174 THE SHEPHERD KINGS OP EGYPT. 



same ineaning, that of collecting or congregating, as the former words, 

 and is no doubt of the same origin. 



The family which follows that of Coz I have already alluded to in 

 connection with the Rephaim. That it is also Ammonian appears 

 from the mention of Ir Nahash or tlie city of Nahash, a place found 

 in no part of Judah. and all the relations of which are Ammonian 

 (1 Samuel xi. 1 ; 2 Samuel x. 2). In 2 Samuel xvii. 27, Shobi, the 

 son of Nahash, and Barzillai the Gileadite, with a certain Machir 

 whose name may have come from Mehir the father of Eshton (1 Chron. 

 iv. 11), are spoken of together as friends of David in his time of 

 adversity when he passed over Jordan. It is hard to say who the 

 Shuah is that is here mentioned ( 1 Chron. iv. 11). Judah married the 

 daughter of a Canaanite whose name is almost identical with his 

 (Genesis xxxviii. 2), and Chelub may have been his brother ; but, if 

 an Ammonian, why should he be called a Canaanite 1 The name 

 Chelub occurs again (1 Chron. xxvii. 26,) as that of the father of one 

 of David's servants. Now David had Ammonites in his service 

 (1 Chron. xi. 39), and Chelub may have i^mained an Ammonite name. 

 Gilboa in Issachar may possibly relate to this word, with Chelbah 

 and Achlab in Asher (Judges i. 31), and Chelbon in Syria (Ezekiel 

 xxvii. 18). Mehir does not occur again in the Bible, but a closely 

 related word is Machir, the name of a son of Manasseh. We have 

 already met with another Machir of Lo-debar in Gilead, who is 

 mentioned along with Barzillai and Shobi, the son of Nahash. To 

 his family and that of Mehir or Mechir must have belonged Hepher 

 the Mecherathite (1 Chron. xi. 36). It is not improbable that 

 Maharai the Netophathite, mentioned together with Cheleb, another 

 Netophathite (2 Samuel xxiii. 28, 29), his name being in meaning 

 identical with that of Mehir, may be of the same line. I have not 

 yet found any nams of 'person or place that will represent Esht on 

 Eshtaol and Eshtemoa are similar forms, but do not appear to be 

 more than philologically connected. For B3th Rapha I have already 

 suggested a Philistine relationship. Paseah is a name that occurs 

 not unfrequently. It is remarkable that in the family of Asher 

 (1 Chron. vii. 33), which contains more than one Shua, there should 

 be a Pasach and an Ashvath. The appearance of Paseach among 

 the Nethinim has already been noted. Tiphsach (1 Kings iv. 24,) 

 or Thapsacus on the Euphrates, and a place of the same name 

 (2 Kings XV. 16), spoken of in connection with Tirzah and Samaria, 



