2. We lirst encounter the actual people of the Hivites at the time of Jacob's return to Canaan. Shechem was then (according to the current Hebrew text) in their possession, Hamor the Hivite being the " prince (N''i:J3) of the land" (Gen. xxiv, 2). The narrative of the trans- action of Jacob, Avhen he bought the " parcel of a field," closely resembles that of Abraham's purchase of the field of JMachpelah. They were at this time, to j udge of them by their rulers, a warm and impetuous people, credidous, and easily deceived by the crafty and cruel sons of .Jacob. The narrative further exhibits them as peaeefid and com- mercial, given to " trade" (10, 21), and to the acquiring of " possessions'' of cattle and other " wealth" (10, 23, 28, 29). Like the Hittites, they held their assemblies or conferences in the gate of their city (20). We may also see a testimony to their peaceful habits in the absence of any attempt at revenge on Jacob for the massacre of the Shechemites. Perhaps similar indications are fur- nished by the name of the god of the Shechemites some generations after this, Baal-berith— Baal of the league, or the alliance (Judg. viii, 33 ; ix, 4, 4G) ; by the way in which the Shechemites were beaten by Abimelech (40) , and by the unmilitary character both of the weapon which caused Abimelech's death and of the person who discharged it (ix, 53). In the matter that led to the overthrow of this Hivite city we see an indication of the corruption that afterwards became characteristic of the Canaanitish tribes (Gen. xxxiii, 18-20 ; xxxiv). Jacob's reproof of his sons seems to imply that the more jMwer- ful inhabitants of at least this part of the Promised Land
were Canaanites and Perizzites, these only being men- tioned as likely to attack him in revenge (xxxiv, 30). It is possible, but not certain, that there is a reference to tliis matter where Jacob speaks of a portion he gave to Joseph as having been taken by him in war from th? Amorite (xlviii, 22), for liis land at Shechem was given to Joseph, but it had been bought, and what Simeon and Levi seized was probably never claimed by Jacob, unless, indeed, the Hivites, who might possibly be spoken of as Amorites (but comp. xxxiv, 30), attempted to recover it by force. Perhaps the reference is to some other occiu:- rence. It seems clear, however, from the first of the pas- sages just noticed (xxxiv, 30), that the Hivites nded by Hamor were a small settlement. See .Jacob.
The Alex. MS., and several other MSS. of the Sept.; in the above narrative (Gen. xxxiv, 2) substitute " Ho- rite" for " Hivite." The change is remarkable from the usually close adherence of the Alex. Codex to the He- brew text, but it is not corroborated by any other of the ancient versions, nor is it recommended by other consid- erations. No instances occur of Horites in this part of Palestine, while we know, from a later narrative, that there was an important colony of Hivites on the high land of Benjamin at Gibeon, etc., no very great distance from Shechem. On the other hand, in Gen. xxxvi, 2, where Aholibamah, one of Esau's wives, is said to have been the daughter of the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite, all considerations are in favor of reading " Horite" for " Hivite." In this case we fortunately possess a detailed genealogy of the family, by comparison of which little doubt is left of the propriety of the change (comp. ver. 20, 24, 25, 30, with 2), although no ancient version has suggested it here. See Horitk.
3. We next meet with the Hivites during the con- quest of Canaan (Josh, ix, 7 ; xi, 19), when they are not mentioned in any important position. Their character was then m some respects materially altered. They were still evidently averse to fighting, but they had acquired — possibly by long experience in traffic — an amount of craft which they did not before possess, and which ena- bled them to turn the tables on the Israelites in a highly successful manner (.Josh, ix, 3-27). The colony of Hi- vites who made Joshua and the heads of the tribes their dupes on this occasion, had four cities — Gibeon, Chephi- rah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim — situated, if our pres- ent knowledge is accurate, at considerable distances apart. It is not certain whether the last three were destroyed by Joshua or not (xi, 19) ; Gibeon certainlj^ was spared. In verse 11 the Gibeonites speak of the "elders" of their city, a word which, in the absence of any allusion to a Hivite king, has been thought to point to a liberal form of government (Ewald, Gesch. i, 318, 9). This southern branch of the nation embraced the Jew- ish religion (2 Sam. xxi, 1,4: Josh, ix, 21. 27), and seem thus to liave been absorbed.
4. The main body of the Hivites, however, were at this time living on the northern confines of western Pal- estine— " under Hermon. in the land of IMizpeh" (Josh. xi, 3) — " in ]\Iount Lebanon, from jMount Baal-Hermon to the entering in of Hamath" (Judg. iii, 3). Some- where in this neighborhood they were settled when Joab and the captains of the host, in their tour of numbering, came to " all llie cities of the Hivites" near Tyre (2 Sam. xxiv, 7). A remnant of the nation still existed in the time of Solomon, Avho subjected ihem to a tribute of personal labor, with the remnants of other Canaanitish nations which the Israelites had been unable to expel (1 Kings ix, 20). In the Jerusalem Targum on Gen. x, 17, they are called Tripolitans CN^iS'^"!::), a name which points to the same general northern locality. The Herjionites may perhaps be a later name for the Hi- vites ; we recognise in the Egyptian RCMexex alone any trace of the Hivites in the conquests of the Pharaohs who passed through this tract. Chaseaud {Dmses, p. 301 sq.) refers the modern Druses (q. v.) to them.