the Yarmuk to the Arnon (2 Ki. 1033 etc.), divided by the Jabboḳ into
two parts (Jos. 122), corresponding to the modern Ǧebel 'Aǧlūn and el-Belḳā,
N and S respectively of the Wādī ez-Zerḳā. The name Ǧebel Ǧil'ād still survives as that of a mountain, crowned by the lofty summit
of Ǧebel Ōsha', N of es-Salṭ, where are found the ruined cities Ǧil'ād and
Ǧal'aud (Burckh. Syria, 348). It is therefore natural to look here in the
first instance for the 'cairn of witness' from which the mountain and
the whole region were supposed to have derived their names. The
objections to this view are (1) that Jacob, coming from the N, has not
yet crossed the Jabboḳ, which is identified with the Zerḳa; and (2) that
the frontier between Israel and the Aramæans (of Damascus) could not
have been so far S. These reasons have prevailed with most modern
authorities, and led them to seek a site somewhere in the N or NE of
Ǧ. 'Aǧlūn. But the assumption that Laban represents the Aramæans of
Damascus is gratuitous, and has no foundation in either J or E (see the
next note). The argument from the direction of Jacob's march applies
only to J, and must not be too rigorously pressed; because the treaty
of Gilead and the crossing of the Jabboḳ belong to different cycles of
tradition, and the desire to finish off Jacob's dealings with Laban before
proceeding to his encounter with Esau might very naturally occasion
a departure from strict geographical consistency.[1]—The site of Miẓpāh
has to be investigated separately, since we cannot be certain that J
and E thought of the same locality. E of the Jordan there was a
Miẓpāh (Ju. 1017 1111. 34, Ho. 51) which is thought to be the same as
(
Hebrew characters) (Ju. 1129) and (Hebrew characters) (Jos. 1326); but whether it lay S or N
of the Jabboḳ cannot be determined. The identification with Rāmôth-Gil`ād,
and of this with er-Remte, SW of the ancient Edrei, is precarious.
The name ('watch-post') was a common one, and may readily be supposed
to have occurred more than once E of the Jordan. See Smith,
HG, 586; Buhl, GP, 262; Driver in smaller DB, s.v.; and on the whole
of this note, cf. Smend, ZATW, 1902, 149 ff.
Historical Background of 3144-54.—The treaty of Gilead in J evidently embodies ethnographic reminiscences, in which Jacob and Laban were not private individuals, but represented Hebrews and Aramæans respectively. The theory mostly favoured by critical historians is that the Aramæans are those of Damascus, and that thewith Maḥne (p. 405), of the Ford with Muḫādat en-Nuṣrānīyeh (p. 408), becomes feasible.]
- ↑ It seems to me very doubtful how far Jacob's route, as described in chs. 32, 33, can be safely used as a clue to the identification of the localities mentioned (Gilead, Miẓpah, Maḥanaim, the Ford, Peniel, Succoth). The writers appear to have strung together a number of Transjordanic legends connected with the name of Jacob, but without much regard to topographical consistency or consecutiveness (see p. 408). The impossibility of the current identifications (e.g. those of Merrill and Conder), as stages of an actual itinerary, is clearly shown by Dri. in ET, xiii. (1902), 457 ff. It is only when that assumption is frankly abandoned that the identification of Gilead with Ǧil'ād, of Mahanaimanaim above
