Ramoth-gilead (Hastings' Dictionary)

A prominent city east of the .Ionian belonging to the tribe of Gad, and first brouglit to our notice in the assignment of the Cities of Refuge, Dt 4«, Jos 20". It was also a Levltical city, Jos 21^. In four passiiges, the three just mentioned and 1 Ch 0 [Heb.«'>], all referring to this assignment, tlie form 'Kamoth in (iilead' {Tj):3 nto-i [in Dt 4''^ Jos 20', 1 Ch G,^ niCN-;!) is used, but elsewhere it is simply Kamotligilead ('Sj n-D"!). Another early notice of this place belongs to the time of Solomon, and makes it the hea<li|uarters of one of the commi.s.sariat officers of that king, 1 K 4>». See, also, Kamaii, No. 3. Although it is mentioned as a well-known city, we liave no account, in the Bible or elsewhere, of its origin. The greater its importance the more conspicuous it would naturally be ; and this we find was the case, in the wars lietween the Syrian kings of Dama.scus and the Hebrews. Of "these wars we have the fullest account of those occur- ring between B.C. 9U0 and B.C. 800, particularly during the reigns of Ahab, Aliaziali, Jchoram, and .lehu, kings of Israel. Althoiigli tlio southern kingdom sometimes acted as an allv, the brunt of these wars fell upon the Northern kingdom, since from its nearer position it was more espociiilly interested in them than tlie kingdom of Judali. In one of these wars Ahab, king of Israel, was kille.l, 1 K 2-2>-", and at a later time his son Jeliorani(Joram) was wounded, and was carried to Jezreel, 2 K S=- ^, in the neighbourhood of which he was shortly afterwards murdered by Jehu, who, by the directions of Elisha, had been anointed king of Israel. In Hos G' there is mentioned a city named Gilead, about whose identity there has been ditli- culty ; but tlie probability is that Rainoth-gilead + is meant, tlie lirst word having l)een dropped, a thing well known in the history of OT double names. The Babylonian Talmud [Maklcoth. 96) places the Cities of Kefuge in pairs, so that those on the east of the Jordan are ojmosite those on the west of that river. Shechem, bein" the middle one of tlie three west of the Jordan, should have Ramoth- gilead nearly opposite it on the east of the Jordan, and this would place its site at Gerasa, the modern Gerash. There is no reason for supposing tli.at the Talmud in this case went out of its way to state something that was contrary to fact, especi- ally at a time when the misstatement could so readily have been pointed out. The main route from Shechem to the country east of the Jordan and on to Damascus is by the Damieh ford and Wady Ajlun. A carriage road with a very easy grade could be made along this valley, and this was the route by which the Icings of I.srael went back and forth with their charioU to tiglit the Syrians. The attempt of Ewald and Conder to locate Ramoth-gilead at licimun in the Gilead hills has little in its favour. This place has neither water nor ancient ruins, it is not a point where a pioiuinent city would be built, it is not on or near the road from Shechem to the east, and the mUitary operations carried on at I'tamoth-gilead could never have taken place here. Nearly the same can be said of eij-Srilt, another rival for the site of Ramoth-gilead. It has no ruins, and only a spring for water-supply, while Gerash has a large living stream runniiit; directly through the town. It ought to be stated that both these places were suggested for the site in question before the east Jordan country had been thoroughly e.'ii)lored. It seems now, however, that the results of modem research should have weight above the casual observations of a former period. The testimony of Eusebius and Jerome, which frequently is of great service in determining topo- graphical questions, is in this case conllicting, for one places Ramoth-gilead 15 miles west, and the other the same distance east of Philadelphia. (1) Ramoth-f'ilead, if placed at Gerash, where the writer is fully convinced it should be placed, would be suitable for a City of Refuge, because it would be on the main road of that part of the country. (2) For the same reason, and, more- over, because it was a central and wealthy city, it woiild be a suitable station for a commissariat ollicer. (3) Here chariots could be used freely, which is not true of es-Salt. (4) This identilica- tion confirms Jewish testimony that Kamoth-gilead was opposite Shechem. (5) It would confirm Jewish tr.adition that Gerash was identical with Kamoth- gilead. See a full discussion of this question in the writer's East of tlie Jordan, pp. 2S4-290. LiTKiiATURH. — I)illm»nn, GenetU, ii. 209; Buhl, GAP 262 (hnth locate Rainuth-jjilead in the ruins of el-Ja^tid, some 6 niite.s N. of es-Salt) ; Neubaucr, iji*tifj. du Tatm. 66, 260 (inclines to iilonlify with cs-Salt) ; Baedeker. Pat. 287 ; Q. A. Smith, IIGUL 686 (T. (would locate near tlto Yarniuk, farther north than the usual sites) ; Merrill, Ea«t of the Jordan. 284 ff. ; Tristram, Laiui of Israel. 477, 652 ; Oliphant, Land of Gilead, 212 ; Conder, llelh and Moab3, 17011., llihh Placet, cd. 1807, 304 f. ; O. A. Cooke, ap. Driver, Deul. ' Addenda,' p. \x. Sei.ah Merrill.