a

man of Kerioth. Such formations of names continued

to

he

used, as Dalman shows,

spite of the predominance

of

Aramaic.

Most scholars consider Judas to have been a native of the
Kerioth mentioned

Josh.

25

;

hut

in this

passage means 'group of places' (see

4)

and the spot or

district intended did not

to

and Well-

therefore prefer the

Korea

(Kerioth) of Jos.

xiv. 3

4,

etc. which was a beautifully situated place

N .

of Karn

Sartabeh (she Z

ARETHAN

). Since however the evangelists

find the name

so

much

is it to suspect that it may have been incorrectly kransmitted

(cp Boanerges Kananaios

Bar-jona) ! If

so,

we may not

un-

reasonably

that the true name is

' a

man

of Jericho.' I t would readily be remembered that one of the

disciples came from Jericho. Cp J

ERICHO

,

7.

We

know, however, that he was one of those whom the

Of the early history of Judas nothing is told

us.

Preacher of the Kingdom

of Heaven drew

to himself by the power of his will to be

'

And he

his companions and assistants.

goes u p into the

and

to

him whom he himself would, and they

unto him

'

(Mk.

3

13)

the

assures

us

that every

one

of the persons named was specially chosen by Jesus.

Twelve are named

three lists of the twelve are given,

and in each of the three Judas stands last (Mt.

Mk.

Lk.

see

A

PO

STLE

,

I

). Mt. and Mk. add,

'who also betrayed h i m ' ; Lk. adds, 'who became

traitor'

I n

the lists of Mt. and

of Mk. the eleventh, and in that of Lk. the tenth, is

called

6

or

Farrar has

offered the conjecture that this Simon was the father of
Judas Iscariot, and it is certain that in Jn. (see

I

)

Judas Iscariot is called the son of Simon.

I t is not

likely, however, that both father and son would belong
to the Twelve, and Simon was

a

very

name,

whilst

is very possibly a corruption of

(

a man of Cana'), which would make this Simon a

that we can say is that Simon and

Judas were probably companions whenever the Twelve
were sent out by two and two (Mk.

6

7).

There is no list

of the Twelve in the Fourth Gospel.

In

however, we receive early notice that Judas

-

-

Notice in

Iscariot was one of the Twelve, and
that it was he who was destined to

deliver

up Jesus (Jn.

6

71).

The notice

is suggested by

a

saying ascribed to Jesus

(v.

70);

'Have

chosen yon twelve, and one of

you

is

a

devil

It adds hut little, however, to the historical weight

of the Synoptic tradition, and the saying in

v.

70

appears

to

he

inconsistent with the equal confidence in

all

the disciples shown

Jesus according to the Synoptic tradition-a confidence

which is maintained unbroken till the last paschal meal.

T h e Fourth Evangelist further tells

us

(Jn. 124-6) that

t h e destined traitor murmured at Mary's costly gift

of

love a t Bethany, when she took a pound of

S

PIKENARD

and anointed

the

feet of Jesus he also mentions

a s the secret cause of this murmuring of Judas that he

was a thief, and having the box took away what was

put therein.'

So

at least the traditional text must be interpreted

but the phraseology is very awkward, and it

strange that

this habit of pilfering should be mentioned unless it were

to

Zahn,

2

561

Nestle,

Sacra,

14.

the

controversy between Nestle and Chase,

T

(9 140

189

240

'97

Jan. Feh Mar.

'98.

Dalman,'

3

.

Keim,

von

2

So

BDQL, etc.;

a purely literary

correction,

Jn.

The

and

Bakhuizen,

is not satisfactory.

2624

JUDAS

JUDAS

account for the

smallness of

the sum which (Mt.

at

least

says)

Judas

to

betray his

master.

It wouldseemthat here there

a

clear

case of

corruption, and that

a

very

early

editor

of

the

text

may

have miscorrected

the

corrupt passage before him.

Very

possibly

we

should read

he

was a

harsh

man

and used

t o

carry the common purse’

as

Prov.

The

statement about Judas is therefore worthy of

credit than

it

has sometimes received

from

advanced critics. It

may

be

nearer

to

the oldest tradition than the

vaguer

statement of

Mt.

Mk.

144.2

Weiss

2

443)

cannot account for the imputation of

thievish

intentions to Judas

in Jn.

except

on

the theory that the

apostle

John had found out thefts committed hy the greedy

Judas, and Godet speaks of

some one

who has accused John of

a

personal hatred to Judas. The difficulties disappear if

the

reading proposed above is accepted.

According to Mt. 26

Mk.

after the

anointing in Bethany ‘ o n e of the twelve called Judas

Iscariot’ (Mt.

nearly

so

Mk.) went to the

chief priests and offered to betray Jesus to
them.

On receiving their promise of

‘money’

Mk.)

or

‘thirty pieces of silver

[shekels]’

Mt.

Judas sought for.

a n opportunity to betray him.

Lk.

altogether

disconnects the transactjon from the scene of the

anointing.

After noticing that every night Jesus camped

on the Mount of Olives

which

prepares the way for the notable statement in

mentions that the

was drawing near, and

that the chief priests and scribes were seeking for

a way

t o effect the destruction of Jesus.

Then Satan entered

into Judas, called Iscariot, of the number of the twelve’
t h e rest of the notice agrees with that of Mt. and Mk.

Evidently the assumption that Satan had entered into

Judas is

a humane one : treason against the Holy

One was too

a

crime for

a

disciple in his right

mind t o have committed.

I t should also be noticed

t h a t all the Synoptists (Mt.

Lk.

944)

mention that after Peter’s confession

of Jesus’

ship, Jesus spoke of his being ‘delivered

up

into the

hands of men.’ Mt. says that the disciples were ‘very

sorry’

Mk. and Lk. that they ‘understood not the

saying.’

never have guessed (nor did the

apostles guess) that one of them was capable of com-
mitting treason.

Quite

a different account

is

given in Jn.

Nothing is said of the visit

of

Judas to the chief priests

a n d

of

the promised payment of his

treason, nor of his deliberate search for
an opportunity t o betray Jesus.

I t was

a t the Last Supper that the hateful idea occurred t o
Judas, and it was inspired by the devil (13227). Jesus

openly declared

that one of his chosen

would ‘lift up his heel’ against him, to fulfil the old
scripture

(Ps.

Yet he gave one more special

proof of love to the traitor, and it was after this that
S a t a n took full possession of his captive.

Therefore

Jesus says t o him, That thou

do quickly’ ; Judas

went out, ‘ a n d it was night.‘ I t

is a modification of

the Synoptic tradition that we have here, though Lk.

h a s already suggested it by

reference to Satan.

I t

w a s not to any common temptation that

at last Judas

fell

he was taken by storm.

How, according

to

the original suggestion of treason (Jn. 1 3 was

made plausible, there

is

no direct evidence to show.

From

however, we infer that, according to

the evangelist, Judas was one of those who entertained

unspiritual views of Messiahship.

When the last hope

Both

and

are

upon a

and

have come out of

and

out of

was suggested

13

29.

Mt. assigns the niggardlyquestion ‘To what purpose etc.,

the disciples; Mk. to ‘some’ (of

Mt. is

right.

I n

no

mention is made of

a

murmuring

against the lavishness of the gift of love. Certainly it would

have spoiled

narrative

to have referred to this detail. Zahn

2517) thinks the view that there were

two

not

Impossible. It is at any rate more in accordance with our

experience

to

sup

that two divergent forms of the

same tradition were in

is one of

words.

2625

that Jesus would make himself king of Israel by force
had vanished, the evangelist possibly considered that
the love which Judas must formerly have had for Jesus
diminished, and that finally under Satanic influence it
turned into its opposite-hate. Godet regards the
nine picture

as

truly historical than that given by the

Synoptists, on the ground that in the former the relations
between Jesus and Judas ‘form an organic part of the
description of the repast, and are presented under the
form

of a series of historical shades and gradations.” A

very different view is taken by Keim, and

a

critical student

cannot fail to admit the force of Keim’s arguments.

What, then,

is the Synoptic description of the repast?

I t is the Paschal

that

and the Twelve

are eating.

Jesus has seen through

Judas before this solemn evening, but
has made no chancre in his

towards him.

Now, however, he announces the fact,

One of

you

will-betray me, even he that eats with me.’

I s it

I ?

asks each man sorrowfully.

It

is

one of the

twelve, he that dips with me in the dish

.

.

.

Good

were it for that man if he had not been born’ (Mk.

cp Mt.

T h e accounts

d o not entirely agree.

It is only Mt. who expressly

states that Judas the traitor also put the question, I s
it

I

?’-and the way in which the statement

is

introdnced

suggests that it is a n addition

to

the earlier story

(Mt. 2625).

as

we have seen, diverges most

widely from the simple form of the Synoptic narrative.

T h e account of the betrayal itself also is very variously

given.

All the Gospels agree that it was by an armed

band that Jesus was arrested, and that
Judas was its guide.

the scene of the

arrest, however, a n d the circumstances

are

different in the Synoptic Gospels a n d in Jn. respectively,
a n d it is for our present purpose especially noteworthy
that nothing is said in

Jn. of the kiss with which

according to the Synoptists Judas ventured t o greet
Jesus.

Mk. and Lk. give the simplest narrative

Mt.

(26

makes Jesus answer the traitor with

ad quod

(Vg.), a n untranslat-

able phrase, while Lk. gives, ‘Judas, betrayest thou
the

Son of Man with

a

kiss,’

what is prob-

ably the true reading in Mt.,

‘Thou feignest,’

a

part,’ ‘Thou art no friend of

T o Jn. the outward details of the act of Satanic
treachery

are

indifferent.

T h e end of the traitor

is

told in Mt.

27

3-10

18-20.

T h e discrepancies between the two accounts are remark-

*.

able, and the silence of Mk. and

Jn.

is also

noteworthy.

Mt. states that Judas,

on

finding that Jesus was condemned, was

struck with remorse, and brought back the thirty shekels
t o the chief priests, confessing that he had ‘betrayed
innocent blood.’ Then he hurled the ‘pieces of silver
into the sanctuary

and departed

to this

is added

a

further statement, complete in itself, ‘ a n d

he went away and hanged himself’
we are not

T h e chief priests, however, with

characteristic scrupulosity, would pot put the money
into the sacred treasury

but bought with it

the potter’s field to bury strangers in.

This field

on

(‘87)

3

criticism

that

form

of

the speech

of

Jesus is rhetorical does not go

to

the heart of the

matter.

The

form

he

but the idea

is

appropriate

t o

the

occasion.

Friend, (do) that for which thou

art

come,’

rendering of

is

most

unnatural

;

Judas

Lad

done his

work

the

of the

chief

had

to

do

the rest.

Yet

most

moderns

RV,

if

anything had preceded

which

made such

natural

Judas said,

“What shall I do?”’), it would be right to follow RV.

rendering, ‘Friend, wherefore art

come,’ is much

natural, but it is ungrammatical. There must be

an

error

the text.

(an unsuitable word, whether

we

render

‘Comrade’

or

‘Good Friend’) should come after

o

(so D a c

f

L c

i

It is

a

corruption of

a

dittographed

o

D

in

fact gives

EQ o

can

hardly have

come out of any other word than

2626

JUDAS

JUDAS

received the name, Field of blood,’ and

so

a prophecy

of Jeremiah

(or

rather Zechariah) was

Here

we have Iscariot represented a s a second Ahithophel,
who,

so

far a s intention went, betrayed David to his

enemy, and hanged himself

( 2

S.

23).

T h e account in Acts can be

advantage

to the sense, from the speech of Peter

in which it occurs,

and may perhaps be a later insertion.

It is, however, at

any rate of early date.

I t states that,

so

far from

restoring the money, Judas ‘acquired

a

field

see

F

IELD

,

9 ) with his unrighteous reward and falling

headlong (on the field) he burst asunder in the midst,
and all his bowels gushed out.’ Hence that field was
called Akeldama,

or

‘ T h e field of blood’ (see

A

CELDAMA

).

So,

it

is

added, the prophecies in Ps.

6925

and

1 0 9 8

were fulfilled.

Clearly here is a mere

popular explanation of ‘Akeldama,’ and not less
evidently here is the expression of the popular sense

of

justice a s regards the end of

traitor.

A

more elaborate and tasteless story is given by

(Fragm.

it seems to he an independent version of the

popular legend reminding

us

partly of Acts

1

18,

partly of the

legend of the edd of Antiochus Epiphanes in

9

Returning to the two biblical accounts, we note that

De Quincey

( Works,

6

21-25)

endeavours to remove the

discrepancies,

by purely arbitrary means.

This

is

quite needless.

Both the modes of death assigned t o

Judas were conventionally assigned to traitors and
enemies

of

God, and more especially that given in Acts

t o which there is a striking parallel in the story of the
death of the traitor Nadan-in the tale. of Ahikar.

Mr.

Harris

that

in Acts

may have been, not

but

‘having swollen out

the existing reading he accounts

for by a tradition which identified Judas with a poisonous
serpent, and he illustrates by upon thy belly shalt thou

go in Gen.

3

14.

See Did Judas commit suicide
July

rgoo.

T h e psychological attempts to explain the character

of

Judas

so

a s to comprehend the crime ascribed t o him

are numerous.

His despair has been

regarded a s a proof of original nobility

of character (Hase)

he has even been regarded a s

having sought‘the attainment

of

a

good

by evil

means

Neander too was touched by

the

same

anxiety for the misguided apostle.

‘If Jesus is the Messiah

so

he considers Judas to have

reasoned, ‘it will not

him to deliver him up to his

enemies, for legions of angels will come to his rescue, while if

he is not the Messiah, he deserves destruction.’

Thus the betrayal was merely a test. intended to

clear up all doubt.

thinks that in the heart

of the zealot who hoped to draw Jesus to battle and t o
victory, the greeting,

so

fearful

to us,

Hail, Master,”

must have meant,

I

greet thee,

0

king of Israel : now

show thy power”’

(Jesus

121).

De

considers that the object of Judas

‘audacious in a high degree, hut for that very reason not

treacherous at

all.

His hope was that, when at length actually

arrested

the Jewish authorities Christ would

no

longer

vacillate; he would be forced into) giving the signal

to

the

populace of Jerusalem who would then rise

for

the double purpose

Christ at the head of an

rectionary movement, and of throwing off the Roman yoke.’

All these theories are entirely contrary t o the evangelic

narratives.

If we accept the tradition that Judas

betrayed his Master, we cannot separate it from the
statement that he did it either out of Satanic wickedness

or

for money.

Are critical students, then, really bound to accept the

tradition as historical?

The passage, Mt.

which shows evidence of Christian

modification, has probably come from

a

collection of Messianic

passages of the OT prophets in use among the Christians.

(This also accounts for

Mt.

cp

N

A

ZA

-

RETH

.)

On

Zech.

11

see GASm. Twelve

2

arris (below).

i v

2627

‘The fact of the treason of Judas

is

so

unexpected,

so

incredible,

so

terrible

;

it jeopardises

so

painfully our faith

only in human fidelity hut also in the dignity

10.

The

and greatness of Jesus, in his knowledge,

his judgment, his keenness of vision,

above

all,

the weight of his influence and of

that love of his which could melt even ice, and

it

is such

a

mark

for the scoffing of enemies, beginning with the venomous

that we should have

to

greet it

as

the removal of

a

hundred

pound weight from the heart of Christendom, if the treason

of

Judas could be proved

to

have had no

T h e growth of the story of Judas can also be ade-

quately explained.

Supposing that the original tradi-

tion left the ease with which the capture

of

Jesus was

effected unaccounted for, Christian ingenuity would
exert itself to find an explanation.

Passages in the

Psalms which spoke of the Righteous Man a s treated

with brutal insolence

his own familiar friend (Ps. 4 1

9

5 5

12-14) would suggest the originator of the

the betrayer of Jesus must have been

a

faithless friend.

And

if

a n apostle, who could he have been

Judas.

Iscariot?

For

Iscariot was not

a

Galilean like t h e

other apostles; he had

a

harsh, crabbed temper

and he carried the purse

of

the little company.

T h e last circumstance suggested a reminiscence

of

Zech.

11

mysterious passage which seemed

become intelligible for the first time if applied to Jesus.
This view is not altogether new

in its earlier forms it

has found little

but it may nevertheless in

essentials be true.

The objections to it are

that the story

of

Judas’s treason

has fixed itself firmly

in

our oldest documents, and

that

we have

an

the appointment of Matthias

the, vacant

It cannot however, he proved that

treason fornied part of the

tradition;

it is separ-

able from the surest traditions of the life of Jesus, and

appointment of Matthias ma perfectly well have taken place,
even if Judas did not betray

The probability is that

one knew how the emissaries of the Pharisees found Jesus

so

easily, and that the story of Judas’s treason was

a

very early

attempt to imagine an explanation. Probably Judas did dis-

appear from view.

W e

know that all the disciples ‘forsook

and fled’ (Mt.

2656

Mk.

Judas probably returned

to his home, and never again joined the Galilean disciples, with

whom he may have felt little sym athy. This view has the
advantage over that still prevalent,

it does not force

us

to think that Jesus treated Judas worse than Peter, for whom

he prayed when Satan ‘had obtained him

asking, in order to

sift him

as

wheat (Lk.

22

or that the prayer

(Lk. 17 was unanswered in the case of Judas. That

popular mythology gladly releases the traitor Judas from hell

once in the year

Matthew Arnold,

should

perhaps stir the critical conscience to examine more fully

the grounds of the received opinion.

A

wild Gnostic fancy may be mentioned, as a singular

specimen of early

about

Judas.

Epiphan.

38 3.

say

that Judas delivered

Jesus because he regarded him as

a

wicked man

who meant to destroy the good law. Others say that he gave

Jesus, up just because he was

a

good man.

The rulers knew

that if Jesus were crucified, their ineffectual power would be.

brought to nought.

made

a

mighty effort to

deliver him up for the salvation of mankind, and deserves praise

as

an

‘agent in the events which have led to our salvation and

enlightenment

T.

K.

C.

I

O

.

Judas

of Galilee

o

[Ti.

WH]),

in association with a Pharisee named Sadduk,

was leader of a n agitation which arose in

(on the

death of Archelaus), when that part

of

Palestine in 6 or

7

A.

was brought under Roman administration, and

Orig.

2

in the character of

a

Jew,

scoffed at Jesus for being betrayed by one

of

those whom he

called disciples-a proof that he was

less

able

to

attach his

followers to himself than every general or brigand-chief.

Keim,

3

242.

3

Proposed by Bruno Bauer

d e r

Geschichte

u n d

des

3

and again by

Volkmar (Die

Religion

it has been rejected

by Keim

(Die

2628

JUDAS

JUDE (EPISTLE)

Sulpicius Quirinius, the governor of Syria, instituted

a

census of the newly annexed district.

In Gamaliel's

speech in Acts

it is rightly

that he rose u p

in the days of the enrolment

'-the only

enrolment known to

had already been

mentioned in the Third Gospel

see Q

UIXINIUS

).

Josephus speaks of Judas at some length in

8

I

,

xviii.

I

6

and also makes

reference to him in

vii.

xx.

The epithet

which he bestows on him, expresses clearly that

be was of

origin, and had received from this

stance the standing addition to his proper name (which was a

very common onej

;

it would be given all the more readily if his

first

appearance was

in

outside of his native land.

Josephus

( A n t .

xviii.

1

I

)

calls him, more precisely,

a

man of

Gaulanitis

and says that he came from

Gamala. Gamala was in Gaulanitis not far from the eastern

shore

of

the Lake of Gennesareth, and Gaulanitis could be

reckoned

as

belonging to Galilee in

broader meaning of that

word.

What Judas actually did

not quite clear from the

account of Josephus.

According t o

1 7 8

he merely

reproached the Jews with their subjection to the Romans
according to

8

I

he instigated them to revolt

by his reproaches according to

8

I

he persuaded not

a

few

(

t o make

no returns

; according t o

Ant.

xx.

he actually caused the people to revolt

against the Romans

.

.

T h e expression last quoted goes too

far if we take

as

our basis the chief passage in Josephus

(Ant.

xviii.

1

I

) .

I n that passage he introduces his refer-

ence to Judas only after explaining how the Jews, yield-
ing to the persuasions of Joazar the high priest, had
submitted to the census.

Judas indeed, he says, was

urgent for revolt

and the

movement went far but he does not expressly
any noteworthy occurrence, passing

on

merely

to a long

and vague list of evils extending in the course of time
t o the final destruction of Jerusalem, that had been
brought upon the nation by the followers of Judas:
wars, robberies, seditions, murders of principal men,
famines, and the like.

I n particular he designates Judas and Sadduk

as

the originators among the Jews of a fourth philosophy

a s he does also in the other

leading passage

where he calls Judas

a

sophist of a sect of his own

cp ii.

17

8

a

most cunning sophist,

'

;

in both places he takes occasion t o characterise the
three previously existing

philosophies of the

those,

the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and

the Essenes-but it is only in

xviii. 1 6 that he goes

into the 'philosophy'

of

Judas and his companions.

There he says that in every other respect the followers
of Judas agree with the Pharisees, but they are dis-
tinguished by an unquenchable love of liberty- holding
God alone to be ruler and lord-and

indifference t o

death.

T h e party of the Z

EALOTS

Aram.

see

is intended, from which party arose a t

a later date the

or A

SSASSINS

, who not only

did not shrink from violence and rebellion against their
enemies, but also did not scruple to exercise a reign

of

terror over their

by secret assassination.

It

is

certainly no mere coincidence that one of their

most

determined leaders-he who held the fortress of Masada

after Jerusalem had fallen, and with all his companions

com-

mitted suicide when no longer able to keep the enemy at bay

(73

; see I

S

R

A

EL

,

son of Jairus was

a

descendant of Judas of Galilee and a

of his son

a

ringleader a t the beginning of the revolt in

66

A. D.

who

in turn fell

a

victim to the fanaticism of the

Zealots in the same year

8

I

;

cp I

SRAEL

,

It

will be observed that in Josephus no word

is

found of

what is stated in Acts

5

that Judas perished and all, as

many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad.

On the

other hand, Josephus tells

us

(Ant.

xx.

that the

sons

of Judas

two of them), Jacob and Simon, were

to death by the procurator Alexander

of

(there-

fore about

46-48).

In Lk. there is another noticeable

2629

circumstance, the fact, namely, that Judas, notwith-
standing the express mention of the census of

A.

D

.,

is nevertheless represented as coming upon the scene

Theudas, whose insurrection was under the

procuratorship of

about 44-46).

At the same time it has to be remarked that, as t h e
mention

of the census shows, Lk. was not in error

about the period of Judas

so

much as about that of

Theudas

whether this error justifies the conjecture

that Lk. was acquainted with Josephus will be con-
sidered therefore

the latter name (see

T

HEUDAS

).

T h e other conjecture, that Lk. confused Judas,

so

far as his end was concerned, with his two

sons,

is

certainly forcibly suggested by the fact that his fate

is

mentioned after that of Theudas.

Krenkel

'94,

has pointed out an analogous

case

in

I

S.

17

Goliath is represented as having been

slain by David, but in the older account

(2

S.

21

15-22)

this feat is given to Elhanan, while it is another giant
that is encountered by David (cp

E

LHANAN

,

G

OLIATH

).

H e instances similar slips of memory in Livy (xxi.

),

in Cicero

Major, 2.3,

and in Josephus him-

self; Josephus

among the four men who were

sent to Jerusalem t o stir u p the people against himself,
names Judas the

son

of Jonathes, whereas

39

he names Jonathes himself, thus (after

an

interval of

25 years, it is true) making a mistake a s t o the name

of

a

person with whom he had been personally in

strenuous conflict.

Krenkel himself adds, however,

that

even without confounding Judas with his sons, it was
not unnatural that Lk. should assign to him the fate
which, practically speaking, befell all the leaders

of

insurrection in those days.

In any case

Lk.

found no

warrant in Josephus for

that all the

followers of Judas were hcattered abroad.

Schiirer,

(ET,

Div.

vol.

p.

identifies Judas of Galilee with the Judas,

son

of Ezekias,

after the death of Herod the Great in 4

B

.

C.

gathered a follow-

ing in the neighhonrhood of Sepphoris and rendered all Galilee

insecure, aiming, indeed, it would seem, even a t the

itself

4

I

,

Ant.

Krenkel however

(p.

rightly doubts this identification, inasmuc

as

osephus does

not give

to

this Judas the epithet of

designates

him simply as son of Ezekias and moreover expressly records

the execution of this robber-chief Ezekias by Herod the Great.

Judas called Barsabbas (Acts

1522).

See

Of

Damascus, with whom Saul stayed in the 'Street

which is called Straight' (see D

AMASCUS

,

Acts

9

P.

w.

s.

JUDE,

THE GENERAL EPISTLE

OF.

T h e author

designates himself a s Judas

a

servant of

and brother of James,' and evidently
wished to pass for a brother of Jesus (see
JUDAS, 7 ; J

AMES

). Ithasbeenconjectured

that he was restrained from

so

calling himself bntright

by a n exalted idea of Jesus, which did not admit of his
having

a

human brother.

H e addresses his writing to

those that are called, beloved in God the Father, and

kept for Jesus Christ,' thus evidently intending it for a n
sxtended circle of readers rather than for

a

single church.

The object of the epistle is declared to be a n exhorta-
tion to the readers to contend earnestly for the faith'

account

of

certain ungodly men whose lives are

and whose teaching is a denial

of ' t h e

Ruler and our Lord, Jesus Christ.'

Examples of

the destruction by divine judgment

of

those whose

belief and life were false are adduced from the O T and

apocalyptic, and directions are given as to the

proper deportment of believers toward such persons.
The epistle closes with a doxology.

The point

of the writer is indicated

in

as

that of

who looked back upon the apostolic age Remember ye the

words which have been spoken before by the apostles of

our

Lord Jesus Christ

'),

and the prophecies referred

to

in

18

have

io

close

a

resemblance to the post-apostolic

I

Tim.

4 1

and

Tim.

3

4

3

as to favour the hypothesis of

a

dependence

ipon these epistles.

Accords with the Pauline writings are a t

east probable in v.

I

Cor.

11

(cp Rom.

8

and

(cp

I

Cor. 2

and v.

(cp

I

Cor.

3

T h e occasion of the epistle was evidently the author's

2630

JUDE (EPISTLE)

JUDGE

lively concern about certain ungodly men

4)

who

stolcn in

and

who were turning the

of our God

into lasciviousness, and denying-the only Ruler and our
Lord, Jesus Christ.

H e regards their influence both in

doctrine and in practice a s a menace to the well-being
of the church, and he not only sounds a note of warning
against them, but also points

out

the punishment re-

served

for such as they.

Not only did they deny Christ and God

as

the only Ruler

and thus act the part of ‘liars’ according to

I

Jn.

(cp Enoch

but they

a t nought dominion

and railed at’dignities

They are

licentious revellers, stains

v.

in the Christian

feasts, and mockers at sacred things.

Although the

divine judgment relate to

wrong conduct, these dangerous persons are not simply
men of loose morals

life

is

a peril to the

according to Schwegler’s opinion

)

and Ritschl’s ingenious argument marred by

a

strained grammatical interpretation

‘61,

163

also false teachers, a s

is

evident

from their denying,’ from the reference to the divine
judgment

on those

who

‘believed not,’ and from the

exhortation t o contend earnestly for the faith

The data for

a

precise determination

of

their doctrines

amidst the many so-called heresies of the early church
a r e wanting, and expositors differ widely upon the
matter.

Renan stands alone in the opinion that the

epistle

was

directed against Paul.

Other scholars are

divided a s to whether it assails Jewish false teachers,
hyper-Paulinians, Nicolaitans, Gnostics of the second
century in general,

the Carpocratian Gnosticism of

Alexandria in particular.

The character and practices of the persons in question resemble

very closely those of the Gnostics

as

described by

IT

).

We know that these denied that God was the

only Ruler ’-that

is,

the creator and governor of the

and held very lax views as to the divinity of Christ (Iren.

H

E Y

.

1

Out of the dualism of their system naturally sprang an

indifference to all relations to the flesh and hence such moral

looseness

as

is described in the Epistle appeared in some

quarters.

So

close is the resemblance of the persons here

censured to the

who flourished

Alexandria toward the middle of the second century,

that Clement believed Jude to have written prophetically
of them

I t is,

improb-

able that the writer had them in mind

as

his contem-

poraries.

His

denunciations are quite applicable to

a

sect who had established upon lust

a

cult of righteous-

ness.’ With the late date of the epistle which must b e
assumed from this point of view corresponds the author’s

apprehension of Christian faith a s

a

system

of

doctrine

or a fixed confession

3).

The writer

uses

apocryphal apocalyptic works such as the

in which Origen

( D e

3

found the

legend concerning Michael (see A

POCALYPTIC

?

Allusions.

and the book of Enoch

and

from

which he doubtless derived the story of the

fallen angels substantially in the form in which he gives it.

With reference to

14

see also Enoch

60

(cp APOCALYPTIC,

No

certain conclusion

as

to the date of the Epistle can,

however, be drawn from the citation of these writings.

It has been argued that the author was an Alexandrian

Jewish Christian from the fact that h e attaches t o the
apocryphal books referred to, a n equal authority with
the OT- that is, regards them

as

belonging to the later

additions t o the canon.

T h e epistle was probably used by the writer of

2

Peter, though opinions a r e divided

as

t o priority.

I t

I

-

is

not surprising that, on account

of

its

brevity and the fact that it is not of

doctrinal importance, to say nothing of its making

no

claim t o apostolical authorship, it did not receive early
recognition.

Jude

is

referred to hy Clement of Alexandria

3

as

a ’catholic Epistle’ written

Jude ‘frater filiorum Joseph

10

23

mkntions it as the work of

Judas the brother of James’ but except in the parts of his

works which survive only

Latin translation he does not

2631

designate the author

as

an ‘apostle.’ Tertullian,

on

the other

hand, calls the writer ‘Jude the apostle

(De

cult.

13).

The

fragment makes mention of it in a somewhat

doubtful test as the work

without designating

either an apostle

or

the brother of James. Eusebius

3

places it among the

and says that

‘

not many

of

the ancients have made mention of it.’ Jerome

vir.

4)

calls the author

of

the epistle ‘the brother of James, and

attributes its rejection by many to its citation of Enoch.

Epiphanius

(H

EY

. 76)

speaks of its author as

but according to the Canon of Athanasius all the seven

catholic epistles were written

‘apostles.’ The wavering and

uncertain character of all this ‘testimony’ is evident. The

epistle is not included in the Peshitta although Ephrem

acknowledged it as apostolic. It is

not‘

by Justin

Theophilus and

[The text of the Epistle of Jude,

that of Pdter, has more than probably suffered in

the variant readings sufficiently warn us. See Hort’s remarks

in

on

Select

N T

2

There are no doubt,

more discoveries to he made by a practised critic.

Hort

for example,

not said

all

that might be said on the

of

v.

5.

Probably we should read, not

but

position of

in accordance with

and several

Church Fathers

Versions.

corruption

to WH)

with

minusc. Copt. Vg.

Lachm

2

88)

On the

to Jewish

writers cp

E

SCHATOLOGY

, especially

go

and for

a

list of co-

incidences cp Chase, art. ‘Jude, Epistle

’of,’

in Hastings’

D E

Resides the well-known English and German Introductions

the

works and articles mav be consulted

:

Amaud.

ne

Jude

5.

Literature.

Keil,

(‘53);

Schott,

Der

B

Y

.

Pet.

B

Y

.

(‘85) ;

; v.

in

H C 3

Schenkel in

Lex.

3 433

Pfleiderer,

(‘87).

0.

c.

JUDEA

in

J u d i t h 3

a

false

reading for

[A]).

See

is defined as situated over against the great strait (RV

‘ridge’) of Judea (ib.

similarly Syr.): the Gr. translator read

‘a

saw,’ instead

of

‘plain’ (Reland). This same plain is referred to in

4

6

(om.

JUDGE.

T h e words for ‘judge’

will

reward in-

vestigation.

I

.

Lat.

Ass.

See below (J

UDGES

,

R

OO

K OF,

I

)

also L

AW

AND

J

USTICE,

G

OVERNMENT

5

17

and

cp C

OVENANT

,

4.

23

‘judges andjustices’).

Ex.

21

Dt.

11

(all these passages

are insecure see

4.

Ex.

216

where

‘the judges’ (mg. of

2228);

I

S.

where

‘the judge

in all these cases RV

Other passages have been

similarly interpreted’

Judg.

(EV ‘new gods’).

Ps.

82

I

The explanhion old (cp

Ex.

21

6,

so

Pesh.).

Dillmann

ad

thinks that judges

were called

because they gave sentence at holy places;

but Samaritan Tg. and Pent., Jerome, and probably Vet. Lat.

(Ex.

228

followed by Graf and Kuenen think that

one

of the sanctuaries of

is meant, where ’the priests

divinely sanctioned judgments. Eerdmans

’94, 283)

and

think that the household god is referred to

as

; and this view is

the most probable.

On

Ps.

82

I

see A

NGELS

,

4.

5.

Prov.

6

7

(AV ‘Guide,’ RV Chief

’).

In spite of Toy’s defence

objections to the passage

appear to be valid. I t is &metrical, and does not fit in well

with what follows. I t is probably an editor’s attempt to make

sense of a variant form of

6

which had became indistinct.

The absence of any reference to Prov.

6

7

in A

NT

is fully

justified.

6.

The

of

Dan.

(EV ‘judges’)

rendered in

‘chiefsoothsayer’; but

‘probablythe Pers.

counsellor,”

a

title which was still in use under the

(Nold.

462

and the resemblance with

is

therefore accidental’

ad

Arum.

Other words

‘judge’ are

[Glossary]).

Perfectly synonymous (see

I

7. 8.

In

N T

(Mt.

5

(Lk. 12

14,

see

T.

c.

Cp D

EPOSIT

,

2632

JUDGES

(BOOK)

JUDGES (BOOK)

JUDGES (BOOK)

Title and place in Canon

I

)

.

Contents

Sources

3).

Analysis

Minor Judges

Redaction

Chronology

Ultimate sources

16).

Historical value

Text

Literature

T h e title

is a translation

of the Hebrew name c

the book,

H

which

is

given to

because it contains the history of certaii
Israelite leaders and champions who

the book itself

2

16-18)

and else

where in the O T

S.

7

K. 23

46

etc.

)

are called Judges

Those who gave the book this title probably thought of th

Judges

as

divinely appointed rulers, forming a continuou

succession, and wielding over all Israel an authority

differed from that of the kings who followed them chiefly

that it was not hereditary (see Judg.

10

12

13

15

I

S. 4

18

7

The word

sometimes occurs in

onymous parallelism with

‘king’

(Hos. 7 7

2

IO

)

among the Phoenicians in an interregnum the supreme powe

was

committed to a

(doubtless

Carthage and other Punic cities the

were the

magistrates, corresponding

to

the Roman consuls.

T h e verb

however, means also vindicate,’

thus ‘champion, deliverer,’ synonymous with

(Judg

2

3 g J

cp

I

S.

Neh.

9

2 7 ) ;

and the

could therefore be interpreted, Book of the Deliverer

of

Israel (Ephr. Syrus).

In the Hebrew Canon, Judges is the second of

Former Prophets, standing between Joshua and Samuel
in

(followed by Vg. and modern versions), Ruth,

story of the times of the judges

(1

I

) ,

is appended

Judges and sometimes reckoned part of

The Book begins with

a brief account of the

of the interior of Western Palestine by the severa

tribes, their conquests and settlements
the names of the cities which

the hands of their old inhabitants

1)

the

of the Israelites in making peace with the Canaanites i
rebuked by the Messenger of Yahwb ( 2

Ch.

takes up the narrative at the point which has beei
reached in

Jos.

24

27

the verses are

identical with Jos. 24

28-31.

This introduces a genera

description of the period of the judges

as

a

cycle of apostasy from the religion of Yahwb
Canaanite heathenism, divine judgment inflicted by
hand of the

peoples, and signal deliver

ance by a champion whom Yahwb raised up t o
them from their enemies; closing with

a

catalogue

o

the nations

of Palestine whom Yahwb, for the sins o

Israel (or a s a test of its loyalty), left unsubdued

( 2

3

6).

T h e history of the several judges is presented

a

scheme corresponding to

2

Thus

37-11:

‘The Israelites offended

.

. .

and

was

incensed against Israel and sold them into the power

Cushan-rishathaim,

of Syria,

.

. .

for eight years.

the Israelites cried for help to Yahwk, and he raised them up

deliverer, Othniel

(Here follows the account of

judge’s exploits.)

And the land enjoyed security for fort:

years.’

With other names and numbers, and variations

o

phraseology, a similar setting is given to the stories

o

the succeeding judges.

Israel is oppressed by the Moabites

.

Ehud kills the king

o

Moah, Eglon and sets his country ’free

Shamga

makes a slaughter among the Philistines

3

under their

Jabin of

and his general Sisera

oppress Israel

instance of the prophetess Deborah,

raises the trides defeats Sisera and delivers Israel

victory is

in

a

ode

(5):

the

and their Bedawin allies harry and devastate the land

See Moore,

judges,

(De

26

cites it

as

;

Orig

cp the

title of Kings,

3

So

the name is understood

Josephus.

4

Menander of Ephesus (in Jos.

121).

See C

ANON

,

6

IO;

and

R

U

T

H

.

by a stratagem throws their camp into a panic, pursues, and

destroys them

Abimelech, a son of

becomes king

of Shechem the Shechemites revolt and are punished

;

lech is killed while besieging Tbebez

(9) ;

and

judge

Israel

(10

the Ammonites oppress the Israelites in Gilead

;

Jephthah conquers them

and

judge Israel

.

the Philistines are the

of Israel

inflicts

upon them

Chapters 17-21 contain two stories of the times of

the judges : the first

tells of the migration of the

Danites and the establishment of the sanctuary a t Dan
the second

of

an

outrage committed upon

a

traveller by the Benjamites of Gibeah and of the san-
guinary vengeance taken upon the tribe.

T h e preceding synopsis of its contents shows that

in its present form consists

of

three parts

:

I

.

a

brief

of the conquest and settlement

of

Canaan in some way parallel

to

Josh.

2

6-16

the history of Israel in Canaan from the death of

to

the death of Samson, set in the framework of

a

consistent religious interpretation and

a

continuous chronology.

17-21,

an appendix narrating other events of the same

period, but containing the name of no judge and exhibiting

no

trace of the distinctive religious point of view observed in the

preceding chapters.

A .

Deuteronomistic Book

of

inquiry

must begin with the body of the book,

2

6-16 31.

T h e introduction

(2

6)

a s

a

whole is unmistakably

deuteronomistic.

The sweeping condemnation of the whole period-Israel

forsook its own God, Yahwk, and worshipped the Baals and

of

Canaan-and the religious pragmatism which makes

unfaithfulness to Yahwb the one unfailing cause of national

calamity and return

to

him the signal for deliverance, are

characteristic of the historiography

of

the end of the seventh

century and in still more marked degree of

sixth century

under the influence

of

Deuteronomy, the prophets Jeremiah and

Ezekiel,

the Exile

T h e same pragmatism appears, as we have noted

above, in the short particular introductions to the
stories of the several judges

( 3

4

1 3

I

more

fully in

3

6

1 0

6-16),

but not in chap.

1

nor in

17-21. . Judg. 26- 16

may therefore properly be

called t h e Deuteronomistic Book of Judges.

T h e deuteronomistic element is

however,

to the introduction and the setting of the stories

the

stories themselves (except that of Othniel,

a r e

not of deuteronomistic

and, except on the

margins where they are

to the pragmatic intro-

ductions and conclusions, show

no

signs of deuterono-

mistic redaction.

ii.

editor.-As

in Josh. 1-12, the

deuteronomistic author manifestly took his narrative
material from an older written source without to a n y
considerable extent recasting it.

I n

the history of Gideon

and Abimelech

(9)

it is plain

that two accounts have been combined in the same way in which

parallel narratives are so often united in the Pentateuch and

Joshua.

More or less convincing evidence of the composite

character of the text is discovered in other stories

also

(Ehud,

Deborah and Harak, Jephthah; see below,

The

history of the judges was, therefore, related in a t least two

older

books.

These sources were united, not by the deuteronomistic

author of Judg.

but by a n earlier

a s is evident from the following considerations

:-

First in the seams of the composite narrative no trace of the

deuteronomistic manner can be detected.

Second, the union of the two strands in

9

and

which chapters were not

in the deuteronomistic Judges

(see below,

is entirely similar to that in

Third, in the introductions and conclusions of the stories

there are indications of an underlying editorial schematism

different from that of Rn.

iii.

His

t w o

sources.-The pre-deuteronomic history

from which the deuteronomistic author took his material
was itself made up of two main strands

of

narrative

united by a redactor.

T h e case is thus precisely

similar to that in Josh. 1-12

(see

J

OSHUA

,

6 )

and

since in Josh. we have found reason to believe that
the two sources are the continuations respectively of

See H

ISTORICAL

L

ITERATURE

, $6.

The opposite opinion is maintained by Kittel, almost alone.

JUDGES

(BOOM)

JUDGES (BOOK)

those which in the Pentateuch are distinguished

by

the

symbols J and

E,

a n d that they were united

by a

deuteronomic redactor

a

presumption arises that

this is true in Judges also,

and

this presumption has

furnished the working hypothesis of recent criticism.

I t is indeed true that the history of the period of the judges

is not the necessary sequel of Josh. in the same way that the

history of the conquest and settlement of Canaan is the necessary

sequel of the promises to the patriarchs and the history of the

exodus in

J

and

it is conceivable that

an

historian should

close

a

work with

occupation of the promised land, as P

seems to have

This is hardly probable, however, in

early historians, who commonly propose to bring the history

down to their own time and, antecedent probability aside, it

can be shown that neither

I nor

E comes to an end in

In

Josh.

24,

E

not only glances back over the preceding history

(idolatry of the forefathers: God‘s deliverance),

by its

earnest warnings

of

the consequences of falling away from

and worshipping other gods

2 2 )

looks forward to

the subsequent narration of such apostasy and its results, just as

I

S.

12

looks

back over the period of the judges and forward

over that of the kings. The suitable sequel of these verses in

osh.

24

is Judg. 2

13

(cp

Josh.

24

D),

which in turn

to the stories in Judg. J also, whose account of the

conquest is preserved in fragmentary form in Judg.

5

(with

parallels in Joshua), cannot have ended his history with this

incomplete occupation of the land of promise : the very form of

the chapter fairly presumes the intention to tell how in after

times these cities came into the hands of the Israelites; and

Judg.

2

3

which are recognised by most recent critics

as

the continuation of

in Judg.

1

actually lead over to the

relation of the wars

Israel

to wage with these nations

in the period of the judges.

T h e affinity of parts of Judg. t o

E

and

J

respectively

has

long been observed.

Stade found

E, not only (with E. Meyer,

in parts of

2

36,

but also in

which is clearly dependent

on

Josh.

24

Bohme pointed out the striking resemblances to J in

6

11-24

and

13

2-24

Budde carried the analysis through the entire

Winckler, Holzinger, and Moore have worked upon the same

Other scholars, while not denying the existence of

more than one source in Judges, think that there are
not sufficient grounds for identifying these sources with
the

J

a n d

E of the

For

this division of

opinion

a

different definition

of

t h e problem

and

a

different approach to it are in part responsible.

Kittel and those who occupy his position frame the question

in some such way

as

this: Did the author who wrote the

Yahwistic part of the

history and the patriarchal

stories in Genesis also write, say, the stories of Samson,

or

the part of the story of Gideon ascribed by Budde and

others to

J ? and they find the resemblance in style and diction

insufficient to establish identity of authorship in this sense.

the unity of J in this sense is not affirmed

the critics on the

other side. Believing that the writing of history

in Israel

in the days of David

or

Solomon with

recent past, tbeevents

which led to the founding of the kingdom, and ascended thence

to remoter times, they recognise that in the first comprehensive

history of Israel from the earliest times to the days of the

kingdom there were included not only materials

of

very diverse

character,

materials which had been previously reduced

to writing by different

The existence of different

elements of this kind in J even in Genesis itself is generally

recognised.

W h a t the critics mean, who ascribe portions

of

Judges

or

Samuel to

J is,

not that these portions

necessarily received their literary form from the same
hand

as

the stories of the patriarchs

or the narrative of

the exodus, but that they formed part of the same
comprehensive historical work in which the Yahwistic
parts of Genesis

and

Exodus were included

a n d that

they were written in general in the same

age and

surroundings, and in the same spirit.

I n using

word ‘pre-deuteronomic’ to designate this

redaction. it is not meant to

that it was earlier than

621

B

.c.,

but only that it preceded

deuteronomistic edition

of oshua and Judges.

however, it is to be observed, is an

rather

than

a

history.

3

First demonstrated by

E. Meyer,

Z A T W
Ri.

Sa.

Wette,

(‘69).

7

See Budde

(‘97).

Kue.

1

355

Ki.

65

44

d.

and

Hastings’

D B

2

See H

ISTORICAL

L

ITERATURE

,

2635

I t is manifest also that the problem should methodic-

ally be

a s is generally done,

the analysis of Genesis, but

that of Josh.

1-12,

where the nature of the sources is more nearly the same

and

their relation to the deuteronomistic element

similar.

W h e n we come a t it from this side, there

appears to be no greater difficulty in the discrimination
a n d identification

of

the sources in Judges than in

Joshua, where

J

a n d

E

are generally recognised.

There is general agreement that Judg.

1

gives

us

account of the conquest, much abridged and glossed

by

later hands.

Additional chapters.-Ch.

and

19-21

contain

no

deuteronomistic element.

I n

two strands

of

narrative seem to b e combined; the character of the

two

versions and the nature

of

the composition make it

a

reasonahle presumption that the sources are the same

as

in

the preceding chapters: in

19-21,

the presence

of

a

third element complicates the problem (see below,

Chap.

is

in

the main from

and

contains

an

abridgment

or

epitome

of

the oldest account of the

conquest.

(corresponding

to

Josh.

1

was added by the last editor,

making the only possible connection-though

a

false one-with

the preceding book. The hand of the post-

exilic editor

to be recognised

also

in

4

8

C h a p .

(ascribing to Judah the conquests of Caleb,

cp

and in various minor glosses

2

connects with

the

verses, containing the reproof

administered by the Messenger of

to Israel for making

peace with the Canaanites are the addition

of a

redactor,

probably R,

the passage

a

cento of reminiscences from the

Pentateuch.

In

26-36, the Introduction

to

the Book

of

Judges

proper, the text

is

plainly not homo-

geneous ; but repeated

redaction

has

made the problem presented to criticism very

difficult.

6-10,

which connect immediately with Josh.

and

continue the history from that point (=Josh.

are from

E

only 7 (=Josh.

cp

from a deuteronomistic

The sequel to this

to be

and perhaps

The

introduction of the deuteronomistic author is contained in

but

17

and perhaps

also

is

a

later

and perhaps

236

(reading

instead of Joshua) is from

to

which also

belongs, the original continuation of the account

of the conquest in ch. 1

3

and perhaps

4

are from

a

deuteronomistic hand

;

5

is

wholly

(?

the rovenience of

is not clear; the glosses in

26

are

Chap.

3 7 -1 1

(Othniel)

is

deuteronomistic throughout,

a

of the historical scheme set forth in

T h e story

of

Ehud has

a

deuteronomistic introduction

the concrete facts in which, such a s the Moabite occupa-
tion of Jericho

the sending of tribute

etc.

are

of

course derived from the original beginning of the

narrative-and

a

deuteronomistic close

).

In the story itself are some doublets; most clearly in the

account of the audience

perhaps

also

in that of the

escape

:

266)

and the Israelite attack on the Moabites

The

of Winckler

to

separate two strands in the

narrative is not convincing.3 Perhaps the doublets should be

regarded

as

evidence not of the existence of

a

second source

hut of the

variants in the same source. The

(or

the main narrative) comes from the oldest collection. Ch.

331

(Shamgar) must have been introduced here by

a

very late hand;

at

an

earlier stage in the redaction it stood after

where it

is still found in several recensions of

B.4

T h e deuteronomistic introduction is easily recognised

the corresponding close is divided between

materials from the

story itself are incorporated, especially

in

4

and

traces of a n older setting

seem t o b e preserved.

T h e main

The verses might in themselves be deuteronomistic and are

now ascribed by Budde to

an

redaction

than

For different attempts

to

this introduction, see

and

‘Judges’

and

3

A

’97).

,

2636

JUDGES

(BOOK)

JUDGES

(BOOK)

narrative relates

a

conflict with Sisera, his defeat and

death ;

as

in

5 ,

Sisera appears in it

as

a n independent

a n d powerful prince.

A

pre-deuteronomic redactor,

for reasons which can only be uncertainly conjectured,
connected this story with the account of a n Israelite
victory over Jabin, king of Hazor, superficially

the two

by

making Sisera

general

7 ;

also is harmonistic).

The account of the war

(?

of Zebulun and Naphtali) with

Jabin, which is the basis of Josh.

11

also, seems to be derived

from the same source as

victory of Judah and Simeon over

Adonihezek (Judg.

cp Josh.

J

in that case it

was probably quite

Contamination from the story of

Jabin may be suspected in the mention of Kedesh of Naphtali

as the home of Barak and the rendezvous of the tribes

(6

IO),

and the locating of Jael's tent in the same vicinity

(

T

I

far

away from the field of battle in the Great Plain; but the

premises of this story are

so

imperfectly preserved that we can-

not be certain. The story of Sisera is not improbably from E ;

but

there are

no

decisive grounds for the attribution.

v.

is at least redactional

;

5 is

a

late addition

Chap.

5

is

a triumphal ode, celebrating the victory over

Sisera.

T h e title

(I)

was

probably

prefixed

by

the

editor who introduced the poem into the historical
context (cp Ex.

15

I

)

31b is

D's

standing formula

is

thought by some t o be misplaced

or

editorial t o others

appears

to

be

an

invitatory in the manner of the

liturgical psalms ;

is

also

questioned (see Budde

Whether the ode

was

included in

one

of the

collections of

old

Hebrew poetry such

as

the Book of

Jashar, a n d whether it

was

found in one of the sources

of Judges (?

J),

a r e questions which can hardly

be

answered with any confidence.

See further,

D

E

B

OR

A

H

,

T h e usual deuteronomistic introduction

is

found in

6

embodying material from JE, a n d glossed b y later

hands the close

in

is

a

brief substitute for

which was not

includedinthedeuteronomistic Judges.
T h e composite character of 6-8 was

early

recognised

cannot b e the sequel of

but the problem

in

is extremely complicated,

a n d

a

complete solution is scarcely to be expected.

S e e

.

Judg.

68-10,

the prophet's reproof, is

to

Josh.

24

I

7

12

the resemblance may point to identity of

or

to

dependence, and the verses may be ascribed accordingly to

or

to

a

late

the fact that the speech is broken

off

may be

urged for the former hypothesis (Budde). The call of Gideon,

11-24, is from

J (Bohme and most recent critics); many glosses

probably by more than one hand, in 136 14

16

176

anticipate Gideon's recognition of his visitor, and convert his

hospitality into

a

sacrifice :

it is not necessary to suppose con-

tamination from

a

second source

;

25-32 is cognate to

7-11,

and

presumably from the same source

late glosses in 286

326 33 36-40 are with much probability ascribed

to

E 34

from J ; 35a

is

an addition attributed to

R

J

E

(Moore

SBOT)

to

a

post-exilic hand (Budde); 6356 is

a

still late;

exaggeration.

Chap.

is ascribed by Bndde to E, by Moore and Holzinger

t o

J. In the description of the night attack on the

camp

two stratagems have been combined-a clear

analysis is impossible. The horns are probably from

E

(cp

6),

the jars and torches then from

J Winckler with con-

siderable probability surmises that

latter originally belonged

to the account of the attack

E. of the Jordan

it would

follow that

was omitted by the redactor who fused the two

versions

Chap.

7

8

form the conclusion of E's

narrative (harmonistic gloss, in

7

256).

Chap.

with the exception of glosses and retouches in

16,

is from the oldest source (J); it presumes a personal griev-

ance whichisnot mentioned in

6

1-83.

Chap.

the rejection

of the kingdom, stands

on

the same plane with

I

S.

8

10

12

the question whether we have to

do

with a late addition to E or

with

a

deuteronomistic hand is of import

for the history

of the redaction. The setting up of the 'Ephod' at Ophrah

is from

J

(glosses in

the comment thereupon

(276)

deuteronomistic.

33.35 is

close

were inserted by

R

P

(cp

he restored

9

to

its original place in

T h e chapter exhibits

no

trace

Chap.

9,

Abimelech.

of deuteronomistic redaction but is plainly composite.
T w o accounts of the discomfiture

of

the Shechemites

stand side

by

side

in

and

the antecedents of

both may he traced in the earlier part of the chapter.

Hardly to

R

D

(Frankenberg).

So

Holzinger and Budde cp Frankenberg.

See

14.

Both

must have narrated how Abimelech became king.

but

seems

to

be homogeneous.

story of

in the

from

Jotbam's apologue

from

E

not improbably secondary)

E

from

which 42-45 also are derived 46-55 are ascribed by Moore to

E

(cp

by Budde to J

;

may be from E or

T h e brief notices

of the minor judges differ in both

form a n d content from the stories

in

the midst of which

thev stand.

speak neither of oppression nor of deliverance; the

stereotypedformula is, After

judged

Israel

.

. .

years

. . .

And

died and

:

Minor

was buried in such and such a

The

years of rule (23,

8)

differ notice-

ably from the symmetrical numbers of

chronology (40,

names of several

of

these 'judges

are

otherwise

known

as

names of clans,

and

what is told of their

numerous posterity, possessions,

and matrimonial

alliances seems to b e the legendary reflection of clan
history.

Many scholars therefore think that these notices were made

by

a

late redactor to round out the number of

judges?

In confirmation of this view it was pointed out that the sum of the

years of their

(70)

is almost exactly

the periods of

oppression

in

introductions to the storiesof the judges;

the post-exilic editor made the succession continuous, reckoning

the years of foreign domination (in the intention of

R

D

,

inter-

regna) in the rule of the succeeding

The framework

in which these names and numbers are set is an imitation of

R

D

.

Others, observing that the formula of the minor

es occurs

also at the close of the story of Jephthah

(12

note

the

years

of

rule cp

I

S.

believe that the minor

judges were contained in JE, and were taken thence without

change by

R

D

the set phrases of Ro are an amplification

of

those of his predecessor."

T h e arguments from the number twelve

and

from the

chronology are not conclusive, a n d even if it were
certain that the minor judges were not contained in the
deuteronomistic

book,

it would still be possible that

did not invent them, but simplyrestored them from

J E ;

that the names are really those of clans is not proof of
late origin,

as

we

may see from Gen.

38,

for example.

T h e introduction to the story of Jephthah,

is

much longer than usual, and appears

on

close

not to b e homogeneous.

6-9 the set formulas of

expanded by subsequent

editors (especially in

86 9a)

;

is cognate with

;

it looks as if a redactor had combined an

Chap.

introduction to the Philistine oppression in

127:

Jephthah.

the days of Eli with that to the Ammonite

oppression

7);

belongs to the deuter-

onomistic introduction, the materialbeing taken from the following

story the closing formulas are found in 1133

127

(perhaps

deuteronomistic) ; in

we have editorial amplification

In

the

long

diplomatic representation t o

the king of Ammon,

is foreign to the

main

narrative; it has in reality nothing to d o with the
Ammonites the argument is drawn entirely from the
history of Israel's relations to Moab.

T h e passage

is

therefore generally regarded a s a n editorial addition

followed by Budde

con-

jectures that two stories (J and

E) about Jephthah have been

combined, much as are the two stories about Gideon in

An

outlawed freebooter recalled from banishment by the Gileadites

(11

in the main

.

is a late interpolation)

;

after seeking aid

in vain from the

west of the Jordan (cp

122,

and

he

marches against the Ammonites and defeats them the

ites

come against him seeking trouble are severely punished

In the other (E) he was represented as dwelling at

Mizpah

.

the enemy is Moab

(11

barmonised by

R

JE

by the

of the name Ammon)

;

the victory is purchased

the

vow which cost the life of the hero's daughter

In

the story of Samson the brief deuteronomistic

formulas are found in
T h e stories, which are not

all

of the

same antiquity,' were in all probability

found in

J

composition or contamination from

E

is not

Budde

considerable contamination from the other

source.

Budde,

regard the list of minor judges

as

pre-deuteronomic.

A

190.

See

cp

Stade,

4

Both Kuenen

cp

354) and Kittel

5

See further,

2638

JUDGES

(BOOK)

JUDGES

(BOOK)

a t least, he can hardly have failed to record the deliver:
ance from the Philistines. Confirmation of this
cedent probability is found in

I

S.

1-12.

At the close of the life of Eli

(I

S.

we read the formula,

He judged Israel forty years,’ precisely corresponding

to

Samuel also is represented

as

a

great deliverer under whom the Philistines suffered such

a

repulse ‘that

were subdued and no more invaded the

territory of Israel the hand of

was against the Philis-

tines as long as Samuel lived

(

I

S.

7

13

.

cp Judg.

2

Josh.

1 5

828

of

also it is said, ‘ H e

judged Israel as long

as

he lived’

(I

7

W e should expect also that the

of the deuter-

onomistic Judges would bring his book

to a close by

repeating and enforcing the religious lessons he had

so

much at heart,

thedeuterononiistic history of Moses

closes with his solemn parting admonitions (Dt.

4

and the deuteronomistic history of Joshua with similar
exhortations from the leader of the conquest (Josh.

23).

T h e farewell address of Samuel, the last

of the judges,

in

I

12,

with its historical retrospect and its solemn

for the future,

so

evidently marking the bound-

ary between the history

of the judges and the kings,

is

just such a close a s we should look for from the author

of Judg.

2 6 - 3 6

(or

T h e alternative is to

pose that the passages cited from Samuel belong ex-
clusively to a pre-denteronomic editor ; which would
compel

us

to suppose (with Budde) that the original

conclusion of the deuteronomistic Judges was omitted
by the post-exilic redaction

(

iii.

Judg.,

a s in Josh.

it

seems that

JE was in the hands of the post-exilic redactor,

who restored from it the chapters which

omitted

(1

9

17-21):

T h e splitting of the deuteronomistic formula

in 424 and

5316,

suggests the possibility that

5

also was

inserted by a post-exilic hand.

T h e last redactor also

introduced the midrashic version of the war

on

Benjamin

19-21 ; many minor additions and changes in the

text of other chapters are t o be ascribed to this redactor
or .to still later editors and scribes.

To

many

scholars attributealso the ’minor judges’
see above,

It

generally agreed that Shamgar in

3 3 1

belongs t o one of the latest stages of the redaction.

T h e history of the text shows that the verse once stood
after

(following Samson), where

Philistine

slayer is

place, and was introduced by the

formula of the minor judges.

T h e character and form

of the notice remind

us

strongly of the exploits of

David‘s heroes

S .

23,

c p especially Shammah ben

Agee,

Corruption of the name t o Shamgar

(56)

led t o the insertion of the verse before

It

is

quite

possible that the verse

in

its

original form stood in

after Samson.

In

I

K.

I

the deuteronomistic author makes the time

from the Exodus t o the founding

of

the temple in the

480 years.

computed on the

The chronology of

in Judg. belongs

to

the same system.

secured peace for

40

years

Ehud’s,

Barak‘s, 40; Gideon’s,

40;

Samson judged Israel

years:

By the side of these round numbers appear others which

do

not

seem to be systematic ; for the rule of the

’

minor judges’

(23

7,

IO

8)

Jephthah

Abimelech

and for most

of

periods

(8,

7,

18,

40). The sum

of

all these

numbers, together with the times

of

Moses

Joshua, Eli

(40,

Samuel, Saul, David

greatly exceeds

480,

and

various hypotheses

been proposed to

the data into

agreement. The most probable

IS

that the years of foreign

domination are not to be counted separately, but

to

be included

in the rule of the judges, which are thus continuous.

thus

obtain : Moses, 40; Joshua

Othniel, 40 ; Ehud,

80

Barak,

Gideon,

40;

Minor

Jephthah,

76 ;

Samson,

Eli,

40;

Saul,

David, 40; Solomon

(to

the

founding

of

the

; total

which leaves

us

60

(or if with

we give

only

years to

Eli,

years for

basis

of twelve generations of forty

demonstrable

in some cases a later Yahwistic variant

has been united with the older story (Budde) in 1 4 a n
editor has made numerous changes, the tendency of
which is t o remove the offence of Samson’s marriage into

a

Philistine

As

has been noted above

3, ii. chaps.

exhibit

no

signs of deuteronomistic redaction.

T h e repetitions

which abound in the story have been
ascribed to interpolation by a n editor
whose aim was

to throw contumely

on

the famous sanctuary at Dan

more probably they are due to the

of two closely

parallel versions.

4

The main narrative

is

from J ; the second version may be

traced in

in one strand running throu h

(or

The hand:

of

both R

JE

and R

P

may

recognised ;

the former in harmonistic adjustments, the latter

chiefly in

notes.

chapters

19-21

there is

a

stratum which in spirit and

language is akin to the youngest additions to the Hexateuch

and

the historical midrash in

To

13.

Chaps.

19-21:

the late stratum belong

(remains

of the older text in

14

29, considerable

in the main

16

24. The

narrative

itself composite as appears most clearly in 19. The main source

from

a

second version is to be recoguised

especially in

13

a

complete separation of the

closely parallel and Intimately welded accounts is not

feasible.

In 21 the rape

of

the Shilonite maidens

(15

excluding glosses

comes from the oldest

source the remainder is

not

homogeneous

;

Budde finds (in

I

246) E’s account of the expedition to Jabesh

combined with the post-exilic version

of

the same others ascribe

the

re

and confusion to very late

(especially

in

evidence of which

found in

20

also

The

seems to have been united

to

J E

by

a

redactor see

(

in Josh.

the deuteronomistic author of Judg. found J and

E

already united by an earlier redactor

there

is

no evidence that

he

had

J

or E

separately.

T h e earlier redaction was primarily

harmonistic ‘it laboured with more or less skill to make

one

continuous narrative

two. Its religious stand-

point was that

of

the prophetic period

;

the moral and

religious lessons of the history are emphasised,

as

they

were also in the younger stratum

of E

it is not improb-

able that the beginnings of

a

pragmatism akin t o that

of

were found in

T h e historical standpoint is

that

of a

united nation, and it was natural that the

redactor should see in the invasions of particular regions
and the deliverances wrought by local champions the
oppression and liberation of all Israel, thus also prepar-
ing the way for

Deuteronomistic

(

- The aim

of

the deuterono-

mistic author,

as

has been observed above, was religious

rather than historical; the experience of Israel in the
days o f t h e judges is used t o enforce for his own
generation the lesson that unfaithfulness t o

is

always punished by national calamity, but that repent-
ance brings deliverance. This lesson is set forth in the
introductions t o the whole book, and t o the history

of

the

several judges the redactor hardly touched the stories
themselves.

H e freely omitted, however, what did not

readily lend itself t o his purpose chaps.

1

9 (for which

is a substitute)

19-21,

and perhaps the end

of

Samson’s career,

16

(note the close

Later

deuteronomistic editors may have added some verses,
especially in the longer introductions

( 2 6 - 3 6

It is not probable that the deuteronomistic Book of

Judges ended with

1 6 3 1

(or

the Philistine oppres-

sion was not a t a n end with the death

of Samson. W e

should expect the author t o include

period of the

judges down t o the establishment

of

the kingdom, and,

See Stade,

Doorninck,

Outrage

at

Oort,

Th.

T

(‘67)

;

RE3

21

(‘go).

Oort, We. (formerly?, Kue and others.

Be., Bu. Moore

;

now We.

(‘9.9).

evidence

See Budde,

x

;

and Moore,

‘Judges,’

on

See

Budde,

also Bousset

Das

System. d. biblischen

20

(1900).

See

C

H

R

O

NO

L

OG

Y

,

2640

JUDGES

‘(BOOK)

JUDITH

{BOOK)

struggle with the Canaanites confirms the impression
that the picture of the times which the stories draw for

us

is

as

faithful a s it is vivid.

T h e Hebrew text of Judges is unusually well pre-

served.

Only in parts of the Song of Deborah does

any considerable passage seem to be beyond

In other difficult places

skilful redaction, rather than faulty transmission, seems
t o be responsible for the obscurity.

There are two distinct, if not wholly independent,

Greek translations of the book

one found in the great

mass

of

manuscripts

(A,

etc.), and rendered by most

of the secondary versions, of which Lagarde’s edition,
may be taken

as a

fair representative

the other in

B,

a group of minuscules, and the Sahidic version.

T h e latter, which is the younger of the two, adheres
closely t o

MT,

and is consequently of relatively little

value for the emendation of the

A.

1684

Jo. Clericus,

1708;

Stnder, Richter,

35 ;

second (title) ed.

;

Bertheau,

’45,

’83

.

C.

F.

Keil

is.

Literature.

’63

ET

P

.

’65,

’72 ;

J. Bachmann,

‘68

(unfinished chaps.

1-5)

’72

(Speaker’s Commen-

tary); E. Reuss,

La

1,

Testament, 1,

Oettli,

’93

( K G K ) ;

G.

F.

(Internat. Crit. Comm.),

(SBOT;

translationand brief notes)

;

K.

B. Criticism-Noldeke

A

8

(‘69);

Schrader,

De Wette,

We.

cp

v. Doorninck,

de

(‘79)

E. Meyer, ‘Kritik

der Berichte iiher die Eroberung Palaestmas,‘

B Stade

‘

Zur

Entstehungsgesch. des vordeut. Richter-

J. C. Matthes,

(‘S

I

)

W.

Boehme, Z A

TW 5

(‘85) ;

K.

Budde,

(‘87);

(‘go);

Kuenen,

S. R. Driver, 3QR

(‘97);

R. Kittel,

‘Die Pentateuch. Urkunden in den BB Richter

Samuel,’

Hist.

;

also

in

’94

(analysis

in the margin). G. Kalkoff

des

’93

Frankenberg, Die

des

’95

;

in Hastings’

DB, art.

See also

commentaries of Studer,

Bertheau Moore, and Bndde

valuable unpublished

of

Holzinger), and the Polychrome Bible (analysis

in colours).

G .

F. M.

critical remedy.

JUDGMENT,

DAY OF

Pet.

37.

See

E

SCHATOLOGY

,

JUDGMENT

HALL

18

2 8 3 3

Acts

RV

‘palace,’

JUDITH

76;

fem. of

I

.

Daughter of Beeri the Hittite’

(or

rather Rehobothite,’ see

R

EHOBOTH

), and one

of

the wives

of

Gen.

2634

See B

ASEMATH

.

A

Jewish clan

is a corruption

of

daughter’

of

a Rehobothite, is

not

likely. Perhaps ‘Judith

T.

K.

C.

See below.

JUDITH,

THE

BOOK

OF

one of the Books of the A

POCRYPHA

has

Joshua, Samuel and Saul. Substantially the same

is

reached by those) who reckon in the periods of oppression and

exclude the minor judges’

as

a later addition (see

The oldest written history of the period of the judges

drew its materials from the local traditions ; the story

of Ehud is connected with
Gideon and Abimelech with Ophrah
and Shechem ; Jephthah with Mizpeh

in Gilead; Deborah and Barak belong apparently t o
the tribes

N.

of the Great Plain (though Deborah may

have been early appropriated by Ephraim).

T h e

subject

of these traditions was naturally the daring

deed by which a n Israelite hero discomfited
and delivered his countrymen

of the situation only

enough was recalled to make the achievement the more
glorious

there was no motive for preserving the

memory of the misfortunes of the Israelites in war, or
the way in which their neighbours got the upper hand
of them.

W e

be sure that if the deuteronomistic

author had found any such details in his sources he
would have made the most of them.

They con-

tain

a

life of Samson from the announcement of his birth

to his death,

narrate, not one signal act of deliver-

ance, but

a

series of exploits in which the hero, a man

of gigantic strength, in his own cause, single-handed,
inflicts many injuries

upon

the Philistines. T h e stories

may reflect

a historical situation, the Danite Hercules

may have been a historical person; but it is evident
that we have in these chapters not historical traditions,

the sense in which we may use those words of the

stories of Ehud, Gideon, Abimelech, and others, but
popular tales, in which, a s usual, elements

of widely

diverse origin-in part, perhaps, mythical-have been
united in the imagination of the

I t is note-

worthy, and not without historical significance, that
these are the only stories in the book which come from
the south.

Chapters

which have for subject the migration

of

the Danites, the origin of the

the priesthood

at Dan, are probably derived from the traditions of
that sanctuary.

Of the history of the war over

(chap.

we can only say’that it seems t o be from

a n

sonrce.

I n estimating the historical

of the Book of

Judges, we must bear in

that the stories of the

deliverers of Israel represent only
certain glorious moments in the history
of these centuries; of their manifold

vicissitudes of fortune tradition has preserved but
fragmentary memories, and of the long, slow process
by which the nomadic Israelite tribes established them-
selves

Canaan and adopted the agriculture and arts of

the older inhabitants, we learn only from the glimpses
which the stories incidentally afford

us.

T h e chronological scheme of

is

late and system-

a t i c ; we cannot be sure that the order

which the’

stories were arranged in

JE

was chronological. In the

stories themselves

a

legendary admixture cannot be

denied this has been successively heightened by later
authors and editors the union

of

parallel accounts by

has, in more than one case, wrought an intricate

confusion which baffles the keenest analytic criticism.

When all this is recognised, however, it remains true

that the picture which the book gives

us

of the social

and religious conditions of the period which preceded
the establishment

of the kingdom is

’of

the highest

historical value.

It is manifest that the traditions con-

tained in it were fixed in writing before the momentous
changes which the kingdom wrought had had time t o
make such

a

state of things a s is represented in Judg.

unintelligible or unsympathetic.

W e fortunately possess one contemporary monument,

the Song of Deborah

and its description of the great

Chaps.

13-16

are of a different character.

See S

AMSON

,

See D

EBORAH

, and P

OETICAL

L

ITERATURE

,

3

(ii.).

2641

come down to

us in a shorter and

a

longer form, and the text of the
latter in a varietv of recensions.

The various texts belonging

to

the longer

canonical)

recension show much more pronounced differences than are

found in those belonging

to

the other. Even Jerome speaks of

the number and variety

of

the MSS of the Judith

which

had been seen by him.

T h e two forms of the story are quite different in

tendency and in historical background.

T h e contents,

which though similar are not absolutely identical, a r e
therefore summarised here separately, as comparison of
the two forms of the story may enable

us

to arrive a t

sure conclusions

as to the date and origin of the

On the historical character of Judg.

1,

see J

OSHUA

,

also

H

ISTORICAL

L

ITERATURE

On the text see Moore

and in addition to

the authors there cited,

Die)

; cp

Moore’s critical edition of the text in

SBOT Heb.,

The line here taken renders it unnecessary to discuss other

critical theories; which, resting

on

mere conjecture, were only

provisionally useful. They are briefly referred

to

by

in

his

and discussed at length by

in his

[Ball himself refers Judith to the time

of

queen

2642

JUDITH

(BOOK)

JUDITH

(BOOK)

The longer form of the story is

as follows :-Arphaxad,

Nabuchodonosor

(Nebuchadrezzar), king of the Assyrians

in Nineveh, makes war against him and
summons the dwellers in all the lands

between Persia and Memphis to his aid.

They refuse.

Vowing vengeance against them, he marches alone t o
battle with A

RPHAXAD

and destroys him.

After an interval be appoints Holofernes general over
his army, and sends him against those nations which
had refused their aid, with orders to spare none who
should offer resistance, or should refuse to recognise and

worship Nebuchadrezzar

as a

god.

Holofernes occupies all the places along the sea coast,

and destroys all their gods

so

that ' a l l the nations

should worship Nabuchodonosor only, and that all their
tongues and their tribes should call upon him

as

god

3

8).

T h e 'children of Israel that dwelt in Judaea,' terrified
a t his approach, fortify their hills.

Joakim

high

priest charges the people of Bethulia and Betomesthaim
to guard the passes t o the hill-country, while all the
inhabitants of Judaea and Jerusalem betake themselves

to

fasting and prayer.

Achior, the leader of the children of Ammon, tells Holofernes

who the Jews

are

and warns him not to attack them, for

if

there

is

no iniquity among them their Lord will defend them and their

God

be for them. Holofernes

and

his

followers are incensed

against Achior, and

him, telling him that there is no

God hut Nabuchodonosor who has decreed the utter de-

struction of the Jews.

will be destroyed with them.

Having thus spoken Holofernes causes Achior to be cast

down and left at the foot of the hill near

He is

rescued by the Jews who after the words of Holofernes have

been reported to

down and worship God saying:

'0 Lord God

of

their arrogance

pity the

low

estate of our race and look upon the face of 'those that are

sanctified unto thee

thy sanctuary [Syr.]) this day'

(6

Holofernes lays siege t o Bethulia and stops the water

supply.

The people lose heart and press Ozias and

the rulers to give way these promise to do

so,

if no

help arise before five days have passed.

Now in those

days there lived

a widow, named Judith, of rare piety

and beauty.

She fasted all the days of her widowhood

save the eves of the Sabbath, and the Sabbaths, the
eves of the new moons and the new moons, and the
feasts and solemn days of the house of Israel.

She

blames Ozias and the rulers for thinking of submission,
and points out

to

them that

as

they are now worshipping

none other but the true God- and no one among them
worships gods made with hands

as

had aforetime been

the case-they may safely put their trust in God that
he will not despise them nor any of their race.

T h e

rulers excuse themselves, and Judith promises to do for
them something that shall go down to all generations.
When left alone she falls on her face, and at the time
when incense is being offered in the temple in Jerusalem
she prays God to help her in her undertaking, recalling
the deliverances wrought in the time

of

the Maccabaean

revolt and on other occasions when God had signally
discomfited the plans of their enemies for the destruction
of the Jewish nation.

She then decks herself bravely

and goes t o the camp of Holofernes accompanied by her
maid, who carries

a

bottle of wine,

a

cruse of oil,

a

bag

filled with parched corn and fine bread (and cheese
[It. Syr.

Arrived a t the camp, she is brought

before Holofernes, who asks her wherefore she has
come.

She tells him that her nation cannot he punished, neither

can the sword prevail against them, except they sin against

their God,

that now they are about

to

eat all those things

which God

them by his laws that they should not eat

and that they

therefore he delivered into his hands. Shd

will show him the way

to

the town, and will lead him until he

comes to Jerusalem. Holofernes is highly pleased, and bids

that his people should prepare for her of his own meats and

that she should drink of his own wine. This she refuses;

but

in the morning she

asks

and receives permission

to

go forth into

king of Ecbatana, fortifies his city.

Alexandra

and

G.

Klein

des

sect.

Leyden,

reviving a theory of

to the period of the revolt

of

Bar.

Cochha

.he valley of

prayer

;

on three successive nights

iccordingly she goes forth and washes herself in

a

fountain by

:he camp.

On the fourth day Holofernes who wishes to deceive'

sends

the eunuch to invite her to

banquet.

She accepts.

H e drinks deeply and is left

done

her.

Praying God for strength she smites

with his own scimitar, the head of Holofernes, and

it into her bag

of

victuals, hastens to Bethulia.

411 the people run together on hearing her voice, and

the head of Holofernes, give praise to God, who

ias

not taken away his mercy from Israel.

T h e next

norning they fall upon the besiegers, who, finding their

dead, lose heart and flee in wild disorder.

The Jews spoil the camp for thirty days, and Judith after

a

song of praise and thanksgiving to God accompanies

victors

to

Jerusalem, where the rejoicings before the

ianctuary continue for the space

of

three months. After

a

and glorious life she dies at the age of one hundred and

years, and is buried in Bethulia in the cave of her

Manasseh. 'And there was none that made the children

of

Israel any more afraid in the days of Judith, nor

a

long time

her death'

(16

25).

(Vg. adds :

the day of the festival

this victory is received

the Hebrews in the number of

the holy days, and is observed

the Jews from that time

unto the present day.')

T h e shorter form

is

as follows

besieged

Jerusalem. T h e Israelites were fasting and praying.

Among

them

was

a beautiful

maiden,

Judith the daughter of Ahitob.

God in-

spired her with the thought that

a

miracle

would be wrought through her.

So

she set out from

Jerusalem with her maid and went to the camp of

where she told the king that having heard

that the town was sure to fall into his hands, she had
come out first that she might find favour in his eyes.
T h e king, struck by her beauty, desired to have her
company.

She declared herself willing t o satisfy him,

but

as

she was in her impurity,

so

she told him, she

asked his permission

to

go out unmolested in the

middle of the night t o the fountain of water t o
make her ablutions. T h e king granted her request.
At the banquet he drank much wine and was afterwards
left alone with her.

Taking his falchion she cut

off his

head

hastened with it to Jerusalem, passing un-

molested through the camp.

T h e Israelites seeing this

unexpected deliverance rejoiced greatly, and going
forth routed their enemies.

They established this

day

as

day of feasting.

It fell on

eighteenth

day of Adar, and was observed

as a

day on which

mourning and fasting were forbidden.

Of the two tales the shorter seems to retain the true

original character most.

There is nothing improbable

in

a

story of the kind. T h e names are

historical, and the besieged place is

Jerusalem.

T h e mention of the day on which the

memory of the achievement was celebrated points to the

fact that we have here

a

fragment of the Maccabaean

calendar, which was abrogated officially in the middle
of the third century of our era, but had fallen into
desuetude long before.

T h e narrative is probably the

record of an occurrence during the wars of the Macca-
bees.

There is not

a

single reference in it to cere-

monial observances,

nor

any allusion t o sin and

its

consequences for the political future of the nation,
through forfeiture of the grace and mercy

of God

transgression, and by the worship

of false gods.

T h e

reason for the visit to the fountain is made perfectly
obvious, whilst in the other recension it is anything but
clear.

T h e longer tale differs completely in style, tendency,

and conception.

A

simple incident in

a war of antiquity

and the heroism of

a

Jewish maiden are

only the warp upon which

a

later writer

has woven his richly embroidered tale.

H e has trans-

formed it into a tale of comfort and encouragement.

From the leading features of

story

as

epitomised above, it

is evident that the author of the romance laid the greatest

possible stress upon strict observance of

all

the religious cere-

monial in vogue

his time. He manifests his strong belief that

JUDITH (BOOK)

JUNIPER

God is sure

to

grant his aid

to

those who have not sinned. He

the greatest care to emphasise the ruin that is sure to

follow upon any meddling

the tithes or other sacred

things, he abhors all ceremonial defilement, and dwells upon

the efficacy of prayer

.

the prayer of the righteous and pure

widow is sure to he

and her intercession saves the Jewish

Judith scrupulously abstains from touching any of the

food of the heathen. She fasts all the days of her widowhood,

except on certain feast days and their eves.

All these details show that the author of the longer

story was a Pharisee. One might feel inclined to think

him as one

of the

from the very

great stress he lays on the regular ablution before
prayer, which is nowhere else heard of.

A reminiscence of the old

survives in 129 where we

read that 'She came in clean hut in what respect is not

mentioned.

We

are to

that the whole rabbinical

ceremonial law has been observed with great minuteness

Judith in full agreement with the decisions arrived at in the

between the school of Shammai and that of Hillel.

This is equally clear in the matter of food (wine, oil, and bread)

and in that of the tithes which it is not lawful for any

of

the

people

so

much as to touch with their hands

(11

These rigorous prescriptions point to

the

end

of

the

century

B

.

C.

A further study of the additional elements in the

longer version (A) may enable

us

to fix its date with

still greater precision.

T h e chief ruler of the nation is

t h e high priest; no mention is made of a king.

Nebuchadrezzar has killed Arphaxad.

It is easily seen that these names borrowed from ancient

history, stand

more modern

and have been chosen

for the purpose of giving the book an air of antiquity, since

,otherwise it would defeat its own ends. Unless put forth as

.a

tale of ancient deliverance it would miss the popular effect it

was intended to have in times of danger and distress.

T h e book also mentions Achior, the chief

of

the

of Ammon, as friendly to the Jews

( 5 5

A great danger threatens the people.

They are uncertain of the issue but are convinced that God

will not deliver them into the

of their enemies if only

they do what is right and live piously. I t appears that they

are suffering from great drought or scarcity of water.

Taking these and other data (see,

J

E M N A A N

)

together, we shall find but one period which the author

can have had before him-the time, namely,

approach of Pompey to Jerusalem

(

B

.c.

6 3 ) .

Aristobiilus 11. had commenced

a

war against his brother

Hyrcanus 11. Scaurus (Holofernes), the Roman general in

Syria, took the part of

Pompey, before coming

to Palestine, had a

war

with Mithridates, whom he overthrew

and slew, exactly as Nabuchodonosor smote Arphaxad. Aretas,

king of the Nabataeans, assisted Hyrcanus at the instigation of

Antipater the Idumaean. When hostilities commenced between

Hyrcanus and Aristohiilus,

a

certain holy man, Onias by name

Joakim),' prayed that the great drought might cease (Jos.

Ant. xiv.

2

I

)

.

Pompey, taking the side of Hyrcanus, deposed

Aristobiilus and appointed Hyrcanus high priest.

Here we find all the leading elements in the tale in

correspondence with the historical events.

B

ETHULIA

is thus seen to be equivalent

to

: the House

of God, Jerusalem.

This hypothesis is corroborated

and strengthened if we compare the book with another
product of exactly the same period,

viz.,

the Psalms

of Solomon, written shortly after this date, when
Pompey had already met his death in Egypt.

The situation as viewed

the two authors is almost

identical, and the Psalms furnish a number of parallels to

the leading views expressed

the author of Judith. He too

knows of a high priest only. He

too

lays preponderant stress

on the observance of ceremonial law

and on prayer

(224

etc.); the prayer of the righteous is heard

(15

I

)

.

He

too

dwells on ceremonial pollution and its purification

God blesses pious conduct

87)

(see Ryle and

James,

Psalms

the Pharisees,

Besides,

the tone which pervades the prayers of Judith and her last song

finds its

counterpart in those Psalms. Both reflect the

same period, viz.,

circa

B

.C.

T h e ceremonial prescriptions mentioned in Judith

render any earlier date impossible: and a t any later
date the book would have lost its value and importance,
a s being

too

transparent a fiction.

Winckler has given an analysis of the sources with new views

on

Holofernes and Judith

He derives the name

Judith from the Babylonian

See Schiirer, Hist.

1318.

According to Willrich

33

the book was

written in the quiet period between

and

The author

is one of the

who welcomed Alcimus. He

holds that it was not the Maccabees who rescued the Jewish

people, hut

alone and his instrument Judith. Ozias

Jonathan) plays quite

a

secondary role. The name Holofernes

is suggested by Odoarres, Arphaxad by Artaxias, Bethulia by

Bethalagan (see, however,

H

O

LO

F

E

RNE

S

,

BASI

).

If the book was meant to be accepted as a n old book,

and

if

it was the work of a Pharisee or

it

could only have been written in the
language of the people-viz., either in
Aramaic or (what is more probable') in

Hebrew.

Jerome mentions Hebrew

and 'the

addition which appears at the end of his translation
only proves him to have had access to a text which
stood in some relation to the more complete Hebrew
text of what is now the short recension

(B). In these

alone d o we find an allusion to the observance of the
day a s

a

festival.

I

.

Of the

recension (A) no old Hebrew text has, thus far,

been critically edited. Jellinek has merely reprinted a later

version

7.

Editions.

stantinople

2

A

better

one that has

Lemberg [Amsterdam]

I

).

A very old version, older at least than the twelfth

not of even much greater antiquity, has been discovered by

Dr. Gaster in the Chronicle of Jerahmeel (see

The Chronicles

Both of these agree with Jerome and have

the same ending. For other allusions to the story of Judith in

Hebrew literature see Zunz

n. d).

The relation between these texts and that of Jerome requires

further study.

The Greek versions have come down in three recensions, one

of which forms the LXX text (best ed.,

0.

F. Fritzsche, Lib.

Test.

Grace

The second, more akin

to the Lat. and Syr., is

in

a

MS (cod.

58

Holmes and

Parsons), and

a

third in

a

group of MSS not very different

from the latter.

The Latin versions are:

ed.

Sabatier,

Bibl. sac.

from

five codices;

Jerome's

The Syriac

given in

Lagarde,

For

further bibliography (Gr. Lat and Syr. versions, etc.)

Schiirer

best thus far is that of 0. F. Fritzsche

in the

2

('53).

For other literature see

Schiirer (as above ET,

and C.

J.

Ball,

Comm. :

vol.

I

,

to whose lists add A. Scholz,

'96,

and

in

Of the

short

recension (B) only the

text has come

down to

us

;

see The oldest text with introduction and trans-

lation' by M. Gaster in

'94,

where further

bibliography is given.

M.

G .

JUEL

I

.

I

[A],

I

Esd.

JOEL

JULIA

[Ti. W H ] ) , is saluted in Rom.

in conjunction with

who was doubt-

less her husband (cp R

OMANS

, §§

4

I O).

She may

have been a freedwoman of some member of the gens
Julia; the name is, a t all events, exceedingly common.

JULIUS

Ti

W H ] ) , the centurion of the

Augustan band (see

I O),

who had charge

of

Paul when he was sent t o Rome (Acts

27

I

3).

JUNIAS

(so

RV, but

and AV have

Junia,

assuming with Chrysostom and other ancient interpreters

a

feminine nominative for

[Ti. W H ] , which,

however. more

probably represents a nominative

an abbreviated form of Junianus) is mentioned

in Rom.

1 6 7

along with Andronicus as

an apostle,

as a kinsman and fellow-prisoner of Paul, and as having
been in Christ before him (cp R

OMANS

,

4

IO).

It

has been conjectured from the name that he may have
been originally a slave the word kinsman seems to
suggest that he was of Jewish birth.

In the list

of

the seventy by

Pseudo-Dorotheus (A) Junias figures

as

bishop of Apamea in

Syria.

JUNIPER

I

K.

Job

Ps.

should be ' b r o o m '

(so

Job

RV,

I

K.

Ball,

2646

See, further, A

NDRONICUS

.

JUPITER

Ps.

except, probably, in

I

K.

The Heb. word puzzled the LXX translators, who render by

in

I

K.

19

and by

in

120

4

while in

30

4

the translator shortens his text

have

Pesh. has ‘terebinth’ in

I

K.

19

and ‘oak’ in Ps.

120.

rendered ‘juniper’

in

I

K.

and

in the Psalm; this is also in

which as usual follows Jewish

tradition.

I n spite

of the versions Ar.

certainly means

‘broom’ (cp Low, 366).

T h e particular species

is

probably

Forsk., which, according to

Robinson

is the largest and most conspicuous

shrub in the deserts

S.

of Palestine.

a.

I

K.

can be explained by another quotation from the.

same source. ‘Our Arabs always selected the place of encamp-

ment (if possible) in

a

spot where it grew, in order

to

be sheltered

by it a t night from the wind

;

and during the day, when they

often went on in advance of the camels, we found them not un-

frequently sitting

o~

sleeping under

a

bush of Retem to protect

them from the sun.

RV renders thus,

‘What shall be given unto thee

.

. .

thou deceitful tongue?

Sharp arrows of the mighty, with

coals

of juniper.’ The mode

of

expression, however, is ‘somewhat artificial, not

to

say

The tongue is itself an ‘arrow’’ how can

arrows be given

to

it, and how can arrows

be

with

‘coals’? Travellers tell

us,

doubt that

of broom

emit an intense heat (see

This illustrates

the phrase, but not its figurative application in this context;

Hupfeld has already seen that ‘coals’

should be ‘tents

This at once gives

a

new aspect

to

the passage

;

but it

creates

a

new riddle which only

a

more thorough investigation

of the text can solve. Probably, for

we should read

and render

71.

46

(emended text) thus, ‘Arrows

of a

warrior are the tongues of the people of the tents of

(see

ob

Y O 4

RV, and the roots

of

the broom are their meat’

supposing that these roots were sometimes eaten

famine-stricken men. Many critics, however, find this sup-
position difficult, and propose

to

read

or

assuming

that fires of

branches are referred

to

warm

them’).

Both

and

It must be

‘purslain’ (see P

URSLAIN

),

that is referred to;

should be

; v. 3

is

a

collection of misread

lications’and the last two words

a

glossatorial comment on the

corrupt’

Light and sense are thus restored to an almost

desperate passage. Read-

‘

Who pluck mallow and the leaves

G. Beer)

of

the

But

we

Symm. has

6. Ps. 1204

is a more doubtful passage.

Who gnaw the broom-plant and the purslain.’

Thus only two passages with

can be vindicated.

need not doubt the word on this account.

Cp R

ITHMAH

.

T.

JUPITER

(Greek

Sanscr.

from

shining,’ seen in

dies), the supreme

deity of the Greeks, the conception of whom arose from

the contemplation of the clear sky (cp Holm,

Hist.,

In

therefore, the words

(

the image which fell down from Jupiter,’

AV

so

also RV, with marg.

heaven

’)

should be

rendered the image that fell from the bright sky.’

So

Euripides rightly explains ‘the same epithet in speaking of

the image of the Tauric Artemis

977,

:

cp

v.

[For

parallels in Hebrew cp Gen.

1924,

‘brimstone and fire from

from heaven’

T h e title Olympian

was in general use

throughout Greece as marking the supremacy of Zeus,
owing to the influence

of

the Homeric poems, in which

abode of the gods was localised

the summit of

Mt. Olympus (cp Farnell,

Greek States, I.

).

As the god of hospitality

the protector of strangers

he was everywhere worshipped

as

Xenios.

In

Here, as

or

or

in

conceals the name

or

part of the name,

of

some

otherwise we do not

where Elijah halted.

nnx

nnn

we should probably read

‘in the

valley

of

Rehohoth’

however,

Egypt

’).

See

To take

in

[B] as a misplaced

would be unwise since

passes over

in

v.

5.

The use

for fuel would hardly be

characteristic of the poorest class.

JUBTUS

168

B.

c. Antiochns Epiphanes (see

established the worship of the Olympian Zeus in the
Temple a t Jerusalem

Macc.

on

the Syriac

equivalent of

see col. 23 top, and

Dan.

11

and

12

11

see col.

and that of Zeus Xenios

on

Mt. Gerizim.

I t was this Antiochus who resumed

the building of the greatest temple of Olympian Zeus,
that a t

columns of which still remain:

Peisistratos had laid the foundations ; but the completion

of the work was reserved for Hadrian

A.

I).

).

T h e Jupiter of Lystra

is not the Greek

Zeus, but the

Lycaonian deity identified by the

Greek speaking section of the population with the
supreme god of the Greek pantheon

but we have

no

right to draw inferences as to the character of the cult
from such identification, for identity

of name by no

means implied identity in character

the Artemis

of Ephesus was very different from the Artemis

of

Delos).

This caution applies also to the use of the

name Hermes in this passage

of

Acts.

Ramsay

(Church

R.

57,

n . ) acutely remarks

that ‘ t r u e to the Oriental character, the Lycaonians
regarded the active and energetic preacher (Paul) a s
the inferior, and the more silent and statuesque figure
(Rarnabas) as the leader and principal.’

T h e

that

the deities manifested themselves

on

earth seems

to

have been prominent

central Asia Minor.

Ovid

relates the Phrygian legend of the enter-

tainment unawares of Zeus and Hermes by the

poor

couple

and Philemon (the legend was

perhaps

near Iconium : see Ramsay,

Church

in

R.

58

n., and

Comm. on

225,

where he refers also to Phrygian inscriptions with the
words

the most manifest

god

In

‘Jupiter,

which was before their city,’ AV

;

temple

before

the city,’ RV), Codex

reads

(or

better

as one word), ‘of Zeus

is (called)

Zeus-hefore-tf d-City

‘Zeus Propoleos. This is

Ramsay

R.

compares an inscription

of

Claudiopolis

of

Isauria

to

the SE..

of

Lystra, recording

a

dedication

‘to Zeus-before-the-Town.’

I n -

dependent proof of the

the-temple would probably

be

the first-fruits of excavation on the site of Lystra.

W.

J. W.

JURISDICTION

Lk.

(cp

2020).

See

G

OVERNMENT

,

JUSHAB-HESED

‘kindness is requited,’

23

a son of Zerubbabel

(

I

Ch.

T h e name

improbable; it follows Hasadiah, and is of

a

type

which

is

unusual in Hebrew proper names.

suggests

Jehosheba, of which Jushab’ would be

a corrupt fragment, and

a

fragment of a duplicated

Hasadiah. Cp the corrupt names Giddalti, Romanti-ezer, etc.

(see

T. IC. C.

JUSTICE

(Administration

of).

See

L

AW AND

J

USTICE

.

JUSTUS

under the form

Jnsti,

was a common name among the Jews.

Josephns men-

tions three persons of the name, including

a son of his

own.

Bar-Kappara, denouncing the practice of taking

Roman names, says, They did not call Reuben

Judah Julianus, Benjamin Alexander, Joseph Justus.
W e need hardly suppose that he

is

attacking the

[In

in its present form, two reasons for the

prominence of

seem

to

be combined :

(

I

)

that he was

of imposing stature (contrast Paul,

Acta Pauli

e!

and

that he was

not

forward to speak, like Paul.

(‘because he was the chief speaker,’ EV) may perhaps he

an

addition (the Fleury palimpsest omits). On the source

of

cp A

CTS

,

Cp

AND

[If conjectures are permissible

we not read, with

Valckenir,

‘and

the priest of the temple of

Zeus

which was’ etc. ?-E

D

.]

4

32.

See Nestle,

T

IO,

Chajes,

78.

2648

JUSTUS

KADESH

Probably the true name is Tertius Justus, Titius being
a corruption of Tertius.'

The

Christian who

had received Paul during his

visit to Corinth was

of course still his intimate friend during his second visit,
and as such was proud to discharge the important
duties of a secretary.

Tertius, who write this

JUTTAH

Josh.

[B],

om.

A,

or

Josh.

15

55

R V

[AL]),

a place in the hill-country of

Judah,

a

Levitical city according to the Priestly Writer.

By mistake (notice the number in

Juttah is omitted in

M T of

I

Ch.

it is restored by Be. and

have not noticed, however, that

had

them.'

Eusebius and Jerome describe Juttah as a large

village, 18 R. m. to the

of Eleutheropolis

2 6 6 4 9

13310).

This exactly agrees with the distance

to the

SE.

from

of the modern

which lies very

the

S.

slopes of a mountain,

m.

S.

by W . from Hebron (Rob.

:

3

3

Reland, Robinson Renan, and Smend have identified it with

the city referred

to

)in

Lk.

1 3 9

[Ti.

but

Judah' there seems

to

he parallel

to

the hill-country (cp

v.

so

that

no

particular city is specified, and, as

points

out

(Jude!,

the attested Greekform of Juttah has

a

not

a

See also Schick,

('99).

On

the transition

from the Hebrew

to

the Arabic form, see Kampffmeyer,

ZDPY

T.

K. C.

epistle

. . .

(Rom.

T. K.

C .

Alexander and Rufus

of

Mk.

and the

Justus of Acts

123,

but the coincidence

of

names is

remarkable.

I

.

Joseph Barsabas, 'surnamed Justus,' Acts

123

see B

AR

-

Justus a Jewish Christian who unlike most who

were 'of the

was a comfort

Paul Col.

Theophylact identifies

3

below.

to a late

tradition he became bishop

of

Eleutheropolis.

$

2.

3.

Justus,

see below.

,

JUSTUS

etc.), or (RV)

T

ITUS

HE)

or Titius Justus

[Ti.

WH],

T

ON

whose house adjoined the synagogue, and who

received the apostle Paul at a critical period during his
first visit to Corinth (Acts

As Ramsay points

he was evidently one

of the

of the colony Corinth

the adhesion

of a Roman citizen would be

a

great help t o

a

Christian missionary. When the Christians left the

synagogue, the house

of

Justus provided a convenient

meeting-place.

T h e exact name of Paul's friend, how-

ever, is disputed.

Tregelles inclined to

'

Justus

'

;

Ti.,

W H , and Blass adopt Titius Justus

Wieseler,

on doubtful grounds, prefers Titus Justus (RV). T h e
decision may perhaps be given by Paul himself, who,

a s Weizsacker notes, (in the present text) makes
no reference to his Corinthian entertainer.

Probably

not

one

of

the forms given above, t o which may

be added the bare Titus (Pesh.,

Theb.),

is

correct.

KAB

2

K.

RV,

AV

C

AB

KABZEEL

'[whom] God collects'),

a

city

of

Judah on the border

of

Edom, the native town

of

.

I n Neh.

the name

as J

EKABZEEL

om.

Most probably

it is

a

corruption of

the important town elsewhere miscalled

Ziklag, on the site of

SW.

of Beersheba, towards

Ruheibeh (Rehoboth). David's close connection, prob-

ably by birth and certainly by fortunes, with the Negeb,
and the fact that Benaiah was the commander of the
Cherethites (Rehobothites) and Pelethites (Zarephathites),
strongly favours this view.

I t must beadmitted that Jekabzeel, Kabzeel are in themselves

likely forms; the present writer has therefore been reluctant to

resort to emendation.

treatment of the

and

however,

so

nearly approaches that

proposed in this and other articles (especially

and adds

so

much force to

argument

deriving David's bodyguard from the Negeb (see

N

EGEB

) that it would be misplaced hesitation to withhold this

which is in fact

not

very much

less

probable than

the

of

for Ziklag. See

and cp

See J

U D A H

.

KADESH

'holy.'

98

[BAL]).

I

.

Also called .

Kadesh

-

Barnea

peculiar

to D

and

K.

[BAFL], once

Num.

344

[BAFL], on the Targ.

for Kadesh

see J

ERAHMEEL

,

4 ) ,

one

of

the most

important places in the history of Israel previous to
the

conquest,' is now identified with

50

m.

S.

of Beersheba.

From its situation it is plain

that it must always have been

a

central spot, and

bull,

whom

in all essentials

agrees, has shown that the biblical references
are best satisfied by identifying it with 'Ain Kadis (see

85

N

E

G

E

B

,

and [on the confusion between Kadesh and

Petra] S

ELA

). I n the O T it appears a s the

city

of

Edom

(Nu. 20

and in P and Ezek.

as

part

of

the southernmost border

of

Palestine ( N u .

34

4

Ezek.

47

B]

48

T h e surrounding district

is once called the desert of Kadesh

' (Ps. 29

and was

perhaps identical with that of Beersheba (Gen.
Its name, however, is given by

P as

(Nu.

and by another writer of the same age a s Sin

( E V

I t is by

no

means improbable that the

district coincided with the

N.

Arabian

mentioned

in Assyrian inscriptions, see M

IZRAIM

,

6.

T h e significance of the name Kadesh fully accords

with all we know of the whole district.

In the old

patriarchal legends the district of Kadesh
(see

B

E E R

-

L A H A I

-

R O I

,

enters into the stories of A

BRAHAM

,

and

its prominence being no doubt derived from

its association with the early life of Israel after the

Exodus, the old accounts ( J E )

of which make Kadesh

the goal

leaving Egypt, and the centre of the forty

years' wanderings; see

W

ANDERINGS

,

T h e

events related of Meribath-Kadesh (see

AN

D

and the evidence of the name

Well

of

Judgment

as

applied to Kadesh

Gen.

cp

Nu.

3336

[L]),

suggest that

was renowned both

I t is doubtful whether AL omit

;

[AI,

may represent this name or possibly Bethzur, cp

(Ald.

and

HP ad

According

to

Eusebius the 'desert

of

Kadesh' extends

to

Petra, and includes Hazazon-Tamar Hormah, and

(see

Z

IN

);

the statement requires

3

Cp the variation in

Nu. 33 36

where after

reads

'and they departed from Zin, and came to the wilderness

of

Paran which is Kadesh"

has the interesting reading 'to

the

of Judgment,

is Kadesh.'

4

The instances where Mizraim in these narratives refers

to

the

N.

Arabian

are to be specially noted (see

According to

(GI

2

En-mishpat is localised in Gen.

14 7

by an arbitrary conjecture and the Kadesh originally meant

by

gloss

was

(see

Possibly, how-

ever, En-mishpat

'

is a scribe's error for Ir-misrepbath,'

Ir

'

the city of Zarephath (Che.). See

and cp

2650

KADESH

KANAH

the walls of the Ramesseum at Thebes, and the heroic

deeds of Rameses

before the city form the subject

of

a well-known epic.’

No

reference to it occurs in the

Assyrian inscriptions apparently it had been destroyed
by the Syrians of Damascus.

According to

critics

it is mentioned in the

in the account of David‘s

numbering

of the people,

2

S.

246 (see

HODSHI).

If this view were correct, it would show

that the Hittites still held Kadesh in the time of David.
I t has also been found by critical conjecture in Judg.

16 (see H

A R O S H E T H

), and in Judg.

under-

lying the corrupt text of which we may probably detect
something like this :-

Then fought the

KidSon-its mighty ones were stunned.

The

dyed the torrent Kishon,

The

dyed it like

T h e form

may have belonged properly to the

people of Kadesh; it occurs in

a

corrupt form in the

epic

of

Pentaur and in the treaty between Rameses

and the

T h e men of Kadesh (the place of

residence of Sisera, Judg.

4 )

and

of

Hadrach fought in

the army of Sisera against the Israelites.

For another

Kidshon, see

K

ISHION

.

Cp

(I)

S.

A.

C.,

( 2 )

T.

K . C.

KADMIEL

‘ G o d is in front,‘

as

leader,

[BKA],

[L]), a

Levitical name men-

tioned with J

ESHUA

(7)

in

the great post-exilic list

(

E

Z R A

ii.,

9,

7 4 3

I

Esd.

(AV

[A])

also among those officiating a t

the constitution of the

‘

congregation’ (see

E

ZRA

and

Neh.

(see B

ANI

,

3)

also amongst

the signatories to the covenant (see

E

ZRA

i.,

Neh.

In

the last-cited passage the son of Kadmiel should be

(or Bani) Kadmiel’

The name should perhaps

be read in

I

Ch.

for K

EMUEL

(3) see

7

[i.]

n.

KADMONITES

of

the east,’

of the Syrian desert, like the b n e Kedem (see

E

AST

,

C

HILDREN

O

F

THE

),

K

E D E M A H

a ‘son’

of Ishmael.

Not improbably, however

is

a

corruption of

Jerahmeelite

R

EKEM

).

suits their position next to

and, if correct, favours the view that the Hittites

of Palestine are the ‘Rehobothites‘

(a

textual corruption see

R

EHOBOTH

).

KAIN

Nu.

RV

and

‘ t h e

See A

MALEK

,

C

AIN

,

5

K

ENITES

.

KALLAI

om.,

[L]),

a priest in Joiakim’s time (see

E

ZRA

66

1

1

),

Neh.

KAMON

Judg.

RV AV

[L]),

a place on the boundary

of

(Josh.

1928).

At first sight it appears

as if Kanah should be near

Zidon, but the description probably means
from the former place the border stretches northward to
Zidon and that no places requiring to be mentioned in

See Erman,

in

Ancient

Egypt,

393,

n.

I

.

Read

for

is

a

scribe’s attempt to make sense of

above

is

a

modification of Ruben’s

very acute restoration in

(‘98).

Ruben reads

men of Kadesh,’ in

3

above,

but

misses the point in

lines

I

and

H e detected

in

and

‘like wool’

(Ass.

‘like red-coloured

wool,’

Del. Ass.

4456 ;

cp

6,

in

(rather

he explained from the Ass. inscriptions

as

meaning dyed it

suff.

of 3rd sing.

The poem was

written by some one who had Babylonian culture. Note

perhaps

‘a

howl of bronze’ (Ass.

See

J

AEL

.

[IO].

See also

(on

see

E

Z

RA

),, and Neh.

12824.

Both names may come from

(Che.).

Cp S

ALLAI

.

See

As.

U

.

335,

cp 94

104

(cited by Ruben).

2652

for a theophany (cp also Gen.

and for

some

divinely given decision or legislation.

These, un-

fortunately, are not directly mentioned; but it is not
impossible that they may be found buried away under a
mass of redactional matter in Ex.

the antiquity

of the main part of which chapters

is

generally admitted

see

E

XODUS

6.

T h e covenant in Ex.

34

is admittedly older than

either the

or the code in

and the

theophany

345)

in which

reveals his name and manifests his
presence is not only

after

preceding history

of the Exodus given by

but is

in

a marked degree cruder and more anthropomorphic

than the similar theophany in Ex.

(see esp.

33

T h e conjecture that Kadesh was the scene of what
might appear to be the first manifestation

of

t o

Moses, explains the words

of Hobab in

Nu.

will depart to my own land and to my kindred

which,

on

the

usual

assumption that the scene is laid in Horeb,

hard by Hobab’s home (Ex.

are somewhat .un-

natural.

Moreover, this new importance of Kadesh

makes it probable that it is to be connected‘with

a

specific tradition,

traces of which are

to be found

imbedded in

account

of

the wanderings.

It has

been

elsewhere that the details of the journey

from Egypt t o Sinai are borrowed from a later stage

of

the wanderings

(E

XODUS

5

Traces of

a

similar tradition following the departure from Kadesh
may perhaps be discovered in

Nu.

where the

wanderers have proceeded N. t o H

ORMAH

and

the continuation of the march (in the same direction)
finds them in Beer

Heersheba to the N.

of Hormah,

or

Beer-lahai-roi

7).

T h e rest of this narra-

tive is not directly recoverable its historical value will
depend upon the view taken of the origin of the tribe of
J

U D A H

Accepting Schiele’s view that the ‘city

of

palm trees’

116)

is to be located in the extreme S. of Judah (cp the name

identification with Jericho being due to mistaken

glosses-we may be justified in emending the unknown

way of Atharim,’ Nu.

21

I

)

,

on

the road to Hormah, into

(‘the city of palm

To

journeying

referred to above, which started from Kadesh, we may possibly

assign the capture and occupation of Hebron and the sur-

rounding districts (see H

EBRON

,

I

,

JERAHMEEL,

§

I t

may he conjectured further that the journey from Kadesh north-

wards to Jndah is

a levitical

’

tradition.

In support of this if

may be noticed that tradition seems

to

the ‘Levites

with Kadesh (see

and a

close inspection of their

name-lists makes it highly probable that previous to their diffu-

sion throughout Israel they had come from the south. The same

evidences show that ‘Levite’ is no ethnic, hut

a

class-name

perhaps correctly connects with the

S.

Arab.

temple-servant,’

A H T

applied

to

special members of

several closely related clans and families. See G

ENEALOGIES

I n

view of this relation between Kadesh and Judah it may

be noticed that tradition sends David himself to the wilderness

of

(

I

S.

25

I

,

see

perhaps his original home, and

that,

as

Prof. Cheyne suggests, En-gedi’

in

I

S.

23

24

I

,

as well

as

in

Josh.

15

62,

Ch.

20

under the

circumstances, probably be emended to

cp En-mishpat

above);

see

also

rgoo, p.

n.

[See further

2.

Kadesh, on the left bank of the Orontes.

T h e

most southern city

of the Hittites, situated on an emin-

ence about

5

m. from the lake called in the middle ages

Buheiret

Representations of it are given

on

See

also

J

EALOUSY

,

T

RIAL OF,

I

.

The budding of Aaron’s

rod in token of the pre-eminence of the Levites is placed a t

Kadesh

Nu.

The necessity for any renewal of the covenant

(as

these

chapters have been at times explained) disappears when it is

realised that the story of the calf-worship belongs

to

Verse

can scarcely be explained after such passages

as

etc.

Thk wilderness in

v.

186

is

that

in

13.

Verse

186

follows immediately

upon v.

Or, better still, into

the way of the

land of the Amorite

’

(Che.).

was in fact close to the

Amorite mountain-region (Dt.

1

See Maspero,

140

As.

§

7

JERICHO,

Cp

2651

KANAH

this part of the border occur to the writer

(so

Di.).

Kanah may therefore be the modern village of

7

m.

SE.

of Tyre.

Kanah was identified by Eus. and Jer.

( U S )

with C

ANA

OF

G

ALILEE

.

KANAH

reeds

?),

the name of a torrent and

AV ‘river,’ RV ‘ b r o o k ’ ) mentioned in the

definition of the borders of Ephraim and Manasseh
(Josh.

8

T h e same form Kanu appears

as

that

of a principality in the Am. Tab.

readings are

in

The border of Ephraim ‘goes out from Tappuah

westward to the torrent Kanah, and ends a t the s e a ’

while that of Manasseh ‘descends to the torrent

Kanah, southward of the torrent’

Similarity of

sound at once suggests that the torrent Kanah may be
the

SW.

of Shechem, which, passing

into the

W.

Ishkar,

joins

the

and

so

reaches the

sea. There is indeed one phonetic difficulty

is distinct

from

the whole this theory (which has been

adopted by Conder) suits the other topographical
indications best.

the other hand, apart from these

indications, a plausible case is made out by

for

the

Nahr

a little to the N. of

the

beside which the English crusaders under Richard

I.

tarried on 6th September

I t is bordered,’

says, and even filled with a forest of reeds of different
kinds,’ and he goes on t o identify this river with the
Nahr

(‘stream of reeds’) of the Moslem

historian

ed-Din.

T h e latter river, however, is

rather that now known

the Nahr el-Mefjir, which

reaches the sea about 13 m.

N.

of the Nahr

and therefore cannot

the torrent Kanah.

And

even the Nahr

can be identified with the torrent

Kanah only

if

En-tappuah is placed where

places

it, to the NE. of Shechem.

KAREAH

‘

bald,’

66

cp K

ORAH

), father

of

9) Jer.

40

41

[BKAQ]); also

K. 2523 (AV

For another possible Kareah, restored in Judg.

10

I

see Moore’s note

ad

Cp I

SSACHAR

, col.

n.

4.

RAREM (

[BAL]), in

thehill-country of

Judah,

mentioned only by

(Josh.

It is no doubt the

modern

W.

of Jerusalem, identified else-

where with

(see

S

ALIM

), B

ETH

-

CAR

,

HACCEREM.

Its ancient name

(‘

Vineyard

’)

was well

justified.

KARIATHIARIUS (

[A]),

I

5

RV,

AV K

IRIATHIARIUS

.

KARKAA,

or (RV)

with art. and

T H N

apparently a place on the

S.

border of Judah

(Josh.

According to Wetzstein (Del.

586)

the Makrah-plateau is meant (see N

EGEB

).

T h e fact,

however, that the passage (Nu.

3 4 4 )

says nothing of the

and the oddness of the expression

means

ground,’ ‘pavement,’

bottom

provokes criticism.

For

a

probable emendation see H

AZAR

-

ADDAR

,

KARKOR

[A],

[BL]), the place

t o which Zebah and Zalmunna had fled from Gideon,
and where they were surprised by him (Judg.

8

I t

is the

of

mentioned by

eser

See G

IDEON

,

and cp Niebuhr,

given a s a levitical city in

Zebulun, Josh.

2134,

but according to most only a

variant of K

ATTATH

Kartah, however, may be

another form of K

A R T A N

reads

Kadesh

[A],

[L]).

4.

T. K.

C.

T. K.

C.

KEDESH

KARTAN

a city in Naphtali (Josh.

T H N

T H N

called

in

I

Ch.

has been overlooked that both names may be and

probably are corruptions of

the ancient city

of C

HINNERETH

perhaps the later Chorazin (see

G

ENNESARET

).

T h e name Kartan does not occur

the list of Naphtalite cities in Josh.

where

[L]),

a town in Zebulun (Josh.

19

A

Talmudic statement (Talm. J.

I

)

identifies it with the

later

which

is

the modern

W. of

the

This identification

does

not meet

the requirements of the list in Joshua.

be near

Shimron

Judg.

130

suggests that Kattath

T.

K. C.

KEDAR

a son of Ishmael

(Gen.

25

I

Ch.

1

appears a s

a

representative

Eastern people, Jer.

2

I

O

(opposed to Chittim), as

owning, Is.

Ezek.

and

tent-dwelling, Jer.

(cp

hence its

Is.

42

are probably encampments the tents of Kedar

are used in figures,

Ps. 1205

(with Meshech) Cant.

1 5 .

Only in

Is.

(see

ii.,

8

[7]

; a fragment

of doubtful date) are the men of Kedar spoken of a s
warriors here, too, the tribe of Dedan, in contrast to
Gen.

107

and

2 5 3 ,

is reckoned a s part of Kedar. . In

later times the name seems to have been used

so as

to

include

all

the wild tribes

of

the desert, who were

naturally disliked by the peace- loving

and

thus Kedar quite usurped the place

of

Ishmael.

See

KEDEMAH

‘ e a s t ’

[BAL]), a n

Ishmaelite tribal name,

C p K

ADMONITES

.

To

compare the Kdm or Kdma

of

the story of

with

Maspero

is rash for Kdm whither the

wandering Egyptian betakes ’himself,

general term

for the region

the SE. or

E. of the Dead Sea.

KEDEMOTR

a town which gave its name

to

the wilderness whence Israel sent messengers t o

Sihon, king of

(Dt.

[BAFL]).

It was probably situated on the upper Arnon a t the
northern extremity of the wilderness,

a

more westerly

position being unsuitable since Israel did not enter

Moab (cp Nu.

21

Dr.

ad

The account of the sending of the messengers in Nu.

21

finds a close parallel in the embassy to Edom

20

where the scene is laid at Kadesh. Are the’two accounts
derived from one

and

are easily confused)? Elsewhere

Kedemoth is found only in

as

a

city given to the Reubenites

(Josh.

13

as a levitical

city (Josh.

21

37,

[A],

K

.

I

Ch.

6

79

[A]

I t has been conjectur-

ally

with

whose ruins prove it to have

at one time a place of some importance (cp

See J

AHAZ

.

A.

C.

Chinnereth is found.

See K

ARTAH

.

T.

K. C.

further

I

SHMAEL

,

4

F.

B.

KEDESR

for meaning cp

I

.

a

citv

on

the extreme southern

border of

is perhaps the same as

Kadesh-harnea (see W

ANDERINGS

, W

ILDERNESS OF),

which

will otherwise have been omitted from the list. Dillmann

however, identifies it with the

of

one

S. of Hebron. Hebron,

and

were in Mukaddasi’s

time, stations on the S. caravan-route.

(Del.

wrongly identified

with Kadesh-Barnea.

[A])

in

I

a levitical city in

Issachar. The parallel passage in Josh.

2128

Josh.

has Kishion the name

(if the view taken in K

ISHION

is

correct) accounts for both forms:, Conder identifies this Kedesh

with

Abu

near

and

a

critical

conjecture of

depends

on

its ’existence (see

D

EBORAH

.

3.

[B],

[AVL]), a n ancient sanctuary

which preserved its rights of asylum
even under the Priestly Code it is the

of Am. Tab.

See

also