Gath was a fenced city of considerable import- ance, and was constantly the scene of struggles between the Philistines and Israelites, and «;is taken and retaken by either side (IS 7'* 17''"-, 2 S 21™, 2 K 12", 1 Ch 7=' 8" 18' 20«, 2 Ch 11* 2i)''),
The journey of the ark of God from Ashdud to Gath (1 S 5), and thence by Ekron to Beth-sheniosli and Kiriatli-jearim, indicates the site of Galli to have been near the boundary-line between Dan and Judah. The account of the flight of the Philistines on the death of Goliath, ' by the way to Shaaraim, even unto Gath and unto Ekron ' (1 S 17'-), gives the same indication.
Gath remained a stronghold of the Philistines during the reigns of Saul and David, and the l.itter twice (but see David, i. 564") took refuge there: first, when he fled from Saul at Gibeah (1 S 21'^') he went to Achish the king of Gath, and being discovered, feigned himself mad in their hands ; secondly, when he again lied from Saul at the lie.id of 600 men, he dwelt with Achish at Gath, and formed a friendship with him (1 S 27') and with the Gittites, COO of whom came after him from Gath when he reigned in Jerusalem, and accom- panied him under Ittai the Gittite on his flight from Jerusalem over Jordan (2 S IS'*"-), when liis son Absalom conspired and stole the hearts of the men of Israel.
Rehoboam fortified Gath (2 Ch 1 1'), but it seems to have fallen again into the hands of the Philis- tines, as Uzziah 'brake down the wall of Gath' (2 Ch 26") when he went forth and warred against the Philistines. Amos about this time speaks of 'Gath of the Philistines' (Am 6" ; see Driver's note). The last reference to Gath as an existing (?) city is in the Hk. of Micah (1'"), in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, ' Declare ye it not at Gath.' Roth Ashdod and Ekron are referred to in the times of Josiah (Zeph 2*) and after the Exile (Zee 9'), but Gath has disappeared from history. It may liave been destroj-ed when Hezekiah sniot* the Pfiilistines even unto Gaza (2 K 18'), or when Sennacherib 'came up against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them' (2 K 18"), as it plays no further part in history.
Little is learned concerning the site of Gath by reference to Eusebius and Jerome. Gath is stated to have been 5 Roman miles north of Eleutheroi>olii towards Diospolis (Lydda), while Gath-rinuiKm, a Levitical city in the tribe of Dan, is stated as al>out 12 miles from Diosjiolis towards Eloutheroptjlis : this would in each case Iiidirate a site close to Tell es-SAfi, which is situated within the boundary of the tribe of .ludali, and is nowhere near the site which Gath-riiiinum is supposed to have occupied in Dan, nut far from Joppa and Lydda. It may, then, be assumed that both these references are to the royal Gath of the Philistines and not to Gath- riniinon ("""«i'i,s/ .■.■. 'Gath'). Jerome in another work (C'"»iwi. in Mic 1") states that tJath, one of the live cities of the Philistines, waa situated 'lear
114
GATH-HEPHER
GAULAXITIS
the borders of Judah on the way from Eleutheroi)olis to Gaza, and was then a very large village. Tiiere is obviously a mistake in the word ' Gaza,' as the wav indicated does not go near the borders of Juilah. Eusebius further mentions the Gath to whieli the ark was taken from Ashdod on the way to Ekron as IjHng between Antipatris {lias el-'Ain) and Jamnia ( Yebna) ; this line lies within the tribe of Dan, and the Gath thus located appears to be Gath-rimnion and not the royal Gath.
The Crusaders considered Gath to be identical with Jamnia ( Yebna), and erected there the castle of Ibelin, which Benjamin of Tudela (Early Travels, p. 37) identifies with Jabneh, now Yebna (Will. Tj-i-. 15. 24. 25).
Tlio view that Gath, Bethgabra, Eleutheropolis, and B:it Jibrtn are all one and the same city is based by Thomson (Land and Book) and Canon Tristram (Bible Places) on the ground that Beth- gabra and Beit Jibrtn Taay be rendered ' house of the gian ts' ( Anakim), and on the finding of the name Kherbct Gat among tlie ruined heaps at Beit Jibrtn, and also on the assumption that Mareshah was a suburb of Gath (2 Ch 11*, Mic 1"), from the con- nexion of the words in those two passages. As, however, the word Gath in Hebrew signifies ' wine-press,' and as the Anakim at one time occu- pied all the territory round about, this i>roposal cannot be pressed home.
The view generally accepted is that proposed by Porter in 1857, viz. that Gath is represented by tlie site of the modem village of Tell es-SAji. The position generall}' satisfies all the geographical references so far as they go, and for a fenced city it is naturally a very strong site, having precipitous sides towards the west. The only difficult}' is that the sites of Ekron, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gaza, and other Philistine fenced cities do not present any natural features capable of defence ; they are simply mounds on the undulating plain, and it may be tliat Gath may yet be discovered as a mound somewhere near Tell es-SdJi. If it had sucli pronounced natural features for defence as the hill in question has, it is difficult to understand how its existence can have so completely dis- appeared from history after the time of king