ZEEB ZELOPHEHAD
southern Hamath or Maacath (see RIBLAH). It was a futile
attempt ; flushed by victory the Cushite invaders returned, and
on the ninth day of the fourth month of Zedekiah’s eleventh
year, the city was taken. Zedekiah and his most faithful
warriors took to flight. He was caught, however, and brought
to Riblah. There his sons were put to death before his eyes ;
he himself was blinded (cp Ezek. 12 I$, and carried in chains to
the city of his foes.1 How Ezekiel regarded his fate, we know
from a fiery denunciation (Ezek. 21 25 [self.‘). Cp ISRAEL,
$8 4rf.’, J EREMIAH , $2.
2. b. Chenaanah, a leading prophet among those
consulted by Ahab as to the success of his proposed
expedition against Ramoth-gilead. By means of iron
horns the prophet symbolically announced that Yahw&
would grant Ahab successive victories over Aram. T h e
dispute with M ICAIAH (4.v.) is told in I K. 22 1 1 8
(n.pir), z Ch. 1 8 1 0 8 T h e passage not only throws
light on the differences among the prophets, but also is
important for the question of the origin of the prophet-
hood.
See PROPHET, $ 7, where it is maintained that the original
nGWinr came from N. Arabia and that the Aramaeans with whom
Israel contended wore, mainiy a t any rate, those of the southern
Aram-Le., the Jeralpneelite border-land. For ‘Ben Chenaanah
we should probably read Ben Keyizzi’; cp ‘Elisha, hen
Shaphat ’-<.e. Elisha, hen SephBthi. Elisha was known as a
Zarephathite, iedekiah as a geninite (or Kenite?).
3. b. Maaseiah, one who ‘prophesied a lik’ in the
time of Jeremiah, Jer. 2 9 2 1 8 See S EDECIAS, I.
The passage has been much misunderstood. For roasted in
the fire’ P ON^ D i p ) we should read 13~nir ‘killed in
Asshur,’ Asshur is a synonym for Jerahmeel-the name of the
N. Arabian land whither (see ZEDEKIAH, I ) the Jews were
carried into exile. What follows y w Iy. ~ is an interpolation
(down to nn’yy), on which see AHAB, 2.
4. b. Hananiah, a bieh officer, temp. Jehoiakim, Jer. 36 12.
5. AV ZIDKIJAH. Signatory to the covenant (see E ZRA i.,
0 7); Neh. 10 I [21 (ip? ; ua8eKrac [BNA], ULOF uapaia). He is
placed together with Nehemiah the Tirshatha before the list of
priestly families. Was be Nehemiah‘s secreiary (Ryssel)? or
resident of the council of the elders (E. Meyer, Enfst. 136)7
H ee TIRSHATHA.
L s reading is n93pst (ueXevcac), Shecheniah; in v. 4 we find
3 3 > ~ Shebaniah.
, T. K. C.
Judg. 725
ZEEB (Ifc!), See O REB.
ZELBH ( h y &%‘), a city of Benjamin, grouped by
P (see TARALAH, KIRJATH-JEARIM) with ‘ t h e Jebusite,
the same is Jerusalem,’ and Gibeah or Kirjath (Josh.
1828 ; om. B, CHAA[A], CEAA [L]), also referred to as
containing the sepulchre of Kish ( z S. 21 14 ; EN TH
rrhaypb, [BAL], R V here %la).
We cannot avoid utilising the results of our criticism of the
text. In the list of cities of Benjamin (as well as in some of the
accompanying tribal lists) there seems to have been serious
geographical confusion. The Gibeonite cities for instance-
Gibeon, Beeroth (from Rehoboth), Chephirah (a doublet to
Beeroth), and Kirjath-jearim (as later inquiry suggests, Kirjath-
jerahmee1)-were originally represented as in the Negeb. So
too the Zela of Josh. 18 28 was probably in the Negeb. It is,
however, hardly possible to transfer the family of Saul from the
territory usually known as Benjamite to the Negeh ; the relations
between Saul and David forbid this. Some of the names of the
Negeb, however, appear to have been carried northward by the
clans when they left the Negeb. This may well have been the
case with Zela, or rather-the name, like so many other names
in Josh.18 and in the story of Saul’s personal history, being
evidently corrupt-Shalisha. See LAISHAH, and S AUL, S 4,
where it is pointed out that, according to what is supposed to
be the true text of I S. 31 11-13, the bones of Saul and Jonathan
were brought by the men of Beth-gilgal (in Benjamin) to the
sacred tree at Beth-gilgal, and there buried. From I S. 25 44 it
appears that Laish or rather Shalishah, was either identical
with, or near, Beth-&gal (see GFLLIM,LAISHAH, PALTI). The
same name seems to underlie [Bar-lzillai’ in 2 S.1727 (see
MEPHIBOSHETH, g z ) , 21 8 (see MERAB),and should be restored
in Josh. 18 28, 2 S. 21 14. Cp ZELRK.
Some ( e g . , Petrie) identify the Zelah (Scla‘) of Josh. with the
Zilu of the Amarna Tablets (181 41 45), a place which, like
Lacbisb, threw off the Egyptian authority. T.K. C.
ZELEK (p)?), a n Ammonite, one of David’s heroes
(2 ~ o@Acyr [AI, b a[plpav[rlhq [BAI,
S. 23 37 [361, ~ A c L[Bl,
u a h d 6 a v a p [L]; I Ch. 11 39, urAq [BN], UfhAqK [AL],
6 appw[elr [BA], . ..
-erp [N], b appavr [Ll).
1 Josephus cleverly works out the narrative (Ant. x. 8 2).
5399
3 1 1 ~ (Ammonite)
y is probably here as in some other passages
lox,
( e g . , 1 S. 11 2 S. 5ee ~ t i H o ~ & SAUL,
, 5 I d ) , acorruptiou
of -i+n,’ (Jerahmee1ite)-i.e., ‘Zelek’ came from the Jeralp
meelite Negeb. There are two place-names with which p b
may be compared : ( I ) n ~ i (SALECAH),
o the name of one of the
‘cities
. ’ of the kingdom of Og in Cnshan’ (it@,not, as MT and
6, I??;see OG, and ( 2 ) l i p s (ZIKLAG),for a time David’s
city, a name which may be a corruption of m h p (Haliqah).
It is safest to choose the latter. p i s may be miswritten for ysn
(Hillez) which we know to be a Paltitel-Le. Zarephathite-
(2 S. 23 z 6 x ) and Jerahmeelite (I Ch. 239) &me, and may
indicate a Connection with the city of Halusah. Merquart
(Fund.zz), it is true, connects p k (cp BB and @L) with
Y!?, but we do not expect David to have a connection with
the centre of Saul’s clan (see ZELA). T. K. C.
ZELOPHEHAD (7&$ ; CAATTAAA [BAL, but
CAA@. A, in Josh., can@.B, in Ch.], which suggests
lnP73, Salpahad-Le., perhaps protection [$Y,
“ s h a d o w ” ] from terror,’ 43, or [Paterson, SBOT,
on Nu. 271, ‘ the Dread One is shadowed ’ ; see, how-
ever, below). Zelophehad (Zalpahad ?) is variously
represented as the second son of Manasseh ( I Ch. 7 15 ;
see ASRIEL),and as b. Hepher, b. Gilead, b. Machir,
b. Manasseh (Josh. 1 7 3 ) . 3 H e is said to have had n o
sons, but five daughters- viz., Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah,
Milcah, Tirzah (Nu. 2 6 3 3 27 I 36 I T Josh. 17 3). These
daughters are said (Nu. 27 1-4) to have approached
Moses, Eleazar, the princes, and all the congregation
with a petition to he allowed to receive a n inheritance
as representing their father,4 who died in the wilderness,
and had no sons. 4 favourable answer was given
(vu.7-11) ; but the decision was supplemented later
(Nu. 56) by a n order that heiresses should marry within
their own tribe. Accordingly Zelophehads daughters
are said to have married their father’s brothers’ sons.
That P had access to old lists, is undeniable ; hut h e
not unfrequently represents corrupt forms of the same
name as independent members of genealogies. It is
therefore not impossible that in the list of six, formed
by Zelophehad and his daughters, the same name in
different forms may occur several times. There i s
plausibility in the view that the name which underlies
Zelophehad, Mahlah, and Milcah is Salhad, which, as
has been shown elsewhere (G ALEED , I ) , may underlie
Sahadutha in Gen.3147, and appears in Dt.310 a n d
elsewhere as S A L E C . ~ H (q.v.). It is indeed probable
that in one form of the patriarchal story Haurxn was
much referred to (cp HARAN). T h e objection that
Salhad was on the E. side of the Jordan, whereas it
appears that P did not recognise Manasseh as having-
inheritances in Gilead,5 is not as important as it seems,
for the tradition that Zelophehad was ‘son of Hepher.
son of Gilead,‘ cannot be annulled by bracketing ‘ son
of Gilead,’ etc., in Josh. 1 7 3 . In determining the sense
of Zelophehad and the other names, we cannot ignore
the asserted connection of Zelophehad with Gilead.6
But further inquiry seems to be bringing out these
results-that the school of writers represented by P
had access to lists in which several tribes, including
Manasseh, were located in the Negeb, that Og’s
traditional kingdom was, not in Bashan, but in Cushan,
and hence that Salecah is not the original name in
Dt. 3 IO, etc., but some Negeb name such as Halusah.
This being the case, the name of Machir’s sister &n;r-
(HAMMOLECHETH) will be miswritten, not for Salecah, but for
JerahmeeQith], and those of her sons Ishhod (cp HODESH).and
Mahlah will stand for Ashhur and Jerahmeel respectively. So,
too, of the five daughters of Zelophebd, the first, the fourth,
1 PELETH (P.v.) in I Ch.233 is a ‘son’ of Jerahmeel--Le..
Zarephath was the centre of a subdivision of the Jerahmeelites.
2 For another suggestion see MANASSEH i, 5 g [i.].
3 On the analysis of Josh. 17 1-6see Oxy Hex. 2 17 : Steuer-
na el HKJosk. 217. Kuenen TA.T 114x7
$$his passage is hconsisteht with Josh. 176, which implies.
that each of Zelophehad’s daughters received a ‘part.’
6 This is SteuernagePs view (HKJosh. 215, foot).
6 Cp MANASSEH i., $35 5, 9 .
5400
 [A], capapra [Ll), b. Becher in a genealogy of BENJAMIN
and possiblythe third wiil represent Jerahmeel, thefifrh(Tirzah) cap.
will come from Zarephath the second (Noah) from some form of8 9, ii. a), I Ch. 7 8, cp Zlhtxl (S 36).
(q.v.,
Manahnth (b. Shobal), ;aLd Zelophehad will presumably he a
E N A N (Ip), place (as the text stands) in the
compound of two ethnic or tribal names, and since these names
S HEPHELAH, mentioned with Hadashah a n d Migdal-
have to be Negeh names, the most probable explanation of the
name is Ishmael-hadad (cp 15s with 1 5 [SHELEPH],
~ and 7551
gad (CENNA [B], -M [A], CENAM [L]). Josh. 1 5 3 7 T ;
[ZILPAH], which almost certainly come from ixynw). Hadad
presumably identical with the Z AANAN
appears in Gen. 25 I j a:. the eighth son of Ishmael. Hepher
of Mic. (la?’%)
1 1 1 ( C A i N h N [Aid. and Some MSS], C E N N A N [some
and Gilead, with which Zelophehnd is also genealogically
connected are Negeb names.1 MSS, Syro-Hex.], CISNNAAP [ B a , b A Q * ] , - ~ ~ ~ [Val).
The nlianing of the statement that Zelophehad had fiveThe probability is, however, that there is a mistake, and that
daughters of course is that there were five minor clans de-
neither the Zenan of Joshua nor the Zaanan of Micah was in
pendent oh the great central clan called Zalp-had, or Ishmael-
1 the ShZphSlah. As in the case of other lists of tribal place-
hadad. names, P seems to have been indebted in Josh. 15 3 3 8 to lists
T. K. C.
of place-names belonging to different parts of the Negeb (see
ZEL~T~s (ZHhWTHC), L ~6 1, 5 AV, R V WARS OF TH E LORD[BOOK OF]). Among the names which,
(9.v.1. critically considered, are specially favourable to this view, are
Eshtaol, Zorah, En-gannim, Tappuah, Jarmuth, Adullam,
ZELZAH (&y), I S , lo2. See bocob, Mizpeh, Joktheel, Lachish, and we may now add Zenan,
S EPULCHRE. Hadashah, and Migdal-gad, which are grouped together in
7,. 37. That Zenan may be presumed to be identical with the
Z E W A I M (2*,3?! ; see Kittel, SBOT,Heb., on Zaanan of Micah, is obvious. Now, if Mic. 1 he criticised in
combination with other prophecies relative to an invasion of
Ch.134v and On lerminationsee 5 1°7)’ ’ Judah, it will appear that the invaders are more probably

. _ . .
[AI,aal*aperl* [LI).
2. ’The name of a mountain ‘ i n the hill-country of
Ephraim,’ from the top of which ABIJAHdelivered an
address t o Jerobonm and the Israelitish army ( z Ch.
134 ; uo,uopwv [BAL], uapapwv [Niese], or utpapwv
[Naber], Jos. A n t . viii. 11z = 274). See Bertheau.
Both I a n d z suggest most interesting problems.
Conder ( P E P , 187:7.p. 26), following Van d e Velde
a n d Robinson, identifies I. with the ruin es-Samra,
2-3 m. W. from the Jordan and 15-16 m. in a direct line
E. from Bethel, a n d points out that there are two ruins
close together bearing t h e same name (Samra). Buhl
(PnL 180)inclines t o accept this combination. Those,
however, who take this line mnst, at any rate, separate
the city from the mountain called Zemaraim, for a
situation overlooking the Jordan valley will hardly suit
t h e Chronicler’s narrative ; v. 19 suggests that the spot
was not far from Bethel. The matter needs re-
consideration.
We have now to indicate the new position of the questions
resulting from our criticism of the text, and first of that relating
to 2. We have seen (JEIIOBOAM, T ; REHOBOAM ; SHECHEM ;
SHILOH) that the scene of the narratives respecting Jeroboam
and Rehoboam (and of course Abijah) was placed by the original
writers in the Negeb, the possession of which was coveted both
by Jeroboam and by Rehoboam, as well as by the Jerahmeelites,
because it was the ‘ HoTy Land’ of Israel and of Jerahmeel,
containing the most ancient sacred spots of both sections 0;
Israel and of the closely related people of Jerahmeel. ‘ Epbraim
is as much a sonthern as a northern name, and, whatever be its
origin (cp REPHAIM),is a syiionym of ‘ Jerahmeel.’ At the
resent time, Bethel (perhaps=Dan-i.e., Hain$ah, see Luz ;
F ROPHET, 8 I O ; S HECHEM), Jeshanah (perhaps misread for
Dljd, the southern Shunem, cp SHEN, SHUNEM), and Ephron
(probably near the place miscalled Shechem, but really named
Cu5ham-jerahmeel, see SHECHEM, z ; MACHPELAH), were in the
hands of Jeroboam. According to the Chronicler ( 2 Ch. 13 IS),
Rehoboam took these cities from Jeroboam.
Turning now to I , we! have seen that P, as a geographer,
often works on lists which properly belong to an ancient
geographical survey of the Negeb. This is the case, not only
with the name-lists of Judah, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali.
but also with that of Benjamin (cp ZELA). The names Jericho,
Beth-hoglah, and Emek-keziz in Josh. 18 21 probably come from
Jerahmeel, Beth-meholah (=Beth-jerahmeel), and Maacath-
cush, places in the Negeb ; whilst the Beth-arabah and Zemaraim
in u. 2 2 probably come from Beth-‘arab and Simrim or Simr2.m.
To say where these places stood, except that one of them is
presumably REHOBOTH (q.v.), is beyond our power. It is
possible (though Gen. 10 18 confirms sm) that har->imrim is the
same as har-Eimron in Am. 3 g(?) 4 I 6 T .(see PROPHET, I 35 ;
SHINIRON).Perhaps Simron was in the hands of Abijah
(according to the Chronicler’s authority) and Jeroboam had
come with the object of besieging it. Thdre is, at any rate, no
reason whv I . and 2. should not be identified. CD ZEMARITE.
T. K. C .
ZEMARITE (’?Q!l),
Gen. 1018 I Ch. 116. See
GEOGRAPHY, 8 16, 4.
1 For the southern Gilead cp RAMOTH-GILEAD, and Cn’f.
Bi6. on Jer. 8 22.
5401
. .
those which suffer from the invasion is, not P l D W (Samaria),
but Pl?? (SHIMRON) in the Negeb. See PROPHET, $ 38.
ijxs will therefore presumably he=jyr (Zoan), and is (Zin),
both of which forms appear to have been connected geo-
graphically with the famous Kadesh (cp P ARADISE, $3 6 ;
SODOM).The original form, therefore, of the names in Josh.
15 37 was not improbably ‘Zoan, Kadesh, Jerahmeel-gad [or
simply Jerahmeel1,’and in Mic. 111, besides Shaphir (Sbamir?),
and Beth-ezel-the latter of which is clearly a Negeb name-we
may recognise Jerahmeel (I& nw>-n*,y= $ ~ o n in. w * ) and
Zoan. It IS probable, however, that Zoan or Zaanan (Zenan),
like ZIN (q.n.),comes from the widely-spread race-name Ishmael
through the intermediate form Zibeon (iiyir). See ZIBEON,
and cp C r i f . Bi6. T. K. C.
ZENAS ( Z H NAC [Ti. WH], abbrev. from Zenodorus ;
cp ARTEMAS, O LYMPAS, and NAMES. 5.86. end), a
lawyer ( Y O ~ I K O S ) , is thus alluded to in Tit. 313 : ‘ Be
zealous in helping Zenas the lawyer a n d Apollos on
their way, that they want for nothing.’ Whether h e
was a Jewish lawyer or a Roman jurisconsult is un-
certain; but the non-Hebrew name a n d t h e short
criticism of V O W ~ K O in ~ Tit. 3 9 ( c p Zahn, EinZ. 1 4 3 5 )
make for the latter, a n d the association with Apollos
suggests that he was possibly of Alexandrian origin.
In the lists of the ‘seventy’compiled by the Pseudo-Dorotheus
and Pseudo-Hippolytus he is made bkhop of Diospolis, and
he is mentioned in Menrea of the Greek church as author of
the (no longer extant) Acts of Tzlus.
ZEPHANIAH (??DY, ‘whom Yahwb hides,’ or
a defends,’ § 30,to which a d d the references CIS i. 1207,
1. Name
etc. ; Lidzbarski, Hand& 359[cp also below,
and date. 2~41;CO@ONlAC). I. Son Of Cushi, t h e
ninth, according to t h e order of his book,
among the twelve minor prophets, flourished in the reign
of Josiah of Judah, a n d apparently before the great
reformation in the eighteenth year of that king (621
B. c. ). For various forms of idolatry pnt down in that
year ( z K. 2 3 4 J m ) are spoken of by Zephaniah as still
prevalent in Judah (14J ), a n d a r e specified in such a
connection as t o imply that they were not the secret sins
of individuals, but held the first place among the national
backslidings that could, as the prophet teaches, be re-
moved only by a sweeping judgment o n the state. Of
t h e person of Zephaniah nothing is known ; but inas-
much as his genealogy, contrary t o the usual practice i n
the case of the prophets (see Is. 1 I Jer. 1 I Ezek. 1 3 Hos.
1I Joel 1I ) is carried back four generations, it has been
conjectured that his great-great-grandfather Hezekiah
(11) is the king of that name, a n d if so he will have
belonged to the highest class of Jud;ean society.
The genuineness a n d integrity of the short prophecy
ascribed to Zephaniah d o not seem t o be open to reason-
2. able doubt. Stade (GZ1644) sus-
and integrity. pects (on account of the ideas
expressed in them) 21-3 I I a n d 3 ;
a n d it is true, if 3 were a distinct oracie, there would be
5402
 ZEPHANIAH
no cogent reason to ascribe it to the author of the two
chapters that precede; for the book of the minor
prophets is made up of short pieces, some bearing a
name and some anonymous, and it is only old usage
that ascribes the anonymous pieces to the last preceding
prophet whose name is prefixed to his prophecy. But,
though the sequence of thought in the book of Zephaniah
is not so smooth as a western reader may desire, a
single leading motive runs through the whole, and the
first two chapters would be incomplete without the
third, which, moreover, is certainly pre-exilic (vu. 1.4)
and presents specific points of contact with what pre-
cedes as well as a general agreement in style and idea
[see further § 61.
The prophecy may be divided into three parts : (i. )
3, Outline of the menace (1); (ii.) the admonition
(21-37); (iii.) the promise (38-20).
'Ontent** The dommnatinKmotiveof the whole is the
approach of a sweeping and world-Gide judgment, which the
prophet announces as near at hand. and interprets, on the lines
laid down by Isaiah in his prophecies about Israel and Assyria,
as designed to destroy the wicked and prepare the way for the
visible sovereignty of the righteous God of Israel (1 zf: 7 14-18).
As regards Judah, which forms the subject of the first and third
chapters, the effect of the judgment will be to sift out the idolaters
the men of violence and wrong, the false prophets and profan;
priests, the hardened men of the world to whom all religion is
alike ('the men that are thickened on their lees,' 1IS), and who
deem that Yahwh will do neither good nor evil (1 4 6 Sf: 123 3Jr).
The men who seek meekness and righteousness will he left a
poor and lowly people, trusting in YahwFs name and eschew&g
falsehood (23 3 12). To them a future of gladness is reserved
a peaceful life under Yahws's immediate kingship and lovini
protection (3 13-17). Such an ideal necessarily implies that they
shall no longer he threatened hy hostility from without, and this
condition is satisfied by the prophet's view of the effect of the
iinpending judgment on the ancient enemies of his nation. The
destruction of the Philistines on the W. and of Moah and
Ammon on the E. (24-10) will enable the Hebrews to extend
their settlements from the Mediterranean to the Syrian desert ;
and their remoter oppressors, the Ethiopians and the Assyrians,
shall also perish (2 12-15). That Ethiopia appears instead of
Egypt is in accordance with the conditions of the time. I t was
with Ethiopic dynasts holding sway in Egypt that Assyria bad
to contend during the seventh century B.c., when the etty
kingdoms of Palestine were so often crushed between the colfsion
of the two great powers, and even Psammetichus, the contem-
porary of Josiah, and the restorer of a truly Egyptian kingdom,
was nominally the heir of the great Ethiopian sovereigns.
Zephaniah's conceptions are closely modelled on the
scheme of YahwP's righteous purpose worked out by
*' Isaiah a century before, when Judah first
felt the weight of the Assyrian rod ; and
judgment' they afford the most conclusive evidence
of the depth and permanence of that great prophet's
influence. Rut in one point there is an important
divergence. In Isaiah's view, Assyria is the rod of
God's a n g e r ; and, when the work of judgment is
complete, and YahwP returns to the remnant of his
people, the theodicea is completed by the fall of the
unconscious instrument of the divine decrees before
the inviolable walls of the holy mountain. Zephaniah,
i n like manner, looks to an all-conquering nation as
the instrument of divine judgment on Judah and the
rest of the known world. H e represents the day
of Yahwk, according to the old meaning of that phrase
(WRS. P ~ o p h . (397f:).
~) as a day of battle (not an
assize day) ; he speaks of the guests invited to YahwB's
sacrifice (ie., to a great slaughter), of alarm against
fenced cities, of blood poured out as dust, of pillage
and desolation at the hand of a n enemy (17 13 16-18).
Beyond this, however, all is vague; we hear neither
who the sword of YahwP (212)is, nor what is to
become of him when his work is completed. Isaiah's
construction has in all its parts a definite reference
to present political facts, and is worked out to a
complete conclusion : Zephaniah borrows the ideas of
his predecessor without attaining to his clearness of
political conception, and so his picture is incomplete.
T h e foreign conqueror, by whom Judah is to be chas-
tised and Nineveh and Ethiopia destroyed, is brought
on to the stage, but never taken off it. I t is safe to
conclude that the principal actor in the prophetic
5403
ZEPHANIAH
drama, who is thus strangely forgotten at the last, was
not as real and prominent a figure in Zephaniah's
political horizon as Assyria was in the horizou of Isaiah.
At the same time, it is reasonable to think that so com-
plete a reproduction of Isaiah's ideas in the picture of a
new world-judgment was not formed without some
stimulus from without; and this stimulus has been found,
with much plausibility, in the Scythian invasion of
western Asia, to which some of Jeremiah's earlier
prophecies (as 5 15-17 6 1-6 22-25) also appear to refer
(see I S R A EL , 39, col. 2246).
Be that as it may, the comparison between Isaiah
and Zephaniah affords an instructive example of the
5. Contrast difference between original and repro-
with Isaiah. ductive prophecy. All the prophets
have certain fundamental ideas in com-
mon, and each has learned something from his pre-
decessors. If Zephaniah draws from Isaiah, Isaiah
himself drew from Amos and Hosea. Isaiah, however,
goes to his predecessors for general principles, and
shapes the application of these principles to the con-
ditions of his own time in a manner altogether fresh
and independent. Zephaniah, on the other hand, goes
to his predecessor for details; he does not clearly
distinguish between the form and the substance of the
prophetic ideas, and looks for a final consummation of
the divine purpose, not only in accordance with the
principles of Isaiah, but on the very lines wrhich that
prophet had laid down. These lines, however, were
drawn on the assumption that the Assyrian judgment
was final and would be directly followed by the reign of
righteousness. T h e assumption was not justified by
the event ; the deliverance and reformation were incom-
plete, and the inbringing of the reign of righteousness
was again deferred. Zephaniah sees this, but fails to
draw the true inference. H e postulates a new crisis in
history similar to the Assyrian crisis of which Isaiah
wrote, and assumes that it will run such a course as to
fulfil Isaiah's unfulfilled predictions. But the move-
ments of history do not repeat themselves: and the
workings of God's righteous providence take fresh shape
in each new scene of the world's life, so that a prediction
not fulfilled under the conditions for which it was given
can never again be fulfilled in detaiZ. A s it is an
essential feature of prophecy that all ideas are not only
presented but thought out in concrete form, and with
reference to present historical conditions, the distinction
between the temporary form and the permanent religious
truth embodied in that form is also essential. T h e
tendency to confound the two-to ascribe absolute truth
to what is mere embodiment, and therefore to regard
unfulfilled predictions as simply deferred, even where
the form of the prediction is obviously dependent on
mere temporary conditions of the prophet's own time-
gained ground from the time of Zephaniah onwards,
and culminated in the Apocalyptic literature. As it
grew, the eternal ideas of the great prophets fell into
the background, and were at length entirely lost in the
crass Jewish conception of a Messianic age, which is
little more than an apotheosis of national particularism
and self-righteousness.
Zephaniah's eschatology is not open to this charge :
with him, as with Isaiah, the doctrine of the salvation of
the remnant of Israel is inspired by spiritual convictions
and instinct with ethical force. T h e emphasis still lies
(311-13)on the moral idea of the remnant, not on the
physical conception Israel. H e does not yield to Amos
or Isaiah in the courage with which he denounces sin
in high places, and he is akin to Hosed in his firm hold
of the principle that the divine governance is rooted not
only in righteousness but in love, and that the triumph
of love is the end of YahwB's working (317). Yet even
here we see the difference between the first and the srcond
generation of prophecy. T h e persuasion to which
Hosea attains only through an intense inward struggle,
which lends a peculiar pathos to his book, appears in
5404
 ZEPHANIAH
Zephaniah, as it were, ready made. There is no mental
conflict before he can pass through the anticipation of
devastating judgment to the assurance of the victory of
divine love ; and the sharp transitions that characterise
the book are not, as with Hosea, due to sudden revulsion
of feeling, but only mark the passage to some new topic
in the circle of received prophetic truth.
T h e finest thing in the book-in spite of certain
obscurities, which m,ay be partly due to corruptions of
the text-is the closing passage ; but the description of
the day of Yahwk, the dies i r e dies iila of 115, which
furnishes the text of the most striking of medizval
hymns, has perhaps taken firmer hold of the religious
inmgination. Least satisfactory is the treatment of the
j u d p e n t on heathen nations, and of their subsequent
conversion to Y n h d (38.10). I n the scheme of Isaiah
it is made clear that the fall of the power that shatters
the nations cannot fail to be recognised as Yahwk's
work, for Assyria falls Sefuore YerusaZem as soon as it
seeks to go beyond the limits of the divine commission,
and thus the doctrine ' With us is G o d ' is openly
vindicated before the nations. Zephaniah, on the other
hand, assumes that the convulsions of history are
Yahwe's work, and specially designed for the instruction
and amendment of Israel ( 3 6 J ) , and neglects to show
how this conviction, which he himself derives from
Isaiah, is to be brought home by the coming judgment
t o the heart of heathen nations. Their own gods,
indeed, will prove helpless (211); but that is not
enough t o turn their eyes toward Yahwk. Here, there-
fore, there is in his eschatology a sensible lacuna, from
which Isaiah's construction is free, and a commence-
ment of the tendency to look a t things from a merely
Israelite standpoint, which is so notable a feature of
the later Apocalyptic. W. R. S.
It has seemed best to the present writer to leave the
preceding interesting and suggestive article substantially
as it stood in 1888 ; a n d to append in a supplenient
such additions as seem to be now required.
T h e integrity of the prophecy has been much more
seriously questioned than it was in 1888.
Kuenen ($ 78, 5-8) in 1889, whilst defending
6. %Cent 21-3 1 1 against Stade, allowed-on account,
criticism. chiefly, of the great contrast between the de-
nunciation of 1 2 1 31-7 and the promises of
3 14-20 -that 3 14-20 was a supplement, dating rohably
from shortly after the restoration in B.C. 536. &hwally
( Z A TW, 1890, 218 8, 238 240) ascribes to Zephaniah only
1 2 1 3 - r j , and possibly 2 1-4 (doubting this passage on ac-
count of 13y and 713y 2 3) ; 25-13he treats as exilic (chiefly on
account of the ' remnant ' 2 7 9), and 3 as post-exilic : the 'single
leading motive' appealed to above by Robertson Smith, he
considers to be evidence only of unity of redaction, not of
unity of author. Wellhausen (1892, (311698) is suspkious of
2 3, and rejects 27a,c, 8-11 ; he treats 3 as an append~x,added
subsequently in two slages first 3 1-7 (cp Mic. 7 1-6), and then
3 8-20 (cp Mic. 7 7-z0:+-3 i - 2 0 being separated from 3 1-7,on
account of the sudden change of tone and subject, consolations
and promises following immediately upon censure and rebuke,
and the heathen not the Jews, being threatened with punishment.
Budde (St.Ki. 1893, pp. 3933) would admit 2 1-3 3 1-5 7 8 6
[in this order] xi-13 as in harmony with the pre-exilic period,
and a suitable sequel to 1 ; 2 4-1j he rejects, as inconsistent with
1 (Israel no longer, as in 1, the perpetrator of wrong, but the
victim of wrong, which is now [a.9 end] to be avenged) ; 3 gf:
is excluded as breaking the connection betwen 38 and 3 Ir .
and 3 rq-zo is alater lyrical epilogue to 3 11-r3. Cornill(Eid.,d
1896, F, 35,3)agreeswith Budde. Davidson(r896)defends(998)
2 as a whole admitting only that 2 4-15 may in parts have been
expanded (the Kina-rhythm seems intended to predominate in
these verses ; but in some places, especially 2 5 7, it can be
restored only by considerable textual alterations and 78-11do
not conform to it at all) ; in 3 he feels doubtful dnly about 3 IO
(which is textually obscure and uncertain) and about the 'ex-
tremely beautiful passage' 3 14-20,which seems to him to spring
from a time when the judgments have already fallen upon
Israel (u. IS), and by its jubilant tone contrasts strangely
with the dark picture 3f guilt 3 1.3 7 and even with the more
sombre hopeiof 3 11-I:,. Nowack(Id97) inlagrees closely with
Wellhausen, only rejecting 2 15 as well as 2 T a,c 8-11 ; in 3, how-
ever, he rejects only (like Budde) 39f: in addition to 3 14-20.
G. A. Smith (1898) accepts (242-45) the whole of 2 except 28-11 ;
in 3 he regards 3 9f: as 'obviously a later insertion,' and 3 14-20
as clearly a n epilogue <of peace and hope added at the close of
the exile or after the return (44 f:). Baudissin (EM. 1901,
p. 553 8) denies to Zephaniah only 2 7n, c, 8-11 and 3 14-20 :
5405
ZEPHANIAH
ie thinks 3 1-13 also to he an addition to the original prophecy
'which will have ended with 2 12-15), but not necessarily by
inother hand than that of Zephaniah himself.
Of the passages which have been thus questioned,
21-3 may be accepted as Zephaniah's without any
scruple : it forms for a prophet the almost necessary
:ounterpart to 1. I n 24- 7 the only suspicious part is th?
:lause 2 7 c (cp the remarks below on 3 18-20), which may
be a gloss (Wellhausen, Nowack) ; and 2 13-15 is far
more likely to have been written before the destruction
of Nineveh in 607 than after it (cp also § 3). Against
31-8 11-13 no reasonable objection can be urged : as
Budde (396) says, we are here in the pre-exilic
Jerusalem, without any trace of the exile and its experi-
ences. Davidson remarks in particular that 3 1-7 is
characterised generally by the same moral earnestness
as 12-23, and that the terms of 3 1-4 are such as are not
likely to have been applied to Jerusalem, except in the
pre-exilic period : 3 1 1 - 1 3 describes the Jerusalem of the
future, purified by judgment, and naturally therefore
differs in tone from 3 1-7. Schwally's main argument
( 2 3 1 8 ) for rejecting 3 8 cannot be sustained: there
is no sufficient reason for supposing that the nations a r e
there gathered together q a i n s f Israel (as in Ez. 38,f and
post-exilic passages) ; they are assembled for punish-
ment, and Israel is included among them. There is,
however, a greater consensus against Zephaniah's
authorship of 28-11 39J and 314-20. It is objected t o
28-10 (the oracle of Moab and Ammon) that there is
no sufficient motive for the mention of these countries
about 625 B . C . (the Philistines, 25-7. would be on the line
of march of the Scythians towards E g y p t ; indeed,
Herodotus expressly says that they passed by Ashkelon.
1 r o 5 j , that the reproaches of 2 8 1 0 presuppose the
destruction of Jerusalem, which gave occasion for them
(Ezek.25368), that (see Budde above) the attitude of
the prophet towards Judah is here the exact opposite of
that taken by him in 1, and that the elegiac measure,
which at least predominates in 24-7 12-15, does not
appear in 28-10, It may, however, be doubted whether
the terms of 2 8 I O necessarily refer to the events of B.C.
586, and also whether our knowledge of the tinies is
sufficient to justify us in declaring that no adequate
motive then existed for the unfavourable mention of
these arrogant and encroaching (Is. 1 6 6 Am. 113)
nations (Davidson compares Dt. 233 6) ; if Ezekiel, in
spite of his uncompromising sense of Judah's sin (1-24),
nevertheless resents strongly (251-11) the unfriendly
attitude of Moab and Ammon, why may not Zephaniah
have done the same ? T h e argument derived from the
change of rhythm possesses weight ; but it implies that
we are right in emending the context ( 2 5 7 12) so as to
restore the Kind-rhythm, and also that we have valid
grounds for supposing that Zephaniah would desire t o
preserve rhythmical uniformity throughout the entire
passage ( 2 8 ' I have heard' is an evident reminiscence
of Is. 166). 2 11, however, connects imperfectly both
with 210 and with 212 (observe ' y e a h ' ); and may
therefore be the addition of a reader, who desiderated
here the two thoughts which the verse contains; and
39J (the conversion of the nations) connects extremely
badly (notice v. 9 'for t h e n ' ) with 38 (the ju@nzent on
the nations-if not, indeed, their destruction, 1 2 J ).
As regards 314-20, it is, no doubt, possible that it is. in
G. A. Smiths words (73), a ' n e w song from God,'
which came to some prophet, shortly after the return,
a n d expressed for the remnant that survived, the
' afflicted and poor' people of v. 1 2 , the brighter hopes
which the restoration fostered. T h e picture which
the verses delineate is, however, upon any view of
their origin, an ideal o n e ; and the question remains
whether it is more than a lyrical development of
the thought of vu. 11-13, such as Zephaniah, realising
vividly in spirit the blissful future, might have con-
1 There is manifestly some corruption in 3 IO ; but the homage
of the nations is more consonant with the context than the
homage of the exiled Jews.
5406
 ZEPHANIAH
structed himself. Undoubtedly the terms of vv. 18-20
presuppose exile, whilst m.11-13 suggest nothing more
than the purification of Judah in its own home ; but
both exile, and riastoration from exile, are contemplated
by Jeremiah, and Zephaniah might have added the
closing verses of his book many years after 311-13 was
written, at a time when exile was seen more clearly to be
looming in the future. It is, however, true that 3 18-20
is more open to suspicion than 3 14-17, A final decision
on the entire question will hardly be arrived at on the
basis of Zephaniah alone : it will depend on the con-
clusion formed by the critic on passages of similar im-
port found in many of the other prophets (cp Introd.(’)
229J “73 306f. 318 330 334 ; and Cheyne, Pref. to
W R S , Proph. (‘4 x v j ? ).
T h e text of Zephaniah, while on’ the whole well pre-
served, is in several passages open to grave suspicion,
,. Text. and in some unquestionably corrupt. Many
of these have, however, been corrected,
especially by Wellhausen, chiefly on the basis of 6.
A full discussion of the text belongs to a commentary (see esp.
We., Now., and GASm.); but a few of‘the more notable
passages may he briefly noticed here : 1 3 and the stumbling
blocks with the wicked,’ is incongruous 4 t h the context, and
prob. (We. Now.) alate gloss ; 1 5 6 omit proh. :!@’O and the
) after nlZ.5 (reading then, ‘and the worshippers of YahwS,
who swear by their king’ [‘ Molech’]); 2 I lli3; rdtisn? (Che.
Bu.) ‘ get you shame, and be ye ashamed, 0 natian unabashed,’
is on the whole most proh. (Wfip means ‘to gather stubble ’) ;
2 2 for the first two clauses (to chax) read with Wellhause;
(nearly as B) ‘ before y e become as c h a f fhafpassefh away
(my f‘bg V ~ ? - f i 7O m ? ) ; 2 6 a read probably (63 We.) ‘and
ChgrEth ‘shail be an habitation for shepherds ’ (723 n?.? 3C):l
o*pi: ‘ with cottages ’-or even ‘with caves ‘-‘for is an im-
possible rendering of the existing Heb.) ; 2 7 read (@ We.) ‘and
the coast offhe sea (o>? \m), and (We.) ‘by the sea’ for ‘there-
upon’ @>? for O&); 2 T I a t least n:?, ‘make lean’ (cp
Is 10 16 17 4, though the word is here strange) for ; 2 14
+in+? cannot be right (‘all the beasts of the nations’ is no
translationof it) : then for $ p ‘(their)voice’ readprobahly(We.)
ob, ‘the o w l ’ (Ps. 102 7), and for 3ln, ‘desolation,’ 3lL, ‘the
raven ’ (65 Ew. We. : cp Is. 34 T I ) ; 3 3 9 4 4 (‘leave,’ lit. cut of,
hence reserve(?); or ‘gnaw thebones,’denom. from 07:)is very
suspicious ; 3 7 read with @ We., for ‘ s o ... concerning her,’
‘and all that I have commanded her shall never he cut off from
her eyes’ (only ?’?’E for ” L F ) ; 3 8 for le!, ‘to the prey’
read prob., with B Pesh., Hitz., Bu., We., Now., GASm,
le), ‘for a witness ’ ; 3 IO ’ X I B np ‘?g (‘my suppliants, the
daughter of my dispersed ’ ?) is extremely suspicious ; 3 15 read,
with @ Pesh. and nearlyall moderns, ’Nln, ‘ see,’for ’NTp ‘fear’;
3 17 Bubl (ZA TW,1885, p. 183) for d’?i7: proposes plausibly
d s ; , ‘will rettew (Ew. 5 282 .I) his love ’ ; 3 raa ‘for ’ (RV) is
less probable than ‘ away from ’ ; 3 I& is suspiciou:, though the
clause might be rendered (better than in RV), upon whom
[referring to ‘thee’] reproach is a burden’; 320 ‘and a t that
time I will gather thee’ yields an excellent sense, hut it cannot
be extracted from the existing text.
As has been remarked already (§§ 3-5),Zephaniah, in
his .prophetic ideals, follows largely in the steps of
With Zephaniah as with Isaiah,
8. Religious Isaiah.
the central idea is that of ajudgment,
teaching. to be executed by YahwB upon Judah,
which will sweep away from it the proud, the religiously
indifferent, the scoffers, the men who abuse their
privileges and their position ( 3 3 , C ) , and the impeni-
tent, who will not listen to ‘correction’ ( 3 ~ 7 j ,but
which will leave behind a meek and pions ‘remnant,’
who trust simplyin theirGod (23 312,C; cp Is. 1 4 3 2 , and
contrast Is. 2 I I 12 17: Zephaniah, it is to be noted,
emphasises more strongly than Isaiah does the particular
virtues of ‘meekness’ and ‘humility’). With Zephaniah,
however, the judgment, more distinctly than in Isaiah
(313), is a world-judgment : it embraces uZZ nations
(1.5 , 3 8 ) , not only Israel ( 1 4 8 ) . The figure of
Yahwk s ‘ D a y ’ is doubtless suggested by Is. 212 8 :
but the imagery of war and invasion, under which its
approach is pictured (1 14-18), is Zephaniah’s own, though
5407
ZEPHANIAH
found in Isaiah in other connections (e.g.5 26-30). T h e
great and abiding religious value of the hook consists in
the profoundly earnest moral tone which pervades it,
and in the prophet’s deep sense of the sin of his people,
and of the stern need which impels Yahwk, who would
only too gladly rejoice over his people, if it would
permit him to do so ( 3 1 7 ) , to visit it with a discipline
such as will purge away its unworthy members.
Zephaniah’s gospel has been described as ‘ simple and
austere.’ It is true, he goes back to and insists with
pathetic eloquence ou the most primary and rudi-
mentary of religious duties, earnestness and sincerity of
life, justice and integrity, humility and a simple trust in
God. ‘ A thorough purgation, the removal of the
wicked, the sparing of the honest and the meek ; in-
sistence only upon the rudiments of morality and
religion : faith in its simplest form of trust in a
righteous God, and character in its basal elements
of meekness and truth- these alone survive the judg-
ment‘ (GASm., 71). H e does not, as other prophets
comnionly do, call the wicked to repent, or dwell upon
the divine grace which is ever ready to forgive the
penitent : it may be that the doom seemed to him to be
too imminent ; the time for pleading was past : there
remained only the separation of the evil from the good.
But he recognises and teaches clearly the moral qualities
which have a value in YahwXs eyes, and will not be
swept away when the judgment comes (cp Is. 3314-16).
Another point which is worthy of notice is Zephaniahs
comprehensive view of history. YahwB’s hand guides
the movement of the nations ; and by them he accom-
plishes his purposes of discipline, purgation, and salva-
tion (cp Is. 1 0 5 8 ) . His ultimate purpose is that
notonly Israel (31r-r3), but also the nations (21163 9 3 ,
--whether these verses be Zephaniah’s or not), shall
become the loyal and faithful servants of God.
.
Ewald Pro#hefs 3 1 4 s the Commentaries on the Minor
Prophet: in general (Hitz’ Keil, Pusey, Wellh., Nowack
GASm.) :’A. B. Davidson in the Cam6. B i d
9. Literature. (1896); Duhm, TheoZ. der Proph. (1875)
pp. 222-5; Kirkpatrick, Doctr. of fd
Prophets, z53fl ; J. A. Selbie’s art. in Hastings’ DB; and the
discussions of Kuenen, Schwally, etc., which have been alread
mentioned. An apocryphal prophecy ascribed to Zephaniag
(‘And the spirit took me, and carried me up into the fifth
heaven, and I saw angels called lords,’ etc.) is quoted by Clem.
Alex. Strom. 5 T I , f 77 ; some other fragments reserved in a
Coptic version, have also been discovered and p;%lished lately :
see APOCRYPHA, 5 21, Schiirer, TLZ,189 , col. 8 (who agrees
that Steindorff‘s ‘unknown’ Apoc. is rozably that of Zeph.),
G/Y(3) 3 2 7 1 3 [See also P ROPHETIC EITERATURE, f 40, and
SCYTHIANS 5 6, on Zephaniah and Jeremiah, with reference to
the prophedies on ‘the Scythians.’]
w. R . s., $5 1-5,9 (partly) :
S. R. D . , $$ 6-8, 9 (partly).
2. A Kohathite ( I Ch. 6 21 [36],.ua$avra [BL], -LOU [AI).
3. 6. MAAsElAH (I), a priest temp. Zedekiah ; Jer. 21 I 29 25
29 37 3 52 24 (BRA om.) 2 K. 25 18 ( U Q ~ O Y L ~ [L]).
V
4. Father of JOSIAH (2) ’ Zech. 6 IO 14.
[All these Zephaniahs ’ ’have directly or indirectly a historical
interest, and even if it be contended that the prophet Zephaniah
must have given his name a religious interpretation (cp the
statement in Is. 8 18), and have considered himself a guardian of
the truth (cp 3 3, though to he sure Schwally and Wellhausen
question Zephaniah‘s authorship of this passage) that the faithful
will be protected in the day of Yahwit‘s anger, yet it is at any
rate conceivable, and if we consider the mass of evidence
arising from parallel ndmes, even probable, that the ‘ Zephaniahs’
in general belonged to families of near or remote Jerahmeelite-
Le. N Arabian-affinities 1 and the view is capable of being
def;nd;d that all the names kith which ‘ Zephaniah is combined
in the OT (passing over Zeph. 1I, in spite of the suggestion
Cushi’) are most easily and naturaljy explained as names of the
Negeb. From this point of view Zephaniah’ (cp Elizaphan
and S HAPHA N ; also Crit. Bi6. 0,‘ Jer. 20 I) is an expansion of
Saphan or Saphon, the name of a N. Arabian district-cp
ZAPHON ; and a parallel to the confusion which may seem to
have arisen can he found in the name Eliahba ( R ~ * \ R )if, this
1 It is worth noticing that there is a well-known Israelite gem
(Brit. Mus., No. 1032), with this legend, )3*39s13 imnw$, where,
even if inino be rendered ‘blackish ’ or ‘ brownish’ (so Clermont-
Ganneau, PEFQ, 19~2, p. 267), we must a t any rate suppose
that it is a fantastic variation of y ; i l i = v n p ~ , so that both
father and son have names which originally belonged to districts
of N. Arabia.
54408
 ZEPHATH
is really a modification of $.q~n[y]*,as maintained in Cn?.BB.
on 2 S. 13 32. This has a distinct bearing on the history of
Israelite religion. The third Zephaniah held a high office in !he
temple. In Jer. 2926 he appears as the successor of ‘ the priest
Jehoiada,’ and as having the right of granting or refusing access
to the temple. It was held to be his duty to expel prophetic
enthusiasts ; nevertheless he abstained from hindering Jeremiah.
In 2 K. 25 18 (and Jer. 52 24 ?)he is represented as second priest
(iee PRIEST 8 5 , end). The fourth Zephaniah was father of a
certain Josi)ah, into whose house the bearers of rich offerings
froin 512 entered (temp. Zeruhbabel). See ZEKUDBABEL, and
cp H E N . T. K. C.]
ZEPHATH (nay ; § 2 0 ; c e a s K 1 [BLI, Ceaep
[.I]),a Canaanite city taken by the men of SIMEONsaid to have inflicted upon Zerah, in spite of his relatively
!§ 4) and Judah (Judg. 1 17). Probably a corruption of
LAKEPHATH( 9 . v . ) [Che.]. For a northern Zephath
see P ALESTINE , 15, col. 3546, no. 116.
ZEPHATHAH (n&’$, Jos. Ant. viii. 121, c&B&ea), is reported elsewhere. It is true, many O T critics (incl.
a valley a by M A R R S ! I A H(’g . ~ . ) where
, Asa defeated
Zerzh the Cushite, z Ch. 14 IO. If the Mareshah referred
to is the Mer‘aS S. of Et-jibrin, it is simplest t o read
njigr. SXphGnHh. with Hitzig, Gratz. Kohler, Buhl,
Benzinger, following @PA ~L a,r dpopp2v (Pesh. omits).
It is possible, however, that there was a Mareshnh in the
Negeb, near Zephath or Zarephath, and that A s ’ s fight with
Zerah was to defend Judahite possessions in the Negeb. The
mention of Gerar (u. 14) somewhat favours this view (see
GER.AR). This affects the question as to the birthplace 0;
Micah, and the geography of Mic. 11 0 8 T. K. C.
ZEPHO (\a?; c a @ a p [ADEL]), b. Eliphaz, an
Edomite chieftain or rather, reading q h , clan (Gen. 36 I I 15).
In I Ch. 1 3 6 his name appears as Ziphi (‘?F uw+ap [BA],
uempauq [L], a secondary form from um+oupl). After @5(except
L in T Ch.) we may read l+. See ZOPHAR.
ZEPHON (flax), b. Gad, whence the family of the
ZEPHONITES (’?\!is?): NU.2615 (6, 21.24, c&@wN is his later view ( K AT(3)
[RL]. om. A ; c a ~ $ a ~ [ e ][BAL]). l I n Gen.4616
the name appears as ZIPHION(]l’Fy, ua@wv [ADL]).
C p Z APHON . which may with much plausibility be
taken as the name of a district in N. Arabia (see C d .
Bib. on Is. 1413 Jer. 1 1 3 3 6 I Ezek. 3 2 3 0 386 etc.).
The Gadite clans had Jerahmeelite names (e.g., Shuni, Areli),
perhaps recording a sojourn in the Negeb. But cp GAD, 8 11.
ZER (7x ; ~ y p o c[BAL]) an unknown ‘fenced city’
of Naphtali mentioned between ZIDDIM and HAMMATH (Josh. ‘Cushite’ and ‘ Misrite’are so nearly equivalent that ‘Zernh
1935). It is probable that the text has hecome confused and
amplified through the recurrence of i&n) and (a.);~, and that
1~ should be omitted.
ZERAH in??,if primarily a personal name [cp I I ]
may be equivalent 1.0 n1lK [s 501, or to the Sab.
n. pr. ill1 ]ill7 ‘magnificent’ ; cp Z ERAHIAH , also
J A C O B , col. 2311 ; [BADEFL]).
I. Twin-brother of Perez (Gen.3830 [J], 4612 [PI
AV in both ZARAH,Nu. 2620 [PI, Mt. 1 3 , AV ZSRA) ;
see JLTDAH, z , f , P EREZ . In the only other passage
prior to P. he appear:j as the ancestor of A CHAN (Josh.
718 24 [JE], cp 7 1 2220 [PI). According to I Ch. 26 mentioned
his sons were Ziniri, Ethan. Heman, Calcol. and Dara
(see E THAN ). T h e B’ne Zerah were a family living in
Jerusalem in post-exilic times ( I Ch. 96 rqm [L]). a
member of which was the royal commissary for Jewish
affairs, Pethahiah ( N r h . 1124 ; om. BX*A, rape [KC.”]).
The patronymic, ZARHITE,RV Zerahite (Nu. 26 20 ’?l?g ;
6 {apa[clL [RAFLI) is .used of Achan (Josh. 7 17 [ b ] pal.]^
[BAFLJ), Sibbecai (I Ch.?7*1 T+ 3 a p ~ a[B], TQ <aparT IL],
om. A), and of MaharaL (zh. u. 13 TY 3ap.r [Bl, T+ -par CALI);
and occurs also in EV under the form IZRAHITE ( n v ? , rather
’fll!?) applied to Shamhuth, I Ch. 278. Here Marqnart, Fund.
19, would read ’Fl! (7 *?ii:): W , see SHAMMAH, $ 5.
2. A Gershonite Levice ( I Ch. 621 [6] 41 [26]. raapa, caapar
[B], a<aprou [A in 7’. 41]), whose son is named Ethni (u. 41)-a
combination which resembles Ethan b. Zerah (u. sup.); see
E l t a A N , 3.
1 For the final K , cp uu.+eK, I S. 30 29 (B) : mzparScr Nu. 34 R
In, each case K (of car) follows.
2 See Bertheau’s commentary hut note the (less probable)
alternative view offered in Kyle,’Ezra-Neh. 283.
5409
ZERAH
3. b. Reuel [from Jerahmeel?], a n Edomite clan (pointing p l i r
Tor q7sJ EV’s ‘duke’), Gen. 36 13 17 [PI, (<ape [ADELI, &pf
-D v. 171) I Ch. 1 3 7 ({apes [B], {ape [Ba.b AL]), represented as
the fathe; of J O D A B [q.~.](Gen. 36 33 [om. E ] I Ch. 144).
4. b. SIMEON($ 9). Nu. 26 13 [PI ; I Ch. 4 2 4 (<apes IBI,
Sapas [A]), also called ZOHAR (1nS; uaap ; Gen. 46 IO [uaaADl,
Ex.G 15). From him is derived the patronymic ZARHITE, RV
ZI.RAHITE; cp I supya.
5 . Zerah the Cushite, ( ~ + p . ; rape 1AIBro$ ; Jos. Ant.
812 @paror), defeated by Asa. king of Judah ( z Ch.
I
14 9-15 [S-I~]). T h e overwhelming defeat w-hich Asa is
sniall force, is a detail peculiarto the Chronicler. To take
the story as it stands is impossible (see C HRONICLES ,
8 ,f). What Asa’s power really amounted to we
know from I K . 1516.22 ; of Zerah the Cushite nothing
Ewald and Graf) have adopted Champollion’s view that
Osorkon I. (zznd dyn.) is intended ; others (incl. Sayce,
Crit. &/on. 363 3 )have preferred Osorkon 11. But
why either king should be called a Cushite has not been
explained (see the suggestions described in Kohler,
BibL Gesch. 3 3 2 1 f), and without this it is useless
to show that Osorkon 11. made a campaign against
Syria and Palestine (Naville, Bubastis [EEF]. 1891,
p. 51). Other scholars (incl. Kuenen, Stade, Wellh.)
have therefore rejected the narrative altogether.
Winckler, however, has pointed out that, a s probably
in the case of the captivity of MANASSEH [ q . ~ . ] , there
may be a historical element in the statements of the
Chronicler, and suggested that ’pi3 should perhaps be
. - KaSSite ( = Chaldzean), and that the invasion came
from Babylonia ( A T Unfeys. 1 6 0 8 ) . More satisfactory
144) that Zerah was a ‘Cushite,’
in the sense that he was a ruler of S. Arabia (Matin).
Honimel, on the other hand, points out that several of
the oldest princes of Saba bore the title‘nyi ( = n ~ r; see.
ad init.), and thinks that a S a b z a n invasion is in-
tended.2 T h e evidence of the Hebrew texts, how-
ever, points rather to N. than to S. Arabia as indicated
by Cush, and in the Ass. texts ‘ KuSi and Melubba’ is
the ordinary designation of N. Arabia.
That Zerah is a ‘Jerahmeelite’ name is beyond question, and
the Ciishite’ may have meant much the same as Zerah the
Misrite. Cp ‘ Cushi, king of Miyim,’ if we may soread in 2 Ch.
12 i.3 This view seems to be confirmed by the description of
Asa’s success in 2 Ch. 14 1 3 - x ~ . The ‘cities about Gerar ’ are
surely the cities of the Cushites. Now the Gerar ’ referred to
is not Umm el-JerXr, 5 m. S. of Gaza, hut in the Widy Jeriir,
SW of ‘Ain Gadis (see GERAR). I n v. 15 moreover under-
lying the present corrupt text, is the statement that ksa and
his men smote and carried captive the Jerahmeelites.4 Clearly
‘JFrahmeelites’ and Cushites’ are synonymous terms. Add to
this thaf in 168 the allies of the Cushites are called the Lubim.
‘Luhim is miswritten for ‘Ludim’-i.e., not the Lydian
mercenaries of Egypt, but ‘the Gil’adim’-i.e., the men of the
southern Gilead (in the Negeh), the same people who are
in 2 Ch. 12 3 as the allies of ‘ Cushi, king of Misrim.’
It may be objected (cp GASm. T7ueZue Pvophets, 2 753, n. 6)
that the mention of Mareshah (2 Ch. 149J) favours the theory
of an Egyptian invasion, and a t any rate is adverse to the view
that the southern Gerar is referred to. But the mention of
the valley of Zephathah (u. IO) suggests that a Mareshah in the
Negeb is intended, and this suggestion accords with the other
phenomena pointing toa Cushite-ie. N. Arabian invader. See
ZEPHATHAH. It is probable that th; feud betwe‘en the Israel-
ites and the Jerahmeelites, Cushites, and Misrites was long
anterior to the fall of the kingdom of Judah. T. I(. C.
Sayce, 364, frankly calls it a mistake of the Chronicler. In
fact, the kings of the twentf-second dynasty bear for the most
part Libyan names (see EGYPT, 5 64).
Ex$T 8 378, cp 4 3 1 3 . ; A H T 315, note I .
3 We assume that pw*w IS miswritten for ,013. See SHISHAIC,
I2.
4 Read n h ! n i - l D’$KyDu* 73? D h t D n 1 3 O n .
Hommel, it is true, emends differently (Exp.T, as above). @
has c c ~ v d c+uewv [ K T ~ v W V I ,706s ~ipa<ou[rl&(cp 22 I aA[e]rpo-
<ov& [EA], apa<awLarp [L], where M T has Z~XJ?~?);&&o$aw;
Pesh. ‘tents of the Arabs.’ But 7 5 7 and ~ njpn are both corrupt
fragments of s~nny.
5410
 ZERAHIAH , ZERUBBABEL
ZERAHIAH (n;n?T ‘Yahw&has dawned,’ 5 35,
IZRAHIAH
unless both these names are modifications of ethnics,
see ZERA; and note that the whole body of names in the
genealogical scheme connecting Eleazar b. Aaron with Ezra,
etc., and the names of Izrahiah‘s five sons in I Ch. 73, and that
of Zerahiah‘s son in Ezra 8 4, admit of being regarded as modified
ethnics [so Che 1’ (apara [BAL]).
I . b. Uzzi, faker of Meraioth ( I Ch. 66 [532] [(apari, <aprqs
AI 51 [36], E z r a 7 4 z 4 E s d . 1 ~ARNA). In I E s d . 8 ~he IS
called ZARAIAS (<paLou [ALI, om. B).
2. Father of E LIEHOENAI (=Ishmael?), of the b’ne Pahath-
moah-$.e., (most probably) Nephtoah-missur-a district in the
Negeb, Ezra84 (capraa [B])=I Esd. 831 ZARAIAS((aparou
[BAL]). See Crit. 62.
ZERED, THE VALLEY OF, or BROOK OF (5n~
771; Nu. + a p a r r a Z ~ P E TP I , zape [AI, zAp&
[L] ; Dt. +.Z A ~ E T[BAL, but zap€ AaPonce], zap&
[F] ; torrentem Zared), named in E’s itinerary in Nu.
21 12, also in Dt. 213Jt T h e prevailing tendency is
to identify it with the WZdy Kerak (Dillmann, Driver,
Stenernagel, A. T. Chapman), a deep and narrow gorge
running past Kerak in a NW. direction to the Dead
Sea. In the upper part of its course it is called the
WEdy ‘Ain el-Franji.
There is, however, reason to think that the document in
Nu. 21 has come down to us, especially so far as relates to
geography, in a very distor:ed form. See NAHALIEL, WARS
O F THE LORD, R OO K OF. Upon this theory, which demands
close examination, ‘ Zered’ should be some place-name in the E.
of the Negeb, and the name ‘ Zered ’ is most easily accounted for
as a corruption of Jizreel (JEZREEL,2). T. K. C.
ZEREDA, RV Zeredah (Z?ly),I K i . 1 1 ~ 6 and
Zeredathah ( Z i I 1 l y ) AV, 2 Ch. 417. See ZARE-
TITAN.
Z R E R A T H , RV Zererah (???.y
; rapArAeA [B],
K U ~ [$VIuuv~-yp.!vt [AL]), a place towards which
the Midianites fled, in the story of Gideon (Judg. 72.).
See G IDEON , Z ARETHAN .
ZERESH (dy ; z w c ~ p a[BKLaP], c. [A]), wife of
Haman the Agagite, Esth. 5 1014 613.t
The importance attached by Haman to her counsel favours the
view that she was originally a representative of some place or
clan. Comparing ZETHAR (qu.),and assuming that the scene
of the story of Esther was originally laid in the Negeh we may
perhaps see in Zeresh (Zereth?) a mutilated form of Zirephath.
Earlier critics explained it as ‘golden’ (Pers. ser, ‘gold’). For
another view see Jensen, WZKM, 1892,p. 64. Cp also PURIM,
8 7, ESTHER, 8 3. T. K. C.
ZERETH (nl?),b. Helah, a Judahite name,
I Ch. 4 7 (ape0 [Bl, uapd [AI, uap@ [Ll). Perhaps a corrupt
form of nm? (Che.).
-
ZERETH SHAHAR, or (AV), Zareth shahar - historical truth, is Ss follows. T h e family of David was
(inp;l-n7y; CEPAAA K N CCEIIWN EN TW opoi
€NAB FBI, CAPO K A I ciwp E.T.O. E N ~ K[AI, cape
E. T. 0. EMAK [L]), a Reubeuite city of doubtful name
(see below), situated ‘ o n a mountain of the valley’
(Josh. 13 ~ g ) - - i . e . , on one of the mountains E. of the
Jordan valley (cp v. 27), and not impossibly on that
described at length in Jos. Blvii. 6 1-3 (see MACHZRUS).
T o the NW. of this mountain is the Wddy es-Sara,
with a hot spring called ‘ A i n es-Sara (ZDPV2221244 ;
cp Tristram, Land of Moa6, 2 5 7 8 ) , in which name
Buhl ( P a l 268) finds an echo of nix, Sereth.
The name Zereth-hdgalpr, however, seems to become clearer
from the point of view adopted in the article SIHON. ,nun
should represent TlncgN ‘ Ashhur ’ (cp I Ch. 4 5), and nTy should
come from noiy, ‘Zarephath.’ Josh. 13 16-20, as it now stands,
may not correctly represent the original document.
T. K. C.
ZERI (’?y), I Ch. 253. In I Ch. 25 I I I ZRI .
ZEROR (Thy ; apsA [BA], CAP& [L]). a Benjamite,
ancestor of Kish (I S. 9 It); in T Ch. 8 30 ZUR. Marquart
(Fund.15) prefers nr. 1)xnmight be possible (cp ZEDAD).
ZERUAH ( ZplW CAPOYA [A], on BL see col. 2404,
n. z), mother of Jerdboam I. ( I K. 1126). The name is prob-
ably a corruption of np!:, ‘ a Misrite (N. Arabian) woman.’
See JEROBOAM, I, and cp ZERUIAH. T. K. C.
ZERUBBABEL (573?~,
z o p o ~ a ~ commonly
E~, ex-
5411
cp plained as =$?;
Q7T [cp Kon.2481, 1. 21. ‘begotten
1. Data. in Babylon.’ T h e name may plausibly be
brought into connection with a name found
on two Babylonian contract tablets (marked V. A. Th.
81 and V. A. T h . 143 respectively, in Peiser’s Bnb.
Vertruge [1890]), Z ER - TIN - TIR - KI , which is usually read
IRr- or Zlr-Babili, though as a matter of fact the phonetic
reading Zarubabil is found. T h e meaning of this name,
in its full form, according to C. H. W . Johns, is
probably ‘ Marduk preserves the rightful seed [heir] to
Babylon.’ This assumes that the name is a contraction
from Marduk-zLru-Babili-IiSir; see, however, below).
T h e facts of the history of Zerubbabel are much dis-
puted, and the O T references still appear to await some
fresh illumination. These references (excluding the
manifest interpolations in I Esd. 4 13 56) are : Hag.
1 I 12 14 22 4 P I 23 Zech. 4 6 I Ch. 319 Ezra 2 2 32 5 2 Neh.
7 7 I Esd. 5 8 56 7 0 6 2 18 27 zgt. Authorities agree in
stating that he was sou of Shealtiel (or, as thrice in
Haggai, Shaltiel), except Zechariah, who is silent as to
his parentage, and the Chronicler, who makes him
the son of Pedaiah, and the nephew of Shealtiel. T h e
Chronicler represents him as a descendant of David.
In the other passages this is not stated. Haggai
four times appends to his name the title ‘9ehah (see
G OVERNOR , I ) of Judah,’ and Zechariah implies that
he occupies the highest position among the Jews at
home. In Ezra 22=Neh. 7 7 he is represented as the
leader of a band of captives who returned to Judah.
Haggai, by the title ‘ m y (=YahwB‘s) servant’ (Hag.
2 23 ; cp Zech. 3 8). indicates that Zerubbabel has received
a special mission from God. and both Haggai and
Zechariah (cp also Ezra 5 ~ f).represent Zerubbabel and
Jeshua or Joshua, the high priest, as having been insti-
gated by them to rebuild the temple. T h e most remark-
able reference of all remains. It is in the same passage
of Haggai which contains the address to Zerubbabel as
‘ m y servant,’ and consists of a n emphatic statement
that when the great overthrow of the powers (or power?)
hostile to Israel occurs, Zerubbabel will receive the
highest proofs of the divine favour and protection. These
are the few dry, bare facts which find expression in the
MT. T h e ea.rlier tradition, howel-er, was certainly not
so meagre, and traces of the fuller record can, in all
probability, yet be discerned. It is only because the
points to be examined are so new that there is still con-
siderable divergence of opinion.
A provisional view, which probably contains some
2. provisional not altogether ruined by the catastrophe
of the exile. There is a tradition that
view’ even Jehoiachin benefited by a change
of feeling towards him on the part of Nebuchadrezzar’s
son and successor, E VIL - MERODACH (p.v.). I t is also
stated that SHESHBAZZAR ( p . ~ . ) the
, ‘prince’ ( ~ 1 ~ or
3 )
‘ governor ’ (mm),received the sacred vessels from Nebu-
chadrezzar, and went with a royal commission to rebuild
the temple, that he did actually lay the foundation-stone.
but that the building was soon afterwards interrupted.
This Sheshbazzar has been identified with the Shenazzar
of I Ch. 318, who is represented as a son of Jeconiah.
It is supposed that Zerubbabel had succeeded his uncle
in the governorship by the year 520 B. c., when Haggai
and Zechariah stirred up the people to resume the
building of the temple, and that the breaking out of
revolts in different parts of the Persian empire may
have stimulated hopes of the revival of an independent
1 On these see E ZRA (THE GREEK), 8 6 , and cp Guthe’s notes
in Kau. ApoKr. (1898). That the ~ ~ r d v r u ~ofo cI Esd. 4 58 was
originally Zeruhbabel (cp Jos. Ant. xi. 3 I) is plainly impossible,
even if Zerubbabel was not the same person as Sheshhazzar or
Sanabassar, and was not the leader of the first migration of the
Jews to Palestine. According to Howoxth however the theory
respecting Zerubbabel here referred to was’ ‘ a sufficiknt reason,
and the only one, for the elasion of this particularly edifying
passage from the canonical Ezra, and in consequence its exclusion
from the canon ’ (‘ Some Unconventional Views on the Text of
the Bible,’ PSBA 23 316).
5412
 ZERUBBABEL
killgdoln under the Davidic prince Zerubbabel. It is
also held by some that there is evidence of this in the
OT itself. Zechariah (610) mentions the arrival at
Jerusalem of four Jews from Babylon, who brought gifts
of silver and gold. Wellhausen thinks that in Zech.
611 the text has been deliberately tampered with. T h e
crown referred to must surely have been for Zerubbabel.
This must either hare been expressly stated or implied.
Wellhausen himself is content with omitting the words
relative to the high priest, Joshua, as ihserted at a time
when the high priest was virtually a crowned king ; but
it may also be held that the name Joshua has displaced
the name Zerubbabel.1 However this may be, the
sudden disappearance of Zerubbabel from the theatre of
political history is remarkable.2 It has been suggested
that he may have been recalled or even put to death by
the Persians, and that the attempt of Tattenai (see
'I'xrxu) the satrap of Syria to stop the building of the
temple may have some connection with this, or may at
any rate imply a suspicion of the disloyalty of the Jews.
Later, we find Sanbnllat professing that there is a report
that Nehemiah aiiiis at the crow-n (Neh. 67). This
report was doubtless erroneous ; but i t may plausibly be
supposed to be based on the fact that a Jewish pretender
had really come forward in the past.3
For the further development of similar ideas see Sellin,
SerubdabeI (1898),where it is supposed that Zerubbabel
is the martyr referred to (many think) in Is. 53,and the
same writer's Studien ZUY Entstehung.sgesci5. der Yiid.
(Ameinde nnch denz 6n6. ExiZ, 2 (I~oI),where some
retractations are ma.de, and the theory is placed on what
appears to the writer a more secure basis. Sellin still
holds that Zerubbabel came to a violent end, but n o
longer rests this on Is. 53 or on any other passage of
the OT. Winckler, however, is bolder. H e thinks
that both Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were set aside
by acts of the Persian authorities, and that, whilst Shesh-
bazzar was treated gently, Zerubbabel suffered the
punishment of impalement ; the eulogium of Zerubbabel
is to be found in Is. 53.*
Stade(GP712 127 [18?8l)speaksmorevaguely. ' Ifthe supreme
Persian power heard of the hopes attaching to the Persian
governor Zeruhbabel, we cannot wonder that it did not accommo-
date itself to the role of a tree undergoing the embrace of ivy.'
It is possible. however, that these theories need to
\e revised in the light of a more thorough criticism
a
3. new of the text of the O T narratives. T h e story
suggested underlying Ezra, Nehemiah, and the early
t h e o ~ . part of Daniel refers, it may be held, to a
N. Arabian captivity of the Jews and to a
subsequent change in their relations to their captors.
It is unsafe to place any reliance on the proper names
in their present form. ' n i i i (for the common explana-
tions of which little can be said5) may, like S Z ~ * Nand
h i , be a corruption (manipulated by the redactor) of
h y n y (Ishmael). This has the advantage of accord-
ing with the theory, which appears to be well snpported,
that the names given in I Ch. 3 19 to the sons of ' Zerub-
babel,' beginning with Meshullam (=Ishmael), are all
1 S o l e w . Rei. Life, 15, n.Hitzig supposes a mere ordinary
accident. H e would insert the words*'of Zeruhhabel and of,'
thus accounting for the plural ' crowns. So also Marti (in Kau.
HS).
2 For another view see Guthe, G V I 248 (Darins's division of
the empire into twenty satrapies, making the post at Jerusalem
su erfluoos).
8 So f e w . K e i . Lif;.,13-16, which was written independently
of Sellin's Seru66abel (published in the same year 1898).
See SERVANT O F T H E L O RD . Winckler's theories, as given
in A OFand K A T(3J, have passed through several phases. There
is a convenient summary of his present conclusions in the latter
work. pp. 291.fi
5 ' Sown in Bxhylon'surelycannotmean 'begotten in Babylon.'
Rothstein (Genraiop'e, 65) thinks that the name was given to his
son by Pedaiah (=Sheshhazzar) tocommemorate the happy turn
in the fortiines of Israel and that the return of Jewish exiles was
already as good as certjin when the child called Zeruhhabel was
horn. Marquart (Fund.55) however supports the view that
Zeruhbahel (Zarubabili?) is a)Bahyloni& name. But the name,
as explained above by Johns does not seem at all a likely one
to have been selected'for a JLwish governor.
54'3
ZETHAM
corruptions of gentilics or ethnics belonging to the
Negeb. T h a t ' Zerubbabel ' was really a descendant of
David is possible, but by no means certain,' and the
same may of conrse be said of Sheshbazzar.2 Even that
they were returned exiles is d ~ u b t f u l . ~This is not the
place to rewrite the history of this period- or rather to
collect the fragments of its history-from the new point
of view. But we may at any rate suggest that critics of
Zechariah may have erred in supposing that the donors
of the silver and gold mentioned in Z e c h . 6 9 8 were
' Babylonian Jews.' These persons appear rather to
have been foreigners such as are referred to in Is. 60 13,
and their gifts are such ninja ( ' offerings ') as Haggai
most probably refers to in the famous prophecy in Hag.
27. It may still, however, be held that the name of
'Joshua ben Jehozadak' has been substituted for that
of ' Zerubbabel' (Ishmael?), and the view that a move-
ment arose among the Jews in favour of ' Zerubbabel '
as Messianic king still appears to have a considerable
degree of probability.
Rothstein (Die Genedogie des K8zigs /ojachin IC.seiptet-
nachkotizmen in geschichtl. Geleuchtung, rgoz) assumes the
present form of the names in I Ch. 3 17-24 to be fairly correct.
Such an emendation as that of 'Ohel' into ' Jehaiel'(85) isat any
rate exceptional, and even here the author assumes a view of the
formation of the name ' Jehaiel' such as the latest editor of
Chronicles might not have disowned. The theory that 'Zerub-
babel' was the son of Pedaiah is supported by some new
histprical hypotheses, the hasis of which, however, needs careful
testing. T. K. C.
ZERUIAH (Yl:lly ; Yl:??, ' o n e who is perfumed
with storax'? 5 71 ; c&poyl& [BAL]), sister of David
( I Ch. 216), and mother of J OAB , A BISHAI , and
ASAHEL.
So at least the Chronicler represents ; z S. 17 25 will he con-
sidered presently. It would be strange, however, that in the
list of David's high officers in 2 S. 8 16-18 Joab should be the
only one whose mother's name was substituted for his father's.
We have met with many cases in which the ethnic origin of a
name has been disguised hy the addition of ;i to the gentilic
ending 7. It is therefore not improbable that Zeruiah is an
expansion of an ethnic namel and if so we cannot for a moment
doubt what that name is-it is '?Sp. 11Y and 1s are several
times given by an error for 1W-i.e., Mugri in N. Arabia (see
MIZRAIM,8 2 6), and Jeroboam's mother is, by a similar error,
called ZERUAH (q.u.), instead of Migriyah. In 2 S. 2 32 the
sepulchre of Asahel's father is said to have been in Bethlehem.
Bethlehem probably comes from Beth-jerahmeel, and there was
doubtless a Beth-jerahmeel in the Jerahmeelite Negeb ; cp
M ICAH, I. It was from this Beth-jerahmeel that Joah prob-
ably came and if so we can easily believe that his father might
be called '(especially by those who dwelt outside the Negeb)
Misri, or Miyite,' ' Jerahmeelite' and ' Misrite' being almost,
though not quite, synonymous. In I Ch. 2 54 (RV) we meet
with a place Atroth(ephrath)-heth-joah whose people were 'sons
of Salma' (i.e. connrcted with the Salmzeans-see S ALMAH ).
This indirect1y)confirmi the view here taken. It would he a
serious ohjection to this if the text of 2 S. 1725 were correct.
The obscurity of the passage however (see NAHASH) suggests
doubt. Elsewhere (see Ckt. Gib.) it is proposed to read
Now Amasa was the son of Ithra an Ishmaelife, who went i i
unto Abigail, the daughter of Achish, a Misrite.
We can now understand better the exclamation ascribed to
David in 2 S. 3 39 'these men the sons of Miari-i.e. fierce
Migrites by extdtion (MT Zeruiahtare harsher &an I.'
The alternative is to connect >'%with 'R MASTIC (q...), com-
paring ;i?)Zilpah,
!, 'dropping'; see N AMES , g 71. It is true,
Zilpah too admits of another explanation (cp ZILPAH). What
can have led Josephus to say (Ant. vii. 13) that Joah's father
was named uaupr Suri it is difficult to say, unless it be that in
I Ch. 4 14 Joah, "the 'father of Ceharashim' (a corruption of
Geshurim), is called Seraiah (see S ERAIAH , beg.). T. K. c.
ZETHAM (El!, explain as ZETHAN, Z&OM [R],
ZAIB.. zoo. [A], Z H ~ N [L]), a Gershonite Levite;
I Ch. 238 2622.
1 Cp Kosters Hersfez, 4 7 3
2 According io the theory here advocated, 'Sheshbazzar' is
an alteration of a name with N. Arabian affinities. The first
part may, in accordance with sound method, be identified with
ui3. Again and again in the MT we find w i w and DiD written
in error for w i ~ . The second part may perhaps he a corruption
of w n .
3 Cp E ZRA -N EHEMIAH , P, 8 ; I SRAEL , B 51 ; and cp Zntr. Is.
Prologue, p. xxxviii; J e w . Rel. Life, 6 ; Kent, Hisf. of U r
Jnuisk PeapZc (Babylonian Period, etc.), 1 3 2 3
5414
 ZETHAN
ZETHAN (IC’!,
as if ‘ olive’ [§ 691, but the neigh-
bourhood of Bilhan [if it be ultimately from ‘Jerahmeel’],
a n d of Tarshish and Ahish&ar, both probably from
Ashhur, suggests nDW as the original of []lll’T or
Zethan, Z A l e h N [B], H e A N [AI, ZH€h [L]). b. BII.HAN
in a genealogy of B EN J AMIN (q.v., 3, g ii. a ) , I Ch.
7 ref.
How deceptive apparent tree-names may he, appears from
Birzaith h.i~>, Ges. ‘well of an olive ’) the name of a son of
Malchiel (from ‘ Jerahmeel’). Malchiel’k brother is Heher (cp
Judg. 4 II), among whose sons (all prohahly hearing Negeb
names) is Japhlet (cp Peleth, b. Jerahmeel, I Ch. 2 33), which
may ultimately come from ZAREPHATH (4.v.). T. K. c.
ZETHAR (TIT,&B&T&z& [BKALB]). a chamberlain
of Ahasuerus, Esth. 1 IO?.
Gesenius ‘perhaps “star” Pers. sitar.’ But if Mehuman=
Heman, H&hona=Hebron (Rehohoth), and Carcar= Jerahmeel,
Zethar as prohahly=Zarephath. Cp VASHTI,ZERESH,and see
otherwise Marq. Fund. 71.
T. K. C.
ZIA (Y’T
; zoys [BA], Z E & [L]), I Ch. 5 1 3 , a name
in the genealogy of G AD (q.v., i., 13)
ZIBA (K2’Y, and K?Y ; on origin, see below ; 2 S.
164, c[e]iB& [BAL], ciBBa [A sometimes], C I B A ?
[Josh. Ani!.vii. 551). ‘Servant of the house of Saul,
a n d , after Saul’s death, of Mephibosheth or Meribaal.
On the obscure story of his treatment of Saul‘s son see
M EPHIBOSHETH , § 2. Ziba seems to have founded
a n important family ; he had ‘fifteen sons and twenty
servants.’ H e himself had no recorded father or tribe.
Although other views have been suggested [cp NAMES,
$0 5 1 681, we can hardly doubt that N ~ * Yor NIX is a worn
down form of *iy!y (Sih‘ani) or *l&V (hn‘6ni)=hynW*
(Ishme‘eli). Ziha, like Doeg (see SAUL, 0 za), was apparently a
N. Arabian ( 2 S. 9 2-12 16 1-4 19 17 29). T. K. C.
ZIBEON (fiU?u, ‘hyzena’? 68 ; see below;
ZIKLAG
Now Zihia ( ~ q s in
) I Ch. 8 g is grouped with Jobah Mesha
and Malcam. Judging from numerous analogies it c& hard14
be doubted that of these three names (a)and (c) come from
‘Jerabmeel’ and (6) from Ishmael,’ while the names of the
father and mother (Shaharaini and Hodesh) are both distortions
of ‘ Ashbur ’ (a synonym of Jerabmeel) ; naturally enough they
dwell in the ‘field (highland) of Migvur,’ >Nl,g, as often, heing
altered from Misvur (see MOAR,$0 I , n. I, z+i.e., in the N.
Arabian border-land. It now becomes probable that both NVJX
and x,>s, together with ~ 3 (ZIRA)
q and p y x r (ZEROIM), are
popular corruptions of bNynw* (Ishmael). T. K. C.
ZICHRI (W!, see N AMES , .3z, 5 2 , but c p
ZACCER,wbere’it is suggested that this must be a clan-
name ; note the ethnic affinities of the related names ;
zqp[,~li[BKAFLI).
1-3. in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (9.v. 0 9 ii. p), I Ch. 8
where observe that SHIMEI, SHASHAK (probably), and JEROHA;
are ethnics.
I . h. Shimei (u 19 : <a per [B]).
2. h. Shashak iv. z3 ; &p [AI).
P.
. 3. Jeroham (u. 27 : <axpcc [B]).
Father’ of Joel (one of the developments of ‘Jerahmeel?),
i n 4 k of Benjamite inhahitants of Jerusalem (E ZRA ii;, g 5 [b],
g 1 5 [ r ] a ) : Neh.119.
5. Of REUBEN (5 13, end), I Ch. 27 16. The name stands close
to the ‘Jerahmeelite names, Shephatiah, Maacah, Kemuel,
Elihu, etc.
6. A Judahite, father of AMASIAH (2 Ch. 17 16 : < s p a [B]
<axp~JA]). pmasiah, like Amasa and Amasai, comes ultimatel;
from Ishme eli.
7. An Ephraimite warrior(n Ch. 28 7 :+Kp[C]L [BA], <axapiac
[Ll).
8. Father of ELISNAPHAT, 2 Ch. 23 I ( c a ~ a p r e[Bl, -LOU [A]).
Elishaphat is a variant to S HEPHATIAH (F
h. Izhar, a Kohathite Levite (E
ev?dently a clan-name, may come from Mini (Misri).
IO. A Levite overseer, b. Eliezer, h. Mob&-i.~., of N. Arabian
origin (1 Ch. 26 25).
r i . An Asaphite Levite in list of inhahitants of Jerusalem
(E ZRA ii., B 5 [a1 5 15 la) I Ch. 915,in 11 Neh. 1117 called
ZABDI; see Z A C ~ U(4).R Bkther of Micha (from Jerahmeel),
and son of Asaph (perhaps from Sarephath).
12. A priest of the course of Ahijah, temp. Joiakim (E ZRA

CsBq-wN’), a Hivite (v. z ) or rather (see v. 2 0 ) ii., B 6 3 0 11) Neh.1217 BN*A, (om. <+xaptar [Ll). The
Horite, in the genealogy of the Esau-tribe (Gen. 362 20, predominant type of these priestly names IS probably ethnic ;
MESHULLAM (q...) precedes Zichri, PILTAI (q.v.)follows. Zichri
c s r s r w N [El, 24 2 9 ; I Ch. 138. C ~ B E T W N [A], 40). must surely be a clan-name from the Negeb. T. K. C.
In v. 29 he is a clan-chieftain (l&)or clan &i( see SS,
3.u. +). ZIDDIM (n’?%gas if ‘ the sides’), more correctly
In v. 24, underneath the strange, Midrash-like text of the H A Z Z I D D I Ma , fortified city of Naphtali (Josh. 1 9 3 5 ;
redactor lie apparently the words, ‘it is the Anah who went assedina [Vg,] ; & c e A s i ~[Eus. OS(*) 224 951). T h e
out from’ th; Jerahmeeliies in the desert ’ ; ‘ a s he fed the asses Jer. Talm. (Meg. 11) represents Hazziddim to be
is woven out of a marginal gloss pornn, which is one of the Kephar Hicja, which perhaps = Hattin, NW. of Tiberias
current distortions of &+mi* (cp SHECHEM, 2). Another (Neub. (;dog?: 207 ; Buhl, Pal. 2 1 9 ) . Some MSS read
ypular corruption of the same word is probably ,in (Horite).
n v. 20 Ziheon is reckoned among the sons of ‘the Horite,’ and o*isil (so @PAL T(;V Tuplov). See ZER.
as a comment on (Horite), there still lies, under the super- [It is very possible that P’swork is ha*ed here upon a geo-
fluous phrase y i ~ 9n 2 ~ (RV,
3 ‘the inhabitants of the land ’), the graphical survey of the Negeh, which included the cities of the
Naphtuhim (see Crit. Rib. on Gen. 10 13). Several of the names
gloss2 $~yna, (Ishmaelite); *>w, (like %~i>’) heing one of the in m. 35-38 have the appearance of heing names of the Negeb.
cormptlons of ‘no-. We are now prepared to consider the origin O’?+? might he explained in the same way as a? !;! (see
of the name Zibeon, which is scarcely=‘hyaena,’ as WRS
(1.Phil.990), Gray ( H P N 95), and other scholars have SIDDIM).-T. K. c.]
supposed, hut is rather a corruption of iiynw (Sime‘on), used as
an equivalent of ’nu’ (Emael), unless indeed it comes directly
ZIDKIJAH (;?“zlu),
Neh. 101 AV, RV Z EDEKIAH
from iynu,, a corruption of ‘,zw,, fo; which parallels can be , 5).
($7.2,.

adduced. Cp ZIBA, ZIN. T. K. C. ZIDON (fil’?),

Gen. 10 15, etc. Zidonians
ZIBIA (wllu, ‘gazelle,’ Cp TABleA [Acts 9361 ;
(n’*l’y), Ezek. 3230. $5,4 [ 7 ] ,
See S IDON , P H ~ N I C I A
1 2 , 2If.
i e B i a [B], c s B . [A], CA B. [L]), in a genealogy of
B ENJ AMIN (p .a, 9, ii. p), I Ch. 89. ZIF, RV ZIV ()I), I K. 6137. See M ONTH , 5 2.
ZIBIAH (V??,5 68) of Beer-sheba, the mother of ZIHA (K?’?, SI). T h e family name of some
King Joash ( 2 K.121 z Ch.241: [ L , in Ch. post-exilic N E T ~ I N I;MEzra 2 43 (uou8ra [Bl, uouaa [AI, uou8-
CABlA], ulL0’<\ [Pesh.], sebia [vg]).
Gasr [L])=Neh. 746 ( m p [BN], ocaa [Avid.] uouhac [L]=I Esd.
5 29 (vuau [BA], uou8arr [Ll, ESAU[EV]) ; Neh. P1z1 ( u r d
T h e usual explanation ‘ gazelle ’ (cp wqr) for Zibiah [Nc.a mg. hf.1 om. BN*A, ucaav [L]).

a n d Zibia is in itself plausible, in spite of the pointing.
But though such an interpretation may possibly be
ancient, the theory that early Hebrew personal names
were derived from animals has become so questionable
that we must look in each case for some other more
probable explanation.
1 The representation of y(=Ar. 2) by y is not uncommon;
c p Wr. Comp. Sem. Gr. 42$, and ~ ~ ~ B E R n. I Ar. H ,
2 is probably a fragment of SNnni., of which tribal name
$~ynw is used as a synonym.
5415
ZIIM (a’!?), Is. 1321, etc. AVmg.. See CAT.
ZIKLAG (& ; in pause and in z S. 1 >$??; in
I Ch. 12 I 20 [ Z I Bii., Ginsb.] 2>?’,; usuallyuerreAaar[Bl, ur.fhay
[A], v e x . [L]; hut with the following variants UlKehar [B],
~ ~ durucXa[ear],
q , u u d a [AL u i r d e i [Nc.a mg. inf.], urrahoe
[L]; while in Ch. B has orha UwKha ow hap ; and N UwKha,
u w r a y ; and in I S. 30 I [first‘time] B a n J L read r r e i h a ; Jos.
Ant. vi. 13 ro uwchha ; Siceleg: zcnakZax, eenkalag).
W e first hear of Ziklag as in the possession of Achish,
king of Gath, by whom it was given as a residence to
54’6
 ZILLAH
his vassal David (li S.2 f 6 f . ; cp 301426 2 S. 11 410
I Ch. 12 I 20). Ziklag also appears with other places in
t h e far S. in Neh. 1128. In Josh. 1531 ( P ) it is enumer-
ated among the more remote towns of Judah, but in
Josh, 195 (P) is assigned to Sinieon. Conder's identi-
fication of Ziklag with Zuheilika a site 11 in. E. by S.
o f Gaza, and 19 m. SW. from Beit-Jibrin or Eleuthero-
polis (PEPQ, 1878, pp. I Z ~ ) has , been generally but
too hastily accepted.
The name is certainly corrupt, hut not so far as entirely to
obscure the true name. The two names identified by Condet
begin with'a different sibilant, and zuheilika reminds us of AI.
zahaliku declivities,' a name which ippiies well to the three
small hilis, nearly a mile apart, on which (see Conder) the ruins
called Zuheilika stand. Ziklag is as corrupt as Ahishag or the
jhplc (see SACK) of 2 R.442. It is best to read 7$bJ or a&?
(cp Ass. g a k , 'fortress'), an ancient and famous city (see
BEKED), repre4ented by the mod. Halqa, in the W3dy Asliij
about 12 m. S. of Beersheha, on ht: way to Ruheiheh or Rehot
both (see map of NEGEB,A 2, after col. 3376). In Josh. 19 j 6
Ziklag is grouped with Beth-marcahoth which should be read
Beth-rehoboth (see MARCABOTH). This fits in perfectly with
the story of David's raids while at Ziklag. The name Haliisah
or Halagah is also not impossibly concealed under Jekabzeel or
KABLEEL ( q . ~ . ); the lists of P and of the Chronicler often con-
tain corrupt variants of the same name, given as names of dis-
tinct places or persons. This accords with the view that 2 S.
21 15-22 23 8-23 relates to a war of David with the Rehobothites
and the Znrephathites (seeRE~osoTH, ZAREPHATH); the original
text was misunderstood and wrongly edited. Very possibly the
'hold ' (il!?Xp to which David ' fled' (read for ll:! in 2 S.
6 17) and where he was when he longed for water 'from the
cistern of Bethlehem--.e., probably a 'Bethlehem' in the
Ne eb was that of Haliiah, which was not far from thevalley
of 4aar;hath (text, ' Rephaim'), where the Zarephathites (text,
Pelktim) were arrayed against him. Haliisnh may likewise be
the original of HAZZ&LEL[PONI] in I Ch. 43 (unless Hazzelel
presup oses Halas'el ;see BBZALEEL), of Ahuzzath in Gen. 26 26
and (ofcourse) of Chellus in Judith 19. Possibly Haliivh wa;
originally the centre of the cult of the hero ISAAC ( q . ~ . ,5 I).
The above view was formed long before the appearance of
Winckler's Gesch. 2, where (185) it is held that Ziklag is the
capital of the Krethi or Cherethites ; cp I S. 30 14.
Perhaps ' Ziklaggim' (or Halusathini) may underlie the diffi-
cult ' Casluhim' in Gen. 10 14. See MIZRAIM, col. 3164, n. I.
'r. K. c.
See CAINITES, 5 9.
5
. ZILLAH ( 7 Y, ; sshAa [AEL] ; .s.xLa),Gen. 4 19-23?.
' We might suppose that a Zilpah tribe was settled in E.
ZILPAH (?I@)!, zsA@a[ADEL]), the mother of the
tribes G AD and ASHER (Gen. 3010-13,J ; 3526 P) ; also
represented as the maid of Leah (2924
1. Name.
3526 P) and the concubine of Jacob
(309 J ; 372 46-9 P). If any explanations of the name
Zilpah were ciirrent i n early Israel, the editors of the
Genesis narratives have not preserved them. It is
hardly possible, as it perhaps is in the case of Bilhah
{see SBOT on Gen. 303), t o guess what they might
have said.' T h e nearest approach to a narrative
bearing on Zilpah is Gen. 372. T h a t verse seems to
represent a version of the Joseph-story in which the
enmity against Joseph was confined t o the sons of Bilhah
a n d Zilpah.2 Such a story may he a late invention to
remove the reproach from the sons of Leah (Gunkel,
ad ZQC.), in particular from Judah; hut P may have
found it in sources which had more to say on the
subject. T h e name Zilpah cannot he explained from
the vocabulary of the remains of Hebrew literature.
W e cannot be sure, however, that Genesis as we now
read it regards Zilpah as Hebrew. Her mistress is a
,daughter of Laban ( c p RACHEL, 9 ~ b ) .
According to Test. X f I . Patr. Naph. I indeed Zilpah and
Bilhah, who are sisters (cp Juhiiees 289)'are dakghters of a
maid (rar8ivrrq) of Laban ( A L Yand
~ ) of Sotheos 'of the stock
of Abraham,' who wa5 carried captive from a place called Zelpha
,(whence the name of his first-born). Elsewhere however the
sisters are daughters cf Laban himself by a concdhine (Ps.-\on.
on Gen. 29 24 29 Gen. radba 74, Pir& Rub. El. 36 ; cp Charles,
Bk.of/ub. 170g
T h e name Zilpah has accordingly been explained
1 For a late example see Tcsf. XfZ. Pah-., Naph. I, quoted
below.
2 It is against the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah that Joseph
speaks to Jacob in T d .X Z f . Patr., Gad, I.
5417
* ZILPAH
from the Aramrean (Holzinger, K H C on Gen. 309 ;
Baethgen, Beeitr. 160).
In Aram. 2/ zrp means ' to drip, trickle,'l in Syriac ' to defile';
in Assyrian, where, however, there is the natural uncertainty as
to whether the first radical is z or s it occurs as zu-hp&-e.g.,
in the recurring phrase [du-6i-i6]zb'-iig.fi, ' [planningjhostility.'
If the theory of Arainaean extraction was a modifica-
tion of an older story ( c p below), t h e name may have
been earlier Dilpah ( c p Jidlaph, the ' uncle ' of Iiebekah;
Gen. 2222), the root of which does occur in Hebrew.
On the assumption that the name has been modified,
C. Niebuhr (Gesch. 1253) connected it with Zelophehad
( m p k ; for a suggestion as to the real origin of which
strange name, however, see MANASSEH, 5 9 4 , whilst
Cheyne formerly connected both Zilpah and Zelophehad
with ' Salhad' (above, col. 2309 near foot). This
suggestion he regards as still tenable ; hut his present
view is different.2
It has always seemed strange that such widely
separated communities as G a d and Asher should be
a. zilpah grouped as Zilpah tribes. Their agreement
in bearing names of deities apparently dis-
tribes. tinct from Yahwe has been noted elsewhere
(ASHER, 5 I n. ; G AD , 5 z ) , a s also their Aramrean
elements (ASHER,5 3 , G AD, 5 2). Whether they once
lived together is uncertain. I t has been thought that
traces of an early stay of Asher can be detected S. of t h e
plain of Megiddo ( c p ASHER, 5s I 3 ) . The presence of
Beria a n d of Heber a n d Malchiel as father a n d sons in
the Asher list (Nu. 2644fl) a n d the same three names
(if Michael is for Malchiel) i n nearly the same relation
in Benjamin lists ( I Ch. 8138 1 6 3 ) a n d of a clan
Beria in an Lphraim list would be a not unnatural
result if Ephraim a n d Benjamin's territory had been
earlier occupied by Asherites (so Steuernagel, Binwand.
30J). If the sons of Zilpah are meant in Genesis to
be regarded as older than Joseph the seniority would be
a natural way of reprzsenting an earlier occupation of
t h e Ephraim highlands which must be assumed if we
suppose that Asher really entered Palestine from the E.
Palestine, that part of it crossed the Jordan, a n d after
staying a while in Ephraim moved northwards and
took the name of Asher (from the older inhabitants in
the N. ? see ASHER.5s I 3 ) , whilst the portion of the
Zilpah tribe which remained came t o be known a s Gad.
On the other hand it is uncertain when we are meant to
place the birth of the sons of Zilpah. Even the editor
need not have intended t o suggest that both Gad a n d
Asher fall between Naphtali a n d Issachar and between
Naphtali a n d Joseph ( c p RACHEL, 5 IC). The sons'
births may have been grouped artificially t o facilitate
the narrative (cp T RIBES , 59f.). Steuernagel, indeed,
pleads strongly - . for the historical trustworthiness of the
1 In Arabic 'to draw near ' hut ziIfa garden: in Ethio ic
zelfat=reproof. YJkiit give; a water on the way to Mekta,
Zuuljbtu. ii. 939 roJ (cp ii. 955 193).
2 [When Steuernagel (Eimuand.47) concludes that the clans
derived from Zilpah, like those derived from Bilhah, were re-
y d e d as not so fully Israelitish as the Leah and Rachel tribes
ecause they were of heathen origin, he does not allow for the
possibility that Leah and her maid Zilpah are only doubles of
Rachel and her maid Bilhah-or, etymologically, that Leah
Rachel. and Rilhah are all corrunt frarments of lprahrneei
(JACOB; B 3), and that Zilpah ( w i t h ' w h i c ~ M r I - H o g ~ c o ~ p a r e s
Jidlaph, most appropriately from the present point of view, for
among his hrothersare Kemuel=Jerahmeel, and Chesed=Cush)
is an equally corrupt fragment of a name virtually synonymous
with Jerahmeel-viz., Ishmael. Nor can the qossihilit): he
$ied that 'Asher' may be connected with Asshur or
Ashhur,' one of the ethnic names of the Negeh, and Dan with
Adan or Adon-another of these names (cp PARADISE 4 7 end
and see Crit. 6i6.). And only a very close examinat& df th;
texts can assure us that Gad and Asher were not originally
located in the Negeb. That the tradition made some of the
clans which were fused with the Jacob or Israel tribe heathenish
(;.e., worshippers of gods other than Yahwe), will, however, he
universally admitted. The most important passages for the
textual critic are perhaps Gen. 29 I (on which.see JACOB, 5 3)
and 3 1 2 3 8 4 6 3 (on which see GALEED, GILEAD, but note
that there seems to have been a southern Gilead, referred to
e g . , in Jer. 8 22 [see C d . Bib.], and the probable original oi
the much-disputed Lud, Ludim).-T.K.c.1
5418
 ZILTHAI
Hebrew traditions, and the case can be made very
plausible. Who are the ’ brothers’ whom Jacob finds
in E. Palestine when he comes with Rachel (and
Bilhah) from Laban (Gen. 3132 37 46 54) ? Must they
not be brother tribes who had remained there when
Jacob moved off? And, since Gad is the tribe most
firmly settled there, may not these brothers ’ be repre-
sented by the name Zilpah ? Steuernagel supposes that
several tribes (Zilpah, etc.) accompanied Jacob on its
jxirney up from its settlement S. of Palestine. T h e
representation of the Zilpah tribes as younger than the
four Leah tribes, but older than Issachar and Zebulun,
may represent a theory as to the time of their reaching
their several seats; and the theory may be correct.
There are great difficulties, however. The effect of
system may indeed be far-reaching. If Asher arrived
somewhat early W. of Jordan, and Gad somewhat late
E. of Jordan (G AD , S), it is difficult to see how the
grouping of them as Zilpah tribes can be anything but
artificial. See, further, T RIBES.
Nor is it easy to see why Zilpah is connected with
Leah. There is no obvious link between Gad or Asher
3, zilpah and Judah or the other Leah tribes. Nor
and Leah. is t h e relation of Zilpah to Leah even in the
story parallel with that of Bilhah t o Rachel,
or Hagar to Sarah. In the cases of Bilhah and Hagar
the maid’s children are born before her mistress’s a n d
because the mistress has no children (cp R ACHEL , 5 I h ) .
I n the case of Zilpah, on the contrary, Leah has n o less
than four children before the maid is called in. Is it
possible that Leah represents two figures, the second
being the mother of Zebulun and Issachar? These two
SOUS were born after Zilpah’s, and a connection amon$
the four is more easily thinkable than in the case of the
other Leah tribes. Issachar may have possessed part
of the highlands of Ephraim at one time (cp I SSACHAR ,
5 4, n. 2, and Stenernagel, Einwand. I z J ) , and the
same may have been true at a n early date even of
ZEBULVN ( q . ~ . §, 7).
On the other hand, the same possibilities are not
excliided in the case of the other four Leah tribes (see
SIMEON, 5 4). I t is conceivable that Asher crossed
the Jordan into Ephraim before Jacob-Rachel came to
occupy the place of the older Leah tribes (so Steuer-
nagel). H. W. H.
ZILTHAI, RV Zillethai (’n$Y).
. h. S HIMEI (q.v.) in a genealogy of B ENJAMIN (q.v., g ii. ,¶),
I Sin) rising in successive slopes from the ‘ArBbah in one
ICh. 8 20 (uaABsL [B], uaAer [A], d a 8 r [L]).
2. One of David’s warriors, I Ch. 12 20 ( u s p d e r [BN], yaAa&
[AI, urAaOa [Ll). See D AVID, 8 11 n. C.
ZIMMAH (?QT ; ZEMMA [BL]), a Gershonite (Leviti-
cal) name ; I Ch. 6 20 k1 (cappa [AI), 42 [271 ( 4 ~ p p a p[Bl, -pa
[AI), z Ch. 20 12 (SeppaO [f(41).
ZIMRAN (]??2i; Sam. jlV3 ; plausibly connected
with 7Qt, antelope ’ [see WRS, J. PhiZ. 99.1, but c p
Z IMRI ), the eldest of Abraham’s ‘sons’ by Keturah
( G e n . 2 5 ~ I Ch.132; Z E B ~ A N [AXE], ZEMP. [A],
ZEMBP. [AaB], Z O M B ~ . [Ds‘’.1 Z E M B ~ . , Z E M P ~ MPI).
T h e Zaniareni, a tribe of the interior of Arabia (Plm.
N H 632, Grotius), and Zabram, the royal town of the
twar8otcoXrhzr, W. of Mecca, on the Red Sea (Ptol.
vi. 7 5 , Knobel) have been supposed to represent Zimran.
But whether we ought to go so far from the Keturite
centre-Le., the n i j Y ~ K(see EAST, CHILDREN OF ;
REKEM)-iS very dOu6tfUl.
In Jer. 25 25 we find a people called ‘Zimri’ (Pesh. ‘ Zimran ’)
mentioned with Arabia (i.e N. Arabia) Elam and Madai (read
’ Jerahmeel’) and SAmoN’(on the N. Arabian border). Tuch
disputes the’connection between ‘Zimran’ and ‘Zimri,’ but,
from our present point of view, wrongly. Both in Gen. 25 2 and
in Jer. 25 25 a N. Arabian people is required. See 21MRI.
T. K. C.
ZIMRI (’??2!, a shortened form?--fp the name Zim-
rida in Am. Tab. [of governors of Sidon and of Lachish],
also in an early Bab. text, BIM Cuneif: Texts, Pt. iv.,
which also mentions Zimri-banimu, Zimri-banata the
5419
ZIN
Amorite [Pinches] ; Hommel, comparing Old Arab.
compound names, interprets ‘ protection ’ [ANT 85, cp
88, 2301 ; but cp Z IMRI, 2 ; ZAMBP[E]I [RKAFL]).
I. One of the sons of Zerah b. Judah ( I Ch. 26), in
Josh. 7 I called Z ABDI.
2 . A descendant of Saul nientioned in a genealogy
of B EN J AMIN ( q . ~ . .§ g, ii. p), I Ch.836 ( c a p p ~[A]=
942). Cp Z EMIRA .
3. ‘ Captain of the chariots,’ who conspired against
Elah king of lsrael and killed him, and to secure his
own position on the throne exterminated all the remnant
of the family of Baasha. After a seven days’ reign in
Tirzah he was besieged by Omri the general, whereupon
like Sardanapalus he burnt the palace over his head and
perished in the ruins ( I K. 169-20). In 6 the names
Zambri and Omri are much confused.
4. b. SALW( q . ~ . )a. Simeonite chief, the name given
to the central figure in P s narrative of the sin of the
b’ne Israel with Midian (Nu. 256-18 P). Zimri had
brought a Midianitess named COZBI to the camp, and
Phinehas, moved to indignation, slew them both, i n the
‘ t e n t ’ (,me)
; l see We. Prol.@)363, E T 3.56. See
PHINEHAS,and cp D IBRI. S. A. C.
ZIMRI (’?pT;om. 6 ; Pesh. ’Amran; Vg. Zumbri),
one of the tribes or peoples threatened with judgment
by Jeremiah (or by a supplementer who assumes Jere-
miah’s mantle), Jer. 2525.
A revision of the text of vu. 19-26 places it beyond all reason-
able doubt that a N. Amhian people is meant. See ZIMRAN,
S HESHACH.
A land called Zimri whose king was allied to the kings of
Babylon and Elam (Si: H. Rawlinson, G. Smith, etc.), does not
exist ; the right reading of the text is ‘Namri ’(see KB 1 140 186;
Schr. KGF ‘70). But to emend Jeremiah’s ‘Zimri’ into ‘Namri’
with Winckler (AORlzg2), or ‘Gomeri’ or ‘Gimirri’ (see
GOMER) with Rost ( U s t e r w h . 103 [18971)and Peiser (ZATIV
17 350 [1897]), is hardly possible if we duly criticise the text of
MT. T. K . C.
ZIN (I?, C[E]IN, CINA, C E N A ; in Nu. 34 4 E N N A K
[ B ; KAI follows], CEENNAK [AF], ENAK [L]. in
Josh.153, E N N A K [Bl, C E N N A K [Ba.blt CENA [AI,
C I N A [L]; Eus. Jer. enna [OS, 25337 ll810I ;
see below). T h e wilderness N. of that of PARAN( q . ~ .;)
the most important place in it was Kadesh-barnea in i t s
oasis (Nu.1321 2 0 1 2714 3336 3 4 3 f: Dt.5251 Josh.
1 5 I [ m pAlg). More precisely, it was the wild mountain-
region (Jos. Ant. iv. 46, speaks of a mountain called
direction and et-Tih in another, which now bears t h e
name of the ‘Azazimeh Arabs who inhabit it. See
W ANDERINGS , W ILDERNESS OF. It has been suggested a
that Sin may mean the ‘ wall ’ of rock within which t h e
wilderness of Zin lies (cp Z ION).
The existence of J p ‘ to protect’ however, is very question-
able, and the name looks as if it had been worn down in course
of ages. Analogy favours the view that iy (Ziu), iyy (ZOAN), ijy
(ZENAN),and ~ J K X(ZAANAN), have all come, through ]ry>v
(ZIBEOX),from SNynw- (Ishmael).
Lagarde, however, with much learning and plausibility,
suggests a derivation from !”n, which in Aram. and
Ass. means ‘ a x e , ’in Ethiopic ‘ i r o n ’ (&ZittheiZ. 2 3 6 1 8 ;
cp G. Hoffm. ZDMG 32753). Tg. Jer. gives in Nu.
344 (for y y ) N ~ lit), I ‘ the iron mountain,’ presuppos-
ing iw, and 6 ’ s form E Y Y ~ [ K ]may ultiniately come from
the same reading.
This reading, if correct, might illustrate a number of references
to iron in narratives or prophecies which, as the criticisni of the
text seems to show, relate to the Negeb. See Dt. 3 11(cp Oc) ;
4 20 (’an iron furnace’ 11 ‘ Mizrirn ’) : 8 9 (‘whose stones are
iron’) ; Josh. 17 16 18 Judg. 119 4 3 13 (Kenizzites, chariots of
9); I K. 22 I I (Zedekiah the Kenizzite [see ZEDEKIAH, 21,
.
horns of iron ’) 2 K. 6 6 (swimming iron ; see P R o r H E T 8 7) ’
Jer. 15 12 (‘iron bf ZAPHON). Ezek. 27 12 19 (Tarshish [Asihur?i
and Javan [JePahmeel?] trafficking with iron) ; Am. 1 3 (the
1 On (whence ‘alcove’), which is used to denote a
princely dnt, as well as the bridal pavilion, see WRS, Kimh&
171. 292 : P AVILION , 2 ; T ENT, 8 4 n.
2 Wetrstein, in Del. Ges.,(4) 578.
5420
 ZINA
[southerii] Arammites thresh [the southern] Gilead with instru-
ments of iron). Still the method of grouping names before
seeking to account for them seems to favour the preceding
explanation. The e u v a [ x ] in @ B and the H h 3 in Tg. Jer. are at
any rate exceptional. T. K. C.
ZINA (K?’!),b. Shimei, a Gershonite Levite ( I Ch.
23 IO). In u. I I the name becomes ZIZAH(n]*)). @BAL reads
&‘a in both places.
ZION (I+?, C[E]IWN). T h e designation, properly,
of the ‘ Jebusite ’ stronghold a t Jerusalem, which
after its capture by David received the name ‘ David‘s
burg,’ 2 S. 57 9. Various explanations of the name
have been given. Gesenius ( Thes. 1164) and Lagarde
(Ubers. 84, n.”) derive from Jnnu ‘ t o be dry,’ cp
, m
Syr. \Q’~J, which Lag. regards as the older
form. Delitzsch (P.dvzen,(3)1 7 0 ) makes the primary
form pi:, from !a; to set up.’ Wetzstein (in Del.
Gen.(Y 578) derives from ,&I ‘ t o protect,’ so that the
name would mean ~ Y X citadel , ’ ; cp ZIN.
I t may be better, however, to add p’t to the group Zin, Zenan,
Zaanan, and Zoan, and to suppose Zion to he a descendant of
:he race-name ‘ Ishmael’ through the intermediate form i i y x
(ZIBEON). Another corruption of the same name is probably &w
(see SHALEM), and this most plausibly accounts for a much-
disputed name n5pi-p. That the first part of this name means
‘ city,’ Sayce (see col. 2409, top) and Nestle (PhiloZoga Sacra,
17) have independently seen. We must now add that o h is
probably=5Nynp*, and that this i s a type of corruption which
occurs frequently in the OT. Jerusalem, then, according to
this explanation, was originally one of the many Ishmaelite or
p h m e e l i t e settlements in Palestine, a view which is wpporte:
y the fact that Isaiah (29I ) calls the city of David ‘ Jerahmeel
[corrupted into ‘ Ariel ’I, and by the equally significant statement
of the historian that after taking the stronghold David ‘built
round about Jerahmeel and within.’l See Crit. Bi6. It is true,
David is said (2 8.56) to have ‘gone against the Jebusites,’ hut
the Jehusites apparently owe their existence in the text to
corruption, and in an earlier form of the text this seems to have
been indicated by the scribe himself. As in Gen. 30 zo [see
ZIBEON] and elsewhere, the corrupt reading yyxn qp‘ (EV ‘the
inhabitants of the land ’)hasgrown out of ’.inyap, (Ishmaelites),
y i ~ being
a an editor’s insertion to make the corrupt 3 3 t p in-
telligible. The earlier text appears to have said in 3. 6, ‘And
the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the fshmaelites’;
‘ Ishmaelites’here i s a synonym of ‘Jerahmeelites. To this we
must add that the ‘lame’ and the ‘blind ’ spoken of in the M T
(and in @) of 2 S 5 6 8 are as imaginary as the trihal name
‘ Jebusite’ ; o’ny and o * n ~ 3both being corrupt fragments of
9 mn?‘ (see Crit. Ri6.. and cp MEPHIBOSHETH PHINEHAS).
\‘his is no digression ; it had to he shown that &me, so closely
connected as Zion and (Jeru-)salem had the same origin, and I f
in the course of doing so we have been enabled to show that the
early historians at any rate did not ‘infer incorrectly’ from the
trihal name Jebusite the existence of a city called Jebusz (of
which the Amarna correspondence appears to have known
nothing), this i s perhaps a t any rate a boon for future students.
It is possible that the error *013*for ’95Nynp- is really a some-
what ancient one (see, e.g., Zech. 9 7). But Ezekiel (lti 3 45) is
still aware that Amorites (or Arammites-Jerahmeelites) and
Hittites (rather Rehobothites) formed the pre-Israelitish popula-
tion of the city of Jeru:;alem. Cp OC.
T h e term ‘ Z i o n ’ (we retain the term, as, even if a
corruption, yet an ancient and a popular one) belongs
properly, as shown elsewhere (JERUSALEM, 5s 17-20),
to the southern part of the eastern hill, where the ‘burg
of David ‘ stood. Above the ‘ burg’ rose the temple,
and in usage ‘ Z i o n ’ represents the temple hill ( 2 K.
1931 ; Is. 2423 ; cp 1032). Even more commonly,
however, we find it a term for the whole of Jerusalem,
whether in parallelism with Jerusalem (Is. 43 3019
Am. 1 2 hlic. 3x0 IZ Ps. 10222) or alone (Is. 1 2 7 2816
Jer. 3 14 Lam. 5 11). Often it is personified (Is. 409 41 27
513 52 I $ 7 59 20 60 14 668 Zeph. 3 16 Zech. 117) though
here a n idealisation has taken place, the ‘ Zion ’ intended
being really the company of those residents in the
1 That Hibn and Kibp?, wherever they occur, are mispointed,
can hardly be doubted. They are corrupt fragments of $xnny*
(see MILLO). In z S. 5 9 the in prefixed to N l b n ha3 arisen in
this way. The scribe began to write isn without the initial 3,
and left $D uncancelled. Afterwards I n w a s ‘corrected’into 1”’
2 So Driver, in Hastings, DB 2 &, expressing the common
opinion.
9-21
ZIPH
Holy City in the period of the Second Isaiah and of
Ezra who, in the orthodox sense of the phrase, ‘ feared
Yahwk.’ The phrase ng, literally ‘ the daughter
Zion,’ is an idiomatic expression for the people of
Jerusalem, Is. 1 8 522 Jer. 431, etc. (see D AUGHTER , 3).
It remains to be added that ‘Zion,’ in I Macc.
everywhere means the temple hill (see 437 60 554 64862
733 10111427). For a Hebrew writer, who formed
his style on classical models, this was natural. Josephus,
writing in Greek, does not use the name. In the N T
it occurs only in quotations from the OT, except in
Heb. 1222 ( a fine rhetorical passage) and in Rev. 141.
How fond the later Jews became of the name Zion
appears most clearly from the Psalms. See especially
Ps. 875, if, with Wellhausen, we may follow 6 ’ s &qp
Z [ ~ ] C &gppei
V , BvOpwrros), and render,
But every one calls Zion his mother,
And of it is every one native ;
He himself, the Most High, keeps it.1
T. K . C.
ZIOR(7P’y; c w p e [B]. CwpAle [Babvid.;superscr.
AI ] , c l w p [AL]), a place in the hill-country of Judah
(Josh. 1 5 5 4 t ) . It is mentioned with Arab, Beth-
tappuah, Humtah, Kirjath-nrba ( ‘ the same i s Hebron’).
The names Arab and Kirjatb-arba (surely from Kirjath-*arBb)
point to the Jerahmeelite border. So also does Humtah (?.e.,
Hamat$= Maacab) and perhaps Beth-tappuah (tee NAPHTU-
HIM). Hebron’ in the gloss on ‘Kirjath-arba’i s probably (as
in some other cases) a corruption of ‘ Rehoboth ’ ; P may already
have found this corruption in the written list which he seems to
have used. Zior,’ then, i s probably a corruption of the name
of some Jerahmeelite place near Rehoboth. One cannot help
thinking of Misgur, properly the name of a region (see h f I Z K A I Y ,
5 z 6 ) , but possibly also of a town (cp Cusham-jerahmeel
[SHECHEM]).The reading of @AL may suggest an identification
with ZAIR( p . ~ . ) .
Van de Velde and Conder, however, identify Zior with Sa‘ir
or (Pi7F.W 3 309) Si’air, 4$ m. N. from Hebron, where a tomb
of Esau is shown. Eusehius (OS293 19) mentions a village Sior
between E l i a and Eleutheropolis. T. IC. C.
ZIPH (?’I; Z[E]I@ [BAL]), whence the gentilic
Ziphites, or, incorrectly [see Ps. 541, Ziphims (D?i ;
z[e]i@aiO~~ I s.2319 261 Ps. 54 title Z I @ E O Y C TI).
I. An unidentified town belonging to Judah, situated
towards the border of Edom (Josh. 15 24 [? B]). On the
new theory which makes David carve out for himself
at first a principality in the Negeh, this more southern
Ziph may have a claim to be that intended in the early
tradition. See 2. end.
2 . A town in the hill-country of Judah (Josh. 1555 ;
ofc@ [R]). mentioned together with Maon, Carmel, and
Jutah. Its connection with the clan of Caleb, which at
one time had its seat about Hebron (but see below), is
expressed in genealogical form in I Ch. 2 4 ~and , ~ again
in I Ch. 4 16, where Ziph and Ziphah (a?’!; T! ; jzl41a
K U L fu‘arpa [B], &@ai K . &$a [A], f ~ $K . <~$a[L]) are
‘sons’ of (the unknown) JEHALELEEL ( 4 . v . ) . Ziph
and that part of the wilderness of Judah to which it
gave its name are mentioned in the account of David’s
outlawry ( I S. 2 3 1 4 f l ) , and the surrounding hill country
with its many caves supplied admirable ‘ lurking places ’
and ‘strongholds’ ( I S.231419, and cp I Macc. 231).
See Conder’s description of the fantastic cones and
knife-like ridges of the hills of Ziph (PEFQ,1875,
P. 43).
Ziph existed in the time of Jerome, who places it 8
R. m. from Hebron ( O S ! 2 ) 1 5 9 ~ 4 cp ; 2 5 8 4 0 8 ) . This
is too much by nearly half. T h e true site was found
by Robinson at TeZZ Zg a conspicuous mound, 2882
ft. above sea-level, and 8-9 m. SE. of Hehron, with no
trace of buildings a t the present day, but with some
cisterns. A little to the E., on a low hill or ridge,
there are broken walls and foundations ; but these do
not represent the city fortified by Rehoboani ( z Ch. 118 :
see below). Conder endeavours to show that there
1 Furness’s translation (Psalwzs, SSOT). But cp Che. Ps.,P)
and Rertholet, S t e l l m 782.
2 ~ap[elroa[cl [BAl&T MESHA[q u.1) the father’ of Ziph,
is in zCh. 11 8 mentioned Aong with Ziph’(<er@[B]).
5422
 ZIPHION
never was a 'wocd' in the district of Ziph (see I S. 2315,
EV, and see below). T h e country is emphatically a
dry land, looking down on the barren wastes which lie
above the Dead -Sea between Masada and Engedi.
There is no moisture capable of supporting vegetable
growth ' (PEFQ. 1875, p. 45). G. A. Smith ( H G 306 n.,
307 n.) substantially agrees.
Among the many difficult points connected with the Hebrew
traditions is this-Was the chief Calebite city Hebron or REHO-
BOTH (P.v.)? If the latter, then the Ziph of I Ch. 2 42 may be
that mentioned in Josh. 15 24. And another is this-Was David's
Ziph the first or the second place so called? The win (HORESH)
of I S. 23 15 may very well be a corruption of iinwN (Ashhur)
which seems to have been a name nearly equivalent to Jerah-
meel. We may also doubt about Rehoboam's Ziph, as well as
about the other names in 2 Ch. 116-10 (see REHOBOAM).
T. K. C.
ZIPHION (ti%?), Gen. 4616 = Nu. 2615, Z EPHON
(f.".).
ZIPHRON (fly?!, scarcely ' stench,' see Z ANOAH ,
but cp N AMES , 5 106, n. I ; A G @ ~ ~ N [BJ A e@. 2, 1885). There were found many statues, sphinxes,
[Bab]; ze@. [AL]). a point on the N. frontier of
Canaan, Nu. 349t. According to Furrer ( Z D P Y S z 8 )
and Socin (Baed.(2) 395). the mod. Zaferdnehl (Rob.
gives ez-Zu'ferdneh), ESE. of er-Reskin. This, how-
ever, does not suit Furrer's own view of the frontier,
for Sudud (his Zedad) is SSE. of Zuferdneh, whereas
it should lie to the N. Hence Miihlau, in Riehm's
H W B , following Wetz. (Reiseber. 8 8 ) , prefers the ruins
called ZzYrZn, fourteen hours NE. of Damascus.
There is reason to think, however, that the description
originally referred to the Negeb (see Z~DAD), that Ziphron
corresponds to the SIBRAIM of Ezekiel, and that both names
are corruptions of Zarephath. See ZEDAD. T. K. C.
ZIPPOR (Tis?, c s r r @ w p [BAFL]). B ALAK
(q.v.), king of Moab is called 'son of Zippor ' (Nu. 92 2 4 IO 16
23 18 Josh. 249 Judi. 11zs), Le., either son of a person called
Zippor ('bird'), or 'native of Zarephath,' the Zarephathites
being a section of the N. Arabian Misrites (see ZAREPHATH,
MIZRAIM, $ 2 6). It is probable that just as the Edomite king
Shad (AV Saul) was a Misrite of Rehoboth (see BEVA) so the
hloabite king Balak was a Miyite of Zare hath (unless) indeed
s
Balak was king of Mugi ; see MOSES, r7f The Cushite wife
of Moses hore the startlingly similar name ZIPPORAH (p.v.).
See, however, NAMES, 5 68. T. K. C.
ZIPPORBH ("BY; c c r r + w p ~[BAFI,]), daughter
of Hobab or Jethro, 'priest of Midian,' and wife of
Moses (Ex. 221,J ; 425, J ; 182, E).
In Nu. 12 16 she is called a 'Cushite woman'; 'Misrite'
would perhaps have been more accurate but Missur (= Musri)
and Cush in N. Arabia were contiguous (see CUSH,2). On the
significance of her name (probably a distortion of Zarephath),
and of her connection with Moses, see MOSES, $8 4, 7, and cp
CIRCUMCISION, $ 2 ; ZAREPHATH ; ZIPPOR.
In its present form the name means ' b i r d ' ; c p
N AMES , 68. There is an Aramaic proper name ~'13s equivalent expressions has often been drawn by scholars,
in CZS (101) 112 122 ; t h e Greek equivalent being
ue$@epa (S. A. Cook, Aram. GZuss. 102, who refers to
Cl.-Gan. Rec. d'urchJuZ. 1885, p. 23). T h e nanie
Zippor (nut Zipporah) occurs as a woman's name in
Talm. Jer. Gittin, 5 3. T. K. C .
ZITHRI, RV Sithri ('lnp; for origin see S ETHUR),
b. Uzziel, a (Kohathite) Levite, Ex. 6 22 (ueyeype~[Bl, m O p s c [AI, seven years before Zoan in Egypt) seems to imply that
u q x [FL]).
ZIV ( U ) , I K.6137 RV,AVZIF. See M O N T H , § Z
ZIZ, GOING UP OF (Y'?? n??Q),a pass in the
S. of Palestine, 2 Ch. 20 16 ( THN ANABACIN ACAB
P A ] , T. A. THC GEOXHC ACICA [LI). T h e namelooks
suspicious ; but the ordinary view that the Wady HqLsa,
by which the old Roman road leads from En-gedi to
Jerusalem, is meant, is plausible.
The mention of HAZAZON-TAMAR (q.v.) in v. 2, however,
introduces a perplexing element into the geography. For a
way out of the difficulty, see NEGEB,ti 7. T. K. C.
ZIZA (KJ'l, perhaps abbrev., § 58,cp Z AZA , ZUZIM).
I.A prinde'of-SxMEoN(8 5 [ii.]), temp. Hezekiah; I Ch.437
(aouah [B ?I <ow<. [AI <@a [LI).
2. One o i Rehoboim's children by Maacah; 2 Ch. 11 20
K
.-c I
~ d
.a [BALD.
~.
__.
~ ~
1 For a southern Zaferheh (cp Rob. BR 2 1 8 5 ) see ASPHAR.
5423
ZOAR
ZIZAH (?V), I Ch. 2311. See ZINA. ' .
ZOAN (tpk.; TANIC [BKA]), an Egyptian city. I&,
Vg., and Tg. identify it with Tanis, certainly correctly.
T h e city had the name S'nt,l in Coptic times, Dju(u)nr
(also Djuune, Djuni). T h e Greeks called it Tdvrs (thus
a). T h e modern Arabic name is S i n . Conseqaently,
the name must have been prpnounced Su'ne, Su'ni, by
the Hebrews (following the later habit of dropping the
feminine termination [t]).
T h e city, the capital of the 14th nomos of Lower
Egypt, near the NE. edge of the Delta, was situated
on the right bank of the Tanitic branch of the Nile, in
a plain which is at present, in summer, a marshy pro-
longation of the Menzaleh lake, in winter a salt-desert,
T h e modern village of s n is inhabited mostly by fisher-
men. T h e adjoining mound, Sin el-hugur, 'stone
Sari,' was excavated first in part by Mariette in 1860,
then completely by Petrie (in 1883-84,see Turzis 1 and
obelisks, etc., belonging to a large temple, hegun ( i t
would seem) by kings of the sixth dynasty, continued
in the twelfth dynasty, and completed by the greatest
builder'among the Pharaohs, Rameses 11. See, on the
fragments of the largest monolithic colossus known,
E GYPT, $ 37. T h e temple seems to have had a length
of about 1000 ft. King Psusennes of the twenty-first
dynasty built a huge wall of bricks around it. T h e
importance of the city is shown by the fact that
Rameses 11. seems to have resided there and that the
twenty-first dynasty originated from the city. In
Esarhaddon's and ASur-bani-pal's time, Sa'nu or Si'nu
was the seat of a prince ; on-its sack by the Assyrians
see TIRHAKAH. In Strabo (802)it still figures as a
considerable place. Of its ultimate downfall not much
is known.
T h e biblical mentions are as follows. In Is. 191113,
the princes of Zoan represent Egypt (13 11 with Noph-
Memphis). In 304,the Israelites are blamed for send-
ing embassies to Zoan ; the passage looks as if the
Pharaohs were still residing at Zoan a t times. In
Ezek. 30 14, Zoan stands parallel with the old capital of
Upper Egypt, No, which shows that in Lower Egypt
only Memphis can have rivalled Tanis in importance.
Perhaps it is thus to be explained that Ps. 78 (12 43)
speaks of the wonders done a in the land of Egypt, In
the field of Zoan ' in Moses' time. Zoan-Tanis seems
to have been considered as the capital of Egypt, or a t
least of the Delta, in the time of the psalmist. T h e
inference that Zoan was the residence of Pharaoh in
Moses' time and that ' fields of Zoan ' and Goshen were
especially by Brugsch, who tried to show the identity of
Rameses and Zoan. Brngsch's arguments however,
are fallacious (although Rameses 11. may have resided
here, see above); certainly Goshen cannot have extended
to the surroundings of Tanis.
The curious remark Nu. 1322 (Hebron was built
the writer considered Tanis as one of the oldest cities of
(2). Egypt. Indeed, we can trace it to the sixth dynasty
(see above) ; as capital of the nome it may belong to
prehistoric times. Chronological conclusions about the
date of Hebron's foundation cannot, of course, be drawn
from the biblical remark, whether taken literally or not.*
W. M. M.
ZOAR (WY, in Gen. 19 22 30 v\Y; CHrwp
2 SeeRaMmEs, 3, on Bmgsch's argument (followed by Ebers,
Durch G o s m 498) and EXODUS 5 TO.
3 A stele df thitinie of Radeses 11.; found at Tanis, was
curiously dated 'year 400 of king Set. If this date has a
historical basis, it must mean that about 1700 B.C. the cult of
Set was established @y Hyksos-kings?), not that Tanis was then
founded, as some scholars have assumed
5424
 ZOBAH
; in Jer, 48 34 zorop C B ~ Avg, l Segor), a A1T of the passage however,
locality mentioned in Gen. 13 IO 142 8 . 19 2 2 f. 30 ’ Dt.
3 4 3 Is. 155 Jer. 4 8 3 4 t . It is commol~lyplaced t o the
SE. of t h i ~~~d sea, which may be so far as
Is, 155 and Jer, 4834 are concerned, but hardly for Gen,
and Dt. ( U i c . ) .
There is in fact a considerable body of eyidence for theview
that the chief seat of the southern Israelitiph legends was the
Jerahmeelite territory, bordering on M u v and Edom. See
ISAAC, JACOB, and especially SODOM A N U GOMORRAH. The of Hadad-ezer, king of Zobah, as Beth-rehob, he has suggested
play on the meaning of ‘ Zoar ’ in Gen. 19 20 22 is only accounted
for if the true name of the city was iyso, or rather ny,?i.e.,
Mi& (hlusri). The ‘ Zoar ’ of legend was really ‘ Misur ’ ; it
w2’one of the citiesof Musriin N. Arabia, towardsS. Palestine.
Cp MISRAIM, $ 2 (b). Upon the new theory, Gen. 13 10, where
‘Zoar’ appears to be distinctly placed in the Jordan valley,
originally ran thus, ‘ And Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw that
the whole of Jerahmeel ( p ,133,
~ a primitive corruption of given
5 ~ p n - pwas
) well-watered [before Yahw.5 destroyed Sodom and
&&orrah] like the gard;: of Yahwt., like the land of Migrim,
in the direction of Missur. Here, however, it is probable that
Misgur really means the Zand of MisSur ; O;?rS f‘$ may be (Jerahmeel-zarephath); see SAULP,
omitted as an unintellijent alteration of l ? X n ”&I. Ball (cp
GARDEN, P, 4, n.) prefers reading @ ‘Zoan ’ (Pesh. ?). But
surely ‘ like the land of Egypt ’ was Ylear enough, without a
limiting or explanatory appendage. Egypt,’ however, is not
to be expected in this context, and the Hebrew traditions
centre (as new evidence appears to shqw) in the Negeb and
the N. Arabian border. For the later traditional view of Zoar
see MOAB.and on the whole question of the original Zoar
Cp SODOM. T. K . C.
ZOBAH ( 8 8 3 , COYBA [BAL]), or more fully ARAM- (Josh.
Z O B A H ( 8 n Y D78, Ps. 80 heading, CUBAA [BNR]),
or ARAM-ZOBA ( K I j Y ‘N, z S . 1 0 6 8, but
1. The
R V AR.4M-ZOBAH), the home of one of
theory. David’s ‘thirty’ ( z S . 2 3 3 6 ; A Y N A M ~ U C
[BA], MACCABA [L]).’ also t h e name of
an Aramaean state, whose king Hadadezer was defeated
by David ( z S . 8 r - 1 4 1 0 1 5 8 ) . In I S . 1 4 4 7 ‘the kings
of Zobah ’ are said t o have been defeated by SauL2 a n d
in z Ch. 8 3 Solomon is asserted to have taken Hamath-
zobah (patuwga [B], acpa0” uoupa [A], epa0a. [L]) ;
t h e latter designation is thought to imply t h e same
(erroneous ?) conception of the importance of Zobah
which is found in ( a ) z S. 8 3 8 1015-1ga,but not in the
narrative (6) which contains z S.101-14 196. This at
least is clear, that in therespective strata of narrative
different views of the position of the kingdom of Zobah
are suggested. If the view implied in the former
stratum ( a ) is correct, the idea that David was one of
the mightiest monarchs of his time is not an extrava-
gant one, for here the kingdom of Zobah under Hadad-
ezer is represented as dominating the whole of Syria,
whereas in the latter stratum (6) Zobah appears with
BETH-REHOB, MAACAH, a n d ISHTOB or TOB, as a n ally
of t h e Ammonites. This difference of view has been
explained by the supposition that two different Zobahs
have been confounded (see D AV I D , g , with n. 2,
where references are given for the evidence). One, t o
the N. of Damascus and Hamath, rich in copper
( z S. 88), was conceivably the mat NuhaIBi3 of t h e
Am. Tablets (375 45 22, etc. ), if NuhaSSi means ‘ copper ’
( n t n ? ) , according t o Halevy’s theory ( R E J Z O z r g ; cp Zoheleth’ may have been a ruder pillar of the same
C OPPER, 5 3). T h e other Zobah corresponds to the
‘ districts of Subitu,’ referred to by AIur-bani-pal (KB way near the village of Silwgn (Siloah) called ZGweleh.
2 217), and was S. of Damascus, perhaps ( s o Wi. AOF
1467) between Haurjn a n d the Sea of Galilee. T w o
cities of the former Zobah (as we may provisionally say)
are named in z S. 8 8, viz., Ektah a n d Berothai ( o n these
see T EBAH , BEROTHAI, BEROTHAH).
1 Marquart’s suggestion (see JOEL, 3) to read is only a
ste towards the right solution (see 5 2).
ZThis, however, is probably due to a partisan of Saul, who
wishes his favourite to vie with David (SAUL, 5 3).
3 Halevy supports this by the conjecture that i l l i s is a con-
traction of >$?:, ‘bright yellow,’ and compares X d r k from
ah&, ‘copper.’ Chalcis was on the slopes of Antilibanus (cp
a i . A T Unfers. 180). On the situation of NuhaHgi, cp Flinders
Petrie, Syria and Egypt, 179.
5425
ZOHELETH, STONE OF
of 2 S. referred to. There is grave reason,
to hold that this assumption is
2. New theory. erroneous. The Aram with which David
had relatiorrs v a s , according to the still
discoverable earlier’form of the traditions, not the northern but
a southerll Aram--i.e., the Jerahmeelites of the Ne&, and,
if we use the manv parallels and analogies of other restored
passages it is not difficult to recover the probable originals of
names oiplaces miswritten by the redactor. It should, however,
first of all, be noticed to the credit of Winckler that, noticing
the combination of Beth-rehoh and Zobah, and the designation
that both names represent one and the same state (GI 1141J).
This is in fact very near the truth. The statement in 2 S. 8 3
should’probahiy run thus, ‘And David smote Hadad [. .. .I, a
native of Rehohoth, king of Zarephatb,l when he went to tnrn
him [David] back from the river [of Mu$ri].’z Verse 8 in its
original form probably spoke only of one royal city, viz.,
Rehoboth; of this Berah gives one and Berothai another
corruption.3 In 106 the allies of the h‘ne Ammon were probably
as Aram-rehoboth (to which Aram-zoha is probably ,a
gloss) 4 Maacah (the southern Maacah), and Tubal ; Helam in
vu. ~ b r :represents Jerahmeel (place-name). In I S. 1447
>xis *>in(‘the kings of Zobah’) is miswritten for ngir h o n i -
7. In 2 S. 23 36 we need
not question the reading, ‘Igal,’ b.’Nathan, of ‘Zobah,’ for
‘Zohah ’ here too represents ‘Zarephath, while Igal’ (like
‘Joel’ and ‘ Gaal ’) is a popular corruption of ‘ Jerahmeel.
That ‘ Zarephath ’ should sometimes be used con~prehensively,
some$mes with a narrower reference, affords no ground for
surprise. ‘Zarephathites ’ is constant1 used widely, and yet
primarily, of course, it merely meant the people of the city of
Zarephath. On ‘ Hamath-zohah ’ (Maacath-zarephath), z Ch. 8 3
see SOLOMON $ 7 .
NSldeke (hL1232) places Zobah ‘nearly in the region of
Emesa. Elsewhere (see MEROM) it is suggested that Merom
11 5 7) may he the second or more southerly Zohah.
T. K . C.
ZOBEBAH (8)3%tl),with ‘ h u b ’ and the ’ families
of Aharhel, the son of Harum,’ is (perhaps) connected
genealogically with Tekoa (>IT Coz [ q . ~ . ] ) , I Ch. 4 8
(CABABA [BI, CUBHBA [A], CAB. [L]). See TEKOA.
ZODIAC (Ilh!p), Job3832 RVmg., E V MAZZAROTH
( 4 . ~).. See also S TARS, 5 3 ( d ) ,
ZOHBR (ink, 8 66 : ‘ reddish-white ? ’ see COLOURS,
I 7 ; CAAP [BADEL]):
I. Probably the name of the clan to which Ephron the Hittite
(from Rehohothite [?I, see REHOBOTH) belonged (Gen. 238 259).
Possibly we should read ”?!, ZERAH.
2. h. SIMEON (5 9); see Zerah (4).
3. b. Ashhur, a Judahite (1 Ch. 4 7 ; Kr. 1041, ‘ and Zohar.’
RVmg. ; Kt. ins?,see IZHAR,2 ; x d r u. [BPI, rai w r a p [Ll).
ZOHELETH, STONE OF (n$g;r j q ~ ,I Serpent’s
Stone ’ [BDB], but see below). This stone was evidently
sacred, like the fountain En-rogel beside which it
stood, a n d in the building which enclosed it Adonijah,
as claimant of the crown of Israel, probably held his
sacrificial feast ( I K . 19).
..
Gk. readings are : h&ov 701 < w d d [AI, . r b w ;v <Fahad [Ll,
at@ 70; <wehsOcr [E] ; cp r a p ; e v v ; l v T ~ ;v Y rG @aurhr.@
aapdeiuy, Jos. Ant. vii. 144.
There must have been something remarkable about
it. Very possibly it was overlaid with a ‘brilliant’
metal called n h , z@dZeeth, and corresponding t o t h e
Ass. z n & a Z ~ i . ~There were two brazen pillars before the
temple at Jerusalem ( I K. 4 1 7 21). T h e ‘ stone of
sort. Some writers would place Zoheleth in the rocky
I K . 1 4 1 implies that those who were with Adonijah
could see what went on in the valley of Kedron ; this,
however, would have been quite easy from Zahweleh
(see Buhl, Pal. 94 : Baed.(4)100).
Wellhausen (Neid..(S146) suggests a connection with the
‘brilliant’ planet Saturn (cp the Ar. proper name Zuhal).
1 The vague notice in z S. 8 I (where o*n& represents
Dqgig) probably comes from another source.
2 Read, with Winckler, lap ink Y@&.
3 In Ezek. 47 16 the names should probably be Maacath,
Rehoboth, Zarephath (see S ~ B R Aand I M Crit. Si&)
4 Note that no extra number of warriors is put down for
Beth-rehoh.
5 Cp the passages cited by Del. Ass. NWB, S.V. zahalti.’
5126
 ZOHETH ZOROASTRIANISM
Others (e.g. WRS, RSP) 172 and Benzinger Kbn. 4) doubt- the WHdy Sarsr, opposite Beth-shemesh and 14 m. W.
fully connect the sacred fountain and stone dith the Dragon's from Jerusalem. On the importance of the situation
;Well of ,Neh. 213 (see DRAGON). Zoheleth might mean
serpent. T. K. C. see GASm. HG 2 1 8 3 T h e Zoar (?) of the Negeb we
cannot venture to locate. T. K. C .
ZOHETH (nniT) and B EN - ZOHETH ( q . ~ . ) sons
, of
Ishi, a descendant of Judah, I Ch. 420 ( Z W A N [B], ZOROBABEL (ZOPOBABEA [Ti. W H ] ) , Mt. 1I Z J
AV, RV Z ERUBBABEL . See G ENEALOGIES , ii., 1 z (c).
zwXAe ~41,z a w ~ PI).
ZOPHAH (n3iY ; cwxae, cw@ac P I - @ ~ p -@A ,
[AI), uou$a [Ll), a name in a genealogy of ASHERG.u., $ 4 z), ZOROASTRIANISM
I Ch. 7 35Jt Names ($ I).
ZOPHAI (*g\Y), I Ch. 626 [II], see Z UPH. Early obscurity ($ 2).
Ancient accounts ($ 3).
ZOPHAR (lgak ; C W @ A ~[BKAC]), one of Job's Zoroaster (0 4J).
Date, sources (8 6J). 2).
friends, a Naaniathite (Job 211 111 201 4 2 9 [and 1 7 6 Ormazd, Ahriman (0 8). Resurrection, ' WGdom,' etc.
@If). N A A M A H( q . ~ . was
) in SW. J u d a h ; but the Other spirits (08 9-11).
Dualism ($ 12).
($5 23-25).
Literature (5 26, end).
clan which settled there was doubtless of Calebite and
therefore of Edomite extraction (cp ' Naam,' I Ch.4 f5). Of Mazdaism, the religion of the Perso-Iranians,
T h e poet must have reckoned ' Zophar ' as an Edomite. Zoroaster is regarded as the prophet ; hence the religion
Probably the writer took the name from the notices in Gen. 1.Names for is often called Zoroastrianism. Western
36 1 1 15 I Ch. 136, where 15s (Gen.) or '93 (Ch.)-both forms mis- writers, however, more usually speak
written for i g i y (see @&occurs among the sons of Eliphaz, son religion. of the doctrine of the Magi. I t is not
of Esau. (See ZEPHO.) Still, ' Naamathitr ' is hardly the name
we expect. Possibly vn~y,may have come from qnq, and this, easy to say with certainty whether or
by transposition, from ,>~*n.Zophar, then, like Eliphaz would not we are entitled to interchange the three terms,
be called a Temanite. Mazdaism, Zoroastrianism, and Magism, as if they
Dozy's correction (see Di., zo), 'nnyi. ' a man of RAAMAH ' 2. Early were synonymous. Positive information
( p . ~ . ) ,and Hommel's, 'yyn, ' Miniean'(cp 6 , b M[slruaks and,
2 T I 42 =?e,b M[e]rvaiou j3amA&), seem less plausible. regarding the religious condition of
T. K. C . Western Iran during the oldest historical
ZOPHIM (PgY, C K O I S I ~ N [BAFL]), apparently a period is almost entirely wanting. It is not absolutely
certain, for example, of what faith Cyrus the Great
mountain-district (ilta, see FIELD, I ) , where was the
' height of the Pisgah,' Nu. 2314. Dillmann, but not was an adherent. With reference, moreover, to the
Kautzsch ( H S ) ,renders ' p a l e ' the field of watchers,' antecedent conditions in Eastern Iran, which must have
played an important rBle in the early development of
and supposes that there in times of danger watchers the Persian religion, our sources are very scanty through-
were stationed, or else that there diviners were wont out. Our oldest positive witnesses for the belief in
to scan the heavens or the flight of birds for omens. Mazda are the comprehensive inscriptions of Darius I . ,
In Nu. 21 20 however 'the height of the Pisgah' is said to be
'in the highland of doah,' or rather (see MOAB,8 14) 'of through which runs a strong vein of faith and pious
Mi99ur.' This suggests that n*?4is a corrupt or mutilated form devotion. Darins never wearies of glorifying the just
of the name of a region or a clan-i.e., either of VX! or of and good guidance of the supreme god, Auramazda
O'n?l$. It was in fact probably a mountain not far from (Ormazd). The other gods are mentioned onlyincident-
Zarephath that was meant in the original story. See further ally. Religious matters are often spoken of quite in the
NEBO i., 8 2. T. K . C. style of the later Avesta. T h e greatest evil is falsehood.
The spirit of falsehood, the adversary (cp 'Satan ') of
ZOPHIM, RAMATHAIM. See R AMATHAIM . Mazda, is not mentioned by any name. W e are thcre-
ZORAR (ncly, as if 'hornet ' ; cp ilP?'$ ; C A ~ A A ) . fore confronted by the question,- Is the mere name of
A city repeatedly mentioned, hut not easy so lo locate Mazda itself a positive proof of the Zoroastrian origin
as to suit all the textual phenomena. I t was closely of the early Persian religion, or must the dualism be
connected with the story of Samson : but the scene of explicitly present as the essential mark of the prophet's
this story seems to have been differently viewed at teaching ? Herodotus, moreover, our oldest authority,
different times (see S AMSON ). It was Danite-of that says nothing of Ahriman in his account of the religion
there can be no doubt (Judg. 132, o a p d [B] ; Josh. of the Persians, nor does he mention the name of
1 9 4 1 , aapu.9 [B]). Zoroaster. Accordingly, C. de Harlez disputes the
Zorah is included in the same group with Eshtaol and Ashna, view that the Persians under the first Achzemenians
among the cities of the ShZphdah (Josh. 15 33, AV ZOREAH were Zoroastrians. H e also lays stress on the fact that
p a a [Bl) : hut the kernel of the name Eshtaol (Shaol or Saul) i:
probably Jerahmeelite. It is also mentioned in Neh. 1129 (AV the burial rites of the Persians, as pictured by Hero-
ZAREAH, om. BN*A, uapa [L]) and in z Ch. 11IO as fortified by dotus ( 1 140)~ are directly opposed to the Zoroastrian
Rehoboam; but in both passages there seems upon critical injunctions. Darmesteter rightly objects that it is not
grounds to he reason to think that the original text referred to the intention of Darius to publish a creed or articles of
places in the Negeh. In I Ch. 2 53 we find the ZORATHITES faith. Herodotus, in a well-known passage ( 7 131-140),
(AV ZAREATHITES, 'nel,Y;7,uapda;or [BA], u a p d r [L] among describes only the religious usages of the Persians, and
the families of Kirjath-jearim, cp I Ch. 4 2 (apaeer [Bl, uapdr [A], cxpressly states that he does not know the whole truth
u a A d q A [L]) ; also in 2 54 where the ZORITES('pl??, quaper regarding their customs connected with the disposal of
[Bl .. . pasr [A], uapaer [L]), together with the MANAHETH- the bodies of the dead. Darmesteter therefqre comes
ITES (q.v., and cp MANOAH) are sons of Salma the 'father' of
Beth-lehem. But the genealogy is Calebite ; jearim in Kirjath- to the conclusion that the Zoroastrian religion was in
jearim may represent ' Jerahmeel ' ' SHOBAL and SALMAare force in Persia at the time of Darius I. In practice,
N. Arabian names, and Beth-lehem' certainly represents Beth- however, it was only the priestly caste of the Magi that
jerahmeel, a name which, in such a context we naturally assign was bound to rigid observance of the rule. Among the
to the Negeh. Ephrath too is primahy a name of the
Negeh. It would seem therefore that in spite of the laity the religious prescriptions and usages did not have
assignment of Zorah to the Shephelah in Josh. 15 33, and its 5 0 binding a force nor so wide a scope as t'ley had later
combination with Aijalon in Josh. 1941s~ we must admit that a zt the time of the Sassanians. Windischmann had
confusion has been made by the redactors of the OT texts already expressed the conviction that Darius and his
between a Zorah in the ShZphelSh and a place of a similar
name (probably lpk Zoar, or '1% Zur, or even l i g Mkgur), snccessors were genuine Zoroastrians, the name Aura-
and of equal strategic importance, in the Negeb not far from mazda being as inseparable from the religion of Zoro-
Beth-jerahmeel (confounded by redactors sometides with Beth- aster as the name of Christ was from Christianity.
lehem in Judah, sometimes with Aijalon). This supposition would become a certainty if West is
T h e Zorah of the Shtphelgh would be the modern right in his conclusion that the Persian calendar, which
Sar'a, which stands on an eminence on the N. side of is distinctly Zoroastrian in its naming of months and
5427 5428
 ZOROASTRIANISM
days, had been introduced at the time of Darius, about
505 B . C . T h e entire question as to the Achzmenians
being Zoroastrians is still under discussion. W e know,
a t least, that Artaxerxes I. and his successors were
Zoroastrians.
For references consult C.de Harlez, Auestu,P) 1881, Introd.
.
x, xrii, ccx Darmesteter, SBE 4 (1880), Introd. xliv (2nd ed.
(3 vols., !893), vol. 3, Introd. Ixx : Win-
1895); Le ye%d-A-~estu
dischniann, Zovoastnkche Siudzen (1863), 121 ; West, SBE 47
(r8g7), Introd. xliv.
According to Herodotus (1132) n o Persian could
sacrifice without a Magian priest. This indirectly proves
that there was a religious connection be-
On Mae*
3. GCreeka tween the Persians and the Magians.
Everything implied in the statements of
the Greeks regarding the usages and the doctrines of the
Magi is genuinely Zoroastrian. T h e Magi allowed the
bodies of their dead to be torn by dogs and birds of prey.
They regarded it as a laudable act to kill as many ants,
snakes, and other vermin as possible, whilst they held
the life of a dog as sacred as the life of a man (Herod.
1146). Marriage of near relations was with them a pious
custom (Strabo, 1520). All these things are treated with
some fulness in the Avesta. Plutarch (de 13. et Os. 46)
explains the Magian zeal for destroying all unclean
animal life on the ground of the Zoroastrian theology,
a n d quite in accordance with the Avesta, as follows :
'Among plants, they. attribute the one to the Good
Divinity, the other to the Evil Genius: similarly with
regard to animals ; the dog.' birds, and the hedgehog
belong to the Good Divinity ; the water-rat belongs to
the Evil One. On this account they esteem him fortunate
who has killed the most of these beasts.' Plutarch
(2.6.) gives a sketch of the doctrines of the Magian
Zoroaster and of the mythology of the Magians. H e
clearly develops the outlines of the dualistic system ;
the two primeval spirits and their incessant warfare ;
creation and counter-creation ; the division of the
universe; its limited existence; the end of the evil
principle ; the regeneration and purification of the
world (de Is. 47 ; p:utly drawn from Theopompus).
Areimanios wasmentioned for the first time beside Oromazdes
in a lost work of Aristotle, according to Diogenes Laertius
(proem. 8). The name of Zoroaster occurs earlier in a fragment
(29) of Xanthos, and in Plato (Alcid. 1 122)) who calls him the
son of Oromazdes. For Western writers Zoroaster is always
the Magus or the founder of Magianism (Plut., 2.c.; Plato, Lc.;
Diog. Laert., proem. z : other passages in de Harlez, op. cit.,
189 :,Max Duncker, ,GAP) 450). The ancients also give some
details as to the childhood of Zoroaster and his hermit life
(Pliny, H.V 30 2 ; Plutarch, Numu, 4 ; Dio Chrysostom. 2 60).
They call him sometimes a Bactrian sometimes a Median or
Persian (cp Jackson in Jour. Amer. 6 , Soc. 15 222). No reli-
ance can be placed on their references to his extreme antiquity.
Hermippus of Smyrna placed him 5000 years before the Trojan
War ; Xanthos, doao years before Xerxes ; Aristotle assigned him
a similar antiquity(Pliny, "30 I 2 ; Diog. Laert. proem. 2 ; c
Jackson, Jour. Am. Or. SOC.173, and Zoroaster, 15o-r78f
Agathias (2 24) rightly remarks that it is no longer possible to
determine withany certainty when he lived and legislated. ' The
Persians,' he adds, ' s a y that Zoroaster lived under Hystaspes
but do not make clear whether by this name is meant the fathe;
of Darius or another Hystaspes.
W h a t the Greeks regard as the doctrines of the
Magi the Iranians themselves call the doctrines of
4. Iranians Zoroaster. T h e native accounts bring
on Zoroaster. the personality of Zoroaster into the
foreground. To him alone Mazda
vouchsafed the L a w a n d the Holy Faith, and ordained
him as the teacher of men. T h e Avesta, or Zoroastrian
bible, makes only occasional reference to the external
circumstances of Zoroaster's life, for the part of the
Avesta which was specially devoted to the story of his
life, the so-called Spend-Nask, is lost. Its contents,
however, have been worked into the Pahlavi literature,
which in three places gives a description of his life.
These interesting accounts, two of which occur in the
fifth and seventh hooks of the Dinkard and one in the
Zartfisht-niimak,2 have been translated by E. W. West
1 Contrast Is. 66 3 (see Doc, 5 3).
2 This forms part of the SeZections o f Z ~ - s p u r u m .
173 5429
ZOROASTRIANISM
under the title, ' Marvels of Zoroastrianism,' in SBE
47 (1897).
These narratives have a mythical tinge that is quite
oriental ; they are not histories, they are legends. Al-
ready in the Avesta Zoroaster appears for the most part
as a legendary persondity.
He stands in personal intercourse with the divinity. At his
appearing all nature rejoices (Ymht, 13 93) : he enters into con-
flict with the demons and rids the earth of their presence (Yasht,
17 19); Satan approaches him as tempter to make him renounce
his faith (Vendidud 196). The history of his life is a succession
of marvels. The hivine powers themselves initiate him into
his high calling, and during the whole of his prophetic career
they stand by him with their counsei.
Many scholars therefore have regarded the personality
of the prophet as purely mythical (Darmesteter ; Kern,
according to Tiele, Kompendium, § 99). This is cer-
tainly going too far. There is no reason to doubt the
existence of the religious founder, Zoroaster ; he lives
too strongly in tradition. T h e legend of Zoroaster is
not one to be deprived of all historical foundation.
Zoroaster's real name is Zarathushtra, Modern
Persian, Zardusht; it seems to mean, 'Possessor of
5. Tradi- old camels. ' His father was Pourushaspa,
tional data. of the noble family of the Spitamas, his
mother DughdhBvH. Regarding his
native place there is a double tradition. According to
one, the house of his father was situated in Airyana
Vat?joupon a hill of the river Dareja (the modern Darya,
in northern Azerbaijan), and Zoroaster was born there.
According to the other tradition he came from Ragha
(Rai ; see R AGES ) in Media proper. I n Sassanian
times, Ragha as well as Atropatene was an important
seat of the priesthood. I n Ragha resided the Zara-
thushtrotema, the supreme head of the church. T h e
riddle of the contradiction has been solved by Jackson.
According to a statement of Shahrastani, Azerbaijan
was the home of Zoroaster's father, whilst his mother
was by birth from Rai (Jackson, f o u r . A m . Of-. Soc.
15228 ; Darmesteter, SBE 4 Introd. xlvii).
T h e most important traditional data of Zoroaster's
life are as follows. When he was thirty years old, in
a vision upon the bank of the river DHitya, the
archangel Vohumano appeared t o him and invited him
to a conference with Mazda. This first meeting, which
is recorded also in the Avesta ( Y m n a , 4 3 ) , is to be
regarded as the coming of the new religion and as the
beginning of a new era of the world. Seven other
conferences followed in the next ten years. I n the first
two years, at the command of the Lord, Zoroaster
preached the new doctrine to the Kavis and Karpans-
L e . , the ruling idolatrous priests of the land-in the
presence of the prince of the region, a Turanian ; but
withont effect. T h e injunction of 'next of k i n '
marriage shocked them. H e then betook himself t o
SeistHn. to ParshatgHu, who allowed himself to be
converted, but not in public. It was only Zoroaster's
own cousin, Maidybi-mHongha, who first openly pro-
fessed himself his disciple, so that the prophet dis-
heartened cries out : e I n ten years I have won only a
single man ! ' Mazda now sent him to the court of
King VishtHspa. There he had first to undergo cruel
imprisonment ; but after two years he finally overcame
the opposition of the idolatrous priests and converted
the king. At this time also the brother of the king,
Zairivairi, as well as the king's son, SpentbdZta, and
both the Vizirs, namely, the brothers Frashaoshtra and
JZmHspa, became wholly devoted to him. Zoroaster
lived to see the great religious war with King Arejat-
aspa, who invaded Iran with the Hyaonas and was
defeated, but met his death by the hand of a Turanian,
it is said, at the age of 77 years and 40 days. T h e
Avesta does not definitely express itself regarding the
home of King VishtHspa : it is only the latest tradition
that locates the seat of the king, and also the scene
where Zoroaster successfully taught, in the E. and
especially towards Bactria
If there is anything historical in these notices it is the
5430
 ZOROASTRIANISM
figure of the royal patron and protector VishtZspa,
' who with his weapon broke a path for the truth, and
became the arm and support of the Zoroastrian religion,
and freed it from the chains in which it had lain bound,
and raised it to power and spread it abroad' ( Yusht,
1399-100). His influential consort HutaosZ appears to
have led the way by good example. Zoroaster found
strong support at the court, moreover, in the two
brothers, Frashaoshtra and JBmHspa. T h e GBthBs
never mention the name of the king without mentioning
with praise his two zealous and faithful counsellors. T o
both of these Zoroaster was related by marriage; he
married Hvogvi' the daughter of Frashaoshtra ; and
JHmHspa married Zoroaster's daughter, PouruchistH.
As to the era of Zoroaster, the extravagant dates
given by the Greeks have no value. Modern investiga-
6 , Date. tion avoids mere guesses and places more
reliance on the native statements. We
have two dates given by tradition. The one makes a
period of 272 years intervene between the beginning of
the religion (see above, 5 ) and the death of
Alexander the Great (323 B.c.) ; whilst according to
the other, the religion had existed in purity for about
300 years before the invasion of Alexander. According
to the first statement, Zoroaster would have lived from
625 B. c. to 548 B. C . West makes the second statement
the basis of his reckoning, and taking account of a slight
omission in the traditional chronology makes the dates
660.583 B.C. (cp S B E 4 7 , Introd. xxvii and xxxviii).
These numbers fall within historical times, and the
former comes near the era of the historical VishtHspa
(Hystaspes). the father of Darius I. With this Hystaspes,
who was satrap in Parthia, it was formerly usual to
identify the Vishtaspa of the Avesta. This identification,
however, falls to the ground, at least for the present,
because of the totally different ancestry of the historical
Hystaspes and of the VishtHspa of the legend.
T h e chief source of information regarding the teaching
of Zoroaster is the Avesta. This was redacted in the
,. time of the Sassanidze ; it is drawn,
however, in part at least, from older
Bources* sources and tradition. T o the oldest
tradition belonged the so-called GHthHs. They contain
remnants of the addresses and sermons, delivered before
the assembled court, and put by tradition into the
mouth of the prophet, who is conceived of as teaching,
exhorting, and seeking to win recruits for his cause.
T h e GHthZs themselves are distinguished in two respects
from the 'younger (later) Avesta.'
First, the person of Zoroaster appears much less legendary in
the Gatha. The scenes of his activit and teaching are placed
much more vividly before our eyes. ds relation to his patrons is
much more close and real. The GSth% are marked by many
personal allusions and references which are unknown to the
younger Avesta. Secondly the celestial world is much more
predominantly abstract. MatLrial and naturalistic divinities
Ike Mithra are foreign to the Gathas. The external cult and
ritual sink almost entirely into the background. The holy
drink, the Haoma, is not mentioned.
These two considerations, however, are not enough
to enable us to distinguish sharply between the GHtha
Zoroastrianism as the pure and original doctrine on the
one hand, and the later Zoroastrianism as systematically
developed and corrupted by the older popular faith
on the other. T h e GEthiis are really not properly
dogmatic and doctrinal sermons ; they are rather pro-
phetic sayings, promises, and injunctions intended
specially for the narrower community of the faithful
and initiated; they represent the esoteric side of
Zoroaster's teaching in its ideal bearing rather than its
outward rules and statutes. T h e GHthHs are rather the
philosophy of Zoroastrianism ; the younger Avesta is
rather its theology together with the systematic elabora-
tion of the Zoroastrian doctrine.
T h e supreme God is Ahur6 Mazdso (Anc. Per.,
Azj'ramasda, Mod. Per., Uormaed or Ormaed), ' t h e
wise lord.' He is called also Spent6 Mainyush-ie.,
'the holy (lit., weal-bringing) spirit '-and he is the
5431
ZOROASTRIANISM
creator and regent of the world. His sovereimty - _
8. Zoroastrian- over the universe, however, is con-
ism : Ormaad, tested by his foe, the fiend primeval,
Augr6 Mainyush-Le., ' the destruc-
ahriman. tive spirit.' I n the beginning of things
these twin spirits existed independentlyof each othe;;
they became aware of their opposing character ( Yusna,
30 3 ) and swore an eternal feud (cp Yasnu. 45 2 and
Bundahish, i. 1 4 ) . Both spirits possess creative power,
which manifests itself in the one positively and in the
other negatively. Ormazd is light, life, and activity,
the soul of all that is pure and g o o d ; in the ethical
world he is law, order, and truth. His antithesis,
Ahriman. is darkness, filth, death, and reaction ; all
that is evil in the world; lawlessness and lies spring
from him. Ormazd has his throne in the 'endless
light' of heaven, in Paradise; Ahriman rules in the
cold north, in the endless darkness of Hell, from which
he breaks forth from time to time. Ormazd alone
possesses omniscience and prescience ; Ahriman's
wisdom is backward knowledge (Bunduhish, i. 9) ; he is
always coming too late, and has t o look at events after
they are past. For the time being the two spirits
counterbalance one another. T h e complete sovereignty
of Ormazd is to come to pass in the future existence.
The ultimate triumph of the good spirit is a n ethical
demand of the religious conscience and the quintessence
of Zoroaster's revelation. His doctrine is dualistic in
so far as it sets up two opposing primeval powers ; it is
not, however, quite consistent ; the two principles a r e
not endowed with equal power. T h e dualism of
Zoroaster is only an episode in the existence of Ormazd,
who is the supreme and only god from the beginning of
the world, and remains so to eternity.
In the realm of light, Ormazd is the sovereign lord.
As a spirit, it is true, he is invisible to men ; but he is
not immaterial. A flaming, firm, exalted, and
beautiful body is attributed to him. T h e heaven is his
robe. I n his exalted majesty h e is the ideal figure
of an oriental king. T h e other divine powers and
genii are his creation, helpers, overseers, and servants,
his instruments and his leaders in the war against evil.
Next to him in rank stand six archangels, the Amesha
Spentas, ' the Immortal Holy Ones ' ; he himself is often
9. The counted with them as the sev'enth. They
dmesha resemble the ministers of some autocratic
They sit round about Ormazd,
Spentas. sovereign.
and he holds counsel with them. Accord-
ing to their names they are pure abstractions, although
in the GBthss they are already represented as persons.
They have been developed partlyout of the ethical ideas of
the old Aryan belief. As a whole, however, they are a
true product of Zoroaster's conception. They form the
necessary constituents of the kingdom of Mazda which
is to be perfected, and in them the tendency of
Zoroastrianism to personify abstract ideas takes its
origin. In everything the Amesha Spentas are the
truest fellow-workers of Ormazd. T h e care and
guardianship of creation is entrusted to them, and they
are regarded as tutelary divinities over the separate
kingdoms of nature.
T h e other good spirits of Ormazd are comprised
under the name Yazata (keds), 'angels.' These are
partly religious and ethical abstractions of Zoroastrian-
ism l i e Rashnu (Uprightness) or Ashi Vanuhi (the good
5432
 ZOROASTRIANISM
Reward of Piety). In part they are the unforgotten
forms of Aryan mythology, such as Mithra
Other and Verethraghna (the genius of Victory,
good*pirita. the Iranian counterpart of the Indian
Indra Vrtrahan), or they are the familiar personi-
fications of iiatural phenomena such as the sun, the
moon, fire, wind (cp Herod. ~ I ! I ) . In the Gathiis
most of the Yazatas are not mentloned-even such as
hold quite an important place in the later system and
ritual, like Mithra. It is only Sraosha (holy obedience)
a n d Atar, the fire, the son of Ormazd. that play a more
important d e . For the younger Avesta, special
mention must also be made of AnBhita, goddess of the
waters, and of the Fravashis (Fervers). the spiritual
prototypes of men and of the good creation and at the
same time the guardian spirits of the pious.
Ahriman also has his infernal hosts which he created
for the conflict with Ormazd.
These are endowed with less individuality,
11. Other however, than those of the kingdom of light.
evil spirits. The Druj (Lie, Falsehood), for example, is
opposed to Asha ; Akem Man6 (Bad Thought)
t o Vohu Mano ; and Armaiti to Tarrjmaiti (Pride or Presump-
tion). In the Gathis, the Druj is mentioned more often than
Ahriman himself. In the later texts, the word Druj signifies a
-s cia1 class of female demons. The most familiar of these is
k s u , the corpse spirit. The schematic system of later times
ven Ahrimanian counterparts to each of the other
?ie%i? gpent..s. Myriads of demons, DaEvas (Devs), make
up the mighty horde of Ahriman. They embody all the dis-
turhing elements in nature and the baser instincts in man. Of
most of them we know only the names. The best-known among
them is Aeshma, the demon of Wrath (see ASMODEUS).
As soon as the two spirits encounter each other their
active or creative, and at the same time permanent,
12. The conflict begins. T h e history of this conflict
conffict. is the history of the world. Every move
of Ormazd is met by a counter-move
{puityinz)of Ahriman.
Whatever the good spirit creates, the evil spirit sullies, or, as
the text says, 'just like a fly he rushed out upon the whole
creation ' (Bundahisir, iii. 17). No sooner has Ormazd created
the world than Ahriman brings upon the earth distress in the
form of plague and noxious creatures. Ormazd brings into
.existence the primeval bull (prototype of all animals) ; Ahriman
tortures it to death with hunger sickness, and blows, and its
soul (Geush Urva) complains befire the throne of Ormazd about
the violence i t has had to suffer. Ormazd comforts the soul of
the creature with the assurance of the future coming of Zoroaster
.(l'asna, 2 9 ; . Bundaltish, 4). Ormazd creates the first man
,(Gays Maretan); Ahriman incites against this man Asta-
Vidhatu, the demon of death, and thus sets death in opposition
to life.1
A great cleft runs through the entire world and
divides it into two great camps-the kingdom of light
and the realm of darkness. All creation is divided into
that which is Ahura's and that which is Ahriman's.
This division extends even to the language. Whenever
mention is made of face, ears, hands, and feet, of activity,
speaking, going, striving, a sharp distinction is made
in the expression between good and evil beings. The
two spirits d o not carry on the struggle in person.
They leave it to be fought out by their respective
creations and by creatures which they send into the
field. T h e field of battle is the present world.
In the centre of the battle is m a n ; his soul is the
abject of the war. Man is a creation of Ormazd, who
therefore has the right to call him to account. Ormazd.
however, created him free in all his decisions and in
his actions, wherefore he is accessible to the influences
of the evil powers. This freedom of the will is clearly
expressed in Yusnu, 3111 : e Since thou, 0 Mazda,
didst at the.first create our being and our souls in
accordance with thy mind, and didst create our under-
standing and our life together with the body, and works
and words in which man according to his own will can
frame his confession, the liar and the truth-speaker
alike lay hold of the word, the knowing and the
ignorant each after his own heart and understanding.
Armaiti searches, following thy spirit, where errors are
1 This story is by some wrongly connected with the story of
Adam in Genesis.
5433
ZOROASTRIANISM
found.' Man takes part in this conflict by all his life
and activity in the world. By a true confession of faith,
by every good deed, by continually keeping pure his
body and his soul, he impairs the power of Ahriman
and strengthens the power of goodness, and establishes
a claim for reward upon Ormazd ; by false confession,
by every evil deed and defilement, he increases the evil
and renders service to Ahriman.
T h e life of man falls into two parts-its earthly
portion and that which is lived beyond the grave. T h e
*13. ~~~ here lot assigned to him afterbeath is the
and hereafter. result and consequence of his life
upon earth. No religion has so clearly
grasped the ideas of guilt and merit. k strict reckoning
of the works of men here below will be kept in heaven.
After death, at the end of the third night, the soul
arrives at the head of the Cinvat6-Peretu. or Accountant's
Bridge, over which lies the way to heaven.' Here
-
takes d a c e the revealing and disclosure of all its past
14. Judicium life, the judicium parficulure. The
particdare. angel Mithra and the angel Rashnu
make UD the account and reckoning
( S B E ~ ~ Zor ~ Rashnu-the
S), Just weighs the good an;
the evil deeds over against each other in the impartial
balance that does not vary a hair's breadth in favour of
any man, not even a monarch ( S B E 24 18).
Perhaps in ancient times the bridge itself was conceived of as
a sort of automatic scale. In the case of the soul of the just
whose good deeds outweigh his evil acts, the bridge becomes
wide and easy of crossing. and a t this moment his own religion
comes to meet him in t i e shape of a beautiful maiden, and
accompanieshim to Paradise (Garbdemiinem), where Vohu Mano
receives him (Vend. 1930-31). In the case of the soul of the
wicked, however, the bridge becomes as narrow as the edge of
a razor, and when he reaches the middle of it he falls off and is
plunged headlong into hell (SBE 17 48).
Should the evil and the good be equally balanced,
the soul passes into an intermediate stage of existence
(the HarnEstakSm), and its final lot is not decided until
the last judgment.
Man, however, has been smitten with blindness and
ignorance; he knows neither the eternal law nor the
things that await him after death. H e allows himself
only too easily to be ensnared by the craft of the evil
powers who seek to ruin his future existence. H e
worships and serves false gods, being unable to dis-
tinguish between truth and lies. Thus it came about
that Ormazd graciously determined to open the eyes of
mankind by sending a prophet to show them the right
way of salvation. According to the later legend ( Vend.
Zr),Ormazd at first w-ished to entrust this task to Yima
(Jemshid), the ideal of an Iranian king ; but Yima, the
secular man, felt himself unfitted for it and declined
the office. H e contented himself therefore with estab-
lishing by order of the Lord in his paradise (vuru) a
heavenly kingdom in miniature, to serve at the same time
as a pattern for the heavenly kingdom that was to come.
Zoroaster at last was found fit for the mission. It was
not without special reason, the GBthHs believe, that the
calling of a prophet should have taken place precisely
when it did. It was, they held, the final appeal of Ormazd
to mankind at large. Like John the Baptist and the
apostles of Jesus, Zoroaster believed that the fulness of
time was near, that the kingdom of heaven was at hand.
Through the whole of the GHthZs runs the pious hope
that the end of the present world is not far off. Zoroaster
himself hopes along with his followers to live to see the
decisive turn of things, the dawn of the new and better
aeon. Ormazd will summon together all his forces for
a final decisive struggle, and break the power of evil
for ever ; by his help the faithful will achieve the victory
15. Judicium over their detested enemies. the duZvu
worshippers, and render them power-
universale. less. Then the great act ( y i h )will be
accomplished. Ormazd will institute a universal world..
judgment (judiciumuniversuk).
1 For parallels see Che. OPs. 438, note e?
5434
 ZOROASTRIANISM
By means of an ordeal of fire and molten metal he will separate
the good from the wicked and will judge strictly according to
justice, punish the wicked, and assign to the good the hoped-for
reward. Ahriman will be cast, along with all those who have
been delivered over to him to suffer the pains of hell, into the
abyss, where he will thenceforward lie powerless.
Forthwith begins the one undivided kingdom of God
in heaven and on earth. This is called, sometimes the
good kingdom, sometimes simply the kingdom. Here
the sun will for ever shine, and all the pious and faithful
will live a happy life that no evil power can disturb, in
the fellowship of Ormazd and his angels for ever.
I n one respect with regard to this, there has come
about in the later writings a change that is easy to
understand. I n them the catastrophe and renovation
of the world are placed in a far distant future. Whereas
in the GMhZs Zoroaster himself is more or less clearly
designated as the Saoshyant--i.e., the predestined
saviour of the world-the later writings look for the
appearance of this Saoshyant only a t the end of the
present aeon.
The Avesta does not contain any definite statement as to the
Vend. 2 24).
~I . -
division of time in the existence of the universe (vet C D Fracm.
According to the Budehesh, the duration of this world is
IZ,OOO years divided into periods of ~ 0 0 0years each (cp Plut.
de Is. 47). In the first 3000 years Ormazd creates his creatio;
in its spiritual form or prototype, without Ahriman heing aware
of it. At the beginning of the second period Ahriman raises
himself from hell into the light and perceives the start which
Ormazd has obtained. In this period both spirits create their
material creation. At the heginning of the third era Ahriman
invades the creation of Ormazd, and during this period good
and evil counterbalance each other. At the beginning of the
tenth millennium, Zoroaster appears, and a new prophet is
to spring from his seed after each of the three remaining
millennia. As the last of these Messiahs the real Saoshyant
shall appear.
T h e Saoshyant with his helpers will accomplish the
renovation of the world (frashd-kereti). Ormazd will
raise the dead and the Saoshyant will assemble them
all in one place. Everyone must descend into the great
flood of molten metal. T o the pious this lake will seem
like a flood of warm milk ; but to the wicked it will feel
as if they were wading in molten metal. Then, in
the name of hfazda, the Saoshyant will distribute unto
everyone a reward according to his works. Ormazd
will hurl Ahriman powerless back into hell, which is
filled up with the molten metal, and the world will be-
come purified for ever and for aye (Bund. 30). T h e
younger (later) Avesta speaks of the end of the world
and of the last things only in brief allusions. The
idea. of the resurrection of the dead is quite familiar
to it and seems to be referred to several times even in
the GHthBs.
The moral and ethical teachings of Zoroastrianism are
sound and consistent. T h e moral code is summed up
16. Ethics. in the three words ; ' good thoughts, good
words, good deeds.' Man must enlist in
the service of Ormazd and devote himself to the good
cause with his whole being, and he must d o every
injury possible to Ahriman. This fundamental prin-
ciple dominates the entire religious code and all the
ecclesiastical legislation. Because of the general utility
of its precepts this code represents a high standard of
civilisation when we consider the early times t o which
it belongs. It imposed upon the faithful the duty of
worshipping Ormazd and his spirits, of prayer, sacrifice,
the inviolability of his creatures, the sacred respect for
the cow (emphasised especially in the GBthHs), attention
to agriculture and arboriculture. irrigation of dry lands,
extermination of noxious animals, charity toward one's
co-religionists, and the observance of absolute truthful-
ness. Above all stands the law of chastity. T h e faith-
ful shall preserve purity, both of body and of soul.
T h e soul must be kept pure from heretical doctrines
a n d the influences of the Devs, the body must be kept
from coming into contact with unclean persons, with
corpses, filth, or other Ahrimanian objects. Man also
must not in any way defile the pure elements of Ormazd
such a s fire, water, and earth. This love of purity,
5435
ZOROASTRIANISM
which as a principle is already proclaimed in'the GMhHs
( Ynsna, 485). has led to the adoption of the niosc
scrupulous washings a n d lustrations and elaborate cere-
monies of purification, as well as of many strange
customs, such as the exposing of corpses on the Towers
of Silence (Dakhmas). According to strict logic, offences
against the precepts of the law cannot be undone ; but
in the heavenly account they can be counterbalanced by
L surplus of good works. T h e elaborately developed
system of Zoroastrianism fixed the doctrine of equivalents.
with mathematical precision, and definitely assigned
certain useful and pious works a s acts of penance f o r
certain sins. But corporal chastisements also were
prescribed ; these, in the main, were for the purpose
of driving out the Devs that had taken possession of the
sinner's body. I n later times, however, matters were
made easier for the sinner. For corporal punishment
monetary fines could be substituted, and absolution from
sin became more and more a means of grace to be had
only a t the hands of the church. Confession to t h e
high priest, sincere repentance and reform, remove every
sin from the body (SBE 2495 and Vend. 371). For
such a confession it was obligatory to recite one of the
confessional formulas (Patets). in which the later
literature abounds.
T h e cult of the Zoroastrian religion was without pomp.
T h e sacrifice is described by Strabo (732). T h e sacred
l,. Worship. fire formed the central point. T h e
sacrificial gifts which were offered were
The Magi meat a n d milk, and more especially t h e
sacred drink Haoma. T h e main stress was laid upon
prayer and the ascription of glory to God.
T h e systematic development of the teachings of
Zoroaster and of the Zoroastrian law is undoubtedly
the work of the priesthood which through their strict
exclusiveness became a n hereditary caste. I n the W.
they were called-Magi ; in the language of the Avesta
they are termed Athravan ; but even in the sacred texts
the word Magi occurs in a few instances. T h e Athravans.
were the privileged guardians of the religion and the
leaders of worship. They alone could perform the
sacrifices (Herod. 1132), and carry out the ecclesiastical
punishments and penances ; they alone could interpret
the law. They exercised a sort of spiritual guardianship
over the laity. Every young man, after his reception
into the community of the faithful, or Mazdayasnians,
had to select a spiritual guide, a father-confessor (Ratu).
T h e priesthood never attained political power-or never
even claimed it.
After the fall of the Achzmenidae (331 B.c.) Zoroastrianism
lost greatly in power and dignity. It was suhsequently re-
habilitated, however, by the Sassanians,
18. History Of under whom it reached its highest pros-
Zoroastrianism. perity. It was at this epoch that the
clergy advanced to a firmly-constituted
hierarchy, and Zoroastrianism became the official religion of the
state favoured and protected by the government. The forma;
tion Af sects was at this period not infrequent (cp ' Manichaeism
in EBP)). The Zervanites flourished under Yazdeqard 11.
(438-457 A.u.). They represented Ormazd and Ahriman as
twin sons proceeding from the fundamental prhciple of all, the
limitless time (Znmn akarann). The Mohammedan invasion
(636 A . D .) with the terrible persecution of the following centuries,
was a dedthblow to Zoroastrianism. In Persia itself only a few
followers of Zoroaster are now found (in Kirman and Yazd).
The Parsees in and around Bombay hold to Zoroaster as their
prophet and adhere to t h e ancient usages ; but their doctrine
has reached the stage of a pure monotheism (see PARSEES in
EN)).
If we inquire into the origin of the Zoroastrian religion
we must not lose sight of the fact that everything which
19. Origin. is written on this point must necessarily
rest upon mere conjecture. Tradition
has obliterated every trace of the actual process by
n-hich the faith came into existence, and of the particular
factors which were active in its formation. As far as
tradition is concerned the complete doctrine was revealed
by Ormazd in its entirety. Already in the GBthHs t h e
belief in inspiration predominates ; nevertheless they
allow us to read between the lines other things as welL
5436
 ZOROASTRIANISM
W e are denied, however, a clear insight into the popular
religion before Zoroaster and into the ancient doctrines
of the Magi, to whom Zoroaster must have had certain
relation, whatever the exact extent of that relation may
have been.
The Mazda-religion is distinguished from the nature-
religion of kindred peoples by its dogmatic character
and by the unity of its structure. There is a funda-
mental idea in it which is developed with absolute logic.
It is the fundamental dogma of the two spirits, a tenet
which contains both the problem of the world and the
solution of its enigma This doctrine, not only in its
beginning and foundation, bnt also, in part at least. in
its detailed structure, is the product of a single creative
personality ; and that personality was Zoroaster. It
was a new religion that Zoroaster taught. This must
not be taken, however, to mean that everything in
Zoroastrianism is absolutely new. Zoroaster himself
says that his desire was to purify the religion ( Yasna,
449). In its fundamental teaching as well as in its
completely elaborate system Zoroastrianism shows un-
mistakable traces of the old Aryan religion.
In common with the people of India Zoroastrianism has the
cult of fire and of Haoina; it has alsd in common with India
the name of the chief sacrificial priest Zaota (Sk. hat&),of the
gods Mithra and Verethraghna, and the enforcement of minute
purificatory precepts. The Zoroastrian doctrine of the weighing
of good and bad deeds in the balance, which determines the fate
of the soul after death, has its faithful counterpart in the Indian
doctrine of barman and in the balancing of dhamra and adh-
nnmz in M a n u , 12zof: It is only with Zoroaster, however,
that this doctrine is developed in its most practical and, if one
may say so, business-like form. Already in h a p a t h a Br3hmaca
(11 2 7 j3) we meet with the conception of the scale in heaven on
which good and evil deeds are weighed. The threefold diviiion
according to thoughts, words, and deeds, is as familiar to the
Hindus as to Zoroaster.
It has been believed that foreign influences even are
traceable in Zoroastrianism ; but this remains a quite
obscure point. The isolated analogies with Turanian,
Assyro-Babylonian, and Hebraic conceptions cannot be
accepted as giving convincing proof of actual borrowing
on the part of Zoroastrianism (cp C. d e Harlez, Des
Oorigines des Zooroasirisme; Z. A. Ragozin, The story of
X e d i a , BabyZon. and Persia (1888)~ p. 147; Tiele,
Kompendium, par. 109; Darmesteter, Le Zend-Awesta.
3, Introd. lxxiv and lvii). T h e hypothesis of Darmesteter
that the doctrine of the Gilthas was influenced by
Gnosticism, has hardly found any adherents.
The dualistic idea of Zoroaster is not adequately
explained by conceiving it as a remodelling of the old
mythological opposition between gods and demons,
influenced and favoured by the sharp contrasts in nature
in the Iranian land (Duncker, 102; Darmesteter, Ormazd
et Ahriman, 88 271;Ed. Meyer, G A 153.J). Such
an account still leaves unexplained the transformation
and radical change of the Aryan devas (gods) into the
Zoroastrian daivas (devils). Just as the fiendish
demons, daivas. are opposed to the good god Ahura in
Zoroastrianism. so the devas and asur-as have been
placed in opposition in India from the earliest times.
In the oldest literature this opposition is not as yet one
of pronounced hostility ; but it soon becomes so. T h e
devas remain gods, the astlras become demons.
Between these two phenomena of contrasted meanings
there must be a connection of cause and effect. They
point to an old opposition in the Aryan world of the
gods, expressed by the words deva, asura, which grew
to be more and more distinct and sharp with both races,
but in exactly opposite directions. In Iran the contrast
seems to have led at first to two distinct cults, to a n
Ahura cult and to that of the Daevas. This seems to
have been the religious condition of affairs in Iran when
Zoroaster appeared. W e meet with hints in the GHthHs
which show us that the people were divided between
these two opposing cults. T h e opposing parties are not
separated by distance in space or by difference of race ;
they are found side by side. ’ Hard by the believer in
Ahura dwells the worshipper of the damas,’ complains
5437
ZOROASTRIANISM
Zoroaster. Not two cults, but two stages of culture,
are struggling for the primacy ; the Ahura worshippers
represent the higher phase ; they are breeders of cattle,
and in their eyes the cow is a sacred animal; the
worshippers of the daivas on the other hand maltreat
the cow and slaughter it in their sacrifices. From this
religiousdifference and dissension Zoroaster seems to have
received his first impulse for appearing in public. As
an adherent of Ahura whose attribute is ‘ T h e Wise
One,’ and as prophet, he will warn men against false
teachers and priests; and amidst the differences of
creeds and beliefs he will guide them to the wiser choice
in order to save their souls. What the other party
worship as gods under the name of daiwa are in reality
powers by whom unwitting mankind is .led to its
destruction- evil powers, false gods, devils. Such is
the position from which all his teaching starts ; and
thus the change in the conception of daiwa was a
natural development. From the daZwas proceeds all
the evil in the world. But Zoroaster’s speculation does
not stop here. T h e daivas themselves anon become
manifest to him as teing but the instruments of a higher
principle, that is the spiritual enemy, Ahriman. This
Ahriman or evil principle is the most characteristic
product of Zoroastrian speculation. From the schism
or religious dualism of his time he derived the idea of
the dualistic scheme of the universe which has impressed
its character upon the whole of the religion called by
his name.
The literature of the subject has been cited in the course of
the article. Consult especially Tiele, Komjendium der
ReZipmsKescJi., or (best of all) Ed. Meyer, G A 530-573
(1884). On Zoroaster’s life, A. V. Williams Jackson’s Zoroaster,
fhe Projhet of Ancient Iran (New York 1898) may he specially
recommended. See also the references) in Cheyne, OPs. (see
below). K. F. G.
T h e question of the influence of Zoroastrianism on
Jewish religion can only relate to post-exilic Jewish
ao. No religion. There is no evidence of any
inAuence on Persian influence on Jewish belief before
the exile; the reference which has been
Israel. supposed in Ezek. 8 16 to a Persian
custom is based on a mistake (see Crif. Bib.). During
the Babylonian exile, though contact with Persians
was doubtless possible, it was the religion of Babylonia
that naturally exercised more influence than any other
on the Jews. In the Babylonian hymns we find a near
approach to the Jewish conception of God, and to the
Jewish view of sin, whilst the Babylonian view of the
divine creatorship is surpassed in grandeur only by the
Zoroastrian.
I n the period which we may conventionally call post-
exilic, Persian influence, or, more definitely, the
a l . Post-exilic. influence of Mazdaism can more easily
be supposed. T h e Jews in Palestine
cannot have been subject to much direct influence of
this kind. It was rather indirectly, through the large
Jewish colonies E. of the Euphrates and the Tigris,
that Palestinian Judaism was affected by Persia. These
colonies, as we know, kept u p an intercourse with the
community in Judaea. I t is very possible that the idea
of bringing what Artaxerxes is represented as calling
‘ the wisdom of Ezra’s God which is in his hand ’ (Ezra
7 2 5 ) in book form to Jerusalem was, if not suggested,
yet strengthened by the existence of a hook-religion in
Persia, and it would be unreasonable not to suppose
that Jews in and near Persia gained some acquaintance
with the Zoroastrian religion, and were influenced by it.
T h e high moral tone of the best Persians (see the
inscriptions of Darius) and of their religion could not
but attract the best Jews (cp Mal. 11 1 ) , and the Persian
folk-lore would be equally attractive to Jews of a less
spiritual turn of mind. W e need not, of course,
suppose an acquaintance on the part of the Jews with
Zoroastrian Ziferafure; the ideas of book-religions are
not propagated exclusively by the sacred writings.
Eschatological and demonological ideas, in particular,
5438
 ZOROASTRIANISM
were likely to be communicated by word of mouth, and
it is in the field of eschatology, angelology, and
demonology that Persian influence on Judaism may
most surely be recognised,
Ea,-4 post-exilic Persian or Zoroastrian influence is
not easy to prove. Jewish scribes and editors had
other objects than that of enlightening the historical
students of to-day, and official religious writers were
doubtless anxious to check foreign influences, and to
conceal the tokens of their existence. Even the pro-
tests of official writers, however, are useful to the
historical stiident. T h e belief in Satan, as we find it
in the O T , is thoroughly Jewish, and yet it would
hardly have assumed its actual form without the indirect
influence of the belief in Ahriman against which it
became a protest (see SATAN). So too the ancient
benediction called y@Z7 67 must have had a polemical
intention, and yet the custom of reciting it at dawn was
no doubt influenced by a similar Zoroastrian usage.
I t would somewhat strengthen the case for Persian
influence on the Jews if we had other linguistic proofs
besides the supposed derivation of ASMODEUS ( p . v . ) from
AEshma-daeva.
Such proofs, however, are wanting, nor can the
generally accepted Zend etymology of Asmodeus be
z2. Later. called quite certain, owing to the imperfect
correspondence of the qualities of the two
demons. T h e question needs examination in con-
nection with the story of Tobit (may we refer in
advance to a new explanation of Asmodeus in Crit.
Bib. ?), which seems to have passed through several
phases. It is clear, however, that, as time went on,
Persian and Babylonian influences in combination were
more and more felt by the Jews. Hence it is difficult
to say whether the seven evil spirits of Mt. 1245 are to
be traced to Babylon or to Persia, and whether the
Book of Revelation ( a Jewish even more than a Christian
work) strikes us more by its Persian or by its Babylonian
affinities.l Such a competent authority as E. W. West
can see hardly any difference between the Devil of
this book and the Zoroastrian Ahriman, whilst the
eschatology of the later Zoroastrian books has a most
striking resemblance to that of Revelation. T h e contest
of Michael and his angels with the dragon and his angels
is closely parallel to the contest between Vohuman6
‘Good Mind’ and the powers of evil, and to the
1000 years’ conflict with Azhi DahEka (the destructive
serpent). Nor is the awful ’ lake of fire ’ wanting in the
later Zoroastrian books.
T h e seven men,’ ;.e., angels, in Ezek. 92, together
with the seven archangels of Tobit may supply evidence
of a n earlier date for Persian influence, though (without
here raising the question as to the original setting of
the story of Tobit) it may be admitted that the Persian
Amshaspands developed out of Babylonian germs. In
fact, it is becoming more and more clear that we cannot
always draw a sharp distinction between original and
imported Persian beliefs. T h e influence of Babylonia
upon Persia must have begun earlier than used to be
supposed. The religion of Aura-mazda, in spite of its
primitive Aryan roots, must have been influenced, like
the religion of YahwB, by that of Babylonia. For
instance, both the seven chief good spirits and the seven
chief evil spirits of Zoroastrianism have indisputable
Babylonian affinities. Probably, however, it would be
correct to say that Gabriel and Michael and their com-
panions are more directly akin to the Zoroastrian Amesha
Spentas or Amshaspands (whose names are not less
significant) than to the Igigi, or friendly genii, of the
Babylonians. But the seven Amshaspands, even if
borrowed, were modified Hebraistically. Yahwb not
being (as analogy would have required) one of the
seven.2 C p ANGELS, § 4, n. I .
1 Gunkel in his able work (Sch@J u. Chaos) has unduly
ignored the Persian elements.
2 Cp Mills, ‘Zendavesta’ (SBE), 3 145.
5439
Z0ROASTRl”ISM
It is also not improbable that the belief in guardian
angels (Mt. 1810Acts1215) was promoted by the Zoro-
astrian doctrine of f~uuashis (which may also illustrate
the Jewish belief in the angelic hosts)- a doctrine which
has its roots in primitive Sumerian beliefs.
‘ That the fravashis originally meant the spirits of the dead
(Lat. manes) is certain ; but that this conception early mingled
with another-that of the heavenly prototypes of all beings of
the good creation, which were objectified and regarded as the
Sabaoth or heavenly hosts even by the ews is equally certain.
The. conception of prototypes seems to {e of SUmero-Accadian
origin; “ m y g o d ” or “ m y goddess” in the Babylonian
penitential hymns is to be understood of a guardian spirit,
equivalent to the worshipper’s “ better-self or in other words
I’
‘ I of a fravashi ’’ ’ (Of&499J). Cp Tiele, BkG 554 ; de Harlez:
Auestu, Introd. mix, etc. ; hlills Zendauestu ( S B )3 279 *
Casartelli, PhirOsojhy of the Ma&aayasnian RcZigion’ undr:
the Sassunidr, 1 3 7 8 ; Spiegel, Eran. Alteri‘humsRunde, 2 93 ;
Che. OPs.282, 335, 420.
How early the resurrection-idea appeared among the
Jews, is uncertain (cp ESCHATOLOGY, index). The
23. Resurrection. possibility o f . escaping death is
certainly implied in the story of
E n o c h ; but this story was, even if not unknown, not
popular before the post-exilic period. I t appears to
have a Babylonian origin (see E NOCH). W e are on
much safer ground when we connect the Jewish belief
in the resurrection with Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrian
eschatology had a profoundly moral import which must
have been congenial to the Jews. T h e leaders of
Jewish religion no doubt adopted the resurrection
doctrine long after it had been grasped by individuals.
They adopted it cautiously, so cautiously that we might
easily suppose that it arose quite naturally out of the
necessities felt in their own spiritual life. This was
certainly not the case, unless Jewish religion is to be
viewed a s a quite exceptional product. I n course of
time, it was felt that the caution of the earlier leaders
was unnecessary. T h e resurrection might safely be
made general, and the retribution of the wicked be
made as conspicuous as that of the righteous. Nay,
the awards of the righteous would only then acquire
their full attractiveness when the punishment of the
wicked had been made as complete as possible. As
time went on, the indebtedness of Jewish to Persian
belief became still greater, and it is possible that the
Messiahs function of raising the dead (Jn. 525 28) is an
unconscious copy of the function assigned to the hero
Saoshyant (the Beneficent One) in the Avesta.’
T h e Zoroastrian origin of the doctrine of the resurrec-
tion and of the regovation of the world is in itself
probable. It is raised almost to a certainty when we
have proved the late origin of Is. 65 f:, which clearly
expresses the hope of the new heavens and the new
earth2 (6517 6622), and of Is.24-27, in which occurs
not only the promise of the abolition of death (2584
if the text be correct, see Crit. Bib. ad Zoo..), but also a
distinct anticipation of the resurrection of deceased
Israelites 3 (2619). This limitation of the hope to
Israelites we may, as suggested above, ascribe to the
caution of the religious leaders of the Jews.
1 ‘Whose name will be the victorious Saoshyant, and whose
name will be Astvat-ereta. H e will be Saoshyant, because he
will benefit the whole bodily world ; he will be Astvat-ereta (he
who makes the bodily creatures rise up), because as a bodily
creature and as a living creature, he will stand against the
destruction of the bodily creatures, to withstand the Druj (the
Lie-Demon) of the two-footed brood’( Fast,13 !zg, Darmesteter’s
transl.). The Bnndahesh, which is an expansion of genuine old
Zoroastrian elements, is much more explicit (see ch. 50).
2 Dr. Charles seems too bold in pronouncing the expression
of this hope an interpolation, perhaps from Mazdean sources
(Eschatology, 1 2 z J ) . The reference in Is. 51 16 to a reconstitu-
tion of the heavens and.the earth, has been commonly taken to
be merely figurative. This is probable, if 5115f: is to be
regarded as a part of the Second Isaiah’s work. If, however,
chaps. 49-55 were appended to chaps. 40-48 jn the time of Ezra
there is fairly good reason for not minimising the force of the
language.
3 @ perhaps gives the hope a wider scope ; it renders 26 19,
L;va~7ljaovm.~ OL V ~ Yoi, K
C
.
; ;yepBljaourar oi i v TO% puqweiorc.
See SBOT, ‘ Isa.’ d e b . 17%
5440
 ZOROASTRIANISM
The results here arrived a t are not affected by Darmesteter's
later views on the Avesta, for ( I ) these views are extremely
difficult to justify, and ( 2 ) Darmesteter in 1893 admitted1 that
the defeat of Ahriman, the resurrection, and the renovation of
the world, were already dogmatically fixed in the time of the
Achaemenidre.
It is much less certain, and yet far from improbable,
that the interest of the later Jews in 'Wisdom ' was
24. ,Wisdom.' stimulated by a kindred phenomenon in
Zoroastrianism. T h e stress laid in the
Avesta and elsewhere on the two kinds of Wisdom 2
(heavenly and ?arthly) reminds us of the references to
two kinds of Wisdom in Job and Proverbs. In later
times the Jews identified the heavenly Wisdom with the
L a w ; they took up, it seems, with enthusiasm the
Zoroastrian idea of the pre-existence in heaven of the
personified divine Law. It is also just conceivable that
the comparatively high morality of the p r e - M a c c a k a n
Judaism may be partly due to the influence of the
morality of Zoroastrianism. Certainly the Zoroastrian
phrase, ' good thoughts, good words, good deeds,'
might have been taken as a motto by the Jewish wise
men and psalmists, and if the received text of Pss. 16
17 49 73 is correct, it will be reasonable to compare
the expressions of the hope of immortality and resur-
rection which that text may be held to contain, with
expressions of the same hope in the GiXthBs. It may
justly be questioned, however, whether the received text
i s correct. There are phenomena which no grammatical
or exegetical subtlety can explain away, which seem to
compel us to assume corruption of the text. But for
this, we should certainly not be greatly surprised to find
the hope of a future life emerging in any part of the
Psalter, this book in all its parts being certainly a work
of the Persian and Greek periods.
I t has also been conjectured that the early myths of
Genesis have a Zoroastrian origin. This view, however,
2 ~ Late. Judaism. was possible only before the wonder-
ful discoveries in the libraries of
Assyria. T h e ultimate sources of these early myths are
probably N. Arabian and Babylonian, whilst the second
Fargard of the Zoroastrian writing called the Vendidad,
in its present form, may even have been influenced by
the narratives in Genesis3 I t is true, the Talmudic
and Midrashic statements on the First Man exhibit
strong Persian elements. But this is only what might
be expected in the .?a& Judaism. It is remarkable that
under the Sassanid kings Zoroastrianism appears to
have been in some degree affected by Jewish influences
-a slight compensation for the long-continued indebted-
ness of Jewish to Zoroastrian belief.
Here this brief survey must close. A full exegetical
treatrrient of the Biblical passages would have unduly
extended this article. Enough if the close resemblance
between Judaism and Zoroastrianism has been brought
home to the reader. Elsewhere a parallel between
Zoroaster and John the Baptist has been suggested.
But, if we may follow the most respected authorities,
this comparison does not go far enough. Indeed, there
is no figure equal in interest to Zoroaster's : he is a
prophet, reformer, sacred poet all in one, and has left
a n abiding impress on a faith which is as strongly
moral as the Jewish, and without some acquaintance
with which neither the later Judaism nor the later
Christianity can be adequately appreciated.
An attempt to reconsider the relation of Judaism to Zoro-
astrianism on the basis of the sacred texts and of the most
modern authorities is to he found in Cheyne's
26. Literature. Ok&z &fhe Psalter(l8yr), pp. 357.394-409,
433.440 ; ' Possible Zoroastrian Influences on
the Religion of Ancient Israel ' Expos. Times June July
August 1891; 'The Book of Ps&s, its origin ahd redtion t;
Zoroastrianism, Semitic Studies in memory of A, Kohut,
1897, pp. 111-119;3ew. Eel. Liye affev thc Exile, 74, 81, 151,
I ~ ? , Z I O , Z2~5I 8, 8 Sef:also Moulton, Expos. Tirncs, May1898,
~ ~~~
1 Le Zendavcsta 12 Ixxiii.
2 See Che. Ex& 5 78J lm. ReL Life, 15,.
See CREATION DELUG;
4 Darmesteter, fin8 #ri2rej&lo+-rsane, Paris, 1891.
5441
BUR
pp. 352 8 (essay by a Zend scholar, putting forward the same
r l view and the same leading facts as the first-named work).
tave, Ueber d. Einfluss d. Parsismus auf d. fudenthum:
1898 ; Soderblom, L a Yiejuture d'apre's le Mnzaisme (1901).
BGklen, Lferurandtschaft der ju'rfisch-christl.mit der j e r s i s c d
Eschafologie (~yzrz). Oldenberg (ZDMG 5043-68 [1896]) gives
fresh reason for believing in close relations a t an early date
between Iranian and Babylonian religion. Hommel too (PSBA
21 1 3 7 8 [rsggl) points out that the foreign-looking divine name
Assaramazas, in an Assyrian list of gods, is really Ahura-mazda
also that the divine names Mitra and Marun, found in Assyriad
.
religious texts, are the same as the Vedic Mitra and Varuna.
These names were borrowed by the Assyrians, according to
Hommel, in the Kassite period (1700-1202B.c.). Zimmern too
( K A T ( 3 )346 n. I), points out, in harmony with the prisent
article, that the relation of Parsism to Babylon needs to he more
closely examined. K. B. G., $5 1-19; T. IC. c . , 55 20-26.
ZORZELLEUS (zopzehh~oy [A]), I Esd. 5 38.
See BARZILLAI, 2.
ZTJAR (YjU ; cwrap [BAFL]), an Issacharite (Nu.
1 8 [PI).
ZUPH (?ID),Dt.11, AVW., RV SUPH( q . ~ . ) .
ZUPH (VlY, as if ' honeycomb '). T h e 'land of
Zuph' (I S. 95, mi@[BA], ut@ [L]) is the district
about the unnamed city where Samuel and Saul met.
In I S. 1I (vauctp [B], uoua [A], uw@ [L] ; and I Ch.
635 [zo], Kr. oou@ [BA], aou@r [L]) the descent of
Elkanah is apparently traced back to an ancestor Zuph ;
I Ch. 6 26 [II]. however, gives the name as Zophai,
or as we might vocalise, Zuphi-i. e . , ' the Zuphite '
(UOU@[E]L [BAL]).
Most critics also find , ~ ) y(a Zuphite) in I S. 1 I, on which
1W7?a t the end of the verse may, it is thought, he a gloss. If,
therefore 'Zuph ' in I S. 9 5 is the same as 'Zuph'. in I S. 1I,
etc., the 'land of Zuph' will mean probably the district held by
the clan Zuph.
It appears, however (see RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM), that the M T
of I S. 1I (on which I Ch. 0 35 [20] depends) is very corrupt, and
that no use can he made of )s, or Zuph, which is probably
7
incorrect. The ca;se is the same with 'Zuph' in the phrase
'the land of Zuph. Of a Zuph in Mount Ephraim (commonly
so called) we know nothing, and the supposed reference to such
a land throws the geography of Saul's journey into great con-
fusion. IlX or (see @) ?'+ in I s.Q 5 is very possibly a corrupt
fragment of 3>:?, Mizpah ; it is the Mizpah referred to in I S.
7' 5 8 and 10 17, and, as 7 16 shows, specially connected with
Samuel. See MIZPAH, I.
Winckler indeed has suggested (Gf 2) that the land of Zuph
(cp Ramathaim-zophim) was in the territory of Benjamin before
the reductionof its limits by David (who according to Winckler,
conquered Benjamin and excluded frdm it 'the hill count
of Ephraim'). There is also the possibility that 'the h i 2
country of Ephraim' spoken of was in the Negeb, and that 1's'
as well as qiD, comes fiom nois. There does appear to have
been a southern Ephraim and though to find it in I S. 9 4 would
subvert all our theories, ;et we must leave the question open
whether the home of Saul may not have been in the Negeb,
improbable as this may seem.
31 is also supported hy I Ch.'820 Kt?. On the form +B?S
(I'Ch. 611) cp Kittel, SBOT, Chron. a d loc. I n T S 1 1
Wcllbausen, Klostermann, Marquart, read ~ I D Hl i s , ' Zuph
of Ephraim.' T. K. C.
ZTJR (and its possible compounds). W e find V U ,
Zur (sur), used as a synonym for God or as an element
in a compound title descriptive of God as the Mighty
One, in Is. 17 IO, and in many late exilic and post-exilic
passages.
See Dt. 324 15 18 30 31 [ais], 37 I S. 2 2 zS. 22 [=Ps. 181
3 32 47 [dis]23 3 Ps. 19 15 1141 28 I 31 3 [ Z ] 62 3 78[2 6 71 71 3 73 26
7835 8927 [26] 9216[r51 9422 951 1441 [also 756, @] Is. 264
3029 448 Hab. 112.1
Among these passages Dt. 3 2 4 18 30$, I S.23 Is.
4 4 8 Hab. 112 are specially important, because here 'us,
' Rock,' appears to have become altogether a synonym
for ' God.'a To these we may perhaps add Josh. 1 5 5 8 ,
where BETH-ZUR( 4 . v . ) may mean house of Zur'=
' house of God.'3 Are we to suppose that phrases like
1 Is. 30 29 and Hah. 1126 are probably late ; see the com-
mentaries of hlarti and Nowack.
2 I n Ps. 75 6 we should probably read neither 7 ~ ) f lnor l 1~1,
but i~"?!: (cp 81 19 [IS]).
3 Ho&el ( A H T 320, cp 300) also compares the royal name
i n 3 (Bir-sur) in the inscription of Panammu, king of Sam'al
(8th cent.), and the S. Arabian woman's name ZurL'addana.
5442
 ZUR .
rock of my salvation ' are suggested by a n early divine
title iqy, Zur (' rock ' ) ? If so, the author of Dt. 32 and
those who followed him did but revert to a n ancient
usage when they employed Zur and Yahwe synonymously.
And if this early divine title existed among the Hebrews,
we may, not without some plausibility, regard the four
personal names ELIZUR,P EDAHZUR , Z URIEL , and
ZURISHADDAI (all in P) as ancient names preserved
by the late Priestly Writing.
T h e literary evidence, however, is not favourable to
this view ; and on the sole ground of the place-name
Bethzur (which can quite well be explained ' rock-house '
or ' rock-place ') we cannot venture to regard as beyond
all doubt the early existence of a divine name Zur. If,
therefore, the four names referred to really contain the
(late) divine name Zur, they must be artificial coinages
of P. But it is an objection to this view that P never
employs the title 1)s of God. Are we to suppose,
then, that P derived the names from some other late,
post-deuteronomic writer?
The difficulty can only be removed by a keener criticism of
the MT. As the result of this we have found elsewhere that
the four names are probahly corruptions of ethnics or gentilics.
The corruptions in the proper names of P are so numerous that
this theory has to be seriously considered. See PIZDAHZUR
ZURIELZURISHADDAI.Cp also PASHHUR; if this word be
corruption of Pedahzur we get another set of references to this
name. The date of jer.20 (Pashhur chapter), however, is
questioned (see, J EREMIAH ii, 5 6).
On the biblical passages, cp Gray HPN xg5#', and on
Jewish views of the meaning of Zur &e Wiegand, ZA TWlO
8 5 8 ('90). 'r. K . c.
292, (772, abbrev., perhaps from lWg, Mi+r in
N. Arabia [see M IZRAIM , 5 261 cp Rekem= Jerahmeel,
Reba='Ar%b ; c o y p [BAFL]). I. A Midianitish
chief, Nu. 25 r5 31 8 Josh. 1321.
2. A name in a genealogy of B ENJAMIN (g.".,
5 9 probably of the SZrephBthim. ovii may in fact have come from
ii. p), cp ZEROR( I Ch. 830 ruoup [A] = 936 r m i p [BKA]).
His mother bears the Jerahmeelite name M AACAH
10s
(Che.). S e e / @ I ? l l x x o - x ~ $5
~,
5443
END OF VOL. Iv
ZUZIM
ZURIEL (5&'llU, as if ' m y rock is El,' but see
below ; COYPIHA [BAFL]), b. Abihail, 'prince' of the
families of Merari (Nu. 3 35jt.
The name taken by itself might he a combination of two
namesof God (cp ZUR). But if Ahihail is a(popu1ar) corruption
of ' Jerahmeel ' (see MAHALATH, and cp $*n.iN if correct, in
I Ch. 2 29) and if ' Mahli ',is a corruption of ' Jeiahme'eli ' and
' Merari' of ' Misri ' (ie., belonging to Musur or Mugri [on the
S. Palestinian border]'), or from some other ethnic (cp MERAB),
it is probable that 5.q is simply an dormative, and that
implies a clan-name i ? y , possibly from igly, and ultimately from
nDip. Cp n T 5 D (SOPHERETH). T. K. C.
ZURISHADDAI (+T@?)Y, 5 43, as iT ' m y r i c k is
Shaddai,' but see below ; coyp[e]lcaAal [BAF], and
c o y p l c a b e [L]), father of the Sirneonite prince Shelu-
miel, Nu. 1 6 (212,COYPICAAAEI [Fl ; 7 3 6 41 l O 1 g t ) .
Under the form S ALASADAI he is mentioned along
with his son SHELUMIEL (4.w. ) in the compiled genealogy
of Judith (81,mpaua8ar [B], aaXa. [A], uapr. [h']).
See G ENEALOGIES i., col. 1662, n. I.
1)s (Zur) and '@ (Shaddai?)may both be names of God (see
ZURSHADDAI). But names (especially in P) being so often
corr;pt, it is not improbable that both were originally ethnics,
and ultimately come respectively from ngis (Zarephatb) and
s.qyav.' (Ishmael). See ZURIEL and SHADDAI. Asshur=the
southern Geshur with which the Simeonites may have been
connected. Po;sibly too the Danite name, AMMISHADPAX
(T.w.),may he a distoried f&mof Ishmael, and SHELUhriEL (q.v).
may also have a tribal reference. T. K. C.
ZaZIM (D'VT), a people on the E. of the Jordan,
Gen.14 j t (cp H AM). Sym. < O L < O ~ ~ F L V ,@AEL &hq i q v p b ,
perhaps reading either P'!?lp (Klo. Gesch. 107) or O'pWY (CQ
Pesh. .qywy, 'the mighty ones,' and the form o-niai, ZAMZUM-
MIM . See EMIM). At any rate, we cannot venture to connect the
name with that of the Roman military station Ziza, SE. of
Heshbon. Sayce's theory (Crit. Mon. 160s) is also too
hazardous. Probably the Zuzim are to be identified with the
ZAMZUMMIM (g.v.), and are a branch of the Rephaim-Le.,
n . 1 ~(Perizzites (though the plur. of 913g does not actually
occur); -7,g itself may he a corruption of *ngys. See PERIZ-
ZITE, REPHAIM. T. K. C.
5444