Originally, Judah seems to have been a smaller tribe than Reuben, Simeon, and Levi. But Reuben began to dwindle at an early period, and Simeon and Levi were broken up in consequence of a treacherous attack upon the Canaauites, with whom they had made an alliance (see SiMEON). Partly as a result of this, partly through the fusion with other clans already mentioned, and probably with the remnant of Simeon, Judah obtained the premier position among the Leah tribes. After the Jordan had been crossed, J. was accompanied by Simeon alone on its invasion of its portion. A victory was gained over Adoni-bezek, and Hebron and Kiriath-sepher were captured (Jg V). Wa are also told that Jerus. was taken (v.°) and burnt, and three Philistine cities captured by Judah (v.'"). But these latter statements are inconsistent
JUDAH
JUDAH
793
with others in the same narrative, and do not well agree with the subsenueut history. Judah found it impossible to make good its claim to the 'valley' (i.e. probably the coast plain), since it could not cope with the war-chariots of the natives. The extent of Judah's ' lot' is given in Jos 15 (P), but this chajiter teaches us mucli less than it seems to do, partly because a very large number of the places It mentions have not "been identiiied, partly because the description is ideal, and at no time corresponded, even approximately, with the actual facts. According to this account, Judah was bounded on the E. by the Dead Sea, on the N. by the southern boundary of Benjamin (see Benjami.V for details), on the W. by the Mediterranean, on the S. by a line drawn from the southern ton^e of the Dead Sea to the brook of Egypt, and passing through or by the a.scent of Alcrabbim, Zin, Kadesh-bamea, Hezron, Addar, Karka, and Azmon. Judah never reached the Mediterranean ; the Phil, lay between, and so did Simeon, till the latter tribe was exterminated. As to the southern border, apart from the difficulty of lixing some of the sites mentioned, it must be observed that the territory of Judah shades off imperceptil'ly into the desert to the south. The portion of Judah is divided into four districts, the Negeb (KV South), the Shephelah or Lowland, the Hill Counti-y, and the Wilderness of Judah. The Negeb is the largest portion. It is dry and barren, except in the brief spring-time ; thinly populated, chiefly by nomads "The Shephelah is undulating country, fertile and beautiful, separated from the sea "by the Phil.
Slain. It was the most valuable district ; but udah could not hold it against the Philistines, who kept it in their own hands through a great part of the history. The Hill Country belongs to the great Central Range of Pal., and is separated liy a valley from the low hills of the Shephelah. It was, historically, the most important part of Judah — nigged and barren, but with fertile valleys, and, owing to the system of terrace-cultivation, more productive than it could be now. The Wilderness of Judah (Jeshimon) lies between the Hill Country and the Dead Sea, a waste of unspeakable dreari- ness and desolation, 35 miles long by 15 Iroad. See, further, arts. Hill Country, and Jeshimon. Judah was far more inaccessible than the Northern tribes. Protected on the E. by the Wilderness, on the S. by the Negeb, itself more or less of a wilderness, on the W. by the low hills of the Shephelah, by the valley that divides it from the Central Range and the slopes of the Central Range itself, on the N. by Benjamin with its fortresses, it lay far less open to inva-^ion. When it was held by real defenders, it was neces-sarj- that the invaders should first master the surrounding country, and then deliver tlieir attack across three of its borders (G. A. Smith, J/Lst. Georj. ch. xiv.). Judah was not impregnable, indeed, for it lay comparatively open from the N., and the Ncgeb could l>e crossed from the S., while passes led up to the central tableland from Itoth E. and W., tliough very difficult to force against opposi- tion. But the very jMjverty of the country com- bined with the natural dilhculties of invasion to •er-ore it, since it oHered little prize to tempt an attack. It was a very little province. Even if it had reache<{ its ideal Itoumiaries, it would have covered no more than SiXHi Mpiare miles; actually its usual extent was nearer 13U0, of which al>out half was desert.
The isolation of the territory wa» reflected in that of the tril>e. After it hiul settle<l in it.s lot. It had but little to do with the Northern tribes. It Is not even mentioned in the Song of Deborah, as if it were not recognized as belonging to Israel ; and it appears in the story of Samson as surrender-
ing him to the Philistines (.Jg 1.5*")- It seems to have drawn more closely to Israel in the time of Saul, as we see from the hi.story of David. But Saul's persecution of David must have strained the loyalty of the tribe, and it is not surprising thai on his death a kingdom of Judah was fomied with David at its head, in opposition to the kingdom of Ishbaal, Saul's son (2 S 2<- »). Both of these king- doms seem to have been tributary to the Philis- tines. The union of the two was due to the evident fact that David was the only man who could hope to lead Israel in successful revolt from the Phil., and was only ha.stened by the defection of Abner and the murder of Ishbaal (2 S S'*"- 4" ,i. Judah, as the king's own tribe, was more closely attached to Israel than when the king belonged to another tribe. One of David's greatest ana most far-sighted acts was the selection of Jems, as his capital and the home of the ark (S**- 6*^). Jerus. did not actually lie in Judah, except possibly to a slight extent, but it was on the border, and the possession of it, with the ark and temple, guaran- teed the 8ur\-ival of the Southern kingdom, after the loss of the Northern tribes. But in the latter years of David it is Judah, perhaps because it profited less by its connexion with the king than it expected, that seems to have been foremost in supporting Absalom, whose rebellion broke out in Hebron, the old capital of the tribe (2 S 15'). After its suppression Judah hunjj back, till its allegiance was won by the ill-timed appeal ol David to its kin.ship with him (ly""-); ill-timeil because David's favouritism to Judah provokeil jealousy in the Northern tribes, and the abortive rising of Sheba (li^"-20"), which anticipated the successful revolt of Jeroboam. Solomon also showed an unwise partiality to Judah, as we see from the fact that it was excluded from the division into twelve districts for purposes of taxation (1 K 4). It is, accordingly, not wonderful that Judah remained loyal to Rehoboam, while the Northern tribes rejected him (12"'-).