« PreviousContinue »
tion of Sir Sidney Smith, it offered to the arms of Buonaparte. After that famous siege the fortifications were further strengthened, till it became the strongest place in all Syria. In 1832 the town was besieged for nearly six months by Ibrahim Pasha, during which 35,000 shells were thrown into it, and the buildings were literally beaten to pieces. It had by no means recovered from this calamity, when it was subjected to the operations of the English fleet under Admiral Stopford, in pursuance of the plan for restoring Syria to the Porte. On the 3rd of November, 1840, it was bombarded for several hours, when the explosion of the powder-magazine destroyed the garrison and laid the town in ruins.
ACCOMMODATION (exegetical or special) is principally employed in the application of certain passages of the Old Testament to events in the New, to which they had no actual historical or typical reference. Citations of this description are apparently very frequent throughout the whole New Testament, but especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
various modes in which the prophecies of the Old Testament are supposed to be fulfilled in the New. For instance, the opinion has been maintained by several divines, that there is sometimes a literal, sometimes only a mediate, typical, or spiritual fulfilment. Sometimes a prophecy is cited merely by way of illustration (accommodation), while at other times nothing more exists than a mere allusion. Some prophecies are supposed to have an immediate literal fulfilment, and to have been afterwards accomplished in a larger and more extensive sense; but as the full development of this part of the subject appertains more properly to the much controverted question of the single and double sense of prophecy, we shall here dwell no further on it than to observe, that not only are commentators who support the theory of a double sense divided on the very important question, what are literal prophecies and what are only prophecies in a secondary sense, but they who are agreed on this question are at variance as to what appellation shall be given to those passages which are applied by the New It cannot be denied that many such passages, Testament writers to the ministry of our Saviour, although apparently introduced as referring to, and yet historically belong to an antecedent or predictive of, certain events recorded in the period. In order to lessen the difficulty, a disNew Testament, seem to have, in their original tinction has been attempted to be drawn from connection, an exclusive reference to quite other the formula with which the quotation is ushered objects. The difficulty of reconciling such in. Passages, for instance, introduced by the seeming misapplications, or deflections from their formula that it might be fulfilled,' are conoriginal design, has been felt in all ages, al-sidered, on this account, as direct predictions by though it has been chiefly reserved to recent times to give a solution of the difficulty by the theory of accommodation. By this it is meant that the prophecy or citation from the Old Testament was not designed literally to apply to the event in question, but that the New Testament writer merely adopted it for the sake of ornament, or in order to produce a strong impression, by showing a remarkable parallelism between two analogous events, which had in themselves no mutual relation.
It will be necessary, for the complete elucidation of the subject, to bear in mind the distinction not only between accommodated passages and such as must be properly explained (as those which are absolutely adduced as proofs), but also between such passages and those which are merely borrowed, and applied by the sacred writers, sometimes in a higher sense than they were used by the original authors. Passages which do not strictly and literally predict future events, but which can be applied to an event recorded in the New Testament by an accidental parity of circumstances, can alone be thus designated. Such accommodated passages therefore, if they exist, can only be considered as descriptive, and not predictive.
It will here be necessary to consider the
some, who are willing to consider citations introduced with the expression then was fulfilled' as nothing more than accommodations. The use of the former phrase, as applied to a mere accommodation, they maintain is not warranted by Jewish writers: such passages, therefore, they hold to be prophecies, at least in a secondary sense. Bishop Kidder appositely observes, in regard to this subject, that scripture may be said to be fulfilled several ways, viz., properly and in the letter, as wher that which was foretold comes to pass; or again. when what was fulfilled in the type is fulfilled again in the antitype; or else a scripture may be fulfilled more improperly, viz., by way o accommodation, as when an event happens to any place or people like to that which fell ou some time before.' He instances the citation. Matt. ii. 17, In Ramah was a voice heard,' &c These words,' he adds, are made use of by way of allusion to express this sorrow by. Th evangelist doth not say "that it might be fulfilled," but "then was fulfilled," q. d., such another scene took place.'
It must at the same time be admitted that this distinction in regard to the formula of quotation is not acknowledged by the majority of commentators, either of those who admit or of those who deny the theory of accommodation. Among the former it will suffice to name Calmet, Doddridge, Rosenmüller, and Jahn, who look upon passages introduced by the formula that it might be fulfilled,' as equally accommodations with those which are prefaced by the words 'then was fulfilled;' while those who deny the accommodative theory altogether, consider both as formulas of direct prophecies, at least in a secondary or typical sense. This. for instance, is the case especially in regard to
the two citations of this description which first present themselves in the New Testament, viz., Matt. ii. 15, and Matt. ii. 17, the former of which is introduced by the first, and the latter by the second of these formulas. But inasmuch as the commentators above referred to cannot perceive how the citation from Hosea xi. 1, Out of Egypt have I called my son,' although prefaced by the formula that it might be fulfilled,' and which literally relates to the calling of the children of Israel out of Egypt, can be prophetically diverted from its historical meaning, they ook upon it as a simple accommodation, or applicable quotation. Mr. Horne observes, that it was a familiar idiom of the Jews, when quoting the writings of the Old Testament, to ay, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by such and such a prophet, not intending it to be understood that such a particular passage in one of the sacred books was ever designed to be a real prediction of what they were then relating, but signifying only that the words of the Old Testament might be properly adopted to express their meaning and illustrate their ideas.' The apostles,' he adds, who were Jews by birth, and wrote and spoke in the Jewish idiom, frequently thus cite the Old Testament, intending no more by this mode of speaking, than that the words of such an ancient writer might with equal propriety be adopted to characterize any similar occurrence which happened in their times. The formula "that it might be fulfilled," does not therefore differ in signification from the phrase "then was fulfilled," applied in the following citation in Matt. ii. 17, 18, from Jer. xxxi. 15-17, to the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem. They are a beautiful quotation, and not a prediction of what then happened, and are therefore applied to the massacre of the infants according not to their original and historical meaning, but according to Jewish phraseology.' Dr. Adam Clarke, also, in his Commentary on Jeremiah (xxxi. 15-17), takes the same view:-'St. Matthew, who is ever fond of accommodation, applied these words to the massacre of the children of Bethlehem; that is, they were suitable to that occasion, and therefore he applied them, but they are not a prediction of that event.'
D. J. G. Rosenmüller gives as examples, which he conceives clearly show the use of these formulas, the passages Matt. i. 22, 23; ii. 15, 17, 23; xv. 7; Luke iv. 21; James ii. 23; alleging that they were designed only to denote that something took place which resembled the literal and historical sense. The sentiments of a distinguished English divine are to the same effect: 'I doubt not that this phrase," that it might be fulfilled," and the like were used first in quoting real prophecies, but that this, by long use, sunk in its value, and was more vulgarly applied, so that at last it was given to Scripture only accommodated. And again, If prophecy could at last come to signify singing (Titus i. 12; 1 Sam. x. 10; 1 Cor. xiv. 1), why might not the phrase fulfilling of Scripture and prophecy signify only quotation (Nicholl's Conference with a Theist, 1698, part iii. p. 13).
The accommodation theory in exegetics has been equally combated by two classes of opponents. Those of the more ancient school con
sider such mode of application of the Old Testament passages not only as totally irreconcilable with the plain grammatical construction and obvious meaning of the controverted passages which are said to be so applied, but as an unjustifiable artifice, altogether unworthy of a divine teacher; while the other class of expositors, who are to be found chiefly among the most modern of the German Rationalists, maintain that the sacred writers, having been themselves trained in this erroneous mode of teaching, had mistakenly, but bona fide, interpreted the passages which they had cited from the Old Testament in a sense altogether different from their historical meaning, and thus applied them to the history of the Christian dispensation. Some of these have maintained that the accommodation theory was a mere shift resorted to by commentators who could not otherwise explain the application of Old Testament prophecies in the New consistently with the inspiration of the sacred writers: while the advocates of the system consider that the apostles, in adapting themselves to the imode of interpretation which was customary in their days, and in further adopting what may be considered an argument e concessis, were employing the most persuasive mode of oratory, and the one most likely to prove effectual; and that it was therefore lawful to adopt a method so calculated to attract attention to their divine mission, which they were at all times prepared to give evidence of by other and irrefragable proofs.
ACCUBATION, the posture of reclining on couches at table, which prevailed among the Jews in and before the time of Christ. We see no reason to think that, as commonly alleged, they borrowed this custom from the Romans after Judea had been subjugated by Pompey. But it is best known to us as a Roman custom, and as such must be described. The dinner-bed, or triclinium, stood in the middle of the diningroom, clear of the walls, and formed three sides of a square which enclosed the table. The open end of the square, with the central hollow, allowed the servants to attend and serve the table. In all the existing representations of the dinner-bed it is shown to have been higher than the enclosed table. Among the Romans the
usual number of guests on each couch was three, making nine for the three couches, but sometimes there were four to each couch. The Greeks went beyond this number; the Jews appear to have had no particular fancy in the matter, and we know that at our Lord's last supper thirteen persons were present. As each guest leaned, during the greater part of the entertainment, on his left elbow, so as to leave the right arm at
liberty, and as two or more lay on the same couch, the head of one man was near the breast of the man who lay behind him, and he was, therefore, said to lie in the bosom' of the other. This phrase was in use among the Jews (Luke xvi. 22, 23; John i. 18; xiii. 23), and occurs in such a manner as to show that to lie next below, or in the bosom' of the master of the feast, was considered the most favoured place, and was usually assigned to near and dear connections. Thus it was the disciple whom Jesus loved' who reclined upon his breast' at the last supper. The frame of the dinner-bed was laid with mattresses variously stuffed, and, latterly, was furnished with rich coverings and hangings. Each person was usually provided with a cushion or bolster on which to support the upper part of person in a somewhat raised position; as the left arm alone could not long without weariness sustain the weight. The lower part of the body being extended diagonally on the bed, with the feet outward, it is at once perceived how easy it was for the woman that was a sinner' to come behind between the dinner-bed and the wall, and anoint the feet of Jesus (Luke vii. 37, 38; John xii. 3).
The dinner-beds were so various at different times, in different places, and under different circumstances, that no one description can apply to them all. Even among the Romans they were at first (after the Punic war) of rude form and materials, and covered with mattresses stuffed with rushes or straw; mattresses of hair and wool were introduced at a later period. At first the wooden frames were small, low, and round; and it was not until the time of Augustus that square and ornamented couches came into fashion. In the time of Tiberius the most splendid sort were veneered with costly woods or tortoiseshell, and were covered with valuable embroideries, the richest of which came from Babylon, and cost large sums. The Jews perhaps had all these varieties, though it is not likely that the usage was ever carried to such a pitch of luxury as among the Romans; and it is probable that the mass of the people fed in the ancient manner-seated on stools or on the ground. It appears that couches were often so low, that the feet rested on the ground; and that cushions or bolsters were in general use. It would also seem, from the mention of two and of three couches, that the arrangement was more usually square than semi-circular or round.
It is utterly improbable that the Jews derived this custom from the Romans, as is constantly alleged. They certainly knew it as existing among the Persians long before it had been adopted by the Romans themselves (Esth. i. 6; vii. 8); and the presumption is that they adopted it while subject to that people. The Greeks also had the usage (from the Persians) before the Romans; and with the Greeks of Syria the Jews had very much intercourse. Besides, the Romans adopted the custom from the Carthaginians, and, that they had it, implies that it previously existed in Phoenicia, in the neighbourhood of the Jews. Thus, that in the time of Christ the custom had been lately adopted from the Romans, is very improbable. It is also unlikely that in so short a time it should have become usual and even (as the Talmud asserts) obli
gatory to eat the Passover in that posture of indulgent repose, and in no other.
ACCUSER. The original word, which bears this leading signification, means-1. One who has a cause or matter of contention; the accuser, opponent, or plaintiff in any suit (Judg. xii. 2; Matt. v. 25; Luke xii. 58). We have little information respecting the manner in which causes were conducted in the Hebrew courts of justice, except from the Rabbinical authorities, who, in matters of this description, may be supposed well informed as to the later customs of the nation. Even from these we learn little more than that great care was taken that, the accused being deemed innocent until convicted, he and the accuser should appear under equal circumstances before the court, that no prejudicial impression might be created to the disadvantage of the defendant, whose interests, we are told, were so anxiously guarded, that any one was allowed to speak whatever he knew or had to say in his favour, which privilege was withheld from the accuser. The word is also applied in Scripture, in the general sense, to any adversary or enemy (Luke xviii. 3; 1 Pet. v. 8). In the latter passage there is an allusion to the old Jewish opinion that Satan was the accuser or calumniator of men before God (Job i. 6, 89; Rev. xii. 10, sq.; comp. Zech. iii. 1). In this application the forensic sense was still retained, Satan being represented as laying to man's charge a breach of the law, as in a court of justice, and demanding his punishment [SATAN].
ACEL'DAMA (field of blood), the field purchased with the money for which Judas betrayed Christ, and which was appropriated as a place of burial for strangers (Matt. xxvii. 8; Acts i. 19). It was previously a potter's field.' The field now shown as Aceldama lies on the slope of the hills beyond the valley of Hinnom, south of Mount Zion. Sandys thus writes of it: On the south side of this valley, neere where it meeteth with the valley of Jehoshaphat, mounted a good height on the side of the mountain, is Aceldama, or the field of blood, purchased with the restored reward of treason, for a buriall place for strangers. In the midst whereof a large square roome was made by the mother of Constantine; the south side, walled with the naturall rocke; flat at the top, and equall with the vpper level; out of which ariseth certaine little cupoloes, open in the midst to let doune the dead bodies. Thorow these we might see the bottome, all couered with bones, and certaine corses but newly let doune, it being now the sepulchre of the Armenians. A greedy graue, and great enough to deuoure the dead of a whole nation. For they say (and I believe it) that the earth thereof within the space of eight and forty houres will consume the flesh that is laid thereon.' He then relates the common story, that the empress referred to, caused 270 ship-loads of this flesh-consuming mould to be taken to Rome, to form the soil of the Campo Santo, to which the same virte is ascribed. Castela affirms that great quantities of the wondrous mould were removed by divers Christian princes in the time of the Crusades, and to this source assigns the similar sarcophagic properties claimed not only by the Campo Santo at Rome, but by the ceme
tery of St. Innocents at Paris, by the cemetery at Naples, and, we may add, that of the Campo Santo at Pisa.
The plot of ground originally bought 'to bury strangers in,' seems to have been early set apart by the Latins, as well as by the Crusaders, as a place of burial for pilgrims. In the fourteenth century it belonged to the Knights-Hospitallers. Early in the seventeenth century it was in the possession of the Armenians, who bought it for the burial of their own pilgrims. The erection of the charnel-house is ascribed to them. the time of Maundrell they rented it at a sequin a day from the Turks. Corpses were still deposited there; and the traveller observes that they were in various stages of decay, from which he conjectures that the grave did not make that quick despatch with the bodies committed to it which had been reported. The earth, hereabouts,' he observes, is of a chalky substance; the plot of ground was not above thirty yards long by fifteen wide; and a moiety of it was occupied by the charnel-house, which was twelve yards high.' Richardson affirms that bodies were thrown in as late as 1818; but Dr. Robinson alleges that it has the appearance of having been for a much longer time abandoned: "The field or plat is not now marked by any boundary to distinguish it from the rest of the hill-side; and the former charnel-house, now a ruin, is all that remains to point out the site....An opening at each end enabled us to look in; but the bottom was empty and dry, excepting a few bones much decayed.'
ACHA'IA, a region of Greece, which in the restricted sense occupied the north-western portion of the Peloponnesus, including Corinth and its isthmus. By the poets it was often put for the whole of Greece, whence Achaioi, the Greeks. Under the Romans, Greece was divided into two provinces, Macedonia and Achaia, the former of which included Macedonia proper, with Illyricum, Epirus, and Thessaly; and the latter, all that lay southward of the former. It is in this latter acceptation that the name of Achaia is always employed in the New Testament (Acts xviii. 12, 27; xix. 21; Rom. xv. 26; xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 15; 2 Cor. i. 1; ix. 2; xi. 10; 1 Thess. i. 7, 8). Achaia was at first a senatorial province, and, as such, was governed by proconsuls. Tiberius changed the two into one imperial province under procurators; but Claudius restored them to the senate and to the proconsular form of government. Hence the exact and minute propriety with which St. Luke expresses himself in giving the title of proconsul to Gallio, who was appointed to the province in the time of Claudius (Acts xviii. 12).
ACHA'ICUS, a native of Achaia, and a follower of the apostle Paul. He, with Stephanus and Fortunatus, was the bearer of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, and was recommended by the apostle to their special respect (1 Cor. xvi. 17).
A'CHAN (troubler); in 1 Chron. ii. 7 written ACHAR. From the peculiarly appropriate significance of the name, it is supposed to have been imposed after the occurrence of the facts which rendered it notorious. The city of Jericho, before it was taken, was put under that awful ban, whereby all the inhabitants (except
ing Rahab and her family) were devoted to destruction, all the combustible goods to be concrated to God. sumed by fire, and all the metals to be conserigidly observed by all the troops when Jericho This vow of devotement was who could not resist the temptation of secreting was taken, save by one man, Achan, a Judahite, an ingot of gold, a quantity of silver, and a costly Babylonish garment, which he buried in his tent. But God made known this infraction, which (the vow having been made by the nation his guilt. The Israelites were defeated, with as one body) had involved the whole nation in serious loss, in their first attack upon Ai; and as Joshua was well assured that this humiliation which had inculpated the entire people, he took was designed as the punishment of a crime immediate measures to discover the criminal. Lord by the lot, and the lot ultimately indicated As in other cases, the matter was referred to the the actual criminal. The conscience-stricken offender then confessed his crime to Joshua; and his confession being verified by the production of his ill-gotten treasure, the people, actuated by the strong impulse with which men tear up, root and branch, a polluted thing, hurried away not only Achan, but his tent, his goods, his spoil, his cattle, his children, to the valley (afterwards called) of Achor, north of Jericho, where they stoned him, and all that belonged to him; after which the whole was consumed with fire, and a cairn of stones raised over the ashes. The severity of this act, as regards the family of vindicating it, as is generally done, by the alleAchan, has provoked some remark. Instead of gation that the members of Achan's family were probably accessories to his crime after the fact, in the doom by one of those sudden impulses of we prefer the supposition that they were included indiscriminate popular vengeance to which the Jewish people were exceedingly prone, and which, in this case, it would not have been in which he could under such circumstances exthe power of Joshua to control by any authority ercise.
Ps. xxxiv.), the Philistine king of Gath, with A'CHISH (called Abimelech in the title of whom David twice sought refuge when he fled from Saul (1 Sam. xxi. 10-15; xxvii. 1-3). The first time David was in imminent danger; for he the court as one whose glory had been won at was recognised and spoken of by the officers of the cost of the Philistines. David with such alarm that he feigned himself This talk filled mad when introduced to the notice of Achish, who, seeing him scrabbling upon the doors of his beard,' rebuked his people sharply for bringthe gate, and letting his spittle fall down upon ing him to his presence, asking, "Have I need of madmen, that ye have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence? Shall this fellow come into my house? After this David About four years after, when the character and lost no time in quitting the territories of Gath. position of David became better known, and when he was at the head of not less than 600 resolute adherents, he again repaired with his troop to King Achish, who received him in a truly royal spirit, and treated him with a generous confidence, of which David took perhaps
rather more advantage than was creditable to him [DAVID].
timony, taken in connection with this fact, and with such a monument in a place where Jews have been permanently resident, is better evidence than is usually obtained for the allocation of ancient sepulchres. The tomb is in charge of the Jews, and is one of their places in pilgrimage.
History notices another Ecbatana, in Palestine, at the foot of Mount Carmel, towards Ptole mais, where Cambyses died. It is not mentioned by this or any similar name in the Hebrew writings.
A'CHOR, a valley between Jericho and Ai, which received this name (signifying trouble from the trouble brought upon the Israelites by the sin of Achan (Josh. vii. 24) [ACHAN].
AC'HSAH (an anklet), the daughter of Caleb, whose hand her father offered in marriage to him who should lead the attack on the city of Debir, and take it. The prize was won by his nephew Othniel; and as the bride was conducted with the usual ceremony to her future home, she alighted from her ass, and sued her father for an addition of springs of water to her dower in lands. It is probable that custom rendered it unusual, or at least ungracious, for a request tendered under such circumstances by a daughter to be refused; and Caleb, in accordance with her wish, bestowed upon her the upper and the nether springs' (Josh. xv. 16-19; Judg. i. 9-15).
ACHME’THA (Ezra vi. 2; in the Apocrypha 2 Macc. ix. 3; Judith i. 1, 2; Tob. iii. 7; Joseph. Antiq. x. 11, 7; xi. 4, 6; also, in Greek authors, Ecbatana), a city in Media. The name seems to have been applied exclusively to cities having a fortress for the protection of the royal treasures. In Ezra we learn that in the reign of Darius Hystaspes the Jews petitioned that search might be made in the king's treasure-house at Babylon, for the decree which Cyrus had made in favour of the Jews (Ezra v. 17). Search was accordingly made in the record-office (house of the rolls), where the treasures were kept at Babylon (vi. 1): but it appears not to have been found there, as it was eventually discovered at Achmetha, in the palace of the province of the Medes' (vi. 2). In Judith i. 2-4, there is a brief account of Ecbatana, in which we are told that it was built by Arphaxad, king of the Medes, who made it his capital. It was built of hewn stones, and surrounded by a high and thick wall, furnished with wide gates and strong and lofty towers. Herodotus speaks of it in similar terms, and ascribes its foundation to Dejoces, who was probably the same with the Arphaxad of Judith. Ecbatana has been usually identified with the present Hamadan, which is still an important town, and the seat of one of the governments into which the Persian kingdom is divided. It is situated in north lat. 34° 53', east long. 40°, at the extremity of a rich and fertile plain, on a gradual ascent, at the base of the Elwund Mountains, whose higher summits are covered with perpetual snow. Some remnants of ruined walls of great thickness, and also of towers of sun-dried bricks, present the only positive evidence of a more ancient city than the present on the same spot. Heaps of comparatively recent ruins, and a wall fallen to decay, attest that Hamadan has declined from even its modern importance. The population is said by Southgate to be about 30,000, which, from what the present writer has seen of the place, he should judge to exceed the truth very considerably. It is little distinguished, inside, from other Persian towns of the same rank, save by its excellent and well-supplied bazaars, and the unusually large number of khans of rather a superior description. This is the result of the extensive transit trade of which it is the seat, it being the great centre where the routes of traffic between Persia, Mesopotamia, and Persia converge and meet. Its own manufactures are chiefly in leather. Many Jews reside here, claiming to be descended from those of the Captivity who remained in Media. Benjamin of Tudela says that in his time the number was 50,000. Modern travellers assign them 500 houses; but the Rabbi David de Beth Hillel, who was not likely to understate the fact, and who had the best means of information, gives them but 200 families. He says they are mostly in good cir- ACRABATE'NE, a district in that portion cumstances, having fine houses and gardens, of Judæa which lies towards the south end of and are chiefly traders and goldsmiths. In the the Dead Sea, occupied by the Edomites during midst of the city is a tomb, which is said to be the Captivity, and afterwards known as Idumaa. that of Mordecai and Esther. As Ecbatana was It is mentioned in 1 Macc. v. 3; Joseph. Antiq. then the summer residence of the Persian court, xii. 8. 1. It is assumed to have taken its name it is probable enough that Mordecai and Esther from the Maaleh Akrabbim, or Steep of the Scordied and were buried there; and traditional tes-pions, mentioned in Num. xxxiv. 4, and Josh.
AC'HSHAPH, a royal city of the Canaanites (Josh. xi. 1), has been supposed by many to be the same as AcuZIB, both being in the tribe of Asher. But a careful consideration of Josh. xix. 25 and 29, will make it probable that the places were different. There is more reason in the conjecture that Achshaph was another name for Accho or Acre, seeing that Accho otherwise does not occur in the list of towns in the lot of Asher, although it is certain, from Judg. i. 31, that Accho was in the portion of that tribe.
AC'HZIB. There were two places of this name, not usually distinguished.
1. ACHZIB, in the tribe of Asher nominally, but almost always in the possession of the Phoe nicians; being, indeed, one of the places from which the Israelites were unable to expel the former inhabitants (Judg. i. 31). In the Talmud it is called CHEZIB. The Greeks called it ECDIPPA; and it still survives under the name of ZIB. It is upon the Mediterranean coast, about ten miles north of Acre. It stands on an ascent close by the sea-side, and is described as a small place, with a few palm-trees rising above the dwellings.
2. ACHZIB, in the tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 44; Mic. i. 14), of which there is no historical mention, but, from its place in the catalogue, it appears to have been in the middle part of the western border-land of the tribe, towards the Philistines. This is very possibly the Chezib of Gen. xxxviii. 5.