EN- RIMNION. These words occur together, in the Masoretic text, in the following passages ; (I) Josh. xv. 32 ; (2) xix. 7; (3) 1 Chron. iv. 32; (4) Neh. xi. 29. In (I) they appear as undoubtedly the names of two cities, both in the original and in the Vulg. (iilv?) 1411 ; et Aeiz, et . .
Renton); the LXX., however, and the Peschito unite them into one name CEpconth5 Irmon,' Walton, but literally iinvy)• In (2) the Hebrew words nni ry, occurring without the conjunction, would leave it doubtful whether two cities or one were meant, but the clause, four cities, in the same verse, requires them to be regarded as separate places ; the doubt is increased by the LXX., which not only amalgamates the places as before, 'EpeAuthv,* but inserts OaXXa to make up the number four; but the Peschito now makes two 9 distinct towns; –.--4:250 Ravzin,' literally 171 r,v1); the Vulg. also has Ain et Remmon. In (3) both the original and the ver sions agree in mentioning the two places without the conjunction intervening (the LXX. Alex., how ever, omits 'Hy), but the structure of the verse in all of them requires that the two should be con sidered as separate cities. In (4) the opposite occurs in the Hebrew and the Peschito ; for both unmistakeably unite the names as the designation of a single town (titi (3D3 • et ' in A. V. And at En-Rintnzon.') The Vulg. now drops the shorter name (`El in Remmon'); the LXX. Alex. does the same (Kai is [prep.] 'REAA(6v), the Vatican text has here an hiatus. Such is the textual variety connected with these two words, which designate one or two of the towns which were originally assigned to the tribe of Judah, and afterwards transferred to the tribe of Simeon ( Josh. xix. 7, 9), and on the return from Babylon occupied by the children of Judah (Neh. xi. 29). The situation of these cities of Judah, comprising the first of the four groups, is described in Josh. xv. 21 as ` at the extremity of the tribe, on the borders of Edom toward the south, ;man.' With regard to En-Rimmon, the
conjecture, which has received the sanction of Grotius (in loc.), Rosenmiiller (in loc.), Knobel (Exeg,. H-buch a. A. T., in loc.), and Keil (on Posh. [Clark], p. 37S), is a reasonable solution of the discrepancy—to the effect that the two places, which were evidently near each other (perhaps contiguous, by means of their villages, which they possessed from first to last, comp. Josh. xv. 32 with Neh. xi. 29, 30), were united after the captivity, and considered as one town only.
Van de Velde (Memoir, p. 344), says expressly; ` we think this is the right solution of Neh. xi. 29; for Ain is probably identical with a site only 3o' or 35' distance south of Um er-Rummanzln, now called Tell-Khewelfeh, and opposite anotherancient site, Tell Hora. Between the two Tells is a copious fountain filling a large ancient reservoir, which for miles around is the chief watering-place of the Bedawin population of this region. A city, at the base of which such a remarkable fountain existed, would well derive its name from `the fountain,' and its vicinity to Rimmon would justify both its distinct enumeration and its collective appellation.' In his Map of the Holy Land, he places the sup posed locality about eight miles north of Beersheba, and twenty-five south-west of Jerusalem. Winer (Bibl. R. w.-b., s. v. Rimmon,' ii. 330, identifies our town with that mentioned in Zech. xiv. to, as ` South of Jerusalem,' and refers to Eusebius Onomast. (cited above in note). Probably it was also the same place as the Am, one of the nine Levitical cities of the united tribe of Judah-Simeon, mentioned in Josh. xxi. 16. (Besides the works already named, see also Rab. I. Schwarz, Descritt. Geog. of Palestine, p. 124; Von Raumer's Paldstina, pp. 170, 219, 220; and Simonis Onomast. V. T., pp. 226, 347).—P. H.