Hezekiah – Hizkiah

Hezekiah

1. One of the most prominent kings of Judah. He came to the throne after his father Ahaz, about B.C. 714. The assertions that Samaria was destroyed in his sixth year and that Sennacherib’s invasion came in his fourteenth year are inconsistent (2 Kings 18:10, 13). The latter has probability on its side, and as we know that Sennacherib invaded Palestine in 701 the calculation is easily made.

Politically Hezekiah had a difficult task. His father had submitted to Assyria, but the vassalage was felt to be severe. The petty kingdoms of Palestine were restive under the yoke, and they were encouraged by the Egyptians to make an effort for independence. There was always an Egyptian party at the court of Jerusalem, though at this time Egypt was suffering from internal dissensions. In the East the kingdom of Babylon under Merodach-baladan was also making trouble for the Assyrians. Hezekiah seems to have remained faithful to the suzerain for some years after his accession, but when, about the time of Sennacherib’s accession (705), a coalition was formed against the oppressor he joined it. We may venture to suppose that about this time he received the embassy from Merodach-baladan (2 Kings 20:12 ff.: Isaiah 39:1 ff.), which was intended to secure the co-operation of the Western States with Babylon in the effort then being made. Isaiah, as we know from his own discourses, was opposed to the Egyptian alliance, and apparently to the whole movement. The Philistines were for revolt; only Padi, king of Ekron, held out for his master the king of Assyria. For this reason Hezekiah invaded his territory and took him prisoner. If, as the Biblical account seems to intimate (2 Kings 18:8). he incorporated the conquered land in his own kingdom, the gain was not for a long time. In 701 Sennacherib appeared on the scene, and there was no possibility of serious resistance. The inscriptions tell us that the invaders captured forty-six walled towns, and carried 200,000 Judahites into slavery. The Egyptian (some suppose it to be an Arabian) army made a show of coming to the help of its allies, but was met on the border and defeated. Hezekiah was compelled to release the captive Padi, who returned to his throne in triumph. Sennacherib was detained at Lachish by the stubborn resistance of that fortress, and could send only a detachment of his troops to Jerusalem. With it went an embassy, the account of which may be read in 2 Kings 18. 19 and Isaiah 36. 37. The laconic sentence: ‘Hezekiah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying: I have offended; that which thou puttest on me will I bear’ (2 Kings 18:14) shows that abject submission was made. The price of peace was a heavy one — three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. To pay it, all the gold and silver that could be found was gathered together, even the Temple doors (v. 16) being stripped of their precious metal.

In our accounts we read of a great destruction which came upon the Assyrian army (2 Kings 19:35. Isaiah 37:36). Whether Sennacherib was not satisfied with the submission of Hezekiah, or whether a second campaign was made which the historian has confused with this one, is not yet certainly known. There was a second expedition of Sennacherib’s to the west some years later than the one we have been considering. At that time, it may be, the pestilence broke out and made the army too weak for further operations. It is clear that the people of Jerusalem felt that they had had a remarkable deliverance. Hezekiah’s sickness is dated by the Biblical writer in the time of this invasion, which can hardly be correct if the king lived fifteen years after that experience.

The account of Hezekiah’s religious reforms is more sweeping than seems probable for that date. There seems no reason to doubt, however, that he destroyed the brazen serpent, which had been an object of worship in the Temple (2 Kings 18:4). The cleansing of the country sanctuaries from idolatry, under the influence of Isaiah, may have been accomplished at the same time. The expansions of the Chronicler (2 Ch 29ff.) must be received with reserve.

2. An ancestor of the prophet Zephaniah (Zephaniah 1:1). possibly to be identified with the king of the same name. 3. Head of a family of exiles who returned, Ezra 2 = Nehemiah 7:21 (cf. 10:17). H. P. Smith.

HEZION, — Father of Tabrimmon, and grandfather of Benhadad, the Syrian king (1 Kings 15:18). It has been plausibly suggested that Hezion is identical with Bezon of 1 Kings 11:23. the founder of the kingdom of Damascus, and an adversary to Solomon.

Hezir

1. The 17th of the priestly courses (1 Oh 2415). 2. A lay family, which signed the covenant (Nehemiah 10:22).

Hezro

Hezro or HEZBAI.— One of David’s thirty heroes (2 Samuel 23:35, 1 Chronicles 11:37).

Hezron

1. The eponymous head of a Reubenite family (Genesis 46:9. Exodus 6:14. Numbers 26:6 = 1 Chronicles 5:3). 2. The eponymous head of a Judahite family (Genesis 46:12. Numbers 26:21 K.u 4:18, 19. 1 Chronicles 2:5, 9, 18. 21. 24. 4:1). xhls Hczrou appears also in the NT in the genealogy of our Lord (Matthew 1:3. Luke 3:33). The gentilic name Hezronites occurs in Numbers 26:6 referring to the descendants of No. 1, and in V.21 referring to those of No. 2 above. 3. A town in the south of Judah (Joshua 15:3) of Numbers 34:4.

Hiddai

One of David’s thirty heroes (2 Samuel 23:30). He is called Hurai in the parallel list 1 Chronicles 11:32.

Hiddekel

The river Tigris, mentioned as the third river of Paradise (Genesis 2:14). and as ‘the great river’ by the side of which Daniel had his vision (Daniel 10:4). The Heb. Hiddeqel was taken from the Bab. name for the Tigris, Idiglat or Diglai, which was in turn derived from its Sumerian name, Idigna. L. W. Kino.

Hiel

The name of a certain BetheUte who in the days of Ahab fortified Jericho, and possibly sacrificed his two sons to appease the gods of the disturbed earth (1 Kings 16:34). Some obscure event is here applied as a comment on the curse on Jericho pronounced by Joshua. W. F. Cobb.

Hierapolis

Hierapolis (‘holy city’) is mentioned in the Bible only in Colossians 4:13. in association with the neighbouring towns Laodicea and Colossee. All three were situated in the valley of the Lycus, a tributary of the Maeander, in Phrygia, Hierapolis on the north side being about 6 miles from the former and 12 miles from the latter. (The best map of this district is at p. 472 of Ramsay’s Church in the Roman Empire.) It probably belonged originally to the tribe Hydrelitse, and derived its title from the medicinal hot springs there, which revealed plainly to the ancient mind the presence of a divinity. The water is strongly impregnated with alum, and the calcareous deposit which it forms explains the modern name Pamlmk-Kalessi (Cotton Castle). Another sacred attribute of the city was a hole, about the circumference of a man’s body, from which noxious vapours issued: Strabo (in the time of Augustus) had seen sparrows stifled by them. The city owed all its importance in NT times to its religious character. It had not been ■visited by St. Paul, but derived its Christianity from his influence (cf. Acts 19:10 and Col.). Legend declares that the Apostles Philip and John preached there, and this appears trustworthy. The fight between native superstition and the enlightenment brought by Christianity must have been very bitter. The city remained important throughout the Empire, and was the birthplace of Epictetus, the Stoic. A. Souteb.

Hiebeel

Hiebeel (1 Esdras 9:21) = Jeliiel of Ezra 10:21.

Hieremoth

1. 1 Esdras 9:27 = Ezra 10 Jeremoth. 2 1 Esdras 9:30 10:29 Jeremoth (RVm ‘and Ramoth’).

Hiebmas

Hiebmas (Esdras 9) 10:25 Bamiah.

Hiebonyutts

A Syrian officer in command of a district of Pal. under Antiochus v. Eupator, who harassed the Jews after the withdrawal of Lysias in B.C. 165 (2 Maccabees 12:2).

Higgaion

See Psalms (Titles).

High Place, Sanctxjaby

Theterm ‘sanctuary’ is used by modern students of Semitic religion in two senses, a wider and a narrower. On the one hand, it may denote, as the etymology suggests, any ‘holy place,’ the sacredness of which is derived from its association with the presence of a deity. In the narrower sense ‘sanctuary’ is used of every recognized place of worship, provided with an altar and other apparatus of the cult, the special designation of wiiich in OT is bamah, EV ‘high place.’ In this latter sense ‘sanctuary’ and ‘high place’ are used synonymously in the older prophetic literature, as in Amos 7:9 ‘the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste.’

1. In the wider sense of ‘sanctuary,’ as above defined, any arbitrarily chosen spot may become a holy place, if tradition associates it with a theophany, or visible manifestation of a Divine being. Such, indeed, was the origin of the most famous of the world’s sanctuaries (see 2 Samuel 24). On the other hand, certain objects of nature — springs and rivers, trees, rocks and, in particular, mountains — have been regarded with special reverence by many primitive peoples as ‘the hornes or haunts of the gods.’ Thus the belief in the pecuhar sacredness of springs and wells of ‘living water’ is one that has survived to our own day, even among advanced races. It was to this belief that the ancient sanctuary of Beersheba (which see) owed its origin. A similar belief in sacred trees as the abode of superhuman spirits or numirm has been scarcely less tenacious. The holy places which figure so conspicuously in the stories of the patriarchs are in many cases tree-sanctuaries of immemorial antiquity, such as ‘the terebinth of Moreh,’ at Shechem, under which Abram is said to have built his first altar in Canaan (Genesis 12:6 f.; cf. IS’s).

More sympathetic to the modern mind is the choice of mountains and hills as holy places. On mountaintops, men, from remote ages, have felt themselves nearer to the Divine beings with whom they sought to hold converse (cf. Psalms 121:1). From OT the names of Horeb (or Sinai), the ‘mountain of God’ (Exodus 3:1), of Ebal and Gerizim, of Carmel and Tabor (Hosea 5:1). at once suggest themselves as sanctuaries where the Hebrews worsiiipped their God.

2. From these natural sanctuaries, which are by no means peculiar to the Hebrews or even to the Semitic family, we may now pass to a fuller discussion of the local sanctuaries or ‘high places,’ which were the recognized places of worship in Israel until near the close of the seventh century b.c. Whatever may be the precise etymological significance of the term bamah (plur. bamBth), there can be no doubt that ‘high place’ is a sufficiently accurate rendering. Repeatedly in OT the worshippers are said to ‘go up’ to, and to ‘come down’ from, the high places. The normal situation of a high place relative to the city whose sanctuary It was Is very clearly brought out in the account of the meeting of Samuel and Saul at Ramah (1 Samuel 9:13–25). It is important, however, to note that a local sanctuary, even when it bore the name bamdh, might be, and presumablyoften was, mfftin the city, and was not necessarily situated on a height. Thus Jeremiah speaks of ‘high places’ (bameth) in the valley of Topheth at Jerusalem (7 19:5 BV; cf. Ezekiel 6:3). and the high place, as we must call it, of the city of Gezer, presently to be described, lay in the depression between the two hills on which the city was built.

With tew exceptions the high places of OT are much older, as places of worship, than the Hebrew conquest. Of tills the Hebrews in later times were well aware, as is shown by the endeavour on the part of the popular tradition to claim their own patriarchs as the founders of the more famous sanctuaries. Prominent among these was the ‘king’s sanctuary’ (Amos 7 RV) at Bethel, with its companion sanctuary at Dan; scarcely less important were those of Gilgal and Beersheba, and ‘the great high place’ at Gibeon (1 Kings 3:4). In the period of the Judges the chief sanctuary in Ephraim was that consecrated by the presence of the ark at Shiloh (Judges 21:19. 1 Samuel 1:3 etc.), which was succeeded by the sanctuary at Nob (1 Samuel 21:1). But while these and others attracted worshippers from near and far at the time of the great festivals, it may safely be assumed that every village throughout the land had, like Ramah, its local bamSh.

3. In- taking over from the Canaanites the high places at which they worshipped Baal and Astarte, the Hebrews made little or no change in their appearance and appointments. Our knowledge of the latter gleaned from OT has of late years been considerably extended by excavations and discoveries in Palestine. By these, indeed , the history of some of the ‘holy places’ of Canaan has been carried back to the later Stone Age. Thus the excavations at Gezer, Taanach, and elsewhere have laid bare a series of rock surfaces fitted with cup-marks, which surely can have been intended only for the reception of sacrificial blood. The sanctuary of the Gezer cave-dwellers measures 90 by 80 feet, and ‘the whole surface is covered with cup-marks and hollows ranging from a few inches to 5 or 6 feet in diameter.’ From one part of this primitive altar — a similar arrangement was found at Taanach — a shoot or channel had been constructed in the rock for the purpose of conveying part of the blood to a cave beneath the rock, in which was found a large quantity of the bones of pigs (.PEFSt, 1903, 317 £E.; 1904, 1 12 f.; Vincent, Canaan d’ajrris V exploration recente, 1907, 92 fl.). This cave was evidently regarded as the abode of chthonic or earth deities.

The excavations at Gezer have also furnished us with by far the most complete example of a high place of the Semitic invaders who took possession of the country about the middle of the third millennium B.C., and whose descendants, variously named Canaanites and Amorites, were in turn partly displaced by, partly incorporated with, the Hebrews. The high place of Gezer consists of a level platform about 33 yards in length, lying north and south across the middle of the tell. Its most characteristic feature is a row of standing stones, the pillars or mazzlbahs of OT, of which eight are still in situ. They range in height from 5 ft. 5 in. to 10 ft. 6 in., and are all ‘unhewn blocks, simply set on end, supported at the base by smaller stones.’ The second and smallest of the series is regarded by Mr. Macalister as the oldest and most sacred, inasmuch as Its top has become smooth aad polished by repeated anointings with blood or oil, perhaps even by the kisses of the worshippers (cf. 1 Kings 19:18, Hosea 13:2).

It is impossible within present limits to describe fully this important discovery, or to discuss the many problems which it raises (see, for details, PEFSt, 1903, 23 ft.; Macallster, Bible Sidelights pom the Mound of Gezer, 64 fl.; Vincent, op. cit. 109 ff., aJl with plans and illustrations). It must, however, be added that ‘all round the feet of the columns and over the whole area of the high place the earth was discovered to be a regular cemetery, in which the skeletons of young infants, never more than a week old, were deposited in jars’ — evidence of the sacrifice of the firstborn (Macalister, op. cit. 73 f.). Similar ancient high places, but on a smaller scale, have been found at TeS es-Safi (perhaps the ancient Gath), and in the north of Palestine, by the Austrian and German explorers, of whose discoveries an excellent summary is given by Father Vincent in his recently published work above cited.

Several examples of another type of high place have been discovered on a rocky summit overlooking Fetra ; the most complete is that described in Hastings’ DB iv. 396. Still another type of Semitic sanctuary with temple, presenting many features of interest, is minutely described and illustrated by Flinders Petrie in his Researches in Sinai, 1906, chs. vi. vii. x.

4. Combining the materials furnished by these recent discoveries with the OT data, we find that the first essential of a Hebrew high place was the altar. This might consist merely of a heap of earth or unhewn stones, as commanded by Exodus 20:25; or, as shown by surviving examples (see Altah, § 2), it might be hewn out of the solid rock and approached by steps. Against this more elaborate type the legislation of Exodus 20 was intended as a protest. Equally indispensable to the proper equipment of a high place (cf. Deuteronomy 12:3. Hos 10:1 RV etc.) were the stone pillars or mazzebaha, the symbols of the deity (see Pillar), and the wooden tree-stumps or poles, known as ashSrdhs (which see). To these must be added a laver or other apparatus for the ceremonial ablutions of the worshippers. If the sanctuary possessed an image of the deity, such as the golden bulls at Dan and Bethel, or other sacred object — an ark, an ephod, or the like — a building of some sort was required to shelter and protect it. Such was Micah’s ‘house of gods’ (Judges 17:5), and the ‘houses of high places’ of 1 Kings 12:31 RV. The ark was housed at Shiloh in a temple (1 Samuel 1:9 3:3), and a similar building is presupposed at Nob (21:6, 9). Every sanctuary of importance presumably had a dining-hall (9:22 RV ‘guest-chamber’), where the worsivippers joined in the sacrificial feast (cf. l**).

6. At these local sanctuaries, and at these alone, the early Hebrews worshipped J" their God. The new sanctuary established by David at the threshing-fioor of Araunah, where afterwards the Temple of Solomon was erected, was at first but another added to the list of Hebrew high places. At these, from Dan to Beersheba, sacrifices were offered by individuals, by the family (1 Samuel 1:3). and by the clan (20:6)) there men ate and drank ‘before the Lord’ at the joyful sacrificial meal. Thither were brought the tithes and other thankofferings for the good gifts of God; thither men resorted to consult the priestly oracle, to inquire of the ‘Lord’ in cases of difficulty; and there justice was administered in the name of J". At the local sanctuary, when a campaign was impending, the soldiers were consecrated for ‘the wars of J"‘(see War). There, too, the manslayer and certain others enjoyed the right of asylum. But there was a darker side to the picture. The feasts were not seldom accompanied by excess (Amos 2:8. Isaiah 28:7; cf. 1 Samuel 1:13) prostitution even was practised with religious sanction (Deuteronomy 23:18. 1 Kings 14:24).

6. ‘The history of the high places Is the history of the old religion of Israel’ (Moore). As the Hebrews gradually became masters of Canaan, the high places at which the local Baals and Astartes had been worshipped became, as we have seen, the legitimate sanctuaries of J", in harmony with the universal experience of history as to the permanence of sacred sites through all the changes of race and religion. At these the most zealous champions of the religion of J" were content to worship. It was inevitable, however, that in the circumstances heathen elements should mingle with the purer ritual of Jahweh worship. It is this contamination and corruption of the cultus at the local sanctuaries that the eighth-century prophets attack with such vehemence, not the high places themselves. In Hosea’s day the higher aspects of the religion of J" were so completely lost sight of by the mass of the people, that this prophet could describe the religion of his contemporaries as unadulterated heathenism, and their worship as idolatry.

While this was the state of matters in the Northern Kingdom, the unique position which the sanctuary at Jerusalem had acquired in the south, and the comparative purity of the cultus as there practised, gradually led, under the Divine guidance, to the great thought that, as J" Himself was one, the place of His worship should also be one, and this place Jerusalem. The Book of Deuteronomy is the deposit of this epoch-making teaching (see esp. 12:4 ff.). Whatever may have been the extent of Hezekiah’s efforts in this direction, it was not until the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah (622- 621 B.C.) that effective measures were taken, under the immediate impulse of Deuteronomy, for the destruction of the high places and the suppression of the worship which for so many centuries had been offered at the local shrines (2 Kings 23:5 ff.). But the break with the ideas and customs of the past was too violent. With the early death of Josiah the local cults revived, and it needed the discipline of the Exile to secure the victory of the Deuteronomio demand for the centralization of the cultus.

7. To men inspired by the ideals of Dt. we owe the compilation of the Books of Kings. For them, accordingly, the worship at the local sanctuaries became illegal from the date of the erection of Solomon’s Temple — ‘only the people sacrificed in the high places, because there was no house built for the name of the Lord until those days’ (1 Kings 3:2 RV). From this standpoint the editors of Kings pass judgment on the successive sovereigns, by whom ‘the high places were not taken away’ (1 Kings 15:14 RV and oft.). This adverse judgment is now seen to be unhistorical and undeserved.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

High Priest

See Priests and Levites.

Hilen

Hilen (1 Chronicles 6:58). See Holon, No. 1.

HILKIAH C Jah [is] my portion,’ or ‘portion of Jah’). — A favourite priestly name. 1. Father of EUakim, Hezekiah’s chief of the household (2 Kings 18:18 etc. = Isaiah 36:3 etc.. Isaiah 22:20–25). 2. A priest of Anathoth, probably of the line of Eli (see 1 Kings 2), father of Jeremiah(Jer 1:1) he is not to be identified with the next. 3. The high priest in B.C. 621, who ‘found’ during the repairs of the Temple and brought to Josiah’s notice, through Shaphan, ‘the book of the law’ (2 Kings 22:3–11 = 2 Chronicles 34:8–19), , which occasioned the reformation of religion thereafter effected (2 Kings 23:1–24 =2 Ch 34). Hilkiah headed the deputation sent to consult Huldah on this discovery (2 Kings 22:12–20 Ch 34)) and presided over the subsequent purification of the Temple (2 Kings 23:4 ff.). He was a chief actor in the whole movement. There is no reason to doubt that his find was the genuine discovery of a lost law-book; this book was unmistakably the code of Deuteronomy (wh. see). 4. Father of the Gemariah of Jeremiah 29:3. 5.6. Levites of the clan of Merari (1 Chronicles 6:45 26:11). 7. A ‘chief of the priests’ returning from the Exile in B.C. 536 (Nehemiah 12:7, 21). 8. A companion of Ezra at the public reading of the Law (Nehemiah 8:4)) ; he appears as Ezekias in 1 Esdras 9:43. G. G. Findlay.

Hill, Hill-country

These terms in RV represent Heb. igib’ah, har) and Greek names for either an isolated eminence, or a table-land, or amountain-range, or amountainous district. Gib’ ah denotes properly ‘the large rounded hills, mostly bare or nearly so, so conspicuous in parts of Palestine, especially in Judah.’ Cf . ‘Gibeah of Saul,’ ‘of Phinehas,’ ‘of the foreskins,’ ‘of Moreh,’ ‘of Hachilah,’ ‘of Ammah,’ ‘of Gareb,’ and ‘of Elohim.’ har is to gib’ ah as the genus is to the species, and includes not merely a single mound, but also a range or a district. It is usually applied to Zion. It is especially the description of the central mountainous tract of Palestine reaching from the plain of Jezreel on the N. to the Negeb or dry country in the S.; the Shephelah or lowlands of the S.W.; the midbar or moorland, and the ‘arabah or steppes of the S.E. The best-known har- or hill-country in Palestine is the’ hill-country of Ephraim,’ but besides this we hear of the ‘hill-country of Judah’ (.e.g. in Joshua 11:21), the ‘hill-country of Naphtali’ (20:7), the ‘hill-country of Ammon’ (Deuteronomy 2:37). and of Gilead (.3"). Among the eminences of Palestine as distinct from hill-districts are Zion, the hill of Samaria, the triple-peaked Hermon, Tabor, and Carmel.

W. F. Cobb.

Hillel

Father of Abdon (Judges 12:13, 15).

HVa. — See Weights and Measukeb.

Hind

See Hart.

Hinge

See House, § 6.

Hinnom, Valley of

Hinnom, valley of (called also ‘valley of the son [Jeremiah 7:32) or children [2 K 23:10) of Hinnom,’ and ‘the valley’ [2 Ch 26:9, Nehemiah 2:13, 15 3:13 and perhaps Jeremiah 2:2]). — It was close to the walls of Jerusalem ‘by the entry of the gate Harsith’ (Jeremiah 19:2 RV), possibly the Dung-gate. Evidently the Valley-gate opened into it (Nehemiah 2:13 3:13). It formed part of the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (Joshua 15:8 18:16). The place acquired an evil repute on account of the idolatrous practices carried on there (2 Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28 33:6), and on this account Jeremiah (7 19:6) announced that it was to receive the name ‘valley of Slaughter." Here perpetualfires are said to have been kept burning to consume the rubbish of the city. Such associations with the Valley led afterwards to Ge-hinnom (NT Geheraui) becoming the type of hell.

The situation of the Valley of Hinnom has been much disputed. Of the three valleys of Jerusalem — the Kidron on the B., the TyropoBon in the centre, and the Wady er-RabSbi on the W. — each has in turn been identified with it. In favour of the Kidron is the fact that the theological Gehinnom or Arab. Jahannum of Jewish, Christian, and early Moslem writers is located here; but this was probably a transference of name after the old geographical site was lost, for there are strong reasons (see below) against it. As the Tyropoeon was incorporated within the city walls before the days of Manasseh, it is practically impossible that it could have been the scene of the sacrifice of children, which must have been outside the city bounds (2 Kings 23:10 etc.). The chief data are found in Joshua 15:8 18, where the boundary of Judah and Benjamin is described. If Bir EyyUb is En-rogel, as certainly is most probable, then the Wady er-Rababi, known traditionally as Hinnom, is correctly so designated. Then this Valley of Hinnom is a gai or gorge, but the Valley of Kidron is always described as a nachal (‘wady’). It is, of course, possible that the Valley of Hinnom may have included part of the open land formed by the junction of the three valleys below Siloam; and Topheth may have lain there, as is suggested by some authorities, but there is no necessity to extend the name beyond the limits of the actual gorge. The Wady er-BabSbi commences as a shallow open valley due W. of the Jaffa gate; near this gate it turns due South for about 4 of a mile, and then gradually curves to the East. It is this lower part, with its bare rocky scarps, that presents the characters of a gai or gorge. Near where the valley joins the wide Kidron is the traditional site of Akeldama. E. W. G. Masterman.

Hippopotamus

See Behemoth.

Hirah

The Adullamite with whom Judah, according to the story of Genesis 38 (J) , appears to have entered into a kind of partnership in the matter of flocks. After Tamar had successfully carried out her stratagem, it was by the hand of his ‘friend’ Hirah that Judah sent the promised kid to the supposed qedeahSh (Genesis 38:20 ff.).

Hiram

1, King of Tyre, son and successor of Abibaal. When David was firmly established on his throne, Hiram, we are told, sent messengers to him, and, in order to show his goodwill, gave David materials for building his palace, sending at the same time workmen to assist in the building (2 Samuel 5:11, 1 Chronicles 14:1). This first mention of Hiram is somewhat abrupt, and leads to the supposition that there must have been some earlier intercourse between him and David, the details of which have not come down to us. A real friendship, however, undoubtedly existed between the two (1 Kings 5:1). and this was extended to Solomon after the death of David. A regular alhance was made when Solomon came to the throne, Hiram supplying men and materials for the building of the house of the Lord, while Solomon, in return, sent corn and oil to Hiram. Another sign of friendliness was their joint enterprise in sending ships to Ophir to procure gold (1 Kings 9:26–28 10:11, 2 Ch gn. 9:10. 2i)_ A. curious episode Is recounted in 1 Kings 9:10, 14. according to which Solomon gave Hiram ‘twenty cities in the land of Galilee.’ Hiram was dissatisfied with the gift, though he gave Solomon ‘sixscore talents of gold.’ In the parallel account (2 Chronicles 8:1, 2) it is Hiram who gives cities (the number is not specified) to Solomon.

There is altogether considerable confusion In the Biblical references to Hiram, as a study of the passages in question shows. When these are compared with extra-Biblical information which we possess In the writings of early historians, discrepancies are emphasized . While, therefore, the friendly intercourse between Hiram and Solomon (as well as with David) is unquestionably historical, it is not always possible to say the same of the details.

2. The name of an artificer from Tyre ‘filled vrith wisdom and understanding and cunning, to work all works in brass’ (see 1 Kings 7:13–47) he is also spoken of as ‘skilful to work in gold, and in silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in blue, and in fine linen, and in crimson ...’ (2 Chronicles 2:14). There is a discrepancy regarding his parentage: in 1 Kings 7:14 he is said to have been the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father a man of Tyre: according to 2 Chronicles 2:14 his mother belonged to the tribe of Dan, though here, too, his father was a Tyrian.

The form of the name is usually Hiram in the Books of Samuel and Kings, but the Chronicler adheres uniformly to the form Huram, while we find also Hirom in 1 Kings 5:10, 18 7:40. W. O. E. Obsterlet.

Hire, Hireling

The former is used in AV alongside of its synonym ‘wages,’ by which it has been supplanted in mod. English as in Genesis 31:8 RV (cf. 30:18, 32 f. with 29 30:28 etc.). A hireling is a person ‘hired’ to work for a stipulated wage, such as a fieldlabourer (Mai 3:5), shepherd (John 10:12 f.), or mercenary soldier (Isaiah 16:14, cf. Jeremiah 46:21). No imputation st unfaithfulness or dishonesty is necessarily conveyed by the term, although these ideas have now become associated with it owing to our Lord’s application of the word to an unfaithful shepherd in John 10.

A. R. S. Kennedy.

Hittites

A people said in the J document (Ex 3’- ") to have been one of the pre-Israehtish occupants of Palestine. The E document says they lived in the mountains (Numbers 13:29). . They are often included by D and his followers among the early inhabitants of the land, while P tells us (Genesis 23) that Abraham bought from a Hittite the cave of Machpelah at Hebron. They are probably the people known in Egyptian inscriptions as Kheta, in Assyrian annals as Khatti, and in Homer (Od. xi. 521) as Kmeioi.

It is supposed that the carved figures found in many parts of Asia Minor, having a peculiar type of high hat and shoes which turn up at the toe, and containing hieroglyphs of a distinct type which are as yet undeciphered, are Hittite monuments. Assuming that this is correct, the principal habitat of the Hittites was Asia Minor, for these monuments are found from Karabel, a pass near Smyrna, to Erzerum, and from the so-called Niobe (originally a Hittite goddess) , near Magnesia, to Jerabis, the ancient Carchemish, on the Euphrates. They have also been found at Zenjirli and Hamath in northern Syria (cf. Messerschmidt’s ‘Corp. Inscript. Hett.’ in MitteUungen der Vorderas. GeseU. vol. v.; and Sayce, PSBA vol. xxviii. 91-95). It appears from these monuments that at Boghazkui east of the Halys, at Marash, and at various points in ancient Galatia, Lycaonia, Isauria, and Qlicia the Hittites were especially strong. It is probable that their civilization was developed in Asia Minor, and that they afterwards pushed southward into northern Sjrria, invading a region as far eastward as the Euphrates.

This is confirmed by what we know of them from the inscriptions of other nations. Our earliest mention of them occurs in the annals of Thothmes iii. of Egypt (about B.C. 1500), to whom they paid tribute (cf. Breasted’s AncieM Records of Egypt, il. 213).

In the reign of Amenophis in. (about B.C. 1400) they attempted unsuccessfully to invade the land of Mittani on the Euphrates, and successfully planted themselves on the Orontes valley in Syria (cf. KIB v. 33, and 255, 257). In the reign of Amenophis iv. they made much greater advances, as the el-Amama letters show. In the next dynasty Seti i. fought a battle with the Hittites between the ranges of the Lebanon (Breasted, op cit. iii. 71). In the reign of Eameses n. Kadesh on the Orontes was in their hands. Rameses fought a great battle with them there, and afterwards made a treaty of peace with them (Breasted, op. cit. iii. 125 tf., 165 tE.). Meren-Ptah and Rameses iii. had skirmishes with them, the latter as late as B.C. 1200. From the similarity of his name to the names of Hittite kings, Moore has conjectured (JAOS xix. 159, 160) that Sisera (Judges 5) was a Hittite. If so, in the time of Deborah (about B.C. 1150) a Hittite dynasty invaded northern Palestine.

About B.C. 1100 Tiglath-pileser i. of Assyria fought with Hittites (KIB i. 23). In David’s reign individual Hittites such as Ahimelech and Uriah were in Israel (1 Samuel 26:6. 2 Samuel 11:3 etc.). Kings of the Hittites are said to have been contemporary with Solomon (1 Kings 10:29 11:1). also a century later contemporary with Joram of Israel (2 Kings 7:6). In the 9th cent, the Assjrrian kings Ashurnazir-pal (KIB i. 105) and Shalmaneser ii. (ib. p. 139) fought with Hittites, as did Tiglath-pileser in. (ib. ii. 29), in the next century, while Sargon n. in 717 (ib. 11. 43; Isaiah 10:9) destroyed the kingdom of Carchemish, the last of the Hittite kingdoms of which we have definite record. The researches of recent years, especially those of Jensen and Breasted, make it probable that the aiicians were a Hittite people, and that Syennesis, king of CSlicia, mentioned in Xenophon’s Anabasis as a vassal king of Persia about B.C. 400, was a Hittite. Possibly the people of Lycaonia, whose language Paul and Barnabas did not understand (Acts 14:11). spoke a dialect of Hittite.

The Hittites accordingly played an important part in history from B.C. 1500 to B.C. 700, and lingered on in many quarters much longer. It is probable that a Hittite kingdom in Sardis preceded the Lydian kingdom there (cf. Herod, i. 7). The Lydian Cybele and Artemis of Ephesus were probably originally Hittite divinities.

Jensen, who has made a little progress in deciphering the Hittite inscriptions, believes them to be an Aryan people, the ancestors of the Armenians (cf. his Hittiter und Armenia-), but this is very doubtful.

Politically the Hittites were not, so far as we know, united. They seem to have formed small city-kingdoms.

The religion of the Hittites seems to have had some features in common with Semitic religion (cf. Barton, Semitic Origins, pp. 311-316). Georqe A. Bahton.

Hivites

One of the tribes of Palestine which the Israelites displaced (Exodus 3:8, 17 [J]). Our oldest source (J) says that they were the people who, fearing to meet the Israelites in battle, by a ruse made a covenant with them (Joshua 9:7). A Deuteronomic editor states that their villages were Gibeon, Chephira, Kiriath-jearim, and Beeroth (Joshua 9:17). Gibeon was six miles N.W. of Jerusalem, and Beeroth ten miles N. of it. Probably, therefore, they inhabited a region north of Jerusalem. Genesis 34:2 (P) makes the Shechemites Hivites, but this is of doubtful authority. The main part of the chapter is silent on this point. In Joshua 11 and Judges 3:3 they seem to be located near Hermon in the Lebanon, but ‘Hivite’ is probably here a corruption of ‘Hittite’ (cf. Moore, Judges, p. 79). Deuteronomic editors introduce Hivites often in their list of Canaanitish peoples, usually placing them before Jebusites. Perhaps this indicates that they lived near Jerusalem. 2 Samuel 24:7. though vague, is not inconsistent with this. Some have supposed Hivite to mean ‘villager,’ but the etymology is most uncertain. Really nothing is known of their racial affinities. Geokgb A. Babton.

Hizki

A Benjamite (1 Chronicles 8:17).

Hizkiah

(AV Hezekiah). A son of Neariah, a descendant of David (1 Chronicles 3:23).