Skip to main content

Full text of "A Dictionary of the Bible : comprising its antiquities, biography, geography, and natural history"

See other formats

>/i v,vW 1 . 

\ V-AI '/>M 


! ^ C'AT O* 

I MAMruu, 1 

\ Wl CP 

1 irVWt~\l I 

\ v< on 

| /\ClvV 1 


\ ittr&wiil 
1 VM onn ) 

1 %ovs/o 


1 nr'vx.Pi 

\ nirrAOH ) 

1 ^^^ c- 

, ,rw\\t i 

1 f w \ 

-' ' o>> T 

1 v N rvrr w 

' '.''lllJ 


mm . x . 

- \ : 



ft 5*1 












The rigid of Trrtr,. rved. 

< 1 



Plate I., Specimen of Uncial MSS. to be placed between pages 1710 and 1711. 

Plato II., Specimens of British and Irish MSS. to be placed between pages 
1712 and 1713. 




H. A. Very Eev. HENRY ALFORD, D.D., 

Dean of Canterbury. 


Warden of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury ; late Fellow 
of St. John's College, Cambridge. 


Kelso, N. B. ; Author of 'The Land of Promise/ 

[The geographical articles, signed H. B., are written by Dr. Bonar: those on other subjects, 
signed H. B., are written by Mr. Bailey.] 


Principal of Cheltenham College ; late Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. 

Vicar of Hay, Brecknockshire. 


Canon of Canterbury ; Vicar of Ware ; late Fellow and Tutor 
of Trinity College, Cambridge. 


Vice-Principal of King William's College, Isle of Man ; late 
Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 


Archdeacon of Bath ; Canon of Wells ; Eector of Weston- 
super-Mare ; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Bath 
and W r ells , Chaplain to Her Majesty's Forces. 


Norrisian Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Exeter. 


Assistant Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the 
Gospel in Foreign Parts. 


Vicar of Bredwardine with Brobury, Herefordshire. 

F. C. C. Eev. F. C. COOK, M.A., 

Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen ; one of Her Majesty's 
Inspectors of Schools ; Preacher to the Hon. Society of 
Lincoln's Inn ; Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of 


Lord Bishop of Calcutta and Metropolitan of India. 


Eector of Christ Church, Marylebone ; late Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. 





British Museum. 

G. E. D. Eev. G. E. DAY, D.D., 

Lane Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio. 


Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen ; Hon. Canon of Worcester; 
Eural Dean ; Vicar of Holy Trinity, Coventry 


Prebendary of Salisbury; Principal of the Theological 
College, Salisbury. 

Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 


Assistant Master of Harrow School ; late Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. 


Fellow of the Eoyal Institute of British Architects. 


late Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford. 

Lord Bishop of Killaloe. 


Subdean of Her Majesty's Chapels Eoyal. 


late Hebrew Examiner in the University of London. 


Crystal Palace, Sydenham. 

H. B. H. Eev. H. B. HACKETT D.D., 

Professor of Biblical Literature, Newton, Massachusetts. 

Prebendary of St. Paul's ; Secretary of the Society for the 
Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 


Head Master of the Grammar School, Cheltenham ; late 
Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford. 

A. C. H. Ven. Lord ARTHUR C. HERVEY, M.A., 

Archdeacon of Sudbury, and Eector of Ickworth. 

Head Master of Merchant Taylors' School ; Preacher to the 
Hon. Society of Gray's Inn ; Prebendary of St. Paul's ; 
Bampton Lecturer for 1860. 

Eoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 




Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford ; Principal of Bishoi3 
Cosin's Hall ; Tutor in the University of Durham. 


Eector of Preston on the Weald Moors, Salop. 

Principal of the Collegiate Institution, Liverpool ; Hulsean 
Lecturer for 1863. 


Subdean of Wells. 

Prebendary of York and of St. David's; late Fellow and 

Tutor of University College, Oxford ; Examining 

Chaplain to the Archbishop of York. 



Hebrew Lecturer in King's College, London. 

Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Fellow dl 
Trinity College, Cambridge; Examining Chaplain to 
the Bishop of London. 

D. W. M. Eev. D. W. MARKS, 

Professor of Hebrew in University College, London. 


One of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools ; late Fellow 
and Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford. 

Oppert. Professor OPPERT, of Paris. 


Fellow and Tutor of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury. 

Archdeacon of Suffolk; late Fellow of Brasenose College, 


Vice-Principal of St. David's College, Lampeter ; Examining 
Chaplain to the Bishop of Norwich. 


Fellow and Tutor of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge ; 
Chaplain to the Bishop of Xorwich. 


Eector of Staunton-on-Wye, Herefordshire; Eural Dean; 
late Student of Christ Church, Oxford. 


Professor of Divinity in King's College, London ; Examining 
Chaplain to the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 

South Kensington Museum. 




British Museum. 

J. L. P. Rev. J. L. PORTER, M.A., 

Author of ' Handbook of Syria and Palestine/ and * Five 
Years in Damascus.' 


Hon. Secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society; late 
Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. 


Camden Professor of Ancient History, Oxford; Bampton 
Lecturer for 1859. 


Rural Dean, and Rector of Houghton Conquest, Bedfordshire. 


Chaplain in Ordinary to the Queen ; Lady Margaret's Pro 
fessor of Divinity, Cambridge ; Canon of Ely. 


Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, and Canon of 
Christ Church, Oxford; Deputy Clerk of the Closet; 
Chaplain to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales ; 
Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London. 

C. E. S. Rev. CALVIN E. STOWE, D.D., 

Professor of Sacred Literature, Andover, Massachusetts. 

J. P. T. Rev. J. P. THOMPSON, D.D., 
New York. 

Lord Archbishop of York, 


Author of ' An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek 
New Testament.' 

H. B. T. Rev. H. B. TRISTRAM, M.A., F.L.S., 

Master of Greatharn Hospital. 

Vicar of Barrington ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Camb. 

Late Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. 

Bonchurch, Isle of Wight. 

B. F. W. Rev. BROOKE Foss WESTCOTT, M. A., 

Assistant Master of Harrow School ; late Fellow of Trinity 
College, Cambridge. 


Canon of Westminster. 

Librarian of Trinity College, Cambridge ; Hebrew Examiner 
in the University of London. 




RED SEA. The sea known to us as the Red 

Sea was by the Israelites called " the sea" (D*n, 
Ex. xiv. 2, 9, 16, 21, 28; xv. 1, 4, 8, 10, 19; 
Josh. xxiv. 6, 7 ; and many other passages) ; and 
specially " the sea of suph" (f|-1D"D_V Ex. x. 19 ; 
xiii. 18; xv. 4, 22; xxiii. 31 ; Num. xiv. 25; xxi. 
4 ; xxxiii. 10, 11 ; Deut. i. 40 ; xi. 4 ; Josh. ii. 10 ; 
iv. 23; xxiv. 6; Judg. xi. 16; 1 K. ix. 26; Neh. 
ix. 9 ; Ps. cvi. 7, 9, 22 ; cxxxvi. 13, 15 ; Jer. xlix. 
21 ). It is also perhaps written JIB-ID (Zco6fi, LXX.) 
in Num. xxi. 14, rendered " Red Sea" in A. V. ; 
and in like manner, in Deut. i. 1, fj-ID, without 
D\ The LXX. always render it T\ tpvQpb. 6d\aarffa 
(e'xcept in Judg. xi. 16, where P]-1D, 214>, is pre 
served). So too in N. T. (Acts vii. 36 ; Heb. xi. 29) ; 
and this name is found in 1 Mace. iv. 9. By the 
classical geographers this appellation, like its Latin 
equivalent Mare Eubrum or M. Erythraeum, was 
extended to all the seas washing the shores of the 
Arabian peninsula, and even the Indian Ocean : the 
Red Sea itself, or Arabian Gulf, was 6 *Apd0ios 
K6\iros, or 'ApajStKbs K., or Siniis Arabicus, and 
its eastern branch, or the Gulf of the 'Akabeh, 
Ai\aj/iT7js, "EXavirrjs, 'EAai/mKOS, ic6\Tros, Sinus 
Aelanites, or S. Aelaniticus. The Gulf of Suez 
was specially the Heroopolite Gulf, 'Hp(aotro\ir-ns 
K6\iros, Sinus Herodpolites, or S. Herodpoliticus. 
Among the peoples of the East, the Red Sea has for 
many centuries lost its old names : it is now called 
generally by the Arabs, as it was in mediaeval times, 
Bahr El-Kulzum, " the sea of El-Kulzum," after the 
ancient Clysma, " the sea-beach," the site of which 
is near, or at, the modern Suez.* In the Kur-an, 
part of its old name is preserved, the rare Arabic 
word yamm being used in the account of the passage 


of the Red Sea (see also foot note to p. 1012, infra 
and El-Beydawee's Comment, on the Kur-dn, .vii, 
132, p. 341 ; and xx. 81, p. 602)> 

9 7 

Of the names of this sea (1.) D* (Syr. LXLt and 

the latter generally "a lake;" Hierog. 

YUM A; Copt. IOJUL; Arabic, 


" the sea," or any sea. It is also applied to the 
Nile (exactly as the Arabic bahr is so applied) in 
Nah. iii. 8, " Art thou better than populous No, 
that was situate among the rivers (yeortm), [that 
had] the waters round about it, whose rampart 
[was] the sea (yam}, and her wall was from the 
sea (yarn) ? A 

(2.) P)-1D"D^ ; in the Coptic version, cbjOJUL 
CIJ,pI. The meaning of suph, and the reason 
of its being applied to this sea, have given rise to 
much learned controversy. Gesenius renders it rush. 
dj sea-weed. It is mentioned in the 0. T. almost 
always in connexion with the sea of the Exodus. 
It also occurs in the narrative of the exposure of 
Moses in the 1&*, (yeor} ; for he was laid in suph, 
on the brink of the yeor (Ex. ii. 3), where (in the 
suph} he was found by Pharaoh's daughter (5) ; and 
in the " burden of Egypt " (Is. xix.), with the dry 
ing up of the waters of Egypt : " And the waters 
shall fail from the sea (yam), and the river (ndhdr} 
shall be wasted and dried up. And they shall turn 
the rivers (ndhdr, constr. pi.) far away ; [and] the 
brooks (yeor} of defence (or of Egypt ?) shall be 
emptied and dried up : the reeds and flags (suph) 
shall wither. The paper reeds e by the brooks (yeor), 
by the mouth of the brooks (yeor}, and everything 

Or, as some Arab authors say, the sea is so named 
from the drowning of Pharaoh's host ; Kulzum being a 

derivative of 


this signification : or, accord 

ng to others, from its being hemmed in by mountains, 
from the same root (El-Makreezee's Khitat, descr. of the 

b Its general name is " the Sea of El-Kulzum ;" but in 
different parts it is also called after the nearest coast, as 
" the sea of the Hijiiz," &c. (Y&koot, in the Moajam). 

e Yamm signifies a bahr of which the bottom is not 
reached. Bahr applies to a " sea" or a " great river." 

d Gesenius adds Is. xlx. 5, quoted below ; but it is not 
easy to see why this should be the Nile (except from pre 
conceived notions), instead of the ancient extension of the 
Red Sea. He allows the " tongue of the Egyptian sea 
(yam}" in Is. xi. ]5, where the river [Nile] is ndhdr. 

e Heb. ni"lJJ, rendered by the LXX. a^i, ax, tLo 
Greek being derived from 'IIIK, an Egyptian word de 
noting "marsh-grass, reeds, bulrushes, and any verdure 
growing in a marsh." Gesenius renders rnjf, pi. ni"iy, 
" a naked or bare place, t. e. destitute of trees . . . . ; here 
used of the yraasy places on the banks of the Nilo : bui 

3 T 



sown by the brooks (yeor) shall wither, be driven 
away, and be no [more]. The fishers also shall 
mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks 
j/eor) shall lament, and they that spread nets upon 
the waters shall languish. Moreover they that work 
in fine flax, and they that weave net works (white 
linen ?) shall be confounded. And they shall be 
broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices 
[and] ponds for fish'* (xix. 5-10). Suph only occurs 
in one place besides, those already referred to : in 
Jon. ii. 5 it is written, " The waters compassed me 
aJiout, [even] to the soul ; the depth closed me 
round about, the weeds (stiph) were wrapped about 
my head." With this single exception, which shows 
that this product was also found in the Mediter 
ranean, suph is Egyptian, either in the Red Sea, or 
in the yeor, and this yeor in Ex. ii. was in the land 
of Goshen. What yeor signifies here, in Is. xix., 
and generally, we shall examine presently. But 
first of suph. 

The signification of ?j-1D, suph, must be gathered 
fiom the foregoing passages. In Arabic, the word, 
with this signification (which commonly is " wool "), 
is found only in one passage in a rare lexicon (the 
Mohkam MS.). The author says, " Soof-el-bahr 
(the soof of the sea) is like the wool of sheep. 
And the Arabs have a proverb : * I will come to thee 
when the sea ceases to wet the soof,' " i. e. never. 
The f|-1D of the D*, it seems quite certain, is a sea 
weed resembling wool. Such sea-weed is thrown up 
abundantly on the shores of the Red Sea. Fiirst 
says, s. v. P|-1D, " Ab Aethiopibus herba quaedam 
supho appellabatur, quae in profundo maris rubri 
crescit, quae rubra est, rubrumque colorem continet, 
pannis tingendis in?ervientem, teste Hieronymo de 
qualitate mans rubri " (p. 47, &c.). Diodorus (iii. 
c. 19), Artemidorus (ap. Strabo, p. 770), and Aga- 
tharchides (ed. Miiller, p. 136-7), speak of the weed 
of the Arabian Gulf. Ehrenberg (in Winer) enu 
merates Fucus latifolius on the shores of this sea, 
and at Suez Fucus crispus, F. trinodis, F. turbinatus, 
F. papillosus, F. diaphanus, &c., and the specially 
red weed Trichodesmium erythraeum. The Coptic 
version renders suph by shari (see above), supposed 
to be the hieroglyphic " SHER " (sea?). If this be 
the same as the sari of Pliny (see next paragraph), 
we must conclude that shari, like suph, was both 
marine and fluvial. The passage in Jonah proves it 
to be a marine product ; and that it was found in the 
Red Sea, the numerous passages in which that sea 
is called the sea of suph leave no doubt. 

But t]-1D may have been also applied to any sub 
stance resembling wool, produced by a fluvial rusk, 
Mich as the papyrus, and hence by a synecdoche to 

such rush itself. Golius says, s. v. 

> on the 

authority of Ibn-Maaroof (after explaining 

by "papyrus herba"), "Hinc <.ij^, Jai* [the 

cotton of the papyrus] gossipium papyri, quod lanae 
simile ex thyrso colligitur, et permixtum calci efficit 
tenacissimum caementi genus." This is curious ; 
and it may also be observed that the papyrus, which 
included more than one kind of cyperus, grew in 
he marshes, and in lands on which about two feet 

this is unsatisfactory. Boothroyd says, " Our translators, 
after others, supposed this word to signify the papyrus ; 
hut without any jus t authority. Kimchi explains, ' Aroth 


in depth of the waters of the inundation renraineJ 
(Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians, iii. 61, 149, citing 
Pliny, xiii. 11, Strab. xvii. 550); and that this if 
agreeable to the position of the ancient head of the 
gulf, with its canals and channels for irrigation 
(yeorim?), connecting it with the Nile and with 
Lake Mareotis ; and we may suppose that in this 
and other similar districts, the papyrus was culti 
vated in the yeorim: the marshes of Egypt are 
now in the north of the Delta and are salt lands. 
As a fluvial rush, suph would be found in marsh 
lands as well as streams, and in brackish water as 
well as in sweet. It is worthy of note that a low 
marshy place near the ancient head of the gulf is to 
this day called Ghuweybet el-Boos, "the bed of 
reeds," and another place near Suez has the same 
name; traces perhaps of the great fields of reeds, 
rushes, and papyrus, which flourished here of old. 
See also PI-HAHIROTH, " the place where sedge 
grows" (?). Fresnel (Dissertation sur le schari 
des E'gyptiens et le souf des Hebreux, Journ. 
Asiat. 4* serie, xi. pp. 274, &c.) enumerates some 
of the reeds found in Egypt. There is no sound 
reason for identifying any one of these with suph. 
Fresnel, in this curious paper, endeavours to prove 
that the Coptic " shari " (in the yam shari) was the 
Arundo Aegyptiaca of Desfontaines (in modern 
Arabic boos Fdrisee, or Persian cane) : but there 
appear to be no special grounds for selecting this 
variety for identification with the fluvial shari ; 
and we must entirely dissent from his suggestion 
that the shari of the Red Sea was the same, and 
not sea- weed : apart from the evidence which con 
troverts his arguments, they are in themselves quite 
inconclusive. Sir Gardner Wilkinson's catalogue of 
reeds, &c., is fuller than Fresnel' s, and he suggests 
the Cyperus Dives or fastigiatus (Arabic, Dees} to 
be the sari of Pliny. The latter says, " Fructicosi 
est genus sari, circa Nilum nascens, duorum fere 
cubitoram altitudine, pollicari crassitudine, coma 
papyri, simileque manditur modo" (N. H. xiii. 23, 
see also Theophr. iv. 9). 

The occurrence of suph in the yeor (Ex. ii., Isa. 
xix.) in the land of Goshen (Ex. ii.), brings us to a 
consideration of the meaning of the latter, which in 
other respects is closely connected with the subject 
of this article. 

(3.) "ifcj (Hierog. ATUR, AUR ; Copt. 
IA.pOj I<Lp(JU, Memphitic dialect, 
Sahidic), signifies " a river." It seems to apply to 
" a great river," or the like, and also to " an arm of 
the sea;" and perhaps to " a sea" absolutely; like the 
Arabic bahr. Ges. says it is almost exclusively used 
of the Nile ; but the passages in which it occurs do 
not necessarily bear out this conclusion. By far the 
greater number refer to the sojourn in Egypt : these 
are Gen. xli. 1, 2, 3, 17, 18, Pharaoh's dream ; Ex. i. 
22, the exposure of the male children ; Ex. ii. 3, 5, 
the exposure of Moses; Ex. vii. 15 seqq., and xvii. 
5, Moses before Pharaoh and the plague of blood ; 
and Ex. viii. 5, 7, the plague of frogs. The next 
most important instance is the prophecy of Isaiah, 
already quoted in full. Then, that of Amos (viiL 
8, comp. ix. 5), where the land shall rise up wholly 
as a flood (yeor] ; and shall be cast out and drowned 
as [by] the flood (yeor) of Egypt. The great pro 
phecy of Ezekiel against Pharaoh and against all 

est nomen appellativum olerum et herbarum virentjum. 
Hence we may render, ' TLe marchy [sic] medowe [sic] ' 
the mouth of the river,' &c. 


Kgypt, where Pharaoh is " the great dragon that 
lieth in the midst of his rivers (VIS?), which hath 
said, My river CHN?) is mine own^ and I have made 
[it] for myself" (xxix. 3), uses the pi. throughout, 
with the above exception and verse 9, " because he 
hath said, The river ("|fc*) [is] mine, and I have 
made it ;" it cannot be supposed that Pharaoh would 
have said of the Nile that he had made it, and the 
passago seems to refer to a great canal. As Ezekiel 
was contemporary with Pharaoh Necho, may he 
not here have referred to the re-excavation of the 
canal of the Red Sea by that Pharaoh ? That canal 
may have at least received the name of the canal of 
Pharaoh, just as the same canal when re-excavated 
for the last time was "the canal of the Prince 
of the Faithful," and continued to be so called. 
Year occurs elsewhere only in Jer. xlvi. 7, 8, 
in the prophecy against Necho; in Isa. xxiii. 10, 
where its application is doubtful ; and in Dan. xii. 
5, 6, where it is held to be the Euphrates, but may 
be the great canal of Babylon. The pi. yeorim, 
seems to be often used interchangeably with yeor 
(as in Ez. xxix., and Nah. iii. 8) ; it is used for 
" rivers," or " channels of water ;" and, while it is 
not restricted to Egypt, especially of those of the 

From a comparison of all the passages in which 
it. occurs there appears to be no conclusive rea 
son for supposing that yeor applies generally, if 
ever, to the Nile. In the passages relating to the 
exposure of Moses it appears to apply to the ancient 
extension of the Red Sea towards Tanis (ZOAN, 
Avaris), or to the ancient canal (see below) through 
which the water of the Nile passed to the " tongue 
of the Egyptian sea." The water was potable (Ex. 
vii. 18), but so is that of the Lake of the Feiyoom to 
its own fishermen, though generally very brackish : 
and the canal must have received water from the 
Nile during every inundation, and then must 
have been sweet. During the height of the inun 
dation, the sweet water would flow into the Red 
Sea. The passage of the canal was regulated by 
sluices, which excluded the waters of the Red Sea 
and sweetened by the water of the canal the salt 
lakes. Strabo (xvii. 1, 25) says that they were 
thus rendered sweet, and in his time contained good 
fish and abounded with water fowl : the position of 
these lakes is more conveniently discussed in an 
other part of this article, on the ancient geography 
of the head of the gulf. It must not be forgotten 
that the Pharaoh of Moses was of a dynasty residing 
at Tanis, and that the extension of the Red Sea, 
" the tongue of the Egyptian Sea." stretched in 
ancient times into the borders of the land of Goshen, 
about 50 miles north of its present head, and half 
way towards Tanis. There is abundant proof of 
the former cultivation of this country, which must 
have been effected by the canal from the Nile just 



S The Mohammadan account of the exposure of Moses 
is curious. Moses, we read, was laid in the yamm (which 
is explained to be the Nile, though that river is not else 
where so called), and the ark was carried by the current 
along a canal or small river (nahr), to a lake, at the further 
end of which was Pharaoh's pavilion (El-Beydawee's Com- 
m&nt. on the Kur-dn, xx. 39, p. 595, and Ez-Zamakhsheree's 
Comment., entitled the Keshshdf). While we place no 
dependance on Mohammadan relations of Biblical events, 
there may be here a glimmer of truth. 

h Reland (Diss. Miscell. i. 87, &c.) is pleasantly severe 
oa the story of king Erythras ; but, with all his rare learn 
ing, he was Ignorant of Arab history, which is here ot cue 

mentioned, and by numerous canals and ditumels 
for irrigation, the yeorim, so often mentioned with 
the yeor. There appears to be no difficulty in 
Isa. xix. 6 (comp. xi. 15), for, if the Red Sea be 
came closed at Suez or thereabout, the siiph left 
on the beaches of the yeor must have dried up ant 1 
rotted. The ancient beaches in the tract here 
spoken of, which demonstrate successive elevations, 
are well known.s 

(4.) T) fpvOpa OdXaarcra. The origin of this ap 
pellation has been the source of more speculation 
even than the obscure suph ; for it lies more withir 
the range of general scholarship. The theories ad 
vanced to account for it have been often puerile, and 
generally unworthy of acceptance. Their authors 
may be divided into two schools. The first have 
ascribed it to some natural phenomenon ; such as 
the singularly red appearance of the mountains of 
the western coast, looking as if they were sprinkled 
with Havannah or Brazil snuff, or brick-dust (Bruce), 
or of which the redness was reflected in the waters 
of the sea (Gosselin, ii. 78-84) ; the red colour of the 
water sometimes caused by the presence of zoophytes 
(Salt ; Ehrenberg) ; the red coral of the sea ; the red 
sea-weed ; and the red storks that have been seen 
in great numbers, &c. Reland (De Mare Rubro, 
Diss. Miscell. i. pp. 59-117) argues that the epithet 
red was applied to this and the neighbouring seas on 
account of their tropical heat ; as indeed was said 
by Artemidorus (ap. Strabo, xvi. 4, 20), that the 
sea was called red because of the reflexion of the sun. 
The second have endeavoured to find an etymological 
derivation. Of these the earliest (European) writei s 
proposed a derivation from Edom, " red," by the 
Greeks translated literally. Among them were N. 
Fuller (Miscell. Sacr. iv. c. 20) ; before him, Sca- 
liger, in his notes to Festus ; voce Aegyptinos, ed. 
1574; and still earlier Gen ebrard, Comment, ad Ps. 
106 ; I'.ochart (P/taleg, iv. c. 34) adopted this theory 
(see Reland, Diss. Miscell. i. 85, ed. 1706). The 
Greeks and Romans tell us that the sea received its 
name from a great king, Erythras, who reigned in 
the adjacent country (Strab. xvi. p. 4, 20 ; Pliny, 
N.'H. vi. cap. 23, 28 ; Agatharch. i. 5 ; Philostr. 
iii."15, and others): 11 the stories that have come 
down to us appear to be distortions of the tradition 
that Himyer was the name of apparently the chief 
family of Arabia Felix, the great South-Arabian 
kingdom, whence the Himyerites, and Homeritae. 
Himyer appeal's to be derived from the Arabic 
" ahmar," red (Himyer was so called because of the 
red colour of his clothing, En-Nuweyree in Caussin, 
i. 54) : " aafar " also signifies " red," and is the 
root of the names of several places in the penin 
sula so called on account of their reiness (see 
Mardsid, p. 263, &c.) ; this may point to Ophir: 
$oii/i is red, and the Phoenicians came from the 
Erythraean Sea (Herod, vii. 89). We can. scarcely 
doubt, on these etymological grounds, 1 the con- 

utmost value, and of the various proofs of a connexion 
between this Erythras and Himyer, and the Phoenicians 
In language, race, and religion. Besides, Reland had a 
theory of his own to support. 

1 If we concede the derivation, it cannot be neld that 
the Greeks mistranslated tne name of Himyer. (See 
Reland, Diss. Miscell. i. 101.") It is worthy of mention 
that the Arabs often call themselves " the red men," as 
distinguished from the black or negro, and the yellow or 
Turanian, races: though they call themselves " the black," 
as distinguished from the more northern races, whom they 
term " the red ; " as this epithet is used by them, whro 
thus applied, as meaning both " red " and " white." 

3 T 2 



flexion between the Phoenicians and the Himyerites 
or that in this is the true origin of the appdlatior 
of the Red Sea. But when the ethnological side of 
the question is considered, the evidence is mucl 
strengthened. The South- Arabian kingdom was { 
Joktanite (or Shemite) nation mixed with a Cushite 
This admixture of races produced two results (as 
in the somewhat similar cases of Egypt, Assyria.. 
&c.) : a genius for massive architecture, and rare 
seafaring ability. The Southern Arabians carried 
on all the commerce of Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia, 
with India, until shortly before our own era. It is 
unnecessary to insist on this Phoenician character 
istic, nor on that which made Solomon call for the 
assistance of Hiram to build the Temple of Jeru 
salem. The Philistine, and early Cretan and Carian, 
colonists may have been connected with the South- 
Arabian race. If the Assyrian school would trace 
the Phoenicians to a Chaldaean or an Assyrian 
origin, it might be replied that the Cushites, whence 
came Nimrod, passed along the south coast of 
Arabia, and that Berosus (in Cory, 2nd ed. p. 60) 
tells of an early Arab domination of Chaldaea, before 
the Assyrian dynasty, a story also preserved by the 
Arabian historians (El-Mes'oodee, Golden Meadows, 
MS.). The Red Sea, therefore, was most probably 
the Sea of the Red men. It adds a link to the 
curious chain of emigration of the Phoenicians from 
the Yemen to Syria, Tyre, and Sidon, the shores 
and islands of the Mediterranean, especially the 
African coasts of that sea, and to Spain and the 
far-distant northerly ports of their commerce; as 
distant, and across oceans as terrible, as those reached 
by their Himyerite brethren in the Indian and 
Chinese Seas. 

Ancient Limits. The most important change in 
the Red Sea has been the drying up of its northern 
extremity, " the tongue of the Egyptian Sea." 
The land about the head of the gulf has risen, and 
that near the Mediterranean become depressed. 
The head of the gulf has consequently retired 
gradually since the Christian era. Thus the pro 
phecy of Isaiah has been fulfilled : " And the 
Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the 
Egyptian sea" (xi. 15); "the waters shall fail 
from the sea " (xix. 5) : the tongue of the Red 
Sea has dried up for a distance of at least 50 miles 
from its ancient head, and a cultivated and well- 
peopled province has been changed into a desolate 
wilderness. An ancient canal conveyed the waters 
of the Nile to the Red Sea flowing through the 
Wadi-t-Tumeylat, and irrigating with its system of 
water-channels a large extent of country ; it also 
provided a means for conveying all the commerce 
of the Red Sea, once so important, by water to the 
Nile, avoiding the risks of the desert-journey, and 
securing water-carriage from the Red Sea to the 
Mediterranean. The drying up of the head of the 
gulf appears to have been one of the chief causes of 
the neglect and ruin of this canal. 

The country, for the distance above indicated, is 
no~y a desert of gravelly sand, with wide patches 
about the old sea-bottom, of rank marsh land, now 
called the " Bitter Lakes " (not those of Strabo). 
At the northern extremity of this salt waste, is a 
small lake sometimes called the lake of Heroopolis 
(the city after which the gulf of Suez was called 
the Heroopolite Gulf) : the lake is now Birket et- 


Timsah, " the lake of the Crocodile," and is sup 
posed to mark the ancient head of the gulf. The 
canal that connected this with the Nile was o/ 
Pharaonic origin. 1 * It was anciently known as the 
" Fossa Rcgum," and the " eanal of Hero." Pliny, 
Diodorus, mid Strabo, state that (up to their time) 
it reached only to the bitter springs (which appear 
to be not the present bitter lakes, but lakes west 
of Heroopolis), the extension being abandoned on 
account of the supposed greater height of the water* 
of the Red Sea. According to Herod, (ii. cap. 158) 
it left the Nile (the Tanitic branch, now the canal 
of El-Mo'izz) t Bubastis (Pi-beseth), and a canal 
exists at this day in this neighbourhood, which 
appears to be the ancient channel. The canal was 
four days' voyage in length, and sufficiently broad 
for two triremes to row abreast (Herod, ii. 158 ; 
or 100 cubits, Strab. xvii. 1, 26; and 100 feet, 
Pliny, vi. cap. 29, 33). The time at which the 
canal was extended, after the drying up of the 
head of the gulf, to the present head is uncertain, 
but it must have been late, and probably since the 
Mohammadan conquest. Traces of the ancient 
channel throughout its entire length to the vicinity 
of Bubastis, exist at intervals in the present day 
(Descr. de I'figypte, E. M. xi. 37-381, and v. 135- 
158, 8vo. ed.). The Amnis Trajanus (Tpa'iavos 
TTOT. pt. iv. 5, 54), now the canal of Cairo, was 
probably of Pharaonic origin ; it was at any rate re 
paired by the emperor Adrian ; and it joined the 
ancient canal of the Red Sea between Bubastis and 
Heroopolis. At the Arab conquest of Egypt, this 
was found to be closed, and was reopened by 'Amr 
by command of 'Omar, after whom it was called 
the " canal of the Prince of the Faithful." Country- 
boats sailed down it (and passed into the Red Sea to 
Yembo' see Shems-ed Deen in D&cr. de YE'gypte, 
8vo. ed., xi. 359), and the water of the Nile ran 
nto the sea at El-Kulzum ; but the former com 
merce of Egypt was not in any degree restored ; 
the canal was opened with the intention of securing 
supplies of grain from Egypt in case of famine 
n Arabia ; a feeble intercourse with the newly- 
mportant holy cities of Arabia, to provide for the 
wants of the pilgrims, was its principal use. In 
.H. 105, El-Mansoor ordered it to be rilled up (the 
Khitat, Descr. of the Canals), in order to cut off 
supplies to the Shiya'ee heretics in El-Medeeneh. 
it does not flow many miles beyond Cairo, 
but its channel is easily traceable. 

The land north of the ancient head of the gulf is 
plain of heavy sand, merging into marsh-land 
near the Mediterranean coast, and extending to Pa- 
estine. We learn from El-Makreezee that a tradi- 
ion existed of this plain having been formerly well 
ultivated with saffron, safflower, and sugar-cane, 
nd peopled throughout, from the frontier-town of 
El-'Areesh to El-'Abbaseh in Wadi-t-Tumeylat 
see EXODUS, THE, Map; The Khitat, s. v. Jifdr-, 
omp. Mardsid, ib.). Doubtless the drying up of 
he gulf with its canal in the south, and the de- 
)ression of the land in the north, have converted 
his once (if we may believe the tradition, though 
we cannot extend this fertility as far as El-'Areesh) 
lotoriously-fertile tract into a proverbially sandy 
nd parched desert. This region, including Wadi-t- 
Tumeylat, was probably the frontier land occupied 
in part by the Israelites, and open to the incursions 

k Commenced by Sesostris (Aristot. Meteor, i. 14; Strab. by Darius Hysfasj is, and by Ptol. Philadelphia. 
L arid svii.; Plin. Hist. Nat. vi. 29; Herod, ii. 158; Diod. i Encyc. Brit. art. 'Epvpt.' 
I 33) 01 by Necho II., most probably the former; continued j 



of the wild tribes of the Arabian desert; and the 
yer, as we have given good reason for believing, in 
this application, was apparently the ancient head of 
the gulf or the canal of the Red Sea, with its yerim 
or water-channels, on which Goshen and much of 
the plain north of it depended for their fertility. 

Physical Description. In extreme length, the 
Red Sea stretches from the Straits of Bab el- 
Mendeb (or rather Ras Bab el-Mendeb) in lat. 
12 40' N., to the modern head of the Gulf of 
Suez, lat. 30' N. Its greatest width may be stated 
roughly at about 200 geographical miles; this is 
about lat. 16 30', but the navigable channel is 
nere really narrower than in some other portions, 
groups of islands and rocks stretching out into the 
sea, between 30 and 40 miles from the Arabian 
coast, and 50 miles from the African coast. From 
shore to shore, its narrowest part is at Ras Benas, 
lat. 24, on the African coast, to Ras Bereedee 
opposite, a little north of Yembo', the port of El- 
Medeeneh ; and thence northwards to Ras Mo 
hammad (i. e. exclusive of the Gulfs of Suez and 
the 'Akabeh), the sea maintains about the same 
average width of 100 geographical miles. South 
wards from Ras Benas, it opens out in a broad 
reach ; contracts again to nearly the above narrow 
ness at Jeddah (correctly Juddah), lat. 21 30', 
the port of Mekkeh ; and opens to its extreme width 
south of the last named port. 

At Ras Mohammad, the Red Sea is split by the 
granitic peninsula of Sinai into two gulfs: the 
westernmost, or Gulf of Suez, is now about 130 
geographical miles in length, with an average width 
of about 18, though it contracts to less than 10 
miles: the easternmost, or Gulf of El-'Akabeh, is 
only about 90 miles long, from the Straits of 
Tiran, to the 'Akabeh [LATH], and of propor 
tionate narrowness. The navigation of the Red 
Sea and Gulf of Suez, near the shores, is very 
difficult from the abundance of shoals, coral-reefs, 
rocks, and small islands, which render the channel 
intricate, and cause strong currents often of un 
known force and direction ; but in raid-channel, 
exclusive of the Gulf of Suez, there is generally a 
width of 100 miles clear, except the Daedalus reef 
(Wellsted, ii. 300). The bottom in deep sound 
ings is in most places sand and stones, from Suez as 
far as Juddah ; and thence to the straits it is com 
monly mud. The deepest sounding in the excellent 
Admiralty chart is 1054 fathoms, in lat. 22 30'. 

Journeying southwards from Suez, on our left is 
the peninsula of Sinai [SiNAi] : on the right, is the 
desert coast of Egypt, of limestone formation like 
the greater part of the Nile valley in Egypt, the 
cliffs on the sea-margin stretching landwards in a 
great rocky plateau, while more inland a chain of 
volcanic mountains (beginning about lat. 28 4' 
and running south) rear their lofty peaks at in 
tervals above the limestone, generally about 1 5 
miles distant. Of the most important, is Gebel 
GhArib, 6000 ft. high , and as the Straits of Jubal 
are passed, the peaks of the primitive range attain a 
height of about 4500 to 6900ft., until the " Elba" 
group rises in a huge mass about lat. 22. Further 
inland is the Gebel-ed-Dukhkhan, the " porphyry 
mountain " of Ptolemy (iv. 5, 27 ; M. Claudianus, 
see Miller, Geogr. Min. Atlas vii.), 6000 ft. high, 
about 27 miles from the coast, where the porphyry 
quarries formerly supplied Rome, and where are 
some remains of the time of Trajan (Wilkinson's 
Modem Egypt mid Thebes, ii. 383) ; and besides 
these, along this desert southwards are "qaarries of 



various granites, serpentines, Breccia Verde, slates, 
and micaceous, talcose, and other schists " (id. 382 }. 
Gebel-ez-Zeyt, " the mountain of oil," close to the 
sea, abounds in petroleum (id. 385). This coast 
is especially interesting in a Biblical po.nt of view, 
:'br here were some of the earliest monasteries of 
the Eastern Church, and in those secluded and 
barren mountains lived very early Christian hermits. 
The convent of St. Anthony (of the Thebais), 
Deyr Mar Antooniyoos," and that of St. Paul, 
Deyr Mar Bolus," are of great renown, and were 
once important. They are now, like ail Eastern 
monasteries, decayed ; but that of St. Anthony 
gives, from its monks, the Patriarch of the Coptic 
church, formerly chosen from the Nitrian monas 
teries (id. 381). South of the. "Elba" chain, the 
country gradually sinks to a plain, until it rises to 
the highland of Geedan, lat. 15, and thence to 
the straits extends a chain of low mountains. The 
greater part of the African coast of the Red Sea is 
sterile, sandy, and thinly peopled; first beyond 
Suez by Bedawees chierly of the Ma'azee tribe. 
South of the Kuseyr road, are the 'Abab'deh ; and 
beyond, the Bisharees, the southern branch of 
which are called by Arab writers Beja, whose cus 
toms, language, and ethnology, demand a careful 
investigation, which would undoubtedly be repaid 
by curious results (see El-Makreezee's Khitat, Descr. 
of the Beja, and Descr. of the Desert of Eydhab ; 
Quatremere's Essays on these subjects, in his Me 
moir -es Hist, et Geogr. sur VEgypte, ii. pp. 134, 162 ; 
and The Genesis of the Earth and of Man, 2nd 
ed. p. 109) ; and then, coast-tribes of Abyssinia. 

The Gulf of El-'Akabeh (f. e. " of the Mountain- 
road") is the termination of the long valley of the 
Ghor or 'Arabah that runs northwards to the Dead 
Sea. It is itself a narrow valley ; the sides are lofty 
and precipitous mountains, of entire barrenness ; the 
bottom is a river-like sea, running nearly straight for 
its whole length of about 90 miles. The northerly 
winds rusr down this gorge with uncommon fury, 
and render its navigation extremely perilous, causing 
at the same time strong counter currents ; while 
most of the few anchorages are open to the southerly 
gales. It " has the appearance of a narrow deep 
ravine, extending nearly a hundred miles in a straight 
direction, and the circumjacent hills rise in some 
places two thousand feet perpendicularly from the 
shore" (Wellsted, ii. 108). The western shore is 
the peninsula of SINAI. The Arabian chain ol 
mountains, the continuation of the southern spurs 
of the Lebanon, skirt: the eastern coast, and rise to 
about 3500 :ft, while Gebel Teybet-'Alee near the 
Straits' is 6000 ft. There is no pasturage, and little 
fertility, except near the 'Akabeh, where are date- 
groves and other plantations, &c. In earlier days, 
this last-named place was (it is said) famous for its 
fertility. The Island of Graia, Jezeeret Fara'oon, 
once fortified and held by the Crusaders, is near its 
northern extremity, on the Sinaitic side. The sea, 
from its dangers, and sterile shores, is entirely des 
titute of teats. 

The Arabian coast outside the Gulf of the 'Akabeh 
is skirted by the range of Arabian mountains, which 
in some few places approach the sea, but generally 
leave a belt of coast country, called Tihameh, or 
the Ghor, like the Sheelah of Palestine. This tract 
is, generally a sandy parched plain, thinly inhabited ; 
these characteristics being especially strong in the 
north. (Niebuhr, Descr. 305; Wellsted.) The 
mountains of the Hejaz consist of ridges running pa 
rallel towards the interior, and increasing in heio-M as 



they recede (Wellsted, ii. 242). Burckhardt remarks 
that the descent on the eastern side of these moun 
tains, like the Lebanon and the whole Syrian range 
t-ast of the Dead Sea, is much less than that on the 
western ; and that the peaks seen from the east, or 
land side, appear mere hills (Arabia, 321 seq.). In 
clear weather they are visible at a distance of 40 to 
70 miles (Wellsted, ii. 242). The distant ranges 
have a rugged pointed outline, and are granitic ; at 
Wejh, with horizontal veins of quartz ; nearer the 
sea many of the hills are fossiliferous limestone, 
while the beach hills " consist of light-coloured 
sandstone, fronted by and containing large quan 
tities of shells and masses of coral" (Wellsted, ii. 
243). Coral also " enters largely into the compo 
sition of some of the most elevated hills." The 
more remarkable mountains are Jebel 'Eyn-Unna (or 
'Eynuwunna, Mardsid, s. v. 'Eyn, "Ovvri of Ptol.), 
6090 ft. high near the Straits ; a little further south, 
and close to Mo'eyleh, are mountains rising from 
6330 to 7700 ft., of which Wellsted says, "The 
coast ... is low, gradually ascending with a mode 
rate elevation to the distance of six or seven miles, 
when it rises abruptly to hills of great height, those 
near Mowilahh terminating in sharp and singularly- 
shaped peaks . . . Mr. Irwin [1777] . . . has styled 
them Bullock's Horns. To me the whole group 
seemed to bear a great resemblance to representations 
which I have seen of enormous icebergs" (ii. 176; 
see also the Admiralty Chart, and Miiller's Geogr. 
Jfm.). A little north of Yembo' is a remarkable 
group, the pyramidal mountains of Agatharchides ; 
and beyond, about 25 miles distant rises J. Radwa. 
Further south, J. Subh is remarkable for its 
magnitude and elevation, which is greater than 
any other between Yembo' and Jiddah ; and still 
further, but about 80 miles distant from the coast, 
J. Ras el- Kura rises behind the Holy city, Mekkeh. 
It is of this mountain that Burckhardt writes so 
enthusiastically how rarely is he enthusiastic 
contrasting its verdure and cool breezes with the 
sandy waste of Tihameh ( Arabia, 65 seqq.}. The 
chain continues the whole length of the sea, termi 
nating in the highlands of the Yemen. The Arabian 
mountains are generally fertile, agreeably different 
from the parched plains below, and their own bare 
granite peaks above. The highlands and mountain 
summits of the Yemen, " Arabia the Happy," the 
Jebel as distinguished from the plain, are preci 
pitous, lofty, and fertile (Niebuhr, Descr. 161) ; 
with many towns and villages in their valleys and 
on their sides. The coast-line itself, or Tihameh, 
" north of Yembo', is of moderate elevation, varying 
from 50 to 100 feet, with no beach. To the 
southward [to Juddah] it is more sandy and less 
elevated: the inlets and harbours of the former 
tract may be styled coves; in the latter they are 
lagoons" (Wellsted, ii. 244). The coral of -the Red 
Sea is remarkably abundant, and beautifully co 
loured and variegated. It is often red, but the more 
common kind is white ; and of hewn blocks of this, 
many of the Arabian towns are built. 

The earliest navigation of the Red Sea (passing 
by the pre-historical Phoenicians) is mentioned by 
Herodotus. " Sesostris (Rameses II.) was the first 
who, passing the Arabian Gulf in a fleet of long 
vessels, reduced under his authority the inhabitants 
of the coast bordering the Erythraean Sea ; pro 
ceeding still further, he came to a sea which, 
from the great number of its shoals, was not navi 
gable;" and after another war against Ethiopia he 
tot up a stela on the promontory of Dira, near 


the straits of the Arabian Gulf. Thiee centuries 
later, Solomon's navy was built " in Eziongeber 
which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea 
(Yam Suph), in the land of Edom " (1 K. ix. 26> 
In the description of the Gulf cf El-'Akabeh. 
it will be seen that this narrow sea is almost 
without any safe anchorage, except at the island 
of Graia near the 'Akabeh, and about 50 miles 
southward, the harbour of Edh-Dhahab. It iy 
possible that the sea has retired here as at Suez, 
and that Eziongeber is now dry land. [See EZION- 
GEBER ; ELATH.] Solomon's navy was evidently 
constructed by Phoenician workmen of Hiram, for 
he " sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that 
had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of 
Solomon." This was the navy that sailed to Ophir. 
We may conclude that it was necessary to transport 
wood as well as men to build and man these ships 
on the shores of the Gulf of the 'Akabeh, which 
from their natural formation cannot be supposed to 
have much altered, and which were besides part oi 
the wilderness of the wandering ; and the Edomites 
were pastoral Arabs, unlike the seafaring Himyerites. 
Jehoshaphat also " made ships of Tharshish to go 
to Ophir for gold : but they went not, for the ships 
were broken at Eziongeber" (1 K. xxii. 48). The 
scene of this wreck has been supposed to be Edh- 
Dhahab, where is a reef of rocks like a " giant's 
backbone" ( = Eziongeber) (Wellsted, ii. 153), and 
this may strengthen an identification with that 
place. These ships of Jehoshaphat were manned by 
" his servants," who from their ignorance of the sea 
may have caused the wreck. Pharaoh-Necho con 
structed a number of ships in the Arabian gulf,, 
and the remains of his works existed in the time oi 
Herodotus (ii. 159), who also tells us that these 
ships were manned by Phoenician sailors. 

The fashion of the ancient ships of the Red Sen, 
or of the Phoenician ships of Solomon, is unknown. 
From Pliny we learn that the ships were of papyrus 
and like the boats of the Nile ; and this statement 
was no doubt in some measure correct. But the 
coasting craft must have been very different from 
those employed in the Indian trade. More precise 
and curious is El-Makreezee's description, written 
in the first half of the 15th century, of the ships 
that sailed from Eydhab on the Egyptian coast to 
Juddah: " Their 'jelebehs' (P. Lobo, op. Quatre- 
mere, Memoires, ii. 164, calls them 'gelves'), 
which carry the pilgrims on the coast, have not a 
nail used in them, but their planks are sewed to 
gether with fibre, which is taken from the cocoa- 
nut-tree, and they caulk them with the fibres of 
the wood of the date-palm ; then they ' pay ' them 
with butter, or the oil of the palma Christi, or with 
the fat of the kirsh (squalus carcharias; Forskal, 
Descr. Animalium, p. viii., No. 19). . . . The sails 
of these jelebehs are of mats made of the ddr._i- 
palm " (the Khitat, Desert of Eydhab "). One of 
the sea-going ships of the Arabs is shown in the 
view of El-Basrah, from a sketch by Colonel Chesney, 
(from Lane's 1001 Nights'). The crews of the 
latter, when not exceptionally Phoenicians, as were 
Solomon's and Pharaoh Necho's, were without 
doubt generally Arabians, rather than Egyptians 
those Himyerite Arabs whose ships carried all 
the wealth of the East either to the Red ^ Sea or 
the Persian Gulf. The people of 'Oman, the 
south-east province of Arabia, were among the fore 
most of these navigators (El-Mes'oodee's Golden 
Meadows, MS., and The Accounts of Two Moham 
medan Trcve"'** of the Ninth Century}. It was 


El-Basrah. Fiuin a Drawing by Colonel Chesney. 

customary, to avoid probably the dangers and 
delays of the narrow seas, for the ships engaged in 
the Indian trade to trans-ship their cargoes at the 
straits of Bab el-Mendeb to Egyptian and other 
vessels of the Red Sea (Agath. 103, p. 190; anon. 
Peripl. 26, p. 277, ed. Miiller). The fleets appear 
to have sailed about the autumnal equinox, and 
returned in December or the middle of January 
(Pliny, N. H. vi. cap. xxiii. 26; comp. Peripl. 
passim). St. Jerome says that the navigation was 
eytremely tedious. At the present day, the voyages 
are periodical, and guided by the seasons ; but 
the old skill of the seamen has nearly departed, 
and they are extremely timid, and rarely venture 
far from the coast. 

The Red Sea, as it possessed for many centuries 
the most important sea-trade of the East, contained 
ports of celebrity. Of these, Elath and Eziongeber 
alone appear to be mentioned in the Bible. The 
Heroopolite Gulf is of the chief interest: it was 
near to Goshen ; it was the scene of the passage of 
the Red Sea ; and it was the " tongue of the Egyp 
tian Sea." It was also the seat of the Egyptian 
trade in this sea and to the Indian Ocean. Heroopolis 
is doubtless the same as Hero, and its site has been 
probably identified with the modem Aboo-Kesheyd, 
at the head of the old gulf. By the consent of the 
classics, it stood on or near the head of the gulf, 
and was 68 miles (according to the Itinerary of 
Antoninus) from Clysma, by the Arabs called El- 
Kulzum, near the modern Suez, which is close to 
the present head. Suez is a poor town, and has 
only an unsafe anchorage, with very shoal watei. 
On the shore of the Heroopolite gulf was also 
Arsinoe, founded by Ptolemy Philadelphus : its site 
has not been settled. Berenice, founded by the 
same, on the southern frontier of Egypt, rose to 
importance under the Ptolemies and the Romans ; 
it is now of no note. On the western coast was 
also the anchorage of Myos Hormos, a little north j 
of the modern town El-Kuseyr, which now forms j 
the point of communication with the old route to 
Coptos. On the Arabian coast the principal ports 
are Mu'eyleh, Yembo' (the port of El-Medeeneh), , 
Juddah (the port of Mekkeh), and Mukha, by | 

us commonly written Mocha. The Red Sea iu 
most parts affords anchorage for country-vessels 
well acquainted with its intricacies, and able to 
creep along the coast among the reefs and islands 
that girt the shore. Numerous creeks on the 
Arabian shore (called " shuroom," sing. " sharm,") 
indent the land. Of these the anchorage called Esh 
Sharm, at the southern extremity of the peninsula 
of Sinai, is much frequented. 

The commerce of the Red Sea was, in very 
ancient timeo, unquestionably great. The earliest 
records tell of tht ships of the Egyptians, the Phoe 
nicians, and the Ar?bs. Although the ports of the 
Persian gulf received a part of the Indian traffic 
[DEDAN], and the Himyerite maritime cities in the 
south of Arabia supplied the kingdom of SHEBA, 
the trade with Egypt was, we must believe, the 
iHQst important of the arifcient world. That all 
this traffic found its way to the head of the 
Heroopolite gulf seems proved by the absence of 
any important Pharaonic remains further south on 
the Egyptian coast. But the shoaling of the head 
of the gulf rendered the navigation, always dan 
gerous, more difficult ; it destroyed the former 
anchorages, and made it necessary to cany mer 
chandise across the desert to the Nile. This change 
appears to have been one of the main causes of the 
decay of the commerce of Egypt. We have seen 
that the long-voyaging ships shifted their cargoes 
to Red Sea craft at the straits ; and Ptolemy Phila 
delphus, after founding Arsinoe and endeavouring 
to re-open the old canal of the Red Sea, abandoned 
the upper route and established the southern road 
from his new city Berenice on the frontier of Egypt 
and Nubia to Coptos on the Nile. Strabo tells us 
that this was done to avoid the dangers encountered 
in navigating the sea (xvii. 1, 45). Though the 
stream of commerce was diverted, sufficient seems 
to have remained to keep in existence the former 
ports, though they have long since utterly dis 
appeared. Under the Ptolemies and the Romans 
the commerce of the Red Sea varied greatly, in 
fluenced by the decaying state of Egypt and the 
route to Palmyra 'until the fall of the latter). But 
even its best state at this time cannot have been 


such as to make us believe that the 120 ships 
sailing from Myos Hormos, mentioned by Strabo 
(ii. v. 12), was other than an annual convoy. 
The wars of Heraclius and Khosroes affected the 
trade of Egypt as they influenced that of the 
Persian gulf. Egypt had fallen low at the time of 
the Arab occupation, and yet it is curious to note 
that Alexandria even then retained the shadow of its 
former glory. Since the time of Mohammad the Red 
Sea trade has been insignificant. [E. S. P.] 

BED SEA, PASSAGE OF. The passage of 
the Red Sea was the crisis of the Exodus. It was 
the miracle by which the Israelites left Egypt and 
were delivered from the oppressor. Probably on 
this account St. Paul takes it as a type of Christian 
baptism. All the particulars relating to this event, 
and especially those which show its miraculous cha 
racter, require careful examination. The points that 
arise are the place of the passage, the narrative, and 
the importance of the event in Biblical history. 

1. It is usual to suppose that the most northern 
place at which the Red Sea could have been crossed 
is the present head of the Gulf of Suez. This sup 
position depends upon the erroneous idea that in 
the time of Moses the gulf did not extend further to 
the northward than at present. An examination of 
the country north of Suez has shown, however, that 
the sea has receded many miles, and there can be 
no doubt that this change has taken place within 
the historical period, doubtless in fulfilment of the 
prophecy of Isaiah (xi. 15, xix. 5; comp. Zech. 
x. 11). The old bed is indicated by the Birket-et- 
Timsah, or " Lake of the Crocodile," and the more 
southern Bitter Lakes, the northernmost part of the 
former probably corresponding to the head of the gulf 
at the time of the Exodus. In previous centuries it 
is probable, that the gulf did not extend further north, 
but that it was deeper in its northernmost part. 

It is necessary to endeavour to ascertain the 
route of the Israelites before we can attempt to 
discover where they crossed the sea. The point 
from which they started was Rameses, a place cer 
tainly in the Land of Goshen, which we identify 
with the Wadi-t-Tumeylat. [RAMESES ; GOSHEN.] 
After the mention that the people journeyed from 
Rameses to Succoth, and before that of their de 
parture from Succoth, a passage occurs which 
appears to show the first direction of the journey, 
and not a change in the route. This we may rea 
sonably infer from its tenour, and from its 'being 
followed by the statement that Joseph's bones were 
taken by Moses with him, which must refer to the 
commencement of the journey. " And it came to 
pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God 
'ed them not [by] the way of the land of the Phi 
listines, although that [was] near ; for God said, 
Lest peradventure the people repent when they see 
war, and they return to Egypt: but God caused 
the people to turn [by] the way of the wilderness 
of the Red Sea" (Ex. xiii. 17, 18). It will be seen 
by reference to the map already given [vol. i. p. 
598] that, from the Wadi-t-Tumeylat, whether 
from its eastern end or from any othti part, the 
route to Palestine by way of Gaza through the 
Philistine territory is near at hand. In the Roman 
time the route to Gaza from Memphis and Heliopolis 
passed the western end of the Wadi-t-Tumeylat, as 
may be seen by the Itinerary of Antoninus (Par- 


they, Zur Erdkunde d. Alt. Aegyptens, map vi.), 
and the chief modern route from Cairo to Syria 
aasses along the Wadi-t-Tumeylat and leads to 
aza (Wilkinson, Handbook, new ed. p. 209). 
At the end of the second day's journey the 
camping-place was at Etham " in the edge of the 
wilderness" (Ex. xiii. 20; Num. xxxiii. 6). Hera 
the Wadi-t-Tumeylat was probably left, as it is 
cultivable and terminates in the desert. After leav 
ing this 'place the direction seems to have changed. 
The first passage relating to the journey, after the 
mention of the encamping at Etham, is this, stating 
a command given to Moses : " Speak unto the 
children of Israel, that they turn [or ' return '] 
and encamp [or ' that they encamp again,' 
rn JQB^J before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol 
and the sea, over against Baal-zephon" (Ex. xiv. 2). 
This explanation is added : " And Pharaoh will say 
of the children of Israel, They [are] entangled in 
the land, the wilderness hath shut them in " (3). 
The rendering of the A. V., " that they turn and 
encamp," seems to us the most probable of those 
we have given : " return " is the closer translation, 
but appears to be difficult to reconcile with the 
narrative of the route ; for the more likely inference 
is that the direction was changed, not that the 
people returned : the third rendering does not ap 
pear probable, as it does not explain the entangle 
ment. The geography of the country does not 
assist us in conjecturing the direction of the last 
part of the journey. If we knew that the highest 
part of the gulf at the time of the Exodus extended 
to the west, it would be probable that, if the 
Israelites turned, they took a northerly direction, 
as then the sea would oppose an obstacle to their 
further progress. If, however, they left the Wadi-t- 
Tumeylat at Etham " in the edge of the wilderness," 
they could not have turned far to the northward, 
unless they had previously turned somewhat to the 
south. It must be borne in mind that Pharaoh's 
object was to cut off the retreat of the Israelites : 
he therefore probably encamped between them and 
the head of the sea. 

At the end of the third day's march, for each 
camping-place seems to mark the close of a day's 
journey, the Israelites encamped by the sea. The 
place of this last encampment, and that of the 
passage, on the supposition that our views as to the 
most probable route are correct, would be not very 
far from the Persepolitan monument. [See map, 
vol. i. p. 598.] The monument is about thirty 
miles to the northward of the present head of the 
Gulf of Suez, and not far south of the position 
where we suppose the head of the gulf to haA-e 
been at the time of the Exodus. It is here neces 
sary to mention the arguments for and against the 
common opinion that the Israelites passed near the 
present head of the gulf. Local tradition is in 
its favour, but it must be remembered that local 
tradition in Egypt and the neighbouring countries, 
judging from the evidence of history, is of very 
J little value. The Muslims suppose Memphis to 
I have been the city at which the Pharaoh of the 
Exodus resided before that event occurred. From 
opposite Memphis a broad valley leads to the Red 
Sea. It is in part called the" Wadi-t-Teeh, or 
i " Valley of the Wandering." From it the traveller 
reaches the sea beneath the lofty Gebel-et-Takah, 

lu order to favour the opinion that the Israelites took been changed to Gebel-'Atakah, as if signifying " the 
the route by the Wa"di-t-Teeh, this name, Gebel-et-Tdkah i Mountain of Deliverance ;" though, to bave this signi- 
(lo whici it is difficult to assign a probable meaning), has j fication, it should rather be Gebel-el-'Atakah, th 


which rises on the north and shuts off all escape in 
that direction, excepting by a narrow way along 
the sea-shore, which Pharaoh might have occupied. 
The sea here is broad and deep, as the narrative 
is generally held to imply. All the local features 
S3em suited for a great event ; but it may well 
be asked whether there is any reason to expect 
that suitableness that human nature seeks for and 
modern imagination takes for granted, since it 
would have been useless for the objects for which 
the miracle appears to huve been intended. The 
desert-way from Memphis is equally poetical, but 
how is it possible to recognise in it a route which 
seems to have had two days' journey of cultivation, 
the wilderness being reached only at the end of the 
second day's march? The supposition that the Israel 
ites took an upper route, now that of the Mekkeh 
caravan, along the desert to the north of the ele 
vated tract between Cairo and Suez, must be men 
tioned, although it is less probable than that just 
noticed, and offers the same difficulties. It is, how 
ever, possible to suppose that the Israelites crossed 
the sea near Suez without holding to the traditional 
idea that they attained it by the Wadi-t-Teeh. If 
they went through the Wadi-t-Tumeylat they might 
have turned southward from its eastern end, and so 
reached the neighbourhood of Suez ; but this would 
make the third day's journey more than thirty miles 
at the least, which, if we bear in mind the com 
position of the Israelite caravan, seems quite in 
credible. We therefore think that the only opinion 
warranted by the narrative is that already stated, 
which supposes the passage of the sea to have taken 
place near the northernmost part of its ancient ex 
tension. The conjecture that the Israelites advanced 
to the north, then crossed a shallow part of the Me 
diterranean, where Pharaoh and his army were lost 
in the quicksands, and afterwards turned south 
wards towards Sinai, is so repugnant to the Scripture 
narrative as to amount to a denial of the occurrence 
of the event, and indeed is scarcely worth men 

The last camping-place was before Pi-hahiroth. 
It appears that Migdol was behind Pi-hahiroth, and, 
on the other hand, Baal-zephon and the sea. These 
neighbouring places have not been identified, and 
the name of Pi-hahiroth (if, as we believe, rightly 
supposed to designa^ a reedy tract, and to be still 
preserved in the Arabic name Ghuweybet el-boos, 
" the bed of reeds "), is now found in the neighbour 
hood of the two supposed sites of the passage, and 
therefore cannot be said to be identified, "besides 
that we must not expect a natural locality still to 
retain its name. It must be remembered that the 
name Pi-hahiroth, since it describes a natural 
locality, probably does not indicate a town or other 
inhabited place named after such a locality, and 
this seems almost certain from the circumstance 
that it is unlikely that there would have been more 
than two inhabited places, even if they were only 
forts, in this region. The other names do not de 
scribe natural localities. The nearness of Pi-hahi 
roth to the sea is therefore the only sure indica 
tion of its position, and, if we are right in our 
supposition as to the place of the passage, our 
uncertainty as to the exact extent of the sea at 

form deviating from general usage. Et-Takah and 'Atakah 
In the mouth of an Arab are widely different. 

b The LXX. has " south," instead of " east" The 
Heb. DH, lit. " In front," may, however, indicate the 
whole distance bet ween the two extreme points of sunrise, 


the time is an additional difficulty. [Exoous, THE 


From Pi-hahiroth the Israelites crossed the sea. 
The only points bearing on geography in the ac 
count of this event are that the sea was divided by 
an east b wind, whence we may reasonably inter that 
t was crossed from west to east, and that the whole 
Egyptian army perished, which shows that it must 
have been some miles broad. Pharaoh took at least 
six hundred chariots, which, three abreast, would 
have occupied about half a mile, and the rest of the 
army cannot be supposed to have taken up less than 
several times that space. Even if in a broad forma 
tion some miles would have been required. It is 
more difficult to calculate the space taken up by 
the Israelite multitude, but probably it was even 
greater. On the whole we may reasonably suppose 
about twelve miles as the smallest breadth of the sea. 

2. A careful examination of the narrative of the 
passage of the Red Sea is necessary to a right under 
standing of the event. When the Israelites had 
departed, Pharaoh repented that he had let them 
go. It might be conjectured, from one part of the 
narrative (Ex. xiv. 1-4), that he determined to pur 
sue them when he knew that they had encamped 
before Pi-hahiroth, did not what follows this imply 
that he set out soon after they had gone, and also 
indicate that the place in question refers to the 
pursuit through the sea, not to that from the city 
whence he started (5-10). This city was most 
probably Zoan, and could scarcely have been much 
nearer to Pi-hahiroth, and the distance is therefore 
too great to have been twice traversed, first by 
those who told Pharaoh, then by Pharaoh's army, 
within a few hours. The strength of Pharaoh's 
army is not further specified than by the statement 
that " he took six hundred chosen chariots, and [or 
' even '] all the chariots of Egypt, and captains 
over every one of them" (7). The war-chariots 
of the Egyptians held each but two men, an archer 
and a charioteer. The former must be intended by 
the word D^?C^, rendered in the A. V. " cap 
tains.' 1 Throughout the narrative the chariots and 
horsemen of Pharaoh are mentioned, and " the horse 
and his rider," xv. 21, are spoken of in Miriam's 
song, but we can scarcely hence infer that there was 
in Pharaoh's army a body of horsemen as well as of 
men in chariots, as in ancient Egyptian the chariot- 
force is always called HTAR or HETRA, "the 
horse," and these expressions may therefore be 
respectively pleonastic and poetical. There is no 
evidence in the records of the ancient Egyptians 
that they used cavalry, and, therefore, had the 
Biblical narrative expressly mentioned a force of 
this kind, it might have been thought to support 
the theory that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was a 
Shepherd-king. With this army, which, even if a 
small one, was mighty in comparison to the Israelite 
multitude, encumbered with women, children, and 
cattle, Phavaoh overtook the people " encamping cy 
the sea" (9). When the Israelites saw the oppressor's 
army they were terrified and murmured against 
Moses. " Because [there were] no graves in Egypt, 
hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness ? ' 
(11). Along the bare mountains that skirt the 

those of the two solstices, and hence it is not limited tc 
absolute east, agreeably with the use of the Arabs in every 
case like the narrative under consideration. 

c It has been calculated, that if Napoleon I. had ad- 
vanoed by one road into Belgium, in the Waterloo cam 
paign, his column would have been sixty miles in len^tn. 


valley of Upper Egypt are abundant sepulchral 
grottoes, of which the entrances are conspicuously 
seen fiom the river and the fields it waters: in the 
sandy slopes at the foot of the mountains are pits 
without number and many built tombs, all of 
ancient times. No doubt the plain of Lower Egypt, 
to which Memphis, with part of its far-extending 
necropolis, belonged politically though not geogra 
phically, was throughout as well provided with 
places of sepulture. The Israelites recalled these 
cities of the dead, and looked with Egyptian horror 
at the prospect that their carcases should be left on 
the face of the wilderness. Better, they said, to 
have continued to serve the Egyptians than thus to 
perish (12). Then Moses encouraged them, bidding 
them see how God would save them, and telling 
them that they should behold their enemies no 
more. There are few cases in the Bible in which 
those for whom a miracle is wrought are com 
manded merely to stand by and see it. Generally 
the Divine support is promised to those who use 
their utmost exertions. It seems from the narra 
tive that Moses did not know at this time how the 
people would be saved, and spoke only from a heart 
full of faith, for we read, " And THE LORD said 
unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak 
unto the children of Israel, that they go forward : 
but lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine 
hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children 
of Israel shall go on dry [ground] through the 
midst of the sea" (15, 16). That night the two 
armies, the fugitives and the pursuers, were en 
camped near together. Between them was the 
pillar of the cloud, darkness to the Egyptians and a 
light to the Israelites. The monuments of Egypt 
portray an encampment of an army of Rameses II., 
during a campaign in Syria ; it is well-planned and 
carefully guarded : the rude modern Arab encamp 
ments bring before us that of Israel on this me- j 
morable night. Perhaps in the camp of Israel the 
sounds of the hostile camp might be heard on the 
one hand, and on the other, the roaring of the sea. 
But the pillar was a barrier and a sign of deliver 
ance. The time was now come for the great deci 
sive miracle of the Exodus. "And Moses stretched 
out his hand over the sea : and the LORD caused 
the sea to go [back] by a strong east wind all that 
nighl,, and made the sea dry [land], and the waters 
were divided. And the children of Israel went 
through the midst of the sea upon the dry [ground] : 
and the waters [were] a wall unto them on their 
right hand, and on their left" (21, 22, comp. 29). 
The narrative distinctly states that a path was made 
through the sea, and that the waters were a wall 
on either hand. The term " wall " does not appear 
to oblige us to suppose, as many have done, that 
che sea stood up like a cliff on either side, but 
should rather be considered to mean a barrier, as 
the former idea implies a seemingly-needless addi 
tion to the miracle, while the latter seems to be not 
discordant with the language of the narrative. It 
was during the night that the Israelites crossed, 
and the Egyptians followed. In the morning watch, 
the last third or fourth of the night, or the period 
before sunrise, Pharaoh's army was in full pursuit 
in the divided sea, and was there miraculously 
troubled, so that the Egyptians sought to flee 
(23-25). Then was Moses commanded again to 
stretch out his hand, and the sea returned to its 
strength, and overwhelmed the Egyptians, of whom 
uot one remained alive (26-28). The statement j 
is so explicit that there could bo no reasonable l 


Joubt that Pharaoh himself, the great offender 
was at last made an example, and perished with 
his army, did it not seem to be distin:tly stated 
in Psalm cxxxvi. that he was included in the same 
destruction (15). The sea cast up the dead Egyp 
tians, whose bodies the Israelites saw upon the 

In a later passage some particulars are mentioned 
which are not distinctly stated in the narrative 
in Exodus. The place is indeed a poetical one, but 
its meaning is clear, and we learn from it that at 
the time of the passage of the sea there was a storm 
of rain with thunder and lightning, perhaps accom 
panied by an earthquake (Ps. Ixxvii. 15-20). To 
this St. Paul may allude where he says that the 
fathers " were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud 
and in the sea" (1 Cor. x. 2); for the idea of 
baptism seems to involve either immersion or sprink 
ling, and the latter could have here occurred : the 
reference is evidently to the pillar of the cloud : 
it would, however, be impious to attempt an expla 
nation of what is manifestly miraculous. These 
additional particulars may illustrate the troubling 
of the Egyptians, for their chariots may have been 
thus overthrown. 

Here, at the end of their long oppression, deli 
vered finally from the Egyptians, the Israelites 
glorified God. In what words they sang his praise 
we know from the Song of Moses, which, in its 
vigorous brevity, represents the events of that me 
morable night, scarcely of less moment than the 
night of the Passover (Ex. xv. 1-18: ver. 19 is 
probably a kind of comment, not part of the song). 
Moses seems to have sung this song with the men, 
Miriam with the women also singing and dancing, 
or perhaps there were two choruses (20, 21). Such 
a picture does not recur in the history of the nation. 
Neither the triumphal Song of Deborah, nor the 
rejoicing when the Temple was recovered from the 
Syrians, celebrated so great a deliverance, or was 
joined in by the whole people. In leaving Goshen, 
Israel became a nation ; after crossing the sea, it 
was free. There is evidently great significance, as 
we have suggested, in St. Paul's use of this miracle 
as a type of baptism ; for, to make the analogy com 
plete, it must have been the beginning of a new 
period of the life of the Israelites. 

3. The importance of this event in Biblical his 
tory is shown by the manner in which it is spoken 
of in the books of the 0. T. written in later times. 
In them it is the chief fact of Jewish history. Not 
the call of Abraham, not the rule of Joseph, not the 
first passover, not the conquest of Canaan, are re 
ferred to in such a manner as this great deliverance. 
In the Book of Job it is mentioned with the acts of 
creation (xxvi. 10-18). In the Psalms it is related 
as foremost among the deeds that God had wrought 
for his people. The prophet Isaiah recalls it as the 
great manifestation of God's interference for Israel, 
and an encouragement for the descendants of those 
who witnessed that great sight. There are events 
so striking that they are remembered in the life of 
a nation, and that like great heights increasing dist 
ance only gives them more majesty. So no doubt, 
was this remembered long after those were dead 
who saw the sea return to its strength and the 
warriors of Pharaoh dead upon the shore. 

It may be inquired how it is that there seems to 
have been no record or tradition of this miracle 
among the Egyptians. This question involves that 
of the time in "Egyptian history to which this event 
should be assigned. The date of the Exodus ao 


oordiug to different chronologeis varies more than 
three hundred years ; the dates of the Egyptian 
dynasties ruling during this period of three hundred 
years vary full one hundred. The period to which 
the Exodus may be assigned therefore virtually cor 
responds to four hundred years of Egyptian history. 
If the lowest date of the beginning of the xviiith 
dynasty be taken and the highest date of the Exodus, 
both which we consider the most probable of those 
which have been conjectured in the two cases, the 
Israelites must have left Egypt in a period of which 
monuments or other records are almost wanting. 
Of the xviiith and subsequent dynasties we have as 
yet no continuous history, and rarely records of 
events which occurred in a succession of years. 
We know much of many reigns, and of some we 
JHII be almost sure that they could not correspond 
to that of the Pharaoh of the Exodus. We can 
in no case expect a distinct Egyptian monumental 
record of so great a calamity, for the monuments 
only record success ; but it might be related in a 
papyrus. There would doubtless have long re 
mained a popular tradition of the Exodus, but if 
the king who perished was one of the Shepherd 
strangers, this tradition would probably have been 
local, and perhaps indistinct.* 1 

Endeavours have been made to explain away the 
miraculous character of the passage of the Red Sea. 
It has been argued that Moses might have earned 
the Israelites over by a ford, and that an unusual 
tide might have overwhelmed the Egyptians. But 
no real diminution of the wonder is thus effected. 
How was it that the sea admitted the passing of the 
Israelites, and drowned Pharaoh and his army? 
How was it that it was shallow at the right time, 
and deep at the right time ? This attempted ex 
planation would never have been put forward were 
it not that the fact of the passage is so well attested 
that it would be uncritical to doubt it were it 
recorded on mere human authority. Since the fact 
is undeniable au attempt is made to explain it away. 
Thus tne school that pretends to the severest criticism 
is compelled to deviate from its usual course ; and 
when we see that in this case it must do so, we may 
well doubt its soundness in other cases, which, being 
i differently stated, are more easily attacked. [R. S. P.J 

REED. Under this name we propose noticing 
the following Hebrew words: agmon, gome, 'aroth, 

and lianeh. 



1. Agmon 


, (J.iicp6s, 

TeAo$ : circulus, fcrvens, refrenans] occurs Job 
xl. 26 (A. V. xli. 2), "Canst thou put agmon" 
(A. V. "hook") into the nose of the crocodile? 
Again, in xl. 12 (A. V. xli. 20), "out of his 
nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething-pot or 
agmon" (A. V. "caldron"). In Is. ix. 14, it is 
said Jehovah " will cut off from Israel head and till, 
branch and agmon " (A. V. " rush"). The agmon 
is mentioned also as an Egyptian plant, in a sentence 
similar to the last, in Is. xix. 15 ; while from Iviii. 5 
we learn that the agmon had a pendulous panicle. 
There can be no doubt that the agmon denotes some 
aquatic reed-like plant, whether of the Nat. order 

d While this article is going through the press, M. 
Chabas has published a curious paper, in which he con 
jectures that certain labourers employed by the Pharaohs 
of the xixth and xxth dynasties in the quarries and 
elsewhere are the Hebrews. Their name reads APEKIU 
or APEBUI, which might correspond to " Hebrews " i 
. but his nnJing them still in Egypt under I 

Cypernc.eae. or that of Grammecie. The term is 
allied closely to the Heorevr zgam (D3X), which, 

s r -f 

like the corresponding Arabic ajam (^^1), denote? 

a marshy pool or reed-bed. 8 (See Jer. li. 32, for 
this latter signification.) There is some doubt as to 
the specific identity of the agmon, some believing 
that the word denotes " a rush '* as well as a 
" reed." See RosenmtHler (Bib. Bot. p. 1 84) and 
Winer (Realworterb. ii. 484). Celsius has argued 
in favour of the Arundo phragmitis (Hierob. i. 
465) ; we are inclined to adopt his opinion. That the 
agmon denotes some specific plant is probable both 
from the passages where it occurs, as well as from 
the fact that kdnek (!"l3p) is the generic term for 
reeds in general. The Arundo phragmitis (now 
the Phragmitis communis], if it does not occur in 
Palestine and Egypt, is represented by a very closely 
allied species, viz. the A. isiaca of Delisle. The 
drooping panicle of this plant will answer well to 
the " bowing down the head " of which Isaiah 
speaks; but, as there are other kinds of reed-like 
plants to which this character also belongs, it is 
impossible to do more than give a probable conjec 
ture. The expression " Canst thou put an agmon " 
into the crocodile's nose? has been variously ex 
plained. The most probable interpretation is that 
which supposes allusion is made to the mode of 
passing a reed or a rush through the gills of fish in 
order to carry them home but see the Commen 
taries and Notes of Rosenmiiller. Schultens, Lee, 
Gary, Mason Good, &c. The agmon of Job xli. 20 
seems to be derived from an Arabic root signifying to 
" be burning : " hence the fcrvens of the Vulg. The 
Phragmitis belongs to the Nat. order Graminaceae. 
2. Gome, (Kj : irdireipos, pip\ivos, e'Aos : 
scirpeus, scirpus, papyrus, juncus), translated 
"rush" and "bulrush" by the A. V., without 
doubt denotes the celebrated paper-reed of the 
ancients (Papyrus antiquorum), a plant of the 
Sedge family, Cyperaceae, which formerly was 
common in some parts of .Egypt. The Hebrew 
w6>d is found four times in the Bible. Moses was 
hid in a vessel made of the papyrus (Ex. ii. 3). 
Transit boats were made out of the same material 
by the Ethiopians (Is. xviii. 2) ; the paper-reed is 
mentioned together with Kdnek, the usual gen^i ie 
term for a " reed," in Is. xxxv. 7, and in Icb viii. 
11, where it is asked, " Can the papyrus plant grow 
without mire?" The modern Arabic name of this 

plant is Berdi 

According to Bruce 

the modern Abyssinians use boats made of the 
papyrus reed ; Ludolf (Hist. A0thiop. i. 8) speaks 
of the Tzamic lake being navigated " monoxylis 
lintribus ex typha praecrassa confertis," a kind 
of sailing, he says, which is attended with con 
siderable danger to the navigators. Wilkinson 
(Anc. Aegypt. ii. 96, ed. 1854) says that the right 
of growing and selling the papyrus plants belonged 
to the government, who made a profit by its mono- 

Rameses IV., about B. c. 1200, certainly after the latest 
date of the Exodus, is a fatal objection to an klentificatloi; 
with the Israelites. 

5 ~ 

frutices arundinotum. 



poly, and thinks other species of the Cyperaceae 
must be understood as affording all* the various 
articles, such as baskets, canoes, sails, sandals, &c., 
which have been said to have been made from the 
real papyrus. Considering that Egypt abounds in 
Cyperaceae, many kinds of which might have 
served for forming canoes, &c., it is improbable 
that the papyrus alone should have been used for 
such a purpose ; but that the true papyrus was used 
for boats there can be no doubt, if the testimony of 
Theophrastus (Hist. PL iv. 8, 4), Pliny (H. N. 
xiii. 11), Plutarch and other ancient writers, is to 
be believed. 

Papyrus ctntiquoruin. 

From the soft cellular portion of the stem the 
ancient material called papyrus was made. 
"Papyri," says Sir G. -Wilkinson, "are of the 
most remote Pharaonic periods. The mode of 
making them was as follows: the interior of the 
stalks of the plant, after the rind had been removed, 
was cut into thin slices in the direction of their 
length, and these being laid on a Hat board in 
succession, similar slices were placed over them 
at right angles, and their surfaces being cemented 
together by a sort of glue, and subjected to a 
proper degree of pressure and well dried, the 
papyrus was completed ; the length of the slices 
depended of course on the breadth of the intended 
sheet, as that of the sheet on the number of 
slices placed in succession beside each other, so 
that though the breadth was limited the papyrus 
might be extended to an indefinite length." 
[WRITING.] The papyrus reed is not now found 
in Egypt ; it grows, however, in Syria. Dr. Hooker 
saw it on the banks of Lake Tiberias, a few miles 
uorth of the town : it appears to have existed 


there since the Jays of Theophrastus and Pliny, 
who give a very accurate description of this in 
teresting plant. Theophrastiis (Hist. Plant, iv. 
8, 4) says, "The papyrus grows also in Syria 
around the lake in which the s .veet-srented reed is 
found, from which Antigonus used to make cordage 
for his ships." (See also Pliny, N. H. xiii. 11.) 
This plant has been found also in a small stream 
two miles N. of Jaffa. Dr. Hooker believes it is 
common in some parts of Syria : it does not occur 
anywhere else in Asia ; it was seen by Lady Callcott 
on the banks of the A nap us, near Syracuse, and Sir 
Joseph Banks possessed paper made of papyrus from 
the Lake of Thrasymeue (Script. Herb. p. 379). 
The Hebrew name of this plant is derived from a 
root which means "to absorb," compare Lucan 
(Phars. iv. 136). b The lower part of the papyrus 
reed was used as food by the ancient Egyptians ; 
" those who wish to eat the byblus dressed in the 
most delicate way, stew it in a hot pan and then eat 
it " (Herod, ii. 92 ; see also Theophr. Hist. Plant. 
iv. 9). The statement of Theophrastus with regard 
to the sweetness and flavour of the sap has been 
confirmed by some writers ; the Chevalier Land- 
olina made papyrus from the pith of the plant, 
which, says Heeren (Histor. Res. Afric. Nat. ii. 
350, note), " is rather clearer than the Egyptian ;" 
but other writers say the stem is neither juicy nor 
agreeable. The papyrus plant (Papyrus anti- 
quorum) has an angular stem from 3 to 6 feet 
high, though occasionally it grows to the height of 
14 feet ; it has no leaves ; the flowers are in very 
small spikelets, which grow on the thread-like 
flowering branchlets which form a bushy crown to 
each stem ; it is found in stagnant pools as well as 
in running streams, in which latter case, according 
to Bruce, one of its angles is always opposed to the 
current of the stream. 

3. 'Aroth (JTny: TO &xi rb x\(apov 7rai/ c ) is 
translated "paper-reed" in Is. xix. 7, the only 
passage where the pi. noun occurs ; there is not the 
slightest authority for this rendering of the A. V., 
nor is it at all probable, as Celsius (Hierob. ii. 230) 
has remarked, that the prophet who speaks of the 
paper-reed under the name gome in the preceding 
chapter (xviii. 2), should in this one mention the 
same plant under a totally different name. "Aroth" 
says Kimchi, " is the name to designate pot-herbs 
and green plants." The LXX. translate it by 
" all the green herbage " (comp. 1PIK, Gen. xli. 2, 
and see FLAG). The word is derived from 'drdk, 
" to be bare," or " destitute of trees ;" it probably 
denotes the open grassy land on the banks of 
the Nile ; and seems to be allied to the Arabic 'ara 
5 -- . 

(f\j.}, locus aperius, spatiosus. Michaelis (SuppL 

No. 1973), Rosenmiiller (Schol. in Jes. xix. 7), 
Gesenius (Thes. s. v.), Maurer (Comment, s. v.). 
and Simonis (Lex. Heb. s. v.), are all in favour ol 
this or a similar explanation. Vitringa (Comment, 
in Isaiam) was of opinion that the Hebrew term 
denoted the papyrus, and he has been followed by 
J. G. Unger, who has published a dissertation on this 
subject (De Dl"iy, hoc est de Papyro frutice,' von 
der Papier-Staude ad Is. xix. 7 ; Lips. 1731, 4to.). 

4. Kdneh (HJp : Ka\afj.os, Ka\a/u.i<rKos, /caAck 

, ayKtav, vy6s, irvQ^v : culmus. 

*> " Conseritur bibula Memphitis cymba papyro." 
c It is difficult to see how the Vulg. undei Blood the 


yalamus, arundo, fistula, statera), the generic name 
cf a reed of any kind ; it occurs in numerous pas 
sages of th? O. T., and sometimes denotes the 
"stalk" of wheat (Gen. xli. 5, 22), or the 
"branches" of the candlestick (Ex. xxv. and 
xxxvii.); in Job xxxi. 22, kdneh denotes the bone 



Ancidt, tonax. 

of the arm between the elbow and the shoulder 
(os humeri} : it was also the name of a measure of 
length equal to six cubits (Ez. xli. 8, xl. 5). The 
word is variously rendered in the A. V. by " stalk/' 
"branch," "bone," "calamus," "reed." In the 
N. T. KaXa/j.os may signify the " stalk" of plants 
(Mark xv. 36 ; Matt, xxvii. 48, that of the hyssop, 
but this is doubtful), or " a reed" (Matt. xi. 7, 
rii. 20; Luke vii. 24; Mark xv. 19); or 
"measuring rod" (Rev. xi. 1, xxi. 15, 16); or a 
" pen " (3 John 13). Strand'^or. Palaest. 28-30) 
gives the following names of the reed plants of 
Palestine: Saccharum officinale, Cyperus papyrus 
(Papyrus antiquorum), C. rotundus, and C. escu- 
lentus, and Arundo scriptoria ; but no doubt the 
species are numerous. See Bove ( Voyage en 
Palest., Annal des Scienc. Nat. 1834, p. 165) 
" Dans les deserts qui environnent ces montagnes j'ai 
trouve plusieurs Saccharum, M ilium arundinaceum 
et plusieurs Cype'rac<5." The Arundo donax, th 
A. Aegyptiaca (?) of Bove' (Ibid. p. 72) is com 
mon on the banks of the Nile, and may perhaps be 
"the staff of the bruised reed" to which Senna 
cherib compared the power of Egypt (2 K. xviii 
21 ; Ez. xxix. 6, 7). See also Is. xlii. 3. The thick 
stem of this reed may have been used as walking- 
staves by the ancient orientals ; perhaps the mea 
suring-reed was this plant ; at present the drj 
culms of this huge grass are in much demand foi 
f shing-rods, &c. 

Some kind of fragrant reed is denoted by 
word ktneh (Is. xliii. 24; Ez. xxvii. 19 ; Cant, iv 

14 s ), u more fully by keneh bosem 

see Ex. xxx. 23, or by kdneh hattob Cl'lBn 

er. vi. 20 ; which the A. V. renders "sweet cane," 
nd " calamus." Whatever may be the substance 
enoted, it is certain that it was one of foreign 
mportation, "from a far country" (Jer. vi. 20), 
5ome writers (see Sprengel, Com. in Dioscor. i. 
ii.) have sought to identify the kdneh bosem with 
;he Acorus calamus, the " sweet sedge," to which 
hey refer the itdXa/jios apw/j-ariK^s of Dioscorides 
i. 17), the Kd\afji.os euciSrjs of Theophrastus 
Hist. Plant, iv. 8 4), which, according to this 
ast named writer and Pliny (N. H. xii. 22), 
brmerly grew about a lake " between Libanus and 
mother mountain of no note ;" Strabo identifies this 
with the Lake of Gennesaret (Geog. xvi. c. 755, 
ed. Kramer). Burckhardt was unable to discover 
my sweet-scented reed or rush near the lake, though 
e saw many tall reeds there. " High reeds grow 
ilong the shore, but I found none of the aromatic 
reeds and rushes mentioned by Strabo " (Syria, p. 
319); but whatever may be the "fragrant reed" 
ntended, it is certain that it did not grow in Syria, 
otherwise we cannot suppose it should be spoken of 
as a valuable product from a far country. Dr. Royle 
efers the /cct\o/tos apo)fjia.riK6s of Dioscorides to a 
species of Andropogon, which he calls A. calamus 
aromaticus, a plant of remarkable fragrance, and a 
native of Central India, where j is used to mix with 
ointments on account of the delicacy of its odour 
see Kitto's Cycl. Art. " Kaneh bosem ; " and a fig. 
of this plant in Royle's Illustrations of Himalayan 
Botany, p. 425, t. 97). It is possible this may be 
the " reed of fragrance ;" but it is hardly likely 
that Dioscorides, who, under the term ffyjoivos 
gives a description of the Andropogon Schoenanthus, 
should speak of a closely allied species under a 
totally different name. Still there is no necessity 
to refer the Keneh bosem or hattob to the icd\afjLos 
a.pd>fj.aTiK6s of Dioscorides ; it may be represented by 
Dr. Royle's plant or by the A ndropogon Schoenanthus, 
the lemon grass of India and Arabia. [W. K.] 

Andropogon tclatenanUtut. 



REELAFAH (rPjn : 'PeeXt'as: 
One of the children of the province who went up 
with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 2). In Neh. vii. 7 he is 
called RAAMIAH, and in 1 Esd. v. 8 REESAIAS. 

KEE'LIUS ('PeeXias). This name occupies the 
p.ace of BIGVAI in Ezr. ii. 2 (1 Esd. v. 8). The 
list in the Vulgate is so corrupt that it is difficult 
to trace either. 

EEESAI'AS ('Priffaias : Elimeus). The same 
as REELAIAH or RAAMIAH (1 Esd. v. 8). 

REFINER (fftV ; *OVD). The refiner's art 
was essential to the working of the precious metals. 
It consisted in the separation of the dross from the 
pure ore, which was effected by reducing the metal 
to a fluid state by the application of heat, and by 
the aid of solvents, such as alkali* (Is. i. 25) or 
lead (Jer. vi. 29), which, amalgamating with the 
dross, permitted the extraction of the unadulterated 
metal. The term b usually applied to refining had 
reference to the process of melting : occasionally, 
however, the effect of the process is described by a 
term c borrowed from the filtering of wine. The 
instruments required by the refiner were a crucible 
or furnace,* 1 and a bellows or blow-pipe." The 
workman sat at his work (Mai. iii. 3, " He shall 
sit as a refiner "), as represented in the cut of an 
Egyptian refiner already given (see vol. i. 750) : 
he was thus better enabled to watch the process, 
and let the metal run off at the proper moment. 
[MiNES; ii. 368 &.] The notices of refining are 
chiefly of a figurative character, and describe moral 
purification as the result of chastisement (Is. i. 25 ; 
Zech. xiii. 9 ; Mai. iii. 2, 3). The failure of the means 
to effect the result is graphically depicted in Jer. 
vi. 29 : " The bellows glow with the fire (become 
quite hot from exposure to the heat) : the lead 
(used as a solvent) is expended : f the refiner melts 
in vain, for the refuse will not be separated." The 
refiner appears, from the passage whence this is 
quoted, to have combined with his proper business 
that of assaying metals : " I have set thee for an 
assayer " (Ib. ver. 27). [W. L. B.] 


RE'GEM (Dri : "Payefj. ; Alex. 'Peytp : Re- 
gom}. A son of jahdai, whose name unaccountably 
appears in a list of the descendants of Caleb by his 
concubine Ephah (1 Chr. ii. 47). Rashi considers 
Jahdai as the son of Ephah, but there appear no 
grounds for this assumption. 

RE'GEM-MEL'ECH (^>D Dri: 'ApjSecrefy 
6 Pa<ri\e6s ; Alex. 'Apfaffea-ep-o /3.: RogommelecK]. 
The names of Sherezer and Regem-melech occur in 
an obscure passage of Zechariah (vii. 2). They 
were sent on behalf of some of the captivity to 
make inquiries at the Temple concerning fasting. 
In the A. V. the subject of the verse appears to be 
the captive Jews in Babylon, and Bethel, or " the 
house of God," is regarded as the accusative after 

* "133 A. V. " purely," but more properly " as with 

J *n? c PI?;. 

d "1-13. The term ^V^? curs twice only (Prov. 
svii. 3, xxvii. 21 ; A. V. ' fining-pot"). The expression 
in Ps. xii. 6, rendered in the A. V. " furnace of earth," is 
of doubtful signification, but certainly cannot signify that. 


the verb of motion. The LXX. take ' the king* 
as the nominative to the verb " sent," considering 
the last part of the name Regem-melech as an ap 
pellative and not as a proper name. Again, in the 
Vulgate, Sherezer, Regem-melech, and their men, 
are the persons who sent to the house of God. The 
Peshito-Syriac has a curious version of the passage : 
" And he sent to Bethel, to Sharezer and Rabmag ; 
and the king sent and his men to pray for him 
before the Lord :" Sharezer and Rabmag being asso 
ciated in Jer. xxxix. 3, 13. On referring to Zech. 
vii. 5, the expression " the people of the land " 
seems to indicate that those who sent to the Temple 
were not the captive Jews in Babylon, but those 
who had returned to their own country ; and this 
being the case it is probable that in ver. 2 " Bethel " 
is to be taken as the subject, " and Bethel, i. e. the 
inhabitants of Bethel, sent." 

The Hexaplar-Syriac, following the Peshito, has 
"Rabmag." What reading the LXX. had before 
them it is difficult to conjecture. From its con 
nexion with Sherezer, the name Regem-melech (lit. 
" king's friend," comp. 1 Chr. xxvii. 33), was pro 
bably an Assyrian title of office. [W. A. W.] 

pixvpos}. This term had perhaps originally a more 
precise and independent meaning than it appears to 
a reader of the Authorized Version to possess. 

In the Old Test, it is used by the LXX. as the 
equivalent of the singular Hebrew word hac-Ciccar 
("133H, literally "the round"), a word the topo 
graphical application of which is not clear, but 
which seems in its earliest occurrences to denote 
the circle or oasis of cultivation in which stood 
Sodom and Gomorrah and the rest of the five " cities 
of the Ciccar" (Gen. xiii. 10, 11, 12, xix. 17, 25, 
28, 29 ; Deut. xxxiv. 3). Elsewhere it has a wider 
meaning, though still attached to the Jordan (2 Sam. 
xviii. 28 ; 1 K. vii. 46 ; 2 Chr. iv. 17 ; Neh. iii. 22, 
xii. 28). It is in this less restricted sense that 
ixwpos occurs in the New Test. In Matt. iii. 5 
and Luke iii, 3 it denotes the populous and flourish 
ing region which contained the towns of Jericho and 
its dependencies, in the Jordan valley, enclosed in the 
amphitheatre of the hills of Quarantana (see Map, 
vol. ii. p. 664), a densely populated region, and im 
portant enough to be reckoned as a distinct section 
of Palestine " Jerusalem, Judaea, and all the ar- 
rondissement h of Jordan " (Matt. iii. 5, also Luke 
vii. 17). It is also applied to the district of Gen- 
nesaret, a region which presents certain similarities 
to that of Jericho, being enclosed in the amphi 
theatre of the hills of Hattin and bounded in front 
by the water of the lake, as the other was by the 
Jordan, and also resembling it in being very thickly 
populated (Matt. xiv. 35 ; Mark vi. 55 ; Luke vi. 
37, vii. 17). [G.] 

REHABI'AH (Hj3rn in 1 Chr. xxiii. ; else 
where -inurn: 'Pa/3l<*; Alex. 'PaojSili in 1 Chr. 
xxiii. ; 'Paa&las 1 Chr. xxiv., 'Pafi'ias ; Alex. 'Pao- 
0ias I Chr. xxvi. : Rohobia, Rahabia in 1 Chr. 


The passage may be rendered, " as silver, melted in a work- 
shop, flowing down to the earth." 

t Keri, Dfl E'NO. 

The A. V. adopts an incorrect pnr.ctuation, 
1H3, and renders it "a tower." 

h Thus Jerome" regiones in circuitu r^r quas mediuf 
ordanes fluit." 


>cxvi.). The only son of Eliezer, the sou of Moses, 
Mid the father of Issh-ah, or Jeshaial (1 Chr. xxiii. 
17, xxiv. 21, xxvi. 25). His descendants were 

RE'HOB (lini : 'Pac/3 : Rotob}. 1. The 
father of Hadadezer king of Zobah, whom David 
smote at the Euphrates (2 Sam. viii. 3, 12). 
Josephus (Ant. vii. 5, 1) calls him Apaos, and 
the Old Latin Version Arachus, and Blayney (on 
Zech. ix. 1) thinks this was his real name, and that 
he was called Rehob, or " charioteer," from the num 
ber of chariots in his possession. The name appears 
to be peculiarly Syrian, for we find a district of 
Syria called Rehob, or Beth-Rehob (2 Sam. x. 6, 8). 

2. (*Poc#.) A Levite, or family of Levites, who 
eealed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 11). 

[W. A. W.] 

EE'HOB (nrn). The name of more than one 
place in the extreme north of the Holy Land. 

1. ('Padft ; Alex. 'PowjS Rokob.}* The northern 
limit of the exploration of the spies (Num. xiii. 21). 
It is specified as being " as men come unto Hamath," 
or, as the phrase is elsewhere rendered, " at the 
entrance of Hamath," i. e. at the commencement of 
the territory of that name, by which in the early 
books of the Bible the great valley of Lebanon, the 
Bika'ah of the Prophets, and the Buka'a of the 
modern Arabs, seems to be roughly designated. 
This, and the consideration of the improbability that 
the spies went farther than the upper end of the 
Jordan valley (Rob. B. R. iii. 371), seems to fix 
the position of Rehob as not far from Tell el-Kady 
and Banias. This is confirmed by the statement 
of Judg. xviii. 28, that Laish or Dan ( Tell el-Kady} 
was " in the valley that is by Beth-rehob." No 
trace of the name of Rehob or Beth-rehob has yet 
been met with in this direction. Dr. Robinson pro 
poses to identify it with Hunin, an ancient fortress 
in the mountains N.W. of the plain of Huleh, the 
upper district of the Jordan valley. But this, 
though plausible, has no certain basis. 

To those who are anxious to extend the boun 
daries of the Holy Land on the north and east it 
may be satisfactory to know that a place called 
Ruhaibeh exists in the plain ofJerud, about 25 miles 
N.E. of Damascus, and 12 N. of the northernmost 
of the three lakes (see the Maps of Van de Velde and 

There is no reason to doubt that this Rehob or 
Beth-rehob was identical with the place mentioned 
under both names in 2 Sam. x. 6, 8,* 1 in connexion 
with Maacah, which was also in the upper district 
of the Huleh. 

Inasmuch, however, as Beth-rehob is distinctly 
stated to have been " far from Zidon " (Judg. xviii. 
28), it must be a distinct place from 

2. ('PaojS: Alex. 'Po: RohoV), one of the 
towns allotted to Asher (Josh. xix. 28), and which 
from the list appears to have been in close proximity 
to Zidon. It is named between Ebron, or Abdon, 
and Hammon. The towns of Asher lay in a region 
which has been but imperfectly examined, and no 
one has yet succeeded in discovering the position of 
either of these three. 

3. ('PoaC; Alex. 'Poaj/3: Rohob,Rochob.') Asher 
contained another Rehob (Josh. xix. 30) ; lark the 
situation of this, like the former, remains at present 



" Targum Pseudojon. 
aad Samaritan Vers, 

, i.e. TrA-aretai, streets; 

unknown. One of the two, it is difficult to saf 
which, was allotted to the Gershonite Levites (Josh 
xxi. 31 ; 1 Chr. vi. 75), and of one its Canaanit<> 
inhabitants retained possession (Judg. i. 31). , The 
mention of Aphik in this latter passage may imply 
that the Rehob referred to was that of Josh. xix. 30., 
This, Eusebius and Jerome ( Onornasticon, " Roob ") 
confuse with the Rehob of the spies, and place fcur 
Roman miles from Scythopolis. The place they 
refer tc still survives as Rehab, 3^ miles S. ot 
Beisan, cut their identification of a town in that 
position with one in the territory of Asher is obvi 
ously inaccurate. [G.] 

KEHOBO'AM (DJDrn, " enlarger of the 
people " see Ex. xxxiv. 24, and compare the name 
EvpvSii/uios : 'Pofiod/j. : Roboam}, son of Solomon, 
by the Ammonite princess Naamah (1 K. xiv. 21, 
31), and his successor (1 K. xi. 43). From the 
earliest period of Jewish history we perceive symp 
toms that the confederation of the tribes was but 
imperfectly cemented. The powerful Ephraim could 
never brook a position of inferiority. Throughout 
the Book of Judges (viii. 1, xii. 1) the Ephraim ites 
show a spirit of resentful jealousy when any enter 
prise is undertaken without their concurrence and 
active participation. From them had sprung 
Joshua, and afterwards (by his pkce of birth) 
Samuel might be considered theirs, and though the 
tribe of Benjamin gave to Israel its first king, yet 
it was allied by hereditary ties to the house of 
Joseph, and by geographical position to the terri 
tory of Ephraim, so that up to David's accession 
the leadership was practically in the hands of the 
latter tribe. But Judah always threatened to be a 
formidable rival. During the earlier history, partly 
from the physical structure and situation of its 
territory (Stanley, S. $ P. p. 162), which secluded 
t from Palestine just as Palestine by its geogra 
phical character was secluded from the world, it had 
stood very much aloof from the nation [JoDAH], 
and even after Saul's death, apparently without 
waiting to consult their brethren, " the men of 
Judah came and anointed David king over the house 
of Judah " (2 Sam. ii. 4), while the other tribes 
adhered to Saul's family, thereby anticipating the 
final disruption which was afterwards to rend the 
nation permanently into two kingdoms. But after 
seven years of disaster a reconciliation was forced 
upon the contending parties ; David was acknow 
ledged as king of Israel, and soon after, by fixing 
his court at Jerusalem and bringing the tabernacle 
there, he transferred from Ephraim the greatness 
which had attached to Shechem as the ancient 
capital, and to Shiloh as the seat of the national 
worship. In spite of this he seems to have enjoyed 
great personal popularity among the Ephraimites, 
and to have treated many of them with special 
favour (1 Chr. xii. 30, xxvii. 10, 14), yet this 
roused the jealousy of Judah, and probably led to 
the revolt of Absalom. [ABSALOM.] Even after 
that perilous crisis was past, the old rivalry broke 
out afresh, and almost led to another insurrection 
(2 Sam. xx. 1, &c.). Compare Ps. Ixxviii. 60, 67, &c. 
in illustration of these remarks. Solomon's reign, 
from its severe taxes and other oppressions, aggra 
vated the discontent, and latterly, from its irre 
ligious character, alienated the prophets and pro- 
voked the displeasure of God. When Solomon's 

b Here the name is written in the fuller form o 




strong hand was withdrawn the crisis came. Reho- 
ooain selected Shechem as the place of his coronation, 
probably as an act of concession to the Ephraimites, 
and perhaps in deference to the suggestions of those 
old and wise counsellors of his father, whose advice 
he afterwards unhappily rejected. From the pre 
sent Hebrew text of 1 K. xii. the exact details of 
the transactions at Shechem are involved in a little 
uncertainty. The general facts indeed are clear. 
The people demanded a remission of the severe bur 
dens imposed by Solomon, and Rehoboam promised 
them an answer in three days, during which time 
he consulted first his father's counsellors, and then 
the young men " that were grown up with him, 
and which stood before him," whose answer shows 
how greatly during Solomon's later years the cha 
racter of the Jewish court had degenerated. Reject 
ing the advice of the elders to conciliate the people 
at the beginning of his reign, and so make them 
" his servants for ever," he returned as his reply, 
in the true spirit of an Eastern despot, the frantic 
bravado of his contemporaries: " My little finger 
shall be thicker than my father's loins. ... I will 
add to your yoke; my father hath chastised you 
with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions" 
(i. e. scourges furnished with sharp points ). There 
upon arose the formidable song of insurrection, heard 
once before when the tribes quarrelled after David's 
return from the war with Absalom : 

What portion have we in David ? 

What inheritance in Jesse's son ? 
To your tents, Israel ! 

Now see to thy own house, David ! 

Rehoboam sent Adoram or Adoniram , who had been 
chief receiver of the tribute during the reigns of his 
father and his grandfather (1 K. iv. 6 ; 2 Sam. xx. 
24), to reduce the rebels to reason, but he was 
stoned to death by them ; whereupon the king and 
his attendants fled in hot haste to Jerusalem. So 
far all is plain, but there is a doubt as to the part 
which Jeroboam took ii these transactions. Ac 
cording to 1 K. xii. 3 ae was summoned by the 
Ephraimites from Egypt (to which country he had 
fled from the anger of Solomon) to be their spokes 
man at Rehoboam's coronation, and actually made 
the speech in which a remission of burdens was 
requested. But, in apparent contradiction to this, 
we read in ver. 20 of the same chapter that after 
the success of the insurrection and Rehoboam's 
flight, " when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was 
come again, they sent and called him unto the con 
gregation and made him king." But there is rea 
son to think that ver. 3 has been interpolated. It 
is not found in the LXX., which makes no mention 
of Jeroboam in this chapter till ver. 20, substi 
tuting in ver. 3 for " Jeroboam and all the congre 
gation of Israel came and spoke unto Rehoboam " the 
words, KOI f\6.\fifffv 6 \abs irpbs rbv jBaenAca 
'Poj8oo;u. So too Jeroboam's name is emitted by 
the LXX. in ver. 12. Moreover we find in the 
LXX. a long supplement to this 12th chapter, evi 
dently ancient, and at least in parts authentic, con 
taining fuller details of Jeroboam's biography than 
the Hebrew. [JEROBOAM.] In this we read that 
after Solomon's death he returned to his native 
place, Sarira in Ephraim, which he fortified, and 
lived there quietly, watching the turn of events, 
till' the long-expected rebellion broke out, when the 

* So hi Latin, scorpio, according to Isidore (Origg. v. 27), 
b " virga nodosa et aculeata, quia arcuato vulnere in corpus 
uifligitur " (Facciolati, B. v.). 


Ephraimites heard (doubtless through his o\n. 
agency) that he had returned, and invited him to 
Shechem to assume the crown. From the same 
supplementary narrative of the LXX. it would 
appeal- that more than a year must have elapsed 
between Solomon's death and Rehoboam's visit to 
Shechem, for, on receiving the news of the foimer 
event, Jeroboam requested from the king of Egypt 
leave to return to his native country. This the 
king tried to prevent by giving him his sister-in-law 
in marriage: but on the birth of his child Abijah, 
Jeroboam renewed his request, which was then 
granted. It is probable that during this year the 
discontent of the N. tribes was making itself more 
and more manifest, and that this led to Rehoboam's 
visit and intended inauguration. 

On Rehoboam's return to Jerusalem he assembled 
an army of 180,000 men from the two faithful 
tribes of Judah and Benjamin (the latter transferred 
from the side of Joseph to that of Judah in con 
sequence of the position of David's capital within 
its borders), in the hope of reconquering Israel. 
The expedition, however, was forbidden by the pro 
phet Shemaiah, who assured them that the separa 
tion of the kingdoms was in accordance with God's 
will (1 K. xii. 24): still during Rehoboam's life 
time peaceful relations between Israel and Judah 
were never restored (2 Chr. xii. 15; IK. xiv. 30). 
Rehoboam now occupied himself in strengthening 
the territories which remained to him, by building 
a number of fortresses of which the names are 
given in 2 Chr. xi. 6-10, forming a girdle of 
"fenced cities" round Jerusalem. The pure wor 
ship of God was maintained in Judah, and the 
Levites and many pious Israelites from the North, 
vexed at the calf-idolatry introduced by Jeroboam 
at Dan and Bethel, in imitation of the Egyptian 
worship of Mnevis, came and settled in the southern 
kingdom and added to its power. But Rehoboam 
did not check the introduction of heathen abomina 
tions into his capital : the lascivious worship of 
Ashtoreth was allowed to exist by the side of thu 
true religion (an inheritance of evil doubtless left 
by Solomon), "images" (of Baal and his fellow 
divinities) were set up, and the worst immoralities 
were tolerated (IK. xiv. 22-24). These evils were 
punished and put down by the terrible calamity of 
an Egyptian invasion. Shortly before this time a 
change in the ruling house had occurred in Egypt. 
The 21st dynasty, of Tanites, whose last king, 
Pisham or Psusennes, had been a close ally of Solo 
mon (1 K. iii. 1, vii. 8, ix. 16, x. 28, 29), was 
succeeded by the 22nd, of Bubastites, whose first 
sovereign, Shishak (Sheshonk, Sesonchis, 2ou<ra/a/*), 
connected himself, as we have seen, with Jeroboam. 
That he. was incited by him to attack Judah is 
very probable : at all events in the 5th year of 
Rehoboam's reign the country was invaded by a 
host of Egyptians and other African nations, num 
bering 1200 chariots, 60,000 cavalry, and a vast 
miscellaneous multitude of infantry. The line of 
fortresses which protected Jerusalem to the W. and 
S. was forced, Jerusalem itself was taken, and 
Rehoboam had to purchase an ignominious peace 
by delivering up all the treasures with which Solo 
mon had adorned the temple and palace, including 
his golden shields, 200 of the larger, and 300 of the 
smaller size (1 K. x. 16, 17), which were carried 
before him when he visited the temple in state. 
We are told that after the Egyptians had retired, 
his vain and foolish successor comforted himself by 
substituting shields of brasp, which w*ce solfunuly 


borne before him in procession by the body-guard, 
as if nothing had been changed since his father's 
time (Ewald, Geschichte des V. I. iii. 348, 464). 
Shishak's success . is commemorated by sculptures 
discovered by Champollion on the outside of the 
great temple at Karnak, where among a long list 
of captured towns and provinces occurs the name 
MekhiJudah (kingdom of Judah). It is said that 
the features of the captives in these sculptures are 
unmistakeably Jewish (Rawlinson, Herodotus, ii. 
376, and Bampton Lectures, p. 126 ; Bunsen, 
Egypt, iii. 242). After this great humiliation the 
moral condition of Judah seems to have improved 
(2 Chr. xii. 12), and the rest of Rehoboam's life to 
have been unmarked by any events of importance. 
He died B.C. 958, after a reign of 17 years, having 
ascended the throne B.C. 975 at the age of 41 
(1 K. xiv. 21 ; 2 Chr. xii. 13). In the addition to 
Jie LXX. already mentioned (inserted after 1 K. 
xii. 24) we read that he was 16 years old at his 
accession, a misstatement probably founded on a 
wrong interpretation of 2 Chr. xiii. 7, where ^ie is 
called "young" (i.e. new to his work, inuxpe- 

rienced] and " tender-hearted " (217"1p, wanting 

in resolution and spirit). He had 18 wives, 60 
concubines, 28 sons, and 60 daughters. The wisest 
thing recorded of him in Scripture is that he 
refused to waste away his sons' energies in the 
wretched existence of an Eastern zenana, in which 
we may infer, from his helplessness at the age of 
41, that he had himself been educated, but dis 
persed them in command of the new fortresses 
which he had built about the country. Of his 
wives, Mahalath, Abihail, and Maachah were all 
of the royal house of Jesse : Maachah he loved best 
of all, and to her son Abijah he bequeathed his 
kingdom. The text of the LXX. followed in this 
article is Tischendorfs edition of the Vatican MS., 
Leipsic, 1850. [G. E. L. C.] 

RE'HOBOTH (JYQrn ; Samar. HUTTI : 
tvpvxwpia ; Veneto-Gk. at nAoTe?at : Latitude). 
The third of the series of wells dug by Isaac (Gen. 
xxvi. 22). He celebrates his triumph and bestows 
its name on the well in a fragment of poetry of the 
same nature as those in which Jacob's wives give 
names to his successive children: "He called the 
name of it Rehoboth (' room,') and said, 

Because now Jehovah hath-made-room for us 
And we shall increase in the land.' " 

Isaac had left the valley of Gerar and its turbulent 
inhabitants before he dug the well which he thus 
commemorated (ver. 22). From it he, in time, 
" went up " to Beersheba (ver. 23), an expression 
which is always used of motion towards the Land of 
yromise. The position of Gerar has not been defi 
nitely ascertained, but it seems to have lain a few 
miles to the S. of Gaza and nearly due E. of Beer 
sheba. In this direction, therefore, if anywhere, 
the wells Sitnah, Esek, and Rehoboth, should be 
searched for. A Wady Ruhaibeh, containing the 
ruins of a town of the same name, with a large 
well, b is crossed by the road from Khan en-Nukhl 
to Hebron, by which Palestine is entered on the 
South. It lies about 20 miles S.W. of Bir es-Seba, 


and more than that distance S. of the moft probable 
situation of Gerar. It therefore seems unsafe with 
out further proof to identify it with Rehoboth, as 
Rowhiy?? (in Williams' Holy City, i. 4b5), Stewart 
(Tent and Khan, 202), and Van de Velde r (Me 
moir, 343) have done. At the same time, as is 
admitted by Dr. Robinson, the existence of so large 
a place here without any apparent mention is mys 
terious. All that can be said in favour of the 
identity of Ruhaibch with Rehoboth is said by Dr. 
Bonar (Desert of Sinai, 316), and not without con 
siderable force. 

The ancient Jewish tradition confined the events 
of this part of Isaac's life to a much narrower circle. 
The wells of the patriarchs were shown near Ash- 
kelon in the time of Origin, Antoninus Martyr, 
and Eusebius (Reland, Pal. 589) ; the Samaritan 
Version identifies Gerar with Ashkelon ; Josephus 
(Ant. i. 12, 1) calls it " Gerar of Palestine," i. e. 
of Philistia. |_ G -] 

Rechoboth'Ir; Samar. nUMI; Sam.Vers.' pBD 
'Poo>j8<i> ftir6\is ; Alex. 'PowjSws : plateae cwitatis). 
One of the four cities built by Asshur, or by 
Nimrod in Asshur, according as this difficult pas 
sage is translated. The four were Nineveh ; Reho- 
both-Ir ; Calah ; and Resen, between Nineveh and 
Calah (Gen. x. 11). Nothing certain is known of 
its position. The name of Rahabeh is still attached 
to two places in the region of the ancient Meso 
potamia. They lie, the one on the western and the 
other on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, a few 
miles below the confluence of the Khobar. Both 
are said to contain extensive ancient remains. That 
on the eastern bank bears the affix of malik or 
royal, and this Bunsen (BibelwerK) and Kalisch 
(Genesis, 261) propose as the representative oi 
Kehoboth. Its distance from Kalah-Sherghat and 
Nimrud (nearly 200 miles) is perhaps an obstacle 
to this identification. Sir H. Rawlinson (Athen 
aeum, April 15, 1854) suggests Selemiyah in the 
immediate neighbourhood of Kalah, " where there 
are still extensive ruins of the Assyrian period," 
b^t no subsequent discoveries appear to have con 
firmed this suggestion. The Samaritan Version 
(see above) reads Sutcan for Rehoboth ; and it is 
remarkable that the name Sutcan should be found 
in connexion with Calah in an inscription on the 
breast of a statue of the god Nebo which Sir H. 
Rawlinson disinterred at Nimrud (Athenaeum, as 
above). The Sutcan of the Samaritan Version is 
commonly supposed to denote the Sittacene of the 
Greek geographers (Winer, Reahcb. " Rechoboth 
Ir "). But Sittacene was a district, and not a cit/ 
as Rehoboth-Ir necessarily was, and, further, being 
in southern Assyria, would seem to be too distant 
from the other cities of Nimrod. 

St. Jerome, both in the Vulgate and in his 
Quaestiones ad Genes im (probably from Jewish 
sources), considers Rehoboth-Ir as referring to 
Nineveh, arid as meaning the "streets of the city." 
The reading of the Targums of Jonathan, Jerusalem, 
and Rabbi Joseph, on Gen. and 1 Chron., viz., 
Platiah, Platiutha, are probably only transcrip 
tions of the Greek word ir\are7ai, which, as found 
in the well known ancient city Plataea, is the < xact 

b Dr. Kobinson could not find the well. Dr. Stewart 
found it "regularly built, 12 feet in circumference," but 
" completely filled up." Mr. Rowlands describes it as 
' an ancient well of living ami good water." Who shall 
tittle on testimony so curiously contradictory ? 


In his Travels Van de Velde inclines to place it, or at 
any rate one of Isaac's wells, at Sir Isek, about six milee 
S.W. of Beit Jibrin (Syr. and Pal. ii. 146). 

The Arabic translation of this version (Kuehnen) 
adheres to Uie Hebrew text, having Rahabeh. d -MedineJi. 



equivalent of Rehoboth. Kaplan, the Jewish geo 
grapher (Erets Kedumim), identifies Rahabeh-malik 
with Rehoboth-bv-the-river, in which he is possibly 
correct, but considers it as distinct from Rehoboth- 
Ir, which he believes to have disappeared. [G.] 


: 'Poa>/3&0 in Chr. 'PufiajQ rj irapa iro- 
; Alex. 'Poa>|8a>0 in each : de fluvio Rohoboth ; 
Rohoboth quae juxta amnem sita est}. The city of a 
certain Saul or Shaul, one of the early kings of the 
Edomites (Gen. xxxvi. 37 ; 1 Chr. i. 48). The 
affix, " the river," fixes the situation of Rehoboth 
as on the Euphrates, emphatically " the river " 
to the inhabitants of Western Asia. [RiVER.] 
The name still remains attached to two spots on 
the Euphrates; the one, simply Rahabeh, on the 
right bank, eight miles below the junction of the 
Khabur, and about three miles west of the river 
(Chesney, Euphr., i. 119, ii. 610, and map iv.), 
the other four or five miles further down on the 
left bank. The latter is said to be called Rahabeh- 
malik, i. e. " royal " (Kalisch, Kaplan),* and is on 
this ground identified by the Jewish commentators 
with the city of Saul ; but whether this is accurate, 
and whether that city, or either of the two sites 
just named, is also identical with Rehoboth-Ir, the 
city of Nimrod, is not yet known. 

There is no reason to suppose that the limits of 
Edom ever extended to the Euphrates, and there 
fore the occurrence of the name in the lists of 
kings of Edom, would seern to be a trace of an 
Assyrian incursion of the same nature as that of 
Chedorlaomer and Amraphel. [G.] 

RE'HUM (D-irr : 'Peoi5/i ; Alex. ' 

Rehum}. 1. One of the " children of the province" 
who went up from Babylon with Zerubbabel (Ezr. 
ii. 2). In Neh. vii. 7 he is called NEHUM, and in 
I Esd. v. 8 ROIMUS. 

2. (R*um.} " Rehum the chancellor," with 
Shim&nai the scribe and others, wrote to Artaxerxes 
to prevail upon him to stop the rebuilding of the 
walls and temple of Jerusalem (Ezr. iv. 8, 9, 17, 
23). He was perhaps a kind of lieutenant-governor 
of the province under the king of Persia, holding 
apparently the same office as Tatnai, who is de 
scribed in Ezr. v. 6 as taking part in a similar 
transaction, and is there called " the governor on 
this side the river." The Chaldee title, 

beel-te'etn, lit. " lord of decree," is left untranslated 
in the LXX. Ba\rcfyi, and the Vulgate Beelteem ; 
and the rendering " chancellor " in the A. V. appears 
to have been derived from Kimchi and others, who 
explain it, in consequence of its connexion with 
"scribe," by the Hebrew word which is usually 
rendered " recorder." This appears to have been 
the view taken by the author of 1 Esd. ii. 25, 6 
ypatyaiv ra irpoffiriirrovra, and by Josephus (Ant. 
xi. 2, 1), 6 irdvTa TO Trparr6/j.fV(t ypAfytav. The 
former of these seems to be a gloss, for the Chaldee 
title is also represented by BeeA/refyios. 

3. ("Paov/j. : Rehum.} A Levite of the family of 
Bani, who assisted in rebuilding the walls of Jeru 
salem (Neh. in. 17). 

4. ('Peoifyt.) One of the chief of the people, who 
signed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh. x. 25). 


5. (Om. in Vat. MS.: Rheum.) A priestly 
family, or the head of a priestly house, who went 
up with Zevubbabel (Neh. xii. 3). [W. A. W.] 

RE'I p}n : 'Priffti b Rei}. A person mentioned 

(in 1 K. i. 8 only) as having, in company with 
Zadok, Benaiah, Nathan, Shirnei, and the men o' 
David's guard, remained firm to David's cause when 
Adonijah rebelled. He is not mentioned again, nor 
do we obtain any clue to his identity. Various 
conjectures have been made. Jerome (Quaest. Hebr. 
ad loc.) states that he is the same with " Hiram 
the Zairite," . e. Ira the Jairite, a priest or prince 
about the person of David. Ewald (Gesch. iii. 266 
note}, dwelling on the occurrence of Shimei in the 
same list with Rei, suggests that the two are 
David's only surviving brothers, Rei being identical 
with RADDAI. This is ingenious, but there is 
nothing to support it, while there is the great 
objection to it that the names are in the original 
extremely dissimilar, Rei containing the Ain, a letter 
which is rarely exchanged for any other, but appa 
rently never for Daleth (Gesen. Thes. 976, 7). [G.] 

REINS, i. e. kidneys, from the Latin renes. 
1. The word is used to translate the Hebrew JIV^S, 
except in the Pentateuch and in Is. xxxiv. 6, where 
" kidneys " is employed. In the ancient system 
of physiology the kidneys were believed to be the 
seat of desire and longing, which accounts for their 
often being coupled with the heart (Ps. vii. 9, 
xxvi. 2 ; Jer. xi. 20, xvii. 10, &c.). 

2. It is once used (Is. xi. 5) as the equivalent of 
, elsewhere translated " loins." [G.] 

REK'EM (DJ71 : 'Poic6v, 'PojS^ie ; Alex. 'Po/c^u : 
Recem). 1. One of the five kings or chieftains of 
Midian slain by the Israelites (Num. xxxi. 8 ; Josh. 
xiii. 21) at the time that Balaam fell. 

2. ('?*<{/*; Alex. 'Po/cJ/i.) One of the four 
sons of Hebron, and father of Shammai (1 Chr. ii. 
43, 44). In the last verse the LXX. have " Jor- 
koam " for " Rekem." In this genealogy it is ex 
tremely difficult to separate the names of persons 
from those of places Ziph, Mareshah, Tappuah, 
Hebron, are all names of places, as well as Maon 
and Beth-zur. In Josh, xviii. 27 Rekem appears as 
a town of Benjamin, and perhaps this genealogy 
may be intended to indicate that it was founded by 
a colony from Hebron. 

REK'EM (Dn : perhaps KaQav ical 

Alex. 'Pace}*. : Recem}. One of the towns of the 
allotment of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 27). It occurs 
between MOZAH (ham-Motsa) and IRPEEL. No 
one, not even Schwarz, has attempted to identify 
it with any existing site. But may there not be 
a trace of the name in Ain Karim, the well-known 
spring west of Jerusalem ? It is within a very 
short distance of Motsah, provided Kulonieh be 
Motsah, as the writer has already suggested. [G.] 

REMALrAHOrT^DV. 'Portias in Kings 
and Isaiah, 'Pofj.f\ia in Chr. : Romelia}. The father 
of Pekah, captain of Pekah'iah king of Israel, who 
slew his master and usurped his throne (2 K. xv. 
25-37, xvi. 1, 5 ; 2 Chr. xxviii. 6 ; Is. vii. 1-9, 
viii. 6). 

a The existence of the second rests but on slender 
foundation. It is shown in the map in Layari's Nineoek 
ttfud Babylon, and is mentioned by the two Jewish 

authorities named above : but it docs not appeal in tht 
work of Col. Chesnej. 
* Reading ^ for y. 


REM'ETH (Htn : 'Pe^/ms ; Alex. ' 
Uaifieth}. One of the towns of Issachnr (Josh. xix. 
21), occurring in the list next to En-gannim, the 
modern Jenin. It is probably (though not cer 
tainly) a distinct place from the RAMOTH of 1 Chr. 
vi. 73. A place bearing the name of Rameh is 
ound on the west of the track from Samaria to 
Jenin, about 6 miles N. of the former and 9 S.W. 
of the latter (Porter, Handb. 348 a ; Van de Velde, 
Map). Its situation, on an isolated rocky tell in 
the middle of a green plain buried in the hills, is 
quite in accordance with its name, which is pro 
bably a mere variation of Ramah, " height." But 
it appears to be too far south to be within the terri 
tory of Issachar, which, as far as the scanty indica 
tions of the record can be made out, can hardly 
have extended below the southern border of the 
plain of Esdraelon. 

For Schwarz's conjecture that Rameh is RA- 
tfATHAiM-zOPHiM, see that article (p. 999). [G.] 

KEM'MON (fiisn, i. e. Rimmon: 'Epc/w/wfr : 

Alex. 'Pf/jLfji.<i}Q : Remmon). A town in the allotment 
of Simeon, one of a group of four (Josh. xix. 7) 
It is the same place which is elsewhere accurately 
given in the A. V. as RIMMON ; the inaccuracy both 
in this case and that of REMMON-METHOAR having 
no doubt arisen from our translators inadvertently 
following the Vulgate, which again followed the 
LXX. [G.] 

REM'MON-METH'OAR (1Khl?n flBl, . e 
Rimmon ham-methoar : 'Pe/Afjuavad M.aQapaoa 
Alex. 'Pff^/jLuvafi paQapifji : Remmon, Amthar). A 
place which formed one of the landmarks of the 
eastern boundary of the territory of Zebulun (Josh 
<ix. 13 only). It occurs between Kth-Katsin and 
Neah. Methoar does not really form a part of the 
name ; but is the Pual of "1S<K to stretch, anc 
should be translated accordingly (as in the margin 
of the A. V.) " R. which reaches to Neah." This 
is the judgment of Gesenius, Thes. 1292a, Rodigcr 
Ib. 149 la; Fiirst, Handwb. ii. 512a, and Bunsen 
as well as of the ancient Jewish commentator 
Rashi, who quotes as his authority the Targum 
of Jonathan, the text of which has however been 
subsequeatly altered, since in its present state i 
agrees with the A. V. in not translating the word 
The latter course is taken by the LXX. and Vul 
gate as above, and by the Peshito, Junius and Tre- 
mellius, and Luther. The A. V. has here furthe 
erroneously followed the Vulgate in giving the firs 
part of the name as Remmon instead of Rimmon. 

This Rimmon does not appear to have been knowi 
to Eusebius and Jerome, but it is mentioned by th 
sarly traveller Parchi, who says that it is called Ruma 
'ieh, and stands an hour south of Sepphoris (Zunz' 
Benjamin, ii. 433). If for south we read north, thi 
is in clobo agreement with the statements of Dr. Robin 
son (. R. iii. 110), and Mr. Van de Velde (Map 
Memoir, 344), who place Rummdneh on the S 
border of the Plain of Buttauf, 3 miles N.N.E. < 
Seffurieh. It is difficult, however, to see how th 
can have been on the eastern boundary of Zebulun 
Rimmon is not improbably identical with th 
Levitical city, which in Josh. xxi. 35 appears 
the form of Dimnah, and again, m the parallel Iis1 
of Chronicles (1 Chr. vi. 77) as Rimmono (A. V 
RIMMON, p. 10436). [G.] 


REM'PHAN ('Pf/j-Qdv, 'Pe<f>di : Rempham. 
:ts vii. 43) : and CHIUN (|-1>3 : 'Paifdv, 

0/j.Qa, Compl. Am. v. 26) have been supposed to 
>e names of an idol worshipped by the Israelites in 
he wilderness, but seem to be the names of two 
dols. The second occurs in Amos, in the Heb. ; 
he first, in a quotation of that passage in St. Ste- 
)hen's address, in the Acts : the LXX. of Amos has, 
lowever, the same name as in the Acts, though not 
written in exactly the same manner. Mach diffi- 
ulty has been occasioned by this corresponding 
occurrence of two names so wholly different in 
ound. The most reasonable opinion seemed to 
>e that Chiun was a Hebrew or Semitic name, 
ind Remphan an Egyptian equivalent substituted 
>y the LXX. The former, rendered Saturn in 
,he Syr., was compared with the Arab, and Pers. 

the planet Saturn," and, according to 

\ircher, the latter was found in Coptic with the 
same signification ; but perhaps he had no authority 
or this excepting the supposed meaning of the 
Hebrew Chiun. Egyptology has, however, shown 
that this is not the true explanation. Among the 
breign divinities worshipped in Egypt, two, the 
god RENPU, perhaps pronounced REMPU, and the 
goddess KEN, occur together. Before endeavouring 
to explain the passages in which Chiun and Rem 
phan are mentioned, it will be desirable to speak, 
on the evidence of the monuments, of the foreign 
gods worshipped in Egypt, particularly RENPU and 
KEN, and of the idolatry of the Israelites while in 
that country. 

Besides those divinities represented on the monu 
ments of Egypt which have Egyptian forms or 
names, or both, others have foreign forms or names, 
or both. Of the latter, some appear to have been 
introduced at a very remote age. This is certainly 
the case with the principal divinity of Memphis, 
Ptah, the Egyptian Hephaestus. The name Ptah 
is from a Semitic root, for it signifies "open," and 
in Heb. we find the root PIHS, and its cognates, 

" he or it opened," whereas there is no word related, 
to it in Coptic. The figure of this divinity is that 
of a deformed pigmy, or perhaps unborn child, and 
is unlike the usual representations of divinities on 
the monuments. In this case there can be no doubt 
that the introduction took place at an extremely 
early date, as the name of Ptah occurs in very old 
tombs in the necropolis of Memphis, and is found 
throughout the religious records. It is also to be 
noticed that this name is not traceable in the 
mythology of neighbouring nations, unless indeed 
it corresponds to that of the TldraiKot or TlaTCUKoi, 
whose images, according to Herodotus, were the 
figure-heads of Phoenician ships (iii. 37). The 
foreign divinities that seem to be of later introduction 
are not found throughout the religious records, but 
only in single tablets, or are otherwise very rarely 
mentioned, and two out of their four names are 
immediately recognized to be non-Egyptian. They 
are RENPU, and the goddesses KEN, ANTA, and 
ASTARTA. The first and second of these have 
foreign forms ; the third and fourth have Egyptian 
forms : there would therefore seem to be an especially 
foreign character about the former two. 

* The LXX. here combine the Ain and Rimmon of th 
A, V. into one name, and make up the four cities of th 
p-op by inserting a a\\d, of which there is no trace i 

the Hebrew, but which is possibly the Toehen of 1 Cltt, 
iv. 32 in the LXX. of that passage, 0o*tAt. 

3 U 2 


KENPU/pronmniced REMPU (?) is represented 
as an Asiatic, with the full beard and apparently 
the general type of face given on the monuments 
to most nations east of Egypt, and to the RFBU 
or Libyans. This type is evidently that of the 
Shernites. His hair is bound with a fillet, which is 
ornamented in front with the head of an antelope. 

KEN is represented perfectly naked, holding in both 
hands com, and standing upon a lion. In the last 
particular the figure of a goddess at Maltheiyyeh in 
Assyria may be compared (Layard, Nineveh, ii. 212). 
From this occurrence of a similar representation, 
from her being naked and carrying corn, and from 
her being worshipped with KHEM, we may sup 
pose that KEN corresponded to the Syrian goddess, 
at least when the latter had the character of Venus. 
She is also called KETESH, which is the name in 
hieroglyphics of the great Hittite town on the 
Orontes. t This in the present case is probably a 
title, nK^Jjp : it can scarcely be the name of a town 
where she was worshipped, applied to her as per 
sonifying it. 

ANATA appears to be Anaitis, and her foreign 
character seems almost certain from her being 
jointly worshipped with RENPU and KEN. 

ASTARTA is of course the Ashtoreth of Canaan. 

On a tablet in the British Museum the principal 
subject is a group representing KEN, having KHEM 
on one side and RENPU on the other : beneath is 
an adoration of ANATA. On the half of another 
tablet KEN and KHEM occur, and a dedication to 

We have no clue to the exact time of the intro 
duction of these divinities into Egypt, nor, except 
in one case, to any particular places of their wor 
ship. Their names oceur as early as the period of 
the xviiith and xixth dynasties, and it is therefore 
not improbable that they were introduced by the 
Shepherds. ASTARTA is mentioned in a tablet 
of Amenoph II., opposite Memphis, which leads to 
the conjecture that she was the foreign Venus there 
worshipped, in the quarter of the Phoenicians of 
Tyre, according to Herodotus (ii. 112). It is ob 
servable that the Shepherds worshipped SUTEKH, 
corresponding to SETH, and also called BAR, that 
is, Baal, and that, under king APEPEE, he was the 
sole god of the foreigners. SUTEKH was probably 
a foreign god, and was certainly identified with 
Baal. The idea that the Shepherds introduced the 
foreign gods is therefore partly confirmed.. As to 
RENPU and KEN we can only offer a conjecture. 
They occur together, and KEN is a form of the 
Syrian goddess, and also bears some relation to the 
Egyptian god of productiveness, KHEM. Their 
similarity to Baal and Ashtoreth seems strong, and 
perhaps it is not unreasonable to suppose that they 
were the divinities of some tribe from the east, 
not of Phoenicians or Canaanites, settled in Egypt 
during the Shepherd-period. The naked goddess 
KEN would suggest such worship as that of the 
Babylonian Mylitta, but the thoroughly Shemite 
appearance of RENPU is rather in favour of an 

In illustration of this probable pronunciation, we 
may cite the occurrence in hieroglyphics of RENPA or 
RANP, " youth, young, to renew ;" and, in Coptic, of 

thejupposed cognate pJUUll) pOJULTU* S. 

a year;" so MENNUFR, Memphis, 

juiejutqi, a i so xjienfie, 
axenqi, s jmejmqe, JULH&G, M ^. 

i>i<s, mid UN-NUFR, "0 M< p ts . 


Arab source. Although we have not discovered a 
Semitic origin of either name, the absence of the 
names in the mythologies of Canaan and the neigh 
bouring countries, as far as they are known to us, 
inclines us to look to Arabia, of which the early 
mythology is extremely obscure. 

The Israelites in Egypt, after Joseph's rule, ap 
pear to have fallen into a general, but doubtless not 
universal, practice of idolatry. This is only twice 
distinctly stated and once alluded to (Josh. xxiv. 
14 ; Ezek. xx. 7, 8, xxiii. 3), but the indications 
are perfectly clear. The mention of CHI UN or 
REMPHAN as worshipped in the desert shows that 
this idolatry was, in part at least, that of foreigners, 
and no doubt of those settled in Lower Egypt. The 
golden calf, at first sight, would appear to be an 
image of Apis of Memphis, or Mnevis of Heliopolis, 
or some other sacred bull of Egypt; but it must be 
remembered that we read in the Apocrypha of "the 
heifer Baal " (Tob. i. 5), so that it was possibly a 
Phoenician or Canaanite idol. The best parallel to 
this idolatry is that of the Phoenician colonies in 
Europe, as seen in the idols discovered in tombs at 
Camirus in Rhodes by M. Salzmann, and those found 
in tombs in the island of Sardinia (of both of which 
there are specimens in the British Museum), and 
those represented on the coins of Melita and the 
island of Ebusus. 

We can now endeavour to explain the passages 
in which Chiun and Remphan occur. The Maso- 
retic text of Amos v. 26 reads thus: " But ye 
bare the tent [or 'tabernacle'] of your king and 
Chiun your images, the star of your gods [or 
* your god '], which ye made for yourselves." In 
the LXX. we find remarkable differences : it reacts : 
Kal oj/eA.cj8eT6 rty ffKyvfyv rov MoA&x Kal rb 
Hffrpov rov 0eoD vp.wv 'Vaifyav, rovs rvirovs 
avrav otis firoi^ffarf eavToIs. The Vulg. agrees 
with the Masoretic text in the order of the clauses, 
though omitting Chiun or Remphan. " Et portastis 
tabernaculum Moloch vestro, et imaginem idolorum 
vestrorum, sidus dei vestri, quae fecistis vobis." 
The passage is cited in the Acts almost in the words 
of the LXX. : " Yea, ye took up the tabernacle 
of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, 
figures which ye made to worship them " (Kal 
av\dfifT rfyv CTKTJV^V rov MoA.2>x Ka ^ r ^ &o~rpov 
rov deov vfj.S>v 'PejU^av, rovs rinrovs ovs eiroii)- 
aare irpoffK.vvtiv avrois). A slight change in the 
Hebrew would enable us to read Moloch (Malcam 
or Milcom) instead of " your king." Bevond this 
it is extremely difficult to explain the differences. 
The substitution of Remphan for Chiun cannot be 
accounted for by verbal criticism. The Hebrew does 
not seem as distinct in meaning as the LXX., and if 
we may conjecturally emend it from the latter, the 
last clause would be, " your images which ye made 
for yourselves:" and if we further transpose Chiun 
to the place of " your god Remphan," in the LXX., 

DDta H13D riX would correspond to MD DN 
}V3 D3^n/X , but how can we account for such a 
transposition as would thus be supposed, which, be 
it remembered, is less likely in the Hebrew than in 
a translation of a difficult passage ? If we compare 
the Masoretic text and the supposed original, we 
perceive that in the former D^D/tf JV3 corre 
sponds in po&lwon to DD^n^K 2DD, and it doea 
not seem an unwan-antable conjecture that |V3 
having been by mistake written in the place of 
by some copyist, D3*O/X was ^^> trans- 


posed. It appeal's to be n>>re reasonable to rea 
" images which ye made," than "gods which 
made," as the former word occurs. Supposing thes 
emendations to be probable, we may now examin 
the meaning of the passage. 

The tent or tabernacle of Moloch is supposed b 
Gesenius to have been an actual tent, and he com 
pares the <TKI]V)) lepd of the Carthaginians (Dioc 
Sic. xx. 65; Lex. s. v. JTH3D). But there i 

Borne difficulty in the idea that the Israelites carrie< 
about so large an object for the purpose of idolatry 
and it seems more likely that it was a small mode 
of a larger tent or shrine. The reading Moloc 
appears preferable to " your king ;" but the men 
tion of the idol of the Ammonites as worshipped i 
the desert stands quite alone. It is perhaps worth 
of note that there is reason for supposing tha 
Moloch was a name of the planet Saturn, and tha 
this planet was evidently supposed by the ancien 
translators to be intended by Chiun and Remphan 
The correspondence of Remphan or Raiphan t( 
Chiun is extremely remarkable, and can, we think 
only be accounted for by the supposition that th 
LXX. translator or translators of the prophet hac 
Egyptian knowledge, and being thus acquainted with 
the ancient joint worship of Ken and Renpu, sub 
stituted the latter for the former, as they may have 
been unwilling to repeat the name of a foreign 
Venus. The star of Remphan, if indeed the pass 
is to be read so as to connect these words, wouk 
be especially appropriate if Remphan were a pla 
netary god ; but the evidence for this, especially as 
partly founded upon an Arab, or Pers. word lik 
Chiun, is not sufficiently strong to enable us to lay 
any stress upon the agreement. In hieroglyphics 
the sign for a star is one of the two composing 
the word SEE, " to adore," and is undoubtedly 
there used in a symbolical as well as a phoneti 
sense, indicating that the ancient Egyptian religion 
was partly derived from a system of star- worship ; 
and there are representations on the monuments ol 
mythical creatures or men adoring stars (Ancient 
Egyptians, pi. 30 A.). We have, however, no 
positive indication of any figure of a star being used 
as an idolatrous object of worship. From the 
manner in which it is mentioned we may conjecture 
that the star of Remphan was of the same character 
as the tabernacle of Moloch, an object connected 
with false worship rather than an image of a false 
god. According to the LXX. reading of the last 
clause it might be thought that these objects were 
actually images of Moloch and Remphan ; but it 
must be remembered that we cannot suppose an 
image to have had the form of a tent, and that the 
version of the passage in the Acts, as well as the 
Masoretic text, if in the latter case we may change 
the order of the words, give a clear sense. As to 
the meaning of the last clause, it need only be 
remarked that it does not oblige us to infer that 
the Israelites made the images of the false gods, 
though they may have done so, as in the case of the 
.golden calf: it may mean no more than that they 
adopted these gods. 

It is to be observed that the whole passage does 
not indicate that distinct Egyptian idolatry was 
practised by the Israelites. It is very remarkable 
that the only false gods mentioned as worshipped 
by them in the desert should be probably Moloch, 
and Chiun, and Remphan, of which the latter two 
were foreign: divinities worshipped in Egypt. From 
this we naay reasonably infer, that while the Israelites 


sojourned in Egypt there was also a great stranger- 
population in the Lower Country, and therefore that 
it is probable that then the Shepherds still occupied 
the land. [R. S. P.] 

REPHAEL C^NQT: 'PaQafa: Raphael). SOD 
of Shemaiah, the firstborn of Obed-edom, and one 
of the gate-keepers of the tabernacle, " able men for 
strength for the service" (1 Chr. xxvi. 7). 

RE'PHAH (PIS'] : 'Paf-fi : Rapha). A son o 
Ephraim, and ancestor of Joshua the son of Nun 
(1 Chr. vii. 25). 

EEPHAI'AH (nB") : 'Pa<pd\ ; Alex. 'PaQaia : 
Raphaia). 1. The sons of Rephaiah appear among 
the descendants of Zerubbabel in 1 Chr. iii. 21. 
In the Peshito-Syriac he is made the son of Jesaiah. 

2. ('PaQaia). One of the chieftains of the tribe 
of Simeon in the reign of Hezekiah, who headed the 
expedition of five hundred men against the Ama- 
lekites of Mount Seir, and drove them out (1 Chi-, 
iv. 42). 

3. One of the sons of Tola, the son of Issachar, 
" heads of their father's house " (1 Chr. vii. 2). 

4. Son of Binea, and descendant of Saul and Jo 
nathan (1 Chr. ix. 43). In 1 Chr. viii. 37 he i? 
called RAPHA. 

5. The son of Hur, and ruler of a portion of Je 
rusalem (Neh. iii. 9). He assisted in rebuilding the 
city wall under Nehemiah. 

REPH'AIM. [GIANTS, vol. i. 6876.] 
V) Koi\as TUV Tirdvuv, and rS>v IV 
ydvTo>v\ K. 'PaQaeifji ; in Isaiah <f>dpay <rrfpfd), 
2 Sam. v. 18, 22, xxiii. 13; 1 Chr. xi. 15, xiv. 9; 
Is. xvii. 5. Also in Josh. xv. 8, and xviii. 16, 
where it is translated in the A. V. " the valley of 
the giants" (777 'Pcupaeiv and 'E/JLCK 'PaQaciv}. 
A spot which was the scene of some of David's 
most remarkable adventures. He twice encoun- 
ered the Philistines there, and inflicted a destruc- 
,ion on them and on their idols so signal that it 
rave the place a new name, and impressed itself on 
!he popular mind of Israel'with such distinctness 
hat the Prophet Isaiah could employ it, centuries 
fter, as a symbol of a tremendous impending judg 
ment of God nothing less than the desolation and 
"estruction of the whole earth (Is. xxviii. 21, 22). 

It was probably during the former of these two 
ontests that the incident of the water of Beth- 
ehem (2 Sam. xxiii. 13, &c.) occurred. The 
' hold " (ver. 14) in which David found himself, 
eems (though it is not clear) to have been the 
,ave of Adullam, the scene of the commencement 
f his freebooting life ; but, wherever situated, we 
eed not doubt that it was the same fastness as 
hat mentioned in 2 Sam. v. 17, since, in both 
ases, the same word (m-Wtpil, with the def. 
rticle), and that not a usual one, is employed, 
'he story shows very clearly the predatory nature 
f these incursions of the Philistines. It was in 
harvest time" (ver. 13). They had come to 
arry off the ripe crops, for which the valley was 
roverbial (Is. xvii. 5\ just as at Pas-dammim 
1 Chr. xi. 13) we nd them in the parcel of 

There is no warrant for " down to the bold" in A. V. 
ad it been 7JJ "down" might have been added witJi 


ground full of barley, at Lehi in the field of len- 
tiles (2 Sam. xxiii. 11), or at Keilah in the thresh 
ing-floors (1 Sam. xxn'i. 1). Their animals 11 were 
scattered among the ripe corn receiving their load of 
plunder. The " garrison," or the officer* in cnarge 
of the expedition, was on the watch in the village of 

This narrative seems to imply that the valley 
of Rephaim was near Bethlehem ; but unfortu 
nately neither this nor the notice in Josh. xv. 8 
and xviii. 16, in connexion with the boundary line 
between Judah and Benjamin, gives any clue to 
its situation, still less does its connexion with the 
groves of mulberry trees or Baca (2 Sam. v. 23), 
itself unknown. Josephus (Ant. vii. 12, 4) men 
tions it as * the valley which extends (from Jeru 
salem) to the city of Bethlehem." 

Since the latter part of the 16th cent. d the name 
ttas been attached to the upland plain which stretches 
south of Jerusalem, and is crossed by the read to 
Bethlehem the el Buk'ah of the modern Arabs 
(Tobler, Jerusalem, &c., ii. 401). But this, 
though appropriate enough as regards its proximity 
to Bethlehem, does not answer at all to the meaning 
:f the Hebrew word Ernek, which appears always 
X) designate an inclosed valley, never an open up- 
and plain like that in question, 6 the level of which 
.'s as high, or nearly as high, as that of Mount Zion 
itself. [VALLEY.] Eusebius (Onomasticon, 'Pa- 
Qaelv and 'EyucfcpcK/jaefyi) calls it the valley of the 
Philistines (icoi\as a.\\o<pv\wv}, and places it " on 
the north of Jerusalem," in the tribe of Benjamin. 

A position N. W. of the city is adopted by 
Fiirst (ffandwb. ii. 3836), apparently on the 
ground of the terms of Josh. xv. 8 and xviii. 16, 
which certainly do leave it doubtful whether the 
valley is on the north of the boundary or the 
boundary on the north of the valley ; and Tobler, 
in his last investigations (3tte Wanderung, 202), 
conclusively adopts the Wady Der Jasin (W. 
Makhrior, in Van de Velde's map), one of the side 
valleys of the great Wady Beit Hanina, as the 
valley of Rephaim. This position is open to the 
obvious objection of too great distance from both 
Bethlehem and the cave of Adullam (according to 
any position assignable to the latter) to meet the 
requirements of 2 Sam. xxiii. 13. 

The valley appears to derive its name from the 
ancient nation of the Rephaim. It may be a trace 
of an early settlement of theirs, possibly after they 
were driven from their original seats east of the 
Jordan by Chedorlaomer (Gen. xiv. 5), and before 
they again migrated northward to the more secure 
wooded districts in which we find them at the date 
of the partition of the countiy among the tribes 
(Josh. xvii. 15; A. V. "giants"). In this case it 
is a parallel to the " mount of the Amalekites " in 
the centre of Palestine, and to the towns bearing 
the name of the Zemaraim, the Avim, the Ophnites, 
&c., which occur so frequently in Benjamin, [vol. 
i. p. 188 note.] [G.] 


KEPH'IDIM (DHBV. 'PaQtSlv). Ex. xvii. 1, 
8 ; xix. 2. The name means " rests " or " stays ;" 
the place lies in the march of the Israelites from 
Egypt to Sinai. The " wilderness of Sin " waa 
succeeded by Rephidim according to these passage?, 
but in Num. xxxiii. 12, 13, Dophkah and Alush 
are mentioned as occurring between the people's 
exit from that wilderness and their entry into 
the latter locality. There is nothing known of 
these two places which will enable us to fix the 
site of Rephidim. [ALUSH ; DOPHKAH.] Lepsius' 
view is that Mount Serbdl is the true Horeb, and 
that Rephidim is Wady Feiran, the well known 
valley, richer in water and vegetation than any 
other in the peninsula (Lepsius' Tour from Tliebet 
to Sinai, 1845, pp. 21, 37). This would account 
for the expectation of finding water here, whicnj 
however, from some unexplained cause failed. In 
Ex. xvii. 6, " the rock in Horeb" is named as the 
source of the water miraculously supplied. On the 
other hand, the language used Ex. xix. 1, 2, seeme 
precise, as regards the point that the journey from 
Rephidim to Sinai was a distinct stage. The time 
from the wilderness of Sin, reached on the fifteenth 
day of the second month of the Exodus (Ex. xvi. 1), 
to the wilderness of Sinai, reached on the first day 
of the third month (xix. 1 ), is from fourteen to sixteen 
days. This, if we follow Num. xxxiii. 12-15, has 
to be distributed between the four march-stations 
Sin, Dophkah, Alush, and Rephidim, and their cor 
responding stages of journey, which would allow two 
days' repose to every day's march, as there are four 
marches, and 4x2+4=1 2, leaving two days over 
from the fourteen. The first grand object being 
the arrival at Sinai, the intervening distance may 
probably have been despatched with all possible 
speed, considering the weakness of the host by reason 
of women, &c. The name Horeb is by Robinson 
taken to mean an extended range or region, some 
part of which was near to Rephidim, which he 
places at Wady esh Sheikh,* running from N.E. to 
S.W., on the W. side of Gebel Fureia, opposite the 
northern face of the modem Horeb. [SiNAi.] It 
joins the Wady Feiran. The exact spot of Robin 
son's Rephidim is a defile in the esh Sheikh visited 
and described by Burckhardt (Syria, &c., 488) as 
at about five hours' distance from where it issues 
fi om the plain Er Raheh, narrowing between abrupt 
cliffs of blackened granite to about 40 feet in width. 
Here is also the traditional " Seat of Moses " (Robin 
son, i. 121).- The opinion of Stanley (S. and P. 
40-42), on the contrary, with Ritter (xiv. 740, 741), 
places Rephidim in Wady Feiran, where the traces 
of building and cultivation still attest the import 
ance of, this valley to all occupants of the desert. It 
naiTows in one spot to 100 yards, showing high 
mountains and thick woods, with gardens and date- 
groves. Here stood a Christian church, city and 
episcopal residence, under the name of Paran, before 
the foundation of the convent of Mount St. Ca 
therine by Justinian. It is the finest valley in the 

b This is the rendering in the ancient and trustworthy 
Syriac version of the rare word n*H (2 Sam. xxiii. 
13), rendered in our version " troop." 

c Xetsib. The meaning is uncertain (see vol. ii. 353 note). 

d According to Tobler (Topographic, &c., ii. 404), Goto- 
wycus is the first who records this identification. 

e On the other hand it is somewhat singular that the 
modern name for this upland plain, B&ka'ah, should be 
the same with that of the great enclosed valley of Leba 
non, which differs from it as widely as it can differ from 

the signification of Emek. There is no connexion be- 
tween Btik'ah and Baca : they are essentially distinct. 

On this Lepsius remarks that Robinson would have 
certainly recognised the true position of Rephidim (i. e. 
at Wady Feiran), had he not passed by Wady Feiran 
with its brook, garden, and ruins the most interesting 
spot in the peninsula in order to see Sarbut el Chadem 
(ibid. p. 22). And Stanley admits the objection of bringing 
the Israelites through the most striking scenery in the de 
sert, that of Feiran, without- any event of importance u 
mark it 


whale peninsula (Burckhardi, Arab. 602 ; see also 
Robinson, i. 117, 1 18). Its fertility and richness ac 
count, as Stanley thinks, for the Amalekites' struggle 
to retain possession against those whom they viewed 
as intrusive aggressors. This view seems to meet 
the largest amount of possible conditions for a site 
of Sinai. Lepsius too (see above) dwells on the fact 
that it was of no use for Moses to occupy any other 
part of the wilderness, if he could not deprive the 
Amalekites of the only spot (Feiran) which was inha 
bited. Stanley (41) thinks the word describing the 
ground, rendered the " hill " in Ex. xvii. 9, 10, and 
*aid adequately to d?scribe that on which the church 
of Paran stood, affords an argument in favour of the 
Feiran identity. [H. H.] 

KES'EN ({D 1 ] : Aaere'/x, AaeHj : Resen) is men 
tioned only in Gen. x. 12, where it is said to have 
been one of the cities built by Asshur, after he 
went out of the land of Shinar, and to have lain 
" beticeen Nineveh and Calah." Many writers have 
teen inclined to identify it with the Rhesina or 
Rhesaena of the Byzantine authors (Amm. Marc, 
xxiii. 5 ; Procop. Bell Pers. ii. 19 ; Steph. Byz. 
sub voce 'Pfffiva), and of Ptolemy (Geograph. v. 
18), which was near the true source of the western 
Khabour, and which is most probably the modern 
Ras-el-ain. (See Winer's Realworterbuch, sub voce 
" Resen.") There are no grounds, however, for 
this identification, except the similarity of name 
(which similarity is perhaps fallacious, since the 
LXX. evidently read |DT for |D1), while it is a 
fatal objection to the theory that Resaena or Resina 
was not in Assyria at all, but in Western Mesopo 
tamia, 200 miles to the west of both the cities 
between which it is said to have lain. A far more 
probable conjecture was that of Bochart ( Geograph. 
Sacr. iv. 23), who found Resen in the Larissa of 
Xenophon (Anab. iii. 4, 7), which is most cer 
tainly the modern Nimrud. Resen, or Dasen 
whichever may be the true form of the word must 
assuredly have been in this neighbourhood. As, 
however, the Nimrud ruins seem really to repre 
sent CALAH, while those opposite Mosul are the 
remains of Nineveh, we must look for Resen in the 
tract lying between these two sites. Assyrian re 
mains of some considerable extent are found in this 
situation, near the modern village of Selamiyeh, 
and it is perhaps the most probable conjecture that 
these represent the Resen of Genesis. No doubt 
it may be said that a " great city," such as Resen 
is declared to have been (Gen. x. 12), could scarcely 
have intervened between two other large cities 
which are not twenty miles apart ; and the ruins at 
Selamiyeh, it must be admitted, are not very ex 
tensive. But perhaps we ought to understand the 
phrase " a great city " relatively i. e. great, as 
cities went in early times, or great, considering its 
proximity to two other larger towns. 

If this explanation seem unsatisfactory, we might 
perhaps conjecture that originally Asshur (Kileh- 
Sherghat*) was called Calah, and Nimrud Resen ; 
but that, when the seat of empire was removed 
northwards from the former place to the latter, the 
name Calah was transferred to the new capital. 

Redslob (Die Alttestamentl. Namen, 86) maintains 
that Reubel is the original form of the name, which was 
corrupted into Reuben, as Bethel into Beitin, and Jezreel 
into Serin. He treats It as signifying the " flock of Bel," 
a deity whose worship greatly flourished in the neigh 
bouring country of Moab, and who under the name of 
Mobo had a famous eanctuary in the very territory of 



Instances of such transfers of name are not utifre- 

The later Jews appear to have identified Resen 
with the Kileh-Sherghat ruins. At least the Tar 
gums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem explain Resell 
by Tel-Assar ("ID^H or IDN^Hj, " the mound of 
Asshur." [G. R.J 

BESH'EPH (51KH : Sapcfy ; Alex. 'Pao-e> 
Reseph). A son of Ephraim and brother of Kephah 
(1 Chr. vii. 25). 

BE'U (-Ijn: 'Payav in Gen., 'Paydv in Chr.: 

Reu). Son of Peleg, in the line of Abraham's an 
cestors (Gen. xi. 18, 19, 20, 21; 1 Chr. i. 25). He 
lived two hundred and thirty-nine years according 
to the genealogy in Genesis. Bunsen (Bibelwerk) 
says Reu is Roka, the Arabic name for Edossa, an 
assertion which, borrowed from Knobel, is utterly 
destitute of foundation, as will be seen at once on 
comparing the Hebrew and Arabic words. A closer 
resemblance might be found between Reu and Rha- 
gae, a large town of Media, especially if the Greek 
equivalents of the two names be taken. 

BEU'BEN (I2-1NT: 'Pov/3rii> and 'Pov^v , 
Joseph. 'Povfiri\os : Pesh. Syr. Rubil, and so also 
in Arab. vers. of Joshua Ruben), Jacob's first 
born child (Gen. xxix. 32), the son of Leah, appa 
rently not bom till an unusual interval had elapsed 
after the marriage (31; Joseph. Ant. i. 19, 8), 
This is perhaps denoted by the name itself, whether 
we adopt the obvious signification of its present 
form reu ben, i. e. " behold ye, a son !" (Gesen. 
Thes. 12476) or (2) the explanation given in the 
text, which seems to imply that the original form 
was ^3JJ3 ^IJO, ran beonyi, *' Jehovah hath seen 
my affliction" or (3) that of Josephus, who uni 
formly presents it as Roubel, and explains it 
(Ant. i. 19, 8) as the "pity of God" cAcoj/ rov 
&ov, as if from ^N3 ^l&O (Fiirst, Handwb. ii. 

344a). a The notices of the patriarch Reuben in the 
Book of Genesis and the early Jewish traditional 
literature are unusually frequent, and on the whole 
v give a favourable view of his disposition. To him, 
and him alone, the preservation of Joseph's life ap 
pears to have been due. His anguish at the disap 
pearance of his brother, and the frustration of his 
kindly artifice for delivering him (Gen. xxxvii. 22), 
his recollection of the minute details of the painful 
scene many years afterwards (xlii. 22), his offer to 
take the sole responsibility of the safety of the bro 
ther who had succeeded to Joseph's place in the 
family (xlii. 37), all testify to a warm and (for 
those rough times) a kindly nature. Of the re 
pulsive crime which mars his history, and which 
turned the blessing of his dying father into a curse 
his adulterous connexion with Bilhah we know 
from the Scriptures only the fact (Gen. xxxv. 22). 
In the post-biblical traditions it is treated either as 
not having actually occurred (as in the Targum 
Pseudojonathan), or else as the result of a sudden 
temptation acting on a hot and vigorous nature (as 
in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs] a 

Reuben. In- this case it would be a parallel to the title 
" people of Chemosh," which is bestowed on Moab. The 
alteration of the obnoxious syllable in Keu&eZ would, on 
this theory, find a parallel in the Meribboai and Esh&oal 
of Saul's family, who became Mephi&fjfceto and Isb- 



parallel, in some of its circumstances, to the mtngue 
of David with Bathsheba. Some severe temptation 
there must sui'eiy have been to impel Reuben to 
an act which, regarded in its social rather than in 
its moral aspect, would be peculiarly abhorrent to 
a patriarchal society, and which is specially and 
repeatedly reprobated in the law of Moses. The 
Rabbinical version of the occurrence (as given in 
Targ. Pseudojon.} is very characteristic, and well 
illustrates the difference between the spirit of early 
and of late Jewish history. " Reuben went and 
disordered the couch of Bilhah, his father's concu- 
bina, which was placed right opposite the couch of 
Leah, and it was counted unto him as if he had 
lain with her. And when Israel heard it it dis 
pleased him, and he said ' Lo ! an unworthy per 
son shall proceed from me, as Ishmael did from 
Abraham and Esau from my father.' And the 
Holy Spirit answered him and said ' All are 
righteous, and there is not one unworthy among 
them.' " Reuben's anxiety to save Joseph is repre 
sented as arising from a desire to conciliate Jacob, 
and his absence while Joseph was sold from his 
sitting alone on the mountains in penitent fasting. 

These traits, slight as they are, are those of an 
ardent, impetuous, unbalanced, but not ungenerous 
nature ; not crafty and cruel, as were Simeon and 
Levi, but rather, to use the metaphor of the dying 
patriarch, boiling b up like a vessel of water over the 
rapid wood-fire of the nomad tent, and as quickly 
subsiding into apathy when the fuel was with 

At the time of the migration into. Egypt 
Reuben's sons were four (Gen. xlvi. 9 ; 1 Chr. v. 3). 
From them sprang the chief families of the tribe 
(Num. xxvi. 5-11). One of these families that of 
Pallu became notorious as producing Eliab, whose 
sons or descendants, Dathan and Abiram, perished 
with their kinsman On in the divine retribution for 
their conspiracy against Moses (Num. xvi. 1, xxvi. 
8-11). The census at Mount Sinai (Num. i. 20, 
21, ii. 11) shows that at the Exodus the numbers 
of the tribe were 46,500 men above twenty years 
of age, and fit for active warlike service. In point 
of numerical strength, Reuben was then sixth on 
the list, Gad, with 45,650 men, being next below. 
On the borders of Canaan, after the plague which 
punished the idolatry of Baalpeor, the numbers 
had fallen slightly, and were 43,730; Gad was 
40,500 ; and the position of the two in the list is 
lower than before, Ephraim and Simeon being the 
only two smaller tribes (Num. xxvi. 7, &c.). 

During the journey through the wilderness the 
position of Reuben was on the south side of the 
Tabernacle. The "camp" which went under his 
name was formed of his own tribe, that of Simeon d 
(Leah's second sou), and Gad (son of Zilpah, Leah's 
slave). The standard of the camp was a deer e 
with the inscription, "Hear, oh Israel! the Lord 
thy God is one Lord ! " and its place in the 
march was second (Targum Pseudoj&n. Num. ii. 

The Reubenites, like their relatives and neigh 
bours on the journey, the Gadites, had maintained 

b Such appears to be a more accurate rendering of the 
word which in the A. V. is rendered " unstable " (Gesen. 
l'ent. Sam. p. 33). 

c According to the ancient tradition preserved by De 
metrius (in Euseb. Praep. Ev. ix. 21), Reuben was 45 years 
old at the time of the migration. 

A Reuben and Simeon are named together by Jacob m 
Gen. xMli. 5 ; ant' there is perhaps a trace of the coa- 


through the march to Canaan, the ancient calling 
of their forefathers. The patriarchs were " feeding 
their flocks " at Shechem when Joseph was sold 
into Egypt. It was as men whose "trade had 
been about cattle from their youth " that they 
were presented to Pharaoh (Gen. xlvi. 32, 34), and 
in the land of Goshen they settled " with their 
flocks and herds and all that they had " (xlvi. 32, 
xlvii. 1). Their cattle accompanied them in their 
flight from Egypt (Ex. xii. 38), not a hoof was 
left behind; and there are frequent allusions to 
them on the journey (Ex. xxxiv. 3 ; Num. xi. 22 ; 
Deut. viii. 13, &c.). But it would appear that 
the tribes who were destined to settle in the con 
fined territory between the Mediterranean and the 
Jordan had, during the journey through the wil 
derness, fortunately relinquished that taste for the 
possession of cattle which they could not have 
maintained after their settlement at a distance from 
the wide pastures of the wilderness. Thus the cattle 
had come into the hands of Reuben, Gad, and the 
half of Manasseh (Num. xxxii. 1), and it followed 
naturally that when the nation arrived on the open 
downs east of the Jordan, the three tribes just 
named should prefer a request to their leader to be 
allowed to remain in a place so perfectly suited to 
their requirements. The part selected by Reuben 
had at that date the special name of " the Mishor," 
with reference possibly to its evenness (Stanley, 
S. 4" P. App. 6). Under its modern name of 
the Belka it is still esteemed beyond all others by 
the Arab sheepmasters. It is well watered, covered 
with smooth short turf, and losing itself gradually 
in those illimitable wastes which have always been 
and always will be the favourite resort of pastoral 
nomad tribes. The country east of Jordan does not 
appear to have been included in the original land 
promised to Abraham. That which the spies exa 
mined was comprised, on the east and west, between 
the " coast of Jordan " and " the sea." But for the 
pusillanimity of the greater number of the tribes it 
would have been entered from the south (Num. 
xiii. 30), and in that case the east of Jordan might 
never have been peopled by Israel at all. 

Accordingly, when the Reubenites and their 
fellows approach Moses with their request, his 
main objection is that by what they propose they 
will discourage the hearts of the children of Israe/ 
from going over Jordan into the land which 
Jehovah had given them (Num. xxxii. 7). It is 
only on their undertaking to fulfil their part in 
the conquest of the western country, the land of 
Canaan proper, and thus satisfying him that their 
proposal was grounded in no selfish desire to escape 
a full share of the difficulties of the conquest, that 
Moses will consent to their proposal. 

The " blessing" of Reuben by the departing Law 
giver is a passage which has severely exercised 
translators and commentators. Strictly translated 
as they stand in the received Hebrew text, the 
words are as follow : f 

" Let Reuben live and not die, 
And let his men be a number" (i. e. few). 

As to the first line there appears to be no docbt, 

nexion in the interchange of the names Li Jud. viii. 1 
(Vulg.) and ix. 2. 

e It is said that this was originally an ox, but changed 
by Moses, lest it should recal the sin of the golden calf. 

f A few versions have been bold enough to render the 
Hebrew as it stands. Thus the Vulgate, I -uther, De\V"etUi 
and Bunsen. 


but the second line has been interpreted in two 
exactly opposite ways. 1. By the LXX. : 

" And let his men e be many in number." 
This has the disadvantage that 1SDD is never 

employed elsewhere for a large number, but always 
for a small one (e.g. 1 Chr. xvi. 19 ; Job xvi. 22; 
Is. x. 19; Ez. xii. 16). 

2. That of our own Avrth. Version: 

' And let not his men be few." 

Here the negative of the first line is presumed to 
convey its force to the second, though not there 
expressed. This is countenanced by the ancient 
Syriac Version (Peshito) and the translations of 
Junius and Tremellius, and Schott and Winzer. It 
also has the important support of Gesenius (Thes. 
968 a, and Pent. Sam. p. 44). 

3. A third and very ingenious interpretation is 
that adopted by the Veneto-Greek Version, and also 
by Miehaelis (Bibel fur Ungelehrten, Text), which 
assumes that the vowel-points of the word VHD, 
' his men," are altered to VflE, u his dead " ' " 

" And let his dead be few " 

as if in allusion to some recent mortality in the 
tribe, such as that in Simeon after the plague of 

These interpretations, unless the last should prove 
to be the original reading, originate in the fact that 
the words in their naked sense convey a curse and 
not a blessing. Fortunately, though differing widely 
in detail, they agree in general meaning. 11 The bene 
diction of the great leader goes out over the tribe 
which was about to separate itself from its brethren, 
in a fervent aspiration for its welfare through all the 
ricl: s of that remote and trying situation. 

Both in this and the earlier blessing of Jacob, 
Reuben retains his place at the head of the family, 
and it must not be overlooked that the tribe, together 
with the two who associated themselves with it, 
actually received its inheritance before either Judah 
or Ephraim, to whom the birthright which Reuben 
had forfeited was transferred (1 Chr. v. 1). 

From this time it seems as if a bar, not only the 
material one of distance, and of the intervening 
river and mountain-wall, but also of difference in 
feeling and habits, gradually grew up more sub 
stantially between the Eastern and Western tribes. 
The first act of the former after the completion of 
the (xniquest, and after they had taken part in the 
solemn ceremonial in the Valley between Ebal and 
Gerizim, shows how wide a gap already existed 
between their ideas and those of the Western tribes. 

The pile of stones which they erected on the 
western bank of the Jordan to mark their boun 
daryto testify to after ages that though separated 
by the rushing river from their brethren and the 
country in which Jehovah had fixed the place 
where He would be worshipped, they had still a 
right to return to it for His worship was erected 



e The Alex. LXX. adds the name of Simeon (" and let 
Symeon be many in number ") : but this, though approved 
of by Miehaelis (in the notes to the passage in his Bfbsl 
fur Ungelehrten), on the ground that there is no reason 
for omitting Simeon, is not supported by any Codex or 
any other Version. 

h In the Revised Translation of the Holy Scriptures or- 
the Rev. C. Wellbelovcd and others (London, 1857) the 
passage is rendered 

* May Reuben live and not die, 
Though his men be few." 

in accordance with the unalterable habits of Bedouin 
tribes both before and since. It was an act iden 
tical with that in which Laban and Jacob engaged 
at parting, with that which is constantly performed 
by the Bedouins of the present day. But by the 
Israelites west of Jordan, who were fast relinquish 
ing their nomad habits and feelings for those of more 
settled permanent life, this act was completely mis 
understood, and was construed into an attempt to 
set up a rival altar to that of the Sacred Tent. 
The incompatibility of the idea to the mind of the 
Western Israelites, is shown by the fact, that not 
withstanding the disclaimer of the 2J tribes, and 
notwithstanding that disclaimer having proved sa 
tisfactory even to Phinehas, the author of Joshua 
xxii. retains the name mizbeach for the pile, a woi'd 
which involves the idea of sacrifice . e. of slough* 
ter (see Gesenius, Thes. 402) instead of applying 
to it the term gal, as is done in the case (Gen. 
xxxi. 46) of the precisely similar " heap of witness." l 
Another Reubenite erection, which for long kept 
up the memory of the presence of the tribe on the 
west of Jordan, was the stone of Bohan ben-Reuben 
which formed a landmark on the boundary between 
Judah and Benjamin. (Josh. xv. 6.) This was a 
single stone (Eberi), not a pile, and it appears to 
have stood somewhere on the road from Bethany 
to Jericho, not far from the ruined khan so well 
known to travellers. 

No judge, no prophet, no hero of the tribe of Reu 
ben is handed down to us. In the dire extremity 
of their brethren in the north under Deborah and 
Barak, they contented themselves with debating the 
news amongst the streams k of the Mishor ; the distant 
distress of his brethren could not move Reuben, he 
lingered among his sheepfolds and preferred the 
shepherd's pipe 1 and the bleating of the flocks, to 
the clamour of the trumpet and the turmoil of 
battle. His individuality fades more rapidly than 
Gad's. The eleven valiant Gadites who swam the 
Jordan at its highest to join the son of Jesse in his 
trouble (1 Chr. xii. 8-15), Barzillai, Elijah the Gi- 
leadite, the siege of Ramoth-Gilead with its* pic 
turesque incidents, all give a substantial reality to 
the tribe and country of Gad. But no person, no 
incident, is recorded, to place Reuben before us in 
any distincter form than as a member of the com 
munity (if community it can be called) of "the 
Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Ma- 
nasseh " (1 Chr. xii. 37). The very towns of his 
inheritance Heshbon, Aroer, Kirjathaim, Dibon, 
Baal-meon, Sibmah, Jazer, are familiar to us as 
Moabite, and not as Israelite towns. The city-life 
so characteristic of Moabite civilisation had no hold 
on the Reubenites. They are most in their element 
when engaged in continual broils with the children 
of the desert, the Bedouin tribes of Hagar, Jetur, 
Nephish, Nodab ; driving off their myriads of 
cattle, asses, camels ; dwelling in their tents, as 
if to the manner bora (1 Chr. v. 10), gradually 
spreading over the vast wilderness which extends 

An excellent evasion of the difficulty, provided it be 
admissible as a translation. 

1 The " altar " is actually called Ed, or " witness'' (Josh 
xxii. 34) by the Bedouin Reubenites, just as the pile of 
Jacob and Laban was called Gal-ed, the heap of witness. 

k The word used \iere,peteg, seems to refer to artiikia. 
streams or ditches for irrigation. [RivKB.] 

1 This is Ewald's rendering (Diehter des A. B. i. 130) 
adopted by Bunsen, of the passage rendered in the A. V 
" bleating of the flocks." 


from Jordan to the Euphrates (v. 9), and every 
day receding furthe and further from any com 
munity of feeling 01 of interest with the Western 

Thus remote from the central seat of the national 
government and of the national religion, it is not 
to be wondered at that Reuben relinquished the 
faith of Jehovah. "They went a whoring after 
the gods of the people of the land whom God de 
stroyed before them," and the last historical notice 
which we possess of them, while it records this 
fact, records also as its natural consequence that the 
Reubenites and Gadites, and the half-tribe of Ma- 
nasseh were carried off by Pul and Tiglath-Pileser, 
and placed in the districts on and about the river 
Khabur in the upper pail of Mesopotamia " in 
Halah, and Habor, and Kara, and the river Gozan" 
(1 Chr. v. 26). [G.] 

EEU'EL (K-ljn: 'Payovfa : Mahuel, Raguel}. 
The name of several persons mentioned in the Bible. 

1. One of the sons of Esau, by his wife Bashe- 
math sister of Ishmael. His sons were four 
ftahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah, "dukes" 
of Edom (Gen. xxxvi. 4, 10, 13, 17 ; 1 Chr. i. 35, 

2. One of the names of Moses' father-in-law 
(Ex. ii. 18) ; the same which, through adherence 
to the LXX. form, is given in another passage of 
the A. V. RAGUEL. Moses' father-m-law was a 
Midianite, but the Midianites are in a well-known 
passage (Gen. xxxvii. 28) called also Ishmaelites, 
and if this may be taken strictly, it is not impossible 
that the name of Reuel may be a token of his con 
nexion with the Ishmaelite tribe of that name. There 
is, however, nothing to confirm this suggestion. 

3. Father of Eliasaph, the leader of the tribe of 
Gad, at the time of the census at Sinai (Num. ii. 
14). In the parallel passages the name is given 
DEUEL, which is retained in this instance also by 
the Vulgate (Duel}. 

4. A Benjamite whose name occurs in the gene 
alogy of a certain Elah, one of the chiefs of the 
tribe at the date of the settlement of Jerusalem 
(L Chr. ix. 8). [G.] 

RE'UMAH (nD-150 : 'Pei^o; Alex. 
Roma). The concubine of Nahor, Abraham's brother 
(Gen. xxii. 24). 

A.u^ts 'laaavvov : Apocalypsis Beatl Joannis Apo- 
stoli}. The following subjects in connexion with 
this book seem to have the chief claim for a place 
in this article : 






The question as to the canonical authority of the 
Revelation resolves itself into a question of author 
ship. If it can be proved that a book, claiming so 
distinctly as this does the authority of divine in 
spiration, was actually written by St. John, then 
no doubt will be entertained as to its title to a place 
in the Canon of Scripture. 

Was, then, St. John the Apostle and Evangelist 
the writer of the Revelation ? This question was 
first mooted by I>bnysius of Alexandria (Eusebius, 
H. E vii. 25). The doubt which ho modestly 



suggested has been confidently proclaimed in mo 
dern times by Luther ( Vorrede aufdie Offenbai*ung l 
1522 and 1534), and widely diffused through his 
influence. Liicke (Einleitung, 802), the mosi 
learned and diligent of modem critics of the Reve 
lation, agrees with a majority of the eminent scho 
lars of Germany in denying that St. John was the 

But the general belief of the mass of Christians 
in all ages has been in favour of St. John's author 
ship. The evidence adduced in support of that 
belief consists of (1) the assertions of the author, 
and (2) historical tradition. 

1) The author's description of himself in the 1st 
22nd chapters is certainly equivalent to an as 
sertion that he is the Apostle, (a) He names himself 
simply John, without prefix or addition a name 
which at that period, and in Asia, must have been 
taken by every Christian as the designation in the 
first instance of the great Apostle who dwelt at 
Ephesus. Doubtless there were other Johns among 
the Christians at that time, but only arrogance or an 
intention to deceive could account for the assumption 
of this simple style by any other writer. He is al?o 
described as (6) a servant of Christ, (c) one who had 
borne testimony as an eye-witness of the word of 
God and of the testimony of Christ terms which 
were surely designed to identify him with the 
writer of the verses John xix. 35, i. 14, and 1 John 
i. 2. He is (cH in Patmos for the word of God 
and the testimony of Jesus Christ : it may be easy 
to suppose that other Christians of the same name 
were banished thither, but the Apostle is the only 
John who is distinctly named in early history as 
an exile at Patmos. He is also (e] a fellow-sufferer 
with those whom he addresses, and (/) the autho 
rised channel of the most direct and important 
communication that was ever made to the seven 
churches of Asia, of which churches John the 
Apostle was at that time the spiritual governor 
and teacher. Lastly (<JT) the writer was a fellow- 
servant of angels and a brother of prophets titles 
which are far more suitable to one of the chief 
Apostles, and far more likely to have been assigned 
to him than to any other man of less distinction. 
All these marks are found united together in the 
Apostle John, and in him alone of all historical 
persons. We must go out of the region of fact into 
the region of conjecture to find such another person. 
A candid reader of the Revelation, if previously 
acquainted with St. John's other writings and life, 
must inevitably conclude that the writer intended 
to be identified with St. John. It is strange to see 
so able a critic as Liicke (Einleitung, 514) meeting 
this conclusion with the conjecture that some Asiatic 
disciple and namesake of the Apostle may have 
written the book in the course of some missionary 
labours or some time of sacred retirement in Pat 
mos. Equally unavailing against this conclusion is 
the objection brought by Ewald, Credner, and others, 
from the fact that a promise of the future blessed 
ness of the Apostles is implied in xviii. 20 and xxi. 
14 ; as if it were inconsistent with the true modesty 
and humility of an Apostle to record as Daniel 
of old did in much plainer terms (Dan. xii. 13) 
a divine promise of salvation to himself personally. 
Rather those passages may be taken as instances of 
the writer quietly accepting as his just due such 
honourable mention as belongs to all the Apostolic 
company. Unless we are prepared to give up the 
veracity and divine origin of the whole book, and 
to treat the writer's account of himself as a mere 


fiction of a poet trying to cover his own insignifi 
cance with an honoured name, we must accept that 
description as a plain statement of fact, equally 
credible with the rest of the book, and in harmony 
with the simple, honest, truthful character which 
.s stamped on the face of the whole narrative. 

Besides this direct assertion of St. John's author 
ship, there is also an implication of it running 
through the book. Generally, the instinct of single- 
minded, patient, faithful students has led them to 
discern a connexion between the Revelation and 
St. John, and to recognise not merely the same 
Spirit as the source of this and other books of Holy 
Scripture, but also the same peculiarly-formed 
human instrument employed both in producing 
this book and the fourth Gospel, and in speaking 
the characteristic words and performing the cha 
racteristic actions recorded of St. John. This evi 
dence is set forth at great length, and with much 
force and eloquence, by J. P. Lange, in his Essay 
on the Connexion between the Individuality of the 
Apostle John and that of the Apocalypse, 1838 
( Vermisc/de Schriften, ii. 173-231). After inves 
tigating the peculiar features of the Apostle's cha 
racter and position, and (in reply to Liicke) the 
personal traits shown by the writer of the Revela 
tion, he concludes that the book is a mysterious 
but genuine effusion of prophecy under the New 
Testament, imbued with the spirit of the Gospel, 
the product of a spiritual gift so peculiar, so great 
and noble that it can be ascribed to the Apostle 
John alone. The Revelation requires for its writer 
St. John, just as his peculiar genius requires for 
its utterance a revelation. 

(2) To come to the historical testimonies in 
favour of St. John's authorship : these are singu 
larly distinct and numerous, and there is very 
little to weigh against them, (a) Justin Martyr, 
circ. 150 A.D., says : " A man among us whose 
name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, in a 
revelation which was made tc him, prophesied that 
the believers in our Christ shall live a thousand 
ears in Jerusalem " (Tnjph. 81, p. 179, ed. Ben.). 
(!>) The author of the Muratorian Fragment, circ. 
170 A.D., speaks of St. John as the writer of the 
Apocalypse, and describes him as a predecessor ol 
St. Paul, i. e. as Credner and Liicke candidly inter 
pret it, his predecessor in the office of Apostle, 
(c) Melito of Sardis, circ. 170 A.D., wrote a treatise 
on the Revelation of John. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 
26) mentions this among the books of Melito which 
had come to his knowledge; and, as he carefully 
records objections against the Apostle's authorship, 
it may be fairly presumed, notwithstanding the 
doubts of Klenker and Liicke (p. 514}, that Euse 
bius found no doubt as to St. John's authorship in 
the book of this ancient Asiatic bishop, (d) Theo- 
philus, bishop of Antioch, circ. 180, in a contro 
versy with Hermogenes, quotes passages out of the 
Revelation of John (Euseb. H. E. iv. 24). (e} Ire- 
naeus, circ. 195, apparently never having heard a 
suggestion of any other author than the Apostle 
often quotes the Revelation as the work of John 
In iv. 20, 11, he describes John the writer of th< 
Revelation as the same who was leaning on Jesus 
bosom at supper, and asked Him who should betraj 
Him. The testimony of Irenaeus as to the author 
ship of Revelation is perhaps more important than 
that of any other writer : it mounts up into the 
preceding generation, and is virtually that of a con 
temporary of the Apostle. For in v. 30, 1, when 
he vindicates the true reading (666) of the numbei 


>f the Beast, he cites in support of it not only the 
>ld correct copies of the book, but also the oral 
stimony of the very persons who themselves had 
seen St. John face to face. It is obvious that 
'renaeus' reference for information on such a point 
;o those contemporaries of St. John implies his 
jndoubting belief that they, in common with him 
self, viewed St. John as the writer of the book. 
Liicke (p. 574) suggests that this view was possibly 
groundless because it was entertained before the 
earned fathers of Alexandria had set the example 
>f historical criticism ; but his suggestion scarcely 
weakens the force of the fact that such was the 
belief of Asia, and it appears a strange suggestion 
when we remember that the critical discernment 
of the Alexandrians, to whom he refers, led them to 
coincide with Irenaeus in his view. (/) Apollonius 
(circ. 200) of Ephesus (?), in controversy with the 
Moutanists of Phrygia, quoted passages out of the 
Revelation of John, and narrated a miracle wrought 
by John at Ephesus (Euseb. H. E. v. 18). (g} Cle 
ment of Alexandria (circ. 200) quotes the book as 
the Revelation of John (Stromata, vi. 13, p. 667\ 
and as the work of an Apostle (Paed. ii. 12, p. 207). 
(h) Tertullian (A.D. 207), in at least one place, quotes 
by name " the Apostle John in the Apocalypse " 
(Ado. Marcion. iii. 14). (f) Hippolytus (circ. 230} 
is said, in the inscription on his statue at Rome, to 
have composed an apology for the Apocalypse and 
Gospel of St. John the Apostle. He quotes it as 
the work of St. John (De Antichristo, 36, p. 756, 
ed. Migne). (;') Origen (circ. 233), in his Com 
mentary on St. John, quoted by Eusebius (H. E. 
vi. 25), says of the Apostle, " he wrote also the 
Revelation." The testimonies of later writers, in 
the third and fourth centuries, in favour of St. 
John's authorship of the Revelation, are equally 
distinct and far more numerous. They may be 
seen quoted at length in Liicke, pp. 628-638, or in 
Dean Alford's Prolegomena (N. T., vol. iv. pt. ii.). 
It may suffice here to say that they include the 
names of Victorinus, Methodius, Ephrem Syrus, 
Epiphanius, Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, Gregory, 
Didymus, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome. 

All the foregoing writers, testifying that the 
book came from an Apostle, believed that it was a 
part of Holy Scripture. But many whose extant 
works cannot be quoted for testimony to the au 
thorship of th book refer to it as possessing 
canonical authority. Thus (a) Papias, who is de 
scribed by Jrenaeus as a hearer of St. John and 
friend of Pcly<;arp, is cited, together with other 
writers, by Andreas of Cappadocia, in his Com 
mentary on the Revelation, as a guarantee to later 
ages of the divine inspiration of the book (Routh, 
Reliq. Sacr. i. 15 ; Cramer's Catena, Oxford, 1840, 
p. 176). The vaJue of this testimony has not been 
impaired by the controversy to which it has given 
rise, in which Liicke, Bleek, Hengstenberg, and 
Rettig have taken different parts. (6) In the 
Epistle from the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, 
A.D. 177, inserted in Eusebius, H. E. v. 1-3, several 
passages (e. g. i. 5, xiv. 4, xxii. 11) are quoted or 
referred to in the same way as passages of books 
whose canonical authority is unquestioned, (c) Cy 
prian (Epp. 10, 12, 14, 19, cd. Fell) repeatedly 
quotes it as a part of canonical Scripture. Chry- 
sostom makes no distinct allusion to it, in any 
extant writing ; but we are informed by Suidas 
that he received it as canonical. Although omitted 
(perhaps as not adapted for public reading in 
church) from the list of canonical books in the 


Counci. rf Laodicea, it was admitted into the lis 
of the Third Council of Carthage, A.D. 397. 

Such is the evidence in favour of St. John's author 
$hip and of the canonical authority of this book. The 
following facts must be weighed on the other side. 

Marcion, who regarded all the Apostles except 
St. Paul as corrupters of the truth, rejected the 
Apocalypse and all other books of the N. T. which 
were not written by St. Paul. The Alogi, an 
obscure sect, circa 180 A.D., in their zeal against 
Montanism, denied the existence of spiritual gifts 
in the Church, and rejected the Revelation, saying 
it was the work, not of John, but of Cerinthus 
(Epiphanius, Adv. ffaer. 1L). The Roman pres 
byter Caius (circa 196 A.D.), who also wrote 
against Montanism, is quoted by Eusebius (H. E. 
iii. 28) as ascribing certain Revelations to Cerin^ 
thus : but it is doubted (see Routh, ReL Sacr. ii. 
138) whether the Revelation of St. John is the 
book to which Caius refers. But the testimony 
which is considered the most important of ail in 
ancient times against the Revelation is contained 
in a fragment of Dionysius of Alexandria, circa 
240 A.D., the most influential and perhaps the 
ablest bishop in that age. The passage taken from 
a book On the Promises, written in reply to Nepos, 
a learned Judaising Chiliast, is quoted by Eusebius 
(H. E. vii. 25). The principal points in it are 
these : Dionysius testifies that some writers before 
him altogether repudiated the Revelation as a 
forgery of Cerinthus; many brethren, however, 
prized it very highly, and Dionysius would not 
venture to reject it, but received it in faith as 
containing things too deep and too sublime for his 
understanding. [In his Epistle to Hermammon 
(Euseb. H. E. vii. 10) he quotes it as he would 
quote Holy Scripture.] He accepts as true what 
is stated in the book itself, that it was written by 
John, but he argues that the way in which that 
name is mentioned, and the general character of 
the language, are unlike what we should expect 
from John the Evangelist and Apostle ; that there 
were many Johns in that age. He would not say 
that John Mark was the writer, since it is not 
known that he was in Asia. He supposes it must 
be the work of some John who lived in Asia ; and 
he observes there are said to be two tombs in 
Epbesus, each of which bears the name of John. 
He then points out at length the superiority of the 
style of the Gospel and the First Epistle of John 
to the style of the Apocalypse, and says, in conclu 
sion, that, whatever he may think of the language, 
he does not deny that the writer of the Apocalypse 
actually saw what he describes, and was endowed 
with the divine gifts of knowledge and prophecy. 
To this extent, and no farther, Dionysius is a wit 
ness against St. John's authorship. It is obvious 
that he felt keenly the difficulty arising from the 
use made of the contents of this book by certain 
unsound Christians under his jurisdiction ; that he 
was acquainted with the doubt as to its canonical 
authority which some of his predecessors enter 
tained as an inference from the nature of its con 
tents ; that he deliberately rejected their doubt and 
accepted the contents of the book as given by the 
inspiration of God ; that, although he did not 
understand how St. John could write in the style 
in which the Revelation is written, he yet knew 
of no authority for attributing it, as he desired to 
attribute it, to some other of the numerous persons 
who bore the name of John. A weightier difficulty 
writes from the fact that the Revelation is one of 


the books which are absent from the ancient 
Peshito version ; and the only trustworthy evidence 
in favour of its reception by the ancient Syrian 
Church is a single quotation which is adduced 
from the Syriac works (ii. 332 c) of Ephrein 
Syrus. Eusebius is remarkably sparing in hi? 
quotations from the " Revelation of John," and the 
uncertainty of his opinion about it is best shown 
by his statement in H. E. iii. 39, that " it is likely 
that the Revelation was seen by the second John 
(the Ephesian presbyter), if anyone is unwilling to 
believe that it was seen by the Apostle." Jerome 
states (Ep. ad Dardanum, &c.) that the Greek 
Churches felt, with respect to the Revelation, a 
similar doubt to that of the Latins respecting the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. Neither he nor his equally 
influential contemporary Augustine shared such 
doubts. Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret abstained from making 
use of the book, sharing, it is possible, the doubts to 
which Jercine refers. But they have not gone so 
far as to express a distinct opinion against it. The 
silence of these writers is the latest evidence of any 
importance that has been adduced against the over 
whelming weight of the testimony in favour of the 
canonical authority and authorship of this book. 

of the Revelation is given by the great majority of 
critics as A.D. 95-97. The weighty testimony of 
Irenaeus is almost sufficient to prevent any other 
conclusion. He says (Ado. ffaer. v. 30, 3): 
" It (i. e. the Revelation) was seen no very long 
time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the 
close of Domitian's reign." Eusebius also records 
as a tradition which he does not question, that in the 
persecution under Domitian, John the Apostle and 
Evangelist, being yet alive, was banished to the 
island Patmos for his testimony of the divine word. 
Allusions in Clement of Alexandria and Origen 
point in the same direction. There is no mention 
in any writer of the first three centuries of any 
other time or place. Epiphanius (Ii. 12), obviously 
by mistake, says that John prophesied iu the reign 
of Claudius. Two or three obscure and later autho 
rities say that John was banished under Nero. 

Unsupported by any historical evidence, sorae 
ommentators have put forth the conjecture that 
the Revelation was written as early as the time of 
Nero. This is simply their inference from the style 
and contents of the book. But it is difficult to see 
why St. John's old age rendered it, as they allege, 
mpossible for him to write his inspired message 
with force and vigour, or why his residence in 
Ephesus must have removed the Hebraistic pecu- 
iarities ,of his Greek. It is difficult to see in the 
>assages i. 7, ii. 9, iii. 9, vi. 12, 16, xi. 1, any- 
;hing which would lead necessarily to the conclu 
sion that Jerusalem was in a prosperous condition, 
and that the predictions of its fall had not been 
fulfilled when those verses were written. A more 
weighty argument in favour of an early date might 
>e urged from a modern interpretation of xvii. 10, 
f that interpretation could be established. Galba 
s alleged to be the sixth king, the one that " is." 
'n Nero these interpreters see the Beast that was 
vounded (xiii. 3), the Beast that was and is not, 
he eighth king (xvii. 11). For some time after 
sero's death the Roman populace believed that he 
vas not dead, but had fled into the East, whence 
e would return and regain his throne : and these 
nterpreters venture to suggest that the writer of 
he Revelation shared and meant to express the 


absurd popular delusion. Even the able and learned 
Renas (T/ieoL Chret. i. 443), by way of supporting 
tb.s interpretation, advances his untenable claim to 
the first discovery of the name of Nero Caesar in 
the number of the beast, 666. The inconsistency 
of this interpretation with prophetic analogy, with 
the context of Revelation, and with the fact that 
the book is of divine origin, is pointed out by 
Hengstenberg at the end of his Commentary on 
ch. xiii., and by Elliott, Home Apoc. iv. 547. 

It has been inferred from i. 2, 9, 10, that the 
Revelation was written in Ephesus, immediately 
after the Apostle's return from Patmos. But the 
text is scarcely sufficient to support this conclusion. 
The style in which the messages to the seven Churches 
are delivered rather suggests the notion that the 
book was written in Patmos. 

C. LANGUAGE. The doubt first suggested by 
Harenberg, whether the Revelation was written in 
Aramaic, has met with little or no reception. The 
silence of all ancient writers as to any Aramaic 
original is alone a sufficient answer to the sugges 
tion. Liicke (Einleit. 441) has also collected in 
ternal evidence to show that the original is the 
Greek of a Jewish Christian. 

Liicke has also (pp. 448-464) examined in minute 
detail, after the preceding labours of Donker-Cur- 
tius, Vogel, Winer, Ewald, Kolthoff, and Hitzig, 
the peculiarities of language which obviously dis 
tinguish the Revelation from every other book of 
the New Testament. And in subsequent sections 
(pp. 680-747) he urges with great force the dif 
ference between the Revelation on one side and the 
fourth Gospel and first Epistle on the other, in 
respect of their style and composition and the 
mental character and attainments of the writer of 
each. Hengstenberg, in a dissertation appended to 
his Commentary, maintains that they are by one 
writer. That the anomalies and peculiarities of 
the Revelation have been greatly exaggerated by 
some critics, is sufficiently shown by Hitzig's 
plausible and ingenious, though unsuccessful, at 
tempt to prove the identity of style and diction in 
the Revelation and the Gospel of St. Mark. It may 
be admitted that the Revelation has many sur 
prising grammatical peculiarities. But much of 
this is accounted for by the fact that it was pro 
bably written down, as it was seen, " in the Spirit," 
whilst the ideas, in all their novelty and vastness, 
filled +he Apostle's mind, and rendered him less 
capable of attending to forms of speech. His 
Gospel and Epistles, on the other hand, were com 
posed equally under divine influence, but an in 
fluence of a gentler, more ordinary kind, with much 
care, after long deliberation, after frequent recol 
lection and recital of the facts, and deep pondering 
of the doctrinal truths which they involve. 

D. CONTENTS. The first three verses contain 
the title of the book, the description of the writer, 
and the blessing pronounced on the readers, which 
possibly, like the last two verses of the fourth 
Gospel, may be an addition by the hand of inspired 
survivors of the writer. John begins (i. 4) with a 
salutation of the seven Churches of Asia. This, 
coming before the announcement that he was in 
the Spirit, looks like a dedication not merely of the 
first vision, but of all the book, to those Churches. 
In the next five verses (i. 5-9) he touches the key 
note of the whole following book, the great funda 
mental id^s on which all our notions of the go 
vernment of the world and the Church are built ; 
tile Perse n <>r' Christ, the redemption wrought by 


Him, His second coming to judge mankind, the 
painful hopeful discipline of Christians in the midst 
of this present world : thoughts which may well be 
supposed to have been uppermost in the mind of 
the persecuted and exiled Apostle even before the 
Divine Inspiration came on him. 

a. The first vision (i. 7-iii. 22) shows the Son 
of Man with His injunction, or Epistles to the seven 
Churches. While the Apostle is pondering those 
great truths and the critical condition of his Church 
which he had left, a Divine Person resembling 
those seen by Ezekiel and Daniel, and identified by 
name and by description as Jesus, appears to John, 
and with the discriminating authority of a Lord 
and Judge reviews the state of those Churches, 
pronounces his decision upon their several cha 
racters, and takes occasion from them to speak to 
all Christians who may deserve similar encourage 
ment or similar condemnation. Each of these sen 
tences, spoken by the > Son of Man, is described as 
said by the Spirit. Hitherto the Apostle has been 
speaking primarily though not exclusively to some 
of his own contemporaries concerning the present 
events and circumstances. Henceforth he ceases to 
address them particularly. His words are for the 
ear of the universal Church in all ages, and show the 
significance of things which are present in hope or 
fear, in sorrow or in joy, to Christians everywhere. 

6. (iv. 1-viii. 1.) In the next vision, Patmos 
and the Divine Person whom he saw are gone. 
Only the trumpet voice is heard again calling him 
to a change of place. He is in the highest court of 
heaven, and sees God sitting on His throne. The 
seven-sealed book or roll is produced, and the slain 
Lamb, the Redeemer, receives it amid the sound of 
universal adoration. As the seals are opened in 
order, the Apostle sees (1) a conqueror on a white 
horse, (2) a red horse betokening war, (3) the 
black horse of famine, (4) the pale horse of death, 

(5) the eager souls of martyrs under the altar, 

(6) an earthquake with universal commotion and 
terror. After this there is a pause, the course of 
avenging angels is checked while 144,000, the chil 
dren of Israel, servants of God, are sealed, and an 
innumerable multitude of the redeemed of all nations 
are seen worshipping God. Next (7) the seventh 
seal is opened, and half an hour's silence in heaven 

c. Then (viii.2-xi. 19) seven angels appear with 
trumpets, the prayers of saints are offered up, the 
earth is struck with fire from the altar, and the 
seven trumpets are sQunded. (1) The earth, and 
(2) the sea and (3) tne springs of water and (4) 
the heavenly bodies &/e successively smitten, (5) a 
phgue of locusts afflicts the men who are not 
sealed (the first woe), (6) the third part of men 
are slain (the second woe), but the rest are im 
penitent. Then there is a pause: a mighty angel 
with a book appears and cries out, seven thunders 
sound, but their words are not recorded, the ap 
proaching completion of the mystery of God is 
announced, the angel bids the Apostle eat the book, 
and measure the temple with its worshippers and 
the outer court given up to the Gentiles ; the two 
witnesses of God, their martyrdom, resurrection, as 
cension, are foretold. The approach of the third woe 
is announced and (7) the seventh trumpet is sounded, 
the reign of Christ is proclaimed, God has taken His 
great power, the time has come for judgment and 
for the destruction of the destroyers of the earth. 

The three preceding visions are distinct from on 
another. Each of the last two, like the longei 


one which follows, has the appearance of a distinct 
prophecy, reaching from the prophet's time to the 
end of the world. The second half of the Revela 
tion (xii.-xxii.) comprises a series of visions which 
air connected by various links. It may be de 
scribed generally as a prophecy of the assaults of 
the devil and his agents ( = the dragon, the ten- 
horned beast, the two-horned beast or false prophet, 
and the harlot) upon the Church, and their final 
destruction. It appears to begin with a reference 
to events anterior, not only to those which are 
predicted in the preceding chapter, but also to 
the time in which it was written. It seems hard to 
interpret the birth of the child as a prediction, and 
not as a retrospective allusion. 

d. A woman (xii.) clothed witn the sun is seen 
in heaven, and a great red dragon with seven 
crowned heads stands waiting to devour her off 
spring ; her child is caught up unto God, and the 
mother flees into the wilderness for 1260 days. 
The persecution of the woman and her seed on 
earth by the dragon, is described as the consequence 
of a war in heaven in which the dragon was over 
come and cast out upon the earth. 

St. John (xiii.) standing on the seashore sees a 
beast with seven heads, one wounded, with ten 
crowned horns, rising from the water, the represen 
tative of the dragon. All the world wonder at and 
worship him, and he attacks the saints and prevails. 
He is followed by another two-horned beast rising 
out of the earth, who compels men to wear the 
mark of the beast, whose number is 666. 

St. John (xiv.) sees the Lamb with 144,000 
standing on Mount Zion learning the song of praise 
of the heavenly host. Three angels fly forth call 
ing men to worship God, proclaiming the fall of 
Babylon, denouncing the worshippers of the beast. 
A blessing is pronounced on the faithful dead, and 
the judgment of the world is described under the 
image of a harvest reaped by angels. 

St. John (xv., xvi.) sees in heaven the saints 
who had overcome the beast, singing the song of 
Moses and the Lamb. Then seven angels come out 
of the heavenly temple having seven vials of wrath 
which they pour out upon the earth, sea, rivers, 
sun, the seat of the beast, Euphrates, and the air, 
after which there is a great earthquake and a hail 
storm . 

One (xvii., xviii.) of the last seven angels carries 
St. John into the wilderness and shows him a har 
lot, Babylon, sitting on a scarlet beast with seven 
heads and ten horns. She is explained to be tha<: 
great city, sitting upon seven mountains, reigning 
over the kings of the earth. Afterwards St. John 
sees a vision of the destruction of Babylon, portrayed 
as the burning of a great city amid the lamentations 
of worldly men and the rejoicing of saints. 

Afterwards (xix.) the worshippers in heaven are 
heard celebrating Babylon's fall and the approaching 
marriage-supper of the Lamb. The Word of God i 
seen going forth to war at the head of the heavenly 
armies : the beast and his false prophet are taken 
and cast into the burning lake, and their worship 
pers are slain. 

An angel (xx.-xxii. 5) binds the dragon, t. e. the 
devil, for 1000 years, whilst the martyred saints 
who had not worshipped the beast reign with Christ. 
Then the devil is unloosed, gathers a host against 
the camp of the saints, but is overcome by fire 
ft-om heaven, and is cast into the burning lake with 
tne beast and false prophet. St. John then witnesses 
the process of the f;nal judgment, ar.d sees and dc 


scribes the new heaven and the new earth, and tht 
lew Jerusalem, with its people and their way of life. 
In the last sixteen verses (xxii. 6-21) the angel 
solemnly asseverates the truthfulness and import 
ance of the foregoing sayings, pronounces a blessing 
on those who keep them exactly, gives warning 
of His speedy coming to judgment, and of the 
nearness of the time when these prophecies shall be 

E. INTERPRETATION. A short account of the 
different directions in which attempts have been 
made to interpret the Revelation, is all that can be 
given in this place. The special blessing promised 
to the reader of this book (i. 3), the assistance to 
common Christian expeiience afforded by its pre 
cepts and by some of its visions, the striking imagery 
)f others, the tempting field which it supplies for 
ntellectual exercise, will always attract students to 
this book and secure for it the labours of many 
commentators. Ebrard reckons that not less than 
eighty systematic commentaries are worthy of note, 
and states that the less valuable writings on this 
nexhanstible subject are unnumbered, it not innu 
merable. Fanaticism, theological hatred, and vain 
curiosity, may have largely influenced their compo 
sition ; but any one who will compare the necessa 
rily inadequate, and sometimes erroneous, exposition 
of early times with a good modern commentary 
will see that the pious ingenuity of so many cen 
turies has not been exerted quite in vain. 

The interval between the Apostolic age and that 
of Constantine has been called the Chiliastic period 
of Apocalyptic interpretation. The visions of St. 
John were chiefly regarded as representations of 
general Christian truths, scarcely yet embodied in 
actual facts, for the most part to be exemplified or 
fulfilled in the reign of Antichrist, the coming of 
Christ, the millennium, and the day of judgment. 
The fresh hopes of the early Christians, and th 
severe persecution they endured, taught them to 
live in those future events with intense satisfaction 
and comfort. They did not entertain the thought 
of building up a definite consecutive chronological 
scheme even of those symbols which some moderns 
regard as then already fulfilled ; although from the 
beginning a connexion between Rome and Antichrist 
was universally allowed, and parts of the Revelation 
wen> regarded as the filling-np of the great outline 
sketched by Daniel and St. Paul. 

The only extant systematic interpretations in this 
period, are the interpolated Commentary on the 
Revelation by the martyr Victorinus, circ. 270 A.D 
^ Biblwtheca Patrum Maxima, iii. 414, and Migne's 
Patrologia Latina, v. 318 ; the two editions should 
be compared), and the disputed Treatise on Antichrist 
by Hippolytus (Migne's Patrologia Graeca, x. 726). 
But the prevalent views of that age are to be ga 
thered also from a passage in Justin Martyr ( Trypko, 
80, 81), from the later books, especially the fifth, of 
Irenaeus, and from various scattered passages in Ter- 
tullian, Origen, and Methodius. The general antici 
pation of the last days of the world in Lactantius, 
vii. 14-25, has little direct reference to the Revelation 
Immediately after the triumph of Constantine, 
the Christians, emancipated from oppression and 
persecution, and dominant and prosperous in their 
turn, began to lose their vivid expectation of our 
Lord's speedy Advent, and their spiritual conception 
of His kingdom, and to look upon the temporal 
supremacy of Christianity as a fulfilment of the 
promised reign of Christ on earth. The Roman 
emp re become Christian was regarded no longer as 


the object of prophetic denunciation, but as the 
scene of a millennial development. This view, how 
ever, was soon met by the figurative interpretation 
of the millennium as the reign of Christ in the hearts 
of all true believers. As the barbarous and here 
tical invaders of the falling empire appeared, they 
were regarded by the suffering Christians as fulfil 
ling the woes denounced in the Revelation. The be 
ginning of a regular chronological interpretation is 
seen in Berengaud (assigned by some critics to the 
9th century), who tieated the Revelation as a his 
tory of the Church from the beginning of the world 
to its end. And the original Commentary of the 
Abbot Joachim is remarkable, not only for a farther 
development of that method of interpretation, but 
for the scarcely disguised identification of Babylon 
with Papal Rome, and of the second Beast or Anti 
christ with some Universal Pontiff. 

The chief commentaries belonging to this period 
are that which is ascribed to Tichonius, circ. 390 A.D., 
printed in the works of St. Augustine; Primasius, 
of Adrumetum in Africa, A.D. 550, in Migne's Pa- 
trologia Latina, Ixviii. p. 1406 ; Andreas of Crete, 
circ. 650 A.D., Arethas of Cappadocia and Oecu- 
menius of Thessaly in the 10th century, whose 
commentaries were published together in Cramer's 
Catena, Oxon., 1840; the Explanatio Apoc. in 
the works of Bede, A.D. 735 ; the Expositio of 
Berengaud, printed in the works of Ambrose ; the 
Commentary of Haymo, A.D. 853, first published 
at Cologne in 1531 ; a short Treatise on the Seals 
by Anselm, bishop of Havilberg, A.D. 1145, printed 
in D'Ache'ry's Spicilegium, i. 161 ; the Expositio 
of Abbot Joachim of Calabria, A.D. 1200, printed 
at Venice in 1527. 

In the dawn of the Reformation, the views to 
which the reputation of Abbot Joachim gave cur 
rency, were taken up by the harbingers of the im 
pending change, as by WiclifFe and others ; and they 
became the foundation of that great historical school 
of interpretation, which up to this time seems the 
most popular of all. It is impossible to construct 
an exact classification of modern interpreters of the 
Revelation. They are generally placed in three 
great divisions. 

a. The Historical or Continuous expositors, in 
whose opinion the Revelation is a progressive his 
tory of the fortune.* of the Church from the first 
century to the end of time. The chief supporters 
of this most interesting interpretation are Mede, 
Sir I. Newton, Vitringa, Bengel, Woodhouse, Faber, 
E. B. Elliott, Wordsworth, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, 
and others. The recent commentary of Dean Alford 
belongs mainly to this school. 

6. The Praeterist expositors, who are of opinion 
that the Revelation has been almost, or altogether, 
fulfilled in the time which has passed since it was 
written ; that it refers principally to the triumph 
of Christianity over Judaism and Paganism, sig- 
oalised in the downfall of Jerusalem and of Rome. 
The most eminent expounders of this view are Al- 
.asar, Grotius, Hammond, Bossuet, Calniet, Wet- 
otein, Eichhorn, Hug, Herder, Ewald, Liicke, De 
Wette, Diisterdieck, Stuart, Lee, and Maurice. This 
6 the favourite intei-pretation with the critics of 
Germany, one of whom goes so -far as to state that 
Oie writer of the Revelation promised the fulfilment 
of his visions within the space of three years* and a 
h*lf from the time in which he wrote. 

c. The Futurist expositors, whose views show a 
strong renction against some extravagancies of the 
two preceding schools. They believe that the whole 



book, excepting perhaps the first thuee chapters, 
refers principally, if not exclusively, to event* which 
are yet to come. This view, which is asserted to 
be merely a revival of the primitive interpretation, 
has been advocated in recent times by Dr. J. H. 
Todd, Dr. S. R. Maitland, B. Newton, C. Maitland, 
I. Williams, De Burgh, and others. 

Each of these three schemes is open to objectior. 
Against the Futurist it is argued, that it is nc,. 
consistent with the repeated declarations of a speedy 
fulfilment at the beginning and end of the book 
itself (see ch. i. 3, xxii. 6, 7/12, 20). Christians, to 
whom it was originally addressed, would have derived 
no special comfort from it, had its fulfilment been al 
together deferred for so many centuries. The rigidly 
literal interpretation of Babylon, the Jewish tribes, 
and other symbols which generally forms a part of 
Futurist schemes, presents peculiar difficulties. 

Against the Praeterist expositors it is urged, that 
prophecies fulfilled ought to be rendered so pei-spi- 
cuous to the general sense of the Church as to supply 
an argument against infidelity ; that the destruction 
of Jerusalem, having occurred twenty-five years pre 
viously, could not occupy a large space in a prophecy ; 
that the supposed predictions of the downfalls of 
Jerusalem and of Nero appear from the context to 
refer to one event, but are by this scheme separated, 
and, moreover, placed in a wrong order ; that the 
measuring of the temple and the altar, and the 
death of the two witnesses (ch. xi.), cannot be 
explained consistently with the context. 

Against the Historical scheme it is urged, that 
its advocates differ veiy widelv among themselves ; 
that they assume without any authority that the 
1260 days are so many years ; that several of its 
applications e. g. of the symbol of the teivhorned 
beast to the Popes, and the sixth seal to the con 
version of Constantine are inconsistent with the 
context ; that attempts by some of this school to 
predict future events by the help of Revelation have 
ended in repeated failures. 

In conclusion, it may be stated that two methods 
have been proposed by which the student of the 
Revelation may escape the incongruities and fallacies 
of the different interpretations, whilst he may derive 
edification from whatever truth they contain. It 
has been suggested that the book may be regarded 
as a prophetic poem, dealing in general and inexact 
descriptions, much of which may be set down as 
poetic imagery, mere embellishment. But such 
a view would be difficult to reconcile with the 
belief that the book is an inspired prophecy. A 
better suggestion is made, or rather is revived, by 
Dr. Arnold in his Sermons On the Interpretation of 
Prophecy : that we should bear m mind that pre 
dictions have a lower historical sense, as well as a 
higher spiritual sense ; that there may be one or 
more than one typical, imperfect, historical fulfil 
ment of a prophecy, in each of which the higher 
spiritual fulfilment is shadowed forth more or less 
distinctly. Mr. Elliott, in his fforae Apocalypticae, 
. 622, argues against this f rinciple ; but perhaps 
not successfully. The recognition of it would pave 
the way for the acceptance in a modified sense of 
many of the interpretations of the Historical school, 
and would not exclude the most valuable portions 
the other schemes. [W. T. B.] 

REZ'EPH (PlVV. T] 'Pa^e.s, and 

a The Alex. MS. exhibits the same forms of the namt 
as the Vat.; but by a curious coincidence interchange., 
viz. 'Pa<f>f0 in 2 Kings, 'I a<f>ei<r in Isaiah. 



Resepli). One of the places which Sennacherib men 
tions, in his taunting message to tLjekiah, as having 
been destroyed by his predecessor (2 K. xix. 12; 
Is. xxxvii. 12). He couples it with Haran and 
other well-known Mesopotamian spots. The name 
is still a common one, Yakut's Lexicon quoting 
nine towns so called. Interpreters, however, are 
at variance between the principal two of these. 
The one is a day's march west of the Euphrates, 
on the road from Racca to Hums (Gesenius, Keil, 
Thenius, Michaelis, SuppL~) ; the other, again, is 
eo-st of the Euphrates, near Bagdad (Hitzig). The 
former is mentioned by Ptolemy (v. 15) under the 
name of 'Pi}<rd<j)a, and appears, in the present im 
perfect state of our Mesopotamian knowledge, to be 
the more feasible of the two. [G.] 

KEZ'IA (Kyj : 'Paffid: Resia). AnAsherite, 
of the sons of Ulla (1 Chr. vii. 39). 

REZ'IN (PV") : 'PrtV, 'PaaffffAv: Rasin). 
1. A king of Damascus, contemporary with Pekah 
in Israel, and with Jotham and Ahaz in Judaea. The 
policy of Rezin seems to have been to ally himself 
closely with the kingdom of Israel, and, thus strength 
ened, to cany on constant war against the kings of 
Judah. He attacked Jotham during the latter part 
of his reign (2 K. xv. 37 ) ; but his chief war was 
with Ahaz, whose territories he invaded, in com 
pany with Pekah, soon after Ahaz had mounted 
the throne (about B.C. 741). The combined army 
laid siege to Jerusalem, where Ahaz was, but 
"could not prevail against it" (Is. vii. 1 ; 2 K, 
xvi. 5). Rezin, however, " recovered Elath to 
Syria" (2 K. xvi. 6); that is, he conquered and 
held possession of the celebrated town of that name 
at the head of the Gulf of Akabah, which com 
manded one of the most important lines of trade in 
the East. Soon after this he was attacked by Tig- 
lath-Pileser II., king of Assyria, to whom Ahaz in 
his distress had made application ; his armies were 
defeated by the Assyrian hosts; his city besieged 
and taken; his people carried away captive into 
Susiana (? KIR) ; and he himself slain (2 K. xvi. 9 ; 
compare Tiglath-Pileser's own inscriptions, where 
the defeat of Rezin and the destruction of Damascus 
are distinctly mentioned). This treatment was pro 
bably owing to his being regarded as a rebel ; since 
Damascus had been taken and laid under tribute by 
the Assyrians some time previously (Rawlinson's 
Herodotus, i. 467). ' [G. R.] 

2. One of the families of the Nethinim (Ezr. ii. 
48 ; Neh. vii. 50). It furnishes another example 
of the occurrence of non-Israelite names amongst 
them, which is already noticed under MEHUNIM 
[313 note; and see SISERA]. In 1 Esd. the name 
appears as Daisan, in which the change from R to D 
seems to imply that 1 Esdras at one time existed in 
Syriac or some other Semitic language. [G-] 

REZ'ON(fin: 'Eo-pecS/x: Alex. 'Pa^cov : Razori). 

The son of Eliadah, a Syrian, who when David de 
feated Hadadezer king of Zobah, put himself at the 
head of a band of freebooters and set up a petty 
kingdom at Damascus (1 K. xi. 23). Whether he 
ivas an officer of Hadadezer, who, foreseeing the 
destruction which David would inflict, prudently 
escaped with some followers ; or whether he gathered 
his band of the remnant of those who survived the 
slaughter, does not appear. The latter is more 
probable. The settlement of Rezon at Damascus 
could not have been till some time after the dis- 


astrous battie in which the power of Hadadezej 
was broken, for we are told that David at the same 
time defeated the army of Damascene Syrians who 
came to the relief of Hadadezer, and put garrisons 
in Damascus. From his position at Damascus he 
harassed the kingdom of Solomon during his whole 
reign. With regard to the statement of Nicolaua 
in the 4th book of his History, quoted by Josephus 
(Ant. vii. 5, 2), there is less difficulty, as there 
seems to be no reason for attributing to it any 
historical authority. He says that the name of 
the king of Damascus, whom David defeated, was 
Hadad, and that his descendants and successors took 
the same name for ten generations. If this be true, 
Rezon was a usurper, but the origin of the story 
is probably the confused account of the LXX. In 
the Vatican MS. of the LXX. the account of Rezon 
is inserted in ver. 14 in close connexion with Hadad, 
and on this Josephus appears to have founded his 
story that Hadad, on leaving Egypt, endeavoured 
without success to excite Idumea to revolt, and 
then went to Syria, where he joined himself with 
Rezon, called by Josephus Raazarus, who at the 
head of a band of robbers was plundering the 
country (Ant. viii. 7, 6). It was Hadad and not 
Rezon, according to the account in Josephus, who 
established himself king of that part of Syria, and 
made inroads upon the Israelites. In 1 K. xv. 18, 
Benhadad, king of Damascus in the reign of Asa, 
is described as the grandson of Hezion, and from 
the resemblance between the names Rezon and He- 
zi^n, when written in Hebrew characters, it has 
jeen suggested that the latter is a corrupt reading 
for the former. For this suggestion, however, there 
does not appear to be sufficient ground, though it 
was adopted both by Sir John Marsham (Chron. 
Can. p. 346) and Sir Isaac Newton (ChronoL p. 
221). Bunsen (Bibelwerk, i. p. cclxxi.) makes 
Hezion contemporary with Rehoboam, and probably 
a grandson of Rezon. The name is Aramaic, and 
Ewald compares it with Rezin. [W. A. W.] 

RHE'GIUM ('Pfoiov: Rhegium). The men 
tion of this Italian town (which was situated on the 
Bruttian coast, just at the southern entrance of the 
straits of Messina) occurs quite incidentally (Acts 
xxviii. 13) in the account of St. Paul's voyage from 
Syracuse to Puteoli, after the shipwreck at Malta. 
But, for two reasons, it is worthy of careful atten 
tion. By a curious coincidence the figures on its 
coins are the very " twin-brothers " which gave 
the name to St. Paul's ship. See (attached to the 
article CASTOR AND POLLUX) the coin of Bruttii, 
which doubtless represents the forms that were 
painted or sculptured on the vessel. And, again, 
the notice of the intermediate position of Rhegium, 
the waiting there for a southerly wind to carry the 
ship through the straits, the run to Puteoli with 
such a wind within the twenty four hours, are all 
points of geographical accuracy which help us to 
realise the narrative. As to the history of the 
place, it was originally a Greek colony: it was 
miserably destroyed by Dionysius of Syracuse : 
from Augustus it received advantages which com 
bined with its geographical position in making it 
important throughout the duration of the Roman 
empire : it was prominently associated, in the middle 
ages, with the varied fortunes of the Greek emperors, 
the Saracens, and the Romans: and still the modern 
Reggio is a town of 10,000 inhabitants. Its distance 
across the straits from Messina is only about six 
miles, and it is well seen from the telegraph statioc 
above that Sicilian town. [J. S, H.j 


RHE'SA ('Priffd : Resa\ son of Zorobabel in 
the genealogy of Christ (Luke iii. 27). Lord A. 
Hervey has ingeniously conjectured that Rhesa is 
no person, but merely the title Rosh, i. e. '* Prince," 
originally attached to the name of Zerubbabel, and 
gradually introduced as an independent name into 
*he genealogy. He thus removes an important 
obstacle to the reconciliation of the pedigrees in 
Matthew and Luke (Hervey's Genealogies, &c., Ill 
675a; ZERUBBABEL.] [G.] 

KHO'DA ('P68T) ; Rhode], lit. Rose, the name 
of a maid who announced Peter's arrival at the door 
of Mary's house after his miraculous release from 
prison (Acts xii. 13). 

RHODES ('Po'Soj; Rhodus). The history of 
this island is so illustrious, that it is interesting to 
see it connected, even in a small degree, with the life 
of St. Paul. He touched there on his return-voyage 
to Syria from the third missionary journey (Acts 
xxi. 1). It does not appear that he landed from 
the ship. The day before he had been at Cos, an 
island to the N.W. ; and from Rhodes he proceeded 
eastwards to PATARA in Lyjia. It seems, from all 
the circumstances of the narrative, that the wind 
was blowing from the N.W., as it very often does 
in that part of the Levant. Rhodes is immediately 
opposite the high Carian and Lycian headlands at 
the S.W. extremity of the peninsula of Asia Minor. 
Its position has had much to do with its history. 
The outline of that history is as follows. Its real 
eminence began (about 400 B.C.) with the founding 
of that city at the N.E. extremity of the island, 
which still continues to be the capital. Though the 
Dorian race was originally and firmly established 
here, yet Rhodes was very frequently dependent on 
others, between the Peloponnesian war and the time 
of Alexander's campaign. After Alexander's death 
it entered on a glorious period, its material prosperity 
being largely developed, and its institutions deserving 
and obtaining general esteem. As we approach the 
time of the consolidation of the Roman power in 
the Levant, we have a notice of Jewish residents in 
Rhodes (1 Mace. xv. 23). The Romans, after the 
defeat of Antiochus, assigned, during some time, to 
Rhodes certain districts on the mainland [CARIA, 
LYCTA] ; and when these were withdrawn, upon 
more mature provincial arrangements being made, 
the island still enjoyed (from Augustus to Vespasian) 
a considerable amount of independence.* It is in 
this interval that St. Paul was there. Its Byzantine 
history is again eminent. Under Constantine it was 
the metropolis of the " Province of the Islands." It 
was the last place where the Christians of the East 
held out against the advancing Saracens; and sub 
sequently it was once more famous as the home and 
fortress of the Knights of St. John. The most 
prominent remains of the city and harbour are 
memorials of those knights. The best account of 
Rhodes will ~^t found in Ross, Reisen auf den 
Griech. Inseln, iii. 70-113, and Reisen nach Kos, 
Halikarnassos, Rhodos, &c., pp. 53-80. There is a 
^ood view, as well as an accurate delineation of the 
coast, in the English Admiralty Chart No. 1639. 
Perhaps the best illustration we can adduce here is 



one of the early coins of Rhodes, with the conven 
tional rose-flower, which bore the name of the island 
on one side, and the head of Apollo, radiated like 
the sun, on the other It was a proverb that th 
sun shone every day ii Rhodes. [J. S. H."J 

Coin of Rhodes. 

RHO'DOCUS ('Po'So/cos : Rhodocus}. A Jew 
who betrayed the plans of his countrymen to 
Antiochus Eupator. His treason was discovered, 
and he was placed in confinement (2 Mace. xiii. 
21.) [B. F. W.] 

RHODUS ('P6Sos : Rhodus'), 1 Mace. xv. 23. 

RIBA'I (vjn : 'Pifid in Sam., 'Pefre ; Alex. 

in Chr. : Ribai). The father of Ittai the 
Benjamite of Gibeah, who was one of David's mighty 
men (2 Sam. xxiii. 29 ; 1 Chr. xi. 31). 

KIB'LAH, 1. (r6l-in, with the definite article : 

Brj\d b inbothMSS.: Rebld). One of the landmarks 
on the eastern boundary of the land of Israel, as 
specified by Moses (Num. xxxiv. 11). Its position 
is noted in this passage with much precision. It 
was immediately between Shepham and the sea of 
Cinnereth, and on the " east side of the spring." 
Unfortunately Shepham has not yet been identified, 
and which of the great fountains of northern 
Palestine is intended by " the spring " is uncer 
tain. It seems hardly possible, without entirely 
disarranging the specification of the boundary, that 
the Riblah in question can be the same with the 
Riblah in the land of Hamath " which is men 
tioned at a much later period of the history. 
For, according to this passage, a great distance 
must necessarily have intervened between Riblah and 
Hamath. This will be evident from a mere enume- 
ation of the landmarks. 

1 . The north boundary : The Mediterranean, 
Mount Hor, the entrance of Hamath, Zedad, Zi- 
phron, Hazar-enan. 

2. The eastern boundary commenced from Hazar- 
enan, turning south : Shepham, Riblah, passing 
east of the spring, to east side of Se? of Galilee. 

Now it seems impossible that Riblah can be in 
the land of Hamath, seeing that four landmarks 
occur between them. Add to this its apparent 
proximity to the Sea of Galilee. 

The early Jewish interpreters have felt the for?e 
of this. Confused as is the catalogue of the boun 
dary in the Targum Pseudojonathan of Num . xxxiv. , 
t is plain that the author of that version considers 
' the spring " as the spring of Jordan at Banias, 
and Riblah, therefore, as a place near it. With 
this agrees Parchi the Jewish traveller in the 13th 
and 14th centuries, who expressly discriminates 

* Two incidents in the life of Herod the Great con- 
lected witL Rhodes, are well worthy of mention here. 
When he went to Italy, about the close of the last, Repub 
lican struggle, ae found that the city had suffered much 
from Cassius, and gave liberal sums to restore it (Joseph. 
Ant. xiv. 14, $3). Here also after tne battle of Actiuru. 

VOL. in. 

; but the 

ue met Augustus azd secured his favour (ib. xv. 

b Originally it appears to have stood ' 
'Ap has now attached itself to the preceding 
Sen-^a/u. a p. Can this be the ARBELA of 1 Mace. ix. 2 ? 

c If Mr. Porter's identifications of ZeJad and Hatsa? 
^nan are adonted the difficulty Is Increased tenfold. 

3 X 



Between the two (see the extracts in Zunz's Ben 
jamin, ii. 418), and in our own day .1. D. Michaelis 
(Bihel fur Ungelehrten ; Snppl. ad Lexica, No. 
2313), and Bonfrerius, the learned editor of Euse- 
bius* Onomasticon. 

No place bearing the name of Riblah has been 
yet discovered in the neighbourhood of Banias. 

2. Riblah in the land of Hamath (ikn once 

, . <?. Riblathah : Aej8A.a0a in both MSS. : 

Reblatha}. A place on the great road between Pa 
lestine and Babylonia, at which the kings of Baby 
lonia were accustomed to remain while directing 
the operations of their armies in Palestine and 
Phoenicia. Here Nebuchadnezzar waited while the 
sieges of Jerusalem and of Tyre were being con 
ducted by his lieutenants; hither were brought to 
him the wretched king of Judaea and his sons, and 
after a time a selection from all ranks and condi 
tions of the conquered city, who were put to death, 
doubtless by the horrible death of impaling, which 
the Assyrians practised, and the long lines of the 
victims to which are still to be seen on their monu 
ments (Jer. xxxix. 5, 6, lii. 9, 10, 26, 27 ; 2 K. 
xxv. 6, 20, 21). In like manner Pharaoh-Necho, 
after his successful victory over the Babylonians at 
Carchemish, returned to Riblah and summoned Je- 
hoahaz from Jerusalem before him (2 K. xxiii. 33). 

This Riblah has no doubt been discovered, still 
retaining its ancient name, on the right (east) 
bank of the el Asy (Orontes), upon the great road 
which connects Baalbek and Hums, about 35 
miles N.E. of the former and 20 miles S.W. of the 
latter place. The advantages of its position for the 
encampment of vast hosts, such as those of Egypt 
and Babylon, are enumerated by Dr. Robinson, who 
visited it in 1852 (Bib. Ees. iii. 545). He de 
scribes it as " lying on the banks of a mountain 
stream in the midst of a vast and fertile plain 
yielding the most abundant supplies of forage. 
From this point the roads were open by Aleppo 
and the Euphrates to Nineveh, or by Palmyra to 
Babylon .... by the end of Lebanon and the 
coast to Palestine and Egypt, or through the Bukaa 
and the Jordan valley to the centre of the Holy 
Land." It appears to have been first alluded to by 
Buckingham in 1816. 

Riblah is probably mentioned by Ezekiel (vi. 14), 
though in the present Hebrew text and A. V. it 
appears as Diblah or Diblath. The change from R 
to D is in Hebrew a very easy one. Riblah suits 
the sense of the passage very well, while on the 
other hand Diblah is not known. [DIBLATH.] [G.] 

RIDDLE (rnVl : ofrj-y/ta, 7rp^j8\7j^o : pro- 

blema, propositio}. The Hebrew word is derived 
from an Arabic root meaning " to bend off," " to 
twist," and is used for artifice (Dan. viii. 23), a 
proverb (Prov. i. 6), a song (Ps. xlix. 4, Ixxviii. 2), 
HII oracle (Num. xii. 8), a parable (Ez. xvii. 2), and 
in general any wise or intricate sentence (Ps. xciv. 
4; Hab. ii. 6, &c.), as well as a riddle in pur sense 
of the word (Judg. xiv. 12-19). In these senses 
we may compare the phrases ffrpo(p^ \6y(at>, 
GT-poQal irapafioXuv (Wisd. viii. 8 ; Ecclus. xxxix. 
2), and irepnrXoK^ \6yoov (Eur. Phoen. 497; 
Gesen. s. v.}, and the Latin scirpus, which appears 
lo have been similarly used (Aul. Gell. Noct. Att, 

* The two great MSS. of the LXX. Vatican (Mai) un d 
A-leZ. present the name as follow: 

2 K. xxiii. 33, 'AjBAaa ; Ae/3Aaa. 
XXV. 6, 'I 


yii. 6). Augustine defines an enigma to be an) 
"obscura allegoria" (de Trin. xv. 9), and points 
out, as an instance, the passage about the daughter 
of the horse-lefcch in Prov. xxx. 15, which haa 
been elaborately explained by Bellermann in a mo 
nograph on the subject (Aenitjmata Jlebraica, Erf. 
1798). Many passages, although not definitely 
propounded as riddles, may be regarded as such, 
e. g. Prov. xxvi. 10, a verse in the rendering of 
which every version differs from all othens. "The 
riddles which the queen of Sheba came to ask of So 
lomon (1 K. x. 1, i^A-fle TTfipda-ai avrbv eV alviy- 
uaffi ; 2 Chr. ix. 1) were rather " hard questions " 
referring to profound enquiries. Solomon is said, 
however, to have been very fond of the riddle 
proper, for Josephus quotes two profane historians 
(Menander of Ephesus, and Dius) to authenticate a 
story that Solomon proposed numerous riddles tc 
Hiram, for the non-solution of which Hiram was 
obliged to pay a large fine, until he summoned to 
his assistance a Tyrian named Abdemon, who not 
only solved the riddles, but propounded others 
which Solomon was himself unable to answer, and 
consequently in his turn incurred the penalty. The 
word alvi-y^a. occurs only once in the N. T. (1 Cor. 
xiii. 12, " darkly," eV aiVfy/mrt, comp. Num. xii, 
8; Wetstein, N. T. ii. 158); but, in the wider 
meaning of the word, many instances of it occur in 
our Lord's discourses. Thus Erasmus applies the 
term to Matt. xii. 43-45. The object of such im 
plicated meanings is obvious, and is well explained 
by St. Augustine : " manifestis pascimur, obscuris 
exercemur" (de Doct. Christ, ii. 6). 

We know that all ancient nations, and especially 
Orientals, have been fond of riddles (Rosenmiiller, 
Morgenl. iii. 68). We find traces of the custom 
among the Arabs (Koran, xxv. 35), and indeed 
several Arabic books of riddles exist as Ketab al 
Algaz in 1469, and a book of riddles solved, called 
Akd al themin. But these are rather emblems and 
devices than what we call riddles, although they 
are very ingenious. The Persians call them Algaz 
and Maamma (D'Herbelot, s. v. Algaz). They 
were also known to the Ancient Egyptians (Ja- 
blonski, Pantheon Aegypt. 48). They were espe 
cially used in banquets both by Greeks and Romans 
(M tiller, Dor. ii. 892 ; Athen. x. 457 ; Pollux, vi. 
107; A. Gell. xviii. 2; Diet, of Ant. p. 22), and 
the kind of witticisms adopted may be seen in the 
literary dinners described by Plato, Xenophon, 
Athenaeus, Plutarch, and Macrobius. Some have 
groundlessly supposed that the proverbs of Solo 
mon, Lemuel, and Agur, were propounded at feasts, 
like the parables spoken by our Lord on similar 
occasions (Luke xiv. 7, &c.). 

Riddles were generally proposed in verse, like the 
celebrated riddle of Samson, which, however, was 
properly (as Voss points out, Instt. Oratt. iv. 11) 
no riddle at all, because the Philistines did not 
possess the only clue on which the solution cw,ld 
depend. For this reason Samson had carefully con 
cealed the fact even from his parents (Judg. xiv. 14, 
&c.). Other ancient riddles in verse are that of the 
Sphinx, and that which is said to have caused the 
death of Homer by his mortification at being unable 
to solve it (Plutarch, Vit. Horn.}. 

Franc. Junius distinguishes between the greater 
enigma, where the allegory or obscure intimation 

2 K. xxv. 20, Ae/3Aa0a ; Ae/3Aada. 

21, "Ps/SAafla; 
Jer. Hi. 9. 10, 26. 27, AeAa0i. ia both. 

RIMMON 1042 

supposed, even as far back as Irenaeus, .tie name 
Adreti/os to be indicated. A list of the other verj 
numerous solutions, proposed in different ages, ma 
where the difficulty is concentrated" in the peculiar use j be found in Elliott's Horae Apocalt/pticae, from 


\g continuous throughout the passage (as in E/.. 
xvii. 2, and in such poems as the Syrinx attributed 
to Theocritus) ; and the lesser enigma or virai 

of some one word. It maybe useful to refer to 
or two instances of the latter, since they are veiy 
frequently to be found in the Bible, and especially 
in the Prophets. Such is the play on the word 
("a portion," and " Shechem," the town of 
Ephraim) in Gen. xlviii. 22 ; on T)JD (mdtzor, 
" a fortified city," and D^"1VJD, Mizraim, Egypt) 
in Mic. vii. 12 ; on *]$& (Shaked, " an almond- 
tree"), and ^K> (shakad, " to hasten"), in Jer. i. 
11; on nJD-V 1 ? (Dwnah, meaning " Edom " and 
"the land of death"), iu Is. xxi. 11 ; on ^W? 
Sheshach (meaning " Babylon," and perhaps " ar 
rogance "), in Jer. xxv. 26, Ii. 41. 

It only remains to notice the single instance 
of a riddle occurring in the N. T., viz., the number 
of the beast. This belongs to a class of riddles 
very common among Egyptian mystics, the Gnostics, 
some of the Fathers, and the Jewish Cabbalists. The 
latter called it Gematria (i. e. jeca/j-erpia) of which 
instances may be found in Carpzov (App. Grit. p. 
542), Reland (Ant. Hebr. i. 25), and some of the 
commentators on Rev. xiii. 16-18. Thus J^rlJ 


(ndchdsli), " serpent," is made by the Jews one of 
the names of the Messiah, because its numerical 

value is equivalent to PPE^D ; and the names 
- T 7 

Shushan and Esther are connected together because 
the numerical value of the letters composing them 
is 661. Thus the Marcosians regarded the number 
24 as sacred from its being the sum of numerical 
values in the names of two quaternions of their 
Aeons, and the Gnostics used the name Abraxas 
as an amulet, because its letters amount nume 
rically to 365. Such idle fancies are not unfre- 
quent in some of the Fathers. We have already 
mentioned (see CROSS) the mystic explanation by 
Clem. Alexandrinus of the number 318 in Gen. 
xiv. 14, and by Tertullian of the number 300 (re 
presented by the letter T or a cross) in Judg. vii. 
6, and similar instances are supplied by the Testi- 
monia of the Pseudo-Cyprian. The most exact 
analogies, however, to the enigma on the name of 
the beast, are to be found in the so-called Sibylline 
verses. We quote one which is exactly similar to 
it, the answer being found in the name 'Iijo-oCy 
= 888, thus: 1 = 10 + ?j =8 + a = 200 + o = 70 
+ v = 400 + s = 200 = 888. It is as follows, 
and is extremely curious : 

>}ec o-apKO<>6pos 6vTrjrol<; 6ju.otovfx.evos ev yfj 
Te'<r<repa (^wi/rjei/ra <f'pei, TO. 8' wfxava 6V aura! 
fitVcrwi* acTTpayoAaji/ (?), apifyxbi/ 8' o\ov e{ 
OKTta yap /u.oi'aSa?, bVcras 5ecaSa? e:rl TOVTOIS, 


With examples like this before us, it would be 
absurd to doubt that St. John (not greatly removed 
in time from the Christian forgers of the Sibylline 
verses) intended some name as an answer to the 
Dumber 666. The true answer must be settled by 
the Apocalyptic commentators. Most of the Fathers 

a In this passage H is generally thought that Sheshach 
is put for Babel, by the principle of alphabetical inversion 
bnown as the aVibasli. It will be seen that the passages 
fcbove quoted are chiefly instances of paronomasia. On 

which we have q.uoted several of these instant 

(Hor. Apoc. iii. 222-234). 
RIM'MON (|iB-1 : 

[F. W. F.] 
: Remmori). Rim 
mon, a Benjamite of Betroth, was the father of 
Rechab and Baanah, the murderers of Ishbosheth 
(2 Sam. iv. 2, 5, 9). 


Remmari). A 

deity, worshipped by the Syrians of Damascus, 
where there was a temple or house of Rimmon 
(2 K. v. 18). Traces of the name of this god 
appear also in the proper names Hadad-rimmon 
and Tabrimmon, but its signification is doubtful. 
Serarius, quoted by Selden (De dis Syris, ii. 10), 
refers it to the Heb. rimmon, a pomegranate, a 
fruit sacred to Venus, who is thus the deity wor 
shipped under this title (compare Pomona, from 
pomum). Ursinus (Arboretum Bibl. cap. 32, 7) 
explains Rimmon as the pomegranate, the emblem 
of the fertilizing principle of nature, the personified 
natara naturans, a symbol of frequent occurrence 
in the old religions (Bahr, Symbolik, ii. 122). If 
this be the true origin of the name, it presents us 
with a relic of the ancient tree-worship of the East, 
which we know to have prevailed in Palestine. 
But Selden rejects this derivation, and proposes 
instead that Rimmon is from the root D-ll, rum, 
" to be high," and signifies " most high ;" like 
the Phoenician JElionn, and Heb. fl^y. Hesy- 

chius gives 'PO//.&S, 6 

Beds. Clericus, 

Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, and Gesenius were of the 
same opinion. 

Movers (Phoen. i. 196, &c.) regards Rimmon ar 
the abbreviated form of Hadad-Rimmon (as Peor 
for Baal-Peor), Hadad being the sun-god of the 
Syrians. Combining this with the pomegranate, 
which was his symbol, Hadad-Rimmon would then 
be the sun-god of the late summer, who ripens the 
pomegranate and other fruits, and, after infusing 
into them his productive power, dies, and is mourned 
with the " mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley 
of Megiddon" (Zech. xii. 11). 

Between these different opinions there is no pos 
sibility of deciding. The name occurs but once, 
and there is no evidence on the point. But the 
conjecture of Selden. which is approved by Gesenius, 
has the greater show of probability. [W. A. W.] 

KIM'MON (i:iGTl, i.e. Rimmono: 
Remmono}. A city of Zebulun belonging to the 
Merarite Levites (1 Chr. vi. 77). There is great 
discrepancy between the list in which it occurs and 
the parallel catalogue of Josh. xxi. The former 
contains two names in place of the four of the latter, 
and neither of them the same. But it is not im 
possible that DIMNAH (Josh. xxi. 35) may have 
been originally Rimmon, as the D and R in Hebrew 
are notoriously easy to confound. At any rate there 
is no reason for supposing that Rimmono is not 
identical with Rimmou of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 13), 
in the A. V. REMMON-METHOAR. The redundant 
letter was probably transferred, in copying, from the 
succeeding word at an early date, since all the MSS. 

the profound use of this figure by the prophets and otbei 
writers see Ewald, Die Profjhetcn d. Alt. Bund. i. 4H ! 
SteiDthal; Urtpr. d. Spracke, p. 23. 




appear to exhibit it, as does also the Targum of 
.Joseph. [G.] 

RIM'MON (fl^n : 'Epw/j-cad ; Ale;:. 'Vefiutai ; 
'Pe/iua'j' ; Remintni). A town in the southern por 
tion of Judah (Josh. xv. 32), allotted to Simeon 
(Josh. xix. 7 ; 1 Chr. iv. 32 : in the former of 
these two passages it is inaccurately given in the 
A. V. as REMMON). In each of the above lists the 
name succeeds that of AIN, also one of the cities of 
Judah and Simeon. In the catalogue of the places 
reoccupied by the Jews after the return from 
Babylon (Neh. xi. 29) the two are joined (flft") \*$ ; 

LXX. omits : et in Remmori), and appear in the 
A. V. as En- Rimmon. There is nothing to support 
this single departure of the Hebrew text from its 
practice in the other lists except the fact that the 
Vatican LXX. (if the edition of Mai may be trusted) 
has joined the names in each of the lists of Joshua, 
from which it may be inferred that at the time of 
the LXX. translation the Hebrew text there also 
showed them joined. On the other hand there does 
not appear to be any sign of such a thing in the 
present Hebrew MSS. 

No trace of Rimmon has been yet discovered in 
the south of Palestine, true, it is mentioned in the 
Onomastic&n of Eusebius and Jerome; but they 
locate it at 15 miles north of Jerusalem, obviously 
confounding it with the Rock Rimmon. That it 
was in the south would be plain, even though the 
lists above cited were not extant, from Zech. xiv. 
10. where it is stated to be " south of Jerusalem," 
and where it and Geba (the northern frontier of 
the southern kingdom) are named as the limits of 
the change whicn is to take place in the aspect and 
formation of the country. In this case Jerome, both 
in the Vulgate and in his Commentary (in Zech. 
xiv. 9 seqq.), joins the two names, and understands 
them to denote a hill north of Jerusalem, appa 
rently well known (doubtless the ancient GIBEAH), 
marked by a pomegranate tree " collis Rimmon 
(hoc enim Gabaa sonat, ubi arbor malagranati est) 
usque ad australem plagam Jerusalem." [G.] 

RIM'MON PA'REZ (}T 3 fb") : "Pe^v ta 
pe's). The name of a march-station in the wilder 
ness (Num. xxxiii. 19, 20). Rimmon is a common 
.name of locality. The latter word is the same as that 
found in the plural form in Baal-Perazim, " Baal 
of the breaches." Perhaps some local configuration, 
such as a " cleft," might account for its being added. 
It stands between Rithmah and Libnah. No place 
now known has been identified with it. [H. H.] 


y TTTpa rov 'Pe/i/xcoi/ ; Joseph. ireTpa 'Poa : peira 
cujus vocabulum est Remrnon petra Remmori). 
A cliff (such seems rather the force of the Hebrew 
word sela) or inaccessible natural fastness, in which 
the six hundred Benjamites who escaped the slaugh 
ter of Gibeah took 1'efuge, and maintained them 
selves for four months until released by the act of 
the general body of the tribes (Judg. xx. 45, 47, 
xxi. 13). 

It is described as in the " wilderness" (midbar), 
Aat is, the wild uncultivated (though not unpro- 
4ictive) country which lies on the east of the 
central highlands of Benjamin, on which Gibeah was 
situated between them and the Jordan Valley. 

a In *wo out of its four occurrences, the article is 
omitted both in the Hebrew and LXX. 


Here the name is still found attache vl to a village 
perched on the summit of a conical chalky hill, 
visible in all directions, and commanding the whole 
country ( Rob. B. R. i. 440). 

The hill is steep and naked, the white limestone 
everywhere protruding, and the houses clinging to 
its sides and forming as it were huge steps. On 
the south side it rises to a height of several hundred 
feet from the great rav-ine of the Wady Mutyah ; 
while on the west side it is almost equally isolated 
by a cross valley of great depth (Portar, Handbk. 
217; Mr. Finn, in Van de Velde, Memoir, 345). 
In position it is (as the crow flies) 3 miles east of 
Bethel, and 7 N.E. of Gibeah (Tulcil el-Ful}. 
Thus in every particular of name, character, and 
situation it agrees with the requirements of the Rock 
Rimmon. It was known in the days of Eusebius 
and Jerome, who mention it (Onomasticon, " Rem 
mon") though confounding it with Rimmon in 
Simeon as 15' Roman miles northwards from 
Jerusalem. [G.J 

RING (nV3B : 5a/cTu\tos : annulus). The 
ring was 1'egarded as an indispensable article of a 
Hebrew's attire, inasmuch as it contained his signet, 
and even owed its name to this circumstance, the 
term tabbaath being derived from a root signifying 
" to impress a seal." It was hence the symbol of 
authority, and as such was presented by Pharaoh 
to Joseph (Gen. xli. 42), by Ahasuerus to Hamaii 
(Esth. iii. 10), by Antiochus to Philip (1 Mace. vi. 
15), and by the father to the prodigal son in the 
parable (Luke xv. 22). It was treasured accordingly, 
and became a proverbial expression for a most valued 
object (Jer. xxii. 24; Hagg. ii. 23 ; Ecclus. xlix. 11). 
Such rings were worn not only by men, but by 
women (Is. iii. 21 ; Mishn. Sabb. 6, 3), and are 
enumerated among the articles presented by men 
and women for the service of the tabernacle (Ex. 
xxxv. 22). The signet-ring was worn on the right 
hand (Jer. I. c.). We may conclude, from Ex. 
xxviii. 11, that the rings contained a stone engraven 
with a device, or with the owner's name. Numerous 
specimens of Egyptian rings have been discovered, 
most of them made of gold, very massive, and con 
taining either a scarabaeus or an engraved stone 
(Wilkinson, ii. 337). The number of rings worn 

Egyptian Rings, 

by the Egyptians was truly remarkable. The same 
profusion was exhibited also by the Greeks and Ro 
mans, particularly by men (Diet, of Ant. " Rings "). 
It appears also to have prevailed among the Jews 
of th- Apostolic age; for in Jam. ii. 2, a rich man 
is described as xpfff'oSctKTuAios, meaning not simp.y 
" with a gold ring," as in the A. V., but " golden- 
ringed" (like the xP vff< >X* L Pi "golden-handed" of 
Lucian, Timon, 20), implying equally well the pre 
sence of several gold rings. For the term gdlil, 
rendered " ring" in Cant. v. 14, see ORNAMENTS. 

[W. L. B.] 

RIN'NAH (n3") : 'Aj/a ; Alex. 'Pavvdv : 
Rmnd). One of the sons of Shimon in an obscure 
and fragmentary genealogy of the descendants of 
Judah (1 Chr. iv. 20). In the LXX. and Vulgate 


he is made " the son or Hanan," Ben-hanan fcing 
thus translated. 

RITHATH (nB-y. 'Pa0; Alex. 'P^ae m 
Chr. : Riphatk\ the second son of Corner, and the 
brother of Ashkenaz and Togarmah (Gen. x. 3). 
The Hebrew text in 1 Chr. i. 6 gives the form 
Diphath,* but this arises out of a clerical error 
similar to that which gives the forms Roclanim and 
Hadad for Dodanim and Hadar (1 Chr. i. 7, 50 ; 
Gen. xxxvi. 39). The name Riphath occurs only 
iu the genealogical table, and hence there is little 
to guide us to the locality which it indicates. The 
iame itself has been variously identified with that 
of the Rhipaean mountains (Knobel), the river 
Rhebas in Bithynia (Bochart), the Rhibii, a people 
living eastward of the Caspian Sea (Schulthess), 
and the Ripheans, the ancient name of the Paphla- 
gonians (Joseph. Ant. i. 6, 1). This last view 
is certainly favoured by the contiguity of Ash 
kenaz and Togarmah. The weight of opinion is, 
however, in favour of the Rhipaean mountains, 
which Knobel (Volkcrt. p. 44) identifies etymo- 
logically and geographically with the Carpathian 
range in the N.E. of Dacia. The attempt of that 
writer to identify Riphath with the Celts or Gauls, 
is evidently based on the assumption that so im 
portant a race ought to be mentioned in the table, 
and that there is no other name to apply to them ; 
but we have no evidence that the Gauls were for 
any lengthened period settled in the neighbourhood 
of the Carpathian range. The Rhipaean mountains 
themselves existed more in the imagination of the 
Greeks than in reality, and if the received etymo 
logy of that name (from {mrai, " blasts ") be correct, 
the coincidence in sound with Riphath is merely 
accidental, and no connexion can be held to exist 
between the names. The later geographers, Pto 
lemy (iii. 5, 15, 19) and others, placed the Rhi 
paean range where no range really exists, viz., about 
the elevated ground that separates the basins of the 
Euxine and Baltic seas. [W. L. B.] 

RIS'SAH(nEH: 'Pe<rcrc{: Eessa~). The name, 
identical with the word which signifies " a worm,'^ 
is that of a march-station in the wilderness (Num. 
xxxiii. 21, 2'J). It lies, as there given, between 
Libnah and Kehelathah, and has been considered 
(Winer, s. v.) identical with Rasa in the Peuting. 
Itiner., 32 Roman miles from Ailah (Elah), and 
203 miles south of Jerusalem, distinct, however, 
from the "Pri<r<ra. of Josephus (Ant. xiv. 15, 2). 
No site has been identified with Rissah. [H. H.] 



RITH'MAH (HDrp: 'Pafla^S: Rethmd). The 
name of a march-station in the wilderness (Num. 
xxxiii. 18, 19). It stands there next to Hazeroth 
[HAZEROTH], and probably lay in a N.E. direction 
from that spot, but no place now known has been 
identified with it. The name is probably connected 

5 __ 

with Dn"J, Arab. ,J>'j, commonly rendered "juni 

per," but more correctly " broom." It carries the 
affirmative H, common in names of locality, and 
found especially among many in the catalogue of 
Num. xxxiii. [H. H.] 

RIVER. IB the sense in which we employ the 

word, viz. for a perennial stream of considerable 
size, a river is a much rarer object in the East 
than in the West. The majority of the inhabitants 
of Palestine at the present day have probably nevei 
seen one. With the exception of the Jordan and 
the Litany, the streams of the Holy Land are either 
entirely dried up in the summer months, and con 
verted into hot lanes of glaring stones, or else re 
duced to very small streamlets deeoly sunk in a 
narrow bed, and concealed from v'? by a dense 
growth of shrubs. 

The cause of this is twofold : on one one hand 
the hilly nature of the country a central mas? 
of highland descending on each side to a Iov3r 
level, and on the other the extreme heat of the 
climate during the summer. There is little doubt 
that in ancient times the country was more wooded 
than it now is, and that, in consequence, the evapo 
ration was less, and the streams more frequent : yet 
this cannot have made any very material difference 
in the permanence of the water in the thousands 
of valleys which divide the hills of Palestine. 

For the various aspects of the streams of the 
country which such conditions inevitably produced, 
the ancient Hebrews had very exact terms, which 
they employed habitually with much precision. 

1. For the perennial river, Nahar(^\T\3). Possibly 

used of the Jordan in Ps. Ixvi. 6, Ixxiv. 15 ; of the 
great Mesopotamia!! and Egyptian rivers generally 
in Gen. ii. 10 ; Ex. vii. 19 ; 2 K. xvii. 6 ; Ez. iii. 1 5, 
&c. But with the definite article, han-Nahar, 
" the river," it signifies invariably the Euphrates 
(Gen. xxxi. 21: Ex. xxiii. 31: Num. xxiv. 6; 
2 Sam. x. 16, &c. &c.). With a few exceptions 
(Josh. i. 4, xxiv. 2, 14, 15; Is. lix. 19 ; Ez. xxxi. 
15), nahar is uniformly rendered "river" in our 
version, and accurately, since it is never applied to 
the fleeting fugitive torrents of Palestine. 

2. The term for these is nachal (^Hp), for which 
our translators have used promiscuously, anu some 
times almost alternately, "valley," "brook," and 
"river." Thus the "brook" and the "valley" 
of Eshcol (Num. xiii. 23 and xxxii. 9) ; the " val 
ley," the " brook," and the " river" Zered (Num. 
xxi. 12; Deut. ii. 13; Am. vi. 14) ; the "brook" 
and the " river " of Jabbok (Gen. xxxii. 23 ; Deut. 
ii. 37), of Arnon (Num. xxi. 14; Deut. ii. 24), of 
Kishon (Judg. iv. 7 ; 1 K. xviii. 40). Compare 
also Deut. iii. 16, &c. b 

Neither of these words expresses the thing in 
tended ; but the term " brook " is peculiarly un 
happy, since the pastoral idea which it conveys is 
quite at variance with the general character of 
the wadys of Palestine. Many of these are deep 
abrupt chasms or rents in the solid rock of the 
hills, and have a savage, gloomy aspect, far removed 
from that of an English brook. For example, the 
Arnon forces its way through a ravine several hun 
dred feet deep and about two miles wide across the 
top. The Wady Zerka, probably the Jabbok, which 
Jacob was so anxious to interpose between his family 
and Esau, is equally unlike the quiet " meadowy 
brook " with which we are familiar. And those 
which are not so abrupt and savage are in their width, 
their irregularity, their forlorn arid look when the 
torrent has subsided, utterly unlike " brooks." Un- 

This reading is preferred by Bochart (Phaleg, 
III 10), and is connected by him with the names of the 
town Tubata and the mountain Tibium in the N. of Asia 

b Jerome, in his Quaestiones in Gevtesiv*, xxvi. 19, 
draws the following curious distinction betwe a valley 
and a torrent : " Et hie pro valle torrens scriptus tt 
ntmqtMm enim in valle invenitur puteus aquae mvut,." 



ibrtiinawiiy ottr language does not contain any single 
word which has both the meanings of the Hebrew 
nachal and its Arabic equivalent wady, which can 
be used at once for a dry valley and for the stream 
which occasionally flows through it. Ainsworth, 
in his An~iotations (on Num. xiii. 23), says that 
'< bourne" has both meanings; but " bourne" is now 
obsolete in English, though still in use in Scotland, 
where, owing to the mountainous nature of the 
country, the " burns " partake of the nature of the 
wadys of Palestine in the irregularity of their flow. 
Mr. Burton (Geog. Journ. xxiv. 209) adopts the 
Italian fiumara. Others have proposed the Indian 
term nullah. The double application of the Hebrew 
nachal is evident in 1 K. xvii. 3, where Elijah is 
commanded to hide himself in (not by) the nachal 
Cherith and to drink of the nachal. 

3. Yeor O'lfcO), a word of Egyptian origin 
(see Gesen. Thes. 558), applied to the Nile only, 
and, in the plural, to the canals by which the Nile 
water was distributed throughout Egypt, or to 
streams having a connexion with that country. It 
is the word employed for the Nile in Genesis and 
Exodus, and is rendered by our translators " the 
river," except in the following passages, Jer. xlvi. 
7, 8 ; Am. viii. 8, ix. 5, where they substitute " a 
flood " much to the detriment of the prophet's 
metaphor. [See NILE, vol. ii. p. 539 6.] 

4. Yubal (?2V), from a root signifying tumult 
or fulness, occurs only sis times, in four of which 
it is rendered " river," viz. Jer. xvii. 8 ; Dan. viii. 

2, 3, 6. 

5. Peleg (37B), from an uncertain root, probably 

Connected with the idea of the division of the land 
for irrigation, is translated " river " in Ps. i. 3, 
Ixv. 9; Is. xxx. 25; Job xx. 17. Elsewhere it is 
rendered " stream " (Ps. xlvi. 4), and in Judg. v. 
15, 16, " divisions," where the allusion is probably 
to the artificial streams with which the pastoral 
and agricultural country of Reuben was irrigated 
(Ewald, Didder, i. 129; Gesen. Thes. 11036). 

6. Aphik (p*BK). This appears to be used with 

out any clearly distinctive meaning. It is probably 
from a root signifying strength or force, and may 
signify any rush or body of water. It is translated 
" river " in a few passages : Cant. v. 1 2 ; Ez. vi. 

3, xxxj. 12, xxxii. 6, xxxiv. 13, xxxv. 8, xxxvi. 4, 
6 ; Joel i. 20, iii. 18. In Ps. cxxvi. 4 the allusion 
is to temporary streams in the dry regions of the 
"south." [G.] 

EIVER OF EGYPT. Two Hebrew terms 
are thus rendered in the A. V. 

1. D*nVp "1H3 : iroTCtytbs AiylnrTov : fluvius 
Aegypti (Gen. xv. 18), "the river of Egypt," 
that is, the Nile, and here as the western border 
of the Promised Land, of which the eastern border 
was Euphrates the Pelusiac or easternmost branch. 

, ifora/Jibs Aiyvirrov, 'PivoicSpovpa, pi. : 
torrens Aegypti, rivus Aegypti (Num. xxxiv. 5 ; 
Josh. xv. 4, 47 ; 1 K. viii. 65 ; 2 K. xxiv. 7 ; Is. xxvii. 
12, in the last passage translated " the stream of 
Egypt"). It is the common opinion that this 
second term designates a desert stream on the 
border of Egypt, still occasionally flowing in the 
valley called WadM-'Areesh. The centre of the 
is occupied by the bed of this torrent, which 
flows after rains, as is usual in the desert valleys. 


The correctness 01 this opinion can only be decided 
by an examination of the passages in which the 
term occurs, for the ancient t7-ansiations do not aid 
When they were made there must have been 
great uncertainty on the subject. In the LXX. 
the term is translated by two literal meanings, 01 
perhaps three, but it is doubtful whether 7113 can 

be rendered ' ' river," and is once represented by 
Rhinocorura (or Rhinocolura), the name of a town 
on the coast, near the Wadi-1-Areesh, to which the 
modem El-'Areesh has succeeded. 

This stream is first mentioned as the point where 
the southern border of the Promised Land touched 
the Mediterranean, which formed its western border 
(Num. xxxiv. 3-6). Next it is spoken of as in the 
same position with reference to the prescribed bor 
ders of the tribe of Judah (Josh. xv. 4), and as 
beyond Gaza and its territory, the westernmost of the 
Philistine cities (47). In the later history we find 
Solomon's kingdom extending "from the entering 
in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt" (1 K. viii. 
65), and Egypt limited in the same manner where 
the loss of the eastern provinces is mentioned : 
" And the king of Egypt came not again any more 
out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken 
from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates 
all that pertained to" the king of Egypt " (2 K. 
xxiv. 7). In Isaiah it seems to be spoken of as 
forming one boundary of the Israelite territory, 
Euphrates being the other, " from the channel of 
the river unto the stream of Egypt" (xxvii. 12), 
appearing to correspond to the limits promised to 

In certain parallel passages the Nile is distinctly 
specified instead of " the Nachal of Egypt." In 
the promise to Abraham, the Nile, " the river ot 
Egypt," is mentioned with Euphrates as bound 
ing the land in which he then was, and which was 
promised to his posterity (Gen. xv. 18). Still more 
unmistakeably is Shihor, which is always the Nile, 
spoken of as a border of the land, in Joshua's de 
scription of the territory yet to be conquered : 
" This [is] the land that yet remaineth : all the 
regions of the Philistines, and all Geshuri, from the 
Sihor, which [is] before Egypt, even unto the bor 
ders of Ekron northward, [which] is counted to the 
Canaanite" (Josh. xiii. 2, 3). 

It must be observed that the distinctive character 
of the name, " Nachal of Egypt," as has been well 
suggested to us, almost forbids our supposing an 
insignificant stream to be intended ; although such 
a stream might be of importance from position as 
forming the boundary. 

If we :infer that the Nachal of Egypt is the Nile, 
we have 'to consider the geographical consequences, 
and to compare the name with known names of the 
Nile. Of the branches of the Nile, the easternmost, 
or Pelusiac, would necessarily be the one intended. 
On looking at the map it seems incredible that the 
Philistine territory should ever have extended so far; 
the Wadi-l-'Areesh is distant from Gaza, the most 
western of the Philistine towns ; but Pelusium, at 
the mouth and most eastern part of the Pelusiac 
branch, is very remote. It must, however, be 
remembered, that the tract from Gaza to Pelu 
sium is a desert that could never have been culti 
vated, or indeed inhabited by a settled population, 
and was probably only held in the period to which 
we refer by marauding Arab tribes, which may 
well have been tributary to the Philistines, for 
they must have been tributary to them or to the 


Egyptians, ou account of their isolated position 
:id the sterility of the country, though no doubt 
maintaining a half-independence. 8 All doubt on 
this point seems to be set at rest by a passage, in a 
Hieroglyphic inscription of Sethee I., head of the 
xixth dynasty, B.C. cir. 1340, on the north wall 
of the great temple of El-Karnak, which mentions 
"the foreigners of the SHASU from the fort of 
TAKU to the land of KANANA " (SHASU SHA'A 
Brugsch, Geojr. Tnschr. i. p. 261, No. 1265, pi. 
xlvii.). The identification of " the fort of TARU " 
with any place mentioned by the Greek and Latin 
geographers has not yet been satisfactorily accom 
plished. It appears, from the bas-relief, represent 
ing the return of Sethee 1. to Egypt from an eastern 
expedition, near the inscription just mentioned, 
to have been between a Leontopolis and a branch of 
the Nile, or perhaps canal, on the west side of 
which it was situate, commanding a bridge (Ibid. 
No. 1266, pi. xlviii.). The Leontopolis is either 
the capital of the Leontopolite Nome, or a town in 
the Heliopolite Nome mentioned by Josephus (Ant . 
xiii. 3, 1). In the former case the stream would 
probably be the Tanitic branch, or perhaps the Pe- 
lusiac ; in the latter, perhaps the Canal of the Red 
Sea. We prefer the first Leontopolis, but no iden 
tification is necessary to prove that the SHASU at 
this time extended from Canaan to the east of the 
Delta (see on the whole subject Geogr. Inschr. i. 
pp. 260-266, iii. pp. 20, 21). 

Egypt, therefore, in its most flourishing period, 
evidently extended no further than the east of the 
Delta, its eastern boundary being probably the Pe- 
lusiac branch, the territory of the SHASU, an Arab 
nation or tribe, lying between Egypt and Canaan. It 
might be supposed that at this time the SHASU had 
made an inroad into Egypt, but it must be remem 
bered that in the latter period of the kings of Judah, 
and during the classical period, Pelusium was the 
key of Egypt on this side. The Philistines, in the 
time of their greatest power, which appears to have 
been contemporary with the period of the Judges, 
may well be supposed to have reduced the Arabs of 
this neutral territory to the condition of tributaries', 
is doubtless was also done by the Pharaohs. 

It must be remembered that the specification of 
i certain boundary does not necessarily prove that 
the actual lands of a state extended so far ; the 
limit of its sway is sometimes rather to be under 
stood. Solomon ruled as tributaries all the king 
doms between the Euphrates and the land of the 
Philistines and the border of Egypt, when the Land 
of Promise appears to have been fully occupied 

a Herodotus, whose account is rather obscure, says that 
from Phoenicia to the borders of the city Cadytis (probably 
3aza) the country belonged to the Palaestine Syrians ; 
from Cadytis to Jenysus, to the Arabian king; then to the 
Syrians again, as far as Lake Serbonis, near Mount Casius. 
A.t Lake Serbonis, Egypt began. The eastern extremity 
ef Lake Serbonis is somewhat to the westward of Rhino- 
colura, and Mount Casius is more than halfway from the 
latter to Pelusium. As Herodotus afterwards states more 
precisely that from Jenysus to " Lake Serbonis and Mount 
Casius" was three days' journey through a desert without 
water, he evidently makes Mount Casius mark the western 
boundary of the Syrians ; for although the position of 
Jenysus is uncertain, the whole distance from Gaza (and 
If Cadytis be not Gaza, we cannot extend the Arabian ter 
ritory further east) does not greatly exceed three days' 
journey (iii 5. See Rawlinson's edit., ii. 398-400). If we 
adopt Capt. Spratt's identifications of Pelusium and Mount 
we must place thtoi much nearer together, and 



(1 K. iv. 21, comp. 24). When, therefore, it ia 
specified that the Philistine territory as far as the 
Nachal-Mizraim remained to be taken, it need scarcely 
be inferred that the territory to be inhabited by the 
Israelites was to extend so far, and this stream's 
being an actual boundary of a tribe may be explained 
on the same principle. 

If, with the generality of critics, we think that 
the Nachal-M ./raim is the Wadi-l-'Areesh, we must 
conclude that the name Shihoi is also applied to the 
latter, although elsewhere designating the Nile, b for 
we have seen that Nachal-Mizraim and Shihor are 
used interchangeably to designate a stream on the 
border of the Promised Land. This difficulty seems to 
overthrow the common opinion. It must, however, 
be remembered that in Joshua xiii. 3, Shihor has the 
article, as though actually or originally an appella 
tive, the former seeming to be the more obvious 
inference from the context. [SHIHOR OF EGYPT ; 

The word Nachal may be cited on either side. 
Certainly in Hebrew it is rather used for a torrent 
or stream than for a river ; but the name Naehal- 
Mizraim may come from a lost dialect, and the 

parallel Arabic word wadee, 

, though ordi 

narily used for valleys and their winter-torrents, 
as in the case of the Wadi-l-'Areesh itself, has been 
employed by the Arabs in Spain for true rivers, the 
Guadalquivir, &c. It may, however, be suggested, 
that in Nachal-Mizraim we have the ancient form 
of the Neel-Misr of the Arabs, and that Nachal was 
adopted from its similarity of sound to the original 
of Ne?\os. It may, indeed, be objected that NetAos 
is held to be of Iranian origin. The answer to this 
is, that we find Javan, we will not say the lonians, 
called by the very name, HANEN, used in the 
Rosetta Stone for " Greek" (SHAEE EN HANEN, 
lists of countries and nations, or tribes, conquered 
by, or subject to, the Pharaohs, as early as the 
reign of Amenoph III., B.C. cir. 1400. c An Iranian 
and even a Greek connexion with Egypt as early as 
the time of the Exodus, 'is therefore not to be 
treated as an impossibility. It is, however, re 
markable, that the word NetAos does not occur in 
the Homeric poems, as though it were not of 
Sanskrit origin, but derived from the Egyptians or 

Brugsch compares the Egyptian MUAW EN 
KEM " Water of Egypt," mentioned in the phrase 
" From the water of Egypt as far as NEHEREEN 
[Mesopotamia] inclusive," but there is no internal 

the latter far to the west of the usual supposed place 
(SiN, town). But in this case Herodotus would intend 
the western extremity of Lake Serbonis, which seems 

b There is a Shihor-libnath in the north of Palestine, 
mentioned in Joshua (xix. 26), and supposed to correspond 
to the Belus, if its name signify " the river of glass/' But 
we have no ground for giving Shihor the signification 
" river ;" and when the connexion of the Egyptians, and 
doubtless of the Phoenician and other colonists of north 
eastern Egypt, with the manufacture of glass is remem 
bered, it seems more likely that Shihor-libnath was named 
from the Nile. 

c We agree with Lepsius in this identification ( Ueber 
derNamen der Jonier aufden Aeg. Denkmatern, Kb'nigl. 
Akad. Berlin). His views have, however, been com 
bated by Buusen (Egypt's Place, iii. 603-606 1 ), Brugsch 
(Geogr. Inschr. ii. p. 19, pi. xiii. no. 2), and De Rons! 
(TomUtaa d'sihmtt, p. 43). 



evidence la favour or his conjectural identification 
with the stream of Wddi-1- Areesh (Geog. Inschr. 
i. 54, 55, pi. vii. no. 303). ' |_ R - S - P -3 

RIZTAH (H2V1 : 'Pto^S and 'PeV^o : Jo 
seph. "fa.tff<ba fiespha), concubine to king Saul, 
and mother cl his two sons Armoni and Mephi- 
bosheth. Like many others of the prominent female 
characters of the Old Testament Ruth, Rahab, 
Jezebel, &c. Rizpah would seem to have been a 
foreigner, a Hivite, descended from one of the 
ancient worthies of that nation, Ajah or Aiah, a son 
of Zibeon, whose name and fame are preserved in 
the Ishmaelite record of Gen. xxxvi. If this be the 
case, Saul was commencing a practice, which seems 
with subsequent kings to have grown almost into a 
rule, of choosing non-Israelite women for their in 
ferior wives. David's intrigue with Bathsheba, or 
Bath-shua, the wife of a Hittite, and possibly 
herself a Canaanitess, b is perhaps not a case in 
point ; but Solomon, Rehoboam, and their suc 
cessors, seem to have had their harems filled with 
foreign women. 

After the death of Saul and occupation of the 
country west of the Jordan by the Philistines, 
Rizpah accompanied the other inmates of the royal 
family to their new residence at Mahanaim ; and it 
is here that her name is first introduced to us as 
the subject of an accusation levelled at Abner by 
Ishbosheth (2 Sam. iii. 7), a piece of spite which 
led first to Abner's death through Joab's treachery, 
aud ultimately to the murder- of Ishbosheth himself. 
The accusation, whether true or false and from 
Abner's vehement denial we should naturally con 
clude that it was false involved more than meets 
the ear of a modern and English reader. For amongst 
the Israelites it was considered " as a step to the 
throne to have connexion with the widow or the 
mistress of the deceased king." (See Michaelis, 
Laws of Moses, art. 54.) It therefore amounted 
to an insinuation that Abner was about to make an 
attempt on the throne. 

We hear nothing more of Rizpah till the tragic 
story which has made her one of the most familial- 
objects to young and old in the whole Bible (2 Sam. 
xxi. 8-11). Every one can appreciate the love and 
endurance with which the mother watched over the 
bodies of her two sons and her five relatives, to save 
them from an indignity peculiarly painful to the 

a The Syriac-Peshito and Arabic Versions, in 2 Sam. 
iii., read Aua for Aiah the name of another ancient 
Hivite, the brother of Ajah, and equally the son of Zibeon. 
But it is not fair to lay much stress on this, as it may be 
only the error easily made of a careless transcriber ; or 
of one so familiar with the ancient names as to have con 
founded one with the other. 

b Comp. Gen. xxxviii., where the " daughter of Shua," 
the Canaanitess, should really be Bath-shua. 

Saul was probably born at Zelah, where Kish's se 
pulchre, and therefore his home, was situated. [ZELAII.] 

d TT12, 2 Sam. xxi. 6. e p'^H, has-Sak. 

* 1, 

;2). ROBBER: 

1. Tfl2, part, from T?2, "rob;" TrpoyojuevW ; vastans 

2. P"}3. part, of f]B, " break ;" \ot*6* ; latro : 
Mlc. ii. 13. T " breaker" 

etpirayij, pTra^ara ; rapnae. 
from p^S, "break;" afitxta; dilaceratio. 
, from *n&?, "waste;" oAeflpos; rapinae. 
; praeda ; " prey," " spoil. 


whole of the ancient world ^see Ps. Ixxix. 2 ; Horn. 
//. i. 4, 5, &c. &c.;. But it is questionable whethei 
the ordinary conception of the scene is accurate. 
The seven victims were not, as the A. V. implies, 
hung ;" they were crucified. The seven crossef. 
were planted in the rock on the top of the sacred 
bill of Gibeah ; the hill which, though not SauJt 
native place, c was through his' long residence there 
so identified with him as to retain his name to thf 
latest existence of the Jewish nation (1 Sam. xi. 4 
&c., and see Joseph. B. J. v. 2, 1). The whol* 
or part of this hill seems at the time of this occur, 
rence to have been in some special manner d dedicated 
to Jehovah, possibly the spot on which Ahiah the 
priest had deposited the Ark when he took refuge in 
Gibeah during the Philistine war (1 Sam. xiv. 18). 
The victims were sacrificed at the beginning of 
barley-harvest the sacred and festal time of the 
Passover and in the full blaze of the summer sun 
they hung till the fall of the periodical rain in 
October. During the whole of that time Rizpah 
remained at the foot of the crosses on which the 
bodies of her sons were exposed : the Mater dolorosa, 
if the expression may be allowed, of the ancient 
dispensation. She had no tent to shelter her from 
the scorching sun which beats on that open spot 
all day, or from the drenching dews at night, but 
she spread on the rocky floor the thick mourning 
garment of black sackcloth e which as a widow she 
wore, and crouching there she watched that neither 
vulture nor jackal should molest the bodies. We 
may surely be justified in applying to Rizpah the 
words with which another act of womanly kindness 
was commended, and may say, that " wheresoever the 
Bible shall go, there shall also this, that this woman 
hath done, be told for a memorial of her." [G.] 

ROAD. This word occurs but once in the 
Authorised Version of the Bible, viz. in 1 Sam. 
xxvii. 10, where it is used in the sense of "raid" 
or " inroad," the Hebrew word (D5J>Q) being else 
where (e. g. ver. 8, xxiii. 27, xxx. 1, 14, &c.) ren 
dered " invade" and " invasion." 

A Road in the sense which we now attach t 
the term is expressed in the A. V. by " way " and 
path." [G.] 

ROBBERY.' Whether in the larger sense of 
plunder, or the more limited sense of theft, sys- 

3. D^, Job xviii. 9 ; Su^i/res ; sitis. Targum, with 
A. V., has ".robbers;" but it is most commonly rendered 
as LXX., Job v. 5, sitientes. 

4. "l^K* ; Arjo-njs ; latro : from "1*1^, " waste." 

5. nDJ^ ; ex^pos; deripiens; A. V. "spoiler." 

6. 235 ; KA.e7T7Tjs ; fur ; A. V. "thief." 
(3.) ROB: 

1. TT2 ; StapTTacJio ; depopulor. 

2. 7T5 ; d(|)aipea) ; violenter aufero. 

3. *l-iy, " return," repeat ;" hence in Pi. surrov^nd 
circumvent (Ps. cxix. 61) ; TrepiwAcuciji/ai ; circumplecti ; 
usually affirm, reiterate assertions (Gca. p. 997). 

4. )Op, "cover," 'hide;" itrepvifa ; o#/#o (Ges 
p. 1190). T 

5. nDK^ ; fitapTrac^oj ; diripio. 

j 6. DDK^ (same as last) ; npovo^tm 

7. 335; KXsjrTw ; ,/umr ; A. V. "steal. 


teraaticelly organized, robbery has ever been one ot 
the principal employments of the nomad tribes of 
the East. From the time of Ishmael to the^prescnt 
day, the Bedouin has been a " wild man," and a 
robber by trade, and to carry out his objects suc 
cessfully, so far from being esteemed disgraceful, is 
regarded as in the highest degree creditable (Gen. 
xvi. 12; Burckhardt, Notes on Bed. i. 137, 157). 
An instance of an enterprise of a truly Bedouin 
character, but distinguished by the exceptional fea 
tures belonging to its principal actor, is seen in the 
night-foray of David (1 Sam. xxvi. 6-1 '2), with 
which also we may fairly compare Horn. II. K. 
204, &c. Predatory inroads on a large scale are 
seen in the incursions of the Sabaeans and Chal- 
daeans on the property of Job (Job i. 15, 17); the 
revenge coupled with plunder of Simeon and Levi 
'Gen. xxxiv. 28, 29) ; the reprisals of the Hebrews 
upon the Midianites (Num. xxxi. 32-54), and the 
frequent and often prolonged invasions of " spoilers" 
upon the Israelites, together with their reprisals, 
during the period of the Judges and Kings (Judg. 
ii. 14, vi. 3, 4; 1 Sam. xi., xv. ; 2 Sam. viii., x. ; 
2 K. v. 2 ; 1 Chr. v. 10, 18-22). Individual in 
stances, indicating an unsettled state of the country 
during the same period, are seen in the " liers-in- 
wait" of the men of Shechem (Judg. ix. 25), and 
the mountain retreats of David in the cave of Adul- 
lam, the hill of Hachilah, and the wilderness of 
Maon, and his abode in Ziklag, invaded and plun 
dered in like manner by the Amalekites (1 Sam. 
xxii. 1, 2, xxiii. 19-25, xxvi. 1, xxvii. 6-10, xxx. 1). 

Similar disorder in the country, complained of 
more than once by the prophets (Hos. iv. 2, vi. 
9 ; Mic. ii. 8), continued more or less through 
Maccabaean down to Roman times, favoured by 
the corrupt administration of some of the Roman 
governors, in accepting money in redemption of 
punishment, produced those formidable bands of 
robbers, so easily collected and with so much diffi 
culty subdued, who found shelter in the caves of 
Palestine and Syria, and who infested the country 
even in the time of our Lord, almost to the very 
gates of Jerusalem (Luke x. 30; Acts v. 36, 37, 
xxi. 38.) [JUDAS OP GALILEE ; CAVES.] In the 
later history also of the country the robbers, or 
sicarii, together with their leader, John of Gischala, 
played a conspicuous part (Joseph. B. J. iv. 2, 1 ; 
3, 4; 7, 2). 

The Mosaic law on the subject of theft is con 
tained in Ex. xxii., and consists of the following 
enactments : 

1. He who stole and killed an ox or a sheep, was 
to restore five oxen for the ox, and four sheep for the 



2. If the stolen animal was found alive the thief 
was to restore double. 

3. If a man was found stealing in a dwelling 
house at night, and was killed in the act, the homi 
cide was not held guilty of murder. 

4. If the act was committed during daylight, the 
thiel' might not be killed, but was bound to make 
full restitution or be sold into slavery. 

5. If money or goods deposited in a man's house 
were stolen therefrom, the thief, when detected, was 
to pay double : but 

6. If the thief could not be found, the master of 
the house was to be examined before the judges. 

7. If an animal given in charge to a man to 
keep were stolen from him, '. e. through his negli 
gence, he was to make restitution to the owner. 

There seems no reason to suppose that the law 
underwent any alteration in Solomon's time, as 
Michaelis supposes ; the expression in Prov. vi. 30, 
31 is, that a thief detected in stealing should restore 
sevenfold, i. e. to the full amount, and for this pur 
pose, even give all the substance of his house, and 
thus in case of failure be liable to servitude (Mi 
chaelis, Laws of Hoses, 284). On the other hand, 
see Bertheau on Prov. vi. ; and, Keil, Arch. Hebr. 
154. r Man-stealing was punishable with death 
(Ex. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7). Invasion of right in 
land was strictly forbidden (Deut. xxvii. 17 ; Is. v. 
8 ; Mic. ii. 2). 

The question of sacrilege does not properly come 
within the scope of the present article. [H. W. P.] 

ROBOAM ('Poftocifji: Roboam), Ecclus. xlvii. 
23 ; Matt. i. 7. [REHOBOAM.] 

ROE, ROEBUCK (3V, tzebi (m.) ; 

tzebiyyah (f.) : SopKas, 86pic<ov, SopicdSiov : caprea, 
damuld). There seems to be little or no doubt 
that the Heb. word, which occurs frequently in the 
0. T., denotes' some species of antelope, probably 
the Gazella dorcas, a native of Egypt and North 
Africa, or the G. Arabica of Syria and Arabia, 
which appears to be a variety only of the dorcas. 
The gazelle was allowed as food (Deut. xii. 15, 
22, &c.) ; it is mentioned as very fleet of foot 
(2 Sam. ii. 18; 1 Chr. xii. 8); it was hunted (Is. 
xiii. 14 ; Prov. vi. 5) ; it was celebrated for its 
loveliness (Cant. ii. 9, 17, viii. 14). The gazelle 
is found in Egypt, Barbary, and Syria. Stanley 
(8. fy P. p. 207) says that the signification of the 
word Ajalon, the valley " of stags," is still justified 
by " the gazelles which the peasants hunt on its 
mountain slopes." Thomson (The Land and the 
Book, p. 172) says that the mountains of Naphtali 
" abound in gazelles to this day." 

SaztUa Arabica. 

The ariel gazelle (G. Arabica ;, which, if not, a 
different species, is at least a well marked variety 
of the doi-cas, is common in Syria, and is hunted 
by the Arabs with a falcon and a greyhound ; the 
repeated attacks of the bird upon the head of the 
animal so bewilder it that it fails an easy prey to 
the greyhound, which is trained to watch the flight 
of the falcon. Many of these antelopes are also 
taken in pitfals into which they are driven by the 
shouts of the hunters. The large full soft eye ol 
the fazelle has long been the theme of Oriental 
praises. (W. H.] 

EO'GELIU (B^P : 'Pa>7eAAiAi.,and so Ale*. 




though ouce 'Puyttei/j. : Rogdiiri). The residence I 
of Barzillai the Gileadite (2 Sam. xvii. 27, xix. 31; 
in the highlands east of the Jordan. It i>s men 
tioned on this occasion only. Nothing is said to 
guide us to its situation, and no name at all 
resembling it appears to have been hitherto dis 
covered on the spot. 

If interpreted as Hebrew the name is derivable 
from reyel, the foot, and signifies the " fullers" or 
'' washers," who were in the habit (as they still 
are in the East) of using their feet to tread the 
cloth which they are cleansing. But this is ex 
tremely uncertain. The same word occurs in the 
name EN-ROGEL. [G.] 

ROH'GAH (nann, Cethib, narn, AV: 

'Pooyd ; Alex. Ovpaoyd : Rooifa). A-n Ashen te, 
of the sons of Shamer (I Chr. vii. 34). 

EO'IMUS CPof/*os). REHUM 1 (1 Esd. v. 8). 
The name is not traceable in the Vulgate. 

ROLL (HP ; Ke</>a\iY). A book in ancient 

times consisted of a single long strip of paper or 

parchment, which was usually kept rolled up on a 

stick, and was unrolled when a person wished to 

read it. Hence arose the term megillah, from 

galalf " to roll," strictly answering to the Latin 

volumen, whence comes our volume hence also the 

expressions, " to spread" and "roll together ," b in 

stead of " to open" and " to shut" a book. The 

full expression for a book was " a roll of writing," 

or " a roll of a book" (Jer. xxxvi. 2 ; Ps. A/7 ; 

Ez. ii. 9), but occasionally " roll " stands by itseli 

(Zech. v. 1,2; Ezr. vi. 2). The Kf(pa\is of the 

LXX. originally referred to the ornamental knob 

(the umbilicus of the Latins) at the top of the stick 

or cylinder round which the roll was wound. Th 

use of the term megillah implies, of course, the ex 

istence of a soft and pliant material : what this ma 

terial was in the Old Testament period, we are no 

informed ; but as a knife was required for its de 

struction (Jer. xxxvi. 23), we infer that it was 

parchment. The roll was usually written on one 

side only (Mishn. Ei-ub. 10, 3), and hence the 

particular notice of one that was " written withii 

and without" (Ez. ii. 10). The writing was ar 

ranged in columns, resembling a door in shape 

and hence deriving their Hebrew name, c just a. 

" column," from its resemblance to a columna o 

pillar. It has been asserted that the term inegillat 

does not occur before the 7th cent. B.C., being firs 

used by Jeremiah (Hitzig, in Jer. xxxvi. 2) ; an 

the conclusion has been drawn that the use of sue 

materials as parchment was not known until tha 

period (Ewald, Gesch. i. 71, note; Gesen. Thes 

]>. 289). This is to assume, perhaps too confi 

dently, a late date for the composition of Ps. xl. 

and to ignore the collateral evidence arising out o 

the expression " roll together " used by Is. xxxiv 

4, and also out of the probable reference to th 

Pentateuch in Ps. xl. 7, " the roll of the book," 

copy of which was deposited by the side of the ar 

(Deut. xxxi. 26). We may here add that the tern 

fn Is. viii. 1, rendered in the A. V. " roll," moi 

correctly means tablet. [W. L. B.] 


fcp ; Alex. 'Pa>,ue,u0i-eep in 1 Chr. xxv. 4, tor?. 
.eO-/j.iefp in 1 Chr. xxv. 31 : Romemthiezar}. 
ne of the fourteen sons of Heman. and chief of thf 
4th division of the singers in the reign of L"avid 
1 Chr. xxv. 4, 31). 

ROMAN EMPIRE. The history of the 
oman Empire, properly so called, extends over a 
eriod of rather more than five hundred years, viz. 
om the battle of Actium, B.C. 31, when Augustus 
ecame sole ruler of the Roman world, to the abdi- 
ation of Augustulus, A.D. 476. The Empire, how- 
ver, in the sense of the dominion of Rome over a 
arge number of conquered nations, was in full force 
nd had reached wide limits some time before the 
onarchy of Augustus was established. The notke? 
f Roman history which occur in the Bible are con 
ned to the last century and a half of the common- 
realth and the first century of the imperial 

The first historic mention of Rome in the Bible 
s in 1 Mace. i. 10. Though the date of the founda- 
iou of Rome coincides nearly with the beginning 
f the reign of Pekah in Israel, it was not till the 
>eginning of the 2nd century B.C. that the Romans 
leisure to interfere in the affairs of the East. 
Vhen, however, the power of Carthage had been 
ftectually broken at Zama, B.C. 202, Roman arms 
,nd intrigues soon made themselves felt throughout 
Macedonia, Greece, and Asia Minor. About the 
year 161 B.C. Judas Maccabaeus heard of the Ro- 
nans as the conquerors of Philip, Perseus, and 
Antiochus (1 Mace. viii. 5, 6). " It was told him 

' how they destroyed and brought under their 
dominion all other kingdoms and isles that at any 
ime resisted them, but with their friends and such 
is relied upon them they kept amity " (viii. 11 , 12). 
n order to strengthen himself against Demetrius 
:ing of Syria he sent ambassadors to Rome (viii. 
17), and concluded a defensive alliance with the 
senate (viii. 22-32). This was renewed by Jona 
than (xii. 1) and by Simon (xv. 17 ; Joseph. Ant. 
xii. 10, 6, xiii. 5, 8, 7, 3). Notices of the em 
bassy sent by Judas, of a tribute paid to Rome by 
the Syrian king, and of further intercourse between 
the Romans and the Jews, occur in 2 Mace. iv. 11, 
viii. 10, 36, xi. 34. In the course of the narrative 
mention is made of the Roman senate (rJ> fiovtev- 
rypiov, 1 Mace. xii. 3), of the consul Lucius 
(o viraros, 1 Mace. xv. 15, 16), and the Roman con 
stitution is described in a somewhat distorted form 
(1 Mace. viii. 14-16). 

The history of the Maccabaean and Idumaean 
dynasties forms no part of our present subject. 
[MACCABEES ; HEROD.] Here a brief summary 
of the progress of Roman dominion in Judaea will 

In the year 65 B.C., when Syria was made a 
Roman province by Pompey, the Jews were still 
governed by one of the Asmonaean princes. Aristo- 
bulus had lately driven his brother Hyrcanus from 
the chief priesthood, and was now in his turn at 
tacked by Aretas, king of Arabia Petraea, the ally 
of Hyrcanus. Pompey's lieutenant, M. Aemilius 
Scaurus, interfered in the contest B.C. 64, and the 

b Jn the Hebrew, KHB (2 K. xix. 14) and 
xxxiv. 4): in the Greek, avwrvamiv and 
(Luke iv. 17,20). 

3 (I 

(A. V. leaves," Jer. xxxvi. 23). HitziE 
maintains that the word means "leaves," and that Ihe 
megillah in this case was a book like our own, consisting 
of numerous pages. 


fl*xt year Pompey himself marched an army into 
Juu<.ea and took Jerusalem (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 2, 
3, 4 ; B. J. i. 6, 7). From this time the Jews 
were practically under the government of Rome. 
Hyrcanus retained the high-priesthood and a titular 
sovereignty, subject to the watchful control of his 
minister Antipater, an active partisan of the Roman 
interest?. Finally, Antipater's son, Herod the Great, 
was made king by Antony's interest, B.C. 40, and 
confirmed in the kingdom by Augustus, B.C. 30 
(Joseph. Ant. xiv. 14, xv. 6). The Jews, however, 
were all this time tributaries of Rome, and their 
princes in reality were mere Roman procurators. 
Julius Caesar is said to have exacted from them a 
fourth part of their agricultural produce in addition 
to the tithe paid to Hyrcauus (Ant. xiv. 10, 0). 
Roman soldiers were quartered at Jerusalem in 
Herod's time to support him in his authority (Ant. 
xv. 3, 7). Tribute was paid to Rome, and an oath 
of allegiance to the emperor as well as to Herod 
appears to have been taken by the people (Ant. 
xvii. 2, 2). On the banishment of Archelaus, 
A.D. 6, Judaea became a mere appendage of the 
province of Syria, and was governed by a Roman 
procurator, who resided at Caesarea. Galilee and 
the adjoining districts were still left under the 
government of Herod's sons and other petty princes, 
whose dominions and titles were changed from time 
to time by successive emperors: for details see 

Such were the relations of the Jewish people to 
the Roman government at the time when the N. T. 
history begins. An ingenious illustration of this 
state of things has been drawn from the condition 
of British India. The Governor General at Calcutta, 
the subordinate governors at Madras and Bombay, 
and the native princes, whose dominions have been 
at one time enlarged, at another incorporated with 
the British presidencies, find their respective coun 
terparts in the governor of Syria at Antioch, the 
procurators of Judaea at Caesarea, and the mem 
bers of Herod's family, whose dominions were alter 
nately enlarged and suppressed by the Roman em 
perors (Conybeare and Howson, Life of St. Paid, 
i. 27). These and other characteristics of Roman 
rule come before us constantly in the N. T. Thus 
we hear of Caesar the sole king (John xix. 15) 
ofCyrenius, " governor of Syria " (Luke ii. 2) of 
Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus, the " governors," 
i. e. procurators, of Judaea of the " tetrarchs 
Herod, Philip, and Lysanias (Luke iii. 1) of" king 
Agrippa" (Acts xxv. 13) of Roman soldiers, 
legions, centurions, publicans of the tribute-money 
(Matt. xxii. 19) the taxing of "the whole world" 
(Luke ii. 1) Italian and Augustan cohorts (Acts 
x. 1, xxvii. 1) the appeal to Caesar (Acts xxv. 11). 
Three of the Roman emperors are mentioned in the 
N. T. Augustus (Luke ii. 1), Tiberius (Luke iii. 
1), and Claudius (Acts xi. 28, xviii. 2). Nero is 
alluded to under various titles, as Augustus (2e- 
j8a<TTo';) ind Caesar (Acts xxv. 10, 11, 21, 25; 
Phil. iv. 2), as u Kvptos, " my lord " (Acts xxv. 
26), and apparently in other passages (1 Pet. ii. 17 ; 
Rom, xiii. 1). Several notices of the provincial 
administration of the Romans and the condition of 
provincial cities occur in the narrative of St. Paul's 
journeys (Acts xiii. 7, zviii. 12, xvi. 12, 35, 38, 
xix.- 38). 

In illustration of the sacred narrative it may be 
well to give a general account, though necessarily 
a short and imperfect one, of the position of the 
inperor, the extent of the empire, and the ad- 



ministration of the provinces in the time of our 
Lord and His Apostles. Fuller information will ba 
found under special articles. 

I. When Augustus became sole ruler of the Iio 
man world he was in theory simply the first citizen 
of the republic, entrusted with temporary powers 
to settle the disorders of the state. Tacitus savs 
that he was neither king nor dictator, but " prince" 
|Tac. Ann. i. 9), a title implying no civil authority, 
but simply the position of chief member of the 
senate (princeps senatus). The old magistracies 
were retained, but the various powers and preroga 
tives of each were conferred upon Augustus, so that 
while others commonly bore the chief official titles, 
Augustus had the supreme control of every depart 
ment of the state. Above all he was the Emperor 
(Imperator). This word, used originally to designate 
any one entrusted with the imperium or full mili 
tary authority over a Roman army, acquired a new 
significance when adopted as a permanent title by 
Julius Caesar. By his use of it as a constant prefix 
to his name in the city and in the camp he openly 
asserted a paramount military authority over the 
state. Augustus, by resuming it, plainly indicated, 
in spite of much artful concealment, the real basis 
on which his power rested, viz. the support of the 
army (Men vale, Roman Empire, vol. iii.). In the 
N. T.'the emperor is commonly designated by the 
family name " Caesar," or the dignified and almost 
sacred title "Augustus" (for its meaning, comp. 
Ovid, Fasti, i. 609). Tiberius is called by impli 
cation yyejjifiw in Luke iii. 1, a title applied in the 
N. T. to Cyrenius, Pilate, and others. Notwith 
standing the despotic character of the government, 
the Romans seem to have shrunk from speaking of 
their ruler under his military title (see Merivale, 
Horn. Empire, iii. 452, and note) or any other 
avowedly despotic appellation. The use of the word 
6 Kvptos, dominus, " my lord," in Acts xxv. 26, 
marks the progress of Roman servility between 
the time of Augustus and Nero. Augustus and 
Tiberius refused this title. Caligula first bore it 
(see Alford's note in /. c. ; Ovid, Fast. ii. 142). 
The term &a(ri\vs, " king," in John xix. 15, 1 Pet. 
ii. 17, cannot be closely pressed. 

The Empire was nominally elective (Tac. Ann. xiii. 
4) ; but practically it passed by adoption (see Galba's 
speech in Tac. Hist. i. 15), and till Nero's time 
a sort of hereditary right seemed to be recognised. 
The dangers inherent in a military government were, 
on the whole, successfully averted till the death 
of Pertinax, A.D. 193 (Gibbon, ch. iii. p. 80), but 
outbreaks of military .violence were not wanting in 
this earlier period (comp. Wenck's note on Gibbon, 
I. c.). The army was systematically bribed by do. 
natives at the commencement of each reign, and the 
mob of the capital continually fed and amused at the 
expense of the provinces. We are reminded of the 
insolence and avarice of the soldiers in Luke iii. 14. 
The reigns of Caligula, Nero, and Domitiau show 
that an emperor might shed the noblest blood with 
impunity, so long as he abstained from ofl'ending 
the soldiery and the populace. 

II. Extent of the Empire. Cicero's description 
of the Greek states and colonies as a " fringe on the 
skills of barbarism " (Cic. De Rep. ii. 4) has been 
well applied to the Roman dominions before the 
conquests of Pompey and Caesar (Merivale, Rom. 
Empire, iv. 409). The Roman Empire was still 
confined to a narrow strip encircling the Mediter 
ranean Sea. Pompey added Asia Minor and Syria, 
Caesar added Gaul. The generals of Augustus over- 



ran the N.\V. portion of Spam and the country 
between the Alps and the Danube. The boundaries 
of the Empire were now, the Atlantic on the W., 
the Euphrates on the F.., the deserts of Africa, the 
cataracts of the Nile, and the Arabian deserts on 
the S., the British Channel, the Rhine, the Danube, 
and the Black Sea on the N. The only subsequent 
conquests of importance were those of Britain by 
Claudius and of Dacia by Trajan. The only inde 
pendent powers of importance were the Parthians 
on the E. and the Germans on the N. 

The population of the Empire in the time of 
Augustus has been calculated at 85,000,000 (Meri- 
vale, Rom. Empire, iv. 442-450). Gibbon, speak 
ing of the time of Claudius, puts the population at 
120,000,000 (Decline and Fall, ch. ii.). Count 
Franz de Champagny adopts the same number for 
the reign of Nero (Les Cesars, ii. 428). All these 
estimates are confessedly somewhat uncertain and 

This large population was controlled in the time 
of Tiberius by an army of 25 legions, exclusive of 
the praetorian guards and other cohorts in the 
capital. The soldiers who composed the legions may 
be reckoned in round numbers at 170,000 men. If 
we add to these an equal number of auxiliaries (Tac. 
Ann. iv. 5) we have a total force of 340,000 men. 
The praetorian guards may be reckoned at 10,000 
(Dion Cass. Iv. 24). The other cohorts would swell 
the garrison at Rome to fifteen or sixteen thousand 
men. For the number and stations of the legions 
in the time of Tiberius, comp. Tac. Ann. iv. 5. 

The navy may have contained about 21,000 men 
(Les Cesars, ii. 429 j comp. Merivale, iii. 534). The 
legion, as appears from what has been said, must 
have been " more like a brigade than a regiment," 
consisting as it did of more than 6000 infantry 
with cavalry attached (Conybeare and Howson, ii. 
285). For the " Italian and Augustan bands " 
(Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1) see ARMY, vol. i. p. 114. 

III. The Provinces. The usual fate of a country 
conquered by Rome was to become a subject pro 
vince, governed directly from Rome by officers sent 
out for that purpose. Sometimes, however, as we 
have seen, petty sovereigns were left in possession 
of a nominal independence on the borders, or within 
the natural limits, of the province. Such a system 
was useful for rewarding an ally, for employing a 
busy ruler, for gradually accustoming a stubborn 
people to the yoke of dependence. There were 
differences too in the political condition of cities 
within the provinces. Some were free cities, i. e. 
were governed by then- own magistrates, and were 
exempted from occupation by a Roman garrison. 
Such were Tarsus, Antioch in Syria, Athens, Ephe- 
sus, Thessalonica. See the notices of the " Poli- 
tarchs" and "Demos" at Thessalonica, Acts xvii. 
5-8. The "town-clerk" and the assembly at 
Ephesus, Acts xix. 35, 39 (C. and H. Life of St. 
Paul, i. 357, ii. 79). Occasionally, but rarely, free 
cities were exempted from taxation. Other cities 
Wfc/e " Colonies," i. e. communities of Roman citi- 
Z3ns transplanted, like garrisons of the imperial 
city, into a foreign land. Such was Philippi (Acts 
xvi. 12). Such too were Corinth, Troas, the Pisi- 
dfan Antioch. The inhabitants were for the most 
part Romans (Acts xvi. 21), and 'their magistrates 
delighted in the Romiin title of Praetor (arpa- 
T"ny&s), and in the attendance of lictors (pafiSovxoty. 
Acts xvi. 35. (C. and H. i. 315.) 

Augustus divided the provinces into two classes, 
(1.) Imperial, (I;,) Senatorial ; retaining in his own 


hands, for obvious reasons, those provinces TV) eve 
the presence of a large military force was neces 
sary, and committing the peaceful and unarmed 
provinces to the Senate. The Imperial provinces 
at first were Gaul, Lusitania, Syria, Phoenicia, 
Cilicia, Cyprus, and Aegypt. The Senatorial pro 
vinces were Africa, Numidia, Asia, Achaea and 
Epirus, Dalmatia, Macedonia, Sicily, Crete and Cy- 
rene, Bithynia and Pontus, Sardinia, Baetica (Dion 
C. liii. 12 \ Cyprus and Gallia Narbonensis were 
subsequently given up by Augustus, who in turn 
received Dalmatia from the Senate. Many other 
changes were made afterwards. The N. T. writers 
invariably designate the governors of Senatorial 
provinces by the correct title of avdviraroi. pro 
consuls v Acts xiii. 7, xviii. 12. xix. 38). [CYPRUS.] 
For the governor of an Imperial province, properly 
styled " Legatus Caesaris" (IIpco-jScuTTjs), the word 
'Hyf/jL(&v (Governor) is used in the N. T. 

The provinces were heavily taxed for the benefit 
of Rome and her citizens. " It was as if England 
were to defray the expenses of her own administra 
tion by the proceeds of a tax levied on her Indian 
empire " (Liddell, Hist, of Rome, i. p. 448). In old 
times the Roman revenues were raised mainly from 
three sources : (1.) The domain lands ; (2.) A direct 
tax (tributum) levied upon every citizen ; (3.) From 
customs, tolls, harbour duties, &c. The agrarian 
law of Julius Caesar is said to have extinguished 
the first source of revenue (Cic. ad Alt. ii. xvi.; 
Dureau de la Malle, ii. 430). Roman citizens had 
ceased to pay direct taxes since the conquest of 
Macedonia, B.C. 167 (Cic. de Off. ii. 22 ; Plut, 
Aemil. Paul. 38), except in extraordinary emer 
gencies. The main part of the Roman revenue was 
now drawn from the provinces by a direct tax 
(itriv<ros, (j>6pos, Matt. xxii. 17 , Luke xx. 22), 
amounting probably to from 5 to 7 per cent, on 
the estimated produce of the soil (Dureau de la Malle, 
ii. p. 418). The indirect taxes too (TC'ATJ, vecti- 
galia, Matt. xvii. 25 ; Dureau de la Malle, ii. 449) 
appear to have been A cry heavy (ibid. ii. 452, 
448). Augustus on coming to the empire found 
the regular sources of revenue impaired, while his 
expenses must have been very great. To say no 
thing of the pay of the army, he is said to have 
supported no less than 200,000 citizens in idleness 
by the miserable system of public gratuities. Hence 
the necessity of a careful valuation of the property 
of the whole empire, which appears to have been 
made more than once in his reign. [CENSUS.] For 
the historical difficulty about the taxing in Lukt 
ii. 1, see CYRENIUS. Augustus appears to have 
raised both the direct and indirect taxes (Dureau 
de la Malle, ii. 433, 448). 

The provinces are said to have been better go 
verned under the Empire than under the Common 
wealth, and those of the emperor better than those 
of the Senate (Tac. Ann. i. 76, iv. 6 ; Dion, liii. 
14). Two important changes were introduced under 
the Empire. The governors received a fixed pay, 
and the term of their command was prolonged 
(Jos. Ant. xviii. 6, 5). But the old mode of 
levying the taxes seems to have been continued. 
The companies who farmed the taxes, consisting 
generally of knights, paid a certain sum into the 
Roman treasury, and proceeded to wring what 
they could from the provincials, often with -the 
connivance and support of the provincial governor. 
The work was done chiefly by underlings of the 
lowest class (porti tores). Those are the publicans 
of the N. T. 



Ou the whole it seems Doubtful whether the tions for the relief of the infirm and poor, no societies 

for the improvement of the condition of mankind 
from motives of charity. Nothing was done to 

wrongs of the provinces can Aave been materially 
alleviated under the Imperial government. It is not 
likely that such rulers as Caligula and Nero would 
be scrupulous about the means used for replenishii g 
their treasury, The stories related even of the 
reign of Augustus show how slight were the checks 
on the tyranny of provincial governors. See the story 
of Licinus in Gaul (Diet, of Gr. fy Rom. Biog. sub 
voce), and that of the Dalmatian chief (Dion, lv.). 
The sufferings of St. Paul, protected as he v, as to a 
certain extent by his Roman citizenship, show plainly 
how little a provincial had to hope from thu justice 
of a Roman governor. 

It is impossible here to discuss the difficult ques 
tion relating to Roman provincial government raised 
on John xviii. 31. It may be sufficient here to 
state, that according to strict Roman law the Jews 
would lose the power of life and death when their 
country became a province, and there seems no 
sufficient reason to depart from the literal interpre 
tation of the verse just cited. See Alford, in I. c. 
On the other side see Biscoe, On the Acts, p. 113. 

The condition of the Roman Empire at the time 
when Christianity appeared has often been dwelt 
upon, as affording obvious illustrations of St. Paul's 
expression that the " fulness of time had come " 
(Gal. iv. 4). The general peace within the limits 
of the Empire, the formation of military roads, the 
suppression of piracy, the march of the legions, the 
voyages of the corn fleets, the general increase of 
traffic, the spread of the Latin language in the 
West as Greek had already spread in the East, the 
external unity of the Empire, offered facilities hi 
therto unknown for the spread of a world-wide 
religion. The tendency too of a despotism like that 
of the Roman Empire to reduce all its subjects to a 
dead level, was a powerful instrument in breaking 
down the pride of privileged races and national 
religions, and familiarizing men with the truth that 
" God hath made of one blood all nations on the 
face of the earth " (Acts xvii. 24, 26). But still 
more striking than this outward preparation for the 
diffusion of the Gospel was the appearance of ardeep 
and wide-spread corruption which seemed to defy 
any human remedy. It would be easy to accumu 
late proofs of the moral and political degradation of 
the Romans under the Empire. It is needless to do 
more than allude to the corruption, the cruelty, the 
sensuality, the monstrous and unnatural wickedness 
of the period as revealed in the heathen historians 
and satirists. " Viewed as a national or political his 
tory," says the great historian of Rome, " the history 
of the Roman Empire is sad and discouraging in the 
last degree. We see that things had come to a 
point at which no earthly power could afford any 
help ; we now have the development of dead powers 
instead of that of a vital energy" (Niebuhr, Lect. 
v. 194). Notwithstanding the outward appearance 
of peace, unity, and reviving prosperity, the general 
condition of the people must have been one of great 
misery. To say nothing of the fact that probably 
one-half of the population consisted of slaves, the 
great inxquality of wealth at a time when a whole 
province could be owned by six landowners, the 
absence of any middle class, the utter want of any 
institutions for alleviating distress such as are found 
in all Christian countries, the inhuman tone of 
feeling and practice generally prevailing, forbid us 
to tnmk favourably of the happiness of the world 
in tne famous Augustan age. We must remember 
that " there were no public hospitals, no 

promote the instruction of the lower 
thing to mitigate the miseries of domestic slavery. 
Charity and general philanthropy were so little 
regarded as duties, that it requires a very extensive 
acquaintance with the literature of the times ta 
find any allusion to them " (Arnold's Later Roman 
Commonwealth, ii. 398). If we add to this tint 
there was probably not a single religion, except the 
Jewish, which was felt by the more enlightened 
part of its professors to be real, we may form some 
notion of the world which Christianity had to 
reform and purify. We venture to quote an elo 
quent description of its " slow, imperceptible, con 
tinuous aggression on the heathenism of the Roman 

" Christianity was gradually withdrawing some 
of all orders, even slaves, out of the vices, the igno 
rance, the misery of that corrupted social system. 
It was ever instilling feelings of humanity, yet un 
known or coldly commended by an impotent philo 
sophy, among men and women whose infant ears 
had been habituated to the shrieks of dying gla 
diators ; it was giving dignity to minds prostrated 
by years, almost centuries, of degrading despotism ; 
it was nurturing purity and modesty of manners in 
an unspeakable state of depravation; it was en 
shrining the marriage-bed in a sanctity long almost 
entirely lost, and rekindling to a steady warmth 
the domestic affections ; it was substituting a simple, 
calm, and rational faith for the worn-out supersti 
tions of heathenism; gently establishing in the soul 
of man the sense of immortality, till it became a 
natural and inextinguishable part of his moral 
being" (Milman's Latin Christianity, i. p. 24). 

The chief prophetic notices of the Roman Empire 
are found in the Book of Daniel, especially in ch. 
xi. 30-40, and in ii. 40, vii. 7, 17-19, according to 
the common interpretation of the " fourth king 
dom ;" comp. 2 Esdr. xi. 1 , but see DANIEL. Accord 
ing to some interpreters the Romans are intended in 
Deut. xxviii. 49-57. For* the mystical notices of 
Rome in the Revelation comp. ROME. [J. J. H.] 


1. The date of this Epistle is fixed with more ab 
solute certainty and within narrower limits, than 
that of any other of St. Paul's Epistles. The fol 
lowing considerations determine the time of writing. 
First. Certain names in the salutations point to 
Corinth, as the place from which the letter was 
sent. (1.) Phoebe, a deaconess of Cenchreae, one 
of the port towns of Corinth, is commended to the 
Romans (xvi. 1, 2). (2.) Gaius, in whose house 
St. Paul was lodged at the time (xvi. 23), is pro 
bably the person mentioned as one of the chief mem 
bers of the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor. i. 14, 
though the name was very common. (3.)' Erastus, 
here designated " the treasurer of the city" (ot/co- 
v6ftos, xVi. 23, E. V. " chamberlain ") is elsewhere 
mentioned in connexion with Corinth (2 Tim. iv. 
20 ; see also Acts xix. 22). Secondly. Having thus 
determined the place of writing to be Corinth, we 
have no hesitation in fixing upon the visit recorded 
in Acts xx. 3, during the winter and spring following 
the Apostle's long residence at Ephesus, as the occa 
sion on which the Epistle was written. For St. Paul, 
when he wrote the letter, was on the point of carry 
ing the contributions of Macedonia and Achaia to 
Jerusalem (xv. 25-27\ and a comparison with Acts 
xx. 22, xxiv. 17, ana also 1 Cor. xvi. 4 ; 2 Cor. viiL 


1, 2, ix 1 ff., shows that he was so engaged at this j 
period of his life. (See Paley's Home Paulinae, en. 
li. 1.) Moreover, in this Epistle he declares his 
intention of visiting the Romans after he has been at 
Jerusalem (xv. 23-25), and that such was his de 
sign at this particular time appears from a casual 
notice in Acts xix. 21. 

The Epistle then was written from Corinth during 
St. Paul's third missionary journey, on the occasion 
of the second of the two visits recorded in the Acts. 
On this occasion he remained three months in 
Greece (Acts xx. 3). When he left, the sea was 
alrrady navigable, for he was on the point of sailing 
for Jerusalem when he was obliged to change his 
plans. On. the other hand, it cannot have been 
late in the spring, because after passing through 
Macedonia and visiting several places on the coast 
of Asia Minor, he still hoped to reach Jerusalem by 
Pentecost (xx. 16). It was therefore in the winter 
or early spring of the year that the Epistle to the 
Romans was written. According to the most pro 
bable system of chronology, adopted by Anger and 
Wieseler, this would be the year A.D. 58. 

2. The Epistle to the Romans is thus placed in 
chronological connexion with the Epistles to the 
Galatians and Corinthians, which appear to have 
been written within the twelve months preceding. 
The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written 
before St. Paul left Ephesus, the Second from Mace 
donia when he was on his way to Corinth, and 
the Epistle to the Galatians most probably either 
in Macedonia or after his arrival at Corinth, i. e. 
after the P]pistles to the Corinthians, though the 
date of the Galatian Epistle is not absolutely certain. 
to notice the relations existing between these contem 
poraneous Epistles hereafter. At present it will be 
sufficient to say that they present a remarkable re 
semblance to each other in style and matter a 
much greater resemblance than can be traced to 
any other of St. Paul's Epistles. They are at once 
the most intense and most varied in feeling and ex 
pression if we may so say, the most Pauline of all 
St. Paul's Epistles. When Baur excepts these four 
Epistles alone from his sweeping condemnation of 
the genuineness of all the letters bearing St. Paul's 
name {Paulus, der Apostefy this is a mere caricature 
of sober criticism ; but underlying this erroneous 
exaggeration is the fact, that the Epistles of this 
period St. Paul's third missionary journey have 
a character and an intensity peculiarly their own, 
corresponding to the circumstances' of the Apostle's 
outward and inward life at the time when they were 
written. For the special characteristics of this 
group of Epistles, see a paper on the Epistle to the 
Galatians in the Journal of Class, and Sacr, Phil., 
lii. p. 289. 

3. The occasion which prompted this Epistle, 
and the circumstance? attending its writing, were 
as follows. St. Paul had long purposed visiting 
Rome, and still retailed this purpose, wishing also 
to extend his journey to Spain (i. 9-13, xv. 22-29). 
For the time however, he was prevented from car 
rying out his design, as he was bound for Jeru 
salem with the alms of the Gentile Christians, and 
meanwhile he addressed this letter to the Romans, 
to supply the lack of his personal teaching. Phoebe, 
a deaconess of the neighbouring Church of Cenchreau, 
aras on the point of starting for Rome (xvi. 1, 2), 
and probably conveyed the letter. The body of the 
Epistle was written at the Apostle's dictation by 
Tertius fxvi. 22); but perhaps we may inter from 


the abruptness of the final doxology, tl at it was 
added by the Apostle himself, more especially as we 
gather from other Epistles that it was his practice 
to conclude with a few striking words in his own 
hand-writing, to vouch for the authorship of the 
letter, and frequently also to impress some important 
truth more strongly on his readers. 

4. The Origin of the Roman Church is involve*! 
in obscurity. If it had been founded by St. Peter, 
according to a later tradition, the absence of any 
allusion to him both in this Epistle and in the 
letters written by St. Paul from Rome would admit 
of no explanation. It is equally clear that no 
other Apostle was the Founder. In this very 
Epistle, and in close connexion with the mention 
of his proposed visit to Rome, the Apostle declares 
that it was his rule not to build on another man's 
foundation (xv. 20), and we cannot suppose that he 
violated it in this instance. Again, he speaks of 
the Romans as especially falling to his share as the 
Apostle of the Gentiles (i. 13), with an evident re 
ference to the partition of the field of labour between 
himself and St. Peter, mentioned in Gal. ii. 7-9. 
Moreover, when he declares his wish to impart 
some spiritual gift (xdpiff/jLO) to them, " that they 
might be established" (i. 11), this implies that 
they had not yet been visited by an Apostle, and 
that St. Paul contemplated supplying the defect, 
as was done by St. Peter and St. John in the ana 
logous case of the Churches founded by Philip in 
Samaria (Acts viii. 14-17). 

The statement in the Clementines (Horn. i. 6) 
that the first tidings of the Gospel reached Rome 
during the lifetime of our Lord, is evidently a fiction 
for the purposes of the romance. On the other 
hand, it is clear that the foundation of this Church 
dates very far back. St. Paul in this Epistle salutes 
certain believers resident in Rome Andronicus and 
Juuia (or Junianus?) adding that they were dis 
tinguished among the Apostles, and that they were 
converted to Christ before himself (xvi. 7), for such 
seems to be the meaning of the passage, rendered 
somewhat ambiguous by the position of the relative 
pronouns. It may be that some of those Romans, 
" both Jews and proselytes," present on the day of 
Pentecost (oi iriST]fjLovvTS 'Papaioi, 'lovSatoi re 
Kal Trpofffavroi, Acts ii. 10), earned back the 
earliest tidings of the new doctrine, or the Gospel 
may have first reached the imperial city through 
those who were scattered abroad to escape the perse 
cution which followed on the death of Stephen (Acts 
viii. 4, xi. 19). At all events, a close and constant 
communication was kept up between the Jewish 
residents in Rome and their fellow-countrymen in 
Pales tine by the exigencies of commerce, in which they 
became more and more engrossed, as their national 
hopes declined, and by the custom of repairing regu 
larly to their sacred festivals at Jerusalem. Again, 
the imperial edicts alternately banishing and recall 
ing the Jews (compare e. g. in the case of Claudius, 
Joseph. Ant. xix. 5, 3, with Suet. Claud. 25) must 
have kept up a constant ebb and flow of migration 
between Rome and the East, and the case of Aquil* 
and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 2 ; see Paley, Hor. Paul. c. 
ii. 2), probably represents a numerous class through 
whose means the opinions and doctrines promulgated 
in Palestine might reach the metropolis. At first 
we may suppose that the Gospel was preached there 
in a confused and imperfect form, scarcely more 
than a phase of Judaism, as in the case of A polios 
at Corinth (Acts xviii. 25), or the disciples at 
Ephesus (Acts xix. 1-3). As time advanced and 


better instructed teachers arrived, the clouds would 
gradually clear away, till at length the presence of 
the great Apostle himself at Rome, dispersed the 
mists of Judaism which still hung about the Roman 
Church. Long after Christianity had taken up a 
position of direct antagonism to Judaism in Rome, 
heathen statesmen and writers still persisted in con 
founding the one with the other. (See Merivale, 
Hist, of Rome, vi. p. 278, &c.) 

5. A question next arises as to the composition 
of the Roman Church, at the time when St. Paul 
wrote. Did the Apostle address a Jewish or a 
Gentile community, or, if the two elements were 
combined, was one or other predominant so as to 
give a character to the whole Church? Either 
jxtreme has been vigorously maintained, Baur for 
instance asserting that St. Paul was writing to 
Jewish Christians, Olshausen arguing that the Ro 
man Church consisted almost solely of Gentiles. 
We are naturally led to seek the truth in some in 
termediate position. Jowett finds a solution of the 
difficulty in the supposition that the members of 
the Roman Church, though Gentiles, had passed 
through a phase of Jewish proselytism. This will 
explain some of the phenomena of the Epistle, but 
not all. It is more probable that St. Paul addressed 
a mixed Church of Jews and Gentiles, the latter 
perhaps being the more numerous. 

There are certainly passages which imply the 
presence of a large number of Jewish converts to 
Christianity. The use of the second person in ad 
dressing the Jews (chaps, ii. and iii.) is clearly not 
assumed merely for argumentative purposes, but 
applies to a portion at least of those into whose 
hands the letter would fall. The constant appeals 
to the authority of " the law " may in many cases 
be accounted for by the Jewish education of the 
Gentile believers (so Jowett, vol. ii. p. 22), but 
sometimes they seem too direct and positive to 
admit of this explanation (iii. 19, vii. 1). In the 
7th chapter St. Paul appears to be addressing Jews, 
as those who like himself had once been under 
the dominion of the law, but had been delivered 
from it in Christ (see especially verses 4 and 6). 
And when in xi. 13, he says " I am spealung to 
you the Gentiles," this very limiting expression 
" the Gentiles," implies that the letter was addressed 
to not a few to whom the term would not apply. 

Again, if we analyse the list of names in the 
16th chapter, and assume that this list approximately 
represents the proportion of Jew and Gentile in the 
Roman Church (an assumption at least not impro 
bable), we arrive at the same result. It is true 
that Mary, or rather Mariam (xvi. 6), is the only 
strictly Jewish name. But this fact is not worth 
the stress apparently laid on it by Mr. Jowett (ii. 
p. 27). For Aquila and Priscilla (ver. 3) were 
Jews (Acts xviii. 2, 26), and the Church which met 
in their house was probably of the same nation. 
Andronicus and Junia (or Junias ? ver. 7) are called 
St. Paul's kinsmen. The same term is applied to 
Herodion (ver. 11). These persons then must hare 
been Jews, whether " kinsmen " is taken in the 
wider or the more restricted sense. The name Apelles 
(ver. 10), though a heathen name also, was most 
commonly borne by Jews, as appears from Horace, 
Sat. I. v. 100. If the Aristobulus of ver. 10 was 
one of the princes of the Herodian house, as seems 
probable, we have also in " the household of Aristo 
bulus " several Jewish converts. Altogether it ap 
pears that a very large fraction of the Christian be 
lievers mentioned in these salutations were JewsL 


even supposing that the others, bearing Greek anl 
Latin names, of whom we know nothing, were 

Nor does the existence of a large Jewish element 
n the Roman Church present any difficulty. The 
captives carried to Rome by Pompeius formed the 
nucleus of the Jewish population in the metropolis 
"ROME]. Since that time they had largely in 
creased. During the reign of Augustus we hear of 
above 8000 resident Jews attaching themselves to a 
Jewish embassy which appealed to this emperor (Jo 
seph. Ant. xvii. 11, 1). The same emperor gave 
them a quarter beyond the Tiber, and allowed them 
the free exercise of their religion (Philo, Leg. ad 
'aium, p. 568 M.). About the time when St. 
Paul wrote, Seneca, speaking of the influence of Ju 
daism, echoes the famous expression of Horace (Ep. 
i. 1, 156) respecting the Greeks " victi victoribus 
leges dederunt" (Seneca, in Augustin. de Civ. Dei> 
vi. 11). And the bitter satire of Juvenal and in 
dignant complaints of Tacitus of the spread of the 
infection through Roman society, are well known. 

On the other hand, situated in the metropolis of 
the great empire of heathendom, the Roman Church 
must necessarily have been in great measure a 
Gentile Church ; and the language of the Epistle 
bears out this supposition. It is professedly as the 
Apostle of the Gentiles that St. Paul writes to the 
Romans (i. 5). He hopes to have some fruit among 
them, as he had among the other Gentiles (i. 13). 
Later on in the Epistle he speaks of the Jews in the 
third person, as if addressing Gentiles, " I could 
wish that myself were accursed for my brethren, 
my kinsmen after the flesh, who are Israelites, etc." 
(ix. 3, 4). And again, " my heart's desire and prayer 
to God for them is that they might be saved " (x. 1 , 
the right reading is virep avr&u, not inrep rov 'I<r- 
pcrJjA. as in the Received Text). Compare also xi. 23, 
25, and especially xi. 30, " For as ye in times past did 
not believe God ... so did these also (i. e. the Jews) 
now not believe," etc. In all these passages St. 
Paul clearly addresses himself to Gentile readers. 

These Gentile converts, however, were not for 
the most part native Romans. Strange as the pa 
radox appears, nothing is more certain than that 
the Church of Rome was at this time a Greek and 
not a Latin Church. It is clearly established that 
the early Latin versions of the New Testament were 
made not for the use of Rome, but of the provinces, 
especially Africa (Westcott, Canon, p. 269). All 
the literature of the early Roman Church was 
written in the Greek tongue. The names of the 
bishops of Rome during the first two centuries are 
with but few exceptions Greek. (See Milman, Latin 
Christ, i. 27.) And in accordance with these facts 
we find that a very large proportion of the names 
in the salutations of this Epistle are Greek names ; 
while of the exceptions, Priscilla, Aquila, and Junia 
(or Junias), were certainly Jews ; and the same is 
true of Rufus, if, as is not improbable, he is 
the samp mentioned Mark xv. 21. Julia was pro 
bably a dependent of the imperial household, and 
derived her name accordingly. The only Roman 
names remaining are Amplias (i. e. Ampliatus) and 
Urbanus, of whom nothing is known, Vut their 
names are of late growth, and certainly do not point 
to an old Roman stock. It was therefore from the 
Greek population of Rome, pure or mixed, that the 
Gentile portion of the Church was almost entirely 
drawn. And this might be expected. The Greeks 
formed a very considerable fraction of the whole 
people of Rome. They were the most buy and 


adventurous, and also the most intelligent of the 
middle and lower classes of society. The influence 
which they were acquiring by their numbers and 
versatility is a constant theme of reproach in the 
Roman philosopher and satirist (Juv. iii. GO-80, vi. 
84 ; Tac. de Orat. 29). They complain that the 
national characer is undermined, that the whole 
city has become Greek. Speaking the language 
of international intercourse, and brought by their 
restless habits into contact with foreign religions, 
the Greeks had larger opportunities than others of 
acquainting themseive with the truths of the Gospel : 
while at the same time holding more loosely to tra 
ditional beliefs, and with minds naturally more 
enquiring, they would be more ready to welcome 
these truths when they came in their way. At all 
events, for whatever reason, the Gentile converts at 
Rome were Greeks, not Romans : and it was an un 
fortunate conjecture on the part of the transcriber 
of the Syriac Pefhito, that this letter was written 
" in the Latin tongue," (rVKDI"!). Every line in 
the Epistle bespeaks an original. 

When we enquire into the probable rank and 
station of the Roman believers, an analysis of the 
names in the list of salutations again gives an ap 
proximate answer. These names belong for the 
most part to the middle and lower grades of society. 
Many of them are found in the columbaria of the 
freedmen and slaves of the early Roman emperors. 
(See Journal of Class, and Sacr. Phil. iv. p. 57.) 
It would be too much to assume that they were 
the same persons, but at all events the identity of 
names points to the same social rank. Among the 
less wealthy merchants and tradesmen, among the 
petty officers of the army, among the slaves and 
freednien of the imperial palace whether Jews or 
Greeks the Gospel would first find a firm footing. 
To this last class allusion is made in Phil. iv. 22, 
" they that are of Caesar's household." From these 
it would gradually work upwards and downwards ; 
but we may be sure that in respect of rank the 
Church of Rome was no exception to the general 
rule, that " not many wise, not many mighty, not 
many noble " were called (1 Cor. i. 26;. 

It seems probable from what has been said above, 
that the Roman Church at this time was composed 
of Jews and Gentiles in nearly equal portions. This 
fact finds expression in the account, whether true 
or false, which represents St. Peter and St. Pa al as 
presiding at the same time over the Church at 
Rome (Dionys. Cor. ap. Euseb. H. E. ii. 25 ; Tren. 
iii. 3). Possibly also the discrepancies in the lists 
of the early bishops of Rome may find a sol ation 
(Pearson, Minor Tkeol. Works, ii. 449 ; Bu asen, 
Hippolytus, i. p. 44), in the joint Episcopate of 
Linus and Cletus, the one ruling over the Jewish, the 
other over the Gentile congregation of the metro polis. 
If this conjecture be accepted, it is an important testi 
mony to the view here maintained, though w e can 
not suppose that in St. Paul's time the two elements 
of the Roman Church had distinct organizations. 

6. The heterogeneous composition of this Church 
explains the general character of the Epistle to the 
Romans. In an assemblage so various, we should 
expect to find not the exclusive predominance of a 
single form of error, but the coincidence of 'lifferent 
and opposing forms. The Gospel had here to contend 
not specially with Judaism nor specially with heathen 
ism, but with both together. It was therefoi e the bu 
siness of the Christian Teacher to reconcile the opposing 
difficulties and to hold out a mating point in the j 
Gosvei. This is exactly what St. Paul does in the 


Epistle to the Romans, and what from the circum 
stances of the case he was well enabled to do. He 
was addressing a large and varied community which 
had not been founded by himself, and with which he 
had had no direct intercourse. Again, it does not 
appear that the letter was specially written to an 
swer any doubts or settle any controversies then 
rife in the Roman Church. There were therefore 
no disturbing influences, such as arise out of per 
sonal relations, or peculiar circumstances, to derange 
a general and systematic exposition of the nature 
and working of the Gospel. At the same time the 
vast importance of the metropolitan Church, which 
could not have been overlooked even by an unin 
spired teacher, naturally pointed it out to the 
Apostle, as the fittest body to whom to address 
such an exposition. Thus the Epistle to the Ro 
mans is more of a treatise than of a letter. If we 
remove the personal allusions in the opening verses, 
and the salutations at the close, it seems not more 
particularly addressed to the Church of Rome, than to 
any other Church of Christendom. In this respect 
it differs widely from the Epistles to the Corinthians 
and Galatians, with which as being written about 
tne same time it may most fairly be compared, 
and which are full of personal and direct allusions. 
In one instance alone we seem to trace a special re 
ference to the Church of the metropolis. The in 
junction of obedience to temporal rulers (xiii. 1) 
would most fitly be addressed to a congregation 
brought face to face with the imperial government, 
and the more so, as Rome had recently been the 
scene of frequent disturbances on the pail of either 
Jews or Christians arising out of a feverish and 
restless anticipation of Messiah's coming (Suet. 
Claud. 25). Other apparent exceptions admit of a 
different explanation. 

7. This explanation is in fact to be sought in its 
relation to the contemporaneous Epistles. The 
letter to the Romans closes the group of Epistles 
written during the second missionary journey. This 
group contains besides, as already mentioned, the 
letters to the Corinthians and Galatians, written 
probably within the few months preceding. At 
Corinth, the capital of Achaia, and the stronghold of 
heathendom, the Gospel would encounter its severest 
struggle with Gentile vices and prejudices. In Ga- 
latia, which either from natural sympathy or from 
close contact seems to have been more exposed to 
Jewish influence, than any other Church within St. 
Paul's sphere of labour, it had a sharp contest with 
Judaism. In the Epistles to these two Churches 
we study the attitude of the Gospel towards the 
Gentile and Jewish world respectively. These 
letters are direct and special. They are evoked by 
present emergencies, are directed against actual evils, 
are full of personal applications. The Epistle to 
the Romans is the summary of what he had written 
before, the result of his dealing with the two anta 
gonistic forms of error, the gathering together ot 
the fragmentary teaching in the Corinthian and 
Galatian letters. What is there immediate, irre 
gular, and of partial application, is here arranged 
and completed, and thrown into a general form. 
Thus on the one hand his treatment of the Mosaic 
law points to the difficulties he encountered in 
dealing with the Galatian Church, while on the 
other his cautions against antinomian excesses (Rom. 
vi. 1 5, &c.), and his precepts against giving offenc? 
in the matter of meats and the observance of days 
(Rom. xiv.), remind us of the errors which he had 
to correct in his Corinthiar converts. (Coin] ar 


1 Cor. vi. 12 ff., and I Cor. viii. 1 ft'.) Those in. 
junctions then which seem at first sight special, 
appear not to be directed against any actual known 
failings in the Roman Church, but to be suggested 
by the possibility of those irregularities occurring in 
Rome which he had already encountered elsewhere. 
8. Viewing this Epistle then rather in the light 
of a treatise than of a letter, we are enabled to 
explain certain phenomena in the text. In the 
received text a doxology stands at the close of the 
Epistle (xvi. 25-27). The preponderance of evi 
dence is in favour of this position, but there is 
respectable authority for placing it at the end of 
ch. xiv. In some texts again it is found in both 
places, while others omit it entirely. How can we 
account for this ? It has been thought by some to 
discredit the genuineness of the doxology itself : but 
there is no sufficient ground for this view. The 
arguments against its genuineness on the ground 
of style, advanced by Reiohe, are met and refuted 
by Fritzsche (Rom. vol. i. p. xxxv.). Baur goes 
still farther, and rejects the two last chapters ; but 
such an inference falls without the range of sober 
criticism. The phenomena of the MSS. seem best 
explained by supposing that the letter was circu 
lated at an early date (whether during the Apostle's 
lifetime or not it is idle to inquire) in two forms, 
both with and without the two last chapters. In 
the shorter form it was divested as far as possible 
of its epistolary character by abstracting the per 
sonal matter addressed especially to the Romans, 
the doxology being retained at the close. A still 
further attempt to strip this Epistle of any special 
references is found in MS. G, which omits <=V 'Pcfyt?? 
(i. 7), and TO?S fv 'Pcfyt?; (i. 15), for it is to be 
observed at the same time that this MS. omits the 
doxology entirely, and leaves a space after ch. xiv. 
This view is somewhat confirmed by the parallel case 
of the opening of the Ephesian Epistle, in which 
there is very high authority for omitting the words 
tV 'E<eo-<p, and which bears strong marks of having 
been intended for a circular letter. 

9. In describing the purport of this Epistle we 
may start from St. Paul's own words, which, stand 
ing at the beginning of the doctrinal portion, may 
be taken as giving a summary of the contents : 
" The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation 
to every one that believeth, to the Jew first and 
also to the Greek : for therein is the righteousness 
of God revealed from faith to faith" (i. 16, 17). 
Accordingly the Epistle has been described as com 
prising " the religious philosophy of the world's 
history." The world in its religious aspect is 
divided into Jew ar.d Gentile. The different posi 
tions of the two as regards their past and present 
relation to God, and their future prospects, are ex 
plained. The atonement of Christ is the centre of 
religious history. The doctrine of justification by 
faith is the key which unlocks the hidden mysteries 
of the divine dispensation. 

The Epistle, from its general character, lends 
itself more readily to an analysis than is often the 
case with St. Paul's Epistles. The body of the 
letter consists of four portions, of which the first 
and last relate to personal matters, the second is 
argumentative and doctrinal, and the third prac 
tical and hortatory. The following is a table of its 
contents : 

Salutation (i. 1-7). The Apostle at the outset 

strikes the keynote of the Epistle in the expressions 

".Galled as an apostle," " called as saints." Divine 

irace is everything, human merit nothing. 



I. Personal explanations. Purposed visit to Rcifc 

II. Doctrinal (i. 16-xi. 36). 

The general proposition. The Gospel is the 
salvation of Jew and Gentile alike. This 
salvation comes by faith (i. 16, 17). 
The rest of this section is taken up in esta- 
Wishing this thesis, and drawing deductions 
from it, or correcting misapprehensions. 
(a) All alike were under condemnation before 
the Gospel : 

The heathen (i. 18-32). 
The Jew (ii. 1-29). 
Objections to this statement answered (iii. 

And the position itself established from 

Scripture (iii. 9-20). 

(6) A righteousness (justification) is revealed 

under the Gospel, which being of faith, not 

of law, is also universal (iii. 21-26). 

And boasting is thereby excluded (iii. 27-31). 

Of this justification by faith Abraham is an 

example (iv. 1-25). 
Thus then we are justified in Christ, in whom 

alone we glory (v. 1-11). 
And this acceptance in Christ is as uni 
versal as was the condemnation in Adam 
(v. 12-19). 

(c) The moral consequences of our deliver 


The law was given to multiply sin (v. 20, 
21). When we died to the law we died to 
sin (vi. 1-14). The abolition of the law. 
however, is not a signal for moral license 
(vi. 15-23). On the contrary, as the law 
has passed away, so must sin, for sin and 
the law are correlative ; at the same time 
this is no disparagement of the law, but 
rather a proof of human weakness (vii. 
1-25). So henceforth in Christ we are free 
from sin, we have the Spirit, and look for 
ward in hope, triumphing over our present 
afflictions (viii. 1-39).' 

(d] The rejection of the Jews is a matter of 
deep sorrow (ix. 1-5). 

Yet we must remember 

(i.) That the promise was not to the whole 
people, but only to a select seed (ix. 6-1 3) 
And the absolute purpose of God in sc 
ordaining is not to be canvassed by man 
(ix. 14-19). 

(ii.) That the Jews did not seek justification 
aright, and so missed it. This justifica 
tion was promised by faith, and is offered 
to all alike, the preaching to the Gentiles 
being implied therein. The character and 
results of the Gospel dispensation are fore 
shadowed in Scripture (x. 1-21). 

(iii.)" That the rejection of the Jews is not 
final. This rejection has been the means 
of gathering in the Gentiles, and through 
the Gentiles they themselves will ulti 
mately be brought to Christ (xi. 1-36). 

III. Practical exhortations (xii. 1-xv. 13). 

() To holiness of life and to charity in gene 
ral, the duty of obedience to rulers beir.fc, 
inculcated by the way (xii. 1 xiii. 14), 

(6) And more particularly against givm 6 
offence to weaker brethren (xiv. 1-sv. 13 N ,. 

3 y 


IV. Personal matters. 

V) The Apostle's motive in writing the lette 
and his intention of visiting the Roman 
(xv. 14-33). 

(6) Greetings (xvi. 1-23). 
The letter ends with a benediction and doxolog 

(xvi. 24-27). 
While this Epistle contains the fullest and mos 
systematic exposition of the Apostle's teaching, 
is at the same time a very striking expression of h 
character. Nowhere do his earnest and affectionate 
nature, and his tact and delicacy in handling un 
welcome topics appear more strongly than whe 
he is dealing with the rejection of hi fellow-coun 
trymen the Jews. 

The reader may be referred especially to th 
introductions of Olshausen, Tholuck, and Jowett 
for suggestive remarks relating to the scope auc 
purport of the Epistle to the Romans. 

10. Internal evidence is so strongly in favour o 
the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans tha 
it has never been seriously questioned. Even th 
sweeping criticism of Baur did not go beyond con 
derailing the two last chapters as spurious. Bu 
while the Epistle bears in itself the stronges 
proofs of its Pauline authorship, the external testi 
mony in its favour is not inconsiderable. 

The reference to Rom. ii. 4 in 2 Pet. iii. 15 
indeed more than doubtful. In the Epistle ot 
St. James again (ii. 14), there is an allusion to 
Deryersions of St. Paul's language and doctrine 
which has several points of contact with the Epistle 
to the Romans, but this may perhaps be explainec 
by the oral rather than the written teaching of the 
Apostle, as the dates seem to require. It is not 
the practice of the Apostolic fathers to cite the 
N. T. writers by name, but marked passages from 
the Romans are found embedded in the Epistles of 
Clement and Polycarp (Rom. i. 29-32 in Clem. 
Cor. c. xxxv., and Rom. xiv. 10, 12, in Polyc. 
Phil. c. vi.). It seems also to have been directly 
cited by the elder quoted in Irenaeus (iv. 27, 2, 
"ideo Paulum dixisse;" cf. Rom. xi. 21, 17), and 
is alluded to by the writer of the Epistle to Diogne- 
tus (c. ix., cf. Rom. iii. 21 foil., v. 20), and by 
Justin Martyr (Dial. c. 23, cf. Rom. iv. 10, 11, 
and in other passages). The title of Melito's trea 
tise, On the Hearing of Faith, seems to be an allu 
sion to this Epistle (see however Gal. iii. 2, 3). It 
has a place moreover in the Muratorian Canon and in 
the Syriac and Old Latin Versions. Nor have we 
the testimony of orthodox writers alone. The Epistle 
was commonly quoted as an authority by the heretics 
of the subapostolic age, by the Ophites (Hippol. 
adv. Haer. p. 99, cf. Rom. i. 20-26), by Basilides 
(ib. p. 238, cf. Rom. viii. 19, 22, and v. 13, 14), 
by Valentinus (ib. p. 195, cf. Rom. viii. 11), by 
the Valentinians Heracleon and Ptolemaeus (West- 
cott, On the Canon, pp. 335, 340), and perhaps also 
by Tatian (Orat. c. iv., cf. Rom. i. 20), besides 
being included in. Marcion's Canon. In the latter 
part of the second century the evidence in its 
favour is still fuller. It is obviously alluded to in 
the letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyons 
lEuseb. H. E. v. 1, cf. Rom. viii. 18), and by 
Atheiiagoras (p. 13, cf. Rom. xii. 1 ; p. 37, cf. Rom. 

i. 24) and Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol. p. 79, 
cf. Rom. ii. 6 foil. ; p. 126, cf. Rom. xiii. 7, 8) ; and 
is quoted frequently and by name by Irenaeus, Ter- 
tullian, and Clement of Alexandria (see Kirchhofer, 
Quellen, p. 198, and esp. Westcott, On the Canon, 


II. The Commentaries on this Epistle are very 
numerous, as might be expected from its imj/ort- 
ance. Of the many patristic expositions only a few 
are now extant. The work of Origen is preserved 
entire only in a loose Latin translation of Rufinus 
(Orig. ed. de la Rue, iv. 458), but some fragments 
of the original are found in the Philocalia, and more 
in Cramer's Catena. The commentary on St. Paul's 
Epistles printed among the works of St. Ambrose 
(ed. Ben. ii. Appx. p. 21), and hence bearing the 
name Ambrosiaster, is probably to be attributed to 
Hilary the deacon. Besides these are the exposi 
tions of St. Paul's Epistles by Chrysostom (ed. 
Montf. ix. p. 425, edited separately by Field), uj 
Pelagius (printed among Jerome's works, ed. Val- 
larsi, xi. Pt. 3, p. 135), by Primasius (Magn. Bibl. 
Vet. Patr. vi. Pt. 2, p. 30), and by Theodoret (ed. 
Schulze, iii. p. 1). Augustine commenced a work, 
but broke off at i. 4 : -it bears the name Inchoata 
Expositio Epistolae ad Rom. (ed. Ben. iii. p. 925). 
Later he wrote Expositio quarundam Propositionum 
Epistolae ad Rom., also extant (ed. Ben. iii. p. 903). 
To these should be added the later Catena of Oecu- 
menius (10th cent.) and the notes of Theophylact 
(1 1th cent.), the former containing valuable extracts 
from Photius. Portions of a commentary of Cyril 
of Alexandria were published by Mai (Nov. Patr. 
Bibl. iii. p. 1). The Catena edited by Cramer 
v !844) comprises two collections of Variorum notes, 
the one extending from i. 1 to ix. 1, the other from 
vii. 7 to the end. Besides passages from extant 
commentaries, they contain important extracts from 
Apollinarius, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Severianus, 
Gennadius, Photius, and others. There are also the 

reek Scholia, edited by Matthai, in his large Greek 
Test. (Riga, 1782), from Moscow MSS. The com 
mentary of Euthymius Zigabenus (Tholuck, Einl. 
6) exists in MS., but has never been printed. 

Of later commentaries we can only mention a 
ew of the most important. The dogmatic value 
" this Epistle naturally attracted the early re- 
brmers. Melancthon wrote several expositions of it 
Walch, Bibl. Theol. iv. 679). The Commentary 
f Calvin on the Romans is considered the ablest 
>art of his able work. Among Roman Catholic 
vriters, the older works of Estius and Corn, a 
.apide deserve to be mentioned. Of foreign anno- 
ators of a more recent date, besides the general 
ommentarSes of Bengel, Olshausen, De Wette, and 
leyer (3rd ed. 1859), which are highly valuable 
ids to the study of this Epistle, we may single out 
he special works of Riickert (2nd ed. 1839), 
ieiche (1834), Fritzsche (1836-43), and Tholuck 
5th ed. 1856). An elaborate commentary has also 
een 'published lately by Van Hengel. Among 
English writers, besides the editions of the whole 
f the New Testament by Alford (4th ed. 1861} 
nd Wordsworth (new ed. 1861), the most im- 
ortant annotations on the Epistle to the Romans 
e those of Stuart (6th ed. 1857), Jowett (2nd 
d. 1859), and Vaughan (2nd ed. 1861). Further 
formation on the subject of the literature of the 
pistle to the Romans may be found in the intro- 
uctious of Reiche and Tholuck. [J. B. L.J 

KOME ('Pc6/7, Ethn. and Adj. 'PW/J.CUOS, 'P- 
in the phrase ypa^ara. 'Pca/uLaiitd, Luke 

xiii. 38), the famous capital of the ancient world, 
situated on the Tiber at a distance of about 15 
iles from its mouth. The " seven hills " (Rev. xvii 
which formed the nucleus of the ancient city 
and on the left bank. On the opposite side of ths 
.M ver rises the tar higher ridge of the Janiculum. 


Here from very early times was a fortress with a 
suburb beneath it extending to the river. Modern 
Rome lies to the N. of the ancient city, covering 
with its principal portion the plain to the N. of the 
seven hills, once known as the Campus Marti us, 
and on the opposite bank extending over the low 
ground beneath the Vatican to the N. of the ancient 
Janiculum. A full account of the history and 
topography of the city is given elsewhere (Diet, 
of Gr. and Rom. Geogr. ii. 719). Here it will be 
considered only in its relation to Bible history. 

Home is not mentioned in the Bible except in the 
books of Maccabees and in three books of the N. T., 
viz. the Acts, the Epistle to the Komans, and the 
2nd Epistle to Timothy. For the notices of Rome 
iu the book:) of Maccabees see ROMAN EMPIRE. 

The conquests of Pompey seem to have given rise 
to the first settlement of Jews at Rome. The 
Jewish king Aristobulus and his son formed part 
of Pompey's triumph, and many Jewish captives 
and emigrants were brought to Rome at that time. 
A special district was assigned to them, not on the 
site of the modern " Ghetto," between the Capitol 
and the island of the Tiber, but across the Tiber 
(Philo, Leg. ad Caium, p. 568, ed. Mangey). 
Many of these Jews were made freedmen (Philo, 
I. c.}. Julius Caesar showed them some kindness 
(Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10, 8 ; Suet. Caesar, 84). 
They were favoured also by Augustus, and by 
Tiberius during the latter part of his reign (Philo, 
/. c.). At an earlier period apparently he banished 
a great number of them to Sardinia (Joseph. Ant. 
xviii. 3, 5; Suet. Tib. 36). Claudius "com 
manded all Jews to depart from Rome " (Acts 
xviii. 2), on account of tumults connected, possibly, 
with the preaching of Christianity at Rome (Suet. 
Claud. 25, " Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue 
tumultuantes Roma expulit "). This banishment 
cannot have been of long duration, for we find 
Jews residing at Rome apparently in considerable 
numbers at the time of St. Paul's visit (Acts xxviii. 
17). It is chiefly in connexion with St. Paul's 
nistory that Rome comes before us in the Bible. 

In illustration of that history it may be useful to 
give some account of Rome in the time of Nero, the 
"Caesar " to whom St. Paul appealed, and in whose 
reign he suffered martyrdom (Eus. H. E. ii. 25). 

1. The city at that time must be imagined as a 
large and irregular mass of buildings unprotected 
by an outer wall. It had long outgrown the old 
Servian wall (Dionys. Hal. Ant. Rom. iv. 13; ap. 
Merivale, Rom. Hist. iv. 497) ; but the limits of 
the suburbs cannot be exactly defined. Neither the 
nature of the buildings nor the configuration of the 
ground were such as to give a striking appearance 
to the city viewed from without. " Ancient Rome 
had neither cupola nor campanile " (Conybeare and 
Howson, Life of St. Paul, M. 371 ; Merivale, Rom. 
Emp. iv. 512), and the hills, never lofty or im 
posing, would present, when covered with the 
buildings and streets of a huge city, a confused 
appearance like the hills of modern London, to 
which they have sometimes been compared. The 
visit of St. Paul lies between two famous epochs 
in the history of the city, vis. its restoration by 
Augustus and its restoration by Nero (C. and H. 
i. 13). The boast of Augustus is well known 
" that he had found the city of brick and left it o 
marble" (Suet. Aug. 28). For the improvements 
eJFected by him, see Diet, of Gr. and Rom. Geogr 
ii. 740, and Niebuhr's Lectures on Rom. Hist 
ii. 177. Some parts of the city, especially the 



"V>rum and Camp is Martins, must now have pr^- 
ented a magnificent appearance, but many of the 
rincipal buildings which attract the attention of 
modern travellers in ancient Rome were not yel 
milt. The streets were generally narrow and 
winding, flanked by densely crowded lodging-houses 
insulae) of enormous height. Augustus found it 
lecessary to limit their height to 70 feet (Strab. 
r. 235). St. Paul's first visit to Rome took place 
>efore the Neronian conflagration, but even after 
he restoration of the city, wbioh followed upon 
hat event, many of the old evils continued (Tac. 
Hist. iii. 71 ; Juv. Sat. iii. 193, 269). The popula- 
ion of the city has been variously estimated : at haif 
i million (by Bureau de la Malle, i. 403 and Meri- 
ale, Rom. Empire, iv. 525), at two millions and 
upwards (Hoeck, Rdmische Geschichte, i. ii. 131 ; 
3. and H. Life of St. Paul, ii. 376 ; Diet, of Geogr. 
i. 746), even at eight millions (Lipsius, De Mag- 
nitudine Rom., quoted in Diet, of Geogr.}. Pro 
bably Gibbon's estimate of one million two hundred 
housand is nearest to the truth (Milman's note on 
Gibbon, ch. xxxi. vol. iii. p. 120). One half of the 
wpulation consisted, in all probability, of slaves. 
The larger part of the remainder consisted of pauper 
citizens supported in idleness by the miserable sya- 
;em of public gratuities. There appears to have 
aeen no middle class and no fiee industrial popu- 
ation. Side by side with the wretched classes just 
mentioned was the comparatively small body of the 
wealthy nobility, of whose luxury and profligacy 
we hear so much in the heathen writers of the time. 
^See for calculations and proofs the works cited.) 

Such was the population which St. Paul would 
find at Rome at the time of his visit. We learn 
from the Acts of the Apostles that he was detained 
at Rome for " two whole years," " dwelling in his 
own hired house with a soldier that kept him" 
(Acts xxviii. 16, 30), to whom apparently, accord- 
ng to Roman custom (Senec. Ep. v. ; Acts xii. 6, 
quoted by Brotier, ad Tac. Ann. iii. 22), he was 
bound with a chain (Acts xxviii. 20 ; Eph. vi. 20 ; 
Phil. i. 13). Here he preached to all that came to 
him, no man forbidding him (Acts xxviii. 30, 31 } . 
It is generally believed that on his " appeal to 
Caesar " he was acquitted, and, after some time 
spent in freedom, was a second time imprisoned at 
Rome (for proofs, see C. and H. Life of St. Paul, 
ch. xxvii., and Alford, Gr. Test. iii. ch. 7). Five 
of his Epistles, viz. those to the Colossians, Ephe- 
sians, Philippians, that to Philemon, and the 2nd 
Epistle to Timothy, were, in all probability, written 
from Rome, the latter shortly before his death 
(2 Tim. iv. 6), the others during his first impri 
sonment. It is universally believed that he suffered 
martyrdom at Rome. 

2. The localities in and about Rome especially 
connected with the life of St. Paul, are (1.) The 
Appian way, by which he approached Rome (Acts 
xxviii. 15). (See APPII FORUM, and Diet, of 
Geogr. "Via Appia") (2.) "The palace," or 
"Caesar's court" (rb irpairdapiov, Phil. i. 13). 
This may mean either the great camp of the Prae 
torian guards which Tiberius established outsida 
the walls on the N.E. of the city (Tac. Ann. iv. 2 ; 
Suet. Tib. 37), or, as seems more probable, a bar 
rack attached to the Imperial residence on the Pa 
latine (Wieseler, as quoted by C. and H., Life of 
St. Paul, ii. 423). There is no sufficient proof 
that the word " Praetorium " was ever u&td to 
designate the emperor's palace, though it .i- used 
for the official residence of a Roman governor (Jehu 

3 Y 2 



xriii. 28; Acts xxiii. 35). The mention of "Cae 
sar's household" (Phil. iv. 22), confirms the notion 
that St. Paul's residence was in the immediate 
neighbourhood of the emperor's house on the Pa 

3. The connexion of other localities at Rome with 
St. Paul's name rests only on traditions of more or 
less probability. We may mention especially 
(1 .) The Mamertine prison or Tullianum, built by 
Ancus Marti us near the forum (Liv. i. 33), de 
scribed by Sallust (Cat. 55). It still exists beneath 
the church of S. Giuseppe del Falegnami. Here 
it is said that St. Peter and St. Paul were fellow- 
prisoners for nine months. This is not the place 
to discuss the question whether St. Peter was ever 
at Rome. It may be sufficient to state, that though 
there is no evidence of such a visit in the N. T., 
unless Babylon in 1 Pet. v. 13 is a mystical name 
for Rome, yet early testimony (Dionysius, ap. Euseb. 
ii. 25), and the universal belief of the early Church 
seem sufficient to establish the fact of his having 
suffered martyrdom there. [PETER; vol. ii. 805.] 
The story, however, of the imprisonment in the Ma 
mertine prison seems inconsistent with 2 Tim., esp. 
iv. 11. (2.) The chapel on the Ostian road which 
marks the spot where the two Apostles are said to 
have separated on their way to martyrdom. (3.) The 
supposed scene of St. Paul's martyrdom, viz. the 
church of St. Paolo alle tre fontane on the Ostian 
road. (See the notice of the Ostian road in Caius, ap. 
Eus. //. E. ii. 25.) To these may be added (4.) The 
supposed scene of St. Peter's martyrdom, viz., the 
church of St. Pietro in Montorio, on the Janiculum. 
(5.) The chapel " Domine quo Vadis," on the Appian 
road, the scene of the beautiful legend of our Lord's 
appearance to St. Peter as he was escaping from 
martyrdom (Ambrose, Ep. 33). (6.) The places 
where the bodies of the two Apostles, after having 
been deposited first in the catacombs (/cotjuijT^jpio) 
(Eus. H. E. ii. 25), are supposed to have been 
finally buried that of St. Paul by the Ostian 
road that of St. Peter beneath the dome of the 
famous Basilica which bears his name (see Caius, 
ap. Eus. H. E. ii. 25). All these and many other 
traditions will be found in the Annals of Baronius, 
under the last year of Nero. " Valueless as may 
be the historical testimony of each of these tradi 
tions singly, yet collectively they are of some 
importance as expressing the consciousness of the 
third and fourth centuries, that there had been an 
early contest, or at least contrast, between the two 
Apostles, which in the end was completely recon 
ciled ; and it is this feeling which gives a real 
interest to the outward forms in which it is brought 
before us, more or less indeed in all the south of 
Europe, but especially in Rome itself" (Stanley's 
Sermons and Essays, p. 101). 

4. We must add, as sites unquestionably connected 
with the Roman Christians of the Apostolic age 
(1.) The gardens of Nero in the Vatican, not far 
from the spot where St. Peter's now stands. Here 
Christians wrapped in the skins of beasts were torn 
to pieces by dogs, or, clothed in inflammable robes, 
were burnt to serve as torches during the midnight 
games. Others were crucified (Tac. Ann. xv. 44). 
(2.) The Catacombs. These subterranean galleries, 

* 1. avTi (Matt. ii. 22). 

2. xwpeiV (Mark ii. 2). 

3. TOTOS (Luke ii. 7, xiv. 22; 1 Cor. xiv. 16). 

4. Troff (Luke xii. 17, where the word room should be 

printed in italics). 

5. Suifioxos (i. e. z successor, Acts xxiv. 27). 


commonly from 8 to 10 feet in height, and from 4 
to 6 in width, and extending for miles, especially 
in the neighbourhood of the old Appian and No- 
mentan ways, were unquestionably used as places 
of refuge, of worship, and of burial by the early 
Christians. It is impossible here to enter upon 
the difficult question of their origin, and their pos 
sible connexion with the deep sand-pits and subter 
ranean works at Rome mentioned by classical writers. 
See the story of the murder of Asinius (Cic. pro 
Clucnt. 13), and the account of the concealment 
offered to Nero before his death (Suet. Nero, 48). 
A more complete account of the Catacombs than 
any yet given, may be expected in the forthcoming 
work of the Cavaliere G. B. de Rossi. Some very 
interesting notices of this work, and descriptions of 
the Roman catacombs are given in Burgon's Letters 
from Rome, p. 1 20-258. " De Rossi finds his earliest 
dated inscription A.D. 71. From that date to A.D. 
300 there are not known to exist so many as thirty 
Christian inscriptions bearing dates. Of undated 
inscriptions, however, about 4000 are referable to 
the period antecedent to the emperor Constantine " 
(Burgon, p. 148). 

Nothing is known of the first founder of the 
Christian Church at Rome. Christianity may, per 
haps, have been introduced into the city not long 
after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the 
day of Pentecost by the " strangers of Rome,'' 
who were then at Jerusalem (Acts ii. 10). It is 
clear that there were many Christians at Rome 
before St. Paul visited the city (Rom. i. 8, 13, 15, 
xv. 20). The names of twenty-four Christians at 
Rome are given in the salutations at the end of the 
Epistle to the Romans. For the difficult question 
whether the Roman Church consisted mainly of 
Jews or Gentiles, see C. and H., Life of St. Paul, 
ii. 157 ; Alford's Proleg. ; and especially Prof. 
Jowett's Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans, Ga- 
latians, and Thessalonians, ii. 7-26. The view 
there adopted that they were a Gentile church 
but Jewish converts, seems most in harmony with 
such passages as ch. i. 5, 13, xi. 13, and with the 
general tone of the Epistle. 

Linus (who is mentioned, 2 Tim. iv. 21), and 
Clement (Phil. iv. 3) are supposed to have suc 
ceeded St. Peter as bishops of Rome. 

Rome seems to be described under the name of 
Babylon in Rev. xiv. 8, xvi. 19, xvii. 5, iviii. 2, 
21 ; and again, as the city of the seven hills (Rev. 
xvii. 9, cf. xii. 3, xiii. 1). See too, for the interpre 
tation of the mystical number 6fiS in Rev. xiii. 18, 
Alford's note, I. c. 

For a good account of Rome at the time of St. 
Paul's visit see Conybeare and Howson's Life of St. 
Paul, ch. xxiv., of which free use has been made for 
the sketch of the city given m this article. [J. J. H.] 


ROOM. This word is employed in the A. V. 
of the New Testament as the equivalent of no less 
than eight distinct Greek* terms. The only one 
of these, however, which need be noticed here is 
irpa>TOK\i<ria. (Matt, xxiii. 6; Mark xii. 39; Luke 
xiv. 7, 8, xx. 46), which signifies, not a " room " 
in the sense we commonly attach to it of .1 chambei, 

6. irpwTo/'a (chief, highest, uppermost room. Sec 


7, ova-yaioi/ (an upper room, Mark xiv. 15, l.'i/rt 

xxii. 2). 
tt TO un-eppwor (the upper room, Acts i 131. 


but the highest place on the highest couch round 
the dinner or supper-table the " uppermost seat," 
as it is more accurately rendered in Luke xi. 43. 
[MEALS.] The word "seat" is, however, generally 
appropriated by our translators to /cafle'Spa, which 
seems to mean some kind of official chair. In Luke 
xiv. 9, 10, they have rendered r6iros by both 
" place " and " room." 

The UPPER ROOM of the Last Supper is noticed 
under its own head. [See HOUSE, Vol. I. p. 
838.] [G.] 

KOSE (rfe-V3n, chabatstseleth: xpivov, &vQos ; 
Aq. KCA.V| : flos, liUum} occurs twice only, viz. 
in Cant. ii. 1, " I am the Rose of Sharon ," and' in 
Is. xxxv. 1, " the desert shall rejoice and blossom 
as the Rose." There is much difference of opinion 
as to what particular flower is here denoted. Tre- 
mellius and Diodati, with some of the Rabbins, 
believe the rose is intended, but there seems to be 
no foundation for such a translation. Celsius 
(Hierob. i. 488) has argued in favour of the Nar 
cissus (Polyanthus narcissus). This rendering is 
supported by the Targum on Cant. ii. 1, where 
Chabatstseleth is explained by narkos 1 (DlpID). This 
word, says Royle (Kitto's Cyc. art. " Chabazze- 
leth"), is " the same as the Persian nargus, the 

Arabic (jasO, which throughout the East indi 
cates Narcissus Tazetta, or the polyanthus nar 
cissus." Gesenius (Thes. s. v.) has no doubt that 
the plant denoted is the " autumn crocus " (Col- 
chicum autumnale}. It is well worthy of remark 
that the Syriac translator of Is. xxxv. 1 explains 
chabatstseleth by chamtsalyothof which is evidently 
the same word, m and b being interchanged. This 
Syriac word, according to Michaelis (Suppl. p. 659), 
Gesenius, and Rosenmiiller (Bib. Bot. p. 142), de 
notes the Colchicum autumnale. The Hebrew word 
points etymological ly to some bulbous plant; it 
appears to us more probable that the narcissus is in 
tended than the crocus, the former plant being long 
celebrated for its fragrance, while the other has no 
odorous qualities to recommend it. Again, as the 
chabatstseleth is associated with the lily in Cant. I.e., 
it seems probable that Solomon is speaking of two 
plants which blossomed about the same time. The 
narcissus and the lily (Lilium candiduin) would be 
in blossom together in the early spring, while the 
Colchicum is an autumn plant. Thomson (The 
Land and the Book, pp. 112, 513) suggests the pos 
sibility of the Hebrew name being identical with the 


Arabic Kkubbaizy (y\>A_-- or jlxaL), " the 

mallow," which plant he saw growing abun 
dantly on Sharon ; but this view can hardly be 
maintained : the Hebrew term is probably a quadii- 
literal noun, with the harsh aspirate prefixed, and 
the prominent notion implied in it is betsel, 
bulb," and has therefore no connexion with the 
above-named Arabic word. Chateaubriand (Iti 
neraire, ii. p. 130) mentions the narcissus as grow 
ing in the plain of Sharon ; and Strand (Fior. 
Palaest. No. 177) names it as a plant of Palestine 
on the authority of Rauwolf and Hasselquist ; see 
also Kitto's Phys. Hist, of Palest, p. 216. Hillei 
(llierophyt. ii. 30) thinks the chabatstseleth denotes 
some species of asphodel (Asphodelus] ; but the 



hngerlike roots of this genus of plantu do not well 
accord with the " bulb " root implied in the original 

Though the Rose is apparently not mentioned in 
he Hebrew Bible, it is referred to in Ecclus. xxiv. 
L4, where it is said of Wisdom that she is exalted 
'as a rose-plant (o>s fywra. j>6Sov} in Jericho" 
comp. also ch. 1. 8 ; xxxix. 13 ; Wisd. ii. 8). 
Roses are greatly prized in the East, more espe 
cially for the sake of the rose-water, which is in 
much request (see Hasselquist, Trav. p. 248). Dr. 
looker observed the following wild roses ii Syria: 
Rosa eglanteria (L.}, R. sempervireni, (L.), It. 
Henkeliana, R. Phoenicia (Boiss.), R. seriacoa, 
R. angiistifolia, and R. Libanotica. Some of theso 
are doubtful species. R. centifolia and damascene 
are cultivated everywhere. The so-called " Rose 
of Jericho " is no rose at all, but the Anastatica 
Hierochuntina, a cruciferous plant, not uncommon 
m sandy soil in Palestine and Egypt. [W. H.] 

EOSH (B>K"I: 'Pds: Ros}.- In the genealogy 
)f Gen. xlvi. 21, Rosh is reckoned among the sons 
>f Benjamin, but the name does not occur else 
where, and it is extremely probable that " Ehi 
and Rosh" is a corruption of "Ahiram" (comp. 
Num. xxvi. 38). See Burlington's Genealogies, 
. 281. 

KOSH (B>fch : 'Ps, Ez. xxxviii. 2, 3, xxxix. 1 : 

translated by the Vulg. capttis, and by the A. V. 
chief," as if G^fcO, " head"). The whole sentence 
thus rendered by the A. V. " Magog the chief prince 
of Meshech and Tubal," ought to run " Magog the 
prince of Rosh, Mesech, and Tubal ;" the word 
translated " prince " being &OKO, the term usually 
employed for the head of a nomad tribe, as of 
Abraham, in Gen. xxiii. 6, of the Arabians, Gen. 
xvii. 20, and of the chiefs of the several Israelite 
tribes, Num. vii. 11, xxxiv. 18, or in a general 
sense, 1 K. xi. 34, Ez. xii. 10, xlv. 7, xlvi. 2. 
The meaning is that Magog is the head of the three 
great Scythian tribes, of which " Rosh " is thus the 
first. Gesenius considers it beyond doubt that by 
Rosh, or 'Ptas, is intended the tribe on the north of 
the Taurus, so called from their neighbourhood to 
the Rka, or Volga, and that in this name and tribe 
we have the first trace of the Russ or RUSSIAN 
nation. Von Hammer identifies this name with 
Rass in the Koran (xxv. 40; 1. 12), " the peoples 
Aad, Thamud, and the Asshabir (or inhabitants) of 
Rass or Ross." He considers that Mohammed had 
actually the passage of Ezekiel in view, ami that 
"Asshabir" corresponds to Ndat, the "prince" 
of the A. V., and &p X ovra of the LXX. (Sur les 
Origines Russes, Petersburg, 1825, p. 24-29). The 
first certain mention of the Russians under this 
name is in a Latin Chronicle under the year A.D. 
839, quoted by Bayer (Origines Russicae, Com 
ment. Acad. Petropol 1726, p. 409). From the 
junction of Tiras with Meshech and Tubal in Gen. 
x. 2, Von Hammer conjectures the identity of Tiras 
and Rosh (p. 26). 

The name probably occurs again under the 
altered form of Rasses, in Judith ii. 23 this time 
in the ancient Latin, and possibly also in the 
Synac versions, in connexion with Thiras or Thars. 
But the passage is too corrupt to admit of any 
certain deduction from it. [RASSES.] 

This early Biblical notice of so great an empirt 
is doubly interesting from its being a solitary 
inskuico. No tithor uaone of any modern nation 



occurs in the Scriptures, and the obliteration of it 
by the A. V. is one of the many remarkable varia- 
tions of our version from the meaning of the sacred 
text of the Old Testament. For all further in 
formation see the above-quoted treatises of Von 
Hammer and Bayer. [A. P. S.] 

ROSIN. Properly " naphtha," as it is both in 
the LXX. and Vulg. (vatyGa, naphtha), as well as 
the Peshito-Syriac. In the Song of the Three 
Children (23), the servants of the king of Babylon 
are said to have " ceased not to make the oven hot 
with rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood." Pliny 
(ii. 101) mentions naphtha as a product of Baby 
lonia, similar in appearance to liquid bitumen, and 
having a remarkable affinity to fire. To this 
natural product (known also as Persian naphtha, 
petroleum, rock oil, Rangoon tar, Burmese naphtha, 
&c.) reference is made in the passage in question. 
Sir R. K.. Porter thus describes the naphtha springs 
at Kirkook in Lower Courdistan, mentioned by 
Strabo (xvii. p. 738) : " They are ten in number. 
For a considerable distance from them we felt the 
air sulphurous; but in drawing near it became 
worse, and we were all instantly struck with ex 
cruciating headaches. The springs consist of several 
pits or wells, seven or eight feet in diameter, and 
ten or twelve deep. The whole number are within 
the compass of five hundred yards. A flight of 
steps has been cut into each pit for the purpose of 
approaching the fluid, which rises and falls according 
to the dryness or moisture of the weather. The 
natives lave it out with ladles into bags made of 
skins, which are carried on the backs of asses to 

Kirkook, or to any other mail for its sale 

The Kirkook naphtha is principally consumed by 
the markets in the south-west of Courdistan, while 
the pits not far from Kufri supply Bagdad and its 
environs. The Bagdad naphtha is black" (Trav. 
ii. 440). It is described by Dioscorides (i. 101) as 
the dregs of the Babylonian asphalt, and white in 
colour. According to Plutarch (Alex. 35) Alex 
ander first saw it in the city of Ecbatana, where 
the inhabitants exhibited its marvellous effects by 
strewing it along the street which led to his head 
quarters and setting it on fire. He then tried an 
experiment on a page who attended him, putting 
him into a bath of naphtha and setting light to it 
(Strabo, xvii. p. 743), which nearly resulted in the 
boy's death. Plutarch suggests that it was naphtha 
in which Medea steeped the crown and robe which 
she gave to the daughter of Creon ; and Suidas says 
that the Greeks called it " Medea's oil," but the 

Medes " naphtha." The Persian name is \^fC\ 

naff) . Posidonius (in Strabo) relates that in Baby 
lonia there were springs of black and white naphtha. 
The former, says Strabo (xvii. p. 743), were of 
liquid bitumen, which they burnt in lamps iriotead of 
oil. The latter were of liquid sulphur. [W. A. W.] 

RUBIES (Cte, peniyyim -, DWJB, peninim . 
Ai0ot, A. 7ro\uTe\6?y : cunctae opes, cuncta prc- 
tiosissima, gemmae, de ultimis finibus, ebor anti- 
quurri), the invariable rendering of the above-na*ned 
Hebrew words, concerning the meaning of which there 
is much difference of opinion and great uncertainty. 


" The price of wisdom is above peninim " ( Jol 
xxviii. 18 ; see also Prov. iii. 15, viii. 11, xxxi. 10). 
In Lam. iv. 7 it is said, " the Nazarites were purer 
than snow, they were whiter than milk, they wer 
more ruddy in body than peninim." A. Boote (Ani- 
mad. Sac. iv. 3), on account of the ruddiness mc;u- 
tioned in the last passage, supposed " coral " to be 
intended, for which, however, there appears to be 
another Hebrew word. [CORAL.] J. D. Michael* 
(Suppl. p. 2023) is of the same opinion, and com- 

5 -- 

pares the Hebrew PI 3} 3 with the Arab. ^JJ, " 

branch." Gesenius ( Thes. s. v.) defends this argu 
ment. Bochart (Hieroz. iii. 601) contends that 
the Hebrew term denotes pearls, and explains the 
" ruddiness " alluded to above, by supposing that 
the original word (-1D"1N) signifies merely " bright 

in colour," or " colour of a reddish tinge." This 
opinion is supported by Rosenmuller (Schol. in 
Thren.}, and others, but opposed by Maurer (Com 
ment.} and Gesenius. Certainly it would be no 
compliment to the great people of the land to say 
that their bodies were as red as coral or rubies, 
unless we adopt Maurer's explanation, who refers 
the "ruddiness" to the blood which flowed in their 
veins. On the whole, considering that the Hebrew 
word is always used in the plural, we are inclined 
to adopt Bochart's explanation, and understand 
pearls to be intended." [PEARLS.] [W. H.] 

RUE (-n-fiyavov : rutd) occurs only in Luke xi. 
42 : " Woe unto you, Pharisees ! for ye tithe mint 
and rue and all manner of herbs." Th? rue here 
spoken of is doubtless the common Ruta graveolens, 
a shrubby plant about 2 feet high, of strong me 
dicinal virtues. It is a native of the Mediterranean 
coasts, and has been found by Hasselquist on Mount 
Tabor. Dioscorides (iii. 45) describes two kinds 
of ir-fiyavov, viz. IT. bpsiv&v and tr. Kfiirvr6v, 
which denote the Ruta rnontana and R. graveolens 
respectively. Rue was in great repute amongst the 
ancients, both as a condiment and as a medicine 
(Pliny, N. H. xix. 8 ; Columell. R. Rus. xii. 7, 
5 ; Dioscorides, I. c.). The Talmud enumerates 
rue amongst kitchen-herbs (Shebtith, ch. ix. 1). 
and regardf it as free of tithe, as being a plant not 
cultivated in gardens. In our Lord's time, how 
ever, rue was doubtless a garden-plant, and there 
fore titheable, as is evident from our Lord's words ; 
" these things ought ye to have done." The rue is 
too well known to need description. [W. H.] 

RU'FUS ('PovQos : Rufus) is mentioned in 
Mark xv. 21, along with Alexander, as a son ol 
Simon the Cyrenean, whom the Jews compelled to 
bear the cross of Jesus on the way to Golgotha 
(Luke xxiii. 26). As the Evangelist informs his 
readers who Simon was by naming the sons, it is 
evident that the latter were better known than the 
father in the circle of Christians where Mark lived. 
Again, in Rom. xvi. 13, the Apostle Paul salutes a 
Rufus whom he designates as " elect in the Lord " 
(fK\fKrbv fv Kvpiy), and whose mother he grace 
fully recognises as having earned a mother's claim 
upon himself by acts of kindness shown to him. It 
is generally supposed that this Rufus was identical 

R IheChald. "H (Esth. i. 6), which the A. V. renders 
white," and which seems to be identical with the Arab. 

some understood to mean "mother of pearl," or the kinc* 

durr, " pearls; 

durrah. " a pearl." '* by i 

of alabaster called in German Perlenmutterstein. 
LXX. has irtwivos Ai'0os. See Gesenius, and Wi 
Keaiw. i. 71). 



with the one to whom Mark refers ; and in that 
case, as Mark wrote his gospel in all probability 
it Rome, it was natural that he should describe 
to his readers the father (who, since the mother 
^vas at Rome while he apparently was not there, 
may have died, or have come later to that city) 
from his relationship to two well-known mem 
bers of the same community. It is some proof 
at least of the early existence of this view that, in 
the Actis Andreae et Petri, both Rufus and Alex 
ander appear as companions of Peter in Rome. 
Assuming, then, that the same person is meant in 
the two passages, we have before us an interesting 
group of believers a father (for we can hardly 
doubt that Simon became a Christian, if he was not 
already such, at the time of the crucifixion), a 
mother, and two brothers, all in the same family. 
Yet we are fro bear in mind that Rufus was not an 
uncommon name (Wetstein, Nov. Test., vol. i. p. 
634) ; and possibly, therefore, Mark and Paul may 
have had in view different individuals. [H. B. H.] 

RUHA'MAH (niDrn : 7?A.67jyU6Vij : misericor- 
diam consecuta). The margin of our version renders 
it "having obtained mercy" (Hos. ii. 1). The 
name, if name it be, is like Lo-ruhamah, sym 
bolical, and as that was given to the daughter of 
the prophet Hosea, to denote that God's mercy was 
turned away from Israel, so the name Ruhamah is 
addressed to the daughters of the people to denote 
that they were still the objects of His love and tender 



RU'MAH (ilD-n : 'Pov^d ; Alex. 'Pvpa ; Joseph. 
'ABovpa: Ruma). Mentioned, once only (2 K. xxiii. 
36), as the native place of a certain Pedaiah, the 
father of Zebudah, a member of the harem of king 
Josiah, and mother of Eliakim or Jehoiakim king of 

It has been conjectured to be the same place as 
Arumah (Judg. ix. 41), which was apparently near 
Shechem. It is more probable that it is identical 
with Dumah, one of the towns in the mountains 
of Judah, near Hebron (Josh. xv. 52), not far 
distant from Libnah, the native town o. another 
of Josiah's wives. The Hebrew D and R are so 
similar as often to be confounded together, and 
Dumah must have, at any rate, been written Rumah 
in the Hebrew text from which the LXX. trans 
lated, since they give it as Remna and Rouma. 

Josephus mentions a Rumah in Galilee (B. J. 
iii. 7, 21). [G.j 


RUST (flpuffis, 16s : aerugo} occurs as the 
translation of two different Greek words in Matt. 
vi. 19, 20, and in Jam. v. 3. In the former pas 
sage the word Ppaxris, which is joined with <Hjs, 
" moth," has by some been understood to denote 
the larva of some moth injurious to corn, as the 
Tinea granella (see Stainton, Insecta Britan. iii. 
30). The Hebrew (Is. 1. 9) is rendered 

Aquila ; comp. also Epist. Jerem. v. 12, 
airb lov Kal Pta/j.d.TUi', " from rust and moths " 

V A. V. Bar. vi. 12). Scultetus (Exerc. Evang. ii. 
35, Crit. Sac. vi.) believes that the words fffys 
K&l PpSjffis are an hendiadys for a-^s ftpcaaiKav. 
The word can scarcely be tcxken to signify " rust," 
for which there is another term, 16s, which is used 
by St. James to express rather the " tarnish" which 
overspreads silver than " rust," by which name we 
now understand 4 ' oxide of iron." BocDcrtv is no 

doubt intended to have reference in a general sens* 
to any corrupting and destroying substance that 
may attack treasures of any kind which have long 
been raftered to remain undisturbed. The allusion 
of St. James is to the corroding nature of 16s on 
metals. Scultetus correctly observes, aerugin* 
deformantur quidem, sed non corrumpuntur nunu 
mi ;" but though this is strictly speaking true, th 
ancients, just as ourselves in common parlance, 
spoke of the corroding nature of "rust" (comp. 
Hammond, Annotat. in Matt. vi. 19). [W. H.] 

RUTH ( JVn : "PovQ : probably for D-IIT),* " a 
friend," the feminine of Reu). A Moabitish woman, 
the wife, first, of Mahlon, secondly of Boaz, and by 
him mother of Obed, the ancestress of David and of 
Christ, and one of the four women (Thamar, Ranab, 
and Uriah's wife being the other three) who are 
named by St. Matthew in the genealogy of Christ. 
[RAHAB.] The incidents in Ruth's life, as detailed 
in the beautiful book that bears her name, may be 
epitomised as follows. A severe famine in the hind 
of Judah, caused perhaps by the occupation of the 
land by the Moabites under Eglon (as Ussher thinks 
possible),* induced Elimelech, a native of Bethlehem 
Ephratah, to emigrate into the land of Moab, with 
his wite Naomi, and his two sons, Mahlon and 
Chilion. At the end of ten years Naomi, now left 
a widow and childless, having heard that there was 
plenty again in Judah, resolved to return to Beth 
lehem, and her daughter-in-law, Ruth, returned 
with her. " Whither thou goest, I will go, and 
where thou lodgest, I will lodge ; thy people shall 
be my people, and thy God my God: where thou 
diest I will die, and there will I be buried : the 
Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death 
part thee and me ;" was the expression of the unal 
terable attachment of the young Moabitish widow 
to the mother, to the land, and to the religion of her 
lost husband. They arrived at Bethlehem just at 
the beginning of barley harvest, and Ruth, going 
out to glean for the support of her mother-in-law 
and herself, chanced to go into the field of Boaz, a 
wealthy man, the near kinsman of her father-in-law 
Elimelech. The story of her virtues and her kind 
ness and fidelity to her mother-in-law, and her pre 
ference for the land of her husband's birth, had gone 
before her ; and immediately upon learning who the 
strange young woman was, Boaz treated her with 
the utmost kindness and respect, and sent her home 
laden with com which she had gleaned. Encouraged 
by this incident, Naomi instructed Ruth to claim 
at the hand of Boaz that he should perform the part 
of her husband's near kinsman, by purchasing the 
inheritance of Elimelech, and taking her to be his 
wife. But there was a nearer kinsman than Boaz. 
and it was necessary that he should have the option 
of redeeming the inheritance for himself. He, how 
ever, declined, fearing to mar his own inheritance. 
Upon which, with all due solemnity, Boaz took 
Ruth to be his wife, amidst the blessings and con 
gratulations of their neighbours. As a singular 
example of virtue and piety in a rude age and 
among an idolatrous people ; as one of the first-fruits 
of the Gentile harvest gathered into the Church ; 
as the heroine of a story of exquisite beauty and 
simplicity; as illustrating in her history the woilr- 
ings of Divine Providence, and the truth of the 

a Some think it Is for JTl&n, " beantv." 
b Patrick suggests the famin? in th (toys o? GJ.l33i3 
(Judg. vi. 3, 4.i. 



saying that " the eyes of the Lord arc over the 
righteous ;" and for the many interesting revela 
tions of ancient domestic and social customs which 
re associated with her stoiy, Ruth has always 
held a foremost place among the Scripture cha 
racters. St. Augustine has a curious speculation 
on the relative blessedness of Ruth, twice married, 
and by her second marriage becoming the ancestress 
of Christ, and Anna remaining constant in her 
widowhood (De bono Viduit.}. Jerome observes 
that we can measure the greatness of Ruth's virtue 
by the greatness of her reward " Ex ejus semine 
Christus oritur" (Epist. xxii. ad Paulam}. As the 
great-grandmother of King David, Ruth must have 
flourished in the latter part of Eli's judgeship, or 
the beginning of that of Samuel. But there seem 
to be no particular notes of time in the book, by 
which her age can be more exactly defined. The 
story was put into its present shape, avowedly, long 
after her lifetime.: see Ruth i. 1, iv. 7, 17. (Ber- 
theau on Ruth, in the Exeg. Handb. ; Rosenmiill. 
Proem, in Lib. Ruth ; Parker's De Wette ; Ewald, 
Gesch. i. 205, iii. 760 sqq.) [A. C. H.] 

KYE (DIOD3, cussemeth: 0, o\vpa : far, 
vici(t-) occurs in 'Ex. ix. 32; Is. xxviii. 25: in the 
latter the margin reads " spelt." In Ez. iv. 9 the 
text has "fitches " and the margin "rie." There 
are many opinions as to the signification of Cus- 
scineth; some authorities maintaining that fitches 
are denoted, others oats, and others rye. Celsius 
has shown that in all probability "spelt" is 
intended (Hierob. ii. 98), and this opinion is 
supported by the LXX. and the Vulg. in Ex. ix. 
32, and by the Syriac versions. Rye is for the 
mosf part a northern plant, and was probably 
not cultivated in Egypt or Palestine in early 
times, whereas spelt has been long cultivated in 
the East, where it is held in high estimation. He- 
vodotus (ii. 36) says the Egyptians " make bread 
from spelt (curb oAupcW ), which some call zea." See 
also Pliny (ft. ff. xviii. 8) and Dioscorides (ii. Ill), 
who speaks of two kinds. The Cussemeth was cul 
tivated in 'Egypt ; it was not injured by the hail 
storm of the seventh plague (Ex. I. c.), as it was 
not grown up. This cereal was also sown in Pales 
tine (Is. /. c.), on the margins or "headlands" of 

the fields (ifl/OS) ; it was used for mixing with 

wheat, barley, &c., for making bread (Ez. I. c.). 
The Arabic, Chirsanat, " spelt," is regarded by Ge- 
Benius as identical with the Hebrew word, m and n 
being interchanged and r inserted. " Spelt" (Tri- 
ticum spelta) is grown in some parts of the south 
of Geiinany ; it differs but slightly from our com 
mon wheat (T. vulgare). There are three kinds of 
spelt, viz. T.spelta, T. dicoccum (Rice wheat), and 
T. wnococcum. [W. H.] 


SAB'AOTH, THE LORD OF (Kfytos <ra- 
BawQ : Dominus Sabaoth}. The name is found in 
the English Bible only twice (Rom. ix. 29 ; James 
v. 4). It is probably more familiar through its 
occurrence in the Sanctus of the Te Deum* "Holy, 
Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth." It is too often 

Can it be this phrase which determined the use of the 
-. e Devon as a thanksgiving for victories ? 
b For the passages which follow, the writer is indebted 


considered to be a synonym of, or to have some con 
nexion with Sabbath, and to express the idea of rest. 
And this not only popularly, but in some of oui 
most classical writers. 1 * Thus Spenser, Faery Queen, 
canto viii. 2 : 

" But thenceforth all shall rest eternally 
With Him that is the God of Sabaoth hight : 
that great Sabaoth God, grant me that Sabaoth's 


And Bacon, Advancement of Learning, ii. 24: 
. . . sacred and inspired Divinity, the Sabaoth an<l 
port of all men's labours and peregrinations." And 
Johnson, in the 1st edition of whose Dictionary 
(1755) Sabaoth and Sabbath are treated as the 
same word. And Walter Scott, Ivanhoc, i. ch. 11 
(1st ed.): "a week, aye the space between two 
Sabaoths." Bat this connexion is quite fictitious. 
The two words are not only entirely different, but 
have nothing in common. 

Sabaoth is the Greek form of the Hebrew word 
tsebdoth, "armies," and occurs in the oft-repeated 
formula which is translated in the Authorised Ver 
sion of the Old Test, by " Lord of hosts," " Lord 
God of hosts" We are apt to take " hosts " (pro 
bably in connexion with the modern, expression the 
"heavenly host") as implying the angels but 
this is surely inaccurate. Tsebdoth is in constant, 
use in the 0. T. for the national army or force of 
righting-men, c and there can be no doubt that in 
the mouth and the mind of an ancient Hebrew, Je- 
hovah-tsebdoth was the leader and commander of 
the armies of the nation, who " went forth with 
them" (Ps. xliv. 9), and led them to certain vic 
tory over the worshippers of Baal, Chemosh, Mo- 
lech, Ashtaroth, and other false gods. In later 
times it lost this peculiar significance, and became 
little if anything more than an alternative title for 
God. The name is not found in the Pentateuch, 
or the Books of Joshua, Judges, or Ruth. It is 
frequent in the Books of Samuel, rarer in Kings, 
is found twice only in the Chronicles, and not at 
all in Ezekiel ; but in the Psalms, in Isaiah, Jere 
miah, and the minor Prophets it is of constant 
occurrence, and in fact is used almost to the 
exclusion of every other title. [G.] 

SA'BAT (Sa^ciy; Alex. 2a^or: Phasphat). 
1. The sons of Sabat are enumerated among the 
sons of Solomon's servants who returned with Zoi o- 
babel (1 Esd. v. 34). There is no corresponding 
name in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah. 

2. (Safrrr: Sabath.) The month SEBAT (1 
Mace. xvi. 14). 

SABATE'AS (SapaTaios ; Aif;x. SajSySarams : 
Sabbatheus). SHABBETHAI (I Esd. ix. 48 ; comp. 
Neh. viji. 7). 

SAB'ATUS (2o0a0os : Zabdis). ZABAD (1 
Esd. ix. 28 ; comp. Ezr. x. 27). 

SAB'BAN (2aj8aj/i/os : Banni). BINNUI 1 
(1 Esd. viii. 63 ; comp. Ezr. viii. 33). 

SABBATH (D21B*, "a day of rest," from 
J"D ; , " to cease to do," " to rest "). This is the 
obvious and undoubted etymology. The resem 
blance of the word to JDfc?, " seven," misled Lac- 
tantius (Inst. iii. 14) and others; but it does not 
seem more than accidental. Bahr (Sijmbolih, ii. 
533-4) does not reject the derivation from 

to the kindness of a friend. 

c JTlfcOV. See 1 Sam. xii. 9, 1 K. 
Burgh's Coticordance, p. 1058. 

19, and jsasTJffi ui 


but traces that to 31t^, somewhat needlessly and 
fancifully, us it appears to us. Plutarch's associa 
tion of the word with the Bacchanalian cry <ra.$ol 
may of course be dismissed at once. We have also 
(Ex. xvi. 23, and Lev. xxiii. 24) jirQfc^, of more 
intense signification than T\y& ; also p*"OK' nUK*, 
u a Sabbath of Sabbaths" (Ex. xxxi. 15, and else 
where). The name Sabbath is thus applied to divers 
great festivals, but principally and usually to the 
seventh day of the week, the strict observance of 
which is enforced not merely in the general Mosaic 
code, but in the Decalogue itself. 

The first Scriptural notice of the weekly Sabbath, 
though it is not mentioned by name, is to be found in 
Gen. ii. 3, at the close of the record of the six days' 
creation. And hence it is frequently argued that the 
institution is as old as mankind, and is consequently 
of universal concern and obligation. We cannot, 
however, approach this question till we have ex 
amined the account of its enforcement upon the 
Israelites. It is in Ex. xvi. 23-29 that we find the 
first incontrovertible institution of the day, as one 
given to, and to be kept by, the children of Israel. 
Shortly afterwards it was re-enacted in the Fourth 
Commandment, which gave it a rank above that of 
an ordinary law, making it one of the signs of the 
Covenant. As such it remained together with the 
Passover, the two forming the most solemn and 
distinctive features of Hebrew religious life. Its 
neglect or profanation ranked foremost among na 
tional sins; the renewed observance of it was sure 
to accompany national reformation. 

Before, then, dealing with the question whether 
its original institution comprised mankind at large, or 
merely stamped on Israel a very marked badge of 
nationality, it will be well to trace somewhat of its 
position and history among the chosen people. 

Many of the Rabbis date its first institution from 
the incident* recorded in Ex. xv. 25; and believe 
that the " statute and ordinance" there mentioned 
as being given by God to the children of Israel was 
that of the Sabbath, together with the command 
ment to honour father and mother, their previous 
law having consisted only of what are Called the 
" seven precepts of Noah." This, however, seems to 
want foundation of any sort, and the statute and 
ordinance in question are, we think, sufficiently ex 
plained by the words of ver. 26, " If thou wilt 
diligently hearken," &c. We are not on sure ground 
till we come to the unmistakeable institution in 
chap. xvi. in connexion with the gathering of manna. 
The words in this latter are not in themselves 
enough to indicate whether such institution was 
altogether a novelty, or whether it referred to a 
day the sanctity of which was already known to 
those to whom it was given. There is plausibility 
certainly in the opinion of Grotius, that the day 
was already known, and in some measure observed 
as holy, but that the rule of abstinence from work 
was first given then, and shortly afterwards more 
explicitly imposed in the Fourth Commandment. 
There it is distinctly set forth, and extended to the 
whole of an Israelite's household, his son and his 
daughter, his slaves, male and female, his ox and 
Ins ass, and the stranger within his gates. It would 
seem that by this last was understood the stranger 
who while still uncircumcised yet worshipped the 
true b God; for the mere heathen stranger was 

Vide Patrick in loc., and Selden, DeJure Nat. ct Gent. 
ill. 9. 

* Vide CJrotius in loc., who rel'eis to Abon-ezra. 


not considered to be under the law of the Sabbath 
In the Fourth Commandment, too, the institution 
is grounded on the revealed truth of the six days 
creation and the Divine rest on the seventh ; bul 
in the version of it which we find in Deuteroncm} 
a further reason is added "and remember that 
thou wast a stranger in the land of Egypt, and 
that the LORD thy God brought thee forth with a 
mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm ; therefore 
the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the 
Sabbath day" (Deut. v. 15). 

Penalties and provisions in other parts of the 
Law construed the abstinence from labour prescribed 
in the commandment. It was forbidden to light a 
fire, a man was stoned for gathering sticks, on the 
Sabbath. At a later period we find the Prophet 
Isaiah uttering solemn warnings against profaning, 
and promising large blessings on the due observ 
ance of the day (Is. Iviii. 13, 14). In Jeremiah's 
time there seems to have been an habitual viola* 
tion of it, amounting to transacting on it such an 
extent of business as involved the carrying bur 
dens about (Jer. xvii. 21-27). His denunciations 
of this seem to have led the Pharisees in their 
bondage to the letter to condemn the impotent man 
for carrying his bed on the Sabbath in obedience to 
Christ who had healed him (John v. 10). We 
must not suppose that our Lord prescribed a real 
violation of the Law ; and it requires little thought 
to distinguish between such a natural and almost 
necessary act as that which He commanded, and 
the carrying of burdens in connexion with business 
which is denounced by Jeremiah. By Ezekiel 
(xx. 12-24), a passage to which we must shortly 
return, the profanation of the Sabbath is made fore 
most among the national sins of the Jews. From 
Nehemiah x. 31, we learn that the people entered 
into a covenant to renew the observance of the Law, 
in which they pledged themselves neither to buy 
nor sell victuals on the Sabbath. The practice was 
then not infrequent, and Nehemiah tells us (xiii. 
15-22) of the successful steps which he took for its 

Henceforward there is no evidence of the Sabbath 
being neglected by the Jews, except such as (1 Mace, 
i. 11-15, 39-45) went into open apostasy. The 
faithful remnant were so scrupulous concerning it, 
as to forbear fighting in self-defence on that day 
(1 Mace. ii. 36), and it was only the terrible conse 
quences that ensued which led Mattathias and his 
friends to decree the lawfulness of self-defence on 
the Sabbath (1 Mace. ii. 41). 

When we come to the N. T. we find the most 
marked stress laid on the Sabbath. In whatever 
ways the Jew might err respecting it, he had 
altogether ceased to neglect it. On the contrary, 
wherever he went its observance became the most 
visible badge of his nationality. The passages of 
Latin literature, such as Ovid, Art. Amat. i. 415 ; 
Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96-106, which indicate this, are 
too well known to require citation. Our Lord's 
mode of observing the Sabbath was one of the main 
features of His life, which His Pharisaic adver 
saries most eagerly watched and criticised. They 
had by that time invented many of those fantastic 
prohibitions whereby the letter of the command 
ment seemed to be honoured at the expense of its 
whole spirit, dignity, and value : and our Lord, 
coming to vindicate and fulfil the Law in its rail 
scope and intention, must needs come into collision 
wi>i\ these. 

l>.toic proceeding to any rf the more curiouu 



questions connected with the Sabbath, such as that 
of its alleged prae-Mosaic origin and observance, it 
will be well to consider and determine what were 
its true idea and purpose in that Law of which 
beyond doubt it formed a leading feature, and ', 
among that people for whom, if for none else, we 
know that it was designed. And we shall do this ; 
with most advantage, as it seems to us, by pur- j 
luing the inquiry in the following order : 

I. By considering, with a view to their elimina 
tion, the Pharisaic and Rabbinical prohibitions. 
These we have the highest authority for rejecting, 
as inconsistent with the true scope of the Law. 

II. By taking a survey of the general Sabbatical 
periods of Hebrew time. The weekly Sabbath stood ! 
in the relation of keynote to a scale of Sabbatical 
observance, mounting to the Sabbatical year and ; 
the year of Jubilee. It is but reasonable to sus- ' 
pect that these can in some degree interpret each j 

III. By examining the actual enactments of 
Scripture respecting the seventh day, and the mode 
in which such observance was maintained by the 
best Israelites. 

I. Nearly every one is aware that the Pharisaic ' 
and Rabbinical schools invented many prohibitions 
respecting the Sabbath of which we find nothing in 
the original institution. Of these some may have 
been legitimate enforcements in detail of that insti 
tution, such as the Scribe's and Pharisees " sitting 
in Moses' seat " (Matt, xxiii. 2, 3) had a right to 
impose. How a general law is to be carried out in 
' particular cases, must often be determined for 
others by such as have authority to do so. To this 
class may belong the limitation of a Sabbath-day's 
journey, a limitation not absolutely at variance with | 
the fundamental canon that the Sabbath was 
made for man, not man for the Sabbath, although it 
may have proceeded from mistaking a temporary 
enactment for a permanent one. Many, however, 
of these prohibitions were fantastic and arbitrary, 
in the number of those " heavy burdens and griev 
ous to be borne " which the later expounders of the 
Law "laid on men's shoulders." We have seen 
that the impotent man's carrying his bed was con 
sidered a violation of the Sabbath a notion pro 
bably derived from Jeremiah's warnings against 
the commercial traffic carried on at the gates of 
Jerusalem in his day. The harmless act of the 
disciples in the corn-field, and the beneficent healing 
of the man in the synagogue with the withered 
hand (Matt. xii. 1-13), were alike regarded as 
bleaches of the Law. Our Lord's reply in the 
former case will come before us under our third 
head ; in the latter He appeals to the practice of the 
objectors, who would any one of them raise his own 
sheep out of the pit into which the animal had 
fallen on the Sabbath-day. From this appeal, we 
are forced to infer that such practice would have 
been held lawful at the time and place in which He 
spoke. It is remarkable, however, that we find it 
prohibited in other traditions, the law laid down 
beiue;, that in this case a man might throw some need 
ful nourishment to the animal, but must not pull 
him out till the next day. (See Heylin, Hist, of 
Sabbath, i. 8, quoting Buxtorf.) This rule possibly 
came into existence in consequence of our Lord's 
appeal, and with a view to warding off the necessary 


inference trom it. Still more fantastic prohibition* 
were issued. It was unlawful to catch a flea on 
the Sabbath, except the insect were actually hurt 
ing his assailant, or to mount into a tree, lest a 
branch or twig should be broken in the process. 
The Samaritans were especially rigid in matters 
like these; and Dositheus, who founded a sect 
amongst them, went so far as to maintain the obli 
gation of a man's remaining throughout the Sabbath 
in the posture wherein he chanced to be at its com 
mencement a rule which most people would find 
quite Jestructive of its character as a day of rest. 
When minds were occupied with such microlocjjj, i\s 
this has been well called, there was obviously no limit 
to the number of prohibitions which they might 
devise, confusing, as they obviously did, abstinence 
from action of every sort with rest from business 
and labour. 

That this perversion of the Sabbath had become 
very general in our Saviour's time is apparent both 
from the recorded objections to acts of His on that 
day, and from His marked conduct on occasions to 
which those objections were sure to be urged. There 
is no reason, however, for thinking that the Pha 
risees had arrived at a sentence against pleasure of 
every sort on the sacred day. The duty of hospi 
tality was remembered. It was usual for the rich 
to give a feast on that day ; and our Lord's attend 
ance at such a feast, and making it the occasion of 
putting forth His rules for the demeanour of guests, 
and for the right exercise of hospitality, show that 
the gathering of friends and social enjoyment were 
not, deemed inconsistent with the true scope and 
spirit of the Sabbath. It was thought right that 
the meats, though cold, should be of the best and 
choicest, nor might the Sabbath be chosen for a 

Such are the inferences to which we are brought 
by our Lord's words concerning, and works on, the 
sacred day. We have already protested against 
the notion which has been entertained that they 
were breaches of the Sabbath intended as harbingers 
of its abolition. Granting for argument's sake that 
such abolition was in prospect, still our Lord, 
" made under the Law," would have violated no 
i part of it so long as it was Law. Nor can anything 
be inferred on the other side from the Evangelist's 
i lauguao-e (John v. 18). The phrase "He had 
j broken the Sabbath," obviously denotes not the 
' character of our Saviour's act, but the Jewish esti 
mate of it. He had broken the Pharisaic rules re- 
j spectiug the Sabbath. Similarly His own phrase, 
" the priests profane the Sabbath and are blame 
less," can only be understood to assert the lawfulness 
of certain acts done for certain reasons on that day, 
which, taken in themselves and without those rea 
sons, would be profanations of it. There remains 
only His appeal to the eating of the shewbread by 
David and his companions, which was no doubt in 
its matter a breach of the Law. It does not follow, 
however, that the act in justification of which it is 
appealed to was such a breach. It is rather, we 
think, an argument a fortiori, to the effect, that if 
even a positive law might give place on occasion, 
much more might an arbitrary ruie like that of the 
Rabbis in the case in question. 

Finally, the declaration that " the Son of Man 
is Lord also of the Sabbath," must not be viewed 

5 It is obvious from the whole scope of the chapter judgment in case of neglect or violation of the Law, th 
tha the words, " Ye shall keep my sabbaths," in Lev. Sabbatical year would seem tu be mainly referred u> 
nxvt 2. related tc all these. In the nsuing threat of (ver. 1, 34, 35). 


as though our Lord held Himself free from the 
Law respecting it. It is to be taken in connexion 
with the preceding words, " the Sabbath was made 
for man," &c., from which it is an inference, as is 
shown by the adverb therefore-, and the Son of 
Man is plainly speaking of Himself as the Man, the 
Representative and Exemplar of all mankind, and 
teaching us that the human race is lord of the 
Sabbath, the day being rande for man, not man for 
the day. 

If, then, our Lord, coming to fulfil and rightly 
interpret the Law, did thus protest against the Phari 
saical and Rabbinical rules respecting the Sabbath, 
we are supplied by this protest with a large negative 
view of that ordinance. The acts condemned by 
the Pharisees were not violations of it. Mere action, 
as such, was not a violation of it, and far less was a 
work of healing and beneficence. To this we shall 
have occasion by and bye to return. Meanwhile 
we must try to gain a positive view of the insti 
tution, and proceed in furtherance of this to our 
second head. 

II. The Sabbath, as we have said, was the key 
note to a scale of Sabbatical observance consisting 
of itself, the seventh month, the seventh year, and 
the year of Jubilee. As each seventh day was 
sacred, so was each seventh month, and each seventh 
year. Of the observances of the seventh month, 
little needs be said. That month opened with the 
Feast of Trumpets, and contained the Day of Atone 
ment and Feast of Tabernacles- the last named 
being the most joyful of Hebrew festivals. It is 
not- apparent, nor likely, that the whole of the 
month was to be characterised by cessation from 
labour; but it certainly has a place in the Sab 
batical scale. Its great centre was the Feast of 
Tabernacles or Ingathering, the year and the year's 
labour having then done their work and yielded 
their issues. In this last respect its analogy to the 
weekly Sabbath is obvious. Only at this part of 
the Sabbatical cycle do we find any notice of humi 
liation. On the Day of Atonement the people were 
to afflict their souls (Lev. xxiii. 27-29). 

The rules for the Sabbatical year are very precise 
As labour was prohibited on the seventh day, so 
<he land was to rest every seventh year. And as 
each forty-ninth year wound up seven of such weeks 
of years, so it either was itself, or it ushered in, 
what was called " the year of Jubilee." 

In Exodus xxiii. 10, 11, we rind the Sabbatical 
year placed in close connexion with the Sabbath 
day, and the words in which the former is pre 
scribed are analogous to those of the Fourth Com 
mandment : " Six years thou shalt sow thy land 
and gather in the fruits thereof; but the seventh 
year thou shalt let it rest and lie still ; that the 
poor of thy people may eat ; and what they leave 
the beasts of the field shall eat." This is imme 
diately followed by a renewed proclamation of the 
law of the Sabbath, " Six days thou shalt do thy 
work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest : that 
thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy 
handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed." It 
is impossible to avoid perceiving that in these pas 
sages the two institutions are put on the same 
ground, and are represented as quite homogeneous. 
Their aim, as here exhibited, is eminently a benefi 
cent one. To give rights to classes that would other 
wise have been without such, to the bondman 
uiil bondmaid, nay, to the beast of the field, is 
viewed here as their main end. "The stranger, 
too, is comprehended in the benefit. Many, we 



suspect, while reading the Fourth Commandment, 
merely regard him as subjected, together witli his 
host a-nd family, to a prohibition. But if w? con 
sider how continually the stranger is referred to in 
the enactments of the Law, and that with a vie-? 
to his protection, the instances being one-and-twenty 
in number, we shall be led to regard his inclusion 
in the Fourth Commandment rather as a benefit 
conferred than a prohibition imposed on him. 

The same beneficent aim is still more apparent 
in the fuller legislation respecting the Sabbatica. 
year which we find in Lev. xxv. 2-7, " When 
ye come into the land which I give you, then 
shall the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord. 
Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years 
thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gotlier in the 
fruit thereof; but in the seventh year shall be a 
sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath unto the 
Lord ; thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune 
thy vineyard. That which groweth of its own 
accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither 
gather the grapes of thy vine undressed : for it is 
a year of rest unto the land. And the sabbath 
of the land shall be meat for you ; for thee, and 
for thy slave, and for thy maid, and for thy 
hired servant, and for thy stranger that sojourneth 
with thee, and for thy cattle, and for the beasts 
that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof 
be meat." One great aim of both institutions, 
the Sabbath-day and the Sabbatical year, clearly 
was to debar the Hebrew from the thought of ab 
solute ownership of anything. His time was not 
his own, as was shown him by each seventh day 
being the Sabbath of the Lord his God ; his land 
was not his own but God's (Lev. xxv. 23), as was 
shown by the Sabbath of each seventh year, during 
which it was to have rest, and all individual right 
over it was to be suspended. It was also to be the 
year of release from debt (Deut. xv.). We do not 
read much of the way in which, or the extent 
to which, the Hebrews observed the Sabbatical 
year. The reference to it (2 Chr. xxxvi. 21) 
leads us to conclude that it had been much 
neglected previous to the Captivity, but it was 
certainly not lost sight of afterwards, since Alex 
ander the Great absolved the Jews from paying 
tribute on it, their religion debarring them from 
acquiring the means of doing so. [SABBATICAL 

The year of Jubilee must be regarded as com 
pleting this Sabbatical Scale, whether we consider 
it as really the forty-ninth year, the seventh of a 
week of Sabbatical years or the fiftieth, a question 
on which opinions are divided. [JUBILEE, YEAR 
OF.] The difficulty in the way of deciding for 
the latter, that the land could hardly bear enough 
spontaneously to suffice for two years, seems 
disposed of by reference to Isaiah xxxvii. 30. Adopt 
ing, therefore, that opinion as the most probable, 
we must consider each week of Sabbatical years to 
have ended jn a double Sabbatical period, to which, 
moreover, increased emphasis was given by the pe 
culiar enactments respecting the second half of such 
period, the year of Jubilee. 

Those enactments have been already considered 
in the article just referred to, and throw further 
light on the beneficent character of the Sabbatical 

III. We must consider the actual enactments of 
Scriuture respecting the seventh day. Howeve.i 
numogeneous the different Sabbatical periods may 
be, the weekly Sabbath is, as we have said, tl:>/ 



tonic or keynote. It alone is prescribed in the 
Decalogue, and it alone has in any shape survived 
the earthly commonwealth of Israel. We must 
still postpone the question of its observance by 
die patriarchs, and commence our inquiry with 
the institution of it in the wilderness, in con 
nexion with the gathering of manna (Ex. xvi. 
23). The prohibition to gather the manna on the 
Sabbath is accompanied by one to bake or to seethe 
on that day. The Fourth Commandment eives us 
but the generality, " all manner of work," and, 
seeing that action of one kind or another is a neces 
sary accompaniment of waking life, and cannot 
therefore in itself be intended, as the later Jews 
imagined, by the prohibition, we are left to seek 
elsewhere for the particular application of the 
general principle. That general principle in itself, 
however, obviously embraces an abstinence from 
worldly labour or occupation, and from the en 
forcing such on servants or dependents, or on the 
stranger. By him, as we have said, is most pro 
bably meant the partial proselyte, who would not 
have received much consideration from the Hebrews 
had they been left to themselves, as we must infer 
from the numerous laws enacted for his. protection. 
Had man been then regarded by him as made for 
the Sabbath, not the Sabbath for man, that is, had 
the prohibitions of the commandment been viewed 
as the putting on of a yoke, not the con fen-ing of a 
privilege, one of the dominant race would probably 
have felt no reluctance to placing such a stranger 
under that yoke. The naming him therefore in the 
commandment helps to interpret its whole principle, 
and testifies to its having been a beneficent privilege 
for all who came within it. It gave rights to the 
slave, to the despised stranger, even to the ox and 
the ass. 

This beneficent character of the Fourth Com 
mandment is very apparent in the version of it 
which we find in Deuteronomy: "Keep the Sab 
bath-day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath 
commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour and 
do all thy work , but the seventh day is the Sab 
bath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do 
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, 
nor thy bondman, nor thy bondwoman, nor thine 
ox, nor thine ass, nor thy stranger that is within 
thy gates : that thy bondman and thy bond 
woman may rest as well as thou. And remember 
that thou wast a slave in the land of Egypt, and 
that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence 
through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out 
arm : therefore the Lord thy God commanded 
thee to keep the Sabbath-day" (Deut. v. 12-15). 
But although this be so, and though it be plain 
that to come within the scope of the command 
ment was to possess a franchise, to share in a privi 
lege, yet does the original proclamation of it in 
Exodus place it on a ground which, closely con 
nected no doubt with these others, is yet higher and 
more comprehensive. The Divine method of work 
ing and rest is there proposed to man as the model 
after which he is to work and to rest. Time then 
presents a perfect whole, is then well rounded and 
entire, when it is shaped into a week, modelled on 
the six days of creation and their following Sabbath. 
Six days' work and the seventh day's rest conform 
th3 life of man to the method of his Creator. In 
distributing his life thus, man may look up to God 
as his Archetype. We need not suppose that the 
Hebrew, even in that early stage of spiritual educa 
tion, was limited by .so gross a conception as that 


of God working ai ,d then resting, as it needing rest, 
The idea awakened by the record of creation and 
by the Fourth Commandment is that of work that 
has a consummation, perfect in itself and coming to 
a perfect end ; and man's work is to be like this, 
not aimless, indefinite, and incessant, but having an 
issue on which he can repose, and see and rejoice in 
its fruits. God's rest consists in His seeing that 
all which He has made is very good ; and man's 
works are in their measure and degree very good 
when a six days' faithful labour has its issue in & 
seventh of rest after God's pattern. It is meet 
important to remember that the Fourth Comman.i- 
ment is not limited to a mere enactment respecting 
one day, but prescribes the due distribution of a 
week, and enforces the six days' work as much as 
the seventh day's rest. 

This higher ground of observance was felt to 
invest the Sabbath with a theological character, and 
rendered it the great witness for faith in a personal 
and creating God. Hence its supremacy over all 
the Law, being sometimes taken as the representa 
tive of it all (Neh. ix. 14). The Talmud says that 
" the Sabbath is in importance equal to the whole 
Law ;" that " he who desecrates the Sabbath openly 
is like him who transgresses the whole Lav/ ;" 
while Maimonides winds up his discussion of th 
subject thus : " He who breaks the Sabbath openly 
is like the worshipper of the stars, and both are 
like heathens in every respect." 

In all this, however, we have but an assertion 
of the general principle of resting on the Sabbath, 
and must seek elsewhere for information as to the 
details wherewith that principle was to be brought 
out. We have already seen that the work forbidden 
is not to be confounded with action of every sort, 
To make this confusion was the error of the later 
Jews, and their prohibitions would go far to render 
the Sabbath incompatible with waking life. The 
terms in the commandment show plainly enough 
the sort of work which is contemplated. They are 
13Dn and fDxbD, the former denoting servile 
work, and the latter business (see Gesenius sub. voc. ; 
Michaelis, Laws of Moses, iv. 195). The Penta 
teuch presents us with but three applications of the 
general principle. The lighting a fire in any house 
on the Sabbath was strictly forbidden (Ex. xxxv, 3). 
and a man was stoned for gathering sticks on that 
day (Num. xv. 32-36). The former prohibition is 
thought by the Jews to be of perpetual force ; but 
some at least of the Rabbis have held that it applies 
only to' lighting a fire for culinary purposes, not to 
doing so in cold weather for the sake of warmth 
The latter case, that of the man gathering sticks, 
was perhaps one of more labour and business than 
we are apt to imagine. The third application oi 
the general principle which we find in the Penta 
teuch was the prohibition to go out of the camp, 
the command to every one to abide in his place 
(Ix. xvi. 29) on the Sabbath-day. This is so ob- 
i viously connected with the gathering the manna, 
that it seems most natural to regard it as a mere 
temporary enactment for the circumstances of the 
people in the wilderness. It was, however, after- 
wai Is considered by the Hebrews a permanent law, 
and applied, in the absence of the camp, to the cii-y 
in which a man might reside. To this was ap 
pended the dictum that a space of two thousand el J 
on every side of a city belonged to it, and to go 
that distance beyond the walls was permitted a; 
" a Sabbath-day's journey/' 

The reference of Is:ii:ih to the Sabbath gives iu 


no details. Those in Jeremiah and Nehemiah show 
that carrying goods for sale, aud buying such, were 
squally profanations of the day. 

There is no ground for supposing that to engage 
the enemy on the Sabbath was considered unlawful 
oefore the Captivity. On the contrary, there is 
much force in the argument of Michaelis (Zaws 
of Moses, iv. 196) to show that it was not. His 
reasons are as follows : 

1. The prohibited piy, service, does not even 
suggest the thought of war. 

2. The enemies of the chosen people would have 
continually selected the Sabbath as a day of attack, had 
the latter been forbidden to defend themselves then. 

3. We read of long-protracted steges, that of 
Rabbah (2 Sam. xi., xii.), and that of Jerusalem in 
the reign of Zedekiah, which latter lasted a year 
and a half, during which the enemy would cer 
tainly have taken advantage of any such abstinence 
from warfare on the part of the chosen people. 

At a subsequent period we know (1 Mace. ii. 
34-38) that the scruple existed and was acted on 
with most calamitous effects. Those effects led 
(1 Mace. ii. 41) to determining that action in self- 
defence was lawful on the Sabbath, initiatory attack 
not. The reservation was, it must be thought, 
nearly as great a misconception of the institution 
as the overruled scruple. Certainly warfare has 
nothing to do with the servile labour or the worldly 
business contemplated in the Fourth Commandment, 
and is, as regards religious observance, a law to 
itself. Yet the scruple, like many other scruples, 
proved a convenience, and under the Roman Empire 
the Jews procured exemption from military service 
by means of it. It was not, however, without its 
evils. In the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey (Joseph. 
Ant, xiv. 4), as well as in the final one by Titus, 
the Romans took advantage of it, and, abstaining 
from attack, prosecuted on the Sabbath, without 
molestation from the enemy, such works as enabled 
them to renew the assault with increased resources. 

So far therefore as we have yet gone, so far as 
the negative side of Sabbatical observance is con 
cerned, it would seem that servile labou*, whether 
that of slaves or of hired servants, and all worldly 
business on the part of masters, was suspended on 
the Sabbath, and the day was a common right to 
rest and be refreshed, possessed by all classes in 
the Hebrew community. It was thus, as we 
have urged, a beneficent institution.* 1 As a sign 
between God and His chosen people, it was also 
a monitor of faith, keeping up a constant wit 
ness, on the ground taken in Gen. ii. 3, and in 
the Fourth Commandment, for the one living and 
personal God whom they worshipped, and for the 
truth, in opposition to all the cosmogonies of the 
heathen, that everything was created by Him. 

We must now quit, the negative for the positive 
side of the institution. 

In the first place, we learn from the Pentateuch 
that the morning and evening sacrifice were both 
doubled on the Sabbath-day, and that the fresh 
shew-bread was then baked, and substituted on the 
Table for that of the previous week. And this 
fet once leads to the observation that the negative 
rules, proscribing work, lighting of fires, &c., did 
not apply to the rites of religion. It became a 
dictum that there was no Sabbath in holy things. 
To this our Saviour appeals when He says that the 



priests in the Temple profane the Sablath aiid are 

Next, it is clear that individual offerings were 
not breaches of the Sabbath ; and from this doubt 
less came the feasts of the rich on that day, which 
were sanctioned, as we have seen, by our Saviour's 
attendance on one such. It was, we may be pretty 
sure, a feast on a sacrifice, and therefore a religious 
act. All around the giver, the poor as well as 
others, were admitted to it. Yet further, " in cases 
of illness, and in any, even the remotest, danger," 
the prohibitions of work were not held to apply. 
The general principle was that " the Sabbath is deli 
ered into your hand, not you into the hand of the 
Sabbath " (comp. Mark ii. 27, 28). 

We have no ground for supposing that anything 
like the didactic institutions of the synagogue formed 
part of the original observance of the Sabbath. Such 
institutions do not come into being while the matter 
to which they relate is itself only in process of 
formation. Expounding the Law presumes the 
completed existence of the Law, and the removal 
of the living lawgiver. The assertion of the Tal 
mud that " Moses ordained to the Israelites that 
they should read the Law on the Sabbath-days, the 
feasts, and the new moons," in itself improbable, is 
utterly unsupported by the Pentateuch. The rise 
of such custom in after times is explicable enough. 
[SYNAGOGUE.] But from an early period, if not, 
as is most probable, from the very institution, 
occupation with holy themes was regarded as an 
essential part of the obsei-vance of the Sabbath. It 
would seem to have been an habitual practice to 
repair to a prophet on that clay, in order, it must 
be presumed, to listen to his teaching (2 K. iv. 23). 
Certain Psalms too, e. g. the 92nd, were composed 
for the Sabbath, and probably used in private as 
well as in ttie Tabernacle. At a later period we 
come upon precepts that on the Sabbath the mind 
should be uplifted to high and holy themes to 
God, His character, His revelations of Himself, Hi? 
mighty works. Still the thoughts with which the 
day was invested were ever thoughts, not of re 
striction, but of freedom and of joy. Such indeed 
would seem, from Neh. viii. 9-12, to have been 
essential to the notion of a holy day. We have 
more than once pointed out that pleasure, as such, 
was never considered by the Jews a breach of the 
Sabbath ; and their practice in this respect is often 
animadverted on by the early Christian Fathers, 
who taunt them with abstaining on that day only 
from what is good and useful, but indulging in 
dancing and luxury. Some of the heathen, indeed, 
such as Tacitus, imagined that the Sabbath was 
kept by them as a fast, a mistake which might 
have arisen from their abstinence from cookery on 
that day, and perhaps, as Heylin conjectures, from 
their postponement of their meals till the more 
solemn services of religion had been performed. 
But there can be no doubt that it was kept as a 
feast, and the phrase luxus Sabbatarius, which we 
find in Sidonius Apollinaris (i. 2), and which has 
been thought a proverbial one, illustrates tie mode 
in which they celebrated it in the early centuries 
of our era. The following is Augustine's descrip 
tion of their practice : " Ecce hodiemus dies Sah 
bati est : hunc in praesenti tempore otio quodL.. 
corporaliter languido et fluxo et luxurioso cehbrant 
Judaei. Vacant enim ad nugas, et cum Deus prae- 

* In this light the Sabbath has found a champion in 
one who would not, we suppose, have paid it much respect 

in its theological character ; we mean no less a person tliau 
M. Prouclhon (/> la Calibration du D-i-nutmdui}. 



ceperil Sabbatum, illi in his quae Deus prohibet I 
exercent Sabbatum. Vacatio nostra a malis operi- 
bus, vacatio illorum a bonis operibus est. Melius 
csi enim arare quam saltare. Illi ab opere bono 
vacant, ab opere nugatorio non vacant " (Aug. 
Enarr. in Psalmos. Ps. xci. : soe too Aug. De 
dccem Chordis, iii. 3 ; Chrysost. Homil I., De 
Lazaro; and other references given by Bingham, 
Eccl. Ant. lib. xs. cap. ii.). And if we take what 
alone is in the Law, we shall find nothing to be 
counted absolutely obligatory but rest, cessation 
from labour. Now, as we have more than once 
had occasion to observe, rest, cessation from labour, 
cannot in the waking moments mean avoidance of 
all action. This, therefore, would be the question 
respecting the scope and purpose of the Sabbath 
which would always demand to be devoutly con 
sidered and intelligently answered what is truly 
rest, what is that cessation from labour which is 
really Sabbatical ? And it is plain that, in appli 
cation and in detail, the answer to this must almost 
indefinitely vary with men's varying circumstances, 
habits, education, and familiar associations. 

We have seen, then, that, for whomsoever else the 
provision was intended, the chosen race were in 
possession of an ordinance, whereby neither a man's 
time nor his property could be considered absolutely 
his own, the seventh of each week being holy to 
God, and dedicated to rest after the pattern of God's 
rest, and giving equal rights to all. We have also 
seen that this provision was the tonic to a chord of 
Sabbatical observance, through which the same great 
principles of God's claim and society's, on every 
man's time and everj man's property, were extended 
and developed. Of the Sabbatical year, indeed, and 
of the year of Jubilee, it may be questioned whether 
they were ever persistently observed, the only indi 
cations that we possess of Hebrew practice respecting 
them being the exemption from tribute during the 
former accorded to the Jews by Alexander, to which 
we have already referred, and one or two others, 
all, however, after the Captivity. [SABBATICAL 

But no doubt exists that the weekly Sabbath was 
always partially, and in the Pharisaic and subsequent 
times very strictly, however mistakenly, observed. 

We have hitherto viewed the Sabbath merely as a 
Mosaic ordinance. It remains to ask whether, first, 
there be indications of its having been previously 
known and observed ; and, secondly, whether it have 
an universal scope and authority over all men. 

The former of these questions is usually ap 
proached with a feeling of its being connected with 
the latter, and perhaps therefore with a bias in 
favour of the view which the questioner thinks will 
support his opinion on the latter. It seems, how 
ever, to us, that we may dismiss any anxiety as to the 
results we may arrive at concerning it. No doubt, 
if we see strong reason for thinking that the Sabbath 
had a prae-Mosaic existence, we see something in it 
that has more than a Mosaic character and scope. 
But it might have had such without having an uni 
versal authority, unless we are prepared to ascribe 
that to the prohibition of eating blood or things 
strangled. And again, it might have originated in 
the Law of Moses, and yet possess an universally 
human scope, and an authority over all men and 
through all time. Whichever way, therefore, the 
second of our questions is to be determined, we may 
easily approach the first without anxiety. 

The first and chief argument of those who 
maintain that the Sabbath was known before Moses, 


is the reference to it in Gen. ii. 2, 3. This is ceo- 
sidered to represent it as co-aeval with man, being 
instituted at the Creation, or at least, as Lightfoot 
views the matter, immediately upon the Fall. This 
latter opinion is so entirely without rational ground 
of any kind that we may dismiss it at once. But 
the whole argument is very precarious. We have 
no materials for ascertaining, or even conjecturing, 
which was put forth first, the record of the Creation, 
or the Fourth Commandment. If the latter, then 
the reference to the Sabbath in the former is abund 
antly natural. Had, indeed, the Hebrew tongue the 
variety of preterite tenses of the Greek, the words 
in Genesis might require careful consideration in 
that regard ; but as the case is, no light can be had 
from grammar ; and on the supposition of these being 
written after the Fourth Commandment, their ab 
sence, or that of any equivalent to them, would be 
really marvellous. 

The next indication of a prae-Mosaic Sabbath has 
been found in Gen. iv. 3, where we read that " in 
process of time it came to pass that Cain brought 
of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." 
The words rendered in process of time mean literally 
" at the end of days," and it is contended that they 
designate a fixed period of days, probably the end 
of a week, the seventh or Sabbath-day. Again, 
the division of time into weeks seems recognised 
in Jacob's courtship of Rachel (Gen. xxix. 27, 28). 
Indeed the large recognition of that division from 
the earliest time is considered a proof that it must 
have had an origin above and independent of local 
and accidental circumstances, and been imposed on 
man at the beginning from above. Its arbitrary 
and factitious character is appealed to in further 
confirmation of this. The saci edness of the seventh 
day among the Egyptians, as recorded by Herodotus, 
and the well-known words of Hesiod respecting it, 
have long been cited among those who adopt this 
view, though neither of them in reality gives it the 
slightest support. Lastly, the opening of the Fourth 
Commandment, the injunction to remember the 
Sabbath-day, is appealed to as proof that that day 
was already known. 

It is easy to see that all this is but a precarious 
foundation on which to build. It is not clear that 
the words in Gen. iv. 3 denote a fixed division of 
time of any sort. Those in Gen. xxix. obviously do, 
but carry us no farther than proving that the week 
was known and recognized by Jacob and Laban ; 
though it, must be admitted that, in the case of time 
so divided, sacred rites would probably be celebrated 
on a fixed and statedly recurring day. The argu 
ment from the prevalence of the weekly division of 
time w6uld require a greater approach to univer 
sality in such practice than the facts exhibit, to make 
it a cogent one. That division was unknown to the 
ancient Greeks and Romans, being adopted by the 
latter people from the Egyptians, as must be inferred 
from the well-known passage of Dion Cassius (xxxvii. 
18, 19), at a period in his own time comparatively 
recent ; while of the Egyptians themselves it is 
thought improbable that they were acquainted with 
such division in early times. The sacred ness of the 
seventh day mentioned by Hesiod, is obviously that 
of the seventh day, not of the week, but of the 
month. And even after the weekly division was 
established, no trace can be found of anything re 
sembling the Hebrew Sabbath. 

While the injunction in the Fourth Commandment 
to remember the Sabbath-day may refer only to its 
previous institution in connexion with ', ho gathering 


ci" mj-nna, or may be but the natural precept to 
Ki ip in mind the rule about to be delivered a phrase 
natural, and continually recurring in the intercourse 
of life, as, for example, between parent and child 
on the other hand, the perplexity of the Israelites 
respecting the double supply of manna on the sixth 
day (Ex. xvi. 22) leads us to infer that the Sabbath 
/or which such extra supply was designed was not 
then known to them. Moreover the language of 
Ezekiel (xx.) seems to designate it as an ordinance 
distinctively Hebrew and Mosaic. 

We cannot then, from the uncertain notices which 
we possess, infer more than that the weekly division 
of time was known to the Israelites and others before 
the Law of Moses. [WEEK.] There is proba 
bility, though not more, in the opinion of Grolius, 
that the seventh day was deemed sacred to reli 
gious observance ; but that the Sabbatical observance 
of it, the cessation from labour, was superinduced 
on it in the wilderness. 

But to come to our second question, it by no 
means follows, that even if the Sabbath were no 
older than Moses, its scope and obligation are limited' 
to Israel, and that itself belongs only to the obsolete 
enactments of the Levitical Law. That law con 
tains two elements, the code of a particular nation, 
and commandments of human and universal cha 
racter. For it must not be forgotten that the 
Hebrew was called out from the world, not to live 
on a narrower but a far wider footing than the 
children of earth ; that he was called out to be the 
true man, bearing witness for the destiny, exhibiting 
the aspect, and realizing the blessedness, of true 
manhood. Hence, we can always see, if we have a 
mind, the difference between such features of his 
Law as are but local and temporary, and such as 
are human and universal. To which class belongs 
the Sabbath, viewed simply in itself, is a question 
which will soon come before us, and one which 
does not appear hard to settle. Meanwhile, we must 
inquire into the case as exhibited by Scripture. 

And here we are at once confronted with the 
fact that the command to keep the Sabbath forms 
part of the Decalogue. And that the* Decalogue 
had a rank and authority above the other enact 
ments of the Law, is plain to the most cursory 
readers of the Old Testament, and is indicated by 
its being written on the two Tables of the Cove 
nant. And though even the Decalogue is affected 
by the New Testament, it is not so in the way 
of repeal or obliteration. It is raised, trans 
figured, glorified there, but itself remains in its 
authority and supremacy. Not to refer just now 
to our Saviour's teaching (Matt. xix. 17-19), of 
which it might be alleged that it was delivered 
when, and to the persons over whom, the Old Law 
was in force such passages as Rom. xiii. 8, 9, and 
Eph. vi. 2, 3, seem decisive of this. In some way, 
therefore, the Fourth Commandment has an au 
thority over, and is to be obeyed by, Chiistians, 
though whether in the letter, or in some large 
spiritual sense and scope, is a question which still 

The phenomena respecting the Sabbath presented 
by the New Testament are, 1st, the frequent re 
ference to it in the four Gospels ; and 2ndly, the 
silence of the Epistles, with the exception of one 
place (Col. ii. 16, 17), where its repeal would seem 
to be asserted, and perhaps one other (Heb. iv. 9). 

1st. The references to it in the four Gospels are, 
it needs not be said, numerous enough. We have 
already seen the high position which it took in the 



minds of the Rabbis, and the strange code of pro 
hibitions which they put forth in connexion with 
it. The consequence of this was, that no part o; 
our Saviour's teaching and practice would seem to 
have been so eagerly and narrowly watched as that 
which related to the Sabbath. He seems even to 
have directed attention to this, thereby intimat 
ing surely that on the one hand the misapprehen 
sion, and on the other the true fulfilment of the 
Sabbath were matters of deepest concern. We have 
already seen the kind of prohibitions against which 
both His teaching and practice were directed ; and 
His two pregnant declarations, " The Sabbath was 
made for man, not man for the Sabbath," and 
" My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," surely 
exhibit to us the Law of the Sabbath as human and 
universal. The former sets it forth as a privilege 
and a blessing, and were we therefore to suppose it 
absent from the provisions of the covenant of grace, 
we must suppose that covenant to have stinted man 
of something that was made for him, something 
that conduces to his well-being. The latter won 
derfully exalts the Sabbath by referring it, even as 
do the record of Creation and the Fourth Command 
ment, to God as its archetype ; and in showing us 
that the repose of God does not exclude work inas 
much as God opens His hand daily and filleth all 
things living with plenteousness show, us that 
the rest of the Sabbath does not exclude action, 
which would be but a death, but only that week 
day action which requires to be wound up in a rest 
that shall be after the pattern of His, who though 
He has rested from all the work that He hath 
made, yet " worketh hitherto." 

2ndly. The Epistles, it must be admitted, with 
the exception of one place, and perhaps another to 
which we have already referred, are silent on the 
subject of the Sabbath. No rules for its observ 
ance are ever given by the Apostles its violation 
is never denounced by them, Sabbath-breakers are 
never included in any list of offenders. Col. ii. 16, 
17, seems a far stronger argument for the abolition 
of the Sabbath in the Christian dispensation than 
is furnished by Heb. iv. 9 for its continuance ; and 
while the first day of the week is more than once 
referred to as one of religious observance, it is never 
identified with the Sabbath, nor are any prohi 
bitions issued in connexion with the former, while 
the omission of the Sabbath from the list of 
"necessary things" to be observed by the Gentiles 
(Acts xv. 29), shows that they were regarded by 
the Apostles as free from obligation in this matter. 

When we turn to the monuments which we 
possess of the early Church, we find ourselves on 
the whole carried in the same direction. The seventh 
day of the week continued, indeed, to be observed, 
being kept as a feast by the greater part of the 
Church, and as a fast from an early period by that 
of Rome, and one or two other Churches of the 
West ; but not as obligatory on Christians in the 
same way as on Jews. The Council of Laodicea 
prohibited all scruple about working on it ; and 
there waa a very general admission among the 
early Fathers that Christians did not Sabbatize in 
the letter. 

Again, the observance of the Lord's Day as a 
Sabbath would have been well nigh impossible to 
the majority of Christians in the first ages. The 
slave of the heathen master, and the child of the 
heathen father, could neither of them have the 
control of his own conduct in such a matter ; while 
the Christian in general would have been at oace 



betrayed and dragged into notice if he was found 
abstaining from labour of every kind, not on the 
seventh but the first day of the week. And yet 
it is clear that many were enabled without blame 
to keep their Christianity long a secret ; nor does 
there seem to have been any obligation to divulge 
it, until heathen interrogation or the order to 
sacrifice dragged it into daylight. 

When the early Fathers speak of the Lord's Day, 
they sometimes, perhaps, by comparing, connect 
it with the Sabbath ; but we have never found a 
passage, previous to the conversion of Constantine, 
prohibitory of any work or occupation on the 
former, and any such, did it exist, would have 
been in a great measure nugatory, for the reasons 
just alleged. [LORD'S DAY.] After Constantine 
things become different at once. His celebrated 
edict prohibitory of judicial proceedings on the 
Lord's Day was probably dictated by a wish to 
give the great Christian festival as much honour 
as was enjoyed by those of the heathen, rather 
than by any reference to the Sabbath or the Fourth 
Commandment; but it was followed by several 
which extended the prohibition to many other occu 
pations, and to many forms of pleasure held inno 
cent on ordinary days. When this became the case, 
the Christian Church, which ever believed the 
Decalogue, in some sense, to be of universal obliga 
tion, could not but feel that she was enabled to 
keep the Fourth Commandment in its letter as well 
as its spirit; that she had not lost the type even 
in possessing the antitype; that the great law of 
week-day work and seventh-day rest, a law so 
generous and so ennobling to humanity at large, 
was still in operation. True, the name Sabbath 
vas always used to denote the seventh, as that 
of the Lord's Day to denote the first, day of the 
week, which latter is nowheie habitually called 
the Sabbath, so far as we are aware, except in 
Scotland and by the English Puritans. But it 
was surely impossible to observe both the Lord's 
Day, as was done by Christians after Constantine, 
and to read the Fourth Commandment, without 
connecting the two ; and, seeing that such was to be 
the practice of the developed Church, we can under 
stand how the silence of the N. T. Epistles, and 
even the strong words of St. Paul (Col. ii. 16, 
17), do not impair the human and universal scope 
of the Fourth Commandment, exhibited so strongly 
in the very nature of the Law, and in the teaching 
respecting it of Him who came not to destroy the 
Law, but to fulfil. 

In the East, indeed, where the seventh day of 
the week was long kept as a festival, that would, 
present itself to men's minds as the Sabbath, and 
the first day of the week would appear rather in 
its distinctively Christian character, and as ot" 
Apostolical and ecclesiastical origin, than in con 
nexion with the Old Law. But in the West the 
seventh day was kept for the most part as a fast, 
and that for a reason merely Christian, viz. in 
commemoration of our Lord's lying in the sepulchre 
throughout that day. Its observance therefore 
would not obscure the aspect of the Lord's Day as 
that of hebdomadal rest and refreshment, and as 
consequently the prolongation of the Sabbath in the 
osseniial character of that benignant ordinance ; 
and, with some variation, therefore, of verbal state 
ment, a connexion between the Fourth Command 
ment and the first day of the week (together, as 
should 1> remembered, with the other festivals of 
the Church), came to be perceiv'd and proclaimed 


Attention has recently been called, in conuezion 
with our subject, to a circumstance which is im 
portant, the adoption by the Roman world of 
the Egyptian week almost contemporaneously 
with the founding of the Christian Church. Dior 
Cassius speaks of that adoption as recent, and 
we are therefore warranted in conjecturing the 
time of Hadrian as about that wherein it must have 
established itself. Here, then, would seem a signal 
Providential preparation for providing the people 
of God with a literal Sabbatismus; for prolonging 
in the Christian kingdom that great institution 
which, whether or not historically older than the 
Mosaic Law, is yet in its essential character adapted 
to all mankind, a witness for a personal Creator 
and Sustainer of the universe, and for His call to 
men to model their work, their time, and their 
lives, on His pattern. 

Were we prepared to embrace an exposition 
which has been given of a remarkable passage 
already referred to (Heb. iv. 8-10), we should 
find it singularly illustrative of the view just 
suggested. The argument of the passage is to 
this effect, that the rest on which Joshua entered, 
and into which he made Israel to enter, cannot be 
the true and final rest, inasmuch as the Psalmist 
long afterwards speaks of the entering into that 
rest as still future and contingent. In ver. 9 we 
have the words "there remaineth, therefore, a rest 
for the people of God." Now it is important that 
throughout the passage the word for rest is Karti- 
iravffis, and that in the words just quoted it is 
changed into (rojSjSaTttr^ds, which certainly means 
the keeping of rest, the act of sabbatizing rather 
than the objective rest itself. It has accordingly 
been suggested that those words are not the author's 
conclusion which is to be found in the form of 
thesis in the declai'ation " we which have believed 
do enter into rest" but a parenthesis to the effect 
that " to the people of God," the Christian com 
munity, there remaineth, there is left, a Sabbat 
izing, the great change that has passed upon them 
and the mighty elevation to which they have been 
brought as on other matters, so as regards the 
Rest of God revealed to them, still leaving scope 
for and justifying the practice. 6 This exposition is 
in keeping with the general scope of the Ep. to 
the Hebrews ; and the passage thus viewed will 
seem to some minds analogous to xiii. 10. It is 
given by Owen, and is elaborated with great in 
genuity by Dr. Wardlaw in his Discourses on the 
Sabbath. It will not be felt fatal to it that more 
than 300 years should have passed before the 
Church at large was in a situation to discover the 
heritage that had been preserved to her, or to 
enter on its enjoyment, when we consider how 
development, in all matters of ritual and ordinance, 
must needs be the law of any living body, and 
much more of one which had to struggle from 
its birth with the impeding forces of a heathen 
empire, frequent persecution, and an unreclaimed 
society. In such case was the early Church, and 
therefore she might well have to wait for a Con 
stantine before she could fully open her eyes to 
the fact that sabbatizing was still left to* her , 
and her members might well be permitted not to 
see the truth in any steady or consistent way 
even then. 

The objections, nowever, to this exposition ait 

According to this exposition the words of ver. 10 
'for he that hath entered, &c." are referred to Christ. 


rujny and great, oae being, that it has occurred 
to so tew among the great commentators who have 
iaboured on the Ep. to the Hebrews. Chrysostom 
(in foe.) denies that there is any reference to 
hebdomadal sabbatizing. Nor have we found any 
commentators, besides the two just named, who 
admit that there is such, with the single exception 
of Ebrard. Dean Alford notices the interpretation 
only to condemn it, while Dr. Hessey gives an 
other, and that the usual explanation of the verse, 
suggesting a sufficient reason tor the change of word 
from Kara-Trawls to ffafifiaTiff/j.6s. It would not 
have been right, however, to have passed it over 
in this article without notice, as it relates to a 
passage of Scripture in which Sabbath and Sabba 
tical ideas are markedly brought forward. 

It would be going beyond the scope of this 
article to trace the history of opinion on the Sab 
bath in the Christian Church. Dr. Hessey, in his 
Barnpton Lectures, has sketched and distinguished 
every variety of doctrine which has been or still is 
maintained on the subject. 

The sentiments and practice of the Jews sub 
sequent to our Saviour's time have been already 
referred to. A curious account taken from Bux- 
torf, De Synag. of their superstitions, scruples, 
and prohibitions, will be found at the close of the 
first part of Heylin's Hist, of the Sabbath. Cal- 
met, (art. "Sabbath "), gives an interesting sketch 
of their family practices at the beginning and end 
of the day. And the estimate of the Sabbath, 
its uses, and its blessings, which is formed by the 
more spiritually minded Jews of the present day 
may be inferred from some striking remarks of 
Dr. Kalisch (Comm. on Exodus), p. 273, who 
winds up with quoting a beautiful passage from 
the late Mrs. Horatio Montefiore's work, A Few 
'Words to the Jews. 

Finally, M. Proudhon's striking pamphlet, De 
la Celebration da Dimanche consideree sous les 
rapports de V Hygiene publique, de la Morale, des 
relatiom de Famille et de Cite, Paris, 1850, may 
be studied with great advantage. His remarks 
(p. 67) on the advantages of the precise propor 
tion established, six days of work to one of rest, 
and the inconvenience of any other that could be 
arranged, are well worth attention. 

The word Sabbath seems sometimes to denote a 
week in the N. T. Hence, by the Hebrew usage of 
reckoning time by cardinal numbers, eV rfj /xj rwv 
<ra/3oTj/, means on the first day of the week. 
The Rabbis have the same phraseology, keeping, 
however, the word Sabbath in the singular. 

On the phrase of St. Luke, vi. 1, eV rcf (rapfidTcp 
SfvTfpoirpwTci), see SABBATICAL YEAR. 

This article should be read in connexion with that 
on the LORD'S DAY. 

Literature : Critici Sacri, on Exod. ; Heylin's 
Hist, of the Sabbath ; Selden, De Jure Natur. 
et Gent. ; Buxtorf, De Synag. ; Barrow, Expos, 
of the Decalogue; Paley, Moral and Political 
Philosophy, v. 7 ; James, On the Sacraments and 
Sabbath', Whately's Thowjhts on the Sabbath; 
Wardlaw, On the Sabbath ; Maurice, On the Sab 
bath; Michaelis, Laws of Moses, . arts, cxciv. yi., 
ckviii. ; Oehler, in Herzog's lieal-Encycl. " Sab 
bath ;" Winer, Realwdrterbuch, "Sabbath;" Bahr, 
Symbolik des Mos. Cult. vol. ii. bk. iv. eh. 11, 2 ; 
Kalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary on 
0. T. in Exod. XX. ; Proudhon, De la Celebration 
du Dimanche ; and especially Dr. Hessey's Sunday ; 
tke Bampton Lecture for 18uO. ("F. G.] 

VOL. Tir. 


&86s, Acts i. 12). On occasion of a violation 01 
the commandment by certain of the people who 
went to look for manna on the seventh day, 
Moses enjoined every man to " abide in his 
place," and forbade any man to " go out of his 
place" on that day (Ex. xvi. 29). It seems 
natural to look on this as a mere enactment 
pro re natd, and having no bearing 011 any state 
of affairs subsequent to the journey through the 
wilderness and the daily gathering of manna. 
Whether the earlier Hebrews did or did not regard 
it thus, it is not easy to say. Nevertheless, the 
natural inference from 2 K. iv. 23 is against thft 
supposition of such a prohibition being known to 
the spokesman, Elisha almost certainly living as 
may be seen from the whole narrative much 
more than a Sabbath Day's Journey from Shuneni. 
Heylin infers from the incidents of David's flight 
from Saul, and Elijah's from Jezebel, that neither 
felt bound by such a limitation. Their situation, 
however, being one of extremity, cannot be safelj 
argued from. In after times the precept in Ex. 
xvi. was undoubtedly viewed as a peimanent law. 
But as some departure from a man's own place 
was unavoidable, it was thought necessary to de 
termine the allowable amount, which was fixed at 
2000 paces, or about six furlongs, from the wall of 
the city. 

Though such an enactment may have proceeded 
from an erroneous view of Ex. xvi. 29, it is by 
no means so superstitious and unworthy on the 
face of it as are most of the Rabbinical rules and 
prohibitions respecting the Sabbath Day. In the 
case of a general law, like that of the Sabbath, 
some authority must settle the application in 
details, and such an authority " the Scribes and 
Pharisees sitting in Moses' seat" were entitled to 
exercise. It is plain that the limits of the Sab 
bath Day's Journey must have been a great check 
on the profanation of the day in a country where 
business was entirely agricultural or pastoral, and 
must have secured to " the ox and the ass " the 
rest to which by the Law they were entitled. 

Our Saviour seems to refer to this Law in 
warning the disciples to pray that their flight from 
Jerusalem in the time of its judgment should not 
be "on the Sabbath Day" (Matt. xxiv. 20). The 
Christians of Jerusalem would not, as in the case 
of Gentiles, feel free from the restrictions on jour 
neying on that day ; nor would their situation en 
able them to comply with the foims whereby such 
journeying when necessary was sanctified ; nor would 
assistance from those around be procurable. 

The permitted distance seems to have be':n 
grounded on the space to be kept between the 
Ark and the people (Josh. iii. 4) in the wilderness, 
which tradition said was that between the Ark and 
the tents. To repair to the Ark being, of course, 
a duty on the Sabbath, the walking to it was no 
violation of the day ; and it thus was taken as the 
measure of a lawful Sabbath Day's Journey. We 
find the same distance given as the circumference 
outside the walls of the Levitical cities to be 
counted as their suburbs (Num. xxxv. 5). The 
terminus a quo was thus not a man's own house, 
but the wall of the city where he dwelt, and thus 
the amount of .'awful Sabbath Day's journeying 
must therefore have varied greatly the movements 
of a Jew in one of the small cities of his own land 
being restricted indeed when compared with those 
of a Jew in Alexandria, Antioch or Rome. 

3 Z 



When a mnn was obliged to go farthei man a 
Sal/bath Day's Journey, on some good and allow 
able ground, it was incumbent on him on the 
evening before to furnish himself with food enough 
tor two meals. He was to sit down and eat at the 
appointed distance, to bury what he had left, and 
utter a thanksgiving to God for the appointed 
boundary. Next morning he was at liberty to 
make this point his terminus a quo. 

The Jewish scruple to go more than 2000 paces 
from his city on the Sabbath is referred to by 
OrSgen, irepl dpxwj', iv. 2 ; by Jerome, ad Alga- 
siam, quaest. 10 ; and by Oecumenius with some 
apparent difference between them as to the measure 
ment. Jerome gives Akiba, Simeon, and Hillel, as 
the authorities for the lawful distance. [F. G.] 

SABBATHE'US CSaftftaraios : Sabbathaeus). 
SHABBETHAI the Levite (1 Esd. ix. 14 ; comp. Ezr. 
x. 15). 

SABBATICAL YEAR. As each seventh day 
and each seventh month were holy, so was each 
seventh year, by the Mosaic code. We first en 
counter this law in Ex. xxiii. 10, 11, given in 
words corresponding to those of the Fourth Com 
mandment, and followed (ver. 12) by the re-en 
forcement of that commandment. It is impossible to 
read the passage and not feel that the Sabbath Day 
and the Sabbatical year are parts of one general law. 

The commandment is, to sow and reap for six 
years, and to let the land rest on the seventh, 
" that the poor of thy people may eat ; and what 
they leave the beasts of the field shall eat." It is 
added, " In like manner thou shalt deal with thy 
vineyard and thy oliveyard." 

We next meet with the enactment in lev. xxv. 
2-7, and finally in Deut. xv., in which last place 
the new feature presents itself of the seventh year 
being one of release to debtors. 

When v, r e combine these several notices, we find 
that every seventh year the land was to hav 
rest to enjoy her Sabbaths. Neither tillage noi 
cultivation of any sort was to be practised. Th 
spontaneous growth of the soil was not to be reaped 

by the 

'vhose rights of property were in 

abeyance. All were to have their share in the glean 
ings : the poor, the stranger, and even the cattle. 

This singular institution has the aspect, at first 
sight, of total impracticability. This, however 
wears off when we consider that in no year was 
the owner allowed to reap the whole harvest (Lev 
xix. 9, xxiii. 22). Unless, therefore, the remaindei 
was gleaned veiy carefully, there may easily have 
been enough left to ensure such spontaneous deposi 
of seed as in the fertile soil of Syria would produce 
some amount of crop in the succeeding year, whil 
the vines and olives would of course yield their 
fruit of themselves. Moreover, it is clear that the 
owners of land were to lay by corn in previous years 
for their own and their families' wants. This is 
the unavoidable inference from Lev. xxv. 20-22. 
And though the right of property was in abeyance 
during the Sabbatical year, it has been suggested 

that this only a 

to the fields, and not to the 


paid ; and it has been questioned whether the re- 
ease of the seventh year was final or merely lasted 
,hrough the year. This law was virtually abro 
gated in kter times by the well-known prosbol*- of 
;he great Hillel, a permission to the judges to 
illow a creditor to enforce his claim whenever he 
required to do so. The formula is given in the 
Mishna (Sheviith, 10, 4). 

The release of debtors during the Sabbatical year 
must not be confounded with the release of slaves 
on the seventh year of their service. The two are 
bviously distinct the one occurring at one fixed 
time for all, while the other must have varied with 
various families, and with various slaves. 

The spirit of this law is the same as that of the 
weekly Sabbath. Both have a beneficent ten 
dency, limiting the rights and checking the sense of 
property; the one puts in God's claims on time, the 
other on the land. The land shall " keep a Sabbath 
unto the Lord." " The land is mine." 

There may also have been, as Kalisch conjectures, 
an eye to the benefit which would accrue to the 
land from lying fallow every seventh year, in a 
time when the rotation of crops was unknown. 

The Sabbatical year opened in the Sabbatical 
month, and the whole Law was to be read every 
such year, during the Feast of Tabernacles, to the 
assembled people. It was thus, like the weekly 
Sabbath, no mere negative rest, but was to be 
marked by high and holy occupation, and connected 
with sacred reflection and sentiment. 

At the completion of a week of Sabbatical years, 
the Sabbatical scale received its completion in tne 
year of Jubilee. For the question whethei that 
was identical with the seventh Sabbatical year, ox- 
was that which succeeded it, i. e. whether th*> yeai 
of Jubilee fell every forty-ninth or every fiftieth 
year, see JUBILEE, YEAR OF. 

The next question that presents itself regarding 
the Sabbatical year relates to the time when its 
observance became obligatory. It has been inferred 
from Leviticus xxv. 2, " When ye come into tne 
land which I give you, then shall the land keep a 
Sabbath unto the Lord," that it was to be held by 
the people on the first year of their occupation of 
Canaan ; but this mere 'literalism gives a result in 
contradiction to the words which immediately fol 
low : " Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six 
years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in 
the fruit thereof; but in the seventh year shall be 
a Sabbath of rest unto the land." It is more rea 
sonable to suppose, with the best Jewish authori 
ties, that the law became obligatory fourteen years 
after the first entrance into the Promised Land, the 
conquest of which took seven years and the distribu 
tion seven more. 

A further question arises. At whatever period 
the obedience to this law ought to have commenced, 
was it in point of fact obeyed? This is an inqairy 
which reaches to more of the Mosaic statutes than 
the one now before us. It is, we apprehend, rare 
to see the whole of a code in full operation ; and 
the phenomena of Jewish history previous to the 
Cantivitv present us with no such spectacle. In the 

gardens attached to houses. 

The claiming of debts was unlawful during this 
year, as we learn from Deut. xv. The exceptions 
laid down are in the case of a foreigner, and that of 
there being no poor in the land. This latter, how 
ever, it is straightway said, is what will never 
happen. But though debts might not be claimed, 
it is not said that they might not be voluntarily 

Captivity present us 

threatenings contained in Lev. xxvi., judgments on 
the violation of the Sabbatical year are particu 
larly contemplated (vers. 33, 34) ; and that it was 
greatly if not quite neglected appears from 2 Chron. 

'this and other curious speculations on the etymology of tM 
word see Buxtorf. lex. Tblmud. 1807 


xxxvi. 20, 21 : " Tliem that escaped from the sword 
carried he away to Babylon; where they were 
servants to him and his sons until the reign of the 
kingdom of Persia: to fulfil the word of the Lord 
by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had en 
joyed her Sabbaths ; for as long as she lay desolate 
she kept Sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years." 
Some of the Jewish commentators have inferred 
from this that their forefathers had neglected exactly 
seventy Sabbatical years. If such neglect was con 
tinuous, the law must have been disobeyed througn- 
out a period of 490 years, i. e. through nearly the 
whole duration of the monarchy ; and as there is 
nothing in the previous history leading to the in 
ference that the people vveve more scrupulous then, 
we must look to the return from captivity for indi 
cations of the Sabbatical year being actually ob 
served. Then we know the former neglect was re 
placed by a punctilious attention to the Law ; and as 
its leading feature, the Sabbath, began to be scrupu 
lously reverenced, so we now find traces of a like 
observance of the Sabbatical year. We read (1 Mace, 
vi. 49) that " they came out of the city, because 
they had no victuals there to endure the siege, it 
being a year of rest to the land." Alexander the 
Great is said to have exempted the Jews from tri 
bute during it, since it was unlawful for them to 
sow seed or reap harvest then ; so, too, did Julius 
Caesar (Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10, 6). Tacitus (Hist. 
lib. v. 2, 4), having mentioned the observance of 
the Sabbath by the Jews, adds : " Dein blan- 
dienti inertia septimum quoque annum ignaviae 
datum." And St. Paul, in reproaching the Ga- 
latians with their Jewish tendencies, taxes them 
with observing years as well as days and months 
aud times (Gal. iv. 10), from which we must infer 
tn;>t the teachers who communicated to them those 
tendencies did more or less the like themselves. 
Another allusion in the N. T. to the Sabbatical year 
is perhaps to be found in the phrase, eV (rapfidTtf) 
SevrepoTrpcaTca (Luke vi. 1). Various explanations 
have been given of the term, but one of the most 
probable is that it denotes the first Sabbath of 
the second year in the cycle (Wieseler, quoted by 
Alford, vol. i.). ~* [F. G.] 

SABBE'US (2aj8j8afas ; Alex. SajSjScuo* : Sa- 
meas), I Esdr. ix. 32. [SHEMAIAH, 14.] 

SA'BI(2aeiV; Alex.Satfnj: Sabathen). "The 
children of Pochereth of Zebaim " appear in 1 Esd. 
v. 34 as " the sons of Phacareth, the sons of Sabi." 

SAB'TAH (nraD, in 21 MSS. KrQP, Gen. 
x. 7 ; MJ3D, 1 Chr.'i. 9, A. V. SABTA : 2aaT0a : 
Sabatha}. The third in order of the sons of Gush. 
In accordance with the identifications of the settle 
ments of the Cushites in the article ARABIA and 
elsewhere, Sabtah should be looked for along the 
southern coast of Arabia. The writer has found no 
traces in Arab writers ; but the statements of Pliny 
(vi. 32, 155, xii. 32), Ptolemy (vi. 7, p. 411), and 
Anon. Peripl. (27), respecting Sabbatha, Sabota, or 
Sobotale, metropolis of the Atramitae (probably the 
Chatramotitae), seem to point to a 'trace of the 
tribe which descended from Sabtah, always sup 
posing that this city Sabbatha was not a corrup 
tion or dialectic variation of Saba, Sebn, or Sheba. 
Tiiis point wfill be discussed under SHEBA. It is 
oaly necessary to remark here that the indications 
afforded by the breeh. and Roman writers of Arabian 
geography require very cautious handling, pre- 



senting, as they do, a mass of contradictions and 
transparent travellers' tales respecting the unknown 
regions of Arabia the Happy, Arabia Thurifera, &c. 
Ptolemy places Sabbatha in 77 long. 16 30' lat. 
It was an important city, containing no less than 
sixty temples (Pliny, N. H. vi. c. xxiii. 32" ; it was 
also situate in the territory of king Elisarus, or 
Eleazus (comp. Anon. Peripl. ap. M tiller, Geoij. 
Min. 278-9), supposed by Fresuel to be identical 
with " Ascharides," or " Alascharissoun," in Arabic 
(Joum. Asiat. Nouv. Serie, x. 191). Winer thinks 
the identification of Sabtah with Sabbatha, &c., to 
be probable; and it is accepted by Bunsen (Bibel- 
werk, Gen. x. and Atlas'). It certainly occupies a 
position in which we should expect to find traces of 
Sabtah, where are traces of Cushite tribes in very 
early times, on their way, as we hold, from their 
earlier colonies in Ethiopia to the Euphrates. 

Gesenius, who sees in Gush only Ethiopia, " has 
no doubt that Sabtah should be compared with 
2a(fr, 2aj8a, Saa (see Strab. xvi. p. 770, 
Casaub. ; Ptol. iv. 10), on the shore of the Arabian 
Gulf, situated just where Arkiko is now. in the neigh 
bourhood of which the Ptolemies hunted elephants. 
Amongst the ancient, translators, Pseudojonathan 
saw the true meaning, rendering it *N1DD, for 
which read '&ODD, i. e. the Sembritae, whom 
Strabo (loc. cit. p. 786) places in the same region. 
Joseph us (Ant. i. 6, 1) understands it to be the 
inhabitants of Astabora " (Gesenius, ed. Tregelles, 
s. v.}. Here the etymology of Sabtah is compared 
plausibly with 2oj8aT ; but when probability is 
against his being found in Ethiopia, etymology 
is of small value, especially when it is remem 
bered that Sabat and its variations (Sabax, Sabai) 
may be related to Seba, which certainly vte in 
Ethiopia. On the Rabbinical authorities winch 
he quotes we place no value. It only lemams 
to add that IMichuelis (Suppl. p. 1712) removes 
Sabtah to Ceuta opposite Gibraltar, called in Arabic 
-o - 

Sebtah, XxJUw (comp. Marasid, s. u.) ; and that 

Bochart (Phaleg, i. 114, 115, 252, seqq.}, while 
he mentions Sabbatha, prefers to place Sabtah near 
the western shore of the Persian Gulf, with the 
Saphtha of Ptolemy, the name also of an island in 
that gulf. [E. S. P.] 

SAB'TECHA, and SAB'TECHAH (fcOfinp = 
2aj8a0a/fct, 2ej8e0ax< : Sabatacka, Sabath'acha, 
Gen. x. 7, 1 Chr. i. 9). The fifth in order of the 
sons of Gush, whose settlements would puobably be 
near the Persian Gulf, where are those of Raamah, 
the next before him in the order of the Cushites. 
[RAAMAH, DEDAN, SHEBA.] He has not been iden 
tified with any Arabic place or district, nor satis 
factorily with any name given by classical writers. 
Bochart (who is followed by Bunsen, Bibelw., Gen. 
x. and Atlas] argues that he should be placed in Car 
mania, on the Persian shore of the gulf, comparing 
Sabtechah with the city of Samydace of Steph. By 2 
(2a/u5ci/cT? or 2a/iuKoS7) of Ptol. vi. 8, 7). This ety 
mology appears to be very far-fetched. Gesenius 
merely says that Sabtechah is the proper name of a 
district of Ethiopia, and adds the reading of the Targ. 
Pseudojonathan (fcUJT, Zingitani}. [E. S. PJ 

SA'CAE ("W: 'A x dp ; Alex. 2a%^: Sachar). 
1. A Hararite, father of Ahiam, one of David's 
mighty men (1 Chr. xi. 35). In 2 Sam. xxiii. 33 
he is called SHARAR, but Kennicott regaids Sa;-a: 
i\s the correct reading. 

3 Z 2 



2. (2axdp.) The fourth son of Obed-edom (1 
Chr. xx vi. 4). 

8ACKBUT (JO^D, Dan. iii. 5 ; ND3b, Dan. 
Hi. 7, 10, 15: <ra/j.lSvKi/i : sambuca). The rendering 
in the A. V. of the Chaldee sabbeca. If this mu 
sical instrument- be the same as the Greek (ra/xjS 
Mini Latin sambuca f the English translation is en 
tirely wrong. The sackbut was a wind-instrument ; 
the sambuca was played with strings. Mr. Chappell 
says {Pop. Mus. i. 35), " The sackbut was a bass 
trumpet with a slide, like the modern trombone.' 
It had a deep note according to Drayton (Polyolbion, 
iv. 365) : 

" The hoboy, sagbut deep, recorder, and the flute." 

The sambuca was a triangular instrument with 
four or more strings played with the ringers. Ac 
cording to Athenaeus (xiv. 633), Masurius described 
it as having a shrill tone ; and Euphorion, in his 
book on the Isthmian Games, said that it was used 
by the Parthians and Troglodytes, and had four 
strings. Its invention is attributed to one Sambyx, 
and to Sibylla its first use (Athen. xiv. 637). Juba, 
in the 4th book of his Theatrical History, says it 
was discovered in Syria, but Neanthes of Cyzicum, 
in the first book of the Hours, assigns it to the poet 
Ibycus of Rhegium (Athen. iv. 77). This last tra 
dition is followed by Suidas, who describes the sam 
buca as a kind of triangular harp. That it was a 
foreign instrument is clear from the statement of 
Strabo (x. 471), who says its name is barbarous. 
Isidore of Seville (Orig. iii. 20) appears to regard 
it as a wind instrument, for he connects it with the 
sambucus, or elder, a kind of light wood of which 
pipes were made. 

The sambuca was early known at Rome, for 
Plautus (Stick, ii. 2, 57) mentions the women who 
played it (sambucae, or sambucistriae, as they are 
called in Livy, xxxix. 6). It was a favourite among 
the Greeks (Polyb. v. 37), and the Rhodian women 
appear to have been celebrated for their skill on 
this instrument (Athen. iv. 129). 

There was an engine called sambuca used in 
siege operations, which derived its name from the 
musical instrument, because, according to Athenaeus 
(xiv. 634), when raised it had the form of a ship 
and a ladder combined in one. [W. A. W.] 

SACKCLOTH (pb : <rd K Kos : saccws). A 
course texture, of a dark colour, made of gnats' 
hair (Is. 1. 3; Rev. vi. 12), and resembling the 
cilicium of the Romans. It was used (1.) for 
making sacks, the same word describing both the 
material and the article (Gen. xlii. 25; Lev. xi. 
32 ; Josh. ix. 4) ; and (2.) for making the rough 
garments used by mourners, which were in extreme 
cases worn next the skin (1 K. xxi. 27; 2 K. vi. 
30; Job xvi. 15; Is. xxxh. 11), and this even by 
females (Joel i. 8 ; 2 Mace. iii. 19), but at other 
times were worn over the coat or cethoneth (Jon. 
iii. 6) m lieu of the outer garment. The robe pro 
bably resembled a sack in shape, and fitted close to 
the person, as we may infer from the application of 
the term chdgar^ to the process of putting it on 
(2 Sam. iii. 31 ; Ez. vii. 18, &c.). It was con 
fined by a girdle of similar material (Is. iii. 24). 
Sometimes it was worn throughout the night (1 K. 
xxi. 27). [W. L. B.] 

a Compare ambulaia, from Syr. &O-13N, abMba, a 
fluto, where the m occupies the place of the dagesh. 

b -on. 


SACRIFICE. The peculiar features of each 
kind of sacrifice are referred to under their re 
spective heads ; the object of this article will be : 

I. To examine the meaning and derivation ol 
the various words used to denote sacrifice in Scrip 

II. To examine the historical development ci 
sacrifice in the Old Testament. 

III. To sketch briefly the theory of sacrifice, as 
it is set forth both in the Old and New Testaments, 
with especial reference to the Atonement of Christ. 

I. Of all the words used in reference to sacri 
fice, the most general appear to be 

(a.) nnjft, minchah, from the obsolete root 
WE, "to give;" used in Gen. xxxii. 13, 20, 21, ol 

a gift from Jacob to Esau (LXX. S&pov) ; in * 
Sam. viii. 2, 6 (i/ia), in 1 K. iv. 21 (Swpa), 
in 2 K. xvii. 4 (/j.avad), of a tribute from a vassal 
king; in Gen. iv. 3, 5, of a sacrifice generally 
(SQpov and Ovcria, indifferently); and in Lev. ii. 
1, 4, 5, 6, joined with the word korban, of an 
unbloody sacrifice, or "meat-offering" (generally 
Swpov QvcricC). Its derivation and usage point to 
that idea of sacrifice, which represents it as an Eu- 
chanstic gift to God our King. 

'&.) J2"]P, korban, derived from the root ^p. 

" to approach," or (in Hiphil) to " make to ap 
proach ;" used with minchah in Lev. ii. 1, 4, 5, 6, 
(LXX. Suipoif 6v<ria\ generally rendered Swpov 
(see Mark vii. 1 1 , Kopfiav, '6 e<m Sfapov ) or irpoff- 
(p6pa. The idea of a gift hardly seems inherent in 
the root ; which rather points to sacrifice, as a 
symbol of communion or covenant between God 
and man. 

(c.) !"Qt, zebach, derived from the root HUT, to 
" slaughter animals," especially to " siay in sacri 
fice," refers emphatically to a bloody sacrifice, one 
in which the shedding of blood is the essential 
idea. Thus it is opposed to minchah, in Ps. xl. 6 
(dvffiav Kal irpo(r<popdv}, and to olah (the whole 
burnt-offering) in Ex. x. 25, xviii. 12, &c. With it 
the expiatory idea of sacrifice is naturally connected. 

Distinct from these general terms, and often 
appended to them, are the words denoting special 
kinds of sacrifice : 

(d.} rb'iy, olah (generally oAo/coureofca), the 
" whole burnt-offering." 

(e.) -D7t?, shelem (9v<ria ffwripiov), used fre 
quently with |"QT, and sometimes called J2"]p, the 

peace-" or " thank-offering." 

(/.) riKBn, chattdth (generally -jrepl o/ioprfas), 
the " sin-offering." 

(<jf.) DG^N, dshdm (generally TrAr^eXeu:) the 
" trespass-o tiering." 

For the examination of the derivation and mean- 
ng of these, see each under its own head. 


In tracing the history of sacrifice, from its first 
Beginning to its perfect development in the Mosaic 
ritual, we are at once met by the long-disputed 
question, as to the origin of sacrifice ; whether it 
arose from a natural instinct of man, sanctioned 
and guided by God, or whether it was the subject 
of some distinct primeval revelation. 

It is a question, the importance of which has 
probably been exaggerated. There can be no doubt, 


{hat sacrifice was sanctioned by God's Law, with a 
special typical reference to the Atonement of Christ; 
its universal prevalence, independent of, and often 
opposed to, man's natural reasonings on his relation 
to God, shows it to have been primeval, and deeply 
rooted in the instincts of humanity. Whether it was 
first enjoined by an external command, or whether 
it was based on that sense of sin and lost communion 
with God, which is stamped by His hand on the 
heart of man is a historical question, perhaps inso 
luble, probably one which cannot be treated at all, 
except in connexion with some general theory of the 
method of primeval revelation, but certainly one, 
which does not affect the authority and the meaning 
of the rite itself. 

The great difficulty in the theory, which refers 
it to a distinct command of God, is the total silence 
of Holy Scripture a silence the more remarkable, 
when contrasted with the distinct reference made in 
Gen. ii. to the origin of the Sabbath. Sacrifice when 
first mentioned, in the case of Cain and Abel, is re 
ferred to as a thing of course ; it is said to have 
been brought by men ; there is no hint of any com 
mand given by God. This consideration, the strength 
of which no ingenuity* has been able to impair, 
although it does not actually disprove the formal 
revelation of sacrifice, yet at least forbids the asser 
tion of it, as of a positive and important doctrine. 

Nor is the fact of the mysterious and super 
natural character of the doctrine of Atonement, with 
which the sacrifices of the 0. T. are expressly con 
nected, any conclusive argument on this side of the 
question. All allow that the eucharistic and depre 
catory ideas of sacrifice are perfectly natural to 
man. The higher view of its expiatory character, 
dependent, as it is, entirely on its typical nature, 
appears but gradually in Scripture. It is veiled under 
other ideas in the case of the patriarchal sacrifices. 
It is first distinctly mentioned in the Law (Lev. 
xvii. 11, &c.) ; but even then the theory of the sin- 
offering, and of the classes of sins to which it 
referred, is allowed to be obscure and difficult ; it 
is only in the N. T. (especially in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews) that its nature is clearly unfolded. It is 
as likely that it pleased God gradually to superadd 
the higher idea to an institution, derived by man 
from the lower ideas (which must eventually find 
their justification in the higher), as that He ori 
ginally commanded the institution when the time 
for the revelation of its full meaning was not yet 
come. The rainbow was just as truly the symbol 
of God's new promise in Gen. ix. 13-17, whether it 
had or had not existed, as a natural phenomenon 
before the Flood. What God sets His seal to, He 
makes a part of His revelation, whatever its origin 
may be. It is to be noticed (see Warburton's Div. 
Ley. ix. c. 2) that, except in Gen. xv. 9, the method 
of patriarchal sacrifice is left free, without any 
direction on the part of God, while in all the 
Mosaic ritual the limitation and regulation of sacri 
fice, as to time, place, and material, is a most pro 
minent feature, on which much of its distinction 
from heathen sacrifice depended. The inference is 

a See, for example (as In Faber's Origin of Sacrifice), 
the elaborate reasoning on the translation of nKtSH 

In Gen. Iv. 7. Even supposing the version, a " sin- 
offering coucheth at the door" to be correct, on the 
ground of general usage of the word, of the curious version 
of the LXX-, and of the remarkable grammatical con 
struction of the masculine participle, with the feminine 
noun (us referring to the fact that the sin-offering \vu8 

SACRIFICE 107 1 ! 

at least probable, that when God sanctioned formally 
a natural rite, then, and not till then, did He define 
its method. 

The question, therefore, of the origin of sacrifice 
is best left in the silence, with which Scripture sur 
rounds it. 


In examining the various sacrifices, recorded in 
Scripture before the establishment of the Law, we 
find that the words specially denoting expiatory 
sacrifice (nb?t2PI and D'tf) are not applied to 
them. This fact does not at all show, that they 
were not actually expiatory, nor even that the 
offerers had not that idea of expiation, which must 
have been vaguely felt in all sacrifices; but it jus 
tifies the inference, that this idea was not then the 
prominent one in the doctrine of sacrifice. 

The sacrifice of Cain and Abel is called minchah, 
although in the case of the latter it was a bloody 
sacrifice. (So in Heb. xi. 4 the word 6v<ria is 
explained by the rols Scbpois below.) In the case 
of both it would appear to have been eucharistic, 
and the distinction between the offerers to have 
lain in their " faith " (Heb. xi. 4). Whether that 
faith of Abel referred to the promise of the Redeemer, 
and was connected with any idea of the typical 
meaning of sacrifice, or whether it was a simple 
and humble faith in the unseen God, as the giver 
and promiser of all good, we are not authorised by 
Scripture to decide. 

The sacrifice of Noah after the Flood (Gen. viii. 
20) is called burnt-offering (dlah\ This sacrifice 
is expressly connected with the institution of the 
Covenant which follows in ix. 8-17. Th? s?rne 
ratification of a covenant is seen in the defined 
offering of Abraham, especially enjoined and burnt- 
by God in Gen. xv. 9 ; and is probably to be traced 
in the " building of altars " by Abraham on entering 
Canaan at Bethel (Gen. xii. 7, 8) and Mamre (xiii. 
18), by Isaac at Beersheba (xxvi. 25), and by Jacob 
at Shechem (xxxiii. 20), and in Jacob's setting up 
and anointing of the pillar at Bethel (xxviii. 18, 
xxxv. 14). The sacrifice (zebach) of Jacob at Mizpah 
also marks a covenant with Laban, to which God 
is called to be a witness and a party. In all these, 
therefore, the prominent idea seems to have been 
what is called the federative, the recognition of a 
bond between the sacrifice!' and God, and the dedi 
cation of himself, as represented by the victim, to 
the service of the Lord. 

The sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. xxii. 1-13) stands by 
itself, as the sole instance in which the idea of human 
sacrifice was even for a moment, and as a trial, 
coi Jitenanced by God. Yet in its principle it ap 
pears to have been of the same nature as before : 
the voluntary surrender of an only son on Abraham's 
part, and the willing dedication of himself on Isaac's, 
are in the foreground ; the expiatory idea, if recog 
nised at all, holds certainly a secondary position. 

In the -burnt-offerings of Job for his children 
(Job i. 5) and for his three friends (xlii. 8), we, 
for the first time, find the expression of the desire 

actually a male), still it does not settle the matter. The 
Lord even then speaks of sacrifice as existing, and as 
known to exist: He does not institute it The sup 
position that the " skins of beasts" in Gen. iii. 21 were 
skins of animals sacrificed by God's command is a pure 
assumption. The argument on Heb. xi. 4, that faith can 
rest only on a distinct Divine command as to the special 
occasion of its exercise, is contradicted by the general 
definition of it given in v. 1. 


of expiation for sin, accompanied by repentnnce and 
prayer, and brought prominently forward. The 
same is the case in the words of Moses to Pharaoh, 
as to the necessity of sacrifice in the wilderness 
(Ex. x. 25), where sacrifice (zebach} is distinguished 
from burnt-offering. Here the main idea is at least 
daprecatory ; the object is to appease the wrath, and 
avert the vengeance of God. 

These are inaugurated by the offering of the 
PASSOVER and the sacrifice of Ex. xxiv. The 
Passover indeed is unique in its character, and 
seems to embrace the peculiarities of all the various 
divisions of sacrifice soon to be established. Its 
ceremonial, however, most nearly resembles that of 
the sin offering in the emphatic use of the blood, 
which (after the first celebration) was poured at the 
bottom of the altar (see Lev. iv. 7), and in the care 
taken that none of the flesh should remain till the 
morning (see Ex. xii. 10, xxxiv. 25). It was unlike 
it in that the flesh was to be eaten by all (not burnt, 
or eaten by the priests alone), in token of their 
entering into covenant with God, and eating " at 
His table," as in the case of a peace-offering. Its 
peculiar position as a historical memorial, and its 
special reference to the future, naturally mark it 
out as incapable of being referred to any formal class 
of sacrifice ; but it is clear that the idea of sal 
vation from death by means of sacrifice is brought 
out in it with a distinctness before unknown. 

The sacrifice of Ex. xxiv., offered as a solemn in 
auguration of the Covenant of Sinai, has a similarly 
comprehensive character. It is called a "burnt- 
ollering " and "peace-offering" in v. 5; but the 
solemn use of the blood (comp. Heb. ix. 18-22) 
distinctly marks the idea that expiatory sacrifice 
was needed for entering into covenant with God, 
the idea of which the sin- and trespass-offerings 
were afterwards the symbols. 

The Law of Leviticus now unfolds distinctly the 
Carious forms of sacrifice : 

(a.) The burnt-offering. SELF-DEDICATORY. 

(b.} The meat-offering (unbloody} l Fuc , IAR]CTIC 
The peace-offering (bloody} / M 

(c.) The sin-offering EXPIATORY 
The trespass-offering^ 

fo these may be added, 

(d.} The incense offered after sacrifice in the 
t'foly Place, and (on the Day of Atonement) in the 
Holy of Holies, the symbol of the intercession of th 
priest (as a type of the Great High Priest), accom 
panying and making efficacious the prayer of the 

Jn the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Lev 
viii.) we find these offered, in what became eve 
afterwards the appointed order : first came th< 
sin-offering, to prepare access to God ; next thi 
burnt-offering, to mark their dedication to His 
service ; and thirdly the meat-offering of thanks 
giving. The same sacrifices, in the same order 
with the addition of a peace-offering (eaten n< 
doubt by all the people), were offered a week afte 
for all the congregation, and accepted visibly bj 
the descent of fire upon the burnt-offering. Hence 
forth the sacrificial system was fixed in all its parts 
until He should come whom it typified. 

It is to be noticed that the Law of Leviticu 

b For Instances of Infringement of this rule uncensurec 
f cc Jin'.g. ii. 5, vi. 26, xiii. 19 ; 1 Sam. xi. 15, xvi. 5 ; 2 San 
VJ. 13; 1 K. iii. 2, 3. Most of these cases are specia 


akes the rite of sacrifice for granted (see Lev. i. 2, 
. 1, &c., " If a man bring an offering, ye shall," 
&c.), and is directed chiefly to guide and limit its 
xercise. In every cuse but that of the peace 
iffering, the nature of the victim w;vs carefully 
Described, so as to preserve the ideas symbolized, 
)ut so as to avoid the notion (so inherent in 
leathen systems, and finding its logical result in 
mman sacrifice) that the more costly the offering. 
,he more surely must it meet with acceptance. 
\t the same time, probably in order to impress 
this truth on their minds, and al*o to guard against 
corruption by heathenish ceremonial, and against 
he notion that sacrifice in itself, without obedi- 
mce, could avail (see 1 Sam. xv. 22, 23), the place 
f offering was expressly limited, first to the Taber- 
iacle, b afterwards to the Temple. This ordinance 
Uso necessitated their periodical gathering as one 
nation before God, and so kept clearly before their 
minds their relation to Him as their national King. 
3oth limitations brought out the great truth, that 
od Himself provided the way by which man 
should approach Him, and that the method of 
econciliation was initiated by Him, and not by 

In consequence of the peculiarity of the Law, it 
las been argued (as by Outram, Warburton, &c.) 
that the whole system of sacrifice was only a con 
descension to the weakness of the people, borrowed, 
more or less, from the heathen nations, especially 
Tom Egypt, in order to guard against worse super 
stition and positive idolatry. The argument is 
nainly based (see Warb. Div. Leg. iv., sect. vi. 2) 
on Ez. xx. 25, and similar references in the 0. and 
N. T. to the nullity of all mere ceremonial. Taken 
as an explanation of the theory of sacrifice, it is weak 
and superficial; it labours under two fatal diffi 
culties, the historical fact of the primeval existence of 
sacrifice, and its typical reference to the one Atone 
ment of Christ, which was foreordained from the 
very beginning, and had been already typified, as, 
for example, in the sacrifice of Isaac. But as giving 
a reason for the minuteness and elaboration of the 
Mosaic ceremonial, so remarkably contrasted with 
the freedom of patriarchal sacrifice, and as furnish 
ing an explanation of certain special rites, it may 
probably have some value. It certainly contains this 
truth, that the craving for visible tokens of God's 
presence, and visible rites of worship, from which 
idolatry proceeds, was provided for and turned into a 
safe channel, by the whole ritual and typical system, 
of which sacrifice was the centre. The contact witn 
the gigantic system of idolatry, which prevailed in 
Egypt, and which had so deeply tainted the spirit 
of the' Israelites, would doubtless render such pro 
vision then especially necessary. It was one part 
of the prophetic office to guard against its degrad.t 
tion into formalism, and to bring out its spiritual 
meaning with an ever-increasing clearness. 


It will not be necessary to pursue, in detail, the 
history of Post -Mosaic Sacrifice, for its main prin 
ciples were now fixed for ever. The most remark 
able instances of sacrifice on a large scale are by- 
Solomon at the consecration of the Temple (1 K. 
viii. 63), by Jehoiada after the death of Athaliah 
(2 Chr. xxiii. 18), and by Hezekiah at his great 
Passover and restoration of the Temple-worship 

some authorized by special command; but the Law pro 
bably did not attain to its full strictness till the foundation 
of the Temple. 




12 Chr. xxx. 21-24). In each case, the lavish ue ' ledge of sin " (Rom. iii. 20) the sin-offering was for 
of victims was chiefly in the peace-offerings, which the first time explicitly set forth. This is but iia- 
were a sacred national feast to the people at the tural, that the deepest ideas should be the last in 
Table of their Great King. 

The regular sacrifices in the Temple service 
were : 


1. The daily burnt-offerings (Ex. xxix. 38-42). 

2. The double burnt-offerings on the Sabbath 
(Num. xxviii. 9, 10). 

3. The burnt-offerings at the great festivals 
^Num. xxviii. 11-xxix. 39). 


1. The daily meat-offerings accompanying the 
daily burnt-offerings (flour, oil, and wine) (Ex. 
xxix. 40, 41). 

2. The shew-bread (twelve loaves with frankin 
cense), renewed every Sabbath (Lev. xxiv. 5-9). 

3. The special meat-offerings at the Sabbath and 
:he great festivals (Num. xxviii., xxix.). 

4. The first-fruits, at the Passover (Lev. xxiii. 
10-14), at Pentecost (xxiii. 17-20), both "wave- 
offerings;" the riist-fruits of the dough and thresh 
ing-floor at the harvest-time (Num. xv. 20, 21 ; 
Deut. xxvi. 1-11), called "heave-offerings." 


1. Sin-offering (a kid) each new moon (Num. 
xxviii. 15). 

2. Sin-offerings at the Passover, Pentecost, Feast 
of Trumpets, and Tabernacles (Num. xxviii. 22, 30, 
xxix. 5, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38). 

3. The offering of the two goats (the goat 
sacrificed, and the scape-goat) for the people, and 
of the bullock for the priest himself, on the Great 
Da; of Atonement (Lev. xvi.). 

(d.) INCENSE. 

1. The morning and evening incense (Ex. xxx. 


2. The incense on the Great Day of Atonement 
(Lev. xvi. 12). 

Besides these public sacrifices, there were offer 
ings of the people for themselves individually; at 
the purification of women (Lev. xii.), the presenta 
tion of the first-born, and circumcision of all male 
children, the cleansing of the leprosy (Lev. xiv.) or 
nny uncleanness (Lev. xv.), at the fulfilment of 
Nazaritic and other vow? (Num. vi. 1-21), on oc 
casions of marriage and of burial, &c., &c., besides 
the fiequent offering of private sin-offerings. These 
must have kept up a constant succession of sacri 
fices every day ; and brought the rite home to 
every man's thought, and to every occasion of 
human life. 

(III.) In examining the doctrine of sacrifice, it is 
necessary to remember, that, in its development, 
Jie order of idea is not necessarily the same as the 
order of time. By the order of sacrifice in its per- 
fsct form (as in Lev. viii.) it is clear that the sin- 
offering occupies the most important place, the 
burnt-offering comes next, and the meat-offering or 
peace-offering last of all. The second could only 
ta offered, after th .irs. had been accepted; the 
third was only a subsidiary part of the second. 
iTet, in actual order of time, it has been seen, that 
the patriarchal sacrifices partook much more of 
the nature of the peace-offering and burnt-offering ; 
and that, under the Law. by which was " the know- 

order of development. 

It is also obvious, that those, who oelieve in the 
unity of the 0. and N. T., and the typical nature 
of the Mosaic Covenant, must view the type in 
constant reference to the antitype, and be prepared 
therefore to find in the former vague and recondite 
meanings, which are fixed and manifested by the 
latter. The sacrifices must be considered, not merely 
as they stand in the Law, or even as they might 
have appeared to a pious Israelite; but as they 
were illustrated by the Prophets, and perfectly in 
terpreted in the N. T. (e. g. in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews). It follows from this, that, as belonging 
to a system which was to embrace all mankind in 
its influence, they should be also compared and 
contrasted with the sacrifices and worship of God 
in other nations, and the ideas which in them were 
dimly and confusedly expressed. 

It is needless to dwell on the universality of 
heathen sacrifices," and difficult to reduce to any 
single theory the various ideas involved therein. 
It Ts clear, that the sacrifice was often looked upon 
as a gift or tribute to the gods : an idea which (for 
example) runs through all Greek literature, from 
the simple conception in Homer to the caricatures 
of Aristophanes or Lucian, against the perversion 
of which St. Paul protested at Athens, when he de 
clared that God needed nothing at human hands 
[Acts xvii. 25). It is also clear that sacrifices 
were used as prayers, to obtain benefits, or to avert 
wrath ; and that this idea was corrupted into the 
superstition, denounced by heathen satirists as well 
as by Hebrew prophets, that by them th? gods' 
favour could be purchased for the wicked, or Uieir 
envy " be averted from the prosperous. On the 
other hand, that they weie regarded as thank-offer 
ings, and the feasting on their flesh as a partaking 
of the " table of the gods " (comp. 1 Cor. x. 20, 
21), is equally certain. Nor was the higher idea 
of sacrifice, as a representation of the sell-devotion 
of the offerer, body and soul, to the god, wholly 
lost, although generally obscured by the grosser 
and more obvious conceptions of the rite. But, 
besides all these, there seems always to have been 
latent the idea of propitiation, that is, the belief in a 
communion with the gods, natural to man, broken off 
in some way, and by sacrifice to be restored. The 
emphatic " shedding of the blood," as the essential 
part of the sacrifice, while the flesh was often eaten by 
the priests or the sacrifice!-, is not capable of any full 
explanation by any of the ideas above referred to. 
Whether it represented the death of the sacrifice! 1 , or 
(as in cases of national offering of human victims, 
and of those self-devoted for their country) an 
atoning death for him ; still, in either case, it con 
tained the idea that " without shedding of blood is 
no remission," and so had a vague and distorted 
glimpse of the great central truth of Revelation. 
Such an idea may be (as has been argued) " unna 
tural," in that it could not be explained by natural 
reason ; but it certainly was not unnatural, if fre 
quency of existence, and accordance with a deep 
natural instinct be aliened to preclude that epithet. 
Now the essential difference between these heathen 
views of sacrifice and the Scriptural dx'triiie of 

the 0. T. is not to be found in its ae;iial of 


c tee Magee's Dtis. on Sacr., vol. i. diss. v., and Ernst j quoted in notes 23, 26, to Thomson's Hampton Lf.:iur"S, 
vox Ifcisaulx's Treatise on Greek aiid Uomau ^acrilke, i 1853. 



these ideas. The very names used in it for sacri 
fice (as is seen above) involve the conception of the 
rite as a gift, a form of worship, a thank-offering, a 
self-devotion, and an atonement. In fact, it brings 
out, clearly and distinctly, the ideas which in hea 
thenism were uncertain, vague, and perverted. 

But the essential points of distinction are two. 
First, that whereas the heathen conceived of their 
gods as alienated iu jealousy or anger, to be sought 
after, and to be appeased by the unaided action of 
man, Scripture represents God Himself as approach 
ing man, as pointing out and sanctioning the way 
by which the broken covenant should, be restored. 
This was impressed on the Israelites at every step 
by the minute directions of the Law, as to time, 
place, victim, and ceremonial, by its utterly dis 
countenancing the " will-worship," which in hea 
thenism found full scope, and rioted in the invention 
of costly or monstrous sacrifices. And it is espe 
cially to be noted, that this particularity is increased, 
as we approach nearer to the deep propitiatory idea ; 
for that, whereas the patriarchal sacrifices generally 
seem to have been undefined by God, and even under 
the Law, the nature of the peace-offerings, and (to 
some extent) the burnt-offerings, was determined by 
the sacrifice!' only, the solemn sacrifice of Abraham 
in the inauguration of his covenant was prescribed 
to him, and the sin-offerings under the Law were 
most accurately and minutely determined. (See, for 
example, the whole ceremonial of Lev. xvi.) It is 
needless to remark, how this essential difference 
purifies all the ideas above noticed from the corrup 
tions, which made them odious or contemptible, 
and sets on its true basis the relation between God 
and fallen man. 

The second mark of distinction is closely con 
nected with this, inasmuch as it shows sacrifice to 
be a scheme proceeding from God, and, in His fore 
knowledge, connected with the one central fact of 
all human history. It is to be found in the typical 
character of all Jewish sacrifices, on which, as the 
Epistle to the Hebrews argues, all their efficacy 
depended. It must be remembered that, like other 
ordinances of the Law, they had a twofold effect, 
depending on the special position of an Israelite, as a 
member of the natural Theocracy, and on his general 
position, as a man in relation with God. On the 
one hand, for example, the sin-offering was r,n 
atonement to the national law for moral offences of 
negligence, which in " presumptuous," i. e. de 
liberate and wilful crime, was rejected (see Num. 
xv. 27-31 ; and comp. Heb. x. 26, 27). On the 
other hand it had, as the prophetic writings show 
us, a distinct spiritual significance, as a means of 
expressing repentance and receiving forgiveness, 
which could have belonged to it only as a type of the 
Great Atonement. How far that typical meaning 
was recognized at different periods and by different 
persons, it is useless to speculate : but it would be 
impossible to doubt, even if we had no testimony 
on the subject, that, in the face of the high spiritual 
teaching of the Law and the Prophets, a pious 
Israelite must have felt the nullity of material 
sacrifice in itself, and so believed it to be availing 
only as an ordinance of God, shadowing cut some 
great spiritual truth, or action of His. Nor is it 

d Some render this (like socer) " accursed ;" but the 
primitive meaning, " clean," and the usage of the word, 
Bt-em derisive against this. LXX. a-yta (vid. Gcsen. s. .) 

In Ixjv. i. 4, it is said to "atone" nQIi, i.e. to 
' covsr," anrt so to " do away ; :> LX i. efiAaa-cuT-e^). Th* 


unlikely that, with more or less distinctness, hi 
connected the evolution of this, as of other truths 
with the coming of the promised Messiah. But, 
however this be, we know that, in God's pur 
pose, the whole system was typical, that ail its 
spiritual efficacy depended on the true sacrifice 
which it represented, and could be received only on 
condition of Faith, and that, therefore, it passod 
away when the Antitype was come. 

The nature and meaning of the various kinds of 
sacrifice is partly gathered from the form of their 
institution and ceremonial, partly from the teaching 
of the Prophets, and partly from the N. T., especi 
ally the Epistle to the Hebrews. All had relation, 
under different aspects, to a Covenant between God 
and man. 

The SIN-OFFERING represented that Covenant as 
broken by man, and as knit together again, by God's 
appointment, through the " shedding of blood." 
Its characteristic ceremony was the sprinkling of 
the blood before the veil of the Sanctuary, the put 
ting some of it on the horns of the altar of incense, 
and the pouring out of all the rest at the foot ot 
the altar of burnt-offering. The flesh was in no 
case touched by the offerer ; either it was consumed 
by fire without the camp, or it was eaten by the 
priest alone in the holy place, and everything that 
touched it was holy (JHp). d This latter point 

marked the distinction from the peace-offering, and 
showed that the sacrifice!- had been rendered un 
worthy of communion with God. The shedding of 
the blood, the symbol of life, signified that the 
death of the offender was deserved tor sin, but that 
the death of the victim was accepted for his death 
by the ordinance of God's mercy. This is seen 
most clearly in the ceremonial of the Day of Atone 
ment, when, after the sacrifice of the one goat, the 
high-priest's hand was laid on the head of the scape 
goat which was the other part of the sin-offering 
with confession of the sins of the people, that it 
might visibly bear them away, and so bring out 
explicitly, what in other sin-offerings was but 
implied. Accordingly we find (see quotation from 
the Mishna in Outr. De Sacr. i. c. xv., 10) that, 
in all cases, it was the custom for the offerer to lay 
his hand on the head of the sin-offering, to confess 
generally or specially his sins, and to say, " Let this 
be my expiation." Beyond all doubt the sin-offer 
ing distinctly witnessed, that sin existed in man, 
that the " wages of that sin was death," and that 
God had provided an Atonement by the vicariouy 
suffering of an appointed victim. The reference of 
the Baptist to a " Lamb of God who taketh away 
the sins of the world," was one understood and 
hailed at once by a " true Israelite." 

The ceremonial and meaning of the BURNT- 
OFFERING were very different. The idea of ex 
piation seems not to have been absent from it (for 
the blood was sprinkled round about the altar of 
sacrifice) ; e and, before the Levitical ordinance of the 
sin-offering to precede it, this idea may have been 
even prominent. But in the system of Leviticus 
it is evidently only secondary. The main idea is 
the offering of the whole victim to God, reprinting 
(as the laying of the hand on its head shows; the 

same word is used below of the sin-offering ; and tlib 
later Jews distinguished the burnt-offering as atoning for 
thoughts and designs, the sin-offering for acts of traob- 
gression. (See Jonath. Paraphr. on Lev. vi. l7,:c., quoicJ 
by OutraoiJ 


devotion of the sacrificer, body and soul, to Him. 
The death of the victim was (so to speak) an inci 
dental feature, to signify the completeness ot the 
devotion ; and it is to be noticed that, in all solemn 
sacrifices, no burnt-offering could be made until a 
previous sin-offering had brought the sacrificer 
again into covenant with God. The main idea of 
this sacrifice must have been representative, not 
vicarious, and the best comment upon it is the 
exhortation in Rom. xii. 1, "to present our bodies 
a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God." 

The MEAT-OFFERINGS, the peace or thank- 
offering, the first-fruits, &c., were simply offerings 
to God of His own best gifts, as a sign of thankful 
homage, and as a means of maintaining His service 
and His servants. Whether they were regular or 
voluntary, individual or national, independent or 
subsidiary to other offerings, this was still the lead 
ing idea/ The meat-offering, of flour, oil, and wine, 
seasoned with salt, and hallowed by frankincense, 
was usually an appendage to the devotion implied 
in the burnt^offering ; and the peace-offerings for 
the people held the same place in Aaron's first 
sacrifice (Lev. ix. 22), and in all others of special 
solemnity. The characteristic ceremony in the peace- 
offering was the eating of the flesh by the sacrificer 
(afte*- the fat had been burnt before the Lord, and 
the breast and shoulder given to the priests). It 
betokened the enjoyment of communion with God 
at " the table of the Lord," in the gifts which His 
mercy had bestowed, of which a choice portion was 
offered to Him, to His servants, and to His pool 
(see Deut. xiv. 28, 29). To this view of sacrifice 
allusion is made by St. Paul in Phil. iv. 18 ; Heb, 
xiii. 15, 16. It follows naturally from the other 

It is clear from this, that the idea of sacrifice is a 
complex idea, involving the propitiatory, the dedi 
catory, and the eucharistic elements. Any one o 
these, taken by itself, would lead to error ant 
superstition. The propitiatory alone would tern" 
to the idea of atonement by sacrifice for sin, a; 
being effectual without any condition of repentnnci 
and faith ; the self-dedicatory, taken alone, ignores 
the barrier of sin between man and God, and under 
mines the whole idea of atonement ; the eucharistl 
alone leads to the notion that mere gifts can satisfy 
God's service, and is easily perverted into th 
heathenish attempt to "bribe" God by vows am 
offerings. All three probably were more or les 
implied in each sacrifice, each element predomi 
nating in its turn : all must be kept in mind in 
- considering the historical influence, the spiritua" 
meaning, and the typical value of sacrifice. 

Now the Israelites, while they seem always t 
have retained the ideas of propitiation and of eucha 
ristic offering, even when they perverted these b 
half-heal henish superstition, constantly ignored th 
self-dedication which is the link between the tw 
and which the regular burnt-offering should have im 
pressed upon them as their daily thought and duty 
It is therefore to this point that the teaching of th 
Prophets is mainly directed ; its key-note is con 
iviined iu the words of Samuel: " Behold, to obey 
better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat o 
rams" (1 Sam. xv. 22). So Isaiah declares (a 
i. 10-20) that " the Lord delights not in the bloo 
of bullocks, or lambs, or goats;" .that to thos 
who " cease to do evil and learn to do well, . . . 
though their sins be as scarlet, they shall be win 
as snow." Jeremiah reminds them (vii. 22, 23 
that the Lord did not " command bumt-offuing 



r sacrifices " under Moses, but said, " Obey my 
oice, and I will be your God." Ezekiel is full of 
dignant protests (see xx. 39-44) against the pol- 
ition of God's name by offerings of those whos? 
earts were with their idols. Hosea sets forth 
od's requirements (vi. 6) in words which oui 
ord Himself sanctioned: "I desired mercy and 
ot sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than 
unit-offerings." Amos (v. 21-27) puts it even 
lore strongly, that God "hates" their sacrifices, 
nless " judgment run down like water, and 
ighteousness like a mighty stream." And Micah 
vi. 6-8) answers the question which lies at the 
oot of sacrifice, " Wherewith shall I come before 
he Lord?" by the words, "What doth the Lord 
equire of thee, but to do justly, and love mercy, 
nd walk humbly with thy God ?" All these pas- 
ages, and many others, are directed to one object 
ot to discourage sacrifice, but to purify and spiritu- 
lize the feelings of the offerers. 

The same truth, here enunciated from without, 
s recognized from within by the Psalmist. Thus 
ie says, in Ps. xl. 8-11, " Sacrifice and meat- 
fferiug, burnt-offering and sin-offering, Thou hast 
ict required;" and contrasts with them the ho 
mage of the heart " mine ears hast Thou bored," 
ind the active service of life " Lo! I come to do 
Thy will, OGod." In Ps. 1. 13, 14, sacrifice is 
contrasted with prayer and adoration (comp. Ps. 
:xli. 2) : " Thinkest thou that I will eat bulls' flesh, 
\nd drink the blood of goats ? Offer unto God 
thanksgiving, pay thy vows to the Most Highest, 
and call upon me in time of trouble." In Ps. li. 
16, 17, it is similarly contrasted with true re 
pentance of the heart: " The sacrifice of God is a 
troubled spirit, a broken and a contrite heart." 
Yet here also the next verse shows that sacrifice 
was not superseded, but purified : " Then shait thou 
be pleased with burnt-offerings and oblations; then 
shall they offer young bullocks upon thine altar." 
These passages are correlative to the others, express 
ing the feelings, which those others in God's Name 
require. It is not to be argued from them, that this 
idea of self-dedication is the* main one of sacrifice. 
The idea of propitiation lies below it, taken for 
granted by the Prophets as by the whole people, 
but still enveloped in mystery until the Antitype 
should come to make all clear. For the evolution 
of this doctrine we must look to the N. T. ; the 
preparation for it by the Prophets was (so to speak) 
negative, the pointing out the nullity of all other 
propitiations in themselves, and then leaving the 
warnings of the conscience and the cravings of the 
heart to fix men's hearts on the better Atonement 
to come. 

Without entering directly on the great subject 
of the Atonement (which would be foreign to the 
scope of this article), it will be sufficient to refer tc 
the connexion, established in the N. T., between it 
and the sacrifices of the Mosaic system. To do this, 
we need do little more than analyse the Kpistle to 
the Hebrews, which contains the key of the whole 
sacrificial doctrine. 

In the first place, it follows the prophetic books 
by stating, in the most emphatic terms, the intrinsic 
nullity of all mere material sacrifices. The "gifts 
and sacrifices " of the first tabernacle could " never 
make the sacrificers perfect in conscience" (KCIT& 
<rvveiSrj(riv} ; they were but " carnal ordinances, im 
posed on them till the time of reformation" (Stop- 
66(reas} (Heb. ix. 9, 10). The very fact of then 
constant repetition is said to prove this irn perfe 



which depends en the fundamental principle, " that 
it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats 
should take away sin " (x. 4). But it does not 
lead us to infer, that they actually had no spiritual 
efficacy, if offered in repentance and faith. On the 
contrary, the object of the whole Epistle is to show 
their typical and probationary character, and to 
assert that in virtue of it alone they had a spiritual 
meaning. Our Lord is declared (see 1 Pet. i. 20) 
*' to have been foreordained " as a sacrifice " before 
the foundation of the world ;" or (as it is more 
strikingly expressed in Rev. xiii. 8) " slain from the 
foundation of the world." The material sacrifices 
represented this Great Atonement, as already made 
and accepted in God's foreknowledge ; and to those 
\vho grasped the ideas of sin, pardon, and self- 
dedication, symbolized in them, they were means 
of entering into the blessings which the One True 
Sacrifice alone procured. Otherwise the whole sacri 
ficial system could have been only a superstition 
and a snare. The sins provided for by the sin- 
offering were certainly in some cases moral. [See 
SIN-OFFERING.] The whole of the Mosaic de 
scription of sacrifices clearly implies some real spi 
ritual benefit to be derived from them, besides the 
temporal privileges belonging to the national theo 
cracy. Just as St. Paul argues (Gal. iii. 15-29) 
that the Promise and Covenant to Abraham were of 
primary, the Law only of secondary, importance, 
so that men had under the Law more than they had 
by the Law ; so it must be said of the Levitical 
sacrifices. They could convey nothing in them 
selves ; yet, as types, they might, if accepted by a 
true, though necessarily imperfect, faith, be means 
of conveying in some degree the blessings of the 

This typical character of all sacrifice being thus 
set forth, the next point dwelt upon is the union in 
our Lord's Person of the priest, the offerer, and the 
sacrifice. [PRIEST.] The imperfection of all sacri 
fices, which made them, in themselves, liable to 
superstition, and even inexplicable, lies in this, 
that, on the one hand, the victim seems arbitrarily 
chosen to be the substitute for, or the representative 
of, the sacrifice! 1 ;* and that, on the other, if there 
be a barrier of sin between man and God, he has no 
right of approach, or security that his sacrifice will 
be accepted ; that there needs, therefore, to be a 
Mediator, i. c. (according to the definition of Heb. 
v. 1-4), a true Priest, who shall, as being One with 
man, offer the sacrifice, and accept it, as being One 
with God. It is shown that this imperfection, which 
necessarily existed in all types, without which indeed 
they would have been substitutes, not preparations 
for the Antitype, was altogether done away in Him ; 
that in the first place He, as the representative of 
the whole human race, offered no arbitrarily-chosen 
victim, but the willing sacrifice of His own blood ; 
that, in the second, He was ordained by God, by a 
solemn oath, to be a high-priest for ever, " after the 
order of Melchizedek," one " in all points tempted like 
as we are, yet without sin," united to our human 
nature, susceptible to its infirmities and trials, yet, 
at the sair.e time, the True Son of God, exalted tar 
above all created things, and ever living to make 
Intercession in heaven, now that His sacrifice is 
over, and that, in the last place, the barrier between 
man and God is by His mediation done away for 
ever, and the Most Holy Place once for all opened 

f It may be remembered that devices, sometimes ludi- 
rrous. some times horrible, v ere adopted to make the 


to man. All the points, in the doctrine of sacrifi^ 
which had before been unintelligible, wer* thui 
made clear. 

This being the case, it next follows that all the 
various kinds of sacrifices were, each in its measure 
representatives and types of the various aspects oi 
the Atonement. It is clear that the Atonement, in 
this Epistle, as in the N. T. generally, is viewed in 
a twofold light. 

On the one hand, it is set forth distinctly as a 
vicarious sacrifice, which was rendered necessary by 
the sin of man, and in which the Lord " bare the 
sins of many." It is its essential characteristic, 
that in it He stands absolutely alone, offering His 
sacrifice without any reference to the faith or the 
conversion of men offering it indeed for those who 
" were still sinners" and at enmity with God. 
Moreover it is called a " propitiation" (l\a<Tfi6s or 
iXacTT-hpiov , Rom. iii. 24 ; 1 John ii. 2) ; a " ran 
som" (aTroAirrpoxns, Rom. iii. 25 ; 1 Cor. i. 30, &c.) ; 
which, if words mean anything, must imply that it 
makes a change in the relation between God and man, 
from separation to union, from wrath to love, and 
a change in man's state from bondage to freedom. 
In it, then, He stands out alone as the Mediator 
between God and man ; and His sacrifice is offered 
once for all, never to be imitated or repeated. 

Now this view of the Atonement is set forth in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, as typified by the sin- 
offering ; especially by that .particular sin-offering 
with which the high-priest entered the Most Holy 
Place on the Great Day of Atonement (ix. 7-12) : 
and by that which hallowed the inauguration of the 
Mosaic covenant, and cleansed the vessels of its mi 
nistration (ix. 13-23). In the same way, Christ is 
called " our Passover, sacrificed for us" (1 Cor. 
v. 7) ; and is said, in even more startling language, 
to have been " made sin for us," though He " knew 
no sin" (2 Cor. v. 21). This typical relation is 
pursued even into details, and our Lord's suffering 
without the city is compared to the burning of the 
public or priestly sin-offerings without the camp 
(Heb. xiii. 10-13). The altar of sacrifice (Bvaia- 
0"T77piOj>) is said to have its antitype in His Passion 
(xiii. 10). All the expiatory and propitiatory sacii- 
fices of the Law are now for the first time brought 
into full light. And though the principle of vicarious 
sacrifice still remains, and must remain, a mystery, 
yet the fact of its existence in Him is illustrated by 
a thousand types. As the sin-offering, though not 
the earliest, is the most fundamental of all sacrifices, 
so the aspect of the Atonement, which it symbolizes, 
is the one on which all others rest. 

On the other hand, the sacrifice of Christ is set 
forth to us, as the completion of that perfect obe 
dience to the will of the Father, which is the natural 
duty of sinless man, in which He is the repre 
sentative of all men, and in which He calls upon us, 
when reconciled to God, to " take up the Cross and 
follow Him." " In the days of His flesh He offered 
up prayers and supplications . . . and was heard, in 
that He feared ; though He were a Soa, yet learned 
He obedience by the things which He suffered ; 
and being made perfect " (by that suffering ; see 
ii. 10), " He became the author of salvation to ail 
them that obey Him" (v. 7, 8, 9). In this view 
His death is not the principal object ; we dwell 
rather on His lowly Incarnation, and His life of 
humility, temptation, and suffering, to which that 

victim appear willing ; and that voluntary sacriCoc, such 
as that of the Decii, was held to bv the noblest of all. 


death was but a fitting close. In the passage above 
referred to the allusion is not to th<-. Cross of Calvary, 
but to the agony in Gethsemane, which bowed His 
human will to the will of His Father. The main 
idea of this view of the Atonement is representative, 
rather than vicarious. In the first view the " second 
Adam" undid by His atoning blood the work of evil 
which the first Adam did ; in the second He, by His 
perfect obedience, did that which the first Adam 
left undone, and, by His grace making us like Him 
self, calls upon us to follow Him in the same path. 
This latter view is typified by the burnt-offering : 
in respect of which the N. T. merely quotes and 
enforces the language already cited from the O. T., 
and especially (see Heb. x. 6-9) the words of Ps. xl. 
0, &c., which contrast with material sacrifice the 
" doing the will of God." It is one, which cannot be 
dwelt upon at all without a previous implication of 
the other ; as both were embraced in one act, so are 
they inseparably connected in idea. Thus it is put 
forth in Rom. xii. 1, where the " mercies of God" 
(t. e. the free salvation, through the sin-offering of 
Christ's blood, dwelt upon in all the preceding part 
of the Epistle) are made the ground for calling on 
us " to present our bodies, a living sacrifice, holy 
and acceptable to God," inasmuch as we are all (see 
v. 5) one with Christ, and members of His body. 
In this sense it is that we are said to be " crucified 
with Christ" (Gal. ii. 20; Horn. vi. 6); to have 
"the sufferings of Christ abound in us" (2 Cor. i. 
5); even to " fill up that which is behind" (rcb 
varrfp^^ara) thereof (Col. i. 24) ; and to " be 
offered" (oWrSerrflat) " upon the sacrifice of the 
feith " of others (Phil. ii. 17 ; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 6 ; 
1. John iii. 16). As without the sin-offering of the 
Cross, this, our burnt-offering, would be impossible, 
so Hisn without the burnt-offering the sin-offering 
will to us be unavailing. 

With these views of our Lord's sacrifice on earth, 
as typified in the Levitical sacrifices on the outer 
altar, is also to be connected the offering of His In 
tercession for us in heaven, which was represented 
by the incense. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, this 
part of His priestly ornte is dwelt upon, with parti 
cular reference to the offering of incense in the Most 
Holy Place by the high-priest on the Great Day of 
Atonement (Heb. ix. 24-28; comp. ir. 14-16, vi. 
19, 20, vii. 25). It implies that the sin-offering 
has been made once for all, to rend asunder the veil 
(of sin) between man and God ; and that the conti 
nual burnt-offering is now accepted by Him for the 
sake of the Great Interceding High-priest. That 
intercession is the strength of our prayers, and 
" with the smoke of its incense " they rise up to 
heaven (Rev. viii. 4). [PliAYER.] 

The typical sense of the meat-offering, or peace- 
offering, .s less connected with the sacrifice of Chrisl 
Himself, than with those sacrifices of praise, -thanks 
giving, charity, and devotion, which we, as Chris 
tians, offer to God, and " with which He is wel 
pleased" (Heb. xiii. 15, 16) as with "an odour or 
sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable to God" (Phil 
iv. 18). They betoken that, through the peace won 
by the sin-offering, we have already been enable 1 
to dedicate ourselves to God, and they are, as it 
were, the ornaments and accessories of that self- 

Such is a brief sketch of the doctrine of Sacrifice. 
It is seen to have been deeply rooted in men's hearts ; 
and to have been, from the beginning, accepted and 
sanctioned by God, and n.ade by Him one chauml 
of His Revelation. In virtue of that sanction it hail 


value, partly symbolical, partly actual, but in all 
respects derived from the one True Sacrifice, oi 
which it was the type. It involved the expiatory, 
the self-dedicatory, and the eucharistic ideas, each 
gradually developed and explained, but all :npable 
>f full explanation only by the light reflected back 
rom the Antitype. 

On the antiquarian part of the subject valuable 
nformation may be found in Spencer, De Legibus 
ffebracorum, and Outram, De Sacrificiis. The 
question of the origin of sacrifice is treated clearly 
on either side by Faber, On the (Divine) Origin cf 
Sacrifice, and by Davison, Inquiry into the Origin 
of Sacrifice ; and Warburton, Div.Leg. (b. ix. c. 2). 
On the general subject, see Magee's Dissertation on 
Atonement ; th<> Appendix to Tholuck's Treatise on 
the Hebrews ; Kurtz, Der Alttesiamentliche Opfer- 
cultas, Mitau, 1862 ; and the catalogue of autho 
rities in Winer's Eealrcorterb. " Opfer." But it needs 
for its consideration little but the careful study ot 
Scripture itself. [A. B.] 

SADAMI'AS (Sadanias}. The name of SHAL- 
LUM, one of the ancestors of Ezra, is so written m 
2 Esd. i. 1. 

SA'DAS ('Apyai ; Alex. 'Affrad : Archad^ 
AZGAD (1 Esd. v! 13; comp. Ezr. ii. 12). The 
form Sadas is retained frcm the Geneva Version. 

SADDE'US ( AoSSaTos ; Alex Ao\8cuos : I.od- 
deus}. " IDDO, the chief at the place Casiphia," is 
called in 1 Esd. viii. 45, " Saddens the captain, who 
was in the place of the treasury." In 1 Esd. viii. 
46 the name is written " Daddeus " in the A. V., 
as in the Geneva Version of both passages. 

SAD'DUC CSaZSovKos: Sadoc). ZADOX the 
high-priest, ancestor of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. ^\ 

SADDUCEES (SaSSou/ccubi : Sadducaei 
Matt. iii. 7, xvi. 1, 6, 11, 12, xxii. 23, 34; Mark 
xii. 18; Luke xx. 27; Actsiv. 1, v. 17, xxiii. 6, 7, 8). 
A religious party or school among the Jews at the 
time of Christ, who denied that the oral law was a 
revelation of God to the Israelites, and who deemed 
the written law alone to-be obligatory on the 
nation, as of divine authority. Although frequently 
mentioned in the New Testament in conjunction 
with the Pharisees, they do not throw such vivid 
light as their great antagonists on the real signi 
ficance of Christianity. Except on one occasion, 
when they united with the Pharisees in insidiously 
asking for a sign from heaven (Matt. xvi. 1, 4, 6), 
Christ never assailed the Sadducees with the same 
bitter denunciations which he uttered against the 
Pharisees ; and they do not, like the Pharisees, 
seem to have taken active measures for causing Him 
to be put to death. In this respect, and in many 
others, they have not been so influential as the 
Pharisees in the world's history ; but still they 
deserve attention, as representing Jewish ideas before 
the Pharisees became triumphant, and as illus 
trating one phase of Jewish thought at the time 
when the new religion of Christianity, destined to 
produce such a momentous revolution in the opinions 
of mankind, issued from Judaea. 

Authorities. The sources of information respect 
ing the Sadducees are much the same as for the 
Pharisees. [PiiARiSKKS, p. 885.] There arc, how 
ever, some exceptions negatively. Thus, the Sad 
ducees are not spoken of at all in the fourth Gospel, 
where the Pharisees are frequently mentioned, John 
vii. 32,45, xi. 47, 57, xviii. 3, viii. 3, 13-19, ix. 13; 
an omission, v hich, asGeigor suggests, is not uuin> 



portant in reference to the criticism of the Gospels 
( Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 1'07). 
Moreover, while St. Paul had been a Pharisee and 
was the son of a Pharisee; while Josephus was a 
Pharisee, and the Mishna was a Pharisaical digest j 
of Pharisaical opinions and practices, not a single 
undoubted writing of an acknowledged Sadducee 
has come down to us, so that for an acquaintance 
with their opinions we are mainly dependent on 
their antagonists. This point should be always 
borne in mind in judging their opinions, and forming 
an estimate of their character, and its full bearing 
will be duly appreciated by those who reflect that 
even at the present day, with all the checks against 
misrepresentation arising from publicity and the 
invention of printing, probably no religious or poli 
tical party in England would be content to accept 
the statements of an opponent as giving a correct 
view of its opinions. 

Origin of the name. Like etymologies of words, 
the origin of the name of a sect is, in some cases, 
almost wholly immaterial, while in other canes it is 
of extreme importance towards understanding opi 
nions which it is proposed to investigate. The 
origin of the name Sadducees is of the latter de 
scription ; and a reasonable certainty on this point 
would go far towards ensuring correct ideas respect 
ing the position of the Sadducees in the Jewish State. 
The subject, however, is involved in great diffi 
culties. The Hebrew word by which they are 
called in the Mishna is Tsedukim ; the plural of 
Tsddok, which undoubtedly means "just," or 
" righteous," but which is never used in the Bible 
except as a proper name, and in the Anglican Version 
is always translated "Zadok" (2 K. xv. 33; 2 
Sam. viii. 17 ; 1 Chr. vi. 8, 13, &c. ; Neh. iii. 4, 29, 
xi. II). The most obvious translation of the word, 
therefore, is to call them Zadoks or Zadokites; and 
a question would then arise as to why they were so 
called. The ordinary Jewish statement is that 
they are named from a certain Zadok, a disciple 
of the Antigonus of Socho, who is mentioned in 
the Mishna (Avoth i.) as having received the oral 
law from Simon the Just, the last of the men of 
the Great Synagogue. It is recorded of this Anti 
gonus that he used to say: " Be not like servants 
who serve their Master for the sake of receiving a 
reward, but be like servants who serve their master 
without a view of receiving a reward ;" and the 
current statement has been that Zadok, who gave 
his name to the Zadokites or Sadducees, misinter 
preted this saying so far, as not only to maintain 
the great truth that virtue should be the rule of 
conduct without reference to the rewards of the in 
dividual agent, but likewise to proclaim the doctrine 
that there was no future state of rewards and pu 
nishments. (See Buxtorf, s. v. p*H ; Lightfoot's 

florae Hebraicae on Matth. iii. 8 ; and the Note 
of Maimonides in Surenhusius's Mishna, iv. p. 411.) 
If, howeA r er, the statement is traced up to its ori 
ginal source, it is found that there is no mention of 
it either in the Mishna, or in any other part of the 
T;ilmud (Geiger's Urschrift, &c., p. 105) and that 
the first mention of something of the kind is in a small 
work by a certain Rabbi Nathan, which he wrote on 


the Treatise of the Mishna called the Aroth, or " Fa 
thers." But the age in which this Rabbi Nathan lived 
is uncertain (Bartolocci, Bibliotheca Magna Rabbi- 
nica, vol. iii. p. 770), and the earliest mention o-*him 
is in a well-known Rabbinical dictionary called the 
Aruch,* which was completed about the year 1105, 
A.D. The following are the words of the above men 
tioned Rabbi Nathan of the Avoth. Adverting to 
the passage in the Mishna, already quoted, respect 
ing Antigonus's saying, he observes, " Antigonus 
of Socho had two disciples who taught the saying 
to their disciples, and these disciples again taught it 
to their disciples. At last these began to scrutinize 
it narrowly, and said, ' What did our Fathers mean 
in teaching this saying? Is it possible that a la. 
bourer is to perform his work all the day, and 
not receive his wages in the evening? Truly, if 
our Fathers had known that there is another world 
and a resurrection of the dead, they would not 
have spoken thus.' They then began to separate 
themselves from the law ; and so there arose two 
Sects, the Zadokites and Baithusians, the former 
from Zadok, and the latter from Baithos." Now 
it is to be observed on this passage that it does not 
justify the ance current belief that Zadok himself 
misinterpreted Antigonus's saying ; and it suggests 
no reason why the followers of the supposed new 
doctrines should have taken their name from Zadok 
rather than Antigonus. Bearing this in mind, in con 
nexion with several other points of the same nature, 
such as for example, the total silence respecting any 
such story in the works of Josephus or in the Talmud ; 
the absence of any other special information respect 
ing even the existence of the supposed Zadok ; the 
improbable and childishly illogical reasons assigned 
for the departure of Zadok's disciples from the Law ; 
the circumstance that Rabbi Nathan held the tenets 
of the Pharisees, that the statements of a Pharisee 
respecting the Sadducees must always be received 
with a certain reserve, that Rabbi Nathan of the 
Avoth, for aught that has ever been proved to 
the contrary, may have lived as long as 1000 years 
after the first appearance of the Sadducees as a party 
in Jewish history, and that he quotes no authority 
of any kind for his account of their origin, it seems 
reasonable to reject this Rabbi Nathan's narration as 
unworthy of credit. Another ancient suggestion 
concerning the origin of the name " Sadducees," is 
in Epiphanius (Adversus Hacrescs, i. 4), who states 
that the Sadducees called themselves by that name 
from " righteousness," the interpretation of the 
Hebrew word Zedek ; "and that there was likewise 
anciently a Zadok among the priests, but that they 
did not continue in the doctrines of their chief." 
But this statement is unsatisfactory in two respects . 
1st. It does not explain why, if the suggested ety 
mology was correct, the name of the Sadducees was 
not Tsaddiklm or Zaddikites, which would have 
been the regular Hebrew adjective for the " Just," 
or "Righteous;" and 2ndly. While it evidently 
implies that they once held the doctrines of an 
ancient priest, Zadok, who is even called their chief 
or master (eTrKrrctTrjs), it does not directly assert 
that there was any connexion between his name 
and theirs ; nor yet does it say that the coin 
cidence between the two names was accidental. 

a Amch. or 'Aruc (*11")yn) means " arranged," or " set 
in order." The author of this work was another Rabbi 
Nathan Ben Jechiel, president of the Jewish Academy at 
Rome, who died in 1106, A.D. (See Bartolocci, Bibl. Kabb. 
iv. 261). The reference to Rabbi Nathan, author of the 

treatise on the Avdth, is made in the Aruch under the word 
Tbe treatise itself was published in a Latin 

translation by F. Tayler, at London, 1657. The original 
passage respecting Zadok's disciples is printed by Geigej 
la Hebrew, and translated by him, Urschrift, <fcc., p. 105 


Moreover, it does not give information as to when 
Zadok lived, nor what were those doctrines of his 
which the Sadducees once held, but subsequently 
departed from. The unsatisfactoriness of Epipha- 
nius's statement is increased by its being coupled 
with an assertion that the Sadducees were a branch 
broken off from Dositheus ; or in other words Schis 
matics from Dositheus (a.Tr6a"jra(Tfj.a OVTSS avb 
AoviOeov) ; for Dositheus was a heretic who lived 
about the time ef Christ (Origen, contra Celsum, 
lib. i. c. 17; Clemens, Beoognit. ii. 8; Photius, 
Biblioth. c. xxx.), and thus, if Epiphanius was 
correct, the opinions characteristic of the Sadducees 
wereproductions of the Christian aera ; a supposition 
contrary to the express declaration of the Pharisee 
Josephus, and to a notorious fact of history, the 
connexion of Hyrcanus with the Sadducees more than 
100 years before Christ. (See Josephus, Ant. xiii. 
9, 6, and xviii. 1, 2, where observe the phrase e/c 
rov Travv apx&iov. . .). Hence Epiphanius's expla 
nation of the origin of the word Sadducees must be 
rejected with that of Rabbi Nathan of the Avoth. 
In these circumstances, if recourse is had to con 
jecture, the first point to be considered is whether the 
word is likely to have arisen from the meaning of 
" righteousness," or from the name of an individual. 
This must be decided in favour of the latter alter 
native, inasmuch as the word Zadok never occurs in 
the Bible, except as a proper name ; and then we are 
led to inquire as to who the Zadok of the Sadducees 
is likely to have been. Now, according to the 
existing records of Jewish history, there was one 
Zadok of transcendent importance, and only one; 
viz., the priest who acted such a prominent part at 
the time of David, and who declared in favour of 
Solomon, when Abiathar took the part of Adonijah 
as successor to the throne (1 K. i. 32-45). This 
Zadok was tenth in descent, according to the ge 
nealogies, from the high-priest, Aaron ; and what 
ever may be the correct explanation of the state 
ment in the 1st Book of Kings ii. 35, that Solomon 
put him in the room of Abiathar, although on 
previous occasions b^e had, when named with him, 
been always mentioned first (2 Sam. xv. 35, xix. 
11; cf. viii. 17), his line of priests appears to 
have had decided pre-eminence in subsequent his 
tory. Thus, when in 2 Chr. xxxi. 10 Hezekiah is 
represented as putting a question to the priests and 
Levites generally, the answer is attributed to Aza- 
riah, " the chief priest of the house of Zadok :" and 
in Ezekiel's prophetic vision of the future Temple, 
" the sons of Zadok," and " the priests the Levites 
of the seed of Zadok " are spoken of with peculiar 
honour, as those who kept the charge of the sanctuary 
of Jehovah, when the children of Israel went astray 
(Ez. xl. 46, xlii. 19, xliv. 15, xlviii. 11). Now, as 
the transition from the expression " sons of Zadok," 
and "priests of the seed of Zadok" to Zadokites 
is easy and obvious, and as in the Acts of the 
Apostles v. 17, it is said, " Then the high-priest 
rose, and all they that were with him, which is the 
sect of the Sadducees, and were filled with indigna 
tion," it has been conjectured by Geiger that the 
Sadducees or Zadokites were originally identical 
with the sons of Zadok, and constituted what may 
be termed a kind of sacerdotal aristocracy ( Urschrift 
&c., p. 104). To these were afterwards attached 
all who for any reason reckoned themselves as 



h According to the Mishna, Sanked. iv. 2, no one was 
" clean," in tne Levitical sense, to act as a judge in ca- 
P'tal trials, except priests. Levity, and Israelites whose 

belonging to the aristocracy ; such, for example, 
as the families of the high-priest ; who had olv 
tained consideration under the dynasty of Herod, 
These were for the most part judges, b and indi 
viduals of the official and governing class. Now, 
although this view of the Sadducees is only 
inferential, and mainly conjectural, it certainly 
explains the name better than any other, and elu 
cidates at once in the Acts of the Apostles the 
otherwise obscure statement that the high-priest, 
and those who were with him, were the sect of the 
Sadducees. Accepting, therefore, this view till a 
more probable conjecture is suggested, some of the 
principal peculiarities, or supposed peculiarities of 
the Sadducees will now be noticed in detail, although 
in such notice some points must be touched upon, 
which have been already partly discussed in speak 
ing of the Pharisees. 

I. The leading tenet of the Sadducees was the 
negation of the leading tenet of their opponents. 
As the Pharisees asserted, so the Sadducees denied, 
that the Israelites were in possession of an Oral 
Law transmitted to them by Moses. The manner 
in which the Pharisees may have gained acceptance 
for their own view is noticed elsewhere in this 
work [vol. ii. p. 887]; but, for an equitable esti 
mate of the Sadducees, it is proper to bear in mind 
emphatically how destitute of historical evidence 
the doctrine was which they denied. That doctrina 
is at the present day rejected, probably by almost all,, 
if not by all, Christians ; and it is indeed so foreign 
to their ideas, that the greater number of Christians 
have never even heard of it, though it is older than 
Christianity, and has been the support and conso 
lation of the Jews under a series of the most cruel 
and wicked persecutions to which any nation has 
ever been exposed during an equal number of cen 
turies. It is likewise now maintained, all over the 
world, by those who are called the orthodox Jews. 
It is therefore desirable, to know the kind of argu 
ments by which at the present day, in an historical 
and critical age, the doctrine is defended. For this 
an opportunity has been given during the last three 
years by a learned French Jew, Grand-Rabbi of the 
circumscription of Colmar (Klein, Le Judaisme, ou 
la VtritSsur le Talmud, Mulhouse, 1859), who still 
asserts as a fact, the existence of a Mosaic Oral Law. 
To do full justice to his views, the original work 
should be perused. But it is doing no injustice to 
his learning and ability, to point out that iiot one 
of his arguments has a positive historical value. 
Thus he relies mainly on the inconceivability (as 
will be again noticed" in this article) that a Divine 
revelation should not have explicitly proclaimed 
the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punish 
ments, or that it should have promulgated laws, 
left in such an incomplete form, and requiring so 
much explanation, and so many additions, as the 
laws in the Pentateuch. Now, arguments of this 
kind may be sound or unsound ; based on reason, 
or illogical ; and for many they may have a philo 
sophical or theological value; but they have no 
pretence to be regarded as historical, inasmuch as 
the assumed premisses, which involve a knowledge 
of the attributes of the Supreme Being, and the 
manner in which He would be likely to deal with 
man, are far beyond the limits of historical verifica 
tion. The nearest approach to an historical argument 

daughters might marry priests. This again tallies with 
the explanation offered in the text, of the Sadducees,, t& a 
sacerdotal aristocracy, being " with the high-priest." 



is the following (p. 10) : " In the first pLve, nothing I 
proves better the fact of the existence of the tra 
dition than the belief itself in the tradition. An 
entire nation does not suddenly forget its religious 
code, its principles, its laws, the daily ceremonies of 
its worship, to such a point, that it could easily be 
persuaded that a new doctrine presented by some 
impostors is the true and only explanation of its 
law, and has always determined and ruled its appli 
cation. Holy Writ often represents the Israelites 
as a stiff-necked people, impatient of the religious 
yoke, and would it not be attributing to them ra 
ther an excess of docility, a too great condescension, 
a blind obedience, to suppose that they suddenly 
consented to troublesome and rigorous innovations 
which some persons might have wished to impose 
on them some fine morning? Such a supposition 
destroys itself, and we are obliged to acknowledge 
that the tradition is not a new invention, but that 
its birth goes back to the origin of the religion ; and 
that transmitted from father to son as the word of 
God, it lived in the heart of the people, identified 
itself with the blood, and was always considered as 
an inviolable authority." But if this passage is 
carefully examined, it will be seen that it does not 
supply a single fact worthy of being regarded as a 
proof of a Mosaic Oral Law. Independent testi 
mony of persons contemporary with Moses that he 
had transmitted such a law to the Israelites would 
be historical evidence ; the testimony of persons in 
the next generation as to the existence of such an 
Oral Law which their fathers told them came from 
Moses, would have been secondary historical evi 
dence ; but the belief of the Israelites on the point 
1200 years after Moses, cannot, in the absence of 
any intermediate testimony, be deemed evidence of 
an historical foot. Moreover, it is a mistake to 
assume, that they who deny a Mosaic Oral Law, 
imagine that this Oral Law was at some one time, 
as one great system, introduced suddenly amongst 
the Israelites. The real mode of conceiving what 
occurred is far different. After the return from the 
Captivity, there existed probably amongst the Jews 
a large body of customs and decisions not contained 
in the Pentateuch ; and these had practical authority 
over the people long before they were attributed to 
Moses. The only phenomenon of importance requiring 
explanation is not the existence of the customs sanc 
tioned by the Oral Law, but the belief accepted by 
a certain portion of the Jews that Moses had divinely 
revealed those customs as laws to the Israelites. 
To explain this historically from written records 
is impossible, from the silence on the subject of the 
very scauty historical Jewish writings purporting to 
be written between the return from the Captivity in 
538 before Christ and that uncertain period when 
the canon was closed, which at the earliest could 
not have been long before the death of Antiochus 
Kpiphaaes, B.C. 164. For all this space of time, 
a period of about 374 years, a period as long as 
from the accession of Henry VII. to the present 
year (1862) we have no Hebrew account, nor in 
fact any contemporary account, of the history of the 
Jews in Palestine, except what may be contained in 
the short works entitled Ezra and Nehemiah. And 
tha last named of these works does not carry the 

See p. 32 of Essay on tfie Revenues of the Chwch, 
of England, by the Rev. Morgan Cove, Prebendary of 
Hirsford, and Hector of Eaton Bishop. 578 pp. London, 
Kiviugton, 1816. Third Edition. "Thus do we return 
Again to the original difficulty [the origin of tithes], to the 
>o!ution of which the strength of human reason IE unequal. 


history much later than cue hundred years .ifter th* 
return from the Captivity : so that there is a long and 
extremely important period of more than two cen 
turies and a half before the heroic rising of the 
Maccabees, during which there is a total absence of 
contemporary Jewish history. In this dearth of 
historical materials, it is idle to attempt a positive 
narration of the circumstances under which the Oral 
Law became assigned to Moses as its author. It is 
amply sufficient if a satisfactory suggestion is made 
as to how it might have been attributed to Moses, 
and in this there is not much difficulty for j.ry one 
who bears in mind how notoriously in ancient times 
laws of a much later date were attributed to Minos, 
Lycurgus, Solon, and Numa. The unreasonableness 
of supposing that the belief in the Oral traditions 
being from Moses must have coincided in point of 
time with the acceptance of the Oral tradition, may 
be illustrated by what occurred in England during 
the present century. During a period when the 
fitness of maintaining the clergy by tithes was 
contested, the theory was put forth that the origin 
of tithes was to be assigned to " an unrecorded reve 
lation made to Adam." c Now, let us suppose that 
England was a country as small as Judaea ; that the 
English were as few in number as the Jews of 
Judaea must have been in the time of Nehemiah, 
that a temple in London was the centre of the English 
religion, and that the population of London hardly 
ever reached 50,000. [JERUSALEM, p. 1025.] Let 
us further suppose that printing was not invented, 
that manuscripts were dear, and that few of the 
population could read. Under such circumstances 
it is not impossible that the assertion of an unre 
corded revelation made to Adam, might have betn 
gradually accepted by a large religious party in 
England as a divine authority for tithes. If tnis 
belief had continued in the same party during a 
period of more than 2000 years, if that party had 
become dominant in the English Church, if for 
the first 250 years every contemporary record of 
English history became lost to mankind, and if all 
previous English writings merely condemned the 
belief by their silence, so that the precise date of 
the origin of the belief could not be ascertained, we 
should have a parallel to the way in which a belief 
in a Mosaic Oral Law may possibly have arisen. Yet 
it would have been very illogical for an English 
reasoner in the year 4000 A. D. to have argued 
from the burden and annoyance of paying tithes to 
the correctness of the theory that the institution of 
tithes was owing to this unrecorded revelation to 
Adam. It is not meant by this illustration to 
suggest that reasons as specious could be advanced 
for such a divine origin of tithes as even for a Mosaic 
Oral Law. The main object of the illustration is to 
show that the existence of a practice, and the belief 
as to the origin of a practice, are two wholly distinct 
points ; and that there is no necessary connexion in 
time between the introduction of a practice, and the 
introduction of the prevalent belief in its origin. 

Under this head we may add that it must not be 
assumed that the Sadducees, because they rejected 
a Mosaic Oral Law, rejected likewise all traditions 
and all decisions in explanation of passages in the 
Pentateuch. Although they protested against the 

Nor does there remain any other method of solving it, but 
by assigning the origin of the custom, and the peculiar 
observance of it, to some unrecorded revelation made tc 
Adam, and by him and his descendants delivered down tc 


assertion thai such points had been divinely settled 
by Moses, f-hey probably, in numerous instances, 
followed practically the same traditions as the Pha 
risees. This will explain why in the Mishua spe 
cific points of difference between the Pharisees and 
Sadducees are mentioned, which are so unimportant ; 
such, e. g. as whether touching the Holy Scrip 
tures made the hands technically " unclean," in the 
Levitical sense, and whether the stream which flows 
when water is poured from a clean vessel into an un 
clean one is itself technically " clean " or " unclean " 
( Yadaim, iv. 6, 7). If the Pharisees and Sadducees 
had differed on all matters not directly contained in 
the Pentateuch, it would scarcely have been neces 
sary to particularize points of difference such as 
these, which to Christians imbued with the ge- 
Duine spirit of Christ's teaching (Matt. xv. 11; 
Luke xi. 37-40), must appear so trifling, as 
almost to resemble the products of a diseased ima 
gination.' 1 

II. The second distinguishing doctrine of the Sad 
ducees, the denial of man's resurrection after death, 
followed in their conceptions as a logical conclusion 
from their denial that Moses had revealed to the 
Israelites the Oral Law. For on a point so mo 
mentous as a second life beyond the grave, no 
religious party among the Jews would have deemed 
themselves bound to accept any doctrine as an 
article of faith, unless it had been proclaimed by 
Moses, their great legislator ; and it is certain that 
in the written Law of the Pentateuch there is a 
total absence of any assertion by Moses of the resur 
rection of the dead. The absence of this doctrine, 
so far as it involves a future state of rewards and 
punishments, is emphatically manifest from the 
numerous occasions for its introduction in the Pen 
tateuch, among the promises and threats, the bless 
ings and curses, with which a portion of that great 
work abounds. In the Law Moses is represented 
as promising to those who are obedient to the com 
mands of Jehovah the most alluring temporal re 
wards, such as success in business, the acquisition 
of wealth, fruitful seasons, victory over their 
enemies, long life, and freedom from sickness (Deut. 
vii. 12-15, xxviii. 1-12 ; Ex. xx. 12, xxiii. 25, 26) ; 
and he likewise menaces the disobedient with the 
most dreadful evils which can afflict humanity, 
with poverty, fell diseases, disastrous and disgrace 
ful defeats, subjugation, dispersion, oppression, and 
overpowering anguish of heart (Deut. xxviii. 15- 
68) : but in not a single instance does he call to his 
aid the consolations and terrors of rewards and 
punishments hereafter. Moreover, even in a more 
restricted indefinite sense, such as might be in 
volved in the transmigration of souls, or in the 
immortality of the soul as believed in by Plato, 
and apparently by Cicero,* there is a similar absence 
of any assertion by Moses of a resurrection of the 
dead. This fact is presented to Christians in a 
striking manner by the well-known words of the 
Pentateuch which "are quoted by Christ in argu 
ment with the Sadducees on this subject (Ex. iii. 
3, 16 ; Mark xii. 26, 27 ; Matt. xxii. 31, 32 ; Luke 



d Many other points of difference, ritual and juridical, 
are mentioned in the Gemaras. See Graetz, (iii. pp. 
514-18). But it seems unsafe to admit the uemaras 
as an authority for statements respecting the Pharisees 
fcnd Sadducees. See, as to the date of those works. 
l> article PHARISEES. 

f Hee Ue Senectute, xxiii. This treatise was composed 
"ri:.imi twc years before Cicero's death, and although a 

xx. 37). It cannot be doubted that in such a cast 
Christ would quote to his powerful adversaries the 
most cogent text in the Law ; and yet the text 
actually quoted does not do more than suggest an 
inference on this great doctrine. Indeed it must 
be deemed probable that the Sadducees, as they did 
not acknowledge the divine authority of Christ, 
denied even the logical validity of the inference, 
and argued that the expression that Jehovah was 
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob, did not necessarily mean more than 
that Jehovah had been the God of those patriarchs 
while they lived on earth, without conveying a 
suggestion, one way or another, as to whether they 
were or were not still living elsewhere. It is true 
that in other parts of the Old Testament there are 
individual passages which express a belief in a 
resurrection, such as in Is. xxvi. 19, Dan. xii. 2, 
Job xix. 26, and in some of the Psalms ; and it ma) 
at first sight be a subject of surprise that the Sad 
ducees were not convinced by the authority of those 
passages. But although the Sadducees regarded the 
books which contained these passages as sacred, it 
is more than doubtful whether any of the Jew* 
regarded them as sacred in precisely the same sei^* 
as the written Law. There is a danger here of con 
founding the ideas which are now common amongst 
Christians, who regard the whole ceremonial law 
as abrogated, with the ideas of Jews after the time 
of Ezra, while the Temple was still standing, or 
even with the ideas of orthodox modern Jews. To 
the Jews Moses was and is a colossal Form, pie- 
eminent in authority above all subsequent prophets. 
Not only did his series of signs and wonders in 
Egypt and at the Red Sea transcend in magnitude 
and brilliancy those of any other holy men in the 
Old Testament, not only was he the centre in 
Mount Sinai of the whole legislation of the Israel 
ites, but even the mode by which divine communi 
cations were made to him from Jehovah was 
peculiar to him alone. While others were ad 
dressed in visions or in dreams, the Supreme Being 
communicated with him alone mouth to mouth and 
face to face (Num. xii. 6* 7, 8 ; Ex. xxxiii. 11 ; 
Deufc. v. 4, xxxiv. 10-12). Hence scarcely any Jew 
would have deemed himself bound to believe in 
man's resurrection, unless the doctrine had been 
proclaimed by Moses ; and as the Sadducees dis 
believed the transmission of any Oral Law by Moses, 
the striking absence of that doctrine from the written 
law freed them from the necessity of accepting the 
doctrine as divine. It is not meant by this to deny 
that Jewish believers in the resurrection had their 
faith strengthened and confirmed by allusions to a 
resurrection in scattered passages of the other sacred 
writings; but then these passages were read and 
interpreted by mearrs of the central light which 
streamed from the Oral Law. The Sudducees, how 
ever, not making use of that light, would have 
deemed all such passages inconclusive, as being, 
indeed, the utterances of holy men, yet opposed to 
other texts which had equal claims to be pro 
nounced sacred, but which could scarcely be sup- 
dialogue, may perhaps be accepted as expressing his phi 
losophical opinions respecting the immortality of the soul. 
He had held, however, very different language in hie 
oration pro Cluentia, cap. Ixi., in a passage whicfc is a 
striking proof of the popular belief at Rome in his time 
See also Sallust, Ca&lin. li. ; Juvenal, ii. 149 ; and Pilny 
the Elder vii. 56 



{osed to have been written by men who believed m 
a resurrection (Is. xxxviii. 18, 19; Ps. vi. 5, xxx. 
9, Ixxxviii. 10, 11, 12 ; Eccles. ix. 4-10). The real 
truth seems to be that, as in Christianity the doc 
trine of the resurrection of man rests on belief in 
the resurrection of Jesus, with subsidiary arguments 
drawn from texts in the Old Testament, and from 
man's instincts, aspirations, and moral nature ; so, 
admitting fully the same subsidiary arguments, the 
doctrine of the resurrection among Pharisees, and 
the successive generations of orthodox Jews, and 
the orthodox Jews now living, has rested, and rests, 
on a belief in the supposed Oral Law of Moses. On 
this point tne statement of the learned Grand-Rabbi 
to whom allusion has been already made deserves 
particular attention. " What causes most sur 
prise in perusing the Pentateuch is the silence 
which it seems to keep respecting the most funda 
mental and the most consoling truths. The doc 
trines of the immortality of the soul, and of retri 
bution beyond the tomb, are able powerfully to 
fortify man against the violence of the passions and 
the seductive attractions of vice, and to strengthen 
nis steps in the rugged path of virtue : of them 
selves they smooth all the difficulties which are 
raised, all the objections which are made, against 
the government of a Divine Providence, and account 
for the good fortune of the wicked and the bad 
fortune of the just. But man searches in vain for 
these truths, which he desires so ardently ; he in 
vain devours with avidity each page of Holy Writ ; 
he does not find either them, or the simple doctrine 
of the resurrection of the dead, explicitly announced. 
Nevertheless truths so consoling and of such an 
elevated order cannot have been passed over in 
silence, and certainly God has not relied on the 
mere sagacity of the human mind in order to an 
nounce them only implicitly. He has transmitted 
them verbally, with the means of finding them in 
the text. A supplementary tradition was neces 
sary, indispensable: this tradition exists. Moses 
received the Law from Sinai, transmitted it to 
Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders trans 
mitted it to the prophets, and the prophets to the 
men of the great synagogue" (Klein, Le Judaisme 
ou la Verite sur le Talmud, p. 15). 

In connexion with the disbelief of a resurrection 
by the Sadducees, it is proper to notice the state 
ment (Acts xxiii. 8) that they likewise denied there 
xvas " angel or spirit." A perplexity arises as to 
the precise sense in which this denial is to be 
understood. Angels are so distinctly mentioned in 
the Pentateuch and other books of the Old Testa 
ment, that it is hard to understand how those who 
acknowledged the Old Testament to have divine 
authority could deny the existence of angels (see 
Gen. xvi. 7, xix. 1, xxii. 11, xxviii. 12 ; Ex. xxiii. 
20 ; Num. xxii. 23 ; Judg. xiii. 18 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 
16, and other passages). The difficulty is increased 
by the fact that no such denial of angels is recorded 
of the Sadducees either by Josephus, or in the 
Mishua, or, it is said, in any part of the Talmudical 
writings. The two principal explanations which 
nave been suggested are, either that the Sadducees 
regarded the angels of the Old Testament as tran 
sitory unsubstantial representations of Jehovah, or 
that they disbelieved, not the angels of the Old 
Testament, but merely the angelical system which 
had become developed in the popular belief of 
the Jews after their return from the Babylonian 
Captivity (Herzfeld, Geschichte des Yolkes Israel, 


iii. 364). Either of these explanations may pos 
sibly be correct; and the first, although there 
are numerous texts to which it did not apply, 
would have received some countenance from pas 
sages wherein the same divine appearance which at 
one time is called the " angel of Jehovah " is after 
wards called simply " Jehovah " (see the instance 
pointed out by Gesenius, s. v. IjisPQ, Gen. xvi. 7, 

13, xxii. 11, 12, xxxi. 11, 16 ; Ex.' iii. 2, 4; Judg. 
vi. 14, 22, xiii. 18, 22). Perhaps, however, an 
other suggestion is admissible. It appears from 
Acts xxiii. 9, that some of the scribes on the side 
of the Pharisees suggested the possibility of a spirit 
or an angel having spoken to St. Paul, on the veiy 
occasion when it is asserted that the Sadducees 
denied the existence of angel or spirit. Now the 
Sadducees may have disbelieved in the occurrence 
of any such phenomena in their own time, although 
they accepted all the statements respecting angels 
in the Old Testament ; and thus the key to the 
assertion in the 8th verse that the Sadducees denied 
"angel or spirit" would be found exclusively in 
the 9th verse. This view of the Sadducees may be 
illustrated by the present state of opinion among 
Christians, the great majority of whom do not in 
any way deny the existence of angels as recorded 
in the Bible, and yet they certainly disbelieve thai 
angels speak, at the present day, even to the most 
virtuous and pious of mankind. 

III. The opinions of the Sadducees respecting the 
freedom of the will, and the way in which those 
opinions are treated by Josephus (Ant. xiii. 5, 
9), have been noticed elsewhere [PHARISEES, 
p. 895], and an explanation has been there sug- 
gested of the prominence given to a difference ii : 
this respect between the Sadducees and the Phari 
sees. It may be here added that possibly the great 
stress laid by the Sadducees on the freedom of the 
will may have had some connexion with their 
forming such a large portion of that class 
from which criminal judges were selected. Jewish 
philosophers in their study, although they knew 
that punishments as an instrument of good were 
unavoidable, might indulge in reflections that 
man seemed to be the creature of circumstances, 
and might regard with compassion the punishments 
inflicted on individuals whom a wiser moral train 
ing and a more happily balanced nature might have 
made useful members of society. Those Jews who 
were almost exclusively religious teachers would 
naturally insist on the inability of man to do any 
thing good if God's Holy Spirit were taken away 
from him (Ps. li. 11, 12), and would enlarge on 
the perils which surrounded man from the tempta 
tions of Satan and evil angels or spirits (1 Chr. xxL 
1 ; Tob. iii. 17). But it is likely that the ten 
dencies of the judicial class would be more practical 
and direct, and more strictly in accordance with 
the ideas of the Levitical prophet Ezekiel (xxxiii. 
11-19) in a well-known passage in which he gives 
the responsibility of bad actions, and seems to at 
tribute the power of performing good actions, exclu 
sively to the individual agent. Hence the sentiment 
of the lines 

" Our acts our Angels are, or good or ill, 
Our fatal shadows that walk by us still," 

would express that portion of truth on which the 
Sadducees, in inflicting punishments, would dwell 
with most emphasis : and as, in some sense, they 
disbelieved in angels, these lines have r. ueoulini 


claim to be regarded as a correct exponent of 
Sadducean thought.' And yet perhaps, if writings 
were extant in which the Sadducees explained their 
own ideas, we might find that they reconciled these 
principles, as we may be certain that Ezekiel did, 
with other passages apparently of a different import 
m the Old Testament, and that the line of de 
marcation between them and the Pharisees was not, 
in theory, so very sharply marked as the account 
of Josephus would lead us to suppose. 

I V. Some of the early Christian writers, such as 
Epiphanius (Ilaeres. xiv.), Origen, and Jerome (in 
their respective Commentaries on Matt. xxii. 31, 
32, 33) attribute to the Sadducees the rejection of 
all the Sacred Scriptures except the Pentateuch. 
Such rejection, if true, would undoubtedly constitute 
a most important additional difference between the 
Sadducees and Pharisees. The statement of these 
Christian writers is, however, now generally ad 
mitted to have been founded on a misconception of 
the truth, and probably to have arisen from a con 
fusion of the Sadducees with the Samaritans. See 
Lightfoot's florae ffebraicae on Matt. iii. 7 ; 
Herzfeld's Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 363. 
Josephus is wholly silent as to an antagonism on 
this point between the Sadducees and the Pha 
risees ; and it is absolutely inconceivable that on 
the three several occasions when he introduces 
an account of the opinions of the two sects, he 
should have been silent respecting such an antagon 
ism, if it had really existed (Ant. xiii. 5, 9, xviii. 
1, 3 ; B. J. ii. 8, 14). Again, the existence of 
such a momentous antagonism would be incompa 
tible with the manner in which Josephus speaks of 
John Hyrcanus, who was high-priest and king 
of Judaea thirty-one years, and who nevertheless, 
having been previously a Pharisee, became a Sad- 
ducee towards the close of his life. This Hyrcanus, 
who died about 106 B.C., had been so inveterately 
hostile to the Samaritans, that when about three 
years before his death, he took their city Samaria, 
he razed it to the ground ; and he is represented to 
have dug cavernsSn various parts of the soil in 
order to sink the surface to a level or slope, and 
then to have diverted streams of water over it, in 
order to efface marks of such a city having ever 
existed. If the Sadducees had come so near to the 
Samaritans as to reject the divine authority of all 
the books of the Old Testament, except the Pen 
tateuch, it is very unlikely that Josephus, after 
mentioning the death of Hyrcanus, should have 
f-poken of him as he does in the following manner: 
" He was esteemed by God worthy of three of the 
greatest privileges, the government of the nation, 
the dignity of the high priesthood, and prophecy. 
For God was with him, and enabled him to know 
future events." Indeed, it may be inferred from 
this passage that Josephus did not even deem it a 
matter of vital importance whether a high-priest 
was a Sadducee or a Pharisee a latitude of tolera 
tion which we may be confident he would not have 
indulged in, if the divine authority of all the books 
of the Old Testament, except the Pentateuch, had 
been at stake. What probably had more influence 
than anything else in occasioning this misconception 
respecting the Sadducees, was the circumstance that 



The preceding lines would be equally applicable, if, 
as is not improbable, the Sadducees likewise rejected the 
Chaldaean belief in astrology, so common among the Jews 
and Christians of the Middle Ages : 

VOL. 1IT. 

in arguing with them on the doctrine of a future life, 
Christ quoted from the Pentateuch only, although 
there are stronger texts in favour of the doctrine in 
some other books of the Old Testament. But pro 
bable reasons have been already assigned why Christ 
in arguing on this subject with the Sadducees re 
ferred only to the supposed opinions oi Moses rather 
than to isolated passages extracted from the produc 
tions of any other sacred writer. 

V. In conclusion, it may be proper to notice a 
fact, which, while it accounts for misconceptions of 
early Christian writers respecting the Sadducees, is 
on other grounds well worthy to arrest the atten 
tion. This fact is the rapid disappearance of the 
Sadducees from history after the first century, and 
the subsequent predominance among the Jews of 
the opinions of the Pharisees. Two circumstances, 
indirectly, but powerfully, contributed to produce 
this result: 1st. The state of the Jews after the 
capture of Jerusalem by Titus ; and 2ndly. The 
growth of the Christian religion. As to the first 
point it is difficult to over-ostimate the consterna 
tion and dismay which the destruction of Jerusalem 
occasioned in the minds of sincerely religious Jews. 
Their holy city was in ruins ; their holy and beau 
tiful Temple, the centre of their worship and their 
love, had been ruthlessly burnt to the ground, and 
not one stone of it was left upon another: their 
magnificent hopes, either of an ideal king who was 
to restore the empire of David, or of a Son of Man 
who was to appear to them in the clouds of heaven , 
seemed tp them for a while like empty dreams ; and 
the whole visible world was, to their imagination, 
black with desolation and despair. In this their hour 
of darkness and anguish, they naturally turned to 
the consolations and hopes of a future state, and thfc 
doctrine of the Sadducees that there was nothing 
beyond the present life, would have appeared to 
them cold, heartless, and hateful. Again, while they 
were sunk in the lowest depths of depression, a new 
religion which they despised as a heresy and a super 
stition, of which one of their own nation was the 
object, and another the unriva]led missionary to the 
heathen, was gradually making its way among the 
subjects of their detested conquerors, the Romans. 
One of the causes of its success was undoubtedly the 
vivid belief in the resurrection of Jesus, and a con 
sequent resurrection of all mankind, which was 
accepted by its heathen converts with a passionate 
earnestness, of which those who at the present day 
are familiar from infancy with the doctrine of the 
resurrection of the dead can form only a faint idea. 
To attempt to check the progress of this new re 
ligion among the Jews by an appeal to the tem 
porary rewards and punishments of the Pentateuch, 
would have been as idle as an endeavour to 
check an explosive power by ordinary mechanical 
restraints. Consciously, therefore, or unconsciously, 
many circumstances combined to induce the Jews, 
who wero iiot Pharisees, but who resisted the 
new heresy, to rally round the standard of the 
Oral Law, and to assert that their holy legislator, 
Moses, had transmitted to his faithful people by 
word of mouth, although not in writing, the reve 
lation of a future state of rewards and punishments, 
A great belief was thus built up on a great fiction 

" Man is his own Star ; and the soul that can 
Render an honest and a perfect man, 
Commands all light, all influence, all fate : 
Nothing to him falls early, or too late." 

FLETCHER'S Lines " Upon an Honest Man's Fortunt.* 
4 A 



early teaco-ng and custom supplied the place of evi 
dence ; faith in an imaginary fact produced results as 
striking as could have flowed from the fact itself; 
and the doctrine of a Mosaic Oral Law, enshrining 
convictions and hopes deeply rooted in the human 
heart, has triumphed for nearly 1800 years in 
the ideas of the Jewish people. This doctrine, the 
pledge of eternal life to them, as the resurrection 
of Jesus to Christians, is still maintained by the 
majority of our Jewish contemporaries ; and it will 
probably continue to be the creed of millions long 
after the present generation of mankind has passed 
away from the earth.* [E. T.] 

SA'DOC (Sadoch\ 1. ZADOK the ancestor of 
Ezra (2 Esd. i. 1 ; comp. Ezr. vii. 2). 

2. (2a8caic : Sadoc.) A descendant of Zerubbabel 
in the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matt. i. 14). 

SAFFRON" (D3"]3, carcom : K p6>tos : crocus) 
is mentioned only in Cant. iv. 14 with other odorous 
substances, such as spikenard, calamus, cinnamon, 
&c. ; there is not the slightest doubt that " saffron" 
is th correct rendering of the Hebrew word ; the 
Ara^c Kurkum is similar to the Hebrew, and de 
notes the Crocus sativus, or " saffron crocus." 
Saffron has from the earliest times been in high 
esteem as a perfume : " it was used," says Rosen- 
miiller (Bib. Bot. p. 138), " for the same purposes 
as the modern pot-pourri." Saffron was also used 
in seasoning dishes (Apicius, p. 270), it entered 
into the composition of many spirituous extracts 
which retained the scent (see Beckmann's Hist, of In 
vent, i. p. 175, where the whole subject is very fully 
discussed). The part of the plant which was used 
was the stigma, which was pulled out of the flower 
and then dried. Dr. Royle says, that " some 
times the stigmas are prepared by being submitted 
to pressure, and thus made into cake saffron, a 
form in which it is still imported from Persia into 
India." Hasselquist (Trav. p. 36) states that in 
certain places, as around Magnesia, large quantities 
of saffron are gathered and exported to different 
places in Asia and Europe. Kitto (Phys. Hist, of 
Palest, p. 321) says that the Safflower (Cartha- 
mus tinctorius\ a very different plant from the 
crocus, is cultivated in Syria for the sake of the 
flowers which are used in dyeing, but the Karkom 
no doubt denotes the Crocus sativus. The word 
saffron is derived from the Arabic Zafran, " yellow." 
This plant gives its name to Saffron- Walden, in 
Essex, where it is largely cultivated : it belongs to 
the Natural Order Iridaceae. [W. H.] 

SA'LA (SaAcJ : Sale}. SALAH, or SHELAH, the 
father of Eber (Luke iii. 35). 

SA'LAH(rfe>: 5aAc: Sale}. The son of Ar- 
phaxad and father of Eber (Gen. x. 24, xi. 12-14; 
Luke iii. 35). The name is significant of extension, 
the cognate verb being applied to the spreading out 
of the roots and branches of trees (Jer. xvii. 8 ; 
Ez. xvii. 6). It thus seems to imply the historical 
fact of the gradual extension of a branch of the 
Semitic race from its original seat in Northern 
Assyria towards the river Euphrates. A place with 
a similar name in Northern Mesopotamia is noticed 
by Syrian writers (Knobel, in Gen. xi.) ; but we 


can hardly assume its identity with the Salah of 
the Bible. Ewald (Gesch. i. 354) and Von Bohleu 
(Introd. to Gen. ii. 205) regard the name aa 
partly fictitious, the former explaining it as a son 
or offspring, the latter as the father of a race. 
That the name is significant does not prove it 
fictitious, and the conclusions drawn by these writers 
are unwarranted. [W. L. B.] 

SAL'AMIS (2o\a/ife : Salamis), a city at the 
east end of the island of Cyprus, and the first place 
visited by Paul and Barnabas, on the first missionary 
journey, after leaving the mainland at Seleucia, 
Two reasons why they took this course obviously 
suggest themselves, viz. the fact that Cyprus (and 
probably Salamis) was tne-native-place of Barnabas, 
and the geographical proximity of this end of the 
island to Antioch. But a further reason is indi 
cated by a circumstance in the narrative (Acts xiii. 
5). Here alone, among all the Greek cities visited 
by St. Paul, we read expressly of " synagogues in 
the plural. Hence we conclude that there were many 
Jews in Cyprus. And this is in harmony with 
what we read elsewhere. To say nothing of pos 
sible mercantile relations in very early times [CHIT- 
TIM ; CYPRUS], Jewish residents in the island 
are mentioned during the period when the Seleu- 
cidae reigned at Antioch (1 Mace. xv. 23). In the 
reign of Augustus the Cyprian copper-mines were 
farmed to Herod the Great (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 4, 
5), and this would probably attract many Hebrew 
families : to which we may add evidence to the 
same effect from Philo (Legat. ad Caium) at the 
very time of St. Paul's journey. And again at a 
later period, in the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian, 
we are informed of dreadful tumults here, caused 
by a vast multitude of Jews, in the course of which 
"the whole populous city of Salamis became a 
desert " (Milman's Hist, of the Jews, iii. Ill, 11 2). 
We may well believe that from the Jews of Salamis 
came some of those early Cypriote Christians, who 
are so prominently mentioned in the account of the 
first spreading of the Gospel beyond Palestine (Acts 
xi. 19, 20), even before the first missionary expe 
dition. Mnason (xxi. 16) might be one of them. 
Nor ought Mark to be forgotten here. He was at 
Salamis with Paul, and his own kinsman Barnabas; 
and again he was there with the same kinsman after 
the misunderstanding with St. Paul and the separa 
tion (xv. 39). 

Salamis was not far from the modern Fama- 
gousta. It was situated near a river called the 
Pediaeus, on low ground, which is in fact a con 
tinuation of the plain running up into the interior 
towards the place where Nicosia, the present capital 
of Cyprus, stands. We must notice in regard to 
Salamis that its harbour is spoken of by Greek 
writers as very good ; and that one of the ancient 
tables lays down a road between this city and 
PAPHOS, the next place which Paul and Barnabas 
visited on their journey. Salamis again has rather 
an eminent position in subsequent Christian history. 
Constantine or his successor rebuilt it, and called it 
Constantia ("Salamis, quae nunc Constantia di- 
citur," Hieronym. Philern.), and, while it had this 
name, Epiphanius was one of its bishops. 

e In Germany and elsewhere, some of the most learned 
Jews disbelieve in a Mosaic Oral Law ; and Judaism seems 
ripe to rater on a new phase. Based on the Old Testa 
ment, but avoiding the mistakes of the Karaites, it might 
itill IUTC a great future ; but whether it ould last 

another 1800 years with the belief in a future life, as a 
revealed doctrine, depending not on a supposed reve 
lation by Moses, tut solely on scattered texts in the 
Hebrew Scriptures, Is an interesting s ibject fur dpec- 


Of the travellers who have visited and described 
Salamis, we must particularly mention Pococke 
(Desc. of the East, ii. 214) and Ross (Reisen nach 
Kos, ffalikurnassos, Rhodos, und Cypem, 118-125). 
These travellers notice, in the neighbourhood of 
Srtlamis, a village named St. Sergius, which is 
doubtless a reminiscence of Sergius Paulus, and a 
large Byzantine church bearing the name of St. 
Barnabas, and associated with a legend concerning 
the discovery of his relics. The legend will be 
found in Cedrenus (i. 618, ed. Bonn). [BARNABAS ; 

SALASADA'I (SoAewrc'oVi, 'Sapaa-aSat, 2oupi- 
craSe), a variation for Surisadai (SoupttraSa't, Num. 
I. 6 N in Jud. viii. 1. [ZURISHADDAI.] [B. F. W.] 

SALA'THIEL (^nW : SaAafl^A : Sa 
lathiel: "I have asked God" a ), son of Jechouias 
king of Judah, and father of Zorobabel, according 
to Matt. i. 12 ; but son of Neri, and father of 
Zorobabel, according to Luke iii. 27 ; while the 
genealogy in 1 Chr. iii. 17-19, leaves it doubtful 
whether he is the son of Assir or Jechonias, and 
makes Zorobabel his nephew. [ZERUBBABEL.] 
Upon the incontrovertible principle that no gene 
alogy would assign to the true son and heir of a 
king any inferior and private parentage, whereas, 
on the contrary, the son of a private person would 
naturally be placed in the royal pedigree on his 
becoming the rightful heir to the throne ; we may 
assert, with the utmost confidence, that St. Luke 
gives us the true state of the case, when he infonns 
us that Salathiel was the son of Neri, and a de 
scendant of Nathan the son of David. b And from 
his insertion in the royal pedigree, both in 1 Chr. 
and St. Matthew's gospel, after the childless 
Jechonias, we infer, with no less confidence, that, 
on the failure of Solomon's line, he was the next 
heir to the throne of David. The appearance of 
Salathiel in the two pedigrees, though one deduces 
the descent from Solomon and the other from 
Nathan, is thus perfectly simple, and, indeed, neces 
sary ; whereas the notion of Salathiel being called 
Ned's son, as Yardley and others have thought, 
because he married Neri's daughter, is palpably 
absurd on the supposition of his being the son of 
Jechonias. On this last principle you might have 
not two but about a million different pedigrees 
between Jechonias and Christ ;* and yet you have 
no rational account, why there should actually be 
more than one. It may therefore be considered as 
certain, that Salathiel was the son of Neri, and the 
heir of Jechoniah. The question whether he was 
the father of Zerubbabel will be considered under 
that article.* Besides the passages already cited, 
Salathiel occurs in 1 Esdr. v. 5, 48. 56, vi. 2 ; 
2 Esdr. v. 16. 

As regards the orthography of the name, it has, 



a Possibly with an allusion to 1 Sam. i. 20, 27, 28. See 
Brough ton's Our Lord's Family. 

b It is worth noting that Josephus speaks of Zorobabel 
as " the son of rfalathiel, of the posterity of David, and of 
the tribe of Judah " (A. J. xi. 3, $10). Had he believed him 
to be the son of Jeconiah, of whom he had spoken (x. 11, $2), 
he could hardly have failed to say so. Comp. x. 1, $1. 

c " Of Jechonias God sware that he should die leaving 
no child behind him ; wherefore it were flat atheism to 
prate that he naturally became father to Salathiel. Though 
St. Luke had never left us Salathlel's family up to Nathan, 
whole brother to Solomon, to show that Salathiel was of 
auothnr family, God's oath should make us believe that, 
without any further record" (Bnroghton, ut supr.). 

as noted above, two forms in Hebiew. The con 
tracted form is peculiar to Haggai, who uses it 
three times out of five ; while in the first and last 
verse of his prophecy he uses the full form, which 
is also found in Ezr. iii. 2 ; Neh. xii. 1. The LXX. 
everywhere have SaAa0ftA, while the A. V. has 
(probably with an eye to correspondence with Matt, 
and Luke) Salathiel in 1 Chr. iii. 17. but everywhere, 
else in the 0. T. SHEALTIEL. [GENEALOGY OF 

SAL'CAH' (PO^D : Sexx**. * A X> 2eA<{; 
Alex. EAx, A<reAx, 2eAx : Salecha, Salacha). 
A city named in the early records of Israel as the 
extreme limit of Bashan (Deut. iii. 10 ; Josh. xiii. 
1 1) and of the tribe of Gad (1 Chr. v. 11). On 
another occasion the name seems to denote a district 
rather than a town (Josh. xii. 5). By Eusebius 
and Jerome it is merely mentioned, apparently 
without, their having had any real knowledge of it. 

It is doubtless identical with the town of Sulkhad, 
which stands at the southern extremity of the Jebel 
Hauran, twenty miles S. of Kunawat (the ancient 
Kenath), which was the southern outpost of the 
Leja, the Argob of the Bible. Sulkhad is named 
by both the Christian and Mahomedan historians of 
the middle ages (Will, of Tyre, xvi. 8, "Selcath;" 
Abulfeda, in Schultens' Index geogr. " Sarchad"). 
It was visited by Burckhardt (Syria, Nov. 22, 
1810), Seetzen and others, and more recently by 
Porter, who describes it at some length (Five Years, 
ii. 176-116). Its identification with Salcah appears 
to be due to Gesenius 'Burckhardt's Reisen, 507). 

Immediately below Sulkhad commences the plain 
of the great Euphrates desert, which appears to 
stretch with hardly an undulation from here to 
Busra on the Persian Gulf. The town is of consi 
derable size, two to three miles in circumference, 
surrounding a castle on a lofty isolated hill, which 
rises 300 or 400 feet above the rest of the place 
(Porter, 178, 179). One of the gateways of the 
castle bears an inscription containing the date of 
A.D. 246 (180). A still earlier date, viz. A.n. 196 
(Septimius Severus), is found on a grave-stone 
(185). Other scanty particulars of its later history 
will be found in Porter. The hill on which the 
castle stands was probably at one time a crater, and 
its sides are still covered with volcanic cinder and 
blocks of lava. [G.] 

SAL'CHAH (n^>D : 'EAxa: Selcha). The 

form in which the name, elsewhere more accu 
rately given SALCAH, appears in Deut. iii. 10 

only. The Targum Pseudojon. gives it fcOp'l'PD 
*. e. Selucia ; though which Seleucia they can have 
supposed was here intended it is difficult to 
imagine. [G.] 

d See a curious calculation in Blackstone's Comment. 
ii. 203, that in the 20th degree of ancestry every man has 
above a million of ancestors, and in the 40th upwards of a 
million millions. 

e The theory of two Salathiels, of whom each had a 
son called Zerubbabel, though adopted by Hottinger and 
J. G. Vossius, is scarcely worth mentioning, except as a 

t One of the few instances of our translator? having 
represented the Hebrew Caph by C. Their common prac 
tice is to use ch for it as indeed they havo done on one 
occurrence of this very name. [SALCHAH ; and compare 

4 A 2 

1 09 2 SALEM 

SA'LEM (tb&, i. e. Shalem : 2aA^/x : Salem}. 
I. The place of which Melchizedek was king (Gen. 
riv. 18 ; Heb. vii. 1, 2). No satisfactory identifica 
tion of it is perhaps possible. The indications of the 
narrative are not sufficient to give any clue to its 
position. It is not even safe to infer, as some have 
'lone, 8 that it lay between Damascus and Sodom ; 
&r though it is said that the king of Sodom who 
hail probably regained his own city after the retreat 
.if the Assyrians went out to meet (flN")!??) b 
Abram, yet it is also distinctly stated that this' was 
after Abram had returned (U-18? ^PIK) from the 
slaughter of the kings. Indeed, it is not certain 
that there is any connexion of time or place between 
Abram's encounter with the king of Sodom and the 
appearance of Melchizedek. Nor, supposing this 
last doubt to be dispelled, is any clue afforded by the 
mention of the Valley of Shaveh, since the situation 
even of that is more than uncertain. 

Dr. Wolff no mean authority on Oriental ques 
tions in a striking passage in his last work, implies 
that Salem was what the author of the Epistle of 
the Hebrews understood it to be a title, not the 
name of a place. " Melchizedek of old ... had a 
royal title; he was 'King of Righteousness/ in 
Hebrew Melchi-zedek. And he was also ' King of 
Peace,' Melek-Salem. And when Abraham came 
to his tent he came forth with bread and wine, and 
was called ' the Priest of the Highest,' and Abraham 
gave him a portion of his spoil. And just so Wolff's 
friend in the desert of Meru in the kingdom of 
Khiva . . . whose name is Abd-er-Rahrnan, which 
means 'Slave of the merciful God' . . . has also 
a royal title. He is called Shahe-Adaalat, ' King 
of Righteousness ' the same as Melchizedek in 
Hebrew. And when he makes peace between kings 
he bears the title, Shahe Soolkh, < King of Peace ' 
in Hebrew Melek-Salem!' 

To revert, however, to the topographical ques 
tion ; two main opinions have been current from 
the earliest ages of interpretation. 1. That of the 
Jewish commentators, who from Onkelos( Targum) 
and Josephus (B. J. vi. 10 ; Ant. i. 10, 2, vii. 3, 
2) to Kalisch (Comm. on Gen. p. 360) with one 
voice affirm that Salem is Jerusalem, on the ground 
that Jerusalem is so called in Ps. Ixxvi. 2, the 
Psalmist, after the manner of poets, or from some 
exigency of his poem, making use of the archaic 
name in preference to that in common use. This 
is quite feasible ; but it is no argument for the 
identity of Jerusalem with the Salem of Melchi 
zedek. See this well put by Reland (Pal. 833). 
The Christians of the 4th century held the same 
belief with the Jews, as is evident from an expres 
sion of Jerome ("nostri omnes," Ep. ad Evan- 
gelum, 7). 

2. Jerome himself, however, is not of the same 
opinion. He states (Ep. ad Evang. 7) without 
hesitation, though apparently (as just observed) 
alone in his belief, that the Salem of Melchizedek 
was not Jerusalem, but a town near Scythopoiis, 
which in his day was still called Salem, and where 
the vast ruins of the palace of Melchizedek were 

I or Instance, Rochart,Phdleg, ii. ; 4 Ewald, Gesch. i. 410. 

b The force of this word is occurrere in obviam (Gese- 
unis, Thes. 1233 6). 

c Professor Stanley seems to have been the first to call 
attention to this (S. & P. 249). See Eupolemi Fragmenta, 
anctore G. A. Kuhlmey (Berlin, 1840) ; one of those excel 
lent monographs which we owe to the German academical 
custom of demanding a treatise at each step in honours. 


still to ie seer. Elsewhere (Onow. " Salem <>N v 
locates it more precisely at eight Roman miles fioty 
Scythopc.ts, and gives its then name as Saluniiac. 
Further, he identifies this Salem with the Salim 
(JaAefyt) of St. John the Baptist. That a Salem 
existed where St. Jerome thus places it there need 
be no doubt. Indeed, the name has been recovered 
at the identical distance below Beisan by Mr. Van 
de Velde, at a spot otherwise suitable for Aenon. 
But that this Salem, Salim, or Salumias was the 
Salem of Melchizedek, is as uncertain as that Jeru 
salem was so. The ruins were probably as much 
the ruins of Melchizedek's palace as the remains at 
Ramet el-Khalil, three miles north of Hebron, are 
those of " Abraham's house." Nor is the decision 
assisted by a consideration of Abram's homeward 
route. He probably brought back his party by the 
road along the Ghor as far as Jericho, and then turn 
ing to the right ascended to the upper level of the 
country in the direction of Mamre ; but whether he 
crossed the Jordan at the Jisr Benat Yakub above 
the Lake of Gennesaret, or at the Jisr Mejamia 
below it, he would equally pass by both Scythopoiis 
and Jerusalem. At the same time it must be con 
fessed that the distance of Salem (at least eighty 
miles from the probable position of Sodom) makes it 
difficult to suppose that the king of Sodom can have 
advanced so far to meet Abram, adds its weight to 
the statement that the meeting took place after 
Abram had returned not during his return and 
is thus so far in favour of Salem being Jerusalem. 

3. Professor Ewald (Geschichte, i. 410 note) 
pronounces that Salem is a town on the further 
side of Jordan, on the road from Damascus to 
Sodom, quoting at the same time John iii. 23, but 
the writer has in vain endeavoured to discover any 
authority for this, or any notice of the existence of 
the name in that direction either in former 01 
reces* times. 

4. A tradition given by Eupolemus, a writer 
known only through fragments preserved in the 
Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius (ix. 17), differs 
in some important points from the Biblical account. 
According to this the meeting took place in the 
sanctuary of the city Argarizin, which is interpreted 
by Eupolemus to mean " the Mountain of the Most 
c High." Argarizin d is of course har Gerizzim, 
Mount Gerizim. The source of the tradition is. 
therefore, probably Samaritan, since the encounter 
of Abram and Melchizedek is one of the events to 
which the Samaritans lay claim for Mount Gerizim. 
But it may also proceed from the identification of 
Salem with Shechem, which lying at the foot of 
Gerizim would easily be confounded with the moun 
tain itself. [See SHALEM.] 

5. A Salem is mentioned in Judith iv. 4, among 
the places which were seized and fortified by the 
Jews on the approach of Holofernesl " The valley 
of Salem," as it appears in the A. V. (rbv ov\S>va 
"SaX^fjC), is possibly, as Reland has ingeniously sug 
gested (Pal. " Salem," p. 977), a corruption of els 
avXwva fls SoA^/i "into the plain to Salem." 
If A.v\<>v is here, according to frequent usage, the 
Jordan 6 valley, then the Salem referred to must 

d Pliny uses nearly the same form Argaris (JET. j>*. 
v. 14). 

e AvXwv is commonly employed in Palestine topography 
for the great valley of the Jordan (see Eusebius and Ja 
rome, Onomasticon, " Aulon "). But in the Book of Judith 
it is used with much less precision in the general sense of a 
valley or plain. 


surely be that mentioned by Jerome, and already 
uoticed. But in this passage it may be with equal 
probability the broad plain of the Mukhna which 
stretches from Ebal and Gerizim on the one hand, 
to the hills on which Salim stands on the other, 
which is said to be still called the " plain of 
^alim " f (Porter, Handbook, 340 a), and through 
which runs the central north road of the country. 
Or, as is perhaps still more likely, it refers to 
another Salim near Zerin (Jezreel), and to the 
plain which runs up between those two places, as 
far as Jenin, and which lay directly in the route 
of the Assyrian army. There is nothing to show 
that the invaders reached as far into the interior 
of the country as the plain of the Mukhna. And 
the other places enumerated in the verse seem, as 
far as they can be recognized, to be points which 
guarded the main approaches to the interior (one ol 
the chief of which was by Jezreel and Engannim), 
not towns in the interior itself, like Shechem or the 
Salem near it. 

2. (D?^ : eV tlp-hvri : in pacee), Ps. Ixxvi. 2. 
It seems to be agreed on all hands that Salem is 
here employed for Jerusalem, but whether as a mere 
abbreviation to suit some exigency of the poetry, 
and point the allusion to the peace (salern) which 
the city enjoyed through the protection of God, or 
whether, after a well-known habit of poets, 11 it is 
an antique name preferred to the more modern and 
familiar one, is a question not yet decided. The 
latter is the opinion of the Jewish commentators, 
but it is grounded on their belief that the Salem of 
Melchizedek was the city which afterwards became 
Jerusalem. This is to beg the question. See a re 
markable passage in Geiger's Urschrift, &c., 74-6. 

The antithesis in verse 1 betweeen " Judah " and 
" Israel," would seem to imply that some sacred 
place in the northern kingdom is being contrasted 
with Zion, the sanctuary of the south. And if there 
were in the Bible any sanction to the identification 
of Salem with Shechem (noticed above), the passage 
might be taken -as referring to the continued rela 
tion of God to the kingdom of Israel. But there 
are no materials even for a conjecture on the point. 
Zion the sanctuary, however, being named in the 
one member of the verse, it is tolerably certain that 
Salem, if Jerusalem, must denote the secular part 
of the city' a distinction which has been already 
noticed [vol. i. 1026] as frequently occurring and 
implied in the Psalms and Prophecies. [G.] 

SA'LIM (2aAei> ; Alex. 2aAA/i : Salim). 
A place named (John iii. 23) to denote the situation 
of Aenon, the scene of St. John's last baptisms Salim 
being the well-known town or spot, and Aenon a 
place of fountains, or other water, near it. There 
is no statement in the narrative itself fixing the 
situation of Salim, and the only direct testimony 
we possess is that of Eusebius and Jerome, who 
both affirm unhesitatingly (Onom. "Aenon") that 
it existed in their day near the Jordan, eight Ro 
man miles south of Scythopolis. Jerome adds 
(under " Saiem") that its name was then Salumias. 
Elsewhere (Up. ad Evangelum, 7, 8) he states 

f The writer could not succeed (In 1861) in eliciting 
thl3 r.<wie for any part of the plain. The name, given in 
answer to repeated questions, for the Eastern branch or 
leg of the Mukhna was always Wady Sajua. 

8 The above is the reading of the Vulgate and of the 
"Galilean Psalter." But in the Liber Pscdmorum juxta 
Hebraicam veritatem, in the Divina BMwthsca included 

SALIM 1093 

that it was identical with the Salem af Melchi- 

Various attempts have been more recently mad 
to determine the locality of this interesting spot. 

1. Some (as Alford, Greek Test, ad loc.) propose 
SHILHIM and Am, in the arid country far in the 
south of Judaea, entirely out of the circle of asso 
ciations of St. John or our Lord. Others identify 
it with the SHALIM of I Sam. ix. 4, but this latter 
place is itself unknown, and the name in Hebrew 
contains JJ, to correspond with which the name in 
St. John should be 2e7oAei/t or 5oa\i/*. 

2. Dr. Robinson suggests the modern village of 
Salim, three miles E. of Nablus (B. R. iii. 333), 
but this is no less out of the circle of St. John's 
ministrations, and is too near the Samaritans ; and 
although there is some reason to believe that the 
village contains "two sources of living water" 
(ib. 298), yet this is hardly sufficient for the 
abundance of deep water implied in the narrative. 
A writer in the Colonial Ch. Chron., No. cxxvi. 
464, who concurs in this opinion of Dr. Robinson, 
was told of a village an hour east (?) of Salim 
" named Ain-un, with a copious stream of water." 
The district east of Salim is a blank in the maps. 
Yanun lies about l hour S.E. of Salim, but this 
can hardly be the place intended ; and in the 
description of Van de Velde, who visited it (ii. 303), 
no stream or spring is mentioned. 

3. Dr. Barclay (City, &c., 564) is filled with an 
" assured conviction " that Salim is to be found in 
Wady Seleim, and Aenon in the copious springs 
of Am Farah (ib. 559), among the deep and in 
tricate ravines some five miles N.E. of Jerusalem. 
This certainly has the name in its favour, and, if 
the glowing description and pictorial woodcut of 
Dr. Barclay may be trusted has water enough, 
and of sufficient depth for the purpose. 

4. The name of Salim has been lately discovered 
by Mr. Van de Velde (Syr. $ Pal. ii. 345, 6) in a 
position exactly in accordance with the notice of Eu 
sebius, viz. six English miles south of Beisan, and 
two miles west of the Jordan. On the northern base 
of Tell Redghah is a site of ruins, and near it a 
Mussulman tomb, which is called by the Arabs 
Sheykh Salim (see also Memoir, 345). Dr. Robin 
son '(in. 333) complains that the name is attached 
only to a Mussulman sanctuary, and also that no 
ruins of any extent are to be found on the spot ; but 
with regard to the first objection, even Dr. Robinson 
does not dispute that the name is there, and thai 
the locality is in the closest agreement with the 
notice of Eusebius. As to the second it is only ne 
cessary to point to Kefr-Saba, where a town (An- 
tipatris), which so late as the time of the destruc 
tion of Jerusalem was of great size and extensively 
fortified, has absolutely disappeared. The career of 
St. John has been examined in a former part of this 
work, and it has been shown with great probability 
that his progress was from south to north, and that 
the scene of his last baptisms was not far distant 
from the spot indicated by Eusebius, and now re 
covered by Mr. Van de Velde. [JORDAN, vol. i. 
p. 1128.] Salim fulfils also the conditions implied 
'n the name of Aenon (springs), and the direct 

n the Benedictine Edition of Jerome's works, the reading 

h The Arab poets are said to use the same abbreviation 
;Gesenius, Thes. 1422 b). The preference of an archaic to 
i modern name will surprise no student of poetry, few 
things are of more constant occurrence. 



statement of the text, that the place contained 
Abundance of water. The brook of Wady Chumeh 
runs close to it, a splendid fountain gushes out 
beside the Wely, and rivulets wind about in all 
directions. ... Of few places in Palestine could it 
so truly be said, * Here is much water ' " (Svr. & 
Pal. ii. 346). 

A tradition is mentioned by Reland (Palaeslina, 
978) that Salim was the native place of Simon 
Zelotes. This in itself seems to imply that its po 
sition was, at the date of the tradition, believed to 
be nearer to Galilee than to Judaea. [G.] 

SALLA'I (^D, in pause ^p: ^\l ; Alex. 
27?\ef : Sellai). 1. A Benjamite, who with 928 
of his tribe settled in Jerusalem after the captivity 
(Neh. xi. 8). 

2. (2oA.erf.) The head of one of the courses of 
priests who went up from Babylon with Zerubbabel 
(Neh. xii. 20). In Neh. xii. 7 he is called SALLU. 

SAL'LTJ (-iVp: 3oA^, 2^ ; Alex. 2oAe 
in 1 Chr. : Salo~ Sellum). 1. The son of Me- 
shullam, a Benjamite who returned and settled in 
Jerusalem after the captivity (1 Chr. ix. 7 ; Neh. 

2. (Om. in Vat. MS.; Alex. SoAoycu: Sellum.} 
The head of one of the courses of priests who 
returned with Zerubbabel (Neh. xii. 7). Called 
also SALLAI. 

SALLU'MUS (2a\ov/jios ; Alex. SaAAoC^os : 
Salumus). SHALLUM (1 Esd. ix. 25; comp. Ezr. 
x. 24). 




both MSS. in Ruth iv. : Salmon). Son of Nahshon, 
the prince of the children of Judah, and father of 
Boaz, the husband of Ruth. Salmon's age is dis 
tinctly marked by that of his father Nahshon, and 
with this agrees the statement in 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54, 
that he was of the sons of Caleb, and the father, or 
head man of Bethlehem-Ephratah, a town which 
seems to have been within the territory of Caleb 
(1 Chr. ii. 50, 51). [EpHRATAH ; BETHLEHEM.] 
On the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan, 
Salmon took Rahab of Jericho to be his wife, and 
from this union sprang the Christ. [RAHAB.] 
From the circumstance of Salmon having lived at 
the time of the conquest of Canaan, as well as from 
his being the first proprietor of Bethlehem, where 
his family continued so many centuries, perhaps till 
the reign of Domitian (Euseb. Eccles. Hist. ii. 20). 
he may be called the founder of the house of David. 
Besides Bethlehem, the Netophathites, the house of 
Joab, the Zorites, and several other families, boked 
to Salmon as their head (1 Chr. ii. 54, 55). 

Two circumstances connected with Salmon have 
caused some perplexity. One, the variation in the 
orthography of his name. The other, an apparent 
variation in his genealogy. 

As regards the first, the variation in proper 

a Eusebius (Chron. Canon, lib. i. 22) has no misgiving 
as to the identity of Salma. 

b See a work by Reuss, Der acht und scctizigste Psalm, 
ein Denkmal exegetischer Noth und Kwnst, zu Ehren unser 
ganzen, Zunft, Jena, 1851. Independently of its many 
obscure allusions, the 68th Psalm contains thirteen ai 
Veyo/ueva, including J/G^R It may be observed that 
tnis word is scarcely, as'Gesenius suggests, analogous to 
r2?H, D >ta TXn, Hiphils of colour; for these words have 


names (whether caused by the fluctuations of 
copyists, or whether they existed in practice, and 
were favoured by the significance of the names), is 
so extremely common, that such slight differences 
as those in the three forms of this name are scarcely 
worth noticing. Compare e. g. the different forms 
of the name Shimea, the son of Jesse, in 1 Sam. 
xvi. 9 ; 2 Sam. xiii. 3 ; 1 Chr. ii. 13 : or of Simon 
Peter, in Luke v. 4, &c. ; Acts xv. 14. See othei 
examples in Hervey's Geneal. of our Lord, ch. vi. 
and x. Moreover, in this case, the variation from 
Salma to Salmon takes place in two consecutive 
verses, viz., Ruth iv. 20, 21, where the notion of 
two different persons being meant, though in some 
degree sanctioned by the authority of Dr. Kennicott 
(Dissert, i. p. 184, 543), is not worth refuting." 
As regards the Salma of 1 Chr. ii. 51, 54, his con 
nection with Bethlehem identifies him with the son 
of Nahshon, and the change of the final H into K 
belongs doubtless to the late date of the Book of 
Chronicles. The name is so written also in 1 Chr. 
ii. 11. But the truth is that the sole reason for 
endeavouring to make two persons out of Salma and 
Salmon, is the wish to lengthen the line between 
Salma and David, in ordei to meet the false chro 
nology of those times. 

The variation in Salma s genealogy, which has 
induced some to think that the Salma of 1 Chr. ii. 
51, 54 is a different person from the Salma of 
1 Chr. ii. 11, is more apparent than real. It arises 
from the circumstance that Bethlehem Ephratah, 
which was Salmon's inheritance, was part of the 
territory of Caleb, the grandson of Ephratah ; and 
this caused him to be reckoned among the sonc of 
Caleb. But it is a complete misunderstanding of 
the language of such topographical genealogies to 
suppose that it is meant to be asserted that Salma 
was the literal son of Caleb. Mention is made of 
Salma only in Ruth iv. 20, 21 ; 1 Chr. ii. 11, 51, 
54 ; Matt. i. 4, 5 ; Luke iii. 32. The questions 
of his age and identity are discussed in the Geneal. 
of our Lord, ch. iv. and ix. ; Jackson, Chron. 
Antiq. i. 171; Hales, Analysis, iii. 44; Burring- 
ton, Geneal. i. 189; Dr. Mill, Vindic. of our Lord's 
Geneal. 123, &c. [A. C. H.] 

ESER, king of Assyria (2 Esd. xiii. 40). 

SAL'MON (jin 1 ?* : 2fV": Salmon, Judg. 
ix. 48). The name of a hill near Shechem, on which 
Abimelech and his followers cut down the boughs 
with which they set the tower of Shechem on fire. 
Its exact position is not known. 

It is usually supposed that this hill is mentioned 
in a verse of perhaps the most difficult of all the 
Psalms b (Ps. Ixviii. 14); and this is probable, 
though the passage is peculiarly difficult, and the 
precise allusion intended by the poet seems hope 
lessly lost. Commentators differ from each other ; 
and Fttrst, within 176 pages of his ffandwtirterbuch, 

differs from himself (see &W and ptf?*). Indeed, 

a signification of colour in Kal. The really analogous 
word is "Vt3pn, "he makes it rain," which bears the 
same relation tc ".{3D, " rain," which 3 Y^H bears to 
3?t^, "snow." Owing, probably, to Hebrew religious 
conceptions of natural phenomena, no instance occurs of 
used as a neuter in the sense of " it rains;" 

though this would be grammatically admissible. 


of HX distinguished modem commentators De 
Wette, Hitzig, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, and 
Hupteld no two give distinctly the same meaning ; 
and Mr. Keble, in his admirable Version of the 
Psalms, gives a translation which, though poetical, 
as was to be expected, differs from any one of those 
suggested by these six scholars. This is not the 
place for an exhaustive examination of the passage. 
It may be mentioned, however, that the literal trans 
lation of the words flD^V? J /?^D is " Thou 
Hiakest it snow," or " It snows," with liberty to use 
the word either in the past or in the future tense. 
As notwithstanding ingenious attempts, this supplies 
no satisfactory meaning., recourse is had to a trans 
lation of doubtful validity, "Thou makest it white 
as snow," or "It is white as snow" words to 
which various metaphorical meanings have been 
attributed. The allusion which, through the Lexi 
con of Gesenius, is most generally received, is that 
the words refer to the ground being snow-white 
with bones after a defeat of the Canaanite kings ; 
and this may be accepted by those who will admit 
the scarcely permissible meaning, " white as snow," 
and who cannot rest satisfied without attaching 
some definite signification to the passage. At the 
same time it is to be remembered that the figure 
is a very harsh one ; and that it is not really 
justified by passages quoted in illustration of it 
from Latin classical writers, such as, " campique 
ingentes ossibus albent " (Virg. Aen. xii. 36), 
and " humanis ossibus albet humus " (Ovid, Fast. 
i. 558), for in these cases the word " bones" is 
actually used in the text, and is not left to be 
supplied by the imagination. Granted, however, 
that an allusion is made to bones of the slain, 
there is a divergence of opinion as to whether 
Salmon was mentioned simply because it had been 
the battle-ground in some great defeat of the Ca- 
naanitish kings, or whether it is only introduced as 
an image of snowy whiteness. And of these two 
explanations, the first would be on the whole most 
probable ; for Sajmon cannot have been a very high 
mountain, as the highest mountains near Shechem 
are Ebal and Gerizim, and of these Ebal, the highest 
of the two, is only 1028 feet higher than the city 
(see EBAL, p. 470 ; and Robinson's Gesenius, 895 a). 
If the poet had desired to use the image of a snowy 
mountain, it would have been more natural to select 
Hermon, which is visible from the eastern brow of 
Gerizim, is about 10,000 feet high, and is covered 
with perpetual snow. Still it is not meant that 
this circumstance by itself would be conclusive ; for 
there may have been particular associations in the 
mind of the poet, unknown to us, which led him to 
prefer Salmon. 

In despair of understanding the allusion to Salmon, 
some suppose that Salmon, i. e. Tsalmon, is not a 
proper name in this passage, but merely signifies 
" darkness ;" and this interpretation, supported by 
the TargHm, though opposed to the Septuagint, has 
been adopted by Evald, and in the first state 
ment in his Lexicon is admitted by Fiirst. Since 
iseletn signifies " shade," this is a bare etymo 
logical possibility. But no such word as tsalmon 
occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew language; while 
there are several other words for darkness, in 
different degrees of meaning, such as the ordinary 
word choshek, oplwl, aphelah, and 'araphel. 

Unless the passage is given up as corrupt, it 
seems more in accordance with reason to admit that 
there was some allusion present to the poet's muid; 



the key to which i:; now lost ; and this ought not to 
surprise any scholar who reflects how many allu 
sions there are in Greek poets in Pindar, for ex 
ample, and in Aristophanes which would be wholly 
unintelligible to us now, were it not for the notes 
of Greek scholiasts. To these notes there is nothing 
exactly analogous in Hebrew literature ; and in ths 
absence of some such assistance, it is unavoidable 
that there should be several passages in the 0. T. 
respecting the meaning of which we must be content 
to remain ignorant. [E. T.] 

SAL'MON the father of Boaz (Ruth iv. 20, 21 ; 
Matt. i. 4, 5; Luke iii. 32). [SALMA.] 

SALMO'NE (2a\fj.6vn : Salmone). The East 
point of the island of CRETE. In the account of St. 
Paul's voyage to Rome this promontory is mentioned 
in such a way (Acts xxvii. 7) as to afford a curious 
illustration both of the navigation of the ancients 
and of the minute accuracy of St. Luke's narrative. 
We gather from other circumstances of the voyage 
that the wind was blowing from the N.W. (eVoy- 
riovs, ver. 4; PpaSvirXoovvres, ver. 7). [See 
MYRA.] We are then told that the ship, on 
making CNIDUS, could not, by reason of the wind, 
hold on her course, which was past the south point 
of Greece, W. by S. She did, however, just fetch 
Cape Salmone, which bears S.W. by S. from Cnidus. 
Now we may take it for granted that she could 
have made good a course of less than seven points 
from the wind [Snip] : and, starting from this 
assumption, we are at once brought to the conclu 
sion that the wind must have been between N.N.W. 
and W.N.W. Thus what Paley would have called 
an " undesigned coincidence " is elicited by a cross- 
examination of the narrative. This ingenious argu 
ment is due to Mr. Smith of Jordanhill ( Voy. and 
Shipwreck of St. Paul, pp. 73, 74, 2nd ed.), and 
from him it is quoted by Conybeare and Howson 
(Life and Epp. of St. Paul, ii. 393, 2nd ed.). To 
these books we must refer for fuller details. We may 
just add that the ship had had the advantages of a 
weather shore, smooth water, and a favouring cur 
rent, before reaching Cnidus, and that by running 
down to Cape Salmone the sailors obtained similar 
advantages under the lee of Crete, as far as FAIR 
HAVENS, near LASAEA. [J. S. H.] 

SA'LOM (2aA^: Salom). The Greek form 
1. of Shallum, the father of Hilkiah (Bar. i. 7). 
[SHALLUM.] 2. (Salomus} of Salu the father of 
Zimri (1 Mace. ii. 26). [SALU.] 

SALO'ME (2oA^7j : Salome). 1. The wife of 
Zebedee, as appears from comparing Matt, xxvii. 
56 with Mark xv. 40. It is further the opinion of 
many modem critics that she was the sister of 
Mary, the mother of Jesus, to whom reference is 
made in John xix. 25. The words admit, however, 
of another and hitherto generally received explana 
tion, according to which they refer to the " Mary 
the wife ef Cleophas" immediately afterwards men 
tioned. In behalf of the former view, it may be 
urged that it gets rid of the difficulty arising out 
of two sisters having the same name that it har 
monises John's narrative with those of Matthev 
and Mark that this circuitous manner of describing 
his own mother is in character with St. John's 
manner of describing himself that the absence of 
any connecting link between the second and third 
designations may be accounted for on the ground 
that the four are arranged in two distinct couplets 
and, lastly, that the Peshito, the Persian, aad the 


Aethiopic versions mark the distinction between the 
second and third by interpolating a conjunction. On 
tLe other hand, it may be urged that the difficulty 
arising out of the name may be disposed of by 
assuming a double marriage on the part of the 
father that there is no necessity to harmonise 
John with Matthew and Mark, for that the time 
and the place in which the groups are noticed differ 
materially that the language addressed to John, 
" Behold thy mother ! " favours the idea of the 
absence rather than of the presence of his natural 
mother and that the varying traditions current in 
the early Church as to Salome's parents, worthless 
as they are in themselves, yet bear a negative testi 
mony against the idea of her being related to the 
mother of Jesus. Altogether we can hardly regard 
the point as settled, though the weight of modern 
criticism is decidedly in favour of the former view 
(see Wieseler, Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 648). The 
only events recorded of Salome are that she pre 
ferred a request on behalf of her two sons for seats 
of honour in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xx. 20), 
that she attended at the crucifixion of Jesus (Mark 
xv. 40), and that she visited his sepulchre (Mark 
xvi. 1). She is mentioned by name only on the 
two latter occasions. 

2. The daughter of Herodias by her first hus 
band, Herod Philip (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5, 4). She 
is the "daughter of Herodias" noticed in Matt, 
xiv. 6 as dancing before Herod Antipas, and as pro 
curing at her mother's instigation the death of John 
the Baptist. She married in the first place Philip 
the tetrarch of Trachonitis, her paternal uncle, and 
secondly Aristobulus, the king of Chalcis. [W. L. B.] 

8ALT(fTO: &\s : sal). Indispensable as salt 
is to ourselves, it was even more so to the Hebrews, 
being to them not only an appetizing condiment in 
the food both of man (Job vi. 6) and beast (Is. 
xxx. 24, see margin), and a most valuable antidote 
to the effects of the heat of the climate on animal 
food, but also entering largely into their religious 
services as an accompaniment to the various offer 
ings presented on the altar (Lev. ii. 13). They 
possessed an inexhaustible and ready supply of it 
on the southern shores of the Dead Sea. Here may 
have been situated the Valley of Salt (2 Sam. viii. 
13), in pwximity to the mountain of fossil salt 
which Robinson (Researches, ii. 108) describes as 
five miles in length, and as the chief source of the 
salt in the sea itself. Here were the saltpits (Zeph. 
ii. 9), probably formed in the marshes at the 
southern end of the lake, which are completely 
coated with salt, deposited periodically by the rising 
of the waters; and here also were the successive 
pillars of salt which tradition has from time to 
time identified with Lot's wife (Wisd. x. 7 ; Jo 
seph. Ant. i. 11, 4). [SEA, THE SALT..] Salt 
might also be procured from the Mediterranean 
Sea, and from this source the Phoenicians would 
naturally obtain the supply necessary for salting 
fish (Neh. xiii. 16) and for other purposes. The 
Jews appear to have distinguished between rock- 
salt and that which was gained by evaporation, as 
the Talmudists particularize one species (probably 
the latter) as the "salt of Sodom" (Carpzov, 
Appar. p, 718). The notion that this expression 
means bitumen rests on no foundation. The salt- 
j/its formed an important source of revenue to the 

a According to one account she was the daughter of 
.Joseph by a former marriage (Epiphan. Haer. Isxviii. 8): 


rulers of the country (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 4, 9), 
and Antiochus conferred a valuable boon on Jeru 
salem by presenting the city with 375 bushels oi 
salt for the Temple service (Ant. xii. 3, 3). In 
addition to the uses of salt already specified, the 
inferior sorts were applied as a manure to the soil, 
or to hasten the decomposition of dung (Matt. v. 
1 3 ; Luke xiv. 35). Too large an admixture, how 
ever, was held to produce sterility, as exemplified 
on the shores of the Dead Sea (Deut. xxix. 23 ; 
Zeph. ii. 9): hence a " salt" land was synonymous 
with barrenness (Job xxxix. 6, see margin; Jer. 
xvii. 6 ; comp. Joseph. B. J. iv. 8, 2, aXpvpdSijs 
Kal &yovos) ; and hence also arose the custom of 
sowing with salt the foundations of a destroyed city 
(Judg. ix. 45), as a token of its irretrievable ruin. 
It was the belief of the Jews that salt would, by 
exposure to the air, lose its virtue (/jLupavOfi, Matt. 
v. 13) and become saltless (&va\ov, Mark ix. 50). 
The same fact is implied in the expressions of Pliny, 
sal iners (xxxi. 39), sal tabescere (xxxi. 44) ; and 
Maundrell (Early Travels, p. 512, Bohn) asserts 
that he found the surface of a salt rock in this con 
dition. The associations connected with salt in 
Eastern countries are important. As one of the 
most essential articles of diet, it symbolized hospi 
tality ; as an antiseptic, durability, fidelity, and 
purity. Hence the expression, " covenant of salt " 
(Lev. ii. 13; Num. xviii. 19; 2 Chr. xiii. 5), as 
betokening an indissoluble alliance between friends ; 
and again the expression, " salted with the salt of 
the palace" (Ezr~. iv. 14), not necessarily meaning 
that they had " maintenance from the palace," as 
the A. V. has it, but that they were bound by 
sacred obligations of fidelity to the king. So in the 
present day, " to eat bread and salt together " is 
an expression for a league of mutual amity (Russell, 
Aleppo, i. 232) ; and, on the other hand, the 
Persian term for traitor is nemekharam, " faithless 
to salt" (Gesen. Thes. p. 790). It was probably 
with a view to keep this idea prominently before 
the minds of the Jews that the use of salt was en 
joined on the Israelites in their offerings to God; 
for in the first instance it was specifically ordered 
for the meat-offering (Lev. ii. 13), which consisted 
mainly of flour, and therefore was not liable to cor 
ruption. The extension of its use to burnt sacri 
fices was a later addition (Ez. xliii. 24; Joseph. 
Ant. iii. 9, 1), in the spirit of the general injunc 
tion at the close of Lev. ii. 13. Similarly the 
heathens accompanied their sacrifices with salted 
barley-meal, the Greeks with their ov\oxvrai (Horn. 
U. i. 449), the Romans with their mola salsa (Hor. 
Sat. ii. 3, 200) or their salsae fruges (Virg. Aen 
ii. 133). It may of course be assumed that in all 
of these cases salt was added as a condiment ; but 
the strictness with which the rule was adhered to 
no sacrifice being offered without salt (Plin. xxxi. 
41), and still more the probable, though perhaps 
doubtful, admixture of it in incense (Ex. xxx. 35, 
where the word rendered " tempered together " js 
by some understood as " salted") leads to the con 
clusion that there was a symbolical force attached 
to its use. Our Lord refers to the sacrificial use 
of salt in Mark ix. 49, 50, though some of the other 
associations may also be implied. The purifying 
property of salt, as opposed to corruption, led to its 
selection as the outward sign in Elisha's miracle 
(2 K. ii. 20, 21), and is also developed in the N. T. 

according to another, the wife oi ,;s*>ph (Niceph. H.E 


(Matt. v. 13 Col. iv. 6). The custom of rubbing 
infants with salt (Ez. xvi. 4) originated in sani 
tary considerations, but received also a symbolical 
meaning. [W. L. B.j 

SALT, CITY OF (rferrvy -. i whew 

Zatuv; Alex, at iro\is a\<av : civitas Salts}. 
The fifth of the six cities of Judah which lay in the 
" wilderness '* (Josh. xv. 62). Its proximity to En- 
gedi, and the name itself, seem to point to its being 
situated close to or at any rate in the neighbour 
hood of the Salt-sea. Dr. Robinson (. R. ii. 109) 
expresses his belief that it lay somewhere near the 
plain at the south end of that" lake, which he would 
identify with the Valley of Salt. This, though 
possibly supported by the reading of the Vatican 
LXX., " the cities of Sodom," is at present a mere 
conjecture, since no trace of the name or the city has 
yet been discovered in that position. On the other 
hand, Mr. Van de Velde (Syr. $ Pal. ii. 99, Memoir, 
111, and Map) mentions a Nahr Maleh which he 
passed in his route from Wady el-Email to Sebbeh, 
the name of which (though the orthography is not 
certain) may be found to contain a trace of the 
Hebrew. It is one of four ravines which unite to 
form the Wady el Bedun. Another of the four, W. 
'Amreh (Syr. | P. ii. 99 ; Memoir, 111, Map), recals 
the name of Gomorrah, to the Hebrew of which it 
is very similar. [G 

SALT, VALLEY OF (rkft 603, but twice 
with the article, I"6l9n '3 : Fc^cAlp, Te^eXe'S, 
Kot\as, and 4>cpay, r&v a\S>v ; Alex. FTj/ioAa, 
Fat/xeAo : Vail is Salinarum). A certain valley, or 
perhaps more accurately a " ravine," the Hebrew 
word Ge appearing to bear that signification in 
which occurred two memorable victories of the 
Israelite arms. 

1. That of David over the Edomites (2 Sam 
viii. 13; 1 Chr. xviii. 12). It appears to have 
immediately followed his Syrian campaign, and 
was itself one of the incidents of the great Edomite 
war of extermination." The battle in the Valley 
of Salt appears to have been conducted by Abishai 
(1 Chr. xviii. 12), but David and Joab were both 
present in person at the battle and in the pursuit 
and campaign which followed ; and Joab was left 
behind for six months to consummate the doom 
of the conquered country (1 K. xi. 15, 16 ; Ps. Ix. 
title). The number of Edomites slain in the battle 
is uncertain : the narratives of Samuel and Chronicles 
both give it at 18,000, but this figure is lowered in 
the title of Ps. Ix. to 12,000. 

2. That of Amaziah (2 K. xiv. 7 ; 2 Chr. xxv. 
11), who is related to have slain ten thousand 
Edomites in this valley, and then to have pro 
ceeded, with 10,000 prisoners, to the stronghold of 
the nation at has-Sela, the Cliff, . <?. Petra, and, 
after taking it, to have massacred them by hurling 
them down the precipice which gave its ancieul 
name to the city. 



The Received Text of 2 Sam. vlii. 13 omits the men 
tion of Edomites ; but from a comparison of the paralle 
passages in 1 Chr. and in the title of Ps. Ix. there is good 
ground for believing that tha Terse originally stood thus 
" And David made himself a name [when he returnee 
from smiting the Aramites] [and when he returned he 
smote the Edomites] in tbe Valley of Salt eighteen 
thousand ;" the two clauses within brackets having been 
emitted by the Greek and Hebrew scribes respectively 
owing to the very close resemblance of the words with 
which each clause finishes Q1E1N and Q^D^N- This 
is the conjecture of Thcnius (Eteg //and/wcft), and is 

Neither of these notices affords any clue to the 
situation of the Valley of Salt, nor does the cursory 
mention of the name ("Gemela" and "Mela") 
n the Onomasticon. By Josephus it is not named 
on either occasion. Seetzen (Eeisen, ii. 356) was 
probably the first to suggest that it was the broad 
open plain which lies at the lower end of the Dead 
Sea, and intervenes between the lake itself and the 
range of heights which crosses the valley at six or 
eight miles to the south. The same view is takon 
(more decisively) by Dr. Robinson (B. R. ii. 109). 
The plain is in fact the termination of the Ghor or 
valley through which the Jordan flows from the 
Lake of Tiberias to the Dead Sea. Its N.W. cornet 
is occupied by the Khashm Usdum, a mountain of 
rock salt, between which and the lake is an extensive 
salt marsh, while salt streams and brackish springs 
pervade, more or less, the entire western half of the 
plain. Without presuming to contradict this sug 
gestion, which yet can hardly be affirmed with safety 
in the very imperfect condition of our knowledge of 
the inaccessible regions S. and S.E. of the Dead Sea, 
it may be well to call attention to some considera 
tions which seem to stand in the way of the implicit 
reception which most writers have given it since the 
publication of Dr. R.'s Researches. 

(a) The word Ge (fc03), employed for the place 
in question, is not, to the writer's knowledge, else 
where applied to a broad valley or sunk plain 
of the nature of the lower Ghor. Such tracts are 
denoted in the Scripture by the words Emek or 
Bika'ah, while Ge appears to be reserved for clefts 
or ravines of a deeper and narrower character. 

(6) A priori, one would expect the tract in 
question to be called in Scripture by the pecu 
liar name uniformly applied to the more northern 
pails of the same valley ha-Ardbah in the same 
manner that the Arabs now call it el-Ghor Ghor 
being their equivalent for the Hebrew Ardbah. 

(c) The name " Salt," though at first sight con 
clusive, becomes less so on reflection. It does not 
follow, because the Hebrew "Word melach signifies 
salt, that therefore the valley was salt. A case 
exactly parallel exists at el-Milk, the representative 
of the ancient MOLADAH, some sixteen miles south 
of Hebron. Like melach, milk signifies salt ; but 
there is no reason to believe that there is any salt 
present there, and Dr. Robinson (B. R, ii. 201 note) 
himself justly adduces it as "an instance of the 
usual tendency of popular pronunciation to reduce 
foreign proper names to a significant form." Just 
as el-Milh is the Arabic representative of the 
Hebrew Moladah, so possibly was ge-melach the 
Hebrew representative of some archaic Edomite 

(d) What little can be inferred from the narra 
tive as to the situation of the Ge-Melach is in 
favour of its being nearer to Petra. Assuming 
Selah to be' Petra (the chain of evidence for which 

adopted by Bunsen (Bibelwerlc, note to the passage). 
Ewald has shown (Getch. iii. 201, 2) that the whole 

passage is very much disordered. Qfc? ^5?*1 should pro 
bably be rendered " and set up a monument," instead 
of " and gat a name " (Gesen. Thes. 1431 b)) ; Michaelis 
(Suppl. No. 2501, and note to Bibdfiir Ungel) ; De Wette 
(Bibd); LXX. Coisl. xal IfljjKev eon;Aa>/xei^v ; Jerome 
(Quaest. Hebr.~), erexit fornicem triuiaphalem. Raschi 
Interprets it " reputation," and makes the reputation to 
have arisen from David's good act in burying the deatJ 
even of his enemies. 


is tolerably connected), it seems difficult to believe 
that a large body of prisoners should have been 
dragged for upwards of fifty miles through the 
heart of a hostile and most difficult country, merely 
for massacre. [G.] 

SA'LU (N-1?D : ^a\/j.(av ; Alex. 'S,a\u> : Salu). 
The father of Zimri the prince of the Simeonites, 
who was slain by Phinehas (Num. xxv. 14). Called 
also SALOM. 

SA'LUM (2a\ovyu: Esmennus}. 1. SHALLUM, 
the head of a family of gatekeepers (A. V. " porters") 
of the Temple (1 Esd. v. 28 ; comp. Ezr. ii. 42). 

2. (SoA^jUos : Solome.} SHALLUM, the father 
of Hilkiah and ancestor of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. 1 ; 
comp. Ezr. vii. 2). Called also SADAMIAS and 

SALUTATION. Salutations may be classed 
under the two heads of conversational and epistolary. 
The salutation at meeting consisted in early times 
of various expressions of blessing, such as " God be 
gracious unto thee" (Gen. xliii. 29) ; " Blessed be 
thou of the Lord " (Ruth iii. 10 ; 1 Sam. xv. 13) ; 
" The Lord be with you," " The Lord bless thee " 
(Ruth ii. 4) ; " The blessing of the Lord be upon 
you ; we bless you in the name of the Lord " (Ps. 
cxxix. 8). Hence the term "bless" received the 
secondary sense of " salute," and is occasionally so 
rendered in the A. V. (1 Sam. xiii. 10, xxv. 14; 
2 K. iv. 29, x. 15), though not so frequently as it 
might have been (e.g. Gen. xxvii. 23, xlvii. 7, 10 ; 
1 K. viii. 66). The blessing was sometimes accom 
panied with inquiries as to the health either of the 
pei-son addressed or his relations. The Hebrew 
term used in these instances (shalom*) has no special 
reference to "peace," as stated in the marginal 
translation, but to general well-being, and strictly 
answers to our " welfare," as given in the text (Gen. 
xliii. 27 ; Ex. xviii. 7). It is used not only in the 
case of salutation (in which sense it is frequently 
rendered "to salute," e.g. Judg. xviii. 15 ; 1 Sam. 
x. 4 ; 2 K. x. 13) ; but also in other cases where it 
is designed to soothe or to encourage a person (Gen. 
xliii. 23 ; Judg. vi. 23, xix. 20 ; 1 Chr. xii. 18 ; 
Dan. x. 19 ; compare 1 Sam. xx. 21, where it is 
opposed to " hurt ;" 2 Sam. xviii. 28, " all is well ;" 
and 2 Sam. xi. 7, where it is applied to the progress 
of the war). The salutation at parting consisted 
originally of a simple blessing (Gen. xxiv. 60, 
xxviii. 1, xlvii. 10; Josh. xxii. 6), but in later 
times the term shdlom was introduced here also in 
the form " Go in peace," or rather " Farewell " 
(1 Sam. i. 17, xx. 42 ; 2 Sam. xv. 9). This^ was 
current at the time of our Saviour's ministry 
(Mark v. 34 ; Luke vii. 50 ; Acts xvi. 36), and * 
adopted by Him in His parting address to His dis 
ciples (John xiv. 27). It had even passed into a 
salutation on meeting, in such forms as " Peace be 
to this house " (Luke x. 5), " Peace be unto you " 
(Luke xxiv. 36 ; John xx. 19). The more common 
salutation, however, at this period was borrowed 
from the Greeks, their word x a ^P fiV being used 
both at meeting (Matt. xxvi. 49, xxviii. 9 ; Luke i. 
28), and probably also at departure. In modern 
tiroes the ordinary mode of address current in the 
East resembles the Hebrew: Es-seldm aleykum, 
" Peace be on you" (Lane's Mod. Eg. ii. 7), and 

b Tho Greek expression is evidently borrowed from the 
Hebrew, the p.-eposition eis not beU-fcening the state into 


the term " salam " has been introduced into our 
>wn language to describe the Oriental salutation. 

The forms of greeting that we have noticed, were 
reeiy exchanged among persons of ditfereat ranks 
m the occasion of a casual meeting, and this even 
when they were strangers. Thus Boaz exchanged 
greeting with his reapers (Ruth ii. 4), the tra 
veller on the road saluted the worker in the field 
[Ps. cxxix. 8), and members of the same family in 
terchanged greetings on rising in the morning (Prov. 
xxvii. 14). The only restriction appears to have 
seen in regard to religion, the Jew of old, as the 
Mohammedan of the present day, paying the com- 
Dliment only to those whom he considered "bre- 
;hren," '. e. members of the same religious com 
munity (Matt. v. 47 ; Lane, ii. 8; Niebuhr, Descript. 
p. 43). Even the Apostle St. John forbids an 
nterchange of greeting where it implied a wish 
for the success of a bad cause (2 John 11). In 
modern times the Orientals are famed for the ela 
borate formality of their greetings, which occupy a 
rery considerable time ; the instances given in the 
Bible do not bear such a character, and therefore 
;he prohibition addressed to persons engaged in 
argent business, " Salute no man by the way " (2 K. 
v. 29 ; Luke x. 4), may best be referred to the 
delay likely to ensue from subsequent conversation. 
Among the Persians the monarch was never ap 
proached without the salutation "Oh, king! live 
forever" (Dan. ii. 4, &c.). There is no evidence 
that this ever became current among the Jews : the 
expression in 1 K. i. 31, was elicited by the previous 
allusion on the part of David to his own decease. 
In lieu of it we meet with the Greek x a *jP > " hail !" 
(Matt, xxvii. 29). The act of salutation was ac 
companied with a variety of gestures expressive of 
different degrees of humiliation, and sometimes with 
a kiss. [ADORATION ; Kiss.] These acts involved 
the necessity of dismounting in case a person were 
riding or driving (Gen. xxiv. 64; 1 Sam. xxv. 23 ; 
2 K. v. 21). The same custom still prevails in the 
East ( Niebuhr 's Descript. p. 39). 

The epistolary salutations in the period subsequent 
to the 0. T. were framed on the model of the Latin 
style : the addition of the term " peace " may, how 
ever, be regarded as a vestige of the old Hebrew 
form (2 Mace. i. 1). The writer placed his own 
name first, and then that of the person whom he 
saluted ; it was only in special cases that this order 
was reversed (2 Mace. i. 1, ix. 19 ; 1 Esdr. vi. 7). 
A combination of the first and third persons in the 
terms of the salutation was not unfrequent (Gal. i. 
1,2; Philem. 1 ; 2 Pet. i. 1). The term used 
(either expressed or understood) in the introductoiy 
salutation was the Greek %a.lpeiv in an elliptical 
construction (1 Mace. x. 18 ; 2 Mace. ix. 19; 
1 Esdr. viii. 9 ; Acts xxiii. 26) ; this, however, was 
more frequently omitted, and the only Apostolic 
passages in which it occurs are Acts xv. 23 and 
James i. 1, a coincidence which renders it probable 
that St. James composed the letter in the former 
passage. A form of prayer for spiritual mercies was 
also used, consisting generally of the terms " grace 
and peace," but in the three Pastoral Epistles and 
in 2 John, "grace, mercy, and peace," and in Jud 
" mercy, peace, and love." The concluding saluta 
tion consisted occasionally of a translation of the 
Latin valete (Acts xv. 29, xxiii. 30), but more ge- 

which, but answering to the Hebre^ 7 in which th 
person departs. 


ncraliy of the term aff-n -aCo/iai, " I salute," or the 
cognate substantive, accompanied by a prayer for 
peace or grace. St. Paul, who availed himself of 
an amanuensis (Rom. xvi. 22), added the salutation 
with his own hand (1 Cor. xvi. 21 ; Col. iv. 18 ; 
2 Thes. iii. 17). The omission of the introductory 
talutatior. in the Epistle to the Hebrews is very 
noticeable. [W. L. B.] 

SAM'AEL (2o\0)Ut^X: Salathiel], a variation 
for (margin) Salamiel [SHELUMIEL] in Jud. viii. 1 
(comp. Num. i. 6). The form in A. V. is given 
by Aldus. [B.-F. W.] 

SAMAI'AS (Sayuafos : Semeias). 1. SHE- 
MAIAH the Levite in the reign of Josiah (I Esd. i. 
9 ; comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 9). 

2. SHEMAIAH of the sons of Adonikam (1 Esd. 

viii. 39 ; comp. Ezr. viii. 13). 
3. (Se/ue?; Alex. 

om. in Vulg.) The 

" great Samaias," father of Ananias and Jonathas 
(Tob. v. 13). 



i, but Ant. viii. 12, 5, 
marid], a city of Palestine. 

The word Shomeron means, etymologically, "per 
taining to a watch," or " a watch-mountain ;" and 
we should almost be inclined to think that the pecu 
liarity of the situation of Samaria gave occasion to 

. e. Shomeron : Chald. 
'S.o^pwv* ; Joseph. 



From the date of Omri's purchase, B.C. 925, 
Samaria retained its dignity as the capital of the 
ten tribes. Ahab built a temple to Baal there 
(1 K. xvi. 32, 33) ; and from this circumstance a 
portion of the city, possibly fortified by a separatt 
wall, was called " the city of the house of Baal " 
(2 K. x. 25). Samaria must have been a place 
of great strength. It was twice besieged by the 
Syrians, in B.C. 901 (1 K. xx. 1), and in B.C. 892 
(2 K. vi. 24-vii. 20) ; but on both occasions the 
siege was ineffectual. On the latter, indeed, it 
was relieved miraculously, but not until the inha 
bitants had suffered almost incredible horrors from 
famine during their protracted resistance. The pos 
sessor of Samaria was considered to be de facto 
king of Israel (2 K. xv. 13, 14) ; and woes denounced 
against the nation were directed against it by name 
(Is. vii. 9, &c.). In B.C. 721, Samaria was taken, 
after a siege of three years, by Shalmaneser, king of 
Assyria (2 K. xviii. 9, 10), and the kingdom of the 
ten tribes was put an end to. [See below, No. 3.] 
Some years afterwards the district of which Samaria 
was the centre was repeopled by Esarhaddon ; but 
we do not hear especially of the city until the days 
of Alexander the Great. That conqueror took the 
city, which seems to have somewhat recovered itself 
(Euseb. Chron. ad ann. Abr. 1684), killed a large 
portion of the inhabitants, and suffered the remainder 
to settle at Shechem. [SHECHEM : SYCHAR.] 
He replaced them by a colony of Syro-Macedonians, 

its name. In the territory originally belonging to and gave the adjacent territory (2ajuape?Tts x<*>P a ) 
the tribe of Joseph, about six miles to the north-west ! to the Jews to inhabit (Joseph, c. Ap. ii. 4). These 

of Sliechem, there is a wide basin-shaped valley, Syro-Macedonians occupied the city until the time 

encircled with high hills, almost on the edge of the of John Hyrcanus. It was then a place of consi- 

great plain which borders upon the Mediterranean, derable importance, for Josephus describes it (Ant. 
la the centre of this basin, which is on a lower 
level than the valley of Shechem, rises a less elevated 

oblong hill, with steep yet accessible sides, and a 
long fiat top. This hill was chosen by Omri, as the 
site of the capital of the kingdom of Israel. The 
first capital after the secession of the ten tribes had 
been Shechem itself, whither all Israel had come to 
make Rehoboam king. On the separation being fully 
accomplished, Jeroboam rebuilt that city (1 K. xii. 
25), which had been razed to the ground by Abi- 
melech (Judg. ix. 45). But he soon moved to 
Tirzah, a place, as Dr. Stanley observes, of great and 
proverbial beauty (Cant. vi. 4) ; which continued to 

xi 11. 10, 2) as a very strong city (ir6\ts 
rdrri). John Hyrcanus took it after a year's siege, 
and did his best to demolish it entirely. He inter 
sected the hill on which it lay with trenches : 
into these he conducted the natural brooks, and 
thus undermined its foundations. " In fact," says 
the Jewish historian, " he took away all evidence 
of the very, existence of the city." This story at 
first sight seems rather exaggerated, and incon 
sistent with the hilly site of Samaria. It may 
have referred only to the suburbs lying at its foot. 
" But," says Prideaux (Conn. B.C. 109, note), " Ben 
jamin of Tudela, who was in the place, tells us in 

be the royal residence until Zimri burnt the palace ' his Itinerary ^ that there were upon the top of this 
and perished in its ruins (1 K. xiv. 17 ; xv. 21, 33 ; hill many fountains of water, and from these water 
Omri, who prevailed in the contest for | enough may have been derived to fill these trenches. 

the kingdom that ensued, after " reigning six years " It should also be recollected that the hill of Samaria 
there, " bought the hill of Samaria (tiTOE? 1HH ; T& was lower than the hills in its neighbourhood. This 
v / \ < 01 f~ T may account for the existence of these springs. 

Se^pa,!/) of ShemerOBP;2e/,p, Joseph. j osep hus describes the extremities to which the 
Se/xdjuos) for two talents of silver, and built on ! inhabitants were reduced during this siege, much in 
the hill, and called the name of the city which j the same way that the author of the Book of Kings 
he built, after the name of the owner of the hill, ! does during that of Benhadad (comp. Ant. xiii. 10, 
Samaria" (1 K. xvi. 23, 24). This statement of! 2, with 2 K. vi. 25). John Hyrcanus' reasons 
course dispenses with the etymology above alluded I for attacking Samaria were the injuries which its 

to ; but the central position of the hill, as Herod 
sagnciously observed long afterwards, made it ad 
mirably adapted for a place of observation, and a 
fortress to awe the neighbouring country. And the 
singular beauty of the spot, upon which, to this hour, 
travellers dwell with admiration, may have struck 
Omri, as it afterwards struck the tasteful Idu- 
mean (B. J. i. 21, 2; Ant. xv. 8, 5). 

a The prevailing LXX. form in the 0. T. is 
with the following remarkable exceptions : 1 K. xvi. 24, 
(Mai, 2aju,;jp<'ii/) ; Ezr. iv. 10 

inhabitants had done to the people of Marissa, 
colonists and allies of the Jews. This confirms what 
was said above, of the cession of the Samaritan neigh 
bourhood to the Jews by Alexander the Great. 

After this disaster (which occurred in B.C. 109), 
the Jews inhabited what remained of the city ; at 
least we find it in their possession in the time oi 
Alexander Jannaeus (Ant. xiii. 15, 4), and until 

piav (5iai. 2tojudiptoi>) ; Neh. iv. 2, Is. vii. 9, . 

b No such passage, however, now exists in Bejuiiin <J 
Tudela. See the editions of Asher and c f Boha. 

1 100 


Pompey gave it back to the descendants of its 
original inhabitants (rots oiKfirooffiv). These ot/r/j- 
ropes may possibly have been the Syro-Macedonians, 
but it is more probable that they were Samaritans 
proper, whose ancestors had been dispossessed by the 
colonists of Alexander the Great. By directions of 
Gabinius, Samaria and other demolished cities wers 
rebuilt (Ant. xiv. 5, 3). But its more effectual 
rebuilding was undertaken by Herod the Great, to 
whom it had been granted by Augustus, on the 
death of Antony and Cleopatra (Ant. xiii. 10, 3, 
xv. 8, 5 ; B. J. i. 20, 3). He called it Sttastt. 
2e/3a0"n7 = Augusta, after the name of his patron 
(Ant. xv. 7, 7). Josephus gives an elaborate de 
scription of Herod's improvements. The wall sur 
rounding it was 20 stadia in length. In the middle 
of it was a close, of a stadium and a half square, 
containing a magnificent temple, dedicated to the 
Caesar. It was colonised by 6000 veterans and 
others, for whose support a most beautiful and 
rich district surrounding the city was appropriated. 
Herod's motives in these arrangements were pro 
bably, first, the occupation of a commanding position, 
and then the desire of distinguishing himself for taste 
by the embellishment of a spot already so adorned by 
nature (Ant. xv. 8, 5 ; B. J. i. 20, 3 ; 21, 2). 

How long Samaria maintained its splendour after 
Herod's improvements we are not informed. In 
the N. T. the city itself does not appear to be men 
tioned, but rather a portion of the district to which, 
even in older times, it had extended its name. Our 
Version, indeed, of Acts viii. 5 says that Philip 
the deacon " went down to the city of Samaria ;" 
but the Greek of the passage is simply ets TTO\IV 
TT/S "Saftapeias. And we may fairly argue, both 
from the absence of the definite article, and from 
the probability that, had the city Samaria been 
intended, the term employed would have been 
Sebaste, that some one city of the district, the 
name of which is not specified, was in the mind 
of the writer. In verse 9 of the same chapter " the 
people of Samaria " represents rJ> edvos TTJS Sa^uo- 
peias ; and the phrase in verse 25, " many villages 
of the Samaritans," shows that the operations of 
*vangelizing were not confined to the city of Sa 
maria itself, if they were ever carried on there. 
Comp. Matt. x. 5, " Into any city of the Samaritans 
enter ye not;" and John iv. 4, 5, where, after it has 
been said, " And He must needs go through Samaria," 
obviously the district, it is subjoined, "Then cometh 
He to a city of Samaria called Sychar." Hence 
forth its history is very unconnected. Septimius 
Severus planted a Roman colony there in the begin 
ning of the third century (Ulpian, Leg. I. de Cen- 
stbus, quoted by Dr. Robinson). Various specimens 
of coins struck on the spot have been preserved, 
extending from Nero to Geta, the brother of Cara- 
calla (Vaillant, in Numism. Imper., and Noris, 
quoted by Reland). But, though the seat of a Ro 
man colony, it could not have been a place of much 
political importance. We find in the Codex of 
Theodosius, that by A.D. 409 the Holy Land hid 
been divided into Palaestina Prima, Secunda, hnd 
Tertia. Palaestina Prima included the country of 
the Philistines, Samaria (the district), and the 
northern part of Judaea; but its capital was not 
Sebaste, but Caesarea. In an ecclesiastic^ point of 
view it stood rather higher. It was an episcopal 
see probably as ea^y as the third century. At 
any rate its bishop was present amongst those of 
Palestine at the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, and 
subscribed its acts as " Maxiraus (al. Marinus) 


Sebastenus." The names of some of his suceeasert 
have been preserved the latest of them rnentionol 
is Pelagius, who attended the Synod at Jerusalem. 
A.D. 536. The title of the see occurs in the 
earlier Greek Notitiae, and in the later Latin ones 
(Reland, Pal. 214-229). Sebaste fell into the hands 
of the Mahommedans during the siege of Jeru 
salem. In the course of the Crusades a Latin 
bishopric was established there, the title of which 
was recognised by the Roman Church until the 
fourteenth century. At this day the city of Omri 
and of Herod is represented by a small village 
retaining few vestiges of the past except its name, 
Sebustieh, an Arabic corruption of Sebaste. Some 
architectural remains it has, partly of Christian 
construction or adaptation, as the ruined church 
of St. John the Baptist, partly, perhaps, traces of 
Idumaean magnificence. "A long avenue of broken 
pillars (says Dr. Stanley), apparently the main 
street of Herod's city, here, as at Palmyra and 
Damascus, adorned by a colonnade on each side, 
still lines the topmost terrace of the hill." But 
the fragmentary aspect of the whole place exhibits 
a present fulfilment of the prophecy of Micah 
(i. 6), though it may have been fulfilled more than 
once previously by the ravages of Shalmaneser or 
of John Hyrcanus. " I will make Samaria as an 
heap of the field, and as plantings of a vineyard : 
and I will pour down the stones thereof into the 
valley, and I will discover the foundations thereof" 
(Mic. i. 6; comp. Hos. xiii. 16). 

St. Jerome, whose acquaintance with Palestine 
imparts a sort of probability to the tradition which 
prevailed so strongly in later days, asserts that 
Sebaste, which he invariably identifies with Samaria, 
was the place in which St. John the Baptist was 
imprisoned and suffered death. He also makes it 
the burial-place of the prophets Elisha and Obadiah 
(see various passages cited by Reland, pp. 980-981), 
Epiphanius is at great pains, in his work Adv. 
Haereses (lib. i.), in which he treats of the heresies 
of the Samaritans with singular minuteness, to 
account for the origin of their name. He interprets 
it as Dnb ; , <l>v\aKes, or " keepers." The hill 
on which the city was built was, he says, designated 
Somer or Someron (2w/x^p, ~S,(ajJi6p<uv), from a 
certain Somoron the son of Somer, whom he con 
siders to have been of the stock of the ancient 
Perizzites or Girgashites, themselves descendants of 
Canaan and Ham. But he adds, the inhabitants 
may have been called Samaritans from their guard 
ing the land, or (coming down much later in their 
history) from their guarding the Law, as distin 
guished from the later writings of the Jewish Canon, 
which they refused to allow. [See SAMARITANS.] 

For modern descriptions of the condition of Sa 
maria and its neighbourhood, see Dr. Robinson's 
Biblical Researches, ii. 127-33 ; Reland's Palaes 
tina, 344, 979-982 ; Raumer's Paldstina, 144-148. 
notes ; Van de Velde's Syria and Palestine, i. 363- 
388, and ii. 295, 296, Map, and Memoir ; Dr. Stan 
ley's Sinai and Palestine, 242-246 ; and a short 
article by Mr. G. Williams in the Diet, of Geog. 
Dr. Kitto, in his Physical History of Palestine, pp, 
cxvii., cxviii., has an interesting reference to and 
extract from Sandys, illustrative of its topography 
and general aspect at the commencement of the 
seventeenth century. 

2. The Samaria named in ;he present text of 
1 Mace. v. 66 (r^v ~2,a/j.dpiav : Samariam} is evi 
dently an error. At any rate tlie well-known Sa- 



S&uetiyeh, the ancient SAMAEIA, from the E.N.E. 

Bcnina tne city are the mountains of Ephratm, verging on tne Ham of Sharon. The Mediterranean Sea Is in the furtHest distance. 
The original sketch from which this view U taken was made by William Tipping, Esq., in 1842, and is engraved by his kind 

maria of the Old and New Testaments cannot be 
intended, for it is obvious that Judas, in passing 
from Hebron to the land of the Philistines (Azotus), 
could not make so immense a detour. The true 
correction is doubtless supplied by Josephus {Ant. 
xii. 8, 6), who has Marissa (f. e. MARESHA), a place 
which lay in the road from Hebron to the Philistine 
Plain. One of the ancient Latin Versions exhibits 
the same reading ; which is accepted by Ewald 
(Gesch. iv. 361) and a host of commentators (see 
Grimm, Kurzg. Exeg. Handb., on the passage; . 
Drusius proposed "Bhaaraim ; but this is hardly so 
feasible as Maresha, and has no external support. 

3. SAMARIA (y 2ayuap6?Ttj x^P a > Joseph. x^P a 
2a/ua/jea>j' ; Ptol. Sctyiapis, 2a/*apeta : Samaria). 

SAMARITANS (D'OID!^: Scytapemu ; Joseph. 

There are few questions in Biblical philology 
upon which, in recent times, scholars have come 
to such opposite conclusions as the extent of the 
territory to which the former of these words is 
applicable, and the origin of the people to which 
the latter is applied in the N. T. But a probable 
solution of them may be gained by careful attention 
to the historical statements of Holy Scripture and 
of Josephus, and by a consideration of the geo 
graphical features of Palestine. 

In the strictest sense of the term, a SAMARITAN 
would be an inhabitant of the city of Samaria. But 
it is not found at all in this sense, exclusively at 
any rate, in the 0. T. In fact, it only occurs there 
once, and then in a wider signification, in 2 K. xvii. 
29. There it is employed to designate those whom 
the king of Assyria had ' placed in (what are 
called) the cities of Samaria (whatever these may 
be) instead of the children of Israel." 

Were the word Samaritan found elsewhere in the 
0. T., it would have designated those who belonged 
to the kingdom of the ten tribes, which in a large 
sense was called Samaria. And as the extent of that 
kingdom varied, which it did very much, gradually 

diminishing to the time of Shalmaneser, so the 
extent of the word Samaritan would have varied. 

SAMARIA at first included all the tribes over 
which Jeroboam made himself king, whether east 
or west of the river Jordan. Hence, even before 
the city of Samaria existed, we find the " old pro 
phet who dwelt at Bethel" describing the predic 
tions of " the man of God who came from Judah." 
in reference to the altar at Bethel, as directed not 
merely against that altar, but " against all the 
houses of the high-places which are in the cities 
of Samaria " (1 K. xiii. 32J, i. e., of course, the 
cities of which Samaria was, or was to be, the head 
or capital. In other places in the historical books 
cf the 0. T. (with the exception of 2 K. xvii. 24, 
26, 28, 29) Samaria seems to denote the city ex 
clusively. But the prophets use the word, much 
as did the old prophet of Bethel, in a greatly ex 
tended sense. Thus the " calf of Bethel " is called 
by Hosea (viii. 5, 6) the " calf of Samaria ;" in 
Amos (iii. 9) the "mountains of Samaria" are 
spoken of; and the " captivity of Samaria and her 
daughters" is a phrase found in Ezekiel (xvi. 53). 
Hence the word Samaritan must have denoted every 
one subject to the king of the northern capital. 

But, whatever extent the word might have ac 
quired, it necessarily became contracted as the limits 
of the kingdom of Israel became contracted. In all 
probability the territory of Simeon and that of Dan 
were very early absorbed in the kingdom of Judah. 
This would be one limitation. Next, in B.C. 771 
and 740 respectively, " Pul, king of Assyria, and 
Tilgath-pilneser, king of Assyria, carried away the 
Reubenites and the Gadites, and the half-tribe of 
Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and 
Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan " (1 Chr. 
v. 26). This would be a second limitation. But 
the latter of these kings went further : " He took 
Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and 
Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the 
land of Naphtali, and earned them captive to As 
syria" (2 K. xv. 29). This would be a third 



limitation. Nearly a century before, B.C. 860, ' 
"the Lord had begun to cut Israel short;" for 
" Hazael, king of Syria, smote them in all the 
coasts of Israel ; from Jordan eastward, all the land 
of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the 
Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the river 
Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan " (2 K. x. 32, 33). 
This, however, as we may conjecture from the 
diversity of expression, had been merely a passing 
inroad, and had involved no permanent subjection 
of the country, or deportation of its inhabitants. 
The invasions of Pul and of Tilgath-pilneser were 
utter clearances of the population. The territory 
thus desolated by them was probably occupied by 
degrees by the pushing forward of the neighbouring 
heathen, or by straggling families of the Israelites 
themselves. In reference to the northern part of 
Galilee we know that a heathen population pre 
vailed. Hence the phrase " Galilee of the Nations," 
or "Gentiles" (Is. ix. 1 ; 1 Mac. v. 15). And no 
doubt this was the case also beyond Jordan. 

But we have yet to arrive at a fourth limitation 
of the kingdom of Samaria, and, by consequence, of 
the word Samaritan. It is evident from an occur 
rence in Hezekiah's reign, that just before the depo 
sition and death of Hoshea, the last king of Israel, 
the authority of the king of Judah, or, at least, his 
influence, was recognised by portions of Asher, Issa- 
char, and Zebukin, and even of Ephraim and Ma- 
nasseh (2 Chr. xxx. 1-26). Men came from all 
those tribes to the Passover at Jerusalem. This 
was about B.C. 726. In fact, to such miserable 
limits had the kingdom of Samaria been reduced, 
that when, two or three years afterwards, we are 
told that " Shalmaneser came up throughout the 
land," and after a siege of three years " took Sa 
maria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and 
placed them in Halah, and in Habor by the river 
Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes " (2 K. xvii. 
5, 6), and when again we are told that " Israel 
was carried away out of their own land into As 
syria" (2 K. xvii. 23), we must suppose a very 
small field of operations. Samaria (the city), and 
a few adjacent cities or villages only, represented 
that dominion which had once extended from Bethel 
to Dan northwards, and from the Mediterranean to 
the borders of Syria and Ammon eastwards. This 
is further confirmed by what we read of Josiah's 
progress, in B.C. 641, through " the cities of Ma- 
nasseh and Ephraim and Simeon, even unto Naph- 
tali" (2 Chr. xxxiv. 6). Such a progress would 
have been impracticable had the number of cities 
and villages occupied by the persons then called 
Samaritans been at all large. 

This, however, brings us more closely to the 
second point of our discussion, the origin of those 
who are in 2 K. xvii. 29, and in the N. T., called 
Samaritans. Shalmaneser, as we have seen (2 K. 
xvii. 5, 6, 26), carried Israel, i. e. the remnant of 
the ten tribes which still acknowledged Hoshea's 
authority, into Assyria. This remnant consisted, as 
has been shown, of Samaria (the city) and a few 
adjacent cities and villages. Now, 1. Did he carry 
away all their inhabitants, or no? 2. Whether 
they were wholly or only partially desolated, who 
replaced the deported population ? On the answer 
to these inquiries will depend our determination of 
the questions, were the Samaritans a mixed race, 
composed partly of Jews, partly of new settlers, or 
were they purely of foreign extraction? 

In reference to the former of these inquiries, it 
may be observed that the language of Scripture 


admits of scarcely a doubt. " Israel was carried 
away" (2 K. xvii. 6, 23), and other nations were 
placed " in the cities of Samaria instead of the 
children of Israel " (2 K. xvii. 24). There is no 
mention whatever, as in the case of the somewhat 
parallel destruction of the kingdom of Judah, ol 
" the poor of the land being left to be vine-dressers 
and husbandmen" (2 K. xxv. 12). We add, that, 
had any been left, it would have been impossible 
for the new inhabitants to have been so utterly 
unable to acquaint themselves with " the manner 
of the God of the land," as to require to be taught 
by some priest of the captivity sent from the king 
of Assyria. Besides, it was not an unusual thing 
with Oriental conquerors actually to exhaust a land 
of its inhabitants. Comp. Herod, iii. 149, " The 
Persians dragged ((rayrjvevffavrfs} Samos, and deli 
vered it up to Syloson stript of all its men ;" and, 
again, Herod, vi. 31, for the application of the same 
treatment to other islands, where the process called 
ffaytivevfiv is described, and is compared to a 
hunting out of the population (eKdrjpeveiv}. Such 
a capture is presently contrasted with the capture 
of other territories to which ffcrynveveiv was not 
applied. Josephus's phrase in reference to the cities 
of Samaria is that Shalmaneser ' transplanted all 
the people" {Ant. ix. 14, 1). A threat against 
Jerusalem, which was indeed only partially carried 
out, shows how complete and summaiy the desola 
tion of the last relics of the sister kingdom must 
have been : "I will stretch over Jerusalem the 
line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of 
Ahab : and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth 
a dish : he wipeth and tumeth it upon the face 
thereof" (2 K. xxi. 13). This was uttered within 
forty years after B.C. 721, during the reign of Ma- 
nasseh. It must have derived much strength from 
the recentuess and proximity of the calamity. 

We may then conclude that the cities of Samaria 
were not merely partially, but wholly evacuated of 
their inhabitants in B.C. 721, and that they re 
mained in this desolated state until, in the words 
of 2 K. xvii. 24, " the king of Assyria brought men 
from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava 
(Ivah, 2 K. xviii. 34), and from Hamath, and from 
Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Sa 
maria instead of the children of Israel : and they 
possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof." 
Thus the new Samaritans for such we must now 
call them were Assyrians by birth or subjugation, 
were utterly strangers in the cities of Samaria, and 
were exclusively the inhabitants of those cities. An 
incidental question, however, arises, Who was the 
king of Assyria that effected this colonization ? At 
first sight, one would suppose Shalmaneser ; for the 
narrative is scarcely broken, and the repeopling 
seems to be a natural sequence of the depopulation. 
Such would appear to have been Josephus' view, for 
he says of Shalmaneser, " when he had removed the 
people out of their land, he bixmght other nations 
out of Cuthah, a place so called (for there is still in 
Persia a river of that name), into Samaria and the 
country of the Israelites " (Ant. ix. 14, 1, 3; x. 9, 
7) ; but he must have been led to this interpretation 
simply by the juxtaposition of the two transactions 
in the Hebrew text. The Samaritans themselves, 
in Ezr. iv. 2, 10, attributed their colonization not to 
Shalmaneser, but to " Esar-haddon, king of Assur," 
or to " the great and noble A snapper," either the 
king himself or oue of his generals. It was probably 
on his invasion of Judah, in the reign of Manasseh, 
about B.C. 677, that Esarhaddon discovered the 


impolicy of leaving a tract upon tho very frontiers 
of that kingdom thus desolate, and determined to 
garrison it with foreigners. The fact, too, that some 
of these foreigners came from Babylon would seem 
to direct us to Esarhaddon, rather than to his grand 
father, Shalmaneser. It was only recently that 
Babylon had come into the hands of the Assyrian 
king. And there is another reason \vhy this date 
should be preferred. It coincides with the termi 
nation of the sixty-five years of Isaiah's prophecy, 
delivered B.C. 742, within which " Ephraim should 
be broken that it should not be a people " (Is. vii. 8). 
This was not effectually accomplished until the very 
land itself was occupied by strangers. So long as- 
this had not taken place, there might be hope of 
return : after it had taken place, no hope. Josephus 
(Ant. x. 9, 7) expressly notices this difference in 
the cases of the ten and of the two tribes. The land 
of the former became the possession of foreigners, 
the land of the latter not so. 

These strangers, whom we will now assume to 
have been placed in " the cities of Samaria" by 
Esarhaddon, were of course idolaters, and wor 
shipped a strange medley of divinities. Each of the 
rive nations, says Josephus, who is confirmed by 
the words of Scripture, had its own god. No place 
was found for the worship of Him who had once 
called the land His own, and whose it was still. 
God's displeasure was kindled, and they were in 
fested by beasts of prey, wVich had probably 
increased to a great extent before their entrance 
upon it. " The Lord sent lions among them, which 
slew some of them." On their explaining their 
miserable condition to the king of Assyria, he de 
spatched one of the captive priests to teach them 
" how they should fear the Lord." The priest 
came accordingly, and henceforth, in the language 
of the sacred historian, they " feared the Lord, and 
served their graven images, both their children and 
their children's children : as did their fathei-s, so do 
they unto this day" (2 K. xvii. 41). This last 
sentence was probably inserted by Ezra. It serves 
two purposes : 1st, to qualify the pretensions of the 
Samaritans of Ezra's time to be pure worshippers 
of God they were no more exclusively His ser 
vants, than was the Roman emperor who desired to 
place a statue of Christ in the Pantheon entitled to 
be called a Christian ; and, 2ndly, to show how en 
tirely the Samaritans of later days differed from 
their ancestors in respect to idolatry. Josephus' 
account of the distress of the Samaritans, and of the 
remedy for it, is very similar, with the exception 
that with him they are afflicted with pestilence. 

Such was the origin of the post-captivity or new 
Samaritans men not of Jewish extraction, but from 
the further East : " the Cuthaeans had formerly be 
longed to the inner parts of Persia and Media, but 
were then called ' Samaritans,' taking the name of 
the country to which they were removed," says 
Josephus (Ant. x. 9, 7). And again he says (Ant. 
ix. 14, 3) they are called " in Hebrew ' Cuthaeans,' 
but in Greek ' Samaritans.' " Our Lord expressly 
terms them a\\o-yeve~is (Luke xvii. 18) ; and Jo 
sephus' whole account of them shows that he believed 
them to have been /JLCTOIKOI a.\\oeOvf'is, though, 
<s he tells us in two places (Ant. ix. 14, 3, and 
xi. 8, 6), they sometimes gave a different account 
of their origin. But of this bye and bye. A gap 
occurs in their history until Judah has returned 
from captivity. They then desire to be allowed to 
participate in the rebuilding of the Temple at Jeru 
salem. It is curious, and perhaps indicative of the 



treacherous character of their designs, to find them 
even then called, by anticipation, " the adversaries 
of Judah and Benjamin " (Ezr. iv. 1), a title which 
they afterwards fully justified. But, so far as pro 
fessions go, they are not enemies ; they are most 
anxious to be friends. Their religion, they assert, 
is the same as that of the two tribes, therefore they 
have a right to share in that great religious under 
taking. But they do not call it a national under 
taking. They advance no pretensions to Jewish blood. 
They confess their Assyrian descent, and even put it 
forward ostentatiously, perhaps to enhance the merit 
of their partial conversion to God. That it was but 
partial they give no hint. It may have become 
purer already, but we have no information that it 
had. Be this, however, as it may, the Jews do not 
listen favourably to their overtures. Ezra, no doubt, 
from whose pen we have a record of the transaction, 
saw them through and through. On this the Sama 
ritans throw off' the mask, and become open enemies, 
frustrate the operations of the Jews through the 
reigns of two Persian kings, and are only effectually 
silenced in the reign of Darius Hystaspis, B.C. 519. 

The feud, thus unhappily begun, grew year by 
year more inveterate. It is probable, too, that the 
more the Samaritans detached themselves from idols, 
and became devoted exclusively to a sort of worship 
of Jehovah, the more they resented the contempt 
with which the Jews treated their offers of fra 
ternization. Matters at length came to a climax. 
About B.C. 409, a certain Manasseh, a man of 
priestly lineage, on being expelled from Jerusalem 
by Nehemiah for an unlawful marriage, obtained 
permission from the Persian king of his day, Darius 
Nothus, to build a temple on Mount Gerizim, for 
the Samaritans, with whom he had found refuge. 
The only thing wanted to crystallise the opposition 
between the two races, viz., a rallying point for 
schismatical worship, being now obtained, their ani 
mosity became more intense than ever. The Sama 
ritans are said to have done everything in their power 
to annoy the Jews. They would refuse hospitality 
to pilgrims on their road to" Jerusalem, as in our 
Lord's case. They would even waylay them in 
their journey (Joseph. Ant. xx. 6, 1) ; and many 
were compelled through fear to take the longer 
route by the east of Jordan. Certain Samaritans 
were said to have once penetrated into the Temple 
of Jerusalem, and to have defiled it by scattering 
dead men's bones on the sacred pavement (Ant. 
xviii. 2, 2). We are told too of a strange 
piece of mockery which must have been especially 
resented. It was the custom of the Jews to com 
municate to their brethren still in Babylon the exact 
day and hour of the rising of the paschal moon, by 
beacon-fires commencing from Mount Olivet, and 
flashing forward from hill to hill until they were 
mirrored in the Euphrates. So the Greek poet 
represents Agamemnon as conveying the news of 
Troy's capture to the anxious watchers at Mycenae. 
Those who " sat by the waters of Babylon " looked 
for this signal with much interest. It enabled them 
to share in the devotions of those who were in theii 
father-land, and it proved to them that they were 
not forgotten. The Samaritans thought scorn of 
these feelings, and would not unfrequently deceive 
and disappoint them, by kindling a rival flame and 
perplexing the watchers on the mountains.' Their 

" This fact," says Dr. Trench, " is mentioned by Ma- 
krizi (see De Sacy's Chrest. Arabe, :i. 159), who affirms 
that it wxs this which out the Jews on making accuraW 



own temple on Gerizim they considered to be much 
superior to that at Jerusalem. There they sacri 
ficed a passover. Towards the mountain, even after 
the temple on it had fallen, wherever they were, 
they directed their worship. To their copy of the 
Law they arrogated an antiquity and authority 
greater than attached to any copy in the possession 
Df the Jews. The Law (i. e. the five books of Moses) 
was their sole code ; for they rejected every other 
book iu the Jewish canon. And they professed to 
observe it better than did the Jews themselves, 
employing the expression not unfreque'ntly, " The 
Jews indeed do so and so ; but we, observing the 
letter of the Law, do otherwise." 

The Jews, on the other hand, were not more 
conciliatory in their treatment of the Samaritans. 
Tha copy of the Law possessed by that people they 
declared to be the legacy of an apostate (Manasseh), 
and cast grave suspicions upon its genuineness. 
Certain other Jewish renegades had from time to 
time taken refuge with the Samaritans. Hence, by 
degrees, the Samaritans claimed to partake of Jewish 
blood, especially if doing so happened to suit their 
interest (Joseph. Ant. xi. 8, 6; ix. 14, 3). A 
remarkable instance of this is exhibited in a request 
which they made to Alexander the Great, about 
B.C. 332. They desired to be excused payment of 
tribute in the Sabbatical year, on the plea that as 
fy-ue Israelites, desc?ndants of Ephraim and Ma 
nasseh, sons of Joseph, they refrained from culti 
vating their land in that year. Alexander, on cross- 
questioning them, discovered the hollowness of their 
pretensions. (They were greatly disconcerted at 
their failure, and their dissatisfaction probably led 
to the conduct which induced Alexander to besiege 
and destroy the city of Sarnaria. Shechem was 
indeed their metropolis, but the destruction of Sa 
maria seems to have satisfied Alexander.) Another 
instance of claim to Jewish descent appears in 
the words of the woman of Samaria to our Lord, 
John iv. 12, " Art Thou greater than our father 
Jacob, who gave us the well ?" A question which 
she puts without recollecting that she had just 
before strongly contrasted the Jews and the Sama 
ritans. Very far were the Jews from admitting 
this claim to consanguinity on the part of these 
people. They were ever reminding them that they 
were after all mere Cuthaeans. mere strangers from 
Assyria. They accused them ol worshipping the 
idol-gods buried long ago under the oak of Shechem 
(Gen. xxxv. 4). They would have no dealings with 
them that they could possibly avoid. b " Thou art a 
Samaritan and hast a devil," was the mode in which 
they expressed themselves when at a loss for a bitter 
reproach. Every thing that a Samaritan had touched 
was as swine's flesh to them. The Samaritan was 
publicly cursed in their synagogues could not be 
adduced as a witness in the Jewish courts could 
not be admitted to any sort of proselytism and 
was thus, s<> far as the Jew could affect his position, 
excluded from hope of eternal life. The traditional 
hatred in which the Jew held him is expressed in 
Ecclus. 1. 25, 26, " There be two manner of nations 
which my heart abhorreth, and the third is no 
oation : they that sit on the mountain of Samaria ; 

calculations to determine the moment of the new moon's 
appearance (comp. Schoettgen's HOT. Heb. i. 344)." 

b This prejudice had, of course, sometimes to give way 
to necessity, for the disciples had gone to Sychar to boy 
food, vhile our Lord was talking with the woman of Sa 
maria by the well in its suburb (John iv. 8). And from 
Luke ix. 52, we learn that the disciples went before onr 


and they that dwell among the Philistines ; and 
that foolish people that dwell in Sichem." And so 
long; was it before such a temper could be banished 
from *ne Jewish mind, that we find even the 
Apostles believing that an inhospitable slight shown 
by a Samaritan village to Christ would be not unduly 
avenged by calling down fire from heaven. 

" Ye know not what spirit ye are of," said the 
large-hearted Son of Man, and we find Him on no 
one occasion uttering anything to the disparagement 
of the Samaritans. His words, however, and the 
records of His ministrations confirm most thoroughly 
the view which has been taken above, that the 
Samaritans were not Jews. At the first sending 
forth of the Twelve (Matt. x. 5, 6) He charges 
them, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and 
into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not, but 
go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 
So again, in His final address to them on Mount 
Olivet, " Ye shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem 
and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the 
uttermost part of the earth" (Acts i. 8). So the 
nine unthankful lepers, Jews, were contrasted by 
Him with the tenth leper, the thankful stranger 
(oAA.oyej/r}s), who was a Samaritan. So, in Hia 
well-known parable, a merciful Samaritan is con- 
trasted with the unmerciful priest and Levite. And 
the very worship of the two races is described by 
Him as different in character. " Ye worship ye 
know not what," this is said of the Samaritans : 
" We know what we worship, for salvation is of 
the Jews " (John iv. 22). 

Such were the Samaritans of our Lord's day : a 
people distinct from the Jews, though lying in the 
very midst of the Jews ; a people preserving their 
identity, though seven centuries had rolled away 
since they had been brought from Assyria by Esar- 
haddon, and though they had abandoned their poly 
theism for a sort of ultra Mosaicism ; a people, who 
though their limits had been gradually contracted, 
and the rallying place of their religion on Mount 
Gerizim had been destroyed one hundred and sixty 
years before by John Hyrcanus (B.C. 130), and 
though Samaria (the city) had been again and 
again destroyed, and though their territory had 
been the battle-field of Syria and Egypt still pre 
served their nationality, still worshipped from 
Shechem and their other impoverished settlements 
towards their sacred hill ; still retained their na 
tionality, and could not coalesce with the Jews: 

6os T* oAei<|>a T' ey\ea.s T 
av ov <i'A<os 

Not indeed that we must suppose that the whole of 
the country called in our Lord's time Samaria, was 
in the possession of the Cuthaeau Samaritans, or that 
it had ever been so. " Samaria," says Joseph us, 
(B. J. iii. 3, 4) " lies between Judaea and Galilee. 
It commences from a village called Ginaea (Jenin), 
on the great plain (that of Esdraelon), and extends 
to the toparchy of Acrabatta," in the lower part oi 
the territory of Ephraim. These points, indicating 
the extreme northern and the extreme southern 
parallels of latitude between which Samaria was 
situated, enable us to fix its boundaries with tole- 

Lord at His command into a certain village of thy 
Samaritans " to make ready" for Him. Unless, indeeu 
(though, as we see on both occasions, our Lord's influ 
ence over them was not yet complete), we are to attribute 
this partial abandonment of their ordinary scruples to 
the change which His example had already wrought ic 


rebk certainty. It was bounded northward by the 
range of hills which commences at Mount Carmel 
on the west, and, after making a bend to the south 
west, runs almost due east to the valley of the 
Jordan, forming the southern border of the plain of 
Esdraelon. It touched towards the south, as nearly 
as possible, the northern limits of Benjamin. Thus 
it comprehended the ancient territory of Ephraim, 
and of those Manassites who were west of Jordan. 
" Its character," Josephus continues, " is in no 
respect different from that cf Judaea. Both abound 
in mountains and plains, and are suited for agricul 
ture, and productive, wooded, and full of fruits 
both wild and cultivated. They are not abundantly 
watered ; but much rain falls there. The springs 
are of an exceedingly sweet taste ; and, on account 
of the quantity of good grass, the cattle there pro- 
luce more milk than elsewhere. But the best 
proof of their richness and fertility is that both are 
thickly populated." The accounts of modern tra 
vellers confirm this description by the Jewish his 
torian of the "good land" which was allotted to 
that powerful portion of the house of Joseph which 
crossed the Jordan, on the first division of the ter 
ritory. The Cuthaean Samaritans, however, pos 
sessed only a few towns and villages of this large 
area, and these lay almost together in the centre of 
the district. Shechem or Sychar (as it was con 
temptuously designated) was their chief settlement, 
even before Alexander the Great destroyed Samaria, 
probably because it lay almost close to Mount Ge- 
rizim. Afterwards it became more prominently so, 
and there, on the destruction of the Temple on 
Gerizim, by John Hyrcanus (Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9, 
1), they built themselves a temple. The modern 
representative of Shechem is Ndblus, a corrup 
tion of Neapolis, or the " New Town," built by 
Vespasian a little to the west of the older town which 
was then ruined. At Ndblus the Samaritans have 
still a settlement, consisting of about 200 persons. 
Yet they observe the Law, and celebrate the Passovei 
oh a sacred spot on Mount Gerizim, with an exact 
ness of minute ceremonial which the Jews them 
selves have long intermitted : 

" Quanquam diruta, servat 

Ignem Trojanum, et Vestam colit Alba rainorem." 
The Samaritans were very troublesome both to 
their Jewish neighbours and to their Roman masters 
in the first century, A.D. Pilate chastised them with 
a severity which led to his own downfall (Joseph 
Ant. xviii. 4, 1), and a slaughter of 10,600 01 
them took place' under Vespasian (. J. iii. 7, 32) 
In spite of these reverses they increased greatly in 
numbers towards its termination, and appear to 
have grown into importance under Dositheus, whc 
was probably an apostate Jew. Epiphanius (adv 
Haercses, lib. i.), in the fourth century, considers 
them to be the chief and most dangerous adver 
saries of Christianity, and he enumerates the severa 
sects into which they had by that time dividec 
themselves. They were popularly, and even b] 
some of the Fathers, confounded with the Jews, in 
eornuch that a legal interpretation of the Gospe 
was described as a tendency to 2a / uapem0'jtid's o; 
'lov$ai'<TiJ.6s. This confusion, however, did no 
extend to an identification of the two laces. It v.-as 
simply an assertion that their exti <emc opinions wen 
identical. And previously to an outrage whicl 
thpy committed on the Christian.-, at Neapolis in th 
reign of Zeno, towards the end of the fifth century 
ihe distinction between them mid the Jews wa 
sufficiently known, and even recognised in the Theo- 
voi. in. 



osiau Code. This was so severely pumshe.l, that 
bey sank into an obscurity, which, though they 
re just noticed by travellers of the twelfth and 
omleenth centuries, was scarcely broken until the 
xteenth century. In the latter half of that ceil- 
ury a correspondence with them was commenced 
>y Joseph Scaliger. (De Sacy has edited two of 
;heir letters to that eminent scholar.) Job Ludolf 
eceived a letter from them, in the latter half of the 
icxt century. These three letters are to be found in 
Lichhorn's Repertorium fur Biblische und Morgen- 
andische Litteratur, vol. xiii. They are of great 
rchaeological interest, and enter very minutely into 
he observances of the Samaritan ritual. Among 
ither points worthy of notice in them is the incon- 
istency displayed by the writers in valuing them- 
elves on not being Jews, and yet claiming to be 
descendants of Joseph. See also De Sacy's Cor- 
respondance des Samaritains, &c., in Notices et 
Extr. des MSB. de la Biblioth. du Roi, &c., vol. 
xii. And, for more modern accounts of the people 
hemselves r Robinson's Biblical Researches, ii. 280- 
311; iii. 129-30; Wilson's Lands of the Bible, 
i. 46-78 ; Van de Velde's Syria and Palestine, ii. 
296 seq. ; Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, p. 240 ; 
"Rogers' Notices of the Modern Samaritans, p. 25 ; 
3rove j s account of their Day of Atonement in 
Vacation Tourists for 1861 ; and Dr. Stanley's, of 
their Passover, in his Lectures on the Jewish Church t 
App. iii. 

The view maintained in the above remarks, as to 
the purely Assyrian origin of the New Samaritans, 

that of Suicer, Reland, Hammond, Drusius in the 
Critici Sacri, Maldonatus, Hengstenberg, Havernick, 
Robinson, and Dean Trench. The reader is referred 
to the very clear but too brief discussion of the 
subject by the last mentioned learned writer, in 
his Parables, pp. 310, 311, and to the authori 
ties, especially De Sacy, which are there quoted. 
There is no doubt in the world that it was the 
ancient view. We have seen what Josephus said, 
and Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom,and 
Theodoret, say the same thing. Socrates, it must 
be admitted, calls the Samaritans cbrdVx'O'M 'lov- 
5aif, but he stands almost alone among the 
ancients in making this assertion. Origen and 
Cyril indeed both mention their claim to descent 
from Joseph, as evidenced in the statement of the 
woman at the well, but mention it only to declare 
it unfounded. Others, as Winer, Dollinger, and 
Dr. Davidson, have held a different view, which 
may be expressed thus in Dollinger's own words : 
" In the northern part of the Promised Land (as 
opposed to Judaea proper) there grew up a mingled 
race which drew its origin from the remnant of the 
Israelites who were left behind in the country on 
the removal of the Ten Tribes, and also from the 
heathen colonists who were transplanted into the 
cities of Israel. Their religion was as hybrid as 
their extraction : they worshipped Jehovah, but, in 
addition to Him, also the heathen idols of Phoenician 
origin which they had brought from their native 
land" (Heidenthwn und Judenthum, p. 739, 7). 
If the words of Scripture are to be taken alone, it 
does not appear how this view is to be maintained. 
At any rate, as Drusius observes, the only mixture 
was that of Jewish apostate fugitives, long after 
Esarhaddon's colonization, not at the time of the 
colonization. But modern as this view is, it has 
for some years been the popular one, and even Dr. 
Stanley seems, though quite incidentally, to hax r e 
admitted it (S. $ P. 240). He docs not, however, 

4 B 


enter upon its defence. Mr. Grove is also in favour 
of it. See his notice already mentioned. 

The authority due to the copy of the Law possessed 
ty the Samaritans, and the determh.ition whether 
the Samaritan reading of Deut. xxvii. 4, Gerizim 
or that of the Hebrew, Ebal, is to be preferred, are 
discussed in the next article. [See SAMARITAN 
SICHEM; SYCHAR.] v J ' A ' H ] 

sion of the commonly received Hebrew Text of th 
Mosaic Law, in use with the Samaritans, anc 
written in the ancient Hebrew (Ton), or so-callec 
Samaritan character. 11 This recension is founc 
vaguely quoted by some of the early Fathers of th 
Church, under the name of " Ua.\at6Tarov 'EjSpai 
xbv rJ> irapa. Sc^uaperrais," in contradistinction to 
the " 'E^pa'iKbv rb irapa 'lovSaiois ;" further, as 
" Samaritanorum Volumina," &c. Thus Origen on 
Num. xiii. 1, ...."& Kal avra e/c TOVTUV 
2,a/j.apeiTu>v 'EfipaiKov /j.ereftd\o/j.v ; " and 01 
Num. xxi. 13, . . . " a fv JAOVOIS roov 2a/AapetTa) 
fvpouev," &c. Jerome, Prol. to Kings : "Samaritan 
etiam Peutateuchum Moysis totidem (? 22, like th< 
" Hebrews, Syrians and Chaldaeans") litteris habent 
figuris tantum et apicibus discrepantes." Also on Gal 
iii. 10, "quam ob causam " (viz. ' 
Tras t>s OVK e/ijueVet tv iraffi rot's 
being quoted there from Deut. xxvii. 26, where the 
Masoretic text has only HK D'p 
nXtn minn '13*1 "cursed be he that confirmeth 
not b the words of this Law to do them ;" while th 
LXX. reads IT as &v6p(airos . . iraa-i TO?S \6yois] 
" quam ob causam Samaritanorum Hebraea vo- 
lumina relegens invem ?D scriptum esse ;" and he 
forthwith charges the Jews with having deliberately 

taken out the TO, because they did not wish to be 
bound individually to all the ordinances : forgetting 
at the same time that this same ^D occurs in the 
very next chapter of the Masoretic text (Deut. xxviii. 
15): " All his commandments and his statutes." 
Eusebius of Caesarea observes that the LXX. and 
the Sam. Pent, agree against the Received Text in 
the number of years from the Deluge to Abraham. 
Cyril of Alexandria speaks of certain words (Gen. 
iv. 8), wanting in the Hebrew, but found in the Sa 
maritan. The same remark is made by Procopius 
of Gaza with respect to Deut. i. 6 ; Num. x. 10, 
x. 9, &c. Other passages are noticed by Diodorus, 
the Greek Scholiast, &c. The Talmud, on the other 
hand, mentions the Sam. Punt, distinctly and con 
temptuously as a clumsily forged record : " You 
have falsified* your Pentateuch" said R. Eliezer b. 
Shimon to the Samaritan scribes, with reference to 
a passage in Deut. xi. 30, where the well-understood 
word Shechem was gratuitously inserted after " the 
pains of Moreh," "and you have not profited 
aught by it" (com p. Jer. Sotah 21 b, cf. 17 ; BabK 
33 b). On another occasion they are ridiculed on 
account of their ignorance of one of the simplest rules 
of Hebrew Grammar, displayed in their Pentateuch ; 
viz. the use of the il locale (unknown, however, 
&cording to Jer. Meg. 6, 2, also to the people of 
Jerusalem). "Who lias caused you to blunder f 
said It. Shimon b. Eliezer to them ; referring to their 

}'jn. nnny nro, as distinguished 
ntt'K nriD- comp. s yn h 21 b, j er . 

Meg. 6, ? ; Tosifta Synh. 4 ; Synhodr. 22 a, Meg. Jer. 
I, . Sola Jp,r. 7, 2, ;. 


abolition of the Mosaic ordinance of marrying thd 
deceased brother's wife (Deut. xxv. 5 ff'.), through 
a misinterpretation of the passage in question, which 
enjoins that the wife of the dead shall not be 
" without " to a stranger, but that the brother 
should marry her : they, however, taking HVinn 
( = ^in?) to be an epithet of ftWK, " wife/' trans 
lated " the outer wife" i. e. the betrothed only 
(Jer. Jebam. 3, 2, Ber. E., &c.). 

Down to within the last two hundred and fifty 
years, however, no copy of this divergent Code of 
Laws had reached Europe, and it began to be pro 
nounced a fiction, and the plain words of the Church- 
Fathers the better known authorities who quoted 
it, were subjected to subtle interpretations. Sud 
denly, in 1616, Pietro della Valle, one of the first dis 
coverers also of the Cuneiform inscriptions, acquired 
a complete Codex from the Samaritans in Damascus. 
In 1623 it was presented by Achille Harley de Sancy 
to the Library of the Oratory in Paris, and in 1628 
the*e appeared a brief description of it by J. Mo- 
rinus in his preface to the Roman text of the LXX, 
Three years later, shortly Before it was published 
in the Paris Polyglott. whence it was copied, with 
few emendations from other codices, by Walton, 
Morinus, the first editor, wrote his Exercitationes 
Ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Penta- 
teuchum, in which he pronounced the newly found 
Codex, with all its innumerable Variants from the 
Masoretic text, to be infinitely superior to the 
latter : in fact, the unconditional and speedy emen 
dation of the Received Text thereby was urged most 
authoritatively. And now the impulse was given 
to one of the fiercest and most barren literary and 
theological controversies : of which more anon. Be 
tween 1620 and 1630 six additional copies, partly 
complete, partly incomplete, were acquired by 
Ussher : five of which he deposited in English 
libraries, while one was sent to De Dieu, and has 
disappeared mysteriously. Another Codex, now in 
the Ambrosian Library at Milan, was brought to 
Italy in 1621. Peiresc procured two more, one of 
which was placed in the Royal Library of Paris, and 
one in the Barberini at Rome. Thus the number of 
MSS. in Europe gradually grew to sixteen. During 
the present century another, but very fragmentary 
copy, was acquired by the Gotha Library. A copy 
of the entire (?) Pentateuch, with Targum (? Sam. 
Version), in parallel columns, 4to., on parchment, 
was brought from Nahlus by Mr. Grove in 1861, 
for the Count of Pans, in whose library it is. 
Single portions of the Sam. Pent., in a more or 
less detective state, are now of no rare occurrence 
in Europe. 

Respecting the external condition of these MSS., 
it may be observed that their sizes vary from 12mo. 
to folio, and that no scroll, such as the Jews and the 
Samaritans use in their synagogues, is to be found 
among them. The letters, which are of a size cor 
responding to that of the book, exhibit none of those 
varieties of shape so frequent in the Masor. Text ; 
such as majuscules, minuscules, suspended, inverted 
letters, &c. Their material is vellum or cotton- 
paper ; the ink used is black in all cases save the 
scroll used by the Samaritans at Ndblus, the letters 
of which are in gold. There are neither vowels, 

b The A. V., following the LXX,. sjjd p 
ias inserted the word all 


1 tccents, nor diacritical points. The individual words 
are separated from each other by a dot. Greater 
or smaller divisions of the text are marked by two 
dot-; placed one above the other, and by an asterisk. 
A small line above a consonant indicates a peculiar 
uieanmg of the word, an unusual form, a passive, 




mo .. 
IDI .p 

The Sam. Pentateuch is halved in Lev. vii. 15 
(viii. 8, in Hebrew Text), where the words " Middle 
of the Thorah " e are found. At the end of each MS. 
the year of the copying, the name of the scribe, and 
also that of the proprietor, are usually stated. Yet 
their dates are not always trustworthy when given, 
and very difficult to be conjectured when entirely 
omitted, since the Samaritan letters afford no internal 
evidence of the period in which they were written. 
To none of the MSS., however, which have as yet 
reached Europe, can be assigned a higher date than 
the 10th Christian century. The scroll used in 
Ndblus bears so the Samaritans pretend the fol 
lowing inscription : " I, Abisha, son of Pinehas, 
son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the Priest, upon 
them be the Grace of Jehovah ! To His honour 
have I written this Holy Law at the entrance of 
the Tabernacle of Testimony on the Mount Gerizim, 
Beth El, in the thirteenth year of the taking pos 
session of the Land of Canaan, and all its boundaries 
arounu it, by the Children of Israel. I praise Jeho 
vah." (Letter of Meshalmah b. Ab Sechuah, Cod. 
19,791, Add. MSS. Brit. Mus. Comp. Epist. Sam. 
Sichemitarum ad Jobum Ludolphum, Cizae, 1688 ; 
Antiq. Eccl. Orient, p. 123 ; Huntingtoni Epist. 
pp. 49- 56 ; Eichhorn's Eepertorium f. bibl. und 
morg &., torn, ix., &c.) But no European' has 
ever succeeded in finding it in this scroll, however 
great the pains bestowed upon the search (comp. 
Eichhorn, Einleit. ii. 132) ; and even if it had been 
found, it would not have deserved the slightest 

We have briefly stated above that the Exercita- 
tiones of Morinus, which placed the Samaritan Pen 
tateuch far above the Received Text in point of ge 
nuineness, partly on account of its agreeing in 
many places with the Septuagint, and partly on 
account of its superior " lucidity and harmony," 
excited and kept up for nearly two hundred years one 
of the most extraordinary controversies on record. 
Characteristically enough, however, this was set at 
rest once for all by the very first systematic inves 
tigation of the point at issue. It would now appear 
as if the unquestioning rapture with which every 
new literary discovery was formerly hailed, the in 
nate animosity against the Masoretic (Jewish) Text, 
the general preference for the LXX., the defective 
state of Semitic studies, as if, we say, all these put 

d njn and nan, iy and "iy, "a 1 ! and -QT 

?K and 7tf, /3JO and 7D&O, tOp* and N'tp'S 
ty and ]}, the suffixes at the end of a word, the |"| with 
out a dagesh, kc., are thus pointed out to the reader. 


and the like : it is, in fact, a contrivance to bespeak 
attention.* The whole Pentateuch is divided into 
nine hundred ani sixty-four paragraphs, or Kazzin, 
ths termination of which is indicated by these figures, 
= , .*., or <. At the end of each book the numbei 
of its divisions is stated thus : 

[Masoret. Cod., 12 Sidras (Parshioth), 50 Chapters]. 
L 11 - 40 ] 

[ 10 27 ] 

C 10 36 ] 

[ ,. 11 34 ] 

together were not sufficient to account for the phe 
nomenon that men of any critical acumen could for 
one moment not only place the Sam. Pent, on a par 
with the Masoretic Text, but even raise it, uncon 
ditionally, far above it. There was indeed another 
cause at work, especially in the first period of the dis 
pute : it was a controversial spirit which prompted 
Morinus and his followers, Cappellus and others, to 
prove to the Reformers what kind of value was to 
be attached to their authority : the received form of 
the Bible, upon which and which alone they pro 
fessed to take their stand ; it was now evident that 
nothing short of the Divine Spirit, under the influ 
ence and inspiration of which the Scriptures were 
interpreted and expounded by the Roman Church, 
could be relied upon. On the other hand, most of 
the " Anitnorinians " De Muys, Hottinger, St. 
Morinus, Buxtorf, Fuller, Leusden, Pfeitfer, &c. 
instead of patiently and critically examining the 
subject and refuting their adversaries by arguments 
which were within their reach, as they are within 
ours, directed their attacks against the persons of 
the Morinians, and thus their misguided zeal left 
the question of the superiority of the New Document 
over the Old where they found it. Of higher value 
were, it is true, the labours of Simon, Le Clerc, 
Walton, &c., at a later period, who proceeded 
eclectically, rejecting many readings, and adopting 
others which seemed preferable to those of the Old 
Text. Houbigant, however, with unexampled igno 
rance and obstinacy, returned to Morinus' first no 
tion already generally abandoned of the unques 
tionable and thorough superiority. He, again, was 
followed more or less closely by Kennicott, Al. a St. 
Aquilino, Lobstein, Geddes, and others. The discus 
sion was taken up once more on the other side, 
chiefly by Ravius, who succeeded in finally disposing 
of this point of the superiority {Exercitt. Phil, in 
Houbig. Prol. Lugd. Bat. 1755). It was from his 
day forward allowed, almost on all hands, that the 
Masoretic Text was the genuine one, but that in 
doubtful cases, when iiieSamaritan had an " unques 
tionably clearer " reading, this was to be adopted, 
since. A certain amount of value, however limited, 
did attach to it. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, 
Jahn, and the majority of modern critics, adhered 
to this opinion. Here the matter rested until 1815, 
when Gesenius (De Pent. Sam. Origine, Indole, 

f it wDuld appear, however (see Aichdeacon Tattani's 
notice in the I'artherum, No. 4, May 21 1862) that Mr. 
Uvysohn, a person lately attached to the Russian "tuff h> 

Jerusalem, has found the inscription in question "going 
through the middle of the body of the Text of the Deca 
logue, and extending through three columns." Consider 
ing that the Samaritans themselves told Ht.ntington, 
" that this inscription had been in their scroll once, but 
must have been erased by some wicked hruij " th!a 
startling piece of information must be received with 
extreme caution : no less so than the other more or less 
j vague statements with respect to the labours and piv, 
tended discoveries of Mr. Levysohn. See note, p. ilia 

4 1'. '2 


et Auctoritate^) abolished the remnant of the 
authority of the Sam. Pent. So masterly, lucid, 
iind clear are his arguments and his proofs, that 
there has been and will be no further question as 
u> the absence of all value in this Recension, and in 
its pretended emendations. In fact, a glance at the 
systematic arrangement of the variants, of which 
he first of all bethought himself, is quite sufficient 
to convince the reader at once that they are for the 
most part mere blunders, arising from an imperfect 
knowledge of the first elements of grammar and 
exegesis. That others owe their existence to a studied 
design of conforming certain passages to the Sama 
ritan mode of thought, speech, and faith moie 
especially to show that the Mount Gerizim, upon 
which their temple stood, was the spot chosen and 
indicated by God to Moses as the one upon which 
He desired to be worshipped.? Finally, that others 
are due to a tendency towards removing, as well as 
linguistic shortcomings would allow, all that seemed 
obscure or in any way doubtful, and towards 
filling up all apparent imperfections: either by 
repetitions or by means of newly-invented and 
badly-fitting words and phrases. It must, how 
ever, be premised that, except two alterations (Ex. 
xiii. 7, where the Sam. reads " Six days shalt 
thou eat unleavened bread," instead of the received 
' Seven days," and the change of the word nTlH, 
'* There shall not be," into ("PPM"!? " live," Deut. 
xxiii. 18), the Mosaic laws and ordinances them 
selves are nowhere tampered with. 

We will now proceed to lay specimens of these 
once so highly prized variants before the reader, in 
order that he may judge for himself. We shall 
follow in this the commonly received arrangement 

g For 1fQV "He will elect" (the spot), the Sam. 
always puts "IfQ. " He has elected" (viz. Gerizim). See 

h D'nyfc? "3* must be a misprint. 

* Thus D is found in the Samar. for ft- of the Ma- 

soretic T.; ft] for ft--; V for 1" ; D 
rTnlKO f r rn&Q- & c. : sometimes a ) Is put even 
where the Heb. T. has, in accordance with the gram 
matical rules, only a short vowel or a sheva: 

found for vjpn ; ni^iN f 

k ura on, ?n, become i:ms, non, nxn- 

m ISfil becomes T>3ni ; ftW\ is emendated into 
nilD^I i NT (verb H"b) into PINT J the final ]^ of the 
3rd pers. fern. plur. fut. into PO. 

" ^DIK^s shortened into p^, )ft)ft into ft*ft. 

Masculine are made the words Qf"p (Gen. xlix. 20) 
"iy{? (Deut. xv. 7, c.), njfllD (Wen. xxxh. 9); feminine 
the words tv-|tf (Gen. xiii. 6), "1~n (Deut. xxviii. 25), 
{J>a3 (Gen. xlvi. 25, &c.); wherever the word -|JJ occurs 
in the sense of " girl," a ft is added at the end (Gen. xxiv. 
14, &c.). 

p 31EJ>1 *|vn 121J^V " tne waters returned conti 
nually," is transformed into 'QKM l^n 121K^lt " tne J 
returned, they went and they returned" (Gen. viii. 3). 
Where the infin. is used as an adverb, e. g. p|~nn (Gen. 
xxi. 16), " far off," it is altered into HpTY"!!"!. " she went 
far away," which renders the passage almost unintelligible. 

i- io u ); i for *i xi - 

30) ; D*"11B lor the collective IIQV (xv. 10); 
"female servants," for nin!DK( xx - IS); nriU 

for the adverbial y\& (xlix. 15) ; 
(Ex. xxvi. 26, making it depend from <^y); 
P. in the unusual sense of " from it '' (comp. l K. x vii. 


of Gesenius, who divides all these readings into eight 
classes ; to which, as we. shall after wards show, 
Frankel has suggested the addition of two or 
three others, while Kirchheim (in his Hebrew 
work JIIDIt? *1D"O) enumerates thirteen, 11 which 
we will name hereafter. 

1. The first class, then, consists of readings by 
which emendations of a grammatical nature have 
been attempted. 

(a.) The quiescent letters, or so-called matres 
lectionis, are supplied. 1 

(6.) The more poetical forms of the pronouns, 
probably less known to the Sam., are altered into 
the more common ones. k 

(c.) The same propensity for completing appa 
rently incomplete forms is noticeable in the flexion 
of the verbs. The apocopated or short future is 
altered into the regular future. 111 

(d.) On the other hand the paragogical letters 1 and 
* at the end of nouns, are almost universally struck 
out by the Sam. corrector ; B and, in the ignorance 
of the existence of nouns of a, common gender, he 
has given them genders according to his fancy. 

[e.) The infin. absol. is, in the quaintest manner 
possible, reduced to the form of the finite verb.? 

For obsolete or rare forms, the modern and more 
common ones have been substituted in a great num 
ber of places.* 

2. The second class of variants consists of glosses 
and interpretations received into the text : glosses, 
moreover, in which the Sam. not (infrequently 
coincides with the LXX., and which are in many 
cases evidently derived by both from some ancient 

3. The third class exhibits conjectural emen- 

13), is altered into H3ED (Lev. ii. 2) ; flipl is wrongly 

put for >n (3rd p. s. m. of lipl = 45^) ! "TJJ. the obsolete 
form, is replaced by the more recent TJJ (Num. xxi. 15) 
the unusual fern, termination *~ (comp. 7t2^&$) 
^J^tf is elongated into ft*- ; infe? ls tne emendation 
for VE^ (Deut. xxii. 1); IIH for ^H (Deut. xxxiii. 
15), etc. 

1 i"lfc^JO &^tf> "'nan and woman," used by Gen. vii. 2 
of animals, is changed into rQp3! "1DT " male and 
female;" VfcOEJ^ ( Gen - xxiv - 60 )> " his haters," becomes 
nis enemies;" for j-|Q (indefin.) is substituted 
K"V' "he will see. choose," is amplified by a 
for himself ;" "12 il Ijlil is transformed into "1JH 

(Num. xxiii. 4), "And God met Bileam," becomes with 
the Sam. '} HK '^X "JN^D KV*V " and an An 9 d 
of the Lord found Bileam;" n^X!l ^ ( Gen - xx - 3 ) 
" for the woman," is amplified into n&^Kn HTlX ^y, 
" for the sake of the woman:" for H337I, from ^^J 
(obsol., comp. JsO)' is P ut H33^ " tnose tQ at are be 
fore me," in contradistinction to " those who will come 
after me ;" "lyPM, " and she emptied " (her pitcher into 
the trough, Gen. xxiv. 20), has made room for THini- 
"and she took down;" ftW lft*m "I will meet 
there" (A. V., Ex. xxix. 43), is made Q^ \n^"li:. 
"I shall be [searched] found there;" Num. xxxi. 15, 
before the words rQp3 ^3 DrVTin. " Have you spared 
the life of every female ?" a n^?, " Why," is inserted 
(LXX.); for Klptf niPI* Dt? *3 (Deut xxxii. 3) 
' If 1 call the n.ame of Jehovah.' the Sam. hac 
" In l ho name," etc. 


dat.ons sometimes far from happy of leal or 
imaginary difficulties in the Masoretic text. 9 

4. The fourth class exhibits readings in which ap 
parent deficiencies have been corrected or supplied 
from parallel passages in the common text. Gen. 
xviii. '29, 30, for " 1 shall not do it," * " I shall not 
destroy" is substituted from Gen. xviii. 28, 31, 32. 
Gen xxxvii. 4, VHN, " his brethren," is replaced by 
VJ2, " his sons," from the former verse. One of the 
most curious specimens of the endeavours of the 
Samaritan Codex to render the readings as smooth 
and consistent as possible, is its uniform spelling of 
proper nouns like VirV Jethro, occasionally spelt 
1]T in the Hebrew text, Moses' father-in-law a 
man who, according to the Mid rash (Sifri), had no 
less than seven names ; Vfc^in* (Jehoshua), into 
which form it corrects the shorter JJBJ'in (Hoshea) 
when it occurs in the Masoretic Codex. More fre 
quent stijl are the additions of single words and 
short phrases inserted from parallel passages, where 
the Hebrew text appeared too concise:* unneces 
sary, often excessively absurd interpolations; 

5. The fft/i class is an extension of the one im 
mediately preceding, and comprises larger phrases, 
additions, and repetitions from parallel passages. 
Whenever anything is mentioned as having been 
done or said previously by Moses, or where a com 
mand of God is related as being executed, the 
whole speech bearing 'upon it is repeated again at 
full length. Thest tedious and always superfluous 
repetitious are most frequent in Exodus, both in the 
record of the plagues and in the many interpola 
tions from Deuteronomy. 

6. To the sixth class belong those " emendations " 


of passages ind words of the Hebrew text which 
contain something objectionable in the eyes of the 
Samaritans, on account either of historical impro 
bability or apmrent want of dignity in the terms 
applied to the Creator. Thus in the Sam. Pent, 
no one in the antediluvian times, begets his first 
son after he has lived 150 years : but one hundred 
years are, where necessary, subtracted before, and 
added after the birth of the first son. Thus Jared, 
according to the Hebrew Text, begot at 162 years, 
lived afterwards 800 years, and " all his years were 
962 years;" according to the Sam. he begot when 
only 62 years old, lived afterwards 785 years, " and 
all his years were 847." After the Deluge the 
opposite method is followed. A hundred or fitly 
years are added before and subtracted after the be 
getting : E. g. Arphaxad, who in the Common Text 
is 35 years old when he begets Shelah, and lived 
afterwards 403 years : in all 438 is by the Sam. 
made 135 years old when he begets Shelah, and 
lives only 303 years afterwards = 438. (The LXX. 
has, according to its own peculiar psychological and 
chronological notions, altered the Text in the oppo 
site manner. [See SEPTUAGINT.]) An exceedingly 
important and often discussed emendation of this 
class is the passage in Ex. xii. 40, which in oui 
text reads, " Now the sojourning of the children of 
Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and 
thirty years." The Samaritan (supported by LXX. 
Cod. Al.) has " The sojourning of the children of 
Israel, [and their fathers who dicelt in the land of 
Canaan and in the land of Egypt ej/ 777 Alyvirrcf 
Kal eV 777 Kavadv] was four hundred and thirty 
years:" an interpolation of very late date indeed 

8 The elliptic use of *p>, frequent both in Hebrew and 
Arabic, being evidently unknown to the emendator, he 
alters the ^!p ftyy HND p^H (Gen. xvii. 17), "shall 
a diiid be born unto him that is a hundred years old ?" 
into T7|K, " shall 1 beget?" Gen.xxiv. 62, tf-QD N3> 
" he came from going" (A. V. "from the way") to the 
well of Lahai-roi,vthe Sam. alters into "Q1D2 fcO, 
H in or through the desert" (LXX., Sid 7% epij/uov). In 
Gen. xxx. 34, "jH^ID \T "6 }H. " Behold, may it be 

according to thy word," the 1^> (Arab. J) is transformed 
into #~>, "and if not let it be like thy word." Gen. 
xli. 32, Dl7nn niJ^n 7jn, And for that the dream 

was doubled," becomes 'fl JTO^ P&yi " The dream 
rose a second time," which is both un-Hebrew, and 
diametrically opposed to the sense and construction of 
the passage. Better is the emendation Gen. xlix. 10, 
1 yj"l f'llK) " from between his feet," into " from 
among his banners," I^HI pZlD- Ex - xv - 18 all but 
five of the Sam. Codd. read -|iyi D^IJJ^' " for ever and 
longer" instead of "iyi, the common form, " evermore." 

Kx. xxxiv. 7, nj?3* &6 nj331, " that will by no means 

clear the sin," becomes Hj^ 1? Hpi), " and the inno 
cent to him shall be innocent," against both the parallel 
passages and the obvious sense. The somewhat difficult 

1QCP &6l and they did ivo*. cease" (A. V., Num. x!. 
25), reappears as a still more obscure conjectural -IDDN^' 
which we would venture to translate, " they were not 
gathered in," in the sense of "killed:" instead of 
either the 1^2K> "congregated," of the Sam. Vers., or 
Castell's " continuerunt," or B*ubigant's and Dathe j 
" convcaerant." Num. xxi. 28, *ne "1)7, " Ar " (Moab), is 
5Uiend;ited into HS?, " as far as," a perfectly meaningless 

reading ; only that the "IV, " city," as we saw above, was 
a word unknown to the Sam. The somewhat uncommon 
words (Num. xi. 32), HNSS? DH^ UIBB^I. " antl t lie y 
(the people) spread them all abroad," are transposed intc 

i" 1pnE>' l 1. "and they slaughtered for 
themselves a slaughter." Deut. xxviii. 37, the word 

an astonishment " (A. V.), very rarely used in 
this sense (Jer. xix. 8, xxv. 9), becomes DKv, " to a 
name," i. e., a bad name. Deut. xxxiii. 6, ITID TH 
May his men be a multitude," the Sam., with 
its characteristic aversion to, or rather ignorance of, the 
use of poetical diction, reads "1SDD IfiNE ^"W' "May 
there be/rom him a multitude," thereby trying perhaps 
to encounter also the apparent difficulty of the word 
")DDD> standing for " a great number." Anything more 
absurd than the ^J"IND in this place could hardly be 
imagined. A few verses further on, the uncommon use 
of }D in the phrase j-ID-lp? JD (Deut. xxxiii. 11), as 
" lest,'" "not," caused the no less unfortunate alteration 
*D, so that the latter part of the passage, "smite 
through the loins of them that rise against him, and of 
them that hate him, that they rise not again," becomes 
"who iviU raise Mem?" barreu alike of meaning and 
of poetry. For the unusual and poetical ^j^^^ (Deut. 
xxxiii. 25; A. V. "thy strength"), "] <> 3'" is suggested; 
a word about the significance of which the commentators 
are at a greater loss even than about that of the original. 

Thus in Gen. i. 14, the words 
" to give light upon the earth," are inserted from ver. 17 ; 

Sen. xi. 8, the word T^JD-l, "and a tower," is added 

from ver. 4 ; Gen. xxiv! 22, J-|DK ?V " on ner face " 
nose), is added from ver 47, so that the former verse 
reads " And the man took (np^l for QW*\) a golden ilng 
' upon hor face.' " 

Again, in Gen. ii. 2, " And God [? had] finished 
(few, ? ptuperf.) on the seventh day," tyWH is 
altered into ^^,1, " the sixth," lest God's rest 
on the Sabbath-day might seem incomplete (LXX.). 
In Gen. xxix. 3, 8, " We cannot, until all the flocks 
be gathered together, and till they roll the stone 
from the mouth of the well," D'Viy, " flocks," 
is replaced by 0^11, " shepherds," since the flocks 
could not roll the stone from the well : the cor 
rector not being apparently aware that in common 
parlance in Hebrew, as in other languages, *' they" 
occasionally refers to certain not particularly spe 
cified persons. Well may Gesenius ask what this 
corrector would have made of Is. xxxvii. [not 
xxxvi.] 36 : " And when they arose in the morning, 
beheld they were all dead corpses." The surpassing 
reverence of the Samaritan is shown in passages like 
Ex. xxiv. 10, "and they beheld God,"*' which 
is transmuted into " and they held by, clung to, 
God " 2 a reading certainly less in harmony with 
the following " and they ate and drank." 

7. The seventh class comprises what we might 
briefly call Samaritanisms, . e. certain Hebrew 
forms, translated into the idiomatic Samaritan; 
and here the Sam. Codices vary considerably among 
themselves, as far as the very imperfect collation of 
them has hitherto shown some having retained 
the Hebrew in many places where the others have 
adopted the new equivalents.* 

8. The eighth and last class contains alterations 
made in favour or on behalf of Samaritan theology, 
hermeneutics, and domestic worship. Thus the 
word Elohim, four times construed with the plural 
verb in the Hebrew Pentateuch, is in the Sam 
aritan Pent, joined to the singular verb (Gen. xx. 
13, xxxi. 53. xxxv. 7; Ex. xxii. 9); and further, 
both anthropomorphisms as well as anthropopathisms 
are carefully expunged a practice very common in 
later times. b The last and perhaps most momentous 


of all intentional alterations is the constant change 
of all the ")f"Q\ " God will choose a spot," into 
"irQ, " He has chosen," viz. Gerizim, and the well- 
known substitution of Gerizim for Ebal in Deut. 
xxrii. 4 (A. V. 5):" It shall be when ye be gone 
over Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones which 
I command you this day on Mount Ebal (Sam. 
Geriziin), and there shalt thou build an altar 
unto the Lord thy God," &c. This passage gains a 
certain interest from Whiston and Kennicott having 
charged the Jews with corrupting it from Gerizim 
into Ebal. This supposition, however, was met by 
Rutherford, Parry, Tychsen, Lobstein, Verachuir, 
and others, and we need only add that it is com 
pletely given up by modern Biblical scholars, al 
though it cannot be denied that there is some primd 
facie ground for a doubt upon the subject. To this 
class also belong more especially interpolations of 
really existing passages, dragged out of their con 
text for a special purpose* In Exodus as well as 
in Deuteronomy the Sam. has, immediately after 
the Ten Commandments, the following insertions 
from Deut. xxvii. 2-7 and xi. 30 : " And it shall be 
on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan ... ye 
shall set up these stones ... on Mount Gerizim 
. . . and there shalt thou build an altar . . . ' That 
mountain' on the other side Jordan by the way 
where the sun goeth down ... in the champaigB 
over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh, ' over 
against Shechem:'" this last superfluous addi 
tion, which is also found in Deut. xi. 30 of the 
Sam. Pent., being ridiculed in the Talmud, as we 
have seen above. 

From the immense number of these worse than 
worthless variants Gesenius has singled out four, 
which he thinks preferable on the whole to those 
of the Masoretic Text. We will confine ourselves 
to mentioning them, and refer the reader to the 
recent commentaries upon them : he will find that 

y D*r P.K urn- 

The gutturals and Ah evi -letters are frequently 
changed : B*npl becomes &TM (Gen. viii. 4) ; itf! is 
altered into ty^ f xxiii. 18) ; J-Q> into ])%& (xxvii. 19) ; 
^nt stand s f or ^nt C^eut. xxxii. 24) ; the ft is changed 
into pi in words like JH3, D*PQ!l which become jnj> 
D^PQ 3 5 n is altered into y "IJOPI becomes -)Ey. The 
* is frequently doubled (? as a mater lectionis) : 
is substituted for ^ftTl 5 K"!^ for 
Many words are joined together : *H VHO stands for 
im "ID (Ex. xxx. 23); j&OrO for ftf jj-|D (Gen.xli. 
45); DT"13 "in is always Q^p^yiri' The pronouns 
flNt and jfiK, 2nd p. fern. sing, and plur., are changed into 
hX. pnjtf (the obsolete Heb. forms) respectively; the 
suff. tj into -]&$ ; *]- into *^; the termination of the 2nd 
p. s. fern, praet., F\~, becomes ^fl, like the first p. ; the 
verbal form Aphel is used for the Hiphil; ^JVOTK for 
*m3tn the medial letter of the verb yy is sometimes 
retained as fc$ or >, instead of being dropped as hi the Heb. 
Again, verbs of the form j-|"^ have the > frequently at the 
end of the infin. fut. and part., instead of the H- Nouns of 
the schema 7t3p COX, &c.) are often spelt ? % C3p, into 

which the form ?it3|5 is likewise occasionally trans 
formed. Of distinctly Samaritan words may be men 
tioned: *|n (Gen. xxxiv. 31)="pN' TI7 (Chald.), " like ;" 
for Heb. DHin. "seal;" niVlbS. "as though 

." becomes nrnB&o= Tar g- nmBN "O; 

"wise," reads OOP!; 1]}, "spoil," HJJ. 

days," nio'r. 

b nJOn^D tS^tf. " man of war," an expression used 
of God (Ex. xv. 3), becomes "Q "VQ J, " hero of war,' 
the former apparently of irreverent import to the Sama 
ritan ear ; for 'ft p|tf Vt&W (Deut. xxix. 19, A. V. 20), 
lit. "And the wrath (nose) of the Lord shall smoke,' 
Tl P]N "IJT> " tne wrath of the Lord will be kindled," is 
substituted; "J^nJO T) (Dent xxxiL 18), "the rock 
(God) which begat thee," is changed into p^HD "VI < 
" the rock which glorifies thee ;" Gen. xix. 12, D^JKiT. 
" the men," used of the angels, has been replaced by 
Q^$$7>}3n> "*^ e angels." Extreme reverence for the 
patriarchs changed ITlX- " Cursed be their (Simeon and 
Levi's) anger," into SHN> " brilliant is their anger " 
(Gen. xlix. 7). A flagrant falsification is the alteration, 
in an opposite sense, which they ventured in the passage 
HDl^ p8J* 'H TT. " The beloved of God [Ben 
jamin, the founder of the Judaeo-Davidlan empire, hate 
ful to the Samaritans] shall dwell securely," trans 
formed by them into the almost senseless 'H 1* *V 
riE3l!? P^ " The h and > the hana of God wiu ^ st (.if 
Hiph. : }3fe?\ ' will cause to rest '] securely" (Deut. xxxiii. 
12). Reverence for the Law and the Sacred Records gives 
rise to more emendations: VtJODU (Deut. xxv. 12, 
A. V. 11), " by his secrets," becomes 1*1^33. " by his 
coibit cum ea" (Deut xxviii. 12), 
concumbetcumea;" JID^ETl 
" to the dog shall ye throw it" (Ex. xxii, 30), 
hall indeed throw it [away]." 


tiey too have since been, all but unanimously, 
"ejected." (1.) After the words, "And Cain spoke 
ODtf'1) to his brother Abel" (Gen. iv. 8.), the 
Sam. adds, " let us go into the field," d in ignorance 
of the absol. use of "IOK, " to say, speak" (corap. 
Ex. xix. 25; 2 Chr. ii. 10, xxxii. 34), and the 
absol. "Wl (Gen. ix. 21). (2.) For in (Gen. xxii. 
13) the Sam. reads "IflX, i. e. instead of" behind 
him a ram," " one ram." (3.) For D"13 "11OH 
(Gen. xlix. 14), "an ass of hone" i.e. a strong 
a*s, the Sam. has DHJ "IIDH (Targ. DlJ, Syr. 


>O^v). And (4.) for pTI (Gen. xiv. 14), " he 

led forth his trained servants," the Sam. reads 
D*VI, " he numbered." 

We must briefly state, in concluding this por 
tion of the subject, that we did not choose this 
classification of Gesenius because it appeared to us 
to be either systematic (Gesenius says himself: 
" Ceterum facile perspicitur complures in his esse 
lectiones quarum singulas alius ad aliud genus re- 
terre forsitan malit ... in una vel altera lectione ad 
aliam classem referenda haud difficiles erimus . . .") 
or exhaustive, or even because the illustrations 
themselves are unassailable in point of the reason 
he assigns for them ; but because, deficient as it is, 
it has at once and for ever silenced the utterly un 
founded though time-hallowed claims of the Sama 
ritan Pentateuch. It was only necessary, as we said 
before, to collect a great number of variations (or 
to take them from Walton), to compare them with 
the old text and with each other, to place them in 
some kind of order before the reader and let them 
tell their own tale. That this was not done during 
the two hundred years of the contest by a single 
one of the combatants is certainly rather strange : 
albeit not the only instance of the kind. 

Important additions to this list have, as we 
hinted before, been made by Frankel, such as the 
Samaritans' preference of the imperat. for the 3rd 
pers. ; e ignorance of the use of the abl. absol. ; f 
Galileanisms, to which also belongs the permuta 
tion of the letters Ahevif (comp. Enjb. 53, "1DPI, 
*1EN, "M3JJ), in the Samaritan Cod. ; the occasional 
softening down of the Q into l, h of 3 into 3, X 
into T, &c-, and chiefly the presence of words and 
phrases in the Sam. which are not interpolated from 
parallel passages, but are entirely wanting in our 
text. 1 Frankel derives from these passages chiefly 
the conclusion that the Sam. Pent, was, partly at 
least, emendated from the LXX., Onkelos, and other 
very late sources. (See below.) 

We now subjoin, for the sake of completeness, the 
beforementioned thirteen classes of Kirchheim,in the 
original, to which we have added the translation : 

i. onna in rbyth D'-WI niaoin. [Ad 
ditions and alterations in the Samaritan Pentateuch 
m favour of Mount Gerizim.] 


c Keil, in the latost edition of his Introd. p. 590, note 7, 
Bays, " Even the few variants, which Gesenius tries to 
prove genuine, fall to the ground on closer examina 

JYlDDin. [Additions for tre pur 
pose of completion.] 

3. "11&Q. [Commentary, glosses.] 

4. D'O'Oini D^JJBn tjlVl. [Change of verbs 
and moods.] 

5. niEPn ffhn [Change of nouns.] 

6. nfcOtJTl. [Emendation of seeming irregu 
larities by assimilating forms, &c.] 

7. nVITlXn min. [Permutation of letters.] 

8. D" 1 ^-. [Pronouns.] 

9. p. [Gender.] 

10. niBDUn n^niN. [Letters added.] 

11. DH^n nVniK. [Addition of prepositions. 
conjunctions, articles, &c.] 

12. THQI f Up. [Junction of separated, and 
separation of joined words.] 

13. D^IJJ niB. [Chronological alterations.] 
It may, perhaps, not be quite superfluous to ob 

serve, before we proceed any further, that, since up 
to this moment no critical edition of the Sam. Pent., 
or even an examination of the Codices since Ken- 
nicott who can only be said to have begun the 
work has been thought of, the treatment of the 
whole subject remains a most precarious task, and 
beset with unexampled difficulties at every step; 
and also that, under these circumstances, a more or 
less scientific arrangement of isolated or common 
Samaritan mistakes and falsifications appears to us 
to be a subject of very small consequence indeed. 

It is, however, this same rudimentary state of 
investigation after two centuries and a half of 
fierce discussion which has left the other and 
much more important question of the Age and 
Origin of the Sam. Pent, as unsettled to-day as it 
was when it first came under the notice of European 
scholars. For our own part we cannot but think 
that as long as (1) the histoiy of the Samaritans 
remains involved in the obscurities of which a 
former article will have giveji an account; (2) we 
are restricted to a small number of comparatively 
recent Codices ; (3) neither these Codices them 
selves have, as has just been observed, been tho 
roughly collated and recollated, nor (4) more than 
a feeble beginning has been made with anything 
like a collation between the various readings of 
the Sam. Pent, and the LXX. (Walton omitted 
the greatest number, " cum nullam sensus varie- 
tatem constituant ") ; so long must we have 2 
variety of the most divergent opinions, all based or. 
"probabilities," which are designated on the other side 
as "false reasonings" and "individual crotchets," 
and which, moreover, not unfrequently start from 
flagrantly false premisses. 

We shall, under these circumstances, confine our 
selves to a simple enumeration of the leading opi 
nions, and >the chief reasons and arguments alleged 
for and against them : 

< K.g. mpn for mp> (Ex. xii. 48^; 
(Ex. xxxv. io). 

f K - 9- i-or for list ( Ex - xiil - 13 ) ; s :n for 

' v Num. xv. 35). 

* - ff- Cpm for ppni (Gen. via 22) ; pn for 
OWL xxxvi. 28^ t for f 

( Gen - xxxl - 35 ) 
xv. 10). 

i Gen. xxiii. 2, after jmxn JV"lpl the words 
pJOy are added; xxvii. 27, after ni^il the word { 
is found (LXX.); xliii. 28, the phrase 

nn is inserted after theEthnach; xlvii. 21, 

n, and EX. xxxu. 32, Ktan s^n DK 

NB> DH is read - An exceedingly difficult andun-Hebrew 
passage is found in Ex. xxiii. 19, reading 

spy nW? Nin n-osn ro^ rats n 


(1 } The Samaritan Pentateuch came irto the 
hands of the Samaritans as an inheritance from the 
ten tribes whom they succeeded so the popular 
notion runs. Of this opinion are J. Morinus, Walton, 
Cappellus, Kennicott, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bauer, 
Jahn, Bertholdt, Steudel, Mazade, Stuart, Daridson, 
and others. Their reasons for it may be thus briefly 
summed up : 

(a.) It seems improbable that the Samaritans 
should have accepted their code at the hands of the 
Jews after the Exile, as supposed by some critics, 
since there existed an intense hatred between the 
two nationalities. 

(6.) The Samaritan Canon has only the Penta 
teuch in common with the Hebrew Canon : had 
that book been received at a period when the Hagio- 
grapha and the Prophets were in the Jews' hands, 
it would be surprising if they had not also received 

(c.) The Sam. letters, avowedly the more ancient, 
are found in the Sam. Cod. : therefore it was written 
before the alteration of the character into the square 
Hebrew which dates from the end of the Exile 
took place. 

[We cannot omit briefly to draw attention here to 
a most keen-eyed suggestion of S. D. Luzzatto, 
contained in a letter to K. Kirchheim (Carme 
Shomron, p. 106, &c.), by the adoption of which 
many readings in the Heb. Codex, now almost un 
intelligible, appear perfectly clear. He assumes that 
the copyist who at some time or other after Ezra 
transcribed the Bible into the modern square He 
brew character, from the ancient copies written in 
so-called Samaritan, occasionally mistook Samaritan 
letters of similar form. k And since our Sam. Pent, 
has those difficult readings in common with the 
Mas. Text, that other moot point, whether it was 
copied from a Hebrew or Samaritan Codex, would 
thus appear to be solved. Its constant changes 
of "1 and *1, > and 1, H and PI letters which 
are similar in Hebrew, but not in Samaritan 
have been long used as a powerful argument for 
the Samaritans having received the Pent, at a very 
late period indeed.] 

Since the above opinion that the Pent, came 
into the hands of the Samaritans from the Ten 
Tribes is the most popular one, we will now 
adduce some of the chief reasons brought against it, 
and the reader will see by the somewhat feeble 
naturo of the arguments on either side, that the last 
word has not yet been spoken in the matter. 

(a.) There existed no religious animosity what 
soever between Judah and Israel when they sepa 
rated. -The ten tribes could not therefore have 
bequeathed such an animosity to those who suc 
ceeded them, and who, we may add, probably cared 
as little originally for the disputes between Judah 
and Israel, as colonists from far-off countries, be 
longing to utterly different races, are likely to care 
for the quarrels of the aborigines who formerly in 
habited the country. On the contrary, the contest 
between the slowly judaized Samaritans and the 
Jews, only dates from the moment when the latter 

k E. g., Is. xi. 15, D1JJ2 instead of QVJD (adopted by 
Gesenius in The*, p. 1017 a, without a mention of its 
rource, which lie, however, distinctly avowed to Rosen- 
miiller comp. ty'"}, p. 107, note ^) ; Jer iii. 8, K")fcO 
instead of fcpni ; 1 Sam. xxiv. 11, Qnni for DPIN1; 

Ezr. vi. 4, rnn for Kin 5 Ez - xxii - 2 - 'nrum for 

TinS!"!*! i J"dg. xv. 20, Q^^y Samson's reign during 
die time of the Philistines being f,'ivcn as twenty years 


refused to recognise the claims of the former, ot 
belonging to the people of God, and rejected then 
aid in building the Temple: why then, it is said, 
should they not first have received the one book 
which would bring them into still closer conformity 
with the returned exiles, at their hands ? That th 
Jews should yet have refused to receive them as 
equals is no more surprising than that the Sama 
ritans from that time forward took their stand upon 
this very Law altered according to their circum 
stances ; and proved from it that they and they alone 
were the Jews OT' 

(6.) Their not possessing any other book of th 
Hebrew Canon is not, to be accounted for by the 
circumstance that there was no other book in exist 
ence at the time of the schism, because many psalms 
of David, writings of Solomon, &c., must have been 
circulating among the people. But the jealousy 
with which the Samaritans regarded Jerusalem, and 
the intense hatred which they naturally conceived 
against the post-Mosaic writei's of national Jewish 
history, would sufficiently account for their reject 
ing the other books, in all of which, save Joshua, 
Judges, and Job, either Jerusalem, as the centre of 
worship, or David and his House, are extolled. If, 
however, Loewe has really found with them, as he 
reports in the Allgem. Zeitung d. Judenth. April 
18th, 1839, our Book of Kings and Solomon's Song 
of Songs, which they certainly would not have re 
ceived subsequently, all these arguments are per 
fectly gratuitous. 

(c.) The present Hebrew character was not intro 
duced by Ezra after the return from the Exile, bu 
came into use at a much later period. The Samari 
tans might therefore have received the Pentateuch 
at the hands of the returned exiles, who, according 
to the Talmud, afterwards changed their writing, 
and in the Pentateuch only, so as to distinguish 
it from the Samaritan. " Originally," says Mar 
Sutra (Sanhedr. xxi. b), "the Pentateuch was 
given to Isi-ael in Ibri writing and the Holy 
(Hebrew) language: it was again given to them 
in the days of Ezra in the Ashurith writing and 
Aramaic language. Israel then selected the Ashurith 
writing and the Holy language, and left to the He- 
diotes ('iSiWTcu) the Ibri writing and the Aramaic 
language. W T ho are the Hediotes ? The Cuthim 
(Samaritans). What is Ibri writing ? The Libo- 
naah (Samaritan)." It is well known also that 
the Maccabean coins bear Samaritan inscriptions : so 
that " Hediotes " would point to the common use 
of the Samaritan character for ordinary purposes, 
down to a very late period. 

(2.) The second leading opinion on the age and 
origin of the Sam. Pent, is that it was introduced by 
Manasseh (comp. Josephus, Ant. xi. 8, 2, 4) at the 
time of the foundation of the Samaritan Sanctuary 
on Mount Gerizim (Ant. van Dale, R. Simon, Pri- 
deaux, Fulda, Hasse, De Wette. Gesenius, Hupfeld, 
Hengstenberg, Keil, &c.). In support of this opinion 
are alleged, the idolatry of the Samaritans before 
they received a Jewish priest through Esarhaddon 

instead of forty (comp. Jer. Sot. 1), accounted for by the 
(numerical letter for forty) in the original being mistaken 
for 3 (twenty). Again, 2 Chr. xxii. 2, forty is put in- 
fcteua of twenty (comp. 2 K. viii. 26) ; 2 K. xxii. 4, 

fo. -jjvi; Ez - w - 12 ' "ini for Dra. &c - : & 

letters-fit and ^\, A- and A, 3 and !i 
! resembling each other very closely. 


2 K. xvii. 24-33), and the immense numoer of 
readings common to the LXX. and this Code, 
against the Masoretic Text. 

(3.) Other, but very isolated notions, are tnose or 
Morin, Le Clerc, Poncet, &c., that the Israelitish 
priest sent by the king of Assyria to instruct the 
aew inhabitants in the religion of the country 
brought the Pentateuch with him. Further, that 
the Samaritan Pentateuch was the production of 
an impostor, Dositheus (''NtDDH in Talmud who 
lived during the time of the Apostles, and who 
falsified the sacred records in order to prove that he 
was the Messiah (Ussher). Against which there 
is only this to be observed, that there is not the 
slightest alteration of such a nature to be found. 
Finally, that it is a very late and faulty recension, 
with additions and corruptions of the Masoretic Text 
(6th Century after Christ), into which glosses from 
the LXX. had been received (Frankel). Many other 
suggestions have been made, but we cannot here 
dwell upon them : suffice it to have mentioned those 
to which a certain popularity and authority attaches. 

Another question has been raised : Have all the 
variants which we find in our copies been introduced 
at once, or are they the work of many generations ? 
From the number of vague opinions on that point, 
we have only room here to adduce that of Azariah 
de Rossi, who traces many of the glosses (Class 2) 
both in the Sam. and in the LXX. to an ancient 
Targum in the hands of the people at the time of 
Ezra, and refers to the Talmudical passage of Nedar. 
37 : " And he read in the Book of the Law of 
Cod this is Mikra, the Pentateuch ; BTIBB, ex 
planatory, this is Targum." [VERSIONS (TARGUM).] 
Considering that no Masorah fixed the letters and 
signs of the Samar. Codex, and that, as we have 
noticed, the principal object was to make it read 
as smoothly as possible, it is not easily seen why 
each succeeding century should not have added its 
own emendations. But, here too, investigation still 
wanders aboutjn the mazes of speculation. 

The chief opinions with respect to the agreement 
of the numerous and as yet uninvestigated even 
uncounted readings of the LXX. (of which likewise 
no critical edition exists as yet), and the Sam. Pent, 
are : 

1. That the LXX. have translated from the Sam.' 
(De Dieu, Selden, Hottinger, Hassencamp, Eichhom, 

2. That mutual interpolations have taken place 
(Grotius, Ussher, Ravius, &c.). 

3. That both Versions were formed from Hebrew 
Codices, which differed among themselves as well 
as from the one which afterwards obtained public 
authority in Palestine ; that however very many 
wilful corruptions and interpolations have crept in 
in later times (Gesenius). 

4. That the Saraar. has, in the main, been altered 
from the LXX. (Frankel). 

It must, on the other hand, be stated also, that 
the Sam. and LXX. quite as often disagree with 
each other, and follow each the Masor. Text. 
Also, that the quotations in the N. T. from the 
LXX., where they coincide with the Sam. against 
the Hebr. Text, are so small in number and of so 

m The original intention of the Russian Government to 
publish the whole Codex iu the same manner seems to 
have been given up for the present. We can only hope 
Out, if the work is ever taken up again, it will fall into 
more competent hand*. Mr Lcvysohn's Introduction, 


unimportant a nature that they cannot be adduced 
as any argument whatsoever. 

The following is a list of the MSS. of the Sam 
Pent, now in European Libraries [Kenniootf : 

No. 1. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., fol., No. "3127. 
Perfect, except the 20 first and 9 last rerses. 

No. 2. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., 4to., No. 3128, 
with an Arabic version in Sam. character. Imper 
fect. Wanting the whole of Leviticus and many 
portions of the other books. 

No. 3. Oxford (Ussher) Bodl., 4to., No. 3129 
Wanting many portions in each book. 

No. 4. Oxtbid ( Ussher, Laud) Bodl., 4to., No. 
624. Defective in parts of Deut. 

No. 5. Oxford (Marsh) Bodl., 12mo., No. 15. 
Wanting some verses in the beginning; 21 chapters 

No. 6. Oxford (Pocock) Bodl., 24mo., No. 5328. 
Parts of leaves lost ; otherwise perfect. 

No. 7. London (Ussher) Br. Mus. Claud. B 8. 
Vellum. Complete. 254 leaves. 

No. 8. Paris (Peiresc) Imp. Libr., Sam. No. 1. 
Recent MS. containing the Hebr. and Sam. Tejts, 
with an Arab. Vers. in the Sam. character. 
Wanting the first 34 ch., and very defective in 
many places. 

No. 9. Paris (Peiresc) Imp. Libr., Sam. No. 2. 
Ancient MS., wanting first 17 chapters of Gen.; 
and all Deut. from the 7th ch. Houbigant, how 
ever, quotes from Gen. x. 11 of this Codex, a 
rather puzzling circumstance. 

No. 10. Paris (Had. de Sancy) Oratory, No. 1 
The famous MS. of P. della Valle. 

No. 11. Paris (Dom. Nolin) Oratory, No. 2. 
Made-up copy. 

No. 12. Paris (Libr. St. Genfcv.). Of little 

No. 13. Rome (Peir. and Barber.) Vatican. 
No. 106. Hebr. and Sam. texts, with Arab. 
Vers. in Sam. character. Very defective and re 
cent. Dated the 7th century (?). 

No. 14. Rome (Card.. Cobellutius), Vatican. 
Also supposed to be of the 7th century, but very 

No. 15. Milan (Ambrosian Libr.). Said to be 
very ancient ; not collated. 

No. 16. Leyden (Golius MS.), fol., No. 1. Said 
to be complete. 

No. 17. Gotha (Ducal Libr.). A fragment only. 

No. 18. London, Count of Paris' Library. Witb 

Printed editions are contained in the Paris and 
Walton Polyglots; and a separate reprint from 
the latter was made by Blayney, Oxford, 1790. A 
Facsimile of the 20th ch. of Exodus, from one of 
the Nablus MSS., has been edited, with portions of 
the corresponding Masoretic text, and a Russian 
Translation and Introduction, by Levysohn, Jeru 
salem, 1860. m 


1. Samaritan. The origin, author, and age of the 
Samaritan Version of the Five Books of Moses, has 
hitherto so Eichhorn quaintly observes " always 
been a golden apple to the investigators, and will ver? 
probably remain so, until people leave off venturing 
decisive judgments upon historical subjects which 

brief as it is, shows him to be utterly wanting bcth in 
scholarship and in critical acumen, and to be, moreover, 
entirely unacquainted with the fact that his new di 
coveries have been disposed of some huutlrecl oud flft) 
years since. 


ao one has recorded in antiquity." And, indeed, 
modern investigators, keen as they have been, have 
done little towards the elucidation of the subject. 
A.ccording to the Samaritans themselves (De Sacy 
Mem. 3; Paulus; Winer), their high -priest 
Nathaniel, who died about 20 B.C., is its author. 
Gesenius puts its date a few years after Christ. 
Juynboll thinks that it had long been in use in 
the second post-Christian century. Frankel places 
it in the post-Mohammedan time. Other inves 
tigators date it from the time of Esarhaddon's 
priest (Schwarz), or either shortly before or after 
the foundation of the temple on Mount Gerizim. 
It seems certain, however, that it was composed 
before the destruction of the second temple ; and 
being intended, like the Targums, for the use of the 
people exclusively, it was written in the popular 
Samaritan idiom, a mixture of Hebrew, Aramaic, 
and Syriac. 

In this version the original has been followed, 
with a very few exceptions, in a slavish and some 
times perfectly childish manner, the sense evidently 
being of minor consideration. As a very striking 
instance of this may be adduced the translation of 
Deut. iii. 9 : " The Zidonians call Hermon pt? 
(Shirion), and the Amorites call it TJB> (Shenir)." 
The translator deriving plfe^ from 1^ " prince, 
master," renders it pi " masters ; " and finding 
the letters reversed in the appellation of the Amor- 
rites as T3BJ*, reverses also the sense in his version, 
and translates it by " slaves " jliaVt^JO ! In 
other cases, where no Samaritan equivalent could be 
found for a Hebrew word, the translator, instead of 
paraphrasing it, simply transposes its letters, so as 


to make it look Samaritan. Occasionally he ia 
misled by the orthography of the original . 
p DKi "If so, where . . .?" he render 
p DN, " If so, I shall le wrath :" roistak- 
ing K1SN for 1SN, from P]K "anger." On the 
whole it may be considered a very valuable aid 
towards the study of the Samar. Text, on account 
of its very close verbal adherence. A few cases, 
however, may be brought forward, where the Ver 
sion has departed from the Text, either under the 
influence of popular religious notions, or for the 
sake of explanation. " We pray " so they write 
to Scaliger " every day in the morning and in the 
evening, as it is said, the one lamb shalt thou pre 
pare in the morning and the second in the evening ; 
we bow to the ground and worship God." Accord 
ingly, we find the translator rendering the passage, 
"And Isaac went to 'walk' (m&j6) in the field," 
by "and Isaac went to pray (n&T'VQ?) in the 
field." " And Abraham rose in the morning 
OP113)," is rendered ^1, "in the prayer," 
&c. Anthropomorphisms are avoided. " The 
image (n^lDH) of God" is rendered rWJJJ, " the 
glory." niiT >), " the mouth of Jehovah," is 
transformed into niiT* ID^D, " the word of 
Jehovah." For D^K, "God," fTSfcAo, 
"Angel" is frequently found, &c. A great diffi 
culty is offered by the proper names which this 
version often substitutes, they being, in many 
cases, less intelligible than the original ones.* The 
similarity it has with Onkelos occasionally amounts 
to complete identity, for instance 

Onkelos in Polyglott. Num. vi. 1, 2. 

Dy &D : ID^ n^iD Dy mrp 

>n IP 



lorn ^ni mn 

Sam. Vers. In Barbermi Triglott. 

a DV y? 

iaa Jir6 



But no safe conclusion as to the respective rela 
tion of the two versions can be drawn from this. 

This Version has likewise, in passing through the | 
hands of copyists and commentators, suffered many 
interpolations and corruptions. The first copy of 
it was brought to Europe by De la Valle, together 
with the Sam. Text, in 1616. Joh. Nedrinus first 
published it together with a faulty Latin transla- 

A list of the more remarkable of these, in the case of 
geographical names, is subjoined : 

Gen. viii. 4, for Ararat, Sarendib, a'HSID- 

x. 10, Shinar, Tsofah, H2W ( ? Zobah). 

11, Asshur, Astun, ptODV- 

Rehoboth, Satcan, pt^D (? Sittacene). 

Calah, Laksah, HDp^- 

12, Resen, Asfah, |"|QDy- 
30, Mesha, Mesbal, SlDtD- 

xi. 9, Babel, Lilak, p^. 
xiii. 3, Ai, Cefrah, HIM ( ? Ccphirab, Josh. 

ix. IT). 
xiv. 5, Ashteroth Karnaim, Afinith Karniah, 

Ham, Lishah, 

El Faran, Pe^ishah, &c., 


tion in the Paris Polyglott, whence it was, with a 
few emendations, reprinted in Walton, with some 
notes by Castellus. Single portions of it appeared 
in Halle, ed. by Cellarius, 1705, and by Uhlemann, 
Leipz., 1837. Compare Gesenius, De Pent. Sam. 
Origine, &c., and Winer's monogi'aph, De Versionis 
Pent. Sam. Indole, &c., Leipzig, 1817. 

2. Tb 2a[j.apeiTiK6v. The hatred between the 

Gen. xiv. 14, for Dan, Banias, D&033- 

15, Hobah, Fogah, 

17, Shaveh, Mifneh, 
xv. 8, Euphrates, Shalmah, 

20, Rephaim, Chasah, 
xx. 1, Gerar, Askelun, 

xxvi. 2, Mitsraim, Netik, p^QJ (? Exodus). 

xxxvi.8,9,&c. Seir, Gablah, nS^MJebal). 

37, Kehoboth, Fathi, ^fiQ. 

Num. xxi. 33, Bashan, Bathnin, prO (Batanaea) 
xxxiv. 10, Shepham, 'Abamiah, 


11, Shepham, 'Afamiah, I 
Deut. ii. 9, Ar (ly), Arsbah, 
iii. 4, Argob,Rigobaah, 

17, ,, Chimiereth, Genesar, 

iv.48, Slon, Tur Telga, 
et Teljj. 


r*mnritans and the Jews is supposed to have caused 
ilie former to prepare a Greek translation of their 
Pent, in opposition to the LXX. of the Jews. In 
this way at least the existence of certain fragments 
of a Greek Version of the SaiiK Pent., preserved in 
some MSS. of the LXX., together with portions of 
Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, &c., is accounted 
for. These fragments are supposed to be alluded to 
by the Greek Fathers under the name Souape IT IK.UV. 
(t is doubtful however whether it ever existed (as 
Gesenius, Winer, Juynboll, suppose) in the shape of 
a complete translation, or only designated (as Cas- 
tdlus, Voss, Herbst hold) a certain number of scholia 
translated from the Sam. Version. Other critics 
again (Havernick, Hengstenberg, &c.) see in it only 
a corrected edition of certain passages of the LXX. 

3. In 1070 an Arabic Version of the Sam. Pent. 
was made by Abu Said in Egypt, on the basis of 
the Arabic translation of Saadjah haggaon. Like the 
original Samaritan it avoids Anthropomorphisms and 
Anthropopathisms, replacing the latter by Euphe 
misms, besides occasionally making some slight alter 
ations, more especially in proper nouns. It is extant 
in several MS. copies in European libraries, and is 
now in course of being edited by Kuenen, Leyden, 
1 850-54, &c. It appears to have been drawn up 
from the Sam. Text, not from the Sam. Version ; 
the Hebrew words occasionally remaining unal 
tered in the translation. Often also it renders 
the original differently from the Samar. Version.* 
Principally noticeable is its excessive dread of as 
signing to God anything like human attribute, 

physical or mental. For D^H^N JTliT, "God," 
we find (as in Saadiah sometimes) \$\ *}^*c 
' the Angel of God ;" for " the eyes of God " we 
have (Deut. ix. 12) ^ ata^OILc "the Be 

holding of God." For " Bread of God :" . y, " the 

necessary," &c. Again, it occasionally adds ho 
nourable epithet;? where the Scripture seems to have 
omitted them, &c. Its language is far from elegant 
or even correct ; and its use must likewise be con 
fined to the critical study of the Sam. Text. 

4. To this Arabic version Abu Barachat, a Syrian, 
wrote in 1208 a somewhat paraphrastic commentary, 
which has by degrees come to be looked upon as a 
new Version the Syriac, in contradistinction to 
the Arabic, and which is often confounded with it in 
the MSS. On both Recensions see Eichhorn, Gese 
nius, Juynboll, &c. 


It may perhaps not be superfluous to add here a 
concise account of the Samaritan literature in general, 
since to a certain degree it bears upon our subject. 

1. Chronicon Samaritanum. Of the Pentateuch 
and its Versions we have spoken. We have also men 
tioned that the Samaritans have no other book of our 
Received Canon. " There is no Prophet but Moses " 
is one of their chief dogmas, and fierce are the in 
vectives in which they indulge against men like 

Samuel, "a Magician and an Infidel," Jj" 9 (Chron. 


anO; Eli; Solomon, "Shiloh" (Gen. xlix. 10), 
" i. e. the man who shall spoil the Law and whom 
many nations will follow because of their own 
licentiousness " (De Sacy, Mem. 4) ; Ezra " cursed 
for ever" (Lett, to Ifiintington, &c.). Joshua 
alone, partly on account of his being an Ephraimite, 
partly because Shechem was selected by him as the 
scene of his solemn valedictory address, seems tr 
have found favour in their eyes ; but the Boon 
of Joshua, which they perhaps possessed in its 
original form, gradually came to form only the 
groundwork of a fictitious national Samaritan his 
tory, overgrown with the most fantastic and ana 
chronistic legends. This is the so-called " Samaritan 

Joshua," or Chronicon Samaritanum ( *r*ffl f *JU* 
. . *} /.T-0' sen ^ to Scaliger by the Samaritans of 

Cairo in 1584. It was edited by Juynboll (Leyden, 
1848), and his acute investigations have shown 
that it was redacted into its present form about 
A.D. 1300, out of four special documents, three 
of which were Arabic, and one Hebrew (t. e. 
Samaritan). The Leyden MS. in 2 pts., which 
Gesenius, De Sam. Theol. p. 8. n. 18, thinks unique, 
is dated A.H. 764-919 (A.D. 1362-1513) ; the 
Cod. in the Brit. Museum, lately acquired, dates 
A.H. 908 (A.D. 1502). The chronicle embraces 
the time from Joshua to about A.D. 350, and was 
originally written in, or subsequently translated into, 
Arabic. After eight chapters of introductory matter 
begins the early history of " Israel " under " King 
Joshua," who, among other deeds of arms, wages 
war, with 300,000 mounted men " half Israel " 
against two kings of Persia. The last of his five 
" royal " successors is Shimshon (Samson), the hand 
somest and most powerful of them all. These reigned 
for the space of 250 years, and were followed by five 
high-priests, the last of whom was Usi (? = Uzzi, 
Ezr. vii. 4). With the history of Eli, " the seducer/' 
which then follows, and Samuel " a sorcerer," the 
account by a sudden transition, runs off to Nebuchad 
nezzar (ch. 45), Alexander (ch. 46), and Hadrian 
(47), and closes suddenly at the time of Julian the 

We shall only adduce here a single specimen out 
of the 45th ch. of the Book, which treats of the 
subject of the Pentateuch : 

Nebuchadnezzar was king of Persia (Mossul), and 
conquered the whole world, also the kings of Syria. 
In the thirteenth year of their subjugation they re 
belled, together with the kings of Jerusalem (Kodsh). 
Whereupon the Samaritans, to escape from the 
vengeance of their pursuer, fled, and Persian colo 
nists took their place. A curse, however, rested 
upon the land, and the new immigrants died from 
eating of its fruits (Joseph. Ant. ix. 14, 3). The 
chiefs of Israel (i. e. Samaritans), being asked the 
reason of this by the king, explained it by the abo 
lition of the worship of God. The king upon this 
permitted them to return and to erect a temple, in 
which work he promised to aid them, and he gave 
them a letter to all their dispersed brethren. The 
whole Dispersion now assembled, and the Jews said, 
"We will now go up into the Holy City (Jeru- 

city "), the Arab, renders 3^- ; Gen. xli. 43, 
(Sam. Ver. flQ = K rjpv&, the Arab, translates 

E. g. Ex. *iii. 12, Qm "1L3Q ?3 (Sam. Ver. 
Dm 'lima) remains^U Jj : xxi. 3, 

pam. Ver. pinX jpIDD) is S iven sU^c! 

i A word, it may be observed by the way. taken by the 
Thus rrVy. Gen. xlix. 11 (Sam. Ver. HDIp. "Ms Mohammedans from the Rabbinical (Ip^y^) ")5V3 


salem) and live there in unity." But the sons of 
Karun (Aaron) and of Joseph (t. e. the priests and* 
the Samaritans) insisted upon going to the " Mount 
of Blessing," Gerizim. The dispute was referred to 
the king, and while the Samaritans proved then- 
case from the books of Moses, the Jews grounded 
their preference for Jerusalem on the post-Mosaic 
books. The superior force of the Samaritan argu 
ment was fully recognised by the king. But as each 
side by the mouth of their spokesmen, Sanballat 
and Zerubabel respectively, charged the other with 
basing its claims on a forged document, the sacred 
books of each party were subjected to the ordeal 
of fire. The Jewish Record was immediately con 
sumed, while the Samaritan leaped three times from 
the flames into the king's lap : the third time, how 
ever, a portion of the scroll, upon which the king 
had spat, was found to have been consumed. Thirty- 
six Jews were immediately beheaded, and the Sama 
ritans, to the number of 300,000, wept, and all 
Israel worshipped henceforth upon Mount Gerizim 
" and so we will ask our help from the grace of 
God, who has in His mercy granted all these things, 
and in Him we will confide." 

2. From this work chiefly has been compiled an 
other Chronicle written in the 14th century (1355), 
by Abu'l Fatah.' This comprises the history of the 
Jews and Samaritans from Adam to A.H. 756 and 
798 (A.D. 1355 and 1397) respectively (the forty- 
two years must have been added by a later historio 
grapher). It is of equally low historical value ; its 
only remarkable feature being its adoption of certain 
Talmudical legends, which it took at second hand 
from Josippon ben Gorion. According to this 
chronicle, the deluge did not cover Gerizim, in the 
same manner as the Midrash (Ber. Rah.} exempts 
the whole of p alestine from it. A specimen, like 
wise on the subject of the Pentateuch, may not be 
out of place : 

In the year of the world 4150, and in the 10th 
year of Philadelphus, this king wished to learn the 
difference between the Law of the Samaritans, and 
that of the Jews. He therefore bade both send him 
some of their elders. The Samaritans delegated 
Ahron, Sumla, and Hudmaka, the Jews Eleazar only. 
The king assigned houses to them, and gave them 
eaoa an adept of the Greek language, in order that 
he might assist them in their translation. The Sa 
maritans rendered only their Pentateuch into the 
language of the land, while Eleazar produced a 
translation of the whole Canon. The king, per 
ceiving variations in the respective Pentateuchs, 
asked the Samaritans the reason of it. Whereupon 
they replied that these differences chiefly turned 
upon two points. (1.) God had chosen the Mount 
of Gerizim : and if the Jews were right, why was 
there no mention of it in their Thora? (2.) The Sa 
maritans read, Deut. xxxii. 35, Dp3 01*6, " to the 
day of vengeance and reward," the Jews QpJ V?, 
" Mine is vengeance and reward " which left it 
uncertain whether that reward was to be given 
hore or in the world to come. The king then asked 
what was their opinion about the Jewish prophets 
and their writings, and they replied, " Either they 


must have said and contained what stood ir the 
Pentateuch, and then their saying it again was super 
fluous; or more; or less: 8 ei the'' of which was again 
distinctly prohibited in the Thora ; or finally they 
must have changed the Laws, and these were un 
changeable." A Greek who stood near, observed that 
Laws must be adapted to different times, and altered 
accordingly ; whereupon the Samaritans proved that 
this was only the case with human, not with Divine 
Laws : moreover, the seventy Elders had left them 
the explicit command not to accept a word beside 
the Thora. The king now fully approved of their 
translation, and gave them rich presents. But to 
the Jews he strictly enjoined, not even to approach 
Mount Gerizim. there can be no doubt that there 
is a certain historical fact, however contorted, at 
the bottom of this (comp. the Talmudical and other 
accounts of the LXX.), but we cannot now further 
pursue the subject. A lengthened extract from thjs 
chronicle the original text with a German trans 
lation is given by Schnurrer in Paul us' Neus 
Eepertorium, 1790, 117-159. 

3. Another " historical " work is the *_lxT 
w/JsAM^ on the history and genealogy of the 
patriarchs, from Adam to Moses, attributed to Moses 
himself; perhaps the same which Petermann saw 
at Nqblus, and which consisted of sixteen vellum 
leaves (supposed, however, to contain the history of 
the world down to the end). An anonymous recent 
commentary on it, A.H. 1200, A.D. 1784, is in the 
Brit. Mus. (No. 1140, Add.). 

4. Of other Samaritan works, chiefly in Arabic 
their Samaritan and Hebrew literature having mostly 
been destroyed by the Emperor Commodus may be 
briefly mentioned Commentaries upon the whole or 
parts" of their Pentateuch, by Zadaka b. Manga b. 
Zadaka ; further, by Maddib Eddin Jussuf b. Abi 
Said b. Khalef; by Ghazal Ibn Abu-1-Surur Al- 
Safawi Al-Ghazzi (A.H. 1167-8, A.D. 1753-4, 
Brit. Mus.), &c. Theological works chiefly in 
Arabic, mixed with Samaritanisms, by Abul Has 
san of Tyre, On the religious Manners and 
Customs of the Samaritans and the World to 
come ; by Mowaffek Eddin Zadaka el Israili, A Com 
pendium of Religion, on the Nature of the Divine 
Being, on Man, on the Worship of God ; by Amin 
Eddin Abu'l Baracat, On the Ten Commandments ; 
by Abu'l Hassan Jbn El Markum Gouajem ben 
Abulfaraj' ibn Chatar, On Penance] by Muhaddib 
Eddin Jussuf Ibn Salamah Ibn Jussuf Al Askari, An 
Exposition of the Mosaic Laws, &c., &c. Some gram 
matical works may be further mentioned, by Abu 
Ishak Ibrahim, On the Hebrew Language ; by Abu 

Said, On reading the Hebrew Text (,_/JJyi 
\ JC*J\). This grammar begins in the following 

characteristic manner: 

" Thus said the Sheikh, rich in good works and 
knowledge, the model, the abstemious, the well- 
guided Abu Said, to whom God be merciful and 

" Praise be unto God for His help, and I ask for 
His guidance towards a clear exposition. I have 

P- Library, Paris). 

Two copies in Berlin Library (Petermann, Rosen) 
recently acquired. 

Compare the well known dictum, of Omar on tbt 
Alexandrian Library (Gibbon, ch. 51). 

* i (13th century, Bodl.). 

Under the title.^^J 


resolved TO lay down a few rules for the proper 
manner of reading the Holy Writ, on account of the 
difference which I found, with respect to it, among 
our co-religionists whom may God make numerous 
and inspire to obedience unto Him ! and in such a 
manner that I shall bring proofs for my assertions, 
from which the wise could in no way differ. But 
God knows best ! 

" Rule 1 : With all their discrepancies about 
dogmas or religious views, yet all the confessors ot 
the Hebrew religion agree in this, that the H of 
the first pers. (sing, pert'.) is always pronounced 
\vith Kasra, and that a * follows it, provided it has 
no suffix. It is the same, when the suffix of the 
plural D> is added to it, according to the unanimous 
testimony of the MSS., &c." 

The treatise concludes, at the end of the 12th 
Canon or Rule : 

" Often also the perfect is used in the form of 
the imperative. Thus it is reported of a man of 
the best reputation, that he had used the form of the 
imperative in the passage (Ex. lii. .13), V 
IDE? HD ' And they shall say to me, What is his 
name ? ' He who reported this to me, is a man of 
very high standing, against whose truthfulness no 
thing can be brought forward. But God knows best ! 

' There are now a few more words to be treated, 
of which, however, we will treat viva wee. And 
blessed be His name for evermore." 

5. Their Liturgical literature is more extensive, 
and not without a certain poetical value. It consists 
chiefly of hymns (Defter, Durran) and prayers for 
Sabbath and Feast-days, and of occasional prayers a 
nuptials, circumcisions, burials, and the like. We 
subjoin a few specimens from MSS. in the British 
Museum, transcribed into Hebrew characters. 

The following is part of a Litany for the dead : 

.-pi .7rro D'n^K . mir . 
pwi DmaN p^nxm 

Lord Jehovah, Elohim, for Thy mercy, and for Thin 
Own sake, and for Thy name, and for Thy glory, and fo 
the sake of our Lords Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, am 
our Lords Moses and Aaron, and Eleazar, and Ithamar 
and Pinehas, and Joshua, and Caleb, and the Holy Angelb 
and the seventy Elders, and the holy mountain of Gerizim 
Beth El. If Thou acceptest [Q^fl] this prayer ftOpO 
= reading], may there go forth from before Thy hoi; 
countenance a gift sent to protect the spirit of Thy 
servant, Mj A MJ [N. the son of N.J of th 

eons of [ - ], daughter [ -- j from the sons of [ - ; 
Lord Jehovah, in Thy mercy have compassion 01 
him (*\ C r ] have compassion on her), and rest his (her 
soul in the garden of Eden ; and forgive him ( J [or] her) 

and all the congregation of Israel who flock to Moun 
Gerizim Beth El. Amen. Through Moses the trusty 
Amen, Amen, Amen. 

The next is part of a hymn (see Kirchheim' 
Carme Shomron, emendations on Gesenius, Carm 
Sam. iii.") : 


n^> There is no God but one, 
^nStf The everlasting God, 
1]} D'ViTl Who Hveth for ever ; 
3 tty ilPK God above all powers, 

P * 

And who thus remaineth fo 


rn"l "lra In Thy great power shall 

we trust, 
!D IP! n&<T For Thou art our Lord; 

In Th y Godhead ; for Thou 

hast conducted 
The world from beginning 


Thy power was hidden 
"pntDI AndThygloryand mercy. 

nj1KJ |^J Revealed are both the things 
that are revealed, and 
those that are unrevealed 

tne rei ^ of T1 y 

Godhead, &c. &c. 

IV. We shall only briefly touch here, in conclu 
sion, upon the strangely contradictory rabbinical laws 
framed for the regulation of the intercourse between 
the two rival nationalities of Jews and Samaritans 
n religious and ritual matters ; discrepancies due 
partly to the ever-shifting phases of their mutual 
relations, partly to the modifications brought about 
in the Samaritan creed, and partly to the now less 
now greater acquiescence of the Jews in the reli 
gious state of the Samaritans. Thus we find the 
older Talmudical authorities disputing whether the 
Cuthim (Samaritans) are to be considered as " Real 
Converts" fiDN **VJ, or only converts through 
fear "Lion Converts" niHK *"TO in allusion 
to the ncident related in 2 K. xvii. 25 (Baba K. 
38 ; Kidush. 75, &c.). One Rabbi holds U3 TI1D, 
" A Samaritan is to be considered as a heathen ;" 
while R. Simon b. Gamaliel the same whose 
opinion on the Sam. Pent, we had occasion to quote 
before pronounces that they are "to be treated 
in every respect like Israelites " (Dem. Je^. ix. 2 ; 
Ketub. 11, &c.). It would appear that notwith 
standing their rejection of all but the Penta 
teuch, they had adopted many traditional religious 
practices from the Jews principally such as 
were derived direct from the Books of Moses. 
It was acknowledged that they kept these 
ordinances with even greater rigour than those 
from whom they adopted them. The utmost con 
fidence was therefore placed in th^m for their 
ritually slaughtering animals, even fowls (Chul. 
4a) ; their wells are pronounced to be conformed 
to all the conditions prescribed by the Mishnah 
(loseph. Mikw. 6 ; comp. Mikw. 8, 1). See, how 
ever A^odah Zarah (Jer. v. 4) . Their unleavened 
bread for the Passover is commended (Git. 10; 
Chul. 4) ; their cheese (Mass. Cuth. 2) ; and even 
their whole food is allowed to the Jews (Ab. Zar. 
Jer. v. 4). Compare John iv. 8, where the disciples 
are reported to have gone into the city of Samaria 
to buy food. Their testimony was valued in that 
most stringent matter of the letter of divorce 
(Mas. Cuth. ii.). They were admitted to the office of 
circumcising Jewish boys (Mas. Cuth. i.) against 
R. Jehudah, who asserts that they circumc'se " in 
the name of Mount Gerizim" (Abodah Zarah, 43). 
The criminal law makes no difference whatever be- 
tween them and the Jews (Mas. Cuth. 2 ; Makk. 
8) ; and a Samaritan who strictly adheres to his 
own special creed is honoured with the title of a 
Cuthi-Chaber (Gittin, 106; Middah, 336). By 
degrees, however, inhibitions began to be laid upou 
thi) use of their wine, vinegar, bread (Mas. Cuth. 2 
Toseph. 77, 5), &c. This intermediate stage of 


uncertain and inconsistent treatment, which must 
have lasted for nearly two centuries, is best char 
acterized by the small rabbinical treatise quoted 
above Massecheth Cuthim (2nd cent. A.D.) first 
edited by Kirchheim Cp^yv flttBp 'DD 3J1B> 
Francf. 1851, the beginning of which reads: 
" The ways (treatment) of the Cuthim (Samaritans), 
sometimes like Goyim (heathens) sometimes like 
Israel.' No less striking is its conclusion : 

" Ami why are the Cuthim not permitted to come 
into tne midst of the Jews? Because they have 
mixed with the priests of the heights" (idolaters). 
R. Ismael says: "They were at first pious converts 
(pTV ^3 = real Israelites), and why is the inter 
course with them prohibited? Because of their 
illegally begotten children,* and because they do 
not fulfil the duties of W (marrying the deceased 
brother's wife) " ; a law which they understand, as 
we saw above, to apply to the betrothed only. 

" At what period are they to be received (into 
the Community) ? " " When they abjure the Mount 
Gerizim, recognise Jerusalem (viz., its superior 
claims), and believe in the Resurrection." 

We hear of their exclusion by R. Meir (ChuL 
6), in the third generation of the Tanaim, and 
later again under R. Abbuha, the Amora, at the 
time of Diocletian ; this time the exclusion was un 
conditional and final (Jer. Abodah Zarah, 5, &c.). 
Partaking of their bread 7 was considered a trans 
gression, to be punished like eating the flesh of 
swine (Zeb. 8, 6). The intensity of their mutual 
hatred, at a later period, is best shown by dicta like 
that in Meg. 28, 6. "May it never happen to 
me that I behold a Cuthi." " Whoever receives a 
Samaritan hospitably in his house, deserves that his 
children go into exile" (Synh. 104, 1). In Matt. 
x. 5 Samaritans and Gentiles are already mentioned 
together; and hi Luke xvii. 18 the Samaritan is 
called "a stranger" (a\\oyfv^s). The reason for 
this exclusion is variously given. They are said 
by some to have used and sold the wine of heathens 
for sacrificial purposes (Jer. ib.); by others they 
were charged with worshipping the dove sacred 
to Venus ; an imputation over the correctness of 
which hangs, up to this moment, a certain myste 
rious doubt. It has, at all events, never been 
brought home to them, that they really worshipped 
this image, although it was certainly seen with 
them, even by recent travellers. 

Authorities. 1 . Original texts. Pentateuch in 
the Polyglotts of Paris, and Walton ; also (in Hebr. 
letters) by Blayney, 8vo. Ox. 1790. Sam. Version 
in the Polyglotts of Walton and Paris. Arab. Vers. 
of Abu Said, Libri Gen. Ex. et Lev. by Kuenen, 
8vo. Lugd. 1851-4; also Van Vloten, Specimen, 
&c., 4to. Lugd. 1803. Literae ad Scaliger, &c. 
(by De Sacy) and Epistola ad Ludolph. (Bruns), 
in Eichhorn's Repertorium, xiii. Also, with Letters 
to De Sacy himself, in Notices et Extraits des 
MSS. Par. 1831. Chronicon Samaritanum, by 
Juynboll, 4to. Leyden 1848. Specimen of Samar. 
Commentary on Gen. xlix. by Schnurrer, in Eich 
horn's Repert. xvi. Carm. Samar. Gescnius, 4to. 
Lips. 1824. 

2. Dissertations, &c. J. Morinus, Exercitationes, 


&c., Par. 1631 ; Opuscula Hebr. Samaritfoa, Pat 
1657; Antiquitates Eccl. Orient., Lond. 1682. 
J. H. Hottinger, Exercit. Anti-morinianae, &c., 
Tigur. 1644. Walton, De Pent. Sam. in Prologom. 
ad Pofyglott. Castell, Animadversiones, in Poly- 
glott, vi. Cellarius, Home Samaritanae, Ciz. 1 682 ; 
also Collectanea, in Ugolini, xxii. Leusden, Philo- 
logus Hebr. Utraj. 1686. St. Morinus, Exercit. 
de Ling.primaeva, Utr. 1694. Schwarz, Exercita 
tiones, &c. Houbigant, Prolegomena, &c., Par. 
1746. Kennicott, State of the Heb. Text, &c., ii. 
1759. J. G. Carpzov, Grit. Sacri V. T. Pt. 1, 
Lips. 1728. Hassencamp, Entdeckter Ursprung, 
&c. 0. G. Tychsen, Disputatio, &c., Biitz. 1765. 
Bauer, Crit. Sacr. Gesenius, De Pent. Sam. 
Origine, &c., Hal. 1815; Samar. Theologia, &c., 
Hal. 1822; Anecdota Exon. Lips. 1824. Heng- 
stenberg, Auth. des Pent. Mazade Sur I' 'Origine, 
&c., Gen. 1830. M. Stuart, N. Amer. Rev. 
Frankel, Vorstudien, Leipz. 1841. Kirchheim, 
\rW& 'DID, Frankfort 1851. The Einleitungen 
of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Vater, DeWette, Havernick, 
Keil, &c. The Gcschichten of Jost, Herzfeld, &c. 

3. Versions. Winer, De Vers. Pent. Sam. 
De Sacy, Mem. sur la Vers. Arabe des Livrcs de 
Moise, in Mem. de Litterature, xlix. Par. 1808 ; 
also L'Etat actuel des Samaritains, Par. 1812 ; 
De Versione Samaritans- Arabica, &c., in Eich- 
hom's Allg. Bibliothek, x. 1-176. [E. D.] 

SAM'ATUS (2ana.T6s : Semedius). One of the 
sons of Ozora in the list of 1 Esd. ix. 34. The 
whole verse is very corrupt. 

SAMEI'US (Sa/iaTos). SHEMAIAH of the 
sons of Harim (1 Esd. ix. 21 ; comp. Ezr. x. 21). 

SAM'GAR-NE'BO ( l Q3-"IJpD : Samegar- 
nebu). One of the princes or generals of the king 
of Babylon who commanded the victorious army of 
the Chaldaeans at the capture of Jerusalem (Jer. 
xxxix. 3). The text of the LXX. is corrupt. The 
two names " Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim," are there 
written *S,a.p.ayu>Q ical Nafiovo-dxap. The Nebo 
is the Chaldaean Mercury ; about the Samgar, 
opinions are divided. Von Bohlen suggested that 
from the Sanscrit sangara, " war," might be formed 
sangara, " warrior," and that this was the original 
of Samgar. 

SA'MI (Tecfr's ; Alex. 2aj8w : ZbW). SnOBAI 
(1 Esd..v. 28; comp. Ezr. ii. 42). 

SA'MIS (Sonets : om. in Vulg.). SHIMEI 13 
(1 Esd. ix. 34 ; comp. Ezr. x. 38). 

SAM'LAH (rfeb: 2aAia8o; Alex. 2aXa/ia; 

Semlci), Gen. xxxvi.' 36, 37; 1 Chr. i. 47, 48. 
One of the kings of Edom, successor to HADAD or 
HADAR. Samlah, whose name signifies " a gar 
ment," was of MASREKAH ; that .being probably 
the chief city during his reign. This mention of 
a separate city as belonging to each (almost with 
out exception) of the "kings" of Edom, suggests 
that the Edomite kingdom consisted of a confederacy 
of tribes, and that the chief city of the reigning 
tribe was the metropolis of the whole. [E. S. P.] 

SAM'MUS (2a/ifious : Samus~). SHEMA (1 Esd. 
ix. 43 ; comp. Neh. viii. 4). 

* The briefest rendering of D'HTDD which we can 
give a full explanation of the term would exceed our 

On this subject the Pent, contains nothing explicit. 
They at first rejected that dogma, but adopted it at a later 
jKiriod, perhaps since Posi ,heus; comp. the sayings of 

Jehudda-hadassi and Massudi, that one of the two Sama 
ritan sects believes in the Resurrection; Epiphaninr. 
Leontius. Gregory the Great, testify unanimously t< 
their fonror unbelief in this article of their present faitb 
y J-|Fj, I ightfoot " bucella " ) 


SA'MOS (Sdfwi). A very illustrious Greek | after leaving th 
island off that part of Asia Minor where IONIA 
touches CARIA. For its history, from the time 
when it was a powerful member of the Ionic con 
federacy to its recent straggles against Turkey 
during the war of independence, and since, we 
must refer to the Diet, of Greek and Rom. Geog* 
Samos is a very lofty and commanding island ; the 
word, in fact, denotes a height, especially by the 
sea-shore : hence, also, the name of SAMOTHRACIA, 
or "the Thracian Samos." The Ionian Samos 
comes before our notice in the detailed account of 
St. Paul's return from his third missionary jour 
ney (Acts xx. 15). He had been at Chios, and 
was about to proceed to Miletus, having passed 
by Ephesus without touching there. The topo 
graphical notices given incidentally by St. Luke are 
most exact. The night was spent at the anchorage 
of TROGYLLIUM, in the narrow strait between 
Samos and the extremity of the mainland-ridge of 
Mycale. This spot is famous both for the great 
battle of the old Greeks against the Persians in B.C. 
479, and also for a gallant action of the modern 
Greeks against the Turks in 1824. Here, how 
ever, it is more natural (especially as we know, 
from 1 Mace. xv. 23, that Jews resided here) to 
allude to the meeting of Herod the Great with 
Marcus Agrippa in Samos, whence resulted many 
privileges to the Jews (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 2, 2, 4). 
At this time and when St. Paul was there it was 
politically a "free city" in the province of ASIA. 
Various travellers (Tournefort, Pococke, Dallaway, 
Ross) have described this island. We may refer 
particularly to a very recent work on the subject, 
Description de Vile de Patmos et de Vile de 
Samos (Paris, 1856), by V. Guerin, who spent 
two months in the island. [J. S. H.] 

SAMOTHKA'CIA (2a/to0p</oj : Samothra- 
ca). The mention of this island in the account o: 
St. Paul's first voyage to Europe (Acts xvi. 11) is foi 
two reasons worthy of careful notice. In the first 
place, being a very lofty and conspicuous island, it is 
an excellent landmark for sailors, and must have been 
full in view, if the weather was clear, throughout 
that voyage from Troas to Neapolis. From the shor 
at Troas Samothrace is seen towering over Imbi os 
(Horn. //. xiii. 12, 13; Kinglake's Edthen, p. 64) 
and it is similarly a marked object in the view from 
the hills between Neapolis and Philippi (Clarke's 
Travels, ch. xiii.). These allusions tend to give 
vividness to one of the most important voyages 
that ever took place. Secondly, this voyage was 
made with a fair wind. Not only are we told tha 1 
it occupied only parts of two days, whereas on a 
subsequent return-voyage (Acts xx. 6) the time 
spent at sea was five : but the technical word here 
used (eufluSpOjiiirja'a/iev) implies that they ran be 
fore the wind. Now the position of Samothrace 
exactly such as to correspond with these notices 
and thus incidentally to confii-m the accuracy of i 
most artless narrative. St. Paul and his companion 
anchored for the night off Samothrace. The ancien 
city, and therefore probably the usual anchorage 
was on the N. side, which would be sufficientl) 
sheltered from a S.E. wind. It may be added, as 
further practical consideration not to be overlooked 
that such a wind would be favourable for over 
coming the opposing current, which sets southed 

a A curious illustration of the renown of the Samia 
earthenware is furnished by the Vulgate rendering o 
Is. xlv. 9 r " Testa de Samiis terrae." 

SAMSON 1119 

Dardanelles, and easterly between 
amothrace and the mainland. Fuller details are 
iven in Life and Epp. of St. Paul, 2nd ed. i. 
35-338. The chief classical associations of this 
iland are mythological and connected with the 

ysterious divinities called Cabeiri. Perseus took 
efuge here after his defeat by the Romans at 
'ydna. In St. Paul's time Samothrace had, ao 
ording to Pliny, the privileges of a small free state, 

ough it was doubtless considered a dependency of 
he province of Macedonia. [J. S. H.j 

SAMP'SAMES (2a/4c(/7s,2a/4<*K77s: Lamp- 
acus, Samsames), a name which occurs in the list 
f those to whom the Romans are said to have sent 
etters in favour of the Jews (1 Mace. xv. 23). The 
.ame is probably not that of a sovereign (as it appears 
o be taken in A. V.), but of a place, which Grimm 
dentifies with Samsun on the coast of the Black 
>ea, between Sinope and Trebizond. [B. F. W.] 

SAM 'SON (flt?pK>, i.e. Shimshon: 'S.ap.^v. 

little sun," or " sunlike ;" but according to 
Joseph. Ant. v. 8, 4 "strong:" if the root 
shemesh has the signification of " awe " which 
Gesenius ascribes to it, the name Samson would 
;eem naturally to allude to the " awe " and 
' astonishment " with which the father and mother 
looked upon the angel who announced Samson's 
birth see Judg. xiii. 6, 18-20, and Joseph. /. c.), 
son of Manoah, a man of the town of Zorah, in 
the tribe of Dan, on the border of Judah (Josh. xv. 
33, xix. 41). The .miraculous circumstances of his 
birth are recorded in Judg. xiii. ; and the three fol 
lowing chapters are devoted to the history of his life 
and exploits. Samson takes his place in Scripture, 
(1) as a judge an office which he filled for twenty 
years (Judg. xv. 20, xvi. 31) ; (2) as a Nazarite 
(Judg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17) ; and, (3) as one endowed 
with supernatural power by the Spirit of the Lord 
(Judg. xiii. 25, xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14). 

(1.) As a judge his authority seems to have been 
limited to the district bordering upon the country 
of the Philistines, and his action as a deliverer does 
not seem to have extended beyond desultory attacks 
upon the dominant Philistines, by which their hold 
upon Israel was weakened, and the way prepared 
for the future emancipation of the Israelites from 
their yoke. It is evident from Judg. xiii. 1, 5, xv. 
9-11, 20, and the whole history, that the Israelites, 
or at least Judah and Dan, which are the only tribes 
mentioned, were subject to the Philistines through 
the whole of Samson's judgeship ; so that, of course, 
Samson's twenty years of office would be included 
in the forty years of the Philistine dominion. From 
the angel's speech to Samson's mother (Judg. xiii. 
5), it appears further that the Israelites were 
already subject to the Philistines at his birth ; and 
as Samson cannot have begun to be judge before 
he was twenty years of age, it follows that his 
judgeship must about have coincided with the last 
twenty years of Philistine dominion. But when 
we turn to the First Book of Samuel, and especially 
to vii. 1-14, we find that the Philistine dominion 
ceased under the judgeship of Samuel. Hence it is 
obvious to conclude that the early part of Samuel's 
judgeship coincided with the latter part of Samson's ; 
and' that the capture of the ark by the Philistines 
in the time of Eli occurred during Samson's life- 
fame. There are besides several points ID the re- 
sp:ctive narratives of the times of Samson and Sa- 
:r-.iel which indicate great proximity. First, there 



is the guiersw prominence of the Phihstines in their 
relation to Israel. Secondly, there is the remark 
able coincidence of both Samson and Samuel being 
Xazarites (Judg. xiii. 5, xvi. 17, compared with 
1 Sam. i. 11). It looks as if the great exploits of 
the young Danite Nazarite had suggested to Hannah 
ihe consecration of her son in like manner, or, at all 
events, as if for some reason the Nazarite vow was 
at that time prevalent. No other mention of Na- 
zarites occurs in ihe Scripture history till Amos ii. 
11, 12 ; and even there the allusion seems to be to 
Samuel and Samson. Thirdly, there is a similar 
notice of the house of Dagon in Judg. xvi. 23, and 
1 Sam. v. 2. Fourthly, the lords^ of the Philis 
tines are mentioned in a similar way in Judg. xvi. 
8, 18, 27, and in 1 Sam. vii. 7. All of which, 
taken together, indicates a close proximity between 
the times of Samson and Samuel. There does not 
seem, however, to be any means of fixing the time 
of Samson's judgeship more precisely. The effect of 
his prowess must have been more of a preparatory 
kind, by arousing the cowed spirit of his people, 
and shaking the insolent security of the Philistines, 
than in the way of decisive victory or deliverance. 
There is no allusion whatever to other parts of 
Israel during Samson's judgeship, except the single 
fact of the men of the border tribe of Judah, 3000 
in number, fetching him from the rock Etam to 
deliver him up to the Philistines (Judg. xv. 9-13). 
The whole narrative is entirely local, and, like the 
following story concerning Micah (Judg. xvii. xviii.), 
seems to be taken from the annals of the tribe of 

(2.) As a Nazarite, Samson exhibits the law in 
Num. vi. in full practice. [NAZARITE.] The emi 
nence of such Nazarites as Samson and Samuel 
would tend to give that dignity to the profession 
which is alluded to in Lam. iv. 7, 8. 

(3.) Samson is one of those who are distinctly 
spoken of in Scripture as endowed with super 
natural power by the Spirit of the Lord. " The 
Spirit of the Lord began to move him at times in 
Mahaneh-Dan." " The Spirit of the Lord came 
mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon 
his arms became as flax burnt with fire." "The 
Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he went 
down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them." 


But, on the other hand, after his locks wore out, 
and his strength was gone from him, it is said 
" He wist not that the Lord was departed from 
him" (Judg. xiii. 25, xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14, xvi. 20). 
The phrase, " the Spirit of the Lord came upon 
him," is common to him with Othniel and Gideon 
(Judg. iii. 10, vi. 34) ; but the connexion of super 
natural power with the integrity of the Nazarj'io 
vow, and the particular gift of great strength of 
body, as seen in tearing in pieces a lion, breaking 
his bonds asunder, carrying the gates of the city 
upon his back, and throwing down the pillars which 
supported the house of Dagon, are quite peculiar to 
Samson. Indeed, his whole character and history 
have no exact parallel in Scripture. It is easy, 
however, to "see how forcibly the Israelites would 
be taught, by such an example, that their national 
strength lay in their complete separation from 
idolatry, and consecration to the true God ; and that 
He could give them power to subdue their mightiest 
enemies, if only they were true to His service 
(comp. 1 Sam. ii. 10). 

It is an interesting question whether any of the 
legends which have attached themselves to the name 
of Hercules may have been derived from Phoenician 
traditions of the strength of Samson. The com 
bination of great strength with submission to the 
power of women ; the slaying of the Nemeaean lion ; 
the coming by his death at the hands of his wife ; 
and especially the story told by Herodotus of the 
captivity of Hercules in Egypt,* are certainly re 
markable coincidences. Phoenician traders might 
easily have earned stories concerning the Hebrew 
hero to the different countries where they traded, 
especially Greece and Italy ; and such stories would 
have been moulded according to the taste or ima 
gination of those who heard them. The following 
description of Hercules given by C. 0. Miiller 
(Dorians, b. ii. c. 12) might almost have been 
written for Samson : " The highest degree of 
human suffering and courage is attributed to Her 
cules: his character is as noble as could be con 
ceived in those rude and early times ; but he is by 
no means represented as free from the blemishes of 
human nature; on the contrary, he is frequently 
subject to wild, ungovernable passions, when the 
noble indignation and anger of the suffering hero 

" Hercules once went to Egypt, and there the inha 
bitants took him, and, putting a chaplet on his head, led 
him out in solemn procession, intending to offer him in 
sacrifice to Jupiter. For a while he submitted quietly ; 
but when they led him up to the altar, and began the 
ceremonies, he put forth his strength and slew them all '' 
(Hawlins. Herod, book ii. 45). 

The passage from Lycophron, with the scholion, quoted 
by Bochart (Hieroz. pars ii. lib. v. cap. xii.), where Her 
cules is said to have been three nights in the belly of the 
sea-monster, and to have come out with the loss of all his 
hair, is also curious, and seems to be a compound of the 
stories of Samson and Jonah. To this may be added the 
connexion between Samson, considered as derived from 
Shemesh, " the Sun," and the designation of Moui, the 
Egyptian Hercules, as "Son of the Sun," worshipped also 
under the name Sem, which Sir G. Wilkinson compares 
with Samson. The Tyrian Hercules (whose temple at Tyre 
Is described by Herodot. ii. 44), he also tells us, " was ori 
ginally the Sun, and the same as Baal " (Kawl. Herod, ii. 
14, note 7). The connexion between the Phoenician Baal 
(called Baal Shemen, Baal Shemesh, and Baal Hamtnan), and 
Hercules is well known. Gesenius ( Thes. s. v. 7JJ2) tells us 
that, in certain Phoenician inscriptions, which are accom 
panied by a Greek translation, liaal is rendered Herakles, 
atvl that " the Tyrian Hercules " is the constant Greek 

designation of the Baal of Tyre. He also gives many Car 
thaginian inscriptions to Baal Hamman, which he renders 
Baal Solaris ; and also a sculpture in which Baal Ham- 
man's head is surrounded with rays, and which has an 
image of the sun on the upper part of the monument 
(Hon. Phoen. i. Ill ; ii. tab. 21). Another evidence of 
the identity of the Phoenician Baal and Hercules may be 
found in Bauli, near Baiae, a place sacred to Hercules 
("locus Herculis," Serv.), but evidently so called from 
Baal. Thirlwall (Hist, of Greece) ascribes to the nume 
rous temples built by the Phoenicians in honour of Baal 
in their different settlements the Greek fables of the 
labours and journeys of Hercules. Bochart thinks the 
custom described by Ovid (Fast, liv.) of tying a lighted 
torch between two foxes in the circus, in memory of the 
damage once done to the harvest by a fox with burning 
hay and straw tied to it, was derived from the Phoenicians, 
and is clearly to be traced to the history of Samson (Ilitroz. 
pars i. lib. iii. cap. xiii.). From all which arises a con 
siderable probability that the Greek and Latin conception 
of Hercules in regard to his strength was derived from 
Phoenician stories and reminiscences of the great Hebrew 
hero Samson. Some learned men connect the name Her 
cules with Samson etymologically. (See Sir G. Wilkinson's 
note in Rawlinson's Herod, ii. 43 ; Patrick, On Judg. xvi 
30 ; Cornel, a Lapide, &c.) But none of these etymoletfe* 
are very convincing. 


degenerate into frenzy. Every crime, however, is 
atoned for by some new suffering; but nothing 
oreaks his invincible courage, until, purified from 
'.arthly corruption, he ascends Mount Olympus." 
And again : " Hercules was a jovial guest, and not 
backward in enjoying himself. ... It was Hercules,' 
above all other heroes, whom mythology placed in 
udicrous situations, and sometimes made, the butt 
of the buffoonery of othei-s. The Cercopes are 
represented as alternately amusing and annoying 
the hero. In works of art they are often repre 
sented as satyrs who rob the hero of his quiver, 
bow, and club. Hercules, annoyed at their insults, 
binds two of them to a pole, and marches off with 

his prize It also seems that mirth and buffoonery 

were often combined with the festivals of Hercules : 
thus at Athens there was a society of sixty men, 
who on the festival of the Diomean Hercules 
attacked and amused themselves and others with 
sallies of wit." Whatever is thought, however, of 
such coincidences, it is certain thai- the history of 
Samson is an historical, and not an allegorical nar 
rative. It has also a distinctly supernatural element 
which cannot be explained away. The history, as 
we now have it, must have been written several 
centuries after Samson's death (Judg. xv. 19, 20, 
xviii. 1, 30, xix. 1), though probably taken from 
the annals of the tribe of Dan. Josephus has 
given it pretty fully, but -with alterations and em 
bellishments of his own. after his manner. For 
example, he does not make Samson eat any of the 
honey which he took out of the hive, doubtless as 
unclean, and unfit for a Nazarite, but makes him 
give it to his wife. The only mention of Samson 
in the N. T. is that in Heb. xi. 32, where he is 
coupled with Gideon, Barak, and Jephthah, and 
spoken of as one of those who " through faith 
waxed valiant in fight, and turned to flight the 
armies of the aliens." See, besides the places quoted 
in the course of this article, a full article in Winer, 
Realwb. ; Ewald, Geschichte, ii. 516, &c.; Ber- 
theau, On Judges ; Bayle's Diet. [A. C. H.] 

SAM'UEL WDB>, i.e. Shemuel: 
Arabic, Samwil, orAschmouyl, see D'Herbelot, under 
this last name). Different derivations have been 
given. (1) 7X D5^, " name of God :' 
rently Ungen (Eus. H. E. vi. 25), 
(2) $N P1E>, " placed by God." (3; 
"asked of God"(l Sam. i. 20). Josephus inge 
niously makes it correspond to the well-known Greek 
name TJieaetetus. (4) ^>tf TOfc?, " heard of God.' 
This, which may have the same meaning as the pre 
vious derivation, is the most obvious. The last Judge 
the first of the regular succession of Prophets, and th< 
founder of the monarchy. So important a position 
did he hold in Jewish history as to have given his 
name to the sacred book, now divided into two 
which covers the whole period of the first establish 
ment of the kingdom, corresponding to the manner 
m which the name of Moses has been assigned to 
the sacred book, now divided into five, which covers 
ihe period of the foundation of the Jewish Church 
itself. In fact no character of equal magnitude hac 
arisen since the death of the great Lawgiver. 

He was the son of Elkanah, an Ephrathite o 
Ephraimite, and Hannah or Anna. His father i 
ona of the few private citizens in whose househok 
we find polygamy. It may possibly have arise 
from the irregularity of the period. 

The descent of Elkanah is" involved in grear '>b 




so appa 

scurity. In 1 Sam. i. 1 he is described as an 
Ephraimite. In 1 Chr. vi. 22, 23 he is made a de 
scendant of Korah the Levite. Hengstenberg (on 
Ps. Ixxviii. 1) and Ewald (ii. 433) explain this by 
supposing that the Levites were occasionally incor 
porated into the tribes amongst wnom they dwelt. 
The question, however, is of no practical import 
ance, because, even if Samuel were a Levite, he 
certainly was not a Priest by descent. 

His birthplace is one of the vexed questions of 
sacred geography, as his descent is of sacred gene 
alogy. [See RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM.] All that ap 
pears with certainty from the accounts is that it 
ras in the hills of Ephraim, and (as may be in- 
erred from its name) a double height, used for the 
urpose of beacons or outlookers (1 Sam. i. 1). At 
he foot of the hill was a well (1 Sam. xix. 22). 
)n the brow of its two summits was the. city. It 
ever lost its hold on Samuel, who in later life made 
; his fixed abode. 

The combined family must have been large, 
'eninnah had several children, and Hannah had, 
>esides Samuel, three sons and two daughters. But 
f these nothing is known, unless the names of the 
ons are those enumerated in 1 Chr. vi. 26, 27. 

It is on the mother of Samuel that our chief 
Mention is fixed in the account of his birth. She 
s described as a woman of a high religious mission. 
Almost a Nazarite by practice (1 Sam. i. 1 5), and 
a prophetess in her gifts (1 Sam. ii. 1), she sought 
lorn God the gift of the child for which she lopgtxl 
with a passionate devotion of silent prayer, of which 
ihere is no other example in the 0. T., and when 
;he son was granted, the name which he bore, and 
;hus first introduced into the world, expressed her 
sense of the urgency of her entreaty Samuel, " the 
Asked or Heard of God." 

Living in the great age of vows, she had before 
his birth dedicated him to the office of a Nazarite. 
As soon as he was weaned, she herself with her 
husband brought him to the Tabernacle at Shiloh, 
where she had received the first intimation of his 
birth, and there solemnly consecrated him. The 
form of consecration was similar to that with which 
the irregular priesthood of Jeroboam was set apart 
in later times (2 Chr. xiii. 9) a bullock of three 
years old (LXX.), loaves (LXX.), an ephah of flour, 
and a skin of wine (1 Sam. i. 24). First took place 
the usual sacrifices (LXX.) by Elkanah himself 
then, after the introduction of the child, the special 
sacrifice of the bullock. Then his mother made 
him over to Eli (i. 25, 28), and (according to the 
Hebrew text, but not the LXX.) the child himself 
performed an act of worship. 

The hymn which followed on this consecration 
is the first of the kind in the sacred volume. It is 
possible that, like many of the Psalms, it may have 
been enlarged in later times to suit great occasions 
of victory and the like. But verse 5 specially 
applies to this event, and verses 7, 8 may well 
express the sense entertained by the prophetess of 
the coming revolution in the fortunes of her son and 
of her country. 

From this time the child is shut up m the 
tabernacle. The priests furnished him with a sacred 
garment, an ephod, made, like their own, of white 
linen, though of inferior quality, and his mother 
every year, apparently at the only time of their 
meeting, gave him a little mantle reaching down to 
his feet, such as was worn only by high personages, 
or women, over the other dress, and such as he 
retained, as his badge, till the latest times of hit 

4 C 



Lfc. [MANTLE, vol. ii. p. 231 6. | He seems 
have slept whhin the Holiest Place (LXX., 1 Sam 
iii. 3), and his special duty was to put out, as 
would s-jem, the sacred candlestick, and to open th 
doors at sunrise. 

In this way his childhood was passed. It wa 
whilst thus sleeping in the tabernacle that he re 
ceived his first prophetic call. The stillness of th 
night the sudden voice the childlike misconcep 
tion the venerable Eli the contrast between the 
terrible doom and the gentle creature who has tc 
announce it give to this portion of the narrativi 
a universal interest. It is this side of Samuel' 
career that has been so well caught in the well 
known picture by Sir Joshua Reynolds. 

From this moment the prophetic character o 
Samuel was established. His words were treasurec 
up, and Shiloh became the resort of those wh< 
came to hear him (iii. 19-21). 

In the overthrow of the sanctuary, which fol 
lowed shortly on this vision, we hear not wha 
became of Samuel.* He next appears, probablj 
twenty years afterwards, suddenly amongst th< 
people, warning them against their idolatrous prac 
tices. He convened an assembly at Mizpeh pro 
bably the place of that name in the tribe of Ben 
jamin and there with a symbolical rite, expressive 
partly of deep humiliation, partly of the libations 
of a treaty, they poured water on the ground, they 
fasted, and they entreated Samuel to raise the 
piercing cry, for which he was known, in suppli 
cation to God for them. It was at the moment 
that he was offering up a sacrifice, and sustaining 
this loud cry (compare the situation of Pausanias 
before the battle of Plataea, Herod, ix. 61), that 
the Philistine host suddenly burst upon them. A 
violent thunderstorm, and (according to Josephus, 
Ant. vi. 2, 2) an earthquake, came to the timely 
resistance of Israel. The Philistines fled, and, 
exactly at the spot where twenty years before they 
had obtained their great victory, they were totally 
routed. A stone was set up, which long remained 
as a memorial of Samuel's triumph, and gave to 
the place its name of Eben-ezer, " the Stone of 
Help," which has thence passed into Christian 
phraseology, and become a common name of Non 
conformist chapels (1 Sam. vii. 12). The old Ca- 
naanitcs, whom the Philistines had dispossessed in 
the outskirts of the Judaean hills, seem to have 
helped in the battle, and a large portion of territory 
was recovered (1 Sam. vi. 14). This was Samuel's 
first and, as far as we know, his only military 
achievement. But, as in the case of the earlier 
chiefs who bore that name, it was apparently this 
which raised him to the office of" Judge " (comp. 
A Sam. xii. 11, where he is thus reckoned with 
Jerubbaal, Bedan, and Jephthah ; and Ecclus. xlvi. 
15-18). He visited, in discharge of his duties 
as ruler, the three chief sanctuaries (ej/ iraffi rots 
jjyiaff/jifvois rovrois} on the west of the Jordan 
Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpeh (1 Sam. vii. 16). His 
own residence was still his native city, Ramah or 
Ramathaim, which he further consecrated by an 
altar (vii. 17). Here he married, and two sons 
grew up to repeat under his eyes the same per 
version of high office that he had himself witnessed 
in his childhood in the case of the two sous of Eli. 


One was Abiah, he other Joel, sometimes called 
simply "the second" (vashni, 1 Chr. vi. 28). In 
his old age, according to the quasi-hereditary prin 
ciple, already adopted by previous Judges, he shared 
his power with them, and thej exercised their func 
tions at the southern frontier in Beersheba (1 Sam. 
viii. 1-4). 

2. Down to this point in Samuel's life there is 
but little to distinguish his career from that of his 
predecessors. Like many characters in later days, 
had he died in youth his fame would hardly have 
been greater than that of Gideon or Samson. H 
was a Judge, a Nazarite, a warrior, and (to a cer* 
tain point) a prophet. 

But his peculiar position in the sacred narrative 
turns on the events which follow. He is the 
inaugurator of the transition from what is com 
monly called the theocracy to the monarchy. The 
misdemeanour of his own sons, in receiving bi'ibes, 
and in extorting exorbitant interest on loans (1 Sam. 
viii. 3, 4), precipitated the catastrophe which had 
been long preparing. The people demanded a king. 
Josephus (Ant. vi. 3, 3) describes the shock to 
Samuel's mind, " because of his inborn sense of 
justice, because of his hatred of kings, as so far 
inferior to the aristocratic form of government, 
which conferred a godlike character on those who 
lived under it." For the whole night he lay fasting 
and sleepless, in the perplexity of doubt and diffi 
culty. In the vision of that night, as recorded by 
the sacred historian, is given the dark side of the 
new institution, on which Samuel dwells on the 
following day (1 Sam. viii. 9-18). 

This presents his reluctance to receive the new 
order of things. The whole narrative of the recep 
tion and consecration of Saul gives his acquiescence 
in it. [SAUL.J 

The final conflict of feeling and surrender of his 
office is given in the last assembly over which he 
presided, and in his subsequent relations with Saul. 
The assembly was held at Gilgal, immediately after 
the victory over the Ammonites. The monarchy was 
a second time solemnly inaugurated, and (according 
to the LXX.) "Samuel" (in the Hebrew text 
Saul ") " and all the men of Israel rejoiced 
rreatly." Then takes place his farewell address. 
By this time the long flowing locks on which no 
razor had ever passed were white with age (xii. 2). 
He appeals to their knowledge of his integrity. 
Whatever might be the lawless habits of the chiefs 
of those times Hophni, Phinehas, or his own sons 
he had kept aloof from all. No ox or ass had 
le taken from their stalls no bribe to obtain his 
udgment (LXX., ^!i'Xaer/ta) not even a sandal 
'vir65tj/jLa, LXX., and Ecclus. xlvi. 19). It is thii 
appeal, and the response of the people, that has 
made Grotius call him the Jewish Aristides. He 
hen sums up the new situation in which they have 
)laced themselves ; and, although " the wickedness 
)f asking a king" is still strongly insisted on, and 
,he unusual portent* of a thunderstorm in May or 
June, in answer to Samuel's prayer, is urged as a 
ign of Divine displeasure (xii. 16-19), the general 
tone of the condemnation is much softened from 
;hat which was pronounced on the first intimation 
f the change. The first king is repeatedly acknow- 
; " the Messiah " or anointed of the Lord 

* According to the Mussulman tradition, Samuel's birth 
IB granted in answer to the prayers of the nation on the 
overthrow of the sanctuary and loss of the ark (I)'Her- 
Lelot, Aschmouyl'). This, though false in the letter, is true 
to ttit epirit of Samuel's life. 

According to the Mussulman traditions, his anger wa 
ccasioned by the people rejecting Saul as not being of tba 
ribe of Judah. The sign that Saul was *fce king was thi 
quefaction of the sacred oil in his presence and r 
overy of the tabernacle (D'Herbelot, Aschmouyl) 


(xii. 3, 5), the future prosperity of the nation is 
declared to depend on their use or misuse of the 
new constitution, and Samuel retires with expres 
sions of goodwill and hope: " I will teach you the 
good and the right way . . . only fear the Lord . . ." 
(1 Sam. xii. 23, 24). 

It is the most signal example afforded in the 
0. T. of a great character reconciling himself to a 
changed order of things, and of the Divine sanction 
resting on his acquiescence. For this reason it is 
that Athanasius is by Basil called the Samuel of 
the Church (Basil, Ep. 82). 

o. His subsequent relations with Saul are of the 
same mixed kind. The two institutions which they 
respectively represented ran on side by side. Samuel 
was still Judge. He judged Israel " all the days of 
his life " (vii. 1 5), and from time to time came across 
the king's path. But these interventions are chiefly 
in another capacity, which this is the place to unfold. 

Samuel is called emphatically "the Prophet" 
(Acts iii. 24, xiii. 20). To a certain extent this 
was in consequence of the gift which he shared in 
common with others of his time. He was especially 
known in his own age as " Samuel the Seer " 
(1 Chr. ix. 22, xxvi. 28, xxix. 29). "I am the 
seer," was his answer to those who asked " Where 
is the seer?" " Where is the seer's house?" (1 Sam. 
ix. 11, 18, 19). "Seer," the ancient name, was not 
yet superseded by "Prophet" (1 Sam. ix.). By 
this name, Samuel Videns and Samuel 6 f$\sir<av, 
he is called in the Acta Sanctorum. Of the three 
modes by which Divine communications were then 
made, "by dreams, Urim and Thummim, and pro 
phets," the first was that by which the Divine will 
was made known to Samuel (1 Sam. iii. 1,2; Jos. 
Ant. v. 10, 4). " The Lord uncovered his ear " to 
whisper into it in the stillness of the night the 
messages that were to be delivered. It is the first 
distinct intimation of the idea of " Revelation " to 
a human being (see Gesenius, in roc. n/5). He 
was consulted fa? and near on the small affairs of life ; 
loaves of " bread," or " the fourth part of a shekel of 
silver," were paid for the answers (1 Sam. ix. 7, 8). 

From this faculty, combined with his office of 
ruler, an awful reverence grew up round him. No 
sacrificial feast was thought complete without his 
blessing (ib. ix. 13). When he appeared suddenly 
elsewhere for the same purpose, the villagers " trem 
bled " at his approach (1 Sam. xvi. 4, 5). A pecu 
liar virtue was believed to reside in his intercession. 
He was conspicuous in later times amongst those 
that " call upon the name of the Lord " (Vs. xcix. 
6 ; 1 Sam. xii. 18), and was placed with Moses as 
" standing " for prayer, in a special sense, " before 
the Lord " (Jer. xv. 1). It was the last consolation 
he left in his parting address that he would " pray 
to the Lord" for the people (1 Sam. xii. 19, 23). 
There was something peculiar in the long sustained 
cry or shout of supplication, which seemeJ to draw 
down as by force the Divine answer (1 Sam. vii. 
8,9). All night long, in agitated moments, "he 
ciied unto the Lord " (1 Sam. xv. 11). 

But there are two other points which more 
especially placed him at the head of the prophetic 
order as it afterwards appeared. The first is 
brought out in his relation with Saul, the second 
in his relation with David. 

* Agag is described by Josephus (Ant. vl. 7, $2 ) as a 
chief of magnificent appearance ; and hence rescued from 
instruction. This is perhaps an inference from the word 
^21^I~.. which the Wigate. translates pinyirissimus. 


(a). He represents the independence of the moral 
law, of the Divine Will, as distinct from regal 01 
sacerdotal enactments, which is so remarkable a 
characteristic of all the later prophets. As we 
have seen, he was, if a Levite, yet certainly not A 
Priest ; and all the attempts to identify his oppo 
sition to Saul with a hierarchical interest are 
founded on a complete misconception of the facts 
of the case. From the time of the overthrow of 
Shiloh, he never appears in the remotest connexion 
with the priestly order. Amongst all the places 
included in his personal or administrative visits, 
neither Shiloh, nor Nob, nor Gibeon, the seats of 
the sacerdotal caste, are ever mentioned. When ne 
counsels Saul, it is not as the priest but as the 
prophet ; when he sacrifices or blesses the sacrifice, 
it is not as the priest, but either as an individual 
Israelite of eminence, or as a ruler, like Saul him 
self. Saul's sin in both cases where he came into 
collision with Samuel, was not of intruding into 
sacerdotal functions, but of disobedience to the 
prophetic voice. The first was that of not waiting 
for Samuel's arrival, according to the sign given 
by Samuel at his original meeting at Kamah (1 
Sam. x. 8, xiii. 8) ; the second was that of not car 
rying out the stern prophetic injunction for the 
destruction of the Amalekites. When, on that 
occasion, the aged Prophet called the captive c prince 
before him, and with his own hands hacked him 
limb from limb,* in retribution for the desolation 
he had brought into the homes of Israel, and thus 
offered up his mangled remains almost as a human 
sacrifice (" before the Lord in Gilgal "), we see the 
representative of the older part of the Jewish his 
tory. But it is the true prophetic utterance such 
as breathes through the psalmists and prophets when 
he says to Saul in words which, from their poetical 
form, must have become fixed in the national me 
mory, " To obey is better than sacrifice, and to 
hearken than the fat of rams." 

The parting was not one pf rivals, but of dear 
though divided friends. The King throws himself 
on the Prophet with all his force ; not without a 
vehement effort (Jos. Ant. vi. 7, 5) the prophet 
tears himself away. The long mantle by which 
he was always known is rent in the struggle ; and, 
like Ahijah after him, Samuel was in this the 
omen of the coming rent in the monarchy. They 
parted, each to his house, to meet no more. But 
a long shadow of grief fell over the prophet. 
" Samuel mourned for Saul." " It grieved Samuel 
for Saul." " How long wilt thou mourn for Saul ?" 
(1 Sam. xv. 11, 35, xvi. 1.) 

(6). He is the first of the regular succession of 
prophets. "All the prophets from Samuel and 
those that follow after" (Acts iii. 24). "Ex 
quo sanctus Samuel propheta coepit, et deincepj 
donee populus Israel in Babyloniam captivus ve- 

heretur, totum est tempus prophetarum " 

(Aug. Civ. Dei, xvii. 1). Moses, Miriam, and 
Deborah, perhaps Ehud, had been prophets. But 
it was only from Samuel that the continuous suc 
cession was unbroken. This may have been merely 
from the coincidence of his appearance with the 
beginning of the new order of things, of which the 
prophetical office was the cnief expression. Some 
predisposing causes there may have been in his own 

d 1 Sam. xv. The LXX. softens this into ecr<oe ; Lu! 
the Vulg. translation, in frusta contidit, " cut up iuU 
small pieces," seems to be the true meanicg. 

4 C 2 



family and birthplace. His mother, as we h:ive 
seen, though not expressly so called, was in fact a 
prophetess; the word Zophim, as the affix of Ra- 
mathaim, has been explained, not unreasonably, to 
mean "seers;" and Elkanah, his father, is by the 
Chaldee paraphrast on I Sam. 'i. 1, said to be " a 
disciple of the prophets." But the connexion of 
the continuity of the office with Samuel appeal's to 
x stiii more direct. It is in his lifetime, long after 
he had been "established as a prophet" (1 Sam. 
iii. 20), that we hear of the companies of disciples, 
called in the 0. T. " the sons of the prophets," by 
modern writers " the schools of the prophets." All 
the peculiarities of their education are implied or 
expressed the sacred dance, the sacred music, the 
solemn procession (1 Sam. x. 5, 10; 1 Chr. xxv. 
1,6). At the head of this congregation, or " church 
as it were within a church'' (LXX. rty KK\T)- 
triav, 1 Sam. x. 5, 10), Samuel is expressly described 
as " standing appointed over them " (1 Sam. xix. 20). 
Their chief residence at this time (though after 
wards, as the institution spread, it struck root in 
other places) was at Samuel's own abode, Ramah, 
where they lived in habitations (Naioth, 1 Sam. 
xix. 19, &c.) apparently of a rustic kind, like the 
leafy huts which Elisha's disciples afterwards occu 
pied by the Jordan (Naioth = " habitations," but 
more specifically used for " pastures "). 

In those schools, and learning to cultivate the pro 
phetic gifts, were some, whom we know for certain , 
others whom we may almost certainly conjecture, to 
have been so trained or influenced. One was Saul. 
Twice at least he is described as having been in the 
company of Samuel's disciples, and as having caught 
from them the prophetic fervour, to such a degree as 
to have " prophesied among them " (1 Sam. x. 10, 
1 1); and on one occasion to have thrown off his clothes, 
and to have passed the night in a state of prophetic 
trance (1 Sam. xix. 24) : and even in his palace, 
the prophesying mingled with his madness on ordi 
nary occasions (1 Sam. xviii. 9). Another was 
DAVID. The first acquaintance of Samuel with 
David, was when he privately anointed him at the 
house of Jesse [see DAVID]. But the connexion 
thus begun with the shepherd boy must have been 
continued afterwards. David, at first, fled to 
" Naioth in Ramah," as to his second home (1 Sam. 
xix. 19), and the gifts of music, of song, and of 
prophecy, here developed on so large a scale, were 
exactly such as we find in the notices of those who 
looked up to Samuel as their father. It is, further, 
hardly possible to escape the conclusion that David 
there first met his fast friends and companions in 
after life, prophets like himself GAD and NATHAN. 
It is needless to enlarge on the importance with 
which these incidents invest the appearance of Sa 
muel. He there becomes the spiritual father of the 
Psalmist king. He is also the Founder of the first 
regular institutions of religious instruction, and com 
munities for the purposes of education. The schools 
cf Greece were not yet in existence. From these 
Jewish institutions were developed, by a natural 
order, the universities of Christendom. And it may 
be further added, that with this view the whole life 
of Samuel is in accordance. He is the prophet 
the only prophet till the time of Isaiah of whom we 
know that he was so from his earliest years. It is 
this continuity of his own life and character, that 
makes him so fit an instrument for conducting his 
nation through so great a change. 

The death of Samuel is described as taking place 
'ii the year of the close of David's wanderings. It 


is said with peculiar emphasis, as if to mark tlw 
loss, that " all the Israelites" all, with a uiiiver. 
sality never specified before " were gathered to 
gether" from ill parts of this hitherto divided 
country, and "lamented him, ' and "buried h.m, J 
not in any consecrated place, nor outside the walls 
of his city, but within his own house, thus in a 
manner consecrated by being turned into his tomb 
(1 Sam. xxv. 1). His relics were translated " fix in 
Judaea" (the place is not specified) A.D. 406, to 
Constantinople, and received there with much pomp 
by the Emperor Arcadius. They were lande I at 
the pier of Chalcedon, and thence conveyed to a 
church, near the palace of Hebdomon (see Acta 
Sanctorum, Aug. 20). 

The situation of Ramathaim, as has been observed, 
is uncertain. But the place long pointed out as his 
tomb is the height, most conspicuous of all in the 
neighbourhood of Jerusalem, immediately above 
the town of Gibeon, known to the Crusaders as 
Montjoye," as the spot from whence they first 
saw Jerusalem, now called Neby Samwil, "the 
Prophet Samuel." The tradition can be traced back 
as far as the 7th century, when it is spoken of as the 
monastery of S. Samuel (Robinson, B. R. ii. 142), 
and if once we discard the connexion of Ramathaim 
with the nameless city where Samuel met Saul, 
(as is set forth at length in the articles RAMAH ; 
RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM) there is no reason why the 
tradition should be rejected. A cave is still shown 
underneath the floor of the mosque. " He built the 
tomb in his lifetime," is the account of the Mussul 
man guardian of the mosque, " but was not buried 
here till after the expulsion of the Greeks." It is 
the only spot in Palestine which claims any direct 
connexion with the first great prophet who was 
born within its limits; and its commanding situa 
tion well agrees with the importance assigned to 
him in the sacred history. 

His descendants were here till the time of David. 
Heman, his grandson, was one of the chief singers 
in the Levitical choir (1 Chr. vi. 33, xv. IT, xxv. 5). 
The apparition of Samuel at Endor (1 Sam. xxviii. 
14 ; Ecclus. xlvi. 20) belongs to the history of SAUL. 
It has been supposed that Samuel wrote a Life 
of David (of course of his earlier years), which was 
still accessible to one of the authors of the Book of 
Chronicles (1 Chr. xxix. 29); but this appears 
doubtful. [Seep. 1126,6.] Various other books of 
the 0. T, have been ascribed to him by the Jewish 
tradition the Judges, Ruth, the two Books of Sa 
muel, the latter, it is alleged, being written in the 
spirit of prophecy. He is regarded by the Sama 
ritans as a magician and an infidel (Hottinger, Hist. 
Orient, p. 52). 

The Persian traditions fix his life in the time 
of Kai-i-Kobad, 2nd king of Persia, with whom 
he is said to have conversed (D'Herbelot, Kat 
Kobad}. [A. P. S.] 

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF (WlOf : BeuriAefow. 
Tlp(t>Tfj , A evrepa : L iber Regum Primus, Secundas) . 
Two historical books of the Old Testament, which 
are not separated from each other in the Hebrew 
MSS., and which, from a critical point of view, 
must be regarded as one book. The present division 
was first made in the Septuagint translation, and 
was adopted in the Vulgate from the Septuagint. 
But Origen, as quo'ed by Eusebius (Histor. Ecdes. 
vi. 25), expressly states that they formed only 
book among the Hebrews. Jerome (Pracfaiio in 
Libros Samuel et Mc.lachim] implies the same state 


mcnt; and in the Talmud (Baba Bathra, fol. 14, 
c. 2), wherein the authorship is attributed to Samuel, 
they are designated by the name of his "book, in the 

After the 

eingular number (IIDD 3H3 
invention of printing they were published as one 
oook in the first edition of the whole Bible printed 
at Soncino in 1488 A.D., and likewise in the Com- 
plutensian Polyglot printed at Ahala, 1502-1517 
A.D. ; and it was not til! the year 1518 that 
thp division of the Septuagint was adopted in He- 
li-cw, in the edition of the Bible printed by the 
Bombergs at Venice. The book was willed by the 
Hebrews " Samuel," probably because the birth and 
life of Samuel were the subjects treated of in the 
beginning of the work just as a treatise on fes 
tivals in the Mishua bears the name of Bcitsah, an 
egg, because a question connected with the eating 
of an egg is the first subject discussed in it. [PHA 
RISEES, p. 890.] It has been suggested indeed by 
Abarbanel, as quoted by Carpzov (p. 211), that the 
book was called by Samuel's name because all things 
that occur in each book may, in a certain sense, be 
referred to Samuel, including the acts of Saul and 
David, inasmuch as each of them was anointed by 
him, and was, as it were, the work of his hands. 
This, however, seems to be a refinement of explana 
tion for a fact which is to be accounted for in a less 
artificial manner. And, generally, it is to be ob 
served that the logical titles of books adopted in 
modern times must not be looked for in Eastern 
works, nor indeed in early works of modern Europe. 
Thus David's Lamentation over Saul and Jonathan 
was called " The Bow," for some reason connected 
with the occurrence of that word in his poem 
(2 Sam. i. 18-22) ; and Snorro Storleson's Chronicle 
of the Kings of Norway obtained the name of 
" Heimskringla," the World's Circle, because Heims- 
kringla was the first prominent word of the MS. 
that caught the eye (Laing's Heimskringla, i. 1). 

Authorship and Date of the Book. The most 
interesting points in regard to every important his 
torical work are the name, intelligence, and character 
of the historian, and his means of obtaining correct 
information. If these points should not be known, 
next in order of interest is the precise period of time 
when the work was composed. On all these points, 
however, in reference to the Book of Samuel, more 
questions can be asked than can be answered, and 
the results of a dispassionate inquiry are mainly 

1st, as to the authorship. In common with all 
the historical books of the Old Testament, except 
the beginning of Nehemiah, the Book of Samuel 
contains no mention in the text of the name of its 
author. The earliest Greek historical work extant, 
written by one who has frequently been called the 
Father of Histo"j, commences with the words, 
" This is a pubiication of the researches of Hero 
dotus of Halicarnassus ; " and the motives which 
induced Herodotus to write the work are then set 
forth. Thucydides, the writer of the Greek his 
torical work next in order of time, who likewise 
specifies his reasons for writing it, commence; by 
stating, " Thucydides the Athenian wrote the his 
tory of the war between the Peloponnesians anc 
Athenians," and frequently uses the formula thai 
such or such a year ended the second, or third, 01 
fourth, as the case might be " of this war of which 
Thucydidos wrote the history " (ii. 70, 103 ; iii. 25 
88, IIG). Again, when h* speaks in one passage 
of events ;n which it is necessary that he shoul< 


mention his own name, he refers to hhrself as 
Thucydides son of Olorus, who composed this 
work" (iv. 104). Now, with the one exception 
if this kind already mentioned, no similar infcrma- 
ion is contained in any historical book of the Old 
Testament, although there are passages not only in 
Nehemiah, but likewise in Ezra, written in the first 
person. Still, without any statement of the author 
hip embodied in the text, it is possible that his- 
.orical books might come down to us with a titls 
ontaining the name of the author. This is the 
:ase, for example, with Livy's Roman History, ana 
Caesar's Commentaries of the Gallic War. In the 
atter case, indeed, although Caesar mentions a long 
eries of his own actions without intimating that he 
vas the author of the work, and thus there is mi 
antecedent improbability that he wrote it, yet tin- 
traditional title of the work outweighs this imprc- 
jability, confirmed as the title is by an unbroken 
:hain o"f testimony, commencing with contemporaries 
Cicero, Brut. 75 ; Caesar, De Bell. Gall. viii. 1 ; 
Suetonius, Jul Caes. 56 ; Quinctilian, x. 1 ; 
Tacitus, Germ. 28). Here, again, there is no 
thing precisely similar in Hebrew history. The 
five books of the Pentateuch have in Hebrew no 
;itle except the first Hebrew words of each part ; 
ind the titles Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, 
and Deuteronomy, which are derived from the Sep- 
uagint, convey no information as to their author, 
n like manner, the Book of Judges, the Books of 
he Kings and the Chronicles, are not referred to 
my particular historian; and although six works 
bear respectively the names of Joshua^ KutK v Samuel, 
Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, there is nothing in the 
works themselves to preclude the idea that in each 
case the subject only of the work may be indicated, 
and not its authorship ; as is shown conclusively by 
the titles Ruth and Esther, which ne one has yet 
construed into the assertion that those celebrated 
women wrote the works concerning themselves. 
And it is indisputable that the title " Samuel " 
does not imply that the prophet was the author of 
the Book of Samuel as a whole ; for the death of 
Samuel is recorded in the beginning of the 25th 
chapter ; so that, under any circumstances, a dif 
ferent author would be required for the remaining 
chapters, constituting considerably more than one- 
half of the entire work. Again, in reference to the 
Book of Samuel, the absence of the historian's name 
from both the text and the title is not supplied by 
any statement of any other writer, made within a 
reasonable period from the time when the book may 
be supposed to have been written. No mention of 
the author's name is made in the Book of Kings, 
nor, as will be hereafter shown, in the Chronicles, 
nor in any other of the sacred writings. In like 
manner, it is not mentioned either in the Apocrypha 
or in Josephus. The silence of Josephus is par 
ticularly significant. He published his Antiquities 
about 1100 years after the death of David, and in 
them he makes constant use of the Book of Samuel 
for one portion of his history. Indeed it is his 
exclusive authority for his account of Samuel and 
Saul, and his main authority, in conjunction with 
the Chronicles, for the history of David. Yet he 
nowhere attempts to name the author of the Book 
of Samuel, or of any part of it. There is a similar 
silence in the Miabna, where, however, the inference 
from such silence is far less cogent. And it is not 
until we come to the Babylonian Gemara, which is 
supposed to have been completed in its present, foi rc 
somewhere about 500 A.D., that any Jewi-h stat* 


ment respecting the authorship can be pointed out, 
and then it is for the first time asserted (Baba 
Bathra, fol. 14, c. 2), in a passage already referred 
to, that " Samuel wrote his book," i. e. as the words 
imply, the book which bears his name. But this 
statement cannot be proved to have been made 
earlier than 1550 years after the death of Samuel 
a longer period than has elapsed since the death of 
the Emperor Constantine ; and unsupported as the 
statement is by reference to any authority of any 
kind, it would be unworthy of credit, even if it 
were not opposed to the internal evidence of the 
book itself. At the revival of learning, an opinion 
was propounded by Abarbanel, a learned Jew, 
T A.I). 15U8, that the Book of Samuel was written 
by the prophet Jeremiah a (Lat. by Aug. Pfeiffer, 
Leipzig, 1686), and this opinion was adopted by Hugo 
Grotius (Pref. ad Librum priorem Samuelis], with 
a general statement that there was no discrepancy in 
the language, and with only one special reference. 
Notwithstanding the eminence, however, of these 
writers, this opinion must be rejected as highly im 
probable. Under any circumstances it could not be 
regarded as more than a mere guess ; and it is, in 
reahty, a guess uncountenanced by peculiar simi 
larity of language, or of style, between the history 
of Samuel and the writings of Jeremiah. In our 
own time the most prevalent idea in the Anglican 
Church seems to have been that the first twenty-four 
chapters of the Book of Samuel were written by the 
prophet himself, and the rest of the chapters by 
the prophets Nathan and Gad. This is the view 
favoured by Mr. Home (Introduction to the Holy 
Scriptures, ed. 1846, p. 45), in a work which has 
had very extensive circulation, and which amongst 
many readers has been the only work of the kind 
consulted in England. If, however, the authority 
adduced by him is examined, it is found to be ulti 
mately the opinion " of the Talmudists, which was 
adopted by the most learned Fathers of the Christian 
Church, who unquestionably had better means of 
ascertaining this point than we have." Now the 
absence of any evidence for this opinion in the 
Talmud has been already indicated, and it is diffi 
cult to understand how the opinion could have been 
stamped with real value through its adoption by 
learned Jews called Talmudists, or by learned 
Christians called Fathers of the Christian Church, 
who lived subsequently to the publication of the 
Talmud. For there is not the slightest reason for 
supposing that in the year 500 A.D. either Jews or 
Christians had access to trustworthy documents on 
this subject which have not been transmitted to 
modem times, and without such documents it can 
not be shown that they had any better means of 
ascertaining this point than we have. Two circum 
stances have probably contributed to the adoption 
of this opinion at the present day : 1st, the growth 
ot stricter ideas as to the importance of knowing 
who was the author of any historical work which 
advances claims to be trustworthy ; and 2ndly, the 
mistranslation of an ambiguous passage in the First 
Book of Chronicles (xxix. 29), respecting the autho- 

Professor Hitzig, in like manner, attributes some of 
the Psalms to Jeremiah. In support of this view, he 
points out, 1st, several special instances of striking simi 
larity of language between those Psalms and the writings 
of Jeremiah, and, 2ndly, agreement between historical facts 
in the life of Jeremiah and the situation in which the writer 
of those Psalms depicts himself as having been placed 
(Hitaig. Dit, Psoii/nen. pp. 48-85). Whether the conclu 
sion i correct or incorrect, this is a legitimate mode of 


rities for the life of David. The first point requires 
no comment. On the second point it is to be ob 
served that the following appears to be the correct 
translation of the passage in question : " Now the 
history of David first and last, behold it is written 
in the history of SatnuU the seer, and in the history 
of Nathan the prophet, and in the history of Gac. 
the seer " in whrch the Hebrew word dibrei, here 
translated " history," has the same meaning given 
to it each of the four times that it is used. This 
agrees with the translation in the Septuagint, which 
is particularly worthy of attention in reference to 
the Chronicles, as the Chronicles are the very last 
work in the Hebrew Bible ; and whether this arose 
from their having been the last admitted into the 
Canon, or the last composed, it is scarcely probable 
that any translation in the Septuagint, with one 
great exception, was made so soon after the com 
position of the original. The rendering of the 
Septuagint is by the word \6yoi, in the sense, so 
well known in Herodotus, of "history" (i. 184, 
ii. 161, vi. 137), and in the like sense in the Apo 
crypha, wherein it is used to describe the history of 
Tobit, |8j8\oy \6yuv TwjBfr. The word " history " 
(Geschichte) is likewise the word four times used in 
the translation of this passage of the Chronicles in 
Luther's Bible, and in the modem version of the 
German Jews made under the superintendence of 
the learned Dr. Zunz (Berlin, 1858). In the 
English Version, however, the word dibrei is trans 
lated in the first instance " acts " as applied to 
David, and then " book " as applied to Samuel, 
Nathan, and Gad ; and thus, through the ambiguity 
of the word " book," the possibility is suggested 
that each of these three prophets wrote a book 
respecting his own life and times. This double 
rendering of the same word in one passage seems 
wholly inadmissible ; as is also, though in a less 
degree, the translation of dibrei as " book," for 
which there is a distinct Hebrew word sepher. 
And it may be deemed morally certain that this 
passage of the Chronicles is no authority for the 
supposition that, when it was written, any work 
was in existence of which either Gad, Nathan, or 
Samuel was the author. b 

2. Although the authorship of the Book of Samuel 
cannot be ascertained, there are some indications as 
to the date of the work. And yet even on this 
point no precision is attainable, and we must be 
satisfied with a conjecture as to the range, not of 
years or decades, but of centuries, within which the 
history was probably composed. Evidence on this 
head is either external or internal. The earliest 
undeniable external evidence of the existence of the 
book would seem to be the Greek translation of it 
in the Septuagint. The exact date, however, of the 
translation itself is uncertain, though it must have 
been made at some time between the translation of 
the Pentateuch in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, 
who- died B.C. 247, and the century before the birth 
of Christ. The next best external testimony is that 
of a passage in the Second Book of Maccabees (ii. 
13), in which it is said of Nehemiah, that " he, 

reasoning, and there is a sound basis for a critical super 
structure. See Psalms xxxi., xxxv., xl. 

b In the Swedish Bible the word dibrti In each of the 
four instances is translated " acts" (Gemingar), being pre 
cisely the same word which is used to designate the Acts 
of the Apostles in the New Testament. This translation 
is self-consistent and admissible. But the German 
trauelatlons, supported as they are by the Soptuagiut 
seeia preferable. 


founding a library, gathered together the acts of 
the kings, and the prophets, and of David, and the 
epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts." 
Now, although this passage cannot be relied on for 
proving that Nehemiah himself did in fact ever 
fourd such a library, 6 yet it is good evidence to 
prov\ that the Acts of the Kings, T& irepl rtav 
fiaffiXfcav, were in existence when the passage was 
written ; and it cannot reasonably be doubted that 
this phrase was intended to include the Book of 
Samuel, which is equivalent to the two first Books 
of Kings in the Septuagint. Hence there is external 
evidence that the Book of Samuel was written 
before the Second Book of Maccabees. And lastly, 
the passage in the Chronicles already quoted (1 Chr. 
xxix. 29) seems likewise to prove externally that 
the Book of Samuel was written before the Chro 
nicles. This is not absolutely certain, but it seems 
to be the most natural inference from the words 
that the history of David, first and last, is con 
tained in the history of Samuel, the history of 
Nathan, and the history of Gad. For as a work 
has come down to us, entitled Samuel, which con 
tains an account of the life of David till within a 
short period before his death, it appears most rea 
sonable to conclude (although this point is open to 
dispute) that the writer of the Chronicles referred 
to this work by the title History of Samuel. In 
this case, admitting the date assigned, on internal 
grounds, to the Chronicles by a modern Jewish 
writer of undoubted learning and critical powers, 
there would be external evidence for the existence 
of the Book of Samuel earlier than 247 B.C., though 
not earlier than 312 B.C., the era of the Seleucidae 
(Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden, 
p. 32). Supposing that the Chronicles were written 
earlier, this evidence would go, in precise proportion, 
farther back, but there would be still a total absence 
if earlier external evidence on the subject than is 
contained in the Chronicles. If, however, instead 
of looking solely to the external evidence, the in 
ternal evidence respecting the Book of Samuel is 
examined, there are indications of its having been 
written some centuries earlier. On this head the 
following points are worthy of notice : 

1. The Book of Samuel seems to have been writ 
ten at a time when the Pentateuch, whether it was 
or was not in existence in its present form, was at 
any rate not acted on as the rule of religious ob 
servances. According to the Mosaic Law as finally 
established, sacrifices to Jehovah were not lawful 
anywhere but before the door of the tabernacle 
of the congregation, whether this was a permanent 
temple, as at Jerusalem, or otherwise (Deut. xii. 
13, 14; Lev. xvii. 3, 4 ; but see Ex. xx. 24). But 
in the Book of Samuel, the offering of sacrifices, or 
the erection of altars, which implies sacrifices, is 
mentioned at several places, such as Mizpeh, Ramah, 
Bethel, the thresh ing- place of Araunah the Jebusite, 
and elsewhere, not only without any disapprobation, 
apology, or explanation, but in a way which pro 
duces the impression that such sacrifices were 
pleasing to Jehovah (1 Sam. vii. 9, 10, 17, ix. 13, 
x. 3, xiv. 35 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 18-25). This circum- 

Professors Ewald and Bleek have accepted the state 
ment that Nehemiah founded such a library, and they 
make inferences from the account of the library as to the 
time when certain books of the Old Testament were ad 
mitted into the Canon. There are, however, the following 
easons for rejecting the statement : 1st. It occurs in a 
letter generally deemeU spurious. 2ndly. In the same 
A fabulous story is recorded not only of Jeremiah 



ctance points to the date of the Book of Samuel na 
earlier than the reformation of Josiah, when Hil- 
kiah the high-priest told Shaphan the scribe that 
he had found the Book of the Law in the house ol 
Jehovah, when the Passover was kept as was en- 
oined in that book, in a way that no Passover had 
aeen holden since the days of the Judges, and vrhen 
the worship upon high-places was abolished by the 
king's orders (2 K. xxii. 8, xxiii. 8, 13, 15, 19, 21, 
22). The probability that a sacred historian, writing 
after that reformation, would have expressed dis 
approbation of, or would have accounted for, any 
seeming departure from the laws of the Pentateuch 
by David, Saul, or Samuel, is not in itseY conclu 
sive, but joined to other considerations it is entitled 
to peculiar weight. The natural mode of dealing with 
such a religious scandal, when it shocks the ideas 
of a later generation, is followed by the author of the 
Book of Kings, who undoubtedly lived later than 
the reformation of Josiah, or than the beginning, at 
least, of the captivity of Judah (2 K. xxv. 21, 27). 
This writer mentions the toleration of worship on 
high-places with disapprobation, not only in con 
nexion with bad kings, such as Manasseh and Ahaz, 
but likewise as a drawback in the excellence of 
other kings, such as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, 
Amaziah, Azariah, and Jotham, who are praised for 
having done what was right in the sight of Jehovah 
(1 K. xv. 14, xxii. 43 ; 2 K. xii. 3, xiv. 4, xv. 4, 
35, xvi. 4, xxi. 3) ; and something of the same kind 
might have been expected in the writer of the Book 
of Samuel, if he had lived at a time when the wor 
ship on high-places had been abolished. 

2. It is in accordance with this early date of the 
Book of Samuel that allusions in it even to the 
existence of Moses are so few. After the return 
from the Captivity, and more especially after the 
changes introduced by Ezra, Moses became tlv' 
great central figure in the thoughts and language 
of devout Jews which he could not fail to be when 
all the laws of the Pentateuch were observed, and 
they were all referred to him as the divine prophet 
who communicated them directly from Jehovah. 
This transcendent importance of Moses must already 
have commenced at the finding of the Book of the 
Law at the reformation of Josiah. Now it is re 
markable that the Book of Samuel JS the historical 
work of the Old Testament in which the name of 
Moses occurs most rarely. In Joshua it occurs 56 
times ; in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah 31 times ; 
in the Book of Kings ten times; in Judges three 
times; but in Samuel only twice (Zunz, Vortrdge, 
35). And it is worthy of note that in each case 
Moses is merely mentioned with Aaron as having 
brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt, but 
nothing whatever is said of the Law of Moeefi 
(1 Sam. xii. 6, 8). It may be thought that no 
inference can be drawn from this omission of 1 h 
name of Moses, because, inasmuch as the Law of 
Moses, as' a whole, was evidently not acted on in 
the time of Samuel, David, and Solomon, there was 
no occasion for a writer, however late he lived, to 
introduce the name of Moses at all in connexion 
with their life and actions. But it is very raiT 

(li. 1-7), but likewise of Nehemiah himse':f. 3rdly. Au 
erroneous historical statement is likewise made in the 
same letter, that Nehemiah built the Temple of Jerusalem 
(i. 18). No witness in a court of justice, whose credit bad 
been shaken to a similar extent, would, unless corroborated 
by other evidence be relied on as an authority for auy 
important fact. 


indeed for later writers to refrain in this way trom 
importing the ideas of their own time into the ac 
count of earlier transactions. Thus, very early in 
the Book of Kings there is an allusion to what is 
" written in the Law of Moses " (1 K. ii. 3). Thus 
the author of the Book of Chronicles makes, for the 
reign of David, a calculation of money in darics, 
a Persian coin, not likely to have been in common 
use among the Jews until the Persian domination 
had been fully established. Thus, more than once, 
Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, attributes 
expressions to personages in the Old Testament 
which are to be accounted for by what was familiar 
to his own mind, although they are not justified 
by his authorities. For example, evidently copying 
the history of a transaction from the Book of 
Samuel, he represents the prophet Samuel as ex 
horting the people to bear in mind " the code of 
laws which Moses had given them " (TTJS Mwuirews 
vouo8f<rtas, Ant. vi. 5, 3), though there is no 
mention of Moses, or of his legislation, in the 
corresponding passage of Samuel (1 Sam. xii. 20- 
25). Again, in giving an account of the punish 
ments with which the Israelites were threatened for 
disobedience of the Law by Moses in the Book of 
Deuteronomy, Josephus attributes to Moses the 
threat that their temple should be burned (Ant. iv. 
8, 46). But no passage can be pointed out in the 
whole Pentateuch in which such a threat occurs ; 
and in fact, according to the received chronology 
(1 K. vi. 1), or according to any chronology, the 
first temple at Jerusalem was not built till some 
centuries after the death of Moses. Yet this allu 
sion to the burning of an unbuilt temple ought not 
to be regarded as an intentional misrepresentation. 
It is rather an instance of the tendency in an histo 
rian who describes past events to give unconsciously 
indications of his living himself at a later epoch. 
Similar remarks apply to a passage of Josephus (Ant. 
vii. 4, 4), in which, giving an account of David's 
project to build a temple at Jerusalem, he says that 
David wished to prepare a temple for God, " as 
Moses commanded," though no such command or 
injunction is to be found in the Pentateuch. To a 
religious Jew, when the laws of the Pentateuch were 
observed, Moses could not fail to be the predominant 
idea in his mind; but Moses would not necessarily 
be of equal importance to a Hebrew historian who 
lived before the reformation of Josiah. 

3. It tallies with an early date for the compo 
sition of the Book of Samuel that it is one of the 
best specimens of Hebrew prose in the golden age 
of Hebrew literature. In prose it holds the same 
place which Joel and the undisputed prophecies of 
Isaiah hold in poetical or prophetical language. It 
is free from the peculiarities of the Book of Judges, 
which it is proposed to account for by supposing 
that they belonged to the popular dialect of Northern 
Palestine ; and likewise from the slight peculiarities 
of the Pentateuch, which it is proposed to regard 
as archaisms d (Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, 2, 5). 
It is a striking contrast to the language of the Book 
of Chronicles, wlich undoubtedly belongs to the 
silver age of Hebrew prose, and it does not contain 
=s many alleged Chaldaisms as the few in the Book 
of Kings. Indeed the number of Chaldaisms in the 
Book of Samuel which the most rigid scrutiny has 
suggested do not amount to more than about six 
instances, some of them doubtful ones, in 90 pages 

* .As compared with Samuel, the peculiarities ol the 
Peatateuch are not quite as striking as the differences in 
tween Lucretius and Virgil : the Daralld w Oich 


of our modern Hebrew Bible. And, considering the 
general purity of the language, it is not only 
possible, but probable, that the trifling residuum ol 
Chaldaisms may be owing to the inadvertence of 
Chaldee copyists, when Hebrew had ceased to be a 
living language. At the same time this argument 
from language must not be pushed so far as to 
imply that, standing alone, it would be conclusive; 
for some writings, the date of which is about the 
time of the Captivity, are in pure Hebrew, such 
as the prophecies of Habakkuk, the Psalms cxx., 
cxxxvii., cxxxix., pointed out by Gesenius, and by 
far the largest portion of the latter part of the pro 
phecies attributed to " Isaiah " (xl. Ixvi.). And we 
have not sufficient knowledge of the condition or 
the Jews at the time of the Captivity, or for a few 
centuries after, to entitle any one to assert that 
there were no individuals among them who wrote 
the purest Hebrew. Still the balance of probability 
inclines to the contrary direction, and, as a sub- 
sidiary argument, the purity of language of the 
Book of Samuel is entitled to some weight. 

Assuming, then, that the work was composed at 
a period not later than the reformation of Josiah 
say, B.C. 622 the question arises as to the very 
earliest point of time at which it could have existed 
in its present form ? And the answer seems to be, 
that the earliest period was subsequent to the seces 
sion of the Ten Tribes. This results from the passage 
in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, wherein it is said of David, 
" Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day : wherefore 
Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah to this 
day :" for neither Saul, David, nor Solomon is in a 
single instance called king of Judah simply. It is true 
that David is said, in one narrative respecting him, to 
have reigned in Hebron seven years and six months 
over Judah (2 Sam. v. 5) before he reigned in Jeru 
salem thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah ; 
but he is, notwithstanding, never designated by 
the title King of Judah. Before the secession, 
the designation of the kings was that they were 
kings of Israel (1 Sam. xiii. 1, xv. 1, xvi. 1 ; 2 Sam. 
v. 17, viii. 15; 1 K. ii. 11, iv. 1, vi. 1, xi. 42). It 
may safely, therefore, be assumed that the Book of 
Samuel could not have existed in its present form 
at an earlier period than the reign of Rehoboam, 
who ascended the throne B.C. 975. If we go be 
yond this, and endeavour to assert the precise time 
between 975 B.C. and 622 B.C., when it was com 
posed, all certain indications fail us. The expres 
sion "unto this day," used several times in the 
book (1 Sam. v. 5, vi. 18, xxx. 25; 2 Sam. iv. 3, 
vi. 8), in addition to the use of it in the passage 
already quoted, is too indefinite to prove anything, 
except that the writer who employed it lived sub 
sequently to the events he described. It is in- 
zdsquate to prove whether he lived three centuries, 
or only half a century, after those events. The 
same remark applies to the phrase, " Therefore it 
became a proverb, ' Is Saul among the Prophets?'" 
(1 Sam. x. 12), and to the verse, " Betbretime in 
Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus 
he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer : for he 
that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called 
a Seer" (1 Sam. ix. 9). In both cases it is not 
certain that the writer lived more than eighty years 
after the incidents to which he alludes. In like 
manner, the various traditions respecting the manner 
in which Saul first became acquainted with Davi<' 

has been suggested by Gesenius. Virgil seems to have 
been about 14 years of age when Lucretius's great poem 
was publiblie;'. 


(I Sam. xvi. 14-23, xvii. 55-58) respecting the 
manner of Saul's death (1 Sam. xxxi. 2-6, 8-13 ; 
2 Sam. i. 2-12) do not necessarily show that a 
very long time (say even a century) elapsed between 
the actual events and the record of the traditions. 
In an age anterior to the existence of newspapers or 
the invention of printing, and when probably few 
could read, thirty or forty years, or even less, have 
been sufficient for the growth of different traditions 
respecting the same historical fact. Lastly, internal 
evidence of language lends no assistance for discri 
mination in the period of 353 years within which 
the book may have been written; for the undis 
puted Hebrew writings belonging to that period 
are comparatively few, and not one of them is a 
history, which would present the best points of 
comparison. They embrace scarcely more than the 
writings of Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Nahum, 
and a certain portion of the writings under the 
title " Isaiah." The whole of these writings to 
gether can scarcely be estimated as occupying more 
than sixty pages of our Hebrew Bibles, and what 
ever may be their peculiarities of language or style, 
they do -not afford materials for a safe inference as 
to which of their authors was likely to have been 
contemporary with the author of the Book of Sa 
muel. All that can be asserted as undeniable is, 
that the book, as a whole, can scarcely have been 
composed later than the reformation of Josiah, and 
that it could not have existed in its present form 
earlier than the reign of Rehoboam. 

It is to be added that no great weight, in opposition 
to this conclusion, is due to the fact that the death 
of David, although in one passage evidently implied 
(2 Sam. v. 5), is not directly recorded in the Book 
of Samuel. From this fact Havernick (Einleitung 
in das Alte Testament, part ii., p. 145) deems it 
a certain inference that the author lived not long 
after the death of David. But this is a very slight 
foundation for such an inference, since we know 
nothing of the author's name, or of the circum 
stances under which he wrote, or of his precise 
ideas respecting what is required of an historian. 
We cannot, therefore, assert, from the knowledge of 
the character of his mind, that his deeming it logi 
cally requisite to make a formal statement of David's 
death would have depended on his living a short 
time 01 a long time after that event. Besides, it is 
very possible that he did formally record it, and 
that the mention of it was subsequently omitted on 
account of the more minute details by which the 
account of David's death is preceded in the First 
Book of Kings. There would have been nothing 
wrong in such an omission, nor indeed, in any addi 
tion to the Book of Samuel ; for, as those who 
finally inserted it in the Canon did not transmit it 
to posterity with the name of any particular author, 
their honesty was involved, not in the mere circum 
stance of their omitting or adding anything, but 
solely in the fact of their adding nothing which they 
believed to be false, and of omitting nothing of im 
portance which they believed to be true. 

In this absolute ignorance of the author's name, 
and vague knowledge of the date of the work, 
thera 1ms been a controversy whether the Book of 
Samuel is or is not a compilation from pre-existing 
documents ; and if this is decided in the affirmative, 
to what extent the work is a compilation. It is 
not intended to enter fully here into this contro 
versy, respecting which the reader is referred to Dr. 
Davidson's Introduction to the Critical Study and 
Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, London, Long 
man, 1856, in which this subject is dispassionately 


and fairly treated. One observation, howevei. of 
some practical importance, is to be borne in mind. 
It does not admit of much reasonable doubt that in 
the Book of Samuel there are two different accoioi ts 
(already alluded to) respecting Saul's first acquaint 
ance with David, and the circumstances of Saul's 
death and that yet the editor or author of the 
Book did not let his mind work upon these two 
different accounts so far as to make him interpose 
his own opinion as to which of the conflicting 
accounts was correct, or even to point out to the 
reader that the two accounts were apparently con 
tradictory. Hence, in a certain sense, and to a 
certain extent, the author must be regarded as a 
compiler, and not an original historian. And la 
reference to the two accounts of Saul's death, this 
i:> not the less true, even if the second account be 
deemed reconcileable with the first by the supposi 
tion that the Amalekite had fabricated the story of 
his having killed Saul (2 Sam. i. 6-10). Although 
possibly true, this is an unlikely supposition, be 
cause, as the Amalekite's object in a lie would have 
been to curry favour with David, it would have 
been natural for him to have forged some story 
which would have redounded more to his own credit 
than the clumsy and improbable statement that he, 
a mere casual spectator, had killed Saul at Saul's 
own request. But whether the Amalekite said 
what was true or what was false, an historian, as 
distinguished from a compiler, could scarcely have 
failed to convey his own opinion on the point, 
affecting, as on one alternative it did materially, 
the truth of the narrative which he had just before 
recorded respecting the circumstances under which 
Saul's death occurred. And if compilation is ad 
mitted in regard to the two events just mentioned, 
or to one of them, there is no antecedent improba 
bility that the same may have been the case in 
other instances ; such, for example, as the two expla 
nations of the proverb, " Is Saul also among the 
Prophets?" (1 Sam. x. 9-12, xix. 22-24), or the 
two accounts of David's haying forborne to take 
Saul's life, at the very time when he was a fugitive 
from Saul, and his own life was in danger from 
Saul's enmity (1 Sam. xxiv. 3-15, xxvi. 7-12). 
The same remark applies to what seem to be sum 
maries or endings of narratives by different write rs, 
such as 1 Sam. vii. 15-17, 1 Sam. xiv. 47-52, com 
pared with chapter xv. ; 2 Sam. viii. 15-18. In 
these cases, if each passage were absolutely isolated, 
and occurred in a work which contained no other 
instance of compilation, the inference to be drawn 
might be uncertain. But when even one instance 
of compilation has been clearly established in a 
work, all other seeming instances must be viewed 
in its light, and it would be unreasonable to contest 
each of them singly, on principles which imply that 
compilation is as unlikely as it would be in a work 
of modern, history. It is to be added, that as the 
author and the precise date of the Book of Samuel 
are unknown, its historical value is not impaired 
by its being deemed to a certain extent a compila 
tion. Indeed, from one point of view, its value is 
in this way somewhat enhanced ; as the probability 
is increased of its containing documents of an early 
date, some of which may have been written by 
persons contemporaneous, or nearly so, with the 
events described. 

Sources of the Book of Samuel. Assuming that 
the book is a compilation, it is a subject of rational 
inquiry to ascertain the materials from which it 
was composed. But our information on this hend 
is scanty. The only work actually quoted u this 1 


book is the Book of Jasher ; i. e. the Book of the 
Upright. Notwithstanding the great learning which 
has been brought to bear on this title by numerous 
commentators [vol. i. p. 932], the meaning of the 
title must be regarded as absolutely unknown, and 
the character of the book itself as uncertain. The 
best conjecture hitherto offered as an induction from 
facts is, that it was a Book of Poems ; but the facts 
are too few to establish this as a positive general 
conclusion. It is only quoted twice in the whole 
Bible, once as a work containing David's Lamenta 
tion over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 18), and 
secondly, as an authority for the statement that 
the sun and moon stood still at the command of 
Joshua (Josh. x. 13). There can be no doubt that 
the Lamentation of David is a poem ; and it is most 
probable that the other passage referred to as written 
in the Book of Jasher includes four lines of Hebrew 
poetry,* though the poetical diction and rhythm of 
the original are somewhat impaired in a translation. 
But the only sound deduction from these facts is, that 
the Book of Jasher contained some poems. What else 
it may have contained we cannot say , even negatively. 
Without reference, however, to the Book of Jasher, 
the Book of Samuel contains several poetical com 
positions, on each of which a few observations may 
be offered ; commencing with the poetry of David. 

(1.) David's Lamentation over Saul and Jonathan, 
called " The Bow." This extremely beautiful com 
position, which seems to have been preserved through 
David's having caused it to be taught to the chil 
dren of Judah (2 Sam. i. 18), is universally admitted 
to be the genuine production of David. In this 
respect, it has an advantage over the Psalms ; as, 
owing to the unfortunate inaccuracy of some of the 
inscriptions, no one of the Psalms attributed to 
David has wholly escaped challenge. One point in 
the Lamentation especially merits attention, that, 
contrary to what a later poet would have ventured 
to represent, David, in the generosity and tenderness 
of his nature, sounds the praises of Saul. 

(2.) David's Lamentation on the death of Abner 
(2 Sam. iii. 33, 34). There is no reason to doubt 
the genuineness of this short poetical ejaculation. 

(3.) 2 Sam. xxii. A Song of David, which is in 
troduced with the inscription that David spoke the 
words of the song to Jehovah, in the day that Je 
hovah had delivered him out of the hand of all his 
enemies and out of the hand of Saul. This song, 
with a few unimportant verbal differences, is merely 
the xviiith Psalm, which bears substantially the 
same inscription. For poetical beauty, the song is 
well worthy to be the production of David. The 
following difficulties, however, are connected with it. 

(a.) The date of the composition is assigned to 
the day when David had been delivered not only out 
of the hand of all his enemies, but likewise " out of 
the hand of Saul." Now David reigned forty years 
after Saul's death (2 Sam. v. 4, 5), and it was as 
king that he achieved the successive conquests to 
which allusion is made in the Psalm. Moreover, 
the Psalm is evidently introduced as composed at a 
late period of his life ; and it immediately precedes 
the twenty-third chapter, which commences with 
the passage, " Now these be the last words of David." 
It sounds strange, therefore, that the name of Saul 

e Any Hebrew scholar who will write out the original 
four lines commencing with " Sun, stand thou still upon 
Giheon !" may satisfy himself that they belong to a poem. 
The last line, " Until the people had avenged themselves 
upon their enemies," which in the A. V. is somewhat 
neavy, is almost unmistakeably a line of poetry in the 
uifrmul. In a narrative respecting the Israelites in prose 


should be introduced, whose hostility, so far distant 
in time, had been condoned, as it were, by David in 
his noble Lamentation. 

(6.) In the closing verse (2 Sam. xii. 51), J** 
hovah is spoken of as showing "mercy to His 
anointed, unto David and his seed for evermore.'' 
These words would be more naturally written o/ 
David than by David. They may, however, be a 
later addition ; as it may be observed that at the 
present day, notwithstanding the safeguard of print 
ing, the poetical writings of living authors, are 
occasionally altered, and it must be added disfigured, 
in printed hymn-books. Still, as far as they go, 
the words tend to raise a doubt whether the Psalm 
was written by David, as it cannot be proved that 
they are an addition. 

(c.) In some passages of the Psalm, the strongest 
assertions are made of the poet's uprightness and 
purity. He says of himself, " According to the 
cleanness of my hands hath He recompensed me. 
For I have kept the ways of Jehovah, and have not 
wickedly departed from my God. For all His judg 
ments were before me: and as for His statutes, I 
did not depart from them. I was also upright before 
Him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity" 
(xxii. 21-24). Now it is a subject of reasonable 
surprise that, at any period after the painful incidents 
of his life in the matter of Uriah, David should 
have used this language concerning himself. Ad 
mitting fully that, in consequence of his sincere 
and bitter contrition, "the princely heart of inno 
cence" may have been freely bestowed upon him, 
it is difficult to understand how this should have 
influenced him so far in his assertions respecting 
his own uprightness in past times, as to make him 
forget that he had once been betrayed by his passions 
into adultery and murder. These assertions, if 
made by David himself, would ferm a striking con 
trast to the tender humility and self-mistrust in 
connexion with the same subject by a great living 
genius of spotless character. (See ' Christian Year,' 
6th Sunday after Trinity ad finem.} 

(4.) A song, called " last words of David," 2 
Sam. xxiii. 2-7. According to the Inscription, it 
was composed by " David the son of Jesse, the man 
who was raised up on high, the anointed of the 
God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel." 
It is suggested by Bleek, and is in itself very pro 
bable, .that both the Psalm and the Inscription were 
taken from some collection of Songs or Psalms. 
There is not sufficient reason to deny that this song 
is correctly ascribed to David. 

(5.) One other song remains, which is perhaps 
the most perplexing in the Book of Samuel. This 
is the Song of Hannah, a wife of Elkanah (1 Sam. 
ii. 1-10). One difficulty arises from an allusion in 
verse 10 to the existence of a king, under Jehovah, 
many years before the kingly power was established 
among the Israelites. Another equally great diffi 
culty arises from the internal character of the song. 
It purports to be written by one of two wives as a 
song of thanksgiving for having borne a child, after 
a long period of barrenness, which had caused her 
to be looked down upon by the other wife of her 
husband. But, deducting a general allusion, in 
verse 5, to the barren having borne seven, there is 

they would not have been described as 1}$ (gfc), without 
even an article. Moreover, there is no other instance in 
which the simple accusative of the person on whom ven 
geance is taken is used after QpJ (nakom). lu simple 
prose f (min) intervenes, and, like the article, it may 
have been he ( c omitted for conciseness 


nothing in the song peculiarly applicable to the 
supposed circumstances, and by tar the greater 
portion of it seems to be a song of triumph for deli 
verance from powerful enemies in battle (vers. 1, 
4, 10). Indeed, Thenius does not hesitate to con 
jecture that it was written by David after he had 
slain Goliath, and the Philistines had been defeated 
in a great battle (Exegetisches Handbuch, p. 8). 
There is no historical warrant for this supposition ; 
but the song is certainly more appropriate to the 
victory of David over Goliath, than to Hannah's 
having given birth to a child under the circum 
stances detailed in the first chapter of Samuel. It 
would, however, be equally appropriate to some 
other great battles of the Israelites. 

In advancing a single step beyond the songs of 
the Book of Samuel, we enter into the region of 
conjecture as to the materials which were at the 
command of the author ; and in points which arise 
for consideration, we must be satisfied with a sus 
pense of judgment, or a slight balance of probabi 
lities. For example, it being plain that in some 
instances there are two accounts of the same trans 
action, it is desirable to form an opinion whether 
these were founded on distinct written documents, 
er on distinct oral traditions. This point is open 
to dispute ; but the theory of written documents 
seems preferable ; as in the alternative of mere 
oral traditions it would have been supereminently 
unnatural even for a compiler to record them 
without stating in his own person that there were 
different traditions respecting the same event. 
Again, the truthful simplicity and extraordinary 
vividness of some portions of the Book of Samuel 
naturally suggest the idea that they were founded 
on contemporary documents or a peculiarly trust 
worthy tradition. This applies specially to the 
account of the combat between David and Goliath, 
which has been the delight of successive genera 
tions, which charms equally in different ways the 
old and the young, the learned and the illiterate, 
and which Hem pts us to deem it certain that the 
account must have proceeded from an eye-witness. 
On the other hand, it is to be remembered that 
vividness of description often depends more on the 
discerning faculties of the narrator than on mere 
bodily presence. "It is the mind that sees," so 
that 200 years after the meeting of the Long Par 
liament a powerful imaginative writer shall pour- 
tray Cromwell more vividly than Ludlow, a con 
temporary who knew him and conversed with him. 
Moreover, Livy has described events of early Roman 
History which educated men regard in their details 
as imaginary ; and Defoe, Swift, and the authors of 
T/m Arabian Nights have described events which all 
men admit to be imaginary, with such seemingly 
authentic details, with such a charm of reality, 
movement, and spirit, that it is sometimes only by 
a strong effort of reason that we escape from the 
illusion that the narratives are true. In the absence, 
therefore, of any external evidence on this point, it is 
safer to suspend our judgment as to whether any por 
tion of the Book of Samuel is founded on the writing 
of a contemporary, or on a tradition entitled to any 
peculiar credit. Perhaps the two conjectures re 
specting the composition of the Book of Samuel 
which are most entitled to consideration are 1st. 
That the list which it contains of officers or public 
functionaries under David is the result of contem 
porary registration ; and 2ndly. That the Book 

f It is worthy of note that the prophet Ezckiel never 
Uieb the expression " Lord of Hosts." On the other baud, 


of Samuel was the compilation of some one con 
nected with the schools of the prophets, or pene 
trated by their spirit. On the first point, the 
reader is referred to such passages as 2 Sam. viii. 
16-18, and xx. 23-26, in regard to which one fact 
may be mentioned. It has already been stated 
[KiNG, p. 42] that under the Kings there existed 
an officer called Recorder, Remembrancer, or Chro 
nicler ; in Hebrew, mazkir. Now it can scarcely 
be a mere accidental coincidence that such an officer 
is mentioned for the first time in David's reign, 
and that it is precisely for David's reign that a list 
of public functionaries is for the first time trans 
mitted to us. On the second point, it cannot but be 
observed what prominence is given to prophets in 
the history, as compared with priests and Levites. 
This prominence is so decided, that it undoubtedly 
contributed towards the formation of the uncritical 
opinion that the Book of Samuel was the produc 
tion of the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad. 
This opinion is unsupported by external evidence, 
and is contrary to internal evidence ; but it is by 
no means improbable that some writers among the 
sons of the prophets recorded the actions of those 
prophets. This would be peculiarly probable in 
reference to Nathan's rebuke of David after the 
murder of Uriah. Nathan here presents the image 
of a prophet in its noblest and most attractive form. 
Boldness, tenderness, inventiveness, and tact, were 
combined in such admirable proportions, that a 
prophet's functions, if always discharged in a similar 
manner with equal discretion, would have been 
acknowledged by all to be purely beneficent. In 
his interposition there is a kind of ideal moral 
beauty. In the schools of the prophets he doubt 
less held the place which St. Ambrose afterwards 
held in the minds of priests for the exclusion of the 
Emperor Theodosius from the church at Milan after 
the massacre at Thessalonica. It may be added, 
that the following circumstances are in accordance 
with the supposition that the compiler of the Book 
of Samuel was connected with the schools of the 
j prophets. The designation of Jehovah as the " Lord 
of Hosts," or God of Hosts, does not occur in the 
Pentateuch, or in Joshua, or in Judges ; but it 
i occurs in the Book of Samuel thirteen times. In 
j the Book of Kings it occurs only seven times ; and 
j in the Book of Chronicles, as far as this is an ori- 
i ginal or independent work, it cannot be said to 
occur at all, for although it is found in three 
! passages, all of these are evidently copied from the 
I Book of Samuel. (See 1 Chr. xi. 9 in the original 
1 precisely the same words as in 2 Sam. v. 10 ; and 
see 1 Chr. xvii. 7, 24, copied from 2 Sam. vii. 8, 26.) 
i Now this phrase, though occurring so rarely else 
where in prose, that it occurs nearly twice as often 
in the Book of Samuel as in all the other historical 
writings of the Old Testament put together, is a 
very favourite phrase in some of the great pro- 
! phetical writings. In Isaiah it occurs sixty-two times 
j (six times only in the chapters xl.-lxvi.), and in Je- 
j remiah sixty-five times at least. Again, the predo 
minance of the idea of the prophetical office in 
Samuel is shown by the veiy subordinate place 
\ assigned in it to the Levites. The difference between 
J the Chronicles and the Book of Samuel in this 
! respect is even more striking than their difference 
in the use of the expression " Lord of Hosts;''* 
though in a reverse proportion. In the whole Book 
of Samuel the Levites are mentioned only twice 

there is no mention of the Levites in tha 
a-itings of Isaiali. 


(1 Sain. vi. 15; 2 Sam. xv. 24), while in Chro 
nicles they are mentioned above thirty times in the 
First Book alone, which contains the history of 
David's reign. 

In conclusion, it may be observed that it is very 
instructive to direct the attention to the passages in 
Samuel and the Chronicles which treat of the same 
events, and, generally, to the manner in which the 
life ot David is treated in the two histories. A 
comparison of the two works tends to throw light 
on the state of the Hebrew mind at the time when 
the Book of Samuel was written, compared with the 
ideas prevalent among the Jews some hundred years 
later, at the time of the compilation of the Chro- 
iiicles. Some passages correspond almost precisely 
word for word ; othei-s agree, with slight but signi 
ficant alterations. In some cases there are striking 
omissions ; in others there are no less remarkable 
additions. Without attempting to exhaust the sub 
ject, some of the differences between the two histories 
will Is now briefly pointed out ; though at the same 
tiii3 it is to be borne in mind that, in drawing in 
ferences from them, it would be useful to review 
likewise all the differences between the Chronicles 
and the Book of Kings. 

1. In 1 Sam. xxxi. 12, it is stated that the men 
of Jabesh Gilead took the body of Saul and the 
bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth-shan, and 
came to Jabesh and burnt them there. The com 
piler of the Chronicles omits mention of the burning 
of their bodies, and, as it would seem, designedly; 
for he says that the valiant men of Jabesh Gilead 
buried the bones of Saul and his sons under the oak 
in Jabesh ; whereas if there had been no burning, 
the natural expression would have been to have 
spoken of burying their bodies, instead of their 
bones. Perhaps the chronicler objected so strongly 
to the burning of bodies that he purposely refrained 
from recording such a fact respecting the bodies of 
Saul and his sons, even under the peculiar circum 
stances connected with that incident.* 

2. In the Chronicles it is assigned as one of the 
causes of Saul's defeat that he had asked counsel of 
one that had a familiar spirit, and "had not en 
quired of Jehovah" (1 Chr. x. 13, 14); whereas in 
Samuel it is expressly stated (1 Sam. xxviii. 6) that 
Saul had inquired of Jehovah before he consulted the 
witch of Endor, but that Jehovah had not answered 
him either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets. 

3. The Chronicles make no mention of the civil 
war between David and Ishbosheth the son of Saul, 
nor of Abner's changing sides, nor his assassination 
by Joab, nor of the assassination of Ishbosheth by 
Kechab and Baanah (2 Sam. ii. 8-32, iii., iv.). 

4. David's adultery with Bathsheba, the ex 
posure of Uriah to certain death by David's orders, 
the solemn rebuke of Nathan, and the penitence of 
David, are all passed over in absolute silence in the 
Chronicles (2 Sam. xi., xii. 1-25). 

5. In the account given in Samuel (2 Sam. vi. 
S-ll) of David's removing the Ark from Kirjath- 
jeorim, no special mention is made of the priests or 
Levites. David's companions are said, generally, 
to have been "all the people that were with him," 

g Tacitus re-cords it as a distinguishing custom of the 
J ews, " corpora condere quam cremare, ex more Aegyptio " 
(Hitt. v. 5). And it is certain that, in later times, they 
buried dead bodies, and did not burn them ; though, not 
withstanding the instance in Gen. 1. 2, they did not, 
Btrirt3y speaking, embalm them, like the Egyptians. 
And though it may be suspected, it cannot be proved, 
IJuat liiey ever burned their dead in early times. The 


and "all the house of Israel" are sail to have 
played before Jehovah on the occasion with all 
manner of musical instruments. In the coirespond- 
ing passage of the Chronicles (1 Chr. xiii. 1-14 v 
David is represented as having publicly proposed to 
send an invitation to the priests and Lfvites in 
their cities and " suburbs," and this is said to have 
been assented to by all the congregation. Again, 
in the preparations which are made for the I eception 
of the Ark of the Covenant at Jerusalem, nothing 
is said of the Levites in Samuel ; whereas in the 
Chronicles David is introduced as saying that none 
ought to carry the Ark of God but the Levites ; the 
special numbers of the Levites and of the children 
of Aaron are there given ; and names of Levites are 
specified as having been appointed singers and players 
on musical instruments in connexion with the Ark 
(1 Chr. xv., xvi. 1-6). 

6. The incident of David's dancing in public with 
all his might before Jehovah, when the Ark was 
brought into Jerusalem, the censorious remarks of 
his wife Michal on David's conduct, David's answer, 
and Michel's punishment, are fully set forth in 
Samuel (2 Sam. vi. 14-23) ; but the whole subject 
is noticed in one verse only in Chronicles (1 Chr. 
xv. 29). On the other hand, no mention is made 
in Samuel of David's having composed a Psalm on 
this great event ; whereas in Chronicles a Psalm \i 
set forth which David is represented as having deli 
vered into the hand of Asaph and his brethren on 
that day (1 Chr. xvi. 7-36). Of this Psalm the 
first fifteen verses are almost precisely the same as 
in Ps. cv. 1-15. The next eleven verses are the 
same as in Ps. xcvi. 1-11 ; and the next three con 
cluding verses are in Ps. cvi. 1, 47,48. The last 
verse but one of this Psalm (1 Chr. xvi. 35) appears 
to have been written at the time of the Captivity. 

7. It is stated in Samuel that David in his con 
quest of Moab put to death two-thirds either of the 
inhabitants or of the Moabitish army (2 Sam. 
viii 2). This fact is omitted in Chronicles (1 Chr. 
xviii. 2), though the words used therein in men 
tioning the conquest are so nearly identical with the 
beginning and the end of the passage in Samuel, 
that in the A. V. there is no difference in the 
translation of the two texts, " And he smote Moab r 
and the Moabites became David's servants, and 
brought gifts." 

8. In 2 Sam. xxi. 19, it is stated that "there was 
battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan 

the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite (in the ori 
ginal Beit hat-lachmi), slew Goliath the Gittite, the 
staff.of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." In 
the parallel passage in the Chronicles (1 Chr. xx. 
5) it is stated that " Elhanan the son of Jair slew 
Lachmi the brother of GolLith the Gittite." Thus 
Lachmi, which in the former case is merely part ot 
an adjective describing Elhanan 's place of nativity, 
seems in the Chronicles to be the substantive name 
of the man whom Elhanan slew, and is so translated 
in the LXX. [ELHANAN, i. 520 ; LAHMI, ii. 55.] 

9. In Samuel (2 Sam. xxiv. 1) it is stated that, 
the anger of Jehovah having been kindled against 
Israel, He moved David against them to give orders 

passage in Am. vi 10 is ambiguous. It may merely refer 
to the burning of bodies, as a sanitary precaution in a 
plague; but it \e not undoubted that burning is alluded 
to. See Ftirst, *. v. 5pD. The burning for Asa (2 Cnr 

. 14) Is different from the burning of his body. Compare 
Jtr. xxxiv. 5; 2 Chr. X xi. 19, 20; Joseph. Ant. xv. 3, $4 
De Sell Jud. i. 33, $9 


for taKing a census of the population. In the 
Chronicles (1 Chr. xxi. 1) it is mentioned that 
David was provoked to take a census of the popu 
lation by Satan. This last is the first and the only 
instance in which thp name of Satan is introduced 
into any historical book of the Old Testament. In 
the Pentateuch Jehovah Himself is represented as 
hardening Pharaoh's heart (Ex. vii. 13), as in this 
passage of Samuel He is said to have incited David to 
give orders for a census. 

10. la the incidents connected with the three 
days' pestilence upon Israel on account of the census, 
some facts of a very remarkable character are nar 
rated in the Chronicles, which are not mentioned, in 
the earlier histoiy. Thus in Chronicles it is s'^tt-^i 
of the Angel of Jehovah, that he stood between the 
enrth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his 
hand stretched over Jerusalem ; that afterwards 
Jehovah commanded the angel, and that the angel 
put up again his sword into its sheath k (1 Chr. 
xxi. 15-27). It is further stated (ver. 20) that 
Oman and his four sons hid themselves when they 
saw the angel ; and that when David (ver. 26) had 
built an altar to Jehovah, and offered burnt-offer 
ings to Him, Jehovah answered him from heaven by 
fire upon the altar of burnt-offering. Regarding all 
these circumstances there is absolute silence in the 
corresponding chapter of Samuel. 

1 1. The Chronicles make no mention of the hor 
rible fact mentioned in the Book of Samuel (2 Sam. 
xxi. 3-9) that David permitted the Gibeonites to 
sacrifice seven sons of Saul to Jehovah, as an atone 
ment for the injuries which the Gibeonites had 
formerly received from Saul. This barbarous act 
of superstition, which is not said to have been com 
manded by Jehovah (ver. 1) is one of the most 
painful incidents in the life of David, and can 
scarcely be explained otherwise than by the supposi 
tion either that David seized this opportunity to 
rid himself of seven possible rival claimants to the 
throne, or that he was, for a while at least, infected 
by the baleful example of the Phoenicians, who en 
deavoured to avert the supposed wrath of their gods 
by human sacrifices [PHOENICIA]. It was, per 
haps, wholly foreign to the ideas of the Jews at the 
time when the Book of Chronicles was compiled. 

It only remains to add, that in the numerous 
rastances wherein there is a close verbal agreement 
between passages in Samuel and in the Chronicles, 
the sound conclusion seems to be that the Chro 
nicles were copied from Samuel, and not that both 
were copied from a common original. In a matter 
of this kind, we must proceed upon recognised 
principles of criticism. If a writer of the 3rd or 
4th century narrated events of Roman history almost 
precisely in the words of Livy, no critic would he 
sitate to say that all such narratives were copied 
frcm Livy. It would be regarded as a very impro 
bable hypothesis that they were copied from docu 
ments to which Livy and the later historian had 
equal access, especially when no proof whatever was 
adduced that anv such original documents were in 
existence at the time of the later historian. The 
mm principle applies to the relation in which the 
Chronicles stand to the Book of Samuel. There is 
not a particle of proof' that the original documents, 
or any one of them, on which the Book of Samuel 
was founded were in existence at the time when the 

h The statue of the archangel Michael on the top of the 
anusoleum of Hadrian at Rome is in accordance with thf 



Chronicles were compiled ; and in the absence oi 
such proof, it must be taken for granted that, where 
there is a close verbal correspndenoi between the 
two works, the compiler ol the Chronicles copied 
passages, more or less closely, from the Book of 
Samuel. At the same time it would be unreason 
able to deny, and it would be impossible to dis 
prove, that the compiler, in addition to the Book of 
Samuel, made use of other historical documents 
which are no longer in existence. 

Literature. The following list of Commentaries 
is given by De Wette: Serrarii, Seb. Schmidii, 
Jo. Clerici, Maur. Commentt. ; Jo. Drusii, An- 
notatt. in Locos diffic. Jos., Jud., et Sam. ; Vic- 
torini, Strigelii, Comm. in Libr. Sam., Reg., et Pa 
ralipp., Lips. 1591, fol. ; Casp. Sanctii, Comm. in 
IV. Lib. Reg. et Paralipp., 1624, fol. ; Hensler, 
Erlauterungen des I. B. Sam. u. d. Salom. Denk- 
spriiche, Hamburg, 1795. The best modern Com 
mentary seems to be that of Thenius, Exegetisches 
Handbuch, Leipzig, 1842. In this work there is 
an excellent Introduction, and an interesting de 
tailed comparison of the Hebrew text in the Bible 
with the Translation of the Septuagint. There are 
no Commentaries on Samuel in Rosenmiiller's great 
work, or in the Compendium of his Scholia. 

The date of the composition of the Book of Samuel 
and its authorship is discussed in all the ordinary 
Introductions to the Old Testament such as those 
of Home, Havernick, Keil, De Wette, which have 
been frequently cited in this work. To these may 
be added the following works, which have ap 
peared since the first volume of this Dictionary was 
printed : Bleek's Einleitung in das Alie Testament, 
Berlin, 1860, pp. 355-368; Stahelin's Specielle 
Einleitung in die Kanonischen Biicher des Alien 
Testaments, Elberfeld, 1862, pp. 83-105 ; David 
son's Introduction to the Old Testament, London 
and Edinburgh, 1862, pp. 491-53tf. [E. T.] 

SANABAS'SAR (2anavd<r<rapos ; Alex. 2ava- 
fid(T<rupos : Salmanasarus}. SHESHBAZZAR (1 Esd. 
ii. 12, 15 ; comp. Ezr. 5. 8,'ll). 

SANABAS'SARUS (2o/3a/ocro-apoj ; Alex. 
2aj/aj8ao-<rapoy : Salmanasarus). SHESHBAZZAR 
(1 Esd. vi. 18, 20 ; comp. Ezr. v. 14, 16). 

SAN'ASIB (SarafrfjS ; Alex. 'Awwei'0: Eli- 
asib). The sons of Jeddu, the son of Jesus, are 
reckoned " among the sons of Sanasib," as priests 
who returned with Zorobabel (1 Esd. v. 24). 

SANBAL'LAT (D;>13D : SovaflaAAar : Sana- 
ballot'). Of uncertain etymology ; according to Gese- 
nius after von Bohlen, meaning in Sanscrit " giving 
strength to the army," but according to Ftirst " a 
chestnut tree." A Moabite of Horonaim, as appears 
by his designation " Sanballat the Horonite " (Nth. 
ii. 10, 19, xiii. 28). All that we know of him 
from Scripture is that he had apparently some civil 
or military command in Samaria, in the service of 
Artaxerxes (Neh. iv. 2), and that, from the moment 
of Nehemiah's arrival in Judaea, he set himself to 
oppose every measure for the welfare of Jerusalem, 
and was a constant adversary to the Tirshaiha. 
His companions in this hostility were Tobiah the 
Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian (Neh. ii. 19, 
iv. 7). For the details of their cppcsition the 
reader is referred to the articles NEH EMI AH and 

as b is supposed to be represented in the statue. It IE 
owing to this that the fortress subsequently had the iaiu 

eamo idea In a procession to St. Peter's, dur'.5 a pes- i of the Castle of St. Angelo. See Murray's Haarulbook fm 
,., <;,-, .fr.jry the Great saw the archangel in n vision, i /.'/wie. r>. 67. 6th edit. 1862 



NEHEMIAH, BOOK OF, and to Neh. vi., where the 
enmity between Sanballat and the Jews is brought 
out in the strongest colours. The only other inci 
dent in his life is his alliance with the high-priest'; 
family by the marriage of his daughter with one 
of the grandsons of Eliashib, which, from the 
similar connexion formed by Tobiah the Ammonite 
(Neh. xiii. 4), appears to have been part of a 
settled policy concerted between Eliashib and the 
Samaritan faction. The expulsion from the priest 
hood of the guilty son of Joiada by Nehemiah 
must have still further widened the breach between 
h'in and Sanballat, and between the two parties in 
the Jewish state. Here, however, the Scriptural 
narrative ends owing, probably, to Nehemiah' s 
return to Persia and with it likewise our know 
ledge of Sanballat. 

But on turning to the pages of Josephus a 
wholly nev set jf actions, in a totally different 
time, is b\ ought before us in connexion with San 
ballat, while his name is entirely omitted in the 
account there given of the government of Nehe- 
miah, which is placed in the reign of Xerxes. 
Josephus, after interposing the whole reign of 
Artaxerxes Longimanus between the death of Nehe- 
miah and the transactions in which Sanballat took 
part, and utterly ignoring the very existence of Darius 
\othus, Artaxerxes Mnemon, Ochus, &c., jumps 
At once to the reign of " Darius the last king," 
and tells us (Ant. xi. 7, 2) that Sanballat was his 
officer in Samaria, that he was a Cuthean, *'. e. a 
Samaritan, by birth, and that he gave his daughter 
Nicaso in marriage to Manasseh, the brother of the 
high-priest Jaddua, and consequently the fourth in 
descent from Eliashib, who was high-priest in the 
time of Nehemiah. He then relates that on the 
threat of his brother Jaddua and the other Jews to 
expel him from the priesthood unless he divorced 
his wife, Manasseh stated the case to Sanballat, 
who thereupon promised to use his influence with 
king Darius, not only to give him Sariballat's 
government, but to sanction the building of a rival 
temple on Mount Gerizim of which Manasseh 
should be tlie high-priest. Manasseh on this agreed 
to retain his wife and join Sariballat's faction, 
which was further strengthened by the accession 
of all those priests and Levites (and they were 
many) who had taken strange wives. But just 
at this time happened the invasion of Alexander 
the Great ; and Sanballat, with 7000 men, joined 
him, and renounced his allegiance to Darius (Ant. 
xi. 8, 4). Being favourably received by the con 
queror, he took the opportunity of speaking to him 
in behalf of Manasseh. He represented to him how 
Touch it was for his interest to divide the strength 
of the Jewish nation, and how many there were who 
wished for a temple in Samaria; and so obtained 
Alexanders pel-mission to build the temple on 
Mount Gerizim, and make Manasseh the heredi 
tary high-priest. Shortly after this, Sanballat died ; 

He says that Alexander appointed Andromachus 
goverfior of Judea and the neighbouring districts ; that 
the Samaritans murdered him; and that Alexander on 
his return took Samaria in revenge, and settled a colony 
of Macedonians in it, and the inhabitants of Samaria 
retired to Sichem. 

b Such a time, e. g., as when the Book of Ecclesiasticus 
was written, in which we read (ch. 1. 25, 26), " There be 
two manner of nations which mine heart abliorreth, and 
tae third Is no nation : they that sit upon the mountain 
of Samaria, and they that dwell among the Philistines, 
pnd tlat foolish people that dwell in Sichem." 


but the temple on Mount Gerizim remained, and 
the Shechemites, as they were called, continued 
also as a permanent schism, which was continually 
fed by all the lawless and disaffected Jews. Such 
is Jcsephus's account. If there is any truth in it, 
of course the Sanballat of whom he speaks is a 
different person from the Sanballat of Nehemiah, 
who flourished fully one hundred years earlier ; 
but when we put together Josephus's silence con 
cerning a Sanballat in Nehemiah's time, and the 
many coincidences in the lives of the Sanballat ot 
Nehemiah and that of Josephus, together with the 
inconsistencies in Josephus's narrative (pointed out 
by Prideaux, Connect, i. 466, 288, 290), and 
its disagreement with what Eusebius tells of the 
relations of Alexander with Samaria* (Ckron. Can. 
lib. post. p. 346), and remember how apt Jose 
phus is to follow any narrative, no matter how 
anachronistic and inconsistent with Scripture, we 
shall have no difficulty in concluding that his ac 
count of Sanballat is not historical. It is doubt 
less taken from some apocryphal romance, now 
lost, in which the writer, living under the em 
pire of the Greeks, and at a time when the 
enmity of the Jews and Samaritans was at its 
height, b chose the downfall of the Persian empire 
for the epoch, and Sanballat for the ideal instru 
ment, of the consolidation of the Samaritan Church 
and the erection of the temple on Gerizim. To 
borrow events from some Scripture narrative and 
introduce some Scriptural personage, without any 
regard to chronology or other propriety, w;is 
the regular method of such apocryphal books. 
See 1 Esdras, apocryphal Esther, apocryphal addi 
tions to the Book of Daniel, and the articles on 
them, and the story inserted by the LXX. after 
2 K. xii. 24, &c., with the observations on it at 
p. 91 of this volume. To receive as historical 
Josephus's narrative of the building of the Sa 
maritan temple by Sanballat, circumstantial as it 
is in its account of Manasseh's relationship to 
Jaddua, and Sanballat's intercourse with both 
Darius Codomanus and Alexander the Great, and 
yet to transplant it, as Prideaux does, to the 
time of Darius Nothus (B.C. 409), seems scarcely 
compatible with sound criticism. For a further 
discussion of this subject, see the article NEHE 
MIAH, BOOK or, p. 491 ; Prideaux, Connect, i. 
395-6 ; Geneal. of our Lord, p. 323, &c. ; Mill's 
Vindic^ of our Lord's Geneal. p. 165; Hales's 
Analys. ii. 534. [A. C. H.] 

SANDAL ( : uir^/ia, aavSd\tov}. The 
sandal appears to have been the article ordinarily 
used by the Hebrews for protecting the feet. It 
consisted simply of a sole attached to the foot by 
thongs. The Hebrew term wa'a/ c implies such an 
article, its proper sense being that of confining or 
shutting in the foot with thongs : we have aiso 
xpress notice of the thong d ("?p"lb> ; 1/j.ds ; A. V. 

In the A. V. this term is invariably rendered " shoes." 
There is, however, little reason to' think that the Jews 
really wore shoes, and the expressions which Carpzov 
(Apparat. pp. 781, 782) quotes to prove that they did 
(viz. " put the blood of war in his shoes," 1 K. ii. 5; "make 
men go over in shoes," Is. xi. 15), are equally adapted to 
the sandal the first signifying that the blood was sprinkled 
tke thong of the sandal, the second that men shouul 
cross the river on foot instead of in boats. The shoe* 
found in Egypt probably belonged to Greeks (Wilkinson, 
i. 333). 
d The terms applied tc tiie removal of the shoe (r?ft* 


shor-latchet") in several passages (jien. xiv. 23; 
Is. v. 27 ; Mark i. 7). The Greek term uir6S-rjfMa 
properly applies to the sandal exclusively, as it 
means what is bound under the foot ; but no stress 
can be laid on the use of the term by the Alexan 
drine writers, as it was applied to any covering of 
the foot, even to the military caliga of the Romans 
(Joseph. B. J. vi. i, 8). A similar observation 
applies to (rav8oi\iov, which is used in a general, 
and not in its strictly classical sense, and was adopted 
in a Hebraized form by the Talmudists. We have 
no description ot the sandal in the Bible itself, but 
the deficiency can be supplied from collateral sources. 
Thus we learn froni the Talmudists that the ma 
terials employed in the construction of the sole 
were either leather, felt, cloth, or wood (M<s?bn, 
Jebam. 12, 1, 2), and that it was occasionally 
shod with iron (Sabb. 6, 2). In Egypt various 
fibrous substances, such as palm leaves and p ipyrus 
svalks, were used in addition to eather (Hrrod. ii. 
37; Wilkinson, ii. 332, 333), while in Assyria, 
wood or leather was employed (Layard, Nin. ii. 
323, 324). In Egypt the sandals were usually 
turned up at the toe like our skates, though other 
forms, rounded and pointed, are also exhibited. In 
Assyria the heel and the side of the foot were en 
cased, and sometimes the sandal consisted of little 
else than this. This does not appear to have been 



Assyrian Sandals. (From Layard, iu 234.) 

the case in Palestine, for a heel-strap was essential 
to a proper sandal (Jebam. 12, 1). Great atten 
tion was paid by the ladies to their sandals ; they 
were made of the skin of an animal, named tachash 
(Ez. xvi. 1C), whether a hyena or a seal (A. V. 
" badger "), is doubtful : the skins of a fish (a 
species of Halicore) are used for this purpose in the 
peninsula of Sinai (Robinson, Bib. Res. i. 116). 
The thongs were handsomely embroidered (Cant, 
vii. 1 ; Jud. x. 4, xvi. 9), as were those of the 
Greek ladies (Diet, of Ant. s. v. " Sandalium "). San 
dals were worn by all classes of society in Palestine, 
even by the very poor (Am. viii. 6), and both the san 
dal and the thong or shoe-latchet were so cheap and 
common, that they passed into a proverb for the most 
insignificant thing (Gen. xiv. 23 ; Ecclus. xlvi. 19). 
They were not, however, worn at all periods ; they 
were dispensed with in-doors, and were only put 
on by persons about to undertake some business 
away from their homes ; such as a military expe 
dition (Is. v. 27 ; Eph. vi. 15), or a journey (Ex. 
sii. 11; Josh. ix. 5, 13; Acts xii. 8): on such 
occasions persons carried an extra pair, a practice 
which our Lord objected to as far as the Apostles 

Deut. xxv. 10; Ip xx. 2; and ff?&, Ruth iv. 7) imply 
thai the thongs were either so numerous or so broad as 
almost to cover the top of the foot. 

v/ere concerned (Matt. x. 10 ; compare Mark vi. ft, 
and the expression in L\.ke x. 4, "do not carry," 
which harmonizes the passages). An extra pair 
might in certain cases be needed, as the soles were 
liable to be soon worn out (Josh. ix. 5), or the 
thongs to be broken (Is. v. 27). During meal 
times the feet were undoubtedly uncovered, as im 
plied in Luke vii. 38 ; John xiii. 5, 6, and in the 
exception specially made in reference to the Pasch'i; 
feast (Ex. xii. 11): the same custom must have 
prevailed wherever reclining at meals was practised 
(comp. Plato, Sympos. p. 213). It was a mark of 
reverence to cast oft' the shoes in approaching a place 
or person of eminent sanctity: 8 hence the com 
mand to Moses at the bush (Ex. iii. 5) and to 
Joshua in the presence of the angel (Josh. v. 15). 
In deference to these injunctions the priests are said 
to have conducted their ministrations in the Temple 
barefoot (Theodoret, ad Ex. iii. quaest. 7), and the 
Talmudists even forbade any person to pass through 
the Temple v/ith shoes on (Mishn. Berach. 9, 5). 
This reverential act was not peculiar to the Jews : 
in ancient times we have instances of it in the 
worship of Cybele at Rome (Prudent. Peris. 154), 
in the worship of Isis as represented in a picture at 
Herculaneum (Ant. d'Ercol. ii. 320), and in the 
practice of the Egyptian priests, according to Sil. 
Ital. iii. 28. In modern times we may compare the 
similar practice of the Mohammedans of Palestine 
before entering a mosk ( Robinson's Researches, ii. 
36), and particularly before entering the Kaaba at 
Mecca (Burckhardt's Arabia, i. 270), of the Yezidis 
of Mesopotamia before entering the tomb of their 
patron saint (Layard's Nin. i. 282), and of the Sa 
maritans as they tread the summit of Mount Ge- 
rizim (Robinson, ii. 278). The practice of the 
modern Egyptians, who take off' their shoes before 
stepping on to the carpeted leewdn, appears to be 
dictated by a feeling of reverence rather than clean 
liness, that spot being devoted to prayer (Lane, 
i. 35). It was also an indication of violent emotion, 
or of mourning, if a person appeared barefoot in 
public (2 Sam. xv. 30; Is. xx. 2; Ez. xxiv. 
17, 23). This again was held in common with 
other nations, as instanced at the funeral of Au 
gustus (Suet. Aug. 100), and on the occasion of 
the solemn processions which derived their name of 
Nudipedalia from this feature (Tertull. Apol. 40). 
To carry or to unloose a person's sandal was a me 
nial office betokening great inferiority on the part 
of the person performing it ; it was hence selected 
by John the Baptist to express his relation to the 
Messiah (Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 7; John i. 27; 
Acts xiii. 25). The expression in Ps. Ix. 8, cviii. 
9, " over Edom will I cast out my shoe," evidently 
signifies the subjection of that country, but the 
exact point of the comparison is obscure ; for it may 
refer either to the custom of handing the sandal tc 
a slave, or to that of claiming possession of a pro 
perty by planting the foot on it, or of acquiring it 
by the symbolical action of casting the shoe, or 
again, Edom rr^y be regarded in the still more sub 
ordinate position of a shelf on which the candals 
were rested while their owner bathed his feet. The 
use of the shou in the transfer of property is noticed 
n Ruth iv. 7, 8, and a similar significancy was 
attached to the act in connexion with the repudia 
tion of a Levirate marriage (Deut. xxv. 9). Shoe* 

e It Is worthy of observation that the terra used fci 
'putting off" the shoes on these occasions is peailia 
%) and conveys the notion of violence and haste, 



making, or rather strap-making (. e. making the 
straps for the sandals), was a recognised trade among 
the Jews (Mishn. Pesach. 4, 6). [W. L. B.] 


is not a perfect agreement among the teamed 
The nearly unanimous opinion of the Jews is given 
in the Mishna (Sanhedr: i. 6) : "the great San- 

SAN'HEDRIM (accurately Sanhedrin,|mniD, h , edrim con /lf ted L f se nt 7- one judges How is 
, J ':-.:- ; this proved? From Num. xi. 16, where it is 

formed from w&piov. the attempts of the Rab- ^ t ther unto me seventy men of the e]ders of 

bins to find a Hebrew etymology are idle ; Buxtorf, - 
Lex. Chald. s. v.), called also in the Talmud the 
great Sanhedrin, the supreme council of the Jewish 

people in the time of Christ and earlier. In the 

Mishna it is also styled 
of judgment." 

JV2, Beth Din, "house 

1. The origin of this assembly is traced in the 

Israel.' To these add Moses, and we have seventv- 

one. Nevertheless R. Judaii 


seventy." The same difference made by the addi 
tion or exclusion of Moses, appears in the works 
of Christian writers, which accounts for the varia 
tion in the books between seventy and seventy- 
one. Baronius, however (Ad Ann. 31, H/ and 

Mishna (Sanhedr. i. 6) to the seventy elders I many other Roman Catholic writers, together with 
whom Moses was directed (Num. xi. 16, 17) to j not a few Protestants, as Drusius, Grotius, Pri- 
associate with him in the government of the j deaux, Jahn, Bretschneider, etc., hold that the true 
Israelites. This body continued to exist, according { number was seventy-two, on the ground that Eldad 
to the Rabbinical accounts, down to the close ( and Medad, on whom it is expressly said the Spirit 
of the Jewish commonwealth. Among Christian ' rested (Num. xi. 26), remained in the camp, and 
writers Schickhard, Isaac Casaubon, Salmasius, j should be added to the seventy (see Hartmann, 
Selden, and Grotius have held the same view, j Verbindung des A. T. p. 182 ; Selden, De Synedr. 
Since the time of Vorstius, who took the ground j lib. ii. cap. 4). Between these three numbers, 
(De Synhedriis, 25-40) that the alleged identity j that given by the prevalent Jewish tradition is 
between the assembly of seventy elders mentioned i certainly to be preferred ; but if, as we have 
in Num. xi. 16, 17, and the Sanhedrim which j seen, there is really no evidence for the identity 
existed in the later period of the Jewish common- | of the seventy elders summoned by Moses, and 
wealth, was simply a conjecture of the Rabbins, and the Sanhedrim existing after the Babylonish cap- 
that there are no traces of such a tribunal in Deut. j tivity, the argument from Num. xi. 16 in respect 
xvii. 8, 10, nor in the age of Joshua and the judges, to the number of members of which the latter 
nor during the reign of the kings, it has been gener- body consisted, has no force, and we are left, as 
ally admitted that the tribunal established by Moses ! Keil maintains (Archaologie, ii. 259), without 

was probably temporary, and did not continue to 
exist after the Israelites had entered Palestine (Winer, 
Realworterb. art. " Synedrium "). 

In the lack of definite historical information as w&g chosen on ^^ ^ eminence - 
to the establishment of the Sanhedrim it can , ^ ^^ Qf ^ n thig 

only_be said in general that the Greek etymology | eminence was ^.^ fo th( f hi(rh .J. iest . f hat 

any certain information on the point. 

The president of this body was styled 
Nasi, and, according to Maimonides and Lightfoot, 

, i , . . A J T_ CJXllllCtl^C W*> <H_,^U1UCU. L\J L11C ZUilll-Ul 1COU. 11C&L 

of the name seems to point to a period subse- | ^ h . fc ed condemnation of 

quent to the Macedonian supremacy in Palestine. ^^ ^ . g ^ from thg ^^^ 

tive. The vice-president, called in the Talmud 
1*1 n^ll 3X, "father of the house of judgment," 
sat at the right hand of the president. Some writers 

Livy expressly states (xiv. 32), " pronuntiatum 
quod ad statum Macedoniae pertiuebat, senatores, 
quos synedros vocant, legendos esse, quorum con- 
silio respublica administraretur." The fact that 

Herod, when procurator of Galilee, was sum- i speak of a second vice-president, styled 

moned before the Sanhedrim (B.C. 47) on the 
ground that in puttin men to death he had 

< 4 wise> bufc this is not su ffi cient ly confirmed fsee 
Se \den, De Synedr. ^. 15G, seq.\ The Babylonian 


, . . , . 

usurped the authority of the body (Jos. Ant. xiv. , Gemara states that there were two scribes, one ot 
9, 4) shows that it then possessed much power whom registered the votes for ucq uittal, the other 

and was not of very recent origin. If the yepov- 
(rla TUV 'lovoaioov, in 2 Mace. i. 10, iv. 44, xi. 27, 
designates the Sanhedrim as it probably does 
this is the earliest historical trace of its existence. 
On these grounds the opinion of Vorstius, Witsius, 
Winer, Keil, and others, may be regarded as pro 
bable, that the Sanhedrim described in the Talmud 
arose after the return of the Jews from Babylon, 
and in the time of the Seleucidae or of the Hasmo- 
iean princes. 

In the silence of Philo, Josephus, and the Mishna 
respecting the constitution of the Sanhedrim, we 
are obliged to depend upon the few incidental 

notices in the New Testament. 
gather that it consisted of 

From these we 

priests, or the heads of the twenty-four classes 
into which the priests wer divided (including, 
probably, those who had beer, high -priests), 

., elders, men of age and experience, and 
?s, scribes, lawyers, or those learned in 
the Jewish law (Matt. xxvi. 57, 59 ; Mark xv. 1 ; 
Luke xxii. 66 ; Acts v. 21). 

2. The number of members is usually given as 

those for condemnation. In Matt. xxvi. 58 ; 
Mark xiv. 54, &c., the lictors or attendants of 
the Sanhedrim are referred to under the name o 
vinr]piETai. While in session the Sanhedrim sat h/ 
the form of a half circle (Gem. Hieros. Const, vii. 
ad Sanhedr. i.), with all which agrees the state 
ment of Maimonides (quoted by Vorstius): "him 
who excels all others in wisdom they appoint head 
over them and head of the assembly. And he it 
is whom the wise everywhere call NASI, and he is 
in the place of our master Moses. Likewise him 
who is the oldest among the seventy, they place 
on the right hand, and him they call ' father of 
the house of judgment.' The rest of the seventy 
sit before these two, according to their dignity, in 
the form of a semicircle, so that the president and 
vice-president may have them all in sight." 

3. The place in which the sessions of the San 
hedrim were ordinarily held was, according to the 
Talmud, a hall called JTJ3, Gazzith (Sanhedr. x.), 
supposed by Lightfoot ( Works, i. 2005) to have 
been situated in the south-east corner of one cf tlit 

seventy-owe, but this is a point on which there [couits near the Temple building. In special 


gencies, however, it seems to have met in the 
residence of the high-priest (Matt. xxvi. 3). Forty 
years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and con 
sequently while the Saviour was teaching in Pales 
tine, the sessions of the Sanhedrim were removed 
from the hall Gazzith to a somewhat greater 
distance from the temple building, although still 
on Mt. Moriah (Abod. Zara i. Gem. Babyl. ad 
Sanhedr. v.). After several other changes, its 
seat was finally established at Tiberias (Liglitfoot, 
Works, ii. 365). 

As a judicial body the Sanhedrim constituted a 
supreme court, to which belonged in the first 
instance the trial of a tribe fallen into idolatry, 
false prophets, and the high-priest (Mishna, San- 
liedr. i.) ; also the other priests (Middoth, v.). 
As an administrative council it determined other 
;mportant matters. Jesus was arraigned before 
this body as a false prophet (John xi. 47), and 
Peter, John, Stephen, and Paul as teachers of 
error and deceivers of the people. From Acts ix. 
2 it appears that the Sanhedrim exercised a degree 
of authority beyond the limits of Palestine. Ac 
cording to the Jerusalem Gemara (quoted by 
Selden, lib. ii. c. 15, 11), the power of inflicting 
capital punishment was taken away from this 
tribunal forty yeai-s before the destruction of Jeru 
salem. With this agrees the answer of the Jews 
to Pilate (John xix. 31), " It is not lawful for us 
to put any man to death." Beyond the arrest, 
trial, and condemnation of one convicted of vio 
lating the ecclesiastical law, the jurisdiction of 
the Sanhedrim at the time could not be extended ; 
the confirmation and execution of the sentence in 
capital cases belonged to the Roman procurator. 
The stoning of Stephen (Acts vii. 56, &c.) is only 
an apparent exception, for it was either a tu 
multuous procedure, or, if done by order of the 
Sanhedrim, was an illegal assumption of power, 
as Josephus (Ant. xx. 9, 1) expressly declares the 
execution of the Apostle James during the absence 
of the procurator to have been (Winer, Eeatwb. 
art. " Synedrium "). 

The Talmud also mentions a lesser Sanhedrim of 
twenty-three members in every city in Palestine in 
which were not less than 120 householders ; but 
respecting these judicial bodies Josephus is entirely 

The leading work on the subject is Selden, De 
Synedriis et Praefccturis Juridicis veterum Ebrae- 
orum, Lond. 1650, Amst. 1679, 4to. It exhibits 
immense learning, but introduces much irrelevant 
matter, and is written in a heavy and unattractive 
style. The monographs of Vorstius and Witsius, 
contained in Ugolini's Thesauri, vol. xxv. are able 
and judicious. The same volume of Ugolini con 
tains also the Jerusalem and Babylonian Gemaras, 
along with the Mishna on the Sanhedrim, with 
which may be compared Duo Tituli Talmudici 
Sanhedrin et Maocoth, ed. Jo. Coch, Amst. 1629, 
4to., and Maimouides, De Sanhedriis et Poenis, 
ed. Routing. Amst. 1695, 4to. Hartmann, Die 
Verbindung des Alien Testaments mit dem Neuen. 
Hainb. 1831, 8vo., is worthy of consultation, and 
for a compressed exhibition of the subject, Winer, 
Realwb. and Keil, Arckaeolojie. [G. D. E.] 

SANSAN'NAH (njWD : SefleiW* ; Alex. 
'S.avffavva: Sensenna}. One of the towns in the 
south district of Judah, named in Josh. xv. 31 only. 
The towns of this district are not distributed into 
rxnaii groups, like those of the highlands or the 



Shefelah ; and as only very few of them have beer, 
yet identified, we have nothing to guide us to tht 
position of Sansannah. It can hardly have had any 
connexion with KiKJATH-SANNAH (Kirjath-Sepher, 
or Debir), which was probably near Hebron, man} 
miles to the north of the most northern position 
possible for Sansannah. It does not appear to It 
mentioned by any explorer, ancient or modern. 
Gesenius (Tlies. 962) explains the name to mean 
" palm branch ;" but this is contradicted by Fiirst 
(Hwb. ii. 88), who derives it from a root which 
signifies " writing." The two propositions are pro 
bably equally wide of the mark. The conjectuie 
of Schwarz that it was at Simsim, on the valley of 
the same name, is less feasible than usual. 

The termination of the name is singular (comp. 

By comparing the list of Josh. xv. 26-32 with 
those in xix. 2-7 and 1 Chr. iv. 28-33, it will be 
seen that Beth-marcaboth and Hazar-susim, or 
-susah, occupy in the two last the place of Mad- 
mannah and Sansannah respectively in the first. 
In like manner Shilhim is exchanged for Sharuhen 
and Shaaraim. It is difficult to believe that these 
changes can have arisen from the mistakes of copy 
ists solely, but equally difficult to assign any other 
satisfactory reason. Prof. Stanley has suggested 
that Beth-marcaboth and Hazar-susim are tokens 
of the trade in chariots and horses which arose in 
Solomon's time ; but, if so, how comes it that the 
new names bear so close a resemblance in form to 
the old ones ? [G.] 

SAPH(P)D: 2e'</>; Alex. 2e<^6: Saph~). One 
"of the sons of the giant ('Pa0c, Arapha) slain by 
Sibbechai the Hushathite in the battle against the 
Philistines at Gob or Gaza (2 Sam. xxi. 18). In 
1 Chr. xx. 4 he is called SIPPAI. The title of Ps. 
cxliii. in the Peshito Syriac is, " Of David : when 
he slew Asaph (Saph) the brother of Gulyad 
(Goliath), and thanksgiving for that he had con 

SA'PHAT (2a</><r : om. in Vulg.). SHE- 
PHATIAH 2 (1 Esd. v. 9 ; comp. Ezr. ii. 4). 

SAPHATI'AS (2at/>aTi'as : Saphatias\ SHE- 
PHATIAH 2 (1 Esd. viii. 34 ; comp. Ezr. viii. 8). 

SA'PHETH(2a<J>uf; Alex. 2a#u0i: Saphuzi}. 
SHEPHATIAH (1 Esd. v. 33; comp. Ezr. ii. 57). 

SA'PHIR pW, . e. Shaphir: /caAws: pul- 
chra, but in Jerome's Comment. Saphir"). One of 
the villages addressed by the Prophet Micah (i. 11), 
but not elsewhere mentioned. By Eusebius and 
Jerome (Onomast. "Saphir") it is described as 
" in the mountain district between Eleutheropolis 
and Ascalon." In this direction a village called 
es-Sawdfir still exists (or rather three of that name, 
two with affixes), possibly the representative of 
the ancient Saphir (Rob. B. R. ii. 34 note ; Van 
de Velde, Syr. fy Pal. 159). Es-Sawdfir lies seven 
or eight miles to the N.E. of Ascalon, and about 
12 W. of Beit-Jibrin, to the right of the coast-road 
from Gaza. Tobler prefers a village called Saber, 
close to Sawdfir, containing a copious and apparently 
very ancient well (3tte Wanderung, 47). In one im 
portant respect, however, the position of neither of 
these agrees with the notice of the Onomasticon, 
since it is not near the mountains, but on the open 
plain of the Shefelah. But as Beit-Jibrin, the 
ancient Eleutheropolis, stands on the western slopes 
of the mountains of Judah. it is difficult to under' 

<t n 



stand how any place could be westward of it (i. e. 
jbttween it and Ascalon), and yet be itself in the 
mountain district, unless that expression may refer 
to places which, though situated in the plain, were 
for some reason considered as belonging to the 
towns of the mountains. We have already seen 
reason to suspect that the reverse was the case with 
some others. [KEILAH ; NEZIB, &c.] 

Schwarz, though aware of the existence of Sa- 
wdfir (p. 116), suggests as a more feasible identifi 
cation the village of Safiriyeh, a couple of miles 
N.W. of Lydda (136). The drawback to this is, 
that the places mentioned by Micah appear, as far as 
we can trace them, to be mostly near Beit-Jibrin, 
and in addition, that Safiriyeh is in clear contradic 
tion to the notice of Eusebius and Jerome. [G.] 

SAPPHI'RA (SairQeiprj = either "sapphire," 
from ffdir<pfipos, or " beautiful," from the Syriac 
NTBBfy. The wife of Ananias, and the participator 
both in his guilt and in his punishment (Acts v. 
1-10). The interval of three hours that elapsed 
between the two deaths, Sapphira's ignorance of 
what had happened to her husband, and the pre 
dictive language of St. Peter towards her, are de 
cisive evidences as to the supernatural character of 
the whole transaction. The history of Sapphira's 
death thus supplements that of Ananias's, which 
might otherwise have been attributed to natural 
causes. [W. L. B.] 

SAPPHIRE CVSD, sappir : ffdv^fipos : sap- 
phirus). A precious stone, apparently of a bright 
blue colour, see Ex. xxiv. 10, where the God of 
Israel is represented as being seen in vision by 
Moses and the Elders with "a paved work of a 
sappir stone, and as it were the body of heaven in 
its clearness " (comp. Ez. i. 26). The sappir wa 
the second stone in the second row of the high- 
priest's breastplate (Ex. xxviii. 18) ; it was ex 
tremely precious (Job xxviii. 16); it was one of 
the precious stones that ornamented the king of 
Tyre (Ez. xxviii. 13). Notwithstanding the identity 
of name between our sapphire and the ffd-jrQeipos, 
and sapphirus of the Greeks and Romans, it is ge 
nerally agreed that the sapphirus of the ancients 
was not our gem of that name, viz., the azure or 
indigo-blue, crystalline variety of Corundum, but 
our Lapis-lazuli ( Ultra-marine) ; this point may 
be regarded as established, for Pliny (N. H. xxxvii. 
9) thus speaks of the Sapphirus, "It is refulgent 
with spots of gold, of an azure colour sometimes, 
but not often purple; the best kind comes from 
Media; it is never transparent, and is not well 
suited for engraving upon when intersected with 
hard crystalline particles." This description an 
swers exactly to the character of the Lapis-lazuli ; 
the " crystalline particles " of Pliny are crystals of 
iron pyrites, which often occur with this mineral. 
It is, however, not so certain that the Sappir of 
the Hebrew Bible is identical with the Lapis-lazuli ; 
for the Scriptural requirements demand transpa 
rency, great value and good material for the en 
graver's art, all of which combined characters the 
Lapis-lazuli does not possess in any great degree. 
Mr. King (Antique Gems, p. 44) says that intagh 
and camei of Roman times are frequent in the 
material, but rarely any works of much merit. 
Again, the Sappir was certainly pellucid, " sane apud 
JucUsos," says Braun (I)e Vest. Sac. p. 680, ed. 
1680), " saphiros pellucidas notas fuisse rnanifestis- 
timiun est, adp f > etiam ut pellncidiim illornm phi 


losophis dicatur TQD, Saphir." Beckmann (Hist, 
of fnvent. i. 472) is of opinion that the Sappir ot 
the Hebrews is the same as the Lapis-lazuli ; Rosen- 
miiller and Braun argue in favour of its being our 
sapphire or precious Corundum. We are inclined 
to adopt this latter opinion, but are unable to come 
to any satisfactory conclusion. [W H.J 

SA'RA (Sd^pa : Sara). 1. SARAH, the wife 
of Abraham (Heb. xi. 11 ; 1 Pet. iii. 6). 

2. The daughter of Raguel, in the apocrypha] 
history of Tobit. As the story goes, she had been 
married to seven husbands, who were all slain on 
the wedding night by Asmodeus the evil spirit, who 
loved her (Tob. iii. 7). The breaking of the spell 
and the chasing away of the evil spirit by the 
" fishy fume," when Sara was married to Tobias, 
are told in chap. viii. 

SARABI'AS (Sapafrias : Sarebias). SHERS- 
BIAH (1 Esd. ix. 48; comp. Neh. viii. 7). 

SA'RAH(rn'K>, "princess:" 2c*#a: Sara- 
originally nb^iopa: Sarai}. 1. The wife of 

Abraham, and mother of Isaac. 

Of her birth and parentage we have no certain 
account in Scripture. Her name is first introduced 
in Gen. xi. 29, as follows: " Abram and Nahor 
took them wives : the name of Abram's wife was 
Sarai ; and the name of Nahor's wife was Mil- 
cah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah 
and the father of Iscah." In Gen. xx. 12, Abraham 
speaks of her as " his sister, the daughter of the 
same father, but not the daughter of the same 
mother." The common Jewish tradition, taken for 
granted by Josephus (Ant. i. c. 6, 6) and by St. 
Jerome (Quaest. Hebr. ad Genesin, vol. iii. p. 323, 
ed. Ben. 1735), is that Sarai is the same as Iscah, 
the daughter of Haran, and the sister of Lot, who 
is called Abraham's " brother" in Gen. xiv. 14, 16. 
Judging from the fact that Rebekah, the grand 
daughter of Nahor, was the wife of Isaac the son 
of Abraham, there is reason to conjecture that 
Abraham was the youngest brother, so that his 
wife might not improbably be younger than the 
wife of Nahor. It is certainly strange, if the tra 
dition be true, that no direct mention of it is found 
in Gen. xi. 29. But it is not improbable in itself; 
it supplies the account of the descent of the mother 
of the chosen race, the omission of which in such a 
passage is most unlikely ; and there is no other to 
set against it. 

the change of her name from " Sarai " to " Sa 
rah" was made at the same time that Abram's 
name was changed to Abraham, on the establish 
ment of the covenant of circumcision between him 
and God. That the name " Sarah " signifies " prin 
cess" is universally acknowledged. But the mean 
ing of " Sarai " is still a subject of controversy. 
The older interpreters (as, for example, St. Jerome 
in Quaest. Hebr., and those who follow him) sup 
pose it to mean " my princess ;" and explain the 
change from Sarai to Sarah, as signifying that she 
was no longer the queen of one family, but the 
royal ancestress of " all families of the earth." They 
also suppose that the addition of the letter H, as 
taken from the sacred Tetragrammalon Jehovah, to 
the names of Abram and Sarai, mystically signified 
their being received into covenant with the Lord. 
Among modern Hebraists there is great diversity of 
interpretation. One opinion, keeping to the same 
general derivation as that referred to above, explains 


fxmu " as "noble," " nobility," &c., an explana 
tion which, even more than the other, labours under 
the objection of giving little force to the change. 
Another opinion supposes Sarai to be a contracted 
form of iinb> (Serayah), and to signify " Jehovah 
is ruler." But this gives no force whatever to the 
change, and besides introduces the same name Jah 
into a proper name too early in the history. A 
third (following Ewald) derives it from rnfe>, a root 
which is found in Gen. xxxii. 28, Hos. xii. 4, in the 
sense of " to fight," and explains it as " conten 
tious" (streitsOcktig). This last seems to be 
etymologically the most probable, and differs from 
the others in giving great, force and dignity to the 
change of name. (See Ges. Tkes. vol. iii. p. 13386.) 

Her history is, of course, that of Abraham. She 
came with him from Ur to Haran, from Haran to 
Canaan, and accompanied him in all the wanderings 
of his life. Her only independent action is the de 
mand that Hagar and Ishmael should be cast out, 
far from all rivalry with her and Isaac ; a demand, 
symbolically applied in Gal. iv. 22-31, to the dis 
placement of the Old Covenant by the New. The 
times, in which she plays the most important 
part in the history, are the times when Abraham 
was sojourning, first in Egypt, then in Gerar, 
and where Sarah shared his deceit, towards Pha- 
rach and towards Abimelech. On the first oc 
casion, about the middle of her life, her personal 
beauty is dwelt upon as its cause (Gen. xii. 11-15) ; 
on the second, just before the birth of Isaac, at a 
time when she was old (thirty-seven years before her 
death), but when her vigour had been miracu 
lously restored, the same cause is alluded to, as 
supposed by Abraham, but not actually stated 
(xx. 9-11). In both cases, especially the last, the 
truthfulness of the history is seen in the unfavour 
able contrast, in which the conduct both of Abra 
ham and Sarah stands to that of Pharaoh and Abime 
lech. -She died at Hebron at the age of 127 years, 
28 years before her husband, and was buried by him 
in the cave of Machpelah. Her burial place, pur 
chased of Ephron the Hittite, was the only posses 
sion of Abraham in the land of promise ; it has re 
mained, hallowed in the eyes of Jews, Christians, 
and Mohammedans alike, to the present day ; and in 
it the " shrine of Sarah " is pointed out opposite to 
that of Abraham, with those of Isaac and Rebekah 
on the one side, and those of Jacob and Leah on the 
other (See Stanley's Lect. on Jewish Church, app. 
ii. pp. 484-509). 

Her character, like that of Abraham, is no ideal 
type of excellence, but one thoroughly natural, in 
ferior to that of her husband, and truly feminine, 
both in its excellences and its defects. She is the 
mother, even more than the wife. Her natural 
motherly affection is seen in her touching desire 
for children, even from her bondmaid, and in her 
unforgiving jealousy of that bondmaid, when she 
became a mother ; in her rejoicing over her son 
Isaac, and in the jealousy which resented the slightest 
insult to him, and forbade Ishmael to shai'e his son- 
ship. It makes her cruel to others as well as tender 
to her own,* and is remarkably contrasted with the 
sacrifice of natural feeling on the part of Abraham 
to God's command in the last case (Gen. xxi. 12). 

8 Note the significant remark on Isaac's marriage (Gen. 
xxiv. 67), " Isaac was comforted after his mother's death." 
There Is a Jewish tradition, based apparently on the 
mention of Sarah's death almost immediately after the 



To the same character belong her ironical laughter 
at the promise of a child, long desired, but now 
beycnd all hope; her trembling denial of that 
laughter, and her change of it to the laughter of 
thankful joy, which she commemorated in the name 
of Isaac. It is a character deeply and truly affec 
tionate, but impulsive, jealous, and imperious in 
its affection. It is referred to in the N. T. as a 
type of conjugal obedience in 1 Pet. iii. 6, and as 
one of the types of faith in Heb. xi. 1 1 . [A. B. \ 

2. (rnb : 2dpo : Sara). SERAH the daughter 
of Asher (Num. xxvi. 46). 

SARA'I (^B? : Scfym: SaraT). The original 
name of Sarah, the wife of Abraham. It is always 
used in the history from Gen. xi. 29 to xvii. 15, 
when it was changed to Sarah at the same time that 
her husband's name from Abram became Abraham, 
and the birth of Isaac was more distinctly foretold. 
The meaning of the name appears to be, as Ewald 
has suggested, " contentious." [SARAH.] 

SAKAI'AS (Zapaias: om. in Vulg.). 1. SE- 
RAIAH the high-priest (1 Esd. v. 5). 

2. ('A^opoios ; Alex. 2apcuas : Azarias, Aza- 
reus.} SERAIAH the father of Ezra (1 Esd. viii. 1 
2 Esd. i. 1). 

SAB'AMEL (2apo/V ; Alex. 2opo^A ; othei 
MSS. 'Affapa/j.f\ : Asaramel}. The name of the 
place in which the assembly of the Jews was held 
at which the high-priesthood was conferred upon 
Simon Maccabaeus (1 Mac. xiv. 28). The fact that 
the name is found only in this passage has led to 
the conjecture that it is an imperfect version of a 
word in the original Hebrew or Syriac, from which 
the present Greek text of the Maccabees is a trans 
lation. Some (as Castellio) have treated it as a 
corruption of Jerusalem : but this is inadmissible, 
since it is inconceivable that so well-known a name 
should be corrupted. The other conjectures are 
enumerated by Grimm in the Kurzgef. exegetisches 
Handb. on the passage. A few'only need be named 
here, but none seem perfectly satisfactory. All 
appear to adopt the reading Asaramel. 1. Ha- 
hatsar Millo, " the court of Millo," Millo being 
not improbably the citadel of Jerusalem [vol. ii. 
367 a]. This is the conjecture of Grotius, and 
has at least the merit of ingenuity. 1 * 2. Hahatsar 
Am El, "the court of the people of God, that 
is, the great court of the Temple." This is due 
to Ewald {Gesch. iv. 387), who compares with 
it the well-known Sarbeth Sabanai El, given by 
Eusebius as the title of the Maccabaean history. 
[See MACCABEES, vol. ii. 173 a.] 3. HasshaarAm 
El, " the gate of the people of God " adopted by 
Winer {Realwb.}. 4. Hassar Am El, '* prince of 
the people of God," as if not the name of a place, 
j but the title of Simon, the " in " having been in 
serted by puzzled copyists. This is adopted by 
Grimm himself. It has in its favour the fact that 
without it Simon is here styled high-priest only., 
and his second title, " captain and governor of the 
Jews and priests " (ver. 47), is then omitted in the 
solemn official record 'the very place where it ought 
to be found. It also seems to be countenanced by 
the Peshito-Syriac version, which certainly omits the 
title of " high-priest," but inserts EMa dc Israel* 

sacrifice of Isaac, that the shock of it killed her, and tha 
Abraham found her dead on his return from Moriah. 

b Junius and Tremellias render it by in atria muw 

4 D 2 



' leader of Israel." None of these explanations, l>ow- 
Dver, can be regarded as entirely satisfactory. [< 5.] 

SA'RAPH (?pK> : 2apcty> : Incendens). Men 
tioned in 1 Chr. iv. 22 among the descendants of 
Shelah the sou of Judah. Burrington (Geneal 
5. 179) makes Saraph a descendant of Jokim, whom 
he regards as the third son of Shelah. In the 
Targum of R. Joseph, Joash and Saraph are iden 
tified with Mahlon and Chilion, " who married 
("6^3 ) in Moab." 

SARCUE'DONUS (2axep8oi/<k, 2ax*p8aj> : 
Arckedonassar, Achenossar, Sarcedonassar], a col 
lateral form of the name Esar-haddon [ ESAR-HAD 
DON J. occurring Tob. i. 21. The form in A. V. for 
Sacherdonus appears to be an oversight. [B. F. W.] 

SARDE'US (ZepaAm? ; Alex. ZapSouoy : The- 
Udias). Aziz A ( 1 Esd. ix. 28 ; comp. Ezr. x. 27). 

SARDINE, SARDIUS (Clfc, odem: vdp- 
Siov : sardius] is, according to the LXX. and 
Josephus- (Sell. Jud. v. 5, 7) the correct render 
ing of the Heb. term, which occurs in Ex. xxviii. 
17 ; xxxix. 10, as the name of the stone which 
occupied the first place in the first row of the high 
priest's breastplate ; it should , however, be noticed 
that Josephus is not strictly consistent with him 
self, for in the Antiq. iii. 7, 5, he says that the 
sardonyx was the first stone in the breastplate ; still 
as this latter named mineral is merely another 
variety of agate, to which also the sard or sardius 
belongs, there is no very great discrepancy in the 
statements of the Jewish historian. The odem is 
mentioned by Ezek. (xxviii. 13) as one of the orna 
ments of the king of Tyre. In Rev. iv. 3, St. John 
declares that he whom he saw sitting on the 
heavenly throne "was to look upon like a jasper 
and a sardine stone." The si<th foundation of thr 
wall of the heavenly Jerusalem was a sardius (Rev 
xxi. 20). There can scarcely be a doubt that eithei 
the sard or the sardonyx is the stone denoted by 
odem. The authority of Josephus in all that relates 
to the high-priest's breastplate is of the greatest 
value, for as Braun (De Vest. Sac. Heh. p. 635) has 
remarked, Josephus was not only a Jew but a priest 
who might have seen the breastplate with the whoL 
sacerdotal vestments a hundred times, since in hi 
time the Temple was standing ; the Vulgate agrees 
with his nomenclature ; in Jerome s time the breast 
plate was still to be inspected in the Temple o 
Concord ; hence it will readily be acknowbdged tha 
this agreement of the two is of great weight. 

The sard, which is a superior variety of agate 
has long been a favourite stone for the engraver' 
art ; " on this stone," says Mr. King (Antiqu 
Gems, p. 5), " all the finest works of the mos 
celebrated artists are to be 'bund ; and this no 
without good cause, such is its toughness, facilit 
of working, beauty of colour, and the high polisl 
of which it is susceptible, and which Pliny state 
tbxc it retains longer than any other gem." Sard 
differ in colour ; there is a bright red variety which 
in Pliny's time, was the most esteemed, and, pei 
haps, the Heb. odem, from a root which means " t 
be red," points to this kind ; there is also a paler o 
noney-coloured variety; but in all sards there i 
always a shade of yellow mingling with the re 
(see King's Ant. Gems, p. 6). The sardius, at 
cording to Pliny (N. H. xxxvii. 7), derived it 
name from Sardis in Lydia, where it was firs 
( >und ; Babylonian specimens, however, were th 


most esteemed. The Hebrews, in the tirtt of Mosec, 
ould easily have obtained their surd stones from 
Arabia, in which country they were ?t the time th 
reastplate was made ; other precious stones not ao- 
uirable during their wanderings, may have been 
i-ought with them from the land of their bondage 
vhen " they spoiled the Egyptians." [W. H.] 

SAR'DIS (2ap8eis). A city situated about two 
miles to the south of the river Hermus, just below 
he range of Tmolus (Bos Dagh], on a spur ot 
which its acropolis was built. It was the ancient 
esidence of the kings of Lydia. After its conquest 
iy Cyrus, the Persians always kept a garrison in the 
itadel, on account of its natural strength, which 
nduced Alexander the Great, when it was surren 
dered to him in the sequel of the battle of the Gra- 
icus, similarly to occupy it. Sardis was in very 
early times, both from the extremely fertile cha- 
acter of the neighbouring region, and from its 
convenient position, a commercial mart of import 
ance. Chestnuts were first produced in the neigh 
bourhood, which procured them the name of &a\a.vo 
apSiavoi. The art of dyeing wool is said by Pliny 
;o have been invented there ; and at any rate, Sardis 
was the entrepot of the dyed woollen manufactures, 
of which Phrygia with its vast flocks (TroAuirpojSa- 
Tii, Herod, v. 49) furnished the raw material. 
Hence we hear of the (pou/t^Ses SapSmvai, and 
Sappho speaks of the irot/ci\o.s ji<<r0Arjs AvSiov 
Ka\bt> epyov, which was perhaps something like 
the modern Turkish carpets. Some of the woollen 
manufactures, of a peculiarly fine texture, were 
called iJ/tAoTOTnSes. The hall, through which the 
king of Persia passed from his state apartments to 
the gate where he mounted on his horse, was laid 
with these, and no foot but that of the monarch 
was allowed to tread on them. In the description 
given of the habits of a young Cyprian exquisite of 
great wealth, he is represented as reposing upon a 
bed of which the feet were silver, and upon which 
these ^tAoTcb-iSes SapSicu/cJ were laid as a mattrass. 
Sardis too was the place where the metal electrum 
was procured (Soph. Antig. 1037); and it was 
thither that the Spartans sent in the 6th century 
B.C. to purchase gold for the purpose of gilding the 
face of the Apollo at Amyclae. This was probably 
furnished by the auriferous sand of the Pactolus, a 
brook which came from Tmolus, and ran through 
the ugora of Sardis by the side of the great temple 
of Cybebe. But though its gold-washings may have 
been celebrated in early times, the greatness of Sardis 
in, its best days was much more due to its general 
commercial importance and its convenience as an 
entrepot. This seems to follow from the state 
ment, that not only silver and gold coins were 
there first minted, but there also the class of KO~ 
iTTjAoi (stationary traders as contradistinguished 
from the e/juropoi, or travelling merchants) first 
arose. It was also, at any rate between the fall ol 
the Lydian and that of the Persian dynasty, a 

Sardis recovered the privilege of municipal go 
vernment (and, as was alleged several centuries 
afterwards, the right of a sanctuary) upon its sur 
render to Alexander the Great, but its fortunes foi 
the next three hundred years are very obscure. It 
changed hands more than once in the contest* 
between the dynasties which arose after the death 
of Alexander. In the year 214 B.C., it was taker 
and sacked by the army of Antiochus the Great, who 
besieged his cousin Achaeus in it for two years before 
j succeeding, as he at last did through treachery, i.n 


obtaining possession of the person of the latter. 
After thj ruin of Antiochus's fortunes, it passed, 
with the rest of Asia on that side of Taurus, under 
the dominion of the kings of Pergamus, whose in 
terests led them to divert the course of traffic 
between Asia and Europe away from Sardis. Its 
productive soil must always have continued a source 
of wealth ; but its importance as a central mart 
appears to have diminished from the time of the 
invasion of Asia by Alexander. Of the few inscrip 
tions which have been discovered, all, or nearly all, 
belong to the time of the Roman empire. Yet there 
stiil exist considerable remains of the earlier days. 
The massive temple of Cybebe still bears witness in 
its fragmentary remains to the wealth and archi 
tectural skill of the people that raised it. Mr. 
Cockerell, who visited it in 1812, found two columns 
standing with their architrave, the stone of which 
stretched in a single block from the centre of one to 
that of the other. This stone, although it was not 
the largest of the architrave, he calculates must 



i have weighed 25 tons. The dia'iieters of the co 
lumns supporting it are 6 feet 4 inches at about 
35 feet .below the capital. The present soil (appa 
rently formed by the crumbling away of the hill 
which backs the temple on its eastern side) is more 
than 25 feet above the pavement. Such propor 
tions are not inferior to those of the columns in the 
Heraeum at Samos, which divides, in the estimation 
of Herodotus, with the Artemisium at Ephesus, the 
palm of pre-eminence among all the works of Greek 
art. And as regards the details, " th*e capitals ap 
peared," to Mr. Cockerell, " to surpass any specimen 
of the Ionic he had seen in perfection of design and 
execution." On the north side of the acropolis, 
overlooking the valley of the Hermus, is a theatre 
near 400 teet in diameter, attached to a stadium of 
about 1000. This probably was erected after the 
restoration of Sardis by Alexander. In the attack 
of Sardis by Antiochus, described by Polybius (vii. 
15-18j, it constituted one of the chief points on 
which, after entering the city, the assaulting fore* 

Ruins of Sarais. 

was directed. The temple belongs to the era of the I desolated by an earthquake, together with eleven, or 

l.ydian dynasty, and is nearly contemporaneous 
with the temple of Zeus Panhellenius in Aegina, 
and that of Her6 in Samos. To the same date may 
be assigned the " Valley of Sweets " (y\viti>s ay- 
K(av), a pleasure ground, the fame of which Poly- 
crates endeavoured to rival by the so-called Laura 
at Samos. 

The modern name of the ruins at Sardis is Sert- 
Kalessi. Travellers describe the appearance of the 
locality on approaching it from the N.W. as that 
of complete solitude. The Pactolus is a mere thread 
of water, all but evanescent in summer time. The 
Wadis-tchai (Hermus), in the neighbourhood of the 
town, is between 50 and 60 yards wide, and nearly 
3 feet deep, but its waters are turbid and disagree 
able, and are not only avoided as unfit for drinking, 
but have the local reputation of generating the fever 
which is the scourge of the neighbouring plains. 

In the time of the emperor Tiberius, Sardis was 

as Eusebius says twelve, other important cities of 
Asia. The whole face of the country is said to have 
been changed by this convulsion. In the case of 
Sardis the calamity was increased by a pestilential 
fever which followed ; and so much compassion was 
in consequence excited for the city at Rome, that its 
tribute was remitted for five years, and it received 
a benefaction from the privy purse of the emperor. 
This was in the year 17 A.D. Nine years after 
wards the Sardians are found among the competitors 
for the honour of erecting, as representatives ot 
the Asiatic cities, a temple to their benefactor. 
[SMYRNA.] On this occasion they plead, not only 
their ancient services to Rome in the time of the 
Macedonian war, but their well-watered country, 
their climate, and the richness of the neighbouring 
soil : there is no allusion, however, to the important 
manufactures and the commerce of the early times 
In the time of Pliny it was included in the same 



yynvenius juridicus with Philadelphia, with the 
Cadueni, a Macedonian colony in the neighbourhood, 
with some settlements of the old Maeonian popula 
tion, and a few other towns of less note. These 
Maeonians still continued to call Sardis by its ancient 
Qame Hyd6, which it bore in the time of Omphale. 

The only passage in which Sardis is mentioned 
in the Bible, is Rev. iii. 1-6. There is nothing 
in it which appears to have any special reference 
to the peculiar circumstances of the city, or to any 
thing else than the moral and spiritual condition of 
the Christian community existing there. This latter 
was probably, in its secular relations, pretty nearly 
identical with that at Philadelphia. 

(Athenaeus ii. p. 48, vi. p. 231, xii. p. 514, 
540 ; Arrian, i. 17 ; Pliny, N. H. v. 29, xv. 23 ; 
Stephanus Byz. v. "TSij ; Pausanias, iii. 9, 5 ; 
Diodorus Sic. xx. 107 ; Scholiast, Aristoph. Pac. 
1174; Boeckh, Inscriptiones Graecae, Nos. 3451- 
3472 ; Herodotus, i. 69, 94, iii. 48, viii. 105 ; 
Strabo, xiii. 5 ; Tacitus, Annal ii. 47, iii. 63, iv. 55 ; 
Cockerell, in Leake's Asia Minor, p. 343 ; Arundell, 
Discoveries in Asia Minor, i. pp. 26-28 ; Tchi- 
hatcheff, Asie Mineure, pp. 232-242.) [J. W. B.] 

SAR'DITES, THE OTlDH: 6 SapeSf: Sa- 

reditae). The descendants of Sered the son of Zebulon 
(Num. xxvi. 26). 

SARDONYX (<rap56vv : sardonyx} is men 
tioned in the N. T. once only, viz., in Rev. xxi. 20, 
as the stone which garnished the fifth foundation of 
the wall of the heavenly J erusalem . "By sardonyx," 
says Pliny (N. H. xxxvii. 6), who describes several 
varieties, " was formerly understood, as its name 
implies, a sard with a white ground beneath it, 
like the flesh under the finger-nail." The sardonyx 
consists of " a white opaque layer, superimposed 
upon a red transparent stratum of the true red 
sard " (Antique Gems, p. 9) ; it is, like the sard, 
merely a variety of agate, and is frequently em 
ployed by engravers for the purposes of a signet- 
ring. [W. H.] 

SARE'A (Sarea). One of the five scribes " ready 
to write swiftly " whom Esdras was commanded to 
take (2 Esd. xiv. 24). 

SAREP'TA (Sopeirra: Sarepta : Syriac, Tsar- 
path). The Greek form of the name which in the 
Hebrew text of the 0. T. appears as ZAREPHATH. 
The place is designated by the same formula on its 
single occurrence in the N. T. (Luke iv. 26) that 
it is when first mentioned in the LXX. version of 
1 K. xvii. 9, " Sarepta of Sidonia." [G.] 

SAR'GON ( ji3"}p : 'ApvS : Sargon) was one 
of the greatest of the Assyrian kings. His name is 
read in the native insci'iptions as Sargina, while a 
town which he built and called after himself (now 
Khorsabad) was known as Sarghun to the Arabian 
geographers. He is mentioned by name only once 
in Scripture (Is. xx. 1), and then not in an historical 
book, which formerly led historians and critics to 
suspect that he was not really a king distinct from 
those mentioned in Kings and Chronicles, but rather 
one of those kings under another name. Vitringa, 
Offerhaus, Eichhorn, and Hupfeld identified him 
with Shalmaneser ; Grotius, Lowth, and Keil with 
Sennacherib ; Perizonius, Kalinsky, and Michaelis 

" There is a peculiarity of phraseology in 2 K. xviii. 
3, 10, which perhaps Indicates a knowledge on the part 
of the writer that Shalruaneser was not the actual captor. 


with Esarhaddon. All these conjectures are now 
shown to be wrong by the Assyrian inscriptions, 
which prove Sargon to have b*m distinct and 
different from the several monarchs named, and fix 
his place in the list where it had been already as 
signed by Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Ewald, and Winer 
between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib. He was 
certainly Sennacherib's father, and there is no reason 
to doubt that he was his immediate predecessor. 
He ascended the throne of Assyria, as we gather 
from his annals, in the same year that Merodach- 
Baladan ascended the throne of Babylon, which, 
according to Ptolemy's Canon, was B.C. 721. He 
seems to have been an usurper, and not of royal 
birth, for in his inscriptions he carefully avoids all 
mention of his father. It has been conjectured that 
he took advantage of Shalmaneser's absence at the 
protracted siege of Samaria (2 K. xvii. 5) to effect 
a revolution at the seat of government, by which 
that king was deposed, and he himself substituted 
in his room. [SHALMANESER.] It is remarkable 
that Sargon claims the conquest of Samaria, which 
the narrative in Kings appears to assign to hig 
predecessor. He places the event in Tiis first year, 
before any of his other expeditions. Perhaps, there 
fore, he is the " king of Assyria " intended in 2 K. 
xvii. 6 and xviii. 11, who is not said to be Shal 
maneser, though we might naturally suppose so from 
no other name being mentioned.* Or perhaps he 
claimed the conquest as his own, though Shalmaneser 
really accomplished it, because the capture of the 
city occurred after he had been acknowledged king 
in the Assyrian capital. At any rate, to him belongs 
the settlement of the Samaritans (27,280 families, 
according to his own statement) in Halah, and on 
the Habor (Kkabour), the river of Gozan, and (at 
a later period probably) in the cities of the Medes. 

Sargou was undoubtedly a great and successful 
warrior. In his annals, which cover a space of 
fifteen years (from B.C. 721 to B.C. 706), he gives 
an account of his warlike expeditions against Baby 
lonia and Susiana on the south, Media on the east, 
Armenia and Cappadocia towards the north, Syria, 
Palestine, Arabia, and Egypt towards the west and 
the south-west. In Babylonia he deposed Merodach- 
Baladan, and established a viceroy; in Media he 
built a number of cities, which he peopled with 
captives from other quarters; in Armenia and the 
neighbouring countries he gained many victories ; 
while in the far west he reduced Philistia, penetrated 
deep into the Arabian peninsula, and forced Egypt 
to submit to his arms and consent to the payment 
of a tribute. In this last direction he seems to 
have waged three wars one in his second year 
(B.C. 720), for the possession of Gaza ; another in 
his sixth year (B.C. 715), when Egypt itself was 
the object of attack ; and a third in his ninth (B.C. 
712), when the special subject of contention was 
Ashdod, which Sargon took by one of his generals. 
This is the event which causes the mention of Sar- 
gon's name in Scripture. Isaiah was instructed at 
the time of this expedition to " put off his shoe, and 
go naked and barefoot," for a sign that " the king 
of Assyria should lead away the Egyptians pri 
soners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, 
naked and barefoot, to the shame of Egypt" (I*. 
xx. 2-4). We may gather from this, either thai 
Ethiopians and Egyptians formed part of the garri- 

" In the fourth year of Hezeklan," he says, ' Shalmanesw 
king of Assyria came up against Samaria and besieged it 
end at the cud of three years, THEY took it." 


aon of Ashdod and were captured with the city, 
or that the attack on the Philistine town was ac 
companied uy an invasion of Egypt itself, which 
was disastrous to the Egyptians. The year of the 
attack, being B.C. 712, would fall into the reign 
of the first Ethiopian king, Sabaco I., who probably- 
conquered Egypt in B.C. 714 (Rawlinson's Hero 
dotus, i. 386, note 7, 2nd ed.), and it is in agree 
ment with this Sargon speaks of Egypt as being at 
this time subject to Meroe. Besides these expe 
ditions of Sargon, his monuments mention that he 
took Tyre, and received tribute from the Greeks of 
Cyprus, against whom there is some reason to think 
that he conducted an attack in person. 1 * 

It is not as a warrior only that Sargon deserves 
special mention among the Assyrian kings. He was 
also the builder of useful works and of one of the 
most magnificent of the Assyrian palaces. He 
relates that he thoroughly repaired the walls of 
Nineveh, which he seems to have elevated from a 
provincial city of some importance to the first posi 
tion in the empire ; and adds further, that in its 
neighbourhood he constructed the palace and town 
which he made his principal residence. This was 
the city now known as " the French Nineveh," or 
" Khorsabad," from which the valuable series of 
Assyrian monuments at present in the Louvre is 
derived almost entirely. Traces of Sai gon's buildings 
have been found also at Nimrud and Koyuujik ; and 
his time is marked by a considerable advance in the 
useful and ornamental arts, which seem to have 
profited by the connexion which he established be 
tween Assyria and Egypt. He probably reigned 
nineteen years, from B.C. 721 to B.C. 702, when 
he left the throne to his son, the celebrated Sen 
nacherib. [G. R.] 

SA'RID O*t? : 

S 2eo5oi5 ; Alex. 

2ap0t5, 2aptS : Sarid}. A chief landmark of the 
territory of Zebulun, apparently the pivot of the 
western and southern boundaries (Josh. xix. 10, 12). 
All that can be gathered of its position is that it 
lay to the west of Chisloth-Tabor. It was unknown 
to Eusebius and Jerome, and no trace of it seems to 
have been found by any traveller since their day 
(Onom. " Sarith "). 

The ancient Syriac version, in each case, reads 
Asdod. This may be only from the interchange, 
so frequent in this version, of K and D. At any 
rate, the Ashdod of the Philistines cannot be in 
tended. [G.] 

SA'RON (rjbv Zapwva ; in some MSS. curtra- 
pcoi/a, i. e. jn&?n : Sarona). The district in which 
Lydda stood (Acts ix. 35 only); the SHARON of 
the 0. T. The absence of the article from Lydda, 
and its presence before Saron, is noticeable, and 
shows that the name denotes a district as in 
" The Shefelah," and in our own "The Weald," 
" The Downs." [G.] 

SARO'THIE (2ap0f ; Alex. Sapwflte: Ca- 

ronetli). " The sons of Sarothie " are among the 
sons of the servants of Solomon who returned with 
Zorobabel, according to the list in 1 Esd. v. 34. 
There is nothing corresponding to it in the Hebrew. 

SAR'SECHIM (D^D-1^: Sarsachim}. One 
of the generals of Nebuchadnezzar's army at the 


taking of Jerusalem (Jer. xxxix. 3). He appean 
to have held the office of chief eunuch, for Kab- 
saris is probably :i title and not a proper name. 
In Jer. xxxix. 13 Nebushasban is called Rab-saris, 
" chief eunuch ," and the question arises whether 
Nebushasban and Sarsechim may not be names of 
the same person. In the LXX., verses 3 and 13 
are mixed up together, and so hopelessly corrupt 
thi.t it is impassible to infer anything from their 
reading of Uafiov<rdxap for Sarsechim. In Gosc- 
nius' Thesaurus it is conjectured that Sarsechim 
and Rab-saris may be identical, and both titles of 
the same office. 

SA'RUCH (2opot5x : Sarug). SERUG the son 
ofReu (Luke iii. 35). 

SA'TAN. The word itself, the Hebrew |B>, 
is simply an "adversary," and is so used in 1 Sam. 
xxix. 4 ; 2 Sam. xix. 22 ; 1 K. v. 4 (LXX. eVf- 
jSouAos) ; in 1 K. xi. 25 (LXX. avriKei/j.fvos} ; in 
Num. xxii. 22, 32, and Ps. cix. 6 (LXX. 5u$oAo 
and cognate words); in 1 K. xi. 14, 23 (LXX. 
(Tardy). This original sense is still found in our 
Lord's application of the name to St. Peter in Matt, 
rvi. 23. It is used as a proper name or title only 
four times in the 0. T., viz. (with the article) in 
Job i. 6, 12, ii. 1, Zech. iii. 1, and (without the 
article) in 1 Chr. xxi. 1. In each case the LXX. 
has SictjSoAos, and the Vulgate Satan. In the N. T. 
the word is (raravas, followed by the Vulgate 
Satanas, except in 2 Cor. xii. 7, where ffarav is 
used. It is found in twenty-five places (exclusive 
of parallel passages), and the corresponding word 
6 Sm/JoAos in about the same number. The title 
6 &px<av rov K.6(Tfj.ov rovrov is used three times ; 
6 TrovT]p6s is used certainly six times, probably more 
frequently, and 6 -n-fipafav twice. 

It is with the scriptural revelation on the subject 
that we are here concerned, and it is clear, from 
this simple enumeration of passages, that it is to be 
sought in the New, rather than in the Old Testament. 

It divides itself naturally into the consideration 
of his existence, his nature, and his power and 

(A.) His EXISTENCE. It would be a waste o 
time to prove, that, in various degrees of clearness, 
the personal existence of a Spirit of Evil is revealed 
again and again in Scripture. Every quality, every 
action, which can indicate personality, is attributed 
to him in language which cannot be explained away. 
It is not difficult to see why it should be thus re 
vealed. It is obvious, that the fact of his existence 
is of spiritual importance, and it is also clear, from 
the nature of the case, that it could not be discovered, 
although it might be suspected, by human reason. 
It is in the power of that reason to test any sup 
posed manifestations of supernatural power, and 
any asserted principles of Divine action, which fall 
within its sphere of experience (" the earthly things" 
of John iii. 12) ; it may by such examination satisfy 
itself of the truth and divinity of a Person or a 
book; but, having done this, it must then accept 
and understand, without being able to test or to 
explain, the disclosures of this Divine authority 
upon subjects beyond this world (the " heavenly 
things," of which it is said that none can see or 
disclose them, save the "Son of Man who is in 
Heaven "). 

The statue of Sargon, now in the Berlin Museum, was the expedition in person 

found at Idalium in Cyprus. It is not very likely that the 
king'b statue would have been set up unless he had made 

c This barbarous worn is obtained by joining to Sarid 
the tirst word of the following verse, i\}]}\ 



It is true, that human thought can assert an 
it priori probability 01 improbability in such state 
ments made, based on the perception of a greater or 
less degree of accordance in principle between the 
things seen and the things unseen, between the 
effects, which are visible, and the causes, which are 
revealed from the regions of mystery. But even 
this power of weighing probability is applicable 
rather to the fact and tendency, than to the method* 
of supernatural action. This is true even of natural 
action beyond the sphere of human observation. In 
the discussion of the Plurality of Worlds, for ex- 
.iinple, it may be asserted without doubt, that in 
all the orbs of the universe the Divine power, wis 
dom, and goodness must be exercised : but the in- 
lerence that the method of their exercise is found 
there, as here, in the creation of sentient and rational 
beings, is one at best of but moderate probability. 
Still more is this the case in the spiritual world. 
Whatever supernatural orders of beings may exist, 
we can conclude that in their case, as in ours, the 
Divine government must be carried on by the union 
of individual freedom of action with the overruling 
power of God, and must tend finally to that good 
which is His central attribute. But beyond this 
we can assert nothing to be certain, and can scarcely 
even say of any part of the method of this govern 
ment, whether it is antecedently probable or im 

Thus, on our present subject, man can ascertain 
by observation the existence of evil, that is, of facts 
and thoughts contrary to the standard which con 
science asserts to be the true one, bringing with 
them suffering and misery as their inevitable results. 
If he attempts to trace them to their causes, he 
finds them to arise, for each individual, partly from 
the power of certain internal impulses which act 
upon the will, partly from the influence of external 
circumstances. These circumstances themselves arise, 
either from the laws of nature and society, or by 
the deliberate action of other men. He can con 
clude with certainty, that both series of causes must 
exist by the permission of God, and must finally be 
overruled to His will. But whether there exists 
any superhuman but subordinate cause of the cir 
cumstances, and whether there be any similar in 
fluence acting in the origination of the impulses 
which move the will, this is a question which he 
cannot answer with certainty. Analogy from the 
observation of the only ultimate cause which he can 
discover in the visible world, viz. the free action of 
a personal will, may lead him, and generally has 
led him, to conjecture in the affirmative, but still 
the inquiry remains unanswered by authority. 

The tendency of the mind in its inquiry is gene 
rally towards one or other of two extremes. The first 
is to consider evil as a negative imperfection, aris 
ing, in some unknown and inexplicable way, from the 
nature of matter, or from some disturbing influences 
which limit the action of goodness on earth ; in 
fact, to ignore as much of evil as possible, and to 
decline to refer the residuum to any positive cause 
at all. The other is the old Persian or Manichaean 
hypothesis, which traces the existence of evil to a 
rival Creator, not subordinate to the Creator of 
Good, though perhaps inferior to Him in power, 
and destined to be overcome by Him at last. Be- 

See Wisd. ii. 24, 

6dva.TO<; et<r}X0ev 

ft? TOV KOCrfLOV. 

b For this reason, if for no otner, it seems impossible to 
iccept the interpretation of "Azazfl." given by Spencer, 


tween these -two extremes the mind vauoil, through 
many gradations of thought and countless forms of 
superstition. Each hypothesis had its arguments 
of probability against the other. The first laboured 
under the difficulty of being insufficient as an 
Account of the anomalous facts, and indeterminate 
in its account of the disturbing causes ; the second 
sinned against that belief in the Unity of God and 
the natural supremacy of goodness, which is sup 
ported by the deepest instincts of the heart. But 
both were laid in a sphere beyond human cogni 
zance; neither could be proved or disproved with 

The Revelation of Scripture, speaking with au 
thority, meets the truth, and removes the error, 
inherent in both these hypotheses. It asserts in 
the strongest terms the perfect supremacy of God, 
so that under His permission alone, and for His 
inscrutable purposes, evil is allowed to exist (see 
for example Prov. xvi. 4; Is. xlv. 7; Arn.iii. 6; 
comp. Rom. ix. 22, 23). It regards this evil as 
an anomaly and corruption, to be taken away by a 
new manifestation of Divine Love in the Incarnation 
and Atonement. The conquest of it began virtually 
in God's ordinance after the Fall itself, was effected 
actually on the Cross, and shall be perfected in its 
results at the Judgment Day. Still Scripture re 
cognises the existence of evil in the world, not only 
as felt in outward circumstances ("the world"), 
and as inborn in the soul of man (" the flesh "), 
but also as proceeding from the influence of an 
Evil Spirit, exercising that mysterious power of 
free will, which God's rational creatures possess, to 
rebel against Him, and to draw others into the 
same rebellion (" the devil "). 

In accordance with the " economy " and pro- 
gressiveness of God's revelation, the existence of 
Satan is but gradually revealed. In the first en 
trance of evil into the world, the temptation is re 
ferred only to the serpent. It is true that the 
whole narrative, and especially the spiritual nature 
of the temptation (" to be as gods"), which was 
united to the sensual motive, would force on any 
thoughtful reader 8 the conclusion that something 
more than a mere animal agency was at work ; but 
the time was not then come to reveal, what after 
wards was revealed, that " he who sinneth is of 
the devil" (1 John iii. 8), that " the old serpent" 
of Genesis was " called the devil and Satan, who 
deceiveth the whole world" (Rev. xii. 9, xx. 23). 

Throughout the whole period of the patriarchal 
and Jewish dispensation, this vague and imperfect 
revelation of the Source of Evil alone was given. 
The Source of all Good is set forth In aii His su 
preme and unapproachable Majesty , evil is known 
negatively as the falling away from Him ; and the 
"vanity" of idols, rather than any positive evil 
influence, is represented as the opposite to His 
reality and goodness. The Law gives the " know 
ledge of sin" in the soul, without referring to any 
external influence of evil to foster it ; it denounces 
idolatry, without even hinting, what the N. T. 
declares plainly, that such evil implied a " power 
of Satan." b 

The Book of Job stands, in any case, alone 
(whether we refer it to an early or a later period) 
on the basis of " natural religion," apart from the 

Hengstenberg, and others, in Lev. xvi. 8, as a reference to 
the Spirit of Evil. Such a reference would not cnly stand 
alone, but would be entirely inconsistent with the whole 
tenor of the Mosaic revelation. See DAT UK ATONEMENT. 


gradual and orderly evolutions of the Mosaic reve 
lation. In it, for the first time, we find a distinct 
mention of " Satan," " the adversary " of Job. 
But it is important to .remark the emphatic stress 
laid on his subordinate position, on the absence of 
all but delegated power, of all terror, and all 
grandeur in his character. He comes among the 
* sons of God" to present himself before the Lord ; 
his malice and envy are permitted to have scope, 
in accusation or in action, only for God's own pur 
poses ; and it is especially remarkable that no power 
of spiritual influence, but only a power over out 
ward circumstances, is attributed to him. All this 
is widely different from the clear and terrible reve 
lations of the N. T. 

The Captivity brought the Israelites face to face 
with the great dualism of the Persian mythology, 
the conflict of Ormuzd with Ahriman, the co 
ordinate Spirit of Evil. In the books written 
after the Captivity we have again the name of 
' Satan " twice mentioned ; but it is confessed by 
all that the Satan of Scripture bears no resemblance 
to the Persian Ahriman. His subordination and 
inferiority are as strongly marked as ever. In 
1 Chr. xxi. 1 , where the name occurs without the 
article (" an adversary,** not " the adversary "), 
the comparison with 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 shows dis 
tinctly that, in the temptation of David, Satan's 
malice was overruled to work out the " anger of 
the Lord " against Israel. In Zech. iii. 1, 2, 
" Satan" is 6 avriSiKos (as in 1 Pet. v. 8), the 
:,:ruser of Joshua before the throne of God, re- 
fauked and put to silence by Him (comp. Ps. cix. 6). 
In the case, as of the good angels, so also of the 
Evil One, the presence of fable and idolatry gave 
cause to the manifestation of the truth. [ANGELS, 
p. 70 a.] It would have been impossible to guard 
the Israelites more distinctly from the fascination 
of the great dualistic theory of their conquerors. 

It is perhaps not difficult to conjecture, that the 
reason of this reserve as to the disclosure of the ex 
istence and nature of Satan is to be found in the in- | 
veterate tendency of the Israelites to idolatry, an 
idolatry based as usual, in great degree, on the sup 
posed power of their false gods to inflict evil. The 
existence of evil spirits is suggested to them in the 
stern prohibition and punishment of witchcraft 
(Ex. xxii. 18; Dent, xviii. 10), and in the narra 
tive of the possession of men by an " evil " or 
" lying spirit from the Lord" (1 Sam. xvi. 14; 
1 K. xxii. 22) ; the tendency to seek their aid is 
shown by the rebukes of the prophets (Is. viii. 
19, &c.). But this tendency would have been in 
creased tenfold by the revelation of the existence of 
the great enemy, concentrating round himself all 
the powers "of evil and enmity against God. There 
fore, it would seem, the revelation of the " strong 
man armed " was withheld until " the stronger 
than he" should be made manifest. 

For in the New Test, this reserve suddenly 
vanishes. In the interval between the Old and 
New Test, the Jewish mind had pondered on the 
ccanty revelations already given of evil spiritual 
influence. But the Apocryphal Books (as, for ex 
ample, Tobit and Judith), while dwelling on 
'"demons" (8ai/j.6via), have no notice of Satan. 
The same may be observed of Josephus. The only 
instance to the contrary is the reference already 
made to Wisd. ii. 24. 'it is to be noticed also that 
the Targums often introduce the name of Satan 
into the descriptions of sin and temptation found 
in the 0. T. ; as for es:?mple in Ex. xx. v .ii. 19, in 



connexion with the worship of the golden calf 
(comp. the tradition as to the body of Moses, Deut. 
xxxiv. 5, 6 ; Jude 9, MICHAEL). But, while a 
mass of fable and superstition grew up on the 
general subject of evil spiritual influence, still the 
existence and nature of Satan remained in the back 
ground, felt, but not understood. 

The. N. T. first brings it plainly forward. From 
the beginning of the Gospel, when he appears as the 
personal tempter of our Lord, through all the 
Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse, it is asserted or 
implied, again and again, as a familiar and im 
portant truth. To refer this to mere "accommo 
dation" of the language of the Lord and His 
Apostles to the ordinary Jewish belief, is to contra 
dict facts, and evade the meaning of words. The 
subject is not one on which error could be tolerated 
as unimportant ; but one important, practical, and 
even awful. The language used respecting it is 
either truth or falsehood ; and unless we impute 
error or deceit to the writers of the N. T., we must 
receive the doctrine of the existence of Satan as a 
certain doctrine of Revelation. Without dwelling 
on other passages, the plain, solemn, and unmeta- 
phorical words of John viii. 44, must be sufficient: 
" Ye are of your father the devil. . . . He was a 
murderer from the beginning, and abides (eVrrj/cej') 
not in the truth. . . . When he speaketh a lie, he 
speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father 
of it." On this subject, see DEMONIACS, vol. i. 
p. 425 6. 

(B.) His NATURE. Of the nature and original 
state of Satan, little is revealed in Scripture. Most 
of the common notions on the subject are drawn 
from mere tradition, popularized in England by 
Milton, but without even a vestige of Scriptural 
authority. He is spoken of as a " spirit" in Eph. 
ii. 2, as the prince or ruler of the "demons" 
(8ai/uL6via) in Matt. xii. 24-26, and as having 
" angels " subject to him in Matt. xxv. 41 ; Rev. 
xii. 7, 9. The whole description of his power 
implies spiritual nature and spiritual influence 
We conclude therefore that he was of angelic nature 
[ANGELS], a rational and spiritual creature, super 
human in power, wisdom,* and energy ; and not 
only so, but an archangel, one of the " princes " of 
heaven. We cannot, of course, conceive that any 
thing essentially and originally evil was created by 
God. We find by experience, that the will of a free 
and rational creature can, by His permission, oppose 
His will ; that the very conception of freedom 
implies capacity of temptation : and that every 
sin, unless arrested by God's fresh gift of grace, 
strengthens the hold of evil on the spirit, till it 
may fall into the hopeless state of reprobation. We 
can only conjecture, therefore, that Satan is a fallen 
angel, who once had a time of probation, but whose 
condemnation is now irrevocably fixed. 

But of the time, cause, and manner of his fall, 
Scripture tells us scarcely anything. It limits its 
disclosures, as always, to that which we neea to 
know. The passage on which all the fabric of tra 
dition and poetry has been raised is Rev. xii. 7, 9, 
which speaks of" Michael and his angels " as " fight 
ing against the dragon and his angels," till the 
"great dragon, called the devil and Satan" was 
"cast out into the earth, and his angels cast out 
with him." Whatever be the meaning of this pas- 
sage, it is certain that it cannot refer to the original 
fall of Satan. The only other passage which refers 
to the fall of the angels is 2 Pet. ii. 4, " God spared 
not the angels, when they had sinned, but having 



east them into hell, delivered them to chains of 
darkness (ffctpais 6<f>ov Taprapuxrus 7rape'5w/cev), 
reserved unto judgment," with the parallel passage 
in Jude 6, " Angels, who kept not their first estate 
(TT/IV eavroov apxV). but left their own habita 
tion, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under 
darkness unto the judgment of the Great Day." 
Here again the passage is mysterious ; c but it seems 
hardly possible to consider Satan as one of these ; 
for they are in chains and guarded (TeTTjpTj/ieVous) 
till the Great Day ; he is permitted still to go 
about as the Tempter and the Adversary, until his 
appointed time be come. 

Setting these passages aside, we have still to con 
sider the declaration of our Lord in Luke x. 18, 
" I beheld (Mfdpovv) Satan, as lightning, fall 
fw>m heaven." This may refer to the fact of his 
original fall (although the use of the imperfect 
tense, and the force of the context, rather refer it 
figuratively to the triumph of the disciples over the 
evil spirits) ; but, in any case, it tells nothing of its 
cause or method. There is also the passage already 
quoted (John viii. 44), in which our Lord declares 
of him, that "he was a murderer from the be 
ginning," that "he stands not (cVrrj/ce) in the 
truth, because there is no truth in him," " that he 
is a liar and the father of it." But here it seems 
likely the words air' apxys refer to the beginning 
of his action upon man; perhaps the allusion is 
to his temptation of Cain to be the first murderer, 
an allusion explicitly made in a similar passage in 
1 John iii. 9-12. The word etrrijice (wrongly ren 
dered "abode" in A. V.),and the rest of the verse, 
refer to present time. The passage therefore throws 
little or no light on the cause and method of his fall. 
Perhaps the only one, which has any value, is 
1 Tim. iii. 6, " lest being lifted up by pride he fall 
into the condemnation" (itpip.a) "of the devil." It 
is concluded from this, that pride was the cause of 
the devil's condemnation. The inference is a pro 
bable one ; it is strengthened by the only analogy 
within our reach, that of the fall of man, in which 
the spiritual temptation of pride, the desire " to be 
as gods," was the subtlest and most deadly temp 
tation. Still it is but an inference ; it cannot be 
regarded as a matter of certain Revelation. 

But, while these points are passed by almost in 
silence (a silence which rebukes the irreverent 
exercise of imagination on the subject), Scripture 
describes to us distinctly the moral nature of the 
Evil One. This is no matter of barren speculation 
to those, who by yielding to evil may become the 
" children of Satan," instead of "children of God." 
The ideal of goodness is made up of the three great 
moral attributes of God, Love, Truth, and Purity 
or Holiness ; combined with that spirit, which is the 
natural temper of a finite and dependent creature, 
the spirit of Faith. We find, accordingly, that the 
opposites to these qualities are dwelt upon as the 
characteristics of the devil. In John viii. 44, com 
pared with 1 John iii. 10-15, we have hatred and 
falsehood ; in the constant mention of the " un 
clean " spirits, of which he is the chief, we find im 
purity ; from 1 Tim. iii. 6, and the narrative of the 
Temptation, we trace the spirit of pride. These 


to spread corruption, and with it eternal death, wiJ 
we have the portraiture of the Spirit of Evil at 
Scripture has drawn it plainly before our eyes. 

(C.) HIS POWER AND ACTION. Both these 
points, being intimately connected with our own 
life and salvation, are treated with a distinctness and 
fulness remarkably contrasted with the obscurity 
of the previous subject. 

The power of Satan over the soul is represented 
as exercised, either directly, or by his instruments. 
His direct influence over the soul is simply that oi 
a powerful and evil nature on those, in whom lurks 
the germ of the same evil, differing from the in 
fluence exercised by a wicked man, in degree rathei 
than in kind ; but it has the power of acting by 
suggestion of thoughts, without the medium ol 
actions or words a power which is only in very 
slight degi^ee exercised by men upon each other. 
This influence is spoken of in Scripture in the 
strongest terms, as a real external influence, corre 
lative to, but not to be confounded with, the 
existence of evil within. In the parable of the 
sower (Matt. xiii. 19), it is represented as a ne 
gative influence, taking away the action of the 
Word of God for good ; in that of the wheat and 
the tares (Matt. xiii. 39), as a positive influence for 
evil, introducing wickedness into the world. St. 
Paul does not hesitate to represent it as a power, 
permitted to dispute the world with the power ot 
God ; for he declares to Agrippa that his mission 
was " to turn men from darkness to light, and from 
the power (e|ou(r/as) of Satan unto God," and re 
presents the excommunication, which cuts men off 
from the grace of Christ in His Church, as a "de 
liverance of them unto Satan " (1 Cor. v. 5 ; 1 Tim. 
i. 20). The same truth is conveyed, though in a 
bolder and more startling form, in the Epistles to 
the Churches of the Apocalypse, where the body ot 
the unbelieving Jews is called a " synagogue ol 
Satan " (Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9), where the secrets of false 
doctrine are called the depths of Satan" (ii. 24), 
and the "throne" and "habitation" of Satan are 
said to be set up in opposition to the Church ot 
Christ. Another and even more remarkable expres 
sion of the same idea is found in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, where the death of Christ is spoken of as 
intended to baffle (Karapyeiv) " him, that hath the 
power (rb Kpdros} of death, that is, the devil ;" 
for death is evidently regarded as the " wages ol 
sin," and the power of death as inseparable from 
the power of corruption. Nor is this truth only 
expressed directly and formally ; it meets us again 
and again in passages simply practical, taken for 
granted, as already familiar (see Rom. xvi. 20; 
2 Cor. ii. 11 ; 1 Thess. ii. 18 ; 2 Thess. ii. 9 ; 
1 Tim.' v. 15). The Bible does not shrink from 
putting the fact of Satanic influence over the soul 
before us, in plain and terrible certainty. 

Yet at the same time, it is to be observed, that 
its language is very far from countenancing, even 
for a moment, the horrors of the Manichaean theory. 
The influence of Satan is always spoken of as tern 
porary and limited, subordinated to the Divine 
counsel, and broken by the Incarnate Son of God. 
It is brought out visibly, in the form of possession, 

are especially the " sins of the devil ;" in them we I in the earthly life of our Lord, only in order that 
trace the essence of moral evil, and the features of it may give the opportunity of His triumph. As 
the reprobate mind. Add to this a spirit of rest 
less activity, a power of craft, and an intense desire 

e It Is referred by some to Gen. vi. 2, where many MSS. 
of the LXX, have ayyeAot eoO for " sons of God }" 

for Himself, so for His redeemed ones, it is true, 
that " God shall bruise Satan under their feet 

especially because 2 Pet. iii. 5, relating to the FkxxJ 
seeuis closely connected with tLat passage. 


shortly " (Rom. xvi. 20 ; comp. Gen. iii. 15). 
Nor is this all, for the history of the Book of Job 
shows plainly, what is elsewhere constantly implied, 
that Satanic influence is permitted, in order to be 
overruled to good, to teach humility, and therefore 
faith. The mystery of the existence of evil is left 
unexplained ; but its present subordination and future 
extinction are familiar truths. So accordingly, on 
the other hand, his power is spoken of, as capable 
of being resisted by the will of man, when aided 
by the grace of God. " Resist the devil, and he 
will flee from you," is the constant language of 
Scripture (Jam. iv. 7). It is indeed a power, to 
which " place " or opportunity " is given," only 
by the consent of man's will (Eph. iv. 27). It is 
probably to be traced most distinctly in the power 
of evil habit, a power real, but not irresistible, 
created by previous sin, and by every successive act 
of sin riveted more closely upon the soul. It is a 
power which cannot act directly and openly, but 
needs craft and dissimulation, in order to get ad 
vantage over man by entangling the will. The 
"wiles" (Eph. vi. 11), the "devices" (2 Cor. ii. 
11), the "snare" (1 Tim. iii. 7, vi. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 
26) " of the devil," are expressions which indicate 
the indirect and unnatural character of the power 
of evil. It is therefore urged as a reason for " so* 
berness and vigilance" (1 Pet. v. 8), for the careful 
use of the " whole armour of God" (Eph. vi. 10- 
17) ; but it is never allowed to obscure the supre 
macy of God's grace, or to disturb the inner peace 
of the Christian. " He that is born of God, keepeth 
himself, and the wicked one toucheth him not" 
(1 John v. 18). 

Besides his own direct influence, the Scripture 
discloses to us the fact that Satan is the leader of a 
host of evil spirits or angels who share his evil 
work, and for whom the " everlasting fire is pre 
pared" (Matt. xxv. 41). Of their origin and fall 
we know no more than of his, for they cannot be 
the same as the fallen and imprisoned angels o( 
2 Pet. ii. 4, and Jude 6 ; but one passage (Matt, 
xii. 24-26) identifies them distinctly with the 
Sai/ji.6via (A. V. " devils " d ) who had power to 
possess the souls of men. The Jews there speak 
of a Beelzebub (Bee\^ftov\), " a prince of the 
demons," whom they identify with, or symbolise 
by, the idol of Ekron, the " god of flies " [see 
BEELZEBUB], and by whose power they accuse our 
Lord of casting out demons. His answer is, " How 
can Satan cast out Satan ? " The inference is clear 
that Satan is Beelzebub, and therefore the demons 
are " the angels of the devil ;" and this inference is 
strengthened by Acts x. 38, in which St. Peter 
describes the possessed as KaTaSvvao'Tfvofj.evovs 
M TOV Aict/Bo'Aot/, and by Luke x. 18, in which 
the mastery over the demons is connected by our 
Lord with the " fell of Satan from heaven," and 
their power included by Him in the " power of the 
enemy " (TOV *x6p v > comp. Matt. xiii. 39). For 
their nature, see DEMONS. They are mostly spoken 
of in Scripture in reference to possession ; but in 
Eph. vi. 12 they are described in various lights, as 
"principalities" (apxai\ "powers" (eovffiai), 
" rulers of the darkness of this world," and 
" spiritual powers of wickedness in heavenly places" 

d It is unfortunate that the A. V. should use the word 
44 devil." not only for its proper equivalent SidjSoAos, but 
also for Sai/aoi/toi/. 

e The word Koir/oto?, properly referring to the system of 
tbc universe, and so used in John i. 10. is generally applied 
in Scripture U human society as alienated from God, with 



(or " thingi ") (TO Tn/ev/taTi/ca rr)s irovrjpias f 
TO?S fTrovpaviois) ; and in ill as ' wrestling " 
against the soul of man. The same reference ie 
made less explicitly in Rom. viii. 38, and Col. ii. 
15. In Rev. xii. 7-9 they are spoken of as fight 
ing with " the dragon, the old serpent called the 
devil and Satan," against " Michael and his angels," 
and as cast out of heaven with their chief. Taking 
all these passages together, we find them sharing the 
enmity to God and man implied in the name and 
nature of Satan ; but their power and action are 
but little dwelt upon in comparison with his. That 
there is against us a power of spiritual wickedness 
is a truth which we need to know, and a mystery 
which only Revelation can disclose ; but whether it 
is exercised by few or by many is a matter of com 
parative indifference. 

But the Evil One is not only the " prince of the 
demons," but also he is called the " prince of this 
world " (5 &P-X&V TOV /coVyuou TOVTOV} in John xii. 
31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11, and even the "god of this 
world" (6 0ebs TOV aluvos TOVTOV) in 2 Cor. iv. 
4 ; the two expressions being united in the words 
TOVS Koo~fjLOKpd,Topas TOV o'KoVoys TOV cuwvor 
TOVTOV, used in Eph. vi. 12." This power he 
claimed for himself, as a delegated authority, in 
the temptation of our Lord (Luke iv. 6); and the 
temptation would have been unreal, had he spoken 
altogether falsely. It implies another kind of in 
direct influence exercised through earthly instru 
ments. There are some indications in Scripture of 
the exercise of this power through inanimate in 
struments, of an influence over the powers of 
nature, and what men call the " chances" of life. 
Such a power is distinctly asserted in the case of 
Job, and probably implied in the case of the woman 
with a spirit of infirmity (in Luke xiii. 16), and of 
St. Paul's " thorn in the flesh " (2 Cor. xii. 7). 
It is only consistent with the attribution of such 
action to the angels of God (as ia Ex. xii. 23 ; 2 
Sam. xxiv. 16 ; 2 K. xix. 35; Acts xii. 23) ; and, 
in our ignorance of the method of connexion of the 
second causes of nature with the Supreme Will of 
God, we cannot even say whether it has in it any 
antecedent improbability^ but it is little dwelt 
upon in Scripture, in comparison with the other 
exercise of this power through the hands of wicked 
men, who become " children of the devii," and 
accordingly " do the lusts of their father." (See 
John viii. 44; Acts xiii. 10; 1 John iii. 8-10; 
and comp. John vi. 70.) In this sense the Scrip 
ture regards all sins as the " works of the devil," 
and traces to him, through his ministers, all 
spiritual evil and error (2 Cor. xi. 14, 15), and all 
the persecution and hindrances which oppose the 
Gospel (Rev. ii. 10 ; 1 Thess. ii. 18). Most of all 
is this indirect action of Satan manifested in those 
who deliberately mis'ead and tempt men, and who 
at last, independent of any interest of their own, 
come to take an unnatural pleasure in the sight of 
evil-doing in others (Rom. i. 32). 

The method of his action is best discerned by an 
examination ot the title, by which he is designated 
in Scripture. He is called emphatically 6 SidfioXos, 
" the devil." The derivation of the word in itself 
implies only the endeavour to break the bonds be- 

a reference to the " pomp and vanity " which makes it an 
idol (see, e. g., 1 John ii. 15) ; altav refers to its transitory 
character, and is evidently used above to qualify the 
startling application of the word 0e6s, a " god of an age *' 
being of course no true God at all. It is used with Koa^iot 
iu Eph. ii. 2. 



tween others, and " set them at variance " (see, 
e. </., Plat. Symp. p. L'22 c : 5ia/SaAAe> e>e KOI 
' AydQcova) ; but common usage adds to this general 
sense the special idea of "setting at variance by 
flander" In the N. T. the word SidftoXoi is 
used three times as an epithet (1 Tim. iii. 11; 
2 Tim. iii. 3 ; Tit. ii. 3) ; and in each case with 
fomething like the special meaning. In the appli 
cation of the title to Satan, both the general and 
special senses should be kept in view. His general 
object is to break the bonds of communion between 
God and man, and the bonds of truth and love 
which bind men to each other, to " set " each soul 
"at variance" both with men and God, and so 
reduce it to that state of self-will and selfishness 
which is the seed-plot of sin. One special means, by 
which he seeks to do this, is slander of God to man, 
and of man to God. 

The slander of God to man is seen best in the 
words of Gen. iii. 4, 5: " Ye shall not surely die: 
for God doth know, that in the day that ye eat 
thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be 
as gods, knowing good and evil.'* These words 
contain the germ of the false notions, which keep 
men from God, or reduce their service to Him to a 
hard and compulsory slavery, and which the hea 
then so often adopted in all their hideousness, when 
they represented their gods as either careless of 
numan weal and woe, or " envious " of human ex 
cellence and happiness. They attribute selfishness 
and jealousy to the Giver of all good. This is 
enough (even without the imputation of falsehood 
which is added) to pervert man's natural love of 
freedom, till it rebels against that, which is made to 
appear as a hard and arbitrary tyranny, and seeks 
to set up, as it thinks, a freer and nobler standard 
of its own. Such is the slander of God to man, by 
which Satan and his agents still strive against His 
reuniting grace. 

The slander of man to God is illustrated by the 
Book of Job (Job i. 9-11, ii. 4, 5). In reference 
to it, Satan is called the " adversary " (avrloiKos) 
of mau in 1 Pet. v. 8, and represented in that cha 
racter in Zech. iii. 1, 2 ; and more plainly still de 
signated in Rev. xii. 10, as " the accuser of our 
brethren, who accused them before our God day 
and night." It is difficult for us to understand 
what can be the need of accusation, or the power of 
slander, under the all-searching eye of God. The 
mention of it is clearly an "accommodation" of 
God's judgment to the analogy of our human expe 
rience: but we understand by it a practical and 
awful truth, that every sin of life, and even the 
admixture of lower and evil motives which taints 
the best actions of man, will rise up against us at 
the judgment, to claim the soul as their own, and 
rix for ever that separation from God, to which, 
through them, we have yielded ourselves. In that 
accusation Satan shall in some way bear a leading 
part, pleading against man. with that worst of 
slander which is based on perverted or isolated 
facts ; and shall be overcome, not by any counter 
claim of human merit, but " by the blood of the 
Lamb " received in true and stedfast faith. 

But these points, important as they are, are of 
less moment than the disclosure of the method of 
Satanic action upon the heart itself. It may be 
summed up in two words Temptation and Pos- 

1 Sec the connexion between faith and love by which 
it is made perfect (evepyovufiv)) in Gal. v. 6, and between 


The subject of temptation is illustrated, not on]) 1 
by abstract statements, but also by the rard 
of the temptations of Adam and of our Lord. It 
is expressly laid down (as in Jam. i. 2-4) that 
" temptation," properly so called, i. e. " trial '"' 
(Tretpuoyioj), is essential to man, and is accord 
ingly ordained for him and sent to him by God 
(as in Gen. xxii. 1). Man's nature is progressive; 
his faculties, which exist at first only in capacity 
(Suj/cfytet), must be brought out to exist in actual 
efficiency (ei/epyeio) by free exercise.' His appe 
tites and passions tend to their objects, simply and 
unreservedly, without respect to the rightness or 
wrongness of their obtaining them ; they need to be 
checked by the reason and conscience, and this 
need constitutes a trial, in which, if the conscience 
prevail, the spirit receives strength and growth ; if 
it be overcome, the lower nature tends to predomi 
nate, and the man has fallen away. Besides this, 
the will itself delights in independence of action. 
Such independence of physical compulsion is its high 
privilege ; but there is over it the Moral Power of 
God's Law, which, by the very fact of its truth and 
goodness, acknowledged as they are by the reason 
and the conscience, should regulate the human will. 
The need of giving up the individual will, freely 
and by conviction, so as to be in harmony with the 
will of God, is a still severer trial, with the reward 
of still greater spiritual progress, if we sustain it, 
with the punishment of a subtler and more dan 
gerous fall, if we succumb. In its struggle the 
spirit of man can only gam and sustain its authority 
by that constant grace of God, given through com 
munion of the Holy Spirit, which is the breath 
of spiritual life. 

It is this tentability of man, even in his original 
nature, which is represented in Scripture as giving 
scope to the evil action of Satan. He is called the 
"tempter" (as in Matt. iv. 3; 1 Thess. iii. 5). 
He has power (as the record of Gen. iii. shows 
clearly), first, to present to the appetites or passions 
their objects in vivid and captivating forms, so as 
to induce man to seek these objects against the Law 
of God " written in the heart ;" and next, to act 
upon the false desire of the will for independence, 
the desire " to be as gods, knowing " (that is, prac 
tically, judging and determining) <' good and evil." 
It is a power which can be resisted, because it is 
under the control and overruling power of God, as 
is emphatically laid down in 1 Cor. x. 13 ; Jam. iv. 
7, &c. ; but it can be so resisted only by yielding 
to the grace of God, and by a struggle (sometimes 
an " agony") in reliance on its strength. 

It is exercised both negatively and positively. 
Its negative exercise is referred to in the parabl o; 
the sower, as taking away the word, the " engrafted 
word" (James i. 21) of grace, i. e. as interposing 
itself, by consent of man, between him and the 
channels of God's grace. Its positive exercise is set 
forth in the parable of the wheat and the tares, 
represented as sowing actual seed of evij in the in 
dividual heart or the world generally ; *nd it is to 
be noticed, that the consideration of the true nature 
of the tares (iai/ia) leads to the conclusion, which 
is declared plainly in 2 Cor. xi. 14, viz. that evil is 
introduced into the heart mostly as the counterfeit 
of good. 

This exercise of the Tempter's power is possible, 
even against a sinless nature. We see this in tha 

faith and tho works by which it is perfected (TtXetovTu) 
in Jam. il. 1C 


of our Lord. The temptations pre 
sented to Him appeal, first to the natural desire 
and need of food, next to the desire of power, to 
be used for good, which is inherent in the noblest 
minds; and lastly, to the desire of testing and 
realizing God's special protection, which is the in 
evitable tendency of human weakness, under a real 
but imperfect faith. The objects contemplated in 
volved in no case positive sinfulness ; the temptation 
was to seek them by presumptuous or by unholy 
means; the answer to them (given by the Lord as 
the Son of Man, and therefore as one like ourselves 
in all the weakness and finiteness of our nature) 
lay in simple Faith, resting upon God, and on His 
Word, keeping to His way, and refusing to con 
template the issues of action, which belong to Him 
alone. Such faith is a renunciation of all self- 
confidence, and a simple dependence on the will and 
on the grace of God. 

But in the temptation of a fallen nature Satan 
has a greater power. Every sin committed makes 
a man the " servant of sin " for the future (John 
viii. 34; Rom. vi. 16); it therefore creates in the 
spirit of man a positive tendency to evil, which 
sympathizes with, and aids, the temptation of the 
Evil One. This is a fact recognized by experience ; 
the doctrine of Scripture, inscrutably mysterious, 
but unmistakeably declared, is that, since the Fall, 
this evil tendency is born in man in capacity, prior 
to all actual sins, and capable of being brought out 
into active existence by such actual sins committed. 
It is this which St. Paul calls " a law," i. e. (ac 
cording to his universal use of the word) an external 
power " of sin" over man, bringing the inner man 
(the vovs) into captivity (Rom. vii. 14-24). Its 
power is broken by the Atonement and the gift of 
the Spirit, but yet not completely cast out ; it still 
" lusts against the spirit" so that men " cannot do 
the things, which they would " (Gal. v. 17). It is 
to this spiritual power of evil, the tendency to false 
hood, cruelty, pride, and unbelief, independently of 
any benefits to be derived from them, that Satan is 
said to appeal in tempting us. If his temptations 
be yielded to without repentance, it becomes the 
reprobate (aS6Ki/j.os) mind, which delights in evil 
for its own sake (Rom. i. 28, 32) and makes men 
emphaticr.lly "children of the devil" (John viii. 
44; Acts xiii. 10; 1 John iii. 8, 10), and "ac 
cursed" (Matt. xxv. 41), fit for "the fire pre 
pared for the devil and his angels." If they be 
resisted, as by God's grace they may be resisted, 
then the evil power (the "flesh" or the "old 
man") is gradually "crucified" or "mortified," 
until the soul is prepared for that heaven, where 
no evil can enter. 

This twofold power of temptation is frequently 
referred to in Scripture, as exercised, chiefly by the 
suggestion of evil thoughts, but occasionally by the 
delegated power of Satan over outward circum 
stances. To this latter power is to be traced 
(as has been said) the trial of Job by temporal loss 
snd bodily suffering (Job i., ii.), the remarkable 
expression, used by our Lord, as to the woman with 
a "spirit of infirmity" (Luke xiii. 16), the "thorn 
in the flesh," which St. Paul calls the "messenger 
of Satan " to buffet him (2 Cor. xii. 7). Its lan 
guage is plain, incapable of being explained as me 
taphor, or poetical personification of an abstract 
principle. Its general statements are illustrated 
by examples of temptation. (See, besides those already 
mentioned, Luke xxii. 5; John xxiii. 27 (Judas); 
Luke xxii. 31 (Peter} ; Acts v. 3 (Ananias j;d 



Sapphira); ICor. vii. 5; 2 Cor. ii. 11 ; 1 fhess. 
iii. 5.) The subject itself is the most startling form 
of the mystery of evil ; it is one, on which, from 
our ignorance of the connexion of the First Causa 
with Second Causes in Nature, and of the process 
of origination of human thought, experience can 
hardly be held to be competent, either to confirm, 
or to oppose, the testimony of Scripture. 

On the subject of Possession see DEMONIACS. It 
is sufficient here to remark, that although widely 
different in form, yet it is of the same intrinsic cha 
racter as the other power of Satan, including both 
that external and internal influence to which refer 
ence has been made above. It is disclosed to us 
only in connexion with the revelation of that 
redemption from sin, which destroys it, a reve 
lation begun in the first promise in Eden, and 
manifested, in itself at the Atonement, in its effects 
at the Great Day. Its end is seen in the Apoca 
lypse, where Satan is first " bound for a thousand 
years," then set free for a time for the last conflict, 
and finally " cast into the lake of fire and brimstone 
... for ever and ever " (xx. 2, 7-10). [A. B.] 

SATHRABU'ZANES (^aBpaftovCd^s : Sa- 
tmbuzanes). SHETHARBOZNAI (1 Esd. vi. 3, 7, 
27 ; comp. Ezr. v. 3, 6, vi. 6, 13). 

SATYRS (DnW, setrim : Sai^via : pilosi), 

the rendering in the A. V. of the above-named 
plural noun, which, having the meaning of " hairy " 
or " rough," is frequently applied to " he-goats " 
(comp. the Latin hircus, from hirtus, hirsutus) ; the 
Seirim, however, of Is. xiii. 21, and xxxiv. 14, 
where the prophet predicts the desolation of Babylon, 
have, probably, no allusion to any species of goat 
whether wild or tame. According to the old ver 
sions, and nearly all the commentators, our own 
translation is correct, and Satyrs, that is, demons of 
woods and desert places, half men and half goats, 
are intended. Comp. Jerome (Comment, ad Is. 
xiii.), " Seirim vel incubones vel satyros vel sylves- 
tres quosdam homines quos nonnulli fatuos ficarios 
vocant, aut daemonum genera intelligunt." This 
explanation receives confirmation from a passage in 
Lev. xvii. 7 ; " they shall no more offer their 
sacrifices unto Seirim," and from a similar one in 
2 Chr. xi. 15. The Israelites, it is probable, hao. 
become acquainted with a form of goat-worship 
from the Egyptians (see Bochart, Hicroz. iii. 825; 
Jablonski Pant. Aegypt. i. 273, et sqq.). The 
opinion held by Michaelis (Supp. p. 2342) an i 
Lichtenstoin (Commentat. de Simiarum, &c., 4 ; 




p. 50, sqq.), that the S$irim probably denote some i 
species of ape, has been sanctioned by Hamilton 
Smith in Kitto's Cyc. art. Ape. From a few 
passages in Pliny (N. H. v. 8 ; vii. 2 ; viii. 54) it is 
clear that by Satyrs are sometimes to be understood 
some kind of ape or monkey ; Col. H. Smith has 
figured the Macacus Ardbicus as being the probable 
satyr of Babylon. That some species of Cyno- 
cephalus (dog-faced baboon) was an animal that 
entered into the theology of the ancient Egyptians, 
is evident from the monuments and from what 
Horapollo (i. 14-16) has told us. The other ex 
planation, however, has the sanction of Gesenius, 
Boohart, Rosenmiiller, Parkhurst, Maurer, Fiirst, 
And others. As to the " dancing " satyrs, comp. 
Virg. Eel. v. 73, 

" Saltantes satyros iraitafcltur Alphesiboeus." 

[W. H.] 

SAUL (^lfctt i. e. Shaul : 2ao5\ ; Joseph. 
""iaouAos : Saiil), more accurately SHAUL, in which 
form it is giver, on several occasions in the Autho 
rized Version. The riame of various persons in the 
Sacred History. 

1. Saul of Rehobotn by the River was one of 
the early kings of Edom, and successor of Samlah 
(Gen. xxxvi. 37, 38). In 1 Chr. i. 48 he is called 


2. The first king of Israel. The narm; here 
first appears in the history of Israel, though found 
before in the Edomite prince already mentioned; 
and in a son of Simeon (Gen. xlvi. 10 ; A. V. 
Shaul). It also occurs among the Kohathites in 
the genealogy of Samuel (1 Chr. vi. 24), and in 
Saul, like the king, of the tribe of Benjamin, better 
known as the Apostle Paul (see below p. 1154). 
Josephus (B. J. ii. 18, 4) mention* a Saul, father 
of one Simon who distinguished himself at Scytho- 
polis in the early part of the Jewish war. 

In the following genealogy may be observed 
1. The repetition in two generations of the names 
of Kish and Ner, of Nadab and Abi-nadab, and of 
Mephibosheth. 2. The occurrence of the name of 
Baal in three successive generations: possibly in 
four, as there were two Mephibosheths. 3. 'The 
constant shiftings of the names of God, as incor 
porated in the proper names: (a) ^16-iel = /e-hiel. 
(6) Malchi-shua. = 7e-shua. (c) Esh-6actJ=Ish- 
bosheth. (d) Mephi- (or Meri-) baal = Mephi- 
bosheth. 4. The long continuance of the family 
down to the times of Ezra. 5. Is it possible 
that Zimri (1 Chr. ix. 42) can be the usurper 
of 1 K. xvi. if so, the last attempt of the house 
of Saul to regain its ascendancy ? The time would 

APHIAH. (1 Sam. ix. 1.) 

Zeror. (LXX. Jaord.) 

Abiel, or Jehiel = Maachah. 
(1 Sam. ix. 1.) I (1 Chr. ix.) 
(I Chr. viii. 33.) 



Baal. if*. Nadab. 

Cbr. ix. 26.) 


1 Chr. viii.) 


(1 Chr. ix. 1 

Jonathan, hhui. 

(1 Sam. Joshua (Jot. Ant. 
tterib-baal. xiv. 49.) vi. 6, I.) 

Mephiboeheth (1 Chr. ix. 84). 



M Ik Lin. 
(1 Chr. ix. P74 



MnlchLhua. Abinadab. Egh-baal. Merab. David = 

iclml = 

Phaltiel. Armoni. Mephiboibetb. 

Melech. Tahrea. Ahaz. 

Jeboadah (Janxh, 1 Chr. ix. 42). 

Alemetb. Annaveth. 







.(Rephaiah, 1 Chr. ix. 43). 



AtJiam. P-JL* MM* Shulriob. Obitiah. 


Ulam. Jehufh. 


150 deecendacte. 

There is a contradiction between the pedigree in 
1 Sam. ix. 1, xiv. 51, which represents Saul and 
Abner as the grandsons of Abiel, and 1 Chr. viii . 
33, ix. 39, which represents them as his great- 
grandsons. If we adopc the more elaborate pedigree 
m the Chronicles, we must suppose either that a 
link has been dropped between Abiel and Kish, ia 
I Sam. ix. 1, or that the elder Kish, the son of 
Abiel (1 Chr. ix. 36), has been confounded with 

the younger Kish, the son of Ner (1 Chr. ix. 39). 
The pedigree in 1 Chr. viii. is not free from con 
fusion, as it omits amongst the sons of Abiel, Ner, 
who in 1 Chr. ix. 36 is the fifth son, and who in 
both is made the father of Kteh. 

His character is in part illustrated by the fierce, 
wayward, fitful nature of the tribe [BENJAMIN], 
and in part accounted for by the struggle between 
the old and new systems in which he found him- 


self involved. To this we must add a taint of 
nadness, which broke out in violent frenzy at 
times, leaving him with long lucid intervals. His 
affections were strong, as appears in his love both 
for David and his son Jonathan, but they were 
unequal to the wild accesses of religious zeal or 
insanity which ultimately led to his ruin. He was, 
like the earlier Judges, of whom in one sense he 
may be counted as the successor, remarkable for his 
strength and activity (2 Sam. i. 23), and he was, 
.ike the Homeric heroes, of gigantic stature, taller 
by head and shoulders than the rest of the people, 
and of that kind of beauty denoted by the Hebrew 
word "good" (1 Sam. ix. 2), and which caused 
him to be compared to the gazelle, " the gazelle 
of Israel." * It was probably these external quali 
ties which led to the epithet which is frequently 
attached to his name, " chosen " " whom the Lord 
did choose " " See ye (. e. Look at) him whom 
the Lord hath chosen!" (1 Sam. ix. 17, x. 24; 
2 Sam. xxi. 6). 

The birthplace of Saul is not expressly mentioned ; 
but as Zelah was the place of Kish s sepulchre 
(2 Sam. xxi.), it was probably his native village. 
There is no wan-ant for saying that it was Gibeah, b 
though, from its subsequent connexion with him, it 
is called often " Gibeah of Saul " [GlBEAH]. His 
father, Kish, was a powerful and wealthy chief, 
though the family to which he belonged was of 
little importance (ix. 1, 21). A portion of his pro 
perty consisted of a drove of asses. In search of 
these asses, gone astray on the mountains, he sent 
his son Saul, accompanied by a servant,* who acted 
also as a guide and guardian of the young man 
(ix. 3-10). After a three days' journey (ix. 20), 
which it has hitherto proved impossible to track, 
through Ephraim and Benjamin [SHALISHA ; SHA- 
LIM ; ZUPH], they arrived at the foot of a hill sur 
rounded by a town, when Saul proposed to return 
home, but was deterred by the advice of the servant, 
who suggested that before doing so they should 
consult " a man of God," " a seer," as to the fate 
of the asses securing his oracle by a present 
(backshish) of a quarter of a silver shekel. They 
\vere instructed by the maidens at the well outside 
the city to catch the seer as he came out of the 
city to ascend to a sacred eminence, where a sacri 
ficial feast was waiting for his benediction (1 Sam. 
ix. 11-13). At the gate they met the seer for the 
first time it was Samuel. A divine intimation 
had indicated to him the approach and the future 
destiny of the youthful Benjamite. Surprised at 
his language, but still obeying his call, they ascended 
to the high place, and in the inn or caravanserai at 
the top (T& Kard\v/j.a, LXX., ix. 27) found thirty 
or (LXX., and Joseph. Ant. vi. 4, 1) seventy guests 
assembled, amongst whom they took the chief place. 
In anticipation of some distinguished stranger, 
Samuel had bade the cook reserve a boiled shoulder, 

2 Sam. i. 19, the word translated " beauty," but the 
eame term (*3) in 2 Sam. ii. 18 and elsewhere is 
translated " roe." The LXX. have confounded it with a 
very similar word, and render it STrjAwo-oi', " set up a 

b When Abiel, or Jehiel (1 Chr. viii. 29, ix. 35), is called 
the father of "Gibeon," it probably means founder of 

= The word is TJJ3, servant," not *13^, " slave." 

d At Zelzah, or (LXX.) - leaping for joy." 

e Mistranslated in A. V. " plain." 

' In x. 5. Gibtath ha-Elohim ; in x. 10, haff-pibeuti only. 



from wnich Saul, as the chief guest, was bidden to 
1ar off the first morsel (LXX., ix. 22-24). They 
then descended to the city, and a bed was prepared 
for Saul on the housetop. At daybreak Samuel 
roused him. They descended again to the skirts 
of the town, and there (the servant having left them) 
Samuel poured over Saul's head the consecrated oil, 
and with a kiss of salutation announced to him that 
he was to be the ruler and (LXX.) deliverer of the 
nation (ix. 25 x. 1). From that moment, as he 
turned on Samuel the huge shoulder which towered 
above all the rest (x. 9, LXX.), a new life dawned 
upon him. He returned by a route which, like 
that of his search, it is impossible to make out 
distinctly ; and at every step homeward it was con 
firmed by the incidents which, according to Samuel's 
prediction, awaited him (x. 9, 10). At Rachel's 
sepulchre he met two men, d who announced to him 
the recovery of the asses his lower cares were to 
cease. At the oak" of Tabor [PLAIN; TABOR, 
PLAIN OF] he met three men carrying gifts of kids 
and bread, and a skin of wine, as an offering to 
Bethel. Tv/o of the loaves were offered to him as 
if to indicate his new dignity. At " the hill of 
*God" (whatever may be meant thereby, possibly 
his own city, GIBEAH), he met a band of prophets 
descending with musical instruments, and he caught 
the inspiration from them, as a sign of his new life. g 
This is what may be called the private, inner 
view of his call. The outer call, which is related 
independently of the other, was as follows. An 
assembly was convened by Samuel at Mizpeh, and 
lots (so often practised at that time) were cast to 
find the tribe and the family which was to produce 
the king. Saul was named and, by a Divine inti 
mation, found hid in the circle of baggage which sur 
rounded the encampment (x. 17-24). His stature 
at once conciliated the public feeling, and for the 
first time the shout was raised, afterwards so often 
repeated in modern times, " Long live the king " 
(x. 23-24), and he returned to his native Gibeah, 
accompanied by the fighting part h of the people, 
of whom he was now to be the especial head. T ho 
murmurs of the worthless part of the community 
who refused to salute him with the accustomed 
presents were soon dispelled l by an occasion arising 
to justify the selection of Saul. He was (having 
apparently returned to his private life) on his way 
home, driving his herd of oxen, when he heard one 
of those wild lamentations in the city of Gibeah, 
such as mark in Eastern towns the arrival of a 
great calamity. It was the tidings of the threat 
issued by Nahash king of Ammon against Jabesh 
Gilead (see AMMON). The inhabitants of Jabesh 
were connected with Benjamin, by the old adven 
ture recorded in Judg. xxi. It was as if this one 
spark was needed to awaken the dormant spirit of 
the king. " The Spirit of the Lord came upon 
him," as on the ancient Judges. The shy, re- 

Joseph. (Ant. vi. 4, $2) gives the name Gabatha, by which 
he elsewhere designates Gibeah, Saul's city. 

g See for this EwaM (iii. 28-30). 

h 7^nn " the strength," the host, x. 26 ; comp. 2 Sam. 
xxiv. 2. The word "band" is usually employed in the 
A. V. for THS, a very different term, with a strict 
meaning of its own. [TBOOP.] 

> The words which close 1 Sam. x. 27 are in th<j 
Hebrew text "he was as though he were deaf " in 
Joseph. Ant. vi. 5, $1, and the LXX. (followed by Kwald) 
" and it came to pass -after a month tluit." 



tiring nature which we have observed, vanished 
never to return. He had recourse to the expedient 
of the earlier days, and summoned the people by 
the bones of two of the oxen from the herd which 
he was driving: three (or six, LXX.) hundred thou 
sand followed from Israel, and (perhaps not in due 
proportion) thirty (or seventy, LXX.) thousand 
from Judah : and Jabesh was rescued. The effect 
was instantaneous on the people the punishment 
of the murmurers was demanded but refused by 
Saul, and the monarchy was inaugurated anew at 
Gilgal (xi. 1-15). It should be, however, observed 
that, according to 1 Sam. xii. 12, the affair of 
Nahash preceded and occasioned the election of 
Saul. He becomes king of Israel. But he still 
so far resembles the earlier Judges, as to be vir 
tually king only of his own tribe, Benjamin, or of 
the immediate neighbourhood. Almost all his ex 
ploits are confined to this circle of territory or 

Samuel, who had up to this time been still named 
as ruler with Saul (xi. 7, 12, 14), now withdrew, 
and Saul became the acknowledged chief. 11 In the 
2nd year 1 of his reign, he began to organise an 
attempt to shake off the Philistine yoke which 
pressed on his country ; not least on his own tribe, 
where a Philistine officer had long been stationed 
even in his own field (x. 5, xiii. 3). An army of 
3000 was formed, which he soon afterwards gathered 
together round him; and Jonathan, apparently with 
his sanction, rose against the officer m and slew him 
(xiii. 2-4). This roused the whole force of the 
Philistine nation against him. The spirit of Israel 
was completely broken. Many concealed them 
selves in the caverns ; many crossed the Jordan ; 
all were disarmed, except Saul and his son, with 
their immediate retainers. In this crisis, Saul, 
now on the very confines of his kingdom at 
Gilgal, found himself in the position long before 
described by Samuel ; longing to exercise his royal 
right of sacrifice, yet deterred by his sense of obe 
dience to the Prophet. At last on the 7th day, he 
could wait no longer, but just after the sacrifice 
was completed Samuel arrived, and pronounced the 
first curse, on his impetuous zeal (xiii. 5-14). 
Meanwhile the adventurous exploit of Jonathan at 
Michmash brought on the crisis which ultimately 
arove the Philistines back to their own territory 
[JONATHAN]. It was signalised by two remark 
able incidents in the life of Saul. One was the first 
appearance of his madness in the rash vow which 
all but cost the life of his son (1 Sam. xiv. 24, 44). 
The other was the erection of his first altar, built 
either to celebrate the victory, or to expiate the 
savage feast of the famished people (xiv. 35). 

The expulsion of the Philistines (although not 
entirely completed, xiv. 52) at once placed Saul 
in a position higher than that of any previous ruler 
of Israel. Probably from this time was formed 
the organisation of royal state, which contained 
in germ some of the future institutions of the 
monarchy. The host of 3000 has been already 
mentioned (1 Sam. xiii., xxiv. 2, xxvi. 2; comp. 


1 Chr. xii. 29). Of this Aoner became captain 
(1 Sam. xiv. 50). A body guard was also formed oj 
runners and messengers (see 1 Sam. xvi. 15, 17, 
xxii. 14, 17, xxvi. 22). Of this David was after- 
wards made the chief. These two were the prin 
cipal officers of the court, and sate with Jonathan 
at the king's table (1 Sam. xx. 25). Another officer 
is incidentally mentioned the keeper of the royal 
mules the comes stabuli, the "constable" of 
the king such as appeal's in the later monarchy 
(1 Chr. xxvii. 30). He is the first instance of a 
foreigner employed about the court being an 
Edomite or (LXX.) Syrian, of the name of Doeg 
(1 Sam. xxi. 7, xxii. 9). According to Jewish 
tradition (Jer. Qu. Heb. ad loc.) he was the servant 
who accompanied Saul in his pursuit of his father's 
asses who counselled him to send for David (ix., 
xvi.), and whose son ultimately killed him (2 Sam. 
i. 10). The high-priest of the house of Ithamar 
(Ahimelech or Ahijah) was in attendance upon him 
with the ephod, when he desired it (xiv. 3), and 
felt himself bound to assist his secret commissioners 
(xxi. 1-9, xxii. 14). 

The king himself was distinguished by a state, 
not before marked in the rulers. He had a tall 
spear, of the same kind as that described in the 
hand of Goliath. [ARMS.] This never left him 
in repose (1 Sam. xviii. 10, xix. 9 ) ; at his meals 
(xx. 33) ; at rest (xxvi. 11), in battle (2 Sam. 
i. 6). In battle he wore a diadem on his head 
and a bracelet on his arm (2 Sam. i. 10). He 
sate at meals on a seat of his own facing his son 
(1 Sam. xx. 25 ; LXX.). He was received on his 
return from battle by the songs of the Israelite P 
women (1 Sam. xviii. 6), amongst whom he was OD 
such occasions specially known as bringing back 
from the enemy scarlet robes, and golden orna 
ments for their apparel (2 Sam. i. 24). 

The warlike character of his reign naturally still 
predominated, and he was now able (not merely, 
like his temporary predecessors, to act on the 
defensive, but) to attack the neighbouring tribes of 
Moab, Ammon, Edom, Zobah, and finally Amalek 
(xiv. 47). The war with Amalek is twice re 
lated, first briefly (xiv. 48), and then at length 
(xv. 1-9). Its chief connexion with Saul's history 
lies in the disobedience to the prophetical command 
of Samuel ; shown in the sparing of the king, and 
the retention of the spoil. 

The extermination of Amalek and the subsequent 
execution of Agag belong to the general question 
of the moral code of the 0. T. There is no reason 
to suppose that Saul spared the king for any other 
reason than that for which he retained the spoil 
namely, to make a more splendid show at the 
sacrificial thanksgiving (xv. 21). Such was the 
Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus (Ant. vi. 
7, 2), who expressly says that Agag was spared foi 
his stature and beauty, and such is the general 
impression left by the description of the celebration 
of the victory. Saul rides to the southern Carmel 
in a chariot (LXX.), never mentioned elsewhere, 
and sets up a monument there (Heb. " a hand," 

k Also 2 Sam.x. 15, LXX., for "Lord." 

1 The expression, xiii. 1, "Saul was one year old" (the 
eon of a year), in his reigning, may be either, (1) he 
reigned one year; or (2), the word 30 may have dropped 
oat thence to xiii. 5, and it may have been " he was 31 
//hen he began to reign." 

m The word may be rendered either " garrison " or 
" officer ;" its meaning is uncertain. 

The command of Samuel (x. 8) had apparently ft 

perpetual obligation (xiii. 13). It had been given two 
years before, and in the interval they had both been at 
Gilgal (xi. 15). N.B. The words "had appointed" 
(xiii. 8) are inserted in A. V. 

o They were Benjamites (1 Sam. xxii. 7; Jos. Ant 
vii. 14), young, tall, and handsome (Ibid. vi. 6, 6"). 

P Jos. (Ant. vi. 10, $1) makes the women sing the 
praises of Saul, the maidens, of David. 


2 Sara, xviii. 18), which m the Jewish iraditions 
(Jerome, Qu. ffeb. ad loc.) was a triumphal arch 
of olives, myrtles, and palms. And in allusion to 
his crowning triumph, Samuel applies to God the 
plu-ase, " The Victory (Vulg. triumphator) of Israel 
will neither lie nor repent" (xv. 29 ; and com p. 
1 Chr. xxix. 11). This second act of disobedience 
called down the second curse, and the first distinct 
intimation of the transference of the kingdom to a 
rival. The struggle between Samuel and Saul in 
their final parting is indicated by the rent of 
Samuel's robe of state, as he tears himself away 
from Saul's grasp (for the gesture, see Joseph. Ant. 
vi. 7, 5), and by the long mourning of Samuel 
for the separation " Samuel mourned for Saul." 
" How long wilt thou mourn for Saul ? " (xiv. 35, 
xvi. 1). 

The rest of Saul's life is one long tragedy. The 
frenzy, which had given indications of itself before, 
now at times took almost entire possession of him. 
It is described in mixed phrases as " an evil spirit 
of God" (much as we might speak of "religious 
madness"), which, when it came upon him, almost 
choked or strangled him from its violence (xvi. 14, 
LXX. ; Joseph. Ant. vi. 8, 2). 

In this crisis David was recommended to him by 
one of the young men of his guard (in the Jewish 
tradition groundlessly supposed to be DOEG. Jerome, 
Qu. Heb. ad loc.). From this time forward their 
lives are blended together. [DAVID.] In Saul's 
better moments he never lost the strong affection 
which he had contracted for David. " He loved 
him greatly" (xvi. 21). " Saul would let him go 
no more home to his father's house" (xviii. 2). 
" Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat ? " 
(xx. 27). "Is this thy voice, my son David. . . . 
Retum, my son David; blessed be thou, my son 
David " (xxiv. 16, xxvi. 17, 25). Occasionally too 
his prophetical gift returned, blended with his 
madness. He " prophesied " or " raved " in the 
midst of his house "he prophesied and lay down 
naked all day and all night" at Ramah (xix. 24). 
But his acts of fierce, wild zeal increased. The 
massacre of the priests, with all their families 1 
(xxii.) the massacre, perhaps at the same time, 
of the Gibeonites (2 Sam. xxi. 1), and the violent 
extirpation of the necromancers (1 Sam. xxviii. 
3, 9), are all of the same kind. At last the 
monarchy itself, which he had raised up, broke 
down under the weakness of its head. The Philis 
tines re-entered the country, and with their chariots 
and horses occupied the plain of Esdraelon. Their 
camp was pitched on the southern slope of the 
range now called Little Hermon, by Shunem. On 
the opposite side, on Mount Gilboa, was the Israelite 
army, clinging as usual to the heights which were 
their safety. It was near the spring of Gideon's 
encampment, hence called the spring of Harod or 
" trembling " and now the name assumed an evil 
omen, and the heart of the king as he pitched his 
camp there " trembled exceedingly " (1 Sam. xxviii. 
5). In the loss of all the usual means of con 
sulting the Divine Will, he determined, with that 
wayward mixture of superstition and religion which 
marked his whole career, to apply' to one of the 
necromancers who had escaped his persecution. 



She IMS a w r oman living at Endor, on the other 
side of Little Hermon ; she is called a woman ol 
" Ob," i. e. of the skin or bladder, and this the 
LXX. has rendered by ^yya.(npifjiv6os or ventrilo 
quist, and the Vulgate by Pythoness. According 
to the Hebrew tradition mentioned by Jevome, 
she was the mother of Abner, and honce her 
escape from the general massacre of the necro 
mancers (See Loo Allatius De Enr/astrimut/to, 
cap. 6 in Critici Sacri ii.). Volumes have been 
written on the question, whether in the scene 
that follows we are to understand an imposture 
or a real apparition of Samuel. Eustathius and 
most of the Fathers take t