Moreover, in historic times, liunting was neither a conmion nor a favourite occupation in Israel. The account of Jacob and Esau shows that the Israelites were not addicted to hunting. Other references to hunting are general and casual ; no actual hunt is ever mentioned. The references to lions, leopards, bears, etc. etc., and the lists of clean and unclean animals (Dt 14), show that both l>ig and small game were abundant. But the only instances we meet with are where a shepherd or wayfarer has to defend himself or his charge ; of. the supposed fate of Josepli (Gn Z~^), Samson (Jg M» IS''), David (1 S IT*"-"), Benaiah (2 S 23=", apparently something more than an act of self- defence), the unnamed prophet of 1 K IS^'' ; cf. also Is 5== 3P, Am 3'=. On the other hand, the allusions in Lv 17", 1 S 26=° ' as when one doth hunt a partridge in the mountains,' Job 10" 38"" 41-'>', Pr 12" etc. etc., show that the Israelites were familiar with hunting ; and the gazelle (";>) and the hart ('>;n) are referred to as ordinary articles of diet (Dt 12"'- ^), and are mentioned with the roebuck (nion; 1 K 4^) as part of the pro- vision made for Solomon's table. Bows and arrows (Gn 27'), slings (1 S 17*), nets (Job I'J", Ps 9", Is 51=" etc.), snares and traps (ns Am 3», c'piD Am 3"), cf. the group of terms in Job IS"'", were used to catch game, especially wild birds. Also pits (nnj Is 24", noi? Ps 35') were dug as traps for larger animals ; and sometimes a net was concealed (Ps 35') in such a pit. The few references to hunting furnish us with names of some of the animals hunted and instruments used, but ail'ord scarcely any data as to details in the nature of the instruments or the methods of hunting.
The comparative indifference of the Israelites to hunting is the more striking when we remember how devoted Egyptian and Assyrian kings and nobles were to the pursuit ; their monuments depict many hunting scenes. It is true that our Hebrew documents probably come from the central districts at a time when they were too densely populated for much sport. AVe might hear more of hunting if we had earlier writings from the frontier lands south of Judah and east of Jordan.
In the Apocryplia we read in Sirach of a decoy partridge in a cage (ll*"), of a gazelle taken in a snare (27="), and of the use of game for food (3G'»).
Jos. (Ant. IV. viii. 9) refers to hunting dogs, which are never mentioned in OT, and tells us that Horod the Great was a mighty hunter (Ant. XV. vii. 7, XVI. X. 3; BJi. x.xi. 13).
NT only uses a few metaphors borrowed from hunting (c.q. Lk 11" OrtpeZaai ; Lk 21'», Ro ll^ 1 Ti 3' 6^ 2 Ti 2=«, 7ra7(s ; Mt 22» Tray^diieiy). See, further. Net, Snare, and the articles on animals.
LrrKaATlTRE.— Eenzinger, Heb. Arch. 1894, p. 204 f.; Nowack, UAri. derEeb. Arch. 1894, L 221, 222.
W. H. Bennett.
HUPHAM (D;in, LXX omits), Nu 26»». — Se«
HUI'I'I.M.
HUPPAH (npn 'canopy,' • chamber ').--A priest of the 13tli course, 1 Ch 24". See Gknealooy.
HUPPIM (D-5n, perh. 'coverings').— The head of a Benjamite family, his precise parentage being obscure, Gn 46-' P, 1 Ch 7'^- '», Nu 2(y^ (Hupham) P.
HUR (Tin). — 1. ('Up) mentioned with Aaron aa the comjianion of Moses during the battle between the Israelites under Jo.shua and the Amalekites (Ex 17'"' '=). He was also with Aaron while Moses ascended Mt. Sinai (Ex 24'*; all E).
2. ("f2p) a Judahite, the grandfather of Bezalel the chief artificer of the Tabernacle (Ex 31= = 353" 3S== ; all P). The Chronicler traces back his descent through Caleb and Hezron to Perez (1 Ch 219. 20. M 414^ 2Ch 1'), while Josephus (Ant. III. ii. 4, vi. 1) makes this Hur the husband of Miriam and iilentical with Hur No. 1 above.
3. (Oil/)) one of the live kin"s of Midian, who, with Balaam, were slain by the Israelites under Phinehas after the 'matter of Peor ' (Nu 31"). Tlie incident is referred to in Jos 13=', where the kings are described as 'chiefs' (cn";'^) of Midian, and ' princes ' (d'J'PJ) of Sihon, king of the Amor- ites.
4. According to the Hebrew, an Ephraimite, the father of one of the twelve olficers of Solomon who ' pro\'ided victuals for the king and his household every month' (1 K 4", where RV reads Bkn-hur). Klostermann (in loc.) restores ' Aza- riah, the son of Zadok tlie priest (from v.=), in Beth-boron in the hill-country of Epliraim.' He appeals to B and Luc. Banip, which he regards as an error for Boifliip = Beth-horon (jhi-rn';, corrupted in the Hebrew to nirrja ; A Bh vlds "iip). The further reading of A (Bf^;') he takes as presupposing ;na, in itself a corruption of [riin = the priest. K. s con- iectural emendation of the text is very ingenious, out can hardly be considered as prob.able. No doubt the text is corrupt, and it seems probable that the name of the officer in question has been lost.
5. (LXX omits) The father of Rephaiali, who ruled over half the district of Jerusalem and assisted Nehemiah in repairing tlie walls (Neb 3").