fassed from Zidon, through 'all the cities of the livites' to Beersheba, in the S. of Judah, is evi- dently quite consistent with the same locality. The expression, 'all the cities of the Hivites,' in this piussage is, however, peculiar, and would .seem to point to a somewhat considerable group of cities, still inhabited by Hivites, nndjuissibly even further to the N. than Shecliem. But if such existed, we do not know more about them ; and it is remarkable that in the accounts in Jos 16'° I71J-13. i4-i8_ Jg 1 of t,iie aistricts which the Israelites failed to conquer, there is no mention of Hivites. The other notices of the Hivites are (1) in the rhetorical ILstsof nations expelled by the Israelites (JE, U, D-), Ex3"" 13>23^-2s:!3- 34", Dt 7"20". Jos 3'" 9' IP 12» 24", Jg 3', 1 K 9-" ( = 2 Ch 8'), from which nothing dellnite can be inferred respecting the place of their abode (unless their being men- tioned usually before the Jebusites [of Jerusalem] may be taken as an indication that they were pictured as having lived near tliem) ; and (2) in Gn 10" ( = 1 Ch l'"), where, in accordance with the custom of Hebrew genealogists of representing the peoples inhabiting a country as the ' sons ' of its eponymous ancestor, they are included among other tribes ' begotten ' by Canaan, t
We do not jmssess the necessary data for deter- mining with any confidence the character or racial alliuities of the Hivites (see specul.itions in Ewald, Ilijit. i. 237 ; Sayce, Jiaces of the 0 7', 1 1 0 f. ). They were the actors in the ruse by which the Gibeon- ites secured themselves against the Israelite in- vaders ; and if the isolated notice in Gn 34- is to be depended upon, the people of Sliecheni, who take part against the Israelites in the graphic narrative of Jg 9, may have been Hivite (though they are not so termed in the narrative itself). Shechem and Gibeon are el.sewhere (Gn 48^ E ; 2 S 21-) spoken of as ' Amorite ' ; but, in view of the manner in which the term 'Amorite' is employed (above, vol. i. p. 84 ; Driver, Dciit. pp. 10-12), it is doubtful whether this fact authorizes the delinito conclusion that the Hivites were racially 'Amorite.' In Gn 36- ' Zibcon the Ilirite' is almost certainly an error for 'Zibcon the Hvritc ' [seei vv.*''^*): in Jos IP read with LXX, and in agreeu.tnt with the known home of the Hittites in tlie N., ' the Ilittite under Ilermon' in v.^ with 'the Hirilc' for 'the IJit/itr. ' in v.* ; and similarly in Jg 3' ' t!ie H't'ites (for 'the Hivifci') that dwelt in Mount Lebanon.' It has been conjectured that t' is connected with Arab. AiHvi', 'acircleof tents' (cf. Havvotii-.IaiI!), and means properly 'tent-dweller,' ' villager '(Ges. 'pagauus'); but it is extremely uncertain if this is reallj' the case (cf. Moore on Jg 3°).
S. K. Driver.
HIZKI ('Jin, possihlv shortened from ii;p:n, 'J" strongtheneil'). — A "iJenjamite, 1 Ch 8'', AV Hczcki. See Genealogy.
• In 33'" 'the children of Mamor, the father of Shechcin.' Bhechein is cleariy tlto place (fatlier- founder, u I Cl» ^w. 61 etc.) ; cf. Jp iV^ ' tile nu-n of Ilanior. tiie fatlier of Shechem.'
t ' llivite' ia re.-ul alno by I^.\,\, foilowcil by I^cnnlo. t^heyne, OrcIIi, Iiiihm, and otliers.'in U IT^Ciike the deiivrlf<l plncea of the Uivitf$ and the Auioritca, whidi they deaerted W-fore the chiidren of Israel ').
HIZKIAH (AV Hezekiah).— A son of Neariah, a descendant of David, 1 Ch 3^.
HO. — The oft-occurring interjection •^.■^, which is more .sj-mpathetic — has more of grace in it — than ■IK Woe !, is ti-' ' Ho ! ' in Is 55' and Zee 2""' ; to which RV adds Is 29'. Ho ! does little more than arrest attention, unless its occurrence in Is 55' has given it something of an evangelical tone. Sliaks. uses it very often, expressing by its means (1) mockery or rebuke, (2) exultation, (3) pain, and (4) simply calling attention. See All, Ha.
HOBAB (33n 'beloved,' Ges. ; ' serpent,' Wellh.). — The name occurs twice (Nu lu-^", Jg 4". In Jg 1" B inserts 'loOi/j [so Jo.s. Ant. v. ii. 3]; A, 'Iud;3). It is uncertain whether he was (1) the father-in- law (AV, KVm) or (2) brother-in-law (IJV) of Moses.
The conflicting views may be tabulated thus —
(1) Reuel I Hobab (Jethro)
I Zipporah = Moses.
(2) Rcucl (Jethro)
I
Hobab
I Zipporah = Mo«ea.
Nu lO'-* is ambiguous, as [pn 'father-in-law' may refer either to Hobab or Reuel. In sujiport of (1) it may be stated that (a) jon is alw.ays rendered father-in-law except in RV text of Jg l" 4". {/>) Mohammedan tradition, almost without excep- tion {Lanea K II ran, p. 47 n.), identihes Slioaih or Shoeib [a corruption (?) of Hobab], a prophet sent to the Midianites {Koran, Sur. 7. 11. 26. 29) with Moses' father-in-law Jethro. (r) The narrative in Ex 2 .seems to preclude the idea that the priest of Midian had sons. On the other hand, (a) [.-n possibly means any relation on the wife's side, and (6) Reuel (Ilobab's father) and Jethro seem to be identitied (Kx 2'" 3', .so .los. An/, v. ii. 3). How- ever, Ewald (/// ii. p. '25 n.') conjectures that in Ex 2" we should read ' Jethro the son of Reuel ' (LXX ins. 'Io0ip in v.""^, and A substitutes 'lo06p for Reuel in v.'"). ' Hobab was the man's real per- sonal name, and Jethro, which signilies prejcit, his title.' (c) In Ex 18-'' (E) Jethro, unopposed bj- Moses, ' went his way into his own lanil ' ; whereas in Nu lO-'"- (JE) it is implied that Hobab yielded to .Moses' importunity, and remaineil with Israel. A parallel dilliculty occurs in Nu 24-'' (JE) com- pared with Nu 31" (P). In each ca.se we must remember that we have not all the facts before us : we are dealing, not with one consecutive narrative, but with a compilation of fragments. .V difliculty, which equally allects both views, is the fact that Hobab is called a Kenite (Jg 1'* 4"), whereas Exodus sjieaksof Mo.ses' father-in-law as a Midian- ite. See, furt her, Dillm.-Rys.sel, Ex-Lv, 1S07, '2^) iX.