* Cf. art. Mark (Jon), p. 245>, where it is suggested thal even the ὑπηρέτης of Ac 185 is used in this sense—that is to say John Mark may have been a fazzan, or ‘synagogue minister.’
Isaiah (313 LXX), the public accountant of the pyri (3 cent. B.C., see Deissmann, Beitrdge, p. ἴδ} has now become with him a synonym for the (See MINISTER, ad
ὑπηρέτης of a court of justice. J. MASSIE.
7in.).
0G (ν, ‘Ay).—The king of Bashan at the time of the end of the wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness. He and his people were conquered at Edrei. That city and Ashtaroth were his capitals (Jos 13"). He was ‘of the remnant of the Rephaim’ (loc, cit.) or giants, and had in all ‘threescore cities, all the region of Argob’* (Dt 3). These were ‘cities fenced with high walls, gates, and bars’ (Dt 3°), so that his kingdom wasa powerfulone. His territory became the possession of the half-tribe of Manasseh (under Jair the son (i.e. descendant) of Manasseh), which remained in the trans-Jordanic territory. The bedstead (? sarcophagus) of the king was a famous one; it seems to have been as of black basalt ; and it had found its way, when the Book of Deuteronomy was written, to Rabbah of the children of Ammon (Dt 34).+ Many ancient sarcophagi of black basalt have been found in the districts east of the Jordan. The conquest of Og by Moses was looked upon as one of the great events of Jewish history; we find it referred to by the Gibeonite ambassadors to Joshua (Jos 919), as Mb in the making of the covenant in Neh 9” and in Ps 135" 136”. Many legends have gathered about his name. Pope Gelasius, in the 5th cent., issued a decree condemning a book which at that time was current under the name of Og.
Lrrexature.—The latest authority on Og is Driver’s Deutero- nomy, see esp. pp. 7f., 53f.; cf. also Porter, Giant Cities of Bashan, 12f., 94; Conder, Heth and Moab, 160f.; G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. 675t.; Wright, Palmyra and Zenobia, 284 ff.
H. A. REDPATH.
OHAD (7pk).—A son of Simeon, Gn 46” (“Awd), Ex 6" (B ᾿Ιώαδ, A ᾿Ιαωαδί, F “Aw5). The name is wanting in the parallel passage 1 Ch 4%, as well as in Nu 26%,
OHEL (57k ‘ tent’; B’Ocd, A ’Ood; Luc. ’AGd).— One of Zerubbabel’s sons, 1 Ch 3%. The correctness of the MT is open to suspicion.
OHOLAH (abrx, B “Oo(A)Aa, A Ὄλλα) and OHOLIBAH (n3"57x, B’Od\8a, A and once [Ezk 9395] Β Ὄλιβα) are symbolical names given in Ezk 935: u-2-%- 4 to Samaria and Jerusalem respectively. In this passage the latter are represented as two sisters, both wives of Jahweh (cf. the marriage of Jacob to the sisters Leah and Rachel, a practice afterwards forbidden, Lv 1818 [Η]}ψ. and as havin been guilty of adultery, Samaria with Egypt an Assyria, Jerusalem with Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia (cf. ch. 16). The reference is to those intrigues and alliances with foreign peoples (Hos Fi, 2 K 16’, Is 717-25). which had the natural effect of introducing foreign manners and worship (cf. 2K 234", Am δι, Is 2, Jer 19%), and which, since the days of Hosea, had been represented and censured by the prophets as infidelity to Jahweh.t
The name ad7x may be=abnx ‘she who has a tent,’ ‘tent-woman,’ and nz Sax=az bar (cf. AQYEN, 2 Κὶ 21), Is 62‘) ‘tent in her’ (so Smend [whose words ‘soll heissen’ show, however, that the sense put upon =778 is unusual, not to say forced], followed
* This district was afterwards known as Trachonitis (Lk 31), and is now called el-Leja (but see art. Arcos); though this would not include all that is meant by Argob. There isa curious notice of this district in 1 K 413. 19,
t It is quite possible, however, that Dt 811 is a later insertion.
ἢ Similarly, the alliances of the Hasmonman princes with Rome — condemned from the Pharisaic standpoint as ‘a
‘oing a whoring after strange * (Assump. Moa. v. 8, Fritssche, otherwise Charles, ad Rey ‘ “ἃ ἡ τος
by Oxf. Heb. Lex., Bertholet, ete.), the reference being to the tent-shrines which were found at the baméth (Ezk 1618, Hos 9°, 2 K 237 [Ὁ] ; cf. the name Oholibamah ‘tent [(?0f the] high place,’ Gn 362), just as the ark of Jahweh had from the first ita tent (287°), and as David pitched for it a tent (2S 6”) at Jerusalem (cf. Smend, Alttest. Religions- gesch.*, 137). The two names have sometimes been taken as=‘her tent,’ and ‘My (sc. Jahweh’s) tent in her,’ and it has been supposed that in the first name there is a covert reproach of Samaria’s illicit worship at shrines of her own selection, and in the other an implication that Jerusalem is Jahweh’s own sanctuary. But, i from the improbability of Ezekiel’s paying what might be taken as a compliment to Jerusalem, the probability is that the — in n> px is simply a ‘binding vowel’ with- out either suflixal or construct force (cf. Gray’s contention to the same effect in a numerous class of compound personal names—Heb. Proper Names, pp. 75ff.). In this way the first part of the name means simply ‘tent,’ not ‘my tent,’ and Oholah and Oholibal are practically identical in sense. The most suitable explanation of this similarity of name and meaning appears to be that it was in- tended to imply that Samaria and Jerusalem had sinned in the same way and incurred the same condemnation. The prophet’s purpose was facili- tated by the circumstance that it was common in the East to give almost identical names to brothers or sisters (Ewald compares Hasan and Husein, the names of the two sons of Ali the son-in-law of Mohammed). There may be something, too, in the fact noted by Skinner (Hzekiel, p. 191n.) that abox contains the same number of consonants as 2% (which, however, as Bertholet points out, is always written in OT ji), and azbax the same number as o5yiy. Though the names in Ezk are urely figurative, they have a resemblance to a ormation found in Pheenician (Syabax, boSzr), Himyaritie (annydax, 5xdax), the above Edomite (?) name 752*5nx, and the Hebrew (7) name ax"ax (ef. Gray, op. cit., p. 246n.). J. A. SELBIE.