EPHRAIM

EPICUREANS

Jacob (Gn 49^) there may be a play upon the name when Joseph, who there represents both Ephraim and Manasseh, is called 'a fruitful bough.' The word is probably descriptive, meaning ' fertile region ' whether its root be parah, or 'ipher, 'earth'(7).

Gn 481'f ■ (J) tells an interesting story of how Jacob adopted his Egyptian grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, into his own family, and at the same time, against the remonstrances of Joseph, conferred the blessing of the firstborn upon Ephraim — hence Ephraim's predestined superiority in later history.

P's Sinai census gives 40,500 men of war (Nu 1'^), but this is reduced at the Plains of Moab to 32,600 (26"), which is less than any of the tribes except Simeon, which 'hardly existed except in name' (Sayce, Hist, of Heb. p. 77). Contrary to what we should have expected from the Blessing of Jacob, Ephraim, according to P, lost in the meantime 20 per cent, while Manasseh gained 40 per cent.

The appearance of Joseph in the Blessing of Jacob, with no mention of his sons, who according to J had been adopted as Jacob's own, and were therefore entitled on this Important occasion to like consideration with the others, points to a traditional echo of the early days in the land when Ephraim and Manasseh were still united. In the Song of Deborah (Jg 5) it is the 'family' Machir, the firstborn (Jos 170, the only (Gn 50^3) son of Manasseh, that is mentioned, not a Manasseh tribe. From 2 S lO^" (cf. art. Benjamin) it is plain that Shimel still regarded himself as of the house of Joseph; and, despite the traditional indica-tions of a late formation of Benjamin (wh. see), the complete political separation of Manasseh from Ephraim appears to have been still later. At all events, Jeroboam the Ephraimite, who afterwards became the first king of Israel (c. B.C. 930), was appointed by Solomon super-intendent of the forced labour of the 'house of Joseph,' not of Ephraim alone. Ephraim, Machir, and Benjamin were apparently closely related, and in early times formed a group of clans known as 'Joseph.' There are no decisive details determining the time when they became definitely separated. Nor are there any reliable memories of the way in which Ephraim came into possession of the best and central portion of the land.

The traditions in the Book' of Joshua are notably uninforming. Canaanites remained in the territory until a late date, as is seen from Jg l^' and the history of Shechem (ch. 8 f.). Ephraim was the strongest of the tribes and foremost in leadership, but was com-pelled to yield the hegemony to David. From that time onwards the history is no longer tribal but national history. EU, priest of Shiloh and judge of Israel, Samuel, and Jeroboam i. were among its great men. Shechem, Tirzah, and Samaria, the capitals of the North, were within its boundaries; and it was at Shiloh that Joshua is said to have divided the land by lot. See also Tribes of Iskael. James A. Craiq.

EPHRAHn.— 1. A place near Baal-hazor (2 S ISi^) It may be identical with the Ephraim which the Ono-masticon places 20 Roman miles N. of Jerusalem, some-where in the neighbourhood of Sinjil and el-Lubban. If Baal-hazor be represented, as seems probable, by Tell ' AsUr, the city by relation to which such a prominent feature of the landscape was indicated must have been of some importance. It probably gave its name in later times to the district of Samaria called Aphaerema (1 Mac ll'", Jos. Ant. xin. iv. 9). The site is at present unknown. 2. A city 'near the wilderness,' to which Jesus retired after the raising of Lazarus (Jn 11"). 'The wilderness' is in Arab, el-barriyeh, i.e., the un-cultivated land, much of it affording excellent pasture, on the uplands to the N.W. of Jerusalem. The Ono-masticon mentions an 'Efraim' 5 Roman miles E. of Bethel. This may be the modern et-Taiyibeh, about 4

234

miles N.E. of BeiKn, with ancient cisterns and rock- hewn tombs which betoken a place of importance in old times. See also Ephhon, 4.

The Forest of Ephraim (Heb. ya'ar Ephraim) was probably not a forest in our sense of the term, but a stretch of rough country such as the Arabs still call wa'r, abounding in rocks and thickets of brushwood. The district is not identified, but it must have been E. of the Jordan, in the neighbourhood of Mahanaim. It was the scene of Absalom's defeat and death (2 S Igeff.). The origin of the name cannot now be dis-covered. Mount Ephraim, Heb. har Ephraim. is the name given to that part of the central range of Western Palestine occupied by Ephraim, corresponding in part to the modern Jebel Nabliis — the district under the governor of Nablus. Having regard to Oriental usage, it seems a mistake to tr. with RV 'the hill country of Ephraim.' Jebel el-Quds does not mean 'the hill country of Jerusalem,' but that part of 'the mountain' which is subject to the city. We prefer to retain, with AV, 'Mount Ephraim.' W. Ewing.

EFHRATH, EPHRATHAH.— See Bethlehem, and Caleb-ephrathah.

EPHRATHITE.— 1. A native of Bethlehem (Ru l^). 2. An Ephraimite (Jg 12«. 1 S 1', 1 K ll^).

EPHROir. — 1 . The Hittite from whom Abraham pur-chased the field or plot of ground in which was the cave of Machpelah (Gn23). The purchase is described with great particularity; and the transactions between Ephron and Abraham are conducted with an elaborate courtesy char-acteristic of Oriental proceedings. Ephron received 400 shekels' weight of silver (23's) : coined money apparently did not exist at that time. It we compare the sale of the site with other instances (Gn 33", 1 K16»'),Ephronseems to have made a good bargain. 2. A mountain district, containing cities, on the border of Judah, between Nephtoah and Kiriath-jearim (Jos 15'). The ridge W. of Bethlehem seems intended. 3. A strong fortress in the W. part of Bashan between Ashteroth-karnaim and Bethshean (1 Mac &'"!■,■ 2 Mac 12"). The site is unknown. 4. In 2 Ch IS" RV reads Ephron for AV Bphrain. The place referred to is probably the Ephraim of Jn 11". See Ephraim (city). No. 2.

EPICUREANS .—St. Paul's visit to Athens (Ac 17«-»|) led to an encounter with ' certain of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers,' representatives of the two leading schools of philosophy of that time.

Epicureanism took its name from its founder Epicurus, who was born in the island of Samos in the year B.C. 341. In B.C. 307 he settled in Athens, where he died in B.C. 270. A man of blameless life and of a most amiable character, Epicurus gathered around him, in the garden which he had purchased at Athens, a brotherhood of attached followers, who came to be known as Epicureans, or ' the philosophers of the Garden.' His aim was a practical one. He regarded pleasure as the absolute good. Epicurus, however, did not restrict pleasure, as the earlier Cyrenaic school had done, to immediate bodily pleasures. What-ever may have been the practical outcome of the system, Epicurus and his more worthy followers must be acquitted of the charge of sensuality. What Epicurus advocated and aimed at was the happiness of a tranquil life as free from pain as possible, undisturbed by social conventions or political excitement or superstitious fears.

To deliver men from 'the fear of the gods' was the chief endeavour and, according to his famous follower the Roman poet Lucretius, the crowning service of Epicurus. Thus it may be said that, at one point at least, the paths of the Christian Apostle and the Epicurean philosopher touched each other. Epicurus sought to achieve his end by showing that in the physical organization of the world there is no room for the interference of such beings as the gods of the popular theology. There is nothing