exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/BLB/study/isbe/3700.html

113 lines
470 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<script src="../../js/basepath.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/nav.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainHeader.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
isbe = [];
isbe[3701]='Gazites`gaz\'-its:<P>Inhabitants of Gaza, who were Philistines when the Israelites came into contact with them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,3);">Jos 13:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,2);">Jud 16:2</a>), but there was an older stratum of population which occupied the place before the invasion of the Philistines, probably of Amorite stock.``1';
isbe[3702]='Gazzam`gaz\'-am (gazzam, "devouring"):<P>Head of a family of Nethinim who returned from exile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,48);">Ezr 2:48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,51);">Ne 7:51</a>; 1Esdras 5:31, "Gazera").``1';
isbe[3703]='Ge-Harashim`ge-ha-ra\'-shim (ge\'charashim): In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,14);">1Ch 4:14</a>, the King James Version renders "valley of Charashim." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,35);">Ne 11:35</a>, English Versions of the Bible renders "valley of craftsmen"; here it is named with Lod and Ono. Something of the name perhaps survives in Khirbet Hirsa, east of Lydda.``1';
isbe[3704]='Geba`ge\'-ba (gebha\', "hill"):<P>(1) A town on the northeast boundary of the territory of Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,24);">Jos 18:24</a>), given to the Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,17);">Jos 21:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,60);">1Ch 6:60</a>). It stood on the northern frontier of the kingdom of Judah, Geba and Beersheba marking respectively the northern and southern limits (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,8);">2Ki 23:8</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,25);">2Sa 5:25</a> "Geba" should be altered to "Gibeon," which stands in the corresponding passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,16);">1Ch 14:16</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,10,33);">Jud 20:10, 33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,3,16);">1Sa 13:3, 16</a>, the Hebrew reads "Geba," the translation "Gibeah" being due to confusion of the two names. From <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,5);">1Sa 14:5</a> we gather that Geba stood to the south of the great gorge, Wady Suweinit, commanding the pass at Michmash. This was the scene of Jonathan\'s daring enterprise against the Philistines, when, accompanied by his armor-bearer, he accomplished an apparently impossible feat, climbing the rocky steeps of the gorge to the north and putting the enemy to flight. There can be no doubt that the modern village of Jeba\' occupies the ancient site. It stands to the south of Wady Suweinit, looking toward Michmash<73>modern Mukhmas<61>with Seneh, the crag on the southern lip of the gorge, in front of it. The distance from Jerusalem is about 6 miles. It was fortified by Asa with materials that his enemy Baasha had used to fortify Ramah against him (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,22);">1Ki 15:22</a>). It is named by Isaiah in his description of the terrifying march of the Assyrians upon Jerusalem from the north (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,28);">10:28</a>ff). It appears among the cities which were reoccupied by Israel after the Exile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,26);">Ezr 2:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,31);">Ne 11:31</a>).<P>(2) (Gaibai): Between a fortress so named and Scythopolis (Beisan), Holofernes pitched his camp (Judith 3:10). On the high road that runs through Jenin, and down the Vale of Jezreel to Beisan, about 2 miles to the south of Sanur, stands the village of Jeba\', with which this fortress may be identified.``54';
isbe[3705]='Gebal`ge\'-bal (gebhal, "border"; Bublos, and Biblos; Byblus, modern Jebeil):<P>(1) An ancient Phoenician city, situated on a bluff of the foothills of Lebanon, overlooking the Mediterranean. It was one of the principal seaports of Phoenicia, and had a small but good harbor for small ships. It lies in lat. 34 degrees 8\', nearly, and about 4 miles north of the river Adonis (Nahr Ibrahim). It was regarded as a holy city by the ancients. Philo mentions the tradition that it was founded by Kronos, and was sacred to the worship of Beltis and, later, of Adonis, whose rites were celebrated yearly at the river of the same name and at its source in the mountain, at Apheca (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=TAMMUZ">TAMMUZ</a>). Gebal was the center of quite an extensive district, extending from the Eleutherus on the north to the Tamyras on the south, a distance of 60 or 70 miles along the coast. It is mentioned by Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,5);">13:5</a>) as the land of the <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GEBALITES">Gebalites</a> (which see) (the King James Version "Giblites"), and the Gebalites are also mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,18);">1Ki 5:18 (Hebrew 32)</a> as aiding in the construction of Solomon\'s temple. The "elders" and the "wise men" of Gebal are among the workmen employed on Tyrian ships (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,9);">Eze 27:9</a> the American Revised Version, margin). The earliest mention of Gebal found in history is in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, which were composed in the first half of the 14th century BC. It had become, in connection with all Phoenicia, a dependency of Egypt in the days of Thothmes III and was under Egyptian governors, but, in the reign of Amenhotep IV (Ikhnaton), the Hittites and Amorites from the north and Khabiri from the south attacked the territory of Gebal, and its governor wrote letters to Amenhotep, calling for help. There are over 60 of these, describing the desperate condition of the city and of its governor, Ribaddi, who was expelled and took refuge in Beirut, but afterward regained his capital only to be besieged and lose all his dependencies, and finally to fall into the hands of the enemy. Gebal afterward became independent, as is shown by the records of Ramses IX (1442-1423 BC) and of Ramses XII, for its king retained the emissaries of the former 17 years in captivity, and treated a trusted agent of the latter with scant civility. Its king at this time was Zakkar-Baal, and kings of Gebal are mentioned in the Assyrian records, one paying tribute to Ashurnazir-pal (circa 887 BC) and another to Sennacherib (705-680). The latter king was Uru-melek, and kings of Gebal are mentioned in connection with other Phoenician cities under Persian rule. The city submitted to Alexander the Great without opposition, and furnished a fleet to aid him in the siege of Tyre (332). Strabo refers to it as a town of note in the days of Pompey (xvi.2,17), and it is frequently mentioned in Phoenician (CIS, 1) and Assyrian inscriptions in the forms Gubal and Gubli (COT, I, 174).<P>(2) (gebhal; Gobolitis): A district southeast of the Dead Sea, which is referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',83,7);">Ps 83:7 (Hebrew 8)</a> in connection with Moab, Ammon, Amalek and others, as making a covenant together against Israel (compare 1Macc 5). Robinson (BR, II, 154) found the name Jebal still applied to this region, and Josephus (Ant., II, i, 2) speaks of a Gebalitis as forming part of Idumaea. It is a hilly region, as the modern name signifies, and includes the towns of Shobek and Tolfieh.``138';
isbe[3706]='Gebalites`ge\'-bal-its (ha-gibhlim): Inhabitants of <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GEBAL">GEBAL</a> (which see). According to the present text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,5);">Jos 13:5</a>, "the land of the Gebalites" was given to Israel as part of its future territory. But it was never occupied by the Israelites. Septuagint, however, has a very different reading, indicating an early corruption of the text. Perhaps with many modern scholars it is better to read "to the borders of the Gebalites."<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,18);">1Ki 5:18</a> the King James Version translates this word "stone-squarers," the King James Version margin gives "Giblites," and the Revised Version (British and American) "Gebalites," as workmen who, with the men of Solomon and of Hiram, fashioned the stones for the temple. Here also the text is doubtful, and some by a slight change would read: "and made a border for them" (i.e. for the stones). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,9);">Eze 27:9</a> the men of Gebal are described as the "calkers" of the ships of Tyre and Sidon.``76';
isbe[3707]='Geber`ge\'-ber (gebher, "man," "strong one"):<P>(1) According to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,13);">1Ki 4:13</a> the King James Version the father of one of the 12 officers who provided food for Solomon and his household (but here the Revised Version (British and American) "Ben-geber"). His district lay to the northeast of Jordan.<P>(2) Another, and the last in the list of Solomon\'s commissariat officers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,19);">1Ki 4:19</a>). His district was also east of the Jordan, but probably to the south of that named in connection with the official of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,13);">4:13</A> (the Revised Version (British and American) "Ben-geber"). According to the rendering of English Versions of the Bible, he is said to have been "the only officer that was in the land." Unless the text, which presents some difficulties, is corrupt, as some suppose, it probably means that this large region was assigned to one official because less able than the others to furnish the required supplies.``44';
isbe[3708]='Gebim`ge\'-bim (gebhim, "trenches"): A place named only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,31);">Isa 10:31</a>. Some would place it at Jebia, identifying it with the Geba of Eusebius, 5 Roman miles from Gophna (modern Jifneh), on the way to Shechem. Its place, however, in the order of names, after Anathoth, seems to point to some position south of that village, to the northeast of Jerusalem.``1';
isbe[3709]='Gecko`gek\'-o (the Revised Version (British and American) for \'anaqah, only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,30);">Le 11:30</a>; Septuagint mugale, "shrew mouse" or "field mouse"; the King James Version ferret): Probably a shrew or a field mouse.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FERRET">FERRET</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LIZARD">LIZARD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIDER">SPIDER</a>`1';
isbe[3710]='Gedaliah`ged-a-li\'-a (gedhalyah; except in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,3,);">1Ch 25:3, 9</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,1);">Jer 38:1</a>, where it is gedhalyahu, "Yah(u) is great"):<P>(1) Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam (the friend and protector of Jeremiah) and grandson of Shaphan (the scribe in the reign of Josiah) (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,\'22-25\');">2Ki 25:22-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',39,14);">Jer 39:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',40,\'5-16\');">40:5-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,\'1-18\');">41:1-18</a>).<P>1. His Appointment as Governor in Judah:<P>After the destruction of Jerusalem and the carrying away captive of the Jews to Babylon (586 BC), Gedaliah was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar governor over the poor Jews who had been left in the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,12,22);">2Ki 25:12, 22</a>). To his charge were committed also some royal princesses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,6);">Jer 43:6</a>) and courtiers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,16);">Jer 41:16</a>) who had been allowed to remain as unlikely to cause any trouble. Gedaliah fixed his residence at Mizpah, a few miles northwest of Jerusalem. Here he was joined by Jeremiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',40,6);">40:6</a>).<P>2. His Conciliatory Spirit and Wise Rule:<P>The Jewish soldiers who had escaped capture, having heard that the Chaldeans had departed, and that Gedaliah, one of their own nation, had been appointed governor in Judah, came with Ishmael, Johanan and other officers at their head, to Gedaliah at Mizpah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,23,24);">2Ki 25:23-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',40,\'7-10\');">Jer 40:7-10</a>). The governor assured them that they need have no fear of vengeance from their conquerors, and promised them on oath protection and security, if they would remain and cultivate the land and become the peaceful subjects of the king of Babylon. This assurance led to a general gathering around Gedaliah of refugees from all the neighboring countries (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',40,11,12);">Jer 40:11-12</a>). For two months (some think longer) Gedaliah\'s beneficent and wise rule did much to consolidate affairs in Judah and to inspire the feeble remnant of his countrymen with heart and hope.<P>3. His Treacherous Assassination:<P>But evil spirits were at work against him. Baalis, king of Ammon, had determined upon his life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',40,\'13-16\');">Jer 40:13-16</a>). The peaceful and popular rule which was being established by the good governor stood in the way of the accomplishment of any plan of conquest he entertained. Baalis found a ready instrument for his murderous design in Ishmael who, as one of royal birth and in the counsels of the king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,1);">Jer 41:1</a>), was doubtless jealous of the man who had been chosen governor in preference to himself. Gedaliah was informed by Johanan and the other captains of the plot to assassinate him, and Johanan at a private interview expressed to him a strong desire to go himself and slay Ishmael secretly, declaring that the safety of the Jews depended upon the life of the governor. But Gedaliah refused to allow Johanan to anticipate his enemy, believing, in the generosity of his heart, that Ishmael was not capable of such an act of treachery. He soon found, however, that his confidence had been sadly misplaced. Ishmael, with ten of his companions, came on a visit to him to Mizpah, and after they had been hospitably entertained they fell upon their good host and murdered him, along with all the Jewish and the Chaldean soldiers whom he had with him for order and protection (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,25);">2Ki 25:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,\'1-3\');">Jer 41:1-3</a>). They then cast the bodies of their victims into the cistern which Asa had made (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,9);">Jer 41:9</a>). Ishmael was pursued and overtaken by Johanan, but he succeeded in effecting his escape to the Ammonites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,\'11-15\');">Jer 41:11-15</a>). Then Johanan and the other captains, afraid lest the Chaldeans should avenge upon them the murder of the governor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,\'16-18\');">Jer 41:16-18</a>), and against the earnest entreaties of Jeremiah (chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',42,\'1-\');">42</a>), fled to Egypt, taking the prophet and the Jewish remnant with them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,5,6,7);">43:5-7</a>). In memory of the date of Gedaliah\'s assassination the Jews kept a fast (which is still retained in the Jewish calendar) on the 3rd day of the 7th month, Tishri (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',7,5);">Zec 7:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,19);">8:19</a>).<P>4. His Noble Character:<P>The narratives reveal Gedaliah in a very attractive light, as one who possessed the confidence alike of his own people and their conquerors; a man of rare wisdom and tact, and of upright, transparent character, whose kindly nature and generous disposition would not allow him to think evil of a brother; a man altogether worthy of the esteem in which he was held by succeeding generations of his fellow-countrymen.<P>(2) (gedhalyahu): Son of Jeduthun, and instrumental leader of the 2nd of the 24 choirs in the Levitical orchestra (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,3,9);">1Ch 25:3, 9</a>).<P>(3) A priest of the "sons of Jeshua," in the time of Ezra, who had married a foreign woman (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,18);">Ezr 10:18</a>).<P>(4) (gedhalyahu): Son of Pashhur (who beat Jeremiah and put him in the stocks, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',20,\'1-6\');">Jer 20:1-6</a>), and one of the chiefs of Jerusalem who, with the sanction of the king, Zedekiah, took Jeremiah and let him down with cords into a cistern where he sank in the mud (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',38,1,4,5,6);">38:1,4-6</A>).<P>(5) Grandfather of Zephaniah the prophet, and grandson of Hezekiah, probably the king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,1);">Ze 1:1</a>).``32';
isbe[3711]='Geddur`ged\'-ur (Geddour): Head of a family of temple-servants (1Esdras 5:30), corresponding to Gahar of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,47);">Ezr 2:47</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,49);">Ne 7:49</a>.``1';
isbe[3712]='Gedeon`ged\'-e-on (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,32);">Heb 11:32</a> the King James Version).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GIDEON">GIDEON</a>`1';
isbe[3713]='Geder`ge\'-der (gedher): A royal city of the Canaanites taken by Joshua along with Lachish, Eglon, Gezer, Debir and Hormah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,13);">Jos 12:13</a>f). It may be the city called "Beth-gader" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,51);">1Ch 2:51</a>, and the birthplace of Baal-hanan, who had charge of David\'s olives and sycamores (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,28);">27:28</a>); unidentified.``1';
isbe[3714]='Gederah; Gederathite`ge-de\'-ra, ge-de\'-ra-thit (ha-gedherah, "the enclosed place"): A town in the Shephelah of Judah, named with Socoh, Azekah, Shaaraim and Adithaim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,36);">Jos 15:36</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,23);">1Ch 4:23</a> the Revised Version (British and American) reads, "the inhabitants of Netaim and Gederah," for the King James Version, "those that dwelt among plants and hedges." It is probably represented by Khirbet Jadireh, about 3 miles southwest of Gezer. "Gederathite," applied to Jozabad (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,4);">1Ch 12:4</a>), probably meant an inhabitant of this place.``1';
isbe[3715]='Gederite`ge\'-der-it, ge-de\'-rit (gedheri): Inhabitant of <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GEDER">GEDER</a>, which see (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,28);">1Ch 27:28</a>).``1';
isbe[3716]='Gederoth`ged\'-e-roth, ge-de\'-roth (gedheroth): A town in the Shephelah of Judah, named with Kithlish, Beth-dagon, Naamah and Makkedah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,41);">Jos 15:41</a>). It is mentioned along with Bethshemesh and Aijalon as taken by the Philistines in the reign of Ahaz (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,18);">2Ch 28:18</a>). It possibly corresponds with the "Kidron" of 1Macc 15:39,41; 16:9. Eusebius, Onomasticon places a very large village named Gedrom 10 Roman miles from Lydda on the road to Eleutheropolis. This points to Katrah, southeast of Yebnah.``1';
isbe[3717]='Gederothaim`ged-e-ro-tha\'-im (gedherathayim, "place of enclosures"): Stands as the 15th in a list which professes to give only the names of 14 cities in the Judean Shephelah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,36);">Jos 15:36</a>). the King James Version margin suggests that we might read "or" for "and" after Gederah, but this is impossible. Septuagint reads, "and its cattle shelters." Probably, however, the name has arisen by dittography from the preceding <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GEDERAH">GEDERAH</A> (which see).``1';
isbe[3718]='Gedor`ge\'-dor (gedhor; Codex Vaticanus, Geddor, Codex Alexandrinus, Gedor):<P>(1) A town in the mountains of Judah, named with Halhul and Beth-zur (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,58);">Jos 15:58</a>). It seems to be referred to by Eusebius as Gadeira (Onomasticon, under the word), which he identifies with Gaidora (Jerome calls it Gadora), a village in the borders of Jerusalem, near the terebinth. It is probably represented today by Khirbet Jedur, about 7 miles north of Hebron (PEF, III, 313, Sh XXI).<P>(2) Among the Benjamites who joined David at Ziklag were the sons of Jeroham of Gedor (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,7);">1Ch 12:7</a>). No trace of this name is found in the territory of Benjamin. It may be identical with (1).<P>(3) The Simeonites are said to have gone to the entering in of Gedor in search of pasture for their flocks. They smote and expelled the Meunim, "and dwelt in their stead" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,39);">1Ch 4:39</a>). Here the Septuagint reads Gerar, and this is probably correct.<P>(4) A family in Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,4);">1Ch 4:4</a>).<P>(5) An ancestor of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,31);">1Ch 8:31</a>).``54';
isbe[3719]='Gehazi`ge-ha\'-zi (gechazi, except in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,31);">2Ki 4:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,25);">5:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,4,5);">8:4-5</a>, where it is gechazi, perhaps "valley of vision"): The confidential servant of Elisha. Various words are used to denote his relation to his master. He is generally called Elisha\'s "boy" (na\'ar), servant or personal attendant; he calls himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,25);">5:25</a>) his master\'s servant or slave (\'ebhedh), and if the reference be to him in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,43);">4:43</A> the Revised Version, margin, he receives the designation "minister" (meshareth), or chief servant of Elisha.<P>1. His Ready Service:<P>Mention is made of him on three different occasions. He is first brought under notice in the story of the wealthy Shunammite (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,\'8-37\');">2Ki 4:8-37</a>) who provided in her house special accommodation for Elisha, which suited his simple tastes, and of which he availed himself as often as he passed that way. By command of his master, Gehazi called the Shunammite, that she might be rewarded by the prophet for her liberal hospitality. Failing to elicit from the lady a desire for any particular favor, and being himself at a loss to know how to repay her kindness, Elisha consulted with his servant, whose quick perception enabled him to indicate to his master the gift that would satisfy the great woman\'s heart. When on the death of her child the Shunammite sought out the man of God at Carmel, and in the intensity of her grief laid hold of the prophet\'s feet, "Gehazi came near to thrust her away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,27);">2Ki 4:27</a>)<29>perhaps not so much from want of sympathy with the woman as from a desire to protect his master from what he considered a rude importunity. Then Elisha, who had discovered of himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,27);">2Ki 4:27</a>), from what the woman had said (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,28);">2Ki 4:28</a>), the cause of her sorrow, directed Gehazi, as a preliminary measure, to go at once to Shunem and lay his staff upon the face of the dead child. Gehazi did so, but the child was "not awaked."<P>In this narrative Gehazi appears in a favorable light, as a willing, efficient servant, jealous of his master\'s honor; a man of quick observation, whose advice was worth asking in practical affairs.<P>2. His Grievous Sin:<P>Gehazi, however, reveals himself in a different character in connection with the healing of Naaman (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,\'20-27\');">2Ki 5:20-27</a>). As soon as the Syrian general had taken his departure with his retinue from the house of Elisha, the covetous spirit of Gehazi, which had been awakened by the sight of the costly presents the prophet had refused, was no longer able to restrain itself. Running after Naaman, Gehazi begged in the prophet\'s name a talent of silver (400 pounds = $2,000) and two changes of raiment, alleging, as a specious reason for Elisha\'s change of mind, the arrival at his master\'s house of two poor scholars of the prophet, who would require help and maintenance. Naaman, glad to have the opportunity he desired of showing his gratitude to Elisha, urged Gehazi to take two talents and sent two servants with him to carry the money and the garments. When they came to the hill in the neighborhood of the prophet\'s house, Gehazi dismissed the men and concealed the treasure. Thereafter, with a bold front, as if he had been attending to his ordinary duties, he appeared before his master who at once inquired, "Whence, Gehazi?" (Hebrew). On receiving the ready answer that he had not been anywhere, Elisha, who felt sure that the suspicion he entertained regarding his beloved servant, his very "heart" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,26);">2Ki 5:26</a>), was well grounded, sternly rebuked him for the dishonor he had brought upon God\'s cause, and called down upon him and his family forever the loathsome disease of the man whose treasures he had obtained by his shameful lie. "And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow."<P>By this narrative confidence in Gehazi is somewhat unexpectedly and rudely shaken. The active, zealous servant stands confessed a liar and a thief. Gehazi\'s sin branched out in different directions. By his falsehood he deceived Naaman and misrepresented Elisha; he not only told a lie, but told a lie about another man, and that man his master and friend. Further, he brought true religion into disrepute; for it was not a time (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,26);">2Ki 5:26</a>) for a servant of God to allow any commercial idea to be associated with the prophet\'s work in the mind of the Syrian general to whom God\'s power had been so strikingly manifested and when many for worldly gain pretended to be prophets. But while Gehazi\'s sin had ats various ramifications, its one root was covetousness, "the love of money (which) is a root of all kinds of evil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,10);">1Ti 6:10</a>).<P>3. His Probable Repentance:<P>Once more Gehazi is mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',8,\'1-6\');">2Ki 8:1-6</a>) as having been summoned, leper though he was, by King Jehoram to give him an account of all the great things Elisha had done. And when he came to the story of the restoration of the Shunammite\'s child to life, the woman herself appeared before the king along with her son, craving to be reinstated in her house and land of which she had been dispossessed during her seven years\' absence from her native country in a time of famine. Gehazi testified to the identity of both mother and son, with the result that the king at once ordered the restoration not only of all her former possessions, but also of all the profits her land had yielded during her sojourn in Philistia.<P>The appearance and conduct of Gehazi on this occasion give some ground for the hope that he had repented of his sin and could now be trusted to speak the truth; and the pleasure he seemed to take in rehearsing the wonderful deeds of a master who, though kind and indulgent to a stranger, was hard upon him, may even warrant the belief that in his earlier days there was some good thing in him toward his master\'s God. If also, as has been indicated above, the word used in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,43);">2Ki 4:43</a> (meshareth) applies to him<69>the same as is applied to Elisha (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,21);">1Ki 19:21</a>)<29>we may be the more readily inclined to see in the history of Gehazi how one besetting sin may prevent a man from taking his natural place in the succession of God\'s prophets. Let us hope, however, that though Gehazi became a "lost leader," "just for a handful of silver," he was yet saved by a true repentance from becoming a lost soul.``32';
isbe[3720]='Gehenna`ga-hen\'-a (geenna (see Grimm-Thayer, under the word)): Gehenna is a transliteration from the Aramaic form of the Hebrew ge-hinnom, "valley of Hinnom." This latter form, however, is rare in the Old Testament, the prevailing name being "the valley of the son of Hinnom." Septuagint usually translates; where it transliterates the form is different from Gehenna and varies. In the New Testament the correct form is Gee\'nna with the accent on the penult, not Ge\'enna. There is no reason to assume that Hinnom is other than a plain patronymic, although it has been proposed to find in it the corruption of the name of an idol (EB, II, 2071). In the New Testament (King James Version margin) Gehenna occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,22,29,30);">Mt 5:22, 29-30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,28);">10:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,9);">18:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,15,33);">23:15, 33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,43,45,47);">Mr 9:43, 45, 47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,5);">Lu 12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,6);">Jas 3:6</a>. In all of these it designates the place of eternal punishment of the wicked, generally in connection with the final judgment. It is associated with fire as the source of torment. Both body and soul are cast into it. This is not to be explained on the principle that the New Testament speaks metaphorically of the state after death in terms of the body; it presupposes the resurrection. In the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) Gehenna is rendered by "hell" (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ESCHATOLOGY+OF+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT">ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a>). That "the valley of Hinnom" became the technical designation for the place of final punishment was due to two causes. In the first place the valley had been the seat of the idolatrous worship of Molech, to whom children were immolated by fire (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,3);">2Ch 28:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',33,6);">33:6</a>). Secondly, on account of these practices the place was defiled by King Josiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,10);">2Ki 23:10</a>), and became in consequence associated in prophecy with the judgment to be visited upon the people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,32);">Jer 7:32</a>). The fact, also, that the city\'s offal was collected there may have helped to render the name synonymous with extreme defilement. Topographically the identification of the valley of Hinnom is still uncertain. It has been in turn identified with the depression on the western and southern side of Jerusalem, with the middle valley, and with the valley to the E. Compare EB, II, 2071; DCG, I, 636; RE3, VI.``182';
isbe[3721]='Geliloth`ge-li\'-loth (geliloth): This word is used for "districts" or "circuits" perhaps indicating the different parts subject to the several lords of the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,2);">Jos 13:2</a>, the King James Version "borders," the Revised Version (British and American) "regions"); for the quarter of the Jordan valley where the eastern tribes built the altar of Ed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,10);">Jos 22:10</a>f; the King James Version "border of," the Revised Version (British and American) "region about," Jordan); and apparently, for the whole of Philistia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,4);">Joe 3:4</a>, the King James Version "coasts of Palestine," the Revised Version (British and American) "regions of Philistia"). But in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,17);">Jos 18:17</a>, it is clearly used as a place-name. Geliloth lay on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin which passed En-shemesh (probably \'Ain el-Chod, about 2 miles east of Jerusalem), "and went out to Geliloth, which is over against the ascent of Adummim." From this point it "went down" toward the plain. The place cannot therefore be identified with Gilgal in the Jordan valley. Some point on the road leading from Jericho to Tal\'at ed-Dumm, about 6 miles from Jerusalem, was probably intended, but no identification is possible.``54';
isbe[3722]='Gem`jem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',26,8);">Pr 26:8</a>, the English Revised Version "a bag of gems,").`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STONES+PRECIOUS">STONES, PRECIOUS</a>`1';
isbe[3723]='Gemalli`ge-mal\'-i (gemalli, "camel owner"): Father of the spy Ammiel from the tribe of Dan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,12);">Nu 13:12</a>), who was one of those sent by Moses to spy out the land of Canaan.``1';
isbe[3724]='Gemara`ge-ma\'-ra.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TALMUD">TALMUD</a>`1';
isbe[3725]='Gemariah`gem-a-ri\'-a (gemaryahu, gemaryah, "Yahweh hath accomplished"):<P>(1) Son of Shaphan the scribe, one of the princes, from whose chamber Baruch read Jeremiah\'s prophecies to the people. He, with others, sought to stay Jehoiakim from burning the roll (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,10,11,12,25);">Jer 36:10-11, 12, 25</a>).<P>(2) Son of Hilkiah, one of Zedekiah\'s ambassadors to Babylon, by whom Jeremiah sent his letter to the captives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,3);">Jer 29:3</a>).``1';
isbe[3726]='Gematria`ge-ma\'-tri-a.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NUMBERS">NUMBERS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GAMES">GAMES</a>`1';
isbe[3727]='Gender`jen\'-der (yaladh, \'abhar; gennao): "Gender" is an abbreviation of "engender." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,29);">Job 38:29</a> yaladh (common for "to bear," "to bring forth") is translated "gender" (after Wycliff), the Revised Version (British and American) "The hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?" margin "given it birth." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',21,10);">21:10</a> we have \'abhar (either the Piel of \'abhar, "to pass over," etc., or of a separate word meaning "to bear," "to be fruitful"), translated "gendereth," "Their bull gendereth, and faileth not"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,19);">Le 19:19</a>, rabha\', "to lie down with," is used of cattle gendering. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,24);">Ga 4:24</a> the King James Version we have "Mount Sinai, which gendereth (gennoa, "to beget") to bondage," the Revised Version (British and American) "bearing children unto bondage" (like Hagar, Abraham\'s bondwoman), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,23);">2Ti 2:23</a>, which "gender strifes," i.e. beget them.``185';
isbe[3728]='Genealogy of Jesus Christ, The`<p><b>I. INTRODUCTION</b><P class="in15">1. The Problems Involved<P class="in15">2. Nature and Importance of the Issue<P><b>II. THE GENEALOGIES SEPARATELY</b><P class="in15">1. Peculiarities of Matthew\'s Genealogy<P class="in15">2. Explanation of the Foregoing<P class="in15">3. Peculiarities of Luke\'s Genealogy<P class="in15">4. Explanation of the Foregoing<P><b>III. THE GENEALOGIES COMPARED</b><P class="in15">1. Divergences<P class="in15">2. Correspondence<P><b>IV. THE GENEALOGIES AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH</b><P class="in15">1. Text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,16);">Matthew 1:16</a><P class="in15">2. General Conclusions<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Introduction.<P>1. The Problems Involved:<P>The genealogy of Jesus as contained in the First and Third Gospels presents three special problems which lie somewhat part from general questions of New Testament criticism:<P>(1) the construction and purpose of each list taken separately;<P>(2) the relation of the two lists, in their coincidences and variations, to each other;<P>(3) the relationship of both lists to the statement concerning the virgin birth of our Lord with which they are directly connected. These questions necessarily involve the conclusion to be arrived at concerning the trustworthiness of the list of names as forming an actual historical connection between Jesus and His ancestors according to the flesh.<P>2. Nature and Importance of the Issue:<P>Before these problems are dealt with, it would be well to consider the kind and degree of importance to be attached to the question at issue. As we see it, the only vital point at stake is the balance, sanity and good judgment of the evangelists.<P>(1) That Jesus had a line of ancestors by His human birth may be taken for granted. The tradition, universal from the earliest times among believers and granted even by the bitterest opponents, that He was connected with the line of David, may also readily be accepted. The exact line through which that connection is traced is, on general principles, of secondary importance. The fact is that, while natural sonship to David on the part of the Messiah was of vital importance to many Jewish inquirers, it failed of any very enthusiastic endorsement on the part of Jesus Himself (see the truly remarkable interview recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,\'35-37\');">Mr 12:35-37</a>). The expressions of Paul in this connection will be referred to later; at this point it is sufficient to say that physical kinship to David cannot be insisted upon as the only justification for his words.<P>(2) If, then, the purpose of the evangelists in having recourse to these lists is worth while, the question of their correctness need not even be raised. Unless some vital issue is involved, the supposition of a special inspiration to go behind lists currently accepted is gratuitous. No such issue seems to be presented here. The Davidic kinship of Jesus, in any sense essential to His Messiahship, is independent of the lists which are used to justify it. This is preliminary to the actual discussion and need not prevent us from giving all due credit to lists which could not have been carelessly compiled nor lightly used.<P>II. The Genealogies Separately.<P>1. Peculiarities of Matthew\'s Genealogy:<P>(1) The construction and incorporation of Joseph\'s genealogical tree is, in the light of all the facts, the primary consideration.<P>(2) The artificial division into three groups of fourteen generations each. The apparent defect in this arrangement as it actually stands (the third group lacks one member) is probably traceable to a defect of the Septuagint version of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,11);">1Ch 3:11</a>, which is reproduced in the Greek gospel (see Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, English translation, 564, note 4). This arrangement into groups is the more striking because it makes 14 generations from the captivity to Joseph, where Luke makes 20 or 21, and because the first group of 14 is formed by the omission of three names. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that this artificial grouping is essential to the purpose of the evangelist.<P>(3) The insertion of the names of brothers, thus following the historical lists and broadening the genealogy by including collateral lines.<P>(4) The insertion of the names of women<65>a practice not only foreign but abhorrent to ordinary usage. This peculiarity is the more marked when we notice that these names introduce what would be considered serious blots in the family history of the Davidic house (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,5,7);">Mt 1:5, 7</a>).<P>(5) The principle upon which the division into periods is constructed:<P>(a) from Abraham to David,<P>(b) from David to the Captivity,<P>(c) from the Captivity to Jesus. Attention has repeatedly been called to the fact that this gives a definite historical movement to the genealogy. It involves the origin, the rise to power, the decay and downfall of the house of David (see Allen, ICC, "Matthew," 2; compare Zahn, N T, English translation, I, 535).<P>2. Explanation of the Foregoing:<P>Of the many theories which have been constructed to explain the foregoing six peculiarities of the genealogy of Matthew, altogether the most satisfactory is that of Professor Zahn. His contention is that the list was framed not to prove the natural connection of Jesus with the house of David<69>a fact which no one doubted<65>but to defend the one vital point where attack had been made, namely, the legitimacy of Jesus\' connection with David. No one seems to have questioned that Jesus was born of Mary and was closely connected with the royal house. The question was whether He was of legitimate birth. It was charged<65>and the slander which was very early in origin and circumstantial in character obtained an extraordinary hold upon the hostile Jewish mind<6E>that Jesus was the illegitimate offspring of Mary. The Gospel of Matthew meets that slander by giving a bird\'s-eye view of the movement of the history from Abraham to the Messiah in the form of a genealogy of Joseph, who in the light of all the facts concerning the origin of Jesus marries Mary and gives her the protection of his stainless name and royal lineage. The extraordinary boldness and brilliancy of this apologetic method ought not to be overlooked. The formal charge that Jesus is son of Mary, not of Joseph, is admitted<65>the slander involved is refuted by bringing Joseph forward as a witness for Mary. Nothing could have been more natural for a man fearless in the confidence of truth; nothing could have been more impossible for one insecure in his hold upon the facts. So far as the genealogy is concerned, just the moment we realize that the purpose is not to prove the natural sonship of Jesus to David, but to epitomize the history, all hesitancy and apprehension concerning the historicity of the successive names disappear. The continuity of blood relationship through these successive generations becomes of no essential importance. Zahn\'s explanation (the argument in full should be read by every student), simple in itself, explains all the facts, as a key fits a complicated lock. It explains the choice of a genealogy as a method of epitomizing history and that genealogy Joseph\'s, the artificial grouping at the expense of changing the traditional lists, the inclusion of the names of brothers and of women.<P>3. Peculiarities of Luke\'s Genealogy:<P>(1) The choice of Joseph\'s genealogical tree on the part of one who is so deeply interested in Mary.<P>(2) The reversal of order in going back from Joseph to his ancestors. Godet emphasizes the fact that, in the nature of the case, a genealogy follows the order of succession, each new individual being added to the roll of his family. Luke\'s method indicates that his genealogy has been constructed for a special purpose.<P>(3) The carrying of the line back of the history of the covenant, which begins with Abraham, to Adam, who represents the race in general. This fact, together with another, that the line of Joseph is traced to David through Nathan who was not David\'s heir, proves that Luke was not concerned with establishing the Davidic standing of Jesus.<P>(4) The placing of the genealogy, not at the beginning of the Gospel, but at the beginning of the ministry, between the baptism and the temptation.<P>(5) The omission of the article before the name of Joseph.<P>4. Explanation of the Foregoing:<P>(1) In his comment upon the fourth peculiarity enumerated above, namely, the placing of the genealogy at the beginning of the ministry, Godet (Gospel of Luke, American edition, 126) has this to say: "In crossing the threshold of this new era, the sacred historian casts a general glance over the period which thus reaches its close, and sums it up in this document, which might be called the mortuary register of the earlier humanity." In other words, in connecting the genealogy directly with the ministry, Luke exhibits the fact that his interest in it is historical rather than antiquarian or, so to say, genealogical. As Matthew summarizes the history of the covenant people from the days of Abraham by means of the genealogical register, modified so as to make it graphic by its uniformity, so Luke has written the story of the humanity Jesus, as the Second Adam, came to save, by the register of names summarizing its entire course in the world.<P>It has recently been commented upon that genealogical lists such as those of Genesis and the New Testament are not infrequently used to convey ideas not strictly germane to the matter of descent or the cognate notion of chronology. For example, the statements as to the longevity of the patriarchs are of historical interest only<6C>they are not and could never have been of value for chronological purposes (see Warfield, "Antiquity and Unity of Human Race," Princeton Review, February, 1911).<P>(2) In commenting upon the order which Luke adopts, Godet (who has thrown more light upon this portion of the Gospel than anyone else) says: "The ascending form of genealogy can only be that of a private instrument, drawn up from the public document with a view to the particular individual whose name serves as the starting-point of the whole list" (127).<P>(3) From the fact that the name of Joseph is introduced without an article Godet draws three conclusions:<P>(a) that this name belongs rather to the sentence introduced by Luke;<P>(b) that the genealogical document which he consulted began with the name of Heli;<P>(c) and consequently, that this piece was not originally the genealogy of Jesus or of Joseph, but of Heli (ibid., 128).<P>(4)<P>(a) The importance of these considerations is twofold. In the first place it indicates that Luke is bringing together two separate documents, one of which contained a statement of the foster-fatherhood of Joseph, while the other contained the genealogy of Heli, between whom and Joseph there existed a relationship which made Luke desirous of connecting them.<P>(b) In addition, the absence of the article serves to call attention to something exceptional in the relationship of Joseph to the rest of this ancestral line which is brought into connection with his name. To this point we shall recur later. We have an explanation for all the suggested problems except one, and that one, in a sense, the most difficult of all, namely, the choice of Joseph\'s genealogy.<P>III. The Genealogies Compared.<P>1. Divergences:<P>In order, however, to discuss this question intelligently, we must enter upon the second stage of our inquiry<72>as to the relationship between the two lists.<P>(1) The most notable fact here is of course the wideness of the divergence together with the contrasted and unintelligible fact of minute correspondence. Between Abraham and David the two lists agree. Between David and Joseph there is evident correspondence in two (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,12);">Mt 1:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,27);">Lu 3:27</a>), and possible correspondence in four names (that is, if Abiud (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,13);">Mt 1:13</a>)) and Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,30);">Lu 3:30</a>) are the same). This initial and greatest difficulty is of material assistance to us because it makes one conclusion certain beyond peradventure. The two lists are not divergent attempts to perform the same task. Whatever difficulties may remain, this difficulty is eliminated at the outset. It is impossible that among a people given to genealogies two lists purporting to give the ancestry of a man in the same line could diverge so widely. There is, therefore, a difference between these lists which includes the purpose for which they were compiled and the meaning which they were intended to convey.<P>2. Correspondence:<P>(2) Two of the most striking points in the lists as they stand may be brought into connection and made to explain each other. The two lists coincide in the names of Zerubbabel and Shealtiel<65>they differ as to the name of Joseph\'s father, who is Jacob according to Matthew and Heli according to Luke. As to the second of these two important items this much is clear. Either these two lists are in violent contradiction, or else Joseph was in some sense son of both Jacob and Heli. Now, in connection with this seeming impossibility, turn to the other item. The names of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel belong to the captivity. Their being common to both lists is easily explained by the fact that during that troubled period a number of collateral family branches might be narrowed down to one or two common representatives (see Zahn, op. cit., 535). In the New Testament genealogies Zerubbabel is the son of Shealtiel<65>according to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,19);">1Ch 3:19</a> he is the nephew of Shealtiel and the son of Pedaiah. He is, therefore, at one and the same time heir and, legally, son of two men and would appear as such on two collateral lists.<P>Shealtiel himself appears in Matthew (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,12);">1:12</a>) as the son of Jechoniah and in Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,27);">3:27</a>) as the son of Neri. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,17);">1Ch 3:17</a> he appears as son of Jechoniah. The name of Neri is peculiar to Luke, so that we cannot check his use of it and discover the actual parentage of Shealtiel. His appearance in two lists with a double reference of parentage is not surprising in view of what we have already seen. Besides this, a reasonable explanation at once appears. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,30);">Jer 36:30</a> it is asserted that Jehoiakim should have "none to sit upon the throne of David," and of his son (Jehoiachin, Jechoniah, Coniah) it is said (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',22,30);">Jer 22:30</a>), "Write ye this man childless," etc. It has been rightly pointed out (see HDB, II 557) that this means simply legal proscription, not actual childlessness. It suggests, however, that it might be thought necessary to provide in the genealogy an heir not of their blood for the two disgraced and proscribed members of the royal house, In view of these facts the contradictory references as to Joseph\'s parentage present no difficulty.<P>Joseph may easily have been and undoubtedly was, legally, son and heir of both Jacob and Heli. Godet\'s objection to this is based upon the supposition that Heli and Jacob were brothers, which leaves the divergence beyond these two names unexplained. It is evident, however, that the kinship between Jacob and Heli might have been more distant than this supposition calls for.<P>(3) When we come to explain how it happened that Joseph was connected with both these lines and that Matthew chose one list and Luke the other we are necessarily shut up to conjecture. There is one supposition, however, which is worthy of very careful consideration because it solves so many and such difficult problems. The authorities have been divided as to whether Luke\'s genealogy is Joseph\'s, as appears, or Mary\'s. Godet makes a strong showing for the latter, and, after all has been said per contra, some of his representations remain unshaken (compare Godet and Plummer sub loc.). Most of the difficulties are removed at one stroke, and the known facts harmonized, by the simple supposition that Luke has given us the meeting-point of the lineage both of Joseph and Mary who are akin. This explains the apparent choice of Joseph\'s list; the peculiar position of his name in that list; the reversal of the order; the coincidences and discrepancies with reference to Matthew\'s; the early tradition of Mary\'s Davidic origin; the strange reference in the Talmud (Chaghigha\' 77 4) to Mary as the daughter of Heli; the visit of Mary with Joseph to Bethlehem at the time of the registration; the traditional discrepancy of ages between Joseph and Mary, such that (apparently) Joseph disappears from the scene before Jesus reaches maturity. Against this nothing of real weight can be urged (the kinship with Elisabeth is not such: see Edersheim, LTJM, I, 149) except that it is too simple and too felicitous. Its simplicity and felicitous adjustment to the whole complex situation is precisely its recommendation. And there we may let the matter rest.<P>IV. The Genealogies and the Virgin Birth.<P>We have now to deal with the relationship of the genealogies to the virgin-birth statement which forms the vital center of the infancy narratives and to the general question of the Davidic origin of Jesus.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=VIRGIN+BIRTH">VIRGIN BIRTH</a>.<P>1. Text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,16);">Matthew 1:16</a>:<P>The first part of this question may be most directly approached by a brief consideration of the text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,16);">Mt 1:16</a>. The text upon which the Revised Version (British and American) is based reads: "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Beside this there are two readings, one contained in the so-called Ferrar group of manuscripts, and the other in the Sinaitic which, differing among themselves, unite in ascribing the parentage of Jesus to Joseph. This has been seized upon by negative critics (see for list and discussion Machen, Princeton Review, January, 1906, 63; compare Bacon, HDB, article "Genealogy of Jesus Christ," Am. Jour. Theol., January, 1911, who long ago gave in his advocacy to the supposition that the evangelists could easily reconcile the supernatural birth with the actual paternity of Joseph) to support the idea of a primitive Christian tradition that Joseph was the father of Jesus. Of this contention Zahn leaves nothing, and concludes his argument with this statement: "The hope of finding indications in old manuscripts and versions that the authors of lost Gospels or brief writings which may have been worked over in our Matthew and Luke regarded Joseph as the physical father of Jesus, should at last be dismissed. An author who knew how to make even the dry material of a genealogy to its least detail contribute to the purpose of his thought concerning the slandered miracle of the Messiah\'s birth, cannot at the same time have taken over statements from a genealogy of Joseph or Jesus used by him which directly contradicted his conception of this fact. Any text of Matthew which contained such statements would be condemned in advance as one altered against the author\'s interest" (op. cit., 567). It is interesting to note that Allen (ICC, "Matthew," 8), starting from the extreme position that the Sinaitic form of statement, of all extant texts, most nearly represents the original, reaches the same conclusion as Zahn, that Matthew\'s Gospel from the beginning taught the virgin birth.<P>2. General Conclusions:<P>(1) It is clear, therefore, from the general trend as well as from specific statements of both Gospels, that the genealogies and the birth-narratives were not floating traditions which accidentally touched and coalesced in mid-stream, but that they were intended to weld inseparably the two beliefs that Jesus was miraculously conceived and that He was the heir of David. This could be done only on the basis of Joseph\'s genealogy, for whatever the lineage of Mary, Joseph was the head of the family, and the Davidic connection of Jesus could only be established by acknowledgment of Him as legal son by Joseph. Upon this basis rests the common belief of the apostolic age (see Zahn, ibid., 567, note references), and in accordance with it all statements (such as those of Paul, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,3);">Ro 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,8);">2Ti 2:8</a>) must be interpreted.<P>(2) For it must be remembered that, back of the problem of reconciling the virgin birth and the Davidic origin of Jesus, lay the far deeper problem<65>to harmonize the incarnation and the Davidic origin. This problem had been presented in shadow and intimation by Jesus Himself in the question: "David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his Son?" It is further to be noticed that in the annunciation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,32);">Lu 1:32</a>) the promised One is called at once Son of God and Son of David, and that He is the Son of God by virtue of His conception by the Spirit<69>leaving it evident that He is Son of David by virtue of His birth of Mary. With this should be compared the statement of Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,3,4);">Ro 1:3-4</a>): He who was God\'s Son was "born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." This is at least most suggestive (see Orr, Virgin Birth of Christ, 119, with note, p. 121), for it indicates that as Paul and Luke were in very close sympathy as to the person of our Lord, so they are in equally close sympathy as to the mystery of His origin. The unanimity of conviction on the part of the early church as to the Davidic origin of Jesus is closely paralleled by its equally firm conviction as to His supernatural derivation. The meeting-point of these two beliefs and the resolution of the mystery of their relationship is in the genealogies in which two widely diverging lines of human ancestry, representing the whole process of history, converge at the point where the new creation from heaven is introduced.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The literature on this subject is very copious. The works referred to in the text will serve to introduce the reader to more extensive investigations. The whole situation is well summarized by Plummer (ICC, "Luke," sub loc.).``169';
isbe[3729]='Genealogy, 1-7`je-na-al\'-o-ji, jen-a-al\'-o-ji:<P>1. Definition<P>2. Biblical References<P>3. Importance of Genealogies<P>4. Their Historical Value<P>5. Principles of Interpretation<P>6. Principles of Compilation<P>7. Sources<P>8. Principal Genealogies and Lists<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Definition:<P>The Old Testament translates (once, <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,5);">Ne 7:5</a>) the noun yachas; cepher ha-yachas, "book of the genealogy"; also translates a denominate verb in Hithpael, yachas, "sprout" "grow" (compare family "tree"); hithyaches, "genealogy"; the idea is conveyed in other phrases, as cepher toledhoth, "book of the generations," or simply toledhoth, "generations." In the New Testament it transliterates genealogia, "account of descent," <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,4);">1Ti 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,9);">Tit 3:9</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,1);">Mt 1:1</a>, biblos geneseos, "book of the generation" of Jesus Christ, is rendered in the American Revised Version, margin "the genealogy of Jesus Christ"; a family register, or register of families, as <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,33);">1Ch 4:33</a>, etc.; the tracing backward or forward of the line of ancestry of individual, family, tribe, or nation; pedigree. In Timothy and Titus refers probably to the Gnostic (or similar) lists of successive emanations from Deity in the development of created existence.<P>2. Biblical References:<P>According to the Old Testament, the genealogical interest dates back to the beginnings of sacred history. It appears in the early genealogical tables of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">Ge 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,\'1-\');">46</a>, etc.; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'14-27\');">Ex 6:14-27</a>, where the sons of Reuben, Simeon and especially Levi, are given; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,2);">Nu 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,\'2-51\');">26:2-51</a>, where the poll of fighting men is made on genealogical principles; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,2);">Nu 2:2</a>, where the positions on the march and in camp are determined by tribes and families; in David\'s division of priests and Levites into courses and companies (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'1-\');">1Ch 6-9</a>); is referred to in the account of Jeroboam\'s reign (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,15);">2Ch 12:15</a> margin, "the words of Iddo, after the manner of genealogies"); is made prominent in Hezekiah\'s reforms when he reckoned the whole nation by genealogies (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,41);">1Ch 4:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',31,\'16-19\');">2Ch 31:16-19</a>); is seen in Jotham\'s reign when the Reubenites and Gadites are reckoned genealogically (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,17);">1Ch 5:17</a>). Zerubbabel took a census, and settled the returning exiles according to their genealogies (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,\'19-24\');">1Ch 3:19-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,\'1-\');">1Ch 9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'1-\');">Ezr 2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,\'1-\');">Ne 7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,\'1-\');">11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,\'1-\');">12</a>). With the rigid exclusion of all foreign intermixtures by the leaders of the Restoration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,\'1-\');">Ezr 10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,30);">Ne 10:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,\'23-31\');">13:23-31</a>), the genealogical interest naturally deepened until it reached its climax, perhaps in the time of Christ and up to the destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus, in the opening of his Life, states that his own pedigree was registered in the public records. Many families in Christ\'s time clearly possessed such lists (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,5);">Lu 1:5</a>, etc.). The affirmed, reiterated and unquestioned Davidic descent of Christ in the New Testament, with His explicit genealogies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'1-17\');">Mt 1:1-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,\'23-38\');">Lu 3:23-38</a>); Paul\'s statement of his own descent; Barnabas\' Levitical descent, are cases in point. Davididae, descendants of David, are found as late as the Roman period. There is a tradition that Herod I destroyed the genealogical lists at Jerusalem to strengthen his own seat, but more probably they persisted until the destruction of Jerusalem.<P>3. Importance of Genealogies:<P>Genealogical accuracy, always of interest both to primitive and more highly civilized peoples, was made especially important by the facts that the land was promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, that the priesthood was exclusively hereditary, that the royal succession of Judah lay in the Davidic house, that the division and occupation of the land was according to tribes, families and fathers\' houses; and for the Davididae, at least, that the Messiah was to be of the house of David. The exile and return, which fixed indelibly in the Jewish mind the ideas of monotheism, and of the selection and sacred mission of Israel, also fixed and deepened the genealogical idea, prominently so in the various assignments by families, and in the rejection in various ways of those who could not prove their genealogies. But it seems extreme to date, as with many modern critics, its real cultivation from this time. In the importance attached to genealogies the Hebrew resembles many other ancient literatures, notably the Egyptian, Greek, and Arabic, but also including Romans, Kelts, Saxons, the earliest history naturally being drawn upon genealogical as well as on annalic lines. A modern tendency to overestimate the likeness and underestimate the unlikeness of the Scripture to its undoubtedly cognate literatures finds in the voluminous artificial genealogical material, which grew up in Arabia after the time of the caliph Omar, an almost exact analogue to the genealogical interest at the time of the return. This, however, is on the assumption of the late date of most of the genealogical material in the older New Testament books, and rests in turn on the assumption that the progress of religious thought and life in Israel was essentially the same as in all other countries; an evolutionary development, practically, if not theoretically, purely naturalistic in its genesis and progress.<P>4. Their Historical Value:<P>The direct historical value of the Scripture genealogies is variously estimated. The critically reconstructive school finds them chiefly in the late (priestly) strata of the early books, and dates Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (our fullest sources) about 300 BC, holding it to be a priestly reconstruction of the national history wrought with great freedom by the "Chronicler." Upon this hypothesis the chief value of the genealogies is as a mirror of the mind and ideas of their authors or recorders, a treasury of reflections on the geographical, ethnological and genealogical status as believed in at their time, and a study of the effect of naive and exaggerated patriotism dealing with the supposed facts of national life, or else, in the extreme instance, a highly interesting example of bold and inventive juggling with facts by men with a theory, in this particular case a priestly one, as with the "Chronicler." To more conservative scholars who accept the Old Testament at its face value, the genealogies are a rich mine of historical, personal and ethnographic, as well as religious, information, whose working, however, is much hindered by the inevitable corruption of the text, and by our lack of correlative explanatory information. Much interesting illustrative matter may be looked for from such archaeological explorations as those at Gezer and elsewhere under the Palestine Exploration Society, the names on the pottery throwing light on the name-lists in Chronicles, and the similar discoveries on the supposed site of Ahab\'s palace in Samaria, which also illustrate the conflict between Baal and Yahweh worship by the proportion of the proper names compounded by "Baal" or "Jah" (see Macalister, Bible Sidelights from Gezer, 150ff; PEF, 1905, 243, 328; Harvard Theological Review, 1911). In spite of all such illustrative data, however, the genealogies must necessarily continue to present many insoluble problems. A great desideratum is a careful and systematic study of the whole question by some modern conservative scholar endowed with the patience and insight of the late Lord A.C. Hervey, and equipped with the fruits of the latest discoveries. While much curious and suggestive information may be derived from an intensive study of the names and relationships in the genealogies (although here the student needs to watch his theories), their greatest present value lies in the picture they present of the large-hearted cosmopolitanism, or international brotherliness, in the older ones, notably <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10</a>, recognizing so clearly that God hath made of one all nations to dwell on the earth; and, as they progress, in the successive selection and narrowing as their lines converge upon the Messiah.<P>5. Principles of Interpretation:<P>In the evaluation and interpretation of the genealogies, certain facts and principles must be held in mind.<P>(1) Lists of names necessarily suffer more in transmission than other literature, since there is almost no connectional suggestion as to their real form. Divergences in different versions, or in different stages, of the same genealogy are therefore to be looked for, with many tangles hard to unravel, and it is precisely at this point that analytic and constructive criticism needs to proceed most modestly and restrain any possible tendency unduly to theorize.<P>(2) Frequently in the Scriptural lists names of nations, countries, cities, districts or clans are found mingled with the names of individuals. This is natural, either as the personification of the clan or nation under the name of its chief, or chief progenitor, or as the designation of the individual clan, family or nation, from its location, so common among many nations. Many of the cases where this occurs are so obvious that the rule may not be unsafe to consider all names as probably standing for individuals where the larger geographical or other reference is not unmistakably clear. This is undoubtedly the intent and understanding of those who transmitted and received them.<P>(3) It is not necessary to assume that the ancestors of various tribes or families are eponymous, even though otherwise unknown. The Scriptural explanation of the formation of tribes by the expansion and division of families is not improbable, and is entitled to a certain presumption of correctness. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to establish a stopping-point for the application of the eponymous theory; under its spell the sons of Jacob disappear, and Jacob, Isaac and even Abraham become questionable.<P>(4) The present quite popular similar assumption that personal details in the genealogy stand for details of tribal history, as, for instance, the taking of a concubine means rather an alliance with, or absorption of, an inferior tribe or clan, is a fascinating and far-reaching generalization, but it lacks confirmation, and would make of the Scripture an allegorical enigma in which historical personages and events, personified peoples or countries, and imaginary ancestors are mingled in inextricable confusion.<P>(5) Scriptural genealogies are often given a regular number of generations by omitting various intermediate steps. The genealogies of Jesus, for instance, cover 42 generations, in 3 subdivisions of 14 each. Other instances are found in the Old Testament, where the regularity or symmetry is clearly intentional. Instance Jacob\'s 70 descendants, and the 70 nations of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10</a>. This has in modern eyes an artificial look, but by no means necessarily involves violence done to the facts under the genealogist\'s purview, and is readily and creditably accounted for by his conceptions and purposes. The theory that in some cases the requisite number has been built up by the insertion of imaginary names (see Curtis, ICC, "Chronicles," 135) has another aspect, and does not seem necessary to account for the facts, or to have sufficient facts to sustain it. See <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,5);">21:5</A>, (6) below. It involves a view of the mental and moral equipment and point of view of the Chronicler in particular, which would not seem to leave him many shreds of either historical, or "religious" value, and which a sounder criticism will surely very materially modify.<P>(6) Much perplexity and confusion is avoided by remembering that other modes of entrance into the family, clan, tribe or nation obtained than that by birth: capture, adoption, the substitution of one clan for another just become extinct, marriage. Hence, "son of," "father of," "begat," have broader technical meanings, indicating adoptive or official connection or "descent," as well as actual consanguinity, nearer or remote, "son" also meaning "grandson," "great-grandson," etc. Instance Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, of the tribe of Judah, styled (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,18);">1Ch 2:18</a>) a descendant of Hezron and son of Hur, but also, in token of his original descent, called the Kenizzite or "son of Kenaz" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,17);">Jos 15:17</a>), etc. Similarly, where in an earlier genealogy a clan or individual is assigned to a certain tribe, and in a later to another, it has been "grafted in." But while these methods of accretion clearly obtained, the nations freely absorbing neighboring or surrounding peoples, families, or persons, families likewise absorbing individuals, as in American Indian, and many other tribes; yet, as in them, the descent and connection by birth constituted the main line, and in any given case has the presumption unless clear facts to the contrary exist.<P>(7) The repetition of the same name in the same genealogy, as in that of the high priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'1-15\');">1Ch 6:1-15</a>), rouses "suspicion" in some minds, but unnecessarily. It is very natural, and not uncommon, to find grandfathers and grandsons, especially among the Hebrews, receiving the same name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,59);">Lu 1:59</a>). This would be especially to be expected in a hereditary caste or office like the priesthood.<P>(8) The existence of the same name in different genealogies is not uncommon, and neither implies nor should cause confusion.<P>(9) The omission of one or many links in the succession, often clearly caused by the desire for symmetry, is frequent where the cause is unknown, the writers being careful only to indicate the connection more or less generally, without feeling bound to follow every step. Tribes were divided into families, and families into fathers\' houses; tribe, family and fathers\' house regularly constituting links in a formal genealogy, while between them and the person to be identified any or all links may be omitted. In similar fashion, there is an absence of any care to keep the successive generations absolutely distinct in a formal fashion, son and grandson being designated as alike "son" of the same ancestor. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,21);">Ge 46:21</a>, for instance, contains grandsons as well as sons of Benjamin, Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Nanman, Ehi, etc. This would be especially true where the son as well as the father became founder of a house. Some confusion is occasionally caused by the lack of rigid attention to precise terminology, a characteristic of the Hebrew mind. Strictly the tribe, shebhet (in the Priestly Code (P), matteh), is the larger subdivision, then the clan, mishpachah, "family," and then the "house" or "fathers\' house," bayith, or beth \'abh, beth \'abhoth; but sometimes a "fathers\' house" is a tribe (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',17,6);">Nu 17:6</a>), or a clan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,6);">1Ch 24:6</a>). In this connection it is to be remembered again that sequence of generations often has to do with families rather than with individuals, and represents the succession to the inheritance or headship, rather than the actual relationship of father and son.<P>(10) Genealogies are of two forms, the descending, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10</a>: "The sons of Japheth: Gomer," etc.; "The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz," etc.; and the ascending, <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,1);">Ezr 7:1</a>ff: "Ezra, the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah," etc. The descending are the usual.<P>(11) Feminine names are occasionally found, where there is anything remarkable about them, as Sarai and Milcah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,29);">Ge 11:29</a>), Rebekah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,23);">Ge 22:23</a>), etc.; or where any right or property is transmitted through them, as the daughters of Zelophehad, who claimed and were accorded "a possession among the brethren of (their) father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,33);">Nu 26:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',27,\'1-11\');">27:1-11</a>), etc. In such cases as Azubah and Ephrath, successive wives of Caleb (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,\'18-20\');">1Ch 2:18-20</a>), many modern critics find tribal history enshrined in this case, "Caleb" or "dog" tribe having removed from Azubah, "deserted" to Ephrathah, Bethlehem, in Northern Judah. But the principle is not, and cannot be, carried out consistently.<P>(12) The state of the text is such, especially in Chronicles, that it is not easy, or rather not possible, to construct a complete genealogical table after the modern form. Names and words have dropped out, and other names have been changed, so that the connection is often difficult and sometimes impossible to trace. The different genealogies also represent different stages in the history and, at many places, cannot with any knowledge now at our command be completely adjusted to each other, just as geographical notices at different periods must necessarily be inconsistent.<P>(13) In the present state of our knowledge, and of the text, and also considering the large and vague chronological methods of the Hebrews, the genealogies can give us comparatively little chronological assistance. The uncertainty as to the actual length of a generation, and the custom of frequently omitting links in the descent, increases the difficulty; so that unless they possess special marks of completeness, or have outstanding historical relationships which determine or corroborate them, or several parallel genealogies confirm each other, they must be used with great caution. Their interest is historical, biographical, successional or hereditary, rather than chronological.<P>6. Principles of Compilation:<P>The principal genealogical material of the Old Testament is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">Ge 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-\');">11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-\');">22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'1-\');">25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,\'1-\');">29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,\'1-\');">30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,\'1-\');">35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'1-\');">36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,\'1-\');">46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'1-\');">Ex 6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'1-\');">Nu 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,\'1-\');">2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,\'1-\');">7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,\'1-\');">10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,\'1-\');">13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,\'1-\');">26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,\'1-\');">34</a>; scattered notices in Joshua, Ruth, 1 Samuel; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,\'1-\');">2Sa 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,\'1-\');">5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,\'1-\');">1Ki 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'1-\');">1Ch 1-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,\'1-\');">11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,\'1-\');">12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,\'1-\');">15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,\'1-\');">23-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',23,\'1-\');">2Ch 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,\'1-\');">29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'1-\');">Ezr 2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,\'1-\');">7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,\'1-\');">10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,\'1-\');">Ne 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,\'1-\');">7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,\'1-\');">10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,\'1-\');">11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,\'1-\');">12</a>. The genealogies of our Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'1-17\');">Mt 1:1-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,\'23-38\');">Lu 3:23-38</a>) are the only New Testament material. The Old Testament and New Testament genealogies bring the record down from the creation to the birth of Christ. After tracing the descent from Adam to Jacob, incidentally (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\')-\';">Ge 10</a>) giving the pedigree of the various nations within their purview, the Hebrew genealogists give the pedigree of the twelve tribes. As was to be expected, those tribes, which in the developing history assumed greater prominence, received the chief attention. Dan is carried down but 1 generation, and credited with but 1 descendant; Zebulun 1 generation, 3 sons; Naphtali 1 generation, 4 sons; Issachar 4 generations, 15 descendants; Manasseh 4 generations, 39 descendants; Asher 7 generations, 40 descendants; Reuben 8 (?) generations, 22 descendants; Gad 10 generations, 28 descendants; Ephraim 14 (?) generations, 25 descendants. Levi, perhaps first as the priestly tribe, Judah next as the royal, Benjamin as most closely associated with the others, and all three as the survivors of the exile (although representatives of other tribes shared in the return) are treated with the greatest fullness.<P>7. Sources:<P>Chronicles furnishes us the largest amount of genealogical information, where coincident with the older genealogies, clearly deriving its data from them. Its extra-canonical sources are a matter of considerable difference among critics, many holding that the books cited by the Chronicler as his sources ("The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah," "The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel," "The History of Samuel the Seer," "The History of Nathan the Prophet," etc., to the number of perhaps 16) are our canonical books, with the addition of a "Midrashic History of Israel," from which he quotes the most freely. But the citations are made with such fullness, vividness, and particularity of reference, that it is hard to believe that he did not have before him extensive extra-canonical documents. This is the impression he clearly seeks to convey. Torrey (AJSL, XXV, 195) considers that he cites this array of authority purely "out of his head," for impressiveness\' sake, a theory which leaves the Chronicler no historical value whatever. It is extremely likely that he had before him also oral and written sources that he has not cited, records, private or public lists, pedigrees, etc., freely using them for his later lists and descents. For the post-exilic names and lists, Ezra-Nehemiah also furnish us much material. In this article no attempt is made at an exhaustive treatment, the aim being rather by a number of characteristic examples to give an idea of the quality, methods and problems of the Bible genealogies.``31';
isbe[3730]='Genealogy, 8 Part 1`<p>8. Principal Genealogies and Lists:<p>In the early genealogies the particular strata to which each has been assigned by reconstructive critics is here indicated by J, the Priestly Code (P), etc. The signs "= "or ":" following individual names indicate sonship.<p>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,\'16-24\');">Genesis 4:16-24</a>.<2E>The Cainites (Assigned to P).<p>Seven generations to Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-cain, explaining the hereditary origin of certain occupations (supposed by many to be a shorter version of chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">5</a>).<p>(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,25,26);">Genesis 4:25-26</a>.<2E>The Sethites (Assigned to J).<p>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-32\');">Genesis 5:1-32</a>.<2E>The Book of the Generations of Adam (Assigned to the Priestly Code (P), Except <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,29);">5:29</A> J).<p>Brings the genealogy down to Noah, and gives the chronology to the Flood. The numbers in the Hebrew Massoretic Text, the Samaritan Hebrew, and the Septuagint differ, Massoretic Text aggregating 1,656 years, Samaritan 1,307 years, and Septuagint 2,242 years. Some scholars hold this list to be framed upon that of the ten Babylonian kings given in Berosus, ending with Xisuthrus, the Babylonian Noah. An original primitive tradition, from which both lists are derived, the Hebrew being the nearer, is not impossible. Both the "Cainite" list in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,\'1-\');">Ge 4</a> and this "Sethite" list end with three brothers.<p>(4) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-32\');">Genesis 10:1-32</a>.<2E>The Generations of the Sons of Noah.<p>"The Table of Nations" (assigned to the Priestly Code (P), <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-7\');">10:1-7</A>; J, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'8-19\');">10:8-19</A>; the Priestly Code (P), <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,20);">10:20</A>; J, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,21);">10:21</a>; the Priestly Code (P), <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,22);">10:22</A>; J, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'24-30\');">10:24-30</a>; the Priestly Code (P), <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,31,32);">10:31,32</a>). Found in abridged form in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'5-24\');">1Ch 1:5-24</a>.<p>I. Japheth = Gomer, Magog, Badai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, Tiras.<p>1. Gomer = Ashkenaz, Riphath (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,6);">1Ch 1:6</a>, Diphath), Togarmah.<p>2. Javan = Elisha, Tarshish, Kittim, Dodanim (Rodanim, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',17,\'1-\');">1Ch 17</a>, is probably correct, a "d", having been substituted by a copyist for "r").<p>II. Ham = Cush, Mizraim, Put, Canaan.<p>1. Cush = Seba, Havilah, Sibtah, Raamah, Sabteca (Nimrod).<p>2. Mizraim = Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim (whence the Philis), Caphtorim.<p>3. Canaan = Zidon (Chronicles, Sidon), Heth; the Jebusite, Amorite, Girgashite, Hivite, Arkite, Sinite, Arvadite, Zemarite, Hittite.<p>4. Raamah (son of Cush) = Sheba, Dedan. <p>III. Elam = Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, Aramaic<p>1. Aram = Uz, Hul, Gether, Mash (Chronicles, Meshech).<p>2. Arpachshad = Shelah = Eber = Peleg, Joktan.<p>3. Joktan (son of Eber) = Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, Jobab.<p>4. Peleg (son of Eber) = Reu = Serug = Nahor = Terah = Abraham.<p>Nearly all these names are of peoples, cities or districts. That Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Nimrod, and probably Peleg, Reu, Serug, represent actual persons the general tenor of the narrative and the general teaching of Scripture clearly indicate, although many critics consider these also as purely eponymous. The others can mostly be more or less clearly identified ethnographically or geographically. This table represents the nations known to the writer, and in general, although not in all particulars, expresses the ethnographical relationships as far as they are now known to modern research. It follows a partly ethnological, partly geographical scheme, the descendants of Japheth in general representing the Aryan stock settled in Asia Minor, Media, Armenia, Greece, and the islands of the Mediterranean; those of Ham representing the Hamitic races in Ethiopia, Egypt, in Southwest Arabia, and Southern Babylonia. Many modern writers hold that in making "Nimrod" the son of "Cush," the Scripture writer has confused "Cush," the son of Ham, with another "Gush," the Cassei, living near Elam, since the later Babylonians and Assyrians were clearly Semitic in language and racial characteristics. Nevertheless the Scripture statement is accordant with early traditions of a Hamitic settlement of the country (Oannes the fish-god coming out of the Red Sea, etc.), and perhaps also with the fact that the earliest language of Babylonia was non-Sem. The sons of Canaan represent the nations and peoples found by the Hebrews in Palestine, the Phoenicians and the Canaanites. Heth is the great Hittite nation, by language and racial type strikingly non-Sem. Among the sons of Shem, Eber is by many considered eponymous or imaginary, but the hypothesis is not necessary. Most Assyriologists deny the connection of Elam with Shem, the later Elamites being non-Sem; the inscriptions, however, show that the earlier inhabitants up to 2300 BC were Semitic. Lud must be the Lydians of Asia Minor, whose manners and older names resemble the Semitic. Asia Minor presents a mixture of races as manifold as does Palestine. The sons of Joktan are tribes in Western and Southern Arabia. Havilah is given both as a son of Cush, Hamite, and of Joktan, Semite, perhaps because the district was occupied by a mixed race. It would seem, however, that "begat" or "son of" often represents geographical as well as ethnological relations. And where the classification of the Scripture writer does not accord with the present deliverances of archaeology, it must be remembered that at this distance conclusions drawn from ethnology, philology and archaeology, considering the present incomplete state of these sciences, the kaleidoscopic shifting of races, dynasties and tongues through long periods, and our scanty information, are liable to so many sources of error that dogmatism is precarious. The ancient world possessed a much larger amount of international knowledge than was, until recently, supposed. A writer of 300 BC had a closer range and could have had sources of information much more complete than we possess. On the assumption of the Mosaic authorship, that broad, statesmanlike mind, learned in all the knowledge of the Egyptians, and, clearly, profoundly influenced by Babylonian law and literature, may be credited with considerable breadth of vision and many sources of information. Aside from the question of inspiration, this Table of Nations; for breadth of scope, for inclusiveness (though not touching peoples outside of the life of its writer), for genial broadmindedness, is one of the most remarkable documents in any literature.<p>(5) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'10-27\');">Genesis 11:10-27</a>.<2E>The Generations of Shem (assigned to P).<p>From Shem to Abraham. The list is also chronological, but the versions differ, Massoretic Text making 290 years, from Shem to Abraham, Samaritan Hebrew, 940, and Septuagint 1,070. Septuagint inserts Cainan, 130 years, otherwise agreeing with the Samaritan to the birth of Abraham. Arpachshad may be rendered "the territory of Chesed," i.e. of the Chasdim, Chaldeans. Eber therefore is descended from Arpachshad, Abraham, his descendant, coming from Ur-Chasdim.<p>(6) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'23-26\');">Genesis 11:23-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'20-24\');">22:20-24</a>.<2E>The Children of Nahor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'23-26\');">11:23-26</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'20-24\');">22:20-24</a> J).<p>Uz, Buz, Kemuel, etc. These descendants of Abraham\'s brother probably represent Aramean tribes chiefly east or northeast of Canaan. Aram may be the ancestor of the Syrians of Damascus. Uz and Buz probably belong to Arabia Petrea, mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',25,23);">Jer 25:23</a> with the Arabian tribes Dedan and Thema. Chesed in this list probably stands, not for the Chaldeans of Babylonia, but for a related tribe of Northern Syria. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,23);">Ge 10:23</a> (assigned to P) Uz is the son of Aram, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,22);">10:22</A> Aram is a son of Shem. On the purely tribal hypothesis, this is either a contradiction, or the later statements represent other tribal relationships or subdivisions. Probably other individuals or tribes are indicated. Chronicles does not have this list, it being a side stream.<p>(7) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,15);">Genesis 16:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'1-3\');">21:1-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'1-\');">25</a> (also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'28-33\');">1Ch 1:28-33</a>).<2E>The Sons of Abraham by Sarah, Hagar, Keturah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,15);">Ge 16:15</a> assigned to P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'1-3\');">21:1-3</a> to J, the Priestly Code (P), J, P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'1-6\');">Ge 25:1-6</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'7-11\');">25:7-11</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,11);">25:11b</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'12-17\');">25:12-17</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,18);">25:18</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'19-20\');">25:19,20</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'21-26\');">25:21-26a</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,26);">25:26b</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'27-34\');">25:27-34</a> J).<p>The descendants of Abraham through Hagar and Ishmael represent the Ishmaelite tribes of Arabia living north and northwest of the Joktanidae, who chiefly peopled Arabia. Twelve princes are named, possibly all sons of Ishmael, perhaps some of them grandsons. The number has seemed "suspicious" as balancing too exactly the twelve tribes of Israel. But twelve is an approved Semitic number, determining not necessarily the sons born, but the "sons" mentioned. The Arabians generally were frequently given the name Ishmaelites, perhaps because of the greater prominence and closer contact of these northern tribes with the Hebrews. The sons of Keturah seem to have been chiefly Arabian tribes, whose locations are unknown. Midian, of the sons of Keturah, is the well-known and powerful tribe in the Arabian desert near the Aelanitic Gulf, bordered by Edom on the northwest. Sheba and Dedan are also mentioned as Cushites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,7);">Ge 10:7</a>). Very likely the tribes extensively intermarried, and could claim descent from both; or were adopted into one or the other family. Sheba was in southwestern Arabia. Dedan lived near Edom, where the caravan routes to various parts of Arabia converged. Asshurim are of course not Assyrians, but an Arabian tribe, mentioned by the side of Egypt in Minaean inscriptions. While the two sons of Isaac are to be accepted as real persons, their typical character is also unmistakable, the history of the two nations, Israel and Edom, being prefigured in their relations.<p>(8) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,\'31-\');">Genesis 29:31</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,\'1-24\');">30:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,\'16-26\');">35:16-26</a>. The Children of Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,\'31-35\');">29:31-35</a> Assigned to P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,\'1-3\');">30:1-3a</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,4);">30:4a</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,\'4-24\');">30:4b-24</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,\'16-22\');">35:16-22</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,\'23-26\');">35:23-26</a> P).<p>The account of the parentage, birth and naming of the founders of the twelve tribes; by Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun (daughter Dinah); by Bilhah: Dan, Naphtali; by Zilpah: Gad, Asher; by Rachel: Joseph, Benjamin. Much modern criticism agrees that these names are purely those of tribes, some of them perhaps derived from persons or places impossible now to trace, but mostly eponymous. Accordingly, these chapters are to be translated as follows. An Arab tribe, Jacob, wanders in Canaan, quarrels with Edom, migrates to Haran, forms alliances with the Aramean clans Rachel, Bilhah, Leah, Zilpah. Rachel and Jacob constitute a new tribe, Joseph. The federation takes the name Jacob. The other allied clans divide into sub-clans, or new clans join them, until Leah has six "sons," Reuben, Simeon, etc.; Zilpah, two; Bilhah, two. Zilpah and Bilhah are "concubines" because inferior members of the federation, or else have a left-handed connection with it. The formation of the new tribe Benjamin broke up the old tribe Rachel, which (who) accordingly "died." Although such are the original facts imbedded in the documents, they are now set in a framework of personal narrative, and were understood as narrative by the first hearers and readers. The history thus constituted is necessarily "an enigma which it is very hard to solve" (Bennett, Genesis, 284), and with almost as many answers as students. For critical purposes it presents a rich field for exploration, analysis and conjecture, but its edificatory value is chiefly found in reading the narratives as personal: a serious and reverent religious romance founded on facts or legends, whose real value lies in the sidelights it throws on national character and ethical principles, expressed in a naive, vivid, lifelike story, full of suggestion and teaching. This present article, however, proceeds on the Scripture representation of these details and incidents as personal.<p>The explanations of the names illustrate the Hebrew fondness for assonances, paronomasia, coming from a time when much importance was attached to words and sounds, but need not be considered mere popular etymologies, the Hebrew individual mother being fully capable of them. Neither do they necessarily represent the original etymology, or reason for the name, but may give the pregnant suggestion occurring to the maternal or other imagination.<p>Leah, "wild cow," is supposed by many to be so called from the "totem" of the "Leah" tribe. Reuben (re\'ubhen), original meaning unknown, unless Leah\'s emotional explanation explains the name, rather than is explained by it: ra\'ah be\'onyi, "hath looked upon my affliction." Superficially it might be re\'u ben, "See, a son," as in the American Revised Version, margin. Others see in the second statement: "My husband will love me," still another etymology, ye\'ehdbhani, "will love me." The lover of assonances can find more than one. The tribe is not prominent after Deborah\'s time. Simeon, considered by some an animal (totem) name, the Arabic sim\'u, cross between hyena and wolf, suggests to the mother (or is suggested by that) its likeness to shama\', "hear": "Yahweh hath heard." It is not much known after the Conquest. Levi, "adhesion, associate": thought by many a gentilic adjective from Leah, the Leah tribe par excellence; the name is adjectival in form. Leah connects it with yillaweh, "He will join," \'Now will my husband be joined unto me.\' A similar allusion is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,2,4);">Nu 18:2, 4</a>, there applied to the "joining" of the tribe to Aaron. Judah is associated with the verb hadhah, "praise": "Now will I praise Yahweh." Jacob makes the same suggestion in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,8);">Ge 49:8</a>; no other plausible suggestion of the origin of the name can be made. The etymology and origin of Bilhah are unknown. Dan is associated with danah, "judge": "God hath judged"; no other etymology can be found. Naphtali is derived from niphtal, "wrestle": "I have wrestled," the only discoverable etymology. Zilpah, zilpah, perhaps is "dropping," "drop." Gad, gadh, "fortunate," according to Leah. Gad was the well-known Syrian god of "fortune"; but there is no necessary connection here. Asher, from \'ashar, "happy," \'ashsher, "call happy"; so Leah; no connection with Asshur, Assyrian god. Issachar, from sakhar, "hire," "man of hire": "God hath given me mine hire," also because Leah had "hired" Jacob with her son\'s mandrakes; a similar allusion in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,\'1-\');">Ge 49</a>, "a servant under taskwork." Wellhausen would read \'ish-sakhar, "man of (some deity, unknown)." Zebulun, from zebhul, "habitation, dwelling": Leah gives two explanations, the first assigned by critics to Elohist (E) (probably), connecting the name with a root found in Zebediah, Zabdi, etc., "endow": "God hath endowed me with a good dowry"; the second with zabhal, "dwell": "Now will my husband dwell with me." Dinah, like Dan, is from dan, "judge." Supposed by some to be an old tribe of Israel, in some way associated with Dan, possibly a twin division. Rachel is "ewe," hence identified with a "ewe" tribe. Joseph has a twofold suggestion: the first (assigned to E) from acaph, "take away": "God hath taken away my reproach"; the second (assigned to J) from yacaph, "add": "Yahweh will add to me another son." None of these three cases of double explanation would so far exhaust Hebrew maternal imagination as to require the hypothesis of two documents, even though in the last "God" is used in the first suggestion and "Yahweh" in the second. Benjamin is called by Rachel Benoni, "the son of my sorrow," which is supposed to be an old tribal name, perhaps related to Onan, a clan of Judah, or the Benjamite city, Ono, and possibly to the Egyptian On. Benjamin, Jacob\'s name for him, "son of the right hand," i.e. of happiness, is understood as "son of the south," because originally the southern section of the Joseph tribe. The attempts to trace these names to tribal origins, local allusions, cognate languages, customs and religions have engaged much research and ingenuity, with results exceedingly diverse.<p>(9) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'1-\');">Genesis 36</a>. The Generations of Esau (P).<p>I. The Descent of the Edomite Chiefs and Clans from Esau through His Three Wives, the Hittite or Canaanite Adah, the Ishmaelite Basemath, and the Horite Oholibamah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'1-19\');">Genesis 36:1-19</a>).<p>The wives\' names here differ from the other statements: In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,34);">Ge 26:34</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,9);">28:9</a>:<p>1. Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite.<p>2. Bashemath, daughter of Elan, the Hittite.<p>3. Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebaioth.<p>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'1-\');">Ge 36</a>:<p>1. Oholibamah, daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon, the Hivite.<p>2. Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite.<p>3. Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebaioth. <p>It is not necessary to resort to the hypothesis of different traditions. Bashemath and Adah are clearly identical, Esau perhaps having changed the name; as are Mahalath and the Ishmaelite Basemath, a transcriber\'s error being probably responsible for the change. As to Judith and Oholibamah, Anah is probably a man, identical with Beeri (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,24);">Ge 36:24</a>), the son of Zibeon. Both "Hivite" and "Hittite" are apparently errors for "Horite," the difference being in only one consonant. Or "Hittite" may be used as the larger term embracing "Horite." "Edom" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,1,8,19);">Ge 36:1, 8, 19</a>) is a personal name; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,9,43);">Ge 36:9, 43</a> (Hebrew the American Revised Version, margin) it is national, indicating that to the writer Esau was a person, not an eponym. Nowhere are personal characteristics more vividly and unmistakably portrayed than in the accounts of Jacob and Esau. In these Esauite names are but two compounds of "El" (\'el), none of "Jah" (yah).<p>II. The Aboriginal Leaders or Clans in Edom, Partly Subdued by, Partly Allied with, the Esauites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'20-30\');">Genesis 36:20-30</a>). <p>These are descendants of "Seir the Horite" in seven branches, and in sub-clans. "Seir" looks like an eponym or a personification of the country, as no personal details have been preserved. Among these names are no "El" (\'el) or "Jah" (yah) compounds, although they are clearly cognate with the Hebrew. Several close similarities to names in Judah are found, especially the Hezronite. Many animal names, "Aiah," "bird of prey," "Aran," "wild goat," etc.<p>III. Eight Edomite "Kings" before the Hebrew Monarchy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'31-39\');">Genesis 36:31-39</a>).<p>One \'el compound, "Mehitabel," one ba\'al compound. It is to be noted that the "crown" was not hereditary and that the "capital" shifted; the office was elective, or fell into the hands of the local chief who could win it.<p>IV. A List of Esauite Clan Chiefs; "Dukes" (English Revised), "Chiefs" (American Standard Revised Version); "Sheiks" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'40-43\');">Genesis 36:40-43</a>).<p>Apparently arranged territorially rather than tribally. The names seem used here as either clans or places and should perhaps be read: "the chief of Teman," etc. The original ancestor may have given his name to the clan or district, or obtained it from the district or town.<p>In general this genealogy of Esau shows the same symmetry and balance which rouses suspicion in some minds: excluding Amalek, the son of the concubine, the tribes number twelve. Amalek and his descendants clearly separated from the other Edomites early and are found historically about Kadesh-barnea, and later roaming from the border of Egypt to North Central Arabia.<p>(10) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,\'8-27\');">Genesis 46:8-27</a>.<p>(In different form, <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,\'1-51\');">Nu 26:1-51</a>, and much expanded in parts of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,\'1-\');">1Ch 2-8</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'14-16\');">Ex 6:14-16</a>). Jacob\'s posterity at the descent into Egypt (considered a late addition to P).<p>A Characteristic Genealogy.<p>It includes the ideal number of 70 persons, obtained by adding to the 66 mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,26);">Ge 46:26</a>, Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, the two latter born in Egypt. Septuagint, followed by Stephen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,14);">Ac 7:14</a>), reckons 75, adding to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,20);">Ge 46:20</a> the names of three grandsons and two great-grandsons of Joseph, obtained from <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,29,35);">Nu 26:29, 35</a>ff. Some may have been omitted to secure the ideal number so fascinating to the Hebrew mind. It is to be noted that Leah\'s male descendants are double those of Zilpah, and Rachel\'s double those of Bilhah, showing the ideal (but not the fictitious) character of the list. The design, also, seems to be to include those descendants of Jacob from whom permanent divisions sprang, even though, like Manasseh and Ephraim and probably Hezron and Hamul, born after the migration, but before Jacob\'s death. A comparison with the partial parallels also illustrates the corruption of the text, and the difficulty of uniformity in lists of names. The full list follows:<p>1. Jacob.<p>2. Leah\'s descendants.<p class="in15">A. Reuben = Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, Carmi.<p class="in15">B. Simeon = Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, Shaul.<p class="in15">C. Leui = Gershon, Kohath, Merari.<p class="in15">D. Judah = Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, Zerah; Perez, Hezron, Hamul.<p class="in15">E. Issachar = Tolah, Puvah, Iob, Shimron.<p class="in15">F. Zebulun = Sered, Elon, Jahleel.<p class="in15">G. Dinah, daughter.<p>3. Zilpah\'s descendants, 16.<p class="in15">A. Gad = Ziphion, Haggi, Shuni, Ezbon, Eri, Arodi, Areli.<p class="in15">B. Asher = Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi, Beriah, Serah (daughter); Beriah = Heber, Malchiel.<p>4. Rachel\'s descendants, 14.<p class="in15">A. Joseph = Manasseh, Ephraim.<p class="in15">B. Benjamin = Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rash, Muppim, Huppin, Ard.<p>5. Bilhah\' s descendants, 7.<p class="in15">A. Dan = Hushim.<p class="in15">B. Naphtali = Jahzeel, Guni, Jezer, Shillem.<p>The list differs in many respects from those in Numbers and Chronicles, and presents some chronological and other problems. Without entering upon an exhaustive study, a number of names may be touched on.<p>Carmi, (2A), like the other names in i, might be a gentilic, "the Carmite," like "the Amorite," etc., especially if these names are those of clans, as they are in Numbers, instead of persons, as the Genesis narrative states. A town, "Bethhaccherem," is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,1);">Jer 6:1</a>. But "the vine-dresser" is also a good rendering.<p>Hezron (2A). Another Hezron is given as a descendant of Judah. This duplication of names is possible in clans; see instances below, but more likely in persons.<p>Jemuel (2B). Nemuel in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,12);">Nu 26:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,24);">1Ch 4:24</a>, an easy error in transcription, yodh, and nun, being easily confused. In Numbers, Nemuel is also a Reubenite name.<p>Jamin (or Jachin) (2B) is Jarib in Chronicles.<p>Ohad (2B). Not in Numbers or Chronicles.<p>Zohar (2B) is Zerah in Numbers and Chronicles.<p>Gershon (2C). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,16);">1Ch 6:16</a> Gershom; identified by some with Gershom, son of Moses, on theory that the priestly family of Gershom originally traced its descent to Moses, but its later members were reckoned, not as priests, but as Levites, thus becoming identified with Levi; precarious; its principal foundation being similarity of name and tribe.<p>Hezron and Hamul (2D) rouse chronological or exegetical difficulties. Pharez (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,\'1-\');">Ge 33</a>) could not have been old enough at the migration to have two sons; but very possibly <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,\'1-\');">Ge 38</a> is introduced episodically, not chronologically, and therefore its events may have occurred before those of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,\'1-\');">Ge 37</a>. Jacob was 130 years old at the descent, making Judah not 42 but 62, and Pharez old enough for sons. And, as suggested above, the writer may have done with Hezron and Hamul as with Ephraim and Manasseh<65>included them constructively, they having been born in Egypt, but before Jacob\'s death, belonging therefore to the generation of the migration and so reckoned, especially as they rounded permanent tribal divisions.<p>Puvah (2E). Puah in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,1);">1Ch 7:1</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,1);">Jud 10:1</a>, centuries later, Puah is father of Tola, an illustration of the descent of fathers\' names.<p>Iob (2E) is Jashub (Numbers, Chronicles), the latter probably correct. Septuagint has it here. A copyist, no doubt, omitted the "shin," "sh."<p>Dinah (2G) is thought by some to be a later insertion, on account of the "awkward Hebrew," "with Dinah." Dinah and Serah as unmarried, and no doubt because of other distinguishing facts, now unknown, are the only women descendants mentioned; married women would not be. On the clan theory of the names, the "Dinah" clan must have disappeared in Egypt, not being found in Numbers.<p>Ziphion (3A). Zephon in Numbers, perhaps giving its name to the Gadite city of Zaphon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,27);">Jos 13:27</a>).<p>Ezbon (3A). Ozni (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,16);">Nu 26:16</a>). Possibly Ozni, on Ezbon\'s death, took his place, founding a tribal family, like Hezron and Hamul in Judah. Copyist\'s error unlikely.<p>Arodi (3A). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,17);">Nu 26:17</a> Arod.<p>Ishvah (3B). Omitted in Numbers; perhaps died childless, or his descendants did not constitute a tribal family.<p>Beriah (3B). Also an Ephraimite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,23);">1Ch 7:23</a>); a Benjaminite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,13,16);">8:13,16</a>); a Levite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,10,11);">23:10,11</a>). The repetition of the name indicates individuals rather than clans; but both the Asherite and Benjamite were heads of families.<p>Serah (3B), serach, "abundance," not the same name as that of Abraham\'s wife, sarah, "princess."<p>Heber (3B), chebher; in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,18);">1Ch 4:18</a>, a clan of Judah; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,17);">8:17</a>, of Benjamin. Not the same name as Eber, \'ebher (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,13);">5:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,22);">8:22</a>; and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,21);">Ge 10:21</a>).<p>The Sons of Benjamin.<p>The three lists, Genesis, Numbers, Chronicles, represent marked divergences, illustrating the corruption of perhaps all three texts. This list illustrates the genealogical method of counting all descendants as sons, though of different generations. It gives Benjamin ten "sons." <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,\'38-40\');">Nu 26:38-40</a> gives five sons, Naaman and Ard being sons of Bela. The Septuagint of our passage gives only three sons, Bela, Becher, Ashbel. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,6);">1Ch 7:6</a> gives three sons, Bela, Becher, Jediael (Ashbel), and Shuppim and Huppim are Bela\'s grandsons. Becher is omitted in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,1);">8:1</a>, probably through a copyist\'s error, who took bekher we-\'ashbel, for "Becher and Ashbel," bekhoro \'ashbel, "his first-born, Ashbel." Jediael, both by older and newer scholars, is usually, but not with absolute certainty, identified with Ashbel. He may be a later chief. Another explanation is that <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,6);">7:6</a> is part of a Zebulunite genealogy which has been transformed into a Benjamite list, Jediael being a remaining Zebulunite "pebble."<p>Naaman (4B) perhaps appears, by a transcriber\'s error in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,2);">1Ch 8:2</a>, as Nochach, Nochach for Na\'aman. If Nohah is not Naaman, and not (Keil) Shephupham, or a chief who succeeded him, he may have been one who was born after the migration and not needed to make up the seventy.<p>Gera (4B) in similar fashion may appear in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,2);">1Ch 8:2</a> as Rapha. If not, Rapha also may be one born after the migration, and did not found a family.<p>Ehi (4B) is Ahiram (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,38);">Nu 26:38</a>); Aharah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,1);">1Ch 8:1</a>). Ehi probably arises from some copyist omitting the "ram."<p>Rosh (4B) is not in Numbers or Chronicles. He founded no family.<p>Muppim (4B) troubled the scribes greatly. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,39);">Nu 26:39</a> he is Shephupham, though as compounded in his family name it is Shupham. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,12);">1Ch 7:12</a> he is Shuppim, and it is not made clear whether he is a son, or other descendant, of Benjamin. He is apparently called, with Huppim, a son of Ir (Iri), son of Bela. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,8);">8:8</a> he is catalogued as a son of Bela, as Shephuphan. In old Hebrew mem ("m") and shin ("sh") closely resemble each other. As the "sh" also appears in the gentilic names, it is probably the correct form. The corrupt state of the Chronicler\'s text especially is apparent, and also the fact that "son" may refer to any male descendant.<p>Huppim (4B) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,39);">Nu 26:39</a> is Hupham; in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,5);">1Ch 8:5</a> is Huram.<p>Ard (4B) in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,3);">1Ch 8:3</a> is a son of Bela, Addar, the copyist having transposed "d", and "r", or mistaken one for the other. In Septuagint at <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,21);">Ge 46:21</a> Ard is son of Gera, son of Bela.<p>Hushim (5A), the same in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,12);">1Ch 7:12</a>, is Shuham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,42);">Nu 26:42</a>), by transposition of consonants. Another Hushim is a Benjaminite, son of Aher, but Aher may possibly be a corruption of the numeral "one," it being the Chronicler\'s frequent habit to add numerals. But see under <span class="noTag">Da 21:6</a>, (3), p. 1194.<p>Jahzeel (5B) is Jahziel in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,13);">1Ch 7:13</a>.<p>Guni (5B) in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,15);">1Ch 5:15</a> is also a Gadite name.<p>Shillem (5B), in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,13);">1Ch 7:13</a>, Shallum, the commoner form.<p>(11) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'14-25\');">Exodus 6:14-25</a> (Assigned to P).<2E>Partial List of Heads of Fathers\' Houses of Reuben, Simeon and Levi.<p>Reuben and Simeon are as in Genesis. Levi follows:<p>1. Gershon = Libni, Shimei.<p>2. Kohath.<p>A. Amram married Jochebed = Aaron, Moses; Aaron married Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Nahshon = Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, Ithamar; Eleazar married daughter of Putiel = Phinehas.<p>B. Izhar = Korah, Nepheg, Zichri; Korah, Assir, Elkanah, Abiasaph.<p>C. Hebron.<p>D. Uzziel = Mishael, Elzaphan, Sithri.<p>3. Merari = Mahli, Mushi.<p>The interest of the list is partly chronological, but chiefly to illustrate the genealogical place of Aaron and Moses. It probably exhibits the genealogical practice of omitting links, Amaram the father of Moses apparently being several links from Amram the son of Kohath. By Moses\' time the Amramites numbered some 2,000 males (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,27);">Nu 3:27</a>, etc.). Jochebed (2A) is an instance of Yah in compounds before the Exodus. Putiel (2A) has been considered a partly Egyptian name, Puti or Poti, "devoted to" -El (\'el); but probably Hebrew, "afflicted by God." Hebron is often identified with the city. It is also found in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,42,43);">1Ch 2:42-43</a>, as Judahite.<p>(12) <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'5-54\');">Numbers 1:5-54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,\'3-29\');">2:3-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,12);">7:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,4);">10:4</a>ff.<2E>The Heads of Houses Representing and Leading the Tribes (Assigned to P).<p>I. Reuben: Elizur, Son of Shedeur.<p>II. Simeon: Shelumiel, Son of Zurishaddai.<p>Shelumiel found in Judith.<p>III. Judah: Nahshon, Son of Amminadab.<p>Both found also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,23);">Ex 6:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,\'9-22\');">Ru 4:9-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,\'10-12\');">1Ch 2:10-12</a>: <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,4);">Mt 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,32);">Lu 3:32</a> (genealogies of Christ).<p>IV. Issachar: Nethanel, Son of Zuar.<p>Nethanel, name of nine persons in Chronicles, Nehemiah, Ezra, same as Nathaniel.<p>V. Zebulun: Eliab, Son of Helon.<p>Other Eliabs, <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,1);">Nu 16:1</a> (Reubenite); <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,6);">1Sa 16:6</a> (Jesse\'s son, Judah).<p>VI. Joseph: Ephraim: Elishama, Son of Ammihud.<p>Other Elishamas: <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,16);">2Sa 5:16</a> (son of David); <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',36,12);">Jer 36:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',17,8);">2Ch 17:8</a>. Ammihuds: <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,37);">2Sa 13:37</a> m; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,20,28);">Nu 34:20, 28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,4);">1Ch 9:4</a> (Judahite).<p>VII. Joseph: Manasseh: Gamaliel, Son of Pedahzur. New Testament Gamaliel.<p>VIII. Benjamin: Abidan, Son of Gideoni.<p>IX. Dan: Ahiezer, Son of Ammishaddai.<p>Another, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',12,3);">1Ch 12:3</a> (Benjamite).<p>X. Asher: Pagiel, Son of Ochran.<p>XI. Gad: Eliasaph, Son of Deuel.<p>Another, <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,24);">Nu 3:24</a> (Levite).<p>XII. Naphtali: Ahira, Son of Enan.<p>Seven of these names, Amminadab, Ammihud, Abidan, Ahirah, Ahiezer, Eliab, Elishama, are concededly early. The 5 compounded in Shaddai or Zur are said to be of a type found only in P; 9 of the 24 are compounded in \'el, said to be a characteristic of late names. The \'El is postfixed more times, 5, than it is prefixed, 4; also a characteristic of late names. The proportion of compound names is also greater than in the older names; for these and similar reasons (Gray, ICC, "Numbers," 6; HPN, 191-211; The Expositor T, September,1897,173-90) it is concluded that though several of the names are, and more may be, early, the list is late. But see Ancient Hebrew Tradition, 74, 83ff, 85ff, 320. The contention rests largely on the late date of the Priestly Code (P) and of Chronicles. But while fashions in names changed in Hebrew life as elsewhere, in view of the persistence of things oriental, the dating of any particular names is somewhat precarious. They may be anticipations or late survivals of classes of names principally prevalent at the later or earlier date. Two of the names, otherwise unknown, have come to us through Ruth, and indicate a source now unknown to us, from which all the names could have been drawn. The fondness for names in \'el very likely indicates not a late date but an early one. \'El is the Divine name appearing in personal names previous to Moses, succeeded by Jah from Moses and Joshua on. The recurrence of \'el in the time of Ezra and later probably indicates the renewed interest in antiquity as well as the at once wider and narrower outlook brought about by the exile and return. Numerous south Arabian compounds both with the "ilu," "ili" (\'el), affixed and prefixed, occur in monuments about 1000 BC (AHT, 81ff).<p>(13) <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,\'1-37\');">Numbers 3:1-37</a>.<2E>The Family of Aaron, with the "Princes" of Levi.<p>Adds nothing to list in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,\'16-25\');">Ex 16:16-25</a> except the Levite "princes."<p>I. Gershonites: Eliasaph, Son of Lael.<p>Also a Benjaminite Eliasaph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,14);">Nu 1:14</a>).<p>II. Kohathites: Elizaphan, Son of Uzziel.<p>A Zebulunite Elizaphan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,25);">Nu 34:25</a>). Five other Uzziels, Benjamite, Levite, Simeonite.<p>III. Merarites: Zuriel, Son of Abihail.<p>A Gadite Abihail (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,14);">1Ch 5:14</a>); also father of Queen Esther; also two women: wife of Abishur (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,29);">1Ch 2:29</a>); wife of Rehoboam (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,18);">2Ch 11:18</a>). Four \'el suffixes, two prefixes.<p>(14) <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,\'4-16\');">Numbers 13:4-16</a>.<2E>The Twelve Spies (P).<p>I. Reuben: Shammua, Son of Jaccur.<p>Other Shammuas (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,14);">2Sa 5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,4);">1Ch 14:4</a> (David\'s son); <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,17);">Ne 11:17</a>, Levite; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,18);">12:18</a>, priest). Seven other Zaccurs, Simeonites and Levites.<p>II. Simeon: Shaphat, Son of Hori.<p>Four other Shaphats, one Gadite, one Judahite; Elisha\'s father. Hori looks like the national name of the Horites; perhaps Hori or an ancestor had been adopted, through marriage or otherwise.<p>III. Judah: Caleb, Son of Jephunneh, the Kenizzite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,12);">Numbers 32:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,6,14);">Joshua 14:6, 14</a>).<p>Another Caleb, Chelubai, son of Hezron, brother of Jerahmeel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,9);">1Ch 2:9</a>). Either as an individual, or as a clan, Caleb seems to be originally of the pre-Israelitish stock in Canaan, absorbed into the tribe of Judah. Perhaps Jephunneh the Kenizzite married a woman of Caleb\'s (brother of Jerahmeel) household, and to their firstborn was given the name of Caleb, he becoming head of the house and prince of Judah. Another Jephunneh, an Asherite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,38);">1Ch 7:38</a>).<p>IV. Issachar: Igal, Son of Joseph.<p>Other Igals: <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,36);">2Sa 23:36</a> (one of David\'s heroes); <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,22);">1Ch 3:22</a>. Note the name of another tribe given to a man of Issachar<61>Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,7);">Nu 13:7</a>).<p>V. Ephraim: Hoshea, Son of Nun;<p>Hoshea, Joshua\'s early name. Others: <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,20);">1Ch 27:20</a>; King Hoshea, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,30);">2Ki 15:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,23);">Ne 10:23</a>; Hebrew name of prophet Hosea.<p>VI. Benjamin: Palti, Son of Raphu. See 16 IV.<p>VII. Zebulun: Gaddiel, Son of Sodi.<p>VIII. Joseph-Manasseh: Gaddi, Son of Susi.<p>A Gaddi is in 1Macc 2:2.<p>IX. Dan: Ammiel, Son of Gemali.<p>Another Ammiel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,4);">2Sa 9:4</a>).<p>X. Asher: Sethur, Son of Michael.<p>Nine other Michaels, Gadite, Levite, Issacharite, Benjamite, Manassite, Judahite.<p>XI. Naphtali: Nahbi, Son of Vophsi.<p>XII. Gad: Geuel, Son of Machi.<p>Four names in \'el. Nine ending with i; unusual number. The antiquity of the list cannot be readily questioned.<p>(15) <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,\'5-62\');">Numbers 26:5-62</a> (P).<2E>The Heads of Houses at the Second Census.<p>Related to <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,\'1-\');">Nu 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,\'1-\');">2</A>, and closely follows <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,\'1-\');">Ge 46</a>. The divergences in individual names have been noted under (10). This list adds to<p>I. Reuben:<p class="in15">1. Eliab, son of Pallu (also <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,1,12;)">Nu 16:1, 12</a>).<p class="in15">2. Dathan, Abiram, Nemuel, sons of Eliab.<p>II. Manasseh:<p class="in15">1. Machir; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,23);">Ge 50:23</a>.<p class="in15">2. Gilead, son of Machir.<p class="in15">3. Iezer (abbreviation for Abiezer), Helek (not in Chronicles), Asriel, Shechem, Shemida, sons of Gilead.<p class="in15">4. Zelophehad, son of Hepher.<p class="in15">5. Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, Tirzah, daughters of Zelophehad.<p>III. Ephraim:<p class="in15">1. Shuthelah; also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,21);">1Ch 7:21</a>.<p class="in15">2. Becher.<p class="in15">3. Tahan (Tahath, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,20);">1Ch 7:20</a>).<p class="in15">4. Eran (Elead, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,21);">1Ch 7:21</a>).<p>The names of Manasseh\'s grandsons and great-grandsons are puzzling. Gilead is the district except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,1,);">Jud 11:1-2</a>, where it is the father of Jephthah. Shechem sounds like the Ephraimite town. Hepher reminds of Gath-Hepher. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,1,2);">Jos 17:1-2</a> the six sons of Gilead are described as sons of Manasseh; loosely, it is probable; they are to be understood as descendants. Perhaps the references may be summarized: The family of Machir, the son of Manasseh, conquered Gilead, and took its name therefrom, either as a family or in the person of a son, Gilead, whose six sons founded clans named from or giving names to certain towns or districts.<p>The daughters of Zelophehad are noted for the interesting case at law they presented, claiming and receiving the inheritance of their father, which by Gray, ICC, "Numbers," is considered not historical but a fictitious instance, for the purpose of raising the question, these daughters being clans, and not persons.<p>Among the sons of Ephraim, Becher has perhaps been misplaced from verse <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,38);">38</a>, and possibly displaces Bered (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,20);">1Ch 7:20</a>) between Shuthelah and Tahath. It is not found here in the Septuagint. It is possible that an alliance between the Becherites and the Ephraimites caused one portion of the former to be counted with Ephraim and another with Benjamin; or that at different times the clan was allied with the two different tribes. An error in transcription is more probable. Another Shuthelah is found later in the line (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,21);">1Ch 7:21</a>).<p>(16) <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,\'16-28\');">Numbers 34:16-28</a>.<2E>Tribal Representatives in the Allotment.<p>Reuben, Gad, half-Manasseh, omitted because their allotments had already been assigned east of Jordan; Levi, because receiving none. Changing to the order in (10):<p>I. Reuben: None.<p>II. Simeon: Shemuel, Son of Ammihud.<p>Shemuel is Hebrew of Samuel. Another Shemuel is of Issachar, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,2);">1Ch 7:2</a>. Samuel the prophet, a Levite.<p>III. Judah: Caleb, Son of Jephunneh.<p>IV. Issachar: Paltiel, Son of Azzan.<p>Another Paltiel, otherwise Palti, David\'s wife Michal\'s temporary husband (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,15);">2Sa 3:15</a>). Another Benjamite spy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,9);">Nu 13:9</a>).<p>V. Zebulun: Elizaphan, Son of Parnach.<p>Another Elizaphan, Kohathite Levite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,18,22);">Ex 6:18, 22</a>).<p>VI. Gad: None.<p>VII. Asher: Ahihud, Son of Shelomi.<p>Another Ahihud, Benjamite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,7);">1Ch 8:7</a>).<p>VIII. Joseph-Ephraim: Kemuel, Son of Shiftan.<p>Another Kemuel, son of Nahor, an Aramean chief (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,21);">Ge 22:21</a>); also Levite of David\'s time (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,17);">1Ch 27:17</a>).<p>IX. Joseph-Manasseh: Hanniel, Son of Ephod.<p>Hanniel, also an Asherite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,39);">1Ch 7:39</a>).<p>X. Benjamin: Elidad, Son of Chislon.<p>XI. Dan: Bukki, Son of Jogli.<p>Bukki, abbreviation of Bukkiah; another, in high-priestly line of Phinehas (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,5,51);">1Ch 6:5, 51</a>).<p>XII. Naphtali: Pedahel, Son of Ammihud.<p>A Simeonite Ammihud above.<p>Seven "El" names, only one "Jah."<p>(17) <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,20);">Ru 4:20</a>.<2E>The Ancestry of David (Perez: Hezron: Ram: Amminadab: Nahshon: Salmon (Salmah): Boaz: Obed: Jesse: David).<p>Contained unchanged in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,\'9-15\');">1Ch 2:9-15</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'1-6\');">Mt 1:1-6</a>; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,32);">Lu 3:32</a>. Some links have been omitted between Obed and Jesse. Salmon might be traced to the ancestor of the Bethlehemite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,51,54);">1Ch 2:51, 54</a>), who is, however, of Caleb\'s line, not Ram\'s; but the lines may mingle.<p>(18) <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,\'2-5\');">2Sa 3:2-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,14,15);">5:14-15</a>. David\'s children (also in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,\'1-9\');">1Ch 3:1-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,\'4-7\');">14:4-7</a>).<p>I. Born in Hebron: Amnon, Chileab, Absalom, Adonijah, Shephatiah, Ithream.<p>II. Born in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada, Eliphelet.<p>Four names in \'el, all prefixed. Two in "Jah." Chileab is Daniel in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,1);">1Ch 3:1</a>; uncertain which is right, but probably Daniel is a corruption. Chronicles adds Nogah to the Jerusalem sons, probably developed in transcription. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,\'6-8\');">1Ch 3:6-8</a> has two Eliphelets; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,5);">14:5</a> has Elpalet in place of the first; more probable. This gives David 6 sons in Hebron, and, if both Nogah and Elpalet be correct, 12 in Jerusalem. Eliada is Beeliada in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,7);">14:7</a>, perhaps the original form, a relic of the time before the Hebrews turned against the use of Baal, "lord," as applied to Yahweh; in which case Baaliada, "Lord knows," was changed to Eliada, "God knows." <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,6);">3:6</a> reads Elishama for Elishua. Japhia is also the name of a king of Lachish in Joshua\'s time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,\'3-7\');">Jos 10:3-7</a>).<p>(19) <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,\'1-\');">2 Samuel 23</a> (also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,\'11-41\');">1 Chronicles 11:11-41</a>).<2E>David\'s Knights.<p>1. Josheb-bashebeth, the Tahchemonite.<p>In Chronicles it is Jashobeam, and should read Ishbaal, the writer\'s religious horror of Baal leading him to substitute the consonants of bosheth, "shame," as in Mephibosheth, Ishbosheth. Septuagint has Iesebada (Codex Vaticanus), Iessebadal, Isbaam (Codex Alexandrinus), in Chronicles, and Iebosthe (Codex Vaticanus), Iebosthai (Codex Alexandrinus) here. In Chronicles he is a Hachmonite, probably correct. "Adino the Heznite" is probably a corruption for "He wielded his spear" (Chronicles).<p>2. Eleazar, Son of Dodai, the Ahohite.<p>Dodo in Chronicles; 8 other Eleazars in the Old Testament. Another Dodo is father of Elhanan.<p>3. Shammah, Son of Agee, a Hararite.<p>Omitted by Chronicles. Three other Shammahs, one of them a knight of David. "Harari" may be "mountaineer," or "inhabitant of the village Harar."<p>4. Abishai, Son of Zeruiah, Brother of Joab.<p>Abshai (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,12);">1Ch 18:12</a> margin). Zeruiah perhaps David\'s half-sister (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,25);">2Sa 17:25</a>). Father never mentioned.<p>5. Benaiah, Son of Jehoaida of Kabzeel.<p>Eleven other Old Testament Benaiahs, one of them also a knight. This Benaiah succeeded Joab as commander-in-chief, 4 other Jehoiadas, one Benaiah\'s grandson, high in David\'s counsel, unless a scribe has inverted the order in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,34);">1Ch 27:34</a>, which should then read Benaiah, son of Jehoiada.<p>6. Asahel, Brother of Joab.<p>Three other Asahels.<p>7. Elhanan, Son of Dodo of Bethlehem.<p>Another Elhanan, slayer of the brother of Goliath (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,19);">2Sa 21:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,5);">1Ch 20:5</a>). Perhaps the same.<p>8. Shammah the Harodite.<p>Chronicles, Shammoth. From Harod, near Gideon\'s well (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,1);">Jud 7:1</a>).<p>9. Elika the Harodite.<p>10. Helez the Paltite.<p>Paltite perhaps local or family name from Pelet, or Palti.<p>11. Ira, Son of Ikkesh the Tekoite.<p>Two others, one a knight. Tekoah, Judaite town, home of Amos, etc.<p>12. Abiezer the Anathothite.<p>One other, a Manassite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',17,2);">Jos 17:2</a>). Anathoth an hour northeast of Jerusalem, Jeremiah\'s town.<p>13. Mebunnai the Hushathite.<p>Should read, with Chronicles, Sibbecai.<p>14. Zalmon the Ahohite.<p>Zalmon, also name of mountain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,48);">Jud 9:48</a>). Descendant of Ahoah, Benjamite of Bela\'s line. See <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,14);">1Ch 8:14</a>.<p>15. Maharai the Netophathite.<p>From Netophah, town.<p>16. Heleb, Son of Baanah.<p><a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,30);">1Ch 11:30</a>, Heled. Three other Bannahs.<p>17. Ittai, Son of Ribai of Gibeah of the Children of Benjamin.<p><a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,31);">1Ch 11:31</a>, Ithai. An Ittai of Gath also followed David.<p>18. Benaiah a Pirathonite.<p>Pirathon, Amalekite town in Ephraimite territory.<p>19. Hiddai of the Brooks of Gnash.<p>Chronicles, Hurai ("d" for "r"). Ga\'ash, a Wady in Ephraim.<p>20. Abi-albon the Arbathite.<p>Chronicles, Abiel, perhaps corrupted from Abi-Baal; from Beth-arabah, Judah or Benjamin.<p>21. Azmaveth the Barhumite.<p>Three others, and a Judaite town, of the same name. Baharumite; Chronicles, Barhumite, a Benjamite town.<p>22. Eliahba the Shaalbonite.<p>Shaalbon, a Danite town.<p>23. The Sons of Jashen (better, Hashem).<p>Chronicles, "the sons of Hashem the Gizonite." "Sons of" looks like a scribal error, or interpolation, perhaps a repetition of "bni" in "Shaalboni" above.<p>24. Jonathan, Son of Shammah the Hararite.<p>Chronicles adds, "the son of Shagee the Hararite." Shagee should perhaps be Agee (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,11);">2Sa 23:11</a>); but Septuagint indicates Shammah here; both Samuel and Chronicles should read "J., son of Shammah the Ararite."<p>25. Ahiam, Son of Sharar the Ararite.<p>Chronicles, Sacar the Hararite. Sacar is supported by Septuagint.<p>26. Eliphelet, Son of Ahasvai, the Son of the Maacathite.<p>Chronicles has "Eliphal, son of Ur," and adds "Hepher the Mecherathite." Both texts are corrupt. Chronicles should perhaps read, "Eliphelet the son of..., the Maacathite, Eliam," etc.<p>27. Eliham, Son of Ahithophel the Gilonite.<p>Eliham, possibly father of Bathsheba. Ahithophel, David\'s counselor. Gilonite, native of Giloh.<p>27a. Ahijah the Pelonite (in Chronicles but Not Samuel).<p>Seven other Ahijahs. Pelonite uncertain, probably a corruption; perhaps inserted by a scribe who could not decipher his "copy," and means "such and such a one," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,2);">1Sa 21:2</a>.<p>28. Hezro (Hezrai) the Carmelite.<p>A scribe confused the Hebrew letters, waw ("w") and yod ("y"). Carmel, near Hebron.<p>29. Paarai the Arbite.<p>Chronicles, "Naarai, son of Esbai." Uncertain. Arb, a town of Judah.<p>30. Igal, Son of Nathan of Zobah.<p>Chronicles, Joel, brother of Nathan. Igal less common than Joel, hence, more likely to be corrupted; 2 other Igals; 12 other Joels; 5 other Nathans.<p>30a. Mibhar, Son of Hagri (Chronicles, not Samuel).<p>Text uncertain as between this and 31.<p>31. Bani the Gadite (Omitted in Chronicles).<p>Possibly the Gerarite.<p>32. Zelek the Ammonite.<p>Ammon east of Jordan and upper Jabbok.<p>33. Naharai the Beerothite, Armor-bearer to Joab, Son of Zeruiah.<p>Beeroth, Benjamite town.<p>34. Ira the Ithrite.<p>Ithrites, a family of Kiriath-jearim, Judah.<p>35. Gareb the Ithrite.<p>Gareb also a Hill West of Jerusalem.<p>36. Uriah the Hittite.<p>Bathsheba\'s husband; 3 others. From some Hittite town surrounded by Israel at the Conquest.<p>37. Zabad, Son of Ahlai (Perhaps Dropped out of Samuel), Chronicles.<p>Chronicles adds 13 others. The filling of vacancies makes the number 37 instead of 30. Two names, perhaps, in ba\'al, 5 in yah, 7 in \'el. As far as guessable, 5 from Judah, 3 from Benjamin, 2 from Ephraim, 1 from Dan, 1 from Issachar, 1 Ammonite, 1 Hittite, 2 (or 4) Hararites, 2 Harodites, 2 Ithrites.<p>(20) <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,\'1-19\');">1 Kings 4:1-19</a>.<2E>Solomon\'s "Princes" and Commissaries.<p>Eleven princes, 12 officers. No mention of their tribal connections; assigned only partly by tribal bounds. 7 yah names, 1 \'el; 5 of the officers are prefixed ben as if their own names had dropped out.<p>(21) <span class="noTag">1 Chronicles 1-9</span>.<2E>Genealogies, with Geographical and Historical Notices.<p>By far the largest body of genealogical material, illustrating most fully the problems and difficulties. The estimate of its value depends on the estimate of the Chronicler\'s date, purpose, equipment, ethical and mental qualities. He uses freely all previous Old Testament matter, and must have had in hand family or tribal songs, traditions; genealogical registers, as mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'61-69\');">Ezr 2:61-69</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,\'63-65\');">Ne 7:63-65</a>; local traditions; official genealogies, such as "the genealogies reckoned in the days of Jotham king of Judah, and...Jeroboam king of Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,17);">1Ch 5:17</a>); prophetic, historical and other matter now lost, "the words of Shemaiah...after the manner of genealogies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',12,15);">2Ch 12:15</a>), and elsewhere. The results of David\'s census seem to have been in his hands (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,24);">1Ch 27:24</a>).Curtis (ICC, "Chronicles," 528) suggests that his purpose was partly to provide genealogies for contemporary families, implying an accommodating insertion of names "after the manner of genealogies" today. Two main purposes, however, seem clear: the first historical, to give the historical and personal basis and setting to elucidate the Chronicler\'s main thesis, that national prosperity depended upon, and national character was measured by, fidelity to the law of God, especially as it centered upon the worship and services of Yahweh\'s house. To do this it was necessary to trace the descent of the prominent characters, families, tribes. Hence, the space given to Judah, Levi, Benjamin, the main line of fidelity, the survival of the fittest. The other purpose was to conserve purity of blood in the restored nation, to include all who were entitled and to exclude all who were not. We may also credit him with such regard for his material that he preserved it all (with certain comprehensible exceptions), even though extremely fragmentary here and there. His materials are of many degrees of age. It is thought by some that the antiquity is indicated by the last stage in the descent, the genealogy of Sheshun, e.g. ending with Hezekiah\'s time; Heman\'s and Asaph\'s (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'1-\');">1Ch 6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',33,\'1-\');">33</a>) in David\'s. Name-study and historico-literary criticism seeks still other marks of relative age. The text has suffered much, as lists of names will, from scribal errors. Details of his method will be pointed out in the following analysis. As in this whole article, space forbids exhaustive treatment of the endless textual, critical, historical questions arising. A few illustrative cases only are given. ``31';
isbe[3731]='Genealogy, 8 Part 2`I. Primeval Genealogies (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'1-54\');">1 Chronicles 1:1-54</a>).<P>To show Israel\'s place among the nations; follows Genesis closely, omitting only the Cainites; boldly, skillfully compressed, as if the omitted facts were well known.<P class="in15">(1) The ten antediluvian Patriarchs, and Noah\'s three sons (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'1-4\');">1Ch 1:1-4</a>).<P class="in30">Follows <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,5);">Ge 4:5</a>, giving only the names.<P class="in15">(2) Japheth\'s descendants (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'5-7\');">1Ch 1:5-7</a>) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'2-4\');">Ge 10:2-4</a> unchanged).<P class="in15">(3) The Hamites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'8-16\');">1Ch 1:8-16</a>) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'6-8\'.\'13-18\');">Ge 10:6-8, 13-18a</a> unchanged).<P class="in15">(4) The Semites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'17-23\');">1Ch 1:17-23</a>) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'22-29\');">Ge 10:22-29</a>; only scribal changes).<P class="in15">(5) Abram\'s descent (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'24-27\');">1Ch 1:24-27</a>) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'10-26\');">Ge 11:10-26</a> abridged, giving only the Patriarchs).<P class="in15">(6) The sons of Abraham, Keturah, Isaac (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'28-34\');">1Ch 1:28-34</a>).<P class="in15"><a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'1-4\',\'13-16\',25,26);">Ge 25:1-4, 13-16, 25-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,28);">32:28</a>. Reverses the order of Ishmael\'s and Keturah\'s descendants.<P class="in15">(7) Sons of Esau (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,\'35-52\');">1Ch 1:35-52</a>) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'4-10\');">Ge 36:4-10</a>).<P class="in15">(8) Kings and sheikhs of Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,43,54);">1Ch 1:43, 54</a>) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'31-43\');">Ge 36:31-43</a>). Scribal changes.<P>II. Descendants of Jacob (<span class="noTag">1 Chronicles 2-9</span>).<P>The tribes arranged chiefly geographically. Judah, as the royal line, is given 100 verses, Levi, as the priestly, 81 verses, Benjamin 50, the other ten 56, Dan and Zebulun neglected. His purpose practically confines him to the first three; and these were also the best preserved.<P>(1) Sons of Israel.<P>Follows substantially the order in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,\'1-\');">Ge 35</a>. Dan is placed before Rachel\'s sons. 17 different orders of the tribes in Bible lists.<P>(2) Genealogies of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,3);">1Ch 2:3-4:23</a>).<P>(a) Descent of Jesse\'s sons from Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,\'3-17\');">1Ch 2:3-17</a>).<P>Largely gleaned from the historical books. The sons of Zerah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,\'6-8\');">1Ch 2:6-8</a>) are not found elsewhere. Chelubai is Caleb. Only 7 sons of Jesse are mentioned. Abishai, Joab, Asahel are always designated by their mother\'s name, Zeruiah.<P>(b) Genealogy of Bezalel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,\'18-20\');">1Ch 2:18-20</a>).<P>The artificer of the tabernacle, hence, greatly interests the Chronicler.<P>(c) Other descendants of Hezron (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,\'21-24\');">1Ch 2:21-24</a>).<P>(d) The Jerahmeelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,\'25-41\');">1Ch 2:25-41</a>).<P>Concededly a very old list of this important clan not found elsewhere. Sheshan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,35);">1Ch 2:35</a>), who married his daughter to Jarha, an Egyptian servant, illustrates the introduction of a foreigner into the nation and tribe.<P>(e) The Calebites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,\'41-55\');">1Ch 2:41-55</a>).<P>Not elsewhere. The names are largely geographical. A subdivision of the Hezronites. Not Caleb the son of Jephunneh.<P>(f) David\'s descendants (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,\'1-24\');">1Ch 3:1-24</a>).<P>Gives first the sons and their birthplaces, then the kings to Jeconiah and Zedekiah, then the Davidic line from Jeconiah to Zerubbabel, then the grandsons of Zerubbabel and the descendants of Shecaniah. Two other lists of David\'s sons (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,\'14-16\');">2Sa 5:14-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,\'4-17\');">1Ch 14:4-17</a>). Eliphelet and Nogah here are thought to have developed in transcription, with some other changes. Johanan\'s name (son of Josiah) is given among the kings, though he never reigned. Zedekiah is called son (instead of brother) of Jehoiachin, perhaps a scribal error. "Jah" names extremely numerous. Names of Zerubbabel\'s sons are highly symbolic: Meshullam, "Recompensed"; Hananiah, "Jah is gracious"; Shelomith, "Peace"; Hashubah, "Consideration"; Ohel, "Tent," i.e. "Dwelling of Yahweh"; Berechiah, "Jah blesses"; Hasadiah, "Jah is kind"; Jushab-hesed, "Loving-kindness returns"; characteristic of the Exile.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,\'19-24\');">1 Chronicles 3:19-24</a>, beginning with Zerubbabel\'s descendants, are obscure, and a battleground of criticism on account of their bearing on the date of Chronicles. There are three possible interpretations:<P>(1) Following the Hebrew, Zerubbabel\'s descendants stop with Pelatiah and Jeshaiah, his grandsons. Then follow three unclassified sets of "sons." No connection is shown between Jeshaiah and these. Then follows Shecaniah\'s line with four generations. There are several other instances of unrelated names thus being thrown in. This gives two generations after Zerubbabel.<P>(2) Still following the Hebrew, assume that Shecaniah after Obadiah is in Zerubbabel\'s line. This gives six generations after Zerubbabel.<P>(3) Following Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) (but the two latter are of very small critical weight), read in verse <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,21);">21</A>, "Rephaiah his son, Arnan his son," etc.<2E>a very possible change: eleven generations after Zerubbabel.<P>According to (3), Chronicles was written at least 253 years (allowing 23 years to a generation; more probable than 30 or 40) after Zerubbabel (515), hence, after 262 BC; (2) makes it after 373; (1) makes it 459, during Ezra\'s life. The book\'s last recorded event is Cyrus\' decree (538), which indicates the earliest date. The New Testament casts no light here, none of these names appearing in the genealogies in Matthew or Luke. If Septuagint is correct, Keil suggests that it is a later insertion, a critical device too frequently used to nullify inconvenient facts. The passage itself justifies the statement that "there is no shadow of proof that the families enumerated in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,21);">1Ch 3:21</a>, latter part, were descendants of Hananiah the son of Zerubbabel." Against this, and the other indications, the admittedly faulty Septuagint furnishes an insufficient basis for so far-reaching a conclusion.<P>(g) Fragmentary genealogies of families of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,\'1-23\');">1Ch 4:1-23</a>).<P>Contains<P>(1) "sons" of Judah, four or five successive generations;<P>(2) sons of Shobal and Hur;<P>(3) sons of Chelub;<P>(4) sons of Caleb, son of Jephunneh;<P>(5) sons of Jehaleel;<P>(6) sons of Ezra (of course, not the priest-scribe of the return);<P>(7) sons of "Bethiah the daughter of Pharaoh whom Mered took";<P>(8) sons of Shimon;<P>(9) sons of Ishi;<P>(10) sons of Shelah.<P>It is hard to trace the law of association here; which fact has its bearing on the discussion under (f) above. Chelub may be another Caleb. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,\'9-11\');">1Ch 4:9-11</a> give an interesting name-study, where Jabez by prayer transforms into prosperity the omen of his sorrowful name: "Because I bare him with sorrow," a characteristic note. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,\'21-23\');">1Ch 4:21-23</a> speak of the linenworkers and potters. Similar, even identical, names have been found on pot-handles-in Southern Palestine.<p>(3) Genealogy of Simeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,\'24-43\');">4:24-43</A>).<P>(a) Simeon\'s sons. Genealogy of Shimei. After <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,10);">Ge 46:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,15);">Ex 6:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,\'12-14\');">Nu 26:12-14</a>.<P>(b) Dwelling-places of Simeon. After <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'2-8\');">Jos 19:2-8</a>.<P>(c) Princes and conquests (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,\'34-43\');">1Ch 4:34-43</a>).<P>Source unknown, but considered old. Gray, however, thinks the names of late formation. Meshobab, Jamlech, Joshah, Amaziah, Joel, Jehu, Josibiah, Seraiah, Asiel, Elioenai, Jaakobah, Jeshohaiah, Asaiah, Adiel, Jesimiel, Benaiah, Ziza, Shiphi, Allon, Jedaiah, Shimri, Shemaiah, Ishi, Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah, Uzziel; many undoubtedly old ones; 11 in yah, 5 in \'el. Eliothal sounds post-exilic. The section mentions several exploits of Simeon.<P>(4) East-Jordanic tribes (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,\'1-24\');">1Ch 5:1-24</a>).<P>As in Simeon above, the usual order, deviated from in instances, is<P>(1) Introductory: Sons and immediate descendants;<P>(2) Territory;<P>(3) Princes or Chiefs;<P>(4) Incidents.<P>(a) Reuben (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,\'1-10\');">1Ch 5:1-10</a>).<P>Partly follows Genesis, Numbers; but only as to first generation. Very fragmentary and connections obscure.<P>(b) Gad (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,\'11-17\');">1Ch 5:11-17</a>).<P>First generation omitted. Chronicler draws from genealogies "in the days of" Jotham and Jeroboam.<P>(c) Half-Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,23,24);">1Ch 5:23-24</a>).<P>The whole tribe is treated of (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,14);">1Ch 7:14</a>). Here only the seats and heads of houses.<P>(5) Levi (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'1-81\');">1Ch 6:1-81</a>).<P>Illustrates more fully the Chronicler\'s attitude and methods.<P>(a) High priests from Levi to Jehozadak (the Exile) (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'1-15\');">1Ch 6:1-15</a>).<P>(i) Levi\'s sons: Gershon, Kohath, Merari (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,11);">Ge 46:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,16);">Ex 6:16</a>).<P>(ii) Kohath\'s sons: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, Uzziel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,18);">Ex 6:18</a>).<P>(iii) Amram\'s "sons": Aaron, Moses, Miriam (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,20,23);">Ex 6:20, 23</a> (except Miriam); <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,59);">Nu 26:59</a>f).<P>(iv) High priests from Eleazar. Also (partly) Ezra (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,\'1-5\');">7:1-5</a>):<P>1. Eleazar<P>2. Phinehas<P>3. Abishua<P>4. Bukki<P>5. Uzzi<P>6. Zerahiah<P>7. Meraioth<P>8. Amariah<P>9. Ahitub<P>10. Zadok<P>11. Ahimaaz<P>12. Azariah<P>13. Johnnan<P>14. Azariah<P>15. Amariah<P>16. Ahitub<P>17. Zadok<P>18. Shallum<P>19. Hilkiah<P>20. Azariah<P>21. Seraiah<P>22. Jehozadak<P>Noteworthy omissions: Eli\'s house, Eli, Phinehas, Ahitub, Ahimelech, Abiathar, because set aside for Zadok\'s in Solomon\'s time; Bukki to Zadok being their contemporaries; but the list also omits Amariah in the reign of Jehoshaphat (perhaps), Jehoiada, Joash\'s "power behind the throne," Urijah in Ahaz\' day, Azariah in Hezekiah\'s. It has been thought that this was done in the interests of a chronological scheme of the Chronicler, making 23 generations of 40 years from the Exodus to the Captivity, or 920 years. The Hebrew generation, however, was as likely to be 30 as 40 years, and as a matter of fact was nearer 20. The apparent number of generations from Aaron to the Captivity, adding the data from the historical books, <span class="noTag">is</span> 29, making a generation about 24 years. The reasons for the omission here, as for many others, are not apparent. Outside of Chronicles and Ezra we know nothing of Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, the first Amaziah, Johanan, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok 2, Shallum, Azariah 3. The list touches historical notices in Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, Zadok, Ahimaaz, Azariah 2, contemporary of Solomon, perhaps Amariah, contemporary of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, contemporary of Uzziah, Hilkiah, contemporary of Joshua, Seraiah slain by the Chaldeans, and Jehozadak. The recurrence of similar names in close succession is characteristically Jewish (but compare names of popes and kings). It is seen in the list beginning with Jehozadak: Joshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Jonathan, Jaddua, Onias, Simon, Eleazar, Manasseh, Onias, Simon, Onias, Joshua. Also about Christ\'s time: Eleazar, Jesus, Annas, Ismael, Eleazar, Simon, Joseph, Jonathan, Theophilus, Simon, although these latter do not succeed in a genealogical line.<P>(b) The three Levitical clans (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'16-19\');">1Ch 6:16-19</a>). After <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'17-19\');">Ex 6:17-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,\'17-20\');">Nu 3:17-20</a>.<P>(c) Lineal descendants of Gershom: seven, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,20,21);">1Ch 6:20-21</a>; thirteen, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'39-43\');">1Ch 6:39-43</a>. See also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,7);">1Ch 23:7</a>.<P>The two lists (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,20,21);">1Ch 6:20-21</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'39-43\');">6:39-43</a>) are clearly the same:<P>Gershom Gershom<P>Libni Jahath<P>Zimmah Zimmah<P>Joah Ethan<P>Iddo Adaiah<P>Zerah Zerah<P>Jeatherai Ethni<P>Malchiah<P>Baaseiah<P>Michael<P>Shimea<P>Berachiah<P>Asaph<P>Jahath, Zimmah, Zerah are in both. By slight changes Joah, yow\'ah, is Ethan, \'ethan; Iddo, \'idow, is \'idaiah, Adaiah; Jeatherai, is Ethni. Shimei may have dropped from one and Libni from the other. Jahath and Shimei have been transposed. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,7);">1Ch 23:7</a> Libni is Ladan.<P>(d) Pedigrees of Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,27,28,33,34,35);">1Ch 6:27-28, 33-35</a>). See also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,1);">1Sa 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,2);">8:2</a>.<P>We have three pedigrees of Samuel, all suffering in transcription:<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'22-24\',28);">1Ch 6:22-24, 28</a><P>(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'33-38\');">1Ch 6:33-38</a><P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,1);">1Sa 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,2);">8:2</a><P>Kohath Kohath<P>Amminadab Izhar<P>Korah Korah<P>Assir, Elkanah,<P>Ebiasaph Ebiasaph<P>Assir Assir<P>Tahath Tahath<P>Uriel Zephaniah<P>Uzziah Azariah<P>Shaul Joel<P>Elkanah Elkanah<P>Amasai Amasai<P>Ahimoth Mahath<p>Elkanah Elkanah<P>Zophai Zuph Zuph<P>Nahath Thoah Thohu<P>Eliab Eliel Elihu<P>Jeroham Jeroham Jeroham<P>Elkanah Elkanah Elkanah<P>Samuel Samuel Samuel<P>Joe (Vashni) and Joel Joel<P>Abijah<P>Heman<P>The text is obscure. Septuagint reads (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,26);">1Ch 6:26</a>), "Elkanah his (Ahimoth\'s) son, Zophai his son." It has Izhar in (1) for Amminadab, as has Hebrew in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,18,21);">Ex 6:18, 21</a>. Uriel for Zephaniah is unexplainable. Uzziah and Azariah are exchangeable. The other variations are transcriptional. Joel has dropped out of the first list, and the following words, now in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,2);">1Sa 8:2</a>, and the Syriac here: "and the second," v-sh-n, have been read "Vashni." <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,1);">1Sa 1:1</a> calls Zuph an Ephraimite. The Chronicler\'s claiming him (and Samuel) seems to some another instance of Levitical bias and acquisitiveness. The genealogy is also found "clearly artificial," Zuph being a territory, and Toah, Tohu, Nahath, a family. But "Ephraimite" is either merely local, the family having been assigned residence there (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,5);">Jos 21:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,66);">1Ch 6:66</a>), or (Hengstenberg, Ewald) because, being thus assigned, it has been incorporated into the tribe. Hannah\'s vow to devote him to Yahweh is said (Curtis, Moore, ICC in the place cited.) to show that he was no Levite, in which case no vow was necessary. But Elkanah\'s Ephraimite citizenship may have obscured in Hannah\'s mind the Levitical descent. In the disorganized times of the Judges an Ephraimite woman may well have been ignorant of, or indifferent to, the Levitical regulation, She, or the author of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,1);">1Sa 1:1</a>, must also have forgotten that every male that openeth the womb from any tribe is equally God\'s property. A mother\'s vow to devote her firstborn son to Yahweh, beyond recall or redemption, and to seal his consecration by the significant symbol of the unshaved head, is not hard to imagine in either a Levite or an Ephramite, and equally "unnecessary" in either case. Heman, ending the pedigree (2), was David\'s contemporary.<P>(e) Pedigree of Asaiah the Merarite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,29,30);">1Ch 6:29-30</a>).<P>Merari: Mahli: Libni; Shimei: Uzzah: Shimea: Haggiah: Asaiah. Hard to adjust or place. Libni and Shimei are elsewhere Gershonites, but the same name is frequently found in different tribes or clans. Information below Mahli is entirely wanting.<P>(f) Descent of David\'s three singers, Heman, Asaph, Ethan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'33-47\');">1Ch 6:33-47</a>).<P>(i) Heman has been given under (d); 20 links.<P>(ii) Asaph: Getshorn: Jahath: Shimei: Zimmah: Ethan: Adaiah: Zerah: Ethni (Jeatherai): Malchijah: Baaseiah: Michael: Shimea: Berechiah: Asaph; 15 links.<P>(iii) Ethan: Merari: Mushi: Mahli: Shemet: Bani: Amzi: Hilkiah: Amaziah: Hashabiah: Malluch: Abdi: Kishi: Ethan; 12 links.<P>Hardly anywhere is the Chronicler\'s good faith more questioned than in these lists. Finding in his day the three guilds of singers claiming descent from David\'s three, and through these from Levi, he fits them out with pedigrees, borrowing names from <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'16-20\');">1Ch 6:16-20</a>, and filling out with his favorite names, or those of his own invention, or from current lists. To make Asaph contemporary with David, he adds Malchijah, Maaseiah, Michael, Shimei, Berechiah. He helps out Ethan with Bani, Amzi, Hilkiah, Amaziah, Hashabiah, Malluch, Abdi, Kishi. The names added are very frequent in Chronicles and Ezra, not frequent in older writings. Aside from the general objection to this thoroughgoing discredit of Chronicles, and theory of religious development in Israel on which it is based, it may be said:<P>(1) The Chronicler\'s failure to give his three families nearly the same number of links is suspicious, but if he took an old list, as it came to him, it is natural.<P>(2) The fact that these added names occur many more times in Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah indicates simply that Levitical names occur frequently in a writer and among a people whose interests are Levitical. No one would look among the Roundheads for either classical or aristocratic names.<P>(3) In no tribe would such names be more likely to recur, naturally or purposely, than in the Levitical.<P>(4) The Chronicler has inserted among his new names 6 in yah and only 1 in \'el, and that far down the list.<P>(5) Of the "added" names Malchijah occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',21,1);">Jer 21:1</a>; Masseiah, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,21,25);">29:21,25</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,4);">35:4</a>, in every case priestly or Levitical. Michael occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,13);">Nu 13:13</a>. Berechiah is the name of the prophet Zechariah\'s father. Hilkiah is the name of Joshua\'s high priest. Amaziah reigned 800 BC. Bani is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,36);">2Sa 23:36</a> (though this is thought to be copied from Chronicles). Shimea is concededly early. Of the 13 "added names" 8 are found elsewhere. Of the others, Amzi, Abdi, Kishi (Kish, Kushaiah) have an early look. Malluch might be late. If Hashabiah is late the author has scattered it well through the history, 1 several generations before David, 3 in David\'s time, 1 in Josiah\'s, 1 in Ezra\'s, 3 in Nehemiah\'s, in every case a Levite.<P>(7) While these "added" names occur more times in Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, than elsewhere, and 5 of the 13 occur nowhere else, it is also true that more than 500 other names also occur only in these three books, and that the total names in these, to say nothing of the "P" portions elsewhere, outnumber the names in the other books about three to one. Other things being equal, three mentions of any common name ought to be found in these books to one in the others. Of all names applied to more than four persons the usual proportion in these books by count is four, to one elsewhere.<P>(g) Pedigree of Ahimaaz (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'50-53\');">1Ch 6:50-53</a>). Parallel with <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'4-8\');">1Ch 6:4-8</a>.<P>(h) Dwelling-places of Levi.<P>(6) The six remaining tribes.<P>(a) Issachar (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,\'1-5\');">1Ch 7:1-5</a>).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,1);">1 Chronicles 7:1</a> derived from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,13);">Ge 46:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,23,24);">Nu 26:23-24</a>. The rest peculiar to Chronicles. Closes with a record of fighting men, instead of the usual statement of dwelling-places.<P>(b) Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,\'6-13\');">1Ch 7:6-13</a>).<P>A very difficult section. It is considered a Zebulunite genealogy which has been Benjaminized, because<P>(1) there is a Benjamite list elsewhere;<P>(2) Benjamin is out of place here, while in 13 out of 17 tribal lists Zebulun comes at this point, and in this list has no other place;<p>(3) the numbers of Benjamin\'s sons differ from other Benjamite genealogies;<P>(4) the names of Bela\'s and Becher\'s sons are different here;<P>(5) many names are not Benjamite;<P>(6) Tarshish, in this list, is a sea-coast name appropriate to Zebulun, but not Benjamin. But (1) it is called Benjamite; (2) doublets are not unknown in Chronicles; (3) Dan is also neglected; (4) many Benjamite names are found; (5) both the Zebulunite material and the Benjamite material elsewhere is too scanty for safe conclusions.<P>(c) Dan, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,12);">1Ch 7:12</a>, from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,23);">Ge 46:23</a>.<P>Aher ("another") is a copyist\'s error or substitute for Dan.<P>(d) Naphtali, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,13);">1Ch 7:13</a>, from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,24);">Ge 46:24</a> (transcriptional changes).<P>(e) Manasseh, East and West (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,\'14-19\');">1Ch 7:14-19</a>).<P>The text of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,14,15);">1Ch 7:14-15</a> very corrupt. No other notice is found of the sons in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,16,17);">1Ch 7:16-17</a>: Peresh, Sheresh, Ulam, Rakere, Bedan.<P>(f) Ephraim to Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,\'20-29\');">1Ch 7:20-29</a>).<P>Contains an interesting personal note in the mourning of Ephraim over his sons Ezer and Elead, and the subsequent birth of Beriah. Interpreted to mean that the clans Ezer and Elead met with disaster, on which the clan Beriah became prominent.<P>(g) The seats of Joseph\'s sons (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,28,29);">1Ch 7:28-29</a>).<P>Hard to say why this has been placed here.<P>(h) Asher (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,\'30-40\');">1Ch 7:30-40</a>).<P>The earliest names derived from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,17);">Ge 46:17</a>. Gray considers the others ancient.<P>(i) Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,\'1-40\');">1Ch 8:1-40</a>).<P>(i) Sons of Benjamin. After <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,21);">Ge 46:21</a>, with variations. See (6) (b).<P>(ii) Descendants of Ehud (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,\'6-28\');">1Ch 8:6-28</a>). Text very corrupt, obscure.<P>(iii) The house of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,\'29-38\');">1Ch 8:29-38</a>); repeated (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,\'35-44\');">1Ch 9:35-44</a>).<P>In this passage two exceptions to the usual treatment of Baal compounds. Ishbaal and Meribbaal here are Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth in S.<P>(7) The inhabitants of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,\'1-34\');">1Ch 9:1-34</a>).<P>With variations in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,\'1-13\');">Ne 11:1-13</a>. This passage has been thought an interpolation, but it is the Chronicler\'s custom to give dwelling-places. Perhaps this and Nehemiah are two independent abridgments of the same document. This probably describes post-exilic conditions. <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,1);">1Ch 9:1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,2);">2</a> here, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,\'1-11\');">Ne 11</a> seem conclusive on this point. Four classes of returning exiles:<P>(a) The children of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh.<P>Constituting "the laity," "Israel."<P>(b) The priests.<P>Agreeing with Nehemiah, but abridged.<P>(c) The Levites. Paralleling Nehemiah, but not exactly.<P>(d) Nethinim or porters. Fuller than Nehemiah, and different.<P>(8) The house of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,\'35-44\');">1Ch 9:35-44</a>, repeating <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,\'29-38\');">9:29-38</A>).<P>(22) David\'s Knights (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,\'10-47\');">1 Chronicles 11:10-47</A>).<P>Discussed under (19). Adds to the list, Adina, son of Shiza, Reubenite; Hanan, son of Maacah, Joshaphat the Mithnite, Uzziah the Ashterathite, Shama and Jeiel the sons of Hotham the Aroerite, Jediael the son of Shimri, and Joah his brother, the Tizite, Eliel the Mahavite, and Jeribai and Joshaviah, the sons of Elnaam, and Ithmah the Moabite, Eliel, and Obed, and Jaasieh the Mezobaite.<P>(23) David\'s Recruits at Ziklag (<span class="noTag">1 Chronicles 12-22</span>).<P>Found only here. Contains 23 names from Benjamin (some may be Judahite); 11 from Gad; 8 from Manasseh; nothing to show that the names are not old.<P>(24) David\'s Musicians and Porters at the Bringing of the Ark (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,\'16-24\');">1 Chronicles 15:16-24</A>).<P>Also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,5,6,\'37-43\');">1Ch 16:5-6, 37-43</a>. Each division of the Levites represented by a chief musician.<P>(25) David\'s Organization of the Kingdom (<span class="noTag">1 Chronicles 23-27</span>).<P>I. The Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,\'1-\');">1 Chronicles 23</a>).<P>(1) The family of Gershon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,\'7-11\');">1Ch 23:7-11</a>); 9 houses.<P>(2) The family of Kohath (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,\'12-20\');">1Ch 23:12-20</a>); 11 houses.<P>(3) The family of Merari (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,\'21-23\');">1Ch 23:21-23</a>); 4 houses.<P>II. The Priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,\'1-\');">1 Chronicles 24</A>).<P>24 divisions; 16 divided among descendants of Eleazar, headed by Zadok; 8 among those of Ithamar, headed by Ahimelech (perhaps an error for Abiathar); but perhaps Ahimelech\'s. Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, was acting for his father.<P>(1) Eleazar\'s courses: Jehoiarib, Harim, Malchijah, Hakkoz, Joshua, Eliashib, Huppah, Bilgah, Hezer, Aphses, Pethahiah, Jehezekel, Jachin, Gamul, Delaiah, Maaziah.<P>(2) Ithamar: Jedaiah, Seorim, Mijamin, Abijah, Shecaniah, Jachim, Joshebeab, Immer.<P>Josephus gives the same names of courses (Ant., VII, xiv, 7; Vita, 1). Several are mentioned in Apocrypha, Talmud, and the New Testament. Jehoiarib, Jedaiah, Harim, Malchijah, Mijarain, Abijah, Shecaniah, Bilgah, Maaziah, are found in one or both of Nehemiah\'s lists.<P>(3) Supplementary list of Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',24,\'20-31\');">1Ch 24:20-31</A>).<P>Repeats the Levitical families in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,\'6-23\');">1Ch 23:6-23</a>, omitting the Gershonites, adding to the Kohathites and Merarites.<P>III. The Singers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,\'1-\');">1 Chronicles 25</a>).<P>(1) Their families, classified under the three great groups, descendants of Asaph, Jeduthun (Ethan), Heman.<P>A curious problem is suggested by the fact that the names in verse <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,4);">4</a>, beginning with Hanani, with a few very slight changes, read: "Hanan (\'Have mercy\')-iah (\'O Yahweh\'); Hanani (\'Have mercy\'); Eli-athah (\'Thou art my God\'); Giddalti (\'I have magnified\') (and) Romamti (\'exalted\')(thy) Ezer (\'help\'); Josh-bekashah (\'In the seat of hardness\'); Mallothi (\'I spake of it\'); Hothir (\'Gave still\'); Mahazioth (\'Visions\')." How, or why, this came among these names, cannot be said.<P>(2) The 24 courses of 12 singers each, of which courses nos. 1,3,5,7 fell to Asaph; nos. 2,4,8,10,12,14 fell to Jeduthun; nos. 6,9,11,13,15-24 fell to Heman.<P>IV. Gatekeepers and Other Officers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,\'1-\');">1 Chronicles 26</a>).<P>(1) Genealogies and stations of the gatekeepers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,\'1-19\');">1Ch 26:1-19</a>).<P>(2) Those in charge of the temple treasury (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,\'20-28\');">1Ch 26:20-28</a>).<P>(3) Those in charge of the "outward business."<P>Subordinate magistrates, tax-collectors, etc.<P>V. The Army, and David\'s Officers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,\'1-\');">1 Chronicles 27</a>).<P>(1) The army (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,\'1-15\');">1Ch 27:1-15</a>).<P>12 officers, each commanding 24,000 men, and in charge for one month; chosen from David\'s knights.<P>(2) The tribal princes (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,\'16-24\');">1Ch 27:16-24</a>).<P>After the fashion of <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,\'1-\');">Nu 12-15</a>. Gad and Asher are omitted. The 12 are made up by including the Levites and the Aaronites.<P>(3) The king\'s twelve stewards (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,\'25-31\');">1Ch 27:25-31</a>).<P>(4) The king\'s court officers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,\'32-34\');">1Ch 27:32-34</a>).<P>Counselor and scribe: Jonathan, the king\'s uncle, otherwise unknown; tutor: Jehiel; counselor: Ahithophel; "the king\'s friend" (closest confidant?): Hushai. Possibly two priests are next included: Jehoiada the son of Benaiah, and Abiathar, high priest of the Ithamar branch. But perhaps it should read, "Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada." If two priests are intended, it seems strange that Zadok is not one. The list ends with the commander-in-chief, Joab.<P>This elaborate organization in every part and branch of the kingdom is looked upon as the Chronicler\'s glowing Utopian dream of what must have been, underrating the organizing power of the great soldier and statesman.<P>(26) <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'1-63\');">Ezra 2:1-63</a>.<2E>The Exiles Who Returned with Zerubbabel.<P>Paralleled in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,\'6-73\');">Ne 7:6-73</a>. 9 "Jah," 4 "El" names in 107.<P>(1) The Leaders (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,2);">Ezra 2:2</a>).<P>(2) Numbers, according to Families (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'3-19\');">Ezra 2:3-19</a>).<P>18 of Ezra\'s numbers differ from Nehemiah\'s.<P>(3) Numbers according to Localities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'20-35\');">Ezra 2:20-35</a>).<P>10 towns probably Judahite, 7 Benjamite.<P>(4) The Priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,39,42);">Ezra 2:39, 42</a>).<P>Only 4 families, representing 3 Davidic courses.<P>(5) The Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,43,44);">Ezra 2:43-44</a>).<P>Among the singers, only Asaphites.<P>(6) The Porters (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,45);">Ezra 2:45</a>).<P>3 old names, 3 new ones.<P>(7) The "Nethinim" (Temple-Slaves) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'46-56\');">Ezra 2:46-56</a>).<P>(8) The Children of Solomon\'s Servants (Slaves) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'57-59\');">Ezra 2:57-59</a>).<P>(9) Those Who Could Not Prove Their Descent.<P>(a) General population.<P>Three families, children of Delaiah, Tobiah, Nekoda.<P>(b) Priestly families.<P>Hobaiah, Hakkoz, Barzillai. Hakkoz, the seventh of the Davidic courses, perhaps succeeded later in establishing their right (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,21);">Ne 3:21</a>).<P>(27) <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,\'1-5\');">Ezra 6:1-5</a>.<2E>Ezra\'s Genealogy.<P>An ascending genealogy: Ezra, son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah, son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahitub, son of Amaraiah, son of Azariah, son of Meraioth, son of Zerahiah, son of Uzzi, son of Bukki, son of Abishua, son of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron; 16 links. Follows <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'7-10\');">1Ch 6:7-10</a> down to Zadok, then omits 7 to Shallum, besides the 7 omitted in Chronicles.<P>(28) <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,\'1-20\');">Ezra 8:1-20</a>.<2E>Numbers and Leaders of Those Who Returned with Zerubbabel.<P>Numbers much smaller than in Zerubbabel\'s list (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'1-14\');">Ezr 2:1-14</a>). Perhaps 3 new families, Shecaniah, Shelomith, Joah; 7 more leaders. A much smaller proportion of Levites; among them a "man of discretion," perhaps a name, "Ishsecel," of the sons of Mahli, therefore a Merarite, with other Merarites, 39 in all.<P>(29) <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,\'18-44\');">Ezra 10:18-44</a>.<2E>Jews Who Had Married Foreign Women.<P>(1) The Priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,\'18-22\');">Ezra 10:18-22</a>).<P>Seventeen in all; members of the high priest\'s family, and of the Davidic courses of Immer and Harim, besides the family of Pashhur.<P>(2) The Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,23);">Ezra 10:23</a>); 6 in All.<P>(3) Singers and Porters (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,24);">Ezra 10:24</a>); 4 in All.<P>(4) "Israel," "the Laity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,\'25-43\');">Ezra 10:25-43</a>).<P>Sixteen families represented; 86 persons. Out of a total of 163 names, 39 yah compounds, 19 \'el compounds, 8 prefixed.<P>(30) <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,\'1-12\');">Nehemiah 3:1-12</a>.<2E>The Leaders in the Repair of the Wall.<P>Thirty-eight leaders; in 30 instances the father\'s name also given. As far as mentioned, all from Judah and Jerusalem.<P>(31) <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,\'7-63\');">Nehemiah 7:7-63</a>.<2E>Those Who Returned with Zerubbabel.<P>Follows <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,\'1-63\');">Ezr 2:1-63</a>, with transcriptional variations in names and numbers.<P>(32) <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,\'4-7\');">Nehemiah 8:4-7</a>.<2E>Levites and Others Who Assisted Ezra in Proclaiming the Law.<P>(33) <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,\'1-27\');">Nehemiah 10:1-27</a>.<2E>The Sealers of the Covenant.<P>Twenty-two priests, 17 Levites, 20 heads of families already mentioned, 24 individuals.<P>(34) <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,\'3-36\');">Nehemiah 11:3-36</a>.<2E>Chief Dwellers in Jerusalem and Vicinity.<P>Parallels in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,\'9-22\');">1Ch 9:9-22</a>. Some omissions and variations; 5 priestly courses given, Joiarib, course no. 1</a>; Jedaiah, no. 2</a>; Jachin, no. 23</a>; Malchijah, no. 5</a>; Immer, no. 6</a>. 24 "Jah," 6 "El" names out of 82.<P>(35) <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,\'1-8\');">Nehemiah 12:1-8</a> <20>Priests and Levites Who Went Up with Zerubbabel.<P>Compare with priests\' lists in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,\'2-8\');">Ne 10:2-8</a> (33), and with priests under Joiakim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,\'12-21\');">Ne 12:12-21</a> [36]). They are names of families. See <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,12);">Ne 12:12</a>.<P>(36) <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,10,11);">Nehemiah 12:10-11</a>.<2E>High Priests from Jeshua to Jaddua.<P>(1) Jeshua, 538 to 520 BC.<P>(2) Joiakim.<P>(3) Eliashib, 446 till after 433.<P>(4) Joiada, about 420.<P>(5) Jonathan, Johanan, 405 to 362.<P>(6) Jaddua, to 323.<P>This list bears upon the date of Ezra-Nehemiah. Jaddua was high priest when Alexander visited Jerusalem, 335 BC. If the Darius of verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,22);">22</a> is Darius Nothus (425 to 405 BC), and Jaddua, a young boy, is mentioned as the heir to the high-priesthood, this passage was written before 400. If Jaddua\'s actual high-priesthood is meant, and Darius Codomannus (336 to 330 BC) is the Darius here, the date may be about 330. The enumeration of families here is assigned to the time of Joiakim, before 405, and the latest recorded events to the time of the high priest before Jaddua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,23);">Ne 12:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,28);">13:28</a>), hence, before 362. The hypothesis of an addition by some scribe after 350 is possible, but not necessary.<P>(37) <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,\'12-21\');">Nehemiah 12:12-21</a>.<2E>Heads of Priestly Families.<P>(38) <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,\'22-26\');">Nehemiah 12:22-26</a>.<2E>Levites and Porters under High Priest Johanan.<P>(39) <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,\'31-42\');">Nehemiah 12:31-42</a>.<2E>Princes and Priests at Dedication of the Wall.<P>(40) <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'1-17\');">Matthew 1:1-17</a>.<2E><a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GENEALOGY+OF+JESUS+CHRIST,+THE">The Genealogy of Jesus Christ</a>.<P>(See separate article).<P>(41) <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,\'23-38\');">Luke 3:23-38</a>.<2E><a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GENEALOGY+OF+JESUS+CHRIST,+THE">The Genealogy of Jesus</A>.<P>(See separate article).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Commentaries in the place cited., especially on Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, especially C. F. Keil, Bible Comm., 1872; E. Bertheau, in Kurzgef. exeget. Handb. zum Altes Testament, 1873; Bible ("Speaker\'s") Commentary (Browne, Genesis; Clark, Exodus; Espin, Numbers; Rawlinson, Chronicles, etc.); W. B. Barnes, Cambridge Bible, Chronicles; R. Kittel, Die Bucher der Chronicles; Driver, Westminster Comm., Genesis; ICC (Gray, Nu; Moore, Jgs; Curtis, Chronicles, etc.); Pulpit Comm.; W. R. Harvey-Jellie, Chronicles in Century Bible; S. Oettli, Kgf. Kom., 1889; O. Zoeckler, Lange\'s Comm., etc.<P>Encyclopedia arts., especially HDB, E. L. Curtis, "Genealogies"; SBD, A. C. Hervey, "Genealogies"; EB, S. A. Cook, "Genealogies"; EB, 11th edition, S. A. Cook, "Genealogies"; other encyclopedia arts., under specific books, tribes, names, genealogies.<P>General works: Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names; Hommel, The Ancient Hebrew Tradition; A.C. Hervey, The Genealogies of our Lord; Sprenger, Das Leben u. d. Lehre d. Mohammad; W.R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia; J. Wellhausen, De Gentibus et Familiis Judaeis; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 1883 (ET), 177-277; McLennan, Studies in Ancient History.<P>Magazine articles: H.W. Hogg, "Genealogy of Benjamin," JQR, XI, 1899, 96-133, 329-44; M. Berlin, "Notes on Genealogies of Levi, <span class="noTag">1Ch 23-26</span>," Jewish Quarterly Review, XII, 1900, 291-98; M. Berlin, "Gershonite and Merarite Genealogies," JQR, XII, 1901, 291ff; H. W. Hogg, "Ephraimite Genealogy," JQR, XIII, 1900-1901, 147-54; J. Marquart, "Genealogies of Benjamin," JQR, XIV, 1902, 343-51; J. W. Rothstein, Die Genealogie das Konigs Jojachin und seiner Nachkommen in geschichtlicher Beleuchtung, Berlin: Reuther u. Reichold, 1902; R.S. Macalister, "The Royal Potters, <span class="noTag">1Ch 4:23</span>," The Expositor Times, XVI, 1905, 379ff; R. S. Macalister, "The Craftsmen Guild of the Tribe of Judah," PEFS, 1905, 243-53, 328-42; C. C. Torrey, "The Greek versions of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah," Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, XXV. 1903, 139ff, and many others.``31';
isbe[3732]='General; Generally`jen\'-er-al, jen\'-er-al-i (kullah; paneguris):<P>(1) General is the translation of sar, "master," "head," "chief"; used once in the King James Version in the sense of commander-in-chief, "the general of the king\'s army" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',27,34);">1Ch 27:34</a>), usually in this connection translated "captain," the Revised Version (British and American) "the captain of the king\'s host."<P>(2) As an adjective "general assembly" is the translation of paneguris (whence we have panegyric), "an assembly or convocation of the whole people to celebrate any public festival or solemnity, as the public games or sacrifices, hence, a high festival, public convocation, joyful assembly" (Robinson); the word occurs in the New Testament only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,23);">Heb 12:23</a>, "to the general assembly and church of the firstborn; paneguris is Septuagint for mo\'edh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',46,11);">Eze 46:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,11);">Ho 2:11</a>), "solemn assembly" and for \'atsarah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,21);">Am 5:21</a>), with the same meaning. The Greek words translated "and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn" (the King James Version) have been variously arranged and translated; Robinson gives "and to countless throngs (even) the joyful assembly of angels, i.e. as hymning the praises of God around His throne"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',5,11);">Re 5:11</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',148,2);">Ps 148:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',7,10);">Da 7:10</a>). From both Hebrew and Greek analogies, this is probably correct; similarly, Alford, Delitzsch and others have "festival assembly"; Weymouth translated "to countless hosts of angels, to the great festal gathering and church of the first-born."<P>(3) Generally, adverb, occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,38);">Jer 48:38</a> the King James Version as the translation of kullah (Pual of kalah), "the whole of it," "There shall be lamentation generally (universally) upon all the housetops of Moab," the Revised Version (British and American) "everywhere"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,11);">2Sa 17:11</a>, \'acaph, "to be gathered," is translated "to be generally gathered," the Revised Version (British and American) "gathered together."<P>In Apocrypha we have "general" in the sense of "common," "universal" (Additions to Esther 15:10 margin, koinos; 2Macc 3:18, pandemon); "in general" (2Esdras 8:15, "man in general"; Ecclesiasticus 18:1, "all things in general," koinos, the Revised Version (British and American) "in common").``185';
isbe[3733]='Generation`jen-er-a\'-shun (Latin generatio, from genero, "beget"):<P>(1) The translation<P class="in15">(a) of dor, "circle," "generation," hence, "age," "period," "cycle": "many generations" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,7);">De 32:7</a>);<P class="in15">(b) the people of any particular period or those born about the same time: "Righteous before me in this generation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,1);">Ge 7:1</a>); "four generations" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',42,16);">Job 42:16</a>);<P class="in15">(c) the people of a particular class or sort, with some implied reference to hereditary quality; the wicked (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,5);">De 32:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,11);">Pr 30:11</a>); the righteous (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',14,5);">Ps 14:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',112,2);">112:2</a>).<P>(2) toledhoth, "births," hence<P class="in15">(a) an account of a man and his descendants: "The book of the generations of Adam" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,1);">Ge 5:1</a>);<P class="in15">(b) successive families: "The families of the sons of Noah, after their generations" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,32);">Ge 10:32</a>);<P class="in15">(c) genealogical divisions: "The children of Reuben...their generations, by their families" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,20);">Nu 1:20</a>);<P class="in15">(d) figurative, of the origin and early history of created things: "The generations of the heavens and of the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,4);">Ge 2:4</a>).<P>(3) genea, "a begetting," "birth," "nativity," therefore<P class="in15">(a) the successive members of a genealogy: "All the generations from Abraham unto David" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,17);">Mt 1:17</a>);<P class="in15">(b) a race, or class, distinguished by common characteristics, always (in the New Testament) bad: "Faithless and perverse generation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',17,17);">Mt 17:17</a>);<P class="in15">(c) the people of a period: "This generation shall not pass away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,32);">Lu 21:32</a>);<P class="in15">(d) an age (the average lifetime, 33 years): "Hid for (Greek "from the") ages and (from the) generations" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,26);">Col 1:26</a>). The term is also by a figurative transference of thought applied to duration in eternity: "Unto all generations for ever and ever" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,21);">Eph 3:21</a>) (Greek "all the generations of the age of the ages").<P>(4) genesis, "source," "origin": "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,1);">Mt 1:1</a>; the American Revised Version, margin "The genealogy of Jesus Christ").<P>(5) gennema, "offspring," "progeny"; figurative: "O generation of vipers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,7);">Lu 3:7</a> the King James Version).<P>(6) genos, "stock," "race," in this case spiritual: "But ye are a chosen generation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,9);">1Pe 2:9</a>; the American Standard Revised Version "an elect race").``31';
isbe[3734]='Genesis, 1-2`jen\'-e-sis:<P><b>I. GENERAL DATA</b><P>1. The Name<P>2. Survey of Contents<P>3. Connection with Succeeding Books<P><b>II. COMPOSITION OF GENESIS IN GENERAL</b><P>1. Unity of the Biblical Text<P class="in15">(1) The Toledhoth<P class="in15">(2) Further Indication of Unity<P>2. Rejection of the Documentary Theory<P class="in15">(1) In General<p class="in30">(a) Statement of Theory<p class="in30">(b) Reasons Assigned for Divisions<p class="in30">(c) Examination of the Documentary Theory<p class="in60">(i) Style and Peculiarities of Language<p class="in60">(ii) Alleged Connection of Matter<p class="in60">(iii) The Biblico-Theological Data<p class="in60">(iv) Duplicates<p class="in60">(v) Manner in Which the Sources Are Worked Together<p class="in60">(vi) Criticism Carried to Extremes<P class="in15">(2) In View of the Names for God<p class="in30">(a) Error of Hypothesis in Principle<p class="in30">(b) False Basis of Hypothesis<p class="in30">(c) Improbability That Distinction of Divine Names Is without Significance<p class="in30">(d) Real Purpose in Use of Names for God<p class="in60">(i) Decreasing Use of Yahweh<p class="in60">(ii) Reference to Approach of Man to God, and Departure from Him<p class="in60">(iii) Other Reasons<p class="in60">(iv) Systematic Use in History of Abraham<p class="in30">(e) Scantiness of the Materials for Proof<p class="in30">(f) Self-Disintegration of the Critical Position<p class="in30">(g) Different Uses in the Septuagint<P><b>III. STRUCTURE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PERICOPES</b><P>1. The Structure of the Prooemium (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Genesis 1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-3\');">2:3</a>)<P>2. Structure of the 10 Toledhoth<P><b>IV. THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER</b><P>1. History of the Patriarchs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">Genesis 12-50</a>)<P class="in15">(1) Unfounded Attacks on the History<p class="in30">(a) From General Dogmatic Principles<p class="in30">(b) From Distance of Time<p class="in30">(c) From Biblical Data<p class="in30">(d) From Comparison with Religion of Arabia<P class="in15">(2) Unsatisfactory Attempts at Explaining the Patriarchal Age<p class="in30">(a) Explanation Based on High Places<p class="in30">(b) The Dating Back of Later Events to Earlier Times<p class="in30">(c) The Patriarchs as heroes eponymi<p class="in30">(d) Different Explanations Combined<P class="in15">(3) Positive Reasons for the Historical Character of Genesis<p class="in30">Individuality of Patriarchs, etc.<P>2. The Primitive History of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Genesis 1-11</a><p class="in15">(1) Prominence of the Religious Element<P class="in15">(2) Carefulness as Regards Divergent Results of Scientific Research<P class="in15">(3) Frequent Confirmation of the Bible by Science<P class="in15">(4) Superiority of the Bible over Pagan Mythologies Babylonian and Biblical Stories<P><b>V. ORIGIN AND AUTHORSHIP OF GENESIS</b><P>1. Connection with Mosaic Times<P>2. Examination of Counter-Arguments<P class="in15">(1) Possibility of Later Additions<P class="in15">(2) "Prophecy after the Event" Idea<P class="in15">(3) Special Passages Alleged to Indicate Later Date<p class="in30">Examination of These<P><b>VI. SIGNIFICANCE</b><P>1. Lays Foundation for the Whole of Revelation<6F>Creation, Fall, Man in Image of God, Sin, etc.<P>2. Preparation for Redemption<6F>Promises and Covenants<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. General Data.<P>1. The Name:<P>The first book of Moses is named by the Jews from the first word, namely, bere\'shith, i.e. "in the beginning" (compare the Bresith of Origen]). In the Septuagint it is called Genesis, because it recounts the beginnings of the world and of mankind. This name has passed over into the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) (Liber Genesis). As a matter of fact the name is based only on the beginning of the book.<P>2. Survey of Contents:<P>The book reports to us the story of the creation of the world and of the first human beings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a>); of paradise and the fall (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-\');">Ge 2</a>f); of mankind down to the Deluge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,\'1-\');">Ge 4</a>f; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,\'1-\');">Ge 4</a>, Cain and Abel); of the Deluge itself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'1-\');">Ge 6-9</a>); of mankind down to the age of the Patriarchs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-26\');">11:26</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,1);">11:1</a>ff, the building of the tower of Babel); of Abraham and his house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'27-\');">Ge 11:27-25:18</a>); of Isaac and his house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'19-\');">Ge 25:19-37:2</a>); of Jacob and of Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,\'2-\');">Ge 37:2-50:26</a>). In other words, the Book of Genesis treats of the history of the kingdom of God on earth from the time of the creation of the world down to the beginning of Israel\'s sojourn in Egypt and to the death of Joseph; and it treats of these subjects in such a way that it narrates in the 1st part (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1:1-11:26</a>) the history of mankind; and in the 2nd part (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'27-\');">Ge 11:27-50:26</a>) the history of families; and this latter part is at the same time the beginning of the history of the chosen people, which history itself begins with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'1-\');">Ex 1</a>. Though the introduction, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1-11</a>, with its universal character, includes all mankind in the promise given at the beginning of the history of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-3\');">12:1-3</a>), it is from the outset distinctly declared that God, even if He did originally set apart one man and his family (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">Ge 12-50</a>), and after that a single nation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'1-\');">Ex 1</a>), nevertheless intends that this particularistic development of the plan of salvation is eventually to include all mankind. The manner in which salvation is developed historically is particularistic, but its purposes are universal.<P>3. Connection with Succeeding Books:<P>By the statements just made it has already been indicated in what close connection Genesis stands with the subsequent books of the sacred Scriptures. The history of the chosen people, which begins with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'1-\');">Ex 1</a>ff, at the very outset and with a clear purpose, refers back to the history as found in Genesis (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'1-6\',8);">Ex 1:1-6, 8</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,27);">Ge 46:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,24);">50:24</a>ff; and see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS,+THE+BOOK+OF+,1">EXODUS, I, 3</a>), although hundreds of years had clasped between these events; which years are ignored, because they were in their details of no importance for the religious history of the people of God. But to Abraham in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-3\');">Ge 12:1-3</a> the promise had been given, not only that he was to be the father of a mighty nation that would recognize him as their founder, and the earliest history of which is reported in Exodus and the following books of the Pentateuch, but also that the Holy Land had been promised him. In this respect, the Book of Joshua, which gives the story of the capture of this land, is also a continuation of the historical development begun in Genesis. The blessing of God pronounced over Abraham, however, continued to be efficacious also in the later times among the people who had descended from him. In this way Genesis is an introduction to all of the books of the Old Testament that follow it, which in any way have to do with the fate of this people, and originated in its midst as the result of the special relation between God and this people. But in so far as this blessing of God was to extend to all the nations of the earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,3);">Ge 12:3</a>), the promises given can be entirely fulfilled only in Christ, and can expand only in the work and success of Christian missions and in the blessings that are found within Christianity. Accordingly, this book treats first of beginnings and origins, in which, as in a kernel, the entire development of the kingdom of God down to its consummation is contained (compare VI below).<P>II. Composition of Genesis in General.<P>1. Unity of the Biblical Text:<P>(1) The Toledhoth.<P>The fact that Genesis is characterized by a far-reaching and uniform scheme has, at least in outline, been already indicated (see I, 2 and 3). This impression is confirmed when we examine matters a little more closely and study the plan and structure of the book. After the grand introitus, which reports the creation of the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">1:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-3\');">2:3</a>) there follows in the form of 10 pericopes the historical unfolding of that which God has created, which pericopes properly in each case bear the name toledhoth, or "generations." For this word never signifies creation or generation as an act, but always the history of what has already been created or begotten, the history of generations; so that for this reason, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,4);">2:4a</a>, where mention is made of the toledhoth of heaven and of earth, cannot possibly be a superscription that has found its way here from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,1);">1:1</a>. It is here, as it is in all cases, the superscription to what follows, and it admirably leads over from the history of creation of the heavens and the earth in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a> to the continuation of this subject in the next chapter. The claim of the critics, that the redactor had at this place taken only the superscription from his source P (the priestly narrator, to whom <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">1:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-3\');">2:3</a> is ascribed), but that the section of P to which this superscription originally belonged had been suppressed, is all the more monstrous a supposition as <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,4);">2:4a</a> throughout suits what follows.<P>Only on the ground of this correct explanation of the term toledhoth can the fact be finally and fully explained, that the toledhoth of Terah contain also the history of Abraham and of Lot; the toledhoth of Isaac contain the history of Jacob and Esau; the toledhoth of Jacob contain the history of Joseph and his brethren. The ten toledhoth are the following: I, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'4-\');">Ge 2:4-4:26</a>, the toledhoth of the heavens and the earth; II, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">5:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'1-8\');">6:8</a>, the toledhoth of Adam; III, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'9-\');">6:9-9:29</a>, the toledhoth of Noah; IV, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">10:1</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-9\');">11:9</a>, the toledhoth of the sons of Noah; V, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'10-16\');">11:10-26</a>, the toledhoth of the sons of Shem; VI, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'27-\');">11:27-25:11</A>, the toledhoth of Terah; VII, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'12-18\');">25:12-18</a>, the toledhoth of Ishmael; VIII, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'19-\');">25:19-35:29</A>, the toledhoth of Isaac; IX, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'1-\');">36:1</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,1);">37:1</a>, the toledhoth of Esau (the fact that <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,9);">36:9</A>, in addition to the instance in verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,1);">1</a>, contains the word toledhoth a second time, is of no importance whatever for our discussion at this stage, as the entire chapter under any circumstances treats in some way of the history of the generations of Esau; see III, <span class="noTag">2:9</span>); X, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,\'2-\');">37:2-50:26</a>, the toledhoth of Jacob. In each instance this superscription covers everything that follows down to the next superscription.<P>The no. 10</span> is here evidently not an accidental matter. In the articles <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS</a>, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS">LEVITICUS</a>, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY+OF+ATONEMENT">DAY OF ATONEMENT</a>, also in <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL">EZEKIEL</A>, it has been shown what role the typical nos. 4, 7, 10 and 12 play in the structure of the whole books and of the individual pericopes. (In the New Testament we meet with the same phenomenon, particularly in the Apocalypse of John; but compare also in Matthew\'s Gospel the 3 X 14 generations in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,1);">Mt 1:1</a>ff, the 7 parables in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,1);">13:1</a>ff, the 7 woes in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,13);">23:13</a>ff.) In the same way the entire Book of Leviticus naturally falls into 10 pericopes (compare <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS,+1">LEVITICUS, II,2,1</A>), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,\'1-\');">Le 19</a> contains 10 groups, each of 4 (possibly also of 5) commandments; compare possibly also <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,\'6-18\');">18:6-18</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,\'9-18\');">20:9-18</a>; see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS,+1">LEVITICUS, II,2,21,VI.</a><p>Further, the no. 10, with a greater or less degree of certainty, can be regarded as the basis for the construction of the pericopes: <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'8-\');">Ex 1:8-7:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'8-\');">7:8-13:16</a> (10 plagues); <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,\'17-\');">13:17-18:27</a> (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS,+THE+BOOK+OF,+2">EXODUS, II, 2:1-3</a>); the Decalogue (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,1);">20:1</a>ff); the first Book of the Covenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'1-\');">21:1-23:13</span>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'14-19\');">23:14-19</A>), and the whole pericope <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,\'1-\');">19:1-24:18a</a>, as also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'1-\');">32:1-35:3</a> (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS,+THE+BOOK+OF,+2">EXODUS, II, 2, 4, 6</A>). In the Book of Genesis itself compare further the 10 members from Shem to Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'11-26\');">11:11-26</a>), as also the pericopes <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'19-\');">25:19-35:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,\'2-\');">37:2-50:26</a> (see III, 2, 8, 10 below), and the 10 nations in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,19);">Ge 15:19</a>ff. And just as in the cases cited, in almost every instance, there is to be found a further division into 5 X 2 or 2 X 5 (compare, e.g. the two tables of the Decalogue); thus, too, in the Book of Genesis in each case, 5 of the 10 pericopes are more closely combined, since I-V (toledhoth of Shem inclusive) stand in a more distant, and VI-X (treating of the toledhoth of Terah, or the history of Abraham) in a closer connection with the kingdom of God; and in so far, too, as the first series of toledhoth bring into the foreground more facts and events, but the second series more individuals and persons. Possibly in this case, we can further unite 2 toledhoth; at any rate I and II (the primitive age), III and IV (Noah and his sons), VII and VIII (Ishmael and Isaac), IX and X (Esau and Jacob) can be thus grouped.<P>(2) Further Indication of Unity.<P>In addition to the systematic scheme so transparent in the entire Biblical text of the Book of Genesis, irrespective of any division into literary sources, it is to be noticed further, that in exactly the same way the history of those generations that were rejected from any connection with the kingdom of God is narrated before the history of those that remained in the kingdom of God and continued its development. Cain\'s history (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,17);">4:17</a>ff) in Jahwist (Jahwist) stands before the history of Seth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,25);">4:25</A>f J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,3);">5:3</A>ff P); Japheth\'s and Ham\'s genealogy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,1);">10:1</a>ff P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,8);">10:8</a>ff P and J) before that of Shem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,21);">10:21</a>ff J and P), although Ham was the youngest of the three sons of Noah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,24);">9:24</A>); the further history of Lot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,29);">19:29</A>ff P and J) and of Ishmael\'s genealogy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,12);">25:12</a>ff P and J) before that of Isaac (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,19);">25:19</a>ff P and J and E); Esau\'s descendants (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,1);">36:1</a>ff R and P) before the toledhoth of Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,2);">37:2</a>ff P and J and E).<P>In favor of the unity of the Biblical text we can also mention the fact that the Book of Genesis as a whole, irrespective of all sources, and in view of the history that begins with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,\'1-\');">Ex 1</a>ff, has a unique character, so that e.g. the intimate communion with God, of the kind which is reported in the beginning of this Book of Genesis (compare, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,8);">3:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,16);">7:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,5);">11:5</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,1,22);">17:1, 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,9,13</a>);">35:9,13</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,1);">18:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,31);">32:31</a> J), afterward ceases; and that in Exodus, on the other hand, many more miracles are reported than in the Book of Genesis (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS,+THE+BOOK+OF,+3-4">EXODUS, III, 2</A>); that Genesis contains rather the history of mankind and of families, while Exodus contains that of the nation (see I, 2 above); that it is only in Exodus that the law is given, while in the history of the period of the patriarchs we find only promises of the Divine grace; that all the different sources ignore the time that elapses between the close of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus; and further, that nowhere else is found anything like the number of references to the names of persons or things as are contained in Genesis (compare, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,23);">2:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,20);">3:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,1,25);">4:1, 25</a>, etc., in J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,5,15,\'17-20\');">17:5, 15, 17-20</a>, etc., in P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,9,17,31);">21:9, 17, 31</a>, etc., in E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,6);">21:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,36);">27:36</a>, etc., in J and E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,19);">28:19</a>, etc., in R; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,8,16,19);">49:8,16,19</a>, etc., in the blessing of Jacob); that the changing of the names of Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,5,15);">Ge 17:5, 15</a> goes on through all the sources, while before this it is not found in any source. Finally, we would draw attention to the psychologically finely drawn portraits of Biblical persons in Genesis. The fact that the personal pronoun hu\' and the noun na\'ar are used of both masculine and feminine genders is characteristic of Genesis in common with all the books of the Pentateuch, without any difference in this regard being found in the different documents, which fact, as all those cited by us in no. 1 above, militates against the division of this book into different sources. Let us now examine more closely the reason assigned for the division into different sources.<P>2. Rejection of the Documentary Theory:<P>(1) In General.<P>(a) Statement of Theory:<P>Old Testament scholars of the most divergent tendencies are almost unanimous in dividing the Biblical text of Genesis into the sources the Priestly Code (P), Jahwist and Elohist, namely Priestly Codex, Jahwist, and Elohist. To P are attributed the following greater and connected parts: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">1:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-5\');">2:4a; 5</a>; a part of the story of the Deluge in chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'1-\');">6-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,10);">11:10</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,17,\'23-\');">17</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">23</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,12);">25:12</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,22);">35:22</a>bff; the most of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'1-\');">36</A>. As examples of the parts assigned to J we mention <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,\'4-\');">2:4b-4:26</a>; the rest of the story of the Deluge in chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'1-\');">6-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,1);">11:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">12</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-\');">16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'1-\');">18</a>f; with the exception of a few verses, which are ascribed to P; chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,\'1-\');">24</a> and others. Connected parts belonging to the Elohist (E) are claimed to begin with chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,\'1-\');">20</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'1-\');">21</a> (with the exception of a number of verses which are attributed to P or J or R), and it is thought that, beginning with chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-\');">22</a>, E is frequently found in the history of Jacob and of Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'19-\');">25:19-50:26</a>), in part, however, interwoven with J (details will be found under III, in each case under 2). This documentary theory has hitherto been antagonized only by a few individuals, such as Klostermann, Lepsius, Eerdmans, Orr, Wiener, and the author of the present article.<P>(b) Reasons Assigned for Divisions:<P>As is well known, theory of separation of certain books of the Old Testament into different sources began originally with the Book of Genesis. The use made of the two names of God, namely Yahweh (Yahweh) and Elohim, caused Astruc to conclude that two principal sources had been used in the composition of the book, although other data were also used in vindication of theory; and since the days of Ilgen the conviction gained ground that there was a second Elohist (now called E), in contradistinction to the first (now called the Priestly Code (P), to whom, e.g., <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a> is ascribed). This second Elohist, it was claimed, also made use of the name Elohim, as did the first, but in other respects he shows greater similarity to the Jahwist. These sources were eventually traced through the entire Pentateuch and into later books, and for this reason are discussed in detail in the article <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=PENTATEUCH">PENTATEUCH</a>. In this article we must confine ourselves to the Book of Genesis, and limit the discussion to some leading points. In addition to the names for God (see under 2), it is claimed that certain contradictions and duplicate accounts of the same matters compel us to accept different sources. Among these duplicates are found, e.g., <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1:1-2:4</a> a the Priestly Code (P), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'4-\');">2:4b</a>ff J, containing two stories of creation; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,9);">Ge 12:9</a>ff J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,1);">20:1</a>ff E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,1);">26:1</a>ff J; with the narrative of how Sarah and Rebekah, the wives of the two patriarchs, were endangered; chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'1-\');">15</a> J and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">17</a> the Priestly Code (P), with a double account of how God concluded His covenant with Abraham; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,22);">21:22</a>ff E and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,12);">26:12</a>ff J, the stories of Abimelech; chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-\');">16</a> J and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'1-\');">21</a> E, the Hagar episodes; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,10);">28:10</a>ff J and E and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,1);">35:1</a>ff E and the Priestly Code (P), the narratives concerning Bethel, and in the history of Joseph the mention made of the Midianites E, and of the Ishmaelites J, who took Joseph to Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,25);">37:25</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,1);">39:1</A>); the intervention of Reuben E, or Judah J, for Joseph, etc. In addition a peculiar style, as also distinct theological views, is claimed for each of these sources. Thus there found in P a great deal of statistical and systematic material, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,1);">5:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,10);">11:10</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,12);">25:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,6);">36:6</a>ff (the genealogies of Adam, Shem, Ishmael, Esau); P is said to show a certain preference for fixed schemes and for repetitions in his narratives. He rejects all sacrifices earlier than the Mosaic period, because according to this source the Lord did not reveal himself as Yahweh previous to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">Ex 6:1</a>ff. Again, it is claimed that the Elohist (E) describes God as speaking to men from heaven, or through a dream, and through an angel, while according to J Yahweh is said to have conversed with mankind personally. In regard to the peculiarities of language used by the different sources, it is impossible in this place to enumerate the different expressions, and we must refer for this subject to the different Introductions to the Old Testament, and to the commentaries and other literature. A few examples are to be found under (c) below, in connection with the discussion of the critical hypothesis. Finally, as another reason for the division of Genesis into different sources, it is claimed that the different parts of the sources, when taken together, can be united into a smooth and connected story. The documents, it is said, have in many cases been taken over word for word and have been united and interwoven in an entirely external manner, so that it is still possible to separate them and often to do this even down to parts of a sentence or to the very words.<P>(c) Examination of the Documentary Theory:<P>(i) Style and Peculiarities of Language:<P>It is self-evident that certain expressions will be repeated in historical, in legal, and in other sections similar in content; but this is not enough to prove that there have been different sources. Whenever J brings genealogies or accounts that are no less systematic than those of P (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,17);">Ge 4:17</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,8);">10:8</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'20-24\');">22:20-24</a>); or accounts and repetitions occur in the story of the Deluge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,2,7);">Ge 7:2, 7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,4,12,17);">7:4, 12, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,6);">8:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,4);">7:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,8,10,12);">8:8, 10, 12</a>), this is not enough to make the division into sources plausible. In reference to the linguistic peculiarities, it must be noted that the data cited to prove this point seldom agree. Thus, e.g. the verb bara\', "create," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,1);">Ge 1:1</a> is used to prove that this was written by the Priestly Code (P), but the word is found also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,7);">6:7</a> in J. The same is the case with the word rekhush, "possession," which in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,5);">12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,6);">13:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,7);">36:7</A> is regarded as characteristic of the Priestly Code (P), but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,11,16,21);">14:11f; 16, 21</A> is found in an unknown source, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,4);">15:14</a> in J. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,5);">12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,12);">13:12a</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,3);">16:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,8);">17:8</a> it is said that \'erets kena\'an, "land of Canaan," is a proof that this was written by P; but in chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,\'1-\');">42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,\'1-\');">44</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,\'1-\');">47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,\'1-\');">50</a> we find this expression in Jahwist and Elohist, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',32,32);">Nu 32:32</a> in J (R); compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,40);">Nu 33:40</a> (PR) where <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,\'1-3\');">Nu 21:1-3</a> (JE) is quoted; shiphchah, "maid servant," is claimed as a characteristic word of J in contrast to E (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,1);">16:1</A>ff); but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,3);">16:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,24,29);">29:24, 29</a> we find this word not only in P but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,14);">20:14</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,4,7,18);">30:4,7,18</a>; in E Min, "kind," is counted among the marks of P (compare e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,11);">1:11</A>ff), but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,13,14,18);">De 14:13-14, 18</a> we find it in Deuteronomy; rather remarkably, too, in the latest find on the Deluge made by Hilprecht and by him ascribed to 2100 BC. Compare on this subject my book, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung, and Orr, POT, chapter vii, section vi, and chapter x, section i; perhaps, too, the Concordance of Mandelkern under the different words. Even in the cases when the characteristic peculiarities claimed for the sources are correct, if the problem before us consisted only in the discovery of special words and expressions in the different sources, then by an analogous process, we could dissect and sever almost any modern work of literature. Particularly as far as the pieces are concerned, which are assigned to the Priestly Code (P), it must be stated that <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">23</a> are, as far as style and language are concerned, different throughout. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a> is entirely unique in the entire Old Testament. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">Ge 23</a> has been copied directly from life, which is pictured with exceptional fidelity, and for this reason cannot be claimed for any special source. The fact that the story of the introduction of circumcision in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">Ge 17</a> in many particulars shows similarities to the terminology of the law is entirely natural: The same is true when the chronological accounts refer one date to another and when they show a certain typical character, as is, e.g., the case also in the chronological parts of any modern history of Israel. On the other hand, the method of P in its narratives, both in matter and in form, becomes similar to that of Jahwist and Elohist, just as soon as we have to deal with larger sections; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,1);">Ge 28:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,9);">35:9</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,5);">47:5</a>ff, and all the more in Exodus and Numbers.<P>Against the claim that P had an independent existence, we must mention the fact of the unevenness of the narratives, which, by the side of the fuller accounts in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">17</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>, of the genealogies and the story of the Deluge, would, according to the critics, have reported only a few disrupted notices about the patriarchs; compare for this in the story of Abraham, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,27,31);">11:27,31</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,4);">12:4b</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,6,11,12);">13:6a, 11b, 12a</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,1,3,15);">16:1a, 3, 15</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,29);">19:29</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,1,\'2-5\');">21:1b, 2b-5</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'7-11\');">25:7-11a</a>; and in its later parts P would become still more incomprehensible on the assumption of the critics (see III below). No author could have written thus; at any rate he would not have been used by anybody, nor would there have been such care evinced in preserving his writings.<P>(i) Alleged Connection of Matter:<P>The claim that the different sources, as they have been separated by critics, constitute a compact and connected whole is absolutely the work of imagination, and is in conflict with the facts in almost every instance. This hypothesis cannot be consistently applied, even in the case of the characteristic examples cited to prove the correctness of the documentary theory, such as the story of the Deluge (see III, 2, in each case under (2)).<P>(ii) The Biblico-Theological Data:<P>The different Biblical and theological data, which are said to be characteristic in proof of the separation into sources, are also misleading. Thus God in J communes with mankind only in the beginning (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-\');">Ge 2</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,16);">7:16</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,5);">11:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'1-\');">18</A>f), but not afterward. In the beginning He does this also, according to the Priestly Code (P), whose conception of God, it is generally claimed, was entirely transcendental (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,1,22);">Ge 17:1, 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,9,13);">35:9, 13</a>). The mediatorship of the Angel of Yahweh is found not only in E, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,17);">Ge 21:17</a>, \'Elohim), but also in J (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,7,9,10,11);">Ge 16:7, 9-11</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,11);">22:11</a> in E, the angel of Yahweh (not of the \'Elohim) calls from heaven; theophanies in the night or during sleep are found also in J (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,12);">Ge 15:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,24);">26:24</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,\13-16\');">28:13-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,27);">32:27</a>). In the case of the Priestly Code (P), the cult theory, according to which it is claimed that this source does not mention any sacrifices before <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">Ex 6:1</a>ff, is untenable. If it is a fact that theocracy, as it were, really began only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'1-\');">Ex 6</a>, then it would be impossible that P would contain anything of the cults before <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'1-\');">Ex 6</a>; but we have in P the introduction of the circumcision in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">Ge 17</a>; of the Sabbath in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,1);">2:1</a>ff; and the prohibition against eating blood in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,1);">9:1</a>ff; and in addition the drink offerings mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,14);">35:14</a>, which verse stands between <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,13);">35:13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,15);">15</a>, and, ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), is only in the interests of this theory attributed to the redactor. If then theory here outlined is not tenable as far as P is concerned, it would, on the other hand, be all the more remarkable that in the story of the Deluge the distinction between the clean and the unclean (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,2,8);">7:2ff. 8</A>) is found in J, as also the savor of the sacrifice, with the term reach ha-nichoach, which occurs so often in P (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,21);">Ge 8:21</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,3,7,10,13,24);">Nu 15:3, 7, 10, 13f; 24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,17);">18:17</a>); that the sacrifices are mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,20);">Ge 8:20</a>ff, and the no. 7 in connection with the animals and days in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,4);">7:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,8,10,12);">8:8,10,12</a> (compare in the Priestly Code (P), e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,33);">Le 8:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,5,21,26,31,33,50,54);">13:5f;21,26f,31,33,50,54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,8,38);">14:8f; 38 f</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,7,51);">14:7,51</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,14);">16:14</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,11);">Nu 28:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',29,8);">29:8</a>, etc.); further, that the emphasis is laid on the 40 days in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,4,12,17);">Ge 7:4, 12, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,6);">8:6</a> (compare in the Priestly Code (P), <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\'1-8\');">Ex 24:1-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',12,\'2-4\');">Le 12:2-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,25);">Nu 13:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,34);">14:34</a>), all of which are ascribed, not as we should expect, to the Levitical the Priestly Code (P), but to the prophetical J. The document the Priestly Code (P), which, according to a large number of critics, was written during the Exile (see e.g. <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS,+2">LEVITICUS, III,1</A>, or <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL">EZEKIEL, sec. II, 2</A>) in a most surprising manner, instead of giving prominence to the person of the high priest, would then have declared that kings were to be the greatest blessings to come to the seed of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,6,16);">Ge 17:6, 16</a>); and while, on the critical assumption, we should have the right to expect the author to favor particularistic tendencies, he, by bringing in the history of all mankind in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1-11</a>, and in the extension of circumcision to strangers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,12,23);">17:12, 23</A>), would have displayed a phenomenal universality. The strongest counter-argument against all such minor and incorrect data of a Biblical and a theological character will always be found in the uniform religious and ethical spirit and world of thought that pervade all these sources, as also in the unity in the accounts of the different patriarchs, who are pictured in such a masterly, psychological and consistent manner, and who could never be the result of an accidental working together and interweaving of different and independent sources (see III below).<P>(iii) Duplicates:<P>In regard to what is to be thought of the different duplicates and contradictions, see below under III, 2, in each case under (2).<P>(iv) Manner in Which the Sources Are Worked Together:<P>But it is also impossible that these sources could have been worked together in the manner in which the critics claim that this was done. The more arbitrarily and carelessly the redactors are thought to have gone to work in many places in removing contradictions, the more incomprehensible it becomes that they at other places report faithfully such contradictions and permit these to stand side by side, or, rather, have placed them thus. And even if they are thought not to have smoothed over the difficulties anywhere, and out of reverence for their sources, not to have omitted or changed any of these reports, we certainly would have a right to think that even if they would have perchance placed side by side narratives with such enormous contradictions as there are claimed to be, e.g. in the story of the Deluge in P and J, they certainly would not have woven these together. If, notwithstanding, they still did this without harmonizing them, why are we asked to believe that at other places they omitted matters of the greatest importance (see III, 2, 3)? Further, J and E would have worked their materials together so closely at different places that a separation between the two would be an impossibility, something that is acknowledged as a fact by many Old Testament students; yet, notwithstanding, the contradictions, e.g. in the history of Joseph, have been allowed to stand side by side in consecutive verses, or have even intentionally been placed thus (compare, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,25);">Ge 37:25</a>ff). Then, too, it is in the nature of things unthinkable that three originally independent sources for the history of Israel should have constituted separate currents down to the period after Moses, and that they could yet be dovetailed, often sentence by sentence, in the manner claimed by the critics. In conclusion, the entire hypothesis suffers shipwreck through those passages which combine the peculiarities of the different sources, as e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,18);">Ge 20:18</a>, which on the one hand constitutes the necessary conclusion to the preceding story from E (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,17);">20:17</A>), and on the other hand contains the name Yahweh; or in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,14);">22:14</A>ff, which contains the real purpose of the story of the sacrificing of Isaac from E, but throughout also shows the characteristic marks of J; or in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,1);">39:1</A>, where the so-called private person into whose house Joseph has been brought, according to J, is more exactly described as the chief of the body-guard, as this is done by E, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,2,4);">40:2, 4</a>. And when the critics in this passage appeal to the help of the redactor (editor), this is evidently only an ill-concealed example of a "begging of the question." In chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,\'1-\');">34</a>, and especially in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">14</a>, we have a considerable number of larger sections that contain the characteristics of two or even all three sources, and which accordingly furnish ample evidence for protesting against the whole documentary theory.<P>(v) Criticism Carried to Extremes:<P>All the difficulties that have been mentioned grow into enormous proportions when we take into consideration the following facts: To operate with the three sources J, E and P seems to be rather an easy process; but if we accept the principles that underlie this separation into sources, it is an impossibility to limit ourselves to these three sources, as a goodly number of Old Testament scholars would like to do, as Strack, Kittel, Oettli, Dillmann, Driver. The stories of the danger that attended the wives of the Patriarchs, as these are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,9);">Ge 12:9</a>ff and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,1);">26:1</a>ff, are ascribed to J, and the story as found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,1);">Ge 20:1</a>ff to E. But evidently two sources are not enough in these cases, seeing that similar stories are always regarded as a proof that there have been different authors. Accordingly, we must claim three authors, unless it should turn out that these three stories have an altogether different signification, in which case they report three actual occurrences and may have been reported by one and the same author. The same use is made of the laughter in connection with the name Isaac in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,17);">Ge 17:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,12);">18:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,6);">21:6</a>, namely, to substantiate the claim for three sources, P and J and E. But since <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,9);">21:9</A> E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,8);">26:8</a> J also contain references to this, and as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,6);">21:6</a> JE, in addition to the passage cited above, there is also a second reference of this kind, then, in consistency, the critics would be compelled to accept six sources instead of three (Sievers accepts at least 5, Gunkel 4); or all of these references point to one and the same author who took pleasure in repeating such references. As a consequence, in some critical circles scholars have reached the conclusion that there are also such further sources as J1 and Later additions to J, as also E1 and Later additions to E (compare Budde, Baudissin, Cornill, Holzinger, Kautzsch, Kuenen, Sellin). But Sievers has already discovered five subordinate sources of J, six of the Priestly Code (P), and three of E, making a total of fourteen independent sources that he thinks can yet be separated accurately (not taking into consideration some remnants of J, E and P that can no longer be distinguished from others). Gunkel believes that the narratives in Genesis were originally independent and separate stories, which can to a great extent yet be distinguished in their original form. But if J and E and P from this standpoint are no longer authors but are themselves, in fact, reduced to the rank of collectors and editors, then it is absurd to speak any more of distinct linguistic peculiarities, or of certain theological ideas, or of intentional uses made of certain names of God in J and E and the Priestly Code (P), not to say anything of the connection between these sources, except perhaps in rare cases. Here the foundations of the documentary theory have been undermined by the critics themselves, without Sievers or Gunkel or the other less radical scholars intending to do such a thing. The manner in which these sources are said to have been worked together naturally becomes meaningless in view of such hypotheses. The modern methods of dividing between the sources, if consistently applied, will end in splitting the Biblical text into atoms; and this result, toward which the development of Old Testament criticism is inevitably leading, will some day cause a sane reaction; for through these methods scholars have deprived themselves of the possibility of explaining the blessed influence which these Scriptures, so accidentally compiled according to their view, have achieved through thousands of years. The success of the Bible text, regarded merely from a historical point of view, becomes for the critic a riddle that defies all solutions, even if all dogmatical considerations are ignored.<P>(2) Rejection of Documentary Theory In View of the Names for God.<P>(a) Error of Hypothesis in Principle:<P>The names of God, Yahweh and Elohim, constituted for Astruc the starting-point for the division of Genesis into different sources (see (1) above). Two chief sources, based on the two names for God, could perhaps as a theory and in themselves be regarded as acceptable. If we add that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">Ex 6:1</a>ff, in the Priestly Code (P), we are told that God had not revealed Himself before the days of Moses by the name of Yahweh, but only as "God Almighty," it seems to be the correct thing to separate the text, which reports concerning the times before Moses and which in parts contains the name Yahweh, into two sources, one with Yahweh and the other with Elohim. But just as soon as we conclude that the use made of the two names of God proves that there were three and not two sources, as is done from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,\'1-\');">Ge 20</a> on, the conclusive ground for the division falls away. The second Elohist (E), whom Ilgen was the first to propose (see (1) above), in principle and a priori discredits the whole hypothesis. This new source from the very outset covers all the passages that cannot be ascribed to the Yahweh or the Elohist portions; whatever portions contain the name Elohim, as P does, and which nevertheless are prophetical in character after the manner of J, and accordingly cannot be made to fit in either the Jahwistic or the Elohistic source, seek a refuge in this third source. Even before we have done as much as look at the text, we can say that according to this method everything can be proved. And when critics go so far as to divide J and E and P into many subparts, it becomes all the more impossible to make the names for God a basis for this division into sources. Consistently we could perhaps in this case separate a Yahweh source, an Elohim source, a ha-\'Elohim source, an \'El Shadday source, an \'Adhonay source, a Mal\'akh Yahweh source, a Mal\'akh \'Elohim source, etc., but unfortunately these characteristics of the sources come into conflict in a thousand cases with the others that are claimed to prove that there are different sources in the Book of Genesis.<P>(b) False Basis of Hypothesis:<P>But the basis of the whole hypothesis itself, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">Ex 6:1</a>ff P; is falsely regarded as such. If Yahweh had really been unknown before the days of Moses, as <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">Ex 6:1</a>ff P is claimed to prove, how could J then, in so important and decisive a point in the history of the religious development of Israel, have told such an entirely different story? Or if, on the other hand, Yahweh was already known before the time of Moses, as we must conclude according to J, how was it possible for P all at once to invent a new view? This is all the more incredible since it is this author and none other who already makes use of the word Yahweh in the composition of the name of the mother of Moses, namely Jochebed (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,20);">Ex 6:20</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,59);">Nu 26:59</a>). In addition, we do not find at all in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">Ex 6:1</a>ff that God had before this revealed Himself as \'Elohim, but as \'El Shadday, so that this would be a reason for claiming not an \'Elohim but an \'El Shadday source for P on the basis of this passage (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,1);">17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,3);">28:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,11);">35:11</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,3);">48:3</a> P<><a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,14);">43:14</A> E! compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,25);">49:25</A> in the blessing of Jacob). Finally, it is not at all possible to separate <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">Ex 6:1</a>ff P from that which immediately precedes, which is taken from JE and employs the name Yahweh; for according to the text of P we do not know who Moses and who Aaron really were, and yet these two are in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">Ex 6:1</a>ff regarded as well-known persons. The new revelation of God in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">Ex 6:1</a>ff (P) by the side of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,1);">3:1</a>ff (JE and E) is also entirely defensible and rests on a good foundation; for Moses after the failure of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,\'1-\');">Ex 5</a> needed such a renewed encouragement (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS,+THE+BOOK+OF,+2">EXODUS, sec. II,2,1</a>). If this is the case, then the revelation of the name of Yahweh in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">Ex 6:1</a>ff cannot mean that that name had before this not been known at all, but means that it had only been relatively unknown, i.e. that in the fullest and most perfect sense God became known only as Yahweh, while before this He had revealed His character only from certain sides, but especially as to His Almighty Power.<P>(c) Improbability That Distinction of Divine Names Is without Significance:<P>In view of the importance which among oriental nations is assigned to names, it is absolutely unthinkable that the two names Yahweh and Elohim had originally been used without any reference to their different meanings. The almost total omission of the name Yahweh in later times or the substitution of the name Elohim for it in <span class="noTag">Psalms 42-83</SPAN> is doubtless based in part on the reluctance which gradually arose in Israel to use the name at all; but this cannot be shown as probable for older times, in which it is claimed that E was written. In the case of P the rule, according to which the name Elohim is said to have been used for the pre-Mosaic period, and the reason for the omission of Yahweh would have been an entirely different one. Then, too, it would be entirely inexplicable why J should have avoided the use of the name Elohim. The word Elohim is connected with a root that signifies "to fear," and characterizes God from the side of His power, as this is, e.g., seen at once in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a>. Yahweh is splendidly interpreted in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,14);">Ex 3:14</a>ff; and the word is connected with the archaic form hawah for hayah, "to be," and the word characterizes God as the being who at all times continues to be the God of the Covenant, and who, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'4-\');">Ge 2:4</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-24\');">3:24</a>, can manifestly be none other than the Creator of the universe in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-3\');">2:3</a>, even if from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">Ge 12</a> on He, for the time being, enters into a special relation to Abraham, his family and his people, and by the use of the combined names Yahweh-Elohim is declared to be identical with the God who created the world, as e.g. this is also done in the section <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'8-\');">Ex 7:8-13:16</a>, where, in the 10 plagues, Yahweh\'s omnipotent power is revealed (compare <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS,+THE+BOOK+OF,+2">EXODUS, II,2,2</a>); and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,30);">9:30</a> it is charged against-Pharaoh and his courtiers, that they did not yet fear Yahweh-Elohim, i.e. the God of the Covenant, who at the same time is the God of the universe (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,21,37,39);">1Ki 18:21, 37, 39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jon\',4,6);">Jon 4:6</a>).<P>(d) Real Purpose in Use of Names for God:<P>But now it is further possible to show clearly, in connection with a number of passages, that the different names for God are in Genesis selected with a perfect consciousness of the difference in their meanings, and that accordingly the choice of these names does not justify the division of the book into various sources.<P>(i) Decreasing Use of Yahweh:<P>The fact that the toledhoth of Terah, of Isaac, and of Jacob begin with the name Yahweh but end without this name. In the history of Abraham are to be noted the following passages: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,1,4,7,17);">Ge 12:1,4,7,8,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,4,10,13,14,18);">13:4,10,13,14,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,22);">14:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,1,2,8);">15:1-2, 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,2,5,6,7,9,10,11,13);">16:2, 5-7, 9, 10-11, 13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,1);">17:1</a>; in the history of Isaac: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,21,22,23);">25:21,22,23</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,2,12,22,24,25,28,29);">26:2,12,22,24,25,28,29</a>; and in the toledhoth of Jacob <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,7,10);">38:7,10</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,2,3,5);">39:2,3,5</a>. In these passages the beginnings are regularly made with the name Yahweh, although with decreasing frequency before the name Elohim is used, and notwithstanding that in all these sections certain selections from P and E must also be considered in addition to J. Beginning with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">Ge 12</a>, in which the story of the selection of Abraham is narrated, we accordingly find emphasized, at the commencement of the history of each patriarch, this fact that it is Yahweh, the God of the Covenant, who is determining these things. Beginning with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,\'1-\');">Ge 40</a> and down to about <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,\'1-\');">Ex 2</a> we find the opposite to be the case, although J is strongly represented in this section, and we no longer find the name Yahweh (except in one passage in the blessing of Jacob, which passage has been taken from another source, and hence is of no value for the distinction of the sources J, E and P; this is the remarkable passage <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,18);">Ge 49:18</a>). In the same way the story of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'1-11\');">Ge 25:1-11</a>) closes without mention being made of the name of Yahweh, which name is otherwise found in all of these histories, except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">Ge 23</a> (see below). The toledhoth of Isaac, too, use the name Yahweh for the last time in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,10);">32:10</a>; and from this passage down to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,2);">Ge 37:2</a> the name is not found. It is accordingly clear that in the history of the patriarchs there is a gradual decrease in the number of times in which the name Yahweh occurs, and in each case the decrease is more marked; and this is most noticeable and clearest in the history of Joseph, manifestly in order to make all the more prominent the fact that the revelation of God, beginning with <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,1);">Ex 3:1</a>ff, is that of Yahweh. These facts alone make the division of this text into three sources J, E and P impossible.<P>(ii) Selection of the Names of God wtih Reference to the Approach of Man to God, and Departure from Him:<P>The fact, further, that the approach of an individual to God or his departure from God could find its expression in the different uses made of the names of God is seen in the following. In connection with Ishmael and Lot the name Yahweh can be used only so long as these men stood in connection with the kingdom of God through their relation to Abraham (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,7,9,10,11,13);">Ge 16:7,9,10,11,13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,10);">13:10</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,13,16);">19:13f; 16</A>), but only the name Elohim can be used as soon as they sever this connection (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,12,17,19,20);">Ge 21:12,17,19,20</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,29);">19:29</A>). On the other hand, [\'Elohim] is used in the beginning of the history of the Gentile Abimelech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,3,6,11,13,17);">Ge 20:3, 6, 11, 13, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,22);">21:22</a>f); while afterward, when he has come into closer relations to the patriarchs, the name Yahweh is substituted (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,28,29);">Ge 26:28-29</a>). A similar progress is found in separate narratives of the patriarchs themselves, since in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,1);">Ge 22:1</a>ff and chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,\'1-\');">28</a> the knowledge of Elohim is changed into that of Yahweh (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,1,3,9);">22:1,3,9</A> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,11,14,15,16);">22:11,14,15,16</A>, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,12);">28:12</A> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,13,16);">28:13,16</A>).<P>(iii) Other Reasons:<p>[\'Elohim] can, further, in many cases be explained on the basis of an implied or expressed contrast, generally over against men (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,8,12);">Ge 22:8, 12</a>; in the second of these two passages the fear of God is placed in contrast to godlessness); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,2);">Ge 30:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,50);">31:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,2);">32:2</a>f; compare with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,4,8);">32:4 and 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,29);">32:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,5);">35:5</a>; or on the basis of an accommodation to the standpoint of the person addressed, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-5\');">3:1-5</a> (serpent); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,3,6,11,13,17);">20:3,6,11,13,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,6);">23:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,9);">39:9</a> (Gentiles); or on the basis of grammar, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,6);">23:6</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,3);">32:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,17,22);">28:17,22</a>; because the composition with the proper name Yahweh could never express the indefinite article (a prince of God, a camp of God, a Bethel or house of prayer); or finally in consequence of the connection with earlier passages (compare<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,1);"> 5:1</A>ff with chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,2.4);">21:2,4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,3);">28:3</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,9);">35:9</a>ff with chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">17</a>). A comparison of these passages shows that, of course, different reasons may have induced the author to select the name Elohim, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,6);">23:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,12);">28:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,12);">32:12</a>.<P>(iv) Systematic Use in History of Abraham:<P>That the names for God are systematically used is finally attested by the fact that in the history of Abraham, after the extensive use of the name Yahweh in its beginning (see above), this name is afterward found combined with a large number of other and different names; so that in each case it is Yahweh of whom all further accounts speak, and yet the name of Yahweh is explained, supplemented and made clear for the consciousness of believers by the new appellations, while the full revelation of His being indeed begins only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,\'1-\');">Ex 3</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">6:1</a>ff, at which place the different rays of His character that appeared in earlier times are combined in one brilliant light. The facts in the case are the following. In the story of Abraham, with which an epoch of fundamental importance in the history of revelation begins, we find Yahweh alone in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">Ge 12</a>f. With the exception of chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">23</A>, where a characteristic appellation of God is not found, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'1-11\');">25:1-11</a>, where we can claim a decadence in the conception of the Divinity (concerning <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,6);">23:6</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,11);">25:11</a>; see above, the name of Yahweh is retained in all of these stories, as these have been marked out (III,2,6); but beginning with chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">14</a> they do not at all use any longer only one name for God. We here cite only those passages where, in each ease, for the first time a new name for God is added, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,18);">14:18</a>, \'El \'Elyon; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,19);">14:19</a>, Creator of heaven and of earth; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,2);">15:2</A>, \'Adhonay; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,7);">16:7</A>, the Angel of Yahweh; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,13);">16:13</A>, the God that seeth; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,1);">17:1</A>, \'El Shadday; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,3);">17:3</a>, \'Elohim; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,18);">17:18</a>, ha-\'Elohim; chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'1-\');">18</a>f; special relation to the three men (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,2);">18:2</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,1);">19:1</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,25);">18:25</a>, the Judge of the whole earth; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,13);">20:13</a>, \'Elohim constructed as a plural; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,17);">21:17</a>, the Angel of God; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,3);">24:3</A>, the God of heaven and the God of the earth; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,12);">24:12</a>, the God of Abraham.<P>(e) Scantiness of the Materials for Proof:<P>If we add, finally, that to prove the hypothesis we are limited to the meager materials found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,1);">Ge 1:1</a> through <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,1);">Ex 6:1</a> if; that in this comparatively small number of chapters <span class="noTag">Genesis 40 to Exodus 2</span> cannot be utilized in this discussion (see above under (d); that all those passages, in which J and E are inseparably united must be ignored in this discussion; that all other passages in which J and E are often and rapidly interchanged from the very outset are suspiciously akin to begging the question; that <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,18);">Ge 20:18</a>, which with its "Yahweh" is ascribed to R, is absolutely needed as the conclusion of the preceding Elohim story; that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,33);">21:33</A> with its "Yahweh" (Yahweh) in the Jahwist (Jahwist), on the other hand, the opening Elohim story from E, which is necessary for an explanation of the dwelling of Abraham in the south country, precedes; that the angel of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,11);">22:11</a>) is found in E; that <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'4-\');">2:4</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-24\');">3:24</a> from J has besides Yahweh the name Elohim, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-5\');">3:1b-5</a> only Elohim (see above); that in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,1);">17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,1);">21:1</a> P Yahweh is found; that <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,29);">5:29</a>, which is ascribed to J, is surrounded by portions of the Priestly Code (P), and contains the name Yahweh, and would be a torso, but in connection with chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">5</a> the Priestly Code (P), in reality is in its proper place, as is the intervening remark (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,24);">5:24</a> P); that, on the other hand, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,25);">4:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,2,4);">6:2,4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,9);">7:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,27);">9:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,9);">39:9</a> Elohim is found<6E>in view of all these facts it is impossible to see how a greater confusion than this could result from the hypothesis of a division of the sources on the basis of the use made of the names of God. And then, too, it is from the very outset an impossibility, that in the Book of Genesis alone such an arbitrary selection of the names for God should have been made and nowhere else.<P>(f) Self-Disintegration of the Critical Position:<P>The modern critics, leaving out of consideration entirely their further dissection of the text, themselves destroy the foundation upon which this hypothesis was originally constructed, when Sievers demands for <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a> (from P) an original Yahweh Elohim in the place of the Elohim now found there; and when others in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'1-\');">Ge 18</a>f J claim an original Elohim; and when in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">17:1-21:1</a> the name Yahweh is said to have been intentionally selected by P.<P>(g) Different Uses in the Septuagint:<P>Naturally it is not possible to discuss all the pertinent passages at this place. Even if, in many cases, it is doubtful what the reasons were for the selection of the names for God, and even if these reasons cannot be determined with our present helps, we must probably, nevertheless, not forget that the Septuagint in its translation of Genesis in 49 passages, according to Eerdman\'s reckoning, and still more according to Wiener\'s, departs from the use of the names for God from the Hebrew original. Accordingly, then, a division of Genesis into different sources on the basis of the different names for God cannot be carried out, and the argument from this use, instead of proving the documentary theory, has been utilized against it.``122';
isbe[3735]='Genesis, 3`III. The Structure of the Individual Pericopes.<P>In this division of the article, there is always to be found (under 1) a consideration of the unity of the Biblical text and (under 2) the rejection of the customary division into different sources.<P>The conviction of the unity of the text of Genesis and of the impossibility of dividing it according to different sources is strongly confirmed and strengthened by the examination of the different pericopes. Here, too, we find the division on the basis of the typical Nos. 4,7,10,12. It is true that in certain cases we should be able to divide in a different way; but at times the intention of the author to divide according to these numbers practically compels acceptance on our part, so that it would be almost impossible to ignore this matter without detriment, especially since we were compelled to accept the same fact in connection with the articles <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS,+THE+BOOK+OF">EXODUS (II)</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS,+1">LEVITICUS (II, 2)</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY+OF+ATONEMENT">DAY OF ATONEMENT (I,2,1)</a>, and aIso <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL">EZEKIEL (I,2,2)</a>. But more important than these numbers, concerning the importance or unimportance of which there could possibly be some controversy, are the fundamental religious and ethical ideas which run through and control the larger pericopes of the [toledhoth] of Terah, Isaac and Jacob in such a way that it is impossible to regard this as merely the work of a redactor, and we are compelled to consider the book as the product of a single writer.<P>1. The Structure of the Pro<72>mium (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Genesis 1</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,1,2,3);">2:3</a>):<P>The structure of the pro<72>mium (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,1,2,3);">2:3</a>) is generally ascribed to P. Following the introduction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,1,2);">Ge 1:1-2</a>; creation of chaos), we have the creation of the seven days with the Sabbath as a conclusion. The first and the second three days correspond to each other (1st day, the light; 4th day, the lights; 2nd day, the air and water by the separation of the waters above and the waters below; 5th day, the animals of the air and of the water; 3rd day, the dry land and the vegetation; 6th day, the land animals and man; compare also in this connection that there are two works on each day). We find Exodus also divided according to the number seven (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II, 1</A>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\'18-\');">Ex 24:18b through 31:18</a>; see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II,2,5</A>, where we have also the sevenfold reference to the Sabbath idea in Exodus, and that, too, repeatedly at the close of different sections, just as we find this here in Genesis); and in Leviticus compare chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,\'1-\');">25</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,\'1-\');">27</A>; see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS">LEVITICUS, II,2,2</a>; the VIII, IX, and appendix; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,17);">Ge 4:17</a>ff J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-24\');">5:1-24</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'9-\');">6:9-9:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'1-\');">36:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,1);">37:1</a> (see under 2, 1,2,3,9).<P>2. Structure of the Ten Toledhoth:<P>The ten toledhoth are found in <span class="noTag">Ge 2:4-50:26</span>.<P>1. The Toledhoth of the Heavens and the Earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'4-\');">Genesis 2:4-4:26</a>):<P>(1) The Biblical Text.<P>(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'4-25\');">Ge 2:4-25</a>, Paradise and the first human beings;<P>(b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-24\');">3:1-24</a>, the Fall;<P>(c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,\'1-16\');">4:1-16</A>, Cain and Abel;<P>(d) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,\'17-26\');">4:17-26</A>, the Cainites, in seven members (see under 1 above) and Seth. The no. 4 appears also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">5:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'1-8\');">6:8</A> (see under 2); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">10:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-19\');">11:9</A> (see under 4); and especially <span class="noTag">11:27-25:11</A> (under 6). Evidently (a) and (b), (c) and (d) are still more closely connected.<P>(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-4\');">2:4a</a> P and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'4-\');">2:4b through 4:26</a> J).<P>Ch <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-\');">2</a> does not contain a new account of creation with a different order in the works of creation. This section speaks of animals and plants, not for their own sakes, but only on account of their connection with man. The creation of the woman is only a further development of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a>. While formerly the critics divided this section into <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'4-\');">2:4-4:26</a> J, they now cut it up into J1 and j2 (see under II, 2,1 (c) (because, they say, the tree of life is mentioned only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,9);">2:9</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,23);">3:23</A>, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,17);">2:17</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,3);">3:3</A>ff the Divine command is restricted to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But it is impossible to see why there should be a contradiction here, and just as little can we see why the two trees standing in the midst of the garden should not both have had their significance (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,9);">2:9</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,3);">3:3</A>). It is further asserted that a division of J is demanded by the fact that the one part of J knows of the Fall (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,9);">6:9</A>ff), and the other does not know of such a break in the development of mankind (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,17);">4:17</a>ff). But the civilization attained by the Cainites could certainly have passed over also to the Sethites (see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,2);">6:2</a>); and through Noah and his sons have been continued after the Deluge. Then, too, the fact that Cain built a city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,17);">4:17</A>), and the fact that he became a fugitive and a wanderer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,12);">4:12</A>), are not mutually exclusive; just as the beginnings made with agriculture (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,2);">4:12</A>) are perfectly consistent with the second fact.<P>2. The Toledhoth of Adam (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">Ge 5:1</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'1-8\');">6:8</a>):<P>(1) The Biblical Text.<P>(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-24\');">Ge 5:1-24</a>, seven generations from Adam to Lamech (see under 1, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,14);">Jude 1:14</a>);<P>(b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'25-32\');">Ge 5:25-32</a>, four generations from the oldest of men, Methuselah, down to the sons of Noah;<P>(c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'1-4\');">6:1-4</a>, intermingling of the sons of God and the sons of men; (d) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\5-8\');">6:5-8</a>, corruption of all mankind. Evidently at this place (a) and (b), (c) and (d) correspond with each other.<P>(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">Genesis 5</a> P with the Exception of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,29);">5:29</A> [see II,2,2 (e)]; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,29);">5:29</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'1-8\');">6:1-8</a> J).<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,7);">Genesis 6:7</a> J presupposes chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">1</a> P; as, on the other hand, the fact that the generations that, according to chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">5</A> the Priestly Code (P), had in the meanwhile been born, die, presupposes the advent of sin, concerning which only J had reported in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">3</a>. In the case of the Priestly Code (P), however, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,31);">1:31</A> it is said that everything was very good.<P>3. The Toledhoth of Noah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'9-\');">Genesis 6:9-9:29</a>):<P>(1) The Biblical Text.<P>Seven sections (see 1 above) viz:<P>(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'9-22\');">Ge 6:9-22</a>, the building of the ark;<P>(b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,\'1-9\');">7:1-9</a>, entering the ark;<P>(c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,\'10-24\');">7:10-24</A>, the increase of the Flood;<P>(d) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,\'1-14\');">8:1-14</a>, the decrease of the Flood;<P>(e) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,\'15-19\');">8:15-19, leaving the ark;<P>(f) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,\'22-\');">8:22</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-9\');">9:17</A>, declaration of a covenant relation between God and Noah;<P>(g) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,\'18-29\');">9:18-29</A>, transfer of the Divine blessing upon Shem.<P>(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,\'1-5\',\'7-10\',12,16,17,22);">Genesis 7:1-5, 7-10, 12, 16b, 17,2 f</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,2,3,\'6-13\',20-21-22);">8:2b, 3a, 6-12,13b, 20-22</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,\'20-27\');">9:20-27</A> J, the Rest from P).<P>In all the sources are found the ideas that the Deluge was the punishment of God for sin; further, the deliverance of the righteous Noah and his wife and three sons Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives; the deliverance of the different kinds of animals; the announcement of the covenant relations between God and mankind after the Deluge; the designation of the Deluge with the term mabbul and of the ark with tebhah. In the Babylonian account, which without a doubt stands in some connection with the Biblical, are found certain measurements of the ark, which in the Bible are only in the Priestly Code (P), as also the story of the sending out of the birds when the flood was decreasing, and of the sacrifices of those who had been delivered, which in the Bible are said to be found only in J; and these facts are a very powerful argument against the division into sources. Further, the Priestly Code (P), in case the critics were right, would have contained nothing of the thanks of Noah for his deliverance, although he was a pious man; and in the case of J we should not be informed what kind of an ark it was into which Noah was directed to go (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,\'1-\');">Ge 7:1</a>); nor how he can already in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,20);">Ge 8:20</a> build an altar, as he has not yet gone out of the ark; and, further, how the determination of Yahweh, that He would not again curse the earth but would bless it, can be a comfort to him, since only P has reported concerning the blessing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,1);">9:1</a>ff). Even if the distinction is not always clearly made between clean and unclean animals, and different numbers are found in the case of each (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,19);">6:19</A>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,\'14-16\');">7:14-16</a> the Priestly Code (P), over against <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,2);">7:2</A>f in J), yet this is to be regarded merely as a lack of exactness or, perhaps better, rather as a summary method of procedure. The difficulties are not even made any easier through the separation into sources, since in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,8);">7:8</A>f in J both numbers and the distinction between the two kinds of animals are used indiscriminately. Here, too, in J we find the name Elohim used. The next contradiction that is claimed, namely that the Deluge according to J lasted only 61 days, and is arranged in 40 days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,4,12,17);">7:4,12,17</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,6);">8:6</A>) plus 3 X 7 = 21 days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,8,10,12);">8:8,10,12</a>), while in P it continues for 1 year and 11 days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,11,24);">7:11,24</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,3,4,5,14);">8:3-5,14</A>), is really a self-inflicted agony of the critics. The report of the Bible on the subject is perfectly clear. The rain descends for 40 days (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,12);">7:12</A> J); but as in addition also the fountains of the deep are broken up (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,11);">7:11</A> P), we find in this fact a reason for believing that they increased still more (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,24);">7:24</A> P and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,17);">7:17</A> J). The 40 days in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,6);">8:6</A> J cannot at all be identified with those mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,17);">7:17</A>; for if this were the case the raven would have been sent out at a time when the waters had reached their highest stage, and even according to J the Deluge covered the entire world. In general see above, II,2,1 (c).<P>4. The Toledhoth of the Sons of Noah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Genesis 10:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-9\');">11:9</a>):<P>(1) The Biblical Text.<P>(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'2-5\');">Ge 10:2-5</a>, the Japhethites;<P>(b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'6-20\');">10:6-20</A>, the Hamites;<P>(c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'21-32\');">10:21-32</A>, the Shemites;<P>(d) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-9\');">11:1-9</a>, the Babylonian confusion of tongues. Evidently (a) to (c) is to be regarded as in contrast to (d) (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,1.9);">11:1,9</a> J in addition to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,32);">10:32</a> P).<P>(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-7\',20,22,31);">Genesis 10:1-7, 20, 22f, 31f</a> the Priestly Code (P), the Rest Belonging to J).<P>The distribution of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Genesis 10</a> between P and J is actually ridiculous, since in this case J does not speak of Japheth at all, and the genealogy of the Hamites would connect directly with the Priestly Code (P), a phenomenon which must have been repeated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,24);">10:24</a>ff. The Jewish Midrash, in addition, and possibly correctly, counts 70 peoples (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,27);">46:27</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,5);">Ex 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,16,25);">Nu 11:16, 25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,1);">Lu 10:1</a>).<P>5. The Toledhoth of Shem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'10-26\');">Genesis 11:10-26</a>):<P>10 generations (see under II, 1).<P>6. The Toledhoth of Terah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-\');">Ge 11:27-25:11</a>):<P>(1) The Biblical Text.<P>After the introduction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'27-32\');">Ge 11:27-32</a>), theme of the history of Abraham is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-4\');">Ge 12:1-4</a> a (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,1);">12:1</a>, the promise of the holy land; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,2);">12:2</a>, promise of many descendants; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,3);">12:3</A>, announcement of the double influence of Abraham on the world; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,4);">12:4a</a>, the obedience of Abraham\'s faith in his trust upon the Divine promise). In contrast to the first three thoughts which characterize God\'s relation to Abraham, the fourth is placed, which emphasizes. Abraham\'s relation to God (see under (d)). But both thoughts give complete expression to the intimate communion between God and Abraham. On the basis of these representations, which run through the entire story and thus contribute materially to its unification, this section can also be divided, as one of these after the other comes into the foreground. These four parts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'4-\');">12:4b through 14:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'1-\');">15:1-18:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'16-\');">18:16-21:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-\');">22:1-25:11</a>) can each be divided again into four subdivisions, a scheme of division that is found also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,\'4-\');">Ex 35:4-40:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,\'1-\');">Le 11-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'1-\');">16</a> (compare <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II,2,7</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS">LEVITICUS, II,2,2, III and IV</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=DAY+OF+ATONEMENT">DAY OF ATONEMENT, I,2,1</a>), and is suggested by <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,\'1-\');">De 12-26</a> (compare also my book, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung, the results of the investigation of which work are there reproduced without entering upon the details of the argument).<P>(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'4-\');">Ge 12:4 through 14:24</a>, in which the reference to the promised land is placed in the foreground; see <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,1);">12:1</A>, and the passages and statements in parentheses in the following: (i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'4-8\');">12:4b-8</A>, Abraham\'s journey to Canaan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,5);">12:5</a> the Priestly Code (P), <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,6,7,8);">6,7,8</a> J); (ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'9-\');">12:9</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,\'1-4\');">13:4</a>, descent to Egypt from Canaan, and return (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,9,10);">12:9,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,\'1-4\');">13:1-4</a> J); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,\'5-18\');">13:5-18</a>, separation from Lot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,6);">13:6</a> the Priestly Code (P), <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,7,9);">7,9</a> J, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,12);">12a</a> the Priestly Code (P), <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,14,17,18);">14f; 17,18</A> J); chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">14</a>, expedition against Chedorlaomer, etc. (Abraham is blessed by the priest-king of the country, and receives as homage from the products of the country bread and wine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,18);">14:18</a>f), while he in return gives tithes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,20);">14:20</a>)). The division of this section (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'12-\');">12:4b through 14:24</A>) is to be based on the similarity of the closing verses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,8);">12:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,4);">13:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,18);">13:18</a>).<P>(b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'1-\');">Ge 15:1-18:15</a>, unfolding of the promise of descendants for Abraham by this announcement that he is to have a son of his own; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,2);">12:2</a> and what is placed in parentheses in the following: chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'1-\');">15</a>, Yahweh\'s covenant with Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,2,3);">15:2,3</a> JE, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,4);">4</a> J, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,5);">5</a> E, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,13,14,16,18);">13,14,16,18</a> J). The promise is not fulfilled through Eliezer, but only through an actual son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,3,4);">15:3,4</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-16\');">16:1-16</a>, Hagar gives birth to Ishmael as the son of Abraham. Hagar\'s son, too, namely Ishmael, is not the genuine heir, notwithstanding the connection between <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,10);">16:10</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,2);">12:2</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'18-20\');">17:18-20</a> P); chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">17</a> the Priestly Code (P), promise of the birth of Isaac given to Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'2-17\',19,21);">17:2-17,19,21</a>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'1-15\');">18:1-15</a>, Sarah also hears that Isaac is promised (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,10,\'12-15\');">18:10,12-15</a>).<P>(c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'16-\');">Ge 18:16-21:34</a>, the double influence of Abraham on the world; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,3);">12:3</a> and what is in parentheses in the following: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'16-\');">18:16</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'1-38\');">19:38</a>, the pericope dealing with Sodom; (i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'16-33\');">18:16-33</a>, Abraham\'s petition for the deliverance of Sodom; (ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'1-11\');">19:1-11</a>, the sin of the Sodomites, while Lot shows some of the characteristics of Abraham; (iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'12-28\');">19:12-28</a>, story of the destruction, in connection with which Lot receives the benefit of his relation to Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,16,19,21,22);">19:16,19,21,22</a>); (iv) Lot ceases to be a part of this history after this destruction; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,\'1-18\');">20:1-18</a>, Abraham with Abimelech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,6,9);">20:6,9</a> E, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,18);">18</a> R, punishment; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,7,17);">20:7,17</a>, intercession); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'1-21\');">21:1-21</a>, Ishmael ceases to be part of this history (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,13,18,20);">21:13,18,20</a> E); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'22-34\');">21:22-34</a>, Abraham\'s agreement with Abimelech (the latter seeks Abraham\'s friendship and fears his enmity, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,22,23);">21:22,23</a> E).<P>(d) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-\');">Ge 22:1-25:11</a>ff, Abraham\'s faith at its culminating point; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,4);">12:4a</A> and what is in parentheses in the following: (i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-19\');">22:1-19</A>, the sacrifice of Isaac (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,2,12);">22:2,12</A> E, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,16,18);">16,18</A> R); (ii) chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">23</A>, purchase of the place to bury the dead, which act was the result of his faith in the promised land; (iii) chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,\'1-\');">24</A> is introduced by <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'20-24\');">22:20-24</A>, which has no independent character. With the twelve descendants of Nahor compare the twelve sons of Jacob, the twelve of Ishmael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,12);">25:12</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,20);">17:20</A>), and on the no. 12 see <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,18);">Ex 24:18-30:10</a>, under <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, II,2,5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,\'1-\');">Le 1-7</a> under <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVITICUS">LEVITICUS, II,2,2, i</A>, and under <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EZEKIEL">EZEKIEL, I,2,2</a>. Ch <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,\'1-\');">24</A> itself contains the story of how a wife was secured for Isaac from among his relatives (the faith in the success of this plan is transmitted from Abraham to his servant); (iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'1-11\');">25:1-11</A>, the sons of the concubine of Abraham (J and R) cease to be a part of this history; transfer of the entire inheritance to the son of promise (Jahwist); burial in the ground bought for this purpose (P) (all of these concluding acts stand in close connection with Abraham\'s faith). In reference to the force of the names of God in connecting <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'27-\');">Ge 11:27-25:11</a>, see above under II,2,2 (d).<P>(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,27,31);">Genesis 11:27, 31</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,4,5);">2:4b, 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,6,11,12);">13:6a, 11b, 12a</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,16,1,3,15,17);">16:1a, 3,15f; 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,29);">19:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,21,1,\'2-5\');">21:1b, 2b-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'7-11\');">25:7-11a</a> P; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">14</A> from an unknown source; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,6);">15:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,\'1-17\');">20:1-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'8-32\');">21:8-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-13\',19);">22:1-13,19</a> E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15\'1-3\');">15:1-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,6);">21:6</a> JE; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,18);">20:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'14-18\');">22:14-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,6);">25:6</a> R; all else belongs to J).<P>Through the passages ascribed to P breaks are caused in the text of J in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,28);">Ge 11:28</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,4);">12:4a</a> (Lot); in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-\');">16</a>, where the conclusion is lacking; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,1);">18:1</a> (the reference of the pronoun); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,67);">24:67</a> (Sarah\'s death); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',251);">25:1</a>ff (no mention of Abraham\'s death). On the other hand P presupposes the text of J in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,31);">11:31</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,4);">12:4b</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,1);">16:1b</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,29);">19:29</a>. In the case of E we need mention only the abrupt break in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,1);">20:1</a>; and, finally, the text of the Priestly Code (P), leaving out of consideration the larger sections (chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">17 and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>), is entirely too meager to constitute an independent document.<P>We will here discuss also the so-called duplicates (see under II,2,1, a and c). The different stories concerning the danger in which the wives of Abraham and Isaac were involved in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,9);">Ge 12:9</a>ff J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,1);">20:1</a>ff E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,1);">26:1</a>ff J directly presuppose each other. Thus, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,13);">20:13</a> the Elohist (E), Abraham regards it as a fact that such situations are often to be met with, and consequently the possibility of an occurrence of such an event could not have appeared so remarkable to an Oriental as it does to a modern critic; chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,1);">26:1</a> suggests the story in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,9);">12:9</a>ff. The words used here also show that the three stories in question did not originate independently of each other (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,7);">26:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,5);">20:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">12:19-26:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,11);">20:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'12-\');">12:12-26:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,9);">20:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">12:18-26:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,1);">20:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,10);">12:10</a> (gur); see under II,2,1, c). The two Ishmael pericopes (chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-\');">16</a> J and P and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,\'1-\');">21</a> E) differ from each other throughout, and, accordingly, are surely not duplicates. The two stories of the conclusion of a covenant in chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'1-\');">15</a> J and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">17</a> P are both justified, especially since in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,5);">17:7</a> the author speaks of an "establishment" of the covenant which already existed since chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'1-\');">15</a>. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">Ge 17</a> P and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,1);">18:1</a>ff J are certainly intended to be pendants, so that it is impossible to ascribe them to different authors; compare the analogous beginning of theophanies of Yahweh in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,1);">17:1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,1);">18:1</a> (even the pronoun referring to Abraham in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,1);">18:1</a> J, unless taken in connection with chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">17</a> the Priestly Code (P), is without any context), also the laughing of Abraham and of Sarah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,17);">17:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,12);">18:12</a>f; see under II,2,1 (c)), the prominence given to their age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,17);">17:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,11);">18:11</a>f), and the designation of the time in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,11);">17:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,10,14);">18:10,14</a>.<P>Nor can we quote in favor of a division into sources the passage <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,14);">Ge 21:14</a>f E, on the ground that Ishmael is described here as being so small that he could be laid upon the shoulder of his mother and then be thrown by her under a shrub, while according to the Biblical text he must have been 15 years of age (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,16);">16:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,5);">21:5</a> P). For the original does not say that he was carried on her shoulders; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,30);">Mt 15:30</a> it is even said of adults that they were thrown down. On the other hand, also according to E, Ishmael could not have been so small a child, for in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,18);">Ge 21:18b</a> he is led by the hand, and according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,9);">21:9</a> he already mocks Isaac, evidently because the latter was the heir of the promise.<P>Sarah\'s age, too, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,\'1-\');">Ge 20</a> E, does not speak in favor of a division into sources. That she was still a beautiful woman is not claimed here. Evidently Abimelech was anxious only for a closer connection with the powerful Abraham (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,23,27);">21:23,27</a>). Then, too, all the sources ascribe an advanced age to Sarah (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,6);">21:6</a> J and E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,12);">18:12</a>f J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,17);">17:17</a> P).<P>7. The Toledhoth of Ishmael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'12-18\');">Genesis 25:12-18</a>):<P>Twelve princes descended from Ishmael (see under 6 (d)).<P>8. The Toledhoth of Isaac (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,19);">Genesis 25:19-35:29</a>):<P>The correct conception of the fundamental thought can be gained at once in the beginning of this section (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,22);">Ge 25:22</a>f): Yahweh\'s oracle to Rebekah, that the older of the twins, with whom she was pregnant, should serve the younger; also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,10);">Ro 9:10</a>ff with reference to <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',1,2);">Mal 1:2</a>f; and finally, the constant reference made to Esau in addition to Jacob until the former ceases to be a factor in this history in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'1-\');">Ge 36</a>. Accordingly in the end everything is made dependent on the one hand on Jacob\'s election, notwithstanding his wrongdoings, on the other hand, on Esau\'s rejection notwithstanding his being the firstborn, or in other words, upon the perfectly free grace of God; and all the different sources alike share in this fundamental thought. But in dividing between the different parts of this section, we must particularly draw attention to this, that in all of these parts both thoughts in some way or other find their expression.<P>(1) The Biblical Text.<P>Containing 10 parts (see under II, 1), namely<P>(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'19-26\');">Ge 25:19-26</a>, the birth of Esau and Jacob;<P>(b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'27-34\');">25:27-34</a>, Esau despises and loses his birthright;<P>(c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,\'1-35\');">26:1-35</a>, Isaac receives the blessing of Abraham, which afterward is transmitted to Jacob, while Esau, through his marriage with heathen women, prepares the way for his rejection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,34);">26:34</a>f);<P>(d) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,\'1-40\');">27:1-40</a>, Jacob steals the blessing of the firstborn;<P>(e) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,\'41-45\');">27:41-45</A>, Jacob\'s flight out of fear of Esau\'s vengeance;<P>(f) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,\'46-\');">27:46</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,\'1-9\');">28:9</A>, Jacob is sent abroad out of fear of his brother\'s bad example;<P>(g) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,\'10-\');">28:10-32:33</A>, Jacob in a strange land and his fear of Esau, which is overcome in his contest of prayer in Peniel on his return: <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,\'10-22\');">28:10-22</A>, the ladder reaching to heaven in Bethel when he went abroad; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,\'1-\');">29:1-30:43</A>, twenty years with Laban (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,38);">31:38</A>); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,\'1-54\');">31:1-54</A>, Jacob\'s departure from Mesopotamia; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,\'1-33\');">32:1-33</A>, his return home;<P>(h) chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,\'1-\');">33</A>, reconciliation with Esau, who returns to Seir (verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,16);">16</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,4;">32:4</A>), while Jacob becomes the owner of property in the Holy Land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,19);">33:19</A>f);<P>(i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,\'1-\');">34:1</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,\'1-22\');">35:22</A>, Jacob remains in this land, notwithstanding the slaughter made by his sons Simeon and Levi (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,30);">34:30</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,5);">35:5</A>); the new appearance of God in Bethel, with a repetition of the story of the changing of Jacob\'s name, with which the story of Jacob\'s youth is closed, and which presupposes the episode at Bethel (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,1,6,\'9-15\');">35:1,6b, 9-15</A> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,10);">28:10</A>ff), and which is not in contradiction with the first change in the name of Jacob in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,\'1-\');">32</A> (compare the twofold naming of Peter in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,43);">Joh 1:43</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,18);">Mt 16:18</a>). Esau is yet mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,1,7);">Ge 35:1, 7</a>, where there is a reference made to Jacob\'s flight before him;<P>(j) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,\'23-29\');">35:23-29</a>, Jacob\'s 12 sons as the bearers of the promise; while Esau is mentioned only as participating in Isaac\'s burial, but inwardly he has no longer any part in the history of the kingdom of God, as is seen from chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'1-\');">36</a>, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,4);">32:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,16);">33:16</a> is already hinted at. In this section, too, evidently there are groups, each of two parts belonging together, namely (a) and (b) describing the earliest youth; (c) and (d) in which Isaac plays a prominent part; (e) and (f) both of which do not exclude but supplement each other in assigning the motives for Jacob\'s flight; (g) and (h) Jacob\'s flight and reconciliation; (i) and (j) Jacob both according to family and dwelling-place as the recognized heir of the promise.<P>(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources.<P>As <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,29);">Ge 25:29</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,26);">26b</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,34);">26:34</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,\'1-\');">27:46</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,\'1-9\');">28:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,24,29);">29:24,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,18);">31:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,6,\'9-12\',15);">35:6a, 9-12,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,\'22-29\');">35:22b-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'6-30\',\'40-43\');">36:6-30,40-43</a> are ascribed to the Priestly Code (P), it is clear that these are in part such ridiculously small extracts, that we should be justified in attributing them to a sensible author. The whole sojourn in Mesopotamia is ignored in the Priestly Code (P), according to the critics, except the brief notices in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,24,29);">29:24,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,18);">33:18</a>. Further, the parts of the rest of the text cannot in many cases be dispensed with; as, e.g. we do not know in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,26);">25:26b</a> who was born; nor in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,34);">26:34</a>f who Esau was; nor in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,46);">27:46</a> who Jacob was; nor in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,24);">29:24</a> who Laban was; nor in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,24,29);">29:24,29</a> in what connection and for what purposes Leah and Rachel are mentioned. P makes no mention of any promise given to Isaac, which is, however, presupposed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,12);">35:12</a> and later in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,24);">Ex 2:24</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,1);">Ge 28:1</a>ff P is most closely connected with J (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,1,2,3);">12:1-3</a>, the blessing of Abraham, and chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',\'1-\');">24</a>). It is, further, impossible to separate the sources E and J in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,\'1-\');">28</a> (ladder reaching to heaven); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,\'10-12\',17,\'20-22\');">28:10-12,17f; 20-22</a> E; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,\'13-16\');">28:13-16</a> J; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,19);">28:19</a>, and the name of God in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,21);">28:21</a> R, and this proposed division actually becomes absurd in chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,\'1-\');">29</a>f in the story of the birth of Jacob\'s children, which are said to be divided between the sources J and E.<P>9. The Toledhoth of Esau (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'1-\');">Genesis 36:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,1);">37:1</a>):<P>In 7 divisions (see under 1), namely<P>(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'1-5\');">Ge 36:1-5</a> R, Esau\'s family; the different names for Esau\'s wives, as compared with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,34);">26:34</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,\'7-9\');">28:7-9</a> the Priestly Code (P), are doubtless based on the fact that oriental women are apt to change their names when they marry; and the fact that these names are without further remark mentioned by the side of the others is rather an argument against the division into sources than for it;<P>(b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'6-8\');">36:6-8</a>, Esau\'s change of abode to Seir, which, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,4);">32:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,14,16);">33:14,16</a>, already took place before Jacob\'s return. Only in case that Esau (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,29);">35:29</a>) would have afterward remained for a longer period in Canaan, could we think of a new separation in this connection. It is more probable that at this place all those data which were of importance in connection with this separation are once more given without any reference to their difference in point of time;<P>(c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'9-14\');">36:9-14</a>, Esau as the founder of the Edomites (in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,9);">36:9</a> the word [toledhoth] is repeated from verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,1);">1</a>, while the narrative of the descendants of Esau begins only at this later passage in so far as these were from Seir; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,9);">36:9</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,5);">36:5</a>, and above, under II, 1);<P>(d) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'15-19\');">36:15-19</a>, the leading line of the sons of Esau;<P>(e) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'20-30\');">36:20-30</a>, genealogy of the original inhabitants of the country, mentioned because of their connection with Esau (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,25);">36:25</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,2);">36:2</a>);<P>(f) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'31-39\');">36:31-39</a>, the elective kingdoms of Edom;<P>(g) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,\'40-43\');">36:40-43</a>, the Edomites\' chief line of descent, arranged according to localities. We have here accordingly geographical accounts, and not historical or genealogical, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,15,20);">36:15ff, 20ff</a> (30); compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,40,43);">36:40,43</a>, for which reason we find also names of women.<P>10. The Toledhoth of Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,\'2-\');">Genesis 37:2-50:26</a>):<P>(1) The Biblical Text.<P>The key to the history of Joseph is found in its conclusion, namely, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,\'14-21\');">Ge 50:14-21</a>, in the confession of Joseph, in the light of his past, namely, that God has ended all things well; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,22);">50:22</a>ff, in his confidence in the fulfillment of the Divine promise in the lives of those God has chosen; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,16);">Ps 105:16</a>ff. According to the two viewpoints in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,\'14-26\');">Ge 50:14-26</a>, and without any reference to the sources, this whole pericope (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,\'2-\');">37:2-50:15</a>) is divided into two halves, each of five subdivisions, or a total of ten (see under II, 1). In the exact demonstration of this, not only the contents themselves, but also regard for the different names for God will often render good service, which names, with good effect, are found at the close and in harmony with the fundamental thought of the entire section, namely,<P>(a) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,\'2-\');">37:2-39:6a</a>, Joseph enters Potiphar\'s house (4 pieces, see under 6,1,namely <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,\'2-11\');">37:2-11</a>, the hatred of the brethren, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,\'12-36\');">37:12-36</a>, selling Joseph, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,1);">38:1</a>ff, the Yahweh-displeasing conduct in the house of Judah, compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,7,10);">38:7,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,\'1-6\');">39:1-6</a>, Yahweh\'s pleasure in Joseph, in contrast to;<P>(b) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,\'6-23\');">39:6b-23</a>, Joseph is cast into prison, but Yahweh was with him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,21.23);">39:21,23</a>);<P>(c) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,\'1-\');">40:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,\'1-52\');">41:52</a>, the exaltation of Joseph, which at the end especially is shown by the naming of Ephraim and Manasseh as caused by God, but which for the present passes by the history of his family (4 pieces, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,1);">40:1</a>, interpretation of the dreams of the royal officials, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,\'1-36\');">41:1-36</a>, interpretation of the two dreams of Pharaoh, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,\'37-46\');">41:37-46a</a>, the exaltation of Joseph, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,\'46-52\');">41:46b-52</a>, Joseph\'s activity for the good of the country);<P>(d) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,\'55-\');">41:55-46:7</a>, Joseph becomes a blessing to his family; compare the promise of God to Jacob in Beersheba to be with him in Egypt in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,2);">46:2</a>ff with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,\'6-9\');">45:6-9</a> (in four pieces, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,\'53-57\');">41:53-57</a>, the general famine, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,\'1-38\');">42:1-38</a>, the first journey of the brothers of Joseph, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,\'14-\');">43:14</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,\'1-\');">44:34</a>, the second journey (in four subdivisions,<P>(i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,\'1-14\');">43:1-14</a>, the departure,<P>(ii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,\'14-34\');">43:14-34</a>, the reception by Joseph,<P>(iii) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,\'1-7\');">44:1-7</a>, final trial of the brethren,<P>(iv) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,\'18-34\');">44:18-34</a>, the intercession of Judah); <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,\'1-\');">45:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,\'1-7\');">46:7</a>, Joseph makes himself known and persuades Jacob to come to Egypt);<P>(e) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,\'8-\');">46:8</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,\'1-26\');">47:26</a>, Joseph continues to be a blessing to his family and to Egypt (in 4 subdivisions, of which the 4th is placed in contrast to the first 3 exactly as this is done in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">10:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-9\');">11:9</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'27-\');">11:27-25:11</a>, namely, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,\'8-27\');">46:8-27</a>, list of the descendants of Jacob, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,\'28-34\');">46:28-34</a>, meeting with Joseph, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,\'1-12\');">47:1-12</a>, Jacob in the presence of Pharaoh, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,\'13-26\');">47:13-26</a>, the Egyptians who have sold themselves and their possessions to Pharaoh laud Joseph as the preserver of their lives). From this point on the attention is now drawn to the future:<P>(f) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,\'27-31\');">47:27-31</a>, Jacob causes Joseph to take an oath that he will have him buried in Canaan (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,30);">47:30</a> J with chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">23</a> P); in (e) and (f) there is also lacking a designation for God;<P>(g) chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,\'1-\');">48</a>, Jacob adopts and blesses Ephraim and Manasseh (compare also the emphasis placed on the providential guidance of God in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,8,11,15);">48:8f; 11,15f;</a> especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,16);">48:16</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,20);">20</a>ff);<P>(h) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,\'1-27\');">49:1-27</a>, Jacob blesses his 12 sons and prophesies their future fate (here, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,18);">49:18</a>, appears the name of Yahweh, which had disappeared since chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,\'1-\');">40</a>; see under II,2,2 (d), and other designations for God, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,24);">49:24</a>f);<P>(i) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,\'28-33\');">49:28-33</a>, Jacob\'s death after he had again expressed the wish, in the presence of all his sons, that he should be buried in Canaan;<P>(j) <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,\'1-13\');">50:1-13</a>, the body of Jacob is taken to Canaan. In these 10 pericopes again we can easily find groups of two each, namely, (a) and (b), Joseph\'s humiliation (sold, prison); (c) and (d), Joseph becomes a blessing to Egypt and to his family; (g) and (h), blessing of the, grandchildren and the sons of Jacob;<P>(i) and (j), Jacob s death and burial; here too the name of God is lacking as in (e) and (f).<P>(2) Rejection of the Division into Sources.<P>Here, too, the separation of P from the rest of the text as a distinct source is untenable, since in the section from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,\'2-\');">Ge 37:2-46:34</a>, after <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,2);">37:2</a>, only the following fragments are attributed to this source, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,46);">41:46a</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,6);">46:6</a>f (according to some also to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,27);">46:27</a>). In the same way P abruptly sets in at <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,5,27);">47:5,27b</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,28);">49:28b</a>. Further, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,3);">48:3</A>ff knows nothing of Ephraim or Manasseh, of whom P reports nothing, so that <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,13);">50:13</a>f are the only verses that could naturally connect with the preceding statements of P. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,5);">47:5</a>ff P reports entirely in the manner of ordinary narratives, and there is no sign of any systematic arrangement. But the separation between J and E cannot be carried out either. In the first place, when these two sources are actually separated by the critics, innumerable omissions in the story arise, which we cannot at this place catalogue. The contradictions which are claimed to exist here are the products of the critics\' imagination. It is claimed that according to J it is Judah who plays a prominent role, while according to E it is Reuben; but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,21);">37:21</a> Reuben is mentioned by J, and the role played by Judah in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,\'1-\');">38</a> J is anything but creditable. Why cannot both of these brethren have played a prominent role, as this was also the case with Simeon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,24,36);">42:24,36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,14);">43:14</a>) and Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,13,20,32,36,38);">42:13,20,32ff, 36,38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,3);">43:3</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,\'1-\');">44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,14);">45:14</a>)? Just as little are the Midianites in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,28,36);">37:28,36</a> E and the Ishmaelites of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,25,27,28);">37:25,27,28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,1);">39:1</a> J mutually exclusive or contradictory, since the Midianites in the Gideon story, too, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,\'1-\');">Jud 7</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,24);">8:24</a> are called Ishmaelites (compare in the German the name Prager for traveling musicians, whether they are from Prague or not). In J it is further claimed that Joseph\'s master was a private gentleman (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,1);">Ge 39:1</a>), while in E he was the captain of the bodyguard (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',40,3);">Ge 40:3</a>f). But in this instance the documentary theory can operate only when it calls in the assistance of R in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,1);">Ge 39:1</a>. The fact that in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,1);">39:1</a> the name of the nationality is added to that of the office, is explained on the ground of the contrast to the Ishmaelites who sold Joseph. Finally, it is claimed to have been caused by the combination of the different sources in such a way that Benjamin in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,8,29);">43:8,29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,30,31,33);">44:30,31,33</a> J is described as a boy, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,21);">46:21</a>, R or the Priestly Code (P), as the father of ten children. But evidently the author of chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,\'1-\');">46</a> has in view the number 70 (compare verse <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,27);">27</a>; see <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,5);">Ex 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,16,25);">Nu 11:16, 25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,1);">Lu 10:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,27);">Ex 15:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,13);">Jud 12:13</a>; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10</a> above, under 4,2); and for this reason, e.g. in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,17);">Ge 46:17</a>, he mentions only one grand-daughter of Jacob; and for this he mentions all of the descendants of Jacob, even those who were born later in Egypt, but who already, as it were, had come to Egypt in the loins of their fathers, according to the view of the author. It certainly would be remarkable if no more grandchildren had been born to Jacob in Egypt, since <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,\'1-\');">Nu 26</a> does not mention a single son of any of the sons of Jacob later than those reported in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,\'1-\');">Ge 46</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,27);">46:27</a> Joseph\'s sons, too, who were born in Egypt, are included in the list, entirely in harmony with <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,22);">De 10:22</a>. For such an arrangement and adjustment of a genealogy compare the 3 X 14 generations in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,\'1-\');">Mt 1</a>. From this point of view no conclusions, as far as the documentary theory is concerned, can be drawn from the ten sons of Benjamin.``122';
isbe[3736]='Genesis, 4`IV. The Historical Character.<P>1. History of the Patriarchs: (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">Genesis 12-50</a>):<P>(1) Unfounded Attacks upon the History.<P>(a) From General Dogmatic Principles:<P>In order to disprove the historical character of the patriarchs, the critics are accustomed to operate largely with general dogmatic principles, such as this, that no nation knows who its original founder was. In answer to this it can be said that the history of Israel is and was from the beginning to the end unique, and cannot be judged by the average principles of historiography. But it is then claimed that Abraham\'s entire life appears to be only one continuous trial of faith, which was centered on the one promise of the true heir, but that this is in reality a psychological impossibility. Over against this claim we can in reply cite contrary facts from the history of several thousands of years; and that, too, in the experience of those very men who were most prominent in religious development, such as Paul and Luther.<P>(b) From Distance of Time:<P>Secondly, critics emphasize the long period of time that elapsed between these events themselves and their first records, especially if these records can be accredited to so late a period as the 9th or the 8th century BC. In consequence of this, it is claimed that much of the contents of Genesis is myth or fable; and Gunkel even resolves the whole book into a set of unconnected little myths and fables. Over against this claim we can again appeal to the universal feeling in this matter. I do not think that it can be made plausible, that in any race fables and myths came in the course of time more and more to be accepted as actual facts, so that perchance we should now be willing to accept as historical truths the stories of the Nibelungenlied or Red Riding Hood. But this, according to the critics, must have been the case in Israel. Prophets accepted the story of the destruction of the two cities in the Jordan valley, as recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'1-\');">Ge 19</a>, as correct (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,11);">Am 4:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,9);">Isa 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,9);">3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,8);">Ho 11:8</a>); also Abraham as a historical person (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,22);">Isa 29:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,8);">41:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,1);">51:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,20);">Mic 7:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,26);">Jer 33:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,24);">Eze 33:24</a>; and possibly <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',2,15);">Mal 2:15</a>); then Isaac (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,9,16);">Am 7:9, 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,26);">Jer 33:26</a>); also Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,3);">Ho 12:3</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,8);">Am 9:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,26);">Jer 33:26</a>); also Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,6,15);">Am 5:6, 15</a>); and these prophets evidently thought that these events and persons were regarded as historical by the people in general. In the New Testament we can cite, for Abraham, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,9);">Mt 3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,\'1-\');">Ga 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,21);">4:21</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,9);">Ro 4:9</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,7);">9:7</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,1);">Heb 7:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,8);">11:8</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,21);">Jas 2:21</a>ff, and especially the words of Jesus in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,11);">Mt 8:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,22);">Lu 16:22</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,52);">Joh 8:52</a>ff; finally in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,31);">Mt 22:31</a>f; the whole argument for the resurrection of the dead is without a foundation if the patriarchs are not historical personages. Over against this, there was no period in the history of Israel in which it can be shown that these stories of Genesis Were regarded only as myths. If these events were actual occurrences, then those things which the patriarchs experienced were so unique that these experiences were not forgotten for a long time. Then, too, we can also refer to the strength of the memory of those nations that were not accustomed to have written records of their history.<P>(c) From Biblical Data:<P>Finally, the attempt has been made to discover in the Bible itself a pre-Mosaic stage in its ideas of man concerning God, which is claimed to contradict the higher development of Divine ideas in the patriarchs, for which purpose the critics appeal to <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,3,8);">Eze 23:3, 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,7);">20:7</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,14);">Jos 24:14</a>ff. But at these places it is evident that the idolatry of the people is pictured as apostasy. And when in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,2);">Ex 6:2</a>ff the name of Yahweh is as a matter of fact represented as something new, it is nevertheless a fact that in these very passages the revelation given is connected with the history of the patriarchs. The same is true of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,1);">Ex 3:1</a>ff. The whole hypothesis that the religion before the days of Moses was polytheistic has not been derived from the Bible, but is interpreted into it, and ends in doing violence to the facts there recorded (compare my book, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit).<P>(d) From Comparison with Religion of Arabia:<P>The critics further compare the pre-Mosaic religion of Israel with the low grade of religion in Arabia in the 5th century after Christ; but in order to do this, they must isolate Israel entirely, since all the surrounding nations at the time of the Tell el-Amarna Letters had attained to an altogether different and higher stage of religious development and civilization.<P>(2) Unsatisfactory Attempts at Explaining the Patriarchal Age.<P>(a) Explanation Based on High Places:<P>In denying the historical character of the account of the patriarchs in Genesis, the critics are forced to contrive some scheme in explanation of the existence of these stories, but in doing this they make some bad breaks. Thus, e.g., they say that the Israelites when they entered Canaan found there the high places of the heathen peoples; and since if they wanted to make use of these in the service of Yahweh they must first declare them legitimate places of worship, this was done by inventing the history of the patriarchs, who long before this are said to have already consecrated all these places to the Yahweh worship. But how is it possible on this supposition to explain the story of Joseph, which transpired in Egypt? Then, too, the reasons for the origin of the other stories of the patriarchs would be enshrouded in a remarkable mystery and would be of very inferior character. Again, it is nowhere declared in the passages of Genesis that here come into consideration that they are reporting the beginnings of a permanent cult when they give an account of how God appeared to the patriarchs or when they erected altars in His honor. And, finally, while it is indeed true that the cult localities of the patriarchs are in part identical with those of later times (compare Bethel, Beersheba)<29>and this is from the outset probable, because certain places, such as hills, trees, water, etc., as it were, of themselves were suitable for purposes of the cult<6C>yet such an identification of earlier and later localities does not cover all cases. And can we imagine that a prophetical method of writing history would have had any occasion in this manner to declare the worship of calves in Bethel a legitimate service?<P>(b) The Dating Back of Later Events to Earlier Times:<P>But we are further told that the pre-prophetic condition of affairs in Israel was in general dated back into the primitive period, and this was done in such a way that the character of Abraham was regarded as reproducing ideal Israel, and the character of Jacob the empirical Israel in the past; something that certainly is from the outset an odd speculation of too much learning! If this explanation is correct, what shall we then do with Isaac and Joseph? And why is the whole story of the condition of civilization pictured in Genesis so entirely different from that of later times? And is Abraham really a perfect ideal? Is he not rather, notwithstanding his mighty faith, a human being of flesh and blood, who can even doubt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,2);">Ge 15:2</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,17);">17:17</a>); who can make use of sinful means to realize the promise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,\'1-\');">Ge 16</a>, Hagar); who tells a falsehood, although for the best of purposes, namely, to protect his wife (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,9);">Ge 12:9</a>), and for this reason must accept the rebuke of the heathen Abimelech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,9);">Ge 20:9</a>f)? In addition, Abraham is married to his half-sister (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,12);">Ge 20:12</a>), which, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,22);">De 27:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,9,11);">Le 18:9, 11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',20,17);">20:17</a>, is forbidden with the penalty of death for the transgressor. In the same way Jacob, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',29,\'1-\');">Ge 29</a>f; has two sisters as wives, which is also declared by <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',18,18);">Le 18:18</a> to be a crime.<P>(c) The Patriarchs as heroes eponymi:<P>In the third place, it is said that the people have in the persons of the patriarchs made for themselves eponymous heroes. But why did they make so many at one time? In addition, Abraham cannot possibly be regarded as such a hero as Jacob or Israel is, and in exceptional cases also Isaac and Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,9,16);">Am 7:9, 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,6,15);">5:6, 15</a>). It is not correct to place genealogies like those in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,1);">25:1</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,13);">13</a>ff on a level with the stories concerning the patriarchs. In the latter case we are dealing with individualities of pronounced character, who in the experiences of their lives represent great fundamental principles and laws in the kingdom of God<6F>Abraham, the principle of the grace of God, to which faith on the part of man is the counterpart; Jacob, the principle of Divine election; Joseph, that of the providential guidance of life; while Isaac, it is true, when he becomes prominent in the history, evinces no independent character, but merely follows in the footsteps of Abraham (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,1,3,15,18,24);">26:1ff, 3ff, 15, 18, 24ff</a>), but is in this very imitative life pictured in an excellent way.<P>(d) Different Explanations Combined:<P>If we combine two or more of these different and unsatisfactory attempts at an explanation of the history of the patriarchs, we must become all the more distrustful, because the outcome of this combination is such an inharmonious scheme.<P>(3) Positive Reasons for the Historical Character of Genesis.<P>The individuality of the patriarchs as well as their significance in the entire development of the history of the kingdom of God, and their different missions individually; further, the truthful portraiture of their method of living, which had not yet reached the stage of permanent settlement; and, finally, the fact that the prophets, the New Testament and above all Jesus Himself regard their historical character as something self-evident (see (1b) above), make the conviction a certainty, that we must insist upon their being historical personages; especially, too, because the attacks on this view (see (1) above), as also the efforts to explain these narratives on other grounds (see (2) above), must be pronounced to be failures. To this we must add the following: If Moses were the founder of the religion of Israel, it would scarcely have been possible that a theory would have been invented and have found acceptance that robs Moses of this honor by the invention of the story of the patriarchs. Rather the opposite would be the case. Besides, this older revelation of God is absolutely necessary in order to make Moses\' work and success intelligible and possible. For he himself expressly declares that his work is based on the promises of God given to the fathers. Through this connection with the older revelation it was possible for Moses to win the attention and the confidence of the people (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,24);">Ex 2:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,6,13);">3:6, 13</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,5);">4:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,3,8);">6:3,8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,2);">15:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,13);">32:13</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,1);">33:1</a>; compare also my book, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit, 117ff; and Strack, Genesis, 93ff).<P>Individuality of Patriarchs:<P>In so far as the history of the patriarchs contains miracles, they are in perfect harmony with the entire character of sacred history (compare <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, III, 2</a>); and as far as the number of miracles is concerned, there are in fact fewer reported in the days of the patriarchs than in the times of Moses.. On the view that the history of the patriarchs, which is earlier than the period of Moses, was an invention and not history, the opposite condition of affairs could be expected. Leaving out of consideration the unsatisfactory instances cited under V, 2, below, there is to be found also in the Book of Genesis absolutely no reference to indicate events of a later period, which would throw a doubt on the historical character of what is here reported. In every direction (e.g. in connection with theophanies and the cult worship), there is a noticeable progress to be seen in going from Genesis to Exodus, a fact which again is an important argument for the historical reliability of the contents of both books. Finally, we add the following. Ch <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">14</a> (the Chedorlaomer and the Melchizedek episodes) has through recent archaeological researches been brilliantly confirmed as far as the names are concerned, as also in reference to the political conditions of the times, the general historical situation and the chronology. In the same way the religious conditions of Egypt, as described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">Ge 12</a>, and in the entire history of Joseph, are so faithfully pictured that it is absolutely impossible to regard these accounts as the work of imagination. These accounts must be the outcome, on the part of the author, of a personal knowledge of these things and conditions, as they are absolutely correct, even to the details of the coloring.<P>2. The Primitive History of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Genesis 1-11</a>:<P>(1) Prominence of the Religious Element.<P>In the primitive history as recorded in the opening chapters of Genesis we must yet emphasize, more than is done elsewhere, that the chief interest for the Christian is found in the religious and moral teachings of this account; and that these teachings remain unshaken, even when chronological, historical, archaeological, physical, geographical or philological sciences would tempt us to reach negative conclusions. It is a wise thing, from the outset, not to be too timid in this direction, and to concede considerable liberty in this matter, when we remember that it is not the purpose of the Bible to give us scientific knowledge in scientific forms, but to furnish us with religious and ethical thoughts in a language which a childlike mind, that is open to Divine things, can understand.<P>(2) Carefulness as Regards Divergent Results of Scientific Research.<P>On the other hand, it is right over against the so-called "results" of these different sciences to be very critical and skeptical, since in very many cases science retracts today what with a flourish of trumpets it declared yesterday to be a "sure" result of investigations; e.g. as far as the chronology is concerned, the natural and the historical sciences often base their computations on purely arbitrary figures, or on those which are constructed entirely upon conclusions of analogy, and are far from conclusive, if perchance the history of the earth or of mankind has not at all times developed at the same pace, i.e. has moved upward and downward, as e.g. a child in its earlier years will always learn more rapidly than at any later period of its life.<P>(3) Frequent Confirmation of the Bible by Science.<P>But finally the Holy Scriptures, the statements of which at this period are often regarded slightingly by theologians, are regarded much more highly by men of science. This is done, e.g., by such scientists as Reinke and K.E. von Baer, who declare that Moses, because of his story of the creation, was a man of unsurpassed and unsurpassable scientific thought; or when many geological facts point to such an event as the Deluge in the history of the earth. The history of languages, as a whole and in its details, also furnishes many proofs for the correctness of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10</a>, and that chapter has further been confirmed in a most surprising manner by many other discoveries (compare the existence of Babel at a period earlier than Nineveh, and the colonizing of Assur by Babel). Then facts like the following can be explained only on the presupposition that the reports in Genesis are correct, as when a Dutchman in the 17th century built an ark after the measurements given in Genesis and found the vessel in every particular adapted to its purposes; and when today we again hear specialists who declare that the modern ocean sailing vessel is being more and more constructed according to the relative proportions of the ark.<P>(4) Superiority of the Bible over Heathen Mythologies.<P>Finally, the similarity of the Biblical and the Babylonian accounts of the creation and the Deluge, as these have been discovered by learned research (and we confine ourselves to these two most important reports)<29>although this similarity has been misinterpreted and declared to be hostile to the historical reliability and the originality of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,\'1-\');">Ge 6-9</a><3E>does not prove what critics claim that it does. Even if we acknowledge that the contents of these stories were extant in Babylon long before the days of Moses, and that these facts have been drawn from this source by Israel, there yet can be no question that the value of these accounts, the fact that they are saturated with a monotheistic and ethical spirit, is found only in Israel and has been breathed into them only by Israel. For the inner value of a story does not depend upon its antiquity, but upon its spirit. But even this conception of the matter, which is shared by most theologians, cannot satisfy us. When we remember how Babylonian mythology is honeycombed by the grossest superstition and heathenism, and that our ethical feelings are often offended by it in the most terrible manner, it is really not possible to see how such a system could have had any attraction for Israel after the Spirit, and how a man who thought as a prophet could have taken over such stories. If Israel has been a pathfinder in the sphere of religion, as is acknowledged on all hands, why do the critics always talk of their borrowing from others? And then, since similar stories are found also among other nations, and as the natural sciences are anything but a unit in hostility to the Biblical narratives, all these factors can find a satisfactory explanation only on the supposition that there existed an original or primitive revelation, and that in Israel this revelation was transmitted in its greater purity, while among the other nations it was emptied of its contents or was perverted. In this way the universality of these stories can be explained, as also the inferiority in character of similar stories among the other nations.<P>Babylonian and Biblical Stories<P>The particularly close connection that exists between the Babylonian and the Biblical versions of these stories is in perfect harmony with the fact that it was from Babylon that the dispersion of mankind set in. The purity of the Biblical tradition is further attested by the fact that it reports the actual history of all mankind (see under I, 2), while the mythologies of other nations are restricted nationally and locally, i.e. the beginnings of the history of the individual nations and the beginnings of the history of mankind are identical, and the earliest history is always reported as taking place in the native land of the people reporting it. The fact that in earlier times there prevailed in Babylon too a purer knowledge of God, which, however, steadily degenerated, is proved by many data, and especially by the recently discovered fragment of a Deluge story, according to which the God who destroyed the world by the Flood and the God who delivered the one family is the same God, which is in perfect agreement with the Bible, but is in contradiction to the later Babylonian story. That in earlier times a purer conception of God prevailed, seems to be confirmed also by the experiences of the missionaries. Evolutionism, i.e. the development of a higher conception of God out of a lower, is nothing but an unproved theory, which at every step is contrary to actual facts. Compare also my book, Die Entwicklung der Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit, 129ff, and Schmidt, Die babylonische Religion: Gedanken uber ihre Entwicklung, a dissertation in which the fact that religion naturally degenerates is proved also as far as the Greeks, the Egyptians, the East Indians and the Chinese are concerned.<P>V: Origin and Authorship of Genesis.<P>1. Connection with Mosaic Times:<P>That the Book of Genesis stands in some kind of literary connection with the succeeding books of the Pentateuch is generally acknowledged. But if this is the case, then the question as to the origin and the time of the composition of this whole body of books can be decided only if we take them all into consideration. In this article we have only to consider those facts which are found in Genesis for the solution of this problem. It is self-evident that the conclusion we have reached with reference to the literary unity of the book is of great importance for this question (see under II and III above). The historical character of the book, as demonstrated under IV above, also speaks emphatically for this claim that the literary composition of the book must have taken place when the memory of these events was still trustworthy, and the impression and experiences were still fresh and had not yet faded. Such individualistic and vivid pictures of historical personages as are reported by Genesis, such a faithful adherence to the accounts of the civilization in the different countries and districts and at different times, such detailed accounts of foreign customs, conditions and historical events, could scarcely. have been possible, if the Mosaic age with its powerful new impressions, the period of the Judges, with its characteristic apostasy, or even the division of Israel into two kingdoms, with its dire effects on the external union of the people, had all passed by before these accounts were actually written down. On the other hand, the highly developed prophetic conception of these events, and the skillful plan of the book demand that the author must have been a religious and ethical personality of the first rank. And as, finally, it is scarcely credible that Moses would have failed to provide for a systematic report of the great past of the people, for which account, before this and as long as only family histories were involved, there was no need felt, and as the subsequent books of the Pentateuch, which are acknowledged in a literary way to be connected with Genesis, in many of their parts expressly declare that Moses was their author (compare <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS, IV</a>), the Mosaic authorship of this book is as good as proved. This is not to deny that older sources and documents were used in the composition of the book, such as perhaps the genealogical tables or the events recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'1-\');">Ge 14</a>, possibly, too, some referring to the history of the times before the Deluge and before Abraham. This is probable; but as all the parts of the book have been worked together into a literary unity (see under II and III above), and as such sources are not expressly mentioned, it is a hopeless task to try to describe these different sources in detail or even to separate them as independent documents, after the manner refuted under II and III above, as a theory and in its particulars. And for the age of Genesis, we can refer to the fact that the personal pronoun here is still used for both genders, masculine and feminine, which is true also of the word na\'ar ("youth"), a peculiarity which is shared also by the other books of the Pentateuch almost throughout.<P>2. Examination of Counter-Arguments:<P>(1) Possibility of Later Additions.<P>In itself it would be possible that from time to time some explanatory and interpreting additions could have been made to the original text, in case we find indications of a later period in some statements of the book. But that in this case these additions could not have been made by any unauthorized persons, but only officially, should, in the case of a book like Genesis, be regarded as self-evident. But in our times this fact must be emphasized all the more, as in our days the most radical ideas obtain in reference to the way in which sacred books were used in former times. And then it must be said that we cannot prove as an absolute certainty that there is a single passage in Genesis that originated in the post-Mosaic period.<P>(2) "Prophecy after the Event" Idea.<P>It is self-evident also that the fulfillment of a prophecy is not an evidence of a "prophecy after the event" (vaticinium post evenrum), altogether independently of the fact that in this case <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-3\');">Ge 12:1-3</a>, which is still in process of fulfillment, could not have been written down even today (compare on this matter, perhaps, Noah\'s prophecy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,25);">9:25</A>ff); or the prediction of the career of Esau (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,23);">25:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,40);">27:40</a>); or of Ishmael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,10);">16:10</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,18);">21:18</a>); or Jacob\'s blessing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,\'1-\');">Ge 49</a>)). The last-mentioned case cannot in any way be interpreted as the product of a later time; compare the curse of Levi in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,\'5-8\');">49:5-8</a> as compared with the honor bestowed on this tribe already in the Mosaic period (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'26-29\');">Ex 32:26-29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,\'8-11\');">De 33:8-11</a>), and in the time of the Judges (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,\'7-13\');">Jud 17:7-13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,27);">1Sa 2:27</a>f). Zebulun, too, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,13);">Ge 49:13</a> is regarded as being settled on the coast, which is not in agreement with historical reality (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,\'10-16\',27);">Jos 19:10-16, 27</a>). In the same way the curse on Simeon in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,\'5-7\');">Ge 49:5-7</a>, which declared that his tribe should be distributed among Israel, was not fulfilled in the time when the people entered Canaan (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,1);">Jos 19:1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,6);">2Ch 34:6</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,10);">Ge 49:10</a> "Shiloh" cannot refer to the coming of the tabernacle to Shiloh (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,1);">Jos 18:1</a>); for Shiloh is, on the other hand, to be interpreted personally and Messianically. As long as Shiloh was of any importance (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,\'1-\');">1Sa 1</a>ff), Judah was not in the possession of the scepter; but when this scepter did come into the control of Judah, Shiloh had long since ceased to be of any significance (compare my book, Die messianische Erwartung der vorexilischen Propheten, 360f).<P>(3) Special Passages Alleged to Indicate Later Date (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,6);">Ge 12:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,7);">13:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,2);">22:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,31);">36:31</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,18);">13:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,2);">23:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,14);">14:14</a>).<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,6);">Ge 12:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,7);">13:7</a>, it is claimed that it is presupposed that at the time of the author there were no longer any Canaanites in the country, so that these verses belong to a much later period than that of Moses. But on this supposition these verses would be altogether superfluous and therefore unintelligible additions. For that in the time of Abraham the Canaanites had not yet been expelled by Israel, was a self-evident matter for every Israelite. As a matter of fact, the statements in both verses can easily be interpreted. Abraham leaves his native country to go into a strange land. When he comes to Canaan, he finds it inhabited by the Canaanites (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,6,15);">10:6,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,25);">9:25</a>ff). This could have made his faith to fail him. God, accordingly, repeats His promise at this very moment and does so with greater exactness (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,7);">13:7</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,1);">13:1</a>), and Abraham shows that God can trust his faith (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,7);">13:7</a>f). The question whether the Canaanites no longer existed at the time the book was written, has nothing at all to do with the meaning of these verses. The same is true of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,7);">13:7</a>, on account of the presence of the Canaanites and of the Perizzites, which latter tribe had probably come in the meanwhile and is not yet mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,\'1-\');">Ge 10</a>, but is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,20);">15:20</A>, and which makes the separation of Abraham and Lot only all the more necessary.<P>That in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,2);">Ge 22:2</a> the land of Moriah is mentioned is claimed by the critics to be a proof that this passage was written after the times of David and even of Solomon, because according to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',3,1);">2Ch 3:1</a> the temple stood on Mt. Moriah. But as in this latter passage one particular mountain is called Moriah, but in Abraham\'s time a whole country was so called, it is scarcely possible that <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,2);">Ge 22:2</a> could have been written at so late a period.<P>Usually, too, the list of 8 Edomite kings, who ruled before there was a king of Israel, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,31);">Ge 36:31</a>ff, is cited as a proof that this part was written only after the establishment of the kingdom in Israel, although the time down to the age of Saul would be entirely too long for only eight kings, as already in the Mosaic period there were kings in Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,14);">Nu 20:14</a>). Then, too, we find in the days of Solomon a hereditary kingdom in Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,14);">1Ki 11:14</a>), while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,31);">Ge 36:31</a>ff we have to deal with an elective kingdom. Also it would be impossible to understand why this list of kings is carried down only so far and no farther, namely down to the time when there were kings in Israel. This statement can properly be interpreted only in the light of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,6,16);">17:6,16</A>, where the promise is given to Abraham that kings should be found among his descendants (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,20);">17:20</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,16);">25:16</a>); and in the light of chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'-\');">14</a>, where Abraham is explicitly brought into connection with kings in a number of ways (with the four kings of the East, whom he conquers; with the five kings of the Jordan valley, whom he assists; with the King\'s Vale (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,17);">14:17</a>), which prepared the way for the Melchizedek episode; and with this Priest-King himself, who blesses him and to whom he gives tithes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,18);">14:18</a>ff); with the king of Sodom, whom he rebukes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,21);">14:21</a>ff)). Accordingly, the statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,31);">36:31</a> is not merely a dry historical notice, but is a reference to the blessing of God, which is realized in Israel at a much later time than in the kindred tribe of Esau, and which puts the faith of Israel to a new test. As the death of the last Edomite king is not mentioned (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,39);">36:39</a> in contrast to the preceding passage and to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,50);">1Ch 1:50</a>f), but as detailed family data are given, we are doubtless dealing here with living contemporaries of Moses, in whose time already the Edomites possessed a kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,14);">Nu 20:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,17);">Jud 11:17</a>), just as this was the case with Amalek (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',24,7);">Nu 24:7</a>), with Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,26);">Nu 21:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,4);">22:4</a>) and Midian (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,8);">Nu 31:8</a>). And why would a later writer have mentioned neither Selah (Petra), so important in later times (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',16,1);">Isa 16:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,36);">Jud 1:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,7);">2Ki 14:7</a>), nor Ezion-Geber (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,26);">1Ki 9:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',8,17);">2Ch 8:17</a>f), among the places given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,40);">Ge 36:40</a>ff? In Moses\' time, however, the last-mentioned place was only prairie (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,35);">Nu 33:35</a>f).<P>Just as little is it an argument against the Mosaic times that Hebron is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,18);">Ge 13:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,2);">23:2</a>, which city, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,15);">Jos 14:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,13);">15:13</a>, is called Kiriath-arba, a name which Genesis also is acquainted with (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,2);">23:2</a>), and which in its signification of "city of Arba" points to an originally proper name. Hebron is the older name, which was resumed at a later period, after it had in the meanwhile been supplanted by the Canaanitic name, just as the name of Salem, which occurs already in the Tell el-Amarna Letters, for a period of time gave way to the name of Jebus, but was afterward resumed. That Hebron was an old city and that it existed at a period earlier than the Arba mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,15);">Jos 14:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,13);">15:13</a>, and from whom its later name was derived, can be concluded from <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,22);">Nu 13:22</a>.<P>Further, the mention of Dan in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,14);">14:14</a> does not necessarily favor the view that this chapter did not originate until after <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,47);">Jos 19:47</a>. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,29);">Jud 18:29</a>, where Leshem or Laish is changed into Dan (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,6);">2Sa 24:6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,2);">24:2</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,15);">24:15</a>), does make the existence of another Dan probable. Since in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,2,3,7,17);">Ge 14:2-3, 7, 17</a> so many ancient names are mentioned, and as the author is most fully informed as to the conditions of the political complexion of the old nations of that time (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,5,6,7);">14:5-7</a>), it would be incomprehensible if he should not have made use of the ancient names Laish and Leshem. However, if this Dan was really meant, we should at most have to deal with a revision, such as that pointed out above. Some other less important arguments against the origin of Genesis from the Mosaic times we can here ignore. The most important argument for the Mosaic origin of the book, in addition to those mentioned under 1, will now be discussed.<P>VI. Significance.<P>1. Lays Foundation for the Whole of Revelation:<P>In the history of the creation the most important feature for us is the fact that the world was created out of nothing (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,1);">Ge 1:1</a> and the word bara\'), which guarantees the absoluteness of God and His perfect control of the entire material world; further, the creation of man, as the crown of all creation, for which all things previously created prepare, and who is to rule over them, but who<68>most important of all<6C>is created after the image of God in Genesis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,26);">1:26</a>f), and whose body has been created by the hand of God and his soul breathed into him by God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,7);">2:7</a>). On this fact, too, in the end, is founded the possibility of man\'s redemption even after the Fall (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,1,3);">5:1,3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,9);">Col 3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,24);">Eph 4:24</a>), as also the possibility of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who also is the image of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,15);">Col 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,4);">2Co 4:4</a>). Then, too, another all-important factor for us is the unity of the human race, for thereby is made possible and can be understood the fact that all men have become subject to sin and all can be the recipients of grace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,12);">Ro 5:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,22);">1Co 15:22</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,45);">45</a>f). Also the need of redemption is brought out strongly in the Book of Genesis. Compare in connection with the Fall, the pains that shall attend the birth of a child, the cursing of the land, death (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,15);">3:15</a>ff), which finds its first victim in Abel, and the monotonous and emphatic repetition of the formula, "and he died," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,\'1-\');">Ge 5</a>, as characterizing the dismal fate of mankind, and which finds its expression in the rapid decrease of the length of life in the genealogies and in the ages of the patriarchs (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,1);">5:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,10);">11:10</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',25,7);">25:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',35,28);">35:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',47,28);">47:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',50,26);">50:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,10);">Ps 90:10</a>), and in the irresistible and increasing power of death. By the side of this, sin at once assumes its most horrible form (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a>, doubt, pride, fear, boldness of Eve and Adam), and is propagated and increases; compare the murder and the despair of Cain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,1);">Ge 4:1</a>), which is still surpassed by the defiant blasphemy of Lamech (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,23);">4:23</a>f); and in the same way, death, which is coming more and more rapidly (see above), is a proof for this, that sin is being more and more intimately interwoven with the human race. Compare further, the corruption of the whole earth, which brings with it as a consequence the judgment of the Deluge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,5);">6:5</a>ff), after the period of grace extending over 120 years had fruitlessly passed by; the lack of reverence on the part of Ham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,22);">9:22</a>); the arrogance in connection with the building of the tower of Babel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,1);">11:1</a>ff); the Sodomitic sin in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'16-\');">18:16</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'1-15\');">19:15</a>; the daughters of Lot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,30);">19:30</a>ff). Still worse is it, that the elect also are not without blame. On Abraham, see IV,1,2b; then concerning Noah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,21);">9:21</a>) and Lot\'s fearful drunkenness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,32);">19:32</a>ff); Isaac\'s and Rebekah\'s preference for Esau or Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,28);">25:28</a>); Jacob\'s deceptions of various kinds, his preference for Joseph (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,3);">37:3</a>); the horrible deeds of Simeon and Levi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,25);">34:25</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,5);">49:5</a>ff); Reuben\'s incest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,22);">35:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,3);">49:3</a>f); the cruelty of the brethren of Joseph toward him and his father (chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,\'1-\');">37</a>); finally, Joseph\'s pride and his reporting his brethren (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,2,5);">37:2,5</a>ff). In short, wherever we look, we see in Genesis already a proof for the truth of <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,23);">Ro 3:23</a>, "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God."<P>2. Preparation for Redemption:<P>By the side of this need of salvation there is to be found also the longing for salvation; compare the name of Noah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,29);">Ge 5:29</a>), and the word of blessing from the lips of Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,18);">Ge 49:18</a>); and, further, the fact that Abraham reaches out after the promised heir in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'1-\');">Ge 15-18</a>, and his desire for the possession of the land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">12-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,20);">28:20</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,19);">33:19</a>f); and especially from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,27);">47:27</a> on. And in harmony with this need and this longing for redemption we find above all other things the saving and the promising grace of God. He does not cause the bodily death to follow immediately upon the Fall in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,\'1-\');">Ge 3</a> (although the beginning of the spiritual death sets in at once with the separation from God); He provides for mankind by Himself making garments for them out of skins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,21);">3:21</A>); even the expulsion from Paradise is not merely a punishment; God fears that man might live forever if he should eat from the tree of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,22);">3:22</a>ff). He sets enmity between the human race and the seed of the serpent, so that at least the possibility of a moral contest yet exists; He strengthens the good in Cain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,7);">4:7</a>); He removes the pious Enoch (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,24);">5:24</A>); He saves Noah and his family and makes a covenant with him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,21);">8:21</a>ff); He gives His promise to Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,1,2,3);">12:1-3</a>) and makes a covenant with him (chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,\'1-\');">15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,\'1-\');">17</a>); He delivers Lot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,13);">19:13</a>ff); He is willing even to preserve Sodom at Abraham\'s prayer, if there are as many as 10 just men in the city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,32);">18:32</a>); He bestows a blessing on Ishmael also (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,10);">16:10</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,20);">17:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,13);">21:13</a>ff), and permits Isaac to bless Esau (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,39);">27:39</a>ff); but above all He is with Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. It is indeed true that the thought runs through Genesis that not all men are capable of receiving His grace, and that not all are drawn to the Father. Cain\'s sacrifice is not acceptable before God, as was Abel\'s; the Cainites with their advance in civilization (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,17);">4:17</a>ff), to whom Lamech also belonged, are different from Seth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,26);">4:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',5,1);">5:1</a>ff), who continues the line of the elect. Finally, the godly, too, permit themselves to be deceived (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,1);">6:1</a>ff), and Noah stands alone in his piety. After that Ham is cursed in his youngest son, Canaan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,22);">9:22</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,6);">10:6</a>); but Shem is blessed to such a degree that his blessing is to extend to Japheth also; cf, further, the elimination from sacred history of Lot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,29);">19:29</a>ff); of Ishmael (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,12);">25:12</a>ff), and of Esau (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,1);">36:1</a>ff); of Sodom and Gomorrah (chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'1-\');">19</a>); then the choice of Jacob in preference to Esau (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,\'19-\');">25:19-37:1</a>); the preference of Ephraim over Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,17);">48:17</a>ff); the transmission of the Messianic promises to Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,10);">49:10</a>; compare my book, Messianische Erwartung, 360f), so that at the close of Genesis we find already the hope of a personal Messiah expressed, in whom also the word (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,15);">3:15</a>) that was originally spoken to all mankind is to be entirely fulfilled, and in whom also the blessing given to Abraham shall find its significance and realization for the benefit of all mankind (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,3);">12:3</a>, and see above,1, 2 and 3). But in the history of Abraham this fact also becomes clear, that in the end this was all grace on the part of God, and faith on the part of man; and because both grace and faith are in Genesis placed and emphasized at the very beginning of the history of mankind, and before the giving of the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,\'1-\');">Ex 19</a>); then this grace and faith cannot be abrogated through the latter or made ineffective. Not by works but by faith is man saved (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,2);">Ga 3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,\'1-\');">Ro 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,8);">Heb 11:8</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,21);">Jas 2:21</a>ff). But the guidance of individuals and of His people by God, the ways which He took with His elect, become clear and intelligible ultimately in the history of Joseph; and all and everything must in the end serve the good of those who are His.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Against the separation into documents we mention, of older works: Havernick, Specielle Einleitung in den Pent; Hengstenberg, Beitrage zur Einleitung, II, III; Keil, Einleitung in das Altes Testament, and his Commentary on Genesis; Ewald, Die Komposition der Genesis. Of later works: Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Eerdmans, Die Komposition der Genesis; Moller, Wider den Bann der Quellenscheidung. Against the evolutionary theory: Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Wiener, Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism and Wiener, Origin of the Pentateuch; Green, Unity of Book of Genesis; Moller, Die Entwicklung der alttestamentlichen Gottesidee in vorexilischer Zeit (here also further lit.). On modern archaeological researches: Orr, Problem of the Old Testament; Jeremias, Das Altes Testament im Lichte des alten Orients; Urquhart, Die neueren Entdeckungen und die Bibel (to be used with caution; the work is reliable in the facts but not careful in its conclusions and in its account of Old Testament criticism). Further, compare the histories of Israel by Kohler, Konig, Kittel, Oettli, Klostermann, Stade, Wellhausen: the Commentaries on Genesis by Keil, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Lange, Strack, Gunkel, Holzinger; the Introductions to the Old Testament by Kuenen, Strack, Baudissin, Konig, Cornill, Driver; the Biblical Theologies by Marti, Smend, Budde, Schulz, Oehler. Finally compare Sievers, Metrische Studien, II: "Die hebraische Genesis."``122';
isbe[3737]='Gennaeus; Genneus`ge-ne\'-us, ge-ne\'-us (Gennaios): Father of Apollonius, one of the Syrian generals who troubled the Jews while Lysias was governor for Antiochus Eupator (2Macc 12:2). The description is added to distinguish the Apollonius here mentioned from several others of the same name. See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=APOLLONIUS">APOLLONIUS</a>. There is no need with Luther to take the name simply as an adjective "des edlen Apollonius." The name occurs elsewhere as a proper name.``1';
isbe[3738]='Gennesaret, Lake of`ge-nes\'-a-ret`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GALILEE+SEA+OF">GALILEE, SEA OF</a>`1';
isbe[3739]='Gennesaret, Land of`ge-nes\'-a-ret he ge Gennesaret):<P>1. The Name:<P>The first syllable of the name Gennesaret is evidently the Hebrew gan, "garden"; while the second may be a proper name. Possibly, however, the name may represent the Hebrew ganne sarim, "princely gardens." It is applied to a district on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,34);">Mt 14:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,53);">Mr 6:53</a>), now known as el-Ghuweir, "little Ghor." It curves round from el-Mejdel in the south, to \'Ain et-Tineh, or Khan Minyeh, in the north, a distance of over 3 miles, with an average breadth from the sea to the foot of the mountains of about a mile. The soil is deep, rich loam, of amazing fertility. In the south it is watered by the stream from Wady el-Chamam, the gorge that opens to the west of el-Mejdel.<P>2. Water:<P>The middle portion is supplied from \'Ain el-Madawwerah, a copious fountain near the western edge of the plain, round which a wall has been built, to raise the level of the water; and from the perennial stream, Wady er-Rubadiyeh, which drives a mill before starting on its work of irrigation. Farther North, Wady el-\'Amud brings down much water in the rainy season. The water from \'Ain et-Tabgha was brought round the promontory at \'Ain et-Tineh by a conduit cut in the rock. It was used to drive certain mills, and also to refresh the neighboring land. This seems to be the fountain called "Capharnaum" by Josephus (BJ, III, x, 8). This writer extols the productiveness of the plain. He says the "soil is so fruitful that all sorts of trees can grow upon it."<P>3. Fertility:<P>The walnut, the palm, the olive and the fig, which usually require diverse conditions, flourish together here. "One may call this place the ambition of nature;...it is a happy contention of the seasons, as if each of them claimed this country; for it not only nourishes different sorts of autumnal fruit beyond men\'s expectation, but preserves them a great while." He says that it supplies grapes and figs through ten months of the year, and other fruits as they ripen together throughout the year (same place). The fruits of Gennesaret had such high repute among the rabbis that they were not allowed in Jerusalem at the time of the feasts, lest any might be tempted to come merely for their enjoyment (Neubauer, Geog. du Talmud, 45f).<P>Centuries of neglect made a sad change in the plain. It was largely overgrown with thorn-bushes, and it yielded one of the finest crops of thistles in the country. Cultivation was confined to the southwest part; and the rest furnished grazing ground for a tribe of nomads. Recently the German Catholics made extensive purchases, including the village of el-Mejdel. Considerable portions have also passed into the hands of Jews. The land is almost entirely cleared, and it rewards the toil of the husbandman with all its ancient generosity.``54';
isbe[3740]='Gentiles`jen\'-tilz (goy, plural goyim; ethnos, "people," "nation"): Goy (or Goi) is rendered "Gentiles" in the King James Version in some 30 passages, but much more frequently "heathen," and oftener still, "nation," which latter is the usual rendering in the Revised Version (British and American), but it, is commonly used for a non-Israelitish people, and thus corresponds to the meaning of Gentiles." It occurs, however, in passages referring to the Israelites, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,2);">Ge 12:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,28);">De 32:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,17);">Jos 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,1);">4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,13);">10:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,23);">2Sa 7:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,4);">Isa 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,9);">Ze 2:9</a>, but the word (\'am) is the term commonly used for the people of God. In the New Testament ethnos is the word corresponding to goy in the Old Testament and is rendered "Gentiles" by both VSS, while (laos) is the word which corresponds to \'am. The King James Version also renders Hellenes, "Gentiles" in six passages (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,35);">Joh 7:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,9,10);">Ro 2:9-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,9);">3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,32);">1Co 10:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,13);">12:13</a>), but the Revised Version (British and American) renders "Greeks."<P>The Gentiles were far less sharply differentiated from the Israelites in Old Testament than in New Testament times. Under Old Testament regulations they were simply non-Israelites, not from the stock of Abraham, but they were not hated or despised for that reason, and were to be treated almost on a plane of equality, except certain tribes in Canaan with regard to whom there were special regulations of non-intercourse. The Gentile stranger enjoyed the hospitality of the Israelite who was commanded to love him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,19);">De 10:19</a>), to sympathize with him, "For ye know the heart of the stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,9);">Ex 23:9</a> the King James Version). The Kenites were treated almost as brethren, especially the children of Rechab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,16);">Jud 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,24);">5:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',35,\'1-\');">Jer 35</a>). Uriah the Hittite was a trusted warrior of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,\'1-\');">2Sa 11</a>); Ittai the Gittite was captain of David\'s guard (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,2);">2Sa 18:2</a>); Araunah the Jebusite was a respected resident of Jerusalem. The Gentiles had the right of asylum in the cities of refuge, the same as the Israelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,15);">Nu 35:15</a>). They might even possess Israelite slaves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,47);">Le 25:47</a>), and a Gentile servant must not be defrauded of his wage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,15);">De 24:15</a>). They could inherit in Israel even as late as the exile (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',47,22,23);">Eze 47:22-23</a>). They were allowed to offer sacrifices in the temple at Jerusalem, as is distinctly affirmed by Josephus (BJ, II, xvii, 2-4; Ant, XI, viii, 5; XIII, viii, 2; XVI, ii, 1; XVIII, v, 3; CAp, II, 5), and it is implied in the Levitical law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,25);">Le 22:25</a>). Prayers and sacrifices were to be offered for Gentile rulers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',29,7);">Jer 29:7</a>; Baruch 1:10,11; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,10);">Ezr 6:10</a>; 1Macc 7:33; Josephus, BJ, II, x, 4). Gifts might be received from them (2Macc 5:16; Josephus, Ant, XIII, iii, 4; XVI, vi, 4; BJ, V, xiii, 6; CAp, II, 5). But as we approach the Christian era the attitude of the Jews toward the Gentiles changes, until we find, in New Testament times, the most extreme aversion, scorn and hatred. They were regarded as unclean, with whom it was unlawful to have any friendly intercourse. They were the enemies of God and His people, to whom the knowledge of God was denied unless they became proselytes, and even then they could not, as in ancient times, be admitted to full fellowship. Jews were forbidden to counsel them, and if they asked about Divine things they were to be cursed. All children born of mixed marriages were bastards. That is what caused the Jews to be so hated by Greeks and Romans, as we have abundant evidence in the writings of Cicero, Seneca and Tacitus. Something of this is reflected in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,28);">Joh 18:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,28);">Ac 10:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',11,3);">11:3</a>).<P>If we inquire what the reason of this change was we shall find it in the conditions of the exiled Jews, who suffered the bitterest treatment at the hands of their Gentile captors and who, after their return and establishment in Judea, were in constant conflict with neighboring tribes and especially with the Greek rulers of Syria. The fierce persecution of Antiochus IV, who attempted to blot out their religion and Hellenize the Jews, and the desperate struggle for independence, created in them a burning patriotism and zeal for their faith which culminated in the rigid exclusiveness we see in later times.``138';
isbe[3741]='Gentiles, Court of the``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE">TEMPLE</a>`1';
isbe[3742]='Gentiles, Isles of the``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ISLES+OF+THE+GENTILES">ISLES OF THE GENTILES</a>`1';
isbe[3743]='Gentleness`jen\'-t\'-l-nes (\'anah; epieikeia, chrestotes): In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,36);">2Sa 22:36</a> \'anah, "to bend low," "to condescend," is translated "gentleness," "Thy gentleness hath made me great," the Revised Version, margin "or condescension"; so also <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,35);">Ps 18:35</a>, where the word is \'anwah "humility," "gentleness," or "condescension." In the New Testament epieikeia ("fairness," "moderation," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,4);">Ac 24:4</a> translated "clemency") is in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',10,1);">2Co 10:1</a> translated "gentleness," "the meekness and gentleness of Christ" (2Macc 2:22 "favour," the Revised Version (British and American) "forbearance"); chrestotes, "kindness," "usefulness," is translated "gentleness" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "kindness"; chrestos is the word translated "kind" (to the unthankful and evil, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,35);">Lu 6:35</a>), and chrestotes seems to carry in it a similar idea of active kindness.<P>Gentle occurs in the Old Testament only in the Revised Version (British and American) of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',11,19);">Jer 11:19</a>, "I was like a gentle lamb" (kebhes). In the New Testament it is the translation of epios, "mild," "gentle" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,7);">1Th 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,24);">2Ti 2:24</a>), and of epieikes, "fitting" "proper," etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,3);">1Ti 3:3</a> the Revised Version (British and American); <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,2);">Tit 3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',3,17);">Jas 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,18);">1Pe 2:18</a>); also, with article, <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,5);">Php 4:5</a> (the King James Version "moderation," the Revised Version (British and American) "forbearance"). In 2Macc 15:12 Onias is said (the King James Version) to be "gentle (praos) in condition," the Revised Version (British and American) "in manner."``185';
isbe[3744]='Genubath`ge-nu\'-bath (genubhath, "theft"): Son of Hadad, the fugitive Edomite prince, born and brought up at the court of Egypt, whither Hadad had fled when David conquered Edom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,20);">1Ki 11:20</a>). His mother was a sister of Tahpenes, queen of the Pharaoh who ruled Egypt at that time, and who belonged to the notoriously weak and uninfluential 21st dynasty.``1';
isbe[3745]='Geography`je-og\'-ra-fi.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PALESTINE">PALESTINE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TABLE+OF+NATIONS">TABLE OF NATIONS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WORLD">WORLD</a>`1';
isbe[3746]='Geology of Palestine`je-ol\'-o-ji, The geology of Palestine cannot be discussed intelligently without taking into consideration the surrounding regions. The accompanying map shows, with considerable freedom, the distribution of the superficial strata of Syria, Palestine and Sinai, with parts of Asia Minor, Arabia and Egypt. (Data for this map were obtained from the "Geological Map of Egypt" (1:1,000,000) and from the "Carte geologique internationale de l\'Europe" (1:1,500,000).) It will be noted that Crystalline, or Archean, rocks (A) occupy extensive areas in Asia Minor, and that they are found in the south in Sinai, Western Arabia, and Eastern and Southern Egypt. Relatively small areas of Paleozoic rocks (P) adjoin the Crystalline rocks in Sinai and Arabia and east of Caesarea in Asia Minor. A notable area of Paleozoic occurs southeast of the Dead Sea. This is also adjacent to Crystalline rocks, which could not be indicated on the map on account of their slight superficial extent. Bordering either the Crystalline or the Paleozoic rocks in Egypt, Sinai and Arabia are large areas of Nubian Sandstone (N). The Nubian Sandstone in turn is generally bounded by Upper Cretaceous limestone (C), and the last by Tertiary deposits (T). The Quaternary, or Recent, deposits (R) and also the Eruptive rocks (E) sustain no constant relations to any particular ones of the other formations. The Quaternary follows the great rivers and the seacoasts. The Eruptive rocks usually overlie the others. They occupy extensive areas in Asia Minor, Syria and Arabia.<P>If we concentrate our attention upon the Crystalline, Cretaceous, and Tertiary, which are the most extensive formations, we find that the Crystalline rocks are abundant in the south and in the north, that the Cretaceous are most widely spread in Palestine and Southern Syria, and the Tertiary in Northern Syria and Egypt. We may believe that the Crystalline areas of the north and south have been land since the end of the Archean age, and that what are now Syria, Palestine and most of Egypt remained sea for a long time afterward. The Paleozoic areas were lifted above the sea and added to the northern and southern land areas during or at the end of the Paleozoic era. The regions in which we find Nubian Sandstone or Upper Cretaceous limestone became land by the end of the Mesozoic era. Finally the Tertiary areas were lifted out of the sea. During the Quaternary period the Nile and the rivers of Mesopotamia have added large areas to the land surface.<P>1. Crystalline Rocks (A):<P>The Crystalline rocks consist mainly of granite and crystalline schists, frequently interrupted with dikes of porphyry, diorite and other eruptives. It will be seen by the map that the Crystalline rocks are nowhere adjacent to the Mediterranean, but that they touch the Nile at Acwan, where the river in pouring over these rocks makes the First Cataract, or rather did before the construction of the great dam. Granite quarried at Acwan could be loaded on boats and conveyed to any city on the shores of the Mediterranean, and it is the granite of Acwan of which are composed not only many of the monuments of Egypt, but also the pillars which adorned many temples in Syria and Palestine.<P>2. Paleozoic Rocks (P):<P>The Paleozoic rocks of Sinai and Arabia are of Carboniferous age, but do not include any beds of coal. Those east of Caesarea are Devonian. Those southeast of the Dead Sea are the oldest of all, being of Cambrian age.<P>3. Triassic and Jurassic Rocks (J):<P>Several formations which are well developed in the British Islands, are not found in Palestine, but a small Triassic area is found near the Gulf of Alexandretta, while Jurassic strata are found in the region of Hermon and in Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. The small scale of the accompanying map makes it impossible to represent accurately the extent of these rocks.<P>4. Nubian Sandstone (N):<P>This name was given by Russegger, who in the middle of the 19th century followed and studied this formation from the Sudan to Syria. Wherever the Nubian Sandstone is found in contact with the Upper Cretaceous limestone it underlies the latter conformably. In Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon and Hermon (but not farther south) it is conformably underlaid by Jurassic limestone. It follows, therefore, that its upper strata (the only ones found in the north) must be of Lower or Middle Cretaceous age. In the south, however, the Jurassic limestone is entirely absent. In Western Sinai the Nubian Sandstone rests conformably on Carboniferous limestone, and by the Dead Sea on Cambrian limestone, while at Petra and at many other places it rests unconformably on Crystalline rocks. While the consideration of the age of the Nubian Sandstone presents no difficulty in Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon and Hermon, it is a very different matter in Western Sinai, and by the Dead Sea. Sandstone is generally supposed to be formed more rapidly than most other rocks. It is, therefore, rather staggering to try to conceive of even the 2,000 ft. of sandstone at the southeast end of the Dead Sea as having been in process of formation from the Cambrian to the Cretaceous. The Nubian Sandstone is commonly brown or reddish, but in places shows great variety of color. The temples and tombs of Petra were all carved in this rock. It is in places very friable, and in others compact and hard. The sands of the Arabian deserts have been in the main derived from it, being carried by the prevailing west winds. Where it is covered by a sheet of eruptive rock (charrah), it is protected from erosion, with the result that the land to the east is not converted into a sandy desert (Hogarth, Penetration of Arabia). It frequently includes strata of clay and shale and thin seams of coal or lignite, and must have been deposited in seas which were at the time relatively shallow.<P>5. Upper Cretaceous Limestone (C):<P>This is the principal rock of Palestine, Lebanon, and Anti-Lebanon. Many of its strata are very fossiliferous, and no doubt exists as to its age. It furnishes the best of building stone and is a source of lime. The soils formed from it are fertile, and the mountain sides have been terraced by the patient labor of centuries.<P>6. Tertiary Rocks (T):<P>A notable Tertiary fossil is the Nummulite, which occurs in abundance in the rock of the pyramids of Gizeh and in other places. Relatively small masses of Tertiary strata (not shown on the map) are found on the coast at the mouths of the principal streams of Lebanon, showing that while the mass of Lebanon had risen from the sea by the beginning of the Tertiary, the elevation was not complete. The principal river courses had, however, already been formed, and the streams were already carrying into the sea the scourings of the rocks of early Lebanon, which were being laid down to form these Tertiary strata.<P>7. Quaternary and Recent Strata (R):<P>These consist mainly of the superficial deposits of the Nile, the Euphrates and other large streams. At various points along the coast of Syria and Palestine are extensive sand dunes. Frequently under the loose sand, or exposed, is found a sandstone which instead of being entirely siliceous, like most sandstones, is partly calcareous, containing from 15 to 25 per cent of calcium-carbonate. This is probably an aeolian formation, i.e. consolidated under the influence of the atmosphere, and not formed under the sea, like most stratified rocks. It is easily worked and is much used for building.<P>8. Palestine:<P>It may be gathered from the foregoing statements that the rocks of Palestine are mainly Cretaceous. The Jurassic limestone, which in Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon underlies the Nubian Sandstone, is absent in Palestine, but, at least in Eastern Palestine, as in Lebanon, we find the Upper Cretaceous limestone to be underlaid by the Nubian Sandstone. A striking feature of the geology of Palestine is the Jordan valley fault. At some time, probably at the beginning of the Tertiary period, when Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon, and the Judean hills were being lifted out of the sea, the earth\'s crust was rent for at least several hundred miles along a line nearly north and south, or more exactly from a little west of south to a little east of north. This line runs through the Gulf of \'Aqabah, the Wadi-\'Arabah, the Dead Sea, the Jordan valley, the Sea of Tiberias, the Chuleh, and the valley between Hermon and Anti-Lebanon on the one hand and Lebanon on the other. The resulting disturbance of the strata is most evident in the region of the Dead Sea. There is no evidence that the two walls of the fissure separated from one another, but the east wall slipped up and the west wall down for perhaps 2,000 ft, so that on the east shore of the Dead Sea and in the valleys entering the Jordan, Dead Sea, and \'Arabah from the east, the Nubian Sandstone is exposed, underlying the Upper Cretaceous limestone, while on the west side, even down to the level of the Dead Sea, 1,290 ft. below the Mediterranean, the Nubian Sandstone is nowhere visible, although it may be presumed to exist there also below the upper limestone. (See the accompanying ideal section, after Lartet, through Judea, the Dead Sea and Moab.) The great fault and the subsidiary faults which accompany it occasioned the outpourings of igneous rock which are abundant along the line of the fault. The numerous hot springs (e.g. Tiberins, Wadi-Yarmuk, Wadi-Zarqa-Ma\'in (Callirrhoe), Wadi-ul-Chisa) may be due to subterranean streams of water coming in contact with deeply buried and still heated masses of igneous rock.``37';
isbe[3747]='Geon`ge\'-on.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GIHON">GIHON</a>`1';
isbe[3748]='Gephyrun`ge-fi\'-run (Gephuroun): In 2Macc 12:13, referring to the capture by Judas of a stronghold east of Jordan, the Revised Version (British and American) reads, "And he also fell upon a certain city Gephyrun,...it was named Gaspin." There appears to be some confusion in the text. There is nothing to indicate the relation between the two names. the King James Version renders, "He went also about to make a bridge." The name of the city in Josephus (Ant., XII, viii, 5) is <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EPHRON">EPHRON</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[3749]='Gera`ge\'-ra (gera\', "grain"): A family name of the tribe of Benjamin, hence, not necessarily a separate individual in (3) and (4) below:<P>(1) A son of Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,21);">Ge 46:21</a>).<P>(2) According to <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,3,5,7);">1Ch 8:3, 5, 7</a>, son of Bela and grandson of Benjamin. The name is repeated (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,5);">8:5</a>) in the list of Bela\'s sons.<P>(3) Father, or ancestor, of the judge Ehud (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,15);">Jud 3:15</a>).<P>(4) Father, or ancestor, of Shimei, the Benjamite, who cursed David when he fled from Absalom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,5);">2Sa 16:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,16,18);">19:16, 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,8);">1Ki 2:8</a>).``1';
isbe[3750]='Gerah`ge\'-ra (gerah, "grain" or "kernel"): A weight, the 20th part of a shekel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',30,13);">Ex 30:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,25);">Le 27:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,47);">Nu 3:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,16);">18:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,12);">Eze 45:12</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEIGHTS+AND+MEASURES">WEIGHTS AND MEASURES</a>`1';
isbe[3751]='Gerar`ge\'-rar (gerar, "circle," "region"; Gerara): A town in the Philistine plain south of Gaza (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,19);">Ge 10:19</a>), where both Abraham and Isaac\'sojourned for a time, and where they came into contact with Abimelech, king of Gerar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,\'1-\');">Ge 20</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,\'1-\');">26</A>, passim). The place has not been fully identified, but the site is probably in one of the branches of Wady Sheri\'a, at a place called Um Jerrar, near the coast southwest of Gaza and 9 miles from it (SWP, III, 389-90). The site answers fairly well to the statements of Eusebius and Jerome, Eusebius, Onomasticon, that it was 25 (Roman) miles south of Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin). It is actually 30 English miles, but distances were not very accurately determined in early times. Gerar was known in the first 5 centuries AD, when it was the seat of a bishopric, and its bishop, Marcian, attended the Council of Chalcedon 451 AD, It was also the seat of a monastery.<P>The statements in Genesis indicate that Gerar belonged to the Philistines, and we are led to infer that Abimelech was king of that people, but it is quite certain that they did not occupy this region until after the time of Abraham, in fact only a short time before the Exodus. It is probable, however, that the writer of Genesis would refer to the country as it was known in his day. The town certainly existed in the Philistine period, for it is mentioned in connection with Asa, who defeated the Ethiopian host under Zerar and pursued them in their flight unto Gerar (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',14,13);">2Ch 14:13</a>). Besides the locality of Um Jerrar, another place in the vicinity known as Jurf el-Jerrar has been thought by some to be the site of Gerar. Jerrar in Arabic means "jars," and it is doubtful whether it represents the Hebrew Gerar. Jurf means usually "steep declivity," or "precipice," and at the place mentioned many fragments of pottery were found, but this does not necessarily indicate the site of an ancient town. The site of Gerar is discussed in Thomson\'s LB, I, 196-99 (ed. 1882); Robinson\'s BR, II, 43-44; PEFS, 1871, 84; 1875, 162-64; 1881, 38.``138';
isbe[3752]='Gerasa; Gerasenes`ger\'-a-sa, ger\'-a-senz (Gerasa; Gerasenon):<P>1. Country of the Gerasenes:<P>The town itself is not named in Scripture, and is referred to only in the expression, "country of the Gerasenes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',5,1);">Mr 5:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,26,37);">Lu 8:26, 37</a>; see Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Appendix, 11). This describes the district in which Christ met and healed the demoniac from the tombs, where also took place the destruction of the swine. It was on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and must have been a locality where the steep edges of the Bashan plateau drop close upon the brink of the lake. This condition is fulfilled only by the district immediately south of Wady Semak, north of Qal \'at el-Chucn. Here the slopes descend swiftly almost into the sea, and animals, once started on the downward run, could not avoid plunging into the depths. Many ancient tombs are to be seen in the face of the hills. Gerasa itself is probably represented by the ruins of Kurseh on the south side of Wady Semak, just where it opens on the seashore. The ruins of the town are not considerable; but there are remains of a strong wall which must have surrounded the place. Traces of ancient buildings in the vicinity show that there must have been a fairly numerous population in the district.<P>2. History:<P>The great and splendid city in the Decapolis is first mentioned as taken after a siege by Alexander Janneus, 85 BC (BJ, I, iv, 8). Josephus names it as marking the eastern limit of Peraea (BJ, III, iii, 3). He calls the inhabitants Syrians, when, at the beginning of the Jewish revolt, the district round Gerasa was laid waste. The Syrians made reprisals, and took many prisoners. With these, however, the Gerasenes dealt mercifully, letting such as wished go free, and escorting them to the border (BJ, II, xviii, 1, 5). Lucius Annius, at the instance of Vespasian, sacked and burned the city, with much slaughter (BJ, IV, ix, 1). From this disaster it appears soon to have recovered, and the period of its greatest prosperity lay, probably, in the 2nd and 3nd centuries of our era. It became the seat of a bishopric, and one of its bishops attended the Council of Chalcedon. Reland (Pal, II, 806) notes certain extant coins of Gerasa, from which it is clear that in the 2nd century it was a center of the worship of Artemis. It was besieged by Baldwin II, in 1121 AD. Mention is made of the strength of the site and the mighty masonry of its walls. William of Tyre calls the city Jarras, and places it 16 miles east of Jordan (Hist, xii, 16). The distance is about 19 miles from the river. It was conquered by the Moslems in the time of Omar (Guy le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems, 462). The sultan of Damascus is said to have fortified it; but there is nothing to show that the Moslems occupied it for any length of time.<P>3. Description:<P>Modern Jerash lies on both banks of Wady Jerash, about 6 miles from its confluence with Wady ez-Zerqa (the Jabbok). It is almost 20 miles from Amman (Philadelphia), and 22 from Fahil (Pella). The ruins are wide and imposing and are better preserved than any others on the east of Jordan. They include several splendid temples, theaters, basilica, palaces and baths, with hippodrome and naumachia. The triumphal arch to the south of the city is almost entire. Two paved streets with double colonnades cut through the city at right angles, four massive pedestals still marking the point of intersection. An excellent account of the ruins is given in Thomson\'s LB, III, 558ff.<P>There is nothing above ground of older date than the 2nd and 3rd centuries of our era; but there is no reason to doubt that the Greek city of Gerasa stood on the same site. The presence of a copious spring of sweet water makes it probable that the site has been occupied from olden time; but no trace remains of any ancient city. Some would identify the place with <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=RAMOTH-GILEAD">RAMOTH-GILEAD</a>, which see.<P>The site is now occupied by a colony of Circassians, and there is reason to fear that, unless something is done to preserve them, many valuable remains of antiquity will perish.``54';
isbe[3753]='Gergesenes`gur\'-ge-senz, gur-ge-senz\':A false reading of "Gadarenes" retained in the King James Version of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,28);">Mt 8:28</a>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GADARA">GADARA</a>`1';
isbe[3754]='Gerizim, Mount`ger\'-i-zim, ge-ri\'-zim (har gerizzim):<P>1. Scriptural References:<P>Named in the directions for the reading of the law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,29);">De 11:29</a>), and in the account of that great ceremony (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',27,12);">De 27:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,33);">Jos 8:33</a>f). Mts. Ebal and Gerizim stood over against each other, and on their sides the peoples were placed, half upon one and half upon the other, while in the vale which separates the mountains stood the ark, with the Levites. Those who stood on Gerizim responded to the blessings, those on Mt. Ebal to the cursings, as these were spoken "with a loud voice" by the Levites. From a spur of Mt. Gerizim Jotham spoke his taunting parable to the men of Shechem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',9,7);">Jud 9:7</a>). The name appears no more in canonical Scripture. In consequence of the dispute which arose over the marriage of Manasseh, who belonged to the high-priestly family, with a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,28);">Ne 13:28</a>), a temple was built on Gerizim as a rival to that in Jerusalem (circa 432 BC). This was the beginning of the schism which lasts to the present day (Ant., XI, viii,2,4). See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMARITANS">SAMARITANS</A>. The temple was destroyed by John Hyrcanus circa 110 BC (Ant., XIII, ix, 1; BJ, I, ii, 6).<P>2. Description:<P>Mt. Gerizim, the modern Jebel et-Tur, stands on the south, Mt. Ebal on the north, of the narrow pass which cuts through the mountain range, opening a way from the sea to the Jordan. In the throat of this pass to the west, on the south of the vale, and close to the foot of Gerizim, lies the town of Nablus, the ancient Shechem. Here copious fountains rise, filling the valley with beauty and fruitfulness. The sides of the mountain are steep and rocky on east and north; on the west the ascent is more gradual, and here, by means of a system of terraces carried almost to the summit, it is cultivated with great care and success. Its height <span class="noTag">is</span> 2,849 ft. above the level of the sea, 228 ft. lower than its northern companion.<P>3. Samaritan Traditions:<P>Abraham came through the pass and camped near Gerizim at the oak of Moreh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,6);">Ge 12:6</a>). According to Samaritan tradition it was on this mountain that he prepared to sacrifice Isaac, and at Salem, not far distant, he met Melchizedek (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,17);">Ge 14:17</a>). The scene of Jacob\'s dream is placed at Khirbet Lauzeh on the summit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',28,11);">Ge 28:11</a>f). In a little hollow west of the ridge, the Samaritans annually celebrate the Passover in accordance with the directions of the Pentateuch. This is done in the open air, their temple having long since disappeared.<P>4. Antiquities:<P>The most important remains on the mountain today are those of Justinian\'s fortress, built in 533 AD, to protect the church which had been erected in 475 AD. Near the center of the plateau is a bare piece of rock, on which, tradition says, the altar stood in the Samaritan temple. A cup-like hollow in it may have been used for libations. In the western wall of el-Qal\'ah, Justinian\'s castle, there are 12 stones under which, it is said, are the stones which Israel took from the bed of the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,20);">Jos 4:20</a>).<P>Gerizim was certainly "this mountain" pointed to by the woman of Samaria in her conversation with Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,20);">Joh 4:20</a>f); the cliffs of the mountain almost overhanging the Well of Jacob.<P>For the reason why Gerizim was chosen for the blessing and Ebal for the cursing we are left to conjecture. The directions were fixed by one looking to the east, not, as with us, looking to the north. For one standing in the valley, therefore, Gerizim was on the right hand, "the side of good fortune" (Driver, Deuteronomy on <span class="noTag">11:28</span>).<P>Onom places Ebal and Gerizim much nearer the Jordan valley. This was doubtless to meet the difficulty raised by the long distance from Ai to Shechem. But their nearness to the "oaks of Moreh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,30);">De 11:30</a>) points to this locality, and this is confirmed by Josephus, who speaks of Shechem, the metropolis of the Samaritans, as "a city situated at Mt. Gerizim" (Ant., XI, viii, 6).<P>Andronicus, appointed governor of Gerizim by Antiochus Epiphanes, is mentioned in 2Macc 5:23 (the King James Version "Garizim").``54';
isbe[3755]='Geron`ge\'-run (Geron): Not much seems to be gained by translating with the Revised Version, margin "Geron, an Athenian," for "an old man of Athens" in 2Macc 6:1.``1';
isbe[3756]='Gerrenians`ge-re\'-ni-anz (heos ton Gerrenon): The name indicates the southern limit of the territory assigned by Antiochus Eupator to the government of Judas Maccabeus when he "left Hegemonides governor from Ptolemais even unto the Gerrenians" (2Macc 13:24, the King James Version "Gerrhenians"). It is not easy to say exactly who the Gerrenians were. They were wrongly associated by Grotius with the town Gerrha, and are with more probability connected with the ancient city of Gerar, southeast of Gaza. One manuscript reads Gerarenon, which could easily be corrupted into Gerrenon, and would place the government of Hegemonides between Ptolemais and Gerar.``79';
isbe[3757]='Gershom`gur\'-shom (gereshom, from garash, "to cast out"; explained, however, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,22);">Ex 2:22</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,3);">18:3</A> as from gur, "For he said, I have been a sojourner in a foreign land"):<P>(1) Firstborn son of Moses and Zipporah. The only details of his life contained in the Pentateuch are the account of his circumcision (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,25);">Ex 4:25</a>), and his remaining under the care of Jethro, while Moses was in Egypt leading the Exodus. His descendants were numbered among the tribes of Levi (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,14);">1Ch 23:14</a>). One of them apparently was the Jonathan who officiated as priest of the idolatrous sanctuary at Dan, and whose descendants held the office until the captivity. The Massoretic Text inserts a suspended nun, "n," in the name of Moses (mosheh), causing it to be lead Manasseh, for the purpose, according to tradition, of disguising the name out of respect for the revered Lawgiver. Another descendant described as a "son" was Shebuel, a ruler over the treasuries of David.<P>(2) A son of Levi, so called in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,16,17,20,43,62,71);">1Ch 6:16-17, 20, 43, 62, 71 (Hebrew 1,2,5,28,47,56)</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,7);">15:7</a>; elsewhere <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GERSHON">GERSHON</A> (which see).<P>(3) A descendant of Phinehas, the head of a father\'s house, who journeyed with Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem in the reign of Artaxerxes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,2);">Ezr 8:2</a>).``80';
isbe[3758]='Gershon; Gershonites`gur\'-shon, gur\'-shon-its (gereshon, written also gereshom): Firstborn of the 3 sons of Levi (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,16);">Ex 6:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,17);">Nu 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,1,16);">1Ch 6:1, 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,6);">23:6</a>). He had two sons, Libni, also known as Ladan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,7);">1Ch 23:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,21);">26:21</a>), and Shimei (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,17);">Ex 6:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,18);">Nu 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,17,20);">1Ch 6:17, 20</a>), and consequently two groups of descendants, enumerated in the census taken in the Wilderness of Sinai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,21);">Nu 3:21</a>) and that in the Plains of Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,57);">Nu 26:57</a>). In the distribution of functions among the Levites, the Gershonites were charged with the carrying of the curtains, coverings, screens, hangings, cords and instruments of the tabernacle and the tent of meeting on the journeys in the wilderness, under the supervision of Ithamar the son of Aaron. Their function was thus more exalted than that of the Merarites, who carried the boards, and less so than that of the Kohathites, who carried the most holy utensils and symbols. The Gershonites were given two wagons with four oxen<65>half as many as the Merarites, according to their service (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,7);">Nu 7:7</a>). Thirteen cities were assigned to the Gershonites in Northern Palestine by Eleazar and Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,6,\'27-33\');">Jos 21:6, 27-33</a> = <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,62,\'71-76\');">1Ch 6:62,71-76</a>).<P>Among the Gershonites who achieved distinction in later Biblical times was the family of Asaph, the singers from the time of David to the days of the Second Temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,\'31-47\');">1Ch 6:31-47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,\'1-7\');">25:1-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',15,7,17,19);">15:7, 17, 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,5,7);">16:5, 7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',25,15);">2Ch 25:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,41);">Ezr 2:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,10);">3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,17,22);">Ne 11:17, 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,35);">12:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,15);">1Ch 9:15</a>). Other Gershonites named are the heads of the fathers\' houses in the days of David in connection with the dividing of the Levites into courses (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',23,\'7-11\');">1Ch 23:7-11</a>); the superintendents of the treasuries of the house of the Lord of the same time (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,21,22);">1Ch 26:21-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,8);">29:8</a>); and, finally, Gershonites are mentioned among those who cleansed the house of the Lord in the days of Hezekiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,12,13);">2Ch 29:12-13</a>).``80';
isbe[3759]='Gerson`gur\'-sun (Gerson; 1Esdras 8:29): Called Gershom in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,2);">Ezr 8:2</a>.``1';
isbe[3760]='Geruth Chimham`ge\'-rooth kim\'-ham (geruth kimham): If the reading geruth is correct, a "lodging-place" or "khan" on the highway to Egypt, may be meant (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,17);">Jer 41:17</a>). It may have been built by Chimham son of Barzillai; or it may have been named from him as owner of the land on which it stood. But probably with Josephus we should read gidhroth, "hurdles" or "sheep pens" (Ant., X, ix, 5).``1';
isbe[3761]='Gerzites`gur\'-zits (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',27,8);">1Sa 27:8</a> King James Version margin).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GIRZITES">GIRZITES</a>`1';
isbe[3762]='Geshan`ge\'-shan (geshan, "firm," "strong"): A descendant of Judah through Caleb (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,47);">1Ch 2:47</a>). The King James Version has "Gesham," but not in the original 1611 edition.``1';
isbe[3763]='Geshem`ge\'-shem (geshem, gashmu; Gesam, "rain storm"): An Arabian, probably chief of an Arabian tribe that had either settled in Southern Palestine during the exile in Babylon, or had been settled in or near Samaria by Sargon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,19);">Ne 2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',6,1,2,6);">6:1-2, 6</a>). He was a confederate of Sanballat and Tobiah, and strenuously opposed the building of the wall under Nehemiah. He with the others mocked at the first efforts to build the wall, and afterward repeatedly sought to entice Nehemiah to the plains of Ono. The name also occurs in the form Gashmu, perhaps an Assyrian form of the same name Geshem.``146';
isbe[3764]='Geshur`ge\'-shur (geshur, "bridge"): An Aramean kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,8);">2Sa 15:8</a>) of no great size which lay probably to the south of Maacah, and formed with it the western boundary of the land of Bashan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,14);">De 3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,5);">Jos 12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,11);">13:11</a>). The territory of these two probably corresponded roughly with modern Jaulan. It may not have reached quite to the Jordan on the west; in which case the Geshurites literally dwelt "in the midst" of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,13);">Jos 13:13</a>), since they were not expatriated by the half-tribe of Manasseh, and they retained their independence. David married Maacah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, who became the mother of Absalom and Tamar (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,3);">2Sa 3:3</a>). To Talmai Absalom fled for safety after the murder of Amnon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,37);">2Sa 13:37</a>f), and thence Joab brought him back to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,23);">2Sa 14:23</a>). The Geshurites and Aram are said to have taken the cities of Jair<69>i.e. Havvoth-jair<69>which lay in the land of Gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,23);">1Ch 2:23</a>). It is possible that "Geshurites" should be read, with Vulgate, Syriac, etc., instead of "Ashurites" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,9);">2Sa 2:9</a>. The only difficulty is that Geshur was an independent kingdom, and there is nothing to show how it was brought under the sway of the son of Saul. In the catalogue of land still to be possessed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,2);">Jos 13:2</a>, the King James Version reads "Geshuri," the Revised Version (British and American) "the Geshurites," referring evidently to a district bordering on the Philistines. Both the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) render the same word by "Geshurites" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',27,8);">1Sa 27:8</a>, where apparently the same territory is indicated as invaded by David. In neither passage is the text above suspicion; in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',27,8);">1Sa 27:8</a> Septuagint\'s Codex Vaticanus omits the name. No satisfactory explanation has been suggested.``54';
isbe[3765]='Geshurites`gesh\'-u-rits, ge-shoo\'-rits (geshuri).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GESHUR">GESHUR</a>`1';
isbe[3766]='Gesture`jes\'-tur, jes\'-tur: The Oriental is rich in gestures by which feelings are expressed and force added to words. Of this we have abundant illustration in the Bible. Almost every available part of the body was employed in gesture. In salutations the whole body was bowed, sometimes to the ground (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,2);">Ge 18:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,1);">19:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,7);">33:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,6);">42:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,3);">33:3</a>), falling on the face to the ground and bowing to the ground, 3 times (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,41);">1Sa 20:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,7);">Ge 23:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,8);">2Sa 9:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,21);">18:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,19);">1Ki 2:19</a>); it was common also to embrace and kiss (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,7);">Ex 18:7</a>), etc., weeping for joy. Esau "fell on (Jacob\'s) neck, and kissed him: and they wept" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,4);">Ge 33:4</a>); compare Joseph and his brethren (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,14,15);">Ge 45:14-15</a>); David and Jonathan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,41);">1Sa 20:41</a>), and the father of the prodigal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,20);">Lu 15:20</a>). We have the kiss also in the story of Judas with his Master (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,49);">Mt 26:49</a>). Bowing the knee was also in Egypt an act of homage to a superior (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,43);">Ge 41:43</a>); bowing the knee and bowing down were common in prayer and worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,18);">1Ki 19:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',6,13);">2Ch 6:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,5);">Ezr 9:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,23);">Isa 45:23</a>); in prayer the head and whole body were also bowed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,26);">Ge 24:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,18);">2Ki 5:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,28);">2Ch 29:28</a>f). The rabbins decreed that in prayer "in bowing down, the back must be bent so low that every vertebra becomes conspicuous," and endless questions arose as to what it was lawful to do during prayer (Edersheim). We read also of prayer offered standing (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,26);">1Sa 1:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,22);">1Ki 8:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,5);">Mt 6:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',11,25);">Mr 11:25</a>), lifting up and spreading forth the hands (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,22);">1Ki 8:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',6,13);">2Ch 6:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,5);">Ezr 9:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,6);">Ne 8:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,8);">1Ti 2:8</a>); "lifting up the hands" was synonymous with prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',77,2);">Ps 77:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',141,2);">141:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,19);">La 2:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,8);">1Ti 2:8</a>); falling on the knees in pleading (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,13);">1Ki 1:13</a>). Reverence for the aged was expressed by rising up in their presence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,32);">Le 19:32</a>,"Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',5,12);">Lam 5:12</a>). The hand was also laid on the mouth in token of respect (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',29,9);">Job 29:9</a>); in token of blessing the right hand was placed on the head (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',48,14);">Ge 48:14</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,26);">Ge 49:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,6);">Pr 10:6</a>). The hands were laid on the head of the animal to be sacrificed; on the scapegoat and sin offering as denoting the transference of sin; on the burnt offering, perhaps as representing the offerer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',1,4);">Le 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,21);">16:21</a>). The hands were lifted up in blessing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,22);">Le 9:22</a>), in solemn swearing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,22);">Ge 14:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,8);">Ex 6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,40);">De 32:40</a>), in defiance and threatening (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,21);">2Sa 20:21</a>); extended in pleading (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,2);">Isa 65:2</a>). Giving the hand or joining hands as a pledge of friendship and fidelity (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,15);">2Ki 10:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,21);">Pr 11:21</a>) was the origin of the widespread custom of "shaking hands"; "striking hands" signified the clenching of a bargain or agreement (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,1);">Pr 6:1</a> the Revised Version British and American)); as a solemn pledge the hand was placed under the thigh of the person to whom it was given (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,2);">Ge 24:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,29);">47:29</a>); plucking the hand out of the bosom was a sign of action (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,11);">Ps 74:11</a>); clapping the hands, of rejoicing (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',11,12);">2Ki 11:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',47,1);">Ps 47:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',98,8);">98:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',55,12);">Isa 55:12</a>), also of ridicule, contempt and rejoicing over one (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',27,23);">Job 27:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,15);">La 2:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,19);">Na 3:19</a>). We read of "beckoning with the hand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,7);">Lu 5:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,24);">Joh 13:24</a>), preliminary to speaking (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,17);">Ac 12:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,16);">13:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,33);">19:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,40);">21:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,1);">26:1</a>, he "stretched forth his hand"); drooping of the hands indicated failure, weakness or distress (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,12);">Heb 12:12</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,3);">Isa 35:3</a>; Ecclesiasticus 25:23); washing the hands (publicly) was a declaration of innocence, "of freedom from complicity" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,6,7);">De 21:6-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,24);">Mt 27:24</a>).<P>The head lifted up was a sign of arrogance or pride (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',83,2);">Ps 83:2</a>); of exaltation, or recovery from trouble, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,28);">Jud 8:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,6);">Ps 27:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,7);">110:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,21);">Zec 1:21</a>); to cover the head was a symbol of grief or mourning (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,30);">2Sa 15:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',6,12);">Es 6:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',14,3);">Jer 14:3</a>), also putting the hand on the head (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,19);">2Sa 13:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,37);">Jer 2:37</a>), or ashes, dust or earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,6);">Jos 7:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,12);">1Sa 4:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,\'1-\');">2Sa 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,19);">13:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',4,1);">Es 4:1</a>); wagging (or shaking) the head expressed contempt or malicious enjoyment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',16,4);">Job 16:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',64,8);">Ps 64:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',18,16);">Jer 18:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,15);">La 2:15</a>; with "hissing," compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,39);">Mt 27:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,29);">Mr 15:29</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,7);">Ps 22:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,14);">44:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',109,25);">109:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,27);">Jer 48:27</a>).<P>Uncovering the feet was a sign of grief (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,30);">2Sa 15:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',20,2,4);">Isa 20:2, 4</a>); lifting up the heel against one was a symbol of opposition (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',41,9);">Ps 41:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,18);">Joh 13:18</a>); shaking the dust from the feet, of freeing from responsibility and of complete rejection (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,14);">Mt 10:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,51);">Ac 13:51</a>; at Corinth Paul "shook out his raiment," <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',18,6);">Ac 18:6</a>); strong joyous feeling found (as elsewhere) expression in dancing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,34);">Jud 11:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',21,21);">21:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,6);">1Sa 18:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,4,13);">Jer 31:4, 13</a>), before Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,20);">Ex 15:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,14,16);">2Sa 6:14, 16</a>).<P>Shooting out the lip was an expression of contempt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,7);">Ps 22:7</a>); to incline the ear signified attention (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,10);">Ps 45:10</a>); rending the garments expressed the sense of horror (as in the presence of disaster, blasphemy, etc.) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,6);">Nu 14:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,6);">Jos 7:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,12);">1Sa 4:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,2);">2Sa 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,19);">13:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,32);">15:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,65);">Mt 26:65</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,14);">Ac 14:14</a>); the smile indicated favor and gave confidence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',29,24);">Job 29:24</a>); lifting up the eyelids was a sign of pride (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,13);">Pr 30:13</a>); Isaiah speaks also of the "outstretched necks and wanton eyes" of the haughty daughters of Zion, "walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,16);">Isa 3:16</a>). The perverse man "winketh with his eyes...speaketh with his feet.... maketh signs with his fingers" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,13);">Pr 6:13</a>).<P>It is interesting to note the gestures ascribed in the Gospels to Jesus. The expression of His eyes is often referred to; we read how He "lifted up his eyes on his disciples" before pronouncing the Beatitudes, indicating a loving regard for them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,20);">Lu 6:20</a>); how He "looked upon" the young ruler and "loved him," and, with another expressive "look" (round about)<29>a sad look<6F>said, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,21,23);">Mr 10:21, 23</a>); how He "looked up to heaven" before He blessed and brake the loaves (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',14,19);">Mt 14:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,41);">Mr 6:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,16);">Lu 9:16</a>); also before healing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,34);">Mr 7:34</a>); how He "looked round" on His adversaries in the synagogue (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,10);">Lu 6:10</a>), "with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,5);">Mr 3:5</a>); how He "turned and looked upon Peter" so that he remembered his boasting and fall, and went out and wept bitterly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,61);">Lu 22:61</a>); we read also how He took a little child into His arms and held him up as an example to His disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,36);">Mr 9:36</a>), and how He "took (little children) in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands upon them" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,16);">Mr 10:16</a>); how He "stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground" when the woman accused of adultery was brought to Him, then "lifted up himself" and spake, again "stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground," till the woman\'s accusers had departed one by one, condemned and ashamed, when He again "lifted up himself" and sent the woman away (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,6);">Joh 8:6</a>); how on His way to the tomb of Lazarus, He was agitated, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "was troubled," margin "troubled himself." Meyer has "shuddered." Some translation "shook himself" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,33);">Joh 11:33</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATTITUDES">ATTITUDES</a>`185';
isbe[3767]='Get; Getting`A great many Hebrew words are in the Old Testament translated "get," "got," etc. The word "get" has two meanings: (1) with the idea of movement, "to go," etc.; (2) with that of acquisition, "to gain," "obtain," etc.<P>(1) In the first sense the most frequent words are bo\', "to come, or go in" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,17);">Ge 45:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,5);">1Sa 22:5</a>, etc.); yalakh "to go on" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,1);">Ge 12:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,2);">22:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,4);">Ex 5:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,5);">Jer 5:5</a>, etc.); yaradh, "to go down" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',42,2);">Ge 42:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,13);">Joe 3:13</a>); \'alah, "to go up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',44,17);">Ge 44:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,9);">Isa 40:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,31);">Jer 49:31</a>, etc.). Other words are nudh, "to move off" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,30);">Jer 49:30</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,14);">Da 4:14</a>); nasa\', "to remove" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,25);">Nu 14:25</a>); yatsa\', "to go out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,14);">Ge 19:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,13);">31:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,8);">Ex 11:8</a>).<P>(2) In the sense of acquisition, the words most frequently translated "get," etc., are \'asah, "to do," "to make" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,5);">Ge 12:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,1);">31:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,17,18);">De 8:17-18</a>); qanah, "to get," "obtain" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,1);">Ge 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,5,7);">Pr 4:5, 7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',2,7);">Ec 2:7</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "bought"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,1);">Jer 13:1</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "buy"); matsa\' "to find" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,50);">Nu 31:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,6);">2Sa 20:6</a>); rakhash, "to acquire," "gain" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,18);">Ge 31:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,6);">36:6</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "gathered"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,6);">Ge 46:6</a>).<P>Getting is the translation of po\'al (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',21,6);">Pr 21:6</a>), of qinyan "obtaining" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,18);">Ge 31:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,7);">Pr 4:7</a>, the English Revised Version text and the American Standard Revised Version margin "all thou hast gotten"). In the New Testament "get" in the first sense is the translation of exerchomai, "to go out or forth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,31);">Lu 13:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,3);">Ac 7:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,18);">22:18</a>); of exeimi, "to go out or forth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,43);">Ac 27:43</a>); of katabaino, "to go down" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,20);">Ac 10:20</a>); hupago, "to go away or under," "Get...behind" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,23);">Mt 16:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,8);">Lu 4:8</a> the King James Version, "Get...hence"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,10);">Mt 4:10</a>). The only separate word translated "get" in the second sense is heurisko, "to begin to find" (usually translated "find") (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,12);">Lu 9:12</a> the King James Version, "that they may go...and get victuals").<P>For "get" the Revised Version (British and American) has "mount" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,43);">De 28:43</a>), "buy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,16);">Pr 17:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,1);">Jer 13:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',19,1);">19:1</a>); for "get you down" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,13);">Joe 3:13</a>), "tread ye," margin "get you down"; "get" for "possess" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,12);">Lu 18:12</a>); "get them away" for "gather themselves together" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,22);">Ps 104:22</a>); "get us" for "apply" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,12);">Ps 90:12</a>); "let us get grain" for "therefore we take up corn for them," and for "that we might buy corn" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,2,3);">Ne 5:2-3</a>); "get you no" for "provide neither" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,9);">Mt 10:9</a>); "getteth prudence" for "is prudent," margin "dealeth prudently" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,5);">Pr 15:5</a>); "getteth" for "coveteth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,9);">Hab 2:9</a>).``185';
isbe[3768]='Gether`ge\'-ther (gether): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,23);">Ge 10:23</a> named as one of the 4 sons of Aramaic In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,17);">1Ch 1:17</a> mentioned simply among the sons of Shem.``1';
isbe[3769]='Gethsemane`geth-sem\'-a-ne (Gethsemanei (for other spellings and accents see Thayer, under the word); probably from the Aramaic gath shemanim, "oil press"): Mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,36);">Mt 26:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,32);">Mr 14:32</a>) as a place (chorion), margin "enclosed piece of ground," to which Jesus and the disciples retired after the last supper; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,1);">Joh 18:1</a> it is described as a "garden" (kepos), while Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,40);">22:40</A>) simply says "place" (topos). From <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,1);">Joh 18:1</a> it is evident that it was across the Kidron, and from <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,39);">Lu 22:39</a>, that it was on the Mount of Olives. Very possibly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,37);">Lu 21:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,39);">22:39</a>) it was a spot where Jesus habitually lodged when visiting Jerusalem. The owner<65>whom conjecture suggests as Mary the mother of Mark<72>must have given Jesus and His disciples special right of entry to the spot.<P>Tradition, dating from the 4th century, has fixed on a place some 50 yds. east of the bridge across the Kidron as the site. In this walled-in enclosure once of greater extent, now primly laid out with garden beds, by the owners<72>the Franciscans<6E>are eight old olive trees supposed to date from the time of our Lord. They are certainly old, they appeared venerable to the traveler Maundrell more than two centuries ago, but that they go back to the time claimed is impossible, for Josephus states (BJ, VI, i, 1) that Titus cut down all the trees in the neighborhood of Jerusalem at the time of the siege. Some 100 yards farther north is the "Grotto of the Agony," a cave or cistern supposed to be the spot "about a stone\'s cast" to which our Lord retired (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,41);">Lu 22:41</a>). The Greeks have a rival garden in the neighborhood, and a little higher up the hill is a large Russian church. The traditional site may be somewhere near the correct one, though one would think too near the public road for retirement, but the contours of the hill slopes must have so much changed their forms in the troubled times of the first and second centuries, and the loose stone walls of such enclosures are of so temporary a character, that it is impossible that the site is exact. Sentiment, repelled by the artificiality of the modern garden, tempts the visitor to look for a more suitable and less artificial spot farther up the valley. There is today a secluded olive grove with a ruined modern olive press amid the trees a half-mile or so farther up the Kidron Valley, which must far more resemble the original Gethsemane than the orthodox site.``117';
isbe[3770]='Geuel`gu\'-el, ge-u\'-el (ge\'u\'el, "majesty of God"): The spy from the tribe of Gad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,15);">Nu 13:15</a>), sent by Moses to spy out the land of Canaan.``1';
isbe[3771]='Gezer`ge\'-zer (gezer): A city of great military importance in ancient times, the site of which has recently been thoroughly explored. The excavations at this spot are the most thorough and extensive of any in Palestine, and have not only done much to confirm the history of the place, as known from Biblical and other sources, but have also thrown a flood of light upon the general history, civilization and religion of Palestine in pre-Israelite and Israelite times.<P>1. The Discovery and Position of the Site:<P>The long-lost site of Gezer was discovered by M. Clermont-Ganneau in 1873, and his suggestion that the modern name for the place, Tell Jezer (or Tell el Jezereh) was a survival of the ancient name was confirmed by his further discovery of three bilingual inscriptions, in Hebrew and Greek, cut on surfaces of rock by a certain Alkios, apparently once the governor of the city; in one of them occurred the expression "the boundary of Gezer."<P>The natural features and the position of Tell Jezer abundantly explain the extreme importance of Gezer in ancient times. The buried remains crown a narrow hill, running from northwest to southeast, about 1,700 ft. long by 300 to 500 ft. broad. The approach is steep on every side, and in early times, before the accumulation around the sides of the rubbish of some millenniums, must have been much more so. The hill stands, like an outpost, projecting into the great plain, and is connected with the low hills behind it, part of the Shephelah, with but a narrow neck. At the foot of the hill runs a great high road from Egypt to Syria; to the north lies the Vale of Aijalon, across which runs the modern carriage road to Jerusalem, and up which ran the great high road, by the Beth-horons, to the platenu north of Jerusalem; to the south lies the Vale of Sorek, where stood Bethshemesh, and along which went a great highway from the country of the Philistines to the hill country of Judah. Today the Jerus-Jaffa railway, after sweeping some miles away in the plain round the whole western and southern sides of the site, passes along this open vale to plunge into the narrow defile<6C>the Wady Isma\'in, which it follows to Jerusalem. From the summit of the Tell, a vast expanse of country is visible between the long blue line of the Mediterranean to the west, and the abrupt and lofty mountains of Judah to the east. That it has been all through history the scene of military contest is fully understood when its strategic position is appreciated; no military leader even today, if holding the highlands of Palestine against invasion, could afford to neglect such an outpost.<P>2. History of Gezer:<P>Although the excavation of the site shows that it was occupied by a high civilization and a considerable population at an extremely early period, the first historical mention is in the list of the Palestinian cities captured by Tahutmes III (XVIIIth Dynasty, about 1500 BC). From this time it was probably under Egyptian governors (the Egyptian remains at all periods are considerable), but from the Tell el-Amarna Letters, a century or so later, we learn that Egyptian influence was then on the wane. Three of these famous clay tablets are dated from Gezer itself and are written in the name of the governor Yapachi; he was then hard pressed by the Khabiri, and he appealed for help in vain to Egypt. In other letters belonging to this series, there are references to this city. In one, a certain freebooter named Lapaya makes excuses that he had broken into the city. He "has been slandered. Is it an offense that he has entered Gazri and levied the people?" (no. CCXL, Petrie\'s translation).<P>In the well-known "Song of Triumph" of Merenptah, who is considered by many to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus, occurs the expression "Gezer is taken." (In connection with this it is interesting to notice that an ivory pectoral with the cartouche of Meren-ptah was unearthed at Gezer.)<P>In the time of Joshua\'s invasion a certain "king of Gezer" named Horam (horam, but in Septuagint Ailam, or Elam) came to the assistance of Lachish against the Israelites, but was slain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,33);">Jos 10:33</a>). Gezer was taken, but the Canaanites were not driven out, but remained in servitude (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,10);">Jos 16:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,29);">Jud 1:29</a>). The city became one of the towns on the southern border of Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,3);">Jos 16:3</a>), but was assigned to the Kohath clan of the Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,21);">Jos 21:21</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,25);">2Sa 5:25</a> (the King James Version "Gazer") we read that David chased the Philistines after their defeat in the valley of Rephaim "from Geba until thou come to Gezer," showing that this was on the frontier of the Philistine territory; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,4);">1Ch 20:4</a> it states, "There arose war at Gezer with the Philistines; then Sibbecai the Hushathite slew Sippai, of the sons of the giant; and they were subdued." In the corresponding account in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,18);">2Sa 21:18</a> the scene of this event is said to be Gob, which is probably a copyist\'s error<6F>g-w-b for g-z-r. According to Josephus (Ant., VIII, vi, 1), at the commencement of Solomon\'s reign Gezer was in the hands of the Philistines, which may explain <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,16);">1Ki 9:16</a>, where it is stated that a certain Pharaoh, whose daughter Solomon married, captured and burnt Gezer and gave the site to his daughter. Solomon rebuilt it (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,17);">9:17</A>). There are no further references to Gezer during the later Jewish monarchy, but there are several during the Maccabean period. Judas pursued Gorgias to "Gazara and into the plains of Idumaea and Azotis and Jamnia" (1Macc 4:15); Bacchides, after his defeat by Jonathan, "fortified also the city of Bethsura, and Gazara, and the tower, and put forces in them and provision of victuals" (1Macc 9:52 the King James Version); a little later Simon "camped against Gazara and besieged it round about; he made also an engine of war, and set it by, the city and battered a certain tower, and took it" (1Macc 13:43 the King James Version), after which he purified it (1Macc 13:47,48). From Josephus (Ant., XIII, viii, 2) we gather that Antiochus had taken Gezer from the Jews.<P>The governor, Alkios, who made the bilingual inscriptions, may come in about this time or a little later; the rock inscriptions, of which half a dozen are now known, give no information regarding their date.<P>In the period of the Crusades this site, under the name "Mount Gisart," was a crusading fort and gave its name to a family. Here King Baldwin IV gained a victory over Saladin in 1177, and in 1191 the latter monarch camped here while conducting some fruitless negotiations with King Richard Coeur de Lion. In 1495 a skirmish occurred here between the governor of Jerusalem and certain turbulent Bedouin. The history of Gezer, as known, is thus one of battles and sieges extending over at least 3,000 years; from the archaeological remains we may infer that its history was similar for at least 1,000 years earlier.<P>3. History of the Excavations:<P>In 1904 the Palestine Exploration Fund of England obtained a "permit" for the excavation of Tell Jezer. The whole site was the private property of certain Europeans, whose agent, living much of the time on the Tell itself, was himself deeply interested in the excavations, so that unusually favorable conditions obtained for the work. Mr. (now Professor) R. A. Stewart Macalister, M.A., was sent out, and for 3 years (1904-7) he instituted an examination of the hidden remains in the mound, after a manner, till then, unexampled in Palestine exploration. His ambition was to turn over every cubic foot of soil down to the original rock, so that nothing of importance could be overlooked. As at the expiration of the original "permit" much remained unexplored, application was made to the authorities for a second one, and, at the end of 1907, Mr. Macalister embarked on a further 2 years of digging. Altogether he worked for the greater part of 5 years, except for necessary interruptions of the work due to unfavorable weather. Some two-thirds of the total accumulated debris on the mound was ransacked, and besides this, many hundreds of tombs, caves and other antiquarian remains in the neighborhood were thoroughly explored.<P>4. Chief Results of the Explorations:<P>It was found that the original bare rock surface of the hill was crowned with buried remains, in some parts 20 and 30 ft. deep, made up of the debris of all the cities which had stood on the site during three or four thousand years; on the part excavated there were no remains so late as the commencement of the Christian era, the Gezer of that time, and the crusading fort, being built on a neighboring site. The earliest inhabitants were Troglodytes living in the many caves which riddled the hill surface; they were apparently a non-Sem race, and there was some evidence that they at least knew of cremation. These, or a race soon after<65>the earliest Semites<65>enclosed the hilltop with high earth rampart faced with rough stones<65>the earliest "walls" going back at least before 3000 BC. At an early period<6F>probably about 3000 BC<42>a race with a relatively high civilization fortified the whole hilltop with a powerful and remarkably well-built wall, 14 ft. thick, with narrow towers of short projection at intervals of 90 ft. At a point on the south side of this was unearthed a very remarkable, massive, brick gateway (all the other walls and buildings are of stone), with towers on each side still standing to the height of 16 ft., but evidently once much higher. This gate showed a strong Egyptian influence at work long before the first historic reference (XVIIIth Dynasty), for both gateway and wall to which it belonged had been ruined at an early date, the former indeed, after its destruction, was overlaid by the buildings of a city, which from its datable objects<74>scarabs, etc.<2E>must have belonged to the time of Amenhotep III, i.e. as early as 1500 BC.<P>The later wall, built, we may conclude, soon after the ruin of the former, and therefore about 1500 BC, was also a powerful construction and must have existed considerably over a thousand years, down, indeed, till 100 BC at least, when Gezer disappears from history as a fortitled site. These walls enclosed a larger area than either of the previous ones; they show signs of destruction and repairs, and Mr. Macalister is of the opinion that some of the extensive repairs<72>in one place a gap of 150 ft.<2E>and the 28 inserted towers are the work of Solomon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,17);">1Ki 9:17</a>). This wall must have existed in use through all we know of Gezer from Bible sources. When, from the ruined remains, we reconstruct in imagination these mighty ramparts, we need not wonder that the\' Hebrews, fresh from long wanderings in the wilderness, found it no easy task to capture cities so fortified as was this (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,28);">Nu 13:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,28);">De 1:28</a>).<P>The foundations of a powerful building, which were found inserted in a gap in the southern walls, turned out conclusively to be the palace of Simon Maccabeus<75>who captured the city (1Macc 13:43)<29>a graffito being found upon one of its stones running thus:<p class="in15">Pa<50>mpra(s) Simo<6D>nos katepa<70>ge(?) p(u<>r) basi<73>leion<P>which seems to mean,<p class="in15">"Pamphras, may he bring down (fire) on the palace of Simon."<P>Within the city walls the foundations of some seven or eight cities of various successive periods were found, superimposed one above the other. The city\'s best days appear to have been shortly before the time of Joshua; the next, perhaps, at the time of the Judges. With the period to which we should probably assign the arrival of the Hebrews, there is a great increase in the population, the hitherto inviolate environs of the "temple" being encroached upon by private dwellings: an interesting commentary on <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',16,10);">Jos 16:10</a>.<P>The great "High Place" which was uncovered is one of unique interest, and its discovery has thrown a flood of light upon the religion of the early Canaanites, that religion<6F>"the worship of Baal and Ashteroth"<22>which was the great rival of the purer religion of Israel. This [Ba\'al] temple, or bamoth, consisted of a row of 8 matstsebhoth or rude stone pillars ranging in height from 5 ft. 5 inches to 10 ft. 9 inches (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HIGH+PLACE">HIGH PLACE</A>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=PILLAR">PILLAR</A>), together with a curious trough which may have been a socket for the \'Asherah (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ASHERAH">ASHERAH</A>), or some kind of altar. The area around these pillars had a kind of rough floor of consolidated earth under which were found a number of large jars containing infant bones, considered to be the remains of infant sacrifice. In close proximity to this "temple" was a double cave, the construction of which strongly suggested that it had been arranged for the giving of oracles. This high place had been used for very many centuries; the matstsebhoth were not all of one period but had gradually been increased from one to seven, and an eighth of a more definitely sculptured form<72>as a simulacrum priapi<70>had been added some time later. In the accumulated rubbish around these pillars were found enormous numbers of small stone phallic images, together with pottery plaques of Astarte, made with rude exaggeration of the sexual organs.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=BAAL">BAAL</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ASHTAROTH">ASHTAROTH</A>.<P>Another monument of great interest<73>and high antiquity<74>was the great rock-cut tunnel. It is about 23 ft. high, and 13 ft. wide, and descends by 80 steps, 94 1/2 ft. through the solid rock, to a cave in which there is a spring. It is very similar to the great tunnel known as "Warren\'s tunnel and shaft" which was clearly constructed by the early Jebusites to reach from within the city\'s walls to the fountain of Gihon (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=SILOAM">SILOAM</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ZION">ZION</a>). This Gezer tunnel must date at least to 2000 BC; it is evident from the nature of the accumulated debris which blocked its mouth that it was actually abandoned about 1400 BC. Its antiquity is confirmed by the fact that it was evidently excavated with flint knives.<P>At a much later period in history, in that of the Maccabees, the water supply of the city, in time of siege, at any rate, was largely dependent on an enormous open cistern which Mr. Macalister cleared of earth and found capable of containing 2,000,000 gallons of water. Among the smaller "finds" which throw light upon the Bible history may be mentioned two much broken, cuneiform tablets, both referring to land contracts, which, from the names of the eponyms, can be dated to 651 and 649 BC respectively. They therefore belong to the time of the last, and one of the greatest, of the Assyrian monarchs, Ahurbanipal, the "noble Osnappar" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,10);">Ezr 4:10</a>, and they show that he was not only a great conqueror, but that in Palestine he had an organized government and that legal civil business was transacted in the language of Assyria.<P>The illumination of Old Testament history which the excavations of Gezer have afforded can here be only hinted at, but references to it will occur in many of the articles in other parts of this Encyclopedia.<P>LITERATURE.<P>In Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer Professor R. A. S. Macalister has described in a poplar form with illustrations some of his most remarkable discoveries; while in the Memoirs of the Excavations at Gezer (1912), published by the Palestine Exploration Fund, Professor Macalister deals with the subject exhaustively.``117';
isbe[3772]='Gezrites`gez\'-rits.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GIRZITES">GIRZITES</a>`1';
isbe[3773]='Ghost`gost (nephesh; pneuma):"Ghost," the middle-English word for "breath," "spirit," appears in the King James Version as the translation of nephesh ("breath," "the breath of life," animal soul or spirit, the vital principle, hence, "life"), in two places of the Old Testament, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',11,20);">Job 11:20</a>, "the giving up of the ghost" (so the Revised Version (British and American)), and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,9);">Jer 15:9</a>, "She hath given up the ghost"; gawa\', "to gasp out, "expire" (die), is also several times so translated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,8,17);">Ge 25:8, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,29);">35:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,33);">49:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',3,11);">Job 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',10,18);">10:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',13,19);">13:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',14,10);">14:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',1,19);">La 1:19</a>). In Apocrypha (Tobit 14:11) psuche is translated in the same way as nephesh in the Old Testament, and in 2Macc 3:31, en eschate pnoe is rendered "give up the ghost," the Revised Version (British and American) "quite at the last gasp."<P>In the New Testament "to give up the ghost" is the translation of ekpneo, "to breathe out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,37,39);">Mr 15:37, 39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,46);">Lu 23:46</a>; so the Revised Version (British and American)); of ekpsucho, "to breathe out," "expire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,5,10);">Ac 5:5, 10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',12,23);">12:23</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,50);">Mt 27:50</a>, apheken to pneuma, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,30);">Joh 19:30</a>, paredoken to pneuma, are rendered respectively, "yielded" and "gave up the ghost," the Revised Version (British and American) "yielded up his spirit," "gave up his spirit."<P>"The Holy Ghost" is also frequent in the King James Version; in the American Standard Revised Version it is invariably changed to "Holy Spirit," in the English Revised Version sometimes only, chiefly in the Gospels.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOLY+SPIRIT">HOLY SPIRIT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIRIT">SPIRIT</a>`185';
isbe[3774]='Ghost, Holy``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOLY+SPIRIT">HOLY SPIRIT</a>`1';
isbe[3775]='Giah`gi\'-a (giach): An unidentified place on the route followed by Abner in his flight, pursued by Joab (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,24);">2Sa 2:24</a>). Septuagint renders Gai, corresponding to the Hebrew ge, "valley." The form giach may be due to corruption of the text.``1';
isbe[3776]='Giants`ji\'-ants The word appears in the King James Version as the translation of the Hebrew words nephilim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,4);">Ge 6:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,33);">Nu 13:33</a>); repha\'im (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,11,20);">De 2:11, 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,11,13);">3:11, 13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,4);">Jos 12:4</a>, etc.); rapha\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,4,6,8);">1Ch 20:4, 6, 8</a>), or raphah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,16,18,20,22);">2Sa 21:16, 18, 20, 22</a>); in one instance of gibbor, literally, "mighty one" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',16,14);">Job 16:14</a>).<P>In the first two cases the Revised Version (British and American) changes "giants" into the Hebrew words "Nephilim," nephilim, and "Rephaim," repha\'im, respectively (see these words). The "Nephilim of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,4);">Ge 6:4</a> are not to be confounded with the "mighty men" subsequently described as the offspring of the unlawful marriages, of "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men." It is told that they overspread the earth prior to these unhallowed unions. That the word, whatever its etymology, bears the sense of men of immense stature is evident from the later passages; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',13,33);">Nu 13:33</a>. The same is true of the "Rephaim," as shown by the instance of Og (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,11);">De 3:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,4);">Jos 12:4</a>). There is no doubt about the meaning of the word in the ease of the giants mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,\'1-\');">2Sa 21</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,\'1-\');">1Ch 20</a>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTEDILUVIANS">ANTEDILUVIANS</a>`132';
isbe[3777]='Giants, Valley of the``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REPHAIM,+VALE+OF">REPHAIM, VALE OF</a>`1';
isbe[3778]='Gibbar`gib\'-ar (gibbar, "hero"): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,20);">Ezr 2:20</a> the "children of Gibbar" are mentioned among those who returned with Zerubbabel. The parallel passage (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,25);">Ne 7:25</a>) has "children of Gibeon."``1';
isbe[3779]='Gibbethon`gib\'-e-thon (gibbethon): A city in the territory of Dan in the plain named with Eltekeh and Baalath (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,44);">Jos 19:44</a>), and assigned to the Kohathite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,23);">Jos 21:23</a>). Later we find it in the hands of the Philistines; and it was while besieging the city that Nadab was slain by Baasha (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,27);">1Ki 15:27</a>). After 25 years Omri, the general of Baasha, was here made king of the army when news reached them of Zimri s regicide (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,15);">1Ki 16:15</a>). It may possibly be identified with Kibbiah, which lies about 16 miles southeast of Jaffa; but no certain identification is possible.``54';
isbe[3780]='Gibea`gib\'-e-a (gibh\'a\', "hill"): A grandson of Caleb (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,49);">1Ch 2:49</a>). His father was Sheva, whose mother was Maacah, Caleb\'s concubine (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,48);">1Ch 2:48</a>).``1';
isbe[3781]='Gibeah`gib\'-e-a (gibh\'ah, "hill"): The Hebrew word denotes generally an eminence or hill, in distinction from har, which is used for mountain, or mountain range. It occurs, however, in two instances, as a place-name. Under <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GEBA">GEBA</a> (which see) we have seen that Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon are liable to be confused. This arises from their resemblance in form and meaning.<P>(1) An unidentified city in the territory of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,57);">Jos 15:57</a>). It is named in the group containing Carmel, Ziph and Kain; it is therefore probably to be sought to the southeast of Hebron. It may be one of the two villages mentioned by Eusebius, Onomasticon (s.v. "Gabathon"), Gabaa and Gabatha; in the east of the Daroma. It is probably identical with Gibeah mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,2);">2Ch 13:2</a>.<P>(2) A city described as belonging to Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,28);">Jos 18:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,14);">Jud 19:14</a>) Gibeah of Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,2,15);">1Sa 13:2, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,16);">14:16</a>), Gibeah of the children of Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,29);">2Sa 23:29</a>), Gibeah of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,4);">1Sa 11:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,29);">Isa 10:29</a>), and possibly, also, Gibeah of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,5);">1Sa 10:5</a> margin); see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GIBEATH">GIBEATH, 4</a>.<P>1. History:<P>The narrative in which it first appears is one of extraordinary and tragic interest, casting priceless light on the conditions prevailing in those days when "there was no king in Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,\'1-\');">Jud 19</a>). A Levite sojourning on the farther side of Mt. Ephraim was deserted by his concubine who returned to her father\'s house in Beth-lehem-judah. Thither he went to persuade her to return. Hospitably entertained by her father, he tarried till the afternoon of the fifth day. The evening was nigh when they came over against Jebus<75>Jerusalem<65>but, rejecting his servant\'s suggestion that they should lodge in this "city of a stranger"<22>i.e. the Jebusite<74>the Levite pressed on, and when they were near to Gibeah the sun set. They entered the city and sat down in the street. The laws of hospitality today do not compel the entertainment of strangers who arrive after sunset. But it may have been through disregard of all law that they were left unbefriended. An old man from Mt. Ephraim took pity on them, invited them to his house, and made himself responsible for their necessities. Then follows the horrible story of outrage upon the Levite\'s concubine; the way in which he made known his wrongs to Israel; and the terrible revenge exacted from the Benjamites, who would not give up to justice the miscreants of Gibeah.<P>Gibeah was the home of Saul, the first king of Israel, and thither he returned after his election at Mizpah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,26);">1Sa 10:26</a>). From Gibeah he summoned Israel to assemble for the relief of Jabesh-gilead, which was threatened by Nahash the Ammonite (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,4);">1Sa 11:4</a>). In the wars of Saul with the Philistines, Gibeah seems to have played a conspicuous part (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,15);">1Sa 13:15</a>). Here were exposed the bodies of the seven sons of Saul, slain by David\'s orders, to appease the Gibeonites, furnishing the occasion for Rizpah\'s pathetic vigil (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,1);">2Sa 21:1</a>). Gibeah is mentioned in the description of the Assyrian advance on Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,29);">Isa 10:29</a>).<P>2. Identification:<P>The site now generally accepted as that of Gibeah is on Teleil el-Ful, an artificial mound about 4 miles north of Jerusalem, a short distance east of the high road to Shechem. A little way north of Teleil el-Ful, the high road bifurcates, one branch turning eastward to Jeba\', i.e. Geba (which should be read instead of "Gibeah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,31);">Jud 20:31</a>); the other continuing northward to Bethel. Not far from the parting of the ways, on the road to Jeba\' lies erRam, corresponding to Ramah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',19,13);">Jud 19:13</a>). At Gibeah, about 30 furlongs from Jerusalem, Titus encamped for the night on his advance against the city from the north Teleil el-Ful quite satisfactorily suits all the data here indicated.<P>The words in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,33);">Jud 20:33</a> rendered by the King James Version "the meadows of Gibeah," the Revised Version (British and American) "Maareh-geba"<22>simply transliterating<6E>and the Revised Version, margin "the meadow of Geba" (or Gibeah), by a slight emendation of the text, read "from the west of Gibeah," which is certainly correct.``54';
isbe[3782]='Gibeath (1)`gib\'e-ath (gibh\'ath): This is the status constructus of the foregoing (Gibeah). It is found in several compound place-names.<P>(1) Gibeath-ha-araloth (gibh\'ath ha\'araloth). English Versions of the Bible tanslations literally, "hill of the foreskins"; but the margins suggest the proper name. Here the Israelites were circumcised after the passage of the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,3);">Jos 5:3</a>). The place was therefore between that river and Jericho.<P>(2) Gibeath Phinehas (gibh\'ath pinechac), the burial place of Eleazar the son of Aaron in Mt. Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,33);">Jos 24:33</a> the King James Version "a hill that pertained to Phinehas," the Revised Version (British and American) "the hill of Phinehas," the Revised Version, margin "Gibeah of Phinehas"). Conder would identify it with \'Awertah in the plain of Makhneh, not far from Nablus, where "the Samaritans show the tombs of Phinehas and Eleazar, Abishuah and Ithamar" (Tent Work, 41f). The "tomb of Eleazar" <span class="noTag">is</span> 18 ft. long, plastered all over and shaded by a splendid terebinth." Guerin places it at Jibia, 3 miles north of Qaryat el-\'Anab (Judee, III, 37f; Samarie, 106ff). There is no certainty.<P>(3) Gibeath hammoreh (gibh\'ath hamoreh), a hill on the north side of the valley from the camp of Gideon, beside. which lay the Midianites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,1);">Jud 7:1</a>, English Versions of the Bible "the hill of Moreh"; the Hebrew is literally, "hill of the teacher"). It is probably identical with Jebel Duchy, which rises on the north of the Vale of Jezreel. Moore (Judges, 200) mistakenly calls the mountain Nabi Dachi. This is, of course, the name of the "prophet" whose shrine crowns the hill.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=MOREH,+HILL+OF">MOREH</a>.<P>(4) Gibeath ha-Elohim (gibh\'ath ha-\'elohim), the place where Saul, after leaving Samuel, met the company of prophets, and prophesied with them (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,5,10);">1Sa 10:5, 10</a>). It is defined as the place "where is the garrison (or pillar) of the Philistines." This may be intended to distinguish it from <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GIBEAH">GIBEAH (2)</a>, with which it is often identified. In this case it may be represented by the modern Ramallah, about 10 miles north of Jerusalem.<P>See also <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=TABOR">TABOR</a>.<P>(5) Gibeath ha-Hachilah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,19);">1Sa 23:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,1);">26:1</a>) is identical with <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HACHILAH">HACHILAH</a> (which see).<P>(6) Gibeath Ammah (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,24);">2Sa 2:24</a>) is identical with <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=AMMAH">AMMAH</a> (which see).<P>(7) Gibeath Gareb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,39);">Jer 31:39</a>) is identical with <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GAREB">GAREB</a> (which see).``54';
isbe[3783]='Gibeath (2)`(<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,28);">Jos 18:28</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GIBEAH">GIBEAH</a>`1';
isbe[3784]='Gibeathite`gib\'-e-ath-it.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHEMAAH">SHEMAAH</a>`1';
isbe[3785]='Gibeon`gib\'-e-un (gibh\'on): One of the royal cities of the Hivites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,7);">Jos 9:7</a>). It was a greater city than Ai; and its inhabitants were reputed mighty men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,2);">Jos 10:2</a>). It fell within the territory allotted to Benjamin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,25);">Jos 18:25</a>), and was one of the cities given to the Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,17);">Jos 21:17</a>).<P>1. The Gibeonites:<P>By a stratagem the Gibeonites secured for themselves and their allies in Chephirah, Beeroth and Kirjath-jearim immunity from attack by the Israelites. Terrified by the fate of Jericho and Ai, a company disguised as ambassadors from a far country, their garments and shoes worn, and their provisions moldy as from the length of their journey, went to Joshua at Gilgal, and persuaded him and the princes of Israel to make a covenant with them. Three days later the deception was discovered and the wrath of the congregation of Israel aroused. In virtue of the covenant their lives were secured; but for their duplicity Joshua cursed them, and condemned them to be bondsmen, "hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,23);">Jos 9:23</a>), "for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,27);">Jos 9:27</a> the King James Version). This points to their employment in the sanctuary; and possibly may shed some light on the massacre of the Gibeonites by Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,1);">2Sa 21:1</a>f). The rest of the Canaanites resented the defection of the Hivites which so greatly weakened the forces for defense, and, headed by Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem, they assembled to wreak vengeance on Gibeon. The threatened city appealed to Joshua, who made a swift night march, fell suddenly upon the confederates, routed them, and "chased them by the way of the ascent of Beth-horon, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,1);">Jos 10:1</a>).<P>A three years\' famine in the days of David was attributed to God\'s anger at the unexpiated crime of Saul in slaying the Gibeonites. He did this "in his zeal for...Israel and Judah," who may have fretted at the inconvenience of having the Gibeonites among them. The latter believed that Saul\'s desire was to destroy them utterly. When David tried to arrange matters with them they stood upon their ancient rights, claiming life for life. They would take no rights blood money: they demanded blood from the family of the slayer of their people. This demand David could not resist, and handed over to them seven sons of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,1);">2Sa 21:1</a>).<P>2. The Champions:<P>The army of Ishbosheth under Abner, and that of David under Joab, met at the pool of Gibeon. An attempt to settle the quarrel, by means of 12 champions on either side, failed, as each man slew his fellow, and the 24 perished side by side. A "sore battle" ensued in which Abner was beaten; he was pursued by the fleet-footed Asahel, brother of Joab, whom he slew.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HELKATH-HAZZURIM">HELKATH-HAZZURIM</a>.<P>Possibly we should read "Gibeon" instead of "Geba" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,25);">2Sa 5:25</a>, as in the parallel passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,16);">1Ch 14:16</a> (HDB, under the word) From Baal-perazim David was to make a circuit and fall upon the Philistines who were encamped in the plan of Rephaim west of Jerusalem. Perhaps, however, we should read "Gibeah" in both places. Cheyne (EB, under the word) thinks the hill town of Baal-perazim may be intended.<P>3. Murder of Amasa:<P>When, after the death of Absalom and the suppression of his rebellion, Bichri raised the standard of revolt, Amasa was sent to call out the men of Judah against him. Tarrying longer than the time appointed, there was danger lest Bichri might have opportunity to strengthen his position; so David dispatched Abishai and the troops that were with him to attack Bichri at once. Joab went with this expedition. Obviously he could never be content with a second place. The force of Amasa was met at "the great stone of Gibeon." There Joab treacherously slew that unsuspecting general, and, himself assuming command, stamped out the rebellion with his accustomed thoroughness (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,4);">2Sa 20:4</a>)." The great stone" appears to have been well known, and may have possessed some religious character.<P>4. The Sanctuary:<P>Gibeon was the seat of an ancient sanctuary, called in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,4);">1Ki 3:4</a> "the great high place." Here, according to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,3);">2Ch 1:3</a>, was the tabernacle made in the wilderness<73>but see <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,4);">1Ki 8:4</a>. It was the scene of Solomon\'s great sacrifice after which he slept in the sanctuary and dreamed his famous dream (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,4);">1Ki 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,2);">9:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,3,13);">2Ch 1:3, 13</a>, etc.).<P>By "the great waters that are in Gibeon" Johanan overtook Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and freed the captives he had taken from Mizpah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,11);">Jer 41:11</a>). Among those who returned with Zerubbabel were 95 "children of Gibeon" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,25);">Ne 7:25</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,7);">Ne 3:7</a>). At Gibeon Cestius Gallus ancamped when marching against Jerusalem from Antipatris (BJ, II, xix, 1).<P>5. Identification and Description:<P>The ancient city is represented by the modern village el-Jib. It is fully 5 miles northwest of Jerusalem, and about a mile north of Neby Samwil on a double knoll, with terraced slopes, but rocky and precipitous to the east. The village stands amid striking remains of antiquity. About a hundred paces from the village to the east is a large reservoir with a spring. Lower down, among the olives, are the remains of another and larger reservoir, which collected the overflow from the first. This is probably the "pool" of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,13);">2Sa 2:13</a>, and "the great waters" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,12);">Jer 41:12</a>. El-Jib stands in the midst of a rich upland plain not far south of the great pass which goes down by way of the Beth-horons into the vale of Aijalon.``54';
isbe[3786]='Gibeonites`gib\'-e-un-its. Inhabitants of <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GIBEON">GIBEON</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[3787]='Giblites`gib\'-lits.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GEBALITES">GEBALITES</a>`1';
isbe[3788]='Giddalti`gi-dal\'-ti (giddalti, "I magnify (God)"): A son of Heman (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',25,4,29);">1Ch 25:4, 29</a>), one of David\'s musicians.``1';
isbe[3789]='Giddel`gid\'-el (giddel, "very great," "stout"):<P>(1) The name of the head of a family of Nethinim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,47);">Ezr 2:47</a> = <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,49);">Ne 7:49</a> = 1Esdras 5:30 (here as Cathua)).<P>(2) The name of the head of a family of Solomon\'s servants (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,56);">Ezr 2:56</a> = <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,58);">Ne 7:58</a> = 1Esdras 5:33 (here Isdael)).``1';
isbe[3790]='Gideon`gid\'-e-un (gidh\'on, "cutter down," "feller" or "hewer"):<P>1. His Family and Home:<P>Also named Jerubbaal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,32);">Jud 6:32</a>) and Jerubbesheth (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,21);">2Sa 11:21</a>), youngest son of Joash, of the clan of Abiezer in the tribe of Manasseh. His home was at Ophrah, and his family an obscure one. He became the chief leader of Manasseh and the fifth recorded judge of Israel. The record of his life is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,\'1-\');">Jud 6-8</a>.<P>Joash was an idolater, and sacrifices to Baal were common among the entire clan. Gideon seems to have held this worship in contempt, and to have pondered deeply the causes of Israel\'s reverses and the injuries wrought upon his own family by the hand of the Midianites.<P>2. The Midianite Oppression:<P>The Midianites under Zebah and Zalmunna, their two greatest chiefs, accompanied by other wild tribes of the eastern desert, had gradually encroached on the territory of Israel in Central Palestine. They came first as marauders and pillagers at the time of the harvests, but later they forcibly took possession of lands, and thus inflicted permanent injury and loss, especially upon Manasseh and Ephraim. The conflicts became so numerous, the appropriation of land so flagrant, that the matter of sustenance became a serious problem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,4);">Jud 6:4</a>). The multitude of these desert hordes and the cruelty of their depredation rendered defense difficult, and, lacking in the split of national unity, the Israelites were driven to dens, caves and rocky strongholds for safety (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,2);">Jud 6:2</a>). After seven years of such invasion and suffering Gideon comes upon the scene.<P>3. The Call of Gideon:<P>It is probable that Gideon had already distinguished himself in resistance to the Midianites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,12);">Jud 6:12</a>), but he now receives Divine commission to assume the leadership. Having taken his own little harvest to a secret place for threshing, that it might escape the greed of the Midianites, he is surprised while at work by a visit from the Lord in the form of an angel. However this scene (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,11);">Jud 6:11</a>) and its miraculous incidents may be interpreted, there can be no question of the divineness of Gideon\'s call or that the voice which spoke to him was the voice of God. Neither the brooding over the death of his brothers at Tabor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,18);">Jud 8:18</a>) nor the patriotic impulses dwelling within him can account for his assumption of leadership. Nor did he become leader at the demand of the people. He evidently had scarcely thought of himself as his country\'s deliverer. The call not only came to him as a surprise, but found him distrustful both of himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,15);">Jud 6:15</a>) and of his people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,13);">Jud 6:13</a>). It found him too without inclination for the task, and only his conviction that the command was of God persuaded him to assume leadership. This gives the note of accuracy to the essential facts of the story. Gideon\'s demand for a sign (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,17);">Jud 6:17</a>) being answered, the food offered the messenger having been consumed by fire at the touch of his staff, Gideon acknowledged the Divine commission of his visitor, and at the place of visitation built an altar to Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,19);">Jud 6:19</a>).<P>4. His First Commission:<P>The call and first commission of Gideon are closely joined. He is at once commanded to destroy the altars of Baal set up by his father at Ophrah, to build an altar to Yahweh at the same place and thereon to offer one of his father\'s bullocks as a sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,25);">Jud 6:25</a>f). There is no reason to look on this as a second version of Gideon\'s call. It is rather the beginning of instruction, and is deeply significant of the accuracy of the story, in that it follows the line of all revelation to God\'s prophets and reformers to begin their work at home. Taking ten men, under the cover of darkness, Gideon does as commanded (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,27);">Jud 6:27</a>). The morning revealed his work and visited upon him the wrath of the people of Ophrah. They demand of Joash that he put his son to death. The answer of Joash is an ironical but valid defense of Gideon. Why should the people plead for Baal? A god should be able to plead his own cause (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,28);">Jud 6:28</a>). This defense gained for Gideon the name Jerubbaal (yerubba\'al, i.e. yarebh bo ha-ba\'al, "Let Baal plead," <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,32);">Jud 6:32</a> the King James Version).<P>The time intervening between this home scene and the actual campaign against the Midianites cannot definitely be named. It is probable that it took months for Gideon even to rally the people of his own clan. The fact is that all the subsequent events of the story are somewhat confused by what looks like a double narrative in which there are apparent but not vital differences. Without ignoring this fact it is still possible to get a connected account of what actually transpired.<P>5. Gideon\'s Army:<P>When the allied invaders were in camp on the plain of Jezreel, we find Gideon, having recruited the Abiezrites and sent messengers to the various tribes of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,34);">Jud 6:34</a>f), pitching his camp near the Midianites. The location of the various camps of Gideon is difficult, as is the method of the recruiting of the tribes. For instance, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,35);">Jud 6:35</a> seems to be in direct contradiction to <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,23);">7:23</A>, and both are considered of doubtful origin. There was evidently, however, a preliminary encampment at the place of rallying. While waiting here, Gideon further tested his commission by the dry and wet fleece (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,37);">6:37</A>ff) and, convinced of God\'s purpose to save Israel by his leadership, he moves his camp to the southeast edge of the plain of Jezreel nearby the spring of Harod. From his point of vantage here he could look down on the tents of Midian. The account of the reduction of his large army from 32,000 to 300 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,2);">7:2</A>ff) is generally accepted as belonging to a later tradition, Neither of the tests, however, is unnatural, and the first was not unusual. According to the account, Gideon at the Lord\'s command first excused all the fearful. This left him with 10,000 men. This number was reduced to 300 by a test of their method of drinking. This test can easily be seen to evidence the eagerness and courage of men for battle (Jos).<P>6. The Midianites\' Discomfiture and Flight:<P>Having thus reduced the army and having the assurance that the Lord would deliver to him and his little band the forces of Midian, Gideon, with a servant, went by night to the edge of the camp of his enemy, and there heard the telling and interpretation of a dream which greatly encouraged him and led him to strike an immediate blow (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,9);">Jud 7:9</a>). Again we find a conflict of statement between <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,20);">Jud 7:20</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,22);">7:22</A>, but the conflict is as to detail only. Dividing his men into three equal bands, Gideon arranges that with trumpets, and lights concealed in pitchers, and with the cry, "The sword of Yahweh and of Gideon!" they shall descend and charge the Midianites simultaneously from three sides. This stratagem for concealing his numbers and for terrifying the enemy succeeds, and the Midianites and their allies flee in disorder toward the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,18);">7:18</A>ff). The rout was complete, and the victory was intensified by the fact that in the darkness the enemy turned their swords against one another. Admitting that we have two narratives (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,24);">7:24</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,3);">8:3</A> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,4);">8:4</A>ff) and that there is some difference between them in the details of the attack and the progress of the conflict, there is no need for confusion in the main line of events. One part of the fleeing enemy evidently crossed the Jordan at Succoth, being led by Zebah and Zalmunna. The superior force followed the river farther south, toward the ford of Bethbarah.<P>7. Death of Oreb and Zeeb<P>Gideon sent messengers to the men of Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,24);">7:24</a>), probably before the first attack, asking them to intercept the Midianites, should they attempt to escape by the fords in their territory. This they did, defeating the enemy at Beth-barah and slaying the princes Oreb and Zeeb ("the Raven" and "the Wolf"). As proof of their victory and valor they brought the heads of the princes to Gideon and accused him of having discounted their bravery by not calling them earlier into the fight. But Gideon was a master of diplomacy, as well as of strategy, and won the friendship of Ephraim by magnifying their accomplishment in comparison with his own (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,1);">8:1</a>ff).<P>Gideon now pursues Zebah and Zalmunna on the east side of the river. The people on that side are still in great fear of the Midianites and refuse even to feed his army. At Succoth they say to him, "Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna now in thy hand, that we should give bread unto thine army?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,6);">Jud 8:6</a>). At Penuel he meets with the same refusal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,8);">Jud 8:8</a>). Promising to deal with Succoth and Penuel as they deserve when he is through with his present task, Gideon pushes on with his half-famished but courageous men, overtakes the Midianites, defeats them, captures Zebah and Zalmunna, and, returning, punishes, according to his promise, both Succoth and Penuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,7,9,13);">Jud 8:7, 9, 13</a>).<P>8. Death of Zebah and Zalmunna:<P>Thus was the power of the Midianites and the desert hordes broken in Canaan and a forty years\' peace came to Israel. But the two Kings of Midian must now meet their fate as defeated warriors. They had led their forces at Tabor when the brothers of Gideon perished. So Gideon commands his young son Jether to slay them as though they were not worthy of death at a warrior\'s hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,20);">Jud 8:20</a>). The youth fearing the task, Gideon himself put them to death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,21);">Jud 8:21</a>).<P>9. Gideon\'s Ephod:<P>The people clamored to make Gideon king. He refused, being moved possibly by a desire to maintain theocracy. To this end he asks only the jewelry taken as spoil in the battles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,24);">Jud 8:24</a>), and with it makes an ephod, probably an image of Yahweh, and places it in a house of the Lord at Ophrah. By this act it was later thought that Gideon contributed to a future idolatry of Israel. The narrative properly closes with <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,28);">Jud 8:28</a>.<P>10. His Death:<P>The remaining verses containing the account of Gideon\'s family and death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,30);">Jud 8:30</a>) and the record of events immediately subsequent to Gideon\'s death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,33);">Jud 8:33</a>) come from other sources than the original narrators.``158';
isbe[3791]='Gideoni`gid-e-o\'-ni (gidh\'oni): The father of Abidan who was prince of Benjamin, mentioned only in connection with the son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',1,11);">Nu 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,22);">2:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,60,65);">7:60, 65</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,24);">10:24</a>).``1';
isbe[3792]='Gidom`gi\'-dom (gidh\'om): The limit eastward, from Gibeah toward the wilderness, of the pursuit of Benjamin by Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,45);">Jud 20:45</a>). No name suggesting this has yet been recovered. It is not mentioned elsewhere.``1';
isbe[3793]='Gier-Eagle`jer\'-e-g\'-l (racham; kuknos, in Leviticus, porphurion, in Deuteronomy): The name applied to one of the commonest of the vultures, and not an eagle at all. The word is derived from a Hebrew root, meaning "to love," and was applied to the birds because mated pairs seldom separated. These were smaller birds and inferior to the largest members of the family. They nested on a solid base, lived in pairs, and not only flocked over carrion as larger species permitted, but also ate the vilest offal of all sorts, for which reason they were protected by a death penalty by one of the Pharaohs. Because of this the birds became so frequent and daring around camps, among tent-dwellers, and in cities, that they were commonly called "Pharaoh\'s chickens." They are mentioned in the Bible in the lists of abominations found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,13);">Le 11:13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,12);">De 14:12</a> (the King James Version "ossifrage"); <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,17);">De 14:17</a> the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "vulture").``167';
isbe[3794]='Gift`gift (mattanah, minchah, shochadh; doron, dorea, chairisma): In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,6);">Ge 25:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,38);">Ex 28:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',18,6,7,29);">Nu 18:6-7, 29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,26);">Eze 20:26</a>, etc., mattanah, "a gift," is so rendered; minchah, an offering or present, used especially of the "meat offerings," is translated "gift" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,2,6);">2Sa 8:2, 6</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',26,8);">2Ch 26:8</a>), in which passages "tribute" is meant, as the Revised Version (British and American); 32:23; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,12);">Ps 45:12</a>. A few other words occur singly, e.g. \'eshkar, "a reward" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,10);">Ps 72:10</a>); mas\'eth, "lifting up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,18);">Es 2:18</a>); nathun is translated "gifts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,19);">Nu 8:19</a>; the Revised Version, margin "Hebrew nethunim, given"); nedheh, nadhan, "impure gifts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,33);">Eze 16:33</a>); nisse\'th, "a thing lifted up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,42);">2Sa 19:42</a>); shochadh means "a bribe" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,8);">Ex 23:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,19);">De 16:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',19,7);">2Ch 19:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,35);">Pr 6:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,8,23);">17:8, 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,23);">Isa 1:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',22,12);">Eze 22:12</a>); in each instance the American Standard Revised Version has "bribe" except <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',6,35);">Pr 6:35</a>, "gifts"; teramah, "a present" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',29,4);">Pr 29:4</a>), may also mean a bribe, the King James Version "he that receiveth gifts," the Revised Version (British and American) "he that exacteth gifts," margin "imposeth tribute, Hebrew a man of offerings."<P>In the New Testament doron, "a present," "gift" (from didomi, "to give"), is translated "gift" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,11);">Mt 2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,23,24);">5:23-24</a> bis; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,11);">Mr 7:11</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,1);">Heb 5:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',11,10);">Re 11:10</a>, etc., referring chiefly to gifts or offerings to God); dorea, "a free gift" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,10);">Joh 4:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,38);">Ac 2:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,15,17);">Ro 5:15, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',9,15);">2Co 9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,4);">Heb 6:4</a>, etc., referring to the gifts of God); dorema, "a free gift" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,16);">Ro 5:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,17);">Jas 1:17</a>, the English Revised Version "boon"); dosis, "giving" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,17);">Jas 1:17</a>, "every good gift," the Revised Version, margin "giving"); charisma, "grace," "favor," a benefit or good conferred, is also used of Divine gifts and favors, especially of the supernatural gifts imparted by the Holy Spirit (charismata) enumerated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,\'1-\');">Ro 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,\'1-\');">1Co 12</a>; the word occurs translated "gift, gifts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,11);">Ro 1:11</a>), "some spiritual gift" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,15,16);">Ro 5:15-16</a>, "free gift"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,23);">Ro 6:23</a>, "The gift of God is eternal life," the Revised Version (British and American) "free gift"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,29);">11:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,7);">1Co 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,7);">7:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,11);">2Co 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,14);">1Ti 4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,6);">2Ti 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',4,10);">1Pe 4:10</a>); charis, "grace," "favor" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',8,4);">2Co 8:4</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "grace"); merismos, "distribution," "parting" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,4);">Heb 2:4</a>, the Revised Version, margin "distributions"); anathema, "a thing devoted to God," is once (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,5);">Lu 21:5</a>) used of "the goodly gifts" (the Revised Version (British and American) "offerings") which adorned the Temple at Jerusalem.<P>In the Revised Version (British and American) "gift" is substituted in the text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,11);">Ge 33:11</a> for blessing, margin Hebrew "blessing"; "boasteth himself of his gifts falsely" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,14);">Pr 25:14</a>) for "boasteth himself of a false gift," margin Hebrew "in a gift of falsehood"; "a parting gift" for "presents" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',1,14);">Mic 1:14</a>); "Given to God" for "a gift" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,11);">Mr 7:11</a>).``185';
isbe[3795]='Gift of Tongues``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TONGUES,+GIFT+OF">TONGUES, GIFT OF</a>`1';
isbe[3796]='Gifts of Healing``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HEALING,+GIFTS+OF">HEALING</a>`1';
isbe[3797]='Gifts, Spiritual``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIRITUAL+GIFTS">SPIRITUAL GIFTS</a>`1';
isbe[3798]='Gihon (1)`gi\'-hon (gichon; Geon): One of the four rivers of Eden (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,13);">Ge 2:13</a>). It is said to compass the Whole land of Cush (Ethiopia), probably a province east of the Tigris. The Gihon is thought by Sayce to be the Kerkha, coming down from Luristan through the province known in the cuneiform texts as Kassi, probably the Cush of the Bible.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EDEN">EDEN</A>.<P>Used figuratively of wisdom in Sirach 24:27, "as Gihon (the King James Version Geon) in the days of vintage."``1';
isbe[3799]='Gihon (2)`(gichon, gichon (in 1 K), from root gayach "to burst forth"):<P>(1) See preceding article [<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GIHON+(1)">Gihon (1)</a>].<P>(2) The Nile in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,18);">Jer 2:18</a> Septuagint (Geon); in Hebrew shichor (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=SHIHOR">SHIHOR</a>).<P>(3) A spring in Jerusalem, evidently sacred, and, for that reason, selected as the scene of Solomon\'s coronation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,38);">1Ki 1:38</a>). It is without doubt the spring known to the Moslems as \'Ain Umm edition deraj ("the spring of the steps") and to the Christians as \'Ain Sitti Miriam ("the spring of the lady Mary"), or commonly as the "Virgin\'s Fount." It is the one true spring of Jerusalem, the original source of attraction to the site of the early settlers; it is situated in the Kidron valley on the east side of "Ophel," and due south of the temple area. See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM,+1">JERUSALEM</a>. The water in the present day is brackish and impregnated with sewage. The spring is intermittent in character, "bursting up" at intervals: this feature may account for the name Gihon and for its sacred characters. In New Testament times it was, as it is today, credited with healing virtues. See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=BETHESDA">BETHESDA</a>. Its position is clearly defined in the Old Testament. Manasseh "built an outer wall to the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley" (= Nahal, i.e. the Kidron; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',33,14);">2Ch 33:14</a>). From Gihon Hezekiah made his aqueduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',32,30);">2Ch 32:30</a>), now the Siloam tunnel.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=SILOAM">SILOAM</a>.<P>The spring is approached by a steep descent down 30 steps, the water rising deep underground; the condition is due to the vast accumulation of rubbish<73>the result of the many destructions of the city<74>which now fills the valley bed. Originally the water ran down the open valley. The water rises from a long deep crack in the rock, partly under the lowest of the steps and to a lesser extent in the mouth of a small cave, 11 1/2 ft. long by 5 ft. wide, into which all the water pours. The village women of Siloam obtain the water at the mouth of the cave, but when the supply is scanty they actually go under the lowest step<65>where there is a kind of chamber<65>and fill their vessels there. At the farther end of this cave is the opening leading into the aqueduct down which the water flows to emerge after many windings at the pool of Siloam. The first part of this aqueduct is older than the time of Hezekiah and led originally to the perpendicular shaft, connected with "Warren\'s tunnel" described elsewhere (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=SILOAM">SILOAM</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ZION">ZION</a>).<P>The preeminent position of importance which Gihon held in the eyes of the earlier inhabitants of Jerusalem is shown by the extraordinary number of passages, rock cuttings, walls and aqueducts which exist all about the spring. Walls have been made at different periods to bank up the waters and direct them into the channels provided for them. Of aqueducts, besides the "Siloam aqueduct," two others have been formed. One running from the source at a considerable lower level than that of Hezekiah was followed by the present writer (see PEFS, 1902, 35-38) for 176 ft. It was very winding, following apparently the west side of the Kidron valley. It was a well-cemented channel, about 1 1/2 ft. wide and on an average of 4 1/2 ft. high, roofed in with well-cut stones. There are no certain indications of age, but in the writer\'s opinion it is a much later construction than Hezekiah\'s aqueduct, though the rock-cut part near the source may be older. It was discovered by the Siloam fellahin, because, through a fault in the dam, all the water of the "Virgin\'s Fount" was disappearing down this channel. A third aqueduct has recently been discovered running off at a higher level than the other two. It is a channel deeply cut in the rock with curious trough-like stones all along its floor. It appears to be made for water, but one branch of it actually slopes upward toward its end. The pottery, which is early Hebrew, shows that it is very ancient. The whole accumulated debris around the source is full of pre-Israelite and early Israelite pottery.``117';
isbe[3800]='Gilalai`gil\'-a-li, gi-la\'-li (gilalay): A musician in the procession at the dedication of the wall, son of a priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,36);">Ne 12:36</a>).``1';
</script>
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink