HERMONITES HEROD, FAMILY O F
during a summer night will find their tent as com-
pletely saturated as if heavy rain had fallen (cp DEW,
§ 1). T. K. C.
HERMONITES (b9*f2,?n;EPMWNIEIM [BKART],
epvwpctv [R* Yid.] ; Nermuniim)-i.e., dwellers on Mt.
Hermon (so Kimchi, Ainsworth, etc.), Ps. 4 2 6 L7], A V ;
RV 'the Hermom'-;.e., the three summits of H ERMON
(g.v.). See MIZAR.
HEROD (FAMILY OF). The ancestor of the
Herodian family was Antipater, whom Alexander
''
the
Jannaeus (104-78B. c. ) had made governor
Origin Of of Idumaea ( n p a r q y b s 8Xqs rijs'IBoupaias,
Jos. Ant. xiv. 13). The accounts of his
origin are contradictory.
Nicolas of Damascus represented him as belonging to the
stockof Jews (61 ri)v np&rov 'IouSaiov)who returnedfrom Baby-
lon (Jos. Z.C.); but because Nicolas was Herod's minister and
apologist Josephus rejects his testimony. His own belief is that
Antipater was an Idumzean of honourable family ( q w r & u v 70;)
i8vous ; B/ i. 6 z ; cp Ant. xiv. 8 I).
The Idumzeans had been subjugated by John Hyrcanus
in 128 8.c., and compelled to embrace Judaism.
In course of time they came to regard themselves as ews
(Jos. Ant. xiii. 9 I) ; though they were sometimes remindedthat
they were only 'half-Jews' (Jd. xiv. 152, 'HpASq .../ S L & r~e
dvrc nai 'ISoupaio rourf1uriv $pcouSaio. On 'the other hind,
when it was con&nient, Herod was cfaiped as a Jew; Ant.
xx. 8 7 , r b yivos 'IouSahv).
The stories of the servile and Philistine origin of the
family, spread abroad by Jewish, and perhaps also
Christian, foes, are to be rejected (e.g., Just. Mart.
Dial: 5 2 , 'Hp6Bqv 'AuKaXwvlrqv ; Jul. Afr. in Eus. HE
i. 7 1 1 ; see Schiir. Hist. 1314 n.), The occurrence of
an Antipater of Ascalon on a tombstone in Athens
(CfG l r q ) , and of a Herod of Ascalon on one at
Puteoli (CfG 101746), is interpreted in favour of origin
from that town by Stark (Gasa, 5 3 5 J ) .
I a . Antipater (thtyuunger).-The history of the family
- with AntiDater's son, himself also called Anti-
besins
pater, or Antipas-a diminutive form,
2' Antipater perhaps used to avoid ambiguity during
'(th3younger)' his father's lifetime (so Wilcken, in
Pauly's Realencyc., S . D . ' Antipatros,' no. 17). Anti-
pater the younger, who may perhaps have succeeded to
his father's governorship,' threw himself devotedly into
the cause of Hyrcanus 11. in his struggle against the
usurpation of the crown and high-priesthood by his
brother Aristobfilus 11. in 69 B.C.
This struggle in which Antipater enlisted the arms of the
Arahian (Nabatkan) king Aretas (Haritha), ultimately cost the
Jews their independence. The bold and vigorous character of
Aristobiilus augured, in fact a resumption of the national policy
of the Hasmonzean house, k i t h which the Sadduczan nobles
were in sympathy. The accession of Queen Alexandra (78-69
B.c.) had marked the abandonment of this policy, and the
adoption of the Pharisaic3 abnegation of political development.
(On this conflict of ideals between the two sects, see I SRAE L
8 8zf: ; Momms. Hist. of Rome, ET 4 132; Id. Pro% of R!
Bw@.2 161.) The Pharisees attempted to attain their ohjects
under the merely nominal rule of the weak Hyrcanus, and it
was among them, as well as among the legitimist Sadducees,
that Antipater found support (Jos. Ant. xiv. 13).
It is unnecessary to tell at length the story of the over-
throw of the Maccabee state, effected by Pompeius as a
part of his policy for the organization of Syria.
The gates of Jerusalem were opened to the legions of Pompeius
b y the party of Hyrcanus; hut the national party seized the
temple-rock and bravely defended it for three months (Ant.
xiv. 42f:). This was in the autumn of 63 R.C. The final result
of the struggle was the curtailment of Jewish territory. I n con-
formity with the general policy of Rome in the Ea?t, of basing
rule upon the (Greek)3 urban communities, Pompeius 'liberated
1 Jos. Ant. xiv. 1 3 however calls him merely +&os TLS
'Ypnavoi?. Hence Momms. Pmd. of R.Emp. 2 174n., wrpngly
says, ' Antipater began his career as governor of Idumzea :un-
less we suppose the 'governorship to have been merely a vague
commission of superintendence attached to the hereditary
chieftainship.
2 Jos. Ant. xiii. 16 2, na'vra 70;s bapruaiors M r p r m v nor&,
d s nai r b rrhlj8op IK&VU.W wdapxeiv.
3 For themeaning of 'Greek' in this connection, as contrasted
with 'Jewish, see Kuhn, Die stddt. u. &rg. Verfass. des
Rdm. Racks, 2 3 y f : I t signifies not nationality so much as
mode of organization.
2023
from the Jewish rule all the coast towns from Raphia to Dora,
and all the non-Jewish towns of the Peraea together with
Scythopolis and Samaria. To all these communal freedom was
restored, whilst in other respects they were under the rule of the
governor-of the newly-constituted province of Syria.
The purely Jewish portion of the Hasmonrean king-
dom was left under Hyrcanus, who was recognised as
high priest, but had neither the title nor the powers of
a king (Jos. Ant. xx. 104). The whole country was
made tributary, paying its taxes through the governor
of Syria (id.Ant. xiv. 4 4 : B/ i. 76).
It is clear that as a civil governor Hyrcanus was a
complete failure, succumbing, as he did, before the first
attack of Alexander, son of Aristobdus. Gabinius
therefore deprived him of all his secular powers, and
divided the whole country ( L e . , Judrea, Samaria, Galilee,
and Perzea) into five independent districts.
These districts (uu'voSo~, uvv8pra) were administered by
governing colleges with an aristocratic organisation (Jos. B/
I.85, Aup&os 62 n j s ?vbs imrparaias &u&pwb'ivres, rb
Aorabv Apluronparia Srqrtoiivro). This \vas in 57 B.C. The two
following years w&e also marked by abortive attempts on the
part of Aristobiilus or his son to recover the lost crown (see on
the position of parties at this time, .Wellh. ProL, ET, 5 2 7 ~ 3 .
The position of Antipater at this period is described
by Josephus (Ant. xiv. 81).
Josephus calls Anti ater 'governor of the Jews' 7("; 'IouSaiwv
&rp&pjs) ; so also Etrabo, quoted by Josephus (&d. 3). This
office was probably in the main concerned with finance, for the
five districts above mentioned must have been connected, not
with the administration of law merely, but also with the arrange-
ments for collecting the taxes. In any case Antipater was an
officer, not of Hyrcanus, whose power was at this time purely
ecclesiastical, but of the Roman governor of Syria. The degree
to which this was evident in practice depended entirely upon
the attitude of Antipater towards Hyrcanus, and it was easy
for him to act as though he were merely his first minister.
Probably he owed this position to Gabinius, who in 55 n.c.
'settled the affairs of Jerusalem according to the wishes o f
Antipater' (Jos. Ant. xiv. 64).
It is, therefore, an inversion of the facts when Josephus
assigns to the initiative of Hyrcanus the services of
Antipater to Czesar in Egypt in 48-7 B.C. (Ant. xiv. 81,
d$ 6vro)lijs 'Tp,xavoF). There was, 'in fact, no alterna-
tive open, once Pompeius had fallen. An additional
reason for this policy was that in 49 B.C. Cresar had
attempted to use the defeated rival of Hyrcanus against
the Pompeian party in Syria. The plan was frustrated
by the poisoning of Aristobfilus even before he left
Rome, and by the execution of his son Alexander at
Antioch by the proconsul of Syria, Q. Metellus Scipio,
the father-in-law of Pompeius. Antigonus, the second
son of AristobCilus, still lived and had strong claims on
Caesar's gratitude. The personal services of Antipater,
however, carried the day ; he fought bravely and success-
fully for Caesar at Pelusium and in the Delta. Hyrcanus
was consequently confirmed in his high-priestly office
and appointed hereditary ' ethnarch ' of the Jews-i. e . ,
he was reinstated in the political authority of which he
had been deprived by Gabinius. Antipater was made
procurator (h?rfrpo?ros : not the procuratorship of the
imperial period, but an office delegated, in theory, by
Hyrcanus; cp Momms. Pruv. of R. Emp. 2174 11.).
In addition, he was granted Roman citizenship, and
freedom from taxation (immunitas; Jos. Ant. xiv. 8 3 ;
B/ i. 95).
The real control of the country was in the hands of Anti-
pater (Jos. Ant. xiv. 9 3 ; H i . 1053 ), who strengthened
his position by appointing Phasael and Herod (two of
his sons by Cypros, an Arabian ; A R ~xiv. . 7 3 ) governors
(UTpaTqyd)-the former in Jerusalem and the south, the
latter in Galilee (Ant. xiv. 92). This is the first occasion
on which we hear of Herod. He was at this time,
according to Josephus (Lc. ; cp B/ i. 104, ~0pt85v i o v ) ,
only fifteen years old. Probably we should read
' twenty-five,' for Herod was about seventy at the time
of his death ( B J i . 331 ; see Schur. Hist. 1383 n.).
Once again before his end Antipater had an oppor-
tunity of displaying that sagacity in choosing sides, to
which he owed his success.
In 46 I L C . , Crpciliun Tlaasui, a member of the Pompeian parly,
caused Sexrus L'NSX, the governor of Syria, to Le assassinnred,
2024
 HEROD, FAMILY O F
and made himself master of Syiia. H e was besieged in Apameia
by the Caesarians under C. Antistius Vetus who was assisted by
.
troops sent by Antipater (Jos. Ant. xiv. li I Dio Cass. 47 27).
The new governor L. Statius Murcus obtaihed no advantage
over Bassus and t i e siege continued 4ithout result when the
assassination of Caesar, and the arrival in Syria of Gains Cassius
Longinus one of his. murderers changed the aspect of affairs.
Both besiegers and besieged \;ent over to.Cassius and the
republican party was for a time at least, dominant intthe East.
The defacto rulers of Palestine Antipater and Herod, displayed
their zeal for the party in raisihg the 700 talents demanded as
the Jewish contribution to the republican war-chest (44 B.c.).
In the following year, after the withdrawal of Cassius,
Antipater fell a victim to poison administered at the
instigation of a certain Malichos.
The object of the conspiracy is not clear. Was Malichos a
leader of the Pharisaic section anxious for a reinstatement of the
old theocratic government under Hyrcanus (so Matthews, Hisf.
of NT Times in Palestine 106 ; cp Jos. Ant. xiv. 113, 7 t v
rodrou rfhsuri)v &u+o'harav avo^ T i j s kp i j s cTvar vopi<wv); or
was he prompted merely by ambition (so Zchiir. Ffist. 1 3 8 6 . cp
Jos. Bf i. 11 3, u m l i 8 w v bvshaiv 'Avdrrarpov ~ b 2pr6'diov
v a h i
TOTS b'dimjpauav, and ihid. 7) ? Or, thirdly, was he a patriot who
saw in the civil war an opportunity of getting rid of Roman
dominion altogether ; including both Antipater and [if necessary)
Hyrcanus, who were its representatives (cp Jos. B/ i. 118, end)?
Lastly, was Hyrcanus himself possibly privy to the murder of
Antipater ?
16. Hevod the Gvent.'-The services rendered by
Herod to the cause of Cassius were rewarded by his
3.Herod the appointment as stvatZgos of Coele-Syria
(Jos. H i . 114 ) ; it was typical of the man
Great, that he should have held this uosition
originally under the Czsarian governor, Sextus C m a r
(id.Ant. xiv. 95). Already in Galilee he had given
proof of his energy and ability, and at the same time of
his thorough enmity to anti-Roman sentiments, by his
capture and execution of Ezekias, a noted brigand chief
or patriot, who for long had harassed the Syrian border
(Jos. Bf i. 105). It was not long, however, beforc (41
B.c . , the year in which Antigonus. son of AristobChs
II., was defeated by Herod) Herod performed another
volte-face, the defeat of Brutus and Cassius at Philippi
having thrown all the East into the power of Antonius.
Partly hy reason of the friendship which there had been be-
tween Antonius and Antipater in the days of Gabinius, partly
also no doubt by reason of the remarkable similarity in character
between the Roman and the Idurnrean, Herod had no difficulty
in securing the thorough support of Antonius. Deputation after
deputation from the Sadducaean party (Jos. Ant. xiv. I? zJ)
appeared before Antonius with accusations against Phasael and
Herod ; but in vain. Hyrcanus himself was fain t o admit the
ability of the accused.
Antonius was only consulting the interests of peace
and good government in declaring both Phasael and
Herod tetrarchs (Ant.xiv. 131).
In the following year (40 B. c. ) Herod experienced the
strangest vicissitudes of fortune. The Parthians were
induced by Antigonus to espouse his cause.
They passed from Syria into Judaea, where the legitimists (k, who had been set at liberty, and was held in great
the aristocrats, in the main Sadducees) rallied round Antigonus, honour by the Babylonian Jews, was invited by Herod
who, seeing that Hyrcanus was hound hand and foot to the
hated Idumreans, was now the real representative of the Has-
monaean line. Hyrcanus and Phasael incautiously put them-
selves in the power of their enemies. The ears of Hyrcanus
were cut off in order to make it impossible for him ever again
to hold the high-priesthood (Jos. Ant. xiv. 1310). Phasael
happy in his knowledge that he had an avenger in his brothe;
who was free, dashed out his own brains.
Herod himself, too crafty to he deceived by the
Parthians, had made his escape eastwards with his
mother Cypros, his sister Salome, and Mariamme, to
whom he was betrothed : Mariamme was also accom-
panied by her mother, Alexandra. These Herod de-
posited for safety in the strong castle of Masada by the
Dead Sea (Ant.xiv. 1 3 9 ) . H e himself made his way
with difficulty to Alexandria, and at length arrived at
Rome, where he was welcomed both by Antonius and
by Octavian. Within a week he was declared king of
Judaea by the Senate ; his restoration indeed was to the
interest of the Romans, seeing that Antigonus had
allied himself with the Parthian enemy.
P. Ventidius, the legate of Antonius in Syria, succeeded
in expelling the Parthians from Syria and Palestine (Dio
1 For an earlier notice see above, $ z end.
2025
HEROD, FAMILY O F
Cass. 4841); but neither he nor his subordinate Silo
gave Herod real help in regaining Jerusalem.
Herod was in fact compelled to rest content for this year (39
B.c.) with the seizure of.Joppa, the raising of the blockade of
Masada and the extermination of the robbers (i.e patriots) of
Galilee ;n their almost inaccessible caverns of Ardila (Irhid,in
the Wady el-Hamdm see ARBELA5 I). Next year he joined
Antonius, then besieiing Antiochds, king of Commagene, in
Samosata, probably with the object of securing more effectual
assistance. At Daphne (Antioch), on his homeward journey, he
received iiews of the defection of Galilee, and the complete de-
feat and death of his brother Joseph a t the hands of Antigonus
It was not until the following year that the fall of
Samosata enabled Antonius to reinforce Herod before
Jerusalem with the bulk of his army under C. Sosius,
the new governor of Syria (37 B .c.). Herod chose
this moment for the celebration of his marriage with
Mariamme, to whom he had been betrothed for the
past five years ( A n t . xiv. 1514). The ceremony toolc
place at Samaria.l This central district of Palestine
remained loyal to Herod throughout these troublous
years, and a large part of his forces was recruited there-
from.
After a three months' siege Antigonus surrendered,
and was carried in chains to Antioch, where, by Herod's
wish, Antonius had him beheaded 2-the first king, we
are told, to he so dealt with by the Romans (Jos. Ant.
xv. l z ; Plut. Ant. 36). This was the end of the Has-
monzan dynasty, and from this year dates Herod's
reign (37 B. C. ).
Herod's reign is generally divided into three periods-
( I ) 37-25 B.C., in which his power was consolidated ;
( 2 ) 25-13 B.C., the period of prosperity ;
4. Rerod
( 3 ) 13-4 B .c., the period of domestic
asking. __
troiih1e.s
. I_
i. The consolidation of Neiod'spowev (37-25 B.c.).-
During the early years of his reign Herod had to con-
tend with several enemies.
I t is true that the immediate execution of forty-five of the
most wealthy and prominent of the Sanhedrin-;.e., of the
Sadducaean aristocracy, which favoured Antigonus (Jos. Ant.
xi". 9 4 , ?ra'vTar ~ T ~ T B W Wm i ) s Bv r4 uuvc8pkp ; cp id. A d . xv.
12, robs rp&rour & rijs a l p i u c w s 'AVTL6vou)-broke the active
resistance of the rival house, whilst &e confiscation of their
property filled the new king's coffers.
With the Pharisaic party resistance was of a more
passive nature; but the leaders of even the more
moderate section, Pollio and S a m ~ e a sin
, ~advising the
surrender of Jerusalem, could only speak of his dominion
as a judgment of God, to which the people must submit.
Opposition on the part of the surviving members of the
Hasmonrean house never ceased ; its mainspring was
Alexandra, Herod's mother-in-law, who found an ally
in Cleopatra of Egypt. The enmity of Cleopatra was
possibly due simply to pique (BJi.142, end). Hyrcanus,
to return to Jerusalem, and, on his arrival, was treated
with all respect by the king.4
As Hyrcanus could no longer hold the high-priesthood (Lev.
21 16x), Ananel, an obscure Babylonian Jew of priestly family
was selected for the post, which he occupied for a time ; but thk
machinations of Alexandra soon compelled Herod to depose
him in favour of Aristobolus (HI.), son of Alexandra (35 B.c.).
The acclamations of the populace, when the young Hasmonrean
prince (he was ouly seventeen years of age) officiated a t the
Feast of Tabernacles, warned Herod that he had escaped one
danger only to incur a greater.
Shortlyafterwards Aristobfiluswas drowned by Herod's
orders in the bath at Jericho.
Cleopatra constituted a real danger for Herod during
the first six years of his reign, owing to her boundless
rapacity and her strange influence over Antonius. In
34 B . C . she induced Antonius to bestow upon her the
whole of Phcenicia (with the exception of Tyre and
1 Mariamme was Herod's second wife. His first wife was
Doris (Jos. Ant. xiv. 12 I ; B/ i. 12 3 22 I). By her he had one
2026
 HEROD, FAMILY O F
Sidon), part of the Arabian territory (for the revenue of
which Herod was held responsible), and the valuable
district of Jericho (which Herod was compelled to take
in lease from the queen, for zoo talents yearly; BY
i. 185). Loyalty, combined with prudence, enabled the
harassed king to resist the fascinations of the Egyptian
enchantress when she passed through Judzsa (Ant. xv.
42).
When the Roman Senate declared war against
Antonius and Cleopatra, it was Herod's good fortune
not to be compelled to champion the failing cause. In
obedience to the wishes of Cleopatra herself, he was
engaged in a war with the Arabian king Malchus for no
nobler cause than the queen's arrears of tribute. On
the news of Octavian's victory at Actium (and Sept. 31
B.C. ), he passed over at once to the victorious side (Jos.
Ant. xv. 6 7 ; Dio Cass. 51 7). H e did not venture to
appear before Octavian until he had removed the aged
Hyrcanus on a feeble charge of conspiracy with Malchus
the Arabian (Ant. xv. 63). The interview upon which
his fate depended took place at Rhodes.
Herod accurately gauged the character of Octavian and
frankly confessing his past loyalty to Antonius, left 'it to
Octavian to say whether he should serve him as faithfully. It
should not be forgotten that Herod and Octavian were no
strangers to each other, and that no one was better able to
estimate the necessities of Herod's position during the past few
years than Octavian ; probably Herod was in less danger than
i s sometimes imagined.
The result was that Octavian confirmed Herods royal
title ; and, after the suicide of Antonius and Cleopatra,
restored to him all the territory of which the queen had
deprived him, together with the cities of Gadara, Hippos,
Samaria, Gam, Anthedon, Joppa, and Strata's Tower.
T h e 400 Celts who had formed Cleopatra's guard were
also given to him (BI i. 20 3). These external successes
were counterbalanced by domestic troubles.
These troubleshad their origin in the eternal breach between
Mariamme and her mother on the one side, and Herod's own
mother and sister on the other. The contempt of the Hasmon-
mns was returned with hatred by the Idumaean Salome. The
machinations of the latter bore fruit when in a paroxysm of
anger and jealousy Herod ordered Mariamme to execution.
Renewed conspiracy soon brought her vile mother also to her
doom (28 B.c.).
The extermination of the Hasmonaean family was
completed by the execution of Costobar, Salome's
second husband.
Salome's first husband Joseph had been put to death in 34 B.C.
Costobar, as governor of Idumaea, had given asylum to the sons
of Baba, a scion of the rival house ; these also were executed
and thus the last male representativesof the Hasmonaean l i d
were swept from Herod's path (25 B.c.).
ii. The period of Herods prospeui&, 25-13 B.C.-
Secure at last from external and internal foes, Herod
was free for the next twelve years to carry out his
programme of development. ' He was governing for
the Romans a part of the empire, and he was bound t o
spread western customs and language and civilisation
among his subjects, and fit them for their position in
the Roman world. Above all, the prime requirement
was that he must maintain peace and order ; the
Romans knew well that no civilising process could go
a n , so long as disorder and disturbance and insecurity
remained in the country. Herod's duty was to keep the
peace and naturalise the Graeco-Roman civilisation in
Palestine ' (Rams. W a s Christ born ut Bethlehem ? 174).
The great buildings were the most obvious fruit of
:this period.
Strato's Tower was entirely rebuilt (BY i. 21 5$), and furnished
.with a splendid harbour (see CXSAREA, $ I). Samaria also was
rebuilt and renamed Sebastb (Strabo 760). Both these k e s
,containeda temple of Augustus, and'R'erod showed his zeal for
*he empireby similar foundations in other cities, outside the limits
of Jndaea (Jos. Ant. xv.95). Connected with this was the
.establishment of games, celebrated every fourth year, in honour
of the Emperor ( A n f .16 5 I rbv Kaiuapi K a r d m w a c q p B a
.
.. . dyerv, at Caesarea; cb id. Ani. xv. 8 I ; also at Jerusalem,
iJid.).1 With this went, of course, the erection of the necessary
buildings (theatre, amphitheatre, and hippodrome at Jerusalem,
Anf.xv.81; BJii.31; thesameat Jericho, Anf.xvii.635; BJ
1 Cp Suet. Auf. 59 on the games and the 'Caesareae urbes'
%uiltby the 'reges amici atque socii.'
2027
HEROD, FAMILY O F
i.338; at Czsarea, Ant. xv. 96). The games were necessarily
after the Greek model. Even in the time of the Macccabees
Hellenism in this form had infected Jerusalem(1 Macc. 114) : see
HELLENISM.
The defensive system of the country was highly
developed, by the erection of new fortresses, or the re-
building of dismantled Hasmonaean strongholds. Some
of these fortresses were destined to give the Romans much
trouble in the great war (BJ vii. 64, vii. 8 2 J ) . They
were designed by Herod for the suppression of brigandage
(a standing evil) and the defence of the frontier against
the roving tribes of the desert (Ant.xvi. 92). So success-
ful was he in fulfilling this primary requirement, that in
23 B.C. Augustus put under his administration the
districts of Trachonitis, Auranitis, and Batanza, in-
habited by nomad robber-tribes, which the neighbouring
tetrarch Zenodorus had failed to keep in order (BJi. 204 ;
cp Strabo 756,mraXuO6vrwv vuvi rLjv mppi Zqv68wpov
XyurGv). In 20 B.C., on the death of Zenodorus,
Herod was given his tetrarchy, the regions of Ulatha
and Panias ( A n t . xv. IO3 ; cp Dio Cass. 549) ; and he
obtained permission to appoint his brother Pheroras
tetrarch of Persea. On Herod's work cp Momms.
Prov. of Rom. Emp. 2182.
Much might be said of Herod's munificence both to
his own subjects and far beyond the limits of his
kingdcfm.
The Syrian Antioch 0 0 s . Ant. xvi. 53) the cities of Chios
and Rhodes, the new foundation of Ankustus, Nicopolis in
Epirus, and many others, experienced Herod's liberality. The
Athenians and Lacedaemonians counted him among their bene-
factors (BJi. 21 I T ; cp C I A iii. 1550). The ancient festival at
Olympia recovered something of its old glory through his
munificence (Ant. xvi. 53). At home, in 20 B.c., he remitted
one-third of the taxes (Ant. xv. lO4), and in 14 B.C. one-fourth
(Ant. xvi. 25). In 25 B.C. he had converted into coin even his
own plate in order to relieve the sufferersfrom famine by im-
porting corn from Egypt (Ant. xv. 9 13).
The greatest benefit of all, however, in the eyes of
Jews must have been his restoration of the Temple, a
work which was carried out with the nicest regard for
the religious scruples of the nation (Ant. xv. 116).
Begun in 20 B. c., it was not entirely finished until the
time of the Procurator Albinus (62-64 A.D.), a few
years before its total destruction (cp Jn. 220). Its
beauty and magnificence were proverbial (cp Mt. 241
Mk. 131 Lk. 215).
iii. Period of domestic troubles, 13-4B.C.-The last
nine years of Herod's life were marked in a special
degree by domestic miseries. Of his ten wives (enumer-
ated in Jos. Ant. xvii. 1 3 ; BJ i. 284), the first, Doris (col.
2026 n. I), had been repudiated, along with her son
Antipater ( H i . 221). By his marriage with Mariamnie
Herod had hoped to give his position a certain legitimacy.
Mariamme's mother, Alexandra, was thedaughterof Hyrcanus
II., whilst her father, Alexander, was a son of Aristobiilns 11.
(brother of Hyrcanus) : consequently Mariamme represented
the direct line of the Hasmonaean (Maccabrean) family.
The political intrigues of Mariamme's mother, and
the mutual enmity of Mariamme and Herods mother
(Cypros) and sister (Salome), effeetually frustrated these
hopes. Of the three sons borne to Herod by Mari-
amme, the youngest died in Rome (BJi.222); but
Alexander and Aristobtilus were fated to die. on the e
gibbet at that very Sebaste which, thirty years before,
had seen Herods marriage with their mother.
Salome had in the second Gagedy also a large share, notwith.
standing the fact that Berenice, the wife of Aristobiilus,l was
her own daughter(by Costobar, see above, i. end). The recall of
the banished-Antipater, son of Doris, brought a more deadly in-
triguer upon the scene (14 B.C. ; BJ i. 23 I). Under the combined
attack of Antipater and Salome, the two sons of Mariamme
incurred the susDicions of the kinc. The reconciliation effected
by Augustus hihself (Ant.xvi. 4 5 : in 12 B.c.) at Aquileia, and
two years later by Archelaus, the Cappadocian king (Ant.
xvi. 86), had no long continuance. The elements of discord and
intrigue were reinforced by the arrival at Herod's court of the
Lacedmmonian adventurer Eurykles (BJi. 26 13). The brothers
were again accused of treason, and Augustus gave leave to Herod
1 The wife of Alexander was Glaphyra, daughter of Archelaus,
king of Cappadocia. Glaphyra and Berenice were also on
terms of bitterest enmity (BJi. 24zA).
2028
 HEROD, FAMILY O F
t o deal with them as he saw fit. They were tried at Berytus
before C. Sentius Saturninus, the governor of Syria (B3 i. 27 2)
and condemned to death. The execution took place a t Sehasti
(7 B.C.).
Antipater, whose life, says Josephus, was a ' mystery
,of iniquity' ( W i . 241), next plotted with Pheroras to
remove the king by poison. Herods days, indeed,
were already numbered, as he was afflicted with a
painful and loathsome disease ( H i . 335). He lived
long enough, however, to summon the arch-plotter
from Italy, and to bring him to trial before Quinctilius
Varus, then governor of Syria, and finally to re-
ceive the emperor's permission for. his execution (BY
i. 337)'
Herod is said to have contemplated the wholesale massacre of
the chief men of Judaea, in the hippodrome of Jericho, in order
-that his funeral might be accompanied by the genuine lamenta-
tions of the people ; but Salome released them during his last
days ( A d .xvii. 65). We may reasonably doubt whether Jewish
tradition has not intensified the colours in which the closing
scenes of the hated king's life are painted (Ant. xvii. 8 I).
Herod died in 4 B.c., five days after the execution of
Antipater. ' There is probably no royal house of any
age in which bloody feuds raged in an equal degree
between parents and children, between husbands and
wives, and between brothers and sisters' (Momms.
Prov. of Rom. Hmp. 2180).
We cannot here discuss the question whether Herod
is rightly called ' the Great. ' a Certainly it is not easy to
be strictly fair towards him : but so much must be clear,
that, judged. by the standard of material benefits con-
ferred, few princes have less reason to shrink from the
test. In addition to the benefits of his rule at home,
-there were gains for the Jews of the Dispersion in Asia
Minor. By his personal influence with Agrippa, he
.obtained safety for their Temple contributions, exemption
from military service, and other privileges (Jos. Ant.
xvi. 64f:). In estimating these services, Herod's posi-
tion in the imperial system must bereemembered.
Herod was only one of a large number of ' allied kings ' ( r e p s
socii), whose use even of the royal title was dependent upon the
goodwill of the emperor and their exercise of royal authority no
less s0.3 In the most kvourable case, their sovereign rights
were strictly limited within the boundaries of their own land
so that a foreign policy was impossible. The right of coinin;
money was limited : and as, of the Herodian line, only copper
coins are known, we must correct the impression of Herod's im-
portance derived from many of the statements of Josephus.
The fact that no tribute was imposed, at least upon Judza,
made all the more imperative Herod's obligations in respect of
.frontier defence and internal good government.
The-connection of Herod the Great with the NT is
.slieht. Both Mt. 1211 and Lk. 1211 agree that the
"
~. 5 , \ I "
Rerod in birth of Jesus took place during his reign :
but the additional information given by
the NT. Lk. as to the date has caused serious
difficulties (see CHRONOLOGY, 57fl). On the narra-
tive of the Massacre of the Innocents, see NATIVITY.
Herod made several wills. As a rex socius,indeed,
be could not bequeath his kingdom without the consent
sutc:zieon. of Rome. It-had been, therefore, a
distinct mark of favour that, on his visit
to Rome to accuse Alexander and Aris-
tobnlus, he had been given leave by Augustus to dispose
1 Antipater's wife was the daughter of Antigonus, the last of
the Hasmonaean kings (Ant.xvii. 52).
2 Josephus, in fact uses the title only once (Ant. xviii. 5 4,
'HpJjSn 73 peya'hw 0;yadppes I S MapiQpqs . ..
Further oh we hate 'HpJjSg 'HpJSou TOG peylhou radi). Com-
yivovraL SJo. but Herodias perhaps refused to tolerate a possible
parison with the expression 'Ehiias 6 p6ps in Ant. xviii. 8 4 has
suggested that Jos. meant by the title pbyw merely 'elder,'
marking himashead of the dynasty. Similarly it is in this sense
that it is applied to Agrippa I . (Ant. xvii. 22,. 'AypkFas ...
b pbyas xai b r a k a h a 0 K a i h p 6 v u ~ o s;) but Agrippa claimed the
title in the other sense (cp his coins with the legend B L Z U L A ~ S
p ' as 'Ayplmas). I t IS therefore not impossible that Jos.
dxberately abstained from giving the title, even though it was
popularly in use with reference to the first Herod. The verdict
that he was still only a common man' (Hitzig, quoted by Schiir.
Hist. 1467)scarcely does justice to one who for thirty-four years
combated the combined hatred of Hasmon;eans and Pharisees
and extended his frontier to the widest limit ever dreamed ck
hy Solomon.
3 Cp Jos. Ant. xv. 137, where Herod recognises that he has
his kingdom 66mi Kaluapos K& Sdypan 'Popaiwv.
2029
HEROD, FAMILY O F
of his kingdom as he saw fit (Ant.xvi. 45) : apparently
it was only on the express command of the emperor
that he refrained then from abdication.
On his return to Jerusalem he announced to the people
assembled in the temple that his sons should succeed him-firs;
Antipater, and then Alexander and Aristobdus. The first
formal testament did in fact' designate Antipater as heir. but
as the sons of MariaLme we;, then dead, Herod, the son th; bf
high priest's daughter, was to succeed in the event of Antipater's
dying before the king (Ant. xvii. 32). After Antipater's disgrace
a second will was made, bequeathing the kingdom to his youngest
son Antipas (Ant. xvii. 6 I). This was in its turn revoked by a
will drawn up in his last hours, by which he divided his realm
among three of his sons : Archelaus, to whom he left Judaea
with the title of king; Antipas, to whom he gave Galile;
aiid Peraea, with the title of tetrarch ; and Philip, to whom he
gave the NE districts, also with the title of .tetrarch (Ant. xvii.
8 I).
2. Herod Ant$us.-('Hp&%p (.$. [WH]) 6 TU -
padpxqs [Ti. WHI, Mt. 141 Lk. 3 1 19 9 7 Acts 131 : in.
correctly called 'king' in Mk. 6 14 b j3auAsQs
7. Antipas. ' H p d S ~ s(-+jS. [WH]) [Ti. WH] (so'also in,Mt.
14 g, o PamAws) ; cp Mk. 6 22 f: Sometimes
.
called simply Herod (Acts 4 27) as often by Josephus who also
calls him Antipas ['Av~[slirras,'an abbreviated form'of 'Avri.
rarposl).
Son of Herod the Great by the Samaritan Malthacg,
consequently full brother of Archelaus (Jos. Ant. xvii.
13): By Herod's last will he received the prosperous
regions of Galilee and PerEa, with the title of tetrarch.
The confederation of independent Graeco-Roman com-
munities called the Decapolis lay between the two parts
of his territory which brought in an annual revenue of
two hundred talents (Ant.xvii. 114). He had the char-
acteristically Herodian passion for building. In Galilee
he rebuilt Sepphoris (Ant.xviii. 21),and in Peraea Beth-
aramptha (see B ETH - HARAN ) ; and after 26 A.D. he
created the splendid capital named by him TIBERIAS
[g. w . ] . Little is told us of the course of his long reign
(4 B.C.-39 A . D . ) . We may believe that he was a
successful ruler and administrator ; but the diplomacy
which distinguished Herod the Great became something
far less admirable in Antipas, as we may see from the
contemptuous expression used of the tetrarch by Jesus
in Lk. 1332, ' G o ye, and tell that fox.'
Perhaps, however, this utterance should be restricted to the
particular occasion that called it forth and should not be
regarded as an epitome of the tetrarch's character ' nevertheless
we have an illustration of this trait in the story t o 6 by Josephus
(Ant. xviii. 45) of his out-manceuvring Vitellius in forwarding
the report of the treaty with the Parthian king Artabanus to
Tiberius. Antipas certainly did not inherit his father's qualities
as a leader in war.
Perhaps it was consciousness of his weakness in this
respect that prompted Antipas to seek the hand of the
daughter of the Arabian king Aretas ; or he may have
been urged to the alliance by Augustus, in obedience to
the principle enunciated with reference to the inter-
marriage of reges socii by Suetonius (Aug.48).
The connection with Herodias, wife of his half-brother
Herod (son of the second Mariamme), gained Antipas
his notoriety in evangelic tradition. The flight of the
daughter of Aretas to her father involved him ultimately
in hostilities with the Arabians, in which the tetrarch
was severely defeated-a divine punishment in the eyes
of .many, for his murder of John the Baptist (Ant.
xviii. 5 2). There was apparently no need for Antipas
to divorce his first wife in order to marry Herodias ;
rival (Ant. xviii. 5 I : cp Ant. xvii. 1
The story of the connection of J OHN THE BAPTIST
[ g . ~ . ]with the court of Antipas need not be repeated
here. Later, the Pharisees warn Jesus that the tetrarch
seeks his life (Lk. 13 31). On the phrase the leaven
of Herod ' (Mk.8 15) see H ERODIANS . Again in the
1 Since Herod Antipas is the only Herod who bore the title
of tetrarch, we must refer to him an inscription on the island of
Cos (CZG Z~OZ),and another on the island of Delos (BULLde
Cow.<HeZL. 3 365 f: ['79]); but nothing is known about his
connection with those places.
'
2 According to the Mishna S a d . 2 4 eighteen wives were
allowed to the king (see authokties quoteh by Schiir. Hist. 1455
n.).
2030
 HEROD, FAMILY O F
closing scene in the life of Jesus we meet with Antipas.
Pilate, we are told by Lk. ( 2 3 7 f . ) , sent Jesus to the
tetrarch ‘as soon as he knew that he belonged unto
Herod‘s jurisdiction. ’
The death of his firm friend Tiberius, and the
accession of Gaius (Caligula), in 37 A. D., led to the fall
of Antipas.
The advancement of Agrippa I. to the position of king over
Philip’s old tetrarchy by the new emperor was galling to his
sister Herodias ; and against his better judgment Antipas was
prevailed upon by her to go to Rome to sue for the royal title.
The interview with Gaius took place a t Baize. Agrippa
meanwhile had sent on his freedman Fortunatus with a document
accusing Antipas of having been in treasonable correspondence
not only with Seianus (who had been executed in 31 A . D .), bu;
also with the Parthian kine Artabanus. AntiDas could not. in
fact, deny that his magazines contained a great accumulation of
arms (probably in view of his war with the Arabians).
The deposition and banishment of Antipas, how-
ever, were in all probability due as much to the
caprice of the mad emperor as to real suspicions of
disloyalty.
His place of banishment was Lugdunum (Lyons) in Gaul
(Jos. A n t . xviii. 72); according to Bl’ii. 96, he died in Spain,l
and it has been suggested that his place of exile was actually
Lugdunum Convenarum, a t the northern foot of the Pyrenees,
near the sources of the Garonne; but this will not save the
statement of Josephus. A confused remark of Dio Cassius (59 8 )
seems to imply that he was put to death by Caligula.
3. Herod ArcheZaus.-(’ApX~haos [Ti. W H ] : Mt.
2z.f). Son.of Herod the Great by MalthacE, and
8. Archelaus, elder brother of Antipas (BY i. 33 7).
..
Antipas actuallv uut in a claim for the
crown against him before Augustus, on the ground
that he had been himself named sole heir in the will
drawn up when Herod was under the influence of the
accusations made by Antipater against Archelaus and
Philip (see 5 6). The majority of the people, under
the influence of the orthodox (the Pharisees), seized the
opportunity afforded by Herod‘s death to attempt to
re-establish the sacerdotal government under the Roman
protectorate. Herod was scarcely buried before the
masses in Jerusalem gathered with the demand for the
deposition of the‘high-priest nominated by him, and for
the ejection of foreigners from the city, where the
Passover was just about to be celebrated. Archelaus
was under the necessity of sending his troops among
the rioters. A deputation of fifty persons was sent to
Rome requesting the abolition of the monarchy. To
Rome also went Archelaus claiming the kingdom-a
journey which probably suggested the framework of the
parable in Lk. 19 1 .
3 Augustus practically confirmed
Herod’s last will, and assigned to Archelaus JudEa
proper, with Samaria and Idumaea, including the cities
of Czesarea, Samaria, Joppa, and Jerusalem; but the
royal title was withheld, at least until he should have
shown that he deserved it (Jos. Ant. xvii. 114 , BJii. 6 3).
The city of Gaza was excepted from this arrangement,
and attached to the province of Syria.
The proper title of Archelaus was ethnarch. Mt. 2 22 uses
the inaccurate expression ,9aurheJsL (and so Jos. A n t . xviii. 4 3
i, ;xrKarauraOdrs a h 4 pauLheBs ’A,iXihaos vlbs &v). The
troops indeed had saluted him as king on Herod’s death (Ant.
xvii. 8 2). but he refused to accept the title until it should be
confirmeh by Augustus (BY ii. 1I). Probably in popular speech
it was given as a matter of courtesy. The coins with HPDAOY
EONAPXOY must be his, for no other member of the family
bore the title; and, like Antipas, he used the family name of
Herod (so Dio - C a s . 56 27 calls him ‘Hp4$s b IIaharurhs.
Josephus never calls him Herod.)
.Of the details of the administration of Archelaus we
know nothing, nor apparently did Josephus. H e
indeed says that his rule was violent and tyrannical
(cp BJii. 7 3 , and Ant. xvii. 132, where he is charged
with d&qs and mpasvls). The description in the
parable is apt- Lk. 1921 (&pOpw?ros abmvpbs), and
hence we can the better imderstand the statement
in Mt. 222 respecting Joseph’s fear to go to Judzea.
Apparently Archelaus ‘did not take the pains to handle
gently the religious prejudices of his snbjects.
1 Niese, however, rejects the reading Xravia or ‘Iavada in
this passage, and restores I’aAALa from A n t . xviii. 7 2.
2031
HEROD, FAMILY O F
Not only did he depose and set up high-priests at his pleasure,l
but he also took to wife Glaphyra, the daughter of the
Cappadocian king Archelaus (probably between I B.C. and
4 A.D.). Glaphyra had been wife of Alexander, half-brother of
Archelaus, who was executed in 7 B.C. (see 5 4, iii.). Her second
husband was Juba, king of Mauretania, who was indeed still
living when she married Archelaus. Moreover, she had had
children by Alexander, and for this reason marriage with her was
unlawful.
After nine years of rule the chief men of J u d z a and
Samaria invoked the interference of the emperor, and
Archelaus was banished to Vienna (Vieme) in G a u l
(Ant. xvii. 132 ; cp Dio Cass. 55 ~ 7 ) . ~
It is to Archelaus that Strabo (765) refers when he says
that a son of Herod was living, at the time of his writing,
among the Allohroges, for Vienna was their capital town. If
the statement of Jerome (OS101 11)s that Archelaus’ grave was
near Bethlehem is trustworthy (cp RACHEL), he must have re-
turned to Palestine to die.
The territory of Archelaus was taken under the im-
mediate rule of Rome, and received a governor of its
own of the equestrian order ( P ~ T ~ O T O Sprocumtou,
, see
ISRAEL, § 90) ; but it was under the general supervision
of the imperial legate of Syria (on the status of Judaea
at this time, see Momms. PYOV.of R. Emp. 2 185, n.).
Forthwith, of course, the obligation to Roman tribute
fell upon the territory thus erected into a province
(hence, in Judza, Jesus was brought face to face with
the whole question of the compatibility or otherwise of
Judaism with the imperial claims: cp Mt. 2 2 1 5 8
Mk. 1 2 1 3 8 Lk. 2 0 2 0 8 ) .
4 . Herod Philip.-fHpq58qs, Jos. ; @iXi?r?ros, Mk.
6 17; see below.] Son of Herod the Great by Mariamme,
9. Herod daughter of Simon (son of B ~ e t h o s )whom,~
Herod made high priest (about 24 B.C.).
In spite of Mk. 617 (see below), we cannot
hold that he ever really bore the name Philip; the
confusion, which is doubtless primitive, arose from the
fact that the son-in-law of Herodias was called Philip
(see CLOPAS,9 2). Herod’s first will arranged that
Philip should succeed in the event of Antipater’s dying
before coming to the throne (see 8 6) ; but Philip was
disinherited owing to his mother’s share in Antipater’s
intrigues (Ant. xvii. 4 2, BJ i. 30 7). ‘ Philip ’ lived and
died, therefore, in a private station, apparently in Rome
(Ant. xviii. 51); for it seems to have been in Rome
that his half-brother Antipas saw Herodias. It is
indeed only in connection with his wife Herodias, sister
of Agrippa I., that the name of this Herod occurs in
the NT.
In Mk. 0 17 all MSS read ‘his brother Philip’s wife ’ ( ‘ v
yvvaEKa @~himravTOP b8ehgoii a h ; ) , from which it w o J d
appear that this Herod also bore the name Philip. When,
however, we find that Josephus knows only the name Herod
for him (cp Ant. xvii. 13, 7 Bvyhrq TOP bpx~spdws,26 ?js s? Kat
b a h p o s a&& =ais ysy6va), and tgat another son of Herod the
&eat also cer‘tainly bore the name Philip (see $ TI), suspicion is
aroused and this is confirmed when we find that ‘ of Philip’ is
omitted’ in Mt. 1 4 3 by D and some Lat. MSS (followed b y
Zahn Einl. 2309) whilst in Lk.319 it is omitted by NBD.
That’ Lk. .does Lot give the name is highly significant. An
appeal to the fact that several sons of Herod the Great bore the
name Herod cannot save the credit of Mt. and Mk. in this
particular ; for Herod was a family and a dynastic title.6
The coexistence in the family of the names Antipas and
Antipater is also no argument, for they are in fact different
names.
5. Herodias.-(‘Hpw8r$s [Ti.], -48. [WH] : Mt.
1 H e deposed Joazar because of his share in the political
disturbances, and appointed his brother Eleazar. Soon Jesus
took the place of Eleazar. Finally Joazar wss reinstated (Ant.
xviii. 2 I).
2 6 TE ‘HpJ81)s b TIaAaaLurhs, alriav T L U ~h b 7Gv b8eAr#&
Aaphu, ; a l p ~ h s’Ahreis Sx~pwpiuBq,Kal rb pLpos T$S Appx$s
a h 0 287pourJB7.
3 Sed e t propter eandem Bethleem reg6 pxondanz Judmz
Archelai tuinulus ostenditur.
4 So Jos. Ant. xv. 9 3. In other places Boethos is the name
of her father. The family belonged originally to Alexandria.
5 The name was borne not only by Archelaus (see his coins,
cp $ 8) and Antipas (see $ 7), after their rise to semi-royal
dignity hut also by two sons of Herod the Great who never
attained thereto-viz., the subject of this section, the son of the
second Mariamme, and also one of the sons of Cleopatra of
Jerusalem (Jos. Ani. xvii. 13, B/i. 284).
2032
 HEROD, FAMILY O F
143-12 Mk. 617-29 Lk. 319). Daughter of Aristobdus
(Herods second son by Mariamme,
lo. granddaughter of Hyrcanus). Her
mother was Bernice (Berenice), daughter of' Salome,
Herod's sister. Herod of Chalcis (see 12), Agrippa I.,
and the younger Aristobiilus, were therefore full brothers
of Herodias. According to Josephus (Ant. xviii. 5 4 ) she
was wife first of her half-uncle Herod (see preceding
section), who is erroneously supposed to have been
also called Philip. The issue of this marriage was
the famous Salome who danced before Herod Antipas,
and thus became the instrument of her mother's venge-
ance upon the Baptist. Herodias deserted her first
husband in order to marry his half-brother Antipas,
thus transgressing the law (cp Lev. 1816 Dt. 255).
In Mk. 6 22 the reading 'his daughter Herodias ' (ec8vyaTpbr
a h 0 0 'H o8rd8os [WHl).is that of KBDLA. This would make
the girl kughter of Antipas and Herodias, bearing her mother's
name. Certainly the expression applied to her in the same
verse (Kopa'mov)is in favour of this : conversely if the ordinary
reading which designates the dancer as Salomeis accepted we
must admit a great disparity in age hetween her and her krst
husband Philip the tetrarch if she is rightly called Kopa'otov
ahout 28 A.D. ; for Philip died in 34 A.D. at the age of sixty or
thereabouts. As the protest of John th2Eaptist in referenc; to
the marriage by no means compels us to assume that the union
was recent, it is scarcely possible to maintain that a daughter
hy it must have been too young to dance at a banquet. In our
ignorance of the chronology of the reign of Antipas a solution is
not to he had; though it is always possible by means of
assumptions to create a scheme that fits in with the received
reading (cp Schiir. Hist. 2 28 n., and authorities there quoted).
It would scarcely be just to ascribe the action of
Herodias solely to ambition; it was rather a case of
real and intense affection. I t is true that it was
Herodias who goaded her husband, in spite of his
desire for quiet and in spite of his misgivings (Ant.
xviii. 7 z ) , to undertake the fatal journey to Rome ; but
she made what amends she could by refusing to accept
exemption from the sentence of exile pronounced upon
her husband by the emperor. See above, 7.
6 . Phizip. -(+lXm?ros, Lk. 31, @iXlmrou 6h ...
rerpaapxoikos res 'Iroupalas Kal TpaxwviriGos Xdpas
[Ti. WH].) Son of Herod the Great by
Cleopatra, a woman of Jerusalem (Jos.
Ant. xvii. 13, Kheorrdrpa ' I E ~ o u o X U ~ ~ ~HLeS )was .~
left in charge of Jerusalem and Judaea when Archelaus
hastened to Rome to secure his inheritance, but sub-
sequently appeared in Rome in support of his brother's
claims (BJii. 61). By the decision of Augustus in
accordance with the terms of Herod's last will (see 6 ) .
Philip succeeded to a tetrarchy consisting of Batanaea,
Auranitis, Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, and the district of
Panias (which last is, apparently, what Lk. 31 calls
'the Iturzan region,' though not indeed the whole. of
it). Cp ITURBA.This list is obtained by combining
the different statements in Josephus (Ant. xvii. 81 114
xviii. 46,BYii. 63). Thus Philip's territory embraced the
poorest parts of his father's kingdom-those lying E.
and NE. of the sea of Galilee as far as Mt. Hermon :
the annual revenue from it was estimated a t one
hundred talents2 The population was mixed, but was
mostly Syrian and Greek-;.e., it was predominantly
pagan.
Hence Philip's coins bear the image of Augustus or Tiberius
contrasting in this respect with those of Herod the Great (whicd
have neither name nor image of the emperor) and those of
Antipas (some of which bear the emperor's name, without his
image). In addition, all the coins of Philip bear the image of a
temple (the splendid temple of Augustus built by Herod the
Great near the Grotto of Pan--.rb TIa'veLov-at the source of the
Jordan : cp Jos. 'Ant.xv. 10 3, BY i. 21 3).
Having been brought up, like all Herod's sons,
at Rome, Philip's sympathies were entirely Roman.
Owing to the non-Jewish character of his territory his
Hellenistic and Roman policy was more successful than
was the case with his brothers. Of the events of his
1 Jos. Ant. xvii. 8 I inaccurately describes Philip as full
brother of Archelaus-'ApXdhLov k.SeA+G yvqurp.
2 The Greek cities of the Decapolis dere, of course, outside
Philip's jurisdiction.
2033
HEROD, FAMILY O F
thirty-seven years of rule ( 4 B.C.-34 A.D.) we know
indeed nothing beyond the summary given by Josephus.
' His rule was marked by moderation and quiet and his whole
life was spent in his own territory. His piogresses were
attended by a few chosen friends, and the seat on which he
sat to give judgment always followed him ; so that when any
one, who wanted his assistance, met him he made no delay, hut
.set down the tribunal wherever he mirrht - be,. and heard the
case' (Ant. xviii. 46).
P h i h seems to have had scientific leaninzs. iudeinr from t h e
story told of his supposed discovery and pi%< thzt't%e-&ii&
of the Jordan were really connected by a subterranean passage
with the circular lake called Phiale ( @ ~ d A v ,Birkst Ram?),
120 stades from Caesarea (SIiii. 10 7).
Apart from his evident administrative ability, Philip
retained only one quality of his race-the passion
for building. Early in his rule he rebuilt Panias
(IIavids, IIaveds), at the head-waters of the Jordan,
and named it Caesarea; he also created the city
of Julias, formerly the village of Bethsaida. See
CESAREA, 7 8 ; BETHSAIDA, I. H e was only
once married-to Salome, the daughter of Herodias-
and died without issue. After his death his territory was
attached to the province of Syria, retaining, however,
the right of separate administration of its finances (Ant.
xviii. 46). Gaius on his accession (37 A.D.) gave i t
to Agrippa I. with the title of king.
7. Herod Agrippa Z.-(('Hp$&p [Ti.], -36. [WH],
Acts ; 'Aypfmras, Josephns and Coins).
Son of Aristobalus (Herod the Great's son by
Mariamme I . ) and Bernice (daughter of Salome,
la. Herod Herod the Great's sister: Jos. Ant.
*' xviii. 5 4). H e was called after his grand-
father's friend Agrippa (see 4).
Shortly before the death of Herod the Great, Agrippa and
his mother were sent to Rome, where they were befriended by
Antonia, widow of the elder Drusus (brother of the emperor
Tiberius). Agrippa and the younger Drusus (the emperor's
son) became fast friends' but when Drusus died, in 2 3 A . D .
Agrippa found himself odliged to leave Rome with nothing bui
the memory of his debts and extravagances. He retired to
Rlalatha, a stronghold in Idumaea, and meditated suicide ; but
his wife Cyprosl appealed to his sister Herodias, with the
result that Antipas gave him a pension and the office of
Agorunornos (controller of the market) at Tiberias. Before
very long there was a quarrel, and Agrippa resumed his career
as adventurer. For a time he was with the Roman governor
Flaccus in Antioch; but ultimately he arrived again in Italy
(36,,A.D.), after running the gauntlet of his creditors ( A t k
xviii. 6 3). He attached himself to Gaius the grandson of
Antonia. An incautiously uttered wish for the speedy ac-
cession of Gaius (Caligula) was overheard and reported to the
old emperor, and Agrippa lay in prison during the last six
months of Tiherius.
Caligula, on his accession (37 A.D.) a t once set
Agrippa free, and bestowed upon him what had been
the tetrarchy of his half-uncle Philip, together with that
of Lysanias (viz., ABILENE [p.v.] Lk. 31 ; cp Dio Cass.
598), with the title of king (cp Acts 121) and the right
to wear the diadem; he also presented him with a
golden chain equal in weight to his iron fetters (Ant.
xviii. 6 IO). The Senate conferred upon him the honorary
rank of praetor (Philo, in FZucc. 6). Three years
later he obtained the forfeited tetrarchy of Herod
Antipas (Ant.xviii. 7 2). H e adroitly used his influence
with the emperor to induce him to abandon his mad
design of erecting a statute of himself in the temple at
Jerusalem (Ant.xviii. 8 7).2 Agrippa wasin Rome when
Gaius fell by the dagger of Chaerea (Jan. 41 A . D . ) ,
and by his coolness a t a critical moment contributed
largely to securing the empire for Claudius (Ant.
xix. 4 15 ). In return for this service he received Judaea
and Samaria, being also confirmed in his previous
possessions ; 'he also obtained consular rank (Ant.
1 Cypros was daughter of Phasael, whose wife was his cousin
Salampsio, Herod the Great's daughter by the Hasmonzan
Mariamme.
2 Apparently this abandonment was only temporary : a
peremptory decree was finally sent, and the crisis was averted
only by the emperor's assassination. The account given by
Josephus of the manner of Agrippa's intervention differs from
that given by Philo Leg. udCuircm, g jsfi, and seems worked
up on conventional'lines-this romantic apocryphal element is
very conspicuous in the whole account of Agrippa's life.
2034
 HEROD, FAMILY OF
xix. 5 1 ; B.7 ii. 115 ; Dio Cass. 608, np&s hra7rKhr
Cverps). These grants were confirmed by solemnities
in the Forum (cp Suet. Claud. 25). For his brother
Herod he obtained the grant of the kingdom of Chalcis
in Lebanon. In part also at least his influence must be
seen in the edicts published by Clandins in favour of
the Jews throughout the empire, freeing them from
those public obligations which were incompatible with
their religious convictions. In pntting under Agrippa
the whole extent of territory ruled by his grandfather,
' it was certainly the design of Claudius to resume the
system followed at the time of Herod the Great and to
obviate the dangers of the immediate contact between
the Romans and the Jews ' (Mommsen, Prow. of I?. Em?.
22w).
Now began the second period in Agrippa's life, in
which the spendthrift adventurer appears as a model
of Pharisaic piety. He began his three years of actual
rule with significant acts-the dedication in the temple
of the golden chain received from Gaius, the offering of
sacrifices in all their details, and the payment of the
charges of a great number of Nazirites (cp Acts 21 24).
' He loved to live continually in Jerusalem, and strictly
observed the laws of his country, keeping himself in
perfect purity, and not allowing a single day to pass
over his head without its sacrifice' (Jos. Ant. xix. 7 3 :
so in the Talmud, if the references are not in part to the
younger Agrippa). His appeal to Petronius, governor
of Syria, in the matter of an outrage against Judaism
in the Phoenician town of Dora was based on general
grounds of policy and national self-respect, and need
not be traced specially to his correct attitude with
regard to Pharisaism. It was undoubtedly a conse-
quence of this attitude that, though of a mild disposi-
tion ( A n t . x i x . 7 3 ) , he began a persecution of the
Christians (Acts 121). James the great was sacrificed,
and Peter escaped only by a miracle.
Agrippa's action against the Christians is supposed by some
to have been due to the famine over ' all the world ' (Acts 11A),
a generalisation which cannot be entirely defended by the as-
siduz sten'litates that marked the reign of Claudius (Suet.
Claud. IS), or the enumeration of the occasions mentioned hy
.other authors (in Rome, a t the beginning of his reign, Dio
.
Cass. GO I I in Greece in his eighth or ninth year, Eus. Chr.
2 152. in kome in ds eleventh year, Tac. Ann. 12 43. Cp
Zahn,' Einl. 2 4;s). Just a s little can we defend the words
..
, ~ O J ! ~ ~ W U T L S K ~ U ~ O&Vr & p 8 e aa'wa of the inscr. of Apol-
lonia in Galatia referring to famine in,Asia Minor in 57 A . D .
(CIG 3973;. Rams. Stud. Oxon. IV., 96, p. 5 2 5 ) . The ex-
aggeration IS natural. I t is indeed true that often subsequently
public calamities were the signal for persecution (cp Blass, Act.
Apost. Z.C.); but the famine referred to in the prophecy of
Agabus occurred in 45-46 A . D . (CF Rams. PauZ fhTraveller,
pp. 49, 68), after the death of Agrippa. Nevertheless the latest
date that will fit the prophecy is 41 A . D . , if not earlier. Such
a prophecy might well be regarded outside the Christian circle
as a threat.
The outspoken Jewish sympathies of the king cost
him the affection of the towns that adhered to the
Romans, and of the troops organised in Roman
fashion : at any rate the report of his death was re-
ceived with outrageous jubilation on the part of the
troops in Czesarea on the coast (KawapeTs Kal Zepau-
T@, Jos. Ant. xix. 9 I xx. 8 7).
The striking incident recorded in the Mishna (.%$a, 78) is to
b e referred to this Agrippa rather than to Agrippa 11. When
at the Feast of Tabernacles (consequently in 41 A.D.) he read,
accordina to custom. the Book of Deuteronomv. ~,he burst into
tears xt-the pasing& 'Thou mnyest not set a stranger over
thee, which is not thy brother' (Ut. 17 15) : hut the pcuple cried
out, ' n e n a grieved, Aqrippn ! Thou a r t our brother !' 1
The question as to how far Agrippa was sincere in
all this is difficult.
I t must be remembered that Agrippa was not only a vassal
king (see I 4), but a Roman citizen, belonging by ado tion to
the Gens ZuZia (cp the inscr. quoted under BERENICE, anXSchiir.
H5t. 2 162 n.), so that he owed concessions to the imperial
system that were not in strictness compatible with his position
a s a Jewish monarch. This fact must have been recoguised by
the strictest Jew (always excepting the fanatical Zealots), who
must perforce have tacitly consented to the king's playing on
behalf of the nation two contradictory parts. I t is true, the
1 Strictly justified by Dt.Z3[7]8J
2035
HEROD, FAMILY O F
difficulty with which he had to grapple was only the standing
problem of his house. As compared with his grandfather, how.
ever, he had this advantage-that rival claims were silenced.
or rather in his own person he combined those of both Has:
monaeans and Herodians. At the same time, his long residence
in Rome, where he had been in closest contact with the main.
spring of the imperial machinery, had given him an insight into
the possibilities of his rule far superior to that possessed by any
other member of the family. Two episodes of his reign show
clearly that he grasped these possibilities. On the N. of
Jerusalem he began the building of a wall which, if completed,
would have rendered the city im regnable to direct assault. I t
was stopped by the emperor 011 &e report of C. Vibius Marsus
who, as governor of Syria, had the duty of watching the imperiai
interests in the protected states in his neighhourhood (Jos.
Ant. xix. 7 z ; cp Tac. Hist. 5 12). Of still greater significance
was the conference of vassal princes of Rome assembled by
Agrippa a t Tiberias, viz. Antiochus of Commagene, Sampsi-
ceramus of Emesa Cotys of Armenia Minor, Polemon of
Pontus, and Herod 'of Chalcis. This was rudely broken up by
Marsus himself (Ant. xix. 8 I).
The skill with which Agrippa brought into alliance
with himself the Pharisaic element, which, alike in its
moderate and in its extreme forms, constituted the
backbone of the nation, Kith the intention of finding
therein a basis for a really national policy, proves him
to have possessed statesmanlike qualities even superior
to those of Herod the Great. His premature death
prevented the realisation of his schemes; but it is at
least doubtful whether we shall not be right in holding
that the glory of the Herodian rule reached its real
culmination in Agrippa's reign.
Of Agrippa's death we have two accounts.
According to Josephus he went to Caesarea in order to
celebrate games in honou: of the emperor (Ant. xix. 8 2, ;&p
rijs ~ K & O V uovpias-which can only refer to the safe return
of Claudius from his victorious British expedition ; spring of
44 A . D . : cp Dio Cass. GO 23 ; Suet. C l a d . 17). The leading
men of the kingdom were there gathered (Acts1220 mentions
particularly a deputation from T re and Sidon, introduced by
' Blastns, the. king's chamberlain 3. On the second day of the
festival, as be entered the theatre clad In a robe of silver tissue
gleaming in the sun, Agrippa was saluted by his courtiers as
more thanynortal. The shouts of 8c6s and &qs, as if to
a divine being, remind us of Acts 12 22, 'a god's voice and not
man's' ( 0 4 +o+ Ka\L O&K bvOp&lrou). Shortly afterwards
looking upwards, the king spied an owl sitting over his head
on one of the ropes, and recognised it as the messenger of doom 1
(alluding to the omen which, during his early imprisonment
portended his good fortune, Ant. xviii. 6 7). He was seized a;
that instant with severe pains, and in five days he was dead.
Though more detailed, this account agrees substantially with
that in the NT.
It has been suggested, however, that the two narra-
tives are actually connected with each other, and that
the intermediate stage is marked by the rendering of
the story in Eusebius (HE210), in which the owl of
Josephus appears as an angel. The narrative of Acts
is not without its apocryphal features.
Note especially the expression 'he was eaten of worms'
(v.23, yev6pwos u ~ o A q ~ d / 3 p o ~ o sFor
) . this there is no warrant
in Josephus, who describes perhaps an attack of peritonitis
L O V66Jqv, d0povu 8' a h + rijs KoLhias apou-
(,cp B L ~ K ~ ~ ~;u,yev
e+umv Bhyrlpa fie& u+o8pdrqros bp&evov). To be eaten
of worms was the conventional ending of tyrants and monu-
mental criminals ( e . ~ . Pheretime,
, queen of Cyrene, Herod.
4 205 ; Sulla the Dictator, Plut., who gives other instances.
Antiochns Epiphanes, 2 Macc. 9 9, hut not in I Macc. G 8 ; t h i
end of Herod the Great is evidently regarded as very similar).
I n this way tradition, Christian and pagan, took its revenge.
8. Herod A g ~ @ a (2. -('byphrar b pauiXeds
[Ti. WH], Acts 2 5 1 3 ; pau. Ayp., 262. 'Ayp. 6
veDrepos, and after his accession 'Ayp.
13. Herod
AgrippaII. simply, or d pau. 'Ayp. in Jos. His full
name, Marcus Julius Agrippa, is found
on coins and inscriptions, see re& in-Schur. Hist.
2 191 n. ).
Son of Agrippa I. and Cypros. He was only seven-
teen years old at the time of his father's death, and
Zlaudius, though personally inclined to the contrary,
was advised not to allow him to succeed to his father's
kingdom ( A n t .xix. 9 I ) .
 HEROD, FAMILY O F
1411 n.). ' The Claudian government had here, as elsewhere
lighted on the right course, but had not the energy to carry i;
out irrespective of accessory considerations ' (Momms. Prow. of
Rom. Enzp. 2 201). The death of the elder Agrippa, in fact,
had as its consequence the final absorption of all Palestine
west of the Jordan (with the exception of certain parts of
Galilee subsequently given to his son) within the circle of
directly-governed territory (Tac. Hisf. 5 9).
Agrippa 11. resided in Rome, where he was able to
use his influence with some effect on behalf of the Jews
(Ant.xx. 1 2 6 3 ) . His uncle, Herod of Chalcis, had
been invested by Claudius with the superintendence of
the temple and the sacred treasury, together with the
right of nominating the high priest (Ant. xx. 1 3 ) ; on
his death in 48 A.D. these privileges were transferred to
'
Agrippa 11. Agrippa also received his uncle's kingdom
of Chalcis (50 A . D . : BJii. 121). Four years later he
surrendered this, and received in return what had been
the tetrarchy of Philip (viz. Batanaea, Gaulonitis, and
Tracbonitis), with Abila, which had been the tetrarchy
of Lysanias (BJii.128). This was in 53 A. D . This
realm was further enlarged by Nero, who conferred
upon him the cities and territories of Tiberias and
Taricheae on the sea of Galilee, and the city of Julias
with fourteen surrounding villages (BJii. 132 ; Ant.
xx. 84). This accession of territory was made prob-
ably in 56 A. D. (see Schur. Hist. 2 194 n.).
Agrippa gratified his hereditary passion for building
by the improvement of his capital Caesarea (Philippi),
which he named Neronias (see his coins), and by adding
to the magnificence of the Roman colony of Berytus
(Ant.xx.94). In all other directions his hands were
tied, and the history of the previous few years must have
convinced him that it was no longer possible for a Jewish
king to play any independent part. It is probable that
his general policy should be ascribed to astuteness rather
than to ' indolence and general feebleness ' (Schur. Hist.
2196). By training he was far more a Roman than a
Jew.Z Occasionally, indeed, he yielded to the claims of
his Jewish descent (see, however, col. 754, top) ; but as
a rule he was utterly indifferent to the religious interests
of his time and country, and the subtleties of the scribes
can only have amused him.
(See Gritz, ' Agrippa 11. und der Zustand Judaa's nach dern
Untergang Jerusalems,' MGWJ 30481-48g ['81]).
In Acts 25 13-2632 we have a n interesting account of
a n appearance of Paul before the Jewish king and the
Roman governor Festus a t Caesarea. T h e utterance of
Agrippa in 2628 has been well explained by B. Weiss
(At.-gesch., in 'Texte u. Untersuch. zur Gesch. der alt-
Christ. Lit.' ix. 3 4). Inaccordance with what we know
of Agrippa's character, it must be viewed as a virtual
repudiation of that belief in the prophets which was
attributed to him by Paul. I King Agrippa ! believest
thou the prophets,' Paul,had said ; ' I know that thou
believest ' (v. 27). The gently ironical rejoinder amounts
to this .: ' on slight grounds you would make me a believer
in your assertion that the Messiah has come.' (For
another view see CHRISTIAN, N AME OF, col. 754, n. I ).
Agrippa did all in his power to restrain his country-
men from going to war with Rome and rushing on
destruction (Blii. 164) ; and he steadfastly maintained
his own loyalty to Rome, even after his Galilaean cities
joined the revolutionary party. There was no other
course to pursue. The catastrophe was inevitable : the
last of the Herods could not help witnessing, and to
some extent aiding it. For a time he was at Rome :
but on his return to Palestine he went to the camp of
Titus, where he remained until the end of the war.
Probably he was present at the magnificent games with
which Titus celebrated at Caesarea (Philippi) his con-
quest of Jerusalem (BY vii. 21). On the conclusion of
the war Agrippa's dominions were extended in a northerly
1 There is indeed no mention of the conferring of the right
of appointing the high priest ; but Agrippa is found exercising
it (Ant.xx. 8811,etc.).
2 His coins, almost without exception, bear the name and
image of the reigning emperor-Nero, Vespasian, Titus, and
Domitian.
2037
HEROD, FAMILY O F
direction. In 75 A.D. he went to Rome, and was raised
to the rank of praetor (Dio Cass. 66 15). We know that
he corresponded with Josephus about the latter's History
of the Jewish W a y , which he praised for its accuracy
(Jos. Vit. 65 ; c. A$. 19). He appears to have died in
Trajan's third year (100 A . D . ) . He left no descendants ;
perhaps, indeed, he was never married. His domains
were incorporated in the province of Syria.
9. Berenice. - ( B e p v l ~ v [Ti. W H ] : the Mace-
donian form of ' ~ B P E V ~ K Q . ) The oldest of the three
14. Berenice daughters of Agrippa I. (Jos. Ant. xix.
She was betrothed to Marcus, son
(Bernice). 91).
of Alexander the Alabarch ; but he died
before the marriage took place (Ant.xix. 5 I ). About
41 A . D . , being then about thirteen years old, Berenice
became the second wife of her uncle Herod of Chalcis,'
by whom she had two sons, Bernicianus and Hyrcanus
(BJii. 116). When Herod died in 48 A.D. Berenice
joined her brother in Rome, and black stories were
circulated as to their relationship.2 With the object of
giving these rumours the lie, Berenice at length,3 by
means of her wealth, induced Polemon II., king of
Cilicia, to be circumcised and to marry her ; but she
soon deserted him (66' citcohaulav, hs C@aaav,Jos. xx. 7 3 )
and returned to Agrippa. She accompanied him on his
visit to Festus, as above related (see 3 13. Acts2523,
p a d rrohhiis @avrauias, ' with great pomp,' refers
especially to her, as is clear from the order of the words).
She is next heard of in Jerusalem, fulfilling a ' vow of
a Nazirite' (cp Nu. 61f.). That she inherited the
personal courage which distinguished her family was
shown by her brave attempt, at the risk of her life, to
stay the massacre ordered by Florus, the last and worst
of the procurators of Judzea (BJii. 151). Her sympathy
was not allowed to blind her to the prudent course ; but,
like her brother, she was an ardent supporter of the
Roman cause, and of the Flavian dynasty in particular
(Tac. Hist. 281). She was, in fact, a Jewish Cleopatra
( 'on a small scale,' Momms. Prow. of Rom. Emp. 2219)~
and Titus, as early apparently as 67 A . D . , had fallen a
victim to her charms ; his return to JudEa from Corinth
in order to concert measures with his father on the
downfall of Galba was ascribed by gossip to his
passion (Tac. Hist. 22, 'accensum desiderio Berenices
regin='). The intimacy was renewed in Rome in 75
A . D . Berenice lived on the Palatine with him as his
wife (Dio Cass. 6615, rrdvra ~ S T hs J K U ~yuv? a h 0 6 o8ua
&roie~),and it was said that Titus bad promised to make
her his consort (Suet. Tit. 7). He was, however, too
shrewd to endanger his popularity by opposition to the
public feeling, and insisted upon her departure from
the capital. After Vespasian's death she returned ; but
Titus took no notice at all of her-she had played for
an empire, and lost.4
To these notices of her life we can only add the inscription
found in Athens (CIG361=CIA 31, no. 556): 'H pouX+ $
Apelou r&pu i a i 6 pouhiq 7i)v x' mi 6 Bipos 'Iovhiav Bepwein)v
pauLhcuuav pcybhqv, 'Iouh~ou'Ayplrrru p a u i h b s Buyarkpa K a i
peybhwv ;Baurh&v eB~pye7iUvT$S ahheos ; K ~ O V O V .
IO. Drusilla (Apouulhha [Ti. WH], Acts2424. A
diminutive form, from Drusus : like Priscilla, Acts 182).
15. Drusilla, The youngest of the three daughters of
Agrippa I.,5 born about 38 A. D . (Jos.
I His first wife was Mariamme, a granddaughter of Herod the
Great ; by her he had one son Aristobiilus (Ant. xviii. 5 4).
2 The scandal was evidendy current in Roman fashionable
circles (Ant. xx. 7 3, 4ljpqs ~ r r u , y o v ' m ~ s~ ;, T L7&8.6eh++w v r i q ; cp
JUV. Sat. 6 1 5 6 x -
.
'. . adamas notissimus et Beronices
I n digito factus pretiosior : hunc dedit olim
Barbarus incest=, dedit hunc Agrippa sorori
Observant ubi festa mer0 pede sabhata reges:
Et vetus indulget senihus clementia porcis ').
3 rohhv xp6vov &L pav'uaua : Jos. Ant. xx. 7 3.
4 Dio Cass. 66 I S ; g e t . Lc., 'Berenicen statim ab urbe dimisit
invitus invitam ; Aur. Vict. Epit. IO. Dio Cas&s alone clearl;
distinguishes the two occasions.
5 The second daughter, Mariamme, is not mentioned in the
NT. For her career, curiously parallel to that of her sisters, see
Ant.xx.73.
2038
 HEROD, FAMILY O F
Ant. xix. 91). She was betrothed by her father to
Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, king of Commagene ; but
he refused to be circumcised, and the marriage did not
take place. After Agrippa 11. received his kingdom from
Claudius, he gave his sister in marriage to Azizus, king
of Emesa, on condition of his accepting circumcision.
Antonius Felix, brother of the emperor’s powerful freed-
man Pallas, was captivated by her beauty,l and em-
ployed as his agent in seducing her affections one Simon,2
a Cypriote, who had the reputation of being a magician
(some would identify him with Simon Magus of Acts
89). Partly in order to escape the persecutions of her
sister Rerenice, who was jealous of her beauty, Drusilla
deserted her husband and became the third wife of Felix,
who was then procurator of Jurlzea (for his character,
see Tac. Hist. 59 ; Ann. 1254 ; Suet. Claud. 28, ‘ trium
reginarum maritus’). This was in 53 A . D . I t is not
always realised that Drusilla can only have been about
sixteen years old at the time.
In Acts 24 24 we read how Felix ‘with his wife Drusilla which
a
was Jewess’ (so AV ; 9 ”p‘p y u v a i r i , W H ; RV, ‘ with’D., his
wife ; marg. ‘his own wife : /&lais omitted bv all uncial MSS.
except BC;), heard Paul ‘concerning the -faith in Christ’
(in 58 A.D.). Drusilla would naturally he interested (like her
brother Agrippa later, Acts 25 22) to hear some account of what
professed to he the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy. According to
someauthorities for the western text, indeed, the interview took
place at her special request (so restored in w. 24 by Blass, Act.
Apost. ed. Phil. 1895, Lc $p&a lIriv rbv TI. rat dKo8uaL r b v
Alyov. /?ouAdpevo~o t v 2 i r a v b v ?rois;v &re, K . T . ~ .; and in
1 Ant. xx. 7 2, Ka‘r ydp q v rdhAw Tau& 6ragipovua.
2 But Niese here reads’Aropov.
HEROD, FAMILY O F
v. 27 the western text has rbv 82 II.6Tauev ;v q p r j u r ~&h Apo&
u‘hhav-we must then suppose Drusilla to have been actuated
by a spirit of revenge, like Herodias in the very similar case of
John the Baptist).
Drusilla bore to Felix a son, called Agrippa, who
perished in the great eruption of Vesuvius (in the reign
of Titus), by which Pompeii and Herculaneum were
destroyed (Jos. Ant. xx. 7 2 , d veavfas O%TOS uLv r$
yuvawi . ..
?j$avfuOq; some take this to mean ’ along
with Drusilla,’ but more probably it signifies his own
wife).
The authority for the history of the whole Herodian family is
Josephus ; isolated references only are found in other writers.
Of modern books dealing with the history we
16. Authorities. need only mention Schiirer’s great work, Ges-
chichte des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter
/em Christi: the second edition of which is accessible in an
English translation (6 vols.). Two vols. of a new edition in
German have appeared (2,3, ’98). Farrar’s Hevods is a popular
account written without sympathy or historical insight. The
various ‘ Histories of N T Times,’both English and foreign, deal
with the family, deriving their facts from Schiirer. The evidence
of the coins will be found in Madden’s Coins o f U e J e w s .
Appended is a genealogy of the Herodian family.
Names printed in heavy type are those of members of
17. Genealogg the family mentioned in the NT. All
the names in any one upright column
and index. are names either ( a ) of sons (or
daughters) or (a) of husbands (or wives) or (c) of fathers
(or mothers) of the persons named in the adjacent
columns to right or to left respectively. The numbers
attached to the nanies are the same as those attached
to them in the annexed index. W. J. W.

INDEX
Agrippa, 7 3 Aristobulus 6 2 Mariamme, 57
Agrippa, a2 Aristobulus: 74 Mariamme, 69
Agrippa I., 51 Azizus, 78
Agrippa 11. 67 Olympias, 31
Agrippinns,’81 Bernice, 38 Herod, 6
Alexander, 24 Bernice, 59 Herod, 32 Pallas, 16
Alexander, 41 Bernice 80 Herod, 40 Phaedra 17
Alexander, 52 Berniciinus, 64 Herod, 54 Phasael,’5
Alexander, 63 Herod, 72 Phasael io
Alexandra, 42 Cleopatra, 15 Herod (Philip?), 28 Phasael: 14
Alexas, 21 Costobar, 20 Herodias, 46 Pheroras-8
Alexas, 61 Hyrcanus, 65 Philip thk Tetrarch, 33
Antigonus, d. of, 44 Cypros, 4 Polemon, 7 5
Antipas, 29 Cypros, 27 Iotape 60
Antipater, I Cypros, 43 Iotape: 66 Roxana, 35
Antipater, 2 Cypros, 56
Antipater, 23 CYPrOs, 71 Salampsio,
Salome, g 22
Antipater, 37
Antipater, 39 Demetrius, 77 Salome, 36
Archelaus, 30 Doris, II Salome, 49
Archelaus, 7 6 Drusilla, 70 ; 15 Malthace, r4
Aretas, d. of, 47 Drusus, 68 , Mariamme 12 Tigranes, 53
Aristobulus, 25 Mariamme: 13 TigranesV 58
Aristobulus, 55 Elpis, a8 Mariamme, 48 Timius of dyprus, 50:

2040
 THE HERODIAN FAMILY
{Antipater 39
m Her6dm
a
J Phasael,5 - Phasael 10 =Salampsio 22 Alexander 41
t 4 0 B.C Alexandraa =Timius of C prus.E4
C rosa =Agrippa I.5y
=Doris 11 -Antipater,23 =Daughter of Antigonu22
executed, 4 B.C. (the last of the Hasmonaeans).
4lexander,24 Tigranes V 58 Alexan r,63
executed, 7 B.C. k. of Armenia. =Iotape d. o f
Antiochus, k. of
Commagene.
N Herodm
8 (Herod 54
k. o i Chalcis,
j=Mariamme57 -Aristobulusm
Bernicianus 64
{
Hyrcanusel
=Salome49
Aristotulus 74
+A8 A.D.
Ar'i;tobulus55 = Iotape,so -1otape 66
d. of Sampsigera-
mus, k. of Emesa.
Agrippa II
( t1wA.D.
= Mariamme 12
the Hasdonean,
executed, 29 B.C.
4ristobulus,~
executed, 7 B.C.
=Bernice38 - Drusus 68-
(died young).
I =Herod.54

A son who died young

Lrod,S in Rome26 I T n c R f
:he Great. i. 22 2).
Antipater,Q= Cypros
poisoned, t4 B.C. la.
3alampsio.-
43 B.C.
Antipaterl {:-Antipasw
Herod(PhiliplP =Felix,7@
k. of Emesa.
-Agrippa,SZ

Joseph,Z
Zyprosm =Antipater37 - Cypros56 =AlexasGl- cypros71
procurator
of Judaea.
t79 A.D.

executed, 34 B.C. =Mariamme,13-

d. of Simon the
Herod (Philip ?)% =Herodiasa - Salome49 Philip, the Tetrarch.33
-Aristobulus 62
= Salome 9
high-priest.
(*!:I%?:, 39 A.D.
{ =Daughter of
Aretas,47 k. of Arabia.
=Herodim46
Mariamme 48
A ~ A.D. {~-Glaphyra e~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~
E:
P
Olympias 31
IU~...,I w
=Joseph 19

=two unknown.
= OIympias31- Mariammes? = Herod,#
fell in battle, 38 B.C. k. of Chalcis.
'heroras.8
ts B.C.
(= Joseph,3--
executed, 34 P.C.
Antipate137 =Cypros 21
;alome,g
tro A.D. 1 = Costobar,Z'J--Bernice38
executed, z j B.C.
=Alexas21
=Aristobulus,B
executed, 7 B.C. W. J. W.
 HERODIANS
RERODIANS (HPUAIANOI [Ti.] ; -pwA- [WHI).
The Herodians were the adherents of the dynasty of
Herod, who made common cause with the Pharisees
against Jesus, as they had previously done against John
the Baptist (Lk. 1331). Jesus, on his side, did not spare
denunciation of his opponents, in whom he recognised
in different forms the same corrupting power, the same
'leaven' of wickedness. 'Beware,' he said (Mk. 815),
'of the leaven of the Pgarisees and of the leaven of
Herod ' (we may disregard the slightly supported read-
ing T ~ WHpw8iavwv).
In Mt. 16 12 ' leaven is explained to mean 'teaching' (SiSapj).
The early evangelic tradition however, seems not to have been
unanimous as to the meadng of 'leaven'' in Lk.121 the
' leaven of the Pharisees ' is interpreted as ' hydocrisy. W e may
venture then to give the phrase 'the leaven of Herod' its natural
explanation ; it means the vital spirit of the kingdom of Herod,
just as the ' leaven ' of the parable in Mt. 13 33 Lk. 13 21, means
the vital spirit of the kingdomof heaven. C p GOSPELS, I140(c).
At the time when the question respecting the tribute
money was put to Jesus (Mt. 2217 Mk. 1214)-a question
in putting which the ' Herodians' as well as the
Pharisees were concerned-Jud;ea was not under any
member of the .Herodian family, but under a Roman
procurator. Still, the Herodian spirit lived on. It
was not true, as the Herodians pretended, that they
scrupled about paying tribute to Caesar ; what they
longed for was the re-establishment of the Herodian
kingdom in spite of its subjection to Rome, as repre-
senting that union of Hellenism and Judaism which
seemed to enable Jews to 'make the best of both
worlds.' Such a re-establishment, however, was hindered
by the preachers of Messianism, and the friends of
Herodianism recognised Jesus as one of these. S O
these ' spies,' as they are called (Lk. 2020)) put the in-
sidious question to him, ' Is it lawful to give tribute
unto Caesar, or not,' simply ' that they might catch him
in talk,' and accuse him to the governor.
The Herodians are referred to again in Mk. 36.
Early in the Ga1il;ean ministry of Jesus they are said
to have joined the Pharisees in plotting his destruction.
This, however, is evidently a mistake. In the country
of the tetrarch Antipas there could not be a party called
' Herodians.' If Greek-speaking Jews in Galilee ever
used the term'Hpw8ravoi, they could only mean by it
' members of the household of Herod,' a meaning which,
to be sure, is not unsupported in modern times, but is
unsuitable in Mk. 1213. and is not favoured by the
phraseology of J0sephus.l
It is remarkable that in Mt. 166 the place of the
' Herodians' is taken by the Sadducees. No stress,
however, can be laid upon this; there is no evidence
that there was a faction of the Sadducees which was
devoted to the interests of the Herodian family. It was
more natural to the evangelist to speak of the Pharisees
and the Sadducees; he had no thought of suggesting
that the Sadducees and the Herodians had any points
in common. Still less can the Pharisees and the
Herodians have had any real sympathy. There is in
10s. Ant. xvii. 34 a story that the Pharisees predicted
the fall of Herod and his house and the accession of his
brother Pheroras to the throne of Israel ; this is rightly
rejected by Wellhausen (IJGrA)337 n.). Just as little
could they have attached their hopes for the future
to Herod or to any Herodian prince. Yet as early a
writer as Tertullian (De p?-ascr@t. adu. hayet., Append. )
speaks of those who ' Christum Herodeni esse dixerunt,'
and as modem a writer as Renan ( Vie de I&Ls,226)
supposes the Boethosian section of the Sadducees to
be intended by the Herodians of the evangelists. Hitzig
too ( G Y I 559) apparently agrees with Tertullian.
These views and a similar theory of Ewald (GVZ453z
547) no longer find any support.
On the name HpwhavoL c p the remarks on the form 'Christiay'
C HRISTIAN , NAM&OF, B 4. See also Keim, Herodianer, in
Bi6. Lex. T. K. C.
1 'HpdBsror (B]i. 166)=those of Herod's party, in antithesis
to 'AurLy6vctoL.
2,343
HESHMON
HERODIAS ( ~ p w h i a c ) , Mt. 146, etc. See
HEROD, IO.
HERODION ( H P W A ~ W N 17;". WH]) is saluted in
Rom. 1611 as 'my kinsman, an expression which
suggests that he was of Jewish origin (cp R OMANS , §§
4, I O ). The name would indicate the freedman of some
prince of the dynasty of Herod. Weizsacker (Apost.
Age, 1397 399) suggests that he may have worked for
Christ within the household of Narcissus mentioned just
afterwards (cp APELLES).
I n the list of the Pseudo-Dorotheus, Herodion figures a s
bishop of Patras. According to the irrrbpnlpa of Peterand Paul
by the Pseudo-Symeon Metaphrastes he was so consecrated by
Peter and he and Olympas were bothbeheaded a t Rome at the
time Ahen Peter was crucified there. H e is commemorated in
in the Greek M e w u on 8th April.
HERON (?leJK),an unclean bird (Lev. 1119 Dt.
14rST ; xapaAploc [BAFL]), for which RVmg,suggests
' ibis ' as an alternative rendering (Onk. U'y). Accord-
ing to the Lexicons 'ZnZphZh is of quite uncertain mean-
',"g; Lidd. and Scott translate e's Xapa8pr6s the
stone- curlew ' or thick - kneed bustard, Edicnemzis
crepitans; but even if this be correct one hesitates to
identify this bird with the '&iphZh. Unless the word
'ZnZphZh is misplaced, we may with some confidence
infer from the proximity of "pa,
' stork,' that it means
the ordev of herons (note 'after its kind'). At least
seven species of heron are common in Palestine.
Both the Common and the Purple Herons (Ardeu cinerea
and A . purpurea) the Egrets ( A . alba and A . gurzetta) and
the Squacco Herdn ( A . raZZofdes), as well as the Buff-baiked,
may often he seen fishing by the Sea of Galilee and of the
Buff-hacked Heron (A. bz~buk74~). ofte? called the' White Ibis,
'immense flocks live and breed in the impenetrable swamps of
the Huleh ' (Tristram NHB 2413).
It is this class of birds which is presumably meant by t h e
Ass. anpatu, with which the Lexicons (after Friedr. Del.)
naturally compare 'Endphdh. The Ibis, bpth white and hlack,
is common in the swamps of the Egyptian Delta, and may
in the winter be seen anywhere in the hasin of the Upper
Nile. The Egyptians held it sacred to Thoth. Ibis.
however, is too definite a rendering.
T. K. C.-A. E. S.
HESED (YDn), I I<. 410 ; RV BEN-HESED.
HESHBkW (Ij3~Q ; G C ~ B U N [BKAQ] ; hesebon), a
town of Moah, often mentioned in the Hexateuch (JE,
D, and P ) : in Is. 154 1 6 S f . Jer. 482 34 45 493; in
Cant. 74[5] (MT, 6, but see BATH-RABBIM) ; and in
Judith 5 15 (eaepwv [e] mas [B], euepwv [HA]). Heshbon
(vaepwv, eaepwv) and the ' Hesebonitis ' (EU~PWYLTCE,
eauep. uep. ) are named repeatedly also in Josephus (Ant.
xii. 411 xiii. 154 xv. 85,. BJ ii. 181 iii. 3 3 ) and euuePwv
or Ese6on is defined in O S l l 7 z g f i 25.3248 as being
the contemporary E U ~ O U Eor Esbus, ' a notable city of
Arabia in the mountains facing Jericho, 20 R. m. from
the Jordan.' It is the modern fleshin, which is finely
situated on the edge of the W. HesbHn at a height of
600 feet above the 'Ain HesbZn, and close to the water-
shed from which the W. Habis drains southwards into
the ZerkB Ma'in. The ruins, chiefly Roman, are mainly
on two hills, 2930 and 2954 feet above sea level ; Mt.
Nebo, 5 miles to the SW. is considerably lower (2643
ft.). There are remains of a castle and of a temple,
and on the east, at the base of the castle hill, a great
reservoir, now ruinous and dry. ' It is a difficult thing,'
remarks Post (PEFQ, '88, p. 'go), ' for the imagination
to restore to the reservoir the beauty which made the
fishpond of Heshbon, a suitable simile for the eyes of
Solomon's bride ' (Cant. 7 4 151). There are, of course,
plenty of pools near the 'Ain Hesbgn (see Tristram,
Land of Moab, 340). The text, however, is open to
suspicion ; see B ATH - RABBIM .
For the ancient history of Heshbon see M OAB , SIHON. On
the modern topography see Tristram as above; and Suruey of
E. Palesfine, 1 esp.
104fi, and map.
HESHMON (line? ; A C E M U N [L],BA om.). an
unidentified pl+ce on the Edomite border of Judah
2044
 HETH
(Josh. 1 5 2 7 ) , mentioned urith Moladah and Beersheba.
Hence perhaps came the Hasmonzans (+en). .-
HETH (nn),Gen. 1015etc. See HITTITES.
HETHLON (fl$nn; the THC KATABAINOYCHC
TIEPICXIZOYCHC, and T. KATABACEUC rrepi-
TOY
C X ~ Z O N T O Cof BBAQdo not recognise the word as a
proper name ; Syr. Hethrhz). The ' way of Hethlon'
is one of a series of landmarks by which Ezekiel
(47 15 48 I ) defines the ideal north boundary of Canaan.
In Nu. 3 4 7 8 (post-exilic), where the boundary is on
the whole the same, Hethlon does not appear. In
Ezekiel it seems to lie between the point where the
border leaves the Mediterranean and that at which it
strikes the Hamathite frontier. If, as seems possible,
Ezekiel (like Josh. 135) contemplates the inclusion in
Canaan of Phcenicia as far N. as Gebal and of all
Lebaqon, the 'way of Hethlon' may be identical
The name Pentateuch, found already in Tertullian
and origen, corresponds to the Jewish cwn,rn ;lann
;n,rnn (the five-fifths of the Torah, or L , ~; ) the
several books were named by the Jews from their initial
words, though, at least, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy had also titles resembling those we use
-viz. , I Prizsts' Tor& ' (Pq;l> mln), I The Fifth con-
P'llpDn '"
taining the enumeration of the people, the mustering,,
(AMMBC@EKWAEiM' Orken, in Eus.
H E 6 q),and Duplicate of the Torah ' (illln n W 0 ) .
The Pentateuch, together with Joshua, Judges, and
Ruth, with which it is usually united in Greek MSS,
makes up the Octateuch ; the Pentateuch and Joshua
together have been named the Hexateuch.
The date of the division of the Torah into five books
be made Out ; it 's Older than the
Septuagint translation. See CANON, 2 3 8
A . EARLIEST CRITICISM.
At an early date, doubts suggested themselves as to
1. Earliest the Mosaic authorship ; but it was not
criticism. till the seventeenth century that these
became SO strong that they could not be
suppressed.
It was observed that Moses does not speak of himself in the
first person, hut that other writer speaks of him in the
third,-a writer, too, who lived long after. ne expression of
Gen. 126 'the Canaanite was then in the land ' is spoken to
.readers k h o had long forgotten that a differeth nation from
\;Israelhad once occupied the Holy Land : the wordsof Gen. 3B 31
these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before therd
1 [The general articles on the several books of the Hexateuch
2 Hobhes, Leuiathan, 33 ; Peyrerius, Syst. theol. ex Pra.
adamitarum N fofhesi, 4 13; Spinoza, TY. Theoiogico.foi.,
7 ; R. Simon, dst. Crit. du VT,15-7 ; Le Clerc, Sentiinens
d .pudques Ilr4oOlogiens de HoZZana'e (Amst., 1635)~lett. 6.
"045
HEXATEUCH
with the route from the coast up the Eleutheros
(Nuhr eZ-Kebir) round the northern slopes of Lebanon
to Emesa (Him:) and Riblah. In that case we may
consider Furrer's proposal (ZDPV8 2 7 ) to identify
Hethlon with the village of H e i t e l u , N. of Tripoli,
KAI between Nahr el-Kebir and Nahr *Akk%r (Robinson,
BR 4 576).
The scholar who warned us so pointedly against
dwelling too much on possibv casual resemblances of
names would not have been sorry for an excuse to
abandon this hazardous conjecture (for another, see
van Kasteren, Rev. bibZ., '95, p. 24 ; cp Hommel, in
Hastings' D B 2 3 6 3 ) . As Halevy (Yourn. A s . , Jan.-
Feb. '99) has seen, i i i n and iii, the words preceding
i i h n in Ezek. 4715 and 481 respectively, should be
1:v~ (see H ADRACH). It follows that iisnn (' Hethlon ')
is a corruption of ]?iFmF; a verb is almost, if not quite,
necessary. For the reason of the choice of this verb.
see HOR,MOUNT, 2. W.R. S..-T. K.C.
ii. Of legendary history (5s zz-z.+).
iii. Objections to hypothesis ($$ 25.30).
reigned any king over the children of Israel ' have no prophetic
aspect ' they point t o an author who wrot; under the Hebrew
monarc2hy.Again the 'book Of the OfYahwb 21 14)
cannot possibly bk cited by Moses himself a s it contains a
record of his own deeds. and when Dt. 34 io (cp Nu. 12) s a y s
that 'there arose not a prophe;since in Israel like unto Moses,'
the writer is necessarily one who looked back to Moses through
a longRneriesOf later prophets'
At the same time attention \vas drawn to a variety of
contradictions, inequalities, tra.nspositions, and repeti-
tions of events in the Pentateuch, such a s excluded the
z:r; ~
iInpossible chrono~ogica~
~ aa:pii G
and on the incon-
i;f",","~ ~ ~ o
gruity of Gen. 1 and 2, which he pressed very strongly,
he rested his hypothesis of the preadamites, Such
observations could not but grievously shake the per-
suasion that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch,
whilst at the same time they directed criticism to a less
negative task-viz., the analysis of the Pentateuch.
For this, indeed, the seventeenth century did not eKect
anything considerable ; but at least two conclusions
came out with sufficient clearness. The first of these
was the self-contained character of Deuteronomy, which
in those days there was a disposition to regard as the
oldest book of the Pentateuch, and that with the best
to In *e second place the
teuchal laws atid the Pentateuchal history were sharply
distinguished ; the chief difficulties were felt to lie in
the narrative, and there seemed to be less for
questioning the Mosaic authorship Of the laws.
Spinoza's bold conjecture that in their present form
not the Pentateuch but the Other
, 2. Astruce books of the O T were composed by Ezra
ran far ahead of the laborious investigation
of details necessary to solve the previous question of the
composition of the Pentateuch. Jean Astruc has the
merit of opening the true path of this investigation.
He recognised in Genesis two main sources, between
which he divided the whole materials of the book, with
some few exceptions, and these sources he distinguished
by the mark that the one used for God the name
Elohim (Gen, 1 5 ; cp Ex, 6 3 ) and the other the name
e n . 2-4).l ~ s t r ~ chypothesis,
's fortified by
the observation of other linguistic differences which
regularly accompanied the variation in the names of
1 Conjectures SUY Zes mPtrroires originaux dont iZparoit pwe
Moyse s'esf semi pour coniposer k iivre de la Gen&e(Brnssels,
1753). C p l o u r n . des SGauans, Oct. 1767,pp. 291'305.
2046
 HEXATEUCH
God, was introduced into Germany by Eichhorn ( B i d .
i n d. A T ) ,and proved there the fruitful and just point
of departure for all further inquiry. At first, indeed,
it was with but uncertain steps that critics advanced
from the analysis of Genesis to that of the other hooks,
where the simple criterion of the alteruatiou of the
3. Fragment divine names was no longer available.
In the hands of the Scotsman Geddes
hypothesis' and the German Vater the Pentateuch
resolved itself into an agglomeration of longer and
shorter fragments, between which no threads of con-
tinuous connection could be traced (' Fragment-
hypothesis '). The Fragment - hypothesis was mainly
supported by arguments drawn from the middle books
of the Pentateuch, and as limited to these it long found
wide support. Even De Wette.started from it in his
investigations ; but this was really an inconsistency, for
his fundamental idea was to show throughout all parts
of the Pentateuch traces of certain common tendencies,
a n d even of one deliberate plan ; nor was he far from
recognizing the close relation between the Elohist of
Genesis and the legislation of the middle books.
De Wette's chief concern, however, was not with the
literary but with the historical criticism of the Penta-
teuch, and in the latter he made a n epoch.
In his Disseriatio Crifica of 1805 (Opusc. Theol. 149-168) he
placed the composition of Deuteronomy in
4. Historical the time of King Josiah(arguing from a com-
criticism parison of z K. 2 2 s with Dt. 12), and pro-
( D wette).
~ nounced it to he the most recent stratum of
the Pentateuch, not, as had previously been
supposed the oldest.
In his 'Kritischer Versuch &CY die G2andwurdghe;t der
Bucher der Chronik (1806) he showed that the laws of Moses
are unknown to the post-Mosaic history; this he did by in-
stituting a close comparison of Samuel and Kings with
Chronicles, from which it appeared that the variations of the
latter are to be explained not by the use of other sources, but
solely by the desire of the Jewish scribes to shape the history
in conformity with the law and to give the law that place in
history which, to their surprke, had not been conceded to it by
the older historical books.
Finally, in his K r i f i k der Mosaischen Geschichfe (1807), De
Wette attacked the method then prevalent in Germany of
eliminating all miracles and prophecies from the Bible by ex-
plaining them away, and then rationalizing what remained into
a dry prosaic pragmatism. De Wette refuses to find any history
in the Pentateuch; all is legend and poetry. The Pentateuch
is an authority not for the history of the time it deals with, but
only for the time in which it was written; it is he says the
conditions of this milch later time which the auihor ide&es
and throws back into the past, whether in the form of narrative
o r of law.
De Wette's brilliant d/6ut, which made his reputation
for the rest of his life,%exercised a powerful influence on
his contemporaries. For several decennia all who were
open to critical ideas at all stood under his influence.
Gramberg, Leo, and Von Bohlen wrote under this influence.
Gesenius in Halle, the greatest Hebraist then living, taugh;
under it : nay, Vatke and George were guided by D e Wette's
ideas and started from the ground that he had conquered
although they advanced beyond him to a much more definit;
and better established position, and were also diametrically
opposed to him in one most important point, of which we shall
have more to say presently.3
Meantime a reaction was rising which sought to
direct criticism towards positive rather than negative
The chief representatives of
5. Literary results.
thls positive criticism, which now took
up a distinct attitude of opposition to the
negative criticism of De Wette, were Bleek, Ewald,
Movers, and Hitzig. By giving up certain parts of the
Pentateuch, especially Deuteronomy, they thought them-
selves able to vindicate certain other parts as beyond
1 Alex. Geddes, Crit. Renzarks on the He&. Scripi. 1800:
J. S. Vater, Conznz. ii6. den Pent. (1802.5).
2 [De Wette scarcely maintained the high position as a critic
which he conquered by his early writings. What the causes of
this were, and what were De Wette's services to the general
critical and theological movement, have been described by Che.
Founders, '93.1
3 H. +, Vorlesuneen %bey die Geschichte des jMischen
P a d s , 2 8 ; C. P. W. Gramberg. Krifiscke Geschichfe der
$'eZigionsideen des A T '29'30 ; P. v. Bohlen, Die Genesis,
35 ; W. Vatke, Biidisisrk> ThmZogie, '35 ; J. F. L. George, Die
iilferenjudischen Fesfe, '35.
2047
HEXATEUCH
doubt genuinely Mosaic, just in the same way as they
threw over the Davidic authorship of certain psalms in
order to strengthen the claim of others to bear his
name. The procedure by which particular ancient
hymns or laws were sifted out from the Psalter or the
Pentateuch was arbitrary; but up to a certain point
the reaction was in the right.
De Wette and his followers had really gone too far in apply.
ing the same measure to all arts of the Pentateuch, and had
been satisfied with a very inazquate insight into its composition
and the relation of its parts. Historical criticism had hurried
on too fast, and literary criticism had now to overtake it. De
Wette himself felt the necessity for this, and from the year 1817
onwards-the year of the first edition of his Binleiiwng-he
took an active and useful part in the solution of the problems of
Pentateuchal analysis.
The Fragment-hypothesis was now superseded ; the
connection of the Elohist of Genesis with the legislation
6. Supplement- of the middle books was clearly
recognized, and the book of Joshua
hypothesis. was included as the conclusion of the
Pentateuch. The closely-knit connection and regular
structure of the narrative of the Elohist impressed the
critics ; it seemed to supply the skeleton which had
been clothed with flesh and blood hy the Yahwist, in
whose contributions there was no such obvious cou-
formity to a plan. From all this it was naturally con-
cluded that the Elohist had written the Grundschygf or
primary narrative, which lay before the Yahwist and
was supplemented by him ( ' Supplement-hypothesis ').I
This view remained dominant till Hupfeld in 1853
published his Die Quelkn der Genesis u n d die A r t
7. Hupfeld. ihrer Zusummensefaung. Hupfeld denied
that the Yahwist followed the context of
the Elohistic narrative, merely supplementing it by
additions of his own. He pointed out that such
Elohistic passages in Genesis as clearly have undergone
a Yahwistic redaction (e.g.,chaps. 20-22) belong to an
Elohist different from the author of Gen. 1. Thus he
distinguished three independent sources in Genesis ;
and he assumed further, somewhat rashly, that no one
of them had anything to do with the others till a fourth
and later writer wove them all together into a single
whole. This assumption was corrected by Noldeke,
8. NBldeke. who showed that the second Elohist is
preserved only in extracts embodied in
the Yahwistic book, that the Yahwist and 'second'
Elohist form one whole and the Grundschyift another,
and that thus, in spite of Hupfeld's discovery, the
Pentateuch (Deuteronomy being excluded) was still to
be regarded as made up of two great layers. Noldeke
has also the honour of having been the first to trace in
detail how the Elohistic Gyundschy@ runs through the
whole Hexateuch, and of having described with masterly
hand the peculiar and inflexible type of its ideas and
language. In this task he was aided by the valuable
material collected in Knobel's c~mmentaries.~
The work of synthesis, however, did not hold even
pace with the critical analysis ; indeed, the true scope
9. synthesis. of the problem was not as yet realized.
As regards the narrative matter it was
forgotten that, after the Yahwistic ( L e . , JEs), the
Deuteronomic, and the priestly versions of the history
had been happily disentangled from one another, it was
necessary to examine the mutual relations of the three,
to consider them as marking so many stages of a his-
torical tradition, which had passed through its suc-
cessive phases under the action of living causes, and
the growth of which could and must be traced and
historically explained. Still greater faults of omission
characterized the critical treatment of the legal parts of
the Pentateuch. Bleek,4 the oracle in all such matters
1 Rleek. in Rosenmiiller's Rejertoriuw, 1822, and in St.KY.,
1831 : Ewald, St. Kr., 1831 ; Tuch, Genesis, 1838 ; especially
De V'ette in the various editions of his Einleitung.
2 Unfevsuchungenzur Fritik des A T, '69.
3 Gen., 3. ; Ex.-Lto., 57 ' Nunt. Df. Josh '61.
4 For critical sketches of Bieek. Ewald. and'Hitzie see Che,
Rounders.
2048
 HEXATEUGH
of the German school of ' Vermittelungstheologen ' (the
.theologians who tried to mediate between orthodoxy
and criticism alike in doctrine and in history), never
looked beyond the historical framework of the priestly
laws, altogether shutting his eyes to their substance.
H e never thought of instituting an exact comparison
between them and the Deuteronomic law, still less of
examining their relation to the historical and prophetical
books, with which, in truth, as appears from his Zrriro-
duction, he had only a very superficial acquaintance.
Ewald, on the other hand, whose views as to the
Priestly Code were cognate to those of Bleek, un-
doubtedly had an intimate acquaintance with Hebrew
antiquity, and understood the prophets as no one else
did. But he too neglected the task of a careful com-
parison between the different strata of the Pentateuchal
legislation, and the equally necessary task of deter-
mining how the several laws agreed with or direred
from such definite data for the history of religion as
could be collected from the historical and prophetical
books. He had therefore no fixed measure to apply
to the criticism of the laws, though his conception of
the history suffered little, and his conception of prophecy
still less, from the fact that in shaping them he left the
law practically out of sight, or only called it in from
time to time in an irregular and rather unnatural way.
Meanwhile, two Hegelian writers, starting from the
original position of De Wette, and moving on lines
True apart from the beaten track of criticism,
method. F d actually effected the solution of the most
important problem in the whole sphere of
OT study. Vatke (on whom see Cheyne's book already
mentioned) and George have the honour of being the
first by whom the question of the historical sequence of
the several stages of the law was attacked on a sound
method, with full mastery over the available evidence,
and with a clear insight into the far-reaching scope of
the problem. Their works made no permanent impres-
.sion, however, and were neglected even by Reuss,
although this scholar had fallen at the same time upon
quite similar ideas, which he did not venture to publish.
The following propositions were formulated by Reuss in 1833
.(or, as he elsewhere gives the date, in 1834), though they were
not published till 1879. I. L'tlement historique du
11. Reuss. Pentateuquepeut et doit &re examine B part et ne
pas &re confondu ax*ecl'dl6ment legal. 2. L'un et
I'autre ont pu exister sans redaction kcrite. L a mention chez
dauciens kcrivains, de certaines traditions patriarcalks ou
mosaiques, ne prouve pas l'existence du Pentateuque, et une
nation peut avoir un droit coutumier sans code h i t . 3. Les
traditions nationales des Israelites rernonteut plus haut que
les lois du Pentateuque et la redaction des premieres est
.ant&rieure B celle des secondes. 4. L'interCt principal de
l'historien doit porter sur la date des lois, parce que sur
ce terrain il a plus de chance d'arriver B des resultats certains.
I1 faut en consequence proceder B l'interrogatoire des temoins.
5. L'histoire racontee dans les livres des Juges et de Samuel,
et m&meen partie celle comprise dans les livres des Rois, est en
contradiction avec des lois dites mosaiques ; donc celles-ci etaient
inconnnes B l'epoque de la redaction de ces livres, B plus forte
raison elles n'ont pas e.xiste dans les temps qui y sont decrits.
6. Lqs prophetes du 8e et du 7e sibcle ne savent rien du code
mosaique. 7. Jeremie est le premier prophete qui connaisse
une loi ecrite et ses citations rapportent au Deuteronome.
8. Le Deuteronome (4 45-28 68) est le livre que les prgtres pre-
tendaient avoir trouve dans le temple, du. temps du roi Josias.
Ce code est la partie la plus ancienne de la legislation (redigbe)
-comprise dans le Pentateuque. 9. L'histoire des Israelites, en
Fj: Fs,
tant qu'il s'agit du developpement national determine par des
se divisera en deux periodes, avant et apr&sJosias.
zechiel est anterieur B la redaction du code rituel et des
lois qui out definitivement organis6 la hierarchie. 11. Le livre
de JosuC n'est pas, tant s'en faut, la partie la plus recente de
l'ouvrage entier. 12. Le redacteur du Pentateuque se distingue
clairement de I'ancien prophbte Moyse. (L'kistoire saint8 et Za
Zoi, 23f: [Paris,,'791.)
The new ideas lay dormant for thirty years when
-they were revived through a pupil of Reuss, K. H.
lz>E:zpts na:;:
H e too was deemed at first to
easy victory to the weapons of
' critical analysis,' which found many
vulnerable points in the original statement of his views.
For, while Graf placed the legislation of the middle
books very late, holding it to have been framed after
a349
HEXATEUGH
the great captivity, he at first still held fast to the doctrine
of the great antiquity of the so-called Elohist of Genesis
(in the sense which that term bore before Hupfeld's
discovery), thus violently rending the Priestly Code in
twain, and separating its members by an interval of
half a millennium. This he was compelled to do,
because, for Genesis at least, he still adhered to the
supplement hypothesis, according to which the Yahwist
worked on the basis laid by the (priestly) Elohist.
Here, however, he was tying himself by bonds which
had been already loosed by Hupfeld ; and, as literary
criticism actually stood, it could show no reason for
holding that the Yahwist was neccssarily later than the
Elohist. In the end, therefore, literary criticism offered
itself as Grafs auxiliary. Following a hint of Kuenen's,
he embraced the proffered alliance, gave up the violent
attempt to divide the Priestly Code, and proceeded
without further obstacle to extend to the historical part
of that code as found in Genesis those conclusions
which he had already established for its main or legis-
lative part. Graf himself did not live to see the victory
of his cause. The task of developing and enforcing
his hypothesis was left to others, primarily to the great
Leyden critic, A. Kuenen.1
B. GRAF-WELLHAUSEN HYPOTHESIS.
The characteristic feature in the hypothesis of Graf is
that the Priestly Code is placed later than Deuteronomy,
13. Grafian so that the order is no longer Priestly
hypothesis. Code, Yahwist (JE), Deuteronomy, but
Jehovist (JE), Deuteronomy, Priestly
Code. The method of inquiry has been already indi-
cated ; the three strata of the Pentateuch are compared
with one another, and at the same time the investigator
seeks to place them in their proper relation to the
successive phases of Hebrew history as these are known
to us from other and undisputed evidence. The
process may be shortened if it be taken as agreed that
the date of Deuteronomy is known from z K. 22 (see
DEUTERONOMY, $5 2 8 ) ; for this gives us at starting a
fixed point, to which the less certain points can be re-
ferred:
The method can be applied alike to the historical and to the
legal parts of the three strata of the Hexateuch. For JE gives
legislative matter in Ex. 20-23 34, and Deuteronomy and the
Priestly Code embrace historich matters ; moreover, we always
find that the legal standpoint of each author influences his
presentation of the history, and vice versa. The most important
point, however, is the comparison of the laws, especially of the
aws about worship, with the statements in the historical and
prophetical books.
.~
I. the principallaw-book embodiedin JE, the so-called
Book of the Covenant, takes it for granted in Ex. 20 24-26
14. that altars are many, not one. Here
First perioi : there is no idea of attaching value to the
retention of a single place for the altar;
JE. earth and rough stones are to be found
everywhere, and an altar of these materials falls into
ruins as easily as it is built. Again a choice of
materials is given, presumably for the construction of
different altars, and Yahw8 proposes to come to his
worshippers and bless them, not in the place where he
causes his name to be celebrated, but at every such
place. The law adopted in JE therefore agrees with
the customary usage of the earlier period of Hebrew
history ; and so too does the narrative, according to
which the patriarchs wherever they reside erect altars,
set up cippi (.zqi&?fh),plant trees, and dig wells.
The places of which these acts of the patriarchs are related
are not fortuitous they are the same places as were afterwards
famous shrines. ?his is why the narrator speaks of them ; his
interest in the sites is not antiquarian ; it is due to the practical
importance they held in the worship of his own day. The
altar which Abraham built a t Shechem is the same on which
1 K. H . Graf Diegeschichtlichen Bitckevda A T '66' essays
by Graf, in Gerx's Archiv, 1225 8 466 8; A.' Kuenen in
De'Godsdiensi van Israel, z vols. '69-'70 ( E T '74-'75). and
his essays in TAT,'77-'84. See hso [especially] J. Well.
hausen, Pvolegomena zur Geschickfe ZsraeZsP), '99.
2050
 HEXATEUCH
sacrifices still continued to he offered Jacob's anointed stone
a t Bethel was still anointed, and tithes'were still offered at it in
fulfilment of vows, in the writer's own generation.
The things which a later generation deemed offensive
and heathenish-high places, ma@5ih, sacred trees,
and wells-all appear here as consecrated by patriarchal
precedent, and the narrative can be understood only as
a picture of what occurred daily in the first century (or
thereabout) after the division of the kingdoms, thrown
back into the past and clothed with ancient authority.
2. The Deuteronomic legislation begins (Deut. 12),
just like the Book of the Covenant, with a law for the
16. second place of worship. Now, however, there
period: D. IS a complete change; Yahwb is to be
worshipped only in Jerusalem. The new
law-bdok is never weary of repeating this command and
developing its consequences in every direction. All
this is directed against current usage, against ' what we
are accustomed to do at this day ' ; the law is polemical
and aims at reformation. This law therefore belongs
to the second period of the history, the time when the
party of reform in Jerusalem was attacking the high
places.
When we read then that King Josiah was moved to destroy
the local sanctuaries b; the discovery of a law-book, this book,
if we assume it to he preserved in the Pentateuch can he none
other than the legislative part of Deuteronomy in shorter form
(see further, DEUTERONOMV).
3. In the Priestly Code all worship depends on the
tabernacle, and would fall to nothing - apart
- from it.
The tabernacle is simply a means of put-
16.
period:
Thirdp. ting the law of unity of worship in a
historical form : it is the only legitimate
sanctuary ; there is no other spot where God dwells and
shows himself, no other where man can approach God
and seek his face with sacrifice and gifts. But, while
Deuteronomy demands, the Priestly Code presupposes,
the limitation of worship to one sanctuary. This
principle is tacitly assumed as the basis of everything
else, but is never asserted in so many words ; the
principle, it appears, is now no novelty; it can be
taken for granted. Hence we conclude that the Priestly
Code builds on the realization of the object aimed at in
Deuteronomy, and therefore belongs to the post-exilic
ueriod, when this obiect had been fully secured.
An institution which i n its origin must necessarily have had
a negative significance as an instrument in the hands of polemical
reformers is-here taken to have been from the first the only
intelligible and legitimate form of worship. It is so taken
because established customs always appear to be natural and to
need no reason for their existence.
The abolition of the local shrines in favour of
lerusalem necessarily involved the deuosition of the
l,. Priesthood : provincial priesthood in favour of the
sons of Zadok in the temple of Solomon.
in Dt. The law of Deuteronomv tries to avoid
this consequence by conceding the privilege of offering
sacrifices a t Jerusalem to the Levites from other places ;
Levites in Deuteronomy is the general name for priests
whose right to officiate is hereditary. This privilege,
however, was never realized, no doubt because the sons
of Zadok opposed it. The latter, therefore, were now the
only real priests, and the priests of the high places lost
their office with the destruction of their altars ; for the
loss of their sacrificial dues they received a sort of elee-
mosynary compensation from their aristocratic brethren
( z K. 239). The displacing of the provincial priests,
though practically almost inevitable, went against the
law of Deuteronomy ; but an argument to justify it was
18. In supplied by Ezekiel (Ezek. 44). The
other Levites, he says, forfeited their
priesthood by abusing it in the service of the high
places : and for this they shall be degraded to be mere
servants of the Levites of Jerusalem, who have not been
guilty of the offence of doing sacrifice in provincial
shrines, and thus alone deserve to remain priests. If
we start from Denteronomy, where all Levites have
equal priestly rights, this argument and ordinance are
plain enough ; but it is utterly impossible to understand
2051
HEXATEUCH
them if the Priestly Code is taken as already existing.
Ezekiel views the priesthood as originally the right of
all Levites, whilst by the Priestly Code a Levite who
claims this right is guilty of baseless and wicked pre-
sumption, such as once cost the lives of all the company
of Korah. On the other hand, the position of the
Levites, which Ezekiel qualifies as a punishment and a
degradation, appears to the Code as the natural posi-
tion, which their ancestors from father to son had held
from the first. The distinction between priest and
Levite, which Ezekiel introduces expressly as an innova-
tion, and which elsewhere in the O T is known only to
the author of Chronicles, is, according to the Code, a
Mosaic institution fixed and settled from the beginning.
Ezekiel's ideas and aims are entirely in the same
direction as the Priestly Code, and yet he plainly does
not know the Code itself. This can only mean that
in his day there was no such Code, and that his ordi-
nances formed one of the steps that prepared the way
for it.
The Priestly Code gives us a hierocracy fully
developed, such as we find after the exile. Aaron
19, p. stands above his sons as the sons of Aaron
stand above the Levites.
H e has not only the highest place, hut a place quite unique
like that of the Roman pontiff; his sons minister under hi:
superintendence (Nu.34); he himself is the only priest with
full rights ; as such he wears the Urim and Thummim and the
golden ephod ; and none but he can enter the holy of dolies and
offer incense there.
Before the Exile there were, of course, differences of
rank among the priests ; but the chief priest was only
prilnus inferpares; even Ezekiel knows no high priest
in the sense of the Priestly Code.
The Urim and Thumoiim were the insignia of the Levites iii
general (Deut. 338), and the linen ephod was worn by them all,
whilst the golden ephod was not a garment, but a metal-plated
image, such as the greater sanctuaries used to possess(Judg. 827
Is.3022). Moreover, down to the Exile the temple a t Jerusale;
was the king's chapel and the priests were his servants. even
Ezekiel who in most 'points aims a t securing the indepeidence
of the briests gives the prince a weighty art in matters of
worship, for i; is he who receives the dues ofthe people, and in
return defrays the sacrificial service. In the Priestly Code, on
the other hand, the dues are paid direct to the sanctuary, the
ritual service has full autonomy, and it has its own head, who
holds his place by divine right.
Nay, the high priest represents more than the
church's independence of the state; he exercises
sovereignty over Israel.
Though sceptre and sword are lacking to the high priest,
his spiritual dignity makes him the head of the theocracy.
H e alone is the responsible representative of the commonwealth;
the names of the twelve tribes are writteii on his shoulders
and his breast. An offence on his part inculpates the whole
people and demands the same expiation as a national sin, whilst
the sin-offerings prescribed for the rinces mark them out as
mere private persons compared with !m i: His death makes an
epoch. the fugitive manslayer is amnestied, not on the death of
the kiAg but on the death of the high priest. On investiture
the high )priest receives a kingly unction (whence his name, ' the
anointed priest') ; he wears the diadem and tiara of a monarch,
and is clad in royal purple, the most unpriesfly dress possible.
When now we find that the head of the national worship is as
such, and merely as such-for no political powers accompany
the high-priesthood-also the head of the nation this can only
mean that the nation is one which has been depri)ved of its civil
autonomy, that it no longer enjoys political existence, but
survives merely as a church.
In truth the Priestly Code never contemplates Israel
as a nation, but only as a religious community, the
whole life of which is summed up in the service of the
sanctuary. The community is that of the second
temple, the Jewish hierocracy under that foreign
dominion which alone made such an hierocracy possible.
The pattern of the so-called Mosaic theocracy, which does
not suit the conditions of any earlier age, and of which Hebrew
prophecy knows nothing even in its ideal descriptions of the
-I IC Judaism
commonwealth of Israel a's it ought to he, fitspost-ed.'l'
to a nicety and was never an actual thing till then. After the
Exile the jews were deprived by their foreign rulers of all the
functions of public political life; they were thus able, indeed
compelled, to devote their whole energies to sacred things, in
which full freedom was left them. The temple became the
obe centre of national life, and the prince of the temple head of
the spiritual commonwealth, while, at the same time, t h e
20052
 HEXATEUCH
administration of the few political affairs which were still left to
the Jews themselves, fell into his hands as a matter of course,
because the nation had no other chief.
The material basis of the hierarchy
20. sacred
duesin p. was supplied by the sacred dues.
In the Priestlv Code the nriests receive a11
sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, t h e greater ,art of the cereal
accompaniments of sacrifices, the skin of the burnt-offering the
breast and shoulder of thank-offerings. Further, they releive
the male firstlings and the tithe of cattle, as also the firstfruits
and tithes of the fruits of the land. Yet with all this they are
not even obliged to support at their own cost the stated services
and offerings of the temple which are provided for by a poll-tax.
The poll-tax is not ordainld in the main body of the Code ; hut
such a tax of the amount of one-third of a shekel began to be
paid in thd time of Nehemiah (Neh. 1032[33]), and'in a novel of
the law (Ex. 3015) it is demanded at the higher rate of half a
shekel per head. That these exorbitant taxes were paid to
or claimed by the priests in the wilderness, or during the
anarchy of the period of the judges is inconceivable. Nor in
the period of the kingship is it conc;ivahle that the priests laid
claim to contributions much in excess of what the king himself
received from his subjects ;certainly no such claim would have
been supported by the royal authority. In I S. 8 15 the tithes
appear as paid to the king, and are viewed as an oppressive
exaction, yet they form but a single element in the multiplicity
of dues which the priests claim under the Priestly Code. Above
all, the fundamental principles of the system of priestly dues in
the Code are absolutely irreconcilable with the fact that, as
long as Solomon's temple stood, the king had the power to
dispose of its revenues as he pleased.
The sacred taxes are the financial expression of the
hierocratic system; they accord with the condition of
the Jews after the exile, and under the second temple
they were actually paid according to the Code, or with
only minor departures from its provisions,
In pre-exilic times the sacred gifts were paid not to
the priests but to Yahwh : they had no resemblance to
21. Before taxes, and their religious meaning, which
the Exile. in the later system is hardly recognizable,
was quite plainly marked. They were in
fact identical with the great public festal offerings'which
the offerers consumed in solemn sacrificial meals before
YahwB, that is, at the sanctuary. The change of these
offerings into a kind of tax was connected with an
entire transformation of the old character of Israel's
worship, which resulted from its centralization at
Jerusalem. In the old days the public worship of the
nation consisted essentiallv in the celebration of the
22. Early
yearly feasts ; that this was so can be
religious feasts. plainly seen from the prophets-from
Amos. but esDeciallv from Hosea.
~~~
Accordingly the laws of worshid are, confined to this
one point in J E , and even in Deuteronomy. After
the Exile the festal observances became much less
important than the timid, the regular daily and weekly
offerings and services ; and so we find it in the Priestly
Code. Apart from this, the feasts (especially the
paschal feast) underwent a qnalitative change, which
claims special attention (see FEASTS, 9 8 ) .
The conclusions reached by comparing the successive
strata of the laws are confirmed by a comparison of the
several stages of the historical tradition
23. The
~aarratives. embodied in the Pentateuch. T h e
several threads of narrative which run
side by side in the Pentateuch are so distinct in point
of form that critics were long disposed to assume that
in point of substance also they are independent narra-
tives, without mutual relation. This, however, is highly
improbable on general considerations, and is seen to be
quite impossible when regard is paid to the close cor-
respondence of the several sources in regard to the
arrangement of the historical matter they contain. It
is because the arrangement is so similar in all the
narratives that it was possible to weave them together
into one book ; and besides this we find a close agree-
ment in many notable points of detail. Here, too,
analysis does not exhaust the task of the critic; a
subsequent synthesis is required. When he has sepa-
rated out the individual documents the critic has still
to examine their mutual relations, to comprehend them
as phases in a living process, and in this way to trace
3053
HEXATEUCH
the gradual developmerit of the Hebrew historical
tradition. In the present article, however, we cannot
say anything of the way in which the Deuteronomist
views the Hebrew history (see HISTORICAL L IT., § 7),
nor shall we attempt to characterize the differences
between J and E (see GENESIS, 4 8 ) , but limit our-
selves to a general comparison between the narrative of
J E and that of the Priestly Code.
Bleek and his school viewed it as a great merit of the
latter narrative that it strictly observes the difference
24. JE and between various ages, mixes nothing
narratives Mosaic with the patriarchal period, and
contrasted. m the Mosaic history never forgets that
the s e n e lies in the wilderness of wandcr-
ing. They also took it as a mark of fidelity to authentic
sources that the Code contains so many dry lists, such
a mass of unimportant numbers and names, such exact
technical descriptions of details which could have no
interest for posterity. Against this view Colenso
proved that just those parts of the Hexateuch which
contain the most precise details, and so have the air of
authentic documents, are least consistent with the laws
of possibility.
Colenso, when he wrote, had no thought of the several sources
of the Hexateuch ; but this only makes it the more remarkable
that his criticisms mainly affect the Priestly Code. Noldeke
followed Colenso with dearer insight, and determined the
character and value of the priestly narrative by tracing all
through it an artificial construction and a fictitious character.
The supposed marks of historical accuracy and de-
pendence on authentic records are quite out of place
in such a narrative as that of the Fentateuch, the
substance of which is nof historical but legendary.
This legendary character is always manifest both in the
form and in the substance of the narrative of the
Yahwist ( J E ) ; his stories of the patriarchs and of
Moses are just such as might have been gathered from
popular tradition.
In JE the general plan of the history is still quite loose; the
individual stories are the important thing and they have a truly
living individuality. They have always A local connection and
we can still often see what motives lie at the root of them.' But
even when we do not understand these legends they lose none of
their charm ; for they breathe a sweet poetic fragrance, and in
them heaven and earth axe magically blended into one.
The Priestly Code, on the other hand, dwells as little
as possible on the details of the several stories; the
pearls are stripped off in order that the thread on which
they were strung may be properly seen.
Love and hate and all the passions, angels, miracles, and
theophanies local and historical allusions, disappear ; the old
narrative sh)rivels into a sort of genealogical scheme,-a hare
scaffolding to support a pragmatic construction of the connection
and progress of the sacred history. In legendary narrative, on
the other hand, connection is a very secondary matter ; indeed
it is only brought in when the several legends are collected and
written down. When therefore the Priestly Code makes the
connection the chief tding, it is cjeax that it has lost all touch of
the original sources and starting-points of the legends. I t draws
therefore, not from oral tradition, but from hooks; its dry
excerpts can have no other source than a tradition already fixed
in wripng. In point of fact it simply draws on the Yahwistic
narrative. The order in which that narrative disposed the
popular legends is here made the essential thing; the arrange-
ment, which in the Yahwist (JE) was still quite subordinate to
the details, is here brought into the foreground ; the old order
of events is strictly adhered to, but is so emphasized as to become
the one important thing in the history. Obviously it was the
intention of the priestly narrator to give by this treatment the
historical quintessence of his materials freed of all superfluous
additions. At the same time, he has used all means to dress
up the old ndive traditions into a learned history. Sorely
against its real character, he forces it into a chronological
system, which he carries through without a break from Adam
to Joshua. Whenever he can he patches the story with things
that have the air of authoritative documents. Finally he
rationalises the history after the standard of his own reli&ous
ideas and general culture; above all, he shapes it so that it
forms a framework, and at the same time a gradual preparation
for the Mosaic law. With the spirit of the legend in which
the Yahwist (JE) still lives, he bas nothing in cokrnon, and
so he forces it into conformity with a point of view entirely
different from its own.
The middle position which the legal part of Deuter-
1 The Penfafeuchand Book ofJoshua Cm'ficaZ&Examined,
pt.I (162). For a sketch of Colenso see Che. Fotmders.
2054
 HEXATEUCI-I
onomy holds between J E and' the Priestly Code is also
25. Narrative characteristic of the Deuteronomic nar-
rative,' which is founded throughout
of D, etc. on JE, but from time to time shows a
certain leaning to the points of view characteristic of the
priestly narrator. The order of the several parts of the
Hexateuch to which we have been led by all these argu-
ments is confirmed by an examination of the other
historical books and the books of Chronicles. The
original sources of the books of Judges, Samuel, and
Kings stand on the same platform with J E ; the editing
they received in the Exile presupposes Deuteronomy ;
and the latest construction of the history as contained
in Chronicles rests on the Priestly Code. This is ad-
mitted (see H ISTORICAL LIT., $ 7) ; the conclusion to
be drawn is obvious.
W e have now indicated the chief lines on which
-
criticism must uroceed in determinine the order of the
26. Objections sources of the Hexateuch, and the age
of the Priestly Code in particnlar-
to Grafian though, of course, it has not been
hypothesis. possible at all to exhaust the argu-
ment. The objections that have been taken to Graf's
hypothesis partly rest on misunderstanding. It is asked,
for example, what is left for Moses if he were not the
author of the Torah.
Moses may have been the founder of the Torah, though the
Pentateuchal legislation was codified almost a thousand years
later : for the Torah was originally not a
27. Antiquity written law, hut the oral decisions of the
of Torah. priests a t the sanctuary-case-law, in short
by which they decided all manner of question;
and controversies that were brought before their tribunal (cp
LAWA N D JUSTICE 55 r 4); their Torah was the instruction to
others that came f;om their lips, not at all a written document in
their hands guaranteeing their own status, and instructing them-
selves how to proceed in the sacrificial ritual. Questions of clean
and uiiclean belonged to the Torah because these were matters
on which the laity required to he birected ; but, generally the
ritnsl, so far as it consisted in ceremonies performed b; the
priests themselves, was no part of the Torah. Whilst, however,
it was only at a late date that the ritual appeared as Torah as it
does in the Priestly Code its usages and traditions are exceed-
ingly ancient, going hack,'in fact, to pre-Mosaic and heathenish
timzs.
It is absurd to speak as if Graf's hypothesis meant
that the whole ritual is the invention of the Priestly
Code, first put into practice after the exile.
All that is affirmed by the advocates of that hypothesis is that
in earlier times the ritual was not the substructure of a hiero-
cracy, that there was in fact no hierocracy before the exile
that Yabwe's sovereignty was an ideal thing, not visibly ern:
bodied in an organization of the commonwealth under the forms
of a specifically spiritual power. The theocracy was the state ;
the old Israelites regarded their civil constitution as a divine
miracle. The later Jews assumed the existence of the state as
a natural thing that required no explanation, and built the
theocracy over it as a special divine institution.
There are, however, some more serious objections
taken to the Grafian hypothesis. It is, indeed, simply a
misstatement of facts to say that the
28. Deutero-
nomic redaction. language of the Priestly Code forbids
us to date it so late as post-exilic
times. On the other hand, a real difficilty lies in
the fact that, whilst the priestly redaction extends to
Deuteronomy (Dt. 13), it is also true that the Deutero-
nomic redaction extends to the Priestly Code (Josh. 20).
The way out of this dilemma is to be found by recognizing
that the so-called Deuteronomic redaction was m t a single and
final act, that the characteristic phrases of Deuteronomy became
household words to subsequent generations and were still
current and found application centuries after the time of Josiah.
(See further HISTORICAL LIT. 5 7). Thus, for example, the
traces of De;terouomic redactio; i n Josh. 20 are still lacking in
the Septuagint; the text, we see, was retouched at a,very late
date indeed (cp JOSHUA, $ 18 ; Bennett SBOT ' Heb., note?).
Of the other objections taken to the Grafian hypothesis
only one need be mentioned here-viz., that the Persians
are not named in the list of nations in Gen. 10.
This is certainly hard to understand if the passage was written
in the Persian period ; but the difficulty is not insuperable.
The Persians, for example, may have been held to be included in
the mention of the Elamites, and this also would give the list
the archaic air which the priestly writer affects.
At any rate, a residue of minute difficulties not yet
20.55
HEXATEUCH
thoroughly explained cannot outweigh the decisive
arguments that support the view that the Priestly Code
originated in and after the Exile. Kuenen observes wlth
justice that ' it is absolutely necessary to start with the
plain and unambiguous facts, and to allow them to
guide our judgment on questionable points. The study
of details is not superfluous in laying down the main
lines of the critical construction; but, as soon as our
studies have supplied us with some really fixed points,
further progress must proceed from them, and we must
first gain a general view of the whole field instead of
always working away at details, and then coming out
with a rounded theory which lacks nothing but a
foundation.'
Finally, it is a pure petitio principii, nothing more,
to say that the post-exilic age was not equal to the task
of producing a work like the Priestly Code.
The position of the Jews after the Exile made it
imperative on' them to reorganize themselves in con-
29. Post-exilic formity with the entire change in their
needs. situation. Now the Priestly Code is all
that we should expect to find in a con-
stitution for the Jews after the Exile. It meets the new
requirements as completely as it fails to satisfy the con-
ditions which a law-book older than the Exile would have
had to satisfy. After the final destruction of the kingdom
by Nebnchadrezzar, they found in the ritual andpersunne2
of the temple at Jerusalem the elements out of which a
new commonwealth could be built, in conformity with the
circumstances and needs of the time. The community of
Judaea raised itselffrom the dust byholdingontoitsruined
sanctuary. The old usages and ordinances were reshaped
in detail ; but as a whole they were not replaced by new
creations ; the novelty lay in their being worked into a
system and applied as a means to organize the remnant '
of Israel. This was the origin of the sacred constitution
of Judaism. Religion in old Israel had been a faith which
gave its support to the natural ordinances of human
society; it was now set forth in external and visible form
as a special institution, within an artificial sphere peculiar
t o itself, which rose far above the level of common life.
30. Production The necessary presupposition of this
kind of theocracy is service to a
of foreign empire, and so the theocracy
is essentially the same thing as hierocracy. Its finished
picture is drawn in the Priestly Code, the product of
the labours of learned priests during the Exile. When
the temple was destroyed and the ritual interrupted, the
old practices were written down that they might not he
lost. Thus in the Exile the ritual became matter of
teaching, of Torah ; the first who took this step, a step
prescribed by the circumstances of the time, was the
priest and prophet Ezekiel (see E ZEKIEL i. 5 4, ii. 5
21x). I n the last part of his book Ezekiel began the
literary record of the customary ritual of the temple ;
other priests follow-ed in his footsteps (Lev. 17-26) ; and
so there arose during the captivity a school of men
who wrote down and systematized what they had
formerly practised. When the temple was restored this
theocratic zeal still went on and produced further ritual
developments, in action and reaction with the actual
practice of the new temple; the final result of the
long-continued process was the Priestly Code.
[The student who has read and assimilated the fore-
going sketch will be qnalified to estimate the progress
which has been made since the lonely Jewish thinker
of Amsterdam (Baruch Spinoza) propounded his doubts
on Genesis, and since Jean Astruc, professor of medicine
but also student of the Pentateuch, opened the 'true
path' of critical investigation. Now, however, we are in a
different position from that at which Kuenen had arrived
when he rewrote his OnderzoeR and Wellhausen when
he wrote his illuminative Prulegomena. The criticism of
the Hexateuch is approaching a fresh turning-point, and
the students of to-day need to be warned that new
methods will be necessary to carry the discussion of
2056
 HEXATEUCH
mitical problems nearer to definite solutions. A +re&
,literary criticism has had its day, and biblical archzology
and the comparative study of social customs have forced
us to undertake a more searching examination of the
contents of the Hexateuch, which is leading to a com-
plication of critical problems not before dreamed of.
With the problems we hope that we are catching a
glimpse of the new methods to be applied in their
solutions. These new methods will best be learned by
observing the practice of the critical workers. Bndde's
Die diblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 1-125) untersucht is
not a recent book (it appeared in 1883); but a student of
method may learn much from it. With more complete
satisfaction, however, we may mention Stade's admirable
essays on ' Cain's Sign,' on the ' Tower of Babel,' and
on the ' Torah of the Sacrifice of Jealousy,' now reprinted
in his Akademische Reden und AdAandZuEgen (1899).
The introduction to the Hexateuch by Steucrnagel will,
it may be hoped, furnish many fruitful hints ; but the
present writer looks forward with higher hopes to
Gunkel's expected commentary on Genesis. From
many articles of the present work the student will be
able to gather how the present writer views'the task
that lies before us in Genesis, and by what means we
should attempt to accomplish it. Gunkel will doubtless
do much more, and for Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers
the student will be in safe hands if he begins under the
tuition of Baentsch. T o Deuteronomy and Joshua
reference is made below.
T o say more just now about the road which the students
of to-day will have to traverse would be unwise. I t
would be tantamount to doing the work superficially
which in a longer or shorter time the investigators of
to-day-both those who have worked their way out of
purely .literary criticism and those who, have the
advantage of beginning their journey at the point now
reached by critics-may modestly but confidently hope
'to accomplish. Let our last word be this : Hexatcuch
'criticism is passing into a new phase. This phase is
largely due to archzology and the comparative study of
social customs, but in part also to the further develop-
ments of Hebrew philology and textual criticism. Let
the student therefore devote the utmost pains to the
critical study of Biblical archaeology, and of the Hebrew
texts, for without a better knowledge of what the texts
really contain and of the circumstances in which these
texts arose n o secure step in advance can be taken by
Hexateuch criticism.
A word, too, may be said on the present position of
the study of that part of the Hexateuch which relates
to the laws. The immense labour bestowed on the
adaptation of the old Hebrew laws is becoining more
and more manifest. The Oxford Hexuteuch indicates
the nature of some of the newer problems which are at
present engaging the attention of workers, especially in
the department of the legal literature. Together with
Holzinger's (German) Introduction to the Hexateuch
it can be confidently recommended to all thorough
students. It is gratifying to know that defenders of
religious truth (even in the Roman church2) are finding
out that criticism of the ' Books of Moses'.is no enemy
to' religion. In fact, the wonderful ways by which
God led the people of Israel towards the light of life
-may be studied in that strangely composite work, the
Hexateuch, with as much benefit to edification as in the
Psalms or the prophecies, and recent works on the
religion of Israel ( e . g . , vol. ii. of Duffs OZd Testament
TheoZogys) do not neglect to use the main results in
1 The Hexateuch accordinf io the RV arranged :n its con.
sfifue-rtDocirments by nzem6ei-s of rlre Society of HistSricaZ
Theology,Oxford, J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby
(London 1900).
2 See,'e.g., M. J. Lagrange, 'Les sources du Pentateuque,'
Revue biblique, 7 1 0 . 3 ~
3 Prof. Duffs view of Deuteronomy, however differs from
that which is still most prevalent among critic:. Cp Steuer-
nagel's commentary, and the. Oxford Hexakrcch. These three
2057
HEZEKIAH
pictures both of the popular and of the higher religion
of Israel. The bibliographies to be found at the end of
the articles on the books of the Hexateuch are so care-
fully selected that not much more need be said.- A
really satisfactory history of the religion of Israel still
has to be written, and when we have reached the fresh
starting-point for which we are looking, this much
desired book will be written. T. K. C.]
J. W.
HEZEKI, RV HIZKI('pro ; aza~[sliP A ] , BZEKIA
[L]), b. Elpaal in a genealogy of B ENJAMIN (q.v.,
§ g ii. p) ; I Ch. 817t ; cp /QR 11103, gj I .
HEZEKIAH (a??$ [usually], fi:p)n [in z K.
1814-16, which comes from a separate record], also
fi:p!n! [no. I in Hos. 1 1 Mic. 111 and 4fi:iQ)n) [no. I
in Is. 1 I and constantly in 2 Ch.] ; see also J EHIZKIAH ;
the vocalization of the two latter forms is anomalous';
E Z E K I ~ C [BAL]). The name HizkiyZhti is written
Haz+i[i]an in Assyrian; cp also the'name pin* on a
seal [see / A s . , Feb.-Mar. 1883, p. 134 (no. 7)]. ' It
means ' Yahwk has strengthened,' or ' is strength '.;
cp EZEKIEL, and the plays upon the name in Ecclus.
48 17 2 2 [Heb. text].
I. King of Judah 0720-691; cp C HRONOLOGY , $
36). Of the reign of this king little is known with
H e certainly ascended the
His policy. throne
certainty.
at a youthful age. M'Curdyl
makes him only fifteen at h-is accession ; he was, by
general admission, certainly under twenty-five (the age
given by the Redactor in z K. 182 [cp K INGS , gj 4]), we
may even confidently say, under twenty. Elsewhere
(see ISAIAH i., 8 6)reason has been given for supposing
that Hezekiah may have been early influenced by the
preaching of Isaiah, and unlike his father have responded
to the prophet's demand for 'faith.' The kings' of
Judah, however, did not possess absolute power, and
Hezekiahs action was in the main dictated by the
political party which happened to be predominant
among the nobles. His personal relation to Isaiah was
therefore of comparatively slight significance, and it is
but a conjecture that the (probable) dismissal of SHEBNA
(4.") and the alarm produced by the Assyrian invasion
led to something in the nature of a reform which con-
sisted partly in the requirement of a higher standard of
morality from the judges (Is. 117 23 315) and partly in
the abolition of certain idolatrous objects at Jerusalem,
such as the brazen serpent (zK. 184). A much larger
measure of iconoclasm is ascribed to Hezekiah in
2 K. 184-7, where the compiler of Kings (to whom the
passage in its present form is due) assigns the re-
formation to one of the first years of Hezekiah's reign
(cp v. 22 and 2 Ch. 293).
The language however which the compiler uses is so strongly
suggestive of t i e influen& of Deuteronomy (reign of Josiah)
that we cannot venture to take it as strictly historical. There
is no sound evidence that Isaiah attacked either the Mass&ihs
or the AshzrEh, much less the B d m 2 h or high places.% The
destruction of these ohjects seems a detail transferred to
Hezekiah's times from those of Josiah, to which it properly
belongs.
hooks show that the origin of Deuteronomy is one of the problems
which need a more thorough investigation. Steuernagel's
Joshua may also he recommended.
1 Hist. Projh. Mon. 2 250. This implies dating Hezekiah's
accession in 720 or 719. Similarly Wi. and C. Niebnhr (720)
assume that Merodach-baladau's embassy (2 K. 20 12-19=1s.
39) was seat on Hezekiah's accession, which took place ( e x
h y j . ) not long after his own (cp Schr. COT 2 25). M'Curdy's
assumptions are different, and need testing. Most scholars,
with We., prefer 715. The question is not settled. On the
doubtful statement 'in the fourteenth year' (2 K. 1813=1s.
36 I ) see Di. yes. 313 ; Duhm Jes. 235. Kau. in Kamph.
Chronologie, 94 ; Che. Intr. Is. 'ZIT$ ; a i d cp CHRONOLOLV,
''2%. and Dr. IsaialrP), 13f:
17 7 Jr: is an interpolation. See Stade, Z A T W 3 13, who
is scarcely answered by Kiinig, Hazjfpro6leme 70. Steuer-
nagel's answer to Sta., We., and Smend is not &tical enough
(Ent. des dent. Gesetzes IOO ['g6]). Hezekiah's supposed .edict
for a reformation re,nai;s as improbable as before and should
not be mixed up with a discussion of the 'original D;uteronomy?
2058
 HEZEKIAH
The removal and destruction of the brazen serpent is
not to be explained away.' That Hezekiah did away
with this much misunderstood object (see N EHUSHTAN )
is credible, and this may even be the whole historical
kernel of the story of the reform of the cultus, which
the Chronicler (after his fashion) has still further
elaborated (z Ch. 29-31).
(a) Philistine campaign. -It is less doubtful to what
period Hezekiah's successful campaign against the
Philistines is to be referred ( 2 K. 188).
2' Campaigne*According to Stade ( G VZ 1624) and
Kittel (Hist.2371), the account is to be taken in connec-
tion with Sennacheribs statement that he deprived Heze-
kiah of certain cities, as a punishment for his rebellion,
and attached them to the territories of three Philistine
kings ( K B 2g4f.). Hezekiah, it is suggested by these
critics, may not have submitted tamely to this, and may
even have enlarged his own territory at the expense of
the Philistines after Sennacherib's departure. This is too
arbitrary a view. The cities which Sennacherib wrested
from Hezekiah are probably cities which Hezekiah had
previously taken from the Philistines.
(6) Assyrian campa&n.-The other events of Heze-
kiah's reign, so far as we know them, are treated else-
where (see I SAIAH i., § 5 3 ; M ERODACH -B ALADAN ;
SENNACHERIB; EGYPT, 6 6 ; I SRAEL, 5 34). T o
supplement these notices, it is only necessary to point
out here: ( I ) that a thorough criticism of z K. 1813-1937
( = I s . 36J) in connection with the Assyrian annals
raises the character of Hezekiah considerably ; he was
a true hero, who, unlike the cowardly Luli of Sidon,
stuck to the post of duty, and only gave way when all
hope had fled, and Jerusalem was 'like a booth in a
vineyard or a lodge in a cucumber-field ' (Is. 18) ; and
( 2 ) that great caution must be used in reconstructing
the history of Jewish religion on the basis of the im-
perfectly-known facts of the close of the Assyrian
invasion.
Much that has been assigned to Isaiah's pen belongs to a later
age, and presupposes a glorification of Isaiah which that great
prophet and lover of truth would certainly have deprecated.
The circumstances under which Jerusalem was liberated from
the blockading Assyrian force were not such as to promote a
spiritual religion such as Isaiah would have approved. It is by
no means certain that Sennacherib retired in consequence of a
pestilence in his army; the evidence is as unsatisfactory as
possible, and the story may have been developed out of the
words of Isaiah in 17 14 ' A t eventide behold terror ! before
morning he is no more ! )This is the portion of those that spoil
us ; and the lot of those who rob us.'
If Sennacherib's army had been almost destroyed, is
it likely that Hezekiah would have sent a special envoy
with tribute to Nineveh (KB296J)? It is much more
probable that the inability of Sennacherib to meet
Taharka was due to the receipt of bad news from
Babylon. In the failure of historical information,
nothing was more natural, especially in the light of
Isaianic prophecies (supposed to have been literally
fulfilled), than to postulate a plague as the cause of his
retreat. See SENNACHERIB.
T o quote on the other side the story of the priest-king Se'thas
(Herod. 2 141) is extremely unsafe, considering Herodotus's ill-
fortune in the matter of popular Egyptian stories, and the
mythological connections of the detail of the field-mice gnawing
the quivers of the invaders.2
The only doubt is whether there may not have been
a second invasion of Sennacherib, which may perhaps
have been abruptly terminated by a pestilence.
On one point, however, it is safe to adhere still to the
older critical view. The fact that Jerusalem escaped
1 See Stade Z A T W 3 9 ('83). * places, Hazar or Hezron, and Addar, close to one
2 Hommel'd statement (Gesclt. des alten Morgenlandes 142
['95]) ' A plague (or, as Herodotus symbolically expresses 'bim-
;
self, 'swarm of field-mice ') fell upon the Assyrian host so that
Sennacherib had to return (with no results to show) to Nineveh,
and M'Curdy's in Hist. Projh. .%'on. 2 2 9 8 8 , 428, seem to
need modification. I t has not been proved that mice were a
symbol of plague-boils. I n I S. 5f: the plague and the mice
are two distinct punishments. On the mythological affinities
of the field-mice of Sethas, see A. Lang, Custom and Myflt,
111-114. See EMERODS, MOUSE.
2059
HEZRON
being taken when all the other fortified cities fell before
the Assyrians, and, as Sennacherib states, zoo, 150
Judaeans were led into captivity, must have enhanced
the prestige of the temple (cp I SRAEL , 34 ; DEIJTER-
ONoMY, 5 13). The religious reaction under Manasseh
would rather promote than hinder this. The misin-
terpretation of Is. 28 16 may have begun very early.
That Hezekiah composed a song in the style of the
Psalms, is a priori most improbable. The song in Is.
3. Resekiah,s 38 is, both on general and on linguistic
and phraseological grounds, of post-
song. exilic origin (see ISAIAH ii., ij 1.5). Nor
can we venture to accept the statement in- Piov. 25 I
that ' Hezekiah's men' collected the proverbs contained
in Prov. 25-29 (cp PROVERBS). Hezekiah has hardly
earned the title of the ' Pisistratus of Judah.' On
the reign of Hezekiah see especially Stade, G VZ 1603-
624 ; and cp I SRAEL , $ 33f: T. K. C .
2. V?ln, RV HIZKIAH, the son of Neriah of the seed of
David (I Ch. 3 23 e<wra [BA], -P [Ll).
3. Ater-Hezekiah (Neh. 721 = Ezra216= I Esd. 5 15, Neh.
10 77); see ATER (I).
4. An ancestor of Zephaniah the prophet (Zeph. 1 I AV
HIZKIAH &LOV [BNAQI). Since the genealogy is traced hack
so far i; has been supposed that he must have heeii some
renowAed person, perhaps the king. It is probably accidental
that no other prophet's genealogy is carried above the grand-
father. No reference is made in Kings to a brother of Manasneh
named Amariah * but the chronology is not opposed to the
hypothesis which :s regarded as probable by Kuenen(ii., 8 78,n. I,
cp also Keil Hi., Steiner). Ibn Ezra also accepts; but Abar-
banel rejects'it. See Gray, E+., July 1900, pp. 76fi
HEZION (ti??; AZAHA [AL], AZEIN [BI), an
Aramaean king, father of Tab-rimmon, and grandfather
of Benhadad I. ( I K. 1518). The name, however, is
plainly corrupt.
Winckler ( A T Unters. 6 0 8 ) restores $Fin, Hazael, in accord-
ance with 'SAL. Others (e.g., Ew., Hist. 324, n. 5, The. and
Klo.) prefer P V p Hezron, of which they take 1\71, Rezon, in
11 23 to be anotherform, bzsing this view upon I K. 11 23 (euppwp
[Bl, -ov[L], om. A); but euppwp points rather either to ]llT?
I$eSr6n, or to PS? (cp REZON).Probably Wi. is right.
T. K . C.
REZIR (1VJ 'boar,' the pointing y may be in-
tentional, to avoid a connection with 1VC [NO., ZDMG 40 162
('86)]. Neub. compares Talm. Targ. N28~,-%7V, 'pomegranate,'
'apple' [Acad., Dec. '87, p. 41ibI; cp RIMMON. The y 7 " q~
w,
are mentioned upon a Hehrew inscription dating shortly before
the Christian era [Chwolson Cor). Inscr. Heb. no. 6 ; cp Dr.
TBSxxiii.J]. Cpperhaps Am. Tab. 159,and the Bab.
n. pr. Hamziru [Muss-Arno t]).
I . A-priest, to whom, according to the Chronicler, the seven-
teenth of the twenty-four lots fell in David's time, I Ch. 2415
[B o. 141 r&rp [AI, xd. [Ll).
2. Signatory io the covenant (see E ZRA i., 0 7
), Neh. 1020 [IS]
(&Lp [BNAI, a h [LI). S. A. C.
HEZRO (ny? ; I Ch. 1137 and z S. 2335 Kt.) or
Rezrai ('Yy: ; z S. 2335, Kr.) or, more probably,
Hezron (Klo., Marq. ), one of David's thirty, a native of
Carmel, in Judah.
x.
'S has :in Ch. q u c p b ,yappasac [B], VurpaL b [u], auapat. b
KappvAc [A], euppec b x e p p d A ~[L] ; in 2 S. auapaL b Kapprjhior
[BAI, L6apr 61 auucpr, Kappahr [tia+ap~r][Ll.
REZRON (ply?; A C ~ ~ U N[Bl, ~ p [AI.w ~
scpw~ [L]), one of the points which mark the S. border
of Judah in Josh. 153, mentioned between Kadesh-
barnea and Addar (?); in the 11 passage, Nu. 344,
Kadesh-barnea is followed by HAZAR-ADDAR ( i y i ! n ;
errayA1~apah [BAFL]). There may have been two
another. The site is uncertain ; Saadia in his transla-
tion takes it to be Raphia. See, however, HAZAR-ADDAR.
REZRON (ply?, 'enclosure,' BCPWM [AL] ; cp
1y5,court-yard, village, and see above).
1 The laying of the foundation-stone is future (read l.D5), and
the promised benefits are only for those who have what Isaiah
would recognise as faith. Cp Is. 86f:
2060
 HIDDAI
I, b. Perez b. Judah (Gen. 4612, aapwp [A], -v [D] ; similar Old Persian word tip' (the Zend ii<hrr> for 'arrow'x
Nu. 2621, aupwv [BFL], a u ~ p w v [A]; Ruth 418 f.,
~ u p w v[B. and A in v. 193, ~ { p w v[L] ; I Ch. 25, apawv
[B"], ~ a p w v[Ba?b*mg.]; 41 apawv [B], eupwv [L]; Mt.
1 3 Lk. 3 3 3 , eupwp AV ESROM; Hezronite $$iy, Nu.
2621, aupwv[e]r [BAFL]). This relationship is late
and is a modification of the older scheme which
appears in I Ch. 29. Here Hezron (euepwv [B*], eupwv
[Bab]) is the #father' of the two clans Jerahmeel' and
Chelubai (=Caleb), and in this connection his name is
probably as symbolical as those of Calebs wives (see
AZUBAH, I ) , since ' Hezronites' seems to mean
' the inhabitants of pqxg-nomad encampments '-so
WRS J. PhiL 991 (see H AZOR ). Caleb and Jerahmeel
in David's time inhabited the neged of Judah (cp, e.g.,
I S. 302g), and it was not until later times that they
migrated northwards. Hence it is natural that upon
their subsequent adoption into the tribe of Judah, they
should be genealogically represented as the offspring of
the tribal eponym by making their father a son of PEREZ
[q.v.]. The genealogical fragment I Ch. 218-24 which
connects Hezron with Gilead, etc., may represent post-
exilic relations, or perhaps simply implies that Gilead
had a nomadic origin (vv. 18 21 24) e u ~ p w v[B], eupwp
[A], -v rL and A in v. 251) ; cp I Ch. 510. See also
~~
CALEB-EPHR
ATAH.
2.A son of Reuben (Gen. 469 auppov [ADL], Nu. 266 auppov
[BFL], .p [A], Ex. 6 14 auppwv [BAF], -p [Ll, I Ch. 5 3 -Y [Ll,
apumv [B], E U ~ W [A]; Hezronite, *!iyt Nu.266, auppov[e]r
[BAFL]).
HIDDAI ('p?; aAaoi [B"], ahpoi [Bab19 &@ai
[A], aAAai [L]), one of David's thirty : z S. 2330=
I Ch. 1132, H URAI ( q . ~ . ) .
HIDDEKEL (5R?.o;
Tirpic [AEL in Gen.],
TirpHc [d 87 in Dan.], Tlrplc ~ A A E K E A[Theod. in
Dan.]; but C N A ~ K E AA with cy-ie., Symmachus-
written above it] ; b@?, n?;r? ; Ass. DiRZat (?), Bab.
DigZut), the river of Eden 'which goeth eastward to
Assyria' of Gen. 2 1 4 , ' the great river ' of Dan. 10 4, is
undoubtedly the TIGRIS. The name of this river,
in the pre-Semitic writing of Babylonia, was MAE-
TIG-GAR, a group of signs, which in this connection
denoted an idea whose audible expression was Idigna
or Idignu. As applied to the river, it was regarded
by the Babylonian scribes as denoting the river they
called Diglat. This form of the name is clearly pre-
served in the Greek of Pliny, NH 6127, & ~ X L T O ,
Aramaic De@lut, Arabic Dig& and 6ryXaO (Jos.
Ant. i. 13).
T h e suggestion has been made that Diglat is formed from
Idigna, by dropping the initial vowel (for which many parallels
can he produced), and adding the Semitic feminine (F. Delitzsch,
Purad. 171). The Hebrew and modern Arabic have not this t.
The former substitutes for the the closely related k, a change
which may also he indicated inathe Assyrian, if that really was
Diklat. The presence of the initial Hi, in the Hebrew, has
been accounted for by the prefixing of the Hebrew article to a
form beginning with I. This scarcely accounts for the h,
without further explanation. The Samaritan, however, has
$pin. The modern Arabic follows the local form DigZeh.
That the sign MA: had among its phonetic values u i H i i
is a legitimate suggestion, but has no support. I t dinodd'
among other ideas, the hank of a river,' and as such was read
Abi. Thus Abitiggar, or with a change of r to 1, for which
many parallels could he found, Abitiggal, Hidikal, is a natural
progression.
The same group of signs however not only denoted the
river Tigris, but, with the s a d e pronun&tion, was translated by
the Babylonian scribes as nu@ ' a district ' nnd6uku ' a gu!ly
or wady,' and finally was an iheogram fo; the verb 'zcibr to
flow ' which furnished the names of the two Zabs, tributaries of
this h e r . Thus, if Tiggar was the early pronunciation of this
erouu of sinns it mav have been a me-Semitic name that nerhaDs
&mi to trhe uppe; reaches of the stream where the' Medo-
Persian invaders first became acquainted hith the river. At
any rate, it seems more than coincidence that the Old Persian
name should be TigrS, a feminine form. The existence of a
1 The introduction of Ram (a mere fragment of ' Jerahmeel,'
Che.) is erroneoiis.
2061
HIEL
may perhaps help the change.
It must be borne in mind however, that the other ancient
writing of the name was IIXL-HALA, the cufleiform signs of
which are very suggestive-of lour 'arrows following one
another. and yet, on the other hand robably represent an old
pictoriafindication of 'running watir.' At the same time, the
Babylonians translated these signs by garrim, 'to flow,' when
used otherwise than as the name of the river. Another old
name for this river or some part of it was the Ammu. At
bottom we may supiose the old writing MAs-(Ahi?)-TIG-GAR to
have been also phonetic and either directly, "or by way of
suggestion, the parent of Ijiddekel, Diglat, and Tigris.
C. H. W. J.
HIEL ($&+n,
if the letter il is correct, perhaps for
?&'+n.' El lives,' § 35; &X[€]IHh P A ] , a ,/[Pesh.];
unless on account of @ and Pesh., $ K V l may be con-
sidced to be for $N+nK, cp Bathg. Beitr. 156, and
2Kn for X n K on an inscription from Safz [see AHAB]),
the Bethelite ( * ? y - n q ) , who in the days of Ahab ' built'
( i . e . , fortified?) Jericho, and who 'laid the foundation
thereof at the cost of (the life of) Abiram ( o i ; ? ~ ~ )his
firstborn, and set up the gates thereof at the cost of (the
life of) Segub (3ri@?) his youngest, according to the
word of Yahw6 which he spoke by Joshua the son of
Nun ' ( I K. 1634). Several interesting questions arise
out of this passage : ( I ) as to the name and period of
the ' builder ' of Jericho (§ z ) ; ( 2 )as to the manner in
which he lost his two sons (I 3) ; and ( 3 ) as to the
relation of the passage to Josh. 626 (Joshua's curse on
the ' builder' of Jericho) (5 I ). Let us take the last of
these first.
Comparing the two passages, we find that the
phraseological evidence favours the view that the
1. Relation passage in Josh. is the later (see Kit.
of the story Hist. 2213, n. I ). It is also probable
that I K. 1634 (which is not found in
to Josh* 626' 6.) was introduced from some other
context ; the closing words would naturally be inserted
later, to provide a point of contact with Josh. 626.
In @ P A L the fulfilment is narrated in Josh. (o{uv [B+],
aoJzcv [Bamg.], 6 a{uv [AL]).
Next, as to the person intended. The notice is very
obscure ; what has a Bethelite to do with the building
2. who wLs or refortification of Jericho ? According
to Ewald ( G VZ 3490) Hiel was a ' rich
Hiel ? man of an enterprising turn of mind.'
The building of a city, however, is an unusual enterprise
for a private person, and such a distinguished man
ought to have had a genealogy. Next, we notice that
the second part of the Hebrew for ' the Bethelite ' ( h n )
contains nearly the same letters as Hiel (hn). This
suggests that Hiel may have been a variant of Hiel, and
have been transformed into Beth-hB'eli, when the two
readings had come to stand side by side. But who is
Hiel? Not a Bethelite, but some one important enough
to do without a patronymic. It is a probable conjecture
that Jehu (possibly from $Fin:?) is disguised as Hiel,
and that the notice of his rebuilding Jericho originally
stood after z K. 1 0 3 3 . 3 J EHU [ I ] built or refortified
Jericho because he had been deprived of so much
territory by Hazael, and had to protect what was left.
The change of 'Jehu' (Jehael?) into ' Hiel' and the
transference of the notice to the story of Ahab arise out of
the embarrassing fact that the story of Elijah repre-
sented that prophet as having been sent to Jericho
(2 K. 24).
Lastly, as to the fate of Hiel's or Jehu's two sons.
1 As asserted by Strabo xi. 148, and others (Curtius, 49).
0"
2 Tg.gives+D)Dn*x,Pesh. ]gJ&Lb; Ar. ? L Y I w ,
all in agreement with the Rabbinical tradition (Rashi, etc.)
which connects ?$~n-,n?x with & ('a curse'), Jericho being
the 'house of a curse.
3 This view. is due to C. Niehuhr (Gesch. 133zJ) except
that he cannot see that the sons mentioned have dnything
to do with Jehu ; nor is he quite full enough on the disguising
name Hiel.
2062
 HIERAPOLIS
The writer of the notice makes Hiel (Jehu) responsible
3. The sacrificefor their deaths, and the inserter of the
gloss, ‘ according to the word of Yahw&
of Hiel’s
(Jehu,s) sons. which he spoke by Joshua,’ supposed
the deaths to have been judgments upon
Hiel (Jehu) for his impiety in breaking the taboo laid
upon the site of Jericho by Joshua. Of this taboo,
however, we have no early record, and the explanation
is certainly not natural. The key to the passage is
supplied by the comparative study of primitive customs.
It is not the ordinary sacrifices of children that we
have before us (so Kue. 0nd.i“) 1233=He%. 240), but
a special kind of sacrifice to the local supernatural
powers such as has been practised in many countries.
This can hardly fail to have suggested itself to many readers
of Tylor’s Primitive CnZtnre (1 104fi) and has for many years
been held by the present writer. FroA Tylor’s instances it is
enough to quote the Japanese belief (17th cent.) that ‘a wall
laid on the body o f a willing human victim would be secure from
accident : accordingly when a great wall was to be built, some
wretched slave would offer himself as foundation, lying down :i
the trench to be crushed by the heavy stones lowered upon him.
Similarly at Algiers ‘when the walls were built of blocks of
concrete in the sixteenth century, a Christian captive named
Geronimo was placed in one of the blocks and the rampart built
over and about him.’l At Shanghai, when the bridge leading
to St. John’s College was being built an official present threw
into the stream first his shoes, then )his garments, and finally
himself, ‘and as his life went out, the workmen were enabled to
go on with their building.’ In India, to this day, engineers and
architects have to reassure the natives a t the commencement of
any great undertaking, to prevent them from anticipating a
sacrifice of human victims (Sewell). It is still more important
to notice that the American explorer, J. H. Haynes, in ex-
cavating the zikkurrat of the temple of Eel at Nippur (the oldest
yet found) discovered many skulls built in with the bricks.2
It is probable that in primitive times these foundation-
sacrifices were customary in Palestine as well as in
Babylonia, and that they even lingered on in northern
Israel. Even if we believe that Hiel (Jehu) sacrificed
his two sons in the usual way ( i e . , not adopting the
precise practice referred to by Tylor), we must at any
rate suppose that he sprinkled the foundation-stones and
the side-posts of the gates (cp Ex. 127 zzf.) with his
children’s blood, just as Arabian husbandmen, when
they build, are still wont to sprinkle the blood of a
peace-offering upon the stones.
That he. selected his firstborn and his youngest sons
as the sacrificial victims, is in accordance with the
principle implied in 2 K. 327 Mic. 67.4 The only
biblical critic who has explained the passage by folklore
is Winckler (Gesch. 1163, n. 3) ; but the present article
is independent of his work. [Cp Ki. Kon. 136.1
T. K. C.
HIERAPOLIS ( ~ c p a r r o h i cI ~~P A . I T O A I C [WE! ; Str.
629]), a city in Phrygia, mentioned incidentally in Col.
4 13 along with the neighbouring Laodicea. It occupied a
shelf, 1100ft. above thesea, springing from the mountains
bounding the Lykos valley on the NE. The modern
village PambdA Xalesi ( ‘ cotton castle,’ from the lime
of the springs) lies close to the site. The hot calcareous
springs, and the chasms filled with carbonic acid gas,
were and are still remarkable features.6 The water of
the springs falls over the cliffs, 100 ft. or more in height,
above which the city stood, and the snowy white
stalactites present the appearance of a frozen cascade.
The PZutonium, a hole from which mephitic vapour
issued, was filled up by the Christians between 19 A.D.
(Strabo’s visit) and 380 A. D. : this appears in legend as
the subjugation of Echidna (SnakeZSatan) by the
Apostles Philip and John.
1 Cornkill Magazine Feb. 1887 (quoted by Trumbull).
2 Peters, JBL 16 11 1’961; Trumbull, The ThreshoZd Coue.
nant, 48 (‘96). On p. 46 the author vaguely remarks that there
is a ‘suggestion’ of the idea of the foundation sacrifice in the
curse pronounced by Joshua. (See also Frazer, Journ. Phil
14 156f: [“as]).
3 Doughty A x Des. 1136.
4 Cp WRd ReZ. Senr.W, 464.
5 Strabo sdys (62g), Karavmxp3 Aao8rKdaF ‘Icpb T&F,
;b b’eppi 6 8 a 7 a aai io I I h o v r c j v ~ o v Zp$o
, aapdofoohoyiav n v i
cxovra. H e calls the chasms xap&via, 579 : cp Vitr. viii. 3 IO.
2063
HIGH PLACE
As contrastedwith the Seleucidfoundation of Laodicea.
6 m. to the S., Hierapolis was the focus of Phrygian
natibnal feeling and religious ideas. As Ramsay points
out, it exemplifies a phenomenon common in Asia
Minor. The sacred cities of the early period generally
grew up in a locality where the divine power was most
strikingly manifested in natural phenomena. A sacred
village (ieppb K&V) arose near the sanctuary (cp Ephesus),
and this developed into a city of the native character,
with the name Hieropolis.
Wherever native feeling is strong, the form of this name is
Hieropolis, ‘City of the Sanctuary’’ but where Hellenic feeling
and education spreads, the Greek’ form Hierapolis, ‘ Sacred
City,’ is introduced. The difference in form corresponds to a
difference in spirit. According to the former the sanctuary,
according to the latter the city, is the leading idea.
The great goddess of Hierapolis was the Mother Let0
(Str. 469 f. ; see PHRYGIA). Hence the warnings
issued in Col. 35 16 Eph. 417-19 5 3J The churches
in the Lykos valley were not founded by Paul personally
(see COLOSSE, § 2). That of Hierapolis may have been
the creation of Epaphras (Col. 4125). .Justinian made
it the metropolis of a group of bishoprics.
See Ramsay, Hist. Geogx of Asia Minor, 84; Cities and
Bishoprics ofPhrygia, I. chap. 3. W. J. W.
RIEREEL ( l s p c ~ A[BA]), I Esd. Qzr=Ezra 1021,
J EHIEL , i IO.
HIEREMOTH.
I. ( t e p e p d[BA]), I Esrl. 9 2 7 = E n a 1026, J EREMOTH IO.
2. (cepcpLof3 [BA]), I Esd. Sgo=Ezra 1029, JEREMOTH: 12.
HIERIELUS (IGZPIHAOC [AI, I ~ Z O ~ I K A O [Bl),
C
I Esd. 927=Ezra 1026,J EHIEL , i. 11.
HIERMAS A ,-e [A]), I Esd. 926=Ezra
[B],
( I ~ ~ M
1025, R AMIAH .
HIERONYMUS ( l e p w ~ y ~ o[VA]), c one of the
commandants ( u ~ p a ~ ~ yof
o i a) district in Palestine in
the time of Judas the Maccabee ( 2 Macc. 122).
HIGGAION (liy?),coupled with Selah, Ps. 915 [17],
( W A H [BKART]). A derivation from n ~ ; l ‘ t o moan,
muse ’ (cp AVmg, ’ meditation ’), is as unsatisfactory as
the EV rendering ( I solemn sound ’) of the same word
in Ps. 9 2 3 [4], for which Wellh. -Furness ( ‘ Psalms,’
SBOT)substitutes ‘ with resounding chords.’ Cheyne
(Ps.t2)) emends the text in both passages.
I n Ps. 923 [4], with @, he reads i i ~ nb*a
j 5rp3, ‘to the
sweetly-sounding notes of the lyre. In Ps. 9 15 [17] (for ])*Jx
hD) he reads D$ fi>m,‘the meditation of their heart,’ and
regards it as a marginal correction of the partly corrupt D;? j‘?b
of M T in Ps. 1017, which intruded into the text of another
column of the archetype (cp a similar suggestion in HAR-
H A I A H ) . ~ Cp SHIGGAION,
SELAH.
HIGH PLACE, as a translation of Heb. bdmzh (ilg?,
pl. niDa).a In the literal sense ‘heights,’ only in the
1. Poetical usB. plural and only poetical ( 2 S. 119 25 ;
CD Ezek. 362. where however the text
is questioned).
The literal sense is found chiefly in certain phrases : to ride
or stalk over the ‘heights of the earth ’ (Dt. 32 13 Is. 58 14 Am.
413 Mk.13, cp Hab. 3 19) or stand upon them ( z S. 22 34=Ps.
t833 [34]); ‘heights of th; sea’ (mountainous waves, Job 98);
cloud heights’ (Is. 14 14); cp Assyrian bamdti &zFasnd@,‘monn-
tain heights’ (Del. WlVB 177h).3
In prose (sing. and pl. ) ddmih is always a place of
worship.
I n this use @-which frequently transliterates (cp, e.g.,
1 So far as the reading 0x5 in Ps.10 17 is concerned, Gr.
and Hal. have a claim to priority.
does injustice to the parallelism.
?a)
I’m (Hi., We., Du.)
2 The other words occasionally rendered in EV ‘high place’
(OhD.
. I, ’9th.:, are not nsed in the snecific sense of brimrih.
3 Other etymologies such as that 7133 is an Indo-European
loan-word (@&s ; J. D. Michaelis), or that it originally meant
not ‘height’ but ‘enclosure’ (Thenius, Bijttcher), need not be
anou discussed. On the origin of the word see below § 7.
4 Sing. I S. 9f: I K. 3 4 (Gibeon), z K.23 15 (bethel), Is. 16 12
Jer. 48 35 Ezek. 20 29.
2064
 HIGH PLACE
I S. 9 iztrenders in Pent, umjhai 1 in the Prophets generally
flopi, in the Hist. ’Books iA$q, 6$qh& ; Aq. and
.
2. As a place proh. Sym. ;$hpara, +JIqA& Vg. consistently
of worship. excelsa; Pesh. ‘alawdthd,‘hligh places,’some-
times j i r a k k i , ‘ idol shrines.‘
The connection of the notion ‘ place of worship ’ with
the primitive meaning ’ high place ’ is well illustrated by
I S. 910-25 ; the town (Ramah) lay on the side of the
hill, with its spring of water at the foot of the hill below
it, and the place of sacrifice (the ‘ high place’) above it
on the summit.2 That mountain and hill tops were the
common places of sacrifice we have abundant evidence
in the OT.
See Hos. 4 13 9 ~ f (cp
: 2 S. 24 16#), Jer. 17 2 2 20 36 Ezek.
6 13 20 27-29 I K. 14 23 z K. 16 4 17 10 etc.3
In the older prophets ’high place’ ( n m ) is synonymous
with ’holy place, sanctuary’ (mpn) : see Am. 7 9 Is. 16 1 2 ,
also Lev. 2 6 3 0 J Such places were very numerous ; offered ( I S. 9 1 1 8: and in general Dt. 125-8 II 13 17,
we know of many from the historical books, and may
with all confidence assume that every city, town, and
village had its own (cp z K. 1 7 9 11 2 3 8 ) . Some of these
sanctuaries, like those at Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba,
had a wider fame, and were frequented at festival seasons
by worshippers from near and far.
As a place of sacrifice,* the ddmdh had its altar
(Hos. 811 1018 1211 [I.] etc.) ; further, according
3. The sacred to a Canaanite custom adopted by the
Israelites, a stone stelb (ma@bih) and a
things. ) Hos.
wooden post or pole ( 2 ~ h Z ~ d; hsee
3 4 101 Dt. 122J Ezek. 6 3 - 6 13 Lev. 2630f. ; cp Philo
Byblius, frag. 1 7 (FHG 3564 B).6 Often there was also
a sacred tree, as at Gibeah where Saul sat in council
(see SAUL) ‘ under the tamarisk tree in the dim& ’ ( I S.
2 2 6 ) ; 6 see also Hos. 4 1 3 Dt. 122 Jer. 220 Ezek. 6 1 3 etc.7
At Ramah there was a hall (nz$>, cp Aduxv) in which
the sacrificial feast was held ( I S. 9 ~ ) and , doubtless
such an adjunct was common ; the greater sanctuaries
may have had, like that in Jernsalem, several such
rooms. I n some places there was also an idol or idols
(Hos. 4 1 7 8 4 - 6 1 0 5 112 132 143[4]8[9] Mic. 1 7 Is. and see what is narrated by a late writer of Eli’s
2 8 18 20 Ezek. 63- 6 g 13 Lev. 2 6 3 0 f : ) , ~ such as the bull
images of Yahw&at Bethel and Dan ( I K. 1226-30) and
the serpent idol at Jerusalem. ( z K. 184);9 where this
was the case therewould necessarily be a sacellum or
small shrine to protect the idol, which was often made
wholly or in part of precious metals (Judg. 1 7 5 , n*x
O Y I ~ X , cp I S. 3 1 9 ) ; there was such a structure at Shiloh,
in which the ark of Yahwb was kept, with a servant of
the priest as zedituus ( I S. 3 3 ) , and probably at Nob
( I s. 21).
It is possible that the’ more primitive agalmata, the
stone stelbs, obelisks, or cones, were sometimes sheltered
by a cella with open front, as we occasionally see it upon
Phoenician coins ; but of this there is no direct evidence.10
Small tents or tabernacles may have been used for a
similar purpose ; David provided such a shelter for the
ark (2s.6 1 7 I K. 228-30; cp Ex. 3 3 7 f i ) , and zS.
1 With this translation cp the inscription on the stell: of Mesha
. 117 z K. 23 13, on the Mt. of Olives) : and particularly
king of Moah, wn25 npo nnzn v w .
2 Such has been in all ages the usual situation of towns in
Palestine ; Benz. H A 373 ; cp WRS ReL Sem. 157 4 7 0 3 , (2) 1 7 2
4 8 3 ~ nholy mountains among the Semites, and in particular
among the Hebrews, see Baudissin Studien Z X Y senzitisclan
Religionsgeschichte 2 2 3 1 8 and at/. ‘Hohendienst ’ in PREP)
6 1 8 1 x On the sudject of s~credmountainsingeneral,Andrian,
Hc?hencuZius asiatischer und europziscker VoZker, ’91 ; Beer
Heilige HJhen derGnkhen und Rdiner, ‘91. See also NATURA :HEMARIM), and for the priests of Israel, whose illegiti-
WORSHIP, 8 4.
4 Note the verbs nxy and i * ~ ? n‘slaughter’, and ‘burn fat,‘
as the standing description of the‘high-placeworship, I K. 3 zf:
2 K. 123 [41 1 4 4 1 5 4 35 1 6 4 235 etc.
22t&kI~~~~~~~ and ASHERAH. . !065), hut also, in certain’hts, even in temples (e.g., of Beltis
6 Read 7823 @BL ‘ MT nny2 : @ A ;v Po.ppa.
7 See N A T U R E wO~RSHI”.
8 In some of these passages domestic idols may be meant ; so
probably in Is. 2l.c~.
9 See I DOL, 8 4 : and on the ephod of Gideon and Micah, and
at Nob, see E P H o D , 88 2, 4.
10 See Per.-Chi Histmy ofArt in Phenicia, 1276f: and fig.
199 ; cp Philo By& fg. 17, FHG 3 564 E.
2065
HIGH PLACE
12.7 shows that at a comparatively late time there were
hose who thought that a tent was a more suitable
iwelling for Yahwb than a house. Ezek. 1 6 1 6 speaks
3f 6dm8th (6 ei’GwXa) made of clothing stuffs, a patch-
work of divers colours, by which tents or canopies are
perhaps to be understood (Targ., etc.) ; see also Hos.
9 6 2 K. 2 3 7 . ’
The later Jewish distinction of public and private driritdth
and descriptions of them (Mish. Meg. 1 10 ; Mish. Ze6achin:
1 4 IO ; Tos. Ze6ach. 13 1 1 8 ) are of no authority for the time;
with which we are concerned.
All the worship of old Israel was worship at the high
places ; to them the tithes were brought
- ,iGen. 2820-22
4. The cultus. Am. 4 4 ) ; at them all sacrifices, stated
and occasional.. bv , the individual. the
family or clan, or the larger sacral community, were
whose prohibitions are testimony to the former practice) ;
there transactions requiring a solemn sanction were
ratified before God (Ex. 21 6 2 2 8 [7] 28 [27] etc. ), and there
councils were held ( I S. 2 2 6 6).T o the high places
the troops of dervish-like nZb6i’im resorted to work up
the prophetic ecstasy by music and whirling dances ( I S.
l o 5 IO).^ At the great high place at Gibeon Solomon
offered his hecatombs and practised incubation ( I K.
3 3 8 ) . .Of the worship at the high places of Israel in
the eighth-century Hosea paints for us a vivid picture ;
the joyous gatherings on festival days-new moons,
sabbaths, annual feasts-when the people appeared in
gala dress ( 2 1 3 [IS] 1 5 [17]) ; the sacrifices and libations
(94), and offerings of corn and wine and oil, of flax and
wool, of figs and raisin-cakes, in gratitude for the fruits
of the year (2 5 C7] 8 [IO]$ 12 [I41 3 1 ) ; in times of
scarcity the ‘ cuttings m the flesh ’ to move the obdmate
god ( 7 1 4 6 , cp I K. 1828) ; the licentious intercourse
of men and women, in which the priests and the conse-
crated women (nwip, religious prostitutes ; see C LEAN,
I , col. 837, IDor.Arw, 6, S ACRIFICE ) set the
example-a rite hallowed by sacrifice ( 4 1 3 5 , cp I I ;
sons, I S. 222) ; the divination (rhabdomancy? 4 1 2 ) .
In similar ternis Jeremiah and Ezekiel describe the
worship of their time.
In writers of ,the seventh and the sixth centuries the
word dZnzith (always plural, even when a single holy
5. Seventh- place is meant)5 is used with the pre-
dominating connotation ‘ sanctuaries of a
century heathenish or idolatrous cult’ ; thus Jer.
~riters. 7 3 1 1 9 5 3 2 3 5 (Melek), cp 1 7 3 (6 om.)
Ezek. 6 3-6 13 Lev. 2 6 3 0 J 6 The deuteronomic author
and the subsequent editor of Kings apply the name to
the sanctuaries of Judah outside of Jerusalem, which they
unhistorically represent, not as holy places older than
the temple of Solomon, but as originating in the apostasy
3f Rehoboam’s time ( I K. 1422-24 z K. 2 3 5 , cp S f : ) ,
and as having been, after their destruction by Hezekiah,
rebuilt by Manasseh (z K. 21 3) ; also to the shrines of
3ther gods in Jerusalem ( z K. 2 3 8 ) or its vicinity ( I K.
to the holy places of the northern kingdom (on which
more fully below, 5 4). I n the same way nrnzn * J ~ I ,
’ high-place priests,’ is an opprobrious title for the priests
>f the cities of Judah (in distinction from the priesthood
If Jerusalem ; z K. 2 3 9 , cp 8=Levites Dt. 186), who
ire also called n’???, ‘ pagan priests’ (zK. 2 3 5 ; see
1 Note also the names Oholah and Oholibah, Ezek. 23 4 8 and
Iholibamah, Gen. 36 2. Tents were used not only as porkole
anctuaries in camps (e.g by the Carthaginians, Diod. Sic.
it HarrSn En-Nedim in Chwolsohn Sahier, 2 33), and in some
nysteries {Maury, ReZigions de Za ’Gdce, 3 494) ; cp also the
mabs &~yor$opo6pevoq, Philo Bybl. FHG 3 567 A.
2 See further SACRIFICE, and TITHE.
3 See PROPHET.
4 See CUTTINGS I N THE FLESH 5 I.
6 Exceptions 2 K. 23 15 Ezek. Zd 29.
6 It is noteworthy that the word does not occur in Dt.
2066
 HIGH PLACE
macy is emphasized ( I IC 12 32 132 33 2 K. 23:!0), as
well as for the priests of the heathen colonists of Samaria
(i6. 1 7 3 2 ) . In this period the stigma of heathenism thus
everywhere attaches to the word.
In several places (none earlier than the end of the
7th cent.) we read of a ninz n3g (sing.,' plur. nin? w ) ,
.6.The b8m6th- --i. e . , a temple of an idolatrous cult ;
thus, 2 K. 17.9 32, the old temples of
the Samaritans, in which the alien
colonists set up their images and worshipped Yahwb
after their fashion; I K. 1 2 3 1 , the temples which
Jeroboam I. built in rivalry to the temple of Yahwb a t
Jerusalem ; further, I K. 1 3 3 2 2 I(. 23 19.
I n other cases nia? alone (always plur.) seems to he used in
the same sense ; note the verbs 822, 'build' ( I K. 14 23 2 K. 17 9
21 3 Jer. 7 31 19 5 32 35). and YQ, 'pull down, demolish ' (2 K.
238 15, cp Ezek. 16 39),a though by themselves these verbs d o
not necessarily imply an edifice, being used, e.g., of an altar.
I n the passages just cited the word 6imih has lost the
physical meaning ' high place ' altogether ; the 6EmLith
spoken of were in the cities of Israel and Judah ( z K.
1 7 9 2 3 1 5 ) , in one of the gates of Jerusalem ( z K. 2 3 8 ) ,
in its streets or open places (Ezek. 16 24J 31 39, where
ani [[I XI] is equivalent to 8D>, if indeed the text should
not be so emended) ; the 6~imLifhof the Melek cult
were in the valley of Hinnom (Jer. 7 3 1 etc. ) ; see
MOLECH. W e often read of 6im5fh on hills (e.&, Ezek.
6 3 I K. 1 1 7 ) , and under green trees (e.g., I K. 1 4 2 3 ) ;
observe also that the sacrifices are always said to be
offered n i m l (is or at the BEmCth), never $y (on),and
contrast Is. 1612. I t has been thought that the 6irn6th
in valleys, cities, etc., were artificial mounds, taking the
place of the natural ' high places,' the summits of hills
and mountains, such as are found among various
people^.^ This is in itself possible enough ; but evidence
of it is lacking in the OT ; even in Ezek. 16 2 4 3 31 39
it is doubtful whether this is the prophet's meaning.
The history of the high places is the history of the
old religion of Israel. Here we have only to do with
the attitude to them -assumed by
7* History: pre- the religious leaders and reformers.6
deuteronomic. Most of the high places were doubtless
old Canaanite holy places which the Israelites, as they
gradually got possession of the land, made their own
(see Dt. 1 2 2 8 2 K. 17 11 etc. ) ; the legends in Genesis
which tell of the founding of the altars of the more
famous sanctuaries by the forefathers, Jacob-Israel and
Abraham, often in connection with a theophany or other
manifestation of YahwB's presence at the spot, are a t
once arecognition that these holy places were older than
the Israelite invasion of Palestine and a legitimation of
them as altars of Yahwb ; the name bEmih itself was
probably borrowed from the Canaanites. There can be
little doubt that the cultus at the high places was in the
main learned by the Israelites from the older occupants
together with the agriculture with which it was so closely
interwoven (cp I SRAEL , 5 2 6 3 ) . Not only were the
rites the same as those with which the Canaanites
worshipped their baals, but it is probable that at
the beginning the worship was actually addressed to
the baals, the givers of the fruits of the soil (cp B AAL ,
§ 53).
Later, when Canaan had become completely the land
of Israel, and thus Yahwb, Israel's God, whose old
seats were in the distant south, became the God of
1 Never n*I: cp nnz nq, Mesha 2. 27 (Is. lFiz), 1~.
pn bc.
a Oftener the more general words i*nw8,inw,,, plj(Niph.),
7 3 ~ . In 2 K. 23 15 the text is in disorder ; 113 did not origin-
ally refer to the no>.
3 [Xi, vu. 24 31 39t EV, 'eminent place,' the mound upon
which stands the altar (Bertholet etc ) or a cupola or 'vaulted
chamber' (RVmg.) for heathen &orsh:p (Davidson). A V w ' s
rendering after Vg. and B B A Q l ' etc., is needless.]
4 [See Gesenius, Preface to )Gramberg, ReZz&ons.ideen des
A T 1 pp. xix-xxi.]
5 See also HEXATEUCH, # 143
. 2067
HIGH PLACE
the land, the cultus was addressed to him;' bnt
as its character was not changed, the consequence was
that Yahwb was worshipped as a baal. It is thus easy
to understand how, to a prophet like Hosea, the religion
of his countrymen should seem to be unmixed Canaanite
heathenism ( 2 5 [7] cp 8 [IO] 12 [14] J , 16 [18] J 13 I
etc. ), and how, from the same point of view, the religious
reformers of the seventh century should demand the
abolition of the high places as the first step to restoring
the true religion of Y a h d .
From the standpoint of Dt. and the deuteronomistic
historians, the high places were legitimate places of
sacrifice until the building of the temple at Jerusalem
( I K. 3 z ) ; after that they were forbidden.2 The history,
however, shows that they continued to be not only the
actual, but also the acknowledged sanctuaries of Judah
as well as Israel down to the seventh century. The
building of the temple in Jerusalem had neither the
purpose nor the effect of supplanting them. The author
of K I N GS (who reckons it a h&nous fault) records of all
the kings of Judah from Solomon to Hezekiah that they
did not do away with the high places. The oldest collec-
tions of laws, in Ex. 3424-26, assume the existence of these
local sanctuaries ; Ex. 20 24-26 formally legitimates their
altars. The prophets of the ninth century contend
(against the foreign religion introduced by Ahab) for the
worship of Yahwb alone in Israel ; to Elijah the destruc-
tion of the altars of Yahwb (high places) is a token
of complete apostasy ( I K. 19 10-14) ; he himself repairs
the fallen altars on the sacred mountain Carmel ( 1 8 3 0 ) .
Amos and Hosea assail the cultus at the high places a s
corrupt and heathenish, like the whole religion of their
contemporaries ; but it is the character of the worship
and the worshippers, not the place, that they condemn ;
the worship in Jerusalem pleases the prophets no better
(Is. 1 1 0 8 ; cp2S7JI which is at least applied to Jiidah).
Hezekiah is said to have removed the high places (2 K.
1 8 4 2 2 21 3 ) ; but it is hardly probable (see H EZEKIAH .
5 I ) that the king's reforms went beyond an attempt to
suppress the idolatry against which Isaiah so incessantly
inveighed ; the mention of the high places is from the
hand of the deuteronomic author, who thus conforms
the account of Hezekiahs good work to that of Josiah
( z K. 23) and to the deuteronomic law. Certainly
the high places were in their full glory in the reigns of
Hezekiahs successors Manasseh and Amon.
One of the chief aims of Deuteronomy is to restrict the
worship of Yahwb to the temple in Jerusalem. All other
8. Deuteronomy places of sacrifice-which are signifi-
cantly described as the places where
and Josiah,s the Canaanites worshipped their gods
reforms'
-are to be razed : no similar cult is
to be offered to Yahwb (122-8 and many other place^).^
\Whin the limits of his little kingdom Josiah ( 6 2 1 )
carried out the prescriptions of the new law-book.
We are told that he also destroyed the high places at Bethel
and in the other cities of Samaria ( z K. 23 15 ~ g x ) . In the weak-
ness of the moribund Assyrian empire such an action IS
conceivable (cp zK. 232gf. ); but the author of 2 K. 23 1 5 . ~ 0is
hardly a competent witness.
That the people of the J i d z a n cities and villages saw
unmoved the altars at which their forefathers had
worshipped Yahwb for centuries torn down, the veneratcd
1 Stsde'sview, that the high places were ancestral tombs, and
that the cult which was supplanted by that of the national god
Yahwl: was that of acribal hero(GP-I. 1 4 4 9 3 ) is perhapstrue
of some of them ; there is no reason to believe /hat this was the
universal development.
2 For the Jewish attempts t o reconcile this theory and the
practice of the times of the Judges, Samuel, and David, with the
existence of the tabernacle of P, see Mish. Zibdchim,1 4 4 3
?os. Z&dchim, 13 : further, the numerous passages from th;
Talmuds and Jewish commentators collected by Ugolino in his
Thesaurus, 10 5 5 9 3
3 According to Chron -in conflict with its sources -other
good kings had done thes'ame before(:! Ch.14 3 [z],Asa, dp 15 '7;
176 Jehoshaphat).
4'See the notice in sK.184, and cp NEHUSHTAN and
IDOLATRY, $3 9.
5 See D EUTERONOMY, $ 1 3 .
2068
 HIGH PLAGE
symbols of the deity destroyed, the holy places profaned,
the priests forcibly removed to Jerusalem-their whole
religion plucked up by the roots-is not to be imagined ;
their temper may be guessed from the reception which
one preacher of the new model met in his native town
of Anathoth (Jer. 11). When, in 608, Josiah fell in
battle against Pharaoh Necho, a swift and sweeping
reaction set in. Jeremiah, Ezeki61, and Zephaniah, as
well as the author of Kings, give abundant evidence
that the old cults flourished in full vigour down to the
destruction of Jerusalem in 586 (cp ISRAEL, 5 3 6 8 ) .
It is commonly believed that the Exile accomplished
what the covenant and the reforms of Josiah had failed
permanently to achieve.
The population of Judah, it is assumed, was carried away to
Babylonia; and when after fifty years a new generation
returned to Palestine, they had no motive
9. The Exile for restoring the old local cults whose con-
and the tinuity had thus been so lone interruoted.
Restoration. of Moreover, those who came hick were‘ men
a new mind : the nrouensitv to uolvtheism.
idolatry, and a superstitions and see;iio;s w;shi;-h;d he&
eradirared ; the one grcat end ofthe rerurninfi ~ . x i l c was
i to re-
establish the pure religion of Yaliwt on the basis of the
deuterononiic law.
This rcprcscntation of thc effect of the catastrophe of
586 rests upon coitceptioiis of the character of h J t h the
‘ Exile’ and the restoration which arc denionstrahly
erroneous (cp ISKAEL,5 418 ) . Jeremiah and Jlzrkiel
arc our witnesscs that thc deportation of 597 wronglit 110
airicndinent either in tliosc who were carried away or in
those who were lrft bchintl ; from Jrr. 44 w c see that tlic
cvcnts of the dis:tstrotts year j86, so f w from niakiiig.
the peoplc throw away their idols, led directly to i i
revival of foreign cnhs. 111eJews who were left in the
land-and they \vrre the greater part of the old pol>iilx-
tion of Jud:ih-certainly continued to worsliip Ynh\r&
after the inaii~terof their fathers ; and that they paid
sinall respect to thc dentcronoinic laws is shown by thc
nttitndc which. at a 1;ttcr time, the rc~~rescnt:~tivcs of tlie
g&h take towarcls this ‘am Ad-Zrey. Evideitcc of tlie
survival or revival in the l’(!rsi:ttt period of the (:lilts whirli
werr put under the b:tii of 1)cuterononiy is pcrliaps to be
found in Is. 5 7 3 8 651-7 62, 1 7 f . 279. cpalso theglosscs
in 17 8 . l So h r was tlie dogni:t that sucrificc could be
oifrrcd to Yahv i. only in one place from being univcrsally
ackiiowlcdgctl after the Exile, that in the sccond century
B.C. a temple after the modcl of that it1 Jerusalem [so
h r as the intcrnal nrrangemt.iits were concerned] was
erected by the J.:gypti.iri Jews at Leontopolis, with a
priesthood of uniinpcach;itdc In the
petition ~ h i c l 0ni;is
t a(l(1ressc.sto I’tolcniy and Clcolxitra
for prrmission to build this temple (Jos. Ant. xiii. 3 I ,
5 6 5 8 ) , one of thc re.isons urged is t1i:it thc Egyptian
Jews-like those in Cwlesyrin and Phcenici;i-liavc
riwny temples (it-pd; cp iilso !os. A n t . xiii. 23) not of
the proper aype. : l i d on this account arc at variance
with one another, :IS tlie Egyptians also are on account
of the ninltitiidc of their tetiiples and differences in
their cultus ; lie asks, therrfore, to be allowed to build n
tcniplc after the pattcrn of t1t:it in Jerusalem, that the
Jews in Egypt may bc united bv having one coiniiion
p1;ice of worship. ‘l’his testiiiioiiy is none tlitt lcsi
retriark;tble if the letter of 0ni:is W:IS C U I I I ~ O ~ Wl)y I HINNOM, VALLEY OF (pi;! +?), or Valley of the
Joseplins himself, or by a precvding historiait. 111
view of ;dl these tliings, we ni;iy well lirsitnte to bc!icvc
tli:it the old high places of Jud;ili disappeared for cvcr
with thc Exile. ‘The process was probably graclu;tl,
316 n. 3 . Sinend’q interpretntion of I-.
1 [See Che. f n f 7 . 1,s.
279 (henthrn drnrs tolerated, out uf iieicssity, I9y the J e w s iii
the Innd s;icrrd 10 Ynhwcl) is hardly prohnhle--l.:o.l I n I%.L.7
etc., Ihliin and Che. find utterilncec of Jewish orthodox zeal
against the Samaritans and thoae Jews who synipathised with
them. I t is nues~ionahle whether the aniilication of these
passages should be restricted to the SamarirHns.
2 Mincichath log6 ’ cp Is. 19 1 8 3 See Schiir. GJV 2 544-
456 ; Willrich, jwdelt) und Griechen, u.s.w., 126 8 ; Biichler,
Tobiaden und Oniaden, z?q f i Even in the Mishna the
validity of the sacrifices offeied in the temple of Onias is
somewhat grudgingly acknowledged (MimZchafh,13 IO).
2069
HINNOM, VALLEY O F
and is hidden from lis in the obscurity which hangs
over the centuries of the Persian and Greek oeriod.
Spencer De legibus ritualibus 223, 5 I 2;
Blasius
Ugolinus in his Thesaurus 1 0 5 5 9 2 (De ExceZszs: cases of
apparent kolation of the deuteronomic law
10. Literature. of the single altar with Jqwish comment
on the same) ; Baudissin Hohendienst,
P R E P ) 6 181.193 (literature, 193) ; Scholz, bfselzdienst und
Zawbeemuesen, 1 2 0 8 : ’ We. PYoZ.~~) 1 7 3 ; Stade GVI 1 4 4 6 8 ,
Piepenbring, ‘ Histoire des lieux de culte et du sacerdoce el;
Israel,’ Krv. &Hist. des ReZ. 24 1-60, 133.186 (‘91). Hoo-
nacker, Le lieu du culte dans la Z@Zaation n?uelZe des d e b y e u z
C94) ; Nowack, H A 2 7f. ; v. Gall, AZfisraeZifischeKulfstiitte
(98,). See also, on the Critical questions, the literature under the
articles on the hooks of the Hexateuch. G. F. M.
HIGH PRIEST (5743 p > g ) , Lev. 21 10 etc. See
PRIEST.
HILEN (]$?), I Ch. 658 [43]. See HOLON. I .
HILKIAH c7il!p$c, 8: [so in nos. 4-71, ‘ Yahw&
is my portion’ ; cp H ELKAI ; xsh~[s]lac[BAL]). c p
CHELCIAS, Sus. z 29 63 ; Bar. 1 I 7.
I. The chief priest under Josiah, mentioned in con-
nection with the repairs of the temple and with the
event which made the king a definite adherent of
purified Yahwism ( 2 K. 2 2 4 8 ) . That Hilkiah ‘ forged’
the book which he stated (v.8) that he had ‘ found’
is an impossible theory (WRS OT/@) 363). What
led Hilkiah to say that he had ‘found the book of
direction’ (EV ‘ the book of the law ’) is not recorded.
H e may merely have meant ‘Here is the best and
fullest law-book, about which thou hast been asking. ’
*msn need not mean ‘ I have found for the first time.’
It is possible that the seeming connection of the ‘ find-
ing’ of the law-book with the arrangement about the
temple-money may be simply due to the combination
of two separate reports. At any rate, Shaphan, not
Hilkiah, must have begun the conversation on the
law-book. ‘ I n the house of Yahwb ‘ probably means
‘in the temple library.‘ See JOSIAH, 3 I.
2. Father of E LI A KIM I [q ZI ] ( z K. 18 18 : Xah. [A; om. L
in this verse], 26,37, [n&l; is.‘22 20 36 322).
3. Father of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 1 I).
4. In the Levitical genealogy of E THAN [q.v., 31 (I Ch.
6 45 [301; xeA LOU [AI, X + i a [Ll, om. B).
5. b. Hosaf, a Merarite Levite (1Ch.2611 ; xdqeras [AI,
om. B). See G ENEALOGIES i., § 7 (ii. d).
6. Father of G E M A R I A H z (Jer.
, 29 [a 361 3).
7. A priest, temp. Ezra ; Neh. 8 4 (sAKrra [B], X F ~ K [ F ] L[HA]),
~
12 7 (Nc.amF. SUP., om. BN*A) 31 (om. BN*A, F A K [Nc.a
~ mg. int]) ;
in I Esd. 943, EZECXAS, RV E Z E K I A(&mas
S [BA]).
T. K. C.
HILL, HILL-COUNTRY. See M OUNT ; cp GIBEAH.
HILLEL (5$?,
a well-known Jewish name in Rab-
binical times), father of ARDON (ii., I ) the judge, a
native of PIRATHON (4.v.I ) , Judg. 121315(EAAHA [B],
EAAHX in v. IS], CEAAHM [A, c precedes],
EAAHM I&]).
@A, and CijL if correct, point to some form like o h , I Ch.
T 3 5 (cp HELEM).
HIN (i’?,
on etym. cp ZDMG, 46114), Ex. 2 9 4 0
ctc. See WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
HIND (hs,nh),
Gen. 4921 etc. See HART.
son (also, children) of Hinnom (tu? [-17]71[Kj’J),
1. Name. also called siniply The Valley (Jer. 223
3 1 4 0 [SO too Ass. MOJ.~ O I O ] , cp 2 Ch.
269 Neh. 213 15 3 1 3 ‘ the valley gate ’), one of the
valleys round about Jerusalem.
(a)Vss. +pay[ [ULOO]EUUOI* [BHAQLl(con-)va~~isen~om[Vg.l.
The shorter designation OS;! ’4 is found only in Josh. 1586
18 166 Neh. 1130 (om. BRA), in Josh. l.c. m. 8a 16a,the longer
and usual form is used. @BAL reads 6. [uLoO] evuop, but 6.
[ U G ] ouop [B in 15 81 couuap [B in 18 161. (6) -12 is transliter-
ated in z Ch. 28 3(ya~j3evBop[B], y+ovvop [A], $hpayyb p ~ v s v v o p
[L], valZ& Bed2nlzonr [Vg.]), z Ch. 336 ( y q j3hevvop’ [AI, y~
Eevsuvop [L] and 7s Pave ~ v u o p[B]). B B ’ s rendering points to
>j? ’17 ’&‘Valley of the som of Hinnom,’ which is found mue
2070
 HINNOM, VALLEY OF
in the MT, z K.23 xo(Ketib). The e r e and Vss. (+. ul00 svvap
[BL], 9. vi. svvopop' [AI) read -12. Cp a150 Josh. 1816a 2).
&Zioiorum ennom (Vg.). (6) For +dpayg, vimq occurs in Josh.
18 16u (BAL), and also svop [L], and the transliterated ya' ib.
166 (yaieuva[pl [RL] y. ovvop [AI). In Jer. 196 ~ $ is3 repre-
sented by rrohva'v8pr6v.
Bottcher, Graf, and Ges.-Buhl derive ~ 1 from
8 Ar.
Ranna, ' t o sigh, whimper' ; but the word is much
a. Origin. more probably an unmeaning fragment of a
name. The true name was hardly that of
a person (so Stanley, Sin. and PuL 172), for in Jer.
732 196 the name is altered to ' valley of slaughter ' ;
originally therefore it had some agreeable sense. Con-
sidering the use made of the valley we may further
assume that the true name had a religious reference, and
may with some probability emend n3n-p into p g p ,
' pleasant son ' (Che. ), and suppose that a syncretistic
worship of TAMMUZ and Melech (see M OLECH ) was
practised in the valley. This helps us to understand
the horror felt by Ezekiel (if the view of GOG and
MAGOG is correct) at the worship of ' Tamniuz-Lord.'
The first occurence ofgF hinnim (?) is probably in Is.
225 (cp
. . D. I ),
. where no less a writer than Isaiah has
3. References. been thought to mention it. The
occurence, it is true, is gained by
emending the text ; but a parallel emendation is called
for in Zech. 145 (see VISION, VALLEY OF). The most
notable reference, however, is in z K. 2310, where we
read that Josiah 'defiled the Topheth which is in the
valley of the sons of Hinnom' (see above, rb), ' that
no man might make his son or his daughter to pass
through the fire to Molech' ; so that, if Ben Naaman
was the name of the divinity originally worshipped in
the ' valley,' the awful Molech (or rather Melech) had
acquired a precedence over Ben Naanian. Probably
too, as Geiger suggested,' the phrase ' the graves of the
common people ' (D.6) should rather be ' the graves of
*
ben-hinnom ' (ben na'aman 9). The text, thus cor-
rected, shows that the burying-place of ben-hinnom was
at any rate near the gorge of KIDRON(g.v. ). It was
in this valley, according to the Chronicler, that Ahaz
and Manasseh sacrificed their sons ( z Ch. 2 8 3 336).
Jeremiah (731) speaks of the 'high places of the
Topheth, which is in the valley of ben-Hinimon (?) ' ;
in the 11 passage (3235) he calls them ' the high places
of Baal.' The abominations there practised were the
cause of the change of name announced by the prophet
(Jer. 7 3 2 196). See further ESCHATOLOGY, 18 108
63 ( 3 ) 70 (iii.J) 81 ( 3 , iii.) ; TOPHET.
Opinions differ as to the site of this valley. The
question is complicated, and it is not easy to decide
4, Identib-it with confidence. 'Whatever view is
taken of the position of the valley of
cation, Hinnom, all writers concur in its extend-
ing to the junction of the three valleys of Jerusalem
below Siloam-ie., there must be one spot below
Siloam which all agree in making a portion of the
valley of Hinnom' (Warren). The point on which
geographers are divided is whether the valley is the
Wady er-Rabgbi (the west and sonth valley), the
Tyropceon (the centre valley), or the Kidron (east
valley). The first view is supported by Robinson,
Stanley, Barclay, Baed. -Socin, and Buhl ; the second by
Robertson Smith (Enc. Brit. (y), ' Jerusaleni ' ; cp RSlZ),
37z),Sayce ( P E F Q , '83,p. 213),and Birch (PEFQ,
'78, p. 179J) ; the third by Sir C. Warren (Recoueiy
OfYerus., 307 ; Hasting's D B 2387). Cp J ERUSALEM ,
§ IOf.
Let us collect some of the data. I. According to P
the Valley entered into the boundary of Jndah and
Benjamin (see Josh. 158 1816), and so much at least is
1 Jed.Zt. 2 259 ; there are traces of the reading in Tg.
9For the inappropriate ~ p n 3 1 3 the Chronicler (z Ch. 344)
substitutes ! D
: D'nti?.
3 Eus. OS 300 12, identifies the @paye evvop with the Valley
of Jehoshaphat ; cp Jer., OS 128 io.
2071
HIPPOPOTAMUS
clear, that the border-line runs through N EPHTOAH , the
Mount (im), the Valley of Hinnom, En-Rogel, and
En-shemesh.
I n describing the border of Judah from E. to W. (Josh, 158)
' the Mount ' is spoken of as ' before ($38-5y) the valley of Hinnom
westward' and 'at the end of the plain of KEPHAIM ( g . ~ . north-
)
ward. Similarly in 18 16, which proceeds in the reverse direction,
' the Mount' is still 'before' the valley but is mentioned first.
It would seem that either (a)99-5y does not (exceptionally see
C HPRITH , col. 740, n. 3) mean the east or (6) the words defihing
the position of 'the Mount' are an ina&curategloss.
2. In Jer. 192 these' 6en-Hinnom is said to be 'by
the entry of the gate HARSITH' (Harsuth?). Wherever
this gate was, its name does not mean 'east.' If it is
the same as the ' Dung-gate' ( m D 1 n may even be a
corruption of niwn, see Neh. 3 13), it was at the end of
the Tyropceon valley.
3. We have also to note what is said of the position
of the 'Valley Gate' (rebuilt by Uzziah : 2 Ch. 269
ywvrav [gab ywvlas 71js +up. [B*A], T.ayyar
mg.], ?rlih~v
[L]). It faced the ' Dragon Well' (Neh. 213; perhaps
EN-ROUEL [p.~.], see also D RAGON , 4 [g]), and was
distant a thousand cubits from the ' Dung-gate ' (Neh.
313 ; ~ f i h TWE
~ v+up. [BA], r . yar [L]), beyond which
came the I Fountain Gate,' and the ' King's Pool.'
Of discussions on the site of the Valley of Hinnom we may
mention Sir C. W. Wilson's in Smith's DBP) ('93) and Sir C .
Warren's in Hastings' DB('99). At present the majority of
scholars adhere to the view expressed by the former, that the
true Valle of Hinnom is the Wady er-Rah8bi; but cp JERU.
SALEM, Cor 2423. T. K. C.-S. A. C.
HIPPOPOTAMUS (n\txI?,
BHpia [BHA], KTHNH
[Aq., Theod.] ; see BEHEMOTH, § I ) , Job 40 51, RV"'s:
Ten verses (m. 15-24) or distichs are devoted in Job 40
to a description of an animal which is most probably
the hippopotamus ( H . umn$hidius). though there are
elements in the description which appear to some to
require a mythological explanation (see B EHEMOTH ,
§ 3). Sa'adya, it is true, the only old interpreter
who ventures on an identification, renders Behemoth
by the Arabic word for rhinoceros, and Schultens,
unmoved by the arguments af Bochart, identifies
it with the elephant. Most commentators, how
ever, since Gesenius, have taken the side of Bochart,
who has, as they believe, clearly shown (I) that the
animal is described as amphibious, ( 2 ) that the juxta-
position of Behemoth and leviathan here accords with
the close association of the hippopotamus with the
crocodile in ancient writers (e.g., Herod. 2 69-71, Diod.
135, Plin. HiV825 288) as chief among the tenants of
the Nile, and (3)that the description, apart from one
or two difficult clauses, exactly suits the hippopotamus.
Some commentators (e.$., Del.) would also find the
Behemoth or hippopotamus in Is. 306 ; but this is not a
probable view (see B EHEMOTH , 8 I).
We now turn to the details of the description. Verses 156
and 20,
' H e eateth grass like the ox' . ..
' Surely the mountains bring him forth foo,d ;
Where all the beasts of the field do play,
refer to the fact that the hippopotamus is graminivorous, and
inoffensive towards other animals. I n m.16-18 we have a
powerful picture of his muscular strength, on the ground of
which he is to he regarded as among the most wonderful of
God's creatures (u. 19u).l Verse 196 is difficult, but (unless
we emend the text [see REHEMOTHvol. i. col. 521, nzidrzle])
must allude to the animal's tusks, k t h which he shears his
vegetable food :
'(God) who made him so that he should apply his sword'
(so Di.).
Verses 21 J describe his favourite haunts, and v. 23 refers to
the most wonderful fact of all-that the animal is equally at
home on land or water. it is puzzling, however, to find the
Jordan mentioned.2 Vet& 24 is generally taken interrogatlvely ;
hut Di., referring to the fact that the Nuhians of the present
day openly attack the hippopotamus with harpoons, understands
an actual descriution.
1 [Verse 17 should probably run, ' H e cleaves marsh plants as
with a chisel ( 3 ~ iSyn3
~9 ]inxN) ; the sinews of his neck ('my)
are knit together.-T. K. c.]
2 Di. and Du. think that 'Jordan' may he used as a kind of
appellative. [For a critical emendation of the text see J ORDAN ,
B a W.1
2072