Apart from this, however, there is sufficient evidence to show that, in the earliest period of Isr. history in Canaan, the tribe of Joseph, or of Rachel, was still undivided. It embraced not only E. and M., but Benjamin ; and therefore we fina Shimei the Henjamitu regarding himself as a member of the house of Joseph (2 S 19-"). After Benjamin constituted a separate tribe, E. and M. Btill remained undistinguished for a considerable time ; they formed together the house of Joseph in the more general sense ; and this can alone explain their union for administrative purposes under Rolomon (I K H"). To what precise period we
should assign the subdivision of Joseph it is im possible to discover. All we can say is that it would naturally result from the ever-increa-sing extent of territory occupied by the tribe, and the emergence of dillerent and conflicting interests in the separate regions of it.
E., like the other tribes of Israel (see ALLIANCE), was far from owing its territory entirely to force of arms (see Tribe). Can. elements are found in its midst at a comparatively late date (Jos 16'"), and Jg 5", though very corrupt, may imply that the population was composed to some extent of Amalekites. The earliest settlement was in Mt. Ephraim, which was densely wooded. Hence when a complaint was made to Joshua that the territory assigned was too small for the tribe, he advised them to make clearances, and thus make good the defect (Jos 17'*"'*). From this point E. extended northwards over the wooded hill -country of Samaria to the borders of the plain of Jezreel. The boundary between E. and Manasseh is stated to have been the brook Kanali (Jos 16"), but this line of demarcation was not strictly observed. The S. limit was lixed at the two fortresses of Upper and Nether Beth-horon, on the borders of Benjamin. To the W. of these lay the territory of the Can. town of Gezer, received by Solomon on his marriage with the daughter of Pharaoh (1 K 9""").
The Ephrairaites were the most jiowerful tribe in Israel, and their ambition and sense of superiority are continually in evidence in the history. Their later characteristics and conduct are foreshadowed in the Bk. of Jg. Here we find them attacking Gideon for going to war with the Midianites with- out summoning them to his aid ; their resentment is allayed only with the greatest difficulty ( Jg 8'"^). In the same way they complain against Jephthah, and on this occasion they actually come to blows with their kinsmen, with the most disastrous con- seijuences to themselves (Jg 12'"'). But they not only aspire to leadersiiip in war. Shiloh, the seat of the 'house of God ' until the destruction of this sanctuary by the Philistines, is within their borders. Samuel still further adds to the prestige of the tribe from whose midst it was only natural that the kingmaker should arise, thus realizing the idea of monarchy in the land, if not among the people, of Jerubbiuil and Abiraelech. After Saul's death E. set up Ishbosheth, and in.stigated, or at least joined in, the oppo.sition to David and the tribe of Judah (2 S 2') ; out after the assassination of their prince they yielded to the force of circum- stances, and gave in their adherence to David. The traditional jealousy of Judah was not, how- ever, allayed. It can hardly be doubted that this had much to do with the initial success of Absalom's revolt, and it found expression after the failure of the conspiracy in a formal complaint (2 S 19*'"*'). The succession of Rehoboam to the throne furnished a favourable oiiportunity for a final attempt at obtaining independence. '1 he first intimation of the meditated secession is stated to have come from Shiloh, the ancient headciuarters of the priesthood and of the first kiiiginaker. The revolt was precipitated by the tyranny of Solomon and Rehoboam, and was consummated under the leadership of Jeroboam, who became the first ruler of the N. kingdom. I'"ron» that date E. and Judah were irrevocably divided, and the history of the former tribe is merged in that of Israel. The capital, whether Slicchem, Tirzali, or Samaria, was always situated in E., and the name of tliat tribe was constantly applied, especially by the proiihets, to the whole kingdom. See I.skakl.
Mount Ephraim occurs repeat«dlv in AV (Joa 17" l'.l=» 20', Jg 2-' :!-■' etc., 32 times in all) as tr. of on-¥ ■>•?, which \l\' more correctly tr. ' the hill country of Ephraim.' It designates the moun'ain-
7^8
ErHRAl.M
EPICUREANS
ous rid''e in Central Palestine, stretcliing N. to S. from the Great Plain to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, occupied by West Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin. It had fruitful land on both slopes, especially the western (see Moore on Jg 3-'', Dillm. on Jos 16', and G. A. Smith, HGHL 325, 338).
Lrr8RATi-RB.- Moore, Jtidga, 152, 205, 31411. ; Budde, Richt. u. Sam. (jKUusim); Kitte), Hist, of Ueb. (see Inde.x).
J. Millar.
EPHRAIM ('Ei/)po(/i). — A town not mentioned in the .Synoptic Gospels, nor in any other part of the NT e.xcept Jn 11**. In tliat passage we are told that, in consequence of the plots formed by the rulers of the J'-ws after the raising of Lazarus, Jesus went from the neighbourhood of Jerus. and Bethany ' into the country near to the wildeme.ss, into a city called Ephraim, and there he tarried with his disciples.' The 'wilderness' {ri iprnioi) apparently means the grassy mountain lands near Jerus. ; and Josephus { Wars, IV. be. 9) mentions a small fort named Ephraim in the mountain district north of Juda;a, which he couples with Bethel. In 2 Ch 13" we have Ephrain (['■ey) instead of Ephron ([nrj;) suggested in the Kere and RVm as the cor- rect name of one of the towns taken by Abijah ; and in this verse we again find it coupled with Bethel, if the suggestion be adopted. Lightfoot remarks that, whether the Kere be the right read- ing or not, it shows that such a place existed just in the region where from St. John's account we should expect it to be. Robinson suggests that it is the same as Ophrah mentioned in 1 S 13", and enumerated by Joshua among the cities of Benjamin (Jos 18^). He identifies it with a village now called et-Taiyibeh, situated on a conspicuous conical hill commanding a view over the valley of the Jordan and the Dead Sea (Robinson, i. 444). This site is a very probable one ; it is 4 miles N.E. of Bethel, with which Ephraim is coupled both in 2 Ch and by Josephus ; and it is about 14 mUes from Jerusalem.