the scenes (Adullam, Chezib and Timnah) overlap with David's own fights between Hebron and Jerusalem (2 Sam. xxi. xxiii.; see DAVID, _ad fin._).[2] Even David's conquest of Jerusalem (2 Sam. v.) conflicts both with the statement of its capture by Judah many years previously (Judges i. 8), and with the traditions of the Israelite heroes Joshua and Saul. Consequently, the few surviving data are too uncertain for any decisive conclusions regarding the origin of the tribe of Judah. Judah as a kingdom may have taken its name from a limited district, in which case its growth finds a parallel in the extension of the name Samaria from the city to the province. The location of Yehud and Ehud in the light of 1 Kings iv. 8-19 (perhaps the subdivisions of the Israelite kingdom, see SOLOMON), would necessitate the assumption of a violent separation from the north; this, however, is quite conceivable (see JEWS, §§ 11-13). On the bearing of South Judah upon the historical criticism of the Old Testament, see especially N. Schmidt, _Hibbert Journal_ (1908), pp. 322-342, "The Jerahmeel Theory and the Historic Importance of the Negeb, with some account of personal exploration of the country"; also JEWS, § 20. (S. A. C.) FOOTNOTES: [1] See especially Wellhausen, _De gentibus et familiis Judaeorum_ (Göttingen, 1869), the articles on the relative proper names in the _Ency. Bib._, and E. Meyer, _Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme_, pp. 299-471 (much valuable matter). [2] For the principle of the Levirate illustrated in Gen. xxxviii., see RUTH. Lagarde (_Orientalia_, ii.) ingeniously conjectured that the chapter typified the suppression of Phoenician (viz. Tamar, the date-palm) and the old Canaanite elements (Zerah = _indigena_) by the younger Israelite invaders (Perez = "branch"). For other discussions, apart from commentaries on Genesis, see B. Luther in Meyer, _op. cit._, pp. 200 sqq.