Friday, July 22, 2016

Jonah of Gath-hepher


 

https://thelonghaulwithisaiah.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/6-jonah-6.jpg

 

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.

 

Modern day Bible commentators will argue, however, that the chief priests and Pharisees appear to have got it wrong - that some of Israel’s prophets had indeed come from Galilee. Apart from Jonah, many refer to Hosea and Nahum as being from Galilee. The following Bible Tools commentary goes even further than this, to include the prophets Elijah and Micah http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/11821/Jonah-as-Native-Galilee.htm

 


 

Had these doubters really searched, they would have found that several prophets came from Galilee:

 

• Micah was from Moresheth-gath, in Galilee (Micah 1:1).
• Elijah, of Gilead, was a native of Galilee (I Kings 17:1).
• Jonah was from Gath Hepher, in Galilee (II Kings 14:25; see Joshua 19:13).

 

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

 

In Zebulun, was the birthplace of Jonah, 1 Kings 4:10; 2 Kings 14:25. It lay near Sepphoris, on a road leading to Tiberias.

 

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.

 

MATTHEW DUNNnews.com.au

 

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.

As early as 1880, doubt had been cast upon the suitability, for Gath, of the site of Tell es-Safi (Safieh). http://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/G/gath-(2).html

 

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.

 

Favouring the south, we read in (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_kings/4-10.htm):

 


 

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:


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.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment