The grave of Rachel is also marked out by tradition, which puts it in the neighbourhood of Ephrâth, subsequently and still called Bêth-lechem (Beth-lehem). This sepulchre is to the present day the object of pilgrimage to the adherents of three religions. The myth calls Joseph the son of Rachel, and we know of Ephrayîm (Ephraim) as son of Joseph. Now the name Ephrayîm seems to belong to the period of the differentiation of the national legends, and to be a secondary form to Ephrâth, which passes for the burial-place of his ancestress. For we find also the derivative noun Ephrâthî, _i.e._ ‘belonging to Ephrâth,’ in the two senses ‘a man from the place Ephrâth’ and ‘a descendant of Ephraim;’ and Ephraim himself is called Ephrâthâ in a passage in the Psalms.[680] The prophet Samuel and his ancestors are also said to have been Ephrâthî-men (1 Sam. I. 1).[681] This identity between the name of the burial-place of Joseph’s mother and the name of his son is probably not accidental, but produced under the influence of the national tendencies of the North; and the reaction of the spirit of the South may have suppressed the old name of the place and substituted the modern Bêth-lechem. Now in my view the name Ephrayîm was originally not a personal but a national name. After the separation the Northern Hebrews called themselves ‘those belonging to Ephrâth.’ For the word Ephrayîm has the form of a plural of a so-called _relative_ adjective (Arabic _nisbâ_), derived from Ephrâth by throwing off the feminine formative syllable _ath_ and attaching the new formative syllable directly to the base of the word. Of this Semitic mode of formation the Arabic gives a good instance; there the feminine ending of the proper name (_t_) is regularly cast off in forming the _nisbâ_, and the relative termination is attached to the body of the word: e.g. from Baṣrat^{un} not Baṣratî but Baṣrî, ‘a man of Basrâ.’ In Hebrew, the feminine termination is cast off when it appears in the shortened form _â_; _e.g._ Yehûdâ (Judah), whence Yehûdî; Timnâ, whence Timnî. But an instance occurs in which even the termination _th_ is cast off before the formation of the relative. Instead of Kerêthî, the form generally used in the phrase hak-Kerêthî wehap-Pelêthî ‘the Kerethites and the Pelethites,’ the form Kârî is found (2 Sam. XX. 23 Kethîbh); the _th_[682] being discarded, and the vowel of the first syllable lengthened by way of compensation (_productio suppletoria_). I assume the same formation in the present case (though the regular _Ephrâthî_ is also used), the termination of the relative adjective being attached directly to the base Ephr, after the rejection of the _th_. We know further that the idiom of the Northern part of the region covered by the Hebrew language contained much that is generally called Aramaism. The Aramaic relative adjectives are formed in _ay_, and they are occasionally met with in Hebrew also;[683] Ephray, forming the plural Ephrayîm, is an instance. This