THE LAND OF BENJAMIN.
North of Jerusalem lies a narrow district, which contains more places of
interest than can, perhaps, be found in any other part of Palestine
within an equal area.
This district was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin, and includes about
two hundred square miles of hills, extending ten miles from Jerusalem to
Bethel, and about twenty from the lower Beth Horon to the deserts above
Jericho.
We are now able to draw, with a great amount of accuracy, the north
boundary of Benjamin, from Bethel to Archi (’Ain ’Arîk), and thence to
“Ataroth Adar, near the hill that lieth on the south side of the nether
Bethoron,” exactly where we discovered the ruins of Ed Dârieh still
existing. South of these limits are the famous towns Bethel, Ai,
Michmash, Geba, Ramah, Nob, Mizpeh, Gibeon, with others of minor
importance. To these places the present chapter is devoted.
It is clear from the Old Testament that the place where Jacob’s vision
occurred was Bethel or Luz, as it was originally called, on the boundary
of Ephraim and Benjamin. Later traditions have been busy with the site,
and (as we have seen before) the Samaritans claim that the true place is
on Gerizim, while in the twelfth century the sacred rock on the Temple
Hill was held to be the Beth-el, or House of God, of the narrative in
Genesis.
Bethel at the present day is one of the most desolate-looking places in
Palestine; not from lack of water, for it has four good springs, but
from the absence of soft soil on its rocky hills. All the neighbourhood
is of grey, bare stone, or white chalk. The miserable fields are fenced
in with stone walls, the hovels are rudely built of stone, the hill to
the east is of hard rock, with only a few scattered fig-gardens, the
ancient sepulchres are cut in a low cliff, and a great reservoir south
of the village is excavated in rock. The place seems as it were turned
to stone, and we can well imagine that the lonely patriarch found
nothing softer than a stone for the pillow under his head, when on the
bare hill side he slept, and dreamed of angels.
It is very remarkable that in this narrative the word “place” occurs in
a manner which suggests that it is used with a special significance.
Jacob came not to any city, but to a “certain place” (Gen. xxviii. 11),
the stones of which formed his pillow.
The word “place” (Makom) occurs five times in the same chapter, and the
place called Bethel is distinguished specially from the neighbouring
city of Luz (verse 19). The same word (Makom) is used to denote the
sacred places of the Canaanites (Deut. xii. 2), and in the Talmud to
denote the shrines held to be lawful for Israel before the Temple was
built.
It is thus, perhaps, a _sacred place_ that is intended as having been
Jacob’s refuge on his way; and we at once recall the altar which Abraham
raised between Bethel and Ai--towns which, as now identified, were only
two miles apart. Abraham’s altar must have been close to the city of
Luz, subsequently named from it Bethel, “the House of God;” and it was
perhaps from the stones of this ancestral shrine that Jacob’s pillow was
made.
Bethel continued to be a religious centre after the establishment of the
Tabernacle at Shiloh, in the time of Phineas, grandson of Aaron. We find
the Ark established--at least during the campaign against the men of
Gibeah--at Bethel; for there can be no reasonable doubt that Josephus is
right in supposing the place called in our version “the House of God,”
to be the town of Bethel (Judg. xx. 26, 27; Ant. v. 2, 10), as will be
seen by comparison of the strategical lines occupied by the besieged
Benjamites of Gibeah, one of which was the “highway which goeth up to
Bethel” (verse 31). Even in the time of Samuel, sacrifice seems to have
been offered at Bethel (1 Sam. x. 3), and the establishment of a Calf
Temple by Jeroboam at Bethel was thus no innovation, but merely the
restoration of an ancient high place. The extraordinary mixture of true
and false worship which thus seems to have occurred--Bethel being the
school of the prophets of Jehovah, while the Calf Temple still stood
there--is a subject well worthy of consideration.
The prophecy of Hosea, and that of Amos as well, connect Bethel and
Bethaven in such a way as to make it appear that they were the same
place. Such is the opinion of the Jewish commentators, and we may thus
perhaps trace the origin of the present corruption of Beitîn for Bethel
back to the early time of Jeroboam. Bethaven, however, means “house of
naught,” and the title was originally given to the desert east of
Bethel, because of its barren character, though in the prophecy there is
a play on the word: “Gilgal (freedom) shall go into captivity, and
Bethel shall come to naught” (Aven).
Another town of almost equal interest existed in the same neighbourhood,
namely Ai, east of Bethel, a place which was quite unknown in the fourth
century, but concerning the general position of which there is but
little dispute. The various notices in the Bible (Gen. xii. 8; Josh.
viii. 9-14) define its situation with much exactitude, as being east of
and _close to_ Bethel (Josh. xii. 9), with a valley north of the town,
and low ground to the west, where an ambush might be set unseen from the
city, while on the opposite side was a plain (verse 14). This
description applies, in a very complete manner, to the neighbourhood of
the modern village of Deir Diwân, and there are here remains of a large
ancient town, bearing the name Haiyân, which approaches closely to Aina,
the form under which Ai appears in the writings of Josephus. The special
meaning of the Hebrew word rendered “beside,” but meaning “close to,”
forbids us to accept any of the alternative sites at greater distances
from Bethel, which some writers have advocated. Rock-cut tombs and
ancient cisterns, with three great reservoirs cut in the hard limestone,
are sufficient to show this to have been a position of importance. To
the west is an open valley called “Valley of the City,” which, gradually
curving round eastward, runs close to the old road from Jericho by which
Joshua’s army would probably have advanced. To the north of the site
there is also a great valley, and the plain or plateau on which the
modern village stands close to the old site, expands from a narrow and
rugged pass leading up towards Bethel, which is two miles distant on the
watershed.
Beside this pass and north of the ruins, is a large terraced knoll, very
stony, and crowned by a few olives--a conspicuous object in the
landscape. It is called simply Et Tell, “the mound,” and a connection
has been supposed between this name and the fact that Joshua made Ai “a
heap (Tell in the Hebrew) for ever.” The place does not, however, show
traces of having at any time been covered by buildings, and the rock-cut
tombs and cisterns above noticed seem too far from it to indicate Et
Tell as the exact site of Ai; being close to the pass, it has, moreover,
no valley such as would seem fitted for the ambush immediately west of
it.
From this Tell a fine view is obtained towards the plains of Jericho.
The village of Deir Diwân is seen on its little plateau in the
foreground, while the desolate hills of Benjamin rise beyond, with the
chain of the Quarantania Mountain, hiding the western half of the Dead
Sea and of the plain of Jericho, though the mouth of Jordan and the
eastern ranges of Moab with Mount Nebo are visible, forming the extreme
distance.
Advancing a few miles farther south, we come on the scene of one of the
most romantic of Old Testament stories--the attack made by Jonathan and
his armour-bearer, on the Philistine camp, near Michmash.
A great valley, as we have seen above, has its head west of Ai, and
curving round eastwards it runs to Jericho: about two miles south-east
of Ai it becomes a narrow gorge with vertical precipices some 800 feet
high--a great crack or fissure in the country which is peculiar in this
respect, that you only become aware of its existence when close to the
brink, for on the north the narrow spur of hills hides it, and on the
south a flat plateau extends to the top of the crags.
On the south side of this great chasm (the true head of the Kelt valley)
stands Geba of Benjamin, on a rocky knoll, with caverns beneath the
houses and arable land to the east. Looking across the valley, the stony
hills and white chalky slopes present a desolate appearance; and on the
opposite side, considerably lower than Geba, is the little village of
Michmash, on a sort of saddle, backed by an open and fertile
corn-valley. The existence of this valley no doubt accounts for the
place having been famous for its barley, so that the Talmudic proverb,
“to bring barley to Michmash,” represents exactly our “carrying coals to
Newcastle.”
The pass between these two towns appears to have been more than once the
place of meeting between the Jews and their enemies, though to a
military man it seems curious that the main road along the watershed
should not always, as it did in Maccabean times, have formed the line of
Jewish defence north of Jerusalem.
The town of Geba, south of the valley, is generally understood to be
that notorious in the history of the extermination of the tribe of
Benjamin, and to have been the place where Jonathan smote the garrison
of the Philistines (1 Sam. xiii. 3). If this be so, then it must
apparently be the “hill of God” (Geba-ha-Elohim) where was the garrison
of the Philistines (1 Sam. x. 5), and where some of Saul’s family seem
to have lived (verse 14). Thus Geba of Benjamin seems to be connected
with Gibeah of Saul, but the latter name appears to have applied to a
district as well as to a town, for the neighbouring city of Ramah is
said in one passage to have been “in Gibeah” (1 Sam. xxii. 6).
Josephus tells us of a village called Gabaoth Saule which was by the
Valley of Thorns, and about thirty stadia from Jerusalem. This reminds
us at once of the name Seneh, “thorn” or “acacia,” which was applied to
one of the crags at the place where Jonathan crossed to the Philistine
camp at Michmash. The modern name of the great valley between Geba and
Michmash is Suweinît, or the “valley of the little thorn-tree” (acacia),
and if this identification of the Valley of Thorns with Wâdy Suweinît be
correct, the town of Gibeah of Saul is apparently to be placed at the
present Jeb’a, though the distance given by Josephus is not exact.
The site of the Philistine camp at Michmash, which Jonathan and his
armour-bearer attacked, is very minutely described by Josephus. It was,
he says, a precipice with three tops, ending in a long sharp tongue and
protected by surrounding cliffs. Exactly such a natural fortress exists
immediately east of the village of Michmash, and it is still called “the
fort” by the peasantry. It is a ridge rising in three rounded knolls
above a perpendicular crag, ending in a narrow tongue to the east with
cliffs below, and having an open valley behind it, and a saddle towards
the west on which Michmash itself is situate.
Opposite this fortress, on the south, there is a crag of equal height
and seemingly impassable; thus the description of the Old Testament is
fully borne out--“a sharp rock on one side, and a sharp rock on the
other” (1 Sam. xiv. 4).
The southern cliff, as we have noticed above, was called Seneh, or “the
acacia,” and the same name still applies to the modern valley, due to
the acacia-trees which dot its course. The northern cliff was named
Bozez, or “shining,” and the true explanation of this name only presents
itself on the spot.
The great valley runs nearly due east, and thus the southern cliff is
almost entirely in shade during the day. The contrast is surprising and
picturesque between the dark cool colour of the south side and the ruddy
or tawny tints of the northern cliff, crowned with, the gleaming white
of the upper chalky strata. The picture is unchanged since the days when
Jonathan looked over to the white camping-ground of the Philistines, and
Bozez must then have shone as brightly as it does now, in the full light
of an Eastern sun.
The watchmen of Saul in Gibeah of Benjamin must have seen clearly,
across the chasm, the extraordinary conflict of two men against a host,
as the “multitude melted away and they went on beating down one
another.” The noise in the host was also, no doubt, clearly heard at the
distance of only two miles, and the army would have crossed the passage
with comparatively little difficulty by the narrow path which leads down
direct from Geba to Michmash, west of the Philistine camp. Thence the
pursuit was towards Bethel, across the watershed, and headlong down the
steep descent of Aijalon--that same pass where the first great victory
of Joshua had been gained, and where the valiant Judas was once more in
later times to drive back the enemies of Israel to the plains.
The town of Ramah was, as above noticed, in the district of Gibeah,
which surrounded Geba and reached to Migron (1 Sam. xiv. 2), or to “the
precipice” of the Michmash Valley. Ramah was a well-known town of
Benjamin, but it is not generally regarded as that Ramah, or Ramathaim
Zophim, which was Samuel’s home and burial-place.
[Illustration: THE VALLEY OF MICHMASH.
_To face Page_ 256.]
As regards this famous subject of controversy, it is safest to say that
we do not know where Ramathaim Zophim was; like all controversies; it
arises from the fact that there is very little absolute information
to be obtained on the subject. The main points to be observed seem to me
to be: first, that the city was in Mount Ephraim; secondly, that a place
called Sechu lay on the road from it to Gibeah; thirdly, that Samuel
belonged to the family of the Kohathites who possessed Beth-Horon (1
Chron. vi. 67), from which it might be argued that his native town was
probably near Beth-Horon; lastly, that the name Ramathaim Zophim means
“the heights of the views,” so that it is natural to expect a position
commanding an expensive prospect. These considerations seem to point to
Râm Allah, east of Beth-Horon on the west slopes of Mount Ephraim,
overlooking the maritime plain, and in confirmation of this proposition
we find a ruined village called Sûeikeh, perhaps the Sechu of the Bible
(1 Sam. xix. 22), on the high-road from Geba to Râm Allah.
There are yet two sites to be noticed which are equally
indeterminate--the sacred cities of Nob and Mizpeh; but the Survey has
done little to throw light on this question. There is however a
remarkable connection between the two places which leads to the
supposition that they were either close to one another or, perhaps,
identical. The names Nob, “a high place,” Mizpeh, “a watch-tower,”
suggests a similarly commanding position. Nob was for many years the
place where the Tabernacle stood, as we may infer from the Bible, and as
we are expressly told in the Mishna: Mizpeh in like manner was the
gathering-place of Israel, “where they prayed” (1 Macc. iii. 46). Nob
was on the high road to the capital, seemingly in sight of Jerusalem
(Isaiah x. 32), and Mizpeh was “over against Jerusalem.” Mizpeh is not
mentioned in episodes where the name of Nob occurs, nor does Nob occur
in passages where Mizpeh is noticed.
Most writers, including Mr. Grove and Dean Stanley, place Mizpeh in the
neighbourhood of the modern Sh’afât, or between it and the hill Scopus.
From either place Jerusalem is visible, and either would suit the order
in which Nob occurs in the lists (Neh. xi. 32), between Anathoth
(’Anâta) and Ananiah (B. Hannîna); but this is a good instance of the
uncertainty which must always remain as to ancient sites, unless the old
names can be recovered. There are plenty of Nobs and of Mizpehs in
Palestine, but in positions quite inapplicable, whereas, in the right
direction there is no name of the kind (so far as has yet been
discovered) for Sh’afât is not apparently derived from Mizpeh, but is a
name very like that of Jehosaphat, and the natives of the place say that
it was called after a Jewish king. In Crusading times the town seems to
be also mentioned under the title Jehosaphat.
The early Christians placed Mizpeh in quite another direction, and Nob
at Beit Nûba, which is famous in the history of Richard Lion-Heart.
Their site for Mizpeh was near Sôba, west of Jerusalem, and here we
found a ruin with the title Shûfa, which in meaning is equivalent to the
Hebrew Mizpeh, but this place cannot be described as “over against
Jerusalem,” and its recovery is thus a matter of minor interest.
There is one other site which has been proposed for Mizpeh, though it is
merely a conjecture and not a name which might lead to the
identification; this site is the remarkable hill called Neby Samwîl,
north of Jerusalem. The place is conspicuous from the tall minaret which
crowns the old Crusading church on the summit, and within the church is
the cenotaph now revered by the Moslems as the tomb of Samuel,--a modern
monument covered with a green cloth.
The Crusaders, with their usual contempt for facts, fixed on this hill
as the ancient Shiloh; they also called it Ramah, and added besides a
title of their own. “Two miles from Jerusalem,” says Sir John
Maundeville, “is Mount Joy, a very fair and delicious place. There
Samuel the prophet lies in a fair tomb, and it is called Mount Joy
because it gives joy to pilgrims’ hearts, for from that place men first
see Jerusalem.”
The tradition which places Samuel’s tomb here seems, however, to be only
recent. Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, who is a tolerably safe guide as
regards Jewish sacred sites, discredits the story and speaks of a change
of site. “When the Christians took Ramleh, which is Ramah, from the
Mohammedans,” says the Rabbi, “they discovered the sepulchre of Samuel
the Ramathi, near the Jewish Synagogue, and removed his remains to
Shiloh, where they erected a large place of worship over them called St.
Samuel of Shiloh to the present day.”
This statement, though exhibiting an amount of ignorance quite equal to
that of the Christian twelfth-century writers, still serves to show that
the tomb at Neby Samwîl does not come into the category of sites
recognised by the Jews; and the ancient name of the hill of St. Samuel
remains unknown. There is nothing at the site necessarily older than
Crusading times, though the fine water-supply to the east would point to
the suitability of the neighbourhood for an ancient city. At the foot of
the mountain, hidden among olives, we discovered Hazzûr, evidently the
ancient Hazor of Benjamin (Neh. xi. 33). On the top of the mountain we
planned the old church, the rock-cut scarps and stables, with other
Crusading remains; but we found no Jewish tombs near the modern village.
Perhaps this commanding situation was first chosen for a fortress by the
Latin Kings of Jerusalem, and afterwards came to be regarded as an old
site; the very difficult approach, the magnificent panoramic view, and
the numerous springs, including “the King’s spring,” “the Emir’s
spring,” etc., would have indicated the place as a fitting position for
a fortress, flanking the two main north roads to Jerusalem.
Looking down from the roof of the church, one sees the old site of
Gibeon (El Jib) on a rounded hillock to the north, with its famous
fountain under a cliff south-east of the village. Dean Stanley has
proposed to recognise in Neby Samwîl the high-place of Gibeon, so famous
for the dream of Solomon when visiting the Tabernacle then erected at
the spot; but it must not be forgotten that the distance between the two
places is a mile and a quarter, and that a broad valley separates them.
We can now only conjecture the name by which Neby Samwîl was known in
Bible times, because the ancient name--if ever there was one--has been
for ever lost, while the mediæval tradition of the tomb of Samuel has
furnished an appellation familiar to the Moslem peasantry, who now
reverence the place just as they do Christian traditional sites, in
Jerusalem, in Samaria, and at St. Matthew, south of the capital.
[Illustration: ENGEDI.]