Palestine Exploration Quarterly ISSN: 0031-0328 (Print) 1743-1301 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ypeq20 Further Notes on Palestinian Geography Caleb Hauser To cite this article: Caleb Hauser (1910) Further Notes on Palestinian Geography, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 42:4, 280-288, DOI: 10.1179/peq.1910.42.4.280 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/peq.1910.42.4.280 Published online: 20 Nov 2013. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3 View related articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ypeq20 Download by: [Universite Laval] Date: 26 June 2016, At: 09:02 280 FURTHER NOTES ON PALESTINIAN GEOGRAPHY. been debated through many numbers, but except in the writings of Principal G. A. Smith it does not appear to. have received much attention in recent years in England. It is' entirely at the instiga- tion of Principal G. A. Smith, in his Introduction to my8ludies in Galilee, that I have given no,v what time anci attention I could spare to the subject. FURTHER NOTES ON PALESTINIAN GEOGRAPHY'! By THE REV. CALEB HAUSER, l\1.A. 1. Beth-Haccel'em, from which a district (Neh. iii, 14) and a beacon- station (J ere vi, 1) was named, was near, though not necessarily south of Jerusalem. The remark of Jerome that Bethacharrna was a village between Jerusalem and Tekvah (in his comment on the latter passage) reveals the influence of the passage under discussion; we may' accuse him of a looseness of statement. Bethacharma, "situated on a mountain," and" one of the villages which he could see every day with his own eyes from Bethlehem," cannot have been situated on the Frank l\lountain, where, since Pococke, many _ have placed it, for in Jerome's time that n10untain was crowned by the remains of the He1'odiltm, and not by a village upon its ruins, it would seem. In the LXX of Josh. xv, 59, ](al'ern, which is evidently the same as Kerem, is named with Galem (r'la).,Jp.) and BeUter (Od)'YJp), Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 09:02 26 June 2016 Beit Jala and Bittir respectively, and these are in the same group as Tekoah and Bethlehem. Hence the identification of Beth-Hacceren1 with 'Ain I{arim would seem to be correct (Conder, Q.S., 1881, p.271). Neh. iii, 13 sqq., affords conclusive evidence. Zanoah, Beth- Haccerem, Mizpah, Beth-Zur, and I{eilah are named in roughly consecutiv(3 order (taking Jerusalem as a centre), if we place Beth- Haccerem at 'Ain Karim. On the ridge above 'Ain Karim are cairns which evidently served as beacons (Q.S., loco cit.), those to which J ere vi, 1, refers. 1 See Q,S'I 19091 pp. 275-280; 1910, pp. 126-] 31. FURTHER NOTES ON PALESTINIAN GEOGRAPHY. 281 2. ll.feronoth.-The identification of this. place with Ia~.1Jfar1'ina (Col. Conder) does not seem sound. According to N eh. iii, 7, J adon of ~leronoth and ~lelatiah of Gibeon superintended the repair work of the men of Gibeon and l\iizpah. Melatiah evidently superintended the work of the men of Gibeon j Jadon, therefore, that of the nlen of ~1izpah.· 'Ve may therefore conclude that ~leronoth was one of the" daughters" of l\iizpah, and unhesi- tatingly identify it with ](h. el-1Jf1tran, about a nlile south of Kh. Batn es-Sa'ideh, identified with ~1izpah. These two identifications have reciprocal support. 3. Kiriath-Jeal'im, named ,vith Chephirah and Beeroth as one of the cities of the Gibeonite Confederacy (Josh. ix, 17), and by writers as late as Ezra (ii, 25, I\:.iriath-Arim) and Nehemiah (vii, 29) named with the same towns, ,vas situated, according to the Onomasticon, near ~1izpah (~Ia(j(j1J¢(I) and nine Ronlan miles from J eru:" salem, on the road to Diospolis (Ludcl), namely at Kuryet el-'Enab, precisely so situated, and less than two miles from ~1izpah as above identified. Kiriath-Jearim was the later name of the Amorite Kiriath-Baal (so Josh. xv, 60 j xviii, 14, and cpo on change of names Num. xxxii, 38), an important centre of Baal-,vorship, its sanctuary, or "high- place," being situated at ~fizpah. 'Ye may here compare the LXX of 2 Sam. vi, 2, according to ,vhich David, setting out from Baal- Judah, "went up in the ascent to the hill" (~or Gibeah) Ell 7ff t'wuf3auEt 70U f3ovvou, to the resting-place of the ark. Eusebius seem's to be correct when he makes l\1izpah to be a resting-place of the ark (Onomasticon), "the hill" on ,vhich stood the house of Abinadab, into which the men of I{iriath-Jearim brought the ark. I{iriath- J earim was near Beth-Shemesh, but not quite as near as the words Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 09:02 26 June 2016 of Josephus (Ant., VI, i, 4: "in the neighbourhood of Beth-Shemesh") would lead us to expect-these ,vere evidently suggested by the narrative of 1 Sanl. vi, 1 sqq. Consequently, the principal argument for the rival site, I{h. Erma (its nearness to Beth-Shemesh), rests on a rather weak foundation. I{h. Ernla is not only near to Beth- Shemesh, but also too near Zorah and Eshtaol to answer the requirenlents of the narrative, Judges xviii, 11 sqq. That the description of the boundary of Judah and of Benjamin requires t~e location of Kiriath-J earim at I{uryet el-'Enab rather than at I{h. Enna, may be satisfactorily demonstrated, I believe. In connection with the probable fact that the ark in Samuel's time was at l\lizpah, 282 FURTHER NOTES ON PALESTINIAN GEOGRAPHY. or at any rate very near that place, we may take a fairer view of the convocations to Mizpah (1 Sam. vii, 5 sqq. ; x, 17 sqq., especially verse·25). 4. The boundar:lJof Judah and of Benjamin between EnrRogel and ](iriath-:.Jearirn.-The determination of this part of the boundary has caused some trouble. We may arrive at a. satisfactory result by a two-fold process: namely, by first ascertaining the approximate extent of J udaean territory on the one side and of Benjamite on the other, as indicated by the location of identified places belonging to each, and by then tracing in the remaining borderland the boundary as described in Josh. xv, 8 sqq., and xviii, 14 sqq. 'rVe may first take a survey of the location of Benjamite towns situated west of the watershed and enumerated in Josh. xviii, 25-28. Gibeon, Ramah, Beeroth, Mizpah, Chephirah, Mozah,Irpeel, Kiriath, and possibly Gibeah have, beside Jerusalem, been satisfactorily identified. All, excepting of course Jerusalem, were situated north of the J erusalenl-RalIlleh road. Rekem, named between ~1:ozah and Irpeel, and the following towns, Taralah, Zelah and Eleph, named just beforeJ erusalem, should also be sought north of the above-named road rather than far south of it. We. next take. a survey of the location of the most northerly towns of Judah, enumerated in the la~t verses of Josh. xv. The cities which the Masoretic Text enumerates in verses 57-59, namely, Gibeah, Timnah, Halhul, Beth-Zur, Gedor, Maarath, Beth-Anoth Elthekon, have all except the last been satisfactorily identified in the -territory south of a line drawn across the nlap from Tekoah to Beth-Shemesh. Between this line and the J erusalem-Ramleh road there is an extensive tract in which we may possibly locate only two Judaean cities, the names of which the Nlasoretic Text has Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 09:02 26 June 2016 preserved, namely Rabbah and the disputed Kiriath-Jearim. But here. the Septuagint text of Josh. xv, 59, has preserved the names of a group of eleven cities in the following order: Tekoah, Ephrathah or Bethlehem, Phagor (Kh. Fagur), Etam, Koulon (7Kulonieh), Tatam, Thobes (7 Hubin), I{arem (CAin ][arim), Galem (Beit Jala), Bethel' (Bittir, ()€BYJp (BL), {3al()r/p (A)), and Manocho (Malbah). Of these cities I{ulon (1), Karem, Galem, Bethel', and Manocho were thus situated north of the boundary line proposed by Col. Conde"r and shown on the Old and New Testament ~1:apj Karem and Kulon (cp., however, Buhl, Geographie,p. 166) near the Jerusalem-Ramleh road. This road, therefore, traversing the border- FURTHER NOTES ON PALESTINIAN GEOGRAPHY. 283 land between Judah's and Benjamin's towns, ,vould represent, approxinlately, the boundary. Now, turning to the description of the boundary in J osh.xv, we find that it tallies ,vith the above result. From the Valley of Hinnom, the boundary ,vent up to the top of the mountain that is situated before the Valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the Valley of Rephaim northwa1·ds. Fronl the top of this hill (north-west of the Valley of Rephaim) "the border was drawn unto the fountain of the ,vater of N ephtoah" (either Lifla [Van de Velde] or more probably 'Ain et-Tut, near Deir Yesin), "and went out to the cities of l\lount Ephron" (~in the vicinity of Beit Sftrik) j and following here the watershed, it was drawn to Baalah, which is I{iriath-Jearim (I{uryet el-'Enab). Conlpare the description of Benjanlin's boundary, which agrees. From Kuryet el-'Enab the boundary passed on to the ,vestern part of the ridge on which I(h. Baln es-Saghir (Seir) is located and thence along the wady to I{esla (Chesalon). 5.