Skip to main content

Full text of "Encyclopaedia Biblica Vol I to IV"

See other formats












edited by 
The Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, D.Litt., D.D. 






Q to Z 



Ali rights resef-ned 


Copyright, 1903, 

First edition, May, 1Q03. 

a.. Ci.» 

J. S. Cushing & Co. — Beneick & Smith 
Nonrood Man. U.S.A- 







The idea of preparing a new Dictionary of the Bxble on criticai lines for the 

benefit of ali serjous students, both professional and lay, was prominent in the 

. f . mind of the many-sided scholar to whose beloved memory the 

en ss present volume ìs inscribed. It is more than twelve years since 

EncyclopEeoia. ^ ■' 

Prof. Robertson Smith began to take steps towards realising this 

idea. As an academical teacher he had from the first been fully aware of the 

importance of what is known as Biblical Encyclopasdia, and bis own earliest 

contributions to the subject in the Encyclopmdia Britannica carry us as far back 

as to the year 1875. If for a very brief period certain untoward events arrested 

bis activity in this direction, the loss of time was speedily made up, for seldom 

perhaps has there been a greater display of intellectual energy than is given in 

the series of biblical articles signed ' W. R. S.' which appeared in the Encyclopadia 

Britannica between 1875 and 1888. The reader who is interested in Bible 

study should not fail to examine the list, which includes among the longer articles 

Bible, Canticles, Chronicles, David, Hebrew Language, Hosea, Jeru- 


TiNEs, Priest, Frophet, Psalms, Sacrifice, Temple, Tithes, Zephaniah ; 
and among the shorter, Angel, Ark, Baal, Decalogue, Eli, Ève, Haggai, 


VEH, Obadiah, Paradise, Ruth, Sabbath, Sadducees, Samuel, Tabernacle, 

Nor should the students of our day overlook the service which this far- 
seeing scholar and editor rendered to the nascent conception of an international 
biblical criticism by inviting the co-operation of foreìgn as well as English con- 
tributors. That names !ike those of Nòldeke, Tiele, Wellhausen, Harnack, Schìirer, 
Gutschmid, Geldner, appeared side by side with those of well-known and honoured 
British scholars in the list of contrìbutors to the Encyclop<zdia was a guarantee of 
freedora from dangerous eccentricity, of comprehensiveness of view, of thorough- 
ness and accuracy of investigation. 

Such a large amount of material illustrative of the Bible, marked by unity 
of aim and consistency of purpose, was thus brought together that the Encyclopcs- 
dia Britannica became, inclusìvely, something not unlike an Encyclopcedia Biblica. 
The idea then occurred to the editor and his publishers to republish, for the 
guidance of students, ali that might be found to bave stood the test of time, the 
lacunse being filled up, and the whole brought up, as far as possible, to the high 
level of the most recent scholarship. It was not unnatural to wìsh for this; but 
there were three maìn opposing considerations. In the first place, there were 
other important duties which made pressing demands on the time and energy of 


the editor. Next, the growing maturity of his biblìcal scholarship made him less 
and less disposed to acquiesce in provìsional conclusìons. And lastly, such Con- 
stant progress was being made by students in the power of assimilating criticai 
results that it seemed prudent to wait tìU biblical articles, thoroughly revised and 
recast, should have a good chance of stili more deeply influencing the student world. 

The waiting-tìme was fìlled up, so far as other occupations allowed, by 
pioneering researches in biblical archseology, some of the results of which are 
admirably summed up in that fruitful volume entìtled The Religion of the Semites 
(i88g). More and more, Robertson Smith, like other contemporary scholars, 
saw the necessìty of revising old work on the basis of a more criticai, and, in a 
certain sense, more phìlosophical treatment of details. First of ali, archEeological 
details had their share — and it was bound to be a large share — of this scholar's 
attention. Then came biblical geography — a subject which had been brought 
prominently into notice by the zeal of English explorers, but seemed to need the 
coUaboration of English critics. A long visit to Palestine was planned for the 
direct investigation of details of biblical geography, and though this could not be 
carried cut, not a little time was devoted to the examination of a few of the more 
perplexing geographical problems and of the solutions already proposed (see e.g., 
Aphek, below, col. ic)i f.\ This care for accuracy of detail as a necessary pre- 
liminary to a revision of theories is also the cause of our friend's persistent refusai 
to sanction the republication of the masterly but inevitably provisionai article 
BiBLE in the Encyclopcedia Britannica, to which we' shall return later. The reader 
wìll stili batter understand the motive of that refusai if he will compare what 
is said on the Psalter in that article (1875) with the statements in the first edition 
of The Old Testament in the Jewish Church{\B,^o), in the Encyclop^dia Britannica, 
article Psalms (1885), and in the second edition of The Old Testament in the 
Jewish Church (1892). 

It is only just, however, to the true 'begetter' of this work to emphasise the 
fact that, though he felt the adequate realisation of his idea to be some way off, 
he lost no time in pondering and working out a variety of practical details — a 
task in which he was seconded by his assistant editor and intimate friend, Mr. 
J. S. Black. Many hours were given, as occasion offered, to the distribution of 
subjects and the preparation of minor articles. Some hundreds of these were 
drafted, and many were the discussìons that arose as to various diffìcult practi- 
cal points, which have not been without fruit for the present work. 

In September 1892, however, it became only toc clear to Prof. Smith that 
he was suffering from a malady which might terminate fatally after no very dis- 
tant term. The last hope of active participation in his long-cherished scheme of 
a Bible Dictionary had weli-nigh disappeared, when one of the present editors, 
who had no definite knowledge of Prof. Smith's pian, communicated to this friend 
of many years' standing his ideas of what a criticai Bible Dictionary ought to be, 
and inquired whether he thought that such a project could be realised. Prof. 
Smith was stili ìntellectually able to consider and pronounce upon these ideas, 
and gladly recognised their dose affinity to his own. Unwilling that ali the 
labour already bestowed by him on planning and drafting articles should be lost, 
he requested Prof. Cheyne to take up the work which he himself was compelled 
to drop, in conjunction with the older and more intimate friend already mentioned. 
Hence the combination of names on the title-page. The work is undertaken by the 
editors as a charge from one whose partìng message had the force of a command. 


Such is the history of the genesis of the Encyclopadia Biblica, which ìs the 
result prìmarily of a fusion of two distinct but similar plans — a fusion desìred by 
Prof. Robertson Smith himself, as the only remaining means of 
— ", ,. realising adequately bis own fundamental ideas. With regard to 
details, he left the editors entirely free, not from decHne of physicai 
strength, but from a well-grounded confidence that religion and the Bible were 
not less dear to them than to himself, and that they fuUy shared his own uncom- 
promjsingly progressive spirit. The Bible Dictionary which he contemplated was 
no mere collection of useful miscellanea, but a survey of the contents of the Bible, 
as illumjnated by criticism — a criticism which identifìes the cause of religion 
with that of historical truth, and, without neglecting the historical and archaeo- 
logical setting of religion, loves best to trace the growth of high conceptions, 
the flashing forth of new intuitions, and the development of noble personalities, 
under locai and temporal conditions that may often be, to human eyes, most 
adverse. The importance of the newer view of the Bible to the Christian com- 
munity, and the fundamental principles of the newer biblical criticism, have been 
so ably and so persuasively set forth by Prof. Robertson Smith in his Lectures 
that his fello w-workers may be dispensed from repeating bere what he has said so 
well already. 'There remaineth yet very mach land to be possessed.' Let us 
assume, then, that the readers of this Encyclopadia^ whatever be their grade of 
knowledge or sphere of work, are willing to make an effort to take this widely 
extended land in possession. 

Every year, in fact, expands the narrow horizons which not so long ago 
limited the aspirations of the biblical scholar. It is time, as Prof. Robertson 
Smith thought, to help students to realise this, and to bring the standard books on 
which they rely more up to date. It may seem hopeless to atterapt this with an 
alphabetically arranged encyclopaedia, which necessarily involves the treatment 
of subjects in an isolated way. By an elaborate system of cross references, 
however, and by interspersing a considerable number of comprehensive articles 
(such as, in Part I., Apocalyptic Literature, Cainites, Dragon), it has 
been sought to avoid the danger of treating minute details without regard to 
their wider bearings. Many of the minor articles, too, have been so constructed 
as to suggest the relation of the details to the larger wholes. Altogether the 
minor articles have, one ventures to hope, brought many direct gains to biblical 
study. Often the received view of the subject of a 'minor article' proved to be 
extremely doubtful, and a better view suggested itself. Every endeavour has 
been used to put this view forward in a brief and yet convincing manner, without 
occupying too much space and becoming too academic in style. The more com- 
prehensive articles may bere and there be found to clash with the shorter articles. 
Efforts, however, have been made to mitigate this by editorial notes in both 
classes of articles. 

It will also doubtless be found that on large questions different writers have 
sometimes proposed different theories and hypotheses. The sympathies of the 
editors are, upon the whole, with what is commonly known as 'advanced ' criticism, 
not simply because it is advanced, but because such criticism, in the hands of a 
resourceful scholar, takes account of facts, both literary and archaeological, which 
the criticism of a former generation overlooked or treated superficially. They 
have no desire, however, to 'boycott' moderate criticism, when applied by a critic 
who, either in the form or in the substance of his criticism, has something origina] 


to say. An ' advanced ' crìtic cannot possibly feel any arrogance towards his 
more * moderate ' colleague, for probably he himself held net very long ago 
views resembling those which the ' moderate * critic holds now, and the latter 
raay fìnd his precautionary tests end in his adopting, as nearer approximations 
to truth, views that now seem to him diffìcult. Prof. Robertson Smith's views of 
ten years ago, or more, may, at the present day, appear to be ' moderate ' criti- 
cism ; but when he formulated them he was in the vanguard of critics, and 
there is no reason to think that, if he had lived, and devoted much of his time 
to bibìical critìcism, his ardour would have waned, and his precedence passed to 

There are, no doubt, some criticai theories which could not consistently have 
been represented in the present work ; and that, it may be remarked, suggests 
one of the reasons why Prof. Robertson Smith's early Encyclop(sdia Britannica 
article, Bible, could not have been republished, even by himself. When he wrote 
it he was stili not absolutely sure about the chronological place of P (Priestly 
Code). He was also stili under the influence of the traditional view as to the 
barrenness and unoriginality of the whole post-exilic period. Nor had he faced 
the question of the post-exilic redaction of the prophetic writings. The funda- 
mental principles of bibìical criticism, however, are assumed throughout that fine 
article, though for a statement of these we must turn to a more mature production 
of his pen. See, for example, The Old Testament in the Jewish CktircM'^\ pp. i6 
ff. (cp ist ed. pp. 24^), and notice especially the following paragraph on p. 17 : — 

* Ancient books coming down to us front a period many centuries before the invention of 
printing have necessarily ufidergone tnany vicissitudes. Some of them are preserved only in 
imperfect copies made by an ignorant scribe of the dark ages. Others have been disfigured by 
editors, who mixed up foreign matter with the originai text. Very often an important book 
/eli altogether cut of sightfor a long time, and -when it carne to tight again ali knowledge of its 
origin was gone ; for old books did not generally have tiile-pages and prefaces. And, when 
such a nameless roll was again brought into notice, some half-informed reader or transcriber 
was not unlikely to give it a new iitle of his own devising, which was handed down thereafter 
as if it had been originai. Or again, the true meaning and purpose of a book often became 
obscure in the lapse of centuries, and led to false interpretations. Once more, antiquity has 
handed down to us many writings which are sheerforgertes, like some of the Apocryphal books, 
or the Sibylline oracles, or those famous Epistles of Phalaris, which formed the subject of 
Bentlefs great criticai essay. In ali such cases the historical critic must destroy the received 
view, in arder to establish the truth. He must review douhtful titles,purge aut interpolations, 
expose forgeries ; but he does so only to manifest the truth, and exhibit the genuine remains of 
antiquity in their real character. A book that is really old and really valuable has nothing to 
fear from the critic, whose labours can only put its woj-th in a clearer tight, and establish its 
authority on a surer basis' 

The freedom which Prof. Robertson Smith generously left to his successors 
has, with much reluctance, yet without hesitation, on the part of the editors, been 
exercised in dealing with the articles which he wrote for the Encyclopmdia 
Britannica. The editors are well assured that he would have approved their 
conduct in this respect. Few scholars, indeed, would refrain from rewriting, to a 
large extent, the criticai articles which they had produced some years previously ; 
and this, indeed, is what has been done by several contributors who wrote bibìical 
articles for the former Encyclopsedia. The procedure of those who have revised 
our frìend's articles has in fact been as gentle and considerate as possible. Where 
these articles seemed to have been destined by himself for some degree of per- 


manence, they bave been retained, and carefully revised and brought up to date. 
Some condensation bas sometimes been found necessary. Tbe originai articles 
were written for a public very imperfectly imbued witb criticai principles, whereas 
now, tbanks to bis own works and to tbose of other progressive scbolars, Bible 
students are much more prepared tban formerly to benefit by advanced teacbing. 
There is also a certain amount of new material from Prof. Smitb's pen (in two or 
three cases consisting of quotations from the MS of the second and third courses 
of Burnett Lectures), but much less, unfortunately, than had been expected. 

Freedom bas also been used in taking some fresb departures, especially in 
two directions — viz., in that of textual criticism of tbe Old Testament, and in tbat 
of biblical arcbseology. Tbe object of the editors bas been, with the assistance 
of tbeir contributors, net only to bring the work up to the level of the best 
publisbed writings, but, wherever possible, to carry tbe subjects a little beyond 
the point hitherto reached in print. Witbout the Constant necessity of investi- 
gatìng tbe details of tbe text of the Old Testament, it would be hard for any one 
to realise tbe precarious character of many details of tbe current biblical archae- 
ology, geograpby, and naturai history, and even of some not unimportant points 
in tbe current Old Testament theology. Entirely new metbods bave not indeed 
been applied ; but tbe metbods already known bave perhaps been applied witb 
somewbat more consistency than before. With regard to arcbasology, such a 
claim can be advanced only to a sligbt extent. More progress perbaps bas been 
made of late years in the field of criticai arcbseology than in that of textual criti- 
cism. AH, therefore, that was generally necessary was to make a strong effort 
to keep abreast of recent arcbseological research botb in Old Testament and in 
New Testament study. 

The fulness of detail with which the data of tbe Versions bave been given 
may provoke some comment. Experience has been tbe guide of tbe editors, and 
tbey believe that, tbougb in tbe future it will be possible to giva tbese data in a 
more correct, more criticai, and more condensed form, the student is best served 
at present by being supplied as fully as possible witb the available material. It 
may also be doubted by some wbether tbere is not too much pbilology. Here, 
agaìn, experience bas dìrected tbe course to be pursued. In tbe present transi- 
tional stage of lexicograpby, it would bave been undesirable to rest content with 
simply referring to tbe valuable new lexicons which are now appearing, or bave 
already appeared. 

Witb regard to biblical theology, tbe editors are not witbout bope tbat they 
bave belped to pavé the way for a more satisfactory treatment of tbat important 
subject which is rapidly becoming the history of the movement of religìous Hfe and 
tbougbt within the Jewìsh and the Christian cburcb (the phrase may be inaccurate, 
but is convenient). Systems of Prophetic, Pauline, Petrine, Jobannìne theology 
bave had tbeir day ; it is perhaps time tbat the Bible sbould cease to be regarded 
as a storebouse of more or less competing systems of abstract thought. Unfor- 
tunately the literary and historical criticism of tbe New Testament is by no means 
as far advanced as that of the Old Testament. At no very distant date a real 
history of the movement of rehgious lìfe and thought in tbe earlier period may 
be possible. For such a history for the later period we shall bave to wait longer, 
if we may infer anytbing from the doubtless inevitable defects of the best existing 
handbook of New Testament theology, tbat of the able veteran critic, H. J. Holtz- 
mann. The editors of the present work are keenly interested in the subiect at 


present called ' Biblical Theology ' ; but, instead of attempting what is at present 
impossìble, they bave thought it better to leave some deficiencies which future 
editors wìU probably find it not dìfficult to supply. They cannot, however, con- 
clude this section without a hearty attestation of the ever-increasing love for the 
Scriptures which criticai and historical study, when pursued in a sufficìently com- 
prehensive sense, appears to them to produce. The minutest details of biblical 
research assume a brightness not their own when viewed in the light of the great 
truths in which the movement of biblical religion culminates. May the reader fìnd 
cause to agree with them ! This would certainly have been the prayerful aspira- 
tion of the beloved and lamented scholar who originated this Encyclopadia. 

To the contributors of signed articles, and to those who have revised and 
brought up to date the articles of Prof. Robertson Smith and other deceasetì 

scholars, it may seem almost superfluous to render thanks for the 
, °' help they have so generously given. It constitutes a fresh bond 

between scholars of different countries and religious communions 
which is surely of happiest augury. But the special services of the various mem- 
bers of the editorial staff require specific acknowledgment, which the editors have 
much pleasure in making. Mr. Hope W. Hogg became a contributor to the 
Encyclopadia Biblica in 1S94, and in 1895 became a regolar member of the edito- 
rial staff. To his zeal, energy, and scholarship the work has been greatly indebted 
in every direction. Mr. Stanley A. Cook joined the staff in 1896, and not only 
has contril^uted various signed articles, which to the editors appear to give promise 
of fine work in the future, but also has had a large share in many of those that are 
of composite authorship and unsigned. Mr. Maurice A. Canney joined the staff 
in 1898; he also has contributed signed articles, and has been eminently helpful 
in every way, especially in the reading of the proofs. Finally, the editors desire 
to acknowledge their very special obligations to the Rev. Henry A. Redpath, M.A., 
editor of the Concordance to the Septuagint, who placed his unrivalled experience 
at their disposai by controlling ali the proofs at a certain stage with special 

reference to the LXX readings. 

T. K. Cheyne. 


20th Septeniber i8gg. 


IF in what was written more than three years ago by way of preface to the 
Encyclop(Bdia Biblica any modification were to be thought desirable, it would 
chìefly perhaps be in the sentences devoted to the immediate prospects of 
BibUcal Theology. It ìs becoming more and more obvìous that the yearly 
advancing study of the apocryphal and apocalyptic Jewish literature is destìned 
to have considerable effect within the near future on the treatment of the 
religious ideas of both parts of our Bible. Nor can we doubt that the progress 
now being made in the ìnvestigation of the early Christian Hterature will also 
turn to the advantage of the BibHcal Theology of the New Testament. It is on 
this ground that the editors have ventured to include in Vols. III. and IV. 
a number of introductory and descrìptive articles connected with this new 
subject To meet a possible objection, it may perhaps be added that the 

researches into the originai text of the Old Testament with which the name of 
one of the editors is specially connected are by no means necessarily unfavour- 
able to the study of Old Testament Theology. For even if the religious contents 
of parts of the Old Testament in their originai form should turn out to bc 
somewhat less rich and varied than is agreeable to traditional ideas, yet the text 
in its present form, even if not the originai, has an independent right of existence, 
and the interpretatìon put upon this text by Jewish and early Christian students 
deserves the most respectful attentìon. The Old Testament was surely net a 
dead hook to the Jews of the great post-exilic age, but was full of light, and 
susceptible of the most varied and edifying adaptations. At the same time, the 
historical student may justly cherìsh the hope that by the researches into the 
underlying text of precious passages in psalms and prophecìes (not to add, 
Tiarratives) which have just now been referred to, the course of historical develop- 
ment may become more comprehensible than it has hìtherto been, whìle those 
who have the best of ali enthusiasms — the enthusiasm for relìgion — will be 
stirred up to more and more admiration of the wonderful dealings of God in the 
religious training of that Israel within Israel to which the Christian church Ìs 
under perpetuai obligatìons. The Editors would also take this opportunity 

of expressing a naturai regret that the discovery of the 'oldest code of laws in 
the world,' that promulgated by Hammurabi king of Babylon (2285-2242 B.C.), 
and disinterred in Dee. 1901— Jan. 1902 by M. J. de Morgan on the site of 
the ancient Susa, was not made a year or two earlier. This code is the most 
valuable single contribution of recent years to that study of ancient Semitic laws 
and usages with which the name of Robertson Smith is specially connected, 
and will not only throw fresh light on the legai codes of the Israelites, but 
also give a fresh impetus to the criticai study of the Hebrew origines. On ali 


accounts they are sorry not to bave been able to make this new find helpful to 
the readers o( the Encydopadia. 

To attempt any discussion of the criticisms, whether favourable or adverse, 
which have been made upon the methods employed or results set forth in the 
Encydopmdia would manìfestly be cut of place bere. Other opportunities wili 
occur ; and lime, toc, wìU doubtless exercise its mellowing and reconciling 
influence. It may even be hoped that the confusìng practice of denominating 
some critics super-naturalistic, others naturalistìc, some critics sober and safe, 
others extravagant and unsafe, may soon pass away in the Hght of a fuUer com- 
prehension of the meaning of criticai results, the complexity of criticai problems, 
and the variety of legitimate and necessary criticai methods. There are 

some other things of a more general nature which the editors would fain say in 
ali simpHcity and earnestness, but they prefer to ask leave to quote a passage 
from Dr. Hort's Introduction to the now famous edÌtÌon of the New Testament 
by himself and Bishop Westcott, with the spirìt of which they are in deepest 
sympathy, and the expressions oì which, especially in the closing sentences, they 
can heartily adopt as their own. 

' /;■ only remains to express an earnest hope that whatever labour we have been allowed to 
contribute towards the ascertainment of the truth of the letter may also be allowed, in ways 
which must for the most part be invisible to ourselves, to contribute towards strengthening, 
correcting, and extending human apprehension of the larger truth of the spirìt. Others 
assuredly in due Urne will prosecute the task with better resources of knowledge and skill, and 
amend the faidts and defects of our processes and results. To be faithful to such Hght as could 
be enjoyed in our own day was the utmost that we could desire. How farwe have f alien short 
of this standard^ we are well aware : yet we are bold to say that none of the shortcomings are 
due to lack of anxious and watchful sincerity. An implicit confidence in ali truth, a keen seme 
of its variety, and a deliberate dread of shutting out truth as yet are no security 
against some of the wandering lights that are apt to beguile a critic ; but, in so far as they are 
obeyed, they at least quench every inclination to giade criticism into delivering such testimony as 
may be to the supposed advantage of truth already inherited or acquired. Critics of the Bible, 
if they have been taught by the Bible, are unable to forget that the duty of guileless workman- 
ship is never super seded by any other,' 

In conclusion, the Editors desìre anew to express their gratitude for the in- 
valuable services of the members of the editorial staff — Messrs. Hogg, Cook, and 
Canney — which have been continued with unabated zeal to the termination of 
the work ; as also, their great indebtedness to Dr. Redpath for having read the 
proofs with a special reference to the readings of the LXX. In connection with 
the maps their thanks are due not only to the authors of various articles to which 
these relate, but also to Prof Max Muller, particularly for help in the preparation 
of the map of Syria according to the Egyptian monuments, to Col. Billerbeck for 
two maps of Syria according to cuneiform documents, and in a very special 
dcjgree to Mr. (now Prof) Hogg, who has throughout supenntended the whole 
map- work in the Encydopadia, including the indexing. 

T. K. C. 
J. S. B. 
z^th Marche 1903- 


The labour that has been bestowed on even minor matters in the preparation of this Encyclop(Bdta 
seemed to he warranted by the hope that it might be found useful as a students' handbook. Its 
convenient use will be facilitated by attention to the principles that have been adopted in regard to 
the following matters. 

1. Classes of Artìcles. — The following notes wili give a general idea what the reader may 
expect to find and where to look for it : — 

i. Proper Nantes. — Every proper name in the Old and the New Testament canons and the 
OT Apocrypha (Authorised Version or Revised Versìon, text or margin) is represented by an 
article-heading in Clarendon type, the substantive artìcle being usually given under the name as 
found in the AV text. The printing of Adoraim, on the same line as Adora (col. 71), and 
Adullamite, three lines below Adullam (col. 73), in bold black type, are examples of a means of 
saving space. 

ii. Books. — Every hook in the OT and the NT canons and the OT Apocrypha is discussed 
in a special article — e.g., Acts, Chroniclesj Deuteronomy. The * Song of Solomon' is dealt with 
under the title Canticles, and the last book in the NT under Apocalypse. 

iii. General Articles. — With the view, amongst other thìngs, of securing the greatest pos- 
sible brevity, many matters have been treated in general articles, the minor headings being dealt 
with concisely by the help of cross-references. Such general articles are: Abi (Names with), 
Agriculture, Apocalyptic Literature, Apocrypha, Army, Bakemeats, Birds, Bread, 
Cainites, Canon, Cattle, Chariot, Chronolqgv, City; Clean and Unclean, Holy and 
Profane ; Colours, Conduits and Reservoirs, Cooking and Cooking Utensils. Cuttings 
of the Flesh, Dispersion, Divination, Dress. 

iv. Other Subjecis. — The following are examples of other important headings : — Adam and 
Ève, Angel, Antichrist, Asherah, Azazel, Babel (Tower of), Behemoth and Leviathan, 
Blessings and Cursings, Calf (Golden), Cherub. Christian (Name of), Circumcision, 
Community of Goods, Council of Jerusalem, Covenant, Creation, Dance, Decalogue, 
Deluge, Demons, Dragon. 

V. Tkings. — The Encychptzdia Biblica is professedly a dictionary of things, not words, and 
a great efFort has been made to adhere rigidly to this principle. Even where at first sight the rule 
seems to have been neglected, it will generally be found that this is not really the case. The 
only way to teli the English reader what has to be told about {e.g.') Chains is to dìstinguish the 
various things that are called, or should have been called, ' chain ' in the English Version, and 
refer him to the articles where they are dealt with. 

vi. Mere Cross-references (see above, 1, i. ; and below, 2)- 

2. Method of Cross-References, — A very great deal of care has been bestowed on the 
cross-references, because only by their systematic use could the necessary matter be adequately 
dealt with within the limits of one volume. These references have made possible a conciseness 
that is not attainedat the expense of incompleteness, repetition of the same matter under different 
headings being reduced to a minimum. For this reason .the articles have been prepared, not in 
alphabetical order, but simultaneously in ali parts of the alphabet, being thereafter worked up 
together constantly and kept up to date. The student may be assured, therefore, that the cross- 
references have not been inserted at random ; they have always been verified. If any should be 
found to be unwarranted (no such is known), it must be because it has been found necessary, after 
the reference was made, to remove something from the article named to another article. Th» 
removed matter will no doubt be represented by a cross- reference. 

The method of reference employed is as follows : — 

i. Identification of Article. (a) Long Names. — To save space long headings have been 
curtailed in citations — e-g-, Apocalyptic Literature is cìted as Apocalvptic. 


(è) Synonymous Articles. — ■ Persons or places of the sanie name are ranged as i, 2, 3, etc. 
(Arabie numerals), under a common heading and cited accordingly. In other cases (and even in 
the former case when, as in Adnah in col. 67, one EngUsh spelling represents different Hebrew 
spellings), tlie articles usually bave separate headings, in which case they are cited as i., ii., iii., etc. 
(Roman numerals), although they are net so marked. Usually geographical articles precede bio- 
graphical, and persons precede books. Thus Samuel i., 2 is the second person called Samuel ; 
Samuel ii. is the article Samuel, Books of. If a wrong number shouid be found the explanation 
will be not that it was net verified, but that the article referred to is one of a very small number in 
which the originai order of synonymous articles had to be changed : the precautions always taken in 
such circumstances must bave failed in tbis case. Thus the Bered referred to in the article Alush 
is now Bered i., i, not, as is stated in the earlier impressions, Bered ii., i. 

ii. Indication. of Place in Artide Cited. — Articles of any lengtb are divided into numbered 
sections (§§ i, 2, etc.) indicated by insets containing a descriptive word or phrase. As con- 
venience of reference is the great aim, the descriptive phrases are limited to, at most, three or 
four words, and the sections are numbered consecutively. Logicai subordination of sections, 
therefore, cannot appear. Divisions larger than sections are sometiraes indicated in the text by 
I., IL, etc, and subdivisions of sections by letters and numbers {a, b, c\ a, (iy y; i-, ii., iii.). 
References like (Benjamin, § g, ii. (i) are freelyused. Most of the large articles {e.g., Apocalyptic 
Literature, Chronology) bave prefixed to them a table of contents. 

iii. Manner of Citadon. — The commonest method is (see David, § ri, \c\ ii.). Ezra {q.v., 
ii. § g) means tbe article Ezra-Nehemiah, Book of, § g. Sometiraes, bowever, the capitals or 
the q.v. may be dispensed with. Chains printed in small capitals in the middle of an article 
would mean tbat there is an article on that term, but that it hardly raerits q.'u. from the present 
point of view. In articles (generally on RV names) that are mere cross-references q.v. is generally 
omitted ; so, e.g., in Abadias in coi. 3. 

3. Typographical Devices, i- Sise of Type. — (a) Letters. — Two sizes of type are used, 
and considerable care has been devoted to the distribution of the small-type passages. Usually 
the general meaning of an article can be caugbt by reading simply tbe large-type parts. The 
smalI-type passages generally contain such things as proofs of statements, objections, more techni- 
cal detaiis. In these passages, and in footnotes and parentheses, abbreviations (see below, p. 
xviii^.), which are avoìded as much as possible elsewbere, are purposely used. {fi) JVumbers. — 
Two sizes of Arabie numerals are used. (Note that the smallest 6 and 8 are a different shape from 
the next larger 6 and 8.) In making references, when only the volume is given, it is usually cited 
by a Roman number. Pages are cited by Arabie numbers except where (as is often the case) 
pages of a preface are marked witb Roman numbers. When numbers of two ranks are required, 
two sizes of Arabie numbers (.5 5) are used wbether the referenee be to book and chapter, volume 
and page, or section and line. If three ranks are needed, Roman numbers are prefixed (v. b 5). 

ii. Italics. — Italie type is much used in eiting foreign words. In geographical articles, as a 
rule, the printing of a modem place-name in italics indicates that the writer of the article identifies 
ìt with the place under discussion. For the significanee of the different kinds of type in the map 
of Assyria see tbe explanations at the foot of tbe map. On the two kinds of Greek type see 
below, 4 ii. {b). On the Greek MS D as distinguished from D, see below, 4 ii- d. 

iii. Small Capitals. — ^m2i\\ Roman capitals are used in two ways : (i) in giving the equiva- 
lent in RV for the name in AV, or vice versa, and (2) in giving a cross-reference (see above, 2 iii-)- 
On tbe use of small Italie capitals see below, 4 ii- b. 

iv. Symbols. — {a) Index Figures. — In 'almost always^ clear,' the 6 indicates footnote 6. 
In 'Introd.(^''the 6 means sixth edition. On the 2 in 'D^' etc. see below, p. xviii.^. 

{fi) Asierisk. — B* means the originai scribe of codex B. If the Egyptian dobet were printed 
"dobet the * would mark the word as hypotbetical in form {e.g., uneertain voealisation) . v. 5* means 
V. 5 (partiy). 

{e) Dagger. — A dagger f is used to indicate tbat ali the passages where a word oecurs are 
eited. The eontext must decide wbether tbe English word or the originai is meant. 

{d) Sign of Equality. — * Aalar, i Esd. 5 36 AV = Ezra 2 59 Immer, i.,' means tbat the two 
j-erses quoted are recensions of tbe same originai, and tbat what is ealled Aalar in the one is 
called Immer in tbe other, as will be explained in the first of the articles entitled Immer. 

{e) Sign of Parallelism. — ]| is the adjective eorresponding to the verb = . Thus : ' Aalar of 
I Esd. SgeAVappears as Immer in || Ezra 2 59.' || also denotes Hebrew 'parallelism.' See, e.g.j 
Clean and Unclean, § i (3). 

(/) Other devices. — '^ means iSgg. i Ch. 6 81 [66] means that verse 81 in the English 
version represents that numbered 66 in Hebrew texts. yj is used to indicate the *root' of a 


V. Punctuation. — As a rule commas are notused between citations, thus : 2 K. 6 ai =5 Is. 21 7. 
Commas are omitted and semicolons or colons inserted whenever ambiguity seems thus to be 
avoided — e.g,, the father Achbor [i] is called ' Father of Baal-hanan [i] king of Edom,' and the 
son Baai-hanan [i] is called 'ben Achbor [i] ; one of the kings of Edom.' 

4. Text-Critical Apparatus. — As ali sound investigation must be based, net on the ancient 
texts as they Ile before the student, but on what he believes to be the nearest approach he can make 
to their originai reading, the soundness of every text is weighed, and if need be, discussed, before 
it is used in the Encycloptedia Biblica. 

i. Traditional Originai Text. — In quoting the traditional Hebrew text the editions of Baer 
and of Ginsburg bave been relied on as a rule ; similarly in the case of the New Testament, the 
texts of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort. 

ii. Evidence of Versions. — The Vulgate (ed. Heyse-Tischendorf ), the Syriac (ed. Lee, and 
London Polyglott ; for the Apocrypha, Lagarde aod the minor Greek versions (Field, Hexapia ; 
Hatch-Redpath, Concordance) bave been quoted quite freely; the testimony of the Septuagint has 
been attended to on every point. 

In exceptional cases • Holmes and Parsons ' has been consulted ; ordinarily Swete's manual 
edition (including the variants) and Lagarde's Pars Prior bave been considered sufficient. In 
general (for the main exception see next paragraph) only variations of some positive interest or im- 
portance have been referred to. Almost invariably a quotation from the LXX is followed by sym- 
bols indicating the authorities cited (thus vuoi [BAL]). Thts does not necessarily imply that in 
some other MS or MSS a diffcrent reading is found ; it is simply a guarantee that Swete's digest of 
readings and Lagarde have both been consulted. The formula [BAL], or (©""'■''' standing alone 
means that the editors found no variant in Swete or Lagarde to report. In the parts, therefore, 
where Swete cites K or other MSS as well as BA, BAL includes them uniess the context indicates 
otherwise. When BAL stands alone the meaning ìs everywhere the same ; it is a summary report 
of agreement in Swete and Lagarde. 

Proper names have been felt to demand special treatment ; the aim has been to give under 
each name the readings of Lagarde and ali the variants of BXA as cited in Swete. The com- 
monest, or a common, form for each witness is given at the head of the article, and this is followed 
at once or in the course of the article by such variants as there are- Where ali the passages con- 
taining a given name are cited in the article, the apparatus of Greek readings (as in Swete and 
Lagarde) may be considered absolutely complete. In other cases, completeness, though aimed at, 
has not been found possible. 

The distinction between declinable and indeclinable forms has generally been observed ; but 
different cases of the same declinable form have not as a rule (never in the case of common nouns) 
been taken note of. Where part of one name has been -joined in the LXX to the preceding or suc- 
ceeding name, the intruding letters have usually been given in square brackets, though in some very 
obvious cases they may have been ignored. 

When MSS differ only in some giving i and others giving et this is indicated concisely thus : 
'a^£ta [B], a/3ta [AL],' becomes *ay3[e]ta [BAL].' Similarly, -r., -tt. becomes -[t]t. 

Much care has been bestowed on the reaìiings, and every effort has been made to secure the 
highest attainable accuracy. Naturally the Hatch-Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint has 
been freely used. As has been already stated, however (p- xii), the EncychpcBdia Biblica has also 
had the benefit of Dr. Redpath's personal help. Unfortunately, raisprints and other inaccuracies — 
inaccuracies sometimes appearing for the first time after the last proof reading — are especially liable 
to occur in a work of this kind. Corrections of errors, however minute, addressed . to the publishers,, 
wil! always be gratefuUy received. 

Some typographical details require to be explained : — 

(a) In giving proper names, ìnitial capitals, breathings, and accents are dispensed with ; they 
were unknown in the oldest MSS (cp Swete, voi. i p. xiii 2). 

ip) The Greek readings at the head of an article are given in uncials, ahd the Vulgate read- 
ings in small Italie capitals ; elsewhere ordinary type is used- 

{e) The first Greek reading ìs given in full ; ali others are abbreviated as much as possible. 
Letters suppressed at the beginning of a word are represented by a dash, letters at the end by a 
period. In every case the abbreviated forni is to be completed by reference to the Greek form 
immediately preceding, whether that is given in filli or not. Thus, e.g., ' a/3e\<raTT€ifL, (3. . . . rrifi, 
-TT€Lv, /HeXo-a ' ^ means ' a/ScXdaTTeifi, ^SeXtrarri/i, ^eX^aTTcìv, fifXa-a.'' That is to say, the 
abbreviated form repeats a letter (or if necessary more) of the form preceding. Two excèptions 
are sometimes made- The dash sometimes represents the wAole of the preceding form — e.g., io. 

^ ' jSeAffa.' with a period, as it stood in early impressions of the art. Abel-SHITTIM, would mean jSfÀtraTTcìy. 


cases like a^ia, -s — and one letter has sometimes been sìmply substituted for another: e.g:, v for 
fj. in Et/*, -V. These exceptions can hardly lead to ambiguity. 

((/) The foliowiiig are the symbols most frequently quoted from Swete's digest with their 
meaning : — 

D = testimony of the Grabe-Owen collation of D 
before D was partly destroyed (see Swete, 
voi. I p. xxiv). 

ZJbìI = readings inferred from the collation e silentio. 

K^-a = a corrector of K belonging to ihe 7fh ceni. (Sw., 
voi. 2 p. vili ; cp voi. I p. xxi). 

X^b = corrector of tf,"-^ or K * ; see Sw., voi. 2 p, viii. 

Hc.c = corrector of X=-^ or K * ; see Sw., voi. i p. xxi. 

Eedit = B as in Vercellone and Cozaa's facsimile ed. 

* = originai scribe. 

1 — his own corrections. 

a. b, e = other correctors. 

"t> — first corrector confirmed by second. 

a? b? = a or b. 

B? b ^ b, perhaps also a. 

a(vid) = prob. a. 

a vid = a, if it be a bona fide correction at ali. 

{e) The foUowing are the MSS most commonly cited : — 

tt Sinaiticus (cp Swele, voi. i p. xx). 

A Alexandrinus (Swete, voi. i p. xxii). 

B Valicanus (Swete, voi. i p. xvii). 

C Cod. Ephraemi Syrì rescriptus Parisìensis 

(Swete, voi. 2 p. xiii). 
D Cod. Cottonianus Geneseos (Swete, voi. i p. 

E Cod. Bodleianus Geneseos (Sw.,vol. i p. xxvìj. 

F Cod, Ambrosianus (Swete, voi. i p, xxvi). 

87 Cod. Chisianus (Swefe, voi. 3 p, xii). 

Syr, Cod. Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus (Swete, voi. 3 

p. xiii), 
V Cod.Venetus (= 23, Parsons; Swete, voi. 3 p.xiv). 
Q Cod. Marchalianus (Swete, voi. 3 p. vii). 
r Cod. rescriptus Cryptoferraiensis (Swete, voi. 3 

p. ix/). 

5. Proper Name Articles. — Proper name articles usually begin thus. The name is followed 
by a parenthesis giving (i) the originai; (2) when necessary, the number of the section in the 
general artìcle Names where the name in question is discussed or cited ; (3) a note on the ety- 
mology or meaning of the (personal) name with citation of similar naraes; (4) the readings of 
the versions (see above, 4 ii-)- See for an example Aaron. The Hebrew 'ben' (' b.'), 'son 
of,' *b'ne,' 'sons of is often used, partly for brevity and to avoid certain ambiguities (see 
above, 3 v.) and partly because of its Indefinite meaning, 

6. Geographical Articles. — The interpretation of place-names is discussed in the article 
Names. The maps that are issued with Volume I. are the district of Damascus, the environs of 
Babylon, and ' Syria, Assyria, and Babylonia' (between cols. 352 and 353). The last-mentioned 
is raainly designed to illustrate the non-Palestinian geography of the Old Testament. It is made 
use of to show the position of places outside of Palestine mentioned in Volume I. wh.'ch happen to 
fall within its bounds. 

In ali maps biblical names are assigned to sites only when the article discussing the question 
regards the Identification as extremely probable (the degree of probability must be learned from the 

The following geographical terms are used in the senses indicated : — 

Der, deir, ' monastery.' 
Haj{j'), 'pilgrimage to Mecca.' 
yebel (J.), ■ mountain.' 
Ji^e/r, Kafr, ' village." 
Khan, ' caravan se rai.' 

KAirèei-(JCA.), 'ruins of — ,■ 

NaAr (N.), ' river.' 

Te/l, ' mound ' (often containing ruins). 

Wàdi (W,), ' valley," ' torrent-course.' 

We/t, viely, ' Mohammedan Saint,' ' saint's tomb.' 

7. Transliteration, etc. —Whilst the Encydopadia Biblica is meant for the student, other 
readers bave constantly been kept in view. Hence the frequent translation of Hebrew and other 
words, and the transliteration of words in Semitic languages. In certain cases transliteration also 
saves space. No effort has been made at uniformity for its own sake. Intelligibility has been 
thought sutBcient. When pronunciation is indicated — tf.^., Bèhèmóth, Leviathan — what is meant 
is that the resulting form is the nearest that we can come to the originai as represented by the 
traditional Hebrew, so long as we adhere to the English spelling. 

In the case of proper names that bave becorae in some degree naturalised in an incorrect form, 
that form has been preserved: e.g., Shalmaneser, Tiglath-pileser. Where there is an alternative, 
naturally the closer to the originai is selected : therefore Nebuchadrezzar (with r as in Ezek-, etc), 
Nazirite. Where there is no naturalised forni names are given in exact transliteration — e.^.^ 
Asur-rès-isi. In the case of Assyrian names, hyphens are used to separate the component parts, 
which begin with a capital when they are divine names — ^.^., Puzur-Asur; but Asur-dan. 

In the case of modem (Arabie) place-names the spelling of the author whose description has 
been most used has generally been retained, except when it would have been misleading to the 
student. The diacrìtical marks have been checked or added after verifìcation in some Arabir 
source or list. 


On the Assyrian alphabet see Babylonia, § 6, and on the Egyptian, Egvpt, § 12. One 
point remains to be explained, after which it will suffice to set forth the schemes of transliteration 
in tabular forni. The Hebrew h (n) represents philologically the Arabie h and h, which are 
absolutely distinct sounds. The Hebrew spoken langiiage very lìkely marked the distinction. 
As the written language, however, ignores it, Pi is always transliterated h. The Assyrian guttural 
transliterated with an h, on the other band, oftenest represents the Arabie h, and is therefore 
always transliterated h (in Muss.-Arn. Dici., x, for x)> never h. There is no h in transliterated 
Assyrian; for the written language did not distinguish the Arabie h from the Arabie h, ', g, or ', 
representing them ali indifferently by*, which accordingly does not, in transliterated Assyrian, 
mean simply K but indifferently K or ,1 or h or r or g. Hence, e.g., Nabù-nahid is simply one 
interpretation of Nabu-na'id. Egyptian, lastly, requires not only h, h, and h, like Arabie, but also a 
fourth symbol h (see Egypt, § 12, note). 









































3 is 

































sh, s 


W, V 


w, u 






Extra Arabic Consonants : ii>, fh, t^ ; ò, dh, d ; ^jó, d ; jb, z. 


Heb. a e 1 o u 

Ar. a 1 u 

' short ' 
a e i o u 

very short 

Ar, diphthongs : ai, ay. ei, ey, e ; aw, au, o. 

a (e) i (e) u (o) 

almost a glide 
è or e or ' 

8. Sìgnatures. —Parts of articles as well as whole articles bear the signature of the author or 
authors, the exact share contributed by each writer being indicated, where possible, at the end thus : 
A, B. §§ 1-5 ; e. D. §§ 6-10. When the signature would be too complex, and in a majority of the 
' minor articles ' even otherwise, no attempt has been made to assign a definite authorship and 
the articles rest on the editorial responsibility. When in such an article there occurs a suggestion 
that seems to need a signature, its author's initials are appended to the whole article. A key to the 
signatures will be found on p. xxvii. 

H. w. H. 



The following pages explain the abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see 
above, p. xiv 3 i- [«]) of the Encydopadia. The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and, for the 
most part, it takes no account of well-established abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly 
obvious. The bibliographical notes will, it is hoped, be welcome to the student. 

The Canonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex-, Lev., 
Nu., Dt., Josh-, Judg., Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezra, Neh-, Esth., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccles., 
C(an)t., Is-, Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag., 
Zech., Mal. ; i Esd., 4 Esd. {i.e.. 2 Esd. of EV), Tob-, Judith, Wisd-, Ecclus., Baruch, Epistle of 
Jeremy (/>., Bar. eh. 6), Song of the Three Children (Dan. 823), Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 
Prayer of Manasses, 1-4 Macc. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Acts, Rom., Cor-, Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess-, 
Tim-, Tit-, Philem-, Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Jn., Jude, Rev. [or Apoc.]. 

An explanation of some of the symbols (A, K, B, etc), now generally used to denote certain 
Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, vvill be found above, at p. xvi. It may be added that 
the bracketed index nuraerals denote the edition of the work to which they are attached : thus 
OT/C^^^ = The Old Testameni in the Jewish Church, 2nd edition (exceptions liP'-^^y AOP^'^'' ; see 
below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes ; for those under the line see 
below under D2, Ea, J2, Pa- 

When a foreign hook is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation. 

It is suggested that this work be referred to as the Encyclop^sdia Biblica, and that the 
name may be abbreviated thus : Ency. Bib. or EBi. It will be observed that ali the larger 
articles can be referred to by the numbered sections (§§) ; or any passage can readily be cited 
by column and paragraph or line. The columns will be numbered continuously to the end 
of the work. 


AF . 

AbuUv. . . Abulwalid, the Jewish grammarian 
(b, circa 990), author of Bookof 
Roots, etc. 
The Academy : A Weekly Review 
of Literature, Science, and Ari. 
London, 'àgff. 

Ancient Hebrew Tradiiion. See 
Alt[test\. Unt. . See Winckler. 
Amer. Journ. of American Journal of Pkiloiogy, 

Phil. 'Soff. 

A{_rfier.^f[ourn.1 American Journal of Semitic Lan- 
S\em^ L\jing.'\ guages and Literatures (continu- 
iiig Hebraica ['84-'95]), '9S#. 
. TheTell-el-AmarnaLetters(=A'5s) 
. Josephus, Antiquities. 
. Altorientalische Forschungen. See 

. Apocrypka Anecdota, ist and 2nd 
series, published under the 
general title ' Texts and Studies ' 
at the Cambridge University 
. Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp. 
revolt against Hadrian), author 
of a Greek translation of the Old 
Testament. See Text. 
. Arabie. 

Aramaic. See AramaIC. 
. Archaology or Archac 
Benzinger, Nowack. 
. Doughty, Arabia Deserta, '88 
Reste arabiscken Heidéntums. 
. Armenian. 
, Assyrian, 

. Assyrisches Handw'òrterbuch. See 
W. M. Miiller, Asien u. Europa 
nach altàgyptischen Denkmàlern, 

Ani. Tah, . 
Ant. . 

Apocr, Anecd. 


Ar. . 

Ar. Des. . 
Ar. Heid., or 

Ass. . 
Ass. HWB 

As. u. Eur. 

ne. See 


AT,A Tliche . Das Alte Testament, Alttestamenl- 
liche. Old Testament. 

AT Uniers. . Alttsstamentliche Untersuchungen. 
See Winckler. 

AV . . . Authorised Version. 

b. . . . ben, b'ne (son, sons, Hebrew). 

Ba. . . . Baer and Delitzsch's criticai edition 

of the Massoretic Text, Leipsic, 
'Ó9, and following years. 

Bah. . . . Babylonian. 

Baed., or Baedeker, Palestine (ed. Socin), 

Baed. Pai. (2), '94; (3), '98 (Benzinger) based 

on 4th German ed. 

Baethg., or Ba.ethgen, Beitràge sur semitischen 

Baethg.^eiVr. Religions-geschichte, '88. 

BA G . . C. P. Tiele, Babylonische-assyrische 

Geschichte, pt. i., '86; pt, ii., '88. 

'Sa..NB. . . 33.xih, Die Nominalbildung in den 
semitischen Sprachen, ì., '89; ii., 
'91; W'94. 

Baraitha . . See Law Literature. 

BDB I^ex. . [Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexiconl 

A Hebrew and English Lexicon 
of the Old Testament, based on 
the Lexicon of Gesenius, by F. 
Brown, with the co-operation of 
S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, 
Oxford, '92, and following years. 

Be. . . . E. Bertheau (1812-88). \n KGH ; 

Richter ti. Ruth, '45 ; (** '83; 
Chronik, '54; '^', '73; Esra, 
Nehemia u. Ester, '62; (^J, by 
Ryssel, '87. 

Beitr. . . Beitràge, especially Baethgen (as 

Beitr. z. Ass. . Beitràge sur Assyriologie u, semi- 
tischen Sprachwissenschaft ; ed. 
Fried. Delitzsch and Paul Haupt, 
i., '90; ii., '94; iii., '98; iv. i,'99. 

Benz, HA . I. Benzinger, Hebràische Archà- 

ologie, '94. 



Bi. . 

Biblioth. Sac. 
BL . 


. Konige in KIIC, '99. 
Sul- A. Bertliolet, Die Stellung der h- 
raeliten u. der Juden su den 
Freìnden^ '96. 
. Gustav Bickell : 

Grundriss der hebràischen 
Grammatik,'(>()f.; ET, '77. 
Carmina VT metrice eie, '82. 
Dìchtungen der Hehràer, '?i2f. 
Kritiiche Bearbeiinng der 
Prov., '90. 
Bìbliotheca Sacra, '43^ 
De Bello Jtidaico. See Josephus. 
Schenkel, Bibel - Lexicon ; Reai- 
worterbuch zum Handgebrauch 
fìir Geistliche u. Gemeinde- 
glieder, 5 vols,, 'óg-'yj. 
Bocb. . . S. Bocharl (1599-1667) : 

Geographia Sacra, 1646 ; 
Hierozoicon, sive de Aniìnali- 
èus ScripturcE Sacra, 1663. 
Boeckh . . A.-\xg.^o^€v?n., Corpus Inscr. GrcEC, 

4 vols-, ''zir-^-j-j. 
BOR . . Babylonian and Orientai Record, 

Bottch. , . Friedrich Bòttcher, Ausfì'ihrliches 
Lehrbuch der hebràischen Spra- 
cke, '66-'6S. 
Bòttg. Lex. . Bòttger, Lexicon z. d. Schriften des 
L'I. Josephus, '79. 
Biblical Researckes. See Robinson, 
. KarlBudde: 
Urgesch, , Die bibliscke Vrgeschichie (Gen. 

1-124), '83- 
Ri.Sa. , Die Bùcher Richter und Samuel, 
ihre Quellen ufid i/ir Aufbau,'go, 
Sam. . . Samuel m SB07' (Heb.), '94. 
Das Buca Hiob in HK, '96. 
Klagelieder and LLokelied in KHC, '98. 
Buhl . . See Pai. 

Buxt. Syn.Jud. Johann Buxtorf (l 564-1629), 

Synagoga Judaica, 1603, etc. 
Buxt, Lex. , Johann Buxtorf, son (1599-1644), 

Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudi- 
cum et Rabbmicum, 1639, folio. 
Reprint with additions by B. 
Fischer, 2 vols,, '69 and '74. 

e, cir. . . circa. 

Calwer Bib. . Calwer Kirchelexikon, Theologi- 

Lex. sches LLandw'òrterbuck, ed. P. 

Zeller, '89- '93. 
e. Ap. , . cantra Apionem. See Josephus. 

CLL . . . Composition des Hexaieuchs. See 

Ckald. Gen. , The Chaldean Account of Genesis, 
by George Smith. A new edi- 
tion, thoroughly revised and cor- 
rected by A. H. Sayce, '80, 
Che. . . T. K. Cheyne: 

Propk. Ls. . The Prophecies 0/ Lsaiah, 2 vols. 

('8o-'8l; revised, (^', '89). 
Job and Sol. Job and Salomon, ox The IVisdofn 

of the Old Testament ('87). 
Ps. . . The Book of Psahns, transl. 

with comm. ('88); ^^\ re- 
written (forthcoming). 
OPs. . . The Origin and Religìous Con- 

tents of the Psalier (' Bampton 
Lectures,' '89), '91. 
Aids . . Aids to tke Devout Siudy of 

Criticism, '92. 
Founders . Founders of Old Testament 

Criticism, '94, 
Intr. Is. . Lntroduction io the Book of 

Lsaiah ('95). 

Ls.SBOT, Lsaiah in SBOT [Eng.j, 

('97); [Heb.], (-99). 
Jeremiah, his Life and Times in ' Men of the 

Bible' ('88). 
Jeiv. Rei. Life Jewish Religious Life after the 
Exile, '98. 
CLG . . Corpus Inscriptionum Grcscarum 

(ed. Dittenbergcr), '82/". See 
also Boeckh. 
CLL . . Corpus Lnscriplionum Latinarum, 

Berlin, '63, and followiiig years, 
14 vols., with supplements. 
CLS . . Corpus Lnscriptionum Semiiica- 

rum, Paris, '81^. Pt. i., Phceni- 
cian and Punic inscriptions; pt. 
ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv., 
S. Arabian inscriptions. 
Class. Rev. . The Classicnl Review, '^T ff- 

Cl.-Gan. . . Clermont-Ganneau : 

Ree. . . Recueil d'Archeologie, '85^ 

Co. . . . Cornili r 

Ezek. . Das Buch des Propheten 

Ezechiel, '86. 
Einl. . Einleitung in das Alte Testa- 

ment, '91 ; (^', '96. 
IList. . LListory of the People of Lsrael 

from the earliest times, '98. 
COT . . TheCuneiform Lnscriptions and the 

Old Testa?nent. See Schratler. 
Crit. Mon. . A. H. Sayce, The ILigker Criticism 
and tke Verdict of the Alonu- 
menis, '94. 
Cr. Rev. . . Criticai Review of Theolugical and 
Philosophical Liierature [ed. 
Salmond], '91^ 

D . . . 
D3 . . . 

Dalm. Gram. . 

IV or te Jcsu 
Aram. Lex. 


Job . 

DB . 

de C. Orig. 

De Cent. . 

Par. . 
Lfeb. Lang. 

Author of DeuteronoTTiy ; also used 

of Deuteronomistic passages, 
LaterDeuteronomisticeditors. See 


Daltnan, Gramjnatik des Jiìdisch- 
p al'às tini s che n Aramdisch, '94. 
Die Worte Jesu, \., '98. 
Aramaisch - , Neukebràisches 
W'òrterbuch zu Targum, 
Talmud, und Midrasch, 
Teil i., '97. 
A. B. Davidson : 

Book ofjob in Camb. Bible, '84. 
Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge 
Bible, '92. 
W. Smith, A Diiiionary of the 
Bible, comprising its .4ntiquiiies, 
Biography, Geography, and Nat- 
urai LListory, ■^\o\%.,'by, DB'-^^, 
2nd ed. of voi. i., in two parts, 

or, J. Hastings, A Dictionary of 

the Bible, dealing with its Lan- 

guage, Literature, and Contents, 

including the Biblical Lheology, 

voi. i., '98; voi. ii., '99. 
or, F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de 

la Bible, '95^. 
Alph. de CanrioUe, Origine des 

Plantes Cultivées, '82; (*1, '96, 

ET in the Lnternational Scien- 

tific Serìes. 
De Gentibus. See Wellhausen. 
Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90), author 

of many commentaries on books 

of the OT, etc. 
or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre- 

cediug, author of : 

IVo lag das Paradies ? ('81). 
Tke Hebrew Language viewed 



Ass. HWB 

in the tight of Assyrian Re- 
search, '83, 
Prolegomena eines neuen hebr.- 
aram. W'òrterbuchszuin A T, 

Assyrisches Handw'òrterbuch, 

UHM Ep. Denk. D. H. Muiler, Epigraphische Denk- 

màler aus Arabien, '89. 

Die Propheten in ihren ursprUnglichen Form. 

Die Grundgesetze der ursemi- 

tiscken Poesie, 2 Bde,, '96. 

Di. . . . Dillmann, August ( 1 823-94) , 

in KGH : Genesis, 3rd ed. of 

Knobel,'75; W,'82; <«>, '92 (ET 

by Stevenson, '97) ; Exodusund 

Leviticus, 2nd ed. of Knobel, 

'80; 3rd ed. by Ryssel, '97; 

Numb., Deut., Josh., 2nd ed. of 

Knobel, '86 ; Isaiah, *^>, '90; (edd. 

1-3 by Knobel; 4th ed. by Die- 

stel; 6th ed. by Kittel, '98). 

Did. . . Didache. See APOCRYPHA, §31,1. 

Dozy, Suppl. . Supplément aux Dictionnaires 

Arabes, '79 _^. 
Dr. . . . Driver, S. R. : 

A Treatise on the Use of thè 
Tenses in Hebretu, '74; (^>, 
'8l ; 13), '92. 
Notes on the ffebrtw Text of 

the Books of Samuel, '90. 
An Introduction tothe Litera- 
ture of the Old Testament, 
11), '91; (8), '97. 
Parallel Psalter, '98. 
Deuterononiy in The Inter- 
national Criticai CotntHcn- 
tary, '95. 
in the Cambridge Bible, '97. 
SPOT (Eng.), Leviticus, as- 
sisted by H. A. White, '98. 
* HebrewAuthority' ìaAutkorityandArchceology, 
Sacred and Profane, ed. 
David G. Hogarth, London, 
Is. . . Isaiah, His Life and Times, in 

' Men of the Bible,' f^), '93, 
Drus, . . Drusius (1550-161 6) in Critici 

Du. . ■ . Bernhard Duhm : 

Die Theologie der Propheten 

als Grundlagejìirdie innere 

Entuìicklungsgeschichte der 

israelitischen Peligion, '75. 

Das Buch Jesaia in HK, '92, 

Die Psalmen erklart, in KHC, 



Par. Ps. 


Joel and Amos 
Lev. SBOT 



E . 
E, . 


Ebers, Aeg. 




Old Hebrew historical document. 
Later additions to E. See His- 

Encyclopmdia Britannica, gtìi ed., 

Georg Ebers ('37-98), Aegypten u. 

die Biìcher Afose's, i-, '68. 
Einleiiung (Introduction). See 

Cornili, etc. 
The English Historical Review, 

Eng. Ilist. Rev. 

EntXst^ . . Die Entstehung des Judenth-ums. 

See Ed, Meyer. 
ET . . , English translation. 

Eth. . . Ethiopic. 

Eus. . . Eusebius of Cesarea (2nd half of 

3rd to ist half of 4th cent. A.D.) : 

Onom. or OS Onomasticon ; 'OntheNames 

of Places in Holy Scripture,' 

HE . . Ilistoria Ecclesiastica. 

F\rcep.'\E\y.~\ Praparatio Evangelica. 
Chron. . Chronicon. 

EV . . . English version (where authorised 

and revised agree). 
Ew. . . Heinrich Ewald (1803-75) : 

Lehrb. . Lehrbuch der hebràischen 

Sprache, '44; W, '70. 
Gesch, . Geschichte des Volkes Lsrael ; 

(3) i.-vii., '64-'68 ; ET f^) 5 
vols. (pre-Christian period), 
Dichter . Die Dichter des Alien Bundes 

(3>, '66/ 
Proph. . Die Propheten, '40/; (2), '67 

/; ET '76/ 
Expos. . . Expositor, 5th ser., '95^ 
Exp\os'\. T[ìmes'\ Expository Times, 'Sg-'go^ 
f.3.nàff. . . foUowing (verse, or verses, etc). 
EEP . . Fauna and Flora of Palestine. 

See Tristram. 

Field, Hex. . F. Fieìd, Origenis Hexaplorum quiZ 

supersuntsive Veierum Interpre- 

tuin GrcECorttm in totum VeCus 

Testamentuni Fragmenta ('75). 

F[r.'\HG . . Fragmenta Historicorum Graco- 

rum, ed. Miiller, 5 vols., '41-72. 

FI. and Hanb. F. A. Fluckiger and D. Hanbury, 

Pkarm, Pharuiacographia. 

Floigl, GA . Floigl, Geschichte des semilischen 

Aliertums in Tahellen, '82. 
Founders . . Founders of Old Testament Criti- 

cism. See Cheyne. 
Fr. . . . O. F. Fritzsche (1812-96), com- 
mentaries on books of the Apo- 
crypha in KHG. 
Fra. . . . Sigismund Frankel, Die araniài- 
schen Fremd-w'órter im Ar a bi- 
sche n, '86. 
Frankenb. . W. Frankenberg, Die Spriiche in 

KH, '98. 
Frazer . . J, G. Frazer : 

Totemism ('87). 

Golden Bough ('90) ; (^) in prep. 

Pausanias's Description of 

Creece (translation and 

notes, 6 vols., 'y8). 

Fund. . . J. Marquart, Fundatnente israeliti- 

scher u. jùdischer Geschichte, '96. 

(S . . . Greek Version, see above, p. y.y.f 

and Text and Versions. 
GA . . . Geschichte d. Alterthums (see 

Meyer, Floigl). 
GA . . . Geschichte Agyplens (see Meyer), 

GBA . . Gesch. Babyloniens u. Assyriens 

(see Winckler, Hommel), 
GASm. . . George Adam Smith. See Smith. 
GAT . . Keuss, Geschichte des Alien Testa- 

ments, '81 ; (^), '90. 
Gei. Urschr. . A. Geiger, Urschrifl und Ueber- 
setzu7tgen der Bibel in ihrer Ab- 
kangigkeit von der inneren Ent- 
wicklung des fudentìiums, '57. 
Ges. . . F. H. W. Gesenius (1 786-1842): 

Thes. . Thesaurus Philologicus triti- 

ciis Ling. Hebr. et Chald. 
Veteris Testamenti, '35-'42. 
Gravim. . Hebraische Grammatik, '13; 

<2«), by E. Kautzscb, '96; 
ET '98. 
Lex. . . Hebraisches u. chaldaisckes 

Hand-wòrterbuch, '12 ; 'i" 
(Muhlauu.Volck), '90; ('» 
(Buhl, with Socin and Zini. 
mern),'95; <13> (Buhl),'99. 
Ges.-Bu. . . Gesenius-Buhl. See above, Ges. 




Gì . 




Gr. . 

Gra, . 



Gr. Ven. 


H . 

HA or Hebr. 


Mèi. . 

Harper, ABL 

HC . 

Hebr aie a 


Herzog, RE 
Net Herstel 

HC . 



Hisi. Propk. 


HK . 

Geschichte (History). 

Goltingische Gelehrte Ameigen, 

Gottingische Gelehrte Nachrichten, 

'45 # 
Geschichte Israek. See Winckler. 
Ginsburg, Massoretico-critical Edi- 

iion ofthe Hebrew Siòle, '94, /«■ 

troduction, '97. 
Geschichte des jùdischen Volkes. 

See Se h lire r. 
Eduard Glaser: 

Skizze der Gesch. u. Geogr. 
Arabiens, '90. 
K, Grimm (1807-91). Maccabees 

('53) and lVisdom{'(>ó) ìnJCG//. 
Heinrich Gràtz : 

Geschichte der Juden, i.-x., '74 
ff.\ ETi.-v., '9i-'92. 
Kritischer Commentar zu den 

Psalmen, '^2f. 
Versio Veneta. See Text, 
Gesch. des Volkes Israel, See 

Ewald, Stade, etc. 

'The Law of Holiness' (Lev. 17- 

26). See Leviticus. 
Ilebraische Arckdologie. See Ben- 
zi nger, Nowack, 
Joseph Halévy. The inscriptions 

in Rapport sur une Mission Ar- 

chéologique dans le Yemen ('72) 

are cited: Ha!. 535, etc. 

Mélanges d'Epigraphie et 

d' Archeologie Sémitiques,''y4. 

Hamburger, Kealencyclopàdie Jur 

Bibelund Talmud, i. '70, (2' '92; 

li. '83, suppl. '86, '91/, '97. 
R. F, Harper, .-ÌJ.jjV''^'''" and Baby- 

lonian Letters beiongìng io the 

A'[KuyunjÌk] collection of the 

British Museum, '93^ 
Hand- Commentar zum Neuen 

Testarne nt, bearbeitet von H. J. 

Holtzmann, R, A. Lipsius, P, W. 

Schmiedel, H. v. Soden, 'Sg-'gi. 

Continued as AJSL (q.v.'). 
Reste arabischen Ileidentums. See 

Kosters, Het Herstel van Israel in 

het Perzische Tijdvak, '93; Germ. 

transl. Die Wiederherstellung 

Israels, '95. 
See TRE. 
See Hersl. 
Hexateuch (seeKuenen, Holzinger, 

See Fìeld. 
Historical Geography of the Holy 

Land. See Smith, G. A. 
See Bochart. 
A. Ililgenfeld, NT scholar {Einl., 

etc), and ed. since '58 of Z WT. 
See Schurer, Ewald, Kittel, etc. 
J. F. M'Gurdy, History, Prophecy, 

and the Alonuments : i. To the 

Downfall of Samaria ('94) ; ii. 

To the Fall of Nineveh ('96). 

diger ('47), Hohelied ('55), Die 

èleinen Propheten ('38; (3>, '63), 
/eremias{\l; 1^V66). A\%oDie 

Psalmen ('35-'36; IH), '63-'65). 
Handkommentar zum Alten Testa- 

meni, ed. Nowack, '92 ff. 

Holz. Einl. . H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den 
Hexateuch ('93), Genesis in the 
KIIC ('98). 
Hommel . . Fritz Homniel : 

AHT . DiealtisraelitischeUeberliefer- 

ung; ET, Ancient Hebrew 
Iradition, '97. 
GB A - Geschichte Babyloniens u. As- 

syriens, '85^ 
Hor. Hebr. . hìghtfoot, Hora Hebraicte, 1684. 

HP . . . Holmes and Parsons, Fetus Testa- 
mentum Gracum cum variis 
lectionibus, 1798-1827. 
HPN . . G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew 

Proper Names, '96. 
HPSm. , . Henry Preserved Smith. 

Samuel in International Criticai Commentary. 

HS . . . Die Heilige Schrift. See Kautzsch. 

HWB . . 'Rì'i?. Handworterbuclt des bibli- 

schen Alterthums, 2 vols., '84; 

'^'i '93~'94' ^ee also Uelitzsch 


IJG . . . Israelitische u.jùdische Geschichte. 

See Wellhausen. 
Intr[od]. . . Introdnction. 
Inir. Is. . . Inlroduclion to Isaiah. See 

It. . . . Itala. See Text and Versions. 
It. Anton, . Itinerarium Antonini, Fortia 

d'Urban, '45. 

J . - . Old Hebrew historical document. 

J3 . . . Later additions to J. 

f\ourn.'\ A\ni.~\ Journal of the American Orientai 
0{r.'\ Sioc.~\ Society, '^i ff. 

Jastrow, Dict, M. Jastrow, Dictionary ofthe Tar- 

gitìnim, the I^almud Babli, etc, 
and Midrashim, '86 _^. 

J{ourn.~\ As. . Journal AsìaHque, '53 ff.\ yth 
ser.,'73; 8thser,,'83; 9thser.,'93, 

JBL . . Journal of Biblical Literature and 

Exegesis, 'go ff.; formerly ('82- 
'88) ca\[e.A Journal of the Society 
of Biblical Ut. and Exeg. 

JB IV , , Jakrbilcher der bibl, Wissenschaft 


JDT . . Jahrbucher fìir deutsche Theologie, 


JE . . . The ' Prophetical ' narrative of the 
Hexateuch, composed of J and E. 

Jensen, Kosm. . P. Jensen, Die Cosmologie der 
Babylonier, '90. 
. Jer. . . Jerome, oc Jeremiah. 

Jon. . . Jonathan. See Targum. 

Jos. . . Flavìus Josephus (h. 27 ^•^■), Anti- 

qui t a tes Judaica, De Bello 
Judaico, Vita, cantra Apionem 
(ed, Niese, 3 vols., '87-'94). 

J\ourn,'\ PAH. . Journal of Philology, i. (Nos. 1 and 
2, '68) , ii. (Nos. 3 and 4, '69) , etc. 

JPT . . Jahrbitcherfurprotestantisckel heo- 

^ogie, '75-'92. 

JQR . . JewishQuarterly Review,'%%-''%<)ff. 

JRAS . . Journal of Rcyal Asiatic Society 

(vols. 1-20. '34^.; new series, 
vols. 1-24, '65-'92; current series, 

JSBL . . ScGjBL. 

KAT . . Die Keilinschrifien u.d. Alte Testa- 
rne nt. See Sth rader. 
Kau, . . E. Kautzsch : 

Gram. . Grammatik des Biblischen- 

Aramàischen, '84. 
HS . . Die heilige Schrift des Alten 

Teslatnents, '94. 


Apokr. . Die Apokryphen u. Pseudepi- 

graphen des alien Testa- 
ments, 'g?if. 
KB. . . Keilinschrifiliche Bibliothek, 

Sammlutigvon ass.u.bab. Texten 
in Unisckrift u. Uebersetzung, 5 
vols. (r, 2, 3 a, b, 4, 5), '89-96. 
, Edited by Sch rader, in coUabora- 
tion with L. Abel, C. Bezold, 
P. Jensen, F. E. Peiser, and 
H. Winckler. 
Ke. . . . K. F. Keil (d. '88). 
Kenn: . . B. Kennicott (1718-83), Vetus 
Teslamentum Hebraicum cum 
variti lectionibus, 2 vols., 1776— 
KG . . . Kirchengesckichie. 
KGF . . Keilinschriften m. Geschichtsforschr- 

ung. See Schrader. 
KGtì . , Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Hand- 
buck. See Di., llitz., Knob,, ÒI. 
KGK . . Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den 

keÙigen Schriften Alten u. Neuen 
TeUaments sowte zu den Apo- 
kryphen, ed, H. Strack and 
O. Zockler, '87^ 
KHC . . Kurzer Hand-commentar zum 
Alien Tesiamen!,s&.yi&xt\,^g-jff. 
Ki. . . . Rudolf Kittel : 

Gesck. . Ceschickté der Hebraer, 2 vols., 

'88, '92; Eng. transl., His- 
tory of ihe Nebrews, '95— 
Ck. SBOT The Book ofChronicles, Criticai 

Edition of the Hebrew text, 
'95 (translated by Bacon). 
Kim. . . R. David Kimhi, circa I200 A.D., 

the famous Jewish scholar and 
lexicographer, by whose exegesis 
the AV is mainly guided. 
Kin^s'l. , . Kinship and Marriage in Early 

Arabia. See W. R, Sraith, 
Kl. Proph. . Kkine PropheienQA\nox Prophets) . 

See Wellhausen, Nowack, etc. 
Klo[st]. . . Aug. Klostermann, Die Bucher 
Samuelisundder K'ónige C'87) in 
GVI . . Geschichie des Volkes Israel bis 

zur Resiauration unter Esra 
und Nehemia, '96. 
Kn[ob]. . . Aug. Knobel (1807-63) in KGH: 
Exodus und Leviiicus, *-' by Dill- 
mann, '80; Der Prophet Jesaia, 
'43, <^>, '61. See Dillmaiin. 
Ko. . . , F. E. Kònìg, Historisch-Kritisehes 
Lehrgebàude der Hebr'àischen 
Sprache, 3 vols., '8i-'97. 
Kòh. . . Aug. Kohler. 

Kr. , . . Krè (lit. ' to be read '), a marginai 

reading which the ^lassoretes 

intended to supplant that in the 

te>^ (Kèthib); see below. 

Kt. . . ■ Kèthib (Ut. 'written'), a reading 

in the MT; see above. 
Kue. . . . Abr. Kuenen (1828-91): 

Ond. o . Historisch-critisch Onderzoek 

naar het ontstaan en de 
verzameling van de Boeken 
des Ouden Verbonds, 3 vols., 
'6i-'65; <^','S5-'89; Germ. 
trans!,, Hisiorisch-kriiische 
Einleiiung in die Bucher 
des Alten Testaments, '87— 
'92; voi. i-. The Hexaieueh, 
translated by Philip Wick- 
steed, '86. 


De Prof et en 

Ges. Abh. . 



Syr, . 

Ges. Abh. 
or BN 



Arni. Si. . 
Or. . 

L \and'\ B 


Levy, NHWB 

Chald. Lex. 

Lehrgeb. . 
Leps. Denkm, , 


Lìps. if. , 

Lów . 

LXX or ® 


De Godsdienst van hVael, '69— '70; 

Eng. transl., 3 vols., '73-'75. 
en der Profetie onder Israel, '75; 

LT, '77- 
Gesammelie Abhandlungenzur 
bibl. Wissenschafi, German 
by Budde, '94. 

de Lagarde, Librar uni Ve ieri s 
Testamenti Canonicorum, Pars 
Prior Grcece, '83, Lagarde ('27-'9r) : 

Hagiùgrapha Chaldaice, '73. 
Libri Veteris Testamenti Apo- 

cryphi Syriace, '61, 
Gesam m e Ite A bh a ndlu nge m, ' 66 , 
Mitteilungen, Ì.-iv., '84-' 89, 
Symmicta, ii., '80. 
Proverbien, '63. 
Uebersicht ùber die im Ara- 
7nàischen, Arabischen, und 
Hebràiscken ubliche Bildung 
der Nomina, '89. 
Beitràge z. baktrischen Lexiko- 

g rapine, '68. 
Propheta Chaldaice, '72. 
Semitica, 'yS/. 
Armenische Studien. 
Orientalia, i., '79 ; ii., '80. 
E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English 

Lexicon, '63^. 
W. M. Thomson, The Land and 

ihe Book., '59; new ed. '94. 
Laier Biblical Kesearches. See 

J. Levy, Neuhebràisches u. chal- 
dàisches Wòrterbiuh, '76-'89. 
Ckaldàisches Wòrterbuch iiber 
die Targuìniìn, '67 _^. 
See Konig. 
R. Lepsius, Denkmàler aus Aegyp- 

ten u. Aethiopien, '49— '60. 
John Lightfoot (1602-75), ^"ra 

Hebraica (1684). 
Joseph B. Lightfoot ('2S-'89) ; 
commentaries on Galaiians 
(W, '74); Philippians C^), 
'73) ; Colossians and Phile- 
mon ('75). 
Lìpsius, Die Apokryphen Apostel- 
geschichten u. Apostellegenden, 
J. Low, Aramàische PJlanzenna- 

vien, '81. 
See L. 

Septuagint. See above, p. xv f.^ 
and Text and Versions. 

Moses Maimonides (1131-1204). 
Exegete, author of Mishneh 
Tot ah. More Nebokhim, etc. 
Mand, . . Mandaan, See Ahamajc, § io. 
Marq. Fund. . J. Marquart, Fundamenie israeliii- 
scher u. jùdischer Geschichie, '96. 
Marti . . K. Marti : 

Gram. . Kurzgefass/e Grammatik d. 

Sprache, '96. 
Geschichie der Israelitischen Religion^^^, '97 (a 
revision of A. Kayser, Die 
Thiol. des AT\. 
Jes. . . Das Buch/esaia,\ìiKLLC,'g<). 

Masp. . . G. Maspero : 

Dawn of Civilisation, Egypt 

and Chaldea ((«), 'gó). 
Les premier es Me le e s des 
Peuples; ET by McClure. 




Mey. . 

GA . 


MH . 

MI . 


The Siruggle of the Nations 

— ^8yPU Sy ria, and Assyria . 

Hisioire Ancietme des Peuples 

de POrieni ('99 _^.)- 

Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka- 

Mittheiiun^en und Nachrichten des 
Deutschen Palàstina- Vereins, 

A. Merx, Archiv f. wissenscha/t- 
liche Erfùrschung d. AT ('69). 
Ed. Meyer: 

Geschichte des Alterihums ; 
i., Gesch. d. Oriènti bis zur 
BeqrunduHg des Perserreichs 
('84) ; ii-, Gesch. des Abend- 
landes bis auf die Per- 
serkriege ('93). 
Die Entstehung des Juden- 
thums, '96, 
H. A. W. Meyer (1800-73), 
founder of the series Kritisch- 
exegetischer Komnientar ùber das 
Ne uè Testameìtt, 
Monatsschrift fur Gesch. u. IViss. 

des Judenihums, 'S^ff- 
Mishnic Hebrew, the language of 
the Mishna, Tosephta, Mid- 
rashim, and considerable parta of 
the Talmud. 
Mesha Inscription, commonly 
known as the ' Moabita Stone.' 
See Mesha. 
Midrash. See, § 6 (2). 
Mishna, the standard collection 
(completed, according to tradì- 
tion, byR. Judah the Holy, about 
200 A.D.) of sixty-three treatises 
(representing the Jewish tradi- 
tional or unwritten law as deve!- 
oped by the second cenCury 
A.D,), arranged in six groups or 
Séders thus: — i. Zeraim (11 
tractates), ii. Mo'èd (12), iii. 
Nàshìm {j^.ìv.A^èsi^tn (io),v. 
Kodàshtm ( 1 1 ) , vi . Tohordth (12), 
'^bódà lira, iv. 8 Miliwà'oth, vi. 6 

MT . 

Abolh, iv. 9 
'Aràkhin, v. 5 
Hàbà Rathrl, iv. 3 
Babà Kamma. iv. i 
Babà Mésf a, iv. 2 
Bèkhótólii, V. 4 
Bèrakhóih, i. i 
Besà, ii. 7 
Bikliurim, i. 11 
ChSgiga, ii, 12 
Challa, i. 9 
ChuUin, V. 3 
Hèmài, i. 3 
'Eduyòth, iv, 7 
'Ertbin, ii. 1 
Giiiin, iii, 6 
Hor3ynth, iv. io 
Kelim, vi. I 
Kerithòth, V. 7 
KélhQbóth, iii. 2 
Kidtlijshln, iii, 7 
Kil'àyim, i. 4 
Kinniin, v 11 
Ma'àsér Sheni, i. 8 
Ma'asèróth, i, 7 
Maklishirin, vi. 8 
Makkòlh, iv. 5 
Mégillà, ii. !0 
Mé'vla, V. 8 
MSnàchòth, v. 2 
Middóch, V. IO 

Mó'èd, ii. ti 
Nazir, iii. 4 
NÉdàrim, ìli. 3 
Nega im, vi. 3 
Niddà, vi. -j 
Ohàlòth, VI, 2 
■Orla, i. IO 
Pira, vi. 4 
Pèa, i. -2. 
PÈsIchim, ii, 3 
Ròsh Ha(sh)shànl, 

ii. 8 
Sanhednn, iv. 4 
Shabbath, ii. 1 
Shèbu'òih, iv. 6. 
Shèbi'ith, i. 5 
Shékàlim. ii. 4 
Sòia, iii. 5. 
SukkI, ii. 6 
Ta'Inith, ii. 9 
Tamid, V. 9 
TébiiI Yora, vi, io 
Temura, v. 6 
TérGmoth, i, 6 
Tohòròth, vi, 5 
'Uksin, vi. 12 
yadàyim, vi. 11 
Yébamoth, iii, 1 
Zabirn, vi, 9 
Zebachim, v. i 

Massoretic text, the Hebrew text of 
the OT substantially as it was in 
the early part of the second 
century A.D. (temp, Mishna). 
It remained unvocalised until 

about the end of the seventh 

century a.d. See Text. 

A New En^lish Dictionary on 
Hisiorical Frinciples, ed. J. A. 
fi. Murray, 'SS ff.; also H. 
Bradley, '97#. 

W. Muss-Arnolt, A Concise Diction- 
ary of the Assyrian Language, 
'94~'99 (A~MAG). 

Mittheilungen der Vorderasiat- 
ischen Gesellschaft, ''^l ff- 


Nabat^ean. See ARAMAIC, § 4. 

Nominaiòildung, Barth ; see Ba. 

Die israelidschen FJgennamen 
nach ikrer religionsgeschicht- 
lichen Bedeutung, '76. 

Marginaiien u. Materialien, '93. 

A. Neubauer, Géographie du Tal- 
mud, '68. 

Naturai Hi story of the Bible. See 
Tri stram. 

Neu-kebr. u. chaldaisches W'òrter- 
buck. See Levy. 


Th. Noldeke : 

Uniersuchungen z. Kritik d, 

Alten Tesianients, '69. 
Alttestamentliche Litteratur, ^6%. 

W. Nowack ; 
H\_ebr^ A\rch^ Lehrbuch d. Hebr'àischen 

Arckaologie, '94, 
A7, Proph, Die Kleinen Propheten (in 

HJ^C), '97. 
NT . . . New Testament, Neues Testament, 




NB . 

Nestle, Eig. 

Neub. Géqgr. 



no, . 

No[ld]. . 


01[sh]. . 
Ps. . 

OLZ (or Or. 


Onk-, Onq. 

OS . 

OT . 

P . 


Pai. Syr. 



Pat. Pai. . 
FÉ . 


PEFQ\u. St.'\ 


Justus Olshausen : 

Die Psalmen, '53. 
Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache, 
'61 [incomplete]. 
Orienta Usti se he Litteratur- Zei- 

tung, ed. Peiser, ''()'if. 
Ristori sch-critisch Onderzoek. See 

Onkelos, Onqelos. See Targ. 
See' ^.S". 

Origin of the Psalter . See Cheyne. 
Onomastica Sacra, containing the 
'name-lists' of Eusebius and 
Jerome (Lagarde, <^', '87; the 
pagination of (i) printed on the 
margin of (^' is followed). 
Old Testament. 

Old Testaffzent in the Jewisk 
Church. See W. R. Smith. 

Priestly Writer. See Hist, Lit, 

Secondary Priestly Writers. 

F. Buhl, Géographie des alten Pal- 
astitta, '96. See also Baedeker 
and Reland. 

Palmyrene. See A^maic, § 4. 

Palestinian Syriacj^r Christian 

Palestinian. See Akamaic, § 4. 

Proceedings of American Orientai 

Society, 'S^ff- (printed annuallv 

at end of /.4(95). 

Wo lag das Paradies ? See 

Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, '95. 

Praparatio Evangelica. See Euse- 

Palestine Exploration Fund Me- 
moirs, 3 vols., '81-83. 

Palestine Exploration Fund 
[founded '65] Quarterly State- 
ment, '(>9ff. 




Ph., Phcen. 

Preuss. Jakrbb. 
Prim. Cìtlt. 

Proph. h. 

Prot. KZ . 


PS Ihes. 

R . 

Ri> . 
Rp . 


Ree. Trav. 


Rei. Pai. . 


Pev. Séni. 
Ri. Sa. 



LBR or BR iv. 

Ot ^^(2' ili. 

Perrot and Chipiez : 

Hisioire de l'Are dans l'anii- 
quité. ÉgypU — Assyrie — 
Perse — Asie Mineuere — 
Grece — Étrurie — Rome ; 
'81 # 
ET : Ancient Egypt, '83 ; 
ChaidiEa and Assyria, '84; 
Pkanicia and Cyprus, '85 ; 
Sardinia, Judtsa, etc, '90; 
Primitive Greece, '94. 

Peshitta, the Syriac vulgate (2nd— 
3rdcent.). Vetus 7 estamentuni 
Syriace, ed. S. Lee, '23, OT and 
NT, '24. 
W. E, Barnes, An Apparatus Cri- 
ticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta 
Version, '97. 

Real-Encyklopàdie fur protestan- 
tische Iheologie u. Kirche, ed. 
J. J. Herzog, 22 vols., '54-68 ; 
<2', ed. J. J. Herzog, G. L. 
Plitt, Alb. Hauck, iS vols., '77- 
'88; («, ed. Alb. Hauck, voi. 
i.-vii. [A-Hau], '96-'99. 
Preussische Jahrbucher, ^12 ff. 
E. B, Tylor, Primitive Culture, 

'71; (3), '91. 
The Prophecies of Isaiah. See 

Prolegomena. See Wellhausen. 
Protesta ntische Kirchenzeitung Ju r 
das Evangelische Deuischland 
(vols.i.-xliii.,' 54-96); continued 
as Prot. Monatshefte ('97^.). 
Proceedifigs of the Society of Bibli- 

cai ArcluBology, '78 jf. 
Payne Smith, thesaurus Syriacus. 

Redactor or Editor. 
Redactoc(s) of JE. 
Deuteronomistic Editor(s). 
Priestly Redactor(s). 
H. C. Rawlinson, The Cuneiform 

Inscriptions of Western Asia, 

i._v. (;'6i-'84; iv. (2), '91). 
Rabbi ni cai. 
i.e. Rabbenu Shelomoh Yishaki 

(1040-1105), the celebrated 

Jewish comnientator. 
Recueil de travaux relaiifs à la 

philol. et à l'Archéol. egypt. et 

assyr. 'io ff. 
Revue des Etudes juives, i., '80; ii. 

and iii., '81 ; and so on. 
Reland, Palestina ex Monumentis 

veteribus illustrata, 2 vols., 1714. 

Revue sémitique, ^9Zff- 
Die SilcAer Richter u. Samuel. 

See Budde. 
Edward Robinson: 

Biblical Researches in Pales- 
tine, Mt. Sinai, and Arabia 
Petriea, a journal of travels 
in the year 1838 (i.-iii,, '41 
:=:i?A'(2), i.-ii., '56). 
Later Biblical Researches in Pales- 
tine and the adjacent Regions, a 

journal of travels in the year 

1852 ('565. 
Pkysical Geography of the Holy 

Land, '65, 

Roscher . . AusfUhrliches Lexikon d. Griech- 
ischen u. R'òmischen Mythologie 

RP . . . Records of the Pasi, being English 

translalions of the Ancient Monu- 
ments of Egypt and Westerti 
Asia, ed. S. Birch, vols. ì.-kÌì, 
C73-'Si). New5eries[A'/^^)]ed. 
A. H. Sayce, vols. i.-vi., 'SS-'gs. 
See AssYRiA, § 35. 

RS or Rei. Sem. Religion of the Semites. See W. 
R. Smith. 

RV . . . Revised Version (NT, '80; OT, 
'84; Apocrypha, '95). 

RWB . . G.'B.Wmsv{i-jS9'iSsS),Biblisches 
Realw'àrterbuch, '20; <^', 2 vols., 

Rys. . . Ryssel; cp. Dillmann, Bertheau. 

Saad. . . R. Sa'adya (Se'adya; Ar. Sa'Id), 

the tenth century Jewish gram- 
marian and lexicographer (b. 
892); Explanationsofthe,4i2/i7jr- 
legomena in the OT, etc. 
Sab. . . Sab^ean, less fittingly called 

Himyaritic; the name given to 
a class of S. Arabian inscrip- 
Sab. Denkm. . Sabàische Denkmàler, edd. Miiller 

and Mordtmann. 
Sam, . . Samaritan. 

SBA W . . Sitzungsberichte der Berlinischen 

Akademie der Wissenschaften. 
SBE . . The Sacred Books of the East, 

translated by various scholars 
and edited by the Rt. Hon. F. 
Max Mùller, 50 vols, i$-]<)ff. 
SBOT (Eng.) [Otherwise knovi'n as the Poly- 
chrome Bible~\ The Sacred Books 
ofthe Old Testament, a nezo Eng. 
transl., ivith Explanatory Notes 
and Piclorial Illuslrations ; pre- 
paredbyeminent biblical scholars 
of Europe and of America, and 
edited, witk the assis lance of 
Horace Howard Furness, by Paul 
Haupt, '9-jff. 
SBOT(Heh.) . Haupt, The Sacred Booès ofthe Old 
Testament ,■ a criticai edition of 
the Hebreii) texi, printed in 
colours, with notes, prepared by 
em inentbiblicalsch ola rs ofE urope 
and America, under the editorial 
direction of Paul Haupt, '93^. 
Schopf. . . Gunkel, Sch'òpfung und Chaos in 

Urzeit u. Endzeit, '95. 
Schr. . . E. Schrader ; editor of KB 

Iq.v.'] : 
KGF . Keilinschriften u. Geschichts- 

forschung, '78. 
KA T . Die Keilinschriften u. d. Alte 

Testafnent,'-]2; <^', '83. 
COT . Eng. transl. of KAT^'^'i by 

O. C. Whitehouse, The 
Cuneiform Inscriptions and 
the Old Testament, z vols., 
'85, '88 (the pagination of 
the German is retained in 
the margin of the Eng. ed.). 
Schiir. . . E. Schurer: 

GfV . Geschichte des jùdischen Volkes 

im Zeitalter "Jesu Christi ; 
i. Einleitung u. Politische Ge- 
schichte, '90; ii. Die Inneren 
Zustànde Palastinas u. des 
jìidischen Volkes im Zeitalter 





Smend, I.isien 



Jesu Christi, '86; new ed. voi. 
li. Die Inneren Zustande, '98, 
voi, iii. Das Judenthum in der 
Zerstreuung u. die judische Lite- 
ratur, '98. 
Hùt. . ET of above Qgo ff.). Vols. 1/ 

{i.e., Uiv. i. vols. I /.) = voi. I 
of German; vols. 3-5 (i.e., Div. 
ii. vols. 1-3) = voi. 2 of German 
[ = vols, ii,, iii.of <3']. 

J. Selden, c/e Jure naturali et 
gentiumjuxta disciplinam Etra- 
orum, 7 bks., 1665. 
de Diis Syris, 1617. 


Sinaitic; see Aramaic, § 4. 

Smend, Die Listen der Bùcher 
Esra u. Nehemiah, '81. 

George Adam Smith : 

The Historical Ceography of 

the Holy Land, especially in 

relation to the History of 

Israel and of the Èarly 

Church, '94 (additions to <*', 


WRS . . William Robertson Smith ( '46-'94) : 

TJC The Old Testament in the Jewisk 

Chitrch,'Si; (^',revisedandmuch 

enlarged, '92; (Germ. transl. by 

Rothstein, '94). 

Proph. . The Prophets of Israel and their 

place in Hisiory, to the dose of 

the eighth century b.c., '82; (^), 

with introduction and addi- 

tional notes by T. K. Cheyne, 

Kin. . Kinship and Marriage in Early 

Arabia, '85. 
K'\^el^S\jm^ Lectures on the Religion of the 
Semites: ist ser., The Funda- 
mental Instìtutions, '89; new 
and revised edition (^51^'), '94; 
Germ. transl. by Stube, '99, 
[The MS notes of the later Burnett 
Lectures — onPriesthood,DÌvina- 
tion and Prophecy, and Semitic 
Polytheism and Cosmogony — 
remain unpublished, but are 
occasionally cited by the editors 
in the Encyclopiedia Biblica as 
'Burnett Lects. MS.] ' 

SP . , . A. P. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine 
in connection with their history, 
'56, last ed. '9Ó. 

Spencer . . De Legibus HebriEoruni Ritualibus 
(2 vols. 1727). 

SS . . . Siegfried and Stade, Ilebraisches 

Wórterbuch zum Alien Testa- 
mente, '93. 

St., Sta. . . E. Stade : 

GVI . . Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, 'Si- 

Abh. . . Ausgewahlte Akademische Re- 

den u. Abhandlungen, '99. 

St. Kr. . . Studien und Kritiken, '28^ 

Stad. m. m, , Stadiasmus magni maris (Mar- 


Stud. Bibl. . Studia Biblica, Essays in Biblical 
Archaology and Criticisni and 
kindred subjects, 4 vols., '85-'9i. 

Sw. . . . H. B. Swete, The Old Testament 

in Greek according to the Sepiua- 
gint; (>', '87-'94; (2), '95-99. 

S WA W . . Sitzungsberichte d. Wiener Aka- 
demie d. Wissenschaften. 

Sym[m]. . 

Syr. . . . 

Tab. Peut. 

Talm. Bab. Jer. 

T[ar]g. . 
Jer. . 

fon. . 



T[extus] R[e- 

c e plus] 
Th[e]. . 

Theod. . 

Theol. Studien . 



Ti. or Tisch. 


Tosephta . 

Tristram . 
EFP . 



Tub. Z. f Theol. 

Urgesch. . 

V. . . . 
Var. Apoc. 

Var. Bib. 

Symmachus, author of a Greek 
version of the Old Testament 
{circa 200 A.D,). See Text. 

Syriac. See Aramaic, § 11/ 

Tabula Peutingeriana, Desjardins, 

Talmud, Babylonìan or Jerusalem, 
consisting of the text of the 
Mishna broken up into small 
sections, each followed by the dis- 
cursive comment called Gèmàra. 
See Law Literaturk. 

Targum. See Text. 

The (fragmentary) Targum Jeru- 

Targum Jonathan, the name borne 
by the Babylonian Targum to 
the Prophets, 

Targum Onkelos, the Babylonian 
Targum to the Pentateuch 
(towards end of second century 


The Targ. to the Pentateuch, 
known by the name of Jonathan. 

Der Text der Bucker Samuelis : 
see WelJhausen; or Notes on the 
Hebrew Text of the Books of 
Saìuuel : see Driver. 

tempore (in the time [of]). 

The * received text ' of the NT. 
See Text. 

Thenius, die Bìicher Samuelis in 
KGN, '42; (^>, '64; (3), Lohr, '98. 

Theodotion (end of second cen- 
tury), author of a Greek version 
of the Old Testament (' rather a 
revision of the LXX than a new 
translation ') . See Text. 

Studien, published in connection 
with Th. T (see Deuteronomy, 
§ 332). 

See Gescnius. 

R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syria- 
cus, '68 # 

Tkeologisch Tijdschrift, '67^ 

Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum 
Grace, editio ottava critica 
maior, '69-72. 

Theolo^ische L iteraturzeitung, 

•76 # 
See Law Literature. 
S. P. Tregelles, The Greek New 
Testament ; edited from ancient 

authorities, '5 7- '72. 
H. B. Tristram : 
The Fauna and Flora of Palestine, 

The Naturai History of the BiÒle, 

(»*, '89. 
Transactions of Soe. Bib. Archici., 

vols. i.-ix., '72 7?; 
Tiibingen Zeitschrifì f. Theologie, 

Untersuchungen. See Nòldeke, 

Die biblische Urgeichickte. See 



The Apocrypha (AV) edited with 
various renderings, eie, by C, J. 

The OldandNew Testaments(A\) 
edited with various renderings, 
etc., by T. K. Cheyne, S. R. 


Driver (OT), and R. L. Clarice, 
A. Goodwin, W. Sanday (NT) 
[otherwise known as tbe Queen's 
printer f Bible\. 

Vet. Lat. . , VersioVetus Latina; the old -Latin 
version (made fromthe Greek) ; 
later superseded by the Vulgate. 
See Text and Versions. 

Vg. . . . Vulgate, Jerorae's Latin Eible : 
OT frorn Heb., NT a revision 
of Vet. Lat. (end of 4th and be- 
ginningof 5th cent.). See Text. 

We-, Wellh- . Julius Wellhausen. 

De Geni. De Centiè-usetFamiliis/udceìs 

qua; in i Chr. 2 4 nume- 
rantur Dissertatìo ('70), 
TBS • Der Textder BiiAer Samuelis 

Phar. «. DiePharisaeru.d.Sadducàer; 

Sadd. eine Untersuckung zur in- 

neren jùdischen Geschickt 


Gesck. , G eschic hte Israeh, voi. i. ('78). 

Prol. . 2nd ed. of Gesch., entitled 

Prolegomena zur Gesck, Zs- 
raels, '83; ET '85; 4th 
Germ. ed. '95. 

IJG . . Israelitiscke u. judische Ge- 

schichte, '94; (3), '97; an 
amplification of Abriss der 
Gesch. Israels u. /udd's in 
'Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten,' 
'84. The Abriss was sub- 
stantially a reproduction of 
'Israel' m EB<-^) ('Si; re- 
publìshed in ET of Proi. 
['85] and separately aa 
Sketch of Hist. of Jsrael and 
Judah, <3I, '91). 
\Ar^Heid. Reste Arabischen Heidentums 

(in ' Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten ') 

('S7; <^','97)- 
Kl. Propk, Die Kleinen Propheten iiber- 

setzt, mit Noten ('92; <^', 
CH . . Die Composition des Hexa- 

ieuchs und der historiscken 
Bucher des Alien Testamenti 
('85; Zweiter Druck, mit 
Nachtràgen, '89; originally 
published in JD T 21 39^ ^., 
['76], 22 407 ['77], and in 
Bleek, £m/. (*>,'78). 
Weber . . System der Altsynagogalen Palàsti- 

nischen Theologie ; or Die Lekren 
des Talmud, '80 (edited by Franz 
Delitzsch and Georg Schneder- 
mann) ; 1^', JUdische Theologie 
auf Grund des Talmud und 
verwandter Schrifien, '97 (ed. 
Wetstein . • J- J- Wetstein, Novum Testamen- 

ium Gracum, etc, 2 vols. folio ; 
1 751-1752. 
Wetz. . . Wetzstein, Ausgewàhlte griechische 

und lateinische Inschriften, ge~ 
sammelt auf Reisen in den 
Trachonen und um das Ilatt- 
ràngebirge^dj, ; Reisebericht iiber 
Hauràn und Trachonen, '60. 
WF . . . Wellhausen- Furness, The hook of 
Psalms ('98) in SBOT {Eng.). 
WH [W & H] . Westcott and Hort, The New Tes- 
tament in the Originai Greek, 











WMM . 

Wr. . 


Ar. Gram. 



Z . 

ZA . 

ZA . 









Hugo Winckler r 

Untersuchungen z. Altoriental- 
ischen Ceschichte, '89. 

Alttestamentliche Untersuch- 
ungen, '92. 

Geschiehte Babyloniens u. As- 
syriens, '92. 

Altorientalische Forschungen, 
ist ser. i.-vi., '93-97; 2nd 
ser. (^.^(2])i.^'ggy; 

Geschiehte Israels in einzel- 

darstellungen, i. '95. 
Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 


Die Thontafeln von Te II- e l- 

Aniarna (ET Metcalf ). 

J. G. Wilkinson, Manners and 

Customs ofthe Ancient Egyptians, 

'37-'4i ; (2) by Birch, 3 vols., '78. 

G. B. Winer : 

Bibl. Reahiiorlerbuck ; see 

Grammatik des neutestament- 
lichen Sprachidioms^^^, neu 
. bearbeitet von Paul Wilh. 
Schmiedel, '94 _^; ET of 
6th ed., W. F. Moulton, '70. 
See As. u. Eur. 
W. Wright : 

Lectures on the Comparative 
Grammar of the Semitic 
Languages, '90, 
A Grammar of the Arabie 
Language, translated from 
the German of Caspari and 
edited, with numerous addi- 
tions and corrections by W. 
Wright; <^' 2 vols., '74-'75 ; 
(^> revised by W. Robertson 
Smith and M. J. de Goeje, 
voi. i, '96, voi. ii. '98. 
William Robertson Smith. See 

Wiener Zeitschrift fiir d. Kunde 

des Morgenlandes, 87^. 
The well-known Arabian geo- 
graphical writer (1179-1229). 
Kitab Mdjam el-Buldàn edited 
by F. Wiistenfeld {/acut's Geo- 

Zeitschrift (Journal). 

Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie u, ver- 

■wandte Gebiete, '?>(>ff. 
Zeitschrift fur Àgyptische Sprache 

u. Alterthumskunde, '63^. 
Zeitschrift fì^r die Alttestametttliche 

Wissenschaft, '^'i ff- 
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen- 

làndischen Gesellschaft, '46^ 
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina- 

vereins, '78^ 
Zeitsch r iftfii r Ke ilsch riftforsch ting 

und verwandte Gebiete, '84 _/.', 

continued as ZA. 
See WZKM. 

Zeitschrift fur kirchliche Wissen- 
schaft u. kirchliches leben (ed. 

Luthardt), i.-ix., '8o-'89/; 
Zeitschrifìfur die gesammte luiher- 

ische Theologie und Kirche, '40- 

Zeitschrift fur Theologie und 

Kirche, '91 ff. 
Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche 

Theologie (ed. Hilgenfeld), 's8_^. 



ACL . 

APK . 
Crit. Dib. . 
GÀ . 
OCL . 


Altchristliche Litteratur : e.g. — 

Adolf Harnauk. Gesckichte der altchristlìchen Lit/eraluròis Museèius, 
of which there appeared in 1893 Pt. I. Die Ueberiieferung und der 
Bestand, and in 1897, Pi. II. Die Chronologie. voi. I. down to 
Ireneeiis (cited also as Chronol., i}. 
Gustav Krijger, Gn.sirhichte der aUchristlichen Litteratur in den 
ersten drei Jahrhunderien, 1895 (in Gj-undriss der Theologischen 
Wissenschafien ) . 
F. Spiegel, Die alt-persischen Keilinsckriften, 1862, 1^' 1881. 
Cheyne, Critica Biblica, 1903' 
Gesckichte Aegyptens. 
W, C. van Manen, Handleiding -voor de Oudchristelijke Letterkunde, 

M. H. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, die Bibel. und Homer, 1893. 
Sitzungsberichte der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschafien, Munich. 
Curetonian Syriac version of NT (see Text, § 25). 
Sinaitic Syriac version of NT (see Text, § 25}. 


Arranged according io the alphabetical arder of the first initial. Joint authorship is where 
Possiate indicated thus : A. E. §§ 1-5 ; e. D. §§ 6-10, 

A. A. B. 



A. E. 





ILS. K. 











W. J. 















Bevan, Anthony Ashley, Lord Al- ! F. B. 

moner's Professor of Arabie, Cam- 
McGiFFERT, A.C,, D. D, , Professor of 

Church Hislory in Union Theological G, A. C. 

Seminary, New York. 
COWLKV, A. E., M.A., Sub-librarian, <}. A. S. 

Bodleian Library, and Fellow of Mag- 

dalen College, Oxford. 
Shipley, a. e., M.A.. F.Z.S.. Fellow, 

Tutor, and Lccturcr, Christ's College, G. B. G. 

Kennedy, Rev. Atjchibai.d R. S. , 

M.A., D.D., Professor of Ilehrew and G. F. H. 

Seniitic Languages. Edinburgh. G. F. M. 

Stade, Bkknhaku, D.D., Professor of 

Old Testament Exegesis, Giessen. G. H. B. 

BUKNEY, Rev. C. F,, M.A., I^ectnrer in H. W. 

Hebrew, and Fellow of St. John's 

College, Oxford. H. W. H. 

TOY, C. H. , D. D. , Professor of Hebrew, 

Harvard University. 
JoHNS, Rev. C. H. W., NLA., Assistanl 1, A. 

C h apiai n, Queens' College, Cam- 
bridge. L B. 
TiEi.E, The late C. P. . D.D. , Professor of 

the Science of Religion, Leyden. 
HoGAKTH, David George, M.A., L J. P. 

Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 
Meyer, Eduard, Professor of Aiiciont 

History, Berlin. J. A. B. 

Nestle, C. Eb., D.D, , Professor in the 

Evangelical - Theological Seminary, J. D. P. 

Maulbronn, Wiirtemberg. 
GOULD, Rev. E. P., D.D., Philadelphia. 
BuRKiTT, F. C, M.A.. Cambridge. J. J. 

Brovvn, Kev. Francis, D.D., Daven- 
poit Professor of Hebrew and the 
cognate Languages in the Union 
Theological Seminary, New York. 

CooKK, Kev. G. A., M.A., formerly 
Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 

Sm rrH , Rev. George A i jam, D. D. , 
LL.D., Professor of ilebrew and Old 
Testament Exegesis, United Free 
Church College, (ìlasgow. 

Gray, Rev. G. Buchanan. M.A, , 
D. D. . Professor of Hebrew in Mans- 
field College, Oxford. 

Hn.L, G. F., M.A., British Museum. 

MooRi:, Rev. George F. , D. D. . Pro- 
fessor ofTheology, Harvard University. 

Bo.k, Rev. G. H.. M.A. (Oxon.), London. 

Winckeer, H., Ph.D., Privat-docent in 
Scinitii; Philology, Berlin. 

Hor.G, HoPE "\^■. , ^LA, . Professor of 
Scniitic Languages, Victoria Univer- 
sity, Manchester. 

Abk.-^hAm.s, IsHAKi., Reader in Rabbinic, 

Benzingkk, Dr. Immanuel, formerly 
Privat-docent in Old Testament 
Theology, Berlin. 

Perita, Rev. Ismar John, Professor of 
Semitic Languages, Syracuse Uni- 
versity, New York. 

Robinson, The Very Rev, J. Armi- 
tage, D.D., Dean of Westminster, 

Pri.nxe, J. D., Ph.D., Professor of 
Semitic Languages and Comparative 
Philology, New York University. 

Jeremias, Johannes, Ph.D., Leipsic. 



J. L. M. Myres, J. L-, M.A., F.S.A., Student 

and Tutor of Christ Church, Oxford. 
J. M. Massie, John, M.A., Yates Professor of 

New Testament Exegesis in Mansfield 

College, Oxfoid. 
J. Mo. MOFFATT, Rev, James, D.D., Dundonald, 

J. W, Wellhausen, Julius, D.D., Professor 

of Semitic Philology, Gottingen. 
K. Gr. Geldner, K. , Ph.D., Professor of 

Sanscrit, Berlin. 
K. M. Marti, Karl, D.D., Professor of Old 

Testament Exegesis and the Hebrew 

Language, Berne. 
M. A. C. Canney, Maurice A., M.A. (Oxon.), 

N, M. M'Lean, Norman, M.A., Lecturer in 

Hebrew, and Fellowof Christ's College, 

K. S. ScHMiDT, Nathanael, Professor of 

Semitic Languages and Literatures, 

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 
0. C. W. Whìtehouse, Rev. Owen C, M.A., 

D, D. , Principal and Professor of 

Biblical Exegesis and Theology in 

the Coimtess of Huntingdon's College, 

Cheshunt, Herts. 
P. G. Gardner,P., LittD., F.S.A., Professor 

of Classical Archasology, Oxford. 
P. W. S. ScHMiEDEL, Paul W., D.D., Professor 

of New Testament Exegesis, Zìirich. 
S. A. C. CooK, Stanlev A., M.A., Fcllow of 

Caius College, Cambridge. 
S. B. D. Driver, Rev. Samuel Rolles. D.D. , 

Regiiis Professor of Hebrew, Canon 

of Christ Church, Oxford. 

T. G. P. PiNCHES, Theophilus G, , LL. D. , 

formerly of the Egyptian and As- 
syrian Department in the British 

T. K. C. Cheyne, Rev. T. K.. D.Lìtt., D.D,, 

Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of 
Holy Scripture at Oxford, Canon of 

W. C. A. Allen, Rev. W, C, M.A. , Chaplain, 
Feliow, and Lecturer in Theology and 
, Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. 

W. C. V. M. Manen, W. C, van-, D.D,, Professor of 
Old-Christian Literature and New Tes- 
tament Exegesis, Leyden. 

W. D. E. Rcss, W. D., M.A., Feliow of Merton 

College, Oxford. 

W. E. Erbt, W., Ph,D., Leipsic. 

W. E. A. Addis, Rev. "W. E., M,A., Lecturer in 

Old Testament Criticisni in Manchester 
College, Oxford. 

W. H. B. Dennett, Rev. W. H. , Litt.D., D.D,, 

Professor of Biblical Languages and 
Literature, Hackney College, London, 
and Professor of Old Testament 
Exegesis, New College, London. 

W. J. W. WoODHOUSE, W, J,, M.A,, Professor of 

Greek, University of Sydney. 

W. M. M. MiJLLER, W, Max, Professor of Old 
Testament I^iterature, Reformed Epis- 
copal Church Seminary. Philadelphia. 

W. K. S. Smith, The late W, Robertson, D.D., 

Adams Professor of Arabie, Cam- 

W. T. T.-D. Th!selton-Dyer, Sir William Tur- 
NER, K, e. M,G., LL. D. , F, R,S. , 
Director, Royal Gardens, Kew. 


Arranged according to alphabetical arder of surnames. 

Abrahams, I. 

I. A. 

Gould, e, P. 

E. P, G. 

Peritz, I. J. 

I. J. P. 

Addis, W. E, 

W. E. A. 

Gray, G, B. 

G. E. G. 


T. G. P. 

Allen, W. C. 

W. C. A. 

Hill, G. F, 

G. F. H, 

Prince, J. D. 

J. D. P. 

Bennett, W. H. 

W. H. B. 


D. G. H. 

Robinson, J. A. 

J. A. B. 

Benzinger, I. 

I. B. 

HOGG, H. W. 

H. W. H. 

Ross, W. D. 

W. D. R. 

Bevan, a, a. 

A. A. B. 

Jere.mias, J, 

J. J. 

Schmidt, N, 

H. S. 

Box, G. H. 

G. H. B. 

JOHNS, C. H. W. 

C. H. W. J. 

Schmeedel, P. W. 

P. W. S. 

Brown, F. 

F. B. 

Kennedy, A. R. S. 

A. R. S. K. 

Shipley, A. E. 

A. E. S. 


F. C. B. 

McGiffert, a. C, 

A. C. M. 

Smith, G. A, 

G. A. S. 


C, F. B. 

M'Lean. N. 

N. M. 

Smith, W. R. 

W. R. S. 

Canney, M. A. 

SI. A.G. 

Manen, W. C. v. 

W. C. V. M. 

Stade, B. 

B. S. 

Chryne, T. K. 

T. K. C. 

Marti. K. 




W.T. T.-D 

CooK. S- A. 

S. A.C. 

Massee, J. 

J. M. 

Tiele. C. P. 

C. P. T. 


G. A. C. 

Meyer, e. 

E. M. 

Toy, C. H. 

C. H. T. 


A. E- C. 


J. Mo. 

Wkllhausen, J. 

J. W. 

Drivkr, S. R. 

S. R. D. 


G. F. M. 

Whitkhouse, O. 


0. e, w. 

Erbt, ^V. 

W. E. 

MUller, W, M. 

W. M. M. 


H. W. 

Gardnek, P. 

P, G. 

Mykes, J. L. 

J. L. M. 



W. J. W. 

Geldner, K. 


Nestle, e. 

E. N, 


ASIA, WESTERN (illustrating Trade and Commerce) . . between cols. 5160 and 5161 

PALESTINE and PHOENICIA (Trade Routesi .... ,, 5164 ,, 5x67 

SYKIA. MESOPOTAMIA, etc. (Assyriological) .... ,, 4844 -. 4845 


(i) After Egyptian Monuinents ..■-.. ,, 4852 ., 4853 

(2) After Amarna Letters ....... ., A^S^ ■■ 4853 

TRACHONITIS, BASHAN, HAT7RAN, GOLAN, etc. ... „ 5142 ., 5'43 




BRAHAMS, L, M.A., Cambridge 
DDiS, Rev. Prof. W. E., M.A., 

Manchester College, Oxford 
LLEN, Rev. W. C, M.A. , ExeCer 

College, Oxford 

ENNETT, Rev. Prof, W. H. , Stranger, etc 

Litt.D. . D.D. , London 
ENZINGER, Immanuel, Ph. D. . 
KVAS, Prof. A. A., Cambridge, 
ox, Rev. G. H., M.A. . 
KOVVN, Rev. Prof. F., D.D., 

New York 
UKK1TT,F. C, M.A. .Cambridge 
URNEY, Rev. C. F., M.A., St. 

John's College, Oxford. 

ANNEY, Maurice A., M.A., 

HEVNE, Rev. Prof. T. K., 
P.Litt-, D.D., Oxford 

OOK, S. A., M. A. , Caius Col- 
lege, Cambridge 

OOKE, Rev. G. A., M.A. 

OWI.KY, A. E., M.A. , Magdalen 
College, Oxford. 

DRIVER, Rev, Prof. S. R., D.D., 

Tunic, etc. 
Righteousness, etc. 


Tempie, etc. 
Tempie, etc. 
Sheba, etc. 

Text and Versions. 

KBT, W., Ph-D. . 

AKDNER, Prof. Percy, D. Litt. , 

ELDNER, Prof. Karl, Ph.D., 

■OULD, Rev. E. P., D.D., Phila- 

■KAV, Rev. Prof. G. B. , M.A,, 

D. D. , Mansfield CoUege, 


IiLL, G. F., M.A., British 

lOGARTH, D. G. , M.A. , Mag- 
dalen College, Oxford. 

[OGG, Prof H. W., M.A., Vic- 
toria University, Manchester 

ìreMias, Johannes, Ph.D, 
jHNS, Rev. C. H. W., M.A., 
Queens' College, Cambridge 

:enNedy, Rev. Prof A. R. S-, 
D.D., Edinburgh 

l'GiFFERT, Rev. Prof. A. C, 

D- D. , New York. 
I'Lean, N., M.A., Christ's 

College, Cambiidge 

Ship, etc. 

Saul, etc. 

Tent, etc. 

Samaritans, etc. 





Theophany, etc. 

Weightsand Measiires, 


Reuben, etc. 

Sennacherib, etc, 

Weaving, etc. 

Thessrtlonians (Epistle 
Serpent, etc. 

M,\N'EN, Rev. Prof. W. C. van, 

D.D., Leyden. 
Marti. Prof. K., D,D,, Bern . 
Massie, Prof, John, D.D., Mans- 

tield College, Oxford 
Meyek, Prof. Ed., Ph.D., Berlin 
MotFATT, Rev. James, D.D. 
MooKE, Rev. Prof G. F. , D.D., 

Harvard University 
MOLLER, Prof, W. M., Ph.D., 

Myrks, J, L., M.A., Christ 

Church, Oxford 

Nestli:, Prof. Eb. , D.D,, Ph.D, 
Maulbroiin, \Vùrtemberg 

Pekitz, Rev. Prof I. J,, M.A., 

Ph. D. Syracuse University, 

PixcHE.s, T. G. , LL. D. , formerly 

of British Museum 
Prince. Prof J. D.. Ph.D., 

New York 

RoBiNSO.N, The Very Rev. J. 

Armitage, D.D. , Dean of 

Ross, W. D.. M.A., Merton 

College, Oxford 

ScHMiDT, Prof N., Ph.D., 
Cornell University, N.Y. 

SciiMiEDEL, Prof P. W.. D.D., 
Zìi ri eh 

Shipley, A. E., M.A. , Christ's 
College, Cambridge 

Smith, Rev. Prof G. A., D.D., 
LL.D. , Glasgow 

Smith, the late Prof. W. Robert- 
son, D.D. , LL.D. 

Stade. Prof. B., D.D., Ph.D., 

Th[Selton-Dyer. Sir W. T. , 
K.C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., 
Director, Ro3'al Gardens. Kew 

Tiele, the late Prof C. P. , D.D,, 

ToY, Prof C, H. , D. D. , Harvard 

Wellhausen, Prof Julius, D. D. , 

Ph, D., Gotlingen 
Whitehouse, Rev. Principal 
to) O. C, D.D. 

WiNCKLER, H-, Ph.D., Berlin . 
Woodhouse, Prof W. J., M.A., 

Romans (Epistle to), etc 

Year, etc. 



Sermon on Mount, etc, 

Sacri fi ce, etc. 

Red Sea, etc. 

Preci ous Stones. 



Scribes and Pharisees. 

Teacher, etc, 


Son of God, etc. 


Serpent, etc. 

Trade and Commerce. 

Sabbath, eie. 

Samuel (Books of). 

Vi ne, etc. 


Wisdom Literature, etc 


War, etc. 

Sinai, etc. 
Sardis, etc. 








Resurkection and Ascen- 

SION Narratives 
Reuben .... 
Rhodes .... 


Ritual (Babvlonian) 
Romans (Epistle) . 
Rome (Church) 
Ruth, Book of 




Salamis .... 

Salt .... 

Salutations . 
Samaria, Samaritans . 
Samos .... 
Samuel .... 
Sardis .... 
S argon {with Illustration) 
Satan .... 

S.ATYRS .... 

Saul .... 


Sennacherib . 
Sermon on the Mount . 
Serpent .... 

Servant of the I.ord . 
Seth, Sethites 
Sheba .... 
Sheep .... 
Shekel (with Illustrations) 
Shepherd of Hermas 
Shiloh . . , . 

Ship (with Illustrations) 
Shishak . . . . 

SlIOES .... 

SiDON . . . . 

SlEGE (with Illustrations) . 


SlMEON . . . . 

Simon Magus . 
Simon Peter . 


Sinai and Horeb . 

SiRAcn , . . . 

Slavery . . . . 

Smyrna . . . . 

SOLOMON . . . , 


SoN OF Man . 

Spirit . . . . 

Spiritual Gifts 

Stars . . . . 

Stater (with Illustration) 

Stephen . . . . 

Stoics . . . . 

Prof. G. F. Moore. 
Prof. P. Gardner. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. W. M. Muller. 
N. M'Lean. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel. 

Hope W. Hogg. 

Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 

Prof. W. E. Addis. 

Johannes Jereniias. 

Prof. W. C. van Manen. 

Prof. W. C. van Manen. 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne and the late 

Prof. W. Robertson Smith. 
Prof. Marti, Prof. Cheyne and 

the late Prof. W. R. Smith. 
Prof. G. F. Moore 
A. E. Cowley, 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
Prof. Kennedy and the late Prof. 

"W. R. Smith. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
A. E. Cowley. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
Prof. B. Stade. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
Rev. C. H. W. Johns. 
Prof. G. B. Gray and Prof. 

J, Massie. 
Prof. G. B. Gray. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. J. D. Prince. 
Prof. N. Schmidt. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
Rev. C. H. W. Johns. 
Rev, J. Moffatt. 
Norman M'Lean, A. E. Shipley, 

and Prof. T. K, Cheyne. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof, F. Brown, 
A. E. Shipley and S. A. Cook. 
G. F. Hill. 

Prof. W. C. van Manen. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
M. A. Canney. 
Prof. W. M. Muller. 
I. Abrahams, S. A, Cook, and 

Prof. T. K, Cheyne. 
Prof. Ed. Meyer. 
Prof. O. C. Whitehouse. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel. 
Hope W. Hogg. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel. 
Prof. W. M. Muller. 
H. Winckler. 
Prof. C. H. Toy. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse and 

Prof. W. M. Muller. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne, 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. N. Schmidt. 
Prof. N. Schmidt. 
Prof. Addis and Rev. E. P. Gould. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel. 
Rev. C. F. Burney. 
(;. F. Hill, 
Rev. J, Moffatt. 
W. D. Ross. 

Stoxes (Precious) 
Stkanger andSojourner 
Svene .... 

Syria (with Maps) . 

Tabernacle . 

Tabernacles, Feast of . 

Tabor .... 


Taxation and Tribute . 


Temhle (with Illustrations) 

Temptation of Jesus 

Tent (with Illustrations) 

Text and Vebsions 



Thessalonians (Epistle 



Thomas (the Apostle 


Timothy and Titus 


Tithes . 


ToMBS (with Illustrations) , 
Trachonitis (with Maps) 
Trade and Commerce 

(with Maps) 
Turban .... 
Unknown God, Altar to 
Ur of the Chaldees 

Ukim and Thummin 
Vixe .... 

Vows, Votive Offerings 

Wanderings, Wilder- 
ness of 

War .... 

W'ashings, Ceremonial . 

Weavixg (with Illustra- 

Week .... 

Weights and Measures 

WiDOW .... 

WlND, WiNDS . 


(with Illustrations) 


Wisdom (Book) 





Zadok . 

Zebulux . 

Zechariah (Book) 


Zerubbabel , 


J. E. Myres. 

Prof. W. H. Bennett. 

Prof. W. M. Muller. 

Prof. I. J. Periti. 

M, A. Canney and the late Pi 

W. R. Smith. 
D. G. Hogarth, A. E. Shipl 

and H. Winckler. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
Rev. G. A. Cooke. 
Prof. W. M. Muller. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
The Very Rev. J. Armit: 

Robinson, D. D. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
Rev. J. Moffatt and Prof. Chey 
S. A. Cook. 

F. C. Burkitt. 
Rev. W. C. Alien, 
Prof. G. B. Gray. 
Prof. A. C. M'Giffert. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel. 
Prof. Eb. Nestle. 

T, G. Pinches. 
Rev. J. Moffatt. 
Rev. J. Moffatt. 

Prof. W. M. Mliller. 
Prof, G. F. Moore. 
Rev. J. Moffatt. 
Dr. W. Erbt. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
Prof. S. R. Driver. 
Prof. G. A. Smith. 

I. Abrahams and S. A. Cook. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
Prof. F. Brown and Prof. T. 

Prof. G. F. Moore. 
Norman M'Lean and Sir W. 

Prof. G. F. Moore. 
Prof. G. B. Gray. 

Prof. O. C. Whitehouse. 

M. A. Canney. 

Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy. 

Prof. K. Marti. 

G. F. Hill. 

The Very Rev. J. A. Robins( 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. A. R, S. Kennedy. 

Prof. C. H. Toy. 

Prof. C, H. Toy. 

M, A. Canney. 

A, E. Shipley. 

Prof. A. A. Bevan. 

Prof. K. Marti. 

Prof. W. E. Addis. 

Hope W. Hogg. 

Prof. J. Wellhausen. 

Prof. Driver and the late Pr 

W. R, Smith. 
Prof. T. K, Cheyne. 
Hope W. Hogg. 
Prof. Geldner and Prof. T. 




QTTAIL (iSb', ii2dw. Kr. Y^tff. ìèlayw,- opTYro- 
MHTp&;^ coturnix). Mentioned in EV in Ex. 16 13 
Nu.ll3i/. Ps. 10540 Wisd. 162 ISizt; cp »|j3 F]iv, Ps. 
7827. That the quail, not the sand-grouse (?) or 
the locust (Hasselquist's allernatives, Travels, 443) or 
the crane (Dean Stanley and H. S. Palmer, see 
§ 2, note 2) is meant, is generally recognised. 

The Ar. word for 'quail,' salvia, which is s. loan-word, was 
foiind by C. Niebuhr (1774) to be stili in use in Egypt. Another 

word for it is sutndtid, given to It because 
1. IdflUtìficatiOIt. of its 'fatness,' and Lagarde {Ueèers. 81) 

has proposed to connect the name with 
Eshmun-Iolaos, the god who rescored Heracles to life by giving 
him a quail to smeli at. The quail was annually sacrificed 
araong the Phcenicians in the monlh Feb.-Mar. to commemorate 
the reviving of Heracles (Athen. 947, referred to by WRS, 
Rei. Sem.{% 469). There is no trace, however, of the sacred 
character of this bird among the Arabìans or the Hebrews. 

The Coturnix communis or C. dactylisonarrs of omi- 
thologists is well-known in the Sinailic peninsula, where 
it passes, migrating northward in spring, in immense 
flights. Tristram found them in the Jordan valley 
{Land of Israel. 460). They arrive in Palestine in 
March and Aprii — though a few remain there during 
the winter- — on the way to their breeding-places in the 
plains and cornfìelds of the upper country. Even these 
flocks are said to be surpassed in numbers by the 
autumn flight when they return S. to their winter- 
quarters. The quail fiies very low, which Dillmann 
supposed to explain the important clause at the end 
of Nu. II31 (but see § 2). It is soon fatigued, and 
hence falls an easy prey to man. 160,000 bave beeii 
captured in a season at Capri, where their plump fiesh 
is esteemed a dslicacy, as indeed it is ali along the 
shores of the Medìterranean. They were salted and 
stored as food by the ancient Egyptians (Herod. 277)- 

A. E. s, — s. A. C. 

There are two references to a supply of quails for the 
food of the Israelites — viz. , in Ex. 16i2_/; (scene, the 

_, .. wilderness of Sin, on the way to Sinai), 

f tv^ and in Nu. U 18-23 si-S* (scene, Kibroth- 

. hattaavah , after the departure from Sinai }. 

wandenngs. -j.^^ i-^^^^^. belongs to P. He has just 

made Moses and Aaron teli the Israelites that in the 
evening they shall know that Yahwè has brought them 
out of Egypt, and that in the morning they shall see 
Vahwè's glory [ The evening event is the 
arrivai of the quails ; the morning event is the Ughting 
down of the manna. The redactor has omitted P's 
account of the fall of the manna, the passage from ' the 
dew lay round ' lo ' has given you to eat ' being J's (see 

1 òpTU'j«|UiJT/J<i means properly (see L. and S.) ' a bird which 
migrates with the quails.' perhaps = icp*'f, the land-rail, Rallus 
cex; but Photius and Hesychius explain as = 'a large ópTv^' 
(Di.). The right Gk, word for c^uail, ÓpTu|, is givea by Jos, 
and Gr. Ven. On Rabbinical notices sue Jontà, 751^. Cp also 
FuwL, i I, col- 1159, and n. i. 

Baentsch). The narrative in Nu. 11 [J] is much more 
detailed. The announcemenl of the quails specifies a 
month as the period during which quails should be eaten ; 
after this the flesh was to become Ioathsome to the eaters. 
The coming of the quails is thus described {w. 31-34), 
' And a wìnd from Yahwè [a SE. wind, Ps. 78 16] took 
up quails from the sea [read n'iS» ke-I '"■ n»p nVTì].^ and 
made them to fall by the camp, about a day's journey 
on this side, and a day's journey on the other side, 
round about the camp, like heaps of wheat "^ (o'DiJJnD?) 
on the face of the ground.' The appropriate ness of 
the figure is clear from what follows. ' And the people 
rose up ali that day, and ali the night, and ali the 
next day, and gathered the quails ; he that gathered 
least gathered ten homers, and they spread them ali 
about for ihemselves [to dry them] round about the 
camp. ' But the result was a fatai malady. ' While 
the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, 
the anger of Yahwè was kindied against the people,' etc. 
The story (wìth which cp Ps. 7826-31) is told to account 
for the name ' Kibroth-hattaavah ' (graves of Just) ; it 
belongs to the large class of stiological legends. The 
more correct name, however, is probably ' Taberah, ' 


The peculiarity o( the incident tieeds some better 
t;xplanation than'a reference to the statement of Aristotle 

3. The malady. 



(rf. Plani. 1 5 ; cp Bochart, ii. 1 15) that 
quails eat poisonous things — e./. , helle- 
bore — which are harmful to men. It may be more 
instructive, therefore, to gì ve a parallel case from 
the Elizabethan voyages. The ship ' Desire ' be- 
longing to Cavendish's last and ill-fated expedition 
to the east by way of the Pacific, put back for home 
from the Straits of Magellan in 1592. They came to 
anchor at a harbour in Patagonia, named after the 
vessel Port Desire, and found on an island near ic such 
numbers of penguins that the men could hardly go 
without treading on them. A party of twenty-two 
men was landed on the island to kill the birds and dry 
them on the rocks. From 30th Oct. to sand Dee. 

1 [The tradilional text contains cwo improbabili ties — ]101, 
applied to a wind (PaKek should put us on our guard), and 
13'1 (®, i^firépaireiì), from 1'^, which occurs again only in Ps. 
SO IO, where (see Che. /"j.l^)) ìt is corrupt. Both words spring 
out of the reading Kb], which alone suits the sense. The 
corruption, however, must be very old because of Fs. 78 26. — 
T. K. e] 

2 (The text has 'about two cubits ' (D^riSKS), which the com- 
mentatore suppose to refer to the very low flight of the quails. 
Dean Stanley, however, (SP, 82) thought that large cranes 
(storks?) three feet high might be meant. Only our sub- 
servience to MT has prevented us from seeing that the true text 
tnust be D"Dlg^3, a figure whkh occuvs again in Ex. 15a 

<5D-iIfn.rÌ03).— T. 



they killed and dried 20,000 ; the captain {John Davis), 
the master, and John Lane, the narrator, were able to 
make a small quantity of salt by evaporating sea-water 
in holes of the rocks, wherewith they salted a certain 
number of birds. ' Thus God did feed us even as it 
were with manna from heaven.' Only 14,000 dried 
penguins could be got on board. The crew were put 
on rations of which the principal part was five penguins 
every day among four men. It was not until some 
lime after that disease broke out, the dried birds 
having begun to breed a large worm in appalli ng 
numbers in the wariner latitudes. 

Various symptonis of the malady bere described are 
sufficiently eh arac tari stic of the acute dropsical forra of 
the disease cailed beri-beri (some derive the name from. 
the Arabie) ; there are, however, dropsical conditions 
caused by parasitic worms apart from the special dietetic 
errors to which beri-beri is cotwmonly ascribed. Bui, 
however this may be, the parallelism between the two 
narratives is obvious. There is the same generic cause, 
and the quail is a fat bird^ like the penguin, which would 
corrupt the more easily if it wer? dri^ with its fat. In 
St. Kilda, where the diet used to be of air-dried gannets 
and fulmarg, it was qustomary to remQve the fat before 
curing. C. e, 

A. E. s.—s. A, e, § X ; T. K- c. § 3 ; (;■ e. §3. 

QUARRIES (RV^a- 'giaven images'; D'7^^; 
TtON rAyrTTWN : idolo. Judg. 3i<j26t). T\ii> pislHm 
near Gilgal are a well-knQwn landmark. Heb. usagei of 
pésel favour? the aense ' 3culpl«ied saceed stones' (SQ 
Moore, Budde), Mawy scht4ars find aa allttsion io the 
stones Eietitioned in Josh. 4S3o. If so, pisilim is, used 
in its originai sense of ' hewd stones.' Cp Ase. J'nìaUu, 
a pillar ; Tg, Pesh- give ' quarries,' a guess. 

ThevLewoftheEhud-storya<lvogale.d?lsewheie(see JeRiCHO, 
§ 2), which detects an uiidertyìng forni in which the place- 
names, now corrwpted, w«re of the Negeb, throws fitjubt on 
bolh the above ^eoriss. Among «he possiti* cwruptioas wf 
S»VDC (lshma,el) is ':iqJ) or h^i^: cp Sbelkph. In otder ta 
escape to Seirah (for ttwj reading gdopted by t)ie pr^sent writer 
see Seirah), Ehud had lo pass an oUtpost of Ishraaelites 
(= Jerahraeelites) ; fot SgloiD, the Ml^rlto feiag, waa ^ Jerah.- 
meelite (see v- 13, wbot» 'Amman' and 'Amalek' ba«b^ 
' Jerahmeel '>. For D,"'''0*; ^«^d t.Uer*face. pfqhably c.-'^Kjrecv 

a, Josh, 75 RYiiig-, seeTs^EiiARiM. T. K- Q- 

QUAJSTEBttiSXEB (n^Wilpn^'). Jer.51s9 RV'*^. 

See Seraiah, 4. 

QÌ3AB.TXJ5 tKOY&PTOC fTi. "WH^ladtìs bwsalwXa- 
tioii to that of Tectius, addressed tQ the Christians in 
Rome, at the dose of Rom. 16 (22^;),, U has been coa- 
jectured that he may have been one of thoso Jews who 
were expelled from RomQ by Claudius. See. further, 
Simon (the Cyrenian). 

In the lists of rhe seventy dìsciptes by the Pseudo-Dorolbeus 
and Pseudo -Hippolytus he appears as bi&hop of Berytua. 
In tbe apoctyplial ^c?! gf fe,h'r and Paul ^is 13 q ««mbér of 
the prfeiorian guard, one (jf the soidieis who hav» chsrge of 
Paul in Ronie- 

QUAT£BmQN (t^tp^^ion ; Acts 12 4). a guard 
of four soldiers. 

QUEEN OF BEATEN {D^pB'n D'^^ ; ® h B&ci- 
A1CCÒ.TOY OYP&NOY' except Jer.7i8 h CTp&Tià TOy 
1 Cult. OYP^'^OY* [-^Q- %"!■ Theod. B&ciAicch] ; 
Vg. regina caeli ; Pesh. pulhan sefnayya, 
except Jer. 44 ig OTfl/Aa/ /emu^^a ,■ * Tg. K*OB* 713313). 
an object of worship to which offerings were made by 
inhabitants of Jerusalera and other eities of Judah in 
the seventh century and by Jewish refugees in Egypt 
after the fall of the kingdom ; see Jer. 7 16-20 44 15-30. 

The peculiarity of this worship appears, from 
Jeremiah's descriptìoiv, to have been the offerìng of a 
special kind of gakes which were made by Ihe Jewish 
«omen with the assisAance of (heir fanylies ( ' the boys 

1 Probabty reading (tja, as in 82 1913. 

3 Contaminatìon fk>ni @, which \% otherwbe demonstrable in 
ibis verse. 



gather fìrewood and the fathers kindle the fire and the 
women knead dough to make cakes, ' etc. , Jer. 7 18 ; cp 
4419}. The cakes were offered to the deity by fire 
(441517^ 2125; kiiièr, TBp, erroneously translated in 
EV, ' bum incense'), and the burning was accompanied 
by libations (44 ^i f- )■ These rites were performed ' in 
the eities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem ' 
(7i7 4417) ; the worship seems to have been domestic, 
and perhapsspecifically a woman's cult (see 44 13 1925);^ 
that the men assist in the preparations (7 18) and assume 
their share of the responsìbility (44 13^) is not in- 
consistent with the latter view, nor are the expressions 
in which the prevalence of the worship is affirmed 
(44 ,7)- 8 

The cakes {kawwànìm, d'ji3, Jer. 7 18 44tgt;^ ® 

Xiyiii'es, and in the latter passage ■)( \fi*\ 
Xaf/Sttjves [n*] ; "V^. placenta; Pesh. sawMars, a species 
of sacrificial cakes;* Tg. j-aniD or pam;, perhaps 
XavàpiTa.!.,^ Gen. 40 16) were righlly compared by 
Chrysostom and other early comnientators to the trò 
or iré/i-i^aTa. of the Greeks, of which there were many 
varielies.® Soi«« of these were made in the likenesa of 
a vietila ; ovh^rs imaged or symbolised the deity to 
whom they were offered.' 

It has be.en thougbt by majiy that, the èe-vjwduìm of the 
qiieen of heaven represented the nvoon,^ or — upon a differenc 
view of ber nature-"the planet Venus (see below, § 3). Jer. 
4ii9 ha^. btsev undersiood to teslìfy to the ìcontc chaiacter of 
these cakes, th« v«tbi Msy.^^bejj^; connected with o'asH(t'^'-> 
g if),f> and trajislated, to iniage her'; but both the text aud 
th« ÌRleppretatioB are exEremely doubtful. 

The translatìon 'Queen of Heaven' (EV) represents 
Vialkai iasMmàyim ; and this' interpretation— the only 
Tifcl ^-^^ wVich would naturally snggest itself to 
•' **"•■ cwe who read the wqrds o'oe.T njVo in an un- 
pointed test— U suppofied by the tddest esegetica! 
tradilioo (®). The vowelled test, however, gives ri3^3 
{mètékel\, tf^ating ns'so^s a defective spelling of f\3i*'?a 
from iijn'^d,.^'' ' wQ[k,' aod. this view of the derivation of 
the word i.5 represented by Pesh. pilkàn Semayya 
(religious work, cultus). The jewish scholars with 
whom thig interpretation originated doubtiess thought 
that the wca:ship of the Q'Qpn nj'yo '" Jer. 7 44 ^vas the 
same as the worship of the 'host of heaven' [a-Qipn J!3s). 
Jer. Ss 19yZfipkl5.Dt. 4t9U3, etc. 

This ideBtiflealion, suggested perhaps by a general comparison 
of the refer«nces to ihesf; cuUs, wouid seem to be contirmed by 
th* passala in which the worship of the q-ce»^ njVo appeats 
to h» «^xiiYatenl W Wrnlfig offetinga ca ma\iÌBg iibation» ' to 
other goda' (see T is 44^5; cp 17-19). as though the cult were 
addressed to a coUective object .tiich as the heaveiily bodie.s. A 
warrant for takiog the word ìi^k^D in this sense was found in 
Gen. 2 where h^kSd (God's ' work which he wiought ') in 2'. zìi 
is obviously parallel to K3s in i'. i.^^ This opinion w^s koown 
to Jerome, who wtìt^s (fiamui. on Jer. 7 18) : reginze caeli . . ■ 
' quam lunajti debemus sccìpere, vel certe milìtite c<eli, ut 
omnea stellas intelligamus,' and is given a place in the margm 
of AV, 'fiame, or worfcroanship of heaven.' 

Modem scholars, however, ahnost without exceplioii, 
have adopted the older and more naturai interpretation, 
' queen of heaven. ' This prevailing opinion was 
vigorously assailed by Stade in 1886; he maintained 

I Pefitz, /BL II 121 (1898), without apparent reason, connects 
2 K. 33 7(S with this cult. 

3 See, for the opposice 05^iIvion,, ZA TIV 6 127 J?". 

3 See BakkmEATB, % a, 

4 [See Lagartl*. <^*- ^^A- 4». «o8.1 

' JastiQw, i'iciiiwiar^, ^.v. [olherwis© Levy, Tar-g. IllVSs 

« See Lobeek, Ag^»fhaiMtts, 1060^ 

7 See Stengel, Grwc*. Kultìisa.Ucrrtiimtrip'), 90; for sLmilar 
customs ajnong: olbet peoptes see Liebrecht, Zur Valkskuttde, 

436 i^ 

* Comparing the kii^i^avr^i of Arlemis at the Munychia, 
Athen. I4tì43 A ; PrelW-Robeit, GFÌech. Mytkalagie, 1 312. 

» So Syui., Tg., Rashi, and others. 

J" Omission of sileni ((. Examples of this spelling occur in 
PhtEnician ifiscriptions — €^., ClS 1 no. 86 A //. 6 q. On the 
otber hand, many Hebrew MSS in our passage have intro- 
duced M imo the Xmx.- 

II Abarb^nelon J^. 44 15, as the opinion of older ìnt«rpreteis. 
Smilady Stade, Z4. TW 6 339. See also Dèbàrìm ntòòà, $ io 



that D'ccn 713^0 (? tnalkiit) was a collective, ' the mie, 
that is, the ruling powers, of heaven,' a more compre- 
hensive term chan ■ host of heaven ' ; at a later stage of 
the controversy he was inclined to conjeclure that nsSo 
(n^K^C, ' work ' ; cp Gen. 2 1/. ) had been substituted for 
((3S by a scribe or editor to whom the word vd'i was 
offensive. Stade did not, however, estabiish his main 
contention that the rendering ' queen of heaven ' must 
be rejected ; the result of the discussion upon this point 
was rather to confirm the conviction that that is the 
only satisfactory interpretation of the words,^ 

It is not probable that a deity invoked as queeti of 
heaven, to whose displeasure at the neglect of her 
,. Tj i-a i- worship the contemporaries of Tere- 
3. Identification. ^^^ l^^^^ attribute the calamities 

that had befallen them and their country, was a minor 
ligure in the Semitic pantheon ; the presumption is that 
the rites described by the prophet belonged to a specific 
cult of the great goddess Astarte. The title seems 
also to indicate that the worship was addressed to one 
of the heavenly bodies, and was one of the particular 
cults embraced in the general prophelic condemnation 
of the worship of the ' sun and moon and the whole 
host of heaven. ' From an early ti me it has been 
disputed whether the queen of heaven in the sky was 
the moon ^ or the pianet Venus.^ The former opinion 
was probably in its origin only an application of the 
general theory which in the last centuries of the ancien! 
world identified ali inanner of goddesses with the moon ; 
in modem times it has appeared to follow from the 
current though ill-founded belief that the Astarte of the 
western Semites was a moon goddess. (See Ashtoreth, 
§4.) In the Babylonian system, which was at the 
height of its influence in the "W. in the seventh centitry, 
the star of IStar was the pianet Venus, whilst the moon 
was a great god. Sin, The traces in Syria and Arabia 
of cults similar to that described by Jeremiah connect 
themselves with the worship of Venus. Thus the name 
Collyridians was given to a heretical Arab sect because 
tlieir woraen offered cakes to the Virgin Mary, to whom 
they paid divine honours.* See also Isaac of Antioch, 
ed. Bickell, l!44# 

More than one of the questions discussed above 
would be put beyond controversy ìf it were established 
that malkatu, or malkatu Sa ìamè, the literal equivalent 
of the Heb. malkaf haìSdindyim, occurs in cuneiforra 
texts as a title of lìtar ; * but that the ideogram A A 
should be read malkatu is at best a plausible conjeclure, 
on which no conclusions can properly be based. Istar 
is called, however, bèlit Sante and sarrat Samé,^ the 
latter exactiy corresponding in meaning to the Hebrew 
jKaikat kaiSdmayim, ' queen of heaven.' In a catalogne 
of the names of Venus in various regions and languages 
preserved by Syrian lexicographers we are told that 
Venus was called malkat Semayyà by the Arzanìans,'' 
that is the inhabitants of Arzon, a diocese in the 
province of Nisibìs {ZDMG 43 394n.). The list shows in 
other particulars accurate Information, and may be taken 
as evidence that a cult of Venus with the epiklesis ' queen 
of heaven' survived in that locality into Christian times. 

Herodotus (1 105) sets it down that the tempie of 
Aphrodite Urania in Askalon was the oldest seat of her 
worship; thence it passed to Cyprus and Cythera.^ 

1 See especially Kuenen, Gesammelie Abhandlungen, i86- 
2ir. [Cp, however, Crii. Bìb. — T.K.C.] 

2 Jerome, Olympiodorus, and very many down to our own 

^ Tg., Isaac of Antioch, and others. 

* Epiph. Hier. 7S e. 2^ 'i'Sc. 1 13. Epiphanius recognises the 
identity with the worship of the queen of heaven in Jer. 7 44. 
It is in fact one of those direct transfers of 3 Venus cult to Mary 
of which there are many examples. See Rijsch, 'Aslarte- 
Maria,' St. Kr. i8?8, pp. 265,^ 

s Schrader ; for titles see below, § 4. 

fi Eerdmans, Melckdienst, 85. 

7 Bar Bahiul, col. 244; some codd, have Darnàyé. See 
Lagarde, Gesatnmelte Abkandluttge» , i5. 

8 See also Herodot, 1 131. 



According to Pausanias (i. 867) the religion was of 
' Assyrian ' (Syrian) origin, ^ taken up by the people of 
Paphos in Cyprus and of Ascalon in Phcenicia ; the 
Cytherans learned it from the Phcenicians (cp iii. 23 i) ; 
it was introduced into Athens by jEgeus. We may 
take Ihese passages as evidence of the belief of the 
Greeks that the worship of the * heavenly ' goddess 
('A0/)t>5ÌTij Oùpavia, more oflen simply ì] Oòpa-vla)'^ was 
of orientai origin. It is hìghly probable that in this 
Ihey were right,^ and that the epiklesis is in some way 
connected with the title Queen of Heaven in the 
Semitic religions.^ 

The goddess of Carthage, in the inscriptions T-n-t 
(pronunciation unknown), must have had a similar 
title, since by Latin writers and in Latin inscriptions 
she is called Cceleslis.^ 

Milkat in Phcenician and Punic proper names, on 

the other hand, is more probably the divine sovereìgn 

of the city or community (cp Milk') than of the heavens. 

G. F. Meinhard, ' Dissertatio de selenolatria,' in Ugolini 
Thesaurus, 23 8ii _^ (in Thesaurus theolngico-phihlogicus, 

\siiS^. this dissertation appears under the 
4. Lìterature. name of Caloviiis ; the older literalure very 

fuily given and discussed) ; Frischmuth, 
'Dissercatio de Melechet caeli,' in Thesaurus ihcologico- 
fihiloiogicus, 1 366 ^ ; J. H. Ursinus, Quttstiones bìblica, 
221-2;; J. G. Carpzov, Apparatus antigmtaturn, 510 yT ; B. 
Stade, 'Die vermeintliche KSnigin des Himmels,' ZATIV, 
6123-132 (1886); ' Das vermeintliche aramaisch-assyrisches 
Aequivalent der □'CB'rT na'^C, Jer. 7 44,' ZATW 6289-339 
(1886); E. Schrader, 'Die C'CCH hS^O "nd 'hr Ararakisch- 
assyrisches Aequivalent, SBBA, 1886, I477-491; 'Die Góttin 
IStar als malkatu,' ZA S353-364; A, Kuenen, 'De Melechet 
des Hemels,' Verslagen en ntededeelingen der Ko-ninklijke 
Akademie van Wetenschapeti, Afd. Letterkunde, 188E, pp. 
157-189 (Germ. trans. [1894], Kuenen, Gesatntnelie Abhand- 
lungen, i86'2ii,; Eerdmans, jife^«irf/>ns-^, 53^ ; Scholz, GiFfeen- 
diettsl ìind ZaubermeseH, 300/;, cp ^j-ìff. \ Griinbaum, ' Der 
Stern Venus,' ZDMG, 1868, pp. 45-51. g. F. M. 

QTJICKSANDS (cYPTic : Acts27.7). RV Syrtis, q.v. 

QUILT ("l'33), iS. 19 13 16, RV^g- See Bed, 

S§ 3. 4 (^)- 

QITIITCE. See Apple, § 2 (4), col. 269. 

QTTINTUS MEMMIUS (2 Macc. 1134)- See Mem- ■ 

1. Life. 

QDIBINinS (kyphnioc[Tì. WH], Lk.22). The 
name of this officiai is given in an inscription as P. 
Sulpicius Quirinius. The main facts of his 
life Eire given by Tacitus, Ann. 34B. A native 
of Lanuvium, of an undistinguished family, he was 
elected consul in 12 B.C. ; some years later he was sent 
on an expedition against the Homonadenses in Cilicia, 
who had vanquished Amyntas, king of Galatia. For his 
successes against these mountaineers he received the 
honour of a triumph. When Gaius Csesar was sent 
otit to the East in 2 A.D. , Quirinius accompanied him as 
his tutor. In 6 a. d. Quirinius was appointed as legatus 
of the Emperor Governor of Syria. and in that capacity 
took over Judaea on the deposition of Archelaus, and 
made a census of the newly annexed district (Jos. Ant. 
1713 18 r). At this post he remained four or live years. 
At a later time (Tac. Ann. 3 22) he caused some scandal 
in Komebyaccusing his divorced wife, Lepida, of having 
long before tried to poison him. Unpopular at Rome, 
he retained the favour of Tiberius, who in 21 A.D. 
procured him a public funeral. 

To these facts one of imporrance is added by the celebrated 
Lapis Tihurlinus (C!L 143613), which iijscriptioo, though much 
mutilated, appears to prove that Quirinius' proconsulate of 
Syria in 6 a.d. had heen preceded by an earlier lenure of the 

1 Cp C/-4, 2j6S627i58«. 

2 Cp also Herod.38 (Arabs). 'Heavenly' whs originally 
meant in a physica! sense ; the ethical significance Plato gives- 
it (Sympos. 180 d) is arbitrary, and in conflict with what we 
know of the attribules and Cult of Urania. 

3 Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, li,zo/. bi^f. Te,bff. 

* See Theodoret on Jer. 44 17. 

* Oùpoci'a Herodian, Ab exc. div. Marc. 5 6 ; cp Philastriu'^, 
ffa-ì-, 1--. See Roscher, 26t4^ ; Cumont, in Pauly-Wis^owa, 
3 \-ii,Tjf'. ; cp Ph<enicia, § II (col. 3745/^)' 



same office. The view of Moramsen is that this previous tenure 
ivas in 3-1 B.c., and that the crushing of the Homonadenses, 
who dwelt in Cilicìa, at that time attached to the province of 
Syria, wa-i an event of this first proconsulate. It cannot wcll 
be dated earlier, because Sentius Saturnìntis governed Syria 
9-7 B.c., and Quinctiiius Varus from 7 B.c. to after the death of 
Herod (Tac., sìnce he put down a sedition which 
arose when Herod died. 

Amid these facts, the statements of Lk. as to the 
date and circumstances of the birth of Jesus (2 1-5) raise 

2. The census. '"'"'^^'^ questions The rairaculous 
evenis preceding the birth cannot be 
discussed from the historical point of view ; but the 
asserted census in Judcea and the joumey of Joseph and 
Mary to Bethlehem come within the field of historical 

Lk. 's statements are as follows : — 

( I ) Cassar Augustus decreed a general census of the 
Roman world. Of such a general census nothing 15 
known from other sources, though Augustus made a 
census of Roman citìzens oiùy. However, we need 
not delay over this statement, which is unimportant 
for our purpose, and may be merely an exaggeration. 

(2) This census was first carried out in Palestine in 
the days of Herod, when Quirinius was governor of 
Syria. Here several difficulties arise. From the above- 
cited testimony of Tacitus, it appears that Quirinius 
was not proconsul of Syria until after the death of 
Herod. Palestine being not strictly a part of the 
Roman Empire, but a dependent or protected kingdom 
under Herod, a Roman census would not be carried 
out in that district. On the other hand, we know that 
when in 6 A.d. Archelaus the son of Herod was deposed 
from his tetrarchy of Juda^a, and the district was 
annexed to the province of Syria, Quirinius, who was 
then for the second time proconsul of Syria, carried out 
a census In Judsea, which caused, as we learn from 
Josephus (-47?/. xviii. li), much disaffection in that 
country. It is not unnatural to suspect that Lk. may 
have misdated his census. 

(3) For the purposes of the census every man went to 
the abode of his family or clan ; thus Joseph went to 
B<;thlehem the town of David, ^ and with him his 
affianced wife, Mary. It is, however, pointed out that 
in a Roman census every man reported at his place of 
residence. No instance is known to us in antiquity in 
which the citizens of a country migrated to the ancestral 
home of their family, in order to be enrolled. In any 
case, no ancient census would require the presence of 
any but the head of a household. Women would 
certainly not have to appear in person. 

These considerai ìons have !ed many hiscorians, sudi 
as Mommsen, Gardthausen, Keim, Weizsacker, and 
Schiirer, to the view that Lk. 's statements 

3. BamBay's 

about the census of Quirinius are altogether 

'* mistaken. On the other hand, some 
writers, such as Huschke and Wieseler and many 
English theologians, have adopted an apologetic atti- 
tude in regard to Lk.'s statements.^ The most recent 
apologetic work on the subject is that of Prof. W. M. 
Ramsay, Was Ckrist bom at Bethlehem f in which 
work it is pomleA out m regard lo Quirinius that Lk. 
does not say that it was he who conducted the census, 
but only that it was made when he was in some position 
of authority in Syria {ri'yeikév, not àvSinri>.ros. pro- 
consul). He may have been in command of troops of 
the Syrian province against the Homonadenses at the 
time. It is further maintained that a census conducted 
by Herod in his own dominlons might decidedly differ 

1 [On the birthplace of David, see David, % i ; Debir ; 

JUDAH, g 4.] 

2 A sumraary, and refutation of their views wìl! be found in 
Schurer's GVK^ì 510-543 (ET i. 2 105-143). 


from a Roman census, especially in the point that the 
people might be numbered not by domiciie, but by clan 
or family. 

A new eleraent has been introduced into the discus- 
Sion by the discovery from papyri published by Messrs. 
Grenfell, Kenyon, and others, that an enrolment 
occurred in Egypt at inteirals of fourteen years from the 
year 20 a.d. onwards, and probably from the time of 
the regulation of Egypt by Augustus, that is, also in the 
years 6 a.d. and 8 b.c., and further that this enrol- 
ment was a census by families, not a mere valuation 
of property. One or two definite, though not conclusive, 
pieces of evidence, seem to indicate that this periodical 
census was not confined to Egypt, but was, in some 
cases at ali events, extended to Syria. 

Arguing on the basis of this new discovery. Prof. 
Ramsay maintaìns that a census may probably have 
been he!d in Syria in 9-8 B.C., and gives certain reasons 
why, if Herod at the same time proposed a census in 
Judasa, he should have postponed it to the year 6 b. C. , 
and then carried it out on a different pian from that 
usuai in a Roman census. The date 6 b.c. Ramsay 
accepts as probably that of the birth of Jesus, 

To set forth Prof. Ramsay's arguments at length is impossible, 
and they are so minute as not to bear compression. But if we 
grant their validity they leave unexplained several difficulties. 
Why shouid a census in pudica be dated by Lli. by the 
irrelevant fact of a campaign being at the time fought by 
Quirinius in Cilicia? Even if an enrolment by tribes was 
carried out by Herod, would this be likely to involve a journey 
of ali Jews to the native town of their family? How could 
the pre.sence of Mary be required at Bethfehem, when it was a 
settfed ptinciple in ali ancient law to treat the male head of a 
family asresponsihle forali itsmembers? In Palestine especially 
it is difficult to imagine such aproceeding as the summoning of 
women to appear before an omcer for enrolment. On ali these 
questions the new discoveries shed 00 light. 

The last dlfiiculty is further increased by the use by Lk. of 
the word kii.ìn\in(v}s.itrQ (uniess, indeed, it be an early emenda- 
tion of the text by some scribe). For this word iraplies that 
Mary at the time was not the wife of Joseph, but only betrothed to 
him. In such circumstances her tra veli ing with him to 
Bethlehem is even more inexplicable. She would not go as an 
heiress, ot in her own right, as we have no reason co suppose 
that she was descended from David, and indeed from the 
context it is clear that she was not. 

Josephus tells us that the census of Quirinius was a 
great imiovation, causing alarm and revolt ; it is therefore 
not easy to think that a similar census can have been 
held twelve or fourteen years earlier, and passed off 
with so little friction that Josephus does not mention ìt. 
It is true that Prof. Ramsay discriminates in character 
the earlier census which he supposes from the Roman 
census of Quirinius of 6 A.D. ; but it is doubtful how far 
this view is maintainable, especially as Lk. uses the 
same wc»rd ((ijro7pa0^) to designate the known census 
of Quirinius and the supposed earlier census (Acts 
537)- Thus there can be no doubt that the supposicion 
of errore of fact in Lk. would, from the purely historical 
point of view, re move very great difficulties. The 
question which remains is whether our opinion of Lk. 
as a hìstorian is so high that we prefer to retain these 
difficulties rather than to suppose serious errors in his 
nari^tive of the birth of Jesus. See, further, Chrono- 
LOGV, §§ 57 j^ ; GOSPELS, § 22 (col, 1780, n. 2), and 
cp Nativity, Nazareth. p, g. 

QTjrVEB. 1. nSTN, 'aspah, cp Ass. iipatu ; 

^aptrpa; pharetra; literally '" Job 39 23 (® om.) Is. 22 6; 
figurativ^ly in Is. 492 Ps. 127 5 (© èTriftjfii'aj.) Lam. 813 Jer. 
5 16 (ffi i)m.)t. In Lam. 313 arrows are called ' sons of the 
quiver. ' 

3. '7R, t'il, ^a^ÌTpa., pharetra; Gen. 27 3. t The sense, how- 
ever, is uncertain. ®, Vg-, Tg., Ps..Jon., Ihn Ezra, render 
'quiver,' but Onk, Pesh., Rashi, 'sword.' ^/rhn means ' to 
bang, suspend.' Possibly -['Sri 's a corrupt repetition (ditto- 
gram) of the preceding -l'V!!. which word (EV ' thy weapons") 
would quite well refer to the quiver and arrrows. Cp Weapons. 






RAAMAH {nìpìn-, perA\& [BAD^i'EL] pepìCMA 
[A]), one of the sons of CusH [q.v.] Gen. IO7 (but 
NOin ; I Ch. I9 RVEaama)- RaarnsÀ is also grouped 
witli Sheba in Ezekìel's list of trade centres (27z2 
ncìJi ; pafia [B], pay/Ao. [AQ}). A Sabasan inscription 
(Glaser, 1155) refers to 'the hosts of Saba and Havilàn' 
as attacking certain people ' on the caravan - route 
between Ma'àn ( = Ma'in, ? Bab. Magan} and Ragmat ' 
(Hommel, v4//r24o ; cp ZBAfG SO 1-22}. H ere w e ha ve 
at any rate one Raamah. Glaser, however, places 
Raamah near Ras el-Khaima, on the Persian Gulf 
{Skizze, 2252). Against Identification with Regma, on 
the Arabian side of the sanie gulf, see Dillmann. Cp 
Geography, § 23, and Crit. Bib. on Gen. IO7 Ezek. 
27 22 where ' Raamah ' is brought neeirer to Palestine. 
See CuSH, 2 ; Sabta. 

RAAMIAH (n;pin. ■ Vahwè thunders?' cp 3 R, 67. 
46 e d. where Ramman, the storm-god, is called the 
god sa rimi. i. e., ' of thunder ' [Del. Ass. H WB. 605] ; 
the Phcen. proper name NjnÓin is no support, the 
true readìng being WriDyi), one of the twelve leaders 
of the Jews, Neh. 1 t\ {Saffiia [N], peeXfxa [A], Sat^tas 
[L], vaaiita. [B], xae/ita [H^''] ; the last two readings are 
due to the proximity of Nahamani [y.i'.]). Cp 
Government, § 26. 

In Ezta2 2 the name is miswritten as Reelaiah, and in Zech. 
72 (prabably) as Regemmelech (^-v.). AH these forms seem 
lo come from ' Jerahmeel '. The race-element counts for much 
in the later hiatory of Israel [Che.]- 

RAAMSES (DpOri), Ex. In. See Rameses and 

cp PiTHOM. 

BAB. The use of 21, raè, ' chief, head, leader" in 
compound titles descriptive of rank or office (corre- 
sponding to the Gr. &pxi-) 's suiìRciently well exemplifìed 
in Assyrian, Phcenician, and Aramaic. 

Typical examples are ; — rai dtip-sar-ri ' head scrihe ' (see 
ScBinn), and rab nikasi 'treasurer' (cp Heb. D'DDJ), see Del. 
Ass. HWBfx^h, Phcen. E'in 31, 'head workman ' (C/.S 1 64), 
DlED 31, ' head of ihe scribes ' {ih. 86 14), cjnj 31, ' head of the 
priests' iih. iig),_Pa]m. kSti 31, 'general,' (tn-ì'C 31, 'leader 
of :he caravan ' (in Gk. biiìnguals orparrjAÓTijs, ffurafiioipj^s ^), 
plB" 31, ' chief of the market ' 2 (cp kIJK 31, ' head of the à-jiopa ') ; 
and Nab. (*n'l:r'D 31, ' chief of the camp(5).' 

This usage of m seems to be wanting in the S. 
Semìtic stock, and in Hebrew is not frequent. Here 
the moro common term eniployed is sar (ié". peculiar 
to Heb. ) which is frequently found in pre-exilic writings 
(cp Prince), and its occurrence in the later Hterature 
shoiild be looked upon in some cases, perhaps, as a 
survival of a once popnlar idiom, and in others as an 
intentional archaism. 

In the sense of ' great ' the Heb. rab is not common ^ 
in the early writings ; the best instances being the 
poetical fragment Gen. 2623 ('elder' opposed to l'jjs), 
Nu.ll33 (J or E), I K. 19?, Am.62. In agreement 
with this is the usage of the Heb. compounds of 31 
which express a rank or office. Of foreign origin, on 
the other hand, are the compounds Rab-saris, Rab- 
shakeh, and Rab-mag, which appear lo be titles borrowed 
from the Assyrian. The rest occur in later literature 
only, and are mere descnptions of office. 

It is very probable ihat they have been fotmed simply upon 
Assyrian or Babylonian analogy ; (a) D'n2H 31, 2 K. 25 8 (in an 
exilic or post-exilic narrative, see KlNGS,§ 2 n. 2); cp N^113B 31, 

1 2uvoJiap;(ijs, apparently, only in inscriptions. Liddell and 
Scott cite Bockh. 4489. 

2 De Voglie, La Syr^e centrale, nos. 6, 7, 15, 28, etc. 

^ The exact opposite is the case, however, with 31, ' much, 
many' (as opposed to CVP). 


Dan. 2 i4t ; ^ EV ' captain of the guard,' AVmg. ' chief marshal ' 
{àpxi-ti.a-yei.po% \Z-j B AQL]),^ see Executioner, i. Centrasi with 
this D'n3Br1 la-, Gen. 3736 39 i 41 12 ; (,è) n\3 31, Eslh. 1 3t, 
ofhcer of the household (oÌkopó^os [BKAL^]) ; and (t) VD'IB 31, 
Dan. 1 3t (see Rab-saris), hut D'D'lOil lE", Dan. 1 7-1 1 iBt (òp- 
Xietii'ovxos [B7 BAQrj). "W must probably be looked upon here 
as an intentional archaism. The writerhas modelled the narralivc 
of Daniel lo some extent upon that of Joseph (Bevan, Dan. 31), 
and remembers the D'flijtll IS', O'pSJS.l 1», and n'n|B.l Ib, 
which recur in Gen. 39.41, g. a. C. 

EABBAH. Rabbath of the Ammonites (n3"1, 031 

l'iSr 'J3, pop^a, Josh. 13 25 [A], Am. 1 14 6 2 1 Ch, 20 1 [B bis, 

OncepaP^avasaccusative]; pa^&a9, 2 S. U 1 122729 

1. Name. Jer. 492 [A], i Ch.20i [tu Ai; pa.?^a8 vl^v 

a/ifiù.c, 2 S. 12 26 {BJ, 17 2 17 (Aj, Ezek. 21 20 ; 
pF^M Jer. 49 3[[(]; pa&^iaO Jer. 493 [Q^vid.] ; pa^aff Jer. 49 2 
[«•]; paj8afl mw!/ Aniuup, 2 S. 12 26 IA], 17 37 [BJ. In Dt.3ii 
I® translates ri- t^ àitpq rùv vlim XiLfiiav and in E/ek. 25 5, tìjj' 
TTÓXti- ToO Kjiiiiav. In josh. 13 25, E reads 'Apófi. The Vulgate 
has Ratea or Rebbatk according to the Hebrew construction, 
except in Jer. 49 3 Ezek. 25 5 where we have Rabbath for 
,131. In Polyb. Hìst. v. 7 4, it appears as paS^aTonawi). 

Rabbah is mentioned in Dt. 3ii as the location of 

Og's 'lied' or sarcophagus (see Bed, § 3); also in 

„. , Josh. 1325, in connection with the borders 

2. aistory. ^f Q^^j_ jj, 2 S. 11 / I Ch. 20 we have 

an account of the siege and capture of Rabbah by Joab 
and David. In the oracles against Ammon by Amos, 
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Rabbah represents Ammon, as 
being its one iraportant city. Jer. 494 refers to ihe 
treasures and the well-watered valleys of Rabbah, and 
Ezek. 25 5 Amos I14 to its palaces. These oracles 
announce the ruin of Rabbah as part of the punishment 
of Ammon. In Ezek. 21 20 Nebuchadrezzar hesitates 
whether to march against Jerusalem or Rabbah, but 
decides for Jerusalem by casting lots. Thus Rabbah 
was the capital of Ammon during the whole period of 
the history of the Ammonites, and shared their fortunes 
throughout (see Ammon), It has been suggested that 
Rabbah may be the Ham (see Ham, 2) of Gen, I45. 

Rabbah continued an important city in post-exilic 
tinies. It is not mentioned in OT in connection 
with the Jewish history of the period ; but the Ammon- 
ites are referred to in Nehemiah, r Maccabees, and 
Judith, and doubtless Rabbath remaìned their capital. 
Ptolemy Philadelphus, 285-247 b.c., gave it the name 
of Philadelphia, and probably by erecti ng buildings and 
introducing settlers gave it the character of a Greek 
city ; it became one of the most important cities of 
the Decapolis, Eus. Onom. 'Pa^5 and 'Afip-o.v. 

In 2i8 B.c. it was taken from Ptolemy Philopator by Antiochus 
Epiphanes, Polyb, 5 17. In the time of Hyrcanu.'^ (135-107 B.c.) 
we read of a ZenoCotyles, tyrant of Philadelphia, Jos. ^n/. xiil. 8 i 
15 3. According to a conjecture of Clermont-Ganneau, Rabbath 
should be read for Nadabath in 1 Macc. 937 ; see Nadabath. 
In 63 B.c. it was held by the Arabs (Jos. BJ'u 63), who were 
defealed there by Herod, 30 B.c. (i. 19 5 and e). The estensive 
Roman remains show that it participated in the prospeiity of 
Eastem Palestine in the second and third centuries a.d. Latet, 
it was the seat of a Christian bishopric. The city is said by 
Abulfeda (Ritter, Syr. 1158) to have Ijeen in ruins when the 
Moslems conquered Syria. 

Rabbah (the mod. 'Amman) was situated on one of 
the head-waters of the Jabbok, about 22 m. E, of 
B-. the Jordan, 2 S, I226-28 apparently distìn- 
' guislied between * the royal city ' or ' the city 
of waters,' and ' the city.' The ' waters' referred to in 
the second of these names may be the Nahr 'Amman, a 
slream rich in fish. which takes its rise aC the site of 
Rabbah (so Buhl, Pai. 260 [§ 132]). In that case 

1 In Dan. also |'JJO 31, 248 (see Deputv), and K^ecln 31. 
46 5 II (see Magic, § 20). 

2 Compounds of 2I and li:/ are alike rendered in © by àpx'-' 




a. Ci. 

the first iwo names belonged to a lower quarter of the town 
in the valley (cp § 4). The ' city ' may be a designation 
of the citadei, which was situated on a hill N. of the 
valley. One would naturally like to find some Ammon- 
itish ruins. There are old rock-hewn tombs, and the 
remains oftheouterwallsof theciladelseem veryancient, 
being formed of great blocks of stone without any cement. 
What is left of the city walls may belong to the time of 
the Ptolemies. Conder even thinks that the remains of 
a reservoir and aqueduct may belong to the subterranean 
passage which enabled Antiochus to captare the citadei. 
If so, they may carry us back to Ammonite times, and 
show how the ancient citadei was supplied with water. 
The great bulk of the ruins — ^baths, colonnades, temples, 
theatres, and tombs — are Roman. There is a small 
building, which Conder regards as Sasanian or early 
Arab ; and ruins of a Christian cathedral (gth or 6th 
cent. ?) and two chapels. Rude stone monuments 
(doimens, etc. ) have also been found, 

Conder, Ifeii and Moai, 157-167, Palestine, 175-7, and in 
PEF S-urvey of Eastim Paiesiine, 1 19-64 (a very full and 

exact account of a thorough survey of 
4. Literature. 'Amman, with many fine ìUustrations) ; 

PEFQ, i83z, pp. 99-116 ; G. A. Smith, HG, 
595-608; L. Gautier, Au delà da fourdain&i, i)'} ff. (1896). 
[Cheyne {Exp.T, Nov. 1897 ; Feb. 1899) discusses the titles of 
Rabbah in 2 S. \2zef., and emends both ,^3l^D^ TJ? and o'Dn 
imo DjJpD "l"y ; Wellhausen, however, emends n3l70n into 
D'ori- See Tahtim-hodshi, f 2, and cp Crii. Bib.\ 

W. H. B. 
RABBAH (nann. as if 'the Rabbah'; C03eHB& 
[B], ApeBB* [AL], Arebba). mentioned with Kirjath- 
jearim in Josh. 156o. Read most probably ' Kirjalh- 
/erahnieel the great ' {COa. ). See SoLOMO.v, g 3. 

BABBI (p&BBei [Ti. WH], many MSS pàBBi : 
Heb. '31), a title of honour and respect given by the 
Jews to their learned doctors, more especially to their 
ordained teachers andspiritual heads(cpHANDS [Laying 
ON OF]). >3-i (lit. 'my great one,' with the suff. as in 
Heb. 'jiN, Syr. i-»iJO; cp Fr. monsieur, etc.) is 
from m (see Rab) which at a later perìod among the 
Jews was frequently used In the narrower sense not only 
of a master as opposed to a servant, but of a teacher 
as opposed to a pupil (cp Abóth, 16 and Ber. 636 
where an and tdSh are used of Yahwè and Moses 
respectively) ; see DlSCIPLE, § i. Rab (an older 
pronunciation is Rib) was especially used as the title 
of the Babylonian teachers, and designates/ar excelUnce 
Abbà Aréka, a noted esegete of the beginning of the 
third century A. D. Rabbi, on the other hand, was the 
title given to Palestinian teachers, ^ and, used alone, 
applies to Jehudah Hannasi, the chief editor of the 

In the NT, Rabbi occurs only in Mt. , Mk. , and Jn. 
It is once applied by his followers to John the Baptist 
(Jn. 826), but everywhere else is used in addressing 
Jesus (Mt. 262549 Mk.95 llii 1445 Jn.138 Ss 431 
625 92 118).^ Lk. and Mk. both favour the use of 
5(5iio-Ka\e (see Discipi.e. Teacher), which in Jn.138 
is the Gr. translation of pa^j3ei, but èvicnàra. occurs 
only in Lk. [e.g., 55 845, etc.}. Almost synonymous 
with pajS^ei are the cerras wanjp and tca&ìjyjjrjjs (MC- 
23910) which are probably equivalent to the Araniaic 
((3N and (so Wiinsche) ,-nio-^ 

From its use in the NT it is evident that Rabbi had 
not yet come to be employed as a title, but was merely 

1 The Targ. on z K. 2 12 makes Elisha cali Elijah Rabbi ; cp 
Targ. on Ps. 55 14. 

'■i The AV frequently has Master ; cp Mt. 26 25 49 Mk. /.e. , 
Jn. 431 92 Ila. The Pesh. rendere by «kS^ and in Jn. 

1 38 3 26 4 31 6 25 9 z 11 8 by ^i. 

3 Against this see DaJman, Die Worle Jesu, 276, 278^ ((3K 
as a term of address seems to be unknown to the Targumists. 
It is rathet a title of respect. «oftijyiiT^s, according to this 
scholar is a Gr. varlant to Si.Sa.crKa.Koi — v. io being anotber 
recension of v. 8. 


a form of address (cp Dalman, Der Gotiesname Adonaj, 
21), whence Mt. 23?/^ appears to be an anachronism 
(cp Gratz, CwcA. 4500). Ewald's argument [Gesch. Is. 
625 n. 2), from the words of Abtalión in the Pìrkè 
Abòth, I16 (mjayriN wb), that y^ and ]3T must have 
been in use for a long time, rests on an erroneous inter- 
pretation of ni33l (lit. ' lordship ' ; cp Strack ' herrschaft ' ). 
A fuller form is Rabbonì (Mk. IO51 Jn. 20!6, ^a^- 
jSoui-et [B], pa^ffovi [minusc. ], pa^^iiìvei [A in Mk, and D 
in Jn,]), cp the Aram, ribbòn (jian) another forni of 
rabbàn (j3n), but with the retention of the à sound in 
the first syllable.^ p3T in Aram, is used by a slave of 
his master, or a worshìpper of his God, and is, like 
Rabbi, explained as meaning SiSdcricaAe ( Jn. /. e. ). 
According to 'Aruch (j. "3n)> a pT was more honourable 
than a -aii and a 'n than a ai, but greatest of ali was 
one whose name alone was mentioaed (ide' J31D ^nj)- 
The title ]3t was first held- by Gamaliel L (see 


For the Jewish use of these various titles, see EBfiì, s.v. 
'Rab, Rabbi,'andfor NTusage, Dalman, £>/« Wertejesu, i-j'ìff. 

S. A. C. 

BABBITH (n^ann ; A^BeipcoN [B], p&BBwe [AL]), 

a city in Issachar, properly hà-Rabbith, Josh. 192o.t 
Identifìed with Ràbà, N. of Ibzik (Buhl, 204). C. 
Niebuhr (Gesch. I367 ; cp (S^) reads nnai, Dabebath 
\_q-v.'\ ; cp Josh. 21 28. But perhaps the true reading is 
n'infili and P's originai authorlty related to the Negeb 
(cp Shunem). t. k. c. 

RABBONÌ. See Rabbi, end, 

RAB-MAG (30":il"! ; rab-tnag), a title applied to 

Nergal-sharezer [y.w.] {Jer. 393; paBamaG [B], 

1 Nam« "*•< ^^^ ' ^r [Q]> P&'m&T [N*], BàM&T 
1. Hiime. ^^^^^ . ^ ^^ poBOMOr [Theod. in Q-e-] 

om. ®); see Rab. Older criticsexplain 'chief Magian' ; 
but the Magians (Màroi) ^f^ a- Median tribe according 
to Herodotus (lioi), and have no place in Babylonia. 
Rab-mugi is said to be the title of a physician referred 
to in an Assyrian letter (tablet K 519) respecting a sick 
man (Pinches in j?/*)^! 2 182 ; cp Wi. OLZ. Feb. 1898, 
col. 40). Schrader {KAT(^* 417/) and Hommel 
(Hastings, DBlxiga), however, derive TnagÌTora eniku, 
emgu, 'wise,' and Frd. Delitzsch {Heb. Lang. 13/) 
from znahhu • prophet, soothsayer ' ( =eISepu, m^jj). 
From a text-critical point of view these suggeslions 
have no probability. There is strong reason to believe 
that 30-31 is corrupt. See Nergal-SHAREZER. 

T. K. e. 
The Assyrian term referred to is generally rab mugi, 
also rab Titugu. There is nolhing in K. 519 to connect 

2. Assyrian 

this officer even remotely with a physician : 


see Harper's Ass.-Baò. Letters, 97, for 
test, and Chr. Johnston's Epistolary 
Literature of, the Assyrians and Babylonians, 163. for 
transliteration and translation. The writer, Ardi-Nanà, 
is the Court Physician (as Johnston shows). The rab 
mugi only reports, or brings the report of, the sick man's 
conditìon. He is likely to have been an express mes- 
senger. There was a rab mugi of the bithalli and 
another rab mugi of the narkabdli {on Rni. 619, no. 
1036, see Johns' Assyrian Deeds and Documents, 2, no. 
1036). Hence the Rab-tnag may have had to do 
primarily with chariots and horses, and beei the master 
of the borse in the Assyrian Court, 

T. K. c. , § 1 ; e. H. w. j. , I 2. 

RABSACE8 (Ecclus. 48 18). RV Rabshakeh. 

BAB-SARIg (Dnp-D*]), the titie (so RV^e-, and see 
Rab) of {a) an officer sent by the king of Assyria to 

1 Pressel in PRE s.v. ' Rabbinismus,' explains the d to be a 
Galilean provi ncialism ; cp Kautzsch, Gram. Bibl. Aram. io. 
The change of à and ; is similar to that in Syr. pesili and 



Hezekiali {aKlSt?; p&<t)€lC [B]. pAfic&peiC [A], 
P&TClC L''] ■ rabsaris), and {b) a» officer presetil &t the 
capture of Jerusalem (}&c. 393. NaBoYCApÈlC [B], 

-CApiC [ìì'Q]. -ceeic [»**] and paBC&pic [Q°*- '■*- 

and Theod. in v. 13 where BNA om. ; /-i^^ja^vj). In both 
passagies, however, we shoitld possibly read either 21J? 
iit;*K, 'Ambia of Asshur' (cp TaRshish) or D'i'iS' "ig». 
' the prince of the Arabians ' (see Nergal-SHAREzer) ; 
indeed in the case of Jer. (l.c. ) the probabilìty is very 
strong. As lo 2 K. [l.c.) a doubt is permissible (cp 
Sennacherib, § 5), and we therefore offer the views 
of Rab-sarìs whicti are possible on the assumption that 
an Assyrìan inv-asion was really referred lo in the 
originai narrative. The tUle has Often beeft ìnterpfeted 
'chief eunuch,' and Schrader (^'^3^^1519) thìnks Ihat 
it may be the translation of a tssmesponding Assyrìan 
phnise (so Dillin.-Kìttel, Jesaia, 312). This, at any 
rate, is noi very probable. 

Winckler cornee tu red (UnUrs. i38|that it WàS a l-epM<l»ictÌoiì 
of an artificial Ass. phrase r^-ÌA-'yìs-^^ leartied sctlbe's ihtef- 
prelation of rai-stig (kAB-SMAitEH), Which is half Sulnériafi ; 
while, according to Pinchet (letteT fn Acad., Juha 25, 1892), 
rab-sa-reH, 'chief of the heads ' was the title of tlie Bpeclal 
officer who had charge of the royal priiices (cp Dan. 1 3). 
Finally, Del, (_Ass. HWB 6943) regisrera sa-riS as the title of a 
courc-official of uncertain meatiing. We tnaV plausibly ho!d ttiat 
the second elerVient in rsb-SArìs is both HebrtW and Assytian, 
bilt primarily Assyrian (sce EUnocM), aiìd that rab-saris ( = Heb. 
Tab-!aiii) means chief caplain. If so, it hardly differg ftom Rab. 
SH.\kEH {tj.v.). 

How rono 3-1 in Dan. I3 (cpw. jj is to beunderstood, 
is not quite clear. The context Suggests that the writef 
misLinderstood the phrase Which he found already cor- 
ruptcd in 2 K. I817 ; fot eunuchs, having the charge of 
royal harems, were ffeqtìenily employed in superintend- 
ìng the education of princeS. See E^ii'NucH. Even if 
the story of Daniel has bee» recasi, thit explanation may, 
at any rate, serve provi SÌonally, T. K. tì. 


mòiaces), the title (so RV^- ; see Rab) of the officer 
sefit by ihe Assyrian king te Hewdtiah (& K, ]8i;-10 ; 
Is. 36 / , and in the Heb. originai of Ecclus. 4S 18. AV 

RABSACE.S ; p&BcàKNC. Is. 36i [B] 4 ifi ea 37 4I;BÓ^K-J 

36 13 [Q"«-] 37 8 [B* Q"'K-]). In its Heb. forni it has been 
taicen to mean 'chief cup'bearer"; butaenp-Iiearer W-ould 
not have been intrusted wilh important politicai business. 
The word is the exncl reprotìactìon of the Asayr. rab- 
kike 'chief of the high ones" {i.c, DfflGers)-^for so the 
Rab Sag or Rab Sag*^> of the Snscriptions Bhould be 
read (Del. Ass. //WB, 685<ì). This was the title of a 
iiiiljtary officer. inferior to the Tartan, but of very high 
rank. A rnb-sake was despatched to Tyre by Tiglath- 
jiileser III. to arrange about trihiite (A'B223, cp Del. 
/.e). Just so the Rab-shakeh goes (with the Tartan, 
riccording to 2 K. ) to Jerusalem, He is acqiiainted both 
with Hebrew (' the Jews' language,' 3 K. 18 26) and with 
Aramaic ; siich a leading diplomatisi needed no drago- Sincc the time of Tiglath-piieser III. there was 
a large Aram^an population in Assyria. Cp Schr. 
A'A 7W 320 ; AkAmaic, § 2. If, however, the originai 
narrative referred to a N. Arabian rather than an 
Assyrian incursion, the name underlying Rab-shakeh 
may very possibly be 'Arab-kOs, ' Arabia of Cush. ' Cp 
Rau-sakis. t. k. c. 

RADA (p&xA [Ti.], P&K& [Treg. WH] ; probably 
an abbrevìated forni of the Rabb. Kp-i ; cp Kau. Ontm. 
P-ihl. Aram, lo ; Dalm. Arain. Gfat». 138, n, 5 ; for 
inierchange of k and ■^ cp Dalm. ih. 304, n. a. and see 
ArF:LuAMA, § i),a term of abuse in thè time of Chrisi, 
Mt. 522 1- Whethef it conveys a more or a less offensive 
meaning than fxiipi (KV, ' Thou fool'} is disputed ; 
indeed, the whole passage. as it stands, is obscure. 
According to Holtzmann, Ihere is a doublé climax in 
the clauses iniroduced by ' Bui I say to you' ; (i) from 
wrath in the hearl to its expressioti in a word, and (s) 
from the denial of the intellectual capaciiy of a brother 
to that of his moral and religious character, while the 



pufìishmentg referred to range from ihAt awarded by a 
mere locai court (' Beth-din') lo thai by th* Sanhedrin, 
and finally lo thal of the fiery Gehenna. Holumann, 
however, understates the offensivenesB of Raca and 
eKBgg«rales that of ixapé. Raca (cp Jn. 9+) involves 
morai more than intellectual depr«ciation, and /(wpós 
nowherra in the NT bears Ihe Bense of ' impious ' (the 
OT Sm ; see Fool). Nor is it at ali probable that 
JesHS wouid have reci^nised Ihe provifiioisal institulion 
of the Sanhfedrin side by side with the Messianic punish- 
ment of Gehehna, and assigned the punishment of one 
abusive exprtssion lo the formier, and of another to the 
lattef. The text must have suFfered a slight disarrange- 
ment ; the clause about Raca shouid be parallel to the 
claui« about murder. Read probably Ihus, ' Ye have 
hesrd that it Was said to the ancienls, Thou shaìt not 
mtirder, and whosoever murders iS liable to the judg- 
menl, and whosoever Says 'Raca' to his brother, is 
liable to the Sanhedrin. But I say unto you, Every one 
Who is angry With his brolher ìs liable to the (divine) 
judgmeni, and whoever says, Thou fool, ìs liabìe to the 
fiery Gehenna. ' The Law as expounded by ihe Rabbis 
treated libellous expressions' as ne-iit door to murder. 
Bui such grosB offences ag murder and calling another 
• Raca ' Could neVer occur if on the one hand anger were 
nipped in the bud, and on the olher even such seemingly 
harmiess expressions as ' thou simpleton ' [fj-wpi] Were 
icmpulously avoided. So first ). P. Peters [JBL 
IO131/. [tSgi] ; 15to3 [1896]), except that he prtfers 
lo repeat ' It was said,' etc, and ' But I say,' avoiding 
reari^angement. See Fool. t. k. g. 

llACAL. AV Rachal. 

KAOE, RAOE-CODUSE. See gellerally Hellen- 
'SM, § 5 (with references), WrbsTLING. 

' Race ' is an apt retidetitig of vtóAtmi in i Cor. 9 24 (RVnig. 
' race -CIÒ urse ') and of iytuf (!it. conlest) ìtt Heli. 12 i. In Ps. 
I95 RV preferabty reiiders 'Sruh (t11K)by 'coUYse.' In Éccles. 
e 1 1, " ?r('s (pie) '* propefly (in abstrael» ' tufining ' (KV's feft- 

RACaAB(Mti5). RVRaiìab. 

&ACaAL, RV, Racal. For ' in Rachal' ('?S'^Ì in 
JS. SOag we oughl, pmbably, following (S^^ (gN 
K^pMH^U. but eN PAXmA [A]), io read 'in Carmel' 

(7013Ì); Soallcritics— 'AneCessary emendation' (Bu., 
SBOT). See Cartel, a, col. ?o6. 

SACHEL (Sri"^, ' ewe,' see WRS Kin. 219,^ p&XnA 
[BKADEQL]}, the 'molher' of the tribes of Israel 
Ifl Mo innV« se'ded in the highlands of West Palestine, 
TiiLm» t>etween the Canaahite strips of lerritory 
at Esdraelon and Aijalon, Rachel died 
when Benjamin or Benoni was born (Gen. 85i6^). 
Was there, we may ask, at some remote period, a dislinct 
clan with the ewe ' Rahét ' as its totem, and the ' mas- 
Eèbah of Rachel's grave' (see Rachel's Sei'llchre) 
as its chief sacred spot? The members of such a clan 
would be b'nè Rahèl. They ali lived in Ephraim ; but 
in time some came to be handed together, as Jeminites 
(Be>7AMIiV, § 1). Then, perhaps. the oihtrs began 
to drop the name b'ne Rahél in favour of something 
else (cp Joseph i., I e : Ephraim, § 5 ii. ; Manassk:h. 
§ 2). Rachel, certainly, as far as we can see, was 
no mere name, as in historical times was Leah. In 
Jer. 31 15 (cp Mt, 2i8] we hear of Rachel weeping for 

1 On the imporlance attached to words like Raca, cp Koran, 
l'i* 2,(, 'And say not to ihem, Fie,' and Gha^àlì's description of 
ihe weighitig of a man's actions ; 'But the angel bringeth yet a 
leaf which he casteth into thft scale òf the eVil actions. On this 
!eaf is wrilten the word " Fie I" Then the evil aclions outneìgh 
ihe good. , . . The order is given to cast this man into hell.' 
{[.a /lerle firecieuse de ChazAli [Gautier], 1878, p. 80.) 

2 Gtiineisen (AhnetKHltus, 257) proposes to read Aharhel for 
KUeJudahite name Aharhel, comparing ®h*l òéeX^où V'iìX^ 
(also the Renjamite Ahrah, rf^n», ® in^aijA). [According to 
Cheyne Rachel may be a fragment of SrOPIT, Jerahmeel ; see 
Trtcon, S 3, SwAPMAN, and for a similiarly doublful name, aee 



her children (although there is no explicit indication 
who these are understood to be) ; and at a laler 
date, in the story of Ruth, Rachel and Leah are 
the builders of the ' house of Israel' {Ruth 4ii). Ac- 
cording to the legend as we know it (both J and E) 
Rachel was the beloved wife, a feature that it is naturai 
to connect with the acknowledged superior splendour 
and power of northern Israel. There is a remarkable 
passage in J, however, where Jacob seems to speak as if 
he had had only two sons (Gen. 4238). The question 
therefore arises whether there may not have been an 
older forni of the story where Rachel wtts the only wife, 
just as Rachel's ' doublé,' Rebecca, was the only wife of 
Isaac. This question Steuernagel answers in the affirma- 
tive (Einwanderung, 39). He also makes the interesting 
suggestion that there may be a monument of the 
importance of Rachel in the name Israel. As the men 
of the Gad tribe were called Ish Gad (see Gad, § i), 
so, Steurnagel suggests, the men of the Rachel (or 
Jacob, or Joseph) tribe were perhaps called Is-Ra'-el 
(on s see Shibboleth, and on the change of h to ' in 
words containing a liquid, see Reuben, col. 4092, 
n. 9. 

We must now consider Rachel's relation to Bllhah. 
Rebecca has no such attendant (Deborah [q.v., 2] 
ti. -o ì i.- i. 's not represented as a concubine of 

.. ._ Isaac). Sarah, however, has Hagar : 

other wives. . ■' <- !,■ -ni.,' .<. 

and in Sarah s as in Rachel s case, the 

son of the wife is not born tìll after the son of the con- 
cubine. This is obscure (cp Manasseh, g 3). In 
Rachel's case the most naturai conjecture would be that 
' Joseph ' was not born till after the sons of Bilhah were 
settled in Canaan. So Guthe {GVI i^i). Steuernagel 
thinks that Rachel (or rather Jacob-Ràhèl) entered 
Palestine froni the E. just in the rear of Bilhah (Etri' 
wanderung, 98 ; cp Guthe, GVI 42), and that it was 
because the Bilhah tribes (Dan and Naphtali) carne to 
be treated as ' brothers ' of Joseph that their ' mother ' 
Bilhah carne to be called a concubine of Jacob. Why 
only Rachel was a full wife is often explained by the 
importance of the Rachel tribes in historical times, 
There may, however, have been religious grounds (so, 
for example, Steuernagel, Einwanderung, 45). Of 
what race her maid carne we are not told (on the state- 
ments in later writings, see Zilpah, § i) ; but Rachel 
herself was a daughter of Laban, which appears to point 
ti ' a belief in the presence of Aramsean elements in N. 
Israel (differently. Laban. Rebekah). If Rachel was 
the chosen wife of Jacob, she was not the only one. The 
surreptitious introduction of Leah seems an important 
feature of the story. Quite as difficult of clan-historical 
interprelation is the representation of Rachel as Leah's 
sister.^ Are we to infer that there were once actuEilly 
two tribes, a Ewe tribe and a Wild-cow tribe, living in 
association? If so, where and when ? Or is it that 
when the northern Ephraim tribes carne to be associated 
with the southern tribes they carne ali to be regarded as 
brothers, and therefore as having a common father 
though different mothers ? The theory is attractive. 
It explains, however, why Rachel and Leah are fellow- 
wives. hardly why they are sisters.^ 

The points that remain are the stealing of the teraphim , 

the initial barrenness, and the story of the dùda'im. 

Othfir '^^^ stealing of the teraphim by a woman 


as a feature in this quaint story tells us 

something of the light in which the teraphim 
came to be viewed (Gunkelcompares the case of Michal, 
cp HPSm. Sam. p. xxxìv. ). It is through the initial 
barrenness that Dan and Naphtali come to be older than 
Joseph (see Naphtali, § 2). The real origin of the 

1 In Test. xii. Fair., Naph. i, etc, Bilhah and Zilpah also 
are sisters. See Z\i.eA», § i. 

2 Perhaps they were sisters simply because of the frequency 
of siich a marriage of sisters in the society in which ihe story 
was told (see Marriage, g 2, (i)). [For a different view, see 




story of the dùdà'ìm is not clear (see Issachar, § 2, 
Reuben, § 3, Naphtali, § 2). E does not méntion 
them ; but in the originai J they no doubt cured Rachel's 
barrenness. This is now obscured, as the birth of 
Zebulun precedes that of Joseph. According to the 
dates assigned to the births in the present text of 
Jubilees, 2823/^, however, Joseph comes immediately 
after Issachar, before Zebulun, although it is Joseph 
and Zebulun, not (as it ought to be) Joseph and Issachar 
that are born in the same year. On the general 
question of the order jn which the tribes are enumerated, 
see Tribes. h. w. h. 

The death of Rachel is related in Gen. 35 16-20 (JE) ; 

the narrative throws much light on the earlier phase of 

CI 'Raf'hol'B ^^ tribal traditions, but needs perhaps to 

' death ^^ studied in connection with a compre- 
hensive textual criticism. 

As pointed out in Jacob, § 3, the phraseology of Gen. 29 1 
suggests that, according to a very early form of the tradition, the 
home of ijaban wasamong the Jerahmeelites of the S. Evidence 
which was not in the wriCer s hands when that article was 
written, or at least was not fully appreciated by him, is now 
before him in abundance, showin^ that this was indeed the case 
— i.e., that Laban was indeed orlginally regarded asan Aramjean 
or Jerahmeelite (dik = ^KCm") of 'he S. Laban's Haran was, 
however, not Hebron but a districi of the Negeb which also 
supplied to Sanballat (?) the designation '3^^ (MT HOrani), 
' Haranite ' (see Sanballat). It was there that Rachel and 
Leah— ^a dbtinction withoutadifference, if ^rn and rinS are both 
corrupt fragmenis of JerahmeeI — dwelt, according to the early 
tradition and the ' Bethel,' where the divinity appeared to Jacob 
was, if not, strictly speaUing, in ' the land of the b'ne Jerahme'el ' 
(29 r), ac any rate, at no \'ery great distance from it, for, like 
Haran, it was in the Negeb. In the Negeb, too, was the Gilead 
of the famous story of the compact between Jacob and Laban, 
and of not a few other much misunderstood OT passages, and in 
the Negeb was ' Shechem ' — i.e. , Cusham (see Shechem, 2). It 
therefore became superfluous to emend the ' Ephrath ' of 
Gen. 35 16 i^ into ' Beeroth,' a chance which on a more con- 
servative view of the tribal traditions (see Ephrath, i ; 
Joseph i., g 3) was helpful, and indeed necessary. The 
' Ephrath ' of tfie story of Rachel's death is the Ephrath of the 
Negeb (in Gen. 2 14 Jer. 13 \ff. it appears to be called l'èràth ; 
cp Paradise, § 5; Shihok); its other narae, according to the 
gloss in V. 19, was DnS"n'3, a popular distortion of 7(»DnT ri'3? 
' Beth-jerahmeel.' See Rachel's Sefulchre. 'l'hus ' Rachel ' 
(the vocalisation is of course relatively late, and not authorilative 
for the early tradition) — i.e., JerahmeeI — wasfitly enough buried 
at one of the leading centres of the Jerahmeelite race in the 
Negeb. Before her death she gave birth to a son variously 
called Ben-oni and Ben-jamin. ' On ' is one of the place-nnmes 
of the Negeb (see On i.), and ' Jamin ' is, in its origin, a popular 
corruption of an abbreviated form of ' JerahmeeI.' (There is, 
in fact, enough to warrant the surmise that Beujamin's originai 
home was in the Negeb). The early tradition also made a 
statement respecting the distance between the place wbete 
Rachel died and Ephrath or Beth-jerahmeel. 

There was but kibrath hd-ares (p^riniDD) to come to 
Ephrath when Rachel travailed. None of the ex- 
planations of kibrath in Ges. Thes., or elsewhere is 
satisfactory.i and in the Psaher pK and mK have a 
tendency to get confounded. Probably we should read 
kiniat hd-orah, n^Kn 0^03. ' a trìfle (left) of the way. ' 
See Rachel's Seplilchke. 

H. w. H. , § I a-c ; T. K. C. , § 2. 

RACHEL'S SEFULCHBE. The biblical references 
are {a) Gen. 35 19* (JE), {b) 48?^ (R). {fi) iS. IO2/. 
(d) Jer. 31 15, {e) Mt. 2i6-i8. It is generally supposed 
(see Buhl, Pai. 159, and Dillm. on Gen. 35 19) that 
either {i. ) there was a doublé tradition with reference 
to the site of Rachel's grave, one {a, b. e) placing it 
near Bethlehem in Judah, another {e, d) ' in the border 
of Benjamin ' towards Ramah (so Nold. , Del. i^). Dillm. ) ; 
or (ii. ) the gloss ' that is Bethlehem ' in (<x) and {b). which 
(«) appears to follow. is based upon a geographical con- 
fusion and is to be disregarded (so Holzinger, Gunkel, 
and Oxf. Hex. ). The weak point in i. is thought to be 

1 ^njjisconventionally regardedasa measure (tS iw7ró<5(jo/ios ; 
Pesh. a parasang). Of course, the Ass. kibràti, ' a quarter of 
the worid,' can hardly, by any ingenuity, be made illustrative. 
It is clear that the text is corrupt. Soaìsoina K.Sig px m33 
(no article before vik) is shown by the context to be corrupt (see 



that Rachel has nothing lo do with the S. kingdom, and 
the weak poìnt in ii. certainly is that a N. Ephrath ìs 
undiscoverable. Before proceeding further we must 
criticise the text (see Crii. Bib.). 

(a) and {d) cn^Tl'3 is a popular corruptìon of ^«em' n'3- 
'Ephrath' and ' lieth-jerahmeel ' are both place-names oF the 
Negeb. Wehave noreason todoubt that thegloss in Gen. 35 igiJ 
and 487^ is correct, and that Beth-jerahmeel eitherhad Ephrath 
as its seeond name, or was in the district called Ephrath. We 
must remember that Ephrath was traditionally the wife of Caleb 
{i Ch. 2 19). 

(it) The geographical description has suffered serious corrup- 
tìon. The text shouid run, ' When thou departest from me 
to-day, thou shalt find two men by Beth-jerahmeel in Shalishah.' 
See Shalisha, Zelzah, 

(d)Jer. iti being most probably of late origìn, we could not be 
surprised ifit contained a Statement based on a misunderstanding 
of the Rachel traditìon. It is quite possible, however, that the 
Ramah spoken of is the same that is meant in the underljing 
originai oi Jer. 40 1^, which probably referred to a Ramah 
( = Jerahmeel) in the Negeb, which was the starling-point of the 
captives who went to a N. Arabian exile. If so, the writer may 
also conceivably bave known of Rachel as having died and been 
buried in the Negeb. Talting, as was supposed, a profoiind 
interest in the fortunes of ber descendants, Rachel had never 
ceased to grieve over the tribe of Joseph, which had gone into 
exile with other N. Israelites in N. Arabia (see Crit. Bib. on 
a K. ITfil). When, however, the Jerahmeelite settlng of the 
early Israelite legends, and the N. Arabian exile of the two 
sections of the Israelite race, had passed into oblivion (partly 
tbrough corruption of the texts), it was naturai that the sepulchre 
of Rachel shouid be transferred to the N., in spile of the fact 
that no Ephrath was in existence to impart to this transference 
a superficial plausibility. 

According to JE. the site of Rachel's tomb was marked 
by a sacred pillar (see Massebah), which existed in the 
writer's time (Gen. SS^o). The tomb known in our own 
day as Rachel's has plainly been resiored, though the 
traditìon has attached to the same spot throughout the 
Christian period. It is a short distance from Bethlehem. 
on the road to Jerusalem. According to Clermont- 
Ganneau,^ it may perhaps be the tomb (cenotaph) of the 
Jewish king Archelaus (cp Hekod, § 8) referred to by 
Jerome {OS 101 la). T. K. C. 

EADDAI {'"11), son of Jesse, and brother of David 
Iq.v. g xa. n.] (i Ch.2i4t; z&iÀ&l [B], z&Bi- l^^^\ 
PaAÌM [A], pei&i [L])- Ewald identifies with him the 
corrupt "STI (Rei) of i K. 18, see Shimei 2, The name 
is more probably a corruption of nni {see Marq. Fund. 
25 cp (5 &^) ; see Zabdi, 

RAFTS (nh?M), I K. 423 [59]. SeeSHip, § i, 

RAGAU. I. See Rages. 

a. (payau [Ti.WH]), Lk. 3 35, RV Reu. See Genealogiee, 
ii. § 3. 

EAGES {p&[-&c. TtoN. TOIC [th th BA6iois 
uncertain ; in Tob. 4™ K &pf-Olc]. rages [Vg.], rdgd 
[Syr.]), an important city in NE, Media, situated in the 
province of Rhagiana, iiear the celebrated Caspian Gates, 
and hence a place of great strategical importance. It is 
frequently mentioned in the above form in the Book of 
Tobit (li4 4iio 5s 61392}. In Judith (I515) the name 
appears as Kagau (pa.'^a.v, ragau [Vg. ], ' plain of Dura, ' ^ 
and rl'gù [Syr.]), which is apparently identical with 
Reu \<i.v.\ 

This city, which is frequen'.ly mentioned by classical 
writers, occurs as Rhagà in the Avesta {Vend. ch. 1), 
and also in the Behislun Inscription of Darius Hystaspis 
2 13). After sufFering various changes, it fell into decay ; 
but the name may perhaps survive in the huge niins 
of Rhey, situated some 5 m. SE. of Teheran, See 
Rawlinson, Monarchies, 2 272 f. ; Curzon, Persia, 
l34S'352 ; Smith's Dici, of Gr. and Rotti. Geog., s.v. 

BAGUEL (Sn-IITI). (i) RV Reuel. See JETHRO. 
Reuel. (2) a man of the tribe of Naphtali {Toh. 612 ; 
cp 1 1 7 4), related to Tobias ; husband of Edna, whose 

1 It ia there shown that there has been a confuston between 
two captivities of N. Israel, an AssjTÌan and a N. Arabìan. 

2 Recueil d arckéol. orientale, 2 1 34 ^ 

3 Cp Nili nypa Dan. 3 1, and see Dura. Duru was not an 
nncommon Babylonian name. 


1- Beferences. 


only daughter Sara became the wife of Tobias 
pAfOYHA. 3717; -hAoc)- 

In Enoch 20 4 Raguel is the name of one of the archangels. 
Perhaps this was suggested by Tob. 3 17, where the name 
Raguel occurs in connection with Raphael (both names may 
have a similar origin ; see Rel'el, Raphael). That the 
name has any reference to this angel's r6Ie as a 'chastlser' 
(Charles on Enoch 20 4) is hardly probable. t. K. C. 

BAHAB {3nT), a synonymous term for the Dragon 
{'J.v.') in post-exilic writìngs, sometimes also applied to 
Egypt (or, as may plausibly be held, to Misrim, the N. 
Arabian foe of Israel; see Mizkaim, § zb), Job9i3 
(K-qTr} rà iiw' ovpavhv), 26i2 (tò k7)to^), Ps. 89io[ii] 
(iJ7repT}0ai'o>'). Is. 5I9 (LXX om. ), 30? (^t ìj 
jrapÓKXTjirij vfiwy aiirr]), Ps. 87 4t (/5tta(3).^ 

From Job 9 13 26 12 we perhaps learn that Rahab was 
another name for Tiàmat, the dragon of darkness and 
chaos. 'God,' says Job in his de- 
spondency, ' will not turn back his fury ; 
[even] the helpers of Rahab bowed beneath him." On 
the 'helpers ofTiamat,' see DRAGON, § 5. Later, Job 
again refers to the fate of Rahab (or is it Bildad, 
following oul Job's suggestions in his unoriginal way?). 

By his power he threatened (lì^j) the sea, 
And by bis skill he shattered Rahab. 

Here ' sea ' and ' Rahab ' are coiipled, as ' sea ' and 
' Leviathan,' probably, in Job 38 (see Leviathan), and 
in V. 13 the ' dragon' is referred to. In Ps.Sdgf. [io/.] 
the same parallelìsm is observable, andsince». n proves 
that the psalmist has the creafion in his raind. the view 
that Rahab is a synonym for Leviathan or the dragon 
again becomes plansible. The passage runs, — 

Thou (alone) didst crush Rahab as a dishonoured corpse ; 
With tby strong arm thou didst break down thlne enemies. 

The invocation to the arm of Yahwè in Is. 5I9 also 
refers to Rahab. Here, however, though the alhision 
to the Dragon-myth is obvious, there is also a special 
reference to onSD (see Dragon). or perhaps to the 
people called Misrim in N. Arabia. How this was 
possible we seem to learn from Is. 3O7 (on the text see 
SBOT. ad loc. ). It has been held (cp Duhm, ad loc. ) 
that the latter half of the verse is a later addition. 
Living in an age when the mythological interest had 
revived, areaderwas struck by the resemblance between 
the characteristics of the dragon of chaos and those of 
0''nSD- Both were pre-eminent in strength ; both in 
the olden tìme had rebelled against Yahwò ; for d'ISD, 
therefore, as well as for the dragon, the fate of abject 
humiliation (cp Is. 19) was reserved. In Ps. 874 Rahab, 
according to the exegetical tradition, Ìs simply a synonym 
for Egypt (as the Targum already explains it), though 
even here this is not beyond criticai questioning. 

Rahab in Hebrew would mean ' raging,' 'insolence.' 
This would be not irasuitable as a title of the chaos- 
2 Meanine '''"^SO"- a reference lo which is plainly 
°' intended in ali the above passages except 
the last. It would not be strange, however, if Rahab 
were a Hebraised forni of some Dabylonian myfhic 
name. In the third of the creation-stories mentioned 
elsewhere (see Creation) — that which begins ' cities 
sighed, men [groaned] ' — the dragon is rppeatedly called 
by a name which Zimmern and Gunkel would like to 
read rebbu (for *r%thbu), and to consider the Ass. equiva- 
lent of Rahab. The name, if it means ' violence,' 
would be specially appropriate in the story of the 
tyranny exercised by Tiamat. Unfortunately the read- 
ing is uncertain. The polyphonous character of the 
Assyrian script allows ns equally lo read kalbu, ' dog,' 
and labbu, ' lion ' (Gunkel, Sckópf. 29418). For another 
theory of the origin and precise significance of the title 
Rahab we may be allowed to refer to Crit. Bib. 

T. K. e, 

^ In Job 9 13 26 12 Is. 51 9, Symm, has òXofoi^t'o, à.\a.Ìov%Ì.a,v, 
in Is. 5I9 3O7 Aq. opfiij^o, Theod. ttAótoì, in Is. 30, Symm. has 
To-fia-xal or -xhì in Ps. 87 4 Aq. has òp^i^/iUTOS, Symm. ùirepij^i-iaj'. 



RAHAB {3n*i; pà^B), Josh. 2i3 6172335- The 
story of Rabat) must not be taken literally. She i4 
cìearìy the eponym of a tribe, and ihe circumsiances of 
the tribe are reflected in her fortunes. The statenients 
in Josh. 623 35 apply lo no tribe known to uà 30 well as 
to the Kenitea, who were admitted aniong the Israelites 
on relatively unfavourable terms — as sojourners ; hence 
the term xóndh. The name ani is best accounted for as 
the equivalent of -i;j|n, ' Heber,' the second name of thft 
tribe of the Kenites.' See Jericho. § 4 ; Rechabitks. 

In Heb. 1 1 31 Rahab ìs praised as an example of faìth, 
This ìs suggested by the edlfying speech of Rahab in 
Josh. 29-11, of which, however, only i^. pa Ì9 recognised 
by criticai analysis as belonging to the earlier narrative 
{aee Oxf. Hex. Q.yit\ Il ù no doubl startling that 
Rahab should be a worshipper of Yahwè — if Rahab is 
to be viewed as a Canaanite. If, however, Rahab is a 
symboUc term for the Kenites, ali becomes plain. for the 
Keiiites were worshippera of Vahwè (cp KENITES). 
The attempts of (later) Jewish and Christian interpreterà 
to ex plain away the term aòndk, 'harlot,' aS 'hostess, 
innkeeper,' also now prove to be doubly unnecessary 
{see above). On Rahab's good works (James Szs), cp 
the Jewish view in Weber, Jiid, Theol. 332- The ' 
mention of her in the genealogy of Jesus (Mt, Is) rests 
on the assumption that she became the wife of SAlMON 
\_q-v.\ No less a man than Jeremiah is stated in 
Alegillah 14^ to bave been a descendanl of Rahab oa 
his mother's side. This passed for an edifying belief. 

T. K. C, 

BAHAM (Dn"!). son of Shema b. Hebron, b. 
Mareshak, and father of Jorkeam {qq.v.); i C'h. 
2*4 (p&Mee [B]. p&eM* [A], -&m [L]). See REKEM. 

RAHEL (Jer. 31 15}, RV Rachel. 

BAIN. That at the present day rain is consìdered 
in Palestine as one of God's best gifts, is uodeniable. 

1. Conoeptlon 

Moslems, Christiana, and Jews can 

of Min "ni'"^ in imploring heaven for the 
Oiram. -showerS that water the earth' (Ps. 
72i5j, But it is a question whether the fertilising opera- 
tion of the Baalim was associated in early times with 
the rain of heaven, or only with springs, streams, and 
underground flow (cp Baal, § i). Robertson Smith, 
who discusses the subject fully in Rei. Sem. lect. 3, 
Comes to the conclusion that originally the Baalim were 
goàs of the stteams and fountains, but ihat, as 
husbandry spread, the 'gods of the springs' extended 
their domain over the lands watered by the sky, atid 
gradually added to their old attributes the new character 
of 'lords of rain' (p. 106). Vahwè in the OT is 
certainly the rain-giver ; Jer. 1422, ' Can any of the 
vanities of the heathen cause rain?' In Ps.659[io], 
according to the traditiona! text, the early rain is 
called ' the river of God.' The word used (i'^d) is re- 
markable. Generally it occurs in the plural for the 
artificial streams used in irrigation {Is. SOas ^'2a Ps. la 
119136 Prov. 5i6 21i Lam,3<8). Here, if MT is right. 
there Ìs a similar conception. The rain is imagined 
as water which has been drawn from the great heavenly 
reservoirs (Gen, 7ji) and sent down on earth through 
the solid dome of the sky. This is illustrated by 
Job 3825, * Who has cU/i a channel for the waterfiood ' 
(so RV ; iéteph, f^'^, ' torrential lain'), With this cp 
V. 28, where the 'rain' {màtàr, lan) and the ' parte d 
streams of dew ' (read So uSb, for So ''l'JK ; see Dew) 
are paralisi expressions. 

Naturally, rain and rain-mist {tal. Su) are promìnent 

in poetic benedictions. In Dt, 33 13 the ' precious thinga 
of heaven above' (reading SyD for '?no}^are the rain, 
the rain-mist, and the dew. In Gen. 2728 the fine rain, 
or rain-mist, of heaven stands first among the blessings 

1 For a less probable view see C. Niebuhr, Gtsch. 1 3S3jf- 
S Tg., Onk. and Peih. combine the rcadings Svti and ^O- 
The former therefore is no modem conjecturo. 



called down upon Jacob's land by Is&rc. In Dt. 28 ta 
Moses promises to obedieni Israel ihal Yahwè ■ will 
open his good treasury, the heaven, to give the rain in 
its season ' ; to this treasury the Book of Enoch refefs 
(6O30/. 8823) ; cp DKW. The ' self-spritiging pianti of 
Yahwè' in Is. 4a {SBÙT) are those which depend on 
the moisture which God wnds from this heavenly store- 
chamber. Notìce, too, that in Ps. 104 13 God is sttid tò 
■ water the mountain! from his upper chambers.' It Ì3 
a slightly different mythic symbol which a poet In Job 
uses — ' Who (but Yahwè) can tilt iho boitlea of heaven?' 
(Job 8837). To be able to bring rain through prayer 
was one of the greatest proofs of emìnent piety. Elijah 
' prayed fervently that it might not rain, and it rained 
not,' etc. (Jas. 617); and Josephus (Ant. xiv. 2i} 
relatea that, In the time of King Aristobulus. there was 
a man named Onias, 'righteous and beloved of God,' 
who by his prayers eould brìng rain to the parehed 
earth. Cp PRArEH. 

Palestine is well descrìbed in Deut. lln (in contra- 
distinction to Egypt) as ' a land of hiUs and valleys, 
« Vnii«. anA wbich drinks water, when rain falla 

lat^rata ^™™ heaven.' Shortly afterwards 
^^' (f. 14) a fuller description is given. 
See also Hos. 63 Joel 203 Zech. 10>/. (see Nowack), 
Job29s3, and Ja.57 [ìrpHinùv k&I if i^tiov ; BX insert 
ieròv, givlng the sense rightly). The distribution of 
rain is very unequal. On one occasion Thomson fouiid 
the ground in the Jordan valley like a desert, while at 
Tiberias the whole country was ' a paradise of herbs 
and flowers. ■ Just so it was in ancient times, 'I 
caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to 
rain Upon another city : one piece was rained upon, and 
the piece whereupon it rained not withered' (Am. 47). 
The prophet continues, ' So two or three cities wandered 
unto one city to drink water, but ihey were noi saiis- 
fied,' on which Thomson remarks that this is *a faci 
often repeated ' in Palestine.^ The variableness of the 
climate helps to_ account for the fretjueni failure of the 
crops, both in ancient and in modem times, and gives 
point to the promises of regularity in the seasons on 
condition of obedience to the divine commands.^ The 
former or autumnal rains ( mi'i mio) iisually begin about 
the end of October. In Lebanon they may begin a 
month earlier ; but no dependence can be placed upon 
this, and according to Thomson (LB 90) the winter 
rains are sometimes delayed lill January. They are 
usually accompanied by thunder and lightning (Jer. 
10 13). The next four months may be called the rainy 
season. In Aprii rain (the latter rain, tc^p^p s/^p^- ' to 
be late') falls at intervals; in May the showers are 
less frequent and lighter, and at the dose of that month 
they cease altogether. 

It appear» frotn Glai»her'» obiiervation» {PEFQ, 1695, p. 71) 
that the heavìeu monthly rainfall In 1B97 wbs 11. ai in,, in 
January ; the next, 6.^^ in, ìn December, and that the toial fall 
for the year was 17.72 in. Thtsrefers toTiberiaB. At Terufialem 
the total fall wus 41.63 in. At Tiberias no rain fell from May 
35 IO Oct. ag, making a period of 156 consecutive day» withoul 
rain. At Jerusalem, none fell from May iGth to Oct. ao, making 
a iieriod of i+S consecutive days withoul rain. 

I. Btf 1, gésetn, a violent downpour, 1 K. 18 41 Ezelt. 13 1 1 ; 

cominuous, Eira lOgij; Buch an tht early or latter rain, I,ev. 

26 4 Jer, 5 s4 Joel 2 23 ; aciiompanied with wind, 

8. Hebrew 2 K. 8 17 Prov. 25 14. 

temifl. *• ■'f5> f»à{Sr, a more gsneral term, e.f., 

'the rain Cp) of heaven,' Dt. Un, A tor- 
rential rain Ìi ' a «weeping rain ' (Prov, 28 3) ; or the iwo words 
□E'J and lao may he Comhined, Zech. 10 1 Job 37 6. 

3. DTt, zérem^ a rain-slorm, Is. 254 2S 2 S22 Hab. 3 10 Job 
248; sometimes accompanied by hail, Is. 28 2 30 30. The sup- 
posed occurrcnce» of a vetb denom. (Pg. 77 iB PO 5, MT) ara 
probflbly due to corruplion, 

4. and 5. rr\y,y3reh, and H^iO, mòreh, the former rain, .and 
S'Ip^D, malkd!, the latter rain, lee | a. 

6. D'?'?-!, rèhibìm, EV '»how«r*,' Jer. 83 14aa Mi. Sei?] 
Dt.322 Psl66ii[iolT3fit. 

1 The Land and the Book, 395. 

a Ibid, 90. 



7 D'D'Dn, réiisim (from \/DDn, 'sparsit, sùllavit'X sprinkied 
inoislure. In Cant. fiat (EV 'drops of the night') of the night- 
inist (see Dbw), but probably applicable to lain in general (see 
0'3'3"i)- I" Et. 322 Lagarda and Gfitz correct d'ifE* into 
Q'D'DI. In Ps- 104 13 also -l'D'DnQ should pechaps be read ibr 
ìl'fc-yo nsp. T. K. C. 

RAINBOW. I. np^, kiJetk (TÒfon), Gen. 9i3j^ 

Ezek. lasEcclus. 43 11. On Gen. 9 13^ see Deluge, % 11. 

1. Ipic, Rev, 43 10 1. 

RAISINS. I. n'pìas. simmùkim, see Fruit, g 4. 

2. c'Bi'CK, lìsìSirn, Hos, 3 1, RV. See Fruit, | 5. 
RAKEM (Dp^), 1 Ch. 7 <6 EV, pausai form for 

Rekem, 4. 

BàKEATH (^i5^, 'bank.' an Aramaic word? 
ÀA.Kee [B]. peKKAe [A], pi. [L]), a 'fenced city' 
of Naphtali, nientìoned between Hammaih (S. of 
Tiberias} and Chinnereth (on the upper part of 
the E. side of the Sea of Galilee), Josh. 1935. Two 
identifications of Rakkath are offered in the Babylonian 
Tahnud in the sanie context [Meg. $i, 6a). According 
to R. Johanan, Rakkath was the ìmportaiit city of 
Sepphoris. But the etymological midrash attached to 
thìs identification is such as entirely to discredit it. 
Raba. on the olher band, refers to a generalìy received 
■opinion that Rakkath ìs Tiberias, and according to 
Neubauer (Géog. du Talm. 309) the use of the name 
Rakkath for Tiberias lasted into the fourth centuiy a.d. 
Certainly the position of Rakkath in the list of cities 
at least permits this view. Only. (i) we must not 
suppose that Tiberias stood exactly on the si le of 
the ancien! Rakkath. For, as Josephiis ìnforms iis 
(Ant. xviii. 23), the land upon which it was built had 
been occupied by tombs, which implies that the ancient 
town ( however it was natned ) had lara at a short distance 
from the site of the new city. And (2) it is posslbie 
enough that npn is a fragment of nnp (city of), and 
should he prefixed to mi3 (Chinnereth). t. K. C. 

RAKKON (ppl. noi in ««a; ®l HpeKKWN), 
Josh. 1946 (probably a vox nihili). See Me-JARKON. 

RAM (DT; pam [BAL]). i. The name of a 
Judahite family, whose eponym is variously described 
as the second son of Hezron the grandson of Judah 
(i Ch. 29 : and apa^t [BA], apayii [L] ; v. 10, appay 
£B, cp [iK V. 25], apafi [AL]), and as the firstbom son 
of Jerahmeel the firstborn son of Hezron [v. 25, pax 
[B] ; V. 27, [B]). The same supposed person is 
also named in the (late) genealogy of David, as the son 
of Hezron, Ruth4i9 [appav [BA], apafi [L]), and con- 
sequently in Mt. I34 (Aram [AV] ; Ram [RV] ; Apafi 
[BX etc] ; see also Arni, Lk. 833). Doubtless Ram is 
a shortened form of some well-known name, hardly 
Jehorani (Nulrt. ) or Abiram (Klost. Gesch. 113), but 
raiher the name from which both these names probably 
sprang — Jerahmeel (Che. ), 

2. Name of the supposed family of the Elihu of Job (32 2 ; 
pn^ IBN] ; pa/in [A] ; apo^j, [C]), certainly noi a shortened form 
of the ethnic name Aram, unless there was a southern Aram, 

RAM ("p'N), Gen. 15?, etc. See Sheep. 

Ezek. 4 2 21 37 [sa]. 



SlEGE, § 2/ 

RAMA (p&MA [Ti.WH]), Mt. 2i8, RV Ramah. 

EAMAH (nnn, Jer. 31 15 Neh. 11 33. elsewhere 
ÌIPIO' ' "^he height ' ; usually pe^Mà. [BAL]; genti!Ìc, 
'non, Ramath'te ; see Shimei, g). i, A city of the 
tribe of Beiijaniiii, Josh. 1825 Neh. II33 (BN*Aom.), 
incidentally referred to injudg.l9i3 (om. @*)Is.l029 
Hos. 58 (/jtÌtuìj. v-^dXOsv [BAQ]), EzraSsó {a.po.fs. [B], 
T-iji pd^a [AL]), and stated in i K. 15i7 {paafia [B], 
pa.ftfi.a.v [A], [L]) to have been fortified by Baasha 
king of Israel in order to isolate Jenisalem (cp Asa). 
Xear it lay the grave of Rachel, according to Jer. 31 15 
(r^ ì'\f/rì\TJ [N*A]), where the iribal ancestor is poetically 


represented as appearing on her grave, and uttering a 
lamenlation for the exile of her children.^ Near it was 
also, a later writer believed, the palm tree of the 
prophetess Deborah (Judg. 4s, r^t ^a/^a [B], (a|Ua [A]). 
This Ramah is no doubt the niod. er~Ràm, a village 
with ancient remains. 2600 ft. above the sea-levei, 
5 m. N- from Jeriisalem. Its rediscovery is due to 
Robinson [BR I576). 

s. The home of Samuel and his father Elkanah ( t S. 
1 19211 71784 1534 16 13 19i8^ 25 1 283). a!so called. 
or raiher miscalled, in EV of iS. li, Ramathaim- 
ZOPHIM [?.i'.]. It was in the bill -country of Ephraim 
and more particularly in the land of ZUPH \q-v.\ 
According to Eus. and Jer. who cali it a.pfj^Oefi. cret0a 
Armatkem Sopkim {OS 225 12 ; 9617) it was near 
Dìospolis, and Jer. adds that it was ■ in regione 
Thamnitica, ' This addìtion agrees with what is said 
in 1 Macc. 11 34 of Ramathem \q.v.'\ as having 
originally been reckoned to Samaria, and sugge sts 
identifying Ramah with Beit-rima, a place mentioned 
in the Talmud (Neub. Géùgr. 82), situated a little 
to the N, of Tibnah (Thamna). This is the view 
of Buhl, Pai. 170; Kiìte!, Hist. 2107. It accords 
with the route of Saul described in i S, 9i^ ; cp 
Wellh. TBS 70. See aXso P E FMem. 812149^ (On 
@'s readings, see Ramathaim-ZOPHIM. ) 

3- a K. 8*9 : pt/ifLiiiB [E], pa/iiaB {Al, pap.aB -yuAtiaB [L]. See 

4. Ramah jAV RamathIof the bouth ; Josh. 19 e Oiuicd 
(cnrà Xlfia. [B], pafiftaB (A?], la^tB Kctrà Ai^a IA?L]). See 

Ramath of the SOUTH. 

5. A 'fenced city' of Naphtali (Josh. 1836; opaijA [B], pofia 
[AL]), the modem Ràmth, 1295 ft. above sea-ievel, W. oÌ ^a/ed, 
on the !.outhern slope of the ridge (here rising to a height of 
3480 fi.) which forms the boundary between Upper and Lower 
Galilee. Cp Guérin, Gal. 1 453^: 

6. A place mentioned in the delimitation of the 
lerritory of Asher, Josh, 19 29. According to Robinson 
beyond ali doubl to be identified with the village of 
Rdmeh {PEF Suruey .—Rdmia). in the latitude of Ras 
ert'Nàkùra, situated ' upon an isolated hill, in the midst 
of a basin with green fields. surrounded hy higher hills ' 
{BR 463). Buhl {Pai. 231) accepts this identilìca- 
tfon, whilst admitting that the frequent occurrence of 
the name prevents a final decision. Apart from the 
name, indeed, one might prefer to locate Ramah a 
little way to the W. , at or near the ruins of Belàt, on a 
hill which commands a grand prospect. The language 
of Josh. 1928/. however, does not seem to favour 
either view. The border of Asher is traced in v. 28 
from Hammon {Hàmùl) to Kanah {Kànd'\ and thence 
to Sidon ; then in v. S9 we are told to turn back south- 
ward to Ramah, and draw a line thence to 'J'yre 
and to Hosah (near Ras el-'Ain); somewhere on the 
coast to the S, of Hosah (at the mouth of the river 
Shihor-Libnath) the border ends. Can the meaning 
be that the territory within the first of these lines belongs 
to Tyre and Sidon together, and that within both lines 
taken together (the second modifying the first) to Tj're, 
both territories being theoretically possessed by Asher? 
!f so, Ramah would seem to be not very far from Tyre ; 
indeed, this is the naturai inference from the Hebrew of 
V. 2ga. Its true site may perhaps be lost. 

(Silice Ihis was written, an abundance of similarly perplexìng 
phenomena have been nociced by the present writer, which can 
only be explained on the hypoihe.sìs that the originai document 
tcferred lo districts in the Negeb. Cp Shihor -lib-Vath ; 
TVRE ; ZsMARAiM, last par.) t. K. C. 

RAMATHITE (^npi), i Ch.2727. See Shimei, 9. 

RAMATH-LEmcn^ nm), Judg. 15 14. SeeLEHi. 

RAMATH-MIZPEH(nBVEn ni?-); Ap&Boie K&Tà 
THN M*CCh4i&[B], p&Mtoe K.T. Mà,C(t»àrA], piMCe 
K.T.M. [L]), a place on the northern border of the 
Gadiles, Josh. 1326f. Probably the sanie as MlzPEH 
(4), MlZPAH (2). 

■ On the discrepant traditions respecting the site of Rachel's 
grave, and on Mi. 2 18, see Epkrath, Rachel.. 




EAMATH or THE SOUTH (353 npt^l ; for ffi 
see Ramah, 4), and (in i S.) Ramoth of the south 
(333nÌOT; pAMA [BL]-e [A] notoY' pàM& TTpoc 
MeCHMBpiAN [Sym-])' apparently the most remote of 
the Simeonite towns (Josh. lys) ; mentioned also among 
the towns in the Negeb to which David sent presenls 
from ZiKLAG (Halusah), i S. 3O27. The full name was 
Baalath-beer-rama(o)lh-negeb, i.e,, ' Baalah of the well 
of Ramath (Ramoth) of the Negeb,' or ' Baalah of the 
well, Ramath of the Negeb ' (seeBAALATH-BEEK}, The 
name, however, needs correction by the help of v. f>f. 
and Josh. 15 32. The lists of the Simeonite and Judahite 
towns are disfigured by errata, nor do they agree as 
they should. The opinion of the present writer is that 
the most remote of these towns was most probably 
called Baalath-beer-ramah (also Baaiath-en-rimmon), — ■ 
i.e., Baalah of the well (also, fountain) of Ramah or 
Rimmon, — and that both Ramah and Rimmon {q.v. ) are 
popular corruptions of 'Jerahraeel.' Consequently in 

I S. 30 27 the second of the names in the list should be 
not Ramoth-negeb, but Jerahmeel- negeb. See En- 
KiMMON, Tamar, Negeb. 

In Josh. 1532 Lebaoth (niK3^) and in 19tì Beth-Iebaoth 
(''vn'3)are mìswricten for n^jj^. In i Ch. 1 33 ' Baalath-beer' 
becomes shortened into ' Baal.' T. K, C. 


9&rM cielnt"* [BL] ; &P- CaKt>lM [A]}, the name of 
the city of Elkanah in the hill-country of Ephraim, i S, 
1 1. The text, however, has Ha-ramathaira-sophim, the 
article being prefixed to ramathaim. The difficulties of 
this supposed compound form, and indeed of MT's 
reading, however viewed, are well set forth by Driver 
( TBS ad loc. ), who. with Wellhausen and W. R, Smith. 
foUowing @'s (r(É)i0a, reads 'aia ' a Zuphite,' which is 
explained by a reference to iCh. 620(^35], Kr. as=^'a 
member of the clan called ZUPH ' \_q.v. ]. Haramathaim 
is also plausibly explained by Wellhausen {TBS 34/ ) 
as the laterform of the name Ha-ramah (see Ramathem), 
which was introduced into i S. 1 1 from a tendency to 
modernisation, and stands [ap/iadaifi], in @, not only 
here, but also wherever noin has the n of motion 
attached to it. With the form ap/j.a6ai/j. we may rightly 
compare the apafiaSa or ap/j.a9a or pa/iaOa of Josephus 
and the apifiaSaia of the NT. 

The name Ha-ramah in the Hebrew text almost always 
occurs in the augmented form nnoin. The exceptìons are 1 S. 
19 18-20 I 25 1 283. Here we constantly find -"ipna except in 
19 18 22, where ^t^D^;^ occurs. ® A accordingly represents the 
former word by év pa(ia, the latter by els apnaflai^i— a new 
dislinction suggested perhaps by the occurrence of ji in nriO~tTl! 
The same correction has penetrated once into ©l"-, for in 13 za, 
where ,^nD■|^^ and rtDn3 occur at difFetent poiois, ffiBL gives first 
eìs ap/i, and Chen tv pofia (cp v. 18 in X). 

The objections to [he above plausible explanation of 
Ramathaim- zophim are— (i) that occurs nowhere 
else in the MT, (2) that the Chronicler is an insufficient authorily 
for the existence of a clan called Zuph, (3) that ' land of Zuph ' 
occurs in a passage (i S. 9 5) which has ali the appearance of 
corruptness (see Zuca), and (4) that i S. 1 1 itself is obviously no 
longer in its originai ibrm.l The probability is that nriN C'K 
(EV, ' a certain man ') should be [''jKolm' E"N, a Jerahmeelite,' 
and that d"is« ino o'sis D'nonn pshouid be '^KOm'lnl 'lacn ]D 
BS "ìnD nasco so that the whole sentence becomes (omitting 
the superfluous varìanl 'Snoril' at the beginning and certain 
■variants at the end), 'And there was a Jerahmeelite of the 
famiiy of the Matrites, whose name was Elkanah.' 'lOD (Mairi), 
however, like 'Tamar' and 'Ramath,' is only a corruption of 
'SsDnT, 'Jerahmeelite,' and ' mount Ephraim' is in southern 
not in centrai Palestine (so Judg. 17 i 19 1, etc). See Cn't. Bit. 

The ArimatH/EA of the NT is identified by Eus. 
{OS 225, 12) with the city of Elkanah, and said to be 
situated near Diospolis (Lydda). This situation is 
beyond question suitable for the Ramathaim of 1 Macc. 

II 34, and perhaps too for the Arimathasa of the NT. 
See Joseph, col. 2595^; Ramathaim (on meaning 
of form); NlCODEMUS, § 3. T. K. e. 

1 See Marq. Fund. 12X. and cp other corrupt passages in 
I S. having proper names (Crii. Bto.). 


the seat of one of the governments formerly belonging 
to Samaria which were transferred to Judeea under 
Jonathan by king Demetrius, i Macc. 11 34. On the 
name, see NAMES, § 107, and Ramathaim-zophim. 

RAMESES (DpOin; pàMecCH [BAFL], pA^eCH 
tL], Gen. 4Tii; or Baamses, DOpjn, Ex. In, pa^tmi [FL], 
12 37 Nu'. 33 3, pa-iiMaiTiav [BaA], g pafie<r(r^s (Bab] ; also Judith 
If) [Ramesse, ÀV] ; see also Redpaih; HAMESSES). Fot 
kings Rameses I. and il. see also Egvpt, § ^t/. 

In Ex. 1 II REiamses is one of the cities buìlt by the 
Israelìtes as Egyptian serfs ; in Ì237 they march from 
Rtiamses (eastwards) to Succoth (cp also Nu. 3335). 
In Gen. 47ii the famiiy of Jacob receive from Joseph 
' a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the 
land, in the land of Rameses. as Pharaoh had com- 
manded.' The land of Rameses is, according to vv. 46 
etc, a part of Goshen, or, more probably, is synony- 
mous with Goshen. 

In 46 2B © has indeed for the Goshen of Heb. ' to Heroopolis 
(7'.^., adding PiTHOM, or Etham [y.w.]), into the land of 
Ramesse" {xoff 'Hpcunn' iróAii' eìs yTJc Fajieo'o-ij). [For various 
views of this passage, with discussioii, see Joseph (in OT), col. 
2587, n. 4.] 

It Ì5 usually assumed that the land has its name from 

the town, the administrative centre of that province. 

_ __ , , The present writer would, however, 

j*i.^ prefer to understaiid Rameses here as 
aca U16 f ■ ,1 ■ ■ 1 

, havmg preserved the origmal sense, 

namely, that of a royal name, Goshen, 

or at least its eastern part, stili recalled by ils name 

that the great Pharaoh Rameses II. had been its opener 

and coloniser (see Goshen). In the name of the 

town, on the other hand, the originai sense, which 

must once have been ' house, place, city (or similarly) 

of Rameses,' seems to have been forgolten, owing to 

the popular abbreviation which omitted the first part. 

It is not necessary to derive the combination 'land of 

Rameses," which looks very archaic, from that secondary 


The royal name which the Hebrew has preserved bere was 
Ra' -ii4e ?)s-su,^ or, following more the later pronunciation, Ra' 
(this cai), of course, be written in many ways)->K£(?)^-s(«),2 ' the 
sun-god Rè' has borne him. ' The classic transliterations are 
Pa^iJnjS, Pa/ie<7-(n;i (in varying the Manethonian fragments, 
etc), Ramses. From these Greek forms the Massoretic stholars 
seem to have taken their vocalisatìon ; whether the Hebrew 
consonants are intended to render the name as Ra'-ines-(è)s, or 
in a seemingly more archaic form, Ra'-mese-s (the verbai root 
was originally tnasy, teriiiE JodE), can, therefore, not be decided 
from the biblical punctuation. In the rendering of the con- 
sonants, the preservation of the 'Ain deseives mention as a sign 
of antiqui ty. 

The Pharaoh meant is the famous Rameses II.. 
called also Osymandyas (thìs is the officiai name ; 
_. , User-ma,\f]-re) or Sesostris^ by the 

. arao Q^eeks, also Ram(p)ses (etc), Meiamun 
Jtames«S. (.,p^,iJ^g Amon ') ; see Egypt, § 58. 
His reign of nefu-ly sixty-seven years is less remarkable 
for his military achievements in Asia (which were very 
modest) than for his paramount activity as a builder. 
For his great work of irrigating and colonising the 
Wady Tumllàt, see GoSHEN, § 4. This eoterprise seems 
to have been completed before the twenty-first year of 
his reign. Gen. 47 might anticipate a later name 
for the region E. of Goshen proper. The building of 
the city of Rameses (as well as of Pilhom), however 
points unmistakably to that earlier part of the reign 
of Rameses II, — i.e., to the end of the fourteenth 
century B. C. 


3 On the reason of the confusion of this name with a king of 
dyn. 12 in Manetho, different opinions prevaii. A popular (but 
already conteraporaneous) abbreviation of the name Rameses 
seems to be at the root of the Greek form. 




It must be accidental that the expression ' land of 

Rameses ' has not yet been read on the Egyptian monu- 

_, .. ments. although we find allusions to the 

'— " nierits of Kameses II, as a coloniser 

(which characteristically are wanting with 
other kings). A city, or rather cities, hearing the name 
of this king are, hovvever, mentioned repeatedly. 

In the twenty-fìrst year {see above) of his reign, 
Rameses received ambassadors of the Hittite king 
bringing the trealy of peace and alliance ' in the city : 
house of Ra-mes-su, Mey (or old Mer)-amun, doing 
the comnnands of his father Amon, of Harmachis and 
Atum, the lord of Heliopolis, the Amon of Ra-mes-su 
Mey-amun, the Ptah of Ra'-mes-su Mey-amun, and 
Set. ' This list gives to us the names of the officiai 
gods of the new city, confirming its position in eastern 
Goshen, where Atum of Heliopolis was the chief god. 
LD 3 194 says ; ' thou hast made for thyself a splendid 
residence to fortify the frontier of the country, The 
House of Ra'messu Meyamun ; ... a royal palace is in 
it. ' Pap. Anastasi 2i 46 gives a poetical description of 
a residence,^ ' the castle ; " Great of Victory (or 
Strength)" is its name, between Phosniciaf!) and Egypt.' 
The locai gods are Amon, associated with Set, then 
Astarte and Buto. These gods and the name do not 
agree with our house of Rameses mentioned above ; 
indeed, the city ' great of victori(es) ' (mentioned aìso in 
the great text of Abydus, in Pap. Leyden, I34S, and in 
the expedition of Sety I. against the Bedouins (?) does not 
seem to be identical (as ìs usually supposed), but must be 
a later foundatìon of Rameses, N. of Goshen. Anast. 
iii. lia/. 'the house of Ra'messu Meyamun' appears as 
identica] with the place 'Great of victori(es) ' (3= etc. ). 
Its description seems to point to the country W. of Tanis, 
not very far from the sea. Thus a monument which 
has led Brugsch considerably astray becomes intelligible. 
In Tanis was found a statue of a priest who had among 
other titles that of a ' prophet of Amon of Rameses of 
(the city ?) House of Rameses (and ?) Amon (of the one) 
great of strength.'- Brugsch [Dict. Geogr. 418, etc.) 
concluded from it that Rameses and Tanis-Zoan were one 
and the same city, sought consequently for Goshen far 
in the N. , and came thus to his strange Exodus-theory, 
considering the Sirbonian bog as the ' sea ' through which 
the Israelites passed. The statue furnishes rather the 
confirmation that wc have two difFerent Rameses-cities. 
Consequently, we have to be very careful in distinguish- 
ing them ; LD3i94 refers possibly to the later founda- 
tion,'' as it dates from the year 34 of Rameses. 

The biblical Rameses can, of course, be only a city 

in or near Goshen. That mentioned in the treaty with 

_., . . the Hittites seems to be identical, if we 

4. Hituauon. j^gy .^^^g^ j^y ^j^g j^^^j g^^g ailuded 

to. Compare the granite group found at Tel(l) el- 
Maskhùta which represented Rameses II. between Atum 
and Harmachis, the principa! gods of that district. 
From this group Lepsius concluded that Tel(l} el- 
Maskhuta was the biblica! Rameses (see Pithom), but 
on insufRcient grounds. The excavations of Naville 
have shown that the names Pithom and Succoth are to 
be associated with that locality, but not Rameses. The 
latter city remains to be determined. In accordance 
with Ex, 1237 Nu. 333 5 it should be sought for in the 
western part of Goshen, E. of Pithom-Etham. There 
are not many points hearing traces of ancient cities in 
that region ; Lepsius described the place (Teli) Abu- 
Soleiraàn (or Isléman), as showing extensive ruins, and 
thought of Pithom. Naville [Pithom., i^' 36) disputes 
the existence of town-ruins at that spot. He marks 

1 See Erman, Egypi, chap. 9, for a translatìon. 

2 This ('ii-sf-) seems to be synonymous with ' great of strength 
(or victory) or victories,' 'a-nhi or 'a-nhttv. If not, it might 
point to a tempie {not a city) of Rameses II. Has a ' (loving) 
Amon ' been mutilateti ? 

3 There may be more Rameses-cities. It seems that a Nubian 
colony near Abusimbel was one. Cp (wìlh conslderable caution) 
the essay of Lepsius, AZ, 1383, p. 4 (on Pitbom and Rameses). 


Shugafieh (in which he believes he fìnds the Roman 
garrison place Thohu or Thou) and Teli Rotab as the 
only ruins, W. of PÌthom-Tel(l) el-Maskhuta. Both 
localities exhibit extensive ruins of the Roman age, and 
seem to have been Roman military stations ; it is not 
innprobable that they were settled before that period. 
If so, we may expect the settlements to go back to the 
time of Rameses' colonisation ; but nothing certain can 
be said until a thorough exploration of those ruins has 
been made. 

For the various attempted identifications of Raraeses, see 
Ebers, art. ' Ramses,' ÌfWB[%y i254<t, and cp Durch Gosen. ziim 
Sin^ì,!^) 512^; Naville, Land of Gosken (iBS», 18, 20; 
Brugsch, SieinsckTifì -und Bibelwort, 1891, p. 154. [The ques- 
tion of Identification assumes a fresh aspecc if we hold that 
primitive tradition represented the early home of the Israelites 
as, not in Mizraim, but in Mizrim. In this case we must sup- 
pose that bere as elsewhere the geographical setting of the story 
has been transformed on the basis, probably, of corrupt texts. 
Possible corrections or restorations are indicated in col. 3211, 
n. z.J w. M. M. 

BAMIAH {n*pn, 'Yahwè is high"? or rather a 
transformed ethnic, Ràmi=^ Jerahme'eli? [Che.]), a lay- 
man who joined in the league against foreign marriages ; 
Ezral025t {p&MlA [BKA], -ei&c [L])-i Esd.926 
HlERMAS (lepMA [B], lepM&C [Aj, piMIàC [L]). 

RAMOTH (nion). I. I K.413. See Ramoth- 


2. EzralOag, Kri. See Jerimoth, 12. 

RAMOTH (DiDN-l; A&Bcop [B]. t>.NKu:>c [?A], 
p&Ma)e [L] ; I Ch. 673 [58]), or Remeth (nO"l ; 
P6MM&C [B], pà.Mò.e [AL]; Josh. 192i), also called 
JARMUTH (n-10"l!) in Josh.2129 (iepMtoe[AL]. where 
however 0* has p€MM&d)> a Levitical city within the 
territory of Issachar. 

RAMOTH-OaEAD (ify nfen, i.e.. 'heights of 
Gilead '), otherwise Ramoth IN GileAd (1^7^? nbN"1, 

1. OT Eeferences. " P^^r^ ^"^ *^^ Z^Ì^K^Ì"!'. 
Dt. 443 [p&MMtoe Aj, Josh. 208 

[&PHA^C^)Te B] 21 38 I Ch. 665 [80] [p&MMCON B, 

P&maQ L]), Ramoth (i K. 4i3 [epeMàO B. -epMàe 
L]), but more correctly Ramah (2 K. 829 [pcMMtoG 
B, p&maQ L]) or Ramath-Gilead (cp Ahab), a fortress 
on the E. of Jordan, the admi Distrati ve centre of one 
of Solomon's prefectures (r K. 4 13}. hotly disputed by 
the Israelites and the Aramasans in the reigns of Ahab, 
Ahaziah, and Joram (i K. 2^3^ [peMM&G BA, p&M&O 
L], 2 K. 8=8 9i4 [peMMWe B, p&M&e L], 2 Ch. 

183.^ [p&MAAtoe A, p&M&e L]. 225/ [p&M& B, 

peMMtùe A, p&M&e L]) ; also one of the so-called 
'cities of refuge' {Dt.443 Josh. 208 2I38, where it is 
assigned to Gad). Largely on account of the striking 
narrative in i K. 22, the name of Ramoth - Gilead is 
extremely familiar toreaders of OT, and yet, after ali the 
researches of scholars, no one is able to teli exactly where 
the place was. It is the object of this artìcle (i) to 
record the chief opinions which have been held as to 
the site of Ramoth -Gilead, and (2) to offer what, in the 
opinion of the present writer, looks like the true solution 
of the problem. 

Let US begin with the Talmud, according to which 
Ramoth-Gilead lay over against Shechem [Neub. G/o^. 
9 RitBni/)\/rf\ 55. 25i),whÌle,asEusebiusandJerome 
Ji. »nes(a) [O). j^jj y^ ((55 28791 14531), it wasknown 
to them as a vilìage, 15 R.m. W, of Philadelphia 
(Rabbath-Ammon). These views are irreconcilable. 
Most scholars till lately preferred the authority of 
Eusebius, and identified Ramoth-Gilead with the modem 
es-Salt,^ 10 m. S. of the Jabbok, and 11 E. of the 
Jordan. Cp Gilead, § 7. 

The town acqulred some importance during the Crusades, 

I The name is a corrupiion of Salton Hieraticon, which occurs 
in the N^otìtt. Vet. Ecchs. as the name of a trans -Jordanic 
episcopal city (Reland, Pai. 315) ; the epìthet hieraticon may 
be explaìned by the n-óÀts ^vXJjs youS lepoTiitq of Eus. in the 


3. Site (a). 


whea Saladin fortified ìt with other towns on the E- (rf the 
Jordan; it is now the capital of the Btlkd, but cannot claìm lo 
r^resent Ramoth-Gilcad. The piace could not be approached 
by chariots (see i K. 22 34 jCJ. It ' hangs on the steep sides of a 
naiTow gorge, entirely shut in on the N., and opening out on a 
narrow fiat of garden-land at the other end ; and even this open 
ejctreraity of the ravine is blocked by a high ridge at righi angles 
to the town, closìng up the onty outlet.'l It is also far too 
southerly ; a place easily accessible froin Jezreel and not far from 
ihe Aram^can border is imperatively required. 

Ewald (Gesch.Zs°o note) and Conder {Hetk and 
Moab, 175 ; Smith's i?5Pl 1"9>} do more justice to 
the biblical narratives by fixing the site of Ramoth- 
Gilead at Reimun, a lofty and ancient site a few mi!es 
W. of Jerash (Cerasa), in the Jebel'AjlQn. The place 
was quite open to Aramsean inctirsions, and could be 
reached by charìota up the va!!ey of the Jabbok. Sir 
G. Grove (Smith's ZJ51" 21003) and Merrill {East of 
the Jordan, 284^.) urge the claims of }erash itself ; 
Oliphant too {Land of Gilead. 213) thinks Ramoth- 
Gilead must ha ve been either at or near Jerash.^ This 
view is supported by the Arabie Joshua (208 2133 
Ràmat al-Jaras). G. A. Smith, however {HG 588) is 
not satisfied with any of these identifications. and thinks 
Ramoth- Gilead, being so hotly disputed by Aram and 
Israel, musi have been farlher N. , near the N. limit of 
Gilead — the Yarmflk (so G. A. Cooke, Le. ). Irbid and 
Ramtheh [er-Remthè], he remarks, are both of them 
fairly strong sites. Er-Remthè has been very recently 
favoured by Smend {ZATW, 1902, p. 153), who finds 
in the name er-Remthè an echo of an Arajnaic form 
Knai*. Buhl combines Ramoth-Gilead with the mod. 

■r : V 

Jal ud, N. of es-Salt jsee Gilead, z), and whilst Smend 
jdentifies Ramoth-Gilead with Mi zpeh - Gilead, BuhI 
inclines to distingiiish between them. 

To get beyond Prof G, A. Smith's acute but vague 
conjecture, we must look at the Hebrew of iK. 413. 
Removiog the accrelions on the originai 
text ve iind il stated that one of Solomon's 
prefects called Ben - geber (nothing depends on the 
correctness of this reading) was over the region of 
Argob, and resided in Ramoth-Gilead, Is the latter 
circumstance probable ? Surely his residence must have 
been in Bashan, unless indeed we prefer to omit the 
statement about Argob and Bashan, and make Ben- 
geber the prefect of the so-called Havvoth-Jair, which 
Nu. 32394C places in Gilead, Possibly for -ìy^j tìUl, 
' Ramath-Gilead,' we ought to read in^s noi. ' tlie 
Ramah of Salhad.' Salhad is probably the trtie name 
of the fortified city on the estreme SE. of Bashan, which 
prolected that fertile land from the invasions of the 
noniads ; it is called in MT Salec.\h [g.v.}. The 
objections raised to the other siles certainly do not apply 
to Salhad. For other supposed traces of the name see 
Gilead, § 8, Succoth, Zelqphehad. 

Salhad is sicuated on an eminence forming one of the southern- 
most heights of the Jebel IJauràn (see Driver, Ì>i. 53). 'That 
the districi to the N. of Edrei (Der'5l> and Salhad fell into the 
region of Argob, will hardly be doubted{cp Driver, in Hastings' 
DB 1 147). It was also probably Salhad (Ramath-Salhad) thal 
Beiihadad kepi back, contrary to the agreement in i fc. 20 34, 
and the Israelitish kings therefore sought to recover {1 K. 223, 
etc). Holding it, the Aramasan kings had the fertile districi of 
Argob at their mercy. The harmonising process of an editor 
corrected ^^7S flDIi 'Ramath-Salhad,' wherever it occurred, 
into ij;*?! noi? ' Ramoth-Gilead.' 

It is probable that no better explanation can be found 

'ììta lf\ °" ^^^ assumption that the cnrrent view 

'"■ respecting the Aramasans with whom the 

kings of Israel were so often at war, and respecting the 

region of the legendary Og, king of Bashan, is correct. 

The assumption in queslion is at first sight a reasonably safe 
one, and it receives supporc from the legend of the meeting of 
Jacob and Laban, in the earlier forai disclosed to us by textua! 
crilicism of Gen. 31 17-S4- We may even go farther, and 
pronounce it not improbable that Salhad really was the piace 
which the editor of the Book of Kings in Ìls present form thought 

1 G. A. Cooke, in Driver, Di.W, p. xx. ; cp L. Gautier, Av 
delà du Jourdain^) (1S96), 30. 

2 Schumacher (^/«A. DJ^V, 1897, 66) places Ramoth-Gilead 
at ei-Manàra, W. of Jerash. 



lo be leferrcd to ìn the account of ihe Arunscan wars. But it 
was not the place whioh was meant in the originai narratives 
(see Prophet, § 7). Ic wasat Cusham, not at Damascus(a& 
the tradìtional text represents) that Ben-hadad, or Bir-dadda, 
dwelt (7 K. 13 jg ; see Tab-rimmon), and it was the great 
achievement of Jeroboam II. that he recovered Cusham and 
Maachath-jerahmeel for IsraeL It must have been a fortress on 
the border of the Negeb, towards Arabia, that the Aramaians 
( = Jerahmeeiites) and the Isiaelites so hotiy conlested. Ahab 
ìell when endeavouring to renaio it. Joram won it back for a 
time from the N. Arabian king Haia'tlu (Haiael), and Jehu 
(himself of J era hm eelite extractionl) was aerving in the garrison 
when Elisha (a prophet of the Negeb ; see Prochet, § 7) sent 
lo anoint him king. Both 'Ramah 'and 'Gilead' are, when S. 
Palestine and the Negeb are concemed, corruptions of ' Jerab- 
nieel,' but whlle ' Ramah' or ' Raraath' is a mere popular dis- 
tortion, ' Gilead ' seems to be a transcriptional corniplion of that 
etbnic name. The place ìntended is probably the ' Tamar ' 
("im=nDl) fortified by Solwnon, according to r K. 9 18, cp 2 Ch. 
84, Cp Tamar, Tabkob, t. k. c. 



EAMfPART, in AV sometimes, and in RV generally 
the rendering of ?'n, See Fortress. § 5, col. 1557. 

RABTSHORN (baVP! np, Jo5h.6s). Tbumpets of 
Rams' Horns (D73Ì*n nìlll'lE', Josh, 64 6 8 13). See 
Music, § 5. 

RAMS' SKINS iXih'ì^ rV^). Ex. 25 5, eie. See 
Tabernacle, § 4. 

BAKG-E (Lev. llss), R"\™*- 'Stewpan,' see CooK- 
iNG Utensile, § 4. 

BANSOM (from Lat. redempiioKem). 

!■ VnJi i:à'al. Cp GOEL. 

a. "|B3> flipper. Cp Atonemekt(Ex.21 30 RV, AV 'sum of 
money'; Lev. 27 «7 AV 'redeem,' RV 'raesom'; Nu.S53i_^ 
AV 'sittisfaction'; i S. 133, AV and RVnw- 'bribe'; RV and 
AVmg- 'ransom'; Ps. 69]8* Job 8618). 

3- flTi). pSdàh, Ex. 34 2o, etc. 

BAI^tA (Ngl). I. See Raphah, 2. 

3. In genealogyof Benjamin (y.p, | 9 ii, a), i Oh. Ss (pcu^ 
[BAI, »>a^ (LI); '>ut the name may he cornipted, e.g., from 
Gera (se* J<2R 11 109, §8). Or ^ correct) cp Repkaiak (4I 
and ihe dàn-naine Bbth-rapha. 

3. See RErHAiAK, 4. 

BAPHAEIi (?NEn. ■ God heals ' ; the name, how- 
ever, has possibly growa out of something very differ- 
ent ; see Rephael [Che.] ; p&(t>&HA). one of the most 
sytnpathetìc figures in Jewish narrative literature, is 
introduced to us in the Boolc of Tobit, where under the 
name of Azabias (' Yahwè is a help') he accompanies 
Tobias in his adventurous joumey and conquers the 
demo» AsmoDjE17S [^.w.] |TQb,3j7 82 9i II27). He 
is, however, a disguised visitor frora heaven, being 
really ' one of the scven ^ angels [archangels] who 
present the prayers of the saints and enter into the 
presence of the glory of the HolyOne' (12is). In the 
Book of Enoch (IOO20) Rufael (= Rafael) is called 'the 
angel of the spirits of men ' ; it is his function to ' heal 
the earth which the angels have defiled, ' as a preHminary 
to which he has to place Azazel |?-3'-) in confinement. 
This view of the essential connection between a name 
and the person hearing it is thoroughly antique ; it has 
strongly coloured the story of ToniT (?-".), and is 
endorsed in the Midrash {Bemidbar rabb., par. 2). 
according to which Raphael is to heal the iniquity of 
Ephraim [i.e. . the ten trìbes). The later Midrash also 
represents him as the angel commissioned lo put down 
the evil spirits thàt vexed the sons of Noah with plagues 
and sicknesses after the flood, and as the instructor of 
men in the use of simples ; he ìt was who was the 
promoter of the ' Book of Noah,' the earliest treatìse 
on materia medica (Ronsch, Buch der Jubilàen, 385 
sq. ]. See Angels, § 4, note. 

RAPHAH (nS'l). I. AV Rapha (i Ch. 837)- See 
Rephaiah (4). 

1 ' Jehosbaphat' is probably a modification of Sephathi 
(Zephatbite) and ' Nimshi' of ViSme"eli (Ishmaelite). 

2 Bui Syr. and Heb. 2 omit ' seven.' The nuniber of the chief 
angels vaned. See Angel, g 4, n. i ; Gabfiei, ; Michael, ii. 



j. Four giants are daacrìbed in 3 S- 21 lu i& jo za (cp i Ch. 
204 6 8)a3descendantsof 'lheRaphah'(EV 'thegiant'; RV"iE- 
Raphak ; AVmg. Ravha ; ,157^, in Ch. «BVi). Sce Isbi- 

BENOB, Saph. (ffi'» readings in S. Pni^a [BA], L in Vi: 16 18 
. . . yivakruif, ?i. IO . . . TiTÒfos, n. 11 adds the words 
. , . T^ aiKtf Po$n, In Ch. yi-yam^ [lìAl, ; but in w. E also pa^a 
BA. paifruc tj). Is ,7£nn correcc ì The sing. forni occurs only 
here. See Rephaim. 

RAFHAIM (p&(J)AiN [A], BÈCom. ), one of the aoces- 
tors of Judith ; Judith 81. 

BAPHON (p&ct)a)N [AN], p&(t)e\ [Vf""] : i Macc. 
537 Jos. A^it. xii. 84), an unknown city mentioned in 
I Macc. 537 as ' beyond the brook ' ; it was besieged 
by Timotheus and relieved by Judas the Maccabee. 
Froni the content it obviously lay not very far from 
Carnaim (Ashteroth-Karnaim). U Ì3 no doubt the 
Raphana mentioned by Ptìny (^A' v. 18 74} as ore of 
the cities of the Decfijtolis, and may possibly be ìdentical 
with the Capitolias of Ptol. (v.lSaa). 16 m. from Edrei 
(Derat). See Schùrer, G/f 293. 

BAPHU (NÌB> as if 'healed'; pa<J)QY [BAF] ; 
P&41&Y [L]). father of Palti (2) (Nu. ISgt). On 
origin of name see Palti, 3 ; Rephael„ 

31ASSBS, CHILDREN OF (p&cceic [BA], pà&C" 
ceiC [N] ; tharsis [Vg.J; ikiras et rasis [Vet. Lat., 
cod. Saugerm,]; »sa**ftaa-2*.i . . . -.oa-ul [Syr.]). 
a peopJe mentioned along with Put, Lud, and the children 
of Ishmael (Judith ^aj). That pw(ir)ffos, a mountain 
rarige and town S. from Amanus on iJie gulf of Issus, 
is intended is improhable ; others prefer Taksus [j-f.]. 
The mention of a town ili accorda with the enumera- 
tìon of such peoples as Pur and Lud, and the name is 
possibly a corruption of TikAS. See Rosh, 

aATHtTMUS (pfr9YAftOC [BL], p&QYQC? [A^]). 

I Esd.2i6^ = EKra4 8/. Rehum. 5. 

RAVEN [lia, from ITU. ■ to sink ' [of the sun], ■ be 
black ' ; KQP4.S : carv^s). It is noteworthy that the 

1. OT BeftrMJWS. ''^'^' ^'^ *^* ravens possess the 
same representative character m a 
famous saying of Jesus, at least according to the 
versicai in Lk. 13*4 (hut in Mi- 6=6 rà werwÀ) ; in the 
OT too they are ref«rTe?l to io evidence of God's provi- 
dentiol care (Job 384( Ps, 1479). Ibi Cant. 5n their 
glossy black ptumaga (cp ^eriv. above) is referred to. 
In Prov. adi? Is. 34ii: Zepb. 2i4^ (ciit. emend. with 
©"«'^"^''^r), Qther hahils of the raveo are mentioned, 
and in Gen. 8 7 the raven is stated to have been the 
first bird lei out of Noah's ark.^ 

[The feeding of Klijah by Ih* r^v«Bs (1 K-, 1^4 *) has been 
regartisd as a supiernatural featum anpropiiate to the circura- 
siances of the prophet, but if, as Cfieyne siiggests, Elijah's 
hiding-place was al Rehobolh in ihe estreme S. of Palestine, a. 
tefetence lo ' Arahians ' vfould gain conskWrably in plausihility, 
nor c;an it be. a Iosa to ^ification that human insimtneots should 
take the place of ' uoclean ' birds like the ravens (^e Mijraim, 
§ 2 [■*]). An analogy for the emendation referred to is offered by 
Jer. :ì 2 in <B Pesh-, which give 'like a crow' (I171Ì', uopiiiTj, 
xa'èa) for 'like an A»al>ian ' ('Sny). This is an error, but in 
Bar. (5 S4 the crow 13 no doubl mentioned. The gods of (he 
Babylonians are ihero likened to «he crows iKOftòivaì) that fly 
beiween heaven and «irth.j 

It is probaWe that the Heb, ''driih inclt»ded ali the 
memhers of the fajnily Cexv.idx~-^.e. . the crows, choughs, 
f. Rtwa' rooks, jays, and jackdaws, as well as the 
jWiiW' jpy^ raven. Tristram ènumerates eight 
spettes of Corvida al ptesent fbund in Palestine ; 
aniong which the C. ttmèrintit or twowR-nected raven 
may he specially n»entÌQned, as it is almost ubiquitous. 
They ffeetl to some extent oa carrion, but will also 
attack animals of some si^e, though usually only when 
these are weakly or injured. 

1 A comparison of Z«pli. l.c. with Is, 91 n show» that 3^i^ in 
the fataous passage sbould be a^lf. 

2 In the cun e iform account the rawM) ia th* last ; 9eeI>U>UOì 

§1 2, 17, and cp Ja3tiow, Sei^ 3aé. aitti Ast. 303. 



The raven has always been regarded as a bird of 
omen, and excited superstitious awe which is not even 
•> r<i..-..4 yct entirely extinct. To the ancients 
it was one of that class of hving 
creatures which were at once yen erated and shunned.^ 
It is not surprising, therefore, to find the raven in the 
list of (so-called) 'unclean' birds(Dt. 14^4 ; cpCLEAN, 
§ g). Besides the Midianite chieftain's name Okeb, 
the Ar. clan-name Gordè indicates that the bird did not 
always possess an ill-omened character ; and it is a 
significant fact that Gonio was one of the names o{ 
heathenìsm which Mohammad made its bearer chaiige.''^ 

A. E. S.^S. A. e. 

BAZIB {p&z[e]tC [AV*"J] raiiai [Vg.]}, ' an elder 
of Jerusalem,' ' called Falher of the Jews for his good- 
will toward them.' His story is toldin 2 Macc. 1437^ 
The name is possibly from an originai 'H^nn, ' to 
be lean.' The Syr, , however, gives his name as r-g-sb. 

RAZOB ("ll'Fl, etc), Nu. 65. etc. See Eeakd. 

BEAIAH (n^^tn. ' Yahwè has seen ' ; but cp Jorah). 

I. A Calobite, son of Shobal; iCh.42 (pa&o, [BJ, p»><i [A], 
pena (LI). Reaiahought also, perhaps, toberead for Haroeh 
i^.TT.) in I Ch. 252, but bolh forms may be corruptions. 

a. A Reubenite; i Ch. S 5 (AV Rh 


ìkaia; pifxo |BA], pon 

3. The family name of a company of (post-cxilic) Nethinim : 
Eira247 ((^A [Bl, p«ia [A], aa. [L]); Neh.tso (pa.a [Bt(), 

lAVl, JAIRUS [RV]). '^ 

REBA (I?^'!. probably by transposition from 3TP. 
'Arabia," cp Rekem [Che] ; poBOK, "Be [B]. poBOK, 
peBCK [A], poElCK, -e [L]), one of the five chiefs of 
Midian, slain after the ■ matter of Peor ' ; Nu, 31 E Josh, 


REBEKAH or [NT] EKEECCA (ng?-! ; pcBeKKi 

[NADEL]; Rebecca; on the name, seebelow, §a), sister 
1 Tn^ìttona °^ Laban, and therefore daughter of 
ì.. iraoraons. ^^^^_ according to J (see Di. on 

Gen. 2415). but daughter of Bethuel, according to P 
(see Gen. 25»i>). For the idylUc story of her betrothal 
and marriage, which is not only beautiful in itself, but 
a valuable record of Israelitish sentiment in the time of 
the wriler or wrtters, it is enough to send the reader to 
tlie originai narrative. Gunkel. it may be observed, 
thinks he can trace a doublé thread (Ja and ]b) in this 
narrative. It is certainly possibJe that more than one 
hand has been concerned in the story ; at the sarae 
time the narrative wonld hardly gain by being reduced 
to the limils of the assumed }a. Another crttic (Steuer- 
nagel, Einvianderung, 39) draws a weighty criticai 
inference frora ihe piaraltelism between Gen. 24 and 29, 
Independenlly, a larger infcrence of the same kind is 
drawn in § 2 of the present article. 

It has been thought that there is a discrepancy 
between J and P as regards the caiginal home of 
Rebekah. J brings her from Aram-naharaim, from 
the city of Nahor (24io): P from Paddan-aram (25=0/.; 
cp 282_/l). The discrepancy, however, did not always 
exist. I. It is possible to hold that both in J and in P 
Rebekah had a traditional connection with the northern 
Jerahmeelites of Hauran (for di» most probably has been 
worQ*down from ^cni', and lini may have come from 

1 Having been origìnally worshipped, they were honoured, 
and their presence was considered lucky ; bui their specifìc 
' holy ' character made them ' taboo,' and as .such ihey were to 
be avoided. For this paradoxical conception, see Clean, § 7. 

'i See WRS, Ki». 200, 301. We. HeidA^'s 203. The raven 
was intiniately associated wilh Apollo and jEsculapius; see 
Frazer, Pam. ^Ttf. Coronis is said to have bei-n transformed 
into a raven. In Rome, a flight of ravens on the left hand «'as 
considered lucky, on the right hand unlucky. In northern 
Europe one is reminded of ihe ravens of Odin, and those of 
Flokki, by whose aid he discovered Iceland. Simìlarly the 
Vikir^s are said to have carcied ravens in their ships to be able 
to lina the hearing of thenearest land (cp Castoe, and fot the 
paìniing or carving of a totem, on a boat, Frazer, ToH-mism. 



lin, whilem may be miswritten for jto — i.e., pin). See 
Laban, Nahor, Paddan-aram. s. It is also plau- 
sible to hold the vìew set forth in Jacob, § 3, where it 
is shown that there was possibly a stili earlier tradition 
which put Laban's home at Hebron, At any rate, both 
narrators bave distinguished themselves in the delinea- 
lion of Rebekah's character, which has some strong 
points of affinity to that of her son Jacob. She was 
accompanied, according to MT, to Isaac's home at 
Beer-lahai-roi {i.e., Beer-jerahmeel) by her nurse (2459). 
who, from the comipt text of 358, is supposed to bave 
been named Deborah (see Din ah, col. 1102, n. i), 
Probably, however, the ' nurse ' is not referred to, but 
the ' precious possessìons ' (nj'rjp, cp v. 53) of the newly 
won bride. In the view of the present writer Laban 
was originally a southern Jerahmeelite, originally, it 
niay be, placed in the Negeb, so that he may also 
bave been called Tubal {q. v. ) — a name which seems to 
underlie ^xina (BethueU). See, further, Rachel, § a. 
Possibly, Rebekah is a personificati on alternately of 
the southern and of the northern Jerahmeelites. She 
has been, one may almost say, created as a true woman, 
with beating heart and planning brain, by J and E. 

The explanation i^5??> 'cord'{§ 71) is linguislically attractìve ; 

cp p?""?, and the iroi/nei'ios fluyónjp of one of the Onomastica 

{OS2QÌ2i^. Butwe cannot get lo the bottoni of 

2. Ongin suchnames without considering the tribalrelations 

of name. of the patrìarchs ; wives and husbands alike are 

tribalpersonificalions. Itisprobable that Abraham, 

Rebekah, and Leab-Rachel represent a trìbal name. Abraham 

(from Ab-ratiam) means probably ' father of Jerahmeel '; Leah and 

Rachel (doubles), come from worn-down forms of Jerahmeel. 

Rebekah, or rather Ribkah, probably also comes from ihe latter 

name; Drn = 3pT~p3'l? cp, perbaps, the clan-names or tribe- 

names Becher, Heber, and the locai name Hebron.^ Observe 

that Rebekah's father Bethuel (perhaps = TuBAL [/.!'.]) is the 

son of Nahor — i.e., the southern Haran, by M il cab [Jerahmeel], 

The same ethnographic traditions are repeated over and over 

again genealogically. t. K. C. 

RECAH (nan), iCh.4i2 RV, AV Rechah. 

KECEIVBR ^ì^), ls.33i3, RV 'he that weighed 
[the tribule].' Cp Scribe and Taxation. 

BEGHAB (33"!, ' charioteer,' perhaps short for Ben- 
rechab[-el]^i. e. , son of Rekab['el] ; ^ but more probably 
an ethnic of the Negeb [Che.], pHyàB ; but in i Ch. 255, 
PHXA [E], and in Jer. 35i4 pHXOB [N*]. On p7tx<ip in 
Judg. 1 19, see Moore's note). 

1. One of the murderers of Ishbosbetb (2 S. 4 2_^ r peKxa- [B, 
in w. syt 9I). His father was Rimmon (g.v.). 

z. The eponym of the Rechabites (a K. lOig Jer. 356#!y 
A ' son of Rechab ' is a ' Rechabite ' ; so even in Neh. 3 I4(see 
Malchijah, 7). 

OIKOC &PX&6GIN [BX], &A>(*BeiN or x&P&Bem [A], 
p&X&B[e]lN [Q]. pHX&BlT&l [Sym.]). The Rechabite s 
have usually been considered to be a sort of religious 
order, analogous to the Nazirites {q.v.\ tracing its 
origin to the Jehonadab or Jonadab, son of Rechab, 
who lent his countenance to Jehu in the violent abolition 
of Baal-worship. In Jer. 35 we meet with the Rechabites 
as continuing to observe the rule of life ordained by 
Jonadab their 'father,' abstaining from wine and 
dwelling in tents iti the land of Judah till the Babylonian 
invasion forced them to take refuge in Jeru'salem 
( Jeremiah ii. , § 17}. According to Ewald ( G F/ 3 543), 
Schrader {BLbifi), and Smend [Rel.-gesck.'^^) 93/) 
they were an Israelitish sect which represented the 
reaction against Canaanitish civilisation, and took the 
Kenites — the old allìes of Israel — as a model. In 

1 A connection between the names Hebron and Ribkah has 
been already suspecied by G. H. Bateson WrÌght(Was Israel 
EverinEgyptì, 180). 

3 So, in the main, Hommel, Das grapkische n, P- 23. 
Bar-rekab['el] was a royal name at Sama'l In N. Syria ; 
Rekab'el (or Rèkiib'el) was probably a charioteer-god, ihe 
iraptSpoi of the sun (cp 'chariots of the sun,' z K. 23 11). See 
G. Hoffmann (who reads Rakkab-'el), ZA, 1896, p. 252 ; Sachau, 
'Aram. Inscbrifter, ' in SBA IV, 1S96, 41. 



iCh. 25Si*i however, the 'houseof Rechab' is represented 
as belonging to the Kenites, and in i Ch. 4 12 (@^'-) the 
àyòpes pVX°-^ (M^ 'l^T 'B'JK. ©■* &• PV<P<^' KV ' the men 
of Recah') including Tehinnah (perhaps Kinah= 
Kenite) appear among the descendants of Chelub^ 
( = Caleb). We have no right to set this statement 
aside on the ground of the late date of the Chronicler. 
It is perfectly credible that the Kenites who dwelt in 
tents among the Israelìtes long continued to feel them- 
selves the special guardians of the pure religion of 
Yahwè, and were honoured as such by Jeremiah. Budde 
assumes that in the time of Jehu a Rechabite named 
Jonadab formally reimposed tìie old obligations on his 
fellow-clansmen, at the same time perhaps offering the 
privileges of fellowship to those from oiitside who 
accepted the Rechabite rute of life, and thus converting 
it to some extent into a religious order.^ This is a 
plausible hypothesis, and rests upon the assumption 
that the Jonadab spoken of in Jer. 35 6-10 14 16 18 is the 
Jonadab who had a connection with Jehu. It is possible, 
however, that the true name of the reputed father of the 
Kenites was not Hobab but Jonadab (see Hobab). 
This hypothesis is, at any rate, simpler than the other 
for the Rechabite laws are those characteristic of nomad 
races — e.g., the Nabatseans (Diod. Sic. I994) — and we 
cannot help expecting the legislator of the Kenites to 
stand, like Moses, at the head of the history of his 

The notice in i Ch. 2s5^ is therefore most probably 
to be accepted, except in so far as the corrupt name 
' Haramath ' * there given to the ' father ' of the 
Rechabites ìs concerned. Rechabites and Kenites are 
synonymous terms. No doubt this second name 
' Rechabites ' is puzzling ; nor is it easy to believe 
that Yahwè, the God of the Kenites, had Recab-el 
(charioteer-god) as a title. It is a qiiestion, therefore, 
whether the readings t3'33"i ' Rechabites,' and zy} fra 
' house of Rechab,' ought not to be emended in 
accordance with many analogies elsewhere, uniess 
indeed We assume that the popular speech, which 
uses transposi ti on freely, fluctuated. In Judg. 
4 II we meet with 'Heber the Kenite,' and in ». 17 
with 'the house of Heber the Kenite.' It is highly 
probable that 331. [j'aaT should be either lan, or am. 
□Utn- In the former case, Jonadab comes before us 
anew as 'a son of Heber,' and the Rechabites become 
'Heberiles,' In the latter 'Rechab' gives place to 
'Rehob' ( = Rehoboth) and 'Rechabites" to ' Reho- 
bites' (^Rehobothites). Perhaps the former view is 
preferable, We can now see the full force of Judg. 
4ii, 'Now Heber the Kenite (the eponym of the 
" Heberites,"miscalled" Rechabites ") had severed him- 
self from Kain, even from the b'ne Hobab (Jonadab ?). 
The Hebérites (Rechabites) of Israel are a branch of 
the Hebérites (Rechabites) of N. Arabia, equally with 
whom they honoured Jonadab as their ancestor and 

Possibly 33fi 1J3 il) Judg. 4ii (cp Nu. lOag) :.bould rather be 
-iin ':3— (",«,, the Hebérites. Whether 'Heber' (cp c'inz "I3ni 
Hos. 6g) had originally a religious sense, and marked out the 
Kenites as a priestly tribe (ci; Jer. 35 19, and see Moses, § it), 
or whether it Ìs connected with the mysterious ]FJabÌri oftbe 
Amarna "Tablets (see Hebrew Language, and cp Heber) Ìs of 
coiirse uncertain. Anotber form which the second naine of the 
Kenites has assumed by corruption is almost certainly the 
Rahau [?.!'.] of legend. Very possibly, too, the Canile place- 
name Bene-berak should be Bene-rech ab-- ('.£., Bene-heber ; 
indeed the famous Barak (Judg. 45) was perhaps really a 
Heberite ( = Heber the Kenite). See Kenites. 

Laler Jewish tradition said that the Rechabites intermarried 
with the Levites and so entered the tempie service. Hege- 
sippus, in his account of the death of James the Just, even 
speaks of Rechabite priests, and makes one of them protesi 

1 See Meyer, EntsU 147. 

2 See Budde, 'The Nomadic Ideal in the NT," New World, 
Dee. 1895. P' 7^5' ""' overlooking the inceresting note on the 
possible Kenite origin of Y.ibwism ; also Religion 0/ Israel t9 
the Exile, 20, 44, 120 (1899). 

3 Read perhaps nnn (=soulhem Maacath). Cp Hemath. 



against the crime (Eus. HE 2 23). Recent writers have tried to 
find the descendants of the Rechabìtes in ihis or that modem 
tribe. Such altempts could not bue be illusory. Cp L. Gautier, 
' A propos des Récabites,' La liberti chrétienne, June 15, 1901. 

T. K. C. 

RECHAH, RV Recali (n^-l). i Ch. 4.^ {pH<t>à [A], 
PHX&B [BL]). See Caleb, § 4 ; Rechabìtes. 

1. kipper, "193, èfiAacrKo/j.a(, Lev. 630 815 I620 Ezek. 
45151720 — where RV always has 'alone' ' make aloneraent ' 
(cp AtoNe); tfAao-ii Nu. 29iit, ^^antr/ia, iS. I23 Ps. 
497 (483)t, (^Aao-^05 Wìsd, 1S2I Ecclus.Ss Itìii 17 29 I81220 
(B((C ; Heb. n^o t^ice). 

2. Jiithrassàk, TVi-\T\7\, SifflAÀturfrofint i S. 294. In 2 S. 2423 

'accept,' in Gen. 33ii {tvKiyyelv) Mal. 18 (n-potrSex*"^"') ' be 
pleaaed wilh ' ; imAAayii (Ecclus, 2322 272i). 

3. l'ifte, KBn, èf iAóffKO)ia.t, 2 Ch. 29 24, AV ' make reconci!ia- 
tion,' RV ' make a sin offering.' See Sacripice, §§ aSa, 44^ 

The NT words are : 

4. 5iaAAi£a-(Te<rSa.r, Mt.524 (cp 2, and 2 Macc. 8 29 [V]). 

5. jcdiaAXao-creii' Rom. 5 io (cp 2 Macc. 1 g 733829 [A]), KuraK- 
Aay^ Rom. 5 ji 11 15 3 Cor. 5 18 ig (cp z Macc. 5 20). 

6. àjTOKaToAAao-o'eii' Eph. 2 itì Col. 1 aoyTt 

7. ì\aa-Kfofai Lk.1813 Heb. 2 17, RV ' propìtiation ' (Ps.653 
[4], etc), cp IXatr/xói i Jn.22 4 io EV ' propitiation ' ; cp Ecclus. 
182o[A]353 [k*; i$ik. BKcaA] 2 Macc.333 ; see also Mercv 
Seat. Deissmann {Neue Biielstud. 52)brings forward a parallel 
to fhe construction ÌAatrxeo^at àfiapria^ (Heb. 217) in an in- 
SCription relative Co a sanctuary in Asia Minor, tiv (àtiaprCav) 
où'nì} SvvTjTai sfetAào-oo-flat (j!ir). It is noteworthy, as regards 
the use of the idiom, that iXatrKetrflcti. is employed ahemately 
with KoBapurnhv iroieìirtìai in ® lo represenc the conceplion 
of atonement. The latter phrase regards the act with reference 
to Lts effect upon men, the former with refetence to its signifi- 
cance in relation to God. 

RECORD (iriK'), RV 'he that youcheth for me,' 
Job IGigt- See WiTNESS, 

RECORDS (Esth. 61 Ex. 17i4); see HiSTORicAL 


RECORDER ("l'STlD— i.^. , ' one who brings to mind," 
' remembrancer ' ; &NàMlMNHCKtoN [four times and 
Is. 363 Q^S], YTT0MNHMàT0rP&tI>OC [four times],' 
KtON[2 S. 2O24 [L] I K, 43 (BL)]; a commentariis).^ 
the title of a high ofhcer (Jehoshaphat, Joah are named) 
in the court of the kings of Judah (2 S. 8r6 2O24 i K. 43 
2K.I8.B37 I Ch.l8152Ch.348 Is.36322t)- RVmg- 
always has 'chronicler'; AV™s., often, 'remembrancer' 
or ' writer of chronicles. ' The sense in which the word 
was taken by @ and Vg. is obvioiis. The Hebrew title 
might suggest that of the ' magister memoriee ' at the 
Roman Imperiai court (Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rom. A nt. , 
s.v. ' Magister'), or that of the king's remembrancer, 
whose duty fornierly was to remind the judges of the 
Exchequer Court ' of such things as are to be called 
and attended to for the benefit of the crown ' (Bouvier, 
Laiv Dici., S.V.). But the office of the mazktr was 
almost certainly much more responsLble than eilher of 
these, It might perhaps more aptly be compared to 
that of one of the chief advisers of the crown or of the 
'keeper of the king's conscience.' See Government, 

§ 21 ; cp HlsroElCAL LlTERATURE, § 5. 

On the 'story-writer,' RVme- 'recorder' (DJJO Sj;:!, ò rà 
TrpotrTTETrTDrTa, cp v, 21 (o) ypa^Httv rà Trp.), of I Ejid. 2 17, see 
Rehum, s, where 'governor' (lit. 'man of command ') is 
suggested as a more likely equivalent. 

RED {'7'?3nì ; see Colours, § 8 {DIN, 'ìltDlii, 
fon, 1»n), and for Beddish (D^O•^X), see i^ , § io. 

RED CORAL (D'3'JS), Job28i3. RV^e- ; see 


1 According to Strabo (797) the -ÙTrOfijTjfiaTOypeutos was one 
of the four native officers recognised in the Roman province 
of Egypt — the others being the tlrjyrjr^s, the np^tittoonJ!, and 
the wKTcpii'o^ UTpai-rrfòi. 

2 The senator whose duty it was to compile the acia dìurtia, 
of the Roman Senate received the title ab actis [or a coin- 
inentariis\ senatus. Under the erapire the office was usually 
held as an annual one, after the quiestorship, bnt before the 
prsetorship or asdileship (Smith, Dict. Or. and Rom, Ant, s.v. 





RED HEIFER (nOTN niS). Nu.l9ai?: \V^. 
See Clean and Unclean, § 17 ; and Sacripice, § 38. 
On the symbolism of the red hue see Clean and 
Unclean, § 16, end. 

RED SEA. At Ras Mohammad the Red Sea, ' one 
of the most reniarkable Oceanie gulfs on the globe,' is 
divided by the peninsula of Sinai into two gulfs, the 
western or Gulf of Suez, now about 130 geographical 
m. in length, with an average width of about 18, and 
the eastern or Gulf of 'Akabah, about 90 m. long, and 
of proportionate narrowness, On the question as to 
the extent of the Red Sea in early historic times, see 
EXODUS i., § 15. 

Whether by the statement in Ex. 10 19 that the W. wind 
' took up the locusta and drove them Ìnto the "Red Sea" 
("JIOTIS", eif ri)!' ipvSpà,v SàkaiTirav), the whole of what is known 
to geography as the Red Sea is meant, or only the Heroopolitan 

fulf (Gulf of Suez), cannot be decided from this passage alone, 
t is evident that the western gulf is meant in 13 18 (the way of 
the wilderness of the Red Sea — which the Israelites followed 
leaving Egypt). In 15 4, Pharaoh's captains are drowned in 
the Red Sea (parallel ; sea,' the expression generally used in 
the chapters on the passage through 'the sea'), in v. 22 the 
Israelites ieave the Red Sea. Similarly Nu. 14 23 83 10/ Dt. 
1 I (after ©.correctlyEV) 40 li 4 Josh, 2 10 423 246 Judg. 11 16, 
etc, mean the Arabia» gulf of the ancients, the modem Gulf of 
Sue;;. The eastern gulf, the sinus j^lanitìcus or Gulf of 
'Akabah, seems to be meant in Ex. 23 31 (?) (frontier of Israel) 
Nù. 21 4 (S. of the territory of Edom) Dt. 2 i (to (he S. of Mt. 
Seir) iK. 926 (ships built at Ezion-geber, on the Red Sea) 
Jer. 49 21 (adjoining the Edomìtes). Consequently, the name 
seems to apply to the Red Sea in general. 

The rendering of the English version goes back 

through the Vulgate to the "Etpvdpà. 0d\aa-<^a of 6"=*^ 

, g » (where only Judg. 11 16 has 6à\aiTcra 2(0). 

■ r P The expression is common to classical 
(jEschylus, Pindar, Herodotus) and biblical 
Greek (i Macc. 49 Wisd. IO18 19? ActsTaS Heb. 11 29). 
The originai meaning of the name was a subject of 
discussion with the Greeks. They thought of a source 
with reddish water, or of the alleged reddish coiour of 
the sea itself, or of that of the mountains surrounding 
it ; or they invented a king Erythras.^ Egyptologists 
have compared the name dosret, 'red land,' given by 
the ancient Egyptians to the desert in contrast to the 
khnet, 'black land' — i.e., cultivable ground or Egypt 
proper (see Egypt, § i); also the Edomìtes as alleged 
' red men,' or the 'apury arouiid Goshen (§ 61). '■^ Un- 
fortunately, none of these names is ever found connected 
with the Red Sea ; on the Egyptìan name ' water' (or 
sea) ' of the circle' (or circuii?) and the hypolhetìcal 
explanation of this expression, cp WMM As. w. Eur. 
254. Thus the origin of the Greek name is certainly to 
be sought for not in Egypt, but among the Semites. 
Some misunderstanding of a Palestinian or Syriac ex- 
pression by the Greeks is qiiite likely. It must be 
recalled, in passing, that the Greeks used the name in 
a much wider sense than we do, extending it over the 
whole sea between Africa and India (cp Herod. 2ii, 
etc. ).' 

The Hebrew Tizxa.^ yam sùph, r|3D-0' — i-e., sea of the 
water- plant saph — is also mysterious. The sùph (see 

2 Vnin ^L**^' ^) helongs specially to Egypt (cp 

flODh E'f-ass Is. 196) and the Nile ; only in 

" ■ Jon. 2ó is it used of seaweeds, probably by 

poetic license. The word seems to be identieal with 

the Coptic XoOY*l>' pofyrus, which is not found in 

the earlier language but appears as tu-fi in texts of the 

1 See Wiedemann's Commentary on Herod. 2 11 (who quotes 
Strabo, I6779, Mela, 38, Nearchus, ^o, Eust. Dion. Perieg.36) 
The statement that the expression is found in an Egyptìan 
inscription is incorrect. 

^ Wiedemann, Le. 

3 The Persian gulf also thus belonged to it. The tradition 
that the Phosnicians carne originally from the Red Sea — i.e., 
Lowet Babylonia — has been strangely misimderstood by scholars. 




niiieteenth dynasty,' Whether it be a foreign or a 

vernacular word cannot be detertnined ; consequently 
it must remaìn an opea question whether it was borrowed 
from Egyptian by the Palestinìans or vice versa. It is 
remarkable that the Coptic version, which otherwise 
strictly foUows ®, in Exodus renders ' Sea of Sari ' which 
seems to be sari, (rapi — according to Theophrastus, 
Pliny, and Hesychìus, the name of an Egyptian water- 
plant (see Peyron, Lex. Copt. 304, who, however, 
prefers an ìmpossible etymology}.^ It wouid therefore 
seeni that the Coptic translator here consulted the 
Hebrew, rendering * sea of papyrus-plants ' (Luther 
renders Schilfmeer). These aquatic plants, of course, 
never grew in the salt water of the Red Sea ; modem 
travcUers bave found, not without difiìciilly, some 
clumps of reeds on spots not far from Suez where fresh 
water mixes with the Red Sea {see K nobel- Di 11 man n, 
on Ex. 13 18); but the derivation of the name from 
these would be more than iniprobable. Others have 
thought (after Jon, 2i6) of seaweeds which are said to 
be plentiful in some parts of the Red Sea ; but the 
common, early use of the word saph is against this. 
We can understand how Brugsch {V Exode, 11, etc. ) 
was led by these fresh water plants to assume the 
swamps of NE, Egypt as the locality of the Exodus : 
he quite forgot, however, that the name yam sùph 
applies also to the ^lanitic gulf.^ The freshwater 
Timsah-lake with its large marshes full of reeds, ex- 
actly at the entrance of Goshen, would fulfil ali con- 
ditions for the Exodus and for the Hebrew name (see 
ExoDus i. , § 16). The word ' sea ' is uaed of lakes in 
most orientai languages, especially in Hebrew (cp Nu. 
34i!, 'Sea of Chinnereth,' etc). Stili, it would be 
very strange if the Crocodiie Lake, or other swamps on 
the frontier of NE. Egypt,, should have furnished "a 
name to the whole Red Sea, including the .lElanitic 
gulf which was nearer to most Palestinìans than the 
Egyptian lakes. On the connection between the present 
bitter lakes and the Gulf of Suez, which most scholars 
assume for biblica! limes, see ExoDUS i., § 15. In the 
opinion of the present writer this theory must be re- 
jected, and thus the Hebrew name remains obscure. 

W. M. M. 
With wonted precision and di.scriminaling use of authorities 
BDB's LexìcoH (s.z: rm) gives the following, gn which it is not 

superfluous to comment, because it is one of the 

3. I8 th© objects of the present work to intecmin the old and 

BOlution ^^ nevi, and by a junction of the forces of atl 

hODeleSB ? '^''''''^^' studenti, to make definite advances where- 

ever this is possible, ' fjlD'D." pcobably = sea of 
rushes or reeds (less probably sea. ofSàit'fi Suph), which Greek 
includes in wider name floA. ipvOpà, Red Sea (tp Di. Ex. 13 iS 
and especially WMM As. u. Eur. 42/?, who explains as name 
originally given to upper end of Gulf of Suez, extending into 
Bitter Lakes, sballow and marshy, whence reeds [probably 
also reddLsh colour]) ; name applied only to arms of Red Sea,' 
most often to Gulf of Suez, sometimes to Gulf of 'Akaba. It is 
noted also that 'JIO'D'D should possibly be tead for 7ÌD in BDB also points out {s.v. 0^) that in Ex.l4B(tó)9 
Is. 51 IO (bis) 03 1 1, etc. D'a, and in Is. 11 15 probably D'1SD"Q' 
= the 'Red Sea.' In the lat ter statement, however, 'probably' 
seems to be an exaggeration. ' The tongue (bay?) of the sea of 
Egypt ' is a strange circumiocuiion for l'D'D^ ; indeed, to render 

□'"lao, 'Egypt' in Z!V. 11 15 is only plausible if ntpK may be 
rendered ' Syria' (cpStade, Z^ TlV22gi). That there are errors 
iti the text of 11 11-16, is certain ; that )it^^ is sometime.^i a cor- 
ruption of Sx^OE»' (cp Pj.W on Ps. 120 3), may also be assumed ; 
that niBiK sometimes stands for ninifK (A.thhur), a synonym of 
VdDnT (JerahmeeI), is also difficult to gainsay. Methodical 
critici^m, therefore justifies us in reading, D'7KypB'' ' D"innl 
[D'anso], 'And Yahwè shall place a ban upon the Ishinaelites ' 
(cp V. 14); D'ISQ :s an archaising gloss. Even alone, tbis 

1 See WMM As. a. Eur. loi, Slbdfy, 'reed,' which was 
formerly compared with mo, is different. 

3 Ebers, OwfKA Gosen, 510,^ makes it probable that this word 
is s'r in hieroglyphics. This, howeyer, couid not well be 
identica! with the above Coptic word. 

B The Sirbonian bog would, however, justify the name as 
little as the Gulf of Suez. 


would suggest the vicw that fJfD'Q^ may be an early textual 
corruption, nor could it he said that ' Sea of Sùph ' was improb- 
able, except on the ground that the correctness of the supposed 
place-name ' Stiph ' in Di. 1 1 was open to question. Bnt when 
we have recognised that niSOi Neh. 7 57, ìs a corruption of 
riBlS — i.e., Zarephath in the Negeb (see Sophereth) — it at 
once becomes a plausible view that tbo or p.n in the MT are 
sometimes comtpt abbreviations of the same place-name Zare- 
phath (Sarephalh^. Just as the ' Dead Sea ' was called niSfl D'i 
a popular corruption (as manytext.critical considerations suggest) 
of ^KDnT D"i so fjlD'D'i 3*8 name for the Gulf of 'Akabah, may he 
a. corrupt abbreviation of nDirpj, where 1 is to be taken as a 
race-name = the Zarephathites (see Zarepha-Th). A similar 
explanation may be given of Suph and Sui'hah. Prof Sayce 
(Crii. Man. 255^) is of opinion that Yam Sùph, wherever the 
phrase occurs, mean.s the Gulf of 'Akabah. This, however, 
involves the further statement that the identification of the sea 
crossed by the Israelites with the Yam Suph (Ex. 15 4 za) is in- 
correct. This Ìs sorely too bold. In Ex. 15 4 22, as elsewhere, 
the best course is to read ngiKQ" (cp Moses, § 12), uniess, 
indeed, we prefer to read rigi^ 'q'. Ali difficulties are obviated, 
if we adopt the view of the primitive tradìtion respectìng Israel 
arivocaied in col. 3zo3^, and suppose that the place of sojourn 
of the primitive Israelites was in iho land of Miirim, adjoining 
the land of JerahmeeI, on the border of the Negeb (see Negeb). 
It is possible that the legend spoke of a great deliverance of the 
Israelites in riBIX [O'i where jo' (sometimes corrupted Ìnto 
p \ ' Javan ') represents 7KDni" (JerahmeeI). Quite early, the 
mark of abbreviation in '0* may have been lost, and 's have 
become corrupted into ^B10 and n^D- Then, floating myfhic 
Etories may have led to an alteration of the old legend. One 
such possible story is referred to elsewhere (Moses, % io). 
Another may now be added. We know that o'HJiD (Mizrìm ? or 
Mizraim?) was regarded as the antitype of the primitive pjB 
or ' dragon ' (see DraiìOS', § 4). There was also, in the Creation- 
story, a statement of the production of the dry land by the with- 
drawal of (he water from a part of the ocean's bed (Gen. 1 9). 
This may very well have been regarded as a type of the deliver- 
ance of the Israelites, the story of which (so soon as textual 
corruption made ibis possible) was adjusted so as to fit this in- 
tuition. On Jon. 26 V siipk, was bound about my head'), see 
Crit. Bib. On the whole, the closing sentence of g a seems to 
the present writer to be perfectlj' correct ; but a special biblical 
scholar ought hardly to rest without trying some fresh avenue 
to the truth, W. M. M. , § l /. ; T. K. C. , § 3. 

BEED. r. nj.i'3, kàneh, i K.Uis k&A&moc {2 K. 
I821 Is. 366. etc., Mt. II7 1220, etc.), is a word which 
is common to Heb., Syr.. Arab., and Ass., and 
has passed into Gr. and Lat. as k*NNì, — canna, 
and into Eng. as 'cane.' The name is probably of 
Semìtic origin (Lag. Uebers. 50 ; Barth, Nominaib. %t}c)\ 
but the nature of its connection with the rool riip is 
obscure.* Besides the general meaning ' stalk ' (Gen. 
41522) or 'shaft" (Ex. 37 17, etc.),^ njg is used more 
specifìcallyof (a) reedgrass, (*)sweetoraromaticcane(?). 

{a) Reedgrass is frequently mentioned, though there 
is little to help in determining the particular species 
intended. It was distinct from suph (see Flag) and 
gòme' (see Rush), but like these grcw by the banks 
of rivers (e.g., the Nile, Is. 196) and pools (Is. SS?). 
It appears to have been somewhat tali (Job 40 zi) and 
thick (to justify the metaphor in Job 31 22 ; EV 
' bone,' AV™e. 'chaneUbone') ; and the jointed nature 
of the stalk appears to be indtcated in the repeated 
references to the broken or bruised reed (2 K. 1821, 
etc. ).^ Perhaps the most probable identification 
is with the tali Arundo Donax, L. , which grows 
abundantly in S. Europe : though other specìes may 
have been included under the name.* In Ps. 68[3o]3i 
nj^ n_'n certainly cannot be rendered ' the company of 
spearmen ' (as AV) ; such a phrase can only be rendered 
' the wild beast of the reeds ' [cp AVrae>, ' the beasts of 
the reeds '). The animai intended may be the crocodiie 

1 The l'p (lance) of 2 S. 21 16, may be a kìndred word, though 
the correctness of the text is very questlonabie. 

2 So of the beam of a balance (Is. 46 6), and of a measuring 
reed or rod (Eiek. 40 3, etc), on which last see Weights and 
Measures, % I. 

' With these references cp the Talmudic phrase ' push with a 
reed ' — of a feeble arguer (Low, 344). 

* The evidence of the Syriac lexicographers is somewhat in 
favour oì Arando Phragmites, L. (LOw, 341). 



(cp Ps.7ii4, etc), or the hìppopotamus (cp JobéOai). 
A symbol of F.gyptian power seems to be required, and 
this the hìppopotamus nowhere is. See Ckocodile. 

[It Ì5 not surprìslng, con^iderìtig the obscurity of the context, 
that opinion should not be quite unanimous. Duhm thinks 
that the switie is meatit (cp 80 13 [14]), as the symbol of a Syrian 
population. Cheyne (Pj.l^)) re^ds Jt^n "l'i;! n'H, 'the wild 
beasts of pointed horns.' 

[i] By the èii/i^A of Cant. 4 14 Is. 4824 Ezek. 27 19, the 
3ÌBn n;ip of Jer. 620, and the db*3 rrjp of Ex. 30=3 is 
meant some aromatic produci. It formed an ingredient 
in the holy anointing oil, the others being myrrh, 
cìnnamon, cassia, and olive oiÌ. It carne to the Jews 
' from a far country ' (Jer. 6 20, cp Ezek. 27 19), and was 
costly (Is. 43z4). The more general use of kàneh in 
other passages suggests that this ' fragrant cane ' was an 
aromatic reed or flag. such as Axorus Calavius, L. : 
others, however, prefer to ìdentify the substance as 
cassia bark, which is yielded by ' various species of cin- 
namomum occurring in the warm countries of Asia from 
India e;\stward' (Fluck. and Hanb.<^' 527)- 

2. niij/p 'drotk {S-xL ; Is. 197f ), which is in AV 
rendered ' paper reeds,' means properly 'bare places,' 
and (if not corrupt, see Che. SBOT, and Marti, ad loc.) 
refers to the uncultivated and treeless meadows along 
the banks of the Nile. 

3. C'SJK. 'àgammim. which generally means pools or 
marshes, is in Jer. 51 32 (but @ has ffvaTéfiara [BNA] 
or crvar^fiara [B^"'Q] though Aq. , Sym, franslate ?\»j) 
applicd to the clumps or beds of reeds (such as grow 
on marshy spots), which are said to be ' burned with 
fire' (Gratz, however, would read D'jotk. 'castles'). 
Cp Pool-, I. 

4- ìnK, 'd/iu, is twice in RV text (Gen. 4I218) and 
once in RV"'£' (JobSii) rendered ' reed - grass ' : on 
this see Flag. 

5- naw, 'éieà, in Job9 26t {txi'os ó5oD?} is rightly 
rendered ' reed ' in RV"8-, Cp Ass. aèu or apu. The 
allusion is to the light canoes or skiffs of reed anciently, 
and stili, in use on the Nife; cp Is. 18= ('vessels of 
papyrus ' ) and SBOT ad loc. 

[!c is not strange that this rendering should be a distinctly 
modem one. The expianation o{ ebek as 'reed ' only goes back 
to Hiller (HierophyticoK, 1725) and Schultens (1737). Vg. 
(foUowing Tg.) gives pena portante! (cp 31*); Symra. antv- 
iavaai, (A Vmg- ' ships of desire ') ; Pesh. and over 40 MSS read 
n3'N, '{ships of) ho.stility ' ; and lastly Ol.shausen reads ma», 
'(ships of) wings.' SeeOsi'REV,tiif^«., for a new emendation.] 

N. M, 

REEDS, WILD BEAST OF THE. See above 1 (a). 

REELAIAH or raiher, Reeliab (njSri ; peeAeià 
[B], peeAi&c [AL]), Ezra 2 2 = Neh. 7 7, Raamiah = 
lEsd. 58 where it is corruptly Reesaias [AV], Resaias 
[RV], {pijtraiov [BA], Se/j-iov [L = ,tcdt =:^■oy^]) ; the 
forni Reelias [?-!'-], however. appears elsewhere in 
the same verse. Like ' Raamiah ' it may represent 
' JerahmeeI ' ; the existence of N. Arabian elements 
within the Jewish community can hardly be denied 
(Che,). Cp Regem-melech. 

EEELIUS, RV Reelias (BopoAeroY [B], peeAroY 
[A]), a duplicate of the name of the fourth in the post- 
exilic list of leaders in i Esd. 58, which has by a scribc's 
error been suhstituted for BàpOl {see v. 14 [A]) or 
B&rOYAl [L]. i-«-< Bigvai (see Ezra22 Neh, Z?)- 

REESAIAS (pHC&iOY [BA]), i Esd. 58^Ezra22, 

EEFINER (tìlVP), Mal. 33 /.t See FuRNACE, 

See AsYLUM, § g, and cp § 6, 8 ; Levites. 

REOEU (DJT; p^rew [B]. pe. [A], perM& [L]), 
a Calebite name, one of the sons of Jahdai ; i Cb. 247, 


REGEM-MELECH (l^D-DJ-l ; ipBeceep [BNF], 
-cep [N'^-^], -c€cep [A], -cee [Q]. o BacpAbyc; see 

below). A citizen of Jerusalem concerned in a deputa- 
tion sent to the prophet Zechariah, Zech. 72 (see 
ShareZER, a}. Most probably (as Marquart suggests) 
he is to be identìfied with Raamiah, one of the twelve (?) 
leaders of the Jews (Ezra2 2 and parallel passages).^ 
The present writer suspects, however, that both 
' Raamiah ' and * Regem-melech ' are simply corruptions 
of 'JerahmeeI.' The Jew spoken of would be (like so 
many others) partly of Jerahmeelite extraction. It 
would thus become unnecessary to explain Regem in 
Regem-melech by the Aram, cn, jaculari. 

Marti now (1B57) reads, for 'Regem-melech and hìs men,' 
' fourteen men," q'cjk "w^ nynK, a trace of which he finds in 
®'s apPiattp ò ^auiAeus. This accounts rather ingeniously for 
apiSetreep. But we have no righi to eliminate -i^!^ CJ1- «p^sTSEp 
may represent -l!iK3ìj; (cp ^s(t-|B■>— 1.«., It^N 31;; (^Asshurite 
Arabia). Cp Sharezer, = ; Rab-shakeh. t. K. C. 

REHABIAH (ninjnni, 'Yah is a wide place,' cp 
the use of 3rn in Ps, 4z 18 37 [36] or quite as possibly 
an ethnìc — *'3n"), ' Rehobite ' (Che.) ; p&àBlà). b. 
Eliezer b. Moses'(i Ch.SSi? 2Ì2i : ìBia. [M ; 2625: 
p&Bl&c [B], p&à- [A], aBia [L])- Cp Moses, Recha- 


BEHOB (ahi, ' broad piace ' ; poojB [BAL]). 

1. The northern limìt of the 'spies,' apparently 
Aramasan, and in the direction of Hamath (Nu. ]3zi 
paaj3 [B], pouO [F] 2 S. 108 poa/3 [A], ^aiOpau^ [L]) ; 
see BeTH-KEHOb. In the context of both passages, 
however (see Negeb, Mamre, Zobah), there are 
phenomena which soggest that both ' Rehob ' and the 
' Bet h -rehob ' of 2 S. 106 are incorrectly or imperfectly 
written far 'Rehoboth,' and that this ' Rehoboth ' is 
the place of that name in the Negeb (see Rehoboth). 
' Hamath' maybe miswrìtten for Maacath or Maacah 
{ff.v.), not improbably the southern Maacah. It may 
be added that. from this point of view, 'Aram' in the 
originai narrative which underlies 2 S. 10 meant 'Jer- 
ahmeeI,' a stili shorter form of which is RAM (?.f. ) ; also 
that 'ben Rehob,' the designation of Hadad-ezer in 
2 S. 8311, probably means "native of Rehoboth' {see 
Zobah). t. k. c. 

2. and 3. The name of two unidenlified Asherite 
cities, the one mentioned between Ebron and Hammon 
(Josh. 1928, paa^ [B]), the other with Accho and Aphek 
(l'J, 30. paav [B, see Ummah], patujS [A] -o^ [Compi.], 
opw/3 [L]}- There may well have been severa! Rehobs; 
but the mention of two in the Asherite list seems 
due to an error. It is only the second one which 
we know to have existed. It is enumerated (with 
Aphek and Accho) in Judg. I31 (epew [B]) among the 
cities of Asher in which the Canaanites remained ; and 
again in Josh. 21 31 (P, paa^ [B]), I Ch. 675 [60] (om. 
L) in a post-e.\Ìlìc list of I.evitical cities assigncd to 
the b'ne Gershon. ^ A possible connection with ra/iu[^Òu ?] 
in an Eg. list, may be mentioned (cp WMM As. u. Eur. 
394). Of more importance, however, is the occurrence 
of ihe name rahubu (pap. Anast. ) between Kiyv^ (see 
Hebek, 1), and Soy/i-^a'-à-^?* (perhaps Belh-shean 7),^ 
which is doubcless the same as the Roob, pou^ of the 
Onom. , situated near Beth-shean (O^l^l 1452i 28682/). 
Now this Rehob in OT times must have been included 
within the borders of Issachar. It seems not improbable 
that the name in Josh. 19 28 (see above) has been 
accidentally transplanted from the list of cities of 
Issachar once given by E in w. 17-23.'* See Beth- 

REHOB. S. A. e, 

1 Cp Ahijah{i S.143) = Ahimelech(i 8.229-12). 

^ The criticisra of Josh. 19 is difficult. See JosHUA, 
§ 6, Addis, Bac. Hex. It-ys /. 2 ifiT /., and cp Oxf. Hex. 
ad Igc. 

3 WMM As. u. Ktir. 153 ; cp rukaòa (SoSenk list) togethei 
with Hapuratna (see Hai'haraim). 

* Of the older docnment only v. lya has survived. The rest 



BEHOB {3n"l). I. 2 S. 8312; see Rehob i. 1; 

Beth-rehob; Hauadezer. 

2. A Levite signatory to the covenanc (see Ezka i., g 7); 
Neh. lOii [12] (B om., pouip [AL], poo^ [Kc.a mg.]). 

KEHOBOAM (Dl?3ni, as if ' the clan is enlarged.' ^ 

But n'3m. Rehabiah, favours the view that either qv is the 
divine name 'Amm [cp Ammi, Names in], or [Che.] tne name 
is, or represents, one ot the curreiit modifications of ' Jerahmeel.' 
Possibly the true form was Rehab'el, just as the tiue form of 
Jehoboam [^,v,] may have been Jerubba'al ; the origin of both 
names, however, may be suspected to have been 'Jerahmeel.' 
Cp, however, Gray HPN^ 59 ; po^onji [BAL]), 

Son of Solomon, and first King of Judah (about 930 
B.c. ?). According to 2 Ch. 12 13 the queen-mother was 
' Naamah, an Ammonitess.' This supposed half- 
Ammonitish origin of Rehoboam would be important. 
were it probable (cp the -am. in the name). But w^e 
have no reason to think that Solomon's chief wife was 
an Ammonitess, Much more probably he married the 
'companion' of David's old age, by an error (it seems) 
of © and MT called Abishag. If so, n'Jiny may be a 
corruption of n'Hi'E*, Sunammith, and Rehoboam's 
mother was probably Ntiamah the Shunamite (cp Cant. 
612 [13]). The queen-mother, however, need not have 
been an Issacharite ; the Shunem from which she carne 
was most probably in the Negeb (see Shunammite), 
Had it been otherwise, Rehoboam might have counted 
on the support of the tribesmen of Issachar. But 
Issacharites were certainly not among ' the young men 
that had grown up with him and stood before him," of 
whom we are told in i K. 128. 

The traditional story of the evencs which led to the disruption 
is considered elsewhere (see Jeroboam, i). It is necessary, 
however, to rcfer lo it again in connection with the article 
SoT.OMON. It would seem that in spite of the compulsory (?) 
cession of twenty cities to the king of Missur, Solomon succeeded 
in retaining a large part of the Negeb. It also appears that a,s 
late as the time of Amos (see FkoI'HEt, § 35) Israelites from th« 
N. frequented the venerable sanctuaries of the Negeb^-a region 
which the second Jeroboam had recovered for Israel, ft is 
further probable that the place-name which appears in Genesis 
(MT) as ' Shechem ' should rather be Cusham, and that a place 
in the Negeb, on the border of the N, Arabian Cush is intended. 
See Shechem. Very possibly it was there that the greac 
assembly was held, which issued in the rejection of Rehoboam 
by the larger part of Israel. That the story gìven in 1 K. 12 is 
correct, is intrinsically improbable. We do not know what it 
was that actually kindled the spark of disaffection, not is it 
necessary that we should. The difFerences of N. and S. were 
reasons enough for a separation ; in race and perhaps even in 
matters of cuTtus there was by no means complete unity among 
the federated clans of Israel. Was Rehoboam really forty- 

one years old at his accession? We may doubl it, even without 
laying stress on i K. 12 8 ; cp 2 Ch. 13 7. So far as we cari see, 
he displayed no vigour, even in the feud between himself antl 
Jeroboam ; the historians ascribe this partly to the intervention 
of a prophet named Shemaiah. And in spite of the cities in 
the S. which Solomon (and, as the Chronicler States, Rehoboam 
himselO had fortified, he could not hinder the successful in- 
cursion of ' Shishak, king of Egypt,' or rather ' Cushi, king of 
Misrim ' (see Shishak), which resulted in the loss of the 
treasures which Solomon had collected for the tempie. This is 
the one great event recorded of his reign. See Israel, g aS, 
and on Rehoboam's wives(2 Ch. 11 1320), Maacah, Mahalath. 

T. K. C. 

REHOBOTH (n'uh-! ; eYPYXWP'A [ADL]), the 

name of one of the wells dug by Isaac (Gen. 2622). 

1. Identifica- ^^^ Gerar. Rèhòbòth was really 

. . however, an important place, to which 

great kings and diviners appear to have 

traced their origìn, and where great prophets took 

refuge, and received messages from their God (see 

below). It may perhaps be the city of Rubuta nien- 

tioned in the Am, Tab, (182i3 183io), and once 

called apparently yubuti (239^7). In 183e-io we read 

that the warriors of Gazri, Gimti, and Kilti have taken 

the region of Rubuti. Gìmti is Gimti-Kirmil, i.e. , 

Gath of JERAHMEEI, {?.!'., § 4 (/-]). Kilti is Keilah- 

The localities, e.\cept Gezer. lie pretty near together. 

Presumably the site is that of the mod. Ruhaibeh, 8 

has been rejected in favour of P's account of the tribal limits ; 
see Addis (Joc. d'i.). 

1 Cp the play on the name in Ecclus. 47 23 (Heb. text). 


hours SW. of Beersheba, at the polnt * from which the 
roads across the desert, after having been ali united, 
again diverge towards Gaza and Hebron.' Robinson, 
who visited the place, hesitated to make this Identifica- 
tion, because ' this appears to have been nothing but a 
well' (5A'l29i). Rowlands^ and Palmer saw more 
clearly. In the Wàdy itself there is only one well ; but 
on the sloping sides of the side-valley, in which the 
ruins are situated, are many wells, reseruoirs, and 
cisterns. "A little beyond this the Wàdy opens out, 
and receives the name of Bahr bela mi (' the waterless 
sea [lake]'), and on the left comes in a small valley 
called éuinet er-Ruhaibeh, in which names are preserved 
both the Sitnah and Rehoboth of the Bible' (Palmer, 
Desert of the Exodus, 385). Probably Ruhaibeh also 
represents the 'Rehoboth by the River' of Gen. 3637 
(inai! rtÌ3Ìm ; powjSwd ttjs irapà iroTafj.ày, or toO iroTa/iov 
[AL], om. B ; de Jluvio Rohohoth, or de R. qua juxta 
amnem sita est [Vg.]). See Saul (2), Pethor. The 
appended description distinguished this Rehoboth from 
other places of the same name. The ' River ' is the 
River of Misrim (see MiZRAiM, % 'zb ; Egypt, River 
of). For passages in the accounts of Bela, Balaam, 
and Elijah, in which Rehoboth appears under disguises 
due to corruption in ihe text, see BELA, Cherith, 
Pethor ; also Marcaboth, Negeb, § se. 

This, however, does not exhaust the list of probable 

references to Rehoboth. It may have been displaced 

f Vn-rì-h^-rCVP^y 'Hebron' in Gen.2S2 352? Judg. 

rff A ^"=^ (see KiRjATH- ARBA) ; in this 

reierences. ^^^^ j^ ^^^ ^^ Rehoboth, not at Hebron. 

that the famous cave of ' the Machfelah ' (? Jerahmeel, 
Gen. 23 17-20) was situated. The error may have been 
a very early one (perhaps in the originai P). No doubt, 
too, ' B'ne Heth'in Gen. 'ìZ-ìff. is miswrìtten for ' B'ne 
Rehoboth' (nn for n[3]nH) ; so also ■ Hittite' (-nn) in 
Gen. 2634 and 362 should be ' Rehobothite' ("n^m), and 
' daughters of Heth ' (nn fiun) in Gen. 2746 should be 
■ daughters of Rehoboth ' (nam mja) ; see Jacob, § z. 

The Hook of Ezekiel, too, yields one remarkable 
reference to Rehoboth, if in Ezek. I6345. ' thy mother 
was a Hittite, 'we should read' Rehobothite' (|| 'Amorite,' 
or rather ' Arammite ' — ' Jerahmeelite '). On the prob- 
ability that the early population of Jerusalem consisted 
of Jerahmeelites or Rehobothites, see ZiON, and cp 
Crit BÌb. 

Most probably, too, ' Uriah the Hittite ' should be 
' Uriah the Rehobothite," and ' Haggith' (the name of 
Adonijah's mother) in 28.84 should be Rehobith 
(n'3ni). ' Cherethite ' ("fila), too, can at last be rightly 
read ; it should be ' Rehobothite ' ("nirn). This, in 
fact, is a necessary inference from the corruption of 
ri'i^rn into nns in 1K.I735 (see Cherith, and cp 
Pelethites, Zarephath). Thus David's faithful 
guards were not Philistines, but men of S. Palestine. 
That the Rehobothites and Sarephathites, however, 
were always friendly to David is more than can be 
safely stated. Both tribes or peoples are apparently 
referred to as hostile to David in 2 S. 21 15-22. ' Philis- 
tines ' should be 'Sarephathites,' and 'Gath' (ni) and 
' Gob ' (33) are probably corrupt fragments of 'Reho- 
both ' (num). it will be remembered that the Misrites 
were famous for their tali stature (iCh. llaj; cp Is. 
45 14?}. and that the Anàkim are connected with 
Kirjath-arba. Now Kirjath-arba (jj^ix nnp), or per- 
haps -'aràb(3iu 'p) is at any rate not Hebron, but may 
be Rehoboth (cp Sodom). These conjecttu-es favour the 
view that Goliath, David's antagonist in the legend, 
was of Rehoboth, not of Gath. 

In short, it would appear that older and very different stories 
underlie the narratives in MT and ® of i S. 17 and (especially) 
2 S. 21 15-22 23B-23 ; either there has been a confusion between 

1 In Williams, Noly City, 1 465. 

^ ' Canaanites ' bere should he ' Kenizzites ' (as in some other 
parts of Judg. I and elsewhere). 



two wars of David — one with the ' Philistines ' and one with the 
Sarephathites and Reiiobochiles, or there has throughout the 
life of David beeii a great error of the scribes — DTIff^B written 
for c'nB"l!i and D'nlS *<»■ DTafTl' "^ so, u becomes at once 
probable that Sarephath and Rehoboth are alao refcrrcd to in 
sS 517.25 ani 61-11 (see Zarephath, Ziklag). 'Obed- 
EDOM [^.v.] the Gittite ' should he ' Arab-edom the Rehobo- 
thite.' On]y on ihis criticai conjecture can we explain the 
action ascribed to David in a S. 6 io (cp Ark, g ^). This may 
he taken together with a less certain but not un importai) t con- 
jecture relative to Baal-perasim and Peres-uzza (see Perazim, 
Zarephath). The royal city of Achish (18.275) "^s not 
'Gaih' but 'Rehoboth.' This would throw a light on the 
story of Shiraei's journey in i K. 2 39^ (see Shimbi). Else- 
whcre (Sisera) it is suggested that both ' Achish ' and ' Nahash ' 
probably come from 'Ashhur' (=' Asshur,' also= 'Geshur ') so 
that 'Sisera' ( = Asshur) may represent the Nahash, king of 
Ammon (rather Jerahmeel), of i S. 11 1 2 S. 10 2. 

Other disguised references to Rehoboth may perhaps 
be fouiid in iS, I447 (where tS'- presupposes 3rn n'3, 
probably a corruption of nhiri) and in 2 S. 83 12 106 8. 
In I S. 14 the conquest of Rehoboth ìs ascribed to 
Saul ; in 2 S. , more correctly to David. In 2 S. 
Ili 1226-30 this important event is described ; the 
phrases ' the royal city ' and the ' city of walers ' are 
both the resuit of textual corruption {read * the city of 
Jerahmeel,' or ' of the Jerahmeelites '). See further C/^V. 
Biè., and cp Saul, § 3 ; Ùriah. See also Mizraim, 
where it is argued that Gen. IO14 probably refers to 
Rehoboth (not Caphtorim) as the starting-point of the 
Peiistim (cp 2 S. 21 18^). t. k. c. 

BEHOBOTH-IR ("l*r Db'rn ; potoBoJC noAtN 

[AD]; poLoBoe n. [-O^i; potoBcoe n. [EL])or -the 
. ■ 1 ■ "^y Rehoboth,' one of the four cities 

1. ABSynoiOgl- jnentjoned in Gcn. lOiif. The name 
quiry. ^.g^^jjQt ^ identified with any of the 
cities in the neighbourhood of Nineveh and Calah, with 
which it is associated. In the inscrij*ions of Sargon 
and Esarhaddon mention is made of the réèti Ninà, as 
a place in which was situated the old city Maganuba, 
on the site of which Sargon founded his city of Dùr- 
Sargon, the modern Khorsabad. Rehoboth-Ir might 
represent Rébit-àli, and this might be equivalent to 
Rébit-Ninà, and be a popular name for Dfir-Sargon 
(cp Del. Par. \bo f. Calwer Bib.-Lex. 723^). The 
word rèbitu (from rabatu?) denotes primarily the out- 
skirts of a city, in some cases the fields and plantations 
which were part of the city but lay outside its walls, 
though possibly within the exterior cir cum vallati on. 
Thus it was in the rébìt of Dilr-ili that Sargon fought 
with Humba-nigas king of Elam, at the commencement 
of his reign : and it was in the rèbìf of Nineveh that 
Esarhaddon made his triumphal entry after his capture 
of Sidon. KB 2 126. There is evidence that rèbit is the 
name of the farm or estate in the open country and was 
usually followed by the name of its owner ; thus Rébit 
Rìraàni-ilu denotes the estate of Rimànì-ilu (see Assyrian 
Doomsday Book. 62). This would suggest that, if a 
town-name, Rehoboth 'Ir iniplics a founder 'Ir. No 
such town name, however, has come down to us.* 

The failure of attempts to explain Rehoboth-Ir and 

Resen (not to add Accad and Calneh) from Assyriology 

TB«t critir'a.l '^**"'P^1^ biblical critics to look at the 

-eie problem from a fresh point of view, 

suggested by experience of the con- 

fusions and misunderstandings of biblical names which 

abound in the traditional text. The problem thus viewed 

ìs part of a much larger one which affects the whole of 

the Nimrod passage. and indeed the context in which 

that passage occurs. It is far from unlikely that 

Nìnirod was really a N. Arabian not a Babylonian hero, 

and ' Rehoboth-Ir and Calah' should mosl probably 

give place to ' Rehoboth and Jerahmeel.' See NiMROD, 

Rehoboth, c. h. w. j. , § i ; t. k. c, , § 2. 

REHTTM (D-inn as if 'beloved,' an Aramaic word 

1 There was a district known as Rabflte, near Nineveh (see 
Assyrian Deeds and Docatnents, Nos. 278, +16) ; but this was 
probably the rabit of the ' magnates,' rabbie, of Nineveh. 



[§ 56], but very possibly one of the popular tran sforma- 
tions of 'Jerahmeel'; cp Harim, Rekem, Raamiah, 
and see Shimshai [Che.]). 

1. A leader (see EZRAÌi. , §8 e) in the great post-exilic 
list (EzRAii-, §9) Ezra22 (ipeoYM [A], peiOYM [L]. 
B om.) ; probably the same as (4) below. That the 
form Nehum (oina ; vaovii [BKAL]) in Neh. 7? is in- 
correct is shown by i Esd. 58 {poeifiov [B], /lo/ieXtoi; 
[A»], vaovii. [L], EV RoimL's). 

2. b. Banì, a Levile, in list of wall-builders {see 
Nehemiah, § i/, EzRAii,, §§ 16 [i] -L^d) Neh. 817 
(^aaovB [B], paovfj. [tSA], peovii. [L]). 

3. Signatory to the covenant (EZRA i., §7}; Neh. 
IO25 [=6] [paovii. [BNA], pt. [L]). 

4. A priest in Zerubbabel's band (EZRA ii. , § 6b), 
Neh. 123, miswritten for Harim of v. 15 (so Guthe in 
SBOT; BXA om. ; peou^ [«'^-a"'8' s"P.L]). 

5. The name of a high officiai (oya ''JJ3) who joined 
with Shimshai the scribe and others in making repre- 
sentations against the Jews to Artaxerxes (Ezra48 g 17 23). 
EV, following the early Hebrew commentators, who 
explain 'recorder,' calls him 'the chancellor ' ; 'the 
governor ' would perhaps more cxactly convey the force 
of Djna Sya ('man of commands"), which is either the 
translation of an old Persian title (Pahlavi/raOTiJ/ar — so 
Andreas in Marti, Aram. (Jram. ) or may even represent 
a Greek title {e.g., Iwapxo^)- The latter alternative 
assumes that the writer transported the politicai relations 
of the Greek period into the Persian period to which 
documents used by him l>clonged (so Marquart, 
Fund. 60). It is desirable, however, that Ezra and 
Nehemiah should be re-examined in the light of the 
theory that the underlying originai narrative related to 
the N. Arabian, not to the Persian, rule. This may 
affect our concluslons in many minor points. 

T. K. C. 

The versions of Ezia leave the title untranslated (paouA 

^aZa-TO^ev, pooir)i 3aaÀ, paovfi ^nAyofi, paoujU [B], pfov/i, panAra^ 

ptaufi. [A], peov^i Pt\rttfi, [L], beelteent [Vg.]). In i Esd. 2 ■Liff., 

Ratkumus (paft)f*05) called the 'news-writer' (p. 1?, à [«sItì 

jTpoo'irtirTOi'Tn, EV 'the story-writer "), Cp Jos. (yin*. :;i. 2 1) 
p. ò. ir<ii^a TÙ jrpaTTÓ^ei'a ■ypni^i'. In other cascs his litlc has 
been treated as a proper name Beeltethiil'S, r, scribe's cor- 
ruption of peeXTee/tot, v. 16 p. kiÙ PcèAteO/ios [E], puOvoi ksX 
fiwe^TtffiiOi [A"], pafti^os KoX ^feArt/ios [L], C. 25 [21] . . . paffv/JKp 
T(^ ypdu^oiTC TÒ irpotnri'irTOiTa «al PseAT*fl/i(u . . . [B] . . ■ (ìeeA- 
reniufl' [A], p. yp. t. trp. K. /3eeAT(fti(i [L, 71. lE], n doublet). 

REI {''in ; pHCei [BA], also a Palm, name [Vogiié, 
Syr. Centr. nos. 16, 22], but ©^ |-^^,] q, ey^ipoi 
&YTOY' ^''h reference to Shimei ; cp Jos. Ani. vii. I44 : 
' Shimei 'Da.Vìd's friend' and see Th.), coupJed with 
Shimei [g.v. n. ), among those who did not favour 
Adonijah [ i K 1 a). Winckler { Gesck. 2 241 ) identifìes him 
with Ira, the Jairite, who was a ' priest to David ' (2 S. 
20 26); he arguesingeniouslyto show that this Ira(or Jair) 
was a priest of Bethlehem. But for jrts we should 
possibly read f3b ' a high officer ' (cp Shebna). Ewald 
reads m for 'y\ and identifìes (not plausibly) with 
David's brother Raddai \_q.v.~\. 

BEINS. I. {TÌyh^. k'idyòth; Ne<t)pOl [@ and Rev. 
223t] ; renes), propierly the kidneys (of animals offered 
in sacrifice. except in Job 16 13 Ps. 139i3 Lam. 813, 
where the human kidneys are referred to). 'A not 
less important seat of life [than the blood], according to 
Semitic ideas, lay in the viscera. especially in the 
kidneys and tiver, which in the Semitic dialects are 
continually named as the seats of emotion; or more 
broadly in the fat of the omentum and the organs that 
lie in and near it ' (Rei, Sem.^> 379)' Consequently P 
represents these parts as Vahwè's appointed share of the 
sacrifices (cp Liver). We even fìnd a peculiar sym- 
bolism connected with kidney-fat (see Food, § i rt, but 
note that the text of the passages is doubted ; see Milk, 
§ 1). It is much more naturai to find the ' reins ' (as 
EV calls the ' kidneys,' when used metaphorically) 
employed as a term for the organ, not only of the 



emoiions (see Ps. TSai Job 16 13 1827 [not @ but Theod.]) 
but of the moral sentimenCS (see Jer. II20 17io 2O12 
Ps. 7 10 Ili 7 (?) 262}, ' Trier of the reins and the heart ' 
is the char aderì Stic and title of Yahwè, not only in 
the OT, but also in the Hehraistic Book of Revelaiion 
(Rev. 223). In Ps. I67, however, ' yea, niy reins instruct 
me in the night seasons ' can hardly be right. It is 
Yahwè, not the ■ heart ' or the ' reins,' who trains and 
disciplines men (see Che. /■'s.i-> ad loc). 

2. D'ii'rit hilàsàbn, is in IS.II5 renderei! 'reins' by EV 
simply for want of a synonym for 'loins.' 

3. The AViiig- of Lev. IJ 2 li 4 for 311, zob, is not literal, and 
is based on a long-ejtploded pathology (cp Meliicike, g 5). 

BEKEM (Dj^'ì)- I- Apparenti/ a Benjamite piace- 
iiamo, Josh. I827 (n&K&N [B?]. peKEM [A], pcKGN 
[L]), but most probably a corruption of ^som", Jerah- 
meel, and equlvalent to o'ins. Bahurim {another of the 
developments of Jerahmeel).i 

2. A king of Midian, Nu. 313 {aoKofi. [BAFL]). Cp 

3. One of the ' sons ' of Hebron nientioned with 
Tappuah and Shema \_qq.v.'\ in r Ch. 243 ; in 244 
[MT] he is father of Shammai father oi Mnon, but in 
@ (pEKoii [B], poKOfj. [A], piaKTj/i [L]) it is Shema who is 
ancestor of Shammai, the intermediate links being 
Raham and Jokkeam [qq.v.']; Rekeni, Raham, Jor- 
kearn, and Carmel are ali probabìy comiptions of 


4. In pause Rakem (so EV), aManassite ; iCh. 7i6 
(BA om., paKafJ. [L]). Seemingly there was a strong 
jetahmeeliCe element in the population of the Manassite 

These explanations suggest the true explanation of the phrase 
Cip 'J3 ; ss^ East, Ckildren of, where the reader is referred 
to ihe present article for textiial criticisra of the phrase. One 
plausible view of the originai form of the story of GiDEON 
(?.?'., § i) requires us, in Judg. 6 3 33 7 la to read Qpi 'jj (see 
Pesh.), i.e., ^Npm' '33; ""te the gloss ' .4nialekites.' Thìs 
should be taken in connection with the Targumic use of cpi for 
Kadesh ; here too QpT must come from ^KOnT" ! the full name of 
Kadesh was Kadesh-jetahmeel, harnea' and 'rekem' having 
the same origin. See Sela. In fact, wherever we meet wilh 
phrases like 'the sons' or 'the land' or 'the tnountains of 
JCedem ' we may safely regard fCedem as a corruption of Rekem, 
i.e., Jeralpneel, with the doubtful exception of Gen. 10 30 '{i.e., 
■f mSD [EV 'toward Sephar '] does noC come from ng-is, cp 
Sepharad). Cp Ophir. See Gen.25629i Nu. 23 7 i K.5g 
[4 30] Is. 11 14 Jer. Vi 28 Ezek. 25 4 10 Job 1 3. Similarly in Gen. 
15 19 Kadmonii'es must be a corruption of 'Jerahmeelites.' 

T. K. C. 

RELEASE, YEAR OF. See Jubilee, also Law 


REMALIAH (-in;^»-), § 39; poAA€AlA[c]). father 
of PeKAH (^.j'. ), ak. ióasetc, Is, "4/ 86. Prob- 
ably a corruption of '7i(onT, Jerahmeel. Pekah's Gilead- 
ites may really have come from the Negeb (on the 
southern -\<^-x, see Crit. Bib. on Jer. 822 226 Am. I3). 
Similarly, Jehuw as not improbably an Ishmaelite (see 
N1M.SHI), and Joaba Misrite (see Zeruiah). It is easy 
to iiuclerstand that the boldest adventurers might be of 
N. Arabian extraction. t. k. c. 

EEMEMBBANCE (thST), Is. 578. See Memorial. 

REMESIBBANGER (a S. 2O24 etc, AV"k.). eV 
'recorder,' RV'S- ' chronicler. ' See RECORDER. 

REMETH (nO"!), Josh. 192i. See Ramoth, i. 

EEMMON (pS"!), Josh. 19? AV ; RV Rimmon (iì. , i). 

REMMON-METHOAK ClNh^n lis"!), Josh. I913. 
See RiMMON iì., 3. 

REMFHAN' (peM<J)à,N, Stephens with i, 31 etc; 
cp peM4>&M [D, Vg. Iren.] ; pOM<t>ikN [N*J ; pOM(t)A 
[B], peM4>A.[6i. Arm.]), or (m being intrusive, as in 
NOMB&beside noBa. iS.21i),as RV, Rephan (pe<l)àN 

1 3 dropped out, and n became a (for the reverse process see 
H. P. Smith on I S. 8 16). ^ 



[CE, Syrr.,Memph. Theb. ^th.]; cp pàn^tàN- [AK-^] ; 
p&(|)àN, Just. Dial. 22, ex Amos), occurs, with the prefix 
' the star of the god ' (so RV with ED, Pesh. , etc. and 
@Ac*)^ or 'the star of your god' (so AV, with AXCE, 
Vg. . Hard, , etc. ), in Acts 7 43, in a quotation from Amos 
526, @ (where BA pài<t)àN, Q pe4)&N. Complut. peM- 
<{)&). The same Jablonski who ventured on a Coptic 
explanation of Behkmoth {q.v.) explained Rempha or 
Rompha from the Copile, as 'king of heaven,' nullo 
piane apice immutato (' Remphah. jEgyptiorum Deus,' 
in Opuscula, ed. Te Water, 2 [i8o6], pp. 1-72). But 
' king of heaven ' in Egyptian would be suten em pet.^ 
G\oa.g {Comm. on Acisl 2^g), L.umhy{Aces, in Cambridge 
Bible, ad loc), and Merx (Schenkel's Bié.-Lex. I517} 
suppose Rephan to be the Egyptian name for Saturn, 
So (besides Spencer and Kircher) Lepsius the Egypto- 
logist, who says that Seb or Saturn is called repa-n- 
neteru, ' the youngest of the gods, ' and sugge'sts a 
possible connection with Rephan {Die Chron. der .-Hg. 
93). On phonetic and other grounds this view is not 
more acceptable than Jablonski's, and the simple ex- 
planation is that peipav should rather be paiipav — i.e., 
[an, where i is perhaps a corruption of 3, and s (soft) a 
phonetic substitute for 1. See Chiun. t. k, c. 

REPHAEL (7NS;i, as if 'God heals"; cp Aram. 

haSii, htisn,\ names, §30; p&4)ahA [bal]), a 

Korahite, b. Shemaiah ; i Ch. 267t- 

Probably 'God heals' is a late popular etymology, devised 
after the originai name had becorae corrupted ; that it look hold 
of the imagination we see from the Raphael of Tobic and 
Enoch. Thepresent writersuspectsthat Rephael, Irpeel, Raphu 
[Beth-]rapha, and perhaps even Réphaiah ^.v,), ali come 
ullimatelyfromanethnic. See Pedah-zur ; Rephaim. Hommel 
(£'^7*. 7° 8[i397]p. 563) compares ihe name of an Arab, temp. 
Sargon, in a text transcribed by Winckler, Ya-ra-pa, also the S. 
Arabian name Hi-rapa'a. t, k. C. 

REPHAH(nD'1; p&4)H [BA], pA,<ti&[L]), mentioned 
in the list of the B'ne Ephraim i Ch. 725. Both Rephah 
andRESHEPH (^.i'.)occur nowhere else and are probably 
corrupt. Cp Ephraim, § 12. 

BEPHAIAH (njB"!, §§ 30, 6z, as if ■ Yahwè heals ' ; 
piSitJ>Ar& [BAL]). On the ultimate origin of the name 
see Rephael, and note in confirmation that in Neh. 89 
Réphaiah (5) is a ' son of Hur '■ — i.e., most probably, 
of Jerahmeel. In i Ch. 2 19 Hur is the son of Caleb 
and Ephrath. Who the Calibbites are, we know [see 
Caleb] ; Ephrath is probably a distorted fragment of 
Zarephath. Cp Paradise, col. 3573, n. 5. See below, 
no. 5. T. K. e. 

1. b. Hananiah, mentioned in the genealogy in i Ch. 
Sai (patpaX [B]), where, for -33 "sons of,' © and Pesh. 
four times read i]3 'bis son.' So Kittel; Bertheau 
follows MT. 

2. A Simeonite chieftain who attacked the Amalekites 
of Mt. Seir (apparently in Hezekiah's time), i Ch. Ì4s^. 
{paipaiat [L]). See ISHi, SiMEON. 

3. b. TOLA {q.v.}: 1 Ch. 7 a (paipapa. [B]) ; cp 
Issachar, § 7. 

4. b. BlNEA, 1 Ch. 843 {pat^aiav [N], apax» [L]) = 
I Ch. 8 37 (naj, Raphah ; paipai [B], apaxa [Lj). Cp 
Benjamin, § 9 il. fi. 

5. b. Hur (4), the ruler of half ' the district of Jeru- 
salem,' and one of the repairers of the wall (Neh. 89 ; 
pa<patas [L]). 

[He was of Jerahmeelite ori^n (see above). According to 
Meyei (Enist. iig) the Calibbites and Jerahmeelites did not 
become universally recognised as real Jews before the time of P. 
The study of proper names pursued in a series of articles in the 
present work confirms this, but with limìtations. In Neh.3 
Hur, Malchiiah, Paseah, Réphaiah, Urijah ; in EzraS Elam, 
Michael, Jeliel, Ariel; in Neh. 11 Mahalaleel, Jeroham, Mal- 
chiah, Micha.are transparent 'Jerahmeelite ' names. The Jer- 
ahmeelites became so prominent that the genealogists had to do 
them fuUer justice. But the same study of names suggests that 
Jerahmeelite clans were recognised both in Judah and elsewhere 
before the exile. — T. k. c] 

J From a private letter of Dr. Budge. 


EEPHAIM (D''NQ'1; p&(t>&Ie]iN [or -m], and [Geo. 

14 Josh. 12 13, and"i"Ch,], pirANTec [BAEL] ; Josh. 

OT ^^' ®"'^ oni. ), a race of repitted giants, 

- ' found by the Israelites in occupation of 

erenoe . jg^^j^Q^y o„ jj^^^ sides of the Jordan, 

Before altemptjng any linguistic or historical explana- 

tion, we must look into the several passages where the 

traditional text recognises the name, viz, , Gen. 14$ 152o 

Dt, 2iiao(pai^apa«[i'[Fonce])3iii3 Josh. 124l3i2J7i5. 

to which we may add 2 S. 21 16 i8 20 22, cp i Ch. 

20 4 5 8 (children of Hàrapha). The geographical 

phrase ' valley of Rephaim ' will he treated only 

incidenlally here (see next article). 

1, Gen. 145, Chedorlaonier and his aUies 'smote 
the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim. ' 

No stress can be laid 011 this passage. In its present form 
Gen. 14 is probably later even than the arch^ological notìces in 
Ì>1, 2 io_/., and the names at present foiind in Gen. 1-1 5 probably 
come from a very late editor who arbitrarily ' corrected ' a very 
corrupl text (see Sodom). 

2, Gen. 1620. The list of Canaanite peoples in 
Gen. 15 19-21 Comes apparently from a laJe redactor, but 
has merely suffered from ordinary transcriplional cor- 
ruption ; the redactor had no historical theory to serve, 
and reproduced, though inaccurately, names derived 
from earlier sources. 

The order of the names is, Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites 
<from ' Jetahmeelites'?), Hittites (from ' Rehobothites' ?), Periz- 
iites(Zarephathites?), Rephaim^ Amorites, Canaanites, Girgash- 
ites(from 'Gìr.shites' or ' Geshiirites ' ?), Jebusiles (Ishmaelites?).' 
We may infer that, accordìng to tradition, a people called 
' Rephaim ' wàs to be found in the far S. of Palestine. 

3, Dt. 2 II 20 3 II 13. A ' remnant of the Rephaim,' 
under their king Og, survived in Bashan, which was 
therefore called ' the land of the Rephaim.' But we are 
also told that the Emim of Moab and the Anakim (of 
Hebron ? or of Rehoboth ?) were reckoned among the 
Rephaim. The passage comes from a late editor (D^), 
and ' Bashan ' should certainly be ' Cushan ' (see Og).* 

If ri (*jath) in 2 S. 21 20 is miswritten for n3im (Rehoboth), 
this statement is confirined, for the warriors spoken of in that 
passage were Rephaites. It is tnie, in Nu. 13 33 the b'nS 'Anà^ 
are said to belong to the Nephlilm ; but we shail see presently 
that the ' Rephaim ' and the Nephilrni ' musi have been closely 
con ned ed— !.<;., 'Rephaim' and 'Nephilim' may have been 

4, Josh. 124 13 1:2 depend on Dt. 2ii, etc. ; but VI ^^f. 
has its own peculiarjties. When purified from corrupt 
repetitions 17 14/ states that the tribe of Joseph (b'nè 
Joseph) complained to Joshua that it was too large to 
have btit one lot and portion. Joshua's reply was, ' If 
thou art a great people, go up to the forest-land, and 
clear away (space) for thyself in the land of the Perizzites 
and the Rephaim.' The Josephites objected that access 
to this region would be impeded by the Canaanites with 
their chariots of iron, and Joshua rejoined that the forest- 
land is not unattainable. and that their strength is equal to 
the task of driving out the Canaanites.^ Here it would 
appear that the forest-land spoken of means the hill- 
couiitry N. of Shechem ; the view that trans-Jordanic 
territory is intended is not plausible.* Bui room must 
be left for the possibility that ' Shechem ' should be 
■ Cusham,' and ' Canaanites ' ' Kenizzites.' There were 
probably b'ne Ephraim in the Negeb (see Crif. Bit. ). 

5, In 2 S. 21 22 (cp 20) four champions of the 
Phiiistines are said to have been ' born (nW) to the 
Rapha (nuirt^) iu Gath ' [v. 22 ; cp v. 20), while of two'of 
thetn it is said that they were ' of the descendants of 
the Raphà ' (HPSm., 'T^i; ; cp i Ch. 2O4), or perhaps 
rather (cp © in i'. 22) ' of the Rephaim,'* 

1 There is no occaslon to reject ihe second D'pjyj as an 
erroneous repetit ion from the preceding clause. 

! In V. 16 read njj;^ nm';-jkh, and in v. iS ^Vn'n; iy;n -z- 

3 See Steuemagel, ad Ice. 

* It it usuai to taltc Knn. as an eponym ; but the art. ig 
unfavourable lo thìs view. ^5-1 surely comes from ttS\ which 
originally had after it the stroke of abbrevÌation('K!)nn = 0"X!nil)' 
In 2 S. 2I22 read D'KB-ijn'a^ Y\\% 'were born to the (or, a) 



There is, however, great difficuky in the text as it now stands, 
Surely the Phiiistines were quite foimidablc enough without 
having to accept the assistance of the remnant of the Rephaim. 
Are we to suppose that the refercnces to the Rephaites in 2 S. 
2Li523area later appendage to the tradition, suggestcd by a 
reininiscence of the tradition respecting Og? Or is there not 
suziie explanation arising out of a somewhal more definite view 
of ihe older populations of Canaan made possible by textual 
criticism T 

It would be tedious to sum up here ali the evidence 

directly or indirectly affecting the subject in hand 

_ . . provided by our textual criticism. Two 

'- 5, passages, however, are specially important. 
*■ In Josh. 17 15 it is evìdent that 'nE,i and 
□*»tB1^ are two competing readings, and that the former 
is more probably correct. And in 2 S. 5i8-zo it is plain 
that the spot called D'sns'Vya is in the valley of Rephaim. 
It ismaintained else where (see Pelethites, Zabephath) 
that the tribe whose centre on the S. Paìestinian border 
was at Zarephalh ( =Zefhath) was prominent in early 
Israelitish legend, and that its name underwent strange 
mutilations and corruptions. Among these transforma- 
tions may probably be included Zelophehad, Salhad, 
names connected with the N.; and PeliStim ' and 
Letusim, names connected with the S. That ' Perì z zi ' 
and ' Pelisti ' are connected is not a violent supposition. 
Bolh are most probably corruptions of Karephàthl (Zare- 
phathite), and it is hardly less plausible to conjecture 
that Rephà'Im is a corruption of Perasim, though an 
alternative derìvation from Jerahme'elim is equally 
possible. Thus — to return to the story in £ S, 5 18-20 
— instead of ' Baal-perazim ' in the ' valley of Rephaim, ' 
the originai tradition probably spoke of ' Baal-sarC- 
phathlm in the valley of Jerahme'elim (or Saréphathim ). ' 
That such long names were early corrupted, and 
that the corruption took different forms in diflerent 
parts of Palestine, can easily be understood. 

The result to which we are tending. and which it 
would lead us into too many digressions to justify fully, 
is that the Saréphathim or Jerahme'elim migraled into 
many parts both of castern and of western Palestine. 
They started from the S. ; it is not a random statement 
of Gen. 106 that Put (bib from nsnn) was the brother 
of (the N, Arabian) Cush and Mizraim and the son of 
Ham (Jerahmeel?), and of Gen. 253 tt^at Letushih 
was the brother of Leummim (Jerahmeehm ?) and the 
son of Dedan {i.e. , S. Edom). The Sarèphàthìm «ere 
in fact probably a branch of the Jerahmeehtes, who, as 
our textual criticism tends to show, spread over many 
parts both of Western, and even of Eastern, Palestine 
(note the Phosnician Zarephath, and cp Jerahmeel ; 
East, Children of). The Jerahmeehtes or Sare- 
phalhites, accordìng to ihe geneaJogies, became largtly 
fused with the Israelites, and how much truth there 
may be in the statement that Og the Rephaite (Sare- 
phathite?or Jerahmeelite?) and his people were smitten, 
till there were no survivors (Nu. 2I3S), it is impossible 
to say. • 

It is hardly worth while to discuss the question 
whether the representation of the Rephaim — i.e., 
possibly the Jerahmeehtes of Sàrèphath — as giants (cp 
Am. 29, where ' the Amorite ' 13 thus described) is purely 
mythical. Whether the Edomitish race (to which the 
Jerahmeelites belonged) was taller than the later 
Israehiish race or not, it is certain that the instinctive 
tendency of legend (both in Europe ard in Asia) to 
picture aboriginal races as of gigantic stature would 
have led to such a representation. According to 
Robertson Smith," ' the giant-legends arose in part 

house of the Rephaim ' (cp L's tu> oticui). [In 2 S. £1, ©ha has 
pa^a and also yiya.vrt^ wilh pa^a in v. 22 ; ®I- yt'yan^es in tv, 
16, 18, Ttiàvo^ V. 20| yiyiivrtt and pa^o. v. 22, whilst in i Ch. 20 
© has yiyairrtf in rv. 4, 6, Cba pmjia, ©L pm^mv and also iS 

' The 'Phiiistines' of 2 S. 21 15-22 were really the Zare- 
phathites; 'Gath' should be 'Rehoboth.' See Pelethites, 

^ Note eommunicated to Prof. Driver, Deui. 40. 



from the cointemplalìon of ancient ruins of great Works 
and supposed giganlic tombs.' This may very well 
have been the case, in view of the legends attaching 
to huge sarcophagi, like that assigned to Og in Dt. , al 
the present day. See Oc. 

A brief reference to other theories of the origin of the name 
Rephaim must suffice. The view that ii is connected with Ar. 
rafa'a ' to lift up,' and means 'giants,' is noe at ali plausible ; 
no cognate of J-a/aa can be pointed to in Hebrew, Aramaic, or 
Assyrian. Stade {GVf ì. ii6 120) was the first to connect the 
name with the Rephaim or 'shades' (see Dead and Death). 
This has been taken up by Schwally ^Das Leben nach dem 
Tede, 64, n. i [1892]; ZA TIV 18 132 [1898]). From the*ense of 
' spìrits of the dead' arose, it is supposed, that of 'primeva! 
population.' Schwally confirms this by a legend of the Hovas 
in Madagascar (_ZA TIV, Le), This is surely most improbable. 
The traiisition is difficult, even if we (Jo not hold, with Stade, 
that o'xtjl, the word for 'the shades,' means 'the weak.' It is. 
most reasonable, therefore, to hold that, like a large proportion 
of ethnic names, Rephaim has been worn down from a loiiger 
form, and this form we may venture to trace either in Jerah- 
me'elim or in Sarephilthim. 

See also Rephaim, Valley of, and on Joh.2a3 see Dead. 

T. K. C. 

BEPHAIU, VALLEY OF, also Valley of the 
Giants (□"KBl-pDj; ; Josh. 158l8i6 a S. 5 18 za 23 13 iCh. II15 
149 Is. 17 s : is. ìc édpayyi oTepe^ 1 [BNAQr] ; Josh. 15, yij* 
paijtafiiL [AL], -e [B], Josh. 18 tfitKpa^aeiv [BL], -^t [A], z S. 5, 
TÌjj' KoiAóSn ™>' T[eìiTavitìv [BAL], 2 S. 23 t)J «oiA. paijiafifi [B], 
'V [A], Tnavbiv [L] \ T Ch, tjì KOtÀófit Tbtv yiyavT*t)V [BKAL] \ 
valiis Rapkaim and giganttttri). 

According to the prevaleQt theory, which supposes 
the same locality to be referred to in ali the passages, 

PrBva.l«nt ^^ ' ^^"^7 ^^ Rephaim ' was an upland 

■ ,, plain near Jerusalem and Bethlehem {cp 

... . " , 2S.2313/!) where not oniy corri and 
cnticiseo. ^,j.^^ ^^^^ fiourished (Is. 175/). but the 
so-called Baca trees (see Mulbekry) grew. At its N. 
end was a hill over which ran the boundary of Judah 
and Benjamin (Josh. 158 I816). The plain was famous 
as the scene of fights between David and the Philistines, 
(2S.51S22 23i3; cp I Ch, 149 II15). Elsewhere, 
however. has been offered the theory that the enemies 
referred to ìq s S. 5 18 aa and the related passages were 
not the Philistines bttt the Zarephathites (see Zare- 
phath). and that the place referred to in 2 S. 23 14 
was not Bethlehem but Beth-jerahmeel (thus the whole 
scene becomes historically and geographically more 
plausible). Elsewhere, too (see Rephaim) we have 
urged that Rephaim, the name of an early population 
of Canaan, is probably a much wom-down form either 
of Saréphathlm (Zarephathites), or perhaps more prob- 
ably of Jerahme'éllm. 

It would seem, then, that in 2S. SiSaz, etc. , the 
' valley (upland plain) of Rephaim (Jerahme'èlìm) ' 
_ _ -j, cannot be a plain near Jerusalem, and 

■ r?"^^^ that, like the 'éwek hd-ild/i of i S. 172 (see 
Hb h^"" Elah, Valley of), it was one of the 

" ' ' valleys or spaces between the low sloping 

hills' (Palmer) in the neighbourhood of Ruheibch 
(Rehoboth), possibly indeed the Wàdy Ruheibeh itself, 
though the broad Wady el-Milh may also come into 
consideration (see NeGeb). 

In the case of Is. 175, when we consider the manifest 

play on the name Ephraim in the next verse, it is possible 

to suppose {a) that o'nS"! (Rephaim) 

3. Two other ^^ould rather be c-.tBk (Ephraim), and 

Rephaim? *" 'i^^iit'fy 'hìs 'émek with a part of the 
^ Great Plain of Esdraelon, [è] There 

are, however, also good criticai arguments for identifying 
this 'émek with that in the story of David. The ques- 
tion is subordinate to the large inquiry, Does Is. 17i-ii 
predict the min of Syria and Ephraim, or of the kingdom 
of Jerahmecl? See Crit, Bib. But there is no objec- 
tion to the view {e) that the ' emek riphà' im of Josh, lo B 
I816 really did derive its name from the Jerahme'èlìm ; 
in fact, the early population of Jerusalem was probably 
a combination of Amorites and Jerahmeelites (see 

1 Cp tS, 1 S. 4 8 lèiv Btàiv TÒiv <rr<peù/v rovToiv (®L sing.). 


Rehoboth). The upland plain referred to seems to 
be the Bekà'a, which stretches from the SW. side of 
Jerusalem southwards as far as Mar Elyàs (3 hr. from 
Jerusalem}, which may indeed be the 'mountain' re- 
ferred to in Joshua. 

Eus. and Jer. {OS 288 22 147 e) place the ' Valley of Rephaim ' 
on the N. of Jerusalem, and Kittel (Cesck. der Hehr. 2131) 
foilows them on grounds derived from the (surely comjpt) text 
of 2 S, 5 22_^ Tobler's main objection ^ to the ordinary view is 
that 'entek means a 'valley,' not a 'plain.' Bui 'imek is con- 
stantly used of plains shut in by hills, and this is just what the 
Beka'a is, 'shut in on ali sides by rocky hill-lops and ridges' 
(Porter). T. K. C. 

BEPHAH (pe<t>&N). Acts743 RV, AV Remphan. 

BEFHIDIOI {Dn*B"!, plain -country, • sirata' f t ; 
p&<J)lietN [BAFLji 'Ex.l7-a 192 Nu.33i4/.t). a 
place where the Amalekites attacked the Israeliles and 
were defeated by Joshua with the aid of the wonder- 
working staff of Moses. As we see from his arrange- 
ment of the passages of diverse origin which he has 
brought together, R considers this event to have oc- 
curred when, according to P, the Israelites encamped 
at Réphidim immediately before entering the wìlderness 
of Sinai. He also thinks that the spot (spots?) called 
Massah and Meribah was (were?) in the districi of 
Réphidim, which, in this case, must have extended to, 
or perhaps even have been equivalent to, Horeb (see 
Ex. 176, 'the rock in Horeb'). On the analysis of 
sources, see EXODUS (Book), § 3. 

The existence of a popular tradition of a war waged 
with varying fortunes by the early Israelites against the 

. _ . Amalekites may be assumed without 

' I i r discussion (see Amalek, § 2 ; Moses, 
conte^ of g j^j By^ ^^ i^^^g gji,i j^ 33^ j^i^ 

'* * tradition connect this war, or an 

episode of this war, with Réphidim ? Some scholars 
(Oxf. Hex. 107) have doubted this ; according to 
them, the connection of the battle descrìbed in Ex. 
178-i5 wilh Réphidim is purely editorial. Textual 
criticism may contribute something to the decision of 
this point. Among the names of the stations of the 
Israelites there are only two which end in -im, viz. , 
Elim and Réphidim. It is difficult not to conjecture 
that both these names are corruptions of ethnics. That 
Elim probably comes from Jerahmeel or Jerahmeelim has 
been suggested already (Moses, § 12). We have also 
conjectured that Marah (the reported name of the pre- 
ceding station) has arisen out of another fragment of 
Jerahmeel, vìz. , Marah (from Rehem ; cp Rekem, 
Sela). It may now be added that Réphidim is prob- 
ably a corrupt fragment of Jerahmeelim. 

' Rephidìm ' (d'TB"Ì)7 we may suppose, comes from ' Réphilìm ' 
(D'^'ST), which, through the intermediate stage of ' Rèphàélim ' 
(O'Skbi), Comes from ' Remaelim' (d'^koi), '-e-, 'Jerahmeelim' 
(0"7NDm') ; the corruption is easierand not lesscertain than that 
which we meet with sometimes, of Jerahmeel into Ephraim. 

Bacon {Ex. 88, note *) has acutely conjectured that 
Ex, 1526 (a passage usually assigned to Rp) may be 
based on an earlier dociunent which derived the name 
Réphidim from rapha (kbi), ' to heal. ' The name pre- 
supposed in the early tradition may have been not 
Réphidim but Rephaelim ; '^rept naturally suggests the 
explanation, 'for I am Yahwè that heals thee. '^ In 
short, the closing words of v. 26 may originally have 
stobd in a context relative to the name Rephaelim. 

From this point of view we cannot question the fact 
that early tradition connected the battle in Ex. 17B-i& 
with Réphidim, the name of which place (Hke Meribah) 
appears to be a distortion of the ethnic J6rahmgeìTm. 
The truth is that there were traditional stories in circu- 
lation respecting two fertile spots in the Jerahmeelite 
country occupied by the migrating Israelites. One 
appears in a doublé form in Ex. 1523-25'', and in v. 27 ; 
another has also a doublé representa don in Ex. 

1 Dritte Wanderung, tal. 

2 See Raphael, and cp Eth. Kngch,\(>T, where Raphael is 
commanded to proclaim that God will healihs earth. 




17 1^ 2 4-7 (part) and, in a very fragmentary forni, in 
vv. 3 7 (pan). The second certainly refers to the oasis 
of 'Ain Gadis ( the fountain of the Jerahmeelite Kadesh). 
And it is not unreasonable to hold that the Amalekite 
attack spoken of in Ex. 178 was connected in the 
originai iradition with this fountain, the possession of 
which was naturai ly grudged by the Jerahmeelites 
(now become unfriendly ?— see Moses) to the intrud- 
ing Israelites, (In this case, the ' hìll ' spoken of in 
w. gf. may be one of the earth-covered limestone hills 
at the north - eastern sweep of the oasis ; cp Trum- 
bull, Kadesh-barnea. 273.) This, at any rate, is the 
view suggested by the text of Ex. 17 in its present 
form ; but even if we reject it, there is strong prob- 
ability in the opinion that the Amalekites attacked Israel 
in R6phidim — i.e., Jerahmèelim — because we have ex- 
press evidence (Nu. 13=9, cp Gen. 14?) that the Negeb, 
including Kadesh, was the region specially occupied by 
the Jerahmeelite clans. 

That the story of the Amalekite attack, not less than 
that of the smitten rock {y. 6, 'the rock in Horeb'), is 
placed too early by R, seems beyond doubt. The 
Moses who stood apart from the fight, holding the ' rod 
of Elohim,' but who after a time was in danger of 
letting his band sìnk, and who committed the military 
leadership to Joshua, is clearly an old man ; we are 
placed by this story at the beginnìng of the various 
wars which tradition referred to the dose of the life of 
Moses. See Moses ; and cp Jehovah-nissi, Massah 


In the above statement we have been compelled to 
assume that Horeb or Sinai was not in the so-called 
RarlÌBr Sinaitic Peninsula, but in dose prox- 


imity to Kadesh, i.e., in the Jebel 
Magrah, on the SW, frontier of the 
Negeb (see MOSES, §§5,14), If, how- 
ever, we suppose that Sinai is eìlher Jebel Serbai or 
Jebel Musa {see SINA!, § 18), we may, with several 
modem geographers (Lepsìus, Ebers, Ritter, A. P. 
Stanley, C. W. Wilson, E. H. Palmer), be tempted to 
aitach ourselves to the tradition, recorded especially by 
Kosmas Indicopleustes (535 A. D. ) and Antoninus 
Martyr [circa 600 A. o. ), which identifies Réphidim 
with Feiran, the ancient Pharan, the niins of which 
stand at the junction of the Wàdy 'Aleyàt with the 
Wàdy Feiran, about 4 m. N. of Serbai. Antoninus 
Martyr speaks of an ' oratorium,' whose aitar is set on 
the stones which were put under Moses while he was 
praying. Evidently he refers to the Jebel et-Tahùneh, 
on the right bank of the Wàdy Feiran, which is about 
720 ft. high, and is covered with remains of Christian 
tombs, cells, and chapels. This view was adopted as a 
whole by the members of the Sinai Expedition, except- 
ing F. W, Holland (see Ordnance Survey of Penins. of 
Sinai, 153^). More plausible, if the connection of 
the story of the rock and that of the battle be main- 
tained, is the view of Ebers {Durch Gosen zum Sinai. 
212 ; cp Lepsius, Briefe. 349 /!) that the biblical 
Rèphidim is to be placed in the dry, north-western 
pari of the Wady Feiran, where the Amalekites might 
be supposed to have gathered to prevent the Israelites 
from entering the oasis. Robinson's theory [BB 1 179), 
adopted by F. W. Holland {Recovery of Jerusalem, 
534 _^), that Rèphidim is in the narrow gorge of el- 
Watiyeh in the great Wàdy es-Sheikh — the Wàdy by 
which, according to this traveller, the Israelites ap- 
proached Horeb— is less defensible, for reasons well 
summed up by E. H. Palmer {Sinai, 202); cp also 
Ritter {Palestine and the Sinaitic Peninsula. 1323). 
Ali these theorìes depend, as we have seen, on the 
correctness of the traditional theoiy as to the general 

position of Horeb or Sinai, which is open to much 
question, and indeed appears to some scholars hardly 
defensible. t. k. c. 

RESAIAS(pHCàiOY[BA]), i Esd. 53 RV = Ezra22, 


RESEN (Ipn ; A&c€M [AZ5L] ; -en [E] ; Resen) is 
named in Gen. 10 12, as a city lyìng between Nineveh 
1 ABSvrio- ^""^ Kalah. Menant therefore considered 
" iQ_;g_i it to be represented by the ruin-heaps of 
inmiirr Selàmiye. Bochart and recently Nòldeke 
quuy. [jave connected it with the Larissa of 
Xenophon (Anab. iii. 4 7), the site of which, however, is 
uncertain, though Frd. Del. {Caiwer Bib.-Lex. 731) 
suggests identifying it with Nimrùd (cp Calah). In 
the inscriptions, so far published, no city of any im- 
portance bears a name like Resen, A city of the name 
Ré-és-è-ni (Rés-èni) appears as not far from Nineveh, 
in the Bavian description of Sennacherìb {KB 2i.i6f., 
cp Del. Par. 188 261) ; but there is nothing to show that 
it was an ancient foundation. There is little hope of 
its identification tìU the district has been properly 
explored, C. w. H. J. 

From an exegetical point of view the matter is further 
complicated by the words which foUow Resen — ' the 
- "PaTt ^^""^ 's the great city.' Does this refer to 
■ ... , Resen ? No one would have doubted ihis, 
, .. but for the silence of aniiquity as to any 
important city near Nineveh with a name 
resembling Resen. Rès-éni — i.e., ' fountain-head, place 
of fountains,' is not a probable name at ali. To suppose 
a * tetrapolis ' with two such doubtful names as Rehoboth- 
Ir and Resen is a desperate expedient, If, however, 
Nimrod was a N. Arabian, not a Babylonian, hero, a 
probable identification of Resen may be made. n^3 
(misread Calah) is in the view of the present writer one 
of the many corruptions of 'jKanT (Jerahmeel) ; rn]"i 
{which was read Nineveh} not improbably comes from 
[nnn (Hebron) ; and n^nin ryn «in is certainly a 
corruption of ^Kom' Kl.T (that is, Jerahmeel), a gloss 
on n?3. ' Between Hebron and Jerahmeel ' appears 
to be a suifable description of Beersheba, the name of 
which is sometimes corrupted into j^y lia and ipu. 
See NlMROD. § I, e. W. H. j. ; § 2, T. K. C. 

RESERVOIB {n'\pì:ì, Is. 22ii, RV). See Conduits, 


EESHEPH (Cien; càpà(|>[B], p&ce<t> [A], p&ch<(» 
[L]), a 'son' of Ephraim, i Ch. 725 {see Ephraim, 
§ 12). The other names include Sheerah (i.e., 
Ashhur?), Ammihud {i.e. Jerahmeel?) Elishama {i.e., 
Ishmael?). ' Resheph' therefore should perhaps be rns 
(cp ®^), and mean ' Zarephathite ' ; cp "Bisn p, Neh. 
331—1.^., a Zarephathite. Clermont-Ganneau, how- 
ever, suggests that Arsiif { — \h^ Apollonia of Jos, ), 
about 7 m. N. of Jaffa, may correspond to an ancient 
town Resheph. Resheph (identified with Ajxillo) was 
the Phosnician and N. Syrian fire-god and war-god (cp 
C/S 1 n. IO, and Hadad-inscr. from Zenjirli, //. 3, 11), 
whose cultus was introduced into Egypt during the 
eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties (see list of gods 
on aitar in Turin Museum, TSBA Z ^ng, 1. 67, and 
piate; and cp E. Meyer, ZZJ.l/G 3I719 7^8/ ).' Close 
to Arsùf is an extraordinary holy place — a Haràm, 
which, under Moslem forms, possibly continues a primi- 
tive cultus (Cl,-Ganneau, Horus et saint Georges, 17; 
cp Baed.(^l 239). See, further, Phcenicia, § 13, end. 

T. K. C. 

RESUREECTION. See Eschatology (index). 

1 For further references see Ma.ipero, Struggle of Nations, 
156, n. I, 





Narratives examined (§§ 2-16). 

Canonical Gospels (J 3^). 
Gospel of the Hebrews (g 4). 
Coptic account (8 6). 
Extra -canonica! details (g 7). 
Conclusion of Mk. (g 8/). 
I Cor.I5i-ii(g9 lo-is)- 
Accouats of ascensioQ(S 16). 


General, § i. 

II. Determination of outward facts 

(i§ 17-29}- 
Nature of the appcarances (§ 17). 
No words of the risen Jesus (§ i8), 
GaUlee the place (g ig). 
The sepulchre (§ 20 /). 
The third day (§ 22). 
Number of appearances (B 23). 
Unhistorical eleraents due to ten- 
dency (|§ =4-29). 

III. ExplnnatioTi of facts {^ %o--i^. 
Nature of resurrection body of 

Jesus {g 30). 
Resurrection only of the Spini of 

Jesus (8 30- 
Objective visioos (g 32). 
Apparent death, and false rumours 

of the resurrection of Jesus (§ 33). 
Subjective visions (gg 34-38), 
Literaturc (§ 39). 

The resmrection of Jesus is held to be the centra! 
fact upon whicb the Christian church rests. Even at a 
_ , date so early as that of i Cor. Paul 

treats such in an elaborate discussion 
(i Cor. 15 1-26). In particular he rests upon it three 
fundamentaltlioughtsof the Christian faith : (i) the belief 
that the death of Jesus was not— what in accordance 
with Dt. 2I23 (Gal. 813) it must have seemed to be — 
the death of a malefactor, but a divine appointment for 
the forgiveness of sins and for the salvation of men 
(i Cor. 15 17 Rom. 425 64-7, etc.); (2) a vindication of the 
supreniacy of the exalted Christ over the Church ( i Cor, 
15a5_/^ Rom. I4 2 Cor. 134. etc.) ; and {3) a pledge of 
the certainty of an ultimate resurrection of ali believers 
to a life of everlasting blessedness (i Cor.l5i8-2o 814 
Rom.68 8u, etc.). 

Whilst the second and the third of Ihese jjoints were so held 
at ali times, that was not quite the case with the first. At a 
date as early as that of Ihe speeches of Peter in Acts (see AcTS, 
S 14) the resurrection of Jesus was not the divine confirmation 
of the tnitb that the death of Jesus laìd the foundaiions of the 
salvation of mankind ; the death is there represented rather as a 
calamicy (3 i3'i5 5 30) even if it was (accoraing to 2 2^ 4 as) fore- 
ordaìned of God. Bue the signitìcance of the resurrection of Jesus 
does not become on that account the less ; on the contrary it 
figures as beìng itself the act with which the forgiveness of sins 
is connected (5 31, cp 3 26). Most modem schools of theology iti 
like manner refrain from regarding the resurrection as an event 
withduc which the theologian would not be able to regard Jesus' 
death as a divine arrangement far the salvation of men. , 

Such theologians also, however, do not on that 
account attach to it any the less importance ; rather do 
they see in it the divine guarantee for the truth that the 
person of Jesus and the cause which he represented 
could not remain under the power of death, but must of 
necessity at last gain the victory over ali enemies in 
spile of every apparent momentary Iriumph. 

It seems accordingly in logie inevitable that if at any 
time it should come to be recognised that the resurrection 
of Jesus never happened, the Christian faith with respect 
to ali the points just mentioned would necessarily come 
to an end. 

The shock to which the Christian religion and the Christian 
church would be exposed by any such discovery wouid appear 
to be ali the heavier when it is reflected that only two other 
propositions can be named which would piace it in equal or 
greater danger ; the one, that the death of Jesus did not procure 
the salvation of mankind, the other ihat Jesus never existed at 
ali. The first of these two theses would leave many schools of 
thought within the liraits of Christianity coraparatively un- 
affected, for they find the tedeeming work of Jesus in his life, 
not, as Paul and orthodox theologians generally, in his death ; 
on the other band iheir faith would be most seriously afl^ecled 
if they found themselves constrained to recognise that Jesus 
remained under the power of death. 

The reason for dreadiug ali these dangers .U that 
upon the assumpiion of the resurrection of Jesus (as 
also upon that of his atoning death and upon that of 
his ejrìstence at ali) are based propositions which are 
fundamental to the Christian faith. — propositions con- 
cerning God and his relation to men, upon the truth 
of which no less an issue depends than the salvation of 
mankind. The question concerns things of priceless 
value, and the judgments upon which ali interest con- 
centrates are (to use the language of modem German 


theologians) Werthurtheile — i.e.. judgments which 
declare that to be able to believe such and such is for 
the religious man a thing of absolute value ; unless such 
things can be accepted he can only despair, Thus the 
believing man cap cherish no more urgent desire than 
that the basis upon which these beliefs, which are for 
himso priceless, rest should be raised securely above the 
reach of doubt. 

Yet what is this basis ? It consists in an afSrmation 
regarding a fact in history which is known to us only 
through tradition and accordingly is open to historical 
criticism just as any other fact is. Indeed, whilst the 
very exìstence of Jesus and the fact of his death on the 
cross have been questioned by only a very few,^ and on 
the other band the meaning of his death, as soon as the 
fact has been admitted, is left an open question to every 
one, we find that the resurrection of Jesus — as is not 
surprising in view of its supernatural character — is in 
very many quttrters and with growing distìnctness 
characterised as unhistorical, and that not merely when 
it is conceived of as having been a revivification of the 
dead body of Jesus, but also when it is defendcd in 
some spiritualistic forni. 

The present exaraination of the subject will not start 
from the proposition that ' miracles are impossible.' 

Such a proposition rests upon a theory of the universe (Welt- 
anschauung), not upon exhaustive examiimtion of ali the eventi 
which may be spoken of as miracles. Even should we by any 
chance find ourselves in a position to say that every alleged 
miraculous occurrence from the beginning of time down to the 
present hour had been duly examined and found non-miraculous, 
we should not thereby be secured against the possibility of 
somethin^ occurrìng to-mortow which we should De compelled 
to recognise as a miracle. Empirìcally, only so much as this 
stands fast — and no more — that as regards present -day occur- 
rences the persons wbo reckon with the possibility of a miracle 
(by miracle we bere throughout understand an occurrence that 
unquestionably is against naturai law) are very few, and that 
present-day occurrcnces which are represented as miraculous 
are on closer examination invariably found to possess no such 

The normal procedure of the historian accordingly 
in dealing with the events of the past will be in the first 
instance lo try whelher a non-miraculous explanation 
will serve, and to come to the other conciusion only on 
the strength of quile unexceptionable testimony. 
Needless to say, in doing so, he must be free from ali 
prepossession. He must accordingly, where biblical 
authors are concerned, in the first instance, look at 
their statements in the light of their own presupposi tions, 
even though in the end he may find himself shut up to 
the conclusion that not only the statements but also the 
presuppositions are erroneotis. 

I. Narratives Examined 
For our most authentic Information on the subject of 

1 Loman, who in 1881 altogether denied the c^iUencc of 

Jesus, afiìrmed it in 1884 and stili more.distinctly in 1887. 
Amongst those who bave most recently majntained the negative 
may be named Edwin Johnson, the author ol Antiqua Mater 
(anonymous ; 1887) and The Rise 0/ Christendom (1890), and 
John M. Robertson, Christianity and Mythology (1900) and 
A Skart Histùry of Christianity (1902). 



the resurrection of Jesus we naturally look to the 
n 1 Gospels ; these, however, exhibit con- | 
. UOBpei tradictions of the most glaring kind. 
naxratives oi ^gj^j^rus, whose work was pubhshed\ 
reBUrrectiion ^_^ Lessing as VVolfenhutteier Frag- \ 
" ■ mente, enumerateci ten con tradictions ; j 

but in reality their number is much greater. (Mk. \ 
I69-30 is not taken account of in this place ; see below,/ 

{a) Of the watch and seal set upon the sepulchre, and 
of thi; bribing of the soldierjs of the watch. we read only 
in Mt. (2762-66 284 J1-15). In Mk. and Lk. these 
features are not only not mentioned ; they are excluded 
by the represenfation of the women as intending to 
anoint the body and (in Mk. at least) as forcseeing 
diffìculty only in the weight of the stone, not in the 
presence of a military guard. In Mt, the wornen's 
object is simply to see the sepulchre (28 1} ; they bave 
therefore heard of its being guarded, as in fact they 
very easily could. 

[t>\ According to Lk. (2354 5^) the women got ready 
the spices before sunset on Friday ; according to Mk. 
(16 1) they did not buy them till after sunset on Satur- 
day. In Jn. the incident does not occur at ali, for 
according to 19 38-40 Joseph of Arimath^a and 
Nicodemus have already embalmed the body before 
laying it in the grave, whilst according to Mk. 1646 = 
Mt. 2759 /— Lk. 23 53 Joseph alone (without Nico- 
demus) simply wrapped it in a fine linen cloth. 

{e) The persons who come to the sepulchre on the 
morning of the resurrection are : according to Mk. 
{16i), Mary Magdalene, Mary of James (cp Mary, 
§§ 26 23), and Salome ; according to Mt. (28i) only 
the two Marys (the designation 'the other Mary' 
is explained by 2756) ; according to Lk. (24io), in 
addition to the two Marys, Joanna (cp 83) ' and the 
other women with them ' ; according to Jn. (20i) only 
Mary Magdalene,^ to whom, however, are added Peter 
and the beloved disciple. In agreement with this last 
we have only the notice in Lk. (2424) that after the 
women ' some of those with us ' (ri^ès tQiv trùv Ìi/àìi') had 
gone to the sepulchre and had found the report of the 
women to be true ; also the notice in 24 12 (a verse not 
fouiid in the ' western' MSS) according to which Peter 
ran, after the visit of the women, to the sepulchre, and 
stooping down beheld the linen clothes alone, and 
wondering departed. This verse, though we can hardly 
suppose it to have come from Jn. SOa-B, is stili open 
to the suspicion of being a later interpolation,— ali 
the more because the menti on of Peter alone does 
not harmonise with the 'some' [rivés) of v. 24, and 
'them' {aériòv) of v. 13 connects with v. n, not with 

V. 12. 

(1^) The time of the visit of the women to the 

sepulchre is : in Mk. (IGz) ' when the sun was risen,' in 
Lk. (24i, ' at early dawn ') and Jn. (20i, ' early, when 
it was yet dark ') t^efore sunrise, but in Mt. {28 1) about 
half a day earlier, 

' Late on the Sabbath ' (òijif irafifió-Tuiv) means unquestionahly, 
according to ihe Jewish diiision of ihe day, the time about sunset, 
antt the words immediately followlng — TJj «itii^itkouittj €Ìs liCav 
•TapSÓTioy, ' as the iight shone forlh towards the first day of the 
week ' (see Week, § 7)— are elucidated by Lk. 23 54, where the 
tr.-in.sìlion frora the Jewish Friday to Saturday (Sabbath)-~in 
other words the time of sunset — Js indicated by the expression 
o-àfffiaroi' rn-é&iorrKfv, 'the Sabbath shone forth.' This expression 
is ii.sually explained by rcference to the custom of kindling the 
lights somewhat before the beginning of the Sabbath because on 
t'ie Sabbath it was unlawful to do so. Keim, however {Gesch. 
Jl'su voli Nazara, 3 552 / ; ET 6 303), produces evidence of the 
same usus ioquendi for the other days of the week ; and this will 

J It must not be inferred from the plorai, 'we do not know' 
(oiiK oìEofici' : 20 z), that Jn. thought of other women as also 
ptesent. The Inference is excluded by the sing. 'comes' 
(lp)(rTOc)of !>. r. The pi. ' weknow '(oliagli/) thereforecan only 
he intended to express Mary Magdalene's thought that other 
Christians in whom perhaps some knowlcdge of the facts might 
be presumed did not actually possess il any more than herself — 
if it is not an unconscious reminiscence of the ' women ' of the 
Synoptics. In 20 13 we find correctly the singuiar ; ' I know not.' 


cover the case of its employment in Mt. The word ' by night/ 
fUKTÓs, in 28 13 also goes to show that Mt. pictured to himself the 
journey of (he women to the sepulchre and the opening of the 
sepulchre of ihe earthquake (or the angel) as having happened by 
night. Furtherraore it is conceìvabie that Mt. shouid nave been 
brought to this divergence to the cxlent of half a day from ihe 
account by the otìier evangelists precisely if he had followed 
Mk. with strìct precision. For in point of fact Mk. indicates, 
first (Itì 1), sunset by the phrase ' when the Sabbath was past ' 
(Èinyei'o^eVoxi rov (to^^ótod) and, next (16 a) mentions sunrise ; 
his reference lo sunset ìs in connection with the purchase of 
the spices, a circumstance which M t. had no occasion to notice. 
Tbus Mr. mightcome to look upon thesecondtime-determination 
as synonyraous with the first, iiiasmuch as the actvial words 
' very early on the first day of tlie week ' (Ai'oi- jrpiui t% \nà riiv 
trii^^aTiuv), if the Jewish division of the day is assumed, does 
not absolutely excìude such a view. Cp, further, § 26 a. 

{e) According to Mk. (I64). Lk. (24 2), and Jn. (20i) 
those who carne to the sepulchre found that the stone 
at the door had already been rolled away ; according to 
Mt, (282) it was rolled back in the presence of the 
women by an angel who in a gréat earthquake came 
down from heaven. 

(/J In Mk. (I65-7), as in Mt. (282-7), ihere is only 
one angel; in Lk. (244-7) ^.nd Jn. (20 la/.) there are 
two (in Lk. called ' men,' &v5pÉS, but 'in dazzling 
apparel,' év étrOiJTt àffTpairToù<Tii, somewhat as in 
Mt. 283Mk.l65). 

(g) According to Mk. this one angel, according to 
Jn. the two, sat in the sepulchre ; according to Mt. 
the one angel sits without the sepulchre upon the stone ; 
according to Lk. the two come up to the women, to ali 
appearance not untìl these have already left the 

{k) As for what was seen in the sepulchre, according 
to Mk. (165) it was only the angel, and according to 
Lk. (243), at least when the women entered, there was 
nothing. According to Mt. (28s-5) the women do not 
inform themselves as to the condition of the grave. 
Similarly Mary Magdalene, according to Jn. 20 1 , at her 
first visit. Thereafter the beloved disciple is the first to 
look in, when he sees the linen clothes (20s) ; next 
Peter enters and sees besides the linen clothes the 
napkin wrapped up in a place by itself (206_/^ ). Finally, 
Mary looks in and sees the two angels. 

(j) The explanations given by the angels to the 
women contain the one point in the whole narrative in 
which there is, at least in the synoptics, complete 
agreement {v. 6) : 'he rose, he is not bere ' {ijyip$7}, oòk 
tariv w5e). To this in Mk. and Mt. there is the pre- 
face : ' fear ye not ' ; the samc two also have the words 
' ye seek the crucified one ' (similarly in Lk, ). In Jn. 
the angels say merely (2O13) : ' Woman, why weepesl 
ihou ? ' 

(k) The discrepancies in the ìnstructions given io the 
women are among the most violent in the whole account : 
in Mk. and Mt. there is the ìnjunction to say to his 
disciples (Mk. adds : 'and to Peter') that Jesus gocs 
before them to Galilee and that there they will see him 
as he had said to them (in Mt. 28 7 also perhaps we 
ought to read, ' behold, he said to you,' i5où eliref ùfuv); 
in Lk. OH the other hand what we read is ' re member 
how he spake before of his death and resurrection while 
he was yet in Galilee.' Here, that is to say, stili the 
word Galilee, but the sense quite opposite. In Lk. 
strictly there is no injunction at ali (cp under r) and in 
Jn. we find no words which could even seem to answer 
to the command in Mk. and Mt. 

(/) No less marked are the differences as to the 
announcements made by the women to the disciples. 
Accoflding to Lk. (24q) they report their discovery ; 
according to Mt. (288) they intend to do so, and v. 16 
leaves it to be inferred that they carried out their 
intention ; according to Jn. (20= 18) Mary Magdalene 
reports, in the first instance to the two disciples, and in 
the second to the disciples at large, what she has seen. 
On the other hand. according to Mk. 168 the women 
out of fear say nothing to any one. 

(m) As regards results of the message, in the last 
case of couvse, that in Mk. , where the womeo say 



nothing, there can be no immediate consequence. 
According to Mt. (28 15) the niessage ìssues in 
immediate compliance with the comraand to go to 
Galilee ; according to Jn. (2O3-10) Mary's first qom- 
munication leads to the running of the two disciples to 
the sepulchre, whilst her second (2ÙiE) is not said to 
bave produced any effect. In Lk. (24ii) the women's 
statement produces merely the unbelief of the disciples, 
unless we are to regard as genuine v. 12, according 
to which Peter alone of the whole number hastens to 
the grave (seeabove, e). 

(«} An appearance of the risen Jestis at the sepulchre 
itself is reported only in Jn, (2O14-17), where it is made 
to Mary Magdalene ; an appearance on the way back 
from the sepulchre to the city only in Mt. {289/), 
where it is made to the two Marys. Whilst in this 
last case, however, the women embrace Jesus' feet, in 
Jn. he does not perrait Mary Magdalene to touch him. 

(o) The injunction received from Jesus himself is 
according to Mt. the same as that given by the angels. 
The women are to direct the disciples, here called 
'brethren' {àdeXipoi) by Jesus, to go to Galilee; 
according to Jn. Mary Magdalene is simply bidden teli 
his ' brethren ' {àSe\<poi) thal he is ascending to heaven 
(cp above, À). 

[p) An appearance of Jesus on the day of the resur- 
rection on the road to Emmaus is known only to Lk. 

{q) An appearance to Simon Peter before the evening 
of the same day is known only to Lk. (2434). 

The view of Origen (for the passages see in Resch, TU v. 4 
423 and X. 3 770-782), that the third evangelist says, and rightly, 
that Simon was the companioii of Cleopas on the walk to 
Emmaus, is quite inadmissible. As in Origen the name is con- 
stanily used without any addition, it is evident that only Peter 
can he intended. It has to be observed on the other hand, 
however, that the announcement of an appearance of the risen 
Jesus to SÌm.on is rnade, and made by the eleven (and theic 
companìons), to the two disciples on their return from Emmaus. 
For thisreason, therefore, Resch preferì toread 'saying' in the 
nominative (XÉyon*; for XéyovnK) with cod. D, according to 
which it is the Emmaus disciples who make the announcement. 
To this it has to be remarked that neìther Lk. nor Origen, in 
view of 2431 35, can bave intended to say that Jesus had 
appeared in Emmaus to Peter oniy and not to Cleopas also. 
Ir, again, by the Simon in Origen's MSS of Lk. we ought to 
understand some disciple other than Peter, such a conjecture 
wouid be unite as baseless as that other guess of Church fathers 
and Scholiasts (see Tisch. on 24 18) that the companìon of 
Cleopas was Nathanael, or the evangelist Luke, or a certain 
Am<m)aon, whose narae perhaps Comes from the place-name 

(r) An appearance on the same evening to the eleven 
and their companions (roiis ivStKa Kal toùs aùv aùroh), 
at which Jesus asks the disciples to touch his hands and 
feet. and eats a piece of a broiled iish, is recorded by 
Lk. (2433 36-51). The disciples are at this interview 
enjoined by Jesus to remain in Jerusalem tìll Pentecost 
(cp above, k). Jn. also(20i9-24) assignsan appìearance 
before the * disciples ' to the same evening, and we 
must presume, therefore, that here the same interview 
is intended as that related by Lk. The circumstances, 
however, are very different. In Jn. Thomas is ex- 
pressly stated not to have been with the eleven ; and 
that the number of the ' disciples ' included others than 
the ten apostles as we read in Lk. (ol a-ùi/ aiiroh) is not 
to be supposed, since Jesus soleinniy sends them forth 
{iré/j,iru iifià?) and imparts to them not only the gift of 
the Ho!y Spirit (which in Lk.^. 49 he holds forth as a 
promise for Pentecost) but also the authority to bestow 
or withhold forgiveness of sins (cp Ministry, §§ 4, 34 e). 
Lk. makes no reference to the circumstance that the 
doors were shut when Jesus entered, any more than he 
does to the conferring of -the authority just mentioned ; 
Jn. on the other hand knows nothing of Jesus having 

1 The Itala codd. b, e, ff^, Amhrosiasier, Ambrosius (on both 
see Scuter, Exp.T, 1901-1902, p. 429^!) in w. 13 looking forward 
lo V. tS, add Cleopas to Ammaus [ = Emmaus] presumably 
because, ceading avo^a-Tt. (so D, it., ■ng.'^ for ;p ói^^io, they saw 
in ' Emmaus ' the name not of the village but of one of the two 
disciples (so Nestle, Ein/SkruKg in das grieck. NT^) 96, ET 


eaten. Besides his hands, Jesus shows not his feet but 
his side^the piercing of which. irideed, is mentioned 
only in Jn. I934 ; but he does not suffer himself to be 
touched, yet without expressly forbidding this as he had 
done in the case of Mary Magdalene. 

(j) Jesus first suffers his hands and his side to be 
touched eight days afterwards, by Thomas in presence 
of ' his disciples ' ; but this is mentioned only in Jn. (20 
26-29) ^nd after he has again entered the same house 
(iràXtv %co.v iauì) through closed doors. 

(t) 'After these things ' {/terà raOra), but only 
according to Jn. 21, Jesus appears once more by the 
3ake of Galilee to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons 
of Zebedee, and two other disciples who are not named. 

(«) Galilee also, but certainly at an earlier date, was 
the scene of the appearance, recorded only in Mt. 
(28i5-2o), to the eleven on the mountain to which 
Jesus had directed them to go (when and where he 
made the appointment is nowhere stated, but seems to 
have been recorded in a source that was used at this 
point). Jesus here enjoins upon them the mission to 
the ,Gentiles and baptism in the name of the Trìnity. 
The missionary precept is in substantial agreement with 
Lk. 2449 and also with Jn. 202r (see above. r).' 

That one and the same event should be io some 
extent differently described even by eye-witnesses is 
FTtflut of '"'^^''g'b's enough, as also that sotne 
A' CT Tifl fin psrticular incident connected with it 
" ' should in later reminiscence be errone- 

ousiy dissociated from it and attached to some other 
similar event. 

(a) Thus no serious importance ought, for example, 
to be given to the circumstance that the words in which 
the disciples are bidden by the angel to betake them- 
selves to Galilee, do not e.factly agree in the different 
accounts, and that one narrator assigns the missionary 
precept to one appearance, another to another. To 
this, however, there are limits. 

Whether the sepulchre was guarded or not guarded, how 
many women went co the sepulchre, whether or noi the disciples 
were bidden go lo Galilee, whether or not when Jesus appeared 
Mary Magdalene was alone, whether or not Thomas was 
present, whether or not Jesus asked for food and then actually 
partook of it, whether or not he allowed himself to be touched ; 
above ali, whether the appearances occurred in Jerusalem or in 
Galilee, and whether the women reported what they had seen 
at the sepulchre or were silent about it^these and many other 
points are matters with regard to which the eye-witnesses or 
those who had their Information directly from eye-witnesses, 
could not posslbly have been in the least uncertainty. Yet, 
what differences ! DifFerences, too, of which it is impossible to 
say that they are partly explicable by the fact that one narrator 
gives one occurrence and another another without wishing 
thereby to exclude ali the rest. Lk. enumerates a consecutive 
series of appearances and brings it to a dose (24 51) with the 

1 The harmonistic altempt to dispose of this appearance in 
Galilee by maìntaining that Galilee here means one of the summit s 
of the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem — whether the summit on 
the N. or that called in 2 K. 2S 13 the 'mount of corruption ' 
(see Destruction, Moust of ; Olives, Mount of, g s), 
by which supposition Mt. 28 r6 is brought into agreement with 
Lk. 24 50 Acts 1 12, has its basis only on assertions of mediseval 
pilgrims. The matter is not improved by the purely conjectural 
assumption of Resch (Ti/ x.2381-389 x.3j6$/'.) that in Mt. 
28 iS and already in 26 32 28 7 IO = Mk. 14 2S I67, 'Galilee' 
(rnAiAata) is a wrong rendering of the gelila (n7'73) in the 
originai Hebrew gospel postulated by him, the neighbourhood 
of Jerusalem (n-*pixotpoi Mt. 3 5 Mk. 1 aa, etc.) being what was 
really intended. In TertuUian's {Apel. 21) ' cum discipulis 
quibusdam apud Galilasam )\>Ax.& regionem ad quadraginta dies 
egit " Resch even finds Gahljea used as the navie of this districi 
(see, against this, Schiirer, TLZ, 1897, p. 187/). That, fu rt her, 
the Mount of Olives belonged to this districi Kesch accepts 
from the medieval pilgrims ; and that it con.stituted the centrai 
point of the districi, so that the disciples could at once under- 
stand by the 'districi' to which (according to Mk.]67 = Mt. 
287 io) they were directed the Mount of Olives, as being the 
' mountain where Jesus had apjjoìnted them ' (tÌ> ópos oS STÓf aro 
oÙTOti ó 'Iijtrovi : 28 16), he derives from his own authority. The 
Acta. Filati and the Gesta Pilaii, finally, which place the 
ascension of Jesus at once in Galilee andon the Mount of Olives, 
embody no true geographical recollection but only a quite crude 
harmonistic attempi (cp the passages inZahn, Cesck.d. Kanons, 
2937; also Thilo, Cod. Apscr. NT 1 617-622). See also 



express statement that Jesus parted from them ; and ali these 
occurrences are represented as baving happened on one and the 
same day. In Jn., on the other hand, the eventsof the twentieth 
chapter alone requìre eight days. Mt. and Mk. knoiv t>f 
appearances to disdples only in Galilee, Lk. and Jn. 20 only of 
appearances in Jerusalem and its neighijourhood (Emmaus), 
neither of the last-named evangelists taking any account what- 
ever of any appearances in Galilee — not till Jn.21 do we come 
upon one of this description ; but this chapter is by another hand 
(see John, Son of Zebeuee, g 40). 

{i) Refuge is often sought in the reflection that some- 
tinies an event niay. after ali, have actually happened, 
even if the accounts of it are quite discrepant, A 
famous illustratìon often quoted in this connection is 
the case of Hannibal, who quite certainly did cross the 
Alps, aJthowgh Lìvy's account of the route taken by him 
is entirely different from that of Polybìus. Most as- 
suredly. The fact, however, that, whatever be the 
contradictions of chroniclers, he actually did cross the 
Alps is a cerlainty for lis, only because u-e know for 
certain that at one date he was to be found on the 
Gallic side, and at a subsequent date on the Italian. 
If it «ere just as clearly made out that Jesus, after his 
dealh, carne back again to this life, we could, indeed, 
in that case, with an easy mind, leave the dififerences 
between the narratives to settle themselves. Here, 
however, the position of matters is that the actuality of 
the resurrection of Jesus depends for its establishment 
upon these very narratives ; and in such a case unim- 
peachable witnesses are n aturai ly demanded. 

Livy and Polybius lived centuries after the occurrence which 
ihey re late, and they were dependent for the ir facts upon 
written sourccs which perhaps were wanting in accuracy, and, 
tnoreover, were themselves in turn derived from inadequate 
sources. If any deficiency, even of only an approximately 
sirailar character, has to be admitted in the acquaintance of the 
writers of the gospels with the circum^tances of the resurrection 
of Jesus, there is little prospect of anyone being indiiced to 
acceut it as a fact, on the strength of such testimony, unless he 
has from the beginning been predisposed to do so without any 
testimony. And as a matter of fact we cannot avoìd the con- 
clusion from the contradictions between the gospels that the 
writers of them were far removed from the event they describe. 
If WR possessed only one gospel, we might perhaps he inclined 
to accept it ; but bow far astray sbould we be according to the 
view of Lk. if we relied, let us say, on Mt. alone, or, according 
to the view of Jn., if we pinned ourfaith to Lk. In point of fact, 
not only do the evangelists each follow different narratives ; they 
also each have dìstinct theories of their own as lo Galilee or 
Jerusalem being the scene of the appearances, as to whether 
Jesus ale and was touched, and so forlh (cp § 19 «, 37 e, d). 

Shall we Ihen betake ourselves to extra-canoni cai 
sources? Of these, several are often regarded as 
superior (o the canonica! in anliquiiy ; so, 
for example, the Gospel of the Hebrews. 
This view, however, so far as the extant 
fragments at least are concerned, is dis- 
tinctly not warranted (see Gospels, § 155). 

(li) For our present discussion the following citalion 
by Jerome ( Vir. ili. 2} from this gospel comes into 
consideration : — 

' The Lord after he had given the cloth to the slave of the 
priest, went lo James and appeared to him ; for James had swotn 
that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had 
drunk the cup of the Lord until he shouid see him rising again 
from them that sleep' ; and again after a little : ' Bring, says 
the Lord, food and bread,' and immediately there isadded : 'he 
brought bread and blessed and break and gave to James the 
Just and said to him : My brother, eat thy bread, because the 
son ai man has risen a^ain from them that slcep." ('Dominus 
autem cum dedisset sindonem servo sacetdotis, jvit ad Jacobum 
et apparuit ei ; juraverat enìm Jacobus se non comesurum panem 
ab llla bora qua biberat caficem domini donec videret eum 
resurgentem a dormientihus ' ; rursusquepost paululum ; 'afferte, 
ait (lominus, mensam et panem,' statimque additur : ' tulit 
panem et benedixit ac fregit et dedit Jacobo Justo et dixìt ei : 
frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a 

This stor}' Is, to begin with, untrustworthy, because, 
according to the canomcal gospels, James was not 
present at ali at the last supper of Jesus. ^ 

Lightfoot's conjecture (Ga/.l*) 266=^D!sieri, on Apost. Age, 
p. 26) that ' dominus ' ought to he read for ' domini ' seems, indeed, 
to be suppotted by some ecclesiastical writers (see in Handmann, 

1 On the simple statement, ' he appeared to James,' i Cor. 
157, see § II 1:. 


4. Ctospel 

of the 

J't'v. 3 79-82) who reproduce the passage in this sense; but it is 
by no means certain, 'The Lord had drunk the cup' (biberat 
calicem dominus) would then have reference to the death of 
Jesus ; such a figurative espressioD, however, is little in keeping 
with the simple narrative style of the fragment. Moreover, the 
bread which Jesus ' blesses and breaks ' clearly answers to the 
bread of the eucharist, and this is lo the point if James had 
eaten nothing since being present at the last supper. Earlier 
students may have perceived the contradiction between the read- 
ing ' of the Lord ' (domini) and the canonical narratives just as 
easily as Lightfoot, and on this account have substituted ' the 
Lord ' (dominus : in the nom.). 

(b) Nor is the Gospel of the Hebrews wanting at other 
points in equally bold contradictions to the canonical 
gospels. Jesus is represented as having given his linen 
garment to the servant of the high priest. This (apart 
from what we read in the Gospel of Peter ; see below, 
§ 5 è) is the only appearance, anywhere recorded, of 
Jesus to a non-believer. What enormous imporlance 
would it not possess. were it only historical ! How 
could the evangelists, and Paul, possibiy have suffered 
it to escape them? It is, however, only too easily con- 
ceivable that they knew nothing at ali about it. 

In order to reach James it was first necessary for Jesus, ac- 
cording to our fragment, to walk ; but it was not so in the case 
of the servant of the high priest, who must, accordingly, Ije 
thought of as having been in the immediate neighbourhood of 
the sepulchre. What was he doing there? The most likely 
conjecture will be that he was taking part in the watching of 
the sepuichre. This, however, means yet anolher step beyond 
the already unhislorical canonical account (below, g 20), in so far 
as according to Mt. 27 62 66 the chief priests and Pharisees took 
part onlj; in the sealing of the stone at the door of the sepulchre, 
and has its parallel in the part taken by the presbyters in the 
watching of the sepulchre according to the Gospel of Peter (^8), 
which, as regards this part of the narralive, goes stili anolher 
step farther than the canonical account (see below, § 5 a). It has 
furcher to ire reniarfced that the Jinen cloth was the only dot hi ng- 
thebodyhadwhenitwaslaid in the tomb (§ 2 ^) ; Jn. 1840205-7, 
which speaks of several cloths, is plainly not taken into account 
in the gospel of the Hebrews. This being so it would have been 
toogreat an ofTence again st decorum that Jesus shouid have given 
this garment to rhe servant of the high priest. It will therefore 
be necessary to suppose that he had already assumed another 
form. In that case also, however, the handing over of the 
garment to the servant makes an advance upon the canonical 
account. The synoptists, in reporting the resurrection, make no 
mention of the cloth at ali, and in Jn. the clothes are ali found 
lying in the sepulchre, which at ali events better accords with 
the reserve with which the mystery of the resurrection is treated 
than would be the case if we were asked to believe that Jesus 
had brought the cloth with him from the sepulchre as a irophy 
and deposi ted it asan ultimate proofof his resurrection. Lastly, 
it has to be remembered how violently the gospel of the Hebrews, 
although in agreement with Paul (i Cor. 15 7) as regards an 
apjjearance to James, also conflicis with that apostle in so far 
as it niakes ouc this appearance to have been (he first ; a!so 
how naturai it was that precisely in a gospel for Hebrews James, 
the head of the church at Jerusalem, shouid be glorified by means 
of some such narrative as this. 

(e) In Ignatius {ad Smym.%2) we meet with the 
following passage : — ' and when he came lo ihose about 
Peter he said to them, Take, handle me and see that I 
am not a demon without a body. And straightway 
they touched him and believed ' (koI Sre tt/jòs toi>s Trepi 
Tlirpov ^\9ev, Ìrj>rì a&roh- \à^ere i//T}\aip^craTé /« «ai 
ISere Sri o^k elfù Sai/j.òviov àtnù/j.aroi'. Kai eidùs aùroi) 
ij>pa.yTo Kal éiriarevaav). Eusebius (ffJS ìli. S6 11) 
confesses that he does not know where Ignatius can 
have taken this from. Jerome {Vir. ili. 16), on the 
other hand, informs us that it comes from the Gospel 
of ihe Hebrews (only he wrongJy names the EpisUe of 
Ignatius to Polycarp, not that to the SmyrnEeans). 

Brandt {390-395 ; see below, % 39) plausibly conjectures that the 
quotation belongs to the passage, quoted above under a, marked 
by Jerome by the words ' again after a little ' {' rursus post paul- 
ulum ') : Jesus appeared to James, then went with him to Peter 
and his companions, permitted himself to be touched there, and 
ordered food to be brought, and so forlh. We bear of the invita^ 
tion to touch him in Lk. 24 39, and that passage, noi Jn. 20 27, 
must be the one in view since nothing is said about Thomas, and on 
the other hand 'bodile,ssdEemon'(6ai^ói'(oj'à(ru)fi,aToi')agree5 with 
the ' spirit ' (n-pfO^m) of Lk. or with the ' appearance ' (^avraa-ixa, 
■v. 37) which is the reading of D and of Marcion, — of Marcion 
because in point oi fact be really regarded the risen Jesus as a 
spirit (iri-*ii/ia). This second fragment, accordingly, conveys 
nothing new. Lk. may unhesitatingly he regarded as its source. 
See, furlher, below, §9*1. 

In the fragment of the Gospel of Peter discovered in 


1892 various scholars, and particularly Harnack, bave 

0. Qospel 

discerned a maximum of really ancient 

-p . mailer ( ' a first-class source').^ It is to 

be observed, however, that, (a) as regards 

the watch set on the sepulchre, the Peter fragment 

goes stili further beyond the canonical account than the 

Gospel to the Hebrews does (see § 4 è). 

Noi onlv do the elders of the Jews keep waich along with the 
Roman soldiers ; the wrìter also is able co give the narae of Ihe 
officer in command of the guard (Petronius) and to inforni his 
readers that the stoiie at the (ioor of the sepulchre was sealed 
with seven seais, and that a booth was erected for the use of the 
guard. What is stili more surprising, the soldiers reporc the 
occurrence of the resurrection not to the chief priests but to 
Filate, ^precisely the person from wbom^ according to Mt. 28 14, 
ali knowiedge of the fact ought if possible to bave heen witb- 
held, — and it is Filate who, at the request of the Jews, enjoìns 
sileuce Oli the soldiers (28-49). 

((^) The actual resurrection of Jesus, which in the 
canonical accounts is, with noticeable reserve, always only 
indicated as having occurred already, never described, 
is here represented as having occurred before the very 
eyes of the Roman and Jewish watchers, and, indeed. 
in a way which can only be described as grotesque 


During the night the heavens open, two men (youths) come 
down in dazzling splendour, the stone rolls away of its own ac- 
cord, the two youths etiter che sepulchre, three men re-emerge, 
two of them supportine the third, the heads of the two reach to 
the sky, that of the third goes beyond it (cp Wisd. 18 16) ; a 
cross foUows them, and to the question heard from heaven 
' Hast thou preached to the dead?' ÌC answers ' Yea ' ; the 
heavens open once more, a man comes down and enters th-c 
sepulchre (this is the angel whom the women see there next 
morning). This, however, is not ali ; in v. 19 after the cty of 
Jesus ' My Scrength, my StrengCh, thou hast abandoned me ' 
(n iuvofiis flou, i) fimi, learéXei^ós fte — thus, in ali prob- 
ability, by way of tonine dowh the expression of God-forsaketi- 
ness) we find the words and when he had spoken he was taken 
up ' («al tlnìiiv àveAijifitìj)), which can hardly be understood other- 
wise Chan as meaning a taking up into heaven. 2 This last, 
therefore, is twice related in our fragment ; for that Jesus goes 
into heaven along with Che two angeU is made clear by the woril 
of the angel to the women (t/. 56) : ' he is risen and has gone 
thither whence he was sene ' (àftuTTì xaì ÓTrijAfliv ìkcÌ o6rv 

(c) The account of what Mary Magdalene and ' her 
friends' found at the sepulchre (50-57) is essentiallyin 
agreement with what we read in Mk. So, also, the 
statement that they flee fiUed with fear, without our 
being told that they related to any one what had oc- 
curred. On the ciosing day of the paschal festival 
'the twelve disciples' are stili weeping and mourning 
in Jerusalem (58^). 

{d) Oti this ciosing day the disciples betake themselves 
each to his home, that is to say. to Galilee. For in v. 60 
the narrative proceeds : ' but I, Simon Peter, and 
Andrew . . . went (lo fish) to the sea, and with us 
were Levi the son of Alph^us whom the Lord ..." 
(here the fragment breaks off). Plainly the continua- 
tion related an appearance of Jesus by the sea of Galilee, 
such as we meet with in Jn. 21. Yet in Jn. it is precisely 
Andrew and Levi who are not mentioned.^ 

t BruchstUcke dcs Evang. ». der Apokalypse des PeiruiPÌ, 
1803; ACI.ÌÌ. ( = CAr/>'ti'/.}Ì6z4. 

2 Cp Actsl II Mk. I619. Ss also, which in Mk. 15 37 Lk. 
2346 righlly says '(Jesus) ex])ired (or, ended),' has in Mt. 27 50 
'his spirit went up ; and Origen {Cornin, in Mt. series [Lat.], 
ed. de la Rue, 3 928^, § 140) ' statim ut clamavit ad patrem 
receptus est." 

3 As regards Levi, Resch { TW x. 8 829-832 x. 4 196) trìes to 
controvert this, maintaining Levi's identity with Matthew (Mk. 
2 14 II Mt. 9 9), whom in turn, on account of the like meaning of 
the two names, he identifies with NaChanael whoappears in Jn. 
21 2. Of chese two identifìcations, however, even that of Levi 
with Matthew is questìoned, and complete identity in the mean- 
ings of two names can never he held to prove the identity of th-e 
bearers. Cp Philip, col. 3701, n. i ; Nathanael. The 
attempi may be made, without such idenlifications of different 
names, to maintaìn the identity of the fact tecorded in the 
Gospel of Feter with that recorded in Jn.; this may be done by 
pointing to the possibility that Andrew and Levi may be ìn- 
tended by the two unnamed disciples in Jn. 21 2. It is an 
attempi which would to a certain extent he plausible but only if 
a fact might really be assuraed which bolh writers wish to 
describe. But Jn. 21 1-14 is open to che suspicìon of being, not 
a description of a fact, but rather the clothing of an idea ; and 
we may suspect, in parlicular, that the two unnamed disciples 


(e) The elemenl here that admits of being regarded 
as especially old is that the first appearance of Jesus 
occurs in Galilee and to Peter. Hardly, however, to 
Peter alone as is stated by Paul (iCor. IBs) and Lk. 
(2434). Furthermore, it might seem to be originai here 
that the first appearance does not occur until more than 
eight days after the death of Jesus. Such, however, 
cannot be regarded with certainty as the meaning of the 

Unquestionably the writer is in crror if he thinks that on the 
last day of the paschal festival many pilgrims, and also the 
apostles, set out for their homes ; for this day fell in that year 
on a Sabbath, and even if, that had not heen so, it had the 
validity of a Sabhath and thus precluded the possibility of 
travelling. AnoCher evidence of ignorance or carelessness in 
matters of chionology is seen in v. 27, where, afcer descrih- 
ing the boriai of Jesus, Peter goes on to say : ' we fasted and sat 
mourning and weeping day and night (wicTÒt irai ij/ispai) until 
the Sabbath,' although the writer, according to v. 30, ri^htly 
dates the death of Jesus on the evening of Friday. If this be 
so, it is not impossible that he may have regarded the paschal 
festival as one not of eight days' duration, but of only two. 
The Sabbath is rightly regarded by him as the first day of the 
feast ; in v. 50 he mentìons the Sunday («cufuojf^) as the day on 
which the women visited the sepulchre ; and immediately after 
the words 'the women fìed full of fear,' he proceeds in v. 58 to 
add : ' and it was the last of the da>-s of unieavened bread ' (^v 
5è i«AeuTata ijfii'pa ràiv àfiifuui'). Although the possibility is not 
excluded that these words transplant us to a later date, it stili 
remains the most naturai interpretation of the form of expression 
to suppose the meaning to be ; ' but at tbaC time (when the 
women fled) ic was the last of the days,' etc. Thus it is impos- 
sible at least to he quite certain that an interval of more than 
eight days between the resurrection and the first appearance of 

fesus is intended. Besides, as we shall afterwards discover (see 
elow, g 22 1/), it has not the smaliest inherent probability. 
{/) On the whole, then, what we have to say with 
regard to the gospel of Peter must be that, inasmuch as 
the greater part of its contents is of a legendary char- 
acter, we cannot rely upon anything we find in it merely 
because it is found in the gospel of Peter. If the reader 
by any chance finds any stalements contained in it to 
be credible, he does so on grounds of inherent prob- 
ability alone, and must ask, almost in astonishment, 
how by any possibility a statement of such a kind could 
have found its way hither. Moreover, the data which 
come most nearly under this category are already known 
to US from canonical sources : — such as that the resurrec- 
tion and the ascension were but one and the same act 
(§ 16 e), that the disciples received from the women no 
word as to the slate of the sepulchre, and that the first 
appearance of the risen Jesus was in Galilee (Mk. 16 7/. 
Mt. 28 7 lòf. ). The sole statement worthy of credence 
mei with in the gospel of Peter and nowhere else is that 
found in v. 27— that the disciples fasted (cp § 360). 
In Peter, however, we can have no certainty that the 
author is drawing upon authentic tradition ; he may 
very easily have drawn upon his own imaginalion for 
this realistic touch. 

There remains yet one other extant account of the 
resurrection by a writer who in like manner did not feel 
himself bound to follow the canonical 

6. Coptic 

accounts ; it occurs in a Coptic book of 

resurre^ ^**" anti-Gnostic tendency, found at Akhmim 
narrative. ^^ Egypt, and described by Cari Schmidt 
{SBA W, 1895, pp. 705-711) ; the conversation of the 
risen Jesus with his disciples contained in it has been 
reproduced and discussed by Harnack ( Theol. Studien 
fiir B. Weiss, 1897, pp. 1-8), who dates it somewhcre 
between 150 and 180 A. D. 

The contents are as follows : — Mary, Martha, and Mary Mag- 
dalene wiah to anoint the body of Jesus, hut find the sepulchre 
empty. Jesus appears to them and says : ' I am he whom ye 
seek,' and bids that one of them go to their brethren and say 
'Come, the Master is risen.' Martha does so, but meels with 
no credence, and Mary, whom Jesus sends after Martha has 
reported her failure, has no better success. Finally Jesus him- 
self goes along with the women, calls the disciples out, and, as 

were added only in order Co gain the coinplete number 'seven' 
(below, % 2<jc; Simon Peter, S 22C). Therefore, to identify 
with the account in the Gospel of Feter (to which Gospel the 
idea ìntended in Jn. was presumably quite foreign), the identi- 
fìcalion being based on so slender a foundation, would be (ery 



they stili continue to be in doubt, bids Peter, Thomas, and 
Andrew touch his hands, bis side, and bis feet respectivcly, 
citing also Wisd. 18 17. Then they confess their sins, especially 
the ir unbelief. 

This narrative contains much that is new, but nothing 
that could daini gr<;at(;r credibiliiy than tlie canonical 
gospels. An appearance of Jesus occurs at the sepulclire, 
not, however, to one woman or two, as in Jn. and Mt. 
respectively, but to three ; so also the unbelief of the 
disciples dweit on in Lk. '241137(41} reappears in intensi- 
fied forni, and in addition to Thomas two other disciples 
are bidden touch the wounds of Jesus. 

Other isolated details also, differìng from those com- 
monly current, have come down to us from a time, pre- 

™ T 1 i j sumably, in which older traditions stili 
.. . , contmued to produce after-erfects. 

exwa-canomcai ^^^ ^^^j jj^bbiensis (k) has this mter- 
aetailB. polation before Mk, 1 6 4 ( see Old Latin 

Biblical Texts, 222) : ' Suddenly, however, at the Ihìrd 
hour, darkness carne on by day throughout the whole 
world and angels carne down from heaveti and will rise 
(read : and rising) in the brightness of the living God 
went up with him, and forihwiih it was light ' ( ' subito 
autemad horam tertìam tenebra dieifactsesunt per totum 
orbem tcrrie et descenderunt de ccelis angeli et surgenC 
(read: surgentes) in ciarliate vivi dei simu! ascenderunl 
cunieo et continuo lux facta est'). This abòut the angels 
agrees with the Gospel of Peter (see above, § 51^), except 
that there the event occurs during the night, whilsi in 
cod. k we are bidden think of it as preceded by an eclipse 
and therefore as happening by day — at the third hour, in 
other words al 9 A.M. 

It is, however, hard to believe that the interpolalor actuaily 
supposed that the women took some three hours (ftom sunrìse) 
to considei who shouid ro!l away (he stone {Iti 2). Perhaps the 
time datum is the result of a confusion. This would be al! ihe 
easier hecause a darkness is elsewhere reported as having oc- 
curred at the crucili.'iion — although, tu be sure, in the afternoon 
from twelve till [hree (so also in Gospel of Peter, 15, 22). 

If we leave the darkness out of account and understand the 
ihiid hour according to Roman and modem reckoning as 
three o'clock in the morning, ihen ihe final clause 'continuo lux 
facta est ' agrees with both lexis of the Anaphora Filali (A, Q 
= B, 8, in Tischendorfs F.vang. Apocr.^") 440, 447), accoi^ling 
to which at (bis hour ihe sun rose, manifestly to mark the time 
of the resurrection.l So also agrees Lagarde's recorstmctlon 
of the Diiiaskalin, b n, which Resch (7^K. 3 756) quotes from 
Bunsen's Attic/ecia AnteniccFna, 2313 ; that Jesus slept through- 
out the Sabbath and for three bours over and above. One has 
only to reckon the day in Roman fashion from midnight to 

[h) In the Didaskalia (extant in Syriac), which carne 
into existence in the third century, based upon older 
sources, we read (ed. Lagarde, 88 f.. according to 
Resch, Tf/x. 8761) ihat 'during the night before the 
dawn of the first day of the week Jesus appieared to 
Mary Magdalene and Mary the daughter of James, and 
in the morning of the first day of the week he entered the 
house of Levi, and then he appeared also to us ; more- 
over he said to us while he was instructing us : Where- 
fore do ye fast on my account in these da3'S?' and so 
on. Mention is niade of Levi in the Gospel of Peter 
also (above, § 5 d). but in a wholly different connection. 
The fasting is also nientìoned there (§ 5 [y"]). The 
sccond Mary is called the daughter (not the mother) of 
James in Ss also. 

(e) According to K, Syr.'"' Syr. ''''^'■™^ Vg gtc. ^ ;,i 
Lk. 2443 Jesus gives what is left from what he ate {i.e., 
according to TR and AV, fìsh and an honeycomb) to 
the disciples. 

(i^) In Tatian's Diatessaron Capernaum is named in 
Mt.28i6 instead of the mountain in Galilee. In the 
scene by the open sepulchre which Tatian gives after 
Jn. Mary is named without any addition, and Ephrem 
in his commentary understands this of Mary the mother 
of Jesus. This is indicated also by the fact that previ- 
ously she has been entrusted by the crucified Jesus in 
the words of Jn. 19 25/1 to the beloved disciple. Never- 
theless there may be a confusion here, as the Diatessaron 
' Aparl from this reference we leave the Anaph. FU. out of 
consideration as being a late and highly legendary work. 


elsewhere tin doublé dly makes use of the canonical 

(f) A Christian section of the A^cgnsio Jesaia (313- 
4 18; see Simon Peter, § 27) presents a variation on 
the Gospel of Peter. Upon [the watch of] those who 
watched the sepulchre follows ' the descenl of the angel 
of the church which is in heaven ' (3 15 ; ^ KOTfi/Scwrfs 
Tov ày^FKov T^s èKKXjjffias ttjs èv ofipavQ), and ' the 
angel of the Holy Spirit [Gabriel?], and Michael the 
chief of the holy angels on the third day will open the 
sepulchre and the Beloved silting on their shoulders will 
come forth ' (%-ifi f. : ó S/yyeKo^ toì5 irvelifiaro^ rov àrylov 
Kai TAi-X^-'h^ à-pX!^" TÓJ:' à77Awy rùiv àyluv ry rptrij 
V/.i-épif aÙTov àfoi^ovaiy rb /j-fTi/MOpelov kuI ò àyaTTrìTÒs 
KaOldctì éirl toi)s &/j.ovs airUv é^fXfùoerai). 

{/) From a stili Inter date we have a recent notice of 
an apocryphal work, in a Georgian translation, belonging 
according to Harnack to the hfth or the sixth century; 
it relates lo Joseph of Arimathsea, and we are told that 
its hero is expressly spoken of as the first to whom Jesus 
appeared. He had been thrown into prison by the 
Jewsfor having begged the body of Jesus [SBA tF, 1901, 
pp. 920-931, and. more fully, von Dobschiilz in Z. f. 
Kirchengesch. 23 1-27 [1902]). 

In any event ali these notices serve to show how 
busily and in how reckless a manner the accounts of the 
resurrection of Jesus continued to be handed on. 

The shorter concJusion of Mk. (that headed 'AXXwr 

by WH) conlents ilself with simply saying the opposile 

_ Mk 16 ^^ "^^ statenienl (that the women said 

nothing to anyone of what they had 

seen and heard at the grave) in 168; but the longer 

conclusion gives a variety of details, 

{13} A brief summary of its most important points has 
been given already (see GosPELS, § 138^) ; but it will 
be necessary to examine more closely some of the current 
views respecting it. 

Rohrbach (see below, g 39), in bis bypothesis based upon 
certain indications of Hamack, gives his adhesion to the opinion 
of Conybeare{£'j-/oi'. 1893 ^, pp. 241-154), that Mk. IBg-ao is the 
work of the presbyter Aristion. We shail discuss this thesis in 
the form in which it has been adopted by Harnack {ACL ii, 
\. — Chroti.\ 1 695-700). In order to displace the genuine con- 
clusion of Mk. (see below, § 9) in favour of another which shouid 
be more in agreement wilh the other three gospels, and at the 
Bame time be the work of an autboritative person, the presby ters 
of the Johannine circle in Asia Minor who brougbt togelber the 
four gospels into a unity took a memorandum by the presbyter 
Aristion who, according to Papias, had been a personal disciple 
of Jesus (JoH.s, SoN OF ZeiìedììE, § 4). 

{b) Harnack and Rohrbach, in order to maintain the 
literary independence of Aristion, find il necessary to 
deny that Mk, 1 69-20 is a mere excerpl from the canonical 
gospels and other writings. In this, however, they 
cannot but fall. The borrowing, indeed, is not made 
word for word ; in point of fact, however, even the 
smallest deparlure from the sources admits of explana- 
tion on grounds that are obvious. Verse 9 is compounded 
from Jn.20i 11-17 and Lk, 82 ; -vv. lof. from Jn.20i3 
and Lk. 24 10 f. ; ti. 12 reproduces Lk. 24 13-32 and v. 130 
I-k. 243335. 'l'hai the eleven did not believe the disciples 
from Emmaus (v. 13^) direclly conlradicts Lk. 2434 il is 
tnie ; but th's is easily explicabJe from the view of the 
aitthor that unbelief was the invariable effect of the 
accounts as to appearances of the risen Jesus — a view 
which (v. 14) he expressly puts into the moulh of Jesus 
himself Thus it is by no means necessary lo postulale 
an independenl source ; ali that is needed is unity in 
the fundamental conception of the mailer. 

[e) Zahn [Eiftl. § 52 = 2227-240} derives vv. 14-18 from 
Aristion, but declines to do so aiike in the case of vv. 
9-13 and in that of 19 / In 14-iS he finds not mere 
compilation but actual narrative, and that without 
dependence on ihe canonical gospels. In reaìily, how- 
ever, V. 14 simply carries further what is found in Lk. 
242538 Jn. 2O27 ; 'V- 15 is an adaptatìon of Mt, 2819 lo 
Pauline and Catholic phraseology ('world' [KÓcr;tos], 
'preach the gospci' \Kitpi)0<jiiv rò €1)077^101']. 'creature' 
\ktìuì%\), and if baplism in the name of the Trinity is 









xvi. g-20 

Gosp. Heb. 

Gosi». Pet, 






of priest ?) 

soldiers and 

Jesus Comes 


in the 


night; with 
2 angels ; 
stone re- 


Time when 

after sun- 

evetiing he- 

before sun- 

before sun- 

(in the 

in the ì 


women come 








Stone when 

already re- 

is temoved 

already re- 

already re- 

already re- 

(already re- 

women come 


by angel : 

mo ved 

mo ved 


mo ved) 

Angels when 






women come 


3: Mary 
Magd.; M. 

2 ; Mary 

M. Magd.; 

M. Mr-gd.; 

M. Magd. 


Magd. ; M. 

Joanna; M. 

and ber 


(m.)of James 

mother of 

of James ; 


M. Magd. 


(ihe less 

James and 

and others 

and Joses); 




she tells 


the watchers 


Peter and 

the watchers 


the belo ved 

In sepulchre 

the angel 


a the doths 
è the angels 

the angel 


See Jesus at 

the z women 

M. Magd.; 

the watchers 

the 3 women 


touch Jesus 

does not 
touch J. 

See Jesus (at 

M. Magd. 

the servant ; 



Jesus' gar- 


of Ja 

Angel's charge 

to send dis- 
cipies to 

to send dìs- 
ciples to 

Jesus' charge 


to announce 



Wombn's Report : 

not made 

(not made) j 

to whom 

(the dis- 

the II and 

a see above 

i the^ (11) 


the disciples 

the disciples 


joumey to 

unbelief j 






James ; 
bread fot 



2 (at Em- 




the twelve 

the (11) dis- 

the II dis- 

the II, with 

the (io) dis- 

the II ; 

Peter with 

Peter, An- 

the (11) dis- 



ciples ; 

otheis ; 

ciples ; 

doors ; 

others ; 

drew, Levi 
(& others?) 

ciples ; 



some doubt; 



J. shows bis 




touched ; 

wounds ; 




eats [var.: 

with discc.]; 





command ;i 

command ; , command); 


' I am with j Holy Spirit ^ Holy Spirit 

Jesus i^ 

over 500 

you alway' promised j given 


(James, see 


TO ■ 

ali the 

the n dis- 


l ciples; 

1 doors ; 
! J. touched 

! 7 disciples ; 

bcead and 


fìsb for them 

i 1 

Place of 




H Jerusalem; 

Jerusalem?) (Jerusalem?) 

Sea of Gal. 



ò Sea of Gal. 



(at the 

first evening first mom- ' at a meal 
. __„ , 1 ing (on the ist 

a at death 
& at the re- 


after4odaysl ! «^^"'"S?) 



not mentioned that becomes very intelligible after Cony- 
beare's demoiistration (ZA'T'If, 1901, pp. 275-288; cp 
Hibb. Journ. i , p. ')(>ff. ) that even Eusebius down to 325 
A.D. read nothing as to this in Mt. (cp MiNisTRY, § 5^]. 
Verse 16 is the most elaborated dogmatic of the apostolic 
atid post-apostolic time (Acts 16 31 ; MixiSTRV, § 26). 
The casting-out of devils in v. 17 rests on Mk. 6713 Mt. 
10 I Lk, 9 I IÙ17, the speaking with new tongues {i.e., 
laiiguagesof foreign peoples)on Acts 2i-i3(cp Spiritual 
GiFTS, § io); ' they shall take up serpe 11 ts ' {v. 18) is 
borrowed partly from Acts 28 j-6 and partly froni the 
express promise of Jesus in Lk. 10 19 ; the gift of healing 
of diseases by laying-on of hands from Acis 288. With- 
out Hmitation to the mcthod by imposition of hands such 
a gift is already bestowed upon the apostles in Mt. 10 1 
Lk. 9i, and is exercised by theni in Mk. 613 Lk. 96. 

The drinking of deacJly poison with impunity is the on!y thing 
for which we liave lo look outsìde of the NT canon ; but here 
it is not Aristion that we encounter but the daughters of Phihp, 
from whom Papias clairns to have heard of such a thing in the 
case of Justus Jìarsabas (cp Phimp, § 411). To Say ihe least, 
then, irv. i-T /. are quite as much a mere cataloguing abstract as 
7^!. g-13 are. Nor js the situation changed by the addition after 
■a. 14 which Jerome quotes in one place from Greek MSS ; ' And 
they apologised saying : this age of iniquity and unbelief is 
under Satan, who by [his| impure spirìcs does not suffer the 
true viitue of God to be apprehended ; wherefore now reveal 
ihy juslice ' (et ÌIIi satisfaciebant [made amends, here meanìng : 
apologised] dicentes ; saeculum istud iniquitatìs et incredulitatis 
sub Satana est, qui non sinit per iromundos spiritus veram dei 
apprehendi virtutem ; idcirco jam nunc tevela justitiam tuam).I 
It is very easily explained as being a gloss.2 

{d] The conclusion of Mk. betrays no acquaintance 
with Jn. 21 or the Gospel of Peter ; on the other hand 
we canno! say with confidence that the aulhor had 
occasion to use them even had he known them. In the 
Gospel of Peter (27) the disciples are spoken of as in 
Mk. I610 as ' mourning and weeping' {Tr^vQavvTe^ xal 
KXaloyre^). But this collocation of words is quite 
current (Lk.Sij J3S.49 Rev. I811 1519), and the idea 
conveyed was an obvions one both from the sìtuation 
itself and also as fulfilment of the prophecy in Jn. 1620, 
and thus is no proof of literary dependence. 

[e] There is thus no particular reason why we 
should assign to a personal disciple of Jesus such as 
Aristion the authorship of so meagre an excerpt as 
Mk. 169-20 from which absolutely nothing new is to be 

A marginai gloss — coraparatively late it may be — in an Oxford 
MS. of Rufinus speaks of the story about Justus Barsabas in 
Eus. //£■ iii. 39 9 (see above, e) as a communication frora Aristion 
{_Exfos. i8p3, b, p. 246). Should this happen to rest upon older 
tradition, it conceivably may have been what fumished the 
occasion for atlributing to Aristion tìrst the allusion to the same 
thing in Mk. 16 18 and afterwards erroneously the whole passage 
TV. 9-20. 

t/} Neither is there ranch greaCer probability in the conjecture 
of Resch (/"i/x. 2 450-456) that in Conybeare's Armenian Manu- 
script by the presbyter Ariston is meanC the Jewish Christian 
Ariston of Fella in Persa, to whom the Dialogue belween Jason 
and Papiscus is attributed. There is absolutely nothing specific- 
ally Jewish -Christian in the conclusion of Mk. (see above, b, e). 
The other part of Resch's hypothesis — that it was this Ariston 
who at the same lime gathered together the four gospels imo 
one whole — is quite ÌnadmissÌble. Resch is able to make out a 

Ìewish-Christian character for this grouping only insomuch as 
II. is assigned ihe first place. 

Even apart, however, from the question about Ariston and 
Aristion ihe attempi to bring into dose connection the coraposi- 
tion of Mk. 16 g-20 and ihe grouping of the four gospels as sole 
canonical sources for the life of Jesus must be gìven up. 

If, however, there be even merely an element of truth 

1 Jer. eontr. Pelag. 1 15 ; ed. Vallarsi, 2758/ Zahn iGesch. 
d. NTlicken Kanans, 2935-938; Einl. § 52, n. 7) defends the 
reading ' sub Satana . . . qui ' given above ; the usuai reading 
is ' sub stantia . . . qu^.' 

- Van Kasteren {Kev. bibl. intemat., 1Q02, pp, 240-25^) seeks 
lo defend the authenticìty of this appcndix. He maintains, be- 
sides, that the whole passage (169-2o)has been used in Hermas, 
Siili. ìx. 2&2, and even in Heb, 11.423-5. These arguments 
are missing in Burgon, Last Tioeh'e Verses of Mk. (1871), and 
rightly. They rest only on vague resemblances which wouid be 
quite as capable of supporting the posteriority as the priority of 
Mk. 16 9-20, if they necessarily implied literary acquaintance. 

130 4053 

in the theory that the genuine conclusion of Mk. was 
„ _ . removed on account of its inconsistency 

confhininti ^^'""^ ^^^ other gospels, we are led to the 
, „, conjecture that what it staled must have 

been ali the more originai in proportion 
as the others are recent. 

{a) Harnack and Rohrbach suppose that the lost 
conclusion was what lay at the foundation of the Gospel 
of Peter and Jn.21, 

What is said, they think, was to the effect that as the women 
said nothing about whal had occurred at the sepulchre (16 b) the 
disciples went to Calìlee — not at ihe command of Jesus but (as 
in the Gospel of Peter) of iheir own motion and in deep depres- 
sion. Here Jesus appeared to a group of ihem by the iake as 
they were fishing (so far ihe Gospel of Peter) and rehabiUtated 
Peter who had oeen overwheimed wilh a .sense of his guilt in 
denying Jesus (cp Jn. 21 15-17). The saying of Jesus, on the 
other hand, about the heloved disciple (20-24) ''■ 3" addition of 
the author of Jn. 21. .'Vpart from that saying Jn. 21 describes 
the first appearance of the risen Jesus, which 15 given as the 
thlrd appearance (21 14) only in order to bring Lk. and Jn. into 
agreement. Rohrbach seeks to discover in the genuine con- 
clusion of Mk. also an appearance of Jesus to the eleven, and 
briugs into connection with this the fragment in Ignatius spoken 
of above (§ 3,c) which Rohrbach would fain detach from the 
Gospel of the Hebrews and claim for the genuine conclusion of 

(1*) Of such hypotheses we may admit everything that 
can be based upon Mk. I67. Even if the women, as 
we read in v. 8. kept silence as to the injimction of the 
angel, it stili remains the fact that, according to the view 
of the author, it was the divine will that ' the disciples 
and Peter ' should go to Galilee and there see the risen 
Jesus. That the disciples should have fulfilied this in- 
junction without being acquainted with it is explained 
in the Gospel of Peter by the fact that the festival 
had come to an end; according to Gospels, § 1380, 
there is a quile different explanation. In any case it 
is clear that it cannot have been Mk. 's intcntion to 
dose his gospel at 168 ; he must have trealed also the 
Galilasan events for which he had prepared his rcaders. 
From the remarkable order ' his disciples and i'eter ' 
we must not conclude that an appearance to the disciples 
was first related and then one to Peter ; for it is not 
said that his disciples and Peter wìll see him, but ' Teli 
his disciples and Peter.' Ali we can conjecture with 
any confidence is that Peter in some way or other played 
a special part in the lost narrative. 

(e) What we find in Harnack and Rohrbach going 
beyond this is quite untenable. That the Gospel of 
Peter and Jn. 21 have no common source, results at the 
outset front the fact that the names of the apostles on 
the shore of the Iake are not the same (cp § 51/, n.) 
That Jn. 21 originally was a description of the first 
appearance of the risen Jesus, is in itself not impossible ; 
but there is nothing that directly indicates it. 

The reserve of the disciples, in particular (21 12), in virtue of 
which none of them durst ask the Lord who he was, would be 
appropriate, not only at the first, but at any appearance. In 
the consummalely delicate roanner in which it is referred to in 
ira. 15-17, Peter's denial couid have been alluded to at any other 
appearance besides the first, if the situalion presented occasion 
far it ; and a rehabililation of Peter which one cannot help 
expecting at the first appearance, need not have carried wilh it, 
in the first instance, more than his restoration to grace, not his 
investilure with ihe office of leader of ihe ohurch (cp § 37^). 
This installation of Peter, however, is explained much more 
readily by reference to a later ecclesiastical situation. The 
Fourth Gospel at its first publication had met wilh opposilion, 
and in the circles in which it had arisen it was perceived that it 
would fail to meet with ecclesiastical recognilion if the great 
prominence given to the beloved disciple and the comparative 
depreciation of Peter, which run tbrough the entire hook (see 
Simon Peter, g 22), were to he continued. It was deiermined, 
therefore, to recognìse in an appendix the aulhority of Peter to 
some exient (Ministrv, § ^6a). If this he so, however, the 
words about the abiding importance of the beloved disciple 
(21 20-Z4), as also about the dealh of Peter (21 zZ/.). which would 
certainly be inappropriate at a first appearance, wìll be integrai 
parls, not merely inorganically attached additions. Yet onte 
more, the thought that Je.sus instituted a subslitule for the 
Lasl Supper (in 21 13 the reminiscence of this is quite manifest) 
is not appropriale to a first appearance of Jesus, but must be 
tegarded as the result of after reflection (see % ^gc). 

{d) Harnack and Rohrbach become very specially 
involved in obscurities when they maintain that the 



genuine conclusion of Mk. with its first appearance of 
Jesus was at the sanie time in agreement with the 
account in i Cor. 105, and with that in Lk. 2434, 
according to which Jesus appeared to Peter. The 
expression of Paul, and in like manner that of Lk. , 
unquestionably mean : to Peter alone. That, however, 
is exactly what Jn. 21 does not say, nor yet in ali 
probabìlity did the Gospel of Peter. 

In Jn. 21 7 not only ìs Peter not the only one to recognise 

Ìesus ; he is not even the first ; the first is che beloved discijile. 
Lohrbach has recourse to the conjecture that, in the genuine 
conclusion of Mk., at the decisive scene, the recognìtion of Jesus 
and the word of restitution, the olher disciples apart from Peter 
were either, lìke the disciples at Eramaos whose ' eyes were 
holden ' (Lk. 24 16), prevented by divine arrangement front recog- 
nisiiig Jesus, or were not presene at ali, and that this scene was 
followed by another separate appearance to the eleve n (abo ve, 
li). Harnack, to judge by his silence, does not accept this, but 
io doing so leaves it ali the more unclear how far the appear- 
ance to several disciples is to he held the same as an appearanc-e 
to Peter (alone). 

(e) If such an appearance cannot he assumed to have 
been contained in the lost conclusion of Mk. with cer- 
tainty, the attenipt must also be abandoned to invest 
the passage with the nimbus. which would attach to it ìf 
it had really contained the full narrative of what Paul 
and Lk. (2434) disniiss with a single word as the earliest 
of the occurrences after the resurrection of Jesus. The 
losc conclusion in question may have been relatively 
more originai than the canonical and extra- canonica! 
accounts which have come down to us ; but we cannot 
safely venture to regard it as having been absoiutely the 

If now it has been made out that the extra-canonical 

accounts contain nothing of any consequence which 

-r^ , n le SOGS beyond the canonical — except 

. .. ,- (ultimately) the existeiice 01 an interval 

CtSsìdered. "^ ™<"-e.than eight days between the 
resurrection of Jesus and his first 
appearance (§ 5^) — and that the canonical gospels 
are at irreconcilable variance with each other, we have 
finally to turn to the narrative of Paul. It has fared 
badly. Reimarus and Lessing completely ignored it. 
The entire body of conservative theology denies it any 
decisive importance, and the most advanced criticai 
theology in rejecting ali the Pauline epistles of course 
rejects this also. It is very strìking to observe, how- 
ever, how slight are the objections that can be brought 
against it. Let us take, in the fit^t place, ihose which 
are urged against the account in itself considered. 

(a) Steck (firUater-br., i883, pp. 180-191) finds at the very 
outset that the word 'make known' (yiiuipifu): i Cor. 15 1) 
shows the writer to have been aware that he was making a 
statement which, at the time of his making it (according to 
Steck, in the 2nd cent.), was new. The answer is simple ; a 
writer can surely quite easily say of a thing already known 
' I make known unto you,' if he wishes to cali attention to it as 
something very weighty, or desires gently to reproach or rebuke 
his readers for not having kept it m mind. The remark holds 
gòod bere as well as in 1^ 3 Gal. 1 11. 

(*) According to 15 ti what precedes is given out alike by 
Paul and by the originai apostles. Steck holds it lo be 
artificially composed to suit such a. purpose ; the twelve would 
represent the narrower circle of disciples desti ned for the 
mission to the Jews ; the 500 that wìder circle, hinted at in 
Lk. 10 1, for the mission to the Gentile?. In this case, however, 
we are constrained to ask why the author, who according to 
Steck had full scope for his fancy, should have chosen the 
number 500, not 70? And why does he cite James (surely a. 
Jewifìh Christian !) after, not before, the alleged represe n tati ves 
of the Gentile mission, and afcerwards, over and above, ' ali the 
apostles,' wbom no one can assert to have belonged distinctly 
to the J e wish -Christian or to the Gentile -Christian circle? 

(e) Wbether the originai apostles included in their preaching 
also this, that Jesus had appeared to Paul, may be regarded as 
questionahle in view of their strained relations with Paul. At 
an earlier date, however, wlien the churches of Judcca glorified 
God in Paul (Gal. 1 23^^) they certainly proclaimed it, since the 
Cunver.sion of this most zealous opponent of Christianity cannot 
but bave seemed to them to be the greatesC triumph of the neiv 
religion. Accordingly, Paul might very well assume that they 
were siili doing so. Yet it must not by any means be positively 
affirmed that he says so; for from i Cor. 156 onwards the 
verbs no longer depend, as in iw. 3-5, on 'how that' (ori); the 
sentences are ali independent propositions. Otherwise we 
should be corapelled to go so far as lo say that Paul describes 
ihe contenta of -v. 8 also — that is, the appearance of Jesus to 


himself — as something which according to v. 3 he has receìved 
(iraptAa^oc). Steck does not shrink from drawing this infer- 
enee. In doing so, however, he does the writer an injustice. 
For when the writer wiote 11. 3, his intention was to set forth 
what he bad raceived ; but he was surely not thereby precluded 
from adding something of the same kind with regard to himself, 
of which ibe readers would be able to see for themselves that he 
had not ' recei ved ' it. In like manner also he must not be 
debarred from saying in v. 11, by way of résumé, that he and 
the originai apostles preach in the manner stated in the pre- 
ceding context, although certainly v. ')/'-, perhaps also v. 8, 
do not fotm part of the preaching of the originai apostles. 

(i^ Van Manen (Pìik/hi, 3, i8g6, pp. 67-71) finds 15i-ti out 
of agreement with w. 12-58 ; for in the former passage the hope 
of a future resurrection of the body is made to depend upon the 
fact of the resurrection of Jesus, whilst in the iatter it is held 
upon quite different grounds into which this fact does not enter. 
It must be noted, however, ibat if a thing rests upon more 
grounds than one, it is quite fitting that these should be set 
lorth separately. Besides, in point of fact, the resurrection of 
Jesus is relurned lo in v. 20 as having a hearing upon the 

(e) Another point made by Van Manen is that ' was seen ' 
(ùi^tìij) is repeated ìnv. 6, but not in o. 5^. That, however, really 
proves nothing against either the genuineness or the unity of 
the section. The additìon in ^. 6 ' of wbom the greater part 
remain until now, but some are fallen asleep' is found by Van 
Manen too copious in style after the curt expressions in ito. 3-5 ; 
and, moreover, he considers it to be brought in too late, since, if 
such an observacion were to be made with reference to the 500, 
it ought also to have been raentioned with regard to the 12, 
whether they were stili alive or not, Biit bere again it may be 
replied that the Corinthians either knew or could have informed 
themselves as to the twelve, whilst the case was different with 
the 500. As for 'ali the apostles' (toÌs riiroiTTÓAoi.s itàcriv) in 
V. 7, to which Van Manen takes particular exception on the 
ground that tbey are identical with the ' Peter and the twelve ' 
in ri. 5, our reply must simply be that this is not the case ; see 

MlNlSTRV, g 17. 

(_/) Paul's designation of himself (15 g) as the least of the 
apostles, Ì5 regardcd by Van Manen as not in agreement with 
hisclaim loapostolic rankandauthority (1 1 4 16 9 t/^ 11 16). Yet 
a solution of the apparent contradiction can be found in 15 10 : 
' not I, but the grace of God.' Besides, the slight against Paul 
would be unintelligible on the part of an admirer of his in the 
second century ; it is intelligible only in the mouth of Paul 
himself, who elsewhere also shows himself as ready to bumble 
himself in the sight of God as he is disinclined to do so before 

(^) A further argument of Van Manen (p. 156) is that in 
15e-io the life of the apostle is looked back upon as already 
compieteti. Yet Paul mi^ht also look back upon his life 50 far 
as completed and say quite fairly, as he does say : ' I laboured 
more abundantly than they ali.' 

(k) In particular, no difficulty ought to be caused by 
the words : ' last of ali he appeared to me also.' Paul 
could quite well have been aware that since the appear- 
ance of Jesus made to himself, no other had been 
reported. But of Ihose which he himself, according 
to 2 Cor. 12 1-4 46, afterwards lived to experience, none 
approached to that of Damascus in fundamental import- 
ance ; thus he had ali the more occasion to dose his 
series with it. because his first vision of the risen Jesus 
may itself have occurred a considerable time after the 
other appearances (§ 36 [f]]. and importance attached 
to the number of distinct persons who had seen visions, 
rather than to the number of visions such persons 
had had. 

For the rest, Brandt (414^) gives up as un-Pauline only one 
expression : ' as unto the one born out of due season ' (lùtrirEpù 
lù èpcTpbiiL/iTi), which he considers to have been borrowed by a 
glossator from the Valentinian gnosis (cp Straatroan, A'rii. Siud. 
ozn;rr di':, voi. 2, Groningen, 1B65, pp. 196-Z04). Yet nostringent 
necessity for this is apparent. It is true that the expression 
(f «Tpufia) does not literally tìt Paul, for it denotes an early birth, 
whereas he could more yipropriateiy have been called a late 
birth. There is some difficulty, therefore, in supposing that 
Paul himself can have actually chosen this expression. To 
meet this difficulty we may perhaps suppose that l'ani is taking 
up a phrase which had been used against bim by way of 
reproach, because after ali it has some applicability to his case. 
This theory would also best explain the definite article (before 
eKTpoijuaTi), which is reproduced neither in AV nor in RV ('one 
born '). 

That I Cor. 15i-ii is dependent on the Gospels has 

been pronounced impossible even by Steck, since it 

_ , , — ir contains appiearances of Jesus which 

, , ., are not found there. It is only the 

omOTtnan earlier date of i Cor. that Steck dis- 
the Gospels. ^^^^^ 

[a) Steck regards it as certainly historical that the 



first, news of the rcsurrection of Jesus was brought by 
the wonien. In the omission of thìs point from i Cor. 
he finds an artificial touch ; the more naive representa- 
tioii is that of the Gospels. 

Even if it be granted for the moment that the narrative about 
the women at ihe sepulchre is historical, the attitude of con- 
servative theology ìtself shows that the priority of the gospels 
by no means foDows, for that theology attributes to the 
historical Paul, who wrote his epistles before the gospels were 
composed, a deliberate silence about the women. If, however, 
the genuineness of the Pauline epistles cannot be eifectively 
disputed from this point of view, the question whether Paul did 
not wish to say anything about the women, or whether he did 
not know about them, remains quite open (cp S 15). 

{d) Steck conjectures further that matters in which 
I Cor. partially agrees with the Gospels, had been 
cirawn by both from a common source. Thus the 
appearance to the 500 is perhaps a modification of the 
originai account of what happened at Pentecost. The 
iwo accoiitits are, however, totally diffL-rent. Steck 
resorts to bis conjecture, only becauee he finds the 
application of the vision -hy pò thesis to the case of 
500 men at once too difficult. As to this see, however, 

(e) The appearance to James in i Cor. is considered 
by Steck to be derived from the source of the Gospel 
to the Hebrews, or from that Gospel itself. Here, 
however, the question arises : Which is the more 
originai ? The bare statement ' he appeared to James,' 
or the incredible fable discussed above {§ 4<z, è)? In 
fact the qtiestion comes iip in a stili more general form : 
Which is the more originai — the bare narrative of Paul 
as a whole, or that of the Gospels? In itself considered, 
a narrative so brief as that given in i Cor. 15 could, 
doubtless, be regarded as a later excerpt, as we have 
shown to be the case with Mk. I69-20 (§ 8^, e). But 
the distinction in the Mk. appendix is just this, that the 
excerpt is characterised, not by its bareness, but by its 
embodying the most legendary features. Its freedom 
from such features wìll always speak in favour of the 
priority of i Cor. 15, so long as the spuriousness of the 
entire t'pistle reraaina unproven. As to this lasl cp 
GalatIANs, §§ i-g. Indeed, were one compelled to 
give up the genuineness of the epistle as a whole, it 
would stili be necessary to atfirm with Brandt (415) 
that the high antiquity of 15i-ii {before the Gospels 
had arisen) stands fast quite apart from the question of 
its belonging to i Cor. Nor is the question why the 
Gospels, if thcy are later, have passed over so much 
that is given in i Cor. 15 unanswerable (see § 23^}, 

If we may venture to assume the priority of the 
Pauline account to that of the Gospels, the main 

12. CompletenesB '^"^-''='^" "''" ^ whether or no Paul 
- ri 1 e omitted any accounts of the resurrec- 

tion of Jesus which were known to 
him. Did we not possess the Gospels, the idea that he 
has done so would never have occurred to any one. 
For Paul nothing less than the truth of Christianity 
rested upon the actuality of the resurrection of Jesus 
(i Cor. 15i4_/l 17-19). Paul himself had once found it 
impossible to believe ; he knew, therefore, how strong 
was the inclinatioii to dishclicf, AH the more carefully, 
therefore, must he have sought to inform himself of 
everything that could be said in its support. During 
his fifteen days' visit to Peter and James (Gal. liSy!), 
he had the best opportunity to perfect his knowledge on 
the subject in the most authentic manner. In Corinth 
the future resurrection and, along with it, as a logicai 
consequence according to the argument of Paul ( i Cor. 
15i2 16), also the resurrection of Jesus was disputed, and 
the entire basis of the Christian church called in 
question. In 1 5 11-58 Paul presents every possible 
argument wherewith to confute the denìers of the resur- 
rection ; is it in these circumstances conceivable that he 
could have passed over any proofs of the resurrection of 
Jesus, whilst yet holding that resurrection to be the 
first and most important fact wherewith to silence his 
opponents ? But indeed his very manner of expressing 


himself excludes this in the most decisive manner, By 
his careful enumeration with ' then . . . next . . . 
next . . . then . . . lastly ' (eira . . . Éiretra , . . 
éiriLTa . . . eira , . . ècrxO'Tov ; 155-3) he guarantees 
not only chronological order but also completeness. 

The only point which one can venture along with 
Brandt (415) to leave open, is whether Paul here is only 
_ „ , repeating a fi.-ied number of appearances 

, ' -■ which according to 15 n he was in the 
habit of bringing fonvard evcrywhere, in 
appearances. agrge,jienj ^jj^ the originai apostles, in 
his preaching of the resurrection of Jesus. 

Noia- it is not inconceivable that from such an enumeration 
this or that appearance to inconspicuous persons, which seemed 
iiot to be altested with absolute certamty, or not to he of 
sufficient importance, may have been excluded, just as we find 
thatofthose received by Paul himself, only the first is related 
(§ loÀ). This concession, however, in no way alters the slgnific- 
ance for Gospel criticisra of the Pauline account ; for to ihis 
category of accounts which Paul might conceivably in certain 
circumstances very well have omitted, that to the iwo disciple.s 
at Emma US — a singularly characleristic narrative — assurcdly 
iloes not belong ; and stili less do the other gospel narratives 
which ali of them speak of appearances of Jesus to the most 
prominent persons known (o ancient Christianity, and in circum- 
stances of the most signlficant kìnd. 

It is not to be denied that Paul only enumerates the 
appearances of Jesus ; he does not describe them. It 
14 1 Cor IR- ^^'" t'^^''^^*"'^ ^ illegitimate to argue 
■ from his silence that he rejects or knows 

nothing of any special circumstances 

Jesus eating 

. . ?° which may have been connected with 
this or that appearance. Stili, it does 
not by any means follow that we are at liberty to regard 
such important facts as that Jesus ate, or permitted 
himself to be touched, as matters which Paul knew but 
passed over. They are of such fundamental import- 
ance, and go so far beyond the mere fact of his having 
been seen, that Paul, had he known them, could not 
but have mentioned them, unless he deliberately chose 
to let slip the most important proofs for his contention. 

It is a great mistake to reply that Paul knew that Jesus had 
eaien and beeu touched, but passed over bgih as being incon- 
sistent with his doctrine that flesh and blood caimot inherit the 
kiiigdom of God {1 Cor. 15 50). When this is said, it is rightly 

EresuppO.sed indeed that Paul regarded the risen Chris t as 
eing already exalted to heaven (cp g t6e). This doctrine, 
however, is one which Paul first elaborated for himself as a 
Christian ; as a Jew he knew no other conception of the resur- 
rection than that which thoughc of ali forms of life in the future 
worid as exactly reproducing those of the present (cp £ 17 f). 
If, accordingly, he had heard from eyewitnesses that Jesus had 
eaten and been touched, ihis would have fitted in most ex- 
cellently with the idea of Ihe resurrection which he eniertained 
at the time of his conversion, and he would have had no 
occasion to construct anothcr in an opposite i Cori 15 50 
accordingly does not prove that Paul knew that Jesus had 
eaten and been touched, but was sileni becanse he did not hke 
to ihink this true ; it shows, on the conlrary, that he had never 
heard anything of thekind. 

That Paul knew of the empty sepulchre, also, can be 

maintained only in conjunction with the assumption 

,m , ft ■,„ 'hat for particular reasons he kept 
IB. 1 Cor, 15 -, j- •. 1 

, ., . silence regardmg it.^ 

""seDlS k?e '"^ ^°'^ perverse of ali would it be 

^ ' to seek for such reasons in i Cor. I434. 

Even on the assumption that vv. 33^-35 are genuine 
(which , in view of the inconsistency with 11 5 13 and the 
introduction of 143+/^ after I440 in DEFG, etc. , is very 
questionabJe) the words are directed only against the 
intervention of women in the meeting of the congre- 
gation and merely on grounds of deconim ; by no 
means against the testimony of women as to a matter 

1 It is quite illegitimate to fmd a testimony to the empty 
sepulchre in PauTs 'that he hath been raised ' (oti cyqyeprai : 
I Cor. 15 4) on the special ground that he connects the ' that he 
was seen ' (ori u^ft)) by means of ' .and ' («coO and thereby seems 
to indicate that he knows of an independent evidence of llie 
resurrection of Jesus apart from the fact of his having been seen. 
If he really knew of any such evidence it was his interest to 
mention it. If, however, the only evidence he had was the fact 
that Jesus had been seen he stili was under necessity, from hìs 
Own point of view, to regard the being raised up a? a separate 
fact. He would have said less than he belLeved himself entitled 
to say had he omitted this. 



of faci, least of ali a fact of such importance and one 
with regard to which they alone were in a position to 
give evidence. 

(^) Not less Wide of the mark is the other explanation 
of Paul's silence upon the empty sepulchre, that the 
idea of a reaoimation of the dead body did not fit in 
with his theology. If it were indeed the fact that his 
theology was opposed to this, it is nevertheless Ime 
that this theology of his carne into being only after his 
conversion to Christianity. "When he first carne to 
know of Jesus as risen he was stili a Jew and therefore 
eonceived of resurreution at ali in no other way than 
as reaniniation of the body (§ 17 e). Since, as soon as 
he had become a believer, he certainly held what had 
been imparted to hìm about Jesus to be a divine 
arrangement, he had no occasion whatever to alter his 
conception. Thus nothing then prevented hira from 
believing that the grave was found empty — on the sup- 
position that this was reported to him. And even in 
the wording of i Cor. there was no hindrance to his so 

That Jesus was buried and that ' he has been raised ' (i Cor, 
154) cannot be affirmed byany one who has not the reanimatioii 
of the body in mind. It is correct to say that Paul has aban- 
doned the Jewish conception in so far as hefigures tohimself the 
body of Jesus as being like the dead at the Last Day, who ' shall 
be raised in corni ptible,' and like the bodies of those who shall 
then he alive and who ' shall be changed ' (i Cor. 15 42-52). The 
risen Jesus therefore was incapable of eating or of being touched 
(see §S 14, 17 e); on the other hand, if he was to rise from the 
dead his body must needs come forth from the grave, otherwise 
the idea of resurrection would be abandoned. This is the case 
in 2 Cor. 5 i-3, according to whìch every individuai immediately 
on his death passes inlo a state of glory with Christ ; bttt it is 
not yet so Ìii 1 Cor. 

[e] Relatively the most reasonable suggestion is that 
Paul is sileni regarding the empty sepulchre (though 
acquainted with the fact) because he fears that an 
appeal to the lestimony of women will produce an 
unfavourable impressìon. This, however, is to mis- 
judge Paul. If he knew and believed what was reported 
about the empty grave he must of course have regarded 
the participation of the women as a divine appoiiitment ; 
and just as he refused to be ashamed of the gospel 
although aware that in so many quarters it was regarded 
as mere foolishness (Rom. I16 iCor. I23) so also he 
would have refused to be ashamed of an appointment 
of God whereby women were made the chief witnesses 
to the truth of the resurrection. 

Ecfore proceeding to draw our final conclusìons, 

however, from i Cor. 15, it will be convenient that we 

, . , . should examine the accounts of the 

16. Ascenaion. 


(a) The view which is found In ali books of doctrine 
and which underlies the observance of the ecclesiastical 
feast of the ascension, that Jesus was taken up into 
heaven forty days after his resurrection, rests solely 
upon Acts I39 (I331 is not so exact), and thus on a 
datum which did not become known to the compiler of 
Acts till late in life. 

We conjecture it to have been first made plain to the writer 
of Acts by the consideration that the disciples seemed stili to be 
in need of much iiistruction at the hands of Jesus. The sug- 
gestion that the nuraber fortj; is not to be taken literally 
becomes ali the more naturai in proportion to the lateness of 
its appearing. Moses passes forty days on Mount Sinai with 
God when receiving the law (Ex. 34 ss); according to 4 Esd. 
14 23 36 42.40 Ezra spends forty days in dictating afresh the OT 
(which had been lost in the destruction of Jerusalem in 586) and 
seventy books of prophecy, and is thereafter taken up into 
heaven. 1 

(è) In his gospel the author of Acts has assigned the 
ascension to a tìme late in the evening of the daj' of the 
resurrection (Lk. 24 1329 33 36 50 y.). 

Brandt (375-377) thinks Lk. cannot really have intended to 
represent Jesus as having ascended at night and therefore 
supposes the scene with the disciples at Emmaus not to have 
been introduced by the author until after 24 315-53 (appearance 
to the disciples, and ascension) had been written, If Brandt 

1 According to the Valentinians and Ophites (a/. Iren. i. 1 5 
[82] 287 [30 14]) Jesus remained on earth for eighteen months 
after his resurrection ; so also Asc. Isa. 9 is in the Ethiopic 
text (s4s days) ; according to Pisiis Sopkìa, t, eleven years. 


is right we may suppose Lk. thought of the ascension as having 
occurred some hours earlier. The words ' and was carried up 
into heaven ' («ni «vt^tpfTo tìs t'ov otipavav : v. 51) are wanting, 
it is true, in {i?*D and some Old Latin MSS. But even if the 
shorter forni should be the more originai, the words ' he parted 
from them ' (SieVti) air' avTuif), which ali authorities have 
(D òjreoTT)), would convey the same sense. Without some definite 
departure of Jesus it would be incomprehensible how the 
disciples should have been limited, as we read inw. 52^^, to prais- 
ing God in the tempie without having further intercourse with 
Jesus. It is highly probable that the words 'and was carrìed 
up into heaven ' («ai ài'e^t'psTo eU TÒi' a\>po.vóv) were slruck out 
at a very early period by a reader who wished to remove the 
discrepancy with Acts 1 3-9.1 

{e) In any case the datlng of the ascension as having 
happened late on the day of the resurrection is con- 
firmed by Barn. ISg: ' We keep holy the eìghth day 
(i.e., Sunday) ... in which also Jesus rose from the 
dead and, after appearing, went up to heaven' {&-yo^v 
rr/y i^fi.épa.v ttjc òydóijv . . . év y Kai ò 'Iijiroùs àvéarri 
éic vfKpwi' Kal tpavepwdels àvé^r} eh oùpavoiJs), as also by 
Mk. 16 9-20, where the order of the events in Lk. clearly 
lies at the foundation ; in ali probability also by Jn. 
20 17 22, according to which on the morning of the resur- 
rection Jesus is not yet ascended and in the evening 
already iniparts the Holy Spirit to the disciples. 

According to 7 39 the Holy Spirit first comes into being after 

Ìesus has been glorìlìed, in other words after his exallation to 
eaven where he is encompassed by glory (Sófo). That Jesus 
does not suffer hiniself to be touched in 2i)ij is not formally 
contradicted by what is said of the evening of the same day 
(in 20 20 he only shows the disciples his wounds) ; the con- 
tradiction does not emerge till eight days afterwards (2O27). 
On the other hand it perfectly fits in with the theory of 7 39 
that the Holy Spirit is called (EV) another comforter (aA\os 
jrapónAiyToi ; 14 itì) who cannot come until after Jesus has gone 
a way O^sus must thus be thought of as the first Traptw^TjTOS and 
in point of fact is called irapoKAiiTos in i Jn. 2 i, although there 
he is thought of as exalted) and that Jesus will send him forth 
from the father, that is, from heaven (15 26) ; cp further 16 7. 

(1/) The Fourth Gospel is distinguished from IJk., 
Barn. , and Mk. 1 6 9-20 by this, that it represents Jesus as 
stili continuing to appear on earth after he has ascended. 
When Jesus foretells his coming again in Jn. 14 18 it is clear 
from the connection with w. ^èf. that he means the coming of 
the Holy Spirit, with whom, in fact, according to 7 3^, 2 Cor. 
3 17 he ;s Jdentical. On the other hand, the manner in which 
the same thought is expressed in Ifi 16 19 (' a little while , . . and 
ye shall see me') ^leaks strongly for the view that the appear- 
ances of the risen Jesus are intended ; so also perhaps in 14 19 21, 
whiist 14 28 16 22 admit both interpretations and perhaps ought 
to receive both. 

[e) The originai conception of the ascension has been 
preserved in this, that the appearances of the risen 
Jesus occur after he has been received up into heaven ; 
resurrection and ascension are a single act, Jesus is 
taken up directly from the grave, or from the under- 
world, into heaven. ^ Any direct proof for this, it is true, 
can hardly be adduced apart from the Gospel of Peter 
(above, § 5;^} ; the proof lies in the silence of the NT 
writers as to a special act of ascension. In particuìar, 
it ought (if known) to have been definitely mentioned 
in I Cor. 154-8, since, in point of fact, according to 
Lk. , the appearances to Peter and the apostles, etc. 
were made before the ascension, whiist those to Paul on 
the other hand undoubtedly occurred after that evenl ; 
and yet Paul uses with reference to them ali the same 
word ' was seen ' (&rf>6i}, on which see below, § 17 1)- 

1 On the apologetic side there is often an inclination to make 
use of the well-known fact that the ancients were in the habit 
of employing for their literary work ready-made papyrus roils 
of a fixed length, within the limits of which they were wont to 
confine themselves. It is suggested that Lk., through failure 
of bis space, may have found himself compelled lo report the 
ascension so very briefly and inexaclly, that it was possible for 
the impression to arise that he meant to assign it to the 
resurrection day, whereas in reality he meant to place it forty 
days later. and already had the intention of setting this forth 
more precisely in his later work. It may suffice, in answer to 
this, to say that Lk. must have perceived that the paper was 
coming to an end long before the last moment, and cannot have 
been forced, by any such discovery, into giving an account of 
the events which was not in accordance with his knowledge. 

2 The descent into the underworld is originally merely 
another expression for his death and burlai. Whethet a preach- 
ing of Jesus in the underworld is connected with this (so 
MiN'iSTRv, § 26) is for our present purpose ìndifferent. 



So, also, Rom. 8 34, Eph. 1 ■zo (and with reference to the 
followers of Jesus Eph. 2 ^/.) place the sitting at the righe hand 
of God immediately after the resurrection, Heb. 1 3 10 12 \Ì7 
immediately after the death of Jesus ; Eph.4g^ plates over 
against the descent («arajSijfat) inlo Hades only the ascent 
(ava j3ij l'ai) that raises Jesus above ali heavens. So also the 
' who broughl iip ' (àva.yo-ycui') of Heb. 13 20 meatis direct 
translation front Kades to Heaven if at by Iv àifiari, we 
are to understand 'wiih blood,' which according to 414 620 8z 
9 12 Jesus must offer in the heaven ly san et uary. i Pet. 3 iq 22 
too, and indeed also Acts2 32-35 Rev. 1 18, admit this sense 
wìthoul violence, and equally little is the reader coropelled by 
the ex press ioti 'goes before you imo Galilee' (irpoó'yet ufiós eis 
TÌji' roAiXaiai'), Mlt. 167 = Mt. 2S 7, to as.sume that Jesus made 
the journey frora the sepulchre to Galilee by way of earth ; the 

Eurpose of the expression is simply to convey that Jesus expects 
is disciples in Galilee in order that he may appear to them 
there, and this he caii very well bave done from heaven. For 
Mt. this interp relation is directly indicated by the writer's 
closing bis boot without any ascension ; he must have thought 
oS it as inseparabiy connected with the resurrection. Another 
consideration pointing in the same direction re.^ts on the faci 
that in 28 i3 Jesus is aiready able to say that ali authority bas 
been given him in heaven and on earth. As regards Mk. we can 
say nothing positive with reference to this point ; there is, how- 
ever, not the least probability that his lost conclusion differed 
from Mt. in this respect. In Clem. Rom., Hermas, Polycarp, 
Igiiatius we siili find no mention of an ascension, nor yet is it 
spoken of in the Didachè (this last, it ought to be added, indeed, 
does not even mention the resurrection). Justin, Irenfeus, and 
Tertullian continue to regard both events as Iwo parts of one 
act (see Von Scbubert, Coinp. des psevdopeirin. Evangelien- 
Jragments, 1893, 136-138) ; the Apology of Aristides (Syriac in 
'S.o^mkon^Texts and St-adies, i. 1 4 /. t/.\ Gre<:ìi, iiid. Jio /. 2o_/? 
[chap. 15], German in Raabe, TU in. 1 3, § 2, end) says similarly 
that after three days he rose again and was taken up into 
heaven. 1 

II. — Detekmination of Outward Facts. 

The originai conception of the ascension as set forth 

in tlie preceding section will supply us directly with 

17 Rao.! some guidance when we proceed to 

. ' ... the task of disentangling the real 

^n^^ anemia historical facts regarding the resurrec- 

appearauce . ^j^^ ^^^^ ^^^ multitude of the accounts 

which have come down to us. 

[a) As we do so we must in the first instance take 
Paui's account as our guide. That account is fitted to 
throw light iipon the nature of the appearances made 
not only to Paul himself but also to others, for he would 
not have employed the same word ' was seen ' (i503ij) if 
anything had been known to him by which the appear- 
ance made to himself was distinguished from those 
which others had received. 

{&) Appearances of the risen Jesus dìd actually occur ; 
that is to say, the followers of Jesus really had the im- 
pression of having seen him. The historian who will 
have it that the alleged appearances are due merely to 
legend or lo invenlion must deny not only the genuine- 
ness of the Pauline Epistles but also the historicìty of 
Jesus altogether. The great difference between the 
attestation of the nativity narratives and that of those 
of the resurrection lies in the fact that the earliest accounts 
of the resurrection arose simultaneously with the occur- 
rences to which they relate. 

(e) The idea held regarding the occurrences was that 
Jesus made his appearances from heaven (§ i5, e). He 
thus had the nature of a heavenly heing. Broadly 
speaking, the angels were the most famìliar type of this 
order of being— the angeis who can show themselves 
anywhere and again disappear. 

(d) It was thought, as matter of course, that after 
each appearance Jesus returned into heaven. So 
regarded, each appearance ended with an ascension. 

1 The order in i Tim. 3 16 where ' was received up in glory ' 
(nveAiii^ft) èi- <5óf jj) Comes after ' was preaehed to the nalions, 
was believed on in the world ' (ÌktipvxBti tv IBmriv, imarev^ tv 
KÓafLio), accords with no known or conceivable position of the 
ascension. May we hazard the conjecture that the author 
perhaps placed it at the close of his enumeration simply in 
order to close with a concrete fact rather Ihan a soraewhat 
vague and indeterminate proposition, and so make a better 
ending for his poetical piece, and that in doing so he foUowed 
perhaps some such train of ideas as that in Mk. 16 i^y. 19, only 
giving it a somewhat different turn : the command of Jesus that 
his disciples should preach him and believe in him was fulfilled 
and he was raised up to heaven? 


Precisely for this reason, however, it is not permissible 
to suppose that any single ascension once and for ali 
was over observed ; on such a supposition Jesus would 
stili have remained a denizen of earth after the appear- 
ances preceding the final one, 

(e) That the risen Jesus ate or was touched was never 
observed. Not only does Paul say nothing of any 
such occurrence ; the thing would also be contrary to 
the nattu-e of a being appearing from heaven. Flesh 
and bones, which are attributed to Jesus in Lk. 2439, 
assuredly he had not ; he really made his appearances, 
although it is expressly denied in the verse just cited, 
as spirit (TTi'cC/xa) in the sense in which the angels are 
spirits {irvfliiiaTa : Heb. 1 14). On this point the Jewish 
Christians most certaìnly agreed with Paul (§ 15^)50 
far as the person of Jesus was concemed. 

It is indeed the case that in Jewish -Christian circles there was 
current a conception of a resurrection with a new earthly body, 
in accordance with which Jesus was laken to be the risen Baptist, 
or Elijah (Mk. 6 14-16). This, however, was not the only con- 
ception by which Christians were ìnfluenced. On the contrary, 
from Jesus himself they had received the idea that in the resurrec- 
tion men shall be as the angels of God (Mk. I225 and [|). And if 
there was any case in which more than in another they had 
occasion to apply ibis exalted conception, it would be in that of 
the body of their ri.sen I-ord. They knew indeed his prediction 
that one day he would come agam on the clouds of heaven 
(GospKLS, § 145 L/l).^ For them also, as for Paul (1 Cor. 15 zo), 
Jesus was the first.fruitsof them that sleep ; with his resurrection, 
accordingly, a new era began. Not only so ; it is extremely 
probable that the 'similitudes ' of ihe Book of Enoch (chaps. 
3-T-71 ; cp ApocAi-YPTic, § 30) are pre^thristian : and there an 
existence in heaven is attributed to the Messiah and Dan. 7 13 
explained as referring to him.l The originai apostles may very 
well have had knowledge of this, even without having ever read 
the book. There is, therefore, not the alightest difficulty in 
attributing to them the conception of the resurrection body of 
Jesus which Paul himself had and imputed to them. It is only 
with regard to the future resurrection of ali mankind that Paul 
parts company vrith them, in so far as he thìnks of the resurrec- 
tion body of believers as being as heavenly and free from flesh 
and blood as was the resurrection body of Jesus (1 Cor. 15 44-53), 
a consecjuence drawn neilher by the Jewish Christians nor yet 
by the later Gentile Christians who taught the resurrection of 
the flesh {symbolum Romanutn, see Ministrv, § 27, n., and, 
later, syinboluHi apostolicunt; Hermas, 6'iw. v. Ta ; Justìn, Diat. 
80, end ; 2 Clem. Rom. 9 1 145, *'c., and aiready i Clem. 96 3), 
That the Phatisaic, and accordingly also the primitive Christian, 
expectation looked for a reanimation of the body appears in sucb 
passages as 2 Macc. 7 10/ 14 46 Mt-27 52 Acts2 3i Rev. 20 13, 
Josephus also states this correctly in Ant, xvÌÌì. 1 3, § 14, BJ iiì. 
8 5, § 374 ; it is on!y in BJ ii. 8 t4, g 163, ihat by the expression 
' remove ìnto another body ' (/leTo^aiVei.i' tit 'ÌTfpov uuiiia) he has 
Hellenised the conception and thereby misled his readers. 

(/) On the other hand, it is fully to be believed that 
rnen had the impression that they saw in full reality 
(below, §34^, e, (/) the wounds which Jesus had received 
on the cross, or perhaps even perceived that he showed 
them. The form which men beheld must of course show 
the most complete resemblance to that which Jesus bore 
upon earth, and to this, after the crucifìxion, the wounds 
{not, however, the wound in the side, the spear-thrust 
being unhistorical, see John, Son of Zebedee, § 23 d) 
necessarily belonged. As the form of the risen Jesus 
at the same time appeared in heavenly splendour and 
created the cerlainty that Jesus had vanquished death 
and laid aside everything that was earthly, there remains 
a possibility that in the case of many to whom he appeared 
attention was not fixed upon his wounds. It is particu- 
larly easy to suppose this in the case of Paul. 

(g) From the nature of the apj>earances as described, 
it is further quite possible that they occurred even when 
the witnesses found themselves, as in Jn,20i9 26, shut 
in with closed doors, or that, as we read in Mk. 16 14 19, 
Jesus was taken up into heaven direct from the apart- 
menl. Even if one entertains doubts as to whether the 
authors cited had enough certain information to enable 
them to say that this actually was so in the cases which 
they give, it stili has to be acknowledged that the state- 
ment is not inconsistent with the nature of the appear- 

On the other hand, there is to be drawn from the 

^ Muirhead, Times qf Ckrisi (iZgS), pp. 140-150; Schraiedel, 
Prct. Monaishe/te, 1898, pp. 255-357 ; rgoi, p. 339^? 



varìous accounts one deduction which goes very deep : 

la No wnrda ^° words were heard frora the riseti 
' , , Jesus, {a) At first sight the hearing af 

words might appear riot to be excluded 
by the sìinple ' was seen ' {di<p$t]) of Paul. It is to be 
noted. however. that where Paul speaks of having 
received messages from heaven. he expressly specifies 
'revelations' (dTroKciXói/'eis) aswellas 'visions' (ÓTrraircat : 
2 Cor, 121-4), and where the distinction is employed it 
is clear that spoken words come under the former not 
the latter category. 

(il) As against this, appeal will doubtless be made to 
the reports in Acts as to the appearances of Jesus to 
Paul on the journey to Damascus. Not successfuUy, 
however ; they contradict one another so violently 
(see Acts, § 2) that it is difficuU to imagine how it 
could ever ha ve been possible for an author to take them 
up into his book in their present forms. not to speak of 
the impossibility of accepting them in points where they 
are unsupported by the epistles of Paul. In these 
epistles, there is not the slightest countenance for the 
belief that Paul heard words, although he had the 
strongest motives for referring to them had he been 
in a position to do so. It is on the appearance on the 
journey to Damascus that he bases his claim- to have 
been called to che apostolate by Jesus himself. The 
claim was hotly denied by his opponents : it was to his 
interest, therefore, to bring forward everything that could 
validly be adduced in its support. In pressing it (i Cor. 
9i, 'Am I noi an apostle?') he assuredly would not 
have stopped short at the question, ' Have I not seen 
Jesus our Lord ? ' had he been in a position to go on 
and ask, ' Has he not himself named me his apostle ? ' 
with such words engraven on his memory as those we 
read in Acts 96 22 io or (above ali) 26 16-18. The 
analogy of the angelic appearances cited above (§ 17 e) 
thus no longer holds good. Words are heard from 
angels ; no words were heard from Jesus. 

(e) What holds good of the appearance to Paul is true 
also (see § 17 a) of the others of which we read. If, too, 
we apply a searching examination to the words which 
have been reported, it is precisely the most characteristic 
of them that we shall find ourselves most ìrresistibly con- 
strained to abandon. The request for food and the 
invitation to touch the wounds of the crucified Jesus 
(Lk. 243941 Jn.2027) are, as we have seen in § ije, 
inadmissible. So also, as has been seen in § 16 e, the 
saying, I am not yet ascended unto the Father (2O17). 
The power to forgive sins or to declare them unforgiven 
(2O23) belongs to God alone, and cannot be handed 
over bv Jesus to his disciples (see Ministry, § 4). The 
doctrine that the passion of Jesus was necessary in virlue 
of a divine appointment is invariably brought forward 
by Paul as the gospel that had been made manifest to 
himself alone and must be laboriously maìntained in the 
face of its gainsayers ; how triumphantly would he not 
have been able to meet them had he only heard the least 
suggestion that the men of the primitive church had 
heard the same doctrine from the mouth of Jesus himself 
in che mauner recorded in Lk. 2425-27 44-4S ! Once 
more, how could the originai apostles have been able to 
cali themselves disciples of Jesus if, after having been 
sent cut by him as missionaries to the Gentiles (Lk. 
2247/ Mk. I616 and the canonica! text of Mt. 28 19), 
they actually made it a stipulation at the council of 
Jerusalem (Gal. 2g) that their activity was to be confined 
within the limita of Israel ? As for the text of Mt. 28 19 
on baptism and the trinitarian formula, see MlNiSTRY, 
§ 5^, cp //iiè. Journ., Oct. 1902, pp. 102-108 ; and 
on Jn. 21 15-33 see above, § 9 e. 

_ An equally important point is that 

9. (*a llee ^^^ ^^^^ appearances hapriened in 

the scene of ^.,:i_„ tu„ „_-. -...J.X^ 

the first 

Galilee. The most convincing reasons 

for this conclusion have already been 
appearancea. gy^j^aj-ised under Gospels (§ 138^1). 
(a) In addition to what is said there special emphasis 

may be laìd on the fact that there is no gospel in which 
appearances to men (not women) are reported as having 
been made both in Galilee and in Jerusalem ; for Jn. 21 
is an appendix by another hand. 

It is only Mt. that, besides the appearance Co the disciples in 
Galilee, knows of that made to the women on the retùtn from. 
the sepulchre (afig^T); this, however, will be regarded by very 
many as unhistorica.1, being absent from Mk. (which neverthe- 
le!i5 15 in this section so closely followed by Mt.) and containing 
nothing more than a repetition of the injunction already given 
by the angel to the women, to bid the disciples repair co Galilee. 
In any case the appearance Comes from a separate source. If 
we leave Mt. 28 <ìf. out of account it becomes perfectly clear that 
no one gospel from the first reported appearances of the risen 
Jesus in Galilee as well as in Jerusalem. The gospels in fact 
fall ejiaccly into two classes : Mk., Mt. and the Gospel of Peter 
are for Galilee; Lk., Jn., and Mk. 169-20 for Jerusalem, and 
the Gospel of the Hebrews also does not indicate in any way 
that it looks for James and Peter and Peter's companions else- 
where than in the place where it finds the servant of the high 
priest (see above, % \a, h), vie., in Jerusalem. It is only after- 
wards that the writer of Jn, 21 sees fit to change this ' either, or ' 
into a ' both, and ' ; so also Mt., but withoutadmitling an appear- 
ance to any male disciples in Jerusalem. 

If, however, Galilee and Jerusalem were at first 
mijtually exclusive, both cannot rest upon equally valid 
tradition ; there must have been some reason why the 
one locality was changed for the other. 

{b) Such a reason for transferring the appearances 
from Galilee to Jerusalem has been indicated in Gospels 
(§ 138 a\. Its force becomes ali the greater when iC is 
realised how small has been the success of even the most 
distinguished critica in attempting to make out the 
opposi te. 

Ali chat Loofs (see below, § 39) has to say is (p. 25), 'Those 
narrators who represent the whole life of Jesus, with the ex- 
ception of the last eight days. as having been passed in Galilee, 
may have transferred to Galilee also the appearances of the risen 
Jesus, with regard to which they were very defectively informed ; 
they may have done so ali the more easily because the first 
persons of whom they had occasion to speak in connection with 
the resurrection were women from Galilee.' The question at 
once presents itself; What has the circumstance that they be- 
longed to Galilee to do with the present matter? They were in 
point of fact in Jerusalem. What is the relevancy of the observa- 
tion that the activity of Jesus, apart from the last eight days, 
had been whoUy in Galilee? His grave at any rate was in 
Jerusalem, and his disciples were also there, according to the 
testimony of Mk., Mt., and the Gospel of Peter, at least. That 
the present writer holds the statement as to the presente of the 
disciples at Jetusaiem to be unhistorical does not affecl the argu- 
ment ; for the point is that Loofs regards preci.^ely that state- 
ment as historica!. It is ali the more necessary to ask; How 
does Loofs knowthat Mk. and Mt. were very defectively informed 
with regard to the appearances of the risen Jesus ? 

If this was ìndeed so. if Mk, and Mt. had to fall back 
on their own powers of conjecture, where else were they 
to look for appearances if not in Jerusalem where the 
grave, the women, and the disciples were? Thus the 
tradition which induced them to place the appearances 
in Galilee must have been one of very great stability. 

B. Weiss (to pass over ocher names), in the interests of the 
Jerusalem tradition, doubts the historicity of the statement that 
the women received from the angel the injunction to bid the 
disciples proceed to Galilee, especially as this injunction is 
merely a reminiscence of Jesus words in Gethsemane, that after 
he rose from the dead he would go before the disciples to Galilee 
(Mk. 1428). So Leben Jesu<:^ 2 500 (ET 3 393J. On p. 596 (ET 
399^), however, Weiss says that that command of the angel to the 
women (to direct the disciples to go to Galilee) is only a reminis- 
cence of the command of the same character which the risen 
Jesus himself lays upon Mary Magdalene, according to Mt. 2S9_/C 
(where, according to Weiss, only the second Mary is errone- 
ously conjoined with Mary Magdalene righcly mentioned by the 
eye-wicness John [20 1/. 11-18]). Thus what Weiss holds to be 
an error (the command to bid the disciples go to Galilee) mnst 
be held (if the Jerusalem tradition is to be niaintained) to have 
got itself clothed in a very remarkable form : not only as an 
angelic word (Mt. 287 Mk. I67) but also as a word of the risen 
Lord himself (Mt. 2Sio), in the account of an appearance that 
is guaranteed by an eye-witness. 

(e) In reality the error lies in quite another direction : 
in making Jesus appear at the sepulchre to the women, 
or Mary Magdalene, as the case may be. On the 
account in Mt. see above [a). That of Jn. , however, 
is open to just as serious objectìons, for its chief saying, 
' I am not yet ascended unto the Father,' rests on a 
theory of the nature of the Holy Ghost that is pecuUar 
to the Fourth Gospel (§ 16, e). If, however, Jn.'s 



account can lay no claim to authenlicity we may be ali 
the surer thac it ìs a transform.ition of the account of 
Mt. Of its being so there are, moreover, several 
indications. In Jn. , as in Mi. . one of Jesus' sayings is 
only a repetition of a word of the angels : ' Woman, 
why weepest thou?' A reniiniscence of the fact Ihat 
when the women met Jesus they had in Mt. already 
retired from the sepulchre may perhaps be recognised in 
' she turned herself back ' (eur/jd^ij eU rà ÒTrlai^} in Jn. 
20 14. Only one woman appearing at the grave in Jn. 
is perhaps to be explained by the observation that the 
recognition-scene becomes more dramatic when Jesus 
has no iieed lo utter more than a single word : ' Mary.' 
Cp. fiirther, § 25, e. 

(d) in I Cor. 15 Paul menlions no place. The 
enunieration he gives wouìd not preclude the leader from 
supposing thal the various appearances had occurxed 
in quiie different places — for esampJe, mosl of them in 
Galilee, even if that to James were to be thought of as 
having been made in Jerusalem. It is, however, quile 
improbable that James was in Jerusalem again so soon 
(see MiNiSTRY, § 21 d), or that he should bave ex- 
perienced the appearance of the risen Jesus at so late 
a lime that it mighl nevertheless be supposed thal 
James had already removed to Jerusalem (see l)elow. 

The sealing and watching of the sepulchre (Mt. 2762-66 

284 H-15) is now very generally given up even by those 

„.—_., , scholars who stili hold by the resurrec- 

seouiclire ^'°" narratives as a whole. [a) As 

1. ■ j. ■ 1 already pointed out above (8 2 a), in 

^^ Mk. it is not only. as in Lk, and Jn., 

absent ; it ìs absolutely exciuded by the women's 
queslion : they have no apprehensìons about the 
watch, only about the stono. (i) Again, it is ex- 
ceedingly improbable that the Jews remembered any 
prophecy of Jesus that he was to rise again in three 
days (Mt. 2763}. According to the Gospels Jesus made 
prophecies of Ihe kind only to the innermost circle of 
his disciples (Mk. 82731 930/. IO32-34 and |j). Indeed 
in Mk. and Lk. not even the women remember the 
prophecy, otherwise they would not have set out to 
anoinl the body. (1:) Again, the explanation which the 
high priests and elders suggest, according to Mt. 2813, 
is untenahle ; for if the soldiers were asleep at the lime 
they couid noi lestify thal the disciples stole the body. 
(d) Mot less nnlikely is the supposition ihat the Jewish 
authorities actually believed the account of the soldiers 
regarding the fact of the resurreciion of Jesus. Surely 
the consequence musi have been, as with Paul al a later 
date, their conversion to the faith of Jesus. If, on the 
other band, they remained unnioved. they must also 
have believed that, however perplexing it might at first 
sight appear, the affair was capable of explanation other- 
wise than by the resurrection of Jesus, and must have 
moved Filate to iiislitute a strici inquiry imo the conduci 
of the soldiers, rather ihan have soughl to bribe the 
soldiers. (e) Above ali, the soldiers could not have 
accepted a bribe, leasl of ali if they had nolhing better lo 
say by way of ostensible defence than thal they had fallen 
asleep. For this the penahy was death. According to 
.^cts 12 19 we actually find Agrippa I. putting to death the 
soldiers who had allowed Peter to escape from prison, 
and this is conclusive as to the nature of mililary respon- 
sibililies, even if in poinl of fact the liberation of Peter was 
brought about through no fault of his keepers (cp Simon 
pKrKR, § 3, e). Roman soldiers knew only too well the 
striclness with which discipline was administered, and 
the promise of the Jewish authorities to oblain immunity 
for Ihem from Pilate, if needful (Mt. 2814). would have 
made no ìmpression on them. {/) The best criticism 
on this whoie fealure of the narrative is the simple fact 
that the Gospel of Peter, which unquestionably is later 
than Mt. , avoids it altogether and coneludes quite differ- 
cntly (above, § 5 a). 

Tiial Jesus was buried in a usuai way, not — as Ìs con- 


jectured by Volkmar {ReligionJesu,jjf. 257-259 [1857], 

p , Die Evangelien \\%ja\^= Marcus %i. 

' , P ' die Sjfrwpse [1876], 603) on the basis 

sepuicnre ^^ j^_ 53 22t6-iS Rev. 118/.— left un- 
' buried, or at most cast into a hole and 
covered with some earth, is established by i Cor, 15 4 (cp 
Keim, Gesck. Jesu von Nazara, 8525-527, ET Gi-ji'Sj^}. 
Bui the accounls of the empty sepulchre are none of 
them admissible. As lo this the leading poinls have 
already been summarised in Gospels {§ 138 e ^). Some 
further considerai ions may be added. 

{a) The three poinls from which we have to stari are 
the silence of Paul (as of the entire NT apart from 
the Gospels; see, especially, Acls2zg-32)^ — a silence 
which would he whoUy ìnexplicable were the story trae 
(§ 15) ; next, the statement in Mk. 168 thal the women 
said nolhing of their experiences at the sepulchre^a 
statement which has to be underslood in the sense that 
Mk. was the first to be in a position to publish the facts ; 
in other words, that the whole story is a very late pro- 
duction ; lastly, if ( as we have seen) the first appearances 
of Jesus were in Galilee, the tidings of them must have 
arrived at Jerusalem much too late to allow of exaraina- 
lion of the sepulchre with any satisfactory results. If a 
body had been found il would have been too far advanccd 
in decay to allow of identification ; if ihere were none, 
this could be accounted for very easily without postulat- 
ing a resurrection. 

[é] The attempi lo explain the evangelical reporls 
withoul assuming a resurrection is, however, the line 
taken by very many theologians also who hold by whal 
is said as to the empty sepulchre and yet assume no 
miracle. In the first place they postulate a removal of 
the body by persons whose action had no connection 
with the queslion of a resurrection. 

On account of the approach of the Sabbath (they hold) the 
body had in any case to be laid in some grave or other, even 
perhaps without leave asked of the owner. It was, therefore, 
nece5sary that it should be. removed afterwards to a more suit- 
able place ; or the owner himself may have removed it. A 
reminiscence of this is even discovered in Jn. 20 15. Or, if the 
sepulchre belonged lo Joseph of Arimatha^a, even he may tiot 
have desired to have the body of a stranger permanentìy occnpj- 
ing a place in the .sepulchre of his family. On ali thei^e assiimp- 
tions what strikes one is the promplitude with which the 
transference must have been made. To do so on the Sabbath 
before sundown was unlawful ; yet very early rexi raorning the 
transference had already been effected (according lo Mt. even 
itnmediately after the sundown which marked the dose of the 
Sabbath ; see, however, g sd), 

{c) Others suggest that the enemies of the Christians 
had removed the body of Jesus in order Ihat it might 
not receive the veneraiion of his foUowers. The sur- 
prising thing in this would be, not so much thal such a 
policy would have given the greaiest possible, though 
unintentional, impetus to such veneraiion, as rather thjs, 
thal such action would presuppose a dis position lo 
worship the dead body for which it would be difficull lo 
find a precedent among the Jews, for whom any contaci 
with a corpse meant defìlement, 

id) For a long lime the favouriie view was ihal ihe 
disciples themselves actually had done what, according 
to Mt. 2/64, the Jewish authorities were apprehensive 
they might do, and, according to 281315, ìmputed to 
them falsely, namely, thal they had stolen the body in 
order thal Ihey might afterwards proclaim that Jesus 
had risen. 

Renan (Apdtrcs, 42/^, ET 69^), without expressly stating 
this purpose of the disciples, is jnclined to attribute a share in the 
removal of the body lo Mary Magdalene (whose predisposition 
to mental inalady [Lk. 83] he accentuates), because only a 
woman's hand would have left the clothes in such order as is 
described in Jn. 20 7. That a theft of this kind would have had 
ihe efFect of convincing gainsayers of the resurrection of Jesns 
is not very easy ro believe. On ihe other hand, it could in 
certain circumstances have made some ìmpression on followers 
of Jesus. 

The queslion forces ilself, however : Who was there 
lo set the pian on foot? The disciples were utterly 
cast down ; to ali probable seeming, in fact, they were 
noi even in Jerusalem at ali (Gospels, § 13811). The 



theory thus breaks down at the outset, and it seenis 
superfluous to ask wheiher the disciples would have 
ventured to act in a sense contrary to the ordinance of 
God who had suffered their master to die. 

(e) We mention, lastly, yet another theory, which is 
most clearly a mere rehige of despair — the theory, 
namely, that the earthquake (mentioned only in Mt. 
282) opened a chasm imraediately under the sepulchre, 
into which the body of Jesus disappeared. 

Not only this, however, but also ali the other hypo- 
theses mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, becorae 
superfluous on the adoption of the view that the state- 
ments about the empty sepulchre are unhistorical. 

As soon as his approaching death carne to be foreseen 
by Jesus, he must have looked forward also to its annui- 
Thfl thirH '^*^"^' unless, indeed, he at the same 
, time had abandoned the belief that he 

^* was the Messiah ordained by God to 

establish the divine kingdom upon earth. (a) As is 
said elsewhere (Gospels, § 145 [/]), it is not probable 
that Jesus foretold simply his resurrection ; that look 
him into heaven, whereas the work of the Messiah lay 
upon earth. The most importanl prediction accord- 
ingly was that of his coming again from heaven. The 
time fìxed by him is variously stated in the Gospels as 
being at the end of the then living generation (Mt. 
1627/), after a probably shorter interval (IO23), and 
in the immediate future (dTr' apri. Mt. 2664). The 
most certain conclusion that can be deduced from this 
variation clearly is ihat Jesus never gave any precise 
date, and this for the reason that he himself (see Mk. 
1332 = Mt. 2436) did not know it ; yet it is also very 
possible that he used the expression ' in ' or ' after ' 
' three days ' as a conventional designation for a very 
short interval (Lk. 1832 Mk. I458 I629 and parallels, on 
which cp MlNISTRY, § za). 

{i) As soon as the question carne to be one not of his 
coming again from heaven, but of his rising again from 
the dead, the expression 'after three days,' in ìtself a 
very indefinite one, carne to have a more exact meaning. 
The Jewish behef was that the soul hngered for three 
days only, near the body it had left, in the hope of 
returniiig to it ; after that the body became so changed 
that a reanimation was no longer possible (see John, 
SoN OF Zebedee, § 20 a; and Edersheim, Li/e and 
Times 0/ Jesus, 2-324/.). It was only naturai that in 
thinking of the resurrection of Jesus this limit should be 
kept in mind (Mk.831 Q31. IO34 and |i ; Lk. 2472146). 
If it is somewhat difficult to believe that Jesus uttered 
these prophecies so early (especially in connection with 
Peter's confession at Csesarea Philippi ; see GosPELS, 
§ 145 e), and with such exactitude of detail, it must 
nevertheless be recognised that he may very well, at 
one time or another, have expressed himself in some 
such sense. 

{e) The OT texts that have special relevance in this 
connection are 2 K. 2O5 and Hos. 62 (in both of which 
the interval of three days is brought into connection 
with a revivification, if not after death, at least after a 
sickness or time of weakness) ; and Jonah 2 1 [1 17] also 
— the three days' sojourn of the prophet in the belly of 
the whale — is in Mt. 124t>, albeit in a very inappropriate 
and interrupting way (see Gospels, § 14012), inter- 
preted with reference to the period diiring which Jesus 
was to remain in the grave. Paul expressly refers to 
the Scriptures in i Cor. 164. A forsaking ' for a small 
moment ' is spoken of also in Is. 54 7. 

{d) In this way it became possible for the resurrection 
of Jesus, if expected at ali, to be expected exactly after 
three days. The expectation, however, would hardly 
have had any result if those who had expected had not 
also had the consciousness of having seen him. In 
itself considered it was not absolutely imperative that 
the first appearances should coincide with the precise 
time of the expected resurrection. But if they had 
occurred much ìater the belief that the resurrection 


actually had happened precisely three days after death 
could hardly have been held very firnily. As, however, 
we find it in point of fact held with efjual firmness by 
Paul (i Cor. 15+) and by the evangeiists, the balance of 
probabìliiies favours the view that the first appearances 
happened on the same day or only a little later. 

With this it fits in very well if we suppose that the 
disciples shortly after the arrest of Jesus, and Peter 
shortly after his denial, had already set out for Galilee, 
so that they might arrive there on the third day (cp Jos. 
y^ii. 52, § 269). This is, moreover, the reason why the 
Gospel of Peter, in spile of ali appearance, has no prob- 
ability in its favour if it realìy means to convey that the 
disciples did not set out on their return journey to 
Galilee until the eighth or rather the ninth day after the 
death of Jesus, and that thus at least eleven days 
elapsed before the first appearance of the risen Jesus 
was experienced (see above, § 5 e]. 

(e) According to the Gospels Jesus reniained under 
the power of death not for about seveniy-two hours but 
only for somewhere between twenty-six and thirty-six 
hours. These, however, in fact, according to Jewish 
reckoning, are distributed between Friday, Saturday, 
and Sunday. In two of the OT passages referred to 
above — 2 K. 20 5 and Hos 62 — we read not ' after three 
days,' but ' on the third day.' Thus the Gospel tradi- 
tion literally satisfies the expression. 

It must have appeared fitting that the rising of Jesus should 
occur at as early a moment as possible after the ihird day had 
begun. From the same sense of fitness che visit of the women, 
once it was accepied as a faci, was naturally assigned to the 
early raorning hours. Where Mk. has ' after three days ' (jitrà 
Tpfìt iìnfpav ; 831 9 31 10 34), the parai lei passages consislenlly 
have 'on the third day' (rfj TpCrp ^fieptj : Mt. 1621 17 23 20 19 
Lk. 9 22 18 33 as also 24 7 46, cp also 24 21 Acts 10 40). The latter 
expression m Mt. and Lk. may possibly be dependent on the 
account of the course of events as given by themselves, and thus 
Mk.'s phrase might seem to have been the originai one. Yet we 
must not imagine that the two phrases were for the evanaelists 
really incompatible. Matthew himself says in one place (27 63yr) 
that Jesus foretold his resurrection 'afler three days' (jitrà 
Tptìi ij/iepos) and represents the Jews as basing upon this their 
petition to Filate that the sepulchre may be guarded ' till the 
third day' (sus 1-17? TpiTij! ijfie'pas). Were ihis to be taken 
literally it would have no sense, for in that case no watch would 
have been asked for precisely the fourth day, which Was the 
criticai one, From this il follows also that we are not compelled 
to regard Mt. 12 40 (see above, e) as genuine for the reason that, 
according to the report in the Gospels, the time of the fulfilment 
was shorter than that appointed in Jesus' prophecy. Ju. 2 19-21 
says : iv Tpurìc -^/lepais. 

As for the number of the appearances, Paul knows of 
more than we find in any one Gospel— viz., fìve, over, 
and above that made to himself. 

(a) Il is not possible, however, to identify each of 
even the few Gospel accounls with one of Paul's. 

LeC oneexample sufBce in illustration of the kind of violence 
in dealing with texis requìred in order to effect identifications. 
Resch (7"i/v. 4421-426, x.238i-3e9, x. 3 76S- 
23> HlUIlDOr of 782 790-814 824-827) identifies the appearance 
ttppe&X&nceS. *-'^ Peter with that to the unnamed disciple 
at Emmaus (see above, § 2j), that to the 
Twelve with Lk. 2I3S-40 and Jn. 20 iq-24 (above, § 2r), that to 
the Five Hundred with Lk. 24 5o_/, where, nevertheless, ' them' 
(auTovi) denotes precisely the same persons as we find in 2433 36. 
That to James he identifies with that to Thomas and the other 
disciples in Jn. 20 26-29. This James he holds to be identical with 
James the son of Alphteus, who may (Resch says) have been 
named Thomas — i.e., twin — -because his brother Judas of James 
is called Twin in Syriac tradition (Lips. Apokr. Ap.-Gesch. 
i. 20 227, ii. 2 154 i73yl). Finally, the appearance to 'ali the 
apostles ' is, according to Resch, that mentioned in Mt. 28 16-20 
and Actsl 4-12. 

(b) If one addresses oneself lo the problems with- 
out harmonistic prepossessions, the safest criterìa for 
identifying an evenl of which ihere are two accounts 
will be the presence of chat act eri stic details and (next 
in importance) exact time- data. Unfortunately Paul 
supplies US with no details, and dates are gained only 
indirectly, so far as they can be deduced from the order 
in which he mentions the events. The number of persons 
said to have been involved in a historical event is a 
secure crilerion of its identity only if the number is 
small. As soon as it becomes considerable, an error 
within moderate limits is not whoUy inconceivaWe. 



{e) On ihese principles the only Identification that 
admits of being niade without questìon is that of the 
appearance to Peter in i Cor. 15s with the appearance 
raentioned in Lk. 2434. Next in Paul's account comes 
an appearance to the Twelve. A similar appearance is 
recorded by Mt. as the only one he knows. In Lk. the 
only appearance to the Eleven (vvithothers) is in 2433 
36-51; Jn. 2019-24 contains the first appearance to ten 
apostles ; but we must identify the two on account of 
their exactly similar date {§ 2 r). Cp also the almost 
identica! words in Lk. 2436, ' stood in the midst of 
them ' {èa-Ti] év fiéaip avri^v) and Jn. 20 19, ' stood in the 
midst ' {l<m} eis tò fiéaov). The diversity of the special 
features mentioned by Lk. and Jn. may be ignored ali 
the more readily if we find ourselves able to regard them 
merely as unhistorical embellishments. Both date 
(evening of the resurrection day), however, and place 
(Jerusalem) are quite irreconcilable with those in Mt. 
Nevertheless it will remain open to us to recogiiise as 
kernel common to ali three accounts that after the 
appearance to Peter there was another to the Eleven. 
Here also belongs the second fragment of the Gospel 
of the Hebrews (above. § 4 e). This, however, is the 
only one of Resch's identifications that can stand 
scnitiny, and even so Mt. must be left cut. 

{d) The appearance to the 500 has no parallels {the 
proposed parallel referred to in § 11 ^ cannot be 
accepted), that to James only in the Gospel of the 
Hebrews (above, § 417, b). As parallel to that to 'ali 
the apostles' on the other band we must not adduce 
Acls 14-1:2. The event related there is, in the intention 
of the author, not the sequel to the only appearance in 
the Third Gospel (243336-51) to about the same number 
of persons ; it aims at correcting that part (2444-51) of 
the earlier narrative which ends with the Ascension. 
Jn. 2O26-29 admits of being cited in this connection 
merely as being the only repetitìon to be met with in 
any gospel. of an appearance to a company of disciples 
approximating this number. Since, however. this com- 
pany is in Jn. supplemented only by Thomas and in 
Paul by quite different persons, we have no assurance 
that even so much as a reminiscence of one and the 
same occurrence underlies the two accounts. On the 
other hand. in Paul the appearance of the risen Jesus 
at the sepulchre to the two Marys (Mt, ), or to Mary 
Magdalene alone (Jn. ). is unmentioned, as also that to 
the two disciples at Emmaus and that reported in Jn. 21, 
which has some resemblance to what we find in the 
Gospel of Peter (above, § 5 d). 

(e) It has already been shown at some length (§§ 
15, iRc) that Paul would certainly not have omitted 
to mention al least the appearances at the sepulchre 
and at Emmaus had he been aware of them. To meet 
this difficulty. and establish the priority of the Gospel 
narratives to Paul, the counter question has been asked : 
How could the evangelists possibly have allowed so 
much that is found in Paul to escape them, if they had 
been acquainted with his narrative or even with the 
tradition which underlies it? This question. however, 
is easily answered. For a writer who could report an 
instance in which Jesus had partaken of food (Lk. ). or 
in which his wounds had been touched (Lk. , Jn. ). or 
who could speak of the empty sepulchre as ali four 
evangelists do, or of appearances of the risen Jesus dose 
to the sepulchre ( Mt. , Jn. ) — for such a writer and for 
his readers an accumulation of instances in which Jesus 
had merely been scen no longer possessed any very 
great interest ; and a case even in which he had 
appeared to five hundred brethren at once would, at 
the time when the Gospels were wrilten, hardly have 
been considered so important as an appearance to the 
apostles. whose place in the reverence of the faithful 
had already come to be very exalted (see MlNlSTRy. 
§ 34). Even the instance in which" Jesus had been 
merely seen (though) by Peter is only touched on by 
Lk. (2434), not described, plainly because the narrative 

130 a 4069 

24. Influence 
of tendency 
on CFospels. 

alongside of the others would be too de voi d of 

To this want of interest in mere visual appearances 
of the risen Jesus we can add, however. in the case of the 
evangelists a positive interest, that of 
serving definite purposes by their narra- 
tives. {a) It makes for confirmaìion 
of what has been laid down in preceding 
sections (§§ 17-22) as to the elements in the accounts of 
the resurrection which alone can be recognised as histori- 
cai, if we are in a position to show that everything in the 
accounts which goes beyond such indubitably historical 
elements is a produci of tendencies which by an inherent 
necessity could not fail to lead to a shaping of the 
accounts in the form in which they now lie before us. 
even where there is no substratum of actual fact. In so 
far as these tendencies give us the right to pronounce 
unhistorical everything that can be explained by 
their means. in the absence of suffìcient testiraony to 
historical fact. they may be appropriately considered 
now in the course of the investigation as to objective 
facts in the resurrection- narratives on which we are at 
present engaged. It will appear that at ali points the 
reference to tendencies supplies an adequate explanation 
of ali the statemeiUs which we have been unable to 
accept as historical. 

[ò) As regards the nature of these tendencies ; — some 
are directly apologetica!, having for their object to 
preclude the possibility of certain definite objections 
against the actuality of the resurrection. Others are 
apologetical indirectly, their aim being to round off the 
picture by supplying gaps so that no questions may 
remain open. Lastly, some have in view the needs of 
the church itself. tracing back, as they do, to the risen 
Jesus certain instructions which were not found in the 
reports of the period of his earthly ministry (§ 28). or 
seeking to compensate for the want of that direct assur- 
ance of the conlinued life of Jesus which later genera- 
tions were no longer able to command (§ 29). 

(e) That the evangelica! narratives as a whole are in 
many ways influenced by tendency has been shown in 
Gospels. §§ io8-ii4and John. Son of Zebedee, §§ 
17, 20 e, 23, 35 h. and elsewhere. How dose at hand 
apologetic ìnCerests were where the story of the resurrec- 
tion was concerned is seen even in the fact that the 
entire statement of Paul is made with an apologetic 
view — only, in his case there is no justìfication for the 
conjecture that the contents of his statement were 
altered by this consìderatìon (§§ 10/ ). In the Gospels, 
on the other hand, we have at least one point in which 
this is particularly clear. and recognised even by very 
conservative theologians. 

In Mt. 2815 it is expressly said ihat the report of the theft of 
the body by the disciples was curreiit amons; the Jews in the 
writer's time. The writer traces it back to the false testimony 
of the guard at the sepulchre procured by bribery on the part of 
tlie Jewish authoricies. If we find ourselves unable to regard 
this bribery, or indeed any part of the story as to the watch set 
over the sepulchre, as historical, we are shut up to supposing 
that the allegations arose from the desire (or tendency) lo malte 
the story of the theft of the body by ihe disciples seein untenable. 
[d) It must at the same time be expressly emphasised 
that we are by no means compelled to think of this 
tendency as operative in such a manner that an author 
would produce from his own brain a quite new narrative 
in the apologetic direction. Precisely the same result 
— namely. the complete unhistoricity and the ' tendency ' 
character of a narrative— e merges if we assume that the 
narrative has grown up only bit by bit. by the co- 
operation of severa!, and has reached its present form 
under the influence of naive and artless presuppositions 
and pardonable misunderstandings. in some such manner 
as we have sought to render probable elsewhere for 
a series of narratives found in the Fourth Gospel (see 
John, Son of Zebedee, § 35, a-f). A special reason 
for making the same attempi in the case of the resurrec- 
tion is found in the character of the accounts themselves. 
If they were pure inventions it would he very difficult to 



understand why, for exaniple, of the disciples at 
Emmaus one is nanieless, and of those in Jn. 21 two 
are unnamed, or wliy the appearances lo Peter as being 
the first, or that to the 500 as being the most imposing, 
shouid not have received detailed adornraent. Cp, 
further, §§ igc, z$c. 

(e) To help us to reahse how such a narrative could 
come into exìstence by successive steps, let us take the 
CKainple referred to above^that of the watch set on 
the sepulchre. 

A Christian who found himself confronted for the first lime 
whh the assertion that the disciples had stolen the body of 
Jesus naturally opposed it to che ulmost. As, however, at the 
salile time (as we must suppose, if we believe the narrative of 
Mt, to be unhislorical) he found himself uiiable to adduce any 
counter-evidence, he would be consrrained to have recourse to 
conjectures, and lo say somèthing like this ; ' The Jews, we may 
he quite certain, saw Co che watching of the sepulchre ; they 
coulJ very well have known that Jesus had predicted bis rising 
again for the third day.' A somewhac careless Christian by- 
stander received the impression that in these suggescions what 
he was listening to was not mere conjecture but statement of 
faci, and circulaced it among bis friends as such ; that it was 
iinhesicatingly believed hyChristians is not astonishing. NexC, 
let US suppose, anotber propounded the question : Dia then the 
men of the guard actually see what happened at the resurrection 
of Jesus? Again the answer could only be a conjecture ; but 
jusc as certainly iC must have run as follows : ' Unquescionably ; 
for they were continuously at the sepulchre, and Roman soldiers 
iiever sleep on guard.' As, further, at the time we are at 
present supposing, the statement chat the women had found the 
stone rolled away had long been current, conjecture as to what 
the suards had observed befote the arrivai of the women could 
hardly have been other than to the effect that there had been an 
earihquake and that an angel had come down from heaven and 
rolled away the stone. Thac this conjeclure also shouid have 
been taken up as a statement of face is easy to suppose. 
Lastly, a listener perhaps would ask : ' Why ihen did not the 
soldiers teli what had happened, and why have we been left in 
ignorance of this until now"!*' Once more che answer — a conjec- 
ture merely, yet ready to be accepted as a fact— wa? at band : 
The Jewish authorities will doubtiess have bribed them to 
suppress the truth and to spread instead of it the rumour thac 
ihe disciples had stolen the body. 

Without pursuing this line of explanation further in 

details, let us now endeavour to see what were the 

P_ . - conscious or uticonstious apologetic 

. *, , , tendencies at work which could have 

j. e eiven rise to the unhistorical elements 

*^ was nsen, his grave must have been 

empty. If this was dispuled, the Christians asserted 
it as a fact, and that with the very best intention of 
affirming what was true. Therefore, no hesitalion was 
felt in further dedaring that (according to ali reasonable 
conjecturel the women who had witnessed Jesus' death 
had wishod to anoint his body and thus had come to 
know of the emptiness of the grave. In the fact that 
according to Mk. and Mt. this was not alleged regard- 
ing the male disciples we can see stili a true recollection 
that those disciples were by that time no longer in 
Jerusaleni (see Gospei.s, § 138 a) ; this feature was 
not first added by our canonical evangelists Mk. and 
Mt. , for they already presuppose the presence of the 
disciples in Jerusalem. 

{d) Why then shouid not these disciples themselves 
have gone to the sepulchre? In an earlier phase of the 
narraiives it was, no doubt, borne in mind that these 
disciples, if in Jerusalem at ali, had to remain in con- 
cealment, and even a writing so late as the Gospel of 
Peter (26) knew that very well. Lk. , however (2iz4), 
ignores it. HÌ5 statement that 'ceriain ' {rtvés) disciples 
went to the sepulchre is stili very vague. But Jn. 
forlhwith lays hold of it and definiteiy names Peter and 
the beloved disciple, and reports upon their rivalry in a 
manner that betrays a conscious tendency much more 
strongly than most of the other narratives (cp Simon 
Peter, § 22^). 

(e) The most obvious conjecture must necessarily 
have been that Jesus was seen immediately at the 
sepulchre itself. Here also may be distinguished two 
stages. The earlier is the account of Mt. ; Jn. recasts 
it (§ 19 e). If Jn. had been a free inventor it would 


be hard to say why he does not assign the appearance of 
Jesus at the sepulchre to Peter and the beloved disciple, 
both of whom nevertheless he represents as examining 
the sepulchre. Since he names only a woman as re- 
ceiving the appearance he shows himself bound by the 
representa ti on which we now find in Mt. , in spile of ali 
the comparative freedom witli which he departs from it- 
So aiso the Coptic account, and the Didaskalia (above, 

§§ 6. 7 *)■ 

[d) In ali the reports hitherto mentioned, however, 
Jesus was seen only after, not during. his resurrection. 
The possibility of filling up this blank was offered by 
the story of the guard at the sepulchre, which on its 
own raerits has already been discussed (above, § 24 e). 
It could in point of fact fili the blank in an (apologeti- 
cally) extremely effective way, ìnasmuch as it was by 
unbelievers that the actual fact of the resurrection was 

The cimidity which restrained tbe other writers from touching 
upon this incident continued lo be stili operative wiih Mt. in so 
far that he does not say that the person of Jesus was aciually 
seen, and adds that the waCchers became as dead men (S84). 
Tbe Gospel of Peter has corapletely overcome this timidity ; the 
watchers observe accurately each of ihe successive phases of the 
resurrection and see Jiesus himself as he emerges from the tomh. 
The codex Bobbiensis (above, g 7 (t) relates this simply as a fact 
without menlion of the witnesses. The statement of the Gospel 
of the Hebrews — that Jesus gave the linen shroud to the servant 
of the high-priest — stands upon the same piane. 

As long as there was stili current knowledge that the 

first appearances of the risen Jesus were in Galilee, the 

... _ fact could be reconciled with the presence 

J , of the disciples in Jerusalem on the 

^ ,?. ^ " ' morning of the resurrection only [a) on 

Galilee or 

the assumption that they were then 
directed to go to Galilee. The naturai 
media for conveying such a comraunicalion must bave 
seemed to be the angels at the sepulchre in the first 
instance, and after them the women. So Mk. and 
Mt. So far as Mt. is concerned this direction to be 
given to the disciples was perhaps the reason, or a 
reason in addition to that suggesled in § 2 rf, why the 
women shouid be made to go to the grave so early as 
on the evening ending the Sabbath, so that the disciples 
raight stili in the course of the night have time \o set 
out and if possible obtaìn a sight of Jesus within three 
days after his crucifixion. 

{è) Yet such a combination as this was altogether 
too strange. Why shouid Jesus not have appeared 
forthwilb in Jerusalem to the disciples? Accordingly 
Lk. and Jn. simply suppressed the direction to go to 
Galilee, finding themselves unable to accept it, and 
transferred the appearances to Jerusalem. Or, it was 
not our canonical evangelists who did both things at 
one and the same time, but there had sprung up, 
irrespective of Mk. and Mt. , the feeling that Jesus 
must in any case have already appeared to the disciples 
in Jerusalem ; it presented itself to Lk. and Jn. with a 
certain degree of authority, and these writers had not 
now any occasion to invent but simply to choose what 
seemed to them the more probable representation, and 
then, when in the preparation of their respective books 
they reached the order to go to Galilee, merely to pass 
over it or get round it (§ 2 k), as no longer compatible 
with the new view, 

As against ali assurances that the risen Jesus had 
been seen, it was always possible to raise the objec- 
tion that what was seen had been merely 

27. (c) On 

'a vision' {<p&vTa.(Tp.a.). One good way 
of meeting this objection was (a) the 

y assurance that the eye-witnesses had 

appearancea. asg^red themselves of the contrary with 
ali the more care and circumspection because they them- 
selves had at first shared this doubt. It is thus that 
we are to explain the care with which the disbelief of 
the disciples is accentuated. 

So in Mt. 28 17 (' but some doubted,' oì Si è&C<na,ira.v'^^ Lk. 

t Shouid Brandt (355-357) be right in his conjecture that Ihese 
three words are a gloss, because, in the words immediately 



24 II 37 4r^n w. 37 41 we bave a doubl that is hardly intelli- 
gibie in ihe present connection, since ali those present have 
already in -v. 34 confessed their faith in the resurrcctìon of Jesus 
(an unevennes'ì chat wouid he removed by ibe hypothesis of 
Brandt spoken of in g 16 ^)— also with special empbasis in Jn. 
20 25 Mk. Itì li 13^; and in Ibe Coptic account. Tbe counter- 
part, a specially strong faith, is shown by James, in the Gospel 
of the Hebrews, in bis oath that he would fast iintìl Jesus bad 
riseli again. 

[!>') If then it was held important to be able Io over- 
come doubts, it was always possìble to produce some iiii- 
pression if assiirance couid be given ihat Jesus had beeu 
not only scen but also heard. As to the substance of 
what he said something will be found in the next section 
(§ 2S) ; for the present, ali that comes into consideration 
is llie simple fact of spticch. For narrators who had 
never themselves witnessed an appearance of Jesus it 
was an exceedingly naturai thing to assume thal Jesus 
had been not only seen but also heard, and it was 
equally easy for their hcarers to take their conjecture 
for fact. At the same time, since it was not ìmpossible 
also to hear words, as Paul reports himself to have done 
(2 Cor. 124), without the experience being morethan an 
ecstasy, some yet stronger proof of objectivity stili re- 
mained necessary. 

[e) In § 17 [/] stress has already been laid on the 
fact that in the bodily figure of Jesus which was seen the 
marks of the woutids were also included ; nay more, 
that spectators even perhaps believed themselves to see 
that ile was showing them. Stili, a rea! guarantee of 
the actuality of his return to this earth had not been 
received until the wounds had been touched. 

WhiUt, however, there is between such an ' actual ' seeing and 
actual toucbing a dislinction ,so great ihat it can hardly be eitag- 
gerated, it is one which is capable of being almost entirely over- 
looked by people who neitfier themselves had witnessed an 
appearance of Jesus nor were familiar with the principles of 
pfiychology ; and thu.s it would not be Ìmpossible for them, 
without any cousciousness of inaccuracy, stili less of deliberate 
perversion of the truth, to change the statement which eye- 
witnesses had actually made as to having seen the wounds into 
the difFerenl statement that Jesus had mvited tbe disciples to 
touch them. So Lk. 2*39 Jn. 20 27; also the Coptic account and 
the second fragment of the Gospel of tbe Hebrews (S 4 e), ìn the 
iast-cited case with the express addition that tbe dìsciples availed 
themselves of the invilation. In a naive way a toucbing of 
Jesus by the women is mentioned in Mt. 289. 

[d) I.k. goes yet another step further in hls statement 
(24 i,if. ) that Jesus asked for food, and partook of it in 
the presence of the disciples. This is in v. 41 expressly 
characterised as a stili stronger proof of the reality of 
his resurrection than the fact that he had been touched. 
Here, accordingly. the popular conceptions as to the 
nature of the resurrection body underlying Mk. 614-16, 
which in the earliest [>eriod were not applied to Jesus 
{% 17 ^). gain influence. Jn, does not foUow Lk. in 
this ; he declines to represent the risen Jesus in so 
strongìy and frankly sensuous a manner.^ Yet even 
Lk.'s re prese ntation is surpassed by the eslra-canonical 
addition to Lk. 2443 (§ 7 e) that Jesus gave to his 
disciples the remainder of the food of which he had been 
partaking. An eating in their presence here becomes an 
eating with them. which according to Aets IO41 was, in 
fact, continually happening.^ 

{e) It becomes now fluite easy to understand how, 
once narrators had ceased to shrink from such repre- 
sentations, the reporter passed over that particular touch 
in the accounts actually proceeding from eye-witnesses 
according to which Jesus had vani shed after each 
appearance, and how instead of this it was unsuspeclingly 

following, Jesus passes over the doubt of these disciples without 
remark, the ìnsertion would stili show that a reader of che 
oldest period found ic fìtting to presuppose doubts on the part of 
some of the disciples. 

1 The question in Jn. 21 5, quìte on a leve! with Lk.2441 
^'aught to eat?'), has a quile different significance ; in In. 
Jesus does not inlcnd to eat, but to .ulve them to eat. Neither 
also does Lk. 2i-joJ\ (the scene at Emmaus) imply a represen- 
tation of Jesus as eating. See § ag, i. 

^ The rendering of irvi-aÀi^ójjei'O^ in EVme- of Actsl 4 ' eat- 
ing with them ' is, however, very doubtful (E V ' being assembied 
together witb them'). 


taken for granted that Jesus had siili remained upon 
earth and had dealings with his disciples in every respect 
as a man. In the earliest stage of this way of represent- 
ìng matters, such a condition of thjngs was held to have 
Jasted for only one day; but afterwards the time was 
exlended lo forty days (§ 16 a, è). 

That this second view was noi met witb in ttadition from the 
beginning, but ov/ea its existence lo a tiansfoniiation of the 
earlier view, is absolutely certain unless we aasign Acts to 
another than tbe author ot tbe Tbird Gospel. Tbe cause of the 
transformation is very apparent ; tbe disciples were, duting ali 
the lifetime of Jesus, very weakly, and at the end stili needed 
much instruction ' concerning tbe kingdom of God ' (irfpi Tijs 
/3ao-iA€Ìas ToiJ ©eoO : Acts 1 3). 

(/") The idea of a continuous presence of Jesus upon 
earth, if only for a single day, necessarily carried with 
it the consequence that this condition terminated in an 
ascensi on. 

No Olle needed to invent the idea ; every account of eye- 
witnesses had closcd witb the more or less definite statement 
that Jesus had again disappeared, and disappeared into heaven 
(6 17 li). At tbe same lime the tendency to adom a plain story 
shows itself at work witb sufficient clearness if we compare the 
simple ' he parled from them and was carried up into heaven ' 
(Sietmj air' aù™i' koX àfeifiepeTo eU tov oipavóv) of Lk. 24 51, or 
even Mk. 16 ig, with tbe circumslantial account given in Acts 
Ig.ii. The originai limitation of the period during which 
appearances of Jesus occurred to a single day will bave co- 
operated along with tbe otber causes mentioned in § 23 « to bring 
atout tbe exclusion by Lk. of ibe appearance to the 500, that to 
James, and that to ' ali the apostles, ' 

The belief once created that Jesus in his various 

appearances had also spoken, the door lay wide open 

. /^ -> for ali kinds of conjecture as to what 

^rords Tennrteil ^^ ^^'^ ^^'*^' ^"^^ ^" ^^^^ region the 
P • most obvious conjecture was that Jesus 

uttered words leadìng up to, or explaining, the alleged 
facts which we have already considered, 

Tbus it fìts the situation equally that in Mt. 28 io Jesus re- 
peats to the women the injunction of the angels to bid the 
disciples repair to Galìlee, and that in Lk. 24 49 and Actsl 4, 
on the other band, he bids them remain in Jerusalem, wbilst in 
Jn. 20 17 he merely sends them word that he is ascending to 
heaven, and for this reason does not suffer Mary Magdalene to 
touch liim. It is stili in accordance with the same principle 
that he is represenied as at a later date making the request that 
his disciples sboiild touch bim, and asking the disciples whether 
they bave any thing to eat (S 27 e, /f). 

{à) Other words of Jesus apply to situations which we 
have not yet diseussed. Thus, in Lk. 2438 and in the 
Didaskalia (g j b), as well as in the speech to James 
in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the purpose is to prepare 
the way for a joyful frame of heart and mind. The 
words ìn ]tì. 2O19 =6, ' Peace be unto you,' as also those 
to Saul, ' Saul, Saul, vv-hy persecutest thou ine ? ' (Acts 
94, etc). are singulariy well chosen. 

(e) What must have presented itself as the main 
object must have been that of instructing the disciples, 
before the final departure of Jesus, ìn everything which 
was stili necessary for their future tasks. 

To this category of instruction belongs the repeated insistence 
upon the uncertainty of the time of the end of the world (Acts 
1 7 : cp Mk. 13 33), but very specially, as new matter, the proof 
that the passion of Jesus had l>een appointed by God and fore- 
told by tbe prophets (Lk. 24 25-27 44-46). If Jesus in this 
manner estabhshed a correct understanding of events that were 
past, it wa.s naturai, indeed inevitable, to think that, over and 
above Ibis, be had given ali the new direclions for the future 
which wete in point of fact followed in the church and therefore 
could not bui have proceeded from its founder. Thus (it was 
held) it must necessarily have been Jesus who told the disciples 
that 'ali authority had been given unto him in heaven and on 
earth,' and that be was with them alway, even unto tbe end of 
the world (Mt. 2S1820); he it was v^ty must bave instituted 
the mission to the Gentiles (Mt. 28 igy? Lk. 2447 Mk. 16 15), as 
also baptism (Mk. 16 16, and the canonical text of Mt. 28 19 ; 
but cp g 8 e), and he too it must bave been who promised the 
power of performing miracles (Mk. 16 17X), yet also demanded 
a faith that believed without having seen (Jn. SOig), — this in 
view of the fact that he knew of, and was able to foretell, the 
oiitpouring of the Holy .Spirit at Pentecost (Lk. 2449 Acts 
1 ^y. 3), if he did noi himself impari the Spirit as in Jn. 20 22. 

(d'] This leads us to the significance which the words 
of the risen Jesus have, especially for the apostles ; for 
it is only to them that in Jn, the Spirit is imparted, as 
also the power to forgive or to retain sins (2023) or, 
indeed, a formai mission of any kind (2O21). We find. 



further, ihat in the missionary precept the disciples 
come first into account, just as in Acts (especially 
^616-18) it is Paul who does so. Jn. 2115-23 has to do 
entirely with fixing the relative rank in the regard of the 
church between Peter on the one hand and the beloved 
disciple on the other (§ g e); similarly 2O3-10 {cp Simon 
Peter, §22(5). Thegospel traditioti has therefore made 
use of its accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in a very 
decided manner for the purpose of carrying back to 
Jesus the high esteeni in which the apostles were held 
at a later time. 

With other reasons (§§ 23 e 27 [_/']) the purpose just referred 
to may have co-operated to bring it about that the evangeliscs 
recorded almost exclusively only appearances lo apostles and 

Sass over ìn silence those to the 500 and to James,— in deed, that 
It. contents himsslf with recording no more than one appear- 
ance altogether, an appearance in which B. Weiss even discerns 
a free fusion of ali that Mt. knew by tradition regarding the 
appearances of Jesus. 

At last, however, the emphasis that had been laid on 
the literal historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus 
29 (e) On a ^^'"^ ^^^'^^ " something different. (a) 
SUbgtitute However firmly establ.shed the resurrec- 
. , , - tion might seem to be histoncally, nowever 

_r vision o j-^^j^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ shadow of doubt in the 
nsen jesus. ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ faithful. its value for them 
was nevertheless small : it was nothing more than 
an event of past time. What faith demands is some- 
thing present, something now and always capable 
of being experienced afresh. The demand for a faith 
that could beheve without having seen (Jn. 202729 
I Pet. 1 8) was hard to satisfy. Thus there carne to be 
felt a need for such a turn being given to the resurrection- 
navrative as should raake the continued l\fe of Jesus 
capable of being experienced anewat ali times (Mt. 2820: 
* I am with you alway'), and thus the historical state- 
ments as to hìs long-past appearances — accounts which 
had been elaborated with such care — in great measure 
lost the ir import ance. 

(è) Towards this result Paul had already contributed. 
The risen Christ is for him identica! with the Holy 
Spirit (aCor. 3i7 Rom. Sg-n, and often). The fourth 
evangelist followed him in this (§ i6c; John, Son of 
Zebedek, § 261:). Therefore in the Fourth Gospel the 
risen Jesus having ascended to heaven bestows the Holy 
Spirit already on the very day of the resurrection. 
Only to the disciples, indeed, in 2O22, but according to 
738/ expressly to ali believers ; and therefore it is not 
open to doubt that 167 13-15 14i8 28 IBaó, etc, are also 
to be interpreted in the latter sense. As Holy Spirit 
Jesus is always present. 

{e) A somewhat more sensible substìtute for vision of 
the risen Jesus is the observance of the ordinance of the 
Supper. This is the true meaning of the deeply signifi- 
cant narrative of the disciples at Emmaus (cp Cleopas). 
The wish of Chrìstianity — 'abide with us' — did not admit of 
being fulfiUed in a literal sense ; but in every act of communion 
' he went in to abide with them ' (Lk. 24 29). Not with flesh and 
bones as in the case of the primitive disciples (2439), but 'in 
another form ' (tv érepij fiop^^ : Mk. 16 12) ; and whilst the result 
of ali that could be told about the empty grave was 'him they 
saw not,' he is now presently recognised in the breaking of the 
bread' (Lk. 24 24 30^ 34). It is plain that the knowledge 
ascribed to the two disciples, 50 skilfully embodied in this nar- 
rative, could not have been drawn by them from the events de- 
scribed by Lk. even if they had literally happened to them on the 
resurrection day ; it is naturally the produci of a long growth, 
and that too in Genti le- Christian circles in which the corporeal 
element in Jesus was neither so familiar nor so important as in 
the primitive-apostolical. It is clearly a remimscence of a 
celebration of the Lord's Supper that we have also in Jn. 21 13 
and in the giving of the bread lo James in the Gospel of the 
Hebrews ; only, in Jn. it has its protolype in the feeding of the 
five thousand with loaves and fishes (6 9 11 =£1 9), which, how- 
ever, in turn bears the most express marks of being bui a clolhing 
of the Supper (see John, Son of Zebeuee, §§ aoc, 23 e). 
The number ' sevei» ' as applied to the disciples corresponds to 
the number of baskets which in the second 'feeding' in the 
Synoptists (Mk. 8 8= Mt. 15 37) were lìlled with the fragments 
that remained over ; whilst in Jn. 6 13, in agreement with the 
first 'feeding' in the Synoptists (Mk. 643 = Mt. 14 20= Lk. 9 17), 
twelve baskets are filled, corresponding to the number ' twelve * 
as applied to the disciples. The mysterious character of the 
presence of the risen Jesus at the Supper appears at Emmaus 


in his disappearance when the two disciples recognised him 
(Lk. 2431), ac the Sea of Galilee in no one's asking him who he 
was CJn. 21 12). 


The last problem stili demanding solution, is how to 

explain the only fact that has emerged ìn the course of 

30 Mature of °^^ examination — the fact that Jesus 

Jesus' resur- 

Any attempted explanalion presupposes 
an insight Ìnto subjective experience 
that perhaps can never be completely attained. It 
demands, therefore, the greatest caution. It cannot, 
however, be left unattempted. 

{a ) The investigator who holds himself bound to 
accept and raake intelligible as literal fact everything 
recorded in the resurrection narratives, even of the 
canonica!, gospels mecely, cannot fultìl his task on any 
other condition than that he assumes a re vivi fica tion of 
the buried body of Jesus to a new period of earthly hfe, 
hardly less earthly than when Jesus was taken for Elijah 
or the Baptist risen from the dead (Mk. 6 14-16 828 and ||, 
cp 9 11-13 Mt. II14)- It only remains to be stipulated 
that he who does so shall fuUy realise that what he is 
assumìng is a miracle in the fullest sense of the word. 
Many theologians are strangely wanting in clcarness. as 
to this. Even, however, after one has clearly under- 
slood what he is accepting, it is inipossible to stop here ; 
for such a view does justice only to one side — the 
physical and sensuous — of the resurrection -narratives ; 
not to the other, according to which Jesus was neverthe- 
less exalted to heaven, a thing impossible for flesh and 

(è) In order to do justice to this second side also, 
recourse is often had to the theory of a graduai sublima- 
tion or spirituali sation of the resurrection- body of Jesus 
— at first wholly material — whereby it was gradually 
made fit for its ascension. Again, what has to be 
insisted on is that the miracle is not hereby diminished ; 
on the conlrary, to the originai miracle of the revivifi- 
cation of the material body is added a second— that of 
the spiritualisation of the material body. The thing, 
however, is also quite inconceivable ; how is one to 
represent to oneself the stages of the transition ? 

A body which is already capable of making its way through 
closed doors muse surelij have ceased to be tangible (Jn. 20 26_/.). 
Moreover, such a view is in direct contradiction to what we find 
in NT, not only ìn i Coc. 15 50-5J but 3.1so in the gospels ; for 
the touching there referred to and (ìn Lk. 24 39-43) the eating 
happen precisely at the last appearance of Jesus which is 
immediately tbilowed by the ascension ; and the precept not to 
touch is placed Ìn Jn. (20 17) ac an earlier point. So, also, we 
read that Jesus is immediately recognised in his later appear- 
ances, but precisely in the earlier ones not (Lk. 24 is Jn. 20 14). 

(e) If we decide to confine ourselves to the task of 
explaìning what we take to be the simple fact according 
to I Cor. 15, we must not suffer ourselves to forget that 
Paul thinks of the future resiu-rection-body of man — 
which he regards as heavenly and pneumatic — as con- 
formed to the pattern of the resurrection -body of Jesus 
(so I Cor, 1545-49)-' Jesus' body also, then, in his view 
must have been heavenly and pneuraatic ; and as Paul 
in I Cor. has not yet given up the revivification of 
the buried body {% 15 5), he must have thonght of the 
pneumatic attributes possessed by it as having arisen 
through metani or phosis, such as, according to i Cor. 
1551-53, is to happen also to the bodies of those men 
and women who shall stili be alive at the last day. 
According to what we have seen in § 17^ the originai 
apostles also agree in this. Thus the explanation of the 
facts which proceeds on the belief of the apostles that a 
body of Jesus was really seen must think of that body as 
heavenly and pneumatic; not, however, in such a sense 
that it was given to Jesus at his resurrection as a new 

I In V. 49 the future— 'we shall bear" ((topeVojiev) — is to be 
read. An exhortation, ' let us bear ' {ifiopéau/ixep ; so Ti. WH), 
is meaningless, for the resurrection -body is obtained without 
our co-operation. The confusion of and <a with copyists is 
very common ; see Gal. 6 io 12 i Jn. 5 20 Rom. 5 1 14 g, etc. 



body whiist the old body remained in the grave, but in 
the sense that it carne into existence through a change 
wTought on the buried body. On this explanation the 
resurrection has as much an entirely miraculous char- 
acter as it has on either of the other two theories aheady 

In order to escape so far as may be from niiracle 
of the character described in the preceding seclion, 
and, generally, to be rid of the question 

31. Resurrec- 
tion of the 

of the corporeity of the risen Jesus, 

„ . ., . recourse is often had to the view that 
P ' ■ it was only the spirit of Jesus that rose 

and appeared to his followers. Here opinion is divided 
as to whether such a thing ìs possible withoiit a miracle 
or net. Any one who holds appearances of the spirits of 
the deparled to be possible in the naturai order will be 
able lo dispense with assuming a miracle here. The 
majority, however, maintain the negative. Moreover, 
such persons declare that the appearances of Jesus to 
his disciples difter considerably from the manner in 
which tlie spiritualism of the present day holds appear- 
ances of spìriis to occiir. They find themselves com- 
pelled accordingly, if it was merely the spirit of Jesus 
that was alive and manifested itself, to postulate a 
miracle whereby it was made visible. 

It is lo be observed, moreover, that this view — that 
only the spirit lives on— is in no respect difFerent from 
the doctrine of the immortality of the soul except in this, 
that in the particular case in question the continuance 
of the life of the spirit begins only on the third day 
after dealh. This, however, is a collocation of quite 
heterogeneous ideas. The essence of the doctrine of 
immortality lies in this, that the ìife of the soni is never 
interrupted, and thus there can be no thought at ali of 
revivification after remaining for a time in a state of 
death. Revivification can occur only in the case of a 
subject that ìs capable of dying — in other words, in a 
body. This is a Jewish idea, that of immortality is 
Greek. The latter is adopted in the Book of Wisdom, 
and Paul comes near it in 2 Cor.5i-8 (§ 15^) ; for the 
originai apostles it is from the outset excluded {§ 17 e). 

It is discovered to be necessary, accordingly, to go a 
step farther. The belief that the risen Jesus actually 
^■J! nhÌB^ivn '^'^ appear ìs frankly given up. 

Vi ^°ì "^^^ disciples, we are told, saw 

nothing real ; neither the body of Jesus, 
clothed with earthly or heavenly attributes, nor the spirit 
of Jesus whether in true spirit form or in some kind of 
acquired visibility. What they believed they saw was 
in reality only a visionary image, without any real 
appearance of Jesus ; but this visionary image was 
produced in their souls immediately by God in order 
thal they might be assured that Jesus was risen. For 
this reason the vision ìs called objective. 

(i) The belief is eniertained that by this method of 
regarding the mailer the assumplion of a miracle is 
made superfluous ; ali that is postulated is merely a 
Divine act of revelalion. Keim has invented for this 
view, which he also supports, the phrase : telegram 
from heaven. This act of revelalion itself, however, is 
nothing less than a miracle. Were it not miraculous 
the visionary image of the risen Jesus in the minds of 
the disciples could only have its origin in their own 
subjeclive condilion. This is exactly what is denied 
and must be denied ; otherwise the disciples must be 
taken to have had their faith in the resurrection within 
themselves and needed no divine revelalion of it. The 
subjective condition of the disciples must on this view 
be represented as one of the greatest prostration, which 
could be changed inlo its opposile only by a revelalion 
really coming from God. 

(e) It has to be remarked, further, thal according to 
this view Jesus' continued existence must be regarded 
as miraculous in the full sense. If the presupposition 
were that his soul was immortal like the soul of any 
other man, his continued life would be a mailer of 


course and did noi require to be made known by a 
special revelatioii. Bui what is aimed at in putting 
forward this view is much rather to establish the 
complete diffcrence between Jesus and ali other men 
which has been from the first claimed for him by the 
assertion of his resurrection, but yet to be able to 
dispense with miracle. This can never succeed. 

If a really non-m iraculous explanation is desired, then 

apart from subjective visions {of which more hereafter) 

Nftfi ^^° possibililies present themselves. 

miraculous '■^^ '^^^ hypothesis that Jesus was only 

exDlanationa ^PP^^^"'^'^' ^^^*^ ^'^""'^ ™^^^ supporters 

Jezcludin? ''^ ^^^ '^^''^ °^ rationaiism, and it has 

t , _ oine ai5(j t,een espoused by a writer so modem 

naionBj. ^ ^^^^ {Oeich. Jesu. 1876, § 112}. 

That cruciffed persons taken down from the cross while stili 
in life have been able to recover is testified by Herodotus (7 194) 
and Josephus (fiV. 75 end, § 420/;), In a case of seemcng 
death indeed it is hardly credible, and to cali to one's aid the 
wonderfu) power of heahng which Jesus exercised 011 behalf of 
other persons is tu this connection quile fantastic. More than 
this : had Jesus presented hiniself merely as one who had al! 
bui died on the cross his appearance would have produced the 
impression of weakness and helplessness, not that of a conqueror 
of death and the grave, which nevertheless was the character he 
required to present if he was to inspire his followers to a worid- 
conquering faith. Finally, what could they say, if he reverthe- 
less in the end died after ali? To escape the force of this 
(juestion the assumption was that he had withdrawn himself 
inlo solìtude, perhaps into some cave in order that his death 
might not becoine known. It is obvious that the theorj' of a 
seeming death is not enough ; it is necessary to assume also 
vaiious machinations, whether on the part of Jesus himself or on 
the part of his disciples, whether at the time of his leaving the 
sepulchre or with a view to coveiing the worst signs of weak- 
ness before he presented himself lo iarger circles of his followers. 
In this aspect the present hypothesis approximates — 

{b] The hypothesis that, alihongh Jesus did not 
recover, the disciples spread abroad, and found credence 
for, the nmiour that he was ali^'e. Apart from ali 
other difficulties, such a hypothesis is from the outset 
untenable for two reasons : not only would the disciples 
immediately after the death have been un able to 
sumraon courage for so gigantic a task as the theory 
implies, but atso at a later date they would not have 
had courage in persecution lo surrender their lives for 
such a faith, 

Thus subjective visions are ali thal remain now lo 

-^ „ . be dealt with. Lei us endeavour first of 

,* -,i,i,i«p ^" ^ deiermine their nature in general ^o 

tivB viBÌmi ^^^ ^ ^^'^ ^^ practicable, without a too 

minute discussion of the conditions implied 

in the NT narratives and statements, 

(ti) In contradistinction from the so-called objective 
vision {see § 3211), the image that is seen in the sub- 
jective vision is a produci of the mental condition of 
the seer. The presupposition is, accordingly, that he 
is not only in a high degree of psychical excitement 
which is capable of producing in him the belief that he 
is seeing something which in point of faci has no 
objective existence. but also thal ali the elements which 
are requisite for the formatton of a visionary image, 
whether it be views or ideas, are previously present in 
his mind and have engaged its activities. That in these 
circumslances the seer should behold an image for 
which there is no corresponding reality, can be spoken 
of as something abnormal only in so far as the occurrence 
is on the whole a rare one ; as soon as a high degree of 
menial excitement is given, the existence of visions ìs by 
the laws of psychology just as intelligible and naturai 
as. in a lower degree of mental excitement, is the 
occurrence of minor disturbances of sense perceptìons, 
such as the hearing of noises and the like. 

{b) The view that a subjective vision could never 
have !ed the disciples to the belief that Jesus was alive 
because they were able to distinguish a vision from a 
real experience is quile a mistake.^ It is not in the 
least necessary that we should raise the question whether 
they were always able to do 50 ; let it be at once 

1 On this point Beyschlag {Lfben Jesu 1 422-440) Ìs par- 
ticularly inslructive. 



assumed that they could. The distinction is not un- 
known in the NT; see, for examplc, ActslSg ; indeed 
we may lay it down that ' was seen ' (di^^jj) with the 
single exception of Acts726 always stands for another 
kiiìd of seeing than that of ordinary sense-perception 
(e.g., Lk. Ili 931 2343 Acis23 723035 9i7 133t I69 
26i6 [i Tim. 3i6?] Rev. II19 12i3). Nay. thìs is our 
warrant for calling in visiona lo our aid in explaining 
the appearances of Jesus. Ali that we have gained by 
this concessioni however, is merely that the seers dis- 
tinguished once and again the condition in which they 
were : whether ecstatic or nornial ; it by no means 
follows as matter of course that they held the thing seen 
in vision to be unreal, and only what they saw when 
in their ordinary condition to be reai. How otherwise 
could the very conception of such a thing as an objec- 
tive vision be possible ? 

(<r) On the contrary, it pertains preclsely to the 
subjective vision that the seer, if he is not a persoti 
thoroughly instructed in psychology and the naturai 
Sciences, is compelled to hold what he sees in his vision 
for real as long as it does not bring before him some- 
thìng which to his conception is impossible, Wherein 
otherwise wouid consist the delusion, which nevertheless 
every one knows to be connected with subjective vision, 
if not in this, that the visionary seeks for the cause of 
what he has seen in the external world, not in his own 
niental condition ? And indeed the visionaries of the 
Bible had tnore extended powers than modem visionaries 
have for taking a visionary image as an objective 
reality ; for, if they were iinahle to attribute to the 
image they saw any ordinary mundane reality because 
it was contrary to their ideas of mundane things, they 
could always altribiile to it a heavenly reality, and it 
was only if it was contrary to their-conception of things 
heavenly that they came to recognise it as a product of 
their own fantasy. 

[d) We have therefore to distinguish between three 
eyperiences which were regarded as possible by the 
disciples and their contemporaries : (i) the seeing of an 
earthly person by the use of the ordinary organs of 
sight : (2) the seeing of a person in a real yet heavenly 
corporeìty, not by the bodily eyes but in a vision 
{òwTaffla : Lk, laz 24^3 Acts26i9 z Cor. 12i ; or 
Spaffis : Acts 2 17 Rev. 9 17 ; or Spa-iM. : Acts 9 io 12 
IO31719 lls 16 9/ 18 9), in a state of ecstasy {f(cffTaffts : 
Acts 10 IO lls 22 17), or, it may be, outside of the seer's 
own body (2 Cor. 12i/.) ; (3) the production of a false 
image on the mind without any corresponding outward 
reality. The first of these possibilities (ordinary seeing) 
is contemplated oniy by those evangelists who speak 
of Jesus as eating and as being touched, and who never 
themselves had been present at appearances of the 
risen Jesus. The second possibility (visionary seeing of 
a heavenly corporeìty) Js what the witnesses of such 
appearances intended and what Paul indicates by the 
word 'was seen" [iS^dij). With the third possibihty 
(false image) it has this in common that in both the 
condition of the participants is visionary ; with the first 
(ordinary seeing). that the participants hold what they 
see to be absolutely real and to have an existence 
external to themselves (but not with a mundane reality). 

(e) It was the mistake of many critics to assume that 
by the use of 'was seen' {(^ip$Ti) the purely subjective 
origin of what had been seen was conceded by Paul 
himself. The same error, however, is almost entirely 
shared also by apologists such as Beyschlag when they 
suppose that the participants, if they had held their 
condition to be that of visionaries, would at the same 
time have perceived the unreality of what they saw. This 
hypothetically enunciated statement of the apologists 
is distinguished from the categorical assertion of the 
crilics in only one point : the apologists will have it 
that the participant need not necessarily attribute the 
origin of what he sees to the state of his own mind, but 
can attribute it to God — yet wìthout the result that, in 


the latter case, in his view the thìng seen becomes 
invested with reality. 

Thus Beyschlag (as above, 432-435) is of opinion that Acts 
109 does not make Paul beiìeve that in reality a man of 
Macedonia stood before him, nor 10 10-16 malie Peter think that 
in reality a sheet contalning leal animals was let down from 
heaven^not only not in mundane acluality but also not even in 
heavenly actualily ; on the contrary, in each case neither had 
taken in more than this, thal God was seeking to give them to 
nndersland something by means of sensible images. This way 
of [ooking at matters is utterly inconsistent with the beliefs of 
that time. If it is God who sends the Macedonian or the sheet 
contaiiiing the beasts, as a matter of course it is believed that 
these things are seni really (possessing of course noi mundane 
but heavenly actiiality) ; for where it is presupposed that God 
can if he chooses send them really, it would be quìte unaccount- 
able to believe that he has nevertheless not dune so. That the 
sending is not done for its own sake mereiy, but has for ils 
purpose to incile Paul or Peter to a particular course of action, 
is indeed true ; but this does not by any means dìvesl the thing 
which God has seni of its reality. Beyschlag makes it seem as 
if this were so merely by a reference to Acts 12 9 : 'he knew not 
that it was true which was Jone by the angel, but thought he 
saw a vision.' It is correcl to say that the same word (òpa^a) 
iseraployed hereas is used in 16 gj*! 10 17 19 11 s, and that Peter 
regards this vision (opafio.) as something unreal. Here however 
the distinction drawn in a preceding paragraph (above, /:} falls 
to be applied : that a Macedonian or a sheet containing beasts 
endowed with a heavenly corporeality could be seni by God 
was regarded by Paul and by Peter respectlvely as thoroughly 

fiossible ; on the other hand, in 12 9 il is presupposed that the 
iberation of Peter when it was ' not true but a vision ' would 
have been regarded by him as impossible. In like manner, if 
'vision' (opao-is) in Tobit 12 19 means something opposed to 
reality, a mere appearance ((^airatrfia), that meaning is secured 
only by the antithesis in the sentence. The angel Raphael, 
who has accompanied Tobias, says here by way of after- 
explanation of what his real nature was : ' I have neither eaien 
nor drunken, but ye saw only an appearance.' The idenlity 
of the word (opana or opairi^) thus by no means proves identity 
of judgment upon the mailer here in queslion, namely the reality 
or unreality of what has been .seen, 

(/) Equally mistaken would it be to maintain that 
visioiis are throughout the whole OT and NT regarded as 
an inferior form of divine revelation. Beyschlag deduces 
this from a single text (Nu. 126-E): to a prophet I 
reveal niyself by visions or dreams, but with Moses I 
speak face to face. Not only is the dream placed upon 
a level with the vision, an eqttality of which there can 
be no thought in connection with the appearances of 
the risen Jesus, but also in antithesis to both is placed 
God's direct speaking, which undoubledly makes known 
the will of God more plainly than a visual image 
can, the interpretation of which rests with the seer. In 
the case of the resurrection of Jesus, however, the 
situation is exactly reversed. If God had annotmced to 
the disciples by spoken words that Jesus was alive, even 
if they fully believed these words to have been received 
immediately from God, the announcement would noi 
have been for them so clear and impressive as when 
they were themselves permitted to look upon the form 
of Jesus as of one who was alive. 

tf) After what has been said in three preceding 
paragraphs {e, d, e) the decisive question comes to be : 
what sort of appearances of a person risen from the dead 
were regarded by the disciples as possible ? 

To this the answer must at once be : Not incorporeal appear- 
ances ; for the idea of the tmmortality of the soul alone was 
utterly strange lo them (§ 171!). Next, we musi say; they 
looked for a general resurrection of the terrestrial body lo a 
terresirial life on ihe last day ; but in exceptional cases they 
regarded it as happening even in the present (Mk. 6 14-16 ; cp 
S r?*). And as they would have felt no difficulty in regarding 
Jesus as an exceptional inslance of this last description, they 
would have regarded an appearance of Jesus in this form (with 
a terrestrial body) as a real one. This case, however, does not 
come into consideration ; for such an appearance of Jesus does 
not come within the rangc of what is hislorically authenticated. 

What is alone authenticated is the appearance of 
Jesus in heavenly corporeality ; but of that it has been 
shown in § 1 7 e thal it corresponded with the conceptions 
of Paul and likewise with those of the originai apostles. 

(fi) The resultant conclusion then must be that when 
the disciples experienced an appearance of Jesus in 
heavenly corporeality they were under compulsion to 
regard it as objectively real, and therefore to believe 
that Jesus was risen because they had actually seen him. 



Consequently, this belief of theirs does not prove that 
what they saw «as objectively rciil : it can equally well 
have been merely an image begotten of their own 
menlal condition. 

Having now, we believe, shown in a general way the 

possibility that the thiiigs related coacerning the risen 

_.. . . Jesus may resi upon subjective visions, 

■ _ . what next remains for us to inquire is 

whether such visions have any prob- 

ability in view of the known situation of the disciples. 

This question adniits of an alììrmative answer, very 

particularly in the case of Paul. 

It will ever remain the lasting raeric of Holsten that he has 
carried out this research on ali sides with the most penetrating 
analysis. The view he arrived at holds ils ground alike in 
presence of conservative theology and in presence of the deniers 
of the genuineness of ail the Pauline epistles, who find the 
chaiige from Pharisee to apostle of Jesus freed from the law tOO 
suddeti. An eiievgetic nature could only pass from the one 
extreme to the other, and could not possibly hold a mediating 

(fz) Paul persecuted the Chrìstians as blaspheraers, 
because they proclainied as the Messiah one who by the 
judgment of God (Dt. 2I23, cp Gal. 313) had been 
plainly marked as a criminal, {è) If, in defending 
their position, they quoted passages of the OT which in 
their view treated of the Messiah, Paul could not gainsay 
this application in a general way ; ali that he denied 
was the applicability of the passages to one who had been 
crucified. {e) From their appeais to the appearances of 
Jesus, Paul certainly had come to know quite well the 
forra in which they would have it that they had seen 
him. (rf) Apart from this blasphemy of theirs Paul 
cannot but have recognised their honesly. seriousness, 
and blamelessness of moral character. What if they 
should be in the tight ? We may be certain that, when 
he entered their ìiouses and haled them before the 
judgment-seat, there were not wanting heart-rending 
scenes, which in the case of a man not wholly hardened 
could not fail to raise ever anew the recurring question 
whether it was reali}' at the behest of God that he had 
to show ali this cruelty. He repressed his scruples ; 
yet the goad had entered his soul. 

(e) In his own innerlife hehadnosatisfaction. What- 
ever may have been the zeal with which he foUowed the 
precepts of the fathers (Gal. 1 14), unlike the great mass 
of morally laxer Pharisees his contemporaries, he per- 
ceived the impossibihty of fulfilling the whole of the law's 
requirements. And, not being able to fulfil them, he 
was accursed (Gal. 3 10), and ali nien were in the same 
condemnation with himself. In Rom. 77-25 he has 
impressively described this condition. (/) And yet 
God in the OT had promised a time of salvation, and 
it was inconceivable that he should not hold to his 
word. But how could he. if the universal fulfilnient of 
the law— which was so clearly irapossible — were held to 
be the indispensable condition ? 

(^) Here of necessity must have come about in the 
raind of Paul a combination of these two lines of 
thought which had hitherto remained apart. What if 
the Christians were right in their assertion that the 
Crucified One really was the Messiah, through whom it 
was God's will to bring salvation to the world without 
insisting on the fulfilment of the entire law ? In that 
case the persecution of the Chrìstians was indeed a 
crime : but Paul, and with him ali mankind, was 
nevertheless delivered from the anguish of soul caused 
by daily transgression of the law ; mercy, no longer 
wrath, was what he might expect from God. (A) And 
indeed, this being so. it could only have been through 
the death of Jesus that God had willed to procure 

1 Holsten, ZWT, i86r, pp. 223-284 ; Zum Rtiang. des Paulus 
«. des Petrus, 1.237 (i368); Ffieiderer, Paulim'sìiii/s, 1873, (2) 
iSqo, Einl. On the other side : Beyschlag, St. Kr., 1864, pp. 
197-264; 1870, pp. 7-50, 189-263- Specially interesling Ì5 Scholz 
iPeuisch-Evattgel. Blàtter, 1881, pp. 816-841), who recognises 
the whole psychological prepacation for the conversion, and 
then brings in the supernatural fact of the risen Jesu^, which 
his previous representation has enabled him to dispense with. 


salvation for men. For Saul, the Pharisee, could never 
get awaj' from the thought that some kind of propitia- 
tion had to be made for the sins of men, before God 
could bring in his grace. Perhaps the Christians had 
even already begun lo quote in support of their view 
Is. 53, which Paul in ali probability has in his mind 
when, in i Cor. 153, he says that he has received by 
tradilion the doctrine that Christ, according to the 
Scriptures, had been delivered as a propitiation for 
our sins. 

(i) Whether, however. ali this, which in one respect 
promised blessedness, but in another threatened him 
with divine punishment as a persecutor of the Christians, 
was really true or not, turned for Paul upon the answer 
to the question, whether in actuality Jesus was risen. 
For, in addition to the doclrine of propitiation, Saul the 
Pharisee was indissolubly wedded to the thought that 
' every one that hangeth on a tree ' is accursed, unless 
God himself has unmistakably pronounced otherwise — 
viz. that this proposition has no application to Jesus, 
who did not die the death of a criminal, but the death 
of a divine offering for sin. Such a divine declaration 
was involved, according lo the Christians, in the resur- 
rection of Jesus. 

\k) Il will not be necessary lo dwefl upon the deeply 
agitating eifect which such doiibts must have produced 
in Paul's inmost soul ; the vividuess with which 
the Hviug figure so oflen described to him by Chris- 
tians must, time and again, have stood before him, 
only to be banished as often by the opposiiion of his 
inlellect ; until finally, only loo easily, there carne a 
time when the image of faiicy refused any longer to 
yield to the effort of thought- Ali that need be poinled 
out further is that on his own testimony, as well as on 
that of Acts. Paul was very prone to visions and other 
ecstatic condilions (2 Cor. 12 1-4 i Cor. 14 18 Acts 9 12 
I69 I89 22i7 2723). That he does not place what he 
had experienced al Damascus on a level with those 
visions of his, but speaks of it as the last appearance of 
the risen Jesus (i Cor. 158), is inlelligible enough if he 
was not aware of any further appearances having been 
made to other persons (see § io A); but it in no way 
shows that in the journey to Damascus what befell was 
not a vision, but an actual meeting with the risen Jesus. 
The possibility, indeed the probability, of a vision here 
has been pointed out ; it is for each reader to choose 
between this and a miracle. 

(/) Let it be clearly understood, however, that we do not here 
employ the word 'was seen' (w^tìij) as evidence that Paul 
himself concedevi the subjective origin of the image which he 
saw. (To the gontrary, see g 34 i, e!) Neither do we make use 
of the expression in Gal. 1 16, where Paul speaks of God as 
having reveaied his son 'in me' ((,v <ju,oO; to prove that Paul 
regarded the occurrence at Damascus as one that had taken 
piace solely within himself. The words ' I have seen ' (fópajta) 
and ' was seen ' (ùi^flij) in i Cor. 9 i 15 8 are decisive against this, 
for by them the apostle means to say that he has really seen 
(although not ìn earthly but in heavenly corporeality) the risen 
Jesus as appearing to him ab extra. Yet so far as Gal- 1 isyl 
is concerned, neither is it probalile that ' to reveal ' {k-nOKoX-ù'^a.C) 
denotes a subsequent inward illumination of Paul, since 'but 
when ' (oTf &i) and ' straightway ' (eiFtìs'us) mark the time 
which followed immediately upon that of ' the Jews' religion ' 
('lovfiatVnó?) (1 ]3_/^). 'In me ' (ti' è/ioO, in spile ofthe refer- 
ence of ' to reveal ' {ò.-aoKoXv'^iiii to the event on the road to 
Damascus, roay mean ' within me,' in so far as the appearance 
produced effects upon the spiritual life of the apostie ; but it can 
easily mean also 'upon me' — i.e., by changing the persecutor 
info a believer (not, however, ' through the success of my mis- 
sìonary labours,' which did tiot occur till later). 

The situation of the earliest disciples very readily 

suggesls the same explanation of the facts. (a} The 

'ìfi Of efl-rliest "1^"*^^ struggle between despair and 

discinles hope — ihe di.saster involved in the 

" ■ death of Jesus, and the hope they stili 

somehow clung to, that the kingdom of God might stili 

be established by Jesus — can hardly have been less 

than had been the struggle in the mind of Paul. 

Perhaps there was in their case the additional circum- 

stance that they were fasting, a condition highly favour- 

able to the seeing of visions. Yet such a conjeclure 



is by no means iiidispensable, and we need not lay 
stress OH the indication as to this given in ihe Gospel of 
Peter and in the Didaskalia (above, §§ 5 [/], jb). AH 
these psychological elements, however, will be more fully 
considered later (§ 37), 

{b) On the other hand, we are unable "to attach 
weight to the view that the disciples were gradually led 
by a stiidy of the OT to a conviction that Jesus was 
alive. and that thus in the end they carne to have 
visions in which they beheld his forni. 

Visions do not arise by processes so graduai or so placid. It 
is certainly correcC to suppone chat certaìa passagea of the OT 
must have had an Influence on the thoughts of the disciples in 
those criticai days ; but not that they were then discovered for 
the first time as a result of study. Rather must they have been 
long familiar, when fiuddenly, under the irapression made by the 
death of Jesus, they acquire a new and decisive significance as 
convincing the bereaved ones that the contiuued Tife of Jesus 
was made assured by the word of God. 

(e) From our list of such passages must he excluded many 
whjch are frequently quoted as belonging to it ; for example, 
Is. 258 Ps, 13313 Ezek. I85-9, Ps. 27 (although it appears to 
be cited in ActslS 33 in this sense), and, in particular, Ps. 16 io, 
although this is cited in Acts 2 27 31 13 35. What is said in the 
Hehrew text is that God wiU not suffer his pious worshipper to 
die(cpw. 9). When ©by a false etymology (finip = 'to destroy,' 
instead of n'B' = 'to sink') renderà Sdkath, which, as the 
parallelism conclusively shows, means 'grave,' by ' destruction ' 
(Sio^flopa), the mistranslation is innocuous as long as this word 
is taken to mean 'death,' as the translators certainly took it ; it 
beconies misleading only on the Christian interpreta tion which 
understands the bodily corrupiion that follows death. Passages 
of the OT from which the disciples could really have drawn 
their conviction as to the resucrection of Jesus are Ex. 3 6 (see 
its empjoyment by Jesus himself in Mk. 12 26_/!) Is. 53q^ 
Hos. 62 2K. 2O5, perhaps also Ps. 118 17 Job 19 25-27, but 
very specially Ps. 86 13 HO i (cp Brandt, 498-504). It must 
always be borne in mind, it is hardly necessary to say, that 
they did not interpret such passages in a criticai manner and 
with reference to the context, but simply as they seemed to 
present to them a consoling thought. 

(li) No weight can be given to the objection that the image of 
the risen Jesus which presented icself to the disciples cannot 
have been subjective because at first they did not recognise 
it. That they failed to do so is stated only in passages 
which must be regarded as unhistorical (Lk. 24 16 Jn. 2O14); 
in Lk. 24 37 41 it is not even said that he was not recognised. 

[e) Another objection, that though perhaps the sub- 
jective explanation might be admissible in the case of a 
single individuai, it whoUy fails in the case of appear- 
ances to severa], not to speak of the case of 500 at 
once, appears at first sight to have great weight. As 
against this it is worth mentioning that one of the most 
recent upholders of an objective resurrection of Jesus, 
Stende (5^. Kr. 1887, pp. 273-275}, quite gives up this 
argument. In point of fact there is ampie evidence to 
prove that visions have been seen by many, in the 
cases of Thomas of Canterbury. Savonarola, the 
Spanish general Pacchi, several crusaders — days and 
even months after their death — and similar occurrences 
also in the cases of 800 French soldiers, the Camisards 
in 1686-1707, the followers of the Roman Catholic 
priest Foschi in Upper Austria in 1812-1818, the 
' Preaching-sickness ' and ' Reading-sickness ' in Sweden 
in 1841-1854, and so forth.^ That in circumstances 
of general excitement and highly strung expectatioti 
visions are contagious, and that others easìly perceive 
that which at first had been seen by only one, is, in 

1 E. A. Abbott, St. Thomas of Canterbury, igpS; Hase, 
Gesch.Jesu, 1876, pp. ^!)^/.,axià. Neue Propheten, 333 = R 299/7; 
Reuler, Alexander der Dritte, 3iio-ii2, 772-774 (1864); 
Scholten, Ev/tng, nack Joh, (Germ.), 329^ (1867); Renan, 
Ap^ires.iàf. 22(ET 51/1 55); Keìai, Gescft Jesu voti Nazara., 
35S9-S92 (1872), ET 6, 348^); Perty, Mystische Erscliei- 
n««,f^«(^ 1 130-133 (1872); E. Stein, Psychiscke Contagiati, 
21 /. (Erlangen, 1877); Hohnbaum, Psychiscke Gesundheit, 
38-41 (1845); Leubuscher, Wahnsinn. it den 4 letzien J akrhun- 
derten, 322-249(1848); Ideler, Tkeorie des religiSsen IVahtc- 
j/««s (1848-1850); Emminghaus, AUgem. Psychopaikologìe, 
SS 33^ yi /' 96, 113, 186 (1878), with the literatute there referred 
to ; AUgem.Ztsckr.filrPsychiatrie, 1849, pp. 253-261; 1854, 
pp. 115-125 ; 1856, pp. S46-604 ; 1860, pp. 565-719 ; Wiedemann, 
Die relìg. Be^aegung in Oberoesttrreick w. Salzburg beim 
Beginu aes 19 Jahrk. (1890); Die Sede der Pdschlianer in 
Oberdsireich in demjahre 1817 (no place on title-page, 1819) ; 
Misson, TkéAire Sacre des Cevennes, London, 1707; Blanc, 
Ittspiration des Camisurds, Paris, 1859. 


view of the accumulated evidence, a fact not to be 

(/) The attempt has been made to argue from this, 
on the contrary, that subjective visions cannot be 
thought of as explaining the recorded facts of the 
resurrection, inasmuch as in that case we should be 
entitled to expect very many more recorded visions 
than are enumerated by Fani. That, however, would 
depend on the amount of predisposi tion to visions. It 
is very easily conceivable that this may very rapidly 
have diminished when, by means of a moderate number 
of reported appearances, the conviction had become 
established that Jesus had risen. On this account it is 
also best to presume that the first fi ve appearances 
followed one another very quickly. Ali the more 
confìdently in that case could Paul speak of that which 
he had himself received as being the last of ali (§ 10 h). 

The consideration which above ali others causes the 

most serious misgivings, is the state of deep depression 

VT «it-iig+ìnn '" "^^''^^ the disciplcs were left by the 

f P te ^^^'^^ °^ ^^^"^' ^^ '' conceivable that 

in such circumstances subjective visions 

should have come to them ? 

{a) This question, however, is essentially simplified 
by what has been pointed out above (§ 36 e), if we 
suppose in addition that it was Peter alone who re- 
ceived the first vision. Could he but once find himself 
able to say that he had seen Jesus, the others no 
longer needed to be able to raise themselves out of 
their state of prostration by their own strength ; what 
had happened to Peter supplied what was wanting in 
this respect. The question thus narrows itself to this : 
Is the possibilìty of a subjective vision excluded in the 
case even of Peter ? 

(b) Undoubtedly an unusually strong faith was 
needed, if in Peter the thought that Jesus, notwith- 
standing his death, was stili alive, was to become so 
powerfui that at last it could take the form of a vision. 
Ali the requisite conditions, however, were present. 
We do not at ali lay weight upon the consideralion, 
that with the return to Galilee the reniiniscences of 
Jesus associated with those localities would again take 
the upper hand over the impression which his death 
had made ; for indeed this impression was indelible. 
But alongside of this impression there would also be 
recollections of the predictions of Jesus. We do not 
refer here primarily to the predictions of his resurrection 
{see § 22 n) ; those referring to his coming again from 
heaven to set up the kingdom of God tipon earth — 
predictions whìch are certainly quite historical (see 
GosPELS, § 145 [/]) — are much more important. 
They also, it is true, might seem to have been decisively 
falsified by the death of Jesus ; for with Peter also it 
was an infallìble word of God, that every one that 
hangs on a tree is ciu^sed (Dt. 2I23; cp Gal. 313)- 
Precisely here, however, there is a difference between 
the cases of the two apostles : Paul could apply this 
thesis to Jesus ìn cold blood, because he had never 
personally known him (2 Cor. 5 16, when rightly inter- 
preted); Peter could not — he owed too much to him. 
To speak more exactly, the reason why Peter, even after 
the crucifixion, did not cease wholly to have faith in the 
prediction of Jesus, lay partly in the deep impression of 
his utter trustworthiness which he had left upon his 
disciple, and partly also in the religious inheritance which 
Peter felt he owed him, in the ineradicable conviction of 
the truth of his cause. From this conviction of the 
truth of Jesus' cause the conviction of his continued 
personal life was inseparable in the thought of that 
age. In this sense Renan's saying (Apdtres, 44, ET 
70) is true : ' ce qui a resuscita Jesus, c'est l'amour.' 

(e) There is yet another point, which for the most 
part is utterly overlooked in this connection. We do 
not mean the lively temperamenl of Peter ; for whelher 
that made him specially susceptible to visions cannot be 
said. We refer to the fact that Peter had denied his 



Lord, Even if the circumstance, mentioned only in 
Lk, (226i), that after his denial his eye met that of his 
master, be hardly historical (cp SiMON PETER, § igd), 
there stili remaìns a delicate suggestion of what must 
most infallibly bave happened ; the forni of hìm whom 
Peter had denied must have come up before him wilh 
ever renewed vividness, however he may have struggled 
to escape it. Though at first he may have said to him- 
self that this was a mere creation of his fancy, it is 
certainly not too bold a conjecture that a moment carne 
when he believed he saw his Lord bodily present before 
him, whether it was that the eye was turned upon him 
with reproach and rebuke, or whether it was that it 
already assured him of that forgiveness, for which 
beyond ali doubt he had been praying with ali the 
energy of his soul. 

{d) If this be sound, we shall fìnd in the denial of 
Peter an occasion for the occurrence of a vision as direct 
as we have found the persecution of the Christians by 
Paul to have been. If we will, we shall be able to 
discern in these acts of hostility against Jesus or his 
followers an arrangement in the providence of God, 
whereby chosen vessels were prepared for the further- 
ance of Christianily. In any case this deed of Peter, 
that he held fast his faith in the imperìshabihty of the 
cause of Jesus and therefore also of the person of Jesus, 
will remain the greatest of his life, greater stili than his 
confession at Cassarea Philippi (Mk. 829 and ||), and 
would make to be true those two words even though in 
the mouth of Jesus they be not historical : ' ihou art 
Peter (i.e. . a rock) and upon this rock will I build my 
church' (Mt. 16 18, cp MiNisTKY, §4/), and ' Dothou, 
when once thou hasl turned again, stablish thy brethren ' 
{Lk. 2232, cp Simon Petkk, § 151*). 

For ali that has been said in the foregoing paragraphs 

the most that can be claimed is that it proves the 

_. - . , possibility^the probability if you will 

ne Sion — j. ^ explanation from subjective 


visions. Prora the very nature of the 

case it would not be possible to prove 
more, for the visionary character of the appearances 
could not be established for us by the visionaries them- 
selves — ^on the contrary, everything constrained them 
to regard what they had seen as objective and real— nor 
yei by the reporters, who simply repeated what the 
visionaries had related to them. Only scientifically 
trained reporters could have assured us on the point, 
and such reporters did not then exist. Let it be 
expressly observed, however. that in the vision-hypo- 
thesis it is only the judgment of the visionaries as to the 
objective reality of what they had seen that is set aside ; 
every other biblical statement of fact, unless we have 
been compelled to set it aside as inconsistent with some 
other biblical statement, remai ns unaffected. The 
hypothesis, furlhermore. atlributes no want of upright- 
ness either to the visionary or to the reporter. The 
error which it points oul affects merely the husk— 
namely that the risen Jesus was seen in objective 
reality, but not the kernel of the matter, that Jesus 
lives in the spiritual sense ; thus it is an error, only in 
the same relative sense as is the dogma that the Bible is 
inspired in ever}' letter (a dogma without the temporary 
ascendancy of which the church of to-day would hardly 
have existed), or in the same sense in which the anthro- 
pomorphic view of God's being and his relation to 
nature which possesses every child is an error — an error 
but for which the number of grown-up persons of 
unshaken religious conviction would indeed be small. 

Reverting now once more to § i and the ideas on 
account of which ìt is held thai the belief in a literal 
resurrection cannot be given up, we remark that the ' 
doctrine of the government of the church by Christ is 
one that can give place without any religious loss to 
that of the leading of the church by the spìrit of Christ, 
or, if il is desired to put it in a more personal form, 
that of the government of the church by God. That 

131 4085 

the cause of Jesus did not die with him on the cross we 
are assured by hislory, even if his resurrection did not 
occur as a literal fact. It is undeniable that the church 
was founded, not directly upon the fact of the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus, but upon the behef in his resurrection ; 
and ihis faith worked with equal power whether the 
resurrection was an acltial fact or not. The view of 
Paul that, apart from the literal truth of the resurrection 
of Jesus, there is no forgiveness of sins, has as its 
necessary presupposi tion the dogma, not of Paul the 
Christian but of Paul the Pharisee, that every crucified 
person without exception is accursed of God ; as soon 
as the possibility of a miscarriage of justìce either in the 
synedriura or at Pilate's judgment seat is conceded, this 
view eo ipso falls to the ground. Finally, the view 
that unless Jesus actually rose again the hope of the 
final resurrection of the dead is vain would be a sound 
one if this hope had consisted in the expectation that ali 
men were to rise three days after their respective deaths. 
In its actual form, as hope of the resurrection at the last 
day, it would come to be denied, in so far as an 
event happening in the case of Jesus is concerned, only 
if Jesus himself were to continue in the state of death at 
the last day. In so far, however, as the idea of the 
immortality of the soul takes the place of the hof>e of a 
final resurrection — as in modem times is very extensively 
the case — it ceases to be a matter of fundamental 
importance whether Jesus rose again on the third day, 
or not ; for immortality consists only in a continued 
existence of the soul, and that from the moment of the 
death of the body onwards, and is just as incapable of 
being confirmed or made known by a resurrection of the 
body as of being called in question by the absence of a 
resurrection. If immortality could thus be confirmed or 
made known, that must have been possible on the first 
and the second day after death, for immortality was then 
present, For that time, however, resurrection is ex- 
cluded by presupposi tion. 

Prins, £>e realiteit van's Heertn opstandìng, 1861, and 

(against Prins) Straatman, De realiteit van' s H eeren opstanding 

. . . en ilare zierded!gers,i8f>2,Pau\,ZlVT, 

39. Literature. 1863, iSa-aog, 279-311; 1E64, 82-95, 396-408 

and (against Paul) Strauss, iòìd. 1863, 386- 
400; Gebhardt, Die Avferslekung Ckrisii uiid ikre fieuesten 
(rcgner, 1864; Sieude, Die Au/erstehitng Jesv, 1E88, and wilh 
more scientific thoroughness in St. Kr., 1ÌÌ87, 203-295 (see above, 
5 36 f) ; Rohrbach, Der Schiusi des Marcusevangelivins, 1894, 
and Die Berichie -Uber die Au/èrstekung Jesu, 1898; Eck, 
' Bedeutung der Auferstehung Jesu ftìr die Urgeineinde u. fur 
uni' in He/te sur CkHstlÌQhen U'elt, No. 32, 1898; Loofs, 
'Die Auferstehungsberichte u. ihr Werth,' l'i^/rf. No. 33, i8g8; 
Bruckner, ' Die Berichte uber die Auferstehung Jesu ' in Prot. 
Monatsheffe, 1899,41-47,96-110, 153-160. Amongst the writings 
on the life of Jesus see Strauss, Keim, Weiss, Beyschlag (voi. i.) 
and, quite specially, Brandt, Evang. Gesch., 1893, 305-446, 

[The bulk of English work upon this subject (of which the 
more useful or significant pornons are indicated in the sub- 
joined paragraphs by an asterisk) falls ìnto one or other of two 
classes ; (a) one dealing primarily with historical and theo- 
loeical appreciations of the fact or truth in question ; (Jfy the 
other sensitive, in the iirst instance, to the features of the record 
and the historical evidence. Owing to the backwardness and 
inefficiency of English criticism upon the synoplic question, 
and the consequent paucity of scientific work upon Mt. and Lk. 
especially (upon Lk. 24 note the strangely parallel story in 
Plutarch : Vii. Rom, 28), the latter class of wrilings is as yet in- 
adequately repre.sented, being conspicuous for open-mindedness 
(in its better reo tese ntatives) rather than for thoroughness, and 
more successful in crilicisìng ihe weak points of opposi ng 
theories than in constructinp a satisfactory and tenable hypO' 
thesis which might do juslice lo the complex of facts under 
review. Cp Froude's Short Studies, 1 229^^ 

(a) The conservative side is represenled by a long series of 
writings, whose weakness consisis mainly in the preponderance 
of the dogmalic over the historical element or in literalism. Of 
these the following are the more salient ' — F. D. Maurice 's 
Theol. Essays f8); Westcott's Ini>-od. io Study of Gospeh 
(|6| 188O, 333-341; The Gosp. of the Resurr., The Hislorie 
Kaiih (chap. 6), and Thi Revelation rf the Risen Lsi-d; 
*Mi]]igan's exhaustive and theological The Resurr. of our 
Lord (l*) 1894), and The Aseension. and Heaiienly Priesthood 
of our Lord, 1893; "M'Cheyne Edgar's vigorous Gasp, of the 
Risen Saviour, 1S92. pp. 21-135; C. A. Row's The Jesus of 
the Evangelisti, 1868, pp. 262 yl (critìque of mythical theories) ; 
J. Kennedy's survey in The Resurr. ofour Lord an historical 
faet, vjith exaniination of naturalistic hypotìieses, iB8i ; 

Lathani's curioiis wolijnw The Risett Master^ igoo ; and Orr's 
Christian Vievj of Gcd and the WorLi, 1893, Lect. S, n. C, 
Similariy, but wìth special hearing upon the narratives as pari 
of the biography of Jesus ; — 'Fairbaìrn's Sludies in the Lije of 
Ch'osé, j83i, chap. Itì ; G, H. Gilbert's Studenti' Ì,i/e 0/ Jesus, 
1S98, pp. 385-405 ; besides llje Ljves of Ctirjst by parrar, Eder^ 
sheira, and S. J. Andrews (ed. 1893, pp. s89y^). The subject is 
competently handled also, though froin a more striclly philo- 
aophicai aiid doctrinal standpoint, by "New/man Bmyth l^OIii 
Faiths in New Lighi, chap, 6); *D. W. Forrast (The Ckrisf 
qf Hist. and Exfierience, 1897, Lect. 4 critique of visioi)- 
hypothesis) ; R. H. Hutton {Tkeol. Essays,!^) iS88, pp. 
13'y^); K. Griflìth. Jones {The Ascent throitgh Christ^i*) 
1900, pp. 337-359); H. G. Weston {Bibiioth, Sacra, 1900» 
pp. 356-36:) 4nd L. S, Potwin {ibid. 1890, pp. 177-190); also 
by *Denney (The Deaik. 0/ Chrisi, 1902, pp. 66 J^ 7^ ■/■ '2^- 

At the opposite pole of radicai ciuicism, the most noteworthy 
Works along [tiis line are 'fi. W. Macan's The Resurrection of 
Jesus Christ, ihe contribulions of Dr. K. A. Abbolt (cp Philo- 
christtts, Onesimus, and Through Nature io Chrisi, 1877^ 
chap. 21), and Martineau's Seat of Authority in. Eeligiott 
(|2|, 1890), -ìéi/., 48tyr, 6'i'^/- besides the writings to be cited 

(Jf) Exaniinations of early Christian evidence, and particularly 
of tiie go5j)eI narratives (with that of the ascensìon, Acts 1 i-ri), 
from a fairly free but reverenc slandpoìnt roay btì found in 
A. B. Bruce's Expos. Gh. Test. voi. i. (P), 1901), ■iytf., 643/^ ; 
G. L- Cary's scholarly Synoptic Gasp. (Internar, fiandbks. lo 
NT, voi. i., 1900), %% 198-202; J. Estlìn Carpenter's First 
Three Gasp. ((3), 1390), 319/, imf- ', A, C. McGiffert's Apost. 
Age, 1897, pp. 36-44, 5sy;, and J. V. Bartlet'e Aposl. Agt, 
1900, pp. i-io; see, further, Blair 's Apost. Gotp. (372'-385) on 
the conclusion of Mk., with the editions by Swete and Allan. 
Menzies, MofFatt's Hist. Neiu Testatnsnt ((^), ijot), [ro. S50-553 
(oli Mk. iS 9-20), 647-649 (on Me. and Lk.), 694-696 (ori Jn. 30-21), 
ajid A. p.éville's article ir) Ne'w World, 1894, pj). 498-527, Th^ 
distinctive aim of auch contribntions is to investigate not sipiply 
the verbal conlents of the narratives in question, bue al^o their 
mental and religious prssiipposìtions ; to gec behind the storias 
into the world of ibeir first he^rers, vrjjh their belief^ ftnd hopes, 
iixtreme forms of this critica.1 hypotbjesis are variously repre- 
senied in such works as *W. Mackintosh's Nat. Hist. of the 
Christian Reltgioti, 1694, pp. 257-328 (mylhical theory), *S uper- 
natural ReligioH, 3, 1877, p. 398^ (in which, as in ihe followr 
ing hook, che probleni is handled drastìcally, but oncriiically 
isolaled), The Four Gasp, as Hiftorìcal Recprds, 1895, pp, 451, 
and O. Cone, The Gosp. and its Farlìfst Interpretaiions, jSgjj. 
pp. -i-i\/., 2oa/., none of which, \wuiav&t, e»" be pronounced 
entirely satisf^elory, either in method or in resijlts. See 
further S. Psvidson's J^T lntra4.(^\ (i89<)!ì 367/ Tha opposiw 
siiie ik plftasantly bue inetftetively advocated by writers tike 
Purves iChristioJtity in Apoftolic Age, 1900, 9-15) and Sanday 
(Hastings' Z^S "J 6:18-643), while it is defended wìth a really 
criticai grasp of the problem anti its bearings by "Sivete 
(Aposiles' Creed, 1S94, p. 64^7), *A. B, Bruce {Apolagelics, 
1892, pp. 383-397), Schaff((V/j(. ofChurch, 1 172-136). *Denney 
(art, ^Ascension' in Hasting^; DB 1 161-163), and 'Prof. S, 
McCoinb (Expiis.i^) 4350-^63, a critique of ET of Harnack's 
iVesfin); see also *Knowlmg : The iVitness ef the Epistles, 
1892, pp. 365-396, 397-414 (ascension); A. ìiov&yiAmer. Joum. 
Tkeol., rgtxj, pp. 536-354, a critique of Scapfer) ; W. F, Adeney 
{Exfos.W 8 137-146, a criiiqije of Weizsàcker) ; N. J. D. White 
('Appearances of Risei) Lord to Individuali,' À'.c/oj.i*! IO66-74), 
and E. R. Bernard (' The Value of the Ascension,' Mxp. T, 
1900-igoi, pp. 152-155, and in Hastings' Z*^ 4 234). Despite 
exaggeiated slalements upon both sides, recent English discusr 
sions display a growing sense that there is a serious problem 
to be faced in the condition of the historical records, and that 
exegesis has a vivid if subsidiary pare Co play in its «ilution. 
This is a sign of health, if only that the demands of the public 
are becoming more exigene ; bui no advance can ba looked for 
until English students are fiirnished with a scienlilìc equipnient 
in the shape of ehoroughly criticai editions of the gospels, as 
well as with monographs corabining historical judgment and 
sound seholarship with some philosophic and religious appreci- 
alion of the subject. — j. Mo.) p. w. S. 

BETT ("lyi ; p&f&y), b. Peleg, a name occurring in 
the genealogica! table connecting Shem and Abraham 
{Gen.]li8-2i [P], I Ch.135; cp Lk.335. AV Ragau). 
An Aramasan tribe bearing the name Ru'ua appear in 
S. Babylonia in the time of Tiglath-pileser HI. {Schr, 
KGFiosff.; KATf^) 117; Del. Par. 238 jK); but 
théir identificatJon with Reu ia denied by Schr. (he. cit. ), 
The name, in common with the others in the same list, 
is probabjy Mesopotamisn, and we rnay poBsibly find 
a trace of it in Q^JJ^.,^, one of the kings of Edessa, 
which Ì3 doubtless for ' man of Re'u,' a formation 
paralisi to the Heb. Sn'"\^\ (cp Duval, ' Hist. d'Édesse,' 
Journ. Asial.., 1891, 18126). Re'u may have been an 
old Mesopotamian god { Mez, Gesch. der Stadi HarrAn , 
23). Cp Rkuben, gg 9 m., IO. ' F. a 




Mention(S i). 
A )ost trite (§ a). 
First-born (§ 3). 
Bilhah, Bohan (§ 4). 
'Aitar' story (S s)- 

Other «ories (g 6), 
Name (§g 7-9). 
Meaning of stones (S io). 
Genealogies (§g 11-13), 
Listsof cities(§ 14). 

Reuben ^ is repeatedly mentioned in the Hexateuch 
as a branch of Israel. It is often associated with Gad, 
__ ,. and is known to each of the documents 
1. mencio», underlying the Hexateuch. The reader 
naturally infers that the writers of those documents had 
knowledge of such a community. He may indeed think 
it prudent to test the legitimacy of that inference, when 
he misses references elsewhere in the Hebrew vvritings, 
Stili, the argumentum. e silentio ti\\ìs,\ be used with greal 
care.'^ The facts seeni to be these. Outside of the fixed 
tribal lists (in Chron. , Ezek. , and, in the NT, in Rev, ) 
and the Chronicler's genealogies,^ Reuben is known, 
apart froni an at best anachronistic gloss in z K. ] 33 
(descriptive of the district harassed hy Hazael), throngh 
the mention in the enumeration in Judg. 5 (v. i5_/. ). 
Thgt chapter contains very old material and few will 
question its authority even when it stands alone. Only, 
however, if we are sure that the passage says wh^t the 
poet meant it to say. That, however, does not 
appear to have been questioned, so far as the mention 
of Reuben is concerned.* Discussion has been gon- 
fined to tiie question, where the mention appearing 
after 153 and agajn, in a sljghtly variant forni, 
after i6a really belongs. Stili, is not the simplpst es- 
planation of the doiibie occurreiice, that the clause js 
really a gloss ? Other difficullies would thus be removed. 
It always seemed strangg that so remote a community 
as the traditional Reuben should be mentioned by nanie. ' 
To speak of Gilead in general, on the other hand, 
without naming trSbes, woultj be naturai Later, 
Gilead* would be taken to mean Gad, whflet Mjichir 
was perhaps referred tg 'half-Manasseh,' an(I so a 
reference of some kind or other wonld be made cn the 
margin to Reuben. If It be thougbt that probability is 
in favour of the reference In Jildg. 5 belng contemporary 
evidence,' the probjem before us is lo determine where 
Reuben llved and Io expiain the fact that in historical 
tinies Reulien had no signiftcance. If the other view is 
takeii, the problem ie to accoupt for the references in 
the Hexateuch. 

A survey of the references (in the Hexateuch) to 
Reuben suggests that the solid element in them ali is 
the belief that there once was an iniportaut 

2- AlQ»t 

community called Reuben and that for some 
reason Jt had lost its place ; it was a sort of 
'Ad or Thamùd. It is usually supposed that tradition 
preserved the memory of a more or less definite geo- 
graphical district occupied by Reubenites. It may have 
done so. The evidences of such a tradition, however, 
are far frofn copious. Most of what we are told about 
a territory of Reuben is in D (Dt. Su 16 443 Josh. 18 
S-12) and P (much of Nu. 32 Josh. I315-23 208 21 36/) 
and cannot safely be used for the present purpose (see 
g 14). TTiere seems lo be only one passage [Nu. 32 

I On the name see below ; on the form, ! 8 ; on OT explana- 
tions, 5 7 ; on real meaning, % 3. 

3 Special caution is needed in regard to questions bearìng tm 
the InbeÉ. 

3 On the statements iti i Ch. 5 see % 13. On i Ch. H 4? see 
S lì (end). 

^ Winclder has suggosted that 'Asher' Is not a tribe name 
but a pronoun ("(!'•'), and that 'Dan' was not mentioned 
otiginally (G/ 2 134, no. 26 ./O. 

o Ofcourse Reuben may havg been settled In West Palestine 
at ihe time referred [o(seenext note); butthepastoralcharacter 
assigned to the tribe in the clause probably shows that its author 
thought of the East (cp Gati, §11, first sniall type par.). 

B Steuernagel suggests {Eìnivanderttng, zo) that the mention 
of Gilead, not Reiiben, in 71. ija may be because Reuben wae 
stili seated in W. Palestine (see below, g io). 

' It would not decide the question where Reuben lived (see 
precedi ng two notes). 


37/.) which can perhfips be attributed to J (see, how- 
ever, Oxf. Hex.). Ali it has to say is that certain six 
(Moabiie) lowns were, in the Mosaic age (?) ' buili ' by 
the sons of Reuben (sce below, § 14). The abseiice of 
any reference to a people called Reuben in the Mesha 
inscription alihough it mentions three of the six towns 
and refers to ' the men of Gad ' as having ' dwelt in the 
land of 'Atiiroth from of old (o'jjjd) ' scems to require us 
to suppose that the statement of j, if not unhistorical, 
rests Oli a memory of days long gone. That there was 
a firni belief in an ancient Reuben is, incìeed, clear. 
The point is that it need not imply a knowledge of 
where it had been settled. In Gen. 352i/ J seems to 
connect Reuben with West Palestine (see g 4), and even 
in P there seems to be a trace of a behef of the same 
kind (Josh. 156 ISi/". § 4), which may be represented 
in the strange story of the ' aitar ' (§ 5), and in the idea 
that Reuben crossed into West Palestine to help the 
other tribes to effect a settlement (cp Gad, col. 1585). 

Whatever was thought of the place where Reuben 
had lived, a great deal of interest was felt in his fate 

_. , , (cp § io). Reuben is everywhere the 

3. iiraVDOm. ^^^t-born (see end of §). In E indeed 
there was perhaps an interval of considerable length 
between him and Lcah's other sons : Naphtali seems 
to be for E Jacob's third son (cp Naphtali, § 2). 
Whether this was so iti the originai J we cannot say : 
it would account for Reuben's being the finder of the 
dudà'fm {ib,\,^ which E does not mention. hi J as we 
have it, however, Reuben has three own brothers when 
he finds the dudalm which lead to the birth of Joseph^ 
{cp Zeel'LUn), The only tale E has to teli about 
Reuben is of how he trìed to deliver Joseph^ (Gen. 
37^2 29), and reminded his brothers of the fact (4222 ; 
see below, § io. end), and how he offered his own two 
sons (cp § II) as a pledge of the safe return of Benjamin. 
The niost significant point in ali this is that Reuben was 
the first-born. On that point there seems to be com- 
plete agreement. The problem is dìscussed in i Ch. 
5i/ The vìew of the writer of that passage is that 
Reuben forfeìted his right (as first-born) to the special 
blessing, which fell to Joseph, who^thus became two 
Iribes, although his rivai Judah * ultimately outdid him.^ 

The rest of the points may belong to the deckìng out 
of the story (see, however, below, § io, end). 

Not so in the case of what J has to teli us in Gen. 
3522. No doubt the story was once told with more 
delail ^ ( T^j^. Reub. 3, axxA. Jubilees, 
% 33, show how it could be done).^ 
This story seems to be J's explanation of how Reuben 
iost his rank, What Jacob did when he heard" of 

4. BUhah, Bohan. 

1 According to Stucken (' Ruben ira Jakobssegen ' in MVG 
for 190Z, 446-72, which appeared afier this article was in type) 
the finding of the diidStin was ascribed to Reuben as a patri- 
archal eponym on a levet with Jacob. Later syncretìsm made 
him Jacob's son. 

2 Steiiernagel suggests (Eìn-waaderung, 17) ihat in the 
oripinal story what Reuben did was not to make over the dudà'ttn 
to Leah but to use them to win the favour of Rachel, or ratber 
Bilhah, whence Hohan (cp Nai'HTali, % i/^). This is very 
ingenious, but does not explain the obvious relation of the 
diidtl'iiii to Issachar and Joseph. According to Stucken (see 
preceding note) Reuben's incest was with Leah herself, who 
may at one titne have been cailed Bilhah. 

■t It ìs probable that in Gen. 37 21 (j) 'Reuben' is redactional 
for Judah. See next note, 

* In the Joseph story the leader is Judah in J, Reuben in E 
(cp preceding foo(note); cp Steuemagel, Einivandervng, 34. 

^ According to Guthe, G VI 42, Reuben's hegemony belonged 
to the lime preceding tbe settlement of the Rachel tribes (cp 
R.-vcHEL, § I /'). Those tribes which acknowledged his leader- 
ship were called Leah; the later (Rachel) tribes acknowledged 
the hegemony of Joseph. 

8 .\gainst the suggestion of Dillmann and Stade {GV!\ T51) 
that the story ìmplies more primitive morali in the half-nomad 
Reubenite.s, see Holzinger, ad loc. 

T Later writers refused to believe the story (cp the case of 
Stmeon \% g /, end ; see also § 4I). In Targum (Ps.-Jon. ad loc), 
Midrash {Gin. rabha 98 /). Talmud {Shabh. 55 *), and Bk. of 
Jashar, Reuben only disturbed a couch (cp Charles, Jabilees, 
% 33. n. 2 and g 33 1 h\ 

• Through angela, according to Test. Renò. 

B. Josh. 22 
' aitar." 


Reuben's deed has been suppressed by R.'- It can be 
inferred, however, from the ' Blessing of Jacob' : ^ 

Reuben I thou wast my first-born 

My might and the first-fruits of my manhood ; 
Exceedin^ in impetuosity,^ exceeding in passion 1 

Foaming like water ... * 
For thou didst ascend thy father's couch. 

Then did I curse the bed^ he ascended.^ 

Even without Gunkel's emendation of the last hne ìt is 
plain that the sequel to Gen. 35 22 was a father's curse,' 
which brought doom on the tribe (cp Blessings AND 
CL/'ESINGS). The effect becomes stili more clear in the 
' Blessing of Moses ' : 

Let Reuben live (on), leC him not die (out) ! 
Stili, let him 8 become a (mere) handful of men ! ^ 

The Story of Bohan the son of Reuben may have 
been connected with the sanie legend (cp Naphtali, 
col. 3330 foot). We ought pierhaps, however, to trans- 
late the word ' bohan. ' The landmark would then be 
the thumb-stone^" of the son (or sons [0^^ in Josh. 18 17]) 
of Reuben. The suggestion made elsewhere (col. 535 
n. 4), however, is perhaps better : the suggestion, namely, 
that there is a slight corruption of the text, and that we 
ought to read ; stone of the sons of Reuben ("33 \i» 
plNT : reading i]3 forj^jrta. as jna might be a trans- 
posed m3 = ':3). 

The reading of ©"^^ in Josh. 18 17 would support this 
view. In its favour is the ease with which it could be 
brought into connection with a story 
which is otherwise perplexing. The stone 
(or was it really a group of stones?) in 
question was near ' Gelilóth ' (Josh. 18 17 i see Gilgal, 
§ 6 b). Now it was at the 'Gelilóth' of the Jordan 
that. we are told, there was erecied a sacred object to 
which was given a name that has been losl (see Ed, 
Galeed, 2). The present text of Josh. 22 leaves it 
uncertaira on which side of Jordan the sacred erection 
stood, and it ascribes the building to Reuben and Gad 
(and half Manasseh 1). Perhaps Gad is an addition i' 
connected with the view that the stone was easl of the 
Jordan. No doubt the object was not an ' aitar,' but a 
massébah ora circle of stones (see Gilgal, gì), and 
the story ^^ may be connected in some way with ao 
attcmpt to account for the Joss of Reuben's status.'^ 

The suggestion just made gains, perhaps, in plausi- 
bility from the fact that in E, and probably J, there is 
another story that may have served the sarae purpose 
(next §). 

In the older parts of Nu. 16 the leaders of Reuben 

(see below, § io) dare to challenge the authority of 

_., Moses and thus bring divine judgment on 

'. . themselves. It is even possible that there 

' was stili another story of the same kind (see 

below, § IO [1]). These stories, as they attribute to 

3 According to Stucken (above, col. 4089, n. i) various 
analogies suggest that Israel castrated Reuben for bis crime 
e eye for ève, etc.'), 53. 

2 On this passage see n. 5. 

3 Read perhaps tWp with Gunkel. 

* MT -inin 'jN, obscure ; see Stucken, MVG, 1902, p. 171. 

S Read perhaps "J?1!i; 'n7j5 with GunkeL For some interest- 
ing suggestions as to the originai purport of the passàge see 
Stucken (as in col. 4089, n. i), 46-52. 

B According to J-uhilees, g 33 7 9, and Tesi. Reub., Bilhah 
became taboo to Jacob henceforth. 

'' Gunkel compare? Iliad, 8447^ {Amyntor's curse [455^?! 
on his son Pholnix for a deed similar to Reuben's). 

8 On the reference of this to Simeon in ©al see Simeon, § 3. 

8 Cp Ball, PSBA IS 122 (1895) : itjcn -r\D- 

1" In Assyrian there is no conscious metaphor in the use of 
aidnu in this way. 

1' Cp OS'ÌV'b\_f. VcXtiXmB. tÓjtos TTupà tòv 'lopSàvi^v, évBa. 
0VTt<fitn-qpiov ÉCTiT^iTai' ot vio\ 'Pou^iV, 

13 On the geographical import of this and the preceding story 
see g 10. 

13 Does the story in Josh. 22 contain a reference to the name 
Reuben : see t/. 2S nirt- 0310 n-^^B-nt» Wl (rèù . . , [ta]bn[ith]) 

and V. TO .ikidS . . . ^Mì r3!D 133'1 ([way>-i]bnù . , . 



Reuben an importance which there is nolhing in history 
to suggest, may be due to a tradition óf conflict betweeri 
some representative Israelitish clan and a Reubenite 
community. On the other hand, they may be simply 
popular or other stories desìgned to explain the sup- 
posed collapse of a Reuben people. 

The real cause of Reiibeii's disappearance may have 
been the inroad of Moab, which weis perhaps not so 
early as to prevent a vague memoiy of what had pre- 
ceded from surviving (see Gad, § ii, col. 1585, mid. and 
cp Moab, § 14, col. 3174. foot). On the other hand, 
there is the possibility that Reuben's abode was not 
really in the cast. We have found several hints of a 
belief that Reuben had been west of the Jordan (see 
further, below, § io), to which we shall return (§ 10) in 
the light of the considerations suggested by a study of 
Reuben's name. 

The meaning of the name Reuben is not apparent. 
There seem to be traces of more than one explanation. 
7 OTBxnlann. '■ J (Gen.2932<i) takes it to mean 
': "* exptana .Yahwè looks at my affliction' and 
linds m it a reference to what Leah 
had had to bear as the hated wife (nKiiE- ; i'- 33 : see 
Gunkel ad loc. ). ii. E (Gen. 29 32*), on the other hand, 
sees a reference to some point in the conduct of Jacob : 
' my husband will . . . me. ' 

MT reads 'will love me'; bue it is difficult to believe that 
this is sound. The versions, indeed, agree (òyaTr^crei, atnabit ; 
nerham [Pesh.]) with MT ; but so slight a change wouid make 
the word chime with Reuben C']3nK' '■ niKl) that it is naturai to 
suppose that it must have done so.l Gunkel suggests as the 
originai a word cognate with the Aramaic -yn», ' to praise.' 
The Reubenites are in ihe traditions so hard to distinguish froiu 
the Gadites that E may well have connected with the name 
Reuben a wish like that expressed in Dt. 33 20 (n] 3'mD) with 
regard lo Gad : ' he will make me spread forth ' ; or, since the 
subject is ' husband ' not ' Yahwè,' might we give the word its 
Arabie meaning and render ' welcome me '?2 

iii. Josephus e.xplains Roubel, Povpi}\o? [Ani. ì. I97), 
bis form of the name [see § 8), by saying that Leah felt 
she had experienced the mercy of God {Sion Kar ?Xeoc 
aÙT^ Tov 6€ov yévoiTo).^ 

It is not certain what the last consonant of the name 

8. Form ^^' 

of name Thetrad;tionalformsare[31{fl;pou3)ic[BADEFL], 
■-g«y [Gen. 4222 37 E], -^i^i [L in 2 K. IO33 Ch. ; E 
in Gen. 30 14], pov^ti' i Ch. 5 i 3 [L], Joseph. -^ijAos, 473, g 166 
var. pou^ifi ; Syr. rubìl; Vg, Ruben ; gentilic Beubenlte 
'Jnìnn, in ® not usually distinguished from the ' personal ' form, 
b'utjt Ch, 11 42 poufSijw [L], 2632 pou?riYÌf)i [BA], Josh.22i pov- 
^pìrat [A] ; Josephus, ot pouPijvcTai, ij pov^ijAis ^uA^. 

The explanations adduced already (§ 7) imply that 
the final consonant was early pronounced as n ; but 
Hos. 4is 53 lOg make it probable that in the case of 
Bethel the n which has established itself in the modem 
locai pronunciation [Beitin) look the place of /early.* 

The real origin of the name is unknown. i. On the 
view that the final letter was n. Baethgen {Beitr. 59, 
ì) connects with the Arabie Ru'ba^= 

9. Ueanìiig. 

Rubat-is [CIL 8 2415), comparing the end- 

ing èn in Yarden (EV 'Jordan'), and so, before hìm. 
Land (De Gids, Oct. 1871, p. ■zi) who is reminded of 
Arab. rd ab. The inscription, Glaser 302, frorn 
Hadakan, speaks of a trìbe J3{{t'*']3 {CIS 4 no. 37, 
/. 5), sonsofR'bn',^vowels unknown. The coraparison 

1 Oli the other hand, we must remember that the old etymo- 
logists were easily content (cp Gunkel). 

' The most obvious derivation ' Behold ! a son' ìs passed over : 
nanies with imperatives (Olshaus. Lehrb. 613), common in 
Assyrian, were probably not in use among the Hebrews (cp 
Gray, HFN 65/). Gesen. thought of "IN") in the sense of 

rovided.' The Glossi^ Coìbcrtinis gives FoujSjjt, opùiv uiós 

.ag. OS&y). 

3 Did he think of Sn3 'IK-l (3 of agent : cp Targ. Jon. 

'jiaS'y "'O7P. '^3X or pOEsibly '^K DiriT? 

* Cp Barlh, EÌym. Stud., § 19. 

•* Cp D3Sn, ZDMG 26425 TSBA 6199. 

8 A name occurring several times in the Turin papyrus as 
borne by kings of the ihirteenth Egyplian dyiiasty, a resemblance 




of the én in Yardèn is not necessary. Reuben might be 
a name on the analogy of Simeon (§ 8 i. ), Gideon, etc. 
Reuben would then be a case of the kind referred to 
by Barth, NB, p. xxix, n. i, in which the termination 
instead of preserving its old vowel d (as in Sulhàn ; not 
sulhòn, to avoid concurrence of ' rounded ' vowels) 
changed it to è'^ (cp »^ instead of li^)^, for earlier 

ii. Some also of the explanations assuming the last 
consonant to be 1 take the name to be simple. Ball 
derives it from the root r'b ^ which in Arabie means to 
repair,^ comparing the noun ra'ub which is apphed 
metaphorically {ZamahSarl, Asds acc. to Lane, but not 
in Cairo ed, ) to describe one as a rectifier of affairs.* 

Lagarde suggested (05'^' 367 y.) that Reuben, or 
rather Re'óbén, is to be identified with Ra'àbil shortened 
from Rdàbil. plural of Ri'bàl, a lÌon (or wolf).^ Ac- 
cording to the Tdj el'Arùs the raydbil of the Arabs 
were those ' who used to go on hostiie expeditions upon 
their feet [and alone].' 

According to Ibn Sìda the Andalusìan (Mohkam^) 
' some say that ri'bal means also one who is ihe only 
ofFspring of his mother "^ [i. e. opp. of twin : el-Bustani]. ' ^ 
Another suggested origin is ' Jerahmeer(JuDAH, § 3) ; 
cp Reu [see Crii. Bib.~\. 

iii. Others hold the name to be compound, [a) The 
first element is taken by older writers to be ré'ù in the 
sense of 'face' (Kohler, Der Segen- Jacobs, 27 [1867]; 
Kue. Th. 7'629i [1871]), or ri^u in the sense of ' flock ' 
(Redslob, Die ATlichen Namen, etc, 86 [1846]) ; by 
later writers to be rè'u^ in the sense of ' friend ' (Kerber, 
Die Bel.-gesch. Bedeutung der Heb.-Eigennamen des 
AT, 70) or rather as a divine name"* (see below, 
^ io), {b) The second half was identified by Nestle 
{Israel. Eigennamen, 1876) with Bin ( — Bir, Bur), by 
others (Redslob, 1846; Kohler, 1867; Kue., 1871; 
Houtsraa, 1876; Wì., C7/ 1 120 n. 2) with Bel. 

The theory that Reubel contains the names Reu and 
Bel seems to merit consideratìon. A parallel forma- 
lo Mflftnin^*'*^'^^^ '^ ^^ name Reu-el,^^ When one 
1 . . ° remembers the pecuhar mystification that 
has occurred in connection with the names 
HobaI II Jethro |] Reuel one ìs led to ask, May not there 
be some connection between Reu-el and Re\i-bel ?^^ 
There is, in fact, notwith standing the difference in the 
tone of the narratives, a strange parallelisra between the 
criticai attitude adopted towards Moses by Reu-bel in 
the earlier story in Nu. 16 and that adopted by Moses' 

to which has been notìced {fi.g., by C. Niebuhr, Ebr. Zeitgesck. 
250 [1394], and, without approvai, by Ball, SBO'r\i'èi^\i, cannot 
plausibly be connected with Reuben : it is of course a personal 
name, and is doublless to be read Wbn-rè' ('rising of Rè"), not 

t After this article was finished the wriler noticed that Barth 
himself makes this very suggestion (JfB 320, end of long note) 
with the same examples. 

2 Cp the personal name 7K3(»"i in the inscription from Sud, 
Hai. 353, /. I. 

3 1 he advent of Reuben was to reconcile Jacob to Leah. 

* It is to ra'b, not, as Ball seems to imply, to ra'ub, that the 
metaphorical meaning of 'big, bulky, portly, or corpulent chief 
is assigned in the f^dmiìs and the Tàj el-'Arns. 

B He compares Aroer, plural of 'Ar'àr (cp above, col. 317, n. i). 

6 Quoted by Lane, adiioc. 

' jHfflB talia-uha umt?mka ivahdahu. 

8 Reuben was the first-born of Leah. Rebecca had twins. 

S On the softening of gutturals when r or / occurs in the same 
word see Wi. AOF\ 2S7, C/1 210 n. 4, 120, n. 2. 

10 Cp Duval, Rev. As. 8th Ser. 18 126 [1891] ; A. Mei, Gesch. 
d. Siadt Ha.rrànvt'i,\i%ijìS- Cp the male proper name Ra-'-u 
in one of the tablets containing deeds of sale, barter, and lease 
with Phtenician dockets in 3 R. 46 14 d (no. 8, /. ii). Ro-'-a is 
the name of an Aramaic tribe mentioned in the day tablet 
inscription of Tiglalh-pileser III. 2 R. 677, Ru-'-u-a a tribe 
mentioned twice in Sennacherib's day prism 1 R. 3744 41 36. 

11 Reu-bel and Reu-el were dted as similar tribe-names by 
Houtsraa, 'Israel en Qain,' TA.TlO'jz/. (1876), Cp Skipwith, 
/QRUiHj, 25111899]. 

12 Cp jehi-el m i Ch. 2732 = 2 S. 23 8 Ish [read yéS?: Mar- 
quart,/^/? 14344 n. i] -baal. 

'3 The root -in» (Jethro) occurs thrice in the ' blessing ' of 
Reuben in Gen, 49 3_/C 



kSthin (inn ; see Jethro, second paragraph) in Ex, 18 : 
■ What Ì5 this thing that thou doest to the people ? Why 
sittest thou thyself alone, and ali ihe people stand about 
thee from morning unto evening ? . . . The thing that 
thou doest is not good ' {Ex, 18 14 17). 

Whatever be thought of the particular parallelism 
just referred to and its hearing on the question of the 
name Reiiben, it is surely suggestive in regard to the 
general Reuben-problem that we should have a com- 
munity of no historical importance. but held to be the 
first-born of Israel, into connection with which it is 
possible Io bring a whole series oi stories^ differing 
aitogether in details, but coinciding in the fcndamental 
point of setting Reuben in some form in opposition to 
the recognised representati ves of Israel : — 

1. the criticism of Reuel (Ex. 18) 

2. the discontent of ihe sons of Reubel (Nu. 16) 

3. the stone[s] erected by Reubel (Josh. 22) : cp stone of 


4. the ambÌtion2of Reubel (Geli. 35 22) 

5. the sacrilegious greed of Achar (Achan), if he was really a 

Reubenite (see below, g 12) 

6. the disagreeraent belween Reuben and the otber sons of 

Israel (at Uothan?),3 Gen.4222 [E] ['ye would not 
listen ').* 

We may even find a seventh story when we proceed 
to consider the Reubenite genealogy § (n), 

These stories seem to imply a widespread conviction 
of the occurrence at some lime of a grave event or series 
of events.* Such convictions are often due to actual 
reminJscence of fact. It is possible even to go further 
and reconstruct a history thus : — 

The Nu. 16 story (on the details see Dathan) implies, for 
example, that Reuben disagreed with its associales at Kadesh 
and led its party norlhwards into Palestine. The attribution of 
Hezron and Carmi clans bolh to Reuben and lo Judah (see % 12) 
means that Reuben setded W. of Jericho in contact wìth Judah. 
The Bilhah story (§ 5) means that the Jacob-Rachel tribe spread 
southwards and had friendly relations wìth Reuben, but as 
Benjamin branched off, absorbing such eleroents as Bilhah had 
lef^ (see Naputali, S 1) when it migrated northwards, the 
relations of Reuben towards Bilhah became less friendly, which 
bfought on Reuben a curse. The ' aitar ' story (Josh. 22) means 
that the Josephìtes of Shechem took iimbrage at the southern 
Josephites (half Manasseh) for having a common sanctuary with 
the Reuheiiite.s, and this anger was afterwards supposed to have 
been against Reuben, The Dathan and Abiram story means that 
the Reubeniles on their part rebelled against certain pretensions 
of the south-Josephite priests. Finally, Reuben crossed Jordan 
and penetrated as a wedge into Gadite territory.8 i Ch, 2 21-33 
means that the Reubenite clan Hezron subsequently united with 
Gileadite clans to produce Segub the father of Jair (cp 
Manasseh, 1 g 9, last small lype). 

The arguments for this reconstniction are set forth 
with skill by Steuernagel [Etmvanderung). The result 
is a priori plausible. Is there adequate warrant, how- 
ever, for so high an estimate of the historical character 
of the legends (cp B. Luther, ZATW 19ijf: [1901] ; 
Wi. OLZI-ixiff.. KAT^'^ 213, etc.)? The questions 
involved are far-reaching and intricate, and are better 
treated comprehensively than in relation to one particular 
tribe (see Tkibes, and cp Naphtali, § i, begin.}. 
Here we may be content with the general conclusion that 
a Reuben of some importance was believed to have 

t The fate of 'Sd and Thamud seeras to have appealed to the 
iraagination of Mohammed, They are referred to in the Koran, 
together or apart, some twenty-one times. Cp the NT references 
to Sodom. 

2 Cp the cases of Abner, Absalom, and Adonijah. 

3 Steuernagel supposes that some actual conflict between 
Joseph and the Leah tribes occurred in the neighbourhood of 
Dothan (£f«woWe?Tin^, 97), Ifso, possìbly Reuben sided with 

* It seems to be only a further illustration of the extra- 
ordinary confusion in the stories about Reuben that in the 
earlier reference, which appears also to be in E, the brothers did 

listen <Gen.3T22y:>- 

6 Slucken (above, col. 4089, n, r) finds a mythological refer- 
ence in the Reuben saying in Gen. 493, Reuben ( Il Adam 
Il Behemoth) was a being who once had worid power but lost it. 
He compares the description of Behemolh in Job 40 16 (p. 51), 
and connects him with the sign Aquarius (p. 6g). Otherwise 
Wi. cri 59. 

** On the question when this mìght have occurred see the 
suggestion of Steuernagel {Etmoartdervng; 20) that it may be 
connected with i Ch. 5 io (the Hagrites, temp. Saul). 



flourished sonre time, and the judgment that the belief 
was probably justified.' 

It must be remembered that if Reuben really lived 
easi of the Jordan there may have been many traditions 
which failed to find a place in the lilerature of Western 
Palestine (cp Gad, § 11). On the other hand, it wiU 
not be 5urpri;;ing if additional reasons should be found 
for connectinj Reuben with the southern tribes (cp 
SlMEON, § 8 i.i, ). 

Reuben was; believed to have had two sons. In the 

Joseph story ndeed he had only \.wo ('my two sons' 

n OflTiBalniriPB Gen. 4237 [E]) ; and even there it is 

thought of. [n Nu. 16 two sons of Reuben are buried 
alive (I631 350. J ; 3211 331*. E). They are called 
Dathan 2 and Abiram ^(cp Ps. 106 17 Dt. 11 6). Dathan 
is a strange name* (reminding one of Dolhan, the scene 
of Reuben's atgument : see above, § io, 6) ; but Abiram 
we know as a first-born son who was said to have been 
buried (alive?) in ihe foundation of a city. He is said 
to have been a son of HlEL [q-v."] >Snìì '3, whereas in 
Nu. 16 Abiram is a son of Eliab 3"Sk ; but these {-h»T] '1 
and 3K'^K 'a) are not impossible variants. Abiram's 
brother is called Segub in MT of i K. I634 ; but in i Ch. 
221/. the clan called Segub ben Hezron in MT is in 
©'^ cailed Serug, which is in Gen. II 20 a son of Reu (see 
below, § 12, end). The mention of Hezron brings iis 
to the stock genealogy of Reuben : Gen. 469 — Nu. 266 
_ p —Ex, 614=1 Ch. 53. In it there is, at least 
at first sight, no trace of the famous two sons. 
In their stead we find four names ; Hanoch, Pallu, 
Hezron, and Carmi. The first appears as a Midianite 
clan in Gen. 25 4 (cp Gad, §11, last small type para- 
graph), the second (0aXXous generally ; Jos. 0aX[o]ou!) 
appears in Nu. I61 as Peleth {<t>aXe9 [BAF]), which 
suggests the Negeb (see Peleth) ; but ®^ gives ipakeK — 
i.e,, Peleg.* The third and fourth (Hezron and Carmi) 
appear also. as has been mentioned (§ io), in a gene- 
alogy of Judah. In the case of Hezron that seems 
certain ; although whelher the inferences that have been 
drawn from it are warranted is at least doubtful (cp 
Manasseh, § 9, last small type, and above. § io, end). 
The case of Carmi is less secure. In i Ch, 4 i Carmi 
may be a mistake for Caleb (We. Benz. ad loc), and 
2 6/., or at least 27, is surely an interpolalion. 2? might 
just as well stand after 53. On the other hand, in josh. 7, 
although V. I may not be originai, it is dilficult to 
account for Carmi in v. i3 unless there was known to be 
a Carmi in Judah, or the story was originally told of 
Reuben, not Judah, as Steuernagel suggests {Einwan- 
derung. p. 19 [e]). 

As we have seen, Dt. 11 5 mentions a ' son ' of Reuben 
of the name of Eliab, who in Nu, 26S* is introduced 
into the genealogy as a son of Pallu. 

1 On the possibility of a connection between the Leah tribes 
and the Habiri see Naphtali, § 3 (see. par.), Simeon, g 6 ii. 


2 Josephus (^»i'. iv.73, S 166) reads fiaflofirou]. 

3 Josephns (Ani.'ìw. 73, g 366) adds Pallu [^oÀoout]. 

^ Da-at-nu is a synonym of karradu, ' strong ' (Del, Ass. 
HWB 596 a, no. 36), and dt-ta-att is ' ein[3larkes] Thier.' 
Shalmaneser"s Black obelisk (/. 161) mentions receiving tribute 
from a ceitain Da.ta-na, of HubuSkia (towards Urmia). 

The passage in Judg, 5 referred to above (g 1) accentuates a 
strange parallelism between the Reubenìtes of the genealogies 
and the Semites of Gen, 11 10 : — 

Gen. II 
Kber (i31-) 
Peleg (j^b) 
Reu (ijn) 
Serug (sTip) 




Serug b. Hezron 

(above, g 11) 
Abiram (above, % ii) 

Judg, 5 

Tivhtii^- 15^. i65) 


nlpIP (i'- '6a) 

S NEMUEt, {g.v.\ who appears in Nu. asgt as a thlrd son 
(the eldest) of Eliab, may come by mistake from v. 12, where he 
is the eldest son oK Simeon. 






Nu. 26S-9 



Datban Abiram Nemuell Dathan Abiram 

This (with omission of Netnuel'] seenis to be the 
scheme followed in Nu. 16 1, as we have it.^ It appears 
indeed to he compHcated hy Eliah and Peleth (for Pallu) 
being treaCed as unconnected, and Peleth being given a 
son On [^.i'.] ; and this has been supposed torepresent 
the version of J {e.g., Oxf. Hex.). 

Nu. 16 1 [as in MT] 









Josephus, however, says nothing of On, which may 
in Nu. 16 1 be due to a marginai variante : the variant 
represe nted by @ which reads as usuai Ahvcon for 
Abiraw (see, however, On). 

The Chronicler has attached to the Reuben ite 
genealogy two appendices, one tracing the pedigree of a 
1 <) T 1 fVi certain Beerah to an otherwise un- 

13. in 1 Onron. ^^^^^^ j^^^^ ^^ Ch.54-6), the other 

perhaps a v.u-iant form of the sanie list {v. jf. ) : thus 

■V. 8 Joel 
j'. 8 Shema 
V. E Azaz (iip) 

V. 4 Joel 

Oog <jlj) 

V. 5 Micah 
Baal Cj,]) 

V, 6 Beerati 

V. 8 Bela(vV2) 
v. 7 [Ze]chariah 
V. 7 Jeiei 

There is nothing to show what led the Chronicler to 
connect these lists with Reuben (cp Gray, HPN 257/! ), 
unless it be the reference to Tiglath-pìleser (cp 2 K. 
1529) and the geographical references in v. gf. 

Wilh Shemaiah, Shimei, Shema, and Zechariab may be com- 
pared Shammua ben Zaccur, the name given to the Reubenite 
spy' (Nu. 134), and Eliezer ben Zìchti, David's luler iaàgfcl) 
over the Reubenites (i Ch. 27 16), On the naturai omission of 
a represe mali ve of Reuben from the list of dividers of western 
Palestine, cp Gad, 1 S '3 (lasC sentence). On the list containing 
AdinaS beri ShìzaG (i eh. 11 42) see Gray, HPN -z-ìtif., and cp 
David, § 11 (a) ii. 

Whether or not there was also a theory of a tribe 
Reuben which entered Palestine by way of the Negeb, 
14 GeoirraDhical ^^^ P^evailing theory of the present 
Hotailn Hexateuch and related passages was 

that Reuben arrived in E. Palestine 
from abroad, in dose connection with Gad (q.v., § 11). 
The questions hearing on the real character/orìgin. and 
history of the population of E. Palestine are best coti- 
sidered elsewhere (Gad, §§ 1-4). AH that is necessary 
here is to supplement what is said there (G.4D, § 12) 
with regard to the geographical details given, in 
indifference to each other, by the various Hexateuch 

Of the nine towns asked for by Gad and Reuben in 
Nu. 323 we are told in Z^zi f- that the men of Reuben 
[re]built the last five : Heshbon, Elealeh, Sibmah 
(called Sebam in v. 3), Nebo, and Beon, with the 

1 See n. 6 on previous column. 

2 Cp Graf, Die GeschicktUchen BUcher, 89 n. 

3 'and -on' — that is to say. 'otherwise Abiri?».' Read: 
Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab [and -o«], the son of 
Paleth— Pallu, the son[s] of Reuben. 

4 Kittel (SBOT [Heb.j, 1895) follows Syr. and Arab. in 
reading Carmi ; but that may be an emendation (so Benzinger, 
KHC, ad ioc). 

6 Perhaps late, cp Amrj ; bue cp also Jehoaddan. 
^ Probably corrupt (®A mxa.). See Shiza. 
' Compare col. 4089 n. 6. 


addition of Kibiathaim.^ As noticed above (§ 2), ali 
these six towns are Moabite in Is. 15, jer. 48. 

This list is, however, ignored by P in bis enumeration (Josh. 
20 3 ; cp Dt. 4 43, given by Moses) of the ' tilies of refuge ' and 
(Josh. 21 -jà/. — i Ch. ^js/. [63_/l]> the ' levitjcal' [Merari] cities 
'of the tribe of Reuben ' ('t ncDO) : Eezer (city of refuge" 
Bo^rah in Jer. 4824), Jahaz (Jahzah in Jer. 4821), Kedemoth* 
(perhaps for Kiriathaim [nimp for Drnpl menlioned in Jer. 
4823), and Mephaath (Jer.482r); but he coniines himself to 
cities assigned to Moab in Jet. 48. 

In Josh, 1315-23 P endeavours to define the territory 
of Reuben. 

He givcs him, besides the levitical cities just mentioned 
(Jahaz, Mephaath, Kedemoth= Kiriathaim?), tiva cities said in 
Nu. 3234-36 to have been built by Gad (Aroer, Dibon), one 
assigned to Gad in Josh. 21 39, i Ch. 681 [66] (Heshbon), four 
assigned elsewhere to Moab (Medeba, Bamoth-baal, Beth- 
BAAL-MEON, Bkth - jeshimoth), and the following three : 
Zereth-shahar (only bere), Ashdoth-pisgah (also Dt.), and 
Beth-peor (the hurial-place of Moses, and scene of the Dt. 
discourses), but on!y one of the cities said in Nu. òì 37 /. to 
have been built by Reuben (Sibmah). 

The contradictions make it impossiblc to construct a 
map. In general terms, however, what is claimed for 
Reuben lies within what is claimed for Gad (q.ii. § 3). 
See the map in Stade, GV/\, facing p. 149. Cp 
Steuernagel, Einwanderung, ig {f.\ H. W. H. 

REUEL(^N-Hni papoyhA[BADEL]). i. The per- 
sonification of a clan in Edomite and Arabian territory, 
which, according to Winckler (G/ laio), derived its 
nanie from a divine name Re'u ( — '«nin 'ktVk, Gen. 
I613 and i«T in ':'31ki, Reubel^ [true form of piici. 
Reuben ?]). This explanation, however, is incomplete ; 
both >[(tSx and ^aitn are, judging from numerous 
analogìes in badly transmitted names, corruptions of 
^(tom* (Jerahme'el), and the same origin natiu^ally 
suggests itself for ^ni;;'i (Re'u'el). See, however, 
Namés, § 47, and cp Reuben, § 9. In the genea- 
Jogical system Renel is both a son of Esaù by 
Basemath (Gen. 864 io 13 17 i Ch. 135 37) and the 
fether of Moses' father-in-law Hobab, Nu. lOag [J], 
where ' Midianite ' should perhaps be ' Kenite ' ■• ( Judg. 
1 16 4 II). In E)£. 2 18 (®A^ laQop), ' Reuel ' their father 
is puzzling. On the principles of literary analysis of 
documents we assume that Reuel is a harmonistic inser- 
tion, Reuel being here represented by the redaclor (R) 
as father of Zìpporah, in order that Hobab \ij-v.\ and 
Jethro \q-v.^ may both be ^others-in-law. For 
consistency's sake the inserti on ought also to have 
been made in v. 16, where originally Hobab (J's name 
for the father>in-l3w of Moses) must have stood." 

2. Father of Eliasaph, a Cadile chief (Nu. 214 [Pp. In 
Nu. li4also, ® has payovijX where MT bas 7»0P7 (Deoel); 

so too in 7 42 47 10 20. 

3. A Benjamite (i Ch. Sa). t. K. C. 

EEUBIAH (nO-lìp; peHRà [A], -m& [^L]), the 
concubine of Nahor [q.v.] ; Gen. 2'224. 

BEVELATION, BOOK OF. See Apqcalypse. 

BEZEPH (e|V~i ; in Ki. p&<t)eic [BL], p&4)ec [»="]- 
-ee [A], in Is. pà4,ee [BQ-^b-], .e,c [A], -ec [NQ*]), 
mentioned by Assyrian envoys (temp, Hezekiah) among 
other places destroyed by Sennacherib's predecessors, 
(2 K. 19i3 Is, 37iz). It is usuaily identified with the 
{m/it) Rasappa repeatedly mentioned in the cuneiform 
inscriptions (cp De!. Par. 297, Schr. KA T'^l 327). 
and the name has been found in the Amama Tablets 
(B io), in a letter from Tarhundaraus Arsapi to Atnen- 
hotep III. of Egypt. With this place we may idcntify 

1 Perhaps the lists did not originally agree. Kiriathaim 
having in v. 37 the place occupied in v. 3 by Sebam, Sibma is 
in 11. 33 simply added at the end of the list. 

3 Elsewhere only in Dt. 2 26, where it may be a corruption of 
Kadesh : see Kedemoth. 

3 Houtsma (Theoi. Tijdschy. IO92) also compares Reubel. 
Hommel, however, reports a S. Arabian personal name 7)(1^"1- 

4 So Bu., coinm. on Judg. 1 is^i, who assumes the harmonising 
of an editor. 

6 In Gen. 25 3 ® AE one of the sons of D«dan is called ReueU 
©D has patrovtiA]. 




the fr7}iTa<pa of Ptol. (5 13). and the mod, Rusàfa, 3^ m. 
SW. of Sura on the Euphrates, on the road leading 
to Palmyra. We have no independent notice of the 
destruction of Reseph, and this, together with certain 
other suspicious phenomena, hsts led the present writer 
to the supposition thal, as most probably in many 
other passages, thS editor has been busy in reconstruct- 
idg the geographical and historical background; i.e., 
thal ' GoKan ' has been put for ' Cushan ' (the N. Arabian 
Cnsh), ' Reseph ' for ' Sarephath,' ' Telassar ' for ' Tel- 
asshur' or 'Te1-ashhur' (cp Ashhur), ' Arpad ' for 
■Ephrath. ' Of the other names, ' Haran ' (cp i Ch. 
246), ' Eden,' ' Hamalh ' (probably a fopular dislortion 
of 'Maacath'} need not be corrupt ; they are good 
N. Arabian border- names, familiar by Iradition to 
Judahite writers. Sepiiarvaim [^. i'. ] is made up of 
tìephar ( — iiarephath) and a fragment of 'and Jerah- 
meel ' ; 'Hena' and 'Ivvah' also probably represent 
ih^ place-name ' Jerahmeel.' unless Ivvah has been mis- 
written for n'Ni ; cp ©S z K. I834. «ai irov (.T»!'i) eio^ìv 
ol 0eol T^s X'^P^^ Za^a/jf/as ; fi.7] é^el\a.yro TÌJf 2a^. 
ìk x«/>i^s flou ; see Sepharvaim, and cp Crii. Bib. 

The ironical remnrks of Wìnckler {A T Uni. 40) and Benzinger 
(A"™, 183) on the are; h ecologi cai leaming of the late author of 
3 K. ii* iz_/^, which was, however, tlirown away on the hearers 
of the siipposed speech of the As^yrian envoys to He^'.ekiah, are 
naturai enough, if the accuracy of MT may be assumed. ft is 
probahle, however, that even at a late date ihe people cjf Judah 
wouid be able to appreciate historical references hearing on 
places much nearer co them than Gozan, and ReMph, and a 
MesofJotajnian Tel-asshur. T. K. C. 

EEZIA, RV Eìzia (N^V"). § 28 ; ' Yahwè is gracious ' 
far n^Vl, or from some etbnic ; pAc[e][A [BAL]), in 
a genealogy of A&HER {q.v. , § 4, iì. ), i Ch. 739- 

EEZW iX'T)' P&&CCCON. pAceiN [B in Is. 7], 

P&CC(On[B in Is. 8], pAClN [Aq., Sym,, Th, mQ^^- in 
Is.è]; Ass. lia-sun-nu). If we take the MT as it 
stands, it is evident that Rezin, king of Aram- dama scus, 
in alHance with Pekah of Israel, endeavotired to over- 
throw Ahaz, king of Judah, and toenthrone ben-Tàb'él, 
a creature of their own, in his stead. To escape from 
this danger, they applied for help to the Assyrian king 
Tigiath-pileser (2 K.I657/: Is. 7i).. 

To the present writer, however, it appears that there has 
been another of those confnsions which bava tnade it so dffficult 
to retraca the true course of the hislory of Israei (see Tabeal). 
The Aram of which Rezin was king was possìWy not the 
northern bu£ a southern country of that narae (see Crii. Bib."). 
Criiics have duly noticed that Is. 7" j is realty no part of the 
bìography of Isaiah, but borrowed ftom s It.-lft5, and have 
conjectared that the orÌgit>al opening of chap. J had become 
illegible (see Inir. Is. 31). it is possible, however, (hat it was 
omitte<[ because it contained some deftiite hisfofical statemonts 
respecting the invaders which the redactor, from his imperfcct 
hisloiÌc;al knowledge, ccmid noi undorstand. It is not even 
certain that the king who is mentioned in the second place was 
really Pekah, king of Israel, The present writer sees some 
reason to (hink thal both kings were N. Arabian,?, and that the 
second king vi'as confounded with Pekah, partly froni a partisi 
rese m hi ance of the names and partly because the traditional 
father of eaeh of (hetn was Called ' Remalìah,' which is a corrupt 
form of 'Jerahmeel' (Che,). It was, however, certainly to 
Tiglath-pifeser (not lo be confounded with Pui, [?.e'.]) that 
Rezin applied for help. In Is. 84 we should probably read, 
" The riches of Cu.sham and che spoil of Shimron shall be carrietl 
away before the king of Assyria.' In 2 K. Ifis there is no 
sufficient canse for emending 'Aram' into 'Edom.' It was a. 
mailer of gteat ìniporCance fo the southern 'Arammitcs' to 
ohcain cominand of a harbour. Hirani, king of Misrim (see 
Soi.OMOtJ, 5 r^S), was coment to leave Ezlon-geber nominally in 
the hatids of Solomon ; but Rezin was not inclìned to put any 
trust in the Judahites. 

See Damasclls, § IO, Israel, g 32, and cp Rezon. 

T. K. e. 

REZIN (l'VI ; PAC6ÙN [BA], -aacc [L]). the name 
of a post-exilic family of Nethinim, and therefore {see 
Nethinim), according to Clwyne's theory, N. Arabian 
(cp Siich names as Shamlai [Ishmael}, Giddel [the 
southern Gilead], Reaiah [JefahmeeI}) ; Ezra243 = Neh. 
750 (p&eccùN [X], pd.«ctoN [L.])— I Esd. 531 {A&ic&N 

[B]. ìkc&N [A], p&CWN [LI. DAfSAN, -EV). 

REZON (pn, 'prince?' cp Sab. pH, |n and ifl, 

'ruler' [Prince, 13]; We. IIeid.i.^'> 59, n. i, would 
connect the name with the Ar. deity Rudd in such 
Palmyrene compound names as lVl!2*n [servanl of R.] ; 
but may it not be miswritten for l*5f1?), the founder of 
a dynasty at Damascus, and a contemporary of Solomon 
(i K. 11 23, ecpCiJM [B]i om. A, cp HeZioN ; razon 
[Vg.]). Who Rezon was, is by no means clear from 
our text (cp Damascl'S, § 7). Most regard him as a 
northern Aram^an. 

Rezon is called, however, son of Eliada, which is a Hebrew 
name, and Winckler's way of accounting for this (see Eliaca, 3) 
is improbable. 'l'reatìng the snbject in connection wi(h Zobah, 
j.w.J, we nmy venture tu conjecture ibat he was probably a 
N. Arabian, and that his father's name, tike ' Jedi'a'el ' is a 
niodification of ' Jerahme'el.' It was from the king not of 
Zobah bui of Missur (Musri) thal Rezon fled, and the capital of 
the realm which he founded was not Damascus, but Cusham 
(cp PropheT, g 37). We may pre.suroe ihal he was an nlly of 
Harìad, who was also an ' adversary ' to Solomon, and appears 
to have been king, not of Edom, but of Aram — i.e., Jerahmeel. 
The geographical boundarìes of these neighbouring kingdoms 
we canno! delermine ; but they were dose to the Negeb, which 
Solomon (see Solomon, § 7) appears to have succeeded in 
relainiug, Probably they were both vassal.'i of ibe naturai 
overlord of that region — the king of Missur, whose daughter 
became Solomon's wife. Cp, however, Winckler, (7/2272, 
KA Tt^l 240. T. K. C. 

RHEOIOM (pHriON. Acts28i3). A town on the 
Italian toast, at the southern entrance of the straits of 
Messina (mod. Reggio). 

The name (= ' breach ') was genetally supposed to bear refer- 
ence to the idea that earthquakes or the long-conlinued action 
of the sea had broken asunder or breached the land-bridge 
belween Italy anfì Sicily (S(rabo, 258; Eiod. Sic. 435). The 
J^tin form of the name, Regium, gave rise to an absuid alterna- 
tive derivalion (Strallo, /,c.). 

The town was an offshoot of the Chalcidians settied 
on the other side of the strait, in Messana (for a sketch 
of its early history, see Strabo, 257/.). Its posìtion on 
the strait made it very important, for the direct distance 
to Messana is only abotit six geographical mifes, and 
under Anaxilas (about 494 B.C.) the two cities were 
UTiited bnder one sceptre. Altnough the Syracusan 
[yrant Dionysios 1. totally destfoyed the town, so 
important a site could not long lie desolate, and it was 
repeopled by his son and successor. During the 
Hannibalic war Rhegium remained loyal to Rome and 
maierially contributed to Hannibars ultimate defeat by 
cutting off his Communications with Africa. After the 
SociaJ war it became a Roman municipiimi like (he 
ofher Ofeek cities of southern Itaty. During the war 
belWeen Octavian and SextiTs Pompeios (38-36 k. e. ), 
Rhegium was often the headquarters of Octavian's forces 
(Dio Cass. 4814) ; and, by way of reward, its population 
was increased by the addition of a body of time-expired 
m ari nes {Strabo, 259), and itassumed the name j?^^^*k?« 
J-ulium (Orell. Inscr. 3838). Abolii Paiil's time it was 
a populous and prosperoas place, siili preserving many 
traces of its Helferric orìgin {Strabo, 253). It continued 
to exist as a considerable city throughouf the period of 
the empire (Plin. 36). It was the lerminus of the road 
which ran from Capua to the straits ((he Via Popilia, 
made in 134 b.c.). 

The ship in which Paul saìled had some difììculìy 
in reaching Rhegium from Syracuse (Ac(s28i3, Trep;- 
eXtìópTfs.^ 'bytacking'; AV ' We fetched a compass," 
RV, * made a circuit '), as the wind did not lie favour- 
ably. At Rhegium she remained one day waiting for a 
wind for the narrow passage through which for want of 
sea-room a large ship couìd not easily work by tacking. ^ 
The run with the S. wind northwards (o PutooJi (about 
180 m. distant) would (ake about twen(y-si.x hours (cp 
V. r3, Sevrfpaìoc ■ffX.^afi.eP). 

With the stages of Paitl's jourhey as given here we rnay 
eompare ihat of T i tu s, after wards Kmperor, in 70 a, d. (Suet. 

1 So to be read in prefcrence to rtpifftóyrK WH, ' casting 

2 For the difliculties of the straits, see Thuc. 4 24, poujji)? 
oZcia jìitÓTias j(«A?wrj ipoitia^ : PauS. v. 25 a, <#ti yàp flìj 17 Karà. 

where also be gives the explanaiion of this characteristic. 


TU. 5, ' Quare festinans in Italiani, cum Regiutn, dein Puteolos 
oneraria nave appulisset, Roman inde contendit '). 

W. J. W. 

RHESA (pHCA, Ti.WH), a name in the genealogy 
of Jesus ; Lk. 827. See Genealogies ii., § 3. 

RHINOCEROT {Is, Si?. AV^e.). See Unicorn. 

BHODÀ (poÌH. Ti.WH), the narnei of the maid 
(ttaiàICKh) who answered the door when Peter k no cked, 
Acts 12i3t- in one of the lists of 'the seventy' it is 
staled that Mark had a sister called Rhoda (see Lipsius, 
Apokr. Ap.-Gesck., Erganzungsheft, 22). 

BHODES (poÀOc). a large and important island, 
lying in the soulh-eastern ^gean (the part called the 
Carpathian Sea), about 12 m. distant from the coast of 
Asia Minor ; mentioned only incidently in the NT (Acts 
21 1). After leaving Cos, the ship in which Paul 
voyaged to Palestine from Macedonia touch ed at 
Rhodes, which was apparently her last port of cali before 
Patara, where Paul transhipped. The same name was 
applied both to the island and its capital ; but probably 
the latter ìs meant in this place. It stood at the 
northern extremity of the island, where a long point 
runs out towards Caria. The city possessed two chief 
harbours, both on the eastern side of the promontory. 
The foundation of-the city of Rhodes (408 B. e. ) was 
due to the joint action of the ancien! Rhodian towns of 
Lindos, lalysos, atid Camiros (Diod. Sic. 1375]- 'The 
forces which, outwardly at least, had hitherto been 
divided, were now concenlrated, and the good effects of 
this concentration for the island, as well as for Greece 
in general, weresoon to appear' (Hoim, Gk. Hht., ET, 

The great polìtica! impottance of the new city gradually 
asserted itself during the fourth century, and by Alexander's 
time it had become the first naval power in the ^gean, and a 
decisive factor (Diod. Sic. 208i, jrepin<ixT''i>s toìs fivrioTais icoiì 

SóceodcK). So great was the reputation of the city that 
Alexander chose it as the place of deposit of his will. The 
commercial importance of the place is indicated by the fact of 
the introductlon of a new (Rhodian) standard of colnage ; 
Rhodian coins are rematkable for their beauty {see on this 
Hoim, e/, cii. 849, and Head, Hist. Nuìitnt., s,v.'). 

The commercial relations of Rhodes were principally 
with Egypt, but in fact the centrai position of the 
island in the mid-stream of maritime traftìc between the 
E. and the W. assured her prosperity, and this, 
combined with good government at home and a wise 
foreign policy, lifted her Io a position analogous to that 
of Venice in later times. The Rhodian harbours 
seemed to bave been designed by Nature to attract the 
ships of Ionia. Caria, Egypt, Cyprus, and Phcenicia 
(Aristeid. Rhod. 341) ; and the consìstent policy of 
neutrality, broken only by vigorous and decisive action 
when the peaceand freedom of the seas were endangered, 
attracted foreign merchants, among whom, we may be 
sure, those of Jewish nationalìty were conspicuoiis 
[i Macc. 1523); youngraen wereregularly sent to Rhodes 
to learn business (PJaut. Mere, prol. ii). Rhodes did 
in the E. what Rome did in the W. in keeping the seas 
clear of pirates (Strabo, 652, tò XTjar-fipia Ka0ei\e ; cp 
Poi. 4 19), Her maritime law was largely adopted by 
the Romans (cp l'arni, xiv. 2g) ; and the principle of 
'general average,' for example, is Rhodian in origin, 
with probably much else in modem naval law that 
cannot now be traced. 

Rhodes is connected with two passages in the life of 
Herod the Great. When on his way to Italy he 
contributed liberally towards the restorations rendered 
necessary to repair the ravages of Cassius in 42 B.C. 
(App, BC 472; Plut. Bru^. 30). It was at Rhodes 
also that after the battle of Actium (31 B.C.) he had 
the meeting with Augustus upon which so much 
depended for him (Jos. Ait. xv. 66). It was in Rhodes 

^ Anolher form of the name in classical literature is Rhodos 
(póSos, fem.). It was borne by a daughter of Poseidon, and by 
one of the Danaids (see Smith, Dici. Gr. and Rota. Biogr., s.v.'). 



that Antiochus VII. Sidetes {kJng of Syria, 138-128 B.c.), 
son of Demetrius I. , heard of the imprisonment of his 
brother (Demetrius IL), and 'sent Jetters from ihe iiles 
of the sea unto Simon the priest and governor of the 
Jews,' as told in i Macc. \5i/. (cp App. Syr. 68). 

The Rhodians gained a privile^ed position as allies of Rome 
in the Macedonian and Milhridatic wars, but were deprived of 
their politicai freedom by Claudius (44 A.D.) for the crucifixion 
of Roman citizens (Dio Cass. \x. 2i^). In 56 a.d. this was 
restored to them (Tac. Ann. 12 5S ; 'reddita Rhodiis liberias, 
adempia sa;pe aut firmata, prout bellis externis meruerant aut 
domi seditione delìquerant ). The island was finally reduced 
to a province (ì.£., made part of the province of Asia) by 
Vespasian (Suet. Vesp. S). Its great importance in the early 
Empire was gained through its scliools of rhetoric, as that of 
Athens through her schoois of philosophy. 

Literature.— Q. Newton, Travels and Discoveries in the 
Levant, voi. i ; C. Totr, Rhodes in Ancient Titnts (Camb. 
1B85) ; Hoim, Gk. Hist., ET, 4 483_^ (the best short account in 
English) ; Mahaffy, Greek Life and Tkought, chap. 15 \ Ross, 
Reisen w. Studien auf den gr. Inseln, 3 fa/. On Rhodian art, 
see Gardner, Handbook 0/ Greek Sculpture, lif^f. Ancient 
authority, Strabo, p. 652^ w. J. W. 

BHODOCUS (poiOKOC [AV]), a Jew who betrayed 
the plans of Judas the Maccabee to Antiochus Eupator 
(a Macc. 1321). On the discovery of his treachery he 
was imprisoned. 

KHODUS (i Macc. 1523), RV Rhodes. 

BIBAI C?'"!). the father of ITTAI {q.v.) (2 5.2829, 
peiBà. [B], epiBA [L] otn- A; iCh.llsi, peBie [B], 
pàBeiiM [N], phBò.1 [A], piB6.T[L])- Comparing ©^ 
in 2 S. we may with Marquart (Fund. 20) restore 
'3'"T ; see jERiBAi. 

EIBBAND (S'-nS), usedinNu. 1538 AVof the 'cord' 
(so RV) of bhie worn upon the Fringes [q-v. ]. 

For other usages of the Heb. pathli see Bracelets, 2, Cord, 

RIBLAH (n^5"l; oftenest àeBA&e* [BNAFQrL]. 
and always 'Diblath' in Pesh. ; on Nu. 34 n see 
below). A city in the terrilory of Hamath (2 K. 2833, 
aj3Xaa [B]. hnp\a.a. [A] ; 1 256 iepòe^XaBay [B]. «j 
Se^XaSa [AL]: v.^i pf^\aea.[ìi']; Jer.39s,p. [Theod. ; 
igom.] andi/. 6 5. [Theod. ; @om,]; 52? 5e;8a^a [N*]; 
52io 5e/3 . . $a. [P]). It is havdly possible in our brief 
space to give the reader a just idea of the new problems 
connected with the name of Riblah. 

Whether the foreign king who dethroned Jehoahaz was really 
Necho, king of Egypt, bas become rather uncertain (see Zede- 
kiah). For D"^Sp, Mizraim (i.e., Egypt), we shouid perhaps 
in 2 K. 23 34, as in so many other passages, read D"1SD, Mizrim ; 
cp MiZRAiM, % z ò. It was possibly, or even probably, a N. 
Arabiati king calied Pir'u, not an Egyptian Pharaoh, who 
brought the kingdom of Judah into vassalage. If so ' Riblah' 
may be a popular corruption of ' Jerahmeel.' It is not les^ 
possible or probable that in the other passages where .^73^ 
occurs 'Riblah' shouid he emended into 'Jerahmeel.' The 
accounts of geographìcal boundaries of Canaan in the OT bave 
been, it would seem, systemalically corrected, in good faith, 
but in complete misapprehension of the documents. 

If we assume, however, provisionally, the data of the 
traditional text, how shall we explain them? In this 
case, ' Riblah ' will be represented by the poor village 
of Ribleh, on the E. bank of the Nahr el'AH 
(Orontes), 35 m. NE. of Baalbec. It was bere that 
Necho put Jehoahaz in chains (2 K. 2833) and Nebu- 
CHADREZZAR {q.v.) some twenly years later made his 
headquarters when he came to quell the Palestinian 
revolt. ^ Here Zedekiah saw his sons slain (2 K. 256 = 
Jer. 395/". =529/), and certain officers and people 
from Jerusalem were put to death (2 K. 2620/: =Jer. 

1 BepAoSo is identified by a scholiast on 2 K. 25 20 in cod. 243 
with Daphne the suburb of Antioch in Syria ; cp Jerome on 
Nu. 34ii. 

2 An inscription of Nebuchadrezzar found in the Wàdy Brissa 
(on the E. of Lebanon) refers to the devastation wroiight among 
the cedars of Lebanon by a foreign foe, and the flight of the 
inhabitants. Nebuchadreziar's (second) visit to Riblah in 586, 
if historieal, was to repair the damage done and to entourage 
the population of Lebanon which probably resisted the ' foreign 
foe' and suffered accordingly. The 'foreign foe' must bave 
been Necho (Wi. AOJ^ so^jf.). This, however, must bc ac- 
cepted with some criticai reserve. 



52 2fìf, ). The occurrences of Riblah recognised by 
EV need some revision ; the name should certainly 
be inserted in Ezek. 614. where Riblah (misread in 
MT as DiBLAH : AV 'Diblath'), as a boundary. 
takes the piace of the more usuai ' Hamath,' and it 
should as certainly be omitted in Nu. 34ii. Here, as 
most scholars suppose, the ideal eastern frontier of 
Canaan is described. The border, we are told, is to 
go down ' from Shepham Hrblh on the E. of Ain.' If 
we put aside the prejudice produced by the pointing 
(ri^3nn], it seems probable that ' lo Harbel ' (n'^ii'in) is 
the meaning intended, and not ' to Riblah.' The righi 
vocalisation was stili known to the ® Iranslator (ii7rò 
aiTiipQ.p. apfii}\a ; see Shepham), and also to Jerome and 
Eusebius, wbo speak {OS. 866 Sléiyi 23254) of Arbela 
or a^TjXtt as a point on the eastern confines of Canaan. 
The Speaker s Comm. finds Harbel (more strictly hT\r\') 
in the Har-baal-herraon of Judg. 83, and supposes the 
border to pass by the southern end of Mt. Hermon 
near the two best-known sources of the Jordan. If 
the current theory of the reference may provisionally be 
accepied, let us rather say that Harbel was synonymous 
with Har-baal-gad, since ' Baal-gad al the fool of Mi. 
Hermon' occurs in the parallel passage Josh. 13 5 instead 
of the Har-baal- hermon of Judg. 33. This view is al 
any rate more plausiVtle than van Kasteren's identifica- 
lion of Hariblah with Halibnah, between the Yarmùk 
and the Wàdy Saniak {Rev. biòL, 1895, p. 33). One 
of the spurs of the Jebel esh-Shèkk (Mt. Hermon) is in 
faet cailed Jebel Arbel.^ Bui it is much to be feared 
that the identification is itlusory. T. K. e. 

BIDDLE occurs nine limes in EV fjudg, Hia-ig, 
npoB\HMA; Ezek. 172, ìihthwa) and twice in 
EV™g- (l'rov. 16, AlNlfMA; Hab. 26, npoBAHA\&) as 
the rendering of Heb. ilTH, hldàk. 

The word T\'VT\^ usually explalned as ' something twisled or 
knotly,' bui more proljably (see Lag, Griech. Ueiet-seis. der 
Prov. 7:5) ' something shut up ' (cp Aram. inXi and Bìbl.-Aram. 
m'nN)i occurs seveiiteen times in MT and and once in Heb. 
Kccius. 4T 1 7 ; in ! K. 10 I 3 Ch. 9 i it is rendered ' hard queslion ' 
(aìi/iyfia); in Ps, 49 5 [4) "83 [3] 'dark saying' (irpó^Aij/ia) ; in 
Prov. 1 6 'dark saying' {àivi.y}i.a) \ in Hab. 2 6 ' prove rb ' (n-pó- 
^Àtjfia) ; in Nu. 13 S ' dark .speech ' (oìn'j'^io.) ; in Dan. 823 ' dark 
.sentente' {airiy/xa, jrpójSAijfia ['Th.]) and in Ecclus. 47 17 
' parable ' (irapa^oA^) ; niciwa also occurs in Wisd. 8e (' dark 
saying '), Ecclus. 39 3 (AV ' dark parables,' RV ' dark sayings of 
parables'), 47i5(EV 'dark parables,' RVim;- ' parables ofriddles,' 
Heb. differs). 

Thanks to its frequent parallelism with the word 
tnaSdl (see Proverb), hidàh has acquired a considera bl e 
rango of meaning. Thus it denotes (1) a riddle as we 
understand the word — e.g. that propounded by Samson 
to the Philislìnes, Judg. 14 12^. or those with which 
the Queen of Sheba is said to have proved Solomon, 
I K, lOi 2 Ch. 9i ; (2) a sentenlious maxim (Prov. 
SOisy. , etc. ) stili affecting to preserve the form of a 
riddle but wanting its essentials — viz. , the adequate 
characterisation of the object, and the pause before 
reply. Even the riddle form may be dispensed with, 
hidàh, as in Prov. 16, denoting simply any sententious 
maxim, or as in Ps. 495 (where, however, there are 
textual difficulties) the statement of a moral problem, 
(3) A parable — as in Ezek.lTa-jo, though the passage 
is not pure parable, but parlakes of the ch arac ter ist ics 
of riddle and allegory as well. On account of the 
allusive and figurative character of many of the satirical 
lays of popular history {e.g., Nu. 212?^ i S. I87, cp 
PoETicAL LiTKKATURE, § 4 ili.), the term htddh is 
not in.-ippropriaiely used to designate them in Hab. 26, 
but its use in Ps. 782 is probably only due to the poet's 
needing a parallel to Se^C. (4} Lastly, hidàh is used 
quite generally to denote any unusual or diffìcult and 
perhaps esoteric mode of expression, Nu. 123 Dan, 823- 

Bochart has discoursed learnedly of the use of the 

1 So Furrer in Riehm's HWB; cp Riiter, Erdkunde, 15 i, 
pp. 159, 183. In ^'ZJ/'FSzgadifferent, and less plausi b le, iden- 
tification was proposed (wllh 'A rbln, 5 kil. NE. of Damascus). 



riddle by the Hebrews al feasts,^ and we could easily 
believe that if our sources of information were not so 
narrow, we should find that the Israelìtes had some 
resemblance in ihis department to the Arabs, with whoni 
there was almost a separate branch of enigmatic litera- 
tcre, with many subdivisions. Stili, we have only one 
example of the riddle in the OT— the famous one of 
Samson (Judg. 14i4 — -'avery bad riddle,' G, F. Moore) ; 
of those referred to in i K. IO13 the narralor has 
favoured us with no specimen ; nor did Josephus [Ani. 
viii. 53) find in the Phcenician history of Dius any 
details of the riddles said to have been seni by Solomon 
to Hiram of Tyre, and by Hiram to Solomon (Jos. A>U. 
viii. 53 [§ 149]). The information in post - biblica! 
writings like the Midrash Mishlé or the 2nd Targuni to 
Esther is certainly niore curious than valuable. 

In the NT ' riddle ' occurs once, i Cor. 13 12, where, 
to some scholars, the combination of di' èffòtrTpov and 
év aiviyp.aTi appears dithcult. 

'Èv alf, (lo which Origen, e. C^/i. 7 50 and elsewhere, and the 
MSS LP prefix «ai [in Orig. Kal aiyiyixaTO^Ì) may no doubt be 
iliustrated by Nu. 128 (©), èv ci6fi. «ai ov Si' ainy)i.àTiov, wbicli 
may perhaps have been explained 'in a well-defined form and 
not in indistìnct blurred outlines ' (for this use of ati'iy/ia see 
Origen on Jn. 1 g). 

We do not want the additional phijise éy atvlyixaTi, 
which appears somewhat lo mar the antithesis ; what 
we look for is rather ' for now we see wìth the help 
of a mirror, but then face to face,' Preuschen would 
therefore omit év alviyfxari as due to a later hand 
(y:iVTlV, tgoo, p. 180/, cp Mirror). 

EIE occurs twice in AV (Ex.932 Is.2825) as the 
rendering of mOD?, for which RV has rightly ' speli.' 
See FlTCHES. N. M. 

for righteousness are sédek, sèddidh (p^V, HjTlV), con- 
nected with which we have the adjec- 
tive saddik (p'^V) ' righteous,' and the 
verb sàdak (PIIJ) lo be in the righi — ^in Hiphil and 
Pi'el, to declare a person in the righi. Probably the 
most originai form of the root appears in the noun 
sédek, from which the verb, appearing first in the Hiph. 
form, is a denominative. It is not easy to fix precisely 
the primary meaning of the root. Gesenius takes it to 
be 'straight'; Ryssel, with less reason, 'hard.' In 
any case the earliest sense which can be traced in actual 
use appears to be conformily to a recognised norm or 

Thus Beidàwi on Sur. Sai (jjuoted by Kautzsch) rightly 
explains the corresponding form in Arabie, viz. sadk as tnutàbik 
— i.e., 'congruenti so that things as unlike as a javelin and a. 
date may each be descriljed as sàdik, if they are as they should 
be. Nothing fresh can be learned from the Syriac usage, which 
simply repeats with less fulness that of the Hebrew and New 
Hebrew. ® has used great freedom in translaling sédek 
and its deriuatìves. fiintuos, BiKO-iom/nj, òiko-iovv are tbeir 
commonest renderings ; but we also find, e.g., sèdàkàh repre- 
senled by fitjraitijun, ìàoj/ìootìv)] (9 tìmes), tAeoe (3 times), and 
even by «ùiApO(n'n)(Is. 61 io), saddik, byàAijfl:^?, tvirt^ri^, ixkttós. 
On the olher band Ji'itaiot, tiKa.i,oirvvri, Si.Ka.LOvv sland in ® 
for many Hebrew words unconnected elymologically wilh the 
root pi^— e.^., for ncN, iDn,;, 1K^', N'pJ, a'^l, thf, -riB, 

It will be well before examining the history of the 
words in the OT, to menlion two facts which should 
be borne in mind throughout, in tracing the idea of 
righteousness as the Hebrews understood it. In the 
first place, sédek and its derivatives seldom occur in the 
older documents. They are pretty common in the 
literary prophets ; they are exceedingly frequent in the 
wisdom literature and in the Psalms. Next, the meaning 
of these words becomes gradually wider, and assumes a 
more strictly ethical and religious signification. We 
may compare the use of SiKatoffvvfj which is unknown to 
Homer and Hesiod, and also the expansion of meaning 

I. Heb. tenns. 

^ Hiero7.. 383 /, ed. 
eie bei de 

^.,, ... Rosenrauller. Cp Wunsche, 'Die 

Rathselweisbeic bei den Hebraern,' JPT, 1883, and cp for 
examples KraRt, /tidische Sagen und Dicktungen. 



in 5ÌICÌ]. SUaioì from ' custom,' ' o'jservant of recognised 
usage,'^ lill they stood for absolute justice and the man 
of ideal virtue. Similar analogies obviously appear in 
the Latin justus, and in our own terms 'righi,' 
' righteous,' etc. 

It is doubtful whether real instances of the primitive 
use — viz. , agreement with a physical norm — siili survive 

TìAVfll Tim t '" Hebrew. Lev. I&3Ó Ezek. 45io, 
' , ^. 'exaclbalaiices,' 'cxactweights,' etc, 

01 msaniiur. , , ° . . 

^ are commonly quoted as cases Jn point. 

The [M-ssages, however, are late, and aa the contrasted 
notion of iniquity occurs in the immediate context, it 
is by no means clear that we should not translate 
' righteous balance»,' etc. Similarly ' patbs of sédek ' in 
Fs. 233 may mean ' paths of righteousness,' not simply 
' straight paths.' Stili less can Joel 223 be alleged aS 
an example of sMdkàh in its originai — i.e., physical — 
signification , for the translation given by Kautzsch 
' early rain in full measure ' is more than doubtful. 
We may perhaps acquiesce in the translation ' early 
rain for your justification ' — i.e., in proof that Yahwè 
has once more graciously accepted his people (so Wellh. , 
Nowack, and Smend, AX Rel.-gesch. ^t<)ff.). 

Passing from the idea of conformity to a physical 
standard, we have to note the use of the più. sMdkèth 
jmplal in the earliest fragment of Hebrew literature — 
viz. , the so-called ' Song of Deborah, ' There the poet 
describes the valiant deeds of the Hebrews as due to 
the help which Vahwè gave, and might as the tribal 
God be fairly expected to give, his pec^le. This seemg 
to be his GOTiception of sédakdth.. Il invc^ves little or 
no ethical element. Yahwè acted in accordanee with 
the naturai bond between his worshippers and himself, 
and the plural form indicates the various occasiona on 
which he dkl so. 

To the same class we May pethaps rtffer Dt. 33 at, wliete God 
is said to have wrought tb« sèdókah of Yahwè, because he was 
the instrnment of the divine piHpose by lepelKeg the. (bes of 
Israel. In the satoe pciemfthe 'Bfessmg- of Moses,' Dt. 33 19) 
Zebnluil calb the Ciibes Co some sacred mountain tbai tiley Rta.-jr 
offer ' sacrifices of ^lUk,' and this may mean no more than 
sacrifices offered duty— r.^. , acCording to the recogriised fbrm, 
and a.s a naturai «eturit for benefils conferred. Sere, if fhis 
interpre latto n be soanit, the e ih i cai ebmeot 'n not wfaolly 
absent ; but it is stili faint and rudimentary,^ 

We bare to deal next with the many cases in which 
the legai significatron predominates. In the * Book 
3 T A#al (tr °^ *^ Covenant' (Ex. 2^7) we read, 
VrtiTJ^fn ' f hou shalt not put to death hw» who 
is innocent and saddlk' whertì cleairly 
the tegi»feltor is rtot Ihinking of virtuonas 
chantcter, bm of innocence from the charge brongbt 
before the court This restricted use always continued 
long after the óeeper and more twiiversal tneaning had 
become familiar. 

r.«iah, for exa!nple(533)speafcs of p'^ ^V^^ — '-«-> the jJea. 
of a. m^i who has a good case — and in Prov. 18 17 we are told 
that the first corner is right (P'^t^y^'.e., seems to be right in hb 
coniention tilt his opponent appears and puts him to the proof. 
See also Dt. 25 i Prov. 17 15 18 5 24 24, Here it is necessary 

to note the significant fact that no feminine fono of p'^^ is fcund 
anywhere in the OT ; indeed the use of the verb npllS in Gen. 
38 26 (the only occufrence of KaJ in the HeJtateuch) may fairly 
be accepted as proof that the adjective had no feminine form. 
This may be naturally accounted for on the ground that p"^s 
ineant originally ' tight in law,' artd that a woman was not a 
'person' with legai rights. 

In early literature the use of the verb is almostwholly 
confined to the Hiphil, and the meaning of the verb 
corresponds to that of the adjective. In other words, 
the Hiphil verb means to decide in favour of a lìtigant, 
by declaring him to be in the right. So, for example, 

1 It is always assumed that the standard is external and 
recognised as correct. Thus, £.^., Homer speaks ofAutolycus 
as ' good ' (iaékóv. Od. 19 394), adding that he excelled ali men 
'in knavery and the oath.' He would not have called him 
fiwraioj'. So now we mighC perhaps speak rf 'a good thief,' 
but not of a just one. 

'^ The use of (Otite, iotiiuit iti Homer ìS similar. 




in Ex. 23? (©) after a warning against oppression of 
the poor by corrupt admìnistration of justice, the general 
principle \s enunciated. ' for thou shalt noi decide in 
favour of a malefactor.' A slighfly dìfferent shade of 
meaning is given to the verb in Absalom's exclamation 
(2 S, 154)1 ' O that they would make me a judge in the 
land : ihen if any man carne to me with a plea and a 
case, I would help him to his right ' (mpisrii).^ 

By an easy transition the idea of legai righi is extended to 
that of being in the right on some particular occasion wilhout 
any implìcation as to general moral character. No mote is 
itnplied in Jurfah's admission (Gen. 3626), 'She' (Tamar) 'is 
rrtore in tbe right than I ('SGO ^g^^),' or perhaps 'She has acted 
within her rights and can maintaìn ber case against me.' (For 
this use of IP, cp Job 33 s.) Further, sàdak is used of one who 
is justified in his statement. This meaning is erident in Job 
33 la where, after quoting Job's words, Elihu says, ' Lo ! ìn this 
[statement] thou art not justified : I will answer thee.' In the 
same way the adjective is employed, Is. 41 26, ' Who announced 
fhis from the beginnmg that (ve might know it , . . and say 
"Right"|— ;.f., he is right'? not, 'it is trae,' (or tbe Hebrew 
adjective is never used of things. Kxamples of this meaning in 
noun, adjective, and verb are numerous. See for use of the 
noun (sédekl Is.69^ Ps.625[3] Prov. 8 b 16r3, of the verb in 
Hiph. job^Ts and itì Hiibpa. (perhaps), Gen. 44 16. In Arab. 
the use of the root for ' Iruth-speaking,' ' sincere,' is much moro 
advanced and definite. 

We may now tum to the idea of righteousness 
properly so called, of righteousness in its ethical 

. «.. . ^ signification ; and here the investigai ioti 
"^ j^ has its s tarli ng- point in the early literary 

nrnnhefM P'^'^P'i*'^ I" '^^ reign of Jeroboam II. a 

^ ^ ' capiUlist class had arisen : the old tribal 
justice, depending on the bond of clan and stili welU 
maintained among the Arabs of the desert, was well- 
nigh gone in Israel (See Government. § x'zff. ', Law and 
Justice. § 3). Hence the passionate cry of Amos for 
national righteousness, (òr justice in the gates — i.e,, for 
right institutions rigllfJy adminìstered. He reiterates 
his protest tbat external ritual is of no avail witbout 
justice, 'Take away from me' (Yahwè speaks> 'the 
tamult of thy songs, Ibe muàc of tby Itttes ì will not 
bear. Bat let jnstice roll iti hke a rirer and righteous- 
ness Ilice a perenniat streani ' (5sj). Trtie, Amos also 
uses the adjective saddlk in theoM legai sense(26 Srz), 
and he has tbe admitiistratroa of justice constantly in 
vieW. In hia- view, however, legai justice Springs from 
ihe essential natcre of <3od, who demands righteousness, 
noi rittKil worship from his people. The demand is 
made to the nation as a whole. Unless it ts salisfied. 
Israel tftust perish trifer jy and there is no room left for 
differerrce rrl the fate of the righteonS ftnd the un- 
righteons individuai. Hosea also insists ott national 
righteousness ; bnt his conception of it is at once widef 
and deeper than that of his predecessor. It is wider, 
for righteousness, as Hosea understood it, ts more (han 
bare justice. Il includer hésed—i.e., mercifiil con- 
sideration for others.* It is deeper, for Hosea saw that 
outward amendmenr cotild not be permanent without a 
radicai change of mind. ' 9ow to yonrselves in righteons- 
ness : reap accordtng to lovingfcmdness : break up for 
yourselves fatlyw ground ; for it is tirne to seek Yahwè, 
that fhe fruit of righteousness tnay come to yon ' (IO12, 
cp ©). It is noi enougfi fo sow good seed : the ground 
must fì be cleared and broken up : in short, the 
Israeiites must become neW men, and Yahwè's will 
must rule their lives. Yahwè will accept no superficia! 
conversion (6r-4): the only remedy is a new- birth by 
which Israel becomes a new creature (I313). 

Isaiah develops the principles of Amos and Hosea. 
His moral code is much the same. ' Seek out justice : 

_ _ , , set right the violent man : do justice to the 

' * ' orphan : plead for the widow' (I16/ 5? 

lOa), He, no less than Hosea, makes religion a 

' So StKtuoSc in classical Greek means to give a man his due, 
but alwrei^ in abad sense, vi?., to condemn. It isonlyinSand 
NT that it means ' co declare righteous.' 

2 Cp Tb Ìiri*tKÌ9, which correct» the defccts of law, and 
is, thereforc, iinacar koì rivof fié\tH>i> tcKoiavr Ariat. Bik. 
Nicom. 5 8. 



macter of the heart (■29 13). Righteousness 13 the 
inexorable rule by which Yahwè governs the world 
(2^17), and wicketiness by its own tiature blasts the 
evildoer (9i7[iB]). lìecausc of Israel's sin the naiion as 
a whole is doomed hopelessly (61341). Stili, thoso who 
beiieve in Yahwè as the eternai principle of righteous- 
ness can stand fast in the crash of ruin ali aroiind 
thum (Tg)- Meanvvhile the prophet uas ediicating a 
band of disciples (816) who were to be the gerni of a 
' remnant that was to be coiiverted,' and in one of his 
latest prophecies (1 21-26) he passcs from an ideal picture 
of Jeriisalem in Dayidic days (the idealisation of the 
past separates bini in a very marked manner from 
Hosea) and expresses the great hope of better limes to 
come. Judgmenl will have done its cleansiiig work : 
once more judges wiJl give impartial decisions and 
Jerusaleni shall be known as ' the fortress of righteous- 
ness, the faithful city.' 

A century later Jeremiah maintaìneii the sarne con- 
ception of righteousness. In 223 he gives whal almost 
„ . ^- . amounts to a definition of riehteousness : 
it consists negatively in abstinence from 
murder and oppression of the widows and orphans, 
positively in securìng justice for those who were power- 
less to help themselves. The sanie thought appears in 
other passages — e.g. , in chap. 7 1 though the word ' right- 
eousness ' is not actually used, We must not, however, 
forget that Jeremiah held fast to his belief in righteous- 
ness at the cost of a personal struggle more searching 
and severe than that which any of his precursors had to 
face. It was his hard fate to learn that even a law like 
that of Deuteronomy, embodying as it did the best 
resuks of prophetic teaching, could not of itself change 
the hearts of ihe very men who in form, and as tbey 
believed, sincerely, compUed with its requiremenls, 
Moreover, Jeremiah had to coiitend with the organised 
priesthood of Jerusalem, after the fwiests of the high 
places had been removed and when those of the centrai 
shrine clainved, on grounds which Jeremiah could not 
altogether gainsay, a divine sanction for their authority. 
Moreover his sensitive nature was exposed to continuai 
suffering from the enmity of his contemporaries and 
from the national ruin which he saw first in spiritual 
vision and then with the bodily eye. Because of ali 
this, Jeremiah's faith in the divine righteousness had to 
draw its strength from the very doabt which Ihrpatened 
to destroy it. ' Thou art in the right (saddlk) O Yahwè, 
when I contend with thee : yet would I reason the cause 
w ith thee : why does the way of the wicked prosper ? ' 
( 1 2 1 ). He knows well that the best law may be perverted 
by the ' lying pen of the scribes' (88) and that Yahwè 
is 'a righteous judge {ìòphèi sédek) proving reins and 
heart' (ll?o). More explicitly Ihan any earlier profrfiet 
he fuses moralily and religion into one by reducing ali 
duty to the one supreme duty of knowing Vahwè's will 
as revealed in his government of the world. 

' Thus .saith Vahwè, not a wise man glory in his wisdran, 
neicher let a hero glory in his valour, let not a. rich man glory in 
his weallh. Hnt in this let him that glories glory, that he hna 
understanding and knows rae, [knows] that 1 am Yahwè, who 
do lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness on the earth : 
for in these things do I take pleasute ; it Ì3 the oracle of Yahwè 
(9 22yT[23_X])-' Whereas Isaiah had seen that ihe people's heart 
was not in their worship, Jeremiah recognised the radicai evil that 
the heart of man i.s weak and cannot be Irusted (17g), and he 
saw the hope of spiritual religion, not in amendment on man's 
part, but ili the grace of Vahwè who would write his law in 
their hearts (31 33). 

Finally, the expectation of a Messianic king, cr hnc of 
Messianic kings, appears probably for the first time in 
Jeremiah. Yahwè will raise from the family of David 
' a righteous branch.' He is to ex«:iite true justice and 
is to be called 'Yahwè is our righteousness' (23s/'.). 
The context interprets this name of the Messiah. By 
restoring Israel to its own land Yahwè the Judge crf ali 
is to vindicate the just cause of his people against the 
heathen. ' In his (i.e.. the Messiah's) days Judah will 
be saved ' (from heathen bondage) * and Israel will dwell 



in security. ' The history of the world is the judgment 
of the world. Here, however, the idea of righteousness 
is niodified by fresh associations, and with the conserjuent 
change in the application of the word we shall have to 
deal presently. 

We have already given from the earlier documents 
of the Hexateuch instance.s which illustrate the more 
o . . , restrictedand primitive use of the rootjni-. 
■ • We also meet there, as might have been 
^f ^yZ expected, with the prophetic use in which 

^' it is co-extensive with moral excelience. 
Yahwè. e.g. , declares that he has seen how righteous 
Noah is (Gen. 7 1, J) : he knows that Abraham wil! teach 
his descendants ' to do judgment and righteousness' 
(Gen, I819, a late stratuin of JE). Only one passage 
in the He.xateuch enlls for specinl notìce here, bolh from 
its intrinsic interest and from the famous argument drawn 
from it by Paul. The words in Gen. 156 (J ?) are 
' Abraham trusted in Yahwè and he reckoned it to 
him as righteousness.' Paul identifies the faith of 
Abraham with justifying faith as he himself under- 
stood it. It would be an anachronism to suppose that 
the writer of the words in Genesis had risen to an idea 
of this kind, nor is any such exegesis supported by the 
context. Abraham believed, not in God's pardoning 
grace, but inYahwè's fidelity to his promise. In fact 
Abraham's faith or trust is precisely what faith as Paul 
conceives it is not, an 'opus per se dignum." See 
Faith, § 1. 

From the ethical we may now pass to the theocratìc 
sense of sidàkdk and the cognate words. We have 

S Theocratie ^'"'^^i' ^^^ ^ glimpse of this 
in the Messianic passage quoted from 
Jeremiah. It became prevalent from 
the time of Hatekkak. It must be remembered that 
Habafekuk. like Jeremiah, lived after Josiah's reform, but 
does noi, lilse Jeremiah, attribute the partial failure of 
that reforra to the depravity of the Jud^ean people. On 
the contrary, he believed that the obstacle to strici legai 
observanee lay in the oppression of Judah by the 
Babylonians (I4); for it was very hard to beiieve in 
Vahwè or his law while the Eabyionian oppressor had 
il ali hig own way. The people of Jndah were at least 
better thain their oppressors ; hence to Habakkuk 'the 
righteous" is the Constant description of the Judai^ns, 
whilst ' the wicked ' stands for the heathen conqueror. 
This termincJt^y was adopted by subsequent writers, 
as may be seen from Is. 26rQ Ps. 96 j; lOs,^ In the 
end, as Habakkuk hotds, Yahwè will vindicate the cause 
of his people, and ' the righteous man ' — i.e. , the man 
of Judah, is to live by fidelity to his God and confidence 
in the uttimate victory of the good cause. Here we 
havB the outline of the picture whfch the Second Isaiah 
{i.e., Is. 40-55) fills in with completer detail and added 
shades of meaning.^ Whereas the earìier prophets 
threatened, the unknown prophet of the Exile makes it 
his chief endeavour to comfort Israel. No doubt the 
naiion has sinned ; but it has also been punished enough, 
and more than enough, and now the day of its deliver- 
ance is at band. ' For the sake of his own faithfulness 
{s/tieÀ) Yahwè l^as been pleased to give great and glori- 
ous revelation ' of his character (42 ii}." He is a ' triith- 
speakìng ' God (saddik, 4521). He has stirred up Cyrus 
' in righteousness ' (4613), i.e., as Yahwè oiight to do, 
and therefore must do ; he has supported him with ' his 
trusty right hand ' ( ' right band of sédek, ' 41 10). Hy a 
glorious restora t io n Yahwè 'justifies' Israel — i.e., decides 
in its favour (508). Hence in a multitude of cases s/de^ 
and seddkdh mean triumph (so the verb 45 25 : cp vixàr 
in Rom. 1221) 'victory' (4I2 4612), ' redress ' (518), 

1 W- may perhaps compare <a>ioi KÒyaBai, opifmates, prud- 
k^mmcs. gtiii: Manner, used of the aristocracy without any 
ethical meaning. Of course che ethìcal words never lost their 
echical sense ao utlerly. 

2 Tlieca is, bowever, some douht both as to the referencc in 
this passage, and as to ils authenCicìly. See Marti, ad fec. 



' salvation ' (4613). It is significant that when sgdàkàh 
retains its older and eihical force, it is used of a right- 
eousness which comes as a divine grace being ' rained 
downfromabove' (458). In the Second Isaiah, however. 
this purely ethical sense is rare, occuiring only two or 
three times out of some twenty-five in which the Hebrew 
root is used. 

The Second Isaiah, as we bave seen, assumed that 

the sufferings inflicted by Babylon had sufficed to purify 

A T j-_!j T Israel, and hailedwith Joy the restora- 

9. IndlTldUal ,- r - u. 1 tr 

riffVitoni ti6 n t'On of a nghteous people. However, 
^ ■ in the preceding generation Ezekiel had 

given expression to a very different view. In the latter 
period of his work he was a pastor of souls, a preacher 
addressing individuais rather than a prophet with a 
message to the nation. Naturally, then, he insists on 
individuai righteousness. Each man is to be tried on 
his own merils ; however righteous he may be, he caii 
secare the due reward for himself and only for himself. 
Nay, even with the individuai Yahwè deals according 
to his present actions, admitting no appeal to the 
righteousness of the past. and on the other band for- 
giving iniquity in case of repentance and amendment 
(Ezek. I81 14 14./ 33i2/). His ideal of righteousness 
in the individuai conforms on the whole to the prophetic 
standard of individnal righteousness, though it includes 
a larger amount of ritual observance (see esp. 186-3). 
Now, after the restoration, the view of the Second Isaiah 
proved untenable. The restoration itself lacked the 
esternai glory of which he had fondly dreamt, and the 
exile had failed to produce that righteousness of the 
whole nation which was stili the cherished aim of 
religious reformers in the Jewish Church. How was it 
to be accomplished? Finally and completely by the 
judgment of the last days, which is to fall on unfaithful 
Jews as well as the heathen, This is the favourite theme 
of Apocalyptic writers (see esp. Is. IO22 which is a late 
insertion : Mal. 83 Zech. 99 126 ISg— Joel and Daniel 
paisim). Meanwhile the wisdom literature taught with 
Ezekiel that God bere and now, thougii not immediately, 
recompenses the righteous and the wicked according to 
their deserts, a dogma constandy reiterated in Proverbs 
and Psalms. Here and ihere a distinction is made 
between the ' weightier matters of the law ' and such as 
are merejy ritual, since Yahwè loves ' righteousness and 
judgment' more than 'sacrifice' (Prov.213, cp, e.g. , 
Ps. 50). But more and more the ' righteous man ' ìs 
one who studìes and practises the whole Iaw(Ps, Is)- 
The righteous are really one with the hàsidtm : these 
are to be found as a rule among the poor and affiicted 
Israelites (Zech. Sg Ps. 66-59), and possibly the author 
of Ps. 94, when he speaks {v. 15) of legai administration 
returning to ' righteousness,' may be looking forward to 
the triumph of the Pharisaic over the Sadducean party. 
Naturally those who made so much of the law laid great 
stress on deeds of mercy. But sMdkdk nowhere admits, 
as in Mishnic Hebrew, of the rendering 'alms,' though 
such passages as Ps. II29 Dan. 424 [27] are not far re- 
moved from this later use.^ 

We have already, in discussing the various senses of 

sèdàkdk. etc. , answered by implication the question, 

'p- h* How is a man justified or accepted as 

10. Klgrnt- righteous beforeGod? Something, how- 

of ainners. ? 

ever, has to be added here on the 

justifìcation of sinners, the change from 
divine condemnation to divine favour. As we have seen, 
the ancient Hebrew believed that God's wrath could be 
a ppeased by sacrifice (i S, 2619 814), whereas the earliest 
of the literary prophets insisted that national amendment 
was the only way of escape from national chastisement. 
The idea that sin was a debt incurred and that payment 
was stili due, however sincere the conversion might 

1 In Mt. 61, Jtjcaioo-iinjv is certainly Ihe tnie reading, and 
that of TR é^ój/iocniiTii' is a gloss. Whether the gloss is correct 
is another question. Weiss, adloc, answers this question in the 
affirmative ; Holtsmann, NTl. Theol. 2 135, in the negative, 



be, is altogether strange to Amos and his successors. 
' Cease to do evil, learn to do well,' is the reniedy which 
Isaiah proposes ; nor does he doubt its efficacy : ' If ye 
be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the 
land ' (Is, 1 16-19). Ezekiel, in a passage quoted above, 
proposes the same rule to the individuai, and combats 
the delusion that the merits of persons exceptionally 
righteous could atone for the sins of their neighbours ^ 
(see also Jer. 15 1 31 29, and for an opposite view Gen. 
Ì817/. ). On the whole this principle ruled in later 
Israel. To keep the law is righteousness (Dt. 625), and 
the man or church that does so receives sldakah — i.e. , a 
favourable sentence ' from the God who comes lo his 
help' (Ps, 245). It is true that neìther the individuai 
Jew nor the Jewish church could always appeal with con- 
fidence to that perfect observance of the law which 
justified in the sight of God. On the contrary, the 
Psalms abound in acknowledgments of guilt {e.g. , Pss. 
384-6 40 13 696 [5]), and the chief motive of religion was 
to secure divine pardon : ' There is forgiveness with ihee 
ihat thou mayest be feared ' (Ps. I3O4). We must not, 
however, identify such misgivings with the reproach of 
conscience, with the sense of sin as Christians under- 
stand it. The Jews believed that God was oifended 
with them because he withheld the rewards of righteous- 
ness and dealt with them as he deals with the wicked, 
they believed restoration to prosperity was the sure sign 
of pardon and of grace, a state of mind which finds its 
classical expression in Ps. 32. But was there no way of 
restoration except perfect righteousness, or, failing that, 
supplication to the divine mercy (as in Dan. Qao)? 
On this point the later teachìng of the OT is not 

The Priestly Code hmits the efficacy of the sin-oifering 
which was introduced after the exile to venial or in- 
voluntary transgression (Nu. 1627-31), 

11. Atone- 

meut and 


and the mention of sacrifice in the 
Book of Proverbs (158 166 Slja?) is 

at least in harmony with this principle. 
Stili, even the Priestly Code had to mitigate the strici- 
ness of its theory, On the day of Atonement the high 
priest laid the sins of Israel on the head of the goat 
which was sent into the desert (Lev. 1620-22) ; the 
dshdm atoned for perjury and embezzlement (Lev. 5ii/l 
[62_/^] Nu. 55_/I) when preceded by restitution to the 
person wronged, and incense could appease Yahwè when 
provoked by the rebellion of his people (Nu. lliif. 
[1646/.]). At astili later period it was thought that the 
merits of the Patriarchs atoned for the sins of Israel (see 
Weber, Altsyn. Theol. 280 _/! ; and the essay on the 
' Merits of the Fathers ' in Sanday and Headlam's Com- 
mentary on Romans), and we may perhaps find the germ 
of this dogma in the atoning efficacy which the OT 
attributes to the prayers of holy men (Ex. 327/^ 31/^ 
Nul4!i/ I622 17iojos.76/ Jer. 7 16 ll^lSi Job5i 
3323) and ofangels (Zech. 1 12 Job 5 1 8823). Very natur- 
ally the doctrine that the merits of the Fathers availed for 
the justification of Israel culminated in the belief that the 
guilt of Israel was purged by the vicarious sufferings of 
righteous men. This no doubt was the teaching of the 
Rabbis. According to them, Isaac made propitiation 
for Israel by the willing oblation of his own life. God 
smote Ezekiel that Israel might go free, and martjTdom 
made propitiation for sin as efficaciously as the day of 
Atonement.^ The OT, however, lends no real support 
lo such a theory of justification by vicarious sacrifice. 
The famous passage ( Is. 52 13-53 12) which describes the 
sufferings of Yahwè 's servant is treated elsewhere 
(Seryant of the Lord), In spite of the corruption 
of the text, the general sense seems to be clear. ^ 

1 Almsdeeds also were regarded as a powerful means of alone, 
raent for past sins. 

a Reff. in Holtzmann, NTL Theol. 1 65/. 

3 Verses 10^ are, as they stand, quite out of place, since the 
context requires a reference to the resurre etion, not the death 
of the servant, See Che. Intr. io Is. 305, n. i, and Duhm and 
Marti, ad loc. lalso Sekvant of the Lord, §g 4(4) 5(4)]. 



Israel, the servanl of Yahwè, does indeed suffer for the 
' peace ' and ' healing ' of the nations. This, however, 
takes place because of the effeet produced on the minds 
of the heathen, not because of the effeet produced on 
the mind of God. At first the heathen regard Israel as 
atflicted by an angry God : they shrink from him as meri 
shrink from a Icper. But God reverses the tragic doom 
of his people and raises up the nation to new life. 
Then the heathen understand the divine purpose. They 
recali the nieekness with which Israel endured its punish- 
menl. They acknowledge their own sinfulness and come 
to the knowledge of the true God who has scattered 
Israel abroad for a season that he may make it the light 
of nations and show his irresistible power in its glorious 

The w^ords SlKatoì, SiKaioT^iVT), which scarcely occur 
in the Fourlh Gospel, are exceedingly common in Mt. 
_ _ , and Lk. , and serve to express the most 
' ,. striking and characteristic features of 
^ ' Jesus' teaching. Jesus requìred from 
his disciples a righteousness better than that of the 
Scribes and Pharisees, and told them that otherwise 
they could not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. Sao). 
Generally, it may be saìd that Jesus restored the pro- 
phetic ideal of righteousness, at the same lime deepen- 
ing and extending it. The popular doctrine understood, 
by righteousness, not so much an honest and upright life 
as scrupulous attention to moral and cerenionial rules, 
conduci legally correct. These rules were contained in 
the written and orai law ; Jesus declared that the 
traditions of the elders nuUified the centrai purpose of 
the law (Mk. 7 1-13), or at best were matterà of indiffer- 
ence [ià. ). Moreover, he not only distinguished between 
the more important and less important precepts of the 
Mosaic law (Mt. 2823) ; he also criticised the law itself 
and set its niost solemn conimands aside. 

No less than ihis is implied in words silth as these — 'Moses 
because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to divorce 
your wìves' (Mt. 198 = Mk. 10 5) ; 'The Sabbath was made for 
man, not man for the Sabbath '(Mk. 2 27) ; ' Nothing that goeth 
inioamanfroBi without can defilé a tnan '(Mk. Ti5 = Mt. ISi?/?; 
contrast Lev. 11 Deut. 14), Again, the righteousness which 
Jesus taught far transcended on its positive side that of the 
Mosaic law ; among his disciples the lex talionU was to give 
place to a very difFerent rule — vi;., ' Do not resist evil '(Mt. 5 39) 
— and that is foUowed by a kindred command, 'Love yout 
enemies' (Mt. 5 44). 

More clearly and more consistently than any previous 
teacher, Jesus demanded a righteousness of the heart, 
and forbade malicious and impure thoughts as sternly 
as the deeds of murder and lust to which they naturally 
tend ( Mt. 5 21-38), He went deeper stili, and instead of 
reckoning the sum of good deeds, or even good thoughts, 
against the opposing sum of evil deeds and thoughts, 
he insisted upon righteousness of character, a righteous- 
ness which is not accidental but essential, a righteousness 
which is one and indivisible, various as its manifesta- 
tions may be : 'A good tree cannot bring forth evil 
fruit, neither can a corrupt bring forth good fruit ' 
(Mt.7i8). No sacrifice was to be counted too severe 
when personal righteousness was in perii (Mt.Szg) or 
the cause of righteousness to be advanced (Mt. 192< 
Mk. lOsi Lk, I822). On the one band, ali was to 
be done with a single eye fixed upon God and his 
approvai (Mt.6i etc. ) ; on the other hand, the service 
of God consisted in the service of man for God's sake. 
It is on duty to man that the • Sermon on the Mount' 
dwells throiighout, that practical love for man of which 
God himself is the supreme example, and hence an 
infinite vista opens up before the disciple, who can never 
feel that he has done enough since he is to be perfect as 
his Father in Heaven is perfect (Mt. 648). So, too, 
the Jewish notion of a contract with God who repays 
service done disappears in that relation of son to 
father which Jesus removed from the circumference and 
set in the centre of religion. True, God rewards those 
who do not reward themselves by ostentation and self- 
complacency. But the quality of reward is the same 



for ali faithful service, long or short ; it consists in ad- 
mission to the kingdom in which the ideal of righteous- 
ness is realised (Mt. 2O1-16). As God bestows the 
powers to be used in his service, and has an absolute 
right to that service, no room is left for merit which 
does but claim its due : ' When ye shall bave done ali 
these things which are commanded you, say, We are 
unprofitabJe servants' (Lk, 17io). 

Jesus opened the Kingdom of Heaven to those who 
hungered and thirsted for righteousness such as this 
(Mt. 66). Whereas, however, prophets and apocalyptic 
writers had looked forward to a final separation of the 
righteous and the wicked. Jesus began his work by 
the great announcement that he carne to cali not the 
righteous, but sinners, to repentance (Mt. 9i3^Mk. Si? 
= Lk.532). He declared and pronounced the forgive- 
ness of sins ; he spoke of the Joy in heaven over one 
sinner who repents ; he taught men to believe in God by 
first teaching them to believe in himself He invited 
men to believe in the good news (Mk. lis) — i.e., to 
have faith or trust in God as their Father, and to make 
this trust the guiding principle of their lives. 

It would be impossible within the limits of this article 
to discuss the righteousness of faith of which Paul 

_ .j. - speaks or the connection of Christ's 
j,', death with justification. It may be well, 

however, to indicate in conclusion the 
various uses of Sisatos and the cognate words in the NT 
apart from righteousness in the Pauline sense and that 
higher righteousness demanded by Jesus from his dis- 
ciples of which we have said something already. The 
adjective 3ÌKator, ' righteous,' is applied to God especially 
as judge of ali (Rev. I65), or to Christ (aTim. 48 Jn. 
1725); to men as observant of the Jewish law (Mt. 1 19).^ 
It also is equivalent to ' virtuous ' in the wìdest sense 
(Mt.54S 9i3 = Mk.62o=Lk.532, etc). Once Paul 
distinguishes the righteous man who fulfils ali his 
obligations from the à.-ya.6bì whose character is more 
genial and attractive (Rom. 5?). ' Righteous ' ìs also a 
title given to men eminently righteous (Mt. 13 17 Mk. 2 17), 
and by pre-eminence to Jesus (Acts3i4 752 22 14). It 
is predìcated, as the corresponding Hebrew adjective 
never is, of things (Mt. 20 4 Lk. 12 57 Acts4i9 Rom. 7 ti 
Col.4i Phil. 48 etc). 

The noun 6iitaici<niuij raeans 'fair dealing' between man and 
man (passing into the wider sense of virtuous conduci ; ActslOss 
24 25 Rom. tì 13 14 17 i 11 a Ttm. 2 22). Lk. uses it once 
only, via., in 1 75 where il is paraliel to ' holiness,' i.t., piety. 
Acceptance of John's baptisro is spoken of (Mt. 3i5)as included 
in the 'fulfilment ofall righteousness' — i.«.,as conformable tolhe 
divine will which the Baptist announced. So, too, the Baptist 
is- said to have come 'in the way of righteousness' (Mt. 2132), 
because he preached that course of conduct which righteousness 
required. The verb Siitaiùi, 'justify,' in the NT always means 
to pronounce just, never, either in the NT or in profane wtìters, 
to make just (the apparent exception, Rev. 22 11, in the received 
text arises from a false reading). It is used of men who seek 
to prove themselves in the right (Lk. 1029), or to win credit 
fot righteousness with iheir fellow-men (Lk. I615). Men are 
justified before God when they obtain his approva] (Lk. 18 14 
Mt. 12 37 = Lk. 7 35). In this sense Jesus, after his resurrection, 
was 'justified in the Spirit '(1 Tim. 3i6) inasmuch afi he received 
clear tokens of divine approvai. As God justifies men, so men 
may justify God, by confessing his righteousness (Lk.Tig Ps. 
51 6 [4] as quoted in Rom. 3 4 ; cp Mt, 11 jq), an apphcation of 
the verb whigh is found in the Psalms of Solomon (2 16 3 5). 

See Diestel,/ZJ7'5i73^; Ortloph, ' Begriff von pia,' ZZT 
1860, p. 40iyl ; Ryssel, Syttonyme des 
14. LitomtllTe. Wahren u. Guien in- lien se>n. Sfracken 
(1872); Kautzsch, Derivate des Staiumes 
pia, Tùb., 1881; Smend, ATRel.; W. R. Smith, Profh.i?), 
389 T Schwally, Heil. Ktieg im Ali. Israel; Wildeboer, 
ZATIV 22(1902). This last accentuates the juristic element 
and even in so early a passage as Judg. 5 n trajislates sidkòtk, 
' victories' [of Yahwè]. Wildeboer's comparisonof the Syr. zèkhR 
to be pure, to conquer, iiàb ' to be guilty,' ' to be defeated ' is 
interesting and suggestive. w. R. A. 

RIMMON (l'i»-) ; peMM&N [BL] -e [A]). Accord- 
ing to the traditional text, the name of a god worshipped 
at Damascus (2 K. 5 18) ; apparently it enters into the 

t The passage is difticult ; but it seems to mean that Joseph 
was too strict an observer to marry a woman who had proved 
unfaithfui, and too kind to make a public example of her. 

41 IO 



naiiie T;*b-rimmon [ì'-w.], though, as we Eh;\ll see, 
another view of the phrase in i K. l6iS is at least 
equaiiy possi bie. 

A more correct pronunciation of the name of this 
god would be Ramman. Both name and cultus of 

, „. this deitv were, it is generally held, 

A88. Ramman. ^orrovved from Assyna, and certamly 
Ramman was the most prevalent name 
of the god of thunder and hghtning (ideogram IM) who 
plays such an importanl pari in the Babylonian IJeluge- 
Btory, and is often represented as armed with the 
thunderbolt. The etymological meaning is 'theroarer' 
{ratnàrnu = ' to roar ') — a name well suited to a thunder 
god. The W. Semites appear to have had another 
name for this god, viz,, Addu or Daddu, and Oppert 
(ZA 9313 _^ [1894]) supposes that Adad was the oldest 
name of the deity, There is thought lo be a remi- 
nisceiice of the identity of Addu (or Adad) and Ramman 
in the <;ompound form Hadad-rimmon (MTs reading) 
in Zech. 12ii ; the editor of Zechariah, however, will 
in this case be responsible for the strange form (but see 
Crii. Bib, ). We ofien find Ramman associated with 
éamas (the sun-god), 3ike whom he is (in an inscription 
of the Kassile period) called 'lord of justice. ' The 
Massoreles may have confounded Ramman with rimmon 
(see Pomhgkan'Atk) ; though H. Derenbourg disputes 
the accuracy of this representation, Rimmon, according 
tohim,being thedivinisedpomegranate(AoAa/./l/«miiria/ 
Siudies, I30-I3S [1897]. 

See especialiy Jastrow, Rei. o/Bab. and Ass., 156-161 ; and 
Ainer. Joum. qf Sem. Languages, 12 159-162; also Schrader, 
' Ramman-Rimmon,' St. Kr., 1B74, pp. yi^ff.\ Sayce, 'the 
god Rajnman,' ZA l -ììi/. (; Ziramern, KATw 442-451]. 

According to Ohnefalsch-Rìchter {Jiyfroi, T«t, 115) the con- 
fusion between the Hebrew word for ' pomegranate' (]Ì8^ 

rimmon) and the name of the originaliy Assyrian go'l Ramman 
is older than MT, and goes back possibly to ihe lime of Ezekiel 
(and earlier). In this connection he notes that pomegranates 
were altached to the vestmenls of the high-pricst and to the 
columns of the tempie at Jerusalem. On Carthag:inian scelse, 
moreover, we find the seated figure of* the boy Adonis in the 
very place occupieil eLsewherc by the column surmounted by a, 
pomegranate. Ohnefalsch-Rìchter thinks that it was ' an easy 
step' to identify this tree-god Taromuz, to whom the 'rimraOn ' 
wa^ sacred, with the storm-god Ramm3n, and to cali him 
' Rimmon.' 

According to Jensen, there is a cylinder in the Hermitage 
at St- Petersburg inscribed with two divine namcs, the one 
Rammanum, the other ASratum. Taking this in connection 
with Assyrian texis which speak of the god Amurru (i.e., the 
god of the land Amurru, the Amorite god) as the consort of 
Asratti, he infers that the Amorite god referred to is RammSnu, 
I.?., the storm-god. also called by the Assyrians 'the Lord of 
the Mountain, ' = |i3'j 7I?3, ' the Baal of Lebanon.' The ' land 
of Amurru' was in fact orieinally the land of the Lebanon or 
Antìlibanus (cp Wi. Gì 1 52;. 

The present wriler, however (see Crii. Bib."), suspects 

much misunderstanding in the traditional text of the 

- T>- narratives of the kings of Aram, which 

Z- ÌLim211011= ' n< ' .n , - TV 

T„„^„„i IS specially vjsible m names. ' Ben- 
Jeraluueel. u , . . r ■ . , . 

hadad, for mstance, seems to be 

equivalent to Bir-dadda, and Hazael to Haza'ilu, which 

are attested as N. Arabian royal names in Assyrian in- 

scriptions [KA T^'^, 148) ; ' Damascus ' is constantly mis- 

writtenfor 'Cusham' ; and Rimmon, orralher Ramman, 

may be regarded as a popolar corruption of that famous 

name ' Jerahmeel,' which was not only an ethnìc name, 

bui also in ali probabilily the name of a god (see Crit. 

Bib. on 2 K. \7 T/af. ). When, therefore, weread in 2 K. 

5 18 of Naaman's accompanying his royal master to the 

house of Rimmon, this is meant {net of the storm-god, 

but) of the national god of Jerahmeel, who may possibly 

have been called Jarham or Yarham {i.e., m", ' moon,' 

with the Arabie ' mimation '). It was not unnecessary 

to warn the Israelites that Naaman was only by a special 

indulgence allowed to do outward honour to Jarham or 

Jerahmeel, because there are several indications that the 

worship of Jerahmeel had made its way inlo Judah some 

lime before the fall of the state. See, e.g. , Zeph. 1 5^, 

where we should very probably read, ' (I will cut off) 

those that prostrate tbemselves before the moor, that 


swear by Jerahmeel. ' ^ It now becomes doubtful whether 
'son of Tab-rimmon ' in i K. 15t8 is correct. The 
Iting to whom Asa sent may have been, not ' Ben-hadad, 
son of Tab-rimmon, son of Hezion, king of Syria, that 
dwelt at Damascus,' but 'Ben-hadad [=; Bir-dadda], 
native of Beth -jerahmeel ^ {or Kabbath-jer'ahmeel?), 
king of Aram ( — Jerahmeel), who dwelt at (or, in) 
Cusham.' Il should also be noticed here that Elisha, 
who had such dose relations with a king of Aram and 
his general, was, the present wriler suspects, a prophel 
of the Negeb — i.e., of a region which was originaliy 
Jerahraeelite. T. K. e. 

BISmON (jiS"! — i-e., pomegranate ?^see Names, 
§ 69 ; or from ' Jerahmeel ' ? — see Rimmon, i, , § 2). 

1. Josh. 15 32 19? [AV Remmon], i Ch. 432 Zecii. 
liio. See En-kimmon, and cp Ain, i. 

2. The nàme of a rock where 600 fugitive Benjamìtes 
found shelter for four months (Judg. 20 47, [ie-in, pe/J-ini^v 
[BAL]). There was a village of this name 15 R. m. 
N. of Jerusalem (05 1465 28798), identified by Robinson 
(2 113) with the mod. Rammon, rather more than 3 m. 
E. of Bethel, ' on and around the summit of a conical 
chalky bill and visible in ali directions. ' This would 
be in the wilderness of Beth-aven (Josh. ISia). Birch 
{PUFQ, 1879, p. 128) objects that there are only a few 
small caves at Rammon, and refers to Consul Finn, who 
heard of a vasi cavern in the Wady es-Suweinlt capable 
of holding many hundred men. Canon Rawnsley in 
consequence visited the cavems in this Wady, which he 
describes in PEFQ, 1879, pp. 118-126. Birch, foilow- 
ing Ges. Thes. 129^, identifies the Rimmon of Judg. 
20 47 with the Rimmon 'under' which Saul, with his 
600 men, tarried (i S. Ha). The latter Rimmon was 
'at the limil of Geba' (so read for Gibeah). See 


3. ' Rimmon ' (rather * Riramonah, ',i3is-)), also 
appears in RV of Josh. 1813 (E. boundary of Zebulun), 
where AV again [set: i] gives 'Remmon,' with the 
addition of ' -methoar,' {RV 'which stretcheth ' ) as if a 
compound name. The RV at any rate recognises that 
the name is not compound ; it also does Justice to the 
article in inhErt (pe/x^wca a/Midap oofa [B] ; penfiùivafi, 
fiaffapi/J,, avvova [A] ; eirt aiia6a.pi. vova [L]). We may 
render, with Diilmann and Kau. HS, ' and (thelr border) 
exlends to Rimmonah (nJiOT). and lurns round (inni) to 
Neah (?).' No doubt it is the Rimmono (ìjìe-i. AV 
Rimmon), or rather Bimmonab, of i Ch. 663 [77], 
probably also the Dimnah (njp^) of Josh. 21 35, corre- 
sponding to the modern Rumntdneh on the SE. edge of 
the pbiin of Battauf, 4 m, N. from Gath-hepher, and 
7J m. N. trom Chisloth-tabor. 

4. Pcfisibly Madmenah \q.v.'\ va Is. 10 31 shouid rather bc 
'Rimmonah.' T. K, C. 

EIMMON d'iS"! ; peMMOlN [BAL], "pomegranate" 
[so Names, g 69 ; Del. Prol. 205], or the Ass. divine 
name Ramman [Lòhr, cp Kish?], or [Che.] a dis- 
tortion of the ethnic Jerahmeel), a Beerothite, the father 
of Rechab and Baanah[?.w.] (2 S. 42 59). Note that 
■ Rechab ' may be also from ' Jerahmeel,' and that, as 
the story of Saitl {q.v.\ shows, there was a strong 
Jerahmeelite element in Benjamin (Che.), 

EIMMONO (iaiS-l; thn pcmmìon [BAL]; i Ch. 
6 62 [77]). Rather Rimmonah. See Rimmon ii. 3. 

RIMMON-PAREZ, RV Rinmion-perez (pB p»-)). 
a stage in the wandering in the wilderness, perhaps = 

1 G. A. Smith renderà MT, so far as he thinks it possible, 
thus, 'and those who . . . swear by their Melech,' and in a 
note pointB oiit the disorder of the text. Wellh. reads, ' those 
who bow tbemselves to Yahwè and swear by Milconi.' But 
03^0, l'I'^ I^Ci '^ ^'"y probably one of the curtent distortions 
of 7KCnT. See Crit. Bib. 

2 The much-disputed word ivin is probably a corruption of 
pm", a variant to poi, and nearer to the originai form ^«cnT- 



Zarephath-jerahmeel [Che.] ; Nu. SSi;»/ (pCMMtoN 

[p&MMWhi.or piMMtijeitt>*P€C)' SeeWANDEKINGS, 

RING. The sjgnet ring was calied in Hebrew 

hSthàm (nmn) from its use ( \/ lo seal), and iabbA'atk 

- . j,!™»!. (nPJt2} fron) its form ( </ to sink, As. 

3. oigneu. ^^.^^j . ^j^^jjj jjj(j[_ ^j.^^, ■M/&a'.<Kpri;) Dan. 

6 18 [17], and in Targum for bolh fySthdtn and tabbdath 
( ^/lo cut, engrave).^ See Engrave, The eeal was 
woni, as il is stiil by some Arabians, on a cord, patkil 
(see RiubAnd), round the neck, Gen. 38 16 ; later, on ihe 
right liand, Jer. 22z4. In Caiit. 86both cusiyms seem 
coLiibined. ' on chine arni, 011 ihy heart.' The oldesl 
forni of signet worn by ali Babylonians (Hercid. ligs) 
was the cylinder, a large hole being bored Ihrough the 
core fo admit a soft woollen cord for suspension 
round wrist or neck.'^ The Egyptian scarabseus ^ had 
a snialler hole to admit a fine wire. When used, the 
seal was rolied over a piece of pipeclay which was laid 
on an object or attached by a ribbon to a document 
(King, Antique Gems. I40). It was from the Egyptian 
wire that the more convenient finger-ring was evolved. 
Sucii rings were among the ornaments worn by Hebrew 
women after the esile, I5. 821 {w. 18-23 being an interpo- 
lation}. The v,OTd gd/U 'ring' in Cant.Si* EV, for 
which RV'K- preferabiy suggests ' cylìnder,' seems to be 
used as a simile of the fìngers of the hand (BDB, Bu. 
nrf /oc. ). 

The fransference of Judah's signet to Tamar had no 
special significance— he simply gave her as a pledge an 
object which could obviously be identified wilh him."* 
On the signet was probably a preeious stone, moslly 
the ìoham (see Onyx), on which was engraved a figure 
or inscription. Ex. 2611. Hence in an Orientai court 
the conveyance of the signet attested a royal message 
(1 K, 218), and in many lands was a mode of investing 
ofiìcers with power (Gen. 4l4a Esth. 3 io iMace. 815 
Jos. Arti. x«. 22)- There is no indication that the 
wedding-ring was used in OT times ; but in Egypt 
some such cuslom aficiently prevailed- It shoijld be 
added that a SaKT(i\iov was placed on the hand of the 
prodigai -son on his restoration lo his father's house 
(Lk. Iri22). 

Néziìti (qj]) conveya the meanings of both an ear-ring 

and a nose-ring, though usually the fuller form néeem 

„ . hd-dpk (fiKfi nij) is used for the nose-ring. 

"•'tS' In Tudg. 8a<, however, where the s iugular 
TiOHff^ritifr j o ^' CI 

°' is used, it Ì3 probable that nésent alone 

means nose-ring. The whole of this passage is. how- 
ever, regarded as a late gloss by Wellhausen. Moore, 
Buddc, and others. Neither nose-rìngs nor ear -rings were 
worn by males, though Pliny [NH 11 37 [50]) says that 
Orientai men wore them, and, if Judg. 824 be genuine 
Midiaiiiie soldiers did so,* The nose-ring was put 
through the nostril and hung over the mouth. Robertson 
Smith explains that ali such ornaments were designed 
as amulets and protectors to the orifices, as well as 
for ornament (cp RS'^'^ 453, and n. a). The ring puc 
through the nose of beasts {hdh, 'hook') is sometimes 
aesociated with nézem {Ex. 36sa, AV 'bracelets,' RV 
'brooches'); ep HtxìK, 2. 

Several fornis of ear-ring are noticed in the OT, 
The Ifhàilm of Is. 3zo were perhaps ear-rings (see 

1 Hóthémeth, Gen. 38 agt is fem. coll.ra'sealing apparatus.' 
Ball suggeEts rcading DCrnri or rÓfinfl ; Holzinger partly 
flpproves this sii^gestion. 

3 Illiistrations m Ferro t.Chipìer, Ari in Ats. % figs. \%tff. 

■' The earliest dated Egyptian cylind^r is as old as 3800 b.c. 
(Flinders Petrie, Hist. ó/Ègypi, 1 55). 

* Wellhausen {,Ar- Heiii.W, 164/) tKink» that the ccj-rffrom 
which the signet hung was also an amulet. Thi» wouid account 
for the insiitence on the transference of the cord in the narrative 
in (Isnesis. 

^ On these grounds Moore holds that ear-rings are probably 
meanl. For the wearing of nose-rings by Indian boys in order 
to pass a* girl* and nvert the evil-eye, tee Frazer, Pa-usamat, 

2 256. 



Amulets), to^hich sonic symbolic figure was attached, 
Other terms for ear-ring were derived from the shape. 
The 'àgli (S'jy) was round (Ezek. 16iz, cp Bertholet on 
Ezek. I7 Nu. 3I50). Another kind, nSilphóth (nir'C3J> 
Ut. drops (RV pendantB, AV celiar), «ere probably 
pearls (.Abuhialid comparcs Arab. naùifat, a sniall, 
clear pearl), or single beads or geins attached to Ihe 
lobe of the ear (P|C], to drop), Judg. 826 [oTpayyaXls 
[B], òpiùaKoi ev<pia6 [AL]), Is. -S 19 (© K<i$e/j.a ?) worn by 
Midianite men and Israelite women. 

The ancient vetsions gave other explanations ; Tg. K'7'7ri 
diadems, gljaplets. Sonie Jewish inlerpreters connected nètìpkòlk 
with natapk (E2. 30 34, see Stactl) and render cap.sules of sweet- 
smelling gum. See, furlher, Oknaments, and the artides 
there referred to. I. A. 

EINGSTRAKED (Ipr) Gen. 30 35/: ; see Coloubs, 

EINSAH (nsn, 'shouting??' §74; &N&[B], pan- 
NWN [A], peNN& [L]), son of the Judahite Shimon 
{q.v. ); I Ch. 420. 

EIPHATH (njin, Gen.103 [P], pr4)&e [AEL] ep. 
ID\: Ch. 16, nD'T DiPHATH [Ay"'c- and RV], epei- 

<tAe [R]. pitt>Ae [A]. pi(J>*e [Mi in both places 
RiPHATH [Vg.], 4fii**)p one of the 'sons' of Gomer, 
Gen.103 iCh. lóf. According to the theory which 
finds N. Arabian influence and inlerests pervading Ihe 
earlierchapters DfGenesis(see Paradise, § 6), 'Gomer' 
represents ' jerahmeei , ' ' Ashkenaz ' comes from ' Kenaz ' 
(or Asshiir-Kenaz), ' Riphatli ' from 'Zarephath.' The 
transformation has been systematic. On the time- 
honoured theory. however, which base» itself on MT, wc 
must look far away from N, Arabia. Josephus thought 
of Paphlagonia ; Bochart and Lagarde of the Biihynian 
river ^77/^0! and the distant pTj^avTia on the Thratian 
Boiporus. Bui if ToGABMAH i^.v.] is really Til- 
garimmii, on the border of Tabal, Riphath may be 
identified wilh Bit BurutaS (or Buritii), a district— men- 
tioned several limes with Tabali (see Schr. KGF 176)— 
wbose king was an ally of Urartu and Musku. The 
syllable -as or -iS may be regarded as a siiffix (so first 
Hai. RE/. 17164). The transposition of b (or p) and 
r is no difticulty. The suggestion is plausible, if MT 
may safely be foUowed. T. k. c. 

BIS8AH(n5-!; ieccA [B], p. [AF], Ap. [L]), a 
stage in the wandering in the wilderness ; Nu. SSai/. 
See Wakdekings. Wildernkss ok- 

RITHMAH (npn") named from the DÌI'i or juniper 
tree, § 103 ; if we should not rather read Ramath, 
p&e&A^A [BAF], pAA^àeA [I-])' it stage in the wander. 
ing in the wilderness (Nu.SSjB/), See Wandekincs. 


[The facts and theories about Hebrew ritual are dealt 
wilh in many articles, among the mosl important of 
which are the foUowing ; Sackifice, Temple (§§ 34^. ), 
NatureWcrship, Altar, Massebah, Tabeknacle, 
Ark. DisPERSiON, Synagogue. On the ritual of the 
nations contemporary with Israel the reader may consult 
Aram, Assyria, Babyì.on, Fxjypt, Moah, Ammon, 
Canaan, Phcenicia, Hittìtes, Scvthians, Zoroas- 
TRIANIS.M, etc. 

Of those nations, however, so great an influence on 
the civilisation of the whole of hither Asia was exerciscd 
by one, the Babylonian, that the facts about its ritua! 
acquire special importance. On the other hand the 
amount of first-hand Information on the subject is 
unique and, besides, not generally accessible. It is pro- 
posed, accordingly, to give bere some account of the 
nature, and ceremonial instifutions, of the Babylonian 
sacrifìciai ritual. In doing this the points in which it 
resembles, or dìffers from. the ritual of the OT wilì be 
indicated, and a brief comparison of the twc systcms 
given. ] 

41 14 




Names for sacrifice (g i). Performance (S 6). 

Objects offered, age, etc. (§ z^). Idea, purpose (§ jf^. 
Time and place (S 4)- Human sacrifice {§ g). 

Antiquily of sacrifice (g 5). Lustration (g io). 

Summary (g 11). 

Assyrio-Babylonian Ritual. 

A short account of Babylonian sacrifices has beeu 
already given in the Supplement to Die Cultus-tafel von 
Sippar (Joh. Jeremias, Leipsic, 25-32 [1889]). The 
question of how far this system is originai and how far 
it is related to what we find elsewhere has received httle 
or no attention. The treatment of such questions in 
the difBcuIt sphere of rehgious institutions being always 
involved in uncertainty, it appears to be more than ever 
appropriate in regard to sacrifice, as an institution 
common to ali peoples, to explaìn the same or similar 
ideas not as borrowed the one from the other, but as 
both drawn from the same source. In justification of 
the common designation Assyrio-Babylonian it is to be 
noted that, apart from a few raodifications in their 
Pantheon, the religion of the Assyrians agrees through- 
out with that of the Babylonians. Of this agreement, 
which was raaintained in spile of ali politicai strifes, we 
bave a historical attestation in the fact that Asur-bani-pal 
had the MSS of the Babylonian priestly schools collected , 
supplied with an Assyrian interlinear translation, and 
preserved in his state archives (see 4 R).' 

Sacrifices were called kirbannu or kurbannu {more 
rarely kuriànu, kitruhu ; in ordinary usage, 'back- 
sheesh, aims.' A much commoner 

1. Names for 

word is niku, ' to be bent, show 
reverence, offer homage' (cp for this 
meaning Del. Assyr. HWB). used of drink offerings 
{^Deluge, 147 ; cp n'piD patera] and also of bloody 

The root of niku is ttakiì ' to te empty,' li. 1 ' to pour out. ' It 
was probably the pouring out of the blood that ied to the 
transferenceof w;*ii from ils originai application ' drink oifering' 
to the meaning ' blood offering.' A tarer word than nikii is zitii 
{Khors. 172), Heb. Txy^jZehah. For ' drink offering 'we find also 
the words mukhum, mahhùru (in contracts), ramku. To 
mìnhàh (nn]0), 'food offering,' correspondss«''^f«« (Del. HWB 
sur^ìnu), a word fotmerly incorrectly rendered 'aliar.' The 
regular slated offering {t&inld, TOP) was called sattu^ku {sat- 
iakam, ' Constant ') or gini), properly 'right.' Both words 
indicate the yearly, monthly, tarely {Nabun, 14*3) daily, con- 
tribution to the tempie for the support of the sacrifice and the 
priests. A synonymous word isgu^éu or gukkànu. The free- 
will offering, Heb. nédàliàk(j\yìi), is called nìndaHi (rtidèti). 

For ' to sacrifice ' the commonest word ìs nakù, 
For the sake of comparìson the following may be mentioned 
from the many other expressìons in use : efiésu, Heb. 7 nbj? ; 
^abàiu, Heb. np7 ; tabSku, Heb. Tl'Sa ; riksa rakasu, ' to pre- 
pare an offering.' Of special importance, moreover, are the 
expressions in purification texts : karàbìt {^''ypn ; often used 
of pouring water, occurring with p [notwithslanding Del. 
HWB\, in Rassam 2 168) and kafiàru (K 3245, pass.) ' to wipe,' 
then ' to clear, purify,' a meaning that is important in ils hearing 
on Heb. iìp^r 033). Cp /FR 13 51 IT 33 ; Zimmem, Beilrag-e 
12226. The offerer of the sacrifice ìs called kàrihu or bSl niké 
(cp Marseilles Sacrificial Table, n3I Syz)- 

It should be specially noted that everything that the 

land produced was offered to the gods without dis- 

-. . . tinction. Whilst in Israel it was only the 

a j produce of a people devoted to catile-rearing 

■ and agriculture that was oifered (cp Di. 

LevA^^, 37g)^and this was stili fu rther narro wed by the 

exclusion of fhiit, honey, and ali sweet or fermented 

preparations on the one hand, and of beasts of chase 

and fish on the other — in the fruitful lands between the 

two rivers every kind of produce was freely offered to the 

1 Abbreviations used in this article. K followed by a number 
= sorae one of the tablets of the Koyunjik colleclion m the Brit. 
Mus. ; Neb. Naiun. Cyr.—Bahylonische Teorie, Inschrifien 
des Nebitkadnezar, Nabuitdìd, Cyrus, publisbed by T. N. 
Strassraaier (Leipsic, 18S7) ; Menant, PG=Les pìerres gravées 
de la Haute Asie (Paris, 1883). 


gods. Of vegetable products we find frequent mention 
of wine {kardnu), must (kiirunnu), date wine {Sikaru, 
prepared from corn and dates or honey and dates, cp 
Neb. 1035, Nabun 612, 871 ; -c,^, cp Nu. 287), honey 
{dilpu, ip3t}, cream (kimélu, ntvan), a mixture prepared 
from various ingredients and containing oil and fat 
(invariably written GAR Ni-De-A ; probably mirsu is 
to be read ; cp Nab. 912, Cyr. 3276, Arab. maris, 
' date-stone ' ), the choice produce of the meadow (sìmat 
appari), garlic \^Sumtnu, qvs), first-fruits [rèseti ; ri'iPNT ; 
Snnh. I61 Kuj. \g).^ Food specially prepared for the 
gods was called akal taknu (4 R. ór, óan), with which 
should be compared the analogous ex press io n cn^ 
riDi^ari. Upon the table of the gods were laid 12, or 

3 X 12, loaves of as-an, that is to say wheaten flour, as 
shewbread (cp Zimmern, Beitrdge ^^ -a 104 138 : IVR 
5520i*5623a; Craig, Relig. Texts Idd; King, Magic 
and SorceryiOB) ; also akal mutki, that is to say, un- 
leavened bread, is several times mentioned (cp Lev, 
245), Special abundance and splendour characterised 
the vegetable offerings of the Neo- Babylonian and Neo- 
Assyrian kings (cp Pognon, Inscriptions de Wàdi 
Brissa; Neb. Grot.\-i(yff. \ Neb. Groi.l'^b ff.; Neb. 
Grot. 37 f.; Schr. ^£278). They were in the form 
of the daily sattukku, the state sacrifice, a sort of 
representation of the whole agriculture of the land. 
Nebuchad rezzar lays on the table of Marduk and 
Sarpanit the choicest produce of the meadow, fruit, 
herbs, honey, cream, milk, oil, must, date-wine, wine 
from different vineyards. Stili more abundant is the 
offering of Sargon (^".5278), a king who offers finally 
not to the gods but to himself. His splendid offering 
is a brilliant display of his royal wealth, at which even 
the gods must be amazed. 

The commonest bloody sacrifice mentioned is that of 
the lamb (written Lu nikH or niku). 

The expression Lu Nita, often occurring in contracts, ìs to be 
read kalùinu or su (jvf) and to be rendered ' lamb, kid.' For 
'goat' we find the words bitkadu, ìapparu (in contracts), urìzu 
az(s) tu ' an old mature lamb.' Of other quadrupeds we bear of 
sacrificial oxen (,^u»iahhu or alap inakhu), buMocks {fiarru, 
■IS)i gazelles (sabltu), wild kine {litfu, AkS). The following 
birds were used for sacrifice ; doves, geese(Ks-^K>-), cocks(^af"éiJ, 

4 R 2647,?; Talm. N'alfS), peacocks (pasfasu), pheasants 
Opasnu; JVitóHH. 6T2 17 Talm. I^ps). Fish (b^Jh,?) are always 
mentioned along with ' birds of heaven ' {issar same). 

For a bird sacrifice see Botta, Nineveh, pi. no ; for 
fish offerings see Menant 253. 

No special prescriptions as to age are known. Lu 
niku probably always indicates, like ^aXa^iji-d (Herod. 

3a Aire and -^^^^'^ ^^^ ^"^"^ sucking lamb. We 

,. ■ ^K , .. know from the contracts that victims a 

Other detaiU. ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ preferred, as m P in 

Leviticus [apal or marat satti, like n'^ià ]3 or V ti3 ; of 
Nabon. 196i 265i 2722 699i5 768i}." Mention is also 
made of victims of two, three (jWi. 399i|, and four 
years of age [Cyr. \\1 i,). 

With regard to the condition of the animals the 
requirements were stricter: faultless growth (tairifitu'), 
large size (rabti). fatness (dusiH, mare), physical purity 
[ebbu, ellu ; ' pure, shining ' }, and spotlessness {Suklulu ; 
Herod. rà T^\«a tQiv Trpo^àrtDv). Cp Zimmern, 
Beitrdge 100 73. In divination, however, the use of 
unsound victims was permitted ; in the prayers to the 
sun-god (ed. Knudtzon, 73) we often read ; isib sa 
kalumu ilétika /a atta biri bara matti hatA : 'Grant 
that the lamb of thy divinity, which ìs used for 
inspection, may be imperfect and unsound.' It 

is well known that in the Israelitish cultus, thank- 
offerings need not be faultless (Lev. 2223). 

The victim was as a rule a male, yet females also 
were used [Sana. Bav. 33 C>r. 1174 Cyr.2^Ti). It 

1 The incense (kuiru, kutrinnu, TApp: forrocrly wrongly 
read tarrinnu, was made from precious herbs (sa'ilfu Torw) and 
odoriferous woods. 

41 16 



was probably aìways female victims that were used ìq 
purifìcation ceremonies : ìarat buhattì là pilHè, ' the 
skin of a she-lamb stili intact ' (4 R 25 351: ; cp 4 R 28 
no. 3 II 5 R 51 51 ; Nimr. Ep. 44, 60). Compare 
with this the prescription of a she-goat one year old for 
the sin ofFering of the individuai (Nu. 1627). 

The victim was probably seldom placed entire {kdlil, 
S''?^) on the aitar. To begin with, the remarkably 
small size of the altars that have been found shows that 
only certain parts of the victims were offered. The 
aitar of Sargon's palace is 32 inches high ; that 
from Nimrùd, actually only 22 inches.^ That the 
tiesh was boiled, as in Israel in early times, is shown 
by 5 R 61, 15, where the priest receives, along with 
other shares, a large poi of meat-broth [dikàr -mS Sèri). 

With regard to the detalls of sacrificial ritual and 
practice our sources teli us little ; the sculptures represent 
as a mie only the preparatory steps (cp Menant2s4 ; 
Layard, Monum. of Nineveh'l^i). The tisual forni of 
offering was burning by fire (ana makl&ti aklu). We 
know nothing of special ceremonies performed with the 
blood in the Babylonian ritual, such as were usuai in 
Israel and ancient Arabia (Wellh. ^r. //fiV. 113}. Ina 
text published by Zimmern {Beitrdge, 126), which 
describes the purifìcation of the king's palace, the lintels 
of the palace are smeared with the blood of a lamb [ina 
dami urizi suaium ) ; compare for this interesting 
passage Ex. 12 7. It may be remarked in passing that 
we learn from 4 R 32 30 that there were Ihree ways of 
preparing the victim : sér sa penti baslu fe tumri. 
' baked, boiled, smoked fìesh.' The offering consisting 
of vegetable food was probably consumed by the 
sacrifìcers. A drastic exposure of this pia fraus is 
given US in the apocryphal Bei and the Dragon. 

The following parts are expressly mentioned in 2 R 
44, 14-18^^ i-s^/"; head {kakkadu), neck [kisadu), 
. p_-j._ -f flank {pdlu), breast [irtu], rib {silA), loin 
.'.. j {siinu), tail {zibbatu), spine [esén séru), 

■Victiiin uaea. ^^^^^ (lUèu). belly {karìu), intestìnes 
(haSS), kidiiey [kalitu), knuckles (kursinnàté). In the 
contracts (cp especially the important texts, Strassm. 
Neb. 247 and 416 ; also Peiser, Babylonische Vertràge, 
107) many parts are mentioned that are sfili etymo- 
logically obscure (with two of them, sèr gabbu and sér 
ganni sili, cp Talm. jojia tail ; and k'jh flank). 
Sacrificial flesh was probably not tahoo as amongst the 
Israelites and the Phcenicians (Movers, /'Aón. 2ii8) ; 
according to a late statement of the Epistle of Jeremiah 
[v. 28 [Baruch 6=8]) the Babylonian priests sold the 
sacrificial flesh, and their wives also cured it. 

No definite prescriptions as to the times of sacrifice 
have reached us. The Zakmi/ku or New Year's feast, 

4 Timfl ^^^ Akitu feast held in honour of Marduk 

and Dlace ^-^^^' ^'"'^^ ^^'' ^'^^^ signalised by proces- 
■^ ■ sions and sacrifices. Daily sacrifices are 
often mentioned (Neb. Croi. 1 16 2=6) ; an animai sacri- 
fice, in Tigl-pil.l x^ (cp I S. 206). In the ritual tablet 
for the monlh Ulùlu (cp Lotz, Historia Sabbati, Iso^), 
published in 4 R 3233, it is prescribed that the daily 
sacrifice, consisting of a 'òldk and a minhàh, should bè 
offered once at each rising of the moon and appearance 
of the dawn, foiirteen times by night and fourteen times 
by day (cp Ex. 2838 Nu. 283). A morning offering is 
mentioned in the text published by Zimmern, Beitrdge 
IOO69. Sacrifice as a free expression of prayer and de- 
pendence ( Iha nk -offerì ngs, toddh, can hardly have been 
known to the Babylonians), as the highest product of 
the religious life, is not severely confined to definite 
limes. On the contrary, everj' important event of 
life is celebrated by a spontaneous ofFering of sacrifices 
just as in ancient Israel. If the king of the Assyrians 
returns victorious from a military expedìtion, if in 
repairing a tempie he finds an ancient foundation 
Stone, if he dedicates his palace, if he consecraCes his 

1 Perrot-Chipiez, A ri in Chaldeta and Assyria, 1 2s6_/r 
132 41 17 

weapons for the fight (kakkéia ullil), if in hunting 
he secures his prey, if he formai ly commemorates 
his ancestors— in each and ali of these cases he offers 
sacrifice to the gods. It is a relief amid the annals of 
cruelty and pride of Assyrian rulers wheu we read in 
their boastful accounts : ana ildni lu nikè akki, ' I 
presented to the gods an offering.' For innumerable 
instances of this kind we may refer generally to JH'B. 

The ordinary place of sacrifice was the tempie. 
Mountain and sprìng also were, in accordance with the 
universal Semitic ideas (cp Baudissin, Studien, 2143), 
regarded as sacred spots, specially suited for sacrifices. 
After the flood Xisuthros offered his sacrifice ' on the 
top of the mountain' {ina zikkurat ìadt); and so 
Asur-bani-pal (SSg) on the mountain Halman, and 
Shalmanassar [Co. 103) at the source of the Euphrates. 

The origin of sacrifice lies, according to Babylonian 
ideas, beyond the limits of human hìstory ; it existed 
B Antiniiitv fr"'" ''^^ ^vcan when the world was made 

of sacrifice '^^^" ^'"^ ^^' ^"'^^' ^°'^^ ^"** ^^"" 
■ are often represented as sacrificing (cp 

Menant. /•(? 23751 53), Sin is called the founder of 

free-wiU offerings [tniiitn nindabè ; 4 R 933) ; Adar, 

the god of offerings and drink offerings {ihi mi^ri ii 

raìnkuti ; 2 R 735 2 R 676?)- As the formalion of 

the earth was immediately followed by the instìtution of 

places of worship, so the newly created man was charged 

with religious duties towards the delty {Del. Das bab. 

Wellsckdp/ungsepos, iii). Palàhu dam&ku ullad nikù 

balàtu -iitàr it taslitu ami . . . ' the fear of God brings 

grace, sacrifice enlarges life and prayer (frees from) 

sin.' After the deluge {147^) Xisuthros sacrifices to 

the gods ; ' then did I turn to the four wìnds, poured 

out a drink off'ering, offered a cercai offering on the top 

of the mountain ; seven incense pans I set forth, and 

spread under them calamus, cedar wood, and rig gir 

(onycha?).' In the old Babylonian Nimrod-epos (446o) 

we read in the account of the Amores Veneris : taramìma 

amélrè'asa kanamma iSpukakki umiSainm.a utabbahakki 

unikèti ; ' thou hast loved the shepherd who continually 

brought drink offerings to thee, daily sacrìficed kids to 


The inscriptions of the old Babylonian king Gudéa 
already contain notices about sacrifices. On the New 
Year festival (see Schr. A''5 3i6 6i) he offers to the 
goddess Ba'u amongst other thìngs a cow, a sheep, six 
lambs. seven baskets of dates, a pot of cream, palm 
pith {?), fifteen chickens, iishes, cucumbers, as sattukku 
or regular sacrifice. A rich soiu-ce of Information upon 
the sacrificial arrangements in the later Babylonian 
period is tO be found in the thousands of Babylonian 
contracts in which bills and receipts connected with 
tempie revenues and dues, as well as lists relating to 
the regular sacrifices, bulk very largely. ^ 

Sacrifice was in the hands of the priestly caste, who 
were held in the highest esteem and enjoyed special 

6. Performance. P^i'^g^^-' Jo great indeed was the 
esteem m which they werq held m 
Babylonia in earlier times that even the king needed 
their mediation for sacrifice and prayer (cp Menant, 
PG 1 128 / ). In Assyria, however, the king reserves 
for himself the supreme priesthood, calling himself the 
exalled high-priest and sacrificing to the god with his own 
hand (Per. -Chip. Assyria, 41 YAssyrie, 455]; Menant, 
PG2i(>À). Just as Ezekiel in his orderìng of the priest- 
hood assigns to the king in the public worship an inde- 
pendent and important position, so we repeatedly read in 
the liturgical tablets preserved in 4 R 3233 ; reu niìè 
rabàti nindabàìu ukdn ; 'the shepherd of the great 
peoples shall bring his offering.' In the contracts there 
is frequent mention of the king's offering and of that of 
the crown prince {M apal Sarri) ; Nabon. 2658 332z 

1 A good index to the relative texts is provìded by H. L. 
Tallquist, Die Sprache der Contraete Nabondids (Helsingfors, 

^ Diodonis Siculus (2 29) has given us a vivid and adequate 

account of their functions. 



S94ao. As in Israel, the prìests had assigned to them 
definite portions of the offerings. According to the ritual 
of the Sun-temple at Sippar the priests received the loins, 
the skin, the ribs, the sinews, the belly, the chitterling, 
the knuckles of ali cattle and iambs that were offered, 
as well as a pot of sacrificial broth (5 R 61 col. s). In 
the contracts minute details are met with as to priestly 
dues (Neb. 247, 416 ; Peiser, Bab. Vertr. 107). It is 
interesting to observe that in Babylonia as in -Israel 
(see Lev. 21 16^) rules were laid down respecting the 
freedom from bodiiy blemish that was required in priests. 
In a priestly catechism of Sippar (K, 248Ó + 4364. 
published by Craig, Reiigious Texts, Leìpsic, 1895) 
we read as follows :— 

Ummdnu mudO n&sir pirisii ilani -rahtìtS apiUu sa irarnitiu 
ina tappi ii kàn tufipi ina. inahar ilti SaTuas ù ilu Kaminart 
utatnmasùma usah^asu Inuma apil aitili harA; and farther 
on : aiiièl isSakku sa sa-rusu cllu il SA ina kitii il minùtisu 
suklaìu ana tnahar- ilu Saniaì il Hit Rantiaari aSar bìrà. il 
pnr&U (ehi abil aingi bari ia zarusu là ellu ù SA ina kitti fi 
minuti Su là Sukiulu zniiu end hìfiA sinné nagpi ubànu ina 
sipi . , . mali issubba kisgaUu Sitpàkilu pilpilanu . , . l/t 
nasir pars$ Sa ih* Sianas il ilu Raminan. 

' A wise man who gnards the secreta of the great gods 
shall cause his son whom he loves, with tablet and peti 
to take oath before Saraas and Rammàn, and the son 
of a magician shall teach him when to do so. A priest 
who is noble in descent, and whose clothing {?) and 
measurement (?) are perfect, shall preseut himself before 
èamas and Ramman in the place of augury and oracle. 
The son of a priest whose descent is not noble and who 
is not perfect ìn clothing (?) and in measure, who has 
squint (?) eyes, broken teeth, bruised thumbs, boils or 
swellings on his feet , , . shall not keep the tempie of 
Samas and Rammàn.' 

Sacrifice rests ultimately on the idea that it gives 

pleasure to the deity (cp Di. Lev. 376). For Israel, 

_. j the conception of sacrifice as a meal for 

■ . . . , Yahwè is reflected in such expressions as 

mentai mea. ^^^^^ g^^ j-,, 33^^ (''on^}. In the Baby- 

lonian records, the gods feast in heaven (4 R ISsg : 
ilàni rabtàti issinu kufrinnu akal Samé ella kurunnu 
damga Sa là ilpat kàti ikkalu ; ' the glorious gods smeli 
the incense, noble food of heaven ; pure wine, which 
no hand has touched, do they enjoy'); they eat the 
offering (4 R 17 56: akalSu akul nigàiu muhur ; 'eat 
his food, accept his sacrifice ') ; they inhale with physical 
delight the savour of the offering {Deliige, 151 : ildni 
esinu er?Sa ilàni esinu erèSa tàba Urna tumbè eli bel 
nikè iptahré ; ' the gods scent the savour, the gods 
scent the sweet savour ; like flies do they gather them- 
selves together about the offerer ' ; cp the analogous 
expression nh'3 fin, Gen. 821); the gods love the offering 
that man brings (Asurn, I25 : nadan zibiSu ildni rabùtè 
Sa samé il irsitim iramu ; ' the glorious gods of heaven 
and earth love the gifl of his sacrifice ' ). What is active 
in the offering is the voluntary surrender of a private 
possession (Tigl. 7? : aia bihlat libbiia akki ; ' I sacri- 
fìced as my heart enjoined'). As a subject into the 
presence of his king, so does man come into the presence 
of his god with gift and tribute. In a text. printed in 
4 R 20, which describes the solemn return of the god 
Marduk from Elam to Babylon and the sacrificial feast 
then celebrated in his honour, the imperia! sacrifice is 
described in the following terms (rev. 22/}: Samil 
hègallASunu irsitum fyisièSa tdmtum mihirtaiu Sadlì 
iribsu kìtruhassu Sui là fnahrà mala sunna liSdnu 
kabitti bilatsunu nàSu ana bilbiluTn. Aslu tìibbiiìiu 
ditSfu alap mahhè zibu Surruhu sèni kutrinnu armannu 
uSie.^si eriSé tdbu ; ' the heaven pours ont its abundance. 
the earth its fulness, the sea its gifts, the niountains 
their produce ; their incomparable offerings, everything 
that can he named, their heavy tribute do they bring to 
the lord of ali ; Iambs are slaughtered, great oxen 
sacrificed in herds, the sacrifice is made rich, incense 
is prepareri, a sweet smelling savour mounts up, 
delicious odour. ' Probably the step from the concep- 

41 19 

8. PurpOB©. 


tion of the offering as a gift and a meal of the deity 
to that of a finer and, so to speak, spiritual, apper- 
ception of that which was brought in sacriiìce was 
made at a coniparatively early period. So much is 
ìndicated by the fact that even from ancient times praycr 
was associated wilh sacrifice. In the pictorial repre- 
sentations of sacrificial scenes we constantly find him 
who prays in dose association with him who offers. 
The gesture of prayer was threefold : nis kàti, lapàlu 
kdti, labànu appi — lifting up of the hands, folding of 
the hands, casting down of the countenance. 

The purpose of sacrifice is, invariably, to infliience 
the deity in favour of the sacrificer. Man brings gifts 
to the gods in order that they may be 
moved thereby to reciprocity — to showing 
a favourable disposition in return.^ When the kings 
Esarhaddon and Asur-banì-pal were seriously menaccd 
by the inroads of the Gimirri they multiplied iheir 
offerings and prayer (see Knudtzon, Le). In the 
liturgies of that period a standing expression is as 
follows : — ina libbi kalumi anni izsizamma anna kena 
Suknatnma ; ' because of this lamb offered in sacrifice 
arise thou and eslablish faithfulness and mercy. ' 

So, in like manner, the gods are represented as rejoic* 
ing over the sacrificial gifts brought them by their human 
worshippers (K. 1547, rev. 11: igdamrd maSSaikèia 
asina ina ttib libbi ilàni igdamru ; ' accomplished are 
my cleansing sacrifices, to the gladdening of the 
hearts of the gods are my sacrifices of Iambs accom- 
plished '}. The feature of Joy and giadness which so 
markedly characterised the sacrificial meals of pre-exilic 
Israel {'• '33^ nDK-, Dt. 12? ; Sacrifice. § iS) is by no 
means absent from the Babylonian funclions. Thus in 
3 R 36óa we read {akul aèàlu Sili kurunnu ningutu 
Sìikun nu'id ilMt) ' eat food, drink must, make music, 
honourmygod '. Predomìnant, however. over this 

joyous note which finds such marked expression among 
the peoples of classical antiquity there is found in the 
Babylonian ritual a feature which is common to ali 
Semitic religions — the element of propitiation. Here, 
of course, we must divest ourselves of ali theological 
preconceptions, and pul aside ali such notions as that 
of an atoning efficacy attaching to the blood as the seat 
of life, or of a divine wralh that expends ilself upon the 
sacrificial animai, or even of a ratio -vicaria, when we 
speak of the idea of propitiation as underlying Baby- 
lonian sacrifices. The similarily of the words and forms 
does not necessarily involve similarily in the religious 
conception. The Baby Ioni ans possessed the same 
words for sin {hittu), grace (annu), propitiation (pidu) 
as the Hebrews had ; but it is certain that they did not 
associate with the words the same thoughts. At the 
same time it is signifìcant and by no means accidental — - 
it has its roots firmly planted in the very nature of the 
religious ideas involved — that every offering offered with 
the object of averting evil of any kind whatsoever was 
associated with the notion of a propitiatory, cleansing, 
purifying efficacy. In a hyran to Èamas we read 
(4 R 17+6: amèlu afil iliSu ènun arnam evtid mesri' 
tuSu fnarsiS ibSà marsis ina mursi ni' il ilu SamaS ano. 
nis k&tiia kUlamma akalSu akul nigàSu tnuhurma ilam. 
Ilkat ana idiSu Sukun ina kibitika ènissu lippatir 
aranSu linnasi^), ' man, the son of his god — sin, 
transgression lies upon him. His physical strength is 
impaired, he languishes in disease. O Samas, behold 
the uplifting of my hands, eat his food, accept his sacri- 
fice, God. Take off his fetters. At Ihy comniand 
may his sins be taken away, his transgression s blotted 
out, ' Other passages subjoined explain themselves. 
4 R 5447 : muhur kadraSu liki pidéht ina kakkar 
Sulmé ma^raka littallak ; 'accept the gift he brings, 
receive his ransom money (jì-ib) ; let him walk before 

1 Cp King, Babylon. Magic, 17 as (1896) : aSnikka kuirtnnu 
ìrìSu tabu kinis naplisannitna Simi kaba-ai, ' I present you 
with incense, agreeable vapour ; look al me truly, hear my 



theni on the ground of peace. ' 4 R. 55, obv. 2n ; niS 
kàtisu ilisu ana mahàri ù nindabésu ana rà-mi ilànisu 
zhtàt ittisu aiia suimi ; ■ whereby his god accepts the 
lifting np of his hands and takes pleasure in his free- 
will offerings, whereby the angry gods turn themselves 
propitiously towards him. ' 4 R. 57 7 {akàlé k nap- 
Saltum Sa ina pànika kunnu lipsusu limniia) : ' the food 
and the fatness which is spread out before thy face, niay 
it take away mine evil. ' ^ The following reniarkable 
passage, from a hymn to Marduk, stands unfortunately 
alone (K. 246; cp 2 R. 1853: amélu ìnuttaliku ina 
nik reme ìulmi kima kè TtiaSìi limmaìsis), ' May the 
man plagued with fever be purifìed like shining metal 
through a gracious peace offering. ' In contracts the 
expression alap taptìri, 'redemption ox ' [Neb, 132 12 
2133) often occurs ; cp with this Lev. 43 (nxBn^ i?). 
The idea of atoncment in the OT has found its classical 
expression in ìhe kappoi-etk of P(see Mercv-SEAT, § 2). 
In this connection it is iroportant to observe that the root ig^ 
is aCtesCed in liabylonia also, kapàru in the ritnals meanìng ' to 
cleanse," ' to piirify.' 4 R. Ili 40; atnilu mvttaliku mar ilisu 
kuppirma; 'Cleanse (with the water of the oath) the man 

J'iagued with fever, the son of his god.' 4 R. 27 54 : akàia in 
a. aiaéli^uatu kuppirma; 'cleanse the unclean foods' (of the 
same). In K. 3245 the precept frequenlly recurs /ar-™ tukappar- 
— 'do thou, O king, purify,' as also the phrase takpirtu of the 
ceremony of purification (éhna takpiràii iukièitll — ' when thou 
hast accompli^hed the rites of purification '). Whilst the phrase 
already alluded to—nik sitimi (corresponding to the Heb. 
sélem, which, as we see from rS.lSg 2S.2425 Ezek. 45 17, 
denotes a purificatory offering : cp Sacrifice, § rr) — is of only 
occasionai occnrrence, we frequently in contracts meet with the 
word ialàmu, salaiHtmi, which in accordance with the prìmary 
meaning of the root salàtnu may be rendered ' turning towards' 
(on the partof ihe deity), and takenin the sense of a propitiatory 
sacrifice. Cp N^aòun. 214 9 3(J2 3 fi41 4 T67 2, Cyr. 22U 3 with the 
sattukku named iti Niibun. 799 is ^7' 

A few words must be said on the subjects of human 
sacrifice, offerings to the dead, and sacrifices of chastity.^ 
Human ^' '^ ^ remarkable circumstance that 
o ' 'fi At hitherto no aiithentic evidence for the 
' ' burning of human sacrifices has been 
met with in any of the cuneiform inscriptions. It 
would be unwise, however, to base niuch «pon the 
argiimentum e silentio here, for reticence with reference 
to such a sad and repulsive practice is only what we 
should expect. The passage, so often quoted in 4 R, 
266, where the priest is bidden to offer for the life of the 
sick man a kid {tirr^u) — head, neck, breast of the one 
for head, neck, breast of the other — does not come into 
account hcre. The test is a description of a magical 
opet^tion such as may be compared wìth that given in 
2 K. 434. The Babylonian sculptures, on the other 
band, supply traces of human sacrifices that are almost 
immistakable |see Menant, PG\^\f. 97), though it is 
not impossible that the representations in question are 
intended to figure, not human sacrifices, but ceremonies 
connected with circumcision. In the wider sense of the 
term the Babylonian ban (see Ban) has to be regarded 
as of the nature of human sacrifice. That the same 
conception is not altogether absent from the Heb. 
h?retn (agairist Di. Lev. 377) is proved by Is, 346, 
where the destruction of Israel's enemies at Bo^rah is 
treated as a '"^ ri3T. Sennacherib (5so) put to death 
the troops of buzub at the command of Asur his lord. 
Shalnianeser (.V/o. Obv. ij) burnt the young men and 
maidens in his band of captives. The ban pronounced 
by A sur -ban i- pai (6101) over his enemies extends also 
to theloweranimals{cp Judg. 20 48), A sacrificial offer- 
ing of prisoners (cp 1 S. 15 33) is thus recorded by Asur- 
bani-pal (470): 'the remainder of the people I ptit to 
death besìde the great steer, where my grandfather 
Sennacherib had been murdered, making lamentation 
for him.' In 4 R. 6840 Istar figures as the bloodthirsty 
goddess who devours human flesh : iltanatH dami 
nisbuti saamHAti sér sa là akàli nèrpaddi* sa là karàsi : 

T- Cp King, l.c. sf: 7^- - 

2 On human sacrifice cp Lenormant, Etudts accadiennes, 
8112; Sayce, TSBAÌ25; Menant, /'CI 150. 



' she (the daughter of Anu) has drunk the satisfying 
blood of men, flesh that cannot be eaten, bones that 
cannot be gnawed.' The probability is that the Baby- 
lonians practised human sacrifice secretly withoiit form- 
ally taking it up into the recognised worship. In the 
older period (of which we bave a reminiscence in Gen. 
22), as well as in times of religious declension (2K. 
1731). the Israelites doubfiess borrowed the practice of 
human sacrifice from the peoples in their immediate 

As for offerings to the dead, which indeed are 
forbidden in the OT as relics of heathenism (Dt. 
2614), but the practice of which was not unknown 
even at a late date (Jer. I67). evidence of their use 
among the Babylonians and Assyrians is of frequent 
occurrence (see A. Jeremias, Vorstellungen vom Leben 
7iach dem Tode, 53). The Descent of Istar closes with 
the charge of the priest to the necromancer : ' if she 
vouchsafe not iiberation to thee, then turn thy face 
towards her and pour out pure water with precious 
balsam before Tammuz the husband of her youth. " 
Asur-bàni-pal (Lehmann, Samasìumnkin, 223) says : 
adi kispì nàk mi ana ckimmè Sarrdni alikùt tnahri sa 
ìubtulu arkus : ' for the lament of the pourer out of 
water on behalf of the spirits of my ancestors, the kings, 

1 gave orders because it had been abolished.' In the 
burying-places of Kirghula and Elhibba were discovered 
traces of offerings to the dead : calcined date stones, bones 
of oxen, sheep, birds. Representations of sacrifices to 
the dead are given in Perrot, l.c. 361, and Menant, PG 

2 54- The dirge as a Babylonian institution is attested 
also by Ezek. 8 14. The sacrifice of chastity, mentioned 
by Herodotus (1 igg), is bluntly described in the Epistle 
ofJeremiah(i'. 43 [ — Baruch 643]). Even in theNimrod- 
epos, Istar the goddess of love already appears (49i) 
siirrounded by a whole troop of attendants : uptaliìiir 
iltti lìtar ki&irèti Santhàti it hàrimàti : ' there assembied 
the goddess Istar, the servants, harlols, and concubines. ' 
In the period of religious decay the worship by such 
hieroduli became naturalised in Jenisalem (2 K. 287). 

l'he stibject of lustrations stands in dose connection 
with that of sacrifice in the Hebrew Torah, and has a 

lO.LUBtrations. ^1;^^ f'f ''' ^^^ Babylonian ritual. 
1 ne texts relatmg to it are very 
difficult, especially because they are often written in 
pure ideograms. At the foundation of these purifica- 
tions lies the conception that an unclean substance can 
be removed by a clean. and a clean be taken up by an 
unclean. That which is unclean has a contagious 
character, that which is clean has a sympathetic power. 
So 4 R. 162 : m.è sun-ùti ana karpali tértna ana ribUi 
tubukma wiaruStu Sa Émiiki innaSSaru ribìtu litbal 
ru'ium naditum sì kima me liitabik kiSpi Sa ina ru'ti 
naditi bull-ulu ana arkati litfiru : 'this water pour 
thou into a pot, then pour out in the Street ; let the 
Street carry off the sickness which deprives of strength, 
and let the poison poured into il be washed away like 
the water, let the speli which has united itself with the 
poison poured in be averted. ' The speli (from which 
the sickness proceeds) is transferred to the poison, the 
poison is absorljed by the water, the water is carried off 
by the Street ; thus the sufferer has a threefold guaranlee 
that he will be healed of his sickness. 

As ingredients were employed such things as from 
their external appearance or internai quafities were 
fitted to be symbols of purity. Water is mentioned 
with special frequency. In lustrations libai ions of 
water are offered to èamaS. Marduk and Ea the gcds 
of pure exorcism are honoured with libai ions and 
sacrifices in the house of sprinkling {bit rimki ; 5 R. 
5O51). In the tempie was a laver [agubbu]. In an 
oath formula {Maqlu. 34, 47) occurs this expression : 
ana ilàni Sa Sante me anamdin kima anàku ana kàìunu 
ulallukunùSi attunu iàSi ullilainni : ' I offer water to 
the gods of heaven. As I perform your purification for 
you, so do ye cleanse me. ■ The waters of the Euphrates 



and the Tigrìs were regarded as having special efficacy 
{Nimr. Ep. 49i9 ; Zimmern, Surpu, 4466, io. 7;}; we 
have this inleresting passage : ' By Marduk's command 
be the bowl with thy guilt, thy ban, taken away Hke the 
unclean water from thy body and thy hands and 
Ewallowed up by the earth.' 

Besides water, frequent mentìon is made of honey (dìsfiu), 
wine (^karànu), milk (Hi-iu), cream (Aiméiu); further, bright 
minerals such as salt {tàbt-u), alum (ìikkatti), alkali (? vhulìì) ; 
and, from, the vegetable kingdom, corn {upuntu), the wood of 
various trees, sunh as cedar (erittu), cj'press (òur&su), palm (g'ii- 
si HiarrTÌ), ca\3.m\iz (kànu làbu; cp 3ÌBn T\ypi,rig-gir{anych3.'i') 
ali sorts of incense (kutrinnu, n^DjJ). 

As a clean place — aSr?i ellu. exactly corresponding 
lo the •\\T!a Dipo of Nu. lOg — the wildemess ìs frequently 
named.^ 4 R. 843 : tnamit ana sèri afri elli liSesi, 
' let the ban depart to the wildemess, the clean place " 
(cp 4 R. 142), 4 R. 6651 : ana pan namaSSè Sa sèri 
pàniki Sukni, ' to the beasts of the wìlderness turn thy 
face.' It is on a similar conception of the wildemess as 
the clean place that the Israelite custom of sending the 
goal for Azazel into the wildemess on the day of Atone- 
ment appears to rest (but see Azazei.). Of the other 
goal also which had to be burnt, Josephus remarks 
{Ani. iii. IO3) that before the burning it had to be 
brought to a very clean place — [fh Kadapérarov x'^P^°^)- 

Purity — physical cleanliness — is postulated in every 
sacrifìcial act, as in every exercise of religion (4 R. 23 16 : 
kàlà ellHi ikkà mafyfyarka : ' with pure hands he sacrifices 
before thee. ' 4 R. 19 no. z ; kàtlka misi kdtika ubbib, 
' wash thy hand, purify thy hand.' Maqlu IO869 ; ilturu 
Sèru misd kàià sèrumm.a Mru misà kàtà, ' the morning 
dawn is past, I have washed my hands ; the morning 
glow has shone, I have washed my hands'). AH who 
were sick or who associated with those who were unclean 
became themselves unclean. (4 R. 6264 : Id ella Id 
ellita ul iiamar, ■ the unclean man, the unclean woman, 
shall he not look upon '). 

That contact with the dead defiied may be assumed as mattar 
of course ; of sexual defilement this is expressly stated by 
HeTOdotus(l 19B); cp4 R. 26 no. 5 : zinniStu Sa kàtàsa iàdamka 
uStamhir ardaiu sa kàtàsa la misà ittaflas: ' to a woman 
whose hand is not pure, he hasjoined himself ; at a maid-servant 
whose hand is not washed, he has looked." 

Foods also were distinguished as clean and unclean. 
In the prayer addressed to the sun-god we often meet 
with such expressions as these ; mimma Itì u ikulu istu 
ipìuht ulappitu ukabbisu, ' if he perchance has eaten, 
drunken, anointed with, touched, or trodden on, aiight 
that was unclean.' In the calendar given in 5 R. 4849 
occur food prohibilions. For the gth of lyyar fish is 
forbidden, for the 30th of Ab swiiie flesh (Jer fa^é), for 
the 27th of Tisri swine flesh, beef {Sèr alpi), for the loth 
of Marhesvan dates, for the 25th of lyyar, 29th of 
Kisleu, and 6th of Tebet contact with women. 

The Babylonian ritual of purification urgently needs 
systematic exhibition, especially on account of its dose 
connection with OT views. Nowack [HA 275) re- 
marks with truth that the biblical ìdeas of clean and 
unclean had their rise elsewhere than on the soil of 
Yahwism (cp Smend, Rel.-gesch. 334), In such a law 
of purification as that which we find in Lev. 14 un- 
questionably many pre-I sraelìtic representatìons are 
present. The cedar-wood mentioned in Lev. I44 is one 
of the cleansing media of the Babylonian ritual also 
(4R.I633 5R.5I15); the bird which in Lev.M? is 
charged with carrying off the leprosy into space is often 
met with in Babylonian litanies (4R. 426 4R. 592, 
rev. 14 : 'I will rend asiinder my wickedness, let the 
bird carry it away up to the sky ' ). The sevenfold 
sprinkling of the person to be cleansed (Lev. 14?) recalls 
such passages as 4 R. 26 32 1 adi sibiSu zurnur amèli 
ìuatu pususma, ' seven times anoint the body of that 
man. ' The besmearing with blood on the tip of the 
right ear, on the right thumb, on the great toe of the 

1 The desert ìs perhaps reparded as pure because it receìves 
unpurified and dead bodies withouC hann. 



right foot, prescribed in Lev. 14 14 has its analogies 
in many magical texts (cp ASJCTQls^ : abna ella 
ina kukdni ìa éniìii ina ubdnisu si^irti ina Sumélisu 
Sukun, ■ lay the shining stone on the lashes^?] of his 
eyes, on his Ultle finger, on his left side'). An 
interesting parallel to the offering of purification pre- 
scribed for the poor, whìCh foUows the magical operation 
prescribed in Lev. 14 21, occurs in K, 8380. There the 
person to be purified is bìdden take hold of the hands of 
the sacrificer who pours water upon the hand of the 
sufferer, lays incense upon the dish, and solemnly pre- 
pares the sacrificial meal. Then, further, we read : 
ìumma rubù Su tu kil isséru ana m.aklùte ikalu Stemma 
muSkinu Su libbt Sui ikalu, ' ìf he is a rich man he 
shall hand over a dove (?) to be burned, but if he is 
a pauper he shall cause the heart of a sheep to be 
burned. ' 

i. Points of resemblance. — (a) A large number of 

expressions relating to sacrifice are common to both 

rituals— É'.^. , kurbannu (lanp), sibu 

11. Summaiy. ^^^jj_ ^^^^„ j^^^j^ j^^^^^^ (^,^p^)_ 

tabà^u {vOù), kap&ru (is^). {b) In bloody sacrifices, 
the same species of animais are employed (ox, sheep, 
goat). Animais of a year old are preferred, sacrifices 
of a more advanced age are rare. Female animais are in 
the one case used for purifications, in the other (Nu. 15 37) 
for sin offerings. The offering of defective animais was 
in the one case allowed for purposes of augury, in the 
other for free-will offerings (Lev. 2223). General ly speak- 
ing, both rituals required that the victim should be 
without blemish. As in the Babylonian ritual the 
sattukku — i.e. , theregular and obligatory sacrifices — lies 
at the fc'.indation of the worship, so also in P, and stili 
more in Ezekiel, is the tàmid, the regular daily offering, 
made statutory and the centre of the whole divine 
service. (e) As for unbloody sacrifices, among the 
Babylonians systematic use was made of various 
materiais of which the employment in Israel was only 
exceptional, such as wine, water, oil. The incense 
offering ( kutrinnu) was unknown to early Israel. Ali 
the more striking is the frequent and important place it 
takes in the ritual law of P which provides a special 
aitar for the kgtòreth. Jeremiah (620) has a polemic 
against it as a modem and outlandish innovation. The 
unknown author of Is. 663 names Babylon as the land 
in which sacrifices are offered in gardens, and incense 
oflered upon bricks (cp Chors. 172 ; Sarg. Ann. 434 ; 
4 R. 4953). The incense offering of post-exìlic Israel 
may perhaps have been borrowed from the Babylonian 

ii. Points of difference. — (a) In the vegetable offerings 
of the Hebrew Tórah only those products figure which 
represent a right of private ownership acquired by 
labour and trouble. Honey, cream, milk, fruii occiu* 
frequently as Babylonian offerings, but never amongst 
those of the OT. The wine libation is no longer an 
independent offering in P (Sacrifice, § 35), Ezekiel 
prohibited it altogether — doubtless, however, only on 
account of abuses connecied with it (1 S. I14). (1*) As 
regards bloody sacrifices, offerings of fish and game 
were excluded from the Hebrew ritual. Both are 
inherently the property of Yahwè and thus not appro- 
priate as sacrifìcial gifts. The fish offering, on the 
other hand, is frequently mentioned in Assyrian and 
late Babylonian inscriptions, and game offerings were in 
great^ favour. In Tigl.-pil.l \ff. we read; ' herds of 
hinds, stags, chamois (?), wild goats, which I had taken 
in hunting in large numbers, I brought together like 
sheep, and the progeny that was born of them I offered 
as my heart bade me, along with pure sacrificial lambs, 
to the god Asur.' 

[e] As for the fundamental idea underlying sacrifice, 
the Hebrew sacrifice in its older form gave a special 
development to the conception of a sacrai communion 
between God and the worshipper as represented in the 




act of offering (cp Wellh. Heid. 114); the Babyloniiin 
cultus, on the other hand, affords no trace of this. Ali 
the more strongly is the idea of the purificatory and 
propitiatory character of sacrifice which comes into the 
foreground in P and Kzekiel conspicuous in the Baby- 
lonian ciillus. Singular to say, however, that shows not 
the fiiintest trace of dsdm (Sackifice, § 27), hattdih 
(Sackifice. § 28) ; we may assume that the sin and the 
trespass offering of the Hebrew Tórah, ahhough ali 
that we know of their technique is wholly of post-exilic 
date, were entirely of Israelite growth. J. J, 

RIVAL (H-jV), I S. 16 RV, AV Adversary. 

BIVEB. For the rivers and streams mentioned in 
the EV, see, generally, Geography, § 5 ; Palestine, 
§§ 9, 13 ; Egypt, § 6 ; Assyria, § 4 ; MoAB, § 4/.; 
also E'uphrates, JORDAN, NiLE, etc. 

The regular word for river is i. ndhàr (~{f\^, N. Sem-, Ar. 
nahr ìs probably a loan-word). See Geography, § 5, and cp 
Aram-naharaim. Other wotds occasionally so rendered are : — 

2. yfór (-!((•; cp Canal, Geography, § 5 [iì,)) used regu- 
larly of the Nilb \q.v.\ or of its arms, once of a mining-shafc 
(Job 23 io), and ii^ Ì3an. 12 3-7 of the Tigria. The last mentioned 
unreslricted use of the word appears again in later Hebrew. 

3. -nàhal (^n)i N. Sem.) corresponds to the Ar. tvady or 
torrenl-valley ; see Geographv, % 5[iv.], and cp Brook. 

Two terms appear to designate primarily canals or conduits: — 

4. yùbal ^^31', Vflow, run), Jer. 173t Q.K}i.é.% [BKAQ]) of 
which 'ubai (Selliti in Dan. 8 2/. t\ (see Ulai) seems to be a 
mere phonetic variation. Cp the form yaòal* in più. Is. 30 25 
(EV ' streams'), 444 (EV ' watercourses '). 

5- ^«<r (J^B). Ps. 46 4 [5] 65 q [io]. Cp pelaggstk. Job 20 17 
EV ' river,' in Judg. 5 i.^/., Rv ' watercourses ' (so Moore ; cp, 
however, Bu-, Now.). 

For the sake of compi eteness mention mayhere be made of : — 

6. 'lì/Aiè (ii'Bx). see Brook. 

7. Vìirf(ig'[(), Nu, 21 15, AV 'slream' ; on the meaning see 


3. Hozélltn (dS'T}, Ut. 'flowing '), Ps. 78 16 Cane. 4 15, 'streams. 

RIVER OF EGYPT (DnyO hx\y). See Egypt. 
Brook of. 

See Arabah, Brook of the. 

RIZIA (n^yi), I Ch. 739 RV, AV Rezia. 

RIZPAH (nevi ; § 71. 'pavemem'; peCf))*, [BAL), 

daughter of AlAH [y.w], Saul's concubine, 2 5.3? 
218^1 (p64)4)ò,9 [A in !<. e]). According to the existing 
iradition ' Ishlx>sheth ' was angry wilh Abner for taking 
possesssion of his father's concubine, and Abner 
indignantly repelled the accusation (on 2 S. 38 see 
Nabal). Winckler, however. plausibly holds (G/2196) 
that ihe originai Iradition interpreted this fact difterently, 
and that in reality Abner had dethroned ' Ishbosheth,' 
and signjfied his assumption of Saul's crown by taking 
possession of Saul's wife (cp 12 n I622), The pathetic 
story of Rizpah's conduct when her two sons Armoni 
(see Saul. § 6) and Mephibosheth \_q.-u.'\ and the 
five sons of Michal or rather Merab \q.v.'\ had been 
put to death, to remove the blood-guiltiness of the land, 
is also, according to Winckler (G/224r). unhistorical ; 
hesuspects mythological affini ties, and compares themyth 
of Niobe (Preller, Griech. Myih.2s6g). According to 
2 S. 21ri^, it was on hearing of the act of Rizpah, 
that David sent for the bones of Saul and Jonathan, 
that they might be buried together in the sepulchre of 
Kish at Zela, or rather Laish ( = Shalishah). See 

On the Rizpah-story see further RS^) 419 _#^, and on the 
mode of execution (ypin) see Haxcing, 23; on the source of 
the narrative, see Samuel (Books), 8§ 4jf^; 'We. CH 263 ; Bu. 
Ri. Sa. 257 /. T. K. C. 

ROAST. See Cooking, § 6 ; Sacrifice, g 6. 

ROBE, the rendering suggests an outer garment of 
some richness, more elaborate and elegant than an 
ordinary mantle. 


I The word occurs most frequently as the rendering of »;/'// (see 
Mantle, % 1 [6]), occasionally, too, of addéreth, Jon. 3 6, and 
(for MT éder) Mi. 2 3 (see ib. 5), and of makàlasdth, Is. 3 22 RV 
(see ib. 7), o-toA^, Lk. 15 22 20 46 Rev. 6 1 1 7 g ij,/. (see ib. 16), 
and x^"M''s> Mt. 27 28 (see ih. 20). It is applìed to the more 
general terms béged (i K. 22 io 30 |; 2 Ch. 18 9 29 ; see Dress, 
I I [i]), and iaSiit (Lk. 23 11, RV ' apparsi '), and is once used to 
render kuttoneth (Is. 22 21), on which see TuNic. See Dress, 
Ma.ntle, and cp Clothing, Gahihiìnt. 

ROBOAM (Mt. I7), RV Rehoboam, 

ROCK. I. "VlV. mr. See Names of God, § 15. 
and ZuR. [Under Zuh thirty-five [Jaces are cited where sur 
seems to have become akogethet a synonym for 'God.' In 
twenty-one of these iS (from a dread of materialismi) has Seós, 
in four j9o>jSós, in four i^ùAnf ; «liptos (Is. 17 io), fiiitatos (i S. 2 2), 
KTt'oTTj! (2 S. 22 32), àpTiA^nTTTiup (Ps. S9 ^2^ [25]) each occur once ; 
and in Dt. 32 37 Hab. 1 12 ® shows a diiferent text.] 

2. l'^D, J^/a'. See Sela, [In2S.222 Ps.183 [2]. 
31 4 [3] 42 10 [9], sélci is a synomyn of svr, and a divine 
title. Kònig {Stylistik, 100) finds séld once used of a 
heathen god, but i;;^o (EV 'his rock'} in IS.3I9, if 
correct, is parallel to y■^w {EV 'his princes'). See 
Crii. Bib.'\ 

3. lU'D. mà'oz (Judg. 626 RV), cp Fortress ; 4. 
V'rikn, halldmìs |Job28g), cp Flint ; 5, ng, kèph (Jer. 
4=9 Job306) ; cp Cefhas, Simon Peter. 

ROCEBADOER {\^^. Lev. 11 5 RVns). EV Coney. 

ROD. Of the following words, the first three are 
also rendered ' staff' ; see Is. 3O32 (the staff of judg- 
ment); Ps. 234 (anp, il nj^KS, see Staff, 1) ; Gen. 32io 
(Jacob's staff); for a very special sense of noD and 
133», see Sceptre, 

1. .ISD, matiek (^/nt^], to stretch out) : of the staff or wand of 
the traveller(Gen. 38 i§25, eie), shepherd (Ex, 4 2, etc). wonder- 
worker (Ex. 7912, etc), warrior (1S.I42743). task-master 
(Is. B3[4), ecc.), ruler (Jer. 4817, etc); an implement of punisb- 
ment (Is. 30 31), used also in beating out black cummin {késah, 
Is. 2S27). The 'rods' in Nu. I7i7_#: [17 2i?:i are appa'rently 
'shafts,' i.e., arrows or spears. Matteh Ìs also rendered ' staff"' 
(the staff ofjudgment), Is.3032. Cp the Ar. naòM, Doughty, 
Ar. Des. 1 147, 379, 

a. Cjip, sgbit, cp Ass. sabatu, 'to beat'Cwhcnce ìibtu, 'staff, 
as something to beat with, but also 'massacte,' Frd. Del .) 
(a) As an implement of punishment (Prov. IO13 I324): the 
bastinado as auchorised by law is referred to in Dt. 25 1-3, and 
(probably) Dt. 22 18. See Law and Justice, § 12. In © the 
verbs are ftacrrtyoCi', iraijevEii' ; pap&i^eiv is used cnly of 
threshing in agricultiire. (b) As used for heating cummin 
(kammOn, Is. 2827). (<r) Of (he shepherd's staff, or club-stick 
(Ar. nabùi), Ps. 23 4 Lev. 27 32 Ezek. 20 37. (d) Of the ruler's 
staff; see Sceptre. (ff) Of a weapon, in lime of stress, 2 S. 
2iJ ZI. Both malUh and sibe/ are used also melaphorically in 
the seniie of ' tribe ' (see Tribe). 

3. Sto, OT<i^*é/,IÌteralIya shoot or wand (Jer. 1 II Gen. SO 37, 
etc); of traveller's staff, Gen. 32it; of the shepherd's, i S. 
1743 43 Zech. 11 7 IO 14 ; once perhaps of a crutch, see Staff, 
3, Used in rhabdomancy, Hos. 4 12 (see Divinatiun, § 2 [i]). 

4. "IBil, hoter, used only rftetaphorìcally (but as representing 
ils literal sense of 'shoot,' 'scion ' or 'twìg '), Is. 11 1 Prov. 14 3+. 

5. pagSos, 1 Cor. 4 21 Heb. 9 4 Rev. 2 27 Ut 12 5 19 15, ali, 
except t Cor. (/.e.) and Rev. 11 1, influenced by OT. 

The 'beating wilh rods' {pa.^fii^ii.v) in Acts 16 22 2 Cor. 
11 25 is the Roman punishment inflìcted by the lìctors (EV 
'serjeants,' pa^fiovxoi : Actsl63S3e). 

BODANIM (D^ini-l), i Ch.17 PC-J^s-, RV; AV 


ROE. Therenderingof: i. slbi, 'D^f {Ar. zaby, Aram. 

tabyà [cp Taeitha], Ass. saSl/a; Sookós [BKALl) fn EV of 
I Ch. 128, and 2 S. 2 18 (' wild roe,' lil. ' roe that ia in the field,' 
cp RVmg.), and, with RVing. 'gaielle,' in EV of Cam. 2? (© 
iuvd/ieirt»') 9 and 17 (® SópKu/vi) S s {© Buvófieo-Li') 8 14 ; AV only 
in Ecclus. 272o(RV 'gazelle'); also the rendering of the fem. 
form ssbiyyàh, rV3S, In Cant. 45 7314] RV (RVmg. 'gazelle,' 
not in AV), When mentioned as an article of food sébi is 
rendered Roebuck (Dt, 12 15 22 14 5 15 22 i K. 4 231533', AV ; 
RV 'gazelle'). 

2. ya'àldh, n7jJ_', Prov. 5 ig, RV, Doe ; cp Goat, g 3. 

3. '5//;ff, IBJ;, Cant. 4s 7314], AV ' young roe,' RV 'fawn,' 
see Hart. 

^. yakm&r, -mni (|ii, ' red '), Dt. 14$ iK.4z3 [53]; AV 
Fai.low-deer (Poù^oAos [AT. in Dt,]; B ìn Dt., and BAL in 
Ki. om. ?). 



Like the Gazelle and Hart, the roe Ì3 chiefìy 
alluded to for its swiftness, and partly on account of 
its grace and beauty is a favourite image of feraale 
charms.^ On the species in -general see GoAT, § 2, and 
note that the nanie yahmùr (no. 4 above) is stili used 
by the Arabs for the true Cervus capreolus {cp Dr. 
Deut., ad loc. and see Antelope). The Capreolus 
capra, with which the yaktiiur'h'^?, also been identitìed, 
is a sinall forni found distributed over Europe and 
W. Asia, and stili occurs in Palestine ; specimens of it 
were seen by Tristram ori Lebanon, and by Conder 
\^Tent-Work. 91 [1887]) on Mt. Carmel. The fallow- 
deer (cp AV), Cervus dama, is a native of N. Africa 
and of the countries surrounding the Mediterranean, 
whence it has been introduced into many civilised 
countries. It occurs also in N. Palestine, but is said 
to be scarce. A nearly allied species, C. mesopotamicus , 
is found in parts of W. Persia. A.. E. S. — s. a. c. 

ROGELIM (Q'^5'l; pcoreA[A]eiM [BA], pàK&BeiN 
[L]) ; the home of ' BarziUai the Gileadite ' (2 S, 17 27 
1931}. The existence of such a place ìs questionable. 
Probably the passages relative to Barzillai are based on 
an earlier passage respecting Mephibosheth {^q.'v. § 2] 
which had already become corrupt, and d'^ji (Rogelim) 
is a corruption of c''?j n-n Beth-gallim, i.e., Beth-gilgal 
(see Gallim ; Saul, § 4). 

The corruption arose from a scribe's lapsus acuii. In 2 S. 
Y^ 2-j /. the:true text probably ran (see Ébal and cp Varn) 

asEfo '^STOi "là'Tìf Q'anpp o'W-n'ap ny^jin 'Vt-111. But 

D'inpO was miswritten D'npno ', the conseqiience of which was 
that one scribe (foUowed by MT and ®ba) wrote D"'7]1Dp ^"d 
another (foUowed by ©l) wrote caplD, instead of D'?à"n'3D. 

The ^j'fyitav of ®hal represenls n'a['hpD (cp Judg. 317^^)- 
2 S. 1931 was harmonised, as to the name of Barzillai's home, 
with 2 S. 1727 in each of the texts. t. K. C. 

ROHGAH {T\'^jyT< Kt. ninn Kr.}, a name in a 
genealogy of ASHER {q.v. § 4 ii, ), In i Ch. 734 "[Ahi] 
and Rohghah" becomes [&xi]oYl& [B], [&Xl]0YP^ oyo. 
[A], [neir] K&l p&rOYG [L.] ; \s\i%. roaga ,- Pesh. om. 
passage) ; cp Ahi, 2. 

ROIMUS {pO€lA^OY [B]), i Esd. 58 = Ezra22, 
Rehum, I. 

BOLL- I. rh^p.tit^gillàh; xo-p'^iov, x^P^V^> Kftpa\is), 
Jer. 36 2, etc. See Wkiting. 

3. 'ii'vì, gillayòn ; for 7nj ì <S has tÓ/ìoi' «aipoG fieyóAow 

[BXQ] TÓfLov yé-p-Tou K. II.. [,\] ; RV 'tablet.' A tablet of wood or 
stone is probably meant. Is. 8 if- For the gilyùnim of Is. 3 23 
cp MiRROR, end. 

3. ISO, sfphar, Ezra6i, RV 'archives.' See Writing and 


ROLLER (Sinn; M&\àrA\& [BAQr; cp Is.l6]), 
Ezek. 30 21, one of the few references to surgical practice 
in theEV(see Medicine). //ittuUrom ^entwine (used 
in Ezek. I64 of swaddling, cp derivative in Job 889) is 
properly a bandage (cp Toy's rendering in SBOT) 
rather than a poniti ce (as (&). 

ROMAMTI-EZER OW '?"?'?'''' § 23, acgording to 
the Chronicler a son of Heman : i Ch. 25431 poiMei 
Yioi (jìk. poA(\eAx6l [B. superscr. OJ© B^-i"], pojM- 
6m9i ezep, pLijA\ee Miezep [A], pAMàSiezep [L], 
romemtkiezer\y^.~\), but see HeMAN. 


History of critici^m (§§ 1-3). Conclusion (§ 19). 

What ' Romans ' seems to be Author (SS 20-22). 

(5 4)- Hisdate(g=3)- 

Conlenls (g 5) Value of Work (g 14). 

Noi a letter (gg 6-8)- Defenders of anthenticity (g 
Structure(Sg9-i3). 25). 

Late date (gg 14-18), Literature (g 26). 

Of Epistles to the Romans Old-Christian Literature 
ìs acquainted with- two — that of Paul and that of 

1 If these animals were sacred to the-goddess of love (see 
Gazelle), another plausible origin of the reference might be 
sought for. 



Ignatius. As regards the latter, the reader is referred 
to what htis been said under Old-Christian Litera- 
ture (§ 28/). The ' Epìstle of Paul to the Romans' 
has come down to us from antiquity noi as a separate 
work but as one of the most distinguished members of a 
group^the 'epistles of Paul' (^B-toToXal 'U.aiXov) — in 
which its title in the shortest form, foUowed by Ti. WH 
among olhers (after NABC, etc), is ' to Romans' {■n-pbì 

From the beginning (first by Marcion, about 140 A. D. } 
the work, as an integrai part of the authoritative 

1 Va^jrrv nt ' ApOStle ' (Ó 'AttÓiTToXos, TÒ àTTOOTO- 

Ìi£^7^l^"'Z^-''- ''""' (n^'f^"^)-- other 

H'tìnnnl tìait ^*^™^ ^^ ^ canonical writing, was 

Tiew. |^(.;jij, i-ecognised as the work of the 

apostle Paul. This continued without a break till 1792. 

Justin took no notice of Paul ; Ireneeus and Tertullian 

—the latter with a scornful ' h£eretÌcorum apostolus ' 

on his lips — laboured to raise the ' apostle ' in the 

estimation of the faithful (cp Paul, § 48) ; but no one 

ever thought of doubting the genuineness of the letters 

attributed to the apostle — or of defending it. During 

the whole of that period the question did not so much 

as exist. 

There is indeed a very old discussion — perhaps it had 

already arisen even in the second century — as to the 

_,. - existence of the epistle in two forms, a 

.. •' longer and a shorter, even after omis- 
compositenesB. ^j^^^^ ^^^^^^ j^^^ ^j^^^,^^ ^^g^ ^gj 

Origentaxes Marcion with this last omission ; but Origen's 
older contemporary Tertullian says nothing of that, 
though he several times reprìmands the heretic for having 
tampered with the text of chaps. 1-14. The probability 
is that Tertullian had no acquaintance with chaps. 15 f. 
At any rate, he made no citation from them in his 
polemic against Marcion {adv. Afarc. 5i3-i^), although 
in its course he leaves none of the previous chapters 
{1-14) unreferred to and speaks of one expression— 
' tribunal Christì ' (14 io). — as v/ritten ' in clausula ' 
[epistulse] ; cp van Manen, Paulus. 2ioi-ii8. 

In recent times the tradition of the text as regards 
chaps. 15-16 has frequently come under discussion. 
The conclusion is not only that the chapters in question 
were unknown to Marcion and probably also to other 
ancient witnesses, including Irenseus and Cyprian, bui 
also that there were in circulation at an eariy date MSS. 
in which the doxology Rom. 16 25-27 either occurred 
alone immediately after I423 or was entirely wanting 
(cp Ti.; S and ay - Head lam, Comtn. (1895), 89/^; S. 
Davidson, /n/rA^K 1894, 1 120-123). 

To these facts were added, at a later date, considerations 
based on the contenls of chaps. 15-16 tending to show that they 
hardly lìtied in with chaps. 1-14. Semler (_Diss. de d-npiici 
appendice ep. Pa-uli ad Rom. 1767 ; Pa-'-apkrasis ep. ad 
Rotnanos, 17615), soon afterwards supported by Eichhorn i,Einl. 
in das iV7^, held chap. lo y. to be by Paul but not to bave 
originally belonged to the Epistle to the Romans. Baur {T-uè, 
ZUchr-., 1836, Paulus, 1845, cp Paulus'^), 1 [z366] 393-409), 
foUowed, in the maio, among others by Schwegler {Nackap. 
Zeitalte?-), Zeller(<4Ci), S. Davidson (/a i^orf. (3), 1894, 1 123-131), 
and contro verted by Kling (J/.A'r., 1837), De Wette and others, 
mainlained the piece to be spurious. Since Baur, many scholars 
have endeavoured to steer a middle course by seeking — in very 
divevgent ways, it is true — for the dose of the leiter supposed 
lost, in chaps. 15, 16. So among others, Lucht iJJeber die 
beiden letzien Kapf. des RSuterbriefs, 1871), Volkmar (^RStncr- 
hrief, 1875), Scholten {Th.T, 1876), Bruckner (Reifmn/olge, 
iSgo), Ealjon {Geseh. v. d. Boeken des NVs. 1901, p. 95-6). In 
these various attempts an important part was always played by 
the conjecture, first put fortfi by Schulz (5'/.A>., 1829), that in 
Rom. ltii-20 what we really have is an epistle of Paul to the 

In this direction — that of holding more Paulìne 
epistles than one to have been incorporated with each 
other or amalgamated together to form the canonical 
epistle to the Romans — the way had already been led 
(leaving 15, 16 out of account) by Heumann in 1765. 

He argued, according to Meyer (A'oj/ìot. (31 [1850], eie), for 
(he 'strange hypothesis ' that a new Epistle to the Romans 
begins at chap. 12, whiist chap. 16 contains two postscripts (et. 
1-24 and 25-27) to the first. Eichhorn (,Einl.^), 1827) guessed 
that Paul in readìng over the epist\e after it had been written 



by an amanuensis made various addition'ì with his own band. 
C. H. Weisse {Fhilos. Dogm. 1B55) he)d Rom, SI-11 to he a later 
insertion. He found raoreover a nuinber of minor inscriions in 
the Epistle, and linaUy concluded rhat chaps. 9-10+ltìi-i6, s&i, 
probably had belonged originally to an f^pistle of Paul lo the 
Ephesians (cp his Biitr. sur Krìtik der paul. Br. 1867, edited 
by Sulze). Laurent {,Neuiest. Si-uiiien, 1866) supposed Paul 
to have written with hÌ5 own band to his Epìstle to the 
Romans a number of notes which subsequently by accident 
found their way into the text. Renan (St. Paul) was of 
opinion that Paul had published his Kpi.stle to the Romans in 
several forms — ^•i'., chaps. 1-11+15 ; cha[Ds. I-H + IO (piart) ; oiit 
of illese forms the epistle Itnown to us ultimately grew. Straat- 
man {'/"A. i', iS53, 38-57), controverted by Rovers {ib. 310-335), 
carne to the tonclusion that chaps. 12-14 do not fit in with what 
precedes ; that these chapters along with chap. 16 belong to an 
Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians ; and that the dose of the 
Epistle lo ihe Romans, properly so called, is found in chap. 15. 
Spitta {Zur Gesch. u, Litf. des Urckristentu-ms, 1 16-30, 1893) 
contended, and at a later date (3 1-193, lyoi) reaffirmed, though 
with some modifìcaiions of minor imporlance, that our Epistle 
to the Romans is the result of a fitling-together of two epistles 
written by Paul at separate tìmes, one befote and one after his 
visit to Rome, and addressed to the Chrislians there. The first 
atid longei, a we\i rounded who^e, consisled of 1 i-ll 36, I5B-33, 
1IÌ21-27 ; the sccond, partly worJted into the first, has not 
reached us in its entirety ; we recognise with cerlainty only the 
portions ; I21-IS7 and I61-20. 

Pierson-Naber {Verishnilia, i885), controverted by Kuenen 
(77;. T, 1B86, cp van Manen, Byblcul vom de Hervomiìng^ 1887, 
No. 4, and BibL n/od. Theol. 1887), pointloa number of joinings 
and suiures, iraces of manipulaiion and compilation, in the 
traditional texl of the Epistle to the Romans, with a view to 
provine ils lacera cortdiiio. Michelsen {Th-T, 1886-7) .sought 
to distmguish in that text five or six cditions of Paul's Epistle, 
in the course of which various far-reaching modifications may he 
supposed to have been made. Sulze {Pret. Kirchemtg. 1888. 
no. 42) piessed stili futttiet fot the lecijgtiition of additions and 
insertions. Vòlter repented his 'Votum, etc' (recorded in Tk.T, 
1889) in a separate publication (Die Komf-osìtion dtr patdin. 
Hauptbrufe,i, 1 890), and sought loproveagain that our Canonica! 
Epistle to the Romans is the fruit of repeated redaction and 
expansion of a genuine epistle of the apostle. 

Thus, there has been no lack of effort on the part of 
scholars to satisfy themselves and each other of the 
composite character of the traditional text. Equally 
decided. however, at least with most of them, is the 
opinion that nevertheless the text is, for the most part, 
and in the main, fcom the band of Paul. This coii- 
vìction was for a long time tacitly assumed, rathei than 
explicitly expressed. So even by Baur, Weisse, and 
Straatman, whilst it was brought to the foreground, with 
friendly yet polemica] emphasis, asagainst the representa- 
tives of 'advanced critìcism,' by Spitta. As regards 
the others mentioned above, most hesitation was io be 
noticed in Pierson-Naber, Michelsen, and VoUer ; but 
even these. one and ali, continued to speak of an originai 
letter, written by Paul to the Romans. 

Not a few writers continued simply to maìntain the 
prima facie character of the canonical epistle or, as 
occasion offered, to defend it in their notes and dls- 
cussions. commentaries and introductions. 

Por details, /«? et cfttra, and some euìdatice Ihrough the 
e\tensive li cerature, the student may consuTt Holtzmann, £inlA^), 
iBg2, 242-6; Sanday-Headiam, Camm. 1895, pp. 85-98; Zahn, 
ir/«/. [^1, 1900, 1 268-259 '< f'^'' ^ niore complete though tiot always 
accurate account of the doubts regarding the tinìty of the work, 
Clemen, Z>je EiHheitlichkcit derpavlin. Brie/e, 1894, cp Th, T, 
1895, 640^ 

The first to break in ali sìmplicity with the axiom of 
the genuineness of ovir canonical epistle to the Romans, 
though wìihout saying so in so many 

3. Fauline 

words. was E. Evanson. He appended 
o,m.m.iouiii j^ y-^^ Dissonante of the f our general fy 
q 5 ea. y^^^j^.g^ Evangelisti, 1792, some con- 
siderations against the justice of the received view which 
regarded Paul as aiithor of the epistle — considerations 
based upon the contenis themselves and'a comparison 
between them and Acts (pp. 256-261). Controverted 
by Priestley and others, Evanson's arguments soon fell 
into oblìvion, 

Sìxty years after wards Bruno Bauer (ICritik der 
paulin. Briefe. 1852, 347-76) took up the work of 
Evanson, without, so far as appears, beìng acquainted 
with the writings of that scholar. He was not successful, 
however, in gaining a hearing — not at least until after 



he had repeated his doubts in more conipendious fonti 
in his ChrishiS u. die Cirsaren (1877, pp. 371-380). 

Soon afterwards A, D. Loman ( ' Quasstiones paulinee ' 
in Th. T, 1882) developed the reasons which seemed to 
hini to render necessary a revision of the criiicism of the 
epistles of Paul which was then current. Without going 
into details as regarded Romans, he declared ali the 
epistles to be the productions of a later time. Rud, 
Sti:ck {Der tì/tliierbrii'f seiner Ecktheit unlersticàl, 
neòsl kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hanpt- 
brie/en, 1888) carne to the same conclusion and took 
occasion to point out soTne pecuharilies connected with 
the Epistle io the Romans, The same investigation 
was more fuUy carried out, and substantially with ihe 
same result, by W. C. van Manen {Pauitis II. De èricf 
aan de Romeitien, 1891 ; cp Handleiding voor de Otidchr. 
lelh-rkunde, 1900, eh. 3, §§ 10-19), ^"'^ ^^°^- ^^^- ^■ 
Smith of Tulane University, Louisiana, has recently 
begun independently to follow the sanie palh. The 
Outlook (New York) of Nov. 1900 contained a pre- 
liminary article^by him, signed ' Clericus ' {a misprint for 
• Criticus ' ), and in the Journal of Biblica! Literature, 
1901. a series of articles bearing the author's own name 
was begun— the first entitled ' Address and Destinatioti 
of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans,' and the second 
' Unto Romaiis : 15 and 16.' 

The newer critìcism has made itself beard and goes 
forward on its path in spile of much opposition and 
strife, appiauded by some, rejected by maiiy. For its 
character and aims see Paul, §§ 34-36, and cp §§ 
37-48, Its desire is to read ' the Epistle of Paul to 
the Romans ' as well as the rest of the canonical books 
without any fear of the ban that lies upon aught that 
may perchance prove to be contrary to tradition, whether 
ecclesiastical or scientific ; uninfluenced by any ante- 
cedent presumption as to the correciness of the current 
views as to contents, origin, or meaning of the text as it 
has come down to us, however highly esteemed be ihe 
quarter — Tubjngen or any other — from which they have 
Teached us; free, too, from the dominion of any con- 
viction, received by faith merely, and held to be superior 
to any test of examination, as to the epistle beìng in- 
dubitably the work of Paul and of Paul alone. It seeks 
to read the epistle in the pure light of history, exactly 
as it appears after repeated examination has been made 
on every side, as it at last presents itself to the student 
who realiy wishes to take knowledge of the contents 
with as little prejudioe as possìble. 

Coming before us, as it does, as a component part of 

the group known as ' the Epistles of Paul,' handed down 

_— . j. .p- t from ancient times, Romans appears 

' indeed to be neither more nor less 

seema to De. ^^^^ ^^ epistle of the apostle, written 
probably at Corinth and addressed to the Christians at 
Rome, whom he hopes to visit ere long after having made 
a journey to Jerusalem. Both superscriplion and sub- 
scription, as well as tradition, indicate this, even if we 
leave out of account the words 'in Rome' (^i- 'PiujUjj) and 
' to those in Rome ' (roìj év 'Ptt/ijj) which are wanting in 
some MSS in I7 15. We have only, in connection with 
the superscription and subscription, to look at the manner 
in which the epistle begins and ends (I1-15 I514-I627), 
at the way in which the writer throughoul addresses his 
readers as brethren (1 13 7 1 4 812 lOi 11 25 12i 15 14/ 
30 I617), stirs them up, admonìshes them and discusses 
with them, as persons with whom he stands on a friendly 
footing, and has opened a correspondence on ali sorts 
of subjects. The appearance of Tertius as amanuensis 
(1622) need cause no surprise, it beìng assumed that 
perhaps Paul himself may not have been very ready with 
the pen. 

If we turn for a little from a consideration of the 
literary form to occupy ourselves more with the con- 
tents, the first thing that strikes us is the 
conspicuously. methodical way in which 
the writer has set forth his material. After an address 


6. Contenta. 


and benediction (li-?), an introduction (18-is), and a 
statement of what he regards as the essential matter as 
regards the preaching of the gospel — a thing not lo be 
asharaed of but to be everywhere preached as a power 
of God for the salvation of every believer whether Jew 
or Greek (ì. i6 /. )^come two greai doctrinal sections 
foUowed by an ethical section. The first doctrinal 
section, 1 18-8 39, is devoled to the elucidation of the truth 
that the gospel is the means for the salvation of Jews 
and Greeks, because in it is revealed the righteousness 
of God from faith lo faith ; the olher, 9-1 1 , to an earnest 
disciission of what seems to be a complete rejection of 
the Jews by God ; the ihird, the ethical section (12 1- 
1513), lo a setting forth of the conduci that befils the 
Christian both lowards God and lowards man in general, 
and towards the weak and their claìms in parlicular. 

In substance the doctrine is as foUows. Sin has 
alienated ali men, Jews and Gendles alike, from God, 
so that neither our naturai knowledge of God nor the 
law is able lo help us (1 iS-Szo). A new way of salvation 
is opened up, ' God's righteousness has been manifested ' 
(SiKaioiTÙvr] GeoS Tre<pavépij}Ta.i) for ali men without dis- 
tinclion, by faith in relation lo Jesus Christ (3zr-3i). Il 
is accordingly of no importance to be descended from 
Abraham according to the flesh ; Abraham in the higher 
sense is the father of Ihose who believe (4). Justified by 
faith, we bave peace with God and the best hopes for 
the future (5). Let no one, however, suppose that the 
doctrine of grace, the persuasion that we are under 
grace, not under the law, will conduce to sin or bring 
the law into contempi. Such conclusions can and 
musi be perempiorily set aside (6-7)- The emancipated 
life of the Christian, free from the law of sin and death, 
is a glorious one (8), Israel, the ancienl people of the 
promises with ils great privileges, appears indeed to be 
rejecled, yel will finaliybe gathered in {9-11}. The life 
of Christians, in relation to God and man, must in every 
respect give evidence of complete renewal and absolute 
consecration (12i-15i3). Finally, a closing word as to 
the apostle's vocation which he hopes to fulfil in Rome 
also ; a commendalion of Phcebe, greetings, exhorta- 
tions, benedictions, and an ascription of praise to God 

If, al a first inspection, the work presents itself to us 

as an epistle written by Paul to the Christians al Rome, 

_,_ ,. - on closer examination il becomes difiì- 
6. uimcmties : ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^ ^^^^_ ^^f^_ 

not a. lottsr : . - ■ > .^ > - 

. j cuities anse on every side. To begin 

P*°^f^*° with — as regards the form that is 
assumed. We are acquainted with no 
lellers of anliquity with any such exordium as this : 
' Paul, bond-slave of Jesus Christ, called an apostle, 
separated unto the gospel of God , . . to ali those 
who are in Rome . . . grace to you and peace from 
God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ' (IlaDXoi 
SoCXos Tijffoù 'KpuTTOv, kXtjtòs àiròffToXos àipupicrfiéfos 
els fùayyéXioi' 0eoO , . . tràinv roìs o^tnv iv 'Ptifi-ri 
. ■ . x<*P'* ^P^ i^"-^ elp'^vT} àjrd Oeov Trarpòi ■fi/j.oip «cai 
Kvpiov 'I-^iTOv Xpi(TTov} ; nor with any conclusion so 
high-sounding as the doxology of I625-27, or the prayer 
for the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is heard in 
I620 (or 1624). In every olher case the epistles of 
antiquity invariably begin plainly and simply. 

Thus, fot example, in the colleccion of Oxyrhynchus papyri 
(1 181) we have Elprjvi] Taovvvnjipti kcÙ HXuiyi. evijnixeiV . . . and 
at the cl<»e eS jrpairfTe ; or (1 183) Xaipea? Atonitrian TÙi KVpCoji 
àSf\^<^ Xaipsiv and, at the close, ippùiaSaC at eS>;oiua(. 

Greetings are indeed conveyed both from and to 
various persons ; bui never are so many inlroduced as 
in Rom. I63-16, where in faci at the end ali the churches 
salute. A letler-writer may, at the outset. seek to bring 
himself into closer relationship with his reader orlo make 
himself known more exactly ; but in the many ex- 
amples of real letters that have come down lo us from 
ancienl tinies we nowhere find anylhing even approach- 
ing the amplitude of Rom. 1 2-6. Nor yel does any real 
letter, whether intended for few or for many, so far as 



we are in a posilion to judge, ever give us cause, because 
by ils length or its elaborate method it resembles a 
treatise arranged in orderly sections, lo regard il as a 
book, as our canonica! epistle to the Romans does, with 
its great subdivisions (already laken account of under § 5 ), 

We may, in truth, safely dispense with further com- 
parison between our epistle and any real letters from 
g. . . ancienl times, so impossible is it lo regard 
' ,y it as an actual epistle, to whatever date, 

' locality, or author we may assign it. 
How could any one at the very beginning of a lelter, in 
which, too, the first desire he writes to express is that 
of writing solemnly, earnestly, direclly, allow himself 
to expatiate, as this writer does, in such a parenthesis? 
He speaks as a didactic expounder who, for the mosl 
pari, directly and as concisely as possible, deals with a 
number of disputed points, with regard to which the 
reader may be supposed to be in doubt or uncertainty 
because in poinl of faci they have gained acceptance 
with in certain circles. These expositions relate to 
nothing more or less than such points as the relation 
of the Pauline Gospel to the OT [v. 2), the descent of 
the Son of God from the house of David {v. 3), the 
evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus derived from his 
resiurection {ti. 4), the origin and the legitimacy of the 
Pauline preaching (11. 5). At the same time the readers 
(who have not yet been named and are first addressed in 
V. 7) are assured that they belong to the Gentiles (édvri), 
with reference lo whom Paul has received his apostleship, 
although, according to 1 10-13, he has never as yet mei 
them and consequenlly has noi been the means of their 
conversion. Ali this within a single parenthesis. In 
such wise no leller was ever begun. 

The writer addresses himself to ' ali ' the members of a 
wide circle — let us say in Rome ; even if the words ' in 
Rome ' (èe "Pófiri) and ' those who are in Rome ' (roii 
év'Pi!ì/j.ri. I715), according to some MS authorities, do 
not belong to the originai texl, their meaning is assured 
by the superscriptìon ' lo Romans ' {-n-pòs 'PwfiaLovs ; cp 
1522-29) and by the unvarying tradition as to the deslina- 
tion of the 'epistle.' The Paul whom we meet bere 
addresses his discourse to a wide public, and utlers in lofty 
tones such words as these : ' O, man, whoever thou be 
who judgesl, eie' {& àvOpuire ttòs ó Kpivap k.t.\., 2i), 
' O, man, who judgesl, etc' {ù fii'flpwjre ó Kpivuv k.t.X., 
23), ' If Ihou bearesl the name of a Jew, eie' {el Sé trù 
'lovSaìos éiroi/ofià^T] k.t.X., 217), ' Nay bui, O man, 
who art thou ihat repliest against God?' (tS &v$pwTre, 
/ifvoOvye ffù tU et ò àvrawoKpiyòfievos rtp df^, 9 20), ' But 
I speak to you that are Gentiles' (ùfiìe 5è Xéyw rais 
fOvetnv.llis), ' I say . . . to every man that is among 
you, etc' {\éy(t> . . . Travrl r^ Óvri év iifùv k.t.X., 
123), 'Whoart thou that judgest the servanlofanother?' 
{aò Tis el ò Kpivwv oKKòrpiov otKÌTT}v, 1^4), ' But thou, 
why dost thou judge Ihy brolher ? ' (o-i) Si ri Kplveit ròv 
àSeXrpòv aov, 14 io), ' For if because of meat thy brother 
is grieved, etc' {el yàp Sta ^pù/ia ò àSe\<póì rrov XvireÌTai 
K.T.X., 14is), etc. Oflen the argumenl proceeds unin- 
terruptedìy for a long lime without any indicati on of the 
existence of a definite circle of persons to whom il is 
addressed. Yet, on the olher band also, the abstract 
argumentation gives place to direct address, the word 
of admonition or exhortalion spoken to the brethren 
{àS€X<poi), whether named or unnamed — the mention of 
whom, however, when it occurs, is a purely oratorical 
form and no naturai expression of the existence of any 
special relation between the writer and his assumed 
readers. Of the passages coming within the scope of 
this remark (some of them, already noticed in § 4), none 
presents any peculiarity in this respect. On the con- 
trary, every one of them produces uniformly the same 
impression ; in this manner no real letter is ever written. 

The last chapler has nothing of the character of a 
poslscript to a lelter already completed, although the 
letter appears to end with 1530-33- Strange, in the 
sense of being noi naturai bui artificial, is the appearance 


8. Supposed 


ili 1628 of Tertius (' I, Tertius, who write the epistle' : 
ò ypà,\{/as VTjp éTruTToKjiv), the secrelary of Paul, who, 
however, seems himself to Iiave haci a band in the 
letter, since we find him saying in 15is, 'I wrote to 
you ' [lypaApa, Strange especially is Tertius's 
greeting of the readers in his own name, in the midst 
of the greetings which Paul seems to he transmitling 
through him, w. n 23. 

The contents of the epistle, largely consisling of 
argument and discussions on doctrinal theses, differ as 
widely as possible froni what one is wont to expect in a 
letter — so widelj' that many have long laboured at the 
task of making a suitable paraphrase of the ' test-book ' 
while retaining their belief in its epistolary character, 
{See, for example, the specimen in Holtzmann, £in/J^>, 
Z37 ; cp S. Davidson, /nirJ^>, I113-116. ) 

In vain do we make the attempt in some degree io 
picture to ourselves what the relation was between the 
supposed author and his readers. Acts 
supplies no light. There we read that 
when Paul is approaching Rome the 
brethren go to meet him, not because they had previously 
had a letter from him, but because they have heard 
various things regarding his recent fortunes (2814 /l). 
As for the Jews of the metropolis, they have heard 
nothing either good or bad concerning him [v. 21). 
Tradition. apart from the NT, has equally little to say 
about the epistle, whether as to its reception or as to 
what impression it may have made. The document 
itself says something, but only what adds to the con- 
fusion. The truth of the matter seems u*attainable. 
Scholars lose themselves in most contradictory con- 
jectures as to the occasion and purpose of the writing. 

See, amongst others, Meyer-Weiss, K/rmrK.i^ì, 1899, pp, 23-33 I 
Holizmann, £in/.|31, 236.241 ; Lipsius, Co'mn.t^S, 1892, pp. 75- 
76; Sanday-Headlam, Coiittn., 1B95, chaps. 38-44; van Manen, 
Paiilus, 2 20-23. 

WliO the supposed readers of the epistle were can 
only be gathered from its contenta. But these are so 
different in many aspects that it is possible to say with 
equal justice that the church in Rome was Jewish- 
Christian, Genti le- Christian, or a mixture of the two. 

Cp the various conclusions in Meyer-Weiss, 19-22; Holtz- 
mann. 232-236 ; Lipsius, 70-73 ; Steck, Cai. 359-363 ; Vollet, 
Tli. T, 1889, pp. 270-272, and Komp. %/. ; van Manen, Paulus, 
3 23-25). 

It may be added here that the work is throughout 
addressed to ' brethren ' of ali kinds, and sometimes it 
seems also to have been intended for Jews and Gentiles 
who slood in no connection whatever with Christianity. 
Did any one ever give to a particular letter an aim so 
general, without realising that his letter had ceased to be 
a letter at ali in the naturai meaning of the word, 
and had become what we are accustomed to cali an 
open letter, an occasionai writing, a hook ? Everything 
leads to the one conclusion ; the epistolary form is not 
real, it is merely assumed ; we have here to do, not 
with an actua! letter of Paul to the Romans, but rather 
with a treatise, a book, that with the outward resem- 
blance of a letter is nevertheless something qui té 
ditferent. Cp Epistolary Litekatuke, § 1-3 ; Old 
Christian Litekature, § 18/ 

The same conclusion results from a closer examination 

of the whole as it lies before us, whenever we direct oiir 

9 Kind nf ^^^^"^'^n to the connection of its several 

■ . . parts. The relative unity of the book 

"' there is no reason for doubting. It ìs not, 
however, unity of the kind we are accustomed to expect 
in a book written after more or less careful preparation, 
in accordance with a more or less carefully considered 
and logically developed pian ; not unity such as is the 
outcome of a free elaboration of the materials after these 
have been more or less diligently collected, and fuUy 
mastered by the writer. I.east of ali, a unity such as 
we look for in a letter, whether we think of it as written 
at one sìtting or as written bit by bit and at intervals. 
It is rather a unity of such a sort as reminds us of that 



of a synoptical gospel, with regard to which no one 
doubts that it is the result of a characteristic process of 
redaction and remanienient, curtailment, correction, and 
supplementation by the help of older pieces drawn from 
other sources. It is such unity as we find in reading 
Acts, although we do not hesitate for a single moment 
to realise that Lk, has made an often very palpable use 
of written sources. There is unity of language and style, 
of thought, of feeling, of opinion ; but at the same time 
there are, not seldom , great diversities in ali these 
respects. The result, obviously, of the unmistakable 
circumstance that the writer of the canonical epistle has 
made continuai and manifold use of words, forms of 
expression, arguments, derived from sources known to 
him, whether retained in his memory or lying before 
him in written form. 

Proof of the justice of this view is supplied by the 
various attempts made by earlier and later exegetes to 

10 FaàlureB ^"P'*™*^ '***^ epistle as a completely ^ 
ij\ finii iiiiitTr '■'^l'ided whole^ — -attempts in which it ' 
'' is found necessary at every turn to re- 
sort to the assumption of ali sorts of conceivable and 
inconceivable figures and forms of speech, and thus 
conceal the existence of joints and sutures, hiatuses, 
and unìntejligible transitions. More particularly is this 
seen in the scientific line taken by Heumann, Semler, 
Eichhorn, Weisse, Straatman, Vòlter, Michelsen, Spitta, 
and so many others (some of these names are enumerated 
in § 2), who have argued, and continue to argue, for the 
view that more than one epistle of Paul lies concealed 
in the apparently homogeneous canonical epistle, or for 
the view that there have been interpolations, more or 
less numerous, on an unusually large scale. In the last 
resort, on an (as far as possible) unprejudiced reading 
of the text which has come down to us — a reading no 
longer under the dominion of a foregone conclusion, to 
be maintained at ali hazards, that here we have to do 
with the originai work of the apostle Paul, sent by him 
to the church at Rome— we shall find that what lies 
before us is simply a writing from Christian aiUiquity 
presenting itself as such a work, which we must try to 
interpret as best we can. 

The traces of additions and redactions in the various 
sections and subsections of the epistle are innumerable. 

11. Sìgns of 

It would be superfluous, even if space 
allowed, to go through ali the details on 
this head. A few examples may sufhce, 
Compared with the first part (] 18-839), ^^^ second 
(9-11), although now an integrai portion of the work, 
betrays tokens of an originally different source. There 
is no inherent connection bet\\een them, although this 
can, if desired, be sought in the desire to set forth a 
wholly new doctrina! subject in a wholly new manner. 
In the second we no longer bear of the doctrine of 
justification by faith ; the treatment of the subject 
enunciated in 1 16 /. ìs no longer continued. What 
takes its place is something quite different and wholly 
unconnected with it ; a discussion, namely, of the 
doclrina! question, ' Why is it that the Gentiles are 
admitted and Israel excluded from salvation ? ' This 
discussion is directed not, like the contents of the first 
part, ostensibly to Christian Jews, but to Gentiles. 
There is nothing in the first part that anywhere suggests 
any such affection for Israel as is everywhere apparent 
throughout the second part, and especially in 81-3 lOi 
11 1 25-36 ; nothing that comes into comparison with 
the solemn declaration of 9 1 in which the writer bears 
witness to his great sorrow and unceasing paìn of heart 
concerning Israel. This exordium points to a quite 
different situation, in which ' Paul ' requires to be 
cleared of the reproach of not concerning himself about 
God's ancient people. Hence the wish expressed by 
him that he might become anathema from Christ (àirò 
ToO XptffToD) for his brethren's sake, his kinsmen accord- 
ing to the flesh (truy/evets «arò aàpKO., 9 3). Hence his 
zeal here and in 111 to declare himself an Israelite, of 



th(i seed of Abraham, the tribe of Benjamin. Hence 
also the summing-up of the ancìent privilegc of Israel, 
' whose is ihe adoption and the glory and the covenants ' 
(94^), in comparison wilh which the simple statement 
that they were entrusted with the oracles of God (Sa) 
sinks into in signi fi canee. In the first part a qiiite 
different tone is assumed towards the Jew {'lovBaìos. 
217), with whom the speaker appears io have nothing 
in common. There we find Jew and Greek placed 
exactly 011 an equahty (I16 29 f. 89) ; the idea of the 
Jews that as such they could have any advantage over 
the heathen is in set terms controverted (2ii-32i), and 
it is declared that descent from Abraham, according to 
the fiesh, is of no value (4). Here, on the other hand 
(9-11), we have earnest discussion of the question how 
it is possible to reconcile the actual position of Israel 
in comparison with the Gentile world with the divine 
purpose and the promise made to the fathers. Here, 
_too, a high-pitched acknowledginent of the privileges 
of Israel, the one good olive-tree, the stem upon which 
the wild olive branches — ^the believing Gentiles — are 
grafted ; Israel in the end is certain to be wholly saved, 
being, as touching the election. beloved for the fathers* 
sake [xarà tìjv fKXoyiiv àyain]Tol dia roùs irarépas, ^^f. 
31IO2II717/ 2628). In thefirst part, asharprepudia- 
tion of the law in respect of its powerlessness to work 
anything that is good (Z^of. sj 4i5 614 7s/, etc) ; in 
the second a holding up of the giving of the law [vo/xo- 
0e(ria) as a precious gift (94). In the first part the 
earnest claim to justification by faith (Ói), to being under 
grace (61+), lo a walk in newness of spirit (76) ; in the 
second the assurance that ' if thou shalt confess with thy 
mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart 
that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved ' 

Observe, again, the difference in respect of langiiage. 
The words 'just,' ' justìfy, ' 'be justified ' [diKaiot. 
diKatovv, SLKaLoùaOai), nowhere occur ìn chaps. 9-11, nor 
yet the expression ' both Jews and Greeks ' ('lovS. re Kaì 
EXX. ), except in lOia where apparently it is not originai, 
or at least has no meanJng after the words ' for there is 
no distinction ' {où ydp éffriv SiacrroX-r)). The words 
' Israehte' and 'Israel' are not met with in 1-8, whilst 
in 9-11 the first occurs thrice and the second eleven 
tiines. On the other hand, we have 'Jew' nine times 
ìTi 1-3, but only twice in 9-11. and in both cases its 
oscurrence seems probably due to the redactor. The 
' adoption' {vloOetrla}. which, according to 815 (cp Gal. 
45 Eph. 1 5) is a privilege of ali Christians, whether Jews 
or Greeks, recurs in 84 in connection with a supposed 
predestination of Israel as the son of God ; the word is 
the same but it sounds quite differently. In 1-8 Christ 
is seven times called the son of God, and in 9-11 never. 
On the olher hand, he is probably called God in 95 but 
nowhere in 1-8. Whilst in 1-8 we find no other form 
of the verb ' say ' (épelv) than ' shall we say ' {épod/j.fv), 
in 919/ 11 19 we also have ' thou wilt say' {épEÌs) and 
' shall the thing say?' (épeì). If the occurrence of the 
expression 'what then shall we say' (ri oSv époDp.ep) in 
91430, as well as in 4i 61 7/ 831, points to oneness 
of language, it has nevertheless to be noted that in 1 -8 
it never, as in 930, is followed by a question, but always 
by a categorical answer. A speaker who says that Israel 
' following after a law of rìghteousness did not arrive at 
[that] law ' {SiÓKUv yó/iov Si-Kaiocrivr)^ els vbfiou qvk 
?<p9aaev, 931) understands by 'law' {vàfios) something 
quite different, and at the same time is following a quite 
diffarent use of language, from one who declares that 
the Jew sins ' under law ' {évvòfiiifs or iv vòfiip) ; shall be 
judged ' by law ' (Sia vjfiov. 212) ; doeth not ' the things 
of the law ' (rà rod vip-ov, 2 14), is not justified ' by works 
of law' {4^ ipyuiv vòfiov). comes to knowledge of sin 
'throughlaw' {Sia vÒp.ov, 820) and lives 'under law' 
{ùtrb vbfiov, 614)- Only the latter is thinking of the 
Mosaic law, about which the former would not spealt 
so depreciatingiy. In chaps. 9-11, as Steck (Ci/. 362) 



justly remarks, a much more superficial use is made of 
the proof from scripture, ' and the whole representation 
and language is somewhat less delicate.' 

The third part of the epistle (12i-lót3) seems to be 
closely connected with that which precedes. Observe 
19 Th' A ^^^ 'then' {otv : 12i), and notice how the 


writer harks back to 9-11 in his declaration 

(158) that Christ has been made a minister 
of the circumcision with reference to the promise of 
God, and to \if>/. or lia-839 in the same declaration 
supplemented with the statement (15 9) that Christ 
appeared also that the Gentiles might glorify God for 
his mercy. But the connection when more closely 
examined will be found to be only mechanical. There 
is no real inward connection. No one expects a 
hortatory passage such as this after II33-35. Nor yet, 
where some would fain place it, after eh. 8 or eh. 6. 
The exhortations and instmctions given in 12i-15i3, 
however we put the different parts together, stand in no 
relation to the preceding argument ; the same holds 
good of the exordium V2,if. Though usuai, it is not 
correct to say that paul first develops his doctrinal 
system I18-II35, and then his ethical in 12i-16i3 ; or 
even to say in the modified forni of the statement that 
he follows up the doctrinal with an ethieal section. 
Exhortations are not wanting in the first part, nor 
doclrines in the last. The truth is that in I18-II36 
the doctrinal element is prominent, just as the horta- 
tory is in 12 1-15 13. In other words, the two pieces 
are of different character. They betray difference of 
origin. 12i-15i3 is, originally, not a completion of 
1-11, thought out and committed to writing by the 
same person, but rather — at least substanti al !y — an 
independent composìtion, perhaps, it may be, as some 
have conjectured, brought hither from another context. 
It has more points of agreement with certain portions of 
the Epistles to the Corinthians than with Rom. 1-11. 
Compare, in general, the manner of writing and the 
nature of the subjects treated. 

In detail, compare such expressions as 'beseech . . . by' 
(napajiaXbi , , . oià\ 12 I, with 1 Cor, 1 io a Cor. 10 1, whereas 
beseech ' (jrapaKoXeiv), however Pauline, is found neither in 
Rom. 1-11 nor in Gal. ; the ' mercies ' (otKTcptioO of God, 12 1, 
with the ' mercies ' (oìicTipfioi) of the F ather in a Cor. 1 3, but 
nowhere named in Rora. 1-11 ; 'this age' (ò oXìov ofro*) 122, 
with I Cor. 1 20 2 68 3 is 2 Cor. 44, bttt not found in Rom. 1-11; 
the representation that the Christian can stili be renewed by the 
renewing of the mind (àvaKalviotriì tov l'eòi: 12 2) with the 
assurance that though the outer man perish, ' that which is 
within US is renewed day by day' (ó é<fiu ì]fi.ùiv [ai'flpiuTros] 
àvaKaivavrai ^fiejpif KaX iiiiépif, 2Cor.4i6) whereas Rom. 1-11 
knows nothing of this 'renewal,' and could hardly have intro- 
duced it alongside of its doctrine that the Christian is dead so 
far as sin is concerned (6 2) so that he now stands in ihe service 
of newness of spirit (Té). Compare, again, the assurance that 
God gives to each a measure of faith (èicóirrci) liérpov iriVreui; : 
123) wilh 'only, as the Lord has suppHed to each'{*ì fiìj fKaarif} 
(Ó! litnipiitcv: I Cor. 7 14), 'aecordmg to the measure of the 
province (RViDg.^ or limU) which God ap]Jortioned to us as a 
measure' (tcarà tò ^L^rpov tov Kavóvo^f ov ^tJ.épLfjfv ijfj.ii' ò Q^h^ 
(j.ETpou: aCor.lOis), and the declaration that not every one 
receives failh through the spìtit (i Cor. 12 9), as also that there 
is a stili more exceUent way than that implied Ìn the spiritual 
gifts of which faith is one, — nameIy,.love (iCor. 12 31),— whereas 
not only aie the words 'apportion' (nepifeii') and 'mea-'ure' 
(^fTpor) unknown to Rom. 1-11, but so also Ì5 ' love ' (àyónj) in 
the sense of love to God and one's neighbour, and (equally so) 
a faith ()ri.'i7Tis) which is not regarded as the beginning of a new 
life, in comparison with which love Is not required simply 
because that and everything else that is needed is already 
possessed where faith is ; the distinction between vatlous 
spiritual gifts (12 6-8)compared with i Cor. 12 4.11 and 28-30; the 
whoie attitude towards self-exaltation (12 3-8) compared with 
iCor.46y7 and I212-30; the exhortations to the practice of 
love, zeal, and purity (129-21 and IS8-14) compared with i Cor. 
li; 14i-2o39 15s8 5 ri Og-ii is-zo, where, amougst other 
things, the occurrence of ' cleave ' (KoXAàcrfaO in Rom. 12 9 and 
I Cor. 6 16_^, though nowhere else to be found in the Pauline 
epistles, is to be notìced ; the occurrence also of 'laking 
thought for things honourable in the sight of ali men' (irpo^ooii- 
/ifvoi KoXè. èfiÓTHOc TrivTiov àvSpi!iTaiv '. Rom. 12 17) as compared 
with the only parallel expression 'for we take thought for 
things honourable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in 
the sight of men ' (npovoovfLvv yàp froAà ov fj.óvov tviitmov K\rpt.ov 
òAAà ical iviÓTviai' ivBpmjru/v ; 7 Cor, 8 21 ; cp Prov. £4) ; bifitikuv 
13 R used severa! times also in i and 2 Cor. but never in Rom, 
1-11 i the special exhortations to subjeclion to authorlty and to 



due discharge of one'a various obtigations (13 i-^) indicative of a 
peaceful environment and hardly m keeping with the persecu- 
tions suggested hy ihe closing verses of chajj. 8, but on the 
other hand quite in ac;(;(ird with the Special admonitions and 
exhortations of i Cor. 1 lo^^ ó ti i-n 113-15, ^"^C- ' what is said 
in chap. 14 regarding the use of cerlaìn meats, the observance of 
sacred days, and ihe respect for the weali, with regard to which 
no word is found in 1-11, bue which reminds m thtoughout of 
I Cor. S-10, not only by tea-son of the similarily of buch expres- 
sions as ' eat ' (iirÓistv), 'food' (^pùfia), 'cause to stumble' 
ioKav&aXi^tLv), ' a stumbling- block to the brother ' (jrpóaKOfxfLa 
TU) àSeÀi^ó)), 'not to eat flesh ' (jiì; ij/aytiv itpeo), etc, but also 
very specially by reason of the agreement in the centrai ihought 
that to the fuUy developed Christian ali ihings are allowed, but 
that he must give no offence to the weak brother and iherefore 
oughl rather to act as if he were stili in bondage to ancient 
customs and usages. 

The concliision of the canonical epistle I514-I627 

must be accepted, as such, notwithstanding the objec- 

_. , tions urged by Semler, and those who 

13. unap. 15/. j^jj^^ ^j^^ jjj rejecting chaps. 15 16 as 

not originai conslituents of the writing sent by Paul to 
the Romans. It nevertheless shows many evidences of 
compilation by the aid of various pieces at the redactor's 
disposai, a process to which reference has already so 
often heen made that it seems superfluous to dwell long 
upon it now. Let the reader but observe the discon- 
nected character of the five pieces of which eh, 16 cen- 
si sts, each of which either has no relation to the 
preceding, or is in contradiction with it. The recom- 
niendatioii of Phcebe v. i /. hangs in the air. The 
greetings of t^: 3-16 presuppose a prevìous residence 
of Paul at Rome and a circle of acquaintances formed 
there, notwithstanding the positive statements on the 
subject in I8-13 and \t)22f. The warning against false 
teachers in w. 17-20 fìnds no point of attachment in 
what precedes. The greetings of others in vv. 21-33 
Taise unanswered questions, not the least of these being 
those which arise in view of the existence of the already 
complete list in 3-16, and the mention of ali the churches 
at the dose. The detached character of the doxology 
in TI'. 25-37 is shown by the fact that in many MSS it 
occurs after I423. 

The esamples cited, along with others which might 

be adduced (cp van Manen, Paulus, 234-101), show 

- , conclusively that the ' epistle ' has been 

, .,.' ™f i" j- compiled with the help of previousiy 

milty 01 tram- g^ig^i^^ documents. There are also 

tioual tneorv. . . 

■' other reasons, however, against ac- 

cepting the voice of tradition regarding theorigin of the 
work. Now and then the contents themselves reveal 
quite clearly that they cannot be from Paul {o^. 64 A. D.), 
so that we have no need to dwell upon the improb- 
ability of supposing that Paul, a tentmaker by calling 
and personally unknown to the Christians at Rome, 
addressed to that place an epistle so broad and so deep, 
written in so exalted and authoritative a tone ; nor 
upon the question as to how it was possible that such 
an epistle should, so far as appears, have failed to make 
the slightest impression, whether good or bad, at the 
lime, and was doomed to lie for fnore than half a century 
buried in the archives of the Christian church at Rome 
in impeiietrable obscurity, until suddenly it re-emerged 
to lÌE;ht, honoured and quoted as an aulhority by — the 
gnostics ! Evanson long ago (1792) poLnted to the fact 
that the church addressed in it was apparently of long 
standing, and to the silent assumption in 11121521/. 
that the deslruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. n. was a 
thing of the past, As regards the first of these points, 
he compared what is said in Acls and called attention 
to the fact that nothing is there said of any project of 
Paul's to visit Rome before he had been compelled by 
Festus to make appeal to the emperor (25 10-12), nor 
yet anything about an Epistle to the Romans or about 
any Christian community of any kind met there by the 
apostle (2811-31). Yet even if we leave Acts out of 
account as being incomplete and not in ali respects 
wholly trustworthy, what the epistle ilself says and 
assumes with regard to the Christian church at Rome is 
asscredly a good deal more than. in ali probability, 



could have been alleged about it at so early a date as 

59 A. D., the year in which it is usualiy held to have 

been written by Paul. 

The faith of the Roman Church is supposed to be 

known ' throughout the whole world ' ; and Paul is 

-.w -a a i- filled with desire to make its acquaint- 
15. Renection ■ j ,t, . u i 

- , . ance m order that so he may be re- 

Oliatierage. f^eshed (le 12). The faith of both rests 

on the same foundation. The Christians of Rome are 

Pauiine Christians. 

Like him they are jtistified by faith (5 j) ; reconciled with 
God(5ii); free from the dominion of sin and now in the unin- 
terrupled service of God (8 18-22) ; no longer under the law but 
under gtace, so that they now live in newness of spirit and not 
in oldness of the letter (6 15 7 S). They are well aqijuainted with 
Paulinism. They know it as a definite form of doctrine and 
have fully and freely given their assent to it— ' Ye were scrvants 
of sin but ye became obedient from the heart to that forni of 
teaching whereunto ye were delivered ' (V^ SoùAoi t^s ófiapri'ai, 
viTTJicov<rffTe tìt ^k nap&ia^ tis or TrapeBó^Te Tvirov Si^o^i^^ : fi 17), 
It is possible to speak to them without any fear of misunder- 
standing, about ' faith ' (niVrit) and ' grace ' (xóffs)» ' righleous- 
ness' {Sifcatotnlnj) and 'love' (àyaTTr)), ' believing ' (ittTTtvtiy) 
and 'being justified ' i_SiKaiova8ai), 'being justified by faith' 
{SiKatovaSaL ex iriWeius) and ' by Works of law ' (t^ fpyiov vóiiov), 
'sinning wilhout law' (àjiapTé.vii.v àvó/xia^) and under law' 
(EffóiUius or tv l'óficu), 'being delivered up (jrnpofioff^i'at) and 
' dying for men ' (àvoSai/iìi' virìp órtìpiùirùii'), ' redemption ' 
(àiroAvT-puicris), ' being baptlzed into Christ ' ifiaTmirSyivai tij 
XpioTÓi'), 'being crucified with [Christ]' (trv<rTavpo5<r8<u 
|Xpio-Ti3]); 'living after the flesh ' {fìv xarà irópKa)^ 'after the 
spirit ' (JtaTà Tii/fO/La.), ' lo God ' (lai 0fù), ' in Christ ' (ti' Xptirrù) ; 
to use such expressions as : ' for there is no distinction ' (où yàp 
ìiTTiv SiaiTTok^ '. 3 23) ; ' but where there is no law neilher is 
there transgressìon ' (oC Si ovk firriv tófios oùBè iropópairis : 
4 15) ; ' but where sin abounded, grace abounded more enceed- 
irigly ' (o7r et èirkfài'afffi' fj àfiaprtft, vTrfpfTrepLfTtTfv^ev 17 xópt^ : 
620); to be under law,' 'under grace' (cTi'ai virò vifioc, ùirò 
)(apLv : 614); 'spirit of adoption,' 'Abba, Father ' (■nvfvfi.a. 
\ilo6eaia^, 'A^|3à ó Trar^p '. 8 15); lo ihrow out such questions as 
these ; Whether or not there be wilh respect to Jews and Greeks 
' respect of persons with God ' (7rpoi7iuJroÀi],in/iia irapà ©jui 2 11)? 
Has the Jew as such any advantage over the Greek, when both 
have sinned (39-20)? In how far does any importance at ail stili 
atlach to circumcision (225-29)? What value has the law 
(2 12-29 819-2227-31 Ti-s)? Does faith ever make it voìd 
(331)? In what sense may we pride ourselves on having 
Abraham lo our father (4)? Must we not think that the doctrine 

of grace leads Co continuance in sin (6 i)? Is not the conviction 
that we are noi under the law but under grace, conducive to sin 
(615)? Can the law be held responsible for sin because by 
means of the law ive were broueht lo the knowledge of sin 


Ali this is iinthìnkable at so early a date as the year 
59 A.D. There is, moreover, the one great simple fact 
T fi A dRVAinnAil '^'^''^^ overrides these considerations, 
- ... ^ and thrusts them, so to speak, into the 
background — this, namely, that the 
Paulinism with which we are made acquainted in the 
Pauiine Epistles, and particularly in that to the Romans, 
is of more recent date than the historical Paul. Com- 
pared with what the first disciples of Jesus belìeved and 
professed, it is not merely a remarkable divergence ; it 
is in point of fact a new and hìgher development 
from the first Christianity. It presupposes, to speak 
with Loman, ' a richly developed stage of theological 
thought. ' It has learned to break with Judaism and to 
regard the standpoint of the law as once for ali past 
and done with, substituting in its place that of grace as 
the alone true and valid one. The new lìfe ' under 
grace ' stands in sharp antithesis to the old one ' under 
the law' (614). It knows, and it is, a new divine 
revelation ; it has a theology, a christology, and a 
soteriology, which bear witness to a more advanced 
thinking and to a deeper experience of life than could 
possibly have been looked for within the first few years 
after the crucifixion. It is a remarkable forward step. a 
rich and far-reaching reform of the most ancient type of 
Christianity ; now, a man does not become at one and 
the same moment the arìherent of a new religion and 
its great reformer. AH attempcs to escape the difficulty 
so far as Paul is concerned break down in presence of 
the obvious meaning of Gal. 1 11-23 ì ^.s was shown 
years ago by Blom against Straatman [Th.T. 1875, 
1-44). It is of ro avail continually to hark back to the 



possibìlity — which, in fact, no one denies — of a develop- 
ment in Paul's mind duriiig the years that elapsed 
between his conversion and ihe writing of his epistles. 
The PauUnism of the epistles in question is, on their 
own showing, in its main features at least (with which 
we are here concerned) as old as the Christian life of 
Paul ; but such a Paulinism is even for thoughtful 
believers in the supernatural ìnconceìvable as having 
come into existence immediately after Paul had become 
a Christian. Let the student read and ponder the sketch 
of Paulinism given by van Manen in Paulus, 2126-140, 
cp 211-217 ; and in Paul, § 40. 

The kinship of Paulinism (especially in the forni in 
which it occurs in the Epistìe to the Romans) with 

IT. Einsliìp 
with gnosia. 

gnosis, which has been recognised and 
remarked both by older and by younger 
critics — amongst others by Basilides , 
Marcion, Valentinus, Irenseus, Tertullian, Holsten, 
Hilgenfeld, Scholten, Heinrici, Pfleiderer, Weizsacker, 
Harnack (cp van Manen, Paulus. 2154-166)— léads also 
to the same conclusion : that Paul cannot have written 
this epistle. As to the precise date at which (Christian) 
gnosis first made ìts appearance there may be some 
measure of uncertainty : whether in the last years of 
Trajan {ob. 117 A.D.), as is commonly supposed, or 
perhaps some decades earlier ; in no event can the date 
be carried back very far. and certainly not so far back 
as to withìn a few years of the death of Jesus. With 
regard to this it is not legitimate to argue, v^fith Baljon 
[Gesch. 77), that in the Pauline gnosis ' no doctrine of a 
demiurge, no theory of asons is found.' It is years 
since Harnack (DG'?') 1 195-7) rightly showed that the 
essence of the mattar is not to be looked for in such 
details as these. 

In addition to the assumed acquaintance (already re- 
marked on) of the readers of the epistle with the Pauline 
18 Other Bi^na ?''^P^'' '^ereareotherpeculiarities that 
of la.tfir aire indicate the church addressed as one of 
^ ■ long standing. It is acquainted with 
various types of doctrine (617). It can look back upon 
its conversion as an event that had taken place a con- 
siderable tìme ago ( 1 3 1 1 ). It has need of being stirred 
up to a renewal of its mind (I22) and of many other 
exhortations (12-14). It has iti its midst high-rainded 
persons whcse thoughts exalt themselves above the 
measure of faith given them (I23). It does not seem 
superfluous to remind them that each belongs to the 
other as members of one body endowed with differing 
gifts. There are prophets, ministers, teachers. ex- 
horters, givers, rulers, and those who show mercy, and 
it appears to be necessary that each should be reminded 
of what he ought to do or how he ought to behave. 
The prophet must keep withìn the limits of the faith 
that has been received, and be careful to speak according 
to the proportion of that faith [Karà tÌ}v àvaXoylcLv rìjs 
TTttrrewi, 126) ; the minister, the teacher, and the exhorter 
must each busy himself exclusively with the work 
entrusted to him ; the giver must discharge his task 
with simplicity, the ruler his with diligence ; he that 
shows mercy is to do so with cheerfulness (124-3). The 
mutuai relations must be considered anew and carefully 
regulated, both in general (I29-21 138-io), and, in 
particular, with respect to the special ' necessities of 
the saints,' the duty of hospitality, the attitude to be 
maintained towards persecutors (12i2_^), the public 
aulhority, and the fulfilment of the duties of citizenship 
(13i-7). A vigorous exhortation to vigilance and an 
earnest waming against revellings and drunkenness, 
chambering and wantonness, strife and envy, are not 
superfluous (I311-14). There are weak ones in the 
faith, who avoid the use of wine and flesh {Hi/. 21) ; 
others who hold one day holy above others, and as 
regards their food consider themselves bound by obsolete 
precepts regarding clean and unclean {IÌ5/. -nf, za). 
Others again who regard ali these things with lofty 
disdain, making no distlnction between clean and 



unclean food, deemìng that they are free to eat and 
drink as they choose, and that ali days are alike ; but 
these, just because of the freedom they rejoice in, give 
offence to many brethren and are the cause of their 
moral declensìon (Hsf- 131520-23). These divergent 
practices have already continued for so long that the 
writer, so far as the first two (wine and flesh, clean and 
unclean) are concerned, is in perplexity between them 
himself, and has no other pian than to raise himself 
above them ali ìn order to urge a general point of 
view — a genuìnely ' catholìc ' one — of ' give and take.* 
in which the principle of freedom is recommended and 
its application urged in the fine maxims : let no one give 
offence, let each one be fully persuaded in bis own 
mind, ali that is not of faith is sin (14s 1323). 

The church is exposed to persecution ; it sufFers with 
Christ. It has need of comfort. What is said in this 
connection cannot be explained from any circumstances 
at Rome known to us before Nero and the time of the 
great fire in 64. It points rather to later days when 
Christians were continually exposed to bloody persecu- 
tions. See 63-5 817-39 12 12 14. 

One decisive proof that in our epistle we are listening 
to the voice of one who lived after the death of Paul in 
64 A, D. is to be found in the manner in which the quesdon 
of the rejection of Israel is handied in chaps. 9-11. That 
question could not thus occupy the foreground or bulk 
so largely in the minds of Christian writers and readers 
as long as Jerusalem was stili standing, and there was 
nothing to support the vague expectation of its 
approaching overthrow which some entertained. The 
allusions to the great events of the year 70, the over- 
throw of the Jewish commonwealth, and the expectations 
which connected themselves with this event are mani- 
fest. Any one who will read what is said, particularly 
in 11 11-22, about the downfall of the Jews (tò Trapd- 
ìTTuna aiirwv), about the branches that have been broken 
off (é^eKXàcrdìjaav KXdSoi,] and the 'cutting off' {àTroTo/j.ia) 
which has come upon those who are fallen (éTrl roùt 
vecròvras), can be under no misapprehension on this 

If we now sum up the points that have been touched 
on ìn §§ 6-18, we need have no hesitation in deciding 
_ , , that the arguments are convincing : 
13. OOncmsion. ^^^ canonical Epistle to the Romans is 
not what it seems to be, not a letter written by the 
apostle and sent to a definite church ; il is a tractate, 
a book, designed to be read aloud at Christian meetings, 
a piece to be read in Church (kirchliches Vorlesungs- 
stuck), or homily, as Spitta [Zur Gescà. 3 sg) has 
phrased it, It is a book written in the forni of a letter, 
not written after the kind of preparatìon with which we 
write our books, but compiled rather in a very peciiliar 
manner by use of existing written materiaìs whereìn the 
same subjects were treated in a similar or at ieast not 
very divergent way. We can best form some conceptìon 
of the method foUowed here by studying the text of one 
of the synoptical gospels with an eye to the method in 
which it was presumably composed ; or by tracing in 
detail the manner in which such authors as the writer of 
the present epistle make use of the OT. They quote 
from its words alternately verbatim and freely, often, 
too, without any reference to the OT context, so that 
we can trace the question only by comparison of the 
text we possess which has been wholly or par ti y 
followed (cp van Manen, Paulus, 2217-9)- 

The study of the ' epistle ' from the point of view of its 
probable composition, enables us to distinguish what 
treatises or portions of treatises were probably made use 
of before the text carne into existence in its present form. 
In this way the work as a whole makes us acquainted 
with underlying views then prevaJent, and accepted or 
controverted by our author — on the universality of sin 
and its fatai consequences (1iB-32d); on righteousness 
by faith (321-31); on the connection between this and 
Abraham as father of the faithful (4); the fruits of 



ju5iification(5); ihreeobjectionsagainst Paulinism (61-14 

615-76 77-25)1 the glories of the new life in Christ (8); 

the rejection of the jews (9-11); what is the duty of 

Christians towards God and man generally, and towards 

the weak and the principles held by them in particular 

(12i-15i3). Such views, however greatly they may 

vary in purpose and scope, ali belong lo one main 

direction, one schoo! of thought, the Pauline. We 

give them this name because we gain our best and 

most coniprehensive acquai 11 lance with the school from 

the ' epistles of Paul,' just as we speak of the Johan- 

nine Schooi and the Johannìne tendency, although we 

know nothing about the connection between the school 

or tendency on the one side, and the well-known 

apostolic name connected wìth it on the other. To 

suppose that the school originated from the histoncal 

Paul, as was formerly maintained by Steck, is possible ; 

but the supposition finds no support in any historical 

facts with which we are acquainted (cp Paulus, 2 222-227). 

What is certain, at any rate, is that the canonical 

epìstle is not by Paul. A writing that is so called, but 

«« mt. iv OH closer examination is seen to be no 
20. The author. -, 1 1 .... 

epistle but rather a compilation, in 

which, moreover, are embedded pieces that plainly 
show their origin in a later time, cannot possibly be 
attributed to the 'apostle of the Gentiles.' In this 
connection, however, it is inappropriate to speak of 
deception or forgery or pious fraud. There is not the 
slìghtest reason for supposing that our author had the 
faintest intention of misleading his readers, whether 
contemporaries or belonging to remote poslerity. He 
sìmply did what so many others dìd in his day ; he 
wrote somelhing in the form (freely chosen) of a tractate, 
a book, or an epistìe, under the name of some one 
whom he esteemed or whose name he could most 
conveniently and best associate with his work, without 
any wrong intention or bad faith, because he belonged 
or wished to be thought to belong, to the party or 
school which was wont to rally under his master 's 
Standard. His own name remained unknown ; but his 
noTn de piume was preserved and passed from mouth to 
mouth wh ere ver his work was received and read. 
What reason was there for inquiring and searching 
after his real name if the work itself was read, quoted, 
copied, and circulated with general approvai? The 
work might bear evidence of the artist so far as con- 
cerned person, surroundings, sufferings. In this case, 
according to the epistle, he was a Christian, one of the 
Pauline School, a polished and educated man with a 
heart full of zeal for ihe religious needs of humSnity : a 
W th A Patili'^'st, however, of the right wing. 

ZI. UlB mecnoa. ^^ ^j^^^ himself above the different 
shades of opinion which he knows so well by letting them 
fìnd alternate expression, by letting the voice now of the 
one and now of the other be heard. He gives ulterance 
to words so sharply explicìt as ihese ; ' by the works of 
the law shall no fleshbe justified in hisstght ' (820) ; 'now 
are we delivered from the law wherein we were held ' 
(76) ; but also lo other words, so friendly in their tone 
as regards the very same law ; ' not the hearers . . . 
bui the doers of the law shall be justified ' (2 13) ; ' the 
law is holy,' 'spiriliiar (71214). He asseverates that 
there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (832 
that there is with God no acceptance of persons (2ii 
and that the privileges of the Jew are many (3i/. 
that Israel is in a very special way the people of God 
(94/ 111). He says that to be a son of Abraham after 
the flesh signifies nothing (4i_^), and that to be of the 
seed of Abraham is a specially great privilege (11 1). 
He recognises at one time that the wrath of God is now 
manifest upon the sins of men (I18), and at another 
that this is yet to come (25-8). He speaks of it as a 
matter of experience that the Christian has broken with 
sin for good and has become a wholly new creature 
(5 1-7 6 and 8), and also lays down a quite different 
doctrine to the effect that he is stili * sold under sin,' 



continually doing the thing he would not, and he longs 
for emancipation from the body (7 7-25). He embraces 
the doctrine of a redemption of man froni a power 
hostile to God on the ground of the love of the father 
(324 5i 8332), and with this he associates the thought 
of an atoning sacrifice on behalf of the sinner offered to 
God by Christ ' in his blood ' (325). Paul is to him the 
called apostle of the Gentiles (li 5 13/; 15 16 18); but 
also warialy attached to the Jews and ready to do 
e very thing for them (9 1-3 10 i 111); in possession of 
Ihe 'first fruits of the spirit,' always working 'in the 
power of God's spirit,' but also in the manner of the 
originai apostles ' in the power of signs and wonders ' 
(15ig). He recognises Jesus as God's son, who has 
appeared 'in the likeness of sinful flesh ' (8332) ; but he 
also says that he is of Israel according to the flesh (85), 
and that he was first exalted to the dignity of divine 
sonship by his resurrection (I3/. ]5i2). He speaks 
with the same facility of 'Jesus,' 'Jesus Christ,' and 
' our Lord Jesus Christ ' as he speaks of ' Christ ' and 
'Christ Jesus.' For him ali distinction in the use of 
these various designations has practically disappeared. 
Not seldom do we fìnd him affirming and denying on 
the same page. He knows how to give and take, when 
to evade arguments, and when to meet them. Already 
v^e perceive in him something of the ' catholic ' spirit 
which rises above the strife of parties ; which serves the 
truth and promotes the unity of believers, by siding 
now with the right wing, now with the left, by gliding 
over thomy points, and boldìy thrusting difficuhies aside. 
As for origin, he was probably a Greek. He thinks 
in Greek, speaks Greek, and seems to have used no 
other books than those which he could 

22. His origin. 

have consulted in Greek (cp Paulus. 

2186-190). His home we can place equally well in the 
E. or in the W. In the E., and particularly in 
Antioch or elsewhere in Syria, because Paulinism 
probably had its origin there. The catholic strain, on 
the other band, within the Itmits of the Pauline move- 
ment, seems rather to have proceeded freni Rome. 
The possibiiity is not excluded that the main portìons 
of the letter, or if you will, of a letter, to the Romans, 
were written in the E. , and that the last touches were 
put to it in Rome or elsewhere in the W. ; in other 
words, that it was there that the epistle took the fina! 
form in which we now know it. There is a consider- 
able number of writings which passed over from the 
hands of the Gnostics into those of ' catholic '-minded 
Christians, and in the transìtion were bere and there 
revised and corrected, brought into agreement, some- 
what more than appeared in their originai form, with 
the prevailing type of what was held lo be orthodox 
(cp Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. 1883-1887 ; Usener, 
Rel.-gesch. Unlers. 1, 1889; van Manen, Paulus, 
2 227-230). 

The author has not given us the date of his work, 
and we can guess it only approximately, Broadly 
__ T.-J.- speaking, we may say, not earlier than the 
end of the first nor later than the middle 
of the second century. Not before the end of the 
first century, because after the death of Paul (about 
64 A.D.) lime enough must !)e allowed to admil of 
epistles being written in his name as that of a highly 
placed and authoritatìve exponent of Chrislianìty, — the 
representative, not to say the 'father,' of Paulinism, a 
forward-reaching spiritual movement, a deeply penetrat- 
ing and largely framed reform of that oldesl Christianity 
which embodied the faith and expectations of the first 
disciples of Jesus after the crucìfixion. Paulinism in 
this sense certainly did not come into existence until 
after the downfall of the Jewish state in 70 A.D.. and 
— if we consider its kinship with gnosticism, and various 
other features which it shows— surely not before the end 
of the first, or the beginning of the second, century. 
On the other side, we may venture to say, not later 
than the middle of the second centtiry. Clement of 



Alexandria, Tertullìan, Irenteus, use thebook towards the 
end of that century. and we iiiay be sure did not hold 
it for a recent composiiion. So also Theophilus ad 
Autolycum, 814. who about 180 A.D, cited Rom. \%t f. 
as 'divine word' {Oecos Xbyoì). Basilides (125), and 
Marcion, who made his appearance a'. Rome in 138, 
knew the epistle as an authoritative work of ' the apostle. ' 
Aristides (125-126), James (130), i Peter (130-140) in 
like manner show acquaintance wilh the epistle. Various 
circumstances combined justify the supposìtion that it 
was written probably about 120 A.D. , whìlst some 
portions of it in their originai form may be regarded as 
somewhat earlier (cp Paulus, 2 296-303 3 312-315). 

If, in conclusion, \ve are met by the question, ' What 
is the value of the writing when one can no longer 
Val regard it as an epistle of Paul to the 

■ Romans ? ' it must never be forgotten 
that the incisiveness of its dìalectic, the arresting 
characler of certain of its passages, the singular power 
especially of some of its brìefer utterances and out- 
pourings of the heart, the edifying nature of much of 
the contents, remain as they were before. The religioiis 
and ethical value, greater at ali tìmes than the assthetic, 
ìs not diminished. The historical value, on the other 
hand, is considerably enhanced. True, we no longer 
find in it, what we were formerly supposed to fìnd , 
the interesting. (though in large measure not well 
understood) writing of the apostle, written, in the days of 
his activity among the Gentiles, to a church which was 
personaliy unknown to hini. But what have we in its 
place ? A book of great significance for our knowledge 
of the ancient Christianity that almost immediately 
succeeded the apostolic (the Christianity of the disciples 
of Jesus in the years that followed his death). There is 
no work from Christian antiquity that contributes more 
largely to our knowledge of Paulinism (whether in its 
first form — a form in which it has not reached us in 
any deliberate writing — -or in its subsequent develop- 
ment) in its strength as an inspiring directory for 
conduct, and in the rìchness and depth of its religious 
Ihought and experience. 

No serious efforts to defend the genuìneness of the 

epistle have as yet ever been attempted. Those otfered 

26.Defender3 '^^^f y /"^ in passing, as it were, 

- , rely (as for example m Meyer-Weiss, 

Of geBumenesB. j^JJ-^^ ,b,_ ^g^^^ ^^_^^^ ^^^ .^^ g ^^^.^_ 

son, Introd.'?\ 1894, 117-119, 150-2) on the so-called 
esternai evidence. That is to say, its defenders rely on 
what is excellent proof of the existence of the epistle at 
the lime when it was cited, or what clearly presupposes 
an acquaintance with it, but is of no significance what- 
ever when the question is whether the work was in 
reality written by the individuai who from the first was 
named as its author. This the Tùbingen school have 
long perceived ; Baur also did not rely on such argu- 
ments. Instead of doing so he thus expressed himself 
{Paulus V^i. 1866, 376) : 

'Against thesefour epistIes(Rom., i and a Cor., Gal.)nolonly 
has even the slightest suspicion of spuriousness never been 
raised, but in fact they bear on their face the mark of Pauline 
originality so unconiestably that it is impossible to imagine by 
what right any crìtica! doubt could ever possibly asserì itself 
regacding them.' 

The utterance, it will be observed, wholly ignores 
Evanson, 1792, and of course also Bruno Bauer, who did 
not publish his criticism till 1851 ; but it also ignores 
the view taken by so many, including F. C. von Baur 
himself, who have vied with one another in the dìs- 
integration of the epistle, as also the possibility that 
yet others at a later date might perceive what Baur 
himself had noi observed ; nor yet does it take account 
of the unsatisfactoriness of any assertion (however 
plausible it may sound) as to the ' originality' of Paul, 
whom after ali we know only by means of the picture 
that has been constructed with the aid of those very 
epistles with regard to which we wish to inquire whether 
ihey really were written by him. Nothing therefore is 



added to the argument when a countless host of others 
since Baur are never weary of repeating that ' even the 
Tiibingen school' have raised no doubts as to the 
genuineness. The observation is correct, it is true. 
Only they forget to add : nor yet have they offered 
proofs that it is genuine. 

Meyer-Weiss, S. Davidson, and others remain equally 
sparing of their arguments even after the criticism of a 
later date has made its voice heard. They put it aside 
with a single word. Weiss, with a referente to a 
' Parody,' by C. Hesedamm, Der RómerbHef beurtkeilt 
u. geviertheilt, 1891. Davidson, with the observation 
that the genuineness, aparl from the conclusive testi- 
mony of wilnesses, is fully guaranteed by internai 

' The internai character of the epistle and its historical allusione 
coincide wìth the eitlernal evidence in proving ic an authentic 
production of the apostie. It bears che marks of his vigorous 
mind ; the language and style being remarkably characteristic' 

He omits, however, to teli us how he knows that 
anything is a 'production,' not to say an 'authentic 
production of the apostle ' ; nor yet how he has oblained 
his knowledge of the mind of Paul ; nor yet why il is 
impossible for a pseudonymous author to have any 
characteristic language and style. 

Harnack {ACL ii. 1 [1897] p. vii) considers himself 
absolved from going into the investigation until the 
rep resentati ves of the newer criticism ' shall have rigor- 
ously carried out the task incumbent on them of working 
out everything pertaining to the subject afresh. ' 

Jiilicher {Einl., 1894, p. 17, 1901!^*, p. 19) once and 
again resorted to a severe attack on ' hypercriticism ' and 
' psendo criticism,' and subsequently proceeded, in deal- 
ing with the Epistle to the Romans, as if nobody had 
ever at any time argued against its genuineness. 

Sanday and Headlam (Comm., 1895, pp. 85-98) 
discuss exhaustively the inlegrity of the epistle, especi- 
ally as regards chaps. lS-16, but say little about the 
history of the question of genuineness. They cursorily 
dismiss some of the objections without showing that 
they have really grasped their proper significance. 
Cotmter-arguments are practically not heard. So also 
in other commentaries whose authors had heard any- 
thing about the newer criticism referred to. Hoisten 
( ' Krit. Briefe iib. die neuestc paulin. Hypotbese ' in 
Prof. Kirckenztg., 1889), Pfleiderer {Paulinismus'^'i, 
1890}, Holtzmann {EÌ7iL^\ 1892), Lipsius [HC^\ 1892, 
pp. 83/.), and others, made some general observations in 
favourof the genuineness that had been called in question. 
But these discussions were little more than insignificant 
' affairs of outposts ' ; no real battle was delivered nor 
even any serious attack prepared. 

Then came Zahn {£inL'^\ 1900, I3) with his censure 
on his comrades in arms against the Tùbingen school for 
their error in having defended indeed the genuineness of 
the epistles • rejected ' by Baur, but not that of the 
'principal epistles,' ■ although Baur and his disciples 
had never so much as even attempted any proof for the 
positive part of their results. ' Forthwith he addressed 
himself to the long postponed task. He gave some half- 
dozen general observations (pp. ir 2-1 16) not differingin 
substance from those which had already been made ; re- 
ferred to the various particular investigations to be made 
in a later part of the work, including the detaiied treat- 
ment of the Epistle to the Romans (pp. 251-310) where 
31 full pages are devoted to the subject of the integrity 
and not a single word to the question of genuineness. 

Baljon (Gesck.. 1901) perceived that something more 
than this was necessary to put the newer criticism to 
silence, if it was wrong. But what he wrote with this 
end in view was neither (as might have been expected) 
a confutation of the objections urged, nor yet an argu- 
ment for the genuineness at least as solid and good as 
(in intention at ali events) that made on behalf of Philip- 
pians, but simply a couple of pages (pp. 97-100) 
devoted to the history of the newer criticism and a few 
observations upon the objections urged by van Manen. 



So far as appears, no one has as yet addressed hini- 
sdf to the task of an orderly scientific dìscussion of the 
arguments on the other side, or to an effective setting 
forth of the arguments on behalf of the genuineness. 

Good commentaiies — though ali, it may be remarked, written 
from the point of view of an undisputed and therefore 

indisputable genuineness— are those of B. 
26. Literature. Weiss (6) ( = Meyer-WeÌ3sl»)), 1B99, R. A. 

Lipsius (,HCin, 1S92). W. Sanday and A. C. 
Headlam {Ini. Crit. Coinm. 1^95). They ali take account 
of their importa nt predecessors (se e Weiss 33-43, Lipsius 
vii-vìii, Sanday Acviii-cix), amongst whom are Origen (o^. 254), 
Chrysostom (i7i5. 407), Melanchlhon (1560), Calvin (1564), Grotiua 
([645), Tholui;k (1877), Ruckert <j;83q)(2), J, G. Reìche (1833-34), 
C. Y. A. Fritische (1836-43), van Hengel (1854-59), '^^ Wetle 
(1847)1^1 ; as alsoof the woiksof H. Alford (oó. 1E71), B. Jowett 
(1855, 1859)12), C. A. Vaughan (1874)^, W. Kelly (1873), F. 
Godet (1879, ET i88i>, G. Volkmar (1875). CpH. J. Holtzmann, 
£';a/.i^l (1892), 230-246; S. Davidson, Intr.^'^ (1894), 1 J05-152, 
Th. Zahn, Kinl.\% (1900), 1251-310, J. M, S. Baljon, Gesck. van 
de boirkeH des I^f'I's (,i.goi\ 80-101, F. Spilla, Uni. uh. denB-r. des 
P. an die Ronier (1901) ; A. D. Loman, ' Qusest. Pauliote,' Th.. T 
(1882) ; R. Steck, Gal. (1888). 154-161, 359-363, 374-382, W. C. 
van Manen, Paulus II. : De briej' aan de Rotn. (1891), 

W. C. V, M. 


Not fouuded by Peter and Paul Age (gg 10-12). 

(S i/). Characcer (§§ 13-16). 

Not by Peter alone (§ 3). Constitution and government 

Not hy Paul (SS 4-7)- . (§ J?/)- 

Origin among Jews in Rome Influence and importance 
<§8y:). . . (Sig/)- 

Bibliography {§ zi). 

The earliest period of the Christian community in 

Rome is wrapped in irapenetrable obscurity. Tradition 

„ , PI attributes its founding to the joint 

t ad^tì labours of the apostles Peter and Paul. 

r 1 OH. .j-j^jg tradition, however, is unworthy 

of our confìdence. It is comparatively recent. The 

oldest traces of its existence do not go back farther 

than to the dose of the second century. 

According to a notice in Eusebius (ff^ii. 2Se), 'Dtonysttis 
of Corinth,' about the year 170 a.d., or somewhat later (see 
Old Christian Literature, % 31), wrote to the Roraans as 
foliows ; ' So also by this so weighly admonitìon [of yours]— the 
allusion ibi to the epistle of the Komans to the Corinthians 
(=iClein.) — ye have brought together [anew] that platiting 
[aforelime] inade by Peter and Paul, of the [churches of ihe] 
Roitians and of the Corinthians. For, indeed, these Iwo bolh 
plaiited US in our Corinth and likewise taught us ; in like 
manner also after having taught together in Italy they suffered 
mattyrdotn about the same lime ' [not necessarily, of course, at 
the same hour, or on the same day, the same month, or even the 
same year] (raOia K<ù \>p.ii% iti tijs Touovnn vovOfai.a.% Ti\v ìttò 

tìi'cui' (TU l'eKepótroTe. koÌ. -yòfi «ui^co (tttl eìs tìji' Titierépav Kóptv8oi' 
it>VTevfroitrTfi iìt^à^ ò^atùis eSi&a^av. ófioittìq Sé Kaì et^ tÌjv 'iTaAtav 
ifióo-e 6iSó^on-« (fiapTiifnjcrav Karà tov aÙTÒv naipói'). Here the 
' planting ' or founding of the churches, alike of Rome and of 
Corinth, is clearly recognised to have been the work of the 
apostles Peter and Paul. It is of no avail to say with Sanday 
and Headlam (Comin. p. xxix) that the 'planting' referred to 
(cJiuTftìeij' ; cp 1 Cor. 36 j?r 97) is not to be taken 'in the sense of 
first foundation.' We are not responsible for what 'Dionysius' 
says ; hut we are under obligation to understand it in the sense 
in which he meanl it. 

The same remark holds good with reference to Irenasus when 
he speaks of the church at Rome as having been ' founded and 
constituted by the two very glorìous apostles Peter and Paul" 
(' a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Rom^e 
fundata et con^tituta,' iii. 8 i). These two, suhsequently spoken 
of as 'the blessed apostleSj' the same authority (about 180 A.n.) 
goes on to state, after havmg founded and built up the church, 
handed over the government to Linus (fle^[sA(cù<rmTfs oSv koì 
oltaSofi^iravref ol /lanópioi. ànó(7Toki>i tiji' ÉKitAjjcrini' Aivcii tìji' 
7-Ì75 iirtfTKOTrfi^ keiTOVpytOLV *v*;^fipta"ixf, ili. Sa ; Kus. HK-^. 6 i). 
In Eus. HEv, 82 he tells us thal Matthew wrote a gospel for 
the Hehrsus in their own tongue 'whilst Peter and Paul were 
preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the church ' (toù 
TT^Vpov Kai Tiìv XlauAou Iv 'Ptup.jj evCLyyeAl^^pHfVtuf koX 6efÀ.f- 

AlOu'l'TUll' TTIV (««AlJO'lOl'). 

These clear testimonies, however, to the founding of 

the church of Rome by Peter and Paul — however un- 

y- . hesitatingly they may have been accepted 

. i ^., and buih upon in later times — are one 

trustwomny. ^^^ ^^^ ^^j^^ unworthy of credence, ' 

Not only are they relatively recent and obvìously framed 
in accordance with a settied poHcy of glorifying the 


3. So also Peter- 


unity of the church as having been manifest even in its 
oldest communities ; what is more to the point, they 
are at variance with older representations, whether we 
receivc these with absolute confidence or not, of the 
course of events connected with the founding of a 
Christian community in Rome. 

' Ignatius,' in his epistle to the Romans (4 3), written about the 
middle of the second centuiy(seeOLU-CHKiSTiAN Literature, 
§g 28y^), indeed mentions 'Peter and Paul' as known and 
influential teachers of the church he is addressing, but 5n;"s 
nothing as to their having founded it. The church of Rome 
Itself speaks by the mouth of ' Clement ' in the First Epistle to 
the Corinthians, dating from about the year 140 a.d. (see Old- 
Christian Literature, gg 23-26), of Peter and Paul as known 
witnesses to ihe truth (i Clem. 63-7), but not as founders of the 
church. Acts is not awaie of any labours of Peter and Paul 
carried out in common at Rome. From 28 17-28 it might seeni 
to be a possibie inference that Paul was the first to speak about 
Christianity to the leading Jews there ; but of Peter there is no 
word in this connection. Just as little is Peter mentioned in 
the canonical epistle to the Romans, even in conjunction with 
' Paul ' when this apostle is speaking of his desire lo become 
acquainted with the Christians of the metropolis, whose faìth is 
everywhere spoken of, and whoin he hopes ere long to be able 
to meet (13-15 1522-24 28y; Iti 19). Indeed, the arrangements 
between Paul on the one band, and James, Cephas, and John 
on the other, according to Gal. 29, ' we to the Gentiles and they 
to the circumcision ' (-^fiils fis to. t9i/ij, ovitoc Bè eìs TÌf 
jiepiTo^ijj'), do not lead us to cxpect lo iind in epistles of Paul 
any word of co-operation between Peter and Paul in ihe found- 
ing of individuai churches. What is related as to this at a 
later date with regard to Rome cannot hold good in presence of 
the assurance given us by the Epistle to the Romans, whether 
by Paul himself or by an anon^moos author using liis name, 
that at Rome there was a considerable Christian community 
before Paul could possibly have been able to speak a single 
word there. 

Matters do not stand much better wìth the belief — 
held absolutely for many centuries, called in question 
at the Reformation, and again at 
a later period maintained by many 
Protestants also — according to which 
the church of Rome was founded by Peter alone. This. 
tradition also deserves no credence, whether in the 
form which represents Peter as having been bishop of 
Rome for twenty-five years after the founding of the 
church, or in the simpler form which merely conjectures 
that the apostle may have contributed something to the 
formation and extension of the church, or at least in 
later years may have visited it for a shorter or longer 
period. The founding of the church by Peter is ex- 
cluded by the silence of Ignatius and Clement on the 
subject, and stili more by the evidence of Acts, Gala- 
tians, and Romans. Not only do they say nothing 
positive to this effect ; they make it perfectly clear that 
from the point of view of their respective authors such 
a thing is not to be thought of. Acts closes its account 
of Peter in 12i7 with the words, ' and he departed, and 
went to another place ' («ai é^e\8wv éwopevd-q e/s ^repov 
TÒTTov), and in the rest of the book Peter's name is 
only once again mentioned, and in a different con- 
nection {156-2o), where he is represented as again in 
Jerusalem. In view of this passage I217 cannot be 
understood as referring to a journey to Rome for any 
lengthened period, not to speak of a period of five and 
twenty years. Xeither, however, can we understand a 
visitto Romeof shorter duration, such as Harnack {ACL 
2i [1897]. 240-244, 704-7ro) stili, with many, regards 
as probable, not even with the aid of the assuniption 
that the contents of Acts 15 were taken from another 
source than that from which ' Luke ' derived his other 
statements regarding Peter in Acts 1-12. The words 
quoted do not ' of course ' say that we are to think of a 
mere visit whether to Rome or to any other place. 
They are quite clearly Jntended merely to indicate that 
thè author does not propose to follow the fortunes of 
Peter further ; ' and going his way, he journeyed to 
another place." To understand Rome as intended 
here becomes possibie only after one has learned other- 
where, rightly or wrongly, to speak of a sojourn of the 
apostle in the metropolis. Acts says nothing of this, 
and plainly presupposes rather the exact opposìte, sìnce 



chap, 15 alluded to Peter as again in Jerusalem, and 
2817-28, speaking of Paul's meeting wilh Jews at Rome, 
leaves no room for the supposition that Peter had 
preceded him there as a preacher of Christianity. 
Galatians knows no residence of Peter other than 
Antioch {2ii-2i) — apart from Jerusalem where. accord- 
ìng to 1 iB 2 i-io, he seems to bave bis home, an agree- 
ment that he is to address himself to ' the circumcistoiì ' 
being expressly mentioned. Romans knows of Chris- 
tians in Rome; refers to their conversion from Judaism 
and beathendom, their fìdelity to the Pauline type of 
doctrine once received {(J17), and the spiritual bond 
subsisting between tbem, or many of them, and Paul; 
but bas not a word to say about any connection, whether 
of long or short duration, between them and the apostle 
Peter, and does not even so much as mention his name. 
The wriler, whoever he may bave been, it bas been 
rightly remarked, has no acquaintance with any tradition 
which represented Peter as havìng been the founder of 
the Roman Church. His declaration made in 15 20^ 
Ihat he, 'Paul,' would not bv.ild upon another man's 
foundation, however inconsistent with the desire ex- 
pressed in I8-15 and 1022-2429, wholly excludes it. 
Especially so as soon as by the word ' another ' we under- 
sland, as is usually the case, an apostle — in tbis instance 

It is, in fact, improbable that Peter ever set foot in 
Rome. The later Iraditìons regarding this, including 
those hEinded down by Eusebius, bave no claim lo our 
acceptance, as has often been convincingly shown by 
many scholars (and recently by C, Clemen, Preuss. 
Jahrb., 1901, pp. 404-417, and C. Erbes, Ztschr. / Kir- 
chengesck., 1901, pp. 1-47, 161-231). They possess no 
higher vaine than those relating to Thomas's preaching 
to the Parthians, Andrew's to the Scythians, John's in 
Asia Minor. When Eusebius, immediately afterwards 
(ili. 3 2, cp ii. 25 5) , gives expression to the conjecture 
that Peter preacbed to the Jews of the dispersion in 
Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, before 
his crucifixion (head downwards) at Rome, he attributes 
to him, obviously with bis eye on i Pet. li, a career 
which he himself couid not possibly recondle with the 
details that he gives elsewbere. According lo iii, 862, 
Peter was for some lime bisbop of Anlioch before Igna- 
lius; according lo ii. 25 8 he was, along with Paul, 
founder of the churches of Corinth and Rome ; accord- 
ing to ii. 146, the powerful opponent of Simon Magus 
at Rome in the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.D.) ; accord- 
ing to vi. 25 8, the rock upon which the church of Christ 
is built, and the author of two epistles. 

A reference to i Pet. 1 1, though often made in con- 
junclion with 5 13, is of no avail lo support the view that 
Peter at some lime or other had indeed made a stay, 
longer or shorler, in Rome. There need, indeed, be no 
hesitalion, not even in presence of the objections of 
Erbes.i to see in ' she that is in Babylon, elect together 
with [you]' {il iv Ba^vXwi-i irvveK\eKTÌ), i Pet. 5 13) an allu- 
sion to the church in Rome. In i Pet., however, it is 
not Peter himself wbo is speaking, but an unknown 
author writing in the first half of the second century, 

130-140 A.D. (OLD-CH RISTIA N LlTERATURE. § 20 ; 

Peter, Epistles of, §§ ^f.-. Christian, § 8). He 
is the exponent of a tradition, not met with elsewhere, 
regarding Peter as apostle in a portion of the countries 
of Asia Minor where Paul also had laboured, and at the 
same time of the other widely spread tradition that Peter 
had his home in Rome. Acts, Galatians, and Romans, 
so far as we can see, are not yet acquainted with thìs 
latest tradition. Even i Clem., written professedly by 
the church of Rome, and probably, in point of fact, 
originating there, says nothing of a sojoum of Peter in 
Rome. The wriler assuredly would not bave passed it 
over in silence when speaking of Peter's glorious past in 

1 0/ cit, below, 16-20. Erbes once more seeks to plead for a 
sojoum of Peter among the Jews in Babylon, uniess perhaps 
we are to undersCaitd Jerusalem. 



chap. 5, or treating of the life-work of the ' apostles ' in 
chaps. 43 and 44, if he had known anything of it. 
Hermas and Justin, both of them witnesses belonging to 
the Roman circle, are similarly sileni as to aught that 
Peter may be supposed to bave done, said, or endured 

There are, then, as regards Peter's going to Rome, 
and as regards his journeyings as a whole, tradilions 
which, in pari, are mutually exclusive and in no case 
admit of being combined together into one consistent 
whole. The older ones do not imply the supposed fact 
of the church of Rome having been founded by Peter; 
they have no knowledge of it, or even bear witness 
against it by making statements which cannot be har- 
monised with it. Acts, Galatians, Romans, i Clem., 
undoubtedly come chiefly into consìderaiion here. On 
the same side there fall to be grouped other NT tesii- 
monies to the martyrdom of Peter, and, more precìsely, 
his crucifixion, drawn from very old, if not the oldesl, 
traditions relating to the careers of the apostles, though 
without mention of the place where this violent death 
occuried. See Jn. 21iS-23 (cp 1336) Mt, IO5/ i5-i8 
22-33 ^^3439 24914 Mk. IS9-13 Lk. 2447 Acis 18. 
Within the circle of these ancient witnesses we can safely 
say — apart, if you will, from i Pet. 1 1 5 13— of ali those 
in the NT, to which also may be added that of the apos- 
tolic fathers, that not a single word or even the remotest 
hint is found in them as to a sojourn, whether of long or 
of short duration, of Peter in Rome, whilst, in fact, more 
than one of them, by implicit or explicil declaration, are 
irreconcilably at variance with any such supposition. 
Rather does everything plead for the view that Peter 
never visited Rome, but worked continuously in Pales- 
tine — occasionally, perhaps, oulside its limits, but never 
very far off— and that there, it may well have been in 
Jerusalem^ somewhere about Ó4 A.D. under Sabinus.i 
or, at ali events, some years before the destruction of the 
tempie and city in 70 A.D., he died a martyr's death. 
[See, further, Simon Peter.] 

What remains of the late tradition as to the founding 

of the church of Rome by Peter and Paul conjointly 

does not need any careful scruliny after 

^"■♦- • *^^ name of Peter has been eliminated. 

Acta ' "^ ^^ ^""^ "'^*' '" ^^^^ ^''^"*' ^''"' "P *° 
the alternative: if not by Peter and 

Paul together, then probably by Paul alone. This is 
nowhere said in any tradition so far as known to us. 
Tradition seems rather to have followed this course: 
since it is impossibie that Paul can have founded the 
church along with Peter, his name must not be thought 
of in connection with the founding at ali. Acts and 
Pauline Epistìes, wrìtings frequently read in a large cir- 
cle. indicated this. 

Acts knows of no Christian church at Rome at a date 
prior to a possible foundation by Paul after he had 
proclaimed the glad tidings to the Jews assembled at 
his lodging (28 17-31). In 28 15, indeed, we read of 
the ' brethren ' who carne from Rome to Appli Forum 
and the Three Taverns to meet Paul, and it is no 
doubt usuai to regard these as having been Chris- 
tians, buf on no adequate grounds. They are, to judfe 
from w. 17-28, Jews, just as Roman Jews {y, 21) cali 
their kinsmen in Judsea 'the brethren.' They are 
amazed at Paul's plans, and declare as distinctly as 
possible in v. 22 that up to that hour they had heard 
nothing of ' this sect ' — i.e., of the Christians — beyond 
the mere name. Ali this is in perfect agreement with 
the current representation in Acts, according to which 
Paul in his journeyings invariably first addressed 
himself to the Jews and thereafter to the Genfiles 
with a view to proceeding to the setlitig up of a 
Christian community, whether composed entirely of 
converted Gentiies, or parlly also of former Jews (cp 
1346 and 13-28 passim). The view that by the 
'brethren' of Rome, alluded to in 2815, as aiso by 

' So Erbes, 212, conjectures, rclying upon Jos. Ani. xx. 9 5. 


those of Puteoli in v. 14, we are to understand Chris- 
tians, rests solely upon the representation in Romans, 
according to which Ctiristians are found in Rome long 
before Paul has ever visited that city. 

At the same tinie it must be remembered that the 
opposite representation in Acts has no historical authori- 
tativeness, being inextricably bound up with the tendency 
of that book which has been already referred to. 
Moreover, in Acts 28 30 /^ the founding of a Christian 
church at Rome by Paul is rather tacitly assumed than 
asserled in so many words. It is possible that in the 
' Acts of Paul ' (which were worked over by the writer 
of our canonical Acts, and also made use of in the 
composition of the Pauline Epistles, and which them- 
selves in turn had their origin in a red action and 
expansion of the recognised We-source) the originai 
journey record (Paul, § 37 ; Old-Christian Litera- 
TURE, § 9) may have given a somewhat different 
account of the conditions which Paul found at Rome 
and elsewhere in Italy. It may be that, according to 
that representation, there were already in more than 
one place at Rome Christians, ' brethren ' in another 
and higher sense than that of mere kinship, and that 
their figurative designation is adopted by Acts so that 
ths ' brethren ' in Puleoli and Rome, according to Acts 
28i4_/'. to be understood as Jews who were friendly 
disposed towards Paul, were al the same time the 
originai Christians of these places. 

However that may be, Acts nowhere contains any 
express statement as to the founding of a Christian 
_ _ _ church at Rome by Paul ; and as little 

0. in liomana. ^^^^ ^^^ ^^j^^j^ ^^ ^^^ Romans. What 

Romans implies is, clearly, rather this — that the church 
had already been long in existence when Paul was 
cherishing the hope that he might have an opportunity 
of personally visiting it. This view is wónt to be 
accepted on ali hands as just : by the majority, because 
they hold it tocome front the apostle Paul ; by others, 
the friends of advanced criticism, because, however 
fully convinced of the pseudepigraphical character of 
the epistle {see RoMANs), they have no reason for 
doubting it. These have this advantage over the others 

6. Romana '^'"- !,^5 f ^ ""l^: [''f ''^^'"' '°'"^'>' P^*"" 
plexed by Acts which betrays no acquaint- 

ance with the epistle held to have been 

addressed to the church of Rome by Paul 

at least two years before he himselfundertook the journey 

thither only to become aware on his arrivai in the 

meiropolis that noone therehadeverheardanythingahout 

him or even about Christianity at ali otherwise than by 

report merely. They set down the divergent representa- 

tions in * Luke ' and ' Paul ' simply to the account of the 

separate writers, and as regards a supposed founding of 

the church at Rome, can only say that according to 

' Luke ' it was perhaps the work of Paul, but according to 

'Paul,' certainiy not. According lo 'Luke,' perhaps 

it was, since we must interpret in accordance with the 

general tendency of his * historical ' work ; according to 

' Paul,' because everyone thought so in those days 

nor yet had any one any knowledge of a founding 

of the church in Rome by Peter and Paul, or by 

7 flthar P^'^'' sione. In other Pauline epistles also 

■ . i, there is no trace of acquaintance with 

" ■ any tradicion which sought to represent 

that founding as having been brought about by Paul. 

In Romans there is no hìnt, of the kind we meet with in 

iCor,4i4 2Cor.6i3 12i4 Gal. 419, that 'Paul' can 

regard those whom he addresses as his ' children, ' There 

is no suggestion of such a relation of Paul to Rome even 

in Philippians, Philemon, or i Clem. 55-7, where there 

was such ampie opportun'ty to cali to mind the founding 

of the Roman Church by Paul had the writer been 

minded to refer to it. The Pauline literature says 

nothing at ali about it. nor yet do the kindred writings, 

I Peter, i Clenient, Hermas, Ignatius. Rather must 

we say that in ali of them the undisputed and indisput- 

133 4149 



able presupposi tion is that Rome w as won for the gospel 

without the intervention of Paul, either by his epistles 

or by his laler personal intercourse. 

Whom then are we to name as founder of the Roman 

church? 'Not any of the apostles,' as long ago 

„ -, j Ambrosiaster in the so-called commentary 

■ , of Ambrosius in the fourth century rightiy 

unKnown ^ > , ■ ■ . , 

- answers (cp Sanday and Headiam, pp. 

XXV, ci). We could almost venture to 
guess : one or more of those who probably at a quite 
early date, spread the glad tidings of salvation from 
Jerusalem westward. There was abundant oppor- 
tunity in the Constant intercourse between Rome and 
theeast, even before the middle of the first ceutuiy, for 
travellers from Palestine to return, or come for the first 
time. to the banks of the Tiber and there to discourse, 
as they had done in the various other ports and cities 
they touched on their route. of the ■ things concerning 
Jesus' {rà irepl toO 'Itjffov ; Acts 18^ 282331), ' theking- 
dom of God ' (^ 0affi\fia.ToC $ioO ; Acts 14=12 198 2O25 
282331), 'the preaching of the gospel' (tÒ eiay- 
yfXl^iaffai ; Acts 1832 14? 15 21 I535 I610). It is not 
necessary to have recourse Io the hardly historical 
account of the first appearance of the apostles at 
Jerusalem in Acts 2, where, as we read in t-zi. io/!, 
Romans, Jews as well as proselytes, were sojonrning 
{ol éiridTjfioOvres 'Poi/iaioi, 'lovSaìoi re «ai irpooriXvToi). 
Such Jews living in Rome, as well as Gentiles who had 
attaché d themselves lo them and professed their 
religion, may well have visited Jerusalem on other 
occasions and become messengers, possibly very 
capable ones, of what they had seen and heard there 
Q Tamitih ^"^ their brethren in the metropolis. We 
iii _ i shall best picture to ourselves the subse- 
Bettlements ■ r . e .u . 

. j. quent course of events if we suppose that 

"**' the preaching of the gospel and the 
establishment of the new religion made its way amongst 
' Jews and proselytes ' in Rome. Whoever wishes to 
picture to himself the nature of the field in which. now 
here. now there, the good seed was scattered by un- 
known sowers, must try to forni some conception of the 
Jewìsh settlements in Rome as they then were. Very 
many they were, ordinarily confìned wichin certaìn 
precisely defined limits, but within these moving with 
social freedom bound only in so far as they themselves 
chose to be so by the customs and practices received 
from their fathers, the law and what it was held to 
enjoin on the faithful children of Abraham by descent, 
or on the proselytes who had joined them. Alternately 
receiving the favours of the great and bowed down 
Tinder the heavy burden laid upon them by authorities 
of a less friendly disposition ; constantly exposed to 
risks of persecution, scorn, and derision, and seldom 
allowed to pass altogether without notìce ; engaged in 
the pursuit of trade and dependent on this for their daily 
bread, now envied for their wealth and now plunged 
into the depths of poverty or reduced to the ranks of 
professional beggars. Such, just before and during the 
opening decades of the first century, was the manner of 
life of the Jews in Rome : a great brotherhood, we may 
cali it, broken up into a number of smaller communities ; 
a band of aliens who know how to maintain their old 
manners and customs, their nati on al ity, and their religion, 
in spite of many divergencies and divisions among them- 
selves, in the midst of the surrounding Gentiles amongst 
whom their progenitors had settled. At first they had 
come lo pay a visit there because commerce and politicai 
reasons had brought them to the world-city ; so it had 
been already in the days of the Maccabees. Others again 
had been brought to Rome from their native country as 
slaves. but on closer acquaintance were hardly found 
suitable and often received their freedom or even were 
irivested with the privileges of Roman citizens. So, in 
particular, shortly after the capture of Jerusalem by 
Pompey in 63 B.c. By Cassar and others they were 
shown great favour. Under Tiberius they were ex- 

41 Si^ 


pelled from Rome in the year 19 A. D, and partly 
employed in the war against the pirates of Sardinia. 
Under Claudius about 49 a. d. they were again 
banished. Under Nero ìt woitld seem they enjoyed no 
Email power and influence. (For details see Schiirer, 
G/l-''^K 1898, 328-36 and specially the Hterature referred 
to there on p. 28, n. 70 ; cp £Bi^1, 20717-730 [1886]). 

On this Jewish soil the earliest Roman Christianity, 
we may safely affirm, had already come into being 
before the middle of the first cetitury. The 

10. Age. 

oldest distinct trace of its begiiinings is 

found in Suetonius [Claud. 25), where he says of the 
eraperor Claudius that he expelled the Jews from Rome 
on account of their persistent turbulence under the 
instigation of Chrestus ('Jud.Teos impulsore Chresto 
assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit ' ; cp Christian, 
§6iii.). The banishment of the Jews (Acts I82 and 
Dio Cassius 60 6), although probably in the event not 
judged expedient or perhaps even possible, and in any 
case not carried out on anv large scale, had its occasion 
in troubles and disturbances which had arisen among 
the Jews ' impulsore Chresto' — i.e., at the instance or 
with the help of Chrestus, This Chrestus was, to judge 
by the maoner of speech of those days, no other than 
(Jesus) Christ ; his person and work, the views and 
expectations connected with him, and his cause were 
what led Claudius to seek to remove the Jews who had 
thus become troublesome. Now, though the exact 
year in which this resolution was come to by the 
emperor is uncertain, if we reniember that at the 
beginning of his reign (41-54 A.D, ) he was, accordìng 
lo Josephus [Ani. xix. 52-3), favourably inclined to the 
Jews, we are led lo think of a somewhal later date — Ictus 
say with Schiirer {32/) and others, the year 49 A.D. 
In that case the movement we are supposirtg, and its 
procuring cause, the first systematic preaching of 
Christianity in Rome, can have begun some months 
or years previously, We must leave open the qiiestion 
as to whether al a stili earlier date some converts, 
in the course of pilgrimages to Jerusalem or through 
the agency of third parties in their adopted country, 
may not have been won for the new confession and 
the expectations connected with it. Rome had already 
for a long time been a favourite and much frequented 
harbour for new ideas in the sphere of religion. 

With the date thus arrived at for the founding of the 

Christian church in Rome it agrees iolerably well that a 

TI TVi TTT e writermany years later, in Acts 28 17-28, 

Acts and Kom. , 1 u ■ .u u 

were known only by nanie in the world 

capital when Paul first proclaimed the tidings of 

salvation to the Jews there, and that another writer — 

the author of Romans— did not hesìtate to assume 

throughout his work that at that very time there had 

already been for a long time in Rome believers belong- 

ing to various schools of Christian thought and practice. 

When these books were written the days of the first 

founding of a church in Rome were already so far 

removed that in different circles divergent representa- 

tions were given regarding ìt, though there was some 

danger of misrepresentation. ' Luke ' is wrong 

because he does not take account of the existence of 

any Christian church at Rome before the apostle Paul 

had made his voice heard there. The Pauline writer, 

on the other hand, represents the apostle of the 

Gentiles as knowing that before his arriva! among 

theTn the faith of the Roman Christians was already 

'proclaimed throughout the whole world' (Rom. 

18), and in 617 it is the Pauline form of doctrine 

whereunto they have been delivered. Both the one 

view and the other may well be questioned as strici 

history. Both writers make it manifest that they no 

longer know the true position of matters so far as 

details are concerned. At the same time they confirm, 

each in his own way, the correctness of the date we have 

arrived at ; at the beginning of the second century, the 



founding of the church at Rome belonged to a con- 
siderably remote past and at that distance of timecouJd, 
sp>eaking broadly, be connected with a delineation of the 
period when Paul was setting out for, or had arrived at, 
the metropolis of the empire. . 

The nearer determination of the date is to be sought 
in such data as ji) the tradition regarding Paul's plans 
12 Further ^^'^'^ reference to a joumey to Spain, by 
* da.ta. ^^^ '^^ Rome, where a Christian church 

no longer needed to be founded (Rom. 
1528 _/; cp I Clem. 55-7); (2) the tradition of Paul's 
death at Rome, whether, as the ordinary reckoning 
has it, in 64, as Erbes thinks, on 23rd Feb. 63, or 
as yet others judge, al some date that cannoi be 
more exactly determined, shortly before or in con- 
nection with the persccution of the Christians in the 
summer of 64 ; (3) ali that relates to the fact of the 
persecution of the Christians at Rome by Nero ; (4) 
the appearance of the ' Church of Rome ' as the writer 
of Clement's first epistle to the Corinthians ; (5) the 
activity of Marcion and Valentinus among the Christians 
at Rome ; (6) ali that tradition tclls us of the establish- 
ment of a bishop's see at Rome by the apostles 
Peter and Paul ; — -a very large series of testimonies 
continuously assuring us, each in its own way, that the 
founding of a Christian church al Rome goes back to 
the middle of the first century of our era, 

'l'he character of this church was, to begin with, no 
other than was to be expecled from its origin wilhin the 

13. Character ^^T °^ '?^^^ and proselytes ■ (§ 4). 
„ , , Ambrosiaster in speakmg of Jews alone 
'^ ^"'*' ' as fathers of the Christian community 
at Rome has here again truly said that ihose who 
believed confessed Christ and held fast by the law ( ' ex 
quibus [Judceis] hi qui crediderant, tradiderunt Romanis 
ut Christum profitentes legem servarent ' }. In this 
there is no ' exaggeration ' as Sanday and Headlam 
(p. 25, n. 3) have thought. They indeed could hardly 
have thought otherwise as long as they were dominated 
by belief in the genuineness of the EpÌ5tle to the Romans, 
Whoever deems himself bound lo maintain that belief 
must inevitably assume that already, before Romans 
was written by Paul— on the ordinary reckoning, that is 
to say. before 59 A.D. — there were to be mei with in 
Rome two divergent lypes of Christian faith and profes- 
sion, the Jewish- Christian and the Pauline. Such an 
one cannot avoid facing the queslion ; What was the 
church of Rome at that time? Jewish-Christian? 
Pauline? Mixed? Yet ali the while he is well aware — 
or the discovery is ever anew forced upon him — that no 
satisfactory answer to the queslion can be given. Some 
texts speak very clearly for the view that the church in 
queslion consisted of former gentiles, whilst others say 
the exacl opposile — that il was composed of former 
Jews (see Romans, § 8; van Manen, Paulus.'Z^-ì-is 
166-7). "^st we cannot hold with Sanday- Headlam 
(p. xxvi) and others the theory that it was a ' mixed ' 
church. To such a theory can be applied to the 
full what these scholars remark in another connec- 
tion : ' there is no hint of such a state of things,' which 
moreover would compel tis, contrary to the manifest 
intention of the writer, to think of ' two distinct churches 
in Rome, one Jewish-Christian, the other Gentile- 
Christian, and that St. Paul wrote only to the latter. ' 

Any one who, on the other hand, has been able to free 
himself from the axiom of the genuineness and has 
satisfied himself of the pseudepigraphical character of 
this wriling of a later time (see Romans) no longer feels 
his hands lied by the various impossible attempts that 
have been made to answer the questions proposed. He 
is no longer perplexed by that other troublesome 
question : How are we to explain the faci that nowhere 
in history has there remained any trace of the existence 
of an important Pauline community in Kome, after the 
apostle's epistle had been seni thither ? He lakes no 
notice of ali ideas of this sort, the pictures suggested 



in the epistle of the outwarci appeanince and inward 

semijlance of the Christian church in Rome in the days 

before Paul could possibly have preached there — as 

being not renderings of historical actuality but pictures 

of a past that never had been real, attempts to repre- 

sent the old-Christian period after many decades had 

passed. Such a student holds fast by the seemingly 

insignificant phrase. which yel tells us so much. of the 

instigating ' Chrestiis ' by whotn the Jews in Rome, 

according lo Suetonius. in the days of Claudius {oò. 

49 A. D. ) wei-e troubied ; and holds by the pretty getierally 

accepted coricepiion as to a Christian Church at Rome 

which had arisen oiit of the faith and life, the actìve 

exertions, of ' Jews and proselytes ' who had been con- 

verted to Chrisl ; by what Ambrosiaster has said, with 

equal sobriety and justice — that Jews living in Rome in 

the days of the aposlles had taught Iheir brethren to 

confess Christ and to hold fast by the law. 

In other words, the church in Rome was originally 

Jewish- Christian, and probably long remained so. 

- -, Gradually more liberal ideas crept in, 

_, . ,. thanks perhaps to the influence of more 

Christian. , , , r i , l i_ j 

advanced preachers from abroad who had 

wholly or partially outgrown their Judaism, but thanks 

stili more to the ease with which in every sphere of 

thought new ideas made way in Rome. Whether Paul 

niay have had any active share in this work we are not 

now in a position to say. Acts leaves us in doubt. 

Romans testifìes to good intentions but not to any work 

actuallydone. The ' epistle,' inspiteof theseemingabund- 

ance of the light it sheds on the events of the years im- 

mediately preceding 59 A.d. in Rome, really draws over 

them ali an aimost imoenetrable veil. It gives surpris- 

ing glimpses into the history of the development of the 

church in the direction of greater freedom, the emancì- 

pation of Christianìly from the dominion of the law, but 

ali from a remote distance in space, probably from the 

East — Antioch or somewhere else in Syria, it may be, or 

perchance Asia Minor — ^at ali events, a long way off 

and in a distinctly later lime. In realìty, in the 

„, . more trustworthy tmdition there is no 

- p ]■ • trace of ali this, but on the contrary, 

01 rauiinism. yn^iistakable proof that Paulinism at 
Rome though (i. ) it struggled for a time for the victory 
in the days of Marcìon [ob, 140 a.d, ), (ii. ) never really 
look permanent root there, and never was other than an 

i. That Paulinism flourished in some degree at Rome 
is very certain, as we may safcly infer : {a) from the 
way in which it is throughout presupposed in Romans 
(written probably about lao A.D. ; see RoM.ANS, § 23) 
that, before his first visit to the capital, Paul already had 
there a large circle of fricnds and foUowers, of whoni a 
whole series is mentioned by name in I63-15, and 
who already for a long time had been instructed 
in his distinctive type of doctrlne (617); {b) from 
the suppnrt as well as the opposition, which Marcion 
met with in Rome, in various capacilies, and not least 
of ali as advocate of his 'Apostle,' the Paul of the 
epistles ; [e] from the friendly relation between Peter 
and Paul presupposed in ' i Peter,' probably written at 
Rome, in evidence of which relation we point not only 
to the Pauline form of the writing and to the mention, 
at the end, ofSilvanus and of Mark {cp 2 Peter 3 15/ |. but 
also and chiefiy to the strongly Pauline character of the 
contents ; {d) from the liberal spirit of the gospel 
according to Mark, probably also written at Rome, 
along with which perhaps that according to Luke may 
also be named ; [e) from the honour with which 
' Clement ' as spokesman of the church at Rome wriies 
' to the Corinthians ' conceming Paul(i Clem. 55-7 47 i), 
and more than once declares that he is influenced by 
the reading of his ' epistles ' ; (/) from the mention of 
Paul along with Peter as a teacher of authority by 
' Ignatius ■ in his epistle to the Romans ( ' I do not com- 
mand you as Peter and Paul did,' 43) ; (g) from the 



wide currency of the later tradition of the founding of 
the Christian church at Rome by ' Peter and Paul.' 

ii. Paulinism was, however, only partially successful, as 
is no less clearly evident : [a] from the way in which 
in Romans Paul now admonishes the Jews (chaps. 1-8, 
passim, and especially 217-29) and now shows them 
the greatest deference (chaps. i)-ll passim, especially 
3i/i 9i-sl0i); {b) from the opposidon met with by 
Marcion in Rome which ended in his expulsion from 
the new religious community; (t) from the position 
of the name of Paul in the yoimger tradition — already 
in ' Clement ' and ' Ignatius' — after that of Peter ; 
{d) from the spirit of works brought out at Rome 
and extensively read there, the most outstanding of 
which is the so-called first Epistle of Clement to 
the Corinthians. The spirit there breathed, notwith- 
Etanding the reverence expressed for ' Paul ' and 
the deference occasionally paid to the principles 
inaugurated by him, is much moreof a Jewish-Christian 
character than one that testifìes to warm sympathy with 
the gospel of freedom ; rather one that is slowly gravi- 
tfiling toward the left than one that is averse to the righi 
in principle ; a conciliatory and advancing spirit, if you 
will, yet rather in many respects showing lingering attach- 
ment to the old than stili standing with both feet upon 
the basis of the law, fìrmly rooted in Judaism, filled 
with the rich contenis of the Old Testament ; in a word, 
a spirit that in its inmost nature is becoming Catholic. 

The Christian Church of Rome, in its beginnings a 

shoot from the Jewish stock, in the course of years took 

. ™ #1 j 1 up and assimilated elements that were 
16. Graduai ' 


brought to it from other quarlers : from 

the East, and particularly from Syria and 

Asia Minor. Its power of adaptation was of great use 

to it in regard to those elements in the new faith wlnch 

were originally strange in it and were at home rather in 

the more developed circles of Paulinism, but in adapting 

itself the originai power of the Pauline spiritual move- 

ment was in many respects taken away. In the course 

of years — let us say, in round numbers, between 50 and 

150 A.D. — the character of the church at Rome, from 

faeing Jewish-Christian with occasionai deviations towards 

the right and towards the left, had become, we shall not 

say Pauline or Gentile-Christian, but Catholic. At the 

later dateci, e. , about the middle of the second cenlury 

— it had recently been the scene of the iabours of 

Marcion, who was excommunicated afterwards, Marcion 

the eager and serious advocate of ' Paul ' who had already 

probably some years before become known to it by means 

of the 'epistles.' It had at the same time come into 

touch with, among others, that highly gifted teacher, well 

nigh lost in broad and deep speculations, alternately 

held in reverence and covered with scorn, the gnostic 

Valentinus. It had learned to listen to preachers of 

repentance like Hermas who, eminently practical, 

sought to win it before ali things else to the urgent 

duty of conversion, But. however divergent may have 

been the paths by which it was so dissimilarly led by 

these and other leaders to clearer insight on many sides, 

and deeper experience of the fruits of faith as that 

Iranslated ilself into a genuine Christian life, the 

structure as carried out appeared always, in spito of 

the multifarious and manifold additions, to rest upon 

the old foundalion — destined, as it wouid seem, never 

to become obsolete — that of the law and of Judaism, to 

which, as a new and indispensable element, confession 

of Jesus as the Christ. had been added, 

How this Christian community at Rome was originally 

governed and organisedcan probablybebest conjectured, 

^m n i-j. in the absence of ali positive informa- 
17. Constitu- ,. , ,,. , ^ ■ . 
.. , _ , , tion. by calting to mind once more 

MimiuStv ^^"^^ ^^ '^^°^ °^ ^^^ ^P'"' '^*" ^^''^ 
■'' religious fellowship of the Jews out of 

which it arose. Like Ibis last it had no politicai aims, 

and consequently as yet knew nothing of those who at 

a later time were to be called ruiers and leadér.s, charged 



with the care of the outward life of Christians as subjects 
of the state. The Jewish ' Church,' although it can be 
so called iti respect of the religious confession of its 
adherents, formed no unity placed under the leadership 
and governnient of a single council or of one head. It 
was made up rather of a great number of separate and 
independent congregations {ffvva.-/ii}ya.l), each having 
its own synagogue, its own council [yepovala), its own 
mlers (ipxovrei), who also sometimes at least, were 
partly called 'elders' {wpea^ÓTepoi), and, whether for 
life {Sia jSiou) or for a limited period. were chosen at 
the beginning of the Jewish civil year (in September). 
They were charged with the general leadership of the 
comniunity, sornetimes also with the task associated 
with the special office of chief of the synagogue 
{àpxi'<^vi'ày(M}yo^). The language employed was Greek, 
as indeed the whole constitution with riilers {&pxoi'T£^) 
and councils {yepomriat). so far as form was con- 
cerned, seems to bave been borrowed front the civjl 
organisation usuai in Greek cities (see Schiirer, Z>ie 
Gemeindeverfassung der Juden. in Rom, 1879, and G/KI^', 
3, pp. 44-51 [1898]). 

The Christian Church also, we may safely take for 

granted, very soon after its members had been excom- 

IS Of municated, or had voluntarìly withdrawn 

p, .' . . froni the Jewish synagogues in Rome, 


had their own centres, with a government 

proper to themselves (modelled mainly, 
so far as form was concerned, on that which they had 
left at the cali of religious principle and duty), their 
own places of meeting (ffwayaryai), their own ruiers 
(il/3X<"'''ss)p who are often called elders {irpeir^ÓTcpoi). 
This was whathappened elsewhere throughout the cities 
of the Dispersion. Why not also in Rome ? Acts caEs 
the ruiers 'elders' {irpeu^ùrepoi) in II30 I423 2O17 ; 
whenever Jerusalem is spoken of, where the apostles 
are regarded as having lived and laboured, we read 
of 'apostles and elders' (I524623 I64), just as the 
same writer elsewhere when referring to the ruiers 
{SupxovTei) of the Jews speaks of their 'elders' (Si? 
4sS23 6 12 23 1+ 24i -25 15). For the rest, ìn Acts we 
find no allusion to any government of Christian com- 
mutiities, just as, in fact, of the community that arose 
after the arrivai of Paul in Rome nothing more is said 
than that they met in Paul's own house (2830 y^). In 
Romans there is no evidence as to the terms employed 
in this connection by the Christians at Rome, except 
in a single passage where allusion is made to ' him that 
ruleth' (ò TTpoCaTàfieno^ : 12b). 

I Clem. , the ' epistle ' of the ' church of God ' at 
Rome to that of Corinth, has more to say. The church 
{j/ 4KK\Tì<TÌa) Comes before us as a unity embracing ali 
believers within the boundaries of a definite localìty ; 
so in the opening words and also in 443 476 (cp 2 Clem. 
2i 14 1 2 41). We are not precluded from thinking that, 
as ìn the case of the Jews, this unity was made up of 
various circles or congregations within the larger whole 
which comprehended the whole body of the faithful. 
The supposition finds support when we consider the 
manner in which the occurrence of divergent ideas and 
practices with regard to the choice of officials ìs spoken 
of. Some consider themselves free in their choice ; but 
others, includìng the writer, hold themselves bound to 
tradition and obliged to adhere to the ancient holders 
of spiritual offices as long as they have not disqualìfied 
themselves by misconduct (cp I3 83 216 42 44 592). 
Triie, this applies, so far as form is concerned. in the 
first instance and especially, only to the Corinthians 
who are being addressed, but yet also to the Romans 
who are speaking of themselves in the plural number 
{cp 7i; see Old -Christian Literature, § 24). 
The most obvious explanation is to be found in the 
supposition that the divergent views and practices 
referred to were found in the different circles or congre- 
gations {éicK\-t]a-lai) within the bounds of the one church 
— 5^ éKK\^(yla — whether that of Rome or that of Corinth. 



However that may be, ' the church ' had its ruiers or 
leaders (jjyoifievoi ; I3) just as had the Jews (32z). the 
Egyptians (Óls), and others (373 55i 6O1}. They are 
usually called 'elders' {irpea^órepoL ; 1383 216 44s 
476 542 57i, cp 2 Clem. 1735)1 but in one instance, 
though in no different sense, ' overseers ' ( ^ttìuko jrot) 
and ' deacons ' (5i,ó.kovqi, 424/"., cp 44i 6O3), charged 
with thesacred service (Xeirou/ryia, ili 442y; 6). They 
were ' minislering ' ( XeirovpyovyTeì ; 46 3) just as in 
their manner were the Jews (322 40). Enoch (92), 
Aaron (484), the angeis of God{34s_/^ ). In this service 
or ministry were included, or at least carne under their 
superintendence, (i) the reading of scripture [i] ypaipi) 
or ai Upal ypaipal) — the OT as we now know it and 
whatever other writings were at that tinie reckoned as 
belonging to it ; also Christian writings such as Paul's 
' Epistle to the Corinthians ' and other treatises, including 
I and 2 Clem. (cp z Clem.l9i 15i 175 iClem.47i 
632 7i. Old-Chbistian Litekature, §§ 2-4 ; Herm. 
yis. ii. I3 4i Eus. HEi\.2bZ iii. 385}— (2) exhortation 
{cp I Clem. passim) and (3) prayer (i Clem. 593-61 
B Clem. 22). AH of these, as with the Jews, at least 
down to near the end of the second century, were 
performed in Greek. 

Of a monarchical government of the Church there is 
as yet no trace ìn i and 2 Clem. Neither is there any 
in the Shepherd of Hermas which, like the Epistles of 
Clement, knows only of elders [Vis. ii. 423 Hi. 18) and 
overseers, along with 'teachers' and 'deacons' {Vis. 
iii. 5 1 Sitn. ix. 27 2)- The oldest traces of monarchical 
church government in Rome are met with in the seven 
epistles of ' Ignatius ' which were probably written there 
about the middle of the second century. and in the 
earliest lists of Roman bìshops — little trustworthy 
though these are in their substance, and put together in 
the interests of the recognition of the episcopate, which 
was then coming ìnto being, or had recently come to be 
important. They do not go farther back than to 
Anicetus, and were probably drawn tip under his 
successor Soler, about 170 A.D. (see Harnack, ACL 
ii, 1 1897, pp. 70-231, esp. pp. 144-202. See, further, 

If the question be asked, finally, as to the influence 
and ìmportaiice of the Christian church at Rome, it was 
small and certainly for the first few 

19. Importance 
of Rome. 

decades, not to be compared with that 
of the church at Jerusalem nor yet with 
that of other churches of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. 
It was only gradually in the course of the second 
century that a change in this respect carne about, under 
the influence of great historical events such as the fall 
of Jerusalem in 70 A, D. , the rebuilding of that city as 
jElia Capitolina under Hadrìan (see Jerusalem, 
§§ 33/- )■ ^""^ ^he continuai process by which the West 
manifested its preponderance over the East. In ali thìs 
there made itself felt the favourable sìtuation of the 
Christian Church at Rome in the centre of Grteco- 
Roman civìlisation ; the inborn inclination, and the 
corresponding aptitude, of what had been the Gentile 
element in the new church, to lead and soon to dominate 
believers who had their homes elsewhere, as well as 
unbelievers ; and last, certainly not least, whatever that 
church was able to contribute from its own resources 
towards its internai growth and its esternai prestige. 
In this connection we may particularly specify : the 
accession not merely of slaves and people of the lower 
orders but also of rich and often influential persons, 
sometimes even from the immediate entourage of the 
empieror ; the courage shown by marljTs there as else- 
where ; the zeal of outstanding personalities such as 
Valentinus and Marcion ; the activity of effìcient men 
such as ' Clement ' and ' Ignatius ' in labouring for the 
establishment of the Catholic Church ; the labour 
expended on various sides to advance far and near the 
cause of knowledge, of Christian practice, of edifìcation, 
of consolati on. 



Marcion laid the foundations of a recognìlion of a 

wrìtten norm of trulh, of belief [KavwP ttjs dXT7ffeias, 

20 rairÌRtinn "^^^ JriffTews), One gospel and ten 

UtenSSe Pauline Epistles^ {tÒ Edar^^Xcor <c«i 
ó ' AiròcTToXot [TÒ'AiroaToXiKÓvlJ, which 
the church as it grew Catholic soon spread far and 
Wide and accepted — along with the older tradition — 
as the loiichstone of truth, Into this (ecclesiastical) 
canon Rome, according to the list discovered and 
published in modem times by Muratori, introduced a 
larger collection of 01d-ChristÌan writings differing but 
slightly in extent from the NT as that was finally fixed 
by well-nigh the whole of Christendom. Marcion aiso 
wrote an orthodoxly conceived ■ Epistle' and ' Antitheses' 
or 'Separation of Law and Gospel' {antitheses or 
Separatio legis et evangelii) ; Valentinus was the author 
of ' Epistles,' ' Homilies,' and 'Psalms.' Some un- 
known wzìter preparici (he Gospel according' to Mark ; 
' Clement.' two 'epistles' to the Corinthians, of which 
the first is a ' Treatise concerning Peace and Harmony ' 
(J^reotis ìrepi eiprivi}s Kal òfiOPoia?). conceived, according 
to its own description of itseif (682), in the inierests of 
peace in the churches, and especially in the matter of 
the eìectioti of clders, and the second is an ' Exhortation 
concerning continence ' (Svfi^ovXla Trtpl èyKparelas, 
15i). Hermas wrote his Shcpherd to stir up ali to 
repentance ; ' Ignatius ' composed his ' Epistles * tipon 
love for the promotion of maityrdom and on behalf of 
right views in doctrine and in life. He and others 
contributed largely to the upbuilding of their own as 
well as other churches, where their epistles were dilìgently 
read, Thus the Roman leaders exercised infiuence in 
ever-widening circles, and opened up the way, often 
quite unconscioiisly, for the spiritual predominance of 
their fello\v-believers abroad, Froni the middle of the 
second century another element that had 110 small 
influence also was the effort after a one-man government 
of the church, first on the part of Rome alone, but 
afterwards also on that of oihers who afterwards 
Associated themselves with it in this. Polycarp of 
Smyrna, seeking for comfort at the hands of Anicetus 
of Rome in the matter of orthodox observance of Easter, 
stili knows how to maintain his freedom of thought and 
action in another direction than that prescribed to hìm. 
But one of his successors in the Asia Minor controversy 
of the Quartodecimans. Polycrates of Ephesus, was 
excommunicated by Victor of Rome and cut off frora 
thefellowshipof the faithful (seeBaur, Das Christenthum 
a. d. Christl. Kirche der drei Ersten Jahrh. 1853, 
pp. 141-157). In this manner the preponderance and 
authoritativeness. and ultimately the supremacy, of the 
church of Rome had already come to be recognised in 
the East before the end of the second century. 

For the extensivt; literature deaiing with our subject refetence 
may be made, aniongst others, to such studìes i>n the supposed 

sojoiirn of Peter and Paul in Rome as those of 

21. BidIio- a. Hainack, ^CiiÌ.11897, pp. 240-244, 703- 

graphy. 7'° ; e. Clemen, ' Ist Petrus in Rom gewesen?' 

in Preuss. JaArb. 1901, pp. 404-417 ; C. Erbes, 
'Petrus nicht in Rom sondern In Jerusalem gestorben' in 
Brieger's Ztschr.y. Kircken-gesck. igoi, pp. 1-47 161-231 ; on 
the Jews in Rome in Sanday a.nd Headlam, Th£ Ep. io the 
Ronans, 1895, xviii-xxv; Berliner, Gesch. der Juden in Rem, 
1393; E. Si^ùrer, Die GemeindeTre'^msiingdef Juden in Rata, 
18^9 andC/J'ffl, iii. 1898, pp. 28-36 44-56. Alsoto thecomment- 
artes on Romans such as ihose of Sanday - Headlam, 1895, 
xviii-xliv; R. A. Lipsius in HC^, 1892, pp. 70-78; Meyer- 
WeissPÌ, 1890, pp. i6.22 ; to theNT introductionssuchasthoseof 
S. Davidson(3i, 1894, 1 105-113; H. J. Holtzmann(Sl, 1892, pp. 
232-236; Th. Zahnl^), 1900, pp. 299-^08 ; J. M. S. Baijon, 1901, 
pp. 88-92. Seealso 'Romans (Epistle to the)' in Ency. Brìt.W, 
2O717.730 [1886], and Old-Christian Literature, Paul, 
Romans, Simon Peter, in the present work. w. C. v. M. 

BOME (EMPIEE). The Roman Empire has been 
supposed to he alluded to in Dan. 2 and 7, but the interpretation 
' is one which the progress of history has shewn io be untenable * 
(Driver, Daniel, g8 ; see the whole discussion, 94.102). Rome 
is referred to by name in biblical writings for the first lime in 
connection with Antiochus Epiphanes; this 'sinful root,' we 
are told, had been a hosCage at Rome (i Macc. 1 io, ót ijv ointpa. 

tv TR 'Pcifljl). 



The topography and history of Rome and of the Roman 
Empire is so vasi a subject and is so fully dealt with by various 
writers and in easily accessible works of reference, that it has been 
deemed sufficient, in the space al our disposai, sìmpl}' to Ioul-Ji 
upon ihe problem of the relation of Rome to Jiidaism and to 
early Christianity. 

Destined to play such an important part in the 

politicai and religious history of the Jews, the Empire 

1 T>~™» -_-i 4-i,« came into dose touch with them for 
1. Bome and the .. ^ . ■ ■ i. 1 _. ^ ,i_ 

Hasmoneans '" "^ '^^ 

revolt against the power of Syria. 

About the year 161 b.c. Judas the Maccabee having 

heard of the great fame of the Romans, sent an embassy 

' to make a league of amity and confederacy with them, 

and Ihat they shouid take the yoke from them ; for they 

saw that the kìngdom of the Greeks did keep Israel in 

bondage' (iMacc. 8(^; cp 2 Macc. 1134, Jos. JÌrzt. 

xìi. 106 Justin363), The mission was successful ; but 

before the news amved Judas was slain (i Macc. 9r-iS ; 

Jos. Ant. xii. 11 1), in 143 B.c. the allìance was 

renewed by the Statesmanlike Jonathan (i Macc. 

12i-4i6; Jos. -4«^ xiii. 58). On the deathof Jonathan, 

Simon, his brother and successor, like his predecessors, 

also sent to Rome to seek a renewal of friendship. 

The ambassador, this ti me Numenius, was again 

successful, and 'the Romans issued a decree to ali the 

peoples of the East. announcing that they had entered 

into a league of friendship with the Jews ' (W. D. 

Morrison, The Jews under Roman Rule, 13). Hyrcanus, 

again, Simon's son aiid successor, after the death of 

Antiochus (129 B.c.), to escape payìng any more the 

tribute which the Syrian had exacied, sent yet another 

embassy to Rome, and again ' in accordance wiih the 

settled principle oÌ Roman policy in the East, the Jcwish 

mission was receivcd in a friendly manner, their 

grievances were attentively heard, and a decree was 

issued. ordering the Syrians to relinquish their claims 

to tribute, and dcclaring void whatever Antiochtis had 

done in Judaea in opposition to previous declarations 

of the senate [Jos. Ani. xiii, 92_/^]' (Morrison, o/. cit. 

16/). After this several causes combined to weakcn 

the power of the Syrians, so that the Jews no longer 

had any cause to fear them. 

Such were the lìr.'it relations of the Jews with the Roman 
Empire, if we are to trust tradition ; but as Morrison again 
observes (19), 'some of thesc supposed alliances rest upon very 
slender historical foundations.' For further details we must 
refer the reader to the article Maccabees {cp Israel). 

While the Roman Empire was becoming more and 
more imperiahstic, within the Jewish nation was arising, 

_ T___s_|, through the play of new ideas, that spirit 
' . ,. of faction which was to rend it asunder 

^ >" P "even in the face of a common foe (see 
Sadducees, Scriees and PHARisEtis ; cp Israel). 
See again on the history of the period Maccabkes, 
and Jann.4-:us. The disputes between Pharisees and 
Sadducees did not end with words ; in the contest 
belween the soldiers of Alexander and the Pharisees 
much blood was spili. The struggle went on ihrough- 
out the reign of .-Mexander. though towards the end 
he was able to subdue the Pharisees and their allies 
the Syrians ; it conlinued diiring the reign of Salome 
Alexandra (78-69 B.c.), in which John Hyrcanus, one 
of Alexander's sons was content to act as high priest; 
and into the reign of Aristobulus {69-63 B.c.). 
Alexander's other son. It sapped the strength of the 
nation so that it was ready to fall an easy prey to a 
power that aimed at expansion. When the Romans. 
who for a time had been otherwise occupied, again 
tumed their attention to the East, having been roused lo 
action by the revolt of Milhridatcs, king of Pontus. in 
88 B.c., and when success had attended their arms in 
the very neighbourhood of this people that had wantonly 
reduced itseif to a state of miserable weakness, it was 
naturai and inevitable that the Roman Empire shouid 
be further extended. Another civil war in Palestine 
(66 B.c.) gave Pompey his opportunity. Hyrcanus, 
influenced by the schemer Ancipater, had plotted to 



overthrow A risto bui us. When, however, the Pharisees, 
assisted by the Nabnteans, were besieging Aristobulus 
in the tempie, Marcus Scaurus, one of Pompey's 
lieutenants, appeared on the scene, put an end tu the 
fight, and set Aristobulus on the throne for a time at 
least. The slruggle belween the two brothers soon 
broke out again. This time ^\ristobulus, having 
offended the Romans, was besieged by them in Jeru- 
salem. With the help of the Sadducees, and in spile 
of the Pharisees, he was able to hold out against the 
besiegers ; but in the end Pompey, attacking him on a 
Sabbath (63 B.c.), broke through and intiicted severe 
punishment on the Jews. 

Judsea was then regarded as a conquered province. 
We may venture to say with Morrison that the new 
„, arrangements that resulted 'were on the 

.. whole a blessing to the peoples pf the 
... _ East, who were rescued frora chaos and in- 

Wltn tìome. stability, and enabled, after years of 
anarchy, to enjoy the fruits of peace' (41). Graetz 
(Hist. 267) points out that 'the Jud^an prisoners that 
had been dragged to Rome, were to becoine the nucleus 
of a community destined to carry on a new kind of 
warfare against long - established Roman institutions, 
ultimately to modify or partly to destroy them.' 
Certainly the war between the new and old ideas was 
to go on uninterruptedly unti! some adjustment could 
be effected. Under the Herods, when the Jews were 
again in Jarge measure allowed to govern themselves, 
the adoption of Hellenic culture was encouraged by the 
rulers to such an extent that the people revolted against 
it. The Jews determined to rid themselves of their 
half-Jewish rulers. At the request of the people them- 
selves they were at length put under the direct govern- 
rnent of Rome. ' With the return of Judaga to a Roman 
administration begins the prelude of the destruction of 
Jerusalem and the Jewish people — perhaps the most 
shocking tragedy known to the history of the world ' 
(Cornili, Misi, of the People of Israel, 259). The 
tragedy was due to the refusai of a largo section 
amongst the people, such as the Pharisees, the Zealots, 
and the Sicarii, to accept the inevitable— Roman rule 
and the spread of Grseco-Roman ideas. 

After Pompey's conquest Jewish and Roman history are 
closely bound up together, and the details have been sufiìciently 
dealt with in Iskael, §§ 85-115, Herou, Pii.ate, Governmknt, 
Jekusalem, Skleucid^, Trade, and ocher special artìcles. 

One of the problems of history is to discover the 
precise atlitude adopted by the Romans towards 
4 TtoTtifi and J^'^^'^™' °^ the one hand, and towards 
r, _ , Chris tianity on the other. We know 

" that important concessions were made to 
the Jews and that on the whole they enjoyed a large 
measure of rehgious liberty. Unfortunately, however, 
we are unable to treat the history of josephus or the 
narratives of the NT as in ali respects historically 
accurate, As to Josephus, ' his persistent endeavour 
to make it apparent that his people were actually friends 
of the Romans, and in reality took up arms against 
them unwillingly, is a notabie example of his colouring 
of the situation, and compels the acceptance of his 
assertions with some caution ' fRiggs, Hisl. of Jewish 
People. 145 ; cp De Quincey, Works, 7iji^). As to 
the Gospels, it is admilted that their present form is 
due to editorial redaction. Christianity was no sudden 
growth. It arose gradually, and only made its way by 
slow degrees. It represents the result of that inter- 
play of Eastern and Western ideas which began under 
the DiSPERSiON l^q.v.'). Judaìsm, under the infìuence 
of Greek thought, had undergone during the disper- 
sion a striking change. Laler, the transition from 
Grasco-Judaism to Christian Judaìsm, and from the 
ideas of Philo to those accredited to Jesus, was easy 
and naturai. Even the stricter Judaism, ìtself, in the 
person of Hillel, helped to promote the new develop- 
ment. The process was accelerated by contact with 



Rome. But t]je new movement at first met with no very 
great success. Christian Judaism appealed neither to 
the Jew nor to the Gentile. The Jew refused to give 
up his characteristic rites ; the Gentile would not 
submit to purely orientai institutions. Christian 
Judaism was obliged to throw off more of its orientai 
trappings. Hence arose the purely Christian movement. 
This forni of Christianity was probably represented by 
the primitive gospel. But the evolutìonary process was 
stili at work. The struggle of ideas was now going on. 
with renewed vigour. The Roman empire had beconie 
a world-empire ; everything was lending towards a 
world -religion. 'Christianity' had long been in the 
air, or in other words, ' the fulness of time had come. ' 

This is adniitted on ail hands. ' If the Empire was the 
greatest of hindrances to ihe goapel, it was also the grcatest of 
helps. . . The single fact that the Empire was universal went 
far to complete the fulness of time for Christ's coming. Rome 
put a stop to the ivars of nations and the great sales of slaves 
resulting from them, to the civìj strife of cities and their 
murderous revolutions. Henceforth they were giad tO live 
quietly beneath the shelter of the Roman peace. Intercourse 
and trade (witness the migratory Jews) were easier and freer 
than ever .since in Europe till quite recenlly. . , This was 
her [Rome's] work in history — to be the link between the 
ancien! and the modem — between the heathen city states of 
the ancient world and the Christian nations of the modem ' {H. 
M. Gwatkin, ' Roman Empire ' in Hastings' £ZJ). Cp Ramsay, 
Ckurck in the Roman Empire, chap. «, § 6 ; also Seeiey, 
Ecce Homo, i; J. H. Muirhead in The Hibb. Joum. 1153 
[Oct. 1902], a critLcism of Kidd's Principks 0/ IV. Civiiisatioti ; 
J. M. Robertson, A Short Hisi. of Christianity (1902). 

Writing of the state of the world towards the end of 
the first century. Renan shows (see the references in liis 
notes) that ' expanded ideas of universal brotherhood 
and a sympathy with humanity at large, derived for the 
most part from the Stoic philosophy, were the result of 
the broader system of authority and the less confined 
education which had now assumed control. Men 
dreamed of a new era and of new worlds. . . Maxims 
of common humanity became current, and the Stoics 
earnestly taught the abstract notions of equality and 
the rights of men. . . Love for the poor, sympathy 
forali, and charity, became virtues. ' But at the same 
time, as often happcns during a period of transition, 
' on the whole, the middle of the first century is one of 
the worst epochs of ancient history.' Philosophers, 
however, were doing much to bring about a reforma- 
tion, and ' there was as much grandeur in the struggle 
of philosophy in the first century as in that of 
Christianity' {The Apostles, eh. 17). But it was not 
merely a struggle of two independent forces against a 
common foe. A struggle of ideas was going on within 
and between the two reforming agencies, and between 
both and the popular Roman religion. The conflict 
resulted in the victory of neither one nor the other, but 
in a compromise, in the evolution of a religion adapted 
and adaptable to its surroundings — in other words in a 
paganised Christianity. 

The primitive gospels seem to have been edited and 

amplifìed in view of this development. We have in 

T» - our present gospels, apart from the 

.V ~ , fact that there are doubtless ' gospels ' 

tne Iroapeis. ^Q^^gtic, Ebionitic, and even Essenic) 
within the gospels, on the whole not a picture of what 
really took place at the rise of the Christian movement, 
but a representation coloured and suggested by the 
ideas of a later age. Although therefore they may 
contain much correct informafion as lo Roman ad- 
ministration in Palestine, we can hardly trust them 
as to the genera! conduci of the Romans. To take 
an instance, the Gospels suggest that the Romans 
were interested in the new movement from the start, 
but that the ruling Jews were almost j>ersistently hostile 
to it (espec. Lk. [cp also Acts] ; cp Ramsay, Was 
Christ barn at Bethl.? bj ff.). But the movement was 
not such as to appeal to the Roman mind in the first 
instance, and the name of its founder ' appears only in 
profane authors of a hundred years later, and then in 




an indirect inanner . . .' (Renan, Life of Jesus, eh. 28). 
Writings, suuh as the Gospels and the Acts, written in 
the interest, or io explain the rise, of a religious niove- 
ment, are espeeially Uable to be influenced by bias or 
tendency. so that there is every reason to treat thera 
with caution and critically to examine their scatements 
before regarding them as stiictly historical. In par- 
ticular, the accounts of the betrayal, trial, and execution 
of the hero, whelher we consider the pari played by 
the Jews or by the Romans, are very diffidili to under- 
stand. We niight naturally suppose that Jesus would 
have been treated by the Romans as a politicai offender. 
Ueliverers kept coming forward, we may be sure, in 
answer to the Jewish expectations. The Romans would 
hardly have been likely to discriminate between the new 
Messiah and other agiiators, Each and ali would be 
regarded equally as politically dangerous ; the career 
of each and ali would be abruptiy terminated as soon 
as the outskirts of the cities were abandoned and an 
attempi was made to openly preach 'a new kingdom' 
in the market- place. We have examples later of the 
treatment which these prophets received. 

For instance, Io quote Cornill's graphic description {ffist. 260), 
'a certain Theudas . . . had summoned ihe people to the 
Jordan where at hia command rhe mìracle of Josnua was to be 
repeated. l'adus sent thither a company of cavalry, who 
simpiy cut the people down and broughi the head of Iheudas 
to Jerusalem.' See TheuoaS. 

It is diffìcult to believe that the Romans behaved as 
Ihey are reported to have done at an earlier date, even 
when it is admitted that the cjrcunistances at the time 
were rather different. Il has been handed down again 
thai the Jews themselves, or a si^ction of them, actually 
anticipated Roman action, that they beirayed ihe 
author of the new movenienl to the Romans and were 
themselves allowed lo play a chief pan in carrying oul 
his deaih-sentence. Bui this representation of the 
Jewish attitude, as well as that of the Roman pro- 
cedure, looks very mach like a late attempi to take the 
blame as far as possible off the shoiilders of the 
Romans and lay it on the Jews, The pagan-Christian 
movenienl, and the widenìng gap between Jews and 
Chrislians, would give rise lo a tendency to say as little 
as possible in disparagement of the Romans, and as 
much as possible to bring odium on tha Jews ; lo 
adapt the teaching more and more to the niind of the 
Roman, to make il diverge more and more from the 
doctrines and practices of the Jews. 

Cp Gospels. On the representation of Roman administration 
gìven in Acts, see Acts. For other details see Ihe special 
articles on the Roman piaces, governors, etc, mentioned in 
NT. See also Ciìristian ( of), Government, Rome 
(Chubch of), Romans, Paul, Filate, Pkocurator, Pro- 
vince, QVIRINIUS. M. A. C. 

ROPE. For kSel, "àboth. and nikpah. see CoRD, 
and for 'agmon. Job 41 2 [40 26] RV, AV 'hook,' see 
Rb'SH, 2, and cp FiSH, § 5, n. i, col. 1529. 

EOSE. I. (n^-'Snn; àNeoc. Cant.2.; KpiNON, 
Is. 35it) is now usually taken, as in RV'"e-, lo be the 
autumn crocus, Colchicufa autumnah, L. , or some 
kindred speeies. The Heb. word, hàbasséleth, is closely 
akin to Syr. havisallàythà, the meaning of which is well 
assured (Low, 174). 

The rendering 'rose,' found in KLmhi and other Jewish writers, 
seems to rest on mere conjeclure ; 'lily' stands in ©, Vg., Tg. 
(bui only once in each), whilst 'nnrcìssus ' is in Tg. on Cant., 
and is uphcld by Celsius (1 489^) and others. Delitzsch (Prol. 
82^) compare? Ass. haSasillatu, 'reed,' and argues for the 
word beinj; a general name (cp © and Vg. of Cant. 2 1) for a 
flower-stalk or a fl o we ring pian t. As Niildeke (ZBMGiOj^o) 
and Halévy (/v^y 14 14^) urge, however, the name must be 
specific (at ali evenis m Cant. 2 i) ; and the Aramaic word 
provides a satisfactory parallel, though, of course, this argument 
is iiot decisive against an Assyrian connection.! Various species 

of colchicum found in Palestine are enumerateti tv Tristram 
iJ^FJ' 4^5). 

2. The pòSoy is referred to in Wisd. 28 [ff7e\fiéii.f6a 
pòddjp KdXulif), Ecclus. 24 14 [18] 39 13 (17), and 508 (pa 
'S1112 ; see Schechter and Taylor). Whal is commonly 
called the ' Rose of Jericho, ' the Anastatica hieruntica, 
is certainly not meant by Ben Sira, when he speaks of 
the 'rose-plants in Jericho.' In ali ihese passages he 
apparenlly means the rhododendron (Tristram, NHB 
477; cp Schiek, FEFQ, 1900, pp. 63-65), In 3 Macc. 
7i7, Ptolemais [i/.^. J is called poSotpòpov [V], or poSo- 
<pòì'ov [A]. The roses of Egypt are celebrated by the 
Roman poet Martial. 

Gratz even finds the Hebrew, or more strìctly, New Hebrew 
word for roses in a passage of Canticles (4 13, D'ili for Q-TTl). 
This may be righi (see col. 693) ; bnt cp Budde, <k^ /oc. Un 
Tll, 'rose,' in Mishna, and its Syr. and Ar. cognates, see Low, 
Aram. PJÌanzennatiten, 131^^ N, M. 

BOSH (B'XT ; pojc [BAQ]), according lo most. is 
the name of a people in Asia Minor, which, like Meshech 
and Tubai (confidently idenlified with the Moschi and 
the Tibareni), belonged to the empire of GoG [y.v.] 
(Ezek. 382/1 39i). Il is very sirange, however, that 
ali the names of peoples in Ezek. 38i-6, except Rosh 
and Paras {v. 5), should occur in the Table of Nations 
in Gen. 10, and, from the conjunction of Tiras with 
Meshech and Tubai in Gen. lOa, von Hammer long ago 
plausibly conjectured the identity of Tiras and Rosh. 
It is aoteworthy that in Judith 223 the ' sons of Rasses" 
{q.v., and cp TiKAs) are mentioned directly after Put 
andLud, and il is naturai to identify, first, Rasses with 
Rosh, and then, on the ground of the phenomena of the 
Lat. MSS. ,' Rasses with Tiras. This would produce 
the reading ' prince of Tiras. ' ^ 

This is decidedly better than explaining ^nt 'j, • chief 
prince (of Meshech, eie.),' as RV^^- and Smend (after 
Tg. , Aq. , Jer. ). Bui the whole of the prophecy of 
Gog appears lo need reconsiderati on (see Prophet, 
§ 27). If it is true that the prophet foretells a greal N. 
Arabianinvasion, we must suppose that e^si, like m-r and 
[J"E'in, is a corruption of Assur (iib'k), the name of one 
of the peoples in X. Arabia bord ering on the old Judahite 
territory. Cp Tarshish, Tikas. 

Winckler would omit n'Ci as a gloss on ejki ('chief'); but 
this is too superiicial a correclion. K'C'J is specially one of 
Ezek.'s words (cp Prince, ■2). x. K. C. 

ROSH (t^X'l : pcoc [ADL]), a Eenjamite family name 
{Gen. 4621). In the corresponding lisi in Nii.2638y; 
for Ehi Rosh Muppim we fìnd Ahiram Shephupham, 
and the ihree names probably grew out of the two eilher 
by a simple transposition of the letters M and Sh (cp 
C. J. Ball, 3BOT). or in some such way as that explained 
by Gray [HPN 35). 

The MT in Gen., indeed, requires Rosh to make up its ten 
'sons ' of Benjamin {i.e., fourteen ' sons ' of Rachel ; v. 22) ; but 
®ALj altliough naming ten, preserves the originai sunvmation 
nine (/.e., eighteen ' sons ' of Rachel). ®b is lacking at this 
point ; but ®d sees the discrepancy and, since it retains Rosh, 
changes the eighteen to nineteen. 

B08IH. I. nV, J<)-ri, E2ek.2r.7AV"'B- SeeBALM, 

§ ^' 

2. va^iBa.; Song of Three Children, 23 (Dan. ® 846) AV, 
RV Naphtha. 

EUBY. In EV 'rubies' represent plnlnim, D'^JB, 
1 Bìblìcal ^'^ 'imes {Job 28 18 Lam. 4? Prov. 3i5 


and ' pearìs. ' 

811 2O15 Sito) ; in Lamenlations RV"'e- 
has ' corals ' ; in Job il has ' red coral ' 

1 [The Ass. comparison is accepted by Che. {Propk. /s.|3', on 
' Is.' Le") after discussion ; it is pointed out that the sanie plant- 
narae often has a different reference ìn different countries. See 
also Ges.(l3) s.v,, who recognises the connection.] 


1 Vet. Lat. reads Thiras et Rasis, with which Pesh, must 
originally have agieed : Thiras and Rasis represent different 
readings of the same word. 

2 ot'n R'b3, instead of BKT '] ; 'n, as Herz has remajrked, 

might easily fall out after \f\t). _ Toy (Ezek. SBOT) has also 
combined the names Rosh and Tiras. The above was written, 
howexer, before the appearance of bis woik. 


2. Identifica- 



The renderings of ® vary and (soraetimes at least) manifestly 
represent another text (in Job, koì ìhKvaov <roiiia.v vvèp rà 
(criirara [B*(C, ètTiuia, A]; Lam-, vurèp Aiflous ; Prov. 815 Sii 
Silo, \i8iiiv 7roAuT*AÌi' ; Prov. 20 15, wanting?); Vg. has a 
different rendering in each case (Job, irakitur autem sapitntia 
de cccultis; Lam., ebore antiqtia ; Prov. 3 15, cunctis opihus; 
8 II, cunctìs pretiosissimis l 20 15, multitvdo gemnzaruìit ; 31 io, 
de ullimis Jinibìis). 

2. In Is. 54 12 («(lùoTaXXos), Ezek. 2? ló (xopxop [BQ], 
Kopxopv^ [A]) RV has 'rubies,' but AV 'agate' and 
A\""^- [Ezek.] ' chrysoprase,' for i3-i|, kadkód. See 
Agate, Chrysoprase. 

3. In Ex. 2817 Ezek. 2813 RV"*^' has 'ruby' for 
nnk, '(idem. 

The question whether rubies are referred to in the 
OT may at first sight appear rather coraplicated. It is 
notso, however, in reality. The clainis 
of ' rubies ' as a rendering of pènintJn 
have long since passed into abeyance ; 
the revisers of AV, it is clear, only acquiesce in certain 
cases in AV's rendering ' rubies ' from a feeling of un- 
certainty as to the absolute correctness of the marginai 
renderings which they propose. On the correctness of 
their renderings we may refer to CORAL, Pearl, and 
with regard to Lam. 47 (where the strange statement, 
' they were more ruddy in body than rubies,' is ventured 
upon in EV) to LAMh:NTATIONS[BOOK], § 5, Sapphirk:. 
If the precious sione called 'odem is really from 
v'mN, 'to be red,' and not rather from the name of 
Edom,^ it is most plausible to identify it with the 
carnelian (see Sardil's). We have, therefore, only 
the passages Is. 54i2 Ezek. 27itì to deal with. Here 
the greatest weight is due to Prof. Ridgeway's remark 
{Carbuncle, col. 702), that there is no proof that the 
ruby, which is found only in Ceylon and in Burmah,'^ 
was known to the Hebrews any more than it was to the 
Greeks till after the time of Theophrastus. If the néphek 
is the ma/kat'SXone of the Egyptians {see CarbunCLE, 
end), the kadkód niight conceivably be the garnet ; on 
the possible root-meaning (to emil fire, as a fire-stick), 
see Ges. -Bu. and BDB. We must not, however, ignore 
the possibility (see Chalcedony, i, end) that the true 
reading of the word is, not 1313. but 1313 (r for d). 
Both for the stone called 'odem and for that called (as 
we now assume) ■1313, the name of a country may be 
surraised as the origin — viz., in the case of 'odem, 
Edom, and in that of 1313, JerahmeeI (such corruptions 
of this name turn out to be common) ;^ the stones 
so designated may in fact have reached the Hebrews 
from N. Arabia, and so have been called respectively 
the Edomite and the Jerahmeelite stone, Cp Sardjus, 


The true or Orientai ruby is a red variety of corundum or 
native alumina of great rarity and vaine, and to be distinguished 
from the spinel (an aluminate of magnesìuni), which is of much 
less estimation as a gem stone. The phraseology of ancient 
writers was even more confu-'^ed than that now current, for they 
appear to have classed together under a common name, such as 
che caràunculus of Pliny or the àv9pa{ of Greek writers, not 
only (perhaps) our Iwo kinds of ruby, but also garnets and 
other mferior stones of a fiery colour. See further Stones 
[Precjous]. t. K. C. 

RUDIMENTS (cTOIxeià). Col. 2820 EV, RV^s- 
Elements (?.w. ), 

BTTE (nHfàNON [Ti. WH]) is once mentioned (Lk. 
1143+) as a small garden herb ; in the parallel passage 
Mt. 23 23 anise and cummin are mentioned instead. 

According to Tristram {NHB 478) Ruta graveaiens is at this 
day cultivated in Palestine, whilst Ruta bracteosa, is a common 
wild plant- Cp LSw, no. 317. 

RUFUS (poYfl>OC [Ti. WH]) occurs several tinies in 
Old-Christian literature. 

I. Mk. 15zi, as the son of Simon of Cyrene and 
the brother of Alexander {qq. v. ). In the Apocryphal 

1 See Tarshish [Stone], § 3. 

3 Cp ' The Ruby Mines in Upper Burmah,' Carnhill Maga- 

EÌHt, Dee. I!)OI. 

3 Cp, for inslance, 'Calcol,* i K.431 [S iij, 


Acts of Peter and Andrew, and of others, Alexander 
and Rufus are mentioned as dìsciples of Andrew, who 
were his companions in the country of the barbarians ; 
cp R. A. Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. I533/ 617 621 ; B77 
7983, E. 94 96. 

2. Rom. 1613, as a Roman Christian, well known to 
Paul and to the Christians in Rome as being ' the elect 
(or the chosen) in the Lord.' We do not know the 
force of this expression. Weizsàcker thinks that it 
hints at some special circumstances connected with his 
conversion. B, Weiss, Sanday-Headlam inlerpret : 
'eminent as a Christian.' In any case it will be an 
epitheion ornans to celebrate the friend of Paul, the 
supposed author, who goes on to salute ' his mother 
and mine, ' as ìf the Roman wìfe had once kindly treated 
him, who had not yet been in Rome. The list of greet- 
ings in Rom. 16 is not historical ; the names and the 
additions are fanciful ; cp Romans (Epistle). Accord- 
ing to Epiphanius this Rufus was reckoned among the 
seventy 'others' (apostles), Lk. lOi. A Spanish locai 
tradition makes him the first bishop of Tortosa, conse- 
crated by Paul. Another tells us that he was conse- 
crated bishop of the Egyptian Thebes by Peter. His 
birthday is said to ha\'e been the 8th or the igth Aprii ; 
cp Lipsius, 2222227, E 242. 

3. Polycarp, Pkil.Qi; cp Eus. /^£ ili. 8613, as a 
companion of the martyrs Ignatius and Zosimus, com- 
memorated every year on i8lh Dee. at Phìlippi, accord- 
ing to Martyrol. Roìn. 

It is difficult lo say whether these three, or any two 
of them, originally indicate the same person. 

W. e. v. M, 

BUG (nDip^), Judg. 4i8 RVt ; see col. 509, n. 4. 

BUHAMAH. See Lo-ruhamah. 

RULE (li-J), Is.44i3 AV, RV Line {q.v. 2). 
Handicrafts, § 2. 


RtfLEIt. On the wìde use of general ferms of this 
nature, cp what has been said under the headings 
Captain, Governor, Officer. 

The different Hebrew and Greek terms thus rendered 
are as follows : — 

1. sàgàn, see Deputy, 1. 

2. iar, see Prlnce, 3, and cp Ahmy, g 4, Government, §31, 

3. ti&gld, see Pbince, i. 

4. rudgèn, Hos. 4 18, lii. Shield [y.w.] — the text is not certain. 

5. tftdséi (si 'ruler' in the general sense, Gen. 45a Prov. 6 7 
Mi. 5 s [i]), see Governor, 11. 

6. sallU, see Governor, 9. 

7. àpx'OTitàyuryos, Mk. 5 22, see SvNAGOGUE, § 9 . 

8. à.p\npÌKKivei';, Jn. 28^, see Meal, § 11. 

9. iroA(TÓpxi]s, Acts 17 6 8 (ruler of the city), see Thes- 


10. ÌTrapx'>'!t 2 Macc. i 27 AV (RV ' governor '), see Sos- 
TRATUS, and 

11. apviof, the most widely-used of ali terms both in LXX and 
NT, applied, e.g., to rulers of nations (Mt. 2O25), magisirates 
and Judges (Lk. I258 Rom. 13 3), ofKcers and members of the 
Sanhedrin (Mt. 9 18 23 Lk. 8 41 23 13 35 Jn. 3 i) ; io Jesus the 
'ruler' of the kings of the eartb (Rev, I5), and to Satan the 
' prince ' (so EV) of devils (Mt. 9 34). 

RUMAH .(np-Tl), the birthplace of Zebidah or 
Zebudah, Jehoiakim's mother (2 K. 2336 [ek] KpOYMA 
[B], [ek] p- [A], [eK]AoB6NNà [L] ; Jos. Ani. x. 62, 
eS &BOYM&C ie-. ipoYM&c), has been thought (see 
I/lV&^i) to be the poYMft. of Eusebius (05(^1288 io, 
POYM& H Kàl &pià.^ in his time called p€M4)lc). 
with which he identifies Arimathasa, unless [[ 2 Ch, 36 5 
((gBA [jot MT) be correct in giving Ramah for Rumah 
(so Pesh. in 2 K. ). It is the modern Rantieh in the 
plain N. of Diospolis (Lydda). There were, however, 
several places called Rumah. Another is referred ta 
in the Talmud as Ruma and once as Aruma (Neub. 
Géog. d-u Talm. 203); this seems to be the Galilean 

1 See above, col. 397, n- i, 


Ruma of Josephus (57iii. Tai), which may be the 
niod. Rumeh, oii the S. edge of the plain of Batlauf, 
about 6 ni. N. of Nazareth. 

Arumah [^.w.] in Judg. 941 is at first sight excluded by its 
iioithern situacion. Probably, however, the originai story spoke 
of Abimelech as kìng of Ciisham in the Ne^eb (see Shechem). 
If so, it is plausible to idenlify Arumah wilh the Rumah of 
2 K. , because of the matTimonial connections between the kings 
of Judah and the Negeb. Like ' Ramah ' (which, indeed, Pesh. 
reads in 2 K. aliti ®BA jn the sufy>lement to 2 Ch. ^6 5), ' Rnniah ' 
and ' Arumah ' probahly come from ' Jerahmeel ' ; the place so 
designated was of Jerahraeelice ortgin. T. K. C. 

BUNNEES (D'V'3)- See Chariot, §10; Army, 
§ 4 (col. 314). 

BUSH, BUSHES. I. ìtt2Ì, géme' (Ex. 23 [Syro- 
hex.. Aid., 15 TT&TTYPOC I so Aq.^ Sym., (S om.], Job 
8it[rTàTTYPOc], Is. I82[enicToA&c ByBAin&c], 35?^ 
[eAoclt) is certainly the papyrus (cp @ Ex. 
[?], Job), the Hebrew name being derived from 
Coptic èam. This plant {Cyperus Papyrus, L, ), which 
was a characteristic growth along the Xile banks in 
ancien! Egypt,^ and stili occurs in severa! localities in 
Palestine, rises to a height of about six feet, wìth a 
triangular tapering stem ; see Papyri, § i. Its stem 
supplied material for the making of boats, sails. mats, 
cloth, cords, and, above ali, writing material. In 
particular, its use for the construction of light Nile 
boats is mentioned by Theophrastus, Phny, and other 
ancien! writers (cp Egypt, § 8, end), and explains the 
references in Ex. 23 Is. ISa, and probabiy also Job 9 26 
(see RV"i8-, but cp Reeds, Ospray). 

2. JÌD3N, 'ii/»wo« (Is. 9i4 [13] 19is* 585 (kp£kos), Job 
4l2 [4O26, «/).] 4l2o*[i2]t) is a word for ' marsh reed.' 
derived from 'agam, din, a 'marsh' or 'pool' (Barth, 
NB 341), and very probabiy to be identified with Arundo 
Donax, L. {cp Trìstram, NHB 436/ ). In Is. 9 14 [t3] 
19 IS the 'agmon or ' reed ' is contrasted with the kafpdk 
(nss) or ' palm-branch,' the latter indicating those in 
high position and the former the humbler classes in the 
state — so @ (below, n. 4). Iti Is. 585 among the 
spurious tokens of pretended piety is mentioned that 
of bowing the head as the head of the reed is bent by 
the flow of the slream in which it grows ; cp i K. 14 15 
Mt. H7. 

In Job 41 2 [40 26] the name is transferred to the rope or cord 
(see RV) of reed used to noose the crocodile ; and in Job 41 20 
[12] the hot vaporous breath of this animai is compared to the 
steara of a seething pot' and (see RV) the smoke of '(hurning) 
rtishes.' (In both passages the text is doubtful. On Job 41 2 
see FlEH, §5, and n. i, where DI), ' ring ' is proposed as an 
emendatìon, and on Job4l2o see Budde, who (wìth Bi., Du., 
Beet) reads QJKl, ' and boihng.'J N. M. — W. T. T. -D, 

RUST. I. nii!?n, hel'dh; loc. in Ezek. 246n/. 
of ' the bloody city, that caldron full of rust [AV ' scum ] where- 
from the rust is not yet gone. 

2. /Sptio-tì, in Mt. 6 iq/. of ' moth and rust ' (oSjs «al ^pùtrit) 
which consume 'treasure.' 

3. ìós, in Jas. 53, spoken of rustjng gold and silver. 

RUTH (nn. poye- la^-i). a Moabitish woman, 
the heroine of the Book of Ruth. Through her marriage 
with Mahlon, and subsequent marriage - at - law with 
Boaz (in the name of Mahlon), she became an ancestor 
of David, who, according to our present text, was a 
native of Bethlehem in Judah. Ruth's noble unselfish- 
ness was thus rewarded (cp Ruth2i2). Her sister, 

1 Aq. gives jranvpecii' for mQ, Ex. 2 5 ; Vg. papyrion. 

2 AV ha5 ' bulrushes ' In Ex. 2 3 (RVmg. ' papyrus '), Is. 18 2 
(RV 'papyrus'), ' rush ' in JobSii (RVmg. 'papyrus'), and 
'rushes'm Is. 35 7. 

3 It is said to be now extinct in Egypt — thus Boissier <J-l. Or. 
5375) 'ohm in Egypto, ubi destructus nunc esse videtur.' 
Tristram : 'no longer found in Africa, excepting in marshes of 
the WhiteNLleinNubLa, 7° N. latitude*(y//5 433). 

* In both cases ® paraphrases, iiéyav Kaì ii.iKpov and ópx'I'' 
KoX Te'Aos. 

® kvQpÓKiiiv (D'^ns). 



whose impulse to follow Naomi to her home in Judah 
was less effectual than Ruth's, was named Orpah, a 
name which suggests the meaning ' obstinacy.' Hence, 
foUowing Pesh. , it is usuai (cp Geiger, Urschr. 50) to 
explain Ruth as a contraction of Ré'uth, i.e. , ' the 
companion,' ' one who lovingly attaches herself ' See, 
however, for other explanations, Ruth [Book], § 5. 
The account of her levirat e - marriage w ith Boaz is 
given with are h teologie al fulness as an obsolete custom. 
Cp Shoes [e). 

[By old Hebrew law, as by the old law of Arabia, a wife who 
had been brought into her husband's house by contract andpay- 
ment of a price to her father was not set free by the death 01 her 
husband to marry again at will. The right to her band lay with 
the nearest beir of the dead. Originally we must suppose, 
among the Hebrews as among the Arabs, ibis law was ali lo the 
disadvantage of ihe widow, whose band was simply part of the 
dead man's estate ; but, while ibis remained so in Arabia to the 
time of Mohammed, among the Hebrews the law early look 
quiie an opposiie turn ; the widow of a man who died childless 
was held to bave a right to bave a son begolten on her by the 
next kinsman, and this son was regarded as the son of the dead 
and succeeded to bis inberitance so that his name might not be 
cut off from Israel. The duty of raising up a son to the dead 
lay upon bis brother, and in Dt. 25 5 is restricted to the case 
when brotbers live together. In old times, as appears from 
Gen. 38, this was not so, and the law as put in the hook of Ruth 
appears to be thal the nearest kinsman of the dead in general 
had a right to ' redeem for himself ' the dead man's estate, but 
at the same time was bound to marry the widow. The son of 
this marriage was reckoned as the dead man's son and succeeded 
to bis property, so that the 'redeemer' had only a temporary 
usufruct in it. Naomi was too old to he married in this way, 
but sbe had cerlain rights over her husband's estate which tbe 
next kinsman had to buy up before he could enier on the 
property. And thìs he was willing to do, but he was not willing 
also to marry Ruth, and beget on her a son who would lake tbe 
name and estate of the dead and leave bim out of pocket. He 
therefore withdraws and Boaz comes in his place. That this is 
the sense of the transaction is clear ; there is, however, a little 
obscurity in 45, where (see Vg., Pesh.) one letter has fallen out 
and we must (with Cappellus, Geiger, Bertheau, etc.) read 
niTriK D31, aid translate ' What day thou buyest the tield from 
Naomi thou must also buy Ruth,' etc. Cp w. g/. — w. K. s.J 

The notice in Ruth 47 has caused some diffieulty. 
Kalisch [Bièle Studies, 1 [1877] 61) actually suggests 
that □•j£3^ (EV 'in former lime') may perhaps inean 
'from olden times.' Driver {IntrS^) 455)' who ap- 
parently finds 4? and 418-22 the only passages which 
may indicate a late date, thinks that, while 418-22 
' forms no integrai part of the book,' 4? 'has every 
appeai^nce of being an explanatory gloss,' and com- 
pares the admittcd gloss in i S. 99, which begins with 
^K1B"3 D'3B^- This is a perfectly legitimate view, 
though it entails an alteration of the text in v. B. But 
we may ask this question : Supposing that the custom 
referred to in 4? had become antiquated, was not such 
an explanatory notice called for? T. K. e. 

RUTH, BOOE OF. The story of Ruth (q.v. ) forms 
one of the OT Hagiographa, usually reckoned as the 
second of the fìve Megilloth or Festa! 

RoUs. This position corresponds to the 

1. Originai 

^ Jewish practice of reading the book at 

the Feast of Pentecost ; Spanish MSS, however, place 
Ruth at the head of the Megilloth (see Canticles) ; 
and the Talmud, in a well-known passage of Babà 
Bathrà (141*), gìves it the first place among ali the 
Hagiographa. On the other hand, @ and the Vul- 
gate make Ruth follow Jtidges, It has sometimes been 
held {e.g. , by Ewald, Nisi. 1 156 ; Bertheau, Richter u. 
Ritth,'?^ 292) that this was its originai place in the 
Hebrew Bible also, or rather that Ruth was originally 
reckoned as an appendix to Judges, since it is only by 
doing this, and also by reckoning Lamentations to 
Jeremiah, that ali the books of the Hebrew canon can 
be reduced to twenty-two, the number assigned by 
Josephus and other ancient authorities. It has been 
shown elsewhere (Canon, §§ 11-14), however, that the 
argument for the superior antiquity of this way of 
reckoning breaks down on closer examination, and, 
whilst it was very naturai that a later rearrangement 
should transfer Ruth from the Hagiographa to the 


2. Date. 


historical books, and place it between Judges and 
Samuel, no motive can be suggested for the opposite 
change. That the book of Ruth did not originally 
form part of the series of ' Former Prophets ' (Judges- 
Kings) is further probable from the fact that it is quite 
unlouched by the process of ' prophetic ' or Deuterono- 
mistic editing, which gave that series its present shape 
at a time soori after the fall of the kingdom of Judah ; 
the narrative has no affinity with the point of view which 
"iooks on the whole history of Israel as a series of ex- 
amples of divine justiee and mercy in the successive 
rebellions and repentances of the people of God. But 
if the book had been known at the lime when the 
history from Judges to Kings was edited, it could 
hardly have been excluded from the collection ; the 
ancesiry of David was of greater interest than that of 
Saul, which ìs given in i S. 9i, whereas the old history 
names no ancestor of David beyond his father 

As to the date. A very early period Ìs clearly impos- 
sible. The book does not offer itself as a document 
written soon after the pevìod to which it 
refers ; it presents itself as dealing with 
times far back, and takes obvious delight in depicting 
details of antique life and obsolete usages (on Ruth 
4 1-12, see Ruth) ; it views the rude and stormy 
period before the institution of the kingship through. 
the softening atmosphere of time, which imparls to 
the scene a gentle swcetness very difFerent from the 
harsher colours of the old narratives of the book of 
Judges. [We cannot therefore very well say with Dr. 
C. H. H. Wright {hitrod. 126) that the book 'must 
have been written after the time of David, and long 
prior to the Exile.'] Indeed, the interest taken in 
the pedigree of David points to a time when ' David * 
had become a symbol for the long-past ideal age. In 
the language, too, as we shail see presently (see § 3), 
there is a good deal that makes for and nolhing that 
makes against a date subsequent to the captivity. and 
the very designatìon of a period of Hebrew history 
as 'the days when the judges judged" (Ruth li) is 
based on the Deuteronomistic additions to the book of 
Judges (2i6/), and does not occur till the period of 
the Exile. 

An inferior limit for the date of the book cannot 
be assigned with precision, Kuenen formerly argued 
(Ofi(/,P'l [1861] 213 214) that, as the author seems 
to take no offence at the marriage of Israelites with 
Moabite women, he must have Hved before the time 
of Ezra and Nehemiah {EzraS Neh.l3); but the 
same argument would prove that the Book of Esther 
was written before Ezra, and indeed, as Wellhausen 
(Bleek's EinlS^), 205} points cut, the singular Talmudic 
statements respecting the descent of eminent Jewish 
teachers from supposed heathen proselytes of antiquity 
(Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchad rezzar, Haman — see 
Rahab) appear to imply a iheory very similar to 
that of the Book of Ruth, which nevertheless had 
no polemical hearing on the practìcal exclusiveness of 
the prevalent custom. We cannot therefore assert 
that the Book of Ruth was not written later than 
about 444 B.c. 

At the same time it must be admitted that the story 
of Ruth was written before the Uvìng impulses of Jewish 
literature had been choked by the growing influence of 
legalism. As Ewald remarks, ' we have here a narrator 
of a perfectly individuai character,' who, ' without 
anxiously concealing by his language ali traces of the 
later age in which he wrote, had obviously read himself 
into the spirit of the ancient works both of history and 
of poetry, and thus produces a very striking imitation 
of the older work on the kings' (I/isi.lis*/-)- The 
manner, however, in which he tells the story is equally 
remote from the legai pragmatìsm of Chronicles and 
from the prophetic pragmatism of the editor of the older 
histories. His work has therefore some advantage over 



the histories just mentiontìd, an advantage, it is true, 
of which the Targum (sea 1 s/ } endeavours to deprive 
it. By the tone of sìmple piety and graciousness which 
pervades it, and by its freedom from the fjedantry of 
legai orthodoxy, the book reminds us of the prologue to 
the coUoquies of Job and the older poetical wisdoin, 
Legalism, then, was stili far from having triumphed in 
the field of h'erature when the story of Ruth wlis written ; 
even a superficial student cannot dose his eyes to this 
important fact. 

The necessity of a somewhat late date will appear also 
from the following stylistic and linguistic considerations. 
. . , That the style of the narrative lacks the 
freshness and popularity which distinguish 

3. Lil^uìstic 

the best sections of the Books of Samuel 
must be apparent, and upon examining ciosely the 
linguistic details, we shall probably become convinced 
that a pre-exilic origin is impossible. The learned 
Benedictine Calniet {Dictionnaire historique etcì-itique, 
1722, art. ' Ruth '), indeed, following Babà bathrà, 
\\b, ascribes the composition to the author of the 
Books of Samuel, a view which he supports by re- 
ferring to the phrases, ' Yahwè do so to me and more 
also,' Ruth 1 17 (cp I S. 817, and ten olher passages in 
Sam, and Kings), ' to uncover the ear,' Ruth 44 (cp i S. 
9 15, and six other passages in Sam. ). For other points 
of contact between Ruth and Sam, and Kings, see 4is 
and I S.18 ([D 3ie} ; I19 and iS. 45 i K, I45 (cnni) ; 4i 
and I S. 2I3 2 K. 68 (-jc^K 'hz) ; 23 and 1 S. 69 2O26 
(mpc. 'accident'), and the second fem. sing. imperf. 
in j'-, 28 2! 3418 iS. 1 14 (also Is. 45io Jer. 3122). These 
coincidences, however, are ouiweighed, not only by the 
difference of style (in the more general sense) between 
Ruth and Sam. , but also by certain forms and expressions 
found in Ruth but not found in Sam. , some of which at 
least point distinctly to a post-exilic age. 

The following forms and idioms (to which add the second fem, 
sing. imperf. in >>- ; see above) are post-classical and mostly post- 
exilic or exilic in use — the second fem. sine. perf. in -n-, 3 3^ 
(alw in J«i. [oftenl, Ezck. 16 Mie. 4 13 Ihaidly MicaVs]) ; 

NID for me, Mara, 1 20 (cp parallels in Ezek. 27 31 36 5 etc.) ; 

p^, ' to shut up,' 1 13 (Mishnic, Jewish Aram., Syriac, but cp 
Driver) ; 

P!i5, 'to conÌirm,'47 (also Ezek. 13 6 Esth, 92t 27 29 31 y: Ps. 
11923 loS, and in [Aram.] Dan. 6s); 

T3i?, ' to hope,' 1 13 (Esth. 9 1 Ps. 119 ièé) ; 

n^K »fe>), 'to take a wife,' I4 (Eira 9 2 12 Neh. 13 25 i Ch. 
23 22 etc, but Ho^ Judg. 2I23 [Budde]) ; 

]ri7, 'therefore,' 1 13 (as in Aram. Dan. 26 etò.) ; cp Driver. 

It is also well worth noticing that the divine name or 
title "IP (exilic and post-exilic in use) occurs in Ruth 
1 20/.^ (without Vft), as often in Job — Ewald righfiy com- 
pares Job 27 2, and (against the view that Ruth is written 
in a pre-exilic N. Israelitish dialect) that the relative is 
always -ys».- never b" (cp Konig, Einl. 2S6). 

According to Ktinig {EinL 287), the book in its 
present form belongs, on linguistic grounds, to the 
period of Jer., Ezek., and the Second Isaiah, whilst 
marks of the later Hebrew are wanting. Whatever 
may seem to point to an earlier period (e.g. , the use of 
the older form -jj» seven times, and of •;« only twice) 
this eminent hnguistìc critic regards as conscious archaiz- 
ing. It should be remarked, however, that portions of 
Jeremiah can be shown to be of very late date, and 
that the unity of the date of authorship for Is. 40-66 ìs 
doubted by an increasing nuniber of scholars. Konig's 
dating, then, is necessarily subject to revision, and so, 
stili more, is that of Driver (IntrodS^' 455), who em- 
barrasses himself with the theory that Cantìcles and 
Ruth (although included in the Hagiographa) may have 
been written in the N. kingdom, and preserve words 
current there dialectically. The book, in its present 

I The passage, as Ewald {Hìsl. 1 154) points out, is hìghly 



form, must surely oii lingiiistic grounds be regarded as 
a post-exilic work, and we shall see later that, even if 
it is to some extent based on an earlier folk-story, the 
skill of the artist has enabied him so to expatid, to 
enrich, and to fuse his material thal it is virtually ali 
his owii work, and thal a laler editor has only touched 
the proi)er names and appended the genealogy. 

Wellhausen is of opinion that the most important sign 

of date is the genealogy of David { Ruth 4 13-22, cp i Ch. 

-^ 210-17). The names of the ancestors 

4. Genealogy. ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ known as far as Boaz, 

Theti memory failed, and a leap was made in i Ch. 2 11 
Ruth 421 to Salma (in Ruth, Salmon), who, in r Ch. 
251, is called 'the father of Belhiehem.' Bui Salma 
belongs to Ihe same group as Caleb, Abi, and Hur. 
and, ' if anything is certain, il is this- — thal in the olden 
limes the Calibbites dwell in the S. and not in the N. 
of Judah, a»d that David in patticulav by his birth 
belonged. noi lo them, bui to the older part of Israel, 
which gravitated in Ihe opposite direction to Israel 
proper, and stood in the closesl connection with Ben- 
jamin.' Wellhausen adds that ' of the other members 
of the genealogy Nahshon and Amminadab are prìnces 
of Judah in P, whilst Ram is the firstborn of Hezron 
(i Ch. 225), and by the meaning of his nanie (' the high 
one'l is, li ke Abram, qualifìed lo be the starting-point 
of the princely line.' On the other hand, Sam, only 
knows of David's father Jesse.^ 

[The argunient that Salma is a tribe foteign to old Judah, 
which was not ' father ' of Bethlehem till after the Exile, has 
beeii very generally admitted, and seemed to Robertson Smith 
in i836 to decide the post-exilic origin of the genealo^. The 
present writer, however, cannot .see his way to follow his prede- 
cessor in this particular ; the geneaiogy is no doiibt posl-exilic, 
bui is not proved to be so by Wellhausen 's criticism of the proper 
nameS, ali of which appear really to refer to Jerahraeelìte— r.É'., 
N. Arabian — clans and localìlies.2 But he heactily agrees with 
W. R. Smith that ' the genealogy in i Ch. 2 10^ is quite in the 
mannet of other genealogies in the same hook.'] 

Thal the genealogy was borrowed from Chronicles and 
added to Ruth by a later hand seems certain, for the 
author of Ruth ciearly recognises thal ' Obed was legally 
the son of Mahlon, not of Boaz' (4510). [Driver, loo, 
remarks (/f/roi^.i^' 455) thal the genealogy ' may well 
have been added long after the hook itself was written,' 
and, like Kònig (287), leaves out of the linguistic data 
for the solution of the problera of age, tóUdòth and 
hòUd, which are characterislic of P in the Fentaleuch 
(cp Genealogies i., § i). Bertheau, Kuenen, and 
Budde adhere to the view that the closing section is an 
integrai portion of the hook. But surely], 'f the aulhor 
had givon a genealogy, he would have traced il through 
Mahlon. The existence, however, of the genealogy 
suggests the possibility that Iwo views of the descent of 
David were current, one of which traced him to Perez 
by Mahlon, and the other to the same Perez by Boaz. 

[\Ve have arrived at this poinl withoul having been 
obliged to interfere with the tradilional text. Il is, how- 
ever, necessary to take thal siep if we would 

5. Froper 

obtain a more complete comprehension of 

■ the narrative and of its historical origin. 
That Ruth, as it now stands, is a post-exilic work is 
certain ; we must therefore examine the text in connec- 
tion with thal of other not less certainly post-exilic 
Works, in the study of which we have already reached 
results which, though in points of deiail subject to 
revision, yet on the whole seem to throw considerable 
light on ancien t editorial pioeesses. We shall ihus 
fìnd reason to suspect that the personal and geo- 
graphical names in the Book of Ruth (li-iiy) were 
not altogether originaliy as ihey now stand. 

Bethlehem -judah, as in the strange stories appended to Judges, 
is a corruption or distorlion of Beth-jerahmeel, the name of some 
place in the region called Ephrath in the south, possibly, but 
by no means probably, the same as the place known a-s Carmel. 

l Bleek'a EinU*) 204 f., ProUV 227 [ET 217/]: cp De 
Gent. i(>f. The passage in EinH*) is masify repnnted in CH 
357-350, (^) 233-235. 

8 We reckon the Negeb as che N. Arabian borderland. 



'Ephrath' itself (like the 'Perath' of Jer. I44.7) is possibly a 
mulilaled form of Zakephath [g.v.], and ' Moab may be 
a substitute for 'Mi^svir' (cp Moab, § 14), a region to the 
S. of the country called Satephathite or Ephrathite, Klimelech, 
Mahlon, and Chilion — the two latter of which haie been so 
fatally misunderstood, as if ihey were symbolical names — are 
no douht clan-names (or different foriiis of the same clan- 
name) derivcd from the grcat ethnic name, Jerahmeel. 
' Orpah ' has probably arisen by ' metathesis ' from 'Ophrah' 
— ;",i^,, 'Ephrath.' Ruth (Re'ulh, cp Pesh.) ìs probably the 
fem. of Kc'u (Oen. 11 18 _^), which is surely equivalcnt to 
Ke'uel ; now Re'uel appears in Gen. 36 4 as a son of Esaù, and 
hÌ5 name is most probably a distortion of Jerahmeel, a name 
which in its various broken forms atlached itself to different N. 
Arabian clans. Naomi (No'omi) is doubtiess connected with the 
clan-names Na'ami, Na'amani.l ' fìoaj'(tj;3)is 'ess iransparent ; 
hence Stucken and Winckler do not hesitate to identify the 
originai Boaz with a mythological ligure. But the place of the 
bearer of this name in the genealogy, as well as in the story of 
Ruth, shows that he toc must have a clan-name,!' amJ remembet- 
ing the 'E?bi'('3i[{> of i Ch. 11 37, which corresponds io «niN 
(MT) or rather '^-in (cp ®ba) in 2 S. 2335— /.f., to 'SKDnT, 
' Jerahme'eli,' we may restore as the originai name 3-ij!, 'Arab. 
^DIJ, ' Obed,' too, is probably by metathesis from 3^}/, Arabia.^ 

The statement of the narralor then, if the preseiil 
wrjter's conjectures are sound, amounts to this — that a 
member of a Jerahmeelite clan who belonged to Beth- 
jerahmeel (in the Negeb) removed with his family, 
utider the pressure of famine, into the land of Missur, 
aiid sojourned ihere for about ten years. This agrees 
with the originai form of the story in Gen.l2io^, 
according lo which Abram ( — 'father of Jerahmeel') 
removed from the same cause from the Jerahmeelite 
country to Missur or Misrim (see MizKAiM, § -26). 

Another pnralìel story is that of the Shunammite woman who 
was warned by Elisha of the approach of a famine and went to 
the land of the ' Philistines ' (2 K. S 1-3) ; the originai story, the 
presane writer tViìnks (cp Shunem), lepresented hei as, a dwellev 
m the Jerahmeelite Negeb (stili in Israelitish occupation), and 
as going farther S. to the land of Sarepliath (in a wide sense 
of the phrase). 

Nor was it only famine that drove dwellers in the 
Negeb to the neighbouring land of Mis.sur. The originai 
texl of I S. 223/ seems to have represented David as 
placing his father and molher under the proteclion of 
the king of Missur at Sarephath (see Mizfrh, 3). while 
he was himself a wanderer in the land of Jerahmeel, 
and there is, in the presenl writer's opinion, hardly 
room for doubl that David lived in, or dose to, the 
Jerahmeelite Negeb (see Negeb, § 3, and note 3), and 
had strong Jerahmeelite (and Misrite) affinities. The 
latter passage is specially important, because the osten- 
sible objecl of the writer of Ruth is lo prove the descent 
of David from a noble-minded Misrite woman. ^ It 
was naturai to represent that David's ancestor had al- 
ready set the example of taking refuge in Missur. 

We are not expressly told that ' Sarephath', — i.e., that 
portion of Mi.ssur which lay nearest to and included ihe 
city of Sarephath— was the localily to M'hìch Elimelech 
and his family repaired. But the connection of Sare- 
phath with Moses, with the Levites, and apparently with 
the prophets, conjectured by the present writer (see 
Moses, § 4 ; Pkophecy, § 6), makes it seem to him 
not improbable that the narralor had this place or 
districi in his mind, and in 4 12 the kindly wish is ex- 
pressed that the house of Boaz might be like the house 
of ' Peres ' (from ' Sarephath ' ?) whom Tamar ( =:Jerali- 
meelith?) bore lo Judah. 

1 Many Benjamite clan-names appear to the present writer 
to be demonstrably of N. Arabian origin. 

2 Stucken's connection of the name with astrai mythology 
(^Astralmythen, 205, note) will hardly stand examlnation. 

3 igii (Jesse), too, very possibly Comes ultimately from •^ttyryt,'' 
(Ishmaelite), a term which did not originaliy belong exelusively 
to nomads. The names of the ancestors of David in the gene, 
alogy are, as suggesled above (§ 4), exclusively P» . Arabian clan- 

* Budde (Zv!/"!*^ 12 [1892] 44) thinks that the notìce in i S. 
22 3 does not imply a tace -connection between David and the 
Moabite (/.f., Misrite) king or chieftain. David, he thinks, had 
to negotlate with the king, whereas if his grandmother had been 
a Moabite, this would have been unnecessary. But (bis Ìs to 
press the words too sirongly ; and indeed (as.suming the tradi- 
tion to be historical) tact may have required that David shouid 
represent the desired protection ss a favour. 


6. OrigÙL 


The view here takeii renders it probable that the story 
of Ruth as it now stands is not of very early post-exihc 
origin. For the feeling of bitterness lowards 
the Misrites and their neighbours, on account 
of their long-continued oppression of Israel, apparently 
persisted till dose on the Greek period. The date of 
the traditional elements, out of which, with imaginative 
freedom, the present story of Ruth may have been 
partly composed, is quìte another point. As in the 
case of Job (see Job [Book], § 4) and Jonah (see Jonah 
[Book], § 4 /! ) some of these elements may have been 
derived from mythology or folk-lore (cp Wi. AOF 
366/). As Stucken points out,' 'Ruth corresponds 
exactly to Tamar ; she obtains Boaz by taking him 
unawares (Ruth 3), as Tamar obtains Judah (Gen. 38). 
A dim consciousness of thìs connection shows itself in 
the fact that the pedigree of Boaz is traced to Perez. ' 
The originai story of Ruth probably gave her two sons 
(corresponding to the two sons of Tamar), only one 
of whom is recorded (simply out of interest ìn David) 
by the narrator. 

The ' altogether peculiar ' character of Ruth among 
the historical and quasi-historical narratives has been 
pointed out by Ewald, who is ' led to conclude that this 
story is only one taken from a larger series of similar 
pieces by the same author, and that through mere 
chance this is the only one preserved" [Hist.Xi^s)- 
More defìnitely, Buddesuggests{Z.4 rm2 43^^ [1892]) 
that the story of Ruth may originally have formed part 
of the ' Midrash of the Book of the Kings ' referred to 
in 2 Ch. 24=7. In so far as this iheory is based on the 
language of the genealogy in 4 iS-32 (in connection with 
Wellhauseii's view that i Ch. 2 10-17 is a later insertion), 
we must agree with Konig \Einl. 289, note) that it is 
unproven, At the same time, Ewald's impression that 
the narrative of Ruth did not always stand alone seems 

That one of the objects of Ruth was to explain the 

traditional descent of David from a Misrite woman, has 

_, , , been mentioned already. It was true, said 

*,_,■'.. the writer, that his grandmother was a 

■ Misrite ; but what a noble woman she was ! 

how obedient io those fundameutal laws of morality 

which the true God values more than sacrifìce ! And 

so a second object naturally unveils itself — -viz. , to 

prepare the readers of the book to arrive at a more 

favourable opinion of the moral capacity of the Misrites 

than, owing to the cruel oppression of Israel by the 

Misrites, previous generations had been able to form. 

Many critics {e.g. , besides Wlnckler and most com- 
mentators, Umbreit, Si. Kr., 1834, pp. jP^ff-'' Geiger, 
Urschr. i,qff. \ and especially Kue. Rei. of Isr. 2242/ , 
and I523 527) hold that the narrator was one of 
those who protested against the rigour of Ezra in the 
matler of mixed marriages. It is not clear, however, 
that any such protest would have been detected by a 
Jewish reader of the book. The great point with the 
narrator is not the marriage of Mahlon but the next-of- 
kin marriage of Boaz. It cannot be shown that, when 
married to Mahlon, Ruth became in the full sense a 
worshipper of Yahwè. It is much more probable that 
the statement of Mahlon's marriage to a Misrite woman 
is simply a proof that the writer was a good historical 
scene painter. Like the Chronicler, he knows that in 
early times there was a great misture of clans, and that 

1 Astralmyihett, no, note. We may add that we take 
'Tamar' and 'Ruth* to be oltimately corniptìons of 'Jerah- 
me'elith" (cp Judah, § 2). Neither Stucken nor Winckler 
criticises the Hebrew names. 


Israelites ofleti Inter married with Jerahmeelites and 
Misrites. Besides, in order to produce an impression 
on the Jews it would be necessary for the dwelling of 
Boaz to have been in Judah, not in a districi which 
in post-exilic times was not in Jewish occupation. The 
latest editor did no doubt arrange the geographical 
statements accordingly ; but the author hìmself, as we 
have seen, placed Boaz in the Jerahmeelite Negeb. 

Surely no one who thoroughly appreciates the charm 
of this book wiU be satisfied with the prevalent theory 
of its object. Tliere is no ' tendency ' abom the book ; 
it represents in no degree any party programme. And 
even if the writer started with the object of illustrating 
the life of David, he forgot this when he began to 
write, and only thought of it again as he was about to 
lay down the pen. Justly does Robertson Smith re- 
mark, ' the marriage acquires an additional interest 
when we know that Ruth was David's great-grand- 
mother, but the main interest is independent of that, 
and lies in the happy ìssue of Ruth and Naomi from 
their troubles through the loyal performance of the 
kinsman's part by Boaz. Doubtless the writer meant 
his story to be an example to his own age, as well as 
an interesting sketch of the past ; but this is effected 
simply by describing the exemplary conduci of Naomi, 
Ruth, Boaz, and even Boaz's harvesters. Ali these act 
as simple, kindly, God-fearing people ought to act in 
Israel. ' [At the same time, the writer must have sh^ared 
the religious aspirations of his lime, which, as we have 
seen, was probably the post-exilic age — i.e., perhaps 
that quieter period which followed after the first century 
of the Greek mie. Now, there is good evìdence for the 
view that one of these aspirations was for a cessation of 
the bitter feeling between Israel and Jerahmeel. As 
yet the sad exclusion of Jerahmeelites and Misrites 
from the religious assembly had -noi been enacted,^ or, 
ìf enacted, it was ignored by the noblest Jews, who held 
that the N. Arabian peoples were not incapable of 
repentance, and that it was no disgrace lo David that 
his pedigree contained the name of a Misrite woman. 
A thorough study of certain psahns and prophecies 
wil!, it is believed, strongly confi rm this view, and show 
that the best of the Jews looked forward to a true 
conversion of the Misrites to the reiigion of the God of 
Israel — the ' Lord of the whole earth.' Jerusalem 
would yet be thronged by the children of Israel's bitter 
foes, seeking first for instruction and then for admission 
into the religious community, and it is possible to see a 
glance at this hope in the touching words of Boaz, ' and 
how thou hast left thy father and thy mother, and the 
land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which 
thou knewest not heretofore' (Ruth2ii). And so, 
ultimately, the book becomes (like Jonah) a noble 
record of the catholic tendency of the early Judaism,] 

Among other commentaries reference rnay be made to J. B. 
Carpzov, Collegiutn rabbinico -biblicum in libellum Kuth, 
Leipsic, 1703, [Among recetit commentators, 
Literatore. the works of Bertheau (ed. 2, 1833), Berlholet 
(i8g8), Nowack (1901) may be sjjeeiaHy men- 
tioned. See also Wi. A OF 3 S5-78, and references in the course 
of this article.l 

(§§ T, 2, parlly 4 and 7) w. k. s. 
{§§ 3> $■ ^' mostly 4 and 7) t. k. C. 

RYE (npD3). See Rie, Fitches. 

1 In Dt. 333-6[4-7l — altogether a later insertion^ — the ethnics 
should probably be ' Jerahmeelite ' and ' Misrite.' The passage 
confiicts -wtth l'.jfB], where the ethnics should be 'Arammite" 
( = Jerahmeelite) and 'Misrite.' Dillmann's critidsm here is 
very incomplete. The passage must be later than the fall of 






SABANNUS (c&B&nnoy) [BA]), iEsd.863 RV 
= Ezra833 BiNNui, 2. 

SABAOTH, LORD OF (nÌNlV Hin»). See Names. 
§ J23. 

SABAT. 1. RV Saphat. a group of children of 
Solomon's servants {see Nethinim) in the great post- 
exilic list {see Ezra ii. , § 9, § 8::), one of eight inserted 
in I Esd.534 {Cò.<t>d.r [B], Cà<Ì>AT [A], om. L) after 
Pochereth-hazzebaim of || Ezra 2 57 — Neh. 7 59. 

It apparently represents the forni SHAPHAT = Shephatiah 
(in Ezra257=Neh,759=iEsd.533 (Si-, AV Sapheth, RV 

3. RV Sebat (ira/JaT [AV] aa^^r [({]), the month of that 
name, i Macc. 16 14, See Month, g 5. 

SABATEAS (c&BBat&iac [A]) lEsd, 948 AV, 
RV Sabateua^Neh. 87, Shabbethai, i, 

SABATHUS (c6B&eoc [BA]) iEsd.928 RV, AV 
SaliatuB = EzralO=7, Zabad, 4. 

SABBAN {càBàNNOY [B^]) i Esd.862 = Ezra8 33. 
BlNNUi, a. 

SABBATEUS (c&BB&t&ioc [BA]) iEsd.9i4 RV 
= EzralOi5, Shabbethai, i. 

SABBATH (na^, c&BBatOn), the day of sacred 
rest which among the Hebrews followed six days of 
labour and closed the week ; see Week. 

The grammatical inflexions of the word ' Sabbath ' 
show that it is a feminine forni, properly Sabbat-t for 

1. r.T,yiiiQiogy. ^j^^ ^^^j. ^^^ nothing to do wìth rest- 
ìng in the sense of enjoying repose ; in transitive forms 
and applicatjons il means ' to sever,' to ' put an end to,' 
and intran siti vely it means to ' desist,' to ' come to an 
end.' The grammatical form of Sabbath suggests 
a transitive sense, ' the divider,' and apparently indicates 
the Sabbath as dividing the month. It may mean the 
day which puts a stop to the week's work ; but fhat is 
less likely. It certainly cannot be translated ' the day 
ofrest. ' {Cp Lag. Uebers. 113; Ko. Lehrg.\\.\i%t}f.\ 
Hoffni. ZAriV3i2i; Wellh. J'ro/. [1883] 117, n. i ; 
Jastrow's article cited in § 8.) 

[According to Jensen, ZX'J^, 1887, p. 278, the As- 
Eyriansa(p)bat(td)-tum= ' penitential prayer,' and hence 
'day of penitence and prayer.' Hirschfeld (see § 8), 
however, derives n3é from naiv- Cp Benz. I/A 202, 
' perhaps in its oldest form it was connected with 
yiDB' (week).' For Jastrow's view, see § 8.] 

By way of preface to the present historical inquiry, 

and to clear away, if possible, any reinnants of theo- 

- r____ __j logicai prejudice against criticism, let 

./ j_ .. ., usconsider the attitudeof Jesus towards 
une BaDDann. 5^1^^,3(1^ observance. It is not too 

bold to say that in bis opposition to the current Rab- 
binica! views he is in harmony with the main result of 
modem historical criticism. This thesis will be justified 
at a subsequent point. The well-known and probably 
{see col. 1888, near foot) authentic saying, 'Think not 
that I am come to destroy the law' (Mt. 517), expresses 
one side of that teaching. Jesus revered the Sabbath 
as he revered the other religious traditions of his 
people ; but he had also a freedom of inspiration which 
pitt a new life inlo his interpretation of the Sabbath 
law. That he was in the habit of attending the syna- 
gogue on the Sabbath, we know from Lk. 4i6(cpT'. 31). 
But he would not adhere to the lettor of the law 
where works of necessity or of mercy claimed to be 
performed ; ' the Sabbath is made for man, and not 
man for the Sabbath ; wherefore the Son of Man is 
Lord also of the Sabbath' {Mk.2a7/). There is a 


tradif ional saying of Jesus which may express his Janus- 
like habit of mind as regards the Sabbath, It ceased, 
indeed, to be understood when the Christian Sunday 
had become an institution, and so was thrust out of 
the canonical Church tradition ; but it certainly gives 
US the impression of being an ancient and a genuine 
tradition.' It is the well-known addition of D {Codex 
Beza, ed. Scrivener. 173) after Lk. 6 4 : ' On the 
same day when he saw one working on the Sabbath he 
said to him : Man, if thou knowest what thou art doing 
thou art blessed ; but if thou knowest not, thou art 
cursed and a transgressor of the law' (j% aùr^ Vf^^Pf- 
ffeairà/ievòs rifa épya^òfieìiov rif aa^^àrif) etxfy airù' 
S.v9pitìTr€, el f/,èv oldas ri woifìs, ftaKàpios el- ei Sé fii) 
oìòas, étriKaTÓ-paTo; Kal irapa^drTji et toO vófj^ov]. The 
sense is clear — it is what we find in Rom. I44 14 23.^ 
■ If thou knowest what thou art doing,' — in other 
words, if thou art doing this work on the Sabbath 
day with the consciousness that it is a work of necessity 
■ — if thy conscience juslifies thee in it — 'then blessed 
art thou.' ' But if thou knowest not ' — in other words, 
if thou art acting against thy conscience, with a lurking 
fear that thou art doing aught amiss-^' then art thou 
accursed, and a transgressor of the law,' The saying 
in the Oxyrhynchus papynis-fragment discovered in 
1897,* ' if you do not keep the Sabbath you will not 
see the Father ' (éàv fiì] tra/S/SaTtVjjTe tò o-à^^arov oùk 
6ìp^<T0€ TÒv waTépa), may also very well have been 
actually spoken by Jesus in its literal sense, as the ex- 
pression of the sanie conservative temper as we find in 
Mt. 5 17-19, and against noisy fanatics who thought to do 
honour to their master by showing contempi for the 
day. It is more probable, however, in view of the 
parallel clause, ' If you do not fast [to] the world you 
have not found the kingdom of God ' {éàv /xij i'T](rreóai;Tf 
tÒv KÒff/j-ov oìi yUJ] eijpTjTe tÌ}v ^aaikeiav rov 0€ov), that 
the saying is noi inlended to be understood literally. 

[This is noi the place to discuss the relation of the 
Pauline teaching to that of Jesus. Withoul entering 
3 Earlv '"^^ ^^^ question as to the historical origin 
ciirifitiaii °^ ^^*^^ '^^ ^^^ Pauline epistles referred lo, 
..... we may recali that, according to the Pauline 
teaching, Jesus was seni in human flesh to 
liberale men from servitude to the law as a whole and 
in every particular. The conservative side of the teach- 
ing of Jesus regarding the Sabbath could not, there- 
fore, be reproduced in the corresponding teaching of 
Paul.] Il is clear from Rom. 14s^ that Paul regarded 
the observance of the Sabbath as essentially an àòi&ifiopov 
for Christians ; it is possible to serve the Lord by 
observance of a fixed day, and equally possible to 
serve him withoul such observance ; the important 
thing is to have a clean conscience (cp also vv. 14 
and 23). The Pauline atlitude towards the Christians 
of ColossEB is not inconsistent with the magnanimous 
tolerance bere expressed. The sharpness of Col. 2 16/. 
{cp Gal. ég/l ) is due to the situation : Paul perceived 
that the Judaising false teachers had raised the àòià- 
<f>opov imo an ivayKoìov, and that an energetic protest 
against the imposition of any such yoke was urgently 
required. [There is no definite concici between the 
atlitude of Paul and that of Jesus. The position laken 
up by Jesus was perfectly naturai to him, as a son 
of a pious Jewish family, and a preacher lo the chosen 

^ Ropes, 'Die Sprviche Jesu.' in Texie u. Uniersuchungen, 
xiv. 2 126 (1896) also regards (his as possible. 

^ It is more probable that the ideas in these passages rest 
upon an utterance of Jesus known to ihe apostle than that the 
saying attributed to Jesus in D should be an invention resting 
on the utterance of Paul. 

* Aóyia 'Iijcrav (ed. Grenfell and Hunt, 1897), xo/. 




pcople of God. It would noi have been naturai to 
Paul, a preacher to the Gentiles and not of purely 
Jewish culture, who seems to have felt as free towards 
the earthly life of Jesus as Jesus himself did towards 
the le Iter of the M osai e Law. There were other 
Christians, however, who felt and acted differently from 

That the earliest Christians in Palestine observed the 
Sabbath is nowhere indeed expressly said,"- but is 
certainly to be assumed. The silence of Acts is not 
to be taken as a proof of the non-observance, but con- 
trariwise as a proof that it was observed as matter of 

[Eusebius {//£22j) reraarks that the Ebionites 
observed bolh the Sabbath and the Lord's Day ; and 
this praetice obtained to some extent in iiiuch wider 
circles, for the Apos/olical Conslitutionsre*:oYa.n\ei\d that 
the Sabbath shall be kept as a memorial feast of the 
creation, and the Lord's Day as a memorial of the 
resurrection. — ^w. r. s, ] 

Was ihe Sabbath observed in the Christian mlssion-churches 
of the Dispersion? This is not an inquiry that affecis our 
maiu subject, and only a glance aC it caii be given. We may be 
cerlain indeed that where a mission-church consisted essentially 
of those who had foriiierly been Jews or trt;3ó)iei-oi (see Prose- 
lvte) the observance of the day did not forthwith cease. Il is 
instructive, however, to note that in the deeree of Jerusalem (Acta 
1533 jf!) Sabbath observance is as little imposed as binding on 
Gentile Christians as ìs that of any othec holy day.2 Inestimat- 
ing the historical hearing of this tesfìntoniutn e skentìo it matters 
little whether we talee the deeree as actually pronounced by a 
council of apostles at Jeriisalem^ or regard il as a later lìndingof 
the church of that city (cp Council ok Jekusai.em). 

We now return to the thesis with which this article 
opened, vìz., that the attitude of Jesus towards the Rab- 

4. Atifcitude 
of Jesus, 

binical Sabbath (see Mt. I21-14 Mk. 
227} is ia harmony with the main result 
of modem criticism. In his trenchant 

criticism of the scribes the general position 
which Jesus takes up is that ' the Sabbath is made for 
man. and not man for the Sabbath,' which is only a 
special application of the wider principle that the law is 
not an end in itself but a help towards the realisation in 
life of the great ideal of love to God and man, which is 
the sum of ali true religion. On the other hand, the 
rules of the scribes enumerated thirty-nine main kinds 
of work forbidden on the Sabbath, and each of these 
prohibitions gave rise to new subtìltìes. Jesus' disciples, 
for exampje, who plucked ears of corn in passing through 
a fìeld on the holy day, had, according to Rabbinical 
casuistry, violated the third of the thirty-nine rules, 
which forbade harvesting ; and in healing the sick, 
Jesus himself broke the rule that a sick man should not 
receive medicai aid on the Sabbath unless his life was 
in danger.* In fact, as Jesus put it, the Rabbinical 
theory seemed to be that the Sabbath was not made for 
man but man for the Sabbaih, the observance of which 
was so much an end in itself that the rules prescribed 
for it did not require to be justified by appeal to any 
larger principle of religion or humanity. The precepts 
of the law were valuable in the eyes of the scribes 
because they were the seal of Jewish particularism, the 
barrier erected between the world at large and the es- 
clusive community of the grace of Yahwè. For this 
purpose the most arbitrary precepts were the most effec- 
tive, and none were more so than the complicated rules 

1 Zahn, Gesch. des Sonntag!, etc, itìS, 353. 

3 Id-, ut siipr. 173. 

3 So Weizsàcker, Aiostolic Age, 1 iqgX 

* [In like raanner the length of journey that couid be under- 
taken witho-it breach of the Sabbath carne to be also striclìy 
defined (cp Mt. 2420). For by the thirty-ninth rule it was foi- 
bidden to carry anything from one 'place' to another^ — a 
prohibitìon plainly based on Ex. 16 29, ' lec no inan go out of his 
place on the Sabbath day' — in other words, 'let every one stay 
at home.' A definition of 'place ' in this connection was found 
in the measuremenl of the suburbs' of a Levitical city as laid 
down in Nu. 85r-8 — 2000 cubits square. This gave the 
'Sabbath limit' (nsa*:! Dinn), and thus the 'Sabbath day's 
journey ' (Acts 1 12 ; <ra^3(ÌT0u óSós) was fixed at zooo cubits or 
about 1000 yards.] 


of Sabbath observance. The ideal of the Sabbath which 
ali these rules aimed at realising was absolute rest from 
everything that could be called work ; and even the 
exercise of those offices of humanity which the strictest 
Sabbatarians regard as a service to God, and therefore 
as specially appropriate to his day, was looked on as 
work. To save life was allowed, but only because 
danger to hfe ' superseded the Sabbath,' In like 
manner the special ritual at the tempie prescribed for 
the Sabbath by the Pentateuchal law was noi regarded 
as any part of the hallowing of the sacred day ; on the 
contrary, the rule was that, in this regard, ' Sabbath 
was not kept in the sanctuary. ' Strictly speaking, 
therefore, the Sabbath was neither a day of relief to 
toiling humanity nor a day appointed for piibhc wor- 
ship ; the positive duties of its observance were lo wear 
one's best clothes, eat, drink, and be glad (justified from 

Is. 58 13). 

A more directly religious clement, it is true. was introduced 
by the praetice of attending the synagogue service ; but it is to 
be remembered that this service was primarily regarded not as 
an act of worship, but as a meeting for instruclion in the law. 
So far, therefore, as the Sabbath existed for any end outside 
itself, it was an inslitution to help every Jew to learn the law, 
and from this point of view it is regarded by Philo and Josephus, 
who are accustomed to seek a philosophical justification for the 
pecuHar inslitutions of thcir religion. Eut this certainly was 
not the leading point of view with the mass of the Rabbins.l 

Such was the position of the scribes ; the Sabbath was 
an end in itself — a mere barrier between God's people 
and the world at large. Jesus maintains, as we have 
seen, the opposite doctrine. He declares loo that his 
view of the law as a whole, and the interpretation of the 
Sabbath law which it involves, can be historically justi- 
fied from the Old Testament. And in this connection 
he introduces two of the main methods to which histori- 
cal criticism of the Old Testament has recurred in 
modern times : he appeals to the oldest history rather 
than to the Pentateuchal code as proving that the later 
conception of the law was unknown in ancient times 
(Mt. 1234), and to the exceptions to the Sabbath law 
which the scribes themselves allowed in the interests of 
worship [v. s) or humanity (v. 11), as showing that 
the Sabbath must originally have been devoted to 
purposes of worship and humanity, and was not always 
the purposeless arbitrary thing which the schoolmen 
made it to be, Modern criticism of the history of 
Sabbath observance among the Hebrews has done 
nothing more than follow out these arguments in detail, 
and show that the result ìs in agreement with what is 
known as to the dates of the several component parts of 
the Pentateuch. 

The historical resuhs of criticism may be thus sum- 

marised. Of the legai passages that speak of the 

p^ ... Sabbath ali those which show aftinity 

A "'®:®" .,'? with the doctrine of the scribes— re- 
ana poat-exilic ^j the Sabbath as an arbitrary 
Sabbath. °- , 17.1 _,r 1 

sign between Yahwè and Israel, enter- 

ing into details as to particular acts that are forbidden, 
and enforcing the observance by several penalties, so 
that it no longer has any religious value, but appears as 
a mere legai constraint — are post-exihc (Ex. 16 23-30 
81 12-17 35 1-3; Nu. 1532-36); the older laws only 
demand such cessation from daily toil, and especially 
from agricultural labour, as among ali ancient peoples 
naturally accompanied a day set apart as a religious 
festival, and in particular lay weight on the fact that 
the Sabbath is a humane institution, a holiday for the 
labouring classes (Ex. 23 12 Dt. 5 12-15). J^s it stands 
in these ancient laws, the Sabbath is not at ali the 
uiiique thing which it was made to be by the scribes, 
'The Greeks and the barbarians,' says Strabo (x, 89), 
'have this in common, that they accompany their 
sacred rites by a festal remission of labour.' So it 
was in old Israel : the Sabbath [which the Israelite* 

^ See the Mishnah, traci' Shabbàth,'and/«i^i7i;^j, chap. 1 ; and 
compare Schurer, GJV'?'i, 2418 451 4yo-4jS, where the rabbinical 
Sabbath is well explainedand illustrated in detail. 




may have taken from the Canaanites — an agricultural 
people (see Week)] was one of the stated religious 
feasts, iike the new moon and the three gieat agri- 
cultural sacrificial celebrations (Hos. 2ii); the new 
moons and the Sabbaths alike called nien lo the 
sanctuary to do sacrìflce (Is. 1 13) ; the remission of 
ordinary business belonged to botti alike (Am. 85), 
and for precisely the same reason.l Hosea eveii takes 
it for granted Ihal in capiivity the Sabbath wììl be 
suspended, Iike ali the other feasts, because in bis day 
a feast implied a sanctuary. 

This conception of the Sabbath, however, necessarily 
underwent an important modification in the seventh 
century B.C., when the locai sancluaries were abolished, 
and Ihose sacrificial rites and feasts which in Hosea's 
time formed the essence of every act of religion were 
limited to the centrai aitar, which niost men could visit 
oniy at rare intervals. From that time forward the new 
moons, which tiJl then had been at least as important 
as the Sabbath, and were celebrated by sacrificial feasts 
as occasions of religious gladness, fell into insignifi- 
cance, except in the conservative tempie ritual. The 
Sabbath did net share the same fate ; but with the abolì- 
tion of locai sacrifices it became for most Israelites an 
irstitution of humanity divorced from ritual. So it 
appears in the deuteronomio decalogue, and presumably 
also in Jer. 17 ig-27. In this form the inslifution was 
able to survive the fall of the state and the tempie, and 
the seventh day's rest was clung to in exile as one of the 
few oufward orditiances by which the Israelite could 
stili show bis fidelity to Yahwè and mark bis separalion 
from the heathen. Hence we understand the impor- 
lance atiached lo it from the period of the exile onward 
(Ezek. 2O12 22 8 2338 Jer. 17 19-27 Is. ,561-7 5813), and 
the characfer of a sign belween Yahwè and Israel 
ascribed to it in the post-exilic law. This atlachment 
to the Sabbath, beautiful and touching so long as it 
was a spontaneous expression of continuai devotion to 
Yahwè, acquired a less pleasing character when, after 
the exile, it carne to be enforced by the civii arm 
(Neh. V.i; cp Neh. IO31), and when the later law even 
declaved Sabba th-breaking a capital offence. It is just, 
however, to remember that wilhout the stem discipline 
of the iaw the community of the second tempie could 
hardly have escaped dissolufion,and that Judaism alone 
preserved for Christianity the hard-won achievements 
of the prophets, 

As the Sabbath was originaliy a religious feast, the 
question of the origin of the Sabbath resolves itself into 

B Orimn of ^" inquiry why and in what circle a 

the Sabbath. 

testai cycle of seven days was first 

established. In Gen. 2 1-3 and in Ex. 
20 II the Sabbath is declared lo be a memorial of the 
completion of the work of creation in six days. It 
appears cerfain, however, that the decalogue as it lay 
before ihe deuteronomist did not contain any allusion to 
the creation (see Decai.OGOe) , and it is gene ral ly belle v ed 
that this reference was added by the same post-exilic 
hand that wrote Gen. 11.343. The older account of 
the creation in Gen, 24^-25 does not recognise the 
hexwmeron, and it is even doublful whether the originai 
sketch of Gen. 1 distributed creation over six days. The 
connection, therefore, between the seven-days week and 
the work of creation is now generally recognised as 
secondary. The week and the Sabbath were already 
knoun 10 the writer of Gen. 1. and he used them lo give 
the framework for his picture of the creation, which in 
the nature of things could not be literal and required 
some framework. At the same time, there was a 
peculiar approprialeness in associating the Sabbath wilh 
the doclrine that Yahwè is the Creator of ali things; 

- [Hence also the Sabbalh was quite leadily made use of for 
thepurpose of payin^ a visit to a man of God (2K. 423), or the 
Iike; quite the opposite of the later practice, which forbade ali 
travelling on Sabbaths and feast-days {cp Mi. 24 20 and Jos. 
Ant, xiii. 84: ovK (O-Tir fi( i/iili' ovT« iv loì? tróppao-iv aure iv 
rj} ìopTJj òfieufik). — K.M.] 


for we see from Is, 40-55 that this doctrine was a main- 
stay of Jewish faith in those very days of exile which 
gave the Sabbath a new importance for the faithful. 

But, if the week as a religious cycie is older than the 
idea of the week of creation, we cannot hope to fìnd 
naore than probable evidence of the origin of the 
Sabbalh. At the time of the exile the Sabbath was 
already an institution peculiarly Jewish, otherwise it 
could noi have served as a mark of dìstinclion from 
heathenism. This, however, does not necessariiy ìmply 
that in ils origin it was specificaliy Hebrew, but oniy 
that it had acquired distinguishing features of a marked 
kind. What is certain is that the origin of the Sabbath 
must be sought withìn a circle that used the week as 
a division of time. Here again we must dislinguish 
between the week as such and the astrologica! week, 
t.£,, the week in which the seven days are named each 
after the piane! which is held lo preside over its first 

If ihe day is divìded into twenty-four hours and the planets 
preside in turn over each hout of tbe week in the order of their 
periodic timcs iSalurn, Jupiler, Mars, Sun, Venus, Merciiry, 
Moon), lye get the order of days of the week with which we are 
famihar. For, if the Sun presides over the first hovir of Sunday, 
and therefore also over the eighth, the fifteenth, and the twenty- 
second, Venus will have the twenly-third hour, Mercury the 
twenty-fourth, and the Moon, as the third in order from the 
Sun, wil! preside over the first hour of Monday. Mars, again, 
as third from the Moon, will preside over Tuesday (D ics Manis, 
Mardi), and so forth. 

This aslrological week became wìdely currenl in the 
Roman empire, but was stili a novelty in the time of 
Dio Cassius (37 iS). That writer believed that it carne 
from Egypt ; but the old Egyptians had a week of ten 
(not seven) days, and the originai home of aslrology 
and of the division of the day into twenty-four hours 
is Chaldaea, It is plain, however, that there is a long 
step between the astrologica! assignation of each hour of 
the week to a planet and the recognition of the week as 
an ordinary division of time by people at large, Astro- 
logy is in its nature an occult science, and there is not 
the slightest trace of a day of twenty-four hours among 
the ancjent Hebrews, who had the week and the 
Sabbath long belore they had any acquaintance with 
the planetary science of the Babylonian priesis. More- 
over, it is quite clear from exlant remains of Assyrian 
calendars that our astrologica! week did not prevail in 
civi! life even among the Babylonians and Assyrians : 
they did not dedicate each day in turn to its astrologica! 
planel. These facts make it safe io reject one often- 
repeated explanation of the Sabbath, viz., that it was in 
its origin what it is in the astrologica! week, the day 
sacred to Saturn, and that its observance is to be 
derived from an ancient Hebrew worship oi that planet. 
In truth, there is no evidence of the worship of Saturn 
among the oldesl Hebrews (see Chiun AND SlCCUTH). 

The week, however, is found in various parts of the 
worid in a form that has nothing to do wilh aslrology 
or the seven planets, and with such a distribution as to 
make it pretty certain that it had no arlificial origin, but 
suggesled ilself independently, and for naturai reasons, 
to different races. In faci, the four quarters of the moon 
supply an obvious division of the month ; and, whcrever 
new moon and full moon are religious occasions, we gel 
in the most naturai way a sacred cycle of fourteen or 
fifleen days, of which the week of seven or eighl days 
(determined by half-moon) is the ha!f. Thus the old 
Hindus chose the new aiid the full moon as days of 
sacrifice ; the ève of the sacrifìce was called upavasatha, 
and in Buddhism the same word (ufosatha) has come 
lo denote a Sabbath observed on the full moon, on the 
day when there is no moon, and on the two days which 
are eighth from the full and the new moon respcclively, 
wilh fasting and other religious exercises.^ 

From this point of view it is most significant that in 
the older parts of the Hebrew scriptures the new moon 

' Chìlders, Pali Dici. 535 ; Kcrn, Buddkismus (Germ. 
Transl.) 8; Makàvaega, ii. I i (ET 1 239, 291). 




and the Sabbath are almost invariably mentioned 

together. The month is beyond questìon an old sacred 
division of lime common to ali the Semites ; even the 
Arabs, who received the week at quite a late period 
from the Syrians (Bifuni, Chronology, ET 58), greeted 
the new moon with religious acclamations. And this 
must have been an old Semitic usage, for the word 
which properly means ' to greet the new moon ' [ahalla) 
is, as Lagarde (Orientalia, Sig) has shown, etymologi- 
cally connected with the Hebrew words used of any 
festal Joy. Among the Hebrews, or rather perhaps 
among the Canaanites, whose speech they borrowed, 
the Joy at the new moon became the type of religious 
festivity in general. Nor are other traces wanting of 
the connection of sacrificial occasions — i. e. , religious 
feasts — with the phases of the moon among the Semites. 
The Harranians had four sacrificial days in every month, 
and, of these, two at least were determined by the con- 
junction and opposition of the moon.^ 

That full moon as well as new moon had a religious signi- 
ficance among the ancient Hebrews seems to foUow from the 
fact Ihat, when (he great agricultural feasts were fixed to set 
days, the full moon wa^ chosen. In older times these ieast-days 
appear to have been Sabbaths (Lev, 23 11 ; cp Passover, New 

A week determined by the phases of ihe moon has an averag-e 
length of 2gj-^4 = 73 days — ì.e., three weeks out of eight would 
have eight days. But there seems to be in i Sam. 20 27, com- 
pared with ■mi. 1824, an indication that in old times the feast of 
the new moon lasted two days — a very naturai institution, sLnce 
it appears that the feast was fixed in advance, whilst the Hebrews 
of Saul's lime cannot have been good enough astronomers to 
know beforehand on which of two successive days the new moon 
would actually he observed.2 In that case a week of seven 
working days would occur only once in two months. We cannot 
teli when the Sabbath became dissociated from the month ; but 
the change seems to have been made before the Book of the 
Covenant, which already regards the Sabbath siraply as an 
institution of humanity and ignores the new moon. In both 
points it is followed by Deuteronomy. 

The word 'Sabbath' [Jaiattuv], with the explanation 

' day of rest of the heart,' is claimed as Assyrian on the 

_ „, basis of a textual emendation made by 

BabylOniaa Fn«d. Delitzsch in . Rawl. 32 .6. The 
and Annvrian ^alue of this isolated and uncertam 
-..-•!. testimony cannot be placed very high, 

and it seems to prove too much, for it 
is practically certain that tiie Babylonians at the lime of 
the Hebrew exile cannot have had a Sabbath exactly 
con^esponding in conception to what the Hebrew Sab- 
bath had become under very special historical circum- 
stances. What we do know from a calendar of the 
intercalary month Elùl II. is that in that month the 7th, 
i4th, igth, aisl, and aSth days had a peculiar char- 
acter, and that on thera certain acts were forbidden to 
the king and others, There is the greatest uncertainty 
as to the details (cp the very divergent renderings in 
RP, 7i6o/. ; Schrader, KA T'W 19 ; Lotz. Qu. dehistorìa 
Sabbati, 39/.); but these days, which are taken to be 
Assyrian Sabbaths, are certainly not ' days of rest of 
the heart, ' and to ali appearance are unlucky days, and 
expressly desìgnated as such,^ If, therefore, they are 
'Assyrian Sabbaths" at a!l, they are exactly opposite 
in character to the Hebrew Sabbath, which was described 
by Hosea as a day of gladness, and never ceased to be 
a day of feasting and good cheer. [Cp Jastrow, in 
the article mentioned below,] 

Besides the works already mentioned, reference should 
be made to W. Lotz, QuasHonum de historia Sabbaii 

- T(--__i libri duo (1883), which takes account of 

- .1 . the Assyriological evidence. Hirschfeld 's 

liWeratare. . Re^arks on the etymology of Sabbath" 

(/J?AS, Aprii 1896, pp. 353-359), accordìng to Jastrow, 

misundersiaiids and misquotes the Babylonian material. 

t The others — according to the Fìhrisi, 31tì 14 — are the i/th 
and the sSth. 

2 II appears from Judith 8 6 ihateveti in laCer times there were 
two days at the new moon on which it was improper to fast. 

3 Lotz says they are^lucky days ; but the expression which he 
renders, dtes /àusius, is applied to every day in the calendar. 
The rest of hisbook does not rise above this example of aciimen. 


Nowack {^fM Arch. [i894]2i4o^)givesaIucid sketch 
of current theories and their grounds. See also Jensen, 
Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), Jan. 16, 1892, and 
Jastrow, Amer. /. of Theol. 1898, pp. 315-352. 
Jensen is cautious and reserved on the question of a 
Babylonian origin of the Sabbath, which, however, 
Gunkel {Schopf. 14) and Jastrow {np. cit.) expressly 
affirm. The bridge which Gunkel fails to construct 
between the Babylonian atonement-Sabbath and the 
Hebrew rest-Sabbath, Jastrow endeavours to point out. 
He remarks that the Heb. ìabbdihSn does in fact, like 
the Bab. ìabattutn, convey the idea of propitiation or 
appeasement of the divine anger, and he is of opinion 
that the Hebrew Sabbath was originally a Sabbdthon — 
i.e., a day of propitiation and appeasement, marked by 
atoning rites. At this stage of development it was 
celebrated at intervals of seven days, corresponding 
with changes in the moon's phases, and was identica! 
in character with the four days in each month (jth, i4th, 
2ist, and 28th) that the Babylonians regarded as days 
which had to be converted into days of propitiation. 
There were also, however, other sabbathón days, such 
as the New Year's Day, the Day of Atonement, the 
first and eighth days of the annual pilgrimage to the 
chief sanctiiary. 

The introduction, in conseqiience of profound changes 
in religious conceptions among the Hebrews, of the 
custom of celebrating the Sabbath every seventh day, 
irrespective of the relationship of the day to the moon's 
phases, led to a complete separation front the ancient 
view of the Sabbath, whilst the introduction, at a stili 
later period, of the doctrine that the divine work of 
creation was completed in six days removed the Hebrew 
Sabbath stili further from the point at which the develop- 
ment of the corresponding Babylonian institution ceased. 
Hence the position of the Sabbath in the Prìestly Code. 
The field, however, is stili open for further i n vesti gation. 

Cp also Toy, 'The earliest form of the Sabbath," 
JBL\^i^ff. {1899); and C. H. W. Johns. Assyrian. 
Deeds and Documenti (who finds that the ipth day of 
the month was observed by abstinence from secular 
business; but the deeds do not indicate that the /th, 
I4th, 2ist, and s8th days were Sabbaths). 

w. H. s,— K. M. — T. K. e. 


SABBATHEUS {c&BB&T&toC [BA]), iEsd.9.4 = 
EzralOis. Shabbethai, i, 

SABBATICAL YEAR. The Jews under the second 
tempie observed every seventh year as a Sabbath accord- 
ing to the (post-exilic) law of Lev. 25 1-7- It was a 
year in which ali agricuhure was remitted, in which the 
fields lay unsown, the vines grew unpruned, and even 
the naturai produce was not gathered in. That this 
law was not observed before the captivity we learn from 
Lev. 2634^ ; indeed, so long as the Hebrews were an 
agricultural people with little trade, in a land often 
ravaged by severe famines, such a law couid not have 
been observed. Even in later times it was occasionally 
productive of great distress (i Macc. 64953 ; Jos- Ant. 
xiv. I62). In the older legislation, however, we already 
meet with a seven years' period in more than one con- 
nection. The release of a Hebrew servant after six 
years' labour (Ex. 21 sff. Dt. 1 5 12^ ) has only a 
remote analogy to the Sabbatical year. But in Ex. 
23 10^ it is prescribed that the crop of every seventh 
year {apparently the self-sown crop) shall be left for the 
poor, and after them for the beasts. The difference 
between this and the later law is that the seventh year 
is not caìled a Sabbath, and that there is no indication 
that ali land was to lie fallow on the same year. In 
this form a law prescribing one year's fallow in seven 
niay have been anciently observed. It is exlended in 
V. II to the vineyard and the olive-yard ; but bere the 



culture necessary to keep the vines and olive-trees in 
order is not forbìdden ; the precept is only that the 
produce is to be left to the poor. In Deuteronomy 
this law is not repeated ; but a fixed seven years' period 
is ordained for the benefit of poor debtors, apparently 
in the sense that in the seventh year no interest is to be 
exacted by the creditor from a Hebrew, or that no pro- 
ceedings are to be taken against the debtor in that year 
(Deut, 15i^). w. K. s. 

SABBEUS (c&BB&i&C [BA]) i Esd. Qss^EzralOsi. 
Shemaiaei, 19. 

SABEANS occurs four times in AV, representing 
three distinct Hebrew words in MT ; (1) in Job 1 15 
(N2E', RVnig- Sheba) and Joel3a {D^NSK', RV Men 
OF Sheba); {2) in Is. 45i4 (D'NiD), see Seba ; and 
(3) in Ezek. 2842 (AV^e- and RV ' drunkards '), where, 
however, it is no part of the originai text. The Kt. 
□•N31D — i-e. , D'K^iD. the reading for which the Kre sub- 
stitutes D'K3D with the same meaning {drunkards), Ss 
an obvious interpolation due simply to dittography of 
the preceding D'ttniD- On the further textual corruption 
of the verse see Cornili, ad loc- . and Toy {SBOT). Of 
course none of these words has anything to do with any 
of the religious sects that have at one tinie or another 
been called Sabians— i.e. , Baptists (see art. Sabians 
in Kncy. Brit. 21 128) — a name which is etymologically 
qui te distinct. 

SABI. I. (c&Bei [A]). iEsd.528 RV=:Ezra24=. 
2. (o-a^Witi [BAD lEad. 534 AV, RV SablB = ECTa2 57 ; see 


SABIAS (càBr&c [BA]) lEsdlg RV=2Ch.359, 

Hashabiah, 6. 

SABTA (NMp, càBàTA [B], c&B&e& [A], c€. [L], 
I Ch. I9), or Sabtah (nn?p, c&Bàe& [ADEL], Gen. 

IO7), one of the sons of Cush. See Cush. If ' Cush" 
here means the N. Arabian region of that name, we are 
entitled and indeed compelled to suppose that ' Sabtah ' 
and ' Raamah ' have arisen by corruption and editorial 
manipulation from the names of places near the S. 
border of Canaan, unno will probably come from njjro 
' Maacath' (the southern Maacah), which is also the 
originai of Succoth in the earliest story of Jacob and 
in Ps. 608, andof SOCOH in i S. 17 1. Cp Shabbethai. 
From the ordinary point of view Dillmann fìnds some 
plausibility in Tuch's suggestion that Sabta=Sa/3^o^a 
\Peripl. 27 ; also Ftolemy, Strabo), the Sabota of Pliny 
(632 1232). This was the capital of the Chatramotitse 
(see HazAKMAVeth), and was famous ss the centre of 
the trade in incense. The name is the Sab. niac 
According toGlaser, Sabta is the Sa^^a of Ptol. vi. 730, 
and is to be placed at Sudeir or in the NE of Yemamah ; 
Sabla, Raamah, and Sabteca representing the districts 
on the coast of the Persian 0\Ai{Skisze, 2252/). 

SABTECA («3J|15p, càB&K&e& [ADE], ceBe. [L] 
in Gen. ; ceBeK&e* [BL], -e&x& [A] in Ch. ; ® there- 
fore indicates rather Sbktha), one of the sons of Cush 
(Gen. 10 7 iCh. Igt)- AV has Sabtechah in Gen. 
and Sabtecha in Ch. Glaser, following Bochart, con- 
nects this with the name Samydake in Carmania, on 
the E. side of the Persian Gulf [Skizze, 2252) ; but 
Dillmann calls attetition to the phonetic difference. 
It is perhaps really a dittographed SabtA, the 3 being 
a record of a reading unso (cp @ in Gen. ), t. K. C. 

SACAE ("iSb*). Probably an ethnic of the same 
group as Issachae, Zichri. The name has, of course, 
no connection with that of the little known Egyptian 
god Saltar (cp Issachar, col. 2292, n. 5). i. On 

the namé in i Ch. II35, see Sharar and Issachar, 
§ 6 (end). 

2. A son of Obed-edom (q.v.), iCh.264 (ctoxàp 
[B], c&x*P [L]. CM>&PfA]). 
134 4181 

SAGK. The wide diffusion of this word throughout 
the European languages is probably due in the first 
instance to Phcenician trade and commerce.^ The 
word, it is true, does not happen to be found in either 
Phcenician or Punic; but it is vouched for in Hebrew, 
Syriac, Ethiopic, and possibly Assyrian. See Sack- 


1. sak, pb ((TÓKKOS [but fiiiptriJriros, Gen. 44 1^], saccus), 
Gen. 43 25 35 (E); inv.nja it is due to R (Holz.); Lev.1132 
Josh. tì 4. See Sackcloth. 

2. kéll, '^3, Gen. 42 25» (àyyfìtyv), RV ' vessel ' ; Cp Bag. 

3. 'amidhath, nnnDK (v'spread out, cp Is. 4O22), only in 
Gen. 41-42 J (422527^:35 43 12 etc). On E's term see (i) 
above, ® in 42 27^7 43 12 ftàpanr'ro'i. 

4. siki:àid>i, yh^^t 2K. 442t RV(AV, RW^S- 'husk,' AVmg. 
' scrip,' 'garment'), cp Fooo, col. 1539 n. 2. AVmg- gives a 
superficially plausible sense (cp ScKip^— derived from an anony- 
mous Greek translator's KupvKos (Field's Hex.) ; but \^S'yi is 

[It has been conjectured elsewhere (.^ee Prophet, § 7) that 
Elisha, like Elijah, was specìally a prophet of the Negeb, and 
that Sd13 is a popular corruption of SNDnT- If so, ijVpsa 
probably comes from D'?il"n'3, ' Beth-gallim,' where D'73 is 

another corruption of ^uDiTl'- Elisha was at a place called 
Belh-gallim, or (see v. 38) Beth-gilgai, or (sìnce Gallim and 
Gilgal = Jecahmeel) Beth-jerahmeeI, in the Negeb formerly be- 
longing to the Jerahmeelites. But Lagarde's reading nySpi 
'wallet'C?), suggested by the ^aKeXÀefl of ©* and Theod. (see 
BDB), is ingenious. — t. k. c.) 

SACKBUT (ND3b), Dan. 857 loist- See Music, 
§ 6 (io). 

SACKCLOTH (j^; cakkoc : saccus. cilicium'^). It 
is probable that the Heb. sak was originally a coarse 
testile fabric made from the hair of the carnei or 
the goat (cp the meanings of (tìkkos, a borrowed 
word). Like the simlah it cotild be used also as a wrap 
or bag (cp Mantle, § 2 [i]) ; see Sack. Referring 
the reader, generally, to the articles DRESSand Moukn- 
ING CusTOMS, we propose here to indicate the nature 
of the garment expressed by the word ìak, and to 
endeavour to ascertain the origin of the custom of 
wearing it. 

The usage of the word suggests that the iak was 
nothing more than a loin-cloth, similar, no doubt, to 
tire Hiràim^ of Moslem pilgrims at Mecca. It was worn 
as a token of grief after a death (Gen. 3734 2S.331 
JoellS), more comm only, however, in times of trial, to 
remove a calamity, or as a means of propitiation. 

Thus, the j'a^is worn after hearing bad news (2 K. 630 19 1 
4 1-4, etc), to avect a pestilence (i Ch. 21 16), when one's neigh- 
bour lies in sickness (Ps. 35 13), or as a sign of general undefined 
grief(Ps.30ii£i2]69ii [12] Is. 22 12), It is often preceded by 
the rendine of the cloches (Gen, 3734 i K. 2I27 — the rending 
alone in Job 1 20), or by the coverìng of one's head with ashes 
or (Neh. 9 i 2 Macc. 10 25) earth.'' Like the ihrdjn, the sak is 
also worn by women (JoellS, cp JudithSs 103 2ÀIacc.3i9), 
In Jou.38 it is ordered lo be worn by both man and beast 

The passages in which the sak is mentioned as worn 

next the skin are probably not exceptional (iK,2l27 

2 A sftcrsH ^^^'^S" Is, 32ii); Doughty has re- 

1. TJae. 


marked the half-naked appearance of the 
wearers of the ifiràm- — 'like bathing- 

1 Some (.e.g... Whicney, in the Cent Dict.) bave supposed 
this diffusion to be due to the incident in the story of Joseph, 
where the cup was hidden in Ùis sack. This does uot explain 
the various meanings of ctókkos, saccv-s, and, as a matter of 
fact, the Heb. sak appears only thrice in the storj', whiIsC the 
synonym 'amtdiiatk occurs no fewer than fourleen times 
(see Sack, 3). 

2 Saccus and ciliciutit are about evenly distributed. For 
cìlicium (a goat's-hair cloth used for tents), see Cilicia, % 3 
end, and cp Tent, S 3. 

3 Sak is frequently used with hàgar, ' gird on,' the reverse 
process beìng described hy fiiÙa^, loosen ' (Ps.SOii [iz] 
Is.202). The i/irdrrt (on which cp Wellh, Heid-fS) wbf. 
(^' 123) is a loin-cloth covering the knee, one-lap of which may 
be cast over the shouldec (Douehty, Ar. Drs.i^yg^Bi)- In 
Eg. sa-g-, with the determinative hair,' is a woollen Palestinian 
garment of the poor (WMM OLZ, iqoi, col. 191), 

* Jastrow 7,^0^20139 suggests that in JudithSi (cnroSóf), 
the transistor mistook àphSr (see Turban, g 2) for èpher, like 
bis predecessor in 2 S. 13 ig. 



tnen' [Ar. ZJej. 2 479^ 537), and the dress doiibtless 
resembled the prophet's girdie wtiich, in Jobl2i8, ìa 
worn as a raark of humiliatioti by a kitig. See GirdL£, 

The sackcioth of the OT, therefore, must not be 
regarded as in aiiy way akin lo a sack or sackcioth in 
the modem sense of the word, and, in endeavouring to 
ascertain the origin of the custom of wearing such a 
garb, we must not be led away by the early Christian or 
the later ideas wìth which it is associated.^ 

That conservatisra ptevails longest in matters of cult is s. 
faiiiiliar experience, and Schwally, Nowack, and Kittel (//A" on 
I K. 21 27) favour the view thaC the iaè is the clolhing of an 
earlier half-forgotten time, which, though it may long have coii- 
[iniied lo he worn — ^.J". , by slaves and the poorer people — was 
nevertheleas adopted exceptionally by the ruling classes on 
sgecifìc occasions (cp Dress, § 2, col. 1136, n. 4). Another 
view Ì3 pos^ible. 

It is to be observed [a] that the corresponding 
ihràm is essentially a dress for a sacred occasion ; \b\ 
that the prophets wore a garment similar to the sak ; 
and (e) that the sacred ephod itself was probably once a 
mere loin-cloth (see Ephod, § i, and cp T. C. Foote, 
/5Z. 21 41-44 [1902]). On these grounds, therefore. it 
seems extremely probable that the sak was pre-eminent]y 
a sacred garment, and it agrees with this ìnterpretation 
that we fìnd it worn by people of ali classes on any 
especially solemn occasion { i Ch. 21 iS Joel 1 13 Dan. 9 3 
iMacc. 847 2 Macc, 10 25 etc. ). 

In view of what has been said elsewhere on the hear- 
ing of ideas of holiness upon sucti a niatter as dress.* a 
_ ™~ plaiisible explanation of the cnstora 

^ ■ may be attempted. Garments that 

have come in contact with holy things are unfìt for 
common use, and in early Arabia certain ritcs were per- 
formed either in a naked state or in clothes reserved for 


the purpose. There are some indications that this held 
good among the ancient Hebrews ; and if we bear in 
mind that the sak is worn at times of great trouble. 
when Yahwè's help or forgiveness is besought, we may 
perhaps surmise that such occasions were formerly 
accompanied by a sacrificial rite when a special garb (jf 
we may judge from the Arabian evtdence) would not be 
unnatural. It would be just at such a time as this that 
the individuai would feel himself brought into closest 
contact with his deity. At ali events, ideas connected 
with worship of the dead do not cover the whole 

The king of Nineveh removes his royal mantle before donniiig 
the ìak (Jon. 3 *),! the ' holy' occasion requires 'holy ' clothes, 
and the primary object of the rendìng of the garments is prob- 
ably to put oneself in a state of nakedness as quìckly as possible 
(Stiiwally, Frey). 

That the use of this special garment should have been 
retained long after the (ex hyp. ) ritiial died cut is not 
without analogy. The graduai decay is further ìUus- 
trated by the fact that sometimes even it was the custom 
not to wear the iak but to lie upon it (2 S. 21 io Is. 685), 
and that in later Jewish tìmes the rendìng of the gar- 
ments was confined to a smail slit {Nowack, HA 1 193). 

See the literature at the end of Moi;rning ; also 
Schwally, Das Leèen nack d. Tode (1892), iij?:, Frey, Tod, 
Seelenglaube, eie. (i8gB), 34^ 

On sackcioth and nakedness, cp Jastrow, ZATW^IwTff. 
(1902), which appeared since the above artiele was written. 

S. A. C. 

SACBAMENT [sacramentum, the Vg. rendering of 
^iKrr^/MOf in Eph. I9 83 632 Col. 1 b? iTim. Sió Rev. 
l2o 177). See Mystery, § 5. 

SACRED (lepoc) iCor.913 aTim.315 RV. See 

Clean and UNCLEAN, § I. 8. 

Introductory (§ 1). 

Sacritìces of nomads (g 2). 

Firstlings (S 3). 

Spring sacrifices (| 4^). 

Peculiar rite (5 6>. 

Pro tee don by blood (§ 7), 




Wild animais and spoìls of war (g 8), 
Israel in Canaan : sources (S 9). 
Agriculturat civilìsation (g io). 
Zébah and ■dlàh (g iiy?). 
Vìctims and oblations (S 13^^)- 
Seasons and occasiona of sacrifice (§ 15). 

Worship (fi 16/:). 

Founding of kingdom : effect (S 19). 

Foreign influence (§ 20). 

Seventh century laws ; Ezek. (§ 21). 

Destruction of tempie (g 33). 


Introductory (§ 23). 
OfFering in general : species (g 24)^ 
Sacra publica. et privata (| 35). 
ì. Privata,: 

Enrnt and trespass offering ^ 26^. 
Sin offering (g 28 a). 
PecuUar piacula (g sZb). 
Peace offerings (g 29 aX 

As a gift to God (g 41). 
Sacrificial feasts (g 42). 
Blood of victìm (§ 43). 
Fropitiation and expiation (§ 44). 

Tewish sacrifices : the Gospels (g 34) 

Paul (S 55X 
Hebrews (g 56). 


The term ' sacrifice ' may with etymological propriety 
be employed of ali offerings to God ; in common use 

1. Introductory. "„^^'^°^^^ specifìcally that class of 

•' ofìenngs m which a victim is slam, 

corresponding to the Heb. sébah (lit. ' slaughter ').^ In 

Thankoffering (S -z^b). 
Oblations and libations (gg yì'^\<£y 
Frankincense ; salt (g 31 i). 
ii. Puòlicn : 
D^y holocausts and oblations (g 32). 
Sabbaths and festìvais (g 33). 
Shewbread (| 34 a). 
Peculiar oblations (g 34 3). 


Effect of sacriiìce (g 45). 

Theory of blood atonement (g 46), 

Efficacyof sacrifice : popular belief (@ 47). 

The prophets (g 48). 

Persian and Greek periods (g 49). 

Lihatìons (§ 35). 

Incense; salt (§ 36). 

Public piacula (g 37), 

Scapegoat ; red heifer (g 38). 

Installation of priests (g 39 a). 

Consecration of aitar (g 39 b). 

Peace offerings in sacra publica (g 40). 

Sirach ; Philo (g 50). 
Schoolsofiaw: efìicacyof sacrifice (gsi). 
Moral and religious conditions of atone- 
ment (g 5=). 
How does sacrifice expiate? (g 53). 

Johannine writings (§ 60). 
Genesis of idea (g 61). 

t Cp Schwally, Leben ttach d. Todt, ii^- For the early 
Christian usages see Smith, Dìct. CÀrist. Ani., s.v. 

2 See Rei. SemM iS^J-, Dkess, g 8, and cp generally Clean 

3 See WRS BBm, 21 132, Rei. Sem.P), ii^f. 



DeatbofChtist : Pauline Epistles (g 57). 

In Hebrews (§ 58). 

In I Pet. (g 59)- 

Bibliography (g 62). 

the present artiele the word will be used in this more 
restricted sense, whiist offerings of grain, meal, bread, 
oil, and the like (Heb. rninkdh) are called ' oblations.' 
The term ' offering ' will be employed as the equivalent 
of the comprehensive korbàn. as well as in such phrases 
as 'bumt offering' {'dlàh, holocaust), peace offering 
{seleni), sin offering {kattdih), trespass offering {dsdm). 
For convenience, certain species of offering are made 

1 Cp Wi. AGFlìg, where the Assyrian king tears ofT his 
royal garments, and clothes his body in the ' ba&mu, the dress 
of the penitent. Wi. (ofi di. 44) points out that iaiàmu is 
elsewhere glossed by sakksi (=ptj'). 


2. Sacrifìces 
of nomads. 


the subject of special articles : see Fikstborn, Incense, 
Taxation, TiTHE, Vow, VoTiVE Offering. Cp also 
Atonement [Day of], Feasts, Passover, Pente- 
COST, Tabernacles ; and, for Babylonian parallels, 
RiTUAL. The present article deals in iis iìrst pari (§§ 
1-22) with the history of sacrifice in the OT ; in its 
secoHd {§§ 23-40) with the developed Jewish system ; 
the third part (§§ 41-53) discusses beliefs and ideas 
connected with sacrifice, its intent, significance, efficacy, 
and operation ; the fourth part (§§ 54-61) treats of 
sacrifice in the NT. 

Before the invasion of Palestine the Israelite tribes 
were nomads ; their living and their wealth were in iheir 
flocks of small caitle.^ These also 
furnished the material of their sacri- 
fices. Offerings were doubtless made 
also of the spoils of war, and perhaps of animals taken 
in the ciiase {see belou-, g 8). Our Icnowledge of the 
character of these sacrìfices is derived not so much 
from the stories of the patriarchs in JE as from sur- 
vivals in later custom and law. The nature of these 
survivals, together with the permanent conditions of 
nomadic lìfe in the deserta of Syria and Arabia, justify 
US in supplementing or interpreting our scanly material 
by what is known of Arab sacrifice in pre-Islamic times 
and among the modem Bedouins.^ 

The occasions of sacrifice are many and various. 
Among the modem Araba sacrifices are offered on the 
birth of a son, a circumcision, marriage, the comìng of 
a guest ; for the recovery of the sick or for the health 
of fiocks and herds ; on the inception of an enterprise, 
such as setting out for a foray, breaking ground for 
tillage, opening or enlarging a well, laying the founda- 
tion of a building ; on the conclusion of a compact or 
covenar.t ; the return from a successful expedition ; on 
the anniversary of a kinsman's death, and the like. 

The rites of sacrifice are of primitive simplicity. The 
owner ordinarily slaughters his own victim. The blood 
is poured upon the ground, smeared upon the sacred 
stone. upon the tent ropes, the door-posts of houses, or 
upon persons or animals. The flesh makes a feast for 
the owner, his family, tribesmen, and gyests. 

A species of sacrifice which in ali probability goes 
back to the nomadic stage is the offering of firstlings 
, 3 [bikoròth, sg. békòr) of animals, thai is, 
the first offspring of the dam, which 
'opens the womb ' [péter rékem. Ex. 34 ig 13= 12 15 Nu. 
18is; C'p p^ter SégerbihèmdA.Y^x.lZi-i). The shepherd 
Abel makes his offering ' of the firstlings of his flock 
and of their fat portions' (Gen, 44J); the laws in- 
sistently claim ali firstlings as God's right (Ex. 18212-15 
2229/ [28/] 3419/ Lev.2227 2736 Nu.1815-17 Dt. 
12617 14=3 15i9-23, cp Neh.1036). The animai was 
primitively sacrificed shortly after its birth ; the oldest 
rule is : ' Seven days it shall he with its dam ; on the 
eighth day thou shalt give it to me' (Ex. 2230 [29]).* 
A similar custom exìsted among the heathen Arabs ; 
the first birth [o-aWe A fard) of a she-camel, goat, or ewe 
was sacrificed, frequently while stili so young that its 
fiesh was gelatinous and stuck to the skin. This offer- 
ing of firstlings was permitted in the earliest years of 
Islam, Mohamined advìsing, however, that the sacrifice 
should be deferred till Ihe victim was a year or two old ; 
later he prohibited the farà as well as the sacrifices in 
Rajah (allrah. see below, § 4).^ 

^ See Catti.e, Goat, Sheep. The nomadic Semites bave tio 
neat catlle, and the ancestors of the Israeliles do not appear to 
bave been among the tribes that possessed camels (see Camel). 

^ See WcUh. f:t-ste altarab. Heidentunres ; Snouclc-Hur- 
gronje, Het iiiekkaansche Feest ; WRS I^ei. Sem. ; for modem 
Arab custom^, Burckhardt, Travels in Arabia, 1825, Bedouins 
and Wakàbys, 1S30; Burton, Pilgrifnage to el-Medinah and 
Mccca-k, 1855; Palmer, Deseri 0/ ike F.xodus; Doughty, 
A raèia Deseria ; Curtiss, Primitive Setnitic Religion., etc. 

^ See FiRSTBOKN, Passover, 8 'hf. ; Taxation and Tribute, 
SS K-13. 

■• On the later modification of this mie see helow, % 20. 

"* SeethetwotraditionsinX(janl0ii9y:; VflAS Rei. Sem.^), 


3. Firstlings.^ 


The sacrifice of firstlings, like the offering of first-fruits, with 
which it is sometimes associated (Neh. 1 35/^, cp Ex. 22 ■ig/. 
[28 _^]; note also the connection with tithes, etc, Dt. 12617 
Ì423), was legarded ij) taler tìnes as a tribule to God (Nu. 
18 i$^. Neh. 10 35^), and as such it has been surmised that the 
custom of devoting firstfings to God arose after the settlement 
iti Canaan by 'a secoiidary extension of the practice of offering 
the fruits of the field.' (So Benzinger, Passover, g 8 end.) 
The existence of firstling sacrifices among the Arabs sbows that 
this ìnference is utiwarranted. The sacrifice of firstlings, as the 
widespread custom of offering firstborn children indicai ci (see 
Frazer, Golden Baugh['i),2n-ì^.), was not ori ginally conile ì veti 
as a tribute to the deity (see Tithe). That there is no mention 
of thtse offerings before the invasion of Canaan is not a suffi- 
cient reason for doubting theìr antiquity. 

In the history of the exodus Moses asks the Egyptian 
king to let the Israelites go into the desert to sacrifice 

4 Snrinc ^° ^^^'^r God Yahwè, ' lest he fall upon iis 
' -g g 1 with pestilence or with the sword ' (Ex. 
53J, cp3i358i7; 5i E); the presence 
of ali the people, young and old, is requisite ; and 
they must take with them their flocks and herds to 
furnish the victims (IO925). From 63 it might seem 
that the sacrifice in the wilderness was something 
unusual, demanded on this occasion by an oracle ; 
5r (E) and IO9 (J), however, represent it as an estab- 
lished institution, 'the kàg oi Yahwè.' ^ The season 
was the spring of the year, in the month called by the 
Canaanites Abib (Ex. 184), corresponding to the Syrian- 
Babylonian Nìsan. 

It is naturai to connect this hdg festival wìth the 
spring festivals of other Semitic peoples. The first eight 
days of the month Rajab, which in the old calendar fell 
in the spring (see Wellh. /"ro/.W, viii. ; HeidS^). 94^), 
was a great sacrificia! season among the healhen Arabs. 
The poets compare the carnage of baule lo the muJti- 
tudes of victims lying around the sacred stones.^ The 
victim, conimonly a sheep, was called 'atirah (pi. 
'atd'ir) ; its blood was poured on the head of the sacred 
stone (Nuwairi, quoted in Ramussen, Addii. 79), the 
flesh consumed in a feast. Stich sacrifices might be 
offered at home ; but it was probably more common to 
take them to some more famous holy place (see Wellh. 
Heid. 74, 94). The sacrifice, like Arab sacrifices in 
general, was often made in fulfilnient of a vow. The 
Rajab sacrifices were at first kept up by the Moslems ; 
a tradition reports Mohammed to have said : ' Every 
Moslem is bound to offer each year an 'adkàh (the 
sacrifice of the tenth of the month Uhu-1-Hijjah) and an 
'atirah' (in Rajab fi;>fl« vi. 211 14/]) ; subsequently, 
however, he prohibited theWfraA as well as the /ara' 
(see above, § 3). In the time of Mohammed the month 
Dhu-1-Hijjah, in which was held the great festival in 
the vicinity of Mecca, fell at the beginniug of spring 
(Wellh. Prol.(^\ 105), and a comparison with the 
Passover naturally suggested itself ;^ but further studies 
in the old Arab calendar have shown that this coin- 
cidence in date is accidental. 

Among the Syrians, the chief feast of the year at 
Hierapolis was in the spring (Lucian, Dea Syria, 49) ; 
at Harràn the first half of Nisan was a season of 
special sacrifices (Fihrist, 322 ; Chwolsohn, Ssabier 
225); evidence of the sacredness of Nisan appears in 
the Nabatasan inscriptions at Madàin Salih;^ and at 
Palmyra ; ^ the great festival o{ the modern Yezidis falls 
at the same season.' 

A closer connection between the Hebrew spring 

1 See Passover, Feasts. 

2 Hdg is a religious gathering {N5. ZDMGiljii)). The 
word i.s used not only of the Canaan ite- Israel ite agricultural 
festivals, but also of Arab (and Sabaan) festivals, which brought 
multìtudes together. There is thus no ground for the assump- 
tion that the use of the term bere is due merely to the later 
association of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread 
ihag ka-trta!!Sth\ 

^ Cp modern descrìptions of the sacrifices at the Meccaii 

^ See Snouck-Hurgronje, Hei mekkimttsche Feesi, 65/. 

S Berger, Comptes Rùndvs de l'Acad.des Ifiscr., 1884, 377 _^ 

» WRS EBf^), 18 199, n. 2. 

7 Badger, NestoriaHs, 1 ii'jff. Vemal festivals are, of 
coTirse, not peculiarly Semi tic. 




5. FirstlìngB 
at them. 

festival (■ Passover ') and the Arab Rajab sacrifices has 
been thought to be established by 
evi de n ce that both were primi tively 
offerings of firstlings.^ In the Penta- 
teuch, laws prescribing the dedication of firstlings 
stand in juxtaposition to ordinances for the Feast of 
Unleavened Bread or the Passover (see Ex. 34t8 f. 
Dt. 1519-23 16i_/^ Ex. 1243-50 I313-10 11-13 14-16); the 
slaying of the firstborn of the Egyptians has been 
interpreted as a reprisal upon them for withholding 
from Yahwè, by their refusai to let Israel go, the first- 
lings that were his due (see Ex.SiS 8120 1024^; 
Wellh. 86). It has been shown, however, under 
Passover (§ 8), that the passages cited, though com- 
patible with such a theory of the originai character of 
the Passover, by no means require it ; and opposing 
considerations of much weight are to be drawn frorn the 
peculiar ritual of the Passover (see below, § 6), in 
whìch— to name but a single point — one victim is re- 
c|uired for each household, rich or poor, whereas the 
number of firstlings must have varied with the owner's 

Nor is it satisfactorily established that the Arab Rajab 
sacrifices were firstlings. It is true that the term 
'atirah, by which these victims are usually designated, 
is by some lexicographers made equivalent to farà , 
firstling,^ This is, however, nothing more than the 
confusion which frequently occurs in their accocnts of 
the religious customs of 'the times of ignorance,' and 
over against it must be put the fact that not only the 
traditionists ^ but also the lexicons generally distinguish 
the two clearly enough. 

The Passover differed conspìcuousiy from ali other 

Israelite sacrifices, and preserved to the last, essentially 

„ P ,. unaltered, its primitive pecuharities. In 

■ ?^ *^ the earliest times, the carcass of the 
victim was probably roasted whole, either 
over an open fire or in a pit in the earth (as by the 
modem Samaritans), and the flesh sometimes eaten half 
raw or mereiy softened by fire, Dt. I67 prescribes that 
it shail be boiled. like other sacrifices. This. however, 
did not prevali ; P preserves the primitive custom whi!e 
guarding against abuse : the Passover is neither to be 
eaien raw nor boiled in water, but roasted in the fire 
(Ex. 129), with head, legs, and inwards. The sacrificial 
feast was held by night at fui! moon ; the participants 
were in their evcryday garb, not in ceremonial appare! ; 
everything was done with baste ; the whole victim was 
devoured — including, doubtless, in ancient times the 
exta which in later sacrificial ritual were offered to God 
by fire, and therefore strìctly forbidden as food ; only 
the bones must not be broken ; * the flesh must ali be 
consumed before daybreak ; if aught remained it was 
to be burnt up at once ; with the flesh was eaten — not 
originally unleavened cakes, but — a salad of bitter herbs 
(Ex. 129/., cp Nu. 9.1/, also Dt. I64*),* 

With this singular ritual has been compared the 
description given by Nilus of the customs of the Arabs in 
the desert S, of Palestine and in the Sinaitic peninsula 
in his own time — the end of the fourth century A.D-. 
They sacrificed a white camel to Venus, the morning 
star ; after the chief or priest who presided at the 
sacrifice had slain the animai, ali rushed upon the 
carcass with knives, hewed it to pieces, and devoured 
it in wild baste, hide, inwards. bones, and al!, that not 
a scrap of it might be left for the rising sun to look 

1 WRS RcL Sent.i^), 227 f. n. 464 / ; Wellh. Prol.{*>, 86 ; 
Now. HA 2 147 ; Benz. HA 469/^ 

2 Lìsdn,^2io. Note also the identìcal custom described Iti 
the LisanaaAexyàra', in the /"lì/ (3 308) under WJra.4. 

3 See Bokharl, ed. Krehl, 8514/ 

* Contrast the Arab sacrifice of NÌ!us, below. See WRS 
Kel. ^£"(.(2), 345. 

fi See the description of the Passover of the modem Samari- 
tans, Petermann, ^eis^H,! ■zjs^. 

6 Migne, /'a/'r. (7»-. "(1)613, cp 613; VfRS Rei. SenLf^), 261/: ; 
Wellb. HeidAh iiQjf. 


In Ex. 1221-27 (ultimately from J) the elders are 
bidden to take sheep or goats, one for each clan (mis- 
1 PrntoPtiftn f^Mh). slaughter them, and. dipping 
b blMd ^ ^^^<^^ of herbs ('hyssop') into the 
' ■ blood, lo strike it upon the hntel and 

door-posts ; Yahwè will not suffer ' the destroyer ' to 
enter a house on which he sees these blood-marks. 
This, an editor adds, is the historical orìgin and ex- 
planation of a custom in use in later times ; with it he 
connects etymologically the name 'Passover' (fésah). 
because Yahwè ' passed over ' {pàsali) the marked 
houses of the Israehtes (Ex, 1224-27). The object of 
the rite is to protect the inmales of the house from ' the 
destroyer ' ; that is, in primitive conception, from Ihe 
demons of disease and death. Similar customs with 
the same motive are found among many peoples.^ 

Whether this rite was originally connected with the 
Hebrew spring feast is not clear, J, who prescribes 
the marking of the houses, says nothing about a feast, 
and. indeed, repeatedly insists that the festival of 
Yahwè cannot be celebrated in Egypt (Ex. 63 825-27); 
P orders that the blood of the lamb slain for the feast 
be applied to the door of every house in which it is 
eaten (Ex. 12?. cp 13). a direction which Jewish tradition 
and practice regarded as applying only to the * Egyptian 
Passover ' ; ^ Dt. makes no mention of this use of the 
blood at the Passover {q.v. , § 13),' It is not unlikely 
that a rite originally occasionai, as in the outbreak of 
an epidemie, came to be practised annually for the 
protection of the household during the coming year, 
and in connection with the old spring feast.* The 
name pésah probably belonged, notwithstanding J's 
etymology, to the feast rather than to the blood 

Some Semitic peoples, both nomadic and settled, 

offered in sacrifice animals taken in the chase. Gazelles 

a Tw 1 j were offered by the Babylonians 

61 Wild 


(Jastrow, Rei. Bab.-Ass. 661) and 
-, , probably by the Phosnicians (Sacrificial 

apouBOiwar. -j-griffs, C/5 1655g ]675; cp Isaac, 
§ 4, n. 2). Among the heathen Arabs, also, gazelles 
were sacrificed. but were regarded as an inferior offer- 
ing ; men who had vowed sheep or goats from their 
flocks sometimes substituted gazelles.* The nomadic 
forefathers of the Israelites may have made similar 
offerings ; but there is no reminiscence of this in the 
OT. The requirement that the blood of animals taken 
in the chase be poured out and covered wjth earth (Lev. 
17i3. cp Dt, 12i6 24) is not necessarily an attenuated 
survival of a sacrificial rite ; the bellef that the soul is 
in the blood (I^ev, 17i4, on which see below, § 46) is 
reason enough.* 

Sacrifice was doubtless offered also of the spoil of 
war, as in' later times {i S. 15i5 2r cp I434 ; see also 
Gen. 1420). Similarly the Arabs on their return from 
a foray sacrificed one beast of those they had taken and 
feasted on it before dividing the booty' The Arabs of 
whom Nilus wrote took by preference a human victim. 
a fair youth, from among their captives ; in default of 
such, they offered a white carnei.** The Carthaginians, 
after a victory, sacrificed the fairest of their captives 
by night as burnt offerings (Diodorus Siculus, 206s) ; 

1 See, e.g., Zimmem, Beitr.1i\o. ifi, col. 3, /. 10/-% Palmer, 
Des. Mxod.tjow'i, etc. ; Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 499 452 2 100 etc; 
Kingsiey, l'ravels in IVesi Ayrica, 4^4 ^si^- A ìarge collection 
of material is found in Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Eeligion 
To-day, chap. \f> ff. 

2 So also the modem Samaritans : Petermnnn, Reisen, 1 237. 

3 See below, % 30. 

* A very similar ceremony at a great annua! festival in Perù 
is described by Garcilasso de la Vega, Comm. Reales, ~6. 

' Hàrilh, Mti'allakak, 69, with the scholia ; al-Laith in 
I.isdrt\i. 211 9. 

8 Cp tbe burying of blood drawn in blood -le tting, or from a 
nose-bleed, e.g., Doughty, Ar. Des. I492; Kingsiey, Travels 
in IVesi Africa, 447. 

■^ WRS, Rei. Sem.'^'ì, 491, and the Arab authors there cited. 

8 Migne, Patr. Gr.l'dbi.if. 641 681 ; see WRS Rei. Sem.^), 



9. In Canaan : 

similar instances bave been adducec! from the records 
of Assyrian kings (Shalmaneser, Monolith, obv. 17). 
The slaying of Agag, whom Samuel hewed in pieces 
before Yahwè in Gilgal (i S. 1033), has sometimes been 
regarded as a sacrifice of this kìnd ; ^ but it is doubtful 
whether this in terp relation is correct (see below, § 13 

The many accounts of sacrifices in the books of 
Samuel and Kings are in large part taken from old 
and good sources, and give us com- 
paratively full and trustworthy Informa- 
tion for the period whìch they cover. 
By theìr side we may place the similar descriptions in 
Judges. and in the patriarchal story as narrated by J 
and E (f.^. , Gen. 15? #). The laws in the same 
sources (especially in Ex. 34 and 21-23) dealing with 
feasts and offerings, with the other — not inconsider- 
abie — ^vemains of early coileclions of law pre&erved 
in Dt. and H, represent the usage of Israelite and 
Judsean sanctuaries in the lime of the kings ; the con- 
demnation of many customs in the reform legislation 
of the seventh century bears witness to the prevalence 
of the practices so zealously prohibited. The prophets, 
finally, patnt vjvid pictures of the religion of their con- 
temporaries, with ali ils abuses. 

The regions E. of the Jordan first occupied by 
Israelite tribes are capable of supporting enormous 

,. A i li 1 flocks upon their rich and estensive 

10. Agncultural p^,^^,^,^^ Much of the land is very 
ClVUlsaWon. ^^^.j^^ ^^^ abundantìy rewards culti- 
vation ; but the conditions do not constrain nomadic 
1 ribes taking possessi on of the country to become 
tillers of the soìl. The case was dìfferent in Western 
Palestine. In the S. indeed. in the Negeb and the 
Wilderness of Judah, the new comers continued to he 
chiefly shepherds even after they adopted fixed habita- 
lions ; bui in the centrai highlands (Mt. Ephraim) and 
in the N. they were soon compelled to get most of their 
living from the soìl. They learned from the oidcr 
population of the country to raise crops of grain and 
pulse and to cultivate the fig, the olive, and the vine, 
With the arts of agriculture they learned also the 
religion of agriculture. To the sacrifices and festivals 
of theìr nomadic forefathers were now added the proper 
offerings for the bounty of the land and the season 
feasts of the husbandman's year (see Feasts, § 4/i)- 
Animal sacrifice is stili the most important pan of 
worship, as we see clearly from the historical books ; 
neat cattle, kept as plough - beasts, are added to the 
victims from the fiock.^ First-fruits or tithes of grain 
and wine and oil must be consecrated in their season 
according to an established ritual. The worship was 
offered at the 'high places.' that is, in general, the old 
Canaanite holy places (see High Pl.\CE, §§ 2-4). 

The most general term for offerì ng, whether of 

animals or of other things, is minhdh, nnp. ' gift ' 

RnAoiaa '® Sùpov, more frequently 0v(rla), a word 

. 'j^^^fi-g . not confined to religious uses.* In dis- 

,. . ■ tinction from other offerings specifìcally 

named^such as 'oldà, zéiah — minhdh 

sometimes refers particularly to oblations of bread, 

meal, oil, and the like (see | 14).^ Animai sacrifices 

fall into two main classes : 'òlàh, EV ' burnt offering, ' 

in which the victim was ali consumed by fire ; and 

zébafi. EV ordinarily 'sacrifice,' in which. after the 

exla had been burnt upon the aitar, the fiesh was eaten. 

These species are often enumerated together, as in Jer. 

1726 : ' they shall come , . . bringing burnt offerings 

1 WRS, Rei. .S"fm,|2|, 363. Nowack (HA 2=05) includes in 
ihe same class ihe killing of Zebah and Zalmunna, Judg. 821. 

a GASm. Hist. Geog. 5237: ; cp Nu. 32 1 4 = K. 3 4, etc. See 
also Cattle, § 3. 

3 On changes in the rites of sacrifice see below, § 11. 

« In the technical language of the later ritual the compre- 
hensive term is korbàrt ; see below, % 24. 

5 On the more restricted technical use of the word in the later 
rilual see below, g 24. 


and sacrifices and oblations and frankincense . . . unto 
the house of Yahwè. ' 

The Heb. séèah, n3t, is ordinarily rendered in ® by euerto, the 
cotresponding verb by ftJu, less frequently 0viti.ó^cu. The verb 
means properly 'slaughter,' and may be ased of the killing of 
domestic animals for food without religious riles i,eg., Dt. 
12 15 2i) ; but since in earlier times animals were seldoni if ever 
killed thus, it ordinarily iniports sacrificial slaying. The place 
to which animals are brought to be killed is the jiiisilali, liierally 
'slaughter place'; in Canaan this was generally the stone or 
pile of stones on which the fat was burned, «hence iriizlc^ìi 
Comes to be equivalent to aitar (see Altae, Massefìah, § 5). 

The occasions of sacrifice were of dìfferent kinds (see 
above, § 2, and below, § 15), and distìnctive names 
for some of them were probably early in use ; peeuliari- 
tìes of ritual, too, nò doubt belonged to certain varicties 
of sacrifice, as to the Passover or ihe covenant sacrifice 
(cp Gen. 159 ff. Jer, 34i8 f.). but, however ancicnt 
the custom itself may be, our knowledge of the delails 
of the sacrificial ritual comes chiefly through later 
sources. For this reason, as well as lo avoid repetition, 
the species of sacrifice and their characterislìc rites will 
be considered below in their place in the completed 
system (§ 23^). 

One term is, however, so certainly old and so ftequent that it 
ca.nnot be passed over Bere ; viz. sélem, a79 (Am. 5 22), gener- 
ally pi. sélàttiìnt (EV ' peace offerings '). In many passages 
séiàniìnt are coupled with 'BlSth (burnt offerings) in descrip- 
tions of greater sacrificial occasions, precisely as 'oloth and 
zéMhìin elsewhere ; see, £.^., Ex. 20 24 826 2 S, Gì-;/. 24 ss iK. 
3 15 925 Ezek. 45is 4327 462 12 etc. In other insiances we 
bave the phrases D'D?^ 1121, D'DJIIP '[13?, 'sacrifices of peace 
ofTerings ' — e.g:, 1 S. 108 Jos. 22 23 Pro v. 7 14. The sèlàimnt 
appear to bave been by far the most common kind of sacrifices, 
so that when the word zèòàhìtn was used without qualificalion it 
would be underslood lo refer to sèlamim ; on the other band, 
the name séldmltn is probably shortened from zibhé sèidì/iini. 

The originai significance of the word is not certain. ® trans- 
lales, 7b)Tnpcii, (,0v<ritti) tov trt^TTjptovj so also Phìio, De victirnìs, 
§4,2 245 Mangey ; iS in Samuel and Kings (flutriai) eipiji'LKai or 
tÙi' tipijvtKiùv, so Aq, Symm. Theodot. ; Vg. viciiìna pacijica, 
paci/icum (se. sacrijiciiitii) ; hence EV, 'peace offerings.' 
These interpreters connect the Heb. word with ihe simple stem 
of the verb □Se, ' be whole, sound, safe,' or the noun sdleiit, 
DlSiy, 'peace.'l Josephus, who renders fluo-iat X"P"'''^P"" 
(Artf. ili. 9 2), apparently associates it with the meaning of the 
intensive stem, SìUctin, 'requite, repay, pay ' ; so that these 
sa-crifices would be a return to God fot benefits recei^ed from 
bim, or the payment of an obligation to him ; cp Prov. T 14 : 'I 
had «/nwiJw- sacrifices to make ; to-day I bave paid (Jillaniti) 
mv vows.' The word occurs also, as the name of a species of 
sacrifice (^-^3 □'^B'X o" 3" inscription from a Phcenician tempie 
at Marseilles (C/.? 165 3 ^), Ic is perhaps a Canaanite term 
adopted by the Israelite^. [Ori Aas. sii/maseeRlTUAl,, & ii,ia.l 

The blood of the victims was poured or smeared upon 
the sacrificial stone as had been done by theìr nomadic 
forefathers. Besìdes this, portìons of the animai, 
especially of the internai fat (1 S. Is-sf.),'^ were now 
burned upon a raised alt a r^ monolith or heap of stones 
or earth — as upon a hearth ; and this part of the per- 
formance was so essential that the verb ' burn,' with or 
without an object ('the fat'), becomes equivalent to 
' offer sacrifice. ' 

In older times the intensive stem kitiìr, "IBj?, 'make smoke, 
burn ■ — rarely with the object (^jri'^, i S. 2 15 ^)— is u^ed ; so 
frequently in the prophets, of the heathenish sacrifices of their 
contemporaries. In later texts the causative hiktlr, Tapn, 

prevails._ See We. PrclX*\, 64/, n. 1. The burning of the 
otìerìng is probably to Ije regarded as a means of conveying it 
to God ; the fragrant snioke was, at ieast in later times, thought 
of as containing the ethereal substance of the sacrifice. (WRS, 
Rei. SemM, 236 ; see also below, g 41.) 

The flesh of the victìm was boiled {2 S, 2is/. i K. 
1921), and furnished a feast for the offerer with his 
family, friends, and guests (i S. l4_^ 9i2 22_^, etc). 
In Canaan, bread, wine, and oil, the products of agri- 
culture, took their place in the feast besìde the flesh of 
animals from the flock or herd (see e.g., i S. I24); 
these again were in part obligatory offerings — first-fruits, 

1 See also the etymological explanations in Sifhrd. on Lev. 3 i 
(fol. 1311, ed. Weiss). 

2 From Judg. 6ig^ it has sometimes been inferred that in 
early times boiled flesh was offered (cp also Nu. 6 19) ; but the 
evidence is insufficient to sustain the conclusion. 




tithes, etc— in part occasionai and voluntary, Of 
them aìso a pari was given lo God, probably upon the 
aitar by fire (seeAm, 4s). The hread offered was ihat 
which the participants in the feast themselves ate ; that 
is, in ordìnary cases leavened bread ; ^ unleavened cakes 
when, for relìgioiis reasons (as in the massdth feast) or at 
a nieal hastily prepared for an unexpecled guest, ihey 
ate their own bread unleavened. The bread offered 
was probably moistened with oi! or dipped in it, as was 
the bread eaten by the worshippers {cp the later rituals. 
§ 30). Of the wine a libation was made to God (Hos. 
94), See below, §§ 14, gm. 

The peculiarity of the 'ólàh (n'^j;) is that no part of 
the victim was used for food ; the iìesh as well as the 

.« w. j. sacrificial portìons of the inwards and 
^„^!:ffj* fatwasburned. 

^' ■ The term is derived from the common 

verb 'dldh (nW). ' go up, ascend,' and signifies, ac- 
cording to the prevailing interpretai ion, the sacrifìce 
which {ali} 'Comes up' upon the aitar (Knob, , Wellh. , 
Nowack, etc), ór that which ' goes up' in smoke lo the 
sky (Bahr, Del., Dillmann, etc). In (S generally 
óXo/caiircu/ia, òXoKOfJrtutris, Vg. holocaustum. 

Another term for the sacrìfice given as a ' whole 
offering' to God is kdlil "^-b (Dt. 33io i S. Tg Ps. 
5I121 ; cp Dt. 13i7 Judg. 2O40), which appears as a 
technical term in Phcenician also ; see the sacrificial 
tariffs of Marseilles and Carthage, CIS'i. 160 3 5, etc., 

The whole burnì offering was naturally much less 
frequent than the sacrifices which furnished a feast for 
the worshippers ; it is seidom mentioned alone, and 
then in pecuUar circumstances.^ Ordinarily the burnt 
offering occurs in conjunction with other sacri fi ces 
[zlbdhim or sglàmìin); e.g., 28.617/^ 2425 1 K.925 
2 K. IO241 etc. It was probably originally an extra- 
ordinary offering made by greal persons or on great 
occasions (We. ProlA^K 70). The daily burnì offering 
in the tempie at Jerusalem (2 K.. I615) — and doubtless 
at other royal sanctuaries — was the king's daily sacrifìce, 
and was followed by many zUbàhim for the court and 
by private persons. 

The ritual of the burnt offering is not described in 
any ancient account ; it may be assumed that the blood 
was Irealed in the same way as that of the olher 
sacrìfices ; it is supposed by both the narratives in JE 
and by the laws that the fiesh and fai of the holocaust 
were consumed upon the aitar.* The hide, according 
lo Lev, 78, fell to the priest, and this is not improbably 
an ancient rule ; it was, in fact, the only toll he could 
take for his services.'' 

It is possible that at an earlier lime the burnt offering 
was burned on the ground or in a pil, rather than in a 
raised aitar ; this is said lo have been done for a special 
reason at the dedication of Solomon's tempie (i K. 
804).^ The analogy of the human sacrifices at the 
Tophet (see Moi.ECH, Toi'HET ; cp, however, Gen, 
229), and the burning of the carcass of certain sin 
offerings without the sancluary, may also be noted. It 
is probable, however, that the burning of the holocaust 
upon the aitar was the Canaaniie custom, adopted by 
the Israelites.^ 

Whether the burnì offering was accompanied by an 
oblaiion of bread or by a libation is iincertain, '' When 

t I S. 103 Am. 45 ; leavened bread in certain sélSìnlm even 
in I^v. 7 13, tp 23 17, 

2Gen.82o22i3 Nu. 23 i_^ Judg. 626 <13i6 23) 1S.614 
I K. 34IS38. 

3 The carcass was previously cut up ; i K. 18 23 33. 

* So in the sacrificial lariff of Carthage (CIS 1 167) ; In that 
of Marseilles the priest has a fee in money, and a part of the 
fiesh, whiist the hide belongs to the ofTerer. 

5 So also at Hierapolis ; Lucian, Dea Syria; WRS, Rei. 
SemA^), 37B. 

^ An argument may perhaps be drawn from the sìze of the 
Canaan! te rock-altars that have been discovered. 

' In r K. 864 the words 'and the minhàh' are a gloss. 


13. Viotima. 

il was part of a great sacrificial occasion these probably 
went with the olher sacrifices (xlbàhitn). The regular 
daily burnì offering in the tempie may have had such 
an accompaniment ; but the earlier custom seems to 
have been to offer the minhdh daily as an evening 
oblation corresponding to the morning 'òldh (see below, 
§§ i9i y^)- ^'1 ^^ passages which speak of the burnt 
offering alone (cited above, col. 4191, n. 2), ihere is no 
mention of a mÌTihdh. Judg. Qsof. 13ig ff, cannot be 
alleged ; in these places a meal prepared for a guest is 
miraculously consumed by fire ; this may be called an 
'óldh, but obviously no inferente can be drawn as to the 
ordinary ritual of burnt offerings. 

The animals sacrtficed were neai calile, sheep, and 
goals ; also, at least in certain rites, turile doves and 
pigeons, clean birds easily procured by 
dwellers in lowns and cities. The choice 
of victims for particular sacrifices, or occasions was 
doubtless lo some extenl regulaled by custom ; in 
ordinary cases it was left to the worshipper to determine 
what his offering should be, in accordance wilh his 
means, his disposition, and his moiive, or his previous 
inlention or vow. Il is very likely an ancient rule that 
the burnt offering should be a male ; though i S. 614 
shows that il was not always so. Sometimes very 
young animals were offered even as a burnt offering 
(i S. 79, sucking lamb) ; but ordinarily, no doubt, a 
mature animai was chosen for ihis sacrifice.^ 

That the offering of a human victim as a holocaust 
was not unknown in old Israel we learn from the story 
of Jephthah, Judg. W^af. 34-40. The narralor repre- 
sents this sacrifìce as extraordinary, but does not con- 
demn it as abhorrent to the religion of Yahwè.^ The 
statement in i K. 16 34 to the effect that Hiel, who in 
the days of Ahab rebuilt Jericho, * laid its foundalions 
with Abiram his firstborn, and set up its gates with 
Segub his youngest son,' hardly admits any other inter- 
pretation ihan that he offered them as foundation 
sacrifices, in accordance with a widespread and persistent 

It does not appear, however, that human sacrifices were 
frequent in the early centuries of the Israelite oecupation of 
Canaan. The offering by parents of their own sons and 
daughters, especially the firstborn, about which there is so 
much in the prophets and laws of the seventh century,* was not 
the recrudescence of ancient custom, but a new and foreign cult 
(see MoLECH, g 4 i?:). The lesson of Gen, 22 is that though 
Yahwè might claim even an only son, he does not require such 
sacrìfice but accepts instead a victim from the flock ; cp Mi. G 7. 

The expiation of Saul's massacre of the Gibeonites by the 
ejtecution of seven of his sons and grandsons ' before VahwÈ ' at 
the famous sanctuary of Gibeon (aS. 21g), important as the 
story is for the idea of expiation and thus for sacrificial concep- 
tions, is not itself to be considered as a sacrìfice. Nor is the 
devotion of the inhabitants of a conquered city — or an Israelite 
city that has fallen into the worship of other eo,ds (Dt. 13 I2^> 
— to the deity by slaughler and burning (Àèreni, see Ban) 
properly regarded as a forni of human sacrifìce. 

The offerings of bread, oil, and wine which formed 
part of the sacrificial feast have been spoken of above 
,. n-u- i- in ihat connection (8 II). There were 

also independent offerings of the pro- 
ducts of agricullure. The deity which gave the increase 
lo man's labour received from him portions of ali ; only 
when these had been duly rendered could the resi be 
used by the owner (see Frazer, Golden Bough!!^, 1y%ff. 


These offerings, which fall under the general head of 
first-fruits, were called by varìous names 1 first-fruits 
(bikkùrUn, Ex. 3425 2819), tithes [ma àsèrótk) , prime 
portions {reSith), portions set apart {tèriimak), and 
others. The originai dislinctions are not always clear ; 

1 Mi. 66 speaks of burnt offerings of yearling calves ; the 
daily burnt offering in P is a yearling lamb. 

3 Jephthah, § 6, Compare Mesha's sacrifice of his son, 
2 K. 3 27. 

3 See Hiel. On these sacrifices cp Tylor, Prim. Cult.l?), 
1104^; Liebrecht, ^«r- Fìj/ìjìbhi/c, 284^ ; especially Sartori, 
' Das Bauopfer,' Zeitschr.f. Ethnol. SO iff. (1898). 

* See Jer. 7 31 Ezek. 20 3tì 23 36^ Lev. 18 21 20 •ìff. Dt. 18 10 



the definitions of P and the Mishna may sometimes be 
suspected of inaking systematic discrimination between 
terms once loosely equivalent. The lendency of the 
rimai developmenl was to reduce to rule and nieastire 
whnt was once more frec, and to convert ìnto a tax, for 
the support of the clergy, what formerly. as a gifl to 
the dei ty, had actually fallen in whole or in part to his 
ministers, Aparchas were offered not only of things 
that were eatén, but also of flax and wool (Hos. 25 9 Dt, 
184). Inasmuch as these offerings have a history of 
their own il has seemed best to treat them separateìy ; 
see Taxation, Tithes. Religious dedications of a 
dìtferent character are the 'orldh of fruit-trees in the 
first three years of hearing, foHowed in the fourth by 
the consecration of the crop as hitlùlzm (Lev. 1923-25), 
which corresponds to the sacrifice of the firsthngs of 
aniniais ; the pe'dh, or unreaped corner of the grain- 
field ; the gleanings of the harvesf-field, orchard, and 
vineyard (Lev. 399/!); and the spiontaneous crops of 
the fallow year (Ex, 23 io/). (See Nature Wokship, 

The forni of presentation of fìrst-fruìts is described 
only in part. In Lev. 23io/ 14 (old laws in H) the 
first sheaf of barley (originaliy from each field, or from 
eqch viilage) is brought and 'waved' {hentfih, "l'jri, a 
gestore of throwing) before Yahwè at the locai sanctuary ; 
uniil this is done the new crop must not be used in any 
forni [v. 14) ; unleavened cakes {massolk) of the new 
barley meal are eaten for seven days (see FeasTS, 
Passover), At the end of wheat hawest a correspond- 
ing cereniony is the presentation in a similar way of two 
loaves of leavened bread (originaliy from each house- 
hold, Lev. 23 15-17 zoo). Cp Frazer, Golden. Bougk^\ 
2319. Dt.26i_^ prescribes that specimens of the 
choicest of the fruits of the land shall be brought by 
each landowner in a basket and set down before the 
aitar with a solemn liturgy of thanksgiving ; the pre- 
sentation is foìlowed by a feast (see below, § 22). 

Another kind of oblation, which, though of much less 
primitive character than the kinds just mentioned, can 
be Iraced back to an early period in the history of Israel 
in Canaan, is the setting before the deity of a table 
spread with food and drink (see, further, below, § 34^). 
Such was the custom at Nob ( i S. 21 4-6 [5-7]) as well as 
at Jerusalem (1K.748), and probably wherever God 
had a house or tempie. On this table stood bread, 
which at ceriain intervals was exchanged for fresh loaves 
hot from the oven ; the loaves that were removed were 
eaten as ' holy bread ' by the prifsts, and — under ex- 
ceptional circumstances — by Jaymen who had ' hallowed ' 
themselves (rS. 2I4-6). It is naturai to suppose that, 
as among other pcoples, wine too, in cups or chalices, 
was placed upon the table ; bui there is no mention of it 
in the OT. (On P see below, § 34^} In the lecli- 
stemia of other religions flesh also was thus set before 
the deity ; it is not probable, however, that such was 
ever Israehie custom. Like the flesh or fat of animai 
sacrifices and the oblation of bread, wine, and oil with 
them, the loaves of ' shew bread' were 'the food of 
God ' fn-nSn onS). 

Offerings of wine in the form of libations were made 
at the sacrificial feasts (above, § 11) ; a libation of 
Hèéizr. properly any fermented drink other than wine, is 
spoken of in a late law (Nu, 28?; see below, § 35), 
but in no ancient source ; there seems Io be no reason 
why such libations should not have been made. Honey 
was excluded from the preparation of sacrificial cakes 
{Lev. 2n), in which it was much used in other cults ; ^ 
it was brought with the other choicest products of the 
land in the ceremony described in Dt. 26i^, but did 
not come upon the aitar. Milk, often offered by other 
peoples in libations,^ was not so used by the Hebrews. 

1 Libations of honey in antiquity, Theophrastus in Porphyry, 
De aisf. 2 20/? ; reasons for the prohibition in Jewish law, 
Philo, De sac>-ificantH'«s, fi 6, 2 255, Mangey, 

2 In Arabia, We. Heiii.fl), ni/: Milk in Abel's offering 
(Jos, A ni. i. 2 is a mi stran slatinn of the ambiguous cnnSO' 


That independent libations of oil were made is ìntrinsic- 

ally not improbable, though noi conclusively established 

by reference to Gen. 28 18 Judg. 89 Mie. 67. (See Now. 

//.-i2ao8; cp below, § 31 il. ) 

Sacrifices were generally offered at home ; every 

viilage had its aitar {rni&bé^ìi, slaughter place), where 

_ the victims were slain and feasts held ; 

• "«^^•'f'^ thither the firsllings and other obli- 
anu occasions. ^^ ■ . . . 

gatory offerings were brought (see 

High Place, § 4). There were more famous holy 
places to which men resorted in numbers, especiaily 
a t the autunin festival (see Feasts, § 4.). The 
limes of sacrifice were in part fixed by custom, in 
part dependent on the occasion or on the will of the 
worshipper. To the former class belong the Passover 
at the vernai full moon (see above, §§ ^ff.). and the 
agricultural season feasts at the beginning and end of 
the grain harvest, and at the dose of the vintage (see 
Fe.aSTS).^ At the last three custom required every man 
IO ' see the face of Yahwè,' with an offering (Ex. 
2817). The new moon was a favourite lime for feasts : 
Saul expects ali his court to be prcsent on such an 
occasion (1S.2O4/., cp 1834^^); the annua! sacri- 
fi.ce of David's clan al Bethiehem is held on a new moon 
( i S. 2O5/ 29). See New Moon. The Sabbath, appar- 
ently in a lesser degree, enjoyed the same preferente. 
When a regalar cultus became established at the greater 
sanctuaries, more numerous viclims were offered on 
these days (see below, § 33). The specific occasions 
of sacrifice were manifold — the circunicision or wean- 
ing of a son, marriage, the coming of a traveller, the 
making of a compact, consultation of an oracle, the 
mustering of a clan for war or the return from a 
campaign, the accession of a king, the dedication of 
a tempie, the staying of a piagne. Many sacrifices 
were offered in fulfilment of vows for the obtaining 
of the mosl varìed ohjects of human desire. Men 
sacrificed alike when they rejoiced in the evidence of 
Vahwè's favour, when they besought his hounty or 
his hdp, and when they had need to propiliate the 
offended God. Many kinds of uncleanness required 
puritìcation by sacrifice. 

The companies of worshippers for whom and by 
whom sacrifices were brought originaliy corresponded 

le. Worshippers. *^ "^^ .fT', &'°"P:"g% ^^^ . "^l 
^^ people. the family or clan for itself 

{e.g.. iS. 206), the viilage community at its own high 

place [e.g. , 1 S. 9 12). Even at the greater holy places, 

which were frequented at the festival scaso ns by 

multìtudes from different tribes, these groups preserved 

Iheir idenlity. Deuteronomy assumes that this will Ije 

the case at Jerusalem when ali bring their sacrifices 

thither ; and in the Passover the ' household,' even 

when casually constituled, continued to the last, and, 

iiideed, stili conlinues, to be a distinct sacrai group ; 

the great mass of worshippers did not become otte wor- 

shipping community, but remaìned many companies. 

The only body of worshippers in ancient times in which 

the naturai groups are sunk is the army in lime of war. 

How far the persistence of the famiiy as a society of 

worship in the national religton is to be attributed to 

the Eurvival of proper family cults, the worship of 

ancestors, it does not fall within the province of this 

artici e to discuss.^ 

The worshippers prepared themselves for participa- 

tion in the sacrifice as ' holy ' by ' hallowing themselves ' 

{hithkaddèS. 18,165 Nu.lliS, cp Ex.191014). An 

obligatory part of this ' hallowing ' on solemn occasions 

was abstinence for a lime previous to the appearance 

at the sacred place from sexual intercourse (cp i S. 

21s/ Ex. 1915);^ other preparatory ceremonies were 

piirifications, ablutions, the washing of garments. Men 

put on festal atlire, garments and ornaments not of 

1 Sheep- shearing was also a lime for feasting, i S. 25 7. 

2 See Famiiy, S 2; Sia. Gy/lìQoj: 

a See WRS Rei. Sem.(i), 454^. 



everydav wear (Ex. 822 Ila/! 1235/. Hos.2i3[is] 

For the ordinary sacrifice {zébah) the assistance of a 
priest was utinecessary ; the rites were simple and known 
1 7 Pri t 2 ^*^ ^- '^^^ older hislorical books 
abound in instances of sacrifices by 
laymen of ali ranks ; the father offered sacrifice for his 
household, the 'elders' for the clan or the village com- 
munity, the comniander for the army, the king for the 
people. The offerer slew and fiayed his own victim- — 
as, indeed, continued to he the rule to the latesc period ; 
doubtiess he also in early tinies poured the blood upon 
the sacred sto ne or aitar, after wards a specifically 
priestly act. At the holy places which had a resident 
priesthood— often proprietary — -the priests burnì the fat 
upon the aitar; for this service they look toll (i S. 
2 13^). The customary right of the priests may have 
differed at different places, as it certainly changed in 
course of lime (cp i S. 213^ Dt. I83 Lev. 734).^ The 
priests participated also by guest-right in the sacrificial 
feasts. The most important functions of the priesthood 
were not, however. direction or assistance at sacrifices, 
but the custody of the sanctuary, the consultation of the 
oracle, and instruction concerning purifications, piacular 
rites, and the like. 

The sacrificial worship of ancient Israel had a pre- 

vailingly joyous character ; to eat and drink and rejoice 

ia n>. t bifore Yahwè (Dt. ) is a descrìption of 
1». i^naraccer -j. ^-^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^j^^ 

01 worsnip. kingdom. The stated feasts in harvest- 
time and vintage, the new moon and sabbath, were 
ali seasons of rejoicing ; and the occasìons of public 
and private sacrifice at other tiines (see above, § 15) 
were, in general, of a joyfiil nature. The banquet 
was accompanied by music and song (Am. 523, cp 65), 
not always of wh