Itureea
Ituree'a (Ι᾿τουραία), a small district in the N.E. of Palestine, forming the tetrarchy of Philip, in connection with the adjacent territory of Trachonitis (Lu 3:1). The name is supposed to have originated withיטוּר; Itur, or JETUR, one of Ishmael's sons (1Ch 1:31). In 1Ch 5:19, this name is given as that of a tribe or nation with which Reuben (beyond the Jordan) warred; and, from its being joined with the names of other of Ishmael's sons, it is evident that a tribe descended from his son Jetur is intimated. In the latter text the Sept. takes this view, and for "with the Hagarites, with Jetur, and Nephish, and Nodab," reads "with the Hagarites, and Iturseans, and Nephisaeans, and Nadabseans." The old name seems to be still preserved in that of Jedur, which the same region, or a part of it, now bears. (This,' however, has lately been disputed by Wetzstein [Reisebericht, p. 88 sq.] on the precarious ground of the present dependent situation of the district.) We may thus take the district to have been occupied by Ishmael's son, whose descendants were dispossessed or subdued by the Amorites, under whom it is supposed to have formed part of the kingdom of Bashan, and subsequently to have belonged to that half tribe of Manasseh which had its possessions east of the Jordan. From 1Ch 5:19, it appears that the sons of Jetur, whether under tribute to the Amorites (as some suppose), and forming part of the kingdom of Bashan or not, were in actual occupation of the country, and were dispossessed by the tribes beyond the Jordan, who now conquered and colonized the little province of Jetur, which lay between Bashan and Mount Hermon ("in Libano monte" according to Muratori, Thes. Inscript. 2, 670). , During the Exile this and other border countries were taken possession of by various tribes, whom, although they are called after the original names, as occupants of the countries which had received those names, we are not bound to regard as purely descendants of the original possessors. These new Ituraeans were eventually subdued by king Aristobulus (B.C. 108), who reconquered the province, then called by its Greek name Itursea, and gave the inhabitants their choice of Judaism or banishment (Joseph. Ant. 13, 11, 3). While some submitted, many retired to their own rocky fastnesses, and to the defiles of Hermon adjoining. Nevertheless, the Itureans were still recognizable as a distinct people in the time of Pliny (Hist. Nat. 5, 23). They extended their incursions as far as Phoenicia, but submitted to the Romans under Pompey (Appian, Mithril. 106), and appear to have been allowed to retain their native princes as vassals. Ituroea was first formally annexed to the province of Syria by Claudius (Tacitus, An. 12, 23, 1; Dio Cassius, 59, 12), having been previously included in Pernea as part of the dominions of Herod. (See F. Minter, De rebus Iturceorum [Hav. 1824]). As already intimated, Herod the Great, in dividing his dominions among his sons, bequeathed Ituraea to Philip as part of a tetrarchy composed, according to Luke, of Trachonitis and Ituraea; and as Josephus (Ant. 15, 10, 1; comp. 17:8, 1) mentions his territory as composed of Auranitis, Trachonitis, and Batanaea, some have thought (Reland, p. 106; Lightfoot, Ior. Heb.) that the evangelist regarded Auranitis and Paneas as comprehended under Iturea, a name loosely applied by ancient writers (see Pliny, 5, 19; Epiphan. laeres. 19; comp. Paulus, Comment. 1, 311; Wetstein, 1, 671). But it properly denoted a well-defined region distinct from Auranitis. Pliny rightly places it north of Bashan and near Damascus (5. 23), and J. de Vitry describes it as adjoining Tracholitis and lying along the base of Libanus, between Tiberias and Damascus (Gesta Dei, p. 1074; comp. p. 771, 1003). The districts mentioned by Luke and Josephus were distinct, but neither of these historians give a full list of all the little provinces in the tetrarchy of Philip. Each probably gave the names of such as were of most importance in connection with the events he was about to relate. Both Batanea and Auranitis appear to have been included in the region of Trachonitis" (Τραχωνίτιδος χώρα); and as Josephus mentions a part of the "house of Zenodorus" which was given to Philip, it unquestionably embraced Ituraea (Ant. 15:10, 3). According to Strabo (16, 755 sq.), the country known to classical writers was hilly (comp. Jac. de Vitriaco, p. 1074), with many ravines and hollows; the inhabitants were regarded as the worst of barbarians (Cicero, Philip. 2, 14), who, being deprived of the resources of agriculture (Apul. Florid. 1, 6), lived by robbery (Strabo, 16. 756), being skilful archers (Virgil, Georg. 2, 448; Lucan. 7:230, 514). The present Jedu probably comprehends the whole or greater part of the proper Ituraea. This is described by Burckhardt (Syria, p. 286) as "lying south of Jebelkessoue, east of Jebel esSheik (Mount Hermon), and west of the Haj road." It is bounded on the east by Trachonitis, on' the south by Gaulanitis, on the west by Hermon, and on the north by the plain of Damascus. It is table- land, with an undulating surface, and has little conical and cup-shaped hills at intervals. The southern section of it has a rich soil, well watered by numerous springs, and streams from Hermon. The greater part of the northern section is entirely different. The surface of the ground is covered with jagged rocks, in some places heaped up in huge piles, in others sunk into deep pits; at one place smooth and naked, at another seamed with yawning chasms, in whose rugged edges rank grass and weeds spring up. The rock is all basalt, and the formation similar to that of the Lejah. See ARGOB. The molten lava seems to have issued from the earth through innumerable pores, to have spread over the plain, and then to have been rent and shattered while cooling (Porter, Handbook, p. 465). Jedur contains thirty-eight towns and villages, ten of which are now entirely desolate, and all the rest contain only a few families of poor peasants, living in wretched hovels amid heaps of ruins (Porter, Damasscus, 2, 272 sq.). See Robinson, Bib. Res. Appendix, p. 149; Jour. Sac. Lit. July, 1854, p.311.
