The mention of Ituraja by St. Luke raises the following questions : (1) Did he use the term as a noun or as an adjective 1 This is partly a question of correct Greek usage. A noun ' Ituraia would lie a lin;,'uistic anachronism at the time of St. Luke. It i> unknown until the 4tli cent. ; but that the I'',van,L;i'li--t tell into the error of using it as sucli is ni.iintaiiicil by Schiirer and H. Holtzmann, while Kaiiisay (Expos., Feb. 1894, p. 144 ft., Apr. p. 288 if.), contends against this position.*
(2) Out of this linguistic question grows the historical one : Did St. Luke speak accurately when he enumerated the Ituriean counti-y as a
part of the tetrarchy of Philip ? For even if the Evangelist did use the word ' ltura;a ' as an adjec- tive, it does not follow that he has correctly located the country. H. Holtzmann (Hand-Corn. 'Syn. Gosp.' p. 58) calls it an error that Ituraea should be included with Trachonitis in Philip's tetrarchy, and explains that St. Luke probably had in mind a later arrangement of the territory under Agrippa. As a matter of fact, Josephus describes the tet- rarchy of Philip as consisting of 'Batanfia, Tra- chonitis, Auranitis, and certain parts of the house of Zeno (Zenodorus) about Paneas yielding a revenue of one hundred talents' (Ant. XVII. xi. 4; BJ II. vi. 3). Ituroea is not given in this descrip- tion. But it does not seem probable that St. Luke, who is writing with so mucli regard for liistorical details, should have failed at this point. Hence eflbrts have been made to account for his statement as it stands. Of these it is easy to set aside as futile (a) the identification of Iturtea with Jcchir (a region S.W. of Damascus), as etymologically un- sound, and as not corresponding geographically to the descriptions given by Strabo. According to these, the Iturfeans lived in a mountainous region.
Instead of 'Ironpafas he would read Aipai/lriSos. But in order to get this substitution he assumes that by a transcriptional error i5 was dropped from AiipavlTtdos, and the remainder of the word, thus left in confusion, was by another transcriptional manipulation converted into 'Irovpalas. Evidently this IS too elaborate and too purely conjectural a proceeding to be accepted, (c) Statements of Eusebius (OH- p. 268, 'Irovpaia i] Kai T/saxuvms, and p. 298, TpaxuviTis X^P"' V ""■^ 'Irovpaia ; cf. also Jerome's translation of the same, ' Trachonitis regio sive Itirrcea,' Lib. de Situ, etc., p. 238) de- ftnitely identify Ituraea and Trachonitis, and have been accepted as satisfactorily removing the dif- ficulty. The terms 'Trachonitis' and 'Ituraea' do
not, however, seem to be used by the Evangelist with the exact equivalency that the phraseology of Eusebius suggests. Hence (d) it is best not to identify Itursea with Trachonitis as a whole, but to assume a certain overlapping of the two, giving a fairly painstaking writer good ground for con- necting them together in the attempt to present the situation broadly. This conclusion is supported by the constantly changing character of the terri- tory occupied by the Iturteans, as exhibited in the sketch of their history above given, as well as the repeated shifting of the boundary lines in this general region during the centuries before and after Christ.
Literature.— Munter, de Rebus Iturceorum, 1824 ; Schiirer, GJV^ i. 707 ff. [HJP I. ii. App. i.); Krenkol, Josephw «. Lukas, 1894, pp. 90-95 ; G. A. Smith, art. ' Itursa ' in Hastings' DB, and Expos. March 1894, pp. 231-238; Ramsay, Expos. Jan. 1894, p. 43 ff., Feb. p. 144 ff., Apr. p. 288 ff.
A. C. Zenos.
JACOB. — 1. According to the genealogical list in Matthew, Jacob ('laKii/j) is the father of Joseph the husband of Mary (Mt l'=->").
2. One of the reputed progenitors of the Jewish nation. Apart from the reference to Jacob's well
* The importance of this conclusion by Professor Ramsay, •apart from the purely academic vindication of St. Luke as a master of good Greek, is that it establishes an analogy for the South-Calatian theory so strenuously advocated by himself.
(irriyT] rov 'IaKii;3, see next art.), in Jn 4"^, and his place in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke (Mt 1-, Lk 3**), Jacob is mentioned in the Gospels only as one of the three patriarchs (Mt 8" ' Many shall come from the east and the west ; and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob . . .' cf. Lk 13^'-, Mt 22^2 11 Mk 12-«, Lk 20^' 'I am the (!od of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'), These three were grouped from
JACOB'S WELL
845
early times ( Ex 2=^ 3"- '=• '«, Lv 26« 1 K 183«, 2 K 13=^ Jer 33-", 1 Ch 29", 2 Ch 30»), and occupied a place apart in Jewish thought. According to the Kabbis, they alone ■were entitled to be called nin^ 'fathers.' To them was traced not only the origin of the nation, but also the beginning of true worship. As a descendant of these three, a Jew might claim nobility and a special relationship to God. This claim was recognized as nbx noi ' righteousness of the fathers,' and was based oii Ex 32'^ It was denounced by John the Baptist (see Abraham, and cf. Mt 3', Lk 3"), and it figured prominently in the conflicts between Jesus and the Pharisees (cf. Jn g33.37)_ Apparently in the time of Jesus it was liable to be abused, and on this account later Rabbis refused to lay stress upon it, declaring it no longer valid. In Rabbinic literature, Jacob is recognized as the most important of the three patriarchs (cf. Lv 26''=). He prevails witli God (Gn 32^). He names the sanctuary the house of God (28-2), a,nd, in contrast to Abraham the father of Ishmael, and Isaac the father of Esau, Jacob inherits the promise in all his children (49).