It is usualh' supposed that this hill is mentioned in Psa. Ixviii, 14 (A. V. "Salmon"); and this is probable, though the passage is peculiarly difficult, and the pre- cise allusion intended by the poet seems hopelessly lost. Commentators differ from each other; and Fl'irst, with- in 17G pages of his Ilandwurterhuch, differs from him- self (see jb'^ and "p^b^). Indeed, of six distinguished modern commentators — DeWette, Hitzig, Ewald. Heng- stenberg, Delitzsch, and Hupfeld— no two give distinct- ly the same meaning; and Mr. Keble, in his admirable version of the Psalms, gives a translation which, though poetical, as was to be expected, differs from any one .of those suggested by these six scholars. The literal trans- lation of the words '"''^^^^ sb'jn is "Thou wouldst make it snow," or "It would snow," with liberty to use the verb either in the past or in the future sense. As, notwithstanding ingenious attempts, this supplies no satisfactory meaning, recourse is had to a translation of a comparative character, " Tiiou makest it white as snow," or " It is white as snow" — words to which various metaphorical meanings have been attributed. The al- lusion which, through the Lexicon of Gesenius, is most generally received is that the phrase refers to the ground being snow-white with bones after a defeat of the Ca- naanitish kings, and this may be accepted by those who will admit that bleaching bones would be left upon a battle-field. At the same time, it is to be remembered that the figure is a very harsh one, and that it is not really justified by passages quoted in illustration of it from Latin classical writers, such as "canipi(iue ingentes ossibus albent" (Virgil, JSii. xii, 3G) and " humanis ossi- bus albet humus" (Ovid, Fast, i, 558). for in these cases the word " bones" is actually used in the text, and is not left to be supplied by the imagination, (iranted, how- ever, that an allusion is made to bones of the slain, there is a divergence of opinion as to whether Salmon was men- tioned simply because it had been the battle-ground of some great defeat of the Canaanitish kings, or whether it is only introduced as an image of snowy whiteness. Of these two explanations, the first would be, on the whole, most probable; for Salmon cannot have been a very high mountain, as the highest mountains near Shechem are Ebal and Gerizim, and of these Ebal, the highest of the two, is only 1028 feet higher than the city (see Robinson's Gesenius, p. 895 a). If the poet had desired to use the image of a snowy mountain, it would have been more natural to select Hermon, which is vis- ible from the eastern brow of Gerizim, is about 10.000 feet high, and is covered with perpetual snow. Still it is not meant that this circumstance by itself would be
conclusive, for there max have been particular associa- tions in the mind of the poet unknown to us which led him to prefer Salmon.— Smith. It is perhaps not too great a stretch of fancy in tliis highh- figurative Psalm to suppose tliat tlie hill in (piestion, being near She- chem. in the centre of tlie country, may have been (or conceived as being) the scene of a severe engagement in the conquest of Canaan ; and the prostrate bodies of the slain foe, covered with their white Oriental gar- ments, are pictured like snow upon the distant back- ground of the dark mountain-side. Tiie use of the Heb. future ])oints out the conceptual character of the state- ment, and justifies the translation as a metaphor, "It seemed to snow."
Zalmo'uah (Ileb. Tsalmonah', tl3bb^, shady; Sept. ^LtXi^dova; Vulg. Salmona), the name of a desert station (tlie 45th) of the Israelites, which they reached between leaving Mount Ilor and camping at I'unon, al- though they must have turned the southern point of Edomitish territory by the way ( Numb, xxxiii, 41 ). It therefore lay on the south-east side of Edom, but hardly so far north as Maan, a few miles east of Petra, as Raumer thinks. IMore probably Zalmonah may be in tlie Wad// el~Aviran, which runs into the Wady Ithm, close to where Elath anciently stood. See Exoue.
Zalniun'na (Heb. Tsalmunna', "SppS, apparent- ly from bi£, shadow, and TiO, to withhold, i. e. deprived of protection ; Sept. and Josephus, SnX/iai'a), last named of the two " kings" of Midian, whose capture and death by the hands of Gideon himself formed the last act of his great conflict with Midian (Judg. viii, 5-21; Psa. Ixxxiii, 11). B.C. 1361. See Zeba.
The distinction between the "kings" (D"^D?p, mela- Jdm) and the " princes" (C"'"lb, sarim.) of the iMidian- ites on this occasion is carefully maintained throughout the narrative (Judg. viii. 5, 12, 26). " Kings" of Midian are also mentioned in Numb, xxxi, 8; but when the same transaction is referred to in Josh, xiii, 21, they are designated by a different title (D"^Xb3, nesiim; A.V. "princes"). Elsewhere (Numb, xxii, 4, 7) the term elders (D'^3|!5T, zekenim) is used, answering in significa- tion, if not in etymology, to the Arabic sheik. It is dif- ficult, perhaps impossible, to tell how far these distinc- tions are accurate, and how far they represent the im- perfect acquaintance which the Hebrews must have had with the organization of a people with whom, ex- cept during the orgies of Shittim, they appear to have been alwaj-s more or less at strife and warfare (1 Chron. V, 10, 19-22). The unintelligibility of the names is in favor of their being correctly retained rather than the reverse. It shouhi not be overlooked that they are not, like Oreb and Zeeb, attached also to localities, which always throws a doubt on the name when attributed to a person as well. Josephus inverts the distinction. He styles Oreb and Zeeb ^iaaiXtlc, and Zebah and Zalmun- na i)yiii<h'eg {Ant. v, 7, 5). The vast horde which Gid- eon repelled must have included many tribes under the general designation of " Midianites, Amalekites, children of the East," and nothing would be easier or more nat- ural than for the Hebrew scribes who chronicled the events to confuse one tribe with another in so minute a point as the title of a chief. In the great Pedawin tribes of the present day, who occupy the place of iMidian and Amelek, there is no distinctive appellation answer- ing to the meleic and sdr of the Hebrew narrative. Dif- ferences in rank and power there are as between the great chief, the acknowledged head of the parent tribe, and the lesser chiefs who lead the sub-tribes into which it is divided, and who are, to a great extent, independent of him. But the one word sheik is employed for all. The great chief is the sheik el-kebir ; the others are min el-masheik, " of the sheiks," i. e. of sheik rank.— Smith. See MiniANiTE.