by
Damien F. Mackey
Part One:
He could not have been from Galilee
“They [the chief priests and
the Pharisees] replied [to Nicodemus]:
‘Are you from Galilee, too?
Search and you will see that no prophet arises from Galilee’.”
(John 7:52)
Introduction
These men, “the chief
priests and the Pharisees”, were expert in the sacred Scriptures - the Law and
the Prophets - which they knew in the tiniest detail. So, when they asserted
before Nicodemus that ‘none of the prophets had hailed from Galilee’, I take
them to be quite right. They challenged Nicodemus to “search and … see”,
knowing that a thorough investigation of the matter would prove them to be
correct. These were, like Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, had described Herod, men ‘of
research’. They knew ‘stuff’. But they lacked wisdom. Fulton Sheen explained in
another place (http://www.catholictradition.org/Christmas/christ-child10.htm):
When the Magi came
from the East bringing gifts for the Babe, Herod the Great knew that the time
had come for the birth of the King announced clearly to the Jews, and
apprehended dimly in the aspirations of the Gentiles. But like all
carnal-minded men, he lacked a spiritual sense, and therefore felt certain that
the King would be a political one. He made inquiries as to where Christ was to
be born. The chief priests and learned men told him, "At Bethlehem in
Judea, for so it has been written by the prophet." Herod said that he
wanted to worship the Babe. But his actions proved that he really meant,
"If this is the Messiah, I must kill Him."
When Herod saw how
the astrologers had tricked him he fell into a passion, and gave orders for the
massacre of all children in Bethlehem and its neighborhood, of the age of two
years or less, corresponding with the time he had ascertained from the
astrologers. [Matthew 2:16]
Herod will forever
be the model of those who make inquiries about religion, but who never act rightly
on the knowledge they receive. Like train announcers, they know all the
stations, but never travel. Head knowledge is worthless, unless accompanied by
submission of the will and right action.
[End
of quote]
Just as Herod was
able to ascertain from “the chief priests and the learned men [Pharisees?]”
that the King of the Jews was to be born “at Bethlehem in Judea”, so did “the
chief priests and the Pharisees” well know that none of the prophets - and they
were ‘building tombs for them’ (Luke 11:47) - had hailed from Galilee. Their
ancestors had killed many of these same prophets. And Jesus, whom “the chief
priests and the Pharisees” were intending to murder (John 11:53) - even though
they were quite aware that He had raised Lazarus from the dead (11:46) - had
also, as a child, been marked for death by Herod.
Apparently
intelligence and learning are, on their own, not enough. They can lead to
murder.
Had these doubters really searched, they would
have found that several prophets came from Galilee:
Nahum and Hosea
may have hailed from Galilee as well. These people's argument—that no prophet
arose from Galilee—was completely without merit! Most important, their argument
totally neglected Isaiah's prophecy about Christ's own Galilean ministry. He
was to shine as a light in the darkness, in the inheritances of Naphtali and
Zebulun, in "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Isaiah 9:1-2).
As so often happens, the
jingoists among the Jews mixed truth with fallacy. They correctly understood two things
about Christ's birth and descent:
First, they understood Isaiah
11, Jeremiah 23, and Jeremiah 33, which indicate that Christ would descend from
David. He would be of Judah—the Scepter tribe (Genesis 49:10).
Second, they understood that
Christ would come from Bethlehem, the home of David (I Samuel 20:6):
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you
are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me
the One to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from
everlasting. (Micah 5:2)
[End of quotes]
Surprising, though,
that either Elijah or Micah should be included here. Elijah was apparently from
Transjordanian Gilead which is hardly Galilee; nor was Micah’s Moresheth-gath
in Galilee, but in southern Judaea.
As for Nahum and Hosea: I have suggested that
Nahum may have been the prophet Job,
a Naphtalian, who grew up in Assyria:
The mysterious town of “Kaserin”, which Tobias and the angel Raphael
approached on their return journey (Tobit 11:1), is here tentatively identified
with the prophet Nahum’s town of Elkosh (or Al Qush).
and that Hosea was the same as Isaiah,
originally from the kingdom of Judah:
Family of Prophet Isaiah as Hosea’s
in Northern Kingdom
Thus, in my
reconstructions at least, there is no case for a prophet arising out of
Galilee.
That brings us to a
consideration of Jonah’s home town of Gath-hepher (2 Kings 14:25): “…
Jonah
son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath-hepher”. See Part Two.
Modern day Bible
commentators can be wrong, again, concerning another point about which the
audience of Jesus had no doubt. It is common to hear – even in priestly sermons
– that the biblical account of Jonah is a “literary” or “didactic fiction”.
Whilst a “Jonah son of Amittai” (cf. Jonah 1:1; 2 Kings 14:25) may indeed have
existed, they might concede, it is ridiculous to take literally the account of
his 3-day sojourn in the belly of a great fish.
However, the learned
amongst the Jews did not query Jesus at all when He recalled before them this
famous incident (Matthew 12:38-40):
Then some
of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, ‘Teacher, we want to see
a sign from you’.
He
answered, ‘A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be
given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and
three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth’.
Part Two:
The “Gath” element in Gath-hepher
On the strength that the
painstaking Jewish chief priests and Pharisees well knew that no prophet of
Israel had arisen from Galilee, we must ‘be careful to do everything they tell you, but
do not do what they do’ (Matthew 23:3), and hence to ‘search and see’ (John 7:52) with regard to
the home geography of the prophets – in this case, Jonah’s ‘Gath-hepher’.
Introduction
In two of the three
cases in the Old Testament where any reference is made to the prophet Jonah, namely
the Book of Jonah and the Second Book of Kings - he is also mentioned in Tobit
14:4 - the prophet is consistently named with reference to a patronymic, as “Jonah
son of Amittai”.
The
Second Book of Kings (14:25) provides that most important detail of
geographical origin: “Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath-hepher” [Hebrew: גַּת חֵפֶר]. Biblical scholars seem to be unanimous
in identifying this place with the location, “Gittah-hepher”, mentioned in the
Book of Joshua (19:13), which they locate in Lower Galilee inhabited by the
tribe of Zebulun. From all this it is logically considered that the prophet
Jonah was a Galilean from the tribe of Zebulun. And so, typically we read (http://biblehub.com/topical/g/gath-hepher.htm):
ATS Bible Dictionary
Gath-Hepher
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Wine-press of the well, a town of Lower Galilee, about 5 miles from
Nazareth; the birthplace of Jonah (2 Kings 14:25); the same as
Gittah-hepher (Joshua 19:13).
It has been identified with the modern el-Meshed, a village on the top of a
rocky hill. Here the supposed tomb of Jonah, Neby Yunas, is still pointed out.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
GATH-HEPHER
gath-he'-fer (gath ha-chepher, "winepress of the pit"):
A town on the boundary of Zebulun (Joshua 19:13; the King James
Version in error, "Gittah-hapher"), the birthplace of the prophet
Jonah (2 Kings 14:25).
Jerome (Commentary on Jonah) speaks of Geth as an inconsiderable village, about
2 miles from Sepphoris on the Tiberias road, where the tomb of Jonah was shown.
Benjamin of Tudela says that Jonah the son of Amittai the prophet was buried
"in the mountain" near Sepphoris (Bohn, Early Travels in Palestine,
88). These indications agree with the local tradition which identifies
Gath-hepher with el-Meshhed, a village with ancient ruins on a height North of
the road as one goes to Tiberias, about 2 miles from Nazareth, and half a mile
from Kefr Kennah.
[End of quotes]
However,
let us explore something different here in the light of the learned ancient
Jewish testimony that ‘no prophet had arisen from Galilee’ hence no prophet
from the tribe of Zebulun. Let us consider the possibility that the element
(location) hepher may pertain to the
famous southern city of Gath (home of Goliath, 1 Samuel 17:4) in a way similar
to how the prophet Micah’s home of Moresheth (1:1) - thought to be
Moresheth-Gath (exact location uncertain) - is considered to have been a suburb
(“possession”) of Gath.
Gath and Hepher
It would help greatly
if the key sites with which we need to deal here, Gath, Hepher, Moresheth -
even Jonah’s Tarshish (1:3) - were all firmly located geographically.
Gath
Regarding the
important Philistine city of Gath, one will frequently read something along the
lines of: “The exact location of Gath is still disputed” (James E. Smith, 1 and 2 Samuel, p. 95).
Smith will follow
this up with a footnote (12) telling that: “The most widely accepted location
of Gath is Tell es-Safi, twelve miles north of Ashdod”.
The map below
features sites relevant to our discussion: namely, Gath (the Tell es-Safi site); Moresheth-gath;
and Joppa, from whence Jonah
embarked (1:3): “But Jonah
ran away from the LORD …. He went down to Joppa,
where he found a ship …”.
The precise location
of Gath is not of the utmost importance at this stage.
Archaeologists
claim to have found the lost city of Gath, home to Goliath
August 13,
201510:26pm
It turns out
this battle might have actually taken place.
REMEMBER the biblical tale of David versus Goliath?
Archaeologists think they may have discovered in Israel the home of
biblical giant Goliath.
The Ackerman Family Bar-Ilan University Expedition, led by Professor Aren
Maeir, located the lost city of Gath during excavations of an area now divided
between the warring states of Palestine and Israel.
In biblical accounts, the former Holy Land was one of five cities belonging
to Israel’s ancient foes, the Philistines.
The Old Testament also describes Gath as the home of Goliath — the enormous
warrior killed with a slingshot fired by David before he became king of Israel.
Melbourne University Associate Professor Louise Hitchcock said the
archaeologists have known about the site for almost two decades.
“I have been digging there every July since 2008, but the project itself
has been going on since 1997,” she told news.com.au.
The recent discovery of the entrance gate of the biblical city has been the
biggest finding made by a researcher. The gates provide evidence of the status
and influence held by the Philistines in the ninth and tenth centuries BC.
The finding is believed to match the description gates mentioned in the
Bible’s Books of Samuel:
“David took these words to heart and was very much afraid of Achish king of
Gath. So he pretended to be insane in their presence; and while he was in their
hands he acted like a madman, making marks on the doors of the gate and letting
saliva run down his beard.”
Remains of Iron Age fortifications in the
lower city section of the Philistine city of Gath. Source: Professor Aren
Maeir.Source:Supplied
While not personally involved in the uncovering of the gate, Ms Hitchcock
said she has made a number of other discoveries that go along with the theory
including an inscription of the name Goliath, two Philistine temples, alters
and ritual objects.
“The discovery of the gate in the lower part of the city is different to
the area where I have been digging,” she said. “I have been excavating the
houses of the people who likely built the gate.”
Ms Hitchcock said it was in these houses she made the discovery of some
pottery typically associated with Philistine culture.
“The domestic remains of distinctive Philistine-style pottery also show
elements of Israelite technique,” she said.
“This suggests there was some multiculturalism between the warring
factions.”
[End of quote]
It needs to be noted,
however, that these archaeologists are looking at the Iron Age levels at Tell
es-Safi which they consider (wrongly, I believe) to approximate to the time of
David.
In the Quarterly Statement of the
"Palest. Explor. Fund," October 1880, page 211 sq., there is an
extended paper on the site of this important city, which Mr. Trelawney Saunders
strongly argues was located at Khurbah Abu-Gheith, at the head of Wady
el-Hesy (here called el-Muleshah), which falls into the Mediterranean between
Gaza and Hebron; whereas Lieut. Conder gives substantial reasons for rejecting
this location, and in favor of Tell es-Safieh, the Blanche-Garde of
the Crusaders.
[End of quote]
More recently, Terry Lawrence, has adverted favourably to
Saunders’ choice of Abu-Gheith for Gath:
Ekron
and Gath - The Location of the Interior Cities of the Philistines Reconsidered, by Terry
Lawrence
Chronology
& Catastrophism WORKSHOP 1986:1
That site, though,
may not be significant enough in size to warrant so key an identification,
according to lieutenant Condor’s criticism of Saunders:
…. The
ruin of Abu Gheith is extremely insignificant, consisting only of heaps of
fallen masonry and remains of a modern wall. The description given in the Athenreum
(.Aug. 7, 1880) of this spot as "commanding the main route from the
Nomad region of the Negeb or South Country to the lowland hills of the
Philistine Shephelah" is scarcely justified by anything in the map or
memoir. The ruin lies low and is not on any main road, but more than a mile
from the track leading from Beersheba to Gaza.
[End of quote]
According to J.
Smith, again (footnote 12), Albright had argued against the identification of
Tell es-Safi with Gath, “and suggested Tell el-Manshiyeh about seven miles
further south”. But, as I wrote above, “The precise location of Gath is not of
the utmost importance …”. We know of its approximate location, in the south. Our concern, at this
stage, is more about determining whether the prophet Jonah had hailed from a
northern or southern region.
And, if his
Gath-hepher has reference to Gath, then Jonah was definitely from the south.
In favour of a southern identification, rather than a
Galilean one, for the prophet Jonah’s town of Gath-hepher, could be the fact
that he had made a bee-line for the southerly port of Joppa. Presuming that the
prophet was living at home at the time of his first being summoned to Nineveh,
why would Jonah not have, in his urgency to escape from the Lord, chosen a port
closer to Gath-hepher in Galilee (if he had indeed been a Galilean), such as
Dor?
Part Three:
The “hepher” element in Gath-hepher
So far the argument has been
that Jonah could not have been a prophet from Galilee and hence that his home
town of “Gath-hepher” could not have been situated in that northern region –
the preference being, instead, for a location, like Moresheth, associated with Gath.
Gath and Hepher
That my complaint in Part Two, about the general
geographical uncertainty of key locations, was not an exaggeration, is apparent
from a consideration, now, of “Hepher”.
Hepher
Was Hepher in the north, or was it in the south?
Commentators can opt for either geography.
Favouring the north, we read in The International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 4:
“Even though the exact locations of Arubboth and the land of Hepher are disputed,
the relationship of Hepher with the genealogy of Manasseh (Nu. 26:32; 27:1 Josh.
17:2) assures its propinquity to the zone N of
Samaria”.
And again, Holman Bible Dictionary, on “Arubboth”:
….City
name meaning, “smoke hole” or “chimney.” One of Solomon's provincial officials
made headquarters there and administered over Sochoh and the land of Hepher (1 Kings 4:10).
This would be territory belonging to the clan of Hepher of the tribe of
Mannasseh in the northern part of the Plain of Sharon, southwest of Megiddo and
southeast of Dor. Arubboth is modern Arabbah nine miles north of Samaria.
Judging from the names which follow, Arubboth was a town or district in
the low country lying between the mountainous portion of Judah and the
Mediterranean. There was Sochoh (more correctly Socoh) a place noticed Joshua 15:35, and also as
being near the encampment of the Philistines in Goliath’s time (1
Samuel 17:1). A king of Hepher is mentioned Joshua 12:17, to
whom probably this land of Hepher pertained. The other names in the list in
Joshua are of towns in this district to which we know Socoh belonged.
And again:
Sochoh is mentioned in Joshua 15:35, and is
noticed in 1Samuel
17:1-3 as close to the field of battle on which David slew Goliath. Hepher
is an old Amorite city which was conquered by Joshua (Joshua 12:17),
still, by a curious survival, giving its name to the whole district, to which
the name Aruboth (otherwise unknown) is here also given.
“The King of Hepher”
He was one of the
many Canaanite kings conquered by Joshua (12:9-24):
These
were the kings:
9 the king of Jericho
|
one
|
the
king of Ai (near Bethel)
|
one
|
10 the king of Jerusalem
|
one
|
the
king of Hebron
|
one
|
11 the king of Jarmuth
|
one
|
the
king of Lachish
|
one
|
12 the king of Eglon
|
one
|
the
king of Gezer
|
one
|
13 the king of Debir
|
one
|
the
king of Geder
|
one
|
14 the king of Hormah
|
one
|
the
king of Arad
|
one
|
15 the king of Libnah
|
one
|
the
king of Adullam
|
one
|
16 the king of Makkedah
|
one
|
the
king of Bethel
|
one
|
17 the king of Tappuah
|
one
|
the
king of Hepher
|
one
|
18 the king of Aphek
|
one
|
the
king of Lasharon
|
one
|
19 the king of Madon
|
one
|
the
king of Hazor
|
one
|
20 the king of Shimron Meron
|
one
|
the
king of Akshaph
|
one
|
21 the king of Taanach
|
one
|
the
king of Megiddo
|
one
|
22 the king of Kedesh
|
one
|
the
king of Jokneam in Carmel
|
one
|
23 the king of Dor (in Naphoth
Dor)
|
one
|
the
king of Goyim in Gilgal
|
one
|
24 the king of Tirzah
|
one
|
thirty-one
kings in all.
| |
Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible, according to which
these kings are split geographically into “Southern Canaan” and “Northern Canaan”,
would locate “the king of Hepher” (v. 17) amongst the northern Canaanites (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/joshua-12.html#1):
“In
the second division of this chapter (Joshua 12:7-24); (1) "The kings in
Southern Canaan are listed first (Joshua
12:9-16); and (2) the kings in Northern Canaan are listed last.”
[3]”. The “king of Hepher”, in the Joshuan text, is
sandwiched between “the king of Tappuah” and “the king of Aphek”.
Unfortunately, again, these locations, Tappuah and Aphek, can be regarded
either as northern or southern.
… the fact that there is more than one other Aphek, that Tappuah on the
borders of Ephraim and Manasseh seems to have been an important city, and that
the cities of the south are mentioned first, those of the north afterwards, and
that Tappuah seems to lie about midway, suggest the more northern city. This is
Knobel's opinion. Gesenius inclines to the southern Tappuah. Conder identifies
it with Yassfif, at the head of the Wady Kanah, southeast of Shechem.
Given the direction
of my argument for the home town of the prophet Jonah, Gath-hepher, as being associated
with the southerly, Gath - and the geographical coincidences with the activities
of Goliath - I would have to favour Gesenius’s “southern” view for the location
of “Tappuah”.
And also, for “Aphek”,
the assertion of The Cambridge Ancient History,
“Aphek lay in the south-western part
of the former kingdom of Israel ...”, in the territory of Judah.
