giloh-goshen

GILOH GILOH (;i$J), a town in thehighlands of Judah, in

the same group with Shamir (=Shaphir), Debir, and Eshtemoh (Josh. 1551 XANNA [B], r H h W N [AI, AANOY [L]), according to MT of 2 S. 16 12 the home of Ahltho- phel(3'$$p il'w; EN llOh€l AyTOy €IC [EN] rwha [BA], EK THC rrohswc AYTOY THC METAAAAA [L]).

The gentilic is Gilonite, %>$? ; 2 S. 15 12 ( 6 k ~ o v € i [B], yihovaro [9], yahpwvaiov [L]); z S. 2334 ( ~ ~ W V ~ L T O U [Bl, yf1hWVLT. [AI, yahaa8 [L])=r Ch. 11 36 (PELONITE, $?? a corrupt reading;l +s8wver [BN], +EAAWUL [AL]).

Giloh is probably referred to by Micah in connection with Ophrah and Shaphir, though the paronomasia is dis- guised in M T (Micah 1x1). It seems to be represented by JdZu, the name now attached to some ruins about 3 m. NW. of Halhfil; the situation of Bet J2E-a place NW. of Bethlehem-seems too fax north.

The text of 2 S. 1.5 12 is corrupt but not desperately so. 'While he offered the sacrifices ' if & has any meaning at all, can only refer to the important sadrifices connected with Absalom's assumption of royalty a t Hebron. Yet the position of the clause shows that it contains a statement respecting Ahithophel. The scribe must have wrongly deciphered his original. Read, wlth Klostermann, for o'n2rn-nr l n m , n.&F hl!p, 'when he fled to the Ziphites' (see I S. 23 19). This awakens a suspicion that Giloh was not the real name ofiihithophel's home, which may have been rather a place not far to the SW. of JZIZ, viz. Keilah. It is hy no means certain that the translator of had beforehim n53 or n5.3. H e may have had n$yp (KFilah); and even if he had not, n$p is an easy phonetic corruption of nbpp (see KEILAH). David was once in great straits at Keilah; the citizens were about to deliver him up to Saul, hut he suspected them, and escaped in time (I s. 238-13). Ahithophel may have warned David or Abiathar. With this clue Kloster- mann thus reads the former part of this passage, 'Absalom had made a league (D>*::) with Ahithophel the Keilathite (n$ypn, or 'the Keilanike,' q$ypn), who made possible his escape (h?p) from Keilah.' We thus understand David's habitual reliance on Ahithophel's counsel, and see how Ahitho- phel's son came to be one of David's thirty' (see ELIAM, I).

I t opens, ' I n Gath tell it not,' which Nowack regards as an interpolation inserted from 2 S. 1 zo whilst G. A. Smith thinks that the words describe the doom in ;tore for Philistia as well as for the Shephelah of Judah in which Micah's home lay (TweZne Projh. 1383). In support of this G. A. Smith refers to the situation of Shaphir, the modern SawZfir in the Philistine plain. I t is not probable however, that Micah extends his view beyond his own region: the fate of which alone evokes his sympathy. SAPHIR [ q . ~ . ] need not be SawZfir. There is one place known to us, and only one the name of which suggests a paronomasia fit to form a parhllel to ' In Bochim wee ' (sep BOCHIM), and that is Giloh. Rend therefore, 25 '3R- .~ 5 ii f. 33, 'in Giloh exult not.' Cp Che. JQR, July 1898.

GIMZO (irp!), a town in the Shephelah of Judah, mentioned in 2 Ch. 28 18 t (yahazw [Bl, r A M A l Z a l [A], ~ A M ~ A I [L]). It is the modern Jimzzi, about 3 ni. SE. from Lydda.

The text of Micah 1 .of: is also corrupt.

T. K. C.

GIN ( ~ ) ~ $ i ~ , r n t + % ; ( z ) n ~ , p a h . SeeFOWLING,§g.

GINATH (nx!, 7 7 ; r w N A e P A ] , - N U B [L]), Ginath (or rather,

Klo. compares 'Guni' in Gen. 4624 I Ch. 7 1 3 . We. (IJGP)

'father' of TIBNI ( I K. l 6 ~ 1 f . T). Gunath, cp @) is probably a place- or clan-name.

70 n.) refers to ' Shallum b. Jabesh' (Le., the Jadshite). GINNETHO, RV Ginnethoi ('in;?. ; r s N N a e w e

[L]), a priest in Zerubbabel's band (see EZRA ii., 6 6) ; Neh. 124. In Neh. 1216 Ginnethon (]in>?) is a priestly family temp. Joiakim (see EZRA ii., 5 6 6, § 11), which was represented amongst the signatories to the covenant

GIRDLE 3f decency (Gen. 37) as in the necessity of protecting the loins from the extremes of' temperature in tropical zountries, the girdle forms one of the oldest and most serviceable of all articles of apparel. In Hebrew the commonest terms for ' girdle ' are iz6i' and gig&

I , 'EzOr, 1\18 ({&a, etc.), is exactlytheAr. ' izdr, even the lengthened first vowel corresponding to the long form 'izdr (Dozy, Did. dd Ytt. 32) which seems to be not merely Egyptian, since Payne-Smith has izdri from Bar-Bahliil. The 'izdi', now a large outer wrapper,. was originally a loin-cloth or wrapper not covering the upper part of the body, wound round the loins (tied with a knot, Lane, r.n. p. 53) so as to be loosed if trodden on (Frey. Chi'. Ar. 72 Z. 7, and EinL in das Stud. etc. 298). This is the dress of the Saracens in Ammianus, and is retained in the 'i&rim. Mi'zar, now a pair of drawers, is not originally different, gum. 81 and Dozy, @. cit. Bar 'Ali (Hoffm. 5842) explains Syr. mizrini by maydzi~ or tubidin. The latter are the short drawers without legs worn by wrestlers or sailors. It is therefore an inner garment and so different from the (zZg6r (see below, 2). This suits all the passages of Or. From Is. 527 we learn that it was easily loosed ((zalla in Frey. Chr., Z.G. ), from Jer. 13 I 2 K. 1 8 that it might be either of liccn (o*p+) or of skin. Elijah's was of the latter material. Like the old Arabs, he wore but two garments, the 'izdr and the addkrethl (Ar. rid&) ; see MANTLE.

So the prophet Isaiah (202) has only a waist-wrapper, and this explains Jeremiah's 'iziir (Jer. 131). Hence it is that in Job 12 18 the king who is humilrated is represented as wearing the 'izrir. In Ezek. 23 15 it is a peculiarity of.the Chaldeans that they wear for girdle above their garments an 'izriv, and this is seen on the monuments (Perrot-Chipiez, Art in ChaZd. etc., I fig. rq 2 figs. ' 5 51.6). As the 'izdr is next the skin, the phrase Is. 11; is inte Iigihle, and so the Arabs say hlrwa &inn? ma'+& Cizriri, meaning 'he is my near neighhour' (Lane, s.n.

Phrases like 5.n 1 1 1 ~ (I S. 2 4) are ' ButinJob383 407Jer. 117~3~n3'11~ is like shadda izdrahu or Irti'zarahy

=shanzmara, ' tuck up the cloth so as to leave the legs bare, Ham. 334, 383, n. It 1s probable, however, that a (short) 'izar was the dress of active life (sailor's tub66n is analogous), like the waist-cloth of the modern East and also of the warrior. In Ham. 334,Z. I the warrior is 7nusharrmriw~~ . . . 'an shawahzc-leaves his sides hare-like Ammianus's Saracens, and cp Shanfara 1.62. iiKnn Ps. 931 simply=tjxs. But in Is. Sg it is Hitbp. 'put on your ' izEr' (which in that case is a warlike dress), or is it ' be a covering and support to one another' as in Arabic ' ~ e a v a ' to hack' (lit. 'cover '), and of herbage, ta'rizara ' it grew thick and rank, the stalks supporting each other'? Ham. 657 2. I naFrwc m a 'azzaru?L= 'effective stout help.' See also AsEsaZ.BaZ&ghn.a

The person who wears the 'izdr has of course no shirt.

From Zzzbr ' waist-cloth' is distinguished :- 2. gzgii', i i in, n$!ii~, &$gin% ({dvq, mpi{wpa) , a

belt or girdle worn round the waist outside the dress. In modern times it is usually a coloured shawl, or long piece of figured white muslin. The girdle of the poorer classes is of coarse material, often of leather, with clasps. This leathern girdle is also much used by the Arabs, and by persons of condition when equipped for a journey. It is sometimes ornamented with work in coloured worsted, or silk, or with metal studs, shells, heads, etc.

Such, probably, were the girdles worn by the ladies of post- exilic Jerusalem (Is. 324) and the eulogy of the 'virtuous woman' describes her (P;ov. 31 24) as making a hrigbr which Phcenician merchants did not disdain to buy (dp the <&vqv ~ p w u ~ w of Rev. 113 15 6). The warrior used a &c?g8r as a sword- belt (2 s. 2 0 8 ; on text see Comm.; I K. 2 5 ) ; cp nI>lJ 13n

z K. 3 21, and ZI?? 'n Jndg. 3 16 etc. That other objects also (see EZ$A i., § 7). Other readings in @ are : Neh. 106 [7] rvaraQ [Bl, a v a m Q [e],

yaavvaQov [AI, yava%wO [L], 124 ysvvqfJouL [Nc.a mg. SOP.], BK*A om. ; 12 16 yavaewp [,+a mg. inf.], BH*A om.

GIRDLE. Originating perhaps not so much in notions

other in W. Palestine which seems to repeat the ancient Gilgal is Jeljel, ahout 6 m. S. of Beissu(P3FNanie Lists , 161). I t is remarkable that the name has not yet been found E. of Jordan.

end. 1 On the passage see Klo. Sam., ad Zoc., and cp AHITHOPHEL,

I733

1 So the Baptist see Mt. 3 4 Mk. 16. 2 Elsewhere Rdbertson Smith sums up thus : 'The general

impression produced by a survey of the usage of the word is that among the Hebrews the 'Ez@ ceased to be part of their ordinary dress pretty early being superseded by the tunic [njnj,see T U N I C ] but that 'it was used by warriors, by the meanest classes,'by prophets and mourners, and that the word (or the cognate word) was also retained in proverbial phrases and similes, just as was the case with the Arabs' ('Notes on Hebrew Words,' I., JQR, 1892, p. 289fl). Cp also, on the * Z Z ~ Y of Jeremiah, Che. Lzye and Times ofJer. 161 ('88).

1734

MIRGASHITE, GIRGASHITES might be carried in it, is suggested by Dt. 53 13 [14] @ ; cp Mt. 109 Mk. 6 s 1 (EV ‘purse’).

3. iWZzah, np , Ps. 109 19 (EV ’ girdle ’ ) ; q, mezi2h, Job 1221 (for n m = nyp ; AV ‘strength,’ mg. ‘girdle,’ RV ‘belt ’).

Che. reads in Ps. ~ l l ’ B = i \ l ~ (cp Lag. Uehers. 177)~ and in .Job ninyn, ‘greaves.’ mp occurs in a doubly corrupt context in Is. 2:ro (AV ‘strength,’ AVmg. RV ‘girdle’); ‘girdle’ for “restraint’ is intrinsically improbable. Du., Che. read ?hF, .I haven.’

4. f<iEzWim, n?r$p (bands) of costly make, worn by women (Is. 320 ~ ~ T ~ J K L O Y , Jer. 2 32 UT?$’O&T~.[S).

Jewish interpretations vary ; Isimchi and Rashi render ‘ headband ’ (so AV ; RV sashes ’). The &iSfirtm were richly studded with jewels and were the receptacle of the other ornaments worn by men and women.

5. The priestly ‘abnt?;, b n u (Ex. 284 3 9 3 3929 Lev. 87 164 ; all P), was a sash rather than a girdle (+(‘&q ; bnlteus [Vg.]; see Lag. Ges. A6k. 39).2 The ‘a6@ was of great length, according to Rabbinic tradition 32 cubits long and 4 cubits wide. Josephus (Ant. iii. 7 z ) says that the ‘abnP? was four fingers broad, ‘ so loosely woven that you would think it was the skin of a serpentS It is embroidered with flowers of scarlet and purple and blue and fine linen ; but the warp is nothing but fine linen.’ It was wound under the breast, twice round the body, was tied in an ample bow or loop, and the ends reached the ankles. It was thrown over the left shoulder while the priest was officiating. Driver- White (SBOT, ‘ Leviticus,’ 70) summarily describe the ‘a6@ as ‘an embroidered loosely woven scarf.’ The ‘ a h @ was the only garment in which an intermixture of wool and linen watspermitted. The same word is applied to the sashes of high officers in Is. 2221.

6. On the ‘curious girdle’ (RV ‘cunningly woven band’ 1~1) of the Ephod, see EPHOD, $ 3 .

The N T terms are :- 7. <&IJ (common in OT, cp also wapa@vq I S. 1811) Acts

21 11 Mt. 34 ; see above. 8. crrpiKlvOca, Acts 19 12, see APRONS.

-

W. R. S . (I)-I. A,-S. A. C.

GIRGASHITE, GIRGASHITES (v&ne ; o rep- recaioc [BADEFL] ; SO Jos. ; Judith516 TOYC rep- rscaloyc, AV GEKGESITES, RV GIRGASHITES), a people of Canaan, Gen. 1016 (gloss), 1521 (gloss), Josh. 310 (D2), 2411 (D2), Dt.71 Neh.98 (AV always ‘Gir- gashites’ except Gen. 10 16, where Girgasite ; RV alwiys ‘Girgashite’). Another form of the name is very probably GIRZITES (y-,]), which has sometimes been corrupted into PERIZZITES (’11~). In the Table of Peoples the Girgashites have, properly speaking, no place; it is to the Deuteronomist, who had archaeological tastes, that the resuscitation of the name is due. Apparently for a good reason he places i t next on the list of peoples in Dt. 7 1 to that of the Hittites. Whence did he derive i t? Probably from the Song of Deborah, where the slaughter of the Kadasoni, or, as he probably read, Kadeshi or SGadeshi, is spoken of (Judg. 521) ; the N. or Hittite Xadeshites, see KADESH, 2. ’I [rl instead of 1 [d], :and the repeated 1 [g] after the 1 [r] are ordinary errors .of scribes. T. K. C.

1 I t i: enough to mention the analogical use of ‘girdle’ (EV ‘a ron . but see AVmg. RVw.) in Gen. 37. f Jos.’(Anf. iii. 72) trinsliterates apad (Niese ; a.?. aSavqO), and notes that the term in use in his day was cpcav (cp Targ. on Ex. pnn), probably the Pers. hinzyrin; see also NSCK-

3 [See picture in Braunius, Yesfit. Suerdot. Ffebraorurm.] 4 P h o n personal names wii ] , p w i i ~ ?re quoted. Are these

too derived from Kadesh? The Hittites had allies called

LACE.

I735

GITTITH GIRZITES, THE (’173 ; for the readings of d and

of EV see GEZRITES), IS. 278 Kt. There seems to have been a widely extended pre-Israelitish tribe called Girzites or Girshites. In fact, wherever PERIZZITES [ p . ~ . ] or GIRGASHITES is read in the Hebrew text we should probably restore Girzites or Girshites.

I t is doubtful whether ‘ Geshurites’ or ‘ Girshites’ is the correct reading in I S. 27 8 (see GESHUR, 2) ; but in z S. 2 g, instead of ‘and over the Ashurites, and over Jezreel,’ we should most probably read simply ‘ and over the Girzites’ C!lV?-h), the rest being due to dittography (see Che. Crit. sa). Of the ‘ Girzites ’ there is another record in the name miscalled ‘ Mount Geriz(z)im ’ (the mount of the Girzites), whilst the Girshites are also attested by win (ie. 9 w i j see HIVITES 5 I n.) in Is. 17 IO and by the two trans-Jordani:places called kerasa (see GILEA;), $ 6).

Another (probable) occurrence of the gentilic Gerag has escaped notice-Boanerges, which seems to the present writer to have come from ~aueyyepos=d!I ire, ‘ sons of Gerasa.’ That the phrase is both misread and misinterpreted need not disturb us ; there are quite as great misinterpretations in Lk. 6 15 ( Simon, called Zelotes ’) and in Acts 436 (see BARNABAS). After mis- understanding it, Mk. wrongly ascribed the name to Jesus.

Parallel corruptions are perhaps Kavava?os or mvavkqs for Kavazos or KavlTqs= ’F22, ‘a man of Cana ’ (but cp CANANAIAN). and c u a p r w r q s for r e p c ~ w q s ‘a man of Jericho’ (cp JUDAS ISCARIOT 0 I). Possibly too (but see JAIRUS first note)Tirnaeus in Bartidzus may be from a place-name ‘kiniai (see Nestle, Marg. 91). T. K. C.

GISPA, RV Gishpa (KQ??), named after ZIHA as an overseer of NETHINIM in Ophel (Neh. 11 211. ; rec+a [Kc.amg.inr.L], om. BK*A). According to Ryssel his name is a corruption of HASUPHA (NDW~) , which follows Ziha in the list in Ezra 243.

GITTAH-HEPHER (le0 nQJ), Josh. 1913 AV, RV GATH-HEPHER (g.n. ).

GITTAIM (P!a$, r&ealM [BADEL] ; probably =GittHm, ‘ place of a wine-press ’ ; on form of name see NAMES, 5 107).

I. An unidentified town in the list of Benjamite villages (EZRA ii., 5 5 [a], 15 [I] u), Neh.1133 (yd+‘&fi [Nc-amg. inf.; om. BK*A]).

2. A town where the fugitive Beerothites were received as gZrim or protected strangers, apparently in the days of Saul (2 S. 43). For thekey to this incidental notice see ISHBAAL (I). This Gittaim can hardly have been the Benjamite town. The persecuted Beerothites would surely have fled to the territory of another tribe. There were probably several Gittaims as well as several Gaths. Thenins, Grove (Smith‘s DB), Klostermann, think the flight was towards Gath (yaO8at [B], - B e y [A]).

3. Gittaim is also probably the name of a town in or near Edom Gen.3635 (BADEL) rCh.146 (so @ B ; @A yeBOap but svrO), where MT Kt.’has AVITH (q.v.). Note that vine: yards in Edom are referred to in Nu. 20 17. 4. By a manifest error Gittaim appears in @ IS. 1433 where

Sanl’s speech begins, not with the appropriate ‘Ye transgress’ ut with the difficult 2“ yeOOaip ([BL], “6.4 y~Oep), ‘In

T. K. C.

GITTITE (’nJ?), 2 S. 610. GITTITH, ‘Set to the’ [RV], or, ‘Upon Gittith‘ [AV]

(nm?g-’w, ~,;p 7. Avviv=n+,-iy [@BNAR Syr. ~ymm.1;

See GATH, J I.

f r o [or, Ps.81, in] torcuhribus [J]; &A T. Aqu& Aq. in Pss. 81 84 [Syro-Hex.], but in Ps. 8 S&p T. ~ E & T L ~ O F ( S O dlso Theod. in Ps. S), Ps. 8 81 (om. T.; S . T . dMoud3quopdvov [A]), 84(headings).

According to Wellhausen we have a twofold question to answer : (I) Is it a mode or key which is denoted by ‘ the Gittith’ ; and, (2) Does Gittith mean ‘ belonging to Gath,’ or ‘ belonging to a wine-press ’ ? The latter question must be answered first. No doubt the vintage festi- val had special songs of its own (one such may he al- luded to in Is. 658), andBaethgen thinks the three psalms with the above heading appropriate for such an occasion. If this view of the appropriateness of the psalms be accepted, it becomes plausible to follow those old in-

1736

GIZONITE, THE terpreters who read ‘ on (=with) the (treading in the) wine-presses.’ If it be rejected, there still remains the view that the temple music had borrowed a mode or key or (see Tg.) instrument from the city of Gath. Philistine influence on the temple music, however, is scarcely credible (see, however, Hitz., Del.), and in any case Gath had probably been destroyed before the exile.

No theory therefore is in possession of the field, and when we consider the frequent miswriting of these musical headings (see, e.g., HIGGAION, SHIGGAION, MAHALATH [ii.]), it is as natural as it is easy to read nQ-Sy, ‘with string-music.’ 1 before 3 might easily be dropped; the next stage of development is obvious. Gesenius in 1839 (Thes., s . ~ ) had already given a kindred solution (n! for nra=nm). The question relative to the mode or key cailed the Gittith disappears.

T. K. C. GIZONITE, THE ( ’ 3 \T$q , I Ch. 1 1 3 4 ; see GUNI, I.

GIZRITES (*?TJ?), IS. 278 RVmS ; AV GEZRITES. GLASS. ‘The art of glass-making, unlike that of

pottery, would appear not to have been discovered 1. Antiquity. and practised by different nations in-

dependently, but to have spread gradually from a single centre.’ That the Phaenicians are not to be credited with this invention (Pliny, HA’ 362665, etc.) is practically certain, since our oldest examples of glass proceed from the countries watered by the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates. From Egypt we have a dusky green glass bead of the queen Hatasu (or rather Ha‘t-Sepsut, see EGYPT, 5 53), of the middle of the fifteenth century B.c., also a light green opaque jar of Thotmes 111. (1500 B . c . ) , ~ and, ascending higher, an amulet with the name of Nuantef IV., of the eleventh dynasty (circa 2400 R. c. ).2 With this agrees the fact that the most ancient representations of glass-blowing belong probably to the Middle Empire, the alleged earlier cases being capable of a different explanation-viz., smelting (Erman, Anc. Eg. 459)’:

The Assyrians, too, were acquainted with the use of glass (ASSYRI-4, 5 13, cp n. z’b.), and we have one of the most important specimens of their work in the unique transparent glass vase of the time of Sargon (722- 705 ELC.) .~ The recent excavations in Nippur, however, appear to permit us to carry back the use of glass to a much earlier date.

According to Peters (Nijjur 2 134) ‘badly broken inscribed axe-heads of a highly ornamentrh shape ’ of blue glass coloured with cobalt (brought presumably from China) wer i found in mounds of the fourteenth century B . c . ~ These and other glass objects found here had been run in moulds not blown. A small glass bottle w a s found with the door-;ockets of Lugal- kigub-nidudu(ci~ca 4000 B.c.; o j . cit. 160, 374); but, ‘in general the glass objects found a t Nippur were of late date, and whid glass fragments were very numerous in the later strata there were few or none in the earlier.’ The above examples shduld no doubt be looked upon as exceptions, since ‘the greater part of the glass found belonged to the post-Babylonian period’ (0). cit. 373fi).

The use of glass among the Phoenicians begins at a later date.4 Their acquaintance with it was probably derived from the Egyptians and spread abroad by them in their trading expeditions. To them, also, are possibly due the many specimens of coloured beads found in many parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa.

The part played hy the Phcenicians in spreading the knowledge of glass-as well as certain arts, etc.-may need some qualifying in the future (see TRADE AND COMMERCE). I n Cyprus, a t all events, it would appear that glass was a native production, rather than of Phoenician origin. The art itself was probably derived from Egypt (Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kyjros, etc., 416). That Egypt exported glass is well known (cp, e.g., Martial, E$. 21, 74). - 1 A. Neshitt art. ‘Glass’ in EBI9. 2 Now in th; British Museum. 3 In the same spot were found obiects of Euboean magnesite,

implying regular intercourse with Greece. 4 The later manufacture of glass in the districts of Beirut

Tyre, and Sidon (see MISREPHOTH-MAIM) does not therefor: concern us.

I737

GNOSIS From the treatment which glass received in the

ancient world it is evident that in Ewut and Babv- 1.1 I

2. Biblical lonia it was held to be a precious thing, a It would, there-

fore. be auurouriate to find it mentioned references. fit offering for the gods.

. along with precious jewels in the eulogy of wisdom, Job 28 17 (z&%kith, n3Ji3i, J ’ clear’ [transparency is not implied], AV CRYSTAL, RV ‘Glass’ ; iiaXos [BHAC]).

;ahor originally denoted any transparent stone or stone-like substance (e.g Herod. 320). On the other hand,some vitreous ornament is uzdoubtedly referred to in &ppnipar/ T E h&va XU& (5. 269).

In the case of the ‘glassy sea’(@/haumilahizq, Rev. 46 15 z), and the comparison of the golden streets of the heavenly city to pure ‘glass’ (Gahar, Rev. 21 1827) the earlier meaning of Sahas perhaps holds good, although wd are reminded of the Arabian legend that Solomon prepared in his palace a glass pavement which the queen of Sheha mistook for water (Qoran, Sur. 27).

has been found in Dt. 33 19 (‘the hidden treasures of the sand 7; 1 but see ZEBULUN.

The colloquial use of ‘ glass ’ to denote a ‘ mirror ’ of glass, or of any other material, is found in A V of ( a ) Is. 3 2 3 (pig, tira$~avq XUKWLKU) , see DRESS, 5 I

(2) ; ( B ) I Cor. 1312 Jas. 123 ( E U O T T ~ O V ) ; see further LOOKING-GLASS, MIRROR.

See art. ‘Glass’ in EBW, and in Kitto’s Bi6. CycZ. ; also

GLAZING ( X P I C M ~ [BaKA]), Ecclus. 3830. See

GLEANING (a?>), Lev. 199. See AGRICULTURE,

GLEDE is EV’s attempt to render the apparent Hebrew word 357 in Dt. 1413 (ryy [BAFL]). The error of the scribe was corrected in the mg., and from the mg. found its way into the text before il-Kii-nnNi ( ‘ and the falcon’). That this view is correct is self-evident, even without the confirmation supplied by the 11 passage, Lev. 11 14. The word gkad or gled (AS gZida) is Old English for ‘ kite,’ and has not yet entirely disappeared.

To represent the phenomena of the text we might render ‘And the bite [read ‘kite’] and the falcon.’ Tristram (NHBI thinks that our translator means the Buzzard, and adds that there are three species of Buzzard in Palestine.

GNAT. I. ( ~ u ~ u y [ T i . WH].) Mentioned only once in the Bible (Mt. 2324) .

The gnats or mosquitoes are dipterous insects belonging to the family Culicidae. There are many species ; they breed in swamps and still water, the first two stages, larval and pupal, being aquatic. The female alone inflicts the sting-like prick with its mouth-organs’ the male insect does not leave the neighhourhood of the b;eeding.place.

RV’s strain out a gnat is a return to the old reading of Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva, AV’s strain at being probably due to a misprint (see Whitney, Dict.). Reference is made in this proverb to the scrupulous care exercised by devout Jews (as also in the present day by Singhalese Buddhists) in conformity with Lev. 1 1 2 3 43 (cp Chullin, f: 67 I). The comparison with the smallest and largest things finds analogy in the Ta1m.-e.g., Shabb. 77 6, $07 $y vin- nn”, ‘ the fear of the gnat is on the elephant’ ; cp the Ar. proverb, ‘ he eats an elephant and is suffocated by a gnat.’ 2. The word ‘ gnat ’ ( ‘ like gnats ’) occurs also in the

RVmg. of Is. 51 6. I t would be safer to read p i 3 (Weir, Che.), which elsewhere AV renders LICE [T.v.] ; in SBOT (Heb.) 14 , however, a bolder correction is suggested (see LOCUST 5 2 [411. In thecaseofthepIagueinEx. 8 16[1213 ‘gnat’isposs:blymore correct. The U K V ~ $ ( e ’ s word in Ex. Z.C.) is called by Suidas E o v KWVWrrG8fS.

In the second century, and also to some extent even in the third, the Church was engaged in a 1. Origin of life-and-death struggle with the Gnostics.

By Gnostics we are to understand a certain class of Christians-of many different

schools, bearing a great variety of names, and diffused all over the Hellenistic world-all having in common a

1 So Meg. 6 a interprets hn (‘sand ’) by n]& n’z13yr ‘Whi te glass.’

A reference to glass-makin

A. Lowy, PSBA, %I$ pp. 84-86. S. A. C.

POTTERY.

§ 12.

T. K. c.

A. E. S.-S. A. C.

GNOSIS.

term,

1738

GNOSIS GNOSIS certain speculative pretentiousness, all laying claim to a special knowledge (gmsi f ) in contrast to the merefuith of the masses, and all giving effect to their fantastic ideas about the origin of the world and the origin of evil in a peculiar ethic that offended the conscience of the Church. If we could assume Carpocrates and Cerinthus (circa 100 A . D . ) to have been the earliest representatives of the tendency in question, and all the writings of the N T to have been composed within the apostolic age, biblical science as such would have no concern with the Gnostics; and it is in point of fact true that the name of Gnostic does not occur in the NT, nor is it mentioned in any extant writing earlier than 176 A.D.

However, ‘ they who make separations’ (of &TO&-

o p l ~ o v ~ e s ) referred to in the epistle of Jude (v. 19 RV) can only be taken as Gnostics of a libertinistic com- plexion : the emphasis laid in nv. 3 20 on the faith once for all delivered to the saints is best explained on this assumption, and still more, their ironical designation as ‘ natural ’ or ‘ animal ’ ( RVmS = ~ J X L K O ~ ) ; plainly they were in the habit of calling themselves ?rveupaTrKol. ‘ spiritual men,’ as distinguished from the ordinary run of ‘ psychical’ Christians who rested content with faith merely. So also in z Pet., only here the author points still more clearly at the Gnostics by his repeated references to the true knowledge (1.f. 5f. 8 220 318). The polemic of the Johannine Epistles has a similar scope; if the substantive, gnosis, does not occur, the verb I to know’ is met with all the more frequently ; ‘ we have known and believed ’ (I Jn. 416) is, intended to express the true knowledge that is in accord with faith as contradistinguished from the knowledge which sets it aside. When the Pastoral Epistles ( I Tim. 6 2.) bluntly warn against the oppositions of the gnosis which is falsely so called, the adherents of which have erred, or ‘ missed the mark,’ concerning the faith, it may perhaps be possible to doubt whether the reference is to the Gnostic Marcion, who wrote ‘Anti- theses’ about 140 A.u. , but not to deny reference to the Gnostics altogether. FinalIy, in the Apocalypse we have at least the reference, in the case of Thyatira (224). to the false teachers who claim to have ‘known the depths of Satan,’ a grim characteristic of Gnostic speculation.

T o all the writings hitherto named as containing allusions to Gnosticism, it might perhaps be possible to

2. attribute a date about the year IOO A.D. tendencies. or even later, in which case the traditional

account of the Gnostic movement as having arisen about the end of the first century would remain unshaken ; on other grounds also the Pastoral Epistles have, in fact, been assigned to the second century. Yet we are none the less compelled by the N T to recognise certain gnorticising tendencies as exist- ing within the apostolic church itself as well as certain extra-Christian and pre-Christian developments bearing a Gnostic character. In the Synoptic Gospels, it is true, the intellectual side of religion is but rarely and exceptionally brought forward : Lk. 11 52 (key of knowledge), Mt. 1311 and parallels (the gift of understanding the mysteries of the kingdom), and Mt. 1127 (the knowledge of the Father [and of the Son] reserved for the chosen ones only) are the leading passages. The Fourth Gospel, however, lays an emphasis, that on this account is all the more striking, upon the capacity to understand. Just as the decisive confession of faith in Christ is (669), ‘we have deZiened and know that thou art the Holy one of God,’ so elsewhere knowing and believing are interchangeable expressions with reference to the same objects, and the impression is left that knowing is higher than believing. Thus, for example, to ‘ those Jews who had believed ’ the promise is given (S31$), ‘ If ye abide in my word . . . ye shuZZ know the .truth, and the truth shall make you free.’ The Gnosti- cism of the Fourth Gospel is distinguished from the

1739

heretical gnosis only ( I ) by the contents of the gnosis to which it attaches so high a value-in this case identical with the contents of faith; and (2) by the closeness of the connection between knowledge and faith ; here there is no such distinction as is elsewhere drawn between the disciples who only believe and the disciples who only know, as two separate classes.

Paul often uses the words for knowing ( ~ ~ J U K E W ,

~ T L - ~ & K E L V ) in their most ordinary sense, as for ex-

3. use ample in Phil. 112 219 z z 45 I Cor. of YL,,;OKELV, 1437, and, inasmuch as he attributes

to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews -4.. (Roni. 1 21 2 18) a knowledge of God Ciuu.

-in contradiction, it is true, to I Cor. 121-he is obviously bound to assume in the case of every believer a knowledge of God, of Christ, of the Gospel as in Gal. 49 z Cor. 89 13 5 Phil. 3 IO (here yrvhmerv Bebv. Xpturbv, etc.) or zCor. 214 46 Phil. 38 Col. 1gf: (here yvwurs, &f-yvwurs, and the corresponding genitives) without our being thereby entitled to ascribe to him a vein of gnosticism.

In I Cor. 139 12, however, he speaks of ‘knowing’ without mentioning any particular object, and the substantive yvrjuis is, in the majority of cases, used ab- solutely ; occasionally and exceptionally (e.g., Rom. 1133) as an attribute of God, mentioned along with his wisdom, but elsewhere as a possession-highly to be prized-of the man who has become a believer.

As proving that knowledge is here sharply separated from faith it will not do to cite I Cor. 1283 where we read that to one is given the word of knowledge and’to another faith; for in this passage aluns, faith, is used in a narrower sense than usoal, whilst, according to I Cor. 12 8 13 8, grosis is one of the charismata that are bestowed only on certain individual$, and I Cor. 8 7 [cp 8 10x1 declares expressly that all have not knowledge. I t is half ironically only that Paul (8 I) declares himself as accepting the proposition that ‘we all have knowledge,’ since in v. 2 with manifest allusion to the conceit of the Corinthians, he disiinguishes between knowing as one ought to know and a gnosis that, in all essentials is merely imagined. The circum- stance also that in Gal. 49 (& r Cor. 8 3) he speaks of it as the highest object of Christian effort that one should be known of God rather than that one should know God, is not to he under- stood as depreciating the high value he elsewhere attaches to gnosis, any more than T Cor. 1 3 8 s 12 is to be so taken, where he speaks of all knowledge in the present aeon as only in part, and promises that in the time of perfection it shall, as imperfect, be done away. For the same thing is said of speaking with tongues and of prophecy and of them also, as well as of acquaintance with all possihle knowledge, he says (13 1s) that they are of no profit to the man who has not love.

It cannot be by accident merely that, in Paul, gnosis is always met with as the precious possession of the members of the Christian community and never as belonging to unbelievers ; it has its place, in fact, among the charismatic manifestations of the spirit of God, which this same spirit bestows on individuals for the benefit of all (I Cor. 127-11), and as such ranks with prophecy and the gift of miracles ; he who is endowed with knowledge-the ‘ gnostic.’ as the expression would have been at a later date-belongs to the number of the T P . W ~ ~ T W O ~ , the men of the spirit.

We might venture, after Paul, to define gnosis as the result of the instruction which a ‘spiritual’ man has

4. Definition. received from the spirit of God in the things of the spirit down to the very

depths of the Godhead (I Cor. 28-16) in such a manner that, possessed of the God-given teaching, he finds every- thing dark in earth and heaven become clear to him and (if only ‘through a glass,’ in mere outline) he sees that which is true, where others see nothing, or only what is false. Paul himself belonged pre-eminently to the number of such gnostics (z Cor. 116) , and if that piece of ‘knowledge’ which, as we learn from I Cor. 8, he shared with many Corinthians-that idols are nothing, and that consequently, to speak strictly, there can be no such thing as meat offered to idols-is of a somewhat elementary character, we must nevertheless remain lost in admiration at the deeper passages in his epistles (e,f., Rom. 8 and 9-11), in which he expounds the divine plan of salvation-at his ‘ gnosis,’ in fact. The

I740

GNOSIS GOAT men. These opinions Paul shares with the later Gnostics : it is easily intelligible why they all, and Marcion especially, felt closer affinities with him than with any of the other N T writers ; what separates their gnosticism from his is the preponderance, to a greater or less degree, of heathen elements in their speculation, whilst his own confined itself to working out in a sympathetic, if speculative way, the fundamental ideas of the gospel. That Paul found such speculation indispensable is, however, no personal peculiarity of his ; it was an element in his composition that he had derived from the atmosphere of his time ; under its influence it was that he contributed to make Christianity, from being a religion, into a system of religious and metaphysical thought.

At the same time Paul’s epistles, and especially Colossians, show that already at that early date he had to combat certa.in developments of the spirit that prided itself on knowledge. The false teachers of Colossae (see COLOSSIANS, § 6) become intelligible only if we take them as judaizers on the one hand, and gnosticizers on the other, Christians who gave th fantastic dualistic speculation. A gnos of this sort they must have imported with them from without ; that is to say, gnosticism already existed in the apostolic age, and it was introduced into the Christian Church by the Jews. But neither had it its ultimate origin in Judaism ; from the strong heathen element it contains we can see that it must have been imported from the heathen religious philosophy, under- going manifold modification and accommodation in the process. Respect for gnosis is a pre-Christian, Hellenic phenomenon ; Christianity was no more successful in withdrawing itself from the influence of this predominant tendency of the time than it was in the case of Judaism ; but Paul at so early a date as that of his epistle to Colossae already found, and made use of, the opportunity to draw the line beyond which gnosis could not be tolerated as a Christian basis, and succeeding genera- tions of the Church only followed in his footsteps, though with increasing earnestness as the danger increased, when they carried on the struggle against ‘ Gnostics after the flesh.

Cp F. C. Baur, Die ChristZ. Gnosis, ‘35, and Das Christen- thum U . a’. chrisfZ. Kircke der ersten IahrhzlnderfeP), ‘60 ;

R. A. Lipsius ‘Gnosticismus,’ in Ersch and Literature. Gruher’s En&. vo!. lxxi., ’60’ Mansel, Thc

Gnostic Heresies, 75 ; J. B. kightfoot, ,St. P a d s EjisfZes fo the Colossians and Phzknton, 86 ; M. Fried- lender, Der vorckristlicltejiidische Gnosticismus, ‘98.

A. J.

GOAD. I. dorbhin, 1277 (AP~ITANON ; stimulus), I S. 1321 [also 7,. 20 d, emended text, see SBOT] , liis, dor6h8n ( ~ O ~ K W T ~ O V ) Eccles. 12 IIt. 2. MaZmidh, i n h (&POTP~TOUS), Judg. 331f.l 3. KCvTpov, Acts 26 14 RV. See AGRICULTURE, 0 4, col. 79.

GOAH, Jer. 31 39 RV ; AV GOATH. GOAT. To supplement the general introductory

notes respecting large and small cattle among the Hebrews (given elsewhere; see CATTLE) some remarks upon the treatment of goats in particular are necessary.

There are several different breedsof the genus Capru in 1. Hebrew Palestine and adjacent countries ; but it is

not possible to distinguish each precisely by its original Hebrew name.

The generic Heb. term, common to all the Semitic family is (I) *&, ly (Ass. enzu, Ar. ‘am, Syr. ‘ezzd; Q5 usually renders dt, also $+os Gen. 27 g, etc.), which includes male and female ( e g . , Gen. 15 9).

To denote the he-goat (so RV), four words are found : ( 2 )

‘aft&, l?ny (Ass. atzidu, mentioned as a swift mountain animal), AV ‘rams’ in Gen. 31 TO 12. @ ~pLyos ; but K ~ L & Gen. 31 IO 12, Xlpapos Ps. 509 66 15.

(3) FEjhfr, T?? a late word (Ass. !a$,bam, Syr. p j h r E y E ) , Dan. S 56, and’ (Aram.) Ezra 8 35 ; O?Y[$ ‘h’ Dan. 8 5 a * z Ch.

deeper understanding of the scripture, which became possible to him as a Christian (as in Gal. 37 42r&), has the same origin. The gnosis of the individual becomes fruitful for the community only, of course, by the communication of it, whether orally or in writing ; I Cor. 128 accordingly includes the word of knowledge in the list of the charismata; and it is almost certain that in I Cor. 146 the ‘teaching’ (SiSaxf) means the communication of ‘ gnosis ’ (cp 1426), and therefore that the ‘teachers’ (1228) who take the third place, immediately after apostles and prophets, in the enumera- tion of those who possess the gifts of the spirit, are to be thought of as ‘ Gnostics.’ Their sharp differentiation from the prophets is somewhat surprising; in many cases it cannot have been practically possible ; but as Paul in I Cor. 14 6 gives to ‘ prophesying ’ the same position with reference to ‘ revelation ’ that he gives to ‘ teaching ’ with reference to ‘ knowledge,’ he would seem to have distinguished the word of knowledge from prophecy much in the same way as the latter was distinguished from speaking with tongues ; those exercising the last-named gift did so unconsciously, those who prophesied did so in at least enthusiastic exaltation, whilst those who gave the word of knowledge did so in full calm consciousness and with a view to convincing their hearers. Moreover, the contents of prophecy were derived from former revelation and extraordinary ex- periences, whilst the word of knowledge proceeded from the continuous instruction of the Holy Spirit, making use of the forms of human thought.

In I Cor. 128 Paul speaks of a word of: wisdom along- side of a word of knowledge, and students have seldom

5. Wisdom failed to observe the close connection be- and gnosis. tween the two ; in fact, the ‘ teaching ’ of

The dis- 14626 must include them both. tinction between them has sometimes been formulated : thus : the essential feature of the ,word of wisdom is that it appeals to the understanding, whilst the character of gnosis essentially consists in intuition, in an illumina- tion by the spirit of God, and in an immediate relation to this spirit (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, 2264). Wis- dom (ao@la), however, of which Paul (apart from Col. and Eph., and apart from the fact that of course he does not deny it to be an attribute of God) almost always speaks in a tone of disfavour-the wisdom which, in his view, as the ideal of the Gentiles (I Cor. 1 z z ) , proceeds from the rulers of this present world-could never become for his theology a conception of importance comparable with that of gnosis ; in I Cor. 2 6 8 , ,what he opposes to the false wisdom as being the divine wisdom which he proclaims is the contents of his own gnosis (nu. 8 I,), and only on polemical and rhetorical grounds is it that he speaks of wisdom, not gnosis (v, 6), as the subject of his discourses.

The unique passage in I Cor. 12 8 can hardly be taken as im- ymg, on Paul’s part, a deliberate co-ordination of wisdom and E‘ nowledge; ’ probably all that he desired was to mention the

gift of teaching as heading the list of the charismata, and this he could have done with pafect clearness by using the expression ‘word of knowledge . hut inasmuch as the Corinthians attached great importance io wildom, and a section of them had even perhaps chosen to rank themselves among the followers of Apollos as being the man of wisdom, it occurred to Paul that be ought not to allow it to appear as if he did not recognise the ‘word of wisdom ’ of (say) an Apnllos as being a charisma also as well as his own ‘word of knowledge ’. and if in 2 Cor. 11 6 h i contrasts his ‘rudeness’ in respect of spdech with his mastery in respect of knowledge it becomes natural to take the ‘word of wisdom’ of I Cor. l i s as a kind of speech distinguished by correctness and brilliancy of form, as employing the resources of a finished education and training.

To sum up: Paul reckoned gnosis as among the highest gifts of grace belonging to the church of his day ; 6, Summing its possessor was able to solve the riddles

of time and eternity which remained in- soluble to other believers; according to

I Cor. 2 6 8 he even held that such pieces of knowledge could be communicated only to such as were ‘ perfect,’ to Christians who, in truth, deserved to be called spiritual

1741

up*

1 In Dan. 821 glossed by l’Y$ (Bev.).

=742

GOAT GOAT wilderness (Edom), and in the hills from Hebron (I S. 252) to the top of Lebanon, and beyond Jordan (Cant. 41 65 [cp GILEAD, § I, HAIR,'§ I], Gen. 3 0 3 3 . 8 3214 [IS]). They have given their name to 'Am-Jidy (see EN-GEDI), where they are said still to be found (Thomson, LB 603).

The two flocks keep apart, however, the sheep browsing on the short grass whilst the more agile and independent goat skips along nibbling at the young shoots of trees and shrubs. In this way great damage is done to seedling trees, and the goat is to a large extent respon- sible for the absence of trees in Palestine. When folded together at night, the goats and sheep gather separately, and round the well, while awaiting the filling of the trough, they instinctively classify themselves separately (Tristram, Zoc. cit. ).

The tuyii is mentioned in Pr. 3031 as one of the things ' stately in march' (TpbyOS +ydpwos ahroAlou [GBNAc]),, an allusion, doubtless, to the he-goat's habit 3f leading the flock (cp 'attzid Jer. 508). Hence the latter term is applied to the leaders of the people (Is. 149 Zech. l o 3 ; cp Jer. 5140 /I p>!m), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 3717) contrasts the weak flock (the poor people) with their leaders, the rams and he-goats (the rich and powerful ; cp Dan. 8 3 5). It is plain that there is no real affinity between this passage and Mt. 253zf: where the blessed are separated from the cursed 'as the shepherd divides the sheep from the kids' (tpL+ia ; RVW. kids). This language does not imply that kids are either less valuable or (see Post in Hastings' DB, 2 1956) less mild and tractable than sheep.3 On the passage as a whole see SHEEP.

Herds of goats were a valuable possession in more ways than one (CP Prov. 2726, and see CATTLE, 6 8).

As a rule they are herded with the sheep.'

2921. BBKAL also read [p179r in Neh. 5 18 (MT pi183 'fowls').

hairyone'), O y [ d 'b Gen. 3'131 Ezek. 4322, etc., AV 'kid of the goats' (++os a i y i v ) , fem. 'y ni$y& Lev. 428, etc.

@ T ~ & ~ O S ; but Xlpapos 2 Ch. 2921.

(4) i Z W , 1'YW

( 5 ) tap& W;!, Gen.3035 32 14 [r'51, (5 Tp&yos. The generic terms for the young animal are (6) gZa'2, '!?

(fem. Cant. 1 st), (5 +$os, or, in conjunction with (I) above, n*ry[nl '13, I S. 1G 20 Gen. 27 g 16, etc. ; and (7) Lh, ak, used of both goats and sheep (Ex. 125 Dt. 144); cp CATTLE, 5 2 (6), and see SHEEP.

The Hebrew terms refer generally to the domesticated goat, Cupm hircus, which, it is probable, is descended

2. Species. mainly from the Persian wild goat, C. egugms, though doubtless other strains

are mingled in its ancestry. Of the various breeds in Palestine, the chief is the mamder, or Syrian goat, which attains a large size. It is remarkable for its long pendant ears, half as long again as the head, an allusion to which is perhaps found in Am. 3 12. The hair is long, black and silky. Both sexes are generally horned and have short beards. Another breed which is found in some parts of the North of Palestine is the mohair or Angora goat. It is generally white and has long silky hair.

The WILD GOAT (C. egupus) extends through Asia Minor and Persia, and in Homer's time was abundant in Greece. It would be well-known to the Assyrians, although the species occasionally figured is doubtless (so Houghton) the Asiatic ibex-viz., the G z p m sinuitica (colloquially called the deden). This animal occurs in the Sinaitic peninsula, in Palestine (but not N. of Lebanon), in Upper Egypt, and in Arabia Petraea. It is quite distiiict from the ibex of other countries, being rather smaller than the Alpine species, and lighter in colour than any of its congeners. I t is a shy animal, with a keen scent, and its coloration is so like that of the surrounding rocks, etc., that it is very difficult to see. It usually goes in small herds of eight or ten, and, when feeding, has a sentry on the look-out for enemies. The flesh is said to he excellent, the horns, which are much smaller in the female than in the male, are often used for knife handles, etc.

The generic Heb. term for the 'wild goat' is p i ' a Z (only in pl., y&Zim, 09\v;), to whosefondness for rocky heights allusion is made in I S. 24 2 Ps. 104 18 (&a+os) Job 39 T (rpayiha+oT a&pas). Like the GAZELLE, the ' wild ' 'or (better) ' mountain goat is used of a woman (in n$t! Prov. 5 19, B B N A ~ ~ A o s ) , and occurs as a personal name (see JAEL). Another, probably more specific term is 'a$& mentioned as a ' clean ' animal in Dt 145 (see k L E A N 5 7s)' The Vss. vary betweenyri'lZ(so Taig. Pesh.), and T&LYCA~+OS (AFL B om.) which is applied distinctively to the long-haired add beardid goat found in Arabia and on the Phasis.1 We may probably identify the animal with the deden or Syrian ibex (cp above).

It is possible indeed that several of the terms may be mere appellatives, and when we find that the Hebrew 'uyydl (Cerv&s, see. HART) and 'uyil (&is Aries, see SHEEP) are virtually identical, it is natural to infer that the Semites did not always distinguish precisely between the Cu@rine and the Ceivide and AntiloQina.

We cannot, [herefore state exactly what animals are heant by the Ass. amu (c A ~ A N , Syr. urniz), daSu (see PYGARG), ditanu, iurri&u (gyr. far&: cp TERAH), and burha (cp Syr. 6ur&ri), although the probability is that a mouniain-goat is referred to in each.

Goats form a large part of the wealth of a pastoral community. In hilly and poorly watered regions they 3. Breeding. are more abundant than the sheep.

'On the downs of Arabia where no shrubs are to be found, there are no goats. In the rich maritime plains their place is taken by horned cattle, for the luxuriant grasses are too succulent for their taste.'3 They flourish best in the southern 1 See Liddell and Scott. The gloss (6pppos (ib.) is no doubt

related to the Heb. zimir, see CHAMOIS. 2 In Dt. 144 Pesh. for lpi, see CHAMOIS. 3 Tristram in Smith's DSP), rzood.

I743

Their hair was woven (&ID) by-the women into curtains, tent coverings, etc. 4.

(Ex. 3526 Nu. 3120 etc., see TENT, 5 3), and-Paul's native country Cilicia, in particular, exported goats' hair for this purpose (see CILICIA, 8 3). The skins might be used to cover the body (see below, and cp DRESS, 5 8 ; Heb. 1137 Pv aiydots G.!ppautv), though, in later times, this would rather be the garb of an ascetic. More commonly they were used for bottle^.^ Goats' flesh was, of course, eaten (see FOOD, 8 IS), and goats' milk ( n y 3>? Prov. 2727) formed one of the main articles of diet (see MILK). Hence a gift or present frequently takes the form of a goat or kid (Judg. 151 I S. 101 Gen. 3817 Tob. 212), and, as at the present day, it is dressed and prepared for the guest by every generous host (Judg. 6 183 1315, cp Lk. 1529).

The goat was one of the commonest sacrificial victims (Lev. 312 Gen. 15g), and most frequently comes in

connection with the priestly ritual of '' the sin-offering. It was the animal selected on the great DAY OF ATONE- archseology*

MENT to bear away the sins of the people to AZAZEL. Cp SACRIFICE.

The, following terms are found: 7 Y (Nu. 15 27), n'iy ?'BY

2 Ch. 2921, l 'pk Lev. 424, 'Y['hYU/ Lev. l S s J , Nu. 716, fem. 'yni'yp Lev. 56, nmnn ['liy~v Lev. 9 15 2 Ch. 2923. Similarly in the Carthaginian ritual the ly and ~ 7 3 were used as offerings ; cp CIS I. no. 165, U. 7 9.

The so-called Satyrs (see SATYR) must also be referred to in passing. If we may conjecture that there were ancient Hebrew rites wherein worshippers appeared in goat-skins (see DRESS, 8, ISAAC, 4 ; and WRS ReZ. S~rn.(~), 467) the origin of thesd jinn-like objects

1 t&n denotes the fold of the goats (Ps. 509) as well as that of the sheen.

2 The 'ffocksofkids'(O'!p '?en) in I K. 2027 is a precarious Klostermann reads renderinz derived from (5 ( ro luvLa alv&u).

, I

nvy && ( ~ D u / I ) , ' on the bare heigh;, after the manner of kids.' 8 See Is. 11 6 Ecclus. 47 3. 4 See BOTTLE, 0 I. This is literally expressed in the

Palmyrene 1y 91 1'37 (Tadmor, Fiscal Inscr. [137 A.D.], B 2 48).

I744

GOATH of veneration becomes more obvious. It may well be that at some early period the goat was regarded in Canaan as a sacred animal (cp GAZELLE, HART), It was so venerated by certain communities in Egypt,’ and to some extent among the Greeks.2 We know, too, that it filled a prominent place in Babylonian

GOATH, or better (RV) GOAR (7@i, ‘ to Goah ’), one of the land-marks of the restored Jerusalem (Jer. 31 39 f). Read ?ll?gX, ‘ to the Hill ‘-i,e., probably ’ to the Hill of God,‘ the Mt. of Olives (see Is. .1032, as emended under NoB). Gratz (iMGWJ, 1883, p. 343) thinksof Gibeah of Saul ; but that is too far off. In v. 38 the new wall is traced from the Tower of Hananeel on the the NE. to the corner-gate on the NW. ; in v. 39 from the NW. back to the NE. on the S. side, passing by GAREB [ii] (between the ravine of Hinnom and theValley of Rephaim) to the Mount of Olives.

Pesh. evidently read anyxi ; cp ;ITL yapaoa, cod. 36 (Field). QBXAQ’s rendering (Kai aapLKudo@<umaL ;&‘ ;KACKT&V AL8ov) represents the last clause (any2 2~21)~ and seems to be a paraphrase of a reading aya@a (cp JhaJ Syr. -Hex.) from yaa8a (Aq.). T. K. C.

GOB (13, >\A-i.e., ‘ a cistern,’ Ges.), if the reading be correct, is the name of the place where David’s warriors had two encounters with the Philistines (see DAVID, § 7 ; ELHANAN, 5 I ), z S. 2118Jt. In the 11 passage ( I Ch. 2O4J) the place is mentioned only once (v. 4), and is given1 as Gezer (so in z S. ; Then., Ew., with Jos. Ant. vii. 122) which is plainly a ccrrup- tion of Iie = 33. The commentaries are just here very meagre ; but we can hardly doubt that the true reading in z S. is either n!, ‘ Gath’ (so Grove, Gratz, Klo.), or (more probably) niin7, REHOBOTH ( g . ~ . ) . For the restoration of Gob in zS. 21 16 (We. and others) see ISHBI-BENOB.

All the three encounters mentioned in 2 S. 21 18-21 presumably occurred in the same neighbourhood ; Q5 in v. 18, and MT and E3 together in v. 20, besides the reference in v. 22 (?), support ‘Gath.’ Ges. naively remarks (Ties., s.v., 33) that ‘Gob’ beiiig little known, @ substituted other names. though there probably in Talmudic times was a place called p b (pow eZ-4fu64 B=d.(3) q ) , 4 there never was any n a d d

Either ‘ Gob ’ is a fusion of ‘ Gath ’ and ‘ Noh,’ or it is a corruption of Rehoboth. The latter view seems preferable. The ya&3 of @L in v. 18 is a fusion of ‘Gezer’(ya<ep), and ‘Gath’ (ye@). (Some Heb. MSS have 2i: so also the Soncino Bible l14881, etc. ; 7’. 18, yop [Compl 1 . a<cp [ H P 2461; yapreh [id. XI. 29236 242 etc.1; y,d [BA];‘;a& [Ll; v. 15, yop [AI, PO+ [Bl, pop [L ; Compl. nisi vop ; cp HP).

astronomy.3 A. E. S.-S. A. C.

The truth is that

Gob.

T. K. C.

GOBLET (I?&), Cant. 7 2 [3].

GOD, NAMES OF. See NAMES, 1 0 8 8 GOEL (?&).

See BASON, I.

The idea expressed by the verb hi, gri’aZ, is to resume a cZaim or right, which has lapsed or been forfeited, tu redaim, re-vindicate, redeem, red- imo (to ‘ buy back ’ ) ; it is thus used in Lev. 25258 of 1. Meaning the redemption of a field or house after it

has been sold, in 25 47 8 of the redemption of an Israelite who, through poverty, has

been obliged to sell himself as a slave to a resident foreigner, and in 2713 15 etc., of the redemption of something which has been vowed to Yahwe ; in the first two of these connections, the subst. ah: , ge’uLZrih, is used similarly, 2524 26 48 etc. In practice, however, a man was seldom able himself to ‘redeem’ a right which had lapsed, and thus, by ancient custom, the right (and the duty) of doing so devolved upon his family (cp 2548 J ) , and, in particular, upon that member of his family who was most nearly related to him. The consequence was that the term G a d , properly redeemer, came to denote a man’s Kinsman, and especi-

of term.

’ GOEL ally his next-of kin (6 dyxcazebs, dy~cuzeu~ds, 6 d Y X c u T d w ) ; see Lev. 2525 Nu. 58 Ruth 210 3 9 12 41 3 6 8 14 I K. 1611 (@BL om.), where it is rendered so (or similarly) in AV, RV (cp Ruth 313, where the verb ‘ to redeem ’ is rendered four times perfor7n or do the part uf a Kinsman). What has been said is well illustrated by Jer. 327-9, where, Jeremiah‘s cousin Hanameel wishing to sell some property, the prophet is represented as possessing the right of redemption, which he proceeds to exercise ; and by Ruth 3, where, when Naomi had determined to sell her husband’s estate in Bethlehem, her nearest of kin, who has the right tG redeem it (6 dyx~u~e la ) , expresses himself unable to do so, and the right devolves upon Boaz, her next nearest kinsman, who accordingly purchases the estate, and takes with it Ruth, Naomi’s daughter-in-law, a s his wife (312 44-10).

5 ~ 2 , gri’al, to be carefully distinguished from the late verb 5 ~ 3 , @‘iZ, ‘to defile ’ occurs chiefly in the later literature though the antiquit; of the ideas and usages of which it is thd expression is sufficiently attested by 2 S. 14 II I K. 16 11. In the derived meaning ‘ to act as kinsman’ (2 S. 14 II I K. 16 II and esp. Ruth and the legal codes of DHP) it is general$ fendered by &&LUT&CJ ( -munjs , etc.), whereas the other mean- ings ‘to redeem, redemption, etc.’ are expressed by I;dopaL (Gen. 48 16 and often [not always] in Is. 40-66), or, more frequently, by huTpoGpar ( A ~ T ~ W U L S etc.). On the use of 5 ~ 3 in the meta- phorical sense of ‘redek~ption‘ from trouble, exile, death, etc., see BDB S.V. no. 3 (p. 145). in Job 19 25 9 5 ~ 1 , ‘my vindicator’ ( R p g . ) is the vindicator of k y innocence, whether(Di., Bu.) as against false accusations, or (Hi., Del., Che. J06 and SOL 288 Du.) as against an unjust death (see 2); on the distinction frod n y ~ see Dr. on Dt. 78.

The principle of which these usages are the expression is the desire to keep the property-or, to speak more

.- _. penerallv, the rights-of the familv. intact :

1 See Wilk. Anc. Eg, 3303, and especially Wiedemann,

2 See Frazer, GoZden bough, 1 3 2 6 8 , 2 3 4 8 ; Paus. 4 105f: 3 Tensen. Itbsnrol. 76 f i

Herodots Zweifes Buch cap. 46.

4 Neub. ‘Giogr. 76.’

,. ,. a* and thegJFZha2ddm (013 5 ~ 2 ) ~ or ‘avenge; 2Efg of blood,’ is just the embodiment of a parallel amlication of the same Drincide. The n i ’ F Z .I Y

had-ddm is the man who vindicates the rights of one whose blood has been unjustly shed ; by primitive usage the duty of doing this devolves upon the members of the family, or clan (as the case may be), of the murdered man (cp z S. 14 7 : the whole family is risen against thy handmaid, and they said, Deliver him that smote his brother,’ etc.) ; and any one of them (as now in Arabia) may find himself called upon to discharge it ; but naturally the responsibility is felt most strongly by the more immediate relatives, and one of these is the ‘ avenger of blood,’ K ~ T ’ ox+^.

The character is one that figures in many primitive or semi-primitive societies. In a completely civilised society the right of punishment for murder, or for other crimes, is assnmed by the state : for the revenge which might he inflicted in haste or passion (Dt. 196) by one prompted by personal feeling, is substituted the judgment of a cool and impartial tribunal. In a primitive community, however, the case is different ; what the manslayer has there to fear is not public prosecution, but the personal vengeance of the relatives of the slain man. Hebrew law is an intermediate stage. Already in the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 21 12-14) there is drawn the distinction (which is not yet found in Homer) between intentional and unintentional homicide, and the importance of the distinction is insisted on in all the Codes (Dt. 191-13 Nu. 389-34), where provisions are laid down to prevent homicide, as distinguished from murder, being visited by death. The gC’ZZ, however, not the state, still executes justice on the murderer ( z S. 147 II Dt. 1912 ; and, in P, Nu. 3.519 21 27) : on the other hand, his authority is Zimited; the altar of YahwB in Ex., and the ‘cities of refuge’ in Dt. and P, are appointed as places at which the homicide may be secure from the vengeance of the g8’CZ; restrictions are placed in the way of his acting hastily or in passion (Dt. 193 6) ; according to Josh. 2O4J (D,) the manslayer is to state his case before the elders of the city of refuge, and, if he has satisfied them (it is implied) of its truth, is to be taken under their protection ; in Nu. 3524f: (P) the

1746 7745

GOLAN case between him and the avenger ,of blood is subject to the decision of the ‘ congregation ; and the murderer is to be put to death only on the evidence of more than one witness (Nu. 3530 ; cp the general rule, Dt. 191s).

The practice of blood-revenge is widely diffused, especially among tribes in a relatively primitive stage 3. Practice of of civilisation. It is essentially con-

blood-revenge. nected with the family, or clan ; indeed it is found only where a clan-

system is fully developed and clan-sentiment strongly felt. Its aim is to maintain intact the honour and integrity of the clan ; the feeling which prompts it is the esprit de corps of the clan. The duty is felt as a sacred one ; in Australia, for example, for the nearest relative of a murdered man to refuse to avenge his death would be to repudiate a most sacred obligation, and at the same time to incur the taunts and derision of the entire clan. As has been said abcve, however, it is often a matter not simply between a particular relative of the murdered man and the murderer; the whole clan, on each sids, is implicated, and a remorseless and protracted blood-feud between the two clans may he the consequence of a murder, until the penalty which custom demands has been exacted.

Wherever the practice of blood-revenge exists, the principle underlying it is the same; though naturally there are many differences in the details of its applica- tion, and many special usages and customs arise in connexion with it. The limits of the clan implicated vary,-sometimes it is the murderer’s more immediate family, sometimes it includes his relations in a wider sense; in Arabia it is the group called the &yy- Le. , the aggregate of kinsmen, living and moving from place to place together, and bearing the same name (WRS Kinship, 22-24, cp 36-39). Very often, again, a T O L V . ~ , or wergiZd is taken in compensation far a life (cp for instance Hom. ZZ. 18498 f. ; Tac. Germ. ZI ; and, among the Saxons, Stubbs, Const. Hist. of Eng. 153 143 f. 157 161 f:) ; this was against Hebrew feeling, and is strictly prohibited-implicitly in Ex. 21 12 (JE) Lev. 2417 ( H ) and Dt. 1911-13, explicitly in Nu. 3531-33 (P).‘ Where a wergiZd is accepted, its amount varies amongst different peoples, and also in accordance with the rank, age, or sex of the murdered person. For other varieties of usage in connexion with the institution, it must suffice to refer to A. H. Post, Sfudien ZUY Entwickehngsgesch. des FamiZienrechts 113-137 [‘go]; also WRS, Kiltship, z z s 38 47 5 2 3 ; ReL

Magog ( 3 h Q ; Marwr [BADEL]), in Gen. 102=1 Ch. 1s (M&rw& [A]), IS a ‘son’ of Japhet. The name, which should be connected in some way with Gag, occnrs also in Ezek. 396 (ywy [BQ], UE [A]), where Magog is spoken of as ex- posed to judgment (Gog, Meshech, and Tubal, v. I ) ,

and in Ezek. 382 where we have ‘Gog of the land of Magog,’2 mentioned with Meshech and Tubal. Gog (>\a ; ywy [BAQ]) is to come from the remote part of the N. (3815 392). Meshech and Tubal (see TUBAL), as well as Gorner (386), also point northward. The order of the names would place Magog between Cap- padocia and Media,-Le., in Armenia, or some part of it.

The correctness of the Hebrew text has been douhted.4

1 I t was permitted only in the case of a man or woman being gored to death by an ox (Ex. 21 2 8 8 ) .

a Bertholet reads ‘against the land of Magog’ (‘D nsix). 3 C5 hns ywy also in Am. 7 I (pp00 OF b~ ywy 6 paurhcdr), and

in Nu. 247 (see AGAC). [B* alsoXas ywy for ‘Og’ in three places in Dt. (3 I 13 447). In Ecclus. 45 17 ~ b v yoy [BCI (pn) may be a corruption of dyoy& which appears in N-].

4 [In Gen. 10 z 21213 is probably a corruption of y>n, miswritten for 7133. In Ezek. 35 z read f7Ip y 1 x - h 1’>5 mb, ‘set thy face towardsthe landof Migdon.’ Mig(a)donisprobahlyanameofthe Babylonian god of the underworld, which, like Beliar or Belial (Le. Belili, see BELIAL, 8 3), was adopted as a name of Anti- christ (see ARMAGEDDON). In Ezek. Z.C. ’1 311nn springs out of

I747

Sem.(zJ 3zf: 272f: 420; PEFQ ‘97, pp. 128-130. S. R. D.

GOG and MAGOG.

Wi. connects Cog with the gentilic name Gdpya, ‘of the Ian: of G&,’ used in Am. Tab. 138 as a synonym for ‘barbarian. Others connect it with Ass. Cagu, ruler (fmzdn) of the land of Sahi, northward from Assyria, in the time of A9ur.bini-pal (Schr. KGF I ~ O : KB 2 180 f : Del. Par. Z L ~ : ‘l’iele. Gmdr. 362): less probgbiy with Gyge;, king of Lydia (Ass. &&) a contemporary of Ah-b in i -pa l (E. Meyer GA 1558). $he traditional identification with the Scythians (Jos. Jer.) is plausible, but without definite evidence (see further D:. on Gen. 10 2, Lenorm. L.c.).

APOCALYPSE, 0 46, ESCHATOLOGV, 0 88 (6) , and SCYTHIANS. For Gog and Magog in eschatology see ANTICHRIST, 8 12,

F. B. GOG (JjB), in a genealogy of REUBEN, I Ch. 5 4 t

( royr [BAI, r w r [LI). GOIIM. (I) AV NATIONS (qh ; &NUN [ADEL] ;

GENTIUm LL\ ; Gen. 14 x), possibly=Gntium (Kurdistan). See KOA, TIDAL. (2 ) Josh. 1223 RV. See GILGAL, 5 6.

GoLAN (133 ; THN r&yhwN [BAFL], in Ch. rwA&N), a town in Bashan in the territory of the half- tribe of Manasseh, only mentioned in Dt. 443 Josh. 208 ( Ih J Kt. ; THN rwhaN [AL]) as a city of refuge, and in Josh. 21 27 (I151 Kt. ; TH N rwA+N [AL]) = I Ch. 6 71 [561 (THN rwh&N P I ) , as a Levitical city.

Golau was known to Josephus as yauXdvq (Ant. xiii. 15 3 ; BJ i. 4 4 8) ; and Eusebius ( O S 242) describes it as a ‘ large village in Batanaea’ which gave its name to the surrounding district, Gaulan- itis (cp Schurer, G J Y 1 226 354). Gaulanitis is frequently mentioned in Josephus (e.g., Ant. xvii. 8 I xviii. 46) as part of the tetrarchy of Philip. The ancient name is still heard in the modern /aukin-the name of an adminis- trative district, bounded on the W. by the Jordan and the Sea of Galilee, on the S. by the YarniCik or Sheri‘at el-MenHdireh, on the E. by the Nahr el-‘AUHn, and on the N. by the declivities of Hermon and the W&dy el- ‘Ajam. Schumacher (Across the Jordan, 92) thinks that Golan may have been on the site of the present large village, Sahem el-JaulHn, on the W. of HaurHn, 17 m. E. of the Sea of Galilee; the ruins here are extensive, and there is a tradition current among the inhabitants that the place had long ago been the ‘capital of JaulHn,’ and the seat of government. It is true, Sahem el-JaulHn is about a mile to the E. of the present border of Jaulan ; but we do not know that the ancient Gaulanitis was exactly co-extensive with the JaulZn of to-day. The grounds of the identification are, however, not such as to be conclusive.

The modern JaulSn in its western part (between the Jordan and the Rukkad) consists of a plateau rising gradually from a height of ahout IWO feet above the sea in the S. to upwards of 3 w o feet above it in the N. The whole region is volcanic ; and the country is studded with the conical peaks of extinct volcanoes. The N. and middle tracts of this part of Janliin are stony and wild, abounding in masses of lava which have been emitted from the volcanoes. The soil is of little use agri- culturally ; but it is valuable as pasturage ; wherever between the hard basaltic blocks there is a spot of earth the most lnxuri- ant grass springs up in winter and spring, affdrding fodder for the cattle of the Bedouin. Parts of the country are well covered with oaks and other trees ; and there are indications that it was once even better wooded than it is now. The plateau is intersected by deep wadys, mostly running in a SW. direc- tion into the Sea of Galilee. The SW. part of this plateau, in the angle formed by the Yarmfik and the Sea of Galilee is on the other hand, stoneless ; the lava-rock surface graduallyhis- appears and in its place is a rich dark brown lava soil, such as prevails in Hauran, of extreme fertility on which wheat and barley flourish in large quantities. Tihber is less abundant here than it is farther north. Eastern Janlin (between the Ru!&d and the ‘A11Bn) is, in the N., covered with a number of TiiJn; 312 is a fragment of I , i ~ - 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Tiras : Meshech, and Tubal, is a late insertion from Gen. 10 2,

whence also comes >i>n, which the scribe substituted for [ ~ I ~ I D . In 39 I asimilar emendation is required. 212, in 38 and 39, should always be pljn. In 39 IT n>)&j-nx> is a mere expansion of a miswritten ]IT>”. I n 39 II 15 213 p, and in 39 16 ;1j)n> 1.y may come from Iiijni8-i.e. Harmigdon. We now perhaps see from which source the Apocalyptist drew the name ARMA- GEDDON [p.v.], andalso’where Armageddon was (seeEzek. 39 TI).

The site is uncertain.

- ~

T.K.C.]

I748

GOL ATH-MAIM GOLD volcanic mounds, so that the soil here scarcely repays cultiva- t ion; in the S., though the country is still basaltic, the land is richer and less stony, and it is accordingly inore cultivated. Extensive ruins have been discovered in different parts of JaulPii dating from Roman times and onwards, which show that it inus; .once have been the home of a thriving population.

Jaulan has been described very fully, with maps, sketches, and particulars respecting ruined sites, etc., by G. Schumacher in The / a d & u and Across the lordan, 1-20, 41-102 (the two last named passages dealing with Eastern Jauku, between the Rul+Xd and the ‘Allnu). S. R. D.

’ GOLATH-MAIM. Golath-maim or Gullath-maim, a s also Golath (Gul1ath)-illith a n d Golath (Gu1lath)-

t ah t i th (josh. 1519, njp n$e, ni+q ’1, ni*gnn ’P ; Judg. 115 n+y ‘3, nyinn ’1,‘ ’D ’1 ; EV 8 springs of water,’ ’ the upper springs,’ ‘ the lower springs ’ ) are, according t o Moore a n d Budde, proper names. See, however, KEILAH.

The importance of gold in Semitic antiquity is suggested by the number of words for gold in O T Hebrew compared with biblical Greek. x p w 6 s a n d

xpuuiov ( the latter also=wrought gold [I Pet. 331 a n d gold coin) are the only Greek words. Hence in Is. 13 12

Job 3124 and Prov. 25 12, where a second word i s wanted , 6 has to represent nn3 by A h s , AfOos ?roAu- 7eX4sI and udpsrov T O A U T E A ~ S . See also (d). The Hebrew terms are :

(a) 3?, zEhdb, Aram. 389, AI. dhahadun, perhaps ‘ the spark- ling’; cp >fix. Note the phrases r?m >?:, ‘refined gold’ (I K.

1. 1018), for which 2 Ch. 917 has lh; 3 3 ‘pure gold’ (@ in each case xpuuiy 8 0 d p y ; hut Pesh.

reads l’?iNp ’I, ‘gold from Ophir ’), and mn$ 3:: (xpuu; <ha&), ‘beaten gold,’ I K. 10 16j: 2 Ch. 9 rsf:

(b) pin, @~Zrt&~ Ass. &uni;u, Phcen. yin (whence xpuuds, ~ p u u i o v ) ; in Hebrew, mostly poetical (Zech. 9 3 Ps. 68 13 [14] Prov. 3 14 8 IO 19 16 16). We find it twice, however, in prose, .according to necessary emendations of Gen. 2 11 f: and 23 16. Gen. 2 1.f: should run ‘. . . the whole land of Havilah where there is the /idW-gold: where there is the &ipindu-stone, knd the

,.sL8ham’ (malac‘hite?); see OPHIR, 8 I; O NYX; TOPAZ. The sudden transition tonaive wonder(‘Thego1d ofthat land isgood’) conceals, in fact, a reference to a kind of gold designated /idrtZf. In Gen. 23 16 / i i r zZs is concealed under lassah@ (see KESITAH). What then does himis mean? Nddeke (ZDMG, 1386, p. 728) a n d konig) ( 2 a 137) aavocate the explanation ‘yellowish’; so BDB, Ges.-Bnhl. Seeps. 68 13[14], y i in p i , y i q , ‘with yellowish .for, greenish] gold,’ and cp BDB, sa., pi‘. Ps. 68 13[14], however, is corrupt (read ’n 1 ~ 2 , ‘with the glory of gold’). yqin, /i&nis, possibly described gold in one of the stages of Its production. ‘The bard stone [quartz] was first made brittle by the action of fire, then hoedout with ironpichs’ (haTOpLK@ ur86pw KaTarrOVO%TL . . . T U ~ ~ U L udqpa0 T ~ V pappapi<ouuav *&pa; K ~ T O U U L U , Diod. Sic., 3 12).

Ar.); same word in Sab.; in Hebrew only or mostly, poetical ,(Is. 13 12 Job 28 1619 31 24 Prov. 25 12 [and )perhaps Prov. 25 11, by emendation, see BASKETS n. I] Lam. 4 I Dan. 10 5, hut not Ps. 459[10] Cant. 5 x 1 , yhe:e the text is corrupt). One of the kinds of gold specified in Egyptian records [New Empire] is ‘ the good gold of Katm’ (Erman). W. M. Muller gives the forms K&-ti-ma and, more common, Kfmt (As. u. Bur. 76). Possibly on3, Kithem (Kafhm), also is the name of a gold. producing place, like Ophir; in Is. 1312, as Duhm has seen, PIN, 8phZr, is a gloss on on>. Perhaps in Gen. 1030 >igo a lp? Tlshould heread O?? ’1; n??b, ‘ to Sophirl (Le., OPHIR, q.v.), to the mountains of Kethem.’ Tg. recognises, at any rate, a special kind of gold. (d) 75 (Talm. Nr?; Tg. Mi???), paa, ‘refined, gold,’ probably

= 1 g n 3x1 (see above, a). Ps. 19 IO [IT] 21 3 [41 Prov. 8 19, hieov T I ~ O V ; Ps. 119 127, TOT<LOV [see TOPAZ] ; Joh 28 17 Cant. 5 15 [ u K E U I ~ , j3due~s1, x p v u 2 [ ~ 1 ; Is. 13 12 Lam. 4 2, xpuulov ; Cant. -5 TI, K a L + a < [ B A ] , Ke+a<[N].

(e) l’?iN, ‘Ophir,’ also could be used poetically for l*?h 2JT

‘Ophir-gold’ (Job 2224 uwderp, also Ps. 45 g [ IO ] : read i”,).2

cc) Similarly lb, st‘gh8r (uuvrhsrup6s), or 191: (Hoffm.,

GOLD.

. .

See also UPHAZ.

(c) D??, Kithem, possibly from .\/on>, ‘to cover’ (SO ASS.,

1 Sophir may perhaps be simply a corruption of Ophir; H and D are frequently confounded (e.g., ~ 1 3 , for ~ 1 2 3 , Is. 41 3). The forms u w + [ ~ ] ~ p , uw+scpa, uw+qpa, uw+apa occur in @.

2 Vg.’s renderings are peculiar. 1’51~ becomes (Job 28 16) tinciis India colori71~s (cp in colore, er for on33 Dan. 10 5); Is. 13 12, mundo 06riz0, where oL&;=Ophir=(Ophir gold.

I749

Bu., Duhm) is perhaps used for 1?1! >?!, Job 2315, lit. ‘gold closed up.’ See the Comm. on I K. 620. Tg. ‘0 3x7; Vg. aurum obrizum. Most probably= Ass. &urisu sakru, ‘massive or solid gold’ (Del. Ass. NWB 499 6). It seems that we should read YlF ‘gold’ for 13UN (EV ‘gifts’) in Ps. 72 IO,^ and 110 for 1 7 ~ ~ (kV ‘a round goblet ’) in Cant. 7 3 [z] ( jQR 11 404 [‘gg]).

T o these we must not add the phrase 75 Dn.3 Cant. 5 II E V ‘the most fiue gold’ (the hridegroom’s hair), ’the text ieing corrupt.%

Besides the above there are other terms (Latin, etc. ) of strange aspect, which may claim to be mentioned.

I. Does the phrase xpuwbs d~vpos mean Ophir-gold? or gold- dust (Ass. epnc [a] masses of earth, [61 dust)? Scarcely‘ against the lattgr view see Wi. AT Unters. 146 n. 2. Nor i i there much to be said for Sprenger’s coiijecture(AZte Grogr. von Arab. 56%) that both Ophir and daupos describe the reddish colour of the best kind of gold (Ophir, therefore, not originally a place-name).

2. bppv<ov Lat. olrussa no doubt means the test of fire applied to g h d in a cupel .’the gold which has passed this test is called aurum odrizum I cp Arah. i6rZz.izrln whence a6razu, cepit anrumpurum. But what is the origin hf bppu<ou?

At any rate, the words just mentioned have a real right to he. That is more than we can say of the Heb. l:?, beser, however, commonly explained as ‘ gold-ore.’3 It is suspicious, that is>, ‘ore,’ was altogether unknowu to the ancients. There is only one passage in which almost all moderns have found it and only one more in which one ‘or two have suspected it; existence. In both passages the word taken to be 1 x 3 is sur- rounded by textual corruption, and there can hardly he a doubt that it is itself corrupt.

( a ) Job 22 24 f. (lr?, AV ‘gold ’ : RV ‘ thy treasure’ [mg. Heh. ‘ore’] ; ?*?,$+, AV ‘ thy defence’ ; RV renders as ’In). It is necessary here to give the context. Budde renders’his somewhat emended text thus :-

The passages referred to are :

‘And (if thou) layest ore of gold in the dust, And in the sand by the sea Ophir-gold, So that the Almighty is thine ore of gold, And his law is (as) silver unto thee.

A reference to the Hebrew will show that 1. 2 is in part happily emended. Still the gist of the passage seems to be misappre- hended, and the 1 x 3 of MT is not cleared up. Beer too while adopting Budde’s reading in 1. 2, confesses that ;he ihrase- ology of D. 24 seems to him very strange. So also, however, is that of V . 25. Nor is Budde’s emendation, his law,’ in$ for nigym, plausible. Duhm hardly improves upon Budde. Proh- ably we should read thus,-

And thou wilt heap up treasures as the dust, And as the sand of the sea Ophir-gold, And Shaddai will he thy diadem (7irl), And a crown of Ophir-gold ( ’ 1 3 ~ 1 ~ in3r) unto thee.4

@) Ps. 68 30 [31], v?Y!B D??!? ; RV, ‘ trampling under foot the jieces of silver.’ For this Cheyne (Ps.W 393, doubtfully) and Nestle (JBL, ’91, p. 151) have read ‘3 ’lp, ‘ with (or for) pieces of silver ore’; hut the extreme doubtfulness of 1x2 in Tob makesit preferable to read ‘3 ’IXiNL‘with store of

~ . I

silver.’ On the corrupt ‘inn see PATHROS. (Duhm is rather disappointing here.)

I t does not, in fact, ;Sppear that the OT Hebrew has any expression for ‘gold or? In the margin of Job 286 AV does indeed give ‘gold ore. However. this mav onlv record the

~~ - I

impression of the translators that >!; niipy would not he good Hebrew for ‘dust of gold.’ For the same reason probably RV gives in the margin ‘and he winneth lum s of gold’; hut the only safe rendering is that of De!itzsc#?, Dillmann, Hoffmann, ‘and he hath gold-hearing earth. Yet this cannot represent the poet’s meaning. No miner is mentioned in the context, and, as Bateson Wright has seen, the parallelism re- quires $’$?p. Probably the verse should run thus,

Its stones are the place of silver, Its clods are the mine of g~ld .5

Thus z*. 6 corresponds (as it should) to v. I. Cp SAPPHIRE.

1 In Ezek. 27 15 j13WN should probably he $??b. 2 GrPtz(cp Bu.)would read ln3for pn3; but the best reading

seems to he \~i>3, ‘like Carmel’ (see 7 6 [5 ] , HAIR, I). 6’s xpuulov Ka; $a< in Cant. 5 II represents ID> on> (see UPHAZ). This became w+aT{(Cod. 253 HP), o+aT{(Cod. 300)-i.e., on> 1 ~ 1 ~ (Lag. MittkeiZ. 281). Neither form of text however makes a good sense, and the connection of 5 I r a with 76ab ca; scarcely he denied.

3 Abulwalid derives it from 1x3, ‘to break off.’ comparing . - - - T .

Ar. t i d w = (native gold whether dust or nugget). 4 See Ezp. T., 10 94% (Nov. ’98). Y

17.50

GOLD The localities mentioned in the OT as sources of

gold (Havilah, Ophir, Sheba) are all Arabian ; Arabia 2. Sources was evidently the Eldorado of the Hebrews.

Now it is the gold of Ophir, now that of Of gold' Sheba that rises before the mental eye;

never, for some reason, that of Havilah. Midian, too, appears to have abounded in gold; the reference in Nu. 3150-54 to the spoil of gold taken from the Midian- ites comes from a very late source (P), but reflects the traditional belief in the Midianitish gold ; Gideon, too, is said in the legend to have won enormous spoil from the conquered Midianites (Judg. 824-27). According to Burton,z the ' land of Midian ' was ' evidently worked, and in places well worked' in antiquity. There is just one allusion in the O T to the abundance of gold in Palestine in the pre-Israelitish period. Achan is said to have appropriated from the spoil of Jericho zoo shekels of silver and a ' tongue ' of gold of 50 shekels weight (Josh. 721). One would like to know what the object called a ' tongue ' really was. It was hardly a ' wedge ' (Jos. Ant. i. 5 IO, pi ra ; Vg. reguZa) ; both here and in Is. 13 IZ ( ' golden wedge ' for am) AV must be wrong ; and even RV has been too conservative in its rendering of Josh. IC. Nor is there evidence for any object of use or ornament called from its shape a ' tongue' either in Hebrew or in A~syr ian .~ It seems a reasonable, and it is certainly an easy, conjecture that is a corruption of p?@, ' a cuirass ' (see BREASTPLATE [i.]) ; the king of a city like Jericho may well have been supposed by the late Hebrew narrator to have possessed golden armour. Certainly the quantity of the precious metals demanded as tribute by Thotmes Ill. and Ram(e)ses I l l . could have been borne only by a very rich country (see Brugsch, Hist. of Egypt) ; the gold was no doubt brought to Palestine by trading cara- vans from Arabia. In the Israelitish period Solomon's golden shields were carried off to Egypt by SoSenk (Shishak). See I K. 14zs f . Solomon's hunger for gold may indeed have been exaggerated by legend (cp Jos. Ant. viii. 7 3) ; but solid fact lies under the possible exaggeration (see OPHIR).

The Egyptians, however, were not confined to pillag- ing highly civilized Syria ; they were in direct relations with gold-producing districts. At HarnmBm5.t (see Brugsch, Gesch. Aeg. 596) and at Gebel 'AllBki, near the country now occupied by the Ababdeh Arabs, and also at another place bearing the same name nearer the Red Sea, there were important gold-mines. An inter- esting account of the mines is given in Egyptian records ( R P 8 7 5 8 ; Brugsch, op. cit. 530 ; Erman, Anc. Eg. 4631, and the 'earliest known map,' now in the Turin museum, represents the second of these mining districts, which was visited by Theodore Bent.4 The precious metal was for the most part found in veins of quartz (according to Hoffmann, the d m q of Job 28g), and Diodorus (312) gives a description of the processes employed which throws light on some of the Hebrew terms and phrases relative to gold in the OT. First of all the hard stone was made brittle by fire; then it was broken up into small pieces which were ground to powder between two flat granite millstones. This powder was washed on inclined tables furnished with one or more cisterns, so that all the earthy matter might be separated [cp Job 28 I, apt, 'where they 1 YARVAIM and UPHA? 1qq.v.I can hardly he mentioned ; these

su posed place-names arise from corruptions in the text. The Land qf Midian Revisited ('79) 1329. Burton's

object was ' to ascertain the depth from W. ro E. of the quartz- formation which had been worked by the ancieuts.' His ex- ploration was stopped by the Bedouin. 3 Benzinger (HA, 190, n. z ) dismisses the rendering 'bar,'

and supposes some tongue-shaped object to be meant. We can hardly acquiesce in this.

4 See Chabas, Les inscriptions des Mines d'Or (162) ; and cp Burton, op. cit. 196' Rent, Southern Arabia, 373 j? Prof. de Goeje thinks it pdhahle that the two sets of mines, though several hundred miles apart, may have belonged to the same reefand have been known by the same name.

I751

GOLGOTHA cleanse it '1, .flowing down the incline with the water. The particles of gold were then collected, and, together with a oertain amount of lead, salt, etc., kept for five days and nights in closed earthen crucibles. By ex- posure to the heat they were formed into ingots which, having been extracted, were weighed and laid by for use. (On this description cp Bent, Through Mashona- Zannd, 184 ; Southern A r a b i a , 325. ) The commonest objects produced were rings (RP 2 26 ; Erman, 464), or ' thin bent strips of metal ' (Maspero, D a w n of L'iv., 324) which were used as a basis of exchange. As distinguished from gold rings, the gold imported by Ha't-Sepsut from the land of Punt is called ' green ' or ' fresh ' ; probably it was in ingots.' At a later time six kinds of gold are specified,-'mountain gold, good gold, gold of twice, gold of thrice, gold of the weight, and the good gold of Katni' (cp § I [c]). The wealth of R+m(e)ses 111. (the Rampsinitus of Herodotus) must, to judge from the temple inscriptions, have been enor- nious. 'Gold in grains, in bags filled to the weight of 1000 pounds, from the mines of Amamu in the land of Kush, from Edfu, from Ombos, and from Kopfos, bars of silver, pyramids of blue and green stones,' etc. (Brugsch, Gesch. 596).

Gold (@mzsu) was in equal request in Babylonia and Assyria, though AV's rendering in Is. 144 ' golden city' (n????) is as impossible as the reading which it represents. Gudea (the very ancient pat& of LagaS) speaks (KB 3 a 37) of having received gold dust from Rliluhha ( L e . , the Sinaitic peninsula). Nothing is said of gold coming from Miluhba elsewhere ; probably, however, it was not dug up in Sinai, but brought from Egypt.Z The greater part of the Babylouian gold doubtless came from Arabia ; but gold entered into the tribute of all the richer conquered peoples ; Hezekiali, for instance, paid thirty talents of gold (2 I<. 18 14;

That the art of the Goldsmith(ql\Y, Neh. 38[BKAOm.] ~ Y P U T H C [L]31 [b transliterates], 32 X A A K ~ Y C [RSA cp Is. 4171, XAhKOyprOC [PI, Is. 4019 466 Jer. 10914 51 17 [AV in Jer. ' founder 1, xpy~oxooc) was carried to as great a perfection in Nineveh and Babylon as in Egypt does not appear. Merodach-Baladan, the adver- sary of Sargon, had a canopy, a sceptre, and a bed of gold (Sarg. Ann. 339 ; cp Del. HWB z7), and gold was much used in architectural decoration. Still there was a Babylonian guild of goldsmiths whose patron was the god Ea. It may be noted here that in Gen. 4 2.3 no mention is made of a founder of the goldsmith's art. Yet there must have been goldsmiths at Jerusalem, though a doubt exists whether ' goldsmiths ' in Neh. 332 should not rather be ' money-changers ' (Perles, Anal. 78). See METALS, and cp HANIII-

KA Tcz) 293).

CRAFTS. For the Golden Calf, see CALF, GOLDEN. The investigation of the sources of the gold elsewhere than

in Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia, and Palestine does not concern us here. The accounts which Herodotus, Arrian, and Diodorus give of the treasures of the great cities of Asia show that gold-mines in widely separated regions were well-worked (see Smith'sDict. CZaass. Ant.,s .v. 'Aurum' ; G. F. Hill, Hand- do06 ofcreek andRoman Coins, 18-20). T. K. C.

GOLGOTHA ( r O A r o & [Ti. W H ] ; Syr. ]&c&&), Mt. 2733 Mk. 1522 (roAroeaN [KB, etc.]) Jn. 19 17t . The name of a place outside of Jeru-

I t was 'without the gate' (Heb. 13xz), and appar-

ently beside some public thoroughfare (Mt. 2739) leading to the country (Mk. 15m), but ' nigh to the city' (Jn. 1920). See CROSS, 4.

The Aramaic form of the name (st. emph. & i \ r j from ~ \ > \ l i ; see Onk. Tg. on Ex. 16 16) corresponds to the Hebrew n>$X, plgo'leth. In the Greek transliteration (except in A)

1. Name. salem, where Jesus was crucified.

1 Naville, Deir el-Bahari, 12j. 2 Krall, C;rrcn&iss der altorient. Gesch. 48 ; cp Jensen, Z A ,

18953 P. 372.

I752

GOLGOTHA GOLIATH the second 5 of the original word has been dropped in order to facilitate pronunciation (cp Ar. jafajaPn, and see Zahn, NT Einl. 120). Mt., Mk., and Jn. give its interpretation as npaviov ~ d w o r the place of a skull; Lk. gives the Greek name only- ‘ to t i e place called Kranion‘ (23 33, ;ai ‘rbv T ~ O V ‘rbv Kahod- pevov rpaviov) RV ‘The skull’-or, as it is rendered in AV

Eusebius mentions it as y. Kpaviov (os, 175 TI), y. Kpaviov (189 I 202 63), and 7. Kpaviov ‘r6nor (248 21) ; Jerome gives Golgotha caharia (OS, 61 22) and G. Zocus CaZuavirP (13025).

According to Jerome (Comment. ad E@s. 5 14 ; Epist. 46), and Basil (in Canesii Thes. 1245) there was a tradition that the skuU (whence the name) of Adam was preserved in this place ; Epiphanius ( c o n k Har. 146), Ambrose(E’ist. 71), and others speak of his burial at Golgotha (see Guthe, ‘ Grab [das heilige] ’ in P X B 3 ) ) . Such a tradition only needs to be mentioned. The two explanations that have found most support are-( I) that it was so called because the place abounded in skulls (so Jer. Comm. ad Mt. 2 7 3 3 ; cp Jeremy Taylor’s description ‘Calvary , . . a hill of death and dead bones, polluted and impure . . .’) ; (2) because for one or more reasons it resembled a skull (so Renan, Vie de It?sus, 4 2 9 ; Brandt, Die Evang. Gesch. 168 ; Meyer, Comm. on Mt. 486 f: [ ’98], who compares the German use of Kopf,’ ‘ Scheitel,’ and ‘ Stirn ‘).l T o the former explanation serious objections have been raised (see Keim, Jesu won Nua. 3 405). The latter suggestion is, therefore, preferred by most scholars.

Several examples occur in the O T of names suggested by the configuration of the ground (see NAMES, $99). The existence of a small village situated on a hill-top in the neighbourhood of Tyre called eZ.-/ums;imelL(( the little skulls ; BR 3 56 58 PEFM 194) makes it probable that a similar name was in aicient times applied to any knoll which was thought to resemble a skull.

Whatever be the explanation of the name, the place intended must have been outside the city wall (so Jn. 2. Site. 1920, ‘nigh to the city’ [cp Mt.2811 Heb.

13121, and Jn. 1941, near a tomb,’ new tombs would be outside the city). Further, it was a prominent position (Mk. 1540 Lk. 2349) and near a road (Mt. 2739 Mk. 1529): These data, however, suit several positions.

The traditional site, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, has lately been proved to lie beyond the second wall(see JERUSALEM, $32, ii.) which was the outside wall a t the date of the Crucifixion ; and several rock tombs have been found about it. I t was near a road. The tradition in its favour, however, does not reach behind the fourth century; and the manner in which the site is said to have been indicated

, and RVmg. aker the Vg. (CaZuaria), ‘Calvary.

’

I t therefore may have been the site.

to the Emperor Coiistantiite who removed a temple of Venus, tlint stood over the spot, and dircovered the alleged tonil, uf Christ and therefore erected the Church of thu Resurrection, does not prove that the sanctity of the place was anciently, or even at the time, publicly known (Eus. Fit. Const. 3 25). When we consider the extension of the city over the site, the operations in the siege of Titus, whose principal camps were on this N. side of the city, the devastation of Jerusalem under Hadrian and the interval before the first attempts of Christians toidentif; the sites, we can see how precarious the tradition is. The one element of value in it is the statement of Eusehius that a temple of Venus had been erected on the site ; if we may argue from the analogous case of the Temple site on which a temple to love was raised. this temde of Venus’is evidence that its site Lad been regard6d by the ehristians as sacred.2

enough to dispose of rival sites. That too, however, is precarious, and by no means strong

Other sites for Golgotha have been-suggested on several positions to the north of the city. One first pointed out by Thenius in 1849 and adopted by Genkral Gordon and Colonel Conder, has riceived recently a great deal of support. I t is an eminence above the grotto of Jeremiah outside the present wall not far from the Damascus gate. Bgsides suiting the general data of the gospels-it is near a road stands high, and has tombs about it-its appearance agrees ’with Lk.’s rendering of the name ; it has a strong re-

1 The Old English ‘cop,’ on the other hand, seems t? have See meant primarily ‘summit,’ and then ‘head’ or ‘skull.

Murray S.V. 2 A r e k n i o f thevoluminous literature on the Holy Sepulchre

and a discussion of the claims of the Church of the Holy Seuulchre to occnDv the site of our Lord’s tomb will he found in Athe article ‘ Sep&hre, the Holy,’ by A. B. M‘Grigor in the Ency. 23rit.W This article notes that the existence in the rock on which the church is built of several ancient Jewish tombs may be used as an argument against the site for Eusehius (Theop/raniu, Lee’s transl., p. 199) empbasises ;he fact that

there was only one cave within it, but had there been many the miracle of him who overthrew death should have bee; obscured.’

57 I753

semblance to a skull ; and there is a modern Jewish tradition that it was the place of stoning in ancient times. But neither are these things conclusive, and on the whole we must be con. tent to believe that the scene of the greatest event in Jerusalem’s history is still unknown. From this, of course, it also follows that the site of Stephen’s martyrdom is uncertain.

M. A . C . , $ 1 ; G. A . S . , $ z .

GOLIATH (n$j, Ginsb. ; some editions lll$j [except in I - C ~ . 2051, 78 ; yo),l& [BAL], also

1. Earlier rohiah [B]; in pss. rohibh [BKR], rohiae [AT]. rohiaeoc [Jos.].

For the ending see AHUZZATH. G-I-y is probably a corruption of g-z-1.1 Goliath is a pale reflection of those so-called ‘throne- bearers (gztzali) who ran over hill and dale a t the Deluge (Bah. legend, Z. mo), and who are rather =the Anunnaki. those ‘ ravay- ins ’ (713) evil.spirits W I I V I I I I l : i i ~ i n i : i ~ , Neho, etc., let I w i e :it tlte 1)cluge ; J:istruw (Le / . o,f Uab. and Asr. grc) renders Z c u / i in the I)elugc-story . t h e deitroyern.’ I t i, ii title which I,elongs

iizs-Ariir.lt arid cp Jenien, h.ostn. us iiaiue, nie3iiiiig ‘ one rushing

X l’hilistinc giant, slain according to I S. 17 by Ihvid, but according to a11 oldcr trxlitiun { z S. 21 19 ; in 6 u ? o s o h a v ) hy r ~ : t , 1 I A ~ . ~ s (q.z.1. Sonic (leiails- as for cxniiiple tliat Coliatli was of ( h i l t , t ha t hc livctl in the tiiite of David. ant1 that the staff of his spc’ar wds like a wcaver’s benni--are cuiiiiiioit to the two btories. 1 hc oltlcr tradition adds, besides tlic reo1 ii:imc of the shyer of tlie giaiit,’ the st;iteiiteiit (21 , 22 ; cp 6 ) that Goliath, like his three fellows, was a dcsceiidant of the ICcphaitcs (cp Josh. 11 22 , wherc Anakini we said to have reiti:iiiietI oiily i n Philistin). I t vas, in fact, ttatural, so soon as the four tall I’hilistitie ch:iiiipions had been niagiiifcd iiito giants, to account for their extraordinary stature by making them Kcphnitcs. I t is also notcworthy t h t iii 2 S. 21 15-22 tlic Isl.ntl;te warriors meet the gigantic I’hilistines or licpliaitrs without the Ie:ist alarm, whcrcns i i i I 3. 17 Goliath siiccecds ill p:iralysitig thc ciitirc lsrnclite :iriity.

It is ccrtain, ho\vcvcr. t l iu t this is not prcscntcrl to us as the object of the giant’s appearance. Hc is c:illed

a cliaiitpioit (03j-n .. .. . dy, a man of the y r r - t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . a l x p i o v : cp os. ~ n t . vi. 9 1, arhs,urratirGv

?rapard$cwv), a n d in his speech he throws out a direct challciige to the warriors of Israel. The lattcr shrink lnck i n cow;irdly dismay-an iiit;iccount- able falling hack on the part of the commrlcs of Jonatlinii (cp I S. 141, wliiclt had to be asserted it1 ortlcr to niakc ruoin for David. W i t h fine poetic iniaginatireiiess and (as we sh;ill see) religious iiisigltt tlie coiiqueror pro- vidcd for tlic giant in this later offshoot of triidition vas 110 traiitetl ncirrior (1 S. l G 1 8 beloiigs to the oldcr story) but a shepherd boy.

In V. j6, indccd, tic is cnlled a ‘stripliiig’ (O>p); hut the same word is applied i n I s . 4 0 ~ ~ to one who in 7). 35 is described as a ‘litrle boy’ (or ‘ I d ’ ) , atid tlte youtlifiil age of David is sufficiciitly shunrti by the sc~r i i expieased by Goliath at his yet uiiapoiled coiiiplcsiun 2 (a. 42).

Ilc M ould have recourse to his sling-thc weapon of tlic ’ liglit- arinzrl crowd’ iii the ariiiy of the Greeks tieforc

Ile would repleniili hi5 shepherd’s scrip with sonic good sinootli pebbles from the ‘deep watercourse rvliiclt like a ra\,ine separates the nrmies’(sre >;I.AH [ii.]). l i e would then trii-t to the kccnncss of his bright cyei and tiis lightness of fooi. ’ l ’ l ie wilding up of tlic driiiii:i i s described thus (71. 48). ‘And it uscd to happen, when ihc Pliilistinc s t rorward and c3mu on td meet David, that Ihvid would ha.21~ and run to the b:irtlc ;may to meet the Philistine’-;.e. whenever Goliath tricd tu come to close qiiarters witti I)avi(l,’l)avid would riiii quickly tu the front rank of the Israelites to meet his foe tinder,this frieiidly c x e r , and vhen the +it halted for a moment David would ruii upon him from another aide in order to aim at I i i m hefore lie cuiild be protected by the great aliieltl.4 ‘ I t 1:i-t David’s opportunity ciinie ; Goliath’s fact \vas expuscd. “I‘hen D:irid

1 i~., yaeafu. ‘l‘he oiily alternative is to derive n.ji from Ass. y t ~ g n f f u , ‘a Icadcr ’ (Sclicil, ‘ i i giaiit ’).

2 Sce Che. Aids, 102, n. I. ’ ! 3 l N i n such n connection certainly implies a youthful f r c h c i s of coIJur (cp (hiit. 5 io). Compnre tlie descriptio:i of an Arab shephcrd buy quoted froio 1)ougl.ty i n lid<, 100, ,I. 2.

r .

The young ch:impioii’s plan was simple.

~

I / . I3 716 ; cp z\. Lniig, Hom. and t/tr l.>ic, 37jf: 4 c p JA!,EI .IN, 5.

’754

GOLIATH GOPHER The story of David and Goliath has taken the place

of another narrative which described the call of the 5. MT and @. warrior David to the court, and his

advancement in the army as the re- ward of his military talents (see DAVID, § I). The narrative, however, whether we take the version given in MT or that in 6, no longer preserves its original form. The former is too long, the latter too short. Robertson Smith, indeed (with whom F. H. Woods, Stud. BibL 129, agrees), is of opinion that @E’s text of IS. 171-185 should be followed. He thinks that whatever the Hebrew text has in addition has been interpolated from some lost history of David which gave quite a different turn to the story of Goliath (see OTJC(z) 1203 4318). When in 1892 Robertson Smith revised his fine volume of Lectures he had before him all the recent examinations of the Goliath-story which advocate a different view of bB’s text, and was not persuaded by the arguments of Wellhausen (who once held the same view as his own), Kamphausen, Stade, Budde, and Kittel. On the other hand, he has not himself persuaded Stade and Budde, who have expressed themselves anew since 1892, and. the present writer, in view of the difficulties which beset Robertson Smith’s and still more Klostermann’s theory (cp Budde, Ri. Sa. 213 J ) , sees no choice but to hold that if we put aside later insertions (such as w. 46 J , pointed out above), M T represents the one original story of David and Goliath. Some of Robertson Smith’s observations are, indeed, not only acute but also correct; but the roughnesses in the text can be accounted for differently (see Che. Expos., ‘92 6, p. ~ 5 6 f: ; and cp Bu. SBOT; Kamphausen, ‘ Bemerkungen zur alttest. Textkritik,’ in the Arbeiten d. Rhein. Wiss. Pred. - Yereins. 7 1 3 3 ). These differences among critics, however, are un- important compared with the result on which there is no doubt whatever. The story of Goliath has poetical and religious truth, but not, except in a very minute kernel, the truth of history. Cp REHOBOTH, TAMMUZ.

GOMER (I ) (7a1, raMep [BADEL] ; Gen. 10zJ I Ch. 1 5 3 yo. [L] Ezek. 386 yo. LBAQ]; Ass. Gimirrai [Schr. KGF, 1573, Del. Par. 245$]), one of the ‘sons ’ of Japhet, and ‘ father ’ of Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah (Gen., Ch.), mentioned ‘with all his hordes ’ along with Togarmah ‘ in the uttermost parts of the north, and all his hordes’ in Ezekiel (Z.C.). The territory corresponds in general to Cappadocia (which in Armenian is Gamir ( +pl. ending x) ; Kiepert, Lfhrb. d. alt. Geog. 91 ; Lag. Arm. Stud. 32, 448 ; Wbers. 77 ; see also Gimmeri = Cappadocians, Eus. Chron. ed. Migne, 138, and note also y k p ~ p & 05 K U T T C ~ O K E S , Eus. 212). Probably their earlier home was N. of the Euxine ( K L ~ ~ ~ ~ P L O L , Herod. 4 I I ~ . ; Strabo, iii. 2 12 7 2223: ,; cp Homer, Od. 11 14 ; see Gelzer, A Z , ‘75, p. ~ 4 3 ; Schr. KG3156 3). The Ass. Gimirrai appear in Cappadocia from the time of Esarhaddon (681-668 B.C. ; cp, further,on Gomer, Lenorm. Origines,

(2) bath Diblaim (P;j;ln n? p a , + yopep Bvyar6pa &@?ha+ [B], r.y.8. Gepyhaap [ S Q ] ; cp perhaps O:?d;l?l n’p, &r’ ~ K O U

Saij3haOalp @E@. [KA]) [RKAQ] Jer. 4822) Hosea’s wife (Hos. 13). There is no reason for supposing thatlher name, like those of her children (see LO-RUHAMAH, JEZREEL [ii., z]), has any symbolical import.

T. K. C.

ii. 13323). See CAPPADOCIA. F. B.

See HOSEA, $ 6.

GOMORRAR (YI?DLJ, Gen. 1310. In Mt. 101s See SODOM

GOODLY TREES, FRUIT OF. See APPLE, $3 z (3).

GOPHER, ( p i , Gen. 6 I4 t ) , a very uncertain word, 3s it occurs only once and is unknown to the other Semitic dialects.

(roMoppmN [Ti. WH]), AV Gomorrha. AND GOMORRAH.

put his hand in his bag and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead- and the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell upon his face to the earth’ (v. 49). Though sorely wounded Goliath was not dead. So David ‘ ran and stood upon the Philistine,’ triumphing over his foe, like Sanehat in a similar case in the old Egyptian story. 1 next he drew the giant’s sword 2 from its sheath and cut off’his head. Then the Philistines saw that the incredible.had happened, and took to flight.

Had they not still their well-appointed infantry and their war-chariots ? Had they not still the memory of their former victories ? A Greek poet would have said that a god impelled them behind with mighty hand, and struck terror into their souls ; and indeed it was a religious dread that seized them. They were powerless to resist the fierce Israelites. Meantime, if the view suggested elsewhere (NoB) be correct, David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Saul ; but he put his armour in the tent of Yahwi: (v. 54).

Goliath‘s arms of attack are made of iron ; those of defence, of bronze. ‘Jawelin of bronze’ in I S. 176

3. The arms must be a mistake (see JAVELIN, 5). ofGoliath. The sword was afterwards given to

David the fugitive by Ahimelech ( I S. 219[10] ; cp 2210). The tradition said (apparently) that David had deposited it as hallowed spoil in the sanctuary of Nob (or Gibeon). The (reputed) weapons of ancient divine heroes have not infrequently been found in Babyl~nia ,~ and a sword like that with which a mere shepherd boy had cut off a giant’s head would have not less supernatural power than the fairy lance of Gilgamek There may have been stories, ’in the fuller Odyssey of Hebrew tradition, in which this sword played a part. If so, it is obvious that they have been with good reason passed over.

The story of David, as edited in the Book of Samuel, is that of a man who fought the ‘ wars of Yahw&,’ and was by his God

delivered, and later ages clung with special 4. Religious affection to the story of Goliath, because of its

latent religious significance (see Ecclus. 472.11, and cp title of Ps. 144 [143] in @BKRT).6 From

the first the idea that God alone gives strength to conquer must have been present to those who told this tale, and it is beyond reasonable doubt that a later writer of the post-Deuteronomic period inserted I S. 17 46f: to bring the lesson of the tale into clearer view.6 I t is only dith an eye to this latent idea that the legend of Goliath can be retained by critically trained teachers and preachers. I t has indeed been urged against this changed attitude that the story of Odysseus could be treated in the same way. So it could, provided that there was a genuine, however small, historical kernel in the story, and also that Odysseus held a prominent lace in the period of preparation for the coming of Jesus Cfrist. Such was not the case. the story of Goliath may therefore remain unchallenged in thb repertory of the religious teacher. Nowhere else outside of the N T does the message of encouragement to the humble and exhortation t? the weak in faith receive so affecting, so inspiring an expression. Such a message could not have been engrafted even on the instructive life of David but for that process of idealisation, which is so characteristic of some Hebrew writers, but often so shocking to modern students.

Why did the Philistines flee?

covering.

1 Flinders Petrie Egyptian TaZes 1 110135. 2 Robertson Sm(th and Klost. think there was a conflict of

traditions, one stating that David (Saul’s armour-bearer) drew his own sword to slay Goliath, the other that, having no sword, he used the giant’s. 3 Che. Aids 1093 4 Maspero, ’Dawn of Ciu. 642 ; cp Revue d’AssyrioZogie,

3 523- [‘941. 6 Ty AaveQ, lrpbp rbu Fohras. On the title in Pesb. see

SIPPAI. The Greek Psalter also rejoices in a Psalm of David Z ~ O @ S W TOG cipi@poi), composed 876 ~ p o v o p ~ p p s e T+ IIrpbs rbvl FohLaS [-a@] (cp v. 6 3 ) . 6 Verse 46 predicts the slaughter by David, not only of

Goliath, but also of the army oftbe Philistines; and announces as the consequence of this the universal recognition of the divinity of YahwS (cp Ps. 1847[481fl Is. 5 5 4 ; both passages late). In v. 47 the warriors of Israel are spoken of just as if they were an ‘assembly’ gathered together for religious instruction (2 Ch. 20 14-20 is closely parallel), and the lesson that Yahw6 ‘saveth not with sword and spear’ is precisely that which was so dear to the psalmists of the Second Tdmple (Ps. 20 7 [SI 44 5 [6]J). The second clause of v.46 reminds us of Ps. 792, while the phrase ~ 1 ~ 3 n,n(lnq;r) occurs elsewhere only in late writings

30 9 2 IO Ezek. 29 5 32 4 34 28 Job 5 22 Ps. 79 2). $eeC o Che. Ai&, 117; cp Ku. Ri. Sa. 214, who is more definite and satisfactory on this point than We. (Gesch.W, 268 ; ET, 266).

I755

,en. 1 24 1 For a personal name with this termination cp APPAIH,

SHAHARAIM.

r756

GORGET GOSHEN The ancient versions have various renderings’ @ADEL d~

(Gv’hov T E T ~ ~ Y ~ Y W V (b-jmov and K C ~ ~ ~ V W beiig cited as alternatives of otfier interpreters), Vg. de li‘nis Zrevigatis, Pesh;

of juniper wood,’ and Targ. ‘of cedar wood. 1. Versions. Gopher is by some moderns taken to be the name

of a tree; thus Celsius (1328f.) identifies it as the cypress, being misled by the likeness of names.1 The word may be akin to l$b ‘bitumen’-itself according to Lag. (OS 2 95 ; but see BITUMEN) properly an Aramaic word, for which the Heb. equivalent is lQn-and may also, according to the same scholar, he connected with il’lFj, ‘sulphur,’ for which an Indo-European etymology is offered (see BRIMSTONE). The most plausible suggestion therefore, is that of a fragrant resinous wood (so Di.); bn; the entire uncertainty of the word (see below) must he maintained with Lag. (Uehers. 218).

The ordinary philological means fail us in dealing with the word Gopher. It is natural therefore to have 2. Asoyriology. recourse to Assyriology, which accounts

(see DELUGE, J 13) for the mention of i$ (EV ‘pitch’) in Gen. 614. Is it possible that 7~1, or some word which explains it, occurred in an early form of the Babylonian Deluge-story? If so, what can that word have been? Halevy and more recently Hommel (Hastings, DB 1 214 6) compare Bab. -Ass. g@ru; but this means ‘reed,’ ’ canebrake’ (Jensen, KosmoZ. 170f:, 325f: ; butnot so HalBvy), and would have been more suitable in a description of the ‘ ark ’ of Moses than in that of Noah. i 5 ~ x y ( ‘ gopher-wood ’ ) should mean the timber of some tree used in shipbuilding when J i s Hebraised Babylonian authority (see DELUGE, I O) took shape-most probably some kind of cedar.

The original Babylonian or Assyrian phrase probably ran- mBur (or g u l G , ~ Z erim-i.e., beams of cedar; see the Ass. Lexx.). Overlooking (IJ)erini, the Hebrew translator mistook gulw for a tree-name, and so produced the phrase ~ w p ~ y . Next, a scribe, who saw 153 a t the end of the verse, miswrote the second word 751 (5 and w confounded, as in wsn? for r,S”, Job 14 10 MT). ’1

If this is correct, the timber used in the ark would be cedar-wood (erinu). Possibly, too, the substitution of a ‘box‘ (mm) for a ‘ship’ (el@@) arose from a confusion between ei-inn ‘ cedar ’ and erinnu (p), ’box,’ ‘ receptacle,’ in the phrase g u h r (gufZirZ) erini. See Che. ZATW, 1898, p. 163f:

N . M . , § I ; T . K . C . , $ 2 .

GORGET ()kQ), I S. 176 AVW. See JAVELIN, 5. GORGIAS (yopr [~] iac CAW, but Kopriac, A in

I Macc. 45]), one of the Syrian generals sent by Lysias against Judas the Maccabee. It was his vain attempt to surprise Judas by a night attack that led to the great battle of EMMAUS [q.v., I], in which the Syrian army was signally defeated (166-165 B.C.). After this, battle was offered to Gorgias, who declined it, and withdrew precipitately into Philistia (I Macc. 4 1 8 ) . About two years later, being governor of Idumzza, Gorgias was threatened hy a small Jewish force under Joseph and Azaxias at Jamnia, which he put to flight ( I Macc. 5 55J). In the account of the first incident given in zMacc .888 , it is NICANOR [P.v., I], not Gorgias, who is represented as being at the head of affairs ; and in 2 Macc. 1232-37 the second incident, so unfortunate for the Jews, only receives passing notice (v. 34), whilst a fuller but somewhat confused account is given of the defeat and flight of Gorgias.

In 2 Macc. 12 32 for ‘ 1dum;ea’ (2oupuLas) we should proh- ably, but not certainly, read ‘ Jamnia’ (lapveias), with Grotius (cp T Macc. 5 58 1540 and Jos. Ant. xii. 8 6) and in z. 36 for ‘Esdris we should )perhaps read (with 44, 64, etc. bf @) ‘ Gorgias ’ (see ESDRIS).

writers rOpTyNA or rOpTyN). The rival of Cnossus for supremacyin Crete (Strabo, 476, 478 ; Pol. 453J). It lies in the fertile valley of the Lethaeus, in the plain Messara, midway between the E. and W. extremities of the island. Its only biblical interest is connected with the

1 In the East chests are often made of the wood of Cujressus sempervirens, which is delightfully fragrant. In the Middle Ages they were much in request in Italy.

GORTYNA (rOpTYNb. [KV]-N& [A]; in classical

1757

presence of Jews ( I Macc. 1523) in the time of Ptolemy Physcon (139 B. c. ). In that year, as a result of the successful embassy sent by Judas the Maccabee to Rome, the Senate dispatched a circular-letter in favour of the Jews to Gortyna, and to eighteen other autonomous cities and countries. We may perhaps connect their presence with the abortive attempt of Ptolemy Philopator to surround the extensive site of Gortyn with walls (222-

205 B.c.). The city was the Roman capital of the island. The site is

now marked by the poor village of &ids DeRa. Among its ruins are those of a church dedicated to Titus, the patron saint of Crete ; it dates from the fourth or fifth century (cp Tit. 15)- Cortyn lies ten or twelve miles from FAIR HAVENS (Strabo, 478), so that during the long delay there (Acts27g) it is possible that Paul visited the city. See Spratt, Trave& andResearches in. Crete, 2 z6J

GOSHEN, but in Judith 19 AV GESEM (@a ; r E c s M [BKAL], r E c E N [ e g . , D, through later (Hexaplaric?).

W. J. W.

. - ~~

Names and inflnencel, rarely reccem r s c c e , etc.; Vg. Gessen, cp Jer. OS1254 Gesen [also Gesem, which agrees with Jer.’s etymology]), usually in the phrase ‘ the

land of Goshen’ (exc. Gen. 4628a 20). is in I and E

other data in OT.

the name of the part of Egypt inhabited by ;he b’ne Israel from Joseph to Moses. P uses instead the. phrase ‘land of Ranieses,’ Gen. 4711, and remark- ably enough @ in 4628 appends to KaO’ + p 3 w n6Xrv (=m$e, ‘ to Goshen’) the explanatory gloss d s y+ papEuu7. The two expressions are in d synonymous (see, however, JOSEPH ii., J 3). The problem is to determine the situation.

In 4634 Goshen is outside of Egypt and not inhabited by Egyptians; in v. 28 it is between Pharaoh’s and Joseph’s residence and Palestine ; see also Ex. 1317 as to its situation on the frontier. It is (Gen. 476 11) ‘ the best of the land ’-Le., for a pastoral population ; cp v. 6 (Pharaohs cattle pasturing there). It must therefore have been unsuitable for agriculture-i. e . , too far E. to be as regularly irrigated as most of Egypt. In Ex. 23f: a branch of the Nile flows through (I) it, and a royal residence is near or in it.

When we turn to @ we get something more definite : IO Goshen is called ‘ the

2’ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , i c t k?t$sem of Arabia’ (ye y.&+ cipaolas). Unfortunately, ‘ Arabia’ . . .

is ambiguous. There was(1)a nomos ofEgypt called $ b apia(in the Revenue

Papyrus of Ptolemy 11. always connectelwith the ‘ Bubastite nome’; see further Ptol. 45 53; Strabo, 803: Pliny, 59), correctly identified by Brugscb with the 20th of Lower Egypt in the Egyptian lists ;1 but the Greeks (2) gave the name Arabia also to all the land E. of the Nile. The eastern part, indeed, was a distinct nome (see helow) called Heroopolires (possibly the Phagroriopolitesz of Strabo [8401 means ‘Arabia’); but by the Greeks (3) the name Arabia was usually extended so as to include it and to reach to the Crocodile Lake (B. et-TjmsZk)).

The choice between the alternatives seems easy : @ evidently means by Arabia a special district. It cannot well be the Arabian nome, however, as we should expect. On the contrary it must mean a more eastern part of the Arabian district; the WSdy et-TuniilHt and its western vicinity E. of Bubastus. This is the view of Gen. 4628 f: (see begin. of art.), where d is still more definite. It takes Goshen to be a city, Hero- opolis( !). The discovery by Naville of this city=Tell el- Maskhiita= Pithom ( = ETHAM [q. v.]), accordingly, has determined the centre of the region intended, and con- firmed the general assumption of scholars. There is no evidence in the Egyptian inscriptions, however, that that region was ever called Goshen, a name which, as we shall now see, probably represents an Egyptian name for the western nome (next I, end).

We have said that the Greek district of ‘ Arabia ’ was

1 On name and capital see helow 0 3. a With Oppert and Brngsch, tb; present writer derives this

name from Pahur , the name of the ruler of Pisaptu in the Egyptian Arabla under AHur-biini-pal (KB 2 16oA). Phagrori- spolis is’ possibly,identical with the capital.

1758

GOSHEN GOSHEN extended to the newly colonised territory to the E. of occupied by two Egyptian nonies, the western of which

3. I& western (the-zoth, already referred to) was by (20th) nome the Greeks specifically called ‘ Arabia.’

called gesm. This was the earlier occupied. Its position is determined by the fact that

it was called ‘that of the god Sapdju),” whose chief temple2 was in the city P-(‘house of’)Sapd(u),3 a name which evidently has survived in the modern Saf; (cp Brugsch, A 2 8116) eZ-genneh, 5 or 6 m. E. of Bubastus. Naville“ has argued that this P-sapd(u) (Saf! el-Henneh), another name for which may have been P-kos(?), is the +UKOLIUU, Phacusi(m), of the Tab. Peut., the Phaguse of Geogr. Rav., the ‘ village between Egypt and the Red Sea’ of Steph. Byz., because +UKOUUUU is called by Ptolemy (iv. 553) the capital of the Arabian nome, and Strabo states that at ~ u ~ o u u u u the canal to the Red Sea branched off from the Nile.

The definition of the position of Q a K o v a a in the Tab. Pat. ‘(36 R. m. from Pelusium), however, suits better the modern FBkiis, 16 m. NE. of Saff el-Henneh, which had been supposed to be Phakusa by modern scholars. On the other hand that the Greeks might repeatedly have confounded P-kosem (P-’Sapd[ul) with a name like Pakos 5 (?) (Fikkhs) may be admitted.

However that may be, the identification of P-snpd(u) (Saft el-Henneh) aiyd P-kos(em) is probable. .scriptions deal-

The in:

ingwith sacred geography ap- ply the phrase ‘land ofSapdu’ to a country ‘Ksm(t) of the East ’ (Duem. Geogr. Inschr. 25). Theshrine of Saft (publ. Naville), pl. 6, calls the gods of Saft ‘gods of Ks’,~ connect- ing especially Sapduwith this n a m e Ks. Other tex ts combine Ksm with the nome of Sapdu, in- dicating by the or thography sometimes a

*, Also the Saft ? ‘This might have bem done by the aastern new settlers and the Palestinians. The

sacred Egyptian lists, however, treat tliis eastern country (at least after 300 B. c.) as

a distinct nomos, the eighth of Lower Egypt,’ called ‘Eastern. . . , ’ a its capital being _T(t), r h u ( t ) , _TKi(t) (read ,Tu&??), which had the sacred name P-atunz. (See SUCCOTH and PITHOM on the question whether these names are identical. )

The principal god was Atum of Heliopolis, dwelling in the temple ‘seat (or house) of (the serpent) Ker/z’-evidently this was the earlier local divinity. The canal flowing through the land was the Harma (gaJalma) 3 water, so called from the many crocodiles (h&a in the languaie of the Hamilic Trog1odytes)d which havekiven its name also to the present TimsZh-lake. This lake had in ancient times the name &i-serb 5 ‘ Scoriion lake.’

The eighth nome belonged to the country called ‘n 6 (‘aim ? see &ant, Plin. N N 6 29, as name of the gulf of Suez), which included the desert between the gulf and Heliopolis (also the modern Mokattam-mountain opposite Memphis). This desert region was originally inhabited only by a few Semitic and some Troglodytic nomads ; it was unfit for agriculture, the narrow valley alone being reached by the yearly inundations, and that

\oru:)

irregularly. At a very reniote time. indeed.

&bl;caL--,. PI-BESETH Cl~ssicaL--.EuEASTrS Eggptian-.P-sapdu Modern Local-.. Saft el-Henneh Modern European -... [Suez) G 0 S HEN.

,district, sometimes a city. See 9 4 on the earliest mention. In any case, it is clear that the name &-sm (Ks seems only an abbreviation or ‘defective ortho- graphy’) referred originally to the land immediately E. .of Bubastus.

Thequestionarises : Wastherangeof@m ( =Goshen*)

Sapd(u) is mentioned repeatedly as ‘lord of the E. and of the Asiatics’ (cp Naville, The Shrine ofJa& el flenneh, 5-13 [‘SS]). In his chief temple (see above) he had the name ‘ van-

quisher of the Asiatics’ ((zw mntyw), as being a god of the frontier district. The present writer cannot follow de Rouge (Duemichen, Naville), who finds in a coin-legend of the nomos Arabia &T& K w p ( a L I), Se$d-‘A&[sic llom.

a It was called ‘the place of the nu6s-tree’ (sycomore? lotus t r P P ?I ._-- .,.

3 Mentioned b,y A&r-bini-pal as Pisapfu or Saptu, ‘at the ga te of the East.

4 ?$. cit. 1 4 8 , where a full discussion of the name Goshen is given. Earlier treatises e . ~ . , in Ehers, Drrrch Gosen sum Sinai, are now obsolete. d n +f$ see also Daressy, Rec. trau. no. VfA.

- -6 k& or KOOF ,Qp,Qp (=Ar. yiis, see Peyron, Lex. 71) is hardly Phakusa as Champollion (?I&. sous zes Phar. 276, cp Naville) thought. The article p is not=pha-, fa-. Lists of bishoprics make ‘the Arabian nome’=F@zis, which is in favour of Naville’s theory.

6 8 h - &x. - . 6 2 8 k=g in the transcription is regular; but not Egyptian s=

the Egyptians had in the W i i d y e t - T u m i l i i t , a strongfortifica- tion called the ‘wall of the p r i n c e , ’ t o guard (against the inroads of the nomads) the most vul- nerable spot of the Egyptian frontier ; 7 but the colonisa- tion of the eighth (east- e rn) nomos seems to have been due en- t i r d v to the

i ~- - ~ ~ - ..~ ..

great king Ram(e)ses or Ra‘messu 11. (in the first twenty years of his reign), who mnst have improved the irrigation. The chief cities founded by him were :

Consequently the Semitic or at least non-Egyptian origin of the name, proposed already 6y Semitic scholars, becomes very probable. The name seems to have been obsolete after 400 B.c., so that 65’s small inaccuracy in making Heroopolis the capital becomes intelligible.

1 On our present knowledge of the material, see Naville, PithomP).

2 The proposed reading (nefer) of this sign is ve doubtful. The site of the ‘Western . . . ’ to w h i g 4 this name is opposed, is not quite certainly determined.

7 This was the point selected for attack-e.g by the English army so recently as in the campaign against”Ar2bi. On the history of the fortification, which seems to go hack to the first four dynasties, see WMM As. u. EUY. 41-45. The site of it is nn- known. We should look for it near +he ‘ Great Black Lake ’- z.e., ahout the S. end of the ‘Crocodile Lake ’ according to the earlier Dassaees. The Se-nuhvt-storv (ZZ. 2. d). however. would place it sev&l hours’ march &om t6e.lak;: Griffith has found a passage of dyn. 12 Kahun Pap; 2 14), which speaks of ‘ the fortification of Sa$&& (in) Ksnr . Therefore the wall of the middle empire is to be sought for in the east& part or near the entrance of the widy.

I759 1760

giloh-goshen

Documents

Transcript of giloh-goshen