THE REPHAIM,AND THEIR CONNEXION WITH EGY PTIAN

HISTORY .

“

l [Reprin ted from‘Kit to

’s Journal of Sacred Literature,

’

for Oct .

C (97CHAPTER 1 .

State of P alestine during the P atriarchal period .

BE F ORE we can hope to un derstan d fully the political con ditionof Egypt an d that of Israe l, at the momen tous epoch when thelatter were brought out of the house of bon dage

” to b e made anation among nation s, we must ascend the stream of time som e

five cen turies,in order to study the revolution s wrought durin g

that in terval in the con dition of those people of Palestin e whowere the precur sors of Israel in the land ; and who, un der theappoin tment of an overrul ing Providen ce, were the prin cipalagents in working out— in directly, the destinies of Israel,—anddirectly, those ofEgypt . The two centuries preceding the Exodeare a poin t in time when the history of these two n ation s unitesan d we must look to Palestin e for the connecting link betweenthem .

Why—when Joseph’s fam ily en tered Egypt (G en . xlvi . 34)

— was every shepherd such an abom in ation to the Egyptian s,that the re latives of the kin g

’ s greatest ben efactor were objectsof suspicion to his people from their mann er of l ife an d occupation ? Why was the land of Goshen the on ly spot in all Egyptwhere they coul d b e tolerated by the population ? What revolu tion s subsequen tly brought on such a change of feel ing towardthe blameless an d harm less Hebrews

,that nothing short of thei r

exterm ination coul d make the Egyptian mon arch feel sure of hiskin gdom

’s safety ? Why was he afraid that if they left the

lan d,they would j oin his enem ies ? (Ex . i . 8 And fin ally

,

who were those enemies

M any an d various solution s of these problems have been putforth from time to time but nothing more defin ite than detached and imperfectly supported conjectures

,has hitherto been

offered in an swer to the last an d chief question of all— the k eyt o the rest—Who were those great an d form idable foes ofEgypt

0 In the B iblical In telligen ce of the last numbe r of th is Journal, we no ti ceda paper on the Rephaim , an d the ir con n ex ion w ith Egyptian H isto ry , by M iss F AN N YCO R BAU X , whi ch had been read befo re the Syro -Egyptian So cie ty , and a brief ahstract ofwhich appeared in the Athen ceum for M arch 1 5 . This lady ’ s clo se acquain tan ce w i th the class of subjects to wh ich th is enquiry re lates, is w ell kn own throughher ab le an d in terest ing commun i cat ions to the Soc ie ty just named an d i t istherefo re a pecul iar satisfactio n to us that our n o t ice of the abo ve paper has pro cure dus the oppo rtun i ty of lay ing the who le of this ingen ious an d valuable disqu isi t ionbefo re our reade rs . What we n ow offer is the fi rst po rtio n of it .—Em '

ro n J. S . L .

2 The Rephaim.

whose power the Egyptian m on archs so greatly dreaded, al

though upwards of a cen tury had elapsed sin ce they were beatenout of the lan dIt is very clear that the brief an d mutilated fragmen ts of

M an etho which have survived the wreck of ages, appear to conn ect these aggressors of Egypt with Palestin e . I trust I shallsucceed in producing sufficient data to dem on strate that it isindeed to the history of a very remarkable

,but hitherto disre

garded primeval race, once exten sively spread over that land,and called in the Bible the RE PHA IM

,that we may look with

confiden ce, both for the solution of the great problem in Egyptian history—an d for a test of the great chron ological problemin Scripture history

,the syn chron ical connexion of Egypt an d

Israe l by equally authentic accoun ts of correspon ding even ts,described by the great Theban con querors i n the monumen talrecords of the ir triumphs

,on the on e hand ; an d by the patriarch

ofhistory in the sacred an n als ofhis people,on the other .

The historical fragmen t which form s chapter xiv of Genesis,in serted by Moses in to the biography of his an cestor Abraham ,

introduce s us to this people and exhibits at the same time in so

striking a light the political condition of Palestin e at the epochof his settlemen t in the land

,that i t wil l b e desirable to have

the n arrative entire before our View for con sideration .

G ENESIS x 1v .

1 Now i t was in the days of Amraphel k ing of Shinar, Ariochking ofEllasarf

’ Chedorlaomer k ing of E lam,and T idal k ing ofG o i

’

m ;2 they made war w i th Bera k ing of Sodom

,and w i th Birsha king of

G omorrah,Shinab king of Admah

,Shemeber k ing of Zebo im

,and

the king of Bela,which is (now ) Zoar ;

3all these were confederate in

the vale of Shiddim,

° which is (n ow ) the sal t sea.

5 agingE llasar . In a very in teresting pape r read be fo re the G eographical So c ie tyo n the 14th April , Col . Raw l inson i den t i fied this n ame w i th the Aapum a. o fXen opho n ,

which he takes for Resen and con s iders the moun ds of N imrud , named in the inscript io ns Reb ekha, to b e the nhm Rehobo th o f G en . x . 1 1 , and o n ly a suburb o f“ the great c ity” Resen or Larissa=E llasar.

6 D ub In etymo logy, and especially in the i den tification of proper n ames

w ri tten in o ne language , w i th the i r co rrespo n ding fo rms in an o the r , a c lo se adher

e n ce to the o r ig ina l o rthography is of great impo rtan ce . O n th is accoun t I sha l la lways ren de r the H ebrew n ames o f places to b e hereafter inden t ifi cd , by the i r radicals , w i tho ut regard to the Maso rite po in t ing , whenever a mo re an c ien t an d authen ti co rthograph y of the n ames is fo un d ex tan t in the Egyptian records , to prove that thepo i n ts give a w ro ng pro nun c iat ion .

In the prese n t i nstan ce , I read Shirld im , the variatio n o f lD from sh to 8 be ingunk n o w n in early t ime s . T he sam e o bse rvatio n appl ies to my read ing of D

'nv Shalom .

Ilacl Sli ithlim an d Shalom hcen o rig ina l ly pro n o un ced S i ddim and Salem ,Mo ses

wo ul d have w ri tte n them w i th a D . Vulc the two o rthograph ies o f the test -wo rdS h ibbo leth , in Judges xu . li .

The Rephaim . 3

4Twelve years they ser ved Chedorlaomer,and in the thirteen th

they rebelled.

5And in the fourteen th year came Chedorlaomer an dthe kings that were wi th him,

and smo te the REPHAIM in Ash taro thkarnaim

,

d the ZU ZIM in Ham,and the EM IM in Shaveh-kiriathaim,

6and the HOR IM in the moun tain s of Seir as far as El-Paran e

(E lath ),which is near the desert . 7Then they turned, and came to Ain -mishpat,which is (n ow ) Kadesh

,and smo te all the coun try of the AMALEK ITES,

and also the AMORITES who were settledf in Hazazon - tamar .8Then wen t forth the king of Sodom

,the k ing of G omorrah, the

k ing of Admah,the king of Zeboim

,and the king of Bela (n ow

Zoar) , and arrayed them selves in bat tle in the vale of Shiddim 9again st

Chedorlaomer k ing of Elam,T idal k ing of G oim,

Amraphel king of

Shinar,and Arioch king of E llasar

,four k ings again st five .

10There were pits of bi tumen in the vale of Shiddim . The kingsof Sodom and G omorrah fled

,and fell there

,and the remainder fled to

the moun tain .

1 1And they (the en emy) took all the riches of Sodomand G omorrah

,and all their provision s, and wen t their way ;

1 2 theyalso took Lot

,son of Abram ’

s bro ther,and his riches

,and departed ;

he was settled in Sodom .

1 3A fugi tive came and told Abram the Eberite ;9 he was then

dwelling in the terebin th-

grove of Mamre the Amorite, bro ther of

E shcol and of An er ; these were in alliance with Abram .

1 4WhenAbram heard that his kin sman was taken captive, he led forth histrain'

ed servan ts,born in his own house

,three hun dred and eighteen in

number,and followed (the en emy ) as far as Dan .

1 5He sto le”upon

d D jm n'

wrj xpp The two-horn ed Ashtaro th , to whom th is city , metropo l is ofBashan , was dedicated .

e pug) 5‘s; E l-P aran , Elath . The Septuag in t version , though in some parts

made from a fau l ty text , happen s in th is place to give us the k ey to a valuab le emen

dat ion of the Hebrew readin g, po in ting to the i den t i ty of E l-paran and Elath , byshew ing that the H ebrew must have o rig inall y read pug n§’z~z the terminal n of

which has been acccidentally dropped . They tran slate é'w s 7 779 repefi i'

v9ov 7 779¢apdu

“un to the tereb in th -tree of Pharan ,” having eviden t ly m istaken the final n

of the prope r name Elath for the fem in ine constructed fo rm of E lah , a terebin thtree. An d thus the i r t ran slation- albe i t an ev iden t m isin terpretat ion— proves theo rig inal reading E lath , and establishes the high an tiqu i ty of th is impo rtan t mari t imec ity , ascending to an un kn own pe rio d befo re the m igration ofAbraham . The si tuat ion of E lath con fi rms this reading for the I srae l i te ho st passed this place and the

con t iguous fo rtress of E z iongaber , when they turned back from Kadesh to compassthe moun tain s of Se i r . Hen ce the ir route was the same as that of these Assy rianin vaders, on ly reversing the di rection .

f Settled seems to ren der mo re precisely than dwelt , the radical i dea of m y

to sit down , settle, take up afi x ed residen ce , as opposed to an to sojourn , take up a

passing residence, Dwell is amb iguous ; i t co vers bo th these ideas, wh ich the

Hebrew dist ingu ishes.

9my}; The Shem i te descen dan ts of Eber were kn own by this name among theHam i te races of Palest in e and Egypt, to distingu ish them from the Aram ite Shem i testhe i r n e ighbours. I t is remarkable that the E gypt ian s—and lon g afterwards thePhi l istines—in var iably speak of the I srae li tes as the I brim o r Eberites=H ebrews .

D im}? 951331 This expression has g iven r ise to much var iety of opinion as to its

A 2

4 The Rephaim .

them by n igh t, he and his servan ts smo te them,and pursued them as

far as H obah,which is to the n orthi of D amascus :

16he brough t backall the riches, and brought back also his kin sman Lot

,and his riches

,

the women , and the people .

17The king of Sodom wen t forth to mee t him,after his re turn from

smi ting Chedorlaomer and the kings w ith him ,in the valley of Shaveh,

which is the royal valley ; 18and Melchizedek king of Shalem brough t

forth bread and w in e, (he was priest of the Supreme G od,)

19and

blessed him,saying,

Blessed b e Abram of the Supreme G od,Possessor of heaven and earth20And b lessed be the Supreme G od,Who hath delivered thin e en em ies into thin e hand .

’

And he (Abram) gave him the t i the of all .21 Then said the k ing of Sodom

,G i v e me the person s, and take

the riches for thyself.22Abram replied to the k ing of Sodom

,I have lifted upmy han d

un to Jeho vah, possessor of heaven and earth

,

23n ot to take of augh t

that is thine, from a hair-fi llet even to a sandal-tie ; for thou shal t n o tsay , I hav e en riched Abram ; 24

ex cept ing what the youths hav econ sum ed

,and the share of the men who wen t w ith me

,An er

,Eshcol

,

and Mamre,let these take their share .

However uncon n ected with the remain der of the sacred history this chapter may appear, in its relating even ts which befelln ations we n ever hear of again un til we hear that they haveceased to exist as n ation s

,its import becomes of in estimable

value when we turn our atten tion to the circum stan tial characterof the accoun t . Then

, each in cident in cluded in this preciousfragmen t of prim eval history becomes doubly sign ifican t by theconsequences it draws after it in the way of in feren ce .

Firstly : We see a group of n ations, whose settlemen ts exten dfrom the foot of M oun t Hermon to the head of the E lamitic

precise s ign ificatio n . To be smo o th o r slippery seems the rad ical sen se of p‘m.

Compare G en . xxv i i . II, “ My bro ther E sau is a hai ry man , and I am a smo o thman a lso Ps . x i i . 2 , “ fl attering lips Pro v . v i . 24 ; Isa. xxx . 10,

“smo o th

th ings , i . e . , flatteries : and in a redupl i cato fo rm , PS . xxx v . (i , and Jer. xx i i i . I2 ,sl ippery ways .

”In Jer. xxxv i i . 1 2, the margina l co rrection of the commo n tran s

latio n , to slip away—instead o f “

separate h imse l f,” which has n o sense—is ve ryuppropriate the prophe t was en deavo uring to return by steal th , unperce ived , amo nghis people , an d was acco rd ing ly accused of “ fa l l ing away ” (o r dese rt ing) to the

Cha ldeans . In the presen t passage , the sense o f this express io n is the same ; the

w ri te r seems to imply that Abram slipped ia—glided by stea l th o n the enemy durin g

the n ight , to tak e them by surprise . H e sto le upo n them .

pippj'

? 5mm The quarters of the compass are co n ven tion ally referred bythe H ebrews to the po s i tio n o f a spectato r fron ting the risin g sun . Sin ce Djpv the

fron t , is the east , and pain the r ight hand , is the south—Sump the left , must b e

the n o rth , and arm behin d , the west .

The Rephaim. 5

G ulf, at open war with another group of n ation s residen t beyon dthe Euphrates, among whom the king of E lam takes the lead .

Thus the power of Shinar, precursor of the great Babylon ianempire, was at that time so inconsiderable, that its king actshere on ly the secondary part of subsidy to the state of E lam .

Secondly : We see that although the Em im were n o m orethan a section of this n ation al group, the con federate prin ces oftheir fi ve chief cities formed at that early period a sufficien tlypowerful body of people to withstan d these four Asiatic kings,and to b e evenly matched against them . This speaks very decidedly in favour of their power an d importance relatively totheir adversaries .

Thirdly We learn from the part taken by the king of

Sodom in the proceedings after the vi ctory, that this city wasthe metropolis

,for its site is called the Royal valley an d he

him self must have been chief among the con federate Em imprin ces

,for he claims the person s of the captives rescued by

Abram,as his subj ects ; an d takes upon him self to dispose of

the recovered booty,by his mun ifi cen t offer of the whole to the

deliverer of his people . Such a claim an d exercise of authoritycan on ly b e the privileges of on e whose supremacy is adm ittedthe metropolitan chief an d head of the tribe .

Fourthly—an d what appears very extraordinary- the kin gof an other district leaves his metropolis in the cen tre of Palestine

,and goes forth to the land of the Em im,

to m ee t Abraman d his people

,who were escorting home Lo t an d the other

rescued captives . Brief as are the terms of the record,the

transaction in question obviously refers to a '

solemn public ceremon y of thanksgivin g, at which this kin g offi ciates in a sacerdotal character

,an d ful fils re ligious rites ofwhich he an d Abram

partake in common . H e n o t only prays for the Divine blessin gon Abram

,but returns thanks to God for his victory although

i t does not appear, as far as that n arrative shews,that his own

imm ediate subj ects had e ither been endangered or implicated inthe war . What then could his relation b e to the people in theRoyal valley of Shaveh, whom the danger and the deliveranceo nearly concern ed ?But, what is more extraordin ary still

,and certain ly implies

that thi s kin g of Shalem did stan d in some ackn owledged re lat ion of superiority to the people of Sodom

,is

,that he receives

as a matter of course the tribute of a ten th of the spoil recoveredfrom the enemy . H e rece ives it

,as St . Paul very clearly in ti

m ates (H eb . vii . 1 in virtue of a prescriptive right anal ogous to that un der which the Levitical priesthood afterwardsrece ived the ir tithe . For mark : Abram gave him a tithe of

6 The Rephaim.

a ll, immediately after the rel igious ceremon y ; this was before

all the spoil had been offered to him self by the k in g of Sodom .

So that at the time he is said to have given a tithe of all,” it

was not yet his own to presen t as a personal gift . We canhardly avoid inferrin g from this

,that M elchizedek must have

rece ived it through the hands of Abram,in virtue of a sacred

pre-existing right, acknowledged by all parties presen t

,and by

the kin g of Sodom the very first . This duty fulfilled, the residuei s to b e divided . A share of it was in j ustice due to Abram andto his alli es

,in return for the benefit they had ren dered to the

people by its recovery and the rescue of their captives . The

king of Sodom offers him the whole without reserve : Give me

the persons,and take the ri ches for thyse lf.” But the patri

arch,unwillin g to place himself under obligation to a people

with whom he did not wish to keep up any personal intercourse,declin es any share of the weal th for him self ; and that in term swhich adm it the right of the giver : I will n o t take of aughtthat is thine . H e only avail s him self of the Em im chieftain’ s

gen erosity to secure his Amorite friends a just reward for theirperson al assistan ce .

What then was the posi tion of this king of Shal em towardsthe Em im tribes

,that such a right should exist on his part, and

that the others should so scrupul ously fulfil i ts claim s ? Andfin ally

,on considering over these circum stances, we ask our

selves, What were these n ation s whom we find spread ove1 solarge a part of Palestine at this early age, occupyin g so con spicuous a position in its political affairs ; united by so st 1 ik ing abond of federal discipline

,which implies a systematic national

organ ization of n o short stan ding an d yet ofwhom we hear nomore in S cripture, u n til M oses in form s us that they have almostwholly disappeared ? (D en t . i i . 10

,1 1

,19—2 1 ; ii i . 1

What was their origin—the ir history— their en d ?The reversion of their lands to Abram ’

s posterity was pro

phet ically announced to the then childless patriarch, j ust afterthese even ts

,when they were yet a great, n umerous, and

haughty people when the land was ful l of them ,an d they

were its lords . Where shall we read thei r whole history, so asto follow up the succession of events whereby

,under the in scru

table disposition s of Providen ce, the fulfilmen t of that prom isewas finally accomplished ?Not in the sacred an n als alon e . But these give us the k ey

to that history . They give u s the n ames of this people—of thei rtribes—and o f the i r cities we can thereby learn the ir geogra

phical distribution . In.

thc Open ing of the M osaic record , theyare displayed on ce to o ur view

,while in the plen itude of the ir

The Rephaim . 7

power . At its close,they are mention ed again as fallen—dis

persed—lost

But the monumen tal records of ancient Egypt abun dan tlysupply the m issing links of this broken chain . I propose toshew how

,in these, we not only may recognize the same n ames,

and trace them to the same lan ds but also how the very peoplelive again before our eyes

,the ir appearan ce, their costum es,

their arms,their gods, depicted on her sculptures ; their deeds

recorded on her tablets . These tell the tale of a long, in veterate nation al struggle between the two gian t powers of primevalan tiquity . In these we may learn how an d when this an cientpeople of Palestine were cast down from their lofty position as

con querors an d rulers of Egypt—pursued in to the heart an d

to the very recesses of the ir native domain s— and there cut uppiecemeal, tribe by tribe, during a fierce con fl ict of three lon gcen turies ; till they were at last brought so low in the scale of

n ation s,as to yield before the con querin g Hebrew host an d b e

scattered to nothing in a single battle, even before these hadcrossed the Jordan to en ter the lan d of Canaan .

CHAPTER II .

Geographical distribution of the M izraim .

It is n ow gen erally received among e thnologists that theorigin al settlers in the valley of the N ile were an Asiatic race .

The fin al establishmen t of a large tribe in the remoter regionsof a n ewly colon ized country is always a work of time, the natural effect of a gradual advance from the starting-poin t

,accord

ing to the necessities of an in creasin g population . We thereforem ust not b e surprised at an attempt to trace, in the varioustribes comprehen ded un der the name of RE PHA IM in the mostan cient parts of the Bible records, and residen t in southern andeastern Palestin e

,a people i dentical with or n early related to

the prim itive colon ists of Lower Egypt, who are in cluded inthose records un der the general den om in ation ofM izraim .

Two Asiatic races, both Ham itic famil ies, would appear to havee stablished colon ies in the valley of the Nile, simultan eously, butadvancing from opposite directions . The Cushites of northernArabia, after form in g a line of settlemen ts along the shores of thePersian Gulf an d In dian Ocean

,entered the African contin ent

that way, an d foun ded an empire in Nubia ; from then ce ex

ten ding far in to Upper Egypt . F or all these lan ds are den omin ated Cush in the B ible . M eanwhile, an other Hamiticfamily, the Mizraim,

havin g en tered Lower Egypt through the

8 The Rephaim .

in termediate tract of eastern an d southern Palestine,ultimately

exten ded their settlements up the Nile :H ow far southward the Mizraim may have reached before

they came up with the Cushite colonies,and to what extent the

an cien t Egyptian s of the Thebaid may b e con sidered a m ixedrace, must remain a m atter of con jecture . Where such a m ixture has taken place, whether from gradual an d peaceful am al

gamation of two ne ighbour ing stocks, or whether from sub se

quent con quest,it becomes very diffi cult to draw the exact line

of dem arcation between them ,from the ir physical peculiarities .

But a record of the origin al boun dary between these two ambitiou s rival races of Egypt seem s preserved by th e Biblical n ame

of their lan ds . M igdol an d Syen e are quoted in Scripturef asthe “ D an an d Beersheba ” of M izraimite Egypt, its two opposite extrem ities beyon d this, Cush or E thiopia begin s ; and allthis coun try is gen erally in cluded un der the designation ofM izraim

,whether the whole remain ed under the dom in ion of

the M izraimite race or not .The religious institutions of an cient Egypt shew eviden t

traces of having resulted from the blen ding of two races originally as distin ct in the ir religious ideas as in the ir physical peculiarities . The ir pantheon exhibits a ten den cy to separate eachtangi ble man ifestation of a Divin e attribute, or of a power inn ature

,and to set apart each of these imperson ation s as a dis

tin ct obj ect of reveren ce and as a peculiarly local dei ty the

cosm ogon ic system thus framed bein g foun d strangely blendedwith an other system of astron om ical worship quite in con sistentwith i t

,though very con sisten t in itself. This m ixture is as old

as the Egyptian n ation kn own to us by its tradition s an d m on uments sin ce the era of M en es . The Sabean" or Cushite form of

star-worship,in thus adaptin g itself to the in digenous rel igion

ofMizraim,betrays both its origi n ators and its re lative age . It

has all the appearan ce of be ing the after- idea arising out of apreviously-formed methodical system

,an d superimposed on an o

j E zek . xx ix . 10 : I w i ll make the lan d of M iz raim utterly waste and desolate11113 1 331 71 1113 51 313113 from M igdo l t o Syene , and to the fron t ie r of Cush .

M irfl lol is the hi agdo lum o f the An to n ine i t inerary, a fron tie r fo rtress twelveRoman , o r rathe r less than ten geograph ical m i les, so uth of Pelusium . Syene , n ow

Asouan ; the Maso rites were so rry geographe rs ; and here, they have po in ted mmS even eh , as though the n were a fi nal o f the prepcr n ame , in stead o f the determinat ive partic le o f d i rect io n ,

“ to Se an .

”Syene was the separation o f Uppe r

Egypt and E th iopia o r Cusb .

k F o r some h ighly in terest ing and judic ious remarks o n th is subj ect , con su l t SirGardn e r W i lk inson ’

s An cien t Egyptian s, part i i . , vo l . , i. , chapters x i i . and x i i i . Thisautho r , howeve r , suppo ses that the Sabean may have been the fundamen tal system .

But the lo cal characte r o f the Egypt ian G ods would rathe r ind ica te the co n t rary hypo

The Rephaim. 9

ther whose parts had been casually brought together! It maybe regarded as the recent addition made by the powerful hierarchy of a dom in an t race

,under whose sway were first united

the detached tribes of the older possessors of the lan d, and theirdi stin ct

,though an alogous, obj ects of local worship ; and it argues

that this race did n o t actually displace those whom it superseded in power

,but rather sought to conciliate them and amal

gamate them with itself.Manetho gives seven dyn astic lines representing the here

ditary chiefs who hel d authority in Upper an d Lower Egyptafter M en es, e ither con j oin tly or separately . These are the

Thin ites, M emphites,E lephan tin es, Heracleopolites, an d The

ban s,referable to Upper Egypt an d the H eptan om is and the

Xo ites,an d Phoen ician , an d other shepherd kin gs, referable

to the Delta an d the provin ces beyon d the Egyptian frontier . M oses (G en . x . 1 3, 1 4) likewi se gives the n ames of seventribes descen ded from the origin al fam ily of Mizraim . Fromthis coin ciden ce in n umbers

,various attempts have been made

to iden tify the two lists, an d t hereby assign to the prim itivetribes ofM ose s a defin ite geographical position in the vall ey ofthe Nile . But in these attempts, on e main main feature of thecase was overlooked ; that the period of Cushite ascen dan cy, withwhich Manetho’ s lists an d the empire probably begin , put anen d to the former state of things that in those parts of UpperEgypt where an am algamation of the two races m ay have takenplace

,this un ion must have blotted out the n am es of the sub

m issive on e as rulers or heads of dynasties, even though it leftthe mass of the prim itive population stan ding ; so that in fact,on e list en ds where the other on ly begin s ; an d that on thisaccount

,a full identification of the two lists must b e as m uch

out of the question ,as to iden tify our list of Norm an kings of

Englan d with the petty rulers of the Anglo-Saxon heptarchywho preceded them .

thesis . I t is very remarkable that in Euseb ius ’s version ofM an etho , M enes is repre

sen ted as a con quero r and mo reo ver , acco rding to a tradi tion repo rted by D iodorusSiculus, b . i . , c . 45 , he is sai d to have changed the s imple custom s an d the rel ig ionof the Egyptian s.

l The in congruous pedigrees an d re lation ships of the Egyptian di v in i t ies strong l yillustrate this . The subject has n eve r been mo re fu l ly and ab ly set fo rth than in theexcellen t analysis of the Egypt ian pan theon , in the Cheval ier Bun sen

’

s Egypt’s place

in Un iversal H istory , to whi ch the reade r is referred (vo l. i . sect . All the go dsappear ult imately resolvab le in to O si r is an d I sis, an d we re probab ly o n ly so man ylo cal fo rms of these two pr im i t ive imperson at ion s—of various degrees of an tiqu i tyafterwards subdivided in to n ew fo rms, o n the fo rmat ion of n ew tr ibes ; an d sub se

quen tly reun i ted in to a gen ealog ical system as these t ribes graduall y merged togetherin to larger states the i r respect ive div in i t ies be ing then represen ted as paren ts of thenew lo cal go ds appo in ted to preside over the n ew ly-fo rmed states.

10 The Rephaim.

It being thus prem ised, in order to avoid confusion hereafter,that un der the nam e of M I ZRA IM

,as a lan d

,in Scripture his

tory,we are to understan d the lan d origin ally colon ized an d

cvilized by the M izraim,whether they con tin ued under the

government of rulers of that race or of any other,—we maynow endeavour to ascert ain the exten t of the primi tive Mizraimit e settlemen ts, with the help of th e few casual referen ce sto them which the Bible affords . This will so far b e usefulto our present hi story, that som e of the gen uin e M izraimiten ations survived the subjugation of their kin dred, lon g afterthe formation of the M emphito -Theban kingdom ; earn estly conten din g for the ir in depen den ce, and successfully main tain ing i tduring m any cen turies . The tribes whose de stin y I prOpo se totrace out, will b e foun d to constitute a highly importan t mem

b er of the series . So that by distin guishing which were the

M izraimit e tribes belonging to Egypt proper, and which may b e

those referable to the coun try beyon d, a m aterial progress willhave been made in our presen t enquiry .

1 . The Ludim,

13 1-

115.—These are associated by E zekiel

(chap . xxx . 5) with Cush and Phut, the Egyptian E thiopia an dLyb ia, as am ong the multitude of Egypt who were to b e takenaway . Jerem iah (chap . xlvi . 19) likewise men tions these threenation s as allies or subsi diarie s to Pharaoh-Necho . Thusalthough not a leading tribe—they stil l formed, in the time of

the prophets,a distin ct fam i ly in the compoun d Egyptian

n ation . This gives us no clue to the ir geographical position .

2 . The Lehabim , D arn—The origin al location of this tribei s equally obscure ; an d as it i s n ever m en tioned again in Scripture, its destin y rem ain s unkn own .

3 . The An am im ,me ga

—From the very slight resemblan cebetween this an d the royal fam ily nam e Amen emha recurrin gin the 1 1 th an d 1 2th dynasties of Mane tho, som e in cl in e to recogn i ze in this tribe the origin al stock of the Theban s . If theremote verbal coin ciden ce be more than acciden tal, i t m ightsuggest the origin al location of the tribe govern ed by a lin e ofrulers who assumed the older tribe name in token of thei r suprem acy ; bu t this is too doubtful to b e worthy ofmuch attention .

4 . The Naphtuhim,owing.

— This n am e very satisfacto

rily iden tifies the tribe that bears i t with the origin al M em

phites, whose capital ,“the dwelling of PTAH ,

” Na-Ptah, iscon tracted by the H ebrew prophe t in to Noph . After the failureof the first Thin itc lin e ofM an etho as sove reign rulers ofThebesan d M emphis

,three successive M emphi te dyn asties occupy the

supreme position in the empire .

“ The Theban s on ly succeed

T his po in t is clearly demo nst rated by Cheval ie r Bunscn ’s ingen ious co l lation of

The Rep/cairn. II

to these . We thus obtain a tolerably long in termediate periodof gen uin e M izraimite supremacy in Egypt, which in cludes theera of the pyram id-builders

,an d only termin ates with the acces

sion of the Il th and 1 2th dynasties ofTheban s, when the southern race resum ed a temporary ascendan cy .

The Pathrusim,D ’D1 hD.

—The original location of this tribein the valley of the Upper Nile is placed beyond a doubt bythe prophetic references to the name . E zekiel

,in particular

,

poin ts out their position by the altern ate paralle l ism of ch .

xxx . 14,which would seem to make Pathros equivalent to Upper

Egypt'

I w ill put fear in the lan d of Mizraim,

And make Pathros desolateI w ill put fire in Zoan , (capital of Lower Egypt )And ex ecute judgmen ts in No . (Na-Amun

,the dwelling of

Amun,Thebes, capital of Upper Egypt

The Casluhirn, wrong.

—We cann ot assign a place to thitribe from the etymology of their name . But we are furthe rin formed that out of them came the Pelish tim

,

”an d since

this fixes the origin of the Philistin es as a m ember of the

M izraimite nation ,i t m ay assist us in determ in ing the origin al

location of the fam ily to which they belonged .

The Caphtorim,Dumps, were most probably a fam ily set

tled in the Delta . In treating of the Philistin e s hereafter,we shall have occasion to refer in greater detail to the m igrationof a people from C aphtor (Den t . i i . who settled n ear them insouthern Judea, an d j oin ed them in exten din g thei r possessionsnorthward at the expen se of the ir weaker Canaan ite ne ighbour s .The district thus occupied is called in the conquests of Joshuathe lan d of the Goshen , (Josh . x . 41 xi . 1 6 ; xv . 51 whichwas also the nam e borne by the eastern part of Lower Egypt inthe time of Joseph, and before . The people expell ed fromLower Egypt by Amosis, who took refuge among their kindredof Palestin e, would appear by this to have brought with theminto the land in which they settled, the name of the land theyhad left .

the chrono logi cal l ist ofT heban k ings gi ven by E rato sthenes, w i th the early dynastieso f Man etho ; whereby i t appears that th e third dynasty of M emph ites fo l low—as

k ings of Thebes , and con sequen t ly as supreme ru le rs o ver all the Egypt ian statesimmediate ly after the four successo rs of M en es, who se Thin ite descen dan ts con t inuein the subo rdin ate po si tio n of lo cal sovereign s un til the e ighteen th dynasty of Theb ans, save a sho rt in terval of supremacy in the beginn ing of the twe l fth . I t isremarkable that the py ram i d-bu i lde rs, and after them the con quering shepherds, whofi l l up th is in terval , are t radit ion al ly stated to have again disturbed Egypt by inn ovae

t ions in relig ious matters .

1 2 The Rephaim .

We may then sum up our comparison of the Mosai c tribesof M izraim with the more recent M an ethon ic dyn asties

,as fol

lows Out of seven we can identify three whose n ation al in stitutions an d rulers remain ed comparat ive ly unaffected by the superseding power of the south

,an d thi s advan tage they owed to the ir

m ore northern situation . The Naphtuhim are referable to theM emphites, the Caphtorim may b e represen ted by the Xoi

’

tes

an d shepherds of the Delta, an d the Casluhim by the foreignPhoenician shepherds . We can find a place for the Pathrusim

,

but only as perman ently subj ect to the Theban s . The origin alplace of the Ludim an d An am im rem ain s extremely doubtful,and that of the Lehabim i s entirely lost .

CHAPTER III .

Geographical distribution of the Canaan ites and Rephaim .

Before we endeavour to ascert ain of what stock the Rephaimwere

,it i s desirable to b e well satisfied as to what they were not .

For the destiny of thi s primeval nation h as arrested but littleatten tion o n the part of bibli cal commen tators ; and a gen eralidea con cern in g them ,

that they were a gigan tic tribe of Ca

n aani tes, has thus passed curren t without awaken ing e ither doubtor en qui ry . The ir very existen ce

,as a distin ct n ation

,would

seem to have been doom ed to obl ivion by the stratum of gratuitous error that has been permitted to overlay the scan ty h istorical records yet extan t of their fate for although , in variousparts of Scripture, there are m an y passages referring to themby their proper n ame w asp

—the R EPHA IM,that nam e has al

most in variably been m istran slated by gian ts . Certain in dividuals of this n ation are in ciden tally

’

quo ted as exception al instan ces of excessive bodi ly stren gth an d stature

,n amely

,the

king of Bashan,an d the Philistin e champion s slain by David

and his kin smen . Hen ce arose the stran ge m istake , origin atedby the Al exandrian Jews who tran slated the Septuagi n t, an d

,

o n their authority,perpetuated in our modern lexicon s

,that

because som e particular in dividuals of the Rapha race were of

gigan ti c stature, a Rapha must n ecessarily mean a gian t . Butalthough our common E n glish version has reproduced this m istake of the Septuagin t, the two are som etimes at variance as towhere i t shoul d b e corrected for in G en . xiv . 5

,the Septuagin t

has vyhya vr es, gian ts, where the E ngl ish, for on ce , has re tain ed

o m correctly as a pro per n ame,Rn rn M M ; while in Den t . i i . ,

the Septuagi n t has th ro ugho ut the chapte r re nde red the pro pern ame by as it sho uld be ,

whe re the English versio n

The Rephaim . 13

has put down gian ts . In this way,the historical value of the

scattered notices referring to this ancient people has been dis

gui sed to the reader or commentator who merely follows thesetran slations .

There is no etym ological support whatever for the renderingof D ’SE

TJW by gian ts . If this word b e taken for a Hebrew appel

lative,its root am

,is,to restore to a former state

,

” to heal ;hence

,the n oun den otes a healer or physician

n—an idea whichhas no con n exion or affin ity with that of great personal stature,an d therefore could not possibly have been employed to expressa giant, in Hebrew .

Thi s correction made, we shall fi n d l ittle difficulty in disposing of the common inference that the n ation call ed Rephaimwere Can aan ites .Firstly

,we have direct though n egative evidence to that

effect,in the ethnographical sketch of Moses, G en . x . for n o

tribe of that name is in cluded in his Can aanite list . Thi s primeval record states (ver. 1 5) that

“ Can aan begat his first -bornZidon

,and Heth an d afterwards enumerates the nation s that

sprang from these two sons of Can aan , by their tribe-names,as

“the Jebusite

,the Amorite

,the Girgashite, an d the H ivite

,

”

who,from the subsequen t n otices of their position in Scripture,

were the southern an d in lan d tribes,an d probably de scen ded

from Heth ; and“the Arkite, the Sini te

,the Arvadi te

,the

Zem ari te,an d the Ham athite

,

” who were the northern tribes,

and probably all descen ded from Zidon .

”

Now—had the Rephaim been Canaanites—if M oses enu

merates,as separate nation s, such un importan t tribes as the

Girgashites and Perizzites, who never appear otherwise than byn am e once or twice in Scripture

,is it likely that he would have

excluded from the above l ist a tribe so con siderable and power

13 1 17151 11. Partic ipial fo rm of the same roo t , has that sen se in G en . 1. 2

Joseph comman ded his servan ts, the phys i cians, to embalm h is father .” In Egypt ,th e apo thecar ies were bo th physi c ian s an d un dertakers. H ero do tus, in E uterpe,chap l xxxv . to lxxx i x . g ives a fu l l accoun t of the pro cesses they emplo yed .

0 The se ttlemen ts of these tr ibes are we l l recogn i zed an d lai d down in the bestmaps of an cien t Palest ine ; this is far from be ing the case in the lo cat ion s assignedto the H itt ite tribes , which , on that accoun t , I shal l more parti cular ly define .

The Ark i tes Arvadites 1111 132, and Zemarites 1193 , are represen ted by the

kn own si tes of the an c ien t Arka, Aradas, and Simyra ; the S in i tes , 1 1 1 13 , o ccupiedthe moun tain distri ct sti l l cal led Jebel Sun nin ; an d the Hamath ites the

tract lying between the L eban on an d the An ti -Leban on , watered by the upperO ron tes . The r iver L eon tes appears to have been the o r ig ina l boun dary of theZ idon ian s and H i tt ites, and after thei r respective fami lies were spread abroad , n o rthward and southward , the e l der bran ches retain ed the i r cen tral and primary seats, as

the jun io rs mo ved on to found n ew se tt lemen ts.

1 1 The Rephaim .

ful,that for more than fi ve hun dred years before his time

,they

had occupied,in cen tral Judea an d the tran sj ordanic provin ces,

as exten sive a tract of land as that of all the children of Hethput together ? This circum stance alone shoul d have made us

pause to consider, before we so readi ly took this peeple’ s Can aan ite extraction for gran ted . But when, in addition ,

we com e

to exam ine the geographical boun darie s assign ed to the Can aan ites by M oses, both directly and in directly, we shal l soonconvin ce ourselves that, whatever other origin we may ascribe tothe Rephaim,

the supposition of their being branches of the

C an aan ite stock must b e en tirely set aside . For his description of the Can aanite ’ s lim its

,as existing in his time (G en . x .

particularly avoids the coun try occupied by the Rephaim .

The border of the Canaani te was from Zidon ,as thou goest to

Gerar, as far as Gaza this gives the western l im it . An d

As thou goest to Sodom ,Gom orrah

,Admah

,and Zeboim ,

as

far as Lesha,

”(afterwards D an

,near the source s of the Jordan

this gives the eastern l im it—a line drawn by the western coastof the Dead Sea, an d the river Jordan . The fron tier thus described eviden tly leaves the southern boundary of Can aan un defined . We shall con sider hereafter, in its proper place, how farthe mixture of the Rephaim of An ak among the Am orites ofthis region, either as co - settlers or as conquerors

,may have been

the m otive of thi s emi ssion ; the eastern frontier line is the

geographical datum which m ost particularly bears on the question we are now discussin g ; an d this is given in very preciseterm s .Not less positive is the conclusion , deducible by inferen ce

from other passage s in the history of M oses,that b e en tirely

excludes the lan ds origin ally possessed by the Rephaim from all

claim to b e regarded as Can aan ite groun d . F or instan ce,in

N um . xxxii i . 51 , he says The Lord spake un to Moses in theplain s of M oab

,by the Jordan near Jericho, saying, When ye

are passed over Jordan in to the land of Can aan ; whichclearly implies that the lan d the Hebrews were in at the time

was n o t reckon ed “the lan d of Can aan .

” Again , in N um .

xxxiv . 1 1,12, he defin es the eastern fron tier of Can aan more

particularly by the sea of Chin n ereth, the Jordan , an d the

Sal t Sea,

” which gives the same boun dary lin e as from Sodomto Lesha of G en . x . 19, an d absolutely excludes the tran sj ordan i c provin ces . Fin ally, in Deut . xxxii . 419—5 1 , he says : The

Lord spake un to M oses,saying, Ascen d this moun tain o f the

Abarim,M oun t N cb o ,

which is in the lan d of Moab,Opposi te

Jericho,and beho ld the lan d of Can aan : thou shal t see the

land befo re t hcc , b ut tho u shal t n o t go thi ther in to the land

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 6 The Rephaim.

G ENE S I S xv .

18Un to thy seed will I give this lan d, from the river of Mizraimto the great river, the river Euphrates

19The Ken i tes,the Ken izzi tes

,the Kadm onites,

2°The H i t t i tes,the Perizzites

,the Rephaim

,the Amorites

,

21 The Can aani tes, (the H ivi tes,) the G irgashi tes, and the Jebusites .

The prim ary disposition of som e.

Canaan i te tribes prior tothe age of Joshua, may b e gathered from a few in ciden tal notices in the earlier portion s of sacred history . Som e others aren o t referred to, an d there i s accordingly a little difficulty indefin ing their place of settlemen t .By the H I TT I TE S, gen erally, we shoul d understan d al l the

j un ior bran ches of the two great Can aani te stocks ;P but whenthe H ittites are m ention ed in conj un ction with the other branchtribes

,we must then un derstan d more particularly by that de

sign ation the e lder tribe of the children of Heth, retain in g itsdistin ctive patron ym i c, according to patriarchal usage . Just asthe gen eral term,

“the Can aan ites

,

” in cludes all the children of

Zidon an d Heth collectively although when the name occursam on g others as den oting a particular tribe, i t should b e takenas stan din g for the elder branch of the Zidonians . The elderH ittites would appear to have at first occupied the lan ds west ofthe sea of Chin n ereth (Lake T iberias) to the Mediterran eancoast . The j un ior bran ches exten ded them sel ves from thence

,

southward,as far as the Mosaic l im its of Gaza and Sodom .

The a zzrrns,in the time of Abraham (G en . xi ii . 7

xxxiv . an d afterwards un der Joshua (Josh . xvi i . are

foun d established in the region west of Bethel .The AM OR I T ES occupied chiefly the western side of the m oun

tain tract of central and southern Judea . M ost of their cities,in the time of Joshua, lay in that part . But they also had se t

tlemen ts o n the other side,as far as H azazo n - tam ar (Engedi)

by the Dead Sea, eastward,an d Arad o n the border of the

desert,southward .

The nam e of the H IV I TES is acciden tally lost from the H e

brew text in this en umeration but the Samaritan an d Septua

gin t retain i t . They were a very large tribe . They dwel t from“the lan d of M izpeh un der Moun t Hermon

,which appears to

77 T he sub -t ri be o f H i tt ites settled about H eb ro n were cl early Amo ri tes, from the

n o t i ce o f G en . x iv . Y e t in G en . xx 1 i i . , they are ca l le d c ln ldrcn o f H e th .

”The

Il ivitc w ives of Esau are also cal led daughte rs o f H e th .

”Thus the Reuben i te s,

o r the Benjam i tes , woul d b e equally cal led , in speak ing generally , “ ch i ldren o f

I srae l .

The Rephaim . 1 7

have been situated on the western flank of this great mountain ,

near the sources of the Jordan ‘l (G en . xxxiv . extending theirsettlements southward as far as Shechem an d Gibeon (Josh ix .

along the ridge of high lan d which form s the watershed ofPalestin e .

The G I RGASH ITE S are merely named, in the Old Testament ;no indication of their locality is given . In Matt . viii . 28

,the

lan ds o n the east side of lake Tiberias (the sea of Chin nere th)are called the coun try of the Gergesen es .

”The moun tain

ridge exten ding southward from M oun t Hermon,an d enclosing

the northern an d eastern side of the lake-region , appears to haveseparated them from the lan d of Bashan belonging to the Re

phaim . But they ul timately extended themselves in that landalso . The parallel passage in Luke vii i . 26, defin es the scen e of

the m iracle as “the country of the Gadaren es and Gadara

,

on the river Hieromax,the chi ef river ofBashan ,

is quite beyondthe M osaic limits of the Can aan ite territory . This exten sion ofthe Girgashites, therefore, l ike the Amorite settlemen ts in Gileadand Heshbon , must b e regarded as an encroachm en t by theCanaanites on lan ds origin ally and properly belonging to anothern ation .

The JE BU SITE S are on ly heard of—for the first time—un derJoshua (Josh . x . 1 xv . as in possession of Jerusalem butit is very doubtful whether that was origin ally Canaanite groun d,be ing part of the lan d of the Rephaim . This branch of the

H ittite stock appears to have been very recent at that time,an d

incon siderable as to numbers and extension .

All these Can aanite lan ds passed over by conquest to thepower of Abraham ’

s descendants,as also did the domain s of the

REPHA IM mention ed wi th them . As for the KEN I TE S,KE N IZ

ZITE S,and KADM ON I TE S

,whi ch open the list, the race of Abra

ham succeeded the origin al tenants in the more peaceable butnot less sure way of gradual substitution .

The KEN ITE S,whose history wil l b e given hereafter in its

place,were a people whose lan ds afterwards formed part of the

E domi te kingdom . Thus the fulfilm en t of the prom ise m ade toAbraham

,in th is respect, is very satisfactorily found . The

q Josh . x i i i . ; compare ver. 3 with ver. 8, and wi th Jud . i i i. 3. This remark isimpo rtan t , because , generally , the Bible-maps place these H i v ites on the o the r si deof H ermon , in the lan d of Bashan . U nless the valley ofM izpeh had been westof moun t Hermon , Joshua ’

s army could n o t po ssib ly have pu rsued the fl y in g Can aami tes thi ther, and to the great Z i don ,

”in the same expedition . The descrip

t ion in Jud . i i i . 3 , the H ivi tes who dwe l t in moun t Leban on , from moun t Baalhermon un to the en tran ce (or pass) of Hamath ,” con fi rms this. H ermon , zimnthe separat ion ,

” div ided the Canaan i tes from the Rephaim .

1 8 The Rephaim.

KEN IZZ I TES are unkn own, as they are not mentioned again insacred history .

The lan d of the KADMON ITE S,or

“ children of the E ast

(Job i . 3 Jud . vi . seem s an in defini te geographical term foras much as Abraham knew of the exten sive pastoral plains

, or

wilderness of uncleared an d uncul tivated lands that border onthe great Syrian and Arabian deserts . Thi s tract is ten antedexclusively by n omads durin g the grazin g season, but has n o

fixed habitation s . As Abraham “gave gifts to the sons of his

con cubin es,and sent them into the east country (G en . xxv .

where they rapidly grew into a numerous an d powerful body ofin dependen t an d in dustrious nom ads

,we also recogni ze without

difficul ty the full accompli shment of the di vine promise .

Thus only the territory of the REPHAIM remains to b e defined

,and it s prim eval occupants traced to the ir origin al stock,

before we can see how completely, in thi s respect al so, was theprophecy fulfi lled,—when the posterity of the Father of thefaithful extended the ir dominion “ from the river of Mizraim tothe great river, the river Euphrates .

”

The different tribes ascribed to the race called “ the REPHAIM in the Pentateuch

,

”are ultimately referable to three

great geographical di visions form ing as many di stin ct states ;each state con sisting of several m in or provinces .Firstly : The Rephaim of the n orthern district beyond Jordan,

the ZUZ IM,called by the Amm onites Zamzumm im . The chief

o r royal tribe occupied the district of Bashan ; the southernregion of Argob was called Gilead by the Hebrews . The childrenof Ammon, who settled on the south-eastern border of theZuzim

,m ay b e considered as part of this n ation , but only poli

tically an d by adoption .

Secon dly The Rephaim of the western district—TH E CH IL

D REN o r‘

ANK”, (An akim) . These dwel t in the moun tain s of

Judah an d of Ephraim . The question whether they were theorigin al possessors of the land they occupied, or whether— likethe Philistin es—they were only an in trusive race among the

Can aan ites,will b e fully discussed hereafter in the ir history .

7

my . The o rthog raphy and etymology of this name are impo rtan t . I here

w ri te the Roman equ ivalen t o f the H ebrew p w i th an accen t o ver the K to ind i cate a

pecu l iar pro nun ciat io n , someth ing between an a and an 0, like the a in fall, bal l , &c . ,

whi ch seems to have been its o rig inal value , befo re the vowel-po in ts changed i t to a

variety o f o the r vowe l -art icu lat io ns . When in i tial o r final in a wo rd or sy l lable , th isle tte r has a pecu l iar guttura l fo rce , wh ich the Septuag in t en deavou r to rende r inG re ek by a 7 o r a K, and wh ich I shal l express by pre fi x ing the s ign o f ro ugh breathing, whe reve r , fo r e tymo log ica l i l lust ratio n , i t becomes n ecessary to in dicate th iso rtho graphic pecul iarity in the pro pe r names he reafte r to b e analyzed .

The Rephaim . 19

Thirdly : The Rephaim of the southern district beyon d Jordan—TH E CH ILDREN o r SHETH (Shittim ) , whom the M oabitescalled Em im . In the subsequent account of this powerful state,I w ill explain the reasons for in ferring that, besides the chieftribe

,it comprehended also the Ken ites of Petra and the Ama

lek ites of Paran as kin dred tribes . This people further included,

among their political dependencies, the adopted colon y ofM oab,an d a vast body of later settlers

,Edom ites an d Midian ites, who

resided on their borders an d were in close and friendly allian cewith them .

Fin ally,there is mon um ental evidence that all the lan d of

ARAM was under subjection to the Rephaim durin g the periodcomprehen ded in this history ; Aram -N aharaim

,or of the two

rivers ; Padan -Aram,or Aram of the plain s ; and the Horite

district, or Aram. of the mountain s . By this prel im in ary sketch,some i dea may b e formed of the immen se exten sion of powerachieved by the ambitious race whose history we are about totrace in which the Egyptian records supply the political, rel i

gions, an d personal details that abun dantly fill out the rapidbut decided outlin e of their condi tion and destiny afforded bythe patriarchal records of M oses .

CHAPTER IV .

Origin of the Rephaim.

In the geographical classification of the M izraimite famil ies,we foun d the Pelishtim mentioned as issued from the tri ben amed Casluhim ”

(G en . x . We will now exam ine howfar this statement may assist us in identifying the original settlement of the paren t tribe .

In an account of the vi ctories obtain ed by David an d hisbrave kinsmen over certain Philistin e champion s noted for their

gi gantic stature,it is stated that they were sons of a certain

Rapha of Gath,and brethren of the celebrated Goliath (2 Sam .

xxi . 16 From this,it appears that a whole fam ily bearin g

the gen eric name of REPHAIM are poin tedly in cluded under theparticular denom in ation of P hilistines .

This remarkable circumstance gives us a clue to the probableorigin of all the Rapha race . Coupling i t with the geographi calposition of the Philistines

,with the part we subsequen tly see

them bearing in the political movemen ts of Palestin e,and with

the l ittle we shall b e able to recover con cerning their local reli

gion , - all these, taken together, are indications pointing to the

20 The Rephaim.

conclusion that the prim itive Philistines of Gerar an d Beershebathemselves were only a juni or branch of the powerful tribe of

Rephaim called An akim, whose lands were immediately cont iguous to Pelesheth .

Now the original affinity of the Philistin es to the M izraimof Egypt proper i s placed beyon d a doubt by the ir pedigree, as

gi ven by M oses . H e states that “the Peli shtim came out of the

Casluhim . Accordingly, if the Philistin e s are to b e con sideredRephaim

,from the qualification Of the Phil istin e champions of

Gath,it follows that all the other Rephaim are likewise Cas

lubim tribes ; that this M izraimite fam ily, for whom we cannotfi n d a place in Egypt itse lf, may claim to b e the original stockout of which branched out in succession the Rephaim ofBashan

,

e lder an d royal tribe,an d its j unior scions

,en umerated

,accord

ing to their geographical divisions an d tribe- subdivisions, in thepreceding chapter .

It m ay b e urged again st this hypothesis, that the qualifi cation of Rephaim conferred by the sacred historian on the Philistin e champion s m ight b e explain ed in another way

,viz .

,they

perhaps were onl y descendan ts of An akim fugitives expelled byJoshua and Caleb from the mountain s of Judah ; an d they m ightthus have been Rephaim without be ing necessarily Phil istin es .But why then shoul d they b e called Phili stines in this accoun t ?why is Goliath of Gath also in variably m en tion ed as the Philistin e If the particular tribe-n ame of men who attracted som uch atten tion in their day, must b e stated by the historian , aswe ll as the generi c name of Rapha

,why the wrong on e ? If

the specific name of An akim— once so familiar an obj ect ofpopular awe to the Hebrews

,as to b e held up by M oses (Den t .

i i . 10,1 1 ix . 1

,2) for an example of what the other lost Rapha

tribes had been—was so thoroughly lost sight of in the time of

David,when the race had disappeared, can we suppose that the

gen eric and un fam il iar n am e of Rapha would b e preferred bythe Hebrew an nali st to distinguish supposed Anakim champion s ?It seem s much m ore n atural to take the accoun t as it stands

,

than to try to explain i t away . The probability is much ratherthat the Philistin e champion s were called Rephaim,

because thePhilis tin es really were Rephaim by descen t ; an d that

,being the

only people of this an cien t race who retain ed their politicalstan ding in the days of Saul

,they asserted the n ame as the

osten sible groun d of their b itter an imosity again st Israel, whohad dispossessed their kin dred , an d n ow occupied their lands .

But such a supposition ,that these champion s m ight be re

fugecs of An ak,is al together gratuitous . F o r i t is n owhere

said that the An akim,whe n expelled from the moun tain s of

The Rephaim . 2 1

Judah,fled

’ to Gath,Gaza

,an d Ashdod . The statement is

,

that “ they were cut off from the mountains of Judah an d

Israel ; that “ there were n one lef in the lands con quered byby Joshua ; that

“ on ly in Gath,Gaza

,an d Ashdod

,some re

main ed ” (Josh . xi . 21 , 22)— the lan ds which the Hebrews weren o t able to take ; and the form of expression

,some remained

,

”

seems rather to imply the previous settlement of the children of

An ak in those cities, than their subsequ en t flight in to them .

Now Gaza,Gath

,an d Ashdod, are among the fi ve Can aan ite

cities of which the Philistin es had become rulers in the time of

Joshua,but which are geographically accounted to the Canaan

i tes, their origi n al possessors .

The easiest in feren ce seem s therefore to b e, that the Philistin es were at first a sub - tribe an d depen den cy of the children of

An ak, an d thus Rephaim by descen t ; who, when they had grown

sufficien tly numerous an d powerful,formed for them selves an

in depen den t settlemen t on the sea-coast at the expen se of the irweaker n eighbours that when Moses wrote

,all the M izraimite

n ation s of Palestin e were n early exterm in ated,save this jun ior

scion of the Casluhim paren t stock,now in the ascen dan t an d

that, on this accoun t,the historian specially records their ex

traction from that n early extin ct family, the Casluhim,out of

whom came the Pelishtim,

”so well kn own to the Hebrews sin ce

the days of Abraham an d I saac,an d with Whom their fathers

had so long been on fri en dly t erm s.

The very n ame of RE PHA IM ,born e by this family of M iz

raimites,bears w itn ess to an Egyptian origin . By referring i t

to the Hebrew or Can aani te homephon ous root am,it would b e

rather difficul t to give a satisfactory explan ation of it from itssen se

,a healer

,

” as we can of the descriptive epithets Emiman d Z amzmnmim appl ied by the ir Eb erite neighbours of M oaband Ammon to the two eastern tribes of this great n ation . The

fact is,that the resemblan ce between the n ame RAPHA an d the

Hebrew root sm rpa, is acciden tal, an d therefore unmeaning.

R PA is the pure ly Egyptian form of a very an cien t word com

mon to all the Ham itic languages, and den oting a chief, prin ce,o r superior . In the Hebrew dialect

,this word occurs also

,but

with the vowel tran sposed,both in the name ofAbraham ’ s royal

an cestor,Arpa-Chasd mpg

-

933 ,“the chief of the Chasdim

,

”and

in the Hebrew radical rps, to take the lead, guide , etc .,from

whence are derived Al eph,the leader

,first letter of the alphabet

,

an d the title qr! ; Allouph , leader, govern or, by which the Edom iteheads of fam ilies are distin guished in the ir pedigrees .

The remarkable eviden ces in favour of the M izraimite descent of the Rephaim

,deducible from their local pan theon

,will

22 The Rephaim .

be fully set forth when we en ter on the separate accoun t of eachtribe . We shall then fin d how strikin gly the fragmen tary in dication s of their worship whi ch still survive

,bear witn ess to the

fact that what is comm on to the Rephaim an d to the M izraimof Egypt, in the ir rel igion, is fundamental to the system of bothnation s ' what is different in both

,has been engraft ed from

in dividua l or sources on the ancient and comm on

foundation .

L 0 N l) 0 N

WALT ON AN D M IT C H EL L , PR I NT ERS , WARDOU R-ST REET , OX F O R D -ST REET .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 The Rephaim .

o r of office ; an d these are often given in the Bible as propern ames .

E verythin g among the Rephaim of Bashan in dicates a veryan cien t as wel l as powerful settlemen t . At the time of the

Hebrew conquest,this kingdom con tain ed “ threescore cities,

all cities fortified with high walls, gate s an d bars, besides un

walled villages a great m an y .

”(D en t . i i i . This statemen t

i s amply born e out by the presen t state of the coun try . The

Arabic lists of the Rev. Eli Sm ith“con tain n early fi ve hun dredn am es of places e ither inhabited or in ruin s, w ithin the area ofth is ancien t kin gdom . Among these are a great number of telso r moun ds with ruins

,relics of the fortified cities that on ce

reared thei r crests on high, to overlook an d defen d the villagedepen den cie s of a vast agricultural an d pastoral population .

The names of a few am on g t hese,known to classical an ti

quity, and still extant,en able us to determ ine how exten sive

were the domains of the sovere ign s of Bashan . Besides them etropolis

,Ashtaroth

,in the cen tre ofBashan proper, they ia

cluded the royal city of Salchah,n ow kn own as Sal/chad, o n the

south -eastern con fines of the Jebel-H auran ; an d the Leviticalcitie s Golan an d Beeshterah

,in the lan ds allotted to the Man as

site s . (D cu t . iv . 33 ; Josh . xxi .Both are kn own sites ; the provin ce of Jaulan, on the east

side o f Lake T iberias,still retains th e n ame of i ts former dis

triet capital ; an d Bee shterah,which

,without the disguise of

vowel -poin ts is mnw mBeshtrah—the an cien t Bostra letter forletter, n ow called E sky -Sham (old Damascus) —i s found justsouth of the Jebe l-H auran . Burckhardt" describes the remarkable remains of this city ; b ut he and others were led by thesimilarity of the n ame, in to m istakin g i t for the E dom iteBozrah . Fin ally

,the royal city of Argob poin ts o ut the exten t

of this kingdom towards the south,as the nam e of th is distri ct

capital is still extant in the torren t an d vi llage of Raj ib, theRegaba of Josephus. (An t . xiii .

,ch . xv . All the moun tain

region eastward of Argob was called Gilead by the Hebrews,

because of the art ; Ga l-ed, mound of w itness of Laban an d

Jacob, erected on the highest summ i t of the moun tain tract ofJebe l -Ajlun . The southern peak of thi s hilly region ,

whichalon e retain s the n ame of Jebe l-Je lad

,was the l im i t of the king

of Jlashan’s dom in ion s .

”

C B iblical R esearches in P a lest in e , by E . Ro b i n so n,D .D .

,and the Rev. E li

Sm i th , (Appen d ix ) .(1 Burckhard t, Travels in Syria , pp. 224—226.

a All b ib l i cal c rit i cs have fe l t the d iffi cu l ty o f d e fi n ing the l im i t o f th is reg io n ,from the o bscure wo rd ing o f the few Scripture n o ti ces re lating to i t . The re cent. names

The Rephaim . 3

The homestead of the Rephaim i s on e of the fines t countriesin the east . The western part of Bashan is moun tain ous

,an d

chiefly pastoral . The e levated un dulating plain s of the easternprovin ce, irrigated by numerous win ter torrents

,are a particu

larly fertile arable tract ; it is called“the gran a

’

Fy of Damascus .

”

The rocky region of the Kelb-Hauran ,and the Lej ah, beyon d

this, form another pastoral d istrict in habited by nomads . Its

cattle, the bulls, kin e, an d ram s ofBashan, are a frequen t obj ectof poetical comparison in Scripture ; an d the value of the o ak

timber grown on its mountain slopes, for ship-building, i s particularly alluded to by the prophet E zekiel . (Ch . xxvii . 6 ; com

pare Isa . i i . 1 3 ; Zech . xi .The few modern travellers who have visited the region of

Argob an d Gilead,speak of i t as a lan d equally favou red by

n ature . The Rev. Eli Smith describe s it as a singul arly picturesque tract ; i ts heights are crown ed with fore sts of evergreenoak ; and its valleys, clothed with the m ost luxurian t herbage .

It was thus an eminently pastoral country ; i t i s therefore acircum stan ce of some in terest

,as strengthen ing the iden tity of

i ts in habitants with the 86s of Man etho and Egyptian SHAS 'U,

that we should fi n d them de signated in Scripture by a namewhich is in terpreted a shepherd .

When the descendants of Lot’ s second son, Ben -Amm i,had

become sufficiently numerous to form a separate tribe,they

established them selve s o n the south -eastern fron tier of the

Zuzim . Thei r first settlement an d m etropolis,Rabbah

,was

built among the hills,near the source of a small moun tain

stream, a tributary of the Wady Zurlra, the Scriptural Jabb ok .

That stream still bears the n am e of M oiet-Ammdn (Water ofAmmon ) . The circumstance m en tion ed in Deut . i i i . 1 1

,that

the iron couch of the last gigan tic chieftain of the R ephaim

of the si tes are our safest c ri ter ion , that Bashan prope r was E l Bathanyeh, n orth of

the river M an dhu r and Argob, the reg ion about Raj ib , south of i t . The autho r of1 K in gs iv . 1 3, places the H avo th -Jai r in Gi lead ; an d the H ebe l-Argo b , w i th itssi x ty cit ies, is appropr iated t o Bashan . Y et M o ses, D eut . i i i . 13—1 5 , g i ves theH ebel-Argo b to Jair, and Gi lead to M ach i r . How can we recon ci le th is, ex cept bysuppo sing Argo b the native , an d G ilead the H eb rew , names of the same lan d, n ow

called Jebel Aj ldn and syn on ymous te rms , though mo re parti cu lar ly applied todeno te—the fo rmer , the Jo rdan ic—and the latte r the h i l ly reg ion

Hebel bar}, a line or band , m ight mean a l in e o r chain of fron tie r c i t ies, ex ten d ingfrom Argob orRaj lb , n o rthwards all alo ng to the Aramite bo rder ofGeshur or G ethe r(Jaidar) . In th is way the l ine of Argob , gi ven to Jair , m ight b e part ly in G ilead(Jebel Aj liln) , partly in Bashan (E l B at/zanyeh) by in clud in g the G o lan ite pro v in ce(Jaulan ) . As the Gad ites had the Arabah up to the sea of Ch inn ere th , the fron tie rl ines of the t ri bes must have been inclined much mo re n o rth by south , than they aregenerally made in Bib le maps .

4 The R ephaim .

was preserved in the i r capital,is an in teresting in ciden t shewing

how far southward his sway was ackn owledged . As the in digen ous population disappeared, the Ammon ites gradually replacedthem so that the i r se ttlemen ts ultimately extended n orthwardto the banks of th e Upper Jabbok, an d we stward to the riverof Amm on . The political extin ction of the aborigin al race i sthus noticed by M oses, Deut . i ii . 19—21

Wh en thou comest n igh unto the children ofAmmon ,distress them

n ot, n either conten d wi th them ; for I will n o t give thee of the lan d ofthe

children ofAmmon any possession , because I have given i t for a possessionto the children of Lot . It was also accoun ted the land of the Rephaimthe Rephaim formerly settled there, but the Ammon ites call them Zamzummim;—a great, numerous, and haughty people,f like the Anakim ; but

the Lord destroyed them from before them , and they dwell in their place .

”

The characteristic tribe-name of the R ephaim who origin allyoccupied the Amm on ite distri ct appears to have been han deddown to us in the first notice of them

,G en . xiv .

,as the Zuzim ;

the n ame Zamzumm im” —en terprising peopleg—bein g, by the

accoun t above quoted, only a d istinctive epi thet applied to themby the descen dan ts of L e t .

I t has always been taken for gran ted, from this passage, thatthe R ephaim were destroyed as we l l as replaced by the childrenof Ammon . But there is no direct statement to that effect inth e Bible . The on ly in timation it affords of that people’ s fate

,

is the above summary reference of Moses . TH E LORD ”

certain dispensation s of Providen ce in which the Ammon ites aren o t even nam ed as in struments destroyed the Rephaim frombefore them,

”an d reduced this on ce n umerous

, great, an dhaughty people to the stricken an d dism embered remn an t wefi n d them un der M oses while the Ammon ite colony in creasedan d flourished on the ir border

,exten ded itself over a consider

able portion of thei r lands, i den tified itself an d i ts political in terests with thei r’ s, an d fin ally took their place in hi story . The

tradition al an d m on umen tal ann als of Egypt wil l n ow explainhow this m ighty n ation we re b rought so low as to fall an easyprey to the first resolute in vader who open ly attacked themh ow the an cien t lords of the soil were swept off to m ake wayfor the troops of un settled Can aanite s who supplan ted them

,an d

N

f D ] . Commo n ly tran slated tall ; b ut an o the r expressio n is gene rally used todeno te expressl y, bo di ly stature : nh n ufim men of d imensions . o n in usage ,

7

rathe r impl ies e levatio n o f m ind o r po si t io n—o r the assumptio n of i t . H aughtyre nde rs bo th the ro o t , an d the parti cular sen se o f its appl i catio n here . Comp. 2 Sam .

x xn . 28 ; Jo b xx i . 22 ; Isa . i i . 1 2 , &c .

From mm to dev ise , purpo se , un de rtak e .

The Rephaim. 5

established themselves in the depopulated cities of Bashan audArgob .

CHAPTER VI .

Wars of the Hyksos and Thebans .

The distin ction between the two Ham ite races who colon ized the valley of the Nile

,suggested by the fusion of thei r

re ligious systems,i s equally discern ible in the n ature of the i r

mon umen tal remain s . The aborigin al M izraim were a tombbuilding, and the in trusive Cushite s a temple -building race .

The ruling spirit of the M izraim was attachmen t to thei r lan d,

the ir an ce stral in stitution s, the memory of their i llustriousdead . This was m anifested in th e territorial character of the ir

gods, the patriarchal and sacerdotal character of the ir governmen t, and the gran deur of the ir sepulchral piles . The rulingSpirit of the rival Southern race, on the con trary

,was a

grasping ambition . Conquest was its aim,dom in ion its en d ;

an d the kin g was hon oured in proportion to his success inaugmenting the nation al glory by his personal valour . The

Chieftain s of this race raised the Egyptian empire on the foun dation of pre

-existin g n ation al in stitution s ; but they did n ot

main tain without a struggle the vast m onarchy they had foun ded .

Five gen erations had scarce ly passed, ere the supremacy revertedto the aborigin al M izraimite race . This was the era of the

Pyram id-builders,during which the Thin ite successors of M en es

occupy the subordin ate position of local rulers . But when thei rTheban descendan ts recovered th e ascen dan cy

,the era of Palace

temples began . The walls of these n ation al edifices we re blazon ed wi th pictorial represen tations of the triumphs achievedby the i r royal builders for the gl ory of their country, which wasthus comm itted to the safe-keepin g of the gods . And it is avery remarkable fact

,which the reader wil l have eve ry op

portun ity given him ,of verifying for him self, that, (with th e

exception of an othe r aborigin al revolted race, the blacks of

E thiopia) the m embers of the three Rapha n ation s,an d thei r

tributaries,form ex clusively the subj ects of these historical

sculpture s . They are the only people upon whom Egypt hascon ferred the special an d ign om inious distin ction of holding upto the con temptuous gaze of posterity the represen tation of

their multitudes, in the very act of fallin g un der the i rresistiblem igh t of the con queror

’

8 arm .

The earliest record of open hostilitie s between the Raphabranch of the M izraimite race, an d Egypt, is con t ain ed in the

fragm ents of early Egyptian history quoted by Josephu s from

6 The Rephaim .

M an etho . The substan ce of this accoun t i s th at a people whocalled them selves Hyksos (or Royal Shepherds) invaded Egypt,and took possession of the coun try in a most un accoun table m an

n er, wi thout fightin g ; e stablished the seat of their governm en t

at Memphis,an d cruelly oppressed and il l- treated the Egyptian s,

as though they were ben t on rootin g out the race . They set

up on e of the ir chiefs as king, who, with hi s five successors,make the XV th dynasty of “

sir foreign P hoenician kings who

took M emphis”ofM anetho’ s lists . The i r name s and reign s are

as follows

Manetho , as quoted by

I . Afi i canus . II.

‘

Josephn s.

R e igned . Reign ed . M onumen tal Ro yal T i tles .

1 . Sal tes . 19y. 1 . Salatis 19y . Ra'

nefin'ka.

2 . Bnon 44 2 . Be6n 44:

3 . Pachn an 61 3 . Apachnas 36y 7m . Ra'

shu Ab4 . Staan 50 5 . Ianias 50y. 1m . Aim.

5 . Archles . 49 6. Assis . 49y. 2m . Ra'

tet ka Assa.

6. Apophis 61 4 . Apophis 61 (unknown) .

The chronological place of these kin gs is m ost probablycoeval with the successors of the great Sesertasen ,

the Sesostri sof Man etho and chief of the XIIth dynasty,

“who con quered

all Asia in n in e H ow far the ambitious Theban’ s ex

plo its may have con tributed to gen erate a hostile feel ing b etween the two races

,leadin g the M izraimite tribe s of the lower

coun try to in vite the help an d favour the establi shm en t of thei rRapha kin dred, can only b e surm ised . But the i ssue i s re

corded , that the in vaders were successful, that they seized on

the capital of Middle Egypt, M emphis,from when ce they brought

the lower an d upper coun trie s so complete ly un der subj ection,that the latter Theban kings of the XIIth dyn asty were re

duced to share the empire with the i r spoi lers,retain ing on ly the

governm en t of Uppe r Egypt . At the close of this double dy

h Sin ce the abo ve was w ri tten , the publ i cat io n of M r. R . S. Po o le ’s researches

in to the ch ro n o logy o f M anetho ’

s seven teen earl ie r dyn asties enab les us to con s i de rth is suppo s i tion we ll establ ished o n monumen ta l evidence . The n ames of Sesertascn

’s

successo rs , an d tho se co rrespo nd ing to the fo re ign Phoen i c ian Shephe rd-k ings havebeen fo un d together o n inscript io n s . By th is, i t appears that the 1 1 th Theban an d

6th M emphi te dynasties were co eval , the latte r clo s ing after the beg inn ing of the 1 2 thTheban , w i th the se i zure o f M emph is by the 1 5th .

M o reo ve r , by his va luab le d isco ve ry o f the i den ti ty o f the k ings o f the two Thin itedyn asties w i th tho se o f the Tab le t o fAbydo s who precede the 1 1 th and 1 2th T he bans,l\ l r. l ’o o le has furthe r demo n strated a po in t whi ch I had ve n tured to assume o n

g rounds o f h isto r ica l i nduct io n—n ame ly , that the T heban l in e o f Egyptian co n

qncro rs we re the l inea l de scendan ts o f M encs , fo unde r o f the Egyptian monarchywhich they st ro ve to resto re .

The R ephaim. 7

nasty, a period of confusion arises, and the thread of Egyptianhistory is complete ly b roken . The shepherds appear to havefully established thei r power in the south

,an d reduced the

Theban kingdom to the degraded posit ion of a tributary provm ce .

The lapse of time covered by this state of things i s un known ,

but has doubtless been greatly over-e stimated by some recen tchronologists . At last

,an effort was made to shake off the

foreign yoke . The king of Thebes, an d the other kings of th eThebaid who were not yet subjected, combined again st theusurping race ; a lon g and fierce war ensued, which en ded in thecomplete reduction of the shepherds . The remnant of the ir armywas driven to a fron tier-city of the Delta, called Avaris, wherethey fortified them selves so efl

'

eetually, that after besieging thema long while in vain ,

though with an army of m en ,the

Theban leader Tethmo sis (or Am6sis) despaired of takin g the

place,and capitulated with them , o n condition that they would

leave the coun try . They accordingly marched out in a body of

m en,with the ir cattle an d goods, an d se ttled them sel ves

,

con clude s Man etho,“ in the coun try now called Judea

,where

they built a city large enough to con tain so great a multitude,and called it Jerusalem .

” Thus began the XVIIIth dyn astyof Theban kings in Egypt, when the mon archy foun ded byM enes was restored entire i n the l in e of his descen dants .At this period, a serie s of illustrated m onumen tal records

commen ces ; an d the con spicuous part born e in them by apeople called the SHAS 'U leaves no doubt that they are the Eweor Shepherds of the foregoing accoun ts . Their geographicaliden tification with the R ephaim of the n orthern divi sion—the

Zuzim of Scripture—does n o t re st on the verbal sim ilarity ofthe n am e, alon e

,but on a great n umber of collateral detail s

which will b e fully deve loped in th e sequel . These,however,

are so intimately interwoven with the m on umen tal records re

lating to the cognate tribe s of Sheth and An ak, that they couldn o t b e separated without losing much of the i r force . In co n

sequen ce, I shall not b e able to avoid an ticipating a l ittleth e history of those tribes, in the presen t section , in order toexhibit such among those details as are in dispen sab le to provethe point I now appear to assum e

,an d on which so man y his

torical an d chron ological conclusion s depen d .

It appears from a tablet quoted by Mr . Birch from Cham

pollion ,f that the Delta was the seat of war between th e two

5 Josephus c . Apionem , l . 1 , 0. 1 4—1 6.

j Bi rch on S tatistical Tab let of Karnak ; Trans . Royal S . of L iterature, 2nd

Series, vo l . i i Champo l l io n , Egypte An cienne, p. 300.

8 The R ephaim .

race s ofUpper and Lower Egypt unti l the sixth year ofAm6sis .

Thus his first year is dated from the recovery of Memphis .

The earliest campaign s again st the SHAS ‘ U in the i r own territory

,are recorded un der Tho thmes II .

,an d contin ue to b e

noticed under the chief con querors who succeeded him ,durin g

th e en suin g cen tury . The n otice s of these wars cease with thelatter part of th e XVIIIth dyn asty . At this tim e

,the power

of the Theban kings was greatly curtailed by an other foreignin vasion from the south . The n am es of these fore ign aggres

sors,

an d repre sen tation s of them worshipping the sun,are

foun d on sculptures coeval with the reign of Tho thm es IV .

an d his immediate successors, Horus, Amen oph III .

,and

R am eses I .

The i l lustriou s son of the latter king opens a n ew dynasty .

H i s name is variously read, but SE T I -M E NE PH TAH seem s them ost authen tic reading

" By hi s valon r, he complete ly re-established the power of Egypt ; an d the sculptured records of his

n umerous triumphs over the great en em ies of his nation i nPalestin e

,cover the walls of his palace at Karnak .

‘

It appears by these mem orial s that,durin g the period of the

above-men tion ed fore ign in truders, the SHAS ’ U had taken ad

vantage of the weakened state of Upper Egypt to regain afooting in the Delta ; for the open in g event in the series, datedin the first year of th e king

’ s reign ,i s the overthrow of the

SHA S ' U,an d the capture of a city by the sea ,

called “the fort

of PA I ROU (P elusiumm) , which i s towards the lan d of KANA ‘ NA .

”

The seat of the war is called the lan d of AAN ‘

T .

" After routing

k Th is k ing ’ s prope r n ame S ET I was wr i tten ideagraphically w i th the figure o fthe go d S ET H ; but as th is go d became o d ious to the E gyptian s , the figu re was e rasedfrom in scriptio n s an d that of o srm substi tuted ; acco rdin g ly , Sir G ardn er W i lk in songi ves the n ame O sirei. (An o . E gyptians , vo l . i .) M r. Sharpe (H istory on ypt , ch . i . ,

p. 41 ) tak es the figure fo r a pho n et ic of a o r 0, and thus reads the name O -i M e

n ephtah . M an e tho ’

s cal l in g this k ing Sethos seems to coun ten an ce the read ingwh i ch , o n that acco un t , I have pre fe rred as the best authen t icated .

1 V ide the plates 48 to 57 in clus i ve , Ro sellin i, M onumen ti Reali .m Some read the n ame rA r-n o u ideagraphically, tak ing the s ign pa i for the

article , and the l io n (R ) fo r the prope r n ame . T he arti c le be fo re a name w ri ttenideagraphically is unusua l ; and the pho n e tic read ing adopted by M r. Bi rch is suppo rted by its agreem en t w i th the Copti c n ame Pheremon n , prese rved in the mo de rnA rab ic n ame o f the ruin s , Farama, and wh ich Champo l l io n in te rprets t o mean a

place in a m i ry so i l ; so that its G ree k fo rm , Pelusium ,de rived from wnAo s , mud o r

c lay , is a t ran s latio n o f the Egypt ian n ame, Phere-moun or Pl1cro -n 1i, o f Champo l l io n .

(L’Eyypt sous [es P haraous . )I t may b e wo rthy o f remark that the western arm o f the A rabian G u l f, cal le d

the G ulf o f Ilero opo lis by the G reeks , is sai d by l ’ l iny t o b e cal led the G ul f of/ Eo n t . (Gleam, 1 . v i . , 0. T hi s suggests that bo th syno n ym s o f the G ul f we retak e n fro m the lan d i t bathed . AAN "

1' wo u l d thus deno te the lan d cast o f the

D e lta—Arabian Egypt—the Scriptura l G o shen , o f whi ch the so uthe rn part is thel l cliopo litan n omc , cal led in G e n . x lv i i . 6, the lan d o fRamescs , the b est o f the land ,"

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 0 The Rephaim.

gian ce and offering him the custody of the i r lan ds in the nam e

of the n ation ? There are no m onumen tal records re lating tothe SHAS ’ U un der the weak and superstitious PTAH -M E N or

M E NE PH TAH , (Amen ophis) , the son and succe ssor of the greatR ameses . But Manetho relate s a revolt of the Oppressed captive race in Lower Egypt, who called in the aid of their kin dredin Palestine, the Shepherds of Jerusalem expe lled by Amo sis .

M en ephtah fled from before these in vaders, an d retired in toE thiopia for thirteen years, during which they tyran nized overall Egypt . H i s son , Sethos, (who i s also called Rameses) expel ledthem , an d pursued them to the fron tier of Syria . Josephusquotes in full M anetho’ s n arrative of this even t ; an d i s rathersevere in his strictures on the mis-represen tations an d an achron

i sm s he charges upon the Egyptian priest . The fault,however,

l ies at the door of the Jewish historian , who has eviden tly m isunderstood the ten or of the story

,by applying it to his Hebrew

forefathers,from the circum stan ce that

,l ike them

,the remn an t

of Hyksos population in Goshen had been subj ected, as con

quered captives,to the most oppressive bon dage,— a bon dage in

which the Hebrews,from m otives of state policy, were ulti

m ate ly made the ir fellow sufl erers . The sculptures ofRamese sI II .

, at M edin et-Abou,re late the close of this eventful his tory

,

which sealed the fate of the R ephaim . The pictures are mostimportant, an d the in scription s cepious. Two m emorable cam

paign s are specially recorded,subsequen t to the expulsion of

the last Shepherd invaders ? This time, the Rephaim of Judeatake the lead—the form idable children of Anak . The othertribes appear on ly as auxiliaries —nay

,in the first of these two

expedition s, dated in the fifth year of the king’ s reign, the

PULSA ’

TA (Philistin es) , are represen ted as having subm ittedto the conqueror, l ike the SHAS ’ U to Rameses II . ; an d the

TAKKAR'

U (Ekronites) are actually employed as m ercen aries o ras allies of Egypt again st thei r n eighbours an d kin dred of R B O(Arb ft) in the chief commemorative battle-scen e of this war .The capture of sn AL iiM (Shalem ) i s also recorded o n this occasion . These details suggest that the SHAS 'U

,o r Rephaim of

Bashan probably were not the leaders in the last i rruption o f

the Shepherds,but those of Judea .

Il owever,the whole body of the n ation again collected thei r

forces, in a fin al effort to shake o ff the yoke of Egypt . We

learn that all the R apha tribes took part agai n st Rameses inI

R o sellin i, Jll on . R eali, pl. v xvii. T he detai ls o f th is ca11 1paign be lo n g to

the h isto ry o f an o the r n at io n ,—the Em im .

i' l bitl . , plates 136 cl sqq. T he particulars o f this war belo ng to the h isto ry o f

the An ak im .

The Rephaim . 1 1

this last campaign , which occurred in the twelfth year of hisreign , from the curious an d invaluable series of portraits ofthe ir chiefs, se lected from the most illustrious amon g the capt ives he brought in triumph to Thebes, an d which are sculptured roun d the wall of a chamber

,kn own as his harem

,at

M edin et-Ab oufl For among them are found the chief of a lan dcalled whose costume i s the same as the peoplewho are un ited with the PULSA ‘

TA (Philistines) , and TAKKAR’

U

(Ekronites) , against the Egyptians in the great picture of anaval engagemen t, form ing the leading even t of this campaign ,

and who are also iden tical in every re spect with the SHAS .Uwarriors repre sented as tendering their subm ission to Ram ese sII .,

in the great historical tableau of his celebrated expeditionagain st the SHE T ‘

TA . The helmet of these people has for acrest, the emblem of ASTR TA,

“the two-horned Ashtaroth

,

tutelar goddess of the m etropolis of Bashan,and of all the

Rapha nations,— consisting of a pair of cow’ s horn s surm oun tedby a globe ; thi s would have sufficed to in dicate the i r land,even if we had not foun d the ci ty of SH A IR TA

‘

N A (Zarthan )within the domains of Bashan . Another chief

,whose legend

i s mutilated, is n everthe less recognizable by hi s strongl ikeness to the former, an d the shape of his crown, as o n e of

the SHAS ‘ U,which is probably the re storation of his name . The

chief of SHE T ’

TA also is there a sly,ignoble, bloated, an d sin

gularly repulsive coun ten an ce ! Amon g them ,t o o

,i s the great

chief of R B o,the ‘ father of Arba him self

,an d an other chief

,

who m ight b e cousin -german of the latter, by the strong fam ilyliken ess of their features, only that he is a rather longer-facedman ; wearing also the smal l peaked beard an d the long curlor braid hanging down the side of the smoothly- shaved cheekan d temple, which are characteristi c poin ts in the costum e of

the An akim,an d stamp him as on e of that race

,although the

nam e of his district or city, MASH U ASH,is n o t to b e foun d

among the biblical n otices . We have also the chief of TAKUR I,

the Ekronite Philistin es, an d of the AMER,their Amorite de

pen dants . In the inscriptions of Medin et-Abou,the lan d of

AMER is called a land of the TAKKAR’

U an d in the biblicaln otices

,we find that Ekron was on e of the Philistine prin cipa

lities in the lan d accoun ted to the Can aan ite .

”

All these captive figures are repre sen ted kneel ing, s trippedof the ir upper robe or m an tle of distin ction

,with their han ds

boun d behin d them,an d a rope roun d their necks . N o twith

standing the strong cast of in dividuality in features an d expres

‘I Rosellin i, M on . R eati , pl . 1 41—1 43 .

1 2 The Rephaim.

s ion that characterizes each separate profile,there i s a common

type by which all the coun ten an ces be longing to the R ephaimcan b e distinguished from the rest ; i t i s impossible to doubtthat they were al l l iterally copied from n ature . There is nothing con ven tional about them . The characteristic Rapha typei s i ts angular profile . The n ose

,though arched, i s not pro

m in ent ; but, l ike the Egyptian nose, was rather flatten ed aboutthe n ostril nevertheless

,the profile has a sort of prom in en ce

,

caused by the retirin g l ine of the forehead above,an d of the

un derl ip an d chin be low . In this re spect,the counten an ce of

this race form s a strikin g con trast to the Hebrew profile,which

,

exclusi ve of the prom in en t Shem itic n ose,presen ts a n early per

pen dicular outlin e, from th e fuln ess of the forehead and thefrequent tenden cy of the un derlip an d chin to advan ce . The

eye s of the R apha face are lon g, flat,and rather slantin g up

wards at the corners,l ike the Egyptian ; whereas the eyes of

the Hebrew are full, rather roun d, an d set on a horizon tal lin e .

The lips are somewhat flat an d broad,l ike the Egyptian those

of the Hebrew are gen erally e ither thin or full,but never

,in

the gen uin e type, presen t that peculiar flattened character rendered so fam il iar to our eye s by the Egyptian statue s .

Thus do we gather from the boastful m emorials of the lastgreat Theban conqueror

’s prowess

,not only the fate of thi s

doomed race, but those m in ute particulars of thei r physicalch aracteristics from which we m ight ven ture to assign the ire thn ological position ,

as m embers of that prolonged lin e of prim eval civilization that exten ded from the foot ofM ount Hermonto the extreme borders of the Thebaid .

After the conquests of R ameses II I .,n one of these people

are e ver m ention ed again as en em ies of Egypt, in the n ationalrecords . The ir civil polity was fin ally broken up

,thei r remnant

dispersed the ir fortresses were razed to the ground, the ir citie sdepopulated . From that time they cease to b e reckon ed amon gthe nation s . The lan d that had been left of them retain edfor a brief season the n ame of that on ce great, n umerous an d

haughty people,”

as the popular type of all that had been t errib le to the nation s aroun d ; an d from the d im tradi tions o fdeparted greatn ess associated w i th i ts m emory, that n am e waso n ly lost from among the living, to pass over in to the languageo f the coun try as a poetic syn onym for the m ighty dead .

Under thi s sen se we meet with the closing allusion to theR ephaim,

in the sublime prephe tic den un ciations of Isaiah .

M any cen turies have past away sin ce the i r race was rooted outo f the lan d . M ean while, the power of thei r an cien t rival an dfee

, Shinar, has reached its summi t, surpassin g even the i r own .

The Rephaim . 1 3

All Asia groans within i ts iron grasp . Yet the prophet foretelsthe dissolution of this m ighty empire . In a strain of the mostexalted poetical imagery, he in troduces the fallen power of

Babylon under the figure of a man slain by the sword,an d cast

in to an un timely,dishonoured grave, from whence his ancient

adversaries are evoked,to taunt him

Hades below is thrilled, to greet thy coming,S tirring up again st thee the Rephaim,

all the chiefs of the earth ;H e hath raised from their seats all the kings of the na tions

They address thee, saying un to thee

Art thou,too

,enfeebled as we ? art thou become like ourselves

Thy pomp, the tumul t of thy v iols,brough t down to the grave

The couch ben eath thee,worms

,—the grub, thy co v ering !

H ow‘

art thou fallen from the skies,Lucifer

,son of the dawn

H ow art thou cut down to the groun d, waster of n ation s 1’

Isaiah x iv . 9— 1 2 .

CHAPTER VII .

Geographical Iden tity of the Zuzim and sn a s u.

The bibl ical s tudent will perce ive that this rapid sketch of

the great Egyptian revolution s in volve s an importan t chron olo

gical problem . If the SHAS 'U, the M NA’

T’

U'

N (ANKA andthe SHE T '

TA of the even ts described in the Egyptian historicalseries, can b e proved to b e i den ti cal with th e three Rapha n a

tion s kn own as the Zuzim,An akim

,and Em im of the biblical

series, i t will n ecessarily follow that the overthrow of the senation s by the Theban kin gs of the n in eteenth an d twentiethdyn asties must have preceded the Hebrew con quest of Palestine .

For the Egyptian mon umen ts that record the deeds of thesepeople,—that bear the ir names, with the n ames of the kings whocon ten ded with them,

an d the dates of the respective expeditions,

accompanied by referen ce s to the geography, history, and worship of the in im ical race which will enable u s to place the iriden tity beyond the reach of a reason able doubt,— these verym onumen ts expre ssly repre sen t them as suffi ciently powerful anddaring to withstand the power ofEgypt, an d even to invade thecountry

,un der the two m ost ren owned kin gs of the n in eteen th

dynasty Seti-M en ephtah I . an d Rameses 1 1 . Y e t M oses dist in ctly aflirms that

,in his time, the political existence of the

Rephaim was at an en d, an d that other races had the dom in ionover the i r lan ds . Accordingly, under any system of relative

chronology which attempts to conn ect Egyptian and Hebrew

1 4 Tile Rephaim.

hi story by placing the Exodus an d conquest under the e ighteen thdynasty

,i t is n ecessary to suppose that in the reign s of Seti

M en ephtah an d Ram e ses II .,who recorded the ir triumph s over

the SHAS 'U,SH E T ‘

TA, an d M NA'

T‘

U'

N (ANKA the lan ds of the

Zuz im had,for more than a century

,been occupied by the M a

n assites and Ammon ites those of the Em im,by the Reubenites,

Gadites,andM oabites an d those of the An akim

,by the chi ldren

of Judah,Benj am in, and Ephraim —which is as much as to

say, the seat of those wars could n o t have been Palestine, andthose in im ical n ation s could n o t have been the se tribes of the

R ephaim .

And as to the absolute place in time of the correspondingevents — the re ign of Rameses I I . i s fixed by the astron om icals culptures of the Ramesseum ,

to within a very lim ited ran ge,e ither way

,from the begin n ing of the Can icu lar cycle, 1 325 B .C .

Accordin gly, i f I can substan tiate the iden ti ty of th e R ephaimwith the great en em ie s of Egypt, i t must in evitably follow thatthe most gen erally rece ived chron ology of the Bible history,which places the Exodus 1 491 B .C .,

i s nearly two cen tu rie s out

of tim e as that event ought to fall somewhere between the years1 325 and 1 300 B .C .,

that th e conquest of Palestin e by the Israelites m ay follow,

after a sufficient in terval, the last expedition sby which Rameses III .

,in the twe lfth year of his reign , struck

the death-blow at the political existen ce of all those nationsabove m en tion ed .

’

A fuller discussion of this chron ological poin t, and a moredefin ite adjustmen t of its dates

,belon g to a differen t section of

a comprehen sive history of the M osai c Period, which our presen tsubject i s on ly in ten ded to in troduce . Nevertheless, th is shortdigression could n o t b e avoided for

,as we draw n earer to that

period,we cannot follow up the destin ies of the R ephaim ,

without encoun tering even ts which would have compelled m e to assume this chron ologi cal posi tion , at the risk of drawing the

rel uctan t reader alon g a track he regarded as un derm in ed by aninheren t an achron ism . It is better, therefore , to look the dithculty full in the face, an d let the i ssue depen d on the eviden ce sI will n ow bring to bear on my side of the que stion . If theyb e in suffi cien t to e stablish the fun damental poin t of iden tity

,

n ei ther history nor chron ology will have rece ived any fresh illus

r T he reade r is here re ferred to some mo st in te restin g and valuable remark s ,by the D uk e o f No rthumbe rland, i n serte d by Sir G ardne r W i lk inso n in vo l. i . o fAn cien t Egyptians , pp. 76—8 1 . T ho se remarks trace a se ries of e tymo log i ca l co inc ide n ces, we l l wo rthy o f the lnis to rian

'

s atten t ion , as po in t in g to the ve ry same

ch ro no l o g i ca l co n n ex io n as that suggested by Ma n etho ,and i l lust rated by this his

to ry—whe reby the Exodus fa l ls W ith in the re ign o f Amen oph is o n M EN lcrH T / m.

The Rephaim. 1 5

t rat ion . But if they prove satisfactory to the en quirer, thechron ological consequence s they en tail can not b e avoided .

The resemblan ce between the Egyptian an d H ebrew transcripts of a nam e may b e acciden tal . The chan ces ofun certaintyare in creased by the fact that a few soun ds ren dered in Hebrewby two letters, namely, l and r

,d an d t

, g and 1r, sh and ch,are both represen ted by on e Egyptian character . This ambi

guity, added to the frequen t om ission of vowe ls, often leaves thei den tity of a name un certain ,

unles s we can fi n d some more decisive criterion to con firm i t . The verbal coin cidence of then am e an d title of the a rm ZUZ IM or sn a s u of flH oug, with theH uk -Sds of M an etho

,- of the Scriptural D r ew SH T

'

IM with theEgyptian local n am e SH T

‘

TA‘

N or L and of Shet of the Scripturalmm Arba with the Egyptian R BO

,would have suggested, but

would n o t have sufficed to establish a case of iden tity to mysatisfaction

,if I had not also been able to ascertain that the

citie s monumen tally referred to the se several n ation s, were to b efoun d in the lan ds of the corresponding nation s, the Zuzim ,

Em im,an d An akim of Scripture .

But there is an Egyptian document which enables m e tobring the que stion at on ce to a test as decisive as the m ost cautious theorist could require . This document is referred to byM r. Birch in his in valuable translation of the stati stical tablet ofKarn ak

,8 which en umerates the campaign s of Tho thmes III .

,

the people he con quered,and the amount and nature of the

tribute b e levied upon them . Among other fragmen ts of illustrative m atter relatin g to these n ation s

, an d especially thatcalled the SHE T '

TA,quoted by M r. Birch from a varie ty ofm on u

m en tal sources,he gives an extract from the Sallier Papyrus,

which professes to describe, in a sem i -poetic form ,

“ a j ourney tothe lan d of the SH ET '

TA givin g the n ames of the prin cipal placeswhich occur on the road, an d of som e which are situated aboveit,or which are visible from i t . From several of the names

,

which he recognized, M r. Birch remarks that thi s route partlylay through Palestin e . By carefully searching for the biblicalcorre spon den ts of the rest, I foun d that they were all recoverable,in position s exactly corre spon din g to those indicated by the an

cien t Egyptian itin erary an d that the route thus traced led tothe very lan d I had previously iden tified by n ame as that of theSHE T '

TA . As the traveller is directed to pass through the lan dof the SH AS

‘

U o n his way,the proof that con firms the geographi

cal iden tity of the form er,equally con firm s that of the latter .

On this accoun t,although it m ay b e an ticipatin g the subject

of a future section of our history, it will b e more expedien t to

8 Trans . R oyal Society of L iterature , N ew Se r ies , vo l . 1 1 .

16 The Rephaim .

introduce in the present on e a complete analysis of thi s route,than to dism iss our account of the Zuz im with the question ofthei r iden tity in any degree unsettled .

The wars of Rameses II . against the SHE T ‘

TA form the subj cet of the papyrus from which this fragmen t i s taken ; an d the

document i s n o t less curious from its remote an tiquity,than

from the in terestin g comparison i t en ables us to in stitute betweenthe geography of the Bible and that of the ancien t Egyptians .

“ Thy journey lies to the lan d of the KH ITA .

‘AUBA and SHATU

‘

MA

appear to you . In the same mann er I tell you of CAF IRI, it is that whichis the Baita ofBamessu, the fortress of the CH IBUBU in its watersits course resembles that whi ch you make in going to the ATI and TUBASH I.

Y ou go to the b ow-bearing SHASU

,cro ssing the road at MAKARU the

heaven IS wi th light ; it is plan ted wi th clumps of (cedars ? ) and acacias .

Y ou disturb the wild animals and deer, and the camels ridden by the

SHASU on its road ; it leads thee up to the hill of the lan d of SHAVAI sub sequen tly tell you of the fortresses which are abo ve these, as thougoest to the land ofTACHISA . CAP IR-MARU CHANA,

TAMNEH,ATI

,TAPURU

,

ATA I , HARUNEMA. Y ou look at KARTA-ANB U , BATA-TUBAR ;—y0u knowARUTUMA, TITPU TA , in the same manner. I tell you the name of CHANRUTA, which is the lan d ofAU BA ,

the bull of the fron tiers in its place”

P ap . Sallier., pl . lii . , p. 1 8, lines 7, 8.

The writer also men tions BA ITA the TARUKA ARU, and the

passage of the IURTANA .

”

ANALY S I S .

Thy journ ey lies to the land of the SHET ‘

TA . AUBA and SHATU’

MA

appear to you .

”

A traveller who en ters Palestin e from Egypt by the u sualroute from the Sin aiti c desert to H ebron the way of the spies”

(Nu . xiv .,xxi . 1 ) will have the lan d o fCan aan before him o n his

left ; an d the Dead Sea, with the con tiguous lan ds, o n his right,as he first comes out of the desert upon the cultivated lands n earTel Arad . By the analysis of the con cluding passage of our ex

t ract,we shall see that AU BA must have been t he local name of

the lan d of Canaan ,known in Scripture on ly by its patronymic .

S HAT 'U is the Egyptian plural form of the radical sn s r co n

sequen tly,the equivalent of the Hebrew w ipe , the name of the

lan d which the Israel ites con quered from the Amorites . Its m on

umen tal form i s SIIT '

TA‘

N,referrin g to the lan d ; an d

t In th is quo tat io n I Copy M r. Birch ’s o rthography o f the names : the variatio nin his read ing o f arises o n ly from the ambiguo us powe r of the i n i t iallette r (the s ievc= iv 0" n ) , so that in such cases i t is real ly n ecessary to have iden tifiedthe n ames co rrectly , be fo re yo u can b e sure o f the right read in g . The o r ig inalEgypt ian tex t has no vowel ; when th is is the case , an e is supplied .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 8 The R ephaim.

—R B o— than the pointed text Arba .

“(The final x i s an attempt

to indicate the rough articulation of the guttural H ebrew vowe l r.)The num erous historical an d geographical referen ces which further con firm thi s iden tity must b e deferred to the future sectiontreatin g of the ir h istory of this formidable race

,the terror an d

scourge of KHAM who proved themselves to the last true tothe i r friends— an d terrible to the ir foe s .

Its course the road to the lan d of the SHET '

TA,) resemb les thatwhich you make in go ing to the ATI and -TUBASH I. Y ou go to the b ow

bearing SHAS 'U, crossing the road at MAKARU .

”

TU B ASH I verbally correspon ds to Thebez yi n, and still moreclosely to the m odern name of the site

,Tubas . It is the city

Ab im e lech the son of Gideon was besieging, when he m et h is

death (Jud . ix . 50 It lay a l ittle to the n orth of Shechem .

The l in e of road must therefore take in Aiath, ngxg, the AT I of ourtext .

The traveller is eviden tly told to follow the road that wouldlead from CAP I R I to those places

,but h e is not told to go to

them ; he i s to make for the land of the SHAS ‘ U,by crossing

som e remarkable road or pass at a place called M AKARU . Thereis precise ly such a pass to be crossed at page; M igro n . It is part icularly de scribed in 1 Sam . xiv . 2, 4, 5, The garrison of thePhilistin es wen t out to the passage of M ichmash . and Saulwas tarry ing at the extrem i ty of Gibeah

,beneath the pome

granate tree in M igron an d between the passages by whichJon athan sought to cross over to the garrison of the Philistines,there was a steep rock on o n e side

,an d another steep rock o n

the other side . The steep of o n e rock was situated n orthwardfacin g M ichm ash, an d the other

,southward

,facing Gibeah .

Thi s description shews that the passage bore cast an d west,

an d accordin gly in tersected the n orthern Thebez road,which

,

up to that poin t, had been the traveller’s course . An other re

feren ce to this road or passage— for it i s the b ed of a smal lwin ter- torren t—occurs in Isaiah x . 28

,in conj un ction with Aiath

or AT I. The prophe t i s describing the sudden m arch of the

Assyrian in vader upon Jerusalem ,supposing him to have crossed

the Jordan at the Shibboleth ford,n ear the Wady Zurka .

” H e

is come to Aiath,he has passed by M igron ,

at Michmash hehath laid up his baggage ; they have crossed the passage— theyhave taken upthei r lodging at Geba ; Ramah tremble th— Gibeahof Saul hath fled .

”

In th is impo rtan t n ame we must again set as i de the H eb rew vowe l -po in ts, too btain the t rue pro n un ciatio n o f the o rig i nal rad icals .

v Virlc Judges x n . 5 , G.

The Rephaim . 19

As no more places are men tion ed between MAKARU and the

lan d of the SHAS ‘ U,the distance between the two can not have

been great . If the sua s u b e the R ephaim of Gilead, as I in ferfrom the ir n ame

, the traveller is in the ir land as soon as he hascrossed the Shibboleth ford

,which is foun d a few m ile s below

the confluen ce of the Jordan an d theWady Zurka . The j ourn eythither

,from the point where the great northern or Thebez road

is in tersected by the passage of MAKARU, may b e accomplishedin a few hours, by cutting across the naked desert which, in thatpart

,separates Judea from the valley of the Jordan .

The direction to cross the river is n ot given in its place ; butthis poetical fragmen t is not a regular geographical itin erary ;n evertheless

,a subsequen t referen ce to the P ASSAG E of the IU R

TANA in conj un ction with the TARUKA ARU leave s n o doubt o n

the reader’s m in d that the Shibbole th ford was a well krfownpoin t of the route, and the on e here alluded to . For althoughthe Israel ites gave the n ame of Jabb ok to the river which run sin to the Jordan near this ford, in m emory of the ir an ce stor Jacob’ s conte st with the ce lestial m essenger

w—an d although thatriver is always cal led the Jabbok in the Hebrew history—we

fi nd,by the Egyptian form TARUKA ARU (or river) , that theWady

Zur/ca still bears its prim itive name,an d that the Passage o f

the Jordan” al luded to, must have been the ce lebrated ford inits vicin ity . Thus the Egyptian route i s preci sely that taken byS enn acherib’ s army—only reversing the direction .

Having lan ded his traveller in the coun try of the SHAS‘ U

,the

Egyptian poet in dulges in a short description of its leadin g physical features—which gives an interesting test of its iden tity .

The heaven is with light . It is planted with clumps of (cedars ? )and acacias . Y ou disturb the wild an imals and deer, and the camels ridden by the SHAS 'U on its road ; it leads thee up to the hi ll of the lan d of

SHAVA .

It is impossible to gi ve in fewer words a more lively represcutation of a thickly-wooded coun try . It i s not a description

,

but a living picture . For the accuracy of the likeness, I needon ly refer to the R ev. E li Sm ith’ s accoun t already quoted (videan te

,chap . an d also to the forests of thick o ak in the hilly

region s of Bashan an d Gilead, m en tion ed by Burckhardt, es

pecially o n e n ear Amm an ? Lord Lin dsay de scribes these forests, like M r. E . Sm ith

,as con si sting chiefly of evergreen oak .

wpd: ak in to pm to co lli de , con ten d . H en ce the Jab b ok is the r i ver of the

con test .”a? Burckhardt , Travels in Syria , pp. 265 , 348, 356.

20 The Rephaim .

The word M r. Birch tran slates cedars is marked (B) as doubtful . It should probably b e oaks .

An d that this land was a thoroughfare for caravan s withcamels

,is shewn by G en . xxxvii . 25 Behold

,a com pan y of

Ishmael ites cam e from Gilead,with their camels

,bearin g spicery

an d balm an d myrrh, goin g to carry it down to Egypt .

As the en tran ce to the lan d of SHAS 'U is placed at the ford,

the hill of the lan d of SHAVA must b e the Jebe l Je lad orE s Salt ,This mountain m arked the boun dary of the Zuzim an d Emim fl

Imm ediately to the south is the scriptural Shittim . Here the

description en ds— the traveller has reached the goal—he i s inthe lan d of the Children of Sheth .

The n ame SHAVA,which here den otes that lan d

,was in fact

its local nam e . The Hebrew form,Shittim

,i s on ly a syn on ym

,

derived from the patronym i c SHE T H , guardian divin i ty of the

lan d . As early as G en . xiv .

,we fi nd (ver. 5 ) o n e of the cities

of the people whom the M oabites called Em im,bearing the

n am e of Shaveh -kiriathaim,the double city of Shave/1 ; an d in

ver. 1 7, the M etropolitan vale of Shiddim i s also called “ the

valley of Shaveh,the royal valley .

” By fin ding this n am e

un der the form SHAVA,referable t o the n orthern boundary of

th e land of SHET —again in G en . xiv .,to a city in its cen tral

provin ce,afterwards given to the Reuben ites,—an d again to a

district in the southern extrem i ty of the lan d, precisely whereSH AT ‘

U'

M A appears to you,

” —we have thus a clear proof thatSHAVA o r SHA VE H

,mg!

,was not a mere provin ce, but that this

name in cluded the whole coun try of the Emim .

We shall pass very lightly over the places men tion ed in the

secon d part of o ur extract ; i t is in teresting to fi n d them al lequally referable to cities of n ote in Palestin e

,—an d all fulfi llin g

the only con dition required by the Egyptian description— thatof be ing si tuated above (or bey ond) those passed o n the route

,

an d con sequently more or less out of the way o f a travellerboun d for the lan d of the SHE T ‘

TA . A list of the n ames,with

their Hebrew correspon den ts,will suffice to shew the i r iden tity .

I sub sequen tly tell you of the fortresses which are situated abo vethese as thou goest to the lan d of TACH ISA .

”

a At the fo o t o f th is b ill lay Jz'

izer. In Numb . xx i . 24, we read : for the bo rde ro f the ch i ld ren o fAmmo n was stro ng . pray

”33 51 1 ; n}”3 b u t the Septuag in t have

(Y‘n J/u a v iw yi

A/ulu u

'

w (h wy—hav ing read WW”w: F O I’ Jz'

izer IS the bo rde ro f the chi ld ren o f Ammo n ; pro bab ly the t rue. reading , as i t g i ves a geo g raphi ca ll im i t requi red by the co n tex t , whe reas the H eb rew read ing has n o o bv ious co n

n ex io n w i th i t . t ze r was a t the fo o t o f Jebe l Jclful. M o ses sen t to “spy o ut

.Ifizc r —i n tend i ng to c ro ss the fo rd , had n o t the Amo ri tes in te rfered wi th his mo vemen ts and compe l led him to g i ve them ba ttle .

The Rephaim . 2 1

CAF IR -MARUCHA -NA,ayes, Chephirah of the royal abode

,

” afortress a little to the north of Shalem (Josh . ix .

TAMNE H,neon, T imnath -Serah o r T imn ath-H eres, city of Joshuain M ount E phraim (Josh . xix . 50; Jud . i i .

ATI, Aiath, gen erally supposed to b e the sam e as Ai

,a little

eastward of Beth-R l.TAPURU, Winn Tabor, a Levitical city (Josh . xix . 22 ; 1 Chr . vi .ATA I

, j’

n'

TTDp, (M AE ) . Probably Ittah-kazin or Ittah “the chief

(Josh . xix .

B ARUN E-MA, pin m ,

Beth-B oron . The place,or House of Hor .

A n oted fortress o n the Benj am ite border (Josh . x . 10)an d a Levitical city (Josh . xxi . S ite extan tB eit Ur.

Y ou look at KARTA-ANB U ,BATA-TUBAR ; you know ARUTU-MA,

TITPU '

TA, in the same manner.”

This m ean s that these places are visible to the traveller fromthe road

, e ither from their proximity, or their con spicuous situations. Such is the case with the following places, to whichthey correspond by name

KARTA-ANB U,1353, Anab, a city of the Anakim . In the Bible,

the prefix rm, a walled city, charact eristic of the chie fcities of the R ephaim ,

is wan tin g ; the Egyptian textsuppl ies i t (Josh . xi . Site extan t : Ah ab .

BATA-TUB AR,m 1

,Debir

,otherwise Kiriath -Sepher. From being

here classed among cities visible from the road aboveparticularized

,i t must have been on the eastern side

of the m oun tain s : but the site has perished . The

occurren ce of the name Debir,l ike that of Hebron

,

i s remarkable : for it proves the an tiquity of these twolocal name s (Josh . xv . 1 5—19; xi .

ARUTU-MA,w ; Arad . A city of the Amorites i n southern

Can aan (Numb . xxi . Site extan t : Tel Arad .

T ITPU -TA,man nu Beth -Tappuahf on a he ight of the moun tainpass

,overlookin g the vale of E shcol (Josh . xii .

S ite ex tan t : Tefl dh .

I tell you the n ame of CHANRU‘

TA , whi ch is the lan d of AUBA,

the bull (chief or prin cipal place) of the frontier in its place .

”

Sin ce the lan d of AU BA begin s as you en ter Palestin e fromth e south

, an d the city of Chinn eroth,map

,on the border of

the lake to which it gave its nam e,i s still the lan d of AU BA,

”

z In the H eb rew fo rm , the lette r n com ing awkward ly befo re D at the end of a

syllab le , is st ruck out , an d suppl ied by doubl ing the D.

22 The Rephaim .

i t is clear that the Egyptian s m ust have un derstood all Can aanby that n am e ; i t was probably derived from sis

,Aub

, (producing,) n am e of a Can aan i te god, often alluded to in Scripture

,but usually m istran slated by a familiar spirit . The priests

an d priestesses of this god preten ded to possess oracular powershen ce the Israel ites are repeatedly warn ed not to b e en sn aredby thei r j uggleries an d having recourse to the nuts Auho th ,an d D ar

-r Idd6n im

,

“ kn owing ones,

” was made a capital offen ce .

Saul wen t to con sult a priestess of Aub,nan

-mpg, (lit . mistress ofAub

,} at Ain -Dor,when the oracle of the L ord had refused to

an swer him (1 Sam . xxviii . 6, The region of Dor was con

t iguous to Chin n eroth, which is the lan d of Aub a” (Josh . xi .It is particularly worthy of n otice that the Egyptian author

of this geographical fragment,by calling CHANRU

‘

TA“the chief

place” (b a ll) of the frontier of AU B A, corroborates in a remarkable m an n er the e thn ographical division of P alestine laid downby M oses, who , as we have already seen

,assign s the lak e of

Chin n ere th as the eastern lim it of the C an aan ite .

CHAPTER VIII .

Cities and D ependencies of the Zuzim .

Our chance of iden tifyin g whatever cities of the Zuzim are

m en tion ed separately o n mon umen tal in scription s, are butslen der . Of t he three - score they boasted, very few are alludedto in the passing referen ces to thi s lan d, in the Bible . Amongthese

,two very importan t frontier-cities can b e traced with cer

tain ty to we ll-kn own m on umen tal n ames,viz . : Zarthan an d

Pe thor . The l ists of Rameses III . at M edin e t -Abou give ,among other n ames

,G AL ’ NA an d ADAR

,which correspon d so

exactly with pa, G OL ‘ AN, (Jaulan ,) an d ”rays , AD RKI (Edre i, n ow

Adra o r Drda) as to ren der their iden tity m ore than probable,n otw ithstan ding the double power of their radicals .

Zarthan, ms (also Zartan ah ,) i s men tion ed

three times in the Bible,so as to defi n e its geographical posi

t ion very satisfactorily, although the site is n o t extan t . FromJosh . i i i . 16, i t appears to have been a remarkable place, we llkn own to the Hebrews :

The waters which were coming down from ab ove, stopped ; theyrose in an accumulati on” very far b eyond Adam ,

the city which is by the

1 ; l i te ral ly a remova l o r t ran spo s i t io n ,ind icating tha t the wate rs were t ran s

fe rred fro m the i r usua l co urse o r place T he re is n o Eng l ish wo rd to co n vey th isi dea w i th precis io n , b u t heap d o es n o t : i t g ives a false i dea o f the phys i ca l aspec t

The R ephaim . .23

side of Zarthan ; and those which were coming down towards the Sea of

Arabah, the Salt Sea, failed, were cut off, and the people passed over,

opposite Jericho .

The site of Adam i s unkn own ; but from 1 Kings iv . 1 2,

we gather that Zarthan itself was very far up the Jordan ; asBeth -Shan is there placed—Sss—on the Opposite side of Zartan ah . Fin ally

,in 1 Kings vii . 46, we fi n d that Solomon cast

the brazen vessel s for the temple,in the valley of the Jordan ,

in the clay-

groun d between Succoth an d Zarthan ; whence wein fer it must have been o n the Opposite ban k of the river, forthe foundries in the cavity of the watercourse (p m) to haveSuccoth o n o n e side, and Zarthan on the other .

The in scription facin g the Zarthan ian captive SHAIR'I‘A

‘

NA

n pai iuma,

” “ Zarthan by the sea,

”may b e urged as an ob

j ection to my referring this name to an in lan d city . However,i t only proves that the an cien t Egyptian iuma was a term ascomprehensive as it s H ebrew correspon den t iam an d the

m odern Arabic equivalent bahr,which at the presen t day—both

in Egypt an d in Palestin e—stands in differen tly for any con

siderab le body of water, whe ther a sea or a lake,a river

,or

even on ly a can al . Nahum (chap . vi ii . 3) compares Nin eveh toNo-Amun

,whose rampart was the sea

,an d her wall from the

sea ; m ean ing the N ile . Dr . Robinson ’ s Arab guide, whospoke E nglish, always tran slated his n ative term bahr by the

sea . An d Jerem iah (chap . xlvi ii . 32) calls the Jordan“ the sea

of Jazer,” because that city was n ear i t, opposite the Shibboleth

ford . The ford of Beth -Shan (B eisan) i s the next place wherethe Jordan is passable . Zarthan overlooked an d guarded thiscritical spot . Some ruins n o t far from Jabesh -Gilead (Y abes) ,n early opposite Succoth (Sukhot) , probably mark the site ofZarthan .

PE TUR is men tion ed as early as in the reign ofTho thmes III .,

in the statistical tablet ofKarn ak, and again in the inscription sof Rame ses I II . The iden tity of thi s nam e with the Pethorof the Pentateuch has n ever been doubted

,from its collocation

with NAHAR I'

NA,which i s un iversally an d in disputably referred

to the Aram -N aharaim of the Bible . But most Biblical andEgyptian scholars will b e somewhat startled at fin din g Pethorran ked amon g the domain s ofBashan , having been accustomedto the prevalen t opin ion that it was in M esopotam ia beyon d theE uphrates .

presen ted by the phenomenon ,bo th in th is place an d in E xo d . x v . 8. V ide Isa .

xv i i . 1 1 , where the tran slat ion is jud ic ious ly co rrected in the marg in , to the harvestshall b e removed .

”In Ps . xxx i i i . 7, heap also very in adequate ly expresses the gather

ing toge the r o f the waters to fo rm the n atural o cean .

24 The Rephaim .

This city is first men tion ed as the residen ce of Balaam, (Nu .

x xn .

“ Pethor, which i s n ear the river of the chi ldren of

ing an,his people,

” is the readin g of the prin ted H ebrew text ;whereupon Ken n icott j ustly observes that although this passagewas eviden tly in ten ded to con vey a defin ition ofBalaam

’s abode

,

i t is really very in defin ite , as the form of expression describesn o particular lan d or river . But the Samaritan Pen tateuchclears up the obscurity by supplying the term in al 1’ acciden tallylost out of the Hebrewmy, an d thus gives the description :

“Pe thorwhich is n ear the river of the children of Amm on ; an d as

t his readin g i s supported by the Syriac an d Vulgate version s,and fourteen an cien t Hebrew M SS . of high authority, twelveof which were exam in ed by Ken n icott

,n o stronger eviden ce

can b e desired to se ttle its authen ticity ; whereby the s ite ofPethor is tran sferred from the n eighbourhood of the E uphratesto that of the Jordan .

The E b erite prophet’ s own allusion to his b irth -place

From ARAM hath Balak,king ofMoab , led me ;

From the moun tain s of the East .

suggests that Pethor was situated amon g the m ountains out o f

which the river in question take s it s ri se,though we can not b e

certain whether this was theWady Zurka or the M o iet -Amman .

It also implie s a very importan t geographical fact : that in the

prim eval distribution of races,these m oun tains were part of the

Aram ite settlemen ts .All the coun try in cluded between the land of the R ephaim

an d the great Syrian desert, seems to have been known as the

E ast coun try” by the people of Palestin e,although its patro

n ymic was“the lan d of U z

,

” derived from the e lde r bran ch of

the Aram ite family,its earl iest sett lers . The vale ofDamascus

,

its n orthern l im it,still retain s the old n ame we flH iitz in the

m odern form “ E l Ghuta ;”

an d we learn from L am . iv . 2 1 , thati t also exten ded southward so as to in clude E dom ; when ce, theE dom i te Job , who dwe l t in the lan d of U z

,i s called the great

e st of the children of the East .

”The statemen t o f Balaam

,

that the lan d on the eastern Ammonite fron tier was Aram,is

thus we ll supported by o ther Scriptural referen ces . The landactually occupied by the Ammon ites

,as we have already seen

,

was that which was form erly the lan d of the Rephaim .

From D en t . xxiii . we further gathe r that Pethor was

geographically referable to that part of t he Aramean se ttlemen tsk n own as Aram -N aharaim . H ere

,as in many o ther places

,

t he S eptuagin t has taken upon them se l ves to paraphrase the

H ebrew n ame b v a “ land between rivers,”in

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

26 The Rephaim .

But if we refer the Scriptural P adan -Aram,

“ Aram of the

fields” (or plain s) , to those exten sive plain s of we ll -watered an d

l uxurian t pasture s which are n ow we ll ascertained to exten d form ore than three days’ j ourn ey eastward beyond the Jebel Hauran ,

th e distan ces, an d all other circumstan ces relating to this lan din the course of the Patriarchal hi story

,will b e foun d to agree

perfectly with this supposition . For—fi rstly : we have alreadyshewn satisfactory Scriptural authority for fixin g the

“ land of

U 2”an d chief Aramite settlemen t

,along a l in e of which th e

Hauran moun tain s form the n ucleus; an d to which the se veryplain s be lon g —secon dly : the name of Nahor’ s settlement,H aran

,is actually foun d un changed in the presen t name of

those moun tain s, known to Patriarchal an tiquity as“the moun

tain s of the E ast ; (comp . G en . xxviii . 2 ; xxix . an d the cen tralrocky region, Ke lb -Hauran ,

abounds in remain s of deserted villages, frequen ted only by the wan dering Arabs who pasture thei rflocks on the plain s beyond . Thirdly : it is :from the southernprolongation of those m oun tain s

,that the river Zurka descen ds

an d beyond that,its tributary the M o iet -Amman , e ither of

which may b e taken for“the river of the children of Ammon .

”

Lastly,all this region,— the plain s an d the m ountain s

,—as part

of the “ Lan d of U z”or

“ E ast coun try,

”was reckoned in the

domain s of the chief Aramite tribe,whose seat was Damascus ;

an d would thus b e politically referable to Aram -N aharaim as

the head of the n ation . In this sen se on ly can Pe thor b e al

laded to in Deut . xxiii . 4,as Pethor of Aram -N aharaim

n o t as si tuated in the part of the lan d strictly so called,but as

in cluded in the ran ge of its dom in ion ;— j ust as a city in Walesm ight b e spoken of as an E n glish city, in a gen eral historicalstatemen t, by a foreign writer, without entail ing upon him acharge of geographical in accuracy .

In thus adopting withou t hesi tation Dr . Beke’ s valuable sug

gestion as to the true position of the scriptural Aram -N aharaim,

which seem s fully born e out by a long series of b ibl ical referen ces, I n everthele ss fin d i t n ecessary to m ake its application“w ith a differen ce ;

” as there are strong reason s for believin gthat this n ame

,in i ts geographical acceptation ,

sho uld n o moreb e l im i ted to the l im its of the presen t vale of E l-G huta, thanthat vale, which represen ts in n ame the an cien t lan d of U z

,

should b e taken to represen t in fact the whole of that land . It

is even more than doub tful whether the presen t site of E sh-Shamo r Damascus b e that occupied in primeval an tiquity by t he

Il ead o fAram .

”It is a very remarkab le fact

,that

,in a lan d

s ingularly ten acious of prim itive local n ames,a city should b e

fo un d as far down as the south -weste rn ex trem it v of Jebe l

The Rephaim. 27

Hauran ,hearing to this day the sign ifican t n ame of E sky

-Sham,

Old Damascus—or rather Old Shem,

” patronymic of the

Aramite race ; though in scriptural and classical an tiquity itbears an other name

,Bo sh trah or Bostra —that i t should be his

t orically in cluded in the domain s of the king of Bashan,an d as

such , pass over to the Israel ites by right of con quest —an d

ye t form , geographically an d ethn ographically, n o part of hi slan d ; for the modern province Ard -cl-Bathanyeh cease s a littlebeyon d the sources of the river M an dhur— n ear M ezareib , the

site of its an cien t m etropolis, Ashtaroth-Karn aim an d Boshtrah or E sky-Sham i tself is in the provin ce E n -N ukrah, the

fertile agricultural region of the Western Hauran . Salchah orSal/chad

,—Boshtrah , which, from be ing a place of consequen ce,

was m ade a Levitical city —an d Ken ath, to which Nobah the

Man assite gave his own n ame,an d which bears that n ame in

Scripture, (comp . Numb . xxxii . 42 Jud . vii i . although it sti llretain s i ts prim i tive name Kun awath

,an d was always known to

the an cien ts as Ka va bla —all these cities of note were in the

Hauran not in Bashan proper. They are foun d un der the ruleof the Rephaim as such

,are acquired by the Israel ite con

querors . But the geographical an d historical notices of yet

earlier scriptural ages all demonstrate that they m ust b e“ coun ted

to the Aram ite,” in l ike m an n er with Pethor itse lf.

The in feren ce so man ifestly deducible from th e tran sfer ofthose cities—that the Aram ites were subject t o th e Rephaimis con firmed by a direct admission of the fact that the lan ds of

two gen uin e Aram ite tribes were in the same m an n er obtain edby the Israel ites, by right of con quest, n ame ly : the G etherites,whose provin ce, n orth ofBashan proper or B athanyeh, is calledE l-Jeidur to this day -an d the M aachathites : “ Gilead

,and

t he border of the Ge shurites an d Maachathite s, an d al l M oun tHermon

,an d all Bashan

,un to Salchah ; all the kin gdom of

flH oug (Og) in Bashan , who reign ed in Ashtaroth an d in Edrei,—he who was left of the remn an t of the R ephaim : for these

did Moses sm ite,an d cast ou t . Nevertheless, the chi ldren of

Israel expelled n ot th e Geshurites an d the M aachathites ; theGeshurites an d M aachathite s dwel l among the Israel ites to thisday .

”(Josh . xiii . 1 1

This casts the much-desired gleam of light over the politicalrelation of the Shem ite race of Aram to the H am ite R ephaim,

dim ly shadowed forth by the in dication s deducible from the

mon um ental history of Egyptian con quest . There , the n am e

of N AH AR I’

N A,is usually con nected with th e SHAS 'U

,or with

n ames referable to the ir domain s . In the notices of wars withthe SH E T '

TA,we also en coun ter NAHAR I ‘

NA amon g the allies or

28 The Rephaim .

subsidies of that nation . Mr . Birch quote s from an ancien tPapyrus in the British Museumc an en umeration of troops sen tto aid the sunr m : 1 205 ofN aharin a

, 270 Shairtan a, e tc .,etc .

We shall moreover fi n d th e nam es of NAH AR I‘

NA an d PAD I together, in the expedition of R ameses II . again st the sn nr m

,

am ong the lan ds stricken in the war .” This collocation provesthe iden tity of PAD I with the scriptural P D ’

N or P lain -Aram fl

From the se in dication s,the political status of the Aramites

am on g the Rephaim is m ade clear . Like the C an aan ites un derth e H ebrew in vasion

,they appear

,in course of time

,to have

yielded with a good grace to the dom in ion of a more powerfulpeople

,whom they foun d they were not strong en ough to with

stan d . By thus timely con sen ting to j oin t he great politicalbody of the Stranger race, they secured the advan tages of itsprotection ; an d, at the expense of a nom in al n ational in depen den ce

,they pre served the ir n ation al existence, so as to survive

e ven the destruction of the ir subjugators, and recover the dom in ion of their own territories .Durin g the last cen tury of thei r political existen ce, when

the ran ks of the Rephaim had been decim ated by the war of

exterm in ation waged again st them by Egypt, an d the ir citieswere left defen celess by the destruction of the ir fortresses an d

the wholesale deportation of the population as captives in toEgypt—the Can aan ites began the i r in roads into the lan d . The

Girgashites spread the i r habitation s southward of L ake Chinn eroth in to Bashan . The Amorites of Southern Can aan

,origi

nally co -residen ts with th e An akim , began also to establish themselves ia the southern provin ce s beyon d Jordan

,from when ce

they ul t imately exten ded their settlem en ts to the ban ks Of theZurka . Thus, in the time of Moses

,half the people who l ived

un der the sway of the ancient sovere ign s of Bashan may havecon sisted of the se en croaching se ttlers . O n this accoun t

,the

last king of the native race , an d the usurping Amorite chiefwho had sei zed the m etropoli tan provin ce of the n e ighbouringn ation

,are both referred to in the gen eral term s of the narrative

as “the two kings of the Amorites ;

” from which it has beenrather hastily i n ferre d that the king of Bashan also was anAmorite

,an d the R ephaim them selves

,in con sequen ce

,a tribe

6 Selec t P apyri , pub l ishe d from the British M useum : P apyrus Anastasi , i. ,1 3 .Pd I t further co n fi rms the d ist in c t io n

'

l have a l ready insisted o n abo ve, to be madebe tween the two reg io n s o f the lan d o f the U z o r cast coun try : Arum o f the two

r i ve rs—Naharaim—west o f the Jebe l H auran and A ram o f the plain—Padan casto f i t . The Wady Burada an d the V Vady-eI

-L iwa , bo th run n ing i n to thc Bah r -cll\ l c rj from Oppo s i te d i rectio n s , may b e the two rivers mark ing the n ae leus o f the

co un try unde rstoo d by Arum Nahara im .

The Rephaim . 29

of Canaan ites . In dependen tly of the reasons I have already

given , which exclude the Can aan ites as origin al claiman ts of anypart of the lan ds beyon d Jordan

,-it i s easy

.

to shew this in ference to b e groun ded o n a m istake . A sovere ign of o n e race mayrule over a n at i on of an other . The bulk of the people with whomthe Israelites w ere brought i n to collision ,

were the Amori teswho resided within the realm s of Bashan

,on the river Zurka

they had n o t,like their southern brethren

, gon e the len gth ofsetting up a king of the ir own race

,but apparently yie lded a

partial obedien ce to the n ative sovere ign of the lan d . Thus,

when the last flH oug of Bashan had become the nom in al leaderof a con siderable body ofAmorite people, an d the ally by n eces~sity of a gen uin e Am orite chief established in a neighbourin gprovin ce, it is n o great lapse of ethn ographical accuracy o n the

part of the sacred historian , to design ate him an d this chieftogether as

“the two kings of the Amorite s 5

” a form of speechthat in n o wise j ustifies o ur class ing the king of the Rephaimhimself an d his almost extinct race, amon g the Can aanites whowere on ly in terlopers amon g them . The Amorites of Sihonthemsel ve s usurpers— evidently regarded the Israel ite n ew

comers with suspicion ; the king of the Rephaim l ikewise . H e

was therefore willin g to j oin the Amorites, in the hope of pre

serving the small domain over which b e yet retain ed a nom in alrule

,when the Israel ites

,by requestin g a passage through the ir

territories, alarmed him for the safety of his own,an d he thus

became impell ed to his doom by courting the hostile demon stration he so greatly feared .

As the M oiet -Amm an formed the western l im it of the Amm on ite settlemen ts on the south side of the upper Jabb ok

,the

coun try between it an d the Jordan ,acquired by the Israe lites

after the defeat of S ihon , formed n o part of the lawful Ammon ite territory, but on ly of so much of the ir predece ssors

,the

Zuzim,as had b een taken by the Am orites . The in jun ction of

Moses,to respect the lan ds origin ally allotted to the tribe o f

Amm on by the Rephaim ,an d in n o wise to molest them

,was

scrupulously fulfi lled .

“ Thou didst not approach the lan d of

the children of Ammon ,n e ither the ban k of the river Jab b ok ,

nor the citie s of the moun tain - tract ; n or any place which the

Lord our God had prohibited .

”

(Deut . i i .The Israel ites paid the sam e regard to the l awful territorial

claim s of the Aram ean sub -tribes of Geshur and M aachah,wh o

remain ed in the land . The elder bran ch had probably removedits seat of governm en t farthe r to the n orth . The fact that it sformer lan ds in theWestern H auran were appropriated b y Israel,suffi cien tly accoun ts for the aggressive course taken by the kingof Aram -N aharaim,

soon after the death of Joshua .

30 The Rephaim .

We must not suppose that the residue of the Rephaim in

Bashan were utterly extirpated, because the army of Israe l hadrouted the m ixed Amorite an d n ative forces, an d slain thei rking, who marched upon the fron tier to Oppose its passage . Itis said in Joshua xi ii . 1 2, that Moses smote and cast out the

remn an t of the Rephaim . They were so weakened, that a sin gledefeat suffi ced to crush the i r power of resistance . They fl ed

before the victorious Israel ites . They knew that the lan d of thechildren of Ammon would b e respected by Israel . The Amm onite tribe had long con sidered itself a m ember, by adoption , of

that an cien t nation un der whose civil j urisdiction it had beenallowed to settle . Amon g the children of Ammon, the scatteredan d broken remnant of that nation foun d protection in its advers ity . The Ammon ites gratefully requited the hospitality

granted to the ir forefathers, an d con tinued loyal to the chieftains whose ancestors, in the days of thei r power, had rece ivedan d befrien ded their in fant colony . The an cien t race an d its

name thu s became lost among the Amm on ites . Un der the irinfluence, the se learnt to con sider themselves aggrieved byIsrael’ s occupation of the land from which thei r legitimatesovere ign had been driven . From that time, they shewed themselves ever ready to j oin in hostili ty again st the Israelites withthe kin dred border nations, the M idianites

,M oabites

,Ama

lek ites,Aramites of the north, an d Children of the E ast . At

last,in the reign ofDavid

,the ir turbulence was fin ally checked .

T hei r chief city Rabbah was captured,and reduced to servitude .

The royal couch or throne of the ancien t l in e of chiefs, pre

served in this city, bears witness to the fact that the childrenof Amm on regarded these chiefs and thei r disposse ssed successors as the head of the n ation

, an d themselves, as o n e of its

m embers ; and the territorial preten sion s which they groundedo n this fact sufficiently explain s the ir subsequen t enm ity towardstheir E berite kindred

,Israel . F . C .

R S. At the end of the tabular list of local names, will b e found threewhich canno t b e referred wi th certain ty to their proper e thnographicalgroup, b ecause their exact si tes are unkn own . O ne of these is TU IR SHA

by the sea, the legen d of a capt iv e chie f of Medinet -Ab ou, placed imme

diately b ehind tho se of S lIA l R'

l‘

A’

NA and S l IA(SU ) , whom he closely resemb les . TU IRS IIA is obviously the strong fortress of Tarichaca on LakeTib erias . 008 . B ell . Jud .

,b . 2

,ch . x x i . ; b . 3

,ch . x .) But it is un certain

whe ther this place was o n the Canaan ite or o n the G o lan ite side of the

lake . O n the o ther hand, the charac teristic po ints in the co stume o f the

figure , especially the beard—from which we might hav e learn t whe ther hewas o f the Rapha or Canaani te ram—are unfortunately des troyed .

ONOMASTICON

l w

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

32 ONOMASTICON .

As the Egypt ian f01ms ofpi opei n ames w ill o ften mom in the con i se of

these papers, i t is desirab le that the studen t should b e ab le to v erify thereadings, by a reference to the original orthography. I have acc01 dinglydr

o

awn up a classified list of these n ames, selecting, from the numel ous

m onumen tal sculptures which yield them, the fullest an d most accurateforms

,when they happen to way .

The Egyptian n ames are rendered, letter for letter, from the hieroglyphi cs, in upright capitals, with the corresponding H ebrew form besideeach

,in slan t ing capitals. In both, the root or true name

,is separated

from the grammatical affixes by a po int .The student w ill find the foll ow ing l emai ks on the latter, useful in

facili tating his compa1 ison of these and similar n ames .

The Egyptian formatives me always suifi x ed in the same order, thoughall me n o t o ften comb in ed 1n the same n ame, viz .

1 . The sign ofgen der, when fem or n eat ,n extto the root ; T , TH , or,

written full, TA . I t correspon ds to the H ebrew g and n .

2 . The sign ofnumb er, pt , U, dual, U I ; correspon ding to the H ebrewh i and dual a ) .3 . The terminal formative of a proper name, N, or NA, sometimes UN

or NU, correspon ding to , and resembling the H ebrew i, or p O ccasionally,the formative of locality MA , a place,

”is suffix ed . This is rare in hiero

glyphics . Vowels that are n o t radical, are often written after the name or

syllab le . The reader will find that in the Egyptian form of a name, the

gen der has sometimes been changed, or that the finals differ ; but withthese simple rules to guide him,

he will no t b e perplexed in disco veringthe identity of any two n ames whi ch agree in the radical letters.

A few of the names in this list have ah'

eady been satisfactorily identified . Sin ce the days of Champollion , 5, 8, and 1 2, CANANA, NAHARINA

and PETHOR, have become uni versal pr0pe1t y. Mr. Birch’

s opin ion that33 is the Philistin es, has nev er been question ed ; and I am indeb ted tohis suggestion s for the iden tity of 28 with Jerusalem or Salem,

and followhim in reading 36, Pelusium . Mr. O sburn , in his Ancien t Egg/pt, has alsoindicated the correspon dence of certain groups to several b iblical names

,

which I cann o t but assent to , though differing materially from him as to

the nation s they represent . His re ferring 6 and 34 to the Amori tes and

Ekron ites, is qui te satisfactory. I have lit tle doub t that his suggestio nthat 38 and 25 are Bub astis and Kadesh Barnea, is correct

,though the

final M of the latter n e ver was part of the Hebrew name, being on ly an

Egypt ian format ive . H e also refers 1 4 , 1 1 , and 1 to Punon,H ermo n

,

and the Zuzim, but appropriates tho se names and places to the Arvad ites

and Jebusitcs,to whom we have n o Scriptural authori ty fo r assigning any

t erritorities beyo nd the Jordan . The geographical po sition o f the two

former lo calit ies clearly brings them within the Aramean group, to whichtheir co stume corresponds ; and my reason s fo r set ting aside the suppo sedconn exion of the Zuzim with any Canaan ite family, have b een fullyexplained .

AB BREV IAT IONS .

R .,Ch

, L .

, deno te respecti vely a referen ce to the mo numen tal illus tratio ns ofRo sellin i (Al on . Storlci) , Champollion ,

and c sius : H .,Herodo tus

M .

, Mane tho : .l .,Jo sephus : l

’

to lemy . G reek forms wi thout in itials,

are tho se o f the Septuagin t . Recen t names o f sites are put in i talics .

THE REPHAIM, AND THEIR CONNEXION WITH EGYPTIANH ISTORY.

“

CHAPTER IX .

T/te Emim .

TH E Em im the terrible people l” Such is the name by whichthe descen dan ts ofLot design ated the powerful, hospitable, an dbrave, but fearfully depraved n ation

,in whose land thei r father

had taken up his abode . But they called them selves “the

children of Sheth,”

o r,accordin g to the H ebrew form that de

signates their lan d, Shittim an d from the perfect corresponden ceof this form with the SH E T '

TA of Egyptian m onuments,I was

led to in fer what subsequen t re search has developed with abundan t proof

,—the iden tity of that form idable race with the tribe

of Rephaim kn own in Scripture as the Emim .

The territories of the Em im were to the full as exten sive as

those of the Zuzim . The b ill of Jeldd was the ir n orthern boundary the moun tain s of Aram

, an d plain s of Padan-Aram,an d

the H orite valley,the ir eastern . The Jordan an d Dead sea

separated them from the Can aan ites westward while the greatWady Arabah

,comman ded by the ir an cien t metropolis

,Sodom

,

con n ected the domain s of the ch ief tribe that dwe lt in the regionof the Arn on

,with its j un ior bran ches an d kindred dependen cies

-Ken in the mountains of Seir, an d Amalek in the desert of

Paran .

At the time this people are first in troduced to our n otice,all

the southern bay of the Dead Sea was a fertile valley,“ wel l

watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord, l ike the lan dof Egypt, before the Lord overthrew Sodom an d Gomorrah .

(G en . xii i . This was the vale of Shaveh, the Royal Valley,otherwise called the vale of Shiddim

,

” from the people towhom i t belonged . Of the fi ve cities i t con tain ed, the sites ofon ly two are known ,—Be la, called Zoar by the M oabites, an d

which retain s that n ame in Scripture an d Sodom,the chief

city,which must have occupied the southern extrem ity of the

valley,n o t far from the salt-hill Usa’um . But n o t a vestige of

the ci ty itself, n or ofGomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, has everbeen foun d .

It had lon g been supposed that the eruption, by which the

four cities were destroyed,had produced the chasm of the Dead

a Con t inued from the January Number of the J. S . L .

/E

2 The R ephaim . [April,

Sea . Dr . Robin son ’s researches in that region cast great doubts

o n thi s hypothesis an d the results of a more m ethodical survey,un der Lieut . Lyn ch, have brought ou t facts which disprove i taltogether . The soun din gs ga v e an average depth of between1 50 an d 200 fee t alon g the cen tral lin e of the sea

,till the pro

m on tory in fron t of Zoar . In this part,the lake is u sually ford

able ; an d the whole of its southern en d is so shallow,that such

a volcan ic explosion an d con fi agration as the n arrative of G en .

xix . 25 seems to imply, i f followed by the n o t un usually associatedphenomen on of subsiden ce, to the amoun t of 1 2 or 1 5 fee t

,

would suffice to subm erge to it s presen t depth a cultivated lowtract occupyin g that site, without sen sibly increasing the areaof the sea in other parts .But th e rest of the coun try belon gin g to th e Em im remain ed

unaffected by this catastrophe ; an d the royal seat appears tohave been tran sferred to Heshbon, in the cen tre of the chiefprovin ce

,an d a remarkably fertile and beautiful tract

,aboun d

ing in ruin s o f deserted cities an d village s .After the catastrophe of the cities, L o t an d his fam ily dwel t

apart in the m oun tain ous region behin d Zoar . The first fixedsettlemen t of his de scen dan ts is traced to th e con tiguous ci ty,Rabbah (the great or chief city) , occasion ally alluded to inScripture by its local name Ar . It s site is well kn own . The

children of L ot grew in to a con siderable tribe, which separatedun der two heads ; the j un ior bran ch, as we have seen before

,

establishing i tself, in l ike m an n er, in the m oun tainous backsettlemen ts of the Zuzim .

The hilly tract occupied by the M oabites is called in the

i tin erary of M oses, the moun ds or low hills of the Abarim,

13 i an d the M oabite moun tain s beyond them,

“the moun

tain s of the Abarim . (Nu . xxxii i . 44,47 ) These may b e con

sidered as a prolon gation of the“ m oun tain s of A1 am

, o r ofthe E ast .” They doubtless 1 eceived that name f1 om tiie nativerace

,because they were the settlement of the E berite family of

Lot ; as Abram also, in G en . xiv . 13,is called “ Abram the

E b erite . In Balaam ’ s pi ophecy, the whole 1 aee descendedfrom these two patriarch s i s in cluded under the patronym icE ber . Abarim c an ; is the sam e word as 1 11 7zm (Hebrews) cann y

,

save that it s etymological import has been disguised, t ln ouglithe alteration 1 n the p1 o nun C1at i o n caused by the vou cl -poin ts .

The 01 igin al tribe n ame of the Emim the Shi ttim”— the

n am e by which they were kn own among themse lves,is n o t di

rect ly recorded, l ike that of the Zuzim ,in the earliest n otice of

them,G en . xiv . 5 . Ne vertheless, we may ob tain it by collating

seve ral passages in other parts of the ir history .

The Rephaim .

When the Israel ites had con quered and expelled the Amoriteusurpers of the metropolitan provin ce

,we learn from the itin e

rary of Nu . xxxiii . 49,that they en camped in the plain s of

M oab, by the Jordan of Jericho, from Beth-Jeshimo th (use ? n“

the house o f Jeshim o th ) to Abel - Shittim (magnify 536 Ab el of

Shittim .) The historian ’s m ean ing, here, is eviden tly to assign

the extreme lim i ts of an en campmen t along the valley of theJordan, too exten sive to b e descriptively referable to on e particular city . By a referen ce to Nu . xxv . 1 , we further learn thatIsrae l was abidin g in Shittim,

when,at the in stigation of B a

laam, an attempt was m ade to corrupt thei r religion ,which

brought o n the war again st the M idianites . As I srael was stil labiding in Shittim,

when Joshua sent out the spies in to Can aan,

and as they on ly removed from thence to cross the Jordan ,th e

term of thei r sojourn in the region so called, can n ot have fallenmuch short of two yea

I t is obvious from this,that Shittim can n ot he m ean t to

de signate a city . Ne ither amon g the l ists of M oabite cities inthe later h istorical or prophetical books, n or in Josephus

,n or

in the ancien t classic geographers, i s any such name to b e foun d .

Y et any single city sufficien tly large to con tain all the victorioushost, the ir wives, children ,

cattle an d goods, for two years, must

have been too considerable to escape subsequen t notice, hadsuch a city existed . These con sideration s go far to shew thatthe n ame Shittim

,by which the H ebrews design ate this local ity,

was n o t applied to a mere city, but to a very con siderable exten tof coun try .

T his will b e made still more eviden t by another circumstan ceto b e taken in to con sideration . Nu . xxi . 24—32, relates thecon que st an d first establishm en t of the Israel ites in th e plain s ofMoab , which excited the j ealousy of theMoabites, an d led themto plan the destruction of Israe l through the den un ciation s ofBalaam

,as related in the succeeding chapters, xxii—xxiv . B e

tween this in ciden t,and the cause of the M idian ite war n arrated

in ch . xxv .,there is an in terval of more than a year, sin ce this

war was the closing event of the forty years’ probation in the

wilderness,whereas the conquest of the Tran sj ordan ic provin ces

o ccurred’

at the begin n ing of the thirty-ninth . This n arrativefollows close upon the preceding chapters, n ot because i t fol lowsthem in order of time

,but because it relates the con tin uation

of the same serie s of political machin ation s . Having thusbrought up the history to the eve of theM idian ite war, th e lustorian breaks off to relate the occurren ces which fill up th 1s

in termediate period after which he resumes the history of thewar itself, the last even t of his life .

4 Tile R ephaim . [Aprih

Amon g these paren thetical chapters, we learn (eh . xxxii . 132) that after the destruction of the Am orites, an d expulsion of

the R ephaim,the tribes ofR euben , Gad, an d M an asseh besought

M oses to be stow upon them the con quered territory . The re

quest was gran ted, an d these tribes established them selves inthei r possession ; the rest of the n ation , havin g as yet n o lands,con tin uing to occupy the en campm en t alon g t he Jordan

, de

scribed ia Nu . xxxiii ., as exten ding from the house of Jeshimo th

to Abe l of Shittim .

” To suppose that this allotm en t is relatedin order of time, an d con sequently as having taken place aftert he seducti on of Israel, in volves the very improbable suppositionthat th e I sraelites, after acquiring by force of arm s the masteryover a coun try stretching across m ore than a hun dred geogra

phical m iles, n eglected to take possession of the ir conquest, leftall the cities an d lan ds they had acquired, un guarded, un occupiedan d deserted for n early two years, to en cam p on the arid bankof the Jordan—an d that

,too

,without an y apparen t fear o r

chan ce of molestation on th e part of the n ations they had de

prived of those lan ds ; while the partisans of those very n ation sw ere actively engaged in plottin g the destruction of the ir n ewcon querors ! Such a proceedin g would have been so sen seless

,

that its absurdity n eed on ly b e poin ted ou t, to dism iss the supposition altoge ther . The allotmen t of the fi rst -fruits of con questto the three e lder tribes of R euben

,Gad an d M an asseh} must

b e allowed to follow close upon the con quest itself ; garrisonsbe in g placed in the chief cities

,both to watch over the n ewly

acquired possession , an d to protect the flocks an d goods of thecon querors . These l ikew ise watched over th e welfare of the irbrethren ,

who had pitched their ten ts in the plain s of the Jordan ;supplyin g them with n ecessaries till thei r turn to take possessionof the i r own inheritan ce should arrive . The R euben ites

,Gad

ites, an d M an assites certain ly did n o t n eglect their possession s,sin ce we are told that before the death of M oses they had re

paired the cities which had been devastated in the war . The i rdeparture from the common en campmen t, though not m en tion edin the n arrative

,m ust be un derstood by the subsequen t even ts .

As the l in e of this en campmen t is described as exten din gfrom the m outh of the Jordan to a place called Abel on the

b R eube n and Jo seph we re fi rstbo rn so n s o f Jaco b ’s law ful w i ves ; and G ad , o f

his co n cub in c Z i lpah , handmai d o f the se n io r w i fe . D an , the fo urth fi rstbo rn son in

ran k , was bo rn (l ike I shmae l ) o f Rache l ’s handmai d , substi tute d fo r her ch i ld lessm ist ress ; co nsequen tly , the subsequen t b i rth ofJo seph , o f the law ful w i fe , displacedhim from the pri v i lege s he wo ul d o the rw ise have enj o yed as so n of Rache l by adopt io n , plac ing him fo urth o n ly in ran k , in stead o f seco n d . l lad there been a fo urt happo rt io nable prov i nce , i t wo u l d do ubtless have been gi ven to him .

T/ze R ephaim .

northern frontier of Shittim,i t seems that the Hebrews must

have un derstood by Shittim gen erally, the whole coun try ofwhich the “ plain s of M oab

,

” where the ten ts were pitched,formed only a part the part exten ding alon g the eastern bankof the Jordan , in fron t of Jericho . As in the case of Can aan ,

they put the patron ym ic of th e tribe for th e n ame of the land

that tribe occupied ; for the people called themselve s the Shitt im

, but the local name of their lan d,as we have already seen

in a former chapter,was Shava o r Shaveh .

I apprehen d that the vale of Shiddim in which the me

tropolis of this people on ce lay, is on ly an orthographic variationof

“

the same n ame . In this case,the historian appears to have

tran scribed the form of the n ame l iterally, from a more an cien trecord, perhaps from on e embodied in an o ld an d lim ited alphab et

, which, like the Egyptian ,did n o t distin guish such shades

o f soun d as that between d an d t ; whereas, in his person al n arrat ive

,he wrote the n ame as he heard it pron oun ced in the

coun try . Both the se orthographies are equally wel l represen tedin the Egyptian form of this n ame

,with which M oses was no

doubt very we l l acquain ted .

The origin of the tribe-name Shittim,thus applied by the

Israe lite historian to the lan d on ce ruled by the Em im ,may b e

gathered from a remarkab le passage in Balaam’s con cluding pro

phecy, which is quoted en tire at the en d of this chapter . The

Egyptian records relatin g t o th e SHE T '

TA furn ish a comple teexplan ation of it

,by which the identity of the people is further

con firmed .

In this prophecy, the Em im are alluded to as “

the childrenof Sheth,

” in con j unction w ith the M oabites, amon g whom the

remn an t of the an cien t n ation had become so in timately blen ded,sin ce the Amorite in vasion

,as to b e n o longer historically dis

t inguished from them ,in the sacred an n als, e ither by M oses or

by thei r own prophe t . From a treaty of peace con cluded byRam eses II . with the SH E T '

TA,in the twen ty-fi rst year of his

re ign ,cwe learn that this very n am e

,Sheth m}

,was the n ame of

the tutelar an d patronym ic god of thei r lan d . I t is written inEgyptian , Suth, an d Suth-esh . In this very curious documen t,n o t on ly is the late con test between the Egyptian s an d SHE T '

TArepresen ted as a person al con test between th e patron gods of thetwo rival n ation s

,but these gods are also in troduced as ratifying

the treaty in person,by their sign ature o r attestation at the en d !

And if the reader is curious to kn ow un der what style an d titlesthe gods shewed themselves off in such importan t tran saction s ,

0 Ro sellin i, M on . R ea/i . pl . cxv i .

6 The R ephaim . [April,

it i s as follows The Suth of the fortress of AR ’ NA the S uthof the fortress of AR NA

‘

TA the Suth-esh of the fortress of

P I LKA, etc .

, etc . the sam e name be ing thus repeated in con

n ex ion with the fortress under his charge, the chieftain ofwhichprobably was proxy for his god o n the occasion . That the Suthor the Suth-esh thus in troduced is n e ither the name n or the

title of a man,is proved by the determ in ative hieroglyph ic sign

following the n ame this is ne ither the figure of a man,n or of

a chief,as in that case i t would b e ; it i s the figure of the Egyp

tian god Seth, which Plutarch in form s u s was the Egyptiann am e of him whom the Greeks call Typhon . He is representedwith the head of a long-snouted and lon g-cared unkn own an i

mal, whi ch they m istook for an ass . This same figure is used

to write ideagraphically the n ame of the kin g Seti-M en ephtah .

This god’s head

,with the body of a dog, i s also the deter

m in ative sign of the nam e Baro or Baal, 5m,i n the historical

in scriptions of this period . In the laudatory comparison s withthis Baro, so frequently applied by the Egyptian hierogramma

tists to their sovere ign , we have a sure token that at that time

Suth or Baal was a god as highly reverenced by the Egyptian sthem selves, as by their foes the SHE T ’

TA .

Suth an d Baal are nearly synonymou s t itle s ; denoting a

lord or master, the former in Egyptian, the latter in Hebrew .

Sut °

n° Keb

, Lord of Egypt,”is the usual formula heading the

the n ames of Egyptian sovereign s .In the P apyrus Sallter

“ there occurs the'

following remarkable passage

They shall n ot stan d in the lan d of KHERBU

Fallen in their b loodThen shall the revolted chiefs, the fallen of SHET, approach, and

glorify the great name of his majesty, sayingO thou Ra in thy solar abode, Suthesh the son ofN etpe, the great

disturb er, and Baal who smites his enemies l Thy terror is in the land of

SIIET b ehin d thee

The Egyptian author of this hi storical poem seem s here toadm i t open ly, in the terms of this address to the k ing of Egyptthat Seth, Suth, alias Suthesh, al ias Baal, be ing son ofN etpe,

(1 S elect P apy r i ; facsim i les pub l ished by the Bri tish M useum . P ap . Salt. 3 ,

pl . xxx i i 1 . 6—9. The passage is thus t ran slated by M r. Birch , in the in t ro ducto ryaccoun t o f these do cumen ts . I may as we l l po in t out in th is place an o versigh t o fmy own in a re fe ren ce , wh ich I have co rrected in the presen t sect io n . T he an c ien tpapy rus in th is co l lect io n wh ich i n cludes the geograph ical fragmen t so o ften a l ludedt o in bo th se ct io ns , is n o t o n e o f the Sa ltier, b ut o n e o f the An astasi papy ri . As

,

ho weve r, I have g iven the numbers o f the plate , e tc . ,th is m istak e wo u l d no t have

m is led any o ne w ishing to refe r to the pub l ished facsim i le of o rig inal do cumen t .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

8 The Rephaim. [April,

Atesh,she is the “ two-horn ed Ashtaroth ,

” patron ym i c of the

m etropoli s of the Rephaim,i s absolutely proved by a fact we

gather from the Egyptian sculptures that represen t the fin altriumph of the Egyptian con querors presenting the ir captive san d the rich Spoils of the con quered to the local gods of Thebesfor amon g these spoil s are the sacred ve ssels employed in th eservice of the gods, bearing the ir emblems on the covers ; an d

the cow’s head

,with the globe an d horn s

,i s a frequen t device

among these emblem s, whether the spoils b e those of the SHAS ' U,the SHE T ‘

TA,the B B C

,the TAH I , or the M N .

" The religious emhlem s of all these people are absolutely iden tical—proving themto b e bran ches of the same people, an d agree ing in the externalsymbols of thei r worship . M oreover , the SHAS 'U who subm ittedto Ram ese s I I .

,in his great expedition again st the SHE T ‘

TA,are

represen ted wearin g the same emblem —the horns and globeon their he lmets . The people of SH AIR TA

'

NA,belonging to the

SHAS ’ U nation,bear the same cre st on theirs .

The godde ss bein g thus distin ctly iden tified, i t i s a very re

m arkable coin ciden ce that we should recover,in o n e of her

m onumen tal n ames,Ken

,the patron ym ic of that very bran ch of

the She thite people who,under the n am e of “ M idianites

,

” inScripture, took a leading part on behalf of the M oabite s in em

deavouring to seduce the Israe l ites to thei r corrupt rel igiouspractices, in order to m ake frien ds of them and regain a footingin the lan ds they had lo st . It i s still m ore remarkable, that ino n e of the i r possession s

, the city of E lath n‘rs

,

“the m ighty,

”

we should even recover what appears the radical form of an othern ame un der which

,accordin g to Herodotus} the same goddess

was worshipped,nam ely

,the Arabian otherwise

which h e in forms u s is the sam e as the Babylon ian M vM 'r-ra .

E lath i s the city I identify with the m on umen tal LT'

N m en

t ion ed above, among whose sacred emblem s that of Astarte i sprom in en t .So much has been don e in a former chapter towards esta

b lish in’

g the geographical identity of the Emim of Scripturewith the mon umen tal SH ET '

TA,that very little remain s to b e

h Compare the spo i ls in Rosellin i’ s M on . R ea li , pl . x lv i i i ln ., Iv . , lix .

t Ilero do tn s, Clio , c . 1 3 1 . The e tymo logy o f th is go ddess ’ n ame has g iven r iseto much co njecture . The simplest o r ig in fo r i t appears suggested by the passage ,Ex . xv . 1 5

Then are the leade rs o f Edom t ro ub ledT remb l ing hath se i zed the m ighty o fM o ab mgr: ‘5‘N .

From which i t appears that El (a m ighty o r powerful o ne ) was a M oab ite t itle o f

superio ri ty , l ike Allo uph (a leade r) o f the Edom i tes . E lath n5‘s is mere ly the fem in i ne fo rm ( if th is ro o t .

1 852 ] The Rephaim . 94 1

said in completion of this subject,before we en ter upon the few

details which scriptural an d m on umen tal antiquity un i te toafford us concern in g their history .

The citie s of the SHE T '

TA which I have been able to tracethrough the topographical allusion s of Scripture or of historicalan tiquity, to the lan ds of the Emim,

are as followsSH E B

'

T'

U N is the first city men tioned in the expedition ofRameses I I . again st the SH ET '

TA,an d towards which his march

was directed ? This i s the metropolis of the scriptural Shittim,

called by the Hebrews,Heshbon . The on ly differen ce i s in the

gender ; and, what i s very remarkable, in the Egyptian geo

grapher Ptolemy’ s l ist of Arabian cities," i t is called

’

E a,80vra ,

which agrees in form an d gen der with the hieroglyphic transcript . In another part of the same historical in scription

,the

n ame is written SHAB U,supplying the vowe l (an aspirated a or e

the Greek H ) , but om ittin g the fin al formatives . Thus n othing i s wan ting to demonstrate the verbal iden tity of the m o

n umen tal SH E B'

T'

U N with the Hebrew version of the name,

purer) , H eshbon .

The four lower l in es of the treaty between Rameses II . andthe SH E T ‘

TA,already referred to, con tain a list of the ir prin cipal

fortresses .

‘ This part of the monumen t i s un fortun ately verydefective

,as several en tire n ames are broken off at both en ds of

the l in es . Of the e leven,more or less m utilated, which remain ,

I have found six which can b e iden tified with places in the landon ce occupied by the Em im .

AR ' NA .

“ The dwellin g of Ar,”wig

-me mentioned in an ob

scure poe tical quotation from the book of the wars of Jehovah,

Nu . xxi . 1 5 . Whether thi s b e Ar of M oab, otherwise R abbah,subsequently kn own as Areopolis or whether it b e the ci ty

j R o sellin i, M on . R eali , pl . en . , 1. 4, an d c . , l . 2 .

k P to lem y, G eog . , l . v . , c, x v i .l R osellin i, M on . R eali , pl . cxv i . , 1. 27—30. I am no t aware that th is impo r

tan t l ist of n ames has ever been n o t iced befo re . I am in debted to the kindn ess ofM r. Birch (of the Brit ish M useum ) fo r po in t in g i t out to me ; as we l l as fo r som e

part icu lars of the documen t itse l f, ofwhi ch he ve ry ob l igi ng ly imparted the substan ceto me , by a verb al t ran slation . N o vers ion of this extrao rdin ary re l i c of an c ien tcustoms has ever yet been pub l ished .

I t is wo rthy of remark , that the six n ames I have been able to i den ti fy are thoseof places n o rth of the Arnon—w i th the except ion ofAr-na, if th is b e Ar ofM oab orRabbah . This was the on ly part of the lan d o f the Em im k n own to the Heb rews ,an d t o which the lo cal n ames to b e gathered from the M o saic and later propheti cl ists , e xclusi ve ly refe r . O f the part perman en t ly retain ed by the M oab ites, theyk new n o th ing yet th is is mo re than hal f of the o r ig in a l po ssessio ns of the Em im . The

fi ve un iden t ifi ed n ames probably be lo ng in g to th is un kn own part , read as fo l lowsl . sm sa s x ra 2 . SAR -S U (muti lated) ; 3 . sm uN A(1>) (mut i lated) ;4 . TA ! (illeg ible group) TA SH E R R I (final letter wan t ing) 5 . 151 a (mut ilated ) .

1 0 The R ephaim . [April,

Aroer on the Arnon (my) , a reduplicate form of the same name,

i s the on ly th in g doubtful ; for the identity of the name itse lfis eviden t .

The fortress of the AR NA‘

TA i s the next on the l ist . ARNA'

TA

is on ly the fem in in e Egyptian form of th e H ebrew pm Arn 'onan d is the n ame of the river on which the celebrated strongholdof the SHET ‘

TA,called AT E SH , was situated . The picture of this

fortress in the. great hi storical tableau of the expedition of Ra

m eses against the SHET '

TA,shews that it was n ear the m outh of

the river, an d almost entirely surroun ded by water . This topo

graphical hin t con cernin g the situation of ATE SH sugge sts i tsiden tity with the nameless city in the midst of the river,

”m en

tion ed,in conj unction w ith Aroer, as m arkin g the fron tier of

the land obtain ed by the R euben ites through their con quest ofth e Amorite usurper S ihon . (Josh . xiii . On the other hand,Josephus gives a list of Arabian citie s taken by Alexan derJan n eus in the wars

,which his son prom i sed to restore to the

king ofArabia who re ign ed at Petra?” Among these, he m en

tion s Orenas,as o n e of the cities of the M oabites . The sim ilarity

of thi s name to the Egyptian ARNA‘

TA ,is strikin g ; but this does

not clear up the doubt whether the fortress of the ARNA'

TA bethe same place as ATE SH

,

“the city in the m idst of the river,

”

or an other place called ARNA '

TA=O r0n aS, after which the riveritself was named .

P I LKA . This name i s still extant in the castle of Belha on

the Haj -route to Damascus . Its scriptural n ame,however

,i s

un kn own,as it was in the lan d of the Reuben ites

,an d may have

born e another .while in their possession,which i t lost when the

Moabites regain ed possession of the country .

SAR -PA I ‘ NA . This is a compoun d of as Zur,a rock or strong

hold,an d in B eOn

, (Sept . B a ta v,) a place in the Reuben ite

district . (Nu . xxxii . The same prefix,SAR

,occurs also in

an other name in the same list, SAR ’

SU too much mutilatedto b e iden tifiable .

KAITAV ATA'

NA . The dwell ing of Khazavath ,” corresponds

by its radical s t o man m p, m en tion ed in Nu . xxi i . 39,as the

place to which Balak wen t with Balaam,after meeting him o n

the fron tier, an d from when ce they wen t toge ther to BamothBaal, th e place dedicated to the god of the lan d , She th or Baro

,

—before whom the fatal imprecation s again st Israe l were to b esolemn ly pron oun ced . The poin ts tran sform i t in to Huzo th .

KATA m utilated ; i t is most probably c em o th, wherethe Israeli te s came after passing Bamoth (Deut . i i . an d

Jo sephus , An t, b . x i i i . , ch . x v . , and h . x i v . , ch . 1 .

1 852 ] The Rephaim . l l 43

from whence Mose s sen t messen gers to Sihon to ask permissionto pass through his land . This circum stan ce indicates its position as o n the fron tier, eastward ofHeshbon .

The two remain in g n ames of cities on my l ist, classed un derthe Emim national group, belon g to the provin ces of Ken an d

Am alek . For to the former must in all probability b e referredBARNU

‘

MA, or Kadesh -Barnea

,on the border of the great Wady

Arabah, and commanding the Can aanite fron tier .The last

,ANU SH U , correspon ds to the city T op/ 15009ofHero

do tus .

" Its site is unkn own ; but the gen eral in dication s hegive s of its locality, as on the l in e of traffi c leading to Kadytis,an d as be in g about three days

’ journ ey from the lake Serb on iswhich lies at the foot of moun t Casias, j ust where Egypt begin s,poin t to the eastern side of the Wady E l Arish, an d con se

quently place i t in the Am alekite district .From the sin gular accoun t H erodotus give s of the worship

and costum e of the Arabian s of Jenysus, it seems they musthave been an isolated remnant of that race . They worshippedDionysus (Osiris) un der the name ofOre tal

,an d Urania (Astarte)

under the name ofAlilat and cut away the ir hair all roun d,

shaving i t off the temples assigning as a reason for this practice, that the ir god was shaved so .

°

N ow i t i s a peculiarity of n ational costume,which I have

found without an exception characteristic of all those mon umen tal people whom I have been able to trace to the Rephaimby mean s of the ir cities an d n ames— that they all shave some

part of the head, or heard, or both an d though each tribe doe sthis after a fashion of its own , yet in on e particular they allagree : they a ll shave the temples and the side of the beard .

Their Aramean an d Horite -E dom ite depen den ts,

an d the i rAmorite n e ighbours, on th e con trary

,always appear w ith the ir

beard entire, an d the ir hair long and carefully trimm ed .

We further learn from the Egyptian sculptures that the part icular practice of cutting away the hair all roun d, an d shavin git off the temples, was characteristic of certain tribes of theSHE T ‘

TA . Among the chiefs represen ted as hasten in g in m agn ifi cen tly accoutred war chariots, to aid th e city ATE SH again stRam eses II .,

some are con spicuous by a coiffure correspon din gwith remarkable exactitude to the above description . None of

the i r hair i s left but a roun d patch on the top of the skull an d

that is tied up in to a tuft, l ike the scalp -lock of an AmericanIn dian

,or twisted in to a long pen dan t braid, l ike a Chin ese

pigtail . If this b e the way the god O ro tal used to shave for a

H ero do tus, Thalia, c . 5 .0 Ib id . , 0. 8 .

1 2 The Rephaim . [April,

pattern,we can not commen d h is taste ; but the pious reverence

of the Amalekites for the divin e origin of this hideous fashion

prepahly led them to thin k it very becom ing.

The head attire of the SHE T ’

TA of ATE SH in the battle - scen eof Seti-M en eph tah at Karn ak

,P an d that of the captive chief in

the symbolical group of that king devotin g his enem ies to destruction

,presen ts a striking con trast to the on e described

above and there, the in ten tion of im i tating the co iifure of the i r

god is m an ifest, by comparing i t with the effi gies of Astarte on

some of the ir sacred uten sils . They w ere a lon g thick braid ofhair on each side of the face , behin d the ear ; an d the back hairis long, han ging down like that of a woman ; i t may perhaps b eto follow up this stran ge re ligion s m an ifestation

,that they

shaved thei r beards,or clipped it exceedingly short . While

other bran ches of the Rapha nation proclaimed the ir allegian ceto the tutelar god of thei r lan d by the crest of thei r he lmets,the SHE T '

TA carried out the same idea by thei r mode of tonsure,

as they were n o helmets .

If we n ow bear in m in d that it was in the land of this peoplethat the children of Israel spen t thirty-e ight years of probation ,in the great and terrib le wildern ess of Paran an d Seir

,in con

stan t commun ication with the E dom ite and M idian i te tribesdomesticated among them ,

w e shall then apprehen d the ful lsign ifican ce of the prohibition given in L ev . xix . 27, in term sprecisely equivalen t to those by which Herodotus describes thepractice of thei r descen dan ts

,the Jenysite Arabian s .

“ Y e

shall n o t roun d off the corn ers of your heads,n e ither shall ye

destroy the corn ers of your b eards .

”fl S in ce thi s practice, asexplain ed by H erodotus

,and con firmed by the religious badge s

an d emblem s depicted o n the Egyptian sculptures, was a d ist in ctive outward token of this idolatrous pee ple ’ s worship andn ation ality, its adoption ,

by an I srae lite,would of course b e re

garded as equivalen t to an open declaration of religiou s an d

nation al apostasy .

The n ame s of cities above en umerated are give n in the thirdcolumn of the On omasticon

,un de r the head E mim Group .

N o . IV. Immediately below this column, are two nam es apart

,

(40 an d which occur in a record of the con quests ofRameses 1 1 1 . They are kept separate from the column

,on ly

because I have n o criterion for deciding wh ether they should b ereferred to the Emim Group,

o r to thei r Il orite depen den cies

I? R o sellin i, M on . R ea li , pl. Iix .

f/ Compare 7pm 11 t ms n‘ljvwiji N51 5 9pm nun asap eta— wi th H e ro do tus

w ipe r/ T a t fit wepi'rd aAa

,u cpifvpo iiw cs 7 011 s apo

'

rai

qmvs .

1 852 ] The Rephaim .

form in g the lower part of the Aramite G roup,N o . 1 1 1 . as they

are n o t m en tion ed in Scripture,an d the1r sites are un certain .

The ir correspon den ce to two n ames o ut of the l ist of Arabiancities in which Oren as or Oron e is men tion cdf

‘

proves that theycertain ly were in the dom in ion s of the Shethit e race . For Josephus reckon s as Arabia

,an d Ptolemy in cludes in Arabia

Pe trea, all -the coun try east of the Jordan that lay southward ofthe river Zurka .

TA R B U SA i s the place called Tharab asa by Josephus,in that

list . O n e can n ot easily be m isled in the iden tity of a n am e

with four radicals, all agree ing. LU SS ‘ is exactly Lussa ofthe same list : th e character wan tin g, in the hieroglyphic group,i s on ly the fin al formative

,or vowe l . I f this were the Ava a. o f

Ptolemy, i den tified by Dr . Robin son with a desert-station eastofWady-el-Arish , i t was an Amalekite outpost . The charactershoweve r m ay also b e read R SS

'

an d m ay possibly stan d forR issah , on e of the unkn own en campmen ts of the M osaic it in erary, Nu . xxxiii . 21 in which case i t would b e referable to theKenite or the Edom ite districts .

CHAPTER X .

Wars of the Emim with Egypt .

If the materials I have thus far brought together before thereader’ s view are worthy to b e accepted as suffi cien tly satisfac

tory eviden ce that the Em im o f the H ebrew an n als are n o otherthan the daring an d dreaded SHE T ’

TA of the Egyptian , then thebroad outl in e. of the ir history may b e sketched out with som e

thing l ike certainty, by con necting the scrip tural an d the

monumen tal referen ces to the leadin g even ts of thei r poli ticalcareer

,an d to the leadin g features of the ir social con dition .

it QWe gather from M an etho, that when the Phoen ician Shepherds first established the ir power at M emphis, the Assyrian swere masters ofAsia ; an d that the chief of the Hyk -so s fortifiedthe eastern fron tier of Egypt with peculiar care, be ing appre

hen sive that the rival power might make an in road from thatquarter . There was n o doubt a reason , foun ded on experience

,

for these apprehen sion s .

For that dyn asty passed away— the Hyksos made themse lvesm asters of all Egypt— and an i n terval, which is perhaps n o t

7‘

Josephus , An t . ,b . x i v . , c . l .

1 4 The R ephaim . [April,

overrated at about two cen turies, has elapsed,before we meet

with the n ext defin ite in dication of the state of the ir affairs, inthat valuable historical fragmen t of Gen esis xiv .

,quoted en tire

in the in troduction to this history ; an d we then fi n d them at

open war w ith a king of Assy ria an d his con federates .

When Abraham en tered Palestin e— when Lot chose the

royal valley of Shaveh for his residen ce—th e power of the Re

phaim in Egypt had perhaps passed its meridian . Thebes wasstill tributary to the ir chiefs for the long an d fierce war again stthem

,which en ded in the deliveran ce of the Thebans from the i r

yoke,had n o t yet begun ,

sin ce th e fin al expulsion of the Shepherds from the De lta can hardly have taken place before th edeath of Abraham ,

according to the system of relative chron ology which the i den tification of that nation compels m e to adopt .

The un certain ty that han gs over the duration of some reign s inthe 1 8th an d 19th dyn asties, ren ders an exact chronological adj ustment

,on that foun dation, hopeless ; but a gen eral co in ci

den ce of even ts, of which the re spective dates m ay b e fixedwithin a latitude of twen ty years e ither way

,is suffi cien tly pre

cise for an historical sketch like the presen t,where a broad an d

comprehen sive view of leading an d unquestion able facts i s all

that we require, an d indeed all that the few fragmen ts,snatched

from the decay an d oblivion of ages, reveal of characteristic'

an d

instruct ive detail .The in vasion described in G en . xiv .,

was not the first thatthe Rephaim had suffered from the i r Asiatic rivals in power .The Em im tribe had been made tributary to the sovereign of

E lam,fourteen years before . This in dicate s a shade of decline

in the power of the race i tself ; an increasing ascendan cy in thatof the ir rivals . The Em im tribe were the section of the n ationagain st which th e hostility of the Assyrian con federacy seemedmore particularly directed : this would suggest that the task ofdefen ding the power of the great political b ody in the east

,had

been more particularly de legated to them,while its elder branch

strove to maintain i t in the south .

The part taken by the great chief of the nation ,on the occa

sion of their unexpected deliverance from the ir in vaders bym eans of the panic in to which Abraham’ s cautious but unfl inching in trepidity had thrown the enemy

,teaches us

,among other

things, that up to that time,the j un ior bran ch of the n ation an d

its supreme chieftain acted in con cert, un der a sys tem o f federaldisciplin e which speaks highly in favour of the ir civi l in stitution s .

It also goes far to explain the i r success, in the imm en se po lit ical

asce ndan cy which the i r u n i ty of purpose an d of action en abledthe Rephaim the chiefs of the earth -to obtain

,an d to re

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 6 The Rephaim . [April ,

of Amosis do not afford the sam e abun dan ce of materials fo r

geographical iden tification ,as that which is so plen tifully yielded

by the l ists of tributaries to Egypt un der S eti-M en ephtah, an d

the vaun ting historical in script ion s accompanying the pictorialtriumphs of Rameses I I . an d III . The n am es are few

,an d the

same are often repeated . The city of ATE SH is supposed to b em e n tion ed as early as un der Thothmes I I I . ; an d LT

'

N,the great

emporium of the Aramean Horites,pays the tribute ofher rich

an d varied m erchan dize to that m on arch, though we do n o t

kn ow whether it was then in the power of the R ephaim o r not .But whatever part the Em im had borne in the great nation alcon flict

,up to the time of the 19th dynasty, was un doubtedly in

un i son with, though strictly subordin ate to,the e lder an d sove

reign bran eh of the ir people in Bashan .

Un der Seti-M en ephtah, they first appear as distin ct objectsof hostil ity, though n o t yet as takin g the lead . The ir lan d wasless accessible than that of the ir kin dred . It could on ly b epen etrated from the n orth by the complete reduction of the

Zuzim ; or from the south,by the con quest of the Am alekite

an d H orite region s . The tributary list of Seti -M en eph tah atat Karn akfi goe s far to shew that both these poin ts were gain edthat this great conqueror had reduced the n orthern branch of

t he Rapha n ation sufficien tly low to comm an d its subm ission ,an d had secured the prin cipal passes an d station s of the south

,

Jen y sus, Kadesh -Barnea,E lath , Sei r, Pun on ,

as far as Atesh onthe Arn on be side s those which m ust remain unrecogn i zed inthat l ist

,e ither because the name s are of doubtful reading, or

because their correspon den ts are n o t to b e foun d in th e sacredor classic writers . Such was the relative position of the con

ten ding powers, when the m ightiest of Egypt’s conquerors

,

R ameses I I .,ascen ded the thron e

,and the fierce and daring

children of Sheth rallied all the en ergies an d resources of thei rn ation

,to carry on to the u tmost of the ir power the deadly feud

of race again st race, in which the ir form er chiefs, an d n ow n u

certain allies,had almost succumbed .

T he celebrated expedition led by the great Rame ses again stthe SHE T '

TA,in the fi fth year of his re ign ,

was deem ed the most

glorious am ong the m il i tary triumphs achieved by this renown edcon queror . It form s the subj ect of three vast commemorativesculp tures, embellishing his three palace - temples of Luxor

, the

Ramessoum,an d the excavated o n e of Abou-S imbe l in Nubia .

I shal l refe r to the latte r in describing the campaign .

‘ It is re

8 R o sellin i, M on . Reali , pl . lx i .1 ”ML , pl . lx x x vn . T he d iffe ren t parts o f th is des ign are g iven on an en large d

sca le , in the succeed ing plates , to c i i .

The Rephaim .

markable fo r a cu rious attempt at comb in ing geographical w ithhistorical del in eation ,

which may perhaps en ti tle i t to be regardedas the oldest m ap in t he world, in so far that the Egyptian artisthas evidently in tended to represen t the gen eral outline of the

country in vaded by the great con queror, in conjun ction with theleading inciden ts of the campaign . B ut as he probably hadnothing to guide him but the verbal description of those presen tat the action who furn i shed the n ecessary detai ls, we cann ot b esurprised at the bearin gs not be ing very accurate . We shallneverthe less fi n d, from our previous iden tification of the land of

the SH ET ’

TA by m eans of the topographical descriptive fragmen tof the Anastasi P apyrus, that the leading features o f the coun tryare sufficien tly well made o ut in the topographical design ofAbou-Simbel

,to adm i t of our recogn izing at on ce the Jordan,

the Dead Sea, an d the Arn on . So that when we en deavour torefer the leading even t s of the campaign to the ir proper localitiesaccording to the in d ication s given to the in scriptions appen ded tothe design , we discover that the Egyptian artist has fore stalled us,by represen ting them in situ ; an d when we fi n d the route of the

land of the SH ET '

TA e laborately described in the records of thei rwars with Rameses which con stitu te the subject of the P apyrus,we also fi n d out the m otive of that description —that this wasthe route actually followed by the con queror ; that, in fact, thesetwo geographical docum en ts—the most an cien t of their kin d inthe world— are complemen tary to an d explan atory of each other ;and the mystery they presen ted, i s fin al ly un sealed an d ren

dered in te lligible to us, through a third docum en t almost coevalwith them in antiquity— the early historical an d geographicalnotices of the Bible .

The tableau is a very oblong parallelogram . The scen e of

action is laid on the two side s of a river,which runs from the

left, across it, in to a lake situated n ear the m iddle of the picture .

The Opposite en d of the lake rece ives an other river, at the

mouth of which is placed a fortress. The in scription s give thenam e of this river AR NA '

TA,an d of the fortress ATE S II.

"

The eastern m ode of orien tation i s to place the east in fron t,

the south at the right han d, and the n orth at the left han d . Itis singular that these are the bearings of the topographical des ign of Abou-S imbel

,an d from the Jordan at the Shibboleth

ford to the -Dead Sea, they are geographically true . But thoseof the Arn on are n o t correct, its true course bein g from east towest ; whereas the Egyptian artist has made i t run in to the sea

14 In the Egyptian l ist of n ames, I g ive the two fo rms of th is o ne ; co l . i v . , fig .

20, a , is as i t is foun d o n the fo rtress and 20, b , as i t o ccurs in the in scription s o f

Seti -M en ephtah , and ofRameses I I . , in the accoun t of the exped ition .

A

1 8 The Rephaim . [April,

from the south . This was don e most probably to secure a l in eararran gem en t of his in ciden ts, which could n ot all have beenbrought in ,

had he made the river run in to the sea from the topof the picture . For the fin al scen e of action

,where the in ci

den ts are the most crowded,is j ust the very part which lies

above th e Arn on an d the city of ATE SH .

Having thus plan n ed the field of action,the artist could

hardly have given sufficien t con sequen ce to the actors in i t,

unless he had made them a little out of proportion with respectto the lan dscape . The figure s are on a scale of about a foot toa m ile Thus the Jordan dwin dle s . to the re lative dimen sion sof a street-ken nel

,and the Dead Sea to those of a little fi sh

pon d,which the royal chariot-horse s galloping along the river

’s

eastern ban k m ight easily stride ever, seeing that their legs spanan arch of some t en m iles . The fortress of Atesh also gain s incon sequence at the expense of the sea

,its picture being pro

j ected from the m outh of the river so far out, as to cover n earlyall the lake ; an d even then

,i t is so much too small for the

warriors who defen d it,that each of i ts fi ve towers can n ot pos

sib ly con tain more than two brave m en very tightly j ammed to

gether in to the battlements, an d half as high as the towersthemselves .

Owin g to this unavoidable disproportion between the peoplean d the field of action

,and the n umber of in ciden ts he had to

delin eate, the artist was reduce to indicate the successive stagesof the action i tself

,by dividin g the field in to several horizontal

lines, along which h is groups are arranged . To follow the

thread of the story,you must begin at the bottom l in e, near

t he prefatory in scription,j ust below the two en campmen ts of the

Egyptian king and of the SHE T '

TA,which are del in eated in situ.

You must then follow the figures in the ir course along the twolin es above thi s, so as to en d with the passage of the Jordan atthe extreme left edge of the picture

,where what may b e called

the fi rst act of the pictorial dram a en ds . It consists of the en

campmen t , and preparation s for action .

The second act begin s on the other side of the Jordan ; it isthe in vasion . The king in his chariot

, (four times as large as

the other fi gures an d chariots,accordin g to custom,) having

crossed the river, is proceeding sou thwards to the coun try eastof the Dead Sea . The S IIET

'

TA an d thei r al lies are ru shing i nthe i r chariots across the ford

,at the left border o f the picture .

The l in e of this important geographical inciden t is prolongedover the king

’s head

,to the fortre ss of ATE SII

,to which their

course,l ik e his

,is directed .

The third act depicts the fi nal rout of the SIIE T‘

TA an d the i r

1 852] The Rephaim . 19

allie s . The royal war-chariot appears a third time,in the parts

north of the Arn on . H ere we see all the an imation an d con fasion of an Egyptian battle-scen e . The king is tran sfix in g hisenem ies in every direction with his en ormous arrows

,or rid in g

over them ; they tumble about in every imagin able impossib leattitude ; some run o ff with thei r cattle

,the dead bodies of

others float along the river— there are heaps o f Spoil, an d strin gsof captives led off in ignom in ious tri umph, amon g who are co n

spicuous a group of the remarkable an d unmistakeable R BO,the

indomi table Anakim of Arba,the faithful allies of the i r kin

dred, the Emim .

The course of even ts,as thus read off from the picture, is

m uch more in telligible than the n arrative of them,which may b e

extracted, though not without difficulty, from R o sellin i’

s tran slation . The style of the Egyptian hierogrammatists i s so verbose,so loaded with bombastical epithets

,m etaphors, an d eulogies of

the m on arch,as to b e almost un in telligible, even to the learn ed

pupil of Champollion . It i s aston ishing how small a lump offact remain s, when the froth of adulation an d circum locutionwhich overlays i t

,i s rem oved . The local n ames are th e most

valuable amon g those facts, sin ce they furn ish us with referen cesto the site s whereby the iden ti ty of the people an d of the i r lan di s again put to the severe test of topographical as well as verbalcorre sponden ce ; an d the circum stan tial agreem en t we thus ohtain , leaves n othing to b e desired .

When we fi n d i t stated as the Open in g fact, in the in scription , that his m aj esty was staying in the lan d of T AH

,i t is very

sati sfactory to fi n d that in a m ap of Palestin e, the si te of

Iut tah,a fortress of the An akim with which I identify the TAB

,

TAH I,or TAH ‘ N of the Egyptian monumen ts

,correspon ds exactly

to the place in the picture occupied by the royal en campm en t,

where the king is repre sen ted si tting o n his thron e and receiving the report of the ambassadors .

When we fi n d in the in scription ,that two ambassadors from

the SHAS 'U came to the kin g, an d told him that the SHE T '

TAwere en camped in the land of C H E RB ‘ U

,

” it is n o t less satisfactoryto fi n d in the picture that the place of the SHE T '

TA encampmen tcorrespon ds exactly to the site of I-Iebron in the map.

This cam p is surroun ded by pali sades . The self- satisfi edassuran ce of the enemy is in dicated by the warriors an d horse slyin g down within the en closure ; while other s are engaged in

games of skill or m ili tary exercises . In the m iddle of the campis a sacred enclosure

,in which four priests are prostrate before a

v I here fo l low M r. Bi rch ’ s quo tat ion , as R osellin i’

s reading is n o t accurate .

A 2

20 The Rephaim . [April,

shrin e overshadowed by the win gs of two cherubic figures . Thisi s a very remarkable circum stan ce for the date of thi s event i sabout seventy-nine years b efore the E xodus . I t proves the an

t iquity an d universality of this symbolical repre sen tation .

When we n ext fi n d, by the in scription, that the obj ect ofthese two SHA S 'U ambassadors was to ten der the ir subm i ssion tothe Egyptian kin g, i n the n am e of the ir n ation , an d to give him“an en tran ce in t o the coun try,

” it i s very satisfactory to recognize in this in ciden t three valuable coin cidence sFirstly That the pictorial description correspon din g to thi s

even t, placed at the beginnin g of the lowe s t lin e, j ust under theEgyptian camp, shews us that the people there repre sented ascom i ng forward to greet the Egyptian chiefs with every demonstration of friendship, were a people devoted to Astarte, whosecrest they wear on thei r helmets an d Ashtaroth -Karn a

’

im (thetwo-horn ed Ashtaroth) metropoli s of Bashan an d head of the

SHAS ’ U nation,was sacred to that very goddess, whose name i t

bore .

Secondly That the people of Zarthan or SHAIR TA‘

NA wearthe sam e cre st an d costume ; and that was also a city of the

SHAS ' U ofGilead .

T hirdly That by knowing who these people were, and wherethe i r lan ds lay

,we u nderstan d what is mean t by their giving the

king of Egypt an e n tran ce in to the coun try .

” F or we see bythe picture itself, that the Egyptian s in vaded the SHET ’

TA bycrossing the Jordan at the Shibboleth ford . We learn by theitinarary of the Anastasi P apyrus, that the way to the lan d of

the SH E T '

TA was through part of the land of the s i us u,near

“the hill of the lan d of SHAVA

,

’ which am oun ts to the samethin g as the picture, —sin ce we fi n d that part to b e the very partabout the hill of Jelcid which faces the Shibboleth ford . We

further learn from the date of the expedition,

“the 9th of

Epiphi in the fifth year of the king’ s that i t took place

at a season of the year when the Jordan is too full to b e forded,

"7 The earl iest perio d at which th is exped it io n can b e fixed , is 1 38911 . c . , an d the

latest, 1 369 In 1 38911 .c .

, the 1 st o fTho th Of the Egypt ian vague year, fe l l o nAug. 5 th , and the 9th o f Epiphi o n Jun e l 0th , o f the Ju l ian accoun t . In the 1 4th

cen tury 11 . c . , Jun e 10th was nearly twen ty - e ight days be fo re the summe r so lst ice ; a

seaso n -

po si t io n equ i valen t to May 20th o f the G rego r ian accoun t n ow in use . In

1 309, the 9th o fEpiphi wou l d be fi ve days earl ie r .The remark in Jo sh . i i i . 1 5 , that “ the Jo rdan o verlloweth all his banks, all the

t ime of harvest," is i l lust rated by D r. Ro b in so n ’s valuab le o bse rvat io ns o n the state

o f the r ive r . (B ib i . R esearches in P alestine , vo l . The harvest is durin g Apri lan d the e ar ly part o fMay . D r. R o bin son descr ibes the true r ive r -b ed o n M ay 1 2th ,as fu l l to the brim , and fl ow ing o ve r , so as t o wet the bo ttom of the upper b ed o vergro wn w i th can e - brake .

The Rephaim . $1

except at a very few places known on ly to the Arabs ;m and

that by thus favouring the passage of the Egyptian con querorthrough their terri tory, across the very fi rst ford at which theriver could be crossed

,the SHAS ‘ U were ren dering him a far

greater servi ce than by fightin g for him .

While the SHAS ’ U were thus sacrificing thei r brethren totheir own security by a disgraceful uncondition al surren der tothe form idable in vader

,the SHE T ‘

TA were en deavouring to negociate with him ; they sent rich presen ts an d proposed terms ofpeace . But ambassadors who dared to parley an d propose condition s to the great king, were not so we ll treated as those wholaid the ir all at the foot of h is thron e : the y were taken up asspies an d beaten ; their proposals were of course scouted— an d

the war-cry of the tribes was then raised,the camp broke up,

an d they all prepared for active resistan ce .

The king now m arched towards the lan d of the rebel s . The

CH E RB U an d AM AR (An akim of H ebron or Arba,an d Amorites)

an d all the southern depen den cies of the SHE T ‘

TA,cam e to thei r

assistance . But when they saw that the plain s of Heshbonwere placed in the power of the in vader by the sudden defectionof their SHAS ‘ U bre thren , the SHE T '

TA an d the allied powersthrew them selve s in to the m oun tain fortresses beyon d the

Arn on . Ramese s laid siege to ATE SH,“ the city in the m idst

of the river,

” which appears to have defen ded the valley of theArn on . The place held out a lon g time ; but the chiefs weredrown ed in attempting to cross the river, an d the city then sur

ren dered . The in scription con cludes with his maj esty ’ s repri

man d to the rebell ious chiefs for the troubles they have broughtupon thei r allies far an d n ear, as well as o n themselves, by the i rpresumptuous resistan ce to h is power . I t is here that NAH R I '

NA

an d PAD I are men tion ed : when ce it appears that the SHE T ‘

T Awere powerful en ough to comm an d the assistan ce of the Aramitedepen den cies of the ir kin dred the SHAS ' U

,even when these were

themselve s to o weak to venture upon resisting the king of Egypto n the ir own part .

This memorable campaign was the first of a long series ofhostil ities which on ly closed with the treaty of peace sign ed bythe gods of the two belligeren t nation s in th e twen ty-fi rst yearofRameses II . The records of the Sallier an d Anastasi P apyri

advert to several in termediate campaign s ; an d at this period,

th e power of the Shethite chiefs exten ded very far, if we j udgefrom the l ists of the ir allies} to whom these docum en ts represent

“5 Burckhard t, T ravels in Syr ia , e tc . , p. 345 .

3/ S elect P apyri , pl . xx i v . ,xxv . ; quo ted by M r. Birch in his O bservatio n s o n

‘ 1

22 Tile Rephaim. [April,

them as sen ding for troops to aid them again st Egypt . Am on gthese is KARKU MASHA, gen erally adm itted to b e Carchem ish o n

th e E uphrates . M any of the other nam e s are also we ll kn owno n the mon um en ts

,an d those that are identified amon g these,

will b e foun d in my l ist : CHE RB U, SHAS ' U,SH AIR TA

’

NA,N AHA

R I NA, KAT V A TA, KE SH, which cannot b e the black KE SH of

E thiopia (Cushites) , as they are much too remote to b e allie s ofthe sn n

'r

'm they are probably the Goshen settled in Palestine .

O n e of these n ames,AR H E

'

NA,m ay possib ly b e 1m 1 11 11 0

,Jericho

(n ow Ri/za) , as the Amorites of that part of Can aan are alwaysassociated with both the SHE T '

TA and the C H E RB U in the con testagain st Egypt . But m any of the local n am es in the se l ists cann o t b e iden tified with any kn own to scriptural or to classicalan tiquity . This i s n o t surprisin g, considering how man y sitesmay have perished in the war itself ; an d how m an y beside s layin parts of the land unkn own to the H ebrew historian s .

When the Emim an d their kindred first becam e in volved inthe lon g and desolating war w ith Egyp t which on ly closed withthei r fall

,the M oabites an d Amm on ites were as yet an in con si

derab le tribe . Their con tin ued in crease,while the origin al race

was sinking, as well as the ir secluded position o n the Aramite

fron tier,are circum stan ces rather favourable to the in feren ce

that they took n o aggressive part in the fierce contest betweenthe two m ighty races whose n ation al hatred aimed at n othingshort of total ann ih ilation o n on e part o r o n the other, —savewhen the i r lan d was in vaded ; for then , neutrality would havebeen treachery again st the people under whose protection theyhad so long dwelt . If the Aramites took up arms on behalf ofth e Rephaim, when Egypt attacked them , we cannot supposethat the M oabites, whose destiny an d in terests were wholly int erwo ven with those of the Em im

,could remain in active in the

struggle . B ut the mon umen tal represen tation s throw n o l ighto n this question ; for if the tribe of M oab figures in any of the

con tests they depict, we can n ot distinguish them from the an

cien t race by any peculiarity of costume, as we can the E domiteallies of the southern tribes .

The Amorite s are the on ly Canaanite s who appear o n the

m onumen ts o f Egypt . The i r geographical position , as co -residen ts with the An akim in Judea

,n e cessarily exposed them to

aggressio n from any n ation at war with the Rephaim an d

would com pel them to take a part again st the in vaders, if the i r

the Statisti ca l Tab le t o f Karaac , al ready re fe rred to , who g ive s the passage thus“ T he w re tched ch ie f of the Kh ita (Le . and the n ume ro us lan ds w i th him ,

the Arutu , the Massu , the Shara , the Koshkosh , the Arhena, the Katnatu, w i th thethe Al i (sh and the Ruka .

”

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

24 The Rephaim. [Aprih

had destroyed them” from before the M oabites, as the Zuzim

were destroyed from before the Ammon ite s . Nor does he, i ne ither in stan ce, attribute the destruction of the an cien t race toth e agen cy of the children of Lot, as he doe s that of the Horimto the children of E sau . A small remn an t of the Em im had

yet e scaped destruction in the time of Moses . This m iserableresidue of the terrible people long survived the down fall ofthe i r supremacy . The ir baneful in fluen ce over the destin ie s ofI srae l lon g outlasted the breaking-up of the ir polity an d disap

pearan ce of thei r nam e from among n ations .The M oabite s requ ited more worthily than the treacherous

Am ori tes the hospital ity accorded to t he ir forefathers by theEm im . They rece ived an d protected the fugitive children of

Sheth, and con tin ued to pay to the hereditary chieftain of the

an cient race the hon our due to him as thei r kin g, in virtue of

the ir origin al settlem en t in the lan ds un der his j urisdiction .

The man n er in which they are m entioned,e ither as associated

or as poli tically identical with the people of Chemosh ,” in the

triumphal ode of the victorious Amorite s,quoted by M ose s in

N 11 . xxi . 27— 30,would even suggest that the M oabites had

taken a leadin g and active part in the un successful contestagain st S ihon . But the sacred historian does n o t in timatewhether they did so as partisans of the primeval race with whomthe ir n ation al destin ies had so long been blen ded, or whether asterritorial successors of that broken people, and, as such, deeming them se lves en ti tled o n that groun d to dispute w ith the

Amorites for possession of the metropolitan district which thesehad wrested from the ir deposed chieftain .

Whatever doubts may remain as to the precise position ofthe M oabites an d Emim with respect to the Am orites, the supposition that the person age who is styled in Scripture “ kin g o f

M oab — “Balak the son ofZippor”— was a chieftain of the ah

cien t race, is not altogether gratuitous i t i s strongly supportedby the following curious circum stan ce In the treat ise betweenRame ses II . and the w ar m

, the pedigree of the great chief ofthis n ation is given ; an d the name of his gran dfather, whichM r. Birch reads SAPURU

,shews us that the n ame of Balak’s

father, may , Z ipper, eviden tly must have been afamily name, ascharacteristic o f the last She thite dyn asty, as Rameses was ofthe con tem poran eous rival power in Egypt . The first Zipper orSAPURU l ived in the time of Rameses I . The last was con temporary of Ram eses III . ; an d

,fo r aught we kn ow ,

i t may b e his

po

l

rtrait that figures amon g the captive prin ces at M edin e tA 101 1 .

It was therefore to the d ispossessed representative of that

The Rephaim .

an cient royal race,that Balaam

,the far-famed prophet of the

children of Ammon , disclosed the future destiny of the tribe swho e ither claim ed a common origin with the children of Sheth,or who had j oin ed the i r political body as settlers ; an d weredoomed hereafter to fall under the sway of that very Israe lwhom the prophet was hired to imprecate . This remarkableprophecy i s the on ly historical clue we possess to the ultimatefate of the Emim . It will therefore close the present section of

o ur h istory,n o t less appropriately than it will serve to introduce

the history of the kindred tribe s i t enum erates .

BALAAM’s PROPHE CY .

And now,behold I I am return ing to my peOple : come, I will

thee ofwhat this people will do unto thy people in after-times .

”

H e then resumed his parable, sayingzSen tence ofBalaam, son ofBeer.

Senten ce of the man whose vision was sealed .

Sentence ofhim who n ow heareth the words ofG od,And perceiveth the coun sel of the SupremeWho- prostrate— with unveiled eyesBeholdeth the vision of the Almighty .

I see him—but it is not n ow .

I behold him— but it is n ot nigh .

A star proceedeth from Jacob,A scep tre ariseth from Israel,He woun ds the recesses ofMoab,And crushes the children of Sheth

Edom,too , becometh his domain ;

Seir becometh the domain ofhis foe,F or Israel doeth valiant deeds

H e (who ) descendeth from JacobWill destroy the remnan t of the city.

2D 335; 13 143. tam is a mo re energetic term than amt to say . I t gen e ral ly

implies the utteran ce of a solemn denun c iat ion or sen ten ce. H eb rew, l i terallysen ten ce-pron oun ced of Ba laam .

”The open ing of the three verses w i th the same

fo rmu la, in the H ebrew ,g i ves great so lemn i ty to the passage .

mg a same co nstruct ion , l i teral ly : stopped -up of eye .

” When the v isualo rgan s are mean t , the H ebrew has always the dual fo rm . When pp is used in a

figurative sen se , i t is singular ; whethe r den o ting the surface or co lour , or a fo un tain .

H e re , i t stan ds for the v ision al powe rs of the prophet , suspen ded fo r a wh i le ; an d

ofwh ich , o n th is o ccas ion , the Alm ighty had perm i tted the return . M ark the changein the tense o f the participles c amp, con trasted w i th m e one actual ly hearing .

"

may; l i terally , demo l ishes .

26 The R ephaim. [April,

Then, looking upon Am alek, he resumed his parable, andsaid :

First among nation s was Amalek ;H is end is— to perish for ever !

Then, looking upon the Ken ite, he re sumed his parable, andsaid :

Strong is thin e habitationThou settest thy n est in the Rock

Nev ertheless—Ken shall b e devouredH ow far w ill Asshur lead thee cap tive !

[Then, looking U pon Og,] he resumed his parable , and said

Alas ! who can survive the appo intment of G od lb

Ships from the coast of ChittimThey humb le Asshm—they humb le EberY et he , too , shall perish for ever

Nu . xxiv . It 24 .

CHAPTER XI.

The Ken ites .

.The characteri sti c features of the country possessed by theKen i te s are so wel l kn own through the vivid an d intere stin gaccoun ts of m odern trave llers, e specially D e Laborde an d Dr.E . R obin son

,that any particular description of it here would be

superfluous . The magn ificent dwellings of the ir m etropolis,

Pe t ra,—part ly excavated in the solid rock

,partly hewn away

from its face ; the wild gran deur of its moun tain strongholds,dan gerous o facce ss to the traveller an d deserted of in habitan ts,are n ow among the most famil iar obj ects in the l ist of an cien twon ders he ld up for the adm iration an d awe of modern time s .W e have no eviden ce to decide whether the Ken ites were

rpp 1750: w in, a play ofwo rds o n rho S eld, the ro ck , name of the c i ty -: Petra ;n ]

and mKa in , name of the nation .

b ‘JN i01e rrrr ’D as . I h ere take 73 for the parti c le o f compar iso n ; li teral l y ,

Alas ! who can live more Man the appo in tmen t o f G o d !” The fo rce and deeppatho s of th is ej acu latio n w i l l b e apprehe n de d by the fee l ing reade r , in con nex io nw i th the impo rtan t c lause in the i n tro duc to ry sen ten ce , betwe en b rack e ts , wh ichappears to have bee n lo st in the He brew tex t , b ut is fo rtun ate ly prese rved by theSeptuag in t ; and is ev iden t ly requi red by the paral le l ism o f the co n tex t . The reade rw i l l bea r in m in d that 0g was t he po l i t i cal head o f the ch i ldren o f Ammon , in

who se land Balan in res i ded .

The R ephaim .

original possessors of this astonishing city, o r whether they heldit by con quest . The prom i se m ade to Abraham

,before the

tenth year of h is residen ce in Palestin e— that his posteritywould obtain the dom in ion over the lan ds of the Ken ites

, co n

tains sufficient proof,in the terms of the prom ise itself

,that this

people occupied the Wady M e nsa as early as this prom i se wasmade ; how much earl ier

,we can n ot kn ow

,sin ce authentic his

tory ascen ds no higher . As to the ir claims over the tract to thesouth an d east of this

,there can b e no doubt that the whole

valley be tween Mount Se i r an d the great Arab ian con tin en torigin ally belonged to an other people— the Horim ; and thatthese still held it at the time of Chedorlaomer’ s in vasion . Aparenthetical referen ce in Deut . i i . 1 2

,in form s us that th e chil

dren of E sau succeeded to the ir lan d ; an d from the passage inL am . i v . 2 1

, O daughter ofE dom,who dwe llest in the l an d of

U z,

” it further appears that the possession thus obtain ed by theEdom i tes was reckoned part of the lan d of U z

,e ldest son of

Aram . Thus the prim itive H orites were a race altogether dist in ct from the Rephaim,

and must have been Aramites .

There i s no historical referen ce to shew whether the Horitesever hel d the Wady M ousa and Petra also . But whatever theoriginal title of the Ken ites to this part of their coun try m ayhave been , i t i s certain that the ir sway, in the time of M oses

,

extended as far down as the n eck of the E lamiti c Gulf,an d that

they were accordingly j oin t ten an ts wi th Edom over the H oritevalley eastward of M oun t Sei r : that thei r n ation al decaden cefollowed so closely upon that of their n eighbours, the Em im, asto shew that they were all in volved in the same cause, an d

shared the same political doom an d fin ally,that the civil posi

t ion of Edom among the children of Ken ,was like that of M oab

among the children of Sheth a rapidly increasin g tribe ofwealthy and in dustrious settlers

,at first depen dan ts amon g a

powerful nation ; but who, o n the decay of their political head,gradually superseded them in ascen dan cy ; an d ultimately ah

sorbed in to the ir own body both the residue of the origin al pepulation

,and its n ame .

The addre ss of Balaam to Balak Com e, and I will in formthee ofwhat this people (Israel ) will do un to thy people, in aftertimes,

” i s very sign ifican t in pointin g out the original stock of

the n ation that ruled over Ken ,in h is time ; sin ce, un der the

head of Balak’ s people,

”he not on ly in cludes M oab an d the

children of Sheth,Balak’ s immediate subjects

,but also E dom ,

Am alek , an d Ken . It i s diffi cult to con ceive what claim the

three latter could have to b e thus ranked amon g the people o f

a Shethite king, unless they belon ged to a commun ity claim ing

f"

. j "

28 The Rephaim . [April,

direct affi n i ty to his race . The difficulty is not lessened in anyway by our supposing Balak a gen u in e M oabi te by b irth . Thism ight accoun t for the m en tion of E dom as his people, in virtueof an original afli n ity of race ; but Amalek—the Am alek Balaamstyles “

the first of nation s —was certain ly a distin ct peoplelong before Moab was born ; an d so was Ken : an d ne ither wereever subj ect to or con n ected with Lot ’s children in any way toj ustify the i r be in g classed am ong thei r people .

But a very con clusive fact may b e produced in evidence,

that— prior to the E dom ite mon archy— the tribe of Ken,albe it

it s rule exten ded from the torrent Zared to the extrem i ty of the

M adyan ite coast, was i tself on ly a bran ch of the Em im ; that inthis way

,they really were a part of Balak ’ s people

,an d E dom

on ly an allied state en grafted upon them an d that,in fact

,the

chiefs of Ken ruled on ly un der subordin ation to the great chiefof the Em im . It is stated in Josh . xiii . 21 , that the fi ve prin ce sof M idian slain in the war, E vi

,B ekam ,

Zur,Hur

,an d Reba,

were B ‘Q‘Dl anoin ted ones of Sihon

,in habitants of the lan d n ative

prin ces,who had been invested by the Am orite spoiler of the

Em im with his delegated authority ove r the i r respective tribes .N ow a m ore satisfactory proof than this could n o t have been

given , short of an express declaration to the effect, that thepolitical j urisdiction of the Em im had exten ded to the lan d of

Mady an that the capital of this race, Heshbon,was the cen tral

seat of thei r governmen t ; that by e stablishin g himself in theirm etropolis, S ihon the Amorite becam e

,according to the usage

of con querors,lord over all the i r depen den cies

,and they must

e ither serve an d obey him as tributaries, or fly ; that all the provin ces of the Em im were becom e his provinces ; the ir chiefs, hissubordinates ; an d that Ken and all her cities were among the

number .Thus

,whether the Ken ite s whose habi tation was so strong

who had set the ir nest i n the Rock -city,Sela of the wilderness

were usurpers in that city o r its foun ders,the conclusion that

they we re a bran ch of the She th it e tribe appears i rresistible .

Therefore,they were fully en tit led to b e classed by the E berite

prophe t am on g the people o f the Shethite king Balak . An d

although the half-breed Can aan ite an d E berite tribe of E sau,who had supplan ted the Horite aborigin es of the south-easternvalley

,were n o t of the i r race, they w ere settlers amon g them

had cast the ir lo t upon the i rs had lived un der the i r protect ionwhen they were ye t but a small tribe ; had fought for them,

an d

traded fo r them,an d in co urse o f time had grown rich an d great

e nough among them to share the ir dom in ion ,an d could thu s

,

without improprie ty,be in cluded also among t he people o fwhom

The Rephaim . as

Balak was the hereditary ch ief,seeing how important a bran ch

of the Ken ite commun ity they formed .

The Ken ite nation , as a whole, prior to the M osaic period,comprehen ded a m ixture of various races, which may b e thusclassed according to their d istricts

l st . Ken proper,the n orthern provin ce, which should per

haps b e regarded, ethn ographically as wel l as geographically, asthe extreme southern region of the Em im it lay between the

brook Zared (Wady cl Ahsy) , the Wady Mousa, the WadyArabah , an d the Horite settlements . Its chief city was Pe tra .

2nd . The Horite eastern provin ce,which was gradually ah

sorbed in to Edom th is should be regarded e thn ographically asthe extreme southern region of Aram be ing the prolongationof the lan d of U z,

”m oun tain s of Aram ,

” or “E ast-country,

”

down the valley that lay eastward of M oun t S eir, as far as

E lath .

3rd . The coast-region southward of E lath , the M adyan ite

provin ce, subsequen tly absorbed in to M idian ; the origin al n ames

o f its few cities,an d the race of the aboriginal in habitants, be ing

absolutely unkn own .

The southern divi sion ofKen,who thus claimed the cities on

the coast,in cluded un der the collective name of M i dian ites

,in

the history of M oses,not on ly the Ken ite rulers of the lan d

,but

also the chief tribes ofAbraham ’s descen dan ts by Keturah

,who

,

with the i r Ishmael ite brethren,had se ttled on the desert-con fi n es

of thei r territory,as the E dom ites origin ally settled at Bozrah

o n the borders of Ken proper . The Abraham ite M idian ite sformed an in dependen t yet valuable part of the political com .

m unity,in asmuch as the ir in dustry con tributed to the wealth of

the n ation while i t also laid the foun dation of thei r own . Theycarried on all the in lan d trade, of which Petra was the centralemporium .

It is very importan t to e stablish this distin ction between thetwo m embers of the M idianite people . F or though they afterwards merged in to on e, like Sheth an d M oab

,Ken and E dom ,

yet, in the time of M oses,they were still very d istin ct in race,

in m ann ers,and in re ligion . The aborigin al M idian ites ofKen

are the idolaters referred to in the book ofNumbers, as the co r

rupters of Israel . But the Scenite Midian ites descended fromAbraham are those referred to in the begin n ing of E xodus .

These were sti ll the faithful worshippers of the on e true an d

e tern al God an d Jethro, father-in - law of M oses, was the i rpriest . Like the earlier E dom ites, they rather volun tarily lived

.. u nder the protection of the Kenite rulers, than were subject t o

! . them . They ne ither resided in thei r cities, n or shared in their

30 The R ephaim . [April

worship . They were n omads,dwe l t in ten ts o n the borders of

the in habited d istricts of Se i r an d Paran ,an d li ved en tire ly o n

the produce of the i r flocks an d by tradin g.

In the in fancy of the Ishm ae lite tribe, i ts settlem ent was inth e desert of Paran . Here, therefore, in the holy moun tain ofS in ai

,was th e first patriarchal church of the desert- tribes

,which

in the tim e of M oses was still t he common ren dezvous of thechildren of Abraham , where they celebrated the an n ual festivalsof thei r common an cestral faith . M oses

,who had re sided among

them nearly forty years, was con versan t with the ir customs,an d

kn ew thei r haun ts an d fixed station s ; an d these an n ual festivalsare the sacrifices h e had purposed that the Israeli tes should goforth in the wildern ess, to j oin their Eberite kin dred in celeb rating in their due season .

That the n ation al design ation of the an cient race ruling overMoun t S eir was Ken

,is proved bv the prophet Balaam ’

s givingthem that nam e

Strong is thine habitationThou settest thy nest i n the ro ck '

Nevertheless—Ken shall b e devoured !

And an other circumstan ce shews that i t was also the political design ation of the tribe s who belon ged to the body bysettlem en t or by amalgamation, an d by which they were kn ownamon g themse lves, though the Israe l ite s called the same bodyM idian ites .” After the con quest

,a fam ily of the true Midian

ite stock of the n ation i s foun d regi stered as“the children of

the Ken ite,M oses’s father- in -law

,

”(the Septuagin t has Jo thor

the Ken ite .) An d more than a cen tury afterwards we fi n d thehusband of the heroin e Jael design ated as Heber the Ken ite

,

”

notwithstan ding the naturalization of his fam ily in Israe l forseveral generations . But the Hebrews always call this peoplecol lective ly “ E dom o r M idian ,

”as they call th e rem n an t of

the Em im in cluded among the Moabites,

“Moab,

”- without

d istin ction . They were n aturally m ore conversan t with the en

grafted Eb erite race, among whom they had spen t thirty-e ightyears of wan dering life, than with the aborigin al stock ; whichin deed

,in thei r time

,was so n early absorbed un der the in creas

ing numbers an d ascen dan cy of Edom an d M oab,as to j ustify

its be ing sunk in the historian ’ s gen eral design ation of the political commun ity .

S everal n am e s referab le to the Ken ite dom in ion s appear inthe triumphal records o fEgyp t . The Aram ean characte r of thepe ople—the sim ilari ty of the ir costume

,remarkably un like that

of the Rephaim— shew them to belong to o n e land,t he Horite

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

32 The Repha im . [April,

The Edomi te city,Rimmon -Parez

,on e of the unk nown stat ion s

of Israe l in the first of the thirty-eight years’ wan dering, is

j ust as likely to b e the tributary RM N'

N of Set i-M en ephtah, as

the remote Hermon . Be ing the very next station after R ithmah

,which

,in the i tin erary of Nu . xxxvi . 1 8, correspon ds to

the Kadesh-Barn ea of the history . Nu . xiii . 26, i t can n ot havebeen very distan t from e ither Kadesh or E lath an d we havefoun d out several n ames of desert- stations on the Egyptian l iststo prove that the occupation of these was a special desideratumwith the warlike Theban Pharaohs, to keep open their way tothe in im ical lan ds .

I have not been able to recogn ize any Egyptian fo 1 m correspon ding to the Ken ite metropolis ; in deed, i ts origin al n ame

i s unknown . The Hebrews call it Sela,“the Rock,

” whichthe Greeks translated Petra . Josephus preten ds that its an cien tlocal name was Arek em

,f an d that R ekem ,

o n e of the fi ve kin gsof Midian

,was its chief

,and bore the n am e of his city . I f

this statemen t has n o t helped us to fin ding i ts Egyptian equivalen t

,it n everthe less gran t s two valuable facts : firstly, that

Petra was known in an cien t tim es as havin g formerly been acity of the people called M idian i tes in Scripture an d

,moreover

,

of the idolatrous or Kenite section of that people : secon dly,that it was not unusual for princes of that lan d to b e known bythe i r territorial name s .Prior to the decay of the ruling Shethite race, the various

provinces of Ken were govern ed by the heads of the respectivetribe s, form ing a sort of commonwealth un der the j urisdictionof the great chief of the Emim nation . This we learn fromthe case of the fi ve Midianite princes of S ihon . Although theAmorite conqueror of the n ation had in vested them w ith hisde legated authority, they were not a1 b itrarily chosen to b e rulerso f their respective dist 1 icts ; they were hereditary chiefs of tribes .

O n e of them,Zur

,father of the M idianite woman slain by

I’hinehas witli the Simeon i te chief Zim ri,in the san ctuary of

Astarte, i s styled “ head of a people, of a paternal house .

”

The E dom ite section of the Ken ite state was at first governedin the same way by “ leaders ”

13 19534 , who were also the headsof tribes . We learn from G en . xxxvi . that two gen eration s of

E sau ’ s immediate descen dan ts became thus, each in dividualthe head of a paternal house .

”Two gen eration s o f

“ leadersare also given as descended from S ei r

,a Il ivite chief con n ected

by m arriage with E sau , and who j oin ed him in h is settlemen tn ear Bozrah . H e must have been very n early E sau ’ s con tem

f Jo sephus , An t . , b . i v . , c . 7.

porary in age ; for while E sau’s third wife

,Aholibamah

,was h is

great-gran ddaughter, his youn gest daughter T imn a was con cu

bine to E liphaz, E sau’s e ldest son . This double i n termarriage

precludes a differen ce of'

more than forty years in thei r ages .

This circum stance is worthy of remark,because it leads to

a very valuable historical coinciden ce in the th ird gen erationfollowin g the two progen i tor-chiefs, E sau and Se i r . We fi n d ason of E liphaz by T imn a becom ing a chief among the an cien tnation ofAmalek , an d consequently assuming the ir name . We

find an other son of E liphaz registered as“ leader Kenaz,

rem inding us of the unknown race, the Kenizzites,associated

w ith the Ken ites in the'

promise to Abraham ; and though Icannot assent to the Opin ion some have advanced

,that

,in this

prom ise, the lan d was so n amed proleptically from this Ken az

yet unborn, —it is very likely that Ken az himself assumed thatname from the tribe ofwhich he became leader

,l ike his brother

Amalek . The e ldest so n of Eliphaz l ikewise bears a territorialname, Teman , the south,

” to in dicate the provin ce over whichhe ruled . An d to make the case still stron ger, the eldest gran dson of the H ivite Seir is called Hori

,

“t he Horite

,

” to shewthat he was made ruler over the ancien t in habi tan ts of the lan d,who were so called ; while, as those lands were part of “ the

land of U z,

”we find another of Se i r’ s grandson s assum in g the

title of U z .

The singular coin cidence of fi ve contemporaneous chiefs ofa conquerin g tribe so obviously bearin g fi ve local n am es

, appearsto indicate the period of the even t referred to by M oses, D en t .

i i . 1 2 The Horim also dwelt in Se ir formerly but the childrenof E sau succeeded them

,when they had destroyed them from

before them,an d dwel t in the ir place ; as Israe l did un to the

lan d of his possession,which the Lord gave unto them .

”0

This i s strongly in favour of the con clusion I have alreadyventured to an ticipate, that the descen dan ts of E sau could nothave been sufficiently n umerous to conquer the Horim alone ;and that the Ken ites, near whom they first settled at Bozrah,may have partaken both of the vi ctory and of its fruits . Be ingthe o ld -established race, an d the Edom ites the n ew-comers, theKen ites probably employed the adven turous son s of E sau as

mercenarie s to en large the ir domin ion s, an d requited thei r services by appointing them to the hon ourable post of hereditarylocal governors over the tribes subdued, and even over some o f

thei r own . Such a circumstan ce was wel l calculated to lay thefoundation of the perfect friendly alliance in which we fi n d the

37 A l lud in g to the recen t con quest of the Tran sj ordan ic pro v in ces .

B

31 T he Rephaim. [April,

E dom ites contin ue to the last in the ir political relations withthe in digen ous race of Ken .

By supposi ng the fi ve E dom ite chiefs to average sixty yearsof age

when they achieved this con quest, i t would about coincide l n time with the birth of Kohath, grandfather of Moses .The event would then synchron ize very nearly with the deathof Jacob in Egypt ; and at all events must have occurred duringJoseph’ s l ifetime .

No Edom ite leaders are m entioned after this victoriou s

gen eration . Y et, from the birth of Kenaz,son of E liphaz

,

the j un ior of the five con temporaneous chiefs, to the death of

Joseph, there is an in terval of about 1 50 y ears,an d n early 240

to the E xodus, an d 260 to the earliest date at which we can fixthe beginning of the Edom ite monarchy . We may conclude,that during the 200 years that e lapsed between the E dom iteconquest and the regal state, the eldest son s of the

“ leaders,”

or heads of a paternal house,” succeeded thei r fathers in due

course in the local admin istration of thei r respective tribes ; allthese

,l ike the Kenite chiefs, looking to the great chief of the

Shethites as the ir supreme head in matters of state policy . The

children ofE l iphaz were set over tribes in the sou thern d istrict,as the territorial name s o f his son s in dicate ; while those of

Reuel contin ued in the original settlement of his father,since

we find hi s descendant called Zerah of Bozrah .

”

But when the un i ty of the Shethite n ation was finally brokenup, by the cen tral seat of its governmen t fall ing a prey to theAmorite invader S ihon—when its hereditary sovere ign had beendegraded to the in ferior ran k of a mere local ruler among theMoabites, and the n ative chiefs of the Kenite province werecompelled to hold the i r authority un der the i r con queror, —theE dom ites, in order to remain in dependent of the usurper, placeda king of thei r own race at the head of their tribes . The Eberite race n ow rallied round the n ew power

,and the E dom ites

became the cen tre of a powerful federal state,t aking the lead

among thei r kindred i n pol itical affairs,and main taining i t by

the successive election of eight sovereigns . These chiefs werechosen out of the different tribes an d citi es of the Eberite peoplenot exclusively from among the children ofE sau . This m easuregreatly extended an d consolidated thei r power by connectingall the tribes . The first of these kings,

“ Bela, the son of

B co r,

”may have begun to reign about twen ty years after the

Exodus . The last, H adad, the son of Bedad,

“ reigned beforethere was any kin g i n Israel —prob ab 1y a little before the e lection of San ], under whose successor, David, the Edomi tes w erebrought un der subjection to Israel .

1 852 ] The Rephaim.

Meanwhile, the destruction and dissolution of the paren tShethite race had brought the Ken ite bran ch to so low and

secon dary a position before the flouri shing and in creasing raceof E dom, as to b e no longer regarded as a separate nation .

Already as early as the close of M oses’ career we find themsun k by name among the M idian i tes . We hear of them nomore un til Saul’ s attack on the Amalekites, which reveals to usa small isolated remnant of this ancient race still ab idin g in thelan d, keeping aloof from the E berite race and its governmen t,cleavin g to thei r own kindred, an d dwelling in the cities of

Amalek . It was reserved for David,the Star descen ded from

the patriarch Jacob,the Sceptre ruling over the m ixed comma

n ity of Israel,— to wound the power of those claim ing descentfrom the patriarch M oab

,and to crush for ever the last residue

of the Shethite commun ity, to whose evil influen ce the turhulen ce and disaffection of Moab an d E dom were main ly due .

Moab became tributary to David (2 Sa . viii . The E domitemon archy was overturn ed

,Israelite garrison s were placed in it s

strong cities, an d Se ir became the domain of his foe .

”(2 Sa .

viii . 1 3,

Thus was the prediction of Balaam accomplished, and theprom ise vouchsafed to Abraham fulfilled . The l im its of the

kingdom of Israel at last included all the lan ds of the R ephaim,

an d of the ir Aramean and E b erite tributaries, from Carchem ishan d Damascus, to E lath an d the frontier ofPelesheth ; an d the

dom in ion of Abraham ’ s de scen dan t, Solom on, exten ded “ fromthe river of Mizraim to the great river, the river Euphrates .

”

CHAPTER XII.

The Amalekites.

The Amalekite branch of Balak ’ s people occupied the labyrin thin e strongholds ofthe great S in ai tic de sert . By this we mayj udge how effectually the ir detached commun ities which dottedthe few green spots scattered over this inhospitable pen in sula,placed the lan d ofEgypt within the power of the ir allies whileconversely, they were a barrier of protection to their kin dredagain st E gypt ; sin ce no army from that lan d could cross their

groun d wi thout the ir good will .We must n o t measure the power an d prosperity of the an

cient Am alek by the mi serable con dition of the wanderingArabtribes n ow dwell in g in the desert . That land yiel ds l ittle to an

isolated people depending on its produce for subsistence . But

36 The Rephaim. [April,

the Amalekites of old were an outlying bran ch of a n ation whoowned the ri chest an d most fertile regions of Palestine . Placedo n the frontier as the sentin e ls of the whole nation, an d in constant commun ication with them,

the Amalekites could want fornothin g which their brethren we re n ot able to supply, in returnfor the protection their de sert- station s afforded, both to thei rm ilitary an d comm ercial en terprise .

But as the parent nation sank, the Amalekite branch declin ed . As their power failed by the dispersion of their kindredin Palestin e, they became j ealous and suspicious ; and in thisframe of m ind wan tonly attacked the Israelite s as they werepassin g through the Amalekite settlement of Rephidim

,to re

j oin their M idianite brethren in faith“ The Hebrews neverforgave thi s act of aggre ssion . For M oses, i n D en t . xxv . 1 7

'

19,solemn ly records the inj ury, and the inj unction to avenge i t

Remember what Amalek did unto thee on the way,

-when yecame forth from Egypt ; how he encountered thee on the wayan d smote in thy rear all the feeble behind thee, when thouwast faint an d weary ; and he feared not God . Therefore, i tshall b e when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from allthin e en em ies around thee, in the land the Lord thy God giveththee to possess as an in heritan ce, that thou shall blot out the

remembrance of Am alek from under heaven . Forge t i t not l”

During the period of the Judges, when the Amalekite s appear as open en em ies of Israel

,i t i s always in alliance with the

children ofAmmon, who act as partisans ofthe ancient Rephaim,

or with the Philistin es, partisan s of their outcast An akim kindred . The group of foes is further swelled by the children ofthe E ast, an d the M oabite, Ishmae lite, an d M idian ite allies of

the dispossessed Shittim,whose cause they e spouse . It seemed

therefore a political measure necessary to the peace of Israel,

that such dangerous neighbours as the fierce and reckless raceof Amalek should b e subdued at a blow. Samuel accordinglyurged Saul to attack them o n the groun d of the old n ational

grudge . The d istin ction made between the Amalekites an d theremnan t of thei r Ken ite kin dred, o n that occasion, i s in terestingto record : the latter, who had allowed the homeless Hebrewwan derers to dwell o n thei r borders thirty-eight years unmo

lested, were specially exempted from the destruction preparedfo r thei r brethren . Saul said to the Ken ites

,Go

,depart ; get

you down from among the Am alekites, lost I destroy you w iththem ; for ye shewed kindn ess to all the children o f I srae l whenthe y cam e fo rth from Egypt . So the Ken i tes departed fromamon g the Amaleki tes . An d Saul smote the Amalekites

,from

l lavilah un til thou come st to Shur which is before Egypt . l l e

1 The Rephaim .

took Agag the king of Amalek alive, and utterly destroyed all

the people with the edge of the sword .

”(1 Sam . xv . 6

Notwithstan ding the frien dly countenance of their Eb eriteterritorial successors

,the great bond of un ity in action, con sti

tuting the power of the Rapha nations, had been irrecoverablybroken by the dispersion of the an cient race and the ir powerto help each other was likewise broken . The Amalekites, bereftof the support from without formerly derived from thei r wealth ierbrethren

,and cast for supplie s on the scanty resources of thei r

desert-home, had dwindled away to the obscure position of ani solated nomadic tr00p . The m i serable remnant that e scapedthe destructive onset of San ], are men tioned as havin g fled toM ount Seir

,where they were exterm inated by a band of Simeon

ites,in the time of Hezekiah .

After this,we should not know from history that an in di

vidual of the race rem ained,were it n ot for the curious accoun t

of the Arabians of Jenysus given by Herodotus ; in whose customs, worship, an d costume

,we are compelled to recognize an

i solated troop of this most ancient race, too few to b e called anation whose only security

,in thei r desert-home, was the po

verty of the land , the barrenness of its impracticable passes,that other nations m ade a highway for thei r own enterprise an d

wealth,But even while we suspect the existence of this smal l

degraded remnant as yet extant in the time of Cambyses, thei rname i s lost it i s sunk in the general denomination of Arabians,

”—the m ixed people .

”

Thus effectually was the remembrance of Amalek blottedout from under heaven Thus did this once powerful tribethe first of the nations originally inhabiting that landperish for ever under the han d of Israel, even as the Ammoniteprophet had foretold .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

2 The Repha im . [Aprih

dan t population,as i s shewn by the n umerous former sites n ow

in ruin s an d leve l wi th the groun d .

”

It thus appears that the Rephaim of southern Palestin e hadearly e stablished them selves in the choicest part of the coun tryand took care to protect thei r possession s by dwel ling in stron glyfortified cities

,which occupied the most comman ding posit ion s .

The high an tiquity of the ir settlemen t m ay b e gathered fromthe in ciden tal n otice of M oses

,that Hebron

,the city of Arba,

where Abraham lived,died

,and is buried

,

“ was built sevenyears before Zoan ”—the cap ital of t he Del ta

,an d on e of the

m ost an cien t citie s in Lower Egypt . (Nu . xiii .The claim of the An akim to b e classed am ong the R ephaim

n ation s is indisputable . They are distin ctly referred to thatstock by Moses

,in hi s referen ce to thei r Em im kin dred, in

D en t . i i . 1 1 :“ A great, n um erous

,and haughty people, l ike

the An akim who were also accoun ted Rephaim,l ike the

Anakim . An d sin ce the eviden ce that the Rephaim n ation sbeyon d Jordan were not Can aan ites is so posi tive, the factthereby establ i shed n ecessarily proves that the An akim , beingRephaim by origin , could n o t have been Can aan i tes e ither .Nevertheless

,the ethn ographical position of the An akim

has often been m iscon ce ived, l ike that of the Rephaim of Bashan

,an d much on the same groun ds . It will

,therefore

,be

n ecessary to the complete rectification of thi s error,that we

should en ter in to a more critical exam in ation of it s origin an d

that,at the same time

,we should define

,as clearly as the in

direct in timation s afforded by Scripture will j ustify it, the relat ive position s of the An akim an d the Canaan i tes . Numerousen ough are the hin ts and casual allusion s dissemin ated throughout t he carly Bible history

,relating to this an cien t people, an d

from which a gen eral idea o f the ir polit ical exten sion an d co n

d ition m ay he arrived at . The ord in ary reader, with his m in dben t on the progress of Israe l which forms the immediate sub

j cet o f the Bible records,an d who merely walks over the beaten

groun d of this surface -history,i s very liable to disregard the

substratum o f collateral history he n ow an d then lights upon inh is course ; a substratum fraught w i th the re l ics of a prim evalsocial world

,cro pping o ut from below in isolated patches, an d

te ll ing a tale ful l of m ean in g to the curious in vestigator whom ay b e patien t en ough to explore them,

an d to hun t up thetraces of the ir con tin ui ty .

l lcb ro n,o r Kiriath -Arb it

,chief ci ty o f the An akim ,

is some

tim e s alluded t o in the Bible histo ry as be ing in the lan d of

C an aan . Whe the r the in sulated posi tion o f the An akim citiesamo ng the Amorite childre n o f l l e th is :1 fact sullic icn t by i tse lf

18 52 ] The Replcaim . 73

to explain such reference s as a mere geographical ge n erali zation ,or whether, in the origin , the whole of the l an d occupied by theAn akim really had been Can aan ite territory, of which the Rephaim had obtain ed possession

,an d which they re tain ed by

thei r superior power an d political discipline, con sti tutes a separate question which we will also examin e

,but which does n o t

affect the o n e n ow un der con sideration ; as in neither of thesetwo cases would the geographical statemen t, that Hebron is inthe lan d of Can aan

,necessarily draw after i t the very illogical

ethn ographical con sequen ce , that, because some C an aanites dwel tabout Hebron

,all the people of Hebron—even those who were

m asters of the city— were Canaan ites .

The children of An ak an d the Amorites were eviden tly co

residen ts in southern Judea . The Amorites n o t on ly had manytown s of thei r own o n the western sides of the moun tain

,bu t

they also appear t o have formed n o in con siderable part of th e

population in the ci ties on the eastern side,which the An akim

he ld . E ach of these Amorite depen den t commun ities had itslocal chieftain

,or melek

,—a title gen erally tran slated Icing .

There is no reason to believe that these chiefs were on a differen t footing among thei r older An akim rulers

,than we see

the ir descen dan ts un der the i r subsequen t H ebrew rulers . In

the time of the Judges, we fi n d “ Hamor, the father of She

ehem,

” retain ing his hereditary title an d sovereign ty over hi sown clan ; an d the Shechemites are even d ivided in thei r in elination whether to serve him or the j udge of the dom inan tHebrew race (Jud . ix . Later still

,when the Can aan i tes

paid tribute of bon d-service to Solomon ,

”we fi n d the kings

of the H itt ites,

as well as those of the Aramites, engaged athe Jewish sovereign

’s m erchan ts to brin g chariots of valuab le

out of Egypt . (Comp . 1 Kin gs vii i . 20, 2 1 ; an d x . 28,

An d yet l ater, w e fi n d them alluded to as liable to b e hired as

m ercen aries again st Aram by the Israe l ite king. (2 Kings vii .The part taken by the Amorites, in the wars of the Emim ,

t he An akim,an d the Philistin es against Egypt, also presen ts

them in the sam e subordin ate position ; while the statemen t ofScripture history bears o ut the same con clusion by expre sslyrepresen tin g the Phil istin es as rulers over fi ve chief Can aan itecities . In t he con test between the Israel ites an d the Philistin eswhich follows the con quest

,i t is equally apparen t that, al though

the Amorites of western Judea are the stan ding population ,the

Philistines are masters of every importan t post in the lan d ; an dwhen Samue l had subdued the Philistin es, an d recovered the

l in e of fron tier from Ekron to G ath , the accoun t wi nds up w i ththere was peace betwee n I srael an d the Amo rites alth ough

l The Rephaim. [July,

the Amorites had n o t been heard of whilst the st ruggle wasraging ; which even leave s it doubtful whether they had born eany part at all in i t

,while the Philistin es were conten ding w ith

Israe l for lordship over the western Amorite territory,— o r

whether they had fought for an d un der the Philistin es,and

w ithout them had not even power of peace an d war o n thei rown soil . From these in dication s, we may gather that, whetheras aborigin es overpowered by a stron ger people, l ike the Amori te s of Pelesheth , or whether as tolerated settlers

,like the

Amorite s of Shittim ,thei r political status was altogether sub

ordin ate . The kings, or heads of tribes, appear to have enj oyeda con siderable amoun t of local authority over the ir clan s, an d

of civi l independen ce in the management of their intern al concern s ; but subject to a certain degree of political depen dan ceo n the far more powerful race who garrisoned the chief citadel si n thei r lan d .

There i s no direct intimation of the ir having paid tribute of

person al service o r of property but as this was usually exactedby the overruling power, according to the law of n ation s o f

those time s,it i s exceedingly probab le that they did, sin ce they

are found under such a tri bute to the ir subsequent Israel itesubjugators .Such be ing the relative positions of two people who have

been so stran gely confoun ded with each other— the Amoritesand the Rephaim,

—we shall b e able to recon cile with ease cer

tain accoun ts in the book of Joshua,which would have presented

insuperable diffi culties,had these people been the same .

The local chiefs of the Amorites residing about Hebron andDebir

,are coun ted among the fi ve Amorite kings who combined

again st the Gibeonites in Joshua’s first campaign . O n this oc

casion,Joshua n ot on ly routed the ir forces an d slew the ir chiefs,

but he also smote,de stroyed

,and burn t Hebron an d her cities

,

an d Debir and her cities . And yet, six years after, when the

Canaan ites of the north have been subdued, and the lan d i sportion ed out among the Israelite tribes, we fi n d that Hebronor Kiriath-Arba

,an d Debir o r Kiriath -Sepher, were still stand

ing ; and that the children of An ak , Sheshai , Ahiman , an d

Talmai,hel d these cities ; that Caleb himself, as soon as he had

been form ally in vested with his territorial rights, comman dedthe special expedition by which Arba, in the portion of his iah eritan ce

,was take n an d that his n ephew

,O thn iel

,pe rformed

the n o less formidable feat of dislodging the An akim fromKiriath-Sepher, and capturing the ir city, for which he was rewarded w ith the hand ofCaleb ’

s daughter .I t is very apparen t that the Amorite quarte rs o f these cities,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

6 The Rephaim . [April

had already expelled all the An akim from H ebron,Debir

An ab,an d all thei r other cities,— an d there were non e

the land,except at Gaza, Gath , an d Ashdod ?

The in feren ce to which these circumstan ces poin t is m an ifestly this -that the Amorite town s an d commun i ties ofH ebronan d Debir

,ravaged by Joshua in the first year of the Can aan ite

war,m ust n o t b e con foun ded with the children of An ak an d

the “ citie s great and fen ced up to the skies” of Arba an d

Sepher, in which they had for a while securely en tren ched themselves . That they were in some sen se

'

distin ct places— the outertown

,and the fortified cen tral citadel, - an d that the i r relati ve

occupan ts were two distin ct people, is the on ly reason able expla

n ation of t he difficulty presen ted by the collation of the two

accoun ts . This explan ation arises qui te n aturally ‘ out of the

ascertain ed political relation of the in habitan ts,an d completely

d ismisses the supposition that the An akim in an y way belon gedto the Can aan ite stock .

The prephet ic denun ciation of the an cien t seer, that“Can aan

should b e servan t of servan ts to his own brethren ,”

fi rst , had lon gbeen workin g out its fulfilm en t

,when Israe l en tered the land

to accomplish the secon d stage of t he prophecy, by strikin g aton e blow the degraded Can aan a willing servan t at the feet ofShem . They had so long he ld the secondary place, that theywere u sed to the yoke . O n e effort was made to repel the invader on e hasty

,ill-organ i zed combination was attempted . It

proved unsuccessful ; they y ielded to a chan ge of masters, and

n ever sought to cast them off again . N o t so the Rephaimthey were of an other blood— of an other spirit . We have seen

two section s o f thi s in trepid race decimated an d ann ihilated,but never yielding a perman en t subm ission to the con queror .The popular saying so we ll kn own to Israel, Thou hast heard,Who can stand before the children of —could n o t havethus passed in to a proverb without a cause . Caleb kn ew, whenhe rece ived a n omin al authority over the lan d allotted to histribe

,that al though the Amorites of his district were ready to

bend an d serve, t he other haughty race that held its groun d inthe fortresses

,was not . He knew that he could on ly secure the

perman en t possession ofhis in heritan ce by capturing the stron gholds in which the Anakim had en tren ched the i r forces . Otherwise

,his posterity must on ly look forward to dwe ll ing 011 the

sam e terms as the Amorites had do n e before them . If weaker,they would b e treated as depen dan ts . I f strong enough to beteem ed rivals

,they would b e regarded as allies o r as fe es,

co rd i ng to the capricc o f the An akim rulers . The n ation thatwo uld n o t. b e subdued must be expelled from the land . Whe n

1 852 ] The Rephaim . 7 7

the Can aan ite population had been brought un der con trol , spe

c ial expedi tion s were framed again st the An akim ,un der the di

rection of Joshua ; those in which Caleb an d Othn iel took a prom inent part on the i r own behalf

,among the n um ber. By such

mean s, the lan d was fin ally cleared of those dangerous rivals .

The subordin ate position of the Canaan ites to the Rephaimbeing thus made out

,the collateral question

,—which race had

a prior claim to the land they join tly occupied —becomes apoin t of secondary con sequen ce . The indirect eviden ce of Scripture i s divided on both sides of thi s question . In such a case

,

a can did historian is boun d simply to state the matter as hefinds it ; an d not to give his own prepossessions as a j udgment,but to leave the reader to form his own decision from what eviden ce i s producible .

On behalf of the origin al Can aan ite claims upon ce n tralJudea

,i t may b e urged that this region is tacitly in cluded within

the geographical defin ition of the primi tive an d lawful boun daryassign ed by M oses to the Can aan ite race . If

,in this defin ition

,

the southern boundary is left unde scribed,it may be because

the l in e of desert between Sodom and Gaza formed a n aturallimi t easily un derstood . But it may b e also because the An akimsettlemen ts lay along the moun tain s that form the backbon e ofthe country ; so that those of the Can aan ites, as far as theyextended in the time of Moses

,could only have been described

by the two lin e s he draws : a weste rn lin e along the sea to Gaza ;an eastern lin e along the ban ks of the Jordan , from its sourcesat Lesha or D an

,to its fin al receptacle

,the Dead Sea. Never

theless,it must b e adm itted that every geographically descrip

tive referen ce to Hebron ,in Scripture

,is coupled with the

idea that the. lan d in which that city lay i s accoun ted to theCanaan ite .

This fact leaves it very probable that the cities ofthe R ephaimalluded to in Scripture as strongly fortified an d fen ced up tothe skies,

” were on ly a lin e of m ilitary outposts, in which theystation ed the garrison s that m ain tained the ir mastery over thecountry

,and kept up a lin e of comm un ication with L owe r

Egypt more direct than the tedious and circuitous route by theWady Arabah and the Sin ai tic desert . I t may b e that theC an aan ite tribes formed the origin al po pulation of this cen tralmountain tract

,- a pastoral

,industrious, un ambitious people

who had yielded themselves, while they were as ye t few in

n umbers,to the superior power an d disciplin e of the kin dred

Ham i te race that erected its fortresses an d plan ted its dom in ionalong the heart o f thei r lan d . It may b e that the An akim thuslorded it over the aborigi nal population ,

as the Phil ist in e bran ch

8 The Rephaim . [July,

of the same n ation subsequen tly spread its power over thew estern district

,which is also accoun ted to the Can aan ite .

But o n the other hand,it is equally probable that the two

national settlemen t s were coeval ; that by the time the jun iorCanaanites families had spread themselves abroad so far as toreach thei r utm ost southward limits

,the Rephaim had already

laid the foun dation of their supremacy by building their walledcities in the stron gest position s among the moun tain s, leavingthe Can aan i tes to con stitute the stan ding population of the

lan d, b ut on ly as suburban s un der the ir control, though theyclaimed no territorial right in the lan d, as a paternal in heritance,beyon d the imm ediate circuit of the ir cities .

We have n o t even an y direct scriptural authority for defin ingthe utmost n orthward l im its of t he territory thus occupied bythe children of An ak . The most an cien t records of the humanrace on ly hin t at thei r en d — se utterly lost is the ir begin ningi n the gloom of a recordless primeval antiquity . The accoun tof thei r expulsion m erely intimates that they were cut off fromthe ir strongholds, in

“ all the moun tain s of Judah” an d “ allthe moun tain s of Israel . But this certain ly en titles us tobelieve that, up to the t ime of Joshua

,they stil l had possession s

beyond the lot of Judah,al though the three cities of Hebron ,

An ab, and Debir are the only ones mentioned by name as belonging to them .

There i s,however

,definite authority for tracing them as far

n orth as Bethel,un der circumstan ces that even rather appear

to tell in favour of the ir priority of settlement . When Abrahamfirst crossed the Jordan

,an d arrived near “

the place of Sheehem

,

”it i s remarked that “

the Can aan ite was then in thelan d as though the presence of C an aan ites in that n eighbourhood was something n ew (G en . xii . M oreover the peculiarlocution

, the place of Shechem,

” and the fact, that this placewas actually a grove at the time the grove of Moreh, —wouldsuggest that the city was not yet built . When Abraham re

turn ed to his first resting place, which he called Bethe l, afterhis j ourn ey to Egypt, he found the Canaan ite an d the Peri zzitethen dwelling (or settled) in that land (G en . xiii . 3 Theseparen thetical remarks look very much as if the H ivites and

l ’erizzites were at that time quite n ew- comers in the vicin ity of

Bethel and M oun t Ephraim .

Five cen turies afterwards,we fi n d the Ephraimites of the

Bethe l district complain ing to Joshua ! that thei r lan d was iii

4 Jo sh . xv i i . 1 1 , 1 5 . In this passage , as in the ne x t quo ted, Jo sh . x v . 8 , the

geog raphi cal and histo r ica l value of these no tices is d isguised in the common ve rsion

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

10 The R ephaim . [April ,

o f the lin e along which the domain s of the Rephaim are traceable

,is

, per se,stron g eviden ce that the metropolis ofPalestin e

origin ally claimed them as its masters .

The few fragmen ts of M an etho’ s history which have beenhan ded down to us by his copists— though 1 11 so garbled a form ,

through thei 1 own precon ce ived m isapprehen sion s of his statem en ts

,as to look mo 1 e like fable than the valuable historical

truths they really are,—these mutilated fragmen ts con tain refer

emees which, by implication ,leave no doubt upon the m atter

that Shalem was on ce the great m etropoli s of the shepherd-kings .

In relating the expulsion of the Hyksos by Amo sis, M an ethosays that they marched into the coun try now called Judca,where they built a city large en ough to con tain so great a mul

t itude,and called it Jerusalem f H e afterwards represen ts the

shepherds of Goshen ,who re volted from Am en ophis (Men eph

tah,son of Ram eses as sen ding an embassy to that city for

assistan ce, as though it were w el l kn own as the head-quarters ofthe governm en t . The an achron ism of con foun d in g the returnof the expell ed shepherd rulers to thei r own m etropolis, with i tsorigin al foun dation , may b e excused in the Egyptian historianwho wrote n early fifteen cen turies after the even t, with n othingto guide him as to the personal history of the in im ical nation sbut remote an d imperfect traditions . The actual existence of

Shalem at the time of Abraham ’ s victory,m ore than a cen tury

before the expulsion of the shepherds from Lower Egypt, issufficien t proof that

,in this respect

,M an etho was m i staken .

Nevertheless, the error i tself v irtually implies that the city waskn own as having be longed to that people . This in deed, amongother circumstan ces

,may have m i sled Josephus in to confound

ing the exode of the shepherds in the reign of Amo sis, at thebeginning of the e ighteenth dyn asty, with that of his own peopleduring the reign ofM en eph tah, n ear the close of the n in eteen th .

It m ay also have beguiled him in to his clum sy attempt at ident ifying the prin cipal actors in great political revolution s of

Egypt, with his own forefathers, whose part in them,as far as

we can gather from what he quotes verbatim from M anetho,amoun ted to nothing more than an un successful en deavour tofree themse lves from an unj ustifiable bondage , by j oin ing the

oppressed captive race of Lowe r Egypt who revol ted again stM en ephtah . For it appears that e ve r sin ce the accession o f the

n in e tee n th dyn asty,when the wars wi th the people of Palestin e

b roke out again un der Seti-M en cphtah I.

,the Hebrew n atio n

had been i n volved in the servitude to which the indigen ous

f Jo sephus , Won /rd Apinh em , l . i . , e . 1 4.

1 852 ] The Rephaim . 14 8/

tribe s of Goshen were subjected as a conquered pe o ple , incommon with the remn an t of the i r Hyksos abe ttors .

Another remarkab le in stan ce of eviden ce by implication ,

that the great metropolis of the Shepherd race of Palestin e wassituated in the ir provin ce of An ak

,i s foun d in M an etho ’ s d y

n astic lists . H e calls the fifteen th dyn asty of “ foreign kin gs whoalso took Memphis

,

”P hazn ieians . I shall have to in stan ce other

con firmations besides the presen t case of Bochart’s importan t

suggestion , t hat the Greek form é owmee i s derived from the

Hebrew par, 6N x—read accordin g to the primary value of the

le tters without the poin ts—and w i th p (the Egyptian article )prefixed T -OLVLIC-GQ i s exactly equivalent

,verbally an d gramma

tically, to a rm-n the Onkites

, o r Anakim . For the presen t, wemay safely adm i t the resemblan ce ofform

,an d the con sequen t

e tymological in feren ce , that, from the exten sive influen ce thi spowerful nation obtain ed over the whole land of Palestin e, its

people collective ly became kn own to subsequent gen eration s asthe O nk ites or Phoen ician s, without distin ction of race ; an d

then , by a further extension of the same idea,the nam e of

Phoen i cia became the Greek equivalen t ofCan aan,or— to speak

more correctly—a con ventional geographical substitute for theHebrew patronym i c .

N ow although M anetho call s these six kings of the fifteen thdyn asty P hcen icians, as com in g from the land of 6NK or An ak

,

because the ir chief royal city was Shalem in the provin ce of

An ak,it is n evertheless man ifest

,by his historical n arrative , that

they were of the Royal Shepherds—Hyksos—or chief tribe ofthe Zuzim

,whose particular provin ce was Bashan for the n ames

of these kin gs in the li sts, an d duration of the i r reign s, sub

stan t ially correspon d to the nam es quoted in the detailed accoun textracted by Josephus from his history

,of the won derful man

n er in which they gain ed a footing in Lower Egy pt, withoutfighting the ready subm ission of the population , an d the i r finale lection of a king from among the ir race, who e stablished h iscourt at Memphis . All this implies

,as clearly as historical

records can speak,that the sovereign chiefs of the e lder Shep

herd state—that of the Zuzim ,who were regarded by the other

tribes as the political an d m ili tary head of the ir n ation al co nfederacy, an d who took the lead in the con quest of Egypt—hadfixed the seat of the ir governmen t in the most cen tral poin t oftheir extensive domain s

,which was Shalem in the provin ce of

An ak .

The part taken by the king of Shalem,when the allied

Asiatic kings who had invaded the Rephaim were suddenly discomfi t ed by Abraham ’

s well -directed expedition ,is an other

1 2 The Rephaim. [July,

in stance poin ting to the same conclusion . F or had this kingpriest b een n o greater a personage than the local chief of theparticular tribe of Rephaim called An akim,

there are no suffi

cien t grounds apparen t in the historical account of the tran saction in G en . x iv.

,why he should be presen ted w ith a ten th of

the spoils which the enemy had taken from an other tribe of

Rephaim called Em im,and which Abraham had rescued an d

restored to them ; n either can we satisfactorily make out whythe king of Shalem should rece ive this ten th so eviden tly as aright con ceded by the Emim chief of Sodom . But the momentthe importan t fact comes in by way of explan ation

,supported

by sufficient extrinsic ev iden ce, that the kin g of Shalem was thesupreme chief of the en tire n ation

,and the local chiefs of tribes

were his subordin ates,the whole transaction becomes perfectly

intelligible, because we understand the mutual relation of all

the partie s concern ed in it . As feudal lord of the lan d in whichAbraham had settled

,Abraham paid him this tribute . As head

of the n ational body to which the Em im belonged, the chief ofthe Em im san ctioned it . As head of the state in rel igious aswell as in temporal con cern s, accordin g to the prim itive pat riarchal order

,M elchizedek rece ived the tribute, both as a

votive offering of gratitude from the givers for the rescue of the

goods, and as an acknowledgmen t of his lordship over the goodsrescued .

Beside s these numerous tokens that Shalem was the metropolis of the whole nation

,and n ot of the children ofAnak only,

we have a direct intimation to the same effect in some occasion alreferen ces to Hebron , which indicate that city as the metropolisof the Anakim . For in stan ce (Josh . xiv . 1 5)

“ The n ame of

Hebron, formerly, was the city of Arba,he who is the great

m an of the Anakim a primitive and very expressive equiva

lent for the chieftain of the tribe . It further appears that thi sdignitary bore the name of his city as a title of supremacy ; forwe have again , in Josh . xv . 1 3,

“ The city of Arba the father ofthe An ak itc

, this is Hebron .

”The primeval city

,or rather

citadel, seems to have been the true city of Arba, the origin alfoundation ; an d the local n ame, Hebron , (the confederacy) mayhave been subsequen tly given to the collective group of thiscitadel an d i ts Amorite suburb—all that was included withinthe outer wall . Both names

,however, are more ancient than

17 N17! 511 33 The great man amo ng the Anak im is he .

” The

commo n t rans latio n (which Arba) was a great man among the Anak im , is a m isinterpre ta t io n ; which Arba is n o t in the tex t ; the emphat ic pro noun o f actualex isten ce , mmhe is, canno t b e ren de red by a past tense , and the defi n i te article 71 precedes D an the man .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 4 T he Rephaim .

for the appearan ce of both these people on the same m on um ents, un der the n ames of PULSA '

TA an d B B Q,as engaged in the

sam e wars,whether for or again st Egypt, prove s at least that

they must have been n ear n eighbours .

The earliest m en tion of the m etropol is of An ak on men umen ts

,occurs in the tim e of Ram eses II .

,in the expedition

against the Shethite Rephaim already referred to, when we m eetwith its local name

,CH E R B U r -Hebron ,

in the explan atory inscription s ; RB O= Arbf1 , also occurs in the legen d affixed to thebody of the chief drown ed before ATE SH, as a prefix to hisproper n am e . The captive s of this people are distin ctly recogn izab le by thei r remarkable costume .

The n ame of an other city of the Anakim ,called ram

, an d

sometimes TAH ‘ N or TAH ’

N'

NU,appears on the monum ents at a

mu ch earlier period,an d more frequen tly

,than the former . It s

radical Egyptian form ,TAH I

,exactly corresponds to the radical

H ebrew form an! I TA H,which

,with the poin ts, is read Iut tah .

The site i s sti ll extan t by name in Y uttd, a village abou t sevenm iles south of Hebron

,o n the border of the desert of Judea .

Iut tah was on e of the Levitical cities .

The costume of the TAH‘

N‘

NU people is already a strongproof that this was their fortress ; for even i f we had n o t foun da si te near n ae

,correspondin g to the ir n am e

,the re sem b lan ce

of the ir costum e to that of the R 130 people would have sufficedto point them out as a tribe of An akim .

But there i s an other remarkable ci rcum stance which , if itwould b e of l ittle value by itself, cannot b e overlooked whenadded to thi s double correspon den ce of locali ty an d costume . Ihave already had occasion to notice how the two syn onym s o fthe same city

,Arba an d Hebron , are ren dered in to Greek by

t he Alexan drian tran slators of the Bible in a man n er moreclosel y resembling the Egyptian version s of those n ames, thanthe pron un ciation assign ed to them by the modern po in tedHebrew text ; viz .

,n no

,rm an d C H E B RU pu n X eBpwv.

In the fi rst n ame,they ren der the true primary vocal powe r of

the final guttural r ; in the secon d,they , l ike the Egyptian , give

a st rong aspirated guttural power to the in itial mi

N ew in the Sep tuagin t versio n of my I tah (Iut tah) , the

re sul t of a sim ilar comparison is still more remarkable . Theyseem to have pu rpo se ly go n e o u t o f t he way o f the Hebrew

In an o the r n ame, l le shb o n parry

—whe re the sam e le tte r has o n l y a vo we lpowe r , w i th a very sl ight aspi rat io n abso rbed by the n ex t rad ical , an d the Egypt ianS l l E B

'

T’

U N do es n o t e xpre ss i t ; the Septuag i n t l ik ew i se d isregard i t , and have n o t

e ven g i ve n the s ign o faspi rat io n t o the i n i t ia l , ’

l£rrrBwu. Pto lemy t he same ,—~in his

fo rm ,

’BaBo u‘

ra .

1 852 ] The Rephaim . if,

radical form,by making additions to it

,in so poin ted a man n er

as to suggest a suspicion that, up to the i r time,popular tradit ion

,

in‘

Egypt, m igh t yet have han ded down a remembran ce of thetrue situation of the lan ds on ce ten an ted by her en emies

,an d

that they availed themselve s of the kn owledge . F o r Iuttah is

on ly men tion ed twice in the Bible ; in the first in stan ce thatoccurs

,the l ist of Judean cities

,Josh . xv . 55, they ren der i t

like the Egyptian composite form TAH 'N ; an d in the

secon d in stance,the list of Levitical cities (Josh . xxi . they

lm itate the peculiarly idiomatic Egyptian form TAH'

N’

N U,by

ren dering i t Tam) .From its having been made a Levitical city, we m ight con

clude that Iut tah was form erly a place of con sequen ce . Its

promin en t posit ion on the border of the desert,facin g the e n

tran ce in to the vale ofE shcol,so as to shelter An ab

,Debir

,an d

all the southern citie s of the valley,must have made it a po st of

great importan ce to the children of An ak an d being the firstof the ir cities o n the lin e of march towards Hebron

,it was

necessarily the first fron tier-fortress that an en emy en teringfrom the south would attack . Accordingly, in case of invasion ,the whole force of the n ation would b e con cen trated o n thatcritical poin t . Iut tah was therefore the scen e of frequen t en

gagemen ts . E very Egyptian con queror who has any sculpturedm emorials of his prowess to boast of

,has recorded a victory

over the TAH'

N'

NU as o n e of his greatest triumphs .

The statistical table t of Karnak/ o n e of the most ancientsystem atic records of Egyptian con quest extan t, in troduces theAn akim who garrison ed the fortress of Iut tah, at the veryopen ing of the li st

In the twenty-n inth year, then his majesty (was in the land of TAH I )ab out to molest all the ab ominab le lands in it in the fifth expedition wi thhis force ; then the fortress of the UA '

UA'k was captured by his majesty

those who were the good, surroun ding his majesty , did all as

appointed , and his majesty wen t to the treasn iy of offering and receivedthe pure and good things of (name lost) with bulls and steers and

waterfowl brough t by the descendan ts of the vanquished of thatland, one chief of the fort , 329men , 100 ingo ts of gold , t in copper,and vases of brass and iron . Then was the loading of the shipsall o ther good things as his majesty wen t o n his re turn towards lilgypt

in triumph : after that his majesty sacked the fort of the ARD'

T U

of its corn , and smo te all its arms : after that his majesty wen t to the

j From M r. Bi rch ’ s d isse rtation ; Trans . R . S. of L itera ture , vol i i . , 2ud series .

5“ The Egyptian s o ften do ub le m ono sy l lab ic n ames . This , l ike the x su , mus tn o t b e con founded w i th a n egro people of a sim i lar name . A U is also fo und in the

Asiatic series o f the l ist of Se ti-M en eph tah at Karnak .

1 6 The Rephaim . [July,

lan d of T U i I in tr .iumph thei1 fi ne wine in their waterswise their corn of navigating thei1 waters, thei1 infinite .

for bread of offering honey 6428 measm es of wine, (metals) 61 8 bulls,3636 g ,

oats l bread,corn ,

flom .

Although a name an d several words are m i ssing in the

above first lin e of this valuable memorial,it is suffi cien tly ia

t elligible to yield several con firmation s of the identity ofIut tah

with the TA H I there in referred to .

Firstly,we n eed on ly look at a map of Palestine to see that

the AR D '

TU an d UA ‘ UA collocated with TAH I both fi n d thei r corresponden ts in the Can aanite city Arad, very near Iut tah, andin the u r

n; Avvim of the south -country,neighbours of the Phi

listines (Josh . xiii . 3) whose district, according to Moses (D en t .

i i . had been se ized by the Caphtorim who came forth fromCaphtor— the shepherds expelled from the Del ta

,who esta

b lished them selves near the Philistin e s in the Goshen of Judea .

Secon dly, the produce of the land,as de scribed by Dr . E .

Robin son (quoted in the begin ning of this chapter) , agree sequally well with the rich booty of corn an d fi ne wine carriedo ff by the victoriou s Egyptian s . Kiriath-Anab

, the city of

An ak in the vale of E shcol,covered by this very fortress of

Iuttah,i s literally “

the city of grapes ; an d the vale itselfrece ived its name from the luxurian ce of the sample-clustersbrought back by the spies (Nu . xii i .Between the decisive con quests of Thothmes III . and the

close of the eighteenth dyn asty, the historical monumen ts ofEgypt merely affirm from time to time the tributary state of afew among the in im ical tribes, but relate no fresh vi ctories, andall mem orial s of the kin d disappear prior to the close of thatdyn asty .

The course of active warfare begins again with the n in eteen th dynasty

,after Seti-M e n ephtah had again driven the

SHAS ‘ U from Pe lusium . This time,hostilities do n o t cease from

re ign to reign, un til the enemie s of Egypt have been extermi

n at ed . The children o f An ak were n o t inactive i n the lastdeadly struggle . O n the con trary

,while

,from the i r geogra

ph ical position ,they were sure to b e the first attacked

,the

Egyptian an n als con cur with Scripture in testifying that theywe re the last to yield . O n e of the earliest triumphs of S etiM cn cph tah was a signal victory ove r the TA l l

'

N‘

N U ; a cast o ft he battle-scen e is hung above the stai rcase leading to the gallery o f an tiquities , in the B ritish M useum . A long train o f

captives, and a rich array of spoils,we re presen ted by the

This i tem ind icates a m o un taino us co un t ry .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 8 The Rephaim . [July,

the An akim territory . But the n am e of the nation itself i s offrequen t occurrence, whether in m em orial s of conquest or i ntributary lists, durin g the whole period of the warfare . The

n ame which heads the Asiatic series in the great list of SetiM en ephtah at Karnak (vide Onomasticon, plate, col . v .

,fig. 27)

i s the full group which stan ds for the land of the Anakimthough it i s oftener written with the last character of that grouponly . The full group reads : M NA

‘

T'

U Nm land of the shep

herds of>l< >l< I here express with if that last character

,the

figure of a neck -collar or bracelet . It i s n ot a letter,but an

ideagraph, the sound of which has n ot yet been determin ed,though its sense, when i t occurs alone, as a n ame, is generallytaken to denote the hitherto unknown land of the shepherds,from its following in the presen t group a series of phoneti ccharacters which have that sign ification . O n thi s account ithas been assumed to b e on ly the determinative”of that group .

But in the progress of this enquiry,I have foun d reason to

believe that thi s i s only a part of the truth . The followingdecisive facts will help us to attain the whole . They contain i nthem selve s such a clear in dication of the particular land the

unkn own character stan ds for, that thi s e ssential poin t,once

obtain ed,may perhaps in its turn give us a clue to the true

reading of the character .

In the first place,the proof that this character den otes geo

graphically Southern Judea the land once belonging tothe An akim,

i s, that in the l ist of the conquests of Shishak, at

Karn ak,° i t den otes the lan d in vaded by that monarch whenhe wen t up against the king of Judah . N ow we know fromthe Bible that the domain s of Rehoboam were the lands of

Judah an d Benjam in ; an d al so,that Shi shak pen etrated as far

as Jerusalem,from whence

,according to the custom ofEgyptian

con querors, he carried off as spoils the treasure s of the houseo f the Lord, an d of the king

’ s house .

”(1 Kings xiv . In

the i r memorial, the Egyptian s have n o t changed the n ame of

the lan d, though it had fallen under the rule of a differen t

m V i de for this group Onomas ticon , co l . v . , fig . 27, An ak im group.

n An explanation o f th is te rm may b e o f use to tho se who are n o t fam iliar w i ththe pecu l iar i t ies o f Egypt ian w ri t ing . Egyptian prope r n ames are sometimes spe l twith lette rs , and sometimes w ri tten w i th sy l labic characters , o r w i th a sing le i deagraph i c characte r but in all cases, the grammatica l fo rmati ves o f gende r , n umber ,e tc . ,

are fo l lowed by a pecul iar symbo l by which we kn ow whe the r the n ame b e thato f a man , woman , go d , ch ie f, ho use , o r land . T his symbo l is cal led the d e t er

m in o tz’

ve sign . T he three m oun ta ins at the end o f the prope r names in the Onomas

l icon are the (let . 8 . o f a f ore ign land .

0 O n the south wal l ; he re , Champo l l io n read IU T A II'

M AL K , Kingdom of Judah ,in the list o f names . Ro sellin i , Mon . S/orici , pl . 1 48 .

The Rephaim . 13935"

people . That land is the hill -coun try of Judea,which belonged

to the Anakim, and geographically includes Jerusalem .

In the next place,that character den otes ethnographically

the lan d belonging to the people of which the B B Q,TAH

‘

N‘

NU,

M ASH U ASH,an d Philistin es were sections ; i . e.

,the lan d of the

An akim . There are several eviden ces of this . Firstly : i n thelong in scription (subsequently quoted) it form s the name in thegroup which stan d for the proper name of the lan d invaded byRameses in his first expeditionf

’an d this name is immediately

followed by the well -kn own group TAH‘

N'

NU as the particularlocality of the battle the n otices of this victory

,in the presen

t ation of captives, also state that the con test took place in theland of TAH rfl and the prisoners are the B B C . Secondly : in thewar which closed with the twelfth year ofhis reign , Rameses III .

,

when presenting long chain s of B B Q an d T‘

AKKAR‘

U captives toAmun -Ra

,is congratulated by the god for his victory over the

people whose name is written with that character—and the B B Q

of Arba are An akim .

In fact,these two tribe s

,the An akim an d the Philistines of

Scripture, or their subdivisions,are the on ly people ever men

t io n ed on Egyptian inscription s, as directly referable to an d

as form ing a part of the collective body implied by the n ame

for which that character stan ds . This quite tallies with i ts useto express the lan d in vaded by Shishak . The in feren ce fromthese in stances

,both of positive an d of negative evidence

,is

obvious that it i s not the lan d of the shepherd-races gen erally,but on ly that particular part of it occupied by the children ofAnak

,which i s the region expressed in Egyptian in scription s

an d memorials, e ither by the full group M NA'

T’

U N (neckcollar or bracelet figure) , or by that figure alon e with its appro

priate grammatical affixes . Its geographical an d ethn ographicalsense is the lan d o r

“ race of An ak — although the sound or

proper n ame it represen ts,may b e unk n own f

When the Egyptian s m ean t to express the land of the

P V i de the group 27, b , co l. v . , An ak im group, of the Onomasticon . The

characte r is the proper name w ri tten ideagraphically, fo l lowed by the s ign of gender ,

then the det . s . ofa race , a man and woman , w i th its plural sign , three strokes= u,

and the det . s. o f aforeiyn land . Lan d of the race (o r n ation ) of9 R o sellin i, Mon . Storici, pl . 135 .

7‘

The fo llow ing suggestion of its probable reading o ccu rred to me from the in

terpreta tion g iven in Chevalie r Bun sen ’

s vo cabulary o f the Egyptian wo rd arr/ca , to

clasp.

”The H ebrew roo t pm (in /c has the same radical sign ification , and its no un

den o tes a co llar or an o rnamen t of some k in d , that fasten s round the neck . Ac .

co rding to the gen ius of the Egyptian and H eb rew lan guages, the n ame of anyclasping obj ect de ri ved from this ro o t , whether a bracele t o r co l lar , wou l d b e calledan dn ic, and the figure of the o bj ect wo uld thus become an ideagraph to den o te the

name of a synon ymous reg io n ; as a th ron e (hes) w rites the n ame of I sis ; a hawk in13 2

20 The Rephaim . [July,

shepherd- people gen erally , or the shepherd -race collectively,without any particular referen ce to distinction s of district or

tribe, they employed an other epithet, the origin an d etym ologyofwhich are unkn own

,— the TEM AR 'U . This may b e regarded as

the Egyptian equivalen t to their Biblical n am e R ephaim .

’ Itoccurs frequen tly in the conquests of Rameses III .

,where i t

can have n o other sen se . In his first expedition,he is said to

have con quered all the land s of the TEM AH'

U ; but we find,by

the details of the conquest, that it include s Jerusalem ,besi de s

several Anakim and Philistine localities . Again ,when Ram e ses

was starting on his last expedition,Amun -Ra says he goes before

him “ to prepare his way in the lan ds of the TEMAH'

U yet on

his return we fin d amon g his trophie s an d memorial s of victory,

n ot on ly the name s of the Anakim an d Philistines,but also

those of all the other tribes of Rephaim and names of localitiesin thei r lands fi

The tombs of the Theban kings are embell ished wi th figures,which from thei r costumes an d epithets are eviden tly in ten dedto represen t the subj ects an d foreign vassals of the sovereign sdoing them homage . In that of Seti-M en eph tah, there are

four n at ion s, bearing the following epithets —1 . The B T ’

U“ the

race”— the Theban Egyptian s . 2 . The N AH S

'

U or“rebels

the aborigin al negroes of E thiopia,who were always revolting.

3 . The SHE M ‘ U “ Shemites”— the Aramites . The T EMAH

‘

U,

who here represent the Rephaim ,claimed as subj ects ofTheban

Egypt by right of con quest . The costume of the SHEM ‘ U,in

the se groups, i s the type of the Aramean Horite s and that ofthe T EMAH

’

U i s—even to the m inutest detail— that of the mou nmen tal R ED an d TAH

‘

N‘

N U . In i ts leading features, i t alsoresembles that of the SHE T '

TA ; an d a stil l m ore ancien t m emorial

,which will b e described in th e sequel , poin ts out that cos

tume as the original nation al costume of the Rephaim .

The Philistin es are so deeply in volved in the last struggle of

the An akim with Egypt, that, before we con clude our n otice ofthe fortun es an d fall of that remarkable people , it wil l be desi rable to trace out the ir primary con n exion with Pelesheth , so faras the l im ited m aterials furnished us by a few passing allusions

a square , the n ame of Hatho r , o r as we m ight w ri te Tar/coy ideagraphically, by afigure o f that b ird . I f this suggest io n we re adm iss i b le , we should have in Mane tho ’

s

Phoen i cian Shepherds ,” bo th a l i te ra l an d a grammat ica l equi va len t o f the h ie rog lyph ic gro up in Onomas ticon , fig . 27, co l . v . ; M N A

’

T'

U’

N KN KA, Pe ople o f the

shephe rd - land o fAn ka .

”M NA deno tes a shephe rd o r he rdsman .

8 In the expedi tio n o f Rameses again st the s u nr‘

ra , the two ambassado rs o fthe S IIAS

’

U who come to ten de r thc ir a l leg ian ce are sty led in Ro sellin i’

s ve rs io n ,

breth ren shephe rds o f the race M A uu'

r.

”This n ame seems a t ran spo sed fo rm o f

r M /m '

u .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

22 The Rephaim. [July,

the Amorites . N o room is therefore left for the Philistin es, butthe maritime district con necting the Delta w ith Can aan proper .

The ir extension in lan d be in g l im ited to the valley of Beersheba

,i s o ne circum stan ce poin tin g out the origin of thei r esta

b lishmen t for this valley is on ly a con tin uat ion of the vale ofE shcol through an open in g in the Judean hills

,an d i t exten ds

westward to the sea .

All the coun try in tersected by th is line ofwadys,an d further

east to the border of the naked moun tain -desert, is describedby recen t travellers as a vast tract of low undulating swell sclothed with luxuriant pastures . It was therefore adm i rablyadapted to the wan ts of a tribe whose chief wealth was cattle .

A corre spondin g description of this coun try occurs in 1 Chron .

i v . 39,40: They (the Simeon i te s) wen t to the entran ce o f

Gedor, eastward of the valley,to seek pasture for the ir flocks ;

and they found rich an d good pasture, an d the lan d was extensive

,quiet

,and at peace . But they of H am had form erly dwe lt

there .

”u

The Phili stine s of the Mosaic period are n ot altogether thesame people as those contemporan eous with Abraham . An im

portant accession to the ir numbers had accrued to them from akindred stock

, on the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt . A

great number of em igrants from the Delta were among the

number,and it seems that these established them selve s in the

pastoral region of the Avim,and subsequently extended them

selves northward,becom ing in timately blen ded with the Phil is

tin es . From that time, they are no more heard of as a separatenation, though the prophets, many centuries after, intimatethe ir subsequent conn exion with the Philistines, as a well-knownfact . Jeremiah says (chap . xlvii .

F or Jehovah ravageth the Pelishtim,

The remnant of the abode ofCaphtor.An d Am os likewise (chap . ix . 7) con siders the Philistin es as thedescendants of a people whose deliverance from political an n ihilation in Caphtor

,he place s in poetical parallelism with the

corresponding del iveran ce ofHebrews .

Have 1 no t brought up Israel from the land ofMizraim,

The Pelishtirn from Caphtor,and At om from Kir ? ”

Which is a palpable allusion to the great army of shepherdswho m arched out of Egypt after capitulating with Amo sis, an d

who established themse lves in Palestine . Those who belon ged

T hey o fHam,

i. a, the Amalek i tes , whom these Siin con itcs destro yed , and

pursued the remnan t in to Mo un t Se i r , whi the r they had fled .

The Rephaim. 513

to the Rephaim nation,returned to their tribe . Those ofLower

Egypt who accompanied them,settled in the south ; an d we sub

sequently fi n d the dist rict in which they settled bearing the

significan t n ame of Goshen .

With the addition of such a large body of warriors to the irformer numbers

,it i s n ot surprising that the Philistin es, whom

we saw,in the days of Abraham and Isaac

,an in con siderable

pastoral tribe,should have suddenly become sufficiently powerful

to take and retain possession of five Canaan ite prin cipalities onthe coast northward of Gerar so as to b e foun d

,in the time of

the Judge s, o n e of the most warlike and form idable nations ofPalestine, the terror an d scourge of the twe lve tribes of Israel .I apprehend that the offspring of this colony of expatriated

Caphtorim from Goshen , are the people alluded to un der the description of“

the children ofAnak descended from the nephilim,

”

in the report of the terrifi ed spies . This word,from the root

553 to fall,sink

,settle

,cast down

,etc .

,has been translated by

gian ts in our common version ,quite as in appropriately as

Rephaim .

”The associated reference to the stature of the

people may have beguiled the tran slators in to adm itting thism isinterpre tation of a term to the true sense of which they hadno historical clue . O n e secon dary sen se of the root be: is tosettle

,

” which some critics assign to it in G en . xxv . 1 8 : Ishmaelsettled in the presen ce of his Perhaps the idea inthe text we are an alyzin g may b e the same, an d the derivativenoun seg may mean one who is settled . I t is also l ike ly thatthis n oun

,which is of the perfect participial form , like th e cor

responding form e’

fcn'

efn'

rwlcws of the Greek radical n erIfall

,) may b e susceptible of a correspon ding extension ofmeaning inf., to fall out ; perf. part ., one who is cast out, an exile,refugee “? In order to in clude the ideas implied in both thesepossible derivations of an ambiguous root, we may venture totran slate i t by refugee, viz .,

a person cast out from on e place,settled in another . “We have also seen the refugees—the

ch ildren of Anak who come of the refugees : and we were inour own eyes as grasshoppers, and so were we in thei r eyesThis compoun d race be in g here called the children of

An ak,

” i s on e circum stance which poin ts to that bran ch of the

great Rapha stock as the parent of the prim itive Philistin e subtribe, rather than to the direct elder bran ch . This also agrees

0 O thers suppose i t to mean , he sank , fel l , i . c. , died so our autho rized version .

w Some in terpre ters assign to the sign ifi catio n ofrobbers, people who fa llupon

—assau l t—o thers . The grammatical fo rm is aga in st th is in te rpretat io n ; as, i fthat were its sen se , the fo rm would have been the presen t part icipial , w he n Nophlim .

24 The Rephaim. [July,

better with the geographical position of the ir earl iest knownsettlemen t

,which

,as I remarked before

,was n either m ore n or

less than a con tin uous line of commun ication kept up from the

pass that leads out of the vale of E schcol al ong the Wady-esSeb a

,an d through the an cien t station s Raphaea and Rhinocolura,

to Pelusium on the eastern fron tier of the Delta .

Another stil l stronger token that the Philistin es claimedorigin al affin ity to the tribe of Anak

,i s foun d in the peculiar

head dress of the nation . It con si sts of a helmet surmoun tedby a circular crown of tall upright feathers, precisely like thatcharacteristi c of the Egyptian goddess ANK, whose n ame

,in

Greek in scription s,is ren dered Avov/cts. This is the same

n am e as Onka,the Phoen i cian Athen e ; an d this godde ss was

so eviden tly the patronym i c of thei r origin al lan d and nation ,that her Phoen i cian name i s better ren dered by the primaryHebrew o r Phoen ician power of the letters composing the i rnation al tribe-name ONK par, than by the modern H ebrew co n

version of i t in to An ak . The Judean bran ch of the Raphanation assumed the religious denominati on of “ children of

Onka,

” —O nk it es or t n ician s,

” to distin guish their familyfrom the e lder tribe

,whose local patronym i c was the goddess

Ashtaroth j ust as the southern tran sj ordan ic bran ch assumedthe religious den om in ation of children of Suth or Sheth , Shethi tes or Shittim

,to distinguish theirs . And the j un ior provin ce

of Pelesheth wore the badge of ANK or Onka o n their heads,i n battle, to shew thei r affin ity to on e tribe

,an d to distinguish

them selves from the others ; j ust as the Zuzim of Bashan are

found wearin g the badge of ASTRTA or Ashtaroth on the irs, an dfor the self- same reasons .If we fee l thus far warranted in regarding

“the Pelishtim ,

who came out of the Casluhim,

” as a j un ior bran ch parted off

from the parent stock of Anak at a comparatively late period,

we shall easily apprehend the prime cause of their un relen tinganimosi ty towards the Israelities

,whom they regarded as in ter

lopers in the domain s of thei r inj ured brethren of An ak . The

part we always fi nd them taking in the later political movemen tsof Palestin e

,as allies of the Amalekites and Ammon ites

,are

perfectly in accordan ce with the same view .

If we regard them,n o t on ly as a n ation of kin dred extrac

tion w ith the M izraim ofLower Egypt, according to the eviden ceof Scripture ; but also as kin dred to those Rephaim who o ccu

pied Lower Egypt in the time ofAbraham,an d ruled i t accord

ing to the usages of the i r own nation ,as the traces of the

local worship o f the Philistin es,an d the i r person al pecul iarities

and costume in monume n tal represen tations,suggest, we shal l

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

26 The R ephaim. [July,

e rror ofm i staking the bran ch for the root, with Calmet and hisfollowers

,who would trace the Phil istin e s originally from Crete,

at the suggestion ofE zekie l ’ s parallel ism of the Cherethite s andPhi l istines . If Crete really was called so, after the Cherethites,i t i s j ust as l ikely that it was because a colon y kindred to thePhilistines was e stabli shed in that islan d . Would n o t the cityP hcenice of Crete (Acts xxvii . 1 2) b e thought j ust as likely toowe its name to a Phce n ician commercial station , than to havebeen the origin al centre of the Phoen ician people ? If therewas a Caphtora in Crete, and another in Cappadocia—and aG oshen in Palestine

,—is i t not much m ore l ike ly that these

isolated settlements in the m idst of nation s altogether fore ignin race to the scriptural Caphtorim of Mizraim

,may mark out

the refuge of the ir dispersed remnant, rather than thei r originalhome steads

The Philistin e s do not appear by name on the mon umentalannal s ofEgypt un til the time of Rameses III . It is on ly afterthe ir union with the refugee s from Lower Egypt, an d their e stab lishmen t in the Can aanite citie s of the coast, that they acquiredsufficient political consequence to becom e indepen dent ofAn ak,both as a state

,and as a subj ect of hostility on the part of

Egypt . Before that time they may have fought in the ranks ofthe Anakim,

and thus would b e included under the generaldenom ination of that people, the MNA or shepherds of

(An kaNeverthele ss the Philistine people are n ot unrepresented in

earlier memorials . In the Luxor version of the attack of ATE SH,

among a row of figures in a boat approaching the city, we discern some attired in the peculiar high crown, and short kiltand corslet

,of the Philistin e . A people whose name reads

KESH or G SH were among those whom the SIIE T‘

TA summonedto their assistance on that occasion . As it i s utterly impossib lethat these should be the black k sa -x sn of the land Cush o r

E thiopia beyon d the cataracts , who are alway s represen ted as

negroes, and whose name is wri tten with the same characters,

it i s most probable that the lan d ofGoshen i s thereby intended .

Not the origin al Goshen of the Delta, whose land had becomepart of the Egyptian dom in ion s, but that of the expatriatedGoshen of Palestine colon ized among the Phil istin es, who ultimately spread thei r domin ion northwards, even to n ear Gibeon .

(Comp . Josh . x .

Z1 1 ; xi . And if the de scen dan ts of thisimm igran t body became the bulk of the Philistin e population,we must not look for any other costume in a pictorial represoutation of them,

but that o f the Philistines .The monumental form of the Scripture local name Peleshe th

1852 ] The Rephaim. 3 7

is PULSA ’

TA . The radicals are exactly the same as the Hebrewform nape , and where the vowe l s differ, the Septuagin t fo rmagain gives us an approximation to the Egyptian version whichcann ot be acciden tal—d5v7t i o' r t etu,

in G en . x . 1 4 ; the on ly instan ce in which they render the proper name at all .‘

In an other Philistin e depen dency,Ekron

,mpg, we may safelyrecognize the T

'

AKKAR'

U people, a con spicuous name o n the

Egyptian m on uments, constantly associated with the PULSA'

TA,

and whose costume i s exactly the same . The modern name o f

the place is Akir . The prefixed T is probably the article, equivalen t to the Hebrew prefix n in s

phpxgn,“the Ekron ite,

” which theEgyptians took for part of the nam e, as the Greeks did the (f) ind5owucec, P haznicians. The Septuagint have again im itated inthe ir form

’

Ax /capwv, the Egyptian expedien t of doublin g the k,in order to im itate the rough guttural sound of the Hebrew r

,

for which they had no true equivalent .Three more n ames of Philistin e people are found in the

same monumental serie s . O n e,written under a row of prison ers

taken with the PULSA ’

TA,and wearing the same costume, reads

TU INU NA,for which I cannot recognize any equivalen t in the

scriptural lists and n otices . The two . others are in the longinscription of Medin et-Abou, and the names have for the i rdeterm inative a Phil istin e prison er . Thi s leave s n o choice asto the region in which we must look for the ir equivalen ts . The

first,ASH AK

’

NA,agrees with my

,Azekah

,a city of note at the

head of the vale of E lah (Josh . x . 10,1 1 ; 1 Sa. xvii . The

othe r, ALAIU , is most probably Aialon , p53: (n ow Y ale) , in the

sam e n eighbourhoodfl Both these places are situated betweenT

‘ AKKAR (Ekron ) , and SHALAM '

U‘

NA (Shalem) , mentioned in thesame inscription .

CHAPTER XV .

F inal Wars of the Anakim wi th Egypt .

Having thus far gon e through the techn ical an alysis of thenames

,we are now prepared to follow up the in ciden ts to whi ch

they give us a k ey , in the most importan t series of campaign s

3 In all the h isto rical re feren ces , the Septuag in t paraphrase the prope r name byo i dlth oqfivh o i , those of another tribe, i . e., d ifferen t from the Canaan i tes, o r

the H ebrews.

31 Azekah an d A‘

ialo n were no ted st rongho lds, and are bo th named among the

fo r tresses repai red by Rehoboam to strengthen his fron t ier against Shishak (2 Chron .

x i .

28 The Rephaim . [July,

con ducted by Rameses II I ., leader of the twen tieth dynasty ;which laid the Rephaim of Palestin e prostrate am ong the sur

roun ding n at ion s,Opened the gates of the lan d to the children

of Israel,and transferred in to the ir han d the yoke of Canaan .

The Rephaim of Bashan had bowed before R ameses II .

The Em im had braved his power twen ty years,an d en ded by

m aking peace with him . E xhausted by a prolonged furiouswarfare

,both nation s were glad of a truce . A n ew gen eration

arose, an d a n ew king reign ed in Egypt, P thahmen o r M e

n eph tah, the Amenophis of Man etho,a weak prin ce

,who was

en tirely under the control of the priests . They persuaded himto open a fresh serie s of persecution s against the oppressed raceof Lower Egypt . These unfortunate captives were removedfrom the lan d, and sent across the Nile to labour in the ston equarrie s that are Opposite M emphis . After a while

,they were

allowed to occupy the deserted city which had formerly belongedto their an cestors

,Avaris the city of Typhon . Here they con

trived to organ ize a plan of revolt, and sen t for assistance to thedescen dants of thei r exiled forefathers, who had j oined the

bran ch of the great Shepherd-body seated at Shalem .

Such an opportunity of regain ing their power in LowerEgypt was not to b e cast aside . M an etho relates that theShepherds of Shalem sent a large army to the relief of the irkin dred and that king Amen ophis was afraid of fighting again stthe gods by opposing them in battle

,because a priest, called

Amen ophis,the son of Papis, had prophetically an nounced to

him that the ill-treatment of the captives of Goshen which hehad coun ten an ced would b e avenged by the ir obtaining the dom inion of Egypt for thirteen years . Accordingly, as soon asthe Shepherds appeared

,Amen ophis provided for the safe keep

ing of the sacred an imals, and of the images of the gods ; hecomm itted to the charge of a trusty friend his son Sothos (whoi s also called Rameses) , then only fi ve years ofage ; re tired frombefore the in vaders without an attempt at resistan ce, an d withdrew with thirty thousan d m en in to E thiopia

,where he remained

un til the appoin ted period of thirteen years had expired . H e

then came forth from E thiopia with a great force ; an d his sonRamese s came also with an army ; they together attacked theShepherds, overcame them,

an d pursued them to the fron tie r ofS ria .

z

yO n the part born e by the Hebrews in this last Egyptian

revolution cau sed by the Shepherd con test, i t would take us

beyon d the range o f our immediate subject to dwe ll . The o n lv

5 Jo sephus , Con tra Apio n em , l . i. , c . 26, 27.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

30 The Rephaim . [July,

glorified Rameses II .,he will b e foun d by so much the m ore

intelligible to our more matter of fact understandings , whentran sferred to a fam i liar modern dialect . I will take advantageof Rosellin i

’s valuable in terpretation s of the inscript ion s

,to

select from them the most characteristi c passages, as illustration sboth of the style of thought and expression in those rem oteages, and of the historical occurren ces they propose to embody .

There may b e some interest in knowin g that we have the n arrative as m uch in the Egyptian hierogrammatist

’ s own words,as

a translation adm its of.

In the fifth year, under the sacred presidency of Hor us-Phr'ah, themighty enlarger of Egypt, the guardian of power, the victorious arm

which has subdued the impure TAH ‘

N’

NU , the lord ofUpper and ofLowerEgypt, Amun -maiRameses who has crushed the in imical TAH ‘N ‘NU,and ravaged their dwellings, etc .

, etc.

(We m ay here pass over a long complimen tary oration tothe king, in the style of the above specim en, and proceed to thenarration of his deeds .)

In the n ight, the king Rameses smote the lan ds of the foreign foes .

He return ed to Egypt, and distributed the offerings among the priests, andpresented the vanquished as an oblation to the gods, the submission to hisgrasp of the impure race of the lan d ofANKA, the TAH '

N’

NU . H is archerssmo te the enemies, as tern

'

ble bulls among the sheep his horses were likehawks !

By the renown ofhis name, b e conquered the lands of the TEMAII‘

U .

He reduced to submission the 9hr and the B ’iiMib lands, and laid the land

ofMASHUASH deso late . The carnage was stopped, their hearts being filledw ith contrition . Their pri nces prayed with their lips, and he refused not

to grant their peti tions ; they prayed to that god, lord of lords,the great

man of Egypt, and he, in the midst of v ictory, accepted the supplicat io nof the foreign lands and of their princes who humb led themselves to thegreat king of kings.

H is Majesty had come to the land of the perverse TEMAII'

U and

his arm was stayed by their prayers from distressing the land by siege .

Praised abo ve all the o ther Phrahs b e the clemency of his Majesty !“ The terror that he, bull-like , inspired, was as the quaking of little

kids. The blows deal t by his Majesty to the confines of the land glaredb efore their gates like flames of fi re : from the place where he struck and

smo te down the ramparts, the defeat was marked by dead to the right andto the le ft . H is Maj esty compelled submission wi th his own members,like liter/ tn .

c The king l tamcscs led o il the slaves and caused the dead tobe numbered .

” 9" i t i t

After another lon g descrip t ion , which may b e om itted, of

In these two n ames , the stands fo r a character e i the r ob l ite rated o r unkn ow n .

0 M en tu , o r Mun tu-Ra, is the Egyptian Arcs o r Mars , god o fwar.

1 852] The Rephaim. 3 100

the mercy the king showed to some prisoners,whose l ives he

saved after ravaging the i r coun try and level l ing the i r walls tothe groun d—an d an other fragmen t

,partly illegible, partly de

stroyed, in which the nam es of A SHAK'

NA (Azekah) an d A LAIU

(A'

ialon ) remain among those men tion ed, we have a fi erce description of the con test with the B B Q

By the great spirit that came from Egypt, the lan d of BBC (Arb z‘

r)was a conflagration before and behind, and the gods themselves causedthose to perish who went beyon d the gates of their city ; and tho se whowere saved were brought to Egypt ; Ra having comman ded that the rulerof Egypt, looking on them, should conquer

,like the sun , g uardian of the

pure race . (i .e. tile Egyptians.)

After this, comes a fragmen t that we may abridge, in whichthe subm i ssion of SH ALAM '

U‘

NAd i s men tioned the king carried

off the flocks of the conquered . After this,

“ the foreign ers ofthe great island came to b e presen ted in the ir captivity toAmun Ra because of the sm it ing with which he (the king) hadsm itten the ir lan d

,passin g before the ir gate s on th e face of the

waters like a duck .

” These are n amed the PULSA '

TA (Philistines) and T

’

AKKAR'

U (Ekron ites) . Then comes an other defective fragmen t

,an d SH ALAM '

U’

NA is again men tion ed closingwith a very animated description of the king

’s person al valour .

He fought among shoutings, the lord ofmight who threw the wholelan d into con sternation The great lord of Victories, king of the Upperand Lower regions, in his smiting and in the fulness of his triumph overthe barbarian s, was as a lion , and his roarings wen t forth thun dering !H e passed with his wings over the lan d of the waters ; he purified theabode of iniquity .

”

This documen t concludes with a long an d very pompouseulogium ,

which we lose n othing by passing over .~

If the four pictures in the same b all as thi s in scription re

presen t the leading action s i t describes— as is most probablefrom the ir subj ects— a gen eral accoun t o f them w i ll shew thatthe two great triumphs they commemorate are the surren der ofthe Philistin es

,an d the victory over the An akim .

The Egyptian king must have gon e by sea along the Philistine coast, lan din g n ear Ekron he open ed the campaign by an

attack on the n orthern Amorite depen den cies of the An akiman d Philistin es . This we gather from the n ames which have

(1 This name is here (lin e 50) written SH AL RM'

U‘

NA ; but in l in e 56, i t is w r it tens imply SH ALKM '

U .

6 Ro sellin i’s ren der ing isola is doubtfu l . A maritime land is certainly im

pl ied and we know that Pelesheth was n o t an island . But Ro sellini had no t i deat ifi ed any of these names. The kn owledge of a fact is o ften n ecessary to a right in te rpretation of some among its fo rms of expression .

32 Tile R ephaim . [July,

survived destruction,of MASH UASH

,ASH AK

'

NA,an d ALAIU . Hav

ing taken these fortresses, the reduction of SH ALAM ’

U'

NA in then eighbouring region , followed . The un ion of valour an d cle

m en cy displayed by the young con queror, and so en ergeticallyextolled by h is hierogrammatist, were not without thei r influenceon the chiefs of the lan d o n o n e side ; for the Philistin es of thecoast

,as we l l as those of Ekron ,

ten dered thei r submission .

The lan d of the Philistin es proper—Pelesheth or PULSA '

TA,

sea-shore land”—is several times descriptively referred to

,

where Philistin es are represented “the fore ign ers of the great

island the parts of the great islan d that are separatedfrom the two Egypts the lan d of the waters “ those whodwell in the maritime lan ds .” The Philistin es becam e his

auxiliaries ; an d h e now passed roun d the mountain an d attackedthe Anakim,

on their own fron tier .This is exclusive ly the subject of the four pictures . It is

also the great feat formin g the exordium of the in scription .

Nevertheless it must have been the last in ciden t of the cam

paign for,sin ce the Philistin es appear on the side o f Egy pt in

t he battle-scen e, thei r subm ission m ust have preceded the attackof the An akim repre sented in that scen e . The order of even tsi s by n o mean s preserved in the long in scription in deed this i shardly to he expected, sin ce it evidently was not in ten ded as acon secutive n arration

,but rather as an eulogy in terspersed with

allusion s to those deeds for which the royal con queror i s beingglorified ; the most glorious, which are pictured o n the walls

,

bein g the first men tion ed .

From the in scription s accompanying the battle - scene, welearn that t he even t occurred in the land of “

the impureT EMAH .U race From those over the picture i nwhich the pri son ers are brought before thei r con queror, we

further learn that the lan d of TAH I (Iut tah ) was the scene of

the en gagemen t ; n everthele ss the captives are all called the

people of R B O (Arbfi) that a thousan d prison ers were takenalive , an d that the trophie s of the dead

,when numbered

,

shewed that three thousand had been killed . The n octurn alassault alluded to in the long in scription seems to explain thi se n ormous loss

,an d the con fusion of the people who w ere at

tacked ; thcse are represen ted in the ba t tle -scen e all unarmed,

an d appear eviden tly to h ave been taken by surprise . The

othe r two picture s of this series represen t the captives boun d,s trun g together by a rope tied roun d the i r n ecks

,an d dragged

in triumph before the Theb an gods . In al l the se,the n n o and

T A II‘

N'

N U are n o t d istinguishable from each o the r b v the i r co stume .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

3T The Rephaim . (July,

ships with their kindreda I t is probable that thi s even t wasposterior to the other ; and that the temporary subm ission of the

chief Rephaim ,man ifested in the ir actin g as auxiliarie s to Egypt

again st the Philistin es, was the fruit of victorie s obtain ed inin termediate expedition s, when the other tribes of Rephaimwere attacked in turn, an d e ither crushed o r reduced to fin alobedien ce . The list at the en tran ce of thi s great hall con tain snames belonging to several Rapha districts and dependencies,and the chiefs of the Harem chamber series of portraits are

those of all their principal tribes ; though the ban ds of captives,and all the triumphal presentation scen es remain ing to b e described ia this hall, refer exclusively to the An akim an d Philistin es

,who took the lead ia the war . The address ofAmun -Ra

,

king of gods,” to Rameses, on his departure, n ames the whole

Rapha race as the object of the last expedition z"

I go b efore thee, O my son,lord of the two worlds,

Sun, guardian of truth, beloved ofAmun ;

I gran t thee (to subdue the foreign ers) allTraversing the lands of the barbari ans, victorious .

May thy valour cast down their princes !I go (to prepare) the ways in the land of the TEMAH

'

U,

And will go through i t with thee, preceding thy coursers.

The importance of this expedition is kn own by the greatpreparation s that were made towards it . The n ext picture re

presents the distribution of arm s and mustering of forces .The return of Ram eses to Egypt, and arrival at the fortress

of MAGADU L (M agdolum ) , when the conflict was ended, is nu

other in teresting picture ? H i s m inisters come forth to meethim

,an d he is addressin g from a thron e, standing, those who

have distin guished them selves in the war . The Ashtarothcrested people are fellow-prison ers with the Philistin es in thissubject . The m ain body of captives are next presented to the

gods ofThebes . These are the R BO and the T '

AKKAR'

UJ Amunlta thus addresses the king

Be thy return in rej o icing !Thou hast smitten the barbariansThou hast laid them all prostrate slayingThou hast (struck terror in to the) hearts o f the ANAKI M

Other pictures represen t the rest of the prison ers ; on e co n

pl . 13 1 . Hi ll !! FL 1 24

i l b id . , pl. 132 , 1 33 . Magdo lum is a statio n o f the An to n ine i t inerary , xn . M . v . ,

n early south o f Pe lusium , o n the fro n t ie r . T he si te is sti l l extan t as a mound w i thru in s .

J Ib i(l. , pl. 1 34 .

T/ze Rephaim .

sists of three rows ofPhilistines, led by a colossal portrait figureof the king ; un der on e row is written

“ the chiefs of the lan dPULSA '

TA,

” un der another, the unkn own n ame TU INU'

NA . The

date of the victory to which thi s subj ect refers, is uncertain .

Besides these m emorials, two fragments greatly mutilated,figured in Champollion

’s monumen ts/f give a represen tation of

a battle scene an d capture of a city belonging to a people wearing the Horite costume .

The list of cities captured by Rameses II I ., in scribed on theentran ce of the great b all, as well as that of the captive s of theHarem chamber, may b e regarded together as an epitome of

this mon arch ’ s warlike deeds,to which the names of the tribes

figured in the sculptures may he added, as sign alizing the most

glorious among those deeds . They will be found— so far as

they are recogn i zable— to range over every district in which theRephaim ruled . The first l is t i s as follows :5

TASA ’

TA . Doub tful . mm Tizah was aMoab ite city (1 Chr.

xi .RUR I or LUL I . was Aroer might be written so .

PETR! . Aramitecity,belongingtoRephaim'

1‘ IR .NA or T I L ‘NATARBU SA . Edomite city, subject to Rephaim .

ATU!

.

KARNA or Metropolis ofBashan .ifGALNA City ofBashan .

HAIR'

NA . City of Padan -Aram, subjectRephaim .

LEBNU’

T .

Southern Judea,Esubj ect to

Central Judea, Rephaim .

Metropolis ofAnakim .

sin-is City ofBashan .

k Champo llion’s Monumen ts, vol . i i i ., pl. 227, 228.

l Rosellin i’s copy of some amon g these n ames is n o t accu rate . This l ist is taken

from a repetit ion of the subject in Champollion ’s Monumen ts , vol. iii. , pl. 204 .

m The doub le fo rce of the Egypt ian characters for G K and LR , makes i t impo ssib le to decide wh ich of these two ci t ies the group figured in the Onomasticon , col . i . ,fig . 2 , represen ts. At fi rst , I thought i t m ight b e Golan b ut the a l te rnative o f itsbe in g Ashtaro th -karna'

im has claims n o t to b e passed o ver . The complete subjectionto Rameses I I I ., in wh ich we see the people ofAshtaro th , is rathe r strong ly in favourof the latter supposi tion ; the ci ty is called s imply Karnaim by Jo sephus, an d the

om ission of the fin al dual or plural fo rm is n o t un frequen t in mo de rn n ames of an c ien ts i tes. We have two in stan ces in the lan d of this very people, the SHAS '

U or Z uz imM ahana'

im is n ow a v i l lage cal led Maizne/z and Beton im , Batne/z. The re is no

o the r ci ty n amed in the Bib le that th is group GAL NA o r KARNA w i ll stan d fo r, b utGo lan , o r Karna'im .

n V ide Onomasticon , co l . v . , fig . 29, a, b . I t was n ecessary fo r the co n ven ien tgrouping o f the hierog lyph ic characters in this name , that the b and u sho ul d b etoge ther this causes , in o ne t ran script , the invers ion of a rad ical ,—e n a — iaan o ther , the transposi t ion o f the vowe l , c um un .

36 The Rephaim . [July

Rissahor Lusa ?

AIAHA or IIHA . Unknown .

RSS or Lss . Cities ofParan ,Amalekites .

The portraits of the captive chiefs are sculptured in re l ievoo n the basement of the Harem chamber

,apparen tly supportin g

the upper wall, like Caryatides .° E ach figure has a legen d b efore him with the name of his city or lan d . They are so placed

,

that every Asiatic alternates with a negro . The series of Asiatios is as follows :

The chief of RBO Arba, otherwise Hebron or CHE BUR .

MASHUASH

SHET ‘

TA Shi t tim .

AMKR Amorite .

T'AKUR ‘ ISHAIRTA

‘

NA

TUIR SHA Tariehaea (Josephus) . (No t men tioned inthe Bible .

These two l i sts testify that Rameses III . n o t only capturedm any cities not previously con quered by h is predecessors, whichhe added to the already existing l ists of tributaries of Egypt,but that he also had the glory of n umberin g among his prisonersthe chieftains ofeach of the three Rapha nation s, besides severalprovin cial rulers .When we add to this the local names in the historical ia

script ion s,—Shalem, the great m etropolis of the Rapha nation s

,

—Pelesheth,and its Amorite depen dan cies of Ekron

,Azekah

an d Aialon,besides Iuttah,—we shall have before our view the

full exten t of territory over which the last con queror of the

Theban race swept triumphantly during the brief space of sevenyears, and from which its ancient rulers— the T EMAH U o r

Rephaim,were cut off from among the nations . Bashan became

a tributary ofEgypt, ti ll its lan ds were con quered by Israel an dits people were absorbed in to the Ammon ite community . Shitt im was laid open to the Amorite spoiler, an d its people sankin to the Moabite colony . An ak nominally survived the desolation for a brief space—but on ly to be expe lled by Joshua, anddispersed among the surroun d ing Can aan ites .

Egypt fin ally triumphed over her en em ies . H er last con

0 Ro sellini, Mon . Storiez’

, pl . 1 41—1 43 .

P Th is n ame is n o t fo und in the H ebrew text of Jo shua ’

s list o f Judre nu cities(ch . x v .) b ut i t seems to have bee n acc iden tal ly lo st out o f the tex t , o r a l te red bythe m isread ing o f eopists . The Septuag in t have the name Maas , in ver. 10,

which co n sists o f lette rs represen ted by the Egyptian g ro up read M AS IIU AS II.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

38 The Rephaim. [Ju]y,

Anak with Egypt, that almost immediately after,we see them

se ize on the first opportun ity of casting off thei r compulsoryrenegade character, and turn ing again st her. The alliance of theSHA S 'U with Ramese s II . was equally contrary to their nationalpredilection s . For the same series of picture s which exhibitsthem fighting against Pelesheth , also exhibits her warriors co nten ding with Egypt un der the Philistin e banners, and includestheir chieftains am ong the captive enemies of Egypt .

E ach of the three Rapha nations in its turn bore the bruntof warfare they all succumbed in succession— they all fe lltogether in the last unsuccessful effort . But the children ofSheth and the children of Anak continued to the last true tothei r cause an d to each other . Their patriotism i s free from the

stain which clings to the n ame of the Zuzim and the Phil istin e s .

No array of power— no con strain t of circumstan ces— was eversufficien t to overhear their faithfuln ess to each other’ s cause asbrethren ,

or to turn thei r han ds again st each other . Togetherthey struggled—and together they sank— side by side 4

a As there were two n o ted con quero rs named Rameses, who bo th bo re the epi thetofAmun -mai ,

“ belo ved of Amun ,

”the reader who may desi re to refer to the plates

and wo rks quo ted in this n o ti ce m ight b e perplexed as to the i den ti ty of the k ing inquestion , w i thou t the follow ing explan at ion

Some autho rs—Champoll ion and Ro sellin i, for in stan ce—call Rameses I I . theGreat , Rameses I I I . and the Rameses of M edine t-Abou , his g ran dson , Rameses

IV . There is a doub t as to whether the Great Rameses had a bro ther of the same

n ame , who re igned fi ve years be fo re him , or whether the n ame attributed to him b e

o nly an o ther cognomen ofRameses I I . , who changed his t i t les. As th is question isun deci ded , but the Great Rameses is most general ly cal led Rameses I I . by recen tautho r it ies, I have con fo rmed to th is arran gemen t .Again , i t is as well to guard against an o ther possible source of con fusion in the

ar rangemen t of the dynast ies , by stat ing that when Champo ll ion and Ro sellin i w ro te ,the n ineteen th dynasty ofMan etho was supposed to represen t the l ine beginn ing w i thRameses I I I . of M ed ine t-Abou (whom they cal l b ut that late ly , the mo stlearn ed and judicious Egypt ian scho lars have seen the propriety of iden ti fy ing thatdynasty w i th the immediate successo rs of Rameses I. , and beg inn in g i t w i th Setho so r Set i-M en ephtah I . In the M an ethon ian system , a change of dynasty does n o t

imply a change in the line of hered itary successio n , but a change o r revo lution in thestate of thin gs. The th ree shepherd invasion s caused as many changes o f dynasty ,tho ugh Amo sis, leade r o f the e ighteen th , was son of the last k ing of the fo rme r Theb an dynas ty ; though Se t i-M enephtah, leade r o f the n in eteen th , was so n ofRameses

I last k in g of the e ighteen th ; an d Rameses I I I . , leade r of the twen tieth , was sono fM en eph tah , last k ing o f the n ine teen th . These th ree k ings resto red the Thebandom in io n , and are the refo re co nsi dered heads ofa dynasty , o r condit ion ofpower.

(A supplemen tary paper on the Costumes of the R ephaim , and their Religions Sys

tem, w ill appear in the n ex t number , and con clude the Series .)

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PANTHEON OF THE REPHAIM .

DESCRIPTION OF PLATES.

P LATE I .

T he She thite Ashtaro th AT ‘

SH ; from a tablet in the Louvre .

T he Phoen ician P ata’

ikos,or PTHAH .

She th as R ENPU from a tablet in the Bri tish M useum.

Onka as Anath or ANTA,the N ei th of the Anakim .

D agon , the Philistine form of Oannes or AO N , from a P un icco in in the Bri tish Museum .

F ig

Ca

r-A

WN)

”

Consecra ted vessels from the spo ils of the Rephaim,exhibi ting a

selection of their most remarkable forms and symbo lsF ig. 6. Pa tera

,w i th the emblem of AON , the sacred bull M nevis.

7. Vase , w i th a crowned lion , emb lem of the king of gods,KH EM

, Chemosh-M o lech or Baal-Khammon . 8 . P atera,

w i th Sphinx -figure of Ashtaro th. 9. Vase, w i th the em

blem of Renpu . 10. Patera supported by the emblem of

Anath.

P LATE I I .

1 . T he Egyptian AT'HOR

,w i th a cow’

s head and globe and

horns ; coun terpart of the Ashtaro th ofBashan .

2. T he Egyptian SET , son of NU ’

T’

PE . 3,4 . N ames of SUT and

SUT'

SH in the trea ty w i th Rameses I I . 5 . N ame and figureof Baal

,BARO

,from inscription s of the same period .

6. H eads of She th and H orus un i ted in one body.

7. T he Egyptian ANK lady of the land of NTH,coun terpart of

the Phoen ician Onka. 8. N ame of T '

NTH ANK . 9. Pho

ne tic name of NTH ,wi th her symbo l as determ inative .

10. H ead of N ei th bearing her symbo l . l l . TEMAHU

chief of the children of Anak, TAHI tribe, bearing the

same on his l imbs.

Sacred symbo ls

F ig. 1 2 . Crux-ansata, surmoun ted by emb lems of Ashtaro th and

R enpu . 1 3. Vase,w i th head ofunknown bird. 14. Crux

ansata vase supported by emblem of Renpu . 1 5. H ornfor pouring out l ibations to the Queen of H eaven . 16.

P atera supported by the emblem of SEB or Chronus,father ofthe gods . 1 7. Ashtaro th-headed vase . 1 8. Cruxansata wi thout figures.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

4 The R epha im.

These data are of no in terest,and are often unintelligible ,

when viewed separately. They are all complemen tary to one

another. It is on ly by bringing the facts obtain ed from one sourceto bear upon those gathered from another, comparing those thatare analogous, and reuniting those that are obviously conn ected intheir origin ,

that we can obtain a whole sufficiently complete to b eaccepted in illustration of history.

Certain votive tablets are occasion ally found in Egypt, chiefly intombs

,bearing figures and n ames of gods differen t from those of

the Egyptian pan theon , and obvior’

rsly of foreign origin, but of

Egyptian workman ship, as, for in stan ce , the tablet ofKaha in theBritish Museum . T he great number of noble captives brought toEgypt during the Theban wars will accoun t for the occurren ce of

those monuments . Such captives were not always prisoners takenin battle these

,after being dragged in triumph , chained together

and handcuffed,behind the conqueror’ s car

,were presented to the

Theban gods, and then con signed to the task-master, to expiate ,by a degrading servitude , the crinre of having lifted their handagain st the majesty ofPharaoh . In stances occur, however, whenthe chiefs of the invaded lands offered no resistance , but disarrrredthe

‘conqueror ’ s wrath by offering themselve s up voluntarily, to bepresen ted in their captivity to Amun -Ra

,

’

like the Ekronites andPhilistines to Rameses III. Such captives were of course verydifferently treated . The ir forts were indeed laid low,

and theircitie s subjected to tribute ; the proffered subm ission of the chiefsto the form of following the royal train and appearing before the

gods ofThebes , was accepted, and the ceremony fulfilled , but undercircumstances ofgreat len iency, and involving n o personal discomfort or degradation . “7hen they reached Egypt, they were honourably treated ; the parallel cases of Dan iel

,Hamari and Mordecai ,

and Nehenriah,in the Jewish captivity

,even show that it was

no t unusual for such strangers to b e invested with offices of

distinction in the royal service . And this service did no t n ecossarily entail any interferen ce with the pri vate devotion of theseexiles .As the Rephaim were the object of the whole long series 0

flgyptian wars,we might have expected , it priori, to find their

gods o ccupying a co nspicuous place among these mysterious me

morials of an unknown worship found in Egypt . We will give aseparate accoun t of all those which can b e thus recogn ized by the irname s .

Astarte , o r Ashtaroth .

T he table ts in the Louvre and British Museum ,representing

th i s go dde ss under the seco ndary names and attributes of AT '

SH

The R epha im. i i

and KE N ,are the uro st ancien t delin eati on s of her extan t in the

world they belong to the period ofRameses II.

T hey are only provincial forn rs ofAshtaroth and , even at thatearly age , they exhibit a marked departure from her primeval type ,in depicting her with a human coun tenance for the origin alAstarte

,the two-horned Ashtaroth

’

of the Rephaim, was figuredwith the head of a cow

,with a globe between her hor ns . In this

form,we find her graven image among the efligies of various gods

surmoun ting the gold and silver vessels con secrated to the ir worship,which the Egyptian conquerors , according to custom , carried awayfrom the san ctuaries of the Rephaim with other spoils, and pre

sen ted to the temple-

gods ofThebes . Sanchon iatlro assign s as thereason for her being delineated under this form , that it was em

blematical of her supremacy.

a

Sacred symbols are the written language of an cient religion s,which in vest its forms of outward expression with a permanen tcharacter

,both in virtue of their con secration to ritual uses in the

san ctuary,as exponen ts of the abstract ideas they were framed to

embody and also,through a commendable ven eration on the part

of later generation s, for the an cestral teachers who first in structedthem through the medium of such emblems.

Accordingly, when we find the Ashtaroth of the Shethite tribesbearing, on private memorials, attributes differen t from those con

secrated in their san ctuaries, we cannot but ascribe to the latterrepresen tation s priority in an tiquity over the former. We understand the variation s presen ted ln the more recen t forms as in tentional departures from the primitive type , introduced either from adesire to give more explicitness to the attributes they symbolize

,

or in order to superadd . either by appropriate emblem s,or by a

differen t descriptive n ame,the notion of n ew attributes ascribed

to the divin ity they represent. T o the same cause,also

,we may

easily trace that progressive departure from the ir prototype , whichis rendered so evident in the Egyptian gods by the mann er inwhich on e divinity is found gradually sliding into another, droppingfirst its own attributes

,and then its name

,till its original character

is completely superseded . This sort of gradation is exemplified ina very in terestingmann er by the history ofAshtaroth, whose transformation s

,by the gradual developmen t of on e fundamen tal idea

in to a connected series of typical forms, may be systematicallytraced to their respective periods in their respective lands

,through

a

Co ry , Ancient F ragmen ts . Ex . E usebius, P rcep. E a , 1. 1 , c . 10. F or th

i den t i ty of the cow-headed type th roughout the nat io n,compare , in Ro sellin i ’s

Mon . Sto rici , the spo ils of the sn as u,o r Ch ie f Rephaim , pl. 52 ; tho se o f the

Anak im of TAH I , pl . 56 ; tho se of the Em im, o r SH ET ‘

TA, pl. 59; and those of theElatlrites, o r LT

‘

N, pl . 48.

(i The R ephaim.

out the wide geographical range over which the influen ce of herpecul iar people extended, n ot on ly i n the days of their dominion

,

but even of their dispersion .

We found the normal type of Ashtaroth to b e,a. cow-headed

female figure hearing a globe between her horn s. Its design i simmediately brought under our vi ew,

in the Egyptian represen tation s of the spoils taken from the Rapha n ation ; for these are

undoubtedly matter of fact copies from the original sacred utensilsthemselves . Nothin fr therefore , can b e more satisfactorily suthenticated than the genu in eness of this type . The sacredn ess of thetype

,and its con sequen t an tiquity ,

are thereby attested , and al soits un iversality ,

by its iden tity ln the san ctuaries ofthe whole n ation .

A corresponding testimony to its un iversality at a later period, andto i ts being of old the time-honoured form under which the worshipof the goddess had been in troduced in to the land of Can aan, i sfurther aflorded by the allusion to her in the book ofTobit (i . 5)as 7 1 ) Beta ) , 7 7; dzu a

’

l u , B aal the heifer, to whom all the tribes of

Israel who had apostatized offered sacrifices and,fin ally

,similar

represen tation s of her, on Phoen ician coin s of a riruch later date ,testify to its persisten cy . From all this

,it appears that the na

t ional goddess of the Rapha race— the patron ess of their firstsettlemen t, and especially (by name) of its metropolis , Ashtarothkarnarm

,or the two-horned— was , m the origin ,

no other than the

particular form of the Mizraimite Isis kn own in the Egyptian

pan theon as Athor,‘the abode ’

(or mother) of Horus. b The

nro st ancient representations of Athor are those with a cow’

s head,enclosing the di sk between its horn s

,precisely like the embleni

among the spoils of the Rephaim . She was also represen ted witha human head bearing the horn s and disk in this resembling theShethite Astarte, Atesh .

Isis herself, in her own n ame . is often found bearing the emblemofAthor, either with or without the cow

’ s head . Of the very fewthings certain in Egyptian mythology , non e are more so thanthe samen ess of these two imperso nations . So obvious a derivationofAshtaroth from Isis in the for mofAthor is therefore an in ciden tof great importan ce , as poin ting out a period, however remote inthe world

’

s history, when the religious systems of the Rephaim and

of the Egyptian s met in one before tho se changes had beenwrought in e ither system by the several fo re i g n influen ces whichsuperimposed astronom ical association s and an imal-worship 011 theEgyptian systt 111 and which degraded the simple. co smogon ic idea

b Plutarc h g i v e s th i s as the s i gn ificat io n o f he r name (He Is . s . wh i ch itsh ie ro g lyph e xpla i n s : a hawk (cni b . o f H o rus ) w ithin a square , emh . o fa ho use o r

abo de ,w e o r w he n ce IlT -IIO R

,o r the abo d e

,re ceptacle , o f Ilo rus .

( V i de W i lk i nso n , Am'

. lit/j/l i t iuns , vo l . i v . p

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

8 The R ephaim .

All these emblem s are so differen t from the primeval type of

Athor, that we would n ot have recogn i zed her relation to that

goddess without the conn ecting link afforded by the addition alglobe and horn s of her coun terpart AT '

SH in the Louvre tablet.This eviden ce

,however , i s decisive ; were it less so, it would b e

confirmed by the n ame of the goddess .T he title ofAshtaroth on the Louvre tablet i s AT SH

, goddess ,lady of heaven

,queen of gods .

’ This legen d explain s her title,

the, queen of heaven ,

’

in Sacred Writ,and the epithet Uran ia

,

or Aphrodite-Urania,by which the Greek writers distingui sh her

from the ir own Aphrodite . H er territorial appellation,as Ken

,

makes her out especially as the Uran ia called Alilat and Alitta bythe Arabian s and as the Babylon ian Mylitta, whose worship wasin troduced into Chaldea by the Arabian s and Assyrians

d

Some sculptured figures ofgod s, found at Khorsabad, and givenin Mr. Layard

’

s great work on Nin eveh , very distin ctly establishthe derivation of the Assyrian Astarte from the Shethite AT '

SH and

KEN . In on e of these subjects, she sits on a throne,holding the

mystic circle . Like AT '

SH, she has two horns. She wears the

Assyrian costume and crown,surmoun ted by a round ornament,

equivalen t to the globe . Another form of the goddess is more likeAT ‘

SH and KE N she stands on a lion , holding the circle , and alsohas two horn s

,and a star within the disk on the crown of her cap.

These represen tation s are much more recen t than the Egyptiantablet that gives us her prototype , Ken .

The accoun t given by Herodotus of the profan e customs bywhich the Babylon ian Mylitta was honoured, loses much of itsin credible character , when ,

even at so early a period as the residence of Israel in Shittim (Num . we can already trace ana

logous customs prevailing in a land under the particular tutelageof the same goddess Astarta , who, under the secondary forms ofAtesh , Ken ,

Alilat , or Al itta , was protectress of the four Shethiteprovinces

,Shittim

,Ken ,

Amalek,and Elath . The catastrophe of

the Midian ite war proves that the people so called were deemedthe prin cipal agents in working out the scheme of corruptionsuggested by Balaam . T he daughters of Moab were on ly putforward on the occasion as the tools of a political movemen t.F rom their kindred origin ,

and the brotherly feel ing the Moabitetribe had man ife sted towards Israel 011 their passage through Ar

,

e

they were judged more likely to succeed in alluring the childrenofIsrae l to break down the bar of religious separation that keptthem alooffrom the indigenous population .

It may b e deemed n o small add ition to the. an tiquarian value of

Ilero do tn s, C lio , 1 3 1 . D en t . 1 1 . 29.

The R ephaim .

our Museum- tablet,that the goddess who appears upon it should

thus prove to be the heroine of two tran saction s so memorable inantiquity as those in which she figures as the imagi nary witness tothe most an cient in ternational treaty in the world

,and as the

stumbling-block of Israel in Shittim .

" But any shade of incredulity that might still remain as to this most in teresting coin cidence ,must give way before the actual admission by Josephus—a lreadyreferred to— that the idolatrous Midian ites were the people one

ofwhose five kings, Rekem ,was the king of the city ofArekem

,

afterwards called Petra when ,on the other hand

,we had already

ascertained,from Scriptural referen ces, that this very city, Petra

orArekem,was the stronghold of the Ken ites, and that the Ken ites

them selve s were subjects of the ruler of the metropolitan provin ce,

Heshbon in Shittim .

T he degraded attributes of the southern Astarte , combined withthe fact well known to an tiquity that Athor was her primary form

,

may explain the selection of their Aphrodite by the Greeks,as the

conven tion al synonym for the Egyptian Athor, although these twoimpersonation s have n o t a discern ible attribute in common . Someconn ection is indeed traceable between those ofAstarte and the

Grecian Aphrodite even though the latter has been veiled un dera garb of imagi native grace and poetic beauty totally alien to the

primitive framers of her Eastern prototype .

\Ve have no direct proof in Scripture that the more corruptedworship of Ashtaroth had gain ed a footing among the Rephaimbeyond the domain s of the Shethite tribe s un less the local n ame sof Kin ah and Ken in southern Judea (Josh . xv . 22

, and

Kenath in Bashan (Num . xxxii . are to be taken as indication sthat she had some votaries in those quarters . T he very little weknow of the primary Phoen ician Astarte rather shows that

,while

her original form ofAthor was n ever materially changed, the in ciden ts ofher mythical history draw her still n earer to the primevalsource

,by their close approximation to those of the bereaved Isis

f Our common ve rsion ofAmos v . 26, 27, g i ves the n oun W; Chiun , as i f i t we rea prope r n ame ; an d from the resemblan ce of th is to the n ame ofKen ,

i t has beencon je ctured that Ken w as the M i d ian i te go ddess alluded to . I t is rathe r cur iousthat a conj ectu re foun ded on an e tymo lo g i ca l e rro r should turn out true in thefact ; fo r Ken t s the M i d ian i te go ddess, bu t o n o the r g roun ds . E ven i f j-i’; w erehe re a prope r name , i t wo uld n o t apply to th is go ddess, w ho se n ame isw r i tten w i thd ili

'

eren t le tters ; n e i the r w ou ld i t sui t her as an epi the t, ‘the burn in g Obj ec t,’ the

in can descen t , impl ied b y its roo t, run, to burn Ka t-w (see Isa. i i i . 24 ; E xo d . x x i .T he appl i cat ion of th is epi the t w i l l b e shew n in its place ; he re , I w ill only

remark that the Sc riptural name co rrespon d in g to the monum en tal K N , il l? ) wh i chg i ves its e t ymolog y , and the lan d and h isto ry of the go ddess, is w r i tten w i th a p,and the final Iis rad i cal ; w he reas in the epi thet China the in i tial is D, and the 11final is a fo rmat i ve .

10 The R ephaim.

of Mizraim mourning the un timely death of her lord . Indeed theGreek fable ofVenus and Adon is was so eviden tly derived fromthe Phoen ician version of the Isidian myth , that it has retain ed thetitle of the god pan, Adon ,

the R uler , as a proper name , thoughhis original relation of husband is changed to that of a lover. T he

proto-Phoenician Osiris in this peculiar character bore the name of

Thamus and according to G esen ius, the mournful rites by which

his supposed decease was celebrated are alluded to by Ezek ielH e brought me to the en tran ce of the n orthern gate of the Lord

’ shouse and lo I there sat the women weeping for Thammuz

(viii . T he referen ce in Ps. cvi . 28, to the backslidings of

Israel in Shittim , apparen tly relates to the same subjectT hey became un i ted to Baa l-P eorA nd ate the sacrifices of the dead ,

in asmuch as the Syrian Belphegor, the local Baal of Peor inShittim

,exhibits many attributes of Osiris in the Pluton ic character

the latter assumes after his death .8

However slight such passing allusion s may appear, they assumea deep sign ifican ce , considered in connection wi th the M izraimiteorigin of the goddess to whose mythical story the allusion s applyand with the local character of the fabulous beings them selves,who figure in it as home-gods, not as importation s as absolutelyiden tified by their n ames w ith the oldest and chief settlements ofthe land in which they appear as subjects of the allusions. Butthis argumen t must b e reserved as a separate tepic, to be resumedwhen the whole of the pan theon has been disposed of. Then onlycan its force be appreciated .

KHEM . Chemosh. Khammon .

Chemosh n ext claims our attention,as he is n ot the special

patron of one tribe ofRephaim, but the great god of the wholen ation . T he Scriptural referen ces to his name represen t him asthe Dispen ser of Good , both to the Ammon ite s in virtue of theirincorporation with the residue of the Zuzim ,

and to the Moabitesamalgamated w ith the small remn ant. of the Shethite tribe .

T he character and attributes assign ed to this god may be seenby the tablet of Kaha , in which he appears as the con sort ofAstarte—Ken . They in n o wise differ from those of the EgyptianKhem of the M izraimite pan theo n , whose n ame was afterwardschanged to Amun -Ila . A little allowance must ofcourse be madefo r some mann erisms in the treatmen t of the costume

,which is

who lly l‘lgyptian ascribing them to the con vention al rules imposedby custom upo n the artists who executed these subjects. But

Sc hle n , bit/r. i . c . 5 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 1 2 T he R epha im.

i s over the erasure , and RA is un altered . The suffix RA , the sun ,

is the addition peculiar to the Egyptian system ,in which cosmo

gon i c and astronom ical elemen ts are blended in on e impersonation ,

a m ixture totally unknown to the Rapha pan theon . We find

among them n othing but the Mizraimite forms of the cosmogon icideas. Their Khem- o sh is like the Egyptian Khem ,

the primevalOsiris

,as the Un iversal Paren t of all created nature , man ifested

in the gen erative power by which the existen ce of the an imate and

inan imate is con tinued . It i s an exten sion of the creative ideaembodied in the primary PT AH (rui n) of the M izraimite system ,

he who causes the open ing or entering- in of existen ce,the active

prin ciple of origin al creation ,who was therefore regarded in the

proto-Phoen ician mythology as the Father of all the other Cabirictheophan ies.

In the old Egyptian pan theon , Khem was the con sort ofMaut,the mother . In the tablet of Kaha

,Chemosh appears in an ana

logon s relation to Isis-Athor in the character ofKen,the dwelling

or receptacle of the power typified by the god . T heir offspring,R N PU ,

forms the third member of this very remarkable group ,remarkable from its being obviously composed on the genuin eM izraimite prin ciple of the Egyptian local triads , in which the

third or jun ior member embodies the developmen t of the agen cytypified by the other two ; the combination of two harmon iousprin ciples producing an effect the active and passive agen cies ofnature guided by a Supreme In telligen ce , and their result.In the proper n ame ofKhem we cannot fail to recogn ize the

Ham (mg ) of sacred tradition ,progen itor of the M izraimite race .

Wherefore,this ven erated an cestral n ame may have been purposely

selected by his descendan ts , to distinguish the particular impersonation of divin e power represen ted by that god ,— Osiris , cousisidered as dispen ser of existen ce to all an imated nati1re . N o t thatthey worshipped their an cestor under the n ame or fo rm of a god ,but rather a sen sible man ifesta tion of divin e power rendered in telligible by an emblematical represen tation ,

upon which,for distinc

tion ’ s sake , they conferred the n ame of their an cestor .

Chemosh is doubtless a form ,or the proper n ame of 715113 ,Mo lech ,

he who reigns , the hing.

’ H is Egyptian corresponden t, or rathersubstitute

,Amun

,or Amun -Il a

,is gen erally entitled the king of

the gods.

’ This iden tification of the god by his attributes appearsto explain the origin of the custom so o ften alluded to in Scr ipture ,o f ‘ passing children through a fire un to Molech .

’

It was originally a symbolical rite by which the people who owned him as theirking ofgods so lemnly dedica ted the ir o ffspring to the giver ofincrease , in grate ful acknowledgment, of the gift. T he offeringo f cakes and incense to the quee n of heaven (.le r. xliv . I7) ,

The R ephaim . 1 39

Ashtaro th,fem in in e prin ciple of the same divine power, a pears

grounded on the same idea that the fruits of the earth,in f

gypt,were offered to Khem ,

these two deities being regarded as join t

gi vers of the earth ’ s in crease . Accordingly, the Jews in Egyptattribute the scarcity they complain ofin the ir ex ile , to having leftoff the ir propitiatory offerings to the femin in e giver of abundan ce ,worshipped by the ir apostate fathers, kings and prin ces

,in the

cities ofJudah,and in the streets ofJerusalem . T he spoils of the

Rephaim (vide the plates referred to in notea

) presen t us with thevery pattern of the vessels used in pouring out the se libation s .From their shape , they were eviden tly made of a cow ’ s horn

,

emblem of the goddess and the tip is fin ished with her head,in

a human form . She wears a crown of lotus flowers and buds,and

a long curl hangi ng down the side of her face . T he offering waspoured out from the broad end of the b orn .

T he figure ofKhem gen erally has an altar beside it, bearing theofferings of fruit and corn claimed by that god .

There are strong grounds for believing that groups of Khemand Ashtaroth , similar to our tablet

,are implied by the obscure

referen ces in Isaiah (xvii . 8 ; xxvii . 9) to m e nu, the Khammanim ,‘ T'

IT

and amt/25 ,11, the Asherim ,which occur together, and are rendered

in o ur common tran slation images and groves. The names ofBaaland Asherah are found sim ilarly conn ected (Judg. iii . 7 and

2 Kings xxiii . G esen ius has established that in such in stan ces6 the Asherah (mpg ) is n ot a grove, as it i s common ly tran slated ,but the proper n ame of a goddess , a syn onym of Astarte .

“ In

Hebrew it has a mean ing, the giver of prosperity,’

and was probably her Canaan ite n ame ; it is easily recogn ized in anotherwell-known syn onym of that goddess (H ellen ice) , Beltishera , i . e .

Baalath—Asherah , or Asherah , con sort of Baal ; the very n amethus associated with Asherah in the Bible . pm R hamn

,is found

compounded with the epithet Baal, in the following interestingPun ic in scription on a votive tablet found by Chevalier Schee l nearthe site of an cient Carthage , and deposited in the museum of

Copenhagen

20371 713a nnw‘; T o the G rea t O n e , to T hanath (T H NT H )

IDH' 5IJ35'

1'

1N 53 l? and to the Lord of all lords

,to Baal

fiplm "

l”fi le/N Hamo n (KH M N ) de vo tes himself, the

5m : in1tz11an 11 servan t of M elkarth

,H asho ti, son of

NJn 13 mp Bar-Me lkarth, so n ofHana.

’

k V i de part icu larly 1 K in gs x v . 23 : groves cann o t well b e sa i d to b e built un de ra h igh tree . A lso 2 Kin gs x x i . 7

,w here the qual i fy in g term Spa; dec i dedl y impl ies

an obj ect hewn in stone, w h i ch cannot apply to a grove, but may mean a statue or a

re l ievo figure of the Ashe rah .

1 4 The R ephaim.

This form,KHM

'

N,is obviously the Can aan ite augmen tative of

Khem and Bal-Khmn is the n ame and title corresponding to theMolech-Khem '

sh of the unkn own dialect of the Rephaim,and to

the Amun-Ra,king ofgods,

’

of the Thebaid con sequen tly,the

same god is mean t,whether the compound b e used

,or either of its

separate constituen ts Baal or Molech, the epithets or Kham '

u,

Khem '

ush,or Khem

,the specific n ame . From the distin ction

suggested by 1 Kings xi . 7, we may perhaps in fer that the royaltribe of the Rephaim

,territorial predecessors of the Ammon ites,

had preferably called him by the epithet Molech , the royal god

while the southern bran ch,represen ted by the Moabites , had re

tain ed the proper n ame of the same deity .

A lion ’ s head,crowned

,appears to have been the emblem of the

king ofgods on the con secrated uten sils of his san ctuary. Thisform occurs on an urn among the spoils of the SHAS 'U ofthe UpperMNA region , or Rephaim ofJerusalem . There is a similar urn

,

with the l ion ’ s head uncrown ed,among the spoils of the T AH I

(An akim) , and ofthe SHET ‘

T A (Emim) . In the latter,the lion i s

placed between two geese . This may be an in timation of the god s

paren tage as a goose is the hieroglyphic figure employed to writeideagraphically the name of Seb ,

father ofOsiris and Sheth .

m Alotus- crowned patera

,supported by two geese , occurs among the

T AH I symbols and the same bird surmounts an urn belonging tothe SHET ‘

T A so that the goose is evidently a sacred symbol common to the Rapha n ation s .

SUT H,SUTH '

SH, or Sheth.

In the historica l notice of the children of Sheth , I partly anticipated on the accoun t of the ir tutelar god especially on his

un questionable Egyptian character and pedigree , gran ted by theEgyptians themselve s . H e was the third son of Seb and Netpe

and con sequently, brother of Osiris, Haroeris or Horus the elder,Isis

,and Nephthys patron gods, with Sheth , of the five days over

the year.On Egyptian monumen ts , he is represented under several n ame s,

as a figure with the head of a fabulous long- snouted an imal whoseears are square at the top. O ne of these gi ves the phonetic namean When he hears the name of BAno— Baal— he has the samehead on an equally imagin ary an imal

’ s body, sitting like a dog,with an upright tufted ta il .Sir Gardner Wilkin son gi ves a copy of a most in teresting seal

in the po ssession of Chevalier Kestner, in which the figure with thecharacteristic square ears and pointed snout stands for the third

W ilk inso n , Anc . vo l. i v . p. pl. 3 1 , fig . 1 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 6 The R ephaim.

absolute inversion of his attributes . So far from represen ting theabstract Power of Evil acting in Opposition to Good, even to produce

good, he seems, both by hisb

primary name and secondary forms,to

embody that Good Agen cy that en courages and empowers frailhuman ity to act in Opposi tion to evil

,under Whatever form it may

presen t itself. This view of his character explain s his con stan tassociation with his brother Horus

,who embodied the Divine

Guardian , the Superintending Providence .

‘1 In the picture of the

young Thothmes III . learn ing the use of his weapon s , the kingholds the b ow and arrows, but Sheth teaches him— he guide s hishands : the king darts the javelin in to a target, but Horus loveshim

,for the god

’ s arms are most affectionately— though ratherawkwardly— en twined round the neck of his youthful charge .

Indeed the functions of the two forms assumed by the protectingpower are so nearly allied

,that m one very curious re resen tation

of Sheth they are found united in a double-heade

e

tfbody,the

square- cared Sheth looking one way, and the hawk-faced Horusthe other.It 13 not until a much later epoch than that of the above designs

that Sheth , under his own name , ,became unpopular in Egypt.The change of feeling towards him was gradually wrought out bycircumstances . As tutelar god of the fiercest enemies the Egyptian s ever had to encoun ter

,he first came to be regarded from

a political point ofview as the foe ofOsiris their benefactor, and of

Horus their protector his more abstract character be ing partiallylost sight of. Popular legends now took up this view ; the heroiccomposi tions of a secondary age adapted the political similitude tothe primeval rehgi ous mystery and so

,by grafting on e myt h on

another, tran smitted his name to future gen erations as the betrayerand murderer of his brother Osiris the good . Thus

,little by little ,

the n ational mind became so fam iliarized with the tangible ideaof his an tagon ism to Osiris, that this character ended in superseding the metaphysical conception of which Sheth had ori

ginally been the type . T he Beneficen t Antagonist of evil actuallyended in becoming so obnoxious to popular prejudice as theMalevolen t Antagon ist of good, that his very figure became anobject of aversion

,and every opportunity was sought of erasing

or defacing i t on the sacred edifice s its presence was thought toprofane .

T he represen tations of Sheth under the title of NUB-T E'I‘ are

important, as i n timating that he and the Egyptian T ET (Thoth) are

T he w e ll kn own w inged-aloha emblem is o ne o f the seco n dary fo rms of Ho rus ;

H OR HT ,o r H T

,the shelte r . H en ce Eg pt is desc ri bed as

‘the lan d o f the o ve r

shadow in g w ings,’ b . x v i i i . l T he ‘‘shadow o f th y w in gs ’

is a frequen t me tapho rin po et i c Scripture fo r the pro viden tial care ofJeho vah .

The R ephaim . 123

on ly con sidered as various forms of the same emblematical being,

r

T E T the teacher in gen eral , N UB'

T E'

I‘ or Nebo-Tho th

,the lord

teacher in particular. So that the Egyptian factotum ,Thoth

,is

merely one among several secondary man ifestation s of the primeexemplar Sheth, brother ofOsiris , helper of man ,

viz .,his helper

in understanding. Acco rding to San choniatho , the Phoen ician s

professed to have been in structed in letters and all useful thingsby one called Thautus, just like the Egyptian s by the ir Thoth .

And this derivation ofThoth from Sheth seems to illustrate the

an cien t tradition of the pillars of Seth ,’

on which the elemen tsof their learn ing were in scribed and preserved .

The identity of Thoth with Sheth in a special character isadmitted by the Egyptian s themselves . O ne of the n ames ofSheth

given by Plutarch, is SMU ; whereupon , in his chapter on Sheth,

Chev . Bun sen remarks,

‘ it reminds us of Thoth ’s title Lord of

Eshmunein,derived from Shmun

,the e ighth. In a passage of the

Book of the Dead noticed to us by Birch, we read Tet,otherwise

Set . This intimates that Thoth inherited many of the attribute sof Seth .

’

And in his chapter on T110th,the same distinguished

author observes on the titles ofThoth, Lord of Shmun—Hermopolis— literally

,lord of the E ighth region this rem inds us of the

well known Cabir Esmun ofPhoen icia and Samothrace .

’

(P . 427

and To these suggestion s, I will on ly add ; put them together

,and they con firm each other. SMU

, given by Plutarch as atitle ofSET H , is simply ESHMUN ,

a little mangled by the G reekin terpreter ; the Phoen ician puma, derived from pow,

eight ; forthe title of Thoth in his legends, Lord of SHMUN- NU

,is written

with eight strokes ; which proves both the orthography and the

e tymology of the name Lord of the region ofEshmun,

or the

E ighth and in so doing, e stablishes the Phoenician character ofthe original possessor and patronym of the regi on appropriated toThoth . This regi on is still called O shmounein : the Greeks calledit Hermopolis, the city of H ermes

, because they iden tified their‘

Epums, the In terpreter, wi th Thoth, otherwise Sheth,

’ though theyderived him from the Pelasgi c or Prom-Phoen ician Cabir Eshmun‘the eighth,

’

who is SMU the synonym of Sheth . The con clusionarising out of these considerations, is therefore clearly this

f The an cien t Egyptian rad i cal t t is e xac tly equ i valen t in all its de rivat ion s tothose of the Hebrew and the Greek A67 , to say ,

’

or speak , w hen ce Ao '

y o s .

T he E gypt ian Greeks, the re fo re , made out T ho th to be Hermes, the in te rpre te r . ’T he Egypt ian fo rm of NUB '

TT con sists of the go l d bow l (syllab i cal ly read NUBin the tit le ofAmen emha I I . on the table ts ofAbydos and Karn ak ) , N , and t he

complemen tary leg, B , follow ed by the n ame of T ho th phon et i cal l y w r i tten , T and

the s . o fdupl i cat ion : TT . T he go ld vessel seems to have been cho sen fo r its soun drathe r than the common vessel NE B , because of its greate r resemblan ce to NE U , 13 )b ut the radical sense of the epi the t remains the same , lo rd -teache r .

’

1 8 T he R ephaim.

Sheth or SUT H is the proper n ame , the character-name, andrepresen ts the primary form of the divin e imperson ation it den oteswhile the other character-n ames are qualification s of that primary,and therefore secon daries to it .Sheth, which mean s

‘ what exercises power over and overpowers,

’

is that eman ation of the Primeval Osiris,the overcomer of

Evi l,which is the H elper. Hen ce he i s mythically regarded as

brother to the same Osiris, con sidered in a more exclusive light asthe Gi ver

,whether of life or of all other good things . And under

that,his primi tive and proper n ame , we find Sheth established in

a territorial character also, as the tutelar god of the Emim,and

patronym of their land and tribe,Shittim or SHET TA N

, the‘ land

ofSH ET .

’

Baal or ‘ BARO,who smites his enemies

,is a title applied to

him as H elper of the n ation : whether ln Egypt or in Phoen icia .

Tbo th or T T,the speaker and teacher

,or interpreter

,i s the

H elper in Wisdom,and likewise a character common to Egypt and

Phoen icia .

Nebo-Thoth, or N U B‘

T T,is a more exclusive form of the same

,

peculiar to Egypt, the imparter of knowledge and power to kings.

Eshmun ,Shmun or SM U ,

the E ighth, i s simply his ordin al designation in the primeval Cabiric scheme ; for originally, accordingto Herodotus, the Cabiri had n o n ames.

It is under the latter designation that Sheth was revered by theCan aan ites, his proper n ame

o

b eing regarded as the privilege and

heritage ofhis children . In this way,the synonym Eshmun became

kn own to the garbled tradition s Of the post-Phoen ician period,

ascribed to Sanchon iatho by his copyists ; but this period on ly beginsw ith the Hebrew conquest . The n ame Eshmun occurs on Punicinscription s an ancien t tombstone discovered n ear the site of

ancient Carthage presen ts it as the name of a de ity patronym of aman .

mas 13 um 1 311 03m m p

G ra v e of Hobas,servan t ofHava

,son ofAbd-Eshmun .

‘

T he scriptural form corresponding to N UB 13 1 , Neb o,is found as

a loca l n ame in the domain s of the children of Sheth . Moun tNebo was the most elevated part of the Abarim or Moabite mountains

,in which that tribe pastured their flocks . Its being charac

terized as the summ it of the h igh land , moan Wm ,suggests the

most probable situation of the height called Moun t Ncbo as thewatershed which separates the valley of the / urku from that of theArnon , and where the latter and its tributaries take their rise .

Fal be , C a rthage. l lava, L ife, is a sy no nym o f Astarte .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

20 T he R ephaim.

rior,as those of the Assyrian Astarte were from the Atesh of

Shittim . T he god i s walking ; he has an ax e in his right hand ,and in his left a bundle of either arrows or thunderbolts . H e

wea1 s, of course, the Assyr ian costume , and his head is adornedwith a double pair of horn s

,but the oryx -emblem is absen t .

However, as we know from the Egyptian monumental n oticesthat Sheth , and Baa l or Baro who smi tes his en emies,

’

are the

same god , the on e in his proper local n ame, the other in a special

character, his iden tity with the Egyptian ized Renpu is sub stan

tiated by the Assyrian copy of the latter bearing the name of theone w ith the form of the other . By tracing this god to his original form and home , we Obtain another in teresting elucidation of avery obscure passage of Scripture : the much- commented and

n ever-explain ed Amos v . 26,27. I have already remarked on

the misapprOpriation of the epithet to the goddess Ken I havetherefore on ly to follow up the clue to its right appropriation .

This is suggested , and as we shall find, correctly, by the Septua

gin t substitute Pa t! a v, or according to the quotation in Acts v n.

‘ Panpaw. These translators,1 esiding 1n Egypt at a period when

its hieroglyphic writing and inythologieal system were known matters of evei y- day teaching, appear to have availed themselves of

the knowledge that the tutelar god Sheth of the Midian ite regionwas SU TH

'

SH or Sothis,patronymic of the brillian t dog- star

,

“

and that Be npu or Remphan was particularly his local characterin Ken

,to poin t out the ultimate application of the vague epithet

in) ,‘ the In candescen t,

’ to the god it mean t, by substituting hisn ame

,and thus rendering it perfectly clear who was the star—god

in the explanatory verse that follows .

T he sac rifices , and the o ffering,D id ye. prese n t them un to I\Ie

In the desert , forty years, O ye so ns of Israel ? ’

HEB . SEPT .

Y e bo re the sh r ine o fgour Mo lech , ’ Y e bo re the sh rin e ofMo lech ,And the Burn in g-obj e c t (ch iun ) o fg/ouxr images, And the star of y ou r godT he Star o f y o u r god Ita ipha n (fo r c ln un ) , the ir imagesWh i ch ye made fo r y o u rselves.

" Wh ich ye made fo r yourselves .

\'

l e need no t inquire which of these various d ist1 ibutions 1s themost likely to be the authen tic reading : that is a question o f

verbal crit icism foreign to the prese nt subjec .t All that con cern sus is the fact that SU r1 1 SH or So this was the pat i on of the dogstar, the China

, pm,or

‘ Incandescen t ;’

and that he was alsolleupu, ltaipha11 , o r llemphan ; and that this iden tity

,notorious

Ruasm , Inn/pt s l’la ce

,\ O l. i . p.

'

l his n un b e t i an slate d‘Y o u l image s o f the I n can descen t , ’ ‘

Y o u r Star-go d .

’

The R epha im.

in Egypt, and well known to the G reek in terpreters, dictated t11e irsubstitution of the n ame Renpu for the epithet Chiun (W3 ) .T he crux: an sata held by Renpu m the tablet group deserves a

remark. As it is the we ll known hieroglyphic emblem of life ,generally put in to the hands of Egyptian divin ities, it might herebe taken for an Egyptian convention ality. But the spoils of the

Rephaim 1n the triumphs of Seti-Menephtah shut o ut this supposition , for among these , that very emblem forms a con spicuousobject

,beautifully orn amented . A vessel among the L T -N (Ela

thite) spoils is formed by the cross ; two kn eeling figures of mensupport the arms, and the effigie s of two gods, Ashtaroth and

Renpu, surmount the circular upper limb . In another, among thespoils of the SHET ‘

T A (Em im) , the cross is supported by the oryxhead ofR enpu, but the efligy over the top i s obliterated . Thespecimen among the spoils of the T AH I Anakim is n ot ornamentedwith any effigie s ofgods fl

ANK . Anak,Onka .

Onka is well known to an tiquity as a great Phoen ician goddess .Pausanias regards her as the Athene ofThebes in Boeotia

,where

,

like the Egyptian prototype of Athen e , NE IT H, she was worshippedin a temple without a roof ; and her establishmen t there is quitein harmony w ith the tradition that ascribes the foun dation ofThebe s to Cadmus the Phoen ician . From what we have seen of

the children of Anak,it is manifest that she was the tutelar genius

and patronym ic of their nation ,which by its n ame ntpm, O nkites,

justly claims to be the original people from whom the appellatioriPhoen ician s was derived

,though we find it applied 1 11 after- times

to a differen t people .

T he costume of the gods is gen erally borrowed from that of thepeople . I have already had occasion to notice the iden tity ofthe headattire of the Philistian s

,and that of the Egyptian goddess ANK

the resemblan ce is n ot on ly in the circular crown ofupright featherswhich crests the cap

,but in the form of the cap itself.

Z This indicates a particular locality— Southem Palestin e— as the originalseat of a divin e impersonation , which we nevertheless find extending at the earliest period of Egyptian history to beyond the

cataracts of the Nile ; sin ce ANK is found there as a member of

the northern E thiopian triad . She was hon oured as a con templardeity throughout all Egypt, though we must go out of Egypt tofind her territo1 ial and primary seat . T he on ly Egyptian goddess

V See n o te a fo r re feren ces .

2

Compare the go ddess ANK n urs ing the k i ng , Ro se l . , M on . Stor . , pl . 62 s. 4,

w i th the batt le-scene (127 an d 1 3 1 ) o f Med ine t Abou , and the figure of ANK inW i lk in son ’

s Anc . Egyp. ,vo l . v . pl . 48, part 2 .

22 The R ephaim .

besides ANK,who wears the same head- dress, is PE or T PE , the

personification of the celestial firmamen t on monumen ts of the

remotest antiquity.

O n an inscription of the Ptolemaic period, in the island of

Sebayl, immediately below the first cataract, the Greek form ofher n ame is given as

’

Avowm ,called also Eon -ia .

“ As the GrecianAphrodite

,in her attributes

,was conn ected with the Athor of the

Rephaim,though she had n othing in common with that of the

Egyptian s —so we shall find the Grecian Hestia (Vesta) connectedin hers on ly with the ANK of the Rephaim,

having nothing incommon with the Egyptian goddess . Sir Gardn er Wilkin songives a copy of a triad in the temple of Denderah, composed ofIsis

,H orns, and Nephthys, in which the latter is styled N EB

'

T E I,

the Saviour - sister, AN E .

’ b Here,the Egyptian s them selves, -in

an orthodox temple—represen tation , admit that the mythical Neph

thys, sister of Osiris,Horus

, and Sheth , and wife of the latter, i sone and the same with her who in her territorial character is calledANK . N ow

,in this iden tity alon e can we understand her being

iden tified with the Grecian Hestia or Vesta . T he n ame ofNeph

thys,which gi ves her character

,is in its Egyptian etymology, T he

lady over the This ascribes the very same character toher, as the G reek

‘

Ec n a, the goddess guardian of the household

and domestic hearth . T he Greeks recognized this character inANK, and yet it could on ly suit her, from her being also N E B

‘

T'

E I,

the Saviour sister. ’ The Greek paren tage of Hestia also agree swith that of Nephthys

,as Seb and Netpe are the Egyptian cor

responden ts of Chronos and Rhea, paren ts of Vesta .

‘ Nephthys, the Saviour- sister,’ was the con so rt of Sheth . It

was a beautiful idea,thus to subdivide the P ower that averts E vil

into a masculine and a fem in in e imperson ation ; the former, as

teaching man to defend his person and father- land,—the latter, as

presiding over his hearth and home !Nephthys, the Saviour- sister, ANK, has also another character,

in which she assumes a more active Office as protectress of herchildren . This form i s also common to the Egyptian and protoPhoen ician goddesses ; for Onka was regarded as the Athene of

Bmo tia ,Pallas the warrior

,the shield and champion ofher votaries ;

and Ncith,the territorial divin ity of Sa

'

is in Lower Egypt—Neith,the pro to type of Athene , and patronym of Athens, which was

founded by a colony of emigran ts from Sa 1s, —even Neith herselfwas on ly regarded in. Eggpt as a derivative form of ANK

,ANK as

W i l k in so n , Ann. l it/3,11" vo l. v . p. 26.

b l l ) i1l. , v o l. p. 4538 .

He r name co n s ists o fa b o w l, calle d nab, placed upo n a h o use , answe rin g to

E l o r T E 1 .

’—lb id .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

24 The R ephaim.

a shuttle by hieroglyphists (though it rather resembles a bracelet) ,which is employed in Egyptian in scription s to write the n ame of

N eith,or as the determin ative of the n ame when written phoneti

cally,N TH . It i s the goddess

’ s primeval symbol, and it is thereligious and n ation al token -mark of a son of ANK

,imprin ted on

his person .

This fact speaks for itself it needs no commen t . 01 1 the wallsof their san ctuaries , the Egyptian s adm it that t11 e ir great local

goddess N eith is on ly a form of ANK and the children of An akboast of the ir allegian ce to her as the

"

patroness of the ir homesteadby hearing upon their flesh before the face of their enemies theprotecting n ame ofNeith ! 8T he statemen t of Pausani as that Onka in the character of

A thene was the deity honoured by the Thebans and G ephyrean sofBoeotia

,is thus doubly verified . T he exile Phoen ician chief in

troduced the tutelar gen ius of his father—lan d under the form thathad been most hon oured by his people the ir defender in danger .But that

,as in Egypt, was on ly a secon dary character of the Lady

over the home,the Saviour- sister

,ANK .

’

She is also to be met

with by n ame in this secon dary character on her own soil,under

the corresponding forms of ANAT H and T HANAT H,and is figured

by that name,ANT A

,in Egypt so that we can place side by side

and compare the NE I T H- ANK of the Egyptians with her no t lessan cien t coun terpart, the An ath-Onka of the Rephaim .

.us'

rx . ANAT H . Th '

anath .

ANT A is thus a deity an alogous to R E NPU a modified form ofthe Averter ofEvil . She bears the same relation to NE B ’

T'

E I ANK,

P rotectress of the H omes of the children of An ak,that RE NP U does

to SUT H,protector of the children of Sheth ; be ing the patronym

of their land in the special character ofP rotectress of the n ational

H omestead . She then bears warlike attributes corresponding totho se of the Egyptian Neith-Ank .

ANT A is n o t a m ember of the Egyptian pan theon , and is n o tfoun d in any temple .

“ She is depicted in the lower compartmen t

8 Si n ce the abo ve was w r i tte n,Sir Gardn e rW i lk i n so n has me n t io n ed to m e two

o th e r i n stan ces he has me t w i th in Egypt o fANK and n s'

rn be i ng i den t ified w i theach o the r . 1 quo te from h is o w n commun i cat io n 011 t he subj e ct. T hat th i sgo ddess (ANK ) , t he E gypt ian V esta,

was a characte r o fNe i th is e v iden t, as w e fi ndh e r o n an an c ie n t table t in the is lan d o fSehayl, as w e l l as in the '

l‘

e n lple o f l’h ilte ;

t he fo rm e r o f l ’harao n ie , the latte r o f P to lema i c t ime . She is cal led ANK,lad y o f

t he land o fNe i th .

’

T h e se two i nstan ces are v e ry va luab le ; l stly , as co rro bo rat i n g the v iew 1 e x

pre sse d ab o ve , that N e i th and Auk are o n l y tw o forms o f t he same pt itnary c ha

rue te r , Neph th y s , gua rd ian o f the ho use , w i fe o f the d e fe nd e r o f the land ; 2nd ly ,

as sho w i n g , by the date s o f the two represe n tat i o ns re fe rre d to , the an tiqu it and

pe rs iste n cy o f tha t o pi n io n in Egypt ; 3 rd ly , as pro v i n g the o rth o do x y 0 thato pi n i o n ,

by the fac t. o f its be i n g co n fessed in a templar repre sen ta t io n .

h V i de also Anc . v o l. v . pl. part

The R ephaim .325 [ 3 /

of the tablet of Kaha in our Museum,rece iving offerings from the

w ife and family of that fun ctionary the upper compartmen tbe ing occupied by the great n ational triad . She sits on a thron e

,

brandishing the same battle-ax e as Benpa ,with one hand

,and

holding a shield and lan ce in the other. She wears the crown of

Upper Egypt, like the single figures of Renpu, and for the samereason

,her devotees be ing residen ts in that country but with this

difference,that it is deco rated w ith twofeathers. A crest of two

feathers we know to be a characteristic poin t of costume amongsome An akim tribes they are a very conspicuous orn amen t on thefigure who bears the hieroglyph of Neith on his limbs. Thisbeing a n ational peculiarity , it was necessary to in troduce it in thecostume of the goddess of the n ation . Con sequen tly

,the Egyptian

artisan who executed the figure has rather awkwardly tried tocombine it with the con ical cap of the Upper coun try

,which

custom required she should wear in Egypt, by fix ing the two feathers up the side of the cap .

T his distin ctive feature of costume suggests, that in order todistinguish their tribe by some outward token ,

the Philistine children of Onka had adopted the badge of the goddess of the landin her domestic character

,the simple Onka-Nephthys

,the Guar

dian ; whereas the moun tain-t ribe,who garrison ed the fortresses,

had given the preferen ce to that which in dicated her bellicoseattributes

,Onka-An ath the Defender .

Among the mutilated sculptures of Beit-el~Wally,i illustrating

the early campaign s of Rameses II .

,there occurs a subject which

en ables us to iden tify the emblem of An ath among the sacredsymbols of the Rephaim . The king is engaged in single combatw ith a chief whose imperfect costume makes it un certain whetherhe be on e of the An akim ,

or of the SHAS ‘ U of the Upper MNA,or

Jerusalem region ; the head- dress square~ cut behin d and short

kilt being common to both . Ramese s of course is giving his en emythe coup cle grace and

,as if to show that even the tutelar goddess

of his en emies had forsaken them ,she is in troduced joining the

king in his attack, under the form ofa dog, a domestic dog with acollar on over its head is the n ame An ta the Goddess . ’

Now,among the Spoils of Seti—M en ephtah there is a vase

crowned with lotuses and buds, in three rows, of a beautiful form,

apparen tly represen ting the land and the river ; and on the footof the vase

,supporting it like the other sacred emblems we know

to b e gods, are two dogs. It is the only instan ce of this an imal ’sbeing found among these objects, and it occurs among the Spoilsof the LT

’

N,dependen cy of the children ofSheth . The faithful

Ro sellin i, M on . Sto r ici , pl . 66.

26 The R epha im.

and watchful house-dog i s a very appropriate emblem to typifythe Protectress of the Homestead .

The name ofAn ath occurs in the geographical n otices of Scripture there was a Beth Anath,mtg

-mg, in n orthern Canaan,Ana

thoth, ningy, n ear Jerusalem,

and Beth-Anoth in southern Judea .

T he formThanath , T E 'NT H,in which the feminine particle ap

pears combin ed with the n ame, is of frequen t occurren ce on

Phoenician in scriptions . It is foun d on the Pun ic tablet quotedabove ; and show s that the goddess ,

was greatly venerated by theTyrian colony of Carthage . As An ata and Ana 1tis

,she was also

exten sively hon oured in the lan d northward ofPhoenicia,even to

the confines ofArmen ia .

H OR . HAH OER I . H oras .

It hitherto appears that four out of the five gods to whom the

five supernumerary days of the year were dedicated by the Egyptian s

,are the type s in to which the chief and tutelar gods of the

Rephaim are ultimately re solvable Osiris and Isis as the giversof life Sheth and N ephthys as the Averters ofEvil . This leavesa reason able probability that the fifth member of this myt hicalfam ily—Horus the Protector—was n ot unrepresen ted in the pantheon of the Rephaim .

Hor,orHaroeri, brother ofOsiris, i s also called H T ,

‘the Shelter

,

’

and H O B -H T,un der which names he is figured e ither with a

hawk ’ s head,or as the well kn own winged globe, the Agathodaemon

of Egypt . N ow,according to Eusebius , the Agathodaemon of the

Phoen ician s also had a hawk’ s head ;

"and this statemen t is no t

in con sisten t w ith the fact that am ong the spoils of their precursors,the Rephaim,

there occurs a sacred vesse l with the head of a hawk,

eagle, or rapacious bird of some kind , on its cover.Certain local names in their land, by their repetition ,

would alsotestify to the worship of Horus . There was a Beth -Horon inJ11dea , and an other in Shittim ,

and also Iloron -a

'

nn,the double

city of H or. O 11 the fron tier’

of southern Judea we find the

fortress ofAroer an other Aroer on the Arnon , on the fron tier ofMoab a third before Rabbah ,

’

on the fron tier of the Zuzim asif fron tier cities were specially committed to his g uardian ship .

Whether this fo rm of the Divine Protector was selected by theAmalekites as the watchers of the nation

,i s a question which may

b e further suggested by the n ame they gave to the form of the

Un iversal Osiris they especially reveren ced— Oro- tal . The syl

lable T A R or TM . o ccurs so ofte n as a mere add ition to the n ame,

Euse bi us, l ’ru'

p. Ev . l . 10. V i d e Ro se llin i, fi l o”. Sto r ic i, pl. 48 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

28 The R epha im.

kindred from Lower Egypt were founding settlemen ts in the Pe lo~

ponn esus, while those of Palestin e were con cen trating all theirforces from far and n ear to resist the Egyptian invading power evenso early do we find the n ame of the Horite city E lath

,LT

‘

N’

N U,

bringing to the treasury of the con queror the tribute of the wealthshe had amassed in her traffic with the Euphratesian region s ofSAEN KAR (Shin ar, nygt

v) and BBL (Babel , Sag)?

Oann es,fl aw -m ,

thus in troduced in to the East, is merely theHebrew Aon

, tits, with a Greek case- term in ation ; and the H e

brew form i s on ly a tran script of an an cien t Coptic word which,according to Champollion, signifies

‘ to enlighten .

’

Aon was the origin al n ame of the god worship ed in the greatsan ctuary of Heliopolis, which is called in Scripture by itsn ame

,Beth-Aon, the house of O n ,

’ as well as by its tran slation,

Beth-Shemesh,the ‘ house of the sun .

’

The language that explain s a local god

’ s n ame , surely poin ts out the n ation who firstworshipped him under that n ame . T he prim itive Aon was therefore the en lighten er of man

,

’ to a people speaking the primitivelanguage, out ofwhich the Coptic sprang ; and such a people werethe Caphtorim of Lower Egypt, whom we afterwards find established among the Philistines in Palestin e . Under this purespiritual attribute

,the Supreme G od was known to the ancien t

H eliopolitans, and con tinued to b e an object of secre t adorationby the re ligious con servatives of the lan d

,its priests

,who veiled

under the garb ofmysteries and in itiations the purer M izraimiteworship of their an ce stors, long after the subjection of LowerEgypt to the Theban s long after the dominan t race had iden tifiedthis god with their Ba or Sun

,which appeared his most fitting

emblem . Nevertheless , in the popular religion —that of the rulers,who commanded

,and ofthe people , who must obey—Aon gradually

glided into the mixed Sun -

god B it , of the Egyptian astro-mythologica l system ; in the same way that Thoth

,the early instructor

of the Mizraim in letters, arts, science,and th e division of time

,

according to their an cestral tradition s, had the moon ,the n atural

divider of time , placed under his care .

T he an cien t M izraimite name Aon i s never men tioned as asynonym of lts by the Egyptian s themse lves . Except in the

n ame of their mon th Paon i , we only meet with the primeval n ameamong the kindred races out of Egy pt, as that of a con templar

god wo rshipped under the same attributes ; or learn i ts formerexistence in Egypt obliquely, from extra-Egy

ptian sources . As

under the prescribed form of the state religion , 1e was named 11s,

Bi rch o n the Stat ist i cal T abl e t o fKarnak ,Tra n s . R . S . of Litera ture , v o l. i i .

N ew Se ri es .

The R ephaim . 29A35“

and identified with the sun,the physical light,— the san ctuary of

Heliopolis, in Scripture is alluded to either as Beth-Aon,the House

of Aon,or as Beth-Shemesh, the House of the Sun . And the

Egyptian name of the city in the Mosaic period,when the Delta

was annexed to Egypt, is accordingly foun d as w arm Ba-meses,

the birth- place of 11s,rendered b y the G reeks Heliopolis

,city of

the Sun . An explanatory gloss of the Septuagint tran slators, subsequen tly copied in to the text, and thus most fortun ately preserved ,in timates their knowledge that the Aon of which Joseph

’ s fatherin—law was priest was the same as Heliopolis

,and their accuracy

as to that referen ce is proved by the priest’ s official name

,

P et-Ph-Ré,dedicated to Rap

Aon,the divine enlightener of men , was therefore the patrony

mic god of ‘the lan d of Rameses ’ or Goshen .

’

H is outwardsymbol was a young bull . In the ancien t Egyptian language thesame hieroglyphic denotes a ba ll and a chief.

“ In the Hebrew,

likewise,the n ame of a bull

(with ) is derived from the root we) , to rule .

Such is the simple origin 0 all sacred symbols . It is only our

ignorance of an an cien t people ’ s language that leaves the importof their emblems a mystery . In Egypt a live animal was sub sti

tuted for the ideagraph , in after- times : Manetho gives the reignofKaiechos

,second king of the T hin ite dynasty

,a descen dan t of

Men es,as the era of the innovation that brought in the worship of

a living an imal- symbol . It formed no part of the original Mizraimite system .

The worship ofAon under the tauriform emblem i s also clearlytraceable in the lan d of the Rephaim Beth-El is called Beth-Aon

in Josh . vii . 2,and 1 Sa . xiii . 5 . Hosea also alludes to ‘

thecalves ofBe th-Aon

,

’ Ch . iv . 1 5 v . 8 x . 5. The name,as B eit

In,is still extan t . It was the antiquity of this symbol of local

worship at Beth-El which induced Jeroboam to select the spot forits restoration . We now refer to the Egyptian monuments . Afterthe defeat of the SHAS ‘ U in the upper MNA or Shepherd regi on,Seti Menephtah presen ts their Spoils to Amun ;r among them iscon spicuous a beautiful vase , on the cover of which the emblematical bull i s represented , leaping among the water- plan ts . Anotherbull

,stan ding on a pedestal, forms the cover of a tall urn among

P Wilk inson , Anc. Egyp., vol. iv. p. 301 .

q T he roo t ha in Egypt ian is a bull ; and also to set up co rrespon ding to the

Hebrew NW) , from w hich 5020, a prince, l i terally a superior.

Rosell in i, M on. Storici , pl.T

52. T here is also a bull -headed urn amon g thespo ils of the Anak im of TAH I , pl. 56, an d of the SH ET ‘

TA, pl. 59. T hese are kn own

from the Ashtaro th urn s b y the absen ce of the d isk , and the head be ing in pro fi le .

T he en tire figu re of a bull on the top of a beaut i ful lo tus-plan t vase also o ccurs‘

amon g the SH ET ‘

TA symbols .

30 The Rephaim .

the same spoils, similar to those crown ed with the emblems of

Ashtaroth and Renpu . This bull ofAon was the golden calf ofthe Exodus— the con secrated emblem of the ruler of Goshen ; itsliving exemplar was called Mnevis at Heliopolis

,and Apis at

Memphis .T he maritime Aon

,or Phoenician and Chaldean Oanne s

,is a

symbolical form peculiar to the people of the sea- coast,Pelesheth .

It is the Dag- on or Fish- on of Scripture, compounded of 17,fi sh

,

and p, con tracted form of the name of the god . I have a copy of

an an cien t coin in the British Museum,which represen ts Dagon

on one side , and a ship on the other. The god has a human headand arms

,and the tail of a dolphin . In his right hand he holds a

fish with its head upwards, in his left another with its head downwards . This ingenious hieroglyphic signifies that in the land overwhich Aon

,the enlightener of men , ruled and guided the sun

,it

began its course on land,in the east (the fron t) , figured by the

human fore-part ; and en ded it in the sea in the west (the back) ,figured by the hind part of a maritime creature . It reached its

greatest elevation at the right hand of the god , i . e. the south,

this i s implied by the fish looking upward ; and it sank below thehorizon at his left

,the north ; this is expressed by the fish going

down . Such an emblem must have been design ed in a coun try of

which it accurately described the geographical bearings —one withthe con tinen t eastward , and a western sea ; and , moreover, for theemblem to b e in tell igible, it requires that the mode of orien tationwhich refers the east to the fron t

,the west to the back , 850. should

be customary in the language of the coun try . These conditionsare fulfilled in Palestine alone ,—in the region of the maritimeproto-Phoen ician s

,where we find the Scriptural Philistines, wor

shippers of Dagon . And they must ha ve in troduced it in to Babylon ia

,for there the emblem loses all its descriptive significance , and

consequently it n ever could have been framed in that country .

T he Oann es of Chaldea , by the internal evidence of his repre

sen tation and his Copti c name , confirms the admission of Berosusthat he was introduced in to that coun try by foreigners . H is figurein the Khorsabad sculptures on ly differs from the original type inthat it wears the Assyrian costume . H e has a double pair ofhorns ; his geographical emblems, the human fore part and fish ’ stail

,the right hand pointing upwards and the left downwards

,are

preserved ; but the accessory fishes are absen t .T he form of Dagon in both represen tations illustrates with a

singularl circumstantial precision the allusion to the catastropheof his fa l , in 1 Sa . v . 4

,Behold, Dag on was prostrate with his

face to the ground before the ark of the Lord ; the head of Dago nand both the palms ofhis hands being cut ofl

'

upon the thresho ld

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

32 The R ephaim.

thah was not changed , though it has n o known sense in the lan

guage ofEgypt but it was given to a new form of the same god ,an upright mummy—shaped figure and the more an cien t characterwas then distinguished by a qualifying n ame

,P thah—Sokar—Osiri .

T he monumental effigies of the god hearing this n amex shew him

to be the Great Lord of the mysterious ri tes, referred to by Herodotas

,whose time-honoured and most sacred effigy was in the form

of a pigmy man like the figures called by the Phoenician s P ataikos

(likeness of Ptah) , which they fixed to the prows of their vessels .

If an emblem i s understood, its obj ect is fulfilled ; but to us itseem s a strange expedient to suggest so abstruse and majestic anidea as that of the Amu oup

'

yos,‘ maker of the people” at the

en tering in of its existen ce on earth,through so con temptible a

medium as an unperfected represen tation ofhis own work—ah un

developed human being— a stun ted and deformed little pigmyThe Theban form of P thah varied the expression of the same

conception by a figure wrapped up in bandages— undisclosed and

Sir Gardner Wilkin son men tions a very curious illustration of thenotion embodied in thi s impersonation— the door or Open ing of thecreative act— the Creator design ing his work by a represen ta tion of

P thah tracing with a reed the outlin e of a human figurefi— F . C .

W ilkin son ,Anc . Egyp. , vo l. iv . p. 253, pl . 24, fig . 2 .

7 I b i d . , p. 253 , pl. 23 .

LON DON : P R INT E D I!" W I LL IAM (‘

LOW ES AN D SONS, ST A M F O R D ST R HIH’

.

T HE REPHAIM ,AND T HEI R C O N N EC T IO N W IT H

EG YPT IAN HIST O RY.

“

CHAPTER XVI I .

T HE Divine forms reveren ced by the Rephaim be ing thus foundiden tical in name and office with those of Mizraim, the commonorigin of the respective system s proves itself. The Creator man ifest in His works was the object of their worship . To obtaina distin ct View of the Divin e attributes, the Mizraim separatedthese into so many figurative impersonations, distinguished byappropriate n ames . In this

,they did n ot differ from the Hebrews,

who knew the true G od under various names . The ir JE HO VAHis the Eternal , their ELOH IM is the foun tain of Power manifestin creation ; the ir SHAD DA I, the Power exercised over all cre

ation ; their AD ONA I , the Governor of the world ; their ZEBAOT H ,the Spiritual Defender of their Theocratic polity . By thesevarious epithets, a Hebrew no more understood five Gods, thana primitive M izraimite when he distinguished his primeval Osiris,or maker of being, from Isis, the receptacle of being ; and expressedby various appropriate emblems his idea of G od the Creator ofthe world, called Pthah, as di stinguished from G od the Enlighten er of the world, called Aon ; from G od the all-pervading Spiritan imating the world, called Neph

bor from God the Susta iner,

renewing the world, called Khem . These names did not designate a varie ty of gods, but the same Divine Be ing con sidered asthe subject of a differen t attribute expressed in the name .

We n eed no t digress to trace how these purely abstract impersonation s, on becom ing multiplied, degen erated into polytheismor how the use of mnemon ic symbols to suggest the attributethey person ified, degenerated in to idolatry. This 1s a secondarypoin t

,i n which the Rephaim erred in common with all heathen

an tiquity and beyond our presen t purpose , which 1s rather to distinguish the origin and conn ection of their system w ith that of

Egypt, from the in ternal eviden ce of the system itself ; to confirmtheir ethnographical position in the primeval civilized world

,as

a branch of the great M izraimite fam ily .

T he four man ifestation s of the primeval Osiris,that are called

P thah,Aon , Neph , and Khem ,

with their con sorts Pasht,Neith

,

a Con cluded from the O cto ber numbe 1 of the J . S. L .

b O the rw ise Num , p and m be in g in te rchangeable . The resemblan ce of th isname to the G reek wueuaa, wind, spirit , is remai kable .

34 The R ephaim.

Sati , and Maut, con stitute the eight great gods of thefirst order,in the Egyptian system . Whereas

,their exemplars

,Osiris and

Isis, under these the ir own primary names, and con sidered asbelonging to the system of five manifestations known as the familyof Seb and Nutpe , are only ranked in the third order of precedence ; the seco nd order being filled by twe lve divin ities whosevarious characters Show that they arose out of subdivision s- partieularizing developmen ts as it were—of those primary gen eralization s that form the third order. Such is the prin ciple o n whichthe Egyptian pan theon was framed.

’

All we have to Show, byadducing a few cases in poin t, is, that the n ational deities of the

Rephaim are those primary and gen erali zing forms of the Mizraimite theogony, out of which the Egyptian system itself waselaborated ; and consequen tly that the criterion of rank assignedto a de ified form is not its an tiquity , but its n ation ality ; preceden ce

, in Egypt, be ing given to the patron -

gods'of Egyptian

lands, over those whose domain s were extra-Egyptian .

Osiris, who under that popular n ame only ranks in the thirdorder, is n evertheless the great god worshipped over all Egyptalike the mysterious be ing whose real n ame it was not lawful toutter. Osiris unmanifested

,is Amun (the con cealed) , an expletive

for that sacred name . In thi s character, he ranks in order 1 , as

god ofThebes . Osiris manifested is Khem, the Pan of Thebes,

con sort of Maut (the mother) . In this character,his name in

Egypt was cance lled ; its equivalent, Amun, be ing substituted .

But under that obliterated name we find him the king ofgods, inPalestine .

Isis, though only ranked in order 3, is foun d under that name ,with all its appropriate titles, bearing the form and emblems ofthe great goddesse s ; the graceful vulture head-dress, symbol ofmaternity

,characteristic of Maut, godde ss of Thebes —or the

cat’ s head, globe , and uraeus o fPasht, goddess ofBubastis— both

0 order 1 — or the globe and horn s ofAthor,of order 2 she is

even found combining the latter emblem with the bowl and houseofher own Sister, Nephthys, of order 3. All these emblematicalbeings are therefore Egyptian forms of Isis , though unacknow

ledged in Palestine . There , her original name i s merged in to thoseofher characters, like in Egypt ; but, as the great Ashtaroth , producer of abun dan ce, she is the primitive Isis herself, an titype of

the G reek Demeter or Cere s ; and as Ate s h and Ken, she is

equivalen t, bo th in name and office , to Maut and Athor, in Egypt.

Thoth, god of le tters, is ranked in order 2 yet we found i11 1

to be a secondary for m of Sheth the Helper, who on ly ranks inorder 3.

Ank, ranked in order 2, where she is no t related to Tho th , we

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

36 The R ephaim .

The absence of every vestige of astral worship in the religionof the Rephaim is a fact the more remarkable

,that Scripture

con tain s very decisive eviden ce of its having con stituted the idolatryof the Can aan ites before they fell un der the influence , or power,of their eastern n eighbours. In Canaan proper

,we still find a

few n ames alluding to that worship . N or was it altogether era

dicated when the Can aan ites consented to the divin e form s of theRephaim as superior objects of reverence . But what remained ofitwas n o t

,like in Egypt, wrapped up in a complicated garb of cosmo

gon ic similitudes it remained plain ,unqualified adoration ofthe sun

and moon . Both forms are foun d subsisting separately, long afterthe Hebrew conquest. T he children of Israe l are not on ly en

ticed to the worship of Baal-Hamon and Asherah, but also tothat of the Host ofHeaven .

’

T he kings of Judah burn in cen seto Baa l ; and also to ‘

the sun, moon ,and planets. ’ They give

chariots and horses to the sun,at the same time that they make

the ir children pass through fire to Molech and pour out libation s to his con sort

,

‘the Q ueen ofHeaven . Ezekiel

,in parti

on lar,brings out the various corrupt practices of the apostatizing

Israelites, with a marked distinction in their kind as in theirdegree. Even so late as this, though still co - existent, they re

mained unblended . T he idolatrous elders offering in cense in

their own image- chambers,before the symbols of a degraded

worship,is indeed qualified as ‘ an evil abomination —but the

prophet regards it as‘ a greater abomination than this,

’

to find

the women sitting in the house of Jehovah,no t worshipping H im ,

but ‘weeping for Thammuz .

’

Y et even this profanation of the

holy temple is not the con summation of idolatry

Hast tho u seen,son ofman ? thou shal t see st ill grea ter abomin a

t ion s than these And he brough t me to the inner court of the H ouse

of Jeho vah ; and 10 ! at the en trance of the T emple of Jeho vah,

be twee n the po rch and the altar,ab ou t fi ve and twen ty men

,wi th their

backs to the al tar and t11eir faces to the eas t,were bow ing themse l ves

befo re the sun,towards the eas t (Ez. v ii i . 9

T he allusion to the ode ofDeborah is also decisive evidence thatthis was especially the idolatry of Canaan . T he pictorial sarcasm that introduces the defender ofAn ak under the form ofher

Phoen ician emblem , a dog, dragging the chief ofher people downby tagging at his garmen t behind, while the king ofEgypt knockshim o n the head , -is n o t more in ten se in its power of expressinghow utte rly the gods of the Anakim have forsaken them ,

than thedaring poetic image

E ven from the hea vens,they fo ugh t

T he stars in the ir orb i ts fought agains t Sisera

The Rephaim. 31 ll: 3

is in declaring how powerless were those objects of an idolatrousworship to save their in fatuated votaries, the Canaanite host of

Jabin . But,indeed, the Canaan ite nomen clature of the four

quarters,based 011 the posture of a worshipper of the rising sun

,

is as strong an indication as we could desire, that sun -worship wasthe pristine idolatry of the people in whose language those termshave that sign ifican ce .

This point being clear, and the di stinctness of the co -existen tsystems equally so

,some idea may be formed of the influen ce the

Rephaim must have obtained over the whole land of Canaan , bythe fact that their local gods became the gods Of Can aan ; andeven

,in some influen tial state s, quite superseded the astral wor

ship . But though Ashtoreth is‘the abom in ation of the Zido

n ians,

’ as well as of Ken,we do not find her the patronym of the

Can aanite foun dation city, as in Bashan . Though Sheth , as

Thautus or Eshmun ,and Onka, as Thamath , are reveren ced by

the Tyrian s up to the very destruction of their Carthagi n ian colony,we do not find those divin e forms patronyms of a single tribe or

metropolitan city, like Sheth among the Shittim,Onka among the

Anakim, Pthah in NO'

pth (NOph, Memphis) , by the Naphtuhim ,

and Athor in Pathyris or Pathros, by the Pathrusim .

In the remote East, the same phenomenon meets us. The local

gods Of Shittim are e stablished in Babylon,but they are neither

patronyms Of the city, n or of the land,n or of the people . Their

Baal is not Baal-Khamn,the un iversal progen itor, but Seth-Baal

or B enpu with ax e and thunder in hand,

‘ BARO who smites his

en emies :’

the god who exercises powe r and overpowers . ’ TheirHerme s bears the sur name of Nebo

,the assistant of lords, n ot

Thoth or Thautus, the popular teacher. Their Astarte is n ot

AT ‘

SH the abode of being, but Mulitta, Open ly confessing the

Arabian origin we could have ascribed to her from her name . All

this speaks as distin ctly of conquest, as the fable ofOann es teaching and civilizing the brutal savages of the desert of the sea

’

spoke Of colon i zation .

c When, therefore, we find the dim and

confused tradition s ofBerosus, which do n o t gain in clearness bybeing transmitted through the sieves Of several intermediate theorists, declaring the intelligible fact that a primeval dynasty of

mythical Chaldean kings was succeeded by an Arabian dyn asty ,we only require the con current testimony of Scripture , to see

through a whole series of changes in that primeval empire , though

Whether w e take the Assy rian queen -con so rt, Sem i ram is, for a genu ine or

onl y for a my thical personage , we mus t no t lose s igh t o f the h i sto r i cal in di cation scon tain e d in the tradition that assign s as her birt hplace the P h i l ist in e c i ty Ashkalon ,

and gives her ped i g ree as the daughter O f D erk e to or Atergatis , the Ashtaro th o fPelesh

’

eth .

38”

The R ephaim.

we cannot retrace its deta ils,or assign the period of the change s .

And the Scripture record is no t Silen t . Its te stimony is strangelysignifican t, as well as defin ite . It Opens with the notice of the

Rephaim , yet in the ir greatness, though verging towards decline .

A chief of Shinar has joined a powerful combin ation ofAssyrian s,rivals of the Shepherd race

,again st the whole body of that race

but the Object of hostility is man ifestly the Emim— the Terriblepeople— that one tribe which stands out from the rest, branded asan exception of depravity in religion and moral ity from the veryday of its in troduction to our notice . And thus

,the un ited evi

den ce ofsacred and classical tradition en ables us distin ctly to tracethe primary source of their perversion to that great city whichsacred revelation has marked out as the typical cen tre ofeveryre ligious and moral corruption ,

‘ Babylon,the mother of all the

abomin ation s of the earth .

’

This hin ts at the beginn ing of that subversion,both of prin ciple

and practice,which the M izraimite cosmogon ic system underwen t

while tran splanted in Chaldea by the tribe which e stablished itsdomin ion there so long. Success

,by increasing riches , and engen

dering luxury, tempts to the m i suse ofpower . TO conciliate thepopulation of the wealthy region they had acquired, the childrenofSheth may have con sen ted to bring down their religious formula).to its level, in stead of rather exalting and refining those of the

people as they found them . Israel and Judah , in Canaan , fell inthe same way !When the power of the Rephaim in the East was broken, they

brought back to their native homestead the taint in all its fundamen tal prin ciples with which they infected their brethren ofPalestin e ; but which they perhaps had n ot originated :

Beho ld,

’

says E zekiel,addressing Judah, T his was the iniqui ty

(119: perversio n ) of thy sis ter So dom pride , fulness of b read , and pro s ,

perity undis turbed,were hers and her daugh ters

’

, ye t she strengthenedno t the hand of the humb le and needy . T hey became haughty, and

commi t ted abomina tio n before me— and I remo ved them,because I saw

i t !’ (Ez. x v i . 49,

Fearful indeed must the social con dition of a people haw

become , in whose city ten righteous men could no t be found , toincline the scale Of judgmen t on the side ofmercy ! And terrible.indeed was that removal of them,

’ to become from then ceforth inevery prOphetic denunciation , the crown ing comparison for the

deepest abyss of deso latio n so that terms more emphatic can no tbe found to express the fall of Babylon hersel f, the arch- cor

rapter,than that even she ‘

shall become as the o verthrow of

S odom and G omorrah,

’

and that the only possible aggravation to

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

40 The R ephaim.

chieftain . G od appears to the Royal Father of this tribe,in the

visions of the n ight, as to the Hebrew patriarchs ; n ot to warn himofany great impen ding nation al calamity

,but simply to caution

him again st the un con scious commission of a er1me i n appropriating to himself the wife of another man . And Abimelech fearsn o t to address the Almighty with an appeal which speaks ashighly for the moral character of his people as for his own .

‘ Adonai ! wilt thou Slay also a righteous n ation ? Said~he n o t

un to me , she is my sister ?”and she ; even she herself

,said, “ he

is my brother .”In the in tegrity ofmy heart and innocency ofmy

han ds have I don e this . ’ And G od said to him in the dream ,

Y ea , I kn ow that thou didst this 1n the in tegrity of thine heart;

and I have accordingly withheld thee from sinning again st me .

’

(G en . xx . )Manetho ’ s accoun t of the behaviour of the Shepherd rulers in

Egypt 1s perfectly 1 11 keepingwith the state Of religion m Palestineat that time , if we con sider that accoun t as eman ating from an

Egyptian priest deeply imbued with reveren ce for the most corrupt superstitions to which the prim itive Egyptian religion hadbecome degraded at the latter period . T he very acts he den ounces as sacrilege are precisely those from which we shouldargue favourably Of their religi ous practices . They did what theHebrew conquerors ofPalestin e were expressly commanded to dofor the extirpation of idolatry in Canaan . They closed thetemple s Of the false gods, defiled and pulled down their images,sacrificed

,and even ate without scruple the sacred an imals adored

by the Egyptian s . They doubtle ss deemed the religious customsofEgypt idolatrous and debased ; and endeavoured

,while they

were i n power,to suppress them. They thereby i ncurred the

Odium of the priesthood, and of the people governed by the priests .As this preceded by four cen turies Abraham ’ s arrival in Egypt, itis tolerably certain that the tenden cy to harmon ise w ith his own

religious fee lings , which existed among the Shepherd people , andso strangely con trasted with the surrounding co rruption , wasrather the motive that induced him to settle among them, thanthe consequence altogether ofhis example and teaching. Nevertheless, the beneficial effects of these

,in purifying and exalting

the religious ideas of a n ation originally so we ll disposed , bydrawing them even n earer to the prim itive standard of the patriarchal faith than he found them , may safely b e presumed .

Ne ither do the Canaan ites ofJudea show any trace s of de

mo ral izatio n ln the days ofAbraham . \Ve are indeed expresslyto ld that the tip perv

yersio n Of the Amorites was n o t then aecom

plished . Abraham resides am o ng them in the suburbs of the

me tro po lis of Anak. Three o f the ir chiefs are under a special

The Rephaim.21 147

con tract of amity with him ,and aid him in pursuing the captors

o f Lot. In the day of his bereavemen t, his ackn owledged character of a religious teacher, Mpg, superior-one of G od

,

’

is

urged by the children ofHeth as giving him a special claim on

the irgood will and liberality . The choicest family sepulchre s areplaced at his disposal ; the on e he offers to purchase is pressedupo n him as a gift by the owner. Everything in that lan d speaksof a social condition orderly, virtuous, and prosperous, at the timeofAbraham’

s residen ce there .

The degradation of the race who ruled Over that lan d is thusalmost as in comprehen sible for its rapidity as for its enormity .

Soon after Abraham ’ s death,the Shepherd power in Egypt was

finally broken . Then began the great war of the races . It musthave been during the in terval of Israel ’ s sojourn in Egypt thatthe work of depravation was con summated ; but had the body of

the n ation main tained the high moral and religious groun d it heldwhen Abraham dwe lt in its lan d, the sceptre might not have departed from their ruler ; that war m ight never have begun ; theRephaim would n o t have been cast out of their heritage that itmight b e given to another.After the outbreak of the con test with Egypt, the common cause

of the tribe s brought them into closer con tact. They became familiarised with each other ’ s ideas and forms : the evil race corruptedthe good . The taint Spread with fearful rapidity, especially amongthat tribe which we find so con stan tly associated with the childrenofSheth , the An akim for these are marked out by name, in Scripture, among the evil- doers cast out by the decree of the Almighty .

T hou hast heard : who can stand before the children of AnakUnderstand therefore this day, that the Lord thy G od H imself passe tho ver b efore thee : as a consum ing fi re H e w ill destroy them

,H e w il l

bow them down before thee ; so w il t thou drive them out and destroythem quickly. Say no t in thine heart : F or my righteousness theL ord hath brough t me in to inheri t this land but for the wi ckedn essof these nat io ns the Lord do th drive them out from thy presence . N o t

for thy righteousness, nor for the uprightness of thin e heart , goest thouto succeed to their land but for the w ickedness of those na tions do ththe Lord thy G od drive them out from thy presence !

’

(D eut . ix . 3

It is as pain ful to trace the degradation of principle and feelingthus wrought in a people whose beginning was so great and pure,as it is diffi cult to seize on the particular proce sses by which itmay have been wrought ; the palt icular poin t in which the debasemen t of abstract conceptions began , which started by substitutingimpure ideas and forms, as represen tations of actual divin ities, forthose simple emblems ofn ame s originally conferred on attributesof Deity ; and which ended by investing the most cruel and im

42 T he R ephaim.

moral practice s with the notion of doing homage to those divinities !Among the medley of Phoenician traditions ascribed to Sanchoniatho

,there occurs a very remarkable on e , which , from the illus

tration of Scripture it both rece ives and gives, will serve our

purpose better than any other, as a mean s of tracing a primi tivein stitution through several succe ssive stages of corruption .

When the n ation was in imminen t danger from war, a solemnand pain ful ceremony was en acted to avert the calamity impendingover the land . T he king brought forth his son

,his hei r, attired

in all the in signia of royalty,and in the presen ce of all the

assembled chiefs he offered him up in sacrifice in fron t of the citywalls

,to appease the wrath of the offended Deity.

Some commen tators have looked on this tradition as originatingan obscure and disfigured rem in iscen ce of Abraham ’ s sacrifice ;but we have positive evidence in the Bible itself that such a customreally did exist among the R ephaim

,by the in ciden t related in

2 Kings, 26, 27, which occurred in the days ofJehoshaphat, atthe siege ofKir-Harasheth. When the king ofMoab saw thatthe battle was too sore for him ,

he took with him seven hundredmen with drawn swords

,to break through un to the king ofEdom

,

but they could no t . Then he took his eldest son ,who was to re ign

after him ,and offered him for a burn t offering upon the wall .

’

Seeing that the Moabites, by their intimate amalgamation withthe remnant of the Emim ,

cannot fail to have inherited most of

their usage s as well as the ir lands, we here obtain a circumstantialverification of Sanchon iatho

’

s story,that this pain ful scene was

san ctioned by custom as the last resource of despair, by the wholebody of the n ation to whom the Emim apperta in ed , and thus itcame to be perpetuated among the later inhabitants of t n icia,in the same way as among the Moabites .It would therefore appear that the presumed connection between

the ordeal of Abraham and this Phoenician tradition has bin terpre ted backwards, and that we should be much nearer thetruth if we were to regard the previous existence of such a custom,

san ctioned by a fierce but generous fan aticism, in the land whereAbraham was settled , as the fact which gave occasion to the specialform it pleased the Almighty to ordain fo r the trial whereby thestedfas tness of the Patriarch

’ s faith was to be man ifested as a

glorious example to all future generation s .There was a great indignation again st Israel and they de

parted from it, and returned to the land ,’ adds the sacred chro

nicle . Certain ly the sudden outbreak of religi ous excitement,produced on a brave and enthusiastic peo

ple , at such a man ifesta

tio n ofdevotion to the national cause , 0th on the part of the

royal parent who gave his so n , and of the son who thus consented

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

44 The Rephaim.

midst of them 011 the other side , to point out the ap lication of

the awful warn ing ag ain st national in iquity, vouchsa ed even inthe great judgm ent which rain ed down fire and brimston e out of

Heaven upon their metropolitan cities ! H ow far these mean smay have been effectual in bettering the moral con dition of the

race for a season ,and drawing them back a little way from the

verge of the precipice , we cannot exactly know ; neither how farand how long the descendan ts of L ot themselves escaped the

general contam ination by keeping aloof from them ,as industrious

nomads tending their flocks in the moun tain s during the grazingseason ,

and dwelling apart in their own tribe communi tie s whenthey returned to winter at home . Neither warn ing n or exampleultimately availed : the whole mass of the people became corrupt,and the whole were abandon ed to themselves, to perish !F or our admonition , the sacred history relates their original

condition and their final doom ; but it does not say how theyperished . This we have learn t from the monumen tal history of

Egypt . But what matters the how, in a religious history thatregards God himself as the guide of all sublun ary tran sactions,and all human determinations on ly as secondary mean s ? T he

Scripture history is very explicit in informing us why they perishedfor that is the momentous lesson it behoves man individually, andnation s collectively , to lay to heart : F O R TH E W I CKED NESS o r

T HOSE NAT I ONS, D OT H T H E LORD D R IV E T HEM O UT .

’ It recounts,under the doubly solemn form of a Divine prohibition addressedto Israel, every abomination that the most depraved human ity canpossibly imagin e to commit, as actually committed by that people,in idolatry

,superstition ,

cruelty, and impurity . D efile not yourselves in any of these things,

’ con cludes the warning Oracle for

in all these , the nations are defiled which I cast out before you,and the land is defi led ! Therefore I do visit the in iquity thereofupon it

,and the land herself vom iteth out her inhabitants ! Keep

ye then my statutes and my ordinances, and commit none of theseabom inations

,neither your own n ation

,nor the stranger who se

j ourneth among you (for all these abominations did the men of theland commit

,who preceded you, and the land was defiled) , that

the land spue you n ot out also for defiling her, as she spued outthe nations who preceded you !

The R ephaim.

CHAPTE R XVI I I .

C ostumes of the R epha im .

The slight outlines given in plates III . and IV . are on ly a se

lection of the most striking forms characterising the n ational co stume of the Rapha tribes . They are in tended to appeal to them ind through the eye , inasmuch as a verbal description, howeveraccurate and elaborate, would still fail to convey a distinct ideaof form : but they are rather calculated to as sist those readerswho have no t time to con sult the voluminous illustration s of

Egyptian an tiquity from which the material s of the foregoingpages were gathered, than to supersede a referen ce to the originalworks themselve s . This reference is so important, that in de

scribing the costumes of the tribes, my prin cipal aim will bedirected to furn ishing the reader with a classified index to theoriginal subjects so that any studen t, however unversed hithertoin that class of research , may at on ce find himself furn ished withall the n ecessary materials to judge for himself whether the

generic resemblan ces of costume which distinguish and conn ectthe n ational groups whose history we have n ow gon e through,and the Specific differen ces which separate one tribe from another,have been correctly indicated, and sufficien tly bear out the ethn e

graphical classification they are called upon to sustain .

So long as we kn ew nothing of the people figured in thesemonumental illustration s beyond the bare fact that they had beenconquered by the an cien t Egyptian s, we turned over the pageswith very little in terest. We might perhaps indulge in a laughover the quain t and distorted attitudes of the combatan ts, thewry faces of the chain ed captives, and the ludi crous expedients toindicate the relative person al consequen ce of the actors in thescen e by their size, with an utter disregard of proportion as wellas of perspective ; but the subjects told us n o story we caredabout, for the actors were nothing to us but abstractions withoute ither ‘ a local habitation or a name ,

’

and as soon as the bookwas closed, the passing impression they made had van ished fromour minds.But the case is widely altered when we have learn t that the

personages in these strange old pictured memorials are a peopleconsecrated in our memory by their in timate association withScripture history ; that those Philistin es, whose name and deedsare fam iliar to our ears as household words, even from the earliestteaching of our childhood, are the very people who figure 1n o ne

picture , and that their fellow captives in another are the formi

4G The R ephaim.

dahle children of Anak ; that on looking at another, we mayactually realise the presen ce of0g king ofBashan as he marchedout to en counter the children of Israel or call up a correct andunquestion ably authen tic presen tation of the redoubtable GoliathofGath hurling a b oastful defian ce in the teeth of Saul

’

s warriors ; while another presen ts us with a warlike array like thatwith which the king of Sodom wen t forth to meet Abraham ; or

that of Balak the son of Zipper, as he stood on the high place of

Baal,bribing the Eberite prophet to curse the con querors of the

land of his fathers . Such associations impart a strange and

thrilling interest to these hitherto un intelligible forms, as thebarbaric abstraction s they presented are replaced by defin ite ideasof national personality, and our knowledge of these mysteriouspeople

’ s n ames and history sudden ly place s them before our eyesin the n ew light of old and fam il iar acquaintance s .In the on omasticon which gave the Egyptian forms of t11eir

names I divided them in to five geographical groups . Three b elong to the Rephaim, on e to their Aramite subordinates, and one

to the on ly Can aanite tribe casually associated with them . Leaving out this solitary case as exceptional , all the rest resolve themselves into two ethnographical groups, totally distin ct in originthe Rephaim ,

children of H am, and the Aramites, children of

Shem . Our plates, III . and IV . , exhibit the monumental re re

scutation s of these nations in their peculiar costumes, from w ichit will b e evident at a glan ce that if these groups had been classified according to their costumes instead of the ir names, they wouldhave fallen in to precisely the same two ethnographica l groups,the members of each group being characterised by Similar genericpeculiarities, and differing on ly in those secondary details where ina difference is to be expected in differen t provinces of the sameland

, or in different tribes of the same people .

T he lates in Rosellini’

s great work on Egyptian monumentswill be found the best to refer to . Although most of its subjectsare repeated in Champollion

’

s more volum inous publication , theformer is more convenient ; firstly, because the religious and thehistorical monuments are in separate volumes ; secondly, becausethe illustrations are arranged according to the chronological succession of the Pharaohs to whose reigns they belong, two highlyjudicious examples of arrangement en tirely disregarded in Cham

pollion

’

s work, where subjects of all k inds and all periods are

indiscrim inately mixed up together. I would no t so strong] re

commend a reference to the descriptive volumes of Rose lin i ’swork

,in connection with the present subject, as it would rather

confuse than assist its understanding, partly because Rosellin i hasno t identified or even read off many of the proper names ; partly

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

48 The R epha im.

Ros. Mon . St .

4. Capti ves of ram,and spo ils presen ted to the gods o f

T hebes P I. 55

5 . Rameses I I . kill ing the chief of TAHI (from the R a

messeum or M emn on ium ) P 1. 83

6 CHERBU prisoners dragged by an Egyptian officer (fromthe grea t exped it ion aga in st the SHET '

TA a t A bou

S imbel) PI. 937. Rameses I I I . a t tacking the B B Q by n ight (from.

Med in et-Ahou) P l . 1 36

8. Capti ves of R BO brought before the conqueror,and

num bering of the slain after the bat tle (from the

same) . P l. 1 35

9. P rison ers of RBO and TAH I dragged in triumph (fromthe same) P l.

10. B BQ and T'

AKKR‘

U prisoners presen ted to the gods ofT hebes (from the same) P l . 134

1 1 . P ortraits of the chiefs of B BQ and of MASHUASH (fromthe same )

12 . H ead of R BO priso ner, on a large scale

T he costume of the Anakim was remarkably picturesque . T he

figures 7, 8, 9, of our plate III .,and the heads

,fig. 1 5

,and late

II . , fig. 1 1,will con vey a correct idea of its leading forms .

‘heirl imbs were generally bare ; for an under garment, they wore ashort n arrow kilt, fasten ed round the loins by a rich girdle , oftenw ith long ends hanging down in front, and finished with a tassel .Over this they threw a very pecul iar kind of mantle, which, in its

general form, may be con sidered as the characteristic garmen t ofthe Rapha people . It was n arrow, hanging straight down withoutfolds, and open at the Side it was most generally worn by simplypassing it under one arm , and fasten ing it over the shoulder on

the other Side ; but the figure 9 of the T AH I tribe in pl . III . ,

and the T EMAH ’

U chief of pl . II fig. 1 1 , resent a slight variationfrom this make . This garment was ofga colours

,and ri chly

ornamented, e ither with stripes elaborately figured, or fancy patterns . That of the chief of T AH I (Ros. pl . 83) is yellow,

and isdivided by broad diagonal stri es with water-plants between .

Those of the T EMAH’

U (Ros. p 1 55) are figured, some withpalm- leaves laid horizon tally across, with a row of Spots betweeneach

,some covered all over with marks in im itation of a leopard ’ s

skin . From these figures , which are on a sufficien tly large scaleto render details omitted in ordinary monumen tal illustrations

,we

further learn that the Anakim printed or tattooed token -marks onthe ir arms and legs ; the object thus impressed on the T EMAII

‘

U

typical figure is, as we have seen , the characteristic emblem of

his national goddess, Onka-Athene : compare this figure in our

plate 1 1 . with the head of an ancient Egyptian Neith bearing her

The R ephaim. 413. L41 5"

name , fig. 10,and the names in the legends N

'

I‘

,fig. 9

,and T - N T

ANK,fig. 8.

‘

.T he Anakim sometimes shaved their face en tirely,

but more generally they wore a very small poin ted beard , on ly on

the chin . In this respect their practice was common to them and

to the other Rapha nations; Their head—dress is pecul iarly the irown . It con sists of a long braided lock of hair hanging downthe side of. the face, and a helmet in form very different fromthose worn by the Rephaim of Bashan . T he top sits close to thehead

, the fron t falls partly over the forehead, and forms a sortof squared flap, from the side being scooped away in order toexhibit no t on ly the ear and the characterist ic pendant lock, buta rather unsightly square—Shaped patch of the shaved templeabove it. The back of the helmet was also cut square, just lowenough to leave the neck free . T he details in the helmets of

the T AH I chiefs (Ros. pl . 54) Show how it fastened on by a leatherstrap passing under the chin but most of the historical representations omit these minutiae

, giving on ly the general forms . N o t

a vestige of hair ever appears from under the helmet except theside lock . This

,and the ro und bare skulls of the CHERB U pri

soners in pl . 93, who have lost t11eir head-pieces in the fight ,en courages a suspicio n that this people shaved their heads , andthat in their civilian co stume , apparen tly that given in the

T EMAH'

U tomb -figures, they wore , no t their own hair, but a kindof wig

-like head-gear, which the helmets replaced in battle , andwere in tended to imitate in form . This head-gear (see pl . II . ,

figx l l ) seems made of small plates or beads strung together so

as to look like ringlets falling from a common cen tre : the metalhelmets were grooved in a corresponding form . T he Anakim of

T AH I sometime s wore a crest of o ne or t wo eagles’ feathers on

the crown of their head—piece , but there is no t an in stance of the

B BQ wearing any such ornament : on the other hand, the BBQ

n ever appear without the side lock, but the T AH I did n o t a lwayswear it.T he chief of MA SHUASH wears his lo ok behind the car ; more

o ver his round skull-cap and circlet,!

totally differen t from the

genuine and invariable An akim helmet and strap, but strikinglyresembling those of his fellow captive of AMER (Ro s. pl . in

d icate that he was the local ruler of an Amorite dependan t district , though a son of Anak by race . Other instances of suchblendings of costume will b e found to occur in region s inhabitedby a m ixed population .

The sculptured representation s of the Anakim are very i ncom

pklete in illustrating their armour . In the great battle- scene of

amese s III . they are entirely unarmed ; in that of Seti-Me

nephtah and the T AH I,the ir on ly weapon s are bows and arrows .

50 The R ephaim.

T he form of their shields, if they ever used any, is unknown . In

the scen e last referred to it appears that in pitched battles theyremoved their man tle i n order to fight more freely .

In their person al appearance the children of An ak of the mo

numents fully realise the description of the Hebrew spies,that

they were men ofgreat stature .

’ They are generally delineated

as tall, spare , and long-limbed, to a degree often bordering on

caricature .

B . T HE EM IM .

T he geographical range over which the rule of the Emim ex

tended was so wide , and the m ixture of races they counted as

their vassals so various in origin , that we must expect to find acon siderable difference of costume prevailing in the different re

gion s of the ir domains . Y et even these variation s are systematicand consistent. T he attire of the people of the primary and metropolitan di strict

— the plain s of Shittim northward of the Arnon—is on ly a partial modification of that worn by the Anakimboth are obviously derived from one common prim itive type . T he

southern section of the n ation—those at least who garrisoned andruled the Horite dependencies— appear in garmen ts of a Horitefashion ; nevertheless, the Shethite rulers are clearly distinguishable froin their Horite subjects and their allies of Edom, by thebroad lin e of national demarcation, the custom of destroying the

sides of the beard . Indeed, they more frequently shaved it en

tirely away .

T he monumental illustrations relating to the Emim will befound in the following series of plates in Rosellin i

’

s work, fromwhich the leading forms of costume are given in our plate IV . ,

upper line of figuresRos. Mon . St .

1 . Symbo l ical group : Se ti-M enephtah de vo ting the ene

m ies o fEgypt to destruction (from Karn ak) PI. 60

T he kneeling figure in fron t of this group repre

sen ts the Em im nation .

2 . Se ti-Menephtah engaging w i th the SHET ‘

TA and the

AMER before AT ESH (from the same) PI. 53

3 . T he same king defea ting the SHET '

TA and killing theirchief (from the same) . PI. 57

4 . SIIB'

T TA capti ve chiefs of various tribes presen ted bySe ti M enephtah to the T heban G ods (from the

same) . PI. 595 . Rameses I I . de vo ting the enemies ofEgypt to destruc

t io n (from Abou-b imhel} PI. 796. G rea t e xpedi tio n of Rameses I I . agains t the SIIET TA

(from the same)7. T he surrender of AT ESH (from Lux or )

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

52 The R ephaim.

man tles on , which we see , by Ros. pl . 57, they sometimes tookoff for the fight. Thi s man tle , m fo i m,

does n ot materially differfrom that of the An akim (see our pl . IV . , fig. 1 6, 1 7, Itis cut a little Shorter, richly bor ,dered arid

t D

striped in varioussplendid colours . This is the attire of most of the chiefs slainbefore AT ESH . The fig. 19 in our pl . IV . represen ts on e of

these, a chief named TAAT UR ; fig. 1 7 is one of the two Shethiteambassadors brought before Rameses II , who were beaten asspies . fig. 1 8 i s a somewhat differen t form of costume ; it is thatof the tribe contending with Seti-Men ephtah (Ros. pl . and is

taken (with the exception of the head attire) from the chief TARKAN UNASA , killed before ATE SH . T he upper part of the figureis covered by a close corselet with Short Sleeves ; the charioteersin fig. 1 6 have on e of a sim ilar make under their man tles, butapparen tly folded or qui lted : their under tun ic is exactly like thatof the kneeling ambassador behind them . The robe of the

in fig. 1 8 is a substitute for this tun ic, worn only by person s ofgreat distinction ; it is somewhat longer, and richly bordered.

T he Assyrian sculptures display kings and gods clothed in asimilar garment, fringed and bordered . it is in all pi obabilitythe W314) W333,

‘ Babylon ian garin en t,’ referred to in Josh . v 1i . 21 .

It appears that the corselet was worn on ly in battle,when the

upper man tle was discarded . The wearing of an under tun icwith the mantle was quite Optional , for the Shethite Rephaim are

as often delineated without one—l ike the TAH‘

N‘

N U— as with one—l ike the 11 130. The material of this under tunic, as well as itslength and the richness of its adornments, were evidently regulated by no custom but the con ven ience , taste , and rank of the

wearer.The arms of the Emim were bows and arrows, and long spears .

They carried Shields of various forms, which , from their markingsin the pictures

,appear to have been niade ofwicker. They never

appear in he lmets, save the close Skull-caps above referred to,

worn on ly in battle,which were e ither quite plain, or were finished

at the topwith a short tail or tuft .T he various battle- scenes in which they ap e ,

ar represent themas fighting on horseback as well as on foot.

PThe chiefs used warchariots drawn by a pa ir ofhorses . These were not very unlikethe Egyptian chariot in make . The horses were magn ificen tlycaparisoned

,with embroidered clo ths and orn aments ofgold , blue

and sc .arlet It is difficult to understand how a peo le presen tingso elaborately luxu1 ious an array could ever have Seen referred

,

on the strength of a half- resemblance of name,to the rude

n omadic troops ofbarbarians described under the name ofScythiansby Ilerodo tus.

The R ephaim . I59

c . T H E REPHA IM (of B ashan ) AN D PH I L IST I NES .

The costume of the Zuzim is so exactly the same as that of thePhilistines

,that one description will suffice for both . They are

depicted in the following subjectsRos. Mon . St .

1 . Se ti-M enephtah routing the SHAS'

U befo re PAIROU(from Karnak) PI. 48

2 .

‘

he same attacking the SHAS ‘U b efore a fortress o n a

hill (ibid )3 . P resen tation of the capti ves and spo ils (ibid .

4 . T he SHAS U surrendering to Rameses I I . (fromAhouS imbel) P l. 101

5 . Philis tines and Amori tes, in a b oat,coming to aid

the Shethites of AT ESH against Rameses I I . (fromL ux or) P l. 104

6. T he PULSA ‘

TA aiding Rameses I I I . against the B B Q

(from M ed in et-Abou ) P l . 1 36

7. T he Rephaim (SHAS ‘

U ) aiding Rameses 1 1 1 . againstthe T

'

AKKR‘

U (ibid . ) PI. 1 27- 8

8. T he same fighting in the ships of the PULSA ’

TA againstEgypt (ibid . )

9. T ARR R U and R BO prisoners (ihicl.10. PULSA TA and T U iNU NA prisoners (ibid .

1 1 . P ortrai ts of the capti ves of Rameses I I I .— the chief

of T AKUR 1 ,— of SHAIRTA NA,—of SHA (partly

effaced,SHAS‘

U or SHALAMU P l. 1 43

Figs 1,2,and 3, in our P I. I I I . are , respec ti vely, the Rephaim of the

cen tral Judea region , of P A i RO U or P elusium,and of Bashan

,from

Ros ., pl . 50, 52, and 1 27. F igs. 10 and 1 1 are an Amori te and a

Philistine,from pl . 102 . F ig. 12 is a Philistine

,from a pain ted

vase in the tomb ofRameses I I I .

The Zuzim and Philistine costume consisted of a short kilt likethat of the BB Q An akim . It open ed i n fron t ; the hem,

which oftenhad a double border

,was sometimes straight, but often cut so as to

make the skirt dip i n front in to a poin t . Their bodies were protected by a low corselet

,quilted, or made ofban ds or plates

, and

reaching no higher than the arm—pits . Sometimes two broadstraps of the same material or pattern went over the shoulders tokeep it on . This corselet was an Egyptian fashion .

Neither the Zuzim n or the Philistines ever appear on the

monumen tal sculptures in their upper robe . Y et we have ex

traneous eviden ce that this garment was also part.

or the fullcostume of both these nation s . In a vase delineated i n the tombof Ramese s III . supported by two Philistines, the figures are

attired in a mantle with a deep fringed border, which is worn in

54 The R ephaim.

the fashion characteristic of the Rephaim,passing under One arm

and fasten ing over the other Shoulder . As it is made a littlemore ample than the correspon ding garmen t as worn by the

Anakim,it does n ot appear Open at the side

,but the upper edge

laps over the under edge of the Open ing in a very graceful mann er“A Philistine chief in this elegan t costume, with his tall featheredcoron et

,must have presen ted an appearan ce equally gorgeous and

imposmg.

T he SHAS 1 U who surrendered to Rameses II .,in the war with

the SHE T '

T A , presen t a strange exception to the rest, in beingdressed exactly like the Egyptian soldiers coming to their ren con tre,— ih all but their Ashtaroth-crested he lmets . W

’

hether on thisoccasion they really donned the Egyptian un iform,

—or whether itwas gratuitously bestowed upon them in the pain ted relievo , as acomplimen t, to indicate their assim ilation with

‘the pure race of

Egypt, we cannot decide . It is quite a solitary in stan ce . Thisin ciden t is repeated in the Luxor version of the memorial, Ros. pl .1 06, lower lin e of figure s .T he Zuzim and the Philistines used the same arms, offen sive

and defen sive . The foot-soldiers had either straight double- edgedswords

,shaped like wedges, or smaller curved ones, single-edged

they also used battle-axes of an Egyptian patterii . l‘

hose whorode in chariots used spears

,jave lin s

,and bows and arrows ; they

carried large round shields . There i s n o represen tation of the

SHAS U in chariots those of the Philistines were exactly likethese of the Em im ; but the quiver was attached to its side, afterthe Egyptian fashion .

\Ve observe the same variation s in the shaving of the beardamong the Zuzim and Philistines, as among the other tribes ofRephaim . Sometimes they wear it poin ted, without a moustache ,like the chief of SHAIRTA ‘

NA or Zarthan in our plate 3, fig. 1 3 ;

sometimes they wear a moustache and no beard,like the SIIAS

'

U

who surrender to Rameses II . (plate sometimes they are

quite shaved,as the warriors in the Medinet -Abou battle -pieces .

T he Ekron ite chief of the Medin et-Abou po rtraits has a poin tedbeard , yet the warriors in the battle- scene have none . But thesepeople ne ver wear a full board, n or Show any hair. T he Shapeo f the Ashtaroth-crested head—pieces wor n by the Rephaim of

Bashan n ecessarily exhibi ts the back of the head ; and it is therefe i c eviden t, from all the i eprcsen tations of them,

that the hairwas shaved o ff or clipped away qu ite close .

T :l1 ( o nly d 1fle i ence in the costumes o f the Rephaim of Bashanand the Philistines is in the fo rm and symbol o f their helme ts

ye t there is an agreement even in this difference , since both we rethe badge o ftheir respective tutelar goddesses .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

56 The R ephaim.

This mo numen t accordingly belongs to a period a little preceding the Hyksos i nvasion , sin ce the ‘ six foreign Phoen ician kingswho took Memphis ’

are n ow foun d to have been contemporaneousw ith the latter part of the XIIth . Man etho limits the rule of

the Hyksos in Egypt to 51 1 years. This interval is quite suffi

cien t, though not too long, for the XV th Phoenician dynasty, theXVIIth of other Shepherd-kings ,

’

who laid Thebes undertribute , and their con temporaries, the tributaryXIIIth ofTheban s ,and VIIIth Memphites . By placing t he Exodus at the close of

the XIXth dyn asty, the expulsion of the Shepherds by Amosis or

Aahmes, leader of the XVIIIth , falls at about the time ofAbraham ’ s death . Thus we are n ot exaggerating the an tiquity of thiscurious old Egyptian picture , when we say that it was pain tednearly four hundred years bef01 e Abraham was born !A reference to the figures themselves will , I bel ieve , satisfy the

inquirer that in all e lemen tary and characteristic forms of thei rcostume

,these foreig ners st1 ikingly resemble the Shethite and

Anakite Rephaim . Figs. 4, 5, 6, in our Pl . III represen t thethree principal person s in the procession . They wear the peculi arman tle

,striped with rich variegated pattern s and colours

, and

passing under one arm and fastened over the other shoulder,just

like the An akim of R 130 and T AH I , and the SHET ‘

T A , but a littleshorter than the former. Instead of the loose tun ic of the SHET TA ,our unknown people wear the short close—fi tting kilt of the HBO

T he on ly figures showing this part of the costume are the attendants behind AB SH A

,who do no t wear the man tle of distin ction .

They are all in their civilian costume, and wear no helmets ; butthe form in to which t11eir hair or wig is trained reminds one

strongly of the caps of some among the SHASU ofPelusium and of

the upper SHASU coun try (compare pl . 49, Their beards arevery curiously cut and trimmed to a poin t ; the side of it

,a0( 01 d1 1 101

to the invariable custom of the Rephaim . i s partly shaved away .

Again , the remarkable outline of their profiles is worthy of

attention ,viz . the retiring forehead and chin peculiar to that

nation . The latter feature is particularly well displayed in the

female faces. ( omparc the head of the chief woman with thatof a R BO captive of Rameses III. next to it

,in our 1. III. , figs.

4, 5 . By the likeness of t11eir features, she 111ight e taken forhis daughte r, yet an in terval ofeight hundred years separates the setwo individuals .

'

Ihe co stume of the women was very like that of the men ; butas all the, fi g ures are t in ned sideways, we canno t see whether theirtunics o r mantles are o pe n at the side . Ihe h inge down the

Opening of the 1 1K A BS IIA s man tle shows that the me n wow this

garmen t open Ihe haii of the women is dressed in the most

The R ephaim. 51 l é fi

archai c Egyptian fashion. See the head ofNcith in our pl . II . ,

fig. 10.

’

1 he men wear sandals,the women boots . T he chief

,

ABSH A, carries the hook- shaped sceptre , which by the way is thein itial letter in his title H K

, a ruler, equivalent to the Hebraizedtitle 1111 (Og) . The other men carry bows, Spears, and a club of avery remarkable shape .

This resemblan ce in their general characters of person andcostume seems to justify our believing that, in the hitherto un

known Ben i-Hassan foreigners , whose iden tity has given rise to somuch speculation} we behold an authen tic con temporaneous representation of the primitive type of that an cient people, the RE PH AIMof the Bible, in its very earliest stage of n ationalization

,prior to

its conquest ofEgypt, perhaps even prior to its subdivision in tothe branch n ations known in Bible-history as the Em im andAn akim , sin ce each of these tribes appears to have adopted toitself cert ain special modification s of the original nation al costume ,suffi cien tly marked to distinguish on e fam ily or tribe from another,yet no t sufficien tly differen t from the primary type to obliterate itsessentially characteristic points.

D . T HE ARAMIT E S.

The last group to b e described presen ts characters of featureand costume so differen t from those of the Rephaim , that we musthave recognised in them another nation of another race

,even if

their lands had remained unidentified, and their origin unascertained .

The series of subjects in which this race appear, and from whichthe figures 21 to 25 of our plate IV . are selected, are as follows

Ros. Mon . St .

1 . SHE M ‘U group ; tomb of Se ti-M enephtah (B iban -el

M oluk) P l . 1 55

2 . Same,in full dress ; tomb of M enephtah from the

same) . See our fig. 2 1

Same ; tomb ofRameses I I I . (from the same)T he lower LT

'

N‘

NU and RM N‘

N subm i t ting to Se t iM enephtah, and cu t ting down trees (from Karn ak) .See fig. 22 .

A t tack ofa ci ty, name partly lostD efea t of the upper LT N NU by Se ti-Menephtah

Capti ves and spo ils of the upper L T N NU

f T he favour i te h ypo thes is that the pi c ture l epresen ted the arr i val of theH ebrew s m Egypt

'

i s of cou rse demolished by re cen t ch ron o logi cal research . An

in te rval of se ven cen tur ies e lapsed between the re ign of Sesertasen I I . and tha te ven t . I f the E xo dus happen ed at the end of the n ine teen th d yn asty , the ele vat io no f Jo seph must have taken place un de r o n e o f the early re igns of the e ighteen th ;mo st pro babl y under the regen cy preceding the re ign of Thothmes I I I . , or duringhis mi no r i ty .

58 The R ephaim.

8. T he SHAR submit ting to Se ti-M enephtah

9. Surrender of a fortress (name unknown ) to Rameses I I .

(from B eit-el Wa lly ) . See our figs . 24,25 PI. 68

10. Rameses I I . at tacking ano ther fortress in a moun

tainous coun try,

name unknown (from Abou

S imbel) . See our fig. 23 PI. 53

1 1 . Rameses I I I . defea ting the LT'

N1

NU (from M ed in et

Abou ) . Champo llion’

s M on . . .P l 227,2281 2 . Chief of this race

,capti ve of Rameses I I . (from

L ux or) . See our fig. 27 P l . 1 41

The epithet SHEM ‘

U, which describes the tomb-figures of the

three first subjects referred to , is eviden tly the primary designationof the Aramite race , ‘ the Shem ites. In those early age s, whenthe great Asiatic migration from the region of the upper Euphrateswas only beginn ing to direct itself southward, the Shemites of theeastern line of population were the on ly tribe s touching upon theHami tes of the western line, who were not of the same paternalstock. Thus their early patronym ic, seems, by an easytran sition of ideas, to have passed in to the language of the Mizraimas a common appellative for strangers— those of a differen t race .

By the Canaan ites of the “l

est, they were geographically. de

sigmated the children of the East. ’

T he fundamen tal poin ts of resemblan ce between these SHEMpeople of the tombs and the monumen tal groups of the succeedingsubjects, clearly show that they are of the same stock— that theSHEM 'U are the typical figure ofwhich the monumen tal nation s areas many local and une ssen tial variations . The SHEM ’ U may bethe metropolitan tribe , for Damascus and Shem were both n ames ofthe same city ; and therefore the people bearing that n ame wouldb e pictorial represen tatives of the monumen tal NA HAR I‘

NA (Riverland

,Aram Naharaim) while those figured in the historical illus

tration s appear,by the names of their localities, to belong to the

southern region of this ancien t establishmen t, and to r1

0p1 esent itsprovin cial members

,though at a period when its power had been

superseded by the Shethite Rephaim,and its population had given

way to the Edom ites .T he fig ure in the tomb of Seti-Menephtah does not give the

full costume—it on ly wears'

the short under garmen t of inferiorpeople , like the attendan ts ofAb sha in the old Beni-IIassan sub

j ect ; but in the tomb of Menephtah, son of the great Rameses,and con temporary ofMoses

,we find a repetition of the figure m

full attire , with the same name , countenance, and head-dress asthe others (see fig . 2 1 of our pl . IV “) We are thereby enabledto conn ect this typical figure with the monumental group to whichit belongs .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

'60 The R ephaim.

races remains inviolate . None of these people shave their beards .

T he Scripture history con strain s us to recogni se the Edom ite rulersand successors of the Horites in the chiefs of the people whosecostume we have described ; and it appears established, from the

eviden ce of these in teresting representation s, that the children of

Esau, although in all their political relation s they proved themselves , t rue friends and faithful allies of the Shethite people , amongwhom their first e stablishmen t was formed , had not assimilatedthemselve s with that idolatrous race so far as to adopt their ex

ternal badge ofn ationality by shaving the ir beards .T he on ly exception to this rule would seem to be the shaved

garrison of P OUN, or Punon, who wear the genuin e Horite robeand cape (see our fig. 26) but the monumen tal picture which re

cords the event, also records the faet that the masters ofPun onwere ofthe SHET ’

T A people , and thus proves the rule to b e withoutexception .

T he fortress in the subject (pl . 68) exhibits the female costumeof the coun try

,in three women on the battlements one is beating

her head in despair,another offering her child to the victors, or

throwing it over the walls . Two of them wear capes like the menthe third

,apparen tly a young maiden, has her n eck and shoulders

un clothed. Their hair is long, hanging down, and from the

shoulders the en ds are braided in to three tails . See fig. 25.

In these battle-piece s, most of the enemy are represen ted without weapon s . This ingen ious Egyptian expedient to suggest theirabsolute helplessn ess, unfortunately deprives us of the mean s ofknowing how they really did defend themselves . Here and therewe see a figure with a broken bow ; and in one of the battles ofSetiveM enephtah (pl . a chief is looking out of a circularwin dow or loophole , with one hand on his head, and his swordpoin ting downwards in the other, as a token of subm ission . Thissword is the same double- edged and wedge- shaped weapon as thathom e by the Philistines, and the Zuzim surrendering to RamesesII . in the great picture ofAbou-Simbel .The costume of the Amorites may be gathered from the on ly

three subjects in which they appear by name . In the attack on

AT ESII by Se ti-Menephtah , the city is evidently defen ded by an

Amorite garrison ; for although their costume resembles that of

the Shethites as to the m ilitary un iform—the corselet, and a skullcap crested with a tail— they have full beards, and moreover are

commanded b a bearded chief who wears the same head- attire1s the chief of

I

AMAR ,captive of Rameses III . ,

in the harem atMedine t Abou (Ro s . pl . 143 T he same bearded people, in plainlong robes, accompany the

’hilistines coming to aid the Shethite

garrison of AT ESH against Rameses II ., in the Luxor subject, from

The R ephaim.18 1 0)

which the figure 10 in our plate III . is taken ; and we know fromScripture , on the one hand, that the Philistines ruled over an ex

tensive Amorite district, and could therefore command the servicesof its population in case ofwar : on the other han d, the AMAR U

are mentioned by name with the people of CHE RBU (Hebron) , inthe Egyptian in scriptions of these subjects, as allies of the SHE T ‘

T Ain the war. Finally, in the captive chief of Rameses III .

,a dis

tinct idea of the physique of this race is handed down to us. Thi schief has a longer face than the Rephaim,

and a much straighterlin e of profile . T he Ekron ite chief is not un like him . T he

Amorite has a fine long full beard, and the sides ofhis face are

not shaved . H is hair is arranged precisely like that of the SHEM 'Uand LET people , and bound by a sim ilar fillet and tie . As theEdomites themselves were half-breed Canaan ites, descendan ts of

Seir the H ivite,co - settler with Esau

,it is in tere sting to find the

similarity oftheir respective fashions thus in harmony with theiror1g1n .

LON D ON ! PR INT ED B Y W . C ID WES AND SONS, STAM F OR D ST R EET .