Taking all the data together, the course of events was proljably someuiing like this. The Kalibbites, separating from the main stock of the Kenizzites, who had their settlements on Mt. Seir, penetrated into the hill-country of S. Canaan as far as Hebron. Their relations with Judah were more or less friendly at the time of the conquest, and ultimately they coalesced with that tribe, and came to be reckoned as one of its chief clans. The itatements that C. alone spoke hopefully of the
prospect of conquering Canaan (Nu IS**), and that lie atterwards received Hebron as the reward of hia faith (Jos H'*), may contain a reminiscence of the circumstance that the Kalibbites penetrated into Canaan directly from the S., and before the advent of the tribe of Judah. The name of C. may still survive in the Wady el-Kulab, 10 miles S. of Hebron.
LiTERATDRB.— Driver, LOT 68, 77, 103, Dt. 251.; Moore, Jud 30f.; W. K. Smith. OTJC 2T9n., 4U2, Kiiukip and Mar. in Arab. 200, 219 ; Budde, Hicht. u. .S'am. 4 tl. ; Wellhausen, de Gent, et Fain. Jud., and Cmnp. d. Uex. 337 f. ; Kuenen, tiel. Isr L 136ff., nuts.; Graf, <Ut Stamm Siiiuujn. 10-18; Benzinger, Heb. Arch. 293 ff. J. A. SELBIK.
CALENDAR.— See Time.
CALF, GOLDEN CALF i. The use of the word
' calf ' in EV to designate the images of Aaron and Jeroboam is somewhat misleading. The Heb. writers invariably (for Hos 10° see below) employ for this purpose the word Sjy 'egel, which, however, like the corresponding feni. .ii':>' 'eglah, has a wider application than our calf. 'I'hus we read of an 'eglah of three years old (Gn 15'), and of another giving mUk (Is 7=', cf. Hos 10", Jer 50" RV). A comparison of Jer 31'* with Jg 14'", where the reference is to a young bull and a young cow respectively, of an age to be broken to the plough, shows conclusively, apart from considerations drawn from the study of comparative religion, ihaX'egel is the appropriate term for a young bull just arrived at maturity. It is a mistake, there- fore, to suppose that the use of the word to denote the images in question is due either to contempt on the part of the sacred wTiters, or to the diminu- tive size of the images themselves (so most recently Bacon, Triple Trad, of the Exodus, p. 134, who would translate ' little bull '). The feeling of con- tempt which Hosea undoubtedly entertained to- wards the bull-worship of his countrymen has usually been detected in the unique fern. niSj;; ;iN n'3 Hos 10» MT. But the MT is here certainly at fault ; for not only do the LXX and Pesh. ver- sions preserve the smg., but the repeated occur- rence of the sing. masc. suffix in the rest of the verse unmistakably points to the usual Sjy as the original reading. In the LXX tlie rendering is uniformly iibax"^, except in the books of Kings wliere the fem. 5d/xoXis, a heifer, is adopted. The reason for this procedure may perhaps be found in the desire of the translator or translators of this part of the OT to avoid the use of ixbaxos, as sug- ;,'estin^ to Egyptian readers the sacred bulls of Meinphis and Heliopolis. Herodotus and other Greek writers, as is well known, designate the latter as ^i4i7xoi, and in the LXX itself the word is applied to Apis ('o 'Ajrij . . . i ^6(rx,os cov ■ler 26" [MT 40'=]). The occurrence of the fem. in To 1' (tj BdaX rp 5a/id\£i, Cod. B — but Cod. « ti} imjoxv '"■^l is to be explained by the favourite substitution of n;3 for Si'j by Jewish doctors (see esp. Dillm. in Hitzung.iher. d. Berl. A/cad., June I SSI, on ' Baal with a fern, article' — cf. Ro II* and I. XX passim).
ii. Aaron's Golden Bull. — One of the most important incidents which Heb. tradition has preserved of the wanderings is that which now occupies the 32nd chap, of Exodus. A very cursory examination is sufficient to show that the narrative in its present form cannot be the product of a single pen. Thus (a) tlie author of w.'-" cannot be the author of vv.*'"*' ; (6) v." cannot have been written by the same hand as V." ; (c) if the cliapter is a unity, the evident sur- prise of Moses in vv."- " is inexi'licable after the explanation in vv.'- '. Without going further into the details of the analysis — which in this part ol Exodus is exceedingly difficult — we may simply
CALF, GOLDEN CALF
CALF, GOLDEN" CALF
341
remark that the main strand of tlie narrative is ^most certainly from the pen of the Ephraimite historian, E. Additions thereto have been drawn from the other prophetic source, J, not without some modifications from the pen of the redactor of the two narratives. The main point to note is that the historicity of the incident is attested by our oldest sources, and confirmed by the author of Deuteronomy who based his own narrative (Dt 9'- 10") on tliese sources, frequently, indeed, using their ipsissitna verba (see parallel columns in Driver's Deut. pp. 113, 114). This conclusion does not exclude tlie possibility that the narrative in re- cei\Tng its final literary form may have absorbed some reflection of the religious sympathies of the writers (see below).