JETHRO (inrp, Exod. ; nn+, Exod. iv.
Is; LXX. '106p). The priest and Emir ciri) of Midian, possibly a descendant of Abraham and Keturah, and therefore not of necessity an idola trous priest. According to the Midrash (fol. 53, 54) he had been one of Pharaoh's musicians, and had got possession of Adam's staff, which had be long,ed to Joseph ; but he was driven from Egypt because he opposed the decree for drowning the Israelitish infants. All that is certain about him, before entering into the vexed question of his iden tity with or relation to Raguel and Hobab, is (1) that he was the father-in-law (inh) of Moses, to whom he gave a secure and honourable home dur ing his flight from Egypt (Exod. r), and whom he suffered to rcturn to Egypt with his wife and family (Exod. iv. 18) when the hour for the deliver ance of Israel arrived ; and (2) that, in the second month* after the exodus he came to visit Moses, bringing with him Zipporah, Gershom, and Elie ser, who had apparently been sent back (Exod. xviii. 2) during the interval. He was led to pay this visit by a report of God's mighty deliverance of the Israelites, and when Moses had received him with the greatest affection and respect (ver. 7), and nar rated to him ` all that the Lord had done,' Jethro acknowledged the supremacy of Jehovah (ver. which perhaps he had known but dimly before, and took part with Aaron and the elders of Israel in a great eucharistic sacrifice, which may have been intended to commemorate his fuller admission into the Jewish religion. The next morning (ver. 13), observing the overwhelming judicial labours of Moses, he recommended a most wise subdivision of labour, which, with God's approval (ver. 23), was immediately adopted. After this he departs to his own country, and \ve hear no more of him. The events which further belong to his life, if he be identified with IIobab, will be found under that name, but we may in any case dismiss without further notice the idle suggestion of Gothe that his dealings with the Israelites were partly influenced by a selfish regard for the security of his own tribe.
A certain measure of obscurity has long hung over the names Raguel or Reuel Web.
Jethro, and Hobab ; nor is it possible, with the Biblical data, to arrive at any final conclusion.
Four suppositions are possible respecting these names — r, that they are three different names of the same person ; 2, that they are the names of three different persons ; 3, that they refer to two persons only, Jethro being identical with Reuel ; or 4, Jethro and Hobab being two names of the son of Reuel.
In favour of r, are these facts—(a) All three names are similar in meaning, and might, either of them, have been mere honorary designations. Raguel means ` friend of God,' a natural name for one who was a priest or prince ; Jethro means `ex cellence,' and Hobab beloved.' (b) They are identified in the Talmudic tradition, which asserts that the father-in-law of Moses had seven names, three of which were Reuel, Hobab, and Jethro. But, on the other hand, why should three names be used for the same person ? It is true that the Jews frequently bore two names, as Jacob and Israel, Esau and Edom, Btrijamin and Benoni, Gideon and Jerubbaal, Solomon and Jedidiah ; and, to take a still closer parallel, we find Nehemiah some times called only by his title, the Tirshatha' (Neh. viii. 8). But in all these cases we are in fornzed of the fiouble name, and pains are taken to remove all ambiguity. Nor will Eichhorn's sug.
gestion of different documents help us ; because even if such were proved to have been the source of this varied nomenclature, it is incredible either that the compiler should have been guilty of so much carelessness, or that he should have added no explanatory note. Besides this, Hobab is in Num. x. 29 distinctly called the son of Raguel.' If (2) we suppose them to be three different per sons we are met by the impossibility of explaining the suppression of Jethro's name as the father of Zipporah in Exocl. ii., whereas he appears promi nently in Exocl. iii. 1. We shall also be obliged to make n1.4 mean grandfather' in Exod. IS, which the whole tenor of the context here renders missible. For, :whatever be the meaning of the disputed term pr.; (Exod. T), it cannotbe doubted that Yellin, always appears in the capacity offather, and not brother to Zipporah. If indeed we could accept the ingenious conjecture of Ewald (Gesch.