GESHUR (-Pe; ; Sept. Papyacrf, rciryco-1, rmpt, recrovpl, Tecro-lp, and reao-dip), a small kingdom on the north-eastern border of Pales tine beyond the Jordan. The inhabitants are called Geshurites and Geshuri rilva). The posi tion of this little principality is clearly indicated in Scripture. It lay within the kingdom of Ba shan and province of Argob, and was at the northern extremity of both (Deut. ; Josh.
xii. 5). It was independent of 0g,'s sovereignty; and the Israelites did not conquer it, though they appear to have so far subdued the people as to make them render a nominal allegiance. We read that Machir, the Manassite, took Geshur' Chron. ii. 23), nevertheless the children of Israel ex pelled not the Geshurites ; but the Geshurite dwell among the children of Israel until this day' (Josh.
xiii. 13). This may account for the fact that while Geshur was geographically within Bashan, politi cally it was reckoned to Aram (2 Sam. xv. 8). It seems from the various references in Scripture that the Geshurites occupied a territory of great natural strength ; and that thus, though small in number, they were able to defend themselves against all assailants. Reland thinks that Geshur of Bashan (Josh. xii. 5) IN'aS distinct from the Geshur of Aram (2 Sam. xv. 8). For this, however, there is no authority ; and the whole tenor of the Scripture narmtive seems opposed to it (Reland, 77, sq.) , The view of Keil (on Josh. xii. 5), Rosemmiller (Bib. Geogr. ii. 227), and Gesenius ( Thesaurus, s.v.), that Geshur lay along the east bank of the upper Jordan is opposed to the topographical details of the Bible, in which it is closely connected with Argob. Their chief argument is that Geshzzr signifies a bridge,' and there is a bridge on the upper Jordan; but this can have little weight.
The writer, after a careful survey of the whole country was led to the conclusion that Geshur em braced the northern section of the wild and rocky province now called Lejah, and formerly Trachoni tis and Argob. It probably also took in the neigh
bouring plain to the north as far as the banks of the Pharpar, on which there are seveml important bridges ; but on the approach of the Israelites, the people may have concentrated themselves in their rugged stronghold, where the Israelites deemed it more prudent to leave them than to attempt to ex pel them. The wild tribes that now occupy that region hold a somewhat shnilar position ; being really independent but nommally subject to the Porte (TitAm-To:vats ; see yourna/ tlf Sae. Lit., July 1854, p. 3oo ; Porter's Damascus, vol. ; Burckhardt's Tray. in Syr., toj, sq.) The Geshurites appear to have maintained friendly relations with the Israelites east of the Jordan ; probably from mutual interest,. both being extensive cattle owners. The community of occupation may have led to the alliance between David and the (laughter of Talmai, king of Geshur (2 Sam. iii. 3). Absalom was the fruit of this marriage ; and the wild acts of his life were doubt less to some extent the results of maternal training. After murdering his brother he fled to his uncle in Geshur of Aram,' and dwelt amid its rocky fast nesses till Joab came to take him back to his father (2 Sam. xiii. 37 ; xiv. 23 ; see Hana'book for S. and P., 506).
2. Gerbil-lies, a people who dwelt on the south western border of Palestine, adjoining the Philis tines (Josh. xiii. 2). They appear to have been nomads, and to have roamed over the neighbouring desert ; though occupying permanently a portion of Philistia. David went up anci invaded the Geshu rites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites ; for those nations were of old the inhabitants of the land as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt' (I Sam. xxvii, 8). Nothing more is known of them.—J. L. P.