(2.) The next question is. Has Moses defined the lo- calities of Ebal and Gerizim ? Standing on the eastern
GERIZIM
821
GERIZIM
side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab (Dcut. i, 5), he asks : " Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down (i. e. at some distance to the W.), in the hind of the Canaanites, which dwell in the champaign over against Gilgal (i. e. whose ter- ritory— not these mountains — commenced over against Gilgal ; see Patrick on Deut. xi, 30), beside the plains of Moreh?" . . . These closing words would seem to mark their site with unusual precision ; for in Gen. xii, C "the plain (Sept. 'oak') of Moreh" is expressly connected witli "the place of Sichcnr or Shechem" (N. T. Sychem or Sychai\ which last form is thought to con- vey a reproach. Sec Rekmd, Diss, on Gerizim, in Ugo- lini, J'fies. p. dccxxv ; in Josephus the form is Slcima), and accordingly Judg. ix, 7, Jothani is made to address liis celebrated parable to the men of Sliechem from "the top of Mount Gerizim." The "liill of Moreh," men- tioned in the history of Gideon his father, may have been a mountain overhanging the same jjlain, but cer- tainly could not have been farther south (comp. vi, 33, and vii, 1). Was it therefore prejudice, or neglect of the true import of these passages, that made Eusebius and Epiphanius, both natives of Palestine, concur in placing Ebal and Gerizim near Jericho, the former charging the Samaritans with grave error for affirm- ing them to be near Neapolis .' (Reland, Z>«6'S(??t., as above, p. dccxx). Of one thing we may be assured, namely, that their scriptural site must have been, in the fourth century, lost to all but the Samaritans, oth- erwise these two fathers would have spoken very dif- ferently. It is true that the)' consider the Samaritan hj'pothesis irreconcilable with Deut. xi, £0, which it has already been shown not to be. A more formidable objection would liave been that Joshua could not have marched from Ai to Shecliem, tlu'ough a hostile coun- tr}', to perform the above solemnity, and retraced his ste])s so soon afterwards to Gilgal, as to have been found there by the Gibeonites (Josh, ix, G ; comp. viii, 80-35). Yet the distance between Ai and Shecliem is not so long (under two daj-s' journey). Neither can the interval implied in the context of the former pas- sage have been so short as even to warrant the modern supposition that the latter passage has been misplaced. The remaining objection, namoh', " the wide interval between the two mountains at Shechem" (Stanlej', S. and P. p. 238, note), is still more easib' disposed of, if we consider the blessings and curses to have been pro- nounced by the Lcvites, standing in the midst of the valley — thus abridging the distance by one half — and not bj' the six tribes on either hill, who only respond- ed. How indeed could 600,000 men and upwards, be- sides women and children (comp. Numb, ii, 32 with Judg. XX, 2 and 17), have been accommodated in a smaller space ? Besides, in those days of assemblies "sub dio,"the sense of hearing must have been nec- essarily more acute, just as, before the aids of writing and printing, memories were nuich more retentive. We may conclude, therefore, that there is no room for doubting the scriptural position of Ebal and Gerizim to have been — where they are now placed- — in the ter- ritory of the tribe of Ephraim ; the latter of them over- hanging the city of Shechem or Sicima, as Josephus, following the scriptural narrative, asserts. Even Eu- sebius, in another work of his (Pro'p. Evnrtg. ix, 22), quotes some lines from Theodotus, in which the true position of Ebal and Gerizim is described with great force and accuracj' ; and St. Jerome, while following Eusebius in the Onomasdcon, in his ordinary corre- spondence does not hesitate to connect Sichem or Ne- apolis, the well of Jacob, and Jlount Gerizim (-t^). cviii, c. 1.3, ed. Migne). Procopius of Gaza does nothing more than follow Eusebius, and that clumsily (Reland, Palcrsf. ii, 13, p. 503) ; but his more accurate namesake of Caesarea expressly asserts that Gerizim rose over Neapolis (Z)c ^Edif. v, 7) — that Ebal was not a peak of Gerizim (see CJuaresm. Elucid. T. S. lib. vii, per. i, c. 8), but a distinct mountain to the north of it, and
separated from it b}' the vallej' in which Shechem stood, we are not called upon here to prove ; nor again, that Ebal was entirely barren, which it can scarcely be called now ; while Gerizim was the same proverb for verdure and gushing rills formerly that it is now, at least where it descends towards Nablus. See Ebal.